Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-21-91 - BOEING - DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT (DUWAMISH WATERWAY)BOEING DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT DUWAMISH WATERWAY EPIC -21 -91 Attn: Paul Seely Boeing Corporate Public Affairs P O Box 3707 MS 14 - 49 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Attn: Jeff Zahir Boeing Support Services P O Box 3707 MS 6 Y - 59 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Greg Bush METRO Dept Of Environmental Affa 821 - Second Avenue M/S 120 Seattle, WA 98104 Envtl fairs Departme Seattle Light 1015 Third Sea 98104 Don Erickson Renton Dept Of Community Dvlpt 200 Mill Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Friends Of The Duwamish 4504 South 124th Seattle, WA 98178 Mr. Tim Hill King County Executive 400 KC Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 -3271 Attn: Larry Kirchner King County Dept Of Health Environmental Health Svcs 3001 NE Fourth Renton, WA 98056 Attn: Ann Dold King County Envtl Division 3600 -136th Place SE 4th Floor Bellevue, WA 98006 -1400 Attn: Tom Eksten King County Office Of Open Space 1621 Smith Tower 506 Second Ave Seattle, WA 98104 5 4u tN'A <5/f r) 2g/ De/Z `9/ f91 Attn: John Crull Boeing Support Services P O Box 3707 MS 6 Y - 59 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Attn: Bruce Sheppard BNSF Burlington Northern Railroad Co. 2200 FIC 999 Third Ave Seattle, WA 98104 Attn: Jerry Craig Daily Journal Of Commerce 83 Columbia Street Seattle, WA 98104 Duwamish Tribe 15616 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98148 Foster Library PO Box 68697 Seattle, WA 98188 Attn: Terry) Ross Greater Seattle Chamber Of Comm. 600 University Ave Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98101 Attn: Margaret Rittmann Jones & Stokes 2820 Northup Way *100 Bellevue, WA 98004 Attn: Craig Larsen King County Dept. Parks Pln'g & 707 Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98103 Attn: Don Smith King County Intl Airport P 0 Box 80245 Seattle, WA 98108 King County Public Library 300 Eighth Avenue North Seattle, WA 98109 -5191 Hon. Mike Lowry Office Of The Governor State Of WA Legislative Bldg Olympia, WA 98504 Attn: Carol Thompson Metro Marketing Division 821 Second Avenue MS -64 Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 Attn. Seattle Water Department 710 Second Avenue, 10th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Attn: Richard McCann Perkins -Coie Law Firm 1201 Third Avenue 40th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 PSAPCA Puget Sound Air Poll'n Control A 200 West Mercer Street Room 205 Seattle, WA 98119 -3958 Attn: EIS Review Puget Sound Regional Council 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Attn: Lynn Best Seattle City Light 1015 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle Dept Of Neighborhoods Artic Building Room 400 700 -Third Ave Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle Mun. Ref. Library 600 - Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 South Cen. Advis. Council 13217 - 38th South Tukwila, WA. 98178 Attn: Robert Peterson Metro Faciliities Planning 821 Second Avenue MS -81 Seattle, WA 98104 Metro Transit Division 821 Second Avenue MS -55 Seattle, WA 98104 Attn: Rod Malcolm Mukleshoot Tribe 40405.Aubum- Enumclaw Road Auburn, WA 98002 Attn: Dave Aggerholm Port Of Seattle Engineering Dept PO Box 1209 Seattle, WA 98111 PSWQA Puget Sound Water Quality Author MS PV -11 Olympia, WA 98504 Renton Record Chronicle 212 Wells Avenue Renton, WA 98055 Attn: Rebecca Herzfeld Seattle Dept Constr & Land Use 710 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle Mayor's Office 600 Fourth Avenue 12th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 -1873 Seattle Times -Real Est Section PO Box 70 Seattle, WA 98111 South Park Community Service Cen 8201 - 10th South Seattle, WA 98108 Tukwila Public Library 14475 - 59th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98188 US Coast Guard- 13th District CDR: Office Of Aids To Navigation 915 Second Seattle, WA 98174 Attn: Neil Moeller US Dept Of Commerce: NOAA General Counsel's Office 7600 Sand Point Way Seattle, WA 98115 US Envtl Protection Agency Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 US West Communications EIS Review Section 300 SW Seventh Street Renton, WA 98055 Attn: Dean Radford Valley Daily News P 0 Box 130 Kent, WA 98035 Attn: Nora Jewett & Don Bales WA St. Dept Of Ecology Shorelands Section PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504 -7600 Attn: Dan Cargill WA St. Dept Of Ecology NW Regional Office 3190 -160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 -5452 WA St. Dept Of Fisheries 115 General Administration Bldg Olympia, WA 98504 -4151 Attn: Jerry Shultz WA St. Dept Of Trans. Distr. #1 15325 SE 130th Place Bellevue, WA 98007 -6538 US Army Corps Of Engineers Seattle District NPSEN -PL -RP PO Box C -3755 Seattle, WA 98124 US Department Of Energy 809 Legion Way SE Olympia, WA 98504 -1211 US Dept Of HUD - Region X Community Plan'g & Devlpt Arcade Plaza Bldg Seattle, WA 98104 Attn: Curtis Tanner. US Fish & Wildlife Svc 3704 Griffin Lane SE Suite 102 Olympia, WA 98501 -2192 Val -Vue Sewer District PO Box 68063 Seattle, WA 98168 Attn: Ben Cleveland WA St. Dept Natural Resources South P.S. Regional Office PO Box 68 Enumclaw, WA 98022 Attn: Michael Rundlett WA St. Dept Of Ecology NW Regional Office 3190 -160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 -5452 WA St. Dept Of Ecology -SEPA Environmental Review Section MS -PV11 Olympia, WA 98504 WA St. Dept Of Soc & Health Svcs PO Box 1788 Olympia, WA 98504 WA St. Dept Of Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Blvd Mill Creek, WA 98012 WA St. Dept Trade & Econ. Dvlpt. 2001 Sixth Ave Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98121 WA St. Office Of Archaeology 111 West 21st Street M S -KL 11 Olympia, WA 98504 Washington Natural Gas Co. Environmental Review Section PO Box 1869 Seattle, WA 98111 • • Attn: Amy Bell, Director WA St. Energy Office PO Box 43165 Olympia, WA 98504 -3165 Attn: Benella Caminiti Washington Envtl Council 2919 Mayfair Ave N Seattle, WA 98109 f,�., �/s D 4 uo4-7-r/so- 674d2 r.1X-it Li / "0--/5 3 V41'A93j c l.Ty • Ron Adair 4310 South 122nd Tukwila, WA 98178 Roger & Betty Baker 11662 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Eric Beckman King County Public Works Dept 900 KC Admin 500 - 4th Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Gladys Bigelow 12062 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Ray Bryant 12201 - 46th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Rex & Jessie Burkey 3938 South 113th Tukwila, WA 98178 Kathleen Carmichael 20 Bowen Street Newton Centre, MA 02159 Bobby Casebeer 12243 - 51st Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Robert & Bea Coleman 12223 - 48th Aouth Tukwila, WA 98178 Brian Cook Kenworth Truck 8801 E. Marginal Way S. Tukwila, WA 98108 Dan Aragon 4610 South 124th Tukwila, WA 98178 Jessie Barry 12247 - 43rd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Mrs. Sharon Bernhardt 3418 South 126th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Thomas & Kathryn Boardman 11926 Interurban Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Viola Buchanan 12560 51st Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Philip & Patricia Cagampang 12038 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Tony Carosino 11245 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, WA 98178 John W. Clark 12217 - 46th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Cecil & Viola Compo 4801 South 124th Tukwila, WA 98178 Bill & Faye Cooper 12218 - 48th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Stephen Core 12238 - 45th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Donald & Alice Davidson 12546 - 50th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Roe Decker 12253 - 45th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Norma Derr 12507 - 50th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Rose Untersher & Donna Johnston 4110 South 114th Tukwila, WA 98178 Bobbi Douvia 11815 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Dorothy & Tony Dumas 12212 - 46th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Scott Ellis 12049 - 49th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Keith Fuller 12211 - 48th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Albert & Mary E. Gaviglio 4016 South 115th Tukwila, WA 98178 Kim Dahl • 12410 - 50th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Lee Ann Davis 13341 - 56th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Antonio & Dorothy Derodas 3910 South 114th Tukwila, WA 98178 Helen Dingle 4115 South 114th Tukwila, WA 98178 Donay & Charolette Doty 3817 South 113th Tukwila, WA 98178 Dennis & Elizabeth Driscoll 3944 South 113th Tukwila, WA 98178 Helen Duncan 11664 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Betty Espadero 11637 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Stu & Micky Garnett 12252 - 47th South Tukwila, WA 98178 John & Kay Gilligan 4208 South 115th Tukwila, WA 98178 George Gomez 4504 South 124th Tukwila, WA 98178 Charolette Greer 4718 South 124th Tukwila, WA 98178 Gary & Mary E. Haff 11411 Avondale Road #47 Redmond, WA 98052 Darren Harris McGraw -Hill Co. 100 West Harrison Plaza Suite 430 Seattle, WA 98119 Ralph Hayes 12228 - 44th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Darrell & Gayl Hoffman 11685 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Kenneth & Jane House 12248 - 43rd South Tukwila, WA 98178 R.E. & Monica Johnson 4916 South 124th Street Tukwila, WA 98178 Jerry Kinnear 5710 South 133rd Tukwila, WA 98178 Walter & Bernice Kwiecien 13048 - 57th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Dick Greene 11639 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Maxine Gregory 12058 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Charmaine L. Hall 4217 South 116th Tukwila, WA 98178 Ralph & Rita Hatton 3935 South 113th Tukwila, WA 98178 Hank & Rosemary Heerschap 13325 - 56th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Stan & Connie Hoffman 3924 South 114th Tukwila, WA 98178 Gayle Jacobsen 12245 - 44th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Roy & Pat Johnson 12256 - 49th South Tukwila, WA 98178 June Klise 12221 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Tom Lang 11642 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Thelma Larsen 12522 - 51st Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Tom & Martha Loftus 4918 South 122nd Tukwila, WA 98178 Lois Mathis 12245 - 45th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Bob Mc Manus 5610 South 133rd Tukwila, WA 98178 Bob & Jeanette Morgan 11608 - 40th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Sham & Sharon Nakata 11600 - 39th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Lilian Petty 12542 - 50th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Charles & Marion Ramey 4104 South 115th Tukwila, WA 98178 John Ridout 11837 - 44th Avenue Tukwila, WA 98178 Allan Ronning 11705 - 40th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Vera Locke 11810 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Loren Marshall 4919 South 124th Street Tukwila, WA 98178 Earl Mc Coy 11535 - 40th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Leonard & Doris Mead 12232 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 John & Edna Morrison 12562 - 50th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Harry & Mable Peterson 3914 South 113th Tukwila, WA 98178 Zay Pribble 1201 3rd Avenue Suite #900 Seattle, WA 98101 Doris Reed 12215 - 45th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Dennis & Karen Robertson 16038 - 48th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Mary Roper 12020 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Ruth Rupe 12248 - 50th Ave South Tukwila, WA 98178 Mr. Dan Sandall John Graham Associates 520 Pike Street Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Irene Simpson 11840 - 42nd South Tukwila, WA 98178 David & Merle Swanson 4616 South 124th Tukwila, WA 98178 Lona Sweeney 12253 - 43rd Avene South Tukwila, WA 98178 Dave Thompson 11666 - 42nd South Tukwila, WA 98178 Lee & Barbara Trimble 12242 - 48th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Kent & Alida Tustison 4023 South 114th Tukwila, WA 98178 Martin & Gwen Ulrich 12244 - 42nd South Tukwila, WA 98178 Norman & Helen Van Voorhees 11814 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Arthur Sala 11624 - 40th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Ruth Seavey 11829 - 44th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 James Stephens 11904 Interurban Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Ben Swartz 12219 - 49th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Irvin Teigen 13009 - 56th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Ray & Magda Torghele 14724 - 57th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Roland Turpin 12229 - 43rd South Tukwila, WA 98178 Marguerite Tye 4202 South 122nd Tukwila, WA 98178 John & Sylvia Vader 12228 - 47th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Eugene & Betty Walkley 12201 - 44th South Tukwila, WA 98178 James Watkins 12072 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Lawrence Weikum 12249 - 44th South Tukwila, WA 98178 John & Marie Wickstrom 12022 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Don & Gary Wyatt 3836 South 116th Tukwila, WA 98178 Carol & Ken Watson 3906 South 113th Tukwila, WA 98178 Mary Ellen Whitehead 13335 - 56th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Dan Wolf 11821 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Boeing Support Services P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 March 8, 1993 4- 7200- JBC -93 -041 Mr. Jack Pace Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Jack, Thank you for your March 26, 1993 letter outlining how the issues raised in our February 2nd, draft FEIS comment letter will be handled in the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment FEIS. We also look forward to successfully concluding the EIS process. The sentence proposed for the end of the first paragraph on page 2 -5 is not supported by the EIS. According to Figure 2 of the Interchange Feasibility Study the current peak total southbound approach and bridge traffic is 2;180. The year 2000 projection shows peak traffic at 2,835, or an overall increase of 30% throughout the redevelopment period. Boeing employment is projected by the EIS to increase from 21,400 to 25,000 which is 17 %, or 53% of the total interchange approach traffic increase. The additional 13% of traffic increase (47% of the increment) is the result of background traffic growth. Similarly, Boeing traffic growth accounts for only 53% of the peak traffic increase triggering the need for two additional bridge lanes (approximately 1/6 of the bridge replacement cost). Clearly, this level of impact demonstrates that the EIS should refer to "fair share" contribution to mitigation measures rather than "full funding ". We understand and support the following FEIS revisions or clarifications: Current cost estimates for mitigation measures will be deleted from the text and replaced with language referencing Boeing's "fair share" of the various measures; Mitigation measures do not need to be performed until the anticipated environmental impact occurs. Timing will be addressed more specifically in the Mitigation Document; The EIS does not evaluate whether the previously required Oxbow ramp was warranted. Rather the EIS identifies a mitigation altemative that provides equivalent mitigation at a lower overall cost; The issue of credit for the cost of the SR 599/SR 99 Interchange Feasibility Study should be addressed in the Mitigation Document; The map revisions outlined in your letter are appropriate. Thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment on the FEIS revisions. Please contact me if you have any questions about the comments provided in this letter. Very truly yours,, Je ahir Th - Boeing Company Q RECEIVED APR 9 1993 COMML$Nrry DEVELOPMENT BOE/AW B 0 E 1N GI 1916- _1991 75 YEARS' • 4- 7200- JBC -93 -017 February 2, 1993 Boeing Support Services P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Planning Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Minolta Bldg. - Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 • Re: Revision to the Duwamish Corridor Draft EIS Dear Mr. Pace: RECEIVED FEB 0 4 1993 COMMU DEVELOPMENT' Thank you for the proposed revisions to the Duwamish Corridor Draft FEIS. The Boeing Company believes that many aspects of the draft insert are substantial improvements over existing drafts. However, we also believe that some of the proposed changes require additional modification and clarification to, more accurately reflect. The Boeing Company's understanding as to its potential and existing mitigation obligations: This letter contains our general comments: 'on the proposed .draft insert: • Specific suggested changes are attached. Cost estimates. First, the FEIS should not include cost estimates of mitigation measures. The dollar amounts included in the draft insert provide more specificity than is required by The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and incorrectly imply that mitigation decisions have already been made by the City. SEPA does not anticipate that exact dollar amounts will be included in an EIS. "The EIS need not analyze mitigation measures in detail unless they involve substantial changes to the proposal causing significant adverse impacts or new information regarding significant impacts.. `, "WAC 197 -11- 440(6) (iv). Instead, mitigation measures contained in an EIS are intended to indicate possible measures to be considered by decision rnakers when making final decisions on proposals: Affected Environment, Significant Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. (a),This section of the EIS shall describe the existing environment that will.be affected by the proposal, analyze significant impacts of alterr:ativ.�s Including the "proposed action, and`discuss rea sonable mitigation MMeasures that would significantly mitigate these impacts: (c) This section of the EIS shall: (iii)clearly indicate those mitigation measures - if any, that could be implemented or might be required, as well as those, if any, that agencies or applicants are committed to implement. WAC 197 -11- 440(6) . Specific mitigation measures, including dollar amounts, if appropriate, should be left to the mitigation agreement. Another difficulty with including exact numbers in the EIS is the inability to predict actual mitigation requirements at the time they are eventually imposed.The dollar amounts included in the draft insert are, by necessity, estimates. It is unclear how the estimates were calculated. For instance, if the City is able to obtain federal funding for the proposed mitigation related to the six lane bridge over the Duwamish River on Pacific Highway S., the City's current estimate of Boeing's pro rata funding share at $1.4 million will be inaccurate. The Boeing Company believes that including these estimates will incorrectly irhply that these numbers are fixed financial obligations irrespective of actual mitigation improvement costs. Concurrenm The EIS should not imply that The Boeing Company will be responsible for completion of imposed mitigation measures before development gives rise to actual impacts. The present language incorrectly implies that mitigation measures will be imposed regardless of actual development impacts. Effects of Mitigation. The EIS should emphasize the anticipated results of proposed mitigation measures, including the "now modified" mitigation measures.:SEPA states: (c) This section of the EIS shall: (iv) indicate what the intended environmental benefits of mitigation measures are for significant impacts, and may discuss their technical feasibility and economic practicability, if there is concern about whether a mitigation measure is capable of being accomplished. WAC 197,- 11-440 (6) Proposed "Modified" Mitigation Measures. The analysis contained in the EIS indicates that the impacts originally anticipated to arise from the Oxbow project ha.ie not occurred. Level of service (LOS) has not deteriorated as projected, and in fact, the studies indicate that it has improved. The Boeing 2 Company thus questions the mitigation proposed as a substitute for the southbound on -ramp. The spirit of this EIS, as is indicated in the Mitigation Rationale section, was to review the actual impacts on transportation facilities from Boeing development in the Duwamish corridor. The City has agreed with this view to date. Because the EIS has indicated that past development has not resulted in the impacts that ware anticipated, mitigation requirements should be reevaluated. Mitigation measures should be imposed only to mitigate the actual impacts of development. In this light, the Boeing Company believes that "pro rata" rather than "full" funding is appropriate for the proposed improvements to the Pacific Highway S. intersection with southbound SR 599. The document that originally addressed the southbound on -ramp mitigation measure indicated that Boeing would "pay pro rata share of the cost of providing a southbound on -ramp to SR 99... "May 26, 1987 MDNS. As discussed above, under the SEPA rules, an EIS is iptended to disclose a proposal's direct impacts and potential mitigation measures that could offset those direct impacts. There is no evidence that would indicate that the Boeing Company should be solely responsible for the proposed improvements to the Pacific Highway S. intersection. Certainly, the EIS discloses no such nexus. Thus, this proposed mitigation measure, like the others in the draft insert, should indicate that Boeing will only be responsible to pay its "pro rata" share for the' - mitigation measure. Credit for Transportation Study. Finally, the Boeing Company believes that the EIS should recognize that Boeing has paid over $35,000 for a study of alternate on -ramp configurations. This study was not directly related to the transportation studies required by this EIS. Payments made for this study should be taken into consideration when final mitigation requirements are calculated. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you have any question:, please feel free to contact me at 393 -2783. Yours truly, THE BOEING COMPANY Planning and Program Support 3 Mitigation Rationale The City of Tukwila has evaluated a proposal by The Boeing Company to redevelop portions of its property in the Duwamish corridor area of Tukwila. The proposal and alternatives have been reviewed in a non - project Environmental Impact Statement. As part of its review, the City has identified impacts likely to result from full implementation of the redevelopment plan over a 10 -year period. A successful Transportation Management Program was assumed to be part of the proposal. Mitigation measures to address proposal impacts have been identified for transportation, shoreline public access, and stormwater. It is the City's intent in identifying these mitigation measures that there be a clear nexus or Zink between impacts of the project and measures required to minimize these impacts and that mitigation requirements be imposed as development qives rise to actual impacts. In implementing its proposal, The Boeing Company should pay only for its fair share of mitigation costs, and no more. Also, as part of its review, the City reassessed old mitigation requirements imposed by King -Count as part of a 1987 earlier permit decisions for development in the Duwamish Corridor, and suer.-tin particular, the requirement for Boeing to fund the construction of a freeway access ramp known as the Oxbow ramp - - - - - - - - After considerable study, an alternative set of improvements that provide equivalent traffic mitigation, but which serve a broader public and appear to be less expensive to construct, has been identified. Once again, the City's intent has been to determine Boeing's fair share of these improvements. In reviewing the mitigation summary that follows, it is apparent that the overwhelming share of mitigation costs, are related to the previous (1987) requirements, rather than impacts from the redevelopment proposal. The EIS process identified relatively few adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Mitigation Summary The following text summarizes possible the mitigation that could be imposed feguifements to address the impacts of the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment proposal. Also incluthd is a summary of the mitigation still required for previous development in the corridor. Transportation Previously Committed Mitigation These previous requirements were summarized on page 4-40 of the Draft EIS, and -are A. Previously Committed, Now Modified 1. To mitigate impacts from anticipated development at the Oxbow site, a previous Mitigated Determination of Nonsianificance suggested that the proponent pay a "pro rata share of the cost of providing a southbound on ramp to SR 99 at South 102nd Street..." This EIS has determined that the impacts from development at the Oxbow site have not occurred to the degree anticipated and that other measures would be more appropriate to mitigate the impacts from that development. The analysis in this EIS incites that lin lieu of pro -rata full funding for a southbound ramp onto SR 99 at the Oxbow Interchange, the proponent could be required to provide full pro rata funding for improvements to the Pacific Highway South intersection with southbound SR 599, including dual left-turn lanes on Pacific Highway South and dual ramp lanes merging to one lane. These revisions are discussed in the SR 599/SR 99 Interchange Feasibility Study prepared for the City of Tukwila and WSDOT (October 1992). The- planning-level - 2. Provide pro -rata funding for six -lane bridge over the Duwamish River on Pacific Highway South. B. Previously Committed, Unchanged 3. Improvements at the Boeing Access Road /East Marginal Way South /Pacific Highway South interchange. 4. Frontage improvements along East Marginal Way South, including controller and cabinet replacement, cable and interconnect interface. 5. Signalization improvements along East Marginal Way South, including controller and cabinet replacement, cable and interconnect interface. 6. In lieu of independently completing requirements 3, 4, and 5 above, participate with the City of Tukwila and the state in funding for full reconstruction of East Marginal Way ;South, from Seattle City limits to the South Boeing Access Road. . The proponent's obligation would proportionately diminish if the City is successful in obtaining grant funding for this project. The City is proceeding with requests for grant funding at this time. 7. Contribute a pro -rata share to costs for the First Avenue South Bridge project. Mitigation Attributable to Redevelopment Proposal 1. Implement a Transportation Management Program (TMP) as discussed in Draft EIS. 2. Provide pro -rata share of costs for completion of capacity improvements along Pacific Highway South and East Marginal Way South, for those portions.of the roadways south of South Boeing Access Road to the bridges over the Duwamish. Shoreline Public Access The public access issues discussed in the EIS involve the relationship of the proposal to applicable shoreline codes and policies. The proposal does not create direct impact to public access becats a it does not displace existing access. The tidirect impacts of precluding future public,access are addressed by the proposal's provisions for new or enhanced public access. MProposed mitigation requirements are as follows: 1. Complete . new or enhanced public access, consistent with the proposal, as redevelopment occurs. • • Stormwater 1. Participate in regional stormwater basin planning efforts initiated by the affected jurisdictions. 2. Develop drainage master plan for Boeing properties following completion of regional basin planning effort. Implementation The City of Tukwila has determined that the design guidelines incorporated in the proposal adequately mitigate adverse bulk and scale impacts of the redevelopment. Mitigation requirements, are as follows: 1. Design for projects implementing the proposal shall incorporate design guidelines as described in the proposal of May 1992 (or subsequent revisions if approved by the affected jurisdiction). 2. Applications for projects implementing the proposal shall include a statement describing how the project incorporates design guidelines for height, bulk, and scale; shoreline access; shoreline protection or other modifications to the Duwamish River bank; pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and landscaping. The statement and other application materials will be reviewed for compliance with the proposal as well as with codes in effect at the time of application. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff Zahir, The Boeing Company John Crull, The Boeing Company COPIES: FROM: DATE: RE: Bob Betts, Betts and Associates Lloyd Skinner, CH2M HILL Jack Pace, Senior Planner November 30, 1992 Prograirunatic EIS, Duwamish Corridor Rick Beeler, Director RECEIVED DEC - 11992 DEVELOPMENT Enclosed for your review is a draft summary of the mitigation measures identified during the SEPA review process for Boeing's proposed ten -year redevelopment of the Duwamish Corridor. It is anticipated that this summary will be included in the Final EIS. The mitigation summary provides a convenient framework for us to discuss the mitigation agreement between the City of Tukwila and The Boeing Company. Also enclosed for your review is the two -page revised Shoreline Access section of the preliminary Final EIS. Please give me a call after you have reviewed this material to schedule a meeting to discuss the draft mitigation summary, the shoreline access language, the feasibility study of alternatives to the Oxbow ramp, and the schedule for Final EIS publication. We can then follow up with a separate meeting with your negotiation team to develop the mitigation agreement, including the details of timing and thresholds that trigger mitigation requirements. sea/j ak/E/3689/Duwami sh 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Mitigation Rationale The City of Tukwila has evaluated a proposal by The' Boeing Company to redevelop portions of its property in the Duwamish corridor area of Tukwila. The proposal and alternatives have been reviewed in a non - project Environmental Impact Statement. As part of its review, the City has identified impacts likely to result from full imple- mentation of the redevelopment plan over a 10 -year period. A successful Transporta- tion Management Program was assumed to be part of the proposal. Mitigation mea- sures to address proposal impacts have been identified for transportation, shoreline public access, and stormwater. It is the City's intent in identifying these mitigation measures that there be a clear nexus or link between impacts' of the project and mea- sures required to minimize those impacts. In implementing . its proposal, The Boeing Company should pay only for its fair share of mitigation costs,, and no more Also, as part of its review, the City reassessed old mitigation requirements imposed by King County as part of a 1987 permit decision for development of the parcel known as the Oxbow site in the Duwamish corridor. :::In_:partictilar: the requirement for Boeing to fund the construction of a freeway access. ramp:`known as the Oxbow ramp was reeval- uated, in cooperation with the Washington State .Department of Transportation and King County.. After considerable :study, an,alterrative set of improvements that pro- :. :.. ... . vide equivalent traffic mitigation, but which serve a broader public and appear to be less expensive to construct, has been identified. ° Once again, the City's intent has been to determine Boeing's fair share::of these improvements. In reviewing the mitigation summary that follows, it is apparent that the overwhelming 'share of mitigation costs are related to the previous (1987) requirements, rather than impacts from the redevelopment proposal. The EIS process identified relatively few adverse impacts associated with the proposal. 10023A1A.SEA 10023A1A.SEA/1 11/24/92 Mitigation Summary The following text summarizes the mitigation requirements to address impacts of the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment proposal. Also included is a summary of mitiga- tion still required for previous development in the corridor. Transportation Previously Committed Mitigation These previous requirements were summarized . on page 4-40 of the Draft EIS, and are restated with updated cost estimates below. A. Previously Committed, Now Modified 1. In lieu of full funding for a southbound tani p Arita SR 99 at the. Oxbow Inter- change, provide full funding for improvements ' to the Pacific Highway South intersection with southbound SR 599 .:includir 'dual left -turn lanes on Pacific Highway South and dual ramp lanes.i:rnerging: td;one lane. These revisions are discussed in the SR'599/SR 99 Interchange,:Feasibility Study prepared for the City of Tukwila and WSDOT,October 1'992). The planning level estimate of costs for these improvements is $2,474,03 in 1992 dollars. 2. Provide pro -rata funding for six-lane :bridge over the Duwamish River on Pacific Highway South. ::= _The City estimates full repla ent costs for the bridge to be million; pro-rata funding is estimated at<1.4 illion. B. Previously Conrnitted,:: °Unchanged 3. Improvements at the Boeing Access . Road/East Marginal Way South/Pacific Highway South interchange. 4. Frontage improvements along East Marginal Way South from Seattle city limits to Boeing Access Road. 5. Signalization improvements along East Marginal Way South, including controller and cabinet replacement, cable and interconnect interface. a estimates the cost of improvements summarized in 3, 4 and 5 'n 1992 dollars. 6. In lieu of independently completing requirements 3, 4, and 5 above, participate with the City of Tukwila and the state in funding for full reconstruction, of East Marginal Way South, from Seattle City limits to the South Boeing Access Road. 1002339A.SEA/1 11/24/92 Preliminary estimates for Boeing participation are or $5,857,000 ess grant funding, to a minimum o$3.7 illion. The City is proc - : ' ' : equests for grant funding at this time. 7. Contribute a pro -rata share to costs for the First Avenue South Bridge project. Mitigation Attributable to Redevelopment Proposal 1. Implement Transportation Management Program (TMP) as discussed in Draft EIS. 2. Provide pro -rata share of costs for completion of capacity improvements along Pacific Highway South and East Marginal Way Sciuth, •for those portions of the roadways south of Boeing Access R • • • :: e; bridges,: over the Duwamish. These pro -rata costs are estimated to • ; 100,000, a y. uming full implementation development proposal for an employee' population in the corridor of assuming the successful implementation of a TMP. Shoreline Public Access The public access issues discussed in the EIS: involve the relationship of the proposal to applicable shoreline codes and poliiies The proposal does not create direct impact to public access because it does: not displace existing access. Indirect impacts of pre- ..:. cluding future public access are addressed by the proposal's provisions for new or enhanced public access. Mitigation requirements are as follows: 1. Complete new ` or enhanced public access, consistent with the proposal, as redevelopment occurs. Stormwater 1. Participate in regional stormwater basin planning . efforts initiated by the affected jurisdictions. 2. Develop drainage ,master plan for Boeing properties following completion of regional basin planning effort. Implementation The City of Tukwila has determined that the design guidelines incorporated in the pro- posal adequately mitigate adverse bulk and scale impacts of the redevelopment. Miti- gation requirements are as follows: 1002339A.SEAI2 11/24/92 1. Design for projects implementing the .proposal shall incorporate design guide- lines as described in the proposal of May 1992 (or subsequent revisions if approved by the affected jurisdiction). 2. Applications for projects implementing the proposal shall include a statement describing how the project incorporates design guidelines for height, bulk, and scale; shoreline access; shoreline protection or other modifications to the Duwamish River bank; pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and landscaping. The statement and other application materials will be reviewed for compliance with the proposal as well as with codes in effect at the time of application. 1002339A.SEA 1002339A.SEA/3 11/24/92 Chapter 2 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION This chapter of the Final EIS provides additional information on several issues ad- dressed in the Draft EIS. Sections on shoreline public access, transportation, storm- water and water quality, and energy are included in this chapter. SHORELINE ACCESS The Boeing Company proposal for shoreline public access:;: and the impacts of the proposed redevelopment on the shoreline are described ;:in:the Draft EIS on pages 3 -28 and 3 -29, as well as in Figure 3 -6. A revised Figure 3 -6 that : better distinguishes between existing public access and public access areas proposed for "enhancement" is reproduced in the Errata section of this FEIS. The Boeing Company has a total of approximately. 18,000 linear feet of shoreline property along the Duwamish Waterway:' Approximately.::4,800 linear feet of this total will be affected by the redevelopment proposal The Boeing proposal indicates that this 4,800 linear feet of shoreline. °will:be available only for employee access. The proposal also includes new or :enhanced public access at. the Oxbow site Approx- . imately 4,800 linear feet of shoreline at the Oxbow site will be enhanced with three view points and /or canoe launches: This results in a proposal that will provide new or enhanced public access:.along i the ``corridor according to a one -to -one linear ratio; i.e., one linear foot of public access frontage for each linear foot of frontage redeveloped but not available for.aceess by the general public. The proposal would also locate the new or enhanced public access on the west side of the Duwamish Waterway. There has been general agreement.tduring recreational trail planning exercises by the jurisdic- tions involved that an emphasis on the west side of the waterway is appropriate as a first priority, and the proposal is consistent with that emphasis. Shoreline Master Program (SMP) requirements for the Boeing properties included in the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal are described in the Draft EIS (see pages 3 -10, 3 -14, and 3 -21). The City of Seattle's shoreline public access standards are described in the Seattle Municipal Code Section 23.60.160. Seattle's SMP requires .public access for non- water- dependent industrial uses along the Duwamish Waterway. Flexibility is incorporated into the standards of this section, which allow for public access to be provided "in the context of the entire project" for those developments extending for more than 1,000 linear feet of shoreline. Guidelines include a minimum of one public access site for each 3,500 linear feet of shoreline. 100223BE.SEA/1 11/24/92 2 -1 Chapter 2: Additional Environmental Information Shoreline Access • • King County's Shoreline Master Program does not currently require public access for non - water - dependent industrial uses. Also, other than shoreline enhancements, no redevelopment is proposed for Boeing sites within the jurisdiction of King County's SMP. King County is in the process of updating its SMP. The latest review draft (dated March 1992) indicates few changes that would affect public access requirements for industrial shoreline uses. The City of Tukwila anticipates that an update to its Shoreline Master Program will begin shortly. The City currently uses the standards in King County's SMP for the Duwamish Corridor area. No public access is currently required for non- water- depen- dent industrial uses. While Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal exceeds the existing requirements, the City of Tukwila believes::that the public interest may be better served if flexibility is built into Boeing's shoreline : :public access proposal. Over time, there may emerge other areas for new or enhanced. access that are not currently identified in the Boeing redevelopment proposal. Also:the update of the Tukwila SMP may result in new public access requirements. Within its jurisdiction, the City of Tukwila., intends to accept Boeing's proposed 1:1 public access ratio and proposed locations;' as appropriate Maximum frontage devoted to public access. However, the City will entertam::aiternatives to this 1:1 frontage ratio or alternative locations, if new opportunities present themselves. Such alternatives would be required to provide equal or better public access opportunities in the form of new locations, enhanced existing locations, and /Or public habitat enhancements with appropriate signage. Project - specific opportunities or constraints will be considered on a case -by -case basis. The intent is to incorporate flexibility so as not to stifle opportu- nities not currently identified: The City of Tukwila also recognizes that the individual jurisdictions maintain indepen- dent discretion to implement;:SEMA and shoreline master program authority based on identified impacts and on cider in effect at the time of application. TRANSPORTATION OXBOW RAMP ALTERNATIVES The Draft EIS noted a previous requirement that Boeing fund the construction of a southbound ramp onto SR 99 at about South 102nd Street. The new ramp, known as the . "Oxbow ramp" because of its proximity to the meander of. the Duwamish River at the Oxbow site, was required by King County as part of project approval for develop- ment of the Oxbow site. The Oxbow site has now been developed, but the Oxbow ramp has not been construc- ted. At the direction of the City of Tukwila and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), alternative improvements that provide mitigation equivalent 100223BE.SEA/2 11/10/92 Chapter 2: Additional Environmental Information 2 -2 Shoreline Access/Transportation Washington King county Environments! Division Paris, Plartrdng owl Resources Depanamt MOO - 136th Place Southeast ..November 9, 1992 Invoice to: L. Rick Reller,Direotor Jack Pace, S*n-ior Planner City of Tukvyile Planning Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukw/ila,WA 98188 In reference to: File No. T9100110 Booi.gm Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal Previous Balance 10/27/92 Payment - Thank You-Inv #1438 Balance Due Amount $507.88 ($507.88) $0.00 Make checks payable to : KC Office of Finance. Mail oheoks to : KC Environmental Div. ATTN: SEPA Billing Please return a copy of this invoice with payment. 1S 045, 17, Z. $s,, 670 a/4 Caribefr Se- 1 371 144 lEg2,6reo /z.9 c9,7700 S,13 ?,°r) .wit 4 o ,G7 g2 /may ;,07. i -7st G14e2m 14vj /I 66).2-4— 302. a kn.,5 50-7. efu-A4 it241 z '1 OE7AW • September 8, 1992 4- 7200- JBC -92 -0157 Boeing Support Services P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Mr. Robert S. Betts Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS Coordinator 700 108th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 Reference: Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment preliminary FEIS - Comments on the 8/28/92 draft Dear Mr. Betts: The Boeing Company has completed review of this version of the draft FEIS. You, the City of Tukwila staff and CH2MHILL have done and outstanding job in carrying this EIS process forward to this final stage. Thank you for your hard and thoughtful work. The draft FEIS is clear and concise. Most of our comments on the earlier version have been incorporated into this draft. Our remaining comments are as follows: Page vii, , - :; Change first sentence to read "This Final EIS..." Page xvii, Figure 3 -6 • The symbol for "Proposed Employee Shoreline Access" should extend along the entire Thompson Isaacson site shoreline. Also, the legend cited above should be changed to read: "Proposed Employee Shoreline Trail /Access Features (to be created when adjacent sites are redeveloped)" Page xviii, Figure 471 There are other signalized intersections in the area depicted by the map. Should the legend include a statement acknowledging this fact? Page 1 -3, Approval Process The schedule for completing the mitigation document and associated interlocal agreement should be incorporated.: Page 1 -9, Table 1 -1, Transportation, Vehicular Traffic, Mitigation Measures; change sentence to read: • 9/8/92, 4- 7200- JBC -92 -0157 Page 2, R. Betts "Widen E. Marginal Way S., south of Boeing Access Road as well as complete previous commitments or new mitigations." Page 1 -10, Table 1 -1, Stormwater ..., Mitigation Measures, last sentence: Change "habitat restoration" to "habitat enhancement" (restoration could imply "pre -urban development" characteristics) Page 1 -11, Table 1 -1, Energy, Mitigation Measures Discussion needs to be changed to reflect revised energy goal stated on page 2 -7. Page 1 -11, Table 1 -1, Public Services and Utilities, Stormwater, Mitigation Measures Discussion needs to be changed to reflect revised discussion on page 2 -6. Page 2 -1, Shoreline Access, second paragraph, last sentence; change to read: "With the possible exception of a portion of the Plant 2 site,... Page 2 -1, Shoreline Access, last paragraph; change fourth sentence to read: "Equal or better public access opportunities, in the form of new locations, enhanced existing locations, and /or physical habitat enhancements with appropriate signage, will be considered during review or individual permit applications, if proposed by Boeing, for projects that implement the proposal." Page 2 -2, Transportation, Oxbow Ramp Alternatives Boeing would appreciate an opportunity to review the Pacific Highway South /SR 599 alternatives study prior to inclusion in the FEIS. We understand that this study is not yet complete. Page 2 -4, First Paragraph, second sentence Add this phrase to the end of the sentence, if valid: "...by about 15 percent over the No Action alternative (even with the TMP mitigation measures being considered by The Boeing Company)." Could the final study change the preliminary findings presented on page 2 -4? Does the LOS analysis contemplate the possibly beneficial affect of staggered shift times and the Boeing TMP? 9/8/92, 4- 7200 -JBC -0157 Page 3, R. Betts Page 2 -4, Mitigation, paragraphs two and three Refer to Boeing's comment on the earlier draft FEIS. Boeing's contribution to either replacement or new traffic mitigations should be characterized as a "pro- rata" share of the cost. Page 2 -5, second paragraph Discussion should include mention of TDM requirements for both the City of Tukwila and Boeing. Page 2 -7, Energy, Electrical Energy, final paragraph A signed copy or the Boeing /SCL letter should be available later this week. Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft FEIS. Please contact me or Jeff Zahir if you have any questions about our comments. n Crull arming & Program Support 6Y -59, 393 -7299 (fax) 393 -1397 cc: A. Day 89 -04 A. Gay 13 -03 M. Giuisiana 13 -08 D. McCann 1E -14 P. Seely 14 -49 G. Stein 6Y -59 J. Zahir 6Y -59 • '. BARSBIL2 -'I , 09/03492 40)49:' ,' •EiR • 1078. . . .. . . , Eoll 4992 Acct 41: -.000.08.558..600'.41.14 . (02]--'Title' BOEING EIS F ):. (031 1993 Acci. 4111 060.08.558:600.4114 (SuMmary cbdes) (Report line nuMbers) . . >>>> Debits • •>>>> Credit s - • ,...) . (16] 000". ..1191 016 • ' 1081 '081. - (12] •.C)01 -." * ' 117] 000 . 1202 000.. ... (09] 000 . 1131 .000 ' ' • -(187 016 . . (21] 000 • . (Special summary "codes) ..(3137 Accounts payable) 005 (32] Encumbrances)" 010 .• .1311 Accounts receivable: 000 -[323 Reserve for encumbrances; 011' • C.1.44 4e-ALIALa..VII,A° 1) 443e-000 ' i ND1TURE ACCOUNT LISTING - . . • 8 ARE ' -PERIOD'-1 (Y/E) . . , 66666,6666666666666.666 9========l0riginal App/8=.89(Expenditure). ======-9. '....- .. ( 04 3 Status:. 0 ' 0 4' . . . . . . (1991.f , ..* .70,000.00' .* 152,574,34 * '• • * .(053 Detail; 2 -0 .' • '• • * . 1,1 + + * • 1, * (06] Code;'. 4. • • • • 8. . * - . : • 8. .0 19903 . * • .00 * * I071 Bank: ' 000 *- . . * + + + * :00, * CIO, 000, (143 000 (117 000- , 1.15?y 181- • * . * (19897 * • * • • . ..60 • • • • • ' • . ----( DEPT REQUEST)----( FINANCE REC:)----( MAYOR'S REC.)----( COUNCIL.PROV) . ' : • (017 . -- .00 (02) • .00 (03] . ' 00 (041 .,:- [1992]***==.**(Origina1 APp)===aa(Adjustment)=.A.(Encumbrnce)==.A(Expendit&r4).. • .1.' -January. ..* '140.000.00. 8 ' .00 a . • .00 .. 5,088.04 .8 -February .1,, .. _. . .. ' .00. * • . . .• March a .00 . .00. * 2,224:07 • . . April . . . .00 8 73,658.82 '* ' .00 * - • l'. .. June . * ‘ .00 * .00 .... , 49,100.06 *. • 'a . . July. . • e ' .00 * August * * .00 '. • .' .00 * • 14,394.1g : . ',?.,•)'. . . . „ . A • September * . -. . .00 • 1,056.45 4 • ..,„.: October A .00 8 .00 .. . . .00 November. ... . -..00 * .. .. .00 .8 • ' .00' -4 . '. December *. '.00: * . . .00 .8 '.00 * . .00 * - =666...66666666.66.6 666=6666 8.888= (Totals) 140,000.00 .00. . .00 158,522.19 ' ' • {Balance}'' . . . . . :I . .18,522.19-7' • . • • - • .. [19937(Orlginal App)8==.6(Adjustment)=6==(Encu8brance)****(Expenditure)=8 ). January . 8. .00 * • , , .00 * , .00 *• .... * • .00 * * • • • ..00' .00 * . June * . : * '.130' • ' .00001. : * Auguit .' ....',.j -September .1) . . * • .00 a . . ' - October . * ' - * .00 *. . -00. *. ,. "November• 4 '. * • :00 ... December. * * .00 .4 . - ' .00.-:4 . 4. . * .. . • .......=====..====. ===......== ..=7,=====.==.=. . (Totals) . - .00 ' {Balance? • . • . • . ... . . .. . . . . . . •-.00 .00 . * .00 a .00 . .00• * .00 . ==="- .00 1. BARSBIL2 'i, .CITY OF TUKWILA' • • . 09/03/92 10)49 ' -EXPENDITURE -ACCOUNT LISTING . • . • 'IOTACS-ARE,-THRU-PER100-13" (Y/E) , • •,-,. .1992 Mect.'41). - 000.08.558.600.41.14 Trn datb DocumeMta• •TC Per '01/27/92 814012 IN. 01 0055950-- • : • • • • ',03/02/92 11 BOEING.EIS • . . • Description, • Appropriation . (Beginning balance)... DEC.-BOEING EIS SUCE5. • CH,2 M HILL. IN. 03 12/28-1/28 'BOEING •EIS.SVCEE. 0056601. ROBERT 8.. BETTS. 1/29-2/29 -BOEING EIS ROBERT S. BETTS,.INC.• 2/29-3/29 BOEING EIS... .•- - ROBERT S. BETTS, INC..,--. •-• 3/30-4/27 BOEING EIS ROBERT-S.. BETTS, INC.' -MAR-BOEING EIS CH 2 M HILL JAN-BOEING gls• . CH 2.9 HILL FEB.-BOEING EIS '• CH 2 M. .PDEIS REVIEW FEES ,•••- - (INC CO ENVIRONMENTAL. DIV '4/28-5/28 BOEING EIS,. ROBERTS. BETTS, INC. BOEING.EIS & ADDENDUM-'. • CH 2 M HILL • -BOE1NG -EIS' . • . - • -CH 2 M HILL 5/28'-6/30•BOEING.EIS• • ROBERT S. BETTS.. INC. .PROF.' SVCES BOEING-DUUMMISH RING CO ENVIRONMENTAL.DIY • OJNE,BOEING EIS CH 2 M HILL +JULY-BOEING EIS ROBERT'S. .BETTS,• INC. ' .JULY-BOEING EIS ' CH 2 M HILL • • 05/04/92 12-.-- 4N. 05 - 0057720' 05/04/92 13 IN 05- . • •.• 0057720 • .• 05/04/92 14 IN 05 0057720 . • • 05/04/98.,(7)(8);(;;;1. r. 05/047.92 724022 IN ;05- . • -0057731 . - • • ' 05/04/92-728032 IN 05. 0057731 • -05/04/92A50435. .• -IN 05: • .0057777 ;06/58292.45 IN 66, • . 5058456- • -: .• • -.06i15/92 75.0052 • IN' 06 0058472 •. '06/22/92-749062 . 4N.06. • 6058702: .• .08/03/92. 16 IN oa • • -0059771; • : 08/17/92 1399 ' IN 08 0060057 1 08/17/92 902072- •-• -.IN' 08" • 0060005 .58/24/92' 17 IN 08 0060205 ' 09/08/92 833082. IN 09 0000000 • • • -140,000.00. • • (Ending balance) ' -140.000.00 Encumbrance p-oci 452,574.34 + 1.58,522.19:T 311,096.53 4 • •. 1,1 PAGE 0002 • • Expenditure . Balance' . , 5,088,04 • 2,224.07 • 1,955.28: '.. • 2,249;35: 2,538.06 . . ' • • -17,705:42 • • 20,225.60: 10,170.00 - • 2,748.23 - 23,745.39 22,606.44 . 1,308.24 612.00 . .."1 M -' 12.053.23 k 421.28 ,..• • .,, 14,056.45 .00' 158,522.19 18,522.197: • • - • • • .. • . 1:: JC111 1 LC I\L IL 1 1 1 CL IVU . LUU- i4JJ -LLJL Robert S. Betts„ Inc band Managenent t:onsatalion and Development .JGN 1974 LU•JL{ INU.UVU r.UL ' 700108th Avenue NE FAX 206/462 -9761 Phone 206/455.9640 Bellevue, WA 98004 Date A'2- y3 3 -- /B 3 Facsimile Phone No k•ce tioefe, txfcb- sti--7-5 A6-7-v-V Ate/44,44(56z ,iccocc •vT 5 J t2u,-- o c...7 f01, �� l5 Thy eir-A,/fz,f-.e_ T. '1/4T.3. r • 5i�j�5 &i6 4Wes /c-) // fc/zec� / - eaAl77fc7! /2/itce .c-C T plt7Z.v c5 - rf, ( u,4 (5 3 c 70, e 67-5 /5•a s 5 7- '/s . /;`r //f/ if/e0/4-ice. r‘re If you do riot receive a pages (including this page), please notify us immediately at 206/455.9640. Thank you, Robert S. Betts, Inc. Q.J. i z yr t UIVILA f 1 -1151- 9211 -OO1R r� u/ r 1 LC H. DATE 4.1 Co THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between The Boeing Company, a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at Seattle, Washington, United States (hereinafter called "Boeing"), and the City of Tukwila. Boeing and City of Tukwila hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. Term of Agreement: This Agreement is for the period February 11, 1991 (Effective Date) through July 31, 1992 (Termination Date).. ARTICLE 2. Services: 2.1 The City of Tukwila will act as lead agency in connection with processing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addressing environmental impacts of Boeing's proposed master plan for redevelopment of the Duwamish Corridor. As lead agency, the City of Tukwila will be responsible for supervising preparation of the EIS and all necessary supporting studies, coordination with other affected jurisdictions, issuances of notices, ;conducting necessary public hearings and other procedural matters t with respect to. the EIS. Boeing has agreed to pay certain of these costs, as more fully set forth in Article 3 below. 2.2 All tasks shall be accomplished in accordance with the schedule.dated March 12, 1992, and appearing as attachment A to this document, or as mutually agreed and amended in writing .thereafter. ARTICLE 3. Compensation: 3.1 The City of Tukwila will invoice Boeing on a monthly basis and Boeing shall make payment to the City of Tukwila in accordance with the following schedule: ZO'd 900.0N n :91 Z6't d3S > ISZZ- SS17-90Z' oN 131 A1113321 3111133S z yr 1 ut%.w1LA 1 -1151- 9211 -OO1R Previously Disbursed March 10, 1992 April 1, 1992 • May 1, 1992 June 1, 1992 July 1, 1992 July 31, 1992 TOTAL $168,000.00 $100,000.00 $ 20,000.00 - $ 20,000.QO. '' 1 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 19,670.00 $367,670.00 • The City of Tukwila will assume responsibility for receiving invoices from other affected jurisdictions, when such fees may appropriately be passed on to Boeing, and include them in its invoice to Boeing. Boeing will therefore receive only one bill each month for this project, which may include costs received by Tukwila from other jurisdictions. If fees from other affected jurisdictions are included in the invoice to Boeing, copies of all invoices will be attached. Regardless of the inclusion of such copies, nothing in this paragraph 3.1 is intended to require Boeing to make payment in excess of the amounts set out in paragraph 3.5. 3.2 All invoices submitted by the City of Tukwila under this Agreement will be subject to .approval by the Boeing Representative and should reference the Agreement number 1 -1151 - 9211 -OO1R. 3.3 The invoices will reflect the costs and reimbursement of costs incurred by the City of Tukwila for the following effort: 1. Supervise and coordinate preparation of the EIS; 2. Review drafts of the EIS; 3. Supervise and coordinate preparation of such special studies as may be required; 4. Obtain reviews and comments on draft and final EIS from other appropriate jurisdictions; 2 £0'd 900.0N b :9T Z6'I d@S r 4. TSZZ- SSb -90Z' oN 131 A11d38 3111d3S �,a a z yr 1 uxwILA ' 1 -1151- 9211 -OO1R 5. Review drafts of those studies and meet and consult with affected jurisdictions and state agencies; 6. Attend inter jurisdictional meetings on the EIS. 7. Copying and mailing costs; 8. The salary and overhead, including benefits, of a project coordinator, as agreed between Tukwila and Boeing; . • 9. Costs of printing and newspaper advertising when required by SEPA or allowed in the discretion of the lead agency; 10. Compensate for all other reasonably necessary expenses incurred by the City in processing the EIS; 3.4 The total costs incurred by the City of Tukwila, Subcontractors and Government Agencies, which Boeing will reimburse, shall not exceed $367,670 absent agreement for Boeing to reimburse costs in excess of this amount. The City of Tukwila agrees to consult with Boeing regarding the status of 'ifs work on the project after the City has incurred costs in the amount of $300,000. The parties understand that the funding totals listed above reflect One Hundred Sixty -Eight Thousand Dollars ($16840.00). which has previously been disbursed to the City of Tukwila. ;t. In no event shall total payment under this Agreement for Services and Expenses exceed Three Hundred Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Dollars ($367,670) without prior written agreement. ARTICLE 4. Term and Tewlination; 4.1 This Agreement shall terminate pursuant to Article 1 hereof, unless extended by written agreement signed by both parties. 3 b0'd 900.0N V : 9I Z6'I daS C TSZZ -SSt -90Z' oN 131 Al3ti321 3111d3S 2 -1152- 9211 -001R ARTICLE 5. E.ffe�T_erminatipn• 5.1 Termination of this Agreement upon expiration of the Term of this Agreement shall not affect the City of Tukwila's right to compensation for t sks performed prior to the Termination Date. ARTICLE 6. overnir<g Law; Disputes: • •• 6.1 This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington, United States, exclusive of the choice of law rules thereof, as if therein wholly to be performed. 6.2 Venue for any dispute or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court for King County, Washington, whic shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute or claim and to wich h jurisdiction both parties hereby submit. ARTICLE 7. Miscellaneous; 7.1 Integration- Amendment. Assignment. This Agreement, including the Attachments A hereto which is incorporated herein by this reference, sets forth the entire agreement between the parties, and supersedes all prior written and verbal understandings and agreements, relating to its subject matter. This Agreement may be amended only by a writing signed on or after the execution of this agreement by the duly authorised representatives of both parties. No assignment of this Agreement or of any monies due or to become due hereunder shall be binding upon Boeing until its written consent therefor is obtained. ARTICLE 8. Addresses for_Nojices: Boeing: S0'd 900.0N 17:9T Z6'T daS Corporate Director of Contracts The Boeing Company Orgn.1 -1151; Mail Stop 11 -API P. O. Box 3707 Seattle, Washington 98124 -2207 4 TSZZ- SSb- 90Z'oN l3l Alld323 .3111d3S CITY OF TUKWILA 1- 1151 - 9211 -OO1R Consultant: . City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Attention: Jack Pace 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 ARTICLE 9. Boeing Representative : The Boeing Representative for this Agreement No. 1- 1151- 9211 -0018 shall be Andre Gay, Vice President of Facilities, The Boeing Company; Telephone No.: (206) 655 -4805; Orgn. No.: 1 -1052; and M/S 13 -03. CITY OF TUKWILA THE BOEING COMPANY: By: ■;.• • �� B Name: John W. Rants (Type or Print) Name: Kimberly Baker Its: Mayor Its: Mier Corporate Contracts Date: 13 - 9 a Date: 41-- 3 lr 5 C 90'd 900.0N t7 :9T Z6'i d39 ISZZ- SSb- 90Z'oN 131 Al1d3d 3111d3S N 4,0 qc /)d- ce) 1.0 - - -- PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. - -- OF__ — BV DATE _— us FINS 851 S G�4NGG G�oI 2_ .m 12 2 L. vwxb (11/.•1) 2 VELOCITY IfT /SCCJ N - BURGER, ET. AL. - USFWS 85' - SUCHANEK, ET. AL. - BOVEE 78' ier, No. CA (150 to 300 cfs) - Kenai River, AK (5,000 cfs) - Lower Ameri an River, CA - Susitna River, AK - Compilation of sources ervations - n= 947 - 23 Sites, May through Oct c,:........ - ;...a. v✓gMP1.E2 04 04 0.7 04 0.s 02 0.2 0.1 2 70164 (ev.x) 0 O - WAMPLER - Kendall Creek, A (32 cfs) - n= 537 2 N' 01/6.•) 4 • City. of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director TO: Ann Do Id, King County (5 copies) Martin Fricko, DCLU (2 copies) Lynn Best, Seattle City Light (1 copy) COPIES: John Crull, Boeing Dick McCann, Perkinsl Coie FROM: Bob Betts, .' 1j• inato Duwamis /' orridor EIS DATE: August 28, 1992 SUBJECT: Preliminary Final EIS Enclosed are preliminary copies of the City of Tukwila's Final Environmental Impact Statement on The Boeing Company's Duwamish Corridor. Redevelopment Proposal. In conversations I have had with Ann and Rebecca Herzfeld, both have been gracious to agree to a one week turnaround, reviewing the preliminary for major omissions and errors or ideas for making this programmatic analysis more beneficial for all of us. We anticipate public distribution of the Final EIS on September 18, 1992. We would appreciate your comments by Tuesday, September 8. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 455 -9640 or Jack Pace at 431- 3686. RECEIVED AUG 2.8 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 M 0 <0 m -0 c m Z m m rn 0 7:714.64 Peec, Task added 7/23/92 8 Task added 3/23/92 b Task added 8/20/92 • • • • Denotes range of dates Revised EIS Schedule The Boeing Company Duwamish Corridor Master Plan -April 22, 1032 A4.t..iy,_st 2.1, 1. 1992 1993 Task May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jen Feb Mar 10. Publish DEIS * 11. Comment Period II II II 12. Prepare FEIS 13. Internal Review (PFEIS) 14. Prepare Second FEIS—_________J_L„ um 15. Internal Review •:::: :. 16. Revisions ii: JEW 17. Agency Review 18. Revisions ..... 19. Publish Final EIS ::: i.: • * 20. SR 599/99 Feasibility Study a. Transmit to Tukwila b. Transmit to WSDOT c. Interagency Comments Due d. Revisions e. Final Report ,,h .. ...: > ' ' • ....• • . • " dr. ::.• * • . 21. Mitigation Documentb a. Prepare Outline b. Prepare Draft Document • ,111■•■ r , ------- -----.:: c. Tukwila Review g d. Revisions e. Boeing Review f. Revisions g. Signatures ::: i:. • .: i' P• oul h. Prepare D.ftJtjJ1JocaI Agreement i. Tukwila j. Revisions k. Boeing Review - AMNON WI I. Revisions m. Agency Review n. Revisions o. Signatures _ .0., ...., Task added 7/23/92 8 Task added 3/23/92 b Task added 8/20/92 • • • • Denotes range of dates Revised EIS Schedule The Boeing Company Duwamish Corridor Master Plan -April 22, 1032 A4.t..iy,_st 2.1, 1. C iMHILL Engineers Planners Economists Scientists August 25, 1992 SEA31760.A1 Mr. Jerry Shutz Development Planning Engineer Washington State Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98133 Dear Jerry: Enclosed for your review is CH2M HILL's feasibility study for the SR599/SR99 interchange at Pacific Highway South in Tukwila. The report is intended to address the feasibility of alternatives to a new Oxbow on- ramp to southbound SR99. WSDOT has seen the preliminary results of the study and participated at subsequent meetings with staff from the City of Tukwila and CH2M HILL to narrow the range of alternatives and further focus the study. The feasibility study reflects the direction we have received from WSDOT and Tukwila. Because of the narrow scope of the study and the need to coordinate its results with the Final EIS on Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Plan, we are requesting a quick turnaround on review of the study. Hopefully your involvement throughout the study and review of previous results will make final review a simple task. We would appreciate your comments by Tuesday, September 8. If you have questions, please give me or Chuck Crandall a call at 453 -5000. Sincerely, CH2M HILL Lloyd A. Skinner, AICP Project Manager ay /a \. Shutz CH2M HILL RECEIVED AUG 2 61992 DE �E�OPN ►TY MERIT Seattle Office 777 108th Avenue N.E., Bellevue, WA 98004 • 206.453.5000 P.O. Box 91500, Bellevue, WA 98009 -2050 Fax 206.462.5957 • CITY OF TUKWILA Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS REVISED SCHEDULE August 24, 1992 Third Preliminary Draft EIS Internal Review Comments Due Revisions Agency Courtesy Copy P -DEIS Agency Review Comments Due Revisions Publish Draft EIS Public Information Meeting Public Comments Due Possible 15 -day Extension First Preliminary Final EIS Internal Review Comments Due Second Preliminary Final EIS * *. Internal Review Comments ** Revisions Agency Courtesy Copy P -FEIS Agency Review Comments Due Internal Review & Revisions Publish Final EIS TARGET DATES March 20, 1992.::..: March 27, 1992 March 27::= April` 6, 1:992 April' 6' 1992. April 13, 1992 April 137.30, 1992 May 1, 1992 May 20, 1992 May 31, 1992 June 15, 1992 July 6, 1992 July. 23, 1992 July 31, 1992 August 20, 1992 August 21 -28, 1992 August 28, 1992 September 8, 1992 September 9 -18, 1992 September 18, 1992 **Task added 7/23/92 CITY OF TUKWILA Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS SUPPORT SERVICES SCHEDULE August 24, 1992 TARGET DATES SR 599/ SR 99 INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY Transmit Study to Tukwila August 14, 1992 Transmit Study to WSDOT August 24, 1992:. Internal Review Comments Due September .8, 1992 Revisions September 9 -1.8 Final Report MITIGATION DOCUMENT Submit Outline to Tukwila Prepare Draft Document Tukwila Review Revisions Boeing Review Revisions Signatures Prepare Draft Interlocal Agreement Tukwila Review Revisions Boeing Review Revisions Agency Review Revisions Signatures September 18 August 27, 1992 .August 27- September 30, 1992 October 1 -14, 1992 October 15 -20, 1992 October 21- November 10, 1992 November 11 -18, 1992 November 18- December 15, 1992 October 21- November 10, 1992 November 12 -18, 1992 November 19 -25, 1992 November 30- December 15, 1992 December 16 -31, 1992 January 4 -20, 1993 January 20- February 5, 1993 February 8 -26, 1993 r STATEMENT CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 (206) 433 -1835 Donna Seybert The Boeing Company -0rgn. 1 -1052 Mail Stop 13 -03 P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 INVOICE NO. Agreement #1- 1151 - 9211 -001R 1 Boe n /Duwamish EIS Detach and mail with your check. Your cancelled check is -your receipt. 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 • (206) 433 -1835 .Donna Seybert The Boeing Company.. Orgn. 1 -1052 Mail..Stop 13 -03 P.O. Box'3707 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 INVOICE NO. Agreement # 1- 1151 - 9211 -OO1R Boeing /Duwamish.EIS INVOICE FOR COSTS AND REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY OF TUKWILA: June 1, 1992 Fee Billing $20,000 july 1, 1992 Fee Billing $20,000 July 31, 1992 Fee Billing $19,670 Total this invoice: $59,670 Please forward the payment to: City of Tukwila Finance Office Attn: Kim Hart 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 DUE UPON RECEIPT. PAST DUE AFTER 30 DAYS. PAID BY CHECK NO. CITY OF TUKWILA Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS REVISED SCHEDULE July 31, 1992 Third Preliminary Draft EIS Internal Review Comments Due Revisions Agency Courtesy Copy P -DEIS Agency Review Comments Due Revisions Publish Draft EIS Public Information Meeting Public Comments Due Possible 15 -day Extension First Preliminary Final EIS Internal Review Comments Due Revisions Agency Courtesy Copy P -FEIS Agency Review Comments Due Internal Review & Revisions Publish Final EIS TARGET DATES cc; d • �C fy60 - 0 7,-50 -p ,March 20, 1992 March 27, 1992 March 27 - April 6, 1992 April 6, 1992 April 13, 1992 April 13 - 30, 1992 May 1, 1992 May 20, 1992 May 31, 1992 June 15, 1992 June 30, 1992 July 10, 1992 July 10 - 20, 1992 August 10, 1992 August 17, 1992 August 1.7 - 21, 1992 August 24, 1992 1, sus 4ek-cf" 45-1 • • M E M O R A N D U M TO: File: Boeing Duwamish EIS FROM: L. Rick Beeler, SEPA Responsible Official DATE: June 24, 1992 SUBJECT: Traffic Improvements Required in the Programmatic EIS that are Carried Over from the 1987 Oxbow MDNS and 1991 Memorandum of Understanding The draft Programmatic EIS is complete and public comments are on file. Traffic mitigation measures are listed but are not complete because the measures attributed to the Oxbow MDNS have not been decided. This memo is to make that decision. FINDINGS 1. King County on May 26, 1987, issued an MDNS for Boeing development of the Oxbow property. A mitigation measure imposed was: "Pay a pro rata share of the cost of providing a southbound on ramp to SR 99 at S. 102nd St. which would be a staged portion of completing that interchange including the southbound off ramp to the satisfaction of the Washington State Department of Transportation. If full funding for the southbound on ramp has not been acquired by December 31, 1989, then the developer shall provide funds for the full cost of constructing the southbound on ramp without regard to pro rata share." As of January 1, 1990, full funding for the southbound on ramp has not been acquired and the on ramp has not been constructed. 2. On January 30, 1991, a Memorandum of Agreement ( "MOA ") was drafted and signed on February 19, 1991, by Boeing and on February 20, 1991, by Tukwila. The MOA referenced the Oxbow MDNS ( "MDNS ") and the Duwamish Corridor Programmatic EIS ( "EIS "). The MOA stated, in part: Page 2 • • "The State agrees that the Developer's (Boeing) appropriate required mitigation responsibilities (MDNS) will be more adequately addressed as part of the abovementioned EIS (EIS). (Clarification added.) It is agreed by the State, County, and City that the Developer will be allowed to fulfill his obligation (MDNS) by participating in the cost of transportation improvement needs as determined by the non - project traffic EIS (EIS). (Clarification added). The estimated amount of participation is $7.8 - 8.3 million (see attachment). If, as a result of the Duwamish Valley EIS (EIS), it is determined that the Developer's mitigation should be the actual design and construction of the southbound interchange to connect the Oxbow site and SR 99, then the Developer will submit a Design Report, and Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS &E) package to the State for review and aproval. Upon approval, the southbound interchange would then be constructed. (Clarification added.) If, as a result of the Duwamish Valley EIS (EIS), it is determined that the Developer's mitigation should be to participate on a equal share basis to fund the areas transportation improvement needs, then this equal share will be paid into a transportation benefit district (TBD), local improvement district (LID), or other mitigation fee program in lieu of the mitigation described in pragraph ... above. (Clarification added.) (Tukwila is to) Require the Developer to fulfill the mitigation requirements spelled out in the County's May 26, 1987 MDNS. (Clarity added.) If, as a result of the Duwamish Valley EIS, it is determined that the Developer's mititgation should be to participate on an equal share basis to fund the areas transportation needs, the City will set up a mitigation fee program in order to collect the participating share." 3. Ron Cammeron participated in drafting the MOA and recalls the following: A. The "attachment" was a set of calculations of possible improvements costs that were alternatives to construction of the Oxbow southbound interchange.` B. The "areas transportation needs" were limited to: Page 3 • • 1. Pacific Highway - between Boeing Access Road , and SR 599. 2. East Marginal Way S. - between Boeing Access Road and Interurban Ave. S: C. The "$7.8 - 8.3 million" estimate was the amount projected to be Boeing's "equal share" of "areas transportation needs ". 4. The EIS traffic analyses state that the following improvements are attributable to and mitigate the traffic impacts of the Oxbow development: A. Construct two lanes on the Pacific Highway bridge. B. Construct Pacific Highway bridge transition to SR 599. C. Construct sidewalks, pavement widening and lane striping on Pacific Highway between the bridge and Boeing Access Road. D. Construct lane widening and striping /demarkation on East Marginal Way between Interurban Ave. S. and the Boeing Access Road. King County improved East Marginal Way from Interurban Ave. S. to S. 112th St. at no cost to Boeing or Tukwila. 5. Separately from the MDNS and EIS Boeing and Tukwila are jointly participating in improvement of East Marginal Way between the Boeing Access Road and 16th Ave. S. This improvement is considered in the EIS to be separate from the Oxbow development mitigation. 6. The Pacific Highway bridge over the Duwamish River is in need of repair to the extent of requireing replacement. This repair is on the adopted Tukwila CIP for completion in 199 Federal funds are to be sought for replacement of the bridge using Boeing's MDNS mitigation as the City's match. 7. The courts have consistently ruled that SEPA mitigation measures must: A. Be based upon adopted SEPA policies, B. Be based upon findings of fact identifying the adverse environmental impacts that must be mitigated, and rationally showing to be the directly result from the proposed development (nexus standard), and not merely to mitigate existing adverse conditions, and Page 4 C. Be shown to rationally be the fair share of the mitigation directly attributable to the specific impacts of the proposed development. 8. Tukwila Municipal Code Section 21.04.050 vests in the Director of the Department of Community Development the office of "responsible official" for performance of "lead agency" functions assigned by SEPA to the City of Tukwila. For the purposes of SEPA Tuklwila is the "lead agency" for the EIS, a designation agreed to in writing by King County, Seattle and Tukwila. CONCLUSIONS 1. Preparation of the EIS is encumbered by the past Oxbow mitigation in the MDNS and MOA. Otherwise the decision on precisely what past mititgation is now required and what mitigation is due pursuant to Boeing's 10 year programmatic proposal would be easier to make. Good faith efforts have been expended by all parties in evaluating the impacts of the proposal in the EIS and in lending information and opinions to this decision. 2. In all conscience the Responsible Official must respect the rulings of the courts which define the parameters for imposing mitigation measures pursuant to SEPA. To act otherwise would be precipitous, at best. • 3. The court tests for mitigation measures constrain the Responsible Official to, at most, require that the EIS include only the past mitigation contained in Finding No. 4. Any other mitigation is either the result of Boeing's 10 year plan (to be mitigated in the EIS) or the result of existing conditions that must be mitigated by other proposals or the City. SEPA policies do not exist for requiring, per the MOA, Boeing to mitigate for maintenance of the Pacific Highway bridge or impacts north of the Boeing Access Road. Past impacts of the Oxbow development are shown in the EIS traffic studies to be mitigated by Finding No. 4. Other mitigating measures are the result of existing conditions or Boeing's 10 year program. Finding No. 4 lists mitigations that are directly attributable to the Oxbow development impacts and are Boeing's fair share of the solutions. DECISION Page 5 • • Based upon the above, the Responsible Official requires the past mitigation contained in Finding No. 4. '. • WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF L.Av Natural Resources BRIAN BOYLE Commissioner of Public Lands June 11, 1992 Mr. Robert S. Betts Project Coordinator Boeing Duwamish EIS Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 600 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 /7 li- JUG! 1 .1992 C1l), OF i.U. l BANNING p pT Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Betts: OLYMPIA, WA 98504 Thank you for the extended opportunity to provide our comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment proposal. The proposal could potentially impact state -owned aquatic lands on the Duwamish River. It is important to emphasize that the department's involvement is not regulatory. We are acting as the trustee on behalf of the public trust for state -owned aquatic lands. As such, any project development on state -owned land will require prior approval by the department. Comments regarding contamined sediments and storm water are as follows: 1. The EIS does not address the contaminated sediments issue.The EIS should address how Boeing plans to deal with sediment contamination along the Duwamish River.Boeing should undertake a coordinated effort to determine the extent of sediment contamination adjacent to its property and develop a plan for remediation of problems as part of the redevelopment project. 2. Boeing needs to address storm water contamination issues in a comprehensive manner for the entire redevelopment project instead of on a development basis.Sources of contaminants to storm water should be eliminated to prevent contamination of sediments.Source control efforts should be coordinated with any efforts to evaluate the extent of sediment contamination.Contamination source control should be achieved prior to sediment cleanup. 3. The EIS needs to address the sediment contamination and storm water issues in accordance with the Ecology Sediment Management Standards (Chapter 173 -204 WAC).Boeing should review and incorporate these standards into the EIS. Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer Mr. Robert S. Betts Page 2 June 11, 1992 4. Storm drain effluents should not result in adverse impacts to state - owned bedlands in the Duwamish River. Since no specific projects have been listed, the comments above are brief and general in nature.The department will provide more specific comments as Boeing proposes specific components to the redevelopment plan over the next several years. Sincerely, 9,4„„L,„ Darrel Johnston Lease Administrator Division of Aquatic Lands c: Dave Dietzman, DNR SEPA Ctr. Reference Code:DNR /SEPA 2254 de20 /sepa2254.1tr 4 June 1992 TO FROM: Mr. Robert Betts Project Coordinator Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Elliott Bay Panel Representatives Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2725 Montlake Boulevard East Seattle, WA .98112 SUBJECT: Boeing Company Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal GEOIHNEF- LJUN o51992 CITy Ot- TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Thank you for allowing us to comment on the proposal after the 1 June deadline. The Elliott Bay Panel (member agencies are: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Ecology, Muckleshoot Tribe, Suquamish Tribe, Metro and City of Seattle) is actively pursuing habitat restoration, sediment remediation, and source control improvements in the Duwamish Waterway and Elliott Bay. We would encourage the City of Tukwila and other government entities not to view the condition of the system as static. Development actions must not jeopardize environmental improvements that the Panel will implement, and should be regarded as opportunities to achieve further improvements in habitat and shoreline conditions. The Elliott Bay Panel is very interested in the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal and in working in concert with the Boeing Company in order to improve wildlife habitat in the Duwamish Waterway. The Panel would like to coordinate its efforts with other restoration projects in the Duwamish Waterway in order to increase the effectiveness of Panel restoration activities. The Elliott Bay Panel wishes to be included in any opportunity to comment on Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment as these opportunities arise. If you have any questions or wish to contact The Elliott Bay Panel, please call Mike Francisco at 553 -5569. Signature page attached. • FOR the United States of America, NOAA/Department of the Interior: wr / Name/Title / /5(1/.(/)y U FOR the State of Washington, Washington Department of Ecology: a, Co Name/Title I &9tovl�CS. �rb FOR the Suquamish Indian Tribe: 0(40 As Fji OA a P14ivrivl �, - M 0c Name/Title FOR the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe: f /A.5-r. G-► Name i (6,44 - T e c,v r., s ie ) FOR e ty of Seattle: Munic' ality of Metropolitan Seattle: Zit?! /46k gadWiCed King County Planning and Community Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 707 Smith Tbwer Building 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 296-8650 June 3, 1992 • Ln -Nn Lj JUN1 ( o9 DEP1992 T. -, i4onitiTL-A Mr. L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal Dear Mr. Beeler: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal. The following are our comments: Page 3 -7, Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies: The Highline Community Plan should be identified and the relationship to the Proposed Action indicated. The relationship of the proposal to the State Growth Management Act also should be identified. Page 3 -23, Land Use Impacts: To the extent possible, the kinds of variances, rezones, exceptions, or text amendments necessary for this proposal should be identified. Local jurisdictions can provide this information to you in order to clarify actions necessary to carry forward the proposal. Page 3 -31, Mitigation Measures: Interlocal agreements and their possible content should be mentioned as they are in the Approval Process section, page 1 -3. Page 4 -14, Transit and High Occupancy Vehicles: It is encouraging that the goal of Boeing's Transportation Management Plan's (TMP) strategy, page 4 -14, is to reduce Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) commuting from current levels. The DEIS should indicate how this will be accomplished and what aspects of Boeing's TMP program will be improved. Page 5 -5, Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives: It was not clear what kind of job shifts at the Duwamish site would occur. If jobs change from manufacturing to office, then impacts should be noted. Mr. L. Rick Beeler June 3, 1992 Page 2 We have coordinated our comments with the King County Environmental Division's Resource Planning Section. Here are their comments: King County Sensitive Area Map Folio identifies several wetlands and a 100 -year floodplain on the Oxbow site. According to the folio, the wetlands were mapped in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory, but their locations have not been field verified. The folio also identifies the property west of the Duwamish waterway as a Seismic Hazard Area. These sensitive areas need to be discussed in the DEIS. Occurrence potential should be evaluated for plant and animal species identified by State or federal agencies as threatened, endangered, candidate or sensitive. Field searches should be conducted for any listed species likely to inhabit the site. If the Tanner report did this, it should be stated. The DEIS describes generic proposals to improve water quality, enhance streambank conditions, and restore habitats lost during past development. Resource Planning supports and encourages coordination and implementation of these proposals with the appropriate agencies. Please contact me at 296 -8658, if you have questions about our comments. Sincerely, id ger JR:SB:tk D4 /dum cc: Clint Lank, Manager, Environmental Division ATTN: Derek Poon, Chief, Resource Planning Section Tom Beavers, Resource Planner Ray Moser, Acting Chief, Regional Policy and Programs Section Paul Reitenbach, Chief, Community Planning Section ATTN: Steve Boyce, Community Planner REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Planning Branch • DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEE P.O. BOX -3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124 -2255 Robert Betts, Project Coordinator Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Betts: JUN 03 7992 CITY OF I`UKWILA PLANNING DEPT. We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal with respect to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' areas of special expertise and jurisdiction by law as desginated by the President's Council on Environmental Quality on December 21, 1984. We believe the EIS and future planning would be improved with increased emphasis on water quality and sediment contamination impacts and mitigation, particularly as these may affect fish and wildlife habitat. Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement. Sincerely, 0,x.5 Kardn S. Northup Chief, Environmental Resources Section MUCKLESHDDT INDTAN TRIBE FISHERIES DEPARTMENT 40405 AUBURN - ENUMCLAW ROAD - AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98002 (206) 825 -7030 - FAX # (206) 825 -9027 Mr. Robert Betts, Project Coordinator Department of Community Planning- - City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Dear Mr. Betts: 1 June, 1992 11HIN 11 JUN 02 1992 CITY ur RUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. The Fisheries Department of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Boeing Company Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal. We offer the following comments outlining our concerns regarding potential impacts to Treaty fishing, archeological sites, nearshore habitat, water quality and suggested mitigations. We welcome the opportunity to address this proposal as a whole, because it will allow us to develop the most mutually beneficial resolution of issues concerning the Tribe. This letter will provide the framework for detailed discussions during a meeting between the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and the City of Tukwila. 1. STATUS OF THE MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE The Duwamish /Green River system, historically and presently, is one of the most important river systems in the Tribe's Usual and Accustomed area of fishing. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, holds federally guaranteed treaty rights to fisheries in the Duwamish Corridor Proposal area [United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 212 (W. D. Wash. 1974), aff'd 520 F. 2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975), cert denied 423 U. S. 1086 (1976)]. These rights are directly affected both by the potential impacts of the development, and by the directives, policies, and anticipated requests for changes to zoning provisions, shoreline requirements, and sensitive areas regulations of involved jurisdictions. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe's right of access to the Usual and Accustomed area of fishing is further affirmed by Muckleshoot Tribe v. Hall, 698 F.Supp. 1504 (W.D. Wash. 1988). In that case, the Court held that neither the Corps of Engineers, nor the City of Seattle, could issue permits for construction and operation of a facility without the consent of either Congress or the Tribe, if that facility would eliminate a portion of the Tribe's Usual and Accustomed area of fishing. The Tribe assumes mutual recognition and acceptance by the City of Tukwila of 1 • • the government -to- government relationship established by the State /Tribal Governmental Relations Policy adopted by the State of Washington in 1989. 2. STORMWATER AND WATER QUALITY A. Stormwater Runoff and Impervious Surface Areas The DEIS (pg 8 -5) indicates that impervious surface area will decrease. This statement should be validated by presentation of supporting data. Boeing has also indicated that stormwater discharge will be reduced. The FEIS should quantify these reductions, specify the design storm events that stormwater facilities will treat, and determine the projected release rate. B. Water Quality Incorporation of oil /water separators and biofiltration swales is necessary to improve water quality in the nearshore areas. Such water quality features shall be mandatory, not optional. The long history of industrial use at the Boeing property has led to localized subsurface contamination. Decreases in impervious surface area, increased surface water inflow, or changes in hydrostatic pressure may alter shallow groundwater hydrology with resultant potential migration of contaminants at locations some distance away from the sites of increased porosity. Such migration may result in human or environmental exposure to contaminants. The FEIS must propose a detection, monitoring, and remediation plan for this potential migration. 3. ARCHAEOLOGY The Duwamish River was a nexus of pre - settlement Tribal culture. Redevelopment activities may impact sites of historical and cultural importance. The only reference to Tribal cultural or archeological sites is to the Duwamish Tribe (DEIS pg 3 -16), a Tribe not recognized Federally. To ensure that discovery of artifacts, cultural or historical sites does not severely hamper redevelopment, or create problems of disputed control, a Memorandum Of Agreement should be developed with the Federally recognized Muckleshoot Tribe to determine and implement measures needed to mitigate impacts upon Native American cultural resources. 4. NON WATER DEPENDENT SHORELINE USE Boeing's proposed mitigation measures (compensatory setbacks such as plazas and other pedestrian oriented facilities) for non -water dependent shoreline use are insufficient. These measures offer no fisheries habitat compensation for the continued impacts of non -water dependent facilities upon shorelines, particularly when facilities abut, shade, or overtop shoreline or water, and therefore displace and impact fisheries habitat. Shoreline development policies [WAC 173 -14 -055 (6)] direct that a vested nonconforming use shall not be changed to another nonconforming use. Given that the focus of the proposed redevelopment is to switch from manufacturing to an emphasis on laboratory, office and developmental uses, the FEIS should examine whether the current nonconforming facilities, following redevelopment, will remain vested as nonconforming. 2 • • 5. FISHERIES HABITAT ENHANCEMENT AND RESTORATION A. Introduction Though we welcome the statement that consideration may be given "to replacing riprap bulkheads with new retention structures and riparian vegetation" (DEIS pg 8 -7), the emphasis for streambank enhancement work appears to be public and employee access rather than fish habitat: "restore or enhance the Duwamish Waterway shoreline where needed with new riprap bulkheads, shoreline vegetation, pedestrian access trails and shoreline viewpoints" (Proposal /Design Guidelines [PDG] pg 3, DEIS pg 2 -4). The FEIS must expand upon the stated intent to both enhance current habitat and restore lost habitat for the shorelines under Boeing's control (DEIS pg 8 -7). It should indicate specific enhancement and restoration goals over the lifetime of the project. B. Riverbank Enhancement Streambank enhancement for public access and streambank enhancement for fish and wildlife habitat are not clearly distinguished; occurring in the same sentences on pages 1 -5, 2 -7, 3 -26, 8 -7 of the DEIS. This obscures the objective of shoreline bank restoration. Enhancement of shoreline public access, trails, and streambanks does not compensate for loss of water habitat due to non -water dependent development in the shoreline zone. Stream bank enhancement must clearly indicate sufficient compensatory fisheries habitat mitigation. To further ensure habitat enhancement and restoration, a concise explanation of what is meant by "restoring the riverbank where needed" (PDG pages 2, 3) is required. The Proposal /Design Guidelines (pg 5) "proposes to enhance the Duwamish Waterway shoreline in the corridor where needed by replacing old riprap bulkheads with new retention and riparian vegetation ". This is reinforced by the statement (PDG pg 24), "restore the Duwamish Waterway bank if needed using designs that are compatible with fisheries habitat" . These statements imply that habitat restoration will be limited to areas where bank stabilization features are replaced, or renovated, with another bank stabilization process. The FEIS must state what length of streambank fisheries habitat restoration is compensatory mitigation for bank stabilization work, and what length of enhancement is noncompensatory mitigation or restoration. To assist in this, Table 3- 2, Shoreline classifications, should indicate by linear feet the nature of the current and proposed shoreline (i.e. riprap, bulkhead, intertidal mud flat, emergent marsh, pile mounted buildings). The Proposal /Design Guidelines (pg 26) states that a more gradual nearshore slope could be created by excavating the upper slope and filling the submerged area. Slope adjustments must come entirely at the expense of upland, not at the expense of the intertidal habitat. Additionally, the conceptual shoreline type documents in the Proposal /Development Guidelines state that shoreline setbacks should be measured from the pre - existing shoreline prior to bank improvements. This should be changed to read "measured from the pre- existing shoreline or altered shoreline whichever is greater ". It is stated (DEIS pg 2 -7) that "enhancement of the shoreline will be focussed on enhancing habitat with the use of riprap, perched beaches, and riparian vegetation" . 3 • • The Duwamish River has an excess of intertidal, large, hard surface material, and a dearth of intertidal mud flats and marshes. Given the length of shoreline involved, costs of enhancement, and the sites described in the Tanner report, the FEIS should propose and discuss fisheries habitat enhancement for habitats in short supply. Additionally, the potential advantages and disadvantages of offsite enhancement should be considered and discussed. C. Habitat Restoration The DEIS implies that the Tanner (1991) report, "Potential Intertidal Habitat Restoration Sites in the Duwamish River Estuary" identifies most available habitat restorations sites. This is not entirely correct and underestimates restoration possibilities. The Tanner report identified 24 potential habitat restorations sites that consisted of undeveloped shoreline areas, generally one acre in size or larger (Tanner 1991). Additionally, the DEIS (pg 8 -4) states that "the only Boeing controlled site identified in the report for potential restoration is Slip No. 6" . Boeing, however, abuts other sites identified in the Tanner report. To place habitat restoration within the same time frame and overall planning process as site redevelopment, the FEIS should propose specific habitat restoration goals over the lifetime of the redevelopment project. D. Tribal Involvement in Fisheries Restoration and Mitigation Planning The DEIS (pages 1 -5, 2 -4, 2 -7, 3 -29, 8 -7) refers to proposed fisheries habitat restoration in cooperation with Federal and State agencies. No reference is made to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe as a co- manager of the fisheries resource. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, as a federally recognized co- manager of the fisheries resource must be included with the Federal and State agencies in planning fisheries habitat mitigation measures and restoration work. 5. SUMMARY Though it is difficult to propose specific fisheries habitat enhancement and restoration projects in the context of a non - project EIS, specific goals to be achieved over the lifetime of the project can be elucidated. The DEIS has stated Boeing's concept for future development with a broad framework. To avoid disputes regarding mitigation measures for both the redevelopment as a whole, and project specific sites, overall fisheries habitat enhancement and restoration goals must be outlined. The Muckleshoot Fisheries Department' is willing to assist in the development of those goals. Given the significance of this redevelopment proposal, and the status of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe as a co- manager of the fisheries resource, we request a meeting with the City of Tukwila to further outline our concerns. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call me at 825 -7030. Roderick Malcom Habitat Specialist 4 � � r • • cc: Fish Commission Office of the Tribal Attorney/ Rob Otsea BIA/ Gerald Cobell FWS/ COE/ Regulatory Branch WDF/ Randy Carman DCLU/ BALD/ BOEING/ Jeff Zahir • 5 • STATE OF WASHINGTON • DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 May 29, 1992 Mr. Robert S. Betts City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila WA 98188 Dear Mr. Betts: LLiji U JUN 03 1992 CITY OF iiiKVPLA PLANNING DEPT. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal proposed by The Boeing Company. We reviewed the DEIS and have the following comments. Shorelands The shoreline jurisdiction within the Duwamish corridor is established as a shoreline of statewide significance subject to the use preferences set forth in Chapter 93.58.020 RCW. The redevelopment plan appears to generally support and further the intent of these use preferences. While individual site impacts and details will be addressed during those project plan reviews, it is appropriate to address major issues relating to an individual site now while assessing the overall project. One of these issues is the overwater non - conforming status of Plant 2. Figure 3 -5 on Page 3 -25 indicates that use within the Plan will shift to some lab /office and office space. The manufacturing use may require the continuance of the overwater structure but the shift in use should reduce the amount of river frontage requiring the overwater location. In the overall balance of redevelopment impacts, this should be included. A second issue is the construction of the pedestrian bridge adjacent to the Duwamish Office Park East. The redevelopment plan spells out the general formula for constructing public access as redevelopment progresses. This formula appears to be reasonable and adequate. However, it is unclear how this bridge fits into the linear footage. It is clearly an important link shown in figure 3 -3 on Page 3 -15. However it does not show up on the Access and Trail Plan in Figure 3 -6 on Page 3 -30. Does Boeing consider this part of their plan, and what activity would trigger construction of this part of the trail? The shoreline and access standards presented in the redevelopment plan are commendable for their diversity and useability. While many access areas will only be available to Boeing employees, the aesthetic and riparian habitat improvements will have broader public benefits. Subsequent individual projects will be reviewed for their overall balance of access and development with habitat and "natural" amenities in keeping with the use preferences of the shorelines of statewide significance. 3 Mr. Robert S. Betts May 29, 1992 Page 2 Finally, while the following items will be addressed in site specific review, they are integral to appropriate mitigation of redevelopment impacts. Public access, both for the general public and employees, should include sufficient signage to direct and encourage use. It should be designed within the site to appear and ensure personal safety with adequate visibility and lighting. It should include, where necessary, adequate and signed parking to encourage use. If you have any questions with the Shorelands comments, please call Ms. Nora Jewett at (206) 459 -6789. Waste Reduction and Recycling The applicant should check with solid waste officials, garbage haulers, and recyclers to locate recycling services that are available locally. Recycling programs and requirements outlined in the local comprehensive solid waste management plan may affect the project. The applicant should also refer to the local comprehensive solid waste management plan for recycling programs and requirements in the community. The facilities should be designed to accommodate recycling. Opportunities for recycling aluminum, other metals, glass, newspaper, corrugated containers, plastics, office paper and other materials should be as convenient as throwing them out. Space should be provided to accommodate the storage of these materials both inside the buildings and at a centralized location outside the buildings. The applicant, when considering space in the design of the buildings, may also want to consider processing equipment, such as a baler, to compact recyclables). During the construction phase of the project, we encourage the applicant to use products made from recycled materials wherever possible. Products containing recycled materials include parking lot bumper stops, park and picnic benches, landscape timbers and sign posts made from recycled plastic, rubberized asphalt made with recycled tires, glassphalt made with ground glass, insulation and other building materials. An inquiry to a building material supplier will provide information on what products are available and at what percent the products contain recyclable materials (the higher the better). During the landscaping phase of the project, we recommend using recycled materials. Compost from recovered organic waste can be used as a soil amendment in landscaping. Chipped woody debris can be used to mulch ornamental beds, to control erosion on slopes, and as a base for pathways and jogging trails. We also recommend that organic landscaping debris generated on -site be used on -site. • • Mr. Robert S. Betts May 29, 1992 Page 3 During the construction phase of the project, we encourage the applicant to recycle construction debris and to reduce construction waste whenever possible. The Department of Ecology's Waste Reduction, Recycling and Litter Control Program staff are available to assist in developing or implementing waste reduction and recycling programs. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Peter Christiansen at (206) 649 -7048. Sincerely, ---Pap24td/ M. Vernice Santee Environmental Review Section MVS: 92 -2743 cc: Peter Christiansen, NWRO Janet Thompson -Lee, NWRO Nora Jewett, NWRO Linda Rankin, Shorelands NANCY McKAY Executive Director May 29, 1992 JUN 0 3 1992 CITY U1= rUKWI A STATE OF WASHINGTON I PLANNING DEPT PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY PO Box 40900 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -0900 • (206) 493 -9300 Robert S. Betts: Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Betts: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal of the Boeing Company. We support the project and appreciate the many environmental considerations that Boeing has designed into it. We view the project as both improving Boeing's economic progress as well as the natural environment of the lower Duwamish as an aging manufacturing facility will be re- developed with more modern environmental designs. Staff of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority have reviewed the DEIS for consistency with the 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan (the Plan) and support the project as largely consistent with its goals. Programs of the Plan that are pertinent to this project include: wetlands, habitat, stormwater, sediments, nonpoint, and the municipal and industrial program. The proposal for redevelopment would involve demolition 3.7 million square feet of floor area and construction of about 4.3 million square feet of new floor area. Use of the redeveloped areas would shift in emphasis from manufacturing to research and development. We support the project goals, which include an enhanced natural and aesthetic environment and efficient use of resources. In addition, we are pleased to see that several of the 13 planning goals established in the Growth Management Act are positively addressed by the proposed redevelopment of the industrial corridor, including: addressing urban growth, reduction of sprawl, transportation, economic development, open space, recreation, and the environment. Following are our specific comments on the DEIS. HABITAT AND WETLANDS We encourage Boeing to consider the habitat restoration potential of the shoreline area at the Developmental Center at Slip 6. Proposed changes to the shoreline as described on p. 3 -27 of the DEIS include bank stabilization and the use of rip rap. This site • • was identified as one of 24 potential restoration sites in the Duwamish River Estuary in a report by C.T. Tanner for the Port of Seattle and the EPA. We refer you to the recommendations in this report which is also cited in the DEIS. We request that the City and the applicant try to ensure that development along the Duwamish waterway shoreline not negatively impact the habitat restoration project that has been funded by an EPA Coastal America grant as part of the implementation of element W -8 of the Plan. The Coastal America restoration project will occur at three sites in the vicinity of Boeing's redevelopment proposal. We encourage Boeing to proceed with Shoreline Type "D" as described on p. 29 of the Design Guidelines for other shoreline development sites. This design includes creation of new wetlands /fisheries habitat areas which could serve as an extension of the Coastal America restoration project. STORMWATER, SEDIMENTS AND SPILLS Currently, storm drainage from the paved portions and rooftops of the study area discharge to points along the Duwamish Waterway. More than 95 percent of the study area is covered by impervious surfaces. We support measures in the redevelopment plan that will address these stormwater flows. Consistent with the guidance of the Puget Sound Stormwater Manual (elements SW -3 and SW -4 of the Plan), we strongly encourage decrease in impervious surfaces which would allow a greater quantity of precipitation to be absorbed by vegetation and to reach the groundwater system. In particular, we support the use of grassy (biofiltration) swales, where practicable, for stormwater detention to improve the quality of discharge water and sediments. Additional measures could include mechanical filtration systems where biofiltration is not practical, upgrading and improving maintenance of existing oil /water separators, and construction of alternative collection and disposal systems. Runoff and siltation during construction should also be carefully managed per the Puget Sound Stormwater Manual. In the permit approval process, best management practices for addressing stormwater should be carefully reviewed and implemented. We also support the spill prevention measures outlined in the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan. OTHER PROGRAMS The project also appears to be consistent with both the Green - Duwamish Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan prepared by King County and with the Elliott Bay Urban Action Team Program. These programs implement elements NP -2 and P -13 of the Puget Sound Plan, respectively. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the DEIS. • • Boeing has demonstrated over the recent years that they are a cooperative partner in the enhancement of the Duwamish; we look forward to the continuation of this spirit. Sincerely, ad* SCI Pe465 Vallana Piccolo Environmental Supervisor cc: Jeff Zahir, Boeing r TO: Ron Cameron FROM: Phil Frase DATE: May 29, 1992 SUBJECT: ,pqo /eft '4174- udi mil ►,.• ... w - -re Of S S Tests , Ls 9AN i M E M O R A N D U M q 1MVZ `OM. k ,� ,-z�. T-i. mw «s� '-Cll'Y Ur 1 i t Review Comments on Drama Redevelopment Proposal dated May 8, 1992 (,/e or Duwamish Corridor From my reveiw of Chapter 8 of the May 8, 1992 Duwamish Corridor Re- development Proposal I provide the following comments: 1. Page 8 -1, paragraph 3 'states, "...The storm drainage system on Boeing sites is independent of the East Marginal Way South roadway drainage system, which was recommended for improvement in a recent basin study..." I disagree with this statement. From my field observations of E. Marginal Way S. I found sections of E. Marginal Way S. surface water drainage runs off - .directly into Boeing properties; further, drainage systems for some portions of E. Marginal Way S. .discharge into Boeing properties drainage systems. E. Marginal and Boeing properties drainage systems are intertied. From reading this Proposal it is evident that, a basic understanding of the public and private drainage systems has not been developed to come to conclusions reached. Additional inventory work is needed to fully understand how the systems interrelate. 2. Page 8 -3, paragraph 4 states, "...Stormwater quality has not been determined, but is expected to be typical of discharges from paved streets and parking areas surrounding urban industrial sites in the Puget Sound region..." I disagree with this statement. There are indications in this report that there are uncharacteristic sources of water pollution in the study area. As an example: Page 8 -3, paragraph 2 states, "Over the course of this industrialization, the discharge of oils and other toxicants from industrial uses and from landfills (for domestic garbage) produced serious water quality problems in the Duwamish...Additionally, other non -point pollution sources (such as chemical and bacterial pollution) continue to produce tempmerature increases and low dissolved oxygen levels... ". Paragraph 4 of the same page states, "Water in the estuary frequently exceeds the standards for coliform bacteria, temperature, and some metals. Standards are exceeded morefrequently near the mouth of the estuary, downstream of the study area, than in the immediate study area..." Also there are signifiant pollution clean ups I have been told by staff that have occurred on Boeing properties and other properties in this area (a superfund clean up site is in this project area). 3. On Page 8 -7, second paragraph under MITIGATION MEASURES it states: - "..Boeing's redevelopment of the area provides an opportunity to examine stormwater drainage issues in a comprehensive manner. It would be sound planning practice for the Boeing Company to develop a drainage master plan for its properties along the Duwamish corridor Page 2 May 29, 1992 Memo and to coordinate the development of that plan with the proposed roadway and utility improvements for East Marginal Way S." I have 2 comments about the above statement: A. This statement sounds like a suggestion, not a requirement. I think this should be a commitment of Boeing to pay for their proportionate share of a COMPREHENSIVE DRAINAGE STUDY for the study area recognizing the significant issues already raised within the report that require study and mitigation. B. The mitigations discussed in the report apparently include restoration /enhancement of fish & wildlife habitat and some biofiltration as part of new development activities. I think that the scope of commitment in this study and subsequent mitigations needs to be clarified so the expectations of Boeing and the City are one and the same. To accomplish this I would add the following: The Drainage Master Plan will include the following elements: a. A complete inventory and hydraulic analysis of both public and private drainage systems. Identification of system deficiencies along with remedies (include alternatives and recommendations) b. A water quality study of the study area c. A fish enhancement study d. An inventory and assessment of bulkheads in the floodway. Recommendations for corrections. e. An inventory of oil /water separators and other treat- ment facilities. Recommendation for retrofit of storm systems: goal - all storm water through oil /water separators prior to discharge. Also, maintence program for proper maintenance controls of water quality. f. An inventory of biofilration systems in study area. Recommendation of most suitable locations for placement of future treatment facilities. g. Review of NPDES requirements. Development of compliance schedule for modifications to NPDES discharges to meet requirements. h. Inventory of existing CSO's in study area. Recommenda- tion for elimination of CSO's and potential treatment of stormwater in future. i. Upstream flooding /interceptor line capacity /construction of wetlands for detention /and, use of outfalls in "MLK -BAR" study area needs to be identified in study as a portion of this study area lies with in the the Proposal. (Question: who at METRO and Seattle have commented on ?) • Page 3 May 29, 1992 Memo Along with completion of this study, a commitment to implementation of mitigations that come out of this study needs to be made by Boeing for their proportionate share of such mitigations. xc. Development File: Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal King County Division of Roads and Engineering Department of Public Works King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue - Room 900 Seattle, WA 98104 -2339 May 29, 1992 Mr. Robert Betts, Project Coordinator Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 • Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal Dear Mr. Betts: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft DEIS for the redevelopment of Boeing's Duwamish corridor facilities. The Roads and Engineering Division has the following comments: o We have no objection to the alternative improvement to our original requirement of providing a southbound on -ramp to SR 99 at the Oxbow. Whether or not the City of Tukwila has the authority to nullify or modify a condition placed on the development by King County remains unclear. o It is recommended that an explanation be given regarding when the previously committed mitigation measures described on Page 4 -40 will be provided under any of the alternatives of the redevelopment proposal. These mitigations were only deferred until total evaluation of the redevelopment is complete. It should also be noted when the obligations for previous development will be satisfied if a No Action alternative is chosen. o One of the previously committed mitigation measures for the Oxbow Corporate Park facility was a pro -rata share for the First Avenue South Bridge project. The Oxbow facility was and still is within the jurisdictional boundaries of unincorporated King County. It should be made clear that these funds are a share of King County's obligations to the First Avenue South Bridge project. An explanation of when those funds will be provided should be stated in all the alternatives. SA /dskl.ab /t1040 g�� JUN 02 1992 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. I Mr. Robert Betts May 29, 1992 Page 2 Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this DEIS. If you have questions, or would like further information, please call Sandy Adams, Intergovernmental Relations Coordinator, at 296 -3724. Sincerely, Louis J. Haff, .E. County Road Engineer LJH /SA /ab cc: Ann Dold, Chief, SEPA Section ATTN: Joshua Goldfinger, Environmental Planner Karleen Sakumoto, Assistant Manager, Roads and Engineering Division ATTN: Sandy Adams, Intergovernmental Relations Coordinator Bill Hoffman, Manager, Transportation Planning Section ATTN: Dan Burke, Transportation Planner Mark Madden, Acting Manager, Traffic and Planning Section ATTN: Gary Samek, Supervising Engineer, Development Review SA /dskl.ab /t1040 �� ITIETRO • Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle • Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 May 29, 1992 Mr. Robert Betts, Project Coordinator City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 �0 [JUN 01 1992 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal - The Boeing Company Dear Mr. Betts: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to Metro's wastewater facilities. However, we have the following comments regarding water quality and Metro's public transportation services. Water Quality The proposed shoreline development /restoration standards /concepts (Type "A" through "D ") are of special interest to Metro. As you know, Metro and the City of Seattle agreed to a settlement with the U.S. Government, the State of Washington, and the Muckleshoot and Suquamish Tribes for alleged injury to natural resources resulting from storm water and combined sewer overflow discharges to the Duwamish River and Elliott Bay. The settlement Consent Decree identified specific actions to implement source control, sediment remediation and habitat restoration actions in the settlement area. The Elliott Bay Settlement Implementation Panel, authorized by the Consent Decree, is presently developing a long term vision for a comprehensive Duwamish River and Elliott Bay restoration plan. The Panel also expressed interest in maximizing habitat restoration and sediment remediation actions through coordination and cooperation with other planned projects. The Boeing Company's programmatic Duwamish shoreline development /restoration plans should be developed in concert with the Panel's shoreline habitat restoration actions. Robert Betts May 29, 1992 Page Two Consequently, Metro encourages the City of Tukwila and the Boeing Company to develop the 10 year Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Plan in coordination and cooperation with the Elliott Bay Settlement Panel. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this, please call Robert G. Swartz (684 -1713) or Robert I. Matsuda (684- 1218). Public Transportation Metro commends the Boeing Company for its ongoing transportation management efforts and looks forward to supporting the City of Tukwila and Boeing in developing effective High Occupancy Vehicle /transit access in support of the proposed redevelopment program. Metro has a standing master Transportation Management Plan agreement with Boeing which is described in the DEIS. The references to the Regional Transit Project in Appendix C of the DEIS are somewhat dated. We are enclosing graphics which reflect the current state of the regional transit project alternatives under consideration. The Regional Transit Project is a cooperative project between the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) , Pierce Transit, and Snohomish County transit planning and operating agencies, including the Snohomish County Transportation Authority (SNO- TRAN), Community Transit, and Everett Transit. The three Regional Transit Project alternatives currently under consideration are commonly known as: the Transportation Systems Management(TSM) Alternative, the Transitway /TSM Alternative, and the Rail /TSM Alternative. The following Within the southern portion of the Regional Transit Project planning area, the TSM Alternative proposes construction of HOV lanes on SR 167 and I -5. On SR 509 an HOV ramp connecting the 1st South Bridge to 4th Avenue South is proposed as is a HOV lane from Cloverdale to SR 518 No HOV lanes are proposed on SR 518 or SR 99 in the vicinity of the Duwamish project. Robert Betts May 29, 1992 Page Three The Transitway /TSM Alternative proposes an exclusive transitway that would extend from the International District Station to Tacoma via the E -3 Busway, then the Union Pacific / BNSF Burlington Northern Railroad rights -of -way, then to the planned center I -5 HOV lanes. As an alternative, the transitway could cross the 1st South Bridge on the planned HOV lanes and follow SR 99 and SR 599 to connect with I -5. The Rail /TSM Alternative consists of three alternative alignments, but the precise alignment locations have not as yet been determined. All of the alignments follow the same route once past SR 99 in the vicinity of SR 518 (SeaTac Airport). The alignment would continue south on relocated 28th Avenue South to the City of SeaTac, then along the proposed SR 509 extension to connect with I -5 in the vicinity of South 216th Street. It would then follow the I- 5/SR-99 corridor south to Tacoma The Commuter Rail alignment would operate from Tacoma to the King Street Station in Seattle along the Burlington Northern or Union Pacific railroad tracks. The commuter rail line could connect with the rest of the rail system at Tacoma, Longacres, Boeing Access Road and at the International District /King Street Station. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Compliance and Right -of -Way and Property Division GMB:ymg1508 Enclosures: 3 Regional Transit Project graphics cc: Val Batey, Regional Transit Project Robert Matsuda, Water Resources :SEATTLE • Transit Hub Expansion Stations / Access Imp Park & Ride Expansion New Arterial Regional Regional Transitway Improvements itt Transit March 10, 1992 KING COUNTY • PIERCE COUNTY • SNOKNOSH COUNTY ISIACI.COR le MS. KM COUNT/• IOJfCE COUNT/ • I OCW.1COIMTY RIPEO26a era Rail alignment nn tCommuterrail • Station SMOSI Rail alignment alternatives 2020 Regional Rail Base Alignment 3/11/92 Major TSM Capital Facilities . Regional via COUNTY • PIERCE COUNTY • SNOHOMISH COUNTY ISA4121.COR March 10, 1992 Washington State Department of Transportation Duane Berentson Secretary of Transportation May 28, 1992 Mr. Robert S. Betts Project Coordinator, Boeing Duwamish EIS Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 600 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Betts: District 1 15325 Southeast 30th Place Bellevue, WA 98007 -6538 (206) 562-4000 [MAY 2 9 1992 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal DEIS Review Comments This letter is in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued by the city of Tukwila for the Boeing Company's proposed redevelopment of properties in the Duwamish corridor. Over the next ten years, approximately 3.7 million square feet of floor area will be demolished and replaced with 4.3 million square feet of new floor area. Boeing's emphasis in the Duwamish corridor will shift from manufacturing to research and development. Company employment levels in the corridor would not exceed a population of 25,000. The 4.5 mile long corridor encompasses land on both sides of the Duwamish Waterway between Ellis Avenue South on the north and South 126th Street on the south. Two build alternatives and a no- action alternative are examined in the DEIS. Our comments regarding the DEIS for this proposal are as follows: 1. The Land and Shoreline Use section of the DEIS indicates that the proposal is generally consistent with the comprehensive plans and policies of the city of Seattle, the city of Tukwila and King County. The Shoreline Management Master Plans and Sensitive Areas Ordinances of the three jurisdictions also seem to have been incorporated in the design guidelines for this proposal. Although the proposal appears to be consistent with the goals and policies of Vision 2020 and the Growth Management Act, the DEIS does not mention this relationship. The DEIS should indicate the connection between the proposal and Vision 2020, the adopted regional transportation plan and development strategy, and the provisions of the Growth Management Act. Mr. Robert S. Betts Duwamish Corridor May 28, 1992 Page 2 2. The Transportation section of the DEIS indicates that the proposed alternative would generate more first shift employee trips 'than the other alternatives. As a result, the level of service (LOS) on several roadways in the corridor would deteriorate to an unacceptable condition. To Mitigate the adverse traffic impacts of this proposal, Boeing has indicated that its primary focus for new traffic mitigation will be on Transportation Management Plan (TMP) elements rather than on road improvements. The TMP elements.isted as mitigation measures in the DEIS need to be implemented if Boeing expects to meet the single occupant vehicle (SOV) trip reduction goals required by the. state's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Act. 3. As mitigation for previous development in the Duwamish corridor, Boeing was required to construct roadway improvements along East Marginal Way South, .contribute a pro -rata share for the First Avenue South Bridge project, and to construct a southbound on -ramp to SR 99 at the Oxbow interchange (South 102nd Street). These improvements have not been constructed yet. As indicated in the DEIS, alternative improvements to the Oxbow ramp are . being explored as a means of providing equivalent mitigation that also serves a wider "public ". This effort has been focused . primarily on double left turn lanes and two lane on -ramps at the SR 599/SR 99 interchange. While it appears feasible that the SR 599 interchange improvements,. would mitigate some of Boeing's traffic impacts, we would like to see another option examined for its feasibility as well. • This option would construct an exclusive, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) flyover ramp . to southbound SR 99 at the Oxbow interchange. The ramp' .would touch down in the SR 99 median. We will be constructing ramp metering with an inside HOV bypass lane at SR 599 and SR 5 in the future. The flyover ramp at Oxbow will support this facility. We will also be investigating the cost effectiveness of adding a HOV lane to the median in the southbound direction. Mr. Robert S. Betts Duwamish Corridor May 28, 1992 Page 3 The option above could be combined with the suggestions for improvements to the SR 599 interchange. The City should continue working with our Planning and Traffic Sections to resolve issues before the FEIS is published. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIS for Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal. If you have any questions concerning these remarks, please contact my staff member responsible for reviewing EIS matters, Mr. David Oberg; at 562 -4106. Sincerely, DONALD K. NELSON, P.E. Manager of Planning and Local Coordination DAD :em 60em /boeing To: Jack Pace From: Ron Cameron Subject: E Marginal Boeing Programmatic E Date: May 28, 1992 • WO 2 9 1992 CITY co. ToKWILA DEPT. PLANNING WSDOT asked for additional info at the May 8 meeting to determine their recommendation on the Oxbow interchange. Additional work needed Boeing approval for CH2M to estimate the cost to build an HOV flyover to SR99 from the Oxbow site, make volume projections, and determine affects on SR99/599 & Pac Hwy. Jerry Shuetz, WSDOT, called asking if the info is ready. WSDOT is also concerned about the EIS HOV projections being too optimistic - using the CTR regulations as being achieved in the LOS calcs. WSDOT requests: cost estimate for an HOV only flyover ramp from Oxbow to SR99 SB volume projection changes for the Oxbow analysis with an HOV only flyover with flyover using more optimistic HOV participation than used in the Oxbow supplemental analysis travel time study from the Boeing Oxbow lot to SR99 /Pac Hwy SB on ramp gore WSDOT is seriously pursuing requiring the previous Oxbow interchange improvement requirement for a southbound on ramp but revised for HOV only. They need this info to complete that assessment. Once this info is available, we'll need to work with WSDOT on deter- mining the Oxbow mitigation requirement; that will determine other mitigations in the programmatic. This will take a month to resolve and will require extension of the draft EIS. The EIS states that Boeing and E Marginal drainage is separated. This is not the case, existing E Marginal drainage is connected to the pipes that cross Boeing to the river. The EIS needs to be cor- rected. Boeing's position on the street drainage needs to be clarified; if it is desired to separate the street drainage, then, easements and provisions for the separated systems - design, ease- ments, and costs for loss of the existing drainage need to be re- solved. Identification of the water defeciency, correction alternatives, and affects of the conversion from manufacturing to office /lab needs to be provided. Earl Clymer, Mayor CITY OF RENTON Planning /Building /Public Works Department Lynn Guttman, Administrator May 27, 1992 Mr. Robert S. Betts Department of Community Developments 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 SUBJECT: DEIS for Boeing's Proposed Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Corridor Dear Mr. Betts: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced document. We have circulated this to various departments and have no comments at this time. We do anticipate that changes in the make up of the work force from primarily "blue collar" to "white color" employees may over time have an impact on housing prices in the region and possibly alter commute patterns assuming a more affluent work force and possibly different areas of residence. Usually in such cases workers find residences closer to their place of employment assuming there are choices within the economic means. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. We would like to receive a copy of the Final EIS when it is published. Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 'MEM 11 MAY 2 71992 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Seattle City Light M. J. Macdonald, Acting Superintendent Norman B. Rice, Mayor May 21, 1992 RCiVED 1,1M 211992 °Er! nr cossiaticTfl2N& NQ USE Martin Fricko Land Use Specialist Department of Construction and Land Use 710 Second Avenue Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 -1703 Dear Mr. Fricko: Comments on Programmatic DEIS for Boeing Duwamish Corridor Seattle City Light (SCL) staff have reviewed the above referenced document and have the following comments:. • There is no discussion of the impacts on SCL's distribution facilities or communications plant. This is a serious omission given Tukwila's position on our use of street rights -of -way. Such a discussion should be included in the FEIS. • SCL owns property within three of the Boeing sites covered by the Duwamish proposal, namely the Development Center, the Oxbow site, and North Boeing Field. Each property is under a long term lease to Boeing, or a developer who has subleased to Boeing. Any use of SCL properties beyond the scopes of the original leases must be approved by SCL. - - - - -- - - • SCL encourages Boeing to consider energy efficiency as a mitigation measure. We recommend that the Boeing Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with SCL be finalized as soon as possible and be included in the FEIS. It is understood by SCL that the draft MOA is currently undergoing internal Boeing review. SCL has requested the following commitments on Boeing's behalf: •to significantly exceed the Seattle Energy Code requirements in the Duwamish Corridor projects; •not to exceed current average energy use in the Duwamish Corridor; •to fully utilize SCL's conservation funding programs; An Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer City of Seattle — City Light Department, 1015 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 -1198, Telephone: (206) 625 -3000, FAX: (206) 625 -3709 Printed on recycled paper c Martin Fricko Page 2 May 20, 1992 •designation of Boeing engineers to work with SCL's Industrial Conservation Staff to develop standard specifications for commonly used energy conservation technologies; •designation of a Boeing contact person for each project and each area of expertise. For its part, SCL has committed to the following: •SCL will provide substantial economic incentives for Boeing to go beyond the Energy Code. In general, the MOA will serve as a medium to establish a process for increased energy savings. Boeing and SCL will agree to work together to achieve all of the above mentioned goals through open communication and regularly scheduled meetings. The mechanism for providing free design assistance and incentives is participation in SCL's Energy Smart Design Program. Javad Maadanian at 684 -3786 should be contacted for more information about the Energy Smart Design Program. Please incorporate all of the above comments in the FEIS. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIS. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Suzanne Zolfo of my staff at 386 -4562 for assistance. Sincerely, Lynn Best Manager, Special Projects Unit Environmental Affairs Division SZ:bh "An Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer" City of Seattle — City Light Department, 1015 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 -1198, Telephone: (206) 625 -3000, FAX: (206) 625 -3709 Printed on recycled paper C Minutes of PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Plan City of Tukwila Council Chambers 7:30 PM May 20th, 1992 CASE NUMBER: EPIC- 21 -91 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company Attending: Jack Pace Tukwila; Project Lead Robert Betts, Project Coordinator Lloyd Skinner, CH2M HILL; EIS consultant Jeff Zahir, Boeing; Planner Jack Pace called the meeting to order. Mr. Pace addressed the schedule for preparing the Environmental Impact Statement, and the process for completing it. Jeff Zahir provided a description of the background for the proposed redevelopment of the Duwamish Corridor. He indicated that many buildings were obsolete. The company needed to convert them from manufacturing activities to engineering offices and laboratories. New technologies can be accommodated in a campus -plan, but there is the need to coordinate any redevelopment with the affected municipalities. He noted that the State Environmental Policy act (SEPA) is the the best forum in which to investigate the planned redevelopment. Mr. Pace then opened the meeting to questions. The following summarizes the topics. Peak hour traffic. Mr. Zahir noted that the proposal will address it in several ways: One is to use incentives to reduce the number of trips, such as encouraging use of High Occupancy Vehicles. Another is through changes to the capacity of roads, such as widening them, and the last is the possibility of light rail along Boeing Access Road. Light Rail. One person asked about the possibility of light rail along State Route 99, and noted Metro's reluctance to consider it. It was noted SR 99 is not a subject of the Boeing company proposal. Light rail can, as noted above, be accommodated along Boeing Access Road. Impacts of Adding to the East Marginal Way Corporate Park. If Boeing developed more buildings here in the future, specific impacts would be addressed through a separate process at the time a building is proposed. • • • Public Meeting Minutes Duwamish Corridor EIS 2 Bridge over the Duwamish. A separate pedestrian bridge would be constructed shortly to provide a Green River Trail linkage across the Duwamish. This is part of the overall set of improvements for the regional trail in the Corridor. Rhone- Poulenc site is not owned by Boeing, and would have a separate environmental review when it is developed by its owners. The character of the EIS addresses master plan features, rather than specific buildings on specific parcels of land. The Boeing Company does not plan to acquire more land as a result of the EIS. Changes to the development regulations. Tukwila will be reviewing its shoreline plan and zoning code for possible changes. Should any changes be made, then subsequent Boeing buildings would have to meet these new regulations. It was noted Boeing's proposal exceeded present standards for public access and for improvements to shoreline. Also, it was noted that there is a process to adjust present municipal boundaries, to make them more workable than at present. Mr. Pace then closed the meeting. Approximately 20 people attended, including the four mentioned above. A copy of the sign up list is attached for reference. There were no written comments submitted at the meeting. Prepared by Robert S. Betts, Project Coordinator. .- E/A4- L—(w,4itc !s /� , Vez.or t-t / ci 4E/3 /2)6( - F�2�-t I 7C'/c/ ...:. -k 77 /AAC• G 77:T7.c�w�� PoN C'7Afui 9o4- -0 Ste. %yYTI. NA4o 0 M r 13 ,e/u i-rA yet{ r S V - /ab Q - te.t A3TC13i dIrCAN /17 ARS17'Alt- /ICK ,U' C4N4) o. obeyt L. Stevev,s r & J I r L uv c6, feu 5 , l� 12',/ 7 C _. 5. /.2 .y r.( /ter Ave_ c(d'cri 1104 OS �v.0 cr - Lc�..�cr.0 .� N1-0 ocA RES UO'Z 5Fw5 /310 e. !Ff1,4 Lam.. ' . Sj -v /oZ / Oz -(MP✓a 5e5-01 I52.3g SF 2119t4 Ke.N &, w) 98(47-- I (P11-7 SE I4 Pi4ce. R.e 4-ovi WA q SoS % 2,0J. c.. ,rec e l 0041. -�� j 9flo3. 0/5E rq— G:J , ' g• a�'Z ``S� k'# rr- :1 E'a .. 7F/`j , / -1 k: o 3z77e Y/ 0 L/' ga F,e cif- S a Ta,,,y/p : ?,;17/‘ DAN( ? AivoLF -1:( 02( 4q17---Atl6 S, 7drty /L4 28'l7< • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director City of Tukwila PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development will conduct a public meeting on May 20, 1992 at 7:30 PM at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: Public Meeting EPIC- 21 -91 The Boeing Company REQUEST: The Boeing Company proposes redevelopment of approximately 600 acres of industrial and manufacturing land along a 4.5 mile section of East Marginal Way. The primary goal of this proposal is to replace aged manufacturing production facilities. The company plans to focus these redevelopment efforts over the 1992 -2002 period. The proposal involves ' replacement of approximately 3.7 million feet of floor area with 4.3 million square feet of new buildings. These facilities are expected to have a capacity of 25,000 employees, which is consistent with present levels in the area. The City of Tukwila, acting as the Lead Agency, has prepared a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this proposal. The draft EIS was formally published May 1, 1992. This document focusses on the general policies and features to review subsequent applications for individual buildings. As it is a non - project type of environmental impact statement, it concentrates on overall issues such as traffic and shoreline access. The purpose of the public meeting on May 20th is to provide a forum for the general public to learn more about the proposal, and about the evaluations presented in the draft EIS. It will also provide the Boeing Company an opportunity to hear of any concerns or suggestions that would assist in preparation of the final EIS. . The final EIS is expected to be published in mid- August, 1992. LOCATION: A 4.5 mile section of East Marginal Way generally bounded on the south by South 126th Street, on the north by Ellis Avenue, on the west by State Route 599, and on the east by Boeing Field [King County International Airport]. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 11100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax. (206) 431 -3665 • EPIC -21 -91 [Boeing Duwamish Redevelopment] Public Notice 2 Persons wishing to comment on the above case may do so by written statement or by attending the public meeting. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be interested in the above proposal. Copies of the draft EIS may be obtained at the Tukwila Department of Community Development. Written comments may be addressed to: Robert S. Betts, Project Coordinator Boeing Duwamish EIS City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Published: Valley Daily News May 8th & May 10th, 1992 cc: City Clerk, Mayor, Applicant HARBOR ISLAND SPOKANE ST. SOUTH SEATTLE "Washington" BEACON SEWARD PARK UPLANDS GEORGETOWN \\ HIGHLAND PARK SOUTH PARK WHITE Seattle Cnr_ CENTER _L _ — —_∎ imos • _ SEATTLE BELL EVUE \ DUNLAP \; DUWAMISH IA SeanleCn, I. \ , Limes •.\ l RAINIER BEACH SOUTHERN\ -: HEIGHTS \ °• \...__ BOULEVARD PARK \ •': \ . \� Scar m Nai ALLENTOWN &ono GADD • • PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING City of Tukwila Council Chambers 6200 Southcenter Boulevard 7:30 PM May 20th, 1992 Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Plan CASE NUMBER: EPIC- 21 -91 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company MEETING PURPOSE: This meeting provides a forum for the general public to learn more about Boeing's proposal, and about the evaluations presented in the draft EIS. It will also provide the Boeing Company an opportunity to hear of any concerns or suggestions that would assist in preparation of the final EIS. PROPOSAL: The Boeing Company proposes redevelopment of approximately 600 acres of industrial and manufacturing land along a 4.5 mile section of East Marginal Way. The primary goal of this proposal is to replace aged manufacturing production facilities. The company plans to focus these redevelopment efforts over the 1992 -2002 period. The proposal involves replacement of approximately 3.7 million feet of floor area with 4.3 million square feet of new buildings. These facilities are expected to have a capacity of 25,000 employees, which is consistent with present levels in the area. EIS: The City of Tukwila, acting as the Lead Agency, has prepared a draft Environmental Impact Statement .(EIS) on this proposal. The draft EIS was formally published May 1, 1992. The final EIS is expected to be published in mid - August, 1992. I. II. AGENDA INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND - City of Tukwila THE PROPOSAL - The Boeing Company THE IMPACT STATEMENT PROCESS - City of Tukwila IV. QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ALL V. CONCLUSIONS & WRAP -UP Questions? City of Tukwila: Bob Betts, Project Coordinator Jack Pace, Senior Planner Boeing: Jeff Zahir, Project Planner CH2M Hill, EIS consultant: Lloyd Skinner 455 -9640 431 -3686 393 -2783 453 -5000 4 PAcwIcERosu CONTROL , Inc. Sea1tt1e d WtA 9D8ri1v (206) 575 -3248 • FAX (206) 575 -0411 Mr. Robert S. Betts Dept. of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Ste. 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 May 19, 1992 Re: BOEING/ DUWAMISH RIVER PUBLIC ACCESS Dear Mr. Betts: We noted with interest the Daily Journal of Commerce article regarding the Boeing Company's Plan for increased access along the Duwamish River. We are the local distributor for erosion control products and geotextiles manufactured by the Nicolon Corp. Here are brochures describing ARMORFLEX articulating block mats and ARMORFORM fabric formed concrete. Typical applications for these products are bank, shoreline and slope protection and the materials may be installed above or below water. They also make very effective boat ramps. In addition to providing safe secure access into and out of the water, ARMORFLEX precast concrete articulating block mats can be landscaped or allowed to revegetate with native plants for habitat enhancement and aesthetics. We request that you please consider these materials for erosion protection on the project. If you have any questions or need additional information please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, fr42 Phil Davis MAY 21 1992 CITY OF -I JKWILA PLANNING DEPT. 1► LAWASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF v Natural Resources BRIAN BOYLE_ Commissioner of Public Lands OLYMPIA, WA 98504 May 19, 1992 Mr. Robert Betts Project Coordinator Department of Community Development 6300 South Center Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Time Extension Dear Mr. Betts: This letter is a follow up to our phone conversation May 18,.1992 in which I requested a one week extension on the comment due date -for the Boeing DEIS review. I appreciate your willingness to grant the time extension. Thank you. Darrel Johnston, Land Manager Division of Aquatic Lands �.1 ` AY 21 1992 J CITY OF 1 i1KWILA PLANNING DEPT. Reference C Boeing lo:dj/boeing.eis o:dj /boeing.eis Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employ • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director May 18th, 1992 From: To: MEMORANDUM Jack P. Pace, Senior Planner Recipients of the draft EIS for the B o e i n g Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal Enclosed are two pages for your reference. One page, Boeing's Corporate policy on environmental affairs, was accidentally left out from the Boeing Proposal document dated May 1992. It is page 45 of that proposal. The other page, page 3 -30, replaces page 3 -30 in the draft EIS, dated May 1992. This replacement exhibit now correctly portrays two different types of access to the shoreline. Thank you. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 LEGEND Existing Boeing Shoreline Public Access Proposed Enhancement of Existing Access Proposed Connection to Green River Trail Proposed Employee Shoreline Access Figure 3 -6 EXISTING AND PROPOSED BOEING SHORELINE ACCESS AND TRAIL PLAN • i MEETING MINUTES Meeting Date: May 15, 1992, 1:00 p.m. Location: DCLU Conference Room Attendees: Rick Beeler, Tukwila DCD Bob Betts, Duwamish EIS Coordinator Rebecca Herzfeld, Seattle DCLU Jan Mulder, Seattle DCLU Lloyd Skinner, CH2M HILL Copies: Tom Tierney, Seattle Office of Intergovernmental Relations Jack Pace, Tukwila, DCD Notes by: Lloyd Skinner The meeting opened with Rick Beeler summarizing the year-long history of the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Programmatic EIS process. He explained the intent of the City of Tukwila to consolidate corridor -wide programmatic mitigation for the 10 -year master plan. Ideally this mitigation plan will be established as a. document agreed to by the three jurisdictions (Tukwila, King County, and Seattle), as well as by Boeing. "Individual projects that implement the master plan will be subject to separate review by the local agency with land use jurisdiction. This separate review may include supplemental SEPA analysis of project specifics (for example, locations of driveways or building footprints). Each project will be subject to review according to codes in effect at the time of the application. The programmatic EIS process does not "vest" Boeing's rights to apply under current codes, in other words. This issue was clarified at the meeting, recognizing that King County is presently updating its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and Tukwila will begin updating its shoreline code this year. Bob Betts summarized the public access improvements along the Duwamish Corridor proposed by Boeing as part of the master plan. Seattle, in general, agrees to the concept of off -site public access as part of a coordinated public access plan. Seattle also views the improvements proposed for the Oxbow site as an important public access feature. Although it was pointed out that trail connections away from the shoreline do not qualify as shoreline public access, Seattle also sees the proposed linkages between the Green River Trail, the Oxbow Trail, and the Museum of Flight as valuable additions to the regional system of recreational trails. HUB MAY 2 2 1992 CITY OF t UKWILA PLANNING DEPT. • Rick noted that the majority of the corridor's shoreline is within Tukwila, and that only a small portion is subject to Seattle's Shoreline Master Program (about 1,000 of 18,000 lineal feet). Rick asked for clarification of Seattle's request that additional access alternatives be studied. Rebecca explained that it was not Seattle's position that the Seattle SMP be applied to the entire corridor; however, if the public access plan proposed by Boeing is accepted by Tukwila but falls short of the Seattle SMP requirements, Seattle will continue to expect full compliance with its SMP for projects proposed within Seattle city limits. Seattle's public access requirement standards are described in SMC23.60.160, whicli was distributed and reviewed. It was noted that the King County and Tukwila SMP's are more lenient than Seattle's in public access requirements. For developments requiring more than one shoreline permit, the Seattle code offers a guideline that one public access site be provided for each 3,500 lineal feet of shoreline. Using that guideline, the roughly 18,000 lineal feet of Duwamish corridor considered in the master plan would thus be expected to provide at least five public access sites. The proposal's five sites (NDC, South Park, Developmental Center, Oxbow, and Duwamish Office Park) were discussed. One of these (Oxbow) includes 4,800 lineal feet of access, and with improvements proposed may qualify as three sites. Rebecca noted that Seattle's history with a stricter code requirement has been' that property owners are usually able to improve the initial proposal for public access, and that the public access itself often becomes a valuable site amenity. Rick suggested that additional areas might be identified for "enhancements" to the public access proposal for the corridor if security requirements or other development needs evolve. He identified three potential sites for such enhancements: Slips 4 and 6 on the east bank, and the South Park shoreline on the west bank. He stressed that these are only potential enhancement locations, and were suggested in an effort to address Seattle's concern that additional alternatives be studied. It was again recognized that individual applications would be subject to compliance with the SMP provisions of the jurisdiction responsible for issuing the substantial development permit. The meeting noted the likely Boeing concern that each individual project application could be subject to lengthy discussions about whether a new "enhancement" area would be required for permit approval, unless resolved prior to the Final EIS or the adoption of a mitigation document. Finally, the meeting addressed the timing of shoreline access improvements. Rebecca suggested that the Port of Seattle's access plan approach be used: individual shoreline improvements are tied to development at specific properties. Alternatively, shoreline improvements could be tied to development along segments of the corridor, or a formula for shoreline improvements per lineal foot of development could be established. The meeting concluded with an agreement to distribute minutes summarizing the major points. discussed. • Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation Holly Miller, Superintendent Norman B. Rice, Mayor May 15, 1992 Robert S. Betts Project Coordinator, Boeing Duwamish EIS Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 600 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Subject: Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal Draft EIS Dear Mr. Betts: We reviewed the Recreation Impact section of the EIS, and the related Redevelopment Design Guidelines. It appears that the proposed action and alternatives create opportunities to connect with and enhance the City of Seattle's proposed Duwamish Trail. Boeing's proposal to connect the Green River Trail with the Museum of Flight, and create shoreline amenities along the existing Oxbow Shoreline Trail, are very welcome. Information signage on fisheries habitat restoration on the site is consistent with this Department's efforts to expand environmental education at such places. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Sincerely, Holly Miller Superintendent PL- 98/92.PSM lg IN MAY 18 1992 CITY ®f RAM A PLANNING Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation, 2911 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98121 -1012 (206)684 -4075 An equal employment opportunity - affirmative action employer ✓ "Printed on Recycled Paper" City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard . Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor May 4, 1992 Donna Seybert The Boeing Company Orgn. 1 -1052 Mail Stop 13 -03 P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Dear Ms. Seybert: The publication of the draft EIS concludes over a year of meetings and internal reviews by both Boeing and affected agencies. In that year we have identified the major programmatic (overall) issues for the 10 -year redevelopment plan. These pertain to traffic, shoreline access, and design topics. We have proposed mitigating measures for these topics. We await the general public's comments. The work that remains has three components: responding to comments on the draft CIS; preparation of the final Environmental. Impact Statement; and consulting with Boeing and affected agencies in regard to mitigating measures to be contained in the mitigation package. Our overall schedule envisions completion of the draft EIS process by Mid June, 1992. We plan to complete and publish the final EIS by Mid August. The 'publication of the package of mitigating conditions should occur shortly thereafter. Sincerel ck P. Pace, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development encl: Invoice for $40,000 Copies of consultant and agency invoices. cc: Jeff Zahir, Boeing P &PPS Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 r Donna Seybert. The Boeing Company Orgn. 1 -1052 Mail Stop 13 -03 P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 - 2207' STATEMENT 1 CITY. OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 (206) 433 -1835 INVOICE NO Agreement # 1- 1151 - 9211 -001R -1Boeing • /Duwamish EIS Detach and mail with your check. Your cancelled check is your receipt. 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 • (206) 433 -1835 Donna Seybert The Boeing Company . Orgn. 1 -1052 Mail Stop 13 -03 - P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 INVOICE NO. Agreement No. 1 -1151- 9211 -00: Boeing /Duwamish EIS INVOICE FOR COSTS AND REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY OF TUKWILA:. April 1, 1992 Fee Billing $20,000 May 1, 19,92 Fee Billing $20,000 Total this invoice: $40,000 Please forward the payment to: City of Tukwila Finance Office Attn: Kim Hart 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 DUE UPON RECEIPT. PAST DUE AFTER 30 DAYS. PAID BY CHECK NO. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND PUBLIC MEETING A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for redevelopment of the Boeing Company's Duwamish facilities is available May 1st, for public review and comment. The lead agency is the Tukwila Department of Community Development. Proposed Action: The Boeing Company proposes redevelopment of approximately 650 acres of industrial and manufacturing land along a 4.5 mile stretch of East Marginal Way. The primary goal of this proposal is to replace aging manufacturing production facilities over the 1992 -2002 period. Under this plan, about 3.7 million square feet of floor area would be demolished, and be replaced with about 4.3 million square feet of new floor area. Emphasis in the redeveloped areas would shift from manufacturing to research & development. The mix of employees would change correspondingly, but would remain capped at 25,000 during this 10 -year period. Location: Along a 4.5 -mile section of East Marginal Way in the vicinity of Boeing Field and the Duwamish Waterway, ranging from Ellis Avenue on the north to 126th Street on the south. The majority of the project area lies within the City of Tukwila. Information Available: A copy of the DEIS is available for review at both the Tukwila Library 14475 - 95th Avenue South, and at the Foster Library 4205 South 142nd Street. Additional information about the proposal and a limited number of copies of the DEIS are available at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard. Public Meeting: A public informational meeting to gather comments on the DEIS will be held on Wednesday, May 20th, 1992 at 7:30 PM in City Council Chambers, located at 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. Written Comments: Written comments on the DEIS may be submitted through June 1st, 1992. Comments should be sent to: Department of Community Developments 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100 Attn: Robert S. Betts Tukwila, WA 98188 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 A F F I D A V I T I GGaYD .5Khibeeiz fl Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting OBoard of Adjustment Agenda Packet ❑ Board of Appeals Agenda Packet flPlanning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit fl Shoreline Management Permit O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: Determination of Non - significance Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action Official Notice IBC Other 414777(E of Der E'/S /}a.¢iustp/c /T% Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on '/4Y/1/,9,. 7ct w4-002 /5/14- Ce,0 /461:e-- Name of Project e tet- 6°PMEM A€4 %1sesignature File Number US `Coast Guard- 13th District CDR: Office Of Aids To NavigatioW 915 Second Seattle, WA 98174 t WA St. Dept Of Soc & Health Svcs PO Box 1788 Olympia, WA 98504 US Dept Of HUD - Region X Community Plan'g & Devlpt Arcade Plaza Bldg ( Seattle, WA 98104 WA St. Dept Of Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Blvd Mill Creek, WA 98012 Seattle Wa *Department 710 Second Avenue, 10th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 ..............5 n:.: <i.htr:li75:e3wCeit: >: �A: a!l�2�ii:aa:i 0`111‘ r4)U 1 South Park Community Service Cen 8201 - 10th South Seattle, WA 98108 Renton Record Chronicle 212 Wells Avenue Renton, WA 98055 Seattle Mayor's Office 600 Fourth Avenue 12th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 -1873 South Cen. Advis. Council 13217 - 38th South Tukwila, WA 98178 US Department Of Energy 809 Legion Way SE Olympia, WA 98504 -1211 US West Communications EIS Review Section 300 SW Seventh Street Renton, WA 98055 Washington Natural Gas Co. Environmental Review Section PO Box 1869 Seattle, WA 98111 Val -Vue Sewer District PO Box 68063 Seattle, WA 98168 • Attn: Bruce Sheppard Burlington Northern Railroad Co. 2200 FIC 999 Third Ave. Seattle, WA 98104 Friends Of The Duwamish 4504 South 124th I Seattle, WA 98178 King County Executive 400 KC Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 -3271 Attn: Don Smith King County Int'l Airport P 0 Box 80245 Seattle, WA 98108 ' Attn: Larry Kirchner King County Dept Of Health Environmental Health Svcs 3001 NE Fourth Renton, WA 98056 Attn: Terryl Ross Greater Seattle Chamber Of Comm. 600 University Ave Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98101 Office Of The Governor State Of WA Legislative Bldg Olympia, WA 98504 Attn: Dave Aggerholm Port Of Seattle Engineering Dept PO Box 1209 Seattle, WA 98111 Seattle Dept Of Neighborhoods Artic Building Room 400 700 -Third Ave Seattle, WA 98104 A F F I D A V I T I, /s< "KO 5K /i(JNE fl Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting. OBoard of Packet LI Board of Packet LI Planning Packet Adjustment Agenda Appeals Agenda Commission Agenda 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet LI Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit LI Shoreline Management Permit O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: fl Determination of Non - significance fl Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance flDetermination of Significance and Scoping Notice fl Notice of Action fl Official Notice 7 Other Copy of E/S Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on 4'1/ / /91c). . 75eE 1 rv-4- (bee]) 445 T Z)14A ,¢A1,s/t coteR/dot Name of Project CAE!/644PME/V7- /1641,14e- File Number Signature Seatttle Public Library Government Publications Service 1000 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-1193 WA St. Dept. Trade & Econ. Dvlpt. Attn: Barbara Brooner 2001 -Sixth Ave Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98121-2522 Duwamish Tribe 15616 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98148 Attn: Margaret Rittmann Jones & Stokes 2820 Northup Way #100 Bellevue, WA 98004 Attn: Craig Larsen King County Dept. Parks Pln'g & 707 Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98103 Attn: Tom Eksten King County Office Of Open Space 1621 Smith Tower 506 Second Ave Seattle, WA 98104 Attn: Robert Peterson Metro Faciliities Planning 821 Second Avenue MS -81 Seattle, WA 98104 US Dept. of Commerce -NOAA Attn: Neil Moeller General Counsel's Office 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA 98115 l h n B51" Envtl Affairs Department Seattle City Light 1015 Third Ave Rm922 Seattle, WA 98104 Foster Library PO Box 68697 Seattle, WA 98188 Ms. Nora Jewett Mr. Don Bales Department of EcologyShorelands POBox 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 WA St. Energy Office Attn: Amy Bell, Director 809 Legion Way PO Box 43165 Olympia, WA 98504-3165 WA St. Dept. Natural Resources Attn: Ben Cleveland South Puget Sound Regional Office PO Box 68 Enumclaw, WA 98022 King County Public Library 300 Eighth Avenue North Seattle, WA 98109 -5191 Attn: Carol Thompson Metro Marketing Division 821 Second Avenue MS -64 Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 Metro Transit Division 821 Second Avenue MS -55 Seattle, WA 98104 Attn: EIS Review Puget Sound Regional Council 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Renton Planning Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA • Attn: Rod Malcolm Mukleshoot Tribe 40405 Auburn - Enumclaw Road Auburn, WA 98002 Puget Sound Air Poll'n Control A 200 West Mercer Street Room 205 Seattle, WA 98119 -3958 Puget Sound Water Quality Author MS PV -11 Olympia, WA 98504 Attn: Rebecca Herzfeld Seattle Dept Constr & Land Use 710 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle Times -Real Est Section PO Box 70 Seattle, WA 98111 Tukwila Public Library 14475 - 59th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98188 US Army Corps Of Engineers Seattle District NPSEN -PL -RP PO Box C -3755 Seattle, WA 98124 US Envtl Protection Agency Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 WA St. Dept Of Fisheries 115 General Administration Bldg Olympia, WA 98504 -4151 Attn: Jerry Shultz WA St. Dept Of Trans. Distr. #1 15325 SE 130th Place Bellevue, WA 98007 -6538 WA St. Office Of Archaeology 111 West 21st Street MS -KL 11 Olympia, WA 98504 • 5(in Attn: Curtis Tanner US Fish & Wildlife Svc 3704 Griffin Lane SE Suite 102 Olympia, WA 98501 -2192 WA St. Dept Of Ecology -SEPA Environmental Review Section MS -PV 11 Olympia, WA 98504 Attn: Benella Caminiti Washington Envtl Council 2919 Mayfair Ave N Seattle, WA 98109 Attn: Jerry Craig Daily Journal Of Commerce 83 Columbia Street Seattle, WA 98104 Attn: Dan Cargill WA St. Dept Of Ecology NW Regional Office 3190 -160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 -5452 'r3w1 --i1e r cy 2 dvf 5e613ttle, ., l04 • Attn: Dean Rai& Valley Daily News P O Box 130 Kent, WA 98035 Attn: Michael Rundlett WA St. Dept Of Ecology NW Regional Office 3190 -160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 -5452 ■ Attn: John Crull Boeing Support Services PO Box 3707 MS6Y -59 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Attn: Paul Seely Boeing Corporate Public Affairs PO Box 3707MS 14 -49 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Attn: Jeff Zahir Boeing Support Services P0 Box 3707 MS6Y -59 ISeattle, WA 98124 -2207 Attn: Ann Dold King County Envtl Division 3600 -136th Place SE 4th Floor Bellevue, WA 98006 -1400 Attn: Richard McCann Perkins -Coie Law Firm 1201 Third Avenue 40th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 S • • City of Tukwila John W. Rams, M i APR 2 71992 Department of Community Development Rick Beeler,Dlrecior PLANNING May 1,1992 Dear Readers: Attached is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement .(DEIS) for the redevelopment of Boeing's Duwamish corridor facilities. It is accompanied by a second document, prepared by Boeing entitled, "Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment." The Boeing Company proposes to replace its aging manufacturing buildings with newer structures over the next ten -year period. It plans to demolish about 3.0 million square feet of floor area, and construct approximately 3.5 million square feet of new building space. During this period, the company envisions that its workforce will shift from manufacturing to a combination of research & development activities. Total employment in the area will not exceed 25,000, which is approximately the same level it has been in recent years. In order to guide this process of redevelopment, Boeing sets forth its goals and objectives, and accompanies these with specific design guidelines and standards for landscaping, streets, shoreline access, and transit. This Draft EIS is of a "non- project" nature. It addresses the broad range of issues in which subsequent environmental reviews may take place for specific buildings or projects. Of these broad issues, shoreline access and transportation are major elements, and receive the most attention in the DEIS. The EIS represents a joint effort between The Boeing Company and a variety of governmental agencies. Of these the City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle, and King County have land use responsibilities for portions of the Duwamish area. A memorandum of agreement between the municipalities acknowledges this effort, and designates Tukwila as the lead agency for preparing the EIS. It sets forth how the EIS will be used in subsequent project- specific environmental reviews. Under the terms of the memorandum, the ten -year period of redevelopment may proceed by following many of the key understandings that are protrayed in this programmatic Impact Statement. We encourage both your comments on this Draft EIS and your involvement in the public informational meeting to be held on Wednesday, May 20th at 7:30 PM in Tukwila City Council chambers at 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. Comments on the Draft should be addressed to Robert Betts, Project Coordinator, Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100, Tukwila WA 98188. All written comments must be received by the City of Tukwila by June 1st, 1992. Oral or written comments may be presented on Wednesday May 20th at the public informational meeting on this proposal. I would like to thank the many people who have contributed to this planning process for the Duwamish Corridor. Your assistance is helping us arrive at the very best possible plan for its redevelopment. Sinc - r L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 L/ tit 6 //u (51V BOEING CORPORATE PUBLIC AFFAIRS Attn: Paul Seely P 0 Box 3707 MS 14 - 49 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 BOEING SUPPORT SERVICES Attn: John CruII PO Box 3707 MS6Y -59 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 SEATTLE CITY LIGHT Envtl Affairs Department Attn: Lynn Best 1015 Third Ave Rm922 FOSTER LIBRARY PO Box 68697 Seattle, WA 98188 3o Cvoofe- KING COUNTY DEPT. PARKS PLN'G & Attn: Craig Larsen 707 Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98103 KING COUNTY OFFICE OF OPEN SPACE Attn: Tom Eksten 1621 Smith Tower 506 Second Ave METRO MARKETING DIVISION Attn: Carol Thompson 821 Second Avenue MS -64 Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 MUKLESHOOT TRIBE Attn: Rod Malcolm 40405 Auburn - Enumclaw Road Auburn, WA 98002 PUGET SOUND AIR POLL'N CONTROL A 200 West Mercer Street , Room 205 Seattle, WA 98119 -3958 PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHOR MS PV -11 Olympia, WA 98504 Ci 5 /? c:rr -7J � c- /, JQ a BOEING SUPPORT SERVICES Attn: Jeff Zahir PO Box 3707 MS6Y -59 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE Attn: Jerry Craig 83 Columbia Street Seattle, WA 98104 DUWAMISH TRIBE 15616 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98148 JONES & STOKES Attn: Margaret Rittmann 2820 Northup Way #100 Bellevue, WA 98004 KING COUNTY ENVTL DIVISION Attn: Ann Dold 3600 -136th Place SE 4th Floor Bellevue, WA 98006 -1400 KING COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY 300 Eighth Avenue North Seattle, WA 98109 -5191 METRO TRANSIT DIVISIO 821 Second Avenue MS -55 Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 PERKINS -COIE LAW FIRM Attn: Richard McCann • 1201 Third Avenue 40th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL • Attn: EIS Review 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 %mac ,: -/ e..( a.f-rl r-7/ SEATTLE DEPT CONSTR & LAND USE Attn: Rebecca Herzfeld 710 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 SEATTLE PUBLIC LIBRARY Government Publications Service 1000 Fourth A Seattle, WA 98104-1193 TUKWILA PUBLIC LIBRARY 14475 - 59th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98188 US DEPT OF COMMERCE: NOAA Attn: Neil Moeller General Counsel's Office 7600 Sand Point Way US FISH & WILDLIFE SVC Attn: Curtis Tanner 3704 Griffin Lane SE Suite 102 WA ST. DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES Attn: Ben Cleveland South P.S. Regional Office PO Box 68 WA ST. DEPT OF ECOLOGY Attn: Michael Rundlett NW Regional Office 3190 -160th Ave SE WA ST. DEPT OF ECOLOGY -SEPA Environmental Review Section MS -PV11 Olympia, WA 98504 WA ST. DEPT OF TRANS. DISTR. #1 Attn: Jerry Shultz 15325 SE 130th Place Bellevue, WA 98007 -6538 WA ST. ENERGY OFFICE Attn: Amy Bell, Director PO Box 43165 Olympia, WA 98504 -3165 . �3 SEATTLE OFFICE OF . INTERGVTL RELA Attn: Tom Tierney 600 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 SEATTLE TIMES -REAL EST SECTION PO Box 70 Seattle, WA 98111 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Seattle District NPSEN -PL -RP PO Box C -3755 Seattle, WA 98124 US ENVTL PROTECTION AGENCY Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 VALLEY DAILY NEWS Attn: Dean Radford PO Box 130 Kent, WA 98035 WA ST. DEPT OF ECOLOGY Attn: Nora Jewett & Don Bales Shorelands Section PO Box 47600 WA ST. DEPT OF ECOLOGY Attn: Dan Cargill NW Regional Office 3190 -160th Ave SE WA ST. DEPT OF FISHERIES 115 General Administration Bldg Olympia, WA 98504 -4151 WA ST. DEPT TRADE & ECON. DVLPT. Attn: Barbara Brooner 2001 Sixth Ave Suite 2700 WA ST. OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY 111 West 21st Street MS -KL11 Olympia, WA 98504 • eC %x':; - (7 f Gc if &-% WASHINGTON ENVTL COUNCIL Attn: Benella Caminiti 2919 Mayfair Ave N Seattle, WA 98109 3/ Ron Adair 4310 South 122nd Tukwila, WA 98178 Jessie Barry 12247 - 43rd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Thomas & Kathryn Boardman 11926 Interurban Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 - — - Rex & Jessie Burkey 3938 South 113th Tukwila, WA 98178 Kathleen Carmichael 20 Bowen Street Newton Centre, MA 02159 John w. Clark 12217 - 46th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Bill & Faye Cooper 12218 - 48th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Donald & Alice Davidson 12546 - 50th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Antonio & Dorothy Derodas 3910 South 114th Tukwila, WA 98178 Rose Untersher & Donna Johnston 4110 South 114th Tukwila, WA 98178 A/C) %i Ce- 7S CAc.y Dan Aragon 4610 South 124th Tukwila, WA 98178 Mrs. Sharon Bernhardt 3418 South 126th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Ray Bryant 12201 - 46th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Burlington Northern Railroad Co. Attn: Bruce Sheppard 2200 FIC 999 Third Ave Tony Carosino 11245 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, WA 98178 Robert & Bea Coleman 12223 - 48th Aouth Tukwila, WA 98178 Stephen Core 12238 - 45th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Lee Ann Davis 13341 - 56th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Norma Derr 12507 - 50th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Donay & Charolette Doty 3817 South 113th Tukwila, WA 98178 • 5/l- /9Z i/ Roger & Betty Baker 11662 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Gladys Bigelow 12062 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 viola Buchanan 12560 51st Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Philip & Patricia Cagampang 12038 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Bobby Casebeer 12243 - 51st Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Cecil &Viola Compo 4801 South 124th Tukwila, WA 98178 Kim Dahl 12410 - 50th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Roe Decker 12253 - 45th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Helen Dingle 4115 South 114th Tukwila, WA 98178 Bobbi Douvia 11815 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Dennis & Elizabeth Driscoll 3944 South 113th Tukwila, WA 98178 Scott Ellis 12049 - 49th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Keith Fuller 12211 - 48th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 John & Kay Gilligan 4208 South 115th Tukwila, WA 98178 Dick Greene 11639 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Charmaine L. Hall 4217 South 116th Tukwila, WA 98178 Hank & Rosemary Heerschap 13325 - 56th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Kenneth & Jane House 12248 - 43rd South Tukwila, WA 98178 Roy & Pat Johnson 12256 - 49th South Tukwila, WA 98178 King County Intl Airport Attn: Don Smith P 0 Box 80245 Seattle, WA 98108 /t 77Cf- 7c75 • ON r. Dorothy & Tony Dumas 12212 - 46th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Betty Espadero 11637 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Stu & Micky Garnett 12252 - 47th South Tukwila, WA 98178 George Gomez 4504 South 124th Tukwila, WA 98178 Charolette Greer 4718 South 124th Tukwila, WA 98178 Ralph & Rita Hatton 3935 South 113th Tukwila, WA 98178 Darrell & Gayl Hoffman 11685 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Gayle Jacobsen 12245 - 44th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 King County Dept Of Health Attn: Larry Kirchner Environmental Heatth Svcs 3001 NE Fourth Jerry Kinnear 5710 South 133rd Tukwila, WA 98178 5/' /z • 27s Helen Duncan 11664 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Friends Of The Duwamish 4504 South 124th Seattle, WA 98178 Albert & Mary E. Gaviglio 4016 South 115th Tukwila, WA 98178 Greater Seattle Chamber Of Com Attn: Terry! ROSS 600 University Ave Suite 1200 Maxine Gregory 12058 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Ralph Hayes 12228 - 44th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Stan & Connie Hoffman 3924 South 114th Tukwila, WA 98178 R.E. & Monica Johnson 4916 South 124th Street Tukwila, WA 98178 King County Executive 400 KC Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 -3271 June Klise 12221 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 • Walter & Bernice Kwiecien 13048 - 57th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Vera Locke 11810 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Lois Mathis 12245 - 45th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Leonard & Doris Mead 12232 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 John & Edna Morrison 12562 - 50th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Harry & Mable Peterson 3914 South 113th Tukwila, WA 98178 Charles & Marion Ramey 4104 South 115th Tukwila, WA 98178 John Ridout 11837 - 44th Avenue Tukwila, WA 98178 Mary Roper 12020 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Seattle City Light Attn: Lynn Best 1015 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 • e 44 Tom Lang 11642 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Tom & Martha Loftus 4918 South 122nd Tukwila, WA 98178 Earl Mc Coy 11535 - 40th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 __.. Metro Environmental Division Attn: Greg Bush 821 Second Avenue MS -120 Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 Sham & Sharon Nakata 11600 - 39th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Lilian Petty 12542 - 50th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Doris Reed 12215 - 45th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Dennis & Karen Robertson 16038 - 48th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Ruth Rupe 12248 - 50th Ave South Tukwila, WA 98178 Seattle Dept Of Neighborhoods Artic Building Room 400 700 -Third Ave Seattle, WA 98104 s /. /yz 3�5 Thelma Larsen 12522 - 51st Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Loren Marshall 4919 South 124th Street Tukwila, WA 98178 Bob Mc Manus 5610 South 133rd Tukwila, WA 98178 - Bob & Jeanette Morgan 11608 - 40th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Office Of The Governor State Of WA Legislative Bldg Olympia, WA 98504 Port Of Seattle Attn: DaveAggerholm Engineering Dept PO Box 1209 Renton Record Chronicle 212 Wells Avenue Renton, WA 98055 Allan Ronning 11705 - 40th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Arthur Sala 11624 - 40th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Seattle Mayor's Office 600 Fourth Avenue 12th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 -1873 Seattle Water Department 710 Second Avenue, 10th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 South Cen. Advis. Council 13217 - 38th South Tukwila, WA 98178 David & Merle Swanson 4616 South 124th Tukwila, WA 98178 IrvinTeigen 13009 - 56th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Lee & Barbara Trimble 12242 - 48th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Marguerite Tye 4202 South 122nd Tukwila, WA 98178 US Department Of Energy 809 Legion Way SE Olympia, WA 98504 -1211 John & Sylvia Vader 12228 - 47th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 • WA St. Dept Of Soc & Health Svcs PO Box 1788 Olympia, WA 98504 Washington Natural Gas Co. Environmental Review Section PO Box 1869 Seattle, WA 98111 �i1'GrL y Ruth Seavey 11829 - 44th Place South Tukwila; WA 98178 South Park Community Service Cen 8201 - 10th South Seattle, WA 98108 Ben Swartz 12219 - 49th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Dave Thompson 11666 - 42nd South Tukwila, WA 98178 Roland Turpin 12229 - 43rd South Tukwila, WA 98178 Martin & Gwen Ulrich 12244 - 42nd South Tukwila, WA 98178 US Dept Of HUD - Region X Community Plan'g & Devlpt Arcade Plaza Bldg ( Seattle, WA 98104 Val -Vue Sewer District PO Box 68063 Seattle, WA 98168 WA St. Dept Of Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Blvd Mill Creek, WA 98012 James Watkins 12072 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Irene Simpson 11840 - 42nd South Tukwila, WA 98178 James Stephens 11904 Interurban Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Lona Sweeney 12253 - 43rd Avene South Tukwila, WA 98178 Ray & MagdaTorghele 14724 - 57th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Kent & AlidaTustisOn 4023 South 114th Tukwila, WA 98178 US Coast Guard - 13th District CDR: Office Of Aids To Navigatioi 915 Second Seattle, WA 98174 US West Communications EIS Review Section 300 SW Seventh Street Renton, WA 98055 Norman & Helen Van Voorhee 11814 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Eugene & Betty Walkley 12201 - 44th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Carol & Ken WatSOn 3906 South 113th Tukwila, WA 98178 Lawrence Weikum 12249 - 44th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Dan Wolf 11821 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Gicp7Gt ie? _5 Mary Ellen Whitehead 13335 - 56th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Don & Gary Wyatt 3836 South 116th Tukwila, WA 98178 John & Marie Wickstrom 12022 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 • B8 • Valley Daily News Thursday, April 30,1'392 AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND PUBLIC MEETING A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for redevelopment of the Boeing Compa- , ny's Duwamish facilities is available May 1st, for public review and comment. The lead agency is the Tukwila Department of Community Development. Proposed Action: The Boeing Company proposes redevelopment of approximately 650 acres of industrial and manufacturing land along a 4.5 mile stretch of East Marginal Way. The primary goal of this proposal is to replace aging manufacturing production facilities over the 1992 -2002 period. Under this plan, about 3.7 million square feet of floor area would be demolished and be replaced with about 4.3 million square feet of new floor area. Emphasis in the redeveloped areas would shift from manufacturing to research & development. The mix of employees would change correspondingly, but would remain capped at 25,000 during this 10 -year period. Location: Along a 4.5 -mile section of East Marginal Way in the vicinity of Boeing Field and the Duwamish Waterway, ranging from Ellis Avenue on the north to 126th Street on the south. The majority of the project area lies within the City of Tukwila. Information Available: A copy of the DEIS is available for review at both the Tukwila Library 14475 - 95th Avenue South, and at the Foster Ubrary 4205 South 142nd Street. Additional information about the proposal and a limited number of copies of the DEIS are available at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boule- vard. Public Meeting: A public information meeting to gather comments on the DEIS will be held on Wednesday, May 20th, 1992 at 7:30 PM in City Council Chambers, located at 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. Written Comments: Written comments on the DEIS may be submitted through June 1st, 1992. Comments should be sent to: Department of Community Developments 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100 Attn: Robert S. Betts Tukwila, WA 98188 Published in the Valley Daily News April 30 and May 3, 1992. 7425 Figure 1 -1 VICINITY MAP AND NEIGHBORHOODS It-tierce. Second Class Postage paid at Scuttle.- :Washington 98104 -1482. Price 75 cents.. Vol. 99, No. 101, Thursday, Apri1- 30,:,1992_:••: 7H BDEING fIEL Boeing plan: Mire public access along Duwamish BY JERRY CRAIG Journal city editor WILA — An aging industrial area along the shores c_ Duwamish. River could be transformed during they : next ten years into a modern research and development cen- -_ -: ter with public trails and shoreline .access if plans by the, _ Boeing Company come to fruition. = These plans are included in a draft environmental impacT statement coming out Friday by the city of Tukwila.; A period of public comment will follow. • a The city of Tukwila is serving -as lead agency for envi -' ronmental review. \ • - .. .__ }? Boeing plans to redevelop about 650 acres of industrial . and manufacturing land along a •4:5 -mile stretch of East Marginal Way. South. : .:. - •, -- . :._ ,l • About 3.7- million square feet of floor area would be de„ molished and be replaced with about 4.3 million square feet of new building space. The .mix' of employees woull change but would remain capped at 25,000 during this ten - year period. The area lies mostly in Tukwila and is located near Boeing Field and the Duwamish Waterway, ranging from Ellis Avenue on the north to 126th Street on the south. BOEING'S PLANS fit very nicely with the.goals of the ` state's Growth Management Act, explained consultant Robert Betts who was hired by the city of Tukwila to over- =see the Duwamish project. It intensifies development op- portunities in existing centers." - - ; :B.ecause Boeing controls so much property in the_:area, either through outright ownership or long -term lease, It is "able -to plan so that public amenities are an integral part of reaevelopmcnt. - 'Rte EIS-will show significant access to the Duwamish River, said Betts. "There is very little there now.'-' • • Much of the public access to the river will be at the "Ox- - bow site. " -An important feature will be inclusion of King - County's Green River Trail system and a connection with the Museum of Flight. Also planned are canoe launches, viewpoints and fish habitat enhancement. The EIS will contain little information on specific build- ing projects since it is serving as a master plan for develop -_ ment, said Betts. The area is already changing, he noted, with construction of the 5100 million Integrated Aircraft Systems Laboratory - (IASL) which is due to be completed in January. A COPY of the draft EIS will be available for review at • the Tukwila Library, 14475 95th Ave. S.; and at the Foster_ Library, 4205 S. 142nd St. A public information meeting to gather comments on the EIS will be held on Wednesday May 20 at 7:30 p.m. in the Tukwila City Council Chambers, 6200 SouthcenterBlvd. _. Written comments on the EIS will be received until June--. _ -1 and should be sent to: Department of Community Devel- = ` -- opment, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100,.. attention: Robert S. Betts, Tukwila, WA 98188. :Agency extends urni4g fan Locke calls on governmen • Helping yogi know what's going on... Tukwila wants higher standard of design for apartments Better apartment quality has long been a City priority. The Planning Commission has recently completed a review of new and revised regulations to improve apartment design. Copies of these draft regulations are available for public review through the Tukwila Planning Division by calling (206) 431 -3670 or by visiting our offices at 6300 South- center Blvd., Suite 100. You are invited: • To an informal information open house on Thursday, April 30th from 7 to 9 p.m. Planning staff will be there to answer your questions on the proposed regulations. • To a public hearing on Weds., May 6th at 8 p.m. Tell the Planning Commission your ideas about im- proving apartment quality. Both meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. Please contact Vernon Umetsu (431 -3684) if you have any questions. Written comments should be sent to the Tukwila Planning Commission c/o Vernon Umetsu, Tukwila Planning Division at the above address. INCREASE IN WATER RATES Public Hearing - in Council Chambers, City Hall Monday April 27, 1992 - 7:00 p.m. The City is proposing to increase the rate per 100 cubic feet of water by 15% for the summer (May 15 -Sept. 15) and 5% for the remainder of the year. This is the third of a three -year graduated rate increase to pay for bonding costs of the water reservoir. Public comment and participation is encouraged. For more information, call 433 -1838 or 433 -1861 REDEVELOPMENT OF BOEING FACILITIES Public Meeting- in Council Chambers, City Hall Wednesday May 20, 1992 - 730 p.m. The Boeing Company proposes redevelopment of approxi- mately 650 acres of industrial and manufacturing land along a 4.5 mile section of East Marginal Way. The primary goal of this proposal is to replace aging manufacturing production facilities over the 1992 -2002 period. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared, which concentrates on overall issues such as traffic /transportation, and shoreline access. The DEIS is accompanied by the Boeing Company's proposal, which contains design guidelines and commitments for roads, landscaping, transit, and access to the river. AGENDA ITEMS OF THE TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Public Hearings- in Council Chambers, C14, Hall Thursday April 23, 1992 - 8 :00 p.m. Relocation of Tallow Tanks Baker Commodities (formerly Seattle Rendering) is asking for an Unclassified Use Permit to relocate nine tallow tanks from their Port of Seattle site to Tukwila, on the east bank of the Duwamish River, across from Foster Golf Links. New Sewage Pump Station The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) is asking for a Conditional Use Permit and design review approval for the construction of a 7,915 square foot sewage pump station, on the east side of Interurban Avenue between the Foster Golf Course and the City Maintenance Shops building. The City encourages persons wishing to comment on the above items to do so, either by written statement or by appearing at this public hearing. For more information, call the Department of Community Development at 431 -3670. • CHOOSING OUR CITY'S FUTURE Where do we go and how do we get there? TUKWILA'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN What Is A Comprehensive Plan? Imagine you own thousands of acres and have many sources of income. You are responsible for how your properties are used and maintained. You must decide if uses should remain as is or be encouraged to change to a different use. You must continually monitor your income and operational expenses and decide if tradeoffs should be made to make improvements to your estate. In other words, you must create a comprehensive plan. In the real world a city must adopt a comprehensive plan through a public process. This process involves many individuals and many private property owners. The City of Tukwila is 8 square miles, or 5,120 acres, of primarily developed property in the middle of a large metropolitan area. It encompasses two Federal interstate highways, a river and roads of statewide significance - land and facilities that you as a member of the community have invested in and which are maintained for your use and enjoyment. Approximately 4.5 million dollars will be spent on new Tukwila roads, parks, etc., each year over the next five years. Private investment in 1991 totalled 44.5 million. In conclusion, the public and private investment in Tukwila is significant and the comprehensive plan is what guides it. Getting started Updating the Comprehensive Plan is a collaboration of those who live, work and have an interest in what happens in Tukwila. Many other people who live and/or work outside the City rely on Tukwila - what's here and how its operated. The State's new growth management law recognizes that plan- ning plays an increasingly important role in the quality of people's lives, and that what we do in Tukwila needs to be coordinated with what Renton, Seattle, SeaTac, King County and others in the Puget Sound region do. Therefore, you can collectively decide with the other community members several fundamental questions: • What should be preserved? • What should be improved? • How do we pay for what we want/need? The Vision Tukwila process highlighted ideas or goals, such as preserving single - family neighborhoods, increasing police patrols, and improving the Highway 99 corridor. THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT What do You Think About Managing Growth? The Growth Management Acts of 1990 and 1991 require the King County Council to adopt county-wide growth management policies by July 1, 1992. To do so, elected officials from King County, the City of Seattle and the Suburban Cities Association have joined together to form the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC), which is preparing draft growth management planning policies to recommend to the County Council. Following adoption by the County, the policies will be submitted to all King County cities, including Tukwila, for ratification. The policies, if ratified, will serve as a framework for our comprehen- sive plan update. The policies will address many of the most important issues facing King County in comingyears, including strategies to lower traffic congestion, protect the environment, coordinate economic development, and increase the availability of affordable housing. Citizens are encouraged to attend one of the following public events to review and comment on the draft policies. The public workshop will be open -house style, providing an informal setting for residents to review the draft policies and discuss them with planning staff and members of the GMPC. Both written and verbal comments will be recorded and provided to the GMPC for consideration. The public hearings will offer an opportunity to provide formal comment. Public Workshop May 5, 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. Renton High School Cafeteria 400 S. 2nd Street, Renton Public Hearings May 15, 5:00 to 9:00 p.m., and May 16, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Puget Power Auditorium 10608 NE 4th Avenue, Bellevue Those unable to attend meetings can send written comments to: Growth Management Planning Council, 414 Olive Way, Suite 211, Seattle, 98101. For more information, call 296 -1612. • Seattle Water Department Robert P. Groncznack, Superintendent Norman B. Rice, Mayor April 29, 1992 • Jack Pace City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Boeing Company Duwamish Facility Redevelopment Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Pace: The Seattle Water Department would like to be added to the distribution list for the Boeing Company Duwamish Facility Redevelopment Draft Environmental Impact Statement, scheduled to become available May 1. Please send the document to me at the following address: Seattle Water Department Dexter Horton Building, Suite 1155 710 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 If you have any questions or need additional information please contact Mr. Ben Milgrom at 684 -5904. Thank you. Sincerely, ,�- JAY B. LAUGHLIN Senior Environmental Analyst JBL:bbm.b BBM7 /Pace Seattle Water Department— Dexter Horton Building, 10th Floor 710 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 �. "Printed on Recycled Paper" A F F I D A V I T 1, 5'- /3e-p-s fl Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting DBoard of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet JPlanning Commission Agenda Packet LI Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O F D I S T R I B U hereby declare LI Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit flShoreline Management Permit Determinati significance Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action n.Official Notice AOther iron e ,4-1/A-, -4/L/ 7 c D/lA -, 7- e--1 5 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on C'64'l'9- Name of Pro ject &-L7Ar - Acl 411'0 t X75 File Number Signature i4- -444 agEnt) MAY 13 1992 cIrr OF j UKW LA PLANNING DEPT: • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND PUBLIC MEETING A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for redevelopment of the Boeing Company's Duwamish facilities is available May 1st, for public review and comment. The lead agency is the Tukwila Department of Community Development. Proposed Action: The Boeing Company proposes redevelopment of approximately 650 acres of industrial and manufacturing land along a 4.5 mile stretch of East Marginal Way. The primary goal of this proposal is to replace aging manufacturing production facilities over the 1992 -2002 period. Under this plan, about 3.7 million square feet of floor area would be demolished and be replaced with about 4.3 million square feet of new floor area. Emphasis in the redeveloped areas would shift from manufacturing to research & development. The mix of employees would change correspondingly, but would remain capped at 25,000 during this 10 -year period. Location: Along a 4.5 -mile section of East Marginal Way in the vicinity of Boeing Field and the Duwamish Waterway, ranging from Ellis Avenue on the north to 126th Street on the south. The majority of the project area lies within the City of Tukwila. Information Available: A copy of the DEIS is available for review at both the Tukwila Library 14475 - 95th Avenue South, and at the Foster Library 4205 South 142nd Street. Additional information about the proposal and a limited number of copies of the DEIS are available at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard. Public Meeting: A public informational meeting to gather comments on the DEIS will be held on Wednesday, May 20th, 1992 at 7:30 PM in City Council Chambers, located at 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. Written Comments: Written comments on the DEIS may be submitted through June 1st, 1992. Comments should be sent to: Department of Community Developments 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100 Attn: Robert S. Betts Tukwila, WA 98188 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 1!100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 • Attn: Paul Seely Boeing Corporate Public Affairs P O Box 3707 MS 14 - 49 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Attn: John Crull Boeing Support Services P O Box 3707 MS 6 Y - 59 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Attn: Phil Brown Daily Journal Of Commerce 83 Columbia Street Seattle, WA 98104 Duwamish Tribe 15616 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98148 Friends Of The Duwamish 4504 South 124th Seattle, WA 98178 Attn: Margaret Rittmann Jones & Stokes 2820 Northup Way #100 Bellevue, WA 98004 Attn: Craig Larsen King County Dept. Parks Pln'g & 707 Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98103 King County Executive 400 KC Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 -3271 Attn: Tom Eksten King County Office Of Open Space 1621 Smith Tower 506 Second Ave Seattle, WA 98104 Attn: Robert Peterson Metro Faciliities Planning 821 Second Avenue MS -81 Seattle, WA 98104 • Attn: Jeff Zahir Boeing Support Services P O Box 3707 MS 6 Y - 59 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Attn: Bruce Sheppard Burlington Northern Railroad Co. 2200 FIC 999 Third Ave Seattle, WA 98104 Envtl Affairs Department Seattle City Light 1015 Third Ave Rm922 Seattle, WA 98104 Foster Library PO Box 68697 Seattle, WA 98188 Attn: Terryl Ross Greater Seattle Chamber Of Comm. 600 University Ave Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98101 Attn: Larry Kirchner King County Dept Of Health Environmental Health Svcs 3001 NE Fourth Renton, WA 98056 Attn: Ann Dold King County Envtl Division 3600 -136th Place SE 4th Floor Bellevue, WA 98006 -1400 Attn: Don Smith King County Int'l Airport P 0 Box 80245 Seattle, WA 98108 King County Public Library 300 Eighth Avenue North Seattle, WA 98109 -5191 Attn: Carol Thompson Metro Marketing Division 821 Second Avenue MS -64 Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 ��f�� /9L Metro Transit Division 821 Second Avenue MS -55 Seattle, WA 98104 Office Of The Governor State Of WA Legislative Bldg Olympia, WA 98504 Attn: Dave Aggerholm Port Of Seattle Engineering Dept PO Box 1209 Seattle, WA 98111 Attn: EIS Review Puget Sound Regional Council 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Renton Planning Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA Attn: Lynn Best Seattle City Light 1015 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle Dept Of Neighborhoods Artic Building Room 400 700 -Third Ave Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle Mun. Ref. Library 600 - Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle Water Department 710 Second Avenue, 10th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 South Park Community Service Cen 8201 - 10th South Seattle, WA 98108 • Attn: Rod Malcolm Mukleshoot Tribe 40405 Auburn - Enumclaw Road Auburn, WA 98002 Attn: Richard McCann Perkins -Coie Law Firm 1201 Third Avenue 40th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Puget Sound Air Poll'n Control A 200 West Mercer Street Room 205 Seattle, WA 98119 -3958 Puget Sound Water Quality Author MS PV -11 Olympia, WA 98504 Renton Record Chronicle 212 Wells Avenue Renton, WA 98055 Attn: Rebecca Herzfeld Seattle Dept Constr & Land Use 710 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle Mayor's Office 600 Fourth Avenue 12th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 -1873 Seattle Times -Real Est Section PO Box 70 Seattle, WA 98111 South Cen. Advis. Council 13217 - 38th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Tukwila Public Library 14475 - 59th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98188 �//25/q2 • US Army Corps Of Engineers Seattle District NPSEN -PL -RP PO Box C -3755 Seattle, WA 98124 US Department Of Energy 809 Legion Way SE Olympia, WA 98504 -1211 US Envtl Protection Agency Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 US West Communications EIS Review Section 300 SW Seventh Street Renton, WA 98055 Attn: Steve Nolan Valley Daily News P O Box 130 Kent, WA 98035 WA St. Dept Of Fisheries 115 General Administration Bldg Olympia, WA 98504 -4151 Attn: Jerry Shultz WA St. Dept Of Trans. Distr. #1 15325 SE 130th Place Bellevue, WA 98007 -6538 WA St. Office Of Archaeology 111 West 21st Street MS -KL11 Olympia, WA 98504 Washington Natural Gas Co. Environmental Review Section PO Box 1869 Seattle, WA 98111 US Coast Guard- 13th District CDR: Office Of Aids To Navigation 915 Second Seattle, WA 98174 US Dept Of HUD - Region X Community Plan'g & Devlpt Arcade Plaza Bldg ( Seattle, WA 98104 Attn: Curtis Tanner US Fish & Wildlife Svc 3704 Griffin Lane SE Suite 102 Olympia, WA 98501 -2192 Val -Vue Sewer District PO Box 68063 Seattle, WA 98168 WA St. Dept Of Ecology -SEPA Environmental Review Section MS -PV 11 Olympia, WA 98504 WA St. Dept Of Soc & Health Svcs PO Box 1788 Olympia, WA 98504 WA St. Dept Of Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Blvd Mill Creek, WA 98012 Attn: Benella Caminiti Washington Envtl Council 2919 Mayfair Ave N Seattle, WA 98109 111' • 1 Ron Adair 4310 South 122nd Tukwila, WA 98178 Roger & Betty Baker 11662 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Mrs. Sharon Bernhardt 3418 South 126th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Thomas & Kathryn Boardman 11926 Interurban Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Viola Buchanan 12560 51st Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Philip & Patricia Cagampang 12038 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Tony Carosino 11245 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, WA 98178 John W. Clark 12217 - 46th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Cecil & Viola Compo 4801 South 124th Tukwila, WA 98178 Stephen Core 12238 - 45th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Dan Aragon 4610 South 124th Tukwila, WA 98178 Jessie Barry 12247 - 43rd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Gladys Bigelow 12062 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Ray Bryant 12201 - 46th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Rex & Jessie Burkey 3938 South 113th Tukwila, WA 98178 Kathleen Carmichael 20 Bowen Street Newton Centre, MA 02159 Bobby Casebeer 12243 - 51st Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Robert & Bea Coleman 12223 - 48th Aouth Tukwila, WA 98178 Bill & Faye Cooper 12218 - 48th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Kim Dahl 12410 - 50th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 yp..5/a2 Donald & Alice Davidson 12546 - 50th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Roe Decker 12253 - 45th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Norma Derr 12507 - 50th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Rose Untersher & Donna Johnston 4110 South 114th Tukwila, WA 98178 Bobbi Douvia 11815 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Dorothy & Tony Dumas 12212 - 46th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Scott Ellis 12049 - 49th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Keith Fuller 12211 - 48th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Albert & Mary E. Gaviglio 4016 South 115th Tukwila, WA 98178 George Gomez 4504 South 124th Tukwila, WA 98178 • • Lee Ann Davis 13341 - 56th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Antonio & Dorothy Derodas 3910 South 114th Tukwila, WA 98178 Helen Dingle 4115 South 114th Tukwila, WA 98178 Donay & Charolette Doty 3817 South 113th Tukwila, WA 98178 Dennis & Elizabeth Driscoll 3944 South 113th Tukwila, WA 98178 Helen Duncan 11664 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Betty Espadero 11637 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Stu & Micky Garnett 12252 - 47th South Tukwila, WA 98178 John & Kay Gilligan 4208 South 115th Tukwila, WA 98178 Dick Greene 11639 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 �i)25%co. Charolette Greer 4718 South 124th Tukwila, WA 98178 Charmaine L. Hall 4217 South 116th Tukwila, WA 98178 Ralph Hayes 12228 - 44th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Darrell & Gayl Hoffman 11685 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Kenneth & Jane House 12248 - 43rd South Tukwila, WA 98178 R.E. & Monica Johnson 4916 South 124th Street Tukwila, WA 98178 Jerry Kinnear 5710 South 133rd Tukwila, WA 98178 Walter & Bernice Kwiecien 13048 - 57th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Thelma Larsen 12522 - 51st Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Tom & Martha Loftus 4918 South 122nd Tukwila, WA 98178 • Maxine Gregory 12058 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Ralph & Rita Hatton 3935 South 113th Tukwila, WA 98178 Hank & Rosemary Heerschap 13325 - 56th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Stan & Connie Hoffman 3924 South 114th Tukwila, WA 98178 Gayle Jacobsen 12245 - 44th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Roy & Pat Johnson 12256 - 49th South Tukwila, WA 98178 June Klise 12221 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Tom Lang 11642 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Vera Locke 11810 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Loren Marshall 4919 South 124th Street Tukwila, WA 98178 Lois Mathis 12245 - 45th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Bob Mc Manus 5610 South 133rd Tukwila, WA 98178 Bob & Jeanette Morgan 11608 - 40th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Sham & Sharon Nakata 11600 - 39th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Lilian Petty 12542 - 50th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Doris Reed 12215 - 45th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Dennis & Karen Robertson 16038 - 48th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Mary Roper 12020 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Arthur Sala 11624 - 40th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Irene Simpson 11840 - 42nd South Tukwila, WA 98178 • • Earl Mc Coy 11535 - 40th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Leonard & Doris Mead 12232 - 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 John & Edna Morrison . 12562 - 50th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Harry & Mable Peterson 3914 South 113th Tukwila, WA 98178 Charles & Marion Ramey 4104 South 115th Tukwila, WA 98178 John Ridout 11837 - 44th Avenue Tukwila, WA 98178 Allan Ronning 11705 - 40th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Ruth Rupe 12248 - 50th Ave South Tukwila, WA 98178 Ruth Seavey 11829 - 44th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 James Stephens 11904 Interurban Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 nico- David & Merle Swanson 4616 South 124th Tukwila, WA 98178 Lona Sweeney 12253 - 43rd Avene South Tukwila, WA 98178 Dave Thompson 11666 - 42nd South Tukwila, WA 98178 Lee & Barbara Trimble 12242 - 48th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Kent & Alida Tustison 4023 South 114th Tukwila, WA 98178 Martin & Gwen Ulrich 12244 - 42nd South Tukwila, WA 98178 Norman & Helen Van Voorhees 11814 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 James Watkins 12072 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Lawrence Weikum 12249 - 44th South Tukwila, WA 98178 John & Marie Wickstrom 12022 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 • • Ben Swartz 12219 - 49th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Irvin Teigen 13009 - 56th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Ray & Magda Torghele. 14724 - 57th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Roland Turpin 12229 - 43rd South Tukwila, WA 98178 Marguerite Tye 4202 South 122nd Tukwila, WA 98178 John & Sylvia Vader 12228 - 47th Place South Tukwila, WA 98178 Eugene & Betty Walkley 12201 - 44th South Tukwila, WA 98178 Carol & Ken Watson 3906 South 113th Tukwila, WA 98178 Mary Ellen Whitehead 13335 - 56th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 Dan Wolf 11821 - 44th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98178 1-05 jet 2. Don & Gary Wyatt 3836 South 116th Tukwila, WA 98178 • 41/7 sley Don & Gary Wyatt 3836 South 116th Tukwila, WA 98178 Task May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June! July Aug 1. Project Description 2. Scoping 3. DEIS Preparation a. Land Use Soaping I. _ * CI`€ Pl �� APR 2 4 1c ( 1 o- Tl;K - ANf C! ._� ■■, .. as 111M1■III b. Transportation I c. Earth d. Air e. Water f. Plants & Animals g. Energy/Natural Resources - -. h. Environmental Health i. Public Services & Utilities --- 4. Progress Report 5. Internal Review (PDEIS) 6. Revisions - CH2M HILL • 7. Agency Review • 8. Revisions 9. Internal Review & Revisions 10. Publish DEIS 11. Comment Period 12. Prepare FEIS 13. Internal Review (PFEIS) 14. Revisions '15. Agency Review •16. Revisions 17. Internal Review & Revisions 18. Publish Final EIS 19. Follow -up Support r * _ _ - ___ ......... _ - •■■� a �. * • Tasks added 9/24/91 • • • • Denotes range of dates Revised EIS Schedule The Boeing Company Duwamish Corridor Master Plan April 22, 1992 1 4.1 • Seattle City Light M. J. Macdonald, Acting Superintendent Norman B. Rice, Mayor April 23, 1992 Robert S. Betts Project Coordinator Boeing Duwamish EIS Planning Department City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Betts: ISO i ±;� �. �nU APR 281992 CITY OF TUK'WILA PLANNING DEPT.. Comments on Programmatic PDEIS for Boeing Duwamish Corridor Seattle City Light (SCL) staff have reviewed the above refe .renced document and have the following comments: • SCL encourages Boeing to consider energy efficiency as a mitigation measure. We recommend that the Boeing Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with SCL be finalized as soon as possible and be included in the DEIS. It is understood by SCL that the draft 'MOA is currently undergoing internal Boeing review. If it is not possible to finalize the MOA before publication of the DEIS, the MOA should still be described in the document. SCL has requested the following commitments on Boeing's behalf: • to significantly exceed. the Seattle. Energy Code ,requirements . in the Duwamish Corridor projects; •not to exceed current average energy use in the Duwamish Corridor; • to fully utilize SCL's conservation funding programs; •designation of Boeing engineers to work with SCL's Industrial Conservation Staff to develop standard specifications for commonly used energy conservation technologies; •designation of a Boeing contact person for each project and each area of expertise. An Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer City of Seattle — City Light Department, 1015 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 -1198, Telephone: (206) 625 -3000, FAX: (206) 625 -3709 Printed on recycled paper • • Robert S. Betts Page 2 April 23, 1992 For its part, SCL has committed to the following: •SCL will provide substantial economic incentives for Boeing to go beyond the Energy Code. In general, the MOA will serve as a medium to establish a process for increased energy savings. Boeing and SCL will agree to work together to achieve all of the above mentioned -goals through-open communication -and regularly scheduled meetings. The mechanism for providing free design assistance and incentives is participation in SCL's Energy Smart Design Program. Javad Maadanian at 684 -3786 should be contacted for more information about the Energy Smart Design Program. • The DEIS should include statements on SCL's need to review any new plantings on SCL property for potential interference with distribution lines or systems. Landscaping plans should ensure that appropriate vegetation is used near overhead electric lines to prevent future hazards and interference with electrical transmission. Vegetation should not be planted that will exceed 12 feet in height directly under the lines. At least 10 feet side clearance from the line should also be provided. Sufficient air and ground space is needed around plantings in order for SCL line crews to do repairs. • There are several errors on page 9 -1 of the PDEIS, which are as follows: The sentence, "Industrial customers in SCL's service area consume approximately 1500 aMWh..." is incorrect. The correct figure is 1,500,000 MWh. In the sentence, "Energy consumption by The Boeing Company represents just over 30 percent of SCL's industrial consumption ", it should be specified, "Collectively, with about 45 commercial and industrial accounts under Boeing's name, energy consumption by The Boeing Company... ". This should also be specified in the following sentence. The sentence, "Boeing is SCL's largest consumer, with a demand of 113,890 kW (kilowatts) of electrical energy (1989)" should read, "Collectively, Boeing is SCL's largest consumer, with a demand of 116,654 kW (kilowatts) of electrical energy (1990). The sentence, "The power is generally stepped down to 0.48 kV for distribution" should read, "The power is generally stepped down to 13.8 kV for internal distribution and 480 V at the end use level ". 'An Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer" City of Seattle — City Light Department, 1015 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 -1198, Telephone: (206) 625 -3000, FAX: (206) 625 -3709 Printed on recycled paper Robert S. Betts Page 3 April 23, 1992 The sentence, "Estimated annual electric energy use by Boeing properties in the Duwamish corridor is 473 MWh and is summarized by categories of use in Table 9 -1" is incorrect. The correct figure is 473,000 MWh. In Table 9 -1, all figures except "Peak Demand in MW" should be multiplied by 103. Please-make all-of-the- above-corrections for the DEIS. - • There is no discussion of utility impacts. SCL will need to review any impacts on distribution lines and facilities. Clearances from overhead lines should be maintained, or lines will need to be rerouted or placed underground. Such a discussion should be included in the DEIS. • Should energy consumption increase in the project area, cumulative energy impacts will need to be addressed in the DEIS. Such impacts include new generation costs shared by all ratepayers as well as environmental impacts resulting from the construction and continued operation of new facilities. Environmental impacts include effects on air and water quality, fisheries, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and the use and disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. Various mitigation measures can be taken to reduce these impacts, both short term and in the form of continuing programs. Please incorporate these comments in the Programmatic DEIS. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Preliminary DEIS. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Suzanne Zolfo of my staff at 386 -4562 for assistance. Sincerely, Ly �1 En lironmental Affairs Division Best, Manager SZ:sz "An Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer" City of Seattle — City Light Department, 1015 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 -1198, Telephone: (206) 625-3000, FAX: (206) 625 -3709 Printed on recycled paper • CITY OF TUKWILA Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS REVISED SCHEDULE April 22, 1992 Third Preliminary Draft EIS Internal Review Comments Due Revisions Agency Courtesy Copy P -DEIS Agency Review Comments Due Revisions Publish Draft EIS Public Information Meeting Public Comments Due Possible 15 -day Extension First Preliminary Final EIS Internal Review Comments Due Revisions Agency Courtesy Copy P -FEIS Agency Review Comments Due Internal Review & Revisions Publish Final EIS TARGET DATES March 20, 1992 March 27, 1992 March 27 - April 6, 1992 April 6, 1992 April 13, 1992 April 13 - 30, 1992 May 1, 1992 May 20, 1992 May 31, 1992 June 15, 1992 June 30, 1992 July 10, 1992 July 10 - 20, 1992 July 20, 1992 July 27, 1992 July 27 - August 17, 1992 August 17, 1992 Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use Dennis J. McLerran, Director Norman B. Rice, Mayor April 17, 1992 Re: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Scope of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Pace: Thank you for providing the Department of Construction and Land Use (DCLU) with copies of the'preliminary Programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Boeing's Duwamish redevelopment.. While DCLU is generally satisfied with the level of analysis provided for most of the document, we must reiterate our concern about precluding a range of alternatives for shoreline access along the east Duwamish shoreline. DCLU believes that Seattle's preferred alternative, which would allow public access (including a pedestrian trail and public amenities) along the east Duwamish shoreline, should be analyzed as part of the EIS. Without analyzing shoreline access alternatives, the purpose and intent of the Programmatic EIS will not be fully achieved. The City of Seattle will reserve examination of the shoreline access to the individual master use permits. DCLU also believes that at least one additional public access site along the North Duwamish Campus site should be considered. I would appreciate you keeping our office advised of your progress. 1 would also like to receive notice of any subsequent meetings that may be scheduled regarding this issue. If you have any questions about DCLU's comments, please call me at 684-8875. Sincerely, Laura L. Gilbert Acting Director By Martin Fricko Land Use Specialist MJF:mrr wpl \jpa 0, I APR 211992 1 „,)�Y DEPT. 4. fl\]�D An equal employment opportunity - affirmative action employer,. Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use, 710 - 2nd Avenue, Ste 700, Seattle WA 98104 -1703 "Printed on Recycled Paper” King County Environmental Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 3600 - 136th Place Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006 -1400 (206) 296 -6602 April 13, 1992 • MN OH APR 1 5 1992 CITY OF TUKWNILA PLANNING DEPT_ By Facsimile Transmission Mr. L. Rick Beeler, Director Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Bob Betts Robert S. Betts 700 108th Avenue Northeast Bellevue, WA 98004 Re: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Programmatic EIS SEPA No. T9100110 Gentlemen: Thank you for providing King County with an opportunity to review and comment on the second preliminary Draft EIS for the Boeing Duwamish Redevelopment proposal. Due to the limited amount of time alloted for review we have been unable to obtain comments from several King County offices with relevant expertise. Consequently, King County may provide additional comments during the public comment period. I have enclosed a copy of comments received from the King County Roads and Engineering Division and Surface Water Management Division. We concur with concerns expressed in the memo from the Surface Water Management Division with respect to characterizing the ecological systmens in the Duwamish Estuary and acknowledging the King County Surface Water Design Manual as both an existing policy document as well as a source of mitigation measures for development impacts associated with the proposal and alternatives. Mr. L. Rick Beeler, Director April 13, 1992 Page 2 The Environmental Division will bill Tukwila for staff time spent reviewing this proposal pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement. The bill will be sent under separate cover. Please contact me at 296 -6602 (Fax 296 -6604) if you have any questions or concerns regarding King County's review of this proposal. Sincerely, G/> 7 lint Lank Manager Enclosure cc: Lloyd Skinner, CH2M Hill Martin Fricko, City of Seattle, DCLU Mike Gallagher, DOE, NWRO, Toxics Cleanup Program Jim Kramer, Manager, Surface Water Management Divison ATTN: Don Althauser, Master Drainage Plan Program Louis J. Haff, County Road Engineer, Roads & Engineering Division ATTN: Sandy Adams, Intergovernmental Relations Coordinator, Roads & Engineering Division Bill Vlcek, Manager, Engineering Services Section John Logan, Manager, Traffic and Planning Section Gary Samek, Traffic and Planning Section Bill Hoffman, Manager, Transportation Planning Section Craig Larsen, Deputy Director, Parks, Planning and Resources Department Mayumi Tsutakawa, Manager, Cultural Resources Division ATTN: Glenn Weiss Jim Reid, Manager, Planning and Community Development Division ATTN: Paul Reitenbach, Chief, Community Planning Barbara Wright, Manager, Parks Division ATTN: Sharon Claussen, Project Administrator Ann Dold, Chief, SEPA Section ATTN: Joshua Goldfinger, Environmental Planner To: Jack Pace, Senior Planner From: Ron Cameron, City Engineer. Date: April 12, 1992 Subject: Boeing Programatic Pre Draft EIS comments Fig 1 -1 needs Pacific Hwy, Boeing Access Road, and Ryan Way added. Fig 4 -1 needs Empire Way (SR900 /Sunset /MLK) added. Signals at Pacific Hwy /S 116 Wy, E Marginal Wy /Interurban, and Empire Way /Ryan Way need to be identified with the other signals. Third para on 4 -3, next to last sentence needs to be changed, Boeing Access Road does not become Pac Hwy w/o E Marginal Wy. Another way to write this description is: Boeing Access Road connects the intersections of Empire Way /Ryan on the east with E Marginal /Pacific Hwy on the West. It connects traffic traveling between Pacific Highway, Airport Way, E Marginal Way, Empire Way, Ryan Way, and I5. Seattle is the lead agency to add an I5 southbound to eastbound off ramp movement and Empire Way southbound to I5 northbound movement. (The SED capacity information, LOS affects, and SED funding needs to be added to the programmatic EIS; contact Frank Yanagamachi at SED for this information.) Boeing Access Road serves as the primary access - xx% of the travels on or across (intersects) the BAR. The paragraph on Ellis, Corson, and Carleton should provide consistent section description - a four lane width with parking and a travel lane in each direction, etc. Non Motorized Transportation needs more info and the bits and pieces of ped /non - motorized that are spread throughout the report should be compiled in a single section. Ped network (trails AND sidewalks /ped paths? bikes? wheelchair accessibility /non accessibilty "spots "? quantify ped volumes (recreation, bus, commute, business) and routes. Waterborne Transportation needs identification, use, potential use. Rail use, potential use on E Marginal the same. Air the same with some note from Jeff Winter on the weekday /annual tonnage and trips. Quantification of truck traffic volumes, tonnage, etc for Boeing •as•a separate heading inside the "other" transportation section. Grouping these other transportation cats would help the reader and Subject: Boeing Programatic Pre Draft EIS comments, pg 2 content. The existing volumes of Truck, Air, and Rail traffic should be added to the "there'd be no change" statement. Add Dr Neuzil's E Marg 0 & D data identifying the amount of E Marginal traffic that is Boeing generated /related. Neuzil, Sicko, Crandal and I put significant work into this...for E Marginal and for use in this EIS. Fig 4 -2, add Empire Way. The sentence beginning on the bottom pg 4 -4 /top pg 4 -7 starts into the high k factor. This needs to be amplified, probably in a separately headed section on the k factor and the , resultant differences due to the change from three manufacturing shifts to a dominant single shift office /lab environment. The change in shift populations and their forecast limits needs to be tabulated. The limits need to be quantified or assume that all 25,000 are in one shift. The shift breakout used for the trip gen and distribution needs to be clearly identified. The potential change from existing to predicted k factor limits and resultant peak volumes by direction shown and the potential changes. Modifying Table 4 -10 with another set of five rows for 1st shift employees would be one way to provide this data. Table 4 -9 should have a row of information added for the proposed alternative in addition to the existing and no action alternatives. The 2nd para on pg 4 -4 inferrs that 14th /16th is the main connection for the area and SR99. This is not so as the highest use is Pac .Hwy. For the ease of the reader to understand and not be innocently led into the incorrect order of access from E Marginal to the serving routes (99, I5, Empire /900, etc)...this should be spelled out as an ordered connection section. Like, Access to serving routes: Pac Hwy, BAR, E Marg /Interurban, Ellis /Carleton /Corson, E Marg /Alaskan Wy /lst S, ...then, identify classifications, volumes, capacity limits and available, LOS, etc, tieing it to Fig 4 -9 % distribution and volume figures....thanks. Accidents. The collision rate /mvm should be calculated to identify.the rates and any high rates. This was previously requested in the scoping work. The information summarized has little to no value. Again, the number of collisions shown on fig 4 -5 needs to be shown with the rate per mvm. Subject: Boeing Programatic Pre Draft EIS comments, pg 3 Pg 4 -21. Marked crosswalks comment in. 2nd line of last para. there are three underpasses, two on E Marg and one on 16th...the location of the third on E Marg needs to be located. Previous SEPA requirements. The BAR /E Marginal intersection was required and needs to be identified as a previous required mitigation. The reasons for the Oxbow interchange are not defined and need to be included in that paragraph (3rd) on page 4 -24. The Oxbow interchange mitigation was required to reduce LOS impacts on the BAR /E Marginal intersection, Pacific Highway between BAR and S 116 Wy, Pac Hwy /S 116 Wy, and E Marginal Wy south of BAR. Oxbow evaluation of three alternatives. The alternatives evaluated were of the Oxbow SB on ramp, a half diamond to /from the south at SR599 /E Marginal, and no change. The BAR /E Marginal flyover was determined to be a needed improvement for the E Marginal half diamond; it was not proposed as part of the alternative. Similarly, not building the Oxbow SB on ramp results in the need to widen Pac Hwy and widen the Pac Hwy SB left to SR599 for dual lanes. Table 4 - 6 on page 4 -25 should display trip gen data for the proposed alternative in addition to existing and no action alternatives. An LOS tabular summary of the Oxbow interchange alternative would ease comprehending LOS differences and should be used with paragraph 5 on page 4 -26. Table 4 -7: Change SR99 to SR599 for the segment south of Pac Hwy. E Marginal Way (S Michigan - BAR) must be segmented; Michigan to 16th, 16th to 89th or 92nd, 92nd - 96th, 96th - 102nd, 102nd - BAR, or more. Pacific Highway and BAR need limits. The beginning scope says it's beyond the EIS scope to identify specific intersection impacts without specific improvement plans. Select "critical" intersections must be called out and have LOS differences identified. BAR /E Marginal, Pacific Hwy /S 116 Wy, E Subject: Boeing Programatic Pre Draft EIS comments, pg 4 Marginal /16th, Empire /BAR,- 14 Ave S /Cloverdale, Interurban Ave/ E Marginal, E Marginal /Michigan, and other E Marginal intersections are key intersections that should have LOS shown for existing, future, and proposed alternatives. Most of this information has been calculated already in the CH2M work on Tukwila's Tran Plan or in the Entranco E Marginal Way work. This can be located in the text with table 4 -7. Showing volume changes (in parens) between existing and alternatives on Figures and Tables would be extremely helpful. Figure 4 -12 is most important but the comparable figures need the same info shown. The reader wouldn't have to calculate each one to assess the changes and the comparable differences between alternatives. The Draft provides two pages of TMP measures. The affects of the pop change to 1st shift and resulting LOS changes needs further description and mitigation determination. Storm Water The LOS improvements on E Marginal Way are being planned to accomodate the proposed Boeing redevelopment. A Boeing Master Storm Water Plan should include any potential mutual use connections for E Marginal drainage and Boeing drainage connecting to the river. A draingage cooperation agreement between Boeing and Tukwila for this drainage would be one way of approaching the issue. Energy The two large transmission lines on each side of E Marginal should be described. Their capacity, past - present- future use, and their limitations, particularly of not being economically feasible to underground in accord with Tukwila's Ordinances. The City Light Franchise agreement, how it is viewed legally by it's conditions as applying to annexed areas and that it will be in effect well into the 21st century. Water and Sewer It should be noted that Seattle is providing these services to Boeing within Tukwila's annexed areas. Tukwila's standards are the applicable development standards and permits must be coordinated with Seattle. It should be noted that this inconvenience and duplicity can be resolve by • • Subject: Boeing Programatic Pre Draft EIS comments, pg 5 transferring the Water and Sewer service from Seattle to Tukwila for the area within Tukwila. FROM :KING COUNTY DPW/SLJM . TO:KC ENV DIU APR 10. 1992 1 :17PM P.02 King County Surface Water Management Division Dcllarunent of Milk WorkR Tesler Building 400 ieA1er Way - RuUlll 400 Srattic, WA 98104-2637 (WC 29O -O319 April 10, 1992 TO: Joshua Goldfinger, Environmental Planner, SEPA Section VIA:Dave Clark, Manager, RWR Section, S FM: Fatin Kara, Engineer, MDP Program Tbat4 RE: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment PDEIS Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project and your continuing effort to coordinate King County's review. In review of this project it was found that water quality /quantity issues are of primary concern. The following comments are compiled from the SWM Water Quality Unit. The River Planning Section was not able to comment due to time limitation and staffing constraints. Comments are presented with page and paragraph numbers for your convenience. 1. Page 1 -6, Other Impacts; The document did not mention the water quality of the Duwamish Estuary. EPA, NOAA, DOE, METRO and City of Seattle have been working cooperatively for. 10 years to identify and control sources of pollution to the river. The PDEIS, up to this point, has not mentioned the water quality ( and to a limited extent water quantity) of vast areas of impervious surfaces including parking for 18,000 cars. 2. Page 1 -10, Table 1 -1, Additional Traffic impacts, Mitigation Measures; King County Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM) requires wetponds " if a proposed project will construct more than 1 acre of impervious surface that will be subject to vehicular use..." Section 1.3.5 -1 . Table 1 -1 states that no mitigation was required. Additionally, SWDM requires Coalescing Plate Oil /Water Separators " if a proposed project will construct more than 5 acres of impervious surface that will be subject to high vehicular use (more than 2,500 vehicle trips per day) ". Section 1.3.6-1. The project is proposing 188 acres of parking space which is well beyond Oil /Water Separator requirement range. 3. Page 1 -11, Table 1 -1, Stormwater System improvements; Onsite biofiltration is proposed. SWDM also requires Wetponds for system improvements. FROM:KING COUNTY DPW/SUM TO :KC ENV DIU APR 10, 1992 1:18PM P.03 • • 4. Page 3 -6, Project Area Shorelines; The document should mention that the Duwamish River also supports major salmonid fishery resources and a number of salmonid hatcheries upstream. This waterway provides an important migration corridor for returning adult fish and an equally important rearing area for out - migrant salmonids 5. Page 3 -7, Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies; The document should recognize the existence and relevancy of the SWDM and address the requirements relevant to project site, project components and phases. 6. Page 3 -24, second paragraph; The project should include Wetponds and Oil /Water separators to proposed biofiltration swales. 7. Page 3 -24, fifth paragraph; The document should include an evaluation of the impacts of the proposed project and the alternatives on salmonid rearing and migration, wildlife and, resident fish species within the Duwamish River. 8. Page 8 -1, Stormwater and Water Quality; With the diversion of the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant effluent in the late 80's, major point - source of water quality degradation has been removed from the upper river reach but, non -point sources such as Boeing stormwater remains to be addressed. With the completion of this project, more than 95 percent of the project site will be converted to impervious surface, making adequate water quality treatment significantly important. 9. Page 8 -5, second paragraph; The relevancy of the Elliot Bay Action Plan which was developed by EPA and DOE should be addressed in this paragraph. The Puget Sound Estuary Program was not referenced under the " Existing Studies" heading. This document should also be studied and requirements addressed as applicable. 10. Page 8 -5, fifth paragraph; The decrease in "quantity of stormwater discharge directly in to the Duwamish Waterway..." should be quantified in order to understand /justify the importance of this reduction. Therefore, numerical analysis is recommended to bring this point to public attention during the Draft EIS phase. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. If you have any concerns or questions, please call me at 6 -8370. cc:Ann Dold, SEPA Chief, Environmental Division Debbie Arima, Program Development Manager, SWM Tom Hubbard, Program Analyst, Water Quality Unit, SWM Bill Eckel, Manager, Water Quality Unit, SWM Megan Smith, River Planning Section, sWM Don Althauser, Senior Engineer, MDP Program, SWM FROM :KC ROADS TO:BALD • April 10, 1992 APR 13, 1992 12 :58PM #1628 P.02 • 1 TO: Joshua Goldfinger, SEPA Section FM: Sandy Adam , Intergovernmental Relations Coordinator RE: :• -'it '_...t ii.i :-d• 1 m n Roads Division staff have reviewed the subject document and have the following comments: As you and I have discussed, the four -day turn around for review of such a large and technical document is totally inadequate and presumptuous. Please make it clear in our County response to Tukwila that such a short review time may result in staff making more comments during the DEIS comment period. A general comment has been that the reference to a "mitigation document" to follow in the letter from Jack Pace to Craig Larsen is unusual. Most EIS's include mitigation - -is this a legal question to be answered by our Prosecuting Attorney? The question still remains as to whether or not Tukwila can change a mitigation that was a condition of a permit issued by King County. Perhaps this is another question for the BALD Deputy Prosecutor. ItylE The PDEIS discusses the methods to be used to reduce trips. It is not clear, however, where the threshold of SOVs is that negates the need for an Oxbow or SR 99 mitigation. The document does not discuss what will happen if the TMP does not work- -are the mitigations based on 1O0% TMP? Are they taking credit for the TMP? previous Mitinailsga If the data in the document is accurate, the Level of Service failure that was predicted which resulted in the original Oxbow lot mitigation appears not to have occurred. We preliminarily can state that we have no problem with the language in the document about the alternate mitigation. As stated before, there has not been time to analyze the data thoroughly enough to state that we may have more extensive, or even different comments during the DEIS comment period. FROM :KC ROADS • TO :BALD • 13, 1992 12:59PM 1i62B P.04 . King County Dept, of Public Works Roads & Engineering Division Traffic & Planning Section 296 -6596 TO: TO Karleen Sakumoto, Assistant Manager oads Division ry Samek, Supervising Engineer & Planning Section_. April 10, 1992 DATE I have .my review: of the sub je.Ct . dOOUaent• Sen y . . Adams indicated that she would not be at work on April 13, NIEHBOWItiLmAthat I should provide tray comments directly to you. My co:amen s are as to lows : ountp require• S.102nd St. be constructed as a mitigation measu-rree ifor the rf conStrudtio of the a #C87 -0533) in May of 1987 and revised in June of 1988. The agreed to provide necessary mitigation for the applicant. 2) The purpose of the mitigation was to provide systtem Ems Marginal Way at the Boeing Access Road and SR599 southbound aCths6B . 3) he %stets f reveal that the forecasted LOS failures have as yet tt h, �e i i a� ivied- at— original forecast was in error but can only speculate that the -fos'e occur. 4) Forecasts from the 1 information do however confirm ear that system improvements w i still be.neceSBary by o 2002. The mitigation options proposed within the document are: REPLArr a 5 Prov e or g na m ga on a /S .16Fnrs' 7nri originally required of Oxbow Corporate Park or b) Widen E. Marginal Way to 4/5 lans outh o eing Access Roma wi en a sou un on ramp L41 rrom h. Marginal Way. Either a or b would provide the systematic improvements env aio ligaressary in 1.Y* $ ti, 4s 475 a.w.v naw .!n !VIC\ aDI7R SIGNED SEND PARTS 1 AND $ INTACT - PART 3 WILL RE RETURNED WITH REPLY. DATE / cerbon/ess FROM: KC, ENU ll 1 U King County Cultural Resources Division Parka, Planning and Itt',aottrees DepOr t mrn t Arts Conunlsiton Lsu►dnuu4cs Cotnittlaslon Smith 7barr Entitling 506 Second Avtnue, Roam lit Seattle. Washington 9111O4 (sob) R08 - ?880 vim a8t.7680 TO! 226 43i 3665 L--PR ib, . 1992 3: bdrl•I 4E65 5 F. 22 April 10,1992 TO Josh Goldfinger, Environmental Division FR: Glenn Weiss, Cultural Resources . RE: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Development Draft EIS Please included the following recommended correction to the Draft EIS, Amendment to Page 3-16, Paragraph 4 Under Section titled 'King County Recreation Plans" ,,,.monsters and spirits. Myth Site are those that are celebrated in local Puget Salish mythology. Near the�hore atthe Duwamish y Arts Commission plans t,Q Agir Myth 'elating to th &t site. Other sites..., I would recommend that the Boeing's Design Guidelines and Standards include provisions for interpretative signage as to the history of the Duwamish River at each significant Duwamish Cultural Site and Boeing's own history on the River, . • City of Tukwila • John W. Rants, Mayor April 6, 1992 Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director Mr. Craig Larsen Deputy Director Department of Parks, Planning and Resources 1108 Smith Tower 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Mr. Larsen: Enclosed is one copy of the preliminary DEIS (PDEIS) on Boeing's proposed redevelopment of their facilities in, the Duwamish Corridor. This is accompanied (under separate cover) by one copy of The Boeing Company's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal. We appreciate your commitment to a one week review of the documents, looking especially for any fatal flaws before we distribute the draft to the public. We will be consolidating all comments on April 13, and are available to meet with you on that date if you would like. As discussed at the round table last fall, The Boeing Company's proposal has changed since the last PDEIS was distributed in October. The major change is a reduction in the workforce population from 30,000 employees to 25,000 employees. The new proposal to maintain a workforce population at 25,000 employees is within the population range the company has employed in the corridor over the past five years. Alternatives with employee populations of 30,000 and 40,000 have been deleted. The EIS reviews a redevelopment of industrial property over a ten -year planning horizon. The proposal by The Boeing Company is not site - specific in its discussion of revised use mixes, design guidelines, and transportation management strategies. Building locations, driveway locations, quantity and location of parking, and other aspects of the proposal will all undergo "phased" environmental review. In other words, individual projects that implement the proposal will be reviewed first for general consistency with the programmatic EIS, and second for project - specific impacts not addressed in the programmatic EIS. Alternatives are reviewed as a reference for comparing impacts from a range of development scenarios. Because the proposal is for redevelopment of private industrial land, we do not anticipate selecting a "preferred" alternative in the same way we would for a public redevelopment project. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 - • • Mr. Craig Larsen Page 2 April 6, 1992 The internal review process to date has been noteworthy for the cooperation among Tukwila, Seattle, King County, and Metro officials in providing feedback on preliminary drafts. Ultimately, the City of Tukwila anticipates issuance of a Final EIS and then a "mitigation document." This document is intended to establish the measures to be taken by the applicant to address redevelopment impacts that apply to the entire Duwamish corridor. For example, corridor -wide transportation impacts that result from a proposal that maintains an employee population of 25,000 but changes the use mix, will be addressed. The mitigation document will sort out and distinguish between previously required mitigation and mitigation required to address the current proposal. We believe that in the long term the cooperating jurisdictions have a collective interest in making this process work. The Boeing proposal is quite progressive in the sense that a programmatic ten -year plan is being presented voluntarily for redevelopment that meets or exceeds the different standards of three local jurisdictions for this industrial area. It affords us the chance to go beyond review of individual projects in isolation. We have delivered the remaining copies of the documents to Joshua Goldfinger at the County's Environmental Division, as requested by Ann Dold in her letter of March 19. We thank you for the cooperation and enthusiasm you and the staff at the County have provided to this important project to date. We hope you realize that your efforts, as well as those of Seattle and Metro, are greatly appreciated, and we look forward to continuing to work with all of you to improve industrial development in the Duwamish Corridor. Sincerely, / Jack Pace Senior Planner sea/j ak/E /3637/Larsen • City of Tukwila • John W. Rants, Mayor April 6, 1992 Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director Ms. Carol Thompson Market Development Planner Metro 821 Second Avenue, M.S. 64 Seattle, Washington 98104 -1598 Dear Ms. Thompson: Enclosed are two copies of the preliminary DEIS (PDEIS) on Boeing's proposed redevelopment of their facilities in the Duwamish Corridor, accompanied (under separate . cover) by two copies of The Boeing. Company's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal. We appreciate your commitment to as quick a review as possible, looking especially for any fatal flaws before we distribute the draft to the public. We will be consolidating all comments on April 13, and are available to meet with you on that date if you would like. As discussed at the round table last fall, The Boeing Company's proposal has changed since the last PDEIS was distributed in October. The major change is a reduction in the workforce population from 30,000 employees to 25,000 employees. The new proposal to maintain a workforce population at 25,000 employees is within the population range the company has employed in the corridor over the past five years. Alternatives with employee populations of 30,000 and 40,000 have been deleted. The EIS reviews a redevelopment of industrial property over a ten -year planning. horizon. The proposal by The Boeing Company is not site - specific in its discussion of revised use mixes, design guidelines, and transportation management strategies. Building locations, driveway locations, quantity and location of parking, and other aspects of the proposal will all undergo "phased" environmental review. In other words, individual projects that implement the proposal will be reviewed first for general consistency with the programmatic EIS, and second for project - specific impacts not addressed in the programmatic EIS. The internal review process to date has been noteworthy for the cooperation among Tukwila, Seattle, King County, and Metro officials in providing feedback on preliminary drafts. Ultimately, the City of Tukwila anticipates issuance of a Final EIS and then a. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 - • • Ms. Carol Thompson Page 2 April 6, 1992 "mitigation document." This document is intended to establish the measures to be taken by the applicant to address redevelopment impacts that apply to the entire Duwamish corridor. For example, corridor -wide transportation impacts that result from a proposal that maintains an employee population of 25,000 but changes the use mix will be addressed. The mitigation document will sort out and distinguish between previously required mitigation and mitigation required to address the current proposal. We believe that in the long term, the cooperating jurisdictions have a collective interest in making this process work. The Boeing proposal is quite progressive in the sense that a programmatic ten -year plan is being presented voluntarily for redevelopment that meets or exceeds the different standards of three local jurisdictions for this industrial area. It affords us the chance to go beyond review of individual projects in isolation. We thank you for the cooperation and enthusiasm you and the staff at the Metro have provided to this important project to date. We hope you realize that your efforts, as well as those of King County and Seattle, are greatly appreciated, and we look forward to continuing to work with all of you to improve industrial development in the Duwamish Corridor. Sincerely, Jack Pace Senior Planner sea/j ak/E /3638/Thompson April 6, 1992 • • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director Ms. Rebecca Herzfeld Director, Land Use Division Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use 710 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Ms. Herzfeld: Enclosed are five copies of the preliminary DEIS (PDEIS) on Boeing's proposed redevelopment of their facilities in the Duwamish Corridor, accompanied (under separate cover) by 5 copies of The Boeing Company's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal: We appreciate your commitment to as quick a review as possible, looking especially for any fatal flaws before we distribute the draft to the public. We will be consolidating all comments on April 13, and are available to meet with you on that date if you would like. As discussed at the round table last fall, The Boeing Company's proposal has changed since the last PDEIS was distributed in October. The major change is a reduction in the workforce population from 30,000 employees to 25,000 employees. The new proposal to maintain a workforce population at 25,000 employees is within the population range the company has employed in the corridor over the past 5 years. Alternatives with employee populations of 30,000 and 40,000 have been deleted. The EIS reviews a redevelopment of industrial property over a ten -year planning horizon. The proposal by The Boeing Company is not site - specific in its discussion of revised use mixes, design guidelines, and transportation management strategies. Building locations, driveway locations, quantity and location of parking, and other aspects of the proposal will all undergo "phased" environmental review. In other words, individual projects that implement the proposal will be reviewed first for general consistency with the programmatic EIS, and second for project - specific impacts not addressed in the programmatic EIS. Martin Fricko provided us with a markup on the first PDEIS, as well as other comments. We examined these and have addressed the majority of them in the new PDEIS in a 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • • Ms. Rebecca Herzfeld Page 2 April 6, 1992 context we feel is appropriate for the programmatic nature of this effort. In your letter of February 14, on Boeing's proposed shoreline access plan, you suggested that the EIS examine a range of alternatives for shoreline access. Partly in response to earlier concerns expressed by Seattle, The Boeing Company's latest Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal has incorporated a shoreline access plan that we believe is much improved over the proposal you last saw. The proposal now provides a minimum of a one - to -one ratio of linear public access frontage to frontage proposed for redevelopment. Shoreline parks will be provided along the Oxbow site, and pedestrian linkages for the Duwamish Trail from the Green River Trail to the Museum of Flight are also proposed. As we understand it, the Boeing Company's need to provide security for their facilities is the underlying reason why only employee shoreline access can be provided on the east side of the Duwamish River. Understanding that both the Seattle and King County shoreline regulations provide for an exception to the public access requirement for security reasons, The Boeing Company has voluntarily proposed this shoreline access plan in an effort to balance public access objectives with its need for security. We have carefully reviewed the revised proposal's shoreline and trail improvements. We have noted that regional recreation and open space planning efforts all identify trail extensions and improvements on the west side, rather than the east side, of the Duwamish River. In reviewing the amount of improved shoreline access and trail connections the revised proposal provides, the security requirements of the applicant, the location of trail improvements included in public open space planning efforts, and the absence of an impact nexus since no current access is being displaced, we did not believe the EIS document would benefit from a review of alternatives for shoreline access. After reviewing this new proposal, we hope you will agree. The internal review process to date has been noteworthy for the cooperation among Tukwila, Seattle, King County, and Metro officials in providing feedback on preliminary drafts. Ultimately, the City of Tukwila anticipates issuance of a Final EIS and then a "mitigation document." This document is intended to establish the measures to be taken by the applicant to address redevelopment impacts that apply to the entire Duwamish corridor. For example, corridor -wide transportation impacts that result from a proposal that maintains an employee population of 25,000 but changes the use mix will be addressed. The mitigation document will sort out and distinguish between previously required mitigation and mitigation required to address the current proposal. The mitigation document will hopefully prove to be especially appropriate for review of the upcoming application for redevelopment of the Boeing property just north of the 16th • • Ms. Rebecca Herzfeld Page 3 April 6, 1992 Avenue South bridge. Because that parcel lies partially in Seattle and partially in Tukwila, project review will offer an opportunity for us to continue to work constructively together. In fact, we believe that in the long term, the cooperating jurisdictions have a collective interest in making this process work. The Boeing proposal is quite progressive in the sense that a programmatic ten -year plan is being presented voluntarily for redevelopment that meets or exceeds the different standards of three local jurisdictions of this industrial area. It affords us the chance to go beyond review of individual projects in isolation. We thank you for the cooperation and enthusiasm you and the staff at the City have provided to this important project to date. We hope you realize that your efforts, as well as those of King County and Metro, are greatly appreciated, and we look forward to continuing to work with all of you to improve industrial development in the Duwamish Corridor. Sincerely, Jack Pace Senior Planner sea/j ak/E /363 6B oeing cc: Tom Tierney 1 To: Jack Pace, Senior P1 nki6R13 1992 From: Ron Cameron, Ci yiairglifigrelUKWILA PLANNING DEPT'. Date: April 4, 1992 Subject: Boeing Programatic Pre Draft EIS comments i Fig 1 -1 needs Pacific Hwy, Boeing Access Road, and Ryan inlay added. Fig 4 -1 needs Empire Way (SR900 /Sunset /MLK) added. Signals at Pacific Hwy /S 116 Wy, E Marginal Wy /Interurban, and Empire Way /Ryan Way need to be identified with the other signals. Third para on 4 -3, next to last sentence needs to be changed, Boeing Access Road does not become Pac Hwy w/o E Marginal Wy. Another way to write this description is: Boeing Access Road connects the intersections of Empire Way /Ryan on the east with E Marginal /Pacific Hwy on the West. It connects traffic traveling between Pacific Highway, Airport Way, E Marginal Way, Empire Way, Ryan Way, and I5. Seattle is the lead agency to add an I5 southbound to eastbound off ramp movement and Empire Way southbound to I5 northbound movement. (The SED capacity information, LOS affects, and SED funding needs to be added to the programmatic EIS; contact Frank Yanagamachi at SED for this information.) Boeing Access Road serves as the primary access - xx% of the travels on or across (intersects) the BAR. The paragraph on Ellis, Corson, and Carleton should provide consistent section description - a four lane width with parking and a travel lane in each direction, etc. Non Motorized Transportation needs more info and the bits and pieces of ped /non- motorized that are spread throughout the report should be compiled in a single section. Ped network (trails AND sidewalks /ped paths? bikes? wheelchair accessibility /non accessibilty "spots "? quantify ped volumes (recreation, bus, commute, business) and routes. Waterborne Transportation needs identification, use, potential use. Rail use, potential use on E Marginal the same. Air the same with some note from Jeff Winter on the weekday /annual tonnage and trips. Quantification of truck traffic volumes, tonnage, etc for Boeing as a separate heading inside the "other" transportation section. Grouping these other transportation cats would help the reader and content. The existing volumes of Truck, Air, and Rail traffic should be added to the "there'd be no change" statement. Add Dr Neuzil's E Marg 0 & D data identifying the amount of E G Marginal traffic that is Boeing generated /related. Neuzil, Sicko, Crandal and I put significant work into this...for E Marginal and for use in this EIS. Fig 4 -2, add Empire Way. The sentence beginning on the bottom pg 4 -4 /top pg 4 -7 starts into the high k factor. This needs to be amplified, probably in a separately headed section on the k factor and the resultant differences due to the change from three manufacturing shifts to a dominant single shift office /lab environment. The change in shift populations and their forecast limits needs to be tabulated. The limits need to be quantified or assume that all 25,000 are in one shift. The shift breakout used for the trip gen and distribution needs to be clearly identified. The potential change from existing to predicted k factor limits and resultant peak volumes by direction shown and the potential changes. Modifying Table 4 -10 with another set of five rows for 1st shift employees would be one way to provide this data. Table 4 -9 should have a row of information added for the proposed alternative in addition to the existing and no action alternatives. The 2nd para on pg 4 -4 inferrs that 14th /16th is the main connection for the area and SR99. This is not so as the highest use is Pac Hwy. For the ease of the reader to understand and not be innocently led into the incorrect order of access from E Marginal to the serving routes (99, I5, Empire /900, etc)...this should be spelled out as an ordered connection section. Like, Access to serving routes: Pac Hwy, BAR, E Marg /Interurban, Ellis /Carleton /Corson, E Marg /Alaskan Wy/lst S, ...then, identify classifications, volumes, capacity limits and available, LOS, etc, tieing it to Fig 4 -9 % distribution and volume_ figures.... thanks. Accidents. The collision rate /mvm should be calculated to identify the rates and any high rates. This was previously requested in the scoping work. The information summarized has little to no value. Again, the number of collisions shown on fig 4 -5 needs to be shown with the rate per mvm. Pg 4 -21. Marked crosswalks comment in 2nd line of last para. there are three underpasses, two on E Marg and one on 16th...the location of the third on E Marg needs to be located. Previous SEPA requirements. 0111 III The BAR /E Marginal intersection was required and needs to be identified as a previous required mitigation. The reasons for the Oxbow interchange are not defined and nee A- to be included in that paragraph (3rd) on page 4 -24. The Oxbow interchange mitigation was required to reduce LOS impacts on the BAR /E Marginal intersection, Pacific Highway between BAR and S 116 Wy, Pac Hwy /S. 116 Wy, and E Marginal Wy south of BAR. Oxbow evaluation of three alternatives. The alternatives evaluated were of the Oxbow SB on ramp, a half diamond to /from the south at SR599 /E Marginal, and no change. The BAR /E Marginal flyover was determined to be a needed improvement for the E Marginal half diamond; it was not proposed as part of the alternative. Similarly, not building the Oxbow SB on ramp results in the need to widen Pac Hwy and widen the Pac Hwy SB left to SR599 for dual lanes. Table 4 - 6 on page 4 -25 should display trip gen data for the proposed alternative in addition to existing and no action alternatives. An LOS tabular summary of the Oxbow interchange alternative would ease comprehending LOS differences and should be used with paragraph 5 on page 4 -26. Table 4 -7: Change SR99 to SR599 for the segment south of Pac Hwy. E Marginal Way (S Michigan - BAR) must be segmented; Michigan to 16th, 16th to 89th or 92nd, 92nd - 96th, 96th - 102nd, 102nd - BAR, or more. Pacific Highway and BAR need limits. The beginning scope says it's beyond the EIS scope to identify specific intersection impacts without specific improvement plans. Select "critical" intersections must be called out and have LOS differences identified. BAR /E Marginal, Pacific Hwy /S 116 Wy, E Marginal /16th, Empire /BAR, 14 Ave S /Cloverdale, Interurban Ave/ E Marginal, E Marginal /Michigan, and other E Marginal intersections are key intersections that should have LOS shown for existing, . future, and proposed alternatives. Most of this information has been calculated already in the CH2M work on Tukwila's Tran Plan or in the Entranco E Marginal Way work. This can be located in the text with table 4 -7. Showing volume changes (in parens) between existing and alternatives on Figures and Tables would be extremely 0 helpful. Figure 4 -12 is most important but the comparable . figures need the same info shown. The reader wouldn't have to calculate each one to assess the changes and the comparable differences between alternatives. The Draft provides two pages of TMP measures. The affects of the pop change to 1st shift and resulting LOS changes needs further description and mitigation determination. Storm Water The LOS improvements on E Marginal Way are being planned to accomodate the proposed Boeing redevelopment. A Boeing Master Storm Water Plan should include any potential mutual use connections for E Marginal drainage and Boeing drainage connecting to the river. A draingage cooperation agreement between Boeing and Tukwila for this drainage would be one way of approaching the issue. Energy The two large transmission lines on each side of E Marginal should be described. Their capacity, past - present- future use, and their limitations, particularly of not being economically feasible to underground in accord with Tukwila's Ordinances. The City Light Franchise agreement, how it is viewed legally by it's conditions as applying to annexed areas and that it will be in effect well into the 21st century. Water and Sewer It should be noted that Seattle is providing these services to Boeing within Tukwila's annexed areas. Tukwila's standards are the applicable development standards and permits must be coordinated with Seattle. It should be noted that this inconvenience and duplicity can be resolve by transferring the Water and Sewer service from Seattle to Tukwila for the area within Tukwila. 'Y OF TUKWILA • • mum, mmfam • • Id •A ‘1•011 M W M 11. 1 1,11 NT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 1‘10.: • Pub Wks 7 Fire 7 PoIc fl Parks/Rec r`Sca *E TRANSMITTED Aavt,/,., 1FF COORDINATOR RESPONSE REQUESTED BY ifilluvt•IN DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED ass and.....repohd/with-eipprOpiriate comrnentS4n.the • • • • .. • •• Indicate crucial concerns by .checking the box next to the Ilne(s). on Which...that concern is noted:. rm..... -Irmo - rm-mmarmommmw ow' -AM ...•—•11■11C"..rtra •ra • ■•• • • - -.. -am . ••• . m 41111.7., 4' -a' an. MmOrmar I) a•m”- fl DRC review requested in check date: Plan submittal requested Comments prepared.I MEMO March 27, 1992 To: CH2M Hill (Ikuno Masterson and Lloyd Skinner) Boeing (John Crull) Tukwila (Jack Pace) From: Bob Betts Subject: Comments on the review the Preliminary Draft EIS for the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment General; A "Gold Star" for putting in the Glossary of acronyms! Now can we put in some plain language text what they pertain to? And why not put this at the start of the EIS, rather than tucked into the end? The summary pages are very helpful. Could we now put page numbers as references there as well? Jurisdictions don't seem to be clearly delineated on an introductory map. Since this EIS focusses on intergovernmental cooperation, are we missing an opportunity to give credit? References to interjurisdictional cooperation may need to be enhanced. For instance, on p4 -49 the reference to a "brain trust" does not include Seattle. If that's deliberate, perhaps the sentence needs to be rewritten. Also, showing the area of the Airport Authority would be helpful. Concurrency between Boeing's Proposal and the EIS needs to be confirmed. Has anyone done this task? For instance, page 3 -31 indicates Boeing's shoreline public access plan has a series of objectives, and yet the actual Boeing proposal does not recite these anywhere. It would be very helpful to have a header on each page of text to tell the reader where he /she is; the present numbering system is too obscure. It would be helpful, too, to have a page number next to text references that tell the reader to refer to certain figures or tables. We need to discuss how people are to contact me in regard to the DEIS. Robert Betts Com*its - Duwamish Corridor PDEIS • March 27, 1992 2 Boeing Field is rarely mentioned throughout the Statement, and yet its role in the region is perceived to be an important one. Why not identify this proposal will not adversely affect its operations in the summary, and in the transportation section? It must be an oversight, but pages iii and 2 -1 could benefit by putting Boeing Field in their description of the project area. Why not state that Boeing does not intend to buy /lease more land in this project area over the next 10 years, and that should new facilities be proposed beyond the land areas depicted on the map, they may well trigger new programmatic environmental review? Has this document been clear enough in stating that whilethe redevelopment of 4,000,000+ sq feet will take place,its exact location can not be specified, except to say it will be located on those properties identified in the graphic exhibit. Further, that Boeing will not exceed the total employment or square feet during the 10 -year life of this plan, without precipitating a new level of programmatic environmental review? We need to state that there are no parking impacts, as Boeing has sufficient land area to construct additional parking, or the operational capacity to reduce the demand through TDM, etc.. Why are there specific code citations? The present technique seems needlessly officious; we're not writing a legal brief. There are many references to places or streets, and yet the accompanying graphic does not contain all the same references. (Compare exhibit 3 -3 with text on page 3 -16). Is there some way to simplify this? Nit Picks: Why is it that the proposed action is referred to in all lower -case letters, but the alternates are shown in Initial Caps? (cf., No Action, Manufacturing Alternative, etc..) Chapter Comments. 1 -1 What is this reference to a drainage master plan with planed utility improvements to East Marginal Way? This is a DRAFT plan, right? 2 -7 Were the present set of trails and improvements at the OxBow the result of previous mitigation requirements? If we know, it would be helpful to put that into the report. 3 -10, 3 -13, etc., (why the references to specific code sections ?) Robert Betts Comikts Duwamish Corridor PDEIS March 27, 1992 3 3 -15 Why not show the OxBow improvements on this table? 3 -28 What are build alternatives° in ¶s 1 & 2? Chapter 4. There needs to be a more direct set of statements here in this chapter: 1. Mitigations will include both fair -share contributions and a successful TMP because of Tukwila's skepticism that any TMP can meet the trip reduction standards set forth in the state law for 1997 and 1999. Right now, on pages 4 -1 and 4 -35 there is the implicit assumption that Boeing is on the hook to build improvements, regardless of its potential to reduce impacts through an aggressive TDM. 2. Boeing already has implemented a TMP, and its level of participation means that in all alternatives, has already complied with State Trip Reduction Law goals for 1995. Really, it appears the EIS would be enhanced with a graphic that has all the key names and numbers. There is a bewildering set of them, even down to SR500 (p 4 -47), which I don't recognize at all. For instance there are a series of interchanges which have place -names such as ° OxBow,° that need to be on a map for the transportation section. 4 -4 The pedestrian tunnel is west of E. Marginal Way. Also 115 text refers to 37,000vpd, but figure 4 -2 shows 45,700. 4 -7 Why not discuss LOS standards if any, in King County or City of Seattle, or why their standards do not pertain to this area. 4- 13,4 -48 The copy of the present TMP is in Appendix °C,° not °B.° Tables 4 -4, 5. Sure would be helpful to put a small footnote in here to state what AVO, SOV are. (general suggestion for many of the graphics, actually.) 4 -17 Here and in one or two other spots there is a recitation of the standards for bus stops, or employee density for °successful° transit, but after stating the actual conditions on the site, there is no conclusion drawn. Fig 4 -7 What's a °transit route group?" 4 -21 Last 11. References to pedestrian tunnels are confusing. Earlier sentence refers to those across E. Marginal Way, and later sentence refers to one located across 16th Ave South. 4 -22 (last 11) Isn't the present reconstruction from Tukwila City Limits south on E Marginal Way? This needs to be clarified, as I understand neither Tukwila or Seattle want to have a 'no -mans land° of unimproved street through the 16th /EMWay intersection. Robert Betts Com.ts Duwamish Corridor PDEIS • March 27, 1992 4 4 -23 Aren't there better ways to tell the readers about the location of improvements on 1 -5? MP 154.4 to 167.13 doesn't help much, except to the civil engineer in charge of the road. Of more importance is when these improvements are due to be completed. Citing a report of January 1990 seems quite out -of -date. The final ¶ refers to a °two build° alternatives. What are these? 4 -24 and 4 -47. Is there a need to repeat the previous SEPA mitigation requirements? If so, why is the language different? (compare frontage and °frontal. °) Table 4-6. Arithmetic typo in the No action Alt: trips for office is wrong. 4 -31 Is there a discussion of how °parking shortfall° is calculated, and why isn't there a discussion of its impact or lack thereof in the text? The summary on 1 -9 sets the numbers out, but I can't find a text that shows calculation of this feature, and a narrative about why it isn't of any particular significance. Pp. -31, 4 -39 & 4 -46 all flirt with the topic. 4 -35 Is there some way the text can better define what's a °peak hour° for analysis in this most complicated of areas? For instance, Boeing's shifts are such that the period 2:30 -3:30 is its °peak °. Are we also worrying about a °peak° between 4:30 -5:30? Is this justifiable in terms of computing Boeing's °fair share° of improvements if the LOS is better than D on otherwise impacted roadway segments. 4 -41 Why are there so few references to the Boeing Design Guidelines in its Proposal. For instance there are several Guidelines and standards directed at enhancing transit usage. 4 -46 Statement that 4,645,000 sf is a decrease when the others use the same figure. Why? 4 -47 last ¶: No improvement °j not °are° proposed. 4 -48 The reference to IRS regulations is unnecessary and incomplete. $15 -$20 per month, or year, or what, for instance. 4 -49 Work with whose °staff° for instance? 5-1 Why say that Boeing employment records indicate employment at 25,000 when the table from '88 -92 show fluctuations, and then why confuse the lead sentence to say that the figures are based on employment records dated October 1990. 6-5 Helpful to repeat what a VOC is in the text. 40 .0(R. King Count Environmental Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 3600 - 136th Place Southeast Bellevue, Washington 980064400 (206) 296 -6602 March 19, 1992 Bob Betts Robert S. Betts, Inc. 700 - 108th Avenue Bellevue, WA 98004 tl(.. fl n GL L� (' fal L LU MAR 241992 CITY Yg i ,.' I T. ° .F I L A PLANNING D P i Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Programmatic EIS SEPA No. T9100110 Gentlemen: It was a pleasure to meet with you last month to discuss the Boeing EIS. I am writing to confirm the arrangements you set forth regarding King County's review of the second preliminary DEIS. I understand that Bob has indicated to Joshua Goldfinger that copies of this document will be delivered on or before April 6 and that King County will have until April 13 to provide you with comments. Please deliver at least five copies of the document including revised design guidelines, appendices, or other related documents to Joshua Goit f inge ' a attention at the Environmental Division office. We will circulate the document to only a few key reviewers and return our comments to you within one week. Please notify me in advance if you need to change this arrangement. I understood from our discussion that the second PDEIS will include an analysis of a mitigation measure consisting of proposed road improvements south of the Oxbow site. The document will describe permit conditions and SEPA mitigations which have previously been required by King County in the project area. King County will take the appropriate actions in the event it is necessary to revise mitigation measures required under previously issued SEPA threshold determinations. Bob Betts Jack Pace March 19, 1992 page 2 Based on our discussion, I understand that this EIS will be used to decide on a set of mitigation measures rather than an overall redevelopment strategy for the project area. While the Responsible Officials in Tukwila and Seattle may have authority to agree on a final set of mitigation measures, King County's Responsible Offical may not. We will be investigating this issue to determine the appropriate signator for King County. Please contact me at 296 -7154 (Fax 296 -6604) if you have any questions "or -concerns -regaLdi,ig -i:i;:.g county' roview EIS. Sincerely, C Ann Dold Chief, SEPA Section l'7 cc: Clint Lank, Manager Joshua Goldfinger, Environmental Planner 0.5 /11b /yd 11:�J ECOLOGY, NWRO • 002 STATE OE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office, 3190. 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 90000 -5451 • ('1061649 - 70th! March 6, 1992 Ms. Ikuno Masterson CH2M Hill 777 -108th Avenue N.E. P.O. Box 91500 Bellevue, WA 98009 -2050 Re: Boeing Preliminary DEIS Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal Dear Me. Masterson, I, as well ae several other Ecology staff, reviewed the Preliminary DEIS. Moot of the concerns identified related to the handling of demolition and construction debrief solid waste, conducting environmental assessments of proposed redevelopment sites for contamination and making provisions to remediate any contamination identified and water quality. Based on my review of the excerpts of the draft redevelopment proposal you sent to us on February 27, 1992, it appears that many of these concerns will be addressed. Below are some issues that should be addressed either in the DEIS and /or PSIS. It would be helpful to have the redevelopment proposal incorporated into the DBIS or at least accompany the DEIS when it is submitted for review. The information in the proposal would facilitate the review of the DEIS and reduce the amount of time spent by reviewers "second guessing" what Boeing has and has not considered. PART II Pend and Shoreline Uses Ecology's Elliott Bay Action Team is very interested in the shoreline Access Plan that Boeing is propoeing to develop. We would like to review and comment on this plan while it is in draft form. We are particularly interested in the proposed redevelopment along the Duwamish as an opportunity to restore shoreline habitat along the waterway. I understand that Boeing will be meeting with Curtis Tanner later this month to discuss potential habitat restoration sites in the vicinity of the proposed redevelopment. Transportation Page 4 -47, bottom' of the page. Fare share contributions to three roadway improvements cannot be ,tnstea4 of the transportation management plan, because the TMP is required under the new state Clean Air Act. us /bb /yd 11:59 ECOLOGY, NWRO 003 • • Ikuno Masterson March 6, 1992 Page 2 The summary indicated the potential for Boeing contributing a fare share to transit improvement as mitigation; this idea ehould be further expanded in the transportation section. PART III Aix Page 6 -3, Ozone. Ozone pollution is a regional problem. The entire central Puget Sound contributes to ozone formation downwind, in areas as far away as Mount Rainier National Park. As part of this region, the Duwamish area probably contributes to ozone levels measured at stations other than the one at Lake Samammish. Environmental Health The information contained in the puwamieh Corridor Redevelopment proposal which relates to the identification and cleanup of hazardous waste management facilities, underground storage tanks and contaminated Boils should be included in the DEIS. Stormwater The ownership of adjacent tidelands should be determined to ensure appropriate leases or permits are obtained for stormwater outfalls. 2 would recommend that the sediments in the vicinity of any new outfalls be tested to establish baseline conditions. Periodic monitoring of sediments around the outfalls subsequent to construction could be used to determine whether Boeing's best management practices for stormwater are effective. The use of landscaping or alternatives to asphalt, such as grasacrete, should be considered to minimize the quantity of stormwater discharged from Boeing properties. Thie section should be changed to• "Water Quality ", to address discharges other than stormwater. There should be some discussion of the requirement for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits of non- contact cooling water and process waste waters under the federal clean Water Act and state Water Pollution Control Act, chapter 90.48 RCW and implementing regulations. The section should include a discussion of current permits at Boeing facilities, what they allow to be discharged and whether the discharge will be eliminated by redevelopment. It should also identify any projects which might require modifications to existing permit., or new cooling water permits. The section should also discuss 'current discharges to the eanitary sewer under Metro's Industrial Pretreatment program and whether there will be any changes to the volume or characteristics of the wastes discharged to Metro. 17-1,170/74 le; 1717 tLULUUT , IVWKU 10U4 • Ikuno Masterson March 6, 1992 Page 3 Under "Operational Impacts ", there is discussion of expanding the flightline. If any operations such as calibration of aircraft fuel systems, deicing or aircraft washing occur on the flightline, then the current means of dealing with the wastee generated should discussed and what, if any, changes will be considered. Additionally, the location of any existing oil /water eeparatore and their purpose should be reviewed. If any of these separators discharge into the storm sewer system, then all incompatible uses such as airplane, equipment or vehicle washing or any steam cleaning operations should be provided with an alternate collection and disposal system. The use of detergents, soaps and steam cleaning additives emulsify oils and allow them to by -pass the separator. Al]. API gravity oil /water separators should be upgraded to CPI separators wherever possible. All abandoned storm and sanitary sewer lines, as well as side connections, and underground product or raw material lines should be removed. Where they cannot be removed, they should be cleaned and grouted. This is intended to reduce the probability that these could serve as a conduit for any future subsurface contamination from spills or leaks. • If you have any questions about these comments, please call me at 649 -7023. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. DC :dre Sincerely, Da Dan Cargill Urban Bay Action Teams Toxics Cleanup Program ccs Gail Colburn, Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program Jeannie Summerhays, Ecology, Solid & Hazardous Waste Pam Elardo, Ecology, Water Quality Elliott Bay Action Team Vernics Santee, Environmental Review City of Tukwila Department of Public Works John W. Rants, Mayor M- EM0RANDU_M TO: Jack Pace, Senior Planner FROM: Ron Cameron, City Engineer DATE: March 4, 1992 • SUBJECT: East Marginal Boeing Program EIS Programmatic Ross A. Earnst, P. E., Director This memorandum asks for trail dedication at the Duwamish Office Park, along the Duwamish River between Pacific Highway and S. 112th St. During annexation assignment paper for the trail along river from S. 112th St. to Pac. Hwy. for King County trail was lost. It had been agreed to in annexation; need to have Boeing: 1. Dedicate it; 2. Take irrigation on river side of trail off - it is wearing the bank away. With these items complete King County will pave it and take over maintenance as previously agreed to. RMC /kjp 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433 -0179 • Fax (206) 431-3665 TO: City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Public Works Ross A. Pamst, P. E., Director Ross Earnst. Jack Pace MEMORANDUM FROM: Ron Cameron DATE: March 2, 1992 SUBJECT: Boeing /King County January 1990 Mitigation Jack, do you have a copy or know about this? Ross? RC /kjp Attachment File: Boeing Duwamish Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433 -0179 • Fax (206) 431-3665 King County Roads and titgineering DkWtilon nep.rtment of Public Works 900 King County Administration BuildinK Seattle. Washingtnn 98104 FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET RECEIVED FEB, 2 71992 PVBL�e wonK S Public Works Traffic and Planning Section Central Building, Room 35.0 810 Third Avenue TRANSMITTING FAX N0. 296 -0176 DATE: , rr '' 612- TIME: 5 ;00 D OITIONAL C�}MMEN S: NO. OF PAGES J INCL. COVER FAX NUMBER: �3 \ PHONE NO. 2ck, (?__ A41cteBad you t,50 �%v,A Coixe S o2 L?›.det/ val4eg 9rr '07A0 FEB- 27 -'92 THU 17:02 Ili:TRAFFIC PLR NING TEL NO 290 017 o • A January 5, 1990 i Tnc 60sing Compa Y 15-' I'U 6w 37;.7 : �e Sectttic. WA 98124 22Q7 Paul Tanaka Director, Public,Works Department 900 King County Administrative Building Seattle. WA 98104 -1879 Dear Mr. Tanaka: Ii2Ji PO4 RfiwC -CiVED ;"N (: t��J VIAJN I Y rueuc w ep U)l Trig:: The Boeing Company has initiated several major construction projects in the Boeing Field and Duwamish Valley area during the past several years, and other.projects are currently about to be launched or are in the planning stage. These projects have required mitigation commitments to reduce the traffic impact in the Valley and further mitigation is likely to be required. The many governmental jurisdictions that have an interest in this area, and our multiplicity of,projects creates a unique challenge to manage the traffic in this araa. For this reason we would like to invite you to join us and the other interested governmental organizations to a meeting :.to.discuss these projects. and how we collectively can coordinate, and integrate these projects into the traffic management and expansion plans of the vicinity. We invite you to join us at a' meeting to be held January 24, 1990, at 10:00 A.M. at our corporate headquarters which is located at 7755 E. Marginal Way South; parking is available on the east side of E. Marginal Way at gate C-16. We will have someone meet you at our administrative lobby to escort you to the conference room. We also invite you to bring your transportation planner with you. Please call Nancy Taylor at 655 -5418 to confirm your attendance. We have enclosed a list of the invitees for your information While The Boeing Company has made some commitments for traffic improvements in the Duwamish area, we believe it would be to all parties mutual advantage to pursue a broader approach to future transportation enhancements. We look forward to discussing this matter with you on January 24th. Sincerely, J.T. Lewis Corporate.Director Local & Community Relations cam- �--� -- JAN 1 0 1Ga� 4.6,//6're, FEB- 27 -'92 THU 17:02 •TPR1FF1C & PLANNING TEL NO:20 0176 11231 P03 Mr. J. T. Lewis March 14, 1990 Page Two Thank you again for this opportunity to be included in your plans for' the future as well as past projects which have made important improvements on our regional transportation system. If you have any questions, please contact County Road Engineer Louis Haff at 296 -6590. Sincerely, T...— *1-._ 1491 Toylike Director-. cc: Louis J. Haff, County Road Engineer ATTN: Bill Hoffman, tanager;, Transportation Planning Section John .'J. Loan, ...Ta af'i c and Planning Engineer Gary Saniek, ee l nt Review Engineer r GD —e f— '74 I r7U I f. u.j 11). I RMr r i L e r Lltil VIV 1 iVl7 TEL INU . 206 236 0176 O _. • ;2..11 FO5 Jim Guenther, Washington State Department of Transportation 'Ron Anderson, Washington State Department of Transportation °. Gary Zarker, Director -...Seattle Engineering Department . :. Paul Tanaka, Director -''SeattTe.Pub1i'C Works Department ' Ron McCready, Director of-Transportation - PSCOG Ross Earnst, Director of Public Works - City of Tukwila Andre Gay, VP Facilities - The Boeing Company Terry Lewis, Corporate Director Local and Community Relations - The Boeing Co. Gil Jay, Manager Corporate Facilities Projects - The Boeing Company AGENDA: - Review of Boeing pl ar}s .al or.g Duwami sh ..- Review of 'iiti t1 gationi .equi remeii and thei r. t.1 me schedule - sr - Discuss ov.erall transportationh.plans.ofthe Duaimi sh Va.l l ey;: thei.r� c i. rdi rn ion tier n.g • and • funding F , :, ., J�•1 JI ••'r CL iL; .rnrr . , rLnl'VIViIVL': King County Deportment of Publk Wbrks 900 King County Administration Bldg. S00 Fourth Avenue Seattle. Washington 98104 ii06) 2114300 March 14, 1990 ICL 1viL:.=UG �7G eJl iG n`:Jl rum • • Mr. J. T. Lewis Corporate Director Local and Community Relations The Boeing Company Post Office Box 3.707 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 RE: January 24, 1990 Briefing Meeting for Local Officials Concerning The Boeing Company's long -Range Oeveiopment Plans Dear Mr. Lewis: . I would like to take this opportunity.to.•thank, you for sharing with the .Department of Public Worksyour long - range developpment plans of the East Marginal. Way .corridor:. Our r..epresentattif.A1 of that. meeting Bill Hoffman, Manager of King County's :Transportation Planning Section, informs me that the scope of work you are proposing is both impressfve as well as visionary. 1 would like to state that mitigation measures for soma; .portions of your:,• long -range plan required by the County do•. still. remain..i.n•.effeet....: Specifically, the mitigations for•the Oxbow Corporate Park (King County Building Permit C87 -053) made to the Sabey Corporation and accepted by The Boeing Company are still in effect. They include providing a • southbound on -ramp to State Route 99 at South 102nd Street and a contribution of a fair -share to the design, right -of -way acquisition and construction of the First Avenue South bridge. I would appreciate.receiving at your earliest convenience a .schedule which details The Boeing Company's timeline for completing these mitigation measures. . City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Public Works Ross A. Eamst, P. E., Director MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Pace, Senior Planner FROM: Ron Cameron, City Engineer DATE: February 26, 1992 SUBJECT: East Marginal Programmatic Mitigation Comments on the February 18 Skinner /Crandal Mitigation costs memorandum. East Marginal Way - The 198 EIS mitigations include the BAR /E. Marginal intersection - design, PS &E, construction and construction administration. These costs were not mentioned in the E. Marginal section and need to be included. Similarily, the frontal improvements, signals, overlay and similar 1987 EIS mitigitation level was reached and these improvements conditioned. Those mitigations are estimated to cost $5,857,000. An estimated cost was prepared and needs to be identified; obligated mitigation costs exceed the $3.7 million submitted in the TIA Prospectus and they need to be clearly identified as mitigations. Pacific Highway Bridge - The $2.1 million Sargent estimate is just the construction cost to replace the existing bridge. A cost of $3.5 million is a more realistic figure for design, construction, and construction of a widened bridge. The traffic detour costs will be significant - the best appearing alternative at this time is a complete closure of Pacific Highway and changing the BAR /E. Marginal intersection operation. The mitigation cost will be $3.5 million or more and will not be better defined until a design report is complete. Pacific Highway - I have no basis for a Pacific Highway widening /sidewalk cost estimate; we need to have a good understanding of improvement costs or means to adjust if preliminary engineering is not available. At this time, the $2.2 million should be identified clearly as a planning level estimate. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone.• (206) 433 -0179 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • • Mr. Jack Pace MEMORANDUM February 26, 1992 Page 2 Pacific Highway /Oxbow - Widening Pacific Highway will service more traffic (vehicle, pedestrians, etc.) than the Oxbow ramp. However, not having the Oxbow ramp reduces access alternaties. That results in the liability of more traffic being impacted (Pac. Hwy.) by the additional traffic using Pac. Hwy. There are two sides to the Pac. Hwy. /Oxbow ramp alternaties and both should be reviewed. Mitigation Costs - Actual mitigation costs will need to have adjustment; while E. Marginal is becoming more clear with the design report, there's none for Pacific Highway and the $2.2 million could be way low or high. RMC /kjp FROM:CH2M HILL SEA 2064625957 TO: 206 431 3665 FEB 18. 1992 5:24PM d899 P.02 MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Pace /City of Tukwila PROM: Lloyd Skinner /CH2M HILL Chuck Crandall /CH2M HILL DATE: February 18, 1992 SUBJECT: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Transportation Mitigation Costs PROJECT: SEA31760.A0 CINHILL The purpose of this memo is to clarify transportation mitigation costs and responsibilities along the East Marginal Way corridor related to Boeing's proposed redevelopment. PREVIOUS _ COMMITMENTS The City's research indicates previous Boeing mitigation requirements for three transportation projects. These are: a pro -rata share contribution to First Avenue South 13iidge improvements; a shared contribution to East Marginal Way improvements between the city limits and the South Boeing Access Road, and full responsibility for the southbound Oxbow on -ramp to State Route 99 at approximately South 102nd Street. First Avenue South Bridge. We understand that previous Boeing commitments include a pro-rata share contribution to the First Avenue South Bridge improvements. This project is currently in a conceptual evaluation and EIS phase, and is being led by the City of Seattle. No costs for Boeing's pro-rata share of the project are available at this time. East Marginal Way. The City of Tukwila is proceeding with the design of improvements to East Marginal Way South between the city limits and the South Boeing Access Road. A preliminary design study is expected to be completed in the spring of 1992. The preliminary cost estimate for this project is $11.1 million. A proposal to share costs for this project has been submitted to the State's Transportation Improvement Board for consideration. The funding proposal would include $4.8 million from the State, $2.5 million from the City of Tukwila, and $3.8 million from property owners abutting East Marginal Way and proposing to develop that property. Boeing is the major property owner along the corridor, and has committed to a $3.4 to $3.7 million share of the improvement. costs. 'EPGM Ci-i2i"I HILL StFI 242S i i Li 221, 4 ii .ibb5 �tMP_ i a . igg2 S : 4ri i €td r . id s The City is proceeding with design plans for the full project because it sees a comprehensive improvement as more cost - effective than a piecemeal approach as individual private parcels are redeveloped. Because Tukwila requires frontage improvements as part of a property's development approval, Boeing would be required to provide curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements on a parcel -by- parcel basis as it proceeds to redevelop the corridor. Boeing's commitment to the $3.4 -$3.7 million share of the project includes the company's responsibilities for previous development that has already been approved by the city (on the Developmental Center site, the Thompson - Isaacson site, and the south half of the Plant 2 site), as well as a "prepayment" for all future frontal improvement requirements related to the corridor redevelopment proposal. Oxbow Rama. A previous condition required for development of the Oxbow site and imposed by King County is full Boeing responsibility to fund the construction of a southbound on -ramp to State Route 99. The improvement would serve homeward commuters leaving their work location at the Oxbow site. The previously - estimated cost and Boeing commitment for this project is $8.0 million. ALTERNATIVE MITION T' OR OXBaW. As part of the Duwamish Corridor EIS project for the City of Tukwila, CH2M HILL has been asked to evaluate alternatives to the southbound Oxbow interchange ramp project that would provide equivalent mitigation of traffic impacts. One alternative that is being explored is a widening of Pacific Highway South between the South Boeing Access Road and SR -99 /SR -599. The project would include a replacement for the Pacific Highway South bridge over the Duwamish River, and a dual left -turn Iane from Pacific Highway South onto southbound SR- 99 /SR -599. Preliminary traffic analysis of this alternative indicates that levels of service along East Marginal Way and Pacific Highway South are as good as, or better than, LOS with the southbound Oxbow ramp. In addition, these alternative improvements serve a wider "public" than the Oxbow ramp. Whereas the Oxbow ramp itself would be used exclusively by Boeing employees working at the Oxbow site, the Pacific Highway South improvements would benefit a broader segment of the Boeing work force working along the East Marginal Way corridor, as well as non - Boeing traffic along the corridor. Finally, preliminary cost estimates for this alternative improvement are lower than the $8.0 million estimated for the Oxbow southbound ramp. The Pacific Highway South costs are estimated at $5.3 million ($2.1 million for the bridge, $2.2 million for roadway widening, and $1.0 million for the SR -99 /SR -599 southbound ramp). A feasibility study, with particular focus on the viability of a double left turn and two -lane ramp onto SR -99 /SR -599, will be performed to provide more complete information on the comparison of the Oxbow and Pacific .Highway South alternatives, and should be completed prior to the Boeing Duwamish Corridor EIS process. i r cM'cC1zn MILL nnm F004ozonnT -TOi z n 441 noon' -nn 10i 1nnz nizo M »aJJ r :o 4 i • NEW MITIGATION To address the impacts of Boeing's redevelopment of the Duwamish corridor, the analysis prepared for the EIS has identified two transportation mitigation improvements that may be required by the City of Tukwila. These are a transportation management program (TMP), and a pro -rata share of costs for the widening of East Marginal Way, south of the Boeing Access Road. Potential elements of a TMP are being identified in the EIS process, Details of the program will be developed at a later date, and cost estimates are not available. An effective TMP would reduce redevelopment itnpacts on regional facilities such as Interstate 5, and would reduce the Boeing pro -rata share of costs for the First Avenue South Bridge. (The change in uses proposed for the corridor, including more office workers and a greater percentage of workers using the first shift, result in increased peak -hour traffic, even with the 25,000 employee maximum included in the proposal). The pro -rata share of costs for the East Marginal Way improvements south of the Boeing access Road is estimated at $100,000. This mitigation was identified as part of the EIS review of project traffic impacts to LOS F corridors for which improvements were identified in the Tukwila capacity and Deficiency Study. SUMMARY The attached table summarizes mitigation cost estimates for two alternatives: Option 1, the Oxbow ramp and Option 2, the Pacific Highway South project. These cost estimates are broad order -of- magnitude numbers, prepared without the use of design plans, and would need considerable refinement for more accurate estimates following project design. rfCI.JITI • l.l'ICI I HILL 57GP1 GYJO'10CJ9J I I O • GYO 431 3685 4WD 109 1976 5; 28P i «o» P.05 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT COST ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT OPTION OPTION ESTIMATED 1 2 COST Boeing Cost Boeing Cost ($ Millions) % 3 % $ PREVIOUS COMMITMENTS First Avenue Bridge Unknown Unknown Unknown E. Marginal Way' 11,1 34% $3.7 34% $3.7 (City Limits to BAR) Oxbow SB Ramp 8.0 100% $8.0 NA 0 ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION Pacific Highway Widen 2.2 Bridge 2.1 Ramp 1.0 NEW MITIGATION TMP E. Marginal Way (South of BAR) 5.3 Unknown 2.4 TOTAL COST Not additive NA 0 100% $5.3 Unknown 4% $0.1 Unknown 4% $0.1 $11.8 million $9.1 million 'Required street frontage improvements for new development per City code. • FAX TRANSMITTAL, FORM FOR IMMEDIATE DELIVERY To. r GU Firm Name' `` f DATE • PROJECT NUMBER' $' 3/74 0 FAX OPERATOR: TIME SENT: ❑ AM ❑ PM �j 0 ICE CITY STATE COUNTRY IF OUTSIDE THE USA Fax Phone Number: "F"—J- / — 3 G g.5 Verification Phone Number' f13/ ' 341 6. Total number of pages, including this page: 5— Return original? ❑ Yes ❑ No IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES OR THE TRANSMISSION IS UNCLEAR, PLEASE CONTACT OUR FAX OPERATOR AT EXT. 5246 From: RE: Remarks: r Office:0 - Employee No.: //A92 21121,01NE) FEB 19.19921 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Date Fax Sent: Time. ❑ AM riq PM CH2M HILL 177108th Ave. N.E. P.O. Box 91500 Bellevue Office Bellevue, WA 98004 Bellevue, WA 98009 -2050 206-453-5000 FAX 206-462-5957 1 Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use Dennis J. McLerran, Director Norman B. Rice, Mayor February 14, 1992 Re: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Scope of E S Robert S. Betts Project Coordinator, Boeing Duwamish E City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Betts: s MAR 0 4 1992 PLANNING DEPT. Cllp Thank you for providing the proposed shoreline access plan for Boeing's Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Department of Construction and Land Use (DCLU) reiterates its concern about precluding a range of alternatives for shoreline access along the east Duwamish shoreline. We still believe that Seattle's preferred alternative, which would allow public access (including a pedestrian trail and public amenities) along the east Duwamish shoreline, should be analyzed as part of the EIS. Providing equivalent shoreline access opportunities in other locations could be considered a viable alternative, IF it were provided at a minimum one to one ratio for the loss of access along the Boeing site. A one to .6 ratio, as currently proposed, is not adequate. Other alternatives, such as providing improved shoreline parks (such as adjacent to the Oxbow site or adjacent to the Sixteenth Avenue Bridge), and providing pedestrian linkages for the Duwamish Trail (perhaps at a two to one ratio) and to the Flight.'., Museum, should also be considered in the EIS. Providing monetary compensation for acquisition of lands for public access could also be considered, IF the amount is equivalent to the cost of acquiring shoreline access along the Duwamish for at least a one to one ratio. Normally, at least one public access site is required for every development proposal. At a minimum, Seattle's Shoreline Master Program (SSMP) requires one improved shoreline public access site per 3,500 linear feet of, shoreline, for a total of five sites along the Boeing property (SSMP 23.60.160 G). However, larger projects such as this may modify the standards, IF there is an approved access plan and the applicant complies with the approved plan (SSMP 23.60.160 H). An equal employment opportunity - affirmative action employer. Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use, 710 - 2nd Avenue, Ste 700, Seattle WA 98104 -1703 "Printed on Recycled Paper" Robert Betts - February 14, 1992 Page 2 Without analyzing a range of shoreline access alternatives, the purpose and intent of the Programmatic EIS will not be fully achieved. DCLU believes that any alternatives proposed should evaluate expected impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and the potential trade -offs compared to DCLU's preferred alternative of providing shoreline access along the east Duwamish shoreline. I would . appreciate your keeping us advised of your progress. I would also to receive notice of any subsequent meetings that may be scheduled regarding this issue. If you have any questions about DCLU's comments, please do not hesitate to call - ,Martin Fricko at 684 -8875. Since Martin will be out of the office during much of February, you may contact his supervisor, Jan Mulder, during -tat time. Sincerely, Laura L. Gilbert Acting Director By Rebecca Herzfeld Director Land Use Division RRH:mfh cc: Ikuno Masterson, CH2M Hill Tom Eksten, King County, Open Space, Public Trails Jack Pace, City of Tukwila, Community Development Don Williams, City of Tukwila, Parks K:betts PPOM :CH2M HILL EPA 20E4E2SgS7 T0: 22E 431 3EES ED 14. i992 4 :480M n734 a.82 • 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Pace /City of Tukwila FROM: Lloyd Skinner /CH2M HILL Chuck Crandall/CH2M HILL DATE: February 14, 1992 SUBJECT: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Transportation Mitigation Costs PROJECT: SEA31760.A0 The purpose of this memo is to clarify transportation mitigation costs and responsibilities along the East Marginal Way corridor related to Boeing's proposed redevelopment. PREVIOUS COMMITMENTS The City's research. indicates previous Boeing mitigation requirements for three transportation projects. These are: full responsibility for the southbound Oxbow on -ramp to State Route 99 at approximately South 102nd Street; a pro -rata share contribution to First Avenue South Bridge improvements; and a shared contribution to East Marginal Way improvements between about 16th Avenue South and the South Boeing Access Road, Oxbow Ramp. A previous condition required for development of the Oxbow site and itnposed by King County is full Boeing responsibility to fund the construction of a southbound on -ramp to State Route 99. The improvement would serve homeward commuters leaving their work location at the Oxbow site. The previously-estimated cost and Boeing commitment for this project is $8.0 million. East Marginal Way. The City of Tukwila is proceeding with the design of improvements to East Marginal Way South between about 16th Avenue South and the South Boeing Access Road, A preliminary design study is expected to be completed in the spring of 1992. The preliminary cost estimate for this project is $11.1 million, A proposal to share costs for this project has been submitted to the State's Transportation Improvement Board for consideration. The funding proposal would include $4.8 million from the State, $2.5 million from the City of Tukwila, and $3,8 million from property owners abutting East Marginal Way and proposing to develop that property. Boeing is the major property owner along the corridor, and has committed to a $3.4 to $3.7 million share of the improvement costs. . HkUM : LHM HILL 56H . 064H2 SY I Li : 213b 4-i 3bb5 FEIN i4, iy52 4: 4Hi-M ix r34 P. 23 • • The City is proceeding with design plans for the full project because it sees a comprehensive improvement as more cost - effective than a piecemeal approach as individual private parcels are redeveloped. Because Tukwila requires frontage improvements as part of a property's development approval, Boeing would be required to provide curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements on a parcel -by- parcel basis as it proceeds to redevelop the corridor. Boeing's commitment to the $3.4 -$3.7 million share of the project includes the company's responsibilities for previous development that has already been approved by the city (on the Developmental Center site, the Thompson- Isaacson site, and the south half of the Plant 2 site), as well as a "prepayment" for all future frontal improvement requirements related to the corridor redevelopment proposal. First Avenue South Bridge. We understand that previous Boeing commitments include a pro -rata share contribution to the First Avenue South Bridge improvements. This project is currently in a conceptual evaluation and EIS phase, and is being led by the City of Seattle. No costs for Boeing's pro -rata share of the project are available at this time. ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION FOR OXBOW As part of the Duwamish Corridor EIS project for the City of Tukwila, CH2M HILL has been asked to evaluate alternatives to the southbound Oxbow interchange ramp project that would provide equivalent mitigation of traffic impacts. One alternative that is being explored is a widening of Pacific Highway South between the South Boeing Access Road and SR -99 /SR -599. The project would include a replacement for the Pacific Highway South bridge over the Duwamish River, and a dual left -turn lane from Pacific Highway South onto southbound SR- 99 /SR -599. Preliminary traffic analysis of this alternative indicates that levels of service along East Marginal Way and Pacific Highway South are as good as, or better than, LOS with the southbound Oxbow ramp. In addition, these alternative improvements serve a wider "public" than the Oxbow ramp. Whereas the Oxbow ramp itself would be used exclusively by Boeing employees working at the Oxbow site, the Pacific Highway South improvements would benefit a broader segment of the Boeing work force working along the East Marginal Way corridor, as well as non - Boeing traffic along the corridor. Finally, preliminary cost estimates for this alternative improvement are lower than the $8.0 million estimated for the Oxbow southbound ramp. The Pacific Highway South costs are estimated at $5.3 million ($2.1 million for the bridge, $2.2 million for roadway widening, and $1.0 tnillion for the SR -99 /SR -599 southbound ramp). A feasibility study, with particular focus on the viability of a double left turn and two -lane ramp onto SR -99 /SR -599, will be performed to provide more complete information on the comparison of the Oxbow and Pacific Highway South alternatives, and should be completed prior to the Boeing Duwamish Corridor EIS process. FROM:CH2M HILL SEA 206457 TO: 206 431 3665 4,E2 14, 1992 4:49PM #734 P.24 NEW MITIGATION To address the impacts of Boeing's redevelopment of the Duwamish corridor, the analysis prepared for the EIS has identified two transportation mitigation improvements that may be required by the City of Tukwila. These are a transportation management program (TMP), and a pro -rata share of costs for the widening of East Marginal Way, south of the Boeing Access Road. Potential elements of a TMP are being identified in the EIS process. Details of the program will be developed at a later date, and cost estimates are not available. An effective TMP would reduce redevelopment impacts on regional facilities such as Interstate 5, and would reduce the Boeing pro -rata share of costs for the First Avenue South Bridge. (The change in uses proposed for the corridor, including more office workers and a greater percentage of workers using the first shift, result in increased peak -hour traffic, even with the 25,000 employee maximum included in the proposal). The pro -rata share of costs for the East Marginal Way improvements south of the Boeing Access Road is estimated at $100,000. This mitigation was identified as part of the EIS review of project traffic impacts to LOS F corridors for which improvements were identified in the Tukwila Capacity and Deficiency Study. SUMMARY The attached table summarizes mitigation cost estimates for two alternatives: the Oxbow ramp and the Pacific Highway South project. These cost estimates are broad order -of- magnitude numbers, prepared without the use of design plans, and would need considerable refinement for more accurate estimates following project design. FROM:CH2M HILL SEA 2064625957 TO: • IMPROVEMENT 206 431 3665 dB 14, 1992 4 : 50PM , t734 P.05 MITIGATION COST ANALYSIS OPTION OPTION ESTIMATED 1 2 COST Boeing Cost Boeing Cost ($ Millions) % $ % Oxbow SB Ramp 8.0 100% $8.0 NA 0 Pacific Highway Widen 2,2 Bridge 2.1 Ramp 1.0 E. Marginal Way 16th Street to BAR 11.1 New Mitigation E. Marginal Way (South of BAR) NA 0 100% $5.3 34% $3.7 34% $3.7 2.4 4% $0.1. 4% $0.1 TOTAL COST $26.8 million $11.9 million $9.1 million FROM:CH2M HILL SEA 2064657 TO: 206 431 3665 41113 14, 1992 4:47PM 13734 P.01 �fM HILL FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM FOR IMMEDIATE DELIVERY To: 371C g 2---)Az Firm Name' s/ 7 Y O F' 711414..)/4/4. ruK w/c F} w* DATE: r)` - 75/' 9 PROJECT NUMBER, $�i� '31 ?c 0. /-1 0 FAX OPERATOR. TIME SENT: ❑ AM ❑ PM OFFICE CITY STATE -- COUNTAY If OUTSIDE THE USA Fax Phone Number: `'r 3/ ' 36C 6— Verification Phone Number. « / - 36 Total number 01 pages, including this page' Return original? El Yes ❑ No IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES OR THE TRANSMISSION • IS UNCLEAR, PLEASE CONTACT OUR FAX OPERATOR AT EXT. 5246 From: C /d041::71 ,P./r RE: 60,11" " //.S /y C.77012/e/4.-0,<, Office: .5e/4- Employee No Remarks: Vic. /C to /stT) A1:' cL)•ey ye /// •( emu). CC- ,¢ e..5 a CAN r... ?d 7�✓ s . /-/'&' r� / /.S S �t1'r 2 6 .t.; YI= Z ///4J Date Fax Sent: Time ❑ AM ❑ PM CH2M HILL 777 1081h Ave. N.E. P.O. Box 81500 206.453.5000 Bellevue Office Bellevue. WA 98004 Bellevue, WA 98009-2050 FAX 206. 462.5957 • PPOM:CH2M HILL SEA 2064625957 TO: 206 431 3665 B 7, 1992 3:29mM tt340 P.02 • - MEMORANDUM C +l H/LL TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jack Pace / City of Tukwila Lloyd Skinner / CH2M Hill, Chuck Crandall / CH2M Hill February 7, 1992 Boeing Duwamish Corridor — Options for Allocating Mitigation Costs PROJECT: SEA31760.A0 INTRODUCTION 7//7 The purpose of this memo is to present options for allocating mitigation costs for transportation impacts relating to the Boeing 'Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment. The transportation mitigation falls into three general pategories :j kommitted/required mitigation agreed to as a result of previous development committed /required mitigation which is being re- evaluated as part of the EIS process, andew mitigation which will likely be required in response to Boeing's proposed re- development, Boeing's actual mitigation costs will depend on the transportation improvement plan and how the costs are allocated. Five options for allocating these costs are presented later in this memo. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN The elements of three categories of transportation improvements are outlined below, They are based on information developed as part of the Boeing Duwamish Corridor EIS. Committed Mitigation The committed mitigation includes improvements to East Marginal Way South between approximately 16th Avenue South and the South Boeing Access Road and a pro rata share contribution to the First Avenue South Bridge Improvements. Boeing's contribution to the former would provide frontal improvements, signal improvements, and intersection improvements. The City of Tukwila is proceeding with the East Marginal Way im rovements design, A relimin:• - si . - ' . • .. red • Entranc E ' eer The First Avenue South Bridge improvements are currently in a conceptual evaluation and EIS phase, This project is 7 being led by the City of Seattle, Mitigation Being Re- evaluated A condition of previous development in the corridor was to construct a southbound on -ramp to SR -99 at approximately South 102nd Street (Oxbow Interchange). As part of the Duwamish • MEMORANDUM Page 2 February 7, 1992 SEA31760.A() • Corridor EIS, an alternative to this proposal is being evaluated. That alternative involves the widening of Pacific Highway South between SR -99 /SR -599 and the South Boeing Access Road to 6/7 lanes including replacement of the bridge over the Duwamish River. This improvement would require a dual left -turn lane on Pacific Highway South to south -bound SR -599 and widening of the on -ramp. The viability of the latter will be evaluated in a parallel study to the Boeing Duwamish Corridor EIS. New Mitigation The analysis of the proposed Boeing redevelopment has identified two potential transportation improvements which may be required as mitigation. These improvements involve implementation of a Transportation Management Program and widening of East Marginal Way ? South between Interurban Avenue and South Boeing Access Road to 4/5 lanes.'Potentiali/ elements of a TMP are being identified in the EIS process. Details of the program will be ed ve oiled at a later date. The East Marginal Way (south of BAR) improvements appear to be '\% needed in all of the transportation improvement alternatives._ Although the redevelopment in the, i corridors does not cause the deficiency, it does contribute to it. . ALLOCATION OF MITIGATION COSTS The allocation of costs is dependent on whether the Oxbow Interchange or the Pacific Highway South alternative is selected. If the Oxbow Interchange is selected, then the mitigation is a combination of committed improvements and new mitigation, Option 1. If the Pacific Highway South alternative is selected, there are four possible options (Options 2 through 5) on the following table, Option 2 simply reallocates the money committed to Oxbow to other capital improvements. Option 3 pro rates the mitigation costs for new mitigation and Pacific Highway South based on the total Boeing traffic using the facilities. Option 4 pro rates the costs for new mitigation and Pacific Highway South based on the "new" Boeing traffic using each facility. O tiion 5 !nay be the "fairest" in that it substitutes the Pacific Highway South improvement for Oxbow on a need basis (rather than a dollar -for- dollar basis as in Option 2), and requires a pro rata share for new mitigation based on "new" traffic (as in Option 4),. A cost comparison of the five options can be developed by eliminating the common elements from each option -- East marginal Way (north), First Avenue South Bridge, and the TMP. The cost of the remaining elements depend on which option is selected. Option 1 and 2 would be the most expensive to Boeing, $8 million plus. Option 5, which provides the fairest allocation of cost, represents a total of $5.8 million. As noted in previous drafts of the EIS, these cost estimates are broad order -of- magnitude numbers using rule -of- thumb figures. They have not been developed based on design plans, and would need to be recalculated for more accurate estimates as design proceeds, MEMORANDUM Page 3 February 7. 1992 SEA31760.AO MITIGATION COST ANALYSIS' improvement Factory Cost (miDions) c Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 t1an 5 Boeing % Cost Boeing 96 Cost Boei g % Cost Boeing % Cost Boeing % Cast Re- evaluation Oxbow 8.0 100% 8 NA — NA — NA — NA — Pac Hwy 5.2 NA — 100% 5.2 50% 2.6 20% 1.0 100% 5.2 SR -599 SB ramp 0.5 NA — 100% 0.5 80% 0.4 40% 02 100% 0.5 New Mitigation 2.4 4% 0.1 100% 2.4 25% 0.6 4% 0.1 4% 0.1 East Marginal Way. South of Boeing Access Rd. Cost Comparison 8.1 8.1 3.6 1.3 5.8 Option 1: Oxbow Option — Committed dollars ,7 tt J Option 2: Pac. Hwy. Option — Committed dollars Option 3: Pac. Hwy. Option — Pro rata Boeing total impacts Option 4: Pac. Hwy. Option — Pro rata Boeing new impacts Option 5: Pac. Hwy. Option — Substitute; EMW new impacts a Elements common to all options (East Marginal way oath of the South Boeing Access mad.. First AYenue South Bridge, and ATM') nM shown. eercc004ModiS .mess C) '.1 I- 11) U:) n.) LJ •1 T1 L:[ • 1 • E). • • King County Environmental Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 3600 - 136th Place Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006 -1400 (206) 296-6602 January 30, 1992 Bob Betts Robert S. Betts, Inc. 700 - 108th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 FIA Bc..7 JAN 31 1992 CITY OF 7 UKW'iLA Pt..ANNiNC DEPT, Re: Boeing Duwmamish Corridor Redevelopment Programmatic EIS SEPA No. T9100110 Dear Bob: I am writing to confirm our conversation in which you indicated that the second version of the PDEIS for the above - referenced proposal will be available to King County on Monday, March 2. You also indicated that we will have approximately one week to review the document and provide you with our comments. Please notify me if this arrangement changes. It would be helpful if you would provide King County with at least five copies of the document including revised design guidelines, appedices or other related documents. Please have the copies delivered to the Environmental Divison's Offices directed to my attention. I will personally deliver copies to Sandy Adams in the Roads and Engineering Division, Tom Eksten in the Office of Open Space, and Don Althauser in the Surface Water Management Divison. Due to the short amount of time available for review, I will limit distribution of the document to these offices. Thank you for providing a copy of the recently revised draft Shoreline Public Access Proposal at the quarterly meeting today. I have provided a copy to Tom Eksten, King County Trails Coordinator and will return our comments to you by February 6 per your request. Please note that questions regarding bills for King County's participation in this project, including the bill sent to the City of Tukwila on November 20, 1991, should be directed to Richard Tucker, Senior Analyst for the Environmental Divison. Mr. Tucker can be reached at 296 -6637. • Bob Betts January 30, 1992 page 2 Sincerely, Jd hua Goldfinger Environmental Planner, SEPA Section c cc: Jack Pace, City of Tukwila Sandy Adams, Roads & Engineering Division Tom Eksten, Office of Open Space Don Althauser, MDP Program, SWM ATTN: Fatin Kara Clint Lank, Manager, Environmental Divison Richard Tucker, Senior Analyst Ann Dold, Chief, SEPA Section E. DUWAM : H CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING AGENDA Wednesday Jan 29, 1992 10:00 - Noon(or thereafter) City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard 431 -3686 Attending: Lloyd Skinner, Ikuno Masterson, Chuck Crandall: CH2M HILL Dick McCann: Perkins -Coie John Crull & Paul Seeley: Boeing Phil Odegard? Entranco Engineers Ron Cameron & Jack Pace: City of Tukwila Robert Betts: Project Coordinator I. Traffic Analysis & Mitigation Measures. -- results of the re- evaluation of traffic, given the cap on employment for the corridor -- recommendations for mitigating measures for the area * *Credits for TDM * *Street, intersection & other recommended improvements II. Interagency Coordination. - -King County's involvement * *Departments and level of review -- Metro: East Marginal Way Design -- WashDOT review of proposed changes, mitigating measures -- Department of Ecology & City of Seattle: Shoreline access III. Duwamish Programmatic EIS. -- Timetable for production, review, and publication. Questions? Call Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455 -9640 i I; Ij I it I ,I 7075- ( -17144-6, ---k r ._ 'PI 1 -)1 '1_1 ---07) _61______ k, L) (7 - £ 2.r 'P.Yaw.° TJ kA-0 6 L to _ FE-7 Jot -v-61g sT' ---2_1719-DIS 7111/-3/\, -4 c) )--1, 79_5- _z c 0 .S/P2 000S - E,r; Ill q Kt zH� zt"DC-1t� 1/ 02/ izz/Y, /.2../v4.0 /79-i 1W9 1S -f/u,1 oNfl9 // pans-- ksb z-o_es -- �--s- -7 /-/,i' cei 7 .s -z-'sx7 -77 /W W-e 7/'D_ j6r'7'"VS XXQ/ 7 LbZL -€.b2 197 Io� G�f -�- �-,nvo 1 i C:v/-Dcy 4-7-;:-?r --))-)-v/ F3,- - U - - - — - S ---C , c' ,4 ,6 -s _51, r071-*/ 9`,P° 1 ' ar> 9d /v1 ,07-�) 7, g)--0--y4/ i' Zfj /z Z/ 5./42J'4 9� 6{y/ S/ 7 --)1/41%/0/1 • • ENTRANCO January 29, 1992 Mr. Chuck Crandall Transportation Planning Engineer CH2M Hill P.O. Box 91500 Bellevue, WA 98009 -2050 ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS 10900 NE 8TH STREET, SUITE 300 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 (206) 454 -5600 FAX: (206) 4540220 Re: Boeing Duwamish EIS Traffic Analysis Entranco Project No. 92809 -03 Dear Chuck: This letter summarizes the findings of a traffic analysis for four intersections on East Marginal Way based on CH2M Hill's traffic model projections for a revised develop- ment scenario for the Boeing Company year 2000 redevelopment plan. The study area is shown in Figure 1. The scope of work is based on our discussion at the January 22, 1992, meeting with the City of Tukwila's City Engineer Ron Cameron and Planner Jack Pace, and you: Our work included: 1. Preliminary review of your new 2000 traffic forecasts and volume /capacity ratios for three traffic network cases. 2. Development of a scope of work to determine peak hour turning movement volumes and level of service impact at four key intersections on the East Marginal Way design project segment (see Figure 2):.. • South 87th Place • South 96th Place • South Norfolk Street • Boeing Access Road /Pacific Highway South 3. Perform level of service analysis for the current improvement design con- cept for those intersections and determine whether modification of those design concepts are warranted. 4. Prepare this letter report and present its findings at the January 29 meeting with City of Tukwila, Boeing Company, and CH2M Hill staff. 1992 REVISED EIS TRAFFIC FORECASTS New traffic forecasts for year 2000 have been prepared by CH2M Hill for the Boeing Duwamish EIS. A major determinant of peak hour traffic demand on East Marginal Way is the Boe- ing first shift employment. Table 1 compares 2000 employment elements for the 1992 revised EIS case, the May 1991 EIS, and the actual 1988 employment (1988 calibration of the traffic model). Although the traffic forecasts reflect employment type and through traffic in addition to first shift total employment, the latter, neverthe- less, affords a convenient assessment of the major overall determinant of traffic growth for the East Marginal Way area. WASHINGTON • ARIZONA • CALIFORNIA Mr. Chuck Crandall • January 29, 1992 Page 2 The CH2M Hill traffic model produced new 2000 weekday directional traffic volumes for the 1992 revised Boeing redevelopment plan EIS, for the three different roadway network cases: Case 1. No new southbound ramps at the "Oxbow" interchange -- S. 102nd Street (extended) at SR 99, and East Marginal Way widened to seven lanes north of Boeing. Access Road and five lanes south of Boeing Access Road. Case 2. With new southbound ramps at the Oxbow interchange, and East Mar- ginal Way widened as above. Case 3. No new southbound ramps at the Oxbow interchange, East Marginal Way widened as above, and Pacific Highway South widened to seven lanes south to the SR 99 interchange. Figure 3 compares the 2000 traffic forecasts for those three network development cases for the area of concern to this study. There is little difference between the: • Case 1 and Case 3 volumes • Case 1, 2, and 3 volumes on East Marginal Way north of the Boeing Devel- opment Center LEVEL OF SERVICE Entranco prepared 2000 AM and PM peak hour turning movement volume estimates for the four study intersections under the Case 3 network. The volumes are shown in Figure 4. Figure 5 depicts the intersection layouts as currently proposed for im- provement by the City of Tukwila's Department of Public Works. Level of service (LOS) for the new 2000 forecast volumes on the proposed improved intersections is presented in Table 2, along with existing (1991) LOS. Acceptable 2000 LOS's were obtained at the four improved study intersections for the Case 3 network scenario with the revised Boeing redevelopment plan. We look forward to presenting these findings at the January 29 meeting and answer- ing any questions study participants may have. Our thanks to you, Chuck, for you timely assistance to us in the study and to Ron Cameron and Jack Pace for their input. We appreciate having this opportunity to serve CH2M Hill. Sincerely, ENTRANCO Dennis Neuzil, P.E., D. Eng. Senior Transportation Engineer DN:jdc Mr. Chuck Crandall January 29, 1992 Project 92809 -03 • Table 1 Boeing Duwamish Employment Data • Year Case Employment Total First Shift % Number 1988 = Base Index = 1.00 1988 2000 2000 Model Calibration May 1991 EIS 1992 Revised EIS 21,200 30,000 25,000 80 90 90 16,800 27,000 22,500 1.00 1.61 1.34 Source: CH2M Hill Table 2 Level of Service AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2000 with 2000 with Improvements Improvements 1991 Per Figure 5 1991 Per Figure 5 East Marginal Way Delay Delay Delay Delay No. Intersection LOS (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS (sec.) 5. South 87th Place B 6.86 B 6.25 C 17.11 B 10.32 10. South 96th Place C 18.05 B 5.11 F 84.17 D 25.80 11. South Norfolk Street E 45.67 C 18.57 C 23.40 C 24.51 13. Boeing Access Road C 23.16 D 25.18 D 39.67 D 34.89 : 34 .t L01rt1 ; • • 1•V 111♦ 114 NA N4 • •114 t Wi X14. O4f "1.4'•0.1 '547 6 f• .... - O CD Q) 0 _0 �� cT w L u cr tot a_ \tz A M 'XOXL N S S MARG1NAl h 8-18 I I I 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET J A. L FAA KING CO, TOWER AIRPORT • 14-11 HO . FLIGHT • r1 OMUSEU 9 1-5 /6 • BOEING HO 9`e • • J-28 JORG. OO STEEL Q Q Cf. Qv • ONE o� 0) r�� (6 � POULENC *FUTURE INTERSECTION ah E. MARGINAL Note: Major traffic generators and Boeing gate numbers are indicated. .... ............................... OXBOW INTERCHANGE SR.. CITY OF TUKWILA EAST MARGINAL WAY IMPROVEMENTS L /INALY$I$ INTEIP.saGT1o/JS Fog eoElrvo DowioNam E/s TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 1/29/92 Figure 2 STUDY INTERSECTION LOCATIONS (M,p FR0/14 TR,FF/c /2ER'R 8/91 ) % L.) -NI!/705 1i i ii • /4J 880 , i7 qso 14, 790 h 1,1,!30 14) 43o X30 stno �+ 3 0 0 35 PE Vet-- 10 CE mSle AREA 1\ 15) 56o 15, 500 15,580 16, 58o 1.3260 14630 <(& iz_ a000. scc30-21ns !I ?4/;9i rkool 11 ! No 0 I SI3 oxt3ow • •• iZlIMpS 1 15, Qyo 74-41:58 F./4w / 8>IR i ; { ; - �,,,E, emu) %.srr • Z® W NTH 6B ox'eow i /CRS -)Lf 5L E w,A5 kciga ® No 5134 oat3ow =/c RRn1Ps ' -7 -LANE PA-c.1-1(A' 54)* 320 4 ?- L /5 -L. EM w, ri-s f13o J& 3 o No2Fot, tc ST. 38 6703 i .I ao 670: 17,46o 131 570 17,45o ' 380 15, 75o 15A% 15, 13,350 FIG. 3 Y(R 2eoo II) 11° WEE KEW( -TRAFFIC 1/OL)f E5 13, s �b}'z RE.,DoceD Bo€iNG t EVEL. RV\ ENT SCENARIOS R cAia Lys S 1/2 /92 15, 846 15, 910 16,000 I2, 840 12, 464 12, Silo 5360 ' 5306 i; -7140 538o 5940 "7190 i9c.RC Hwy Soto; J A8 a3MJ3HO H EAST MARGINAL WAY /SOU•87TH PLACE 1128 120 iv lc 25 A AM 0 5-'4 PEAK '0—'5 25 IN in 10 41)8 f 54 830 EAST MARGINAL WAY S. 87TH PLACE S 1083 30 lir c o132 PM 5 -� PEAK '44"- 5 132 4.108 5f( At. 5 1121 EAST MARGINAL WAY /SOUTH 96TH PLACE 970 75 lir 10 � AM . 4 30 PEAK 8 4 220 t 1/ s 1477 EAST MARGINAL WAY S. 96TH PLACE 1938 40 co 68 J Ai. 24 7 PM 429 PEAK �� s 125f 26 1083 EAST MARGINAL WAY /SOUTH NORFOLK STREET 522 34 if c 10 • AM 1241 PEAK f"1311 30 -, 10 1( 30 4N te O 1494 EAST MARGINAL WAY S. NORFOLK STREET 2700 29 lir 4c 65 we PM AIN115 200* PEAK ♦� 150 65 50 4f $5 872 EAST MARGINAL WAY /BOEING ACCESS ROAD /PAC. HWY. SOUTH 98 238 iv PAC. 894 AM HWY. 401 -01. PEAK '41-- 435 SOUTH 2 207 0f 118 926 220 EAST MARGINAL WAY BOEING ACCESS ROAD 495 1893 9� lir 392 I � PM 416 499 -0. PEAK f•■420 14 40. 240 'f* 0 f 244 179 ENTRANCO PROJECT NO. 92809-03 JANUARY 29, 1992 FIGURE 4 YEAR 2000 REVISED TURNING MOVEMENTS (CASE 3: NO SB RAMPS AT OXBOW INTERCHANGE) EAST MARGINAL WAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT e ...ENITRANCO ENGINEERS. INC. Figure 5a SIGNAL PLAN S. 87th PL. , , /tit,I;It lk i t t t I i t ' •-: - t It Z li ... — < I I1 •••*W.V.V......I. 1 • O 1 .. : a , ...:: r- N. , .;._........._........ .... , 2 so !-, , , ....._. ....,- : ...., ...\\ -.1-,); ,- --•% I- r-t• \ Cr) ,.. , II 1. t ,...............,7,... , . ,:, :: • .; I. LLI \% , ....... • •.. • • 1 :............• ... A ... cip, ....• ..........,.•■.1.0.... f r .... ..--." . • . .. aillagrirailill % r -1 I ... r . r .4. 1. .,.: ..:... .., •.,..../ s-1.....' ...4.... ' ' f• .." ... 0 ..r.: '.. . . Z Zi :11 ... .:: ..:: ••••..... _ ........ -■ ......... ..-- 1,. ..:. ......- dge-- ' • ll 11,0 if I I V ■,••• • : .. VI... ' ::.....: i, .........„,„,,,,„.,...,„„...14,,,.......,:;;....,.....,:* e„.-1 0 t ti Z' si. ■ ' il ',,i i 1 • • I ',.• : I o 1 f 1 • 1 t $ I /11 '41 :•. ' y ti . • A.. fl 281 s 1-7---5. " 0-/ ......] — .S...!..--...,---):=-.: , . . ......._ ---....-.. ,...t......--..-....--... ••■•••• .. ■••••• •• •<• 0 . ca / ..,• ...-. ' o rm.. ...-ts • t; --t.-^ ...i....".' 4-- ' ' ----. .5. • -.... 1 i ; . — r- .... --t- 103 L Nor, 11 } 1 NOT USED NOT USED ..-e-•• ..— --.. •••-•,-.. . A --> 42 ..eft 62 ej I •1 It ..•,.•••••••••• •,•••••••••••••••• • 42.r S. NORFOLK ST. k • ea 1 , .-.:;,:>'7...,-_-...-.::---''. .. ,-...,t4 -....., , •••'' ; ••••' EAST MARGINAL WAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT le ENTRAtC0 ENGINEERS, INC. Figure 5c SIGNAL PLAN S. NORFOLK ST. cs201017D so-1 IN 9-iroo?0,-2-)cl c.-v) Gri7 2223 \Ati) -4 L 44 --ego, ci-ea kfith 'al2e -AO 'ON 103* - (°•-V2,-) ck\ ob\ Q\ <-1 50)61 obl- ( ) 172) n 0\1 cfA 52 • alp\ ciV 4_14 .0\ k vvY 6441\--04 1r; ;.4 ,• • .• , • ••.. • BOEING DUWAMISH CORRIDOR YEAR 2000 NO OXBOW SB 1/24/92 REVISED LEGEND (V/C RATIO) \` BOEING DUWAMISH CORRIDOR YEAR 2000 WITH SOUTHBOUND OXBOW 1/2*/9e REVISED LEGEND (V/C RATIO) = 0.00-0.90 ' ~ n.y1-1.00 ~ 1.01 + ° YEAR 2000 7 LANES PAC HWY 1/e*/e2 REV zsso LEGEND (v/o RATIO) GREEN ~ o`oo-o.so dEI.usZ~ 0 .91-1.00 • fang- Le3end Symbol . 5c-tenth) Trees, • Oinnlon na'lrl. oize Drug c a l leryana chth hcleer f`bwertn9 pear'chantcleer, brax►nu5 oxycarpa. 2'e ca ►oer f l®r e ash Grat-aejus lavalle1 favalle. hawthorn s'irub5 Prunus 18uroceraus otto luukert laurel C t sfu s purpureus rod -rose. roundcover dr helix en9115h Ivy -free pcinq +o be 20' -30' on'Lenfer typical. root barrier adJacent to s1dewel< and curb to prevent. dame of pavement- from rom tre root- -, 'Nye- (5)loo4' wide plant-i strip. new el jh-i- (5) foot wide 24"- 3o "he'!qhiv concre +e sldewa1K. (ant - ion cei+er hjdrogeed, crushed rocK or pave ment -to meet- 4. match ext5t►nj conditions 1 al on tiqFencuni n atner wtd +h van e5 3 ohn'g wort' a 18" on Geano +hug lono5us po�nf reyn'ceanoi-hus Si-reei-scapz Goncepi' ffa5i-.Maomal vva G r� of uk�vila, Ushirji-on not to scale. existtn access ( �� hip: line to. be, unob5trs.ted. d fve qq or Street- 01ent ota 'rer�� t to he I r w� o E2.)foot' °r1 NAM'. • Hough Beck & Baird Inc. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN MEM JAN 2 9 1992 CJTY OF Tu ;vet OEP T_ • • 51 � oLeend c 1en tific /common name size 4ree5 thus ca I leryar1a chon4 tcleer i owerio p ear chenficleer � raX 1u5 oxy carp8 Z,,2„ caliper er flame ash p Crafaegu.5 lavallei lavalle hawthorn Shrubs Fruu laurocero5u5 �oito tyKen Isurel 2430 %el hi- — G1stus purpureus planfi ai'gs' -q rocKroge bn ceni-er jroundcover —(ea,ra helix /en�lish ivJu ial,lon �� perioum nainer 5t'johnsworl' 19 "oYt &e0flOhU5 9lorio5u5 Geni'er point' re 5 ceanothu5 S-I-r-eei-sc_ape Ea5i- Mrotr 1K'utb, al ,au Oty of iiiKultio Wa5hcri Jf-on of- }0 Scale, h dro5eea, crushed roc vemenf - to meet 4 th extbilno 6onclrhonb, ne eEh� (6)+00}- wi�e concrete 5,dewalk wtd-rh varies • ms +1QQ .rat lroed • +ree.5 nof" allowed as acenf" el-Os f 1 due. to i;R, cleaanck r uiremen �9 51 hf line, fo be unohsfroc'cd ..... mcienal to be Icss han two (4foof he6 fve. foal- writ planhrs i P eXiatinq access' LIJ Hough Beck & Baird Inc. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URAAN DESIGN p 2 9 1992 1 rani Leierici / 5U:001 6clentri6 /. 01 6erritneri nu% - -tre_e5 y f, R. 11.1zu5 c,a1'.e,rpra 6,4niridecr fcwerio Fe.zi r 'carimiter' -rroxvriu. oxjcorca Pt • Cra-Facjv5 !voile! hufhorn 5'frub5 zYza cailper /1 ruN5-14aureceru / ono 1,ilert _sk perpurevb rocl<rot 9.roundco‘;ex Tiecie,ra ne,: ix I I crj115'n zi3-3sbei hfe. olani- 8t3- on c,errer lAallort 0.9-roLai cnrhiner -o'\o‘rii!ivori- • af- Geanof-hub j[onou Gender ootht- re t ce.ar,of-hu GI+ Lim+ "Ga+eway PnHri Eas Marginal Way Gifu of Tule-wila, Wa5hItaFon norto • exib-hu raid road traCIL Hough Beck & Baird Inc. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN • • __ __________ r'''`'^'~'''^'''^'' .I �� u' 9/ '«^'/'< ^`..� ,������ JAN CITY OF t 1PLANN}N JDEPIT. T T -T"P/CAL ��C r/O^/ a rA' t00) .5 /0 /5 • .•UDAMISH CORRIDOR .STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN. . EXISTING BUILDINGS-TO REMAIN 9.895,000 SO Fi 8ROPOSEDENOLITiON.5.030/00 SO FT. PROPOSED 661 CONSTRUCTION 3,562.000 SO FT LittraflU • • • • EINERII • - • . EXISTING PROPOSED LAND(ACRES) 640 768 BUILDING(SO FT) 9.895.000 10,319,000 POPULATION 25.000 25.000 LittraflU • • • • EINERII • - • . • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W Rants, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Pace, Senior Planner FROM: Don Williams, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: January 23, 1992 SUBJECT: Comments on Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS Shoreline Public Access Proposal A review of this document brings several thoughts and comments. Listed in no particular order I feel the document should include statements about the following: A. Easements - It should state where Boeing would retain land ownership and where easements may be granted to K.C., Seattle or Tukwila. Or will no easements be granted? If any are, they need to be accepted by the jurisdiction and recorded prior to construction. B. Trail Maintenance - Comments should define who will be responsible to maintain the various sections. C. Standards of Design - The "Shoreline type B" drawing is good, though perhaps where buildings will be located other drawings should be provided. All designs should match K.C.'s Duwamish /Green River Master Trail Plan's design standards. D. Tree Plantings - All tree plants should be coordinated with the Fisheries Dept., and any City plans. E. Shoreline Access Alternative - It states, "The Boeing Company would contribute funds... ", what does this mean? Who's choice is it? Who would manage the funds? A public managed fund is too ambiguous. It states Tukwila will be the lead agency. What are the reasons for this? I have no objections. See me if you have any questions. boengtrl 01/23/92 Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 • • King County Cultural Resources Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department Arts Commission Landmarks Commission Smith Tower Building 506 Second Avenue, Room 1115 Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 296-7580 V/TDD 296 -7580 January 22, 1992 JAN 2 2 1992 &V.-6F 'T ..iji,,.. - - PLANNING DEPT. TO: Ikumo Masterson, Planning Dept., City of Tukwila FAX: 462-5957 FM: Barbara Luecke, 1% Project Manager RE: Native Sites Noted in Duwamish Corridor PDEIS Following is a copy of the annotated map and letter sent to Joshua Goldfinger of the King County Environmental Division last October, concerning additions and changes to the Native Sites noted in Boeing's Duwamish Corridor PDEIS. Sorry about the confusion surrounding the FAX sent last week. Please call me at either 296 -8676 or 283 -7665 if I can be of further help to you. Qom. , nor 410.,.."- seevetel ted4i ,<o. 04 445 tide, LEGEND ■IiatIiIta1 Proposed Green River Trait Proposed Duwarmsh Trait • es el ee el Proposed Interim Duwamish Trait (over next five years) Proposed Public Access Point to Duwamish Waterway (Port of Seattle) • Duwamish Tribe Sites (Green diver Trail Master Plan, 1988) Existing Park Museum of Flight 'Note: The exact route between South Michigan Street and South Holden Street has not been determined. The route between South Holden Street and South Thistle Street may change. The route between South Thistle Street and 14th Avenue South is final. Traditional Cultural Sites of the Duwamish a..Other Known Sites Figure 3 -3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE b..Northwind Fishing Weir Site C.- Burial Site (Remove from PublishedDocuments) • • DUWAMISH CORRIDOR r REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING AGENDA Wednesday Jan 15, 1992 11 :00 -Noon City of Seattle Department of Construction & Land Use 710 Second Avenue Gill Gonference Room 684 -8875 Attending: Rebecca Herzfeld: DCLU Martin Fricko DCLU Jack Pace: City of Tukwila Robert Betts: Project Coordinator I. North Duwamish Campus: -- Forthcoming Boeing application for building permits. * *process for performing plan checks & 'inspections. * *process for SEPA review, mitigation measures. II. Shoreline Management Issues: -- Boeing's new revisions to its proposed shoreline access plan. * *review and comments on the measures. * *discussion of their application to issues for the North Duwamish Campus area. III. Duwamish Programmatic EIS. -- Timetable for production, review, and publication. Questions? Call Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455 -9640 n g Company Fax Leader IP ... I +u utPaj ", JJay'sDalc' ergo Nv. 46 Cu,f,pary� . 1 F �� p Pow.lou From Company .. --� ., aR Mailstop_ - location Luuaiiun Bl 9 No. e Fox No. ..— lelepo„e riu. r Fax No. Telephone Ng Comments Original [J Dsl cy o Return r 0 Cal! for plci:up ..._ . , � —E L/ JJ6.,.._i z l icc� Fl1T�IR : X I NG1/4OUN1TY PARK --- 7.7z. LINK'A:GE. TO GREEN RIVER IRA • , p VI EWPO INTtS 12' WIDE BICYCLE /PE RA IL FISNER•IE'S HABI TA REST,O'BAT I ON PROJECT., WI TN• INFORM A, .LO PUBLIC :AC'CESS L I OK. ACROSS' BR I DGE I , LEGEND •••• PROPOSED SHOREL I NE PUBL I C TRAIL ENHANCEMENT EMPLOYEE rIO E I NE PEDESTRIAN T.RAAL Q WATER 'ACC- BSS/VIEW/POINT PROPOSED CURB, GUTTER AND. SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS KING COUNTY. GREEN RAVER ' "TRAIL (PEDESTRIAN & EICYLE) ••••.• I� U'St`U'OrF F L BOEING PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS • iOeinp Company �"ax Leader Maiistop No, of Pages • From A + t totey's Date ' 2. Nu. Nu. Mallstop TO 445A7C Company ., , '`..'. °" ` '• a CI Company -'Telephone ]Bldg. No. _- ., No. -7x41 ...., pickup Location Localion Fax No. Fax No... 4 31 _ � .. Telephone No. Comn ents Original. 0 Destroy 0 Dispositon: Return • Cali for .........._ftw:E.6_6..,E... i4LE_MA-P-7-7).14 . act -Sells. ��. —>�— �•—•�_ -- -...,- Attach DocumantAtiine i JAN 14 1992 L. J CITY OF TtJKWILA PLANNING DEPT. BOEING DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT EIS SHORELINE PUBLIC ACCESS PROPOSAL The Boeing Company ropposes to provide shoreline pedestrian access throughout the corridor, consistent with the requirements of local Shoreline Master Programs and the State Shoreline Act. The public access proposal for Duwamish corridor redevelopment consists of a combination of limited and unlimited public access features. Public access features will be integrated with other public trail or sidewalk systems in the area. Boeing sites currently occupy approximately 17,700 linear feet of Duwamish Waterway shoreline. Shoreline public access is already available along approximately 6,700 linear feet (38 %) of the shoreline. The proposal includes construction of shoreline trails and viewpoints, similar to those already developed for public access, on the remaining 11,000 linear feet of Boeing owned or leased shoreline, as the various sites are redeveloped. The additional 11,000 linear feet of trail will be limited to Boeing employee access only. Security requirements associated with Boeing's governmental contracts prevent most of the remaining shoreline area from being open to unlimited public access. Riverfront public access has never existed in these areas. The proposed public access plan for Duwamish corridor redevelopment consists of four major elements: (1) approximately 6,700 linear feet of publicly accessible shoreline trail, including an up- graded shoreline loop trail around the Oxbow site, with three river viewpoints, connecting to the Green River Trail; (2) up to 11,000 additional linear feet of limited access shoreline trail, available to the 25,000 Boeing employees in the corridor; (3) a public trail system link across the Duwamish River to East Marginal Way (and the Museum of Flight); and (4) a publicly accessible shoreline habitat restoration /viewpoint project, with informational signage on the north end of the Oxbow loop trail: Shoreline Access Components Publicly Accessible Shoreline Trail System Provide approximately 6,700 linear feet of publicly accessible shoreline on the Oxbow site • Upgrade the existing Boeing Oxbow trail to comply with the proposed guidelines; re- design the trail loop to accommodatelboth bicycle and pedestrian travel; provide three shoreline viewpoint /pocket parks features along the trail; connect Oxbow loop trail to the King County Green River Trail system; provide signage on Green River Trail describing the Boeing Oxbow loop trail; and bridge route to the Museum of Flight. Limited Shoreline Access Trail System • Provide up to 11,000 linear feet of shoreline trail, per the proposed guidelines, for the 25,000 Boeing employees who work in the corridor 9 t , amides* proposed !o date, shall be credited toward future corridor redevelopment projects at the same ratio. The public trail /viewpoint /shoreline restoration project proposed in this section shall satisfy the shoreline public access obligation for redevelopment of all Boeing owned or leased shoreline frontage identified in this proposal (Shoreline Figure 1). (The length of shoreline where public access will not be provided, approximately 11,000 linear feet, is approximately 1,7 times as long as the length of public trail proposed for the Oxbow site, approximately 6,500 linear feet. Hence the ratio 1.7:1) Shoreline Access Alternative The Boeing Company would contribute funds, equivalent to the cost of constructing 9,700 linear feet of shoreline trail, not to exceed $400,000, to a publicly managed fund for unspecified, future Duwamish Waterway shoreline trail, park or shoreline restoration projects. (Note: approximately 1,300 linear feet of shoreline trail has already been constructed on the South Park site,) Construction of the limited access shoreline trail, Oxbow trail loop upgrades, and the Oxbow Shoreline Restoration /Viewpoint project would be eliminated from the proposal. SL8 Provide compensatory plazas or similar pedestrian oriented facilities where existing or proposed buildings are closer than 40 feet to the shoreline. Such features shall be provided along the shoreline on both sides of the building so that an average setback of 40 feet is maintained. Principal seating areas shall provide shelter from wind and rain and have unobstructed 11 -2 PM solar access in these sheltered areas. ear i+womi0h Corridor Redevelopmnt a+�r.�AAuf tllA'iiR" BUFFER MAX 60' RIPARIAN - \\)/ VEGETATION MHHW It;[ ? 1 cr 117 tii .w L' TRAIL 12' d OPEN SPACE W /SWALE & STIE AMENITIES 1 i SHORELINE TYPE "B" Shoreline trail located farther from the shoreline where not adjacent to building. Sugio Kobayashi Ullman inc. Landscape Architecture & Planning 633 Yesler Way, Seattle, Washington 98104, (206) 682 -3730 i PREL9 27 CONNECTION TO GREEN RIVER TRAIL. SIGNAGE PUBLIC BRIDGE ROUTE TO EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH WATER ACCESS /VIEWPOINT FISHERIES HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT WITH INFORMATIONAL SIGNAGE SHORELINE ACCESS /VIEWPOINT CANOE LAUNCH •, sue``: _ l LEGEND •••• LXISI15IC SNOREIINE PUBLIC ACCESS ON BOEINC PMOPTRIT PROPOSE@ SPOP•ELLRE PURL.C' TRAit EMHANaLIENT r EYPIOTEC SUORELLNE rEvLSIRL4Y TRAIL 0 04TER ?CUSS/VIEW POIMI t \ PROPOSED CURB. CUT :E? AND SlOEUAt!. iNP 3V5M=XT5 KINC :CU'Ii` ;F.iEI Ri+EF TR4I1 (PENESTR;AX & BICTIE: :11- OF '_EA7T(E URBAN :RAll I.PE(ESTR!4N k 3ICYCl() Yom= _ : ' 2 BOEING DUHAM1SM CORRIDOR SHORELINE ACCESS & PUBLIC TRAIL SYSTEM 1' -4 CITY OF TUKWILA Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS REVISED SCHEDULE January 8, 1992 Third Preliminary Draft EIS Internal Review Comments Due Revisions Agency Courtesy Copy P -DEIS Agency Review Comments Due Revisions Publish Draft EIS Public Comments Due Possible 15 -day Extension First Preliminary Final EIS Internal Review Comments Due Revisions Agency Courtesy Copy P -FEIS Agency Review Comments Due Internal Review & Revisions Publish Final EIS TARGET DATES February ,14, 1992 February 21, 1992 February 21 - March 2, 1992 March 2, 1992 March 9, 1992 March 9 - 17, 1992 March 18, 1992 April 17, 1992 May 2, 1992 (May 3) May 15, 1992 May 20, 1992 May 20 - 29, 1992 May 29, 1992 June 5, 1992 June 5 - 17, 1992 June 17, 1992 Task May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July 1. Project Description 2. Scoping 3. DEIS Preparation a. Land Use &aping - Full - ...•••.. •• ■•.•* ■ i...■ 1.....1 ■... *■■... -- ....�� , _..�� b. Transportation c. Earth 1 d. Air e. Water f. Plants & Animals g. Energy/Natural Resources , _. h. Environmental Health i. Public Services & Utilities .__ 4. Progress Report 5. Internal Review (PDEIS) 6. Revisions - CH2M HILL • 7. Agency Review • 8. Revisions 9. Internal Review & Revisions 10. Publish DEIS 11. Comment Period 12. Prepare FEIS 13. Internal Review ( PFEIS) 14. Revisions '15. Agency Review '16. Revisions 17. Internal Review & Revisions 18. Publish Final EIS 19. Follow -up Support _ * _ _ _ •... ... ■M ■•..•. ....■..1111•■.■■ ..... ■•.IMu,..i Tasks added 9/24/91 ••a• Denotes range of dates Revised EIS Schedule The Boeing Company Duwamish Corridor Master Plan January 8, 1992 Bridge Linkage to East Marginal Way South Provide a publicly accessible trail segment across the Duwamish Waterway linking the Oxbow loop trail and the Green River Trail to East Marginal Way South and the Museum of Flight Oxbow Shoreline Restoration/Viewpoint Project Provide a shoreline bank restoration /viewpoint project at the north end of the Oxbow trail. This project would include a restored shoreline bank designed s ecifically to enhance fisheries habitat and to serve as a model for other future Duwamish Waterway shoreline restoration projects; public seating and informational signage. The restoration will be coordinated with a similar Turning Basin Shoreline Restoration project currently planned as a Coastal America Project by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Implementation Schedule The limited access shoreline trail system, which rovides shoreline access to Boeing employees, would be tied to redevelopment projects and constructed when adjacent Boeing sites or portions of sites, requiring Shoreline Substantial Development. Permits, are redeveloped. The Oxbow public shoreline trail /viewpoint system upgrade would be similarly tied to corridor redevelopment activity, and implemented in the following manner: The redevelopment of every one and one half (1.7) linear feet of Boeing corridor shoreline, where public access is not provided, generates a requirement for construction of one (1.0) linear foot of public trail \viewpoint improvements proposed on the Oxbow site. " Redevelopment projects involving more than 1,000 linear feet of shoreline, where public access is not provided (based upon construction site boundaries), requires simultaneous development of the associated amount of required public access improvements on the Oxbow site. Projects involving redevelopment of less than 1,000 linear feet of shoreline do not require immediate construction of associated Oxbow public access features, unless the shoreline roject roposed, when added to previous small projects, total more than 1,000 linear feet of shoreline. Then the public improvements for the current and previously approved small projects must be implemented. The City Tukwila shall be responsible for monitoring and public access improvements and requiring that the appropriate ratio is maintained. The effective date for implementation of required public access improvements shall be the date that the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a project resulting in more than 1,000 feet of linear date of shoreline where public access is not provided. If The Boeing Company opts to complete all proposed public access improvements prior to redeveloping all corridor sites, the public access improvements_ provided beyond that required for redevelopment nroiects • O MHIIL SUBJECT: MEETING NOTES PROJECT NUMBER 507 3 76 O • SHEETJ(OF NOTES ISSl3ED BY / ///,Z- LOCATION REGION DATE MEETING DATE: lX.7.0 ATTENDEES: /� %`"e- -- NOTES BY: REGION TOPICS DISCUSSED ACTION /NOTES Jack reviewed permits and conditions: o City of Seattle - North Duwamish Campus: frontal improvements, curb, gutter, sidewalks o City of Tukwila - Bldg 2 -88: frontal improvements (not constructed and probably won't be) Bld 9 -08, part of BMAC EIS (discussion of Tunison letter): Looks like Boeing Access Rd /Pacific Hwy /East Marg Wy intersection improvements; and also rehab of 10 signals on E.Marg.Wy. Duwamish Office Park East: frontal and intersection ____ _ improvements. Condition #1 - Ron Cameron to check; conditions 2 -7 have been met. East Marg Way Corp Park: frontal improvements. Conditions met. Oxbow: Square foot triggers established in MDNS have been set (580,000 +/- sq.ft.). Condition #1 is West Marg P1 with 102nd and 14th; condition #2 is pro rata share of ramp at S.102nd; condition #3 is pro rata share of 1st Ave So Bridge. Ron Cameron to check if condition #1 has been met. Conditions #2 and #3 still outstanding. In summary, Boeing has outstanding commitments on the following conditions: o Boeing Access Road & E.Marg.Way geometric changes, signalization, road configuration (based on E.Marg.Way Corp Park and Duwamish Office Park SEPA checklists and BMAC EIS,i.e, Tunison letter on Bldg 9 -08; o Pro rata share of south ramp at 102nd; o Pro rata share of 1st Ave. So. Bridge. REV 1/83 FORM 228 • SHEET OF __ • TOPICS DISCUSSED ACTION /NOTES _..- ._. - -. Dick and John will examine data and see if Boeing confirms. Research looks good so far. ----- . There was discussion of the Memorandum of Understanding dated .._ . January 30, 1991 between Boeing and Tukwila to defer Oxbow MDNS conditions until programmatic EIS on corridor was complete. Ron explained Tukwila's application from the TIA (Transportation Improvement Account) for $11 million to rebuild E.Marg Way and - intersections. State will contribute $5 million. Remainder to be provided by city, county, and developers - i.e., city - county will contribute $2.8; Boeing will provide $3.2 (city will manage late- comers agreement). City will front the money. Improvements are ___ generally for variable lane configurations in the existing ROW. Construction will probably start in 1993. For Draft EIS, Chuck is to examine existing conditions with $11.1 million TIA project as baseline. Baseline will be compared with three EIS alternatives. See what analysis discloses as impacts. Then decide which of interchanges if any is needed. • • SEATTLE REALTY TEL No.206- 455 -2251 Jan 7,92 16:09 No.003 P.03 • • DUWAM1SH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING AGENDA Wednesday Jan 8, 1992 10:00 -Noon City of Tukwila DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 SOUTHCENTER BLVD 431-3686 Attending: John Crull& Dick McCann) Boeing Chuck Crandall &) Ikuno Masterson:} CH2M Hill Ron Cameron &) Jack Pace: City of Tukwila Phil Odegard Entranco Engineers Robert Betts: Tukwila Project Consultant I. Traffic Analysis for Duwamish Corridor -- Confirm the assumptions (eg, environmental obligations). -- Discus the most effective use of resources to reduce expected impacts (eg, TDM's effectiveness). -- Clarify how the Programmatic EIS for the Corridor can and should assist in the preparation of the design report for E. Marginal Way. I I Management of the Work Plan, Budget and Schedule -- Suggest ways to expedite the analysis. -- Discuss the relationship between the schedules for the Programmatic EIS and East Marginal Way. Ili. Inter - Agency contacts. - -Metro and WashDOT: update on content and direction of work. -- Decide on who contacts these agencies and when to contact them. Questions? Call Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455-9640 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CONVERSATION RECORD DATE: Jam•. / -3 / TYPE: ❑ Visit A.N TUE OP THU FRI SAT SUN TIME: JD ifjb P.M. Conference ❑ Telephone — 0 Incoming 0 Outgoing Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you: Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.) Telephone No.: Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: SUMMARY: "k/ a7/P a /l/ Qiwac Ct Loy75 // 4, 421 "24.14,-,(a-, -.3 9 FiAi P-AA-1. :de- 4.12_ EA /7P,%J 014.n Ru 1 "P� c rigs c'fd i /pI C_ C #2-/Y7 f 'CL 459 -5-600 43S 5.8r3-BGIG e/s 3 - s�Q� 9.0 - Gov •3/ 366 • 4- vls4A-A■vb "goid - 41,./1,& z� ,.'�,. )P A5/4, ALA ;-pir /L 2 - 16 lifif- //14,/e (tA<L, i 9 &1 Signature: Title: Date: Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use Dennis J. McLerran, Director Norman B. Rice, Mayor January 2, 1992 Jack Pace Senior Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard CITY Ur I UKWILA Cir;;;•!71440 OPP" FAN o s 1992 Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Pace: PLANNING DEPT. As you requested, attached is an invoice for $5,500 to be applied as partial payment for the Department of Construction and Land Use's (DCLU) work on the Boeing Master Plan. If you have any questions about the invoice, please call Rich Richmire, DCLU's finance manager, at 684 -8478. We are looking forward to continuing our work with you to produce the best possible Master Plan for both Boeing and the region. Sincerely, DENNIS J. McLERRAN Director // it By REBECCA HERZFELD Director Land Use Division RRH:sh Enclosure An equal employment opportunity - affirmative action employer. Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use, 710 - 2nd Avenue, Ste 700, Seattle WA 98104 -1703 . "Prif ed on Recycbed Parser" CITY OF SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION & LAND USE 400 MUNICIPAL BUILDING SEATTLE, WA 98104 DEPT. OF CONSTRUCTION & LAND USE TO: City of Tukwila INVOICE NO: 03613' Attn: Jack Pace, Senior Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Ste 100 DATE: Dec. 31, 1991 Tukwila, WA 98188 AMOUNT Partial payment for work on the Boeing Master Plan, Project #9105709 COLL ORG ORG ACCOUNT U1110 U1110 112600 $ 5500.00 CS 5.246 REV 12186 When Stamped PAID by the City Treasurer this bill becomes a duplicate of City Treasurer's Dept. Bill Voucher No. • • CONNECTION TO GREEN RIVER TRAIL, SIGNAGE --I PUBLIC BRIDGE ROUTE TO EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH WATER ACCESS /VIEWPOINT FISHERIES HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT • • SHORELINE ACCESS /VIEWPOINT CANOE LAUNCH r ' • S (- NO.RiHBOEING, F,IEL'D', LEGEND MIME EXISTING SHORELINE PUBLIC ACCESS ON BOEING PROPERTY PROPOSED SHORELINE PUBLIC TRAIL ENHANCEMENT ® EMPLOYEE SHORELINE PEDESTRIAN TRAIL O WATER ACCESS /VIEW POINT 00> FUTURE TRAIL CONNECTION PROPOSED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS KING COUNTY GREEN RIVER TRAIL (PEDESTRIAN & BICYLE) ...... CITY OF SEATTLE URBAN TRAIL (PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE) BOEING DUWAMISH CORRIDOR SHORELINE ACCESS & PUBLIC TRAIL SYSTEM /z/2.4./9/ LINKAGE TO GREEN 'RIVER TRAIL 12' WIDE BICYCLE /PE RAIL FISHERIES HABITA, RESTO RATION PROJECT PUBLIC ACCESS . LtN1( ACROSS BRIDGE 630xotoze iacy Mme: LEGEND 4,041. PROPOSED SHORELINE PUBLIC TRAIL ENHANCEMENT ® EMPLOYEE SHORELINE PEDESTRIAN TRAIL J WATER ACCESS /VIEW POINT <•> FUTURE TRAIL CONNECTION PROPOSED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS oaaaoa KING COUNTY GREEN RIVER TRAIL (PEDESTRIAN & BICYLE) BOEING PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS /2_-/2-.v/7/ REMIT CODE X 24601 REV 5/91 F-INVOICE----PURCHASE 1 NUMBER ORDER NO 911274898 OUT012 • PAVE A hAPPY PAY Jr TIKWILA gRA 18000.00 ;5TAL 18000.00 LNE:K :8030.00 }-NGE 0.00 1F,19 ,.;t1TE /7a',D35 4116( / nr.dv.0 i. 1 I-11N un bili V 1U.CA \--/ VENDORS— INVOICE- INVOICE --DISCOUNT INVOICE# DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT JACKPACE 12/18/91 18,000.00 0.00 CHECK NUMBER 86 SUB TOTAL 18,000.00 0.00 2479417 NET 1 AMOUNT 18,000.00 18,000.00 A DIVISION OF THE BOEING COMPANY P.O. BOX 3999 SEATTLE. WA 98124 3 9 6 5 9 2 9 BOEING. AEROSPACE COMPANY CHECK AMOUNT ***18000.00 ws C.II 7 OF71/I111II..t1 (i.UN.tiorri n R ; , ' ! FL, l t ( + ( I / i ;PI,. 1 ('/ Ii /1..1, I1.1 >I1! \'i,1 December 17, 1991 Mr. Jeff Zahir, Planner /Economist F &TSS Planning & Program Support Boeing Support Services PO Box 3703, MS 6Y -59 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Dear Mr. Zahir, (;urc l.. I'tinI)u n. Al(1rU ) In regard to the Boeing Duwamish Programmatic EIS, there is a need to have enough funds on hand to pay consultant bills that will arrive in early January. Robert Betts' letter of December 11, 1991 identified that our fund's balance on hand is $1,580.10 We project$19,600 will be needed to pay the portions of November and all of December 1991 bills from CH2M HILL and Robert S. Betts, Inc.. We also are holding a bill from King County for $10,170, for its review time on the initial preliminary review Draft EIS. We will defer payment of the King County invoice, but ask that a minimum of $18.000 be transferred to our EIS account this week. We understand the Boeing Company is in the process of drafting a more formal contract with the City. As an interim measure. however. we ask that the Company advance the S18.000 now. before the Holiday vacation period. This request is reasonable, since the work is part of an ongoing project, and is additive to existing Duwamish studies. Si i cerely Tul4jwila Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Senior Planner cc: Robert S, Betts, Inc. Lloyd Skinner/ CH2M Hill John Crull /Boeing • BOEING DUWAMISH CORRIDOR EIS TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS I. Existing Conditions (1990) A. As shown in preliminary DEIS II. Baseline (no action) A. 1987 EIS 1. Buildings constructed: new employment 1987 1990/91 a. Committed mitigation f East Marginal Way, including frontal improvements and a sixth lane on EMW. EMW Signals Pacific Hwy. EMW intersection First Avenue So. Bridge ? B. Analysis of no- action alternative 1. Mitigation a. Capital Improvements b. TDM III. Proposed Action A. Analysis of proposed action 1. Analysis of previous mitigation (uncommitted) a. Oxbow Interchange versus Pac. Hwy. b. Other 2. Mitigation Recommendations a. Capital Improvements b. TDM IV. Alternatives A. Analysis of alternative 1. Mitigation ee/cc004/Duw.EIS Task May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July 1. Project Description 2. Scoping 3. DEIS Preparation a. Land Use b. Transportation Scoaieg Fun ■.... ........ *..i.... ��.... - 11 1. ■.11 _ *.I ,y vy7urgj"' 1 1•1111 ••.. alp ■..■ I -..� c. Earth d. Air e. Water f. Plants & Animals g. Energy/Natural Resources h. Environmental Health i. Public Services & Utilities - - -- 4. Progress Report 5. Internal Review (PDEIS) 6. Revisions - CH2M HILL • 7. Agency Review • 8. Revisions 9. Internal Review & Revisions 10. Publish DEIS 11. Comment Period 12. Prepare FEIS 13_ Internal Review EIS) 14. Revisions •15. Agency Review •16. Revisions 17. Internal Review & Revisions , 18. Publish Final EIS 19. Follow -up Support * . _- ---111•1•3111 • Tasks added 9/24/91 •••• Denotes possible extension of schedule Revised EIS Schedule The Boeing Company Duwamish Corridor Master Plan November 15, 1 99 1 • CONVERSATION RECORD MON DATE: 1Z / l3 / 61 I ) SAT SUN THU TIME: ) TYPE: ❑ lsit ❑ Conference ❑ Telephone— 0 Incoming OOutgoing Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.) G uZ Telephone No.: Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: ivel; . 0/Au,J1AL %S SUMMARY: --Frak Afro 6,141igils K/#6) `ice U . anythikd >4 0"-- do")1.-7 neA 4 40)A A- pd Signature: Title: Date: • DRAFT 12/13/91 PDEIS COMMENTS for DISCUSSION (exluding transportation and shoreline) DEC 1 6 ' tI CH) LI' ivnOV16. 1 PLANNINC OEPT We need to discuss King County comments about context of EIS decision - making, i.e., phased review; role of interlocal agreement, design guidelines, enforcement and document in the EIS. Should "proposed action" be changed to "preferred alternative" to reflect the programmatic action of examining alternatives? Will mitigation measures be agreed on for all alternatives? Should King Co and Seattle pass resolutions adopting redevelopment alternatives? King County and Seattle want discussion about known contamination of sites and on -off site remediation plans. This will require information from Boeing. To what extent does the Team want this addressed? King County wants vegetation communities in the project area mapped and habitats outlined. To what degree should this be done? King County and Tukwila PubWorks would like to see a water quality monitoring plan. To what extent is Boeing willing to do this. Will it become part of their proposal? King County and Seattle want more detail on amount and type of demolition debris and where Boeing plans on disposing and compliance with solid waste comp plans. King County specifically wants design guidelines to address recycling facilities. City Light comments seem to demand analysis that cannot be done with the level of information that Boeing is able to provide. Does the Team agree that the PDEIS is adequate as it now reads? 1::: o what extent should Tukwila Public Works comments on rainage issues related to East Marginal Way be addressed? \I. DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING AGENDA Friday Dec 13, 1991 1:00- 3:OOPM CH2M Hill 14th Floor To be held in Conference Room "O" [on south side of the building -Turn RIGHT when exiting the elevator!] 453 -5000 John Crull & Dick McCann:} Lloyd Skinner & } Chuck Crandall &} Ikuno Masterson:} Jack Pace: Robert Betts: Attending: Boeing CH2M Hill City of Tukwila Tukwila Project Consultant Traffic Analysis for Duwamish Corridor -- Outline of work to be done. vlI. Response to comment letters from jurisdictions -- Outline of subject material and possible mitigating conditions. �^�-A�' III. Shoreline Issues l:Y'' ''/ - -A presentation and discussion of the features in the newly - revised proposal for the Boeing Shoreline Access Plan. \' I V . Memorandum of Agreement between jurisdictions -- Status & update. \JV . Managment of the Work Plan, B(dget and Schedule - -Shift in production of PDEIS & consequence on overall timetable. -- Timely flow of funds. Questions? Call Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455 -9640 • Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use Dennis J. McLerran, Director Norman B. Rice, Mayor December 12, 1991 Re: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Scope of EIS Robert S. Betts Project Coordinator, Boeing Duwamish EIS City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Betts: evegi INEMF �OEC131991- Ci ► r ur PLgNNINGpEP -A Thank you for permitting me to meet with you, Tukwila, King County and CH2M Hill last week to discuss the shoreline access issues concerning Boeing's Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for their Duwamish Corridor Master Plan.' The Department of Construction and Land Use (DCLU) is particularly concerned about precluding a range of alterna- tives for shoreline access along the east Duwamish shore- line. We believe that Seattle's preferred alternative, which would allow public access (including a pedestrian trail and public amenities) along the east Duwamish shoreline, should be analyzed as part of the EIS. Other alternatives, such as providing equivalent shoreline access opportunities in other locations, providing improved shoreline parks, and providing pedestrian linkages for the Duwamish Trail and to the Flight Museum, could also be considered in the EIS. All alternatives should establish basic parameters such as amount of area or shoreline frontage dedicated to public access and the types of features involved. Without analyzing shoreline access alternatives, the purpose and intent of the Programmatic EIS will not be fully achieved. DCLU believes that any alternatives proposed should evaluate the expected impacts, the mitigation measures, and the potential trade -offs with respect to the preferred alternative of providing shoreline access along the east Duwamish shoreline. I would appreciate your keeping our office advised of your progress. I would also like to receive notice of any An equal employment opportunity - affirmative action employer. Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use, 710 - 2nd Avenue, Ste 700, Seattle WA 98104 -1703 "Printed on Recycled Paper" Robert Betts December 12, 1991 Page 2 subsequent meetings that may be scheduled regarding this issue._I -f-you have any questions about DCLU's comments, - .pleaMsedo• not hesitate to call me at 684 -8875. sincerely,1 . r� r� � ;. ENNIS J. McLERRAN Director , ; f.. I- .- .,fic • il� • r By MARTIN FRICKO Land Use Specialist MJF:sh cc: Ikuno.Masterson, CH2M Hill Tom Eksten, King County, Open Space, Public Trails Jack Pace, City of Tukwila, Community Development Don Williams, City of Tukwila, Parks FOR OFFICE USE ONLY DATE: CONVERSATION RECORD MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN TIME: A.M. P.M. TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference El Telephone— OIncoming °Outgoing Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you: Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.) Telephone No.: Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: SUMMARY: wItis c61‘1.. Aeol hi4 fri/' distiodpiA htge, /1 645+ ett ,fmn3-1, Signature: I t s a Pi. D Title: Date: • REV 11/89 • CITY .OF .SEATTLE ZONING RECEIPT DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCT N AND LAND USE RECEIPT date 7 --/ %19 CI) payor proj. address written dollar amt. phone no. project no. letter inv.# Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6 Z7 Z8 Z9 Z10 7-)kt.,) laotc �J S poi.. dollars $ amt. received $ S-'' change $ check no. 5a% fee option amount fee option amount lot boundry/ short plats Z15 street use (DCLU) Z12 cert. of land use Z16 pre -app. conf. .Z18 design review/ departure Z17 EIS Z07 rezone Z01 legal bldg. letter Z19 admin. cond. use Z13 council conditional use Z02 demolition B07 temporary use/ special exception Z03 variance Z04 flood plain devel. FLD use /zoning plan check .. , / ._ shoreline subs. development W01 SEPA check (DNS) A01 . Z%2.32'OY is ?:i;' Z11 Z12 Z17 Z24 Z26 Z27 Z28 '._NORTHWEST BUSINESS FORMS INC. SEATTLE, WASH.' • • 31, CrvV i. ,/n /aj i SHORELINE PUBLIC ACCESS PROPOSAL The Boeing Company proposes to provide shoreline pedestrian access throughout the corridor, consistent with the requirements of local Shoreline Master Programs and the State Shoreline Act. Public access features will be integrated with other public trail or sidewalk systems in the area. Boeing sites currently occupy approximately 17,500 lineal feet of Duwamish Waterway shoreline. Unlimited shoreline public access has already been provided along approximately 8,000 lineal feet (46 %) of the shoreline. Boeing proposes to construct shoreline trails and viewpoints, similar to those already developed for public access, on the remaining 9,700 lineal feet of Boeing owned or leased shoreline, as the various sites are redeveloped. The additional, up to 9,700 lineal feet of trail will be limited to Boeing employee access only. Security requirements associated with Boeing's governmental contracts prevent most of the remaining shoreline area from being open to unlimited public access. The public access proposal, therefore, consists of a combination of limited and unlimited public access features. The proposed public access plan for Duwamish corridor redevelopment consists of four major elements: (1) approximately 8,000 lineal feet of publicly accessible shoreline trail, including an up-graded shoreline loop trail around the Oxbow site connecting to the Green River Trail; (2) up to 9,700 lineal feet of limited access shoreline trail, available to the 25,000 Boeing employees in the corridor; (3) a public trail system link across the Duwamish River to East Marginal Way and the Museum of Flight); and (4) a publicly accessible shoreline habitat restoration /viewpoint project on the north end of the Oxbow loop trail. Shoreline Access Components Publicly Accessible Shoreline Trail System Provide approximately 8,000 lineal feet of publicly accessible shoreline - Upgrade Oxbow trail loop to comply with the proposed guidelines Limited Shoreline Access Trail System Provide up to 9,700 lineal feet of shoreline tram per the proposed guidelines, for the 25,000 Boeing employees who work in the corridor Bridge Linkage to East Marginal Way South Provide a publicly accessible trail segment across the Duwamish Waterway linking the Oxbow loop trail and the Green River Trail to East Marginal Way South and the Museum of Flight • • Oxbow Shoreline Restoration/Viewpoint Project Provide a shoreline bank restoration /viewpoint project at the north end of the Oxbow trail. This project would be coordinated with the Turning Basin Shoreline Restoration Project currently planned as a Coastal America Project by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Implementation Schedule The limited access shoreline trail system, which provides shoreline access to Boeing employees, would be constructed when adjacent Boeing sites or portions of sites are redeveloped. The Oxbow public shoreline trail loop system upgrade and shoreline restoration /viewpoint projects would be completed prior to occupancy of the first major redevelopment project, requiring a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, in Plant II or the North Duwamish Campus. (A major redevelopment project is one valued at 50 million dollars or more.) Shoreline Access Alternative The Boeing Company would contribute funds, equivalent to the cost of constructing 9,700 lineal feet of shoreline trail, to a publicly managed fund for unspecified, future Duwamish Waterway shoreline trail, park or shoreline restoration projects. Construction of the limited access shoreline trail, Oxbow trail loop upgrades, and the Oxbow Shoreline Restoration /Viewpoint project would be eliminated from the proposal. LEGEND PedeStrian•Way & Trail _Employee Pedestrian Way & Trail 0 Water Access/View Point 94f_uture eadestriari Connection '.••••-:,, • • --- Street Sidewalk King County Trail mem _City. of Seattle Trail BOEING DUINAMIS11,CORRIPOR .TRAIL SYSTEM SUGIO KOBAYASHI ULLIvIAN. INC Londscope Architecture & Planning 6 • 3 „ Way 6e0111. wegUngton '0104 OW 6)2.37)0 • ,A-Elluc/E. 14-<;--0--W.s‘ /787 -"2-5- . _ 7 Voicmi-qs LOS) - 7. dR42.5 5. (-hs77A(J6 /7Fr Vc 144-t-u-S LC S jc pc-44- cLeS s 741' •—/fce744.44_c."- —de-Ace &Let = • For: From: To: City of Tukwila, DCD; Jack Pace Date Activity Comments Monday @Office Confirm 12/5 meeting time Tuesday @Office King Co: Shoreline Div. comments Wednesday @Office King Co Mem. of Agreement. Thursday Meeting @ Cot Agency Consensus on shorelines Friday • WEEKLY REPORT • DUWAMISH CORRIDOR Plan and Programmatic EIS Week Ending Decer er 6, 1991 Robert S. Betts Items of Note Prior Permit Conditions. On Thursday, we met with Eileen Duffy at the commercial division in BALD. We helped clarify the specifics of her research. By early next week she believes she will have copies of the EIS decisions and the square feet of buildings that were constructed in accordance with these determinations. We scheduled a meeting with Tukwila Public Works for next Monday to review these results, and to compare them with similar investigations in the Boeing Company, and in Tukwila. Changes to Schedule. CH2M HILL is pretty much on hold. It awaits the results of the research into the traffic mitigating measures before proceeding with detailed revisions to the Draft EIS. Contract Documents. As of Friday, the signed contract documents are complete. John Crull at the Boeing Company is pursuing a more predictable way to obtain funding advances in order to avoid the delays we have had in the past month. The Memorandum of Agreement. Craig Larsen has the Memorandum. He called to say the prosecuting attorney has problems with it, specifically in that the memo appears to constrain the County from further environmental reviews. After we reviewed that item, Craig said that it did not appear to be so serious, and that he would call back shortly. I now have a call into him, to remind him we await their signature. Shoreline Access Plan. Our meeting with the other agencies was productive. There is agreement that shoreline mitigations could take place off -site, and in another jurisdiction. We established general priorities. The principal one is to complete planned trails, such as the one around the Oxbow. We also identified the Seattle City Light property as a possible public park site. While we discussed trade -off ratios, they are unclear. Boeing will have to propose them in its plan. Longacres. No News. DUWAMISH CORRIDOR • REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Minutes of Meeting Thursday December 5, 1991 Present: Jack Pace, Don Williams, Tom Eksten, Martin Fricko, Bob Betts, Ikuno Masterson The Purpose of the meeting was to address the forthcoming Shoreline Access Plan for Boeing's properties along the Duwamish Corridor. Background. Shoreline access will be part of Boeing's programmatic redevelopment effort over the next 10 years. The preliminary draft environmental impact statement mentions this subject as part of the land use issues. The three key land -use agencies (Seattle, Tukwila, and King County) decided in early November to review what are the common objectives and priorities for this area. The Framework of agreement centers on the following points: 1. Offsite improvements can be substituted for projects on the shoreline. It was agreed that each site need not provide public access, nor is it mandatory that improvements be located within the jurisdiction in which a specific project is proposed. However, any improvements should be in the vicinity of Boeing's Duwamish facilities. 2. The priority for shoreline improvements is to provide a system of continuous trails. Public "pocket parks" are also desirable. - -A trail around the Oxbow site is the highest priority trail linkage. Other trail linkage needs in the area include a grade- separated trail that would connect the King County and Seattle trails in the South Park neighborhood. - -Three specific sites for possible parks are: The two -acre Metro property at the southern end of the Oxbow area; the north side of the 16th Avenue bridge at the shoreline; and the Seattle City Light property (where 115' landward from the shoreline would be precluded from development because of Sensitive Area Ordinance requirements.) - -There is a general need for shoreline parks in the South Park neighborhood. Likely opportunities: the shoreline -ends of streets. -- Public parking areas are needed in conjunction with trails and parks. 3. The ratio of these offsite improvements can be determined on a programmatic basis. - -The quality of improvements is a significant factor: a sidewalk on 16th Street is not the same as a shoreline path on the Duwamish. A small park may be just as appropriate as a trail somewhere else. - - -In general, improvements should be equivalent to what's being pre - empted by Boeing's need to secure the shoreline from public access. 4. There is no direct credit to the Boeing Company for making employee- oriented shoreline improvements. The shoreline regulations are clear that set -backs and other provisions of the Shoreline Master Programs are mandatory, such that there will be improvements as a matter of course to each proposed Boeing project which is located in the shoreline. Public access is an additional requirement when non -water dependent development is proposed. Prepared by: Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455 -964q' %,,/j-jJ • DUWAM I SH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING AGENDA Tlx : yD ce »!Hier s 1991 NO0*1.1717PiI • City of Tukwila City Hall Conference Room 3 Jack Pace: Don Williams Tom Eksten Martin Fricko Robert Betts: Ikuno Masterson: 431 -3686 Attending: City of Tukwila - Community Dvlpt City of Tukwila -Parks King County -Open Sp /Trails City of Seattle -DCLU Tukwila Project Consultant CH2M Hill I. Shoreline Access Plan for the Duwamish Corridor. -- Boeing's proposal for its Programmatic EIS . II. Shoreline Issues. - - Mitigating conditions for alternative off -site projects. - - Access and enhancement criteria for 10 years. - - Design guidelines and their interpretation with respect to specific project proposals. III. Administrative Issues - - Follow -up on this issue during and after the EIS: making the program work. Questions? Cali Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455 -9640 CITY OF,T UKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD,TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 December 4, 1991 .. Jeff Zahir, Planner /Economist Boeing Support Services P.O. Box 3707, MS 1303 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 • PHONE N (206) 4331800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Subject: Duwamish Corridor Draft EIS; Contract Modifications and Budget Attached is the revised contracts for Ch2M Hill and Robert S. Betts. With the change in Boeing Proposal, CH2M Hill will need to make major changes in the completed Draft EIS Document. The revised cost and time frame are attached to the contract. The revision for Bob Betts contract reflects the change in work plan time frame with no additional cost in the contract. Seattle DCLU estimate a cost of $5,500 to process the DEIS. They requested that $5,500 be deposited in their account to be drawn upon as the work is done. Tukwila could act as the intermediate funding and accounting source. This cost does not include the change in project proposal. King County estimate a cost of $19,170. To date they have spend 113 hours at $90 per hour with a cost of $10,170. King County would submita single portion of the review process. Overall, then I estimate the funding request to Boeing from Tukwila to be as follows: Betts 50,000 Already authorized CH2M Hill 258,000 110,000 Already authorized Seattle 10,000. Estimate, initial 5,500 King County 19,000 K. C. estimate as of 11 -21 -91 Sincerely, Total $337,670 ck . Pace Senior Planner cc: Robert S. Betts Lloyd A. Skinner DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING AGENDA Monday November 25, 1991 4:00 -5:00 PM @ CH2M Hill 14th Floor Room "H" 453 -5000 Attending: John Crull: Boeing Lloyd Skinner & } Ikuno Masterson:} CH2M Hill Jack Pace: City of Tukwila Robert Betts: Tukwila Project Consultant I. What are the Traffic Facts for OxBow and BMAC? - -Any news on the conditions for the permits for these facilities? -- Strategy for obtaining closure on the Traffic Analyses. 1 Shoreline Issues. - -What will be the consequences for the Shoreline Access Plan with the revised proposal? avn N. Memorandum of Agreement - -King County's concerns about the level of mitigation measures. ffi IV. Keeping the Work Plan and Schedule under control. Questions? Call Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455 -9640 • • King County Environmental Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 3600 - 136th Place Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006 -1400 (206) 296 -6602 November 25, 1991 Mr. L. Rick Beeler, Director Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal (King County SEPA File No. T9100110) Gentlemen: Thank you for providing King County with an opportunity to comment on the preliminary DEIS (PDEIS) at the roundtable discussion last month. I have reviewed the proposal and the PDEIS along with comments from King County staff. King County's comments are outlined below, organized according to the sequence of the PDEIS. Comments regarding portions of the text are provided first by page number and paragraph, followed by comments under the heading "General" which relate to subjects that have not been addressed in the text. We are aware that the PDEIS is being redrafted in response to Boeing's revised proposal. We would like to review the revised PDEIS prior to publication. As you know, it has been difficult for all of the relevant King County Divisions to comment on the PDEIS in the brief time allotted. The additional time afforded as a result of the revised proposal was helpful to some, but not all, King County reviewers. Consequently, King County may provide additional comments on the revised PDEIS as well as on the published DEIS during the public comment period. (Gill NOV 271991 CITE( OF TUiv dt,.r\ PLANNING DEPT. • • Mr. Beeler Mr. Pace November 25, 1991 Page 2 PART I Page 1 -4, paragraph 3, states that Boeing will make every effort to comply with regulations but variances may be necessary. Table 1 -1 on page 1 -7 also indicates that variances or amendments may be used to mitigate noncompliance with adopted zoning and shoreline development standards. I understood from the roundtable discussion that incompatibility in municipal regulations governing the project area is the reason for these statements. Please note this, where appropriate, in the text. Footnotes may be a helpful way to convey explanatory information. Page 2 -2, Figure 2 -2. This diagram depicts the Control Tower /CFR Building site on Boeing Field - King ,County Airport as a potential site for lease by Boeing. This is not likely to occur as these existing facilities are located so as to meet functional requirements. The EIS references several related documents including a shoreline access plan (Page 3 -27), design guidelines (Page 3- 27), a mitigation agreement (Page 2 -4), and an interlocal agreement (Page 1 -2). It would be helpful if these documents could be introduced and their relationship to the proposal and the EIS clarified in a separate section of the summary. General: SEPA states that "phased review is appropriate when: (i) the sequence is from a nonproject document to a document of narrower scope such as a site specific analysis" (WAC 197-11 - 060(5)(c). In addition, SEPA requires a lead agency to disclose when it is using phased review in its environmental documents (WAC 197- 11- 060(5)(e)). It appears that the intent of the nonproject EIS and the memorandum of agreement is to allow for phased review. The EIS cover letter, fact sheet, and summary should therefore indicate this (WAC 197 -11 -440 (2)(g) and (4)). The role of this EIS in decision making is not clear. A nonproject EIS should state clearly what issues will be decided based on this phase of environmental review and what issues will be reserved for subsequent environmental review (WAC 197 - l1- 060(5)(b)). The EIS should also state clearly who will make these decisions and, if known, when these decisions will occur. A nonproject EIS is prepared so that decisions can be made on policies, plans, or programs (WAC 197-11-704(2)(b)). In this case, it appears that the nonproject action should be to select a program(s) for redeveloping the Duwamish Corridor. Redeveloping the corridor in an environmentally acceptable • S Mr. Beeler Mr. Pace November 25, 1991 Page 3 manner should be the overriding objective, with the other objectives listed on pages 1 -1 and 1 -2 stated as corollaries. A nonproject EIS should emphasize alternatives for achieving a stated objective. For clarity, we suggest that the "proposed action" (redeveloping the area from a deteriorating manufacturing zone to a research and development facility) be called the "preferred alternative." Other alternatives include upgrading the manufacturing facilities, developing an office park, or maintaining existing conditions with minor improvements (no action). The description of the "preferred alternative" should follow the statement of objectives and description of the approval process. The EIS states that the City of Tukwila will use this nonproject EIS to review the broad issues raised by the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal. It states further that Tukwila anticipates entering into a mitigation agreement with the Boeing Company after environmental review of the proposal is complete. This statement implies that the purpose of the EIS is to agree on mitigation measures associated with the research and development proposal. But what of the other alternatives under review? Will Tukwila also enter into a mitigation agreement with Boeing for the Office Center and Manufacturing Center alternatives? Further, could Tukwila reject all the action alternatives in favor of the no- action alternative? If the only purpose of this EIS is to arrive at a set of mitigation measures on the proposed action, then it is questionable why a nonproject EIS is being prepared. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance is the appropriate vehicle used in such instances. If however, the purpose of the document is to decide on the best redevelopment strategy for the Duwamish Corridor, then a nonproject EIS makes perfect sense. However, the EIS should then clearly state that Tukwila will consider all the alternatives after the FEIS is complete and decide if the development scenarios are acceptable. The decision could favor one or more of the redevelopment scenarios or could reject all of them. A decision in favor of an alternative would allow Tukwilla to attach any reasonable mitigation measures. Approaching the nonproject EIS as an evaluation of redevelopment alternatives provides the greatest long -term benefit to the proponent as well as the agencies with jurisdiction. Agreeing on the big picture will facilitate future site - specific review. For example, as proposals are submitted for separate developments, subsequent environmental review will not have to revisit the issue of alternative land uses or the larger mitigation commitments. Rather, the review • • Mr. Beeler Mr. Pace November 25, 1991 Page 4 will be confined to determining consistency with the approved overall redevelopment strategy and evaluating site - specific details which would have probable significant adverse environmental impacts. For simplicity, this general discussion has identified the City of Tukwila as the decision making body. As lead agency for this EIS, Tukwila does have the primary responsibility for ensuring the adequacy of the document and for deciding which redevelopment strategy is appropriate for lands within its jurisdiction. However, King County and the City of Seattle also have jurisdiction for portions of the site and should agree to the overall redevelopment strategy. We suggest that upon issuance of the FEIS, each jurisdiction take an action to approve the acceptable redevelopment alternative(s) and any attendant mitigation measures. This action should be a resolution passed by the respective councils of each jurisdiction. The adoption of resolutions would constitute the nonproject action upon which this EIS is predicated. Concurrence on a redevelopment alternative(s) would ensure future program consistency for the respective jurisdictions and predictability for the proponent. PART II Land and Shoreline Uses Page 3 -1. The text on this page indicates that the Duwamish Office Park East site is not currently owned by Boeing while Page 2 -2, Figure 2 -1 indicates that the site is owned by Boeing. Page 3 -14. The EIS should discuss the 1986 King County Airport Master Plan (adopted by King County Council Motion 7029 of December 7, 1987). Although the Airport is considered a public utility, this plan functions in part as a land use plan for a portion of the project area (See Chapter 9, Airport Plans). Page 3 -13, Figure 3 -3. This diagram should identify Ruby Chow Park located between South Hardy Street, Albro Place South, and Stanley Avenue South. This park was developed by the King County Airport Division in 1986. Please note that one of the Duwamish Tribe sites indicated on the diagram is a burial site which should be kept confidential and unmarked to protect the site from artifact hunters. The particular site was not disclosed by staff. Please contact Glenn Weiss at the King County Cultural Resources Division (296 -7580) to identify this site. Mr. Weiss can also identify four additional sites of significance to Native Americans which should be included on • • Mr. Beeler Mr. Pace November 25, 1991 Page 5 this diagram. The Diagram should also include the proposed trail (Bruce Dees & Associates) to connect the Museum of Flight to other public faclities. Page 3 -14. The description of the 1988 Green River Trail Master Plan should indicate that the Plan was adopted by King County Council Motion 88360 of August 3, 1988. This Motion modified the recommended trail alignment so that it emphasizes the riverfront. The trail alignment shown on Figure 3 -3 should reflect this modification. The description of the trail alignment is incorrect. The alignment described is for the first phase of the trail only. The adopted plan includes a connection to the Duwamish Trail in later phases and this should be acknowledged in the text. Page 3 -20. Discuss consistency with the 1986 King County Airport Master Plan. Page 3 -26, under "Shoreline Impacts ". Please provide an explanatory footnote to clarify why "Compliance with Shoreline development standards is unknown at this time ". Page 3 -27 and 3 -28. The text should go into more detail with respect to Boeing's planned participation in recreation and open space planning as well as the connection of the Green River and Duwamish Trails. General: Interpretive exhibits or view points which provide opportunities for the public to understand and appreciate the resources along the Duwamish River would compliment the trail system and open space areas. The Port of Seattle's public access program provides an excellent model. We recommend that the . following subjects be considered: - the cultural and mythological significance of the Duwamish River to the Duwamish Tribe; - the ecological values and functions present in the river corridor with special emphasis on restoration projects; and - the aircraft industry and Boeing's historic relationship to the region including the contributions of Boeing's employees during World War II. Transportation Page 4 -4. Airport Way South should be identified as a 4 -lane road with a speed limit of 45 mph. • • Mr. Beeler Mr. Pace November 25, 1991 Page 6 Page 4 -23. The first paragraph on the 16th Avenue South Bridge is incorrect. None of the jurisdictions involved know if the bridge will be "realigned and reconstructed along the west side of the existing bridge." The present bridge may be repaired or replacement may be in a different location. The paragraph should emphasize that repair is being seriously considered. Page 4 -46. The section lists mitigation measures that were required as part of the Oxbow development. A fair share of the First Avenue South Bridge project should also be included on this list. Page 4 -47. Mitigation measures for the following three King County roads which will be impacted by the proposal should be discussed: Des Moines Way South, West Marginal Place, and Military Road South. Page 4 -47, Table 4 -13, includes a cost estimate for the Sixteenth Avenue Bridge. This cost will depend upon the decision to replace or repair the bridge. Repair estimates range from $7 million to $10 million. Replacement estimates range from $12 million to $15 million for a fixed span lower level bridge and from $25 million to $30 million for a moveable span. The EIS should reflect the range of costs and include a footnote indicating that alternatives are under study. Mitigation measures for the three above - referenced County roads should be included in the table. PART III Population, Housing, and Employment Pages 5 -5 and 5 -6. The text indicates that the proposal would not result in a net change in Boeing and Boeing - related employment in the region and that employees would alter their commute patterns rather than relocate their place of residence. This conclusion is not supported by analysis or a review of case studies of similar proposals. The text should support conclusions regarding employee relocation and commute patterns. (The Transportation Section should, similarly, incorporate an analysis which supports conclusions regarding trip distribution and traffic volumes). In the absence of data on which to base conclusions, the EIS should discuss the probable range of impacts. Air No comments at this time. Mr. Beeler Mr. Pace November 25, 1991 Page 7 Environmental Health General: The EIS does a good job of describing impacts and mitigation measures related to hazardous substances used in current Boeing operations. The description of the regulatory framework is also clear and useful. The EIS does not, however, address site assessment and remediation. The EIS should discuss contamination on North Boeing Field and other parcels in the project area and describe methods to remediate sites. The regulatory framework should also be addressed. The Model Toxics Control Act is summarized in Appendix D at page D -4. Boeing's compliance with this statute should be discussed in the text. The EIS should identify contaminated sites using site assessments prepared by Boeing, previous property owners or tenants, or DOE. In addition, the EIS should describe on- and off -site remediation facilities that would be used during redevelopment activties as well as any on- and off -site remediation facilities that will be incorporated into the proposal or alternatives as a mitigation measure. We strongly suggest that you consult Gail Colburn, Site Assessment Supervisor of the DOE Toxics Cleanup Program (NWRO) in preparing this portion of the EIS. Ms. Colburn provides technical assistance to the King County Environmental Division with respect to identification and remediation of hazardous sites including sites in the project area. Stormwater and Water Quality The King County Surface Water Management Division has not been able to review the PDEIS at this time due to the current work load. Comments may be provided in response to the revised PDEIS or the published DEIS. Page 8 -3. Redevelopment along the shoreline of the Duwamish River may provide opportunities for restoration and enhancement of degraded fish and wildlife habitat. Providing connections between existing habitat areas would improve the function and value of shoreline habitat. Redevelopment which forecloses opportunities to restore and connect habitat areas is of concern to King County. The discussion of the Duwamish River's habitat values and functions should be expanded. We recommend that you consult with Michael Rylko, Environmental Protection Specialist with the US Environmental Protection Agency in Seattle (553 -4014) in preparing this portion of the EIS. Mr. Rylko has recommended several documents including: Tanner, Curtis. Comprehensive Habitat Restoration Plan for the Duwamish River Estuary. Prepared for the US EPA, Region X, and the Port of Seattle, 1991. i • Mr. Beeler Mr. Pace November 25, 1991 Page 8 This document, along with other publications produced for the Puget Sound Estuary Program, can be obtained from his office. The EIS should include a map of vegetation communities in the project area as well as special, habitat features, if any, including snags, downed trees, and large trees. The map should be based on recent aerial photos and a field survey. The text should discuss the health or degree of degradation of each habitat type and wildlife use of the site with an emphasis on opportunities for restoration during redevelopment. I have enclosed information on urban wildlife produced by the King County Environmental Division. We can provide you with additional information if necessary. If you duplicate or use this material, please credit the King County Environmental Division. Water quality monitoring should be discussed as a mitigation measure in order to verify the extent to which the proposed biofiltration system actually improves storm water quality. Water quality education programs should also be discussed as a mitigation measure. In addition, the EIS should identify opportunities for restoration and enhancement of habitat in the project area and dicuss a monitoring plan for habitat restoration projects. Energy No comment at this time. Public Services and Utilities General: The proposal and alternatives will generate mixed commercial solid waste and recyclables as well as construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) debris. The EIS should discuss the 1989 King County Solid Waste Management Plan (draft update to be released in March 1992). The EIS should also describe the type and amount of both commercial mixed solid waste and CDL debris that will be generated under each scenario as well as the facilities that will be used for collection, transfer, and disposal. The impact of redevelopment in the Duwamish Corridor on King County solid waste facilities including the transfer stations in the South King County Service Area should be evaluated. If redevelopment results in adverse impacts to solid waste services, then the following mitigation measures should also be discussed: - revision of the design guidelines to include provision of storage space for recylables in new and renovated structures (required under the new King County Zoning Code to be adopted in 1992); and Mr. Beeler Mr. Pace November 25, 1991 Page 9 - providing assistance in upgrading solid waste handling services for the project area commensurate with increases in Boeing's waste generation in the project area. PART IV Appendices Appendix B. The 1986 King County Airport Master Plan (adopted by King County Council Motion 7029 of December 7, 1987) should be added to the list of references. Appendix B. The 1989 King County Solid Waste Management Plan should be added to the list of references. General: A copy of the signed memorandum of agreement between the City of Tukwila, City of Seattle, and King County should be included as an appendix. Thank you for providing King County with an opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please contact me at 296 -7148 (FAX 296 -6604) if you have any questions or concerns regarding King County's review of this proposal or our comments. Sincerely, Clint Lank Manager Enclosures cc: Bob Betts, Project Coordinator Lloyd Skinner, CH2M Hill Martin Fricko, City of Seattle DCLU Gail Colburn, DOE Toxics Cleanup Program, NWRO Mike Rylko, Environmental Protection Specialist US EPA Region X, Water Division Rod Hansen, Manager, Solid Waste Division ATTN: Kevin Kiernan, Engineering Services Manager John Logan, Manager, Traffic and Planning Section ATTN: Gary Samek Sandy Adams, Intergovernmental Relations Coordinator, Roads and Engineering Division Don Smith, Manager, King County Airport Dave Clark, Manager, River and Water Resources Section0 ATTN: Don Althauser, Master Drainage Program Mr. Beeler Mr. Pace November 25, 1991 Page 10 Craig Larsen, Deputy Director, Parks, Planning, and Resources Department Mayumi Tsutakawa, Manager, Cultural Resources Division ATTN: Glenn Weiss Paul Reitenbach, Chief, Community Planning ATTN: Lori Grant Chandler. Felt, Acting Chief, Comprehensive Planning ATTN: Ned Conroy Jim Greenfield, Administrator, Office of Open Space ATTN: Tom Eksten, Trails Coordinator Gerald Marbett, Manager, Land Use Controls, BALD ATTN: Mark Mitchell, Shorelines Administrator Ann Dold, Chief, SEPA Section ATTN: Joshua Goldfinger, Planner Derek Poon, Chief, Resource Planning ATTN: Darcy McNamara, Planner King County Environmental Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 3600 - 136th Place Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006 -1400 (206) 296 -6602 November 20, 1991 L. Rick Beeler, Director Jack Pace, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 I NOV 2 1 1991 Re: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal (King County SEPA File No. T9100110) Gentlemen: Bob. Betts has requested that the King County Environmental Division submit to your office an estimate of King County's fees for participating in the review of the above - referenced EIS. Our estimated ' fees- are as follows:. PDEIS Review July 1 through November 20, 1991 113 hours @ $90 per hour Additional PDEIS Review November 20 through approximately December 31, 1991 20 hours @ $90 per hour .Amount :$10.,.170 1,800 PFEIS Review $ 7,200 Approximately January 1 through March 31, 1992 80 hours @ $90 per hour ESTIMATED TOTAL $19,170 Please note that the figures include time spent at meetings, preparing related correspondence, and conferring with staff from Boeing, Tukwila, King County, and CH2M Hill. I have enclosed an invoice for review work completed between July 1 and November 20, 1991. -*The figures for additional PDEIS review time and for PFEIS review -time ` are subject to change. The. actual- amount of time spent reviewing these documents will depend, in large part, on how these documents address King County's concerns. While Mr. Betts requested that we submit invoices on a L. Rick Beeler Jack Pace November 20, 1991 page 2 monthly basis, it is our preference to prepare a single invoice after each portion of the review process. Please contact me at 296 -6662 (FAX 296 -6604) if you have any questions or concerns regarding the estimate or the enclosed invoice. Sincerely, Ann Dold Chief, SEPA Section Enclosure cc: Bob Betts, Project Coordinator Clint Lank, Manager, Environmental Division Carmen Gonzalez, Administrative Services Officer, SEPA Section Joshua Goldfinger, Environmental Planner, SEPA Section • King County Environmental Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 3600 - 136th Place Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006 -1400 (206) 296 -6602 Invoice to: L. Rick Beeler Director, Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 November 20, 1991 In reference to file #T9100110 - Boeing-Duwmaish Master Plan: Amount PDEIS REVIEW FEES @ $90.00 per hour $10,170 July 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991 - 8 hours October 1, 1991 through November 20, 1991 - 105 hours TOTAL $10,170 BALANCE DUE $10,170 Make checks payable to: King County Office of Finance Mail Checks to: King County Environmental Division, SEPA Section at the above address. Please return a copy of this invoice with your payment. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 PHONE # (206) 433 -1800 Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment SUMMARY of ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON: November 20, 1991 WHERE: City of Tukwila, Planning Department PRESENT: See attached attendance list FROM: Jack Pace, Senior Planne City of Tukwila Gary L VanDusen, Mayor PURPOSE: To hear comments from agency representatives on the preliminary Draft EIS and Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal and to discuss issues of concern. UPDATE: The Boeing Company has recently announced to cap employment in the Duwamish Corridor to 25,000 employees. Rick Beeler (Tukwila) described this new proposal's impact on the EIS process. Even with the population remaining at the existing 25,000 level, Tukwila believes the impacts of redevelopment in the corridor are significant enough to be disclosed. Boeing properties are divided amongst three jurisdictions and affect a variety of agencies. Recognizing the role of the corridor as a regional employment center, the EIS process provides the opportunity to work with Boeing in addressing major concerns in a coordinated way. GENERAL ISSUES: o The next version of the Draft EIS will need to include an analysis of this new proposal to cap employment. John Crull (Boeing) indicated that the new proposal will have the same mix of uses in the same proportions as the existing proposal but will have a population base of 25,000 instead of 30,000 employees. o The EIS document needs a more clear "purpose" statement. Also it needs to make the decision - making process more clear in the summary and fact sheet. Include phased review; role of interlocal agreement; describe level of detail used in the programmatic format and anticipated action the EIS will elicit during development review; enforcement. 0 • • Page 2 o There are some minor inaccuracies. Make the summary chart consistent with text. o There seem to be some unsupported conclusions; e.g., impact of shifts in workforce on housing; impacts on fish and wildlife. o Address demolition impacts more comprehensively; i.e., air quality, noise, traffic, solid waste. TRANSPORTATION o Need origin /destination studies for both the 25,000 proposal as well as the 30,000 proposal. Examine impacts on road system outside the study area. o Planned and programmed improvements need to be revisited. Cost for E.Marginal Way So. seems low; 1st Ave. So. Bridge should be identified as previous mitigation requirement from Oxbow EIS process. o Discussion on TMP /TDM included: a need for more discussion on where people are parking and where parking is proposed; the impacts on bus service if TMP is carried out; clarification of SOV trips - is it too dependent on TDM legislation? too optimistic? pessimistic ?; mode split assumptions. o Separate pedestrians circulation from vehicular and railroad in Boeing Proposal. o Clarify LOS methodology and assumptions. LAND USE - SHORELINE ACCESS o Seattle and King County view this as the major issue. Need to be more definitive in both EIS and Boeing Proposal where public access will be proposed. A possible task force or sub - committee from this roundtable was suggested to work with Boeing to develop comprehensive public access plan (like the Port of Seattle). Off -site opportunities are possible from the perspective of both King County and Seattle perspectives. LAND USE - PLANS, POLICIES, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS o Linkage to Green River /Duwamish Trail important to both Seattle and King County. • • Page 3 o Consistency with other plans needs discussion: Vision 2020; King County Airport Master Plan, King Co. Shoreline Program; also refer to Native American concerns. o EIS has emphasis on variances. Need to more fully describe intent to comply. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & AIR QUALITY: Items that need further discussion in the EIS include toxics cleanup; more detail on noise impacts at North Boeing Field. ENERGY & UTILITIES: More detail is needed on proposed fire flow requirements and existing capacity. Discuss possible Memorandum of Understanding between Boeing and Seattle City Light to go beyond code requirements as a mitigation measure. Discuss distribution impacts; cumulative impacts; peak load and times of peak load. STORMWATER & WATER QUALITY: Proposal needs to be more descriptive on methods of habitat preservation. Boeing has been working with Department of Fisheries on their Design Guidelines. Proposal will be revised to include less rock and more vegetation at shoreline. EIS should acknowledge Green River Non -point Study. Comments yet to be received from King County Surface Water Management. SUMMARY While the volume of comments concentrated on transportation issues, it appears that another major concern is with shoreline public access and connection to trails. Bob Betts will be contacting Tom Tierney (Seattle) and Craig Larsen (King Co.) the week of November 11, for representatives to serve on the sub - committee to work on the access and trails issues. Another preliminary draft of the EIS and Boeing Proposal will be distributed for everyone's quick review for fatal flaws before public distribution; the goal for published DEIS.is now early January. Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. We look forward to your continued support of this policy -level analysis of Boeing's redevelopment proposal. • • MEMORANDUM TO: RON CAMERON FROM: PHIL FRASER DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 1991 SUBJECT: GENERAL COMMENTS ON DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR THE BOEING COMPANY CONCERNS WITH STORM DRAINAGE ARE IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS 1. Consultant needs to review existing City documents, ordinances and plans on file with Public Works relative to storm drainage management including the following: A. Green River /Duwamish watershed Non -point Action Plan B. Fire District #1 Drain Basin Plan C. Draft City of Tukwila Surface Water Management Comprehen -. sive Plan D. City of Tukwila Land Altering Ordinance E. City of Tukwila Flood Ordinance F. City Development Drain Standards G. King County Drain Design Manual (1/1/90) H. FEMA Flood Study I. CORP'S latest Backwater Analysis for Standard Project Flood information At our recent meeting with Jack Pace, Items A, B, C, D & E were given Jack to pass off to the consultant. The consultant may borrow these documents but must return them. to Public Works. Items G & H are available in Public Works if the consultant does not have a copy. Item I, the consultant is referred to Noel Gilbro of the CORPS to obtain. To date the CORPS has not given their updated information to Tukwila. 2. The applicant needs to review how the existing drainage facilities are currently maintained and how these facilities will be maintained in future. Also, the consultant needs to provide linkage between the storm water improvements that are occuring on East Marginal Way South and how' that storm water will continue into the Duwamish over properties between E. Marginal Way S and the river. 3. The con snytant has identified water quality /quantity issues. To paraphrase some concerns identified in the study: Water quantity: "Portions of Duwamish...not protected adequately from erosion... erosion...caused loss of shoreline material to waterway...several sites in the project site have experienced bank erosion under- neath industrial buildings..." Page 2 Water quality: "Quality of discharges has not been determined...Discharges are likely to contain oil, grease, toxic metals in varying amounts...some exceeding water quality standards..." Public Works recommends a more proactive program for biofiltration and other water quality issues be proposed to remedy problems associated with current and potential future development. First order of business needs to be the establishment of a water quality monitoring program at points private property drains outfall into the Duwamish. As the Duwamish supports fish habitat and wildlife habitat these factors should be taken into consideration in putting together an appropriate water quality monitoring program. As stated above significant water g4gntity /erosion control /flood management problems have been recognized by the consultant's research to date. Water quantity /erosion control programs need to look at the city's Land Altering Ordinance and Flood Ordinance. First order of business needs to be the establishment of a water quantity monitoring program at the riverfront and discharge points along the Duwamish to identify more precisely what problems exist. A discussion on quality /quantity monitoring programs as to how the programs will be used and the likelihood of program working needs to be included in conslutant's work. 4. An inventory of existing storm drain systems through properties needs to be included. A general breakdown of sub - basins served by these facilities would help us understand how E. Marginal Way S public drainage now enters into what systems. Also, inventory should include review of condition of this infrastructure. It is noted that a major interceptor storm line through Associated Grocers is not only built backwards to the flow but it is also silted up according to Seattle officials investigating this infrastructure within the cob idor study area. I question if it wouldn't be appropriate for Seattle, METRO, WSDOT and TUKWILA officials all meet to go over the drainage questions near the Boeing Access Road. 0 • fretitiot-4-eea— /4-&-7741-6- . // it /4 i f5? i /3uTzahr 4 5-7-- ( • twL,4 00 6eZo 1A -r1W% ee-EZCf2 74-- P,4-Ge- 12uoG /G Gaitxs G�/ffziArs/ it 544ez Tv-Al et Qitt7 ,D7,<J. /? errs J ca,,,/5,4_ ,..T-e-A,�� le.u. kc% c , Aet4 S k c eAl t// i eeN" 00 G I> t- GoLd/=•/c/C & ' G L,uG )1/'reia115 O Z/if-Sa/ PAti4S 7 IL�G Ca24.40LIC., / C.. 5%EGUA/27- cG u fiZGGicD 4/-29726vrfe: "FAA's- pezi 7 )04 7ct7LG6 % C.4 t / 9f /WA 0 f L ,v v /1 -7. 46.1. T s i P/f-e_zz2-/es 5-6a=1.---- SS L7 f- C4614-4 G iLl i (( _ FN v per - L9Cb� /f ,r7�7Z ) 1 �g(ii - l� • • Seattle City Light Randall W. Hardy. Superintendent Norman B. Rice, Mayor November 1, 1991 Bob Betts Project coordinator Boeing Duwamish EIS Planning Department City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Betts: Seattle City Light (SCL) is very pleased with the effort Boeing and the City of Tukwila have directed toward the North Duwamish Redevelopment Project. It is an opportunity for local governments and planning agencies to work together in developing programs to ensure efficient and wise use of the area's resources. Toward this end, SCL intends to work closely with both Boeing and the City of Tukwila to ensure complete disclosure of impacts and development of appropriate mitigation standards and guidelines for planning purposes. We have reviewed the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the Design Guidelines and have the following comments: • The construction of 3.5 million new square feet (with a net gain of 500 thousand square feet) of relatively energy- intensive industrial research and development space at a time when the region is experiencing energy deficits has potentially significant energy impacts. For this reason, the section in the DEIS should be expanded and included in "Part II. Potential Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures." We have attached a set of handouts used to cover energy impacts in EISs for projects within Seattle. While they were designed primarily for individual projects, rather than programmatic EISs, they still provide useful guidance on what information to provide on impacts and mitigation. SCL would be happy to assist you and Boeing in addressing these concerns. • The development of a 10 year plan to cover development of the Duwamish corridor offers a unique opportunity in several areas (including transportation and energy) to reduce impacts by careful planning and coordination. This upfront planning will have the additional benefit An Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer City of Seattle — City Light Department, 1015 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 -1198, Telephone: (206) 625 -3000, FAX: (206) 625 -3709 Printed on recycled paper • • Bob Betts Page 2 November 1, 1991 of increasing certainty for the developer and reducing review time for individual projects. Following along the example of the Design Guidelines and Standards for both aesthetics and transportation, SCL has offered to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Boeing which addresses electrical energy consumption. The purpose of the MOU would be to develop a strategy for Boeing to achieve or exceed its goal of no net gain in energy use. The MOU would set standards for energy efficiency above code requirements, looking toward incorporating Best Available Technology and state of the art efficiency measures. It would also cover how SCL will provide technical assistance to Boeing's staff, and where possible, funding through any of the various efficiency programs SCL operates. Considering the scope and size of this redevelopment, tremendous energy savings could be realized with this approach. Additionally, it is often more difficult and costly to retrofit facilities after construction than it is to incorporate efficiency measures in new building construction. The MOU should be mentioned in the EIS. • The impact of load growth on the need for additional distribution and transmission facilities has become an important issue in the Duwamish area. SCL would like to RG work toward including demand management strategies in S the MOU to help postpone the date when new transmission & distribution facilities will be required in this area. • Page 9 -1 in the DEIS states that, "SCL provides power to its service area through City -owned generating facilities and through power supply contracts with the Bonneville Power Administration and utilities located in the mid - Columbia basin." City Light also receives some of its power through power contracts with other utilities throughout the Pacific Northwest, not just from generation facilities in the mid - Columbia basin. • The DEIS indicates that no "major energy- consumptive facility" is proposed at this time but may become an option at a later date. Should such a facility be proposed, it would require substantial additional environmental review. In addition, should such a facility be proposed, Boeing should consider entering into a load shedding agreement with SCL, thereby reducing the need for new electrical energy generating resources. • • Bob Betts Page 3 November 1, 1991 • There is no discussion of cumulative impacts in the DEIS. The brief section on "unavoidable adverse impacts" should be expanded to include effects on 1) the Utility distribution system, 2) service availability and, 3) rate impacts. (See the attached outline and handout for more information on what energy impacts should be included.) • As demand for electricity increases, environmental impacts are unavoidable. These impacts include effects on air and water quality, fisheries and wildlife habitat and use, and disposal of hazardous wastes. These impacts should be acknowledged. Measures which would mitigate these impacts, by increasing energy efficiency and reducing demand, should be included in the EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss energy impacts early in the planning process. As noted above, we will be working with Boeing to develop an MOU and will be available to offer additional services if needed. If you have any questions, please contact me (386 -4586) or Michele Lynn (386- 4578). Sincerely, Lynn Best, Assistant Director Environmental Affairs Division ML:ia Attachments cc: Rebecca Herzfeld, DCLU Tom Tierney, OIR • FORMAT FOR DISCLOSING AND ANALYZING ENERGY IMPACT OF PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURES The following outline suggests items of information to be considered in disclosing and analyzing energy impacts for the proposal and alternatives: I. Existing Conditions A. Current and forecasted energy supply and demand (utilities can supply this). B. Present consumption on the site, including: 1. Types of fuel (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.); 2. Percent of total represented by each; and 3. Peak and average consumption (expressed in BTU's, kwh, therms, gallons, etc.). II. Impacts A. Construction impacts. 1. Energy embodied in building materials (data available in DOE and other handbooks). 2. Site preparation and assembly. 3. Transportation and personnel. B. Operating impacts. 1. Projected consumption by type of fuel, in peak, average, and total annually. 2. Energy Use Intensity (BTU's per square foot). 3. Consumption by major end uses--e.g., HVAC, lighting, hot water, equipment —like computers, industrial processes, etc. C. Demolition. (Although methods for calculating this are not generally available, it should still be disclosed as an impact.) D. Lifetime energy use and costs. (Building life may be estimated at 35 years. Electricity cost and rate information, including net present value per kwh, is available in handouts from Seattle City Light Environmental Affairs Division [EAD].) Comparison between proposal and • • Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) handouts. E. Cumulative impacts. is included in 1. Effect on Utility distribution system, service availability, etc. 2. Environmental effects of energy generation and transmission such as on air quality, water availability, fisheries, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and from use and disposal of both hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. Information about energy technologies and impacts is available from City Light EAD. III. Mitigation Conservation and increased energy efficiency measures, as well as load management. If possible, distinguish between those to which developer is committed from the others. Comparison should be made to BEPS —based standards (available from City Light EAD). Specific conservation and solar measures, for office space, restaurants, residences, stores, etc., can be obtained from City Light Conservation and Solar Division. JO:lsm 4/17/86 2 November 1990 LIFETIME COSTS AND REVENUE CALCULATIONS FOR EIS ANALYSIS OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY USE (Prepared by Seattle City Light) I. INTRODUCTION Calculations of lifetime energy use and costs are requested for projects in the City of Seattle as part of the broader discussion of energy impacts in environmental impact statements. This handout describes the process for calculating lifetime energy costs and contains tables which list the appropriate values to use in calculations. The comparison of lifetime costs of providing electricity and lifetime benefits to Seattle City Light (SCL) shows that over the lifetime of a project, costs will exceed revenues received from the project. These excess costs are absorbed by all other ratepayers. This discrepancy is due to differences between the marginal cost of providing electrical energy and the retail rates at which it is sold. Energy to serve new projects is secured by Seattle City Light either through purchases of wholesale power or through the acquisition of increasingly more expensive new resources. This energy is sold to customers at prices which meld the cost of existing resources in with the cost of new purchases and new resources. Over the lifetime of a project, rates will continue to reflect average prices paid to Seattle City Light and will be less than the marginal costs paid by City Light to obtain energy. Comparison of energy use for a project to the Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) set by the U.S. Department of Energy shows the energy and cost savings which can be achieved by a more energy- efficient project. • II. CALCULATION OF LIFETIME ENERGY COSTS A. Estimate average annual electricity consumption for the total project. 1. If annual consumption estimate is in kilowatt -hours (kWh), convert it to megawatt -hours (MWh) by dividing by 1000. B. Determine type of project by customer class /subclass. 1. See Table I, "Definitions," for categories. C. Calculate lifetime costs. 1. Refer to Tables IIA -E. 2. Choose the table for the project life closest to the expected life of your project. 3. Find the unit value for the applicable customer class and year the project will be completed (on- line). 4. Multiply the estimated annual consumption for your project (in MWh) by the unit value from the table selected. 5. The result is the present value of the lifetime energy costs to Seattle City Light for your project. Example Project Type: 200 -unit apartment complex, electrically heated Consumption: 1,800,000 kWh per year (1,800 MWh /year) On -line Date: 1991 Project Life: 35 years Appropriate Table: II -B Customer Category: Multifamily electric heat Applicable Unit Value: $841.99/MWh Present Value of Total Lifetime Cost: 1,800 x $841.99 = $1,515,582 • • III. CALCULATION OF LIFETIME RATE REVENUES TO SEATTLE CITY LIGHT A. Same as Part II.A. 1. Make sure your electricity consumption estimate is in megawatt -hours (MWh). See Part II.A.1. B. Same as Part II.B. Note that customer categories for rate purposes are broader than for costs. C. Calculate lifetime rate revenues. 1. Refer to Tables IIIA -E. 2. Choose the table for the project life closest to the expected . life of your project. 3. Find the unit value for the applicable customer class and year the project will be completed (on- line). 4. Multiply the estimated annual consumption for your project (in MWh) by the unit value from the table selected. 5. The result is the present value of the revenues from expected average rates over the life of the project. Example Project Type: 200 -unit apartment complex, electrically heated Consumption: 1,800,000 kWh per year (1,800 MWh /year) On -line Date: 1991 Project Life: 35 years Appropriate Table: III -B Customer Category: Residential Applicable Unit Value: $685.46/MWh Present Value of Total Lifetime Cost: 1,800 x $685.46 = $1,233,828 IV. COMPARISON OF LIFETIME COSTS AND LIFETIME REVENUES A. Display the lifetime revenues vs. the lifetime costs. Example Based on results from examples in Parts II and III above: Lifetime Revenues - Lifetime Costs = Difference or, $1,233,828 - $1,515,582 = - $281,754 The difference in costs over revenues will be borne by all other ratepayers over the life of the project (see Page 1). NOTE for Sections II -IV If the project will come on -line in phases separated by two years or more, and if there will be a significant increase in energy use with each additional phase, perform separate calculations for lifetime energy costs and rate revenues for the first phase, and for the incremental lifetime energy costs and rate revenues for each additional phase. Display the on -line date and incremental results for each phase separately. • V. CALCULATION OF PROJECT ENERGY EFFICIENCY A. Estimate average annual energy consumption for conditioned (heated or cooled) space only for your project. B. Convert the estimated energy consumption from kilowatt -hours to BTUs by multiplying your annual energy consumption estimate (in kWh) by 3,413. (If estimate is in megawatt- hours, multiply. by 3,413,000 to get BTUs.) C. Calculate Energy Use Intensity index (EUI) by dividing your estimated annual energy consumption in BTUs, as determined above, by the total area of conditioned (heated or cooled) space for your project, expressed in square feet. The EUI result is in terms of BTU /sq.ft. /year. D. Refer to Table IV, "Building Energy Performance Standards for Seattle" (BEPS). E. Compare your project with the building categories listed on the BEPS table and select that category that most closely matches your project. F. Display the calculated EUI for your project against the BEPS target EUI. If your EUI is higher, you are using more energy than the target level. If your EUI is lower, your project will apparently perform even more efficiently than the target. Example Project Type: Consumption: Conditioned Space: 200 -unit apartment complex, electrically heated 1,735,000 kWh /year for conditioned space only 115,000 sq.ft Calculated EUI: 1,735,000 x 3413 = 5,921,555,000 BTU /year 5,921,555,000/115,000 = 51,492 BTU /sq.ft. /year Closest Building Category (Table IV): High Rise Residential Associated EUI: 47,000 BTU /sq.ft. /year Conclusion: Proposed project is less energy efficient than the target standard. -5- • • VI. CALCULATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ENERGY SAVINGS If your EUI is higher than the target EUI, you can potentially improve the energy efficiency of your project by incorporating additional conservation measures over those already planned. This will help keep demand for additional electricity down and thus delay the need to acquire additional, more expensive, and environmentally damaging electricity generating resources. A. Estimate average annual electricity consumption for conditioned (heated or cooled) space only. (Or use estimate from V.A.) B. Refer again to the category you selected for your project from Table IV in the previous section. C. Divide that BEPS target, as expressed in BTU /sq.ft. /year, by 3,413 to convert the target to kWh /sq.ft. /year. D. Multiply this result by the square feet of conditioned space for your project. The result is the annual electricity use a project like yours would experience if it met the BEPS targets. E. The difference between your estimated use and the target energy efficient use level is the amount of electricity that could potentially be saved each year if full conservation measures were applied. Example Project Type Consumption: Conditioned Space: Target BEPS EUI: or: 200 -unit apartment complex, electrically heated 1,735,000 kWh /year for conditioned space only 115,000 sq. ft. 47,000 BTU /sq.ft. /year 47,000 / 3,413 = 13.771 kWh /sq.ft. /year Electricity Use for Energy Efficient Project: 13.771 x 115,000 sq.ft. = 1,583,665 kWh /year Potential Annual Energy Savings: 1,735,000 - 1,583,665 = 151,335 kWh /year (This is enough electricity to serve almost 13 average houses for an entire year in the Seattle area.) Table I DEFINITIONS Residential Service. Permanent electric service furnished to a dwelling unit that is separately metered for domestic use. Nonelectric Heat. Service to a dwelling unit without electric heat. Single- Family with Electric Heat. Service to a single - family dwelling unit with electric heat. Multifamily with Electric Heat. Service to a multifamily dwelling with electric heat. General Service. Service to any customer who does not qualify for residential service. Small General Service. Schedule of service to a customer who can expect that more than half of normal billings during a year will be for less than 50 kW of maximum demand, or general service to a customer who is not demand metered. Medium General Service. Schedule of service to a customer who can expect that half or more of normal billings during the year will be for at least 50 kW of maximum demand but less than 1000 kW of maximum demand. o Standard. Service for which the primary use of electricity is commercial or other nonindustrial purposes. • Industrial. Service for which the primary purpose of electricity use is manufacturing, processing, refining, or freezing. Large General Service. Schedule of service to a customer who can expect that half or more of normal billings during the year will be for 1000 kW or more of maximum demand. o Standard. Service for which the primary use of electricity is commercial or other nonindustrial purposes. o Industrial. Service for which the primary purpose of electricity use is manufacturing, processing, refining, or freezing. • • TABLE II -A PRESENT VALUE OF 30 -YEAR PROJECT ENERGY AS OF JANUARY 1 ON -LINE DATE (1987$ per MWh of Annual Load) RESIDENTIAL GENERAL SERVICE Non- Single Multi - On -Line Electric Family w/ Family w/ Medium - Medium - Large - Large - Year Heat Elec. Heat Elec. Heat Small Standard industrial Standard Industrial 1989 645.69 674.53 681.66 661.38 662.33 662.88 654.70 650.42 1990 671.22 700.66 707.82 687.36 687.89 688.83 680.39 515.76 1991 696.37 726.61 733.82 713.15 713.25 714.57 105.88 700.89 1992 721.33 752.39 153.64 738.74 738.42 740.09 731.16 725.81 1993 746.12 777.99 785.29 764.13 753.339 755.40 756.24 750.52 1994 770.72 803.41 810.76 789.31 788.15 790.50 181.10 715.01 1995 795.13 828.64 836.04 814.28 812.72 815.36 805.75 799.27 1996 819.35 853.69 661.15 839.04 837.07 840.00 830.17 823.31 1997 842.75 877.92 865.44 862.97 860.60 863.81 853.77 846.54 1998 865.31 901.30 908.89 886.04 883.30 885.75 876.52 868.94 1999 887.02 923.82 931.48 908.23 905.12 908.81 898.39 890.49 2000 907.84 945.45 953.18 929.52 926.01 929.97 919.35 911.16 2001 927.75 956.17 973.97 949.88 946.09 950.19 939.41 930.94 2002 946.82 986.05 393.94 969.38 965.27 969.55 958.60 949.82 2003 965.04 1,005.10 1,013.06 988.01 983.57 988.00 976.90 967.78 2004 982.37 1,023.27 1,031.32 1,005.73 1,000.98 1,005.54 994.28 984.79 2005 998.80 1,040.54 1,048.58 1,022.52 1,017.46 1,022.14 1,010.73 1.000.83 NB: Present values based oh MWh- weighted annual average values of energy to the customer by class /subclass. TABLE II -B PRESENT VALUE OF 35 -YEAR PROJECT ENERGY AS OF JANUARY 1 ON -LINE DATE (1987$ per MWh of Annual Load) RESIDENTIAL. GENERAL SERVICE Non- Single Multi - On -Line Electric Family w/ Family w/ Medium - Medium - Large - Large - Year Heat Elec. Heat Elec. Heat Small Standard Industrial Standard industrial 1989 746.85 779.77 787.7.1 764.73 765.10 766.13 755 -.80 751.43 1990 713.18 806.94 814.93 791.74 791.68 193.10 783.51 777.78 1991 799.35 833.96 841.99 618.57 818.08 819.88 810.03 803.93 1992 825.35 860.81 868.90 845.22 844.29 846.46 835.35 829.89 1993 851.17 887.50 895.64 871.67 870.32 872.64 862.48 855.63 1994 876.82 914.01 922.21 897.92 896.16 899.00 988.41 861.17 1995 902.29 940.35 948.61 923.98 921.80 924.96 914.13 906.50 1996 927.58 966.52 974.85 949.84 947.24 950.69 939.54 S31.61 199? 952.07 991.87 1,000.27 •974.87 971.88 • 975.61 964.33 955.92 1998 975.73 1,016.40 1,024.87 999.06 995.69 999.67 995.18 979.42 1999 998.53 1,040.07 1,048.52 1,022.38 1,018.64 1,022.86 1,011.17 1,002.07 2000 1,020.47 1,062.86 1,071.49 1,044.81 1,040.12 1,045.15 1,033.27 1,023.86 2001 1,041.51 1,084.75 1,093.47 ',066.33 1,061.89 1,066.5.3 1,054.46 1,044.77 2002 1,061.72 1,105.82 1,114.63 1,087.00 1,082.23 1,087.05 1,074.80 1,064.78 2003 ,081.08 1,126.06 1,134.96 1;106.80 1,101.70 1,106.68 1,394.26 1,083.89 2004 1,099.53 1,145.44 1,154.43 1,125.71 1,120.28 1,125.40 1,112.82 ,132.05 2005 1,117.18 1,163.93 1,173.02, 1,143.70 1,137.95 1,143.20 1,1330.45 1,119.27 NB: Present values based on MWh- weighted annual average values of energy to the customer oy class /subclass. TABLE II -C PRESENT VALUE OF 40 -YEAR PROJECT ENERGY AS OF JANUARY 1 ON -LINE DATE (1987$ per MWh of Annual Load) RESIDENTIAL GENERAL SERVICE Non- Single Multi - On -Line Electric Family w/ Family w/ Medium - Medium - Large - Large - Year Heat Elec. Heat Elec. Heat Small Standard Industrial Standard Industrial 1989 838.37 875.17 883.85 858.42 858.26 859.73 849.37 843.01 1990 865.62 903.30 912.03 886.37 885.78 887.54 877.00 870.28 1991 892.71 931.28 940.07 914.15 513.12 915.37 904.46 897.35 1992 919.64 959.11 967.95 941.75 940.28 942.90 931.72 924.24 1993 946.41 986.78 995.68 969.16 957.27 970.24 958.81 950.93 1994 973.02 1,014.28 1,023.26 996.40 994.08 997.38 985.10 977.43 1995 999.45 1,041.63 1,050.67 1,023.44 1,020.70 1,024.32 1,012.39 1,003.71 1996 1,025.71 1,068.81 1,071.92 1,050.29 1,041.13 1,051.05 1,038.88 1,029.80 1997 1,051.18 1,095.18 1,104.38 1,076.33 1,072.77 1,076.96 1.064.57 1,055.09 1998 1,075.83 1,120.74 1,130.02 1,101.53 1,097.58 1,102.04 1,089.42 1,079.58 1999 1,099.63 1,145.45 1,154.82 1,125.88 1,121.55 1,126.25 1,113.42 1,103.23 2000 1,122.58 1,169.30 1,178.75 1,149.35 1,144.66 1,149.58 1,136.55 1,125.04 2001 1,144.64 1,192.26 1,201.80 1,171.90 1,166.87 '1,112.00 1,158.77 1,147.96 2002 . 1,155.88 1,214.41 1,224.05 1,193.63 1,188.26 1,193.57 1,180.15 1,169.011 2003 1,186.29 1,235.73 1,245.47 1,214.50 1,208.79 1,214.27 1,200.66 1,189.16 2004 1,205.83 1,256.20 1,266.05 1,234.48 1,228.45 1,234.07 1,220.28 1,208.38 2005 1,224.50 1,275.81 1,285.76 1,253.57 1,247.20 1,252.95 1,238.99 1,226.66 NB: Present values based on. MWh - weighted annual average values of energy to the customer by class /subclass. TABLE 11 -0 PRESENT VALUE OF 45 -YEAR PROJECT ENERGY AS OF JANUARY 1 ON -LINE DATE (1967$ per kWh of Annual Load) RESIDENTIAL GENERAL SERVICE Non- Single Multi- On-Line Medium - Medium - Large - Large - On -line Electric Family w/ Family w/ Standard Industrial Standard industrial Year Heat Elec. Heat Elec. Heat Small Standard 1989 921.35 961.57 971.01 943.36 942.73 544.59 933.29 926.04 1990 949.43 990.67 1,000.01 912.16 511.09 973.35 951.76 .54.13 1991 977.35 1,019.52 1,028.98 1,000.80 999.28 1,001.93 990.06 S82.05 1992 1,005.14 1,048.23 1,057.75 1,029.26 1,027.31 1,030.33 1,0118.19 1,009.78 1593 1,032.76 1,016.18 1,085.39 11,057.56 1,055.17 1,058.55 1,046.13 1,037.33 1994 1,060.23 1,105.19 1,114.87 1,085.61 1,082.85 1,086.57 1,013.90 1,05.69 1995 1,087.53 1,133.45 1,143.20 1,113.61 1,110.36 1,114.40 1,101.47 1,091.85 1996 1,114.67 1,161.54 1,171.37 1,141.36 1,137.69 1,142.03 1,128.86 1,118.81 1 1997 1,141.03 1,186.85 :,'.x8.71 1,168.31 1, 164.23 1,168.85 ,155.44 1,145.00 1998 1,166.58 1,215.34 1,225.35 1,194.44 1,189.96 1,194.85 1,161.20 1,170.33 1999 1,191.29 1,241.00 1,251.10 1,219.71 1,214.86 1,219.99 1,206.12 1,194.95 2000 1,215.16 1,265.80 1,276.00 1,244.11 1,236.89 1,244.26 1,230.17 1,218.67 2001 1,238.14 1,289.72 1,300.02 1,257.62 11,252.05 1,267.62 1,253.33 1,241 .52 2002 1,260.32 1,312.85 1,323.25 1,290.30 1,284.39 1,290.15 1,275.56 1,263.50 2003 1,281.57 1,335.15 ',345.67 1,312.14 1,305.88 1,311.82 1,297.13 1,284.50 2004 1,302.17 1,356.62 1,357.25 1,333.10 1,326.51 1,332.59 1,317.71 1,304.78 2005 1,321.79 1,377.23 1,387.97 1,353.17 1,346.24 1,352.45 1,337.39 1,324.01 NB: Present values based on Oh-weighted annual average values of energy to the customer by cias=_ /sutclass. • • TABLE 11 -E PRESENT VALUE OF 50 -YEAR PROJECT ENERGY AS OF JANUARY 1 ON -LINE DATE (1987$ per MWh of Annual Load) RESIDENTIAL GENERAL SERVICE Non- Single Multi - On -Line Electric Family w/ Family w/ Medium - Medium - Large - Large - Year Heat Elec. Heat Elec. Heat Small Standard Industrial Standard Industrial 1989 996.58 1,040.09 1,050.04 1,020.37 1,019.31 1,021.52 1,009.37 1,001.31 1990 1,025.41 1,059.87 1,079.88 1,049.94 1,048.43 1,051.05 1,038.61 1,030.16 1991 1,054.10 1,099.51 1,109.60 1,079.36 1,077.40 1,080.41 1,057.68 1,058.64 1992 1,082.64 1,129.02 1,139.18 1,108.61 1,106.21 1,109.60 1,096.58 1,087. "s4 1933 1,111.04 1,158.39 1,158.62 1,137.59 1,134.65 1,138.60 1,125.31 1,115.56 1994 1,139.29 1,187.61 1,197.92 1,156.61 1,163.34 1,161.43 1,153.86 1,143.60 1995 1.167.39 1,216.69 1,227.08 1,195.36 1,191.65 1,196.07 1,182.24 1,171.75 1996 1,195.33 1,245.62 1,256.10 1,223.93 1,219.79 1,224.51 1,210.43 1,199.52 1997 1,222.49 1,273.76 11,284.34 1,251.70 1,247.15 1,252.15 1,237.83 1,226.51 '!998 1,248.85 1,301.11 1,311.77 1,278.66 1,273.71 1,278.99 1,254.42 1,252.71 1999 1,274.39 1,327.52 1,338.39 1,304.78 1,299.44 1,304.97 1,290.17 1,2;8.10 2000 1,299.09 1,353.29 1,354.16 1,330.03 1,324.33 1,330.09 1,315.06 1,302.65 2001 1,322.91 1,378.08 1,389.07 1,354.40 1,348.34 1,354.32 1,339.07 1,326.34 2002 1,345.94 1,402.09 1,413.19 1,377.95 1,371.54 1,377.71 1,362.25 1,349.17 2003 1.368.14 1,425.29 1,436.50 1,400.65 1,393.91 1,400.25 1,384.56 1,37.12 2004 1,389.51 1,441.66 1,458.99 1,422.51 1,415.41 1,421.91 1,406.04 1,332.17 2005 1,410.01 1,469.18 1,480;63 1,443.47 1,436.03 1,442.67 1,426.61 1,412.28 NB: Present values based on MWh- weighted annual average values of energy to the customer. by class /subclass. • TABLE III -A PRESENT VALUE OF 30 -YEAR REVENUES FROM RATES AS OF JANUARY 1 ON -LINE DATE (1987$ per MWh of Annual Load) Small Medium Large General General General Year Residential Service Service Service 1989 634.65 566.67 553.09 535.83 1990 630.72 563.56 551.48 534.56 1991 627.58 561.15 549.62 532.88 1992 624.95 559.18 548.13 531.54 1993 622.23 557.07 545.48 533.01 1994 618.95 554.44 544.28 527.93 1995 615.61 551.74 541.98 525.76 1996 612.55 549.28 539.89 523.76 1997 609.77 547.07 538.00 521.95 1998 607.14 544.99 536.22 520.22 1999 605.70 543.95 535.42 519.43 2000 604.25 542.89 534.56 518.57 2001 602.85 541.83 533.69 517.69 2002 601.91 541.17 533.19 517.14 2003 601.33 540.81 532.95 516.85 2004 601.18 540.79 533.03 516.85 2005 601.19 540.91 533.21 517.07 t TABLE III -B PRESENT VALUE OF 35 -YEAR REVENUES FROM RATES AS OF JANUARY 1 ON -LINE DATE. (1987$ per MWh of Annual Load) Small Medium Large General General General Year Residential Service Service Service 1989 692.53 618.76 604.44 585.64 1990 688.60 615.65 602.84 584.37 1991 685.46 613.24 600.98 582.68 1992 682.84 611.27 599.49. 581.34 1993 680.12 609.16 597.84 579:81 1994 676.84 606.53 595.63 577.74 1995 673.49 603.83 593.34 515.56 1996 670.44 601.37 591.25 573.57 1997 667.66 599.16 589.36 571.76 1998 665.03 597.08 587.57 570.02 1999 663.58 596.04 586.77 559.23 2000 662.14 594.98 585.92 558.38 2001 660.73 593.92 585.05 567.49 2002 559.80 593.26 584.54 566.94. 2003 659.21 532.90 584.30 566.65 2004 559.06 592.88 584.38 556.65 2005 659.08 593.00 584.57 566.87 TABLE III -C PRESENT VALUE OF 40 -YEAR REVENUES FROM RATES AS OF JANUARY 1 ON -LINE DATE (1987$ per MWh of Annual Load) Small Medium Large General General General Year Residential Service Service Service 1989 742.47 663.69 648.74 628.60 1990 738.54 660.59 647.14 627.33 1991 735.40 658.18 645.27 625.64 1992 732.77 656.21 643.79 624.30 1993 730.05 654.10 642.13 622.77 1994 726.77 651.46 639.93 520.70 1995 723.43 648.76 637.63 616.52 1996 720.37 646.30 635.55 616.53 1997 717.59 644.10 633.66 614.72 1998 714.96 642.01 631.87 612.98 1999 713.52 640.98 631.07 512.19 2000 712.07 639.91 630.22 611.34 2001 710.67 538.85 629.35 610.45 2002 709.73 638.19 628.24 659.91 2003 709.15 637.83 528.60 69.61 2004 709.30 637.82 528.66 609.611 2005 709.01 637.94 528.87 509.84 TABLE 1I1 -0 PRESENT VALUE OF 45 -YEAR REVENUES FROM RATES AS OF JANUARY 1 ON -LINE DATE (1987$ per MWh of Annual Load) Small Medium Large General General General Year Residential Service Service Service 1989. 765.54 702.45 686.95 665.66 1990 761.61 699.35 685.35 564.39 1991 778.47 696.94 683.49 662.70 1992 775.85 694.97 682.00 561.36 1993 773.12 692.86 680.35 659.83 1994 769.84 690.22 676.14 657.76 1995 766.50 687.52 675.85 655.58 1996 763.45 685.06 673.76 653.59 1997 760.66 682.86 571.87 651.77 1998 758.04 680.77 670.08 550.04 1999 756.59 679.74 669.28 649.25 2000 755.14 578.67 668.43 648.40 2001 753.74 677.61 667.56 647.51 2002 752.80 '676.95 667.05 646.96 2003 752.22 676.59 666.81 646.67 2004 752.07 676.58 666.89 646.67 2005 752.09 676.70 667.08 646.89 • TABLE III -E PRESENT VALUE OF 50 -YEAR REVENUES FROM RATES AS OF JANUARY 1 ON -LINE DATE (1987$ per MWh of Annual Load) Small Medium Large General General General Year Residential Service Service Service 1989 822.69 735.89 719.92 697.62 1990 818.76 732.78 718.31 696.35 1991 815.62 730.37 716.45 694.67 1992 813.00 728.40 714.96 693.33 1993 810.28 725.29 713.31 691.80 1994 807.00 723.66 711.11 689.12 1995 803.65 720.95 708.81 687.55 1996 800.60 718.50 706.12 685.55 1997 197.82 716.29 704.83 683.74 1998 795.19 714.21 703.05 682.00 1999 793.75 713.17 702.25 681.22 2000 792.30 712.11 701.39 680.36 2001 790.89 711.05 700.52 679.48 2002 789.96 710.38 700.02 678.93 2003 789.38 710.02 699:78 678.64 2004 189.23 710.01 699.86 678.64 2005 789.24 710.13 700.04 678.86 Table IV BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SEATTLE Building Category Energy Performance Target (Btu /Sq Ft /Yr) Offices 40,000 Retail Stores 40,000 Colleges /Universities 50,000 Elementary Schools 32,000 Secondary Schools 50,000 Hotels /Motels 56,000 Hospitals 161,000 Nursing Homes 60,000 Clinics 52,000 Warehouses 22,000 Restaurants 92,000 Grocery Stores 63,000 Assembly Buildings 47,000 High Rise Residential 47,000 Source: 1983 Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan, Volume I • DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ROUNDTABLE MEETING AGENDA FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1ST 1 :30 PM. @ City of Tukwila DEP OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPM .ENT 6 00 SOUTHCENTER BLV [in the, ilding east of Hall] 431-3686 I. Discuss Boeing's 10/25 Proposal to cap employment @25,000 in the Duwamish Corridor. - Impact on the EIS Process II. Review Key Elements I11. Discuss Proposed Mitigation Measures - Public Access/ Transportation Demand Management - Transportation - Energy -Storm Water Management - Design Standards and Guidelines IV. Conclusions & Wrap -up Any .further Information, discussion? Call Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455 -9640 • • CONVERSATION RECORD DATE: j/ / / �f Maw jf,IF WED THU Eff SAT SUN TIME: /,' A. TYPE: ❑ Visit 20 Conference ❑ Telephone— 0 Incoming 0 Outgoing Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.) O Telephone No.: Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: Devi 1, C-� SUMMARY: ,i„yistead-eki, vhsei epri4 Ar L ^C n4;14. v� vi 44.E idss C, h yiY1I4 le) ‘4 �1 dori,. ®rr. �LYI�I AL-7 Alih,- g ,4 401,, 4th )L 612.. taiL 04& cdcIefri 3 got*, accl. 4 V A-420 bo p44-6 44 _ 0;,, ✓; - )15fiTt. imp,6/ Signature: Title: Date: /4f R-tDd a� �4L�,visTf�,3L� / it DeAZ E,r N s 7- . 59NDY 4�r-T - Nit '17h K 4 . 1 JACK LJ T T E M A-N tJ 2% 4433 - 0179 X33 -oi r7? 2-5-3- 3-D470 .29g. - 37zy 3143-72-4? bst4 -gZ4O zi6-3- S ciao (AL-I -l(Dy7 ,,Z9(0.-/(07/ 719/ CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 PHONE k (206)433,1800 Gary L. VanDusen. Manor M E M O R A N D U M TO:. Ron Cameron, City Engineer FROM: Pat Brodin, Water /Sewer Engineer DATE: November 1, 1991 SUBJECT: BOEING - DUWAMISH CORRIDOR EIS Boeing has recently submitted a programmatic EIS to help evaluate the overall impacts of the East Marginal corridor redevelopment, identify suitable mitigation measures, and facilitate coordination between affected jurisdictions. The primary goal is to shift from the predominant manufacturing to a campus -style laboratory /office /prototype manufacturing emphasis. As phases of redevelopment occur, improvements may be needed for water, sewer, and storm drainage. For instance, taller new office structures may have specific needs for pressure and flow. I believe that some sort of overall hydraulic analysis should be provided throughout the development sites themselves in order to establish fire flow capacities and pipe interconnections which will provide for a completely looped system. Our current standards and comprehensive plan recommend that dead -end mains should not be allowed whether they be private or public. East Marginal Way currently has a 21 -inch line through the entire study area. The Engineering Section of the Seattle Water Department told us this line was installed'in 1937 by Queen City Construction and was paid for out of the water fund. There is no indication that Boeing contributed anything. Currently, it appears SWD will be willing to turn this line over to the City of Tukwila in the future. The line has capacity to serve current needs, however since the line has exceeded its 50 -year service life it may need rehabilitation in the near term. The current draft EIS for redeveloping the Duwamish Corridor does not give reference to our utility standards nor does it mention the Water, Sewer, or Surface Water Comprehensive Plans. It seems appropriate that these references should be made. The utility comprehensive plans will be an essential part of Boeing's analysis for domestic and fire flow needs. PB:PB3:duw eis.doc i Y1Nf' King County Cultural Resources Division Parka, Planning and Resources Department Arts Commission Landnutrks Commlaslnn Smith Tbwcr building 606 Second Avenue, Room 1115 Seattle. Washington 98104 (200) 290.7680 VaDD 288.7680 October 31, 1991 TO; Joshua Ooldfingerr, Environmental Planner, Environmentalpivision FM: Glenn Weiss, Coordinator, One Percent for Art Progr RE: Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal EIS -- Nf ve American Sites Thank you for sending our office a copy of the draft preliminary copy of the Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS. On initial review, we feel the impact of this redevelopment on potentially sensitive Native American sites deserves major consideration and has been given only minimal • treatment. The Duwamish River Valley is the traditional home of the Duwamish tribe, dating back thousands of years. The Duwamish are Chief Seattle's people, and the City of Seattle's indigenous people. In addition, many other Salish tribes have ties to this area. The only reference we have found to this area's rich ancient heritage is on the enclosed "Existing and Proposed Recreation and Open Space Figure 3 -3." Even this diagram contains several oversights. The King County Arts Commission's One Percent for Art Program is cun-ently working on three projects involving Native Americans and Native American history in King County. We have worked closely with the Duwamish tribe over the last year in commissioning four artworks that retell the story of Northwind's Fishing Weir to be placed near the ancient story site of the rock weir in the Duwamish River at S. 112th St., a site this draft has failed to note. A prospectus for this project is enclosed. We are working with a number of tribes in addition to the Duwamish in creating a Native American Significant Site Map of King County that notes myth sites, cultural sites, house sites and supernatural sites. Our initial work has pinpointed at least 8 Native American significant sites within this corridor: this draft notes four sites. Research may well reveal more cultural locations, as areas surrounding waterways were the village, hunting and foraging sites for this area's indigenous people, as well as the initial settlement sites when Euro- American immigrants came to this area in the 1800s. We also believe that One of the Duwamish Tribe sites the Draft EIS has noted is a burial site, which should be kept confidential and unmarked to protect the site from artifact hunters. Our work with the Duwamish Tribe, headquartered in Burien, has niade us sensitive to the need for respect to areas important to the tribe. While it is true there are certain areas they feel it better not to publicize, they are anxious to educate the community about King County's • Draft Preliminary .abish Corridor EIS: 2 rich Native American heritage. I'm also enclosing some educational materials our office produced in conjunction with a Native Carving program currently underway in Issaquah. In a brief discussion with John Crull from Boeing's Planning & Program Support Department on Tuesday, he felt this Native American issue warranted a meeting, possibly next week, between Boeing, our office and Duwamish Tribal Chairwoman Cecile Maxwell. He suggested that Boeing was looking for focus points within the corridor, such as the Northwind Fishing Weir site, where they could focus open space development. Our involvement in the Corridor EIS process has come upon us•quiekly, but we are willing to work with Boeing and your department to do further research and to help make a connection with the Duwamish tribe. Our Division has dedicated six hours to the review of this study and we estimate we would spend another six hours reviewing the next EIS draft. In addition, our staff is currently available to work with the Boeing Company and Tukwila regarding Native American sites. Our Historic Preservation Program estimates a more complete cultural survey of the designated area would cost approximately $2000. We feel the impact of this proposed development on Native American Historical sites needs to be more strongly and clearly addressed in the final EIS. Please call if you have further questions. Attachments: Existing and Proposed Recreation and Open Space, Figure 3 -3 Northwind Prospectus Carving Educational Materials cc: Cecile Mawell, Duwamish Tribe Chairwoman Frank Fowler, Duwamish Cultural Chair John Crull, Development Planner, Boeing Planning & Program Support Department Mayumi Tsutakawa, Manager, King County Cultural Resources ATTN: Julie Koler, Historic Preservation Officer ATTN: Barbara Luecke, 1% for Art Project Manager for Parks CI7'Y OJ "1'(.lK 14'ILA 62initiur:T11(E\'7Y:KBOULEVARD, TUh'1171.;1. Ii;1SIIlVG'fuA'9sl,v.ti October 31, 1991 Mr. Jeff Zahir, Planner /Economist F & TSS Planning & Program Support Boeing Support Services PO Box 3707, MS 13 -03 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 l'UON •; a (201;) -1 :: 1800 Care L. 1'auDiusrn. Mayo Subject: Environmental Impact Statement Services; contract file #91 -015, supplement #2, and contract file #91 -061, supplement #1. Dear Jeff, Enclosed is a copy of a memorandum from the City's Finance Office as to the status of the present funds -on -hand, and the pending invoices approved for payment. As you can see, the Impact Statement account is presently short $21,000, and there will be additional bills for services during November and December of 1991. After discussing the project, and after reviewing the workload, we request that Boeing deposit an additional $50,000 with the City of Tukwila. This amount will be needed for preparation of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Duwamish Corridor. It is a partial deposit, in that the extent of the work is in flux. These funds are only for the services of two consultants, CH2MHill and Robert S. Betts, Inc.. There will be no reimbursements from this $50,000 payment to any governmental entities. There will be a subsequent request for reimbursement for these entities, but the amount and timing are not yet known. If you have any questions, please call me at 431 -3686. Sincerely, e., Jdck R Pace, Senior Planner Enclosure cc: CH2M Hill Robert S. Betts, Inc. • DUWAMISH CORRIDOR • REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING AGENDA Thursday October 31, 1991 3:00 -5:00 PM John Crull: Lloyd Skinner & } Ikuno Masterson:} Jack Pace:} Rick Beeler:} Robert Betts: @ CH2M Hill 8th Floor 453 -5000 Attending: Boeing Company CH2M Hill City of Tukwila Tukwila Project Consultant I. 25,000 Employee Cap: Impact on the DEIS. -What would be gained with continuing with the EIS process? -What would be gained by revoking the DS and issuing an MDNS? -What process might best accompany such an MDNS ?. I1. Administration issues -What are the budget & work program effects with the alternatives? III. Comments on the present Draft Document. -City of Tukwila departmental responses IV. Preparation for Friday's Roundtable -What to do about requests for more time. -How to best receive and record the comments V. Conclusions and Wrap Up. Questions? Call Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455 -9640 • Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use Dennis J. McLerran, Director Norman B. Rice, Mayor October 30, 1991 Robert S. Betts, Project Coordinator Boeing Duwamish EIS for the City of Tukwila Robert S. Betts, Inc. 700 - 108th Avenue Northeast Bellevue, Washington 98004 Re: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Scope of EIS Land Use Review Fees MUP #9105709 Dear Mr. Betts: The Department of Construction and Land Use (DCLU) agrees to bill Boeing through Tukwila, rather than to bill Boeing directly, for costs incurred in reviewing the Duwamish Corridor EIS, provided we are paid in advance. DCLU estimates a cost of $5,500 to conduct this work, based on the current rate for land use staff time of $110 per hour. The estimate includes the hours worked to date (approximately 20) and subsequent review time as well as meetings with Boeing, Tukwila, and King County. Martin Fricko will remain the primary land use liaison for the review of the Duwamish Corridor Programmatic EIS. Jan Mulder, his supervisor, will also be involved as needed. We will let you know if it becomes necessary to involve other staff people beyond the occasional meeting. Please call Martin Fricko or Jan Mulder at 684 - 8875, if you wish to discuss billing procedures further. Sincerely, DENNIS J. McLERRAN Director By REBECCA HERZFELD Director Land Use Division RRH:mfh g:mfricko /Boeing An equal employment opportunity - affirmative action employer. Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use, 710 - 2nd Avenue, Ste 700, Seattle WA 98104 -1703 "Printed on Recycled Paper" DATE: ,/p 1 CONVERSATION RECORD MON TUE WED �IU FRI SAT SUN TIME: L'j f �6 Tki P.M. TYPE: ❑ Visit $, Conference ❑ Telephone — 0 Incoming 0 Outgoing Name of person(s) conta d or in Qortact In: d" t/ Organization (office, dept., urlau, etc.)) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY V606L 94S. 61,0 101 Telephone No.: Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: DamayYIYb,L e✓rY . _ SUMMARY: A.- cj__QA)))0__)),. - (rk P ti Ne►4 --i.a. co L I,t; 1U 61/w444- - +) 8- 7 Ac:* 644A.A4t1V/i4ellit WC42^ag,A Ar/L-3- 69/4'■ 4141,- J ,A)1, Itei4i J kd'a<de 1) r & . - £ viAv r4 frybdiA, rvi.s ot Poo & 'ft; bib i; jet NAIAA, ))4 144`1'.11"- 6 — f ger-v Signature: Title: Date: * 4 -g 4",L. 4-,1 4415 rt, - - 441 zy�6t nay 4k)P- c1.4#1fi=- tIAJ • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433-1800 Gary 1, VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: koEm-r 6 5, Pr_oTtC -r Loan -N FROM: LAUD 5 A be-Z 2k) A/P DATE: l o /Zi SUBJECT: Gl,,t.T$T/g1 NK1 C✓ Bcd NG,/ ULOAM Cde_P pCR, RE-bedEi. pH e,g- zs Pg Opt? T AS You. F .fiou) FR.01 -1 Cc ERSArot3 LorTW K_ PACE, WE. /a E I N t•6eb CF A<Wit,11oi,)AL F LLtJ b5 TO PAy B I LLs. REL.A" et � �. !-! € Is LCHE.2 P1& S T� T�� Ac3cv � PEE t�� Oat:. P .;. 51---AL) I Ar -r PRe:�- ' rt M E 13A1_ . FWb, 10r •*, RE.'!b FR.oI Oth C- I012-191 TOTAL Pb. 012 fir' t LP Fop. PYNT -. Roezzi s. ?,Eris .rrae . U , 7 R) icI Iq CH2N1 1�1L.L tNV . # 5I $OS) eer LIP -r0 PAY 11/419I bALAM E R - A i i lJC BILLS REe:b . T 4AT HAVE YET To $r~ PD CNZM 1-111 -L i Nt .4t 3o4o91 `1/1'7191 �µzM HILL 1tJ\ , 4 131101 144 l i Roeozr 5 BErr5, _tIllt'_'.. itjv , -tt c6 1012_8111 AMT-. CLLegt L)TLY SHORT rN AicT 10/z9 191, 63, 2.E9.-70 <S,1QQ .30� <40,8Z(0. t'7 �141, b (c3.-70> <111141. I� zl ,oa5 . aa} King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department 1108 Smith Timer 506 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 296-7503 October 25, 1991 Mr. Bob Betts Robert S. Betts, Inc. 700 -108th Avenue Northeast Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Development Proposal Dear M setts: I understand you may not be clear on who to talk to in King County regarding the Environmental Impact Statement for the Boeing Duwamish proposal. I have asked Clint Lank, Environmental Division Administrator, to be responsible for King County's comments on the EIS. He may be reached at 296 -6602. The Environmental Division's address is: 3600 -136th Place Southeast, Bellevue, WA 98006 -1400. As always, Bob, feel free to contact me at any time if you need help or information. Sincerely, Cr•'ti. Larsen e• y Director CL:m cc: Lois Schwennesen, Director, Parks, Planning and Resources Department ATTN: Clint Lank, Administrator, Environmental Division Paul Tanaka, Director, Department of Public Works 1908 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Beeler ]/� �,/ FROM: Michael R. Kenyon, City Attorney /V "�2�y�- RE: Boeing Ten -Year Plan Memorandum of Agreement DATE: October 24, 1991 Jack Pace gave me the attached Memorandum, revised as of October 23, for my review. This document adequately sets forth a general statement of what the parties intend. It does . not meet the statutory requirements of a formal Interlocal Agreement, but Jack indicates that we are not contemplating a formal statutory Interlocal Agreement here. If that's the case, then your proposed agreement should serve to memorialize the understanding among the parties about how this project will proceed. MRK /cc BOEING.001 .E1W ] OC[T2:4 1 CITY OF TUI'Cvv LA PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (Revised October 23, 1991) Recitals The purpose of this Memorandum of Agreement is to coordinate review of a non - project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a 10 -year plan to redevelop properties owned or occupied by the Boeing Company in the East Marginal Way corridor, as described in Attachment A, (hereinafter "the Plan "). WHEREAS the Boeing Company has announced plans for the redevelopment of a substantial portion of its East Marginal Way corridor properties; and WHEREAS the City of Tukwila, acting as the lead agency under the State Environmental Policy Act with the agreement of the City of Seattle and King County, has issued a determination of significance for the Plan based upon theidetermination that the Plan is significant in both scope and potential adverse environmental impacts, and accordingly requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); and WHEREAS project construction activities under the Plan will .occur over a 10 year period in the jurisdiction's of the City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle and King County; and WHEREAS the close coordination of the non - project EIS scoping, development and review is critical for efficient and comprehensive management of the Plan; and WHEREAS parties to this agreement have determined it to be in their best interests to execute this Memorandum of Agreement in order to maximize public input and to enable consistent processing of the Plan; NOW THEREFORE the undersigned do hereby agree to the following: 1. The City of Tukwila shall continue to act as the lead agency with respect to the development of the non - project EIS for the Plan. As lead agency the City of Tukwila shall be responsible for all administrative matters relating to the coordination of environmental ,review for the Plan. 2. The City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle and King County shall jointly review, comment and set conditions for the Plan in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. 3. The City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle and King County shall utilize the EIS and its set of mitigating measures in subsequent review of individual building permits for compliance with each jurisdiction's environmental policies.. 4. The City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle and King County shall retain all rights relating to the permitting or approval of proposed projects located within their respective jurisdictions. With respect to such projects each jurisdiction shall retain the right to require additional SEPA review and to act as lead agency. ,r • MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT October 23, 1991 • 5. As lead agency for the non - project EIS, the City of Tukwila shall be responsible for provision of office space, appropriate logistical support and supervision of the EIS coordinator. 6. The City of Tukwila is responsible for collecting costs incurred by the parties to this agreement, and for submitting a monthly invoice to the Boeing Company for payment. 7. The City of Seattle and King County shall be reimbursed for time spent on non - project EIS scoping, development, review or comment. The City of Tukwila shall remit payment to the City of Seattle and King County based upon the hourly rate established with each jurisdiction's applicable fee ordinance. If a jurisdiction requires a deposit on hand prior to commencing the work, and if that jurisdiction will charge that deposit for services rendered, then that jurisdiction shall submit the estimated deposit request to the City of Tukwila, which will transmit that deposit amount to the jurisdiction. In turn, should circumstances warrant, the deposit shall be augmented or refunded. 8. Each party shall hold harmless the others, their agents or employees, from and against any and all liability arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property resulting in whole or in part from acts or omissions of each party, its agents, servants, officers, or employees. 9. This agreement shall be in full force and effect as of the date last executed and shall remain in effect until completion of the Plan or written agreement of the parties. Any party may terminate its further participaticn in this agreement by sending written notice to all other parties. Entered into this 3a day of fY, 1991. Approved as to Form: Tukwila City Utorney Approved as to Form: Seatt� Attorney Approved as to Form: Deputy P King County r i; ; ' g Attorney THE CITY OF TUKWILA Director, Dept. of Community Development THE CITY OF SEATTLE Director, Dept. of Cons on & Land Use i Oh rector, Dept. of Parks, Planning & Resources LEGEND z Owned Leased Potential Future Sites for Lease or Purchase 1—/naReFA r kje (1/4 .ar/// BOEING OWNED AND LEASED PROPERTY FUTURE SITES RECEIVED DRAFT COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Es Washington State University OCT I COU;,m KING COUNTY RESOURCc F'' Smith Tower, 506 Second Avenue QUALITY OF LIFE IN KING UOUN Seattle, WA 98104 . A Random Survey of King County Househol dsos -29s oorrrY -TDD 298 -5240 CONTACT Conducted by Washington State University Cooperative Extension, King County Community Issues Research Program July 1991 Co (VC (hovC -ion1 CoANT ticTENSlof-) Cooperative Extension programs are designed to meet the informal educational needs on select high priority issues of local residents. As part of its long range planning process, King County Cooperative Extension conducted this random survey to assess citizen concerns in the areas of youth, families and the environment. Cooperative Extension will use this data to modify existing programs, create new programs where necessary and work with other county programs and community agencies to do the same. Methodology xxx King County residents were selected at random by a national sampling firm. The list had to be reduced by xxx to take out bad or incomplete addresses. Of the remaining xxx "good" addresses, 392 (or xxx %) returned completed surveys. This methodology gave us a confidence level of + 6% when looking at the entire population, but the sample was not designed to give us confident insights into subgroups of the population. Optional demographic questions showed that nine percent of respondents were from "minority" populations. This under - represents the true County proportion of 15% (1990 census). Adults under 40 years of age are also somewhat under - represented in final responses. Quality of Life Asked whether the "quality of life" has increased, stayed the same or decreased over the past years, 62% indicated a decrease. Another 20% indicated no change. Only 1 in 7 (14.5 %) respondents indicated an increase in quality of life. Over the next ten years, 55% believe quality of life will decrease, 25% expect no change and 15% expect a higher quality of life. As a group, people of color and those under 30 were somewhat more positive about the quality of life over the past 5 years and about what the next ten years will bring. When given a list of eight potential benefits to living in King County, - respondents ranked them in the following order of importance: 1. A beautiful environment 2. Lots of job opportunities 3. Friendly people 4. Diversity of cultures 5. Excellent schools 6. A big urban county without big urban problems 7. Professional sports 8. Responsive government programs Cooperating agencies: Washington State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and King County Cooperative Extension program; and employment are available to all without discrimination. It is clear that the environment, both natural and social, ranked on par with job opportunities. Respondents were given a list of 18 community issues and asked to rate them very serious, somewhat serious or not serious. The following ranking resulted with the percentage of very serious responses in parenthesis: 1. Congested streets and freeways (66 %) 2. County population growing too fast (59 %) 3. The AIDS epidemic (58 %) 4. Youth gang violence (55 %) 5. Environmental pollution (55 %) 6. Deteriorating educational systems (51 %) 7. Crime (47 %) 8. Alcoholism and other drug abuse (43 %) 9. Homelessness (41 %) 10. Health care not available to all (40 %) 11. Families slipping into poverty (38 %) 12. Hunger (31 %) 13. Racism (17 %) 14. Unemployment /underemployment (14 %) 15. High infant mortality rate (13 %) 16. Poor community relations with police (9 %) 17. Discrimination based on sex (8 %) 18. Unsafe food (6 %) African - Americans had different priorities: Note that "social problems" rank higher as well as the seriousness of the problem. 1. Youth gang violence (100 %) 2. Crime (89%) 3. Alcoholism and other drug abuse (89 %) 4. The AIDS epidemic (78 %) 5. Homelessness (78%) 6. Deteriorating educational systems (67 %) 7. Health care not available to all (67%) 8. -Hunger (67 %) 9. Families slipping into poverty (67 %) 10. Environmental pollution (67 %) 11. High infant mortality (56 %) 12. Racism (56 %) 13. Congested streets and freeways (56 %) 14. Unemployment /underemployment (50%) 15. County growing too fast (38%) 16. Poor community relations with police (33 %) 17. Discrimination based on sex (25 %) 18. Unsafe foods (11 %) Environmental Issues We found out earlier that the environment was the most important factor to the quality of life in King County. To determine what environmental problems were of most concern to residents, the survey participants were given a list of 11 to react to. Below is the rank of issues by "very serious" problems responses with the percentages of people responding "very serious" in the parenthesis: 1. Disappearance of fish and wildlife (61 %) 2. Hazardous chemicals going into landfills (57 %) 3. Contamination of Puget Sound (50 %) 4. Clear cutting of trees for timber (45 %) 5. Disappearing wetlands (41 %) 6. Air pollution (40 %) 7. Soil erosion into waterways (39%) 8. Not enough garbage is recycled (36 %) 9. Damage from flooding (34 %) 10. Pesticide overuse (30 %) 11. Global warming (23 %) Younger responders generally ranked the issues more serious in nature. A somewhat different ranking was produced when survey participants were asked to select the most serious problem from the list. The top 5 in this ranking were air pollution (27 %), clear cutting (13 %) , contamination of Puget Sound (11 %), hazardous chemicals in landfills (11 %) and disappearance of fish and wildlife (9 %). When asked whether regulations, education or both should be used to reduce environmental problems the responses were: Both 70% Education only 23% Regulation only 4% Economic Issues Facing Families To explore seriousness of families economic issues, again a list of 11 issues were presented to the survey participants. The issues ranked as follows, using the percentage of "very serious" responses. Within the parentheses, the figure on the left represents the percentage of all households and the figure on the right represents the percentage of households with incomes under $15,000 in annual income. 1. Cost of health care (76 %/94%) 2. Cost of housing (62 %/84 %) 3. Property taxes too high (55 %/65 %) 4. Cost of care for elderly parents (55 %/71 %) 5. Wages rising slower than prices (47 %/57 %) 6. College cost rising too fast (46%/55%) 7. Unfair state tax structures (42%/38 %) 8. Child care not affordable (40%/39%) 9. High cost of food (30%/59%) 10. Job loss due to environmental protection (21 %/13%) 11. Clothing costs too high (15 %/47 %) • Note that households with annual income below $15,000, as a group were much more concerned about the economic issues than the overall group. This was particularly true among the basic necessities of housing, food, clothing and health care. The survey instrument suggested there were at least two methods to help resolve family econmic problems: 1) government payments or ,tax credits and 2) providing household and job skills to families through education and training programs. The responses were as follows: Payments or Tax Credits onlyAll ResBpondents Under �� 5.000 Education or Training only 46% 15% Both 33% 48% Don't Know 13% 33% Note that education /training was selected as an important tool by both the "all respondent" group and the "under $15,000" income group. Family Quality of Life Issues In addition to economic issues, families face many other quality of life issues. Thirteen issues were presented to survey participants to determine how serious a problem they considered each of them to be. When the issues were ranked by "very serious" ratings, the following list in order of concern was produced for the respondents as a whole. As indicated by the right hand figure in the parentheses, a higher percentage of African - Americans ranked many of the issues "very serious" than the overall respondent group. 1. Parents not accountable for their children (60 %/56 %) 2. School system inadequately prepare students (54 %/67 %) 3. Health care not available to all (51 %/67 %) 4. High school drop out rate too high (47%/78 %) 5. .Parents lack parenting skills (46%/56 %) 6. Violence within families (42 %/56 %) 7. Increase in single - parent families (40 %/67 %) 8. Care for elderly difficult to find (29%/56 %) 9. Quality daycare difficult to find (25%/33 %) 10. Bus Transportation not convenient (21 % /11 %) 11. Too many chemicals added to foods (20%/44 %) 12. Segregated neighborhoods (9 %/33 %) 13. Nutritious food is hard to find (6 %/0 %) The top ranked issues for African- Americans were the high school drop out rate, inadequate school system, health care not available to all, and the increase in single - parent families. When asked whether laws and regulations or targeted educational programs would be most effective in resolving the above quality of life issues, the responses were as follows: Laws and regulations only 8% Education programs only 40% Both 53% Education, again, was judged an important tool. Quality of Life Issues for Children Children face many serious issues in their lives, too. Seventeen issues were presented in the survey and the following ranking was produced using the percentage of "very serious" responses. 1. Alcohol and other drugs (68 %) 2. Children don't take responsibility for own actions (55 %) 3. Gang violence (53 %) 4. Quality of schools not high enough (49 %) 5. Teenage pregnancy (45 %) 6. Sexual or physical assault by parents or other adult(45 %) 7. Poor parent /child relationships (41 %) 8. Lack of self - reliant skills (37 %) 9. Many kids have only one parent at home (34 %) 10. Too many kids are homeless of runaway.(31%) 11. Low self- esteem (31 %) 12. Teen suicides (29 %) 13. Children lack pride in their community (20 %) 14. Lack of employment opportunities (18 %) 15. Children's mental illness not easily recognized (18 %) 16. Children being over weight (9 %) 17. Segregated schools (8 %) One method to help children resolve problems that has been tried recently in some schools is inviting social service agencies into the school on a routine basis. When asked "do you believe that social service agencies should pursue this strategy ? ", the following responses were received. Yes 59% No 17% Don't Know 24% When given a list of four organization types that could team with local schools to assist in the classroom, survey respondents ranked them as follows: 1. Environmental and natural resource agencies (59 %) 2. Private industry organizations (58 %) 3. Youth organizations (55 %) 4. Environmental groups (44 %) Government Prioritization Survey participants were asked to prioritize between family, child and environmental programs for increased attention by governmental agencies. The results were: 1. Families 2. Children 3. Environment Useful Skills To Teach A list of one dozen skills to improve quality of life were presented in the survey. Respondents were asked to rate the skills as potentially very useful, somewhat useful or not useful. The list below is ordered by percentage of "very useful" responses. 1. How to become a better parent (76 %) 2. How to build self- esteem (72 %) 3. How to spend money wisely (70 %) 4. How to reduce pollution from car and home (56 %) 5. How to reduce pollution from business (56 %) 6. How to reduce family housing costs (56 %) 7. How to live a balanced life (51 %) 8. How to choose a healthy diet (49 %) 9. How to access government programs (49 %) 10. How to invest money wisely (47 %) 11. How to influence government policies (42 %) 12. How to reduce clothing costs (31 %) Use of Cooperative Extension Services We provided a short list of agencies providing family and youth services in King County. Respondents were asked if they had used their services, only heard of their services or neither. They answered as follows: Agency Used only Heard peither Washington University Cooperative Extension 17% 47% 36% King County Cooperative Extension 8% 40% 52% Washington Department of Health and Human Services 24% 64% 12% Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC) 5% 46% 49% King County Community Services 6% 47% 48% Boy or Girl Scouts 41% 52% 8% King County Surface Water Mgmt. 7% 56% 38% King County Building and Land Development 23% 59% 18% King County Cosnservation District 2% 49% 49% In a follow up question, survey participants were asked 'which programs of Washington State University Cooperative Extension, King County, they had used, only heard of or neither. Their responses were: Agency Used Only Hearcl either Master Gardener or Seattle Food Garden Program 16% 36% 49% King County 4 -H 3% 83% 14% Seattle 4 -H 1% 62% 38% Food Advisor Program 1% 23% 76% Clothing Textile or Money Management Programs 0% 13% 87% Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) 2% 25% 74% Land /Water Stewardship Program 2% 23% 75% DialExtension 8% 22% 70% Characteristics of Survey Respondents To assess the household use of communications technologies, survey participants were asked which of the following pieces of electronic equipment they had in their home: "Touch Tone" telephone 86% FAX machine 2% Personal computer 35% Video player 74% MORE TO COME!!!!!! Prepared by Curt Moulton, WSU County Extension Agent CJM:de 9/30/91 svyresu1 LIVABILITY AND PROFITABILITY 'The quality of life is more than wages paid and numbers of jobs. We have found that our special place here in the Northwest pays dividends and does relate, to the bottom line." - Robert Levin, President, Columbia River Economic Development Council. * CORPORATE WILD SPACES Seattle Water Department has built and maintains nesting platforms for Common Loons to encourage nesting in the Cedar River Watershed. Dow Chemical created a one -acre sand and shell covered nesting habitat for Black Skimmers in Texas from a parking lot. In Ohio, Dow established an employee wildlife committee, constructed bluebird boxes and bird feeding stations, and planted prairie and switch grass. Amoco built nesting sites in South Carolina for imperiled Least Terns near the purified water of a chemical plant's treatment ponds. Consumers Power developed a nesting area for Common Terns including habitat along transmission corridors and kestral nests on utility poles. Dupont replaced manicured lawns in North Carolina with tall grass and shrubs which attract birds and deer. Texaco provided nesting areas for Mottled Ducks in Texas, a species that has declined in recent years from habitat loss. Monsanto, despite closing a plant in Tennessee, improved the site known for its cattail marsh with 160 species of birds. The project included planting 4 million � ress trees, adding nesting structures for Purple Martins, Wood Ducks and a Geese, and constructing observation areas. Mentor Graphics included wildlife habitat in the design of its new headquarters in Wilsonville, Oregon. CONCEPTS in KING COUNTY WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION City/County Parks: Birdwatching & Natural Areas Farming: Conservation Easement Wetland buffers ®Stenberg/Haynes King County Citizen's Coalition for Wildlife Now! • Close Encounters of a Wildlife Kind A Vision for the Future Deep in the heart of the city, amid hontdng horns and scavenging sea gulls, a contented hummingbird darts to a feeder on a window sill Close -by, peregrine falcon boxes are perched atop a tell building, and hopeful employees wait for signs of inhabitance. Also downtown, a bank employee peruses her biniing guide, discovering the bird resting on the ledge across from her building is a red - tailed hawk. Nationwide, about 80% of all citizens observe and/or feed wildlife. Just beyond the downtown core, neighbors work with ecologists to restore an old parking lot, replacing discarded tires and litter with hearty native vegetation. Next year neighbors will build a play area for children, and nesting boxes for chickadees will be hidden near the back These days, there is much more to do in city and county parks than tossing a frisbee or batting at softballs. Recreation now includes birdwatching, native plant interpretation, and nature walldng. Some parks provide guided tours, while others use small signs noting plant or animal information along trails. Parks are inked to the other wildlife areas, thus creating a network ft's a renter's market — potential tenants closely compare amenities before signing lease agreements. One attractive option is apartments with small, common side yards. Window boxes, full of native vegetation, harp beneath side -yard windows, and feeders attract birds outside kitchen windows. In 1980, Americans spent approximately $500 minion on birdseed alone. Alongside the freeway, a new industrial complex will soon replace acres of farmland and forest. Nearby citizens team up with employees to fashion a more wildlife - friendly site. A wide area of trees and vegetation would act as a buffer between the complex, adjacent homes, and a nearby wetland. Picnic areas and jogging trails weave throughout. The wetland, previously disturbed, will be restored to attract waterfowl, songbirds, hummingbirds, and other witdife; educational materials will teach all involved how to better understand and care for the special site. An added benefit: working dosely with citizens and employees bring positive pubic relations to the project and the business. "A green and pleasant urban area can help attract Jobs and investment." Nature Conservancy Council, 1987. Residents in a suburban housing development create wildlife habitat in their backyards. Native vegetation is used, conserving water and using fewer fertilizers and toxins than non - native plants. Water features, birdhouses, and feeders are only a few of the ways to encourage wildlife. Noting deer tracks, a neighbor deckles to move his flowers to containers on his enclosed porch this year, so his petunias and schyzanthus won't be tonight's dinner for the deer. Outside his second story window, a hummingbird nips at a hanging fuschia. Seventy -three percent of home buyers are willing to pay more for homes In neighborhoods with wildlife amenities. New housing developments are clustered to leave room for wildlife and other sensitive wets. individual yards are smaller, but greenbelts are located within a short walk Similar to parks and undisturbed tracts, these greenbelts are also part of regional wildlife linkages. 1Rsss around houses In Amherst, IMA, Increase the merlret value 20 percent Schools incorporate wildlife and other environmental considerations into their design. Students take an active role in developing natural classrooms outdoors, where enhancement or rehabilitation projects may be necessary. Buffers between playing fields are filled with native trees and vegetation. Hummingbirds are attracted to delicate columbine in the native plant garden [another class project] near the cafeteria FlRy percent of dig children's outdoor activities directly Involve solid i % In natural areas dose to home. 1420 NW Gilman Blvd., Suits 2565 Issaquah, Washington 98027 641-5810 C/11 (11 / l\11l1 1 October 22, 1991 Ms. Ann Dold, Chief SEPA Section King County Environmental Division 3600 - 136TH Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Dear Ms. Dold, Thank you taking time from what must be a busy schedule! The Duwamish Corridor proposal by the Boeing Company contains a lot of careful thought. The accompanying programmatic EIS for its redevelopment is now ready for your review. I'm delighted you could review its scope while it is fresh, and at the outset of our two -week internal review period. We hope you are comfortable with the effort at intergovernmental coordination. As mentioned, there is a Memorandum of Agreement in final form which establishes that King County and other primary agencies will be reimbursed for fees. It also sets forth the linkage between this Programmatic EIS and subsequent environmental reviews of specific projects. I hope to have the signed copy of the Agreement to Lois Schwenneson next week. I will provide you an advance copy. We also want to reassure you that our meeting is one of several where we will be able to pool comments about approaches to the overall proposal. Our process is designed to insure that agencies have access to the Boeing Company and to the EIS as it is produced. The forthcoming "Roundtable" meeting of King County, Metro, Seattle is a good example, and I am delighted you will be able to attend. It will be held at the City of Tukwila at 1PM on November 1st. f Ms. DoId: Duwamish Corridor Programmatic EIS October 22, 1991 2 Fees. Now that King County has the Preliminary Draft EIS, Tukwila needs the County's estimate for the fees to participate in the document's review. For instance the Seattle DCLU estimates that it will require 20 hours of time to complete this initial 2 -week review. While there are other divisions involved, this estimate gives you a sense of the magnitude for the first phase. We are looking for "fatal flaws," or inconsistencies. Detailed analysis is OK, but we'd prefer addressing fundamentals at this point. We ask that you poll the other divisions in King County for their estimate. We also ask that you prepare by November 1st, a composite estimate that takes the County from now through the Final EIS. Please divide the estimate into two parts: Draft Reviews and Final Reviews. Billings. Plan to bill the City of Tukwila, at monthly intervals, at the end of each month, for the time that the County spends to comment on this Programmatic EIS. The County can expect Tukwila to make the payments, rather than The Boeing Company. I will provide you the name and phone number of the person in Tukwila's Finance Office about additional details about the format of the bill itself. I can be reached at 455 -9640. Timing. I've enclosed a time -line chart for your review. Our intent is that the roundtable produces any fatal flaws, and assists us in achieving some consistency of approach. The public review draft is due out November 20th, with a 30 -day period, with the Final done March 18th, 1992. Sincerely, The City of Tukwila, By: Robert S. Betts, Project Coordinator cc: Jack Pace, Senior Planner, Tukwila DCD Jeff Zahir, The Boeing Company encl. October 17,1991 DUWAMISH CORRIDOR Redevelopment Plan MEETING AGENDA Friday October 18, 1991 1 :00 PM METRO Market /Planning Division 821 - Second Avenue Seattle, WA 684 -1610 (Info) Present: METRO: Carol Thompson, Market Development n, Transit Planning 17A Tukwila: Jack Pace/ Robert Betts (Proj. Coord.) Boeing: Jeff Zahir CH2MHiIl: Lloyd Skinner & Claudia Scrivanich Purposes: informational review of the following topics: I. Project Proposal for Redevelopment of the Duwamish Corridor - Strategic Nature PACE - Overview ZAHIR II. Preliminary Draft EIS - Outline of Key Impacts SKINNER - Outline of HOV options SCRIVANICH III. Schedule for Review & Response )) 1 Any further Information, discussion ?. Call Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455 -9640 DUWAMISH CORRIDOR Redevelopment Plan MEETING AGENDA Friday October 18, 1991 9:00 AM October 17,1991 4(34p0-r City of Seattle Office Long Range Planning Conference Room 200 Municipal Building Seattle, WA 684 -8055 (Info) Present: Seattle: T. Tierney OIGR R. Herzfeld DCLU S. Pearce OLP M. Odom SDE L. Best SCL Tukwila: Jack Pace/ Robert Betts (Proj. Coord.) Boeing: Jeff Zahir CH2MHill: Lloyd Skinner Purposes: informational review of the following topics: I. Project Proposal for Redevelopment of the Duwamish - Strategic Nature PACE - Overview ZAHIR II. Preliminary Draft EIS -BRIEF Outline of Key Impacts SKINNER Corridor III. Schedule for Review & Response a(4� M✓) )iav &i JA- _' Any further Information, discussion? � Call Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455 -9640 October 17,1991 DUWAMISH CORRIDOR Redevelopment Plan MEETING AGENDA Friday October 18, 1991 11:00 AM KING COUNTY Department of Parks, Planning & Resources Director's Offices 11th Floor Smith Tower Seattle, WA 296- 7503(Info) Present: King County: Craig Larsen, Deputy Director / Clint Lank Env. Division, Administrator Ann Dold Env. Division, SEPA Chief Public Works Representative Tukwila: Jack Pace/ Robert Betts (Proj. Coord.) Boeing: Jeff Zahir CH2MHiII: Lloyd Skinner Purposes: informational review of the following topics: I. Project Proposal for Redevelopment of the Duwamish Corridor - Strategic Nature PACE - Overview ZAHIR II. Preliminary Draft EIS - Outline of Key Impacts SKINNER III. Schedule for Review & Response /joy I K(1/ Any further Information, discussion? Call Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455 -9640 DOE //6/G • Andre Gay *Boeing Company Vice President P.O. Box 3707, MS 13 -03 Facilities Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 October 17, 1991 WERE OCT 21 awg CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Mr. Ross A. Earnst Public Works Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Subject: Draft Developer's Agreement for The Boeing Company's Facilities Construction and Upgrade Program Along East Marginal Way South Dear Mr. Earnst: Thank you for your letter of October 10, 1991, and copy of a Draft Developer's Agreement. As you know, The Boeing Company and the City of Tukwila are jointly addressing utility and transportation impacts and mitigation measures, in addition to other redevelopment issues, in the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS which is scheduled for publication in mid- November. The mitigation package which will result from the EIS process will consider the mitigation measures contained in your Draft Agreement. To avoid duplication and confusion, we suggest that all of the appropriate mitigation measures for Duwamish Corridor redevelopment be listed in the final EIS. We look forward to discussing this and other redevelopment issues at the next meeting on October 25th. c ely, ay Vice P ident Facilif JZ:AG:nls cc: Rick Beeler, City of Tukwila Terry Bennett, Boeing Sid Browne, Boeing 91- 243aNS The Boeing Cartipany Fax Leader l_0 > (c k MaiistoP From Company 7' .,..�.....�_ 61, (-Jr e AP",-. ,4'- PE ,ez itwvr Company lacatiun Location ax N73 , _ 440r ,Darner �rP C,7.. %G /f* ff L. plAAr 57- rt, ,�- y�' , E : #62 s TX1.1,477920 e e.5 arz:A.126116Zoe0P-S eger,e71-(-0u7-- oripinai DispoSItlon: ..� Edo, No. T ©lophone No. a Destroy Q Return Q Call for pickup • • CITY OF T Uh W!LA wino SOUtHCENTERSOULL''VARa 'fUKWIL1, 1V,1SlllN6?)NL AR October 10, 1991 OCT 1 '1 1991 11) :X`g7v+.�C'p5w PNONF u (061 4334800 1�7q L. 1'�, +lS•;rn, ,Ll.,:••• Boeing Advanced Systems P.O. Sox 3707, MS 13 -07 Seattle, WA 90124 -2207 Attn. A. Gay, Vice President Facilities SUBJECT: Ora „_R elaile• g c ement fo R.el,hg GomparlC.s9 racilit.4ga Const and Up gA,_e .Ax'a.s31onu wax. ?u..1 Dear Mr. Gays Enclosed is a copy of a draft Developer's Agreement which Covers various development projects past, present and proposed for Boeing facilities adjacent to East marginal Way South from the nociing T +C:cesa Road north to the Tukwila City limits. This Agreement would provide fora sharing of costs between the City and adjacent property owners for improvements within thy: pub1tc right -of -way existing or to be acquired which contains East Marilinal Way $outh. The improvements may involve street, sidewalk, traffic and utility work. The scope rf the Agreement was initially ri.i•Brufsnod with the Boeing personnel listed below, and who are being furnished copies of this documentation, at a meeting in our office on July 17, 1991. Please review the content of the Developer's Agreement And forward any formal comments or concerns you may have to the above address within the next few weeks. If you have any questions, please call roe at 433 - •0179. Sincerely, '/"./O14 4A. Carnet Public works Director xc: Terry Bennett, Boeing Permits Administrator Sid Browne, Boeing Permits Specialist Development Files Boeing Company Read Pilo JP /amcs8sboeinq C d cOIOT 1661•L`T•OT 53tiIydO d il�Ji THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on. between thr, CITY , or TUKWILA, a Waohington municipal corporation (tie►_ i.nef te_, referred to as the "City "), and The Boeing Company (hereinafter referred to as the "Owner "). R E C I T A L S WHEREAS, Owner has an interest in certain zeal property located generally along East Marginal Way South, from the Boeing Access Road on the south to the Tukwila City 1iin3.te on th' north, described in Exhibit A, and hereinafter referred to as the "Property ", and WHEREAS, Owner has or anticipates making application for number of building or other development pro jecte on the Property, including but not limited t;os Boeing 2 -88 Pre -Fab Metal Building, 4'2'89 Yard Upgrade, Modular. Cafeteria, Building 9-50 Storm Drain Modifications, eu� mt ion, Building 9 -04 Addition, Building 21 -01 Storm Sewer and the Research Aerodynamic Icing Tunnel. WHEREAS, the proposed development will result in certain direct impacts on the existing infrastructure of the City which will require the development of improvements on City right -of -way or easements, i 'd -1- C “1101 tb61'S1.0t c3 :,rd 0 do 1.10ofA whetter dedlcated pursuant to this Agreclnent or previously hold by the City, and WHEREAS, the proposed development will create certtuin . identifiable adverse environmental impacts which can be mf t i,gated, NOW, THEREFORE, Owner and City agree as follows: 1. ES..SZ DarA A. jurgvementd g Ini; stvveVAre.. Owner &Cknowiedges thmt the improvements listed below are reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development, The City shall design, engineer and conetruct, all at owner's Bole cost and expense, for the Owl ;er' e proportionate share, the following addition or improvements to the City's following infrastructur ©a 4.,. a 'd (1) Frontal improvements including sidewalk, curb/gutter and other associated improvements for final street location, utility relocation and associated storm drainage improvements. The termini of the entire capital improvement project will he East Marginal way South from the Boeing Access Road to north City limits. (2) Upgrade of public water Sine in East Marginal way South to a 12" main. The termini of the entire capital improvement is from Boeing AcCegs Road to north city limits . CO'OI 166t 'GI 'O1 C 5301 4.4 0 dr, WC'HJ The Owner further agrees the above scopes of work may be carried out by the City as a combined project, separate project or portions of projects and billed separately upon compl,eti'n of sefich individual project. 2. City will administrate the design and construction of frontal improvements, drainage interceptors and the water main and bill Owner for its prepoxtianate share of these improvements. 3. M l4M Qr PA'iMEN'1` After construction, the City will bill the Owner for its proportionate share of actual cost of constructed or dedicates facilities based en the following formulas' A. yront Y.Pmente ., The Owner will pay its proportionate share of the sidewalk, curb and gutter, asaeociated ntorm drains and utility relocations frontin47 its Development based can sctual i:nta} project construction costa. b. neteLiesalituteLA. The Owner will pay for water facilities described herein which directly benefit said property. The pro rata share for any one parcel eha1l be based upon the ratio of the square footage of said parcel to the square footage of the entire service arch being served by the new 12" wetter facility. 4. TIME F'OR _g YMENT Upon completion of the installations the Owner shall pay to the _3_ G. 'e 4O'1 t6dl'S7'01 S2L.I dA0 46 bl7.i A City those amount() as specified in 3A, and 31; above within five (5) days after receipt by Owner of at.at.enent of billing cosi_t from the City. 5. ,A D-:QMIALTIQN. Construction of the street frontal improvements, drainage and watermain provided by the City under the terms of th.i..s Agreement shall commence within 10 years after this Agreement hes heeft signed by both parties. 6 • NOpleWhalYZ4=.,EXTZLIZZi Failure of either party to insitL on the strict performance of the terms of this Agreement shall not be construed as a .waiver, or relinquishment Of that party's right✓ thereafter to strictly enforce e any such term, but the same shall continee in full force and effect.. 7. Ei nDII EtEECT ThIR Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their respective heirs, legal representatives, assignees, transferees and successors. This Agreeme :it runs with the Land. 8. RECORD1NQ This Agreement shall be recorded with the King County Department of Records and Electiane, and the cost of said recording shall be paid by the Owner. 9 'd 90101 Te61'pl'el C. 1.1nAAO d! WO,NA 9. LAVJAPLYXSUE Actions brought to enforce Any prcvir ions of this Agreement shall be governed by Washington law and shall be brought in Washington State Superior Court for Kin County. 10. ATTORNEt F E4 In the event that either party shall commence litigation against the other in order to enforce any term- or condition of this Agreement, the prevailing party In such litigation shell, be on titled to recover ite costs, including reasonable attorney feet. 11. EFFECTIVE-___I The responeibilities of Owner under this Agreement are contingent upon the issuance of the requested approvals for the project, No obligation will arise until the issuance of such approvals. ti Owner elects to proceed with 'any of the improvements set forth herein before the icssuancey of such approvals and after installation of the improvements elect's to abandon its development, Owner, its successors and ae3signes are entitled to the benefits set forth in this Agreement Mrelated to latecomer's a greemonts.provided such improvements are approved and accepted by the City. Except as set forth in this section, thin Agreement shall become null and void if the project is abandoned by the Owner or if a completed development application i6 not filed by ,19 CITY of TUKWILA OWNER Sy L 'd .5- 9o'ei t661'st'i1 • ATTEST /AUTMENTICATED1 Jana E. Cantu, City clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM OFFICE Of' THE CITY ATTORNEY; Y..�.___. STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING i 88 Dy Its BY Ito • I certify that there appealed before me persons thyt x kl.zow or have satisfactory evidence were GARY L. VAN DUSEN and JANE CANTU, who signed this DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT, on oath stated that they are Authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Tukwila, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this 'instrument. DATED* _ = 1 19__ �.._ 'd Notary Public in and for the State) of Washington, residing at My Commission Expiroa -g_ 1CIA1 I6EI'pt' ©t ■ 1.1 all u•.., •... ('. <.',57t.diC; :if a +7Hd STATE OF ) ee COUNTY oB'.__ I certify that there appeared before me a person that I know or have satisfactory evidence was — _, • who signed this DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT, on oath st.nt(dhr' is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledcjed it as the of - , to be tho fro and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes merit {.< need in this instrument. DATED_.. 119 Notary Public in and for tho State of Washington, residing at My Cvmmieeion Sxpiros__ • • DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING AGENDA Friday October 4, 1991 2:30 -4: OOPM @ CH2M Hill 453 -5000 Attending: CH2M Hill C� Ci2AivO4e Lloyd Skinner & } Ikuno Masterson:} John Crull &} Jeff Zahir:} Jack Pace: Robert Betts: The Boeing Company City of Tukwila Tukwila Project Consultant I. DEIS- Topics needing concurrence - TRAFFIC & TRAFFIC MITIGATION - ENERGY & ENERGY MITIGATION II. Proposal Package - Proposal language - Status of actual proposal document III. Design Guidelines and Standards - Organization and Key concepts - Graphics IV. Internal review presentations - Timing of reviews with affected jurisdictions - Boeing Company Divisional presentations V. Conclusions and Wrap Up. Questions? Call Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455 -9640 GA44 ofila mIh- FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CONVERSATION RECORD DATE: 01,-- ( I / t ) TYPE: Visit ❑ Conference AKIN TUE WED THU TIME: ok: 3 le.Ml fiPSAT SUN ❑ Telephone — 0 Incoming 0 Outgoing Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you: Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.) Location of Visit/Conference: 63d) I) Telephone No.: SUBJECT: QJ�j SUMMARY: detk- ��. MST 14w1 ---)-iXi)44=4 )06.0 ,(47)61 F(6 Signature: Title: Date: • • CITY OF T UIi WILA 6200 SU(JTHCENTERBOULEVARl), TUFNILA, WASHINGTON 9 188 September 25, 1991 Mr. Andre Gay, Vice President - Facilities Boeing Support Services PO Box 3707,-MS-13-03 Seattle, WA 98124 l'Il (hVE N (200433-Wu ... _ Gary -L. Van!lawn, Mayor _ _ Subject: Duwamish Corridor Environmental Impact Statement; schedule changes Dear Mr. Gay, The EIS for the Duwamish Corridor proceeds toward publication of the official draft. The process of preparing this document has led to a number of realizations. These pertain to the degree and level of impacts, and the degree and level of subsequent public reviews. Both affect the schedule for completion of the Environmental Impact Statement. The positive news is that the more we worked, the fewer impacts we identified for this type of an EIS. That effort took time, both on the part of your staff, and on the part of the consultants hired to prepare the EIS. To date, the impacts relate principally to transportation, and to land /shoreline uses. In addition, subsequent mitigating measures appear to be straightforward in most cases. Public reviews are just beginning. The success of this programmatic EIS depends on establishing a clear understanding of what the EIS can and can not do. To achieve this, we have met with King County and Seattle to affirm their involvement with the EIS, and to underscore its programmatic content. Our meeting concluded on their commitment to raise the level of review to a policy- making one, rather than allow the process to drop into a preoccupation with project- specific impacts. Mr. Gay Duwamish EIS Schedule September 25, 1991 2 Craig Larsen of King County and Tom Tierney of Seattle asked for time to review the preliminary (pre - publication) Draft EIS, before it becomes a public document. They will arrange for a policy -level comment on this pre publication draft, and in the process we will obtain a reliable indication of any concerns. We anticipate these, agencies will request a similar time for pre - publication review of the Final EIS. We enclose a revised EIS preparation schedule for your reference. Please note that we have added four new tasks. They are marked with an * in the schedule's left hand margin. Two tasks relate to the need for soliciting inter - agency comments. We show each comment period taking a minimum of two weeks. The two other tasks allow time to respond to agency comments. We show each response period requiring a week. For these reasons publication of the FEIS is now estimated to be on March 18th, rather than on January 31st. We are committed to keeping this production as short as possible, and if we can achieve savings in time, without jeopardizing the quality of the EIS, we will take firm steps to do so. In this regard, we wish to complement the work of your associates, Mr. Crull and Mr. Zahir, and of the EIS consultants at CH2MHilI; substantial progress has been made, and you may be sure all of us will be vigilant in producing a document that is usable and serves both the public and The Boeing Company. L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development Encl: EIS preparation schedule cc: Mr. Jeff Zahir & Mr. John Crull, The Boeing Company Mr. Lloyd Skinner, CH2MHilI • • Robert S. Betts, Inc. September 25, 1991 Land Management 700 108th Avenue NE FAX 206/462-9761 Conservation and Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone 206/455 -9640 Development Mr. Jeff Zahir Mr. John Crull F & TSS Planning & Program Support Boeing Support Services PO Box 3707, MS 13 -03 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Subject: Design Guidelines and Standards for the Duwamish Corridor Dear Jeff and John, Our review of the proposed guidelines and standards follows. We think the idea is a good one, and our comments are made to enhance the concepts expressed in the document prepared by Sugio Kobayashi Ullman, Inc.. Overall, we believe the structure would benefit from the perspective of the users of these guidelines. In that spirit, we have enclosed a sample outline. It accepts the Priority I and Priority II categories in the original document. It provides common headings, and suggests that if a topic is already expressed in the other category, that it refers to that topic. This can reduce the bulk, and still provide direction for later administration. The language in the text can be simplified, and it should be more specific. The ideas being expressed are good ones, but their present syntax is obscure and confusing. You will see extensive attempts on our part to re -do this, on the enclosed marked -up copies of the draft. The graphic diagrams which accompany these ideas needs printed notes, rather than the present script text, which is hard to read. In a number of instances, the location is missing of key features such as East Marginal Way and the Duwamish River. One example has "North" upside down, which is an unnecessary variation from conventional presentation. The references to Goals and Objectives must be treated carefully. The Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal already has such statements, and we wonder if the Design Guidelines and Standards need to do anything more than to refer to those in the plan itself. • • Mr. Zahir & Mr. Crull: Duwamish Design Guidelineeptember 25, 1991 2 This type of reference simplifies the document. As presently worded in the design guidelines text there are already conflicts, such as a commitment to install native plants along the Duwamish waterway, and a commitment to develop a system of mass transit routes. We note that the design standards may not meet existing standards. Street Frontage illustrations show "City" requirements: are these Tukwila's, or Seattle's? Shoreline illustrations do not show City or County requirements. We need to see where they are to address them. We also note the diagrams need a consistent set of labels and information. For instance the street frontage design standards show the location of buildings for two of the four sections, and never identify the location of the property line. This type of inconsistency will drive plan reviewers crazy. Which type of property line: front, rear, side, or waterfront? There are other points which reflect our uneasiness that what is presented is too ambitious to be thorough. For instance, Shoreline Trail standards refer to three types, but there is no illustration of Type "C." The Internal Pedestrian System standards describe seven classes. Class F refers to Class D refers to Class B, but the language is unclear as to what is a "major" building, and when is a route "sandwiched" between buildings. Timing is critical here. We believe that the effort so far has been successful, and should be included in the proposal that accompanies the Draft EIS when it is circulated to the agencies in its pre- review draft on the 9th of October. For this set of design guidelines to be part of the proposal, it must be revised and ready for our joint review October 2nd. We are available to work with you closely to meet this schedule. Sincerely, Robert S. Betts, Project Coordinator cc: Jack Pace Encl. • Mr. Zahir & Mr. Crull: Duwamish Design GuidelinSeptember 25, 1991 3 m I GUIDELINES lin - h ry the set of policies and theirdesign standards' Priority One A. Development Along Public Streets 1. Access points 2. Walkways 3. Roadways 4. Airplane crossings 5.Deisgn of buildings 6. Design of Parking lots 7. Amenities -Views - Features & furniture B. Development Along Shorelines 1. Access Points 2. Trails 3. Streambank protection 4. Design of buildings 5. Amenities -Views - Features and furniture - Vegetation C. Development of natural Systems 1. Drainage and stormwater 2. Wildlife 3. Vegetation Priority Two A. Development within sites 1.Walkways 2. Roadways 3. Design of buildings 4. Design of open spaces 5. Amenities -Views - Features and furniture - Vegetation Task May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 1. Project Description 2. Scoping 3. DEIS Preparation a. Land Use Scoping Full • ..._� .—• ...�� b. Transportation c. Earth d. Air ' e. Water f. Plants & Animals g. Energy /Natural Resources h. Environmental Health i. Public Services & Utilities _ 4. Progress Report 5. Internal Review (PDEIS) 6. Revisions - CH2M HILL • 7. Agency Review ' 8. Revisions 9. Internal Review & Revisions 10. Publish DEIS 11. Comment Period 12. Prepare FEIS 13. Internal Review (PFEIS) 14. Revisions '15. Agency Review '16. Revisions 17. Internal Review & Revisions 18. Publish Final EIS • _ .—..,—. ..� _ .,... ... Tasks added 9/24/91 Revised EIS Schedule The Boeing Company Duwamish Corridor Master Plan September 24, 1991 • DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING AGENDA Tuesday September 17, 1991 11:OOAM - 12:30PM aorrc014; G frc -4'wbp , @ City of Tukwila Offices ����^ tt Conference Room 3 @ City Hall �N 60)4 A' - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 431-3686 Attending: Tom Tierney: City of Seattle Lois Schwenneson: King County Phyllis Lamphere & Lloyd Skinner: CH2MHiII Rick Beeler & Jack Pace: City of Tukwila Robert Betts: Tukwila Project Consultant I. Background II. The Proposal -- Developmental Campus: Mix of Military and Commercial Activities -- Shoreline Access Plan -- Transportation Management as a Mitigating Measure -- Design Guidelines as appendix T,Y'h il4-11) At- III. Procedural Is es --Memo of - - between jurisdictions - 6 -d -- Nature of review for a 'Programmatic EIS IV. Peripheral Issues - -Wind Tunnel - -14th Street Bridge - -E. Marginal Way reconstruction - -Metro light rail V. Recap & Next Steps Questions? Call Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455 -9640 M E M O R A N D U M To: Jack Pace, Senior Planner From: Ron Cameron, City Engineer Date: September 7, 1991 Subject: Duwamish Corridor Preliminary Draft EIS Comments, pg 1 [0) [S-EP 0 i19�;1 CITY U,i= 1uNtivi A PLAN: IAifi PEPT. There are three "basic" numbers driving the transportation level of service evaluation - existing, proposed, and capacity volumes. Alternative use distributions are broken out in the EIS - office, manufacturing, and so on. For the EIS evaluation, capacity needs to be added. For example, Table 2 -2 on page 2 -4 shows existing and proposed employee population uses; in addition to the existing and proposed populations, a capacity population needs to be shown. Similarly, this same capacity would be incorporated in tables 2 -3 for estimated employment. Chapter 3 has General Guidelines including Pedestrian Circulation Guidelines. The Ped Circulation Guideline elements - how are they being addressed? On and within site (1), between the street(s) and site (2), and ped travel through the Duwamish corridor (3) are categories of ped travel that occur. Maps, volumes, and similar information would be a means of providing this information by the three categories. This would have subelements for peds, bikes, and transit access for the various ped "corridors ". A special section for ped travel between parking and worksite should be included in the "within site" portion that addresses crossing E Marginal and the River. Public and private trails should be distinguished; access for employees between the worksite and trails (public and private) should be identified. Safety, capacity, control, and particular issues relating to where the public trails /access change to restricted private use need to be addressed. A side "ped" issue that is developing is the river access for canoe /kayaking /boating - this "ped" issue should be addressed as to how public "ped" use on the river relates to restricted /private on site ped ways - what signing or other controls will be used so kayakers know public access to any private shoreline walkways is prohibited, etc. Similarly, will on site kayak /canoe access to the river be allowed or where in the corridor on the east side or the west side can it be provided for public river access? The parking for any public access needs to be included in the identification. (Chapter 4 information). As previously explained, the Chapter 5 statement that a successful TMP would mitigate LOS impacts is doubtful, not quantified, and has no previous record of providing a permanent LOS mitigation that's repeatable. To: Jack Pace, Senior Planner From: Ron Cameron, City Engineer Date: September 7, 1991 Subject: Duwamish Corridor Preliminary Draft EIS Comments, pg 2 A trip generation table using the other CH2M and Entranco studies is needed. The table (5 -6) needs to supplement them with the additional maximum capacity information based on employment of Table 2 -2 and 2 -3. Trip Distribution and assignments for these volumes needs to be tabulated by link and intersection as well as shown on maps (Fig 5 -1, 5 -8). The tables for nodes and links will be main basis for mitigation determination. A "bridge" between the defeciency and final mitigations will be to show ageed to improvements, prior mitigations, their status, and scheduled implementation. The Daily roadway Capacity of Table 5 -1 is misleading for the Duwamish corridor because the hourly distributions are not "normal ". The AWDT data of Table 5 -1 are guides for "normal" hourly distribution arterials, the Duwamish Corridor does not follow a "normal" curve. Level of Service by link and intersection needs to be identified with tabulation as well as mapping. Intersections with E or F identified and correction alternatives indentfied. Mitigations would be developed following review of this information. The 1987 EIS mititgations, frontal improvements required by development since annexation, and other improvements that are agreed to need to be spelled out. The improvements include the frontal (sidewalk /curb /gutter and bus pullouts), drainage agreements for surface water between the widened E Marginal and river, and other related work. Figure 5 -5 accident information needs to be converted to collisions per million vehicle miles of travel; any particular collision patterns such as weaving identified and correction alternives identified. c,tH I I Lt rz LhL I 1 ILL HU Uv °,. L CIS U • .UUl r .UL To: Rick Beeler, Ro,C er " From: Bob Betts `//7 Jam. Subject: Duwamish Corridor Draft EIS; Schedule 1. The schedule for production of the draft EIS has slipped; our estimate Is that it lost one week for publication of the Draft, and two weeks for the Final EIS. its now Oct 15th and Jan 30th. Memo September 5th, 1991 I c` P 0 5 1991 �d 'a ��3 �iia 2. Meeting this new schedule requires several things to happen:, -- Comments from the Public Works Department must be included In the second (and last) Internal draft of the Draft EIS. This Friday (Tomorrow) is the cut -off for comments to be considered for inclusion in the last interm +:raft EIS. - -The end of the comment period for this next internal Draft will be October 2nd, such that any new comments must be completed by this point, - -There Is no opportunity to share an advance review copy with the County and Seattle planing/environmental staffs; they will have to respond to the DEIS. We will have to disabuse them of earlier statements that we would involve them In the internal review process. - -We get the memorandum of agreement signed by Seattle and King County before publication of the Draft EIS. 1 1 The delay In the original schedule is a matter of logistics. Even though this draft was, available In the first week of August, Public Works has been busy. Ron still needs time to personally review the document, and can not do so before September 23rd. We met very briefly yesterday in a "stand -up" meeting. Ron is aware of the problem 01 timing and Its impact on the schedule. He is also aware that Friday Is the cut -off for this round of comments, but new comments will be incorporated in the final review draft. His reservations about the present document focussed on the need for a transportation section that was defensible and Internally consistent. The following points will be included In the September 25th draft: --Average vehicle occupancy (AVO). 1.08 Is documented, with 1.12 on an exceptional basis. A future goal of 1.4 or 1:5 AVO is unrealistic for a Transportation Management Plan to achieve, especially if this TMP is held out as the mitigating measure to prevent congestion on East Marginal Way. -- Future levels of service at intersections affected by the Duwamish Corridor facilities have to depend on a 7 -lane cross section for East Marginal Way; a five lane configuration will not suffice. - -Trip generation rates by Boeing Employees are not the same as from the ITTE manual, and these need to be considered. 4. The EIS on the Duwamish corridor can not analyze impacts from a number of related events, usually because they are not yet resolved: - -The design of East Marginal Way, including provisions for drainage, curb -cuts, bus pull -outs and so on. - -The fate of the 14th/16th Avenue Bridge, and its associated right of way through the Boeing Plant TWo property, - -The fate of the Wind Tunnel for the Seattle City Light parcel along the west side of the Duwamish River. -- Revisions to Tukwila's Shoreline Code, and inconsistencies between the codes of King County, Seattle, and Tukwila. DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING AGENDA Wednesday September 4,1991 1:00 -2:30 PM @ City of Tukwila Offices Suite 100 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 431-3686 Attending: Lloyd & Ikuno- CH2M Jack and Bob - Tukwila I. Procedural Issues & Schedule for DEIS - -Memo of Agreement between jurisdictions -- Meeting with King County & City of Seattle officials II. Transportation Issues -- Management Plan - -PRT /Light Rail - -E. Marginal Way III. Design Guidelines & Standards IV. Facts & Figures Call Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455 -9640 DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY August 20th, 1991 1:30 -3: 30PM @CH2M HILL OFFICES 453 -5000 Security Pacific Plaza Cor NE 8th & 108th Bellevue Attending: Lloyd & Ikuno- CH2M Jeff and John - Boeing Jack and Bob - Tukwila I. Review of features needed in the Draft of the EIS - All ** The Plan ** Its Vision Statement itigation Measu lt: —Shoreline Plan- Crull --1f —Design Standards and Guidelines - IV. Transportation Management Plan - All IDrs Call Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455 -9640 trik ocip 11— { /1 IX 19 1991 CITY OF TtJitb, PIAl1►t'L� DING DEP." Memorandum Date: August 15th 1991 To: PLUG 1 6 1991 Ikuno Masterson & Lloyd Skinner * CH2M II Jack Pace, Rick Beeler * City of Tukwila John Crull & Jeff Zahir * The Boeing From: Bob Betts, R. S. Betts, Inc. Subject: Programmatic EIS, Duwamish Corridor; comments on the first Draft In reviewing the Draft EIS, we noted the EIS needs some additional work on the following topics: Vision. A wonderful planner -wise word, when polished and set out in the front of this document. John Crull and Jeff Zahir are working on a statement of vision. From my perspective it needs to tell the., general public what the Boeing Company is attempting to achieve with this redevelopment plan, and how it intends to do it. We discussed several of these overall ambitions, and I add a couple of mine: -- Redevelopment over 10 years accompanied by predictable and consistent environmental expectations. (Mitigation) - -A revitalized industrial center designed to attract a productive and talented workforce. (21st Century conveniences /services) - -A set of rejuvenated facilities along a rejuvenated shoreline, served by an efficient roadway system. (The industrial campus) -- Access by high- service, high- occupancy systems of transit. (Choice, but with intensity as the outcome) - -A system of compatible land uses which benefit from their location at the transportation hub of the Puget Sound Metropolitan region. (Growth Management). What is the Plan? We need to define in this EIS what it is we are preparing an impact statement for. I view it in the scale and scope of a community plan, which sets forth general expectations for change over time, in this case redevelopment over 10 years. One key expectation is our clear statement that we are adopting a set of development thresholds. Some pertain to design features; others respond to direct environmental impacts. Another expectation is that given Boeing's voluntary adoption of design standards, Tukwila, King County, and Seattle agree to follow them at the time applications are submitted for individual building permits. ► Memo Re First Prelim Draft EIS for Duwamish CorridAugust 15, 1991 2 Design features pertain to public or semi - public spaces and activities, such as for shorelines, walkways, parking, views from public rights -of- way, and drainage design. They will have to be described, and some will have specific locations (such as types of shoreline access). Hopefully East Marginal Way's design will be sufficiently established to eliminate much uncertainty over the types of improvements for curb- gutter- sidewalk areas. Environmental impacts pertain to threshold standards, under which future structures and activities may transit the SEPA gauntlet successfully: No more than 10,300,000 (say) square feet of enclosed space; No more than 40,000 (say) employees at any one time; No more than 15,000 (say) parking spaces; No additional energy consumption above the present (xyz aMwh),etc, etc, etc.. The Environmental Mitigation Plan evolves from this set of general positions. There will be requirements for a transportation management plan. There will be typical design standards for pedestrian walkways at key locations, and for high- occupancy transit facilities, and for street frontage improvements. There will be requirements for landscaping, riverbank treatment, trails and parks along designated sections of the Duwamish waterway. Code Compliance. Part of the mitigation plan is to identify areas of existing codes that contain discrepancies or inconsistencies. There are, for instance, problems with Tukwila's shoreline code, King County's shoreline code, and their associated zoning. The EIS can proceed to identify these as stumbling blocks, and recommend features for their resolution. Mitigation Administration. This requires some clear thinking. Budgets need to be identified for environmental thresholds, such as the levels of vehicular traffic, or trip generation rates for the area. If, at the time a individual project is submitted, and if it can show that it does not exceed the overall standard, then there is no impact to "mitigate." These must be clear, and designed to transcend our personal involvement, and stay alive for 10 years. No small order, but its the goal. • August 14, 1991 4- 7200- JCC -91 -015 Boeing Support Services P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Mr. Jack Pace Senior Planner Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 • Subject: Proposed Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for The Boeing Company sites located in the Duwamish Corridor Dear Mr. Pace: In June of 1990 the Boeing Company entered into an agreement with the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) implementing a TMP to serve as a foundation document for all jurisdictions of the Boeing Company located within King County that require a TMP as part of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A copy of that TMP is enclosed and will be reprinted in the Duwamish Corridor EIS. The Boeing Company has initiated the program actions and incentives required by the TMP at all Boeing sites in the Duwamish corridor. In addition, The Boeing Company is currently revising the TMP to insure achievement of the A.V.O. (average vehicle occupancy) ratio necessary for mitigation of transportation impacts identified by the Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS. The TMP revisions are scheduled for completion by the end of this year, and can be included in the Final EIS which is scheduled for release in mid - January 1992. Program changes will be implemented immediately thereafter. The revisions will comply with the performance standards identified in the new Washington State Commuter Trip Reduction Law (HB16871) passed in May 1991, as well as the TMP objectives identified in the EIS. The revised TMP is being developed in conjunction with Metro and will also be fully coordinated with the three local jurisdictions affected. We hope this TMP will serve as a model program and a basis for the local Trip Reduction Ordinances each affected jurisdiction will have to enact, pursuant to the new State law. E 1 AUG 1 9 1991 A • • The Boeing Company is committed to achieving the ambitious AVO rate needed to mitigate the transportation impacts that would otherwise occur with corridor redevelopment. We look forward to working with Metro, the Cities of Tukwila and Seattle, King County and the State Department of Ecology, to achieve this mutual goal. Sincerely, Jeff Z Project Manager Planning and Program Support 393 -2783 M/S 6Y -59 Enclosure: 1. Existing TMP APPENDIX PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN (TMP) Boeing North Duwamish Campus (NDC) Goal Boeing has entered into an agreement with Metro to jointly pursue methods to reduce single occupant vehicles (SOV) generated by Boeing Company facilities. This master TMP outlines objectives and strategies to achieve this goal as outlined in Attachment A. Objective The objective of the NDC TMP is to reduce volume exiting from the NDC site during the p.m. peak traffic period (3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.) by 5 percent. The existing (1990) volume is 1,310. The objective of the TMP is to reduce that volume to not more than 1,235. Program Actions and Incentives The following specific strategies and incentives are proposed as part of the TMP. These elements are consistent with Directors Rule 24 -88. 1. The owner /tenant shall provide subsidies in the amount of $15 to employees purchasing a monthly bus pass or partic- ipating in a registered public transit agency vanpool. 2. The owner /tenant shall provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. 3. A minimum of 10 percent of the long -term parking spaces shall be designated for carpools. 4. Space for secure and convenient parking for 20 bicycles including locking bicycle racks shall be provided on site. 5. The TMP shall include the following general actions as outlined in DR 24 -88. a. Building Transportation Coordinator b. Periodic Promotional Events c. Commuter Information Center d. Tenant Participation e. Ride Match Opportunities f. Employee Survey g. Reporting h. Program Evaluation ee /cc003 /NDCTMp • • MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is entered into as of June 25, 1990 between The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle ( "Metro ") and The Boeing Company. 1. Metro and Boeing are parties to an Agreement dated as of December 18, 1989 (the "Agreement ") which created an administrative framework for addressing traffic problems of mutual concern to the parties. Addendum No. 1 to the Agreement, also dated December 18, 1989, provided that Boeing and Metro would co- operate to develop, define, and ratify a Master Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to serve as the foundation document for all jurisdictions of Boeing located within King County that require a TMP as part of an Environmental Impact Statement. 2. Attached to this Memorandum of Understanding as Attachment A is a Master Transportation Management Plan. Boeing and Metro each hereby acknowledge, accept, and approve the terms of the Master TMP as attached, and each party hereby agrees that such TMP, as attached, fulfills the parties' respective obligations to develop, define, and ratify a TMP, as provided in the referenced Addendum No. 1. The parties have executed this Memorandum of Agreement as of the date first written above. THE BOEING COMPANY MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE GLB1:062:062290 By/e(i2.6 /5 Its Z P. Dia• F /S/1 • • MASTER TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.0 Purpose and Authority At major work sites Boeing employees represent a significant proportion of the local work force and have a corresponding influence on the local transportation network. The Master Transportation Management Plan offers a cooperative, voluntary and mutual statement of principals for use in guiding future transportation planning efforts designed to minimize the influence of Boeing employees on the Puget Sound regional transportation network. That network includes all forms of surface, roadway transportation. 2.0 Problem Statement A_ Transportation networks serving Boeing sites within the region typically are at or approaching capacity. B. Pressure on the regional transportation network caused by regional growth make action imperative. 3.0 Objectives The Objectives of the proposed Master Transportation Management Plan are to: 1) Improve the ingress and egress of Boeing employees at their workplaces in a timely manner 2) Demonstrate a commitment by The Boeing Company to address regional transportation issues in cooperation with local, regional and state jurisdictions. 3) Either reduce or achieve zero growth in vehicle trips generated from Boeing sites during the Peak P.M. Traffic period (3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.). 4) Decrease Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) use at The Boeing Company work sites. 4.0 Strategies Strategies used in achieving the stated objectives may differ for various Boeing sites. Guidelines for the applicability of specific strategies may be found in Table A.1 (Attached) which identifies appropriate strategies for Urban, Suburban, and Scattered sites. 06/22/90 06/22/90 • • 4.1 Specific strategies to be used in achieving Objective 1: Parking Management Best Engineering and Site Design Practices • Monitoring ' Modal separation 4.2 Specific strategies to be used in achieving Objective 2: ' Transportation Coordinators • Preferred car pool and van pool parking * Continued involvement in regional transportation issues • Adoption of site specific Transportation Management Plans • Establish focal point for generating regional and inter -local agreements on transportation issues. 4.3 Specific strategies to be used in achieving Objective 3: • Bicycle facilities ▪ Work scheduling and facilities locations ' Mode split goals ▪ Exploration of new technologies ▪ Cooperative agreements with local and state transportation agencies ▪ Evaluations 4.4 Specific Strategies to be used in achieving Objective 4: ▪ Promotional Campaigns ▪ Commuter information centers Improved facilities to support transit rideshare and carpool services • Fixed route transit service • Ridematch service • Vanpools ▪ Customized Bus Service ▪ Incentive Program • • 5.0 Implementation 5.1 Site Specific TMP's • Major Boeing sites within the Puget Sound Region will undertake development of a site specific Transportation Management Plan (TM?). These TMP ms will include: 06/22/90 - mode split objective • promotion plan - specific strategies • Major Boeing sites within the Puget Sound Region will appoint an on -site Transportation Coordinator, to implement the TMP's. • Site TMP's will be closely coordinated with the local transit authorities and municipal agencies for consistency with the local transportation goals and objectives. ▪ Site TMP's will develop a comprehensive monitoring and reporting schedule for measuring the effectiveness of the initiatives in accomplishing the objectives. ▪ Site TMP's will be attached to this plan as addenda. 5.2 Measurements Monitoring schedules for all sites will report measurements which provide an aggregate level of performance in attaining the goals and objectives of this plan. Specific ific measurements include, but are not limited to: Baseline vehicle count during P.M. peak (3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.) Site Population (and rate of change) Acreage (and rate of change) On Site Parking Stalls (and rate of change) On Site preferential parking stalls Site HOV use (and rate of change) 53 Periodic review with affected agencies Quarterly meetings will be held with local and regional jurisdictions and authorities affected by this Master Transportation Management Plan. The purpose of these meetings is for regular updates on rogress, problems and program activities which have regional impact and significance. All parties to this plan will meet annually to review the goals, objectives and strategies of this plan and target further specific regional goals. 5.4 Periodic reports on regional progress The findings, conclusions and opinions of the parties to this plan will be summarized annually and reported to all affected agencies. • • Table AA Service Emphasis Type of Site Primary Secondary Urban • Fixed route transit • Ridesharing • Specialized Service Suburban • Ridesharing • Custom Bus • Specialized Service • Fixed Route Service Scattered • Ridesharing • Fixed Route Transit ▪ Custom Bus ' Specialized Service Support Programs Promotion Annual focused campaign Bus zone near building entrances Preferential Parking HOV support facilities Shift scheduling to support HOV use Cost share passes Company -wide passes Restrict parkin supply Carpool incentives 06/22/90 • CONVERSATION RECORD DATE: A6, / )2 / ) TYPE: ❑visit 14 Conference ❑ Telephone— °Incoming 0Outgoing Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you: Itia TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN TIME: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.) JTelephone No.: Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: Drum) sL Cam - q SUMMARY: ativitiq 51-5 ertio4A- 091g_y; Afvf,j4iipc__ ih* 130 INvylrai\ qa‘ Oa- h1/2 Signature: Title: Date: b)--b (P(A//rdi-vpop,, • .thc 4i) amyroN _2_ stt ep g3 1(6)th4 ,Ogc._ -20 (32,pars )-0 (-& • DUWAMISH CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN EIS Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 31, 1991 3:30 p.m. in Conference Room H (14th floor) CH2M HILL 1. Contract Revision Update — inoncl — Schedule Revision Update 3. Feedback on Project Description 4. Other Issues 064A ofn OA- •. Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use Dennis J. McLerran, Director Norman B. Rice, Mayor July 25, 1991 Re: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Programmatic EIS Land Use Review Fees Jeff Zahir, Planner /Economist Boeing Support Services Post Office Box 3707, MS 13 -03 Seattle, Washington 98124 -2207 Dear Mr. Zahir: The Department of Construction and Land Use (DCLU) wishes to bill Boeing directly for costs incurred in reviewing the Duwamish Corridor EIS. We do not believe it is feasible to bill through Tukwila as the lead agency. I would also like to clarify our procedure for billing of land use staff time. DCLU's Fee Ordinance provides for the assessment of fees not expressly covered by the Ordinance, provided they are consistent with the reasonable estimated cost to the City for furnishing such services or materials (SMC 22.900.030). Considerable staff time may be required to review the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Our decision to bill Boeing for land use staff time at the current rate of $110 per hour provides for direct reimbursement of costs. This is reasonable and consistent with the Fee Ordinance. Martin Fricko will remain the primary land use liaison for the review of the Duwamish Corridor Programmatic EIS. Jan Mulder, his supervisor, will also be involved as needed. We will let you know if it becomes necessary to involve other staff people beyond the occasional meeting. Boeing would be billed every few months, depending on the amount of project activity. Please call Martin Fricko or Jan Mulder at 684 -8875, if you wish to discuss this further. Sincerely, DENNIS J. NcLERRAN Director g:mfricko /Boeing, An equal employment opportunity - affirmative action employer. Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use, 400 Municipal Building, Seattle, Washington 98104 ' "Printed on Recycled Paper" J • 1744. Z anik33 Chapter DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED ACTION OVERVIEW ztoleso The proposed action is a master plan for redevelopment of the Boeing property along the Duwamish corridor. Over a 10 -year period (1991 through 2001), The Boeing Com- pany proposes to convert the corridor from a predominantly manufacturing activity center into a research - oriented engineering campus with office, laboratory, and proto- type manufacturing space. The Duwamish corridor, as discussed in this environmental document, is illustrated in Figure 2 -1. The corridor can be described broadly as a 4.5 -mile stretch of land in the valley of the Duwamish Waterway, from Ellis Avenue South on the north to South 124th Street on the south. The majority of the site area lies between East Marginal Way and the Duwamish Waterway, although some parcels of land are east of East Marginal Way and west of the Duwamish Waterway. Figure 2 -1 indicates the 11 major Boeing property parcels in the Duwamish corridor. The study area is primarily in the sea8004 /056.51/1 7/5/91 NORTH OXBOW ADDITION EAST MARGINAL WAY CORPORATE PARK / COMAIISH OFFICE PARK A FAST i �S'9 A 4. Seth RHONE POULENC THCMPSON ISSACSON SITE •, I 1 0 1000 2000 LEGEND Owned Leased Pctetitiai Future Sites for Lease or Purchase Figure 2-- 1 BOEING OWNED AND LEASED PROPERTY AND FUTURE SITES Duwamish Corridor Master Plan EIS • • City of Tukwila. Portions are also in the City of Seattle and in unincorporated King County. The boundaries of these jurisdictions are also shown in Figure 2 -1. The Boeing Company's ownership in the Duwamish corridor now includes approxi- mately 640 acres and about 9,895,000 square feet of developed space. Potential acqui- (' L.ti ;r,•: etc ,r-'J ••Cf-( -! f sitions tcould increase the mpany's ownership to about 730 acres. The proposal is to demolish about 3.1 million square feet of floor area and to construct about 3.5 million square feet of new space. At the completion of the redevelopment, a new total of 10,319,000 square feet of developed space would result. Table 2 -1 indicates the cur- rent and proposed mix of uses. Table 2 -1 Mix of Uses Use Existing Square Feet Proposed Square Feet Percent Change Laboratory/Office Office Manufacturing Flight Linea Total 9,895,000 10,319,000 +4.3 'North Boeing Field. sea8004/056.51R 7/5/91 f • In response to the shift in emphasis from manufacturing to research and development, the mix of employees in the corridor will also change. Whereas the existing facilities can support an employee population of about 25,000, the proposal would increase that number to about 30,000. (Current employment along the corridor is about 20,000, a result of under utilization of many of the corridor's older facilities.) The existing and proposed mix of employees by type of work is illustrated in Table 2 -2. Table 2 -2 Employee Mix Use Employee Population Percent Change Existing Proposed Laboratory/Office 2,500 12,000 +480 Office 11,250 13,500 + 20 Manufacturing 10,000 3,000 - 70 Flight Line 1,250 1,500 + 20 c TOTAL 25,000 30,000 + 20 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The City of Tukwila and The Boeing Company have mutually agreed to review the broad issues raised by the Duwamish corridor master plan in the context of a program- matic environmental impact statement. The City's objectives are to improve its under- standing of the cumulative impacts of the master plan, to increase predictability in the timing and nature of project- specific improvements, to identify mitigation early in the sea8004/056.51q/3 7/5/91 master plan process, to facilitate review of individual permits, and to avoid piecemeal decisionmaking by reviewing the broader plans for corridor redevelopment prior to considering individual projects. The City anticipates entering into a mitigation agree- ment with The Boeing Company after environmental review of the master plan is com- pleted. The agreement would allow the City to monitor individual projects and determine when phased mitigation payments, improvements, or activities are required. The Boeing Company's objectives are to redevelop the Duwamish corridor properties into a modern and attractive research and development campus; to identify early in the process the extent and timing of mitigation to be required, thereby making individual permit review and approval more timely and predictable; and to maintain its flexibility in responding to market forces and opportunities. The Boeing Company anticipates entering into a mitigation agreement with the City of Tukwila consistent with these objectives. MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS Uses The proposed mix of uses falls into four categories: office, laboratory/office, develop- mental manufacturing, and flightline. Characteristics of each are described below. sea8004/056.51 /4 7 /5/91 • • Office. Offices will provide space for research scientists, engineers, and technical ex- perts in a variety of specialized disciplines. Corporate, administrative, and clerical staff will also be located in the work spaces classified as "office" in this study. Other than convenient access to laboratory or manufacturing space, the office uses are not expected to have unusual space or design requirements. New office space typically will be occupied to a density of about one employee per 200 square feet. Common acces- sory or associated uses will include auditorium and cafeteria space and parking. Laboratory /Office. The "laboratory/office" category will be primarily laboratory space but will also include office spaces for the scientists, engineers, and laboratory techni- cians whose work requires frequent use of the research laboratories. An average em- ployee density of about one worker per 400 square feet can be expected for the new laboratory /office space, although this density will vary widely depending on the nature of the research being performed at individual laboratories. Laboratory functions that may be consolidated along the Duwamish corridor include materials technology labora- tories, propulsion laboratories, consolidated laboratories, operations technology, and noise laboratories. Typical accessory uses associated with the laboratory/office uses along the Duwamish Corridor will include storage, staging areas, some specialized utili- ties, and cafeteria space. The different laboratory functions are discussed in more detail below. The Boeing materials technology (BMT) laboratories perform research testing and development on the many different materials used by The Boeing Company, including sea8004 /056.S1q /5 7/5/91 ceramics, finishes and sealants, metals, fabrics, composites, and adhesives. BMT re- search includes physical, chemical, and microstructural testing. The BMT laboratories provide this research for all groups and divisions in The Boeing Company. The BMT buildings are relatively self- contained and require 60 feet of separation between build- ings for safety as well as up to 15 MW of electric power. Propulsion laboratories provide testing and development of propulsion systems to sup- port all Boeing divisions. Specific functions include live engine testing, nozzle testing for exhaust functions, fire and burn testing, and testing of airplane booster and pump- ing systems. The propulsion laboratories are currently located in the flightline area on the east side of East Marginal Way but may be relocated as the master plan is imple- mented (BOEING CONFIRM). Special considerations in location and design of the propulsion laboratories include security (DOD classified status), noise control (propul- sion testing), spill retention and fire detection /fighting systems (jet fuel storage), and air scrubbers (burn test facility). The "consolidated laboratories" are currently located at the Developmental Center. They support a wide variety of laboratory functions, including structural integrity test- ing, testing of mechanical devices and component systems, and electrical system testing. Individual laboratories are highly specialized, but in the aggregate the consolidated laboratories provide integrated support for Boeing's production facilities. These labo- ratories do not need to be located in the classified Developmental Center complex. Special considerations include high -bay (40 feet of clearance) laboratory space for sea8004/056.51/6 7/5/91 mechanical testing, an enclosed test cell for noise control of sonic testing, and access to outdoor field testing areas. The consolidated laboratories require 40 MW of electric power. The operations technology organization performs research with the goal of enhancing production and manufacturing processes. The work is project- oriented and quite di- verse. Because each project requires a segregated work area, work space dedicated to operations technology must be flexible. Currently, operations technology staff are located at the Auburn and Renton plants; relocation will require limited access (some projects will require security), climate control (for the computer data center), and a high bay (uncertainty and flexibility to meet project needs). Finally, the noise technology laboratory performs all the acoustic testing, research, and development for The Boeing Company. Functions include field measurements, materi- als evaluation, component testing, scale model testing, and analysis of noise records (for crash investigations). These functions currently are based at Plant 2, where the facilities have deteriorated and are inefficient. A low -speed aeroacoustic wind tunnel requires a 10 -MW power supply and a noise muffler tower. Developmental Manufacturing. The developmental manufacturing operations are closely allied with The Boeing Company's laboratory research functions. Their primary role is the fabrication, test setup, and monitoring of test articles and prototypes in conjunction with laboratory research. The developmental manufacturing operations sea8004/056.51g/7 7 /5/91 differ from other industrial production facilities because they do not generate large quantities of finished products; rather, they are geared toward developing and testing products in small numbers as part of The Boeing Company's broader research into new technologies and products. The manufacturing space requires shop areas capable of supporting high - precision work in many different materials; the machinists need to be able to produce very close tolerance products in materials often dictated by emer- gent technologies. Access to the three established East Marginal Way roadway cross- ings is required, as well as high -bay space and availability of 6 MW of electric power. Noise controls also will be required. Common access ry uses will include storage and staging areas, specialized utilities, and cafeteria space. The Boeing pmpany anticipate^ an average employee density of one worker for each 2,000 square feet of develop- mental manufacturing space. Flightline. Flightline operations along the Duwamish orridor are located on the east side of East Marginal Way. Primary uses include engin testing, aircraft painting, and fueling, while accessory uses include specialized utilities and storage and staging areas. The proposal would expand flightline operations in the northern portion of the project area, displacing current laboratory/office and manufacturing space. Development Guidelines The master plan proposes to incorporate design guidelines for bulk and scale, pedes- trian and vehicle circulation, landscaping and open space, and color and materials. sea8004/056S1q/8 7/5/91 • • Bulk and Scale. To follow Circulation. To follow Landscaping/Open Space. To follow Color and Materials. To follow OFFICE CENTER ALTERNATIVE The office center alternative would include the same four uses as discussed for the proposed action. The mix of these uses would be different, however, with this alterna- tive having a greater concentration and larger absolute number of office employees than the proposal or existing conditions. Total employment in the Duwamish corridor would increase from the existing capacity of 25,000 to approximately 40,000, with about 60 percent of this number (24,000) being office workers. Laboratory/office employment would be increased as well, to about 12,000 (the same as for the proposed action). Essentially, the office center alternative would allow rede- velopment of the Duwamish corridor into an engineering research campus similar to the proposed action but with larger office buildings containing more office workers. sea8004/056.51/9 7/5/91 • • MANUFACTURING CENTER ALTERNATIVE This alternative would maintain the current focus of the Duwamish corridor as an industrial and manufacturing center. Deteriorated and outmoded facilities would be upgraded to allow more efficient use of the area. Total square footage and employ- ment would remain stable, but production rates would increase, and the products being manufactured would evolve to meet market demands. NO- ACTION ALTERNATIVE The no- action alternative is discussed throughout this environmental document to pro- vide a common point for comparison with other alternatives. Currently planned and programmed improvements to the street system would be completed, and normal, incremental modifications to the Boeing facilities in the Duwamish corridor would continue, but major redevelopment to upgrade the manufacturing facilities would not occur. Table 2 -3 summarizes the changes in employment for each of the alternatives studied in this document. Table 2 -4 shows the changes in square footage by type of use for each alternative. sea8004 /056.51!10 7 /5/91 Table 2 -3 Estimated Employment for the Proposed Project. and Alternatives Type of Use Exist ng Conditions' Proposed Project Office Center ' Alternative` Manufacturing Center Alternative' No- Action Alternative Number of Employees Percent Number of Employees Percent Number of Employees Percent Number of Employees Percent Number of Employees Percent Developmental Manufacturing 10,000 40 3,000 10 2,000 5 10,000 40 Office 11,250 45 13,500 45 24,000 60 11,250 45 Laboratory/ Office 2,500 10 12,000 40 12,000 30 2,500 10 Flight Line 1,250 5 1,500 5 2,000 5 1,250 5 TOTAL 25,000 100 30,000 100 40,000 100 25,000 100 sea8004/071q.51 sea8004/071q.511 7/5/91 • • Table 2 -4 Estimated Square Footage by Use for the Proposed Project and Alternatives Type of Use Existing Conditions Proposed Project Office Center Alternative Manufacturing Center Alternative No- Action Alternative Square Feet Percent of Total guar feet Percent of Total Square Feet Percent of Total Square Feet Percent of Total Square Feet Percent of Total Developmental Manufacturing Office Laboratory/ Office Flight Line TOTAL 9.9 million 100 10.3 million 100 sea8004/073q.51 sea8004/073q.511 7/5/91 • • SEHTTLE RERLTY • oNo .206 -455 -2251 24,9i 16:30 No .004 F.02 DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING ACNDA THURSDAY JULY 25TH 2PM @ City of Tukwila OFFICES 431 -3686 \I. Discuss timetable /schedule for the preliminary draft EIS \ II. Review the Work Plan V III. Discuss the budget for preparation of the DEIS fled - aim. 411a � 1'rw1 �o ' IV. Evaluate the range of mitigation measures & their documentation -- Traffic and Parking -- Shoreline & Access -- Landscape along East Marginal Way -- Public Transit (Rail & Bus) Any further information, discussion? Call Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455.9640 11 WI 2 4 1991 CITY OF TUKvvILA PLANNING DEPT. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 PHONE # (206) 4331800 June 25, 1991 Duwamish Corridor Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement What Is Happening? This project involves many buildings, and diverse activities of the Boeing Company. It =. also reflects that some of the structures located here are obsolete, and are inappropriate for future activities. In .. - -. - terms of numbers, the scale is vast. The Company expects that in the next 10 years, it will need to remove around - 3,000,000 square feet of existing space and replace it with 3,500,000 square feet of new space. The number of employees may change as well. The present level of employees (around 25,000) may grow to as much as 40,000. The number of acres of land involved may increase from its present 640 acres to as much as 750 acres. Cary L. VanDusen. Manor In order to accommodate this sort of change, the Boeing Company has voluntarily agreed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). What Is a Programmatic EIS? It is an impact statement that is prepared to address general policies and programs. It addresses a plan, rather than a specific project. Viewed that way, the plan is like a road map. The Duwamish Corridor Programmatic EIS is designed to address the sorts of issues involved in the redevelopment of these older buildings. For instance, it will discuss traffic and transportation. Will East Marginal Way be more crowded? What sorts of improvements will be necessary to keep or improve the levels of public services there? What should be the timing of needed improvements? How much should be Boeing's share to take care of these improvements? There are other topics that the programmatic EIS will address, such as land use, design, shorelines, water quality, and so on. The Programmatic EIS does not eliminate the need for specific environmental reviews of individual buildings with specific sets of activities. It sets the overall procedures for evaluating subsequent proposals, and as long as these projects do not exceed the standards within the programmatic EIS, then they can proceed without additional impact statements. The process is aimed at, providing predictability for the general public, and for the Boeing Company. The intention is that subsequent projects in the Duwamish Corridor will be reviewed in the context of a fair and consistent set of expectations: What the Boeing Company will be doing and what public policies will be applied to guide the redevelopment of the area. Are there Questions? You have several resources: The City of Tukwila Department of Community Development is coordinating the preparation of the EIS. Project Manager: Robert S. Betts 455-9640 The Boeing Company is providing information Project Contact: Jeff Zahir 544-1833 CH2M HILL is preparing the EIS Project Planner: Lloyd Skinner 453 -5000 �Y o MINUTES BOEING EIS - DUWAMISH CORRIDOR PUBLIC HEARING June 25, 1991 Attending the meeting were Rick Beeler, Director Community Development; Jeff Zahir from the Boeing Co.; Lloyd Skinner from CH2M Hill; Bob Betts, Program Manager; and Jack Pace, Project Lead. Rick Beeler called the public hearing to order. Mr. Beeler provided background information regarding the Programmatic EIS for Boeing. He stated that the scoping process is intended to narrow the scope of the EIS to the probable, significant, adverse impacts, reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures. It's to hear from the public and other agencies which have some interest in this program. Jeff Zahir provided a brief summary of the project. He noted the need to replace obsolete facilities, to consolidate activities, and to create a campus for engineering, research and development. The thrust is to phase from manufacturing uses into these other activities and have employment go from its present level of around 25,000 to possibly as high as 40,000 in the area. Lloyd Skinner described CH2M Hill's role in preparing the programmatic EIS, and the timing for completion of draft and final EIS. The public hearing was then opened. Stu Garnett, Allentown: He noted his concern for the near obsolescence of E. Marginal Way, and the need for an adequate number of schools for the increased population due to the redevelopment. He also stated that his neighborhood did not want and were strongly opposed to having sewers. His concern was that Boeing's expansion might require sewers in the area, and if so, assessments of as much as $6,000 per lot would adversely affect them. He was also concerned that Boeing not be singled out to pay for things which were the obligations of the general public. Mr. Ed Wolf asked if there would be a plan for rapid transit, other than Metro, to connect facilities and to reduce the need for parking lots. Rick Beeler closed the public hearing and the meeting was adjourned. Prepared by Sylvia Appleton, Tukwila DCD. • PROJECT DESCRIPTION • DR:.FT JUL 25 'p. The proposed plan would provide long term guidance for the redevelopment of the 4.3 mile industrial area identified as the Duwamish Valley corridor. The plan proposes redevelopment of obsolete manufacturing facilities into a campus of modern developmental engineering facilities. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON - PROJECT ACTIONS 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? Water Discharge The proposed plan recommends dedication of approximately 35% of the subject area to open space uses. Surface water runoff would be minimized by incorporating bio- filtration and on -site retention into site landscaping and passive recreational uses. It is anticipated that there would be a net reduction in NPDES permit requirements and total runoff volumes. Air Emissions The proposed plan recommends relocation manufacturing activities and associated air emissions to other modern Boeing facilities. All proposed relocations would be coordinated with the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority (PSAPCA). It is anticipated that there would be a net reduction in PSAPCA and DOE permit requirements for the proposed plan. Hazardous or Toxic Substances The proposed plan recommends the development of developmental and testing laboratories to meet existing and future needs. Many of these laboratories would utilize state of the art technologies which may require use of toxic or hazardous substances. Generally, smaller volumes of hazardous and toxic substances are required in development and testing than in production. It is anticipated that there would be a net reduction in DOE permit and SARA reporting requirements for the proposed plan. • • Noise The proposed plan recommends redevelopment of approximately 12 acres of leased Boeing Field property from propulsion labs and T- hangars to flightline positions. This increased capacity for aircraft would increase potential flight operations and ambient noise levels as measured on a 24 hour event scale. The plan also recommends location of an advanced, high speed wind tunnel along the western bank of the duwamish river within the subject area. The noise impacts of this proposal are uncertain at this time. Mitigating Measures Water - None required Air Emissions - None required Hazardous and Toxic Substances * The joint Boeing -DOE hazardous substance minimization agreement * Adherence to existing permit and reporting requirements * Active development of non- hazardous technologies * On site, pre- treatment facilities Noise * Continued development of quieter aircraft engines * Coordination with Boeing Field environmental engineers * Noise buffers and fences * Dense foliage landscaping • • 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed plan recommends enhancement of the 200 foot shoreline as defined by RCW 43.21 for landscaped open spaces and passive recreational use. It is anticipated that the proposed recommendations would result in an enhanced habitat for plants, animals and fish commonly found in the region. Mitigating Measures None Required • • 3. How would the measure be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed plan recommends use of electrical and natural gas resources. Electrical uses would include manufacturing functions and power supply to laboratories. The primary use of natural gas would be to power central heating boilers throughout the subject area. Redevelopment of the area proposes replacement of non - energy efficient structures with energy efficient structures. It is anticipated that the cumulative impacts of energy conservation and increased electrical use of the proposed plan would result in no net increase in the use of energy or natural resources. Mitigating Measures For specific mitigating measures see question 6 (Utilities) • • 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for government protection; such as parks, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposed plan recommends demolition of the Seattle City Light Power Plant currently located on North Boeing Field. This structure has been registered on the national, state and local Historic registers as a historic monument of this region. Federal, State and local agencies are currently studying regulations for the protection of water quality in the Duwamish river and Puget sound. Mitigating Measures The proposed plan recommends dedication of land areas abutting the Duwamish river for designated open space and preservation. • • 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Land Use The proposed plan recommends redistribution of manufacturing uses to sites outside of the subject area and redevelopment of the site as an office /laboratory campus. All proposed uses would be consistent with the existing Industrial land use designations and Heavy Industrial zoning classifications found within the subject area. Implementation of the planned development may encourage similar "spin -off' developments of a similar campus nature on abutting industrial sites. Development Laboratory and industrial uses along the west bank of the Duwamish Waterway is in conformance with the Industrial classification and zoning found in this portion of the King County and Seattle Land Use Plans. Shoreline use Designation of significant amounts of open space along the banks of the Duwamish River are consistent with existing Shoreline Management regulations of the local municipalities. Provision of employee and public access to this shoreline would be consistent with the intent of the existing shoreline regulations. Mitigating Measures Where proposed projects within the subject area would be incompatible with surrounding uses landscaped buffers and an visual screens would be employed to minimize this impact. • • 6. How would the proposed project be likely to increase the demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Transportation Implementation of the proposed plan is not anticipated to result in a net increase in the employment population currently found in the subject area. Existing service levels and access points may be impacted with continued expansion and growth in the region. Transportation is provided to the subject area by Metro, Union- Pacific Railroad, Federal, state and local roadways and the King County International Airport. Although the Duwamish Waterway is maintained as a navigable waterway, there is no active use of the waterway for access to Boeing sites. Public Services Boeing provides on -site security, emergency medical and fire protection services for all Boeing sites. There are no long term service requirements anticipated as a result of the proposed plan. Utilities The proposed plan recommends continued service by the following utilities Seattle City Light - Electricity Seattle Water - Water Metro - Sewer Washington Natural Gas - Natural Gas Pacific Northwest Bell - Telephone Electricity Implementation of the recommended plan would develop many facilities which would require peak electricity loads above the existing structures for such activities as a high speed wind tunnel and autoclaves. Water No net increase in domestic water consumption is anticipated by implementation of the proposed plan. Additional water pressure may be required for fire protection in proposed structures. • • Sewer No net increase in sewerage is anticipated as a result of implementation of the proposed plan. Existing capacity is adequate to meet anticipated needs. Natural Gas No net increase in natural gas consumption is anticipated. Telephone Potential uses for the structures proposed by the plan may require additional telephone and data communications links. The capacity of the existing systems is unknown at this time. Mitigating Measures Transportation Significant improvements to the service level of East Marginal Way South have been cited as mitigating measures within the 1988 DEIS for the Development Center Additional mitigation of traffic impacts are anticipated as a result of implementing the Boeing /Metro Transportation Master Plan (attached). Electricity Synchronous motor operation within the wind tunnels may provide sufficient power to allow the facility surplus power for co- generation. Peak loads may be redistributed to take advantage of this. Fire Protection On -site water storage may be used to supplement water pressure in fire protection lines to proposed structures. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 PHONE # (206) 4331800 City of Tukwila PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development will conduct a public hearing on June 25, 1991 at 7:00 P.M. at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., to consider the following: Public Hearing CASE NUMBER: EPIC -21 -91 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company REQUEST: The Boeing Company proposes the redevelopment of approximately 750 acres of industrial and manufacturing land along a 4.5 mile section of East Marginal Way. The primary goal of the redevelopment is to replace aged manufacturing production facilities. The company plans to focus these redevelopment efforts over the 1992 -2002 period. The proposal involves replacement of approximately 3.0 million feet with 3.5 million square feet of building area. These facilities are expected to have a capacity of 30,000 employees, up from the present capacity of 25,000 employees. The proposal includes removal of some existing on -grade parking to accomodate a combination of cluster and sattelite parking and to encourage use of enhanced mass transit services. Two alternatives to the proposal will be analyzed in the EIS: 1. Administrative Center - -- This scenerio would be based on a population of approximately 40,000 employees. Redevelopment would intensify administrative and support activities in the Duwamish Cooridor. Page 2 EPIC -21 -91 2. Manufacturing Center -- This alternative would be based on a population of approximately 25,000 employees, primarily involved in manufacturing activities. The Boeing Company has voluntarily agreed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this proposal. A notice of the scope of the EIS was published May 5th, asking for comments from the general public. The closing date for comments was May 31st. The public hearing is in response to the comments received by that date. The purpose of the hearing is to provide a forum for the general public to learn about the proposal. This will enable people to ask questions about the content and timing of the EIS. It will also provide the Boeing Company to hear of any concerns or suggestions that would assist in preparation of the EIS. The EIS is expected to be published in draft form in late September, and in final form in late December, 1991. LOCATION: A 4.5 mile section of East Marginal Way generally bounded on the South by South 128th Street and on the North by Ellis Avenue South, in the vicinity of Boeing Field. Persons wishing to comment on the above case may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Valley Daily News June 12, 1991 cc: City Clerk, Mayor, Applicant INTERSTATE 5 INTERSTATE 5 BOEING 10 YEAR PLAN PROGRAMMATIC EIS DRAFT SCHEDULE ACTION SCHEDULE 1. Consultant provides scope of 2 Weeks work for review by team. 2. Scoping notice reviewed by team 5 Weeks and issued for 30 day comment period. 3. Team agrees on draft EIS 3 -4 Months contents and provides pre- liminary draft EIS to team 4. Team provides review /comments 6 -8 Weeks on Preliminary Draft EIS to consultant. 5. Consultant provides Draft EIS 6 -8 Weeks to team for final approval. 6. Team reviews and gives final 2 Weeks approval to Draft EIS prior to publication. 7. Consultant makes final revisions to Draft EIS prior to publication. 1 Week 8. Tukwila publishes Draft EIS 7 -8 Weeks with 30 -45 day comment period. 9. Team and consultant respond to 1 -2 Months comments received and consultant After end of provides preliminary Final EIS comment period. to team. 10. Team reviews and gives final approval to Final EIS prior to publication. 2 Weeks 11. Consultant makes final revisions to Final EIS prior to publication. 12. Tukwila publishes Final EIS. 1 Week 2 Weeks Page 2 This schedule assumes that this is a programmatic EIS with a general level of detail and that Tukwila contracts for project coordination. R/W 42' 72' SI 8' WALK VARIES 30' TO 35' 12' 11' 11' 12' 11' 11' 12' 2" ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT CL. B. OVERLAY. - - - -- oesiro rAMm1 __________________________________ umumi.,"■■ A4a...4111Filr VARIES SEE PLANS VARIES 42' TO 60' ROADWAY SECTION A APPROX. STA. 47 +50 TO 56 +50 N.T.S. R/W Q 72' 2" ACP CL. B. 6" ASPHALT TREATED BASE 8' 5' ce 12' DEWALK 11' 11' 12' 11' 12' OCf100 PAK1011 _ n i_Z ROADWAY SECTION B APPROX. STA. 56 +50 TO 65 +00 N.T.S. 2" MIN. ACP. CL. B. OVERLAY. seem TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTIONS MUM ENTRANCO *maw EAST MARGINAL WAY • MESS • S1:1EIMSIS • FLAAIM • SURIE11a4S BOEING ACCESS ROAD TO NORTH CITY LIMITS NOT TO SCALE 62' 33. 62' R/W 12' 1 11' 2" MIN. ACP. CL. 8. OVERLAY. 38' 12' 6" ROADWAY SECTION D APPROX. STA. 90+50 TO 129 +00 N.T.S. R/W 38' VARIES 35' TO 47' 8' SIDEWALK 5' 12' 11 11' 11' 12' 11' 12' 2 77r -^1� TIT Tr I =: / / ............. .- '---�_i =i i �� OasD10 ►ref 2" ACP CL B. 6" ASPHALT TREATED BASE 2" MIN. ACP. CL. B. OVERLAY. VARIES SEE PLANS OESIMUMMBE. -_ ROADWAY SECTION C APPROX. STA 76 +50 TO 90 +50 N.T.S. NASNNOTON ADANA ENTRANCO ENGINEERS • SC7E nsm • PLANNERS • 31IRYE)O4S TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTIONS NOT TO SCALE EAST MARGINAL WAY BOEING ACCESS ROAD TO NORTH CITY LIMITS ER.1�. Track 5 • • shrub pleni'inc sl ooe. shrub -4- bed +0 read 4, math ext5f!n q rade .s ;tb 1x15hno r -14- rac TJ✓ new, plan +ing soil (mnrnNum ten inch depth) I�tl�ll' pll� .11�il�l�ll�ll�(I�II�II�.I�(I�1 5 Shrub plarrh. exlslr1 rail road +rack new concre°e curb49ut'er II�►I�I1 1 1L loll lull U raked curb ed� qe �`'x co" wood -h bers. C ) Ili 1(EIIIC I new plant' rr loll (wrnriurn en Inch depth) Shrub bed ed9m al%erna-�wES ai- rail- road iracK. East /�1ar� 1 na�� of Tukwila,V�ashinJc}'on noi��oscale Hough Beck & Baird Inc. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING UHUAN DESIGN DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Notes on:the_ 1F- BLICYHEARING June 25, 1991 Rick Beeler opened the hearing, and explained the SEPA process, and his role as the responsible official. He introduced other involved individuals and their roles: Zahir from Boeing, Skinner from CH2M Hill, Betts as Tukwila's project manager, and Pace as Tukwila's Senior Planner. Jeff Zahir then described the intended program for redevelopment of Boeing's facilities along East Marginal Way. He noted the need to replace obsolete facilities, to consolidate activities, and to create a campus for engineering, research and development. The thrust is to phase from manufacturing uses into these other activities, and have employment go from its present level of around 25,000 to possibly as high as 40,000 in the area. Lloyd Skinner described CH2M Hill's role in preparing the programmatic EIS, and the timing for completion of draft and final EIS. The hearing was then opened. Two citizens spoke. Mr. Stewart Garnett from the Duwamish Improvement Club spoke. Aside from recounting his personal experience growing up in the area, [ mud flats and fields], he observed that East Marginal Way had to be a pain in the neck for the Boeing Company. He was concerned that increased employment may have impacts on Tukwilas schools. He also identified that his neighborhood did not want and were strongly opposed to having sewers. His concern was that Boeing's expansion might require sewers in the area, and if so assessments of as much as $6,000 per lot would adversely affect them. He was also concerned that Boeing not be singled out to pay for things which were the obligations of the general public. [Mr. Gardiner subsequently brought forth a Valley Daily News editorial of June 16th, which addressed that tax reforms are needed, and not another tax on Boeing itself]. Mr. Ed Wolf asked if there would be a plan for rapid transit, other than Metro, to connect facilities and to reduce the need for parking lots. Rick Beeler then closed the Public Hearing. Present, in addition to those above, were one unidentified member of the audience, and attorneys for the Boeing Company (McCann and Hansel!), and Martin Fricko from DCLU. Prepared by Robert Betts, Project Manager 455 -9640 July 23, 1991 4- 7200 -JC -91 -0129 To: cc: Lloyd Skinner CH2M Hill Ikuno Masterson CH2M Hill ;p ;Bo]? Betz ° q City of Tukwila Koichi Kobayashi SKU Andy Gay 13 -03 Dick McCann 1E -14 Michele Giusiana 13 -08 Paul Seely 14 -49 Kris Hendrickson 7E -EJ Subject: Duwamish Corridor DEIS Reference: Matrix of issues identified during the Scoping process In response to a request received at our last EIS meeting (6/19/91), we have created a reduced version of the EIS wall chart listing environmental issues. These EIS issues were identified by public agencies during the Scoping process. A copy of the matrix is enclosed. Jeff Zahir, Planner Org. 7200, MS 6Y -59 Enclosure jut_ 3 0 1991 DUWAMISH CORRIDOR PROGRAMATIC EIS BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE 1990 1991 199 NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN Quarterly Meetings with Agencies 1.0 CONSULTANT SELECTION 1.1 EIS Consultant 1.2 Project Coordinator 1.3 Landscape Architect 2.0 SCOPING 2.1 Project Description 2.2 Charretts 2.3 Scope Issue and Comment 2.4 Public Hearing 3.0 PRELIMINARY DRAFT EIS 4.0 REVIEW 5.0 DRAFT EIS 6.0 FINAL EIS AS OF 26 JUL 1991 16 21 2 • 0 r- 0 0) 5 2 8 10 6 w10 15 15 2 Y 15 Ll 2 • JUL 0 12 12 2 • AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN 5 2 v 5 16 7 c/) 16 CHART NO. NONEIS RESPONSIBILITY - J. ZAHIR COMMENTING AGENCIES 00 Duwamish Corridor DEIS Issues Identifed In Scoping Process ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT • Grading and filling plan to be addressed in plan • Requires estimates of existing VOC emissions and estimated volumes at buiidout ENERGY &`: 'NATURAL: RESOURCES .TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC SERVICES'& UTILITIES • Sensitive areas ordinance impacts Berkley site • Requests discussion of proposed filling of slip • New sensitive areas ordinances may identify shoreline and seismic hazard areas for increased regulation • Department of Ecology cleanup • Trade -off policy for VOC's plans in non-attainment area • Weirs and baffels to prevent siltation during excavation • Wants to use Boeing storm water outfalls for East Marginal Way runoff • Will suggest extensive swales and berms for biofiltration • Will impose hydrology model to estimate runoff and storm water plan • Will suggest extensive swales and berms for blofiltration • Wants to create 'urban wildlife' habitat through landscape plan • Duwamish Office Park North may be an archeological site • Stream bank enhancement • Region 10 of Northwest Indian fishing rights commission treaty fishing rights for the Muckleshoot Indians • Washington Dept of Fisheries is encouraging setbacks from shoreline to protect habitat • Seatle City Light would like energy conservation measures incorporated Into the site design standards • Anticipates an accounting of SARA lists and volumes • Spin -off development may be an impact • Wants analysis of impacts on Southeast Seattle plans • Will insist on public access to river • Desires pedestrian trail connecting Oxbow to the Museum of Flight • Will use Boeing shoreline design and setback standards as foundation for new city shoreline management plan • Is amenable to defining 'public access' as 'employee access' to shoreline • Has requested that the proposed development increase density to favor mass transit • Strongly favors industrial 'design standards' over other mitigating measures • Consolidate transit stops • Improved 1 -5 access for Southeast Seattle via Boeing • New directors rule on transportation management plans • Look for additional pedestrian bridges across Duwamish if Coast Guard limits navigable waterway to a fixed 14th Avenue Bridge • Scoping comments of 5/31191 focus on need to assess impacts of development on origin - destination of Boeing employees • Satellite parking • Light rail along E Marginal Way • Consolidate transit stops • Integrate design of transit stops as 'front door' of the campus (co- locate with general employee uses) • Currently perceives an I.O.U. from Boeing in excess of $10 million based on 1986 Oxbow EIS and East Marginal Way improvements • Would like to see an integration of public transport and pedestrian circulation systems • Perceives employee services (termed linkages) such as cafeterias, bank machines and recreation facilities as attractive for coiocation wtih transit centers • City Light will expect a detailed analysis of energy use and service requirements • Wants Boeing to use City utilties instead of Seattle utilities • Environmental affairs should monitor and advise on mitigations specified in DEIS Present comprehensive spill containment and countermeasures plan • Have Dept of Fisheries Identify shoreline and habitat enhancements • Review new section 404 permit requirements for impacts to development • Push *employee access' as equivalent to 'public access' • Indicate no change in population • Highlight off-load of transportation terminal • Avoid association with Longacres • Highlight TMP and TDM initiatives CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKW /LA, WASHINGTON 98188 June 21, 1991 Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use 400 Municipal Building Seattle, WA 98104 -1800 Attention: Martin Fricko Land Use Specialist Dear Martin, PHONE # (206) 4331800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor We are proceeding with the preparation of the draft EIS on the Boeing Duwamish Corridor redevelopment program. Your comments on the scope are useful and will be included in the review. Alternative 1 (Administrative Center) is included to explore the opportunities and impacts of a higher- density employment center in the Duwamish Corridor. The alternative is consistent with the Growth Management Act, and from a regional perspective, may not necessarily result in greater environmental impacts. This approach is supported by Seattle's SEPA Ordinance, which stresses flexibility in exploring alternatives for nonproject EIS actions. The Programmatic DEIS will address, in broad terms, the concerns highlighted in your response letter for the following elements of the environment: earth; plants & animals; land & shoreline use; transportation; and construction & demolition impacts. The EIS consultants will discuss the project's consistency with the following Community Plans: Port of Seattle Comprehensive Public Access Plan for the Duwamish Waterway; the South Park Neighborhood Plan; the Rainier /Genessee Redevelopment Study and Business District Plan; the Empire Rainier Development Project; and the King County Highline Community Plan. Economic factors, especially as they relate to employment and housing, will be discussed in general terms in the Draft EIS. Sincerely, L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 June 21, 1991 METRO Exchange Building 821 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 Attention: Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Compliance Division PHONE # (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Dear Mr. Bush, We are proceeding with the preparation of the draft EIS on the Boeing Duwamish Corridor redevelopment program. Your comments on the scope are useful and will be included in the review. Transportation and land use provide the major focus of analysis in this Draft EIS, as they are the two elements of the environment which could potentially experience the most adverse impacts as a result of the proposal. We will be working closely with Metro and the Boeing Company in regard to both transportation management and those urban design elements that support a combination of public transit and High Occupancy Vehicle usage. Accordingly, topics that will be discussed in the Draft EIS include: Programmatic Transportation Management Plan Transit/High Occupancy Vehicle usage, including status of rail /HCT planning Planned /programmed improvements Vehicular circulation Accidents Parking Non - motorized travel Movement of goods Again, thank you for your comments. Sincerely, L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 June 21, 1991 Seattle City Light 1015 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-1198 Attention: Lynn Best, Assistant Director Encironmental Affairs Division Dear Lynn, PHONE # (206) 433 -1800 Cary L VanDusen, Mayor We are proceeding with the preparation of the draft EIS on the Boeing Duwamish Corridor redevelopment program. Your comments on the scope are useful and will be included in the review. The EIS willl be appropriate to a programmatic proposal rather than to a project- specific one. A general analysis of energy impacts will be presented. It will include impacts related to: demolition and construction; operations; lifetime energy use and cost estimates including rate impacts, and cumulative effects on the natural environment. We have transmitted the SCL handout the EIS consultants at CH2M HILL in regard to disclosing and analyzing energy impacts of new structures. Depending on impacts, energy- efficient design and operation will be discussed. Additionally the EIS may include a review of alternative energy sources such as co- generation. Sincerely, L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 June 21, 1991 Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Building Olympia, WA 98504 Attention: Gayle Kreitman Regional Habitat Manager Habitat Management Division Dear Gayle, PHONE 11 (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Thank you for your comments on the scope of the programmatic EIS for the Duwamish Corridor. Stormwater runoff will be addressed, both in terms of water quality and public utilities. A general discussion will be provided of stormwater impacts to both fish and wildlife. Buffers and building setbacks will be addressed as part of the shoreline section of the EIS. We have transmitted the WDF's stormwater management guidelines to our EIS consultants at CH2M HILL. Again, thank you for your comments. Sincerely, L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 June 21, 1991 King County Environmental Affairs Division 3600 - 136th Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 -1400 PHONE # (206) 433 -1800 Attention: Barbara Questad, Acting Chief, SEPA Section Dear Barbara, Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Thank you for your comments on the scope of Boeing's programmatic EIS for the Duwamish Corridor. You are correct in your assumption that the EIS will address the issues discussed in our meeting of April 9th and as summarized in two subsequent memoranda. Transportation and land use provide the major focus of analysis in this Draft EIS, as they are the two elements of the environment which could potentially experience the most adverse impacts as a result of the proposal. We will be working closely with King County and the Boeing Company in regard to these issues. For your information, the Draft will be doing the following: Transportation. There will be a general discussion of commuter and light rail potential of the site as well as a summary of the studies to date. Boeing's involvement in the various transportation management programs will be discussed. Status of the 16th avenue bridge will be summarized, too. In regard to vehicular traffic, the EIS will present trip generation characteristics and will discuss impacts to the levels of service on the existing road network. Land Use. There will be a summary of Boeing's overall development in the four - county region, and this proposal's relationship to the overall development. The status of the wind tunnel facility will be presented, although at this point we understand that the Boeing Company does not believe it to be feasible for the Puget Sound region. While research is still underway, preliminary findings indicate that the proposed developmental engineering campus will employ Boeing workers who are already located in King County. The EIS will also provide a general discussion of indirect impacts to area businesses. The EIS will address any impacts on trails in the area. It will look at their function for both recreation, access to the Duwamish River and for non - motorized transportation. Alternatives will be proposed to mitigate impacts, if any. Ms. B. Questad Boeing Duwamish Corridor EIS June 21, 1991 2 Other. Issues of water quality will be addressed, including any impacts to fisheries. As part of any mitigation measures, there will be a discussion of enhancements to streambanks. Again, thank you for your comments. Sincerely, L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development ® Engineers ® Planners Economists Scientists Clal H11L June 19, 1991 SEA31760.A0 Jeff Zahir Planner/Economist F &TSS Planning & Program Support Boeing Support Services P.O. Box 3707, MS 13 -03 Seattle, Washington 98124 -2207 Dear Jeff: Attached ,is our list of information needs, not to be construed as the end -all of our information requests. It would be helpful to have this data in a written format. But a phone call with answers would be helpful where it looks like getting that information in writing may take time. The project description and origin/destination studies are probably the most critical. The " *" items are ones that you may already be working on since we requested them earlier. Let me know if there are items that need clarification. Sincerely, CH2M o asterson Planner Attachment cc: t:B Betts` CH2M HILL Seattle Office 777 108th Avenue N.E., Bellevue, WA 98004 206.453.5000 P.O. Box 91500, Bellevue, WA 98009 -2050 Fax 206.462.5957 INFORMATION NEEDS 6/19/91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION o *Need square footage of built space by building type (manufacturing; lab; office; flightline) o Need square footage by building type to be demolished o Need square footage by building type to be constructed o Master Plans for Duwamish Office Park East, City Light, and Plant 2* sites. POPULATION/HOUSING/ECONOMY o *Origin/destination studies - existing and proposed o Job category split by alternative - blue / white - administrative /engineering/ o Type of employee by zip code o How many from each category would be moving where in each of the alternatives? o Indirect employment impacts - information on businesses at sites that Boeing plans to acquire (either by purchase or lease); e.g., how many employees? where are they going? o *What are the adjacent land uses? 1 ENERGY o What and where are the major energy generators? What kind of power do those activities use? o Information on energy use by building type (existing/proposed) o Any historical data on energy consumption; i.e., 10 -year history identifying why peaks occurred or comparables at other sites? o Does Boeing anticipate any additional energy supply? (e.g., on -site cogeneration ?) o Information on acceptable mitigation package: load- shedding agreements during regional peak periods; consultation prior to 30% design with SCL conservation staff; to what extent would Boeing include energy efficient measures in building design and operation beyond standard requirements - energy - efficient lighting fixtures for new construction (under what conditions/ e.g. break -even over 10 years); energy- efficient fixtures for retrofit of old structures; others? 2 PUBLIC SERVICES & UTILITIES o Need square footage of existing impermeable surface and what changes are anticipated. o Who provides solid waste service? o Need any written material on recycling program if any. o Any written material on fire and police protection? o Any changes foreseen with R &D? o Information on acceptable mitigation package: Can Boeing commit to a "goal" of 25% or 30% landscaped or other permeable space ?; to what extent would Boeing promote conservation to minimize impacts of the alternatives to the utilities? to what extent would Boeing supply and/or increase fire and law protection? TRANSPORTATION o Current Boeing/Metro Cooperative programs; involvement in King County TMP (per Questad's comment on scoping); Vanpool/carpool - participation & ridership - Verify that current ACO is 1.2; goal is 1.5 Transit subsidy - participation & ridership (survey result from recently begun subsidy ?) o Any current parking surveys in the area? Current parking demand per employee? o Any other improvements besides: E.Marginal; Oxbow; I -5 HOV; 16th Ave.S. bridge; 1st Ave.S. bridge? o Information on acceptable mitigation package: Can Boeing support restricting parking (i.e., providing less, than estimated demand for stalls) as an element of TMP? 3 • AIR o *Air emissions (VOC & TAC) o Production levels - how much reduction in manufacturing with each alternative? o What are Boeing's major sources of pollution - identify general areas where boilers; spray painting; facilities combustion of natural gas or petroleum products occur, large consumers of solvent materials; storage of VOC materials or fuel? NOISE o Number and location of existing engine run -up stalls o Hours per day and duration of engine testing o Estimated changes to number of stalls, number and duration of engine testing o Any other known noise issues that should be addressed (e.g. "wind tunnel" - scale noise issues)? SEATTLE REALTY • TEL No.206- 455 -2251 Machinery Pages 2, 3 & 4 Jun 17,91 8 :22 No.001 P.02 —4slws Vol, 98, No, 140, Monday, June 17, 1991, ad of the Ixt ?" bers indi- brary per - erdowsid y bond is- was just 1 that per- 8 cost in- Ilose a ti- ling said lots and Id before AS hous- was told s of per - I "minute mn 3) n Pan- need phson Engi- inted Dues, was s En- elude h ac- ng the ;hway y with en he ____ -.,— "'j-'- FEE - - T� --stru that pry facilitate its construction. °ter He has worked in both design and construction with the 1 -90 good nce 1982. A transportation doparuttent em- ployee since 1968, his only absence si occurred from 1068 to 1970, when Public hearing set for Boeing project Tukwila's Department of Com. munity Development will conduct a public hearing on June 25, at 7 pm at Tukwila City hall, 6200 South- center Blvd., to consider The Boeing Company proposal to redevelop approximately 750 acres' of indusuial and manufacturing land along a 43 mile section of East Marginal Way. The primary goal of the redevet -: opment is to replace aged manufac -: taring production facilities. The, company plans to focus these cede -: velopment efforts over the 1992.-: 2002 period. The proposal involves replace -: ment of approximately 3.0 million. feet with 3.5 million square feet of building area. These facilities are expected to have a capacity of 30,000 employees. up from the present capacity of 25,000 cmploy- ces. The proposal Includes removal of some existing on -grade parking to accommodate a combination of cluster and satellite parking and to encourage use of enhanced mass transit services. Two alternatives to the proposal will be analyzed in the EIS: 1. Administrative Center. This scenario would be based on a popu- lation of approximately 40,000 em- ployees. Redevelopment would in- tensify administrative and support activities in the Duwamish Cori• dor. 2, Manufacturing Center: This al -. temative would be based on a po ulalion of .approximately 25,000 employees, primarily involved in manufacturing activities; The Boeing Company has.volun- tarily agreed to prepare an Environ- mental-Impact-Statcment7S)-on- thls proposal. The purpose of the hearing is to provide a forum for the public to earn about the proposal. This will enable people 10 ask questions about the content and timing of the EIS. The EIS is expected to be pub- lished in draft form in late Septem- ber, and in final form in late December, 1991. 'the site would be a 4,5 milt sec- tion of East Marginal Way gener- ally bounded on the South by South 128th Street and on the North by Ellis Avenue South, in the vicinity of Boeing Field. Persons wishing to comment on the above cast may do so by writ- ten statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Comments should be sent to City of Tukwila, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, 98188. The case number is EPIC41.91. CITY OF a Uesv1 ALA PLANNING DEPT. -477 a HILL/ SEA TO FRO ✓c ' RGN oelng$plaflfll a�. massive:4, grya b" Jn 11..Steventr,:r,_:..:� Y t +,:_:.Work. on other? buildings: has Tllmee.SOU h bureau v �, ',` b o d officials • ' i fanned to file an ■TUKIMLA, >..�r? t ° . � '.environmentak- timpact statement thee • A •: "KS -p -But • no date area has • grown to encompass • was given for the submission. some' of ' , the • ,company's • oldest ':''" - The long -range plan calls for factories. -where .•B-17 bombers •.. demolishing,„about 3 million were built during World War II.. ' "`'square feet of space in several During the next . l0 l years; " locations and building 3.5. million Boeing.,may. huild_mote-.han a square. feet of new space. Boeing third of .the. 100- million - square -feet now owns about 650 acres along of $,,r research • and , the river. • development and office space it r One possible addition is the site owns along the'Duwamish River i of Rhone - Poulenc Inc., a chemical near Boeing,:fiekL Another 5,000. f factory now being dismantled. ,4 employees. -,or -.more —could be i.' Boeing .would not confirm its added • to the 25,000 now oborking• interest • in the site, which is at the facilities.: And Boeing :may • wedged between Boeing facilities buy another :100. acres along the • on the east side. of the Duwamish river.. • here. But..officials from the city of Boeing is planning this Duwa- Tukwila and • Rhone - Poulenc say .Wish- comdor expansion project in Boeing may buy the land addition to: • - • • • the Duwamish • Its proposed'777•'factory and:, Young says" other expansion in Everett. corridor will stay a mixed -use area • The recently `announced for Boeing, but the company hold Longacres office-park: . • • Tukwila that its primary g i II Lon,5- range° plans for facili- = replace older buildings with new ties in Pierce County that could ' engineering labs, offices and pro - empioy. > gt�sande of workers.,._•• totype development _ facilities — . , , ,� ., ,,�,, ....... with : a locus --on. _its aerospace • :"This.. Is 'a 1ongrangg strategy operations. :.• • gy," says Boeing spokesman. Russ • Boeing says the environmental Young, referring :to the Duwamish impact statement will look .at two corridor plattr..•'•`This'ts'.office and ; alternative..plans. One plan might manufacturing. space that is more further - intensify its operations than 50 years .old : and. • simply ' along the Duwamish and employ outdated. (But) a lot of what is some 00 k r k e un- done•ultimately wilIbe decided by would_ P the a l business factors4own the.liaa.:' - level at about 25.000 by upgrading • The area Boeing may redevelop- facilities to maintain existing pro - is- one . of : then•: company's ,most duction capabilities. integrated. combining commercial- . Young stresses the plan• is only and military- aircraft operations. It preliminary .. • includes' buildings stretching 4.5 "This is a comprehensive look miles south — from the north end at the corridor for the long .term." of Boeing Field in Seattle along the • the says. "Mostly, we are position - Duwamish to Tukwila. Some of the •- ing ourselves for the future." buildings also are in unincorporat- • Officials from Tukwila, ed King County. - Demolition of an existing build- Seattle and King County will com- ing ,in: the North Duwamish: Cam- : bine forces to review the plan and pus has already started to make • outline what public improvements way for .a $90 million test lab Boeing would have to make before where key parts for the 777 will be the plan would be approved. This developed. Another facility, the represents Tukwila's first look at a 9101 building, is being strength- big Boeing development. because ened to make it "more resistant to„ many of the Boeing buildings in damage.; -frottm.an• earthquake•- •• Tukwila are in an area that the city .Boeing officials say::This'btulding, only. recently annexed. also called the black box because . The Duwamish project could 1 of its appearance. ••is` where. ad aggravate. traffic congestion in the vanced.. composite. materials —. area.: and Pace says planning used.in:the-B -2, A-6 and new:F -22 • officials will be • looking for • im- advanced tactical' fighter'--.are provements to East Marginal Way designed and manufactured. South. I • jl Valley Daily News Sunday, June 16, 1991 Editorials Tax reform, not a Boeing tax, is what's needed Rep. Art Wang, D- Tacoma, has come out with a new state tax proposal called the Tax Fairness Act that would place a sales tax on airplane parts and components. Read that: Let's dig into the company with the deepest pockets, Boeing, to bail out education, social services and the environment. By coming out with the proposal at the start of the special session, Wang apparently is less inter- ested in the bill's immediate passage than laying the groundwork for a future dialogue on the state's woefully mixed up tax system and what he perceives as Boeing's minimal participation in it. Boeing pays about $330 million a year in busi- ness and property taxes, but Wang's proposal, basically a value -added tax, would cost Boeing ark estirr*aLeu additional $450 million to $1 billion every two years. While the sales tax would be passed along to Boeing's customers, the effect of higher per - plane costs would make Boeing less competitive with Airbus Industrie, which is heavily subsi- dized by European governments. :The impact of such a heavy . hit on Boeing is difficult to envision, but the possibilities are omi- nous: Boeing could lose some of its competitive edge over ;Airbus and Boeing employment and the businesses that rely on Boeing for contracts could be negatively affected. Service industries that rely on Boeing employees to walk through their doors certainly would feel a downturn, too. :Wang's proposal, backed by the Washington Education Association and other citizens groups, is akin to biting the hand that feeds you. It is more or the same patchwork kind of taxation that Washington is famous for and that taxpayers, particularly property owners, are getting tired of. ;It's quite possible Boeing should pay more into government coffers, but only in the context of overall tax reform, not as a convenient sugar daddy for legislators and special interest groups. Improvements slated on Duwamish River 46y The Boeing Co. has applied for a Army permit to install a stormwater outfall, drive sheet piling, construct a canoe launch ramp, and replace a riprap on the Duwamish River in Seattle. The purpose of this project is to improve the existing stormwater dis- charge system, provide public access and prevent erosion. Direct comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Regulatory Branch, Box C -3755, Seattle 98124 -2255. Attn: Rudy Pojtinger, project manager (764 - 3495). The due date is July 1. Ref. OYB- 2- 014442. Test hn1A" SEA317611A0 DISK B-13o Task May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Scoping 1. Project Description — Full 2. Scoping 3. DEIS Preparation a. Land Use b. Transportation c. Earth d. Air e. Water f. Plants & Animals g. Energy /Natural Resources h. Environmental Health I 1 I ' i. Public Services & Utilities —+ I 4. Progress Report • * 5. Internal Review (PDEIS) a. Tukwila/Boeing b. Other Agencies? 6. Revisions - CH2M HILL —� 7. Second Internal Review �-- 8. Second Revisions 9. Publish DEIS �, / G r� )y� --� # jg 10. Comment Period 11. Prepare FEIS ' 12. Internal Review (PFEIS) �-- 13. Revisions 14. Final Review 1-1 15. Publish Final EIS # Figure EIS' Schedule The Boeing Company Duwamish Corridor Master Plan • • BOEING DUWAMISH CORRIDOR Master Plan Programmatic EIS Outline PART 1 Chapter I Summary Chapter II Description of Alternatives A. Proposed Actions 1. Use Mix 2. Population Changes 3. Phasing 4. Design Guidelines a. Campus R & D b. Remote Parking c. Pedestrian Amenities d. Transit Support B. Office Center C. Manufacturing Center D. No Action PART 2 Chapter III Land Use A. Site and Vicinity (Existing Conditions) 1. Uses 2. Facilities - Roads, railroad, utilities, air, etc. • 3. Applicable plans and policies Tuk Comp Plan and Zoning, SMP; Community Plans; Growth Management Act; FAA Glide Slopes B. Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives 1. Population/Housing a. Employment - Number, type (office versus manufacturing) b. Indirect/Induced - "Multiplier" (Any difference between alternatives ?) c. Changes in housing patterns by Alternative? 2. Land Use Impacts a. Direct - by Alt - Evolution of Uses (facilities characterized by alternative) b. Indirect e.g. supporting businesses nearby? See scoping letters. 3. Relationship to plans and policies a. Proposed Action b. Office Center c. Manufacturing Center d. No action. 4. Shoreline Issues 5. Aesthetics Design guidelines, etc.: bulk & scale, open spaces, architecture 6. Recreation C. Mitigating Measures (MM's) Voluntary FAR Restrictions? Thresholds to trigger MMs? • • Urban Design Issues? Shoreline Access Chapter IV Transportation A. Existing Conditions 1. Vehicle Circulation a. Street System b. Traffic Volumes c. LOS d. Boeing versus System Peak e. Boeing and through traffic as percentage of volumes 2. Accidents 3. Parking 4. Transit/HOV a. Boeing Mode Sp lit/ACO/TMP b. Transit Service c. Status of Rail/HCT Planning 5. Non - Motorized Travel 6. Goods Movement a. Trucks b. Rail c. Air 7. Planned/Programmed Improvements a. East Marginal b. Oxbow c. I -5 HOV d. 16th Avenue South Bridge e. First Avenue South Bridge B. Impacts of Project and Alternatives 1. Future Baseline (No Action) (1 - 6 as above) 2. Future Conditions - Proposed Action • 1- 6asabove • Attention to SR509/99 access; access from S. E. Seattle 3. Future Conditions - Office Center 4. Future Conditions - Manufacturing Center C. Mitigating Measures 1. Programmatic TMP - a. Transit Subsidy b. Preferential Carpool Parking c. Ride Share Service d. ACO /SOV Goals 2. Urban Design Elements to Support Transit/HOV a. Consolidated Access Points b. Fewer, better - located Transit Stops c. Transit Stop Design d. Pedestrian- Friendly Campus Design 4 • e. Others? Chapter V Energy Chapter VI Air Quality Chapter VII Stormwater Chapter VIII Other Issues Earth Environmental Health Public Services and Utilities 5 • Boeing Duwamish Corridor Master Plan DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT STAFF LAND USE: Jeff Fuller Lauren Gaylord Gareth Green TRANSPORTATION: Chuck Crandall Tung Le Claudia Scrivanich ENERGY: Gareth Green. AIR QUALITY: Paul Gunthorpe Mary Beth Yansura. STORMWATER & UTILITIES: Gareth Green Tom Sandy Shelly Sundgren EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Lauren Gaylord n 1 l' L U 11 V 1 1 SYLVIA A. OSBY u 1' ,hereby: decd are - that: X>,X Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet 0 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management_ Permit • Q Determination of Nonsignificance C1 Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Q Notice of Action ❑ Official Notice Q Other (:1 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on Name of Project Boeing Duwamish EIS File Number EPIC -21 -91 June 11, 1991 r % DUWAMISH IMPROVEMENT CLUB 12232 - 43rd Avenue South / Seattle, WA 98178 1991 PAID MEMBERS DUWAMISH IMPROVEMENT CLUB DAN ARAGON ""4610 SO. 124TH ST. - -762 -6669 PRESIDENT GEORGE GOMEZ 4504 S . 124TH ST.--762-7971 1ST VICE PRESIDENT ROGER BAKER r Xs. 4)- &-.4.' -1 1662 42ND',SO. -- 762-2123 MARY ELLEN WHITEHEAD 13335 56TH'S0. -- 242 -1689 SECRETARY VIOLA BAKER ROGER BAKERS MOTHER -- CALIF. - -OLD TIME RESIDENT BOB MCMANUS 5610 SO. 133RD. -- 246 -5346 VERA LOCKE 11810 42ND S0.-- 762 -4369 TREASURER LEE ANN DAViS -13341 56TH SO; 242 -9188 TOM LANG 11642 42ND S0.-- 762 -1141 GLADYS BIGELOW 12062 42ND SO.- -762 6210 .BONNIE COREY 242 -5655 EARL MMCCOY -- 11535. 40TH AVE. • SO.- -244 -9829 LONAUSWEENEY — 122153 243 D .122ND, O. -763 -8939 LYDIA MERKLE SO. 122ND.=; - PH.ILLIP F_ PATRICIA CAGAMPANG-- 1.2038 42ND AVE SO. -- 763 - 2345 MARY ROPER- -12020 42ND AVE. SO ',= ANTONIO f• DOROTHY )ERODAS--3910 SO. 114TH. -- 767 -3549 THELMA LARSEN- -12522 51ST PL.S8. -';762 -2175 VIOLA BUCHANAN- -12560 51ST PL. S0 -- 762 -9137 MAX I NE GREGORY --12058 .42ND SO.-12058.-763-2792 ROE DECKEP - 12253 45TH S0.- -762 -2582 BRENDABURRINGTON - - STEPHEN CORE 12238 45TH S0. -- 762 -3815 DORIS REED 12215 45TH SO.-- LEONA BRUBAKER . - GLADYS MAUER STAN & CONNIE HOFFMAN CG (CARD \GIVEN) 3924 SO. 114TH. -- 763-1712 JUNE KLISE CG 12221'44TH S0. - -763 -9924 KENT & ALIDA TUSTISON 4023 SO. 114TH -- 98168 -- 763 -4303 CG DARRELL & GAYL HOFFMAN - -11685 44TH \S0. -- 767 -4813 DONAY & CHARLOTTE DOTY- -3817 SO 11'3TH , 763"708!+ (UNLISTED) DENNIS & ELIZABETH DR.ISCOLL- -3944 SO 113TH- -767 -3292 BEN SWARTZ- -12219 49TH S0. 763 -8939 JESSIE BARRY-763-8834-12247 43RD SO. HELEN DINGLE--762-2703 --4115 SO. 1 14TM CEIL & VIOLA COMPO - -4801 SO. 124TH 762 -1444 OSE UNTERSHER & DONNA JOHNSTON - -4110 SO. 114TH- -762 -1848 HARRY & MABEL PETERSEN -- 762••9163 -_3914 SO. 113TH RALPH & RI TA HATTON- -3935 SO. 113TH- ••767 -3357 REX & JESSIE BURKEY -- 762-1258 - -3938 SO. 113TH. ALBERT & MARY ELLEN GAVIGLIO--7'2 -8440 (UNLISTED) ALBERT JR. MARY CAVIGLIO - -4016 SO. 115TH- RUTH SEAVEY- -11829 44TH PL. SO ---762 -83155 ANDY & MARGUERITE THOMAS- - 763-2809 CAROL & KEN WATSON- -3906 SO. 113TH- -767 -4531 (9 00) 3 YRS PAID MEMBERSHIP 1991 g81-7s CHARLES & MARION RAMEY - -4104 SO. 114TH - -762-2747 • JOHN & KAY GILLIGAN- -4208 SO 115TH -- 762 -4180 DICK GREENE- -11639 44TH AVE SO -- 763-9022 ' E3ETTY ESPADER0--11637• 44TE-1 AVE SO -- r HELEN DUNCAN - -11664 44TH AVE SO -- 763 -9169 KEITH FULLER- -12211 '+8TH AVE: SO -- STU & MICKY GARNETT- -12252 47TH Si) -- 762-0322 CHARMAINE L HALL-4217 SO. 116TH -- 763 -7248 RALPH HAYES -- 12228- -4' +TH SO.-763-9945' DAVE THOMPSON- -11666 42Nu S0. -- 762 -2048 'S10 001 VIOLA BAKER- -320 G ST - -NO. #5 CHULA VISTA, CA. 92010 KENNETH.& JANE HOUSE- -12248 43RD SO.- -763-2074 DOROTHY - ,)UMAS- -12212 46TH AVE. SO.--767-9939 TONY & BEV BASICH- -11054 42ND S0.- -73-2643 • - EUGENE & BETTY WALKLEY - -12201 44;H SO. -- 763-9745 JERRY KINNEAR- -5710 SO. 133RD-- 242 -4609 DENNIS & KAREN ROBERTSON- -16038 48TH AVE. 50.- -242 -6373 HELEN DUNCAN- -11664 44TH SO- -763-9169 CHARLOTTE GREER- -4718 SO. 124TH-- 762 -5284 (NO MAILING NOTICE) LEE & BARBARA TRIMBLE- -12242 48TH SO -763 -0861 JOHN W CLARK - -12217 46TH SO -- 762 -2748 • ROY & PAT JOHNSON -- 12256 49TH S0.- -767 -9767 SCOTT ELLIS - -12049 49TH SO -- 763 -9644 NORMA DERR- -12507 50TH PL SO -- 762 -7519 IRVIN TEIGEN- -13009 56TH SO --748 -1340 DAN WOLF - -11821 44TH AVE SO. -- 55.00 73 --ORON ADAIR- -4310 SO 122ND--762-3259 ROBERT & BEA COLEMAN- -12223 48TH SO. -- 762 -5132 LAWENCE WEIKUM - -12249 44TH SO. - -763 -3533 RAY & MAGDA TORGHELE -- 14724 57TH SO.--242-9341 55.00 BILL & FAYE COOPrR- -12218 48TH SO. -- 763 -9906 DONALD & ALICE DAVIDSON- -12546 50TH PL. SO.- /9 - -- KATHLEEN CARMICHAEL - -20 BOWEN ST. -- NEWTON CENTRE, HA, 02159 ROLAND TURPIN--12229 43RD SO. - -762 - 1453 LOIS MATHIS - -12245 45TH SO. -- 762-2524 LILLIAN PETTY - -12542 50TH PL. SO -- JOHN & SYLVIA VADER- -12228 47TH SO.-- 762 -2258 GAY JACOBSEN- -12245 44TH PL. S0.- -763 -1493 05-- RU FI RUPE -- 12248 50TH AVE SOr- 64 j62 -72� F JOHN & MARIE WICKSTROM - -12022 44TH AVE. SO -- 763-9561 / 7 -- THOMAS & KATHRYN BOARDMAN--11926 INTERURBAN PL SO.--244-2067 ° ,%"' / ���f'� BOBBY CASEBEE ^ -- 12243 51ST PL SO --764 -4767 n.E Er MONICA JOHNSON- -4916 SO 124TH ST: -762 -282.8 LEONARD & DORIS HEAD- -12232 42ND AVE. SO.--763-8133 STAMP ALLAN RONNING — »11705 40TH AVE. S0. -- 246-2759 RAY BRYANT-- 122.01 46TH AVE. S0.- -762 -2563 JOHN P I POUT ---1 1837 44TH AVE. SO.-763-1921 MARTIN & GWEN ULRICH-12244 42N:.) SO -- 763 -3154 NS . ARTHUR SALA- -11624 40TH AVE SO-- 246.9186 NS 6 B0E & JEANETTE MORGAN -- 11603 40TH SO.--243-5599 NORMAN & HELEN VAN VOORHEES -11314 44TH AVE.. S0:- 763 -9392 . JOHN & EDNA MORRISON•°- 12562 50TH PL. SO.- 762 -8867 99 WALTER•& BERNICE KWIECIEN- -13048 57TH AVE. SO.- 242 -5088 100 -- BOBEI DOUVIA- -11815 44TH AVE. S0. -- 763-9368 TOM & MARTHA LOFTUS- -4918 SO.' 122ND - -762 -5740 • PAID MEMBERSHIP 1991 CG- -CARD GIVEN IRENE SIMPSON - -11840 42ND S0. - -763 -1940 03-- DON & GARY WYATT- -3836 SO. 116TH- -242 -9053 JAMES STEPHENS - -11904 INTERURBAN PL. SO -- 244-7832 R..M. AND JESSIE BURKEY - -3938 SO. 113TH ST.,-- 762 -1258 �.. 106 -- -DAVID & MERLE SWANSON - -4616 SO. 124TTH -- 762 -8568 '!�i.."� SOUTH CENTRAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (DONNA - JEANNE GULLY -13217 38TH SO. 244 -0558 TONY CAROSINO -- 11245 EAST MARGINAL WAY S0. - -763 -7065 109 KIM DAHL- -12410 50TH PL. SO. -- 763-2079 1 1 0 .JAMES WATKINS--12072 44TH AVE. SO.--762-1203 111 SHAM & SHARON NAKATA- -11600 39TH AVE. SO. -- 246 -8975 --I E TEIGEN- -13009 56TH AVE. SO. -- 248 -1340 HANK & ROSEMARY HEERSCHAP - -13325 56TH. AVE. SO.-- 242 -1735 LOREN MARSHALL - -4919 SO. 124TH ST. - -767 -0497 115 HELEN DUNCAN - -11664 44TH AVE. S0.-- 763 -9169 (� /BOEING AEROPLANE CO-- TUKWILA & SEATTLE 1n13,1�ONE- POULENC -- SEATTLE -- TUKWILA- -PAID FOR 1991 BUT MOVED OUT OF AREA. CG CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 July 9, 1991 Mr. Jeff Zahir, Planner /Economist F & TSS Planning & Program Support Boeing Support Services P.O. Box 3707 MS 13 -03 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 PHONE # (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor RE: The Programatic Environmental, Impact Statement for the Duwamish Corridor Dear Jeff, As discussed today, prepration of this EIS has been delayed. Our estimate is by several weeks, probably four. This assumes that the data requested by CH2M Hill on June 19th is delivered this week by the Boeing Company. The initial schedule was tight, and there is little left in it to reduce the time needed by CH2M Hill to analyze the data, or for Tukwila to review the Preliminary Draft. Absent further delays, we estimate a October 15, 1991 Draft EIS publication date and a January 15, 1992 Final EIS publication date. Sincerely, e),62, ck Pace Senior Planner cc: CH2M Hill (Lloyd Skinner) • Seattle City Light Randall W. Hardy, Superintendent Norman 13. Rice, Mayor May 29, 1991 Bob Betts Project Coordinator Boeing Duwamish EIS City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Betts: AMINR 1 JUN 071991 CITY OF TUKvviLA PLANNING DEPT. Thank you for the invitation to comment on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Boeing Duwamish Redevelopment. The energy section in the EIS should discuss energy impacts and mitigation measures for the alternatives. The discussion of energy impacts should include any demolition impacts, construction and operating impacts, lifetime energy use and cost estimates including rate impacts, and cumulative effects on the natural environment. I have included a handout entitled, "Format for Disclosing and Analyzing Energy Impact of Proposed New Structures," which is useful for determining energy impacts. As this redevelopment could contribute significantly to load growth in City Light's service area, conservation should be seriously explored to mitigate for environmental impacts associated with new energy generation. Additionally, potential co- generation opportunities should be investigated. A long -term planning effort such as the Boeing Duwamish Project offers excellent opportunities for incorporating energy efficiency into design and operation of new facilities. Seattle City Light has already contacted Boeing's Project Manager, Jeff Zahir, to offer our assistance in incorporating energy considerations into the planning process. An Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer City of Seattle — City Light Department. I015 Third Aventu, Stank', Washington 9H101-1191i, Telephone: (206) 026- 3000, FAX: (206) (02S -3 -709 Printed on recycled paper Seattle City Light plans to continue close involvement with this redevelopment as site - specific plans develop. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to respond to this scoping notice. Please address any questions to Michele Lynn at 386 -4578. Sincerely, Ly Best, Assistant Director En ironmental Affairs Division ML:ml Enclosure "An Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer.. (:itv of Seattle — City Light Uchartmcnt, IIIIS Third Avenue. wattle, \ashmgiun )8lU i -I I`1H. lcicphunc (20O) 025- i(Utt, IN (2(0) (,2S -i7U'. Printed on reeyciceI paper Per 1-04•l • LAJL FORMAT FOR DISCLOSING AND ANALYZING ENERGY IMPACT OF PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURES Secaete tiO The following outline suggests items of information to be considered in -disclosing and analysing energy impacts for the proposal and alternatives: I. ,Existing Conditions •.A. Current and forecasted energy supply and demand supply this). 'B. Present consumption on the site, including: (utilities can 1. Types of fuel (electricity, oil, natural gas., etc.); 2. Percent of total represented by each; and 3. Peak and average consumption:- (expressed in BTU's, kvh, therms, gallons, etc.). /I. Impacts A. Construction impacts. 1. Energy embodied in building materials (data available and other handbooks). 2. Site preparation and assembly. 3. Transportation and personnel. B. Operating impacts. 1. Projected consumption by type of fuel, in peak, average, and total annually. 2. Energy Use Intensity (BTU's per square foot). 3. Consumption by major end uses- -e.g., HVAC, lighting, hot eater, equipment —like computers, industrial processes, etc. Demolition. (Although methods for calculating this are not generally available, it should still be disclosed as an impact.) Lifetime energy use and costs. (Building life may be estimated at 33 years. Electricity cost and rate information, including net present • value per kvh, is available in handouts from Seattle City Light Environmental Affairs Division LEAD).) Comparison between proposal and C. D. in DOE Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) is included in handouts. E. Cumulative impacts. 1. Effect on Utility distribution system, service availability, etc. 2. Environmental effects of energy generation and transmission such as on air quality, water availability, fisheries, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and from use and disposal of both hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. - Information about energy technologies and,impacts is available from City Light EAD. III. Mitigation Conservation and increased energy efficiency measures, as well as load management. • If possible, distinguish between those to which developer is committed from the others. REPS -based standards Comparison should be made to conservation and solar ameasures, ffor office lspacee,restaurants, residences, stores, etc., can be obtained from City Light Conservation and Solar Division. JO:lsm 4/17/86 - 2 • • SICILLING WARD MAGNUSSON BARKSHERE INC. Consulting Structural and Civil Engineers E. DOUGLAS LOESCH, P.E. Vice President May 24, 1991 Project Coordinator Boeing Duwamish EIS 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Duwamish Corridor Strategic Development Plan Dear Friends: We read with great interest the article "Boeing Planning Major Redevelopment" in the May 23, 1991 edition of the Daily Journal of Commerce. Congratulations on undertaking such an ambitious project. The plan appears to add valuable, industrial development to Seattle, Tukwila and the County with the potential for a net, positive impact on environmental and land -use issues. We, at Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc., would like to express our ongoing interest and support of the Development Plan. If possible, please include us in the distribution of the draft Environmental Impact Statement and any other related informational mailings. Thanks, in advance, for your cooperation. Sincerely, SKILLING WARD MAGNUSSON BARKSHIRE INC. Y. b4.4_c_nee...0 E. Douglas Lo sch EDL/gpo 1 MAY 2 8 1991 CITY OF TUKW LA, PLANWING DEPT. 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 981012341 (206) 292.1200 FAX: (206) 6232608 JOSEPH R. BLUM Director STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES 115 General Administration Building • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753 -6600 • (SCAN) 234-6600 May 24, 1991 Project Coordinator Boeing Duwamish EIS City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 SUBJECT: Dear Sir: RECEIVED MAY 2 81991 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS Determination of Significance & Request for.Scoping Comments - The Boeing Company - Duwamish River, Tributary to Eliot Bay, King County, WDF SEPA Log No. 13978, WRIA 09.0001 The Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) has received the above - referenced• proposal and has the following comments. At a minimum the Environment Impact Statement should address impacts from stormwater run -off, impacts to water quality in the Duwamish River and associated tributaries and wetlands within and downstream of the project area, and impacts to the fish and wildlife resources within and downstream of the project area. The proposal should include adequate buffers and building setbacks from all sensitive areas. The stormwater facility should meet or exceed WDF's stormwater management guidelines (attached). An Hydraulic Project Approval will likely be required for this project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (206) 392 -7190. gk Attachment cc: WDF - Olympia Sincerely, )41-et-tA Gayle Kreitman Regional Habitat Manager Habitat Management Division 3 MAY 2 8 1991 CITY OF TUKVVILA PLANNING DEPT. 0 N I'I 1 R. 131.Utv1 I)ire for STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES 115 General Administration Buiklinl; • Olympia, ll asllinglnm 98504 • (206) 753- 6601) • (SCAN) 23- 1 -66(A) DRAFT STORMWATER GUIDELINES November 1, 1990 APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES Run -off from a project with more than 5,0,00 square feet of impervious surface should meet the following guidelines for water quantity and water quality. Depending on proximity of downstream fish and shellfish resources, water quantity guidelines may not apply to all projects. Water quality guidelines will apply to all projects. WATER OUANTITY Increased run -off from development should be retained and infiltrated to preserve base stream flows, and /or detained and released in a manner to preserve the receiving stream channels dominant discharge (Bates, 1983). Pre- and post - development run- off rates should be analyzed using a continuous simulation model such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) HSPF computer program (HSPF, 1988). If such a watershed model is not available, a rainfall event simulation model may be used. If using a rainfall event model, run -off should be computed using a Soil Conservation Service (SCS) based hydrograph method, and the rainfall event should be a Type 1A distribution with a 24 -hour duration (USDA, 1986). For SCS hydrologic soil groups Type A and B (USDA, 1986) use of infiltration basins should be considered. Site investigation and design criteria are essential for successful performance of infiltration basins (Ecology 1990; King County 1990). Infiltration could significantly reduce the volume required for detention. Detention basin performance (Figure 1), shall be such that discharge from the developed area meets the following criteria: 1. Fifty percent of the pre- development two -year peak release rate for the two -year developed design storm. The release rate of 50 percent of the two -year pre - development peak accounts for the extended duration of release that occurs as a result of the increase in run -off volume from the developed state (Powers, 1989). 2. The pre - development 25 -year peak release rate for the 25 -year developed design storm. 1 Wet Ponds - A pool of water retained in a pond by placing the outlet above the pond bottom. 1. Permanent pond surface area should equal two percent of the catchment area for residential, and three percent for commercial. Pond volume should be equal to the volume generated from two - thirds of the two year, 24 -hour storm. 2. The permanent pond water depth should be three to six feet, plus one foot of dead storage for sediment. 3. Ponds shall have a minimum of two cells. 4. Residence time shall be enhanced by configuring the pond to have a length to width ratio greater than 3:1. A 5:1 configuration (or other method of lengthening flow path such as use of baffles) is preferred. 5. If the wet pond is also used as a detention pond, the permanent wet pond volume should not be part of the detention volume required. Biofilters - A filter strip or swale used to treat stormwater run- off by interaction with vegetation and soil surfaces. 1. Avoid gravelly and coarse sandy soils in order to maximize water contact with vegetation and soil surface. 2. The biofilter width should be designed based on a two -year 24- hour peak flow, and the following; a. Velocities should be less than 1.5 fps. b. The flow depth should be less than four inches. c. Longitudinal slope should average two to four percent. Rock or log check dams or terraces should be installed as necessary to achieve slopes less than four percent. 3. Biofilters should be located to obtain maximum length. If less than 200 feet, the width should be increased by an amount proportional to the reduction below 200 feet, in order to obtain the same area of vegetation contact. 4. Side slopes should be no steeper than three horizontal:one vertical. 3 If a continuous simulation model is used, flow duration (instead of peak flow criteria) should be used to design detention ponds at the two -and 25 -year floods. Q25 Peak Outflow 02 50% Q2 2 25 Design Storm Frequency (yrs) Figure 1 - Detention Basin Performance WATER QUALITY. Pollutants in stormwater run -off should be treated using best management practices. Treatment of stormwater run -off with a wet detention pond (Kulzer, 1989) and biofiltration channel (Horner, 1988) will provide acceptable water quality control. Where possible, biolfiltration channels of any length should be used for pretreatment of stormwater runoff. Sedimentation and erosion control practices should be included in the design to prevent water quality features from becoming silted in. Also, regular maintenance is required to ensure pollutant removal effectiveness. The following are acceptable design standards for wet ponds and biofiltration channels. 2 References Department of Ecology. 1990. Stormwater management manual for the Puget Sound basin. Washington State Department of Ecology. Technical Review Draft. Bates, K. 1983. Draft guidelines for policy development. Stormwater management in urban areas. Washington Department of Fisheries. Habitat Management Division. Unpublished. Horner, Richard R. 1988. Biofiltration systems for storm run -off water quality control. Prepared for Washington State Department of Ecology and others. King County surface water design manual. January 1990. King County Department of Public Works. Kulzer, Louise. 1989. Considerations for the use of wet ponds for water quality enhancement. Office of Water Quality. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. Powers, P.D. 1989. Stormwater detention performance based on dominant discharge. Draft. Washington State Department of Fisheries. Habitat Management Division. Unpublished. United States Department of Agriculture. 1986. Urban hydrology for small watersheds. Soil Conservation Service. Engineering Division. Technical Release 55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Hydrologic simulation program - FORTRAN (HSPF). USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory. Athens, Georgia. 4 • PERKINS COIE A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 1201 THIRD AVENUE, 40TH FLOOR • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 -3099 • (206) 583 -8888 May 20, 1991 Ms. Jane Cantu City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Seattle, WA 98188 Re: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Master Plan Dear Ms. Cantu: I would appreciate your putting my name on the mailing list for the above project. I am interested in all scoping notices, scoping documents, and any other related materials pertaining to the Boeing Duwamish Corridor project. My address is indicated on the letterhead. Thank you for your assistance. REM:vg I03008-0360/S8911400.2031 Very truly yours, Richard E. McCann t S =cI -�I TELEX: 32 -0319 PERKINS SEA • FACSIMILE: (206) 583 -8500 ANCHORAGE • BELLEVUE • Los ANGELES • PORTLAND • SPOKANE • WASHINGTON, D.C. • Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use Dennis J. McLerran, Director Norman B. Rice, Mayor May 14, 1991 RE: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Scope of EIS Robert S. Betts Project Coordinator Boeing Duwamish EIS City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Betts: (Y1 71991 t e ;> r e PLANNING DEPT. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Boeing's Programmatic EIS for their Master Plan along the Duwamish Corridor. DCLU is particularly concerned about Alternative 1, with more intense facilities and far more employees than proposed by Boeing. The City of Seattle's SEPA Ordinance states that reasonable alternatives should be limited to those that attain or approximate a proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation, and that are reasonably related to the proposed plan (Chapter 25.05.440 and 25.05.442, Seattle SEPA Ordinance). Requiring an alternative which would result in greater impacts than proposed by Boeing contradicts our SEPA Ordinance. I have attached a copy of these portions of the Ordinance for your information. Other comments regarding the elements of the environment include the following: 1A. Earth Include discussion of potential impacts due to scil instability, potential erosion, and proposed grading and filling of the Slip. 1D. Plants and Animals Emphasis should be on the potential impacts on the aquatic wildlife, including fish, associated with the Duwamish Corridor. 2B. Land and Shoreline Use Include potential impacts to public access to the Duwamish shoreline and to shoreline recreation. An equal employment opportunity - affirmative action employer. Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use, 400 Municipal Building, Seattle, Washington 98104 •'Printed on Recycled Paper" • 2C. Transportation Include impacts to pedestrian and recreational circulation, particularly along the Duwamish shoreline. Also discuss the impacts to the Port of Seattle and to commercial shipping and uses along the Duwamish. Other elements that should also be considered include the following: Construction and Demolition Include temporary impacts from proposed construction and demolition, including impacts on the Duwamish, air, noise, energy, and circulation. Economics Discuss the potential impacts to the local economy expected from the different alternatives. Other City or Community Plans Discuss the impacts to other City or Community Plans in the general area, including the Port of Seattle's Comprehensive Public Access Plan for the Duwamish Waterway, the South Park Neighborhood Plan, the Rainier /Genessee Redevelopment Study and Business District Plan, the Empire Rainier Development Project, and any other plans in the South Seattle and Rainier Valley area that may be impacted. I would appreciate your keeping our office advised of Boeing's progress. I would also like to receive notice of any public meetings that may be scheduled regarding this request. Sincerely, DENNIS J. McLERRAN Director By MARTIN FRICKO Land Use Specialist g:mfricko /Boeing • 25.05.430 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION Sections 25.05.442 and 25.05.443 for environ- mental impact statements related to nonproject proposals. 4. The elements of the environment for purposes of analyzing environmental impacts are stated in Section 25.05.444. 5. Additional guidance on the distinction between environmental and other considera- tions is given in Sections 25.05.448 and 25.05.450. 6. EIS's may be combined with other documents (Section 25.05.640). (Ord. 114057 § 1(part), 1988: Ord. 111866 § 1(part), 1984.) 25.05.435 Cover letter or memo. A. A cover letter or memo shall precede every EIS, but shall not be considered part of the EIS for adequacy purposes. B. The cover letter or memo: 1. Shall not exceed two (2) pages; 2. Shall highlight the key environmental issues and options facing agency decisionmakers as known at the time of issuance; 3. May include beneficial, as well as adverse environmental impacts and may men- tion other relevant considerations for decision - makers: 4. Shall identify, for SEIS's, the EIS being supplemented. (Ord. 114057 § 1(part), 1988: Ord. 111866 § 1(part), 1984.) 25.05.440 EIS contents. An EIS shall contain the following, in the style and format prescribed in the preceding sections. A. Fact Sheet. The fact sheet shall include the following information in this order: 1. A title and brief description (a few sen- tences) of the nature and location (by street address, if applicable) of the proposal, including principal alternatives: 2. The name of the person or entity mak- ing the proposal(s) and the proposed or tentative date for implementation: 3. The name and address of the lead agency. the responsible official, and the person to contact for questions. comments, and informa- tion: 4. A list of all licenses which the proposal is known to require. The licenses shall be listed (Seattle 12.88) by name and agency; the list shall be as complete and specific as possible; 5. Authors and principal contributors to the EIS and the nature or subject area of their contributions; 6. The date of issue of the EIS; 7. The date comments are due (for DEIS's); 8. The time and place of public hearings or meetings, if any and if known; 9. The date final action is planned or scheduled by the lead agency, if known. Agencies may indicate that the date is subject to change. The nature or type of final agency action should be stated unless covered in subsection 1 above; 10. The type and timing ofany subsequent environmental review to which the lead agency or other agencies have made commitments, if any; 11. The location of a prior EIS on the pro- posal, EIS technical reports, background data, adopted documents, and materials incorporated by reference for this EIS, if any; 12. The cost to the public for a copy of the EIS. B. Table of Contents. 1. The table of contents should list, if possible, any documents which are appended, adopted, or serve as technical reports for this EIS (but need not list each comment letter). 2. The table of contents may include the list of elements of the environment (Section 25.05.444), indicating those elements or por- tions of elements which do not involve signifi- cant impacts. C. Summary. The EIS shall summarize the contents of the statement and shall not merely be an expanded table of contents. The summary shall briefly state the proposal's objectives, spec- ifying the purpose and need to which the pro- posal is responding, the major conclusions, significant areas of controversy and uncertainty, if any, and the issues to be resolved. including the environmental choices to be made among alter- native courses of action and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. The summary need not mention every subject discussed in the EIS, but shall include a summary of the proposal, impacts. alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant adverse impacts that cannot be miti- gated. The summary shall state when the EIS is part of a phased review, if known, or the lead 25 -20 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES agency is relying on prior or future environmen- tal review (which should be generally identified). The lead agency shall make the summary signifi- cantly broad to be useful to the other agencies with jurisdiction. D. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action. 1. This section of the EIS describes and presents the proposal (or preferred alternative, if one (1) or more exists) and alternative courses of action. 2. Reasonable alternatives shall include actions that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives, but at a lower environ- mental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation. a. The word "reasonable" is intended to limit the number and range of alter- natives, as well as the amount of detailed analysis for each alternative. b. The "no- action" alternative shall be evaluated and compared to other alternatives. c. Reasonable alternatives may be those over which an agency with jurisdiction has authority to control impacts either directly, or indirectly through requirement of mitigation measures. 3. This section of the EIS shall: a. Describe the objective(s), propo- nent(s), and principal features of reasonable alternatives. Include the proposed action, including mitigation measures that are part of the proposal; b. Describe the location of the alter- natives including the proposed action, so that ;a lay person can understand it. Include .a map, street address, if any, and legal description (unless long or in metes and bounds); c. Identify any phases of the pro- posal, their timing, and previous or future envi- ronmental analysis on this.or related proposals. if known; d. Tailor the level of detail of descrip tions to the significance of environmental impacts. The lead agency should retain any detailed engineering drawings and technical data, that have been submitted, in agency files and make them available on request: e. Devote sufficiently detailed analy- sis to each reasonable alternative to permit a comparative evaluation of the alternatives including the proposed action. The amount of 25.05.440 space devoted to each alternative may vary. One (1) alternative (including the proposed action) may be used as a benchmark for comparing alter- natives. The EIS may indicate the main reasons for eliminating alternatives from detailed study; f. Present a comparison of the envi- ronmental impacts of the reasonable alter- natives, and include the no action alternative. Although graphics may be helpful, a matrix or chart is not required. A range of alternatives or a few representative alternatives, rather than every possible reasonable variation, may be discussed; g. Discuss the benefits and disadvan- tages of reserving for some future time the imple- mentation of the proposal, as compared with possible approval at this time. The agency per- spective should be that each generation is, in effect, a trustee of the environment for succeed- ing generations. Particular attention should be given to the possibility of foreclosing future options by implementing the proposal; 4. When a proposal is for a private project on a specific site, the lead agency shall be required to evaluate only the no- action alter- native plus other reasonable alternatives for achieving the proposal's objective on the same site. This subsection shall not apply when the proposal includes a rezone, unless the rezone is for a use allowed in an existing comprehensive plan that was adopted after review under SEPA. Further, alternative sites may be evaluated if other locations for the type of proposed use have not been included or considered in existing plan- ning or zoning documents. E. Affected Environment, Significant Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. 1. This section of the EIS shall describe the existing environment that will be affected by the proposal, analyze significant impacts of alter- natives including the proposed action. and dis- cuss reasonable mitigation measures that would significantly mitigate these impacts. Elements of the environment that are not significantly affected need not be discussed. Separate sections are not required for each subject (see Section 25.05.430 C). 2. General requirements for this section of the EIS. a. This section shall be written in a nontechnical manner which is easily under- standable to lay persons whenever possible, with 25-21 (Seattle 12 -88) 25.05.440 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION the discussion commensurate with the impor- tance of the impacts. Only significant impacts must be discussed; other impacts may be dis- cussed. b. Although the lead agency should discuss the affected environment, environmen- tal- impacts,- and- other mitigation measures together for each element of the environment where there is a significant impact, the responsi- ble official shall have the flexibility to organize this section in any manner useful to decision - makers and the public (see Section 25.05.430 C). c. This subsection is not intended to duplicate the analysis in subsection E and shall avoid doing so to the fullest extent possible. 3. This section of the EIS shall: a. Succinctly describe the principal features of the environment that would be affected. or created, by the alternatives including the proposal under consideration. Inventories of species should be avoided, although rare, threat- ened, or endangered species should be indicated; b. Describe and discuss significant impacts that will narrow the range or degree of beneficial uses of the environment or pose long- term risks to human health or the env_ ironment, such as storage. handling, or disposal of toxic or hazardous material; c. Clearly indicate those mitigation measures (not described in the previous section as part of the proposal or alternatives), if any, that could be implemented or might be required, as well as those, if any, that agencies or applicants are committed to implement; d. Indicate what the intended envir- onmental benefits of mitigation measures are for significant impacts, and may discuss their tech- nical feasibility and economic practicability, if there is concern about whether a mitigation mea- sure is capable of being accomplished. The EIS need not analyze mitigation measures in detail unless they involve substantial changes to the proposal causing significant adverse impacts, or new information regarding significant impacts, and those measures will not be subsequently ana- lyzed under SEPA (see Section 25.05.660 B). An EIS may briefly mention nonsignificant impacts or mitigation measures to satisfy other environ- mental review laws or requirements covered in the same document (Section 25.05.402 H and Section 25.05.640); 12-881 e. Summarize significant adverse impacts that cannot or will not be mitigated. 4. This section shall incorporate, when appropriate: a. A summary of existing plans (for example: land use and shoreline plans) and zon- ing regulations applicable to- the - proposal; and how the proposal is consistent and inconsistent with them; b. Energy requirements and conser- vation potential of various alternatives and miti- gation measures, including more efficient use of energy, such as insulating, as well as the use of alternate and renewable energy resources; c. Natural or depletable resource requirements and conservation potential of vari- ous alternatives and mitigation measures; d. Urban quality, historic and cul- tural resources, and the design of the built envi- ronment, including the reuse and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures. 5. Significant impacts on both the natu- ral environment and the built environment must be analyzed, if relevant (Section 25.05.444). This involves impacts upon and the quality of the physical surroundings, whether they are in wild, rural, or urban areas. Discussion of significant impacts shall include the cost of and effects on public services, such as utilities, roads, fire, and police protection, that may result from a pro- posal. EIS's shall also discuss significant environ- mental impacts upon land and shoreline use, which includes housing, physical blight. and sig- nificant impacts of projected population on environmental resources, as specified by RCW 43.21C.110(1)(d) and (f), as listed in Section 25.05.444. 6. Analysis of the following social, cul- tural, and economic issues shall be included in every EIS unless eliminated by the scoping process (Section 25,05.408); a. Economic factors, including but not limited to employment, public investment, and taxation where appropriate, provided that this section shall not authorize the City to require disclosure of financial information relating to the private applicant or the private applicant's pro- posal; b. Regional, City, and neighborhood goals, objectives. and policies adopted or recog- nized by the appropriate local governmental 25 -22 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 25.05.443 authority prior to the time the proposal is initi- ated; c. The level of detail used in discuss- ing these additional elements should be propor- tionate to the impacts the proposal may have if approved. F. Appendices. Comment letters and responses shall be circulated with the FEIS as specified by Section 25.05.560. Technical reports and supporting documents need not be circu- lated with an EIS (Sections 25.05.425 D and 25.05.440 All), but shall be readily available to agencies and the public during the comment period. G. Additional Analysis. The lead agency may at its option include, in an EIS or appendix, the analysis of any impact relevant to the agency's decision, whether or not environmental. The inclusion of such analysis may be based upon comments received during the scoping process. The provision for combining documents may be used (Section 25.05.640). The EIS shall comply with the format requirements of this subchapter. The decision whether to include such informa- tion and the adequacy of any such additional analysis shall not be used in determining whether an EIS meets the requirements of SEPA. (Ord. 114057 § 1(part), 1988: Ord. 111866 § 1(part), 1984.) 25.05.442 Contents of EIS on nonproject proposals. - A. The lead agency shall have more flexibility in preparing EIS's on nonproject proposals, because there is normally less detailed informa- ,tion available on their environmental impacts and on any subsequent project proposals. -The EIS may be combined with other planning docu- ments. B. The lead agency shall discuss impacts and alternatives in the level of detail appropriate to the scope of the nonproject proposal and to the level of planning for the proposal. Alternatives should be emphasized. In particular, agencies are encouraged to describe the proposal in terms of alternative means of accomplishing a stated objective (see Section 25.05.060 C). Alternatives including the proposed action should be ana- lyzed at a roughly comparable level of detail. sufficient to evaluate their comparative merits (this does not require devoting the same number of pages in an EIS to each alternative). C. If the nonproject proposal concerns a spe- cific geographic area, site specific analyses are not required, but may be included for areas of specific concern. The EIS should identify subse- quent actions that would be undertaken by other agencies as a result of the nonproject proposal, such as transportation and utility systems. - - D. The EIS's discussion of alternatives for a comprehensive plan, community plan, or other areawide zoning or for shoreline or land use plans shall be limited to a general discussion of the impacts of alternate proposals for policies contained in such plans, for land use or shoreline designations, and for implementation measures. The lead agency is not required under SEPA to examine all conceivable policies, designations, or implementation measures but should cover a range of such topics. The EIS content may be limited to a discussion of alternatives which have been formally proposed or which are, while not formally proposed, reasonably related to the pro- posed plan. (Ord. 114057 § 1(part). 1988: Ord. 111866 § 1(part), 1984.) 25.05.443 EIS contents when prior nonproject EIS. A. The provisions for phased review (Section 25.05.060 E) and use of existing environmental documents. Subchapter VI, apply to EIS's on nonproject proposals. B. A nonproject proposal may be approved based on an EIS assessing its broad impacts. When a project is then proposed that is consis- tent with the approved nonproject action, the EIS on such a project shall focus on the impacts and alternatives including 'mitigation measures specific to the subsequent project and not ana- lyzed in the nonproject EIS. The scope shall be limited accordingly. Procedures for use of exist- ing documents shall be used as appropriate. see Subchapter VI. C. When preparing a project EIS under the preceding subsection, the lead agency shall review the nonproject EIS to ensure that the analysis is valid when applied to the current pro- posal, knowledge, and technology. If it is not valid, the analysis shall be reanalyzed in the project EIS. (Ord. 114057 § l(part). 1988: Ord. 111866 § 1(part), 1984.) 25 -23 (Seattle 12 -S81 • • • STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 -6000 May 8, 1991 Dear Shoreline Administrator: Enclosed is the most current copy of WAC 173 -19. Please replace your old copy with this update. Kurt Danison, circuit rider for several small cities in Okanogan County, has arranged for Jo and I to present a one day workshop on the shoreline permitting process, at the Red Barn in the City of Winthrop on May 24, 1991, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. We will be scheduling at least two more workshops early this summer: one in Yakima, and one in southwestern Washington. These workshops are designed for the shoreline permit coordinators. The individuals who review, assemble, and transmit the permits to the Department of Ecology are encouraged to attend. Please contact Kurt at (509) 422 -5030, or at Post Office Box 1431, Okanogan, WA 98840 for information about the workshop in Winthrop. Call us if you have questions or suggestions for the workshop in Yakima or southwestern Washington. We are anxious to meet with as many of you as possible, and hopefully answer any questions you may have and supply permit guidelines to make your jobs easier. Sincerely, Jo Sohneronne Permit Specialist Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program JS:PT:ls Sincerely, Patricia Trerice Permit Coordinator Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program • 3 Chapter 173 -19 WAC SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 - -STATE MASTER PROGRAM WAC 173 -19 -010 Purpose. 173 -19 -020 Definitions. 173 -19 -030 Master programs organized by county. 173 -19 -040 Date of adoption or approval. 173 -19 -044 Local government change of jurisdiction— Effect of annexation. 173 -19 -050 Incorporation by reference. 173 -19 -060 Amendment of master programs. 173 -19 -061 Approval of master programs and amendments by lo- cal government. 173 -19 -062 Submission of master programs and amendments by local government. 173 -19 -064 Review and adoption of master programs and amend- ments by the department. 173 -19 -070 Appeal procedures for master programs. 173 -19 -080 Applicability of master program to federal agencies. 173 -19 -090 Adams County. 173 -19 -100 Asotin County. 173 -19 -1001 Asotin, city of. 173 -19 -1002 Clarkston, city of. 173 -19 -110 Benton County. 173 -19 -1101 Benton City, city of. 173 -19 -1102 Kennewick, city of. 173 -19 -1103 Prosser, city of. 173 -19 -1104 Richland, city of. 173 -19 -1105 West Richland, city of. 173 -19 -120 Chelan County. 173 -19 -1201 Cashmere, city of. 173 -19 -1202 Chelan, city of. 173 -19 -1203 Entiat, town of. 173 -19 -1204 Leavenworth, city of. 173 -19 -1205 Wenatchee, city of. 173 -19 -130 Clallam County. 173 -19 -1301 Port Angeles, city of. 173 -19 -140. Clark County. 173 -19 -1401 Camas, city of. 173 -19 -1402 LaCenter, town of. 173 -19 -1403 Ridgefield, town of. 173 -19 -1404 Vancouver, city of. 173 -19 -1405 Washougal, city of. 173 -19 -150 Columbia County. 173 -19 -1501 Dayton, city of. 173 -19 -1502 Starbuck, town of. 173 -19 -160 Cowlitz County. 173 -19 -1601 Castle Rock, city of. 173 -19 -1602 Kalama, city of. 173 -19 -1603 Kelso, city of. 173 -19 -1604 Longview, city of. 173 -19 -1605 Woodland, city of. 173 -19 -170 Douglas County. 173 -19 -1701 Bridgeport, town of. 173 -19 -1702 East Wenatchee, city of. 173 -19 -1703 Rock Island, town of. 173 -19 -180 Ferry County. 173 -19 -1801 Republic, town of. 173 -19 -190 Franklin County. 173 -19 -1901 Pasco, city of. 173 -19 -200 Garfield County. 173 -19 -210 Grant County. 173 -19 -2101 Krupp, town of. 173 -19 -2102 Moses Lake, city of. 173 -19 -2103 Soap Lake, city of. 173 -19 -2104 Wilson Creek, town of. (12/19/90) 173 -19 -220 Grays Harbor County. 173 -19 -2201 Aberdeen, city of. 173 -19 -2202 Cosmopolis, city of. 173 -19 -2203 Elma, city of. 173 -19 -2204 Hoquiam, city of. 173 -19 -2205 Montesano, city of. 173 -19 -2206 Oakville, city of. 173 -19 -2207 Ocean Shores, city of. 173 -19 -2208 Westport, city of. 173 -19 -230 island County. 173 -19 -2301 Coupeville, town of. 173 -19 -2302 Langley. city of. 173 -19 -2303 Oak Harbor, city of. 173 -19 -240 Jefferson County. 173 -19 -2401 Port Townsend, city of. 173 -19 -250 King County. 173 -19 -2501 Auburn, city of. 173 -19 -2502 Beaux Arts Village, town of. 173 -19 -2503 Bellevue, city of. 173 -19 -2504 Black Diamond, city of. 173 -19 -2505 Bothell, city of. 173 -19 -2506 Carnation, town of. 173 -19 -2507 Des Moines, city of. 173 -19 -2508 Duvall, city of. 173 -19 -2509 Hunts Point, town of. 173 -19 -2510 Issaquah, city of. 173-19-2511 Kent, city of. 173 -19 -2512 Kirkland, city of. 173 -19 -2513 Lake Forest Park. city of. 173 -19 -2514 Medina, city of. 173 -19 -2515 Mercer Island. city of. 173 -19 -2516 Normandy Park, city of. 173 -19 -2517 North Bend, city of. 173 -19 -2518 Pacific, city of. 173 -19 -2519 Redmond, city of. 173 -19 -2520 Renton, city of. 173 -19 -2521 Seattle, city of. 173 -19 -2522 Skykomish, town of. 173 -19 -2523 Snoqualmie, city of. 173 -19 -2524 Tukwila. city of. 173 -19 -2525 Yarrow Point, town of. 173 -19 -260 Kitsap County. 173 -19 -2601 Bremerton, city of. 173 -19 -2602 Port Orchard, city of. 173 -19 -2603 Poulsbo, city of. 173 -19 -2604 Winslow, city of. 173 -19 -270 Kittitas County. 173 -19 -2701 Cle Elum, city of. 173 -19 -2702 Ellensburg, city of. 173 -19 -2703 South Cle Elum, town of. 173 -19 -280 Klickitat County. 173 -19 -2801 Bingen, town of. 173 -19 -2802 Goldendalc, city of. 173 -19 -2803 White Salmon. town of. 173-19-290 Lewis County. 173 -19 -2901 Centralia, city of. 173 -19 -2902 Chehalis, city of. 173 -19 -2903 Morton. city of. 173 -19 -2904 Pe Ell, town of. 173 -19 -2905 Toledo, city of. 173 -19 -2906 Vader, city of. 173 -19 -2907 Winlock. city of. 173 -19 -300 Lincoln County. 173 -19 -3001 Odessa. town of. 173 -19 -3002 Spraguc, city of. [Ch. 173 -19 WAC —p 1] Chapter 173 -19 •oreline Management -- Master Programs • 173 -19 -310 Mason County. 173 -19 -3101 Shelton, city of. 173 -19 -320 Okanogan County. 173 -19 -3201 Brewster, town of. 173 -19 -3202 Conconully, town of. 173 -19 -3203 Okanogan, city of. 173 -19 -3204 Omak, city of. 173 -19 -3205 Oroville, town of. 173 -19 -3206 Pateros, town of. 173 -19 -3207 Riverside, town of. 173 -19 -3208 Tonasket, town of. 173 -19 -3209 Twisp, town of. 173 -19 -3210 Winthrop, town of. 173 -19 -330 Pacific County. 173 -19 -3301 Ilwaco, town of. 173 -19 -3302 Long Beach, town of. 173 -19 -3303 Raymond, city of. 173 -19 -3304 South Bend, city of. 173 -19 -340 Pend Oreille County. 173 -19 -3401 Cusick, town of. 173 19 3402 lone, town of. 173-19 3403 Metaline, town of. 173 -19 -3404 Mctaline Falls, town of. 173 -19 -3405 Newport, city of. 173 -19 -350 Pierce County. 173 -19 -3501 Bonney Lake, city of. 173 -19 -3502 Buckley, city of. 173 -19 -3503 Dupont, city of. 173 -19 -3504 Eatonville, town of. 173 -19 -3505 Fife, city of. 173 -19 -3506 Gig Harbor, town of. 173 -19 -3507 Orting, town of. 173 -19 -3508 Puyallup, city of. 173 -19 -3509 Roy, city of. 173 -19 -3510 Ruston, town of. 173 -19 -3511 South Prairie, town of. 173 -19 -3512 Steilacoom, town of. 173 -19 -3513 Sumner, city of. 173 -19 -3514 Tacoma, city of. 173 -19 -3515 Wilkeson, town of. 173 -19 -360 San Juan County. 173 -19 -3601 Friday Harbor, town of. 173 -19 -370 Skagit County. 173 -19 -3701 Anacortes, city of. 173 -19 -3702 Concrete, town of. 173 -19 -3703 Hamilton, town of. 173 -19 -3704 La Conner, town of. 173 -19 -3705 Lyman, town of. 173 -19 -3706 Mount Vernon, city of. 173 -19 -3707 Burlington, city of. 173 -19 -380 Skamania County. 173 -19 -3801 North Bonneville, city of. 173 -19 -3802 Stevenson, town of. 173 -19 -390 Snohomish County. 173 -19 -3901 Arlington, city of. 173 -19 -3902 Brier, city of. 173 -19 -3903 Edmonds, city of. 173 -19 -3904 Everett, city of. 173 -19 -3905 Gold Bar, town of. 173 -19 -3906 Granite Falls, town of. 173 -19 -3907 Index, town of. 173 -19 -3908 Lake Stevens, city of. 173 -19 -3909 Marysville, city of. 173 -19 -3910 Monroe, city of. 173 -19 -3911 Mountlake Terrace, city of. 173 -19 -3912 Mukiltco, city of. 173 -19 -3913 Snohomish, city of. 173 -19 -3914 Stanwood, city of. 173 -19 -3915 Sultan, town of. 173 -19 -3916 Woodway, town of. 173- 19-400 Spokane County. 173 -19 -4001 Latah, town of. 173 -19 -4002 Medical Lake, town of. 173 -19 -4003 Millwood, town of. 173 -19 -4004 Rockford, town of. 173 -19 -4005 Spokane, city of. [Ch. 173 -19 WAC —p 21 173 -19 -4006 173 - 19-410 173 -19 -4101 173 -19 -4102 173 - 19-420 173 -19 -4201 173 -19 -4202 173 -19 -4203 173 -19 -4204 173 -19 -4205 173 -19 -4206 173 -19 -430 173 -19- -4301 173 -19 -440 173 -19 -4401 173 -19 -4402 173 - 19-450 173 -19 -4501 173 -19 -4502 173 -19 -4503 173-19-4504 173 - -19 --4505 173 -19 -4506 173 -19 -4507 173 - 19-460 173 -19 -4601 173 -19 -4602 173 -19 -4603 173 -19 -4604 173 -19 -4605 173 -19 -4606 173-19-4607 173 -19 -470 173 -19 -4701 173 -19 -4702 173 -19 -4703 173-19-4704 173 -19 -4705 173 -19 -4706 173 -19 -4707 W'avcrly, town of. Stevens County. Chewclah, city of. Northport, town of. Thurston County. Bucoda, town of. Lacey, city of. Olympia, city of. Tenino, town of. Tumwatcr, city of. Yc1m, town of. Wahkiakum County. Cathlamet, town of. Walla Walla County. Waitsburg, town of. Walla Walla, city of. Whatcom County. Bellingham, city of. Blaine, city of. Everson, city of. Ferndale, city of. Lynden, city of. Nooksack, city of. Sumas, city of. Whitman County. Albion, town of. Colfax, city of. Malden, town of. Palouse, city of. Pullman, city of. Rosalia, town of. Tekoa, city of. Yakima County. Grandview. city of. Granger, town of. Naches, town of. Selah, city of. Union Gap, city of. Yakima, city of. Zillah, city of. Reviser's note: Shoreline master programs for various areas of the state were filed by Order DE 77 -16, filed September 9, 1977, and Or- der DE 77 -28, filed October 24, 1977, and have been omitted from publication by the authority of RCW 34.05.210. Copies may be ob- tained from the department of ecology. WAC 173 -19 -010 Purpose. Pursuant to RCW 90- .58.090, the department of ecology must adopt or ap- prove the master programs submitted to it by all local governments. In order to facilitate the administration and enforcement of these master programs, they are in corporated by reference in this state master program. [Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -010, filed 12/30/741 WAC 173 -19 -020 Definitions. As used herein, the following words have the following meanings: (1) "Amendment" means a revision, deletion, reen- actment, or addition to an existing master program. This term includes the following: (a) An "administrative amendment" modifies the master program administrative procedures or format'and does not affect the policies, use regulations, performance standards, or environment designations of the master program; and (b) A "substantive amendment" is a revision to the master program which includes but is not limited to modifications affecting the policies, use regulations, per- formance standards, or environment designations of the master program; (2) "Department" means the department of ecology; (12/19/90) • • • Shoreline Management -- Master Programs 173 -19 -061 (3) "Local government" means any county, incorpo- rated city or town which contains within its boundaries any lands or waters subject to this chapter; (4) "Master program" means the comprehensive use plan for a described area, and the use regulations, to- gether with maps, diagrams, charts, or other descriptive material and text, a statement of desired goals and stan- dards developed in accordance with the policies enuncia- ted in RCW 90.58.020; and (5) "State master program" is the cumulative total of all master programs adopted by the department of ecology. In addition, the definitions and concepts set forth in RCW 90.58.030 shall also apply as used herein. [Statu- tory Authority: Chapter 90.58 RCW. 86- 12-011 (Order 86 -06), § 173 -19 -020, filed 5/23/86; Order DE 74 -23, § 173- 19 -020, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -030 Master programs organized by county. The master programs have been assigned section numbers and are listed alphabetically by county. The master programs for incorporated cities and towns are grouped alphabetically by section following the county sections. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -030, filed 1/30/80; Order DE 74 -23, § 173- 19-030, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -040 Date of adoption or approval. The date of adoption or approval of each master pro- gram by the department is set forth beside the name of the appropriate local government. [Order DE 74 -23, § 173- 19 -040, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -044 Local government change of ju- risdiction-- Effect of annexation. In the event of annex- ation of a shoreline area, the local government assuming jurisdiction shall amend or develop a master program to include the annexed area. Such amendment or develop- ment shall be in accordance with the procedures estab- lished in chapter 173 -16 WAC and this chapter and shall be submitted to the department. Until a new or amended program is adopted by the department, any ruling on an application for permit in the annexed shoreline area shall be based upon compliance with the preexisting master program adopted for the area. [Stat- utory Authority: Chapter 90.58 RCW. 86 -12 -011 (Or- der 86 -06), § 173- 19 -044, filed 5/23/86. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173- 19 -044, filed 8/2/79.] WAC 173 -19 -050 Incorporation by reference. Due to the sheer bulk of the master programs adopted by the department, they are not included in the text of this chapter, but rather are incorporated herein as an appen- dix hereto, having full force and effect as published herein. Copies of the appendix are available to the public at all reasonable times for inspection in the headquarters of the department of ecology in Olympia, with the (12/19/90) Washington state code reviser and the county auditor or city clerk as appropriate. Copies of portions thereof, or the complete set, will be provided by the department at the expense of the party requesting the same. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 90.58 RCW. 86- 12-011 (Order 86- 06), § 173 -19 -050, filed 5/23/86; Order DE 74 -23, § 173- 19 -050, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -060 Amendment of master programs. The department and each local government shall period- ically review any master program under its jurisdiction and make amendments to the master program deemed necessary to reflect changing local circumstances, new information, or improved data. When the amendment is consistent with chapter 90.58 RCW and its applicable regulations, it may be approved by local government and adopted by the department according to the procedures established in this chapter. [Statutory Authority: Chap- ter 90.58 RCW. 86 -12 -011 (Order 86 -06), § 173 -19- 060, filed 5/23/86. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58- .030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -060, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173- 19 -060,. filed 8/2/79; Order DE 74 -23, § 173- 19 -060, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -061 Approval of master programs and amendments by local government. Prior to submission of a new or amended master program to the department, local government shall: (1) Conduct at least one public hearing to consider the proposal; (2) Publish notice of the hearing a minimum of once in each of the three weeks immediately preceding the hearing in one or more newspapers of general circulation in the area in which the hearing is to be held. The notice shall include: (a) Reference to the authority under which the action is proposed; (b) A statement or summary of the proposed changes to the master program; (c) The date, time, and location of the hearing, and the manner in which interested persons may present their views thereon; and (d) Reference to the availability of the proposal for public inspection at the local government office or upon request; (3) Consult with and .solicit the comments of any fed- eral, state, regional, or local agency, including tribes, having any special expertise with respect to any environ- mental impact; (4) Where amendments are proposed to a county or regional master program which has been adopted by cit- ies or towns, the county shall coordinate with those ju- risdictions and verify concurrence with or denial of the proposal. The procedural requirements of this section may be consolidated for concurring jurisdictions; (5) Solicit comments from the department on the proposal; (6) Assure compliance with chapter 43.21C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act; and [Ch. 173 -19 WAC —p 3] 173 -19 -061. Soreline Management -- Master Programs • (7) Approve the proposal. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 90.58 RCW. 86-12-011 (Order 86 -06), § 173- 19 -061, filed 5/23/86.] WAC 173 -19 -062 Submission of master programs and amendments by local government. A master program or amendment approved by local government shall be submitted to the department for its review and formal action. The submittal shall include, where applicable: (1) A transmittal letter which bears the signature of the authorized local official; (2) Documentation that the proposal has been ap- proved by the local government; (3) A copy of the master program text. if the proposal includes amended text, it shall be submitted in a form that can replace or be easily incorporated within the original document; (4) Amended environment designation map(s) at a scale consistent with the original document, except where all maps are replaced; (5) A summary of proposed amendments which enables a precise determination of which text is amended and /or the boundaries of those areas affected by envi- ronment redesignations; (6) An explanatory statement, staff report, record of the hearing, and /or other materials which document the necessity for the proposed changes to the master program; (7) The material specified by chapter 43.21C RCW the State Environmental Policy Act; (8) An affidavit showing that the notice has been properly published; and (9) Copies of comments received under WAC 173- 19-061 (3) and (4) or, where none have been received, a comment to that effect. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 90.58 RCW. 86- 12-011 (Order 86 -06), § 173- 19 -062, filed 5/23/86. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -062, filed 1/30/801 WAC 173 -19 -064 Review and adoption of master programs and amendments by the department. Review and adoption of master programs and amendments shall be in accordance with the provisions of RCW 34.04.025, insofar as such provisions are not inconsistent with the provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW, and shall follow the procedures set forth below: (1) REVIEW: (a) The department shall review the submitted master program or amendment for consistency with the provi- sions of WAC 173 -19 -062. If the submittal is deter- mined to be incomplete, the department will identify the deficiencies and so notify local government in writing. (b) For complete submittals a notice of intent to adopt the new or amended master program shall be filed with the state code reviser's office under the procedures and closing dates established by the code reviser. The de- partment shall file notice in a manner that will allow for the most expeditious adoption of the new or amended program. If more than one local government submits new or amended programs to the department for action, [Ch. 173 -19 WAC —p 41 the department may elect to consolidate the proceedings for adoption. (c) The department shall hold a public hearing to consider the proposal. (d) Prior to the public hearing, the department shall publish notice of the hearing and adoption proceeding in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the master program. The public notice shall include: (i) Reference to the authority under which the action is proposed; and (ii) The dates, times, and locations of the public hear- ing and adoption proceeding, and the manner in which persons may present their views. (e) The department shall also notify local govern- ments, affected tribes, and interested state and federal agencies and persons who have expressed a desire to be advised of the proposed action. (f) For new master programs and substantive amend - inents, a request for advice and guidance to members of the ecological commission shall be submitted at least thirty days prior to the adoption proceeding in accord- ance with chapter 43.21A RCW. (g) An evaluation of economic impact shall be com- pleted prior to the adoption proceeding in accordance with chapter 43.21H RCW. (h) An evaluation of the proposal's consistency with chapter 90.58 RCW and the implementing regulations shall be completed prior to the adoption proceeding. Where minor modifications which are not substantial may render a program or amendment consistent, the de- partment may propose such modifications for incorpora- tion into the proposal without filing a new notice with the state code reviser. Prior to final adoption, any minor modifications shall receive written concurrence from lo- cal government. (2) ADOPTION: (a) Following the department's review of the master program or amendment, an adoption proceeding shall be conducted by the department within a reasonable time following the public hearing. For administrative amendments, the adoption pro- ceeding shall occur within forty —five days from the date of filing the notice of intent to adopt the proposal with the state code reviser's office: Provided, That an adop- tion proceeding may be continued if deemed necessary by the department. (b) During the adoption proceeding, department staff shall present the evaluation completed under subsection (l)(h) of this section and recommend that the department: (i) Adopt the new or amended program, or portions thereof; (ii) Deny adoption of the new or amended program, or portions thereof. If it is recommended that any part of the master program or amendment be denied, the de- partment staff shall state the reasons upon which that recommendation is based, including inconsistency with: (A) The policies and procedures of the act; (B) The guidelines, rules and regulations of the de- partment; and (12/19/90) • • • Shoreline Management -- Master Programs 173 -19 -110 (C) The State Environmental Policy Act. (c) If the department determines to adopt ;a new or amended master program, it shall file the amended rule and a copy of the new or amended master program with the state code reviser following the adoption proceeding. The department shall also notify the appropriate city clerk or county auditor of the final action taken. (d) If the department determines to deny a new or amended master program, it shall advise local govern- ment in writing of the reasons for the denial and the de- partment's suggested modifications to the proposal which would make it consistent with chapter 90.58 RCW and the implementing regulations. The local gov- ernment may make the specific modifications designed to eliminate the inconsistencies and resubmit the pro- posal to the department. Any resubmitted program or amendment shall be subject to the full adoption proce- dure. With regard to those segments of the program which relate to shorelines of state -wide significance, the department may develop and adopt an alternative to the local government's proposal if the program submitted does not provide for the optimum implementation of the policies of chapter 90.58 RCW to satisfy the state -wide interest. The department shall notify local government of its intent to do so in writing at the adoption proceeding date and shall follow the procedure established under RCW 90.58.090(2). (e) If the department determines to partially deny a master program or amendment, it shall receive written concurrence from the authorized local government offi- cial. If concurrence is not received, the department may deny the entire proposal. (f) The procedure for adopting emergency rules de- scribed in RCW 34.04.030 shall be used in lieu of the procedure described above only if the criteria in RCW 34.04.030 are met and the department determines that the proposal is not controversial. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 87 -16 -101 (Order DE 87 -09), § 173- 19-064, filed 8/5/87. Statutory Authority: Chapter 90- .58 RCW. 86- 12-011 (Order 86 -06), § 173 -19 -064, filed 5/23/86. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -064, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -070 Appeal procedures for master programs. The procedures for appeals by local govern- ment of the department's decision to approve, reject, or modify a proposed master program or master program adjustment shall be governed by RCW 90.58.190. [Stat- utory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 87 -16 -101 (Order DE 87 -09), § 173 -19 -070, filed 8/5/87; Order DE 74- 23, § 173- 19 -070, filed 12/30/741 WAC 173 -19 -080 Applicability of master program to federal agencies. The state master program shall be applicable in the following manner to federal agencies on lands meeting the criteria of the Shoreline Management Act and the department for shorelines of the state: (1) The master program shall not be applicable to ac- tivities of federal agencies on lands owned in fee by the federal government unless the federal government grants (12/19/90) or reserves to the state or local government jurisdiction over uses on those lands. (2) The -federal government shall be subject to the state master program as provided by the approved Washington coastal zone management program, within ccrtain limitations sct forth in the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1451, et seq., and regula- tions adopted pursuant thereto. (3) The state master program shall apply to nonfed- eral development or uses, otherwise subject to the Shoreline Management Act, undertaken on lands under nonfederal ownership, lease, or easement even though such lands may fall within the external boundaries of a federal ownership. (4) The state master program shall apply to develop- ment or uses otherwise subject to the Shoreline Man- agement Act on lands not federally owned, but under lease, easement, license, or other similar federal property right short of ownership, to the federal government. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -080, filed 1/30/80; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -080, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -090 Adams County. Adams County master program approved June 2, 1977. [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 79-09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173- 19 -090, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 77 -16, § 173- 19 -090, filed 9/9/77; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -090, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -100 Asotin County. Asotin County master program approved October 22, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -100, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09-001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19- 100, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 75 -21, § 173 -19 -100, filed 8/12/75; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -100, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -1001 Asotin, city of. City of Asotin master program approved March 7, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -1001, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1002 Clarkston, city of. City of Clarkston master program approved March 7, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 1002, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -110 Benton County. Benton County master program approved April 25, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -110, filed 1/30/80; 79-11-053 (Order DE 79 -28), § 173- 19 -110, filed 10/16/79; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -110, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 76 -15, § 173 -19- 110, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 75 -21, § 173 -19 -110, filed lCh. 173 -19 WAC-p 5] 173 -19 -110 �fioreline Management -- Master Programs 8/12/75; Order DE 74 -23, § 173-19-110, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -1101 Benton City, city of. City of Benton City master program approved August 25, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 1101, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1102 Kennewick, city of. City of Kennewick master program approved December 11, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -1102, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1103 Prosser, city of. City of Prosser master program approved .Tune 2, 1975. [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -1103, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1104 Richland, city of. City of Richland master program approved September 9, 1974. Revision approved August 29, 1979. Revision approved June 23, 1983. Revision approved January 4, 1984. Re- vision approved January 2, 1990. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 90-02 -105 (Order 89 -57), § 173 -19- 1104, filed 1/3/90, effective 2/3/90. Statutory Author- ity: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 84 -02 -073 (Order DE 83 -37), § 173-19-1104, filed 1/4/84; 83 -14 -003 (Order DE 83 -17), § 173 -19 -1104, filed 6/23/83. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -1104, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1105 West Richland, city of. City of West Richland master program approved October 22, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -1105, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -120 Chelan County. Chelan County master program approved April 22, 1975. Revision ap- proved June 26, 1980. Revision approved July 15, 1981. Revision approved October 1, 1981. Revision approved October 13, 1983. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58- .120 and 90.58.200. 83 -21 -094 (Order DE 83 -27), § 173 -19 -120, filed 10/19/83; 81 -20 -042 (Order DE 81- 27), § 173 -19 -120, filed 10/1/81; 81 -15 -062 (Order DE 81 -23), § 173 -19 -120, filed 7/20/81. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -08 -054 (Order DE 80 -25), § 173 -19 -120, filed 6/30/80; 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19-120, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -120, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 75 -21, § 173 -19- 120, filed 8/12/75; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -120, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -1201 Cashmere, city of. City of Cashmere master program approved April 22, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 (C6. 173 -19 WAC -p 6] and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -1201, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1202 Chelan, city of. City of Chelan master program approved April 22, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -1202, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1203 Entiat, town of. Town of Entiat master program approved April 22, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -1203, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1204 Leavenworth, city of. City of Leavenworth master program approved April 22, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 1204, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1205 Wenatchee, city of. City of Wenatchee master program approved April 22, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -1205, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -130 Clallam County. Clallam County master program approved August 5, 1976. Revision ap- proved November 16, 1976. Revision approved August 10, 1979. Revision approved January 4, 1983. Revision approved March 27, 1984. Revision approved January 27, 1986. Revision approved June 3, 1986. Revision ap- proved March 1, 1988. Revision approved October 31, 1989. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 89 -22- 139 (Order 89 -17), § 173 -19 -130, filed 11/1/89, effec- tive 12/2/89. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 88- 07-009 (Order DE 87 -51), § 173 -19- 130, filed 3/3/88; 86- 12-069 (Order DE 86 -07), § 173 -19 -130, filed 6/4/86; 86 -04-040 (Order DE 85- 13), § 173 -19 -130, filed 1/31/86; 84-08 -030 (Order DE 83 -41), § 173 -19 -130, filed 3/29/84; 83 -02 -066 (Order DE 82 -48), § 173 -19 -130, filed 1/5/83. Statu- tory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 130, filed 1/30/80; 79- 11-053 (Order DE 79 -28), § 173 -19 -130, filed 10/16/79; 79 -09 -131 (Order DE 79- 16), § 173 -19 -130, filed 9/5/79; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -130, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 77 -16, § 173 -19 -130, filed 9/9/77; Order DE 74-23, § 173 -19- 130, filed 12/30/741 WAC 173 -19 -1301 Port Angeles, city of. City of Port Angeles master program approved August 5, 1976. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -1301, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -140 Clark County. Clark County master program approved December 18, 1974. [Statu- tory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- (12/19/90) • • • 'a • Shoreline Management -- Master Programs 173 -19 -1702 140, filed 1/30/80; 79- 09-001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -140, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 76 -15, § 173 -19- 140, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -140, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -1401 Camas, city of. City of Camas master program approved January 30, 1978. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -1401, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1402 LaCenter, town of. Town of LaCenter master program approved December 18, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 1402, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1403 Ridgefield, town of. Town of Ridgefield master program approved June 29, 1978. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 1403, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1404 Vancouver, city of. City of Vancouver master program approved September 25, 1975. Revision approved July 23, 1986. [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 86- 16-003 (Order DE 86 -19), § 173 -19 -1404, filed 7/24/86. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -1404, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1405 Washougal, city of. City of Washougal master program approved September 12, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -1405, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -150 Columbia County. Columbia County master program approved September 22, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 - 19 -150, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09-001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -150, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 76 -15, § 173 -19- 150, filed 5/3/76; Order 74 -23, § 173 -19 -150, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -1501 Dayton, city of. City of Dayton master program approved September 22, 1975. [Statu- tory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 1501, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1502 Starbuck, town of. Town of Starbuck master program approved September 22, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -1502, filed 1/30/80.] • WAC 173 -19 -160 Cowlitz County. Cowlitz County master program approved February 17, 1978. Revision approved February 9, 1982. Revision approved May 18, (12/19/90) 1982. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 82 -11 -105 (Order DE 82 -10), § 173 -19 -160, filed 5/19/82; 82- 05-017 (Order DE 81 -53), § 173- 19-160, filed 2/9/82. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58- .030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -160, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -160, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 77 -16, § 173 -19 -160, filed 9/9/77; Order DE 74- 23, § 173 -19 -160, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -1601 Castle Rock, city of. City of Castle Rock master program approved . [Statu- tory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 1601, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1602 Kalama, city of. City of Kalama master program approved January 16, 1978. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 1602, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1603 Kelso, city of. City of Kelso master program approved November 26, 1979. [Statu- tory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-04- 026 (Order DE 80 -10), § 173 -19 -1603, filed 3/18/80. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 1603, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1604 Longview, city of. City of Longview master program approved May 19, 1977. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -1604, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1605 Woodland, city of. City of Woodland master program approved January 16, 1980. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -04 -026 (Order DE 80 -10), § 173 -19 -1605, filed 3/18/80. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c). 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -1605, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -170 Douglas County. Douglas County master program approved February 20, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -170, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19- 170, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 75 -21, § 173 -19 -170, filed 8/12/75; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -170, filed 1 2/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -1701 Bridgeport, town of. Town of Bridgeport master program approved February 20, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -1701, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1702 East Wenatchee, city of. City of East Wenatchee master program approved February 20, (Ch. 173 -19 WAC -p 71 173 -19 -1702' loreline Management -- Master Programs • 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -1702, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -1703 Rock Island, town of. Town of Rock Island master program approved February 20, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -1703, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -180 Ferry County. Ferry County master program approved October 21, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -180, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19- 180, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 76 -15, § 173 -19 -180, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -180, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -1801 Republic, town of. Town of Re- public master program approved October 21, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -1801, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -190 Franklin County. Franklin County master program approved December 10, 1974. Revision approved December 12, 1975. Revision ap- proved August 28, 1978. Revision approved October 2, 1978. Revision approved July 8, 1983. [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 83 -17 -032 (Order DE 83 -18), § 173 -19 -190, filed 8/11/83. Stat- utory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 190, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -190, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 76 -15, § 173 -19- 190, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -190, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -1901 Pasco, city of. City of Pasco master program approved December 10, 1974. Revision approved December 12, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -1901, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -200 Garfield County. Garfield County master program approved September 13, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19- 200, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -200, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -210 Grant County. Grant County master program approved September 16, 1975. Revision approved June 11, 1981. Revision approved November 1, 1988. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 88 -22 -088 (Order 88 -31), § 173 -19 -210, filed 11/2/88; 81 -13 -055 (Order DE 81 -14), § 173 -19 -210, filed 6/17/81; Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 ICh. 173 -19 WAC -p 81 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -210, filed 1/30/80; 79- 09-001 (Or- der DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -210, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 76 -15, § 173 -19 -210, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -210, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -2101 Krupp, town of. Town of Krupp master program approved September 16, 1975. [Statu- tory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 2101, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2102 Moses Lake, city of. City of Moses Lake master program approved December '18, 1974. Revision approved July 15, 1981. Revision ap- proved August 12, 1982. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 82 -17 -046 (Order DE 82 -29), § 173 -19 -2102, filed 8/16/82; 81 -16 -079 (Order DE 81 -20), § 173 -19 -2102, filed 8/5/81. Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2102, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2103 Soap Lake, city of. City of Soap Lake master program approved November 19, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2103, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2104 Wilson Creek, town of. Town of Wilson Creek master program approved September 16, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2104, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -220 Grays Harbor County. Grays Harbor County master program approved August 6, 1975. Revision approved December 2, 1977. Revision approved July 17, 1978. Revision approved March 27, 1980. Revision approved June 3, 1986. Revision ap- proved August 21, 1987. Revision approved April 5, 1988. Revision approved September 6, 1988. Revision approved May 15, 1990. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 90 -13 -079 (Order 89 -64), § 173 -19 -220, filed 6/19/90, effective 7/20/90; 90 -11 -072 (Order 90- 04), § 173 -19 -220, filed 5/16/90, effective 6/16/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 88 -19 -008 (Order DE 88 -52), § 173 -19 -220, filed 9/8/88; 88 -08 -089 (Order DE 88 -02), § 173 -19 -220, filed 4/6/88; 87 -18 -023 (Order DE 87 -25), § 173 -19- 220, filed 8/26/87; 86 -12 -071 (Order DE 86 -11), § 173 -19 -220, filed 6/4/86; 80-07 -007 (Order DE 80- 26), § 173 -19 -220, filed 6/6/80. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -220, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -220, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 77 -16, § 173 -19 -220, filed 9/9/77; Order DE 75 -21, § 173 -19 -220, filed 8/12/75; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -220, filed 12/30/74.] (12/19/90) • • • • Shoreline Management -- Master Programs 173 -19 -2401 WAC 173 -19 -2201 Aberdeen, city of. City of Aberdeen master program approved June 30, 1975. Re- vision approved September 6, 1988. [Statutory Author= ity: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 88- 19-008 (Order DE 88 -52), § 173 -19 -2201, filed 9/8/88. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2201, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2202 Cosmopolis, city of. City of Cosmopolis master program approved August 12, 1974. Revision approved September 6, 1988. [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 88 -19 -008 (Order DE 88 -52), § 173 -19 -2202, filed 9/8/88. Stat- utory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 2202, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2203 Elma, city of. City of Elma master program approved September 18, 1974. Revision approved December 15, 1982. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 83 -02 -003 (Order DE 82 -40), § 173 -19 -2203, filed 12/23/82. Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2203, filed 1/30/80.1 WAC 173 -19 -2204 Hoquiam, city of. City of Hoquiam master program approved April 14, 1976. Revision[s] approved July 29, 1980. Revision approved April 23, 1985. Revision approved September 6, 1988. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 88 -19 -008 (Order DE 88 -52), § 173 -19 -2204, filed 9/8/88; 85- 10-030 (Order 85 -06), § 173 -19 -2204, filed 4/24/85; 80- 10-017 (Order DE 80 -30), § 173- 19- 2204, filed 7/31/80. Statutory Authority: RCW 90- .58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2204, filed 1/30/80.] Reviser's note: RCW 34.05.395 requires the use of underlining and deletion marks to indicate amendments to existing rules, and deems ineffectual changes not filed by the agency in this manner. The brack- eted material in the above section does not appear to conform to the statutory requirement. WAC 173 -19 -2205 Montesano, city of. City of Montesano master program approved [Statutory Authority:. RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2205, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2206 Oakville, city of. City of Oak- ville master program approved . [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 2206, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2207 Ocean Shores, city of. City of Ocean Shores master program approved August 12, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- • .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2207, filed 1/30/80.] (12/19/90) WAC 173 -19 -2208 Westport, city of. City of Westport master program approved November 7, 1974. Revision approved October 6, 1983. Revision approved September 6, 1988. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58- .120 and 90.58.200. 88 -19 -008 (Order DE 88 -52), § 173 -19 -2208, filed 9/8/88; 83- 21-019 (Order DE 83- 24), § 173 -19 -2208, filed 10/7/83. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 - - 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2208, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -230 Island County. Island County master program approved June 25, 1976. Revision ap- proved June 4, 1985. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 85- 12-051 (Order 85 -12), § 173 -19 -230, filed 6/5/85. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -230, filed 1/30/80; 79- 09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -230, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 77 -16, § 173 -19 -230, filed 9/9/77; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -230, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -2301 Coupeville, town of. Town of Coupeville master program approved June 25, 1976. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 2301, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2302 Langley, city of. City of Langley master program approved June 25, 1976. [Stat- utory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 2302, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2303 Oak Harbor, city of. City of Oak Harbor master program approved June 25, 1976. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 2303, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -240 Jefferson County. Jefferson County master program approved December 20, 1974. Revision approved August 12, 1982. Revision approved July 6, 1983. Revision approved March 7, 1989. [Statu- tory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 89 -08- 012 and 90 -07 -027 (Order DE 88 -56 and DE 88 -56A), § 173 -19 -240, filed 3/24/89 and 3/14/90, effective 4/14/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030, 90.58- .120 and 90.58.200. 85 -09 -043 (Order DE 85 -05), § 173 -19 -240, filed 4/15/85. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 83 -14 -086 (Order DE 83 -20), § 173 -19 -240, filed 7/6/83; 82 -17 -047 (Order DE 82- 30), § 173 -19 -240, filed 8/16/82. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -240, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -240, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 75 -21, § 173 -19 -240, filed 8/12/75; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -240, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -2401 Port Townsend, city of. City of Port Townsend master program approved December 20, [Ch. 173 -19 WAC -p 91 173 -19 -2401 •oreline Management -- Master Programs • 1974. Revision approved March 7, 1989. [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 89 -08 -035 and 90- 07-027 (Order DE 88 -56 and DE 88 -56A), § 173- 19 -2401, filed 3/31/89 and 3/14/90, effective 4/14/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02-123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -2401, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -250 King County. King County master program approved July 8, 1976. Revision ap- proved November 22, 1976. Revision approved June 30, 1978. Revision approved .luly 5, 1979. Revision ap- proved September 23, 1981. Revision approved February 9, 1982. Revision approved March 14, 1984. Revision approved June 18, 1985. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 85 -13 -054 (Order 85 -17), § 173 -19 -250, filed 6/18/85; 84 -07 -025 (Order DE 84 -- 6), § 173 -19 -250, filed 3/15/84; 82 -05 -018 (Order DE 81 -54), § 173 -19 -250, filed 2/9/82; 81 -20 -006 (Order DE 81 -24), § 173 -19 -250, filed 9/24/81. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -250, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -131 (Order DE 79 -16), § 173- 19 -250, filed 9/5/79; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -250, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 77 -28, § 173 -19- 250, filed 10/24/77; Order DE 77 -16, § 173 -19 -250, filed 9/9/77; Order DE 76 -15, § 173 -19 -250, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 75 -21, § 173 -19 -250, filed 8/12/75; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -250, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -2501 Auburn, city of. City of Auburn master program approved April [4] [14], 1974. Revision approved June 18, 1985. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 85 -13 -054 (Order 85 -17), § 173 -19 -2501, filed 6/18/85. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2501, filed 1/30/80.] Reviser's note: RCW 34.05.395 requires the use of underlining and deletion marks to indicate amendments to existing rules, and deems ineffectual changes not filed by the agency in this manner. The brack- eted material in the above section does not appear to conform to the statutory requirement. WAC 173 -19 -2502 Beaux Arts Village, town of. Town of Beaux Arts Village master program approved August 12, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2502, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2503 Bellevue, city of. City of Bellevue master program approved February 26, 1975. Revision approved January 8, 1979. Revision approved May 14, 1981. Revision approved February 24, 1983. Revision approved September 5, 1989. [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 89 - -20 -016 (Order DE 89 -21), § 173 -19 -2503, filed 9/27/89, ef- fective 10/28/89; 83 -07 -080 (Order DE 83 -3). § 173- 19 -2503, filed 3/23/83; 81 -11 -027 (Order DE 81 -10), § 173 -19 -2503, filed 5/15/81. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34). § 173 -19 -2503, filed 1/30/80.1 [Ch. 173 -19 WAC —n 10i WAC 173 -19 -2504 Black Diamond, city of. City of Black Diamond master program approved December 21, 1977. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2504, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2505 Bothell, city of. City of Bothell master program approved February 27, 1975. Revision approved July 2, 1976. Revision approved January 31, 1977. Revision approved March 8, 1983. Revision ap- proved December 5, 1984. Revision approved March 6, 1990. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 90 -06- 067 (Order 89 -59), § 173 -19 -2505, filed 3/6/90, effec- tive 4/6/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 84 -24 -075 (Order 84 -40), § 173 -19 -2505, filed 12/5/84; 83 -07 -019 (Order DE 83 -9), § 173 -19- 2505, filed 3/11/83. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58- .030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2505, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2506 Carnation, town of. Town of Carnation master program approved August 16, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -2506, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2507 Des Moines, city of. City of Des Moines master program approved April 3, 1974. Revision approved March I, 1988. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 88-07 -008 (Order 87- 49), § 173 -19 -2507, filed 3/3/88. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2507, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2508 Duvall, city of. City of Duvall master program approved August 12, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2508, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2509 Hunts Point, town of. Town of Hunts Point master program approved November 15, 1974. Revision approved July 2, 1975. [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2509, filed 1 /30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2510 Issaquah, city of. City of Issaquah master program approved October 2, 1990. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 90- 20-108 (Or- der 90 -28), § 173 -19 -2510, filed 10/2/90, effective 11/2/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2510, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19- -2511 Kent, city of. City of Kent master program approved April 9, 1974. Revision ap- proved December 8, 1978. Revision approved April 10, 1979. Revision approved December 10, 1980. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030, 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 85 -09 -043 (Order DE 85 -05), § 173 -19 -2511, filed (12/19/90) Shoreline Management -- Master Programs 173 -19 -2521 4/15/85. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 81 -01 -039 (Order DE 80 -48), § 173 -19 -2511, •filed 12/11/80. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2511, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2512 Kirkland, city of. City of Kirkland master program approved August 27, 1974. Revision approved June 3, 1986. Revision approved Jan- uary 3, 1989. Revision approved January 2, 1990. [Stat- utory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 90-02 -106 (Order 89 -54), § 173 -19 -2512, filed 1/3/90, effective 2/3/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 89 -03 -009 (Order DE 88 -35), § 173 -19 -2512, filed 1/6/89; 86 -12 -070 (Order DE 86 -09), § 173 -19 -2512, filed 6/4/86. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2512, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2513 Lake Forest Park, city of. City of Lake Forest Park master program approved April 19, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2513, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2514 Medina, city of. City of Medina master program approved November 22, 1974. Revision approved December 18, 1990. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 91 -01 -131 (Order 90 -45), § 173 -19- 2514, filed 12/19/90, effective 1/19/91. Statutory Au- • thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2514, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2515 Mercer Island, city of. City of Mercer Island master program approved September 24, 1974. Revision approved May 14, 1981. Revision ap- proved June 18, 1985. [Revision approved September 16, 1987.] Revision approved January 3, 1989. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 89 -03 -011 (Order DE 88 -49), § 173 -19 -2515, filed 1/6/89; 87- 19-085 (Order DE 87 -23), § 173 -19 -2515, filed 9/16/87; 85 -13 -054 (Order 85 -17), § 173 -19 -2515, filed 6/18/85; 81 -11 -028 (Order DE 81 -11), § 173- 19- 2515, filed 5/15/81. Statutory Authority: RCW 90- .58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79-34), § 173 -19 -2515, filed 1/30/801 Reviser's note: RCW 34.05.395 requires the use of underlining and deletion marks to indicate amendments to existing rules, and deems ineffectual changes not filed by the agency in this manner. The brack- eted material in the above section does not appear to conform to the statutory requirement. WAC 173 -19 -2516 Normandy Park, city of. City of Normandy Park master program approved April 5, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2516, filed 1/30/80.] • WAC 173 -19 -2517 North Bend, city of. City of North Bend master program approved September 18, 1974. Revision approved December 1, 1987. Revision (12/19/90) approved July 3, 1990. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90- .58.200. 90 -14 -090 (Order 90 -15), § 173 -19 -2517, filed 7/3/90, effective 8/3/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 87 -24 -068 (Order DE 87 -43), § 173-19-2517, filed 12/1/87. Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2517, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2518 Pacific, city of. City of Pacific master program approved September 19, 1974. [Statu- tory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 2518, filed 1/30/80.1 WAC 173 -19 -2519 Redmond, city of. City of Redmond master program approved September 20, 1974. Revision approved December 15, 1981. Revision approved October 20, 1986. Revision approved January 2, 1990. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 90-02- 101 (Order 89 -58), § 173 -19 -2519, filed 1/3/90, effec- tive 2/3/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 86 -21 -110 (Order DE 86 -27), § 173 -19- 2519, filed 10/20/86; 82 -01 -048 (Order DE 81 -42), § 173 -19 -2519, filed 12/16/81. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2519, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2520 Renton, city of. City of Renton master program approved January 23, 1976. Revision approved February 23, 1977. Revision approved Sep- tember 12, 1984. Revision approved August 22, 1990. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 90-17 -127 (Or- der 90 -08), § 173 -19 -2520, filed 8/22/90, effective 9/22/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 84 -19 -039 (Order DE 84 -28), § 173 -19 -2520, filed 9/14/84. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2520, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2521 Seattle, city of. City of Seattle master program approved June 30, 1976. Revision ap- proved March 11, 1977. Revision approved September 10, 1980. Revision approved February 24, 1981. Revi- sion approved May 14, 1981. Revision approved October 1, 1981. Revision approved January 5, 1982. Revision approved February 24, 1983. Revision approved June 7, 1983. Revision approved July 12, 1983. Revision ap- proved October 13, 1983. Revision approved October 1, 1985. Revision approved October 20, 1986. Revision ap- proved February 11, 1987. Revision approved November 10, 1987. Revision approved October 2, 1990. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 90- 20-111 (Order 90 -35), § 173 -19 -2521, filed 10/2/90, effective 11/2/90. Stat- utory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 87 -24- 067 (Order DE 87 -24), § 173 -19 -2521, filed 12/1/87; 87 -05 -015 (Order DE 86 -41), § 173 -19 -2521, filed 2/11/87; 86 -21 -109 (Order DE 86 -28), § 173 -19- 2521, filed 10/20/86; 85 -20 -094 (Order DE 85 -21) , § 173 -19 -2521, filed 10/1/85; 83 -21 -094 (Order DE 83— )Ch. 173 -19 WAC —p 11) 173 -19 -2521 loreline Management -- Master Programs • 27), § 173 -19 -2521, filed 10/19/83; 83 -15 -014 (Order DE 83 -19), § 173 -19 -2521, filed 7/12/83; 83 -13 -029 (Order DE 83 -4), § 173 -19 -2521, filed 6/7/83; 83 -07- 081 (Order DE 83-4), § 173 -19 -2521, filed 3/23/83; 82-02 -079 (Order DE 81 -44), § 173 -19 -2521, filed 1/6/82; 81- 20-043 (Order DE 81 -28), § 173 -19 -2521, filed 10/1/81; 81 -11 -029 (Order DE 81 -12), § 173- 19 -2521, filed 5/15/81; 81 -06 -051 (Order DE 81 -2), § 173 -19 -2521, filed 2/27/81; 80 -13 -031 (Order DE 80- 34), § 173 -19 -2521, filed 9/10/80. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2521, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2522 Skykomish, town of. Town of Skykomish master program approved . [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2522, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2523 Snoqualmie, city of. City of Snoqualmie master program approved August 16, 1974. Revision approved December 16, 1986. [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 87 -01 -060 (Order 86 -35), § 173 -19 -2523, filed 12/16/86. Statu- tory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 2523, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2524 Tukwila, city of. City of Tukwila master program approved September 26, 1974. Revision approved May 18, 1982. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 82 -11 -106 (Order DE 82-11), § 173 -19 -2524, filed 5/19/82. Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2524, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2525 Yarrow Point, town of. Town of Yarrow Point master program approved March 13, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2525, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -260 Kitsap County. Kitsap County master program approved April 30, 1976. Revision ap- proved October 24, 1977. Revision approved December 22, 1981. Revision approved March 16, 1983. Revision approved March 22, 1984. Revision approved April 18, 1985. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 85 -10 -014 (Order 85- 03.5), § 173 -19 -260, filed 4/19/85; 84 -08 -042 (Order DE 84 -5), § 173 -19 -260, filed 4/2/84; 83 -08 -002 (Order DE 83 -11), § 173 -19- 260, filed 3/24/83; 82 -01 -087 (Order DE 81 -35), § 173 -19 -260, filed 12/22/81. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -260, filed 1/30/80; 79- 09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -260, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 77 -16, § 173 -19 -260, filed 9/9/77; Order DE 76 -15, § 173 -19 -260, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 74- 23, § 173 -19 -260, filed 12/30/74.] (Ch. 173 -19 WAC -p 121 WAC 173 -19 -2601 Bremerton, city of. City of Bremerton master program approved January 9, 1978. Revision approved March 3, 1978. Revision approved June 28, 1978. Revision approved August 22, 1978. Re- vision approved October 24, 1978. Revision approved January 19, 1982. Revision approved March 4, 1982. Revision approved November 1, 1988. [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 88- 22-089 (Order 88 -32), § 173 -19 -2601, filed 11/2/88; 82 -07- 003 (Order DE 82 -2), § 173 -19 -2601, filed 3/4/82; 82 -03 -042 (Order DE 81 -45), § 173 -19 -2601, filed 1/19/82. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2601, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2602 Port Orchard, city of. City of Port Orchard master program approved March 10, 1977. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2602, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2603 Poulsbo, city of. City of Poulsbo master program approved January 12, 1976. Revision approved October 21, 1976. Revision approved October 24, 1977. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58- .030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2603. filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2604 Winslow, city of. City of Winslow master program approved October 3, 1979. Revision approved June 9, 1981. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 81 -13 -015 (Order DE 81 -16), § 173 -19 -2604, filed 6/11/81. Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2604, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -270 Kittitas County. Kittitas County master program approved September 3, 1975. Revision approved August 28, 1979. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -270, filed 1/30/80; 79- 11 -053 (Order DE 79 -28), § 173 -19 -270, filed 10/16/79; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -270, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 77 -16, § 173 -19 -270, filed 9/9/77; Order DE 76 -15, § 173 -19 -270, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -270, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -2701 Cle Elum, city of. City of Cle Elum master program approved . [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2701, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2702 Ellensburg, city of. City of Ellensburg master program approved . [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2702, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2703 South Cle Elum, town of. Town of South Cle Elum master program approved June 28, (12/19/90) • • • • Shoreline Management -- Master Programs 173 -19 -3002 1976. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2703, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -280 Klickitat County. Klickitat County master program approved August 29, 1975. Re- vision approved September 6, 1979. Revision approved March 1, 1984. Revision approved July 3, 1990. [Statu- tory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 90 -14 -091 (Order 90- 14), § 173 -19 -280, filed 7/3/90, effective 8/3/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 84-06 -043 (Order DE 83 -40), § 173 -19 -280, filed 3/2/84. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -280, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -280, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 76 -15, § 173 -19 -280, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19- 280, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -2801 Bingen, town of. Town of Bingen master program approved August 29, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -2801, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2802 Goldendale, city of. City of Goldendale master program approved August 29, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 2802, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2803 White Salmon, town of. Town of White Salmon master program approved August 29, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2803, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -290 Lewis County. Lewis County master program approved November I, 1974. Revision approved January 16, 1978. Revision approved Septem- ber 24, 1979. Revision approved October 2, 1980. [Stat- utory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -15- 023 (Order DE 80 -40), § 173 -19 -290, filed 10/7/80. •Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19-290, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -290, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 77 -16, § 173 -19- 290, filed 9/9/77; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -290, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -2901 Centralia, city of. City of Centralia master program approved March 29, 1978. Revision approved August 12, 1982. [Statutory Author- ity: RCW 90.58.030, 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 85 -09- 043 (Order DE 85 -05), § 173 -19 -2901, filed 4/15/85. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 82 -17 -048 (Order DE 82 -31), § 173 -19 -2901, filed 8/16/82. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2901, filed 1/30/80.] (12/19/90) WAC 173 -19 -2902 Chehalis, city of. City of Chehalis master program approved February 10, 1977. Revision approved January 5, 1982. [Statutory Author- ity: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 82 -02 -078 (Order DE 81 -46), § 173 -19 -2902, filed 1/6/82. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2902, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2903 Morton, city of. City of Morton master program approved October 12, 1977. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2903, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2904 Pe Ell, town of. Town of Pe Ell master program approved November 15, 1974. [Statu- tory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 2904, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2905 Toledo, city of. City of Toledo master program approved November 1, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2905, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2906 Vader, city of. City of Vader master program approved October 24, 1977. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -2906, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -2907 Winlock, city of. City of Winlock master program approved October 24, 1977. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -2907, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -300 Lincoln County. Lincoln County master program approved February 25, 1977. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -300, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19- 300, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 77 -16, § 173 -19 -300, filed 9/9/77; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -300, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -3001 Odessa, town of. Town of Odessa master program approved February 25, 1977. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 3001, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3002 Sprague, city of. City of Sprague master program approved February 25, 1977. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -3002, filed 1/30/80.] [Ch. 173 -19 WAC -p 131 173 -19 -310 oreline Management -- Master Programs WAC 173 -19 -310 Mason County. Mason County master program approved August 6, 1975. Revision ap- proved December 18, 1975. Revision approved February 22, 1980. Revision approved June 23, 1982. Revision approved October 16, 1984. Revision approved March 1, 1988. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 88-07 -010 (Order 88 -01), § 173 -19 -310, filed 3/3/88; 84 -22 -055 (Order 84 -29), § 173 -19 -310, filed 11/7/84; 82 -14 -017 (Order DE 82 -18), § 173 -19 -310, filed 6/28/82. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-05 -053 (Order DE 80 -12), § 173 -19 -310, filed 4/16/80; 80 -02 -123 (Or- der DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -310, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09- 001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -310, filed 8/2/79; Or- der DE 76 -15, § 173 -19 -310, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 75 -21, § 173 -19 -310, filed 8/12/75; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -310, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -3101 Sheiton, city of. City of Shelton master program approved March 18, 1975. Revision ap- proved December 18, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3101, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -320 Okanogan County. Okanogan County master program approved December 16, 1975. Revision approved March 9, 1976. Revision approved September 29, 1987. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58- .120 and 90.58.200. 87- 20-051 (Order DE 87 -33), § 173 -19 -320, filed 10/2/87. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -320, filed 1/30/80; 79- 09-001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -320, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 76 -15, § 173 -19 -320, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 74-23, § 173 -19 -320, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -3201 Brewster, town of. Town of Brewster master program approved December 16, 1975. Revision approved March 9, 1976. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3201, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3202 Conconully, town of. Town of Conconully master program approved December 16, 1975. Revision approved March 9, 1976. [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3202, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3203 Okanogan, city of. City of Okanogan master program approved December 16, 1975. Revision approved March 9, 1976. [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3203, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3204 Omsk, city of. City of Omak master program approved December 16, 1975. Revision approved March 9, 1976. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3204, filed 1/30/80.] [Ch. 173 -19 WAC -p 141 WAC 173 -19 -3205 Oroville, town of. Town of Oroville master program approved December 16, 1975. Revision approved March 9, 1976. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3205, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3206 Pateros, town of. Town of Pateros master program approved December 16, 1975. Revision approved March 9, 1976. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3206, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3207 Riverside, town of. Town of Riverside master program approved December 16, 1975. Revision approved March 9, 1976. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3207, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3208 Tonasket, town of. Town of Tonasket master program approved December 16, 1975. Revision approved March 9, 1976. Revision approved August 12, 1982. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 82- 17-049 (Order DE 82 -32), § 173- 19- 3208, filed 8/16/82. Statutory Authority: RCW 90- .58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3208, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3209 Twisp, town of. Town of Twisp master program approved December 16, 1975. Revision approved March 9, 1976. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3209, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3210 Winthrop, town of. Town of Winthrop master program approved December 16, 1975. Revision approved March 9, 1976. Revision approved February 2, 1979. Revision approved November 23, 1981. Revision approved January 31, 1985. Revision ap- proved March 28, 1985. Revision approved September 11, 1986. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 86 -19 -048 (Order DE 86 -22), § 173 -19- 3210, filed 9/12/86; 85 -08 -016 (Order 85 -08), § 173- 19 -3210, filed 3/28/85. Statutory Authority: RCW 90- .58.120, 90.58.200 and chapter 90.58 RCW. 85 -04 -039 (Order 84 -46), § 173 -19 -3210, filed 2/1/85. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 81 -24 -074 (Order DE 81 -36), § 173 -19 -3210, filed 12/2/81; 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 3210, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -330 Pacific County. Pacific County master program approved April 8, 1975. Revision ap- proved June 26, 1980. Revision approved March 16, 1982. Revision approved September 26, 1984. Revision approved August 28, 1986. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 86 -18 -052 (Order DE 86 -15), § 173 -19 -330, filed 9/2/86; 84 -20 -041 (Order 84 -32), § 173 -19 -330, filed 9/27/84; 82 -07 -045 (Order DE (12/19/90) • • • Shoreline Management -- Master Programs 173 -19 -3505 81 -55), § 173 -19 -330, filed 3/18/82. Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80 -08-054 (Order DE 80 -25), § 1.73-19-330; filed 6/30/80; 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19-330, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -330, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 75 -21, § 173 -19- 330, filed 8/12/75; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -330, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -3301 Ilwaco, town of. Town of Ilwaco master program approved May 2, 1975. [Statu- tory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 3301, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3302 Long Beach, town of. Town of Long Beach master program approved May 2, 1975. Revision approved January 5, 1988. [Statutory Author- ity: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 88 -02 -064 (DE 87- 47), § 173 -19 -3302, filed 1/6/88. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3302, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3303 Raymond, city of. City of Raymond master program approved April 9, 1976. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 3303, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3304 South Bend, city of. City of South Bend master program approved May 2, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 3304, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -340 Pend Oreille County. Pend Oreille County master program approved April 18, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -340, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79- 6), § 173 -19 -340, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 75 -21, § 173 -19 -340, filed 8/12/75; Order DE 74 -23, § 173- 19-340, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -3401 Cusick, town of. Town of Cusick master program approved April 18, 1975. [Stat- utory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 3401, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3402 Ione, town of. Town of lone master program approved April 18, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3402, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3403 Metaline, town of. Town of Metaline master program approved April 18, 1975. • [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 3403, filed 1/30/80.] (12/19/90) WAC 173 -19 -3404 Metaline Falls, town of. Town of Metaline Falls master program approved April 18, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3404, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3405 Newport, city of. City of Newport master program approved April 18, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -3405, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -350 Pierce County. Pierce County master program approved April 4, 1975. Revision ap- proved November 16, 1976. Revision approved October 26, 1977. Revision approved February 21, 1979. Revi- sion approved June 11, 1979. Revision approved August 16, 1979. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -350, filed 1/30/80; 79 -11 -019 (Order DE 79 -19), § 173 -19 -350, filed 10/9/79; 79 -09 -131 (Or- der DE 79 -16), § 173 -19 -350, filed 9/5/79; 79 -09 -129 (Order DE 79 -27), § 173 -19 -350, filed 9/5/79; 79 -09- 001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -350, filed 8/2/79; Or- der DE 77 -16, § 173 -19 -350, filed 9/9/77; Order DE 76 -15, § 173 -19 -350, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 75 -21, § 173 -19 -350, filed 8/12/75; Order DE 74 -23, § 173- 19 -350, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -3501 Bonney Lake, city of. City of Bonney Lake master program approved August 6, 1975. Revision approved May 3, 1988. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 88 -10 -059 (Order DE 88 -07), § 173 -19 -3501, filed 5/4/88. Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120. and 90.58- .200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3501, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3502 Buckley, city of. City of Buck- ley master program approved April 7, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3502, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3503 Dupont, city of. City of Dupont master program approved June 11, 1975. Revision ap- proved October 31, 1989.. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 89 -22 -138 (Order 89 -41), § 173 -19 -3503, filed 11/1/89, effective 12/2/89. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200..80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3503, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3504 Eatonville, town of. Town of Eatonville master program approved April 29, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -3504, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3505 Fife, city of. City of Fife master program approved September 6, 1974. [Statutory ICh. 173 -19 WAC -p 15) 173 -19 -3505 •oreline Management -- Master Programs • Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3505, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3506 Gig Harbor, town of. Town of Gig Harbor master program approved September 10, 1975. Revision approved December 10, 1980. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 81 -01 -038 (Order DE 80 -50), § 173 -19 -3506, filed 12/11/80. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -3506, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3507 Orting, town of. Town of Orting master program approved April 8, 1975. [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3507, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3508 Puyallup, city of. City of Puyallup master program approved May 31, 1974. Re- vision approved May 24, 1983. Revision approved March 18, 1987. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 87 -08 -001 (Order DE 86 -42), § 173- 19 -3508, filed 3/20/87; 83 -12 -017 (Order DE 83 -15), § 173 -19 -3508, filed 5/24/83. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3508, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3509 Roy, city of. City of Roy master program approved April 9, 1975. [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3509, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3510 Ruston, town of. Town of Rus- ton master program approved September 20, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -3510, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3511 South Prairie, town of. Town of South Prairie master program approved [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -3511, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3512 Steilacoom, town of. Town of Steilacoom master program approved March 1, 1988. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 88 -07 -007 (Order 87 -48), § 173 -19 -3512, filed 3/3/88. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-- 02 - -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 19- -3512, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3513 Sumner, city of. City of Sumner master program approved December 11, 1974. [Statu- tory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 3513, filed 1/30/80.] [Ch. 173 -19 WAC -p 161 WAC 173 -19 -3514 Tacoma, city of. City of Tacoma master program approved April 5, 1977. Revi- sion approved December 5, 1979. Revision approved March 17, 1981. Revision approved November 23, 1981. Revision approved April 6, 1982. Revision approved May 24, 1983. Revision approved March 1, 1984. Revi- sion approved May 9, 1984. Revision approved April 18, 1985. Revision approved July 23, 1986. Revision ap- proved September 16, 1987. Revision approved May 15, 1990. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 90 -11- 072 (Order 90 -05), § 173 -19 -3514, filed 5/16/90, ef- fective 6/16/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 87 -19 -111 (Order DE 87 -34), § 173- 19 -3514, filed 9/18/87; 86- 16-004 (Order DE 86 -18), § 173 -19 -3514, filed 7/24/86; 85- 10-013 (Order 85- 03), § 173 -19 -3514, filed 4/19/85; 84 -11 -015 (Order DE 84 -16), § 173 -19 -3514, filed 5/9/84; 84 -06 -043 (Order DE 83 -40), § 173 -19 -3514, filed 3/2/84; ,83- 12 -018 (Order DE 83 -16), § 173 -19 -3514, filed 5/24/83; 82 -10 -002 (Order DE 82 -06), § 173 -19- 3514, filed 4/23/82; 81- 24-072 (Order DE 81 -37), § 173 -19 -3514, filed 12/2/81; 81 -08 -005 (Order DE 81- 4), § 173 -19 -3514, filed 3/19/81; 80 -04 -026 (Order DE 80 -10), § 173 -19 -3514, filed 3/18/80. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3514, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3515 Wilkeson, town of. Town of Wilkeson master program approved October 21, 1977. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -3515, filed 1/30/80.] VVAC 173 -19 -360 San Juan County. San Juan County master program approved May 28, 1976. Revi- sion approved October 29, 1976. Revision approved April 13, 1981. Revision approved October 30, 1984. Revision approved April 19, 1989. [Revision approved March 14, 1990.] [Revision approved May 15, 1990.] Revision approved June 19, 1990. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 90 -11 -072 and 90 -13 -089 (Order 90- 03 and 90 -03A), § 173 -19 -360, filed 5/16/90. and 6/20/90, effective 6/16/90 and 7/21/90. Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 89 -09 -077 and 90 -07 -026 (Order DE 88 -22 and DE 88 -22A), § 173- 19 -360, filed 4/19/89 and 3/14/90, effective 4/14/90; 84 -22 -016 (Order DE 84 -36), § 173 -19 -360, filed 10/31/84; 81 -09 -057 (Order DE 81 -8), § 173 -19 -360, filed 4/17/81. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -360, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Or- der DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -360, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 77 -16, § 173 -19 -360, filed 9/9/77; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 - -19 -360, filed 12/30/74.] Reviser's note: RCW 34.05.395 requires the use of underlining and deletion marks to indicate amendments to existing rules, and deems ineffectual changes not filed by the agency in this manner. The brack- eted material in the above section dots not appear to conform to the statutory requirement. (12/19/90) Shoreline Management -- Master Programs 173 -19 -390 WAC 173 -19 -3601 Friday Harbor, town of. Town of Friday Harbor master program approved July 14, 1978. Revision approved January 5, 1979. Revision ap- proved May 15, 1990. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90- .58.200. 90 -11 -072 (Order 90 -09), § 173 -19 -3601, filed 5/16/90, effective 6/16/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3601, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -370 Skagit County. Skagit County master program approved October 5, 1976. Revision ap- proved January 5, 1979. Revision approved May 11, 1979. Revision approved March 3, 1980. Revision ap- proved September 10, 1980. Revision approved December 10, 1980. Revision approved September 23, 1981. Revision approved November 23, 1981. Revision approved August 19, 1982. Revision approved February 24, 1983. Revision approved March 22, 1984. Revision approved October 27, 1987. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 87 -22 -100 (Order DE 87 -39), § 173 -19 -370, filed 11/4/87; 84 -08 -003 (Order DE 84 -10), § 173 -19 -370, filed 3/22/84; 83 -07-082 (Or- der DE 83 -5), § 173 -19 -370, filed 3/23/83; 82 -18 -027 (Order DE 82 -33), § 173 -19 -370, filed 8/25/82; 81- 24-075 (Order DE 81 -38), § 173 -19 -370, filed 12/2/81; 81 -20-004 (Order DE 81 -25), § 173 -19 -370, filed 9/24/81; 81 -01 -040 (Order DE 80 -51), § 173- 19-370, filed 12/11/80; 80 -13 -030 (Order DE 80 -35), § 173 -19 -370, filed 9/10/80. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 05-053 (Order DE 80 -12), § 173 -19 -370, filed 4/16/80; 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -370, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -131 (Order DE 79 -16), § 173- 19-370, filed 9/5/79; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -370, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 77 -16, § 173 -19- 370, filed 9/9/77; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -370, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -3701 Anacortes, city of. City of Anacortes master program approved April 9, 1976. Re- vision approved November 25, 1980. Revision approved July 1, 1981. Revision approved December 23, 1982. Revision approved November 15, 1983. Revision ap- proved March 12, 1986. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 86 -07 -049 (Order 85 -29), § 173 -19 -3701, filed 3/18/86. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030, 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 85 -09 -043 (Order DE 85 -05), § 173 -19 -3701, filed 4/15/85. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 83 -23 -062 (Order DE 83 -28), § 173 -19 -3701, filed 11/16/83; 83- 02-004 (Order DE 82 -43), § 173 -19 -3701, filed 12/23/82; 81 -15 -006 (Order DE 81 -15), § 173 -19- 3701, filed 7/2/81; 80 -18 -024 (Order DE 80 -41), § 173 -19 -3701, filed 11/26/80. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3701, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3702 Concrete, town of. Town of Concrete master program approved March 3, 1977. (12/19/90) [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -3702, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3703 Hamilton, town of. Town of Hamilton master program approved July 27, 1979. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -3703, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3704 La Conner, town of. Town of La Conner master program approved May 3, 1977. Re- vision approved July 1, 1982. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 82 -14 -089 (Order DE 82 -24), § 173 -19 -3704, filed 7/7/82. Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3704, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3705 Lyman, town of. Town of Lyman master program approved February 23, 1977. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -3705, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3706 Mount Vernon, city of. City of Mount Vernon master program approved May 16, 1977. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 3706, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3707 Burlington, city of. City of Burlington master program approved July 15, 1981. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 81 -16 -077 (Order DE 81 -22), § 173 -19 -3707, filed 8/5/81.] WAC 173 -19 -380 Skamania County. Skamania County master program approved September 6, 1974. Revision approved June 3, 1986. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 86 -12 -072 (Order DE 86 -13), § 173 -19 -380, filed 6/4/86. Statutory Author- ity: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -380, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 =6), § 173 -19 -380, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -380, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -3801 North Bonneville, city of. City of North Bonneville master program approved Septem- ber 6, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3801, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3802 Stevenson, town of. Town of Stevenson master program approved September 6, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 3802, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -390 Snohomish County. Snohomish County master program approved December 27, 1974. [Ch. 173 -19 WAC -p 171 173 -19 -390 loreline Management -- Master Programs • Revision approved June 16, 1978. Revision approved June 23, 1982. Revision approved August 25, 1983. Re- vision approved January 4, 1984. [Revision approved September 11, 1986.] Revision approved February 11, 1987. Revision approved March 7, 1989. Revision ap- proved July 5, 1989. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58- .120 and 90.58.200. 90 -07 -025 (Order DE 88 -55A), § 173 -19 -390, filed 3/14/90, effective 4/14/90; 89 -14- 130 (Order 89 -18), § 173 -19 -390, filed 7/5/89, effec- tive 8/5/89; 89 -07 -026 (Order DE 88 -55), § 173 -19- 390, filed 3/8/89; 87 -05 -015 (Order DE 86 -41), § 173 -19 -390, filed 2/11/87; 86 -19 -049 (Order DE 86- 23), § 173 -19 -390, filed 9/12/86; 84 -02 -074 (Order DE 83 -43), § 173 -19 -390, filed 1/4/84; 83 -18 -005 (Order DE 83 -23), § 173 -19 -390, filed 8/26/83; 82- 14-018 (Order DE 82 -19), § 173 -19 -390, filed 6/28/82. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -390, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -390, filed 8/2/79. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.020. 78 -08 -076 (Order DE 78 -9), § 173- 19 -390, filed 7/26/78; Order DE 77 -16, § 173 -19 -390, filed 9/9/77; Order DE 76 -15, § 173 -19 -390, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 75 -21, § 173 -19 -390. filed 8/12/75; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -390, filed 12/30/74.] Reviser's note: RCW 34.05.395 requires the use of underlining and deletion marks to indicate amendments to existing rules. and deems ineffectual changes not filed by the agency in this manner. The brack- eted material in the above section does not appear to conform to the statutory requirement. WAC 173 -19 -3901 Arlington, city of. City of Arlington master program approved December 27, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -3901, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3902 Brier, city of. City of Brier master program approved December 27, 1974. [Statu- tory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 3902, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3903 Edmonds, city of. City of Edmonds master program approved January 23, 1976. Revision approved March 5, 1979. Revision approved May 6, 1980. Revision approved April 30, 1984. Revi- sion approved June 3, 1986. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 86 -12 -070 (Order DE 86 -09), § 173 -19 -3903, filed 6/4/86. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030, 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 85 -09 -043 (Order DE 85 -05), § 173 -19 -3903, filed 4/15/85. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 84 -10 -050 (Order DE 84 -14), § 173 -19 -3903, filed 5/2/84; 80 -06 -050 (Order DE 80 -13), § 173 -19 -3903, filed 5/14/80. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3903, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3904 Everett, city of. City of Everett master program approved January 5, 1976. [Statutory [Ch. 173 -19 WAC -p 18] Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3904, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3905 Gold Bar, town of. Town of Gold Bar master program approved December 27, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -3905, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3906 Granite Falls, town of. Town of Granite Falls master program approved December 27, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3906, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3907 Index, town of. Town of Index master program approved December 27, 1974. [Statu- tory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 3907, filed 1/30/801 WAC 173 -19 -3908 Lake Stevens, city of. City of Lake Stevens master program approved December 27, 1974. Revision approved January 4, 1984. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 84-02 -075 (Order DE 83 -44), § 173 -19 -3908, filed 1/4/84. Stat- utory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 3908, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3909 Marysville, city of. City of Marysville master program approved January 22, 1975. Amended August 10, 1977. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3909, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3910 Monroe, city of. City of Monroe master program approved December 27, 1974. Revision approved February 18, 1982. Revision ap- proved July 5, 1989. Revision approved November 8, 1990. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 90-23- 048 (Order 90 -34), § 173 -19 -3910, filed 11/16/90, ef- fective 12/17/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 89 -14 -131 and 90-07-028 (Order 89 -23 and 89 -23A), § 173 -19 -3910, filed 7/5/89 and 3/14/90, effective 4/14/90; 82 -06 -013 (Order DE 81- 56), § 173 -19 -3910, filed 2/22/82. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 3910, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3911 Mountlake Terrace, city of. City of Mountlake Terrace master program approved December 27, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58- .030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3911, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3912 Mukilteo, city of. City of Mukilteo piaster program approved September 20, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 (12/19/90) Shoreline Management -- Master Programs 173 -19 -420 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -3912, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3913 Snohomish, city of. City of Snohomish master program approved September 20, 1974. Revision approved February 11, 1977. Revision approved March 26, 1980. . [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -06 -050 (Order DE 80 -13), § 173 -19 -3913, filed 5/14/80. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3913, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3914 Stanwood, city of. City of Stanwood master program approved April 9, 1976. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 - 19 -3914, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -3915 Sultan, town of. Town of Sultan master program approved December 27, 1974. [Statu- tory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 3915, filed 1/30/80.]. WAC 173 -19 -3916 Woodway, town of. Town of Woodway master program approved December 27, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -3916, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -400 Spokane County. Spokane County master program approved January 15, 1975. Revision approved September 6, 1977. Revision ap- proved August 15, 1979. Revision approved February 24, 1981. Revision approved December 15, 1982. Revi- sion approved March 14, 1984. Revision approved Octo- ber 27, 1987. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 87 -22 -101 (Order DE 87 -40), § 173 -19- 400, filed 11/4/87; 84 -07 -025 (Order DE 84 -6), § 173 -19 -400, filed 3/15/84; 83 -02 -005 (Order DE 82- 44), § 173 -19 -400, filed 12/23/82; 81 -06 -052 (Order DE 81 -3), § 173 -19 -400, filed 2/27/81. Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -400, filed 1/30/80; 79 -11 -053 (Order DE 79 -28), § 173 - 19 -400, filed 10/16/79; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -400, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 77 -16, § 173 -19- 400, filed 9/9/77; Order DE 75 -21, § 173 -19 -400, filed 8/12/75; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -400, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -4001 Latah, town of. Town of Latah master program approved January 15, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4001, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4002 Medical Lake, town of. Town of Medical Lake master program approved January 15, (12/19/90) 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19= 4002;, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4003 Millwood, town of. Town of Millwood master program approved January 15, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -4003, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4004 Rockford, town of. Town of Rockford master program approved January 15, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 4004, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4005 Spokane, city of. City of Spokane master program approved March 7, 1975. Re- vision approved October 5, 1976. Revision approved December 22, 1977. Revision approved February 24, 1983. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 83 -07 -083 (Order DE 83 -6), § 173 -19 -4005, filed 3/23/83. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4005, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4006 Waverly, town of. Town of Wa- verly master program approved January 15, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -4006, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -410 Stevens County. Stevens County master program approved . [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -410, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -410, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -410, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -4101 Chewelah, city of. City of Chewelah master program approved . [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4101, filed 1 /30 /80.] WAC 173 -19 -4102 Northport, town of. Town of Northport master program approved . [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4102, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -420 Thurston County. Thurston County master program approved May 21, 1976. Revi- sion approved August 27, 1976. Revision approved Au- gust 7, 1979. Revision approved September 23, 1981. Revision approved March 4, 1982. Revision approved August 30, 1984. Revision approved September 29, 1987. Revision approved May 15, 1990. [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.200. 90 -11 -072 (Order 89 -63), § 173 -19 -420, filed 5/16/90, effective 6/16/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 87 -20 -026 ICh. 173 -19 WAC -p 191 173 -19 -420 Shoreline Management -- Master Programs 0 (Order DE 87 -28), § 173 -19 -420, filed 9/30/87; 84- 19 -038 (Order DE 84 -30), § 173 -19 -420, filed 9/14/84; 82 -07 -004 (Order DE 82 -3), § 173 -19 -420, filed 3/4/82; 81 -20 -005 (Order DE 81 -26), § 173 -19- 420, filed 9/24/81. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58 .030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -420, filed 1/30/80; 79 -11 -019 (Order DE 79 -19), § 173 -19 -420, filed 10/9/79; 79- 09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -420, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 77 -16, § 173 -19 -420, filed 9/9/77; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -420, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -4201 Bucoda, town of. Town of Bucoda master program approved May 21, 1976. Revi- sion approved August 30, 1984. Revision approved May 15, 1990. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 90- 11 -072 (Order 90 -07), § 173 -19 -4201, filed 5/16/90, effective 6/16/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 84 -19 -038 (Order DE 84 -30), § 173- 19 -4201, filed 9/14/84. Statutory Authority: RCW 90- .58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4201, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4202 Lacey, city of. City of Lacey master program approved May 21. 1976. Revision ap- proved January 5, 1982. Revision approved August 30, 1984. Revision approved May 15, 1990. [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.200. 90 -11 -072 (Order 90 -07). § 173 -19 -4202, filed 5/16/90, effective 6/16/90. Statu- tory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 84 -19- 038 (Order DE 84 -30), § 173 -19 -4202, filed 9/14/84; 82 -02 -080 (Order DE 81 -47), § 173 -19 -4202, filed 1/6/82. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4202, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4203 Olympia, city of. City of Olympia master program approved May 21, 1976. Revi- sion approved March 29, 1984. Revision approved April 30, 1984. Revision approved August 30, 1984. Revision approved September 29, 1987. Revision approved May 15, 1990. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 90- 11-072 (Order 90 -07), § 173 -19 -4203, filed 5 /16/90, effective 6/16/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 87 -20 -026 (Order DE 87 -28), § 173- 19 -4203, filed 9/30/87; 84 -19 -038 (Order DE 84 -30), § 173 -19 -4203, filed 9/14/84; 84 -10 -051 (Order 84- 17), § 173 -19 -4203, filed 5/2/84; 84 -08 -028 (Order DE 84 -9), § 173 -19 -4203, filed 3/29/84. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4203, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4204 Tenina, town of. Town of Tenino master program approved May 21, 1976. Revi- sion approved August 30, 1984. Revision approved May 15, 1990. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 90- 11 -072 (Order 90 -07), § 173 -19 -4204, filed 5/16/90, effective 6/16/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 84 -19 -038 (Order DE 84 -30), § 173- ]Ch. 173 -19 WAC -p 20] 19 -4204, filed 9/14/84. Statutory Authority: RCW 90- .58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4204, filed 1/30/80.) WAC 173 -19 -4205 Tumwater, city of. City of Tumwater master program approved May 21, 1976. Re- vision approved August 30, 1984. Revision approved September 29, 1987. Revision approved May 15, 1990. Revision approved October 2, 1990. [Statutory Author- ity: RCW 90.58.200. 90 -20 -110 (Order 90 -33), § 173- 19 -4205, filed 10/2/90, effective 11/2/90; 90 -1 1-072 (Order 90 -07), § 173 -19 -4205, filed 5/16/90, effective 6/16/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 87 -20 -026 (Order DE 87 -28), § 173 -19 -4205, filed 9/30/87; 84 - -19 -038 (Order DE 84 -30), § 173- 19 -4205, filed 9/14/84. Statutory Authority: RCW 90- .58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4205, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4206 Ye1m, town of. Town of Yelm master program approved May 21, 1 976. Revision ap- proved January 5, 1982. Revision approved August 30, 1984. Revision approved May 15, 1990. [Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.200. 90 -11 -072 (Order 90 -07), § 173 -19 -4206, filed 5/16/90, effective 6/16/90. Statu- tory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 84 -19- 038 (Order DE 84 -30), § 173 -19 -4206, filed 9/14/84; 82 -02 -081 (Order DE 81 -48), § 173 -19 -4206, filed 1/6/82. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4206, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -430 Wahkiakum County. Wahkia- kum County master program approved June 17, 1975. Revision approved January 2, 1980. Revision approved May 20, 1981. Revision approved March 12, 1986. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 86 -07 -049 (Order 85 -29), § 173 -19 -430, filed 3/18/86; 81 -12 -003 (Order DE 81 -13), § 173 -19 -430, filed 5/21/81; 80 -04 -026 (Order DE 80 -10), § 173- 19 -430, filed 3/18/80. Statutory Authority: RCW 90- .58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -430, filed 1/30/80; 79- 09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -430, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 75 -21, § 173 -19 -430, filed 8/12/75; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -430, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -4301 Cathlamet, town of. Town of Cathlamet master program approved June 17, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 4301, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -440 Walla Walla County. Walla Walla County master program approved May 2, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -440, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -440, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 77 -16, § 173 -19- 440, filed 9/9/77; Order DE 75 -21, § 173 -19 -440, filed 8/12/75; Order 74 -23, § 173 -19 -440, filed 12/30/74.] (12/19/90) • Shoreline Management -- Master Programs 173 -19 -460 WAC 173 -19 -4401 Waitsburg, town of. Town of Waitsburg master program approved May 25, 1976. • [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 4401, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4402 Walla Walla, city of. City of Walla Walla master program approved February 23, 1977. Revision approved July 15, 1981. Revision ap- proved August 6, 1985. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 85 -16 -105 (Order DE 85-11), § 173 -19 -4402, filed 8/6/85; 81- 16-078 (Order DE 81- 21), § 173 -19 -4402, filed 8/5/81. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4402, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -450 Whatcom County. Whatcom County master program approved August 27, 1976. Re- vision approved April 11, 1977. Revision approved Au- gust 11, 1978. Revision approved December 22, 1981. Revision approved January 5, 1982. Revision approved March 4, 1982. Revision approved December 15, 1982. Revision approved March 1, 1984. Revision approved January 31, 1985. Revision approved June 9, 1987. Re- vision approved October 2, 1990. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 90- 20-107 (Order 90 -26), § 173 -19- 450, filed 10/2/90, effective 11/2/90. Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 87 -13 -018 (Order DE 87 -07), § 173 -19 -450, filed 6/9/87; 85 -04- • 040 (Order 84 -46), § 173- 19 -450, filed 2/1/85; 84 -06- 043 (Order DE 83 -40), § 173 -19 -450, filed 3/2/84; 83 -02 -006 (Order DE 82 -45), § 173 -19 -450, filed 12/23/82; 82 -07 -005 (Order DE 82 -4), § 173 -19 -450, filed 3/4/82; 82 -02 -077 (Order DE 81 -49), § 173 -19- 450, filed 1/6/82; 82 -01 -088 (Order DE 81 -31), § 173- 19 -450, filed 12/22/81. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -450, filed 1/30/80; 79- 09-001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -450, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 77 -16, § 173 -19 -450, filed 9/9/77; Order DE 76 -15, § 173 -19 -450, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 74- 23, § 173 -19 -450, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -4501 Bellingham, city of. City of Bellingham master program approved September 30, 1974. Revision approved March 29, 1984. Revision ap- proved November 21, 1989. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 89 -23 -127 (Order 89 -55), § 173 -19 -4501, filed 11/22/89, effective 12/23/89. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 84 -08 -029 (Order DE 84 -11), § 173 -19 -4501, filed 3/29/84. Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4501, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4502 Blaine, city of. City of Blaine master program approved September 29, 1975. Revision • approved August 30, 1977. Revision approved December 28, 1978. Revision approved June 26, 1980. Revision approved April 6, 1982. Revision approved July 18, (12/19/90) 1984. Revision approved October 10, 1984. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 84- 21-065 (Order DE- 84 -35), § 173 -19 -4502, filed 10/17/84; 84- 16 -006 (Order 84 -20), § 173 -19 -4502, filed 7/19/84; 82 -10 -001 (Order DE 82 -05), § 173 -19 -4502, filed 4/23/82. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 08-054 (Order DE 80 -25), § 173 -19 -4502, filed 6/30/80; 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4502, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4503 Everson, city of. City of Everson master program approved September 29, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 4503, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4504 Ferndale, city of. City of Fern- dale master program approved December 15, 1981. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 82 -01 -049 (Order DE 81 -43), § 173 -19 -4504, filed 12/16/81. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4504, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4505 Lynden, city of. City of Lynden master program approved September 29, 1975. Revision approved November 23, 1981. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 81 -24 -076 (Order DE 81 -39), § 173 -19 -4505, filed 12/2/81. Statutory Au- thority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58- .200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4505, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4506 Nooksack, city of. City of Nooksack master program approved September 29, 1975. Revision approved October 1, 1985. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 85 -20-095 (Order DE 85 -21), § 173 -19 -4506, filed 10/1/85. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -4506, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4507 Sumas, city of. City of Sumas master program approved September 29, 1975. Revision approved January 3, 1989. Revision approved March 20, 1990. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 90 -07- 063 (Order 89 -65), § 173 -19 -4507, filed 3/20/90, ef- fective 4/20/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 89 -03 -010 (Order DE 88 -48), § 173- 19- 4507, filed 1/6/89. Statutory Authority: RCW 90- .58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4507, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -460 Whitman County. Whitman County master program approved February 6, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -460, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -460, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 75 -21, § 173 -19- 460, filed 8/12/75; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19 -460, filed 12/30/74.] [Ch. 173 -19 WAC -p 21] 173 -19 -4601 shoreline Management -- Master Programs WAC 173 -19 -4601 Albion, town of. Town of Albion master program approved February 6, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -4601, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4602 Colfax, city of. City of Colfax master program approved February. 6, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4602, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4603 Malden, town of. Town of Malden master program approved February 6, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 4603, filed 1/30/80.1 WAC 173 -19 -4604 Palouse, city of. City of Palouse master program approved February 6, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4604, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4605 Pullman, city of. City of Pull- man master program approved February 6, 1975. [Stat- utory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19- 4605, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4606 Rosalia, town of. Town of Rosalia master program approved February 6, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -4606, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4607 Tekoa, city of. City of Tekoa master program approved February 6, 1975. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4607, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -470 Yakima County. Yakima County master program approved September 5, 1974. Revision approved September 8, 1977. Revision approved Febru- ary 24, 1981. Revision approved October 1, 1981. [Stat- utory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 81 -20- 044 (Order DE 81 -29), § 173 -19 -470, filed 10/1/81; 81- 06-050 (Order DE 81 -1), § .173 -19 -470, filed 2/27/81. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -470, filed 1/30/80; 79 -09 -001 (Order DE 79 -6), § 173 -19 -470, filed 8/2/79; Order DE 75 -21, § 173 -19 -470 filed 8/12/75; Order DE 74 -23, § 173 -19- 470, filed 12/30/74.] WAC 173 -19 -4701 Grandview, city of. City of Grandview master program approved September 5, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90- .58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4701, filed 1/30/80.1 [Ch. 173 -19 WAC -p 221 WAC 173 -19 -4702 Granger, town of. Town of Granger master program approved September 5, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -4702, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4703 Naches, town of. Town of Naches master program approved September 5, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19 -4703, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4704 Selah, city of. City of Selah master program approved September 5, 1974. Revision approved March 22, 1984. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 84- 08-003 (Order DE 84 -10), § 173 -19 -4704. filed 3/22/84. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80- 02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4704, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4705 Union Gap, city of. City of Un- ion Gap master program approved September 5, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 4705, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4706 Yakima, city of. City of Yakima master program approved September 5, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173- 19- 4706, filed 1/30/80.] WAC 173 -19 -4707 Zillah, city of. City of Zillah master program approved September 5, 1974. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- .58.200. 80 -02 -123 (Order DE 79 -34), § 173 -19 -4707, filed 1/30/80.] (12/19/90) • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Van Dusen FROM: Rick Beeler, DCD DATE: May 8, 1991 SUBJECT: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Master Plan Environmental Impact Statement The Boeing Company is proposing a 10 year master plan for redevelopment of the Duwamish corridor from manufacturing dominated uses to research and development uses. This represents the largest industrial redevelopment in the history of Puget Sound and a unique opportunity to increase the benefit of this employment center to Tukwila and the region. Boeing requested preparation of a programmatic EIS on the plan through the affected jurisdictions of Tukwila, King County and Seattle. Agreement was reached that Tukwila is to be the lead agency for the EIS to be funded by Boeing. We have been working with consultants and the jurisdictions in a cooperative approach to the EIS preparation and resolution of impact issues. The programmatic EIS will review general impacts of the redevelopment, leaving analysis of project specific impacts to the environmental review of the individual projects. The first step in preparing the EIS is to request public comment on the scope of the analysis of impacts. Attached, for your information, is that request in the form of a "Scoping Notice." The public comments will be integrated into the draft EIS scheduled to be published sometime in late July or early August. Thirty days will be given to the public to comment on the draft before the final EIS is prepared, approximately at the end of the year. s • DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS Introduction The Boeing Company is proposing redevelopment of their facilities in the Duwamish Corridor. The proposed redevelopment would emphasize enhancement of aerospace engineering, research, and prototype development. The Company has been discussing this proposal with several jurisdictions. The City of Tukwila has taken a lead role since the majority of Boeing properties are located within their city limits. The City of Tukwila believes the redevelopment of this regional industrial area merits broad public involvement. The City has been working with the the Washington State Department of Transportation, King County, METRO, and the City of Seattle to identify issues of concern such as community plans, infrastructure needs and public services. They have also formalized a process for public involvement. The SEPA forum has been established as the vehicle for public review. The Boeing Company has requested the preparation of a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) on their proposal. This will provide for an analysis of a range of alternatives for public review and comment. Additional benefits include the opportunities to evaluate mitigation measures on the cumulative impacts of the entire redevelopment, and to provide more predictable permit processing. Individual projects designed to implement the redevelopment proposal will receive project - specific review of impacts. The programmatic EIS will provide a framework for assessing the environmental impacts of future projects subject to the SEPA thresholds. A project - specific EIS, supplement, or addendum may be required to analyze impacts of future proposals not anticipated in this programmatic analysis. The following proposal description is a summary of the planning direction the Boeing Company is currently undertaking. However, the Company recognizes its leadership role in the region and is willing to explore other alternative redevelopment scenarios. The EIS will analyze three redevelopment scenarios. The proposal description is followed by a description of two alternatives which have been identified for analysis. 1 Proponent The Boeing Company Location of proposal The plan area is located in a 4.5 mile section in the Duwamish Corridor along East Marginal Way South. It is generally bounded on the north by Ellis Avenue South (within the Seattle city limits); on the south by South 128th Street (within the Tukwila city limits); on the east by Boeing Field International; and on the west by State Route 599. The majority of properties lie within the City of Tukwila. (See the attached map.) Lead agency The City of Tukwila per agreement with City of Seattle and King County. Proposal Description The Boeing Company proposes the redevelopment of approximately 750 acres in the Duwamish Corridor. The nature of aerospace research is a dynamic one, requiring flexibility in facility design to adapt to changing program requirements and market demands. The needs of aerospace research and development require large building spaces to accommodate a variety of unique equipment and operations. The primary operational goal of the redevelopment is to replace aged manufacturing production facilities with engineering laboratory, office and prototype development facilities. The Company's Duwamish Corridor facilities currently contain a mix of manufacturing uses. Over the ten -year period from 1992 to 2002, the Company proposes to focus its redevelopment efforts towards creating a developmental engineering campus. An overview of the existing conditions and proposed redevelopment proposals are provided below: Acreage: The Boeing Company currently occupies approximately 650 acres in the Duwamish Corridor. With the proposal, the Company plans to acquire approximately 100 acres for a total of approximately 750 acres. 2 • • Building Area: There are approximately 10 million square feet of building area. The proposal would demolish approximately 3 million square feet and build approximately 3.5 million square feet, for a net increase of approximately 500,000 square feet of new building area. Population: Existing facilities are estimated to house approximately 25,000 employees. Based on the proposed building capacity, population is estimated to increase to a capacity of 30,000 employees as a result of the redevelopment. Parking: The redevelopment proposal includes the removal of some existing on- grade cluster parking to accomodate a combination of cluster and satellite parking and enhanced mass transit use. Alternatives: The EIS will analyze two alternatives in addition to the proposal: 1. Administrative Center: This alternative would emphasize redevelopment which would intensify uses of Boeing facilities in the Duwamish Corridor. This scenario would be based on a population of approximately 40,000 employees involved primarily in administrative and support activities. 2. Manufacturing Center: This alternative is a modified "no- action" alternative emphasizing redevelopment which would upgrade existing facilties to maintain existing production capabilities. This scenario would be based on a population of approximately 25,000 employees, primarily involved in manufacturing activities. SCOPE OF EIS The City of Tukwila has determined this proposal may have significant adverse impacts on the environment. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.020(2) (c) an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared. Materials describing this proposal and likely environmental impacts may be reviewed at our office: 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington. To date, the following elements of the environment have been identified as having possible significant adverse impacts as a result of the proposal. Because this is a programmatic EIS, the analysis will be general in nature. The analysis approach is summarized for each identified element. 3 • 1. Natural Environment A. Earth: Seismic issues will be discussed. The major earth - impacts are expected to be related to construction. A discussion of site clean -up procedures to be followed when redevelopment uncovers contaminated soils will be provided under mitigating measures. This section will also evaluate the impacts on soil contamination of existing manufacturing and proposed research, development and office uses. B. Air: A general comparison of air quality impacts of existing and proposed uses will be provided. The discussion will include air quality impacts of on -site industrial, research and development, office, and laboratory uses, as well as impacts associated with commuting patterns of the various alternatives. (See also the Transportation element.) C. Water: Existing and proposed drainage characteristics, detention requirements, water quality conditions, and impacts on offsite downstream conditions will be included. Recommendations for collection, treatment and discharge of stormwater will be offered in the discussion of mitigating measures. D. Plants and Animals: A general discussion of the expected impacts on wildlife of modifications in use from manufacturing to research campus will be provided. Known existing wetlands will be described and project impacts and mitigating measures disclosed. E. Energy and Natural Resources: Estimates of existing and proposed energy consumption and peak demand will be discussed. Opportunities for co- generation and conservation strategies will be discussed as possible mitigating measures. 2. Built Environment A. Environmental Health: A qualitative discussion of existing and proposed noise impacts in relation to applicable noise ordinance standards will be prepared. Noise modeling or monitoring are not proposed for the programmatic analysis of noise impacts. A general discussion of existing and proposed use of dangerous and hazardous materials will be included together with proposed responses to comply with existing regulations. (See also Earth element.) B. Land and Shoreline Use: Existing comprehensive plan and zoning code designations will be illustrated and described in relation to the proposal and alternatives. Land use changes and impacts will be discussed and illustrated, to the extent known, by phase. The land use discussion will include a review of design, bulk and scale, views, and aesthetic compatibility as they relate to surrounding land uses. Open space, landscaping, buffering, and setbacks beyond those provided in the proposal may be 4 • • discussed as mitigating measures. C. Transportation: A broad programmatic discussion of trip generation characteristics of existing and proposed uses will be provided. In addition, more detailed and specific analysis of level of service impacts of key intersections will be performed following computer modeling of projected future traffic volumes. Circulation, parking, and access issues along the corridor will also be discussed. Recommendations for mitigation, including both programmatic transportation demand management techniques and location- specific physical improvements, will be prepared. (See also Air element.) D. Public Services and Utilities: The Boeing Company provides its own police and fire protection. Existing and proposed coordination programs will be discussed. A summary of existing utilities and possible impacts of the proposal and alternatives will be discussed. (See also Energy and Natural Resources element.) COMMENTS PLEASE SEND US YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on the scope as outlined above; content; alternatives; mitigation measures; additional significant adverse impacts; and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Comments will be accepted in writing only. Written comments must be received by MAY 31, 1991. Comments should be addressed to: Date: Project Coordinator Boeing Duwamish EIS City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206)431 -3680 5 Signature: DUWAMISH CORRIDOR T:EG I C DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUILDINGS TO REMAIN 9,895,000 SQ FT DEMOLITION 3,138,000 SQ FT NEW CONSTRUCTION 3,562,000 SQ FT EXISTING PROPOSED LAND(ACRES) 640 768 BUILDING(SQ FT) 9,895,000 10,319,000 POPULATION 20,000 30,000 • ..........................„....;.....,.........,...,:................,.................::,;___----- =.---""ft.----1:7-.1==7".""±"1.''Ll.66.2"1"..."-,----'''-.'"--...; ,,- Z ,- uS loot - sow. ............................................................. • CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 Introduction PHONE # (2061433.1800 Gary L. VanDuseu, Mayor DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS The Boeing Company is proposing redevelopment of their facilities in the Duwamish Corridor. The proposed redevelopment would emphasize enhancement of aerospace engineering, research, and prototype development. The Company has been discussing this proposal with several jurisdictions. The City of Tukwila has taken a lead role since the majority of Boeing properties are located within their city limits The City of Tukwila believes the redevelopment of this regional industrial area merits broad public involvement. The City has been working with the the Washington State Department of Transportation, King County, METRO, and the City of Seattle to identify issues of concern such as community plans, infrastructure needs and public services. They have also formalized a process for public involvement. The SEPA forum has been established as the vehicle for public review. The Boeing Company has requested the preparation of a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) on their proposal. This will provide for an analysis of a range of alternatives for public review and comment. Additional benefits include the opportunities to evaluate mitigation measures on the cumulative impacts of the entire redevelopment, and to provide more predictable permit processing. Individual projects designed to implement the redevelopment proposal will receive project - specific review of impacts. The programmatic EIS will provide a framework for assessing the environmental impacts of future projects subject to the SEPA thresholds. A project - specific EIS, supplement, or addendum may be required to analyze impacts of future proposals not anticipated in this programmatic analysis. The following proposal description is a summary of the planning direction the Boeing Company is currently undertaking. However, the Company recognizes its leadership role in the region and is willing to explore other alternative redevelopment scenarios. The EIS will analyze three redevelopment scenarios. The proposal description is followed by a description of two alternatives which have been identified for analysis. Proponent The Boeing Company Location of proposal The plan area is located in a 4.5 mile section in the Duwamish Corridor along East Marginal Way South. It is generally bounded on the north by Ellis Avenue South (within the Seattle city limits); on the south by South 128th Street (within the Tukwila city limits); on the east by Boeing Field International; and on the west by State Route 599. The majority of properties lie within the City of Tukwila. ( The map is available at the City of Tukwila's Department of Community Development at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188). Lead agency The City of Tukwila per agreement with City of Seattle and King County. Proposal Description The Boeing Company proposes the redevelopment of approximately 750 acres in the Duwamish Corridor. The nature of aerospace research is a dynamic one, requiring flexibility in facility design to adapt to changing program requirements and market demands. The needs of aerospace research and development require large building spaces to accommodate a variety of unique equipment and operations. The primary operational goal of the redevelopment is to replace aged manufacturing production facilities with engineering laboratory, office and prototype development facilities. The Company's Duwamish Corridor facilities currently contain a mix of manufacturing uses. Over the ten -year period from 1992 to 2002, the Company proposes to focus its redevelopment efforts towards creating a developmental engineering campus. An overview of the existing conditions and proposed redevelopment proposals are provided below: Acreage: The Boeing Company currently occupies approximately 650 acres in the Duwamish Corridor. With the proposal, the Company plans to acquire approximately 100 acres for a total of approximately 750 acres. 2 • • Building Area: There are approximately 1.0 million square feet of building area. The proposal would demolish approximately 3 million square feet and build approximately 3.5 million square feet, for a net increase of approximately 500,000 square feet of new building area. Population: Existing facilities are estimated to house approximately 25,000 employees. Based on the proposed building capacity, population is estimated to increase to a capacity of 30,000 employees as a result of the redevelopment. Parking: The redevelopment proposal includes the removal of some existing on- grade cluster parking to accomodate a combination of cluster and satellite parking and enhanced mass transit use. Alternatives: The EIS will analyze two alternatives in addition to the proposal: 1. Administrative Center: This alternative would emphasize redevelopment which would intensify uses of Boeing facilities in the Duwamish Corridor. This scenario would be based on a population of approximately 40,000 employees involved primarily in administrative and support activities. 2. Manufacturing Center: This alternative is a modified "no- action" alternative emphasizing redevelopment which would upgrade existing facilties to maintain existing production capabilities. This scenario would be based on a population of approximately 25,000 employees, primarily involved in manufacturing activities. SCOPE OF EIS The City of Tukwila has determined this proposal may have significant adverse impacts on the environment. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.020(2) (c) an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared. Materials describing this proposal and likely environmental impacts may be reviewed at our office: 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington. To date, the following elements of the environment have been identified as having possible significant adverse impacts as a result of the proposal. Because this is a programmatic EIS, the analysis will be general in nature. The analysis approach is summarized for each identified element. 3 • • 1. Natural Environment A. Earth: Seismic issues will be discussed. The major earth - impacts are expected to be related to construction. A discussion of site clean -up procedures to be followed when redevelopment uncovers contaminated soils will be provided under mitigating measures. This section will also evaluate the impacts on soil contamination of existing manufacturing and proposed research, development and office uses. B. Air: A general comparison of air quality impacts of existing and proposed uses will be provided. The discussion will include air quality impacts of on -site industrial, research and development, office, and laboratory uses, as well as impacts associated with commuting patterns of the various alternatives. (See also the Transportation element.) C. Water: Existing and proposed drainage characteristics, detention requirements, water quality conditions, and impacts on offsite downstream conditions will be included. Recommendations for collection, treatment and discharge of stormwater will be offered in the discussion of mitigating measures. D. Plants and Animals: A general discussion of the expected impacts on wildlife of modifications in use from manufacturing to research campus will be provided. Known existing wetlands will be described and project impacts and mitigating measures disclosed. E. Energy and Natural Resources: Estimates of existing and proposed energy consumption and peak demand will be discussed. Opportunities for co- generation and conservation strategies will be discussed as possible mitigating measures. 2. Built Environment A. Environmental Health: A qualitative discussion of existing and proposed noise impacts in relation to applicable noise ordinance standards will be prepared. Noise modeling or monitoring are not proposed for the programmatic analysis of noise impacts. A general discussion of existing and proposed use of dangerous and hazardous materials will be included together with proposed responses to comply with existing regulations. (See also Earth element.) B. Land and Shoreline Use: Existing comprehensive plan and zoning code designations will be illustrated and described in relation to the proposal and alternatives. Land use changes and impacts will be discussed and illustrated, to the extent known, by phase. The land use discussion will include a review of design, bulk and scale, views, and aesthetic compatibility as they relate to surrounding land uses. Open space, landscaping, buffering, and setbacks beyond those provided in the proposal may be 4 discussed as mitigating measures. C. Transportation: A broad programmatic discussion of trip generation characteristics of existing and proposed uses will be provided. In addition, more detailed and specific analysis of level of service impacts of key intersections will be performed following computer modeling of projected future traffic volumes. Circulation, parking, and access issues along the corridor will also be discussed. Recommendations for mitigation, including both programmatic transportation demand management techniques and location - specific physical improvements, will be prepared. (See also Air element.) D. Public Services and Utilities: The Boeing Company provides its own police and fire protection. Existing and proposed coordination programs will be discussed. A summary of existing utilities and possible impacts of the proposal and alternatives will be discussed. (See also Energy and Natural Resources element.) COMMENTS PLEASE SEND US YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on the scope as outlined above; content; alternatives; mitigation measures; additional significant adverse impacts; and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Comments will be accepted in writing only. Written comments must be received by MAY 31, 1991. Comments should be addressed to: Date: Project Coordinator Boeing Duwamish EIS City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206)431 -3680 7P7 5 Signature: THE BOEING COMPANY DUWAMISil CORRNDORMASTER PLAN Project Description • The Boeing company proposes the re- development of approxirrrately 700 acres of existing mixed manufacturing uses in the Duwanish Corridor into an engineering and laboratory campus over the ten year period from 1992 to 2002. While details of the proposed re- development may not be known at this time, the re- development would be glided by the goals, objectives and development standards of the Ouwamish Corridor Master Plan. It is expected that the actual number of buildings and the timing of their construction will be driven by business lack s. The Master Plain proposes the demolition of approximately 3.1 •million square feet of existing structures on 640 acres of land currently occupied by the Boeing Company. Subsequent land acquiskions and re-development proposed by the plan would result in approximately 10 million square feet of covered area on approximately 700 acres al land. Based on building capacity, the populaion associated with the proposed re- _ clemelopmesit4saatirnabctatbetween20100(14andah(NXI- employees. Existing fact lies are estimated to have a population capacity city of between 15,000 and 25,000 - WE kPR2419911 CITY DP TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Implementation of the plan over the teen ye er'plan period has been identified in three phases. The first phase would begin in the 1992 time frame and would consist of one or more structures programmed for laboratories and offices 'tithe Duwamish Corridor. The second phase would occur between 19903 and 1996 andrwould be comprised of Boeing functions which have been identified for re- location into the Duwarnish Corridor but do not currently have detailed requirements or targeted sites. The third and final phase would occur after 1996 and would consist of functions for which we do not have current inbormadtion on, but which may be reasonably assumed for location in an engineering and laboratory campus based on trends in aerospace 'technology and industry requirements. The primary operational goal of the Duwa wish Corridor Master Plan is to replace aged manufacturing production facilities w engineering laborakitY, office and prototype development -fec idles. The primacy design goal of the Purl is to develop these facxltties in a campus which strikes an vp1irnurn balance between the natural environment and the operational requirements of the uses proposed. SEATTLE REALTY TEL/ Nosy. /206- 455 -22251 Apr 2491 13:04 �0/4 NN�o .001 P.03 ... w.r.y .... �'_�ti..'1' 4i ': /!` 1 ..if 7I ,,� ✓ `. �JJ( 111! Y. / ail, i / l . FROM CORP FACILITIES 4.22.1991 14131 \-1. ! 1 1' ! . 1 1 12 iv! ,if . Operational Objectives PLAN ELEMENT 2. LAND USE * Reduce existing ksxdiiorral use areas of 158.44 a ies ►' F: ! • 1• • '' ♦• �� '! • L� •. II' ! •' * Increase existingtmclonal use areas of 14363 • acres dedicated to Laboratory fOfiee to 296.99 acres of dedicated Laboratory/Moe. Design Objectives: * Locate Developmental Manufacturing uses to We * Reduce a dsling functional use areas of 231.37 a cros dedcated to Manufacturing to 195.87 acres of area dedicated to Manufacturing. * Increase existing motional use areas of 66.58 acres deco led to Flight** use to 147 .31 aces of dedicated FGghthne. ... _ .........,,r......11•.s.....- «.t.•.... v•� * Mow maximum flexiblity in internal uses 01 laboratories for a wide range of uses aid impacts. * Locate Lab/Office uses in proximity n t0 Developmental Ming to foster design-build team concept. * Locate dew awe areas centrally between labs and manufacturing. * Observe the transitional slopes of the Boeing Field runway in locating tall structures. APR 2 4 1991 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. ..r,.....��,..•- _=1.•... r 711 0 3 531411i3dd da03 SEATTLE REALTY FROM CORP FACILITIES i cc i TEL No.206- 455 -2251 Apr 24,91 13:04 No.001 P.05 4.22.1991 14=42 P. 6 SEATTLE REALTY TEL No.206- 455 -2251 Apr 24,91 13:04 No.001 P.06 .. ... _....._...._,.,,......,.... 71,1":11 1W A 1111 / %/%iA,/ • FROM CORP FACILITIES 4.22.1991 14t49 P.11 • 1 7 - 7 1 1 5 - r2o\ 0) ID CO '"" § w Z Ful G�i t1- z n9 c� ��z r.� ,:, a r a cx SEATTLE REALTY TEL No .206-455-2251 Apr 24,91 13:04 N.o.001 P.07 �! nil 4wru+"L C? _ /c? /-4-31 ! )!!�, ` = .. � '' ,I 1111/41 '`.7116V- 07 / 11 11 1 FROM CORP FACILITIES 4.22.1991 14158 P.14 • 1 1 1 • (.7=-;) 15 1 FL LI jl .0 1 Z Z ns, LL p •U SEATTLE REALTY TEL No.206- 455 -2251 Apr 24,91 13 :04,No.001 P.01 .EMEM APR 241991 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. ROBERT S. BETTS, Inc. Land Management, Conservation, and Development 700.108TH AVE NE 1104 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 (206) 456 -9640 Fax number: (206) 462.9761 Facsimile Cover Sheet I C. ATTENTION: R/611' °6 G6-- 141<Xijic6-- DATE: „�? y ,..__._ FACSIMILE PHONE NO:, V 3/- 3 C5 Number of pages. (Including this cover sheet): MESSAGES/ COMMENTS; -A; Zr4#,A ' fgod � l lf77°,V ,) rz. rgr- e /re Aiti i 5- C ept,7 7� ,tee vav r7 � fl✓` "✓/1 jv r�" ,�j�riiS L AiaD3 p f/za /sfy /S. . 7- / ,J-.6 6-7 `. /(4-"4Z. ,R6 t C ' 0 ) .4 •- -' IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE 7 PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE), PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY. (206) 455.9640 THANK YOU, ROBERT S. BETTS INC. a-- 1 !il 111,�'.1``;ilbl Q •A_imfiiU -=icy Yqr.-, : cr30 Jljiiiii!6AS 1 i • CITY OF TUIi WW'ILA 62(1(1 SOU THCE,VTER BOULEVARD, T1'KWILA. WASHINGTON 98188 April 19, 1991 Jeff Zahir, Planner /Economist F &TSS Planning & Program Support Boeing Support Services PO Box 3703, MS 13 -03 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 PHONE # (7(16) 433 -1mm Gars L. lbnllusrn, Mayor Subject: Duwamish Corridor Programmatic EIS Dear Jeff, Enclosed are the summaries of the meetings held with Metro, Seattle, King County during the Week of April 12th. A composite of these meeting notes is also included for your review. Thank you for your involvement in this process. All of us believe that the meetings produced a number of insights that will help in the EIS scoping and in the project description. Robert S. Betts, Project Coordinator for the City of Tukwila L. Rick Beeler, Director of Community Development Lloyd Skinner, CH2M Hill CIl'1' OF 7'11K11,71_,4 Sul /6K/ )L11.I;IKIr, lf:h11'11.1.11':1.�III A'r; ray 'r,ti),'IJ M MARY 1'111); \'! 1 r'iu;i.laa l.lvrO Cary I,. l'anIhrsen, Mayor Comments received on the public issues needing review in the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Plan April 8, 9, 10, 1991 Background: The Boeing Company is proposing to redevelop its properties within the Duwamish River corridor. Before it starts that process, it has requested that the various public entities address the range of public concerns that need to be considered in the process. The comments which follow come from a series of meetings with representatives of the City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle, King County, and METRO. The meetings focussed on the content of the forthcoming plan and its programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). There is interest in several topics, some of which can be described as major opportunities, and others can be described as items needing study and resolution. Schedule & Agency Involvement: The City of Tukwila is the designated lead agency for preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement. The City views this series of meetings as being the first of several occasions for agency comment and contribution to the planning effort. A Scoping Notice is planned for issuance in Mid -May, and a Draft EIS is expected to be published July 31st. A Final EIS is expected by the end of 1991. These points are the formal occasions; informal ones will continue throughout the process. To that extent, two consultants will facilitate public involvement. Ch2M HILL will prepare the Impact Statement. Robert S. Betts will act as Tukwila's project coordinator. Land Use: The amount of land under Boeing's control in the area signifies a major opportunity for a coordinated approach to redevelopment, and for processing its .permits. The present area is approximately 640 acres, and may grow to over 760. Preparing a plan and a programratic EIS is seen as an appropriate response to describe the overall changes envisioned for the area. Boeing intends to convert some 3.0 million square feet of enclosed space, and to construct about 400,000 more over the intended 10 -year life of the plan. New construction will emphasize office and laboratory-type uses, rather than manufacturing ones. This will affect the types of employees using the site, such that present patterns of traffic /transportation may also change. Shifts such as these will need to be addressed, probably through origin- destination studies. Public Issues for the D•rnish Corridor Redevelopment Plan & 0 April 19, 1991 2 Impacts on land uses around these facilities is a topic of concern. Seattle is interested in protecting existing manufacturing areas from conversion to other land uses, and there are two nearby neighborhoods which are clearly planned to maintain their single. family character. King County's nearby residential areas have no community plans or area - specific policies to guide development. Tukwila's neighborhoods to the south of the site vary in their character, and in the plans for their future. Some will remain decidedly single - family; others may convert to different uses. This variety in both policy and land uses needs to be addressed. Parking on -site needs to be examined in light of the interest in increasing the use of all forms of high -er occupancy vehicles. The concern is to benefit people who use either transit or car /vanpool facilities. The major opportunity lies with an employer who can establish parking lot usage, location and priorities for service. While details are up to Boeing, the concepts envision putting parking where there could be convenient access to general group- oriented facilities. Examples of such access points might include cafeterias, retail and banking services. On -site shuttle services to these areas appear to be a necessary feature for an effective operation. Public Access: Shoreline access should.be increased, eventhough the area is classified for manufacturing activities. A distinction needs to be made between providing unlimited access to the general public, and access for employees of the Boeing Company. In general, there is interest in seeing trail -type improvements along the west margin of the Duwamish River, and more spot -type facilities on the eastern side. Transportation: Future road improvements have been described in previous studies and are addressed under the terms of the present EIS of 1989 between King County and the Boeing Company. Substantial improvements have been funded, for the most part by Boeing for E. Marginal Way, and are due to be built in 1992. While other changes are described for SR 99 in the area, they await further refinement and information from the proposed redevelopment plan and its programmatic EIS. The potential for more transit service is excellent here, as well. METRO is committed to meet the requirements of the employment workforce, of which over 80% use the first shift. The concern is how to make the present levels of service more effective. Present adopted plans already encourage transit usage, and a subsidized bus pass system is in place. Obvious items are to consolidate the number of bus stops and to keep METRO routes on only public rights -of -way. The potential for more HOV use appears to be quite achievable. Boeing plans to increase ridership in private vehicles from a present level of 1.2 persons /vehicle to 1.5 by the end of this Plan (year 2000). This program may reduce or eliminate the need for additional traffic mitigation payments /measures eventhough the workforce may be increased from its present level of 20,000 to a forecasted plan -end maximum of 30,000. This type of mitigation plan needs to be described and analyzed. Prepared by Robert Betts, City of Tukwila Project Coordinator 455-9640 2 • Public Issues for the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Plan & EIS April 19, 1991 3 There is interest in looking at improved freeway service to the site from existing neighborhoods, such as Seattle's Southeast Area. This can be addressed through origin- destination studies and other techniques in the programmatic EIS. Rail -type transit is not seen as a viable alternative during this period of time The plan and EIS should address how it could be accommodated in the future. This might include generalized route alignments and station locations. Trails are needed to serve bicyclists and pedestrians. Some of these are part of the Urban Trail system, and others may be needed to link facilities such as the Museum of Flight, the Ox -Bow area and so on. As a related issue, there is interest in pedestrian comfort for employees, especially to /from buildings and key transit access points. These opportunities should be reviewed in the redevelopment plan and the EIS. Open Space: Boeing's intends to create an "urban campus" for its employees, and this signifies another opportunity to develop landscaped areas to accomplish multiple purposes. One example is the use of storm water detention facilities, where drainage swales provide open space and possible habitat for urban wildlife. Shoreline enhancement: While the industrial and manufacturing component of the area is taken as a given, there is interest in addressing how the Duwamish Shoreline might be enhanced, possibly for human use, possibly for both marine and terrestrial wildlife. Soils: There is a strong possibility the soils in portions of the area have been contaminated. The EIS needs to address this topic. Archaeological and Cultural facilities. The Oxbow site and the vacant Duwamish Drive -in site are of significance for Native Americans. There is enough evidence to suggest that the areas may be of archaeological value, and there may be the possibility of locating a future cultural center on some portion of one of these sites. Energy: The redevelopment of these buildings and facilities constitutes a major opportunity for conservation planning. The EIS should present general types of requirements for the facilities. This could include solar access, internal lighting and heating, and even re -use of treated sewage effluent for use in proposed cooling towers. The demand for electrical energy is a concern, especially with the potential of locating the Wind Tunnel facility in the planning area. That facility, however, will need a specific EIS on its energy usage and its potential electromagnetic field impacts. Prepared by Robert Betts, City of Tukwila Project Coordinator 455 -9640 Flom.. Orz_Pif-r _ _ --------- ---- - _ .. _ --; 1 _ —I- 110 ___ ......_ - - . .___. R =Review F •• Finish - JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER .19A M =WC-11PC% ,ArKS/JTINTFs WICSMTWTFS WKSMTWTFS WKSMTWTFS WK S M T W T F S WFSMTWTFS WKSAITWTFS v/Ks 5710/TFS 896 0641,2717 S vix0s4 T W T F S WKSMTWTFS WKS54 Ty20.6 01 1 2 3 4 5 05 1 2 0 9 \ 4 2 44 , 2 3 4 5 6 18 1 2 3 4 22 27 , 2 3 4 5 6 31 1 2 3 36 , 2 3 4 5 6 7 40 T 2 3 4 5 44 , 2 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 02 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 06 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 4 5 6...N4 8 9 15 7 8 9 ,0 , + 12 13 19 5 6 7 8 9 ,0 11 23 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 28 7 8 9 10 11 1213 32 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 37 8 9 ,9 11 12 13 14 ai 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 45 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 50 8 9 10 11 12,3 02 13 14 15 16 17 10 49 07 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 10 11 12 13 1 ,15 16 78 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 24 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 29 14 15 18 1' 18 19 20 33 it i2 13 14 15 16 17 34 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 42 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 46 10 11 12 13 14 15 '5 51 15 16 17 18 19 29 04 2021 2223 24 25 26 08 1748 19202,2223 12' 17 la '920 2122 23 47 21 222324252627 21 +9202122232425 25 +6,7 ,9 ,9 20 24 22 30 24 222324252627 14 18192021 222324 39 22 23 23 25 26 27 28 43 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 47 1' ,8 14 20 21 22 25 52 22 23 24 25 26 27 05 2728293031 09 24 25 26 27 28 13 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 48 282930 22 26 27 29 29 101, 26 2'4 24 25 26 27 28 24 31 15 29 30 3, IS 75 26 2779 29 30 31 40 74574 44 :" 7. 7, AO it 48 71 2n 76 77 '5 .'., :4, 53 ,,f .,0 il ' 14 31 . 27 sO . .. 1991 YEARLY PROJECT SCHEDULE _ __________ I I January F February M March A April I M May J June J July A August . S September O October • N November December WK 1 1 2 23456789 1 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 1 14 1 15 1 16 1 17 1 18 1 19 2 20 2 21 2 22 2 23 2 24 2 25 2 26 2 27 2 28 2 29 3 30 3 31 3 32 3 33 3 34 3 35 3 36 3 37 3 38 3 39 4 40 4 41 4 42 4 43 4 44 4 45 4 46 4 47 4 • D 49 5 50 5 51 C-kLIW42--a — -- - — — _ - _ . W-5c.vrt-it)i-s • . crt21■11EC-1. W Inker sczelKIL‘ tuailLe- • ._ • g g. i ivk P _ K _ .__ Ms PIA 61:2LiglA1C1L3 P 5 f f K Drawer , .___ .........._. ,.. r r p p ......--- F-- P P- M M _. . . 'cts . Pzon-Dri ._ _ __ _ _ _ _ CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 PHONE k (206) 433 -1800 Duwamish Corridor MEETING SUMMARY ON: APRIL 10, 1991 WHERE: City of SEATTLE -DCLU Offices PRESENT: Rebecca Herzfeld, Dir. DCLU Michael Odom, SED -Plan Review Steve Pearce,OLP Martin Fricko, DCLU Jan Mulder, DCLU Lynn Best, Seattle City Light FROM: Jack Pace, City of Tukwila Lloyd Skinner, CH2M HILL Jeff Zahir, Boeing Support Services Bob Betts, City of Tukwila Proj. Coordinator 684 -8874 684 -5040 684 -8371 684 -8875 684 -8875 386 -4586 431 -3686 453 -5000 544 -1833 455 -9640 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor PURPOSE: Review the opportunities and features which can enhance the plan and /or contribute to the preparation of the programmatic EIS for the area. BACKGROUND: Jeff Zahir outlined the general parts of the plan: Present employment is about 20,000 on site, with existing capacity at 25,000. Ultimate employment expected during the life of this plan: 30,000. The balance in the types of workers will change somewhat. Manufacturing may decrease, office /research workers will increase. Most of the workforce will continue to use the first shift (80 +% now, but • expected to be in the range of 90 +% in future). Office space is needed in an "urban campus" setting to attract and keep future workers. Many workers will need to move frequently during the day between offices and /or Tabs to the high -bay facilities. Three principal types of buildings: high -bay assembly, laboratory, and offices, of which there will be more new office space constructed than at present. During the plan's 10 year time frame, about 3 million square feet of buildings will be demolished, and be replaced with about 3.6 million square feet of new structures. The present total of enclosed space is around 10 million square feet. Lands owned, leased, or reasonably under control by the Company are expected to increase from approximately 640 acres to 760 acres. • •' April 10, 1991DUWAMISH CORRIDOR Meeting Summary @DCLU 2 TOPICS: Transportation: 1. There is a need to consolidate access points on E. Marginal Way for transit, and to complement these with a strong pedestrian system. Perhaps a bus zone plan would be part of the EIS /mitigating measures. 2. Among the plan "drivers" are the three grandfathered crossings of E. Marginal Way for airplanes from the high -bay assembly facilities. 3. The Southeast Seattle neighborhood area desires better service to and from 1 -5, for employment and ease of access. 4. A possible mitigation measure for SOV cars may be to limit the amount of future parking spaces. 5. Seattle's Transportation Management Plan requirements are being simplified. The Boeing Company's TMP can propose goals and monitoring standards for compliance. " 6. Techniques such as bus pass subsidies, as used in the University of Washington, may be effective here. Trails: 1. Linkages across the Duwamish can be enhanced if the Coast Guard decides that the present 16th Avenue bridge will become the furthest navigable limit for ships. 2. The Seattle City Light site may not be suitable for pedestrian trails, if it is developed as a Boeing wind tunnel facility (possible energy radiation hazard) 3. There is the possibility to develop wildlife habitat in some of the open spaces. See programs for "urban wildlife," as some techniques are already developed for campus areas. Land Uses: 1. Generalized types of land uses would be addressed in the EIS. 2. There are only two historic structures on site (power plant & old red barn). 3. The schedule for demolition would follow priorities of removing the old Plant 2 building complex, built in late 1930s, and then to replace/ build in presently under utilized areas, and the third priority would be to either remove or build those structures which were in the critical path of a project. 4. The redevelopment process can be expected to cause indirect changes in nearby properties. The Boeing Company already provides many services internal to its plants, but these are direct ones such as daycare, banking, and food services. Some manufacturing areas to the north of the site, in Seattle, may be converted to other uses if the character of the employment base changes from assembly to research - and - development. • • April 10, 1991DUWAMISH CORRIDOR Meeting Summary @DCLU 3 5. The EIS needs to address amounts of power usage, by various types of activities, buildings, and systems. Peak and off -peak demand would be helpful. An overall energy assessment will be valuable, even if generalized. Boeing's interest in keeping its facilities for the Tong -term make this redevelopment site an opportunity for a showcase example. 6. South Park and Georgetown's Plans are committed to preserve existing neighborhoods. 7. There is a possibility there may be future downzones in the intensity of manufacturing activities in the existing zones. Boeing's proposals for the Duwamish Corridor are consistent with existing policies. Shoreline Issues: 1. There is a great opportunity to link E. Marginal Way with the Duwamish Shoreline area. 2. There is a need to increase access to the Duwamish River shoreline, and to link the Museum of Flight with walkways to the River, consistent with security requirements. Other: - -A two- tiered review is possible, and likely. - -The EIS and Plan needs to be aware of the recently- issued SE Seattle Neighborhood plan. - -With the Growth Management Act requirements, Seattle may not have an adopted Comprehensive Plan. Right now OLP is working on framework policies, but transportation elements will probably not be available until early 1992. - -There is a likelihood there may be toxics in the filled lands along the Duwamish River. Th k you for your participation! • • DRAFT APRIL 10, 1991 Mr. Andre Gay The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, MS 13 -03 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 RE: The Boeing Company Duwamish Corridor Master Plan Dear Mr. Gay: This is to confirm that the City of Tukwila will act as lead agency in connection with processing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addressing environmental impacts of The Boeing Company's proposed master plan for redevelopment of the Duwamish Corridor. As lead agency, the City of Tukwila will be responsible for supervising preparation of the EIS and all necessary supporting studies, coordination with other affected jurisdictions, issuances of notices, conducting necessary public hearings and other procedural matters with respect to the EIS. Boeing has agreed to pay certain of these costs. The City of Tukwila will invoice Boeing on a monthly basis. Invoices will be payable upon receipt. The City of Tukwila will assume responsibility for receiving invoices from other affected jurisdictions, when such fees may appropriately be passed on to Boeing, and include them in its invoice to Boeing. Boeing will therefore receive only one bill each month for this project, which may include copies of invoices received by Tukwila from other jurisdictions. The invoices will require payment or reimbursement of the costs incurred by the City of Tukwila to: 1. Supervise and coordinate preparation of the EIS; 2. Review drafts of the EIS; 3. Supervise and coordinate preparation of such special studies as may be required; • • Mr. Andre Gay April 10, 1991 Page 2 4. Review drafts of those studies and meet and consult with affected jurisdictions and state agencies; 5. Copying and mailing costs; 6. The salary and overhead, including benefits, of a project coordinator, as agreed between Tukwila and Boeing; 7. Costs of printing and newspaper advertising when required by SEPA or allowed in the discretion of the lead agency; 8. Compensate for all other reasonably necessary expenses incurred by the City in processing the EIS. The total costs incurred solely by the City of Tukwila, and not including reimbursable costs incurred by other jurisdictions, which Boeing will reimburse shall not exceed $100,000, absent agreement for Boeing to reimburse costs in excess of this amount. Boeing shall not unreasonably withhold such agreement for reimbursement of expenses in excess of $100,000 that fall within the items specified in paragraph nos. 1 -8 above. The of City Tukwila agrees to consult with Boeing regarding the status of its work on the project after the City has incurred costs in the amounts of $40,000, $70,000 and $90,000. The City also agrees to promptly notify Boeing of any unexpected developments which might increase the cost of or delay the preparation of the EIS, any special study, or any other aspect of the project. Costs incurred by other jurisdictions which will require reimbursement by Boeing are: 1. Review and comment on draft and final EIS. 2. Attend inter jurisdictional meetings on the EIS. Mr. Andre Gay April 10, 1991 Page 3 The total costs incurred by other jurisdictions which Boeing will reimburse shall not exceed $8,000 per jurisdiction, absent agreement for Boeing to reimburse costs in excess of this amount. Boeing will not be billed for other matters without their prior consent. Very truly yours, CITY OF TUKWILA The above is an accurate summary of the understanding of the Boeing Company. Andre Gay cc: Mr. Jafar Zahir Mr. Terry Lewis Ms. Barbara Questad Ms. Rebecca Hersfeld • CITY X11- 7'(IKWILA isrlr,sounicENT;!!otil.E ,1/,I T!IEHILl. n,a.,m,vr ;11),V miss ON: APRIL 9, 1991 WHERE: METRO OFFICES PHONE a (u;) J :; :( IS/n) l ;a,v /. lirnllaetw, Alain Duwamish Corridor MEETING SUMMARY PRESENT: Carol Thompson, METRO 684 -1610 Doug Johnson, METRO 684 -1597 Jack Pace, City of Tukwila 431 -3686 Lloyd Skinner, CH2M HILL 453 -5000 Jeff Zahir, Boeing Support Services 544 -1833 FROM:Bob Betts, City of Tukwila Proj. Coordinator 455 -9640 PURPOSE: Review the opportunities and features which can enhance the plan and /or contribute to the preparation of the programmatic EIS for the area. BACKGROUND: Jeff Zahir outlined the general parts of the plan: Present employment is about 20,000 on site, with existing capacity at 25,000. Ultimate employment expected during the life of this plan: 30,000. The balance in the types of workers will change somewhat. Manufacturing may decrease, office /research workers will increase. Most of the workforce will continue to use the first shift (80 +% now, but expected to be in the range of 90 +% in future). Office space is needed in an "urban campus" setting to attract and keep future workers. Many workers will need to move frequently during the day between offices and /or Tabs to the high - bay facilities. Three principal types of buildings: high -bay assembly, laboratory, and offices, of which there will be more new office space constructed than at present. During the plan's 10 year time frame, about 3 million square feet of buildings will be demolished, and be replaced with about 3.6 million square feet of new structures. The present total of enclosed space is around 10 million square feet. Lands owned, leased, or reasonably under control by the Company are expected to increase from approximately 640 acres to 760 acres. April 9, 1991 DUWSH CORRIDOR Meeting Sum" @ METRO 2 TOPICS: Transportation: a. The 3+ mile -long site is ideal for all forms of high occupancy vehicle -type service: Van & RidePool, Bus, Rail. Staggered start /stop hours for each shift are already in place, and allows Metro to accommodate the demand for public transit. Because even more employees are expected to use the first shift than at present, there will be more impacts during the rush hours, and thus the need to develop /refine the high- capacity transit options. Metro presently serves only the first shift with regular. service. b. Boeing already has adopted a transportation , management plan, including subsidized bus passes. This site has not yet been actively organized for comprehensive ride -share program, but the present level of usage of cars is 1.2 people /vehicle. The goal during the life of the plan is 1.5 persons /vehicle. The population of employees who use carpools is nearly three times that which use transit, such that emphasis here has potential to be effective. c. The number of bus stops needs to be consolidated along E.- Marginal Way. (efficiency, predictability, and convenience features) d. Perceptions of .convenience are essential for successful transit usage: how people perceive high- occupancy- transit can be influenced partly by providing amenities on site. Discussion /observations on pedestrian amenities: safe & dry shelter, perceived short walking distances, attractive environment to and from the transit /transfer point. e. Light -rail service for this site would be after the plan's 10 -year life, as the earliest time that service could be expected. Its requirements need to be addressed jointly in the future. For now, the redevelopment plan needs to identify appropriate locations where . the route and future stops might be located. f. The company intends to produce (existing & future) origin - destination analyses for its employees as part of this programmatic EIS. g. A "free ride zone" would be a real operational problem. Services to plants may be from a shuttle that brings people from satellite parking lots elsewhere in the planning area. h. Because of security problems, bus routes that loop on- and -off Boeing property are not desirable. (speed of trunk -line service can be maintained, too) i. With The Boeing Company subsidy program, Metro will continue to make the commitment to capital features such as shelters (has been for 5 years!) April 9, 1991 DUWIIISH CORRIDOR Meeting Summit @ METRO 3 j. With increased reliance on high- capacity vehicles, off -site traffic mitigation measures could be nominal even - though there will be an increased workforce in the area. Land Uses: a. Clustering buildings adjacent to E. Marginal Way needs to be accompanied with parking facilities that give priority to carpool /vanpool users. b. Location of retail -type services and quasi - public uses such as cafeterias at the transfer points can achieve several objectives. One is to reduce the need for workers to leave the area during the day for personal errands. Another is to provide a holding zone for passengers while they are waiting. A third is to allow for a gradual transition in height of buildings away from the margin of Boeing Field, such that the retail uses could be located adjacent to the transit stops, and passengers could walk through these to taller buildings some distance away from both E. Marginal Way and Boeing field. Design Issues: a The glideslope requirements from Boeing Field require that higher structures be located further away from the flight line. At 7:1 ratio, one has to be about 500 feet away from the field before major structures (300,000+ sq ft), can be located. b. Continue to use "utilidors" as pedestrian linkages. Other: - -Refer to the Sno -Tran Guide to Land Use and Public Transportation. -- Jeff Zahir needs the standard minimum distances for locating bus stops. -- Recommend Tukwila talks to Washdot about the Plan and EIS. -- Next steps include publication of scoping notice, comments from agencies. -- EIS needs to present the list of criteria which are mutually acceptable as mitigating measures. Measures must be predictable. -- The plan needs to describe the design for pedestrian circulation, especially from E. Marginal Way to buildings Thank you for your participation in this meeting! . r .. CITY OF TUK WILA 6200 tint1'II(.FNTFRHUULF.l'ARI, Tf/KflILA. WASHINGTON 98188 PHONE P (2061 433.180(' Gan L. VonJusen. Aluvor Duwamish Corridor MEETING SUMMARY ON: APRIL 9, 1991 WHERE: KING COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Offices PRESENT: Barbara Questad, KC SEPA 296 -6662 Ned Conroy, KC Comp Ping 296 -8699 Sandy Adams, KC Roads 296 -3724 Tom Eksten, KC Op. Space 296 -7800 Steve Massey, KC Parks 296 -4254 Paulette Norman, KC Pub. Works 296 -6596 Gary Samek, KC Pub: Works 296 -6596 Jack Pace, City of Tukwila 431 -3686 Lloyd Skinner, CH2M HILL 453 -5000 Jeff Zahir, Boeing Support Services 544 -1833 FROM: Bob Betts, City of Tukwila Proj. Coordinator 455 -9640 PURPOSE: Review the opportunities and features which can enhance -the plan and /or contribute to the preparation of the programmatic EIS for the area. BACKGROUND: Jeff Zahir outlined the general parts of the plan: Present employment is about 20,000 on site, with existing capacity at 25,000. Ultimate employment expected during the life of this plan: 30,000. The balance in the types of workers will change somewhat. Manufacturing may decrease, office /research workers will increase. Most of the workforce will continue to use the first shift (80 +% now, but expected to be in the range of 90 +% in future). Office space is needed in an "urban campus" setting to attract and keep future workers. Many workers will need to move frequently during the day between offices and /or Tabs to the high -bay facilities. Three principal types of buildings: high -bay assembly, laboratory, and offices, of which there will be more new office space constructed than at present. During the plan's 10 year time frame, about 3 million square feet of buildings will be demolished, and be replaced with about 3.6 million square feet of new structures. The present total of . enclosed space is around 10 million square feet. Lands owned, leased, or reasonably under control by the Company are expected to increase from about 640 to 760 acres. • • April 9, 1991 DUWAMISH CORRIDOR Meeting Summary @ King County 2 TOPICS: Transportation: 1. WashDOT has put the southbound 99 access lanes project on hold until studies are complete about appropriate solutions in this area. 2. Improvements to E. Marginal Way are scheduled for 1992: signs, widenings, sidewalks, undergrounding, etc.. 3. Because there will be changes in land use as the result of the redevelopment plan, we can expect there will be a shift in the origins and destinations of workers. In turn, that shift will affect the use of the Corridor's transportation facilities. Boeing intends to produce existing and future origin- destination analyses for its employees as part of this programmatic EIS. 4. Impacts can be expected on other Boeing facilities with this redevelopment plan for the Duwamish Corridor. 5. Increased transit usage can be expected as part of the plan. 6. The 16th Avenue Bridge continues to be studied for repair /renovation /relocation. The analysis is not yet complete. 7. There may be a reduction in truck trips in the area, as the Kenworth Truck manufacturing activities here may be moved to Kent. However, a mail service facility may be constructed on the Constructors -Pamco site. Trails: 1. King County is very concerned about getting as' much public access to the Duwamish River as possible. To that extent, trails in the Oxbow area are planned. 2. Some other alignments are not yet established. The Seattle City Light property, for instance, which is a possible site for a wind tunnel facility, is not considered for shoreline trails and access, given the concern about potential impacts of electromagnetic fields from high- energy consumption at the facility. 3. There is interest in linking the Museum of Flight facility with the Oxbow site. Land Uses: 1. Generalized types of land uses would be addressed in the EIS. 2. There are only two historic structures on site (power plant & old red barn). 3. The schedule for demolition would follow priorities of removing the old Plant 2 building complex, built in late 1930s, and then to replace/ build in presently under utilized areas; the third priority would be to either remove or build those structures which were in the critical path of a project. 4. The redevelopment process can be expected to cause indirect changes in nearby properties. The Boeing Company already provides many services internal to its plants, but these are direct ones such as daycare, banking, and food services. • • April 9, 1991 DUWAMISH CORRIDOR Meeting Summary @ King County 3 Shoreline Issues: 1. There are many opportunities for stream -bank enhancement along the River. Surface Water Management has standards to refer to. 2. There needs to be a distinction made in the plan between providing more public access and such enhancement efforts. 3. One area, near slip #4, could be enhanced with sand fill, providing the Corps of Engineers would grant permits. The present water area is anaerobic, but with the fill, could support salmon and other activities. 4. One site on the Oxbow property, might be suitable for a native American interpretative center. There is enough evidence in hand to suggest that it has archaeological remains from previous villages /camps. This subject warrants further study. 5. Another archaeological site may be on the Duwamish Drive -in site; it, too, warrants further study. Other: -- rethink the location for future hearing /meetings. -- consider talking to WashDOT about this Scoping Notice. Thank you for your participation! A sYnazeivt, idt) frfC sC'A od6 T�ke& G- yi inn eC G -99 4 y5 c - a '0) L3C .6‘41-1-1 833 aL rare 41.sr-3 - Duwamish Corridor MEETING SUMMARY ON: APRIL 8, 1991 PRESENT: Jeff Zahir, Boeing Support Services Ross Earnst, Public Works Director Ron Cameron, City Engineer Rick Beeler, DCD Director ,.dfack Pace, Dir. of Planning (�' FROM: Bob Betts, Duwamish Proj. Coordinator WHERE: CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICES PURPOSE: Review the opportunities and features which can enhance the plan and/ or contribute to the preparation of the programmatic EIS for the area. TOPICS: Transportation: 1. Alternatives for movement within Boeing's redevelopment area include people movers. 2. Boeing goal is to increase car ridership to 1.5 persons from 1.2 during this planning period. This will reduce demands for more parking /impervious surface areas, and maintain peak hour levels of travel. 3. The present Traffic EIS done for King County already well - documents the patterns, demands and ridership patterns for the area. The upper limit for future employment density is established. This can be relied upon with in the forthcoming Programmatic EIS. 4. Alternative parking /access point concepts range from "string of pearls" to "dumbell." Can be described, but need to be tied to an overall concept plan as to generalized location. 5. The Redevelopment of East Marginal Way is to begin in 1992; Light rail plans will have to be made at a later . point, or the road reconstruction will be lost. Utilities: 1. A possibility exists to tap into the Renton Metro Sewage .effluent line for use to irrigate landscape and to use as cooling water for buildings: positive impact in the reduction of buildings devoted to chiller units within the redevelopment area. 2. Storm water runoff may be mitigated using swales, creating open space and possible linkages between Marginal Way and Duwamish. River. • in April 8, 1991 DUWAMISH CORRIDOR Meeting Summary 2 S ry King County's Surface Water Management standards will be applied to development within Tukwila's jurisdiction. 3. The programmatic EIS needs to address the conversion of water and sewer service in present Tukwila area from City of Seattle jurisdiction (a "left- over" from property being formerly in King County jurisdiction.) Rates for water will be higher. Metro owns the sewer; Seattle owns the laterals. Benefits: coordinated service from one municipality. Land Uses: 1. There is a possibility for "key Areas" to be identified that act as composites of parking /internal access interchanges along E. Marginal Way. In turn, these could contain vital retail and other services to reduce demand for extra individual trips during the working hours. Examples of these services include day care, banking, convenience retail. 2. There is potential for considerable "spinoff" land use activity as a result of the Boeing redevelopment. It is estimated that there is 2.8 jobs created as a result of each Boeing employee. It is also estimated that at least half (1.4) are located within 1 mile radius of the Boeing facilities. Areas likely to be affected include: -- Industrial areas within City of Seattle -- Residential areas such as Allentown and Riverton - -South Park Design Issues: 1. A plan is needed for the area: graphic, containing diagrammatic indications of key features, and accompanied by policies for their location and appearance. Topics include: shoreline access/ transportation & transit enhancement, building appearance, building locations, parking concepts and linkages between areas. 2. There is an opportunity to link the Duwamish Riverfront with East Marginal Way. Water quality mitigation measures such as swales, mentioned above, need to be considered for their visual contribution, too. 3. The concept of unified buildings, closer to the street, has both appearance and functional considerations. Discussion focussed on pedestrian ease of access, especially from higher- occupancy vehicles. Graphics and building colors could be implemented to provide a better sense of identity and unity to the area than exists at present. 4. Several possible themes were discussed: "the Boeing Campus," "Tukwila Gateway," and "an Urban Land Use." Analogies to the University of Washington Campus were considered, compared and contrasted with this site. Emphasis that most of the redevelopment occurs in Tukwila jurisdiction, hence the Tukwila Gateway. There is a general perception this is not a suburban area, but an urban one: intense, dense, active. SEATTLE REALTY TEL No.206- 455 -2251 Apr 5,91 16:48 No.008 P.02 • PuwamIsh Valley Redevelopment Plan Meetlnas MONDAY, April 8, 1991 10:30 AM Ross Ernst & Ron Cameron City of Tukwila Offices 6300 Southcenter Blvd. #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA 433 -3670 Tuesday April 9th, 1991 10:00 AM 3� Carol Thompson Metro Offices Market /Planning Division 821 • Second Avenue Seattle, WA 684 -1610 Tuesday April 9th, 1991 1:00PM Barbara Quested King County BALD Offices 3600 - 136th Place SE Bellevue, WA 296 -7139 Wednesd ril 10, 1991 3:OOPM Rebecca ere eld City of Seattle DCLU Offices 400 Municipal Building Seattle, WA 684 -8875 APR u 8 1881 PERMIT CENTER Sca p� /GjFy 'P4aj• j • •r Of{rIP'T N TERNf+ c- -DE e5 &le“?. Ara r1-1pLie r'z iP5 Fels 4 cortcpy+t“. Du es C:?/ VIRa,),K Jl; -em EP uAF R .-t A-„/. 4.4 131.1',H LSI°% 5Y. Grterrirri4 Noes( wQ7 1 J 0- 1 -1 rt v Oa -FT" RE viLJ —Rev • —1;ev' Rr- D riarT 4" Rev tse y!s by 's '4g ISN SCOPING DRAFT EIS FINAL EIS DUWAMISH CORRIDOR NON - PROJECT EIS SCHEDULE AND MILESTONES OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY. A. RlLECT OE SCiPD01 SEI8111RED /mamma CET Eh FE I A NO COWED .A. ICE Sccmc COMP A a R 160 R1Bl6NE0 P MeltTNR SEIGRD a CEd CM'S/ A TO MUSH COS N April 5, 1991 V DUWAMISH CORRIDOR Strategic Redevelopment Plan MEETING AGENDA Wednesday April 10, 1991 3:OOPM City of Seattle DCLU Offices 400 Municipal Building Seattle, WA 684 -8875 I. Introductions & Context of the Planning Program for the area. II. Background of Project -- Jeff Zahir, Boeing Support Services III. Discussion of Opportunities, and Perspectives on making an effective Redevelopment Plan -- Jack Pace, City of Tukwila IV. Discussion of SEPA process for the Redevelopment Plan. -- All * *Comments on programmatic vs project Environmental Statements * *Comments on how to meet the schedule for completion. * *Comments on how mitigation measures can be best phased over the life of the project. V. Adjourn Any further Information, discussion? Call Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455 -9640 April 5, 1991 Ms. Barbara Questad, Acting Chief of SEPA Section King County Environmental Divsion 3600 - 136th Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Dear Barbara, The Boeing Company is proposing to redevelop its facilities in the Duwamish Valley Corridor. The goal of its Strategic Development Plan for the area is to re- develop the present facilities into a campus for aerospace research and development. In keeping with the spirit of the Growth Management Act, this presents a unique opportunity for public and private sector coordination to enhance a major employment center in the Puget Sound area. While industrial land use for the area is assumed, the plan will emphasize shoreline redevelopment and future requirements for infrastructure. Representatives from your organization have met with others from the City of Tukwila and the Boeing Company with regard to this plan. From these discussions, it became clear that the best forum for managing the redevelopment was through the State Environmental Policy Act. Further, the reviews needed to be first on a programmatic basis, rather than on a project -by- project basis. This "program- first" concept provides an opportunity for key jurisdictions such as yours and Boeing to increase the predictability in the kinds of mitigation requirements for the entire redevelopment. It also provides a response appropriate to the scale of the undertaking, and it provides the unique opportunity to combine public and private interests in the Duwamish Corridor, rather than in specific buildings on separate parcels of land. The Boeing Company has agreed to prepare this programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on their Strategic Development Plan. The City of Tukwila has been designated as the lead agency for this EIS. Robert S. Betts is the project coordinator, who will be contacting you to discuss the timing of future meetings. CH2M HILL is preparing the Programmatic EIS, and Lloyd Skinner; is its project manager. The tentative schedule for completing this impact statement is anticipated to be compressed into the balance of this year: The Draft EIS should be complete by July 31st, and the Final EIS by December 31st. Ms. Barbara Questad Duwamish Strategic Plan April 5, 19912 Thank you for your willingness to meet so promptly on this plan. We are confirming the meeting at your offices for this coming Tuesday, April 9th. at 1 PM. To assist you, we are enclosing a map of the areas being considered in the Duwamish Corridor and the main elements of workforce, buildings, and overall land area. In addition we pose the following questions, to stimulate your ideas and perspectives on this remarkable project: - -On a regional scale what do you see as the public opportunities in the redevelopment of this industrial area? - -What are the opportunities that you see to make this a high - quality redevelopment? - -What are the design and mitigation elements that you believe need to be addressed in the Plan and the Programmatic EIS? Please work with our project coordinator, Bob Betts. He can be reached through our offices at 433 -3670, or at 455 -9640. In addition, Jack Pace, Senior Planner and Manager of Tukwila's Planning Services, is our dseignated staff contact for this project. In advance, thank you for your willingness to meet and to participate. Sincerely, L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development Encl. April 5, 1991 Ms.Carol Thompson, Market Development Planner METRO MS -64 821 - Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 Dear Carol, The Boeing Company is proposing to redevelop its facilities in the Duwamish Valley Corridor. The goal of its Strategic Development Plan for the area is to re- develop the present facilities into a campus for aerospace research and development. In keeping with the spirit of the Growth Management Act, this presents a unique opportunity for public and private sector coordination to enhance a major employment center in the Puget Sound area. While industrial land use for the area is assumed, the plan will emphasize shoreline redevelopment and future requirements for infrastructure. Representatives from your organization have met with others from the City of Tukwila and the Boeing Company with regard to this plan. From these discussions, it became clear that the best forum for managing the redevelopment was through the State Environmental Policy Act. Further, the reviews needed to be first on a programmatic basis, rather than on a project -by- project basis. This "program- first" concept provides an opportunity for key jurisdictions such as yours and Boeing to increase the predictability in the kinds of mitigation requirements for the entire redevelopment. It also provides a response appropriate to the scale of the undertaking, and it provides the unique opportunity to combine public and private interests in the Duwamish Corridor, rather than in specific buildings on separate parcels of land. The Boeing Company has agreed to prepare this programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on their Strategic Development Plan. The City of Tukwila has been designated as the lead agency for this EIS. Robert S. Betts is the project coordinator, who will be contacting you to discuss the timing of future meetings. CH2M HILL is preparing the Programmatic EIS, and Lloyd Skinner is its project manager. The tentative schedule for completing this impact statement is anticipated to be compressed into the balance of this year: The Draft EIS should be complete by July 31st, and the Final EIS by December 31st. Ms. Carol Thompson Duwamish Strategic Plan April 5, 19912 Thank you for your willingness to meet so promptly on this plan. We are confirming the meeting at your offices for this comina Tuesday April 9th at 10:30. To assist you, we are enclosing a map of the areas being considered in the Duwamish. Corridor and the main elements of workforce, buildings, and overall land area. In addition we pose the following questions, to stimulate your ideas and perspectives on this remarkable project: - -On a regional scale what do you see as the public opportunities in the redevelopment of this industrial area? - -What are the opportunities that you see to make this a high - quality redevelopment? - -What are the design and mitigation elements that you believe need to be addressed in the Plan and the Programmatic -EIS? Please work with our project coordinator, Bob Betts. He can be reached through our offices at 433 -3670, or at 455 -9640. In addition, Jack Pace, Senior Planner and Manager of Tukwila's Planning Services, is our dseignated staff contact for this project. In advance, thank you for your willingness to meet and to participate. Sincerely, L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development Encl. April 5, 1991 Ms. Rebecca Herzfeld, Director Land Use Division Department of Constr. & Land Use 400 Municipal Building Seattle, WA 98104 - 1800 Dear Rebecca, The Boeing Company is proposing to redevelop its facilities in the Duwamish Valley Corridor. The goal of its Strategic Development Plan for the area is to re- develop the present facilities into a campus for aerospace research and development. In keeping with the spirit of the Growth Management. Act, this presents a,unique opportunity for public and private sector coordination to enhance a major employment center in the Puget Sound area. While industrial land use for the area is assumed, the plan will emphasize shoreline redevelopment and future requirements for infrastructure. Representatives from your organization have met with others from the City of Tukwila and the Boeing Company with regard to this plan. From these discussions, it became clear that the best forum for managing the redevelopment was through the State Environmental Policy Act. Further, the reviews needed to be first on a programmatic basis, rather than on a project -by- project basis. This "program- first" concept provides an opportunity for key jurisdictions such as yours and Boeing to increase the predictability in the kinds of mitigation requirements for the entire redevelopment. It also provides a response appropriate to the scale of the undertaking, and it provides the unique opportunity to combine public and private interests in the Duwamish Corridor, rather than in specific buildings on separate parcels of land. The Boeing Company has agreed to prepare this programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on their Strategic Development Plan. The City of Tukwila has been designated as the lead agency for this EIS. Robert S. Betts is the project coordinator, who will be contacting you to discuss the timing of future meetings. CH2M HILL is preparing the Programmatic EIS, and Lloyd Skinner is its project manager. The tentative schedule for completing this impact statement is anticipated to be compressed into the balance of this year: The Draft EIS should be complete by July 31st, and the Final EIS by December 31st. Ms. Rebecca Herzfeld Duwamish Strategic Plan April 5, 19912 Thank you for your willingness to meet so promptly on this plan. We are confirming the meeting at your offices for this coming Wednesday, April 10th, at 3PM. To assist you, we are enclosing a map of the areas being considered in the Duwamish Corridor and the main elements of workforce, buildings, and overall land area. In addition we pose the following questions, to stimulate your ideas and perspectives on this remarkable project: - -On a regional scale what do you see as the public opportunities in the redevelopment of this industrial area? - -What are the opportunities that you see to make this a high - quality redevelopment? - -What are the design and mitigation elements that you believe need to be addressed in the Plan and the Programmatic EIS? Please work with our project coordinator, Bob Betts. He can be reached through our offices at 433 -3670, or at 455 -9640. In addition, Jack Pace, Senior Planner and Manager of Tukwila's Planning Services, is our dseignated staff contact for this project. In advance, thank you for your willingness to meet and to participate. Sincerely, L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development Encl. • • April 5, 1991 '✓ DUWAMISH CORRIDOR Strategic Redevelopment Plan MEETING AGENDA Tuesday April 9th, 1991 10:30 AM Metro Offices Market /Planning Division 821 - Second Avenue Seattle, WA 684 -1610 I. Introductions & Context of the Planning Program for the area. II. Background of Project -- Jeff Zahir, Boeing Support Services rz5. 111. Discussion of Opportunities, and Perspectives on making an. effective Redevelopment Plan -- Jack Pace, City of Tukwila e IV. Discussion of SEPA process for the Redevelopment Plan. -- All * *Comments on programmatic vs project Environmental Statements * *Comments on how to meet the schedule for completion. * *Comments on how mitigation measures can be best phased over the life of the project. V. Adjourn Any further Information, discussion? Call Bob Betts, Project Coordinator 455 -9640 DRAFT APRIL 4, 1991 Mr. Andre Gay The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, MS 13 -03 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 RE: The Boeing Company Duwamish Corridor Master Plan Dear Mr. Gay: This is to confirm that the City of Tukwila will act as lead agency in connection with processing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addressing environmental impacts of The Boeing Company's proposed master plan for redevelopment of the Duwamish Corridor. As lead agency, the City of Tukwila will be responsible for supervising preparation of the EIS and all necessary supporting studies, coordination with other affected jurisdictions, issuances of notices, conducting necessary public hearings and other procedural matters with respect to the EIS. Boeing has agreed to pay certain of these costs. The City of Tukwila will invoice Boeing on a monthly basis. Invoices will be payable upon receipt. The City of Tukwila will assume responsibility for receiving invoices from other affected jurisdictions, when such fees may appropriately be passed on to Boeing, and include them in its invoice to Boeing. Boeing will therefore receive only one bill each month for this project, which may include copies of invoices received by Tukwila from other jurisdictions. The invoices will require payment or reimbursement of the costs incurred by the City of Tukwila to: 1. Supervise and coordinate preparation of the EIS; 2. Review drafts of the EIS; 3. Supervise and coordinate preparation of such special studies as may be required; 4. Review drafts of those studies and meet and consult with affected jurisdictions and state agencies; Mr. Andre Gay April 4, 1991 Page 2 5. Copying and mailing costs; 6. The salary and overhead, including benefits, of a project coordinator, as agreed between Tukwila and Boeing; 7. Costs of printing and newspaper advertising when required by SEPA or allowed in the discretion of the lead agency; 8. Compensate for all other reasonably necessary expenses incurred by the City in processing the EIS. The total costs incurred solely by the City of Tukwila, and not including reimbursable costs incurred by other jurisdictions, which Boeing will reimburse shall not exceed $100,000, absent agreement for Boeing to reimburse costs in excess of this amount. Boeing shall not unreasonably withhold such agreement for reimbursement of expenses in excess of $100,000 that fall within the items specified in paragraph nos. 1 -8 above. The of City Tukwila agrees to consult with Boeing regarding the status of its work on the project after the City has incurred costs in the amounts of $40,000, $70,000 and $90,000. The City also agrees to promptly notify Boeing of any unexpected developments which might increase the cost of or delay the preparation of the EIS, any special study, or any other aspect of the project. Costs incurred by other jurisdictions which will require reimbursement by Boeing are: 1. Review and .comment on draft and final EIS. 2. Attend inter jurisdictional meetings on the EIS. The total costs incurred by other jurisdictions which Boeing will reimburse shall not exceed $5,000 per jurisdiction. Boeing will not be billed for other matters without their prior consent. Very truly yours, CITY OF TUKWILA cc: Mr. Jafar Zahir Mr. Terry Lewis SEATTLE - REALTY March 28,1991 MEMO TEL No.206 -455 -2251 Mar 28,91 13:57 No.010 P.02 411 ROBERT S. BETTS, INC. Land Management, Conservation and Development 700 -108th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004.5102 (206) 465 -9640 462 -9761 (FAX) m 281991 CITY OF TUic iiiii LA PLANNING DEPT. To: Jack Pace/ Rick Beeler; Lloyd Skinner: Jeff Zahir Subject: Duwamish Corridor Charette; Draft Guidelines for Proceeding, A general guideline for this charette is to focus on its programmatic features, The project's general nature should be underscored. For instance, we need to look at the public's interest in what features constitute an exemplary 21st Century workplace. We also need to recognize that the collection and analysis of data can stifle creative thinking, and can lead to confusion between the area's program and any specific facilities which occur subsequently. My recommendation is that we envision this task as being on the order of a sub area plan for a manufacturing/research community, complete with its own generalized EIS, including mitigating measures. Participants need to recognize that SEPA enters most land use approvals, especially within the scope of renewal envisioned in the corridor. SEPA does not have much flexibility about timing, but it does encourage flexibility in looking at alternatives, etc. Our charette could appropriately focus on how to provide for that flexibility. A successful charette needs good ground rules: -- Identify the situation's unique qualities rather than its similarities with other situations. -- Outline possible consequences of the unique aspects of this situation. - -Ask about the purposes of working the problem; the reasons for considering it will encourage us to think of a range of purposeful activities and broad objectives. -- Identify what conditions should be in place to ideally work on the problem. -- Challenge both stated and unstated assumptions of the problem. - -Look at subsequent solutions: we plan in the context of knowing that subsequent projects will materialize There are a number of ground rules to actually run the charette: - -Keep the group small in numbers at the outset. - -No criticism when ideas are being generated (allow time later for judgment & assessment). -- Encourage freewheeling, however wild the ideas may be. -- Record all ideas so that each receives consideration. - -Focus discussion on how to make suggested solutions work, rather than on why they won't. - -Keep the focus on what's remarkable about the project, and then plan from that perspective to accommodate it within known constraints. 6117E //VG • March 25, 1991 4-7200 -JAZ- 91-0049 Rick Beeler, Planning Director City of Tukwila Tukwila, WA Rick: Boeing Support Services P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 MAR 261991 As regards to your draft Memorandum of Agreement dated March 13, 1991, I generally find it conforms to our earlier comments and expectations. There are two recommendations which I do not find reflected in this draft deal with Boeing maintaining discretion over the scope of the Master Plan, these recommendations are: 1. The agreement should make it clear that, the scope of the Master Plan, and all elements included and excluded from its reach, are entirely at Boeing's discretion. 2. Some provision should be included to recognize, and allow, Boeing to undertake ongoing and new projects outside the scope of this Master Plan. That section should recognize that some of these projects may be in the Duwamish Corridor within the geographic area of the Master Plan, but that Boeing is entitled to demonstrate that these are separate, independent projects, entitled to separate SEPA review and permitting processing, and not part of the Master Plan. We can establish the base for that rationale by agreeing, in this document, J. that the scope of the Master Plan, as a nonproject EIS, is entirely at Boeing's discretion and not determined by geographic area. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Jeff. A. aZ"Fiir Org. 4 -7200, Mailstop 6Y -73 Phone: 393 - 2783/544 -1833 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Duwamish Corridor Master Plan proposes the re- development of 595 acres of land currently occupied by the Boeing Company along the Duwamish River. The project area is bounded on the north by the Georgetown and South Park neighborhoods of Seattle on the north and the Riverton and Allentown neighborhoods to the south. The project area is boardered on the west by SR 99 and the east by the Boeing field runway. The Plan proposes re- development of intensive manufacturing areas into a campus environment housing offices, laboratories and developmental manufacturing over the ten year period from 1990 to 2000. Due to uncertainties in the scale and configuration of facilities that would be required to support future programs, the Duwamish Corridor Master Plan classifies types of uses that would occur within defined sites. Analysis of the projected cummulative impacts of this plan and its alternatives will be used to generate appropriate mitigating measures and to determine the feasibility of proceeding with development. Alternatives to this plan are: 1. No action 2. Identify mixed uses consisting of more than 50% assembly and fabrication uses. 3. Identify mixed uses consisting of more than 50% office uses. MINE • a GU, V/S/7` c e,e) Dot - �/gS7 PG/1-k) 4) / S S c � =MI SUBJECT T SK C Marv) •2EG EtvE • , ' . 4 ( ! j NF-c? I ,,,/se /S I ! i I :aww. oZ, /��fr - SCo P�dl6 i 11—:..-1- 3 Tu,6ui k : 71 rn� I • R-Ev /sue s�o�ti6 wet s) j P�tOJECT NO. e/451 3/ 7 � SHEET NO. - -_ OF_ 2- — DATE ..T/4?' 4// STN ,)e /f---e.? c• S 6 7 _ Q CT -- s1/ d d P013/-/S /f S Co pi/U 6 f ejhi.A a. wKS GD Piluc Pb 3o! 2yS 3 o DAYS GU I ' ix! " P2 E - --°i La's /! U 6 1! E FFv r2T - s /U 'TV I DEVELvP PR6,7-Ec,T C 7-i- he- % /Lj,4reiz pLA-#u ") co/42). 3e S,y d e_7 -,s,v b - -- - "Ty/ 1/4.7-44Y / 1 - 1.1y-re fetua L_Real et() TUKw�i.R i Cp SE1?- a wk-_c - 11 Pv 2L15 -/4 I 1„..)!c- /3 us, c)3 C.o/40 9D . oc-r7 i3 p ,rrls yw /&s R'EuIEw avJks is R')ISE 2- wKs -1 - PIA Acis14- -Fe(S - e, 'Ho �S 3o .A4YS 1- • • „Du)j 7 a / - .JY SCoP,A c is -J 1 'Jo wE .. T/f /s a ,VO ti rN- 0172,67s ,° 6P f?D _ OU�2Gi�PS 5 co P I.J _ S#01M41. /9-5suf)2E$ A,(D'4 . ,4 76S _ /+2A✓� cage z /4/4-- 7-1-q a b4'e,f,6 7/?si< - /o, 4(Nc3,77044rs /a, 3 0_ ,i)asit% - c?/Awn rur /›.t7 ✓s mss / 34E ,2 GUFF K ,' / S /S lo�fy SS DEf��/G S �9 ✓T /2E� v 4J p/J /� rLl/CE p P' us c/eR,e/S6 ' Gp lY! /7741.0 DEC I s— /4, Z6/9 /ti, D,r✓< y d/t/ 7,0 — 4 /tm ,eEi — 'Ma) King County Executive TIM HILL 400 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 296 -4040 March 5, 1991 The Honorable Gary L. VanDusen Mayor, City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Boeing Duwamish Area Redevelopment Dear Mayor VanDusen: Thank you for your January 25, 1991 letter on the status of the environmental review for the Boeing Duwamish Area Redevelopment proposal. The Environmental Division SEPA Section is reviewing the draft Memorandum of Agreement for the joint review and preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). I have encouraged King County staff to work cooperatively with Tukwila, Seattle, and the Boeing Company to provide a comprehensive environmental review of the proposed redevelopment. Barbara Questad, Acting Chief of the SEPA Section, has assigned Brian Shea, Environmental Planner, to be the lead person for King County's involvement in the review process. They may be reached at 296 -6662. Thank you for coordinating the efforts of the many parties involved in the environmental review. Sincerely, --(1.;e__Q. Tim Hill King County Executive TH:m cc: Lois Schwennesen, Director, Parks, Planning and Resources Department ATTN: Gregory Kipp, Manager, Building and Land Development Division Barbara Questad, Acting Chief, SEPA Section Brian Shea, Environmental Planner Miriam Greenbaum, Manager, Planning and Community Development Division z47,11U Itztuk/ ur'w 0'( Oki Mr. Andre Gay The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, MS 13 -03 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 D R A F T March 5, 1991 1-20 NalS fqd,sLA VNWTS 5GaileNi Nu, a -mss cs-•:ZArZL--1 5 V BAs N - w3r\t`4`ipl "F Z Ov `(1k is P Ftr` CbtasuL -94r. c- • (s' OiLi- A. C\ Re: The Boeing Company Duwamish Corridor Master Plan Dear Mr. Gay: This is to confirm that the City of Tukwila will act as lead agency in connection with processing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addressing environmental impacts of The Boeing Company's proposed master plan for redevelopment of the Duwamish Corridor. As lead agency, the City of Tukwila will be responsible for supervising preparation of the EIS and all necessary supporting studies, coordination with other affected jurisdictions, issuances of notices, conducting necessary public hearings and other procedural ,atters with respect to the EIS. Boeing,pay certain of these costs. Tut 'to The City of Tukwila will invoice Boeing on a monthly basis. Invoices will be payable upon receipt. The City of Tukwila will assume responsibility for receiving invoices from other affected jurisdictions, when such fees may appropriately be passed on to Boeing, and include them in its invoice to Boeing. Boeing will therefore receive only one bill each month for this project/ wLvd, itAkeiAL c f-t immG-s Atwit,,( 4,) (4/A..ic fi1-1 �9kw( • • Mr. Andre Gay March 5, 1991 Page 2 The invoices will require payment or reimbursement of the costs incurred by the City of Tukwila to: 1. Supervise and coordinate preparation of the EIS; 2. Review drafts of the EIS; 3. Supervise and coordinate preparation of such special studies as may be required; 4. Review drafts of those studies and meet and consult with affected jurisdictions and state agencies; 5. Copying and mailing costs; 6. The salary and overhead, including benefits, of a project coordinator, • •. •- - - • and asu %wtiwi (G 7. Costs of printing and newspaper advertising when �, required by SEPA or allowed in the discretion of the lead �µss� Edo� costs agency. 1 co-1 i 1 ,�.y �1+� � �u.�ca��u./.� ,U��1C5 iv�tt�.vY� � Nc� Y� I �- Sd:G�"iV�'�S IV' Y / a Kai i "� 9 S Gn�ru� A,gal, cwrr The total costs incurred4 by the City of Tukwilanwhich Boeing will reimburse shall not exceed $100,000 y---. prior, .o_i-ncu- — 1, y4,,t6Ol atywie rtiour 5001 -Iv ru w.lywr4t, Scte to w,ktarrU 11 wi Melt d I-a n+tM0- iv( 1_4 A costs in excess of this amount.A,The City of Tukwila agrdes to f toa Ao0 consult with Boeing regarding the status of its work on the "`f `^s ° project after the City has incurred costs in the amounts of 4, ,l.,,,,�s cr'F' $40,000, $70,000 and $90,000. The City also agrees to promptly' notify Boeing of any unexpected developments which might �` °S' �`�'` increase the cost of or delay the preparation of the EIS, any special study, or any other aspect of the project. Mr. Andre Gay March 5, 1991 Page 3 Costs incurred by other jurisdictions which will require reimbursement by Boeing are: 1. t_`Etcr.J 4J Cor461.,etii- oh c ce ,14( el s 2. PteY4c0 +r ELS. The total costs incurred by other jurisdictions which Boeing will reimburse shall not exceed 3STipv:=■ per jurisdiction. Boeing will not be billed for other matters without their prior consent. Very truly yours, CITY OF TUKWILA cc: .Mr. Jafar Zahir Mr. Terry Lewis I'H':+l.. I_.4.1 ] • • PNET SouNd CouNciE OF GOVERNMENTS FAX (206) 5874825 216 First Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98104 TIME: '.93 DATE: 3- S' 9 / TO: —.ter atw FROM b 5icho CPSCO G-) NUMBER OF PAGES. (NOT INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET) If any of these pages are not legible or you do not receive all the pages, please call us at (206) 464 -7090 between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM. RECEIVE MAR -5 1991 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS Residence of Workers at Renton Plant ER 400 or greater (17) 200 to 400 (14) ED 75 to 200 (37) C:3 less than 75 (82) * Renton Plant • Residence of Workers at Tukwila in 40 or greater (22) 20 to 40 (23) Ea 5 to 20 (39) less than 5 (66) • * Tukwila Office • Residence of Workers at Rant 2 11111 400 or greater (10) 200 to 400 (11) 75 to 200 (37) CD less than 75 (92) * Plant 2 Residence of Workers at Sea —Tac in 40 or greater (5) 20 to 40 (14) ® 5 to 20 (37) 0 Tess than 5 (94) * Sea—Toc King County Executive TIM HILL 400 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 296 -4040 41/ FEB _. 7 1991 February 4, 1991 Mr. Frank Shrontz, Chairman Chief Executive Officer The Boeing Company Post Office Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 RE: Boeinc Redevelopment Plan In The Duwamish Valley Dear Mriretz : Thank you for your December 7, 1990 letter, to Mayor Rice, Mayor VanDusen and me requesting assistance with the redevelop- ment plans for Boeing- occupied land in the Duwamish Valley. The Environmental Division SEPA Section is reviewing the draft Memorandum of Agreement for the joint review and preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and I expect to sign the Memorandum when it is finalized. I encourage King County staff to work cooperatively with Tukwila, Seattle and the Boeing Company to provide a comprehensive environmental review of the proposed redevelopment. I have designated Barbara Questad, Acting Chief, SEPA Section, as the lead person for King County's involvement. She may be reached at 296 -6662. Thank you again for your commitment to protecting the environ- mental resources that we all share. Sincerely, Tim Hill King County Executive TH:thy cc: Norman B. Rice, Mayor, City of Seattle Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor, City of Tukwila Lois Schwennesen, Director, Parks, Planning and Resources ATTN: Gregory M. Kipp, Manager, Building and Land Development Division Barbara Questad, Acting Chief, SEPA Section Miriam Greenbaum, Manager, Planning and Community Development Division CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 sQGTIiC ENTER BOULEVARD, TUh'WILA. WAstu:V('TO :V 9r218s January 7:5, 1994 The Honorable Tim Hill King County Executive 400 King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 The Honorable Norm Rice Mayor of the City of Seattle 600 - 4th Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 PHONE 4 (206).133- l,ti!)/) (ar 1. 1'iinlhricn, :llavrnr JAN 2g 1991 CITY OF TUkt/0ILA PLAIwIINn DEPT. RE: Boeing Duwamish Area Redevelopment Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Hill and Mayor Rice: The importance of the Boeing Duwamish area redevelopment is becoming clearer as we learn more about the full scope of their proposal. This is the largest and most significant industrial redevelopment in the history of Puget Sound and will receive a great amount of public attention. I am encouraged by your agreement for mutual cooperation in the environmental review of this project and want to update you on its status. The mutual planning efforts by our respective staffs continues on course toward preparation of a programmatic environmental impact statement for Boeing's long range redevelopment of the Duwamish area. I have directed that a letter of agreement be developed as the basis of the working relationship of our staffs. You may recall that we determined that this was the most appropriate vehicle by which to secure the intergovernmental cooperation vital to the success of am expeditious and comprehensive review process. A draft copy was circulated to selected members of your staff this morning. I am enclosing a copy with this letter for your information. Tukwila continues in its role as the lead agency for preparation of the EIS and has met with Boeing staff to resolve procedures and a timeline. We will produce a programmatic EIS by the end of this year through the normal process. The consulting firm of CH2M Hill will prepare the EIS and work with our respective staffs on the content and mitigation measures. The Honorable Tim Hill The Honorable Norm Rice January 25, 1991 Page Two The scoping process is scheduled to begin the fourth week of this month. We also want to hold a public kick -off reeiiiig in Fcui uaiy with you seives, Boeing iepicseitaiives, our staffs, the press, and other appropriate and interested parties. Boeing has agreed to fund a project coordinator to act as a focal point in the review of the EIS by our staffs. We will be establishing a project information center for this person to work and display information. Due to the scope of the redevelopment, I am sure you will agree that every reasonable measure should be taken to allow for public input and review. If you or your staffs have any questions please call Rick Beeler, Director of the Department of Community Development, 431 -3681. Rick is coordinating this project at this point until the project coordinator is on board. Sincerely, . VanDusen Mayor GLVD:JM /so Encl. cc: John McFarland Rick Beeler • MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT The purpose of this Memorandum of Agreement is to provide for a process for the coordination of the permit review, establishment of conditions for, and approval of the Boeing Company East Marginal Way corridor re- development project, (hereinafter referred to as the "Project "). Recitals Whereas, the Boeing Company has announced plans for the re- development of a substantial portion of their owned or occupied properties along the East Marginal Way corridor, and Whereas, it has been determined that the Project is significant in both scope and potential impacts, resulting in the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and Whereas, construction activities will occur in the jurisdictions of King County, the City of Seattle, and the City of Tukwila, and Whereas, the close and comprehensive coordination of the EIS scoping, development and review is critical to the efficient and comprehensive management of the Project, and Whereas, it has been determined to be in the best interests of all parties to execute this Memorandum of Agreement to both facilitate the comprehensive representation of public interests and to provide for an expeditious process for the Boeing Company, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City of Tukwila shall be designated as the Lead Agency in the development of the project EIS, to include all administrative matters related to coordination of the review, comment and setting of conditions for the project by the parties to this agreement. 2. As Lead Agency, the City of Tukwila shall be responsible for the provision of office space, appropriate logistical support, and supervision of a project coordinator. 3. Each member jurisdiction shall retain all rights pertaining to the review, comment, and setting of conditions for the Project in accordance with local ordinances and policies. 4. The Boeing Company shall provide all funding necessary for the management of the EIS process. The Lead Agency shall determine compensation arrangements in concert with the Boeing Company, submit billings related to the Project Coordinator, and for mutually agreed upon associated expenses, on a quarterly basis to the Boeing Company. Payment to the Lead Agency shall be remitted by the Boeing Company within thirty (30) days of receipt of billings. • Memorandum of Agreement Page Two 5. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect as of the date last executed and ending upon completion of the Project or as otherwise agreed to by the parties. Any party may terminate its participation in this Agreement by written notice to the others. Such termination shall not require the remaining parties to continue with this Agreement. 6. Each party hereto shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the others, its agents and employees, from and against any and all liability arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property resulting in whole or in part from acts or omissions of each party, its agents, servants, officers or employees. The indemnifying party shall, in addition to indemnifying and holding each other party harmless from any liability, indemnify each other party for any and all expense incurred by each other party in defending such claim or suit, including attorney's fees. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Recitals The purpose of this Memorandum of Agreement is to coordinate review of a non - project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a 10 -year plan to redevelop properties owned or occupied by the Boeing Company in the East Marginal Way corridor, as described in Attachment A. WHEREAS the Boeing Company has announced plans for the redevelopment of a substantial portion of its East Marginal Way corridor properties; and WHEREAS the City of Tukwila, acting as the lead agency under the State Environmental Policy Act with the agreement of the City of Seattle and King County, has issued a determination of significance for the redevelopment plan based upon the determination that the plan is significant in both scope and potential adverse environmental impacts, and accordingly requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); and WHEREAS proposed subsequent project construction activities will occur over a 10 year period in the jurisdictions of King County, the City of Seattle and the City of Tukwila; and WHEREAS the close coordination of the EIS scoping, development and review is critical for efficient and comprehensive management of the plan; and WHEREAS parties to this agreement have determined it to be in their best interests to execute this Memorandum of Agreement in order to maximize public input and to enable consistent processing of the plan. NOW THEREFORE the undersigned do hereby agree to the following: 1. The City of Tukwila shall act as the lead agency with respect to the development of the non - project EIS. As lead agency the City of Tukwila shall be responsible for all administrative matters relating to the coordination of environmental review for the project. 2. The City of Seattle, King County, and City of Tukwila shall jointly review, comment and set conditions for the plan in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. 3. The City of Seattle, King County, and City of Tukwila shall utilize the EIS and its set of mitigating measures in subsequent review of individual building' permits for compliance with each jurisdiction's environmental policies. MEMORANDUM OF AIEEMENT • 4. The City of Seattle, King County, and City of Tukwila shall retain all rights relating to the permitting or approval of subsequent projects proposed within their respective jurisdictions. With respect to such projects each jurisdiction shall retain the right to require additional SEPA review and to act as lead agency. 5. As lead agency for this non - project EIS, the City of Tukwila shall be responsible for provision of office space, appropriate logistical support and supervision of the EIS coordinator. 6. The City of Tukwila is responsible for collecting costs incurred by the parties to this agreement, and for submitting a monthly invoice to the Boeing Company for payment. 7. The City of Seattle and King County shall submit monthly billing invoices to the City of Tukwila for time spent on EIS scoping, development, review or comment. The City of Tukwila shall remit payment to the City of Seattle and king County based upon the hourly rate established with each jurisdiction's applicable fee ordinance. 7. Each party shall hold harmless the others, their agents or employees, from and against any and all liability arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property resulting in whole or in part from acts or omissions of each party, its agents, servants, officers, or employees. 8. This agreement shall be in full force and effect as of the date last executed and shall remain in effect until completion of the project or written agreement of the parties. Any party may terminate its further participation in this agreement by sending written notice to all other parties. Entered into this day of , 1991. Approved as to Form: THE CITY OF TUKWILA Tukwila City Attorney Administrator Approved as to Form: THE CITY OF SEATTLE Seattle City Attorney Administrator Approved as to Form: KING COUNTY Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Administrator King County LEGEND ■ ■ Owned Leased Potential Future Sites for Lease or Purchase M E M O R A N D U M TO: John McFarland FROM: Rick Beeler DATE: January 11, 1991 SUBJECT: Boeing 10 Year EIS Before the January 25th meeting of the Boeing and government staffs on this project, the following issues require discussion and resolution. We've generally discussed some of the issues before, but now we need to firmly decide them. 1. Project coordinator: Boeing's legal staff is reluctant to fund this temporary position. Mike Kenyon and I reviewed the issue and see little problem doing this. Boeing staff is in agreement, especially if the position can help us with the Boeing Longacres planning /EIS coordination. We need to confirm that we want the position and how to fill it. Recommendation: Hire an experienced environmental consultant for 1991, funded via pass- through of funds from Boeing. 2. Public relations kick -off meeting: By the end of February it was suggested that we host a media and government officials event to formally announce the project, its process and timeline. We would explain the intent, substance and procedure. To be confirmed is the time and place. Recommendation: Flight Museum or Council Chambers on February 25, 26, 27 or 28. Flight Museum is close to the project (for ease of explanation). Chambers is neutral turf. 3. Inter - jurisdiction memo of understanding: Who is preparing this and what is the timetable? I thought your office was preparing it. Recommendation: Send proposal to Seattle and King County before January 25 staff meeting. 4. EIS consultant contract: Final proposal should be available January 14 from consultant per discussions with Boeing and myself. We need to finalize and sign it that week. Recommendation: Confer January 14 with Gary. Meet later with Boeing (and consultant) regarding any revisions. • • Page 2 5. Project command center: Office space for project coordinator, files, maps and conferencing. This office will coordinate the programmatic EIS and the Longacres project and function as the focus of documents, public information and staff meetings. A lot of maps and drawings will be displayed. Existing space does not accommodate this function. Where will we put it? Recommendation: Lease for 1991 the vacant space next to Public Works for location of this function. • PEa�uNScae � A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 1201 THIRD AVENUE, 40TH FLOOR • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3099 • (206) 583 -8888 December 26, 1990 Mr. Jafar A. Zahir The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, MS 6Y -73 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Re: Duwamish Master Plan Dear Jeff: \flmi 0 I 199J1 66-.C-(..,k- You have indicated that Boeing may find it in its interest to finan- cially assist the City of Tukwila, in its role as lead agency for the EIS, to expedite coordination and supervision of the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Duwamish Master Plan. Specifically, you have asked whether or not Boeing can provide funding for the City to employ a person specifically assigned to oversee and coordinate preparation of the Master Plan EIS. SEPA regulations provide: Every agency shall specifically provide in its own pro- cedures those situations in which an applicant may be required or authorized to help prepare an EIS. Agency procedures may not require more information of an appli- cant than allowed by WAC 197 -11 -100, but may authorize less participation. An applicant may volunteer to pro- vide any information or effort desired, as long as the EIS is supervised and approved by the responsible offi- cial. These rules do not prevent an agency from charging any fees which the agency is otherwise allowed to charge. WAC 197 -11- 420(4) (emphasis added). This same section has been adopted by Tukwila as a part of its environmental ordinances. Tukwila Municipal Code ("TMC "), S 21.04.170. SEPA regulations also provide: Except for the costs allowed by this Chapter . . . these rules neither authorize nor prohibit the imposition of fees to cover the costs of SEPA compliance. WAC 197 -11 -914. Tukwila ordinances, like SEPA, do not clearly disallow financial assistance to the City from an applicant, and they do allow the City to impose certain fees under its own ordinances. First, an applicant may be billed $100 for a review of an environmental checklist. Second, when i03008-0360/S13903640.0481-2 TELEX: 32-0319 PERKINS SEA • FACSIMILE: (206) 583-8500 ANCHORAGE • BELLEVUE • LOS ANGELES • PORTLAND • SPOKANE • WASHINGTON, D.C. • Mr. Jafar A. Zahir December 26, 1990 Page 2 processing an EIS, the City may impose a "reasonable fee" when the EIS is prepared by City employees and may bill the costs and expenses of EIS preparation directly to the applicant when the EIS is being prepared by an outside consultant: (2) Environmental Impact Statement (A) When the City is the lead agency for a proposal requiring an EIS and the responsible official determines that the EIS shall be prepared by employees of the City, the City may charge and collect a reasonable fee from any applicant to cover costs incurred, including overhead, by the City in preparing the EIS. The respon- sible official shall advise the applicant of the pro- jected costs for the EIS prior to actual preparation. (B) The responsible official may determine that the City will contract directly with a consultant for preparation of an EIS, or a portion of the EIS, for ac- tivities initiated by some persons or entity other than the City and may bill such costs and expenses directly to the applicant. Such consultants shall be selected by the City. (C) The applicant shall pay the projected amount to the City prior to commencing work. The City will refund the excess, if any, at the completion of the EIS. If the City's costs exceed the projected costs, the ap- plicant shall immediately pay the excess. If a proposal is modified so that an EIS is no longer required, the re- sponsible official shall refund any fees collected under (A) or (B) of this subsection which remain after incurred costs, including overhead, are paid." Tukwila Municipal Code, § 21.04.310(2) (emphasis added). These provisions grant the City more latitude when the City prepares the EIS; in the Company's situation, however, a consultant, not City employees, will prepare the EIS. In addition, the City may also impose fees for meeting public notice requirements and for making copies or mailing documents. TMC § 21.04.310(3) and (4). Boeing may also consider offering financial assistance as a mitiga- tion measure. WAC 197- 11- 660(1)(d) provides: Responsibility for implementing mitigation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent at- (03008-0360/S8903640.0481-2 12/26/80 Mr. Jafar A. Zahir December 26, 1990 Page 3 • • tributable to the identified adverse impacts of its pro- posal. Voluntary additional mitigation may occur. (Emphasis added.) This would involve accepting the proposition that the need for addi- tional staffing is an adverse impact to the City of Tukwila caused by the Master Plan project. While that suggestion has some intuitive force, it may be vulnerable because of the limitations contained in the ordinances above and the failure of SEPA to deal directly with administrative impacts or additional processing burdens by lead agency jurisdictions. Further, even though the action might be legally supportable, the appearance of Boeing's funding of planning staff to process a Boeing EIS could give the appearance of a tainted process and product, especially in the absence of standard and institutionalized City controls and procedures. In that respect, while Washington case law has not faced the question of whether financial assistance to an agency to assist in an EIS preparation is allowable, the cases do indicate that an undue bias on the part of a quasi - judicial authority will invalidate a decision. Further, the appearance of fairness doctrine, even though now codified, arose out . of judicial concern for the appearance of such proceedings. Thus, Boeing's ability to provide assistance for the preparation of the EIS is limited by the provisions of the Tukwila Code. While it allows Boeing to volunteer "any information or effort desired, so long as the EIS is supervised and approved by the responsible official," it does not clearly authorize financial or staffing assistance. Further, while voluntary mitigation may be offered, it also raises the question of the appearance of the contribution. While certainly not free from ambiguity, we suggest that the safest course would be to develop an ordinance for adoption by Tukwila which would not only authorize the contribution of staffing, or of financial assistance for staffing, but also impose appropriate controls and limitations to avoid charges of unfairness, undue influence, or bias. Please let me know if we can provide any further assistance in dis- cussing this with you and your staff or the City, or in drafting an appropriate ordinance. REM:vg cc: Tom Waite Paul Seely Very truly yours, c ep )4cc1 4 /: Richard E. McCa 103008 -0360 /S8903640.0481-2 12/26/90 December 7, 1990 Frank Shrontz Boeing Company Chairman . Box 3707 Chief Executive Officer attle, WA 98124 -2207 The Honorable Tim Hill, Executive, King County The Honorable Norm Rice, Mayor, City of Seattle The Honorable Gary VanDusen, Mayor, City of Tukwila 7OE/A/G Gentlemen: Since January 1990, representatives of our respective staffs, as well as representatives of the Department of Transportation and METRO, have been meeting periodically to review and comment on comprehensive long- term redevelopment plans of approximately 600 acres of Boeing - occupied land in the Duwanush Valley. This Boeing - occupied land extends from the north end of Boeing Field, along East Marginal Way and the Duwamish river, extending southward through King County jurisdiction, with the majority of it being in the jurisdiction of Tukwila. A comprehensive and accurate assessment of our long -term development plan requires not only inter jurisdictional cooperation, but an application of the regional growth management goals set forth in the new Growth Management Act. As a first step in this plan, the Boeing Company is requesting the assistance of your offices in the development of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. While there is no statutory requirement to do this, we believe it will demonstrate our joint commitment to the region, its goals, and, a safe environment. We understand your respective offices are in the process of formulating a Memorandum of Understanding, or equivalent, to facilitate this process. We request your support of such an inter jurisdictional agreement to facilitate our respective long -term planning. It is our intention to redevelop our properties and replace many of our older obsolete structures with modern facilities. This will include enhancing those portions of the Duwamish River shoreline we control and changing the character of our property from that of a heavy industrial complex to that of an office, laboratory and manufacturing campus. We believe the long term impact of this development will enhance the surrounding neighborhood and benefit all three involved jurisdictions. Your support in this effort is solicited. Sincerely, rank Shrontz 90-313AG King County Executive TIM HILL 400 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 296 -4040 November 26, 1990 The Honorable Gary L. VanDusen Mayor, City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: East Marginal Way Development Review Dear Mayor VanDusen: Thank you for your October 4, 1990 letter to Mayor Norm Rice and me regarding the joint planning and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) efforts for Boeing's long -range development plans along East Marginal Way. I understand there has been a series of meetings between Boeing officials, King County staff, and the cities of Tukwila and Seattle to address the issue of joint review of the Boeing Master Plan. I support continuing and increasing efforts to work together. I concur with the proposal that we . establish a simple memorandum of understanding between the parties. I have designated Barbara Questad, SEPA Coordinator, Building and Land Development Division, as the lead person for King County's involvement. She may be reached at 296 -6662. Thank you again for writing. I appreciate your initiating the process for a memorandum of understanding. If you have any questions, please contact me at 296 -4040. Tim Hill King County Executive TH:m cc: 'Norman .B. Rice, Mayor, City of Seattle y ca \,K Rick Beeler, Department. of Community Development, City of Tuk flax c� \.;�,. Lois Schwennesen, Director, Parks, Planning and ,;e 0 • Resources Department ° ATTN: Gregory M. Kipp, g y pp, Manager, Building and Land Development Division Ralph Colby, Manager, Technical_ Services Barbara Questad, SEPA Coordinator M E M O R A N D U M TO: Staff Task Force FROM: Rick Beeler, DCD, City of Tukwila DATE: October 17, 1990 SUBJECT: Boeing 10 Year Plan EIS This memorandum is a draft summary of the consensus of our meetings of September 6 and October 3, 1990 regarding the SEPA process for this EIS. I will make corrections and additions pursuant to our meeting today. 1. This will be a programmatic EIS that is the first phase of phased review of the individual-project components. Each jurisdiction will make its own decisions regarding additional SEPA review of the individual projects in their area. No commitment can be made to no additional EIS's for the individual projects. The Longacres site is not included. 2. Tukwila will be the lead agency. A project manager may be hired by Tukwila and paid for by Boeing. A scoping consultant, hired by Tukwila and paid for by Boeing, may be appropriate to objectively separate the scoping process from the EIS preparation process by another consultant. 3. EIS review fees will be charged Boeing by the individual jurisdictions per their individual fee structures. 4. No appeal process is necessary because no action is being taken by any jurisdiction. If a permit is involved in the EIS the jurisdictions would need to agree on an appeal process. The question was raised if Tukwila needed a pending permit in order to start and be lead agency of the programmatic EIS process. 5. A memorandum of understanding is all that is necessary for the programmatic EIS coordination among the jurisdictions. An interlocal agreement is not necessary. Tukwila will send a letter to Seattle and King County to start preparation of the memorandum of understanding. 6. No consulting agencies are involved in this EIS, however the scoping notice and EIS will be widely distributed for comment. 7. The EIS preparation consultant will work for Tukwila and be paid for by Boeing. The Company can select their consultant, but the jurisdictions must confirm the choice. CH2M Hill is acceptable. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary 1. VanDusen, Mayor TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM - to Art eas . (10 /T2.MEMO) CITY OF TUKWILA 6200SOUTHCE.V TER BOULEVARD. TGtiii7LA, WASHINGTON 98188 October 4, 1990 The Honorable Tim Hill King County Executive 400 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 The Honorable Norman B. Rice Mayor, The City of Seattle 600 - 4th Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 PHONE ;.(206) 433.1800 RECEIVED OCT I 0 Girl. 1.. [anDu>cu. ILm r KING COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICE TO,__pp - DUE DATE? A - 22 -9A AUTHOR,_ at ' ■ SUBJECT: ,Li ACTION kit? M Re.) e x RESPONSE mit EXEC. so, _,RESPOND FOR EXECUTIVE REVIEWED BY F.Yd. cc: �e -1, (D, dG, Dear Mr. Hill and Mayor Rice: . I am writing this letter to advise you of a project involving our jurisdictions and of an approach that may .expedite and facilitate its completion. During the past several months representatives from the cities of Seattle and Tukwila, King County, METRO, and WSDOT have been meeting with representatives of the Boeing Company. Discussions have been held regarding the proposed long range development plans along the East Marginal Way corridor, the South Park area and the area known as the Ox -bow site. The significant scale of these developments, as well as the multi- jurisdictional considerations involved in the review process, suggests that a task force approach would be in the best interest of all parties concerned. In recognition of this I have offered the services of my staff to coordinate the development of an interlocal agreement which would provide for a consolidated process for the scoping of the EIS. Activity in this regard is presently occurring on a preliminary basis. I think we have reached the point where it would be in the best interests of all concerned to formalize this approach, specifically identify individual and joint responsibilities, establish realistic timelines and equitable financial support to the project. Mr. Tim Hill Mayor Norm Rice October 4, 1990 Page Two I have appointed Mr. Rick Beeler, Director of the Department of Community Development as the City's point of contact for this matter. I would be interested in determining if King County and the City of Seattle formally agree with the establishment of a cooperative approach. I have proposed an interlocal agreement, however, it may be possible and preferable to initiate a simple memorandum of understanding between the parties. I have asked Mr. Beeler to surface this issue with your staff representatives at their next meeting. I believe this offers an excellent opportunity for a cooperative effort, and is consistent with the spirit of the recently adopted requirements of SB 2929. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Sinc Ga _ L. VanDusen Mayor GLVD /so CC: Rick Beeler AGENDA October 3, 1990 Staff Meeting Boeing 10 -year Master Plan E.I.S. Introduction - 2:30 pm. 1. Review of previous meeting consensus. 2. Reconsideration of "no action" position. 3. Staff review process: A. Scoping. B. Consultant selection and contract. C. Memorandum of understanding. D. EIS section review: i. Directing consultants. ii. Review of sections. iii. Final decisions. E. Schedule constraints. 4. Periodic review with Boeing. 5. DEIS publication. 6. Public hearings. 7. DEIS comments: i. Review & directing consultants. ii. Review of draft. iii. Final decisions. 8. FEIS publication. 9. Other. 10. Adjournment - 3:30 pm. 10 /3 /1 • G. Co J6 RIO �Dd�ti\ 5676,- f� -C ' <L Z9� -low (084- 8875 Cs'brt-is 5 ee,e_ -- -?c-Lu ROVAPbt■ILSHE T • Filed DEPARTMENT tX—P DATE: i•OCA. 24, 11(10 INITIATOR: r4(...g_ 45eE.Lk--- Mayo City Adm. ATc ••••■••■•••••■•••■••■••■■•■■.W. For your information Response requested Immediate response requested DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE/INCIDENT: (attach additional Info as approprlate) 130e104 AO 'f€155g ritg1/4 54s ggisxlii.5 -1-1 miLls4, valiou cactui3 ploo 5to 4 --E) (...Tvaa 1,4J LWLS .pk\c, calkw 4451 ANN -1-0 LANA LL,Als g..L.e . wz \c•Akz -tb r, .5_-•toPt (ad.:Pio 6c,,LiwC) i4-)Aa, E,-;--)90 134- /-2-Lisi-M1zikILL -114E_ F-t5 prz- •.-...,s-i: Eir:'-'4•4, Pt•N \I-4:=,:._ ,,kito.rts ID ker.py.NNcibe no-- przz14.1.--..4- 1 ..,.>c‘,,...;4:....1,i \NA. bfS(t ‘.411...: 1,,,,-.LIA_NLL. kisPNEe- p) LArklvo psi_01,,v,,, Okrn,L, Nt-ie. k)ti.-.€0 __Nt\,itkrri \ACZysC - -1440 4 ---.19/SA (..k./Cs 61-4.t:W.... T_Pilik• 'TVS i I'S it vp.:■)Ep4.- r7. 1 A.,q, ').c,-.4 4-,.....Not..,...). t,t.... C .. 4 . . 4 . 40 t . > .e.....:..• .— - i .• 07'; ... - rz:Z-,---,3 7 ;.,' - ik-s,,, - i...N 6, I", . _. c\_N..s.-..g...= ;•*,... .- .4;• : J ,--Affsf=i;-' 17.r),..1:.,-3 (?; •.iNit,"a c_voLITZL:n.... 02142 um1Nc4 r... i'icii B•AOi.kz:T.,-)_.1 am,i4c-oox, ACTION TAKEN: f"_Li.1W-7 N1/410 1ca sQ194 1-Pcr-fs iNfito i Atz..,. -nz..-kioc..VarA.04.Th Ast—r it:, j,,,-,Lse.s. WAu..a.61....-.915s W»4 In mov). -- Eir:'-'4•4, Pt•N \I-4:=,:._ ,,kito.rts ID ker.py.NNcibe no-- przz14.1.--..4- 1 ..,.>c‘,,...;4:....1,i \NA. bfS(t ‘.411...: 1,,,,-.LIA_NLL. kisPNEe- p) LArklvo psi_01,,v,,, Okrn,L, Nt-ie. k)ti.-.€0 __Nt\,itkrri \ACZysC - -1440 4 ---.19/SA (..k./Cs 61-4.t:W.... T_Pilik• 'TVS i I'S it vp.:■)Ep4.- r7. 1 A.,q, ').c,-.4 4-,.....Not..,...). t,t.... C .. 4 . . 4 . 40 t . > .e.....:..• .— - i .• 07'; ... - rz:Z-,---,3 7 ;.,' - ik-s,,, - i...N 6, I", . _. c\_N..s.-..g...= ;•*,... .- .4;• : J ,--Affsf=i;-' 17.r),..1:.,-3 (?; •.iNit,"a c_voLITZL:n.... 02142 um1Nc4 r... i'icii B•AOi.kz:T.,-)_.1 1.1-1.-REC.7--(A, di ,/. P iwwwwiwv vftwo...wvivorAr mov.v. w. • - • ACTION ANTICIPATED/REQUESTED: Eir:'-'4•4, Pt•N \I-4:=,:._ ,,kito.rts ID ker.py.NNcibe no-- przz14.1.--..4- 1 ..,.>c‘,,...;4:....1,i \NA. bfS(t ‘.411...: 1,,,,-.LIA_NLL. kisPNEe- p) LArklvo psi_01,,v,,, Okrn,L, Nt-ie. k)ti.-.€0 vp.:■)Ep4.- r7. 1 A.,q, ').c,-.4 4-,.....Not..,...). si<4•Prrrl . i 1.1-1.-REC.7--(A, di ,/. P e-:_-_--6-ilt-Liete- 4--c-t-7-- - 1 I DISTRIBUTION: Original - Mayor's Office; cc: A g e n d a • • Boeing Master Plan Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 1990 9am to noon, Conference Room 31Q10 7755 E Marginal Way S (park in lot on east side, use ped underpass) Purpose: Identify EIS elements and determine EIS format for Boeing 10 year expansion plan in Tukwila, Seattle, & King County. Determine EIS funding mechanism /process. Develop agenda for July 25 meeting where Tukwila, Seattle, and King County explain EIS "roadmap" to Boeing. Who should attend July 11? Staff who will identify EIS technical issues, who will set format of ,the EIS, and who will determine EIS funding processes for the multijurisdictional EIS. 9am Boeing presentation on ten year construction plan. 9:30 Tukwila EIS issues 10:00 Seattle EIS issues 10:30 King County EIS issues 11:00 EIS multiljurisdictional format Consultant? Consultant selection? 11:15 EIS funding 11:30 Develop agenda for July 25 meeting Issues: 1987 King County EIS level II mitigations relationship to year 2000 development plan. KC EIS level III mitigations relationship to year 2000 needs identified with the multijurisdictional EIS needs. Method of including WSDOT, Metro (Transportation), and utilities in the EIS. • • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. vanDusen, Mayor January 16, 1990 Larry Boulanger, P.E. Boeing Military Airplanes P.O. Box 3707, MS 46 -87 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Re: E. Marginal Way Traffic Mitigations Dear Mr. Boulanger, The purpose of this letter is to: - explain the steps needed to complete four E. Marginal Way Boeing Development mitigations and - to describe the four mitigations being processed and - identify the scope for an Improvement Agreement. The complications of the King County EIS and mitigations for three levels of development, new development being processed by Tukwila, interelations of development and KC /Tukwila mitigations combine and overlap - an improvement agreement for the activated 1990 items would be the most efficient way to handle the items involving more than one division of Boeing, King County, and the City of Tukwila. A contract between developers and Tukwila is the means used to provide for required mitigations. An Agreement identifying the improvements is prepared that corrects SEPA /EIS defeciencies. It describes the mitigations identified in the SEPA or EIS process, how and when the mitigations will be constructed or put into action, and signed by both the developer and the City. The developer signs the agreement first, then, the agreement is submitted to the City Council. The draft Improvement Agreement is usually reviewed and approved by the appropriate Council Committee (Transportation or Utilities) prior to Council approval. The City Council's approval for the Mayor to sign completes the process. Traffic mitigations identified in the BMAC Developmental Center Expansion FEIS dated August 1987 have been "triggered" by development reaching the "Minimum Development" level. King • • County Public Works issues permits of development in the EIS prepared before the area was annexed to Tukwila. King County has made both Boeing and Tukwila aware that the "Minimum Development" level has been passed - triggering various traffic mitigations. Simultaneously, we have been working with you on various permits, the S. 93rd Place signal, and coordinating implementation of the mitigations. An Improvement Agreement is being prpared for the: 1. Sidewalks 2. South 93rd Place signal 3. Signal system along E. Marginal 4. E. Marginal /Boeing Access Road intersection. SIDEWALKS The Agreement will identify the location and schedule of the sidewalk construction. The schedule will be the same as developed in our discussions and Andy Gay's November 3 letter and plan showing construction dates from 1990 to 1993. The Improvement Agreement will use this schedule and scope for frontal improvments. SOUTH 93 PLACE SIGNAL We met at Kenworth and discussed relocating the 94th Place signal on December 14 and December 19. Representatives of Kenworth, Rhone- Poulenc, King County Airport, Bell- Walker Engineers, and Boeing attended these meetings. The purpose was to address traffic affects of removing the S. 94th Place signal and constructing a new access at S. 93rd Place. The analysis identified that a 3rd southbound lane will be needed to prevent peak traffic from queueing through the Kenworth /Rhone - Poulenc access. The 3rd lane is also identified in the BMAC FEIS as needed for increased traffic. An Improvement Agreement providing for the 3rd lane will be needed prior to approval of the S. 93rd Place signal. EAST MARGINAL WAY SIGNAL SYSTEM The BMAC FEIS MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT mitigations included replacement of the E. Marginal signal controllers, an arterial master, interconnect, phone hook up (drop for connection from the Duwamish Junction signal building (shed) to the office master, detection loops, and coordinated timing. Tukwila has replaced most of the controllers. Signal progressions are being prepared by Bell- Walker as part of the S. 93rd Place signal work. The other work remains to be done. This has been reviewed with King County, Entranco Engineers, and Safety Signal. The Improvement Agreement will include this work. EAST MARGINAL WAY /BOEING ACCESS ROAD /PACIFIC HWY INTERSECTION The BMAC FEIS MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT requires design and reconstruction of this intersection. This was one of the items discussed at the November 21 meeting at Andy Gay's office. The conclusion of that meeting and subsequent meetings in December was for a proposal to be sent to you on achieving design and construction of King County required and new traffic mitigations. The Improvement Agreement provide for: 1. Design and construction of the sidewalks per the schedule that has been worked out. 2. Design and construction to widen E. Marginal between S.96 Place through the Kenworth intersection including tapers. This work and schedule agreement is needed to provide for a solution to the traffic that will be backed through the Kenworth /Rhone Poulenc intersection by the S.93 Place signal. Some interim control of the KW /RP intersection traffic will be needed between signalizing 93rd and widening - assuming the 93rd access and signal will be preceding the widening. The widening all the way to the Tukwila north city limit appears to be near being required - it may be to Boeing's benefit to proceed with the complete widening instead of two steps. Tukwila will participate if TIB funds become available for this project. 3. Completion of the signal system specified in the FEIS, which the City has partially completed. Entranco Engineers, Ed Isherwood as Project Engineer, would be contracted by Boeing to design the interconnect and implement the system. The remaining hardware to purchase (modems, Traconet software, a PC, phone line drop and connect) would be essentially handled as purchase orders to the vendor and billings sent to Boeing. 4. Alternative 1 modified of the Tudor Engineering E Marginal/ Boeing Access /Pacific Highway intersection work will be designed and constructed. This is the King County FEIS selected alternative, our review agrees with it (Alternative 1 modified) as the best choice. Tukwila will participate if TIB funds become available. It would be better for items 2 and 4, particularly, to be administered by the City instead of Boeing - better for Boeing, the City, the design engineer, and the project. A funding process will be needed for the City to administer the projects and reimburse the costs to the City. The Improvement Agreement will be prepared for these two items to be administered by the City and costs (design, construction, construction admin but not the City's cost to administrate the work) reimbursed by Boeing. Cost estimates for the design, construction, and construction administration will be prepared for the Improvement Agreement. Please contact me at 433 -0179 if you would like to proceed in a different way or there are any questions. The Agreement will cover the four items identified in this letter. Other items of the King County approved FEIS for BMAC will be addressed in the future as needed. Sincerely, \ (1i€149L/ (c Ron Cameron, P.E. City Engineer XC: Ross Earnst John Colgrove, City Attorney Rick Beeler, Director of Community Development Gilbert C. Jay, Manager, Corporate Facilities Projects, Greg Mercier, Boeing Support Services, MS 4H -07 Project File: 89 RW14 - East Marginal Signals 89 RW07 - East Marginal /94th 89 RW19 - East Marginal /Boeing Access Road 90 RW02 - East Marginal Widen Attachment: Pages 19 - 25 of the FEIS dated June 11, 1987 King County Department of Public Works Donald J. LaBelle. Director . 1l.. J.: 900 King County Administratinn Ring. 500 Fnurth Avenue SC:II tle. Washington 98104 (306) 344-2517 June 11, 1987 1i P2: 08 ;•L7.+13 .7. ?1. DE JE! CPMEN T 1 JUNE 1 1 19E7 BLDG. & LAND I TO: Ralph C 1 , In eri nager, Technical Services Section lug . • " FM: Louis . aff, Count,iRoad Engineer 1 RE: Boeing Military Airplane Company (BMAC) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Thank you for the opportunity to provide review Y p e ew and assessment of the DEIS for this major facility. The DEIS represents a complex facility expansion and has been prepared to pro- vide an accurate documentation of traffic conditions under existing and future development conditions. While the DEIS does not provide a commitment to construct major new road facilities to prevent severe congestion, the County has experience with previous road improvements provided by BMAC at their ini- tiative and expense, and two projects of this type are presently under design or construction on East Marginal Way South. Authority for Review and Developer Responsibilities King County Roads Division is charged with review of road adequacy under the 0 provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), through the County Road Adequacy Ordinance, and approvals of property access /frontage require- ments at the building permit stage which are subject to King County Road Standards. The SEPA process provides a mechanism to restore level of service on roadways Owhich are impacted by development added traffic. This restoration protects the quality of road service which contributes to the economic vitality of the area, and protects the interest of the public. Schedule of BMAC Expansion and Road Construction Mitigation BMAC has identified three principle alternative building construction programs which are contingent upon their need for new facilities. This review responds to the uncertainty in growth rate expressed by BMAC by specifying improvements to area roads based on the following alternatives: 19 • • Ralph Colby June 11, 1987 Page Two - Minimum Development - Intermediate Development - Full Development King County recognizes that BMAC may be unable to provide road improvements early enough to accommodate expansion in employment and to avoid low levels of Oservice on public roads in the vicinity. In this regard it would be expected that BMAC would provide Transportation Systems Management (TSM) measures such as incentivies to use public transit modes, staggering of work shifts, van pooling and dedicated buses in conjunction with Metro to maintain traffic levels of service (LOS). The success of TSM measures will be dependent upon managing the program by BMAC. TSM is not expected to be a total solution to accommodate new employment traffic demand but-is suggested as a method to give breathing space until adequate roads can be constructed. The cost of the program of TSM measures will be the responsibility of BMAC. King County Road Construction Program King County has a scheduled road construction project for East Marginal Way OSouth from Seattle City Limits to South Boeing Access Road; however, this pro- ject is not scheduled for design until 1990 and construction in 1992. The BMAC DEIS identified building construction between 1987 and 1991. This County road improvement is needed to serve the "Intermediate Development: Alternative 3," proposal of the DEIS. The scope of work includes: Widen existing roadway with a 12 -foot lane, curb and gutter, 8 -foot sidewalks, modify and /or replace the system control for the existing 10 traffic signals, and overlay existing road. O The justification for this work as a public project without BMAC participation is as follows: Existing roadway has no sidewalks. The new sidewalks will provide for pedestrian safety and access control. The additional traffic lane will improve traffic flow. The roadway serves the Boeing Industrial tract on the west side of King County International Airport, and the improvements will reduce the traffic congestion caused by the large peak -hour traffic volume generated by the industries. OThis project has a length of 1.93 miles and cost is estimated to be 1411.44-202. 8 OThis project does not include the reconstruction of the intersection of East Marginal Way with Boeing Access Road, and Pacific Highway South. King County has conducted a study of this intersection (Intersection Concept Analysis by: 20 • • Ralph Colby June 11, 1987 Page Three Tudor Engineering Company, February, 1987) and has selected alternative 1 (modified) as the preferred alternative. BMAC- Building /Employment Expansion Traffic Growth Mitigation O Roadway facilities to be provided by BMAC under the alternatives of this sec- tion shall include funding responsibility for the following: - Final engineering design and construction engineering services. - Engineering services design and construction shall meet the requirements of King County Road Standards. - Right -of -way dedication or acquisition if required from BMAC and tem- porary or permanent easements to accommodate public maintained works. tU BMAC shall acquire right -of -way from others needed to accommodate the road improvements under each alternative. ALTERNATIVE 2 - MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT 11 The following scope of work is required to be provided by BMAC to mitigate traffic growth on local roads: 1. Reconstruction of the intersection of East Marginal Way South with Boeing Access Road and Pacific Highway South to the preferred configuration indicated above and shown in the Tudor Engineering Company, Analysis. This work includes new channelization, islands, road widening, tapers to existing width, pavement overlay, pavement marking, mast arm mounted signal heads and illumination, overhead sign bridges with illuminated lane use signs on each approach street. 2. Replace existing controller and cabinets at 10 intersections along East Marginal Way. Replace with new, 8 phase, full actuated controllers (Traconex 390) capable of time base coordination, coordination from an arterial master, and count capability. Provide arterial master capable of time of day coordination, and traffic responsive coordination. Upgrade existing computer shed to house new master controller. Provide interconnect cable from master to all local controllers, either aerially or underground. Provide interconnect interface with modems. Provide phone modem access at master for phone hook up from remote PC. Provide interconnect and communications interface to coordinate County system with the new City of Seattle system on East Marginal Way. 21 • • Ralph Colby June 11, 1987 Page Four Provide local phone system from master controller shed to all local controllers in system. Install any detector loops necessary to operate traffic responsive coor- dination. Loop locations will be determined at a later time by King County. ALTERNATIVE 3 - INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT Mitigation of traffic impact for this alternative includes those required works indicated in alternative 2 plus the planned County road improvement of East Marginal Way South. BMAC would be responsible to provide frontage impro- 12 vement along East Marginal Way South which would accommodate and be consistent with preferred alternatives identified in the "East Marginal Way traffic Improvements Volume 1 Summary Report," prepared by CH2M Hill, December, 1977 fbr King County. This report while out of print, essentially embodies the County road improvements proposed in the Road Construction Program. The scope of work sponsored by BMAC would include reconstruction of all fron- 13 tage on East Marginal Way of BMAC Manufacturing, Flight Test, office and leased lands including use as parking areas to accommodate the County road project. Facilities included in this areas include: - Sidewalk and landscaping - Pavement widening and curb and gutter - Pavement drainage structures - Pavement overlay to centerline - Channelization and pavement markings - Intersection and signalization control (vehicle and pedestrian detectors, signal faces, signal /illumination poles and relocations) - Illuminated street name signs (span wire mounted) on East Marginal Way to identify the destinations served by cross - streets, and lane usage names to be approved by King County - Relocation of underground and surface utilities to accommodate the road improvements - Street lighting at intersections coordinated with span wire signal supports. - Coordinate with Metro to define design and construct transit stop facilities. 22 Ralph Colby June 11, 1987 Page Five Reconstruct and signalize the intersection of West Marginal Place South with South 102nd Street and 14th Avenue South to the satisfaction of the County and 14 WSDOT to restore the existing level of service under the new The controller for these locations shall have count capability rand �phonedmodem access for hook up from remote PC. Operational improvements are recommended on East Marginal Way South between Norfolk Street and South Boeing Access Road. While the PAMCO parking lot was excluded from this SEPA review of BMAC the facility must be considered as a 15 component providing expanded acess to East Marginal Way to the benefit of BMAC. Access control is needed to improve progressive flow of platoons of vehicles and reduce random vehicle injection into the thru stream by aggressive driver behavior. These improvements can be accomplished by the construction of curbs for driveway entrances and reconfiguration of street access as follows: (a) Closure of South 104th Street (Miller Road) at East Marginal Way South. BMAC will be responsible to design and construct curb, gutter and sidewalk along the east side of South 104th Street to effect closure of this street at East Marginal Way South. (b) Access to South 104th Street shall be provided via a new public roadway to match with Norfolk Street at East Marginal Way South. This street shall be constructed by BMAC to an urban standard with sidewalks. Parking lot connections to this extension of Norfolk Street shall be set back from Each Marginal Way to provide unbroken platoon storage length for that signal phase. Six lanes are required to provide exclusive right and left turn lanes, choice right /thru, left /thru lanes and two lanes entering. East Marginal Way shall be stripped each direction, dual left turn lanes into MAC sitet and esinglelleft turn lane to Norfolk Street from southbound East Marginal Way South. (c) South 102nd Street which is a private road shall be closed from South 104th Street to East Marginal Way South. Implementation of Improvements to East Marginal Way South 8 BMAC would have the option of providing the frontage improvements identified in the scope of work or funding these improvements as part of the County Road Construction Program if Alternative 3 (intermediate development) occurs after the County road project goes to construction. If Alternative 3 improvements are needed due to BMAC growth before the County can provide construction, then BMAC would be responsible to provide interim improvements including restripping and together with their frontage improvements nto allow �operationtofa East al rgy Way South with the ultimate lane configuration. Ma ginal 23 • • Ralph Colby June 11, 1987 Page Six 'ALTERNATIVES 1 AND'4 -FULL DEVELOPMENT ® Mitigation of traffic impact for this alternative will include those works required for alternatives 2 and 3 plus improved access to SR 99. The following facility is required to mitigate this capacity constraint: 19 Complete the interchange at SR 99 and South 102nd Street which includes the southbound off and on ramps. The Sabey Corporation which is developing Oxbow Corporate Park has been issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance with the provision that they 20 a pro -rata share of the cost of providing a southbound on ramp from Sout pay 102nd Street to SR 99 if constructed prior to December 31, 1989 or provide full funding after that date, if the remaining share has not not aquired. The traffic generated by "full development" in BMAC expansion requires the full completion of this interchange. 21 Access improvements to SR 99 are direct impact and the cost of providing these improvements are the developer's burden. If BMAC is unable to have this facility operational by the time needed for the 22 Full Development, BMAC would need to provide TSM as discussed in the section "Schedule of BMAC Expansion and Road Construction Mitigation." BMAC is responsible to provide a pro -rata share of development added traffic impact on 1st Avenue South Bridge and interchange construction at Duwamish Waterway. WSDOT have tenatively scheduled construction of this improvement to begin construction in 1992. This project has an estimated cost of 5110 23 million year 1992 dollars. Pro -rata share contribution would be based on calculated daily traffic using the bridge as a percentage of ADT for the year of permit issue for each phase of BMAC development. This contribution shall be applied to engineering design and construction services, right -of -way acquisition and construction. The security of a pro -rata share shall be pro- vided at building permit stage. Future Traffic Analysis and Contingent Construction BMAC will be required to provide traffic analysis and resolution of off -site 24 congestion which is attributed to BMAC additional peak hour trips. This supplemental traffic analysis will be required prior to permit issue for each or the next alternative. If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact Chuck Shields, Senior Engineer, at 344 -4381. LJH:CS:kw cc: John J. Logan, Traffic and Planning Engineer ATTN: Chuck Shields, Senior Engineer Bi1T— Hoffman, Manager, Transportation Planning ATTN: Lisa Grote, Transportation Planner 214 • • KING COUNTY BALD RESPONSE TO COMMENTS King County Department of Public Works Boeing will continue to make ridesharing and vanpooling opportunities and resources available to BMAC employees. Further, BMAC will continue to promote other TSM measures such as flexible working hours, staggering of work shifts, and use of transit to main- tain traffic levels of service. All comments and information presented are appreciated and acknowledged. These comments will be considered by King County (Parks, Planning and Resources Department and Department of Public Works) during review of permit applications submitted by Boeing for individual projects under the proposed expansion. Specific miti- gating measures will be established at the time of application submittal to King County in coordination with the proponent, based on the additional traffic generated by the expanded BMAC Developmental Center facilities. 25 SHORELINE PUBLIC ACCESS PROPOSAL The Boeing Company proposes to provide shoreline pedestrian access throughout the corridor, consistent with the requirements of local Shoreline Master Programs and the State Shoreline Act. The public access proposal for Duwamish corridor redevelopment consists of a combination of limited and unlimited public access features. Public access features will be integrated with other public trail or sidewalk systems in the area. Boeing sites currently occupy approximately 17,700 linear feet of Duwamish Waterway shoreline. Unlimited shoreline public access has already been provided along approximately 8,000 linear feet (46 %) of the shoreline. Boeing proposes to construct shoreline trails and viewpoints, similar to those already developed for public access, on the remaining 9,700 linear feet of Boeing owned or leased shoreline, as the various sites are redeveloped. The additional 9,700 linear feet of trail will be limited to Boeing employee access only. Security requirements associated with Boeing's governmental contracts prevent most of the remaining shoreline area from being open to unlimited public access. The proposed public access plan for Duwamish corridor redevelopment consists of four major elements: (1) approximately 8,000 linear feet of publicly accessible shoreline trail, including an up-graded shoreline loop trail around the Oxbow site connecting to the Green River Trail; (2) up to 9,700 additional linear feet of limited access shoreline trail, available to the 25,000 Boeing employees in the corridor; (3) a public trail system link across the Duwamish River to East Marginal Way (and the Museum of Flight); and (4) a publicly accessible shoreline habitat restoration /viewpoint project on the north end of the Oxbow loop trail. Shoreline Access Components Publicly Accessible Shoreline Trail System Provide approximately 8,000 linear feet of publicly accessible shoreline Upgrade the Boeing Oxbow trail loop to comply with the proposed guidelines; re- design the trail loop to accommodate both bicycle and pedestrian travel; provide three shoreline viewpoint /pocket parks features along the trail; connect Oxbow loop trail to the King County Green River Trail system; provide synagog on Green River Trail describing the Boeing Oxbow loop trail; and bridge route to the Museum of Flight. Limited Shoreline Access Trail System Provide up to 9,700 linear feet of shoreline trail, per the proposed guidelines, for the 25,000 Boeing employees who work in the corridor Bridge Linkage to East Marginal Way South Provide a publicly accessible trail segment across the Duwamish Waterway linking the Oxbow loop trail and the Green River Trail to East Marginal Way South and the Museum of Flight • • Oxbow Shoreline Restoration/Viewpoint Project Provide a shoreline bank restoration /viewpoint project at the north end of the Oxbow trail. This project would include a restored shoreline bank designed specifically to enhance fisheries habitat and to serve as a model for other future Duwamish Waterway shoreline restoration projects; public seating and informational synagog. The restoration will be coordinated with a similar Turning Basin Shoreline Restoration project currently planned as a Coastal America Project by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Implementation Schedule The limited access shoreline trail system, which provides shoreline access to Boeing employees, would be tied to redevelopment projects and constructed when adjacent Boeing sites or portions of sites, requiring Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, are redeveloped. The Oxbow public shoreline trail /viewpoint system upgrade would be similarly tied to corridor redevelopment activity, and implemented in the following manner: The redevelopment of every one and one half (1.5) linear feet of Boeing corridor shoreline, where public access is not provided, generates a requirement for construction of one (1.0) linear foot of public trail \viewpoint improvements proposed on the Oxbow site. * Redevelopment projects involving more than 1,000 linear feet of shoreline, where public access is not required (based upon construction site boundaries), require simultaneous development of the associated amount of required public access improvements on the Oxbow site. Projects involving redevelopment of less than 1,000 linear feet of shoreline do not require immediate construction of associated Oxbow public access features, unless the shoreline project proposed, when added to previous small projects, total more than 1,000 linear feet of shoreline. Then the public improvements for the current and previously approved small projects must be implemented. The City Tukwila shall be responsible for monitoring and public access improvements and requiring that the appropriate ratio is maintained. The effective date for implementation of required public access improvements shall be the date that the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a project resulting in more than 1,000 feet of linear date of shoreline where public access is not provided. If The Boeing Company opts to complete all proposed public access improvements prior to redeveloping all corridor sites, the public access improvements, provided beyond that required for redevelopment projects proposed to date, shall be credited toward future corridor redevelopment projects at the same ratio. The public trail /viewpoint /shoreline restoration project proposed in this section shall satisfy the shoreline public access obligation for redevelopment of • 1 all Boeing owned or leased shoreline frontage identified in this proposal (Shoreline Figure 1). (The length of shoreline where public access will not be provided, approximately 9,700 linear feet, is approximately 1.5 times as long as the length of public trail proposed for the Oxbow site, approximately 6,500 linear feet. Hence the ratio 1.5:1) Shoreline Access Alternative If the public access proposal described above is not acceptable to the three permitting agencies involved, the following public access plan is proposed as an alternative. The Boeing Company would contribute funds, equivalent to the cost of constructing 9,700 linear feet of shoreline trail, not to exceed $400,000, to a publicly managed fund for unspecified, future Duwamish Waterway shoreline trail, park or shoreline restoration projects. Construction of the limited access shoreline trail, Oxbow trail loop upgrades, and the Oxbow Shoreline Restoration /Viewpoint project would be eliminated from the proposal. • Tukwila intertie near the intersection of Interurban Avenue South . and 52nd Avenue south provides a connection between the two systems and allows service by the City with one valve. Water District No. 125 customers along 53rd Avenue South, South 138th Street and 56th Avenue South can be connected to existing City of Tukwila lines in those streets. Water District No. 125 lines along 52nd Avenue South can be utilized to serve customers along that street. The 1, 2, 4 and 6 -inch lines along 51st Avenue South, South 136th Street and South 137th Street, however, should be replaced with larger lines as indicated in Table 5 -2. Water District No. 125 service to the rendering plant (south of Foster Point along east bank of the Duwamish River) is currently adequate, but is scheduled for takeover by Tukwila when the District's customers on Campbell Hill are transferred to the City of Seattle as recommended in the SKYWAY CWSP. Northern Annexation Area The northern portion of the annexation area is that area which is north of South 112th Street and is currently served by the City of Seattle. Connections in this area include Boeing Field and industrial type facilities. Service to the area is currently by a 21 -inch steel line along East Marginal Way and a 12 -inch dead end branch from this line along Pacific Highway South. The 21 -inch line has been scheduled for replacement by the City of Seattle. At this time, this portion of the annexation area is being served by the City of Seattle 317' zone, although the 21 -inch main serving this area is scheduled for replacement. Negotiations between the City of Tukwila and the City of Seattle are currently underway to determine future service to this area. The required improvements in this area have been identifi In Table 5 -2. Storage requirements for the entire annexation area were discussed in Chapter 4 of this document and recommended storage quantities are presented later in this Chapter (Figure 5 -1). The northern portion of the annexation area constitutes nearly 50% of the water supply and storage requirements for the total annexation area. • Western Annexation Area The majority of the western portion of the annexation area is currently served by King County Water District No. 125 with Water District No. 20 serving several customers in the northernmost portion area of the Cascade View area. In that the Districts presently provide adequate service, the City may better serve the annexation area as a whole by devoting its current resources toward upgrading the eastern and northern portions of the annexation area rather than taking over service to an area which is well serviced by others. The City should, however, require that the Districts obtain franchises to operate facilities within its right -of -ways. As condition of the franchises or as a separate interlocal agreement, the limits 5 -3 • • CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDED SERVICE AREA IMPROVEMENTS Introduction This chapter presents alternatives and recommendations for proposed improvements to the water systems within the annexation area. In that proposed improvements are largely dependent on the City exercising its options for takeover, the various options for service area expansion discussed in Chapter 2 of this supplement are again referenced in this section. This chapter also examines the adequacy of existing systems and summarizes the improvements required to achieve the recommended service areas and insure adequate service throughout the annexation area. Following these discussions is a detailed listing of recommended capital improvements. Chapter 6 presents an implementation program for achieving the recommendations outlined herein. Service area system evaluations and improvements discussions are divided into geographical areas of the entire annexation area. The eastern area includes the area which is within the SKYWAY Critical Water Supply and therefore addressed by the SKYWAY CWSP. The northern portion of the annexation area includes the area which is north of South 112th Street. The western portion of the annexation area is west of Interstate 5 and Highway 599 and east of Pacific Highway South. East Annexation Area The eastern portion of the annexation area includes that portion of the study area which is west of Interstate Highway 5 and east of Highway 599. This is the area which is included in the SKYWAY CWSP. Service to the east annexation area is currently provided by Tukwila (via takeover of King County Water District No. 25), Seattle, King County Water District No. 125, and the Creston Water Association. As discussed in Chapter 2 and illustrated in Figure 2 -2, the SKYWAY CWSP recommends that the City of Tukwila serve the area west of the Burlington Northern Railroad right -of -way, except for the quarry area which is west of the Duwamish River and recommended for service by Water District No. 125. The remainder of the area (east of railroad right -of -way) is recommended for service by the City of Seattle. The actions required to achieve the service areas recommended by the SKYWAY CWSP are summarized as follows: Takeover of King County Water District No. 25 and replacement of system as detailed in Appendix A. 5 -1 TABLE 5 -1 PROPOSED WATER IMPROVEMENTS FOR ANNEXED AREAS OF TUKWILA WITHIN WATER DISTRICT NO. 125 NO. SIZE (IN.) FROM ALONG TO LENGTH (LF) COST /LF ESTIMATED COST 59S 12 Foster Point Supply Main 2500 80.00 200,000.00 60S 12 S. 160th St. 42nd Ave. S. S. 158th St. 660 80.00 52,800.00 61S 8 S. 139th St. 51st Ave. S. S. 140th St. 550 65.00 35,750.00 62S 8 52nd Ave. S. S. 136th St. and 51st Ave. S. S. 137th St. 1000 65.00 65,000.00 63S 8 53rd Ave. S. • S. 142nd St. and 52nd Ave. S. Dead Ends 1000 65.00 65,000.00 TOTAL 415,550.00 WITHIN WATER DISTRICT NO. 25 - Please refer to the Water District No. 25 Supplemental Engineering Study, March 1991 included in Appendix A to this document. WITHIN THE CITY OF SEATTLE SERVICE AREA - The City of Seattle in 1993 had planned to install a new 12" DI distribution line along E. Marginal Way S. from Michigan Street to S. 112th Street and convert the existing 21" line to a transmission line. The project has been deferred due to reprioritization of budgeted projects. If the City of Tukwila elects to takeover service to this area and subsequently, installs the required 12,000 LF of 12 -inch Ductile iron pipe, the estimated project cost is $960,000. 5 -8 AA THE � COMPANY CORPORATE POLICY DATE: May 21, 1987 NUMBER: 1B5 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS The Boeing Company strives to safeguard the environment of the communities in which we work. It is Boeing Company policy to conduct our operations so that the environment in and around our plants and property is not endangered. In support of this objective, management of all operating organizations and subsidiaries shall ensure compliance with•this policy and pertinent environmental laws and regulations. Throughout the Company, emphasis shall be placed on reducing the use of hazardous materials, minimizing the generation of hazardous waste and ensuring the proper, handling and disposal of all waste. The Boeing Services Division Board, comprised of senior Corporate and operating company vice presidents, is responsible for ensuring compliance with this policy and for issuing appropriate implementation instructions. PO /024.01 / 05194 /.02 1 '6.3.87 00 6000 2991 ORIG. 9/72 PAGE 1 OF 1 F05-047 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT MITIGATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOEING COMPANY AND THE CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATION RATIONALE The Boeing Company proposes to redevelop portions of its property in the Duwamish Corridor area of Tukwila, Washington. A specific proposal and application for redevelopment has not been submitted for approval of a specific project; rather, The Boeing Company and Tukwila agreed to evaluate a more generally - defined ten -year master plan in a non- project or programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS). This voluntary review process allowed for broader public and agency review of the redevelopment proposal. Numerous public meetings and agency discussions have been held since the proposal was first announced. The EIS evaluated the environmental. impacts of the proposal and alternatives. Mitigation measures to address impacts likely to result from full implementation of the redevelopment plan have been identified for transportation, stormwater, and shoreline public access. The mitigation discussed in this mitigation agreement (Agreement) is based on project impacts identified during the environmental review process. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 In early 1991, The Boeing Company and the City of Tukwila signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) referencing the Duwamish Corridor Programmatic EIS. The MOA made it clear that the EIS, in addition to assessing the impacts of the .ten -year redevelopment proposal, was intended to reassess prior environmental impacts and permit conditions for earlier development projects in the Duwamish Corridor as well, consistent with a programmatic review of the corridor's transportation improvement needs. The Boeing Company and the City of Tukwila thus recognize that several aspects of this Agreement address previous development not otherwise included as part of the redevelopment proposal. The 1991 MOA is included as Attachment 1. It is the mutual intent of the City of Tukwila and The Boeing Company that this Agreement fully discharge the obligations of the 1991 MOA by clarifying the responsibilities and timing for completion of project permit conditions and mitigation of environmental impacts, as well as new mitigation resulting from the redevelopment proposal. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The Boeing Company proposes to redevelop approximately 30 percent of its existing manufacturing facilities in the Duwamish Corridor over the life of the proposal. Full buildout of the proposal is currently anticipated to occur in ten years, although changing business conditions may result in a longer or shorter period for project completion. Future construction is expected to emphasize laboratory, office, and developmental manufacturing 2 uses. Workforce population in the corridor is not expected to exceed 25,000 employees, a number consistent with recent employment levels. Square footage changes for enclosed space are expected to include up to 3.7 million square feet of demolition and up to 4.3 million square feet of new construction. Net square footage of Boeing -owned and - leased property in the Corridor is expected to increase from 9.9 million to 10.6 million square feet. Full buildout is understood to mean the completion of 4.3 million square feet of new enclosed space, or an increase of total enclosed space in the corridor to 10.6 million square feet, whichever occurs first. The proposal is more fully described . in the Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal and Design Guidelines (the Proposal), a separate document published with and accompanying the Draft EIS (May, 1992). The Proposal includes project goals and objectives and other proposal details, as well as a set of design guidelines and standards that will apply to individual projects implementing the redevelopment proposal along the street and river frontages, and internally on Boeing property. The proposal document is included by this reference as part of this Agreement. The Draft EIS (May, 1992) and Final EIS (April, .1993) are also included by this reference as part of this Agreement. The Duwamish Corridor as discussed in this Agreement is illustrated in the Draft EIS on page 2 -2 (Figure 2 -1). That figure is reproduced as Attachment 2 of this Agreement. 3 MITIGATION TRANSPORTATION Mitigation of transportation impacts reviewed in the EIS will consist of a Transportation Management Program and fair share participation in a set of physical improvements described in this section of the Agreement. Transportation Management Program (TMP) The Boeing Company agrees to implement a TMP for the Duwamish Corridor with a focus on reducing single occupant vehicle (SOV) miles travelled through a combination of rideshare and transit incentives, facility design, and SOV disincentives. The TMP will be consistent with that described in the EIS and the Proposal and is included as Attachment 3 of this Agreement. It is expected to be amended over time to remain consistent with the state's commute trip reduction law (RCW 70.94.524 -551) and applicable ordinances of Tukwila, Seattle, and King County that implement that law. Physical Improvements. The City of Tukwila and The Boeing Company agree to participation in four transportation improvements at the levels indicated in Table 1. The discussion below provides additional explanation of the transportation mitigation indicated in Table 1. 4 TABLE 1 DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT - TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION PROJECT TRIGGER TOTAL COST BOEING COST RATIONALE COMMENTS 1. Reconstruction of East Marginal Way S from BAR to Seattle city limit. . Transportation improvements:. `'`` assumed as'Exi'stuag ;:'' Conditions or 'as;• Frontage Improve -:;{ °: ments required by '''' local Ordinance. :; { {' gvii•rent estimate is : {x$11.2 million :' :,:: :{ r {° :• :: ° . $3.7 million . Safety . Capacity . LOS . Assumed existing condition . Will likely include sidewalks on west side to north city limits for safety . 2. Pacific Hwy /116th Intersection (aka: SR599 ramps) . Assumed as Existing Condition . $2.5 millioni` ' ::::• "" {::...... : "` :.:: {'. Total cost minus grant fu:. or $2.5 millit5n, whichever is {. less - "' iii " :. . Assumed existing condition . Broader corridor traffic benefits than Oxbow ramp . Possible HOV component . Possible HOV component may improve grant funding chances 3. Pacific Hwy Bridge . Assumed as Existing Condition . $4.2 million :P lir . Total cost minus giant,.: ` fundingoi $1.4; :011ILi3'n whichever'{{is'Ikss.:{'` . Timing uncertain; not before 1996. . Assumed existing condition . Broader corridor traffic benefits than Oxbow ramp 4. E Marginal Way S, south of BAR . 7,850 peak hr trips .. $2.5 million . $100,000 . 4 percent share of improvements . Only mitigation requirement from Programmatic EIS Project. 1. Reconstruction of East Marginal Way South from Boeing Access Road to Seattle City Limit. Capacity, level of service and safety improvements associated with a reconstruction of east Marginal Way South from the Boeing access Road (BAR) intersection northward to the Seattle city limit were assumed during environmental review to be necessary baseline conditions for the redevelopment proposal to proceed. Thus these transportation improvements are indicated in Table 1 to be "assumed existing conditions." The specific improvements included in the reconstruction are described more fully in Attachment 4 of the Agreement, and include new northbound lanes from BAR to approximately S. Norfolk Street; a new southbound lane from near the PACCAR site to the Developmental Center; new signals, controllers and interconnections; curbs, gutters and sidewalks; and new street surfacing. The City of Tukwila has prepared cost estimates for the reconstruction of East Marginal Way South. The current cost estimate for full reconstruction from the BAR to Seattle city limits is $11.2 million. Because the redevelopment plan will not cause impacts to the existing stormwater drainage system, the Boeing Company has no responsibility for the costs of drainage separation. The City and Boeing agree that a $3.7 million contribution from Boeing for street improvements will satisfy the obligations of both prior project environmental impacts and permit conditions and frontage improvements required for implementation of the redevelopment proposal. 5 Construction of Project 1 could begin as early as 1994. The Boeing payment schedule is agreed to be $1.7 million within 60 days of Tukwila award of the first construction contract, or in January, 1995, whichever is last. An additional $2.0 million will be paid within 12 months of the first payment. Project 2. Pacific Highway South /South 116th Intersection. Project 2, also referred to during EIS review as the southbound on- ramps to SR599, was studied as part of the reassessment of the Duwamish Corridor's transportation needs authorized in the 1991 MOA. This project is more fully described in the SR599/SR99 Interchange Feasibility Study (October 1992), Alternative D; the study is included by this reference as part of this Agreement. The reassessment ultimately concluded that Project 2 and Project 3 were feasible improvements that should be included in the assumed baseline conditions for traffic analysis. This project was thus assumed to be an existing condition, as' indicated in Table 1. The preliminary feasibility study estimated costs of the SR599 ramp improvements at $2.5 million. This estimate does not include potential mitigation for environmental impacts of the transportation improvements. The Boeing share of these costs, as indicated in Table 1, is the lesser of total cost minus grant funding, or $2.5 million. Boeing's maximum contribution to the project is thus $2.5 million. The payment schedule for the Boeing contribution for Project 2 will include three payments. The first payment of $350,000 will be due within 60 days of Tukwila award of the first 6 construction contract for the project. The second payment, of $1.0 million, will be due 12 months after the first payment. The third payment, of $1.15 million, will be due 12 months after the second payment. Project 3. Pacific Highway Bridge. Project 3 is the replacement of the bridge over the Duwamish River at Pacific Highway South between the BAR and SR599. Also as part of the reassessment of the corridor's transportation needs, the EIS process identified a'need for additional capacity on this bridge. This project, like Projects 1 and 2, was assumed to be part of the baseline or existing conditions for traffic analysis., Total costs for replacing the existing bridge with a six -lane bridge are estimated at $4.2 million. The Boeing share of project costs is the lesser of total cost minus grant funding, or $1.4 million. Thus, Boeing's maximum contribution is $1.4 million. This contribution will be required within 60 days of Tukwila award of the first construction contract for the project, or in December, 1996, if construction beings before 1996. Project 4. East. Marginal Way South, South of BAR. During EIS review of the redevelopment proposal, a pro -rata share of costs for completion of roadway improvements on that portion of East Marginal Way South, south of the BAR was identified as a potential mitigation measure, and is required by this Agreement. Although the improvements along East Marginal Way South between the BAR and SR599 have been substantially completed by King County, the portion between BAR and South 112th Street has not been finished. The Boeing share of these improvement costs has been established at $100,000. This payment is due when Boeing - originated peak -hour Duwamish Corridor travel reaches 7,850 daily trips. This threshhold will be calculated in a manner consistent with the Tukwila ordinance that implements the state's commute trip reduction law. This ordinance has not been adopted at this time. It is anticipated that the ordinance will specify the methodology for calculating peak -hour trips. Payment Schedules and Costs All cost figures discussed in this Agreement represent 1993 dollar amounts. The figures will be adjusted from 1993 dollars at time of payment by the annual Engineering News Record construction cost index for Seattle, to account for project cost changes due to inflation. Both parties to this Agreement recognize that outside funding opportunities may become available for one or more of the four projects identified in Table 1. If the Boeing Company and Tukwila agree to accelerate payment to take advantage of these funding opportunities, the City will maintain a, record of these payments and credit them toward other obligations identified above. The annual escalation factor from the Engineering News Record's construction cost index will be applied to the credits accrued by any prepayments. Other Obligations The transportation mitigation established by this Agreement fully satisfies all obligations between the City of Tukwila and The Boeing Company as they apply to the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal and prior environmental impacts and permit conditions, 8 except that it is not intended to release the Boeing Company from the previously required pro -rata share of costs for the First Avenue South Bridge replacement. STORMWATER Regional Basin Planning The Final EIS (pages 2 -6 and 2 -7) identifies the stormwater mitigation for impacts associated with the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment proposal. The Boeing Company agrees to participate in a regional stormwater basin planning effort to be initiated by the affected jurisdictions (assumed to include Seattle, Tukwila, King County, Metro, and WSDOT). Master Drainage Plan The Boeing Company agrees to develop a stormwater drainage master plan for its properties in the Duwamish Corridor, consistent with the regional basin planning effort. It is anticipated by this Agreement that development of the stormwater master plan would follow completion of the regional stormwater basin plan. SHORELINE PUBLIC ACCESS The Redevelopment Proposal includes design guidelines for development along the shoreline of the Duwamish Waterway and a location map of public access improvements on page 31. In addition, the Final EIS identifies on page xvii the area proposed for enhancement of shoreline access that will remain available for use by the general public. Further clarification is provided in the Final EIS, pages 2 -1 and 2 -2. In summary, the proposal anticipates 9 redevelopment along about 4,800 linear feet of shoreline frontage, and enhancement of about 4,800 linear feet of frontage along the shoreline of the Oxbow site on the western side of the waterway. Revised Figure 3 -6 from page xvii of the Final EIS. is included as Attachment 5 of this Agreement. This Agreement recognizes that the proposal is consistent with the emphasis on the western shoreline that has characterized the recreational trail planning of the affected jurisdictions. It is also understood that future development in the Duwamish Corridor will be required to comply with Shoreline Master Program provisions in effect at the time of application. Individual projects that implement the Redevelopment Proposal will include shoreline public access enhancements along the Oxbow site that meet or exceed the proposed 1:1 ratio of public access frontage to redeveloped non -water dependent frontage not available for public access. The City will maintain a record of the cumulative total of enhanced shoreline frontage. The timing of the enhancements of public access frontage will be simultaneous with or prior to redevelopment of shoreline frontage not available for public access. Credit will be given for development of public access prior to individual projects that trigger the requirements, and additional public access beyond that described in this Agreement will not be required for projects implementing the proposal reviewed in the EIS. The City of Tukwila has concluded that this proposal is consistent with applicable provision of the Shoreline Master Program it administers along the Duwamish Corridor. 10 In addition to the public access frontage at the Oxbow site, the Redevelopment Proposal includes a connection from the Museum of Flight along East Marginal Way South to the Green River Trail at the Oxbow site. The location of this connection is shown in the Final EIS on page xvii (Figure 3 -6). The East Marginal Way South portion of this connection will be constructed as part of or simultaneously with adjacent East Marginal Way South reconstruction (Project 1). The full link to the Green River Trail will be completed at the same time as the Oxbow site public access enhancements. In addition to the public access enhancements described above, The Boeing Company will provide employee access to the shoreline on all sites not otherwise available for public access, as indicated in the Redevelopment Proposal. While the 1:1 public access ratio and locations identified on page 31 of the Redevelopment Proposal and page xvii of the Final EIS establish the public access requirements of this Agreement, it is understood that the City will entertain alternatives to the 1:1 ratio or to public access locations. The intent of this understanding is to incorporate flexibility and allow The Boeing Company and the City to . take advantage of equal or better opportunities that are not currently identified. Equal or better public access opportunities could include new locations, enhanced existing locations, or habitat enhancements available for public access with appropriate signage. The City will not delay processing of applications that otherwise comply with the 1:1 ratio to require such public access alternatives. 11 Performance of this Agreement will not replace the separate requirement for shoreline public access at the cafeteria site (9303 E. Marginal Way South), identified as Condition 7 of Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Development Permit No. 90 -2 -SMP (August 7, 1990). If this Agreement is not performed, Condition 7 survives. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW Compliance with Proposal and Agreement The EIS and proposal lack detail on individual projects in terms of location and size of structures, location, quantity and layout of parking facilities, access locations and design, uses, and other project- specific issues. It is anticipated that supplemental environmental information included with specific project applications will provide sufficient documentation on these details for the City to satisfy SEPA requirements prior to permit issuance. As part of a specific project description included with an environmental checklist,. The Boeing Company will include information describing how the project complies with the proposal reviewed in the EIS and this Agreement. The City will review that description and the rest of the application for consistency with the proposal and this Agreement. The review will focus on consistency with the pedestrian and vehicular circulation guidelines and the bulk, scale, and landscape guidelines of the Proposal, as well as compliance with the mitigation described in this Agreement. 12 SEPA Compliance The EIS will serve as the "umbrella" SEPA document for redevelopment in the Duwamish Corridor through the life'of the Proposal. Project -level review for SEPA compliance will consist of City review of an environmental checklist, addendum, or other supplemental information for consistency with the Proposal and impacts reviewed in the EIS. For projects consistent with the EIS and proposal, the City will expedite environmental review and permit processing. Future Requirements. For projects that implement the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal and are consistent with the proposal reviewed in the programmatic EIS, the City agress that no additional off -site mitigation of transportation impacts beyond the four projects identified will be imposed. 13 AMENDMENTS TO THE DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL No Boeing development is currently anticipated that would be inconsistent with the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal. Because the proposal covers a multi -year period, however, and because the airline industry and customer needs are dynamic and difficult to predict, it is understood that future development that is not consistent with the proposal may be proposed during the life of the redevelopment proposal. The Boeing Company will prepare a description of any proposed amendment to the Proposal and meet with the Director of Community Development to identify additional environmental review or other requirements to be met before the proposed amendment is incorporated into the approved Corridor Redevelopment Plan. It is understood that some amendments will be minor, while others may be more significant. It is the intent of the City and Boeing to simplify the review of minor amendments by means of a clear description of the proposed amendment and an expedited administrative review. 14 DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT MITIGATION AGREEMENT The signatures below are provided by official representatives with the authority to commit and obligate the City of Tukwila and The Boeing Company to the terms of this Agreement. The City's SEPA Official and The Boeing Company's Vice President of Facilities are such representatives. Accepted for City of Tukwila Accepted for The Boeing Company a, By Title vV- f tO � F/ --41.4 rtes Date on-bece ZG t °l c) 3 15 LISTS OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 1991 Memorandum of Agreement Attachment 2 - Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Duwamish Corridor Properties Included in Redevelopment Proposal Duwamish Corridor Boeing Transportation Management Program East Marginal Way Reconstruction Project Description Areas Proposed for Shoreline Public Access Enhancement ATTACHMENT 1 ' 1991 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AdNik Washington State Dety2?trnent of Transportation C. r'tce : Mr. "rry Dii.ector Local Cc-munity Relations The Company P.c. Box 370-7 Seattle wA 9124-22(.0 Osuano Berentson o MP 25.6‘2. Mi-morandum Undeistanding • K.C.. File No. C87-0532 Dear. Me,7;5.andum of Understa Stat Department of Transportation, Nereinafter rc!ferrd to as King county, h , the City of Tukwila. hy-„n:Afl.; the The Boeing CempJt,ny, hereinafter 1-Gferrd to as The Livc:'.if.:.per has developed pro-:' te vicy c,f. the SR 102r,3 St. intersection: 7.ed by f7,. 1(2,2r:d to the OuWamisn River ent and. souzn; and W. P1:-.(? S./27th Ave. .,:.:..ferred to as Ct. 4 -,,.)u:'.1.1ring/storage/o.- rS0,006 :3q. ft. The (svc,.?per agreed to t.4Q. Tc.;.1nty of or the Oxbow site :t,louthtsond- 2: connect the cona...hs e.f.lowino. provision: a rata -share c; pr,:.riin• ; a on r,ztrrip to SR 9 portion of southbound the. Wington State Transporatin. if full fwiding for the sout-r rar,p not December 32, tLE runds for the full co:::t. thn on ramp without ;_)' January !O, 1991 Mr. J. Page —oc ,• SEATILE It is unciertood that the City as pJ.1-?7 City's non-pr:. ci. :.0;T he Duwalih v,:!:UEy, This model wj_3. Oxbow ,.:.crporat Park along wit: tk':e propod interch6.nr7;e 1c1 will address ah. in imme6 The Statt?.- =',LC3 rc imp:mentation of 17.!.;ove1:•s necessary. The State agrees that.te apppriate required nit will np nore -adequately addresseA• prt ?!7,70 • It is .ayi-eed ty the State, Cunty and city !:hzat the Devel(, will be allowed to f'ulf.11 tv partig the cost of neeth; by the non-;:., .......... - part j • cost will constction .of the southbOund interchange tt), corw.ect the Oxbow stf:. 99, or the Developex's pro rata to be Intn a r.ransportation benit improv dilict (LID), or otz- This will be made of ic EIS which it Septe The accepts- responsiy trffic: lipt s to the SR 99/S. hereb.y ',(7) either fullv - construl of the southbound interc.hangs to crtnQct OXbow Thd 7:: 99, or to fu; 6 as transportatio Th estin of participation Thera mutually agreed 1L1Y. • r:sult of the r .d •':nat the Develop tLit Ciesign and •constt „:! to connect the C7-.A will subMit a and Eatimat • _and th..? Jterchange would t;-. 'Le • 44 '7 January 191 Mr. 7.7F:rzy Levis Page 73 2 result of the flL .1: that the Developz,,:—: lo picipate on a equal shart7 to fi!nd the arf::;:ls ,ortstion improvement e into a tran!5p,:. ir,provement fee program 1.7: c.Oed parag::aph I Developer: t,7. speed.out in 2. a:te in the City's 01.4w4Mih Ve2Iley Els, 1 Developer tc. spelled out .in and publish th a result of the i.ff:;, it: the Ls r.)e<. that Develope cn an equal shar(:!. to needs, the og107-. in order to ccI the p.711-ip:t.:H.3 th:2 equal share cont transportation in the City's Du.•.J.h a ;7,.:su1t of the ..hat the Develol:r3 and cons::::!*: Co connect the .::eview for approYT and srfications, and the State ant , :gree/rtent in 2 2 southbound int t Mr. ,'. Page 4 Sa 10 This cf Understanding is and r. :rc.,::;er, successor .;t d.:10ae the existen:- this Letter vf tc :tny pt. of their )..):1,; The in any such sale Letter of Undel-::t. assul.:- of obligations of by •Lt: The County, and City, rett: copy of tfi agre 4..rms and condition::; z!"; If this letter has ts fre James L. LUT-7 (562-4297) of thk*, Serv.; Attac JAMES W. Piarn.Lr.,;; Mt. Pass 5 The ackr :,3et their SUCC0, . aod and accept th;-: forth in thi•L TUKWILA: NG COUNTY: S DOT : Da r.e: t,e P' r..geSS Dat6: / • NAME .. . King Got:rt() Building di Land il.e.velopenent Ptrka, Flaming tirk-4:fr.e. Dallarment 3G00. .06e, ?i„vv bellevuo, July 15. ;9'.4! The Bocir.g C-ornpany P.O. Boy. .,74.27/, MIS i4-49 Seattle, WA 981.24 ) T. Lewis RE: M.:10.2andIam.Z.MigiCtgaldinlaSilailac. tirthat RataRlo $R 99 it South 102.131.51.= Dear We haws:, yo,..:r proposed Memorandum oi‘ of 3ep;:tz...;c:tent of Transportation, cht.: arid King .7.?.:1Ltary 30, 1991. The purr.r.w.A,.:-.• of tr ::kx-ument iF ilrfet recuirement of (..:orrti...;::.r,y to construct a riew Sr?. 9':: Y-.reet as Nl per a ay 26.. 1.987 King County Mitigated Detcrrn nc (1.1CNS), un- til such time that a Duwamish Valley Environic.ci:i.o.lirni:ct In tiv: County the responsibi1iy i tior cf. May 26, 1987 NIDNE e v I. have Ole in question into their ciTy this !.-...!ac.e.r, •‘ v; tion to the Memorandum of t• v .iiP Greg I.iltrb Mani cc: -"; Manager, Comnicrei...'. . Manager. Technical V. LEGEND Owned Leased ATTACHMENT 2 Duwamish Corridor Properties Included In Redevelopment Proposal ATTACHMENT 3 DUWAMISH CORRIDOR BOEING TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is entered into as of June 25, 1990 between The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle ( "Metro ") and The Boeing Company. 1. Metro and Boeing are parties to an Agreement dated as of December 18, 1989 (the "Agreement ") which created an administrative framework for addressing traffic problems of mutual concern to the parties. Addendum No. 1 to the Agreement, also dated December 18, 1989, provided that Boeing and Metro would co- operate to develop, define, and ratify a Master Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to serve as the foundation document for all jurisdictions of Boeing located within King County that require a TMP as part of an Environmental Impact Statement. 2. Attached to this Memorandum of Understanding as Attachment A is a Master Transportation Management Plan. Boeing and Metro each hereby acknowledge, accept, and approve the terms of the Master TMP as attached, and each party hereby agrees that such TMP, as attached, fulfills the parties' respective obligations to develop, define, and ratify a TMP, as provided in the referenced Addendum No. 1. The parties have executed this Memorandum of Agreement as of the date first written above. THE BOEING COMPANY GLB1:062:062290 B -1 MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE By Its D&P. Di f • 7F/Sifl AT+MEN.T.:_F, MASTER TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.0 Purpose and Authority At major work sites Boeing employees represent a significant proportion of the local work force and have a corresponding influence on the local transportation network. The Master Transportation Management Plan offers a cooperative, voluntary and mutual statement of principals for use in guiding future transportation planning efforts designed to minimize the influence of Boeing employees on the Puget Sound regional transportation network. That network includes all forms of surface, roadway transportation. 2.0 Problem Statement A. Transportation networks serving Boeing sites within the region typically are at or approaching capacity. Pressure on the regional transportation network caused by regional growth make action imperative. 3.0 Objectives The Objectives of the proposed Master Transportation Management Plan are to: 1) Improve the ingress and egress of Boeing employees at their workplaces in a timely manner • 2) Demonstrate a commitment by The Boeing Company to address regional transportation issues in cooperation with local, regional and state jurisdictions. 3) Either reduce or achieve zero growth in vehicle trips generated from Boeing sites during the Peak P.M. Traffic period (3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.). 4) Decrease Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) use at The Boeing Company work sites. 4.0 Strategies Strategies used in achieving the stated objectives may differ for various Boeing sites. Guidelines for the applicability of specific strategies may be .found in Table A.1 (Attached) which identifies appropriate strategies for Urban, Suburban, and Scattered sites. B -2 06/22/90 06/22/90 4.1 ecifi c sr *ateQies to be used in achieving Qb _ ecwel: ▪ Parking Management 4.2 ` Best Engineering and Site Design Practices • Monitoring • Modal separation e t e used in achieving 'e iv 2: • Transportation Coordinators ' Preferred car pool and van pool parking • Continued involvement in regional transportation issues • Adoption of site specific Transportation Management Plans ' Establish focal point for generating regional and inter -local agreements on transportation issues. 43 e if trate in achieving •ec 've . : ▪ Bicycle facilities ▪ Work scheduling and facilities Iocations ' Mode split goals • Exploration of new technologies ' Cooperative agreements with local and state transportation agencies ` Evaluations 4.4 . ecifi tra e 'e t.. _ ed ' achi • .' we 4 ; ' Promotional Campaigns ▪ Commuter information centers • Improved facilities to support transit rideshare and carpool services • Fixed route transit service ' Ridematch service • Vanpools • Customized Bus Service ▪ Incentive Program B -3 5.0 Implementation 5.1 Site Specific TMP'5 • Major Boeing sites within the Puget Sound Region will undertake development of a site specific Transportation Management Plan (TMP). These TlviPs will include: - mode split objective - promotion plan - specific strategies • Major Boeing sites within the Puget Sound Region will appoint an on -site Transportation Coordinator, to implement the TMP's. ▪ Site TMP's will be closely coordinated with the local transit authorities and municipal agencies for consistency with the local transportation goals and objectives. ' Site TMP's will develop a comprehensive monitoring and reporting schedule for measuring the effectiveness of the initiatives in accomplishing the objectives. ▪ Site TMP's will be attached to this plan as addenda. 5.2 Measurements Monitoring schedules for all sites will report measurements which provide an aggregate level of performance in attaining the goals and objectives of this plan. Specific measurements include, but are not limited to: Baseline vehicle count during P.M. peak (3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.) Site Population (and rate of change) Site Acreage (and rate of change On Site Parking Stalls (and rate of change) On Site preferential parking stalls Site HOV use (and rate . of change) • 5.3 Periodic review with affected agencies Quarterly meetings will be held with local and regional jurisdictions and authorities affected: by this . Master Transportation Management Plan. The purpose of these meetings is for regular updates on rogress, problems and progrm activities which have regional impact and significance. All parties to this plan will meet annually to review the goals, objectives and strategies of this plan and target further specific regional goals. 5.4 Periodic reports on regional progress The findings, conclusions and opinions of the parties to this plan will be summarized annually and reported to all affected agencies. B -4 06/22/90 • • Table A.1 Service Emphasis Tvve of Site Primary Secondary Urban Suburban • Fixed route transit • Ridesharing • Specialized Service • Ridesharing • Custom Bus • Specialized Service • Fixed Route Service Scattered • Ridesharing ` Fixed Route Transit • Custom Bus * Specialized Service Support Programs Promotion Annual focused campaign Bus zone near building entrances Preferential Parking HOV support facilities Shift scheduling to support HOV use Cost share passes Company -wide passes Restrict parking supply Carpool incentives 06/22/90 B -5 PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN (TMP) Boeing North Duwamish Campus (NDc) Goal Boeing has entered into an agreement with Metro to jointly pursue methods to reduce single occupant vehicles (SOV) generated by Boeing Company facilities. This master TMP outlines objectives and strategies to achieve this goal as outlined in Attachment A. Objective The objective of the NDC TMP is to reduce volume exiting from the NDC site during the p.m. peak traffic period (3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.) by 5 percent. The existing (1990) volume is 1,310. The objective of the TMP is to reduce that volume to not more than 1,235. Program Actions and Incentives The following specific strategies and incentives are proposed as part of the TMP. These elements are consistent with Directors Rule 24 -88. 1. The owner /tenant shall provide subsidies in the amount of $15 to employees purchasing a monthly bus pass or partic- ipating in a registered public transit agency vanpool. 2. The owner /tenant shall provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. 3. A minimum of 10 percent of the long -term parking spaces shall be designated for carpools. 4. Space for secure and convenient parking for 20 bicycles including locking bicycle racks shall be provided on site. 5. The TMP shall include the following general actions as outlined in DR 24 -88. a. Building Transportation Coordinator b. Periodic Promotional Events c. Commuter Information Center d. Tenant Participation e. Ride Match Opportunities f. Employee Survey g. Reporting h. Program Evaluation ee /cc003 /NDCTMp cf MUiufY Ro °d 50. 50. 1161h3 +Moines Way 5o. M10,J ,00 rJa SOUTH PARK SITE ` \ \ DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER ,yp S aq NORTH OUWAMISH CAMPUS NORTH BOEING FIELD 50. East Maig'^a°4" c• qa. 9P f'1f e .so '9iAS So O V LEGEND NX NNW Existing Boeing Shoreline Public Access Proposed Enhancement of Existing Access ■• ■. ■ Proposed Connection to Green River Trail Proposed Employee Shoreline Access Museum of Flight ATTACHMENT 5 AREAS PROPOSED FOR SHORELINE PURPOSE ACCESS ENHANCEMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR BOEING DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Prepared in Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Revised Code of Washington 43.21c and SEPA Rules, April 4, 1984, Chapter 197 -11 Washington Administrative Code Date of Issue: April 30, 1993 April 30, 1993 Dear Readers: City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director Attached is a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the redevelopment of Boeing's Duwamish corridor facilities. This document follows the earlier issuance (May 1992) and public review of a Draft EIS, along with the Boeing - prepared master plan for the corridor. Both of these previous documents are available for review at the Department of Community Development. The Boeing Company proposes to replace its aging manufacturing buildings with newer structures over the next ten years. The plan calls for a workforce shift from primarily manufacturing to a more research- and - development oriented focus in the corridor. Improvements to shoreline public access, as well as landscape and pedestrian amenities for its employees, are incorporated into the plan. By the end of the ten -year redevelopment period, Boeing employment in the corridor would not exceed 25,000, a level similar to that of recent years. The redevelopment plan has not changed since its description in the Draft EIS. Since that time, however, Boeing has announced a reduction in its 'Puget Sound employment levels, to be phased in through mid -1994. While employment in the Duwamish corridor may drop substantially below 25,000 in the near term, employment levels are much more difficult to predict over the course of a ten -year period. With the completion of this environmental review process, Boeing will maintain the flexibility to proceed with its redevelopment when economic conditions are appropriate. At the same time, the City of Tukwila will be able to provide efficient project -level review, since the broad environmental implications of the redevelopment have already been assessed. The proposed redevelopment plan would revitalize an older manufacturing center in the Puget Sound region, and is consistent with the Growth Management Act's intent to concentrate growth in already developed areas. We look forward to its successful implementation, and thank those who have participated in the review process. Sincerely, 1 L. Rick Beeler Director RECEIVED APR 3 01993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 CONTENTS Page Fact Sheet iii List of Acronyms vii Draft EIS Errata xi 1 Summary 1 -1 2 Additional Environmental Information 2 -1 Shoreline Access 2 -1 Transportation 2 -2 Stormwater/Water Quality 2 -6 Energy 2 -7 3 Comment Letters and Responses 3 -1 Indian Tribes Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 3 -3 Federal Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3 -11 Elliott Bay Panel 3 -15 Washington State Department of Transportation 3 -19 Department of Natural Resources • 3 -25 Department of Ecology 3 -29 Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 3 -35 Regional Agencies Metro 3 -41 King County Division of Roads and Engineering 3 -49 Planning and Community Development Division 3 -53 Cities City of Renton 3 -57 Seattle City Light 3 -61 Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation 3 -65 4 Public Meeting Summary 4 -1 APPENDIXES A. Proposed Transportation Management Plan for Boeing North Duwamish Campus B. Letter of Understanding C. Distribution List TABLES 1 -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2 -1 LOS Comparison for Oxbow Ramp Alternatives Page 1 -8 2 -5 FIGURES 1 -1 Vicinity Map and Neighborhoods 1 -2 2 -1 Pacific Highway South Geometry 2 -4 10024ABA.SEA FACT SHEET TITLE AND DESCRIPTION The proposed action is a proposal for redevelopment of the Boeing property along the Duwamish corridor. The Duwamish corridor is a 4.5 -mile stretch of land in the valley of the Duwamish Waterway from Ellis Avenue South on the north to South 126th Street on the south. Over a 10 -year period (1992 through 2002), The Boeing Company proposes to redevelop approximately 30 percent of its existing manufacturing facilities. Future construction will emphasize laboratory, office, and developmental manufacturing uses. Work force population is not expected to exceed 25,000 employees. PROPOSAL SPONSOR The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 MS 6Y -59 Seattle, Washington 98124 -2207 Contact: Jeff Zahir, Planner F/TSS Planning and Program Support (206) 393 -2783 APPROXIMATE DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION The Boeing Company, the proposal sponsor, expects that construction activities will begin in 1993 with all phases of redevelopment completed by 2003.. LEAD AGENCY INFORMATION The lead agency is the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development. The responsible official is: L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 DATE OF ISSUE OF FINAL EIS April 30, 1993 DATE OF ISSUE OF DRAFT EIS May 1, 1992 iii COMMENT PERIOD FOR DRAFT EIS The 30 -day comment period on the Draft EIS ended on June 1, 1992. The comment period was extended to June 7, 1992, on request. PUBLIC MEETING ON DRAFT EIS A public meeting on the' Draft EIS was held at 7:30 p.m. on May 20, 1992, at Tukwila City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington. AVAILABILITY OF COPIES Copies of this Final EIS are available for public inspection at: Tukwila Public Library 14475 95th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Foster Library 4205 South 142nd Street Tukwila, Washington City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington A limited number of copies of the Final EIS have been printed and made available for public distribution at the City .of Tukwila, Department of Community Development. Additional copies are available at $9.00 per copy. APPROXIMATE DATE OF FINAL ACTION BY LEAD AGENCY Spring 1993 AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS TO EIS This EIS was prepared under the direction of the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development. Additional research and analysis were provided by: CH2M HILL, INC. 777 108th Avenue NE P.O. Box 91500 Bellevue, Washington 98009 -2050 iv OTHER RELATED MATERIAL The Boeing Company has prepared a separate document entitled "Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal," which accompanied the Draft EIS. This proposal and other background material and support documents can be found either at the City of Tukwila or at CH2M HILL. 10022476.SEA v aMWh AVO List of Acronyms Average megawatt -hours Average vehicle occupancy BAC Best available control technology BALD Building and Land Development (a King County department) BAR - Board of Architectural Review BFD Boeing Fire Department (Boeing) BMT Boeing Materials Technology (Boeing) BTU British thermal units CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CDL Construction, Demolition, and Landclearing (Boeing) • CO Carbon monoxide dBA A- weighted decibels DCLU Department of Construction and Land Use (Seattle) DEIS Draft environmental impact statement DWU Drainage and Wastewater Utility (Seattle) EDNA Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement EIS Environmental impact statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FAA FAR Federal Aviation Administration Floor area ratio gsf Gross square feet HOV High- occupancy vehicle KCC King County Code kV Kilovolts kW Kilowatts IASL Integrated Aircraft Systems Laboratory (Boeing) Ldn Day -night noise levels LC/DW Land Clearing and Demolition Waste LEPC Local Emergency Planning Committee LOS Level of service vii Metro Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle MP Mile post MPH Miles per hour MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet MW Megawatts MWh Megawatt -hours DRAFT EIS ERRATA The following are corrections to errors made in the Draft EIS or new language pro- vided to clarify text not otherwise discussed in Chapter 2 of this FEIS. Figures to which substantive changes have been made are included at the end of this section. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 1. Figure 2 -1, page 2 -2 of the DEIS, is corrected to show West Marginal Place South as a roadway rather than leased property. LAND AND SHORELINE USE 1. Page 3 -10, fourth paragraph under Tukwila Zoning Code, is corrected to read as follows: The Tukwila Zoning Code identifies two building height exceptions that apply to portions of the project area between the Duwamish Waterway and I -5 which are zoned for manufacturing (i.e., M -1, M -2 or M2L) and which are outside the shoreline environment. One exception affects the Duwamish Office Park East, the Developmental Center, the Thompson- Isaacson site, and most of Plant 2. Buildings in this area may be permitted up to 115 feet in height outright and can exceed a height of 115 feet byspe sial-exeaptien with approval of the Tuk- wila Planning Commission (T.M.C. 18.50.050). Another exception would allow development on those portions of at the East Marginal Way Corporate Park site which are zoned M -1 and M -2, to exceed the basic height limit up to but only as high as 115 feet with authorization by the acting-as-the Board of Architectural Review (T.M.C. 18.50.040). 2. On page 3 -13, add the following new paragraphs under King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance: The Oxbow and South Park sites are also adjacent to portions of the 100 -year flood plain of the Duwamish Waterway. Boeing - controlled properties on the Oxbow site have been paved since the con - struction of facilities. The King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio indicates that there are open wetlands on the Oxbow site; however, the Folio acknowl- edges that this information, provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory, was not field - verified. xi The Sensitive Areas Map Folio also indicates that the Oxbow site and the east- ern portion of the South Park site are in a Seismic Hazard Area. However, no erosion, landslide, or coal mine hazards are indicated for Boeing - controlled properties in the Folio. Development proposed on those parcels identified as containing sensitive areas will comply with applicable provisions of the King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance. 3. The circular symbol on Figure 3 -3, page 3 -15, is changed to represent Native American cultural sites to reflect information that these sites may have been used by tribes other than the Duwamish. Similarly, references to the Duwamish Tribe cultural sites on page 3 -16, fourth paragraph, are changed to Native American cultural sites. 4. Page 3 -24, first paragraph under Proposed Action, fifth line, is corrected to read: 'Developmental manufacturing use could decrease by 15 percent but, with an increase of 2,500 employees and . . . " , 5. Figure 3 -5, page 3 -25, is corrected to show office use at the Developmental Center site, and also to indicate accurate site boundaries at the northern end of the North Boeing Field site. 6. Figure 3 -6, page 3 -30, is corrected to distinguish between existing Boeing shoreline public access and proposed enhancement of existing access. Location of the Museum of Flight was also added. 7. Page 3 -31, add a new section at the end of the page as follows: APPROVAL PROCESS The City anticipates entering into a mitigation agreement with The Boeing Company during or following environmental review of the proposal. The agreement would allow the City to monitor individual projects and determine when phased mitigation pay- ments, improvements, or other activities are required. Prior to individual permit ac- tions, each of these individual project actions will undergo separate environmental review for consistency with the impacts and mitigations discussed in this nonproject environmental impact statement. Supplemental environmental review will be consist- ent with the objectives of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for project - specific actions. The City of Tukwila anticipates further coordination with the City of Seattle, King County, and the Washington State Department of Transportation through an interlocal agreement. The agreement would establish a consistent approach among the three jurisdictions for review of individual projects implementing the redevelopment proposal. xii TRANSPORTATION 1. Figure 4 -1, page 4 -2, is corrected to reflect changes to several roadway classifi- cations and traffic signal locations. 2. Figure 4 -2, page 4-5, is corrected to show the direction of travel on East Mar- ginal Way South, south of the South Boeing Access Road, consistent with other arrows on the figure. 3. Figure 4 -7, page 4-20, is corrected to better distinguish between improve- ments A and C. Improvement C, East Marginal Way South widening is cor- rected to show improvements are only planned to South 112th Street, rather than to Interurban Avenue South. POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT 1. Page 5 -4, third paragraph, line 6, is corrected to read as follows: "Using this multiplier and other criteria, it is estimated that an additional 230,000 jobs, or 18 percent of the 1,297,000 jobs in the region, . . " 2. Page 5 -5, first paragraph under Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alterna- tives, line 2 is corrected to read as follows: " . . . the number of jobs within the Duwamish corridor would remain stable . . . " 100228E5.SEA .+., 5,l,.vn •'� FA feel rnh.n,T:•• •µlash4,.:::,. •:•y" •^.:.�:.n`` $. '>.s. %.,.0 444 re! Way So• :.,'r!�.0 1,.,o- 4 . 1• Savly • LEGEND Owned Leased Figure 2 -1 BOEING OWNED AND LEASED PROPERTY • • Way S°' .. 4, + • • 1 f LEGEND ■■■titi111 Proposed Green River Trail mom. Proposed Duwamish Trail 11 11 BO 11 Proposed Interim Duwamish Trail (over next five years) Proposed Public Access Point to Duwamish Waterway (Port of Seattle) • Native American Cultural Sites (Green River Trail Master Plan, 1988) Existing Park Museum of Flight 'NOTE: The exact route between South Michigan Street and South Holden Street has not been determined. The route between South Holden Street and South Thistle Street may change. The route between South Thistle Street and 14th Avenue South is final. Figure 3 -3 EXISTING AND PLANNED RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE nAilRary, ad S° ti • F•MY•W:IW WW .. .•}.:_?d Mores Way 50. .22.E • • • DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER • • • LEGEND _ __ Labs /Offices // Avionics Mechanical Electrical Structural Noise Material Quality Assurance Aeronautic •••••• •••••• •••••• Office Executive Professional Engineering Support Training Manufacturing Fabrication Sub - assembly Final assembly Production Manufacturing Development Manufacturing Flightline Engine Testing Paint Hangar Fueling Existing Aircraft Road Crossing Points NOTE: This illustration represents a probable scenario of proportionate uses by site and does not include accessory uses such as parking and storage. The locations of specific uses at full build -out may vary from this scenario, but floor area by use will be similiar to that represented in Table 2 -4. Figure 3 -5 PROPOSED SITE USES — • °es Alanes Way So 9,3 OOgye- So a" • ,` DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER MILITARY FLIGHT CENTER w Marym MO NO PI So SOUTH PARK SITE VS NORTH %' DUWAMISH CAMPUS • NORTH BOEING FIELD LEGEND • EINEM II Existing Boeing Shoreline Public Access Proposed Enhancement of Existing Access Proposed Connection to Green River Trail Proposed Employee Shoreline Access Museum of Flight Figure 3 -6 EXISTING AND PROPOSED BOEING SHORELINE ACCESS AND TRAIL PLAN ••■•■••••■•••• ••••.,if • Mditar�.�ea•• M■.•••••• i : �• M' „. ..... • ° f • a. 4� � ` • ,, S. 1161' •• • ,, •• oos MoinesWa so. •• 9,1ti . WMar9i ^at �oi , • • �, r^ ' Fas�gfa,Jna Way .. .. mo`� 2.1 r inat `NaYS .0* c s. iT •::••••••�•••� ° °•�nPye ° •••gM••.•••'sgs� _\\ .. .,... ` �. . I: '.. e9 �. d`co�c e •,: ■ • ■ 2,�.'9ye •:.��.. 1n1•"tr� . �•`'4. ,C j .. •• ` I s9��oo` P� 1 • .s....... ..: ..... - is l 4 4. ir .... . ..... . ••••.••• A"Po ••■ ••••• .. •••• •�.Y Sou - , • °■ • Win ■r• Neap LEGEND Freeway Principal Arterial Minor Arterial ■ ■ .. . ■ Collector Arterial Signalized Intersection Note: Figure may not include all signalized intersections in the study area. Source: City of Tukwila, City of Seattle, and WSDOT. • •. Figure 4 -1 EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM 5,000 24,500 Ma: OW C B 43,800 :�. >. 3,500 4S, 707) '6o'�a�a► 6100" Pae.50 v0 '•a'"a�aa.a WRY SD .• .'s•rs 2,970 ` I j 9,430 0 ass ...�z` g 0 42.20 s f1 so HI z �. Mara d P• 2' ' 1 . ev O ,� ■ . '6°0 II' 12500 • 24,750 .0,`:-• 4�..:._.... a : 1i • . «.:.«:..:.r y�as''s 22355 30 s ; ?.:.+ , .�~ o 50 :Sag liti �'• •�`''•k,• F,�_''••. Via,, k I ■68.000 174,800 • :4,gpr H,gy� LEGEND —O. Direction of travel 12,450 Average two -way daily traffic volumes • •• •• Level of service C •••• Level of service D • — •• Level of service E Level of service F Source: City of Tukwila and WSDOT. 21,200 .44 ...::: H:. ■ tv 174.800 Figure 4 -2 . ESTIMATED LEVELS OF SERVICE AND AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS (1991) \ J ''it'rv.:•nu.>.4V•::.:: nr«yiy � i.� :r•Y.yr.Y..n•,r. ••• \\ So 116 i F;7 I t�'pre!q' '.8. LEGEND A Oxbow ramp to southbound SR 599. Previously imposed by King County as SEPA mitigation for development of Oxbow site (1987). Not yet constructed. B 11111111 Pacific Highway /SR 599 southbound ramp. Possible replacement for previous SEPA mitigation of Oxbow ramp. C NESSE E. Marginal Way So. widening. Boeing pro -rata share of improvement costs. D / /// E. Marginal Way So. frontage improvements. Boeing requirement for properties as redevelopment occurs, per Tukwila ordinance. Boeing to contribute fair share of full roadway capital project costs. E R First Avenue So. Bridge. Pro -rata share contribution to bridge improvements required as previous SEPA mitigation. Figure 4 -7 SUMMARY OF OFFSITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS • Chapter 1 SUMMARY This section provides a summary of the Proposed Action, the alternatives and impacts, and mitigation measures that were identified in the Draft EIS. Since publication of the Draft EIS, the original proposal has not been changed. However, additional environ- mental information on several issues is reflected in this summary. PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action is a proposal for redevelopment of Boeing properties in the Duwamish corridor. Over a 10 -year period (1993 through 2003), The Boeing Company proposes to redevelop approximately 30 percent of its existing manufacturing facilities. Future construction will emphasize laboratory, office, and developmental manufacturing uses. Workforce population is not expected to exceed approximately 25,000 employees. Chapter 2 of this EIS describes the Proposed Action in more detail. A full description of the proposal is provided in The Boeing Company's Duwamish Corridor Redevelop- ment Proposal (under separate cover). The Duwamish corridor can be described broadly as a 4.5- mile -long stretch of land in the valley of the Duwamish Waterway, from Ellis Avenue South on the north to South 126th Street on the south. The majority of the project area lies in the City of Tukwila, with portions also in King County and Seattle. Figure 1 -1 is a map of the project vicinity. Ten major Boeing sites are located in the Duwamish corridor. The Boeing Company's ownership and leases in the corridor now include approximately 600 acres and about 9.9 million square feet of developed floor area. The proposed redevelopment would involve demolition of about 3.7 million square feet of floor area in the Duwamish corridor and construction of about 4.3 million square feet of new floor area. At the completion of the redevelopment, the corridor would contain a new total of approximately 10.6 million square feet of developed floor area. Emphasis in the redeveloped areas would shift from manufacturing to research and development, and the mix of employees would change correspondingly. PROJECT GOALS The Boeing Company's redevelopment goals, as stated on page 3 of the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal, are: Goal 1: Early identification of corridor -wide redevelopment issues, impacts and mitigation measures. 1 -1 Chapter 1: Summary Proposed Action/Project Goals HARBOR ISLAND 9y MT. BAKER Lake Washington BEACON SPOKANE ST. SOUTH SEATTLE LAKEWOOD STUDY AREA. COLUMBIA SEWARD PARK UPLANDS BRIGHTON King County Line RAINIER BEACH SEATTLE BELLEVUE` STUDY AREA AUBURN DUWAMISH, SOUTHERN \' HEIGHTS ALLENTOWN BOULEVARD PARK � . 'i ••' RIVERTON Scale in Feet TACOMA 4,000 8,000 1 -2 Figure 1 -1 VICINITY MAP AND NEIGHBORHOODS Goal 2: A unified industrial campus that integrates laboratory, developmental manufacturing,'ff1ightline;''and office uses. Goal 3: An enhanced natural and aesthetic environment. Goal 4: An efficient use of resources. The Boeing Company anticipates entering into a mitigation agreement with the City of Tukwila consistent with these goals. APPROVAL PROCESS The City of Tukwila and The Boeing Company have agreed to review the broad issues raised by Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal in the context of this nonproject environmental impact statement (EIS). The City of Tukwila is the lead agency for nonproject review of The Boeing Company's proposal. The City's objectives are: • To improve its understanding of the cumulative impacts of the proposed redevelopment; • To increase predictability in the timing and nature of project- specific improvements; • To identify mitigation early in the redevelopment planning process; • To facilitate review of individual permits; and • To avoid piecemeal decisionmaking by reviewing the broader plans for corridor redevelopment prior to considering individual projects. Consistent with these objectives, the City of Tukwila has entered into an agreement with the City of Seattle and King County to coordinate review of this nonproject envi- ronmental impact statement. A copy of the Memorandum of Agreement, signed in December 1990, is included as Appendix G in the Draft EIS. The City anticipates entering into a mitigation agreement with The Boeing Company .during or following environmental review of the proposal. The agreement would allow the City to monitor individual projects and determine when phased mitigation pay- ments, improvements, or other activities are required. Prior to individual permit ac- tions, each of these individual project actions will undergo separate environmental review for consistency with the impacts and mitigations discussed in this nonproject 1 -3 Chapter 1: Summary Approval Process environmental impact statement. Supplemental environmental review will be consistent with the objectives of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for project - specific actions. The City of Tukwila anticipates further coordination with the City of Seattle and King County through an interlocal agreement. The agreement would establish a consistent approach among the three jurisdictions for review of individual projects implementing the redevelopment proposal. It is anticpated that the mitigation document and interlocal agreement will be com- pleted by spring 1993. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED In addition to the Proposed Action, two alternatives were reviewed in the Draft EIS: the No Action alternative and the Manufacturing Center alternative. These are sum- marized below and described more fully in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No Action alternative is discussed throughout this environmental document to provide a common point for comparison with other alternatives. Under this alternative, currently planned public improvements to the street system would be completed, and normal, incremental modifications to Boeing facilities in the Duwamish corridor would continue, but major redevelopment to upgrade the manufacturing facilities would not occur. A workforce population of 25,000 employees is assumed. Peak -hour travel patterns would be similar to today's patterns. MANUFACTURING CENTER ALTERNATIVE This alternative would maintain the current focus of the Duwamish corridor as an industrial and manufacturing center. Deteriorated and outmoded facilities would be upgraded to allow more efficient use of the area. Total square footage and employ- ment would remain stable at about 9.9 million square feet with a somewhat reduced work force of 20,000 employees, but production rates could increase to meet market demands. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION During the course of this environmental analysis, potential significant adverse impacts to two elements of the built environment, land use and transportation, have been 1 -4 • described. These elements and other potential areas of impact are summarized below and in Table 1 -1, which appears at the end of this chapter. Additional environmental information is provided in Chapter 2 of this FEIS. LAND AND SHORELINE USE Land use impacts include a shift in the mix of uses along the Duwamish corridor from the current manufacturing emphasis to laboratory, office, and developmental manufacturing. The number of employees would not exceed 25,000, and square foot- age would increase by about 7 percent. The land use impacts identified in this document are generally consistent with the comprehensive plans and policies of the three jurisdictions. (Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS provides a more detailed discussion of impacts.) Adverse impacts related to height, bulk, and scale may occur on a project - specific basis. Design guidelines and standards presented in Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal are intended to address these impacts. These standards could also be used during agency review to mitigate project - specific impacts. While The Boeing Company will make every effort to comply with development regula- tions established by the jurisdictions, program requirements may necessitate requests for variance approvals from certain zoning provisions, shoreline requirements, and sensitive areas regulations. In some instances text amendments may also be requested. Impacts to shorelines in the project area will generally be beneficial. There would be an increase in the amount of square footage devoted to non - water - dependent uses. Redevelopment would occur on sites with approximately 4,800 linear feet of shoreline. The majority of the sites are located within the City of Tukwila, which currently uses the King County Shoreline Master Program for review of development proposals in the study area. In general, the Proposed Action is consistent with the program's policies and regulations. The Boeing Company's proposed shoreline access plan would enhance approximately 4,800 linear _feet of 9,000 linear feet of existing shoreline access. Improvements would include trails, viewpoints, and a canoe launch at the Oxbow site. Enhanced connections with the Green River Trail and the Museum of Flight would also be a benefit to the regional trail system. Streambank enhancement will occur in conjunction with the development of employee shoreline access along those sites proposed for redevelopment. Cooperation with the Muckleshoot Tribe and state and federal fish and wildlife agencies is anticipated to result in the enhancement of fish habitat in the Duwamish River estuary. Chapter 1: summary Alternatives Considered 1 -5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Proposed Action TRANSPORTATION Under the Proposed Action, about 30 percent of the developed floor area in the study area will be redeveloped. This would result in an increase in net square footage of about 7 percent. However, employee population is proposed to be limited to the same level (25,000) as predicted for the No Action alternative. Traffic volumes are estimated to be approximately equal for the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives except during peak hours. Levels of service (LOS) would remain unchanged for most roadway segments. However, the LOS of several road segments are expected to decline under these two alternatives as compared to existing conditions. These LOS impacts are expected as a result of an anticipated 1.5 percent per year growth in background traffic, as well as an increase in Boeing employment levels. Under both the No Action alter- native and the Proposed Action, employment will grow from 21,000 in May, 1991 to 25,000 in 2003, a 17 percent increase over existing conditions. In February 1993, Boeing announced a series of reductions in its Puget Sound work- force. Workforce numbers at the company's different employment centers have not been determined at this time. However, it appears likely that a decline in employment totals in the Duwamish Corridor will continue over the next few years. The analysis in this EIS addresses the implementation of a 10 -year master plan, and does not attempt to reflect workforce fluctuations within that period. The proposal's transportation impacts could be addressed in two ways: by imple- menting an aggressive transportation management program (TMP), and by fair -share contributions to street and transit improvements. The Boeing Company has proposed a TMP that includes a transit subsidy and rideshare (carpool and vanpool) support. The TMP and street and transit improvements are discussed further in Chapter 4, Transportation, of the Draft EIS. OTHER IMPACTS Impacts to other elements of the environment could occur during construction and operation of facilities in a redeveloped Duwamish corridor. Specific mitigation will be identified during individual project review and will include best management practices for control of dust and runoff during construction; compliance with federal, state, and local requirements for handling of contaminated soils and hazardous or dangerous materials; a requirement to obtain appropriate air and water permits; compliance with the noise ordinances of appropriate jurisdictions; and introduction of biofiltration fea- tures for stormwater treatment prior to discharge into the Duwamish Waterway. Chapter 1: Summary 1 -6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Proposed Action IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ALTERNATIVES LAND AND SHORELINE USE All alternatives .are generally consistent with the comprehensive plans and policies for the area. Compliance with development standards will be evaluated on a project -spe- cific basis. With new construction to replace outmoded facilities, the Manufacturing Center alternative would have similar impacts to the Proposed Action. The No Action alternative does not provide as much opportunity for streambank enhancement or shoreline access. TRANSPORTATION The No Action alternative increases the area's employment density to about 25,000, a level consistent with historical figures and about 17 percent higher than the 21,400 employees in the corridor as of May 1991. Transportation impacts are anticipated to be similar but slightly less than for the Proposed Action. The Manufacturing Center alternative includes an employment figure of 20,000, and is expected to have fewer transportation impacts than the other alternatives. OTHER IMPACTS Impacts to other elements of the environment would be similar to the Proposed Action for the Manufacturing Center alternative. Fewer opportunities to improve environ- mental health, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, stormwater, and other public utility facilities are afforded through the No Action alternative. ISSUES AND CHOICES In general, the Proposed Action and alternatives anticipate a redevelopment of large, outmoded manufacturing facilities, many built during and just after World War II. The revitalization of an employment center in this location is consistent with growth management efforts to locate density within already urbanized areas where infrastructure improvements are generally in place and where transit service can be provided efficiently. Several of the 13 planning goals established in the Growth Management Act are positively addressed by the proposed redevelopment of the industrial corridor. They include urban growth; reduction of sprawl; transportation; economic development; open space and recreation; and environment. The Proposed Action is also consistent with VISION 2020, a long -range growth and transportation strategy for the central Puget Sound area produced in 1990 by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (now known as the Puget Sound Regional Council). VISION 2020 calls for the containment of growth, limiting the extent of sprawl into surrounding farmlands, forests and open spaces. It encourages the concentration of Chapter 1: summary 1 -7 Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Alternatives employment into employment centers, of which the Duwamish corridor is one. VISION 2020 emphasizes the movement of people through increased transit and ridesharing investments and deemphasizes highway and roadway expansions. The challenge the City of Tukwila faces, along with King County and the City of Seattle, is to apply appropriate conditions that address the actual impacts of the pro- posed redevelopment without, in the process, creating disincentives to that redevelop- ment, thereby discouraging reinvestment in an important industrial employment center in the region. 10022477.SEA 1-8 Chapter 1: Summary Issues and Choices 10 Table 1 -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 4 Element of Environment IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Impacts Mitigation Measures Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Manufacturing Center Land and Shoreline Use • Land Use . • Shoreline Use • Land Use Plans and Policies • Shoreline Plans and Policies • Recreation Plans • Zoning Redevelopment may have height, bulk, and scale impacts. May encourage similar development trend in the study area. Increases square footage in non - water - dependent manufacturing research and laboratory uses. Consistent with industrial plans and policies. Consistent with shoreline plans and policies. Consistent with recreation plans (see shoreline use). Uses comply; possible non- compliance with develop- ment standards. Boeing proposing Design Guidelines and Standards. None required. Proposal will enhance shoreline public access, trails, and river banks. None required. None required. None required. Variances or text amend- ments may be requested. Slower replacement of older facilities. Would not encourage redevelopment trends. Existing non - water- dependent uses will re- main. Limited access to shoreline. No impact. No impact. No impact. Non - conforming. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. . Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Table 1 -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures - Page 2 of 4 Element of Environment IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Impacts Mitigation Measures Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Manufacturing Center • Shoreline Development Standards Uses comply., possible non- compliance with development standards. None required. Non- conforming. Same as Proposed Action. Transportation • Vehicular Traffic • Accidents • Parking • Transit . Daily traffic volumes would increase approximately 12 percent. Peak hour volumes would increase 15 percent over No- Action and 30 percent over exist- ing conditions. Slight increase in number of accidents. Surplus of parking spaces. Increased ridership may require additional service. Widen E. Marginal Way S., south of South Boeing Access Road, as well as completing previous com- mitments or new mitiga- tion, and Transportation management Plan (TMP). None required. None required. None required. Background traffic volume would increase approxi- mately 13 percent over existing. Same as Proposed Action. Surplus of parking spaces. No impact. Same as No Action. Same as Proposed Action. Surplus of parking spaces. No impact. Population, Housing, and Employment Minimal impact. 3,600 additional Boeing employ- ees would come from other facilities in region. None required. No impact. No impact. No addi- . tional employees. Air Construction - related • impacts. Project- specific best man- agement practices. No impact. Less than Proposed Action. • Table 1 -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Page 3 of 4 o Element of Environment IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Impacts . Mitigation Measures Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Manufacturing Center Environmental Health • Potential Releases • Noise Demolition activities could Project - specific mitigation uncover contaminants. as required. Minimal operational im- Project - specific mitigation pact. Improved facilities as required. ' and procedures would de- crease potential hazards. Construction - related activ- Project - specific mitigation ities would increase noise. as required. Additional run -up activity Project - specific mitigation will increase noise. as required. Additional traffic will result None required. Boeing in slight increases. proposing TMP to reduce traffic volumes. No demolition. Same as Proposed Action. Less opportunity to im- prove conditions. Same as Proposed Action. Less construction. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Stormwater, Water Quality, and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Water quality will be im- Boeing proposing biofiltra- proved, as will fish and tion of stormwater prior to wildlife habitat. discharge where possible to Duwamish Waterway, coor- dination with Muckleshoot Tribe and appropriate agencies on habitat enhancement. No improvement to water Same as Proposed quality. Action. Table 1 -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Page 4 of 4 Element of Environment IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Impacts Mitigation Measures Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Manufacturing Center Energy s Energy demands may increase. Construction - related impacts. Project - specific mitigation as required. Agreement with Seattle City Light to work cooperatively in implementing energy- saving measures. None required. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. . No construction. Same as Proposed Action. Public Services and Utilities • Fire/Police • Water /Sewer • Stormwater Construction- related impacts. Slight increase in calls for service. Decrease in fire -" related calls. Water /sewer capacity ap- pear adequate. Compre- hensive plan under study. System improvements. Onsite biofiltration facili- ties proposed where practical. Project - specific mitigation as required. None required. Project - specific upgrades at connections as required. Participate in regional basin planning effort; develop comprehensive drainage plan for Boeing properties. No construction. Same as Proposed Action. Increased calls for fire Same as Proposed protection. Action. No impact. Same as Proposed Action. No impact. Same as Proposed .Action. 10020E33.SEA Chapter 2 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION This chapter of the Final EIS provides additional information on several issues ad- dressed in the Draft EIS. Sections on shoreline public access, transportation, storm - water and water quality, and energy are included in this chapter. SHORELINE ACCESS The Boeing Company proposal for shoreline public access and the impacts of the proposed redevelopment on the shoreline are described in the Draft EIS on pages 3 -28 and 3 -29, as well as in Figure 3 -6. A revised Figure 3 -6 that better distinguishes between existing public access and public access areas proposed for "enhancement" is reproduced in the Errata section of this FEIS. The Boeing Company has a total of approximately 18,000 linear feet of shoreline property along the Duwamish Waterway. Approximately 4,800 linear feet of this total will be affected by the redevelopment proposal. The Boeing proposal indicates that this 4,800 linear feet of shoreline will be available only for employee access. The proposal also includes new or enhanced public access at the Oxbow site. Approx- imately 4,800 linear feet of shoreline at the Oxbow site will be enhanced with three view points and /or canoe launches. This results in a proposal that will provide new or, enhanced public access along the corridor according to a one -to -one linear ratio; i.e., one linear foot of public access frontage for each linear foot of frontage redeveloped but not available for access by the general public. The proposal would locate the new or enhanced public access on the west side of the Duwamish Waterway. There has been general agreement during recreational trail planning efforts by the jurisdictions involved that an emphasis on the west side of the waterway is appropriate as a first priority, and the proposal is consistent with that emphasis. Shoreline Master Program (SMP) requirements for the Boeing properties included in the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal are described in the Draft EIS (see pages 3 -10, 3 -14, and 3 -21). The City of Seattle's shoreline public access standards are described in the Seattle Municipal Code Section 23.60.160. Seattle's SMP requires public access for non- water- dependent industrial uses along the Duwamish Waterway. Flexibility is incorporated into the standards of this section, which allow for public access to be provided "in the context of the entire project" for those developments extending for more than 1,000 linear feet of shoreline. Guidelines include a minimum of one public access site for each 3,500 linear feet of shoreline. 2-1 Chapter 2: Additional Environmental Information Shoreline Access King County's Shoreline Master Program does not currently require public access for non - water - dependent industrial uses. Also, other than shoreline enhancements, no redevelopment is proposed for Boeing sites within the jurisdiction of King County's SMP. King County is in the process of updating its SMP. The latest review draft (dated March 1992) indicates few changes that would affect public access requirements for industrial shoreline uses. The City of Tukwila anticipates that an update to its Shoreline Master Program will begin shortly. The City currently uses the standards in King County's SMP for the Duwamish Corridor area. No public access is currently required for non- water - depen- dent industrial uses. While Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal exceeds the existing requirements, the City of Tukwila believes that the public interest may be better served if flexibility is built into Boeing's shoreline public access proposal. Over time, there may emerge other areas for new or enhanced public access that are not currently identified in the Boeing redevelopment proposal. Also, the update of the Tukwila SMP may result in new public access requirements. Within its jurisdiction, the City of Tukwila intends to accept Boeing's proposed 1:1 public access ratio and proposed locations (as indicated on page 31 of Boeing's proposal and summarized on the map on page xvii of this Final EIS) as appropriate maximum frontage devoted to public access. However, the City will entertain alternatives to this 1:1 frontage ratio or alternative locations, if new opportunities present themselves. Such alternatives would be required to provide equal or better public access opportunities in the form of new locations, enhanced existing locations, and /or public habitat enhancements . with appropriate signage. Project- specific opportunities or constraints will be considered on a case -by -case basis. The intent is to incorporate flexibility so as not to stifle opportunities not currently identified. The City of Tukwila also recognizes that the individual jurisdictions maintain indepen- dent discretion to implement SEPA and shoreline master program authority based on identified impacts and on codes in effect at the time of application. TRANSPORTATION OXBOW RAMP ALTERNATIVES The Draft EIS noted a previous requirement that Boeing fund the construction of a southbound ramp. onto SR 99 at about South 102nd Street. The new ramp, known as the "Oxbow ramp" because of its proximity to the meander of the Duwamish River at the Oxbow site, was required by King County as part of project approval for develop- ment of the Oxbow site. The Oxbow site has now been developed, but the Oxbow ramp has not been construc- ted. At the direction of the City of Tukwila and the Washington State Department of Chapter 2: Additional Environmental Information 2 -2 Shoreline Access/Transportation Transportation (WSDOT), alternative improvements that provide mitigation equivalent to that offered by the Oxbow ramp have been reviewed. Alternative improvements are being considered for several reasons. Although the Oxbow ramp would divert an estimated 3,000 trips per day from East Marginal Way South and Pacific Highway South, the entering .volume of the traffic from the ramp and the spacing of the new on -ramp just before an existing off -ramp would reduce the esti- mated .level of service (LOS) on SR 99 south of the Oxbow interchange to LOS E. The section would introduce a new weaving conflict with a potential for high accident rates. In addition, the Oxbow ramp would serve a rather small number of users from a 4,525 -space parking lot used exclusively by The Boeing Company. The opportunity to construct improvements elsewhere that provide equivalent mitigation but serve a broader segment of the public was recognized by Tukwila and WSDOT, the agencies with jurisdiction over the issue. A feasibility study has concluded that level -of- service improvements similar to those offered by the Oxbow ramp are possible with revisions to the SR 599 southbound on -ramps at Pacific Highway South, about 0.75 mile south of the Oxbow ramp location (Figure 2 -1). A double left -turn lane on Pacific Highway South and a ramp section of two lanes onto SR 599 were determined to be feasible. In combination with capacity improvements on Pacific Highway South and the portion of East Marginal Way South, south of the South Boeing Access Road, these improvements appear to offer cost - effective mitigation of Oxbow -site traffic as well as the impacts of peak -hour traffic resulting from the proposed action. Currently, the final comparison of the Pacific Highway South /SR 599 alternatives is being completed at the direction of WSDOT. Preliminary LOS results are shown in Table 2 -1. MITIGATION Transportation impacts of the proposed redevelopment of the Duwamish corridor are primarily related to a workforce shift from manufacturing to office, research, and labo- ratory employees. Although total employment in the corridor is not expected to in- crease beyond 25,000 during the 10 -year planning period and total daily trips are expected to decrease slightly, the peak -hour traffic volumes are estimated to increase by about 15 percent over the No Action alternative. A pro -rata share of improvements along those portions of Pacific Highway South and East Marginal Way South south of the South Boeing Access Road is therefore warranted for impacts related to the re- development proposal. Chapter 2: Additional Environmental Information 2 -3 shoreline Access/Transportation SO. 116TH WAY 000 ..t z I SR 599 O SB ON RAMP 0 �% It- 0 OPTIONAL PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH SR 599 NB OFF RAMP NOTES: - 750 feet between Intersection and bridge - 500 of dual left turn and 500 feet of single left tum lane for southbound Pacific Highway South -' - /_ _, Figure 2 -1 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH GEOMETRY Table 2 -1 LOS Comparison for Oxbow Ramp Alternatives Alternative Intersection LOS South Boeing Access Road 112th/Pacific Highway South SR 599/Pacific Highway South Original Oxbow , C D C Oxbow HOV only D E E Double left, double ramp D B' D Double left, one HOV only D B' E 'With an additional southbound through -lane. I In addition, the estimated 3,000 daily trips and 900 peak -hour trips that would have used the Oxbow ramp will create impacts along Pacific Highway South and the south portion of East Marginal Way South. If the Oxbow ramp is not built, mitigation would include completion of improvements south of the South Boeing Access Road on East. Marginal Way South and appropriate funding for improvements in the Pacific Highway South portion of the study area. These improvements include revisions to the Pacific Highway South/SR 599 left -turn lanes and on -ramps and replacement of the bridge over the Duwamish River. The Boeing responsibility for these improvements is full funding for the left -turn lanes and on -ramps and one -third (the equivalent of an addi- tional two lanes on the existing four -lane bridge) of funding for the bridge replacement. This mitigation would replace the previously imposed Oxbow ramp construction requirement and is not related to impacts from the redevelopment proposal. Third, improvements are required along East Marginal Way South from the Seattle city limits to the South Boeing Access Road. Tukwila requires frontage improvements on a parcel -by- parcel basis as development permits are issued. Several previous require- ments for frontage improvements have not been completed at this time. Additional frontage improvements could be required for individual projects that implement the redevelopment plan. Boeing has agreed to participate, along with the City of Tukwila and WSDOT, in the funding for full reconstruction of East Marginal Way South from Seattle city limits to the South Boeing Access Road. Boeing's participation in the East Marginal Way South funding will satisfy previous requirements as well as all future frontage improvement requirements related to the corridor redevelopment proposal. The locations of these improvements are illustrated in revised Figure 4 -7. Finally, Boeing will implement a transportation management plan (TMP) to reduce single- occupant - vehicle (SOV) commute trips by a combination of rideshare and transit incentives, facility design, and SOV disincentives. The master TMP adopted by Boeing and Metro and possible additional elements of the TMP to be implemented along the corridor are included in Appendix A. 2-5 Chapter 2: AddIUonal Environmental Information Transportation STORMWATER AND WATER QUALITY EXISTING STORMWATER CONDITIONS The Draft EIS stated that the storm drainage system on Boeing sites was independent of the East Marginal Way South roadway drainage system (page 8 -1 of the Draft EIS). ,. Further analysis indicates that Boeing drainage systems do carry storm drainage flows from public facilities. Documentation about the various public and private systems in the study area, including their volume and quality of discharges, is not available at this time. The City of Tukwila's "Fire District Number 1 Basin Study" recommended improve- ments to the East Marginal Way South drainage system as one of four priority projects, especially as the City undertakes improvements to the roadway. Redevelopment of adjacent Boeing sites provides an opportunity for the City and The Boeing Company to assess the storm drainage issues in the corridor in more detail and begin documenta- tion of existing conditions. EXISTING WILDLIFE HABITAT As discussed in the Draft EIS (Pg 8 -3 report e ort identified fish, birds and near or adjacent to Boeing properties. Of the nine mammal species, the Stellar sea lion is the only species federally listed as threatened. It is also a state candidate species meaning that it has been proposed to be listed as a state threatened, endangered or sensitive species. The harbor seal and killer whale, also observed in the Duwamish estuary, are both on the state monitor list, indicating that the state is gathering information on these species as there is concern about their survivability. Of the birds listed in Tanner's inventory, the marbled murrelet is the only bird on a federal list. It is a candidate species, and also on the state candidate list. Several species of birds are identified on the state monitor list. They are the great blue heron; green- backed heron; horned grebe; merlin; red - necked grebe; ring- necked pheasant; and western grebe. None of the fish species identified in the Tanner report are on federal or state lists. MITIGATION Runoff from stormwater in the drainage basin that includes the Duwamish corridor study area is generally collected in storm drains and discharged via outfalls into the Chapter 2: Additional Environmental Information 2 -6 Stormwater and Water Quality Duwamish Waterway. Additional discharges occur from outfalls that carry combined sewer overflows during rainy periods. Outfall locations and types are illustrated in the Draft EIS in Figure 8-1 (page 8 -2). Concern about the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff in urban areas has led to federal and state agency interest in greater use of biofiltration swales, oil -water separators, and other ways to minimize adverse water quality impacts of runoff from streets, parking lots, and other paved surfaces. Changing regulations for stormwater outfall design and water quality monitoring requirements, and . the recognition that drainage basins do not typically coincide with property lines or city boundaries, further complicate the issue. The increasing awareness of the relationship between stormwater runoff and water quality suggests a broader regional basin -wide approach to drainage planning. In that context, the City of Tukwila anticipates a three -part approach to stormwater issues raised by the Boeing redevelopment proposal. First, site - specific review on a project - by- project basis will include permit requirements for compliance with applicable storm - water collection and discharge regulations of the resource agencies with jurisdiction. Second, Boeing will participate in a regional basin planning effort, to be initiated by the affected jurisdictions. Third, upon completion of a regional stormwater basin plan, Boeing will develop a comprehensive stormwater drainage master plan for its prop- erties in the Duwamish corridor, consistent with the regional basin planning effort. The City anticipates that additional details of this three -part approach to stormwater mitigation will be included in a mitigation document. The intent is that Boeing will take an active part in the development of the basin plan, and will take responsibility for a comprehensive drainage plan for its property in the basin. It is anticipated that the development of the basin -wide plan and the Boeing drainage plan will be accom- plished during the 10 -year time frame being proposed for the corridor redevelopment. ENERGY ELECTRICAL ENERGY The Draft EIS indicated that Boeing is developing a region -wide energy management plan, to be implemented in 1992. The goal of the plan, as stated in Boeing's Duwam- ish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal, was to maintain electric energy consumption from public power supplies at or below the present level by the year 2002. Conserva- tion, load growth management, and cogeneration strategies were to be explored and, as appropriate, developed to attain the goal. Further review of the energy management plan has indicated that this goal may not be realistic. As a result, while conservation, load growth management, cogeneration strategies, and other means of minimizing electrical consumption will be explored, the goal for the Duwamish Corridor portion of Chapter 2: Additional Environmental Information 2 -7 Stormwater and Water Quality/Energy the region -wide energy management plan is restated: to minimize electrical consump- tion from public power supply. Proposed development of Boeing - controlled properties in the Duwamish corridor may result in an increase in electrical energy consumption. In addition to the direct impact of increased energy consumption, indirect impacts may include a contribution to overall load growth in the region, which in turn contributes to the need for new generation projects. The Boeing Company and Seattle City Light have agreed to work together on a broad variety of energy conservation measures during the 10 -year redevelopment period. A Letter of Understanding has been drafted that confirms the agreement between the two parties to work cooperatively, with a goal of exceeding energy code requirements. The intent of these energy management efforts in the Duwamish Corridor is to miti- gate the direct and indirect impacts of increased electrical energy consumption. A copy of the Letter of Understanding is included as Appendix B in this Final EIS. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Electrical energy consumption may increase, which in turn may contribute to the need for new generation projects. 100223BE.SEA Chapter 2: Additional Environmental Information 2-8 Energy Chapter 3 COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES This section contains all comment letters on the DEIS received during the comment period by the City of Tukwila. The letters are grouped in the following order: Indian tribes; federal agencies; state agencies; regional agencies; King County; and cities. Letters that have substantive comments requiring a response will have a comment number in the right margin that corresponds to a response number. The responses for each comment letter immediately follow the letter. The first comment in each letter is designated as No. 1. Letters and statements without substantive comments do not have comment numbers and are responded to with the statement "Comments acknowledged." Where similar comments are made in different letters, the reader is referred to preced- ing letters and responses by the name of the person or agency making the comment, the comment number, and the page number. 3 -1 �MUCKLESNOOT INDIAN TRIBE FISHERIES DEPARTMENT 40405 AUBURN- ENUMCLAW ROAD - AUBURN, WASHINGTON 99002 (20s) gt2S--.703o FA.Y tr (20e) oes -cam ' I June, 1992 Mr. Robert Betts, Project Coordinator Department of Community. Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: DV'WAMISH CORRIDOR RRDEVELO T PROPOSAL kA! . • .1k Ei 1 IA TE Dear Mr. Betts: The Fisheries Department of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement fnr the Roeing Company Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal. We offer the following comments outlining our concerns regarding potential impacts to Treaty fishing, archeological sites, nearshore habitat, water quality and suggested mitigations. We Welcome the opportunity w address this proposal as a whole, because it will allow us to develop the most mutually beneficial resolunon of issues concerning the Tribe. This letter will provide the framework for detailed discussions during a meeting between the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and the City of Tukwila. 1. STATUS OF THE MU. UCICLES.HOOT INDIAN TAE The Duwamish /Green River system, historically and presently, is one of the most important river systems in the Tribe's Usual and Acr.0 tnfned area of fishing. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. a federally recognized Indian Tribe, holds federally guaranteed treaty rights to fisheries in the Duwamish Cnrririnr Proposal area [United Srares v. wasrun& tore, 384 F. Supp. 212 (W. D. Wash. 1974), aff'd520 F. 2d 676 (9th cir. 197P), cert denied 423 U. S. 1086 (1976)]. These rights are directly affected both by the potential impacts of the development, and by the directives, policies, and anticipated requests for changes to zoning provisions, shoreline requirements, and sensitive areas regulations of involved jurisdictions. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe's right of access to the Usual and Accustomed aiea of fishing is further affirmed by Muckleshoot Tribe v. Hall, 698 F.Supp. 1504 (W.D. Wash. 1988). In that case, the Court held that neither the Corps of Engineers, nor the City of Seattle, could issue permits for construction and operation of a facility without the consent of either Congress or the Vibe, if that facility would eliminate a portion of the Tribe's Usual and Accustomed area of fishing. The Tribe assumes mutual recognition and acceptance by the City of .Tukwila of 3 -3 1 1 the government -to- government relationship established by the State/Tribal Governmental Relations Policy adopted by the State of Washington in 1989. 2. STORMWATER AND WATER QUALITY A. Stormwater unoff and Impervious Surface Areas The TW.TS (pg S -S) indicates that impervious surface arca will decrease. This statement should be validated by presentation of supporting data. Boeing has also indicated that stormwater discharge will be reduced. The PRTC Should quantify these reductions, specify the design storm events that stormwater facilities will treat, and detc.iinine the prujrcted release rate. B. Water Quality Incorporation of oil /water separators and biofiltration swales is necessary to improve water quality in the nearshore areas. Such water quality features shall be mandatory, not optional. The long history of industrial use at the Boeing property has led to localized subsurface contamination. Decreases in impervious surface area, increased surface water inflow, or changes in hydrostatic pressure may alter shallow groundwater hydrology with resultant potential migration of contaminants at locations some distance away from the sites of increased porosity. Such migration may result in human or environmental exposure to contaminants. The FEIS must propose a detection, monitoring, and remediation plan for this potential migration. 3. ARCHAEOLOGY The Duwamish River was a nexus of re- settlement Tribal culture. Redevelopment activities may impact sites of historical and cultural importance. The only reference to Tribal cultural or archeological sites is to the Duwamish Tribe (DEIS pg 3 -16), a Tribe not recognized Federally. To ensure that discovery of artifacts, cultural or historical sites does not severely hamper redevelopment, or create problems of disputed control, a Memorandum Of Agreement should be developed with the Federally recognized Muckleshoot Tribe to determiiie and implement measures needed to mitigate impacts upon Native American cultural resources. 4. NON WATER DEPENDENT SHORELINE USE Boeing's proposed mitigation measures (compensatory setbacks such as plazas and other pedestrian oriented facilities) for non -water dependent shoreline use are insufficient. These measures offer no fisheries habitat compensation for the continued impacts of non -water dependent facilities upon shorelines, particularly when facilities abut, shade, or overtop shoreline or water, and therefore displace and impact fisheries habitat. Shoreline development policies (WAC 173 -14 -055 (6)] direct that a vested nonconforming use shall not he changed to another nonconforming use. Given that the focus of the proposed redevelopment is to switch from manufacturing to an emphasis on laboratory, office and deve1oomentai uses. the FATS chniilri evarnine whath.r rhe curre lit. ot s n inning /Unfit Pc, ollowing radeuatopm.nt, will„rernein vested es nonconforming. 3 -4 2 5. EISMBILSZABEEELLErrIANCEMENT AND RESTORATION A. Introduction Tnough we welcome t►.e statement that consideration may be given "w replacing riprap bulkheads v ith new retention structures and nparian vel;etarion" (DEIS -pg 8 -7), the emphas's for streambank enhancement work appears to be public and employee access rathei than fish habitat: "restore or enhance the Duwamish Waterway shoreline whe' a needed with new rlprap bulkheads, shoreline vegetation, pedestrian access trails Ind shoreline viewpoints" (Proposal /Design Guidelines [PDO] pg 3, DEIS pg 2-4). The FEIS .r.iust expand upon the stated intent to both enhance current habitat and restore lost }-abitat for the shorelines under Boeing's control (DEIS pg 8 -7). It should indicate specific enhancement and restoration goals over the lifetime of the project. B. Riverbanjc Enhancement Streambank enhancement for public access and stroarnbank enhancement for fish and * . ildlife habitat are not clearly distinguished; occurring in the same sentences on pages 1-5, 2 -7, 3 -26, 8.7 of the DEIS. This obscures the objective of shoreline bank rec coration. Enhancement of shoreline public access, trails, and streambanks does not c•Jmpensate for Loss of water habitat due to non -water dependent development in the •. horeline zone. Stream bank enhancement must clearly indicate sufficient compensatory fisheries habitat mitigation. To further ensure habitat enhancement and restoration, a concise explanation of what is meant by "restoring the riverbank where needed" (PDO pages 2, 3) is required. 6 The Proposal/Design Guidelines (Pg5) "proposes to enhance the Duwamish Waterway shoreline in the corridor where needed by replacing old riprap bulkheads with new retention and riparian vegetation ". This is reinforced by the statement (PDC pg 24), "restore the Duwamish Waterway bank ((needed using designs that are compatible with fisheries habitat". These statements imply that habitat restoration will be limited to areas where bank stabilization features are replaced, or renovated, with another bank stabilization process. The FEIS must state what length of streambank fisheries habitat restoration is compensatory mitigation for bank stabilization work, and what length of enhancement is noncompensatory mitigation or restoration. To assist in this, Table 3- 2, Shoreline classifications, should indicate by linear feet the nature of the current and proposed shoreline (i.e. riprap, bulkhead, intertidal mud flat, emergent marsh, pile mounted buildings). The Proposal /Design Guidelines (pg 26) states that a more gradual nearshore slope could be created by excavating the upper slope and tilling the submerged area. Slope adjustments must come entirely at the expense of upland, not at the expense of the intertidal habitat. Additionally, the conceptual shoreline type documents in the Proposal/Development Guidelines state that shoreline setbacks should be measured from the pre - existing shoreline prior to bank improvements. This should be change4.to read "measured from the pre - existing shoreline or altered shoreline whichever is greater ". It is stated (DEIS pg 2 -7) that "enhancement of the shoreline will be focussed on enhancing habitat with the use of rlprap, perched beaches, and riparian vegetation ". 3 -5 3 The Duwamish River has an excess •.f intertidal, large, hard surface material, and a dearth of intertidal mud flare anti rr.arsher. Given the Iength of shoreline involved, costs of enhancement, and the sit',s described in the Tanner report, the FEIS should E propose and discuss fisheries ha',itat enhancement for habitats in short supply. Additionally, the potential advntages and disadvantages of offsite enhancement should be considered and discussed. C. Habitat Restoration The DEIS implies that the Tanner (1991) report, "Potential Intertidal Habitat Restoration Sites in the Duwamish River Estuary" identifies most available habitat restorations sites. Th ..s is not entirely rtnrrect and underestimates restoration possibilities. The 'Pinner report identified 24 potential habitat restorations sites that consisted of undew loped shoreline areas. generally one acre in size or larger (Tanner 1991) Additiorl,:iy, the D>:.iS (pg 8 -4) states that "Me urily Boeing columned site identified in the upon for potential restoration is Slip No, 6 ". Boeing, however, abuts other sites identified in the Tanner report. To p.1 Ace habitat restoration within the same time frame and overall planning 'process as rite redevelopment, the FEIS should propose specific habitat restoration goals over the lifetime of the redevelopment project: D. .• • • II e n is es Res o ,I' ■/ 41 • -e e.l_ The DEIS (pages 1 -5, 2-4, 2 -7, 3 -29, 8 -7) refers to proposed fisheries habitat rev _cation in c. ooperation with Federal and State agencies. No refcicucc is made to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe at a co- manager of the fisheries resource. The Muckleshoot ' ndian Tribe, as a federally recognized co- manager of the fisheries resource must be included with the Federal and State agencies in planning fisheries habitat mitigation measures and restoration work. 5. SUMMARY Though it is difficult to propose specific fisheries habitat enhancement and restoration projects in the context of a non - project EIS, specific goals to be achieved over the lifetime of'the project can be elucidated, The DEIS has stated Boeing's concept for future development with a broad framework. To avoid disputes regarding mitigation measures for both the redevelopment as a whole, and project specific sites, overall fisheries habitat enhancement and restoration goals must be outlined. The Muckleshoot Fisheries Department is willing to assist in the development of those goals. Given the significance of this redevelopment proposal, and the status of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe as a co- manager of they fithenes retouree, we request c. meeting with the City of Tukwila to further outline our concerns. If you have any questions regarding this letter. please call me at R%5 -7030. i ce , Roderick Malcom Habitat Specialist 3 -6 GC: rims commission OffiCe of the Tribal Aaon ley/ Rob Otsea BIA/ Gerald Cobell FWS/ COE/ Regulatory Branch WDF/ Randy Carman DCLU/ BALD/ BOEJNG/ Jeff Zahir 3-7 5 RESPONSE TO MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 1. The . City of Tukwila recognizes and accepts the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe's rights to fisheries in the Duwamish /Green River system, as defined by federal treaty and subsequent court decisions. 2. The proposal for redevelopment of Boeing properties in the Duwamish corridor is a. conceptual master plan for implementation over a ten -year period. The proposal includes design guidelines that will be applicable for site - specific proj- ect actions and broadly describes the evolution of the facilities in the corridor in terms of square footage and employment by use category. Individual projects are not identified in the proposal, and will receive separate environmental review when proposals are submitted for site - specific project actions. The programmatic environmental review provided in this non - project EIS is general as a result, and cannot quantify reductions in impervious surface area or stormwater discharges at this time. 3. In general, The Boeing Company's policy is to investigate redevelopment sites prior to construction for potential soil contamination. The investigation typically includes areas within the proposed footprints of new structures, areas within the footprints of structures to be removed, and areas proposed for replacement of impervious surface with landscaping, grass swales, or other more porous cover. The issue of potential localized subsurface contamination and potential migra- tion of contaminants with decreased impervious surface will be addressed in a comprehensive stormwater drainage plan for Boeing properties in the Duwam- ish corridor as part of the mitigation requirements for this redevelopment pro- posal. See Chapter 2 of this FEIS for more information. 4. Figure 3 -3 of the Draft EIS and page 3 -16, fourth paragraph, lines one and two have been corrected to reflect these comments. See Errata sheet on page xv. Project - specific environmental review will provide opportunities for involvement on a case -by -case basis as required. 5. Non -water dependent uses are permitted uses in the shoreline regulations of all three jurisdictions. The Boeing Company's existing facilities are considered conforming uses, and currently proposed uses following redevelopment are also permitted uses. However, there are structures on some sites that are non- conforming with regard to development standards, such as setbacks. These are legal non - conforming developments established prior to current shoreline code limitations. The Boeing Company has indicated that every effort will be made to ensure that new development will conform to the development standards of the existing regulations. Program requirements may lead to requests for vari- ances, special exceptions, or text amendments, as is customarily allowed within the regulations. 6. The focus of the City of Tukwila in addressing the shoreline impacts of the proposal is to balance public access, streambank enhancement for fish and wild- life habitat, and industrial redevelopment. Based on SEPA, mitigation measures may only be required where there are•significant adverse impacts arising from a proposal. Generally, the Duwamish corridor redevelopment will have positive impacts for fisheries, with improved water quality in the stormwater discharges and increased vegetation along the streambank. Previous actions along the Duwamish corridor have created an intensively devel- oped manufacturing environment. Much of this past activity was completed prior to the current movement toward careful attention to shoreline habitat. The current proposal does not include redevelopment activities that further degrade the shoreline's habitat values. Streamside work is proposed only for erosion protection, and only where current erosion protection needs restoration. The shoreline protection guidelines included on pages 26-30 of the proposal have been discussed with the Washington Department of Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and all recommended changes have been fully incorporated. The net impact of these proposed guidelines will be to improve fisheries habitat over existing conditions. The net positive impact will result from improved water quality in stormwater discharges and increased vegetation along the streambank. The City appreciates and recognizes the Tribe's emphasis on fish and wildlife habitat restoration and has requested that Boeing streambank enhancement projects be developed in coordination with the Tribe as well as federal and state fish and wildlife agencies. In considering the proposal's positive, although limited, habitat impacts, the City considers the proposal to represent a reason- able balance of shoreline protection, habitat enhancement, and public access. 3 -10 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEE P.O. BOX -3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-2255, Planning Branch Robert Betts, Project Coordinator Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Betts: re rrD 111T i re Li! I t" f ( jut; 00 IA92 1 CITY�. ♦�i 1 j: jr�. PLA1Vr;ii,,iL DEPT. We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal with respect to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' areas of specia -1 expertise and jurisdiction by law as desginated by the President's Council on Environmental Quality on December 21, 1984. We believe the EIS and future planning would be improved with increased emphasis on water quality and sediment contamination impacts and mitigation, particularly as these may affect fish and wildlife habitat. Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement. Sincerely, 0/19,-,/\S Kardn S. Northup Chief, Environmental Resources Section 3 -11 RESPONSE TO U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1. A comprehensive stormwater drainage plan for Boeing properties along the Duwamish Corridor will be required as part of a mitigation strategy for the basin including the study area. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of this FEIS. Additional opportunities to influence improvements in water quality and sediment contamination will be provided during project - specific environ- mental and permit application reviews. 3 -13 4 June 1992 FROM: Mr. Robert Betts Project Coordinator Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Elliott Bay Panel Representatives Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2725 Montlake Boulevard East Seattle, WA 98112 SUBJECT: Boeing Company Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal L� L JU i'l 0 5 X992 CITY Ut- !"uKb LS PLANNING DEPT. Thank you for allowing us to comment on the proposal after the 1 June deadline. The Elliott Bay Panel (member agencies are: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Ecology, Muckleshoot Tribe, Suquamish Tribe, Metro and City of Seattle) is actively pursuing habitat restoration, sediment remediation, and source control improvements in the Duwamish Waterway and Elliott Bay. We would encourage the City of Tukwila and other government entities not to view the condition of the system as static. Development actions must not jeopardize environmental improvements that the Panel will implement, and should be regarded as opportunities to achieve further improvements in habitat and shoreline conditions. The Elliott Bay Panel is very interested in the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal and in working in concert with the Boeing Company in order to improve wildlife habitat in the Duwamish Waterway. The Panel would like to coordinate its efforts with other restoration projects in the Duwamish Waterway in ordef to increase the effectiveness of Panel restoration activities. The Elliott Bay Panel wishes to be included in any opportunity to comment on Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment as these opportunities arise. If you have any questions or wish to contact The Elliott Bay Panel, please call Mike Francisco at 553 -5569. Signature page attached. i 1 FOR the United States of America, A/ NOADepartment of the Interior. .;tif/t , & Name/Tide � /' / FOR the State of Washington, Washington Department of Ecology: FOR the Suquamish Indian Tribe: P14,1,4 P.� u►� s / t'r s �Oir' l Cs C n ✓Yiv� rko�. �� M ak Name/Title FOR the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe: 1y,N:t`•r 1er;r\: . :tw•:r:� i:; ;.,� FOR the Municipality-of Metropolitan Seattle: yLA,.,i, Name/Title .! RESPONSE TO ELLIOTT BAY PANEL 1. As noted in Response 6 to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe comment letter, net impacts from the Duwamish corridor redevelopment proposal are anticipated to be positive. The proposal includes guidelines for erosion protection that incor- porate habitat value considerations. The Elliott Bay Panel will be included in the mailing list for future notices and opportunities to comment on the Duwam- ish corridor redevelopment. 3 -17 V.171 Washington State Department of Transportation Duane Berentson Secretary of Transportanr ii May 28, 1992 Mr. Robert S. Betts Fraj c t Coorclinatoi , Bueiity Duwamish EIS Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 600 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Betts: District 1 15325 Southeast 301h Plane BPIleviie, WA 98007 -6:36 (206) 562 4000 -127-30/N -- [MAY2919921 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DE Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal DEIS Review Comments This letter is in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued by the city of Tukwila for the Boeing Company's proposed redevelopment of properties in the Duwamish corridor. Over the next ten years, approximately 3.7 million square feet of floor area will be demolished and replaced with 4.3 million square feet of new floor area. Boeing's emphasis in the Duwamish corridor will shift from manufacturing to research and development. Company employment levels in the corridor would not exceed a population of 25,000. The 4.5 mile long corridor encompasses land on both sides of the Duwamish Waterway between Ellis Avenue South on the north and South 126th Street on the .south. Two build alternatives and a no- action alternative are examined in the DEIS. Our comments regarding the DEIS for this proposal are as follows: 1. The Land and Shoreline Use section of the DEIS indicates that the proposal is generally •consistent with the comprehensive plans and policies of the city of Seattle, the city of Tukwila and icing County. The Shoreline Management Master Plans and Sensitive Areas Ordinances of the three jurisdictions also seem to have been incorporated in the design guidelines for this proposal. Although the proposal appears to be consistent with the goals and policies of Vision 2020 and the Growth Management Act, the DEIS does not mention this relationship. The DEIS should indicate the connection between the proposal and Vision 2020, the adopted regional transportation plan and development strategy, and the provisions of the Growth Management Act. 3 -19 Mr. Robert S. Betts Duwamish Corridor May 28, 1992 Page 2 2. The Transportation section of the DEIS indicates that the proposed alternative would generate more first shift employee trips than the other alternatives. As a result, the level of service (LOS) on several roadways in the corridor would deteriorate to an unacceptable condition. To mitigate L1iG at]vct�e LLatric impacts or this proposal, Boeing has indicated that its primary focus for new traffic mitigation will be on Transportation Management Plan (TMP) elements rather than on road improvements. The TMP elements listed as mitigation measures in the DEIS need to be implemented if Boeing expects to meet the single occupant vehicle (SOV) trip reduction goals required by the state's Transportation Demand Managcmcnt (TDM) Act. 3. As mitigation for previous development in the Duwamish corridor, Boeing was required to construct roadway improvements along East Marginal Way South, contribute a pro -rata share for the First Avenue South Bridge project, and to construct a southbound on -ramp to SR 99 at the Oxbow interchange (South 102nd Street). These improvements have not been constructed yet. As indicated in the DEIS, alternative improvements to the oxbow ramp are being explored as a means of providing equivalent mitigation that also serves a wider "public ". This effort has been focused primarily on double left turn lanes and two lane on -ramps at the SR 599/SR 99 interchange. While it appears feasible that the SR 599 interchange improvements would mitigate some of Boeing's traffic impacts, we would like to see another option examined for its feasibility as well. This option would construct an exclusive high occupancy vehicle (HOV) flyover ramp to southbound SR 99 at the Oxbow interchange. The ramp would, touch down in the SR 99 median. We will be constructing ramp metering with an inside HOV bypass lane at SR 599 and SR 5 in the future. The flyover ramp at Oxbow will support this facility. We will also be investigating the cost effectiveness of adding a HOV lane to the median in the southbound direction. Mr. Robert S. Betts Duwamish Corridor May 28, 1992 Page .3 The option above could be combined with the suggestions for improvements to the SR 599 interchange. The City should continue wurkiny with our Planning and Traffic Sections to resolve issues before the FEIS is published. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIS for Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal. If you have any questions concerning these remarks, please contact my staff member responsible Tor reviewing KIM marr.Pre, I'►r. nave n nhorg at 562 -4106. DONALD K. NELSON, P.E. Manager of Planning and Local Coordination DAO:em 60em /boeing RESPONSE TO WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1. The Boeing Company proposes to redevelop and improve existing infrastructure along the Duwamish corridor. The Company's proposal is consistent with the policy intent of both the Growth Management Act and Vision 2020. This was briefly discussed on page 1 -7 of the DEIS, rather than in the plans and policies section of the Land and Shoreline Use chapter, and is repeated again in Chap- ter 1, Summary, of this FEIS. 2. Comment acknowledged. 3. Please refer to the Transportation section in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS for a full discussion of this issue. A feasibility study has been conducted of alterna- tives to the earlier mitigation requirement for an Oxbow ramp to southbound SR 99. An HOV- exclusive flyover ramp was included in the alternatives reviewed. 3 -23 � WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF �d Natural Resources FRRIAN BOYLE •' „r,'eu,t ;r ql rublic Lands June 11, 1992 Mr. Robert S. Betts Project Coordinator Boeing Duwamish EIS Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 600 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Betts: OLYMPIA, WA 98504 Thank you for the extended opportunity to provide our comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment proposal. The proposal could potentially impact state -owned aquatic lands on the Duwamish River. It is important to emphasize that the department's involvement is not regulatory. We are acting as the trustee on behalf of the public trust for state -owned aquatic lands. As such, any project development on state -owned land will require prior approval by the department. Comments regarding contamined sediments and storm water are as follows: 1. The EIS does not address the contaminated sediments issue.The EIS should address how Boeing plans to deal with sediment contamination along the Duwamish River.Boeing should undertake a coordinated effort to determine the extent of sediment contamination adjacent to its property and develop a plan for remediation of problems as part of the redevelopment project. 2. Boeing needs to address storm water contamination issues in a comprehensive manner for the entire redevelopment project instead of on a development basis.Sources of contaminants to storm water should be eliminated to prevent contamination of sediments.Source control efforts should be coordinated with any efforts to evaluate the extent of sediment contamination.Contamination source control should be achieved prior to sediment cleanup. 3. The EIS needs to address the sediment contamination and storm water issues in accordance with the Ecology Sediment Management Standards (Chapter 173 -204 WAC).Boeing should review and . incorporate these standards into the EIS. 3 -25 Mr. Robert S. Betts Page 2 June 11, 1992 4. Storm drain effluents should not result in adverse impacts to state - owned bedlands in the Duwamish River. Since no specific projects have been listed, the comments above are brief and general in nature.The department will provide more specific comments as Boeing proposes specific components to the redevelopment plan over the next several years. Sincerely, Darrel Johnston Lease Administrator Division of Aquatic Lands Dave Dietzman, DNR SEPA Ctr. O 3 -26 Reference Code:DNR /SEPA 2254 de20 /sepa2254.1tr RESPONSE TO WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1. A comprehensive stormwater drainage plan for Boeing properties along the Duwamish Corridor will be included as part of a mitigation strategy for the redevelopment proposal. Control of potential stormwater contaminants will be addressed in the stormwater drainage plan. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of this FEIS. Additional opportunities to review stormwater collec- tion and discharge will be provided during project- specific environmental and permit application review. Redevelopment is not proposed to include shoreline reconfiguration or dredge and fill activity affecting sediments in the river, and sediment remediation is not expected to be required as a result. Some existing shoreline erosion protection will be improved, as discussed in response 6 to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe comment letter. STATE C)F WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Aga stcp PV-17 • Olympia, WashVon 905044711 • , (206) 4 9fak) May 29, 1992 Mr. Robert S. Betts City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila WA 98188 Dear Mr. Betts: Thank you-for the opportunity - -to comment on the draft environmental impact statement (DEIs) fur the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal proposed by The Boeing Company. We reviewod the DEIS and have the following comments. 4horelands The shoreline jurisdiction within. the Duwamish corridor is established as a shoro},i.ne of statewide signifluanue subject to the usn preferences set forth in Chapter 93.58.020 RCW. The redevelopment plan appears to generally support and further the intent of these use preferences. While individual site impacts and details will be addressed during those projec :t plan reviews, it is appropriate to address major issues relating to an individual site now while assessing the overall project. One of those issues is the overwater non- conforming status of. -Plant 2. Figure 3 -5 on Page 3 -25 indicates that use within the Plan will shift to some lab /office and *Moe apace. The manufacturing use may require the continuance of the overwater structure but the shift in use should reduce the amount of river frontage requiring the overeater location. In the overall balance of redevelopment impacts, this should be included. A second issue is the construction of the pedestrian bridge adjacent to the Duwamish Office Park=East. The redevelopment plan spells out the general, formula for constructing public access as redevelopment progresses. This formula appears to be reasonable and adequate. However, it is unclear how this .bridge ilia into the linear. footage. It is clearly an important link shown in figure 3 -3 on Page 3 -15. However it does not show up on the Access and Trail Plan in Figure 3 -6 on Page 3 -30. Doe6 Boeing consider this part of their plan, and what activity would trigger construction of this part of tho trail? The shoreline and access standards prevented in the redevelopment plan are commiendable for their diversity and useability. While many access areas will only be available to hoeing employees, the aesthetic and riparian habitat improvements will have broader public benefits. Subsequent individual projects will be reviewed fur their overall balance of,access and development with lu+bitat and "natural" amenities in keeping with the use preferences of the shorelines of statewide significance. 3_29 Mr. Robert S. Betts May 29., 1992 Page 2 Finally, while the following items will be addreeeed in site specific review, they are integral to appropriate mitigation of redevelopment. impacts. Public access, both for the general public and employees, should include sufficient signage to direct and encourage use. It should be designed within the site to appear and ensure personal safety with adequate visibility and lighting. It ahould include, where necessary, adequate and signed parkins to encourage use. If you have any questions with the Moreland; comments, please call Ms. Nora Jewett at (206) 459.6789. Waste Reduction and Recycling The applicant should check with solid waste officials, garbage haulers, and recyalers to locate recycling services that are available locally. Recycling programs and requirements outlined in the local comprehensive solid waste management plan may affect the project. The applicant should also refer to fhb local comprehensive solid waste management plan for recycling'programs and requirements in the community. The facilities should be designed to accommodate recycling. Opportunities for recycling aluminum, other metals, glass, newspaper, corrugated containers, plastics, office paper and other materials should be as convenient as throwing them out. Space should be srovided to accommodate the storage of these materials both inside the buildings and at a centralized location outside the buildings. The applicant, when considering space in the design of the buildings, may also want to consider processing equipment, such as a baler, to compact recyolables.. During the construction phase of the project, we encourage the applicant to use products made from recycled materials wherever possible, Products containing recycled materials include parking lot bumper stops, park and picnic benches, lendescape timbers and sign posts made from recycled plastic, rubberized asphalt made with recycled tires, glassphalt made with ground glees, insulation and other building materials. An inquiry to a building material supplier will provide information on what products are available and at what percent the products contain recyclable materials (the higher the better), During the landscaping phase of the project, we recommend using recycled materials. Compost from recovered organic waste can be used as a soil amendment in landuraplug. Chipped woody debrief eeu be lilted to mulch ornamental beds, to control erosion on slopes, and as a base for pathways and jogging trails. We also recommend that organic landscaping debris generated on -site be used'on -cite. 3 -30 J Mr. Robert S. Setts May 29. 1992 Page 3 During the construction phase of the project, we encourage the applicant to recycle construction debris and to reduce construction waste whenever possible. The Department of Ecology's Waste Reduction. Recycling and Litter Control Program staff are available to. assist in developing or implementing waste reduction and recycling programs. If.you have any questions, please contact Mr. Peter Christiansen at (206) 649.7045. Sincerely, M. Vernice Santee Environmental Review Section MVS; 92 -2743 cc: Peter Christiansen, NWRO Janet Thompson -Leo, NWRO Mora Jewett, NWRO Linda Rankin, Shovelands 3 -31 RESPONSE TO WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 1. While Figure 3 -5 on page 3 -25 of the Draft EIS indicates a mix of office, lab/ office and manufacturing uses, the graphic representation is meant only to show a probable scenario of proportionate uses for the site. The proposal will con -. form with development standards of the existing shoreline regulations. Program requirements may necessitate requests for variances, special exceptions, or text amendments, as is customarily allowed within the regulations. (For example, a new hangar facility at Plant 2, if proposed, may require a variance from the shoreline setback requirement.) Any project- specific proposal for a change in use within overwater structures, or for a variance or other discretionary land use approval, will be independently reviewed by the appropriate jurisdiction accord- ing to regulations in effect at the time of application. 2. Ecology's comment suggests another potential alternative for shoreline access improvements as discussed in Chapter 2 of this FEIS. The Boeing Company has not proposed construction of a pedestrian bridge adjacent to the Duwamish Office Park East site, largely because the site is property neither owned nor leased by The Boeing Company. However, should the property be available for public access, Boeing has indicated a willingness to cooperate to complete the connection of the Green River Trail. 3. The existing shoreline public access on Boeing properties is not well signed. The shoreline access was originally provided as an employee amenity rather than for public access, and not as a regulatory requirement. As a result, the public is not currently prohibited from using the shoreline, but little public use has occurred. As part of the mitigation for the redevelopment proposal, the City of Tukwila will ensure that sufficient signage will direct and encourage public use where it is intended, including parking areas specifically reserved for the public. 4. Comment acknowledged. The Boeing Company has extensive waste reduction, recycling, and reuse programs for both office and manufacturing process waste. Construction and demolition debris policies were discussed on page 10 of The Boeing Company's proposal, and impacts were discussed on pages 10-1 and 10-2 of the Draft EIS. Project- specific environmental review will provide additional opportunities to suggest waste reduction and recycling improvements. STATE OF WASHINGTON PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY PO 8or 40900 • Olympia, Wa(hingtnn 9A,504.0900 • (2061 493.9300 May 29, 1992. Robert 6. Betts: Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Betts: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal of the Boeing Company. We support the project and appreciate the many environmental considerations that Boeing has designed into it. We view the project as both improving Boeing's economic progress as well as the natural environment of the lower Duwamish as an aging manufacturing facility will be re- developed with more modern environmental designs. Staff of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority have reviewed the DEIS for consistency with the 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan (the Plan) and support the project as largely consistent with its goals. Programs of the Plan that are pertinent to this project include: wetlands, habitat, stormwater, sediments, nonpoint, and the municipal and industrial program. The proposal for redevelopment would involve demolition 3.7 million square feet of floor area and construction of about 4.3 million square feet of new floor area. Use of the redeveloped areas would shift in emphasis from manufacturing to research and development. We support the project goals, which include an enhanced natural and aesthetic environment and efficient use of resources. In addition, we are pleased to see that several of the 13 planning goals established in the Growth Management Act are . positively addressed by the proposed redevelopment of the industrial corridor, including: - addressing urban growth, reduction of sprawl, transportation, economic development, open space, recreation, and the environment. Following are our specific comments on the DEIS. lABITAT AND WETLANDS We encourage Boeing to consider the habitat restoration .potential ' of the shoreline area at the Developmental Center at Slip 6. Proposed changes to the shoreline as described on p. 3 -27 of the DEIS include bank stabilization and the use of rip rap. This site ' 3 -35 was identified as one of 24 potential restoration sites in the Duwamish River Estuary in a report by C.T. Tanner for the Port of Seattle and the EPA. We refer you to the recommendations in this report which is also cited in the DEIS. we request that the city and the applicant try to ensure that development along the Duwamish waterway shoreline not negatively impact the habitat restoration project that has been funded by an EPA Coastal America grant as part of the implementation of element W -8 of the Plan. The Coastal America restoration projeot will occur at three sites, in the vicinity of Boeing's redevelopment proposal. We encourage Boeing to proceed with Shoreline Type "D" as described on p. 29 of the Design Guidelines for other shoreline development sites. This design includes creation of new wetlands /fisheries habitat areas which could serve as an extension of the Coastal America restoration projeot. BTORMS9ATER SEDIMENTS ANn RD7T Currently, storm drainage from the paved portions and rooftops of the study area discharge to points along the Duwamish Waterway. More than 95 percent of the study area is covered by impervious surfaces. We support measures in the redevelopment plan that will address these stormwater flows. Consistent with the guidance of the Puget Sound Stormwater Manual (elements SW -3 and SW -4 of the Plan), we strongly encourage decrease in impervious surfaces which would allow a greater quantity of precipitation to'be absorbed by vegetation and to reach the groundwater system. In particular, we support the use of grassy (biofi)tration) [wales, where practicable, for stormwater detention to improve the quality of discharge water and sediments. Additional measures could include mechanical filtration systems where biofiltration is not practical, upgrading and improving maintenance of existing oil /water separators, and construction of alternative collection and disposal systems. Runoff and siltation during construction should also be carefully managed per the Puget Sound Stormwater Manual. In the permit approval process, best management practices for addressing stormwater should be carefully reviewed and implemented. We also support the spill prevention measures outlined in the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan. o rM RO . aMS The project also appears to be consistent with both the Green - Duwamish Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan prepared by King County and with the Elliott Bay Urban Action Team Program. These programs implement elements NP -2 and P -13 of the Puget Sound Plan, respectively. Thank you for the opportunity' to provide comments on the DEIS. 1 s Boeing has demonstrated over the recent years that they are a cooperative partner in the enhancement of the Duwamish; we look • forward to the continuation of this spirit. Simerely, GO9t .filree4 Villana Piccolo 7:nvironmental Supervisor oat Jeff Zahir, Boeing 3 -37 RESPONSE TO PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY 1. Bank stabilization as described on page 3 -27 of the Draft EIS is anticipated along the west shoreline boundary of the Developmental Center. It is not antic- ipated that redevelopment will occur along Slip 6. If The Boeing Company were to propose redevelopment along Slip 6, the City of Tukwila would consider requiring habitat restoration if impacts warranted. 2. The City of Tukwila has requested The Boeing Company cooperate with the Muckleshoot Tribe and federal and state fish and wildlife agencies and pro - grams in their streambank restoration and habitat restoration projects. 3. A comprehensive stormwater drainage plan for Boeing properties along the Duwamish Corridor will be included as part of a mitigation for the redevelopment proposal. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of this FEIS. Additional opportunities to influence improvements in stormwater discharge quality will be provided during project- specific environmental review. I� ITIETRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 May 29, 1992 Mr. Robert Betts, Project Coordinator City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 lU JUN p11992 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal - The Boeing Company Dear Mr. Betts: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to Metro's wastewater facilities. However, we have the following comments regarding water quality and Metro's public transportation services. Water Quality The proposed shoreline development /restoration standards /concepts (Type "A" through "D ") are of special interest to Metro. As you know, Metro and the City of Seattle agreed to a settlement with the U.S. Government, the State of. Washington, and the Muckleshoot: and Suquamish Tribes for alleged injury to natural resources resulting from storm water and combined sewer overflow discharges to the Duwamish River and Elliott Bay. The settlement Consent Decree identified specific actions to implement source control, sediment remediation and habitat restoration actions in the settlement area. The Elliott Bay Settlement Implementation Panel, authorized by the Consent Decree, is presently developing a long term vision for a comprehensive Duwamish River and Elliott Bay restoration plan. The Panel also expressed interest in maximizing habitat restoration and sediment remediation actions through coordination and cooperation with other planned projects. The Boeing Company's programmatic Duwamish shoreline development /restoration plans should be developed in concert with the Panel's shoreline habitat restoration actions. 3 -41 1 Robert Betts May 29, 1992 Page Two Consequently, Metro encourages the City of Tukwila and the Boeing Company to develop the 10 year Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Plan in coordination and cooperation with the Elliott Bay Settlement Panel. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this, please call Robert G. Swartz (684 -1713) or Robert I. Matsuda (684 - 1218). Public Transportation Metro commends the Boeing Company for its ongoing transportation management efforts and looks forward to supporting the City of Tukwila and Boeing in developing effective High Occupancy Vehicle /transit access in support of the proposed redevelopment program. Metro has a standing master Transportation Management Plan agreement with Boeing which is described in the DEIS. The references to the Regional Transit Project in Appendix C of the DEIS are somewhat dated. We are enclosing graphics which reflect the current state of the regional transit project alternatives under consideration. The Regional Transit Project is a cooperative project between the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) , Pierce Transit, and Snohomish County transit planning and operating agencies, including the Snohomish County Transportation Authority (SNO- TRAN), Community Transit, and Everett Transit. The three Regional Transit Project alternatives currently under consideration are commonly known as: the Transportation Systems Management(TSM) Alternative, the Transitway /TSM Alternative, and the Rail /TSM Alternative. The following Within the southern portion of the Regional Transit Project planning area, the TSM Alternative proposes construction of HOV lanes on SR 167 and I -5. On SR 509 an HOV ramp connecting the 1st South Bridge to 4th Avenue South is proposed as is a HOV lane from Cloverdale to SR 518 No HOV lanes are proposed on SR 518 or SR 99 in the vicinity of the Duwamish project. , Robert Betts May. 29, 1992 Page Three The Transitway /TSM Alternative proposes an exclusive transitway that would extend from the International District Station to Tacoma via the E -3 Busway, then the Union Pacific /Burlington Northern Railroad rights -of -way, then to the planned center I -5 HOV lanes. As an alternative, the transitway could cross the 1st South Bridge on the planned HOV lanes and follow SR 99 and SR 599 to connect with I -5. The Rail /TSM Alternative consists of three alternative alignments, but the precise alignment locations have not as yet been determined. All.of the alignments follow the same route once past SR 99 in the vicinity of SR 518 (SeaTac Airport). The alignment would continue south on relocated 28th Avenue South to the City of SeaTac, then along the proposed SR 509 extension to connect with I -5 in the vicinity of South 216th Street. It would then follow the I- 5/SR-99 corridor south to Tacoma The Commuter Rail alignment would operate from Tacoma to the King Street Station in Seattle along the Burlington Northern or Union Pacific railroad tracks. The commuter'rail line could connect with the rest of the rail system at Tacoma, Longacres, Boeing Access Road and at the International District /King Street Station. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, J3 Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Compliance and Right -of -Way and Property Division GMB:ymg1508 Enclosures: 3 Regional Transit Project graphics cc: Val Batey, Regional Transit Project Robert Matsuda, Water Resources 3 -43 YERflV Transit Hub Expansion Stations / Access Imp Park & Ride Expansion New Arterial 1 WM. Regional Regional Transitway Improvements couNn • MACE CANTY • INIXONSH COUNTY S1451.COR 3-44 March 10, 1992 ._i EVER ! r cis iSNOHOMISH COUNTY \(kVOOD/NVILLE \REDMOND KING COUNTY RENTON 1 ISSAQUAH 1 t OS -- ▪ ApfiURN • OM • • PCf"ALLUP 1ji.. • -- Regional _ Transit 11 -1•■ Project 101t3 COLWIT 02f. •..,�t • Rrp A 0 1 2 3 Wes LEGEND Rail alignment tutu Commuter rall • Station =MI Rail alignment alternatives 3 -45 2020 Regional Rail Base Alignment 3/11/92 koma couNrr • MICE COUIRY •SNONOINSII =UM SMI2 I.COR 3-46 Major TSM Capital Facilities March 10, 1992 RESPONSE TO METRO 1. Comment acknowledged. See also response 1 to Elliott Bay Panel comment letter. 2. Thank you for the updates on the current state of the regional transit project. The City of Tukwila acknowledges that the Regional Transit Project is an evolv- ing one and anticipates continued coordination and cooperation with Metro in serving the Duwamish corridor. King county Division of Roads and Engineering. Department orPuLlk• Works King w...., y. ,utrntram ra arse, Bldg. 1100 iburat Avenue • Rnom 900 Ceettle, WA NS1044339 May 29, 1992 Mr. Robert Betts, Project Coordinator Department of Community Development City of Tukwila s300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Dr. Env'ronmer :1 m.act St.temen 'uwami Corri•or Re Dear Mr.'Betts: Thank YOU for the nfpnrtunity to revscw and comment un the Draft f)1-Ix far the redevelopment of Boeing's uuwamish corridor facilities. The Roads and Engineering Division has the following comments: o We have no objection to the alternative improvement to our original requirement of providing a southbound on -ramp to SR 99 at the Oxbow. Whether or not the City of Tukwila has the authority to nullify or modify a condition placed on the development by King County remains unclear. o It is recommended that an explanation be ive previously committed-mtrigatlon measures described oniPageh4- 40hwill be provided under any of the alternatives of the redevelopment proposal. These mitigations were only.deferred until total evalLation of the redevelopment is complete. It shnuld also bo noted when the obligations for previous development will be satisfied if a No Action alternative is chosen. one or the previously committed mitigation measures for the Oxbow Corporate Park facility was a pro -rata share for the First Avenue South Bridge project. The Oxbow facility was and still is within the jurisdictional boundaries of unincorporated King County. It should be made clear that these funds are a share of i C unt 's obligations to the First Avenue South Bridge project. An exp anatlon of when those funds will be provided should be stated in all the alternatives. SA /daki.ab /LIO4o 3 -49 Mr. Robert Betts May 29, 1992 Page 2 Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this DEIS, If you have questions, or would like further information, please Relations Coordinator, at 296.372q,ca11 Sandy Adams, Sincerely, Louis J. Haff, .E, County Road Engineer LJH /SA /ab CC: Ann bold, t:nlef, SEPA Section Af: Joshua Goldfinger, Environmental Planner Karleen Sakumoto, Assistant Manager, Roads and Fngineering Division ATS : Sandy Adams, Intergovernmental Relations Coordinator Bill Hoffman, Manager, Transportation Planning Section ATTN: Dan Burke, Transportation Planner Mark Madden, Acting Manager, Traffic and Planning Section Ate: Gary Samek, Supervising Engineer, Development Review SA /dsk1.ab /t1040 RESPONSE TO KING COUNTY DIVISION OF ROADS AND ENGINEERING 1. Based on a letter addressed to The Boeing Company, signed by Greg Kipp, Manager of King County Building and Land Development (BALD), and dated July 15, 1991, the City of Tukwila understands that King County deferred jurisdiction of the May 26, 1987 MDNS to the City. A copy of the letter is attached. 2. It is the intent of the City of Tukwila to include a schedule of mitigation mea- sures in a mitigation document. The document will summarize past commit- ments, provide an alternative to the Oxbow ramp if an alternative is in the best interest of the agencies with jurisdiction, and indicate new commitments as a result of the development proposal. The mitigation document will be agreed to and signed by the City and the Boeing Company. Concurrently, the City intends to propose a memorandum of agreement between the Washington State De- partment of Transportation, King County, the City of Seattle and the City of Tukwila for consistent and coordinated use of the non - project EIS for imposing mitigation measures. 3. On pages 4 -19, and 4 -40, it is acknowledged that a pro -rata share contribution to funding for construction of improvements to the First Avenue South Bridge resulting from a prior project is still an outstanding Boeing commitment. The bridge is under study, and the extent of Boeing's commitment is not known at this time. J King County bud n� & Land Devet Par . P +Holm Ord Reaourotr 'oh • 1 8th Place So theaal 1, Washington *800g•t a 540 ul)} 15, 1991 the Boeing Compan Box 3707, M/S 14-49 Seal tle, WA 98124 1 I �TTN: J. , Lewis RE! Mule own Ada R of _Underst n r n+ n f I n Petr Mr. Lewis: pment Division DOP�ttrnent 00 s ,.. have received of Washington De Kirig County dat Of the Boeing Co pe1i a May 26, 19' 411 Such time that i the opinion of tioa requirements bf the May 40, ha ,e annexed the area in question Into their city. For this reason we no longer have j (Ioni and will not a party to the Memorandum of Understanding. � I � • II a a • 1 II our proposed Memorandum of Understanding to be executed Iby the State artment of Transportation, City of Tukwila, The Boeing Company and January 30, 1991. The purpose of the document is to defer ai requirement t nsttuCt a new southbound ramp to SR 99 at S. 102 d npany to co 7, King County Mitigated Detlratiact of Non Significance t complete. DNS), un- Duwarnish Valley Environmental P responsibility to require the developer to fulfill the mitiga- ing County the respo ?' 1,987 MDNS now rests with the City of Tukwila, since rld they Sincerely, r g Ki Matnager G :RCC /ck pc: Torn McDonald, Manager, Commercial Products Ralph Copy, Manager, Technical Services T • RC�C: memunder 3 -52 King County Planning and Comsaunhy fl►vlet►nnent Division Parks, Nanning and Resources Department 707 Smith 7As'er Building 506 second Avenue Seattle. Washington 98x04 0204) 2116 -8660 • June 3, 1992 Mr. L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6200 Southrenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98184 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Duwamish Corridor Redevel cement. proposal Dear Mr, Beeler: Thank•you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal. The following are our'comments: Page 3 -7, Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies: The Highline Community Plan should be identified and the relationship to the •Proposed Action .indicated. The relationship of the proposal to the State Growth . Management Act also should be identified. Page 3 -23, Land Use Impacts: To the extent possible, the kinds of var:fance.s, rezones, exceptions, or text amendments necessary for this proposal 'should be identified. Local jurisdictions can provide this .nfotma.tion to you in order to clarify, actions necessary to carry forward • 1..kiti. proposal . Page 3 -31, Mitigation Measures: Inlerlucal agreements and their possible cunient should be mentioned as thcy are in'the Approval Process sertinn, page 1 -3. • Page 4 -14, Transit.ond.High Occupancy Vehicles: It is encouraging that the goal of Boeing's Transportation Management Plan's (TMP) strategy, •Dage 4 -14, is to reduce Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) commuting from current levels. The DEIS should indicate how this will be accomplished and what aspects of Boeing's TMP program will be improved. Page 5.5, Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives: It was not clear what kind of job shifts at the Duwamish site would occur. If jobs change from manufacturing to office, then impacts should be noted. 3 -53 Mr. L. Rick Beeler June 3, 1992 Page 2 we have coordinated our comments with the King County Environmental Division's Resource Planning Section. Here are their comments: K1•ngCounty.Sensitive Area Map Folio identifies several wetlands and a 100=year floodplain on the Oxbuw site. According to the folio, the wetlands were mapped in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National 1etTends Inventory., but their locatinns have not boon field verified. The folio also identifies the'prouer'ly west of the Duwamish waterway as a seismic Hazard Area. These sensitive areas need to be discussed in the DEIS. Occurrence•potential should be evaluated for plant and animal species identified by State or federal agencies as threatened, endangered, candidate or sensitive. Field searches should be conducted for any listed species likely to inhabit the site. If the Tanner report did this, it should be elated. +:he.•OE.IS- describes generic proposals .to improve water quality, enhance streambank conditions, and restore habitats lnst during past development. Resource .Planning supports and encourages coordination and implementation of•.these proposals with the appropriate agencies. Please.contact me at 296.8658, if you have questions about our comments.. Sincerely, • f- . L ger: D4 /dw cc: Clint Lank, Manager, Environmental Division ATTN: Derek Poon, Chief, Resource Planning Section lom Beavers, Resource Planner • Ray Moser., Acting Chief, Regional Policy and Programs Section Paul Reitenbach, Chief, Community Planning Section ATTN: Steve Boyce, Community Planner 3 -54 RESPONSE TO KING COUNTY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 1. The Highline Community Plan was reviewed in the Draft EIS, and the Boeing Redevelopment Proposal was found to be consistent with that plan (see page 3 -8 of the Draft EIS). The Boeing Company proposes to redevelop an existing employment center and improve existing infrastructure along the Duwa- mish corridor. The Company's proposal is consistent with the policy intent of both the Growth Management Act and Vision 2020. This was briefly discussed on page 1 -7 of the DEIS and is repeated in Chapter 1, Summary, of this FEIS. 2. Development of the proposal will conform to the development standards of the existing regulations. Program requirements may necessitate requests for vari- ances, special exceptions, or text amendments, as is customarily allowed within the regulations. Because project - specific proposals have not been made at this time, it is unknown which types of requests may occur, if any. 3. Refer to Draft EIS Errata, page xii of this FEIS, which repeats discussion on the mitigation agreement with The Boeing Company and interlocal agreement with King County and the City of Seattle for inclusion on page 3 -31 of the Draft EIS. 4. The City of Tukwila is currently developing its Transportation Demand Manage- ment Ordinance. The City believes the state guidelines are sufficient until such time as the City ordinance is approved. 5. There will be an increase in office and lab /office jobs from manufacturing. The Draft EIS assumed that this shift would occur. Therefore, the impacts discussed in the Draft EIS, such as the transportation impacts from an increase in first - shift employees (Transportation chapter, page 4-29) reflect this assumption. 6. Comments are reflected in additions to page 3 -13 of the Draft EIS as noted in the Draft EIS Errata, on page xi of this FEIS. The Oxbow site and the shoreline portion of the South Park site are the only Boeing sites within King County's jurisdiction. The only redevelopment anticipated on the Oxbow site will be public access improvements along the shoreline. Redevelopment on the South Park site will likely only be in the area within City of Seattle jurisdiction. Work within King County's jurisdiction will comply with the King County Sensi- tive Area Ordinance. 7. Additional information is provided in Chapter 2, Additional Environmental Information of this FEIS. The City of Tukwila anticipates that The Boeing Company's redevelopment proposal will have positive impacts to plant and animal species as a result of improvements to streambanks and water quality. Environmental review for project - specific proposals will provide more details 3 -55 and opportunities for design- related comments. Development will comply with the laws and regulations relating to threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive species. 3 -56 Earl Clymer, Mayor CITY OF RENTON Planning /Building /Public Works Departmcnt Lynn Guttman, Administrator May 27, 1992 Mr. Robert S. Betts Department of Community Developments 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 SUBJECT; DAIS for Boeing's Pruouartil Corridor Redevelopment Corridor Dear Mr. Betts:. Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced document. we nave circulated this to various departments and have no comments at this time. We do anticipate that changes In the make up of the work force trom primarily "blue collar' to "white color employees may over time have an impact on housing prices In the region and possibly alter commute patterns assuming a more affluent work force and possibly different areas of residence. Usually in such cases workers find residences closer to their place of employment assuming there are choices within the economic means. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document, We would like to receive a copy of the Final EIS when It Is published. Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator i AMR] LMAYI7!2J 3 -57 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. RESPONSE TO CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. Comment acknowledged. Seattle City Light M..1. Macdonald, Acting Superintendent Norman B. Rice, Mayor May 21, 1992 Martin Fricko Land Use Specialist • Department of Construction and Land Use 710 Second Avenue Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 -1703 r. ECEiVED ;AY 21 %992 Km ^F corstatuTom 6 Wm UK r :r ,01'1;13. AT Dear Mr. Fricko: comments on Programmatic DEIS for Boeing Duwamish Corridor Seattle City'Light (SCL) staff have reviewed the above referenced document and have the following comments: • There is no discussion of the impacts on SCL's distribution facilities or communications plant. This is a serious omission given Tukwila's position on our use of street rights -of -way. Such a discussion should be included in the FEIS. • SCL owns property within three of the Boeing site covered by the Duwamish proposal, namely the Development Center, the Oxbow site, and North Boeing Field. Each property is under a long term lease to Boeing, or a developer who has subleased to Boeing. Any use of SCL properties beyond the scopes of the original leases must be approved by SCL. • SCL encourages Boeing to consider energy efficiency as a mitigation measure. We recommend that the Boeing Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with SCL be finalized as soon as possible and be included in the FEIS. it is understood by SCL that the draft MOA is currently undergoing internal Boeing review. SCL has requested the following commitments on Boeing's behalf: •to significantly exceed the Seattle Energy Code requirements in the Duwamish Corridor projects; •not to exceed current average energy use in the Duwamish Corridor; 1 i 1 2 3 • to fully utilize SCL's conservation funding programs; An Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer City of Seattle — (:iry Light Deparuncnt, 1015 Third Avenue, Seattle, wultington yi;1.04.1198,'Telephone: (206) 625 -3nO0, irAX: (206) 625 -370') Printed on recycled paper 3 -61 Martin Fricko Page 2 May 20, 1992 •designation of Boeing engineers to work with SCL's Industrial Conservation Staff to develop standard specifications for commonly used energy conservation technologies; •designation of a Boeing contact person for each project and each area of expertise. For its part, SCL has committed to the following: •SCL will provide substantial economic incentives for Boeing to go beyond the Energy Code. In general, the MOA will serve as a medium to establish a process for increased energy savings. Boeing and SCL will agree to work together to achieve all of the above mentioned goals through open communication and regularly scheduled meetings. The mechanism for providing free design assistance and incentives is participation in SCL's Energy Smart Design Program. Javad Maadanian at 684 -3786 should be contacted for more information about the Energy Smart Design Program. Please incorporate all of the above comments in the FETS. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIS. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Suzanne Zolfo of my staff at 386 -4562 for assistance. Sincerely, Lynn Best Manager, Special Projects Unit Environmental Affairs Division SZ:bh "An Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer" City ..f scuttle — (:luv Light Department. 1015 Third Avenue. Seattle. Washington 98104.1198. Telephone: (206) (125 -3000. FAX: (206) 625 -3709 Printed on recycled Raper 3 -62 RESPONSE TO SEATTLE CITY LIGHT 1. The Boeing Company's redevelopment proposal has no direct impacts on the location of these facilities. Environmental review will be conducted on the pro- posed redesign of East Marginal Way South, at which time impacts to facilities in the right -of -way will be discussed. 2. Comment acknowledged. 3. Comments acknowledged. The City. of Tukwila understands that the draft MOA is currently being reviewed by The Boeing Company. See the Energy section of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS for additional discussion. 3 -63 Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation Holly Miller, Superintendent Norman B. Rice, Mayor May 15, 1992 Robert S. Betts Project Coordinator, Boeing Duwamish EIS Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 600 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Subject: Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal Draft EIS Dear Mr.. Betts: r We reviewed the Recreation Impact section of thet EIS, and the related Redevelopment Design Guidelines. It appears that the proposed action and alternatives create opportunities to connect with and enhance the City of Seattle's proposed Duwamish Trail. Boeing's proposal to connect the Green River Trail with the Museum of Flight, and create shoreline amenities along the existing Oxbow Shoreline Trail, are very welcome. Information signage on fisheries habitat restoration on the site is consistent with this Department's efforts to expand environmental education at such places. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Sincerely, Holly Miller Superintendent PL- 98/92.PSM MEM [MAY18 1992 • city cif TUKWIL A PLANNING DEPT.. 3 -65 Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation, 2911 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98121 -1012 (206)684 -4075 An equal employment opportunity - affirmative action employer RESPONSE TO SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 1. Comment acknowledged. The City of Tukwila will ensure that sufficient signage will direct and encourage public use where it is intended. The Boeing Company also proposes to provide informational ' signage as part of a cooperative effort to provide fish habitat restoration near the Oxbow site (Boeing Duwamish Corri- dor Redevelopment Proposal, page 32). 1002250F.SEA 3 -67 Chapter 4 PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY A public meeting for comments on the Draft EIS was held on May 20, 1992, at the Tukwila City Council Chambers. This section contains a summary of that meeting and a sign -up list. No comments were received. The meeting resulted ,in an information session for those in attendance. , 100228EB.SEA 4-1 Minutes of PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Plan City of Tukwila Council Chambers 7:30 PM May 20th, 1992 CASE NUMBER: EPIC- 21 -91 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company Attending: Jack Pace Tukwila; Project Lead Robert Betts, Project Coordinator Lloyd Skinner, CH2M HILL; EIS consultant Jeff Zahir, Boeing; Planner Jack Pace called the meeting to order. Mr. Pace addressed the schedule for preparing the Environmental Impact Statement, and the process for completing it. Jeff Zahir provided a description of the background for the proposed redevelopment of the Duwamish Corridor. He indicated that many buildings were obsolete. The company needed to convert them from manufacturing activities to engineering offices and laboratories. New technologies can be accommodated in a campus plan, but there is the need to coordinate any redevelopment with the affected municipalities. He noted that the State Environmental Policy act (SEPA) is the the best forum in which to . investigate the planned redevelopment. Mr. Pace then opened the meeting to questions. The following summarizes the topics. Peak hour traffic. Mr. Zahir noted that the proposal will address such traffic in several ways: One is to use incentives to reduce the number of trips, such as encouraging use of High Occupancy Vehicles. Another is through changes to the capacity of roads, such as widening them, and the last is the possibility of light rail along Boeing Access Road. Light Rail. One person asked about the possibility of light rail along State Route 99, and noted Metro's reluctance to consider it. It' was noted SR 99 is not a subject of the Boeing company proposal. Light rail can, as noted above, be accommodated along Boeing Access Road. Impacts of Adding to the East Marginal Way Corporate Park. If Boeing developed more buildings here in the future, specific impacts would be addressed through a separate process at the time a building is proposed. 43 Public Meeting Minutes Duwamish Corridor EIS 2 Bridge over the Duwamish. A separate pedestrian bridge would be constructed shortly to provide a Green River Trail linkage across the Duwamish. This is part of the overall set of improvements for the regional trail in the Corridor. Rhone- Poulenc site is not owned by Boeing, and would have a separate environmental review when it is developed by its owners. The character of the EIS addresses master plan features, rather than specific buildings on specific parcels of land. The Boeing Company does not plan to acquire more land as a result of the EIS. Changes to the development regulations. Tukwila will be reviewing its shoreline plan and zoning code for possible changes. Should any changes be made, then subsequent Boeing buildings would have to meet these new regulations. It was noted Boeing's proposal exceeded present standards for public access and for improvements to shoreline. Also, it was noted that there is a process to adjust present municipal boundaries, to make them more workable than at present. Mr. Pace then closed the meeting. Approximately 20 people attended, including the four mentioned above. A copy of the sign up list is attached for reference. There were no written comments submitted at the meeting. Prepared by Robert S. Betts, Project Coordinator. 4-4 Attendance List Public Informational Meeting _. Draft EIS on Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal City of Tukwila May 20, 1992 Name Robert Betts Lloyd Skinner Ron Chaput Sharon M. Bernhardt Robert Bernhardt Loren Marshall Dick McCann Rod Malcom Curtis D. Tanner Robert L Stevens Terry Lundeen Paul Seely John Hansell Robert Whalen Martin Fricko John Cru11 Lee Linne Roger Baker Daniel P. Wolf 10023217.sEA Address 700 108th NE, Bellevue, WA 98004 P.O. Box 91500, Bellevue, WA 98009 4041 South 148th, Tukwila, WA 98168 3418 South 126th, Tukwila, WA 98168 3418 South 126th, Tukwila, WA 98168 4919 South 124th, Tukwila, WA 98178 1201 3rd Avenue, 40th Floor, Seattle, WA 98101 40405 Auburn- Enumclaw Road, Auburn, WA 98002 USFWS /3704 Griffin Lane SE, Suite 102, Olympia, WA 98501 13238 SE 249th, Kent, WA 98042 16117 SE 145th Place, Renton, WA 98059 P.O. Box 3707, M.S. 14 -49, Seattle, WA 98124 1201 3rd Avenue, 40th Floor, Seattle, WA 98103 10520 SE 272nd Street, Kent, WA 98031 Dexter -Horton Bldg., DCLU, City of Seattle, .98104 The Boeing Company, Seattle, WA 15631 44th Avenue South, Tukwila, WA 98188 11662 42nd Avenue South, Tukwila, WA 98168 11821 44th Avenue South, Tukwila, WA 98178 4-5 Appendix A Proposed Transportation Management Plan for Boeing North Duwamish Campus MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is entered into as of June 25, 1990 between The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle ( "Metro ") and The Boeing Company. 1. Metro and Boeing are parties to an Agreement dated as of December 18, 1989 (the "Agreement ") which created an administrative framework for addressing traffic problems of mutual concern to the parties. Addendum No. 1 to the Agreement, also dated December 18, 1989, provided that Boeing and Metro would co- operate to develop, define, and ratify a Master Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to serve as the foundation document for all jurisdictions of Boeing located within King County that require a TMP as part of an Environmental Impact Statement. 2. Attached to this Memorandum of Understanding as Attachment A is a Master Transportation Management Plan. Boeing and Metro each hereby acknowledge, accept, and approve the terms of the Master TMP as attached, and each party hereby agrees that such TMP, as attached, fulfills the parties' respective obligations to develop, define, and ratify a TMP, as provided in the referenced Addendum No. 1. The parties have executed.this Memorandum of Agreement as of the date first written above. THE BOEING COMPANY GLB1:062:062290 A -1 MUNICIPALITY OF . METROPOLITAN SEATTLE By Its.DEP Di a • —44f/ 'r ATTACHMENT. A MASTER TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.0 Purpose and Authority At major work sites Boeing employees represent a significant proportion of the local work force and have a corresponding influence on the local transportation network. The Master Transportation Management Plan offers a cooperative, voluntary and mutual statement of principals for use in guiding future transportation planning efforts designed to minimize the influence of Boeing employees on the Puget Sound regional transportation network. That network includes all forms of surface, roadway transportation. 2.0 Problem Statement A. Transportation networks serving Boeing sites within the region typically are at or approaching capacity. B. Pressure on the regional transportation network caused by regional growth make action imperative. 3.0 Objectives The Objectives of the proposed Master Transportation Management Plan are to: 1) Improve the ingress and egress of Boeing employees at their workplaces in a timely manner 2) Demonstrate a commitment by The Boeing Company to address regional transportation issues in cooperation with local, regional and state jurisdictions. 3) Either reduce or achieve zero growth in vehicle trips generated from Boeing sites during the Peak P.M. Traffic period (3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.). 4) Decrease Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) use at The Boeing Company work sites. 4.0 Strategies Strategies used in achieving the stated objectives may differ for various Boeing sites. Guidelines for the applicability of specific strategies may be found in Table A.1 (Attached) which identifies appropriate strategies for Urban, Suburban, and Scattered sites. A -2 06/22/90 , 4.1 Specific Strategies to be used in achieving Olziective 1: • Parking Management • Best Engineering and Site Design Practices • Monitoring • Modal separation 4.2 Specific strategies to be used in achieving Objective 2 :, • Transportation Coordinators. • Preferred car pool and van pool parking • Continued involvement in regional transportation issues • Adoption of site specific Transportation Management Plans • Establish focal point for generating regional and inter -local agreements on transportation issues. 4.3 Specific strategies to be used in achieving Objective 3: • Bicycle facilities • Work scheduling and facilities locations • Mode split goals • Exploration of new technologies Cooperative agreements with local and state transportation agencies • Evaluations 4.4 ,Specific Strategies to be used in achieving Objective 4: s • • • • • • 06/22/90 Promotional Campaigns Commuter information centers Improved facilities to support transit rideshare and carpool services Fixed route transit service Ridematch service Vanpools Customized Bus Service Incentive Program A -3 5.1 Site Specific TMP'5 A-4 06/22/90 Table A.1 Service Emphasis Type of Site Primary Secondary Urban • Fixed route transit • Ridesharing • Specialized Service Suburban Scattered ' Ridesharing • Custom Bus • Specialized Service ' Ridesharing Support Programs Promotion Annual focused campaign Bus zone near building entrances Preferential Parldng HOV support facilities Shift scheduling to support HOV use Cost share passes Company -wide passes Restrict parking supply Carpool incentives A -5 06/22/90 • Fixed Route Service • Fixed Route Transit ▪ Custom Bus • Specialized Service PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN (TMP) Boeing North Duwamish Campus (NDC) Goal Boeing has entered into an agreement with Metro to jointly pursue methods to reduce single occupant vehicles (SOV) generated by Boeing Company facilities. This master TMP outlines objectives and strategies to achieve this goal as outlined in Attachment A. Objective The objective of the NDC TMP is to reduce volume exiting from the NDC site during the p.m. peak traffic period (3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.) by 5 percent. The existing (1990) volume is 1,310. The objective of the TMP is to reduce that volume to not more than 1,235. Program Actions and Incentives The following specific strategies and incentives are proposed as part of the TMP. These elements are consistent with Directors Rule 24 -88. 1. The owner /tenant shall provide subsidies in the amount of $15 to employees purchasing a monthly bus pass or partic- ipating in a registered public transit agency vanpool. 2. The owner /tenant shall provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. 3. A minimum of 10 percent of the long -term parking spaces shall be designated for carpools. 4. Space for secure and convenient parking for 20 bicycles including locking bicycle racks shall be provided on site. 5. The TMP shall include the following general actions as outlined in DR 24 -88. a.• Building Transportation Coordinator b. Periodic Promotional Events c. Commuter Information Center d. Tenant Participation e. Ride Match Opportunities f. Employee Survey g. Reporting h. Program Evaluation ee /cc003 /NDCTMP Appendix B Letter of Understanding 1?i7AEAfJW Andre Gay Corporate Vice President Far „1.. c September 16, 1992 Ms. Roberta Palm Bradley Acting Superintendent Seattle City Light 1015 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, MS 13 -03 Seattle. WA 98124 -2207 Subject: Letter of Understanding Dear Ms. Bradley: The Boeing Company is currently undertaking major redevelopment projects on a number of its properties in the Duwamish Corridor in the Seattle City Light service area, and recognizes that these new facilities offer a major opportunity to achieve energy efficiencies and savings. As a result, both The Boeing Company ( "Boeing ") and Seattle City Light ( "SCL ") recognize the value of working cooperatively to achieve energy savings in the redevelopment projects. The primary purpose of this letter of understanding is to establish a vehicle through which the parties can work cooperatively to identify and implement energy- saving measures in the redevelopment facilities, with a goal of exceeding energy code requirements. It is understood that working cooperatively will increase the likelihood of identifying potential opportunities to allow installation and implementation of energy - saving measures in a timely manner. Boeing recognizes that SCL has considerable expertise in the area of identifying and implementing energy- saving measures. Accordingly, it is understood and agreed that: 1. Designated representatives from the Boeing Office of Energy and Water Services and SCL will meet at least quarterly to discuss proposals /plans for upcoming construction of new facilities and remodeling of existing facilities to identify, as early as possible, potential energy- saving measures which could be included in Boeing facilities. The first meeting of these representatives will occur within 45 days of the signing of this agreement. 2. The Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS establishes the goal of minimizing electrical power consumption in the Duwamish Corridor from public power supplies. Accordingly, the Boeing Company will, in accordance with this letter of understanding, explore appropriate energy conservation measures with SCL staff throughout the Duwamish Corridor redevelopment period. . AGLight B-1 Page 2 Ms. Roberta Palm Bradley September 16, 1992 3. To that end, Boeing agrees to consider SCL's recommendation with respect to installation of cost - effective, energy efficient measures for its facilities and to purchase energy efficient new or replacement equipment when feasible and appropriate.' Accordingly, SCL agrees to provide economic incentives for Boeing to achieve energy efficiencies which exceed applicable energy code requirements. Boeing agrees to fully utilize SCL's conservation funding programs when appropriate. 4. SCL will advise Boeing of the availability of economic programs which foster and financially benefit the user of energy- saving measures, and will provide assistance to Boeing in qualifying for such programs and in obtaining available funding. 5. Boeing will designate an appropriate mechanical /electrical engineering professional to serve as an energy resource person for each project, and to be available as an energy resource for other Boeing staff working on energy- related projects. To the extent appropriate, Boeing intends to direct its mechanical /electrical and other consultants to work with SCL to achieve energy efficient measures in Boeing facilities. 6. Whenever possible, Boeing agrees to identify for SCL upcoming projects in advance of formal permit application. SCL agrees to review and respond in as timely and prompt a manner as possible to Boeing permit applications, projects, and requests for assistance, and to make staff available for energy conservation issues as they may arise. In addition to the services of City Light conservation staff, SCL will provide funding for energy analysis to be performed by private sector consultants in compliance with SCL program requirements. SCL agrees to receive and retain all Boeing Proprietary Information in confidence, and to use it solely . for the purposes expressed in this Letter of Understanding. SCL agrees not to disclose such information without express written authorization from The Boeing Company. 7. Both SCL and Boeing agree to give prompt notice to the other of any problems, disputes, or difficulties that may arise in the implementation of this Letter, and to work cooperatively to resolve any such problems and disputes. Both Parties agree to exercise good faith in discharging their responsibilities under this letter, but each reserves the right to terminate this arrangement subject to 30 days' notice. n • re Corporate Vice- P,fdent Facilities The Boeing Company AGLight B-2 •"' oberta Pelm Bradley Acting Superintendent Seattle City Light Appendix C Distribution List Appendix C DISTRIBUTION AND NOTICE OF ISSUANCE LISTS DISTRIBUTION LIST FEDERAL AGENCIES U.S. Army Corps of Engineers —Seattle District National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Environmental Protection Agency— Region 10 INDIAN NATIONS Duwamish Tribe Muckleshoot Tribe STATE AGENCIES Department of Transportation Department of Fisheries Department of Ecology (4) State Energy Office Department of Trade and Economic Development Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Department of Natural Resources REGIONAL AGENCIES Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (2) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Puget Sound Regional Council Puget Sound Water Quality Authority KING COUNTY Environmental Division (5) Office of Open Space Department of Parks, Planning, and Resources Division of Roads and Engineering CITIES Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use (5) Seattle City Light Seattle Office of Intergovernmental Relations Renton Planning Department LIBRARIES Foster Library King County Public Library Seattle Public Library (Government Publications Service) Tukwila Public Library MEDIA Daily Journal of Commerce Seattle Times Valley Daily News OTHER ORGANIZATIONS Elliott Bay Panel Jones & Stokes Washington Environmental Council NOTICE OF ISSUANCE LIST FEDERAL AGENCIES United States Department of Energy United States Coast Guard United States Department of Housing and Urban Development STATE AGENCIES Department of Social and Health Services Department of Wildlife Office of the Governor COUNTY King County International Airport King County Executive King County Department of Health CITIES AND TOWNS Seattle Mayor's Office Renton Mayor's Office Seattle Water Department MEDIA Renton Record Chronicle OTHER GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce Burlington Northern Railroad Friends of the Duwamish ValVue Sewer District Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce Washington Natural Gas U.S. West Communications Port of Seattle South Park Community Service Center South Central Advisory Council (Tukwila) CITIZENS AND ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS Ron Adair Don Aragon Roger & Betty Baker Jessie Barry Mrs. Sharon Bernhardt Gladys Bigelow Thomas & Kathryn Boardman Ray Bryant Viola Buchanan Rex & Jessie Burkey Philip & Patricia Cagampang Kathleen Carmichael Tony Carosino Bobby Casebeer John W. Clark Robert & Bea Coleman Cecil & Viola Compo Bill & Faye Cooper Stephen Core Kim Dahl Donald & Alice Davidson Lee Ann Davis Roe Decker Antonio & Dorthy Derodas Norma Derr Helen Dingle Donay & Charolette Doty Bobbi Douvia Dennis & Elizabeth Driscoll Dorothy & Tony Dumas Helen Duncan Scott Ellis Betty Espadero Keith Fuller Stu & Micky Garnett Albert & Mary E. Gaviglio John & Kay Gilligan George Gomez Dick Greene Charolette Greer Maxine Gregory Charmaine L. Hall Ralph & Rita Hatton Ralph Hayes Hank & Rosemary Heerschap Darrell & Gayl Hoffman Stan & Connie Hoffman Kenneth & Jane House Gayle Jacobsen R.E. & Monica Johnson Roy & Pat Johnson Jerry Kinnear June Klise Walter & Bernice Kwiecien Tom Lang Thelma Larsen Vera Locke Tom & Martha Loftus Loren Marshall Lois Mathis Earl McCoy Bob McManus Leonard & Doris Mead Nishit Mehta Bob & Jeanette Morgan John & Edna Morrison Sham & Sharon Nakata Harry & Mable Peterson Lilian Petty Charles & Marion Ramey Doris Reed John Ridout Dennis & Karen Robertson Allan Ronning Mary Roper Ruth Rupe Arthur Sala Ruth Seavey Irene Simpson James Stephens David & Merle Swanson Ben Swartz Lona Sweeney Irvin Teigen Dave Thompson Ray & Magda Torghele Lee & Barbara Trimble Roland Turpin Kent & Alida Tustison Marguerite Tye Martin & Gwen Ulrich Rose Untersher & Donna Johnston John & Sylvia Vader Norman & Helen Van Voorhees Eugene & Betty Walkley James Watkins Carol & Ken Watson Lawrence Weikum Mary Ellen Whitehead John & Marie Wickstrom Dan Wolf Don & Gary Wyatt Feasibility Study SR 599/SR 99 Interchange Prepared for City of Tukwila and WSDOT October 1992 RECEIVED OCT 0 61992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Cia4HILL TO: Ron Cameron /City of Tukwila Jack Pace /City of Tukwila Jerry Schutz/WSDOT COPIES: Lloyd Skinner /CH2M HILL Ikuno Masterson /CH2M HILL FROM: Chuck Crandall /CH2M HILL Brent Campbell /CH2M HILL Kevin Nichols /CH2M HILL DATE: October 5, 1992 SUBJECT: SR 599/SR 99 Interchange Feasibility Study PROJECT: SEA31760.A1 Introduction The purpose of this technical memorandum is to analyze traffic operations and design considerations for the freeway section of SR 599/SR 99 between 42nd Avenue South and South 102nd Street (Oxbow Interchange), with specific attention to providing a dual left -turn lane and two -lane on -ramp for southbound Pacific Highway South to southbound SR 599. This section includes a partial diamond interchange at South 102nd Street and a full diamond interchange at Pacific Highway South. The latter interchange provides direct ramps from southbound SR 99 to southbound Pacific Highway South and from northbound Pacific Highway South to northbound SR 99. The project study area is shown in Figure 1. The study also includes the intersection of Pacific Highway South /SR 599 southbound on- ramp /South 116th Way. This analysis is limited to the southbound direction only and to the p.m. peak hour only. These limitations are imposed in the project scope because this is the critical direction and the critical time period for the level -of- service analysis. The study did not include a feasibility analysis of the bridge over the Duwamish River on Pacific Highway South. The northern limit of the study extended only to the south end of the bridge. Four alternatives for the Pacific Highway South on -ramp are outlined below and shown in Attachment A: 0 1000 2000 0 N Figurel PROJECT STUDY AREA MEMORANDUM Page 3 October 5, 1992 SEA31760.A1 • Alternative A—This is the minimum improvements alternative. A dou- ble left is added at the Pacific Highway South intersection. The two lanes on the ramp must begin the lane drop taper only about 300 feet from the intersection. The resulting single lane on the ramp then merges with SR 599 at about the same place as it does today. Pave- ment widening for the second lane on the ramp occurs only between theintersection and the overhead structure. Merge geometrics with SR 599 remain unchanged, requiring a WSDOT design deviation. • Alternative B —This is a ramp realignment alternative in which the ramp is moved to between the south abutment and the south piers supporting the overhead structure. The double left from Pacific Highway South remains two lanes on the ramp for approximately 400 feet before merg- ing into one lane. • Alternative C—This alternative provides a double -left treatment, as in Alternative A. However, the merge with SR 599 is extended by approx- imately 1,000 feet through the use of a parallel entrance ramp /auxiliary lane configuration. This increases merge distance to reduce speed dif- ferential and . improve sight distance. The auxiliary lane would end prior to the East Marginal Way undercrossing. • Alternative D —This is a variation of Alternative B. The standard merge is supplemented with approximately 1,400 feet of auxiliary lane extend- ing south of the East Marginal Way undercrossing. This allows for improved horizontal separation and additional length to merge into the mainline. Two additional alternatives were analyzed for comparison with the Pacific Highway South interchange improvement alternatives —a No- Action Alternative and an im- proved South 102nd Street interchange. The latter involves construction of a south- bound on -ramp to SR 99 at the Oxbow site. The Oxbow alternative includes two options: a reconstructed three - quarter diamond for general purpose traffic and a direct HOV -only ramp to the inside median of SR 99. The analysis focuses on four areas: design feasibility and cost; freeway operations at the diverge and merge point and on mainline SR 599/SR 99; queue analysis for potential ramp metering on the southbound on -ramp; and intersection level of service on Pacific Highway South at the on -ramp, including queues for the left turn. 3 MEMORANDUM Page 4 October 5, 1992 SEA31760.A1 Existing Conditions Traffic Accident Data Traffic accident data for SR 99 and SR 599 for the period from February 1, 1989, to January 31, 1992 (see Attachment B), were analyzed. The 1990 WSDOT Priority Array lists the Pacific Highway South Interchange as having a positive hazardous acci- dent index of 1.9 and an overall District 1 Priority Rank of 52. The analysis of the accident data indicates a concentration of accidents at the intersection of South 116th Way and Pacific Highway South. Approximately 20 per- cent of the accidents at this intersection (4 of 20) involved left -turn movements. Rear -end accidents made up another 20 percent of the accidents, indicating an area of heavy congestion. A concentration of four rear -end accidents also occurs on southbound SR 599 near the merge with the southbound on -ramp. The violations associated with these accidents include following too close and exceeding the safe speed. Two of the accidents involved ice on the roadway. It is likely that the concentration of rear -end accidents is associated with the non - standard merge geometrics of the southbound on- ramp. Merging vehicles do not have adequate acceleration, sight distance, or merging distance. As volumes and congestion increase, these accidents are also likely to become more frequent. Traffic Operations Traffic volumes for 1991 and 1992 were provided by the City of Tukwila for the key analysis locations in the study area. The p.m. peak hour in this area is strongly influ- enced by the shift start and finish times and the level of employment for The Boeing Company. The shift change for Boeing is staggered between 2:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m; the resulting peak on the street system is approximately 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. The level of employment at The Boeing Company fluctuates over a fairly wide range, with a recent peak of approximately 25,000. At the time of the traffic counts, The Boeing Company had an employment level of approximately 21,400, with first -shift employ- ment of 17,100. The Pacific Highway South /SR 599 on- ramp /South 116th Way intersection is estima- ted to operate at LOS E (delay of 56.8 seconds) during the 1991/92 p.m. peak hour. This analysis may understate the delay and level of congestion because the high MEMORANDUM Page 5 October 5, 1992 SEA31760.A1 volume of left turns (1,055) exceeds the left -turn storage for the southbound on -ramp movement. The result is that the left -turn queue backs into the through lanes and across the bridge over the Duwamish River. The resulting blockage of one of the through lanes upstream may reduce the efficiency of the intersection. Implementing protected /permitted phasing for the left turn would reduce delay and improve the estimated LOS to D (34.4 seconds). The 1991/92 p.m. peak -hour level of service for the southbound on -ramp merge is estimated at LOS E, with, the freeway LOS south of the merge estimated at D. The geometry at the merge point is substandard. The merge occurs on a curve with re- stricted sight distance. The ramp length and taper are too short to allow proper matching of speed between vehicles on the mainline and those on the ramp. The southbound off -ramp to Pacific Highway South was also analyzed to provide a baseline for, comparison with the Oxbow Interchange alternative. The existing free- way LOS upstream of the ramp and the ' LOS of the ramp itself are both estimated at C. Future Conditions No- Action Alternative This alternative is analyzed strictly for comparison purposes. Previous SEPA analysis for development by the Boeing Company requires interchange improvements on SR 599/SR 99; those improvements will be made at either the Oxbow Interchange or the Pacific Highway South Interchange. The present analysis is part of the SEPA analysis for the Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal EIS. The pro- posed development would increase the employment level to 25,000 by the year 2000. Existing and forecast peak -hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. The year 2000 level of service at the Pacific Highway South /SR 599 on -ramp inter- section is estimated at LOS F (delay of 107.6 seconds). With protected /permitted phasing, the intersection would still operate at F; however, the delay would be re- duced to 72.1 seconds. The result would likely be a diversion of traffic to other routes, such as Interurban Avenue or South Boeing Access Road. Additional degra- dation in level of service along these routes would be expected as a result. The left -turn queue at the intersection; would continue to back up across the Duwam- ish River, as discussed above. 5 Pac.Hwy.So. /SR 599 Ramp SR 599/SR 99 Existing 1991/92 A N 435 41 J 690 1,055 lir Loo. I 320 5 2125 600 1,525 Pacific Hwy. So. 1,120 . 2,645 SR 599 220 60 —IIIP- 35 1 35 2000 No Action Alternative N 545 860 1,320 L* 2,450 4i viv 275 —4 700 1,750 75 —P 45 Pacific Hwy. So. 1,405 3,155 45 410 10 SR 599 2000 24 So. 102nd St. Oxbow Alternative N 540 780 570 900 '1111j lir LOP' 3,350 275 —4 75 —OP- 795 2,555 40 1 I Pacific Hwy. So. 45 410 10 655 3,210 SR 599 2000 560 875 1,400 2,450 Pacific Highway South N . Alternative 1 280 4 700 1,750 75 —ION. 45 Pacific Hwy. So. '141 t FIIPI' 1,485 3,235 45 425 10 . SR 599 6 Figure 2 TRAFFIC VOLUMES MEMORANDUM Page 7 October 5, 1992 SEA31760.A 1 Assuming that all of the estimated demand could be delivered to the southbound on- ramp to SR 599, the merge point on the freeway would have an estimated LOS of F. Metering the on -ramp at a rate of 850 vehicles per hour would improve the on -ramp merge and freeway LOS to D. The freeway downstream of the merge point would operate at LOS E. The southbound off -ramp diverge at Pacific Highway South would operate at LOS D, as would the freeway upstream of the diverge. Oxbow Interchange Alternatives The Oxbow Interchange alternative was identified as required mitigation for previous development by The Boeing Company. The improvement would involve the recon- struction of the Oxbow Interchange and the addition of a southbound on -ramp, which would divert traffic from Pacific Highway South and the on -ramp to SR 599 (Fig- ure 2). Two alternatives were identified: a three - quarter diamond and a direct HOV flyover ramp to the inside of southbound SR 99. Design Considerations Diamond Alternative. The Oxbow Interchange improvements were originally investi- gated by The Boeing Company. Two alternatives were identified in that study: a three - quarter diamond interchange with a southbound SR 99 entrance ramp, and a flyover alternative for the southbound entrance ramp. WSDOT later identified the three - quarter diamond interchange as its preferred alternative and updated the con- struction estimate for this alternative. The fourth ramp of the interchange, the south- bound exit ramp, was deferred to a later stage. Original investigations indicated that construction of this ramp would require relocation of the high- tension transmission lines that cross the freeway in the interchange area. HOV Alternative. WSDOT requested that a third Oxbow alternative be investigated as part of this feasibility study. This alternative consists of an HOV flyover ramp to the median of southbound SR 99. A conceptual diagram of this alternative is shown in Attachment A, Sheet 7. The flyover structure for this alternative would be ap- proximately 600 feet long. Retaining walls would be required along both sides of the ramp in the median of SR 99. Right -of -way would also be required along 102nd Street for the construction of the bridge approach fill. The median HOV lane would extend approximately 2,400 feet south on SR 99 from the gore of the HOV ramp. The HOV lane would be dropped prior to the Pacific Highway South Inter- change. Extending the HOV lane beyond the interchange would require widening existing overcrossing structures at the Pacific Highway South Interchange. 7 MEMORANDUM Page 8 October 5, 1992 SEA31760.A1 The existing overhead transmission lines will require 35 feet of vertical line clearance. It has not been determined in this study whether adequate vertical clearance exists to construct the HOV flyover without relocating the transmission lines. Relocation of the transmission lines could require additional right -of -way and would significantly affect the construction cost of the project. Traffic Operations Diamond Alternative. Under the three - quarter diamond option, the freeway system would typically operate at LOS E, including the merge point for the Pacific Highway South on -ramp. The southbound off -ramp diverge at Pacific Highway South would be reduced to LOS F as a result of on -ramp traffic from Oxbow, through traffic on the mainline, and off -ramp traffic, all combining in the outside lane. Designs that would increase the distance between the new Oxbow on -ramp and the Pacific Highway South off -ramp could be explored to alleviate this congestion. In order to achieve LOS E at the off -ramp, the spacing would need to be a minimum of 3,000 feet. This would push the on -ramp to the north side of South 102nd Street (a loop ramp config- uration). Another alternative would be to add an auxiliary lane- between Oxbow and Pacific Highway South. This would improve the LOS in this section to C/D. Another option to improve the LOS at this location would be to meter the Oxbow southbound on -ramp. A meter rate of 700 vehicles per hour (77 percent of the demand) would provide LOS E at the Pacific Highway South off -ramp diverge. HOV Alternative. The Oxbow HOV flyover alternative would restrict this ramp to transit, carpools, and vanpools only. The number of users would depend on whether the lot were designated as a central carpool parking facility or served only the Oxbow development. Assuming that 15 percent of the Oxbow lot was used by HOVs, the p.m. peak hour volume on the ramp would be approximately 525 vehicles. The level of service on SR 99 at the merge would be D/E. In order to determine potential travel time advantages for HOVs using the restricted ramp, the City of Tukwila conducted a travel time study in May 1992. City staff made repeated runs from the Oxbow lot to SR 599 via East Marginal Way and Pacific Highway South during the p.m. peak hour. Travel times varied from 3.5 minutes to 5.0 minutes. Time savings for users of an exclusive ramp are estimated at 1.5 to 2.0 minutes. These savings may be negated for some HOV commuters, however, by longer walking distances to work sites such as the Developmental Center or the Thompson- Isaacson site. 8 MEMORANDUM Page 9 October 5, 1992 SEA31760.A1 The Pacific Highway South /SR 599 on -ramp intersection would operate at LOS C (delay of 16.2 seconds). The year 2000 p.m. peak -hour left -turn volume would de- crease from 1,320 to 655, and the queue storage needed would be approximately 500 feet. If the Oxbow Interchange were restricted to HOVs, the intersection would operate at LOS E (delay of 58.2 seconds) or LOS D (delay of 38.6 seconds) with protected /permitted phasing. Pacific Highway South Interchange Alternatives These alternatives would provide improvements to the SR 599 on -ramp to allow a dual left -turn lane from Pacific Highway South. These improvements would be part of a tradeoff for the Oxbow Interchange. Included in the exchange would be widen- ing of Pacific Highway South between SR 599 and the South Boeing Access Road. A major component of this improvement would be the replacement of the four -lane bridge over the Duwamish River with a five or six-lane structure. The improvements to Pacific Highway South may attract some additional traffic because of the increased capacity. Design Considerations The treatment of the double left -turn lanes on Pacific Highway South is similar for all of the build alternatives. The alternatives propose two through lanes in each direc- tion, double left -turn lanes to southbound SR 599, and a right -turn lane to South 116th Way. Pedestrians and bicycles are accommodated with 6 -foot sidewalks and 5 -foot bike lanes. The sidewalks are located behind the bridge piers for the SR 99/ SR 599 overcrossing structures. Conventional cantilever retaining walls are proposed at the back of the sidewalks to retain the abutment fills. Concrete barrier will be required at the locations of the bridge piers. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed alternatives for the improve- ments to Pacific Highway South and the southbound SR 599 on -ramp have not been evaluated, being outside the scope of this feasibility study. The proposed alternatives will have some impact on the stream and potential wetlands that are adjacent to the southbound on -ramp. Mitigation of these impacts could include construction of wet- lands and the associated right -of -way requirements. Water quality standards required under the King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) will also have to be met. This could include the construction of biofiltration filter strips along the outside of the entrance ramp to treat surface water runoff. The construction of these facilities could also make it necessary to acquire additional right -of -way along the outside of the ramp. 9 MEMORANDUM Page 10 October 5, 1992 SEA31760.A1 Alternative A. This alternative (Attachment A, Sheet 2) .provides widening of the southbound on -ramp to accommodate the double left -turn lane. A 25:1 taper is used to merge the two lanes prior to the SR 99 ramp overcrossing structure an the merge with SR 599. Alternative A does not improve the nonstandard ramp merge geo- metrics with SR 599. A WSDOT design deviation will be required for this alternative. Alternative B. Alternative B (Attachment A, Sheet 3) provides widening of the ramp or t e ou a left -turn lane by realigning the ramp between the pier and abutment of the SR 99 ramp overcrossing structure. This provides two 12 -foot ramp lanes with a 4 -foot inside shoulder and an 8 -foot outside shoulder. The two lanes are then merged to one lane with a 30:1 taper immediately after crossing under the bridge. The ramp then merges with SR 599 with standard one -lane entrance ramp geometry. The ramp shoulder taper ends just prior to the East Marginal Way South overcrossing structure. A WSDOT design deviation will be required for the proposed 8 -foot outside shoulder width on the ramp. A 10 -foot shoulder is the WSDOT standard for a two -lane ramp. Locating the ramp between the SR 99 ramp overcrossing abutment and pier requires the construction of a tie -back retaining wall to support the adjacent bridge abutment and piles during construction. This type of wall can be constructed in multiple seg- ments, allowing for continuous support of the abutment and piles during construction. The proposed wall would be approximately 30 feet high at the highest point and 200 feet long. Alternative C. The double left -turn treatment for Alternative C (Attachment A, Sheet 4) is similar to that for Alternative A. The two left -turn lanes merge to one lane prior to the SR 99 ramp overcrossing structure. An auxiliary lane is then pro- vided for 1,000 feet before merging with the mainline at a 50:1 taper. The auxiliary lane crosses under the bridge on the mainline side of the existing pier, eliminating the requirement for a tie -back retaining wall. The additional acceleration and merge lengths provided by the auxiliary lane improve the merge geometry for the entrance ramp. A WSDOT design deviation will be required, as this alternative does not pro- vide standard one -lane entrance ramp geometry. jternatixe D., Alternative D (Attachment A, Sheet 5) is similar to Alternative B in ramp geometry and construction requirements. The proposal also includes realign- ment of the ramp between the bridge abutment and pier, necessitating the construc- tion of a tie -back retaining wall as described under Alternative B. 10 MEMORANDUM Page 11 October 5, 1992 SEA31760.A1 Alternative D proposes a 1,200 -foot auxiliary lane along SR 599, replacing the stand- ard merge geometry proposed under Alternative B. This auxiliary lane provides greater acceleration and merge lengths. The auxiliary lane is dropped approximately 800 feet beyond the East Marginal Way undercrossing structure, using a 50:1 taper rate. This alternative requires a WSDOT design deviation for the ramp shoulder at the SR 99 ramp overcrossing structure, as described for Alternative B. A design devia- tion is also required for the outside shoulder of the auxiliary lane at the East Mar- ginal Way undercrossing structure. The existing bridge pier for this undercrossing structure provides clearance for an 8 -foot shoulder and a 12 -foot auxiliary lane; the WSDOT standard for a divided multi -lane facility is 10 -foot outside shoulders. Traffic Operations The dual left -turn lane at the Pacific Highway South /SR 599 on -ramp would improve the estimated LOS to D (26.5 seconds). In order to achieve this level of service, the dual left -turn lane would need to be approximately 500 feet long, assuming a 90- second cycle length with 50 seconds of green time for the left turn. There is a distance of approximately 750 feet between the south end of the bridge over the Duwamish River and the intersection. The intersection LOS would be essentially the same for all of the Pacific Highway South interchange alternatives. The exception would be an HOV bypass option. With one of the left -turn lanes dedicated to HOVs, the estimated intersection LOS would drop to E (delay of 57.6 seconds). Under this alternative, the left -turn queue would continue to extend north across the Duwamish River bridge. The intersection LOS under various alternatives is summarized in Table 1. For the freeway at the Pacific Highway South southbound off -ramp, all of the Pacific Highway South alternatives and the No- Action Alternative would operate at LOS D for both the diverge point and the upstream freeway. The LOS at the southbound on -ramp from Pacific Highway South would vary by alternative, as described below. Alternative A. This alternative would provide minimal changes to the freeway and the ramp geometrics at the merge point. The estimated LOS would be similar to that of the No- Action Alternative —LOS F at the merge point and LOS E on the freeway downstream. 11 MEMORANDUM Page 12 October 5, 1992 SEA31760.A1 Table 1 P.M. Level -of- Service Summary Pacific Highway South/SR 599 On- Ramp /South 116th Way Option Existing Phasing LOS (delay) Protected/ Permitted LOS (delay) 1991/92 (existing) E (56.8) D (34.4) 2000 No Action F (107.6) F (72.1) 2000 Oxbow Improvements C (16.2) -- 2000 Oxbow Improvements (HOV) E (58.2) D (38.6) 2000 Pacific Highway (dual left) D (26.5) -- 2000 Pacific Highway (dual left HOV bypass) E (57.6) -- Ramp metering could be implemented to improve the LOS. A metering rate of 850 vehicles per hour would improve the estimated ramp merge and the downstream freeway LOS to D. The meter would accommodate only 57 percent of demand; the result would be diversion to other routes, similar to the No- Action Alternative. Since the ramp meter volume necessary to achieve LOS D is less than the capacity of a one -lane ramp meter (900 vehicles per hour), an HOV bypass lane could be pro- vided. (This would be combined with an arterial HOV left -turn lane, as discussed previously.) An estimated 150 to 200 HOVs would use the on -ramp under this scen- ario. Further reductions in the meter rate for single- occupant vehicles may be neces- sary to maintain LOS D at the on -ramp merge. Again, diversion of traffic to other routes would be expected. Storage for vehicles on the ramp behind a meter would be minimal either with or without an HOV queue bypass. Traffic would continue to back up on Pacific High- way South to the north and across the bridge over the Duwamish River. The restricted sight distance and poor geometrics of the existing merge point would continue to cause operational problems and safety concerns. 12 MEMORANDUM Page 13 October 5, 1992 SEA31760.A1 Alternative B. This alternative would improve operations on the ramp by providing a longer distance for the ramp traffic to merge from two lanes down to a single lane prior to merging onto the freeway. It would also improve operations at the freeway merge by increasing the sight distance and allowing for better speed matching at the merge. However, the estimated volumes would still exceed the estimated capacity at the ramp /freeway merge (LOS F). Options similar to Alternative A (i.e., ramp metering) could be pursued to improve the estimated LOS. The major advantages of this alternative over Alternative A are more queue storage on the ramp if metering is implemented and improved safety and operations at the ramp /freeway merge as a result of better geometrics. Alternative C. Under this alternative, an auxiliary lane would be provided for 1,000 feet. The two -lane ramp distance may be slightly greater than under Alterna- tive A, allowing for greater queue storage for potential ramp metering. The auxiliary lane would allow a portion of the ramp volume to merge with the freeway prior to the ultimate decision point when the lane ends. This would improve the estimated LOS to D for the freeway and E for the ramp merge. A two -lane ramp meter (no HOV queue bypass) using a metering rate of 1,200 vehi- cles per hour (the maximum for a two -lane meter) would improve the LOS to D for the ramp /auxiliary lane merge to the freeway. The capacity of the ramp meter would be approximately 82 percent of the demand. The queue from the meter would back up onto Pacific Highway South. During peak demand, the left -turn queue would continue to back up across the Duwamish River. Alternative D. This alternative provides a design that would allow the system to oper- ate at LOS D without ramp metering. In order to accomplish this, an auxiliary lane would need to be provided for approximately 1,400 feet. This would extend past the East Marginal Way South undercrossing. As with Alternative B, improved safety and operations would result from the geometric improvements. Table 2 summarizes the estimated level of service for the freeway and ramps. Opinions of Cost The opinions of cost for the improvements at the SR 99 /SR 599 interchange are con- tained in Table 3. The costs are in 1992 dollars and include 20 percent contingency and 15 percent for preliminary engineering. These are order -of- magnitude costs pro- vided for comparison purposes. These costs do not include potential environmental 13 MEMORANDUM Page 14 October 5, 1992 SEA31760.A1 Table 2 Level -of- Service Summary Freeway System Options Pacific Highway Southbound Off -Ramp Freeways/Diverge Pacific Highway Southbound On -Ramp Freewayb /Merge 1991/92 (existing) C/C D/E 2000 No Action D/D E/F 2000 Oxbow E/F E/E 2000 Oxbow HOV D/E E/E 2000 Pacific Highway Alternative A D/D E/F Alternative A with HOV D/D D/D Alternative B D/D E/F Alternative B with HOV D/D D/D Alternative C D/D D/E Alternative C with meter (1,200) D/D D/D Alternative D D/D D/D 'Upstream of diverge. bDownstream of merge. mitigation required for the alternatives. The limits for improvements on Pacific High- way South are the Duwamish River bridge to the SR 599 on- ramp /South 116th Way intersection. The proposed cross - section includes a dual left -turn lane as well as curb, gutter, and sidewalk, as shown on the roadway sections provided in Attachment A. Duwamish River Bridge An initial analysis of the Duwamish River Bridge and Pacific Highway South was con- ducted to estimate lane requirements. Two options were analyzed: a five -lane option (see Figure 3) and a six-lane option (see Figure 4). The six-lane option would 14 SE431760.A1/PAC. HWY. SO./ 8-12 -92/JG SO. 116TH WAY / / 1 A 1 t 1 4 4 C)1-<131 TO /FROM SR 99 A� PACIFIC HWY SO. SR 599 SB ON RAMP E-- SR 599 NB OFF RAMP Notes: 750 feet between intersection and bridge 500 of dual left turn and 500 feet of single left turn Zane for SB Pacific Hwy. So. Figure 3 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH 5 LANE OPTION SEA31760J11/PAC. HWY. SO. /10592/JG / / SO. 116TH WAY / / / �/ / / • / / 0I-< Ix r TO /FROM SR 99 A-- OPTIONAL SR 599 SB ON RAMP PACIFIC HWY SO. SR 599 NB OFF RAMP Notes: 750 feet between intersection and bridge 500 of dual left turn and 500 feet of single left turn lane for SB Pacific Hwy. So. Duwamish River Figure 4 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH 6 LANE OPTION MEMORANDUM Page 17 October 5, 1992 SEA31760.A1 Table 3 Opinions of Cost— SR 599 Improvements Pacific Highway Ramp Alternatives Oxbow Alternatives A ($) B ($) C ($) D ($) Three - Quarter Diamond' ($) HOV Flyover ($) Right- of -Wayb 0 0 0 0 370,000 530,000 Construction 871,000 2,087,000 1,075,000 2,151,000 6,635,000 5,517,000 Preliminary Engineering 131,000 313,000 161,000 323,000 995,000 828,000 Total (1992 dollars) 1,002,000 2,400,000 1,236,000 2 4j 74,000 8,001, 6,875,000 aWSDOT estimate for comparison purposes. bAdditional right -of -way may be required for wetland mitigation and biofiltration. provide additional capacity for southbound traffic, which reflects the unbalanced peak hour flows in the corridor; p.m. peak hour volumes are approximately 35 percent higher than a.m. peak hour volumes. The six-lane option is estimated to operate at LOS B /C, while the five -lane option would operate at LOS E/F in year 2000. A preliminary planning -level estimate of the cost of a new six-lane bridge was prepared, using broad assumptions of costs per square foot for replacement and removal. Assuming the existing bridge to be 200 feet by 50 feet with salvageable steel through -truss and a replacement bridge of 340 feet by 80 feet, with no piers in the 100 -year floodway, staged construction, a 180 -foot main span over the river, and post - tensioned concrete box girder construction, the new bridge is estimated to cost $3,270,000 (at $120 /sf), plus $300,000 for removal of the old bridge less salvage value (at $30 /sf net). Additional design studies would be required to refine this cost estimate, including possible expenses associated with environmental mitigation. 17 MEMORANDUM Page 18 October 5, 1992 SEA31760.A1 Summary Preliminary analysis indicates that improvements to the SR 599 southbound on -ramp and the Pacific Highway South /116th Way South intersection are feasible. Of the Pacific Highway South interchange alternatives, Alternatives B and D provide the best combination of geometric design and traffic operations, with Alternative D providing the best level of service. Neither Alternative A nor Alternative C provides desirable geometrics. The Oxbow alternatives provide similar traffic operation to Alterna- tives B and but at a much higher cost. In either case, additional design studies will be required to select a preferred alternative and identify wetlands and environmental mitigation. clp /1002125D.SEA 18 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR BOEING DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Prepared for the Review and Comment of Citizens and Government Agencies in Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act of 1972, Revised Code of Washington 43.21c and SEPA Rules, April 4, 1984, Chapter 197 -11 Washington Administrative Code Date of Issue: May 1, 1992 Date Comments Due: June 1, 1992 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director May 1,1992 Dear Readers: Attached is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the redevelopment of Boeing's Duwamish corridor facilities. It is accompanied by a second document, prepared by Boeing entitled, "Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment." The Boeing Company proposes to replace its aging manufacturing buildings with newer structures over the next ten -year period. It plans to demolish about 3.7 million square feet of floor area, and construct approximately 4.3 million square feet of new building space. During this period, the company envisions that its workforce will shiff from manufacturing to a combination of research & development activities. Total employment in the area will not exceed 25,000, which is approximately the same level it has been in recent years. In order to guide this process of redevelopment, Boeing sets forth its goals and objectives, and accompanies these with specific design guidelines and standards for landscaping, streets, shoreline access, and transit. This Draft EIS is of a "non'-project" nature. It addresses the broad range of issues in which subsequent environmental reviews may take place for specific buildings or projects. Of these broad issues, shoreline access and transportation are major elements, and receive the most attention in the DEIS. The EIS represents a joint effort between The Boeing Company and a variety of governmental agencies. Of these the City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle, and King County have land use responsibilities for portions of the Duwamish area. A memorandum of agreement between the municipalities acknowledges this effort, and designates Tukwila as the lead agency for preparing the EIS. It sets forth how the EIS will be used in subsequent project- specific environmental reviews. Under the terms of the memorandum, the ten -year period of redevelopment may proceed by following many of the key understandings that are protrayed in this programmatic Impact Statement. We encourage both your comments on this Draft EIS and your involvement in the public informational meeting to be held on Wednesday, May 20th at 7:30 PM in Tukwila City Council chambers at 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. Comments on the Draft should be addressed to Robert Betts, Project Coordinator, Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100, Tukwila WA 98188. All written comments must be received by the City of Tukwila by June 1st, 1992. Oral or written comments may be presented on Wednesday May 20th at the public informational meeting on this proposal. I would like to thank the many people who have contributed to this planning process for the Duwamish Corridor. Your assistance is helping us arrive at the very best possible plan for its redevelopment. Sincere L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Faz (206) 431-3665 FACT SHEET TITLE AND DESCRIPTION The proposed action is a proposal for redevelopment of the Boeing property along the Duwamish corridor. The Duwamish corridor is a 4.5 -mile stretch of land in the valley of the Duwamish Waterway from Ellis Avenue South on the north to South 126th Street on the south. Over a 10 -year period (1992 through 2002), The Boeing Company proposes to redevelop approximately 30 percent of its existing manufacturing facilities. Future construction will emphasize laboratory, office, and developmental manufacturing uses. Work force population is not expected to exceed 25,000 employees. PROPOSAL SPONSOR The Boeing Company Contact: Jeff Zahir, Planner P.O. Box 3707 MS 6Y -59 F/TSS Planning and Program Support Seattle, Washington 98124 -2207 (206) 393 -2783 APPROXIMATE DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION The Boeing Company, the proposal sponsor, expects that construction activities will begin in 1992 with all phases of redevelopment completed by 2002. LEAD AGENCY INFORMATION The lead agency is the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development. The responsible official is: L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 DATE OF ISSUE OF DRAFT EIS May 1, 1992 COMMENTING Comments are due by June 1, 1992. iii Comments on this Draft EIS are welcome and should be addressed to: Robert S. Betts Project Coordinator, Boeing Duwamish EIS Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 600 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 455 -9640 PUBLIC MEETING A public meeting on the Draft EIS will be held at 7:30 p.m. on May 20, 1992, at Tukwila City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington. AVAILABILITY OF COPIES Copies of this Draft EIS are available for public inspection at: Tukwila Public Library 14475 95th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Foster Library 4205 South 142nd Street Tukwila, Washington City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington A limited number of copies of this document have been printed and made available for public distribution at the City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development. Additional copies are available at $10 per copy. APPROXIMATE DATE OF FINAL ACTION BY LEAD AGENCY August 1992. OTHER RELATED MATERIAL The Boeing Company has prepared a separate document entitled "Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment," which accompanies this Draft EIS. This proposal and other iv background material and support documents can be found either at the City of Tukwila or at CH2M HILL. AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS TO EIS This Draft EIS was prepared under the direction of the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development. Additional research and analysis were provided by: CH2M HILL, Inc. 777 108th Avenue NE P.O. Box 91500 Bellevue, Washington 98009 -2050 100216C8.SEAq v aMWh AVO List of Acronyms Average megawatt -hours Average vehicle occupancy BAC Best available control technology BALD Building and Land Development (a King County department) BAR Board of Architectural Review BFD Boeing Fire Department (Boeing) BMT Boeing Materials Technology (Boeing) BTU British thermal units CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CDL Construction, Demolition, and Landclearing (Boeing) CO Carbon monoxide dBA A- weighted decibels DCLU Department of Construction and Land Use (Seattle) DEIS Draft environmental impact statement DWU Drainage and Wastewater Utility (Seattle) EDNA Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement EIS Environmental impact statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FAA FAR Federal Aviation Administration Floor area ratio gsf Gross square feet HOV High- occupancy vehicle KCC King County Code kV Kilovolts kW Kilowatts IASL Integrated Aircraft Systems Laboratory (Boeing) Ldn Day -night noise levels LC/DW Land Clearing and Demolition Waste LEPC Local Emergency Planning Committee LOS Level of service vii Metro Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle MP Mile post MPH Miles per hour MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet MW Megawatts MWh Megawatt -hours NO2 Nitrogen dioxide NPC Northwest Pipeline Company NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PM Particulate matter PMio Particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter PPM Parts per million PSAPCA Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency SCL Seattle City Light SED Seattle Engineering Department SEPA State Environmental Policy Act SERC State Emergency Response Commission SHEA Safety, Health, and Environmental Affairs (Boeing) SMP Shoreline Master Program SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SOV Single- occupancy vehicle SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure SSHB Second Substitute House Bill SWD Seattle Water Department SWM Surface Water Management (King County) TDM Transportation demand management TFD Tukwila Fire Department TMC Tukwila Municipal Code TMP Transportation management program TPD Tukwila Police Department TSM Transportation system management TSP Total suspended particulates UFC Uniform Fire Code V/C Volume to capacity (ratio) VOC Volatile organic compound VPD Vehicles per day WAC Washington Administrative Code WNG Washington Natural Gas WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation viii , Part III. Other Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5 Population, Housing, and Employment 5 -1 6 Air 6-1 7 Environmental Health 7 -1 8 Stormwater and Water Quality 8 -1 9 Energy 9 -1 10 Public Services and Utilities 10 -1 Part IV. Appendices A. References B. Proposed Transportation Management Plan for Boeing North Duwamish Campus C. Regional High - Capacity Transit Planning D. Evaluation of the Oxbow Interchange E. Summary of Laws and Regulations Affecting Regulated Materials F. PSCOG Origin and Destination Data G. Memorandum of Agreement H. Distribution and Notice of Issuance Lists TABLES Page 1 -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1 -8 2 -1 Mix of Uses in Boeing Duwamish Corridor 2 -3 2 -2 Employee Mix in Boeing Duwamish Corridor • 2 -3 2 -3 Public Shoreline Access in Duwamish Corridor 2 -7 2 -4 Estimated Employment for Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 -9 2 -5 Estimated Square Footage by Use for Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 -9 3 -1 Floor Area of Current Boeing -Owned Site Uses 3 -3 3 -2 Shoreline Classifications of Study Area Sites 3 -7 3 -3 Summary of General Zoning and Shoreline Development Requirements For Each Site 3 -9 4 -1 Daily Roadway Capacity 4 -9 4-2 Description of Arterial Levels of Services 4-9 4-3 Estimated Parking Supply and Demand -- Existing Conditions 4-11 4 -4 First -Shift Employee Mode Split 4 -13 4-5 SOV Reduction Goals 4 -14 4-6 Estimated Daily Trip Generation 4-22 4-7 Level of Service for Selected Roadways 4-26 4 -8 Estimated Parking Supply and Demand - -No Action Alternative 4 -27 4-9 SOV Reduction Goals - -No Action Alternative 4 -27 4-10 Estimated Year 2002 Daily Trip Generation for Proposed Action and Alternatives 4 -30 xi TABLES (Continued) Page 4-11 Evaluation of Oxbow Interchange —Year 2002 LOS Comparisons 4 -32 4 -12 Estimated Peak Parking Demand — Proposed Action and Alternatives 4 -33 4 -13 SOV Reduction Goals -- Proposed Action and Alternatives 4 -34 4-14 Mode Split Percentage for SOV Goals (First -Shift Employees) 4 -35 5 -1 Summary of Boeing Duwamish Corridor Population 5 -1 5 -2 Puget Sound Region Population, Housing, and Employment by County 5 -1 5 -3 Boeing Regional Population by County 5 -2 5 -4 Residences of Boeing Duwamish Corridor Employees by Community 5 -3 5 -5 Boeing- Related Housing 5 -3 5 -6 Boeing Employment by Plant and Job Type 5 -4 5 -7 Boeing- Related Employment by County 5 -5 6-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards 6 -2 6-2 1990 Air Quality Data 6 -3 6-3 Weekday Project Area CO Emissions 6-6 7 -1 Maximum Permissible Noise Limitations 7 -8 9 -1 Summary of Annual Electrical Energy Use 9 -1 r, � FIGURES Page 1 -1 Vicinity Map and Neighborhoods 1 -2 2 -1 Boeing -Owned and Leased Property and Future Sites 2 -2 3 -1 Existing Site Uses 3 -2 3 -2 Generalized Zoning Districts 3 -5 3 -3 Existing and Proposed Recreation and Open Space 3 -15 3 -4 Airport Height Overlay Districts 3 -20 3 -5 Proposed Site Uses 3 -25 3 -6 Existing and Proposed Boeing Shoreline Access and Trail Plan 3 -30 4-1 Existing Roadway System 4 -2 4-2 1991 Average Weekday Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service 4 -5 4 -3 1991 AM and PM Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 4 -6 4-4 Accident History (1/1/88- 12/31/90) 4-10 4-5 Existing Parking 4 -12 4-6 Existing Transit Service 4 -16 4-7 Future Road Improvements 4 -20 4-8 Daily Project Trip Distribution 4 -24 4-9 Forecast 2002 Average Weekday Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service —No Action Alternative 4 -25 FIGURES (Continued) 4-10 Forecast 2002 Average Weekday and Levels of Service— Proposed Action Page 4 -31 4-11 Forecast 2002 Average Weekday Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service— Manufacturing Center Alternative • 4 -38 7 -1 Typical Sound Levels (dBA) 7 -7 7 -2 Projected Community Noise Pattern for the Year 2000 7 -11 8-1 Existing Storm Sewers 8 -2 10020E2F.SEA xiv Part I Introduction Chapter 1 SUMMARY PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action is a proposal for redevelopment of Boeing properties in the Duwamish corridor. Over a 10 -year period (1992 through 2002), The Boeing Company proposes to redevelop approximately 30 percent of its existing manufacturing facilities. Future construction will emphasize laboratory, office, and developmental manufacturing uses. Workforce population is not expected to exceed approximately 25,000 employees. Chapter 2 of this EIS describes the Proposed Action in more detail. A full description of the proposal is provided in The Boeing Company's Duwamish Corridor Redevelop- ment Proposal (under separate cover). The Duwamish corridor can be described broadly as a 4.5- mile -long stretch of land in the valley of the Duwamish Waterway, from Ellis Avenue South on the north to South 126th Street on the south. The majority of the project area lies in the City of Tukwila, with portions also in King County and Seattle. Figure 1 -1 is a map of the project vicinity. Ten major Boeing sites are located in the Duwamish corridor. The Boeing Company's ownership and leases in the corridor now include approximately 600 acres and about 9.9 million square feet of developed floor area. The proposed redevelopment would involve demolition of about 3.7 million square feet of floor area in the Duwamish corridor and construction of about 4.3 million square feet of new floor area. At the completion of the redevelopment, the corridor would contain a new total of approximately 10.6 million square feet of developed floor area. Emphasis in the redeveloped areas would shift . from manufacturing to research and development, and the mix of employees would change correspondingly. PROJECT GOALS The Boeing Company's redevelopment goals, as stated on page 3 of the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal, are: Goal 1: Goal 2: Early identification of corridor -wide redevelopment issues, impacts and mitigation measures. A unified industrial campus that integrates laboratory, developmental manufacturing, flightline, and office uses. 1-1 Chapter 1: Summary Proposed Action/Project Goals HARBOR ISLAND BEACON MT. BAKER SPOKANE ST. SOUTH SEATTLE LAKEWOOD STUDY AREA COLUMBIA SEWARD PARK UPLANDS BRIGHTON HIGHLAND PARK King County Line RAINIER BEACH DUWAMISH STUDY AREA SOUTHERN HEIGHTS r Seattle City Limits BOULEVARD PARK AUBURN RIVERTON Scale In Feet TACOMA 4,000 8,000 1 -2 Figure 1 -1 VICINITY MAP AND NEIGHBORHOODS Goal 3: An enhanced natural and aesthetic environment. Goal 4: An efficient use of resources. The Boeing Company anticipates entering into a mitigation agreement with the City of Tukwila consistent with these goals. APPROVAL PROCESS The City of Tukwila and The Boeing Company have agreed to review the broad issues raised by Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal in the context of this nonproject environmental impact statement (EIS). The City of Tukwila is the lead agency for nonproject review of The Boeing Company's proposal. The City's objectives are: • To improve its understanding of the cumulative impacts of the proposed redevelopment; • To increase predictability in the timing and nature of project- specific improvements; • To identify mitigation early in the redevelopment planning process; • To facilitate review of individual permits; and • To avoid piecemeal decisionmaking by reviewing the broader plans for corridor redevelopment prior to considering individual projects. Consistent with these objectives, the City of Tukwila has entered into an agreement with the City of Seattle and King County to coordinate review of this nonproject envi- ronmental impact statement. A copy of the Memorandum of Agreement, signed in December 1990, is included as Appendix G. The City anticipates entering into a mitigation agreement with The Boeing Company during or following environmental review of the proposal. The agreement would allow the City to monitor individual projects and determine when phased mitigation pay- ments, improvements, or other activities are required. Prior to individual permit ac- tions, each of these individual project actions will undergo separate environmental review for consistency with the impacts and mitigations discussed in this nonproject environmental impact statement. Supplemental environmental review will be consistent with the objectives of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for project- specific actions. 1 -3 Chapter 1: Summary Approval Process The City of Tukwila anticipates further coordination with the City of Seattle and King County through an interlocal agreement. The agreement would establish a consistent approach among the three jurisdictions for review of individual projects implementing the redevelopment proposal. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED In addition to the Proposed Action, two alternatives are reviewed in this document: the No Action alternative and the Manufacturing Center alternative. These are sum- marized below and described more fully in Chapter 2. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No Action alternative is discussed throughout this environmental document to provide a common point for comparison with other alternatives. Under this alternative, currently planned public improvements to the street system would be completed, and normal, incremental modifications to Boeing facilities in the Duwamish corridor would continue, but major redevelopment to upgrade the manufacturing facilities would not occur. A workforce population of 25,000 employees is assumed. MANUFACTURING CENTER ALTERNATIVE This alternative would maintain the current focus of the Duwamish corridor as an industrial and manufacturing center. Deteriorated and outmoded facilities would be upgraded to allow more efficient use of the area. Total square footage and employ- ment would remain stable at about 9.9 million square feet with a somewhat reduced work force of 20,000 employees, but production rates could increase to meet market demands. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION During the course of this environmental analysis, potential significant adverse impacts to two elements of the built environment, land use and transportation, are disclosed. These elements and other potential areas of impact are summarized below and in Table 1 -1, which appears at the end of this chapter. LAND AND SHORELINE USE Land use impacts include a shift in the mix of uses along the Duwamish corridor from the current manufacturing emphasis to laboratory, office, and developmental manufac- turing. The number of employees would not exceed 25,000, and square footage would increase by about 7 percent. Chapter 1: Summary 1 -4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Proposed Action The land use impacts identified in this document are generally consistent with the comprehensive plans and policies of the three jurisdictions. Adverse impacts related to height, bulk, and scale may occur on a project - specific basis. Design guidelines and standards presented in Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal are intended to address these impacts. These standards could also be used during agency review to mitigate project- specific impacts. While The Boeing Company will make every effort to comply with development regula- tions established by the jurisdictions, program requirements may necessitate requests for variance approvals from certain zoning provisions, shoreline requirements, and sensitive areas regulations. In some instances text amendments may also be requested. Impacts to shorelines in the project area will generally be beneficial, even though there would be an increase of in the amount of square footage devoted to non- water- dependent uses. Redevelopment would occur on sites with approximately 4,800 linear feet of shoreline. The majority of the sites are located within the City of Tukwila, which currently uses the King County Shoreline Master Program for review of develop- ment proposals in the study area. In general, the Proposed Action is consistent with the program's policies and regulations. The Boeing Company's proposed shoreline access plan would enhance approximately 4,800 linear feet of 9,000 linear feet of existing shoreline access. Improvements would include trails, viewpoints, and a canoe launch at the Oxbow site. Enhanced connec- tions with the Green River Trail and the Museum of Flight would also be a benefit to the regional trail system. Streambank enhancement will occur in conjunction with the development of employee shoreline access along those sites proposed for redevelopment. Cooperation with state and federal fish and wildlife agencies is anticipated to result in the enhancement of fish habitat in the Duwamish River estuary. TRANSPORTATION Under the Proposed Action, about 30 percent of the developed floor area in the study area will be redeveloped. This would result in an increase in net square footage of about 7 percent. However, employee population is proposed to be limited to ,the same level (25,000) as predicted for the No Action alternative. Traffic volumes are esti- mated to be approximately equal for the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives except during peak hours. Levels of service (LOS) would remain unchanged for most roadway segments. However, the LOS of several road segments are expected to decline under these two alternatives as compared to existing conditions. These LOS impacts are expected as a result of an anticipated 1.5 percent per year growth in back- ground traffic, as well as an increase in Boeing employment levels. Under both the No Action alternative and the Proposed Action, employment will grow from 21,000 in May 1991 to 25,000 in 2002, a 17 percent increase over existing conditions. Chapter 1: summary 1 -5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Proposed Action These transportation impacts could be addressed in two ways: by implementing an aggressive transportation management program (TMP), and /or by fair -share contribu- tions to street and transit improvements. The Boeing Company has proposed a TMP that includes a transit subsidy and rideshare (carpool and vanpool) support. The TMP and street and transit improvements are discussed further in Chapter 4, Transportation. OTHER IMPACTS Impacts to other elements of the environment could occur during construction and operation of facilities in a redeveloped Duwamish corridor. Specific mitigation will be identified during individual project review and will include best management practices for control of dust and runoff during construction; compliance with federal, state, and local requirements for handling of contaminated soils and hazardous or dangerous materials; a requirement to obtain appropriate air and water permits; compliance with the noise ordinances of appropriate jurisdictions; and introduction of biofiltration fea- tures for stormwater treatment prior to discharge into the Duwamish Waterway. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ALTERNATIVES LAND AND SHORELINE USE All alternatives are generally consistent with the comprehensive plans and policies for the area. Compliance with development standards will be evaluated on a project -spe- cific basis. With new construction to replace outmoded facilities, the Manufacturing Center alternative would have similar impacts to the Proposed Action. The No- Action alternative does not provide as much opportunity for streambank enhancement or shoreline access. TRANSPORTATION The No Action alternative increases the area's employment density to about 25,000, a level consistent with historical figures and about 17 percent higher than the 21,400 existing employees. Transportation impacts are anticipated to be similar but slightly less than for the Proposed Action. The Manufacturing Center alternative in- cludes an employment figure of 20,000, and is expected to have fewer transportation impacts than the other alternatives. OTHER IMPACTS Impacts to other elements of the environment would be similar to the Proposed Action for the Manufacturing Center alternative. Fewer opportunities to improve environ- mental health, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, stormwater, and other public utility facilities are afforded through the No Action alternative. 1 -6 Chapter 1: Summary Issues and Choices ISSUES AND CHOICES In general, the Proposed Action and alternatives anticipate a redevelopment of several large, aging, and outmoded manufacturing facilities. The revitalization of an employ- ment center in this location is consistent with growth management efforts to locate density within already urbanized areas where infrastructure improvements are generally in place and where transit service can be provided efficiently. Several of the 13 plan- ning goals established in the Growth Management Act are positively addressed by the proposed redevelopment of the industrial corridor. They include urban growth; reduc- tion of sprawl; transportation; economic development; open space and recreation; and environment. The Proposed Action is also consistent with VISION 2020, a long -range growth and transportation strategy for the central Puget Sound area produced in 1990 by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (now known as the Puget Sound Regional Council). VISION 2020 calls for the containment of growth, limiting the extent of sprawl into surrounding farmlands, forests and open spaces. It encourages the concentration of employment into employment centers and proposes that a regional rapid transit system connect these centers. VISION 2020 emphasizes the movement of people through increased transit and ridesharing investments and deemphasizes highway and roadway expansions. The challenge the City of Tukwila faces, along with King County and the City of Seattle, is to apply adequate conditions that address the actual impacts of the proposed redevelopment without, in the process, creating disincentives that reduce the opportu- nities to improve the most heavily industrialized corridor in the region, or, worse, that inhibit appropriate concentrations of employment and facilities. 10020DCC.SEA 1-7 Chapter 1: Summary Issues and Choices 0 0 g r c Table 1 -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 4 Element of Environment IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Impacts Mitigation Measures Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Manufacturing Center Land and Shoreline Use • Land Use • Shoreline Use • Land Use Plans and Policies • Shoreline Plans and Policies • Recreation Plans • Zoning Redevelopment of under- • utilized industrial facility may have height, bulk, and scale impacts. May encourage similar development trend in the study area. Increases square footage in non - water - dependent manufacturing research and laboratory uses. Consistent with industrial plans and policies. Consistent with shoreline plans and policies. Consistent with recreation plans (see shoreline use). Uses comply; possible non- compliance with develop- ment standards may require exceptions. None required. Boeing proposing Design Guide- lines and Standards. None required. Boeing proposing to en- hance shoreline public access, trails, and river banks. None required. None required. None required. Variances or text amend- ments may be requested. Slower replacement of older facilities. Would not encourage redevelopment trends. Existing non - water- dependent uses will re- main. Limited access to shoreline. No impact. No impact. No impact. Non- conforming. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. 10020E33.SEA/1 4/29/92 — • — 1• Table 1 -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Page 2 of 4 Element of Environment IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Impacts Mitigation Measures Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Manufacturing Center • Shoreline Development Standards Uses comply; possible non- compliance with development standards may require exceptions. Variances or text amend- ments may be requested. Non - conforming. Same as Proposed Action: Transportation • Vehicular Traffic • Accidents • Parking • Transit Daily traffic volumes would increase approximately 12 percent. Peak hour volumes would increase 15 percent over No- Action and 30 percent over exist- ing conditions. Slight increase in number of accidents. Surplus of parking spaces. Increased ridership may require additional service. Widen E. Marginal Way S., south of South Boeing Access Road as well as complete previous commitments. None required. None required. None required. Background traffic volume would increase approxi- mately 13 percent over existing. Same as No Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Surplus of parking spaces. No impact. Surplus of parking spaces. No impact. Population, Housing, and Employment Minimal impact. 3,600 additional Boeing employ- ees would come from other facilities in region. None required. No impact. No impact. No addi- tional employees. Air Construction- related impacts. Project - specific best man- agement practices. No impact. Less than Proposed Action. 10020E33.SEA/2 429/92 0 Table 1 -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Page 3 of 4 Element of Environment IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Impacts Mitigation Measures Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Manufacturing Center Environmental Health • Potential Releases • Noise Demolition activities could uncover contaminants. Minimal operational im- pact. Improved facilities and procedures would de- crease potential hazards. Construction- related activ- ities would increase noise. Additional run -up activity will increase noise. Additional traffic will result in slight increases. Project - specific mitigation as required. Project - specific mitigation as required. Project - specific mitigation as required. Project - specific mitigation as required. None required. Boeing proposing TMP to reduce traffic volumes. No demolition. Less opportunity to im- prove conditions. Less construction. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Stormwater, Water Quality, and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Water quality will be im- proved, as will fish and wildlife habitat. Boeing proposing biofiltra- tion of stormwater prior to discharge where possible to Duwamish Waterway; coor- dination with appropriate agencies on habitat restoration. No improvement to water quality. Same as Proposed Action. 10020E33.SEA/3 4/29/92 — �■. — 1• 1 Table 1 -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Page4of4 Element of Environment IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Impacts Mitigation Measures Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Manufacturing Center Energy No impact by end of plan year 2002. Energy de- mands may increase tem- porarily in interim. Construction- related impacts. Boeing proposing Energy Management Plan to main- tain or reduce energy con - sumption. Project - specific . mitigation as required. None required. Same as Proposed Action. No construction. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Public Services and Utilities • Fire/Police • Water /Sewer • Stormwater Construction - related impacts. Slight increase in calls for service. Decrease in fire- related calls. Water /sewer capacity ap- pear adequate. Compre- hensive plan under study. System improvements. Onsite biofiltration facili- ties proposed where practical. Project - specific mitigation as required. None required. Project- specific upgrades at connections as required. Opportunity for Boeing to develop and coordinate Drainage Master Plan with planned utility improve- ments to E. Marginal Way S. No construction. Increased calls for fire protection. No impact. No impact. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. 10020E33.SEA 10020E33.SEA/4 4/29/92 Chapter 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED ACTION OVERVIEW The Proposed Action is a proposal for redevelopment of Boeing properties in the Du- wamish corridor. Over a 10 -year period (1992 through 2002), The Boeing Company proposes to redevelop approximately 30 percent of its existing manufacturing facilities. Future construction will emphasize laboratory, office, and developmental manufacturing uses. It should be noted, however, that a combination of the proposal and alternatives could result. The analysis of impacts and mitigation measures presented in this docu- ment is broad, and is intended to cover such a combination of proposal and alternatives. The Duwamish corridor, as discussed in this environmental document, is illustrated in Figure 2 -1. The corridor can be described broadly as a 4.5- mile -long stretch of land in the valley of the Duwamish Waterway, from Ellis Avenue South on the north to South 126th Street on the south. The majority of the site area lies between East Marginal Way South and the Duwamish Waterway, although some parcels of land are east of East Marginal Way South at Boeing Field and some are west of the Duwamish Water- way. Figure 2 -1 indicates the ten major Boeing property parcels in the Duwamish cor- ridor. The study area is primarily within the City of Tukwila. Portions are also located in the City of Seattle and in unincorporated King County. The boundaries of these jurisdictions are also shown in Figure 2 -1. The Boeing Company's ownership and leases in the Duwamish corridor now include approximately 600 acres and about 9.9 million square feet of developed floor area. The company does not intend to acquire more properties in the study area over the next 10 years. Future redevelopment of corridor sites is anticipated to include demolition of about 3.7 million square feet of floor area and construction of about 4.3 million square feet of new floor area. At the completion of the redevelopment, the corridor would contain a new total of approximately 10.6 million square feet of developed floor area. Table 2 -1 indicates the current and proposed mix of uses. In response to the shift in emphasis from manufacturing to research and development, the mix of employees in the corridor would also change. The existing facilities can support an employee population of about 25,000; the proposal would not increase the number of employees beyond that number. (Current employment in the corridor is about 21,400.) The existing and proposed mix of employees by type of work is illus- trated in Table 2 -2. Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2 -1 Proposed Action EAST MARGINAL WAY CORPORA PARK NORTH DUWAMISH CAMPUS THOMPSON- ISAACSON SRE LEGEND Owned Leased Figure 2 -1 BOEING OWNED AND LEASED PROPERTY Table 2 -1 Mix of Uses in Boeing Duwamish Corridor Use Existing Building Floor Area (mil- lion square feet) Proposed Building Floor Area (mil- lion square feet) Percent Change Laboratory/Office 2.7 4.4 +65 Office 2.5 2.3 -10 Manufacturing 4.7 3.9 -15 Flight line' 0.0 0.0 0 Total 9.9 10.6 +7 allo square footage figure is given for flightline use because this is an open -air use. Table 2 -2 Employee Mix in Boeing Duwamish Corridor Use Employee Population Percent Change Existing Proposed Laboratory/Office 3,500 5,500 + 57 Office 14,900 13,100 - 12 Manufacturing 2,400 4,900 + 104 Flightline 600 1,500 +150 TOTAL 21,400 25,000 + 17 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The Boeing Company's goals and objectives for redeveloping its facilities in the Duwamish corridor are listed below and in Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelop- ment Proposal (page 3). • Goal: Early identification of corridor -wide redevelopment issues, impacts, and mitigation measures. Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2 -3 Proposed Action • Goal: A unified industrial campus that integrates laboratory, develop- mental manufacturing, flightline, and office uses. Objectives: Provide sufficient flexibility to allow an effective future redevelopment. Provide an integrated system of vehicular and pedestrian routes where the project sites are large enough to permit these features. Provide design guidelines and development standards that apply to all sites in the corridor. • Goal: An enhanced natural and aesthetic environment. Objectives: Restore or enhance the Duwamish Waterway shoreline where needed with new riprap bulkheads, shoreline vegetation, pedes- trian access trails, and shoreline viewpoints. Increase open space and landscaping. Enhance the streetscape appearance with curbs, sidewalks, and landscaping. • Goal: An efficient use of resources. Objectives: Achieve 1992 or lower levels of energy consumption by the end of the redevelopment period. Decrease use of single - occupancy vehicles by promoting high - occupancy vehicle (HOV) transportation alternatives. ELEMENTS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Land Use It is anticipated that the proposed mix of uses falls into four categories: office, labora- tory/office, developmental manufacturing, and flightline. Characteristics of each use are described below. Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2 -4 Proposed Action Office. Corporate, administrative, and clerical staff will be located in the work spaces classified as "office." Other than convenient access to laboratory or manufacturing space, the office uses are not expected to have unusual space or design requirements. New office space typically will be occupied to a density of about one employee per 175 square feet. Common accessory or associated uses will include an auditorium, cafeteria space, and parking. Laboratory/Office. The "laboratory/office" category will be primarily laboratory space but will also include office spaces for the scientists, engineers, and laboratory techni- cians whose work requires frequent use of the research laboratories. An average em- ployee density of about one worker per 800 square feet can be expected for the new laboratory/office space, although this density will vary widely depending on the nature of the research being performed at individual laboratories. Examples of laboratory functions that may be consolidated along the Duwamish corridor include materials technology laboratories, propulsion laboratories, consolidated laboratories, operations technology, and noise laboratories. Typical accessory uses associated with the labora- tory/office use along the Duwamish Corridor will include parking, storage, staging areas, some specialized utilities, and cafeteria space. The different laboratory functions are discussed in more detail below. • The Boeing materials technology (BMT) laboratories perform research testing and development on the many different materials used by The Boeing Company, including ceramics, finishes and sealants, metals, fab- rics, composites, and adhesives. • Propulsion laboratories provide testing and development of propulsion systems to support all Boeing divisions. Specific functions include live engine testing, nozzle testing for exhaust functions, fire and burn testing, and testing of airplane booster and pumping systems. • The "consolidated laboratories" are currently located at the Developmen- tal Center. They support a wide variety of laboratory functions, including structural integrity testing, testing of mechanical devices and component systems, and electrical system testing. Individual laboratories are highly specialized, but in the aggregate the consolidated laboratories provide integrated support for Boeing's production facilities. • The operations technology organization performs research with the goal of enhancing production and manufacturing processes. The work is project- oriented and quite diverse. Because each project requires a seg- regated work area, work space dedicated to operations technology must be flexible. • The noise technology laboratory performs all the acoustic testing, re- search, and development for The Boeing Company. Functions include Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-5 Proposed Action field measurements, materials evaluation, component testing, scale model testing, and analysis of noise records (for crash investigations). Developmental Manufacturing. The developmental manufacturing operations are closely allied with The Boeing Company's laboratory research functions. Their primary role is the fabrication, limited -rate production, test set -up, and monitoring of test arti- cles and prototypes in conjunction with laboratory research. The developmental manu- facturing operations differ from other industrial production facilities because they do not generate large quantities of finished products; rather, they are geared toward de- veloping and testing products in small numbers as part of Boeing's broader research into new technologies and products. The manufacturing space requires high bay space as well as shop areas capable of supporting high - precision work in many different mate- rials; the machinists need to be able to produce very close- tolerance products in mate- rials often dictated by emergent technologies. As prototype aircrafts are assembled, access to the three established East Marginal Way South roadway crossings to Boeing Field is required. Noise controls also will be required. Common accessory uses will include storage and staging areas, specialized utilities, and cafeteria space. The Boeing Company anticipates an average employee density of one worker for each 800 square feet of developmental manufacturing space. Flightline. Flightline operations along the Duwamish corridor are located on the east side of East Marginal Way South. Primary open -air activities include engine testing, aircraft painting, and fueling. Accessory uses include specialized utilities, storage, and staging areas. The proposal would expand flightline operations in the northern portion of the project area, displacing current laboratory/office and manufacturing space. Shoreline Uses The Boeing Company is proposing a shoreline public access plan as part of its Duwam- ish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal. Elements of this plan are described on pages 7 and 8 of the proposal, and shoreline design guidelines are discussed on pages 25 through 33. Currently, half (approximately 9,200 feet) of the total linear footage of shorelines on Boeing- controlled sites is available to the public. The proposed access plan would: (1) maintain all existing shoreline public access; (2) enhance trail and viewpoints along the Oxbow site and provide a canoe launch facility; (3) provide pedes- trian and bicycle trail connections between the Green River Trail and the Museum of Flight; and (4) provide riverbank enhancement in connection with employee shoreline access. Maintain Existing Shoreline Access. Approximately 9,200 linear feet of public shore- line access is currently provided at Boeing facilities in the Duwamish corridor, shown in Table 2 -3. Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2 -6 Proposed Action Table 2 -3 Public Shoreline Access in Duwamish Corridor Site Shoreline (linear feet) Developmental Center 1,000 Oxbow Site 4,800 South Park Site 1,200 Duwamish Office Park East 1,200 North Duwamish Campus 500 (proposed) Bridges (2 at Oxbow) 500 Enhance Trail. The proposed shoreline access plan indicates that The Boeing Com- pany will enhance approximately 4,800 linear feet of shoreline public access around the perimeter of the Oxbow site. Boeing will develop several viewpoints, water access opportunities, and a launch facility for hand - carried boats. Boeing will also designate accessory public parking. In cooperation with state and federal fish and wildlife agen- cies, involvement in a fish habitat restoration project in the vicinity is also likely. Enhance Regional Trail Connections. A trail connection between the Green River Trail, located along SR 99, through the Oxbow site to the Museum of Flight by way of East Marginal Way South, is proposed as part of this plan. The connection is not only consistent with both King County's Green River Trail Master Plan and the City of Seattle's Duwamish River Trail but also provides an important link between the two systems. Provide Riverbank Enhancement. As sites are redeveloped, The Boeing Company proposes to provide employee shoreline public access and, in so doing, will facilitate the enhancement of the riverbank where appropriate. This could involve up to approxi- mately 4,800 linear feet of shoreline that will create open space along the riverbank. Enhancement of the shoreline will be focussed on enhancing habitat with the use of riprap, perched beaches, and riparian vegetation. Development. Guidelines The redevelopment proposal incorporates design guidelines and standards to reduce bulk and scale, improve pedestrian and vehicle circulation, increase landscaping, and Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2 -7 Proposed Action enhance shorelines. More detail on this aspect of the redevelopment can be found in The Boeing Company's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal (under separate cover). MANUFACTURING CENTER ALTERNATIVE This alternative would maintain the current focus of the Duwamish corridor as an industrial and manufacturing center. Deteriorated and outmoded facilities would be upgraded to allow more efficient use of the area. Total square footage and employ- ment would remain stable; workforce population would be approximately 20,000. Pro- duction rates would increase slightly to maximize the use of existing facilities. The products being manufactured would evolve to meet market demands. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No Action alternative is discussed throughout this environmental document to pro- vide a common point for comparison with other alternatives. Under this alternative, currently planned improvements to the street system would be completed, and normal, incremental modifications to Boeing facilities in the Duwamish corridor would continue, but major redevelopment to upgrade the manufacturing facilities would not occur. Table 2 -4 summarizes the changes in employment for each of the alternatives studied in this document. Table 2 -5 shows the changes in square footage by type of use for each alternative. 10020DD9.SEA 2-8 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives Manufacturing Center Alternative/ No Action Alternative Table 2 -4 Estimated Employment for the Proposed Action and Alternatives Type of Use Existing Conditions Proposed Action No Action Alternative Manufacturing Center Alternative Number of Employees Percent Number of Employees Percent Number of Employees Percent Number of Employees Percent (Developmental) Manufacturing 2,400 11 4,900 20 6,000 24 4,800 24 Office 14,900 70 13,100 52 14,900 60 11,920 60 Laboratory/Office 3,500 16 5,500 22 3,500 14 2,800 14 Flightline 600 3 1,500 6 600 2 480 2 TOTAL 1 21,400 I 100 I 25,000 I 100 25,000 100 I 20,000 I 100 Table 2 -5 Estimated Floor Area by Use for the Proposed Action and Alternatives Type of Use Existing Conditions Proposed Action No Action Alternative Manufacturing Center Alternative Million Square Feet Percent of Total Million Square Feet Percent of Total Million Square Feet Percent of Total Million Square Feet Percent of Total (Developmental) Manufacturing 4.7 48 3.9 37 4.7 48 4.7 48 Office 2.5 25 2.3 22 2.5 25 2.5 25 Laboratory/Office 2.7 27 4.4 41 2.7 27 2.7 27 Flightlinea 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 TOTAL 9.9 I 100 I_ 10.6 I 100 I 9.9 I 100 I 9.9 I 100 'No square footage figure is given for flightline use because this is an open -air use. Part II Potential Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures° Chapter 3 LAND AND SHORELINE USE EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY AREA The study area is bounded by Ellis Avenue South to the north, South 126th Street to the south, Highway 99 and the Duwamish Waterway to the west, and East Marginal Way South and the King County Airport to the east (Figure 3 -1). The corridor is approximately 4.5 miles long. PROJECT AREA LAND USES Figure 3 -1 illustrates the generalized land uses of Boeing properties. The project area's current uses are grouped into four general categories: lab /office, office, manu- facturing, and flightline. Table 3 -1 lists the floor area (gross square feet, abbreviated as gsf) currently occupied by each of these uses. With the exception of the flightline area, which is concentrated along the east side of East Marginal Way South, the gen- eral use categories are distributed throughout the project area. For purposes of this EIS, "project area" will refer to those properties that are owned or leased by The Boeing Company. The project area is also divided into a number of physical areas, which will be referred to as "sites." The general uses of each site are briefly described below and correspond to Figure 3 -1 and Table 3 -1. Figure 2 -1 shows which sites are owned and leased by The Boeing Company. Plant 2. Plant 2 is located north of the Thompson- Isaacson site along East Marginal Way South. The site is owned by Boeing and currently contains lab /office space, offices, and manufacturing space. Most of Plant 2 is located in Tukwila; the northern- most portion is within Seattle city limits. This site also includes the corporate head- quarters of The Boeing Company. North Duwamish Campus. The North Duwamish Campus area, used predominantly for manufacturing, is located between the Duwamish Waterway and East Marginal Way South, just north of 16th Avenue South. The northern portion of this area is currently under construction for a campus -style development containing lab /office space. The majority of the site is located in Seattle; the southernmost portion is lo- cated in Tukwila. Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3 -1 Existing Conditions LEGEND Labs/Offices Avionics Mechanical Electrical Structural Noise Material Quality assurance Aeronautic Office Executive Professional Engineering Support Training Manufacturing Fabrication Sub - assembly Final- assembly Production manufacturing Development manufacturing Flightline Engine testing Paint hangar Fueling Existing Aircraft Road crossing points Note: This illustration represents uses proportionately by site and does not include accessory uses such as parking and storage. Figure 3 -1 EXISTING SITE USES = Table 3 -1 Floor Area of Current Boeing Sites Site Total Acreage Parking Acreage Approximate Building Square Footage by Use Lab /Office Office (Developmental) Manufacturing Flightlinea Total Plant 2 60.0 2.8 299,000 956,000 1,742,000 0 2,997,000 North Duwamish Campus 48.2 12.1 0 0 948,000 0 948,000 Developmental Center 164.4 81.0 804,300 956,600 798,700 0 2,559,600 Oxbow Site 31.4 12.7 0 228,000 476,200 0 704,200 Thompson - Isaacson Site 30.4 7.1 0 22,400 341,500 0 363,900 Military Flight Center 24.7 8.4 0 0 54,300 0 54,300 North Boeing Field 150.8 37.4 343,000 89,000 343,000 0 775,000 South Park Site 29.9 10.0 290,000 67,000 0 0 357,000 Duwamish Office Park East 13.0 8.2 0 378,000 0 0 378,000 East Marginal Way Corporate Park 49.8 11.6 580,000 0 210,000 0 790,000 Total 602.6 191.3 2,316,300 2,697,000 4,913,700 0 9,927,000 aFlightline use is an open air ac ivity. It has no developed space. Developmental Center. The Developmental Center is located in Tukwila between the Duwamish Waterway on the west and south, East Marginal Way South on the east, and the vacated Rhone Poulenc property on the north. The Developmental Center is the largest parcel of the site (164 acres). The site contains a large manufacturing facil- ity, lab /office areas, office space, and surface parking. While the majority of the site is owned by The Boeing Company, portions of it are leased. Oxbow Site. The Oxbow site is located in King County west of the Duwamish Water- way and east of Highway 99. This site is occupied by surface parking and buildings containing manufacturing and lab /office space. Thompson- Isaacson Site. The Thompson- Isaacson site is located in Tukwila north of the Developmental Center between the Duwamish Waterway and East Marginal Way South. The site, owned by Boeing, is currently used for developmental manufacturing with surface parking. Military Flight Center. This site provides flightline testing facilities for military air- craft. The site is owned by The Boeing Company and is located in the City of Tukwila, north of South Norfolk Street along the east side of East Marginal Way South. Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3 -3 Existing Conditions North Boeing Field. The North Boeing Field site contains manufacturing, office, and lab /office space and the flightline area for commercial aircraft. It extends along the east side of East Marginal Way South. The majority of the site is leased from the King County Airport and is located inside Seattle city limits. South Park Site. The South Park site is located between 14th Avenue South and the Duwamish Waterway and contains office and lab /office space. The site is .located in Seattle, with the exception of its eastern shoreline edge, which is in unincorporated King County. Duwamish Office Park East. The Duwamish Office Park East is located in Tukwila. The site consists of two new office buildings and surface parking located between a bend of the Duwamish Waterway, Pacific Highway South, and South 112th Street. The site is in Boeing ownership. East Marginal Way Corporate Park. The East Marginal Way Corporate Park is located in Tukwila between Highway 99 and East Marginal Way South. This site con- tains lab /office and manufacturing uses in large warehouse buildings. ADJACENT USES Figure 3 -2 illustrates the generalized zoning districts in the study area. In general, land use follows the zoning. As described, portions of the project area are in the City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle, and King County. The King County International Airport (Boeing Field) is the predominant activity in the area. The area is also characterized by light to heavy industrial and manufacturing uses, storage facilities, office develop- ment, small areas of commercial development along arterials, and some residential de- velopment beyond the project area. Uses immediately north of the project area, across Ellis Avenue South, are light-indus- tries and commercial development. The Georgetown neighborhood is located to the northeast of the study area. To the west of the project area, north of 14th Avenue South, is the South Park neighborhood. These two neighborhoods are characterized by residential and business /industrial development (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1 -1, for loca- tion of neighborhoods). Across Highway 99, south of 14th Avenue South, is a residen- tial area. The King County Airport, North Boeing Field, and its associated uses domi- nate the eastern boundary of the study area, north of the South Boeing Access Road. The Highline communities of Highland Park, White Center, and Boulevard Park are located to the south and west of the project area. The area southeast of the project area, across Highway 599, contains a mix of uses including light industry, commercial, and undeveloped property. Farther south is residential development with some areas of commercial and manufacturing use. Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3 -4 Existing Conditions LEGEND Industrial Commercial Residential TUKWILA M -1 Light Industry M -2 Heavy Industry M -2L R -1 -7.2 Heavy Industry with landscape requirements Single- family residence; 7,200 square foot minimum lot size per dwelling unit C-M Industrial Park KING COUNTY M -H Heavy Industrial SEATTLE IG -1 85' IG -2 65' IB -65' C -1 40' C-2 SF 5000 L -2 RC General Industrial 1, 85 -foot height limit General Industrial 2, 65 -foot height limit Industrial Buffer, 65 -foot height limit Commercial 1, 40 -foot height limit Commercial 2 Single family residence; 5,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement Multi - family, low -rise, residential - commencial Figure 3 -2 GENERALIZED ZONING DISTRICTS PROJECT AREA SHORELINES A majority of the sites in the project area are adjacent to the Duwamish Waterway. The Duwamish is part of a watershed that extends from the forested hillsides of the Cascade Mountains near Howard Hanson Dam to Elliott Bay in Puget Sound. Before the turn of the century, the Duwamish River was fed by Lake Sammamish, Lake Washington, and the Cedar River by way of the Black, Green and White Rivers. In 1911, flow from the White River was diverted to Tacoma. Other diversion projects eliminated flows from the Black and Cedar Rivers. Today, the Green River is the only significant tributary to the Duwamish. Dredging of the Duwamish River, completed in 1921, resulted in replacement of approximately 9 miles of meandering river with 4 miles of channel. This channel, now known as the Duwamish Waterway, is a marine- oriented industrial waterway used pri- marily by the Port of Seattle to move waterborne cargo. The Duwamish is maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers as a navigable waterway to the turning basin, which is located just north of the Oxbow site. South of the turning basin, the river begins to take a more natural course and becomes the Duwamish River. The Duwamish Water- way remains one of the most industrialized water bodies in the Puget Sound area. A recent report prepared by Curtis D. Tanner for the Port of Seattle and the U.S. EPA, "Potential Intertidal Habitat Restoration Sites in the Duwamish River Estuary," classified the shoreline areas along the Duwamish River and Waterway. Four classifi- cations were identified: natural shorelines, riprap shorelines, pier aprons, and sheet piling. They are described below. • Natural Shoreline. This classification does not indicate that the shore- line is in its original condition, but rather that the area generally exhibits a gently sloping shoreline with areas of fine - grained sediment. • Riprap Shoreline. This refers to shorelines stabilized with angular rock, generally larger than 12 inches in diameter; slopes are relatively steep, ranging from 1:1 to 2:1. In some areas, fine - grained sediment may be present, as well as intertidal benches below the riprap area. • Pier Aprons. These are generally concrete or wood pier structures where the water is allowed to flow underneath the pier, in between the vertical structural members. • Sheet Piling. Sheet piles, also known as vertical bulkheads, divert the flow of water around the pier or landform. Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3 -6 Existing Conditions The purpose of the Tanner Report was to identify potential habitat restoration oppor- tunities in the Duwamish River estuary. The report is discussed in more detail in Chapter 8, Stormwater and Water Quality. There are approximately 18,000 linear feet of shoreline at Boeing properties in the Duwamish corridor. The shoreline classifications of sites in the study area are shown in Table 3 -2. Table 3 -2 Shoreline Classifications of Study Area Sites Plant 2 Sheet piling North Duwamish Campus The southern portion of the site is sheet piling adja- cent to Port of Seattle property, which is identified as intertidal flats; at the northern portion and along Slip 4, the shoreline is riprap. Developmental Center Riprap shoreline with pier apron at the south end Oxbow Site Natural shoreline Thompson- Isaacson Sheet piling Military Flight Center No shoreline North Boeing Field No shoreline South Park Site Natural shoreline with forested riparian vegetation Duwamish Office Park East Natural and riprap shoreline East Marginal Way Cor- porate Park No shoreline RELATIONSHIP TO LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES This section provides a discussion of the applicable land use plans, policies, zoning regulations, shoreline management master program requirements, and other regulatory constraints that apply to development along the Duwamish corridor. Plans and policies of each of these jurisdictions in the study area (Tukwila, King County, and Seattle) are included. A list of the documents examined is provided in Appendix A, References. Several community plans were reviewed in the course of this analysis. City of Seattle plans included the South Park Neighborhood Plan, the Empire/Rainier Development Study, the Rainier /Genesee Redevelopment Study and Business Plan, and the Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3 -7 Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies Southeast Seattle Action Plan. King County's Highline Communities Plan was also ex- amined. The recreation goals of the South Park Neighborhood Plan may be the most relevant to issues related to Boeing's redevelopment proposal. These goals are dis- cussed in more detail below in the section on policies and regulations of the City of Seattle. Comprehensive plans and zoning codes are the primary planning tools used by munici- palities to guide future growth. The study area is divided by the three responsible jurisdictions into three broad zoning categories: industrial, commercial, and residential. Figure 3 -2 illustrates the existing zoning categories of the study area as well as the boundaries between Tukwila, Seattle, and King County. In general, the existing conditions, the Proposed Action, and the manufacturing center alternative are consistent with the area's comprehensive plans and policies. While the alternatives vary in the amount of laboratory and office space proposed, each main- tains a manufacturing component. Manufacturing is a preferred use in the comprehen- sive plans and policies of all three jurisdictions. Table 3 -3 summarizes the general zoning and shoreline requirements for each of the affected sites. Currently, development in the project area generally complies with the industrial zoning district requirements. Because many of the structures along the east side of the Duwamish Waterway predate the State Shoreline Management Act, much of the existing development is legal but nonconforming with respect to shoreline devel- opment standards. CITY OF TUKWILA Tukwila Comprehensive Plan In the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan (1982), the study area is designated as "Commerce/Industry." The objectives and policies in the Commerce/Industry element of Tukwila's Compre- hensive Plan are intended to provide direction for growth and expansion of business within the city. The primary industrial objective is to provide adequate opportunity for industrial uses. Policies to support the objectives are grouped under three categories: compatibility, design, and growth. The policies encourage uses that support industry to locate in or near industrial activity, promoting an industrial park -like development in all industrial areas. They discourage changes from industrial land uses unless there is reasonable provision for meeting parking demand. A final objective of the Commerce/ Industry element is to promote land development alternatives that will increase the Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3 -8 Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies Table 3 -3 Summary of General Zoning and Shoreline Development Requirements for Each Site Site Jurisdiction Zoning Height Limits (feet) Setback (feet) Sensitive Area Ordinance Setback (feet) Shoreline Requirements Height Limit (feet) Setback (feet) 1. Plant 2 Tukwila M -2 115c 25 front • 5 side n/a 35 50g Seattle IG -1 85f 0 n/a n/a n/a 2. North Duwamish Campus Tukwila M -2 115c 25 front 5 side n/a 35 50g Seattle IG -1 85f 0 n/a 35' 60 3. Developmental Center Tukwila M -2 115c 25 front 5 side n/a 35 50g 4. Oxbow Site King County M -H 45 + 1:1d 0 115h 35 50g 5. Thompson - Isaacson Site Tukwila M -2 115c 25 front 5 side n/a 35 50g 6. Military Flight Center Tukwila M -2 115e 25 front 5 side n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 7. North Boeing Field (leased properties only) Tukwila M -2 115c 25 front 5 side n/a n/a n/a King Co. Airport Administered by BALD n/a n/a n/a Seattle IG -2 85c 0 n/a n/a n/a 8. South Park Site Seattle IG -2 65' 65e 0 n/a 35' 60 King County MH 45 + 1:1d 0 115h 35 50g 9. Duwamish Office Park East Tukwila M -2L 115c 25 front 5 side n/a 35 50g 10. East Marginal Way Corporate Park Tukwila CM M -1 M -2 1151) 25 front 5 side n/a n/a n/a a Subject to Airport Height Overlay District limits. b 115 -foot maximum height with Tukwila Planning Commission approval. c Can exceed 115 feet with Tukwila Planning Commission approval. d A one -foot setback on each side is required for each foot above 45 feet. e Industrial development does not have a height limit; research and developmental laboratories and offices have a height limit of 65 feet in this area. f Industrial development does not have a height limit; research and developmental laboratories and offices have a height limit of 85 feet in this area. g Non - water - related commercial and industrial uses must maintain a shoreline setback of either 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark or 20 feet from the floodway, whichever is greater. The setback can be reduced to 20 feet from the ordinary high water mark or 10 feet from the edge of the floodway, whichever is greater, if the development provides limited public access and can be reduced to 10 feet or the edge of the floodway, respectively, if public access is provided. h A 100 -foot buffer and a 15 -foot setback are required for uses along a Class 1 stream (King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance). ' The height limit in UI is 35 feet; however, manufacturing structures may be allowed heights of up to 80 feet if authorized by the Department of Construction and Land Use. Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3 -9 Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies efficiency of land use. Associated policies encourage grouping of land uses to maxi- mize use of parking spaces and flexibility within land use categories to allow for com- patible uses. Tukwila Zoning Code Zoning in the City of Tukwila is regulated through the Tukwila Zoning Code (Title 18 of the Tukwila Municipal Code). As shown in Figure 3 -2, the portions of the project area located within the city of Tukwila are mostly zoned M -2 (Heavy Industry) and M -2L (Heavy Industry with landscape requirements). The majority of Plant 2, the Thompson- Isaacson site, the Developmental Center, and the East Marginal Way Corporate Park are located in the M -2 Zoning District. According to the Tukwila Zoning Code, the purpose of this zone is to "provide an appropriate area for a broad range of uses, some of which may be characterized as having significant environmental impacts in terms of air and water pollution, noise, vibration, glare, and odor" (T.M.C. 18.42.010). Manufacturing (including the manufac- turing of airplanes), processing, and assembling are permitted in this zone, as well as commercial uses. Generally, the maximum building height in the M -2 zone is 4 stories and 45 feet (T.M.C. 18.50 and Table 1). Exceptions are discussed below. The M -2 zone includes a 25 -foot front setback and a 5 -foot rear setback (T.M.C. 18.50 and Table 1). The purpose of the M -2L district is to allow less strict design standards and flexibility in the front yard landscaping requirement in recognition of areas where there is heavy truck traffic. The permitted uses, height limit, and setback requirements in the M2 -L zone are the same as those for the M -2 zone. The Tukwila Zoning Code identifies two building height exceptions that apply to por- tions of the project area between the Duwamish Waterway and I -5. One exception affects the Duwamish Office Park East, the Developmental Center, the Thompson - Isaacson site, and most of Plant 2. Buildings in this area may be permitted up to 115 feet in height outright and can exceed a height of 115 feet by special exception of the Tukwila Planning Commission (T.M.C. 18.50.050). Another exception would allow development at the East Marginal Way Corporate Park to exceed the basic height limit up to but only as high as 115 feet with authorization by the Tukwila Planning Commis- sion acting as the Board of Architectural Review (T.M.C. 18.50.040). According to the Tukwila Zoning Code, developments in the M1 and M2 districts within 200 feet of the Green/Duwamish River or that require a shoreline permit are subject to design review. The City's Board of Architectural Review (BAR) uses the following guidelines in reviewing applications: relationship of the structure to the site, relationship of the structure and site to the adjoining area, landscape and site treat- ment, building design, and miscellaneous structures and street furniture. Each of these Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3 -10 Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies is supplemented by more specific guidelines. The BAR has the authority to deny a development proposal if the plans do not satisfy the guidelines. Development proposals on sites located at and leased from the King County Airport must obtain pre - approval from the King County Airport Manager. Review for pre - approval examines minimum standards related to setbacks from lease lines; height per FAA requirements; automobile and aircraft parking and circulation; utilities and sur- face drainage; architectural design and signage; and landscaping, fencing, and security. Permit approvals and inspections on these leased properties are obtained from King County Building and Land Development (BALD) under a long- standing agreement among the jurisdictions. Both the cities of Seattle and Tukwila honor this agreement. Development proposals on portions of North Boeing Field would be required to obtain pre - approval from the King County Airport and development permits from King County BALD, even though they are located within Tukwila City limits. Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance added a chapter (18.45) to the Tukwila Municipal Code entitled "Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone." The purpose of the zone is to establish special standards for use and development to protect environmentally sensitive lands. Sensitive areas include abandoned coal mines, areas of potential geologic instability, wetlands, watercourses, and areas that contain archaeological remnants of value to the research community. According to the city's Sensitive Areas Map, there are no sensi- tive areas located in the project area. The Duwamish Waterway is specifically ex- cluded from the definition of watercourses. Regulation of lands adjacent to the waterway is provided for the interim by King County's Shoreline Management Master Program. Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan Most of the proposed development along the Duwamish Waterway is located in either King County or the city of Tukwila. Because much of the study area was recently annexed into Tukwila, the City's shoreline master plan has not yet been updated to include these properties. In the interim, the City of Tukwila administers the King County Shoreline Master Program, which continues to regulate development along the Duwamish Waterway. (See discussion of regulations under King County.) In 1992, the City will be examining its goals and policies to encourage industrial devel- opment along the waterway consistent with the State Shoreline Management Act. Tukwila plans to adopt a revised shoreline master program, which will include this section of the Duwamish Corridor, in late 1992 or early 1993. Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3 -11 Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies Tukwila Recreation Plans The Open Space element of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan includes policies to coordi- nate with Renton, Kent, and King County on shoreline planning for the Green River and on coordinating planning on the trail system. Although the City does not have specific trail or linear recreation plans in place, the Comprehensive Plan does include policies that affect the development of trails and shoreline uses. For example, the second objective for the Open Space element is to "establish a safe path or trail system that serves to link the open spaces, forming an open space system." Seven specific policies follow, including creation of a trail system that links lowland and upland trails; development of trails and open spaces along the Green River as part of the lowland trail system; connection of commercial and retail activity with the pathway network; construction of pathways in existing street rights -of -way or through private property if necessary to establish a trail system; and development of the trail system so as to pro- hibit motorized traffic and be compatible with pedestrian and bicycle traffic. KING COUNTY King County Comprehensive Plan The King County Comprehensive Plan (1985) includes a Commercial and Industrial Development element that addresses location, design, and public improvement stan- dards for commercial and industrial development in unincorporated areas of the county. The following general industrial development policy is applicable to the project area: Industrial development should be designed to be compatible with adjoin- ing uses. Offsite impacts such as noise, odors, light and glare should be prevented through pollution control measures, setbacks, landscaping and other techniques. Unsightly views of parking, loading and storage areas should be screened from neighboring office, retail and residential uses (CI -231). King County Zoning Code Zoning in King County is regulated through the King County Zoning Code (Title 21). The Oxbow site, the City Light site, and the eastern edge of the South Park site are located within King County in the MH (Heavy Manufacturing) zoning district. Accord- ing to the King County Zoning Code, the general purpose of this district is: to provide for the location of and grouping of industrial enterprises and activities which possess common or similar characteristics and perfor- mance standards involving manufacturing, assembling, fabrication and processing...and therefore normally require sites larger than standard lot Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3 -12 Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies sizes....[and] to apply zoning protection to industries properly located by prohibiting the intrusion of residential and institutional uses and all busi- ness enterprises except those that serve as accessory to the needs and convenience of the permitted types of industrial enterprises (21.36.010). No maximum height is imposed in the MH zone, but when a structure exceeds 45 feet in height, the structure must be set back 1 foot from each side and rear property line for each foot above 45 feet in height (K.C.C. 21.36.060). The permitted floor area to be contained on a lot or site in the MH zone cannot exceed two and one -half times the area of the lot or site. Additional height and setback limitations are mandated by the King County Shoreline Management Master Program and the King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance (discussed below). King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance Since the Duwamish Waterway is classified as a Class 1 stream, the 1990 King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance also affects the required setbacks of the Oxbow and South Park sites. Under the ordinance, a 100 -foot buffer (measured from the ordinary high water mark) is required for a Class 1 stream. In addition, a minimum building setback line of 15 feet from the edge of the stream buffer is required. No development is allowed within this 115 -foot area. King County Shoreline Management Master Program Except for the northern portion of the North Duwamish Campus, the shorelines of the project area, including those areas within the Tukwila city limits, are subject to King County's Urban Environment designation (see discussion under Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan). The goals, policies, and objectives for the King County Shoreline Management Master Program (1977) include general policies for the Urban Environ- ment designation, several of which are applicable to the project site: • Emphasis should be given to developing visual and physical access to the shoreline in the Urban Environment (Policy 3). • To enhance the waterfront and insure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities should be designed to permit pedestrian water- front activities consistent with public safety and security (Policy 5). • Redevelopment and renewal of substandard areas should be encouraged in order to accommodate future users and make maximum use of the shoreline resource (Policy 6). The King County shoreline regulations include development standards for height, set- backs, and public access. Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3 -13 Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies The height limitation in the Urban Environment, unless the underlying zones are more restrictive, is 35 feet above average grade level (K.C.C. 25.16.030[B]). Commercial and industrial development are permitted provided that they are also permitted in the underlying zone. Non - water - related commercial and industrial uses must maintain a shoreline setback of either 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark or 20 feet from the floodway, whichever is greater. Non - water - related industrial uses may further reduce the setback if access to the shoreline is provided. According to the King County shoreline regulations, "public access" means unob- structed access to the general public from land to the shoreline. "Limited public ac- cess" means that access to the shoreline is limited to specific groups of people or to specific times or that visual access is provided to the general public. The regulations require public access in the following circumstances: Development proposed in shorelines of the state shall maintain setbacks, provide easements or otherwise develop the site to permit a trail to be constructed or public access to continue where: 1. There is a proposed trail in the King County Trail System; or 2. Part of the site is being used and has historically been used for public access (K.C.C. 25.16.030(H)(1) (2)). Public access to the Duwamish Waterway in the project area is currently provided at the Developmental Center, the Oxbow site, and the South Park site. Public shoreline access is also being proposed near Slip 4 of the North Duwamish Campus site. Part of King County's Green River Trail (discussed below) is proposed to be developed along the Duwamish Waterway on the west side of the Duwamish Office Park East, on private property, and along the west side of the Oxbow Site and the southern edge of the City Light site, in the right -of -way. The trail will provide public access and recrea- tional opportunities. The proposed route of the trail is shown in Figure 3 -3. In addition to these limited requirements to provide new public access, the regulations also offer incentives for voluntary provision of public access. The setbacks identified above for commercial and industrial uses in the Urban Environment designation can be decreased if public access is provided. The setback can be reduced to 20 feet from the ordinary high water mark or 10 feet from the edge of the floodway, whichever is greater, if the development provides limited public access. The setback can be reduced to 10 feet or the edge of the floodway if full public access is provided. (However, in the case of properties along the Duwamish Waterway, the King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance is more restrictive, requiring a 100 -foot buffer and an additional 15 -foot setback.) Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3 -14 Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies -, F-+ DUWAMISH • RIVER PARK RUBY ' CHOW PARK LEGEND 111111111 Proposed Green River Trail •••••••• Proposed Duwamish Trail " 11 1. 11 .1 Proposed Interim Duwamish Trail (over next five years) Proposed Public Access Point to Duwamish Waterway (Port of Seattle) • Duwamish Tribe Cultural Sites (Green River Trail Master Plan, 1988) Existing Park Museum of Flight 'Note: The exact route between South Michigan Street and South Holden Street has not been determined. The route between South Holden Street and South Thistle Street may change. The route between South Thistle Street and 14th Avenue South is final. Figure 3 -3 EXISTING AND PLANNED RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE King County Recreation Plans The King County Draft Regional Trails Plan (October 1990) identifies trail issues fac- ing the county, plan goals and objectives, existing and proposed trails and use demands, and the plan's relationship to other County trail plans and programs. The primary goal of the Draft Regional Trails Plan is to "design a safe, pleasurable trail system for the citizens of King County providing transportation and recreation opportunities to and from employment centers for users of various skill levels" (page 2). The Green River Trail is a proposed trail identified in the plan that would be in the vicinity of the study area. The Duwamish River becomes the Green River at its conflu- ence with the Black River, south of the study area. The Green River Trail is planned to follow the Duwamish and Green Rivers from the Seattle city limits on West Mar- ginal Way to the Auburn Narrows Park at SR 18. According to the plan, approxi- mately 90 percent of the land proposed for the trail is publicly owned by the cities of Tukwila, Seattle, Kent, and Auburn and by King County; the remainder is privately owned. The Green River Trail Master Plan (adopted by King County Council Motion 88360 on August 3, 1988) provides a detailed recommended trail program and identifies trail alternatives, detailed cost estimates, and interpretive facilities for the trail. The motion also indicated the County's preference to explore the location of trail segments as close to the shoreline as possible. Of particular interest was a loop around the perimeter of the Oxbow site, continuing north along the west bank of property owned by Seattle City Light. These connections are not feasible at this time because of concerns raised by adjacent property owners (unrelated to Boeing facilities). The plan also identifies historic sites and Duwamish Tribe cultural sites in the vicinity of the proposed trail (Figure 3 -3). Duwamish Tribe cultural sites include supernatural sites, myth sites, and other sites of unique importance. Supernatural sites are those places associated with supernatural beings such as monsters and spirits. Myth sites are those that are celebrated in local Puget Salish mythology. Near the shore at the Duwa- mish Office Park East, the King County Arts Commission plans to install three art projects (12 sculptures total) which re -tell the Northwind Fishing Weir myth relating to that site. Other cultural sites could be campsites, fishing stations, or places where duck - catching nets or drying racks were located. King County is currently sponsoring a study of significant native sites with local historian and writer David Buerge. A public document is anticipated in the near future. Figure 3 -3 shows the proposed location of the Green River Trail with respect to the project site. As shown, the trail would begin south of the City Light site, follow the Duwamish Waterway, and continue parallel to Highway 99 along the east side of West Marginal Way South. The trail would cross South 102nd Avenue and continue along the west side of 27th Avenue South, across from the Oxbow site. It would cross the Duwamish Waterway at South 112th Street and follow the west bank of the Duwamish Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3 -16 Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies Waterway behind the Duwamish Office Park East. The trail would pass underneath Pacific Highway, South, cross back over the Waterway, and continue along the east (south) side of the Waterway. The trail would then turn to the southwest, away from the Waterway, for a short distance, and then would continue along the west side of the Duwamish Waterway in the City of Tukwila. The segment of the trail from about 1,500 feet north of South 102nd Street and the Seattle city limits (to the north) has not been planned and would depend on private development plans for the area. Phase 1 of the Green River Trail is currently being developed, with construction plans tentatively set for summer 1992. King County Airport Master Plan The Master Development Plan for Boeing Field/King County International Airport was adopted in December 1987. The plan addresses the needs of the airport over the next 20 years and recommends appropriate uses of the airport's property and facilities. The plan focuses on highest and best use of airport property, valuation methodologies for establishing lease rates, and environmental impacts of airport development on adjacent residential areas. Two major land- use - related recommendations of the Airport Master Plan affecting the study area are the relocation of Perimeter Road at the north end of the airport and the acquisition of property (Firestone property) along the west side of the airfield. The relocation of Perimeter Road would allow the redevelopment of leaseholds with good development potential and eliminate long- standing conflicts between taxiing air- craft and access vehicles. It would also allow the airport to secure all airfield operation areas. Airport acquisition of the Firestone property would allow the construction of additional aircraft storage hangars, facilities that are in high demand. These would be located adjacent to the existing Airpark Hangars. Since adoption of the plan, both of these recommendations have been partially implemented. CITY OF SEATTLE The City of Seattle Land Use Code is a set of policies and regulations guiding develop- ment in the city of Seattle. The Land Use Code contains regulations of both the Zoning Code and the Shoreline Master Program. Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3-17 Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies Seattle Zoning Code Sites in the project area located within the Seattle city limits are designated as indus- trial zones. These sites include the northern portion of Plant 2, most of the South Park site, most of the North Duwamish Campus, and most of North Boeing Field (see Fig- ure 3 -2). According to Seattle's Industrial Area Policies: The General Industrial zones shall be established to promote the full range of industrial activities and related support uses. The General Industrial designation shall include those areas most suited to industrial activity, where the separation from residential and pedestrian- oriented commercial area is sufficient to reasonably mitigate the impacts associ- ated with industrial uses (Policy 3). A small portion of Plant 2 and most of the North Duwamish Campus are located in the IG -1 85 zone (General Industrial -1, with an 85 -foot height limit on permitted non- industrial uses). The South Park site is located in the IG -2 65 zone (Industrial -2, with a 65 -foot height limit on permitted non - industrial uses). Most of the flightline area (King County Airport, and North Boeing Field) is located in the IG -2 85 zone (General Industrial -2, with an 85 -foot height limit on permitted non- industrial uses). The northernmost portion of the North Boeing Field area is zoned IB -65 (Industrial Buffer, with a 65 -foot height limit). The distinction between the IG -1 and the IG -2 zoning classifications is the density per- mitted for commercial uses not related to industrial activity. As stated in the policies: The purpose of the IG -1 Zone is to protect marine and rail related in- dustrial areas from an inappropriate level of unrelated retail and com- mercial uses by limiting these uses to a density lower than that allowed for industrial uses. The same density shall apply to all permitted uses in the IG -2 Zone. The intent is to allow a broader range of uses where the industrial function of an area is less established, and where additional commercial activity could improve employment opportunities and the physical condition of the area, without conflicting with the industrial activity (Policy 3, Implementation Guideline 2). Light, general, and heavy manufacturing (some require an administrative conditional use); office; and research and development laboratories are all permitted in the IG -1 and IG -2 zoning districts. The floor area ratio (FAR) in the IG zone is 2.5. There is no maximum height limit for industrial activity in the IG -1 and IG -2 zones. Research and development Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3 -18 Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies laboratories and office uses have a maximum building height of 85 feet or 65 feet (as described above), depending on the specific zone designation. As noted above under "City of Tukwila," permit approvals and inspections for develop- ment proposals on sites leased from the King County Airport are obtained from King County Building and Land Development (BALD) under an agreement between the City of Seattle and King County that has been in practice for over 20 years. The majority of the North Boeing Field site, while located within the Seattle city limits, would fall under the permit authority of King County. Development proposals at North Boeing Field must also obtain pre - approval from the King County Airport Manager. Review for pre - approval examines minimum standards related to setbacks from lease lines; height per FAA requirements; automobile and aircraft parking and circulation; utilities and surface drainage; architectural design and signage; and landscaping, fencing, and security. Seattle Airport Height Overlay District The Airport Height Overlay District (Chapter 23.64 of the Seattle Land Use Code) was developed to ensure safe and unobstructed take -off and landing approach paths to King County Airport (Boeing Field). The overlay district consists of five areas based on imaginary surfaces developed from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) height limitations surrounding airports. Heights of structures within the overlay district cannot exceed the limits of the imaginary surfaces. The height limit in the inner ap- proach areas and transition areas is 37 feet; the height limit in turning areas and coni- cal areas is 65 feet. The study area is largely located in the turning area. Figure 3 -4 shows the zones in the overlay district. Structures are permitted to exceed the limits of the overlay district if the following conditions are met: • The FAA determines that the height does not create a hazard to avia- tion. • The additional height is necessary for the successful physical function of the structure. • The exception does not required re- routing of aircraft. • The structure is designed to minimize adverse lighting impacts while complying with the lighting requirements of the FAA. Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3 -19 Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies Source: City of Seattle DCLU Director's Report Airport Height Overlay District 1987 3 -20 Figure 3 -4 AIRPORT HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT Seattle Critical Areas Ordinance Seattle's interim regulations for critical areas identify general requirements and devel- opment standards for proposed development in areas of steep slopes, wetlands and riparian corridors, and submerged land. Development in these areas must have a 25 -foot buffer from the ordinary high water mark or edge of wetlands and riparian corridors. Sites in the project area that are located in Seattle do not contain critical areas. The Duwamish Waterway is not regulated as a riparian corridor because it falls under the jurisdiction of Seattle's Shoreline Master Program. Seattle Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Only the northern portion of the North Duwamish Campus site, which runs along the Duwamish Waterway, falls under the jurisdiction of the Seattle SMP. This portion is within the Seattle city limits and within 200 feet of the Duwamish Waterway. The shoreline designation of this area under the SMP is Urban Industrial (UI). Uses permitted outright on waterfront lots in the UI classification include the commercial uses represented by the research and development laboratories currently under con- struction at the North Duwamish Campus. Office uses, however, are permitted only through a shoreline conditional -use approval in the UI shoreline environment. The SMP includes development standards for height, lot coverage, view corridors, set- backs, and public access for uses within the classification. The height limit for struc- tures in the UI designation is 35 feet; manufacturing uses may be allowed heights of up to 80 feet if authorized by the Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use. Structures must be set back 60 feet from the water's edge, and public access to the shoreline is required, although exceptions are provided. Boeing's IASL (Integrated Aircraft Systems Laboratory) facility on the north portion of the North Duwamish Campus has been reviewed and approved by Seattle's Depart- ment of Construction and Land Use. It is consistent with SMP provisions, and public access to Slip No. 4 and the Duwamish Waterway is included. Seattle Recreation Plans South Park Neighborhood Plan. The Duwamish River Park is the nearest park to the project area. The park is located in the South Park neighborhood along the west side of the Duwamish Waterway at the intersection of South Kenyon Street and 10th Ave- nue South. The South Park Neighborhood Plan identified six street ends as potential public view and access points. Of these potential public view and access points, the park is the nearest to any Boeing properties. Port of Seattle Comprehensive Public Access Plan for the Duwamish Waterway. As part of its requirements for shoreline development, the Port of Seattle has included Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3 -21 Relationship to Land Use Plans and Pollctes improvement of a South Park neighborhood street end in its public access plan for the Duwamish Waterway. The proposed site at Eighth Avenue South and South Portland Street is currently an undeveloped grassy area with views of the waterway and Boeing facilities. According to the plan, the new access is designed to include shoreline improvements, picnic facilities, landscaping, and a bike path connection between the South Riverside Drive and Eighth Avenue South rights -of -way. City of Seattle Urban Trails Program. The City of Seattle's Urban Trails Program is administered through the Seattle Engineering Department (SED). SED has also devel- oped an Urban Trails Policy as part of the Draft Proposed Open Space Policy (1991), which provides information on the existing trail system and identifies current issues, locational criteria, and implementation guidelines. The goal of the Urban Trails Pro- gram (1989 -1990) is to "encourage and promote non - motorized (bicycling and walking) modes of transportation for utilitarian and recreational purposes by developing a com- prehensive urban trails system." The program's objectives are to create an urban trails system that: 1. Connects employment centers, educational facilities, residential areas, and major recreational destinations. 2. Creates and /or restores linear greenways along waterways, through neighbor- hoods, and as buffers to industrial areas and major roadways. 3. Serves a diverse population including low- and moderate - income neighborhoods and people with special needs, such as wheelchair users and children. The only urban trail identified by the program in the immediate vicinity of the study area is the Duwamish Trail (Seattle Urban Trails System 1991 Map). The Duwamish Trail is a combination of off -road trails and signed bike routes that are linked to form a continuous system. The trail begins at Duwamish Head in West Seattle and con- tinues south to the Seattle city limits. The trail will eventually connect with the Green River Trail (described above in the "Recreation Plans" section for King County). Once completed, the trail will extend from West Marginal Way Southwest and South Michigan Street to South Holden Street and Second Avenue South. The route for this portion has not been determined. From South Holden Street the trail will continue through the South Park neighborhood, connecting with public access points along the Duwamish Waterway and the Duwamish River Park (across the Waterway from the Boeing North Duwamish Campus). From the park, the trail will continue southwest to Cloverdale Street and Eighth Avenue South, connecting with the Catholic Hill link, and then along Henderson to 14th Avenue South (west of the South Park site), ending at the Seattle city limits. With the exception of the Catholic Hill link and the segment along 14th Avenue, the trail would consist of a signed bicycle route, not a constructed path. Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3 -22 Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies Portions of the trail are not yet completed (Figure 3 -3). The Harbor Avenue link will be completed by 1993, and the link between South Park and Michigan Street will be completed in conjunction with construction of the new First Avenue South bridge. Currently, the formal portion of the trail ends at Michigan Street. The Catholic Hill link has also been completed. In 1992, a signed interim bicycle route will be put in place (also shown in Figure 3 -3). The interim route will remain on the west side of Highway 99 to approximately South Cloverdale Street and 8th Avenue South. From that point it will follow the proposed final route. The 1991 Seattle Urban Trails System Map also identifies a proposed trail that could cross the Oxbow site. The trail would connect with the Green River Trail along 27th Avenue South, cross the Oxbow site via the Oxbow Bridge, and continue along South Norfolk Street to Airport Way South. The trail would continue north, cross I -5 at Mili- tary Road, and connect with another Seattle urban trail. The specific route for this trail has not been determined, and there is no schedule for its development. Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation Linear Recreation Plan. The Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation has developed a Draft Linear Recreation Plan (1990) that describes the current system and proposed trails and boulevards and identi- fies the program's policies. The elements of Seattle's linear recreation system are public rights -of -way designated by the City as part of the open space system. The draft plan lists several linear routes in the "Greater Duwamish" Neighborhood District in the vicinity of the study area (Oxbow Bridge, Duwamish Trail and bikeway). IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES LAND USE IMPACTS Direct land use impacts would be site - specific. The intensity of manufacturing, labora- tory, and office uses would vary from site to site. In some parts of the project area, the existing use would chang 2but the existing structures would remain. On other sites, the intensity of an existing use would increase and new uses could be added. These changes could involve demolition of existing structures and construction of new and /or additional facilities. The intensification of use will be a result of increased floor area and employee density, rather than lot coverage. Lot coverage will likely decrease as a result of the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action and alternatives are consistent with the general goals for devel- opment in industrial areas set forth in the comprehensive and community plans of the three jurisdictions. They are also compatible with the intent of the applicable zoning districts. Project- specific proposals will comply with zoning requirements and develop- ment regulations. However, variance approvals and other exceptions or text amend- ments may be requested from the appropriate jurisdictions. Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use Impacts of the Proposed Action 3 -23 and Alternatives Boeing redevelopment in the Corridor may encourage similar redevelopment of adja- cent sites. These changes are most likely to occur in the southern portion of the study area, south of the King County Airport, where the majority of non - Boeing - affiliated sites are located. Minor redevelopment may occur in the northern portion of the study area, on the west side of East Marginal Way South (adjacent to Boeing's North Duwa- mish Campus), after construction of the new 16th Avenue South Bridge is completed. Proposed Action The largest land use change to the area as a result of the Proposed Action would be the increase of lab /office use and the decrease of manufacturing use. Lab /office use could increase by as much as 65 percent, with a potential increase of 2,000 employees in those positions and a total of 4.4 million square feet of .floor area. Developmental manufacturing use could decrease by 15 percent, with 2,500 fewer employees and a total of 3.9 million square feet of floor area (Tables 2 -1 and 2 -2). Office use could decrease by 10 percent, with a decrease of 1,800 employees and a total of 2.3 million square feet of floor area. The number of employees devoted to flightline activities could increase by 900. Figure 3 -5 represents a probable scenario of uses by site. The location of uses may vary from this scenario at full buildout, but the floor area by use would be similar to that shown in Table 2 -4. These changes would involve the demolition of the older buildings at Plant 2 and the North Duwamish Campus, some demolition at the South Park site and North Boeing Field, and the construction of additional buildings throughout the study area. As a result, the visual character of some of the sites would be altered. The Boeing Com- pany has identified the campus -style development approach adopted for the recently approved redevelopment of the northern half of the North Duwamish Campus site as a likely approach for other office and lab /office developments in the corridor. This project is currently under construction and is replacing an older manufacturing building of about 500,000 square feet with a new lab /office building of about the same size. As part of the project, paved areas are reduced, landscaping and biofiltration swales are introduced, shoreline riprap erosion protection is supplemented with native vegetation, and pedestrian circulation is improved. Proposed design guidelines for the Duwamish Corridor redevelopment are presented in Section 2 of Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal. The Proposed Action would also change the mix of employees in the area (see also Chapter 5, Population, Housing and Employment). The increase in employees would largely be for the lab /office use. Because of this change, the number of employees on second and third shifts would decrease, creating more intense activity during the day- time hours. Other direct land use impacts, such as an increase in light and glare, would occur. Additional lighting for exterior parking, walkways, buildings, and employee vehicles would not be expected to affect adjacent land uses, as nearby uses are generally light 3 -24 Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives THOMPSON• ISMCSON SITE j %•:• BOEING FlELDZ. LEGEND Labs/Offices Avionics Mechanical Electrical Structural Noise Material Quality Assurance Aeronautic Office Executive Professional Engineering Support Training Manufacturing Fabrication Sub - assembly Final- assembly Production Manufacturing Development Manufacturing Flightline Engine Testing Paint Hangar Fueling Existing Aircraft Road Crossing Points Note: This illustration represents a probable scenario of proportionate uses by site and does not include accessory uses such as parking and storage. The location of uses may vary from this scenario at build -out, but floor area by use will be similiar to that represented in Table 2 -4. . Figure 3 -5 PROPOSED SITE USES* industrial or commercial in nature. Building facades could generate glare if designed with large reflective surfaces such as glass curtain walls. Attention to facade orienta- tion, facade materials, proximity to East Marginal Way South, and degree of reflectivity would be required during project- specific building design and permit review to mini- mize glare impacts. It is not anticipated that use of the Duwamish as an industrial waterway by the Port of Seattle would be affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives. Neither use of the Duwamish Waterway for transport of goods nor development within the waterway is included as part of the Proposed Action or alternatives. The following is a probable scenario of the land use changes that could occur at each site with development of the Proposed Action. Parcels for which no significant changes are proposed (i.e., no new structures or significant change in employee numbers or make -up) are not included. Plant 2. The primary changes to the project area would occur at Plant 2. With the exception of the corporate headquarters, all structures on Plant 2 would likely be demolished (a total of approximately 2.4 million square feet). New lab /office space and developmental manufacturing buildings (approximately 1.7 million square feet) would replace the existing manufacturing structures built in the 1930s and 1940s. It is expected that the early phases of the corridor -wide redevelopment would occur at the Plant 2 site, as the existing facilities are the oldest and least efficient. The proposed redevelopment anticipates a continued need for access to the existing aircraft crossing to North Boeing Field. An additional "high bay" may be included in the new develop- ment, resulting in the need for an area as wide as 700 feet to be free of permanent obstructions at East Marginal Way South. The placement of such a large, wide manu- facturing structure near the street, and the corresponding need to keep that space free of such typical softening features as trees and other permanent landscaping, will create visual and aesthetic impacts for users of East Marginal Way South. Appropriate re- view of design features along the entire corridor may help to mitigate these impacts, for example by "showcasing" other portions of the corridor, by softening the impacts with landscape treatment that still allows aircraft crossings, or simply by acknowledging the large scale of the manufacturing structures as an integral and interesting com- ponent of the corridor's industrial activities. Streambank enhancement and employee shoreline access are proposed. Design review is discussed further as a mitigating meas- ure later in this chapter. North Duwamish Campus. The northern portion (approximately 20 acres) of the approximately .48 -acre site is currently under construction and, once complete, will contain lab /office buildings (approximately 500,000 square feet) in a campus -style setting. The southern portion would also be developed for lab /office space (approxi- mately 360,000 square feet). The southern portion of the site is currently occupied by a number of manufacturing buildings constructed in the 1940s and 1950s. 3 -26 Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives Redevelopment of the southern portion of the parcel would consist of campus -style development visually and physically linked with the northern portion of the site. It is anticipated that these changes would improve views of the site from across the Duwa- mish Waterway. As part of the current development of the northern portion, an improved walkway along the length of Slip 4 will be provided to allow for public ac- cess. Other public amenities, such as benches, picnic tables, and a hand -held boat launch, will also be provided. It is anticipated that completion of both the northern and southern areas of the site would intensify the uses of the site, but the redevelopment is not expected to create significant adverse land use impacts. Total demolition for this site (including the 500,000 square feet already removed) is expected to be approximately 948,000 square feet. Developmental Center. Changes to the Developmental Center could include the addi- tion of approximately 300,000 square feet of new facilities. Few changes would be visible to those traveling along East Marginal Way South. Bank stabilization would include new riprap and landscaping. Employee shoreline access is proposed on the redeveloped sites. Public shoreline trail enhancement is proposed along the southern perimeter of the site to provide connections to the Museum of Flight. Thompson- Isaacson Site. This site is used predominantly for manufacturing. New construction will add approximately 500,000 square feet of developmental manufac- turing facilities. Approximately 380,000 square feet of building was demolished in 1989 to prepare the site for future construction; no further demolition is anticipated. Streambank enhancement and employee shoreline access are proposed. North Boeing Field. Flightline activities would remain largely unchanged, although there could be an increase of approximately 300 employees associated with flightline operations. The northernmost area, currently used for lab /office space, could be con- verted to flightline activities. The amount of manufacturing would remain approxi- mately, the same, and the lab /office space and office space could be redistributed. The total square footage and the number of employees could increase. The number of flightline stalls used for parking and testing aircraft is proposed to increase from 28 to 42. Noise impacts of this change are discussed in Chapter 7, Environmental Health. Demolition and redevelopment at North Boeing Field would be concentrated along the northern border of the site. Demolition would involve approximately 380,000 square feet; new construction would add approximately 850,000 square feet. South Park Site. In its current use, the South Park site contains office and lab /office space. With the Proposed Action, the parcel could be used entirely for lab /office space. Existing lab /office uses could be relocated and /or replaced with other lab /office buildings. The increase in lab /office space and decrease in office space could result in 3 -27 Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives fewer employees. Approximately 18,000 square feet of floor area would be demol- ished, and approximately 125,000 square feet of new construction is anticipated. Exist- ing shoreline public access would be maintained. Manufacturing Center Alternative Development of the Manufacturing Center alternative would include upgrading of the existing office and manufacturing facilities. Since there would be a decrease in the number of employees and no significant changes to existing onsite uses, only construction- related impacts are expected. No significant long -term land use impacts are anticipated with this alternative. No Action Alternative With the exception of incremental modifications to Boeing facilities and fluctuations in employee population not to exceed 25,000, existing conditions would remain. No sig- nificant land use impacts are anticipated in the study area with the No Action alternative. SHORELINE IMPACTS The Boeing Company currently does not use the Duwamish Waterway for its industrial operation. In the past, large airplane assemblies were barged to Boeing facilities, and the company could have similar requirements from time to time in the future. The Proposed Action and Manufacturing Center alternative would increase nonwater- dependent square footage in the project area. The shorelines of Boeing- controlled sites total approximately 18,000 linear feet. During the redevelopment period, the build alternatives propose the redevelopment of sites with approximately 4,800 linear feet of shorelines. There is no proposed increase in the amount of shoreline being used for non - water - dependent uses. Because of the security requirements of the aero- space industry, public access at these sites has not historically been available, nor is it being proposed. The majority of these sites are located within the Tukwila city limits. As discussed previously in this chapter, these sites would be required to meet the development standards established in the King County Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Under King County's SMP, no public access would be required as a result of the redevelop- ment proposed in the build alternatives. Within the Seattle city limits, only the North Duwamish Campus and portions of the South Park site are proposed for redevelopment. The South Park site has approxi- mately 1,800 linear feet of shoreline. Approximately 500 feet of this shoreline are proposed for public access as part of Seattle's shoreline substantial development permit for Boeing's IASL (Integrated Aircraft Systems Laboratory) redevelopment project. Additional shoreline public access may be required for the remaining redevelopment of Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use Impacts of the Proposed Action 3 -28 and Alternatives the North Duwamish Campus under Seattle's jurisdiction. The Boeing Company is proposing a shoreline public access plan as part of its Duwamish Corridor Redevelop- ment Proposal to address public access concerns. Pages 7 and 8 of the proposal de- scribe specific elements of the plan. Figure 3 -6 summarizes Boeing's proposal. The Boeing Company's proposed shoreline access plan would maintain all existing shoreline public access (at the Developmental Center, Oxbow, South Park, and Duwa- mish Office Park East sites and as proposed at the North Duwamish Campus site). Trail and viewpoint enhancements and a canoe launch would be provided along the 4,800 linear feet of existing shoreline public access at the Oxbow site. Pedestrian and bicycle trail connections would be provided from the Museum of Flight along East Marginal Way South to the Oxbow site and the Green River Trail. Fisheries habitat restoration is proposed near the Oxbow site in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and appropriate state agencies. Other streambank en- hancements will also be provided along the 4,800 linear feet of shoreline proposed for redevelopment. While security requirements limit public access opportunities, em- ployee shoreline access is proposed in conjunction with the stream bank enhancements. Design guidelines and standards are discussed in detail on pages 25 through 33 of Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal. RECREATION IMPACTS The Proposed Action and alternatives do not conflict with plans for the City of Seattle's proposed Duwamish Trail or King County's proposed Green River Trail. Although the exact route for the Duwamish Trail has not been determined, the only segment of the trail that may be in the immediate vicinity of the study area is the final portion of the route along South Henderson Street and 14th Avenue South. This por- tion would be north of the South Park site. Since the proposed trail would consist of a signed route in the existing right -of -way, it is not anticipated that land use changes proposed in either of the build alternatives would affect the Duwamish Trail. The City of Seattle trail that has been proposed to cross the Oxbow site via the Oxbow Bridge and continue along South Norfolk Street to Airport Way South would be enhanced by Boeing's proposal to provide access from the Green River Trail to the Museum of Flight. The proposed King County Green River Trail would be located along the right -of -way south of the City Light site and east of the Oxbow site and along private property on the east side of the Duwamish Office Park East. No redevelopment is proposed at either the Oxbow or Duwamish Office Park East site. However, Boeing is proposing to develop a public trail connection between the Green River Trail and the Museum of Flight. Water access, viewpoint, and canoe launch amenities are also being proposed along the existing Oxbow shoreline trail. 3 -29 Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives W i O' LEGEND Existing Boeing Shoreline Public Access Proposed Enhancement of Existing Access Proposed Connection to Green River Trail u.iu.ile Proposed Employee Shoreline Access Figure 3 -6 EXISTING AND PROPOSED BOEING SHORELINE ACCESS AND TRAIL PLAN MITIGATION MEASURES LAND USE AND SHORELINE IMPACTS Land use and shoreline impacts of the Proposed Action and build alternatives would be consistent with applicable plans and policies. Project- specific proposals will comply with development regulations. However, variance approvals or code amendments may be requested from the appropriate jurisdictions. The City of Tukwila will evaluate the consistency of the design guidelines proposed by The Boeing Company with existing goals and policies of the City's shoreline program. The City may consider Boeing's design guidelines and standards (Section 2 of the Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal) as a framework in the develop- ment and update of the industrial portions of its Shoreline Master Program. Boeing's design guidelines and standards were developed to assist Boeing planners and designers in addressing potential height, bulk, and scale impacts. These guidelines and standards could also be applied by agency review staff to mitigate project- specific impacts as redevelopment occurs. RECREATION IMPACTS Although no direct impacts to recreation have been identified as a result of the Pro- posed Action and alternatives, The Boeing Company will participate with the appropri- ate planning and recreation agencies in corridor -wide recreation and open space planning. The Boeing Company has proposed a shoreline public access plan with the goal of identifying segments of its internal open space system that could be enhanced for public use. The objectives of the plan have been to: • Identify opportunities that are consistent with existing recreation and open space plans. • Discourage random, piecemeal distribution of recreation and open space resources. • Improve existing recreation and open space opportunities where needed. • Develop new recreation and open space opportunities as part of a com- prehensive planning process. • Develop new recreation and open space opportunities that are consistent with and enhance public access goals. 3 -31 Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use Mitigation Measures UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Land use and shoreline changes, including intensification of development, would occur on most sites within the study area; however, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to land and shoreline use are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action or the Manufacturing Center alternative. 100216C9.SEAq Chapter 3: Land and Shoreline Use 3 -32 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION BACKGROUND As discussed throughout this document, the proposed corridor redevelopment is a nonproject action. The locations of buildings, parking areas, and driveways are not identified except in general terms, and subsequent project -level environmental review will occur as individual projects are proposed to implement the redevelopment plan. Nevertheless, this chapter evaluates traffic impacts from each alternative in some detail. The reason for this approach is to provide an assessment of the extent of miti- gation that would be required for approval of the project as the redevelopment pro- gram is implemented. In general, the analysis indicates that very little change in daily traffic volumes is ex- pected from the proposal compared to the baseline (No Action) conditions. Because of a greater concentration of office research and development employment during the first shift, peak -hour traffic volumes are estimated to increase by about 15 percent under the proposal as compared to No Action volumes. A successful transportation management plan (TMP), as described later in this chapter, would mitigate the pro- posal's level -of- service impacts on regional facilities and bring roadway conditions back to baseline levels. Fair -share contributions to offsite road improvements have been required of Boeing for previous permit approvals along the Duwamish corridor. Some of these required improvements have not yet been completed. In addition, a City of Tukwila ordinance requires frontage improvements when individual parcels are developed. These past and future requirements for offsite contributions are also discussed in this chapter. EXISTING CONDITIONS VEHICULAR CIRCULATION Street System The arterial roadway system serving the study area is illustrated in Figure 4 -1, which also shows City of Seattle and Tukwila roadway functional classifications and locations of traffic signals on roadways in the vicinity. Access between the project area and I -5, SR 99, SR 509, and SR 599 is currently pro- vided by East Marginal Way South, South Michigan Street, South Boeing Access Road, 14th /16th Avenue South, Pacific Highway South, Airport Way South, and South Chapter 4: Transportation 4 -1 Background/Existing Conditions LEGEND Freeway Principal Arterial Minor Arterial '.. ■■ ■. Collector Arterial • Signalized Intersection Source: City of Tukwila, City of Seattle, and WSDOT. Figure 4 -1 EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM Cloverdale Street. The South Michigan Street /Corson Avenue South and South Boeing Access Road interchanges provide access to I -5 both north- and southbound. A full cloverleaf interchange at 14th /16th Avenue South provides direct access to SR 99, while the South Cloverdale Street interchange allows only for northbound on -ramps and southbound off -ramps from SR 99. The Oxbow interchange connects South 102nd Street to SR 99. It currently operates as a partial diamond interchange, with north- bound on- and off -ramps from SR 99. Pacific Highway South connects to SR 99 and SR 599 with a full- access interchange. Major east -west corridors within the study area consist of South Boeing Access Road, South Michigan Street, and South Cloverdale Street. South Michigan Street is a five - lane arterial, classified as a principal arterial, which provides direct access to I -5 and SR 99/509. Parking is prohibited on both sides of the roadway, and the posted speed limit is 30 mph. The pavement is in good condition. South Cloverdale Street provides east -west access to SR 99. This principal arterial is a two -lane roadway with sidewalks and on- street parking on both sides. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. The intersec- tion of South Cloverdale Street and 14th Avenue South is controlled by a signal. The main east -west corridor along the south side of the study area is the South Boeing Access Road. This six- to seven -lane principal arterial provides direct access to I -5 and Pacific Highway South. Parking is prohibited on both sides of the roadway, and the speed limit is posted at 30 mph. The roadway pavement is in fair condition, and side- walks are provided on both sides of the roadway. The intersections of South Boeing Access Road at East Marginal Way South/Pacific Highway South and SR 900 (Martin Luther King, Jr., Way South) are controlled by signals. West of East Marginal Way South, Pacific Highway South connects the South Boeing Access Road to SR 99/ SR 599. North -south corridors consist of East Marginal Way South; Pacific Highway South; 14th /16th Avenue South; Corson, Carleton, and Ellis Avenues South; and Airport Way South. East Marginal Way South is a five -lane principal arterial between South Michi- gan Street and Carleton Avenue South with two travel lanes in each direction and a two -way left-turn center lane. The roadway becomes six lanes south of Carleton Ave- nue South with three northbound travel lanes, two southbound lanes, and a center two - way left -turn lane. A southbound right -turn lane is provided at South Webster Street and 16th Avenue South. On- street parking is prohibited, and sidewalks are provided only on the east side of the street. The pavement surface is in fair condition, and the speed limit is posted at 35 mph. Pacific Highway South is a five -lane principal arterial. It connects East Marginal Way South and the South Boeing Access Road to the SR 599/SR 99 freeway and continues southwest as SR 99 to Sea Tac Airport and south to Federal Way and Tacoma. Corson, Carleton, and Ellis Avenues South are classified as principal arterials and have signal control at selected intersections (i.e., East Marginal Way South and Chapter 4: Transportation 4 -3 Existing Conditions South Michigan Street). Ellis Avenue South is a two -way, four -lane street with side- walks on both sides. On- street parking is restricted, and the speed limit is posted at 30 mph. Carleton Avenue South is a two -lane roadway with sidewalks on both sides and a speed limit of 25 mph. Corson Avenue South is a two -lane roadway with one travel lane in each direction. Sidewalks and on- street parking are provided on both sides of the street. The speed limit is 30 mph. The pavement surface for all north - south arterials within the study area is in fair to good condition. Fourteenth Avenue South /16th Avenue South is a principal arterial providing access from East Marginal Way South to SR 99. This arterial is a four -lane "roadway with two travel lanes in each direction crossing the Duwamish Waterway. Major intersections along 14th /16th Avenue South are controlled by signals. Limited parking is allowed on 14th Avenue South. There is a pedestrian tunnel crossing under 16th Avenue South at a Boeing entrance, approximately 400 feet west of East Marginal Way South. The pavement surface is in good to fair condition, and the speed limit is 30 mph. The north -south principal arterial bordering the east side of the study area is Airport Way South. The arterial is a four -lane roadway with two travel lanes in each direction and left-turn pockets at selected intersections. On- street parking is prohibited, and partial sidewalks are provided along the west side of the street. The pavement surface is in fair condition, and the speed limit is posted at 45 mph. Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volume estimates were based on the 1989 to 1991 data assembled from the City of Seattle, the City of Tukwila, and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Figures 4 -2 and 4 -3 summarize the daily and peak -hour traffic volumes. The daily arterial volumes range from a high of 32,900 vehicles per day (vpd) on South Michigan Street between East Marginal Way South and Corson Avenue South to a low of approximately 5,300 vpd on South Norfolk Street between East Marginal Way South and Airport Way South. The morning peak -hour volumes typically range from 4 percent to 15 percent of the daily volumes, and the afternoon peak -hour volumes range from 5 to 19 percent. On the regional roadway system, I -5 has the highest volume of traffic in the project vicinity, carrying approximately 174,800 vpd north of South Boeing Access Road. Other major facilities carry between 24,500 and 50,800 vpd, with an average of 42,000 vpd on SR 99, 50,800 vpd on SR 509, and 45,700 vpd on SR 599. Traffic vol- umes on major facilities have been increasing from 1.5 percent to 4 percent per year over the past 5 years. Traffic on these facilities is predominantly northbound during morning peak periods and predominantly southbound during afternoon peak periods. 4 -4 Chapter 4: Transportation Existing conditions LEGEND —10. Direction of travel 12,450 Average two -way daily traffic volumes • • • • • Level of service C •••• Level of service D • - — Level of service E Level of service F Source: City of Tukwila and WSDOT. Figure 4 -2 ESTIMATED LEVELS OF SERVICE AND AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS (1991) LEGEND —4 Direction of travel 4,885 AM peak -hour traffic volume (6,285) PM peak -hour traffic volume Source: City of Tukwila and WSDOT. Figure 4 -3 EXISTING 1991 AM AND PM PEAK -HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES • — = East Marginal Way South is the primary facility directly serving the study area. Traffic volumes vary from 22,350 vpd south of 16th Avenue South to 35,000 vpd north of the South Boeing Access Road. Traffic on this facility is principally related to Boeing with less than 25 percent being through traffic. Traffic volumes in the area are heavily influenced by Boeing operations; thus, the a.m. and p.m. peak - period volumes can be considerably higher in relation to total daily traffic than what one might find in other areas in the region. Furthermore, the peak periods are spread over several hours due to the staggered shifts that The Boeing Company has instituted to reduce impacts on the transportation system. Peak -hour traffic is also highly directional. In the a.m. peak 75 percent of the traffic on Pacific Highway South is inbound to the Duwamish corridor and during the p.m. peak 80 per- cent of the traffic is outbound. The Boeing facilities' a.m. peak generally occurs between 6:30 a.m. and 7:30 a.m., while the non - Boeing a.m. peak of the area roadways, or the system peak, is from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Boeing facilities' p.m. peak is between 2:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m., and the system peak is from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. In general, Boeing facilities' p.m. peak represents approximately 11 to 14 percent of the total daily traffic in the immediate project vicinity, while the system p.m. peak represents 9 to 11 percent. For purposes of this nonproject EIS, discussion of impacts for the existing and future conditions will focus on the average daily traffic volumes at selected roadway segments within the study area. This provides a general basis for identifying deficiencies and mitigation measures. The above peak - period information is provided for reference from existing data. With Boeing's present non - project proposal, it is not possible to develop intersection -level detail and intersection level -of- service estimates because levels of employment at individual sites, numbers of vehicle trips, and exact locations of future development are not known. Level of Service (LOS) LOS is a concept developed to quantify the degree of comfort afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. The degree of comfort in- cludes such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impedances caused by other vehicles. Six grades are used to denote the various levels of service. They range from LOS A, which represents the best condition where little or no delay is experienced, to LOS F, where extreme congestion is experienced. LOS F describes forced -flow operation at low speeds where traffic volumes exceed roadway capacity. These conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction downstream of the intersection. Speeds are reduced substantially, and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time. Some agencies have established LOS standards for roadways within their jurisdictions. LOS standards can differ by area of a city or neighborhood in response to land use or Chapter 4: Transportation 4 -7 Existing Conditions other policy objectives (for example, allowing LOS F in a downtown area but not in neighborhoods). The City of Tukwila does not have an ordinance or adopted policy that directly addresses LOS standards. However, the capacity and deficiency study, discussed below, used LOS D as an objective for city streets. Daily traffic capacity analyses were prepared for various links using the estimated ca- pacities from the City of Tukwila's Draft Roadway Capacity and Deficiency Study. Daily traffic volumes were compared with these capacities to determine volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratios, which were used to quantify existing levels of service. Table 4 -1 presents the daily roadway capacity, and Table 4 -2 summarizes the LOS definitions based on the V/C ratios. Estimated daily LOS for the existing conditions at selected links were analyzed and are illustrated in Figure 4 -2. Most arterials and regional roadways within the study area are estimated to operate at LOS D or better. South Michigan Street, Pacific Highway South, and East Marginal Way south of South Boeing Access Road are operating at LOS E, while the First Avenue South Bridge and I -5 are at LOS F. ACCIDENTS Accident data gathered from the City of Seattle, the City of Tukwila, and WSDOT for the period from January 1, 1988, through December 31, 1990, are summarized in Fig- ure 4 -4. For the 3 -year period, there was a total of 752 accidents on the arterial road- way system within the study area, an average of approximately 0.7 accident per day, with a total of 421 injuries and one fatality. The majority of the accidents were right - angle or rear -end accidents, which are typical of accident patterns for urban areas. The street section with the highest accident experience was along East Marginal Way South between South Michigan Street and 16th Avenue South, where there were 192 accidents over 3 years. Most of these accidents involved angular and head -on colli- sions. A total of 113 injuries, with no fatalities, was reported. No pedestrian accidents were reported. On the regional roadway system, the section of SR 509 between SR 99 and East Mar- ginal Way South experienced 362 accidents over the 3 -year period reported. Most of these accidents also involved angular and head -on collisions. Four fatalities and a total of 220 injuries were reported. The total accidents reported on I -5 were from 249 to 343, depending on the section, and on SR 99 accidents reported ranged from 46 to 108 per section. Average annual accident rates per million vehicle miles of travel varied from less than 1.0 on I -5 and SR 99 /SR 599 to a high of 11.0'on the.First Avenue South Bridge. On East Marginal Way South at 16th Avenue South, the rate was 1.1. Chapter 4: Transportation 4 -8 Existing Conditions Table 4 -1 Daily Roadway Capacity Type of Roadway LOS Total Capacity (two -way) Capacity Per Lane 0.61 to 0.70 Arterials Two lanes C 12,000 - -- Two lanes plus left -turn channelization E 15,000 . - -- Four lanes 24,000 - -- Four lanes plus left -turn channelization 27,000 - -- Six lanes 36,000 - -- Six lanes plus left -turn channelization 39,000 - -- Freeways Mainline - -- 15,000 HOV lane - -- 6,000 Ramp - -- 10,000 ISource: City of Tukwila Draft Roadway Capacity and Deficiency Study. 1002173B.SEAq Table 4 -2 Description of Arterial Levels of Service (LOS) (Roadway Segment) Volume -to- Capacity Ratio LOS 0.00 to 0.60 A 0.61 to 0.70 B 0.71 to 0.80 C 0.81 to 0.90 D 0.91 to 1.00 E 1.01+ F 4 -9 Chapter 4: Transportation Existing Conditions LEGEND 343 -212 -0 Total Roadway segment accidents/ no. injuries/no. fatalities - 2.5 Average annual accidents per million vehicle miles of travel Source: City of Tukwila, City of Seattle, and WSDOT. Figure 4 -4 ACCIDENT HISTORY (1/1/88 — 12/31/90) • — There is no on- street parking along the principal arterial roadways in the vicinity of the study area. Surrounding neighborhoods typically allow on- street parking, although there is no indication that Boeing employees use the neighborhoods for parking. The number of existing off - street parking spaces within the project study area was sup- plied by The Boeing Company. Figure 4 -5 shows the current capacity of the parking lots in the area. There are currently about 21,000 parking spaces available for employ- ees and visitors. All parking spaces are provided free of charge, although some loca- tions are assigned and require special permits. The existing parking supply exceeds the minimum requirements for all three jurisdictions included in the corridor (Tukwila, Seattle, and King County). Estimates of existing peak parking demand were calculated by dividing actual first -shift employee population (estimated at 17,100) by the observed average vehicle occupancy (AVO) of 1.2 persons per vehicle. This rate is based on surveys conducted by the Boeing Company and Entranco in June 1991. Table 4 -3 presents existing parking sup- ply and peak parking demand for long -term and short-term (i.e., visitor) spaces. Table 4 -3 also presents the number of employees and peak long -term demand by shifts. Table 4 -3 Estimated Parking Supply and Demand Existing Conditions Shift Number of Employees Peak Parking Demand' Long -Term Short -Term First 17,100 14,250 350 Second 3,200 2,630 -- Third 1,100 920 -- Total 21,400 15,950b Total Parking Supply -- 21,410c 'Based on an average vehicle occupancy of 1.2. bCombination of 100 percent long -term for first shift and 50 percent of second shift plus short -term. "Surplus of 5,460 parking spaces. Peak parking demand is likely to occur at shift change, when first -shift workers are yet to leave and second -shift workers are just arriving. Because of the staggered discharge times of these shifts, there is not a complete overlap. The peak demand is estimated to occur between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m., when an estimated 15,950 vehicles are parked in the study area. This number represents 74 percent of the parking supply. 4 -11 Chapter 4: Transportation Existing Conditions LEGEND D Number of Parking Stalls Site No. Parking Spaces E. Marginal Way Corporate Park Duwamish Office Parking Acreage 787 11.6 Park East • 1500 82 Oxbow Site 4,525 12.7 Development Center 5,126 81.0 Military Flight Comer 566 8.4 Site Thompson Isaacson Plant 2 No. Parking Spaces 1,459 414 Parking Acreage 7.1 2.8 South Park 710 10.0 N. Duwamish Campus 2,178 12.1 North Boeing Field 4,145 37.4 • Approximately 825 are within structure. TOTAL 21,410 Parking Spaces 191.3 Acres h Parking Figure 4 -5 EXISTING PARKING - Ride- Sharing The average vehicle occupancy (AVO) for first -shift employees at Boeing Duwamish facilities is approximately 1.2 persons per vehicle. This means that approximately 78 percent of first -shift employees commute in single - occupancy vehicles (SOV). Car- pools make up about 10 percent of all vehicles, and vanpools make up less than 1 per- cent. Approximately 10 percent of first -shift employees commute by transit. The mode split for the existing facilities' 17,100 first -shift employees is presented in Table 4 -4. Mode split is a term used to identify the percentage of commuters using various forms of transportation. Table 4 -4 First -Shift Employee Mode Split Mode Percentage of Total SOV 78 Carpool 10 Vanpool 1 Transit 10 Other 1 Total 100 AVOb 1.2 aSingle- occupant vehicle. bAverage vehicle occupancy. The Boeing Company has entered into an agreement with Metro to jointly pursue met- hods to reduce SOV generation by Boeing facilities. As part of that agreement, a transportation management plan (TMP) was developed in which Boeing provides a $15 subsidy for bus passes, preferential parking for carpools and vanpools, and ride - matching. A copy of the TMP is provided in Appendix B. 4 -13 Chapter 4: Transportation Existing Conditions with a "head start" toward meeting the SOV reduction goals of the legislation. A re- duction of the current SOV rate to 73 percent of first -shift employees would achieve the 1995 SOV reduction goal. Transit Service Transit service in the study area is provided by Metro. There are 15 bus routes serving the area. Figure 4 -6 presents the bus routes and bus stop locations. Direct service is provided to the University District, Capitol Hill, downtown Seattle, Bellevue, Red- mond, Kirkland, Issaquah, Renton, Kent, Sea -Tac, Allentown, Tukwila, Des Moines, Federal Way, and Georgetown. Other routes require transfer via downtown Seattle. For the most part, service is provided from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily, including weekends. Evening and late -night service is provided on some routes. Peak -hour serv- ice is good, with buses traveling to many urban locations in King County at 15- to 30- minute intervals. Routes 124 and 174 are regular routes; the remainder are rush - hour routes. Service to outlying urban areas of the county is generally commuter - oriented. Off -peak service to many outlying areas is less frequent or not available. Approximately 1,700 employees, including approximately 10 percent of first -shift em- ployees, commute to the Boeing Duwamish site by transit. Transit stop locations are shown in Figure 4 -6. Stops are most closely spaced from Plant 2, at a pedestrian tun- nel, to South 102nd Street. The average station spacing is about 950 feet. Metro guidelines for station spacing are 4 to 6 stations per mile, or one every 880 to 1,320 feet. The existing sites in the corridor have 21,400 employees. There are 9,895,000 square feet of development on approximately 600 acres. The average employee density is approximately 33 employees per acre; site - specific density ranges from 278 people per acre at Plant 2 to 38 people per acre at North Boeing Field. The existing floor -to -area ratio (FAR), averaged among all sites, is approximately 0.35. Metro guidelines for densities that can support significant transit use are 50 employees per acre and a mini- mum FAR of 0.30. Status of High - Capacity Transit Planning Metro is currently in the process of developing a long -range systemwide high - capacity transit plan. The document, called the Regional Transit Project, is a phased plan through 2020 for the three - county area including Pierce, King, and Snohomish Coun- ties. It consists of three system alternatives: • A transit/high - occupancy vehicle system (Transit/HOV) • A regional transitway system. • A regional rail system 4 -15 Chapter 4: Transportation Existing Conditions 113 133 130 136 132 137 LEGEND 108 245 149 Transit route numbers Transit route group (The combination of several transit routes along the same corridor.) S Bus shelter N Bus stops zzz Pedestrian tunnel Source: Metro. 152 179 181 190 182 192 173 194 175 195 178 198 177 197 178 Figure 4 -6 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE - The Regional Transit Project is scheduled for presentation to the Metro Council in 1992 with an accompanying draft environmental impact statement. Funding for the preferred alternative will be subject to voter approval in 1992. The Metro Planning Subcommittee has recommended a regional rail system for the purpose of comparison with the Transit/HOV system alternative. More information on the high - capacity tran- sit plan may be found in Appendix C. NON - MOTORIZED TRAVEL East Marginal Way South, 16th Avenue South, South Cloverdale Street, and Ellis Ave- nue South are classified as key bicycle streets in the Seattle Comprehensive Transpor- tation Program (Seattle Engineering Department, July 1984). Airport Way South is classified as a bicycle route (see discussion in Chapter 3, Land Use). Pedestrian signals and crosswalks operate in selected directions at some signalized in- tersections in the study area. Crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads are not present at every leg of every intersection. Sidewalks are intermittent along the length of the corridor. Covered walkways are occasionally provided from transit stops and parking lots. Pedestrian walking distances are typically long, up to 1,000 feet from parking lots to the work site and longer from transit stops to work sites. There are two pedestrian tunnels across East Marginal Way South and one across 16th Avenue South. GOODS MOVEMENT Rail Transportation A major railroad line is located just east of Airport Way South. This line connects the major rail facilities in Renton and Tukwila with railyards in the Duwamish industrial area. Spur lines run north -south along the west side of East Marginal Way South, serving the industrial area between the Duwamish River and East Marginal Way South and the study area. Burlington Northern Railroad provides freight service to industrial sites on an as- needed basis one to two times per day, 7 days per week. No other rail- road companies operate along this spur line. The spur line extends from the north border of the study area south to the Developmental Center. Truck Traffic There is convenient access for trucks from the study area to I -5 and SR 99. Truck traffic along East Marginal Way South constitutes approximately 1 to 9 percent of the total traffic; truck traffic volumes within the study area range from 1 to 20 percent of the total traffic. 4-17 Chapter 4: Transportation Existing Conditions Air Transportation The proximity of Sea -Tac and King County (Boeing Field) Airports provides easy and direct access to air cargo facilities. Boeing Field is located within the study area. It serves as a base for many private aircraft and as a center for Boeing commercial and military test flights. The airport is occasionally used to accommodate commercial air- liners diverted from Sea -Tac Airport due to unexpected weather conditions. Boeing has historically used three locations along East Marginal Way South to trans- port aircraft from manufacturing bays on the west side of the road to the runway at Boeing Field on the east side. Although recent use of these crossings has been infre- quent, the company wishes to preserve the ability to cross at the current locations. (These locations are shown on Figure 3 -1). Waterborne Transportation The Duwamish Waterway is navigable from Elliott Bay south to the turning basin, located at a bend in the waterway between the Oxbow site and the Developmental Center. Shipping activity on this section of the waterway is minimal. Boeing does not presently transport material or goods via the Duwamish Waterway. PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS A number of transportation system improvements in the study area are planned by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), King County, the City of Seattle, and the City of Tukwila. Descriptions of the planned improvements are pro- vided below. East Marginal Way South East Marginal Way South will be reconstructed from south of 16th Avenue South to the South Boeing Access Road, including additional travel lanes in two sections, con- struction of sidewalks, signal improvements, and reconstruction of bus stops and load- ing areas. At selected intersections, double left -turn and right -turn lanes will be pro- vided. Underground utilities and drainage systems along East Marginal Way South will also be reconstructed. The South Boeing Access Road at East Marginal Way South and Pacific Highway South will be widened to seven lanes and rechannelized. A design report is being prepared for this improvement by Entranco Engineers for the City of Tukwila. Final design details are not available at this time. It is anticipated that construction of this project will take place in 1992 to 1993. 4 -18 Chapter 4: Transportation Existing Conditions 16th Avenue South Bridge The 16th Avenue South Bridge over the Duwamish River is currently under study by. King County and the City of Tukwila. The existing bridge may be repaired or re- placed. If replacement is necessary, it may be in the existing alignment or in a new alignment. First Avenue South Bridge The First Avenue South Bridge will be reconstructed to provide six to eight lanes. A design report and EIS are currently being prepared by the City of Seattle. Interstate 5 HOV Improvements Improvements by WSDOT to I -5 that are of significance to the Boeing project study area are documented in the Sunshine Report (District 1, Location Status Report, dated January 9, 1990), and are summarized below. • From I -405 (near Southcenter) north to the Mercer Street exit: This segment of I -5 is scheduled for construction of a northbound HOV lane. The project also includes bridge widening, rail replacement, and flat slab bridges. • From the South Michigan Street exit to approximately the 220th Street SW exit (Snohomish County): This project is designed for installa- tion of ramp control and HOV bypasses for the on- ramps. Required Boeing Participation in Road Improvements During environmental review of Boeing facility improvements in the Duwamish corri- dor over the past four to five years, fair -share contributions to offsite road improve- ments have been required as part of permit approvals. A number of these require- ments have been satisfied, but several remain to be constructed. The required improvements that have not yet been constructed are shown in Figure 4 -7. They are: • East Marginal Way South: Provide signal, frontage, lane, and intersec- tion improvements, including reconstruction of the East Marginal Way South /South Boeing Access Road intersection. • First Avenue South Bridge: Provide a pro -rata share contribution to funding for construction of improvements. • South 102nd /SR 99 Interchange: Construct a southbound on -ramp (the "Oxbow ramp ") from South 102nd Street to SR 99. 4 -19 Chapter 4: Transportation Existing Conditions i" N MARGINAL WAY CORPORATE PARK SOUTH PARK SITE NORTH ' DUWAMISH CAMPUS DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER LEGEND A Oxbow ramp to southbound SR 599. Previously imposed by King County as SEPA mitigation for development of Oxbow site (1987). Not yet constructed. B ® Pacific Highway /SR 599 southbound ramp. Possible replacement for previous SEPA mitigation of Oxbow ramp. Feasibility study underway. C E. Marginal Way So. widening. Boeing pro -rata share of improvement costs. D ' E. Marginal Way So. frontage Improvements. Boeing requirement for properties as redevelopment occurs, per Tukwila ordinance. Boeing to contribute fair share of full roadway capital project costs. E NEM First Avenue So. Bridge. Pro -rata share contribution to bridge improvements required as previous SEPA mitigation. Figure 4 -7 SUMMARY OF OFFSITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS East Marginal Way South. Boeing has agreed to participate, along with the City of Tukwila and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), in the funding for full reconstruction of East Marginal Way South from the Seattle city limits to the South Boeing Access Road. Because Tukwila requires frontage improvements on a parcel -by- parcel basis as development permits are issued, Boeing's participation in the East Marginal Way South funding will satisfy previous SEPA- related permit condi- tions as well as all future frontage improvement requirements related to the corridor redevelopment proposal. First Avenue South Bridge. The Boeing Company's share of costs for First Avenue South Bridge improvements has not been determined at this time. The project is in the conceptual development phase and is being led by the City of Seattle. Oxbow Ramp. The Oxbow ramp requirement was imposed in 1987 as part of project approval for development of Boeing's Oxbow site. Because the Oxbow interchange serves a rather small number of users and feeds into a 4,525 -space parking lot used exclusively by The Boeing Company, alternative improvements that provide equivalent mitigation and serve a wider "public" are being explored at the direction of the City of Tukwila and WSDOT, the agencies with jurisdiction over this issue. One such alterna- tive is improvements to the SR 599 on -ramps at Pacific Highway South, about .75 mile south of the Oxbow ramp location. A feasibility study, with particular focus on the viability of a double left turn and two -lane ramp onto SR 599, is currently underway. This study should be completed prior to the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS process, and will provide more complete information on the comparison of Oxbow and Pacific Highway South ramps onto SR 599. A summary of currently available informa- tion on the issue is available in Appendix D. IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES In this impacts analysis, the No Action impact is discussed first because it represents a baseline scenario. The No Action alternative is analyzed using 2002 as a base year. It assumes an employment cap of 25,000 Boeing employees (17 percent increase over existing) in the corridor and increases in background population and traffic levels. It also takes into account the effects of planned and programmed improvements to the existing transportation system and of Boeing's master Transportation Management Plan. Following discussion of the No Action alternative, the two build alternatives are described in terms of their impacts relative to those of the No Action alternative. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Vehicular Circulation Employment Levels. The current employment level of The Boeing Company within the Duwamish study area is 21,400, based on Boeing data from May 1991. Under the 4 -21 Chapter 4: Transportation Impacts of Proposed Action No Action alternative, the work force at the Boeing Duwamish area would increase by approximately 3,600 employees, or 17 percent over current employment. The total number of employees for the No Action alternative would be 25,000. This increase in employment would be accomplished without construction of new buildings and is con- sistent with recent historical employment levels in the corridor. New employees would all be in the manufacturing sector. The project would continue to operate with three shifts: 80 percent of the employees on first shift, 15 percent on second shift, and 5 percent on third shift. All projections of future baseline Boeing- related traffic vol- umes are based on these assumptions. Street System. The existing street system was updated to base year 2002 by incorpor- ating the funded improvements outlined under "Planned and Programmed Improve- ments" in the Existing Conditions section (above). Those improvements included HOV lanes on I -5, reconstruction of the 16th Avenue South bridge, and the widening of East Marginal Way South between 16th Avenue South and the South Boeing Access Road. Traffic Volumes. Travel demand forecasts were developed for year 2002 daily traffic levels using the City of Tukwila traffic model. The residential and commercial concen- trations were assumed to follow current development patterns to the year 2002. Back- ground population growth is estimated at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent per year. Trip generation for the No Action alternative was derived from the trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, Fifth Edition. The daily rates for office and flightline uses were further adjusted to represent Boeing's facilities. The trip generation rates for each land use type are summarized in Table 4 -6. Table 4 -6 Estimated Daily Trip Generation Existing Conditions No Action Alternative Land Use Trip Rate Employees Trips Employees Trips Percent Increase Manufacturing 2.1 2,400 5,040 6,000 12,600 150% Office 2.9 14,900 43,210 14,900 43,210 0% Laboratory/ Office 2.5 3,500 8,750 3,500 8,750 0% Flightline 2.0 600 1,200 600 1,200 0% TOTAL 21,400 58,200 25,000 65,760 13% Average Trips Per Employee 2.72 2.63 4 -22 Chapter 4: Transportation Impacts of Proposed Action Existing Boeing facilities would generate approximately 13 percent higher traffic vol- umes by 2002, as summarized in Table 4 -6. Average trips generated per employee per day are estimated to decrease from 2.71 to 2.63. The reduction in the trip rate is due to a higher percentage of workers in manufacturing. Traffic volume forecasts are esti- mated assuming existing mode splits. Implementation of transportation demand man- agement measures as a method of trip reduction is discussed in the following section, Transit and HOV. Trip distribution for the No Action alternative would also follow existing patterns, as illustrated in Figure 4 -8. The trip distribution pattern was estimated from the informa- tion supplied by the Puget Sound Council of Governments, The Boeing Company, and the City of Tukwila, and is consistent with the Tukwila traffic model forecasts. See Appendix E for origin and destination data from PSCOG. The trip generation was combined with the trip distribution to produce year 2002 baseline volumes using the Tukwila traffic model. Results of the forecasts are presented in Figure 4 -9. Typical increases in volume in the area are . 3 percent to 15 percent for 2002, as compared to the existing conditions. Level of Service. Estimated LOS at selected roadway segments for the year 2002 No Action alternative are shown in Figure 4 -9 and Table 4 -7. With the planned improve- ments along East Marginal Way South, the arterial would continue to operate at LOS C or better along segments north of the South Boeing Access Road. South of the South Boeing Access Road, East Marginal Way South would drop to LOS F. Widen- ing this section to five lanes from its current two lanes would improve the estimated LOS to D or better. South Boeing Access Road, the 16th Avenue South Bridge, and Pacific Highway South would change from the current LOS D to LOS E or F. Interstate 5, South Michigan Street, and the First Avenue South bridge would continue to operate at LOS E or F. All other roadways within the study area would remain at LOS D or better. Accidents Additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic attributable to the study area may increase the general accident level, but the traffic is not expected to significantly alter the over- all accident pattern. Improvements to East Marginal Way South and 16th Avenue South would reduce accidents and improve safety. Parking The No Action alternative would require 18,550 parking spaces during the peak park- ing demand and would result in a surplus of 2,860 parking spaces. 4 -23 Chapter 4: Transportation Impacts of Proposed Action LEGEND —♦ Direction of travel 20% Percent distribution Source: PSCOG, City of Tukwila, and The Boeing Company Figure 4 -8 DAILY PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION LEGEND —► Direction of travel 100,000 Two -way daily project traffic volumes Level of service C or better Level of service D Level of service E Level of service F . • .. ■ -- Figure 4 -9 FORECAST 2002 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND ESTIMATED LEVELS OF SERVICE: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Table 4 -7 Level of Service (LOS) for Selected Roadways Roadway Level of Service Existing Conditions No Action Alternative Proposed Action Manufacturing Center SR 99—SR 509 to S. 102nd Street (Oxbow) C C C C SR 99—S. 102nd Street (Oxbow) to Pacific Highway S. C D D D SR 599—south of Pacific Highway S. E E E E E. Marginal Way S. —S. Michigan Street to S. Boeing Access Road C C C/D C E. Marginal Way S. —S. Boeing Access Road to Interurban Avenue E F F F Pacific Highway S.— Boeing Access Road to SR 599 E F F E S. Boeing Access Road —I -5 to East Marginal Way D E E D Airport Way S. —S. Michigan Street to S. Boeing Access Road C C C C Cloverdale Street D D D D 14th Avenue S.—S. Cloverdale Street to SR 99 C E E D West Marginal Place C C C C Des Moines Way S. C D D D 16th Avenue S. Bridge C E E D Table 4 -8 presents the parking supply and demand within the study area for the No Action alternative. The estimated long -term and short-term (i.e., visitor) parking de- mand, as well as the employment breakdown by shifts, are also included in Table 4 -8. It is assumed that, during the peak parking demand periods, 100 percent of the first shift would overlap with 50 percent of the second shift, consistent with Boeing's policy of staggered start times within each shift. Transit and HOV Ride - Sharing. The master Transportation Management Plan (TMP) would continue under the No Action alternative, although the recent Transportation Demand Manage- ment (TDM) legislation (SSHB 1671) would increase emphasis on employer TMPs. 4 -26 Chapter 4: Transportation Impacts of Proposed Action Examples of SOV reduction goals for the No Action alternative are presented in Table 4 -9. The area SOV rate is approximately 87 percent; therefore, the base num- ber of SOV trips would be 87 percent of the number of employees. Reduction goals are then computed relative to this base number of SOV trips. The 1999 SOV reduc- tion goal would dictate a maximum of 11,300 SOVs. This translates to 57 percent of first -shift employees arriving to work by SOV and 43 percent by other modes. Approx- imately 21 percent of first -shift employees (4,200) would need to change from SOV mode to carpools, vanpools, and transit. Table 4 -8 Estimated Parking Supply and Demand —No Action Alternative Shift Employees Peak Parking Demand Long -Term Short -Term First 20 000 16,650 350 Second 3,750 3,125 -- Third 1,250 1,040 -- Total Total Parkin g Supply 1 Y 25,000 -- 18,550a 21,410b 'Combination of 100 percent long -term for first shift and 50 percent of second shift plus short -term demand. bSurplus of 2,860 parking spaces. Table 4 -9 SOV Reduction Goals No Action Alternative First -Shift Employees Boeing SOVa Base SOV Trips 15% Reduction (1995) 25% Reduction (1997) 35% Reduction (1999) 17,100 (existing conditions) 13,350 14,875 12,650 11,160 9,760 20,000 (No Action) 15,600 17,400 14,800 13,100 11,300 'Based on existing mode split of 78 percent SOV, which reflects existing Boeing TMP program. bBased on TDM legislation as applied to area SOV level of 87 percent. 4 -27 Chapter 4: Transportation Impacts of Proposed Action Transit Service. There are no existing plans for service improvements within the study area. However, the Regional Transit Project proposes an increase of approximately 40 percent in transit service over the next 10 years. This transit service increase will be subject to voter approval in 1992. The Regional Transit Project high - capacity system alternatives are planned for approximately 2010 and the Boeing Duwamish Proposed Action is scheduled to be in place by 2002, so the future baseline will be evaluated with the assumption of aggressive TMP programs by employers. Transit ridership would in- crease from 1,710 for existing conditions to 2,000 for the No Action alternative. Transit stop locations will be re- evaluated in conjunction with the programmed East Marginal Way South improvements. Transit stops would be located where feasible and in a way that decreases walking distances to the extent possible. Bus turnouts would be provided wherever sufficient right -of -way exists. Nonmotorized Transportation Nonmotorized transportation facilities and conditions would remain similar to existing conditions. Improved sidewalks and bikeways would be provided for the length of the study area, in conjunction with programmed East Marginal Way South improvements. Goods Movement !� Truck Traffic. The increase in the number of employees in the area would increase truck traffic by approximately 10 to 15 percent. Truck traffic would continue to make up approximately 15 percent of total traffic. This increase is relatively minimal when compared with the daily volumes of arterial roadways within the study area. Rail Transportation. The railroad spur along the west side of East Marginal Way South may be removed as part of the planned improvements to this arterial. Air Transportation. The conditions would remain the same as existing. Waterborne Transportation. There would be no impact on waterborne transportation. Po P P PROPOSED ACTION Vehicular Circulation emphasis from manufacturing to laboratory/office uses, the proportion of employees on first -shift would increase from 80 to 90 percent, with 8 percent on second shift and 2 percent on third shift. The higher first -shift percentage would further increase peak - hour trip generation. Street System. The street system would be the same as for the No Action alternative. Planned and programmed improvements, including Boeing contributions previously re- quired as SEPA mitigation, would be completed. Traffic Volumes. Trip generation at full implementation of the proposed redevelop- ment are shown in Table 4 -10. Also shown are trip generation figures for the No Ac- tion and Manufacturing Center alternatives. Daily traffic volumes generated by the facilities would decrease by approximately 1 percent as compared to the No Action alternative. Although there would be a slight decrease in daily traffic for the Proposed Action as compared to the No Action alternative, the peak -hour traffic would increase by approximately 15 percent because of the greater concentration of workers in the first shift. As compared to existing conditions, the peak -hour volume would increase by over 30 percent. Because of the change in first -shift employment, the peak -hour vol- ume increases would have additional impacts, particularly on East Marginal Way, Pacific Highway South, and South Boeing Access Road. Trip distribution for the Proposed Action would follow the same patterns as in the No Action alternative. Although there would be some shift in the types of workers, the residential location of these workers would follow essentially the same pattern as today. This assumption is based on data from PSCOG for Boeing locations in Tukwila and the Duwamish corridor (see Appendix E). Year 2002 daily traffic volumes with the Proposed Action are illustrated in Figure 4 -10. Level of Service (LOS). Projected LOS levels along selected roadway segments are also represented in Figure 4 -10 and shown in Table 4 -7. Most roadway segments would remain unchanged as compared to the No Action alternative. East Marginal Way South would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) north of South Boeing Access Road. The sections of East Marginal Way South from Pacific Highway South to just north of the Developmental Center would change from the cur- rent LOS C to LOS D, because of the increase in first -shift employment. The section south of Pacific Highway South would operate at LOS F. Effects of Potential Mitigation on Vehicular Circulation. Potential mitigation meas- ures are discussed in the "Mitigation Measures" section of this chapter. The primary focus of the mitigation is on development of a transportation management plan (TMP). The goal of the TMP is to reduce total trip generation by providing incentives for non - SOV modes. If successfully implemented, the mitigation measures would lessen the impacts on traffic volumes and level of service described above for the Proposed Action. However, the decrease in the total volume of traffic (SOV plus HOV) is not sufficient to affect levels of service in any corridor. Roadway improvements would still 4 -29 Chapter 4: Transportation Impacts of Proposed Action Table 4 -10 Estimated Year 2002 Daily Trip Generation For the Proposed Action and Alternatives Land Use Trip Rate No Action Alternative Proposed Action Manufacturing Center Alternative Employees Trips Employees Trips Employees Trips Manufacturing 2.1 6,000 12,600 4,900 10,290 4,800. 10,000 Office 2.9 , 14,900 43,210 13,100 37,990 11,920 34,570 Laboratory/Office 2.5 3,500 8,750 5,500 13,750 2,800 7,000 Flight Line 2.0 600 1,200 1,500 3,000 480 960 TOTAL 25,000 65,760 25,000 65,030 20,000 52,530 Average Trips Per Employee 2.63 2.61 2.63 1002015Eq.SEA <:::;. / -. -' '. Jj , • �f • 26,200 2s�; �,, i•''�. 0 1—► ,H,•. 243° 4..........-........4.,...,•,........: ,.•' , • 4,� .. tp 1$ 650 } / f 204,500 11 600 . LEGEND —j► Direction of travel 10,000 Two -way daily project traffic volumes •• • • Level of service C or better Level of service D Level of service E Level of service F Note: Levels of service estimates reflect proposed increase in first -shift employment. 204,500 Figure 4 -10 . . FORECAST 2002 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND ESTIMATED LEVELS OF SERVICE: PROPOSED ACTION be needed to improve LOS to better than LOS F for the East Marginal Way South and Pacific Highway South segments south of the South Boeing Access Road. Previously required mitigation related to 1987 approval of development of the Oxbow site includes construction of the "Oxbow ramp" onto southbound SR 599 (see Fig- ure 4 -7). As discussed previously in this chapter, a feasibility study is underway to assess alternatives to that requirement. These alternatives may provide comparable mitigation of traffic impacts and serve a broader public than would be served by the Oxbow ramp. Table 4 -11 provides preliminary LOS comparisons between the Oxbow ramp and ramp improvements at SR 599/Pacific Highway South. The Pacific Highway South /SR 599 would be located about 3/4 mile south of the Oxbow ramp location. The Pacific Highway South ramp is used by home -bound Duwamish corridor employees in the afternoon, including many non -Oxbow site Boeing workers as well as non - Boeing traffic. Table 4 -11 Evaluation of Oxbow Interchange Year 2002 Level of Service Comparisons Roadway Segment No Action or Baselines With Oxbow Improvementsb and TMP With Pacific Highway South Widening` and TMP With TMP only Pacific Highway S. F D/E C/D F E. Marginal Way S. north of S. Boeing Access Road D C . D D E. Marginal Way S. south of S. Boeing Access Road F F F F elmprovements to E. Marginal Way S. north of S. Boeing Access Road. bBaseline improvements plus southbound on -ramp to SR 99. `Baseline improvements plus widening of Pacific Highway S. and southbound ramp to SR 599. Table 4 -11 also provides information on LOS with road widenings as compared to LOS with reliance only on a transportation management plan (TMP) meeting the goals of TDM legislation. A successful TMP will reduce traffic along the corridor's roads for both the No Action alternative and the Proposed Action, since the legislation applies to major employers regardless of construction plans. The effects of a successful TMP will be most dramatic along East Marginal Way South between South Michigan Street and the South Boeing Access Road, and in regional facilities such as I -5 and SR 599/ SR 99. Regional facilities benefit more from transportation management programs than local facilities because carpool and vanpool commuters tend to have longer com- mutes and use the regional network more than local roads. As local traffic disperses, the effects of a TMP are diluted along East Marginal Way South and Pacific Highway 4 -32 Chapter 4: Transportation Impacts of Proposed Action South, south of the Boeing Access Road. Nevertheless, a successful TMP meeting the objectives of the TDM legislation will reduce Boeing peak -hour trips. For example, peak -hour trips along East Marginal Way South south of the South Boeing Access Road, will be reduced by an estimated 12 percent. However, as illustrated in Table 4 -11, this reduction would not be sufficient to improve the estimated LOS along that road segment. Accidents Although the additional vehicular and nonmotorized traffic attributable to the Pro- posed Action would increase the risk of accidents, it is anticipated that the overall acci- dent rate or pattern would be similar to existing conditions. Anticipated increased transit patronage with the Proposed Action would produce higher volumes of pedestrian traffic. This traffic, coupled with possible increased bicy- cle activity, would increase the likelihood of bicycle and pedestrian accidents with auto- mobiles, buses, and parked vehicles. However, the accident history within the study area indicates that these types of accidents are rare. Parking Estimated peak parking demand for the project site is summarized in Table 4 -12 for the Proposed Action as well as the No Action and Manufacturing Center alternatives. The peak parking demand for the Proposed Action, at the current average vehicle oc- cupancy, would increase to approximately 19,940 spaces. There would be a surplus of 1,470 parking spaces. Table 4 -12 Estimated Peak Parking Demand (Proposed Action and Alternatives) Manufacturing No Action Proposed Center Alternative Action Alternative Employees 25,000 25,000 20,000 • First shift 20,000 22,500 17,000 • Second shift 3,750 2,000 2,000 • Third shift 1,250 500 1,000 Total Peak Parking Demand 18,550 19,940 17,850 • Long -term 18,200 19,590 17,500 • Short-term 350 350 350 Total Parking Supply 21,410 21,410 21,410 Surplus 2,860 1,470 3,560 4 -33 Chapter 4: Transportation Impacts of Proposed Action Implementation of the TMP may require that some additional spaces be designated for carpools and vanpools. To the extent that this program is successful, parking demand would decrease. Parking locations and numbers of parking spaces may change as redevelopment occurs. The location and quantity of parking will be evaluated on a project- specific basis dur- ing phased environmental review. Transit and HOV Ride - Sharing. The Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal (page 3) includes a goal of reducing the number of employees commuting by single - occupancy vehicles (SOV). The SOV reduction goals of SSHB 1671, as applied to project em- ployment, are presented in Table 4 -13 below. The 1999 SOV reduction goal dictates a maximum number of SOVs for each alternative. As noted previously, a goal of 57 per- cent SOV reduction would be required to reach 12,700 SOV in 1999. This would necessitate the implementation of an aggressive TMP. Table 4 -13 SOV Reduction Goals— Proposed Action and Alternatives Boeing SOVa Area SOVb (percent) Base SOV Trips 15% Reduction (1995) 25% Reduction (1997) 35% Reduction (1999) Existing Conditions (17,100 first -shift employees) 13,350 87 14,900 12,600 11,200 9,700 No Action (20,000 first -shift employees) 15,600 87 17,400 14,800 13,100 11,300 Proposed Action (22,500 first -shift employees) 17,600 87 19,600 16,600 14,700 12,700 Manufacturing Center Alternative (16,000 first -shift employees) 12,500 87 13,900 11,800 10,400 9,000 'Based on existing mode split of 78 percent SOV. bBased on TDM legislation. assumed to be an integral part of any system designed to reduce SOV percentages. Po- tential mode split scenarios to accomplish the 57 percent SOV goal are summarized in Table 4 -14. Table 4 -14 Mode Split Percentage for SOV Goals (First -Shift Employees) Mode Percentage of Existing Vehicles Scenario A: Bus and Pool Scenario B: Light Rail SOV 78 57 57 Carpool 10 25 20 Vanpool 1 2 2 Transit 10 15 20 Other 1 1 1 AVO 1.2 1.42 1.47 Transit Service. An increased emphasis on transit service and transit ridership would be necessary to meet SOV goals. For transit trips to increase significantly, they must be competitive in time and cost compared to SOV travel. Transit trips would generally be longer than SOV trips because of time spent traveling from the home to the bus stop, transfers enroute, and walking distances from the bus stop to the work site. Transit ridership is estimated to increase from 2,000 for the No Action alternative to 3,000 for Scenario A and 4,000 for Scenario B with the Proposed Action. Transit ridership could be further increased by locating transit stops as close to the workplace as possible. The total trip time on transit could be more competitive with SOV travel time if the transit stop -to- workplace walking distance were less than the walking distance from the SOV parking lot to the workplace. In other words, transit ridership could be increased by locating transit stops closer to the workplace than the SOV parking lots. Remote parking at the north or south ends of the corridor for SOV commuters would be consistent with this emphasis on transit ridership. The employee density in the corridor with the Proposed Action would be approxi- mately 41 employees per acre. A density of 50 employees per acre has been suggested as a guideline to support significant transit use. Productive transit routes (a cost -effec- tiveness measurement) are difficult to provide at levels less than the guidelines. The proposed project would consist of approximately 10,606,000 square feet of floor area. The FAR for the proposal would be 0.40, an increase from the existing FAR of 0.37; desirable FAR for effective transit service is a minimum of 0.30. 4 -35 Chapter 4: Transportation Impacts of Proposed Action The proposed shift from manufacturing to research and development could provide opportunities for site design that would increase the employee density and FAR. Buildings clustered and located as close as possible to East Marginal Way South (and the transit stops) would increase the effective density of the campus and improve the ability of transit to serve Boeing employees. Attention to landscape design features that "showcase" transit stops at major driveway entrances may also assist in improving transit ridership. In addition, because transit service is oriented primarily to first -shift employees, increasing the percentage of first -shift employees would further increase transit ridership. High - Capacity Transit. The Proposed Action provides opportunities for site design compatible with high - capacity transit or rail transportation. Employee density could be increased in the vicinity of stations. This would reduce walking distances and overall travel time for high - capacity trips, thus making the transit or rail trip more convenient and competitive with the automobile. Average station spacing in a rail system is from 1.5 to 2 miles. For the East Marginal Way South alternative alignment, stations could then be located at the north and south ends of the study area, with one station in the center. An onsite shuttle system or people -mover could enhance the system and provide convenient service for Boeing employees. Station design could accommodate convenience features to reduce the number of short trips and the need for a private automobile at the work site. The proposed commuter rail system and the Rainier Avenue South or Martin Luther King, Jr., Way South alternative rail alignments would require a local shuttle system or people -mover from the rail stations to the Boeing Duwamish corridor. Rail transportation would require intermodal transfers that would add to the overall travel time compared to SOV transportation. For example, an employee might drive to a rail station, wait for a train, ride the train to the South Boeing Access station, then transfer to a local shuttle. This trip could be longer than the SOV trip and would re- duce the rail trip's competitive advantage. Minimizing the number of transfers would improve the time advantage of rail transportation. Nonmotorized Transportation Project design would incorporate pedestrian - friendly features such as walkways to tran- sit stops and parking lots and grade separations of East Marginal Way South where ap- propriate. As noted above, studies have shown that the maximum distance a transit patron will walk to a transit station is 1,000 feet. Shortest -path pedestrian routes and convenient pedestrian access improve the accessibility and desirability of transit. Pe- destrian routes should be direct, clean, safe, adequately lit, and covered where appropriate. 4 -36 Chapter 4: Transportation Impacts of Proposed Action Bicycle routes should maintain a travelway that is clean and clear of obstructions. Sheltered bicycle parking and employee facilities would be provided with the proposed project. Goods Movement Truck Traffic. There would be only minimal changes in the truck traffic associated with the Proposed Action as compared to the No Action alternative. A decreased em- phasis on manufacturing may slightly reduce truck traffic associated with the project site. Rail Transportation. There would be no change from the No Action alternative. Air Transportation. The conditions would remain the same as existing. Waterborne Transportation. There would be no impact on waterborne transportation. MANUFACTURING CENTER ALTERNATIVE Vehicular Circulation Employment Levels. Employment levels for the Manufacturing Center alternative would be less than for the No Action alternative. Manufacturing activities would em- ploy approximately 4,800 people, with 11,920 office employees, 2,800 laboratory/office employees, and 480 flightline employees. The total employment for the Manufacturing Center alternative would be 20,000. The shift distribution would be the same as for the No Action alternative: 80 percent of employees would be on the first shift, 15 percent on second shift, and 5 percent on third shift. Street System. The street system would be the same as for the No Action alternative. Traffic Volumes. Trip generation and distribution are assumed to be the same as in the No Action alternative. Trip generation for the Manufacturing Center alternative is presented in Table 4 -6. The average trips per employee are estimated at 2.63. Traffic volumes on the street system are shown in Figure 4 -11. Level of Service. As shown in Table 4 -7 and Figure 4 -11, estimated LOS would im- prove as compared to either the Proposed Action or the No Action alternative. Only East Marginal Way south of the Boeing Access Road would decrease to F from a higher level of service. Pacific Highway South would continue to operate at LOS E, and East Marginal Way north of the Boeing Access Road would operate at C. 4 -37 Chapter 4: Transportation Impacts of Proposed Action t. 00 ,::000 so116:ezer:vvia,49.000. lib lb, 4161161444474■41. 4°. 41"446:‘;;;;;":76*'. manesezy so44.0 •• • w::10.,....• 4.13F . ,li,..,..cii,„,, 4oirOlo7,6■;;.171-• i. ,, -PM e..• 4 4 rse=4.7-Joir (Ire 4,4„ , • c 4, • 03' ,, ' . _.....' cli 00 • 4 , ..3., • 1: 03 , '9 0, (V414 lit 4,144 644 i..° 7.41'■!Oroi;;;;;:::1,,, : ■: .nowr - I ; 1 ,•' 1 : li. • "7r* . - *, W r '11-010" 203,600 LEGEND --OD. Direction of travel 14,000 Two-way daily project traffic volumes Level of service C or better Level of service D Level of service E Level of service F Source: City of Tukwila and WSDOT. Akpott Way South ace. ,ftare,ftes .! .16-111%. :11 • ..0011 os.°''!! 1 11-1.41-0,- 203,600 Figure 4-11 FORECAST 2002 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND ESTIMATED LEVELS OF SERVICE: MANUFACTURING CENTER ALTERNATIVE -- ' Accidents The overall accident rate or pattern would be similar to that for the No Action alternative. Parking Peak parking demand is a function of the total number of employees and the percent- age of those employees working in the first shift. Because first -shift employment levels are lower for this alternative than either the No Action alternative or the Proposed Action, the peak demand is less. The peak parking demand for the Manufacturing Center alternative would be 17,850 spaces. There would be a surplus of 3,560 spaces. Successful implementation of a TMP would further decrease peak parking demand. Designation of additional carpool and vanpool spaces may be required as part of that program. Transit and HOV Ride - Sharing. The Manufacturing Center alternative would be subject to the TDM legislation and SOV reduction goals even though the absolute number of SOVs would be less because the SOV reduction goals are based on the number of employees. An aggressive TMP, as outlined in the proposal mitigation measures, would still be needed. Transit Service. The Manufacturing Center alternative would maintain the existing square footage of developed space and decrease the number of employees to 20,000. The employee density would be approximately 33 employees per acre, and the FAR would be 0.37. The lower density development would not be as easily integrated with a transit system. Transit stop locations should be reevaluated in conjunction with the programmed East Marginal Way South improvements. Transit stops should be located where feasible and in a way that decreases walking distances to the extent possible. High - Capacity Transit. Rail and transit plans should be carefully reviewed as existing facilities are upgraded to take advantage of opportunities to integrate with rail transit plans. Nonmotorized Transportation Impacts would be the same as for the No Action alternative. Goods Movement The level of employment in manufacturing would be essentially the same as for the Proposed Action. There would be minimal impact on truck, rail, air, and waterborne transportation. Chapter 4: Transportation 4 -39 Impacts of Manufacturing Center Alternative MITIGATION MEASURES PREVIOUSLY COMMITTED MITIGATION MEASURES As discussed earlier in this chapter, the following mitigation measures are required as part of previous development: • Construct a southbound on -ramp to SR 99 at the Oxbow interchange (South 102nd Street). This improvement is being reevaluated as part of this EIS and parallel studies. Alternative improvements may be imposed as a substitute for this requirement. • Construct frontage improvements on East Marginal Way South. • Construct intersection improvements at the East Marginal Way South/ South Boeing Access Road/Pacific Highway South intersection. • Replace existing controllers and cabinets at 10 intersections along East Marginal Way (Seattle city limits to South Boeing Access Road) and install interconnect wires. • Contribute a pro -rata share for the First Avenue South Bridge project. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES Physical Improvements The Proposed Action increases the percentage of employees on the first shift and is expected to increase peak -hour traffic even with an employment limit along the cor- ridor of 25,000, equal to the No Action level. This increase in first -shift employees is expected to increase peak -hour traffic by an estimated 10 to 20 percent. However, a fully successful TMP could reduce peak -hour trips by as much as 10 to 15 percent. In addition, past mitigation requirements, which are expected to improve traffic flow through the study area, will be in place as redevelopment occurs. As a result, the net effects of the Proposed Action are likely to be small. Consequently, the primary focus of new traffic mitigation will be on TMP elements rather than on road improvements. In order to maintain incentives for a successful TMP, it is anticipated that any require- ment for pro -rata contributions to offsite improvements will be reflective of TMP re- sults; in other words, the more effective the TMP, the lower the pro -rata share contribution. The proposed project adds traffic to two corridors with an LOS of F for which im- provements have been identified in the Tukwila Capacity and Deficiency Study (cur- rently in its final stages). These two corridors are Pacific Highway South and the portion of East Marginal Way South south of the South Boeing Access Road. 4 -40 Chapter 4: Transportation Mitigation Measures Widening these two segments will increase roadway capacity and improve levels of service. Pro -rata shares in the costs of the improvements would address project im- pacts on these road segments. These pro -rata shares would be based on new peak - hour traffic generated by the Proposed Action and would reflect the success of a TMP. No physical improvement to the regional system (I -5, SR 99, Michigan Street, and South Boeing Access Road) is proposed as mitigation. If the TMP is successful in reducing SOV commute trips, it will support regional goals and reduce impacts on existing facilities. Transportation Management Plan Successful implementation of a TMP that reduces SOV commute trips would be ac- complished through a combination of transit and rideshare incentives; facilities de- signed with attention to transit and rail compatibility and to pedestrian comfort, safety, and enjoyment; and disincentives for single - occupancy- vehicle commuting to assist in maintaining roadway conditions in the study area at baseline (No Action) levels of service. Section 2, Design Guidelines and Standards, of the Duwamish Corridor Redevelop- ment Proposal discusses a number of design features that could be used to promote HOV and transit use in the redevelopment corridor. The master TMP adopted by Boeing and Metro is included in Appendix B. As part of that master TMP, Boeing currently provides a $15 per month transit pass subsidy. The Boeing Company is committed to implementing a TMP that will reduce SOV com- mute trips in the Duwamish Corridor. As part of that TMP, some or all of the follow- ing elements could be explored or considered: • Meter gates during the p.m. peak -hour shift change to give HOVs pri- ority. SOVs would only be allowed to exit if there were no HOV queue. • Increase the subsidies of vanpools and Metro transit passes. The pur- pose would be to stimulate any latent markets to meet TMP perform- ance goals. • Establish goals and timelines for reducing SOV commute trips. • Install permanent traffic counters at all entrances. Monitor traffic vol- umes and conduct annual surveys of SOVs, carpools and vanpools. • Provide onsite building coordinators and a main commuter office for information and production of annual reports. • Provide commuter information kiosks in lobbies and lunch rooms. 4 -41 Chapter 4: Transportation Mitigation Measures • Provide periodic Metro vanpool driver training onsite and /or in the eve- nings. (Currently, the training is an all -day Saturday session.) • Provide carpool /vanpool load /unload zones at the entrance to each building. • Conduct aggressive marketing, including quarterly promotional events. • Inform new employees of the TMP, HOV incentives, and Metro routes and schedules. • Provide preferential parking for vanpools and HOVs. Restrict the SOV parking supply. • Prepare an annual TMP report outlining activities, results, and future actions. • Provide convenient bike racks and employee facilities, including showers. • Provide a transportation allowance to employees and initiate parking fees at the same value as the transportation allowance. There would be no net cost to the employees; however, employees who chose to give up their parking spaces could apply the transportation allowance to other modes of transportation. • Initiate a guaranteed ride home program for carpool, vanpool, and tran- sit riders. • Provide subscription bus or van service to outlying areas. For example, a Boeing van could provide service from an Issaquah Park - and -Ride to the Duwamish sites. • Provide convenient, direct, comfortable, and safe pedestrian access from transit stops to the workplace. Locate buildings as close to the street as possible. Distances from transit stops to the workplace should be less than those from SOV parking lots to the workplace. • Re- evaluate the location of all transit stops in the corridor from South Michigan Avenue to South Boeing Access Road. Locate transit stops as near as possible to concentrated work sites and /or entrance gates. • Work with Metro staff on transit stop design and transit - compatible site designs, including potential locations for light rail stations. 4 -42 Chapter 4: Transportation Mitigation Measures • Establish a "brain trust" committee to review the TMP on an annual basis. The committee would be responsible for reviewing transit stop locations and design, pedestrian design features, parking lot design, TMP goals and incentives, and status of the program. The committee should include representatives from Boeing, the City of Tukwila, Metro, the City of Seattle, King County, and WSDOT. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Unless SOV reduction goals of SSHB 1671 are met, peak -hour traffic volumes will increase. Total accidents may increase. 10021733q.SEA 4 -43 Chapter 4: Transportation Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Chapter 5 POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS Boeing employment statistics used in this chapter are estimates based on Boeing em- ployment records dated October 1990. This set of data, which provides the best com- parison with regional data available from the 1990 census, indicates that Boeing employment in the Duwamish corridor was 25,000. Other chapters in this document have used an existing employment population of 21,400, which was based on employ- ment figures available in May 1991. In the early 1960s, employment population in the corridor was as high as 40,000. Table 5 -1 demonstrates the fluctuations in employment population in the corridor in the last 4 years. The range in employment population is indicative of the fluctuations that occur in the aerospace industry as a whole as well as at Boeing facilities. For context, a summary of population, housing, and employment statistics in the Puget Sound region is provided in Table 5 -2. Table 5 -1 Summary of Boeing Duwamish Corridor Population 1988 through 1992 January 1988 22,159 employees January 1989 24,972 employees January 1990 26,621 employees January 1991 22,802 employees January 1992 20,224 employees Table 5 -2 Puget Sound Region Population, Housing, and Employment by County 1990 King Kitsap Pierce Snohomish Total Population 1,507,300 189,705 586,200 465,600 2,748,800 Households 615,800 69,300 214,700 171,700 1,071,500 Employment 870,700 72,200 216,000 138,100 1,297,000 Chapter 5: Population, Housing, 5 -1 and Employment Existing Conditions POPULATION The Boeing Company employs approximately 100,000 people in the Puget Sound re- gion, which includes King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. The numbers and percentages of Boeing employees in each of the four counties are shown in Table 5 -3. The Boeing - related population in the region (i.e., those people who are employed by Boeing and their families) is approximately 243,470 people, or about 9 percent of the region's total population. The majority of employees working in the Duwamish corridor reside in southern King County. The concentrations of employees in various communities, based on employee records that show residence by zip code, are shown in Table 5 -4. Table 5 -3 Boeing Regional Population by County County Boeing Employees Boeing- Related Population Total Percent of County/ Region King 69,500 99,712 169,212 11 Kitsap 500 717 1,217 .01 Pierce 12,000 17,216 29,216 .05 Snohomish 18,000 25,825 43,825 13 TOTAL 100,000 143,469 243,469 9 HOUSING While there are 100,000 Boeing employees in the region, the number of Boeing house- holds is slightly less, given that some households have more than one Boeing employee in residence. Boeing records indicate that the ratio of households to employees is 0.97. Thus, as shown in Table 5 -5, there are an estimated 97,000 Boeing households, which constitute 9 percent of the 1,071,500 households in the region. Households indirectly supported by Boeing are also shown in Table 5 -5. In all, 265,500 households (25 per- cent of all Puget Sound region households) are affected by Boeing's operations. Chapter 5: Population, Housing, 5 -2 and Employment Existing Conditions Table 5 -4 Residence of Boeing Duwamish Corridor Employees by Community Community No. of Employees, Percent of Total Seattle 6,700 27 Renton 3,200 13 Auburn 3,300 13 Kent 4,600 14 Bellevue 2,300 9 Bothell/Everett 2,000 8 Puyallup/Tacoma 2,700 11 Other 1,200 5 TOTAL 25,000 100 Table 5 -5 Boeing - Related Housing County Boeing Households Indirect Boeing Households Total Percent of County/Region King 67,415 113,625 181,040 29 Kitsap 485 4,725 5,210 7 Pierce 11,640 22,800 34,440 16 Snohomish 17,460 27,300 44,760 26 TOTAL I 97,000 168,450 265,450 25 EMPLOYMENT Distribution of the approximately 100,000 Boeing employees among the various Boeing facilities is shown in Table 5 -6. Chapter 5: Population, Housing, 5 -3 and Employment Eadsting Conditions Table 5 -6 Boeing Employment by Plant and Job Type Plant Number of Jobs Manufacturing Technology/ Engineering Professional/ Administrative Seattle 25,000 10,000 3,750 11,250 Everett 24,000 13,200 _ 7,920 2,880 Renton 25,000 6,250 7,500 11,250 Kent 15,250 3,050 4,270 7,930 Auburn 10,750 6,880 2,150 1,720 TOTAL 100,000 39,380 25,590 35,030 There are two ways in which The Boeing Company indirectly affects the regional econ- omy, and specifically employment levels in the region. First, Boeing is a major pur- chaser of goods and services. These purchases include everything from legal and other professional services to materials for Boeing's production processes from other aero- space firms. As Boeing's demand for these goods and services changes, the output of firms that supply goods and services to Boeing changes in response, and consequently employment levels in these firms change as well. In turn, Boeing's suppliers change their demands for goods and services, and the cycle continues. The second way in which Boeing indirectly affects employment levels in the region occurs when Boeing employees, and employees of the firms that supply Boeing with goods and services, spend their income. As the number of employees at both Boeing and its supplier firms changes, their demand for goods and services changes, thereby affecting employment levels in the firms that produce these goods and services. To the extent that employment in these secondary supplier firms is affected, there are more or less people spending their income on additional goods and services. Because of this "chain reaction," the indirect and induced effects tend to affect the entire region's econ- omy rather than just the immediate study area. The relationship between employment at Boeing and the resulting indirect employment was estimated in a 1989 study that analyzed Boeing's economic impact on the Puget Sound region and the state of Washington (Pascal, Pedersen, and Conway, 1989). This study estimated a Boeing "jobs- multiplier" of 2.3 for the Puget Sound region. In other words, one Boeing job supports 2.3 additional jobs in the region. Using this multiplier and other criteria, it is estimated that an additional 230,000 jobs, or 8 percent of the 1,297,000 jobs in the region, are indirectly generated by Boeing employment. In all 25 percent of all jobs in the region are directly or indirectly supported by Boeing (Table 5 -7). Chapter 5: Population, Housing, 5 -4 and Employment Existing Conditions The study also noted that more than 80 percent of Boeing's indirect impact on the region results from the spending patterns of its employees, rather than from Boeing's purchases of goods and services. These impacts tend to occur in places where the Boeing employees live rather than where they work. The two types of indirect impacts caused by Boeing are discussed in greater detail below in the Impacts section. Table 5 -7 Boeing- Related Employment by County County Boeing Jobs Indirect Boeing Jobs Total Percent of County/Region King 69,500 184,700 254,200 29 Kitsap 500 2,900 3,400 5 Pierce 12,000 19,500 31,500 15 Snohomish 18,000 22,900 40,900 30 TOTAL 100,000 230,000 330,000 25 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES The Proposed Action assumes that with redevelopment of the Duwamish corridor the number of Boeing jobs within the Puget Sound region would remain stable at 25,000 employees. (The addition of 3,600 employees in the corridor to the 21,400 pop- ulation base for the Proposed Action would be accomplished by transferring employees from other Boeing facilities in the region.) With the Manufacturing Center alternative, employment would decrease to 20,000 employees in the corridor. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS In general, construction employment is considered to be readily available and suffici- ently mobile to serve regional needs. Construction workers often commute longer distances than other workers because the location of their work changes from project to project. Workers required for construction of facilities under the Proposed Action and the Manufacturing Center alternative would most likely commute from their cur- rent residences rather than relocate to the project area during the construction period. Therefore, any construction impacts on population and housing are expected to be minimal. Chapter 5: Population, Housing, and Employment 5 -5 Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Direct Impacts (All Build Alternatives) None of the alternatives represents a net increase or decrease in Boeing employment in the region, nor do they represent a shift in the type of employment at The Boeing Company. In each alternative, Boeing is simply relocating certain jobs within the Puget Sound region. Therefore, there would be no net increase or decrease in population, housing, or employment in the region as a direct result of any of the proposed alterna- tives. It is difficult to quantify the extent to which Boeing employees will change their places of residence, causing a shift in Boeing - related population and households, as a result of being relocated to a different facility. It is not uncommon for Boeing employees to be transferred periodically from one Puget Sound site to another. In the short term, it is anticipated that affected Boeing employees will adjust their commuting travel patterns rather than relocate their place of residence to an area closer to their new employment site. The Proposed Action would relocate many engineering/office positions from Boe- ing facilities in south King County to the Duwamish corridor and relocate manufac- turing positions from the corridor to Boeing facilities in south King County and other sites. The majority of employees now working in the corridor live in south King County communities, suggesting that the distance to work would not be a major factor in changing places of residence. In the long term, some employees could relocate to areas closer to their new places of employment; however, given the central location of the study area, this number would likely be minimal. Indirect Impacts (All Alternatives) Because none of the proposed alternatives represents a net increase or decrease in regional employment or a shift in the type of employment at Boeing, no change in the total number of jobs in the region is expected to result from the Proposed Action and alternatives. To the extent that Boeing employees change their place of residence in response to being transferred, shifts in the location of indirect Boeing - generated jobs in the region may occur. However, as has already been mentioned, any change in the place of residence of Boeing employees is likely to be minimal; consequently, any shift in the location of indirect jobs is also likely to be insignificant to the region. Review of population, housing, and employment impacts on specific communities would occur with upgrades of Boeing facilities at other facilities in the Puget Sound region. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required on the part of The Boeing Company beyond the normal practice of hiring local residents to the extent possible. Chapter 5: Population, Housing, and Employment 5-6 Mitigation Measures UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS No unavoidable adverse impacts would result from the Proposed Action. 100216CE.SEAq Chapter 5: Population, Housing, and Employment 5 -7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Chapter 6 AIR EXISTING CONDITIONS CLIMATE The Puget Sound region has a relatively mild climate. The Olympic Mountains buffer the area from the weather that arrives from the Pacific Ocean. The summer months are characterized by moderate temperatures along with light and variable winds, which tend to blow from the north. Summer weather is often dominated by persistent high pressure cells. This weather pattern can contribute to the formation of photochemical smog, as indicated by ozone concentrations downwind of urban centers. Storm fronts pass through the area frequently during the spring and fall and occasion- ally during the winter. These strong storm fronts are usually the source of the region's southerly winds. Winter weather can also produce extremely stable or stagnant condi- tions that coincide with temperature inversions. Under these conditions, pollutant dispersion is extremely limited; as a result, concentrations of pollutants are normally at their highest levels during this season. POLLUTANTS The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets standards for permissible levels of certain pollutants in the atmosphere. Geographic areas in which a. primary or sec- ondary national ambient air quality standard is violated are designated as "nonattain- ment areas" for that particular pollutant. A summary of the EPA air quality standards, along with Washington State and Puget Sound region standards, is presented in Table 6 -1. The study area is located within nonattainment areas for several pollutants. Since November 1990, the area has been designated as nonattainment for particulate matter (measured as PM10).1 In November 1991, EPA redesignated the entire Seattle - Tacoma urban area (as defined by the Washington State Department of Transporta- tion, from Marysville to south of Tacoma) as a nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (CO). Finally, in January 1992, EPA designated all of King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties as nonattainment areas for ozone. Specific pollutants and their sources in the study area are discussed below. 1Particulate matter in the atmosphere can be measured either as total suspended particulates (TSP) or as particles 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10). In July 1987, EPA adopted new standards based on PM10 rather than TSP. Washington State and Puget Sound region standards still use the TSP measurement. 6 -1 Chapter 6: Air Existing Conditions Table 6 -1 Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant EPA (primary) EPA (secondary) Washington State Puget Sound Region Carbon Monoxide 8 -hr average 1 -hr average 9 ppm 35 ppm 9 ppm 35 ppm 9 ppm 35 ppm PM10 Annual arithmetic mean 24 -hr averages 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 50 1.kg/m3 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 TSP Annual geometric mean 24 -hr average 60 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 60 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Ozone 1 -hr averageb 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm Sulfur dioxide Annual average 30 -day average 24 -hr average 3 -hr average 1 -hr averaged 1 -hr average 5 -min averagee 0.03 ppm 0.14 ppm 0.50 ppm 0.02 ppm 0.10 ppm 0.25 ppm 0.40 ppm 0.02 ppm 0.04 ppm 0.10 ppm` 0.25 ppm 0.40 ppmc 1.00 ppm Lead Calendar quarter average 1.5 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3 -- 1.5 µg/m3 Nitrogen dioxide Annual average 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm a Standard attained when expected number of days per year with a 24 -hour concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to one or less. b Standard attained when expected number of days per year with an hourly average above 0.12 ppm is equal to one or less. e Sulfur dioxide short -term standard should never be exceeded. d Not to be exceeded more than twice in 7 days. e Not to be exceeded more than once in 8 hours. Note: Annual, quarterly, and 30 -day standards are never to be exceeded. Shorter -term standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year, unless noted otherwise. 100216D0.SEAq 6 -2 Chapter 6: Air Existing Conditions are monitored at the Duwamish station, located at 4752 East Marginal Way South approximately 1 mile north of the study area boundary. Other air quality parameters will be discussed here in qualitative terms and by inference from other monitoring sta- tion data. Ambient monitoring data discussed in this chapter are summarized in Table 6 -2. Table 6 -2 1990 Air Quality Data Pollutant Station Location Observed Levels Notes PM10 Duwamish 4752 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle 36.2 µg/m3 134 µg/m3 119 µglm3 Annual arithmetic mean Maximum day (3/1/90) 2nd high day (2/28/90) TSP Duwamish 4752 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle 67.5 µg/m3 321 µg/m3 279 µg/m3 Annual geometric mean Maximum day (3/1/90) 2nd high day (2/28/90) (18 days >150 µg/m3) Lead Harbor Island 2555 13th Avenue SW Seattle 0.26 µg/m3 0.52 µg/m3 0.64 µg/m3 0.49 p.g/m3 1st quarter average 2nd quarter average 3rd quarter average 4th quarter average Ozone Lake Sammamish State Park 20050 SE 56th Issaquah 0.126 ppm 0.123 ppm 0.108 ppm 0.096 ppm High daily 1 -hr average (7/12/90) 2nd highest (8/11/90) 3rd highest (8/12/90) 4th highest (7/20/90) CO (1989) Fire Station No. 10 301 2nd Avenue S. Seattle 7 ppm 6 ppm 5 ppm High 8 -hr average (1/20/89) 2nd highest (2/12/89) 3rd highest (1/18/89) SO2 Duwamish 4752 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle 0.009 ppm 0.028 ppm 0.092 ppm 0.109 ppm Annual arithmetic mean Maximum 24 -hr average (1/27/90) Maximum 3 -hr average (1/27/90) Maximum 1 -hr average (1/27/90) Particulate Matter. In addition to being in a PM10 nonattainment area, the project area is within a previously designated nonattainment area for TSP. Typical sources of PM10 and TSP are slash burning, wood burning (both wood stoves and fireplaces), in- dustrial sources, auto and truck traffic, and construction activities. The primary sources in the study area are industrial. Lead. Lead concentrations in this region have for years been observed to be less than the ambient air quality standard levels. This difference can be attributed to the closing of the secondary lead smelter on Harbor Island and to the phasing out of leaded 6 -3 Chapter 6: Air Existing Conditions gasoline. The nearest monitoring location with lead monitoring results is the Harbor Is- land station, located at 2555 13th Avenue S.W., approximately 3.5 miles north of the study area. Since lead concentrations have not been a problem for some time, lead sampling at the South Park station at 723 Concord Street, which is closer to the study area, was discontinued on September 30, 1988. Ozone. Ozone is the principal oxidant found in photochemical smog. It is formed through a complex series of chemical reactions involving volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen, and sunlight. VOCs and oxides of nitrogen are emitted by both industrial and area sources. Oxides of nitrogen are produced almost exclusively by fuel combustion; VOC emissions are produced both by combustion and by a variety of fugitive emission sources. Since ozone formation requires time for chemical reactions to be completed, ozone reaches its peak concentration several miles downwind from the source of its precursor components. Ozone pollution is a regional phenomenon. The Duwamish corridor, as well as the entire central Puget Sound Basin, will likely contribute both to ozone levels observed at the nearest monitoring station in Issaquah (at Lake Sammamish State Park and to levels recorded as far away as the station in Mount Rainier National Park. Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a highly localized pollutant. Collectively, motor vehicles emit more CO than any other source. For Puget Sound cities, motor vehicles are the principal source of CO causing the ambient levels to exceed air quality standards. The CO monitoring station used for this analysis was located 4 miles north of the study area at Fire Station No. 10, located at 301 2nd Avenue South in Seattle. Monitoring at this site was discontinued in 1989. Although this station was the closest to the study area that monitored CO, it is important to note that it was located in downtown Seattle and is included in the analysis only for reference purposes. CO levels in the study area should be far less, due to the comparatively lower traffic volumes in the study area than in downtown Seattle. Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is produced mainly by the combustion of fuels containing sulfur, such as oil and coal. Since the Duwamish corridor is a significant industrial area, ambient monitoring data are collected locally (at 4752 East Marginal Way South) to quantify the impacts in this area. The study area is classified as an at- tainment area for SO2 ambient air quality standards. Nitrogen Dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide is produced through combustion processes followed by further atmospheric reactions. Oxides of nitrogen (NO and NO2, also referred to as NO„) are produced in high- temperature combustion conditions with excess air. Further reactions in the atmosphere convert NO to NO2. While only NO2 has known adverse 6 -4 Chapter 6: Air Existing Conditions health effects, the NO„ emissions also contribute to the reactions that form ozone. NO„ is controlled as a point source pollutant (e.g., from vents and stacks), but no ambient monitoring data are collected for NO2 in this region. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED ACTION ` The proposed redevelopment involves the gradual replacement of 3.7 million square feet of manufacturing and office space with buildings that would have approximately 4.3 million square feet of space and would be dedicated largely to research, develop- ment, and administrative activities. The net effect on air quality would be a displace- ment of large sources of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, such as painting operations, from the Duwamish corridor to elsewhere in the Puget Sound region. While the proposed research labs and prototype manufacturing facilities would un- doubtedly produce emissions of VOCs, the overall levels of emissions are expected to decrease significantly. Should any manufacturing process be decommissioned and not moved to another plant in the Puget Sound region, the reduction in annual VOC emis- sions could be taken as credits by The Boeing Company to be used as offsets for future projects. In addition to VOCs, the manufacturing facilities also contribute moderate amounts of particulate emissions to the air as a result of paint overspray. These, too, would be significantly reduced through replacement of manufacturing buildings with research and office buildings. All point sources requiring air quality permits must be registered with the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). Under the current regulations, many of the facilities proposed for construction would be exempt from registration due to their min- imal generation of air pollutants. If registration is required, it is PSAPCA's policy to require Best Available Control Technology (BACT) on the new sources and to evaluate each source's specific air quality impacts. BACT is an emission control strategy that incorporates add -on equipment, specific production or operations methods, or a combi- nation of both. PSAPCA requires BACT on a case -by -case basis after consideration of available technology, environmental and energy impacts, and the cost of complying with the emission limitations. Transportation sources commonly produce emissions of CO, NO,, and hydrocarbons. Air quality analyses usually focus on CO impacts because they are local to a project site. VOC and NO emissions are involved in the ozone formation process but are not associated with known local air quality impacts. Ozone formation is a regional air quality issue that is difficult to discuss on a project - specific basis. 6 -5 Chapter 6: Air Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives An emissions burden analysis was performed for CO generated from motor vehicles in the study area. The analysis was based on data developed in the transportation analysis discussed in Chapter 4. This analysis provides a means of comparing CO impacts from each alternative. Weekday emissions of CO from motor vehicles within the project area are expected to be lower under the Proposed Action for the year 2002 than exist- ing CO emissions for 1991, due to laws requiring cleaner - burning engines in new vehicles. Study area CO emissions for the existing conditions (1991) and for all alterna- tives (2002) are shown in Table 6 -3. Although slower traffic speeds and increased idling periods, with a resulting decrease in engine efficiency, may occur at some intersections within the study area under the Pro- posed Action, cleaner- burning vehicles should offset any CO emission increases result- ing from traffic congestion. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the CO ambient air quality standards would be threatened under the Proposed Action. Dust emissions from heavy construction operations could have a substantial temporary effect on local air quality. During building construction, dust emissions are associated with demolition, excavation, and heavy equipment operation over temporary roads at the site. Dust emissions may vary from day to day depending on the level of activity, the type of operation, and the weather. A large percentage of the total fugitive dust emissions at construction sites results from heavy equipment operation over bare soils. The overall impacts of construction dust can be lessened through the use of best man- agement practices as described below under "Mitigation Measures." Sites proposed for demolition may contain asbestos, especially as insulation material surrounding steam pipes. Asbestos is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7, Environ- mental Health, as a potential release to the environment affecting public health. Construction operations could also have a short -term effect on air quality by slowing traffic speeds around the project site. Slower traffic generally means increased emis- sions of combustion - related pollutants, particularly CO. However, the project's effect on traffic flow is expected to be limited in area and of short duration. 6 -6 Chapter 6: Air Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives MANUFACTURING CENTER ALTERNATIVE The CO ambient air concentrations under the Manufacturing Center alternative are expected to be slightly lower than those for the No Action alternative. This can be attributed to fewer average weekday vehicle trips as a result of the smaller number of employees in this alternative. No CO ambient air standard will be threatened under this alternative. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE With the No Action alternative, there would likely be a general improvement over existing CO levels. This would be attributed to cleaner emissions from motor vehicles and reduced traffic congestion as planned and programmed roadway improvements are put into place. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation is required for operational impacts of the proposed redevelopment. Assuming that no other major developments or major air pollutant generators are proposed in the Duwamish corridor, it is anticipated that the overall air quality in the corridor will remain the same as or improve over existing conditions by the year 2002, regardless of which alternative is selected. This will largely be the result of reduced CO emissions from motor vehicles. The Boeing Company's transportation management plan (TMP), proposed as part of the mitigation for transportation - related impacts, will further benefit air quality in the corridor. As noted above, point source emissions are regulated by PSAPCA. Mitigation may be required on a project- specific basis if major emission sources are proposed. Construction- related mitigation will also be determined on a project- specific basis. Emissions from construction equipment and trucks can be reduced by using newer or better - maintained equipment. Emissions can also be reduced by avoiding prolonged periods of vehicle idling. Truck traffic into and out of the construction area should be controlled to minimize congestion during peak commuting hours. This would minimize secondary air quality impacts caused by reduced travel speeds in the project area. The construction contractor must comply with PSAPCA's Regulation 9.15, which re- quires that reasonable precautions be taken to avoid dust emissions. Such precautions may include spraying water or chemical dust suppressants on bare soils during dry, windy weather. Soils carried out of the construction site on the sides and wheels of trucks could be minimized by hosing down the trucks prior to their exiting from the site. Soil that does escape the construction area should be cleaned up with a street cleaner. 6 -7 Chapter 6: Air Mitigation Measures UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Air quality could be affected on a short -term basis by dust emissions during construction. 100216CF.SEAq Chapter 6: Air 6 -8 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Chapter 7 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH This chapter addresses potential releases to the environment affecting public health and noise. Existing conditions, impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable adverse impacts are discussed separately for each topic. POTENTIAL RELEASES TO THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECTING PUBLIC HEALTH EXISTING CONDITIONS The manufacture and production of aircraft and aircraft parts use materials and gen- erate wastes that are classified as hazardous under federal and state laws. Lab /office and manufacturing activities are the primary users and generators of these substances. Other sources include the flightline, which uses and stores petroleum products, and office activities, which use small amounts of office products (such as copier chemicals and cleaners) that may be classified as hazardous. A substance that is defined as hazardous exhibits certain characteristics, such as ignit- ability, corrosivity, reactivity, toxicity, or carcinogenicity, that can be harmful to human health or the environment if the substance is released in an uncontrolled manner. Similarly, the term "dangerous waste" is defined in the State of Washington Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173 -303) and refers to waste materials that exhibit certain characteristics. Dangerous wastes and hazardous materials are affected by different regulations, and facilities that use such materials or generate such wastes must comply with specific requirements. Unless the distinction between the two is made, the term "hazardous substances" will be used in this chapter to mean both "hazardous materials" and "dangerous wastes." Typical examples of hazardous materials used in the manufacturing processes include paints, solvents, and petroleum products. Typical examples of dangerous wastes gen- erated from these activities include caustics, acids, solvents, paints, metals, used petro- leum products, wastewater, and other wastes. These hazardous substances are cur- rently used and generated at all of the project area sites, with the exception of the Duwamish Office Park East. The "Affected Media and Contaminants Report," prepared quarterly by the Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program, identifies potential hazardous sites that are being monitored by Ecology. The affected "media" or environments that could potentially be affected by one or more contaminants include groundwater, surface water, air, soils, and sediments. The report has previously Chapter 7: Environmental Health 7 -1 Potential Releases -- Existing Conditions identified five Boeing sites in the Duwamish corridor as needing further investigation to determine whether they should be placed on the state's Hazardous Sites List. The Developmental Center, Plant 2, and North Boeing Field (together with Seattle City Light) are included in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act listing (CERCLIS). The EPA has established this list based on industry spill notifications to the agency. Sites on this list are evaluated for inclusion on the EPA's National Priority List. The Boeing Company has recently developed a corporate policy that emphasizes reducing the use of hazardous materials, minimizing the generation of hazardous waste, and ensuring proper handling and disposal of all waste. More detail is presented in Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal under "Soil Remediation" (pages 11 -13). Copies of Environmental Management Plans, Spill Prevention and Control Plans, and Hazardous Waste Management Plans for sites in the project area are on file with the City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development. Regulatory Framework Federal, state, and local laws regulate the storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous substances. Appendix E provides a more detailed summary of laws and regulations that are applicable to the onsite activities. Relevant requirements are briefly described here. Under the federal and state Community Right -to -Know Regulations, the following actions, among others, are required: • Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for hazardous chemicals exceeding certain quantities must be provided to the King County Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), the State Emergency Response Commis- sion (SERC), and local fire departments. • An annual report of a facilities inventory of hazardous chemicals present in excess of certain quantities must be made to the LEPC, SERC, and local fire departments. • An annual summary of toxic chemical releases from the facility must be reported to the EPA and Ecology. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations (U.S. Department of Transporta- tion) regulate the transport of hazardous substances on public highways, railways, and waterways. The regulations include reporting requirements and specific packaging, labeling, and shipping procedures. Chapter 7: Environmental Health 7 -2 Potential Releases — Regulatory Framework Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requires specific design measures, operating standards, monitoring procedures, notification requirements, and recordkeeping procedures for underground storage tanks that contain petroleum or hazardous substances. The Clean Water Act requires facilities that store specified volumes of oil products to prepare a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan that identifies and establishes procedures and equipment to prevent the discharge of oil to navigable waters. Under the Washington Dangerous Waste Regulations, facilities that generate dangerous waste above certain quantities must follow specific procedures for waste accumulation, handling, and disposal. A Preparedness and Prevention program must be implemented that identifies the communication system, the preventative and emergency response equipment, and the arrangements with local authorities. A contingency plan must also be prepared that incorporates specific emergency procedures for events that involve dangerous waste releases, fires, or explosions. The contingency plan also includes material on emergency preparedness and prevention, response procedures, and personnel training. Article 80 of the 1988 Uniform Fire Code (UFC) is the primary applicable local regulation. Article 80 establishes requirements for the prevention, control, and mitigation of dangerous conditions related to hazardous substances, . and for the management of hazardous substances. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Proposed Action With development of the Proposed Action, upgrading of existing structures and development of new buildings would likely improve conditions and make handling of hazardous substances more efficient. To the extent possible, materials storage areas and waste accumulation areas will be consolidated, centralized, and located closer to delivery and pick -up access points. Use and generation of hazardous substances would be in accordance with applicable regulations and would be similar to or improved over existing practices. Exact quan- tities and types of substances used and generated would be included in project - specific environmental review. In general, the decrease in manufacturing activity, as compared with existing conditions, is expected to reduce the amount of manufacturing -type haz- ardous substances used and generated. The increase in lab /office use would, con -. versely, increase the amount of other types of hazardous substances used and gen- erated. Existing plans such as SPCC and contingency plans, as well as Community Right -to -Know information, would be updated to reflect any changes as part of project - specific development. Chapter 7: Fnvironmental Health 7 -3 Potential Releases— Impacts The existence of hazardous substances onsite, and their transportation to and from sites, creates the potential for errors or accidents that could result in an on- or offsite release of hazardous substances. If measures to control and contain the release failed, released substances could enter the air, surface water, groundwater, or soil. Depending on the nature of the release (the type, form, and quantity of the substance), its prox- imity to people or sensitive resources, and the conditions (e.g., weather, traffic), the releases could have adverse effects on human health or the environment. As described above, a variety of measures are mandated to prevent such incidents and to respond to an incident should it occur. These include emergency prevention and response equipment, procedures, and training; containment areas for stored substances; monitoring systems to identify leaks or spills; training of personnel handling the sub- stances; coordination with other responding agencies; and promulgation of information about the substances. On a project- specific basis, environmental assessments of the areas identified for redevelopment of the Duwamish corridor will be performed as a first step, prior to demolition and construction activities. The environmental assessments will be performed using the. Washington State Model Toxics Control Act (MCTA) requirements as the basis for the analyses, detection limits, and remediation alternative evaluations. The assessments include the following three strategies: • Assess the quality of soil at the site. This would include an evaluation of the need for soil removal, treatment, or disposal. • Assess the quality of groundwater beneath the site. • Assess the subsurface of the site for buried objects such as unknown underground storage tanks or unmapped utility pipelines. If the environmental assessment indicates that contamination is present on a site pro- posed for redevelopment, notification will be made to Ecology as required by the MTCA. The situation would then be properly characterized, and a cleanup action plan would be developed. The plan would identify preferred cleanup methods and specify the cleanup standards and other pertinent requirements. If contaminated soils are discovered at a site, onsite soil remediation would be performed whenever possible. When the situation dictates that the material be deposited offsite, it would be trans- ported to an approved disposal location. When development includes demolition of existing structures, a survey for asbestos will be conducted. Known sources of asbestos will be removed and disposed of prior to demolition by a qualified asbestos removal firm. Chapter 7: Environmental Health 7 -4 Potential Releases --- Impacts Manufacturing Center Alternative The same types of hazardous and dangerous materials used under existing conditions would be used for the Manufacturing Center alternative. The upgrading of facilities would tend to decrease environmental heath risks through improvements to delivery and storage capabilities. No Action Alternative The No Action alternative would maintain existing conditions; no changes to the exist- ing quantity, type, or management of hazardous substances would occur, except as otherwise required by law. MITIGATION MEASURES The management of hazardous materials and dangerous wastes is regulated to prevent releases and to mitigate adverse impacts associated with these substances that may present a hazard to human health or the environment. The Proposed Action and any alternatives would be required to comply with all applicable existing laws that regulate hazardous materials and dangerous wastes. Compliance with regulations would be addressed on a project - specific basis as individual projects were proposed and per- mitted. Onsite soil remediation should be performed whenever feasible to minimize impacts to offsite landfills and lower the risk to the general public of potential exposure to con- taminated materials during transportation. Prior to the demolition of existing structures, a qualified asbestos removal firm will be contracted to survey a site for the presence of asbestos. If asbestos is found, a qualified asbestos removal firm will be contracted to properly identify, handle, and dispose of all asbestos - contaminated debris. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS With the Proposed Action, the quantity of certain types of hazardous substances associ- ated with manufacturing activities would decrease, and other types of hazardous sub- stances associated with lab /office activities would increase. As with existing conditions, the existence of these substances on the site and their transportation to and from the site presents the potential for errors or accidents that could result in an on- or offsite release of hazardous substances to the air, surface water, groundwater, or soil. These releases, if uncontrolled, could adversely affect human health or the environment. Chapter 7: Environmental Health Potential Releases — Mitigation Measures/ 7 -5 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts NOISE INTRODUCTION Human response to noise is subjective and can vary greatly from person to person. Factors that influence individual response include the intensity, frequency, time, and pattern of the noise; the amount of background noise present before an intruding noise; and the nature of the work or activity that the noise affects. Environmental noise is measured in units called A- weighted decibels, abbreviated as dBA. The A- weighted decibel scale was developed to approximate the sensitivity of the human ear to different frequencies by de- emphasizing frequencies to which the ear is less sensitive. The scale is logarithmic; each 10 dBA increase is perceived by a listener as a doubling of loudness. For example, 80 dBA is judged by a typical listener to be about twice as loud as 70 dBA and four times as loud as 60 dBA. The smallest change in noise level that humans can hear is about 2 to 3 decibels; increases in average or cumulative noise levels of 5 dBA or more are noticeable under ordinary conditions. Normal conversation ranges between 55 and 65 dBA when the speakers are 3 to 6 feet apart. Quiet urban nighttime noise levels range in the low 40s dBA; noise levels during the day in a noisy urban area are frequently as high as 80 dBA. Noise levels above 110 dBA become intolerable and can result in hearing loss. Figure 7 -1 shows sound levels for some common noise sources. REGULATIONS The noise ordinances of Tukwila, King County, and Seattle establish maximum environ- mental noise levels that cannot be exceeded in any 1 -hour period. The maximum allowable noise levels vary depending on the classification of both the receiving prop- erty and the noise source (e.g., residential, industrial). The classification system is called the Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement (EDNA) and is generally based on a property's use. The maximum noise level for each land use type in relation to the receiving property is shown in Table 7 -1. The noise limits apply at the property line. Construction sounds audible to commercial or industrial receiving properties are exempt from the noise limitations at all times. Construction noise audible to rural or residential receiving properties is exempt from the noise limitations during daytime hours only. The maximum permissible noise levels are similar among the three jurisdictions, as shown in Table 7 -1, except that Seattle and Tukwila do not have rural districts. Between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends, the noise limitations shown in the table are reduced by 10 dBA for receiving properties located in rural or residential areas. (The City of Tukwila observes the 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. limitation 7 days a week.) For sound levels of short duration, the noise levels Chapter 7: Environmental Health 7 -6 Noise— IntroductbdRegnlatlons CONTINUOUS EXPOSURE CAN CAUSE HEARING LOSS 140 — Threshold of pain Military jet aircraft takeoff 130 — with afterburner from aircraft carrier at 50 ft 120 — 110 — Jet takeoff at 200 ft Auto horn at 3 ft Chainsaw Noisy snowmobile lawn mower 100 — Power tools at 3 ft Noisy motorcycle at 50 ft 90 — Heavy truck at 50 ft Quiet snowmobile at 50 ft 80 — Busy urban street in daytime Quiet motorcycle at 50 ft Normal automobile Commercial area 70 — 60 — Conversation at 3 ft 50 — Quiet residential area 40 — 30 — Quiethome Library Bedroom at night Concert hall (background) 10 — Broadcasting studio 0 — Threshold of hearing 7 -7 Figure 7 -1 TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS (dBA) shown in the table may be exceeded for any receiving property during any 1 -hour period by 15 dBA for 1.5 minutes, by 10 dBA for 5 minutes, and by 5 dBA for 15 minutes. Table 7 -1 Maximum Permissible Noise Limitations EDNA of Noise Source EDNA of Receiving Property (dBA) Rural Residential Commercial Industrial King County Tukwila, Seattle, and King County Tukwila, Seattle, and King County Tukwila, Seattle, and King County Rural 49 52 55 57 Residential 52 55 57 60 Commercial 55 57 60 65 Industrial 57 60 65 70 Sources: Chapter 25.08 Seattle Municipal Code, Chapter 12.86 King County Code, Chapter 8.22 Tukwila Municipal Code. Sounds originating from aircraft in flight and sounds that originate at airports and are directly related to flight operations are exempt from the provisions of the chapter at all times. Sounds created by the testing or maintenance of aircraft or of aircraft compo- nents are exempt from provisions of the chapter between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. on week- days and between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekends (7 a.m. and 10 p.m., 7 days a week for property in the City of Tukwila). EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing noise levels in the Duwamish corridor were not monitored for this analysis because it was not anticipated that redevelopment of the corridor would create a permanent and significant increase in noise levels to sensitive receptors and also because data from earlier studies of the area were available. Findings from two relevant noise impact studies for the area are briefly described below. Environmental Noise Study for the South Park Neighborhood The Environmental Noise Study for the South Park Area of 8th Avenue South (1982) analyzed existing sound levels and noise sources in the residential area of the South Chapter 7: Environmental Health 7 -8 Noise—Regulations/Existing Conditions Park neighborhood on the east side of 8th Avenue South between the Seattle city limits and South Director Street. The study also included a number of mitigation measures to address the noise impacts. The study focused on five noise sources: air traffic using Sea -Tac Airport, vehicle traffic on 8th Avenue South, industrial activities bordering 8th Avenue South, distant traffic, and air traffic using Boeing Field/King County Airport. The study presented the following conclusions: • Aircraft noise from Sea -Tac Airport traffic was the dominant noise source in the area, generating at least two- thirds of the total sound energy measured in a 24 -hour period. • Boeing Field air traffic contributed an insignificant amount to total noise energy, although this may change in other parts of the South Park neigh- borhood that lie along frequently used flight paths. • Noise levels from industrial areas fluctuated depending on type of activ- ity, distance, duration, and presence or absence of barriers, and con- tributed much less to the daily sound energy than Sea -Tac air traffic. In some areas, industrial sources created significant short-term noise levels at residentially zoned property and exceeded the limits of the King County Noise Ordinance. • Vehicle traffic along 8th Avenue South may have contributed as much as approximately 25 percent of total noise levels, depending on the time of day and the traffic volumes. • Distant traffic (i.e., traffic on roads other than 8th Avenue South) con- tributed less than 10 percent of the total noise level. Airport Noise Impact Study for Boeing Field King County Airport The Airport Noise Impact Assessment Study for Boeing Field King County Inter- national Airport (1983) analyzed aircraft noise levels; conducted noise measurements at residential, commercial, and industrial sites in the community to predict noise levels; evaluated present and future land use patterns to assess impacts; and provided three categories of recommendations to reduce noise impacts on sensitive land uses. Study Recommendations. The study's recommendations include an aviation program that would change the way aircraft use Boeing Field. Examples include using the full length of the runway for takeoffs, closing the short runway during certain hours, adjusting the time and location for run -ups, and making pilots aware of noise - sensitive uses. A land use management program outlines steps to be taken to establish more compatible land uses within areas subject to aircraft noise. These steps include Chapter 7: Environmental Health 7 -9 Noise -- Existing Conditions prohibiting new residential development in certain areas, amending building codes to require noise insulation for uses in certain areas, and instituting a voluntary program of fair disclosure of noise levels on property for sale within certain areas. A monitoring program is also recommended to establish procedures for monitoring the other two programs. The study suggests that, if the recommendations were implemented, the number of people subjected to aircraft noise at higher levels would be reduced from 5,500 in 1983 to 2,700 by 1988 and 2,000 by the year 2000. Projected Noise Levels. In the study, noise level measurements were made for aircraft noise, background noise (without aircraft noise), and combined aircraft and background noise. Measurements were made using the Ldn (Day -Night Noise Level) measure. Ldn is the average A- weighted sound level during a 24-hour period, with a 10 dB pen- alty applied to noise occurring at night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). At the time of the study (1982- 1983), aircraft noise levels in the vicinity of the study area were between 75 Ldn (in the immediate vicinity of the airport) and 65 Ldn (farther away from the airport). Background noise levels in the vicinity of the study area were in the range of 60 to 65 Ldn. Traffic, railway, and industrial activities were the primary contributors to the background noise levels. Figure 7 -2 shows the estimated community noise pattern (background noise plus air- craft noise) from the study for the year 2000. The noise contours are estimates and can only be used for comparison; they do not precisely define noise levels in a specific area. As described in the study, the estimated noise contours assume that total opera- tions at Boeing Field would increase, along with highway and rail activity, but that pop- ulation densities would remain relatively unchanged. The estimate also assumes no operational changes or facility modifications at Boeing Field that might change runway use or airport operation. The study concludes that quieter aircraft fleets are expected to provide the greatest contribution to a quieter community noise pattern in the year 2000. As shown, noise levels are in the range of 75 Ldn in the immediate vicinity of the air- port and 70 Ldn to the west, south, and east. Noise levels decrease further as the dis- tance from the airport increases. Noise levels in the South Park neighborhood were predicted to be approximately 65 Ldn, which exceeds the maximum permissible daytime noise level from an industrial noise source to a residential area (60 dBA). However, aircraft noise, the primary contributor to the noise levels, is exempt from the noise limitations. Run -up Noise. As part of the 1982 -1983 study, noise patterns associated with engine run -up activity at Boeing Field were evaluated to determine their contribution to the total aviation noise levels. Most of the run -ups are performed by The Boeing Company along the west ramp within the "blast fence" or noise control wall area. The Chapter 7: Environmental Health 7 -10 Noise - &fisting Conditions CEODGET • ,...."• ,:',...,/:.• ,, ; ,, ,- sw 1.,1 ,k, „, a r , CENTER .•,,, • '4' 'V< 7 3.! •il ',,,,, _ ,!•.• c; , oleri_crl'iS t. 7:0 , v. , - ■.*: .f; r, PARK `,;,',Y,•:::'.',w.,:_,-, ;',1,.;:: BE:YERLY ' \ ' ' ' ' 1,-, '`''. „ •• • , 1, ,. ,"( cri ,' /., PARK ), ,, ? ., w 4 S ■:::,(L •'-'i • — I 1 . • '::, 7 :-. ,:-. ,`; • •. I —4 C••) .. ! 1 i ;[•1:: . . zy LEGEND ,r, .;: SOUTHERN 4.1,0,; II 141. EIIITS , Lire-, 11,,4 Lii BOULEVARD --•,_::<;,,,44fr-T- - t ---- ,-, 1! ,2,,,,,,i cy 44 RK ..i, . a A P 8800 • RAINIER s‘ BEACH ' 9500 s • MEM Study Area Boundary — Ldn Noise Contour Scale in Feet 0 4,000 8,090 JUIN AND - • Source: Airport Noise Impact Assessment Study for Boeing Field King County International Airport _ (Coffman and Associates, October 1983) • f/'. .(?.? . 4 '(1.. ‘• j r • • Figure 7-2 PROJECTED COMMUNITY NOISE PATTERN FOR 7-11 •THE YEAR 2000 Boeing Company restricts run -ups at all but the lowest thrust levels to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., and prohibits them on Sundays and holidays. On the basis of future projections of the types of aircraft that would be used and the number of run -ups, the study developed Ldn contours for the estimated noise levels from run -up activity in 1988. Average noise levels associated with the run -up activities were projected to be between 65 and 55 dBA in the vicinity of the run -up area. The current number of aircraft run -ups has remained the same as that projected for 1988; consequently, current noise levels for run -up activities are expected to be the same as those projected for that year. The study indicated that the impact of new aircraft technology on run -up noise patterns would be of significant benefit. Even with increased numbers of aircraft, the average noise levels for 1988 were expected to be lower than the then _ current (1982) levels. The following measures were recommended to reduce noise impacts associated with run -up activities: • An area should be designated for all jet engine maintenance run -ups other than Boeing Company aircraft. • Engine maintenance run -ups on non - Boeing Company aircraft should be strictly prohibited between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The Boeing Company run -up restrictions (Monday through Saturday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) should be maintained. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Noise - sensitive uses nearest to the study area include residential development in the South Park neighborhood (west and northwest of the site) and the Highline communi- ties (west and south). Noise impacts from the Proposed Action can be generally grouped into three categories: construction, operations, and traffic. Proposed Action Construction Impacts. Construction activities would be required on a number of sites in the study area throughout the 10 -year redevelopment period. Demolition activities, however, would take place primarily at Plant 2, North Duwamish Campus, and North Boeing Field. Demolition would occur periodically during the redevelopment period, but would be concentrated in the early and middle phases. Approximately 2.4 million square feet of floor area would be demolished at Plant 2, approximately 948,000 square feet at North Duwamish Campus (approximately 500,000 square feet has already been demolished), and approximately 300,000 square feet throughout other parts of the project area. Chapter 7: Environmental Health 7 -12 Noise — Existing Conditions/Impacts As described above, the west ramp portion of the North Boeing Field area is used for aircraft run -up activities. Currently, there is space for 21 aircraft to be parked on the field, with the capability to perform five tests at any one time. The Proposed Action would increase the field's capacity to 24 aircraft parking stalls in 1992 and 28 in 1994. This would be expected to increase noise along East Marginal Way South. A 25 -foot noise mitigation wall is proposed to mitigate noise impacts. Traffic Impacts. It is not anticipated that additional traffic associated with the Pro- posed Action would result in increases in existing noise levels that would be noticeable to most people. A doubling in traffic volumes, for example, creates an approximately 3 dBA increase in noise levels. While this increase may be perceptible, it is not consid- ered a significant adverse impact. Additional traffic, especially trucks, along certain routes and during certain times of the day may create short-term noise level increases. Manufacturing Center Alternative Construction- related noise levels with the Manufacturing Center alternative would be similar to those for the Proposed Action. Demolition and new construction to replace outmoded facilities would occur. Operational noise impacts would be similar to those for the No Action alternative. Chapter 7: Environmental Health 7 -13 Noise -- Impacts No Action Alternative With the No Action alternative, existing conditions would remain. Noise impacts in the study area are not expected to change except as a result of proposed traffic improve- ments, implementation of noise abatement actions at Sea -Tac Airport, or other land use changes such as an increase or decrease in noise - producing industrial activities on properties not associated with Boeing activity. MITIGATION MEASURES Outdoor construction activities that generate noise would be limited to between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. or as required to meet the nighttime noise limitations specified in the regulations. New and upgraded facilities would be designed to meet the noise levels specified in the regulations. As part of the design process for individual sites, potential noise impacts would be considered in the selection of building materials for individual structures and the loca- tion of noise - generating activities. Noise buffers would be developed if . noise levels exceeded the specified noise limitations. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Demolition and construction activities associated with the redevelopment of the Duwa- mish Corridor would create short-term and temporary increases in noise levels in the vicinity. In addition, noise level increases are expected as a result of some of the addi- tional activities that would be occurring onsite, including increased aircraft engine run - ups. Noise levels in residential areas may exceed the maximum permissible limits. Existing background noise levels are high and include Sea -Tac flight traffic, King County Airport flight traffic, and other operations that are exempt from the noise limitations. 10020C3Eq.SEA Chapter 7: Environmental Health Noise—Mitigation Measures,/ 7 -14 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Chapter 8 STORMWATER AND WATER QUALITY This chapter describes the existing conditions, potential impacts, and mitigation meas- ures associated with stormwater for redevelopment activities included in the Proposed Action and alternatives. Surface water quality, as it relates to wildlife and aquatic resources, is also discussed. EXISTING CONDITIONS STORMWATER Figure 8 -1 shows the locations of the existing storm drain discharge points from the project area into the Duwamish Waterway. Metro and City of Seattle combined sewer overflow outfalls are also shown. Currently, storm drainage from the paved portions and rooftops of the study area discharges to the indicated points along the Duwamish Waterway. Oil/water separators have been installed on Boeing sites, but generally stormwater is otherwise untreated. Stormwater flows from the study area to the Duwamish Waterway either through a system of catch basins and storm drains, after collection in a trunk line, or directly overland to an outfall along the Waterway. The storm drainage system on Boeing sites is independent of the East Marginal Way South roadway drainage system, which was recommended for improvement in a recent basin study (City of Tukwila 1990:23). More than 95 percent of the study area is covered by impervious surfaces; conse- quently, most of the precipitation that falls on the site is eventually discharged directly to the Duwamish Waterway rather than being allowed to filter to the ground. Precipi- tation falling on building rooftops is also conveyed to outfalls along the waterway. WATER QUALITY AND WILDLIFE HABITAT Water Quality The project area is adjacent to the Duwamish estuary. The Duwamish River is part of a 250- square -mile watershed in King County. The area includes all or portions of seven cities and the lands of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. The original drainage basin was approximately 1,642 square miles with a discharge of between 2,500 and 9,000 cfs (cubic feet per second). Between the 1800s and the 1950s, the Duwamish River floodplain was almost totally filled, tributary rivers were diverted, and the Duwamish was dredged and diked for industrial activity. The total drainage area was reduced to 483 square miles, and annual average flows have decreased to 1,530 cfs (Tanner,1991:9). With the dredging and industrialization came the loss of the estuary's 8 -1 Chapter 8: Stormwater and Water Quality Existing Conditions LEGEND • Points where Boeing storm sewers flow into Duwamish Waterway Q Metro CSO p City of Seattle stormwater outfall O City of Seattle CSO • Metro CSO with Seattle CSO and/or storm Source: The Boeing Company Tanner, C. D., 1991 Figure 8 -1 EXISTING STORM SEWERS — variety of extensive wetlands and nearshore habitats. Ninety -eight percent of the original wetland and riparian habitats in the basin are no longer evident. Over the course of this industrialization, the discharge of oils and other toxicants from industrial uses and from landfills (for domestic garbage) produced serious water quality problems in the Duwamish. Increased regulation of industrial discharges through NPDES (or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) and closure of landfills have considerably reduced these impacts. However, the results of past practices con- tinue to affect water quality. Portions of the Duwamish shoreline are not protected adequately from erosion, which has caused the loss of shoreline material to the water- way as well as some structural failures (piers and discharge outlets). Sedimentation from this erosion also has negative effects on water quality. Additionally, other non - point pollution sources (such as chemical and bacterial pollution) continue to produce temperature increases and low dissolved oxygen levels (also attributed to salt water intrusion). These occurrences also negatively affect water quality, which in turn affects plants and wildlife in the estuary. Despite these problems, the Duwamish River is given a Class B rating by the Washing- ton State Department of Ecology (Ecology), which is interpreted as "good" water qual- ity. The Duwamish River and Waterway are included in the "Water - Quality Limited Waterbodies" list in Ecology's 1990 Statewide Water Quality Assessment (303[B]) Report. According to Metro annual reports, past and current industrial discharges and non -point (stormwater) discharges are the primary reasons for impaired water quality. Water in the estuary frequently exceeds the standards for coliform bacteria, tempera- ture, and some metals. Standards are exceeded more frequently near the mouth of the estuary, downstream of the study area, than in the immediate study area. Current nonpoint discharges from the study area to the Duwamish Waterway consist of un- treated stormwater and, on occasion, untreated sewage from combined sewer over- flows, which would account for the bacterial pollution. Stormwater quality has not been determined, but is expected to be typical of discharges from paved streets and parking areas surrounding urban industrial sites in the Puget Sound region. Such discharges are likely to contain oil, grease, and toxic metals in varying amounts, some- times exceeding water quality standards. Wildlife Habitat Although use of the Duwamish River estuary as a commercial and industrial waterway has seriously affected its water quality and habitat functions, the estuary continues to serve as feeding, rearing, spawning, nesting and transportation areas for a variety of plant, animal and fish species. Of the nine mammal species identified in the Tanner report (Tanner 1991: 11), the muskrat, Norway rat, raccoon, river otter, and Townsend vole are most likely to be observed among the widely dispersed small patches of 8 -3 Chapter 8: Stormwater and Water Quality Existing Conditions intertidal habitat and occasional brushy areas along the shorelines of the study area. Ducks, gulls, and songbirds are common to the area. Hawks, herons, and eagles have also been observed. Of particular concern is the degradation of water quality and habitat for fish. Since estuaries are important habitats for certain salmonid species, the decline of these species may be related to deteriorating water quality and the elimination of estuarine habitat. The Duwamish estuary serves as a migratory route for all anadromous fish entering the Green River system. Spawning occurs in the Green River and its tribu- taries. The Duwamish also serves as a transitional area between salt and fresh water and in particular as rearing area for chinook and chum salmon. Chinook and chum often spend from one to two months in the estuary. Trout species, such as steelhead and cutthroat, although they are not as common in the estuary, can spend one or two years in the lower waters before migrating out to sea. Existing Studies In response to water quality and habitat concerns, two studies have recently been pub- lished. "Potential Intertidal Habitat Restoration Sites in the Duwamish River Estuary" was written by Curtis D. Tanner for the Port of Seattle (Engineering Department) and the U.S. EPA (Environmental Evaluations Branch). Additionally, King County (De- partment of Parks, Planning and Resources) and Metro (Water Resources Section) developed the Green - Duwamish Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan for the Department of Ecology. The effort was funded by the Centennial Clean Water Fund (Cigarette Tax) to implement one of the elements of the Puget Sound . Water Quality Manage- ment Plan. The objective of the Tanner report was to determine the restoration opportunities available in the Duwamish River estuary on a comprehensive basis. Twenty -four po- tential habitat restoration sites were identified in the report. While several of these sites are adjacent to Boeing -owned or leased properties, the only Boeing- controlled site identified in the report for potential restoration is Slip No. 6 at the Developmental Center. The Green - Duwamish Action Plan identified existing and potential water quality prob- lems in the watershed stemming from nonpoint sources, emphasizing the most signifi- cant and highest - priority concerns; identified source control strategies for prevention and correction of these priority nonpoint pollution sources; and developed a long -term implementation program, identifying specific actions and responsible parties. The source control strategies were developed for seven categories of priority nonpoint pollution sources: agriculture; failing septic systems; rapid urbanization; urban storm - water; forest practices and land clearing in urban areas; boats, marinas, and launch access points; and other nonpoint pollution - related problems. Other strategies related to education and administration of programs are also incorporated into the plan. The Chapter 8: Stormwater and Water Quality 8 -4 Existing Conditions majority of the strategies are program- oriented, addressing the larger regional issues and interagency coordination. Others are specific to geographic areas in the watershed. None of the geographic areas targeted for control strategies in the Green - Duwamish Action Plan are located on Boeing properties. The recommendations specific to the Duwamish subbasin are limited to nonpoint pollution control of Longfellow Creek in West Seattle. The Boeing Company's proposed redevelopment of its properties in the Duwamish corridor could, however, be affected in the future through policy, program, and regulatory measures taken by the various participants in the Action Plan. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS Demolition and construction activities could release suspended solids into stormwater if work on sites were to occur during periods of rainfall. Demolition and construction activities would be regulated, and individual site activities would require permits and approvals. Since construction on some sites in the project area would involve clearing and grading areas larger than 5 acres, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit application would be required prior to construction of individual sites. This program is administered in Washington State by Ecology for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The purpose of the permit is to control pollutants, pri- marily sediment, in stormwater discharge during and after construction activities. OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Stormwater Pro po sed Action and Manufacturing Center Alternative. New buildings in the project area would be developed in a campus -style design that would include landscaped building and parking areas (see Section 2, Design Guidelines and Standards, of the Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal.) Grasscrete will be used as an alternative to more impervious paving materials where possible. The Proposed Action would have more landscape features than the Manufacturing Center alternative, but both alternatives would decrease the percentage of impervious surface from existing conditions. Increased landscaping would occur primarily at Plant 2, North Duwamish Campus, and portions of the Developmental Center, as well as along shorelines where redevelopment occurs. The decrease in impervious surfaces would allow a greater quantity of precipitation to be absorbed by vegetation and to reach the groundwater system. As a result, the quantity of stormwater discharged directly to the Duwamish Waterway would decrease. Chapter 8: Stormwater and Water Quality Impacts of Proposed Action 8-5 and Alternatives New development would incorporate regulations established by the appropriate juris- dictions. The Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal (page 13) suggests the use of grassy (biofiltration) swales for stormwater detention to improve the quality of discharge water. Mechanical filtration systems will be used where biofiltration is not practical. Where redevelopment occurs, abandoned storm and sanitary sewer lines will be removed or, if removal is not possible, lines will be cleaned and grouted to prevent subsurface contamination from spills and leaks. As part of redevelopment activities, stormwater collection outfalls may be consolidated. As specific projects are proposed, other operational impacts, upgrading of existing oil /water separators, and construction of alternative collection and disposal systems will be addressed through appropriate permit approvals. No Action Alternative. With the No Action alternative, there would be minimal changes to the existing stormwater collection system. Water Quality and Wildlife Habitat Proposed Action and Manufacturing Center Alternative. Specific redevelopment proj- ects could eliminate process water discharges, require modifications to existing NPDES permits, or result in the need for new permits. Similarly, the current volume or charac- teristics of discharges to the sanitary sewer under Metro's Industrial Pretreatment program could also be affected. These issues will be addressed on a project- specific basis for permit approval. The Proposed Action could affect surface water quality through runoff of pollutants from increased numbers of vehicles and through the increased potential for release of hazardous materials or dangerous wastes. As described in Chapter 7, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous substances is regulated to prevent and, if neces- sary, respond to onsite releases of these substances. As a result, stormwater drainage from the study area would primarily be affected by pollutants from vehicular traffic. As individual sites are graded, new stormwater collection measures would be installed. Stormwater from redeveloped paved areas, such as parking lots and roads, would be collected and conveyed to biofiltration swales and then discharged to the Duwamish Waterway. Providing biofiltration of stormwater prior to discharge would improve the quality of the stormwater reaching the waterway. Stormwater from the roofs of new structures would likely be conveyed into the same surface water biofiltration system. Pollutants in runoff from roads and parking lots in the project area are likely to be similar to pollutants generated in other light industrial and commercial areas. Typical pollutants in runoff from parking lots and roads include hydrocarbons (from fuels and lubricants) and metals (from wear of metal parts, brakes, and tires and from coolant and lubricant leakage). 8 -6 Chapter 8: Stormwater and Water Quality Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives Studies indicate that these pollutants, as well as oil and grease, are effectively removed by biofiltration swales (Farris et al. and WSDOT). This indicates that the use of biofil- tration swales could minimize impacts to water quality in the Duwamish Waterway. It is not anticipated that use of the estuary by fish and wildlife would be affected by the Proposed Action. The timing of construction activities for individual projects would be regulated by individual permits so that impacts to migrating fish would be minimal. Implementation of the stormwater measures described 'above would provide for treat- ment of stormwater and removal of many pollutants that are currently discharged into the estuary. These activities should improve the quality of water in the Duwamish Waterway, decreasing the potential impacts on wildlife and habitat. In addition, The Boeing Company is proposing streambank enhancements in coordination with the appropriate agencies. This will include landscaping with native plants near the shore- line, which could also improve the fish and wildlife habitat in the study area. No Action Alternative. The No Action alternative would maintain existing conditions in the project area. Minimal improvements to existing water quality or wildlife habitat are anticipated. MITIGATION MEASURES Redevelopment activity in the Duwamish corridor could provide an opportunity to restore habitats lost during past development. The Boeing Company proposes to enhance habitat functions by working with the Washington State Departments of Fish- eries and Wildlife and others in identifying restoration opportunities on Boeing - controlled properties. This could include replacing riprap bulkheads with new retention structures and riparian vegetation. While the Proposed Action and build alternatives will benefit water quality, as well as fish and wildlife habitat in the Duwamish corridor, Boeing's redevelopment of the area provides an opportunity to examine stormwater drainage issues in a comprehensive manner. It would be sound planning practice for The Boeing Company to develop a drainage master plan for its properties along the Duwamish corridor and to coordinate the development of that plan with proposed roadway and utility improvements for East Marginal Way South. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS No unavoidable adverse impacts have been identified. 100216D1.SEAq Chapter 8: Stormwater and Water Quality Mitigation Measures/ 8 -7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Chapter 9 ENERGY EXISTING CONDITIONS The principal energy resources associated with operations in the Boeing Duwamish corridor are electricity and natural gas. These resources are consumed for manufactur- ing, use of equipment and appliances, lighting, heating, and cooling. The Boeing Com- pany participates in several retrofit and energy conservation programs to reduce consumption, including the "Green Lights" program sponsored by the U.S. EPA. ELECTRICAL ENERGY In the study area, electrical energy is supplied by Seattle City Light (SCL). SCL pro- vides power to its service area through city -owned generating facilities and through power supply contracts with the Bonneville Power Administration and utilities located in the mid - Columbia Basin. Industrial customers in SCL's service area consume ap- proximately 1,500,000 MWh annually, a little less than 20 percent of SCL's total load. Collectively, with about 50 commercial and industrial accounts under Boeing's name, energy consumption by The Boeing Company represents just over 30 percent of SCL's industrial consumption. Collectively, Boeing is SCL's largest consumer, with a demand of 116,654 kW (kilowatts) of electrical energy (1990). Electrical energy is supplied to Boeing properties in the study area at 26 kV (kilovolts) from principal substations at nearly all the sites. The power is generally stepped down to 13.8 kV for internal distri- bution and 480 V at end -use level. Estimated annual electric energy use by Boeing properties in the Duwamish corridor is 473,000 MWh and is summarized by categories of use in Table 9 -1. It is estimated that 30 percent of the electrical energy consumed by Boeing properties in the corridor is used for heating, ventilating and cooling; 40 percent is used for lighting; 20 percent is used for manufacturing; and 10 percent is used to supply power to the company's computer network. Table 9 -1 Summary of Annual Electrical Energy Use Uses Existing Conditions (MWh) Manufacturing 254,900 Office 146,100 Lab /Office 72,000 TOTAL 473,000 Peak Demand in MW 103.3 9 -1 Chapter 4: Energy Existing Conditions NATURAL GAS ENERGY The Boeing Company purchases natural gas from producers in Canada and in the southwestern and Rocky Mountain states. The company arranges transportation of the natural gas through Northwest Pipeline Company (NPC) facilities, which serve Wash- ington Natural Gas (WNG). The Boeing Company then contracts with WNG to de- liver the natural gas to Boeing properties in the corridor. Natural gas is supplied to Boeing facilities by 4- to 8 -inch lines from main pipelines under East Marginal Way South. The majority of natural gas is used to fuel boilers that supply steam for heating and ventilating systems as well as for processing of manufactured goods. The three largest Boeing facilities together use over 1,000,000 MMBtu (million British thermal units) of natural gas per year. They are as follows: the Developmental Center, including facili- ties at the Oxbow parcel -400,000 MMBtu /year; Plant 2- 525,000 MMBtu /year; and North Boeing Field- 160,000 MMBtu /year. Other properties in the corridor each con- sume well under 100,000 MMBtu /year. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS Construction activities for the proposed action and the manufacturing center alterna- tive would require the use of electricity and petroleum products. Petroleum products would be used for construction vehicles and equipment. However, there is no recog- nized method available for estimating construction- related energy consumption. OPERATIONAL IMPACTS The Boeing Company is developing a region -wide energy management plan, which will be implemented in 1992. The goal of the plan for the Duwamish Corridor will be to retain electric energy consumption from the public power supply at or below the pres- ent level by the year 2002. Peak demand is also expected to remain constant or be reduced. An added benefit is that there will be a more constant load on the system, rather than the shifting demand that now occurs. Conservation, load growth manage- ment, and cogeneration strategies will be developed to attain this goal. Overall non- electric energy consumption, such as natural gas, may increase as the company moves toward cogenerated power. The Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal (page 9) discusses some of these strategies in more detail. With any of the build alternatives, electric energy consumption and peak demand within the 10 -year redevelopment period may temporarily increase over existing condi- tions. Analysis will be conducted as needed during project- specific environmental 9 -2 Chapter 4: Energy Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives review. While no major energy- consumptive facility is proposed at this time, project - specific environmental review would also be conducted if one were proposed. The Boeing Company and Seattle City Light are developing a memorandum of agree- ment that will enable them to jointly address and coordinate electric energy use in the corridor during the redevelopment period. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Construction - related energy impacts may occur. Non - electric energy consumption may increase. 10020C42q.sEA Chapter 4: Energy 9 -3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Chapter 10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES EXISTING CONDITIONS Public services and utilities are provided by a number of jurisdictions in the Duwamish corridor. Because the corridor is an established industrial area, the existing infrastruc- ture has been in place and been maintained for many years. Solid waste, water, sani- tary, and storm sewer services are discussed below in the Utilities section. Electric and natural gas services are discussed in Chapter 9, Energy. Police, fire protection, and emergency services are discussed below in the Public Services section. UTILITIES Solid Waste Disposal Commercial solid waste collection and transfer services for Boeing properties in the Duwamish corridor are provided by The Boeing Company's Licensed Transportation Division. Mixed municipal waste is transported nearby to the Eastmont Transfer Sta- tion. Eastmont is operated by Waste Management, Inc., and is located at 7201 West Marginal Way Southwest. Waste from this privately operated facility is disposed of at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill, located east of Renton. Cedar Hills is operated as a regional facility by the Solid Waste Division of King County's Department of Public Works. The 1989 King County Solid Waste Management Plan evaluated three alternatives for future solid waste disposal. The Cedar Hills Landfill would continue to operate under all three alternatives. The expected life of Cedar Hills under the three alternatives ranges from 2008 to 2036. The Cedar Hills Landfill will have the capacity to accept commercial solid waste from the region throughout the 10 -year period during which the Boeing Company proposes to redevelop properties in the Duwamish Corridor. Land clearing and demolition waste (LC/DW) has historically been a private- sector responsibility also because the waste is generated, collected, and transported primarily by private industry. The Newcastle Demolition Waste Landfill, located north of Ren- ton, is operated by Rabanco's Coal Creek Development Company. This landfill is the primary facility in the region permitted to accept demolition wastes. Newcastle is anticipated to close by 1993. Mount Olivet Landfill, located in Renton, also accepts demolition wastes. This landfill is operated by McKenna Construction Company for its owners, American Memorial Services. Mt. Olivet also has a very limited capacity. 10-1 Chapter 10: Public Services and Util ties Existing Conditions Because these nearby regional facilities for LC/DW disposal are nearing capacity, the Boeing Company's current plan requires that all LC/DW material be long - hauled to facilities outside the Puget Sound area. Boeing's "Disposal of Construction, Demolition and Land Clearing (CDL) Waste Plan" (October 1991) specifies that all CDL waste be disposed of at the Roosevelt Regional Landfill or the Columbia Ridge Landfill. Both of these landfills are located near the Columbia River. The Roosevelt Regional Land- fill is located in southeastern Klickitat County in Washington State. Columbia Ridge is located near the town of Arlington in Gilliam County, Oregon. Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal (pages 10 and 11) discusses procedures for handling nonhazardous CDL waste material in more detail. Special waste collection and transfer services, such as for hazardous materials, are pro- vided by The Boeing Company's Corporate Safety, Health and Environmental Affairs (SHEA) Hazardous Waste Division. SHEA provides training to employees on the handling of hazardous materials and administers the HazMat Response Team program. After special wastes are collected from Boeing sites, they are transported by Boeing to a privately operated transfer facility operated by Burlington Environmental, Inc. (for- merly Chempro). Here the special waste is separated and transported to approved disposal sites. Storm and Sanitary Sewer Service Stormwater runoff in the study area is managed and regulated by the study area's respective jurisdictions: for areas in King County, the Surface Water Management Division (SWM) of King County's Department of Public Works; for areas in the City of Seattle, the Drainage and Wastewater Utility (DWU); and for areas within the Tukwila city limits, the Tukwila Public Works Department. Stormwater runoff at Boeing prop- erties along the corridor is collected in onsite drains and pipelines, from which it is eventually discharged through outfalls into the Duwamish Waterway. The East Mar- ginal Way Corporate Park is also served by an open ditch, and the South Park site has some overland flow that reaches the waterway. (More detail on stormwater is pro- vided in Chapter 8, Stormwater and Water Quality; Figure 8 -1 shows the location of outfalls.) There are two sewer jurisdictions within the study area: the City of Seattle DWU and the Val Vue Sewer District. Their boundaries within the study area are shown on Figure 8 -1. The Oxbow site and the East Marginal Way Corporate Park are served by the Val Vue Sewer District; the remaining Boeing sites are served by the City of Seattle DWU. Effluent from these sanitary sewer lines is collected by the individual jurisdictions, then transferred to Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) trunk - lines and routed to existing treatment plants, from which it is discharged into Puget Sound. Existing sanitary sewer capacity within the project area appears adequate. Chapter 10: Public Services and Utilities 10 -2 Existing Conditions Water Service All domestic and fire protection water for Boeing properties in the Duwamish corridor is provided by the Seattle Water Department (SWD). The Boeing Company is SWD's largest single customer, consuming approximately 143 million gallons per year. Water is used for heating, cooling, and processing as well as for standard commercial uses. The majority of Boeing properties in the corridor have only recently been annexed into the City of Tukwila from King County. Because of agreements with King County, the City of Seattle has historically provided utility services in this area. The City of Tukwila Public Works Department is currently in the process of developing its Com- prehensive Water Supply Plan, which includes an examination of service within the Duwamish corridor. Tukwila will soon be requesting that the area of the corridor within the Tukwila city limits be transferred to its own water service area. Most Boeing sites in the study area are supplied by connections to the 20 -inch SWD water main located under the East Marginal Way South right -of -way. The North Boeing Field site is also served by SWD water mains under Ellis Avenue South, the Oxbow site by a main at West Marginal Way South, and the South Park site by mains at South Trenton and Henderson Streets and at Eighth Avenue South. The Developmental Center and the Thompson- Isaacson site are provided with fire protection water from large aboveground storage tanks. The other Boeing sites in the study area are served by separate fire protection water systems that are split onsite from the connecting water supply pipelines and loop around the perimeter of each parcel. Water capacity appears to be adequate at all Boeing sites. The existing fire protection water system is being examined as part of Tukwila's comprehensive water supply plan- ning process. PUBLIC SERVICES Fire Protection and Emergency Services Three fire departments serve the Duwamish corridor study area, providing fire trucks, aid cars, medic units, and hazardous material (HazMat) response units. The Tukwila Fire Department (TFD) handles the majority of Boeing - related calls for service. Service for the corridor is provided from three fire stations: Station 52 at 5900 South 147th, Station 53 at 12026 42nd South, and another station at 4237 South 144th. Station 53 responds to the majority of calls. Emergency 911 calls are received by the Tukwila Police Department, where appropriate response teams are notified. 10 -3 Chapter 10: Public Services and Utilities Existing Conditions Response times vary from 3 to 7 minutes, depending on the nature and location of the emergency and the time of day. The TFD will respond to calls within the Seattle city limits upon request. The Boeing Company also maintains a fully equipped and professionally trained fire department (BFD), including a HazMat team. The fire station is located at North Boeing Field. In addition to providing emergency response services in the corridor, the BFD is also responsible for prevention, permits, and inspections. The Seattle Fire Department provides service from its Myrtle Street Station to the north end of the study area and, through mutual aid agreements, to other parts of the corridor. Law Enforcement Properties in the Duwamish corridor are served by three law enforcement agencies: the Tukwila Police Department (TPD), the Seattle Police Department, and Boeing Security. Most disturbances in the corridor are handled by Boeing Security. However, the TPD responds to 911 calls or if Boeing so requests. The TPD also responds if an arrest is to be made or if an arrest report or investigation is required. Response times depend on the location of the disturbance, the time of day, and the priority of the disturbance. A typical high - priority call has a response time of 3 to 4 minutes. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES UTILITIES Solid Waste Disposal The disposal of mixed municipal, commercial, manufacturing and special waste as a result of the Proposed Action and the Manufacturing Center alternative is not ex- pected to adversely impact nearby regional landfill facilities. The Boeing Company has several programs related to waste reduction administered by the Boeing Support Serv- ices Material Division. These programs include recycling of paper and aluminum; reclamation of metals used in manufacturing; and rescue and salvage of furniture, equipment, and construction materials (such as offering these materials for sale at the Boeing Surplus Store). The production of demolition waste, however, could have considerable impact on nearby regional landfill facilities. The Newcastle Demolition Waste Landfill, which is near capacity, is the primary facility in the region that is permitted to accept demolition waste. 10 -4 Chapter 10: Public Services and Utilities Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives Demolition of existing structures would occur with the Proposed Action and the Manu- facturing Center alternative. Demolition debris would consist of soil, wood, concrete, asphalt, steel, glass, and pipe.. Because of Newcastle's limited capacity to accept demo- lition waste, The Boeing Company has established priorities for the handling of non- hazardous waste materials. These priorities, listed on page 10 of the Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal, are intended to minimize the demolition waste by reusing materials onsite and by segregating and recycling demolition material. Reuse of material would reduce the amount of material deposited in solid waste facili- ties. An example would be the reuse of concrete demolition material as fill material for redevelopment construction where applicable. Recycling material that cannot be reused would also reduce the amount of waste that would otherwise be deposited in landfills. Many of the large, old manufacturing buildings in the Duwamish corridor are constructed from metal structural components that are readily recycled. Metal siding, wires, and pipes can all be recycled. Materials that cannot be reused or recycled would be disposed of at either the Roose- velt Regional or Columbia Ridge Landfills. Only clean soils would be taken to the Newcastle Landfill. The Boeing Company's proposal significantly reduces the impact on nearby regional landfill facilities. Storm and Sanitary Sewer Service Stormwater facilities are proposed to be provided onsite and not in the public right-of- way. However, as discussed in Chapter 8, The Boeing Company could take this oppor- tunity to coordinate development of a stormwater drainage master plan with the jurisdictions' plans for utility improvements along East Marginal Way South. Sanitary sewer pipeline capacity also appears adequate. Pump station improvements may be required during project - specific review. Water Service While hydraulic analysis is in process as part of the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Water Supply Plan, preliminary review indicates that there is adequate supply to serve an additional 5,000 to 15,000 Boeing employees in the corridor with varying intensities of office, laboratory, and manufacturing uses. PUBLIC SERVICES Impacts as a result of the Proposed Action and alternatives are expected to be mini- mal. It is anticipated that adequate response capability could be maintained with existing and planned facilities, equipment, and staff. Construction- related impacts would be addressed on a project - specific basis. 10-5 Chapter 10: Public Services and Utilities Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives Fire Protection and Emergency Services The increase in the number of employees would likely result in an increase in aid calls; however, fire calls would likely decrease as a result of restoration and replacement of old facilities. The Tukwila Fire Department has proposed to relocate Station 53 to a more central location to serve the Duwamish corridor and has also proposed to in- crease fire department staff. However, these changes are not related to proposed redevelopment of the Duwamish corridor by The Boeing Company. Construction - related impacts are likely to occur but would be addressed on a project- specific basis. Law Enforcement The increase in the number of employees would most likely result in an increase in the demand for police services. However, because The Boeing Company provides its own security, the proposed increases in the number of Boeing employees are not expected to necessitate additional police personnel in the study area. MITIGATION MEASURES Other than the measures proposed for reducing the impacts on nearby landfill facilities, no mitigation measures are required. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are expected. 100216D3.SEAq Chapter 10: Public Services and Utilities Mitigation Measures/ 10 -6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • Appendix A REFERENCES LAND USE King County Airport. Master Development Plan for Boeing Field /King County International Airport, Seattle, Washington. Technical Report. August 1986. Motion 7029 adopted December 7, 1987. King County. Sensitive Areas Map Folio. December 1990. . Sensitive Areas Ordinance. August 29, 1990. King County and Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Metro, in cooperation with Washington State Department of Ecology. Green - Duwamish Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan. Revised Concurrence Draft, June 1989; Final Plan, June 1991. King County Department of Community Development, Planning Division. Draft High - line Communities Plan. November 1976. . Highline Community Plan Area Zoning. November 1981. . King County Comprehensive Plan. 1985. . King County Shoreline Management Master Program, Title 25. 1981. King County Department of Parks, Planning, and Resources, Natural Resources and Parks Division. Draft Regional Trails Plan, King County Open Space Program. October 1990. . Green River Trail Master Plan. January 1988. Port of Seattle. Comprehensive Public Access Plan for the Duwamish Waterway. September 1985. Seattle, City of. Department of Community Development, Housing and Neighborhood Development Division. South Park Neighborhood Plan and Draft Supplemental Environ- mental Impact Statement. March 1984. Seattle, City of. Engineering Department. Seattle Urban Trails Program -- Program Description. 1989 -90. . Seattle Urban Trails System Map. 1991. A -1 Seattle, City of. Office of Long -Range P1 posed Open Space Policies). 1991. Seattle, City of. Office of Policy Planning. 1979. anning. Urban Trails Policy (Final Draft Pro- Empire/Rainier Development Project. August Southeast Effective Development. Rainier /Genessee Redevelopment Study and Business District Plan. 1986. Tanner, C. D. Potential Intertidal Habitat Restoration Sties in the Duwamish River Estuary. EPA 910/9 -91 -050. Final report prepared for the U.S. EPA and the Port of Seattle, Washington. Tukwila, City of. Department of Community Development, Planning Division. City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. March 1982. . City of Tukwila Zoning Code. June 1989. TRANSPORTATION Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro). Encouraging Public Transportation through Effective Land Use Actions. May 1987. Puget Sound Council of Governments, Seattle Engineering Department, and Metro. Table entitled "Estimated Effect of TDM Requirements on Employers." (n.d.) Snohomish County Transportation Authority and the Urban Transportation Administra- tion. A Guide to Land Use and Public Transportation. December 1989. Tukwila, City of. Draft Roadway Capacity and Deficiency Study. Prepared by CH2M HILL, Inc. April 1990. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Coffman Associates. Airport Noise Assessment Study for Boeing Field King County International Airport. October 1983. King County Solid Waste Division. Proposed Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Volumes 1 and 2. July 1989. Scientists /Citizens Organized on Policy Issues. Environmental Noise Study for the South Park Area of 8th Avenue South. Prepared by Michael R. Yauhs Associates. September 1992. A -2 STORMWATER Farris, G., R. Swartz, and N. Wells. Environmental Management for the Metropolitan Area IL Urban Drainage: Stormwater Monitoring Program. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro). 1974. King County and Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro), in cooperation with Washington State Department of Ecology. Green - Duwamish Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan. Revised Concurrence Draft, June 1989; Final Plan, June 1991. Tanner, C. D. Potential Intertidal Habitat Restoration Sties in the Duwamish River Estuary. EPA 910/9 -91 -050. Final report prepared for the U.S. EPA and the Port of Seattle, Washington. Tukwila, City of. Fire District No. 1 Basin Study. Prepared by Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. April 1990. Washington State Department of Ecology. Stonnwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. Public review draft, June 1991. Washington State Department of Transportation. Highway Water Quality Manual (Publication M22 -15). 1988. 10020C47.SEA A -3 C' s. Appendix B Proposed Transportation Management Plan for Boeing North Duwamish Campus GLB1: 062:062290 MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE By /E5 Its Z) EP. Di . 7F /s i 1- B -1 ATTACHMENT A MASTER TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.0 Purpose and Authority At major work sites Boeing employees represent a significant proportion of the local work force and have a corresponding influence on the local transportation network. The Master Transportation Management Plan offers a cooperative, voluntary and mutual statement of principals for use in guiding future transportation planning efforts designed to minimize the influence of Boeing employees on the Puget Sound regional transportation network. That network includes all forms of surface, roadway transportation. 2.0 Problem Statement A. Transportation networks serving Boeing sites within the region typically are at or approaching capacity. B. Pressure on the regional transportation network caused by regional growth make action imperative. 3.0 Objectives The Objectives of the proposed Master Transportation Management Plan are to: 1) Improve the ingress and egress of Boeing employees at their workplaces in a timely manner 2) Demonstrate a commitment by The Boeing Company to address regional transportation, issues in cooperation with local, regional and state jurisdictions. 3) Either reduce or achieve zero growth in vehicle trips generated from Boeing sites during the Peak P.M. Traffic period (3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.). 4) Decrease Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) use at The Boeing Company work sites. 4.0 Strategies Strategies used in achieving the stated objectives may differ for various Boeing sites. Guidelines for the applicability of specific strategies may be found in Table A.1 (Attached) which identifies appropriate strategies for Urban, Suburban, and Scattered sites. B -2 06/22/90 4.1 Specific strategies to e u b ed in achieving Objective 1: • Parking Management ▪ Best Engineering and Site Design Practices • Monitoring • Modal separation 4.2 ,$pecific strategies to be used in achieving Objective 2: • Transportation Coordinators ' Preferred car pool and van pool parking • Continued involvement in regional transportation issues ' Adoption of site specific Transportation Management Plans • Establish focal point for generating regional and inter -local agreements on transportation issues. 4.3 Specific strategies to be used in achieving 'ec 've : ` Bicycle facilities ▪ Work scheduling and facilities locations ' Mode split goals ▪ Exploration of new technologies ▪ Cooperative agreements with local and state transportation agencies • Evaluations 4.4 ,Specific Strategies to be used in achieving Objective 4: ` Promotional Campaigns ▪ Commuter information centers ▪ Improved facilities to support transit rideshare and carpool services ▪ Fixed route transit service ▪ Ridematch service • Vanpools ▪ Customized Bus Service ' Incentive Program 06/22/90 B -3 5.0 Implementation 5.1 Site Specific TMP'5 ' Major Boeing sites within the Puget Sound Region will undertake developpment of a site specific Transportation Management Plan (TMP). These Tlv1Ps will include: 06/22/90 - mode split objective - promotion plan - specific strategies • Major Boeing sites within the Puget Sound Region will appoint an on -site Transportation Coordinator, to implement the TMP's. • Site TMP's will be closely coordinated with the local transit authorities and municipal agencies for consistency with the local transportation goals and objectives. ▪ Site TMP's will develop a comprehensive monitoring and reporting schedule for measuring the effectiveness of the initiatives in accomplishing the objectives. ▪ Site TMP's will be attached to this plan as addenda. 5.2 Measurements Monitoring schedules for all sites will report measurements which provide an aggregate level of performance in attaining the goals and objectives of this plan. Specific measurements include., but are not limited to: Baseline vehicle count during P.M. peak (3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.) Site Population (and rate of change) • Site Acreage (and rate of change) On Site Parking Stalls (and rate of change) On Site preferential parking stalls Site HOV use (and rate of change) 53 iodic review with affected agencies Quarterly meetings will be held with local and regional jurisdictions and authorities affected by this Master Transportation Management Plan. The purpose of these meetings is for regular updates on rogress, problems and program activities which have regional impact and significance. All parties to this plan will meet annually to review the goals, objectives and strategies of this plan and target further specific regional goals. 5.4 periodic reports on regional progress The findings, conclusions and opinions of the parties to this plan will be summarized annually and reported to all affected agencies. B-4 Table A.1 Service Emphasis Type of Site Primary Secondary Urban • Fixed route transit • Ridesharing • Specialized Service Suburban • Ridesharing • Custom Bus • Specialized Service • Fixed Route Service Scattered • Ridesharing • Fixed Route Transit • Custom Bus • Specialized Service Support Programs Promotion Annual focused campaign Bus zone near building entrances Preferential Parking HOV support facilities Shift scheduling to support HOV use Cost share passes Company -wide passes Restrict parking supply Carpool mcentives 06/22/90 B -5 PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN (TMP) Boeing North Duwamish Campus (NDC) Goal Boeing has entered into an agreement with Metro to jointly pursue methods to reduce single occupant vehicles (SOV) generated by Company facilities. This master TMP outlines objectives and strategies to achieve this goal as outlined in Attachment A. Objective The objective of the NDC TMP is to reduce volume exiting from the NDC site during the p.m. peak traffic period (3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.) by 5 percent. The existing (1990) volume is 1,310. The objective of the TMP is to reduce that volume to not more than 1,235. Program Actions and Incentives The following specific strategies and incentives are proposed as part of the TMP. These elements are consistent with Directors Rule 24 -88. 1. The owner /tenant shall provide subsidies in the amount of $15 to employees purchasing a monthly bus pass or partic- ipating in a registered public transit agency vanpool. 2. The owner /tenant shall provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. 3. A minimum of 10 percent of the long -term parking spaces shall be designated for carpools. 4. Space for secure and convenient parking for 20 bicycles including locking bicycle racks shall be provided on site. 5. The TMP shall include the following general actions as outlined in DR 24 -88. a. Building Transportation Coordinator b. Periodic Promotional Events c. Commuter Information Center d. Tenant Participation e. Ride Match Opportunities f. Employee Survey g. Reporting h. Program Evaluation ee /cc003 /NDCTMP Regional High - Capaci Appendix C Transit Planning Appendix C REGIONAL HIGH - CAPACITY TRANSIT PLANNING This appendix summarizes the high - capacity transit system alternatives presented in Metro's Regional Transit Project. The three alternatives are a transit/HOV system, a regional transit system, and a regional rail system. Figures C -1, C -2, and C -3 depict the three alternatives. PROPOSED TRANSIT/HOV SYSTEM The Transit/HOV system alternative will propose a regional HOV system. In the vicin- ity of the Boeing Duwamish site, HOV lanes would be constructed on SR 167, I -5, SR 509, SR 518, and SR 99. The Regional Transit Project will propose approximately a 40 percent increase in transit service over the next 10 years for all system alternatives (contingent on voter approval of the project). PROPOSED TRANSITWAY SYSTEM In addition to expanding the HOV system, the transitway system alternative of the Regional Transit Project would involve the construction of exclusive barrier- separated travel lanes for buses and facility improvements such as park- and -rides and transit centers. In the south corridor, near the study area, the exclusive transitway would extend from the International District Station to Tacoma, via Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Railroad rights -of -way (adjacent to Airport Way South). Near the I -5 /SR 599 interchange, the transitway would connect to planned I -5 HOV lanes extending south to the Puyallup River bridge. PROPOSED RAIL SYSTEM The rail system alternative of the Regional Transit Project, which would serve the proposed project, currently consists of three alternative alignments through the south corridor. Exact alignments have not been determined. The first segment could open by 2000. The three alternative alignments: • International District Station to Federal Way (South 320th Street) via East Marginal Way South and SR 99 • Rainier Avenue South to South McClellan Street, then Martin Luther King, Jr., Way South to about South Henderson Street, connecting to the South Boeing Access Road and then continuing to SR 99 • Rainier Avenue South to about South Henderson Street, connecting to the South Boeing Access Road and then continuing to SR 99 SW EVERETT OATS JNANRA • EDMOND„I SILVERDALE FIRST NLL - oVERLAKE ' BREW @WREN LEGEND AUBURN Existing TransIVHOV Lands) -1992 wricasexas Proposed HOV Improvements 2020 HOV Extensions • Transit Hub Expansion CI Access Improvement A Park & Ride Expansion WAISANWAVAND Major New Arterials/ 2020 HOV Extensions Urban Growth Boundary MCr Ow■1111.0 .r Source: METRO 2000 Plan (Draft) Potential Master Plan Communities Figure C -1 REGIONAL TRANSIT PROJECT 2010 TRANSIT /HOV SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE C -2 �� • MARYSVILLE .1 EVERETT CBD Y SW EVERETT 1 Y • r e tt 7 it j $ r i1 4:M NOTE: The alignments and phasing distinctions shown on this map are for the purpose of system level evaluation. ii+ • LYNNWOODi • i EDMONDS ; • BOTHELL • $ J 1 JUANITA MORTHGATE ,•• • SNOrOMISN COUNTY IONC COMITY SILVERDALE • :`s is • Barrier Separator'!, Bus ":and HOV's ::SEATTLE BREMERTON CBD... Barrier Separate Bus 0 4. POMP COUNTY PIERCE eowrY i yN -. °' . FEDERAL • •, WAY i TACOMA CBD .: so.oe: LAKEWOOD, •8 PUYALLUP • AN LEGEND ■ Center Lane, Barrier Separated, Bus and HOV's A • ! YLE3 • Employment Center Urban Growth Boundary Transitway - 2010 - - - HOV Enhancements - 2020 (Feasibility to be determined) O Transitway Access/Stations Major HOV Facilities' «a... HOV Lanes - 2010 WS WO ** HOV Lanes - 2020 O HOV Access Ramps 'Included In TSM Component 6/5/91 Source: METRO 2000 Plan (Draft) C -3 Figure C -2 REGIONAL TRANSIT PROJECT TRANSITWAY SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE M >. ` • MARYSVILLE EVERETT CBD NOTE: The alignments and phasing distinctions shown on this map are for the purpose of system level evaluation. SNOrbMSH COUNTY • N : 0 .. : 1 bj - I 'III ,• A. •ria Alt. • . SEATTLE'.,; SILVERDALE • lOMi COUNTY TOTEM LAKE REDMOND C UNIVERSITY DISTRICT, -BELLEVUE. CBD .•xFIRST HILL' .::;• OVERLAKE BREMERTON CBD aTSAF COUNTY MERGE COUNTY • EASTGATE ISSAOUAH • RENTON CBD it SEA•TAC 't • /3 R 1VRWILA SD r` • 1 • 1(; • L1 • • •: • • i1 •° 1 1 • • . � FEDERAL r "-UBURN WAY � TACOMA CBD •# " 4- LAKEW • / • �c "' / • t / K1Mi"GO #av DDD� 4 • PUYALLUP ▪ • 3 LEGEND MW • Employment Center - Urban Growth Boundary Rall System Alternative for Evaluation - 2010 System •40«44e - 2020 System =me* ■s Commuter Rail R o at e Y Potential Connectlons/Extenslons 4/10/91 Source: METRO 2000 Plan (Draft) C -4 Figure C -3 REGIONAL TRANSIT PROJECT RAIL SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE The rail system alternative includes commuter rail service from King Street Station to Auburn via the Burlington Northern Railroad (BNRR) right -of -way. By 2020 the south corridor would be extended from Federal Way to Tacoma, and commuter rail service would be planned from Auburn to Tacoma. The two rapid transit alternatives of the Regional Transit Project will be evaluated for their ability to reduce SOV use and to support the Puget Sound Council of Govern- ments' (PSCOG) Vision 2020 multiple- center - oriented land use. The evaluation cri- teria and comparison measures include items such as daily passenger trips, reduction in SOVs, hours of travel time saved, cost per passenger trip, quantities of pollutants, fuel consumption, and others. Of the three systems, the Transit/HOV system and a segment of the rail system are expected to be in place by the time the Duwamish Cor- ridor redevelopment is completed (1992 to 2002). 100215D1q.SEA C -5 Appendix D" Evaluation of the Oxbow Interchange Appendix D EVALUATION OF THE OXBOW INTERCHANGE CH2M HILL developed a subarea model for the City of Tukwila as part of the Tukwila Capacity and Deficiency Study, currently in its final stages. The model was used to analyze potential access improvements to the Duwamish area in conjunction with the East Marginal Way South design study currently being prepared by Entranco Engi- neers. The access study focused on three alternatives: completing the Oxbow /SR 99 interchange; building a new interchange at SR 599/East Marginal Way South including grade- separation of the East Marginal Way South /South Boeing Access Road inter- change; and no action. The study concluded that the best alternative was completion of the Oxbow /SR 99 interchange. However, the evaluation assumed Boeing employment levels of about 30,000 in the Duwamish corridor. Under the current proposal, employment would be capped at 25,000, which would mean that about 13,000 fewer trips per day would be generated by the development than in the scenario used for the previous evaluation. Therefore, this appendix provides additional analysis of the mitigation measures for improving access to SR 99/SR 599. The analysis evaluates and compares the benefits of the Oxbow interchange to those resulting from improvements to the southbound on- ramp to SR 599 from Pacific Highway South. Analysis of year 2002 conditions indicates that the construction of a southbound on- ramp onto SR 599 at the Oxbow site would divert approximately 3,000 trips per day from East Marginal Way South and Pacific Highway South to SR 99. This would improve the estimated LOS on East Marginal Way South, north of the South Boeing Access Road, from D to C and on Pacific Highway South between South Boeing Access Road and SR 599 from F to E. However, the section of SR 99 south of the Oxbow interchange would decrease from D to E. The spacing of the new Oxbow ramp and the southbound off -ramp to Pacific Highway South would create a constrained weaving section with the potential for high accident rates. The LOS analysis suggests that improvements other than a southbound on -ramp at the Oxbow interchange may provide equivalent benefits. One option would be to widen Pacific Highway South between SR 99 and the South Boeing Access Road/East Mar- ginal Way South intersection to six/seven lanes. This option would improve the esti- mated LOS for the section to C/D. The improvement would include a dual left -turn lane onto southbound SR 599, a two -lane ramp, and a new six-lane bridge over the Duwamish River. Additional studies are underway to determine the feasibility of widening the SR 599 on -ramp. 100215C6.SEA f., Appendix E Summary of Laws and Regulations Affecting Regulated Materials Appendix E SUMMARY OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING REGULATED MATERIALS FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS EMERGENCY PLANNING AND RIGHT TO KNOW ACT (SARA. TITLE III) SARA (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act) Title III was promulgated in 1986 and establishes requirements for federal, state, and local governments and indus- try regarding emergency planning and community right -to -know reporting on hazardous chemicals. The act is designed to help "first response units" (e.g., Fire Departments of local communities) respond to accidental releases of hazardous chemicals. The act is also intended to increase the public's knowledge of, and access to, information regard- ing the presence, storage, and use of hazardous chemicals in their communities and releases of these chemicals into the environment. Facilities that store specific quantities of chemicals designated under SARA Title III as "extremely hazardous substances" (EHS) are required to notify the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) that they are subject to emergency planning require- ments of SARA Title III, designate a facility emergency coordinator, and notify the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) of the designation. Facilities that store hazardous chemicals above specified threshold quantities must submit Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) and inventory reports for the hazardous chemicals that exceed the threshold quantities. The MSDSs and inventory reports are submitted to the SERC, the LEPC, and the local fire department. The inventory reports must include information pertaining to the quantities of the hazardous chemicals stored, locations, type of storage, and the chemicals' associated health and physical hazards. The LEPC can also require that the facility prepare an emergency response plan. Manufacturing facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use specified quantities of chemicals designated under SARA Title III as "toxic" must submit an annual report to the EPA and to the State regarding the discharge of these chemicals into the en- vironment. If a facility has a release of an extremely hazardous substance or a CERCLA (discussed below) hazardous substance above reportable quantities, specific notification procedures . must: be followed that include notifying state and local authorities. RCRA, SUBTITLE C-- HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was promulgated in 1976 to promote the protection of health and the environment and to conserve valuable ma- terial and energy resources. RCRA has been amended twice, most recently in 1984. Subtitle C of RCRA regulates the management of hazardous waste through a 3 -step process that identifies wastes that must be regulated as hazardous; tracks the waste through its generation, storage, or disposal ( "cradle to grave "); and controls practices used during management of the waste by establishing technical and performance stand- ards and permitting requirements. EPA has promulgated regulations identifying the characteristics of hazardous waste and has established standards for hazardous waste generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities regarding record keeping, manifesting, reporting, and permitting. In Washington, most of the RCRA program is administered by the Depart- ment of Ecology. Authorization for administration of some portions of the program has not yet been granted to the State, and EPA is responsible for these portions. RCRA, SUBTITLE I-- UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS These regulations apply to underground storage tanks (UST) containing petroleum or substances defined as hazardous under CERCLA (discussed below), with the exception of substances regulated as hazardous wastes under RCRA. The regulations require underground storage tanks to comply with national industry design, construction, in- stallation, maintenance, and closure standards. UST systems are required to have spill and overfill prevention, leak detection systems, and tank and piping corrosion protec- tion. The regulation also includes specific release monitoring, reporting, corrective action, and inventory control requirements. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION ACT The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) administers the regulations promulgated under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which are designed to protect the public from the mishandling of hazardous materials. The regulations re- quire proper hazard classifications, packaging, labeling, placarding, and shipping papers for the transport of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials are classified in the DOT regulations according to their chemical and physical properties or their relative hazard to health. The transportation of hazardous wastes (as defined by RCRA) is also regulated by these laws. The regulations include specific reporting requirements in the event of an incident involving hazardous materials or wastes during transport. CLEAN WATER ACT The Clean Water Act regulates the treatment and discharge of wastewater into surface waters and publicly owned sewage treatment plants. The Clean Water Act also re- quires facilities that store specified volumes of oil products to take measures to prevent spills and to prepare a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. The purpose of the plan is to identify and establish procedures, methods, and equip- ment to prevent the discharge of oil to navigable waters. Under the act, secondary containment is required for aboveground tanks that store oil products. THE CLEAN AIR ACT The Clean Air Act regulates the control and discharge of contaminants into the air; applicable portions are discussed in Chapter 6, Air. COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION AND LIA- BILITY ACT OF 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund) CERCLA was promulgated in 1980. It requires facilities to notify the National Re- sponse Center of the releases of hazardous substances exceeding reportable quantities into the environment. The term "environment" includes navigable waters, groundwater, surface drinking water, land, and air. The definition of hazardous substances includes hazardous substances and toxic pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act, and any hazard- ous wastes having the characteristics described in RCRA. CERCLA, also known as Superfund, also regulates the investigation and cleanup of sites with past hazardous chemicals disposal problems. STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL ACT (70.105 RCW) Regulations under this law are referenced as the Dangerous Waste Regulations (Chap- ter 173 -303 WAC). These regulations incorporate portions of federal RCRA regula- tions and contain additional regulations pertaining to dangerous waste identification and management. These regulations designate solid wastes that are dangerous or acutely hazardous to the public health and environment; provide for surveillance and monitoring of these wastes from "cradle to grave"; establish specific requirements for generators of dangerous wastes and transfer, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities; and encourage recycling, reuse, reclamation, and recovery to the maximum extent possible. Requirements for generators and TSD facilities address permitting, record keeping, waste manifesting, facility operations and closure, and groundwater protection. WASTE REDUCTION ACT (70.95C RCW) The Waste Reduction Act requires hazardous waste generators who generate more than 2,640 pounds of hazardous waste per year and companies that use hazardous sub- stances to prepare hazardous substance and waste reduction plans. Regulations under this act are referenced as the Hazardous Waste Planning Regulations (Chap- ter 173 -307 WAC). The plan must include the following components, in order of pri- ority: hazardous substance use reduction, waste reduction, recycling, and treatment. The act also establishes new hazardous waste fees. Rules to implement these fees are referenced as the Hazardous Waste Fees Regulations (Chapter 173 -305 WAC). E -3 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (90.48 RCW) This law regulates the discharge of contaminants into the waters of the state, which include lakes, rivers, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters within the jurisdiction of the state. Special provisions are in the law to regulate the discharge of oil into waters of the state and to establish reporting requirements for oil discharge and the obligation to collect and remove or contain, treat, and dispose of the discharged oil. WASHINGTON INDUSTRIAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT ( WISHA) Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) .passed in 1970, individual states are allowed to administer their own employee safety and health plans and pro- grams. WISHA passed in 1973, and in 1976 Washington created the first fully opera- tional state safety and health plan approved by the Federal Government. The regulations (Chapter 296-24 and 296 -62 WAC) give the Washington State Department of Labor and Industry the primary responsibility for worker health and safety in Wash- ington. Employers are required to comply with employee health and safety standards and requirements including standards for equipment, exposure to hazards, hazard com- munication and training programs, and accident prevention programs, as well as maintain records of accidents. Facility compliance is monitored through routine and event - specific inspections. MODEL TOXICS CONTROL ACT The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) (Initiative 97), passed in 1988, requires the Department of Ecology to clean up sites where releases of hazardous substances that may present a threat to human health or the environment have occurred. The regula- tions (WAC 173 -340) to implement MTCA took effect in May 1990. These regulations provide the framework for identifying, investigating, and selecting cleanup actions at hazardous substance sites in Washington. Cleanup standards were proposed as an amendment to the overall cleanup regulation (August 1, 1990, State Register (90 -15)). The amendments were finalized in January 1991 and became effective in February 1991. The act also imposes a 0.7 percent tax on the wholesale value of hazardous substances, including petroleum, to fund cleanup, regulatory, and citizen involvement programs. LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS The primary local law and regulation that affects hazardous materials and waste man- agement is the Uniform Fire Code. 1988 UNIFORM FIRE CODE The 1988 UFC is much more detailed than earlier fire codes regarding hazardous ma- terials. Article 80 of the UFC establishes requirements for the prevention, control, and mitigation of dangerous' conditions related to hazardous materials (including wastes) and for providing information needed by emergency response personnel. Requirements for the storage, dispensing, use, and handling of hazardous materials, as well as re- cording and notification requirements when an unauthorized discharge becomes re- portable under federal, state, or local regulations, are also addressed in Article 80. In addition, under the 1988 UFC the Fire Marshall can require Hazardous Materials Inventory Statements (HMIS) for each building in which hazardous materials are stored, and a Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP), which describe the hazardous materials operations at a facility, including monitoring, security, labeling, training, inspections, record keeping, and emergency equipment. 100217C5.sEA Appendix F PSCOG Traffic Origin and,Destination Data RESIDENCE OF BOEING WORKERS AT DEVELOPMENT CENTER BY ZIP CODE (1991) 300 or greater (9) 150 to 299 (13) 75 to 149 (17) Less than 75 (111) Development Center Source: Puget Sound Regional Council (formerly PSCOG) F -1 RESIDENCE OF BOEING WORKERS AT PLANT 2 BY ZIP CODE (1991) Ea 400 or greater (2) 200 to 399 (15) 75 to 199 (28) Less than 75 (105) Plant 2 Source: Puget Sound Regional Council (formerly PSCOG) F -2 ■ 1 Appendix G Memorandum of Agreement :... 1 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (Revised October 23, 1991) Recitals The purpose of this Memorandum of Agreement is to coordinate review of a non - project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a 10 -year plan to redevelop properties owned or occupied by the Boeing Company in the East Marginal Way corridor, as described in Attachment A, (hereinafter, "the Plan "). WHEREAS the Boeing Company has announced plans for the redevelopment of a substantial portion of its East Marginal Way corridor properties; and WHEREAS the City of Tukwila, acting as the lead agency under the State Environmental Policy Act with the agreement of the City of Seattle and King County, has issued a determination of' significance for the Plan based upon the determination that the Plan is significant in both scope and potential adverse environmental impacts, and accordingly requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); and WHEREAS project construction activities under the Plan will occur over a 10 year period in the jurisdictions of the City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle and King County; and WHEREAS the close coordination of the non- project EIS scoping, development and review is critical for efficient and comprehensive management of the Plan; and WHEREAS parties to this agreement have determined it to be in their best interests to execute this Memorandum of Agreement in order to maximize public input and to enable consistent processing of the Plan; NOW THEREFORE the undersigned do hereby agree to the following: 1. The City of Tukwila shall continue to act as the lead agency with respect to the development of the non - project EIS for the Plan. As lead agency the City of Tukwila shall be responsible for all administrative matters relating to the coordination of environmental review for the Plan. 2. The City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle and King County shall jointly review, comment and set conditions for the Plan in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. 3. The City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle and King County shall utilize the EIS and its set of mitigating measures in subsequent review of individual building permits for compliance with each jurisdiction's environmental policies. 4. The City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle and King County shall retain all rights relating to the permitting or approval of proposed projects located within their respective jurisdictions. With respect to such projects each jurisdiction shall retain the right to require additional SEPA review and to act as lead agency. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT October 23, 1991 5. As lead agency for the non - project EIS, the City of Tukwila shall be responsible for provision of office space, appropriate logistical support and supervision of the EIS coordinator. 6. The City of Tukwila is responsible for collecting costs incurred by the parties to this agreement, and for submitting a monthly invoice to the Boeing Company for payment. 7. The City of Seattle and King County shall be reimbursed for time spent on non - project EIS scoping, development, review or comment. The City of Tukwila shall remit payment to the City of Seattle and King County based upon the hourly rate established with each jurisdiction's applicable fee ordinance. If a jurisdiction requires a deposit on hand prior to commencing the work, and if that jurisdiction will charge that deposit for services rendered, then that jurisdiction shall submit the estimated deposit request to the City of Tukwila, which will transmit that deposit amount to the jurisdiction. In turn, should circumstances warrant, the deposit shall be augmented or refunded. 8. Each party shall hold harmless the others, their agents or employees, from and against any and all liability arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property resulting in whole or in part from acts or omissions of each party, its agents, servants, officers, or employees. 9. This agreement shall be in full force and effect as of the date last executed and shall remain in effect until completion of the Plan or written agreement of the parties. Any party may terminate its further participation in this agreement by sending written notice to all other parties. Entered into this day of ., 1991. Approved as to Form: Tukwila City Kftorney Approved as to Form: Seatt le City Attorney Approved as to Form: Deputy P osecu ' g Attorney King County THE CITY OF TUKWILA Director, Dept. of Community Development THE CITY OF SEATTLE Director, Dept. of Cons a on & Land Use Gh rector, Dept. of Parks, Planning & Resources l Appendix II Distribution and Notice of Issuance Lists Appendix H DISTRIBUTION AND NOTICE OF ISSUANCE LISTS DISTRIBUTION LIST FEDERAL AGENCIES Department of the Army Corps of Engineers —Seattle District National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Environmental Protection Agency— Region 10 INDIAN NATIONS Duwamish Tribe Muckleshoot Tribe STATE AGENCIES Department of Transportation Department of Fisheries Department of Ecology (4) State Energy Office Department of Trade and Economic Development Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Department of Natural Resources REGIONAL AGENCIES Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (3) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Puget Sound Regional Council Puget Sound Water Quality Authority KING COUNTY Environmental Division (5) Office of Open Space Department of Parks and Planning CITIES Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use (5) Seattle City Light Renton Planning Department LIBRARIES Foster Library King County Public Library Seattle Municipal Reference Library Tukwila Public Library MEDIA Daily Journal of Commerce Seattle Times Valley Daily News NOTICE OF ISSUANCE LIST FEDERAL AGENCIES United States Department of Energy United States Coast Guard United States Department of Housing and Urban Development STATE AGENCIES Department of Social and Health Services Department of Wildlife Office of the Governor COUNTY King County International Airport King County Executive King County Department of Health CITIES AND TOWNS Seattle Mayor's Office Renton Mayor's Office MEDIA Renton Record Chronicle OTHER GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce Burlington Northern Railroad Friends of the Duwamish ValVue Sewer District Tukwila/Seatac Chamber of Commerce Washington Natural Gas U.S. West Communications Washington Environmental Council Port of Seattle South Park Community Service Center South Central Advisory Council (Tukwila) CITIZENS AND ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS Margaret Rittman Jones & Stokes 2820 Northup Way #100 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Ron Adair Don Aragon Roger & Betty Baker Jessie Barry Mrs. Sharon Bernhardt Gladys Bigelow Thomas & Kathryn Boardman Ray Bryant Viola Buchanan Rex & Jessie Burkey Philip & Patricia Cagampang Kathleen Carmichael Tony Carosino Bobby Casebeer John W. Clark Robert & Bea Coleman Cecil & Viola Compo Bill & Faye Cooper Stephen Core Kim Dahl Donald & Alice Davidson Lee Ann Davis Roe Decker Antonio & Dorthy Derodas Norma Derr Helen Dingle Donay & Charolette Doty Bobbi Douvia Dennis & Elizabeth Driscoll Dorothy & Tony Dumas Helen Duncan Scott Ellis Betty Espadero Keith Fuller Stu & Micky Garnett Albert & Mary E. Gaviglio John & Kay Gilligan George Gomez Dick Greene Charolette Greer Maxine Gregory Charmaine L. Hall Ralph & Rita Hatton Ralph Hayes Hank & Rosemary Heerschap Darrell & Gayl Hoffman Stan & Connie Hoffman Kenneth & Jane House Gayle Jacobsen R.E. & Monica Johnson Roy & Pat Johnson Jerry Kinnear June Klise Walter & Bernice Kwiecien Tom Lang Thelma Larsen Vera Locke Tom & Martha Loftus Loren Marshall Lois Mathis Earl McCoy Bob McManus Leonard & Doris Mead Nishit Mehta Bob & Jeanette Morgan John & Edna Morrison Sham & Sharon Nakata Harry & Mable Peterson Lilian Petty Charles & Marion Ramey Doris Reed John Ridout Dennis & Karen Robertson Allan Ronning Mary Roper Ruth Rupe Arthur Sala Ruth Seavey Irene Simpson James Stephens David & Merle Swanson Ben Swartz Lona Sweeney Irvin Teigen Dave Thompson Ray & Magda Torghele Lee & Barbara Trimble Roland Turpin Kent & Alida Tustison Marguerite Tye Martin & Gwen Ulrich Rose Untersher & Donna Johnston John & Sylvia Vader Norman & Helen Van Voorhees Eugene & Betty Walkley James Watkins Carol & Ken Watson Lawrence Weikum Mary Ellen Whitehead John & Marie Wickstrom Dan Wolf Don & Gary Wyatt 100216D4q.SEA 0 0 Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal The Boeing Company City of Tukwila May 1992 FACT SHEET TITLE AND DESCRIPTION The proposed action is a proposal for redevelopment of the Boeing property along the Duwamish corridor. The Duwamish corridor is a 4.5 -mile stretch of land in the valley of the Duwamish Waterway from Ellis Avenue South on the north to South 126th Street on the south. Over a 10 -year period (1992 through 2002), The Boeing Company proposes to redevelop approximately 30 percent of its existing manufacturing facilities. Future construction will emphasize laboratory, office, and developmental manufacturing uses. . Work . force population is not expected to exceed 25,000 employees. PROPOSAL SPONSOR The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 MS 6Y -59 Seattle, Washington 98124 -2207 Contact: Jeff Zahir, Planner F/TSS Planning and Program Support (206) 393 -2783 APPROXIMATE DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION The Boeing Company, the proposal sponsor, expects that construction activities will begin in 1992 with all phases of redevelopment completed by 2002. LEAD AGENCY INFORMATION The lead agency is the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development. The responsible official is: L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 DATE OF ISSUE OF DRAFT EIS May 1, 1992 COMMENTING Comments are due by June 1, 1'992. Comments on this Draft EIS are welcome and should be addressed to: Robert S. Betts Project Coordinator, Boeing Duwamish EIS Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 600 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 455 -9640 PUBLIC MEETING A public meeting on the Draft EIS will be held at 7:30 p.m. on May 20, 1992, at Tukwila City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington. AVAILABILITY OF COPIES Copies of this Draft EIS are available for public inspection at: Tukwila Public Library 14475 95th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Foster Library 4205 South 142nd Street Tukwila, Washington City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington A limited number of copies of this document have been printed and made available for public distribution at the City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development. Additional copies are available at $10 per copy. APPROXIMATE DATE OF FINAL ACTION BY LEAD AGENCY August 1992. OTHER RELATED MATERIAL The Boeing Company has prepared a separate document entitled "Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment," which accompanies this Draft EIS. This proposal and other iv • background material and support documents can be found either at the City of Tukwila or at CH2M HILL. AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS TO EIS This Draft EIS was prepared under the direction of the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development. Additional research and analysis were provided by: CH2M HILL, Inc. 777 108th Avenue NE P.O. Box 91500 Bellevue, Washington 98009 -2050 100216C8.SEAq v Chapter 1 SUMMARY PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action is a proposal for redevelopment of Boeing properties in the Duwamish corridor. Over a 10 -year period (1992 through 2002), The Boeing Company proposes to redevelop approximately 30 percent of its existing manufacturing facilities. Future construction will emphasize laboratory, office, and developmental manufacturing uses. Workforce population is not expected to exceed approximately 25,000 employees. Chapter 2 of this EIS describes the Proposed Action in more detail. A full description of the proposal is provided in The Boeing Company's Duwamish Corridor Redevelop- ment Proposal (under separate cover). The Duwamish corridor can be described broadly as a 4.5- mile -long stretch of land in the valley of the Duwamish Waterway, from Ellis Avenue South on the north to South 126th Street on the south. The majority of the project area lies in the City of Tukwila, with portions also in King County and Seattle. Figure 1 -1 is a map of the project vicinity. Ten major Boeing sites are located in the Duwamish corridor. The Boeing Company's ownership and leases in the corridor now include approximately 600 acres and about 9.9 million square feet of developed floor area. The proposed redevelopment would involve demolition of about 3.7 million square feet of floor area in the Duwamish corridor and construction of about 4.3 million square feet of new floor area. At the completion of the redevelopment, the corridor would contain a new total of approximately 10.6 million square feet of developed floor area. Emphasis in the redeveloped areas would shift from manufacturing to research and development, and the mix of employees would change correspondingly. PROJECT GOALS The Boeing Company's redevelopment goals, as stated on page 3 of the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal, are: Goal 1: Early identification of corridor -wide redevelopment issues, impacts and mitigation measures. Goal 2: A unified industrial campus that integrates laboratory, developmental manufacturing, flightline, and office uses. 1 -1 Chapter 1: Summary Proposed Action/Project Goals HARBOR ISLAND SPOKANE ST. SOUTH SEATTLE LAKEWOOD STUDY AREA COLUMBIA SEWARD PARK UPLANDS BRIGHTON HIGHLAND PARK Seattle City \ Limits King County Line \ DUNLAP . t \ t \ t \ RAINIER BEACH SEATTLE STUDY AREA SOUTHERN HEIGHTS BOULEVARD PARK \ DUWAMISH Seattle City Limits ALLENTOWN AUBURN RIVERTON Scale In Feet TACOMA 4,000 8,000 1 -2 Figure 1 -1 VICINITY MAP AND NEIGHBORHOODS Goal 3: An enhanced natural and aesthetic environment. Goal 4: An efficient use of resources. The Boeing Company anticipates entering into a mitigation agreement with the City of Tukwila consistent with these goals. APPROVAL PROCESS The City of Tukwila and The Boeing Company have agreed to review the broad issues raised by Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal in the context of this nonproject environmental impact statement (EIS). The City of Tukwila 'is the lead agency for nonproject review of The Boeing Company's proposal. The City's objectives are: • To improve its understanding of the cumulative impacts of the proposed redevelopment; • To increase predictability in the timing and nature of project- specific improvements; • To identify mitigation early in the redevelopment planning process; • To facilitate review of individual permits; and • To avoid piecemeal decisionmaking by reviewing the broader plans for corridor redevelopment prior to considering individual projects. Consistent with these objectives, the City of Tukwila has entered into an agreement with the City of Seattle and King County to coordinate review of this nonproject envi- ronmental impact statement. A copy of the Memorandum of Agreement, signed in December 1990, is included as Appendix G. The City anticipates entering into a mitigation agreement with The Boeing Company during or following environmental review of the proposal. The agreement would allow the City to monitor individual projects and determine when phased mitigation pay- ments, improvements, or other activities are required. Prior to individual permit ac- tions, each of these individual project actions will undergo separate environmental review for consistency with the impacts and mitigations discussed in this nonproject environmental impact statement. Supplemental environmental review will be consistent with the objectives of the State Environmental. Policy Act (SEPA) for project- specific actions. 1 -3 Chapter 1: Summary Approval Process The City of Tukwila anticipates further coordination with the City of Seattle and King County through an interlocal agreement. The agreement would establish a consistent approach among the three jurisdictions for review of individual projects implementing the redevelopment proposal. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED In addition to the Proposed Action, two alternatives are reviewed in this document: the No Action alternative and the Manufacturing Center alternative. These are sum= marized below and described more fully in Chapter 2. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No Action alternative is discussed throughout this environmental document to provide a common point for comparison with other alternatives. Under this alternative, currently planned public improvements to the street system would be completed, and normal, incremental modifications to Boeing facilities in the Duwamish corridor would continue, but major redevelopment to upgrade the manufacturing facilities would not occur. A workforce population of 25,000 employees is assumed. MANUFACTURING CENTER ALTERNATIVE This alternative would maintain the current focus of the Duwamish corridor as an industrial and manufacturing center. Deteriorated and outmoded facilities would be upgraded to allow more efficient use of the area. Total square footage and employ- ment would remain stable at about 9.9 million square feet with. a somewhat reduced work force of 20,000 employees, but production rates could increase to meet market demands. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION During the course of this environmental analysis, potential significant adverse impacts to two elements of the built environment, land use and transportation, are disclosed. These elements and other potential areas of impact are summarized below and in Table 1 -1, which appears at the end of this chapter. LAND AND SHORELINE USE Land use impacts include a shift in the mix of uses along the Duwamish corridor from the current manufacturing_ emphasis to laboratory, office, and developmental manufac- turing. The number of employees would not exceed 25,000, and square footage would increase by about 7 percent. Chapter 1: Summary 1 -4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Proposed Action The land use impacts identified in this document are generally consistent with the comprehensive plans and policies of the three jurisdictions. Adverse impacts related to height, bulk, and scale may occur on a project - specific basis. Design guidelines and standards presented in Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal are intended to address these impacts. These standards could also be used during agency review to mitigate project- specific impacts. _ While The Boeing Company will make every effort to comply with development regula- tions established by the jurisdictions, program requirements may necessitate requests for variance approvals from certain zoning provisions, shoreline requirements, and sensitive areas regulations. In some instances text amendments may also be requested. Impacts to shorelines in the project area will generally be beneficial, even though there would be an increase of in the amount of square footage devoted to non- water- dependent uses. Redevelopment would occur on sites with approximately 4,800 linear feet of shoreline. The majority of the sites are located within the City of Tukwila, which currently uses the King County Shoreline Master Program for review of develop- ment proposals in the study area. In general, the Proposed Action is consistent with the program's policies and regulations. The Boeing Company's proposed shoreline access plan would enhance approximately 4,800 linear feet of 9,000 linear feet of existing shoreline access. Improvements would include trails, viewpoints, and a canoe launch at the Oxbow site. Enhanced connec- tions with the Green River Trail and the Museum of Flight would also be a benefit to the regional trail system.' Streambank enhancement will occur in conjunction with the development of employee shoreline access along those sites proposed for redevelopment. Cooperation with state and federal fish and wildlife agencies is anticipated to result in the enhancement of fish habitat in the Duwamish River estuary. TRANSPORTATION Under the Proposed Action, about 30 percent of the developed floor area in the study area will be redeveloped. This would result in an increase in net square footage of about 7 percent. However, employee population is proposed to be limited to the same level (25,000) as predicted for the No Action alternative. Traffic volumes are esti- mated to be approximately equal for the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives except during peak hours. Levels of service (LOS) would remain unchanged for most roadway segments. However, the LOS of several road segments are expected to decline under these two alternatives as compared to existing conditions. These LOS impacts are expected as a result of an anticipated 1.5 percent per year growth in back- ground traffic, as well as an increase in Boeing employment levels. Under' both the No Action alternative and the Proposed Action, employment will grow from 21,000 in May 1991 to 25,000 in 2002, a 17 percent increase over existing conditions. Chapter 1: Summary 1 -5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Proposed Action These transportation impacts could be addressed in two ways: by implementing an aggressive transportation management program (TMP), and /or by fair -share contribu- tions to street and transit improvements. The Boeing Company has proposed a TMP that includes a transit subsidy and rideshare (carpool and vanpool) support. The TMP and street and transit improvements are discussed further in Chapter 4, Transportation. OTHER IMPACTS Impacts to other elements of the environment could occur during construction and operation of facilities in a redeveloped Duwamish corridor. Specific mitigation will be identified during individual project review and will include best management practices for control of dust and runoff during construction; compliance with federal, state, and local requirements for handling of contaminated soils and hazardous or dangerous materials; a requirement to obtain appropriate air and water permits; compliance with the noise ordinances of appropriate jurisdictions; and introduction of biofiltration fea- tures for stormwater treatment prior to discharge into the Duwamish Waterway. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ALTERNATIVES LAND AND SHORELINE USE All alternatives are generally consistent with the comprehensive .plans and policies for the area. Compliance with development standards will be evaluated on a project -spe- cific basis. With new construction to replace outmoded facilities, the Manufacturing Center alternative would have similar impacts to the Proposed Action. The No- Action alternative does not provide as much opportunity for streambank enhancement or shoreline access. TRANSPORTATION The No Action alternative increases the area's employment density to about 25,000, a level consistent with historical figures and about 17 percent higher than the 21,400 existing employees. Transportation impacts are anticipated to be similar but slightly less than for the Proposed Action. The Manufacturing Center alternative in- cludes an employment figure of 20,000, and is expected to have fewer transportation impacts than the other alternatives. OTHER IMPACTS Impacts to other elements of the environment would be similar to the Proposed Action for the Manufacturing Center alternative. Fewer opportunities to improve environ- mental health, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, stormwater, and other public utility facilities are afforded through the No Action alternative. 1 -6 Chapter 1: Summary Issues and Choices ISSUES AND CHOICES In general, the Proposed Action and alternatives anticipate a redevelopment of several large, aging, and outmoded manufacturing facilities. The revitalization of an employ- ment center in this location is consistent with growth management efforts to locate density within already urbanized areas where infrastructure improvements are generally in place and where transit service can be provided efficiently. Several of the 13 plan- ning goals established in the Growth Management Act are positively addressed by the proposed redevelopment of the industrial corridor. They include urban growth; reduc- tion of sprawl; transportation; economic development; open space and recreation; and environment. The Proposed Action is also consistent with VISION 2020, a long -range growth and transportation strategy for the central Puget Sound area produced in 1990 by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (now known as the Puget Sound Regional Council). VISION 2020 calls for the containment of growth, limiting the extent of sprawl into surrounding farmlands, forests and open spaces. It encourages the concentration of employment into employment centers and proposes that a regional rapid transit system connect these centers. VISION 2020 emphasizes the movement of people through increased transit and ridesharing investments and deemphasizes highway and roadway expansions. The challenge the City of Tukwila faces, along with King County and the City of Seattle, is to apply adequate conditions that address the actual impacts of the proposed redevelopment without, in the process, creating disincentives that reduce the opportu- nities to improve the most heavily industrialized corridor in the region, or, worse, that inhibit appropriate concentrations of employment and facilities. 10020DCC.SEA 1 -7 Chapter 1: Summary Issues and Choices Table 1 -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 4 Element of Environment IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Impacts Mitigation Measures Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Manufacturing Center Land and Shoreline Use • Land Use • Shoreline U se ._. • Land Use Plans and Policies • . Shoreline Plans and Policies • Recreation Plans. • Zoning Redevelopment of under- utilized industrial facility may have height, bulk, and scale impacts. May encourage similar development trend in the study area. Increases square footage in non- water- dependent . manufacturing research and laboratory uses. Consistent with industrial plans and policies. Consistent with shoreline plans and policies. Consistent with recreation plans (see shoreline use). Uses comply; possible non- compliance with develop- ment standards may require exceptions. None required. Boeing proposing Design Guide- lines and Standards. None required. Boeing proposing to en- hance shoreline public access, trails, and river banks. None required. None required.• None required. Variances or text amend- ments may be requested. Slower replacement of older facilities. Would not encourage. redevelopment trends. Existing non - water- dependent uses will re- main. Limited access to shoreline. No impact. No impact. No impact. Non - conforming. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. 10020E33.SEA/1 429/92 Table 1 -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Page 2 of 4 Element of Environment IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Impacts Mitigation Measures Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Manufacturing Center • Shoreline Development Standards Uses comply; possible non- compliance with development standards may require exceptions. Variances or text amend- ments may be requested. Non- conforming. Same as Proposed Action. Transportation • Vehicular Traffic • Accidents • Parking • Transit Daily traffic volumes would increase approximately 12 percent. Peak hour volumes would increase 15 percent over No- Action and 30 percent over exist- ing conditions. Slight increase in number of accidents. Surplus of parking spaces. Increased ridership may require additional service. Widen E. Marginal Way S., south of South Boeing Access Road as well as complete previous commitments. None required. None required. None required. Background traffic volume would increase approxi- mately 13 percent over existing. Same as Proposed Action. Surplus of parking spaces. No impact. Same as No Action. Same as Proposed Action. Surplus of parking spaces: No impact. Population, Housing, and Employment Minimal impact. 3,600 additional Boeing employ- ees would come from other facilities in region. None required. No impact. No impact. No addi- tional employees. Air Construction- related impacts. Project - specific best man- agement practices. No impact. Less than Proposed Action. 10020E33.SEA/2 4/29/92 g. I q Table 1 -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Page 3 of 4 Element of Environment IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F OR PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Impacts Mitigation Measures Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Manufacturing Center Environmental ' Health • Potential Releases • Noise Demolition activities could uncover contaminants. Minimal operational im- pact. Improved facilities and procedures would de- crease potential hazards. Construction- related activ- ities would increase, noise. Additional run -up activity Will increase noise. Additional traffic will result in slight increases. Project - specific mitigation as required. Project - specific mitigation as required. Project - specific mitigation as required. Project - specific mitigation as required. None required. Boeing proposing TMP to reduce traffic volumes. J No demolition. Less opportunity to im- prove conditions. Less construction. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Stormwater, Water Quality, and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Water quality will be im- proved, as will fish and wildlife habitat. Boeing proposing biofiltra- tion of stormwater prior to discharge where possible to Duwamish Waterway, coor- dination with appropriate agencies on habitat restoration. No improvement to water quality. Same as Proposed Action. 10020E33.SEA/3 429/92 Table 1 -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Page4of4 Element of Environment IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Impacts Mitigation Measures Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Manufacturing Center Energy No impact by end of plan year 2002. Energy de- mands may increase tem- porarily in interim. Construction- related impacts. Boeing proposing Energy Same as Proposed Action. Management Plan to main- tain or reduce energy con - sumption. Project - specific mitigation as required. None required. No construction. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Public Services and Utilities • Fire/Police • Water/Sewer • Stormwater Construction - related impacts. Slight increase in calls for service. Decrease in fire- related calls. Water /sewer capacity ap- pear adequate. Compre- hensive plan under study. System improvements: Onsite biofiltration facili- ties proposed where practical. Project - specific mitigation No construction. as required. None required. Increased calls for fire protection. Project- specific upgrades at No impact. connections as required. Opportunity for Boeing to No impact. develop and coordinate Drainage Master Plan with planned utility improve- ments to E. Marginal Way S. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. 10020E33.SEA 10020E33.SEA/4 429/92 Co= 11747E //VC Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Table of Contents Section 1. Proposal 1 Introduction 2 Existing Conditions 2 Redevelopment Goals and Objectives 3 Proposed Action 3 Alternatives 4 Redevelopment Commitments 4 Section 2. Design Guidelines & Standards* 14 Development Adjacent to Public Rights -Of -Way 15 Right -of -Way Standards 19 -23 Development Along Shorelines 24 Shoreline Standards 26 -30 Development Internal to Boeing Sites 33 Internal Standards 36-43 Figures 1. Existing Airplane and Pedestrian Tunnel Crossings 22 2. Shoreline Access & Public Trail System 31 3. Boeing Proposed Public Access Improvements 32 Appendices A. Hazardous Waste Corporate Policy 44 B. Transportation Management Program Memorandum of Understanding with METRO 46 C. Interlocal Agreement 52 *The Design Guidelines and Standards were created by: Sugio Kobayashi Ullman inc. Landscape Architecture & Planning 633 Yesler Way, Seattle, Washington 98104, (206) 682 -3730 BOE /NG Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment 1 BOE /N6 Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Over the next ten years The Boeing Company proposes to redevelop approximately 30% of its existing manufacturing facilities in the Duwamish corridor. Future construction will emphasize laboratory, office, and developmental manufacturing uses. Workforce population will be commited to not more than 25,000 employees. The Boeing Company proposes: to work with local governments to establish a comprehensive approach to redevelopment; to i mplement corridor-wide design guidelines and standards for future construction; to develop an integrated system of vehicular and pedestrian routes; and to enhance the Duwamish Waterway shoreline by restoring the river bank where needed and by adding vegetation, trails and viewpoints. A non - project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being requested to evaluate the overall impacts of corridor redevelopment, identify suitable mitigation measures and facilitate coordination between the affected local jurisdictions, as required by the Washington State Environmental Policy Act and the Growth Management Act. Individual development projectswithinthe Duwamish corridor area will be planned and implemented in accordance with this non - project EIS and will also undergo additional project- specific environmental review for issues not covered by this EIS when permit applications are submitted to the local jurisdictions. The three municipalities affected by this proposal, Tukwila, Seattle, and King County, have signed an interlocal agreement to allow the City of Tukwila to bethe lead agencyforthis process, and to implement the impact mitigation measures identified in the EIS. A copy of the interlocal agreement is provided in the appendix of this document. Exis 'Co rnv .. The geographic area covered by this redevelopment proposal consists of a four and one half mile long industrially developed corridor which is generally situated west of the King County Airport (Boeing Field) and along both sides of the Duwamish Waterway. Most of the redevelopment area is located in the City of Tukwila. Portions of the corridor also lie within the City of Seattle and unincorporated King County. The Boeing Company presently owns or leases ten parcels in the corridor totalling approximately 650 acres and containing approximately 9,927,400 square feet of developed floor area. While present employment in the corridor fluctuates between 21,000 and 25,000, workforce population has reached levels as high as 40,000 in the past. With the exception of two parcels on the west side of the Duwamish Waterway, the redevelopment area consists of fully developed industrial sites. Existing industrial uses include approximately 4,780,000 square feet of aircraft manufacturing space, 2,678,000 square feet of laboratory /office space, 2,323,000 square feet of office space and associated flightline, outdoor storage and parking space for approximately 18,000 vehicles. The information presented in this proposal is based upon conditions existing in January 1992. 2 Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment ED Va0PMENT .C.' oAa,S AND UBJEC 'l t Goal 1: Early identification of corridor -wide redevelopment issues, impacts and mitigation measures. Goal 2: A unified industrial campus that integrates laboratory, developmental manufacturing, flightline and office uses. Objective 1. Provide sufficient flexibility to allow effective future redevelopment. Objective 2: Provide an integrated system of vehicular and pedestrian routes where the project sites are large enough to permit these features. Objective 3: Provide design guidelines and development standards that apply to all sites in the corridor. Goal 3: An enhanced natural and aesthetic environment Objective 4: Restore or enhance the Duwamish Waterway shoreline where needed with new riprap bulkheads, shoreline vegetation, pedestrian access trails and shoreline viewpoints. Objective 5: Increase open space and landscaping. Objective 6: Enhance the streetscape appearance with curbs, sidewalks and landscaping. Goal 4: An efficient use of resources. Objective 7: Achieve 1992 or lower levels of energy consumption by the end of the redevelopment period. Objective 8: Decrease use of single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) by promoting High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) transportation alternatives. ,vPOsED 1�1 + A laboratory/office /developmental manufacturing use mix will be used in the EIS as a basis for evaluating environmental impacts and identifying mitigation measures. The impacts and mitigations associated with this mix of uses also applies to the alternatives. Any unidentified or additional impacts will be addressed in subsequent environmental review processes for specific development projects. 3 BOE/NG Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Boeing anticipates the total redevelopment to involve demolition of approximately 3.7 million square feet of existing floor area and construction of approximately 4.4 million square feet of new floor area. Total floor area in the corridor could increase from the existing 9.9 million square feetto approximately 10.6 million square feet bythe end of the 10 year redevelopment period. Outdated manufacturing facilities will be replaced with new facilities that provide for research and developmental manufacturing. Employment may increase from its present level of 21,400 to 25,000 employees. The anticipated mix of building square footage after redevelopment is approximately 4.4 million square feet of laboratory /office, 3.9 million square feet of manufacturing and 2.3 million square feet of office space. ETERNATIVES Manufacturing Center Alternative This alternative would involve upgrading existing facilitiesto maintain existing production capabilities. Total workforce population would drop to approximately 20,000 employees. No Action Alternative Under this alternative, currently planned and programmed public improvements to the street system would be completed and incremental modifications to Boeing facilities would continue, but major redevelopment to upgrade the manufacturing facilities would not occur. Total workforce population would reach 25,000 by 2002. REDt�T C ©uttEc Design Guidelines and Development Standards The Boeing Company will adopt the Design Guidelines and Standards in this document. These guidelines and standards are intended to assist Boeing in planning and site development activities and to provide project review guidelines for local permitting agencies. Should a jurisdiction choose to revise and update their regulations, these guidelines could be considered as a basis for new regulations. The design guidelines and standards address redevelopment issues such as: landscaping adjacent to public rights -of -ways; vehicular and pedestrian access to sites; airplane crossings; parking; internal roadways and walkways; open space; site amenities; building height and aesthetics; and shoreline enhancement. Because of the fully developed character of certain existing sites and other physical site constraints, it may not be possible to accommodate all of the standards proposed. However, redevelopment projects should reflect the standards where possible. 4 BOE ING Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Enhancement of East Marginal Way South The Boeing Company will construct curbs, sidewalks and street frontage landscaping per agency standards along its propertiesthat front on East Marginal Way South in conjunction with adjacent construction projects, or contribute a pro rata share to a publicly initiated street improvement project. These street improvements will be coordinated with adjacent landscaping within the Boeing sites. Enhancement of Duwamish Waterway Shoreline The Boeing Company proposes to enhance the Duwamish Waterway shoreline in the corridor where needed by replacing old riprap bulkheads with new retention structures and riparian vegetation that meet current Washington State Department of Fisheries design criteria. Public Access Requirements King County The King County Shoreline Master Program requires industrial developments in an Urban Environment (such as the Duwamish corridor) to provide public access in two situations: 1) where a proposed trail exists in the King County Trail System; or 2) where part of the site has historically allowed public access to the shoreline and continues to do so. Neither of these conditions exist on any site contemplated for redevelopment covered by this proposal. Tukwila The King County requirement also applies to the Boeing sites located within the City of Tukwila, because this area was recently annexed (3/31/89) into Tukwila from the County. Tukwila has not yet adopted its own shoreline regulations for this area. There are no sites in Tukwila planned for redevelopment which would require the provision of pubic access under the King County Code. Seattle The City of Seattle Shoreline Master Program requires a non -water dependent use to provide a public access feature at the shoreline with at least an easement leading from the street to the shoreline or to an area from which the shoreline may be observed. The requirement for one access site for each facility can be waived if the facility is included in a public access plan approved by the Seattle City Council. The access plan described below and shown in figures 2 and 3 maximizes public access by connecting proposed access improvements to the Green River public trail system. The 5 BOEZAW Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment public access proposal is designed to: fulfill the public access requirement for the single remaining redevelopment site in the City of Seattle; provide a similar shoreline amenities for King County and Tukwila sites; and to significantly expand the length and shoreline access opportunities associated with the Green River public trail system. Shoreline Access Proposal The Boeing Company proposes to provide shoreline pedestrian access throughout the corridor as existing plant sites are redeveloped consistent with the requirements of local Shoreline Master Programs and the State Shoreline Management Act. The shoreline access proposal for Duwamish corridor redevelopment consists of a combination of public and employee-only (semi-public) access features and shorelinetrails. The proposed public access features will be located in the south end of the corridor where public rights -of -way and public trail systems offer the best access routes to the shoreline. The proposed public access features will also be integrated with other public trail or sidewalk systems in the area. Boeing sites currently occupy approximately 18,000 linear feet of Duwamish Waterway shoreline. Approximately 9,000 linear feet (50 %) of the Boeing shoreline is available for public use, but there is little or no public awareness or utilization of these shoreline access opportunities due to a lack of public access/trail improvements, signage or connections to other public trail systems. The proposed shoreline public access plan for the ten year redevelopment period consists of construction of shoreline trails for pedestrian and bicycle travel, shoreline viewpoint parks, canoe launch, associated public parking, a shoreline /fisheries habitat restoration project, trail connections between the Green River Trail system and Museum of Flight, and associated directional and informational signage. The proposed public shoreline trail system would be approximately 4,800 feet in length and would consist of an upgrade of the current shoreline path at the Oxbow site. The length of Boeing shoreline planned for industrial redevelopment during next ten years, where public access cannot be provided because of security and liability reasons, is roughly equivalent to the length of the proposed public shoreline trail. Thus the ratio of proposed public shoreline trail improvements to shoreline redevelopment where public access is not provided is approximately 1:1. (Note: It is unlikely that a one -to -one ratio can be maintained if more than 4,800 linear feet of industrial shoreline is redeveloped in the future, because there will be less available shoreline area owned or leased by Boeing that can be devoted to public access.) 6 BOE //VG Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment In addition to the publicly accessible shoreline trail /viewpoint improvements, employee - only shoreline access features for the 25,000 Boeing employees in the corridor will be constructed along the various shoreline sites as they are redeveloped. Public access has never been available, and is not proposed, along the shorelines which run along the interior of Boeing plants. Providing public access to these shoreline segments is not practical due to the unique security requirements of the aerospace industry and the geographic characteristics of the area, such as the large size of the industrial parcels, lack of street end access to the shoreline, and the substantial distance (1,000 ft. to 2,000 ft.) between East Marginal Way South and the Duwamish Waterway shoreline. Specific shoreline access improvement proposed during the ten year redevelopment period: 1. Maintain the approximately 9,000 linear feet of existing shoreline public access. 2. Widen and upgrade the approximately 4,800 foot long Oxbow shoreline trail to an extentthat it is compatible with King County Green RiverTrail standards, and connect the Oxbow trail to the Green River Trail. 3. Construct three shoreline viewpoint/pocket parks along the Oxbow shoreline trail, at intervals of approximately 2,400 linear feet. 4. Participate in shoreline /fisheries habitat restoration project located at the north end of the Oxbow site proposed by the Port of Seattle, with assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and partial funding from a Coastal America Grant. 5. Provide a canoe /portable boat launching feature at one of the three Oxbow viewpoints, if a suitable launching site exists on the parcel. 6. Provide accessory parking stalls designated for public use near the shoreline on the Oxbow site. 7. Complete the unfinished trail route (approximately 1,500 feet) along East Marginal Way South between the Developmental Center south parking lot and the Museum of Flight as part ofthe East Marginal Way street improvements (the entire length of the proposed trail system segment between the Green River Trail and the Museum of Flight would be approximately 9,000 feet long). 8. Install information and directional signage atthe Green RiverTrail connection and along the trail. 9. Construct employee -only shoreline access features or trails, per the design standards contained in this document, on all redevelopment project sites that are located within 200 feet of the shoreline. 7 B4117E /NW Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment 10. Perform routine future maintenance necessary to preserve shoreline access features and landscaping in all public and employee -only shoreline access areas located on Boeing property. Implementation The employee -only shoreline access system, which provides shoreline access within Boeing plant sites, would be tied to redevelopment projects and would be constructed when adjacent Boeing sites or portions of sites that require Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are redeveloped. The Oxbow public shoreline trail /viewpoint system upgrade would be similarly tied to corridor redevelopment activity, and would be implemented in the following manner: • The redevelopment of every one (1) linear foot of Boeing corridor shoreline, where public access is not provided, would generate a requirement for construction of one (1) linear foot of public trail \viewpoint improvements proposed on the Oxbow site. • Redevelopment projects involving or totalling more than 1,000 linear feet of shoreline, where public access is not provided (based upon construction site boundaries), would require simultaneous development of the associated amount of required public access improvements on the Oxbow site. Projects involving redevelopment of less than 1,000 linear feet of shoreline would not require construction of associated Oxbow public access features, unless the shoreline project proposed, when added to previous small projects, totalled more than 1,000 linear feet of shoreline. When this occurs, the public improvements for the current and previously approved small projects would be implemented. The effective date for implementation of required public access improvements shall be the date that the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a project resulting in development of more than 1,000 linear feet of shoreline where public access is not provided. • If The Boeing Company opts to complete all proposed public access improvements prior to redeveloping all corridor sites, the public access improvements provided beyond that which are actually required as a result of the proposed redevelopment shall be credited toward future proposed corridor redevelopment projects at the same ratio. • The publictrail/ viewpoint /shoreline restoration project proposed in this section shall satisfy the shoreline public access obligation for redevelopment of approximately 4,800 linear feet of shoreline where public access is not provided. 1 8 BOE/NG Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Energy Consumption Electric energy consumption by Duwamish corridor sites are projected to be equal to or lower than, existing electrical energy consumption levels bytheend of the redevelopment period (2002). The Boeing Company intends to achieve this goal by implementing a number of regional and local energy conservation measures. Boeing anticipates the completion of a regional Comprehensive Energy Plan in September 1992. Boeing has already initiated several electrical conservation measures. Regional and Local Conservation Measures 1. Boeing has already constructed a co- generation facility fueled by natural gas at the Auburn plant. Other similar facilities are planned for Boeing plants throughout the region. Co- generated power will eventually meet most and possibly all of Boeing's electrical energy demands in the future, reducing Boeing's dependancy on the public power supply. 2. The Boeing Company is currently participating in the EPA sponsored Green Lights Program. All Boeing facilities in the region are being audited and retrofitted to reduce the energy being consumed by lighting. In a 1991 agreement with EPA, Boeing agreed to complete 90% of the retrofit within five years. Boeing anticipates that this audit and retrofit program will be extended to other energy consumption systems. 3. Boeing plans to implement energy management systems in all Boeing plants which allow monitoring and control of energy consumption throughout the plant from a single control room. 4. Studies are underway to determine an approach for converting company vehicles to natural gas. 5. Boeing is providing employee education on energy conservation. This results in energy savings at home as well as on the job. 6. Boeing plans to implement retrofit programs and energy management systems in all facilities in the Duwamish Corridor. 7. Boeing is developing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Seattle City Light to jointly address and coordinate electrical energy issues during the redevelopment period. 9 BOE AIW Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Demolition Debris The Boeing Safety, Health and Environmental Affairs (SHEA) Division (4/11/91) has established the following priorities for the handling of non - hazardous waste materials: 1. Minimize the waste generated 2. Reuse materials on -site 3. Segregate and recycle 4. Off -site landfill disposal Other: • Clean soils which cannot be reused on site must be taken to an appropriate landfill. • Any soil exhibiting an oily /solvent odor or that appears discolored must be segregated and handled as directed by SHEA in coordination with Environmental Affairs. Waste disposal practices performed for the IASL project, currently under construction on the North Duwamish Campus site, illustrate the implementation of these priorites. The same or stricter standards will be applied to all future demolition projects at the IASL site. 1. SHEA tested the site for contaminates. 2. Boeing's Puget Sound Maintenance (PSM) Division surveyed the buildings for asbestos, PCB's and lead, and hired a contractor to do all the remediation. PSM also supervised the transportation and disposal of all waste to a lined landfill site in Arlington, Oregon. 3. Boeing required the demolition contractors to recycle as much of the building as possible. Ninety -two percent (92 %) of the large, old manufacturing buildings demolished for the IASL project were recycled, including crushing the concrete down to a size that could be reused as fill, and recycling the metal structural components and large wire. All remaining debris was transported to a Tined landfill per direction of SHEA. The current (October 1991) Boeing Construction, Demolition and Land Clearing Waste Plan ( "Disposal of CDL Waste ") requires that all construction, demolition and land clearing debris be disposed of either at the Roosevelt Regional or Columbia Ridge or other approved landfills. 10 BOE /NG Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Boeing's Interim Definition of CDL Material: "Construction waste" means solid waste originating from the construction of buildings, roads and other structures. Generally, waste generated during construction consists of new materials and may include, but is not limited to concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, wood, masonry, composition roofing, roofing paper, shakes, shingles, glass, steel, aluminum, copper piping, galvanized piping, plastic piping, sheet rock, and plasterboard. In no event shall construction waste include garbage, sewerage waste, animal carcasses, chemical waste, petroleum waste, asbestos, or dangerous or extremely hazardous waste of any kind. "Demolition waste" means solid waste originating from the demolition or razing of buildings, roads, and other structures. Demolition waste may include, but is not limited to concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, wood, masonry, composition roofing, roofing paper, shakes, shingles, glass, dirt, gravel, steel, aluminium, copper piping, galvanized piping, plastic piping, sheet rock, plasterboard, pallets, asphalt floor tile, and carpeting. In no event shall demolition waste include , liquid waste, garbage, sewerage waste, animal carcasses, chemical waste, petroleum waste, asbestos, or dangerous or extremely hazardous waste. Soil Remediation As part of the development of the Duwamish Corridor, The Boeing Company plans to implement environmental assessments of the areas identified for redevelopment along the Duwamish Corridor. These assessments will assist Boeing in identifying potential cleanup a reasthat need to be addressed during the redevelopment activities. Additionally, these assessments may allow Boeing to perform remediation prior to construction to avoid delays in the project. If Boeing's initial environmental investigation indicates that contamination is present, Boeing will notify the Department of Ecology pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act, Chapter 70.105D RCW. The Department of Ecology will then add the site to their Site Management Information System, a database used to track progress on all confirmed or suspected hazardous waste sites in the State of Washington. Boeing performs such environmental assessments to accomplish the following basic objectives: • Assess the subsurface of proposed sites for buried objects (particularly, unknown underground storage tanks), so that such objects may be removed where necessary. 11 OE/NW Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment • Assess the quality of the soil at the site. This would include an evaluation of the need for soil removal, treatment, or disposal prior to the construction and a determination of whether notification of the Department of Ecology is required. • Assess the groundwater quality beneath the property. Determine if the groundwater quality could affect dewatering activities during construction, whether Agency involvement is required, and what permitting of the discharges is needed. These tasks are performed using the Washington State Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup requirements as a basis for the analyses, detection limits, and remediation alternative evaluation. Additionally, Boeing has developed companywide procedures for implementing both onsite and offsite Boeing- managed remedial action projects. These procedures describe how Boeing establishes subsurface remedial action teams, evaluates cleanup alternatives, manages and coordinates projects, and maintains required records and reports. A corporatewide approach to the subsurface environment insures a consistent remedial response throughout the Company. When contamination is identified on the site proposed for development, Boeing develops a cleanup plan using information gathered during the investigation. The plan identifies preferred cleanup methods and specifies the cleanup standards and other requirements that are pertinent for the site. Whenever possible, Boeing prefers that soil remediation be performed on -site, as this minimizes the use of off -site landfills, lowers the risk to the general public from potential exposure to the materials during transportation, and allows Boeing to perform the cleanup in a more cost - effective manner. When the situation dictates that the material be disposed off -site, it would be transported to an approved disposal location. Water Quality Where practical and feasible, The Boeing Company proposes to maintain water quality by bio- filtering stormwater runoff prior to release into the Duwamish Waterway. Mechanical filtration systems will be utilized where bio- filtration is not practicable. Boeing will use alternatives to asphalt; such as landscaping or grasscrete where possible to minimize the quantity of stormwater discharged from Boeing properties. 12 1717E/NW Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment The Boeing Company currently has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for process waste water. Specific redevelopment projects could eliminate process water discharge, require modifications to existing permits or result in the need for new permits. Redevelopment projects could also affectthecurrentvolume or characteristics of discharges to the sanitary sewer under Metro's Industrial Pretreatment program. These issues will be addressed in future environmental review when the actual redevelopment projects are identified and proposed for permit approval. Future project- specific permitting processes will also address operational impacts, upgrading existing oil /water separators, and construction of alternative collection and disposal systems where necessary. Abandoned storm and sanitary sewer lines will be removed, or cleaned and grouted if removal is not possible. Hazardous Waste Plan The Boeing Company proposes to comply with all regulations. Hazardous Waste plans for Duwamish corridor sites are on file with the Department of Community Development, City of Tukwila. Air Quality The Boeing Company proposes to comply with all air quality regulations. Transportation Management Program (TMP) The current Boeing TMP for the Duwamish Corridor is provided in Attachment A. Boeing plans to develop a new TMP for the corridor as a Transportation mitigation element of the EIS consistent with the requirements of the Washington Transportation Demand Management Law (Chapter 202 Laws of 1991). The focus of the TMP will be reduction of single occupant vehicle (SOV) miles. Boeing will coordinate the TMP with Metro, King County, Tukwila and Seattle. The TMP will be consistent with the 1991 Washington State Highway Access Management Plan. Boeing will complete and filetheTMP with local agencies as required under the provisions of the State law. The Boeing Company will incorporate as many of the elements outlined in the mitigation section of the EIS Transportation chapter as necessary to achieve TMP goals. Specific development projects approved in the Duwamish Corridor prior to adoption of the state- mandated plan will include interim TMPs which will be replaced by the corridor - wide TMP when adopted. 13 BOE /NG Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment 14 BOE /NG Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment The following guidelines and standards address issues such as street frontage improvements, landscaping, shoreline treatment, internal roadways and walkways. They are intended to promote an integrated approach to redevelopment as well as to provide consistency and coordination between the local jurisdictions (Tukwila, Seattle and King County). The guidelines and standards will be used as a guide for Boeing Company planners and designers for future redevelopment in the Duwamish corridor. It is intended that regulatory agencies will use this package in two ways. The first is when reviewing permit applications to insure that future construction in the corridor reflects the intent and direction of the guidelines. The second is when evaluating whether existing regulatory controls should be modified to encourage consistent development throughout the corridor. The following sections contain design guidelines and standardsthat can be used as shown or in combination with other standards. The standards may be modified as needed to fit unique site conditions and requirements. Guidelines refering to development along public "Rights of Way" are listed as ROW1 -10. "Rights -of -Way" design standards follow. Guidelines and standards for shoreline (SL) and Internal (IN) site areas are organized in the same manner. DEVELOPIVIENT !' 'ADEN!' o Access Points ROW1 Utilize internal roadways where possible to facilitate use of shared drive- way entrances and to reduce the number of street curb cuts. —"ai • •Internal • (sr am* ems.rs. Roadway PL 1 • 1 East Marginal Way South ROW2 Limit turning movements for secondary driveway entrances along East Marginal Way South to right- turn -in /right- turn -out. 15 BOE7AW Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Trip Reduction ROW3 Promote use of high - occupancy vehicles and other forms of mass transit by creating major pedestrian entrances that incorporate: a. Drop -off areas b. Mass transit stations c. Covered pedestrian corridors d. Connections to pedestrian tunnels ROW4 Provide employee services on -site that reduce vehicular day -trips by employees. These service uses could include dining, recreational facilities, and banking. Shoreline Trail Transit Station Drop -off Area Shoreline Open Space Viewpoint 2:toryi Major Plaza Class B edestrian Corridor Employee Services _ Pedestrian Node East Marginal Way outh Tunnel Connection Class B Pedestiran Corridor ROW 3 &4 16 BOE/NG Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Airplane Crossings ROW5 Retain the three existing airplane crossings of East Marginal Way. Utilize consistent signing, lighting, fencing and landscaping (refer to Design Standards 3, 4, and 5). Landscape Treatment ROW6 Coordinate landscape features of the various sites along East Marginal Way South, such as trees, plantings, walkways, signing, fencing, screening, furni- ture and lighting. ROW7 Coordinate on -site landscape features with landscaping in the adjacent rights -of -way (refer to Design Standards 1 and 2). ROW8 Where it does not interfere with flightline operations, incorporate visually interesting features into street frontage design, such as views of airplane assembly or flightline activities. Site /Building with Manufacturing activity 0 Building Landscape Buffer J �--- View Potential East Marginal Way South ROW9 Where it does not interfere with flight operations, design fencing that allows visual access to on -site landscaped areas, flightline and airplane assembly areas. a. Provide movable features at airplane crossings. b. Utilize consistent fencing designs along public streets. 17 BOE /NC Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment ROW10 Obscure views of parking Tots from nearby streets by use of landscaping or other forms of screening. ROW11 Limit landscaping on Boeing Field and Military Flight Center sites to areas along public streets and driveway entrances, in order to reduce Foreign Object and Debris (FOD) contamination of flightline and runway areas. The following design standards refer to landscape treatment in the setback area located between the street -side property line and proposed Boeing activities. 18 Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment STREET FRONTAGE PROPERTY LINE (PL) DESIGN PER AGENCY REQUIREMENTS EAST MARGINAL WAY BLDG. MIN.25' BLDG. SETBACK FROM pL MIN.10' LANDSCAPING FROM SIpEWALI SOFT LANDSCAPE OPTION RIGHTS -OF -WAY TYPE "A" The soft landscape option is intended for areas with minimum setback (25 feet) between buildings and the street. It incorporates a 10 foot planting buffer and other features as desired, and measured from the private property side edge of the sidewalk. Building and landscape setbacks can be reduced where flightline positions are located close to the street. Landscape area could be used for bio- filtration. (A fire lane may also be required between the building and the property line.) 19 Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment STREET FRONTAGE DESIGN PER AGENCY REQUIREMENTS PL MIN.25' BLDG. SETBACK BLDG. 1 EAST MARGINAL WAY PAVING SHRUB THE 700x0 5 t� } � i!!.]i }4. :..:..ry � i': \'�: %i ���'i �': i:\4 \'i.K!.•;i�l �ii� :a'i�i • iAII.•.v iilr. y; Vii- ... 1ii•:{�I!,V. '.V.\'.M'•— i : %ir: %41 ..::i. L;%\j!r!.i :iii %:. .'i %i l.lV ��,!�: .V• . .. ..... m Y� .� • ••.! �• •• I 111111• 111 a - - -• -g '. •• •.� •. .._.. HARD LANDSCAPE OPTION RIGHTS -OF -WAY TYPE "B" The hard landscape option is intended for areas with minimum setback (25 feet) between buildings and the street. It incorporates paving and plants in containers or planters. (A fire lane may also be required between the building and the property line.) 20 .1717E /NC Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH LANDSCAPED BUFFER ZONE r 5 OPTIONAL CANOPY LOCATION PARKING LOT :0): +:0):4 !{}L:: ::' :�:t:. ». _. . D - �CLCiC *. , y 1; MIN.15' »M BIO- FILTRATION OPTION RIGHTS -OF -WAY TYPE "C" This option, containing a landscaped berm, is intended for areas between the street and parking Tots, and optional for any other use. It incorporates earth form, plants and other features when appropriate. The landscape setback is measured from the edge of the private property side edge of the sidewalk. 21 BOE /NG Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment E EXISTING AIRPLANE CROSSING EXISTING PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL Existing Airplane and Pedestrian Tunnel Crossings 22 BOE/NG Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment GRASSCRETE OR PAVING PL REMOVABLE FENCE MOVABLE PLANTERS vilGRASSCRETE OR PAVING RIGHTS -OF -WAY TYPE "D" Setback treatment for airplane crossings. Grasscrete could be used in non - weight bearing sections of plane crossings. 23 BOEMG Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment DFvwwME r • Pedestrian Shoreline Trails and Viewpoints • SL1 Provide a system of pedestrian trails and view points along the shoreline of redeveloped Boeing sites (refer to Figure 2). SL2 Maintain existing shoreline public access points, or relocate them if the street ends are vacated. SL3 Enhance public shoreline access in the corridor in accordance with the proposed shoreline public access plan (refer to Figures 2 and 3). SL4 Provide variety in design along shoreline walkways, viewpoints and plazas with features such as landscaping, lighting, signs, and furniture. SL5 Include riparian vegetation along the shoreline. Shoreline Bank Protection SL6 Restore the Duwamish Waterway bank if needed using designs that are compatible with fisheries habitat (refer to Design Standards 6 through 11). Design of Buildings Adjacent to the Shoreline SL7 Design structures to take advantage of the river frontage location by incorporating features such as: a. Plazas and landscaped open space that connect with a shoreline trail system b. Windows that offer views of the river c. Pedestrian entrances that face the river SL8 Design of fencing adjacent to the shoreline. Provide fencing (non -view obscuring) only when necessary to protect buildings, employees or the general public. a. Where there are public trails, locate any required fencing between Boeing facilities and the shoreline trail. 24 BOEmfda Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment b. Where there are trails for Boeing employees, locate any required fencing between the trail and the shoreline. SL9 Provide compensatory plazas or similar pedestrian oriented facilities where proposed buildings are to be located closer than 40 feet to the shoreline. Such features shall be provided adjacent to the shoreline on either one or divided and provided on both sides of the building so that an average setback of 40 feet is maintained. Compensatory open space shall be provided on the same site as the building which encroaches into the shoreline setback area. The square footage of the compensatory setback shall equal or exceed the square footage of the encroachment, and shall be added onto (behind) the shoreline setback area. Where practical, the add -on area shall be the same width and depth and shall be adjacent to the encroaching building adjacent to the building which encroaches into the setback area. Shoreline Setback Area I Shore Duwam ish Waterway %q / Required Compensatory Shoreline Setback 1>Q Alternative Configuration Building Encroachment into Setback Alternative Configuration 25 19147E/NW Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment 1 %TIDE EL 15.05 MHHW EL 11.30 SCALE 0 5 10 Riprap with intertidal bench Riparian Plants Trail and Fire Lane, if needed Trees (Optional) Building * Measured from Ordinary Existing Grade High Water Line SHORELINE TYPE "A" Riprap with riparian vegetation, trail, and landscaping. The additional land needed to improve fisheries habitat and create a more gradual shoreline back slope, should consist of both: excavating the upper slope from dry land area; and filling the submerged area to create the perched beach. An Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit would be required for filling in the submerged areas. The shoreline setback should be measured from the pre - existng shoreline location prior to bank improvements. 26 BOE /NC Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment 1 %TIDE EL 15.05 MHHW EL 11.30 MLLW EL 0.0� ,ter MIN. 40 SHORELINE SETBACK* Riprap Concrete / Timber Steps Grass Swale (Trail Location Optional) SCALE 0 5 10 * Measured from Ordinary High Water Line SHORELINE TYPE "B" Steps to shoreline. Standard also shows how bio- filtration swales can be incorporated into setback area. 27 Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment 1% TIDE EL 15.05 MHHW EL 11.30 MLLW EL 0.0 MIN.40 SHORELINE SETBACK 12' TRAIL Riprap with intertidal bench Bulkhead Riparian Plants Grass Swale (Trail Location Optional) SCALE 0 5 10 * Measured from Ordinary High Water Line SHORELINE TYPE "C" Riprap with vertical bulkhead, swale and landscaping behind. 28 B17E /NW' Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment 1% TIDE EL 15.05 MHHW EL 11.30 MLLW EL 0.0 Riprap Wetland plants +8 to +11 Riparian Plants Existing Grade (approximate) 0 5 10 " Measured from Ordinary High Water Line SHORELINE TYPE "D" Suitable design for creation of new wetlands /fisheries habitat areas, if desired. 29 BOE/NG Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Water Level Existing Building Concrete Rubble Existing Bldg. Skirting Redeveloped Bldg. Deck for Trail Building Found. Rock Riprap Piling w /Security Net Building Access SHORELINE TYPE "F" Replacement or enhancement of riprap bulkheads beneath existing over - water buildings. Replace wood skirting with wire fencing to allow more sunlight penetration. (The 2 -10 Building extends over the ordinary high water line approximately 25 feet. The 2 -41 building extends over the ordinary high water line approximately 45 feet.) 30 Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment SHORELINE VIEWPOINT/ CANOE LAUNCH CONNECTION TO GREEN RIVER. TRAIL, SIGNAGE PUBLIC BRIDGE ROUTE TO EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH FISHERIES HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT WITH INFORMATIONAL SIGNAGE SHORELINE ACCESS /VIEWPOINT CANOE LAUNCH 1�1 r ,...mw 1111111111111i LEGEND •••• EXISTING SHORELINE PUBLIC ACCESS ON BOEING PROPERTY PROPOSED SHORELINE PUBLIC TRAIL ENHANCEMENT EMPLOYEE SHORELINE ACCESS O WATER ACCESS /VIEW POINT KING COUNTY GREEN. RIVER TRAIL (PEDESTRIAN & BICYLE) CITY OF SEATTLE URBAN TRAIL (PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE) TOTAL BOEING SHORELINE APPROX. 18.000 LINEAR FEET PROPOSED SHORELINE TRAIL /VIEWPOINT UPGRADES ON THE OXBOW SITE PUBLIC ACCESS EXISTING: - DUWAMISH OFFICE PARK - OXBOW -SOUTH PARK - NORTH DUWAMISH CAMPUS - DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER - BRIDGES 1,200 4,800 1,200 500 1.000 500 9,200 LF FUTURE SHORELINE REDEVELOPENENT WITHOUT PUBLIC ACCESS: PLANT 2 /NORTH DUWAMISH CAMPUS ISAACSON /THOMPSON DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER 3.000 300 1,500 4,800 LF SHORELINE NOT BEING DEVELOPED OVER THE NEXT TEN TEARS 4,000 LF 4 800 LF BOEING DUWAMISH CORRIDOR SHORELINE ACCESS & PUBLIC TRAIL SYSTEM 31 Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment LEGEND PROPOSED SHORELINE PUBLIC TRAIL ENHANCEMENT O SHORELINE VIEW POINT KING COUNTY GREEN RIVER TRAIL (PEDESTRIAN & BICYLE) PROPOSED SHORELINE TRAIL /VIEWPOINT UPGRADES ON THE OXBOW SITE - 4,800 LF BOEING PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS 32 1747E/NW Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EAFELOPMEPIT NU RNA E. TO B0E1 Sly Internal Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation Routes IN1 Create a hierarchical system of internal roadways that provides safe, pre- dictable and convenient access through and between the various corridor sites (refer to Design Standards 16 through 19). a. Reinforce the hierarchy with features such as roadway width, landscaping and sidewalks. (Landscaping is not required in flightline and runway areas.) b. Provide principal circulation routes at the perimeter of a site, where possible, limiting vehicular activity in the center of the site so that a pedestrian environment can be achieved in the center of the site. c. Design access to parking and service areas to minimize the conflict between of truck/passenger vehicles and pedestrians. Type Roadway East Marginal Way South Type 'C' Roadway Type '5' Roadway Type 'A' Roadway Entrance IN2 Create a hierarchical system of internal walkways corridors that provides safe, predictable and convenient access though and between the various corridor sites (refer to Design Standards 20 through 24). a. Reinforce the hierarchy with features such as corridor and walkway width, canopies, open space, amenities and landscaping. b. Utilize pedestrian tunnels under East Marginal Way in place of crosswalks or pedestrian bridges where possible. 33 AWE //VG Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment c. Align walkways to minimize the distance between building entrances and between buildings and parking areas. J Building Entrance Walkway Parking d. Provide continuous protection from rain along heavily travelled walkways between major buildings and public streets. Building Entrance e. Provide similar protection on secondary walkways at queuing points such as at transit stops, street corners and at guard stations. f. Provide pedestrian amenities along heavily travelled walkways such as landscaping, lighting, benches, information kiosks, telephones and news stands. 9. Provide plazas or other open space features at convenient locations along pedestrian corridors such as adjacent to entrances or major buildings, or at heavily travelled walkway intersections. Use open space to reinforce areas of highest pedestrian densities. Locate recreational and usable open space to allow year round 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. conditions of sun, if possible. Pedestrian arculation rtts� ►' i � %. // '�, �, Sunny Planting i "3` j `' {, ', ,' ` y Open Edge S ace Pedestrian Node N 34 BOE /NC Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Parking IN3 Locate parking facilities for handicapped, visitors, high occupancy vehicles (HOVs), motorcycles and bicycles adjacent to the workplace. Single occu- pancy vehicle employee parking could be located at more distant, clustered parking facilities. 1N4 Provide the majority of grade level parking alongside buildings rather than between buildings and the public rights -of -way or between buildings and the shoreline. Building Design IN5 Limit heights of all buildings to 150 feet in order to preserve an uninterrupted view of the West Seattle Ridgeline from the Interstate 5 freeway. IN6 Reduce the appearance of building bulk and scale as seen from walkways by providing interest and variety at the pedestrian level. Use design features such as canopies, color, landscaping, fenestration and facade modulation. IN7 Provide variety between buildings, parking Tots, or roadways. Use features such as landscaping, canopies or alternative paving techniques. Visual Transition Area Storm Water Runoff IN8 Incorporate surface storm water bio- filtration systems into site, open space, and landscaping design. Utilize mechanical water quality treatment sys- tems where site constraints do not allow for the space needed to construct surface bio - filtration systems. 35 Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment 88 -144' d, 4 A. 20 -40' 24' ± , 16' 24'± 20 -40' SEPARATED ROADWAY OPTIONAL PLANTING SCREEN PLANTING AGAINST PARKING ROADWAY OXOXO .tY. ly,iy.rYi: r. BIO- FILTRATION FEATURES OPTIONAL NOTE: WALKWAY TO BE INCLUDED WHEN ALTERNATIVE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IS NOT PROVIDED ELSEWHERE INTERNAL SITE ENTRY CLASS "A" Major site entry point, provides adequate width for four lanes and landscaped buffer. (Section does not need to extend beyond entrance gate) 36 BOE/NG Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment 461± PLANTING 15' ± M WALKWAY 3 �+a % ti 16'± r C_ 15' ± MIN.5'. SCREEN PLANTING AGAINST PARKING WALKWAY ALKWAY NOTE: LOCATION OF SIDEWALK SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO SITE CONDITIONS INTERNAL ROADWAY CLASS "B" Two lane roadway with walkways and landscaping on both sides. This standard is intended for vehicular circulation roads. 37 BOE/NG Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment )( MAX 32'± x 16'± 01,MIN.5'o, SCREEN PLANTING AGAINST PARKING PLANTING ROADWAY —' WALKWA k NOTE: LOCATION OF SIDEWALK SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO SITE CONDITIONS INTERNAL ROADWAY CLASS "C" Two lane roadway with 5' walkway on one side and planting areas on both sides. This standard is intended for roadways where a sidewalk is only needed on one side of the street. 38 1 BOE/A/G Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment INTERNAL ROADWAY CLASS "D" Two lane roadway with no sidewalks or landscaping. Intended for delivery driveways or service roads where no pedestrian access is anticipated. 39 AWE /MG Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment MIN.50' BLDG. WALL 12'+ TYP. WALKWAY CANOPY* 1 EMPLOYEE SERVICE BUILDINGS PERMITTED IN CORRIDOR 1 1 f / �s C SEA G r • -+r,� SPECIAL PAVING EVERGREEN OR DECIDUOUS I. 1... .4. :•,;,::.; .,......;::;;.::•;::;;:::,.:. _ _`.: :.'. _: - •) : . . O • . . .: _. v Y•,wlK,; ' •,, .:•.C;k }i: `:iYri r :� ` - :•.7.•Y.•7 :iti ` � � i4'i'.' . w %C - '7ooXw ...,:C Mi.•;. _. ... .,.�»a.:v;':rii .... . ... ..• _._ r , •ii �;:v7 ',''i.�i �• w:tiM iaHH iiiii *ILLUSTRATIVE CANOPY DESIGN PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR CLASS "A" Major, centrally located pedestrian access corridors. [Refer to Guidelines, ROW 4, 1N2, g & f] 40 BOE /NG Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment till-- BLDG. WALL AVERAGE 25' CANOPY ALTERNATIVE TRESS OR SHRUBS TYP. WALKWAY J ' ' CANOPY* i4 "ILLUSTRATIVE CANOPY DESIGN PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR CLASS "B" Secondary corridor connecting densely populated buildings, large parking areas, and pedestrian oriented open spaces with Class A pedestrian corridors. 41 Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment MAJOR 8' ± 8' ± MINOR X 5' x 5' X PARKING i, WALKWAY X PLANTING X DRIVEWAY PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS CLASS "C" Pedestrian corridors in parking lot areas. Walkway width of five to eight feet depending upon size of parking area. 42 Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment PLANTING WALKWAY Ea BUILDING LINE PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR CLASS "D" Pedestrian corridors in parking lot areas. Walkway width of five to eight feet depending upon size of parking area. 43 Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment 44 BOE/NG Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment 46 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is entered into as of June 25, 1990 between The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle ( "Metro ") and The Boeing Company. 1. Metro and Boeing are parties to an Agreement dated as of December 18, 1989 (the "Agreement ") which created an administrative framework for addressing traffic problems of mutual concern to the parties. Addendum No. 1 to the Agreement, also dated December 18, 1989, provided that Boeing and Metro would co- operate to develop, define, and ratify a Master Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to serve as the foundation document for all jurisdictions of Boeing located within King County that require a TMP as part of an Environmental Impact Statement. 2. Attached to this Memorandum of Understanding as Attachment A is a Master Transportation Management Plan. Boeing and Metro each hereby acknowledge, accept, and approve the terms of the Master TMP as attached, and each party hereby agrees that such TMP, as attached, fulfills the parties' respective obligations to develop, define, and ratify a TMP, as provided in the referenced Addendum No. 1. The parties have executed this Memorandum of Agreement as of the date first written above. THE BOEING COMPANY GLB1:062:062290 MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE By Its D E P . Ia • r-/s/- ATTACHMENT A MASTER TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.0 Purpose and Authority At major work sites Boeing employees represent a significant proportion of the local work force and have a corresponding influence on the local transportation network. The Master Transportation Management Plan offers a cooperative, voluntary and mutual statement of principals for use in guiding future transportation planning efforts designed to minimize the influence of Boeing employees on the Puget Sound regional transportation network. That network includes all forms of surface, roadway transportation. 2.0 Problem Statement A. Transportation networks serving Boeing sites within the region typically are at or approaching capacity. B. Pressure on the regional transportation network caused by regional growth make action imperative. 3.0 Objectives The Objectives of the proposed Master Transportation Management Plan are to: 1) Improve the ingress and egress of Boeing employees at their workplaces in a timely manner 2) Demonstrate a commitment by The Boeing Company to address regional transportation issues in cooperation with local, regional and state jurisdictions. 3) Either reduce or achieve zero growth in vehicle trips generated from Boeing sites during the Peak P.M. Traffic period (3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.). 4) Decrease Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) use at The Boeing Company work sites. 4.0 Strategies Strategies used in achieving the stated objectives may differ for various Boeing sites. Guidelines for the applicability of specific strategies may be found in Table A.1 (Attached) which identifies appropriate strategies for Urban, Suburban, and Scattered sites. 06/22/90 4.1 Specific strategies to be used in achieving Objective 1: ' Parking Management * Best Engineering and Site Design Practices ' Monitoring * Modal separation 4.2 Specific strategies to be used in achieving Objective 2: * Transportation Coordinators * Preferred car pool and van pool parking ▪ Continued involvement in regional transportation issues ' Adoption of site specific Transportation Management Plans ' Establish focal. point for generating regional and inter -local agreements on transportation issues. 4.3 Specific strategies to be used in achieving Objective 3: ' Bicycle facilities ' Work scheduling and facilities locations ' Mode split goals ' Exploration of new technologies ' Cooperative agreements with local and state transportation agencies ' Evaluations 4.4 Specific Strategies to be used in achieving Objective 4: * Promotional Campaigns • Commuter information centers * Improved facilities to support transit rideshare and carpool services * Fixed route transit service * Ridematch service ' Vanpools * Customized Bus Service * Incentive Program 06/22/90 5.0 Implementation 5.1 Site Specific TMP'' • Major Boeing sites within the Puget Sound Region will undertake development of a site specific Transportation Management Plan (TMP). These TIv1Ps will include: - mode split objective - promotion plan - specific strategies s Major Boeing sites within the Puget Sound Region will appoint an on -site Transportation Coordinator, to implement the TMP's. ▪ Site TMP's will be closely coordinated with the local transit authorities and municipal agencies for consistency with the local transportation goals and objectives. ▪ Site TMP's will develop a comprehensive monitoring and reporting schedule for measuring the effectiveness of the initiatives in accomplishing the objectives. s Site TMP's will be attached to this plan as addenda. 5.2 Measurements Monitoring schedules for all sites will report measurements which provide an aggregate level of performance in attaining the goals and objectives of this plan. Specific measurements include, but are not limited to: Baseline vehicle count during P.M. peak (3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.) Site Population (and rate of change) Site Acreage, (and rate of change) On Site Parking Stalls (and rate of change) On Site preferential parking stalls Site HOV use (and rate of change) 5.3 Periodic review with affected agencies Quarterly meetings will be held with local and regional jurisdictions and authorities affected by this Master Transportation Management Plan. The purpose of these meetings is for regular updates on rogress, problems and program activities which have regional impact and significance. All parties to this plan will meet annually to review the goals, objectives and strategies of this plan and target further specific regional goals. 5.4 Periodic reports on regional progress The findings, conclusions and opinions of the parties to this plan will be summarized annually and reported to all affected agencies. 06/22/90 Table A.1 Service Emphasis ape of Site Primary Secondary Urban ' Fixed route transit * Ridesharing * Specialized Service Suburban * Ridesharing ' Custom Bus * Specialized Service * Fixed Route Service Scattered * Ridesharing * Fixed Route Transit * Custom Bus * Specialized Service Support Programs Promotion Annual focused campaign Bus zone near building entrances Preferential Parking HOV support facilities Shift scheduling to support HOV use Cost share passes Company -wide passes Restrict parking supply Carpool incentives 06/22/90 BOE /A/C Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment 52 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (Revised October 23, 1991) Recitals The purpose of this Memorandum of Agreement is to coordinate review of a non - project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a 10 -year plan to redevelop properties owned or occupied by the Boeing Company in the East Marginal Way corridor, as described in Attachment A, (hereinafter "the Plan "). WHEREAS the Boeing Company has announced plans for the redevelopment of a substantial portion of its East Marginal Way corridor properties; and WHEREAS the City of Tukwila, acting as the lead agency under the State Environmental Policy Act with the agreement of the City of Seattle and King County, has issued a determination of significance for the Plan based upon the determination that the Plan is significant in both scope and potential adverse environmental impacts, and accordingly requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); and WHEREAS project construction activities under the Plan will occur over a 10 year period in the jurisdictions of the City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle and King County; and WHEREAS the close coordination of the non- project EIS scoping, development and review is critical for efficient and comprehensive management of the Plan; and WHEREAS parties to this agreement have determined it to be in their best interests to execute this Memorandum of Agreement in order to maximize public input and to enable consistent processing of the Plan; NOW THEREFORE the undersigned do hereby agree to the following: 1. The City of Tukwila shall continue to act as the lead agency with respect to the development of the non - project EIS for the Plan. As lead agency the City of Tukwila shall be responsible for all administrative matters relating to the coordination of environmental review for the Plan. 2. The City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle and King County shall jointly review, comment and set conditions for the Plan in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. 3. The City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle and King County shall utilize the EIS and its set of mitigating measures in subsequent review of individual building permits for compliance with each jurisdiction's environmental policies. 4. The City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle and King County shall retain all rights relating to the permitting or approval of proposed projects located within their respective jurisdictions. With respect to such projects each jurisdiction shall retain the right to require additional SEPA review and to act as lead agency. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT October 23, 1991 2 5. As lead agency for the non - project EIS, the City of Tukwila shall be responsible for provision of office space, appropriate logistical support and supervision of the EIS coordinator. 6. The City of Tukwila is responsible for collecting costs incurred by the parties to this agreement, and for submitting a monthly invoice to the Boeing Company for payment. 7. The City of Seattle and King County shall be reimbursed for time spent on non - project EIS scoping, development, review or comment. The City of Tukwila shall remit payment to the City of Seattle and King County based upon the hourly rate established with each jurisdiction's applicable fee ordinance. If a jurisdiction requires a deposit on hand prior to commencing the work, and if that jurisdiction will charge that deposit for services rendered, then that jurisdiction shall submit the estimated deposit request to the City of Tukwila, which will transmit that deposit amount to the jurisdiction. In turn, should circumstances warrant, the deposit shall be augmented or refunded. 8. Each oartv shall hold harmless the ethers. their agents or employees. from and against any and all liability arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property resulting in whole or in part from acts or omissions of each party, its agents, servants, officers, or employees. 9. This agreement shall be in full force and effect as of the date last executed and shall remain in effect until completion of the Plan or written agreement of the parties. Any party may terminate its further participation in this agreement by sending written notice to all other parties. Entered into this 3day of acs, 1991. ' Approved as to Form: 2 Tukwila City Attorney Approved as to Form: THE CITY OF TUKWILA Director, Dept. of Community Development THE CITY OF SEATTLE Director, Dept. of Cons KING COUNTY 04: rector, Dept. of Parks, Planning & Resources PRELIMINARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR BOEING DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Prepared for the Review and Comment of Citizens and Government Agencies in Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act of 1972, Revised Code of Washington 43.21c and SEPA Rules, April 4, 1984, Chapter 197 -11 Washington Administrative Code Date of Issue: Date Comments Due: sea8005/039Q.51/1 10/10/91 ` nil f ff t._ I U 1.1 .,_� MAR 2 0 1992 i . rj4.. -,1 INFG t)Er,, .,..`,..: FACT SHEET TITLE AND DESCRIPTION The proposed action is a proposal for redevelopment of the Boeing property along the Duwamish corridor. The Duwamish corridor is a 4.5 -mile stretch of land in the valley of the Duwamish Waterway from Ellis Avenue South on the north to South 126th Street on the south. Over a 10 -year period (1992 through 2002), The Boeing Company proposes to redevelop approximately 30 percent of its existing manufacturing facilities. Future construction will emphasize laboratory, office, and developmental manufactur- ing uses. Work force population is not expected to exceed 25,000 employees. SPONSOR AND APPROXIMATE DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION The Boeing Company, the proposal sponsor, expos that construction activities will begin in 1992 with all phases of redevelopment .completed by 2002. The lead agency is the City off'Iukwila:T cpartment of Community Development. The responsible official is: ...... . L. Rick Beeler, Director::: Department of CmmunyDevelopment City of 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington'98188 Comments and questions on the Draft EIS should be addressed to: Robert S. Betts Project Coordinator Boeing Duwamish EIS Planning Department City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 431 -3680 10020E2Eq.SEA/iii 3/19/92 AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS TO EIS This Draft EIS was prepared under the direction of the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development. Additional research and analysis were provided by: CH2M HILL, Inc. 777 108th Avenue NE P.O. Box 91500 Bellevue, Washington 98009-2050 DATE OF ISSUE OF DRAFT EIS COMMENTING'''' Comments on this Draft EIS are welcomeii.ancLifibuld be addressed to . : Comments are due • ..... PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing on the Draft EIS will be held at p.m. on 1991, at 10020E2Eq.SEA/iv 3/19/92 APPROXIMATE DATE OF FINAL ACTION BY LEAD AGENCY iv OTHER RELATED MATERIAL The Boeing Company has procured a separate document entitled 'Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal." This and other background material and support docu- ments can be found either at the City of Tukwila or at CH2M HILL (address above). AVAILABILITY OF . COPIES A limited number of copies of this document have been printed and made available for public distribution at the _ . Additional copies, if needed, are available from the City at the cost of reproduction ($ for the first page, $ for every page thereafter). Copies are also available at the 10020E2E.SEAq 10020E2Eq.SEA/v 3/19/92 V CONTENTS Part I. Introduction 1 Summary 2 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives Part II. Potential Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3 Land and Shoreline Use 4 Transportation Part III. Other Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measuir'es. 5 Population, Housing, and Employment 6 Air 7 Environmental Health 8 Stormwater and Water Quality 9 Energy 10 Public Services and Utilities Part IV. Appendices A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Glossary of Acronym References Proposed Transfigrtation Management Plan for Boeing North Duwamish Campus Summary of L:aws'‘nd Regulations Affecting Regulated PSCOG Origin and .. l stxpation Data Memorandum of Agreenient Distribution List 10020E2Fq.SEA/vii 3/19/92 vii Materials Page 1 -1 2 -1 3 -1 4 -1 5 -1 6 -1 7 -1 8 -1 9 -1 10 -1 TABLES 1 -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures 2 -1 Mix of Uses in Boeing Duwamish Corridor 2 -2 Employee Mix in Boeing Duwamish Corridor 2 -3 Public Shoreline Access in Duwamish Corridor 2 -4 Estimated Employment for Proposed Action and Mterhtives 2 -5 Estimated Square Footage by Use for Propost dAction and Alternatives 3 -1 Floor Area of Current Boeing - Owned Site Usgs 3 -2 Shoreline Classifications of Study Ate, Sits 3 -3 Summary of General Zonirig;:ancfi Shoreline Development Requirements For Each Site ::: .: 3 -9 Page 1 -8 2 -3 2 -3 2 -6 2 -8 2 -9 3 -3 3 -7 4 -1 Daily Roadway Capaei 4 -8 • 4 -2 Description of Arterial T vels of Services 4 -8 4 -3 Estimated Parking: SnFply and Demand -- Existing Conditions 4 -13 4 -4 Employee Mode Split 4 -14 4 -5 SOV Reduction Goals 4 -15 4 -6 Estimated Daily Trip Generation 4 -25 4 -7 Level of Service for Selected Roadways 4 -29 4 -8 Estimated Parking Supply and Demand - -No Action Alternative 4 -31 4 -9 SOV Reduction Goals - -No Action Alternative 4 -32 4 -10 Estimated Year 2002 Daily Trip Generation for Proposed Action and Alternatives 4 -34 10020E2Fq.SEA/viii 3/19/92 1x TABLES (Continued) Page 4 -11 Evaluation of Oxbow Interchange —Year 2002 LOS Comparisons 4 -38 4 -12 Estimated Peak Parking Demand (Proposed Action and Alternatives) 4 -39 4 -13 SOV Reduction Goals -- Proposed Action and Alternatives 4 -40 4 -14 Mode Split Percentage for SOV Goals 4 -40 4 -15 Estimated Fair -Share Traffic Mitigation Costs-- Proposed,Action 4 -47 5-1 Summary of Boeing Duwamish Corridor Po tilatlon P ::.� ... 5 -1 5 -2 Puget Sound Region Population, Housing �ianitErnployment by County 5 -1 5 -3 Boeing Regional Population by County ''' 5 -4 Residences of Boeing Duwamishi Corti 5 -5 Boeing- Related Housing' 5 -3 5 -6 Boeing Employment by:,Plaro and Job Type 5 -4 5 -7 Boeing - Related employ-limo by County 5 -5 6 -1 Ambient Air Quality ''Sta .ciards 6 -2 6 -2 1990 Air Quality Data 6 -3 Weekday Project Area CO Emissions 7 -1 Maximum Permissible Noise Limitations 9 -1 Summary of Annual Electrical Energy Use 10020E2Fq.SEA[ix 3/19/92 x 6 -3 6 -6 7 -8 9 -1 FIGURES 1 -1 Vicinity Map and Neighborhoods 2 -1 Boeing -Owned and . Leased Property and Future Sites 3 -1 Existing Site Uses 3 -2 Generalized Zoning Districts 3 -3 Existing and Proposed Recreation. and Open Space. .:. 3 -4 Airport Height Overlay Districts 3 -5 Proposed Site Uses 3 -6 Existing and Proposed Boeing Sholine A, cess`and:Trail Plan 4 -1 Existing Roadway System 4 -2 1991 Average Weekday. Tri ffic .: t4iuznes 4 -3 1991 AM and PM.::Peak- Hoiar'' raffic Volumes 4 -4 Estimated LOS for Existwg: Conditions 4 -5 Accident History (:1J 88= .j2131/90) 4 -6 Existing Parking 4 -7 Existing Transit Services 4 -8a 2010 Transit/HOV System 4 -8b Transitway System Alternatives 4 -8c Rail System Alternative 4 -9 Percent Daily Project Trip Distribution 4 -10 Forecast 2002 Average Weekday Traffic Volumes with No Action Alternative 10020E2Fq.SEA/x 3/19/92 xi Page 1 -2 2 -2 3 -2 3 -5 3 -15 3 -20 3 -25 3 -29 4 -2 4 -5 4 -6 4 -10 4 -11 4 -12 4 -16 4 -18 4 -19 4 -20 4 -27 4 -28 FIGURES (Continued) Page 4 -11 Estimated LOS for Year 2002 with No Action Alternative 4 -30 4 -12 Forecast 2002 Average Weekday Project- Generated Traffic Volumes With Proposed Action 4 -36 4 -13 Estimated LOS for Year 2002 with Proposed Action 4 -37 4 -14 Forecast 2002 Average Weekday Project-Generated m.;,.. ` lc Volumes. with Manufacturing Center Alternative 4 -15 Estimated LOS for Year 2002 with Manufacturing Center,;;,. Alternative 7 -1 Typical Sound Levels (dBA) 7 -2 Projected Community Noise Pattern;fgr the ear.' 2000 8 -1 Existing Storm Sewers 10020E2Fq.SEA 10020E2Fq.SEA/xi 3/19/92 x11 4 -44 4 -45 7 -7 7 -11 8 -2 A \ r i ) Chapter 1 SUMMARY PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action is a proposal for redevelopment of Boeing properties in the Duwamish corridor. Over a 10 -year period (1992 through 2002), The Boeing Company proposes to redevelop approximately 30 percent of its existing manufacturing facilities. Future construction will emphasize laboratory, office, and developmental manufacturing uses. Workforce population is not expected to exceed approxiniately 25,000 employees. Chapter 2 of this EIS describes the proposed action in more ,detail. A full description of the proposal is provided in The Boeing Company's Duwamish Corridor Redevelop - ment Proposal (under separate cover). The Duwamish corridor can be described broadly as a.45- mile -lohg stretch of land in the valley of the Duwamish Waterway, from Ellis' Ave►ue South on the north to South 126th Street on the south. The majority of the project" area lies in the City of Tukwila, with portions also in King County and Seattle. i::vicinity<map is shown as Figure 1 -1. Ten major Boeing sites are located in the »u vainisli corridor. The Boeing Company's ownership and leases in the corridor...now include` approximately 650 acres and about 9.9 million square feet of developed floor The proposed redevelopment vvonkl.`invo1ve 'demolition of about 3.7 million square feet of floor area in the Duwamish corridor and construction of about 4.3 million square feet of new floor area At the completion of the redevelopment, the corridor would contain a new total ot 10.6 million square feet of developed floor. area Emphasis in the redeveloped areas; would sift from manufacturing to research and development, and the mix of employee. would change correspondingly. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The City of Tukwila and The Boeing Company have mutually agreed to review the broad issues raised by the Duwamish corridor redevelopment proposal in the context of a programmatic environmental impact statement. The City's objectives are: • To improve its understanding of the cumulative impacts of the proposed redevelopment; • To increase predictability in the timing and nature of project- specific improvements; 10020DCC.SEA/1 3/19/92 To identify mitigation early in the redevelopment planning process and to facilitate review of individual permits; and 1 -1 HARBOR ISLAND SPOKANE ST. SOUTH SEATTLE LAKEWOOD STUDY AREA COLUMBIA f GEORGETOWN \ G \Dh \. HIGHLAND 50UTH . «. _ ` \ PARK . I \ \ N t \ \ ; ! _ .... \ DUNLAP WHITE - - - Seattle City CENTER i\: _ _ t \ Limits \ I t \ I a 7 — ".,- \ 3 SEATTLE BELLEVU \ t ,, t , :e t.. •. �i Ern \. SEWARD PARK UPLANDS BRIGHTON STUDY AREA RENTON DUWAMISt RAINIER BEACH ALLENTOWN AUBURN Scale in Feet TACOMA 0 4,000 8,000 Seattle City Limits Figure 1 -1 VICINITY MAP AND NEIGHBORHOODS 1 -2 • To avoid piecemeal decisionmaking by reviewing the broader plans for corridor redevelopment prior to considering individual projects. The City anticipates entering into a mitigation agreement with The Boeing Company after environmental review of the redevelopment proposal is completed. The agree- ment would allow the City to monitor individual projects and determine when phased mitigation payments, improvements, or activities are required. The City also anticipates that an interlocal agreement with King County and the City of Seattle will be signed, and that the agreement will establish a consistent approach among the three jurisdic- tions for review of individual projects implementing the redevelopment proposal. The Boeing Company's objectives are: • To redevelop portions of Duwamish corridor properties and create a unified industrial campus integrating engineering, research and develop- mental manufacturing office uses • To work with local agencies to establish a coordinated, comprehensive approach to corridor redevelopment • To identify early in the process the extent and timing of mitigation to be required, thereby making individual permit review and approval more timely and predictable To maintain its flexibility in responding to market forces and opportuni- ties The Boeing Company anticipates entering into a mitigation agreement with the City of Tukwila consistent with these objectives. APPROVAL PROCESS The City of Tukwila is the lead agency for programmatic review of The Boeing Com- pany's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal. King County, the City of Seattle, and the City of Tukwila entered into an agreement to coordinate review of this non - project environmental impact statement. A copy of the Memorandum of Agreement is included as Appendix F. The City anticipates that agreement with the project propo- nent on a set of mitigation measures to address redevelopment impacts will occur during or following environmental review of the proposal. The draft mitigation mea- sures are summarized later in this chapter and described throughout the text of this document. Individual project actions are expected to follow as redevelopment is imple- mented. Each of these project actions will undergo separate environmental review for consistency with the impacts and mitigation discussed in this programmatic environmen- tal impact statement prior to individual permit decisions. Supplemental environmental 10020DCC.SEA/3 3/19/92 1 -3 review will be consistent with the objectives of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for project- specific actions. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED In addition to the proposed action, two alternatives are reviewed in this document: No Action and Manufacturing Center. These are summarized below and described more fully in Chapter 2. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No Action alternative is discussed throughout this environmental document to provide a common point for comparison with other alternatives. Under this alternative, currently planned and programmed public improvements to the street system would be completed, and normal, incremental modifications to Boeing facilities in the Duwamish corridor would continue, but major redevelopment to upgrade the manufacturing facil- ities would not occur. A workforce population of 25,000 employees is assumed. MANUFACTURING CENTER ALTERNATIVE This alternative would maintain the current focus of the Duwamish corridor as an industrial and manufacturing center. Deteriorated and outmoded facilities would be upgraded to allow more efficient use of the area. Total square footage and employ- ment would remain stable at about 9.9 million square feet with a work force of 20,000 employees, but production rates could increase to meet market demands. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION During the course of this environmental analysis, potential significant adverse impacts to two elements of the built environment, land use and transportation, are disclosed. These elements and other potential areas of impact are summarized below and in Table 1 -1, which appears at the end of this chapter. LAND AND SHORELINE USE Land use impacts include a shift in the mix of uses along the Duwamish corridor from the current manufacturing emphasis to laboratory, office, and developmental manufac- turing. The number of employees would not exceed 25,000, and square footage would increase by about 7 percent. The land use impacts identified in this document are generally consistent with the comprehensive plans and policies of the three jurisdictions. Adverse impacts related to height, bulk, and scale may occur on a project- specific basis. Design guidelines and 10020DCC.SEA/4 3/19/92 1 -4 standards presented in The Boeing Company's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal are intended to address these impacts. These standards could also be used during agency review to mitigate project- specific impacts. While The Boeing Company will make every effort to comply with development regula- tions established by the jurisdictions, program requirements may necessitate requests for variance approvals from certain zoning provisions, shoreline requirements, and sensitive areas regulations. In some instances text amendments may also be requested. Impacts to shorelines in the project area will generally be beneficial, even though there would be an increase of non - water - dependent uses. Redevelopment would occur on sites with approximately 4,800 linear feet of shoreline. The majority of the sites are located within the City of Tukwila, which uses the King County Shoreline Master Pro- gram for review of development proposals in the study area. In general, the proposed action is consistent with the program's policies and regulations. The Boeing Company's proposed shoreline access plan would enhance approximately 4,800 linear feet of 9,000 linear feet of existing shoreline access. Improvements would include trails, viewpoints, and a canoe launch at the Oxbow site. Enhanced connections with the Green River Trail and the Museum of Flight would also be a benefit to the regional trail system. Streambank enhancement will occur in conjunction with the development of employee shoreline access along those sites proposed for redevelopment. Cooperation with the state and federal fish and wildlife agencies is anticipated to result in the restoration of fish habitat in the Duwamish River estuary. TRANSPORTATION While about 30- percent of the project area's square footage would be redeveloped and net square footage would increase by about 7 percent under the proposed action, employee population is proposed to be limited to the same 25,000 level included under the No Action alternative. Traffic volumes are estimated to be approximately equal for the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives except during peak hours. Levels of service would remain unchanged for most roadway segments. However, the level of service at several road segments is expected to change under both the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives compared to the existing conditions. These LOS impacts are expected both from an anticipated 1.5- percent per year growth in background traffic and from an increase in employment levels under both No Action and the pro- posed action from the current (May 1991) 21,400 to a 2002 employment of 25,000. These transportation impacts could be addressed in two ways: by implementing an aggressive transportation management program (TMP), and /or by fair -share contribu- tions to street and transit improvements. Boeing has proposed a TMP that includes a 10020DCC.SEA/5 3/19/'92 1 -5 transit subsidy and rideshare (carpool and vanpool) support. The TMP and street and transit improvements are discussed further in Chapter 4, Transportation. OTHER IMPACTS Impacts to other elements of the environment could occur during construction and operation of facilities in a redeveloped Duwamish corridor. Specific mitigation will be identified during individual project review and will include best management practices for control of dust and runoff during construction; compliance with federal, state, and local requirements for handling of contaminated soils and hazardous or dangerous materials; a requirement to obtain appropriate air and water permits; compliance with the noise ordinances of appropriate jurisdictions; and introduction of biofiltration fea- tures for stormwater treatment prior to discharge into the Duwamish Waterway. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ALTERNATIVES LAND AND SHORELINE USE All alternatives are generally consistent with the comprehensive plans and policies for the area. Compliance with development standards will be evaluated on a project - specific basis. With new construction to replace outmoded facilities, the Manufacturing Center alternative would have similar impacts to the proposed action. The No- Action alternative does not provide opportunities for streambank enhancement or shoreline access. TRANSPORTATION The No Action alternative increases the area's employment density to about 25,000, a level consistent with historical figures and about 13 percent higher than the 21,400 existing employees. Transportation impacts are anticipated to be similar but slightly less than for the proposed action. The Manufacturing Center alternative includes an employment figure of 20,000, and is expected to have fewer transportation impacts than the other alternatives. OTHER IMPACTS Impacts to other elements of the environment would be similar to the proposed action for the Manufacturing Center alternative. Fewer opportunities to improve environmen- tal health, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, stormwater, and other public utility facilities are afforded through the No Action alternative. 10020DCC.SEA/6 3/19/92 1 -6 ISSUES AND CHOICES In general, the proposed action and alternatives anticipate a redevelopment of several large, aging, underutilized, and inefficient manufacturing facilities. The revitalization of an employment center in this location is consistent with growth management efforts to locate density within already urbanized areas where infrastructure improvements are generally in place and where transit service can be provided efficiently. Several of the 13 planning goals established in the Growth Management Act are positively addressed by the proposed redevelopment of the industrial corridor. They include urban growth; reduction of sprawl; transportation; economic development; open space and recreation; and environment. The proposed action is also consistent with VISION 2020, a long -range growth and transportation strategy for the central Puget Sound area produced in 1990 by the Puget Sound Council of Governments. VISION 2020 calls for the containment of growth, limiting the extent of sprawl into surrounding farmlands, forests and open spaces. It encourages the concentration of employment into employment centers and proposes that a regional rapid transit system connect these centers. The VISION emphasizes the movement of people through increased transit and ridesharing investments and de- emphasizes highway and roadway expansions. The challenge the City of Tukwila faces, along with King . County and the City of Seattle, is to apply adequate conditions that address the actual impacts of the proposed redevelopment without, in the process, creating disincentives that reduce the opportuni- ties to improve the most heavily industrialized corridor in the region, or, worse, that inhibit appropriate concentrations of employment and facilities. 10020DCC.SEA 10020DCC.SEA/7 3/19/92 1 -7 00 Table 1 -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 4 Element of Environment IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Impacts Mitigation Measures Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Manufacturing Center Land and Shoreline Use • Land Use • Shoreline Use • Land Use Plans and Policies • Shoreline Plans and Policies • Recreation Plans • Zoning Redevelopment of under- utilized industrial facility may have height, bulk, and scale impacts. May encourage similar development trend in the study area. Increases non - water- dependent manufacturing research and laboratory uses. Consistent with industrial plans and policies. Consistent with shoreline plans and policies. Consistent with recreation plans (see shoreline use). Uses comply; compliance with development standards may require exceptions. None required. Boeing proposing Design Guide- lines and Standards. None required. Boeing proposing to en- hance shoreline public access, trails, and streambanks. None required. None required. None required. Variances or text amend- ments may be requested. Slower replacement of older facilities. Would not encourage redevelopment trends. Existing non - water- dependent uses will re- main. Limited access to shoreline. No input. No impact. No impact. Non - conforming. Same as proposed action. Same as proposed action. Same as proposed action. Same as proposed action; manufacturing is a preferred use. Same as proposed action. Same as proposed action. Same as proposed action. 10020E33q.SEA/1 3/19/92 • Table 1 -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Page 2 of 4 Element of Environment IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Impacts Mitigation Measures Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Manufacturing Center • Shoreline Development Standards Uses comply; compliance with development standards may require exceptions. Variances or text amend- ments may be requested. Non - conforming. Same as proposed action. Transportation • Vehicular Traffic • Accidents • Parking • Transit Daily traffic volumes would increase approximately 12 percent. Peak hour volumes would increase 15 percent over No- Action and 30 percent over exist- ing conditions. Slight increase in number of accidents. Shortfall of 1,940 parking spaces. Increased ridership may require additional service. Widen E. Marginal Way S., south of South Boeing Access Road as well as complete previous commitments. None required. None required. Boeing proposing TMP. None required. Background traffic volume would . increase approxi- mately 13 percent over existing. Same as No Action. Same as Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action. Shortfall of 550 parking spaces. No impact. Surplus of 150 parking spaces. No impact. Population, Housing, and Employment Minimal impact. 3,600 additional Boeing employ- ees would come from other facilities in region. None required. No impact. No impact. No addi- tional employees. Air Construction- related impacts. Project - specific best man- agement practices. No impact. Less than proposed action. 10020E33q.SEA2 3/19/92 Table 1 -1 Summary Impacts and Mitigation Measures__ Page3of4 Element of Environment IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Impacts Mitigation Measures Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Manufacturing Center Environmental Health • Potential Releases • Noise Demolition activities could uncover contaminants. Minimal operational im- pact. Improved facilities and procedures would de- crease potential hazards. Construction- related activ- ities would increase impacts. Additional run -up activity will increase noise. Additional traffic will result in slight increases. Project- specific mitigation as required. Project- specific mitigation as required. Project- specific mitigation as required. Project - specific mitigation as required. None required. Boeing proposing TMP to reduce traffic volumes. No demolition. Less opportunity to im- prove conditions. No construction. Same as proposed action. Same as proposed action. Same as proposed action. Same as proposed action. Same as proposed action. Same as proposed action. Same as proposed action. Stormwater, Water Quality, and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Water quality will be im- proved, as will fish and wildlife habitat. Boeing proposing biofiltra- tion of stormwater prior to discharge to Duwamish Waterway; coordination with appropriate agencies on habitat restoration. No improvement to water quality. Same as proposed action. 10020E33q.SEA/3 3/19/92 1 • Table 1 -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Page 4 of 4 Element of Environment IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION _ IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Impacts Mitigation Measures Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Manufacturing Center Energy No impact by end of plan year 2002. Energy de- mands may increase tem- porarily in interim. Construction- related impacts. Boeing proposing Energy Management Plan to main - tain or reduce energy con - sumption. Project - specific mitigation as required. None required. Same as proposed action. . No construction. Same as proposed action. Same as proposed action. Public Services and Utilities • Fire/Police • Water /Sewer • Stormwater Construction- related impacts. Slight increase in calls for service. Decrease in fire- related calls. Water /sewer capacity ap- pear adequate. Compre- hensive plan under study. System improvements. Onsite biofiltration facili- ties proposed. Project - specific mitigation as required. None required. Project - specific upgrades at connections as required. Opportunity for Boeing to develop and coordinate Drainage Master Plan with planned utility improve- ments to E. Marginal Way S. No construction. Increased calls for fire protection. No impact. No impact. Same as proposed action. Same as proposed action. Same as proposed action. Same as proposed action. 10020E33q.SEA 10020E33q.SEA/4 3/19/92 Chapter 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED ACTION OVERVIEW The proposed action is a proposal for redevelopment of. Boeing properties in the Du- wamish corridor. Over a 10 -year period (1992 through 2002), The Boeing Company proposes to redevelop approximately 30 percent of its existing .manufacturing facilities. Future construction will emphasize laboratory, office, and developmental manufactur- ing uses. It should be noted, however, that a combination cif. the. proposal and alterna- tives could result. The analysis of impacts and mitigation measures presented in this document is broad, and is intended to cover such :a combination of proposal and alternatives. The Duwamish corridor, as discussed in this:, envirotunental document, is illustrated in Figure 2 -1. The corridor can be described broadly as a::45 -mile -long stretch of land in the valley of the Duwamish Waterway, fro in Avenue South on the north to South 126th Street on the south. The majority of the ,:site area lies between East Marginal Way South and the Duwamish .Waterway, although some parcels of land are east of East Marginal Way South and some are west 'of `the Duwamish Waterway. Figure 2 -1 indicates the ten major Boeingrop erty parci is in the Duwamish corridor. The study area is primarily in the City of: T ikwila. Portions are also in the City of Seattle and in unincorporated King.:: County:.:: boundaries of these jurisdictions are also shown in Figure 2 -1. The Boeing Company's . wner l ip and leases in the Duwamish corridor now include approximately 650 acres afid about 9.9 million square feet of developed floor area. Future redevelopment of corridor sites is anticipated to include demolition of about 3.7 million square feet of floor area and construction of about 4.3 million square feet of new floor area. At the completion of the redevelopment, the corridor would contain a new total of approximately 10.6 million square feet of developed floor area. Table 2 -1 indicates the current and proposed mix of uses. 10020DD9q.SEA/1 3/19/92 2-1 LEGEND Owned Leased Figure 2 -1 BOEING OWNED AND LEASED PROPERTY - Table 2 -1 Mix of Uses in Boeing Duwamish Corridor Use Existing Building Floor Area (mil- lion square feet) Proposed Building Floor Area (mil- lion square feet) Percent Change Laboratory/Office 2.7 4.4 65 Office 2.5 2.3 10 Manufacturing 4.7 3.9 15 Flightlinea 0.0 0.Q:: ` :` 0 Total 9.9 .::1 • ;:::;: ';::.:..: +7 allorth Boeing Field. In response to the shift in emphasis from la`tnfacturing to research and development, the mix of employees in the corridor would also change. The existing facilities can support an employee population of about 25,000, :the.:proposal would not increase that number. (Current employment in the corridor is about 21,400, a result of underutiliza- tion of many of the corridor's::older facilities.): The existing and proposed mix of em- ployees by type of work is illustrated in. Table 2 -2. Table 2 -2 Employee:.Mix in Boeing Duwamish Corridor Use Employee Population Percent Change Existing Proposed Laboratory/Office 3,500 5,500 + 57 Office 14,900 13,100 - 12 Manufacturing 2,400 4,900 +104 Flightline 600 1,500 +150 TOTAL 21,400 25,000 + 17 10020DD9q.SEA/3 3/19/92 2 -3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The City of Tukwila and The Boeing Company have agreed to review the broad issues raised by the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal in the context of a pro- grammatic environmental impact statement (EIS). Interlocal agreements would also bind Seattle and King County to decisions and mitigations resulting from this EIS proc- ess. The City's objectives are to improve its understanding of the cumulative impacts of the redevelopment, to increase predictability in the timing and nature of project - specific improvements, to identify mitigation early in the redevelopment planning proc- ess, to facilitate review of individual permits, and to avoid piecemeal decision making by reviewing the broader plans for corridor redevelopment prior to considering individ- ual projects. The City anticipates entering into a mitigation'' agreement with The Boeing Company after environmental review of the proposal i4 The agree- ment would allow the City to monitor individual projects d. determine when phased mitigation payments, improvements, or activities are: rergtiired:'';:;: The Boeing Company's objectives are to redevelop :porfions of Duwamish corridor properties and create a unified industrial campus; to. wgrk with local agencies to estab- lish a coordinated, comprehensive approach-:to corridor redevelopment; to identify early in the process the extent and timing'of mitgatio0o be required, thereby making individual permit review and approval more timely::and predictable; and to maintain its flexibility in responding to market .forces and :opportunities. The Boeing Company anticipates entering into a mitigation.: a eel ernt with the City of Tukwila consistent • with these objectives. Land Use • It is anticipated that the,:proposed mix of uses falls into four categories: office, laboratory/office, developmrital manufacturing, and flightline. Characteristics of each use are described below. Office. Corporate, administrative, and clerical staff will be located in the work spaces classified as "office" in this study. Other than convenient access to laboratory or manu- facturing space, the office uses are not expected to have unusual space or design re- quirements. New office space typically will be occupied to a density of about one employee per 200 square feet. Common accessory or associated uses will include an auditorium, cafeteria space, and parking. Laboratory /Office. The "laboratory/office" category will be primarily laboratory space but will also include office spaces for the scientists, engineers, and laboratory techni- cians whose work requires frequent use of the research laboratories. An average em- ployee density of about one worker per 800 square feet can be expected for the new laboratory/office space, although this density will vary widely depending on the nature 10020DD9q.SEA/4 3/19/92 2 -4 of the research being performed at individual laboratories. Examples of laboratory functions that may be consolidated along the Duwamish corridor include materials technology laboratories, propulsion laboratories, consolidated laboratories, operations technology, and noise laboratories. Typical accessory uses associated with the laboratory/office use along the Duwamish Corridor will include parking, storage, stag- ing areas, some specialized utilities, and cafeteria space. The different laboratory func- tions are discussed in more detail below. • The Boeing materials technology (BMT) laboratories perform research testing and development on the many different materials used by The Boeing Company, including ceramics, finishes and sealants, metals, fab- rics, composites, and adhesives. • Propulsion laboratories provide testing aid.. development of propulsion systems to support all Boeing divisions °:Specifit<::finctions include live engine testing, nozzle testing for exhaust functions, fire and burn testing, and testing of airplane booster and,. primping' systems. • The "consolidated laboratories L' sere currently; located at the Developmen- tal Center. They support a wide :variety:oPlaboratory functions, including structural integrity testing, testing::orn,eehanical devices and component systems, and electrical. system' testing. Individual laboratories are highly specialized, but 1i1 :the.'. aggregate the consolidated laboratories provide integrated support for: Boeing's., production facilities. • The operaf ons'tech oidgy organization performs research with the goal of enhancing production' and manufacturing processes. The work is project - .oriented and quite diverse. Because each project requires a seg- regated work. area, work space dedicated to operations technology must be flexible.' ::. • The noise technology laboratory performs all the acoustic testing, re- search, and development for The Boeing Company. Functions include field measurements, materials evaluation, component testing, scale model testing, and analysis of noise records (for crash investigations). Developmental Manufacturing. The developmental manufacturing operations are closely allied with The Boeing Company's laboratory research functions. Their primary role is the fabrication, limited -rate production, test set -up, and monitoring of test arti- cles and prototypes in conjunction with laboratory research. The developmental manu- facturing operations differ from other industrial production facilities because they do not generate large quantities of finished products; rather, they are geared toward de- veloping and testing products in small numbers as part of Boeing's broader research into new technologies and products. The manufacturing space requires high bay space as well as shop areas capable of supporting high - precision work in many different 10020DD9q.SEA/5 3/19/92 2-5 materials; the machinists need to be able to produce very close - tolerance products in materials often dictated by emergent technologies. As prototype aircrafts are assem- bled, access to the three established East Marginal Way South roadway crossings to Boeing Field is required. Noise controls also will be required. Common accessory uses will include storage and staging areas, specialized utilities, and cafeteria space. The Boeing Company anticipates an average employee density of one worker for each 800 square feet of developmental manufacturing space. Flightline. Flightline operations along the Duwamish corridor are located on the east side of East Marginal Way South. Primary uses include engine testing, aircraft paint- ing, and fueling, while accessory uses include specialized utilities, storage, and staging areas. The proposal would expand flightline operations in the northern portion of the project area, displacing current laboratory/office and mandfauring space. Shoreline Uses The Boeing Company is proposing a shoreline pblic.: access plan as part of its Duwam- ish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal. Currently ..half (approximately 9,000 feet) of the total linear footage of shorelines on l3:oetng- controlled, sites is available to the pub- lic. The proposed access plan would: (1) mtai ainn:all existing shoreline public access; (2) enhance trail and viewpoints along the Oxbow...s ;te and provide a canoe launch facility; (3) provide pedestrian and bicycle trail: connections between the Green River Trail and the Museum of Flight; and *(4) provide streambank enhancement in connec- tion with employee shoreline Access.:: Maintain Existing Shore Xlog ., Access.. 'Approximately 9,200 linear feet of public shore- line access is currently provided on Boeing facilities in the Duwamish corridor, shown in Table 2 -3. 10020DD9q.SEA/6 3/19/92 Table 2 -3 Public Shoreline Access in Duwamish Corridor Site Shoreline (linear feet) Developmental Center 1,000 Oxbow Site 4,800 South Park Site 1,200 Duwamish Office Park East 1,200 North Duwamish Campus 500 (proposed) Bridges (2 at Oxbow) 500 2 -6 Enhance Trail. The proposed shoreline access plans indicates that approximately 4,800 linear feet of shoreline public access around the perimeter of the Oxbow site will be enhanced. Several viewpoint and water access parks will be developed. Also proposed is a launch facility for hand -held boats. Accessory public parking will also be desig- nated. In cooperation with state and federal fish and wildlife agencies, involvement in a fish habitat restoration project in the vicinity is also likely. Enhance Regional Trail Connections. A trail connection between the Green River Trail, located -along SR 99, through the Oxbow site to the Museum of Flight by way of East Marginal Way South, is proposed as part of this plan. The connection is not only consistent with both King County's Green River Trail Master Plan and the City of Seattle's Duwamish River Trail but also provides an important'' link between the two systems. Provide Streambank Enhancement. As sites are redeveloped; °..:,The Boeing Company proposes to provide employee shoreline public mess and, in sa'.:daing, will facilitate the enhancement of the streambank where appropriate: ::'`This would involve approxi- mately 4,800 linear feet of shoreline that will create open space along the riverbank. Enhancement of the shoreline will be fgcussed on*restt ring habitat with the use of riprap and riparian vegetation. Development Guidelines The redevelopment proposal``incorparates *`design guidelines and standards to reduce bulk and scale, improve pedestrian and vehicle circulation, increase landscaping, and enhance shorelines. Mare:..defail o ;,this aspect of the redevelopment can be found in The Boeing Company s:iDuwaraisi Corridor Redevelopment Proposal (under separate cover). MANUFACTURING CENTER ALTERNATIVE This alternative would maintain the current focus of the Duwamish corridor as an industrial and manufacturing center. Deteriorated and outmoded facilities would be upgraded to allow more efficient use of the area. Total square footage and employ- ment would remain stable; workforce population would be approximately 20,000. Pro- duction rates would increase slightly to maximize the use of existing facilities. The products being manufactured would evolve to meet market demands. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No Action alternative is discussed throughout this environmental document to pro- vide a common point for comparison with other alternatives. Under this alternative, currently planned and programmed improvements to the street system would be 10020DD9q.SEAji 3/19/92 2 -7 completed, and normal, incremental modifications to Boeing facilities in the Duwamish corridor would continue, but major redevelopment to upgrade the manufacturing facili- ties would not occur. Table 2 -4 summarizes the changes in employment for each of the alternatives studied in this document. Table 2 -5 shows the changes in square footage by type of use for each alternative. 10020DD9q.SEA 10020DD9q.SEA/8 3/19/92 2-8 Table 2 -4. Estimated Employment for the Proposed Action and Alternatives Type of Use Existing Conditions Proposed Action No Action Alternative Manufacturing Center Alternative Number of Employees Percent Number of Employees Percent Number of Employees Percent . Number of Employees Percent (Developmental) Manufacturing 2,400 11 4,900 20 6,000 24 4,800 24 Office 14,900 70 13,100 52 14,900 60 11,920 60 Laboratory/Office 3,500 16 5,500 22 3,500 14 2,800 14 Flightline 600 3 1,500 6 600 2 480 2 TOTAL I 21,400 100 I 25,000 100 I 25,000 I 100 I 20,000 100 10020DDDq.SEA 10020DDDq.SEA/1 3/19/92 . Table 2 -5 Estimated -Floor Area by Use for the - Proposed - Action and-Alternatives-- Type of Use Existing Conditions Proposed Action No Action Alternative Center Alternative Million Square Feet Percent of Total Million Square Feet Percent of Total Million Square Feet Percent of Total Million Square Feet Percent of Total (Developmental) Manufacturing 4.7 48 3.9 37 4.7 48 4.7 48 Office 2.5 25 2.3 22 2.5 25 2.5 25 Laboratory/Office 2.7 27 4.4 41 2.7 27 2.7 27 Flightlinea 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 TOTAL 9.9 100 10.6 100 9.9 100 9.9 100 'No square footage figure is given for flightline use because this is an open -air use. sea8004/073.51q sea8004/073.51q/1 1/1692 ,Part ll Potential Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Chapter 3 LAND AND SHORELINE USE EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY AREA The study area is bounded by Ellis Avenue South to the north, South 126th Street to the south, Highway 99 and the Duwamish Waterway to the west, and East Marginal Way South and the King County Airport to the east (Figure;3 -1). The corridor is approximately 4.5 miles long. PROJECT AREA LAND USES Figure 3 -1 illustrates the generalized land uses:, o(Boeing properties. The project' area's current uses are grouped into four generat'icategories: lab /office, office, manu- facturing, and flightline. Table 3 -1 lists the,floor area (gross square feet, abbreviated as gsf) currently occupied by each of these uses ;,:....With:;;t a exception of the flightline • area, which is concentrated along the east side of East Marginal Way South, the gen- eral use categories are distributed: throughoutilh°e project area For purposes of this EIS, "project area will refer to' .those 1prorierties that are owned or leased by The Boeing Company. .., The project area is also:: iivided:into a :number of physical areas, which will be referred to as "sites." The general uses of eac ,::s to are briefly described below and correspond to Figure 3 -1 and Table 3-1. Figure 2 -1 shows which sites are owned and leased by The Boeing Company..... : Plant 2. Plant 2 is located'thrth of the Thompson- Isaacson site along East Marginal Way South. The site is owned by Boeing and currently contains lab /office space, offices, and manufacturing space. Most of Plant 2 is located in Tukwila; the northern- most portion is within Seattle city limits. This site also includes the corporate head- quarters of The Boeing Company. North Duwamish Campus. The North Duwamish Campus area, used predominantly for manufacturing, is located between the Duwamish Waterway and East Marginal Way South, just north of 16th Avenue South. The northern portion of this area is cur- rently under construction for a campus -style development containing lab /office space. The majority of the site is located in Seattle; the southernmost portion is located in Tukwila. 10020CD5.SEAq/1 3/19/92 3 -1 W tJ Moines way So• • • • • MOR1H %f� • •BOENGFELD`_ %��� \fir %• ' �� /// •.' \ \ \ \\ • • LEGEND •••••• Labs /Offices Avionics Mechanical Electrical Structural Noise Material Quality Assurance Aeronautic Office Executive Professional Engineering Support Training Manufacturing Fabrication Sub - assembly Final - assembly Production Manufacturing Development Manufacturing Flightline Engine Testing Paint Hangar Fueling Existing Aircraft Road Crossing Points Note: This illustration represents uses proportionately by site and does not include accessory uses such as parking and storage. Figure 3 -1 EXISTING SITE USES Table 3 -1 Floor Area of Current Boeing Sites Site Total Acreage Parking Acreage Approximate Building Square Footage by Use Lab /Office Office (Developmental) Manufacturing Flightline Total Plant 2 108.2 - 2.8 299,000 956,000 1,742,000 0 2,997,000 North Duwamish Campus 48.0 12.1 0 0 948,000 0 948,000 Developmental Center 164.4 • 74.8 804,300 956,600 798,700 0 2,560,000 Oxbow Site 31.4 12.7 0 361,700 34;$66.,::P 0 704,200 Thompson - Isaacson Site 30.4 10.0 0 22,400 :341,500 0 363,900 Military Flight Center 24.7 8.4 0 0 54,300"::. : 0 54,300 North Boeing Field 148.3 37.4 343,000 89,Q00 : #43,000 0 950,000 South Park Site 29.9 10.0 290,000 67,000''•::. . i 0 0 357,000 Duwamish Office Park East 110 82 0 : " • 378,000 0 0 378,000 East Marginal Way Corporate Park 49.8 11.6 580,000 s':. ": (i : 210,000 0 790,000 Total 648.1 188.0 ;::' 2,'6'78p00' 2,469,000 4,780,000 9,927,000 Developmental Center... The D veld pmental Center is located in Tukwila between the Duwamish Waterway on. the.west and:°south, East Marginal Way South on the east, and the vacated Rht 6. :Poulenc property on the north. The Developmental Center is the largest parcel of the;_site (164:: cres). The site contains a large manufacturing facil- ity, lab /office areas, officespace and surface parking. While the majority of the site is owned by The Boeing Company, portions of it are leased. Oxbow Site. The Oxbow site is located in King County west of the Duwamish Water- way and east of Highway 99. This site is occupied by surface parking and buildings containing manufacturing and lab /office space. Thompson- Isaacson Site. The Thompson- Isaacson site is located in Tukwila north of the Developmental Center between the Duwamish Waterway and East Marginal Way South. The site, owned by Boeing, is currently used for developmental manufacturing with surface parking. Military Flight Center. This site provides flightline testing facilities for military air -. craft. The site is owned by The Boeing Company and is located in the City of Tukwila, north of South Norfolk Street along East Marginal Way South. 10020CD5.SEAq/3 3/19/92 3 -3 North Boeing Field. The North Boeing Field site contains manufacturing, office, and lab /office space and the flightline area for commercial aircraft. It extends intermit- tently along the east side of East Marginal Way South. The majority of the site is leased from the King County Airport and is located inside Seattle city limits. South Park Site. The South Park site is located between 14th Avenue South and the Duwamish Waterway and contains office and lab /office space. The site is located in Seattle, with the exception of its eastern shoreline edge, which is in unincorporated King County. Duwamish Office Park East. The Duwamish Office Park East. located in Tukwila. The site consists of two new office buildings and surface parking located between a bend of the Duwamish Waterway, Pacific Highway South South 112th Street. The site is in Boeing ownership. East Marginal Way Corporate Park. The East;. Marginal, Way Corporate Park is lo- cated in Tukwila between Highway 99 and East!,,Iv ar..:ginal Way South. This site con- tains lab /office and manufacturing uses in large warehouse buildings. ADJACENT USES Figure 3 -2 illustrates the general* d::zomg districts in the study area. In general, land use follows the zoning. As describe portiois'of the project area are in the City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle, and Kang;:Courity:: The area is primarily characterized by light to heavy industrial :and:::man'ufacturing fuses, storage facilities, office development, small areas of commercial ”developrnenth along arterials, and some residential develop - ment beyond the project area: Uses immediately north :of'the project area, across Ellis Avenue South, are light indus- tries and commercial developriient. The Georgetown neighborhood is located to the northeast of the study area To the west of the project area, north of 14th Avenue South, is the South Park neighborhood. These two neighborhoods are characterized by residential and business /industrial development (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1 -1, for loca- tion of neighborhoods). Across Highway 99, south of 14th Avenue South, is a residen- tial area. The King County Airport, North Boeing Field, and its associated uses dominate the eastern boundary of the study area, north of the South Boeing Access Road. The Highline communities of Highland Park, White Center, and Boulevard Park are located to the south and west of the project area. The area southeast of the project area, across Highway 599, contains a mix of uses including light industry, com- mercial, and undeveloped property. Farther south is residential development with some areas of commercial and manufacturing use. 10020CD5.SEAq /4 3/19/92 3 -4 Aft J6 peed 93" r �l ' IG -2 65' IB-45 e'. , . fly 4 • a IG-2 85' i L -2 F 5000 RC • LEGEND Fr A Industrial Commercial Residential TUKWILA M -1 M -2 M -2L R -1 -7.2 Light Industry Heavy Industry Heavy Industry with landscape requirements Single - family residence; 7,200 square foot minimum lot size per dwelling unit C -M Industrial Park KING COUNTY M -H Heavy Industrial SEATTLE IG -1 85' IG -2 65' IB -65' C-1 40' C -2 SF 5000 General Industrial 1, 85 -foot height limit General Industrial 2, 65 -foot height limit Industrial Buffer, 65 -foot height limit Commercial 1, 40 -foot height limit Commercial 2 Single family residence; 5,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement L -2 RC Multi-family, low -rise, residential - commercial Figure 3 -2 GENERALIZED ZONING DISTRICTS PROJECT AREA SHORELINES A majority of the sites in the project area are adjacent to the Duwamish River. The Duwamish is part of a watershed that extends from the forested hillsides . of the Cas- cade Mountains near Howard Hanson Dam to Elliott Bay in Puget Sound. Before the turn of the century, the Duwamish River was fed by Lake Sammamish, Lake Washington, and the Cedar River by way of the Black, Green and White Rivers. In ,1911, flow from the White River was diverted to Tacoma. Other diversion projects eliminated flows from the Black and Cedar Rivers. Today, the Green River is the only significant tributary to the Duwamish. Dredging of the Duwamish River, completed in 1921, restiltod in replacement of ap- proximately 9 miles of meandering river with the 4 miles ::of channel that make up the waterway today. The river is a marine - oriented industrial waterway used primarily by the Port of Seattle to move waterborne cargo. .;::The Duwamish .is: maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers as a navigable water to the turning basin, which is located just north of the Oxbow site South of the turning basin, the river begins to take a more natural course, but the Duwamish River :rema ns the of the most industrialized water bodies in the Puget Sound area A recent report prepared by Curtis;; D Tanner for the Port of Seattle and the U.S. EPA, "Potential Intertidal Habitat Rest gyration Sites in the Duwamish River Estuary," classified the shoreline areas`,ialorag: °the. :.Duwamish River. Four classifications were identified: natural shorelines, riprap shorelines, pier aprons, and sheet piling. They are described below. " • Natural::.Shoreline. ;'This classification does not indicate that the shore- line is in its on itial condition, but rather that the area generally exhibits a gently slopingAhoreline with areas of fine- grained sediment. • Riprap Shoreline. This refers to shorelines stabilized with angular rock, generally larger than 12 inches in diameter; slopes are relatively steep, ranging from 1:1 to 2:1. In some areas, fine - grained sediment may be present, as well as intertidal benches below the riprap area. • Pier Aprons. These are generally concrete or wood pier structures where the water is allowed to flow underneath the pier, in between the vertical structural members. • Sheet Piling. Sheet piles, also known as vertical bulkheads, divert the flow of water around the pier or landform. 10020CD5.SEAq /6 3/19/92 3 -6 The purpose of the Tanner Report was to identify potential habitat restoration oppor- tunities in the Duwamish River estuary. The report is discussed in more detail in Chapter 8, Stormwater and Water Quality. There are approximately 18,000 linear feet of shoreline at Boeing properties in the Duwamish corridor. The classifications of shorelines in the study area are shown in Table 3 -2. Table 3 -2 Shoreline Classifications of Study Area Sites Plant 2 Sheet piling North Duwamish Campus The southern portio i of the site is :'sleet piling adja- cent to Port of Seattle, ::property, which is identified as intertidal flats; at th4:.ncthern portion and along Slip 4, the shoieline is•' prap. Developmental Center Riprap shoreliine, with pier apron at the south end Oxbow Site Natural .shhoreline Thompson- Isaacson `` •::. et: ping °:::;.:: °::: Military Flight Center.:„:. .: Nc,,:shoreline North Boeing Field. ' :'` :Nrl: shoreline South Park Site : :; :Natural shoreline with forested riparian vegetation Duwamish Office Park Ea v 'Natural shoreline East Marginal Way Corpo- rate Park No shoreline RELATIONSHIP TO LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES This section provides a discussion of the applicable land use plans, policies, zoning regulations, shoreline management master program requirements, and other regulatory constraints that apply to development along the Duwamish corridor. Plans and policies of each of these jurisdictions in the study area (Tukwila, King County, and Seattle) are included. A list of the documents examined is provided in Appendix B, References. Several community plans were reviewed in the course of this analysis. City of Seattle plans included the South Park Neighborhood Plan, the Empire/Rainier Development 10020CD5.SEAq/7 3/19/'92 3 -7 Study, the Rainier /Genesee Redevelopment Study and Business Plan, and the South- east Seattle Action Plan. King County's Highline Communities Plan was also exam- ined. The recreation goals of the South Park Neighborhood Plan may be the most relevant to issues related to Boeing's redevelopment proposal. These goals are dis- cussed in more detail below in the section on policies and regulations of the City of Seattle. Comprehensive plans and zoning codes are the primary planning tools used by munici- palities to guide future growth. The study area is divided by the three responsible jurisdictions into three broad zoning categories: industrial, commercial, and residential. Figure 3 -2 illustrates the existing zoning categories of the study area as well as the boundaries between Tukwila, Seattle, and King County. In general, the existing conditions, the proposed action; an ' the 'manufacturing center alternative are consistent with the area's comprehensive plans and :policies. While the alternatives vary in the amount of laboratory and ,office. space proposed, each main- tains a manufacturing component. Manufacturing*a:preferred use in the comprehen- sive plans and policies of all three jurisdictions. Table 3 -3 summarizes the general zoningail°° shorline'•�requirements for each of the affected sites. Currently, development in the ;project..area generally complies with the industrial zoning district requirements ecause many of the structures along the east side of the Duwamish Waterway :pre c ate the State Shoreline Management Act, much of the existing development is °:.nonconformmg with respect to shoreline development standards. CITY OF TUKWIL,t Tukwila Comprehensive... In the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan (1982), the study area is designated as "Commerce/Industry." The objectives and policies in the Commerce/Industry element of Tukwila's Compre- hensive Plan are intended to provide direction for growth and expansion of business within the city. The primary industrial objective is to provide adequate opportunity for industrial uses. Policies to support the objectives are grouped under three categories: compatibility, design, and growth. The policies encourage uses that support industry to locate in or near industrial activity, promoting an industrial park -like development in all industrial areas. They discourage changes from industrial land uses unless there is reasonable provision for meeting parking demand. A final objective of the Commerce/ Industry element is to promote land development alternatives that will increase the 10020CD5.SEAq/8 3/19/92 3 -8 Table 3-3 Summary of General Zoning and Shoreline Development Requirements for Each Site Site Jurisdiction Zoning Height Limit' (feet) Setback (feet) Sensitive Area Ordinance Setback . (feet) Shoreline Requirements Height Limit (feet) Setback (feet) 1; Plant 2 Tukwila M-2 115c - 25 front 5 side n/a :. 35 50g Seattle IG-1 85f 1 0 , n/a n/a 1 North Duwamish Campus Tukwila M-2 115c ,. 25 front .. ii:. n/a 35 50g Seattle IG-1 85f :;• :::0 .„. .::. nM 35i 60 3. Developmental Center Tukwila M-2 , 115- ::' :: :::. :ii'• 25 front 5iaidi 'N''. 35 50g 4. Oxbow Site King County M-H 45 + ''ii, i :i. id i'. .O 115h 35 50g 5. Thompson-Isaacson Site Tukwila M-2 i :,. ii, ,.. :1,15`. '''''''' ii. '. 254front ... n/a 35 50g 6. Military Flight Center Tukwila ....-:.- M-2 ii . /45e. ii''' . .: .:. ."2.5 front 5 side n/a n/a n/a King Cqi'Airport "; " '''' ":: '::...:' n/a n/a n/a 7. North Boeing Field (includes flightline area) Tukwila '',::" .,. .:1\44::. :115c 25 front 5 side n/a n/a n/a ItingICotikly '" ,i1 n/a n/a n/a il, Seattlt ::' IG-2 85c 0 n/a n/a n/a 8. South Park Site ''iStatil.:7* IG-2 65' 65e 0 n/a 35i 60 .:COunty MH 45 + 1:1d 0 115h 35 50g 9. Duwamish Office Park East Tukwila M-2L 115c 25 front 5 side n/a 35 50g 10. East Marginal Way Corporate Park Tukwila M-2 115b 25 front 5 side n/a n/a n/a a Subject to Airport Height Overlay District limits. b 115-foot maximum height with Tukwila Planning Commission approval. c Can exceed 115 feet with Tukwila Planning Commission approval. d A one-foot setback on each side is required for each foot above 45 feet. e Industrial development does not have a height limit; research and developmental laboratories and offices have a height limit of 65 feet in this area. f Industrial development does not have a height limit; research and developmental laboratories and offices have a height limit of 85 feet in this area. g Non-water-related commercial and industrial uses must maintain a shoreline setback of either 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark or 20 feet from the floodway, whichever is greater. The setback can be reduced to 20 feet from the ordinary high water mark or 10 feet from the edge of the floodway, whichever is greater, if the development provides limited public access and can be reduced to 10 feet or the edge of the floodway, respectively, if public access is provided. h A 100-foot buffer and a 15-foot setback are required for uses along a Class 1 stream (King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance). i The height limit in UI is 35 feet; however, manufacturing structures may be allowed heights of up to 80 feet if authorized by the Department of Construction and Land Use. 10020CE6.SEA/1 3/17/92 3-9 efficiency of land use. Associated policies encourage grouping of land uses to maxi- mize use of parking spaces and flexibility within land use categories to allow for com- patible uses. Tukwila Zoning Code Zoning in the City of Tukwila is regulated through the Tukwila Zoning Code (Title 18 of the Tukwila Municipal Code). As shown in Figure 3 -2, the portions of the project area located within the city of Tukwila are mostly zoned M -2 (Heavy Industry) and M -2L (Heavy Industry with landscape requirements). The majority of Plant 2, the Thompson- Isaacson site, the Developmental Center, and the East Marginal Way Corporate Park are located in the:.M. =2 Zoning District. Ac- cording to the Tukwila Zoning Code, the purpose of this zone is tp "provide an appro- priate area for a broad range of uses, some of whieh::may be .characterized as having significant environmental impacts in terms of air::, nd water pollution, noise, vibration, glare, and odor" (T.M.C. 18.42.010). Manufacfurifig;;:(ineluding the manufacturing of airplanes), processing, and assembling are permittedin this zone, as well as commercial uses. The maximum building height in :the.. M- Azo1 a is 4 stories and 45 feet (T.M.C. 18.50 and Table 1). The M -2 zote i ieludes..25 -foot front setbacks and 5 -foot rear setbacks (T.M.C. 18.50 and Table 1). The purpose of the M -2L disttrtct is tci Allow Less strict design standards and flexibility in the front and landscaping y p g i'equirement::,iri''recognition of areas where there is heavy truck traffic. The permitted :::usesy:: height limit, and setback requirements in the M2 -L zone are the same as those.: £pr the 'M-2 ::zone. The Tukwila Zoning Ctxde'id:entifies two building height exceptions that apply to por- tions of the project area bet»een the Duwamish Waterway and I -5. One exception affects the Duwamish Office Park East, the Developmental Center, the Thompson - Isaacson site, and most of Plant 2. Buildings in this area may be permitted up to 115 feet in height outright and can exceed a height of 115 feet by special exception of the Tukwila Planning Commission (T.M.C. 18.50.050). Another exception would allow development at the East Marginal Way Corporate Park to exceed the basic height limit up to but only as high as 115 feet with authorization by the Tukwila Planning Commis- sion acting as the Board of Architectural Review (T.M.C. 18.50.040). According to the Tukwila Zoning Code, developments in the M1 and M2 districts within 200 feet of the Green/Duwamish River or that require a shoreline permit are subject to design review. The City's Board of Architectural Review (BAR) uses the following guidelines in reviewing applications: relationship of the structure to the site, relationship of the structure and site to the adjoining area, landscape and site treat- ment, building design, and miscellaneous structures and street furniture. Each of these 10020CD5.SEAq/10 3/19/92 3 -10 is supplemented by more specific guidelines. The BAR has the authority to deny a development proposal if the plans do not satisfy the guidelines. Development proposals on sites located at the King County Airport must obtain pre - approval from the King County Airport Manager. Review for pre - approval examines minimum standards related to setbacks from lease lines; height per FAA requirements; automobile and aircraft parking and circulation; utilities and surface drainage; architec- tural design and signage; and landscaping, fencing, and security. Permit approvals and inspections are obtained from King County Building and Land Development (BALD) under a long- standing agreement among; the jurisdictions. Both the cities of Seattle and Tukwila honor this agreement. Development proposals at the Military Flight Center and portions of North Boeing Field.'would be required to obtain pre - approval from the King County Airport and development.. permits from King County BALD, even though they are located within Tukwila City limits., Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance added a'i hapter(.1g 45) to the Tukwila Municipal Code entitled "Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone :' ° .The °purpose of the zone is to establish special standards for use and developmentto :protect:'environmentally sensitive lands. Sensitive areas include abandoned ..coal: minFs,. areas of potential geologic instability, wetlands, watercourses, and areas °that:: contain archaeological remnants of value to the research community. According to the city *$.Sensitive Areas Map, there are no sensi- tive areas located in the. project:. area The Duwamish Waterway is specifically ex- cluded from the definition.. of .watercourses. Regulation of lands adjacent to the waterway is provided for the interim by King County's Shoreline Management Master Program. Tukwila Shoreline Master :Plan Most of the proposed development along the Duwamish Waterway is located in either King County or the city of Tukwila. Because much of the study area was recently annexed into Tukwila, the City's shoreline master plan has not yet been updated to in- clude these properties. In the interim, the City of Tukwila administers the King County Shoreline Master Program, which continues to regulate development along the Duwamish Waterway. (See discussion of regulations under King County.) In 1992, the City will be examining its goals and policies to encourage industrial devel- opment along the waterway consistent with the State Shoreline Management Act. Tukwila Recreation Plans The Open Space element of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan includes policies to coordi- nate with Renton, Kent, and King County on shoreline planning for the Green River 10020CD5.SEAq /11 3/19/9 3 -11 and on coordinating planning on the trail system. Although the City does not have specific trail or linear recreation plans in place, the Comprehensive Plan does include policies that affect the development of trails and shoreline uses. For example, the second objective for the Open Space element is to "establish a safe path or trail system that serves to link the open spaces, forming an open space system." Seven specific policies follow, including creation of a trail system that links lowland and upland trails; development of trails and open spaces along the Green River as part of the lowland trail system; connection of commercial and retail activity with the pathway network; construction of pathways in existing street rights -of -way or through private property if necessary to establish a trail system; and development of the trail system so as to pro- hibit motorized traffic and be compatible with pedestrian and . bicycle traffic. KING COUNTY King County Comprehensive Plan The King County Comprehensive Plan (1985) incliidos.::a' Commercial and Industrial Development element that addresses location, design, and public improvement stan- dards for commercial and industrial development i unincorporated areas of the county. The following general industrial development policy is applicable to the project area Industrial development 0citld be°°desigried to be compatible with adjoin- ..;: ing uses. Offsite impacts ''such;, as noise, odors, light and glare should be prevented throe oI p , g,,.:�p lution 'tontfol measures, setbacks, landscaping and other techniques Unsightly views of parking, loading and storage areas should be screened froi> neighboring office, retail and residential uses (CI -231). King County Zoning Code Zoning in King County is regulated through the King County Zoning Code (Title 21). The Oxbow site, the City Light site, and the eastern edge of the South Park site are located within King County in the MH (Heavy Manufacturing) zoning district. Accord- ing to the King County Zoning Code, the general purpose of this district is: to provide for the location of and grouping of industrial enterprises and activities which possess common or similar characteristics and perform- ance standards involving manufacturing, assembling, fabrication and pro - cessing...and therefore normally require sites larger than standard lot sizes....[and] to apply zoning protection to industries properly located by prohibiting the intrusion of residential and institutional uses and all busi- ness enterprises except those that serve as accessory to the needs and convenience of the permitted types of industrial enterprises (21.36.010). 10020CD5.SEAq/12 3/19/92 3 -12 No maximum height is imposed in the MH zone, but when a structure exceeds 45 feet in height, the structure must be set back 1 foot from each side and rear property line for each foot above 45 feet in height (K.C.C. 21.36.060). The permitted floor area to be contained on a lot or site in the MH zone cannot exceed two and one -half times the area of the lot or site. Additional height and setback limitations are mandated by the King County Shoreline Management Master Program and the King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance (discussed below). King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance Since the Duwamish Waterway is classified as a Class 1 strear:' .the 1990 King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance also affects the required setbaci&of the Oxbow and South Park sites. Under the ordinance, a 100 -foot buffer (measured:: from the ordinary high water mark) is required for a Class 1 stream. In additicrn,..a minimum building setback line of 15 feet from the edge of the stream buffer is` required.i No :development is al- lowed within this 115 -foot area. King County Shoreline Management Master Prograi Except for the northern portion of the NorthDuwanish`Campus, the shorelines of the project area, including those areas within the, Tukw 1a city limits, are subject to King County's Urban Environment designation '(see discussion under Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan). The goals, policieA; an .. objectives for the King County Shoreline Man- : agement Master Program (1937) include : : :gen ral policies for the Urban Environment designation, several of which::.&e°iapphcable°to the project site • Emphasis; should be;given to developing visual and physical access to the shoreline iit the Urban Environment (Policy 3). • To enhancelhe° waterfront and insure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities should be designed to permit pedestrian water- front activities consistent with public safety and security (Policy 5). • Redevelopment and renewal of substandard areas should. be encouraged in order to accommodate future users and make maximum use of the shoreline resource (Policy 6). The King County shoreline regulations include development standards for height, set- backs, and public access. The height limitation in the Urban Environment, unless the underlying zones are more restrictive, is 35 feet above average grade level (K.C.C. 25.16.030[B]). Commercial and industrial development are permitted provided that they are also permitted in the un- derlying zone. Non- water - related commercial and industrial uses must maintain a shoreline setback of either 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark or 20 feet from 10020CD5.SEAq/13 3/19/92 3 -13 the floodway, whichever is greater. Non - water - related industrial uses may further re- duce the setback if access to the shoreline is provided. According to the King County shoreline regulations, "public access" means unob- structed access to the general public from land to the shoreline. "Limited public ac- cess" means that access to the shoreline is limited to specific groups of people or to specific times or that visual access is provided to the general public. The regulations require public access in the following circumstances: Development proposed in shorelines of the state shall maintain setbacks, provide easements or otherwise develop the site to permit a trail to be constructed or public access to continue where: .::. ..:... 1. There is a proposed trail in the King County Trail System; or 2. Part of the site is being used and has historically been used for public access (K.C.C. 25.16.030(HX1)' (2)),;:: Public access to the Duwamish Waterway ''in the project area is currently provided at the Developmental Center, the Oxbow site, and the South Park site Public shoreline access is also being proposed near Slip 4 of the. °North Duwamish Campus site Part of King County's Green River Trail (dscussed below) is proposed to be developed along the Duwamish Waterway on the west side of the Duwamish Office Park East, on private property, and along. the west side of the Oxbow Site and the southern edge of the City Light site, in:tle,rigbt- of- way:"The trail will provide public access and recre- ational opportunities. The proposed mute of the trail is shown in Figure 3 -3. In addition to these limitedrequirements to provide new public access, the regulations also offer incentives for vcluptary provision of public access. The setbacks identified above for commercial and industrial uses in the Urban Environment designation can be decreased if public access is provided. The setback can be reduced to 20 feet from the ordinary high water mark or 10 feet from the edge of the . floodway, whichever is greater, if the development provides limited public access. The setback can be reduced to 10 feet or the edge of the floodway if full public access is provided. King County Recreation Plans The King County Draft Regional Trails Plan (October 1990) identifies trail issues fac- ing the county, plan goals and objectives, existing and proposed trails and use demands, and the plan's relationship to other County trail plans and programs. The primary goal of the Draft Regional Trails Plan is to "design a safe, pleasurable trail system for the citizens of King County providing transportation and recreation opportunities to and from employment centers for users of various skill levels" (page 2). 10020CD5.SEAq/14 3/19/92 3 -14 • rnmrS 1111111 ,003P / *. • tb? Moines way s°. r9"I Pi so • • LEGEND 11111111 Proposed Green River Trail •••••••• Proposed Duwamish Trail * '1 11 11 1' Proposed Interim Duwamish Trail (over next five years) Proposed Public Access Point to Duwamish Waterway (Port of Seattle) Duwamish Tribe Cultural Sites (Green River Trail Master Plan, 1988) Existing Park Museum of Flight *Note: The exact route between South Michigan Street and South Holden Street has not been determined. The route between South Holden Street and South Thistle Street may change. The route between South Thistle Street and 14th Avenue South is final. Figure 3 -3 EXISTING AND PLANNED RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE The Green River Trail is a proposed trail identified in the plan that would be in the vicinity of the study area. The Duwamish River becomes the Green River at its conflu- ence with the Black River, south of the study area. The Green River Trail is planned to follow the Duwamish and Green Rivers from the Seattle city limits on West Mar- ginal Way to the Auburn Narrows Park at SR 18. According to the plan, approxi- mately 90 percent of the land proposed for the trail is publicly owned by the cities of Tukwila, Seattle, Kent, and Auburn and by King County; the remainder is privately owned. The Green River Trail Master Plan (adopted by King County Council Motion 88360 on August 3, 1988) provides a detailed recommended trail program and identifies trail alternatives, detailed cost estimates, and interpretive facilities for the trail. The motion also indicated the County's preference to explore the locationfof trail segments as close to the shoreline as possible. Of particular interest was, a..loop. around the perimeter of the Oxbow site, continuing north along the west bank of property owned by Seattle City Light. These connections are not feasible because of. concerns. raised by owners (unrelated to Boeing facilities). The plan also identifies historic sites and :buwamish Tribe cultural sites in the vicinity of the proposed trail (Figure 3 -3). DuwaipiiSII Trbe:::cultural sites include supernatural sites, myth sites, and other sites of unique; importance. Supernatural sites are those places associated with supernatural beings s .ch :as monsters and spirits. Myth sites are those that are celebrated in loGal.Puget Salishimythology (e.g., folk stories about North- wind and Stormwind). Other, sites,.. °could be campsites, fishing stations, or places where duck- catching:;nets `°or drying racks were located. King County is currently sponsoring a study of::i °significant :.native sites with local historian and writer David Buerge. A public do'cuinent iSi,aitticittiated in the near future. Figure 3 -3 shows the proposed location of the Green River Trail with respect to the project site. As shown, .the, trail would begin south of the City Light site, follow the Duwamish Waterway, and continue parallel to Highway 99 along the east side of West Marginal Way South. The trail would cross South 102nd Avenue and continue along the west side of 27th Avenue South, across from the Oxbow site. It would cross the Duwamish Waterway at South 112th Street and follow the west bank of the Duwamish Waterway behind the Duwamish Office Park East. The trail would pass underneath Pacific Highway South, cross back over the Waterway, and continue along the east (south) side of the Waterway. The trail would then turn to the southwest, away from the Waterway, for a short . distance, and then would continue along the west side of the Duwamish Waterway in the City of Tukwila. The segment of the trail between the City Light site and the Seattle city limits (to the north) has not been planned and would depend on private development plans for the area. Phase 1 of the Green River Trail is currently being developed, with construction plans tentatively set for summer 1992. 10020CD5.SEA/16 3/19/92 3 -16 King County Airport Master Plan The Master Development Plan for Boeing Field/King County International Airport was adopted in December 1987. The plan addresses the needs of the airport over the next 20 years and recommends appropriate uses of the airport's property and facilities. The plan focuses on highest and best use of airport property, valuation methodologies for establishing lease rates, and environmental impacts of airport development on adjacent residential areas. Two major land- use - related recommendations affecting the study area are the reloca- tion of Perimeter Road at the north end of the airport and the:: acquisition of property (Firestone property) along the west side of the airfield. The relocation of Perimeter Road would allow the redevelopment of leaseholds with good development potential and eliminate long-standing conflicts between taxiing air- craft and access vehicles. It would also allow the airport to secure .all airfield operation areas. Acquisition of the Firestone property would allow the °construction of additional aircraft storage hangars, facilities that are in high demand °° These would be located adjacent to the existing Airpark Hangars. Since adoption of the plan,.. both of ?..these: recommendations have been partially implemented. CITY OF SEATTLE The City of Seattle Land Use Code is a set of policies and regulations guiding develop- ment in the city of Seattle:::, The Land Use Code contains regulations of both the Zon- ing Code and the Shoreline Master Program. Seattle Zoning Code Sites in the project area located within the Seattle city limits are designated as indus- trial zones. These sites include the northern portion of Plant 2, most of the South Park site, most of the North Duwamish Campus, and most of North Boeing Field (see Figure 3 -2). According to Seattle's Industrial Area Policies: The General Industrial zones shall be established to promote the full range of industrial activities and related support uses. The General Industrial designation shall include those areas most suited to industrial 10020CD5.SEA/17 3/19/92 3 -17 activity, where the separation from residential and pedestrian- oriented commercial area is sufficient to reasonably mitigate the impacts associ- ated with industrial uses (Policy 3). A small portion of Plant 2 and most of the North Duwamish Campus are located in the IG -1 85 zone (General Industrial -1, with an 85 -foot height limit on permitted non- industrial uses). The South Park site is located in the IG -2 65 zone (Industrial -2, with a 65 -foot height limit on permitted non - industrial uses). Most of the flightline area (King County Airport, and North Boeing Field) is located in the IG -2 85 zone (General Industrial -2, with an 85 -foot height limit on permitted non- industrial uses). The northernmost portion of the North Boeing Field area is zoned IB- 65 (Industrial Buffer, with a 65 -foot height limit). The distinction between the IG -1 and the IG -2 zoning classifications is the density per- mitted for commercial uses not related to industrial: activity. As stated in the policies: The purpose of the IG -1 Zone is to protect; marine and rail related in- dustrial areas from an inappropriate level of unrelated retail and com- mercial uses by limiting these uses to a density lower than that allowed for industrial uses. The same denstty.shall: apply to all permitted uses in the IG-2 Zone. The intent is to. allow a broader range of uses where the industrial function of an area ` is less established, and where additional commercial activity could improve `employment opportunities and the physical condition of the:: area, without conflicting with the industrial activity (Policy 3 :Innpleimentaticn Guideline 2). Light, general, and''hea ry manufacturing (some require an administrative conditional use); office; and research. and development laboratories are all permitted in the IG -1 and IG -2 zoning districts::::;,. The floor area ratio (FAR) in the IG zone is 2.5. There is no maximum height limit for industrial activity in the IG -1 and IG -2 zones. Research and development laboratories and office uses have a maximum building height of 85 feet or 65 feet (as described above), depending on the specific zone designation. As noted above under "City of Tukwila," permit approvals and inspections for develop- ment proposals on sites at the King County Airport are obtained from King County Building and Land Development (BALD) under an agreement between the City of Seattle and King County that has been in practice for over 20 years. The majority of the North Boeing Field site, while located within the Seattle city limits, would fall under the permit authority of King County. Development proposals at North Boeing Field must also obtain pre- approval from the King County Airport Manager. Review for pre - approval examines minimum standards 10020CD5.SEA/18 3/19/92 3 -18 related to setbacks from lease lines; height per FAA requirements; automobile and aircraft parking and circulation; utilities and surface drainage; architectural design and signage; and landscaping, fencing, and security. Seattle Airport Height Overlay District The Airport Height Overlay District (Chapter 23.64 of the Seattle Land Use Code) was developed to ensure safe and unobstructed take -off and landing approach paths to King County Airport (Boeing Field). The overlay district consists of five areas based on imaginary surfaces developed from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) height limitations surrounding airports. Heights of structures within the overlay district cannot exceed the limits of the imaginary surfaces. The height limit the inner approach areas and transition areas is 37 feet; the height limit in turning: areas and conical areas is 65 feet. The study area is largely located in the turning area::,. Figure 3 -4 shows the zones in the overlay district. Structures are permitted to exceed the limits of the: `overlay district if the following conditions are met: • The FAA determines that :. the.::: aviation. does not create a hazard to • The additional height is:niecessary; for the successful physical function of the structure. • The exception;: d( s not :required re- routing of aircraft. • The structure is ::designed to minimize adverse lighting impacts while complying;:with.:the lighting requirements of the FAA. Seattle Critical Areas Ordinance Seattle's interim regulations for critical areas identify general requirements and devel- opment standards for proposed development in areas of steep slopes, wetlands and riparian corridors, and submerged land. Development in these areas must have a 25 -foot buffer from the ordinary high water mark or edge of wetlands and riparian corridors. Sites in the project area that are located in Seattle do not contain critical areas. The Duwamish Waterway is not regulated as a riparian corridor because it falls under the jurisdiction of Seattle's Shoreline Master Program. Seattle Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Only the northern portion of the North Duwamish Campus site, which runs along the Duwamish Waterway, falls under the jurisdiction of the Seattle SMP. This portion is within the Seattle city limits and within 200, feet of the Duwamish Waterway. 10020CD5.SEA/19 3/19/92 3 -19 Source: City of Seattle DCLU Director's Report Airport Height Overlay District 1987 3 -20 Figure 3 -4 AIRPORT HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT The shoreline designation of this area under the SMP is Urban Industrial (UI)., Uses permitted outright on waterfront lots in the UI classification include the commercial uses represented by the research and development laboratories currently. under con- struction at the North Duwamish Campus. Office uses, however, are permitted only through a shoreline conditional -use approval in the UI shoreline environment. The SMP includes development standards for height, lot coverage, view corridors, set- backs, and public access for uses within the classification. The height limit for struc- tures in the UI designation is 35 feet; manufacturing uses may be allowed heights of up to 80 feet if authorized by the Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use. Structures must be set back 60 feet from the water's edge, and public access to the shoreline is required, although exceptions are provided. Boeing's IASL (Integrated Aircraft Systems Laboratory) :faeiilty tin the north portion of the North Duwamish Campus has been reviewed andPapprovF.d by Seattle's Depart- ment of Construction and Land Use It is consistent with SMP provisions, and public access to Slip No 4 and the Duwamish Waterway i : included. Seattle Recreational Plans South Park Neighborhood Plan. The Duwiiisb .Ricer Park is the nearest park to the • project area The park is located in tlx South Park neighborhood along the west side of the Duwamish Waterway at. the` intersection of South Kenyon Street and 10th Ave- nue South. The South Park Ii 4eighborhooa..Plan identified six street ends as potential public view and access p punts ° :,Oi' theses, the park is the nearest to any Boeing properties. Port of Seattle Coiiiiprel*ensive : Public Access Plan for the Duwamish Waterway. As part of its requirements;, ftr shoreline development, the Port of Seattle has included improvement of a South Fei.,neighborhood street end in its public access plan for the Duwamish Waterway. The 'proposed site at Eighth Avenue South and South Portland Street is currently an undeveloped grassy area with views of the waterway and Boeing facilities. According to the plan, the new access is designed to include shoreline im- provements, picnic facilities, landscaping, and a bike path connection between the South Riverside Drive and Eighth Avenue South rights -of -way. City of Seattle Urban Trails Program. The City of Seattle's Urban Trails Program is administered through the Seattle Engineering Department (SED). SED has also devel- oped an Urban Trails Policy as part of the Draft Proposed Open Space Policy (1991), which provides information on the existing trail system and identifies current issues, locational criteria, and implementation guidelines. The goal of the Urban Trails Pro- gram (1989 -1990) is to "encourage and promote non - motorized (bicycling and walking) modes of transportation for utilitarian and recreational purposes by developing a com- prehensive urban trails system." 10020CD5.SEA21 3/19/'92 3 -21 The program's objectives are to create an urban trails system that: 1. Connects employment centers, educational facilities, residential areas, and major recreational destinations. 2. Creates and /or restores linear greenways along waterways, through neigh- borhoods, and as buffers to industrial areas and major roadways. 3. Serves a diverse population including low- and moderate - income neigh- borhoods and people with special needs, such as wheelchair users and children. The only urban trail identified by the program in the intniediate vicinity of the study area is the Duwamish Trail (Seattle Urban Trails System 199,1 Map). The Duwamish Trail is a combination of off -road trails and signed bike routes` -that: are linked to form a continuous system. The trail begins at Duwamis'h::;Head in West,;,Seattle and contin- ues south to the Seattle city limits. The trail will ' erventually connect with the Green River Trail (described above in the "Relocation Plans'.4ection for King County). Once completed, the trail will extend from West Max1 Way Southwest and South Michigan Street to South Holden Street and SeoondAvenue South. The route for this c portion has not been determined:, Fr m South 1-Iolden Street the trail will continue through the South Park neighborltdod connecting with public access points along the Duwamish Waterway and the:;Diiwamiis:,.Riuer Park (across the Waterway from the Boeing North Duwamish Campus). From the park, the trail will continue southwest to Cloverdale Street and Ei tl ,:Avenue SQuth, connecting with the Catholic Hill link, and then along Henderson to 14thti; Aveniib. South (west of the South Park site), ending at the Seattle city limit$.:. 'With the exception of the Catholic Hill link and the segment along 14th Avenue, the�;traiJ would consist of a signed bicycle route, not a constructed path. Portions of the trail are not yet completed (Figure 3 -3). The Harbor Avenue link will be completed by 1993, and the link between South Park and Michigan Street will be completed in conjunction with construction of the new First Avenue South bridge. Cur- rently, the formal portion of the trail ends at Michigan Street. The Catholic Hill link has also been completed. In 1992, a signed interim bicycle route will be put in place (also shown in Figure 3 -3). The interim route will remain on the west side of Highway 99 to approximately South Cloverdale Street and 8th Avenue South. From that point it will follow the proposed final route. The 1991 Seattle Urban Trails System Map also identifies a proposed trail that could cross the Oxbow site. The trail would connect with the Green River Trail along 27th Avenue South, cross the Oxbow site via the Oxbow Bridge, and continue along South Norfolk Street to Airport Way South. The trail would continue north, cross I -5 at 10020CD5.SEA/22 3/19,2 3 -22 Military Road, and connect with another Seattle urban trail. The specific route for this trail has not been determined, and there is no schedule for its development. Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation Linear Recreation Plan. The Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation has developed a Draft Linear Recreation Plan (1990) that describes the current system and proposed trails and boulevards and identi- fies the program's policies. The elements of Seattle's linear recreation system are pub- lic rights -of -way designated by the City as part of the open space system. The draft plan lists several linear routes in the "Greater Duwamish" Neighborhood District in the vicinity of the study area (Oxbow Bridge, Duwamish Trail and bikeway). IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ANA °`;ALTERNATIVES LAND USE IMPACTS Direct land use impacts would be site - specific. `lie` .intensity of manufacturing, labora- tory, and office uses would vary from site to site tn. sortie parts of the project area, the existing use would change but the existing-Structures would remain. On other sites, the intensity of an existing use would increase* and"�new uses `could be added. These Chang- .:: �:: es could involve demolition of existing stru4tres and ::;construction of new and /or addi- tional facilities. The proposed action and alte tiives*e consistent with the general goals for develop- ment in industrial areas s-t: forth.: in the comprehensive and community plans of the three jurisdictions. They are;::alsp compatible with the intent of the applicable zoning districts. Project - specific prop4als will wilr comply with zoning requirements and develop- ment regulations. I- 6 vever, varnaace approvals and other exceptions may be requested from the appropriate jurisdictions: Boeing redevelopment in the Corridor may encourage similar redevelopment of adja- cent sites. These changes are most likely to occur in the southern portion of the study area, south of the King County Airport, where the majority of non - Boeing affiliated sites are located. Minor redevelopment may occur in the northern portion of the study area, on the west side of East Marginal Way South (adjacent to Boeing's North Duwamish Campus), after construction of the new 16th Avenue South bridge is completed. Proposed Action The largest land use change to the area as a result of the proposed action would be the increase of lab /office use and the decrease of manufacturing use. Lab /office use could increase by as much as 65 percent, with a potential increase of 2,500 employees in those positions and a total of 4.4 million square feet of floor area. Developmental manufacturing use could decrease by 15 percent, with 1,800 fewer employees and a 10020CD5.SEA/23 3/19/92 3 -23 total of 3.9 million square feet of floor area (Tables 2 -1 and 2 -2). Office use could de- crease by 6 percent, with decrease of 1,000 employees and a total of 2.3 million square feet of floor area. The number of employees devoted to flightline activities could increase by 300. Figure 3 -5 represents a probable scenario of uses. by site. The loca- tion of uses may vary from this scenario at build -out, but the floor area by use would be similar to that in Table 2 -4. These changes would involve the demolition of the older buildings at Plant 2 and the North Duwamish Campus, some demolition at the South Park site and North Boeing Field, and the construction of additional buildings throughout the study area. As a result, the visual character of some of the sites would be altered. Boeing Company has identified the campus -style development approach adapted for the recently ap- proved redevelopment of the northern half of the Nortk DAamish Campus site as a likely approach for other office and lab /office developments ' "i1 the corridor. This project is currently under construction and is replacing.: an older :tna ufacturing building of about 500,000 square feet with a new lab /offico'b ilding of about the same size. As part of the project, paved areas are reduced, landscaping and biofiltration swales are introduced, shoreline riprap erosion protection is snppI mented with native vegetation, and pedestrian circulation is improved. °:::. ........ ::::.. The proposed action would also change themix,;:of:::ei`nployees in the area (see also Chapter 5, Population, Housing and:Eployment). The increase in employees would largely be for the lab /office use,' ,,Because:..of this change, the number of employees on • second and third shifts would ecrease,:::creat ng more intense activity during the day- time hours. Other direct land use ;1mpact ,. such'`'as an increase in light and glare, would occur. Additional lighting 'fii't.,xterioill parking, walkways, buildings, and employee vehicles would not be expectect'-;to" affect: adjacent land uses, as nearby uses are generally light industrial or commercial . B_, nature. Building facades could generate glare if designed with large reflective surface(such as glass curtain walls. Attention to facade orienta- tion, facade materials, proximity to East Marginal Way South, and degree of reflectivity would be required during project- specific building design and permit review to minimize glare impacts. It is not anticipated that use of the Duwamish as an industrial waterway by the Port of Seattle would be affected by the proposed action or alternatives. Neither use of the Duwamish Waterway for transport of goods nor development within the waterway is included as part of the proposed action or alternatives. The following is a probable scenario of the land use changes that could occur at each site with development of the proposed action. Parcels for which no significant changes are proposed (i.e., no new structures or significant change in employee numbers or make -up) are not included. 10020CD5.SEA/24 3/19/92 3 -24 — — tii .v N N ISO :.,9,a'Nomes War So. ..... :P LEGEND ...... Labs /Offices Avionics Mechanical Electrical Structural Noise Material Quality Assurance Aeronautic Office Executive Professional Engineering Support Training Manufacturing Fabrication Sub - assembly Final - assembly Production Manufacturing Development Manufacturing Flightline Engine Testing Paint Hangar Fueling Existing Aircraft Road Crossing Points Note: This illustration represents a probable scenario of proportionate uses by site and does not include accessory uses such as parking and storage. The location of uses may vary from this scenario at build -out, but floor area by use will be similiar to that represented in Table 2 -4. Figure 3 -5 PROPOSED SITE USES* Plant 2. The primary changes to the project area would occur at Plant 2. With the exception of the corporate headquarters, all structures on Plant 2 would likely be de- molished (a total of approximately 2.4 million square feet. New lab /office space and developmental manufacturing buildings (approximately 1.7 million square feet) would replace the existing manufacturing structures built in the 1930s and 1940s. It is ex- pected that the first phases of the corridor -wide redevelopment would occur at the Plant 2 site, as the existing facilities are the oldest and least efficient. The proposed re- development anticipates a continued need for access to the existing aircraft crossing to North Boeing Field. An additional "high bay" may be included in the new develop- ment, resulting in the need for an area as wide as 700 feet to be free of permanent ob- structions at East Marginal Way South. The placement .::of such a large, wide manufacturing structure near the street, and the corresponds rg.,teed to keep that space free of such typical softening features as trees and other:operinanent landscaping, will create visual and aesthetic impacts for users of East Marginal :Way South. Appropriate review of design features along the entire corridor tray help to.vitigate these impacts, for example by "showcasing" other portions of the ,gorrldor, by softening the impacts with landscape treatment that still allows aircraftcrossin or simply by acknowledging the large scale of the manufacturing structures as an:iritgral and interesting component of the corridor's industrial activities. Stream bank enl ancenent and employee shoreline access are proposed. Design review is discussed,::furxhei as a mitigating measure later in this chapter. North Duwamish Campus. The ` northern portion (approximately 20 acres) of the approximately 48 -acre site is4::cirtrently..:::.undef°construction and, once complete, will contain lab /office buildings .,:(apprQximately..500,000 square feet) in a campus -style set- ting. ting. The southett:;:pertian ' °would also be developed for lab /office space (approximately 360,000 square .feet),'although project- specific design is dependent on the realignment of the'1 §th Avenue South Bridge. The southern portion of the site is currently occupied by h,_rintptsr,;.of manufacturing buildings constructed in the 1940s and 1950s. Redevelopment of the southern portion of the parcel would consist of campus -style development visually and physically linked with the northern portion of the site. It is anticipated that these changes would improve views of the site both from East Marginal Way South and from across the Duwamish Waterway. As part of the current develop- ment of the northern portion, an improved walkway along the length of the redevel- oped waterfront will be provided to allow for public access. Other public amenities, such as benches, picnic tables, and a hand -held boat launch, will also be provided. It is anticipated that completion of both the northern and southern areas of the site would intensify the uses of the site, but the redevelopment is not expected to create sig- nificant adverse land use impacts. Total demolition for this site (including the 500,000 square feet already removed) is expected to be approximately 948,000 square feet. 10020CD5.SEA/26 3/19/92 3 -26 Developmental Center. Changes to the Developmental Center include the addition of approximately 300,000 square feet of new facilities. Few changes would be visible to those traveling along East Marginal Way South. Bank stabilization would include new riprap and landscaping. Employee shoreline access is proposed along the perimeter of the site. Public shoreline trail enhancement is proposed along the southern perimeter of the site to provide connections to the Museum of Flight. Thompson- Isaacson Site. This site is used predominantly for manufacturing. New construction will add approximately 500,000 square feet of developmental manufactur- ing facilities. No demolition is anticipated. Streambank enhancement and employee shoreline access are proposed. North Boeing Field. Flightline activities would remain largely unchanged, although there could be an increase of approximately 300 employees;::associated with flightline operations. The northernmost area, currently used: f t lab /office space, could be con- verted to flightline activities. The amount of manfacwring would remain approxi- mately the same, and the lab /office space and office space.`could be redistributed. The total square footage and the number of employees.... could increase. The number of flightline stalls used for parking and testing:::: .aircraft is :,proposed to increase from 28 to 42. Noise impacts of this change ate °discussed��:::in Chapter 7, Environmental Health. Demolition and redevelopment at" North Boeing Field would be concentrated along the northern border of the flolition would involve approximately 380,000 square feet; new constriction' would add approximately 850,000 square feet. South Park Site In its current- se,: the South Park site contains office and lab /office space. With the proposed::actit , the parcel could be used entirely for lab /office space. Existing lab /office tiger could:;, be relocated and /or replaced with other lab /office buildings. The increase,in lab /cliffiee space and decrease in office space could result in fewer employees. Approximately .:. 18,000 square feet of floor area would be demolished, and approximately 125,000. square feet of new construction is anticipated. Existing shoreline public access would be maintained. Manufacturing Alternative Development of the Manufacturing alternative would include upgrading of the existing office and manufacturing facilities. Since there would be a decrease in the number of employees and no significant changes to existing onsite uses, only construction- related impacts are expected. No significant long -term land use impacts are anticipated with this alternative. No Action Alternative With the exception of incremental modifications to Boeing facilities and fluctuations in employee population not to exceed 25,000, existing conditions would remain. No signif- icant land use impacts are anticipated in the study area with the No Action alternative. 10020CD5.SEAR7 3/19/92 3 -27 SHORELINE IMPACTS The Boeing Company currently does not use the Duwamish Waterway for its industrial operation. The proposed action and manufacturing center alternative would increase non - water - dependent uses in the project area. The shorelines of Boeing - controlled sites total approximately 18,000 linear feet. During the planning period, the build alternatives propose redevelopment of sites with approximately 4,800 linear feet of shorelines. Because of the security requirements of the aerospace industry, public access at these sites is not being proposed. The majority of these sites are located within the Tukwila city limits. As discussed previously in this chapter, these sites would be required .to .::. meet the development standards established in the King County Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Under King County's SMP, no public access would be required ,as`la result of the redevelop- .:. ment proposed in the build alternatives. Within the Seattle city limits, only the North Duwamish :Campus is proposed for rede- velopment. This site has approximately 1,800 linear feet of shoreline. Approximately 500 feet of this shoreline are proposed for public access as part of Seattle's shoreline substantial development permit for Boeing's IAS (Integrated Aircraft Systems Labora- tory) redevelopment project. Additional shoreline... public access may be required for the remaining redevelopment of the Ncrth Duwamish Campus under Seattle's jurisdic- tion. The Boeing Company is,::praposing: a shoreline public access plan as part of its Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment,Proposal;'�to address public access concerns. Fig- :. ..: u e g 3 -6 summarizes Boeing!! Pte r osal. ::. The Boeing Company s proposed Sfibteline Access Plan would maintain all existing shoreline public aceesk4;. (at ti* ;Developmental Center, Oxbow, South Park, and Duwamish Office Part:::E*:sifol and as proposed at the North Duwamish Campus site). Trail and viewpoint enhancements and a canoe launch would be provided along the 4,800 linear feet of existing shoreline public access at the Oxbow site. Pedestrian and bicycle trail connections would be provided from the Museum of Flight along East Marginal Way South to the Oxbow site and the Green River Trail. Fisheries habitat restoration is proposed near the Oxbow site in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and appropriate state agencies. Other streambank en- hancements will also be provided along the 4,800 linear feet of shoreline proposed for redevelopment. While security requirements limit public access opportunities, employee shoreline access is proposed in conjunction with the stream bank enhance- ments. Design guidelines and standards are discussed in detail in Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal. 10020CD5.SEAT28 3/19/92 3 -28 ,y tbd%ines way so. .,.; •D may. '9 NORTH BOENG FF1D / :.^!,•:o.. _. �`py�✓ 4 v { .: • • LEGEND INININNION Existing Boeing Shoreline Public Access Proposed Enhancement of Existing Access mien Proposed Connection to Green River Trail mum Proposed Employee Shoreline Access Figure 3 -6 EXISTING AND PROPOSED BOEING SHORELINE ACCESS AND TRAIL PLAN RECREATION IMPACTS The proposed action and alternatives do not conflict with plans for the City of Seattle's proposed Duwamish Trail or King County's proposed Green River Trail. Although the exact route for the Duwamish Trail has not been determined, the only segment of the trail that may be in the immediate vicinity of the study area is the final portion of the route along South Henderson Street and 14th Avenue South. This portion would be north of the South Park site. Since the proposed trail would consist of a signed route in the existing right -of -way, it is not anticipated that land use changes proposed in either of the build alternatives would affect the Duwamish Trail. The proposed City of Seattle trail that has been proposed to' cross the Oxbow site via the Oxbow Bridge and continue along South Norfolk Street,. to Airport Way South would be enhanced by Boeing's proposal to provide access frpm:the Green River Trail to the Museum of Flight. The proposed King County Green River Trail viuId. be ,located along the right -of -way south of the City Light site and east of the Oxbow ;,situ and along private property on the east side of the Duwamish Office Path' East. No redevelopment is proposed at either the Oxbow or Duwamish Office Park East ste_::::However, Boeing is proposing to develop a public trail connection between °:the Green,;::River Trail and the Museum of Flight. Water access, viewpoint, :and canoe aautch amenities are also being proposed along the existing Oxbow shorp.libelfailii ..::::: ON MEASURES LAND USE AND SOILINE IMPACTS Land use and shoreline inpacts of the proposed action and build alternatives would be consistent with applicable plans and policies. Project- specific proposals will comply with development regulations. However, variance approvals or code amendments may be requested from the appropriate jurisdictions. The City of Tukwila will evaluate the consistency of the design guidelines proposed by The Boeing Company with existing goals and policies of the City's shoreline program. The City may consider Boeing's Design Guidelines and Standards as a framework in the development and update of the industrial portions of its Shoreline Master Plan. Boeing's Design Guidelines and Standards were developed to assist Boeing planners and designers in addressing potential height, bulk, and scale impacts. These guidelines and standards could also be applied by agency review staff to mitigate project - specific impacts as redevelopment occurs. 10020CD5.SEA/30 3/19/92 3 -30 RECREATION IMPACTS Although no direct impacts to recreation have been identified as a result of the pro- posed action and alternatives, The Boeing Company will participate with the appropri- ate planning and recreation agencies in corridor -wide recreation and open space planning. The Boeing Company has proposed a shoreline public access plan with the goal of identifying segments of its internal open space system that could be enhanced for public use. The objectives of the plan have been to: • Identify opportunities that are consistent with :existing recreation and open space plans. • Discourage random, piecemeal distribution of recreation and open space resources. .. _. • Improve existing recreation and opeii $pace opportunities where needed. • Develop new recreation and:; n: ope space opportunities as part of a com- prehensive planning process. ... • Develop new recteatio i and_open!space opportunities that are consistent with and enhance p bhc aceess::goals. The specific shoreline aeeess and tirail :improvements and the implementation plan for these improvements are discued in'Inore detail in the Boeing Company's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopinent.Proposat UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Land use and shoreline changes, including intensification of development, would occur on most sites within the study area; however, no significant unavoidable adverse im- pacts to land and shoreline use are anticipated as a result of the proposed action or the manufacturing center alternative. 10020CD5.SEA 10020CD5.SEA/31 3/19/92 3 -31 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION INTRODUCTION Although the proposed corridor redevelopment is a programmatic or nonproject action, this chapter evaluates traffic impacts for each alternative in some detail. The reason for this is to provide an assessment of the extent of mitigation that would be required for approval and implementation of the redevelopment. In general, the analysis indicates that currently planned and programmedAn'provements, including previously required SEPA mitigation contributions from Boeing, will result in accept- able baseline (No Action alternative) levels of service in:'the °.study area The proposed action is estimated to generate slightly fewer vehicle,:;tnps on ai:;daly basis than the No Action alternative. Because of a greater concentration of office ;:and research and development employment during the first shift, however, peak -hour traffic volumes are estimated to increase under the proposal by abc ut 15° °percent compared to the No Action volumes. A successful transportation. management plan (TMP), as described later in this chapter, would mitigate the level -of- service._ impacts on regional facilities and bring roadway conditions back to baseline Weis. *';Fair -share contributions to road improvements would also be required to initlgate level -of- service impacts of the proposed action. In the absence of mitigation measures, the.Manufacturing Center alternative would cause the least congestion in the study; area. As part of this EIS; ,,,a previous ;mitigation requirement to construct a southbound on- ramp to SR 99 at south 9.2nd Street is being reevaluated in light of the proposal to cap employment levels t e corridor at 25,000.. The following text provides the supporting analysis for this general overview of impacts and mitigation. EXISTING CONDITIONS VEHICULAR CIRCULATION Street System The arterial roadway system serving the study area is illustrated in Figure 4 -1, which also shows City of Seattle and Tukwila roadway functional classifications and locations of traffic signals on roadways in the vicinity. 1002074F.SEAq/1 3/19/992 4 -1 LEGEND Freeway • — — Principal Arterial Minor Arterial ■. .. .. Collector Arterial • Signalized Intersection Source: City of Tukwila, City of Seattle, and WSDOT. Figure 4 -1 EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM - Access between the project area and I -5, SR 99, SR 509, and SR 599 is currently pro- vided by East Marginal Way South, South Michigan Street, South Boeing Access Road, 14th /16th Avenue South, Pacific Highway South, Airport Way South, and South Clover- dale Street. The South Michigan Street /Corson Avenue South and South Boeing Access Road interchanges provide access to I -5 both north- and southbound. A full cloverleaf interchange at 14th /16th Avenue South provides direct access to SR 99, while the South Cloverdale Street interchange allows only for northbound on -ramps and southbound off -ramps from SR 99. The Oxbow interchange connects South 102nd Street to SR 99. It currently operates as a partial diamond interchange, with north- bound on- and off -ramps from SR 99. Pacific Highway South connects to SR 99 and SR 599 with a full- access interchange. Major east -west corridors within the study area consist of South Boeing Access Road, South Michigan Street, and South Cloverdale Street.: South :;Michigan Street is a five- lane arterial, classified as a principal arterial, whicly provides direct access to I -5 and SR 99/509. Parking is prohibited on both sides of the roadway, and the posted speed limit is 30 mph. The pavement is in good condition::: South Cloverdale Street provides east -west access to SR 99. This principal arterial is a tvo -lane roadway with sidewalks and on- street parking on both sides. The:,fosted sperm 'limit is 30 mph. The intersec- tion of South Cloverdale Street and 14thAvenue South''is controlled by a signal. The main east -west corridor along °the south side`of the study area is the South Boeing Access Road. This six- to seven-lane' principal arterial provides direct access to I -5 and Pacific Highway South /SR 99 :.,Pai-krng.:is. prohibited on both sides of the roadway, and the speed limit is posted at. 30 .mph.; ; The' o adway pavement is in fair condition, and sidewalks are provided ;:o :,both sides 'of, the roadway. The intersections of South Boe- ing Access Road at' hest Marginal 'Way South/Pacific Highway. South and SR 900 (Martin Luther King, ,K,: Way Smith) are controlled by signals. West of East Marginal Way South, South Boeing Accei,sRoad becomes Pacific Highway South. This five -lane principal arterial provides threcf access to SR 99 and SR 599. North -south corridors consist of East Marginal Way South; 14th /16th Avenue South; Corson, Carleton, and Ellis Avenues South; and Airport Way South. East Marginal Way South is a five -lane principal arterial between South Michigan Street and Carleton Avenue South with two travel lanes in each direction and a two -way left -turn center lane. The roadway becomes six lanes south of Carleton Avenue South with three northbound travel lanes, two southbound lanes, and a center two -way left -turn, lane. A southbound right -turn lane is provided at South Webster Street and 16th Avenue South. On- street parking is prohibited, and sidewalks are provided only on the east side of the street. The pavement surface is in fair condition, and the speed limit is posted at 35 mph. Corson, Carleton, and Ellis Avenues South are classified as principal arterials and have signal control at selected intersections (i.e., East Marginal Way South and 1002074F.SEA/3 3/19/92. 4 -3 South Michigan Street). Ellis Avenue South is a two -way, four -lane street with side- walks on both sides. On- street parking is restricted, and the speed limit is posted at 30 mph. Carleton Avenue South is a two -lane roadway with sidewalks on both sides and a speed limit of 25 mph. Corson Avenue South is a two -lane .roadway with one travel lane in each direction. Sidewalks and on- street parking are provided on both sides of the street. The speed limit is 30 mph. The pavement surface for all north - south arterials within the study area is in fair to good condition. The principal arterial providing access from East Marginal Way South to SR 99 is 14th/ 16th Avenue South. This arterial is a four -lane roadway with two travel lanes in each direction crossing the Duwamish . River. Major intersections along 14th /16th Avenue South are controlled by signals. Limited parking is allowed' on 14th Avenue South. There is a pedestrian tunnel crossing under 16th Avenue:,South at a Boeing entrance, approximately 400 feet south of East Marginal Way South;' :46-pavement surface is in good to fair condition, and the speed limit is 30 mph!' The north -south principal arterial bordering the ;eakt.sitle:'`of the study area is Airport Way South. The arterial is a four - lane. roadway wtb two travel lanes in each direction and left -turn pockets at selected intersections:;,,.. On_street parking is prohibited, and partial sidewalks are provided along the west:'side of::the' °street. The pavement surface is in fair condition, and the speed limit is posted °'at° °45,:inph. Traffic Volumes Existing daily and peak -hour traffic volume .estimates were based on the 1989 to 1991 data assembled from the `City: of Seattle;:..the City of Tukwila, and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Figures 4 -2 and 4 -3 summarize the traffic volumes. The daily arterial volumes range from a high of 32,900 vehicles per day (vpd) on South Michigan Street: between East Marginal Way South and Corson Avenue South to a low of approx mately5,300 vpd on South Norfolk Street between East Mar- ginal Way South and Airport Way South. The morning peak -hour volumes typically range from 4 percent to 15 percent of the daily volumes, and the afternoon peak -hour volumes range from 5 to 19 percent. On the regional roadway system, I -5 has the highest volume of traffic in the project vicinity, carrying approximately 174,800 vpd north of South Boeing Access Road. Other major facilities carry between 24,500 and 50,800 vpd, with an average of 42,000 vpd on SR 99, 50,800 vpd on SR 509, and 37,000 vpd on SR 599. Traffic volumes on major facilities have been increasing from 1.5 percent to 4 percent per year over the past 5 years. Traffic on these facilities is predominantly northbound during morning peak periods and predominantly southbound during afternoon peak periods. Traffic volumes in the area are heavily influenced by Boeing operations; thus, the a.m. and: p.m. peak - period volumes are considerably higher in relation to total daily traffic than what one might find in other areas in the region. Furthermore, the peak periods 1002074F.SEA/4 3/19/92 4 -4 9,430 ,a s%Ines Way So....:: 42: 72,35 168,000 174,800 • ... • 174,800 LEGEND Direction of Travel 12,450 Average Two -way Daily Traffic Volume Source: City of Tukwila and WSDOT. Figure 4 -2 EXISTING 1991 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES s� NylBaryR !)./.5 . 200 '.' .„ (725) 630 MrohKar ` (350) •a!sMoireswaySo.._..,. X25.. o' 230 (1,160) �� (6 850) 7,425 ' (5,825) 1,270 (760) 375 (2,370) 1,775 (1,015) • 85 801 So_ .;a00 9 • f -(6 285) 6,835 —ON. (5,640) 700 (670) 780 (990) 420' • (1 350) • 1 015 -� (8 9201 k6.995) f - (5,895) • •�• 7,050 -� (5,460) LEGEND Direction of Travel 4,885 AM Peak Hour Volume (6,285) PM Peak Hour Volume Source: City of Tukwila and WSDOT. Figure 4 -3 EXISTING 1991 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES are spread over several hours due to the staggered shifts that The Boeing Company has instituted to reduce impacts on the transportation system. The Boeing facilities' a.m. peak generally occurs between 6:30 a.m. and 7:30 a.m., while the non - Boeing a.m; peak of the area roadways, or the system peak, is from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Boeing facilities' p.m. peak is between 2:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m., and the system peak is from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. In general, Boeing facilities' p.m. peak represents approximately 11 to 14 percent of the total daily traffic in the immediate project vicinity, while the system p.m. peak represents 9 to 11 percent. For purposes of this programmatic EIS, discussion of impacts for the existing and future conditions will focus on the average daily traffic volumes at selected roadway segments within the study area This provides a general basis for identifying deficien- cies and mitigation measures. It is not possible to develop' intersection -level detail and intersection level -of- service estimates, because exact building,:: sizes and locations of future development are not known. Level of Service (LOS) LOS is a concept developed to quantify the 'degree: p..... comfort afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or roadway egment. The degree of comfort in- cludes such elements as travel time, rtnbe, of 'stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impedances caused by other vehicles . Six grades are used to denote the various levels of service. They range°roirn "whin represents the best condition where little or no delay is experience d';:o OS F :&where extreme congestion is experienced. LOS F describes force,&- flow..''operatibu. at low speeds where traffic volumes exceed roadway capacity. These conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction d`ownstream'bfthe intersection. Speeds are reduced substantially, and stoppages may occur for short or long periods, of time Some agencies have established LOS standards for roadways within their jurisdictions. LOS standards can differ by area of a city or neighborhood in response to land use or other policy objectives (for example, allowing LOS F in a downtown area but not in neighborhoods). The City of Tukwila does not have an ordinance or adopted policy that directly addresses LOS standards. However, the capacity and deficiency study, discussed below, used LOS D as an objective for city streets. Daily traffic capacity analyses were prepared for various links using the estimated capacities from the City of Tukwila's Draft Roadway Capacity and Deficiency Study. Daily traffic volumes were compared with these capacities to determine volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratios, which were used to quantify existing levels of service. Table 4 -1 presents the daily roadway capacity, and Table 4 -2 summarizes the LOS definitions based on the V/C ratios. 1002074F.SEA/7 3/19/92 4 -7 Table 4-1 Daily Roadway Capacity' Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Total Capacity (two-way) Capacity Per Lane Arterials Two lanes 12,000 --- Two lanes plus left-turn channelization 15,000 --- Four lanes 24,000 1.01+ Four lanes plus left-turn channelization 27,000 Six lanes .: •,:i: 36,000 Six lanes plus left-turn channelization 39000 :,'• :', --- Freeways ''':: '"i.• Mainline :. . , .... ••: . 15,000 HOV lane : . : .. . : .. 6,000 Ramp ::: 10,000 ., . . . 'Source: City of Tukwjla ,:Draft "Roadway Capacity and Deficiency Study.' Table 4-2 Demi ion of Arterial Levels of Service (Roadway Segment) Volume-to-Capacity Ratio LOS 0.00 to 0.60 A 0.61 to 0.70 B 0.71 to 0.80 C 0.81 to 0.90 D 0.91 to 1.00 E 1.01+ F 10020754.SEA 10020754.SEA/10 3/19/92 4-8 Estimated daily LOS for the existing conditions at selected links were analyzed and are illustrated in Figure 4 -4. Most arterials and regional roadways within the study area are estimated to operate at LOS D or better. South Michigan Street, Pacific Highway South, and East Marginal Way south of South Boeing Access Road are operating at LOS E, while the First Avenue South Bridge and I -5 are at LOS F. ACCIDENTS Accident data gathered from the City of Seattle, the City of Tukwila, and WSDOT for the period from January 1, 1988, through December 31, 1990, are summarized in Fig- ure 4 -5. For the 3 -year period, there was a total of 752 accidents on the arterial road- way system within the study area, an average of approximately 0.7 accident per day, with a total of 421 injuries and one fatality. The majority of° the accidents were right - angle or rear -end accidents, which are typical of accidejit::patterns for urban areas. The street section with the accident e highest g xpoierice was alorg:East Marginal Way South between South Michigan Street and 16th Avenl e.: :South, where there were 192 accidents over 3 years. Most of these accidents involved; angular and head -on collisions. A total of 113 injuries, with no fatalities,.; was.°:: reported. No pedestrian accidents were reported. On the regional roadway system,,.the tion. f;:SR 509 between SR 99 and East Mar- ginal Way South experienced 362:�iaccidents vet the 3 -year period reported. Most of these accidents also involved aog tlarand..headi,on collisions. Four fatalities and a total of 220 injuries were reported. The ::total accidents reported on I -5 were from 249 to 343, depending on the section, `and "on' SR 99 accidents reported ranged from 46 to 108 per section. PARKING There is no on- street parking along the principal arterial roadways in the vicinity of the study area. Surrounding neighborhoods typically allow on- street parking, although there is no evidence of Boeing employees using the neighborhoods for parking. The number of existing off - street parking spaces within the project study area was sup- plied by The Boeing Company. Figure 4 -6 shows the current capacity of the parking lots in the area. There are currently about 18,000 parking spaces available for employ- ees and visitors. All parking spaces are provided free of charge, although some loca- tions are assigned and require special permits. Estimates of existing peak parking demand were calculated by dividing actual first -shift employee population (estimated at 17,100) by the observed average vehicle occupancy (AVO) of 1.2 persons per vehicle. This rate is based on surveys conducted by the Boeing Company and Entranco in June 1991. Table 4 -3 presents existing parking 1002074F.SEA/9 3/19/92 4 -9 .. w ��...► srw� :?:as ® »►�,►s:::r.►sssws::n:� LEGEND • •• •• LOS C 00.0 LOSD ■ -- LOSE LOS F Source: City of Tukwila and WSDOT. Figure 4 -4 ESTIMATED LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS 44, ... "e'Moines Way so. 249 175 0 • LEGEND 343 -212 -0 Total Roadway Segment Accidents/ No. Injuries /No. Fatalities Source: City of Tukwila, City of Seattle, and WSDOT. Figure 4 -5 ACCIDENT HISTORY (1/1/88 —12/31 /90) LEGEND 200 Number of Parking Stalls Site E. Marginal Way Corporate Park 200 11.6 Duwamish Office Park East • 1,050 82 Oxbow Site 3,460 12.7 Development Center 4,080 74.8 Military Flight Center 683 8.4 No. Parking Parking Spaces Acreage Site Thompson Isaacson Plant 2 South Park N. Duwamish Campus North Boeing Field No. Parking Parking Spaces Acreage 1,070. 10.02 414 2.8 710 . 10.0 2,178 12.1 4,145 37.4 • Approximately 825 are within structure. TOTAL 17,990 Parking Spaces 188.1 Acres in Parking Figure 4 -6 EXISTING PARKING - supply and peak parking demand for long -term and short -term spaces. Table 4 -3 also presents the number of employees and peak long -term demand by shifts. Table 4 -3 Estimated Parking Supply and Demand Existing Conditions Peak Parking Demand' Shift Employees Long -Term Short -Term - First 17,100 14,250 350 Second 3,200 2,630 .:'' ;, -- Third 1,100 920 : -- Total 21,400 ::" ::,:::15,950b Total Parking Supply -- ;:: : ' 18,000' 'Based on an average vehicle occupancy of 1.2`:: °s: bCombination of 100 percent long -term for first shift and 50 percent of second shift plus short -term. .::. `Surplus of 2,050. . Peak parking demand is likely to .vcctt - at shift 'change, when first -shift workers are yet to leave and second -shift workers are just arriving. Because of the staggered discharge times of these shifts, there is nOt,,,a complete,:: overlap. The peak demand is estimated to occur between 2:00 and:300 pxn.*hen an estimated 15,950 vehicles are parked in the study area This nunaiber repi"esents.'89 percent of the parking supply. TRANSIT AND HIG /LOCCUPAINICY VEHICLES (HOV) Ride - Sharing The average vehicle occupancy (AVO) for Boeing Duwamish facilities is approximately 1.2 persons per vehicle, or approximately 78 percent single - occupancy vehicles (SOV). Carpools make up about 10 percent of all vehicles, and vanpools make up less than one percent. Approximately 10 percent of first -shift employees commute by transit. The mode split for the existing facilities' first -shift employees is presented in Table 4 -4. The total parking supply in the corridor is approximately 18,000 spaces, with an esti- mated surplus of 2,050 spaces. The Boeing Company has entered into an agreement with Metro to jointly pursue methods to reduce SOV generation by Boeing facilities. As part of that agreement, a transportation management plan (TMP) was developed in which Boeing provides a $15 subsidy for bus passes, preferential parking for carpools and vanpools, and ride - matching. A copy of the TMP is contained in Appendix B. 1002074F.SEA/13 3/19/92 4 -13 Table 4 -4 Employee Mode Splits Existing (percent) SOV 78 Carpool 10 Vanpool 1 Transit 10 .::'' . Other Total I00 .:. AVO 17,100 first -shift erne .oyees., Transportation Demand Management (SSH .1671) In a measure designed to improve.:aii,:qulty in the state, new commute trip reduction legislation (SSHB 1671,:cariimonly:,referred to as Transportation Demand Management or TDM) was enacted `Uut`irtg: the:19 i. legislative session. Transportation demand ` anagen ent is a strategy to reduce the number of commute trips to work made by SOVs / For purposes of this EIS, TDM refers to the plans and policies established by the'::state or other government jurisdiction that require major employers to reduce commute trips. The term Transportation Management Plan or Program (TMP) will be used to identify the strategies that major employers will imple- ment to reduce SOV trips to and from work. The new state legislation requires local governments to develop and implement plans to reduce SOV work trips through commute trip reduction plans (i.e., TDM). It also requires that major employers implement programs (TMPs) to reduce SOV commuting by employees no later than six months after adoption of the local jurisdiction's plan. At a minimum, jurisdictions must adopt the following areawide reduction goals: a 15 per- cent reduction in SOV commute trips by 1995, a 25 percent reduction by 1997, and a 35 percent reduction by 1999. To establish goals for individual major employers, an areawide SOV rate is established as a base, and the required trip reductions are computed from this base rate. For the Duwamish Corridor, the area SOV rate is approximately 87 percent; therefore, the 1002074F.SEA/14 3/19/92 4 -14 base number of SOV trips is calculated as 87 percent of the number of employees. Assuming that the local jurisdictions will not adopt goals more stringent than those re- quired by the state legislation, the calculations presented in Table 4-5 below would be applicable to Boeing as a major employer. Table 4-5 SOV Reduction Goals Number of SOVs Area SOV (percent) Base SOV Trips 10% Reduction . 15% .„,,. Reduction (1995) :ir 25% .. ,iilteduction (1997) 35% Reduction (1999) Existing (17,100) first-shift employees 87 14,875 13,390 .12,650. ::: 11,160 9,670 Existing SOV 13,350a ''• . 'Based on an AVO of 1.2 persons per vehicle. ••• . tt ....... •.: ..... . „,: :;i• ••• The Boeing Company currently has a rai4 of pereent of first-shift employees (or approximately 13,350 employees) commuting by 'SOV. A 35 percent reduction in SOV commute trips would mean that 57 percent, or 9,670 employees, would commute in SOVs by 1999. ttt:. . . Transit Service • Transit service in the study are is by Metro. There are 15 bus routes serving the area Figure 4-7 presents the bus routes and bus stop locations. Direct service is provided to the Universityq:DIStfict, Capitol Hill, downtown Seattle, Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Issaquah, Rentori,Kent, Sea-Tac, Allentown, Tukwila, Des Moines, Federal Way, and Georgetown. Other routes require transfer via downtown Seattle. For the most part, service is provided from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily, including week- ends. Evening and late-night service is provided on some routes. Peak-hour service is good, with buses traveling to many urban locations in King County at 15- to 30-minute intervals. Routes 124 and 174 are regular routes; the remainder are rush-hour routes. Service to outlying urban areas of the county is generally commuter-oriented. Off-peak service to many outlying areas is less frequent or not available. Approximately 1,700 employees, including approximately 10 percent of first-shift em- ployees, commute to the Boeing Duwamish site by transit. Transit stop locations are shown in Figure 4-7. Stops are most closely spaced from 81st Place, at a pedestrian tunnel, to South 102nd Street. The average station spacing is about 950 feet. Metro guidelines for station spacing are 4 to 6 stations per mile, or one every 880 to 1002074F.SEA/15 3/19/92 4-15 Des woo t•. F� 1Flp •••••• S 152 179 181 190 162 192 173 194 175 195 176 196 177 197 178 F+ LEGEND 108 245 149 Transit Route Numbers S Bus Shelter F4) Bus Stops Pedestrian Tunnel mm�w� Transit Route Group Source: Metro. Figure 4 -7 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE 1,320 feet. The existing sites in the corridor have 21,400 employees. There are 9,895,000 square feet of development on 650 acres. The average employee density is approximately 33 employees per acre; site- specific density ranges from 278 people per acre at Plant 2 to 38 people per acre at North Boeing Field. The existing floor -to -area ratio (FAR), averaged among all sites, is approximately 0.35. Metro guidelines for densities that can support significant transit use are 50 employees per acre and a minimum FAR of 0.30. Status of High - Capacity Transit Planning Metro is currently in the process of developing a long- rangeiy emwide high- capacity transit plan. The document, called the Regional Transit Froject, is a phased plan through 2020 for the three - county area including Pierce;;. Kt1g:aind._Snohomish Counties. It consists of three system alternatives: • A transit/high - occupancy vehicle system.:(Transit/HOV) • A regional transitway system • A regional rail system The Regional Transit Project is scheduled;; fOr., :presentation to the Metro Council in 1992 with an accompanying draft environmental impact statement. Funding for the preferred alternative will be subject "itv :voter::: approval in 1992. The Metro Planning Subcommittee has recommended°::aregi:Qnali::rail system for the purpose of comparison with the Transit/HOV system alternative. 'Figures 4 -8a, 4 -8b, and 4 -8c present each of the three system alternatives. Proposed Transit/HOV ii$ystem The Transit/HOV system alternative will propose a regional HOV system:"'sd:In 4the,:vi1nity of the Boeing Duwamish site, HOV lanes would be constructed on SR 167;.'1.7X SR 509, SR 518, and SR 99. The Regional Transit Project will propose approximately a 40 percent increase in transit service over the next 10 years for all system alternatives (contingent on voter approval of the project). Proposed Transitway System. In addition to expanding the HOV system, the transitway system alternative of the Regional Transit Project would involve the construction of exclusive barrier - separated travel lanes for buses and facility improvements such as park- and -rides and transit centers. In the south corridor, near the study area, the ex- clusive transitway would extend from the International District Station to Tacoma, via Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Railroad rights -of -way (adjacent to Airport Way South). Near the I -5 /SR 599 interchange, the transitway would connect to planned I -5 HOV lanes extending south to the Puyallup River bridge. Proposed Rail System. The rail system alternative of the Regional Transit Project, which would serve the proposed project, currently consists of three alternative align- ments through the south corridor. Exact alignments have not been determined. The 1002074F.SEA/17 3/19/92 4 -17 MARYSVILLE OW EVERETT LYNNW000 ADMONDS OAYE JUANITA TOTEM LAKE • EDMOND SILVERDALE • uwvERsrry DISTRICT MAST MILL OVEACAKE sEA1TLE ?' EASTOATE • • • KITSIIP COUVTV ; PIERCE COWIY i. ' BURMA AUBURN . TACOMA LEGEND Existing Transit/HOV Lane(s) -1992 INNININVMUN Proposed HOV Improvements ':=x. 2020 HOV Extensions • Transit Hub Expansion Q Access Improvement A Park & Ride Expansion ORAVANNANAN Major New Arterials/ 2020 HOV Extensions Source: METRO 2000 Plan (Draft) Potential Master Plan Communities ]QOro1 Figure 4 -8a REGIONAL TRANSIT PROJECT 2010 TRANSIT /HOV SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE 4 -18 • i • ti • A• MARYSVILLE EVERETT CBD . BOTNELL • $ i t� 1 JUANITA NORTNGATE • • NOTE: The alignments and phasing distinctions shown on this map are for the purpose of system level evaluation. g OH MISH COUNTY MG COUNTY P .. REDMOND C .. � D STRICT • BELLEVUE. t• CBD' SILVERDALE t • Barrier Separated, Bus and HOV's SSATTLE • i - • • SW EVERETT • 1: 0 ® • • 3 is LYNNWOOD, • is EDMONDS .0 • BREMERTON CBO Barrier Separated, Bus Orly • < IOiSAP COUNTY ;. PIERCE COUNTY • • FIRST HILL • • a • / i I • • i i WIu SEA•TAC •i•; • • FEDERAL , WAY TACOMA CBD. • se...aa LAKEWOODE •VA t1 • 1 1 1 4 • c) OVERLAKE EASTGATE 10 R • OTON / AUBURN • / "NG COUNTY RAGE COUNTY_ t ame PUYALLUP • Iss AN Center Lane, Barrier Separated, Bus and HOV's • LEGEND N A • , 3 ISLES • Employment Center Urban Growth Boundary Transltway - 2010 HOV Enhancements - 2020 (Feas10my to be detemnned) • Transltway Access/Stations Major HOV Facilities* • HOV Lanes - 2010 • HOV Lanes - 2020 O HOV Access Ramps included In TSM Component 6/5/91 Source: METRO 2000 Plan (Draft) 4 -19 Figure 4 -8b REGIONAL TRANSIT PROJECT TRANSITWAY SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE ■ • MARYSVILLE • SW EVERETT • EVERETT CBD -r) SILVERDALE' • 63 JUANITA • NORTHOATE .• t Q ,. a UNIVERSITY >4 I�� DISTRICT • Ns -BELLEVUE. • SEATTLE °. i I - CBD • *FIRST HILL NOTE: The alignments and phasing distinctions shown on this map are for the purpose of system level evaluation. SNOHCAISH GOWN TOTEM LAKE REDMOND C OVERLAKE MHO COMM • BREMERTON CBD WTSAP COWTY EA•OATE ISSAOUAH • PIERCE COUNTY • �. SEA -TAC i• RENTON CBD FEDERAL r ` UBURN i WAY .• / -. — t 4 ■ TACOMA CBD • % i 1 • gHOFcouN7 f PIEgcEcouNry i ! 4 LAKEWOOD: r° ay '. i • PUYALLUP • �, LEGEND A 0.7 3 • Employment Center Urban Growth Boundary Rail System Alternative for Evaluation 2010 System 2020 System Ne•• I• m Commuter Rail •*"."" Potential Connections/Extensions 4/10/91 Source: METRO 2000 Plan (Draft) 4 -20 Figure 4 -8c REGIONAL TRANSIT PROJECT RAIL SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE first segment could open by 2000. The three alternative alignments: • International District Station to Federal Way (South 320th Street) via East Marginal Way South and SR 99 • Rainier Avenue South to South McClellan Street, then Martin Luther King, Jr., Way South to about South Henderson Street, connecting to the South Boeing Access Road and then continuing to SR 99 • Rainier Avenue South to about South Henderson Street, connecting to the South Boeing Access Road and then continuing to SR 99 The rail system alternative includes commuter rail service' from King Street Station to Auburn via the Burlington Northern Railroad (BNRR): r ght'-of -gray. By 2020 the south corridor would be extended from Federal Way to Tacoma, and commuter rail service would be planned from Auburn to Tacoma. The two rapid transit alternatives of the Regional "Transit Project will be evaluated for their ability to reduce SOV use and to sLu. ty Apart the' °fuget Sound. Council of Govern- ::: ments' (PSCOG) Vision 2020 multiple- ceitte ;-oriented.Iand use The evaluation criteria and comparison measures include items 'suiwk,as,:° lai:ly passenger trips, reduction in SOVs, hours of travel time saved,: °cost° per passenger trip, quantities of pollutants, fuel consumption, and others. Of.::tle"'three.::systems, the Transit/HOV system and a seg- ment of the rail system are expected:,to he in,place by the time the Duwamish Corridor redevelopment is completed ' to 2002). East Marginal Way Sozli:16t.11 Avenue South, South Cloverdale Street, and Ellis Ave- nue South are classified a *;.keyticycle streets in the Seattle Comprehensive Transporta- tion Program (Seattle Engineering Department, July 1984). Airport Way South is clas- sified as a bicycle route (see discussion in Chapter 3, Land Use). Pedestrian signals and crosswalks operate in selected directions at some signalized intersections in the study area. Crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads are not present at every leg of every intersection. Sidewalks are intermittent along the length of the corridor. Covered walkways are occasionally provided from transit stops and parking lots. Pedestrian walking distances are typically long, up to 1,000 feet from parking lots to the work site and longer from transit stops to work sites. There are two pedestrian tunnels across East Marginal Way South. One is located south of 16th Avenue South,. and another is located across 16th Avenue South. The pedestrian tunnels are shown in Figure 4 -7. 1002074F.SEA/21 3119/92 4 -21 GOODS MOVEMENT Rail Transportation A major railroad line is located just east of Airport Way South. This line connects the major rail facilities in Renton and Tukwila with railyards in the Duwamish industrial area. Spur lines run north -south along the west side of East Marginal Way South, serving the industrial area between the Duwamish River and East Marginal Way South and the study area. Burlington Northern Railroad provides freight service to industrial sites on an as- needed basis one to two times per day, 7 days per week. No other rail- road companies operate along this spur line. The spur line .extends from the north border of the study area south to the Developmental Center:' Truck Traffic There is convenient access for trucks from the study area to I =5: and SR 99. Truck traffic along East Marginal Way South constitutes pproximately 1 to 9 percent of the total traffic; truck traffic volumes within the study area;: range from 1 to 20 percent of the total traffic. Air Transportation The proximity of Sea -Tac and .;Xing County ($doing Field) Airports provides easy and direct access to air cargo faciiit es, :::Boeing,:: Field is located within the study area It serves as a base for many .privat : aircraft dd as a center for Boeing commercial and military test flights. The'.airpdrt, is',occasionally used to accommodate commercial air- liners diverted from.:Sea -Tac A;irOort'4due to unexpected weather conditions. PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS A number of transportation. system improvements in the study area are planned by King County, the City of Seattle, and the City of Tukwila. Descriptions of the planned improvements are provided below. East Marginal Way South East Marginal Way South will be reconstructed from south of 16th Avenue South to the South Boeing Access Road, including additional travel lanes in two sections, con- struction of sidewalks, signal improvements, and reconstruction of bus stops and loading areas. At selected intersections, double left -turn and right -turn lanes will be provided. Underground utilities and drainage systems along East Marginal Way South will also be reconstructed. The South Boeing Access Road at East Marginal Way South and Pacific Highway South will be widened to seven lanes and rechannelized. 1002074F.SEA/22 3/19/92 4 -22 A design report is being prepared for this improvement by Entranco Engineers; final design details are not available at this time. It is anticipated that construction of this project will take place in 1992 to 1993. 16th Avenue South Bridge The 16th Avenue South bridge over the Duwamish River is currently under study by King County and the City of Tukwila. The exact alignment for the new structure has not yet been determined. The bridge may be repaired or replaced. If replacement is necessary, it may be in the existing alignment or in a new alignment. If a new align- ment is selected, it may extend along the 14th Avenue South ri 1it -of -way from the west side of the Duwamish Waterway over to East Marginal Wiy: South. An alignment along the 14th Avenue South right -of -way would cut throtiglc the southern portion of the North Duwamish Campus parcel. Final planning.: for;::redeVelopment of the North Duwamish Campus and Plant 2 parcels thus awaits :final bridg,alfgnment selection. First Avenue South Bridge The First Avenue South bridge will be ret;onstructedld':provide six to eight lanes. A design report and EIS are currently being prep red::by the City of Seattle. Interstate 5 HOV Improvements ., Improvements by WSDOT 04- S::.that. :are bf,:s gnificance to the Boeing project study area are documented in the: Sunsliine °Report(District 1, Location Status Report, dated January 9, 1990), and are::summarizgeFI elow. • Mile post (MP) 164140 to 167.13: This segment of I -5 is scheduled for construction .:of: :a northbound HOV lane. The project also includes bridge widetij ig: rail replacement, and flat slab bridges. • MP 161.00 to 178.27: This project is designed for installation of ramp control and HOV bypasses for the on- ramps. IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES In this impacts . analysis, the No Action impact is discussed first because it represents a baseline scenario. The No Action alternative is analyzed using 2002 as a base year. It assumes on employment cap of 25,000 Boeing employees (17 percent increase over existing) in the corridor and increases in background population and traffic levels. It also takes into account the effects of planned and programmed improvements to the existing transportation system and of Boeing's master Transportation Management Plan. Following discussion of the No Action alternative, the two build alternatives are described in terms of their impacts relative to those of the No Action alternative. 1002074F.SEA/23 3/19/92 4 -23 PREVIOUS SEPA REQUIREMENTS Over the past 4 to 5 years, The Boeing Company has constructed a number of new facilities in the corridor. During the SEPA process, mitigation measures were identified to address the transportation impacts of that development. Many of those improve- ments have subsequently been constructed. Several improvements, however, have not yet been constructed. Improvements that have been required as permit conditions but not yet constructed are listed below. • East Marginal Way: Provide frontal improvements, an additional south- bound travel lane, intersection improvements, and signal improvements. • First Avenue South Bridge: Provide a pro -rata share contribution to funding for construction of improvements: • South 102nd /SR 99 (Oxbow) Interchange: ::;Construct 'a southbound on- ramp. The Boeing Company's share of costs for::tlie,::first twQitems has yet to be determined. The third item (Oxbow interchange) is a; f i,. share:;:; ontr bution because The Boeing Company is the only user. Previous cost •stmmates.:have suggested a cost of approxi- mately $8 million. Because the Oxbow interchange 'serves,::a:,ratlaet small number of users and feeds into a 3,500 -space parking lot used exclusively by Being, and because Boeing proposes to cap employment in the corridor,:at'V,000 Ibe agencies involved in implementing this miti- gation requirement:,(City of Thlcwjla and WSDOT) have agreed to reexamine the need for this improvement„,. The purpose is to determine whether some other improvement might mitigate traffic rmpacts,Of: the earlier Oxbow development as well as or better than the Oxbow interchange.;;and serve a broader segment of the general public, at equivalent or lower cost. This issue is evaluated in this chapter. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Vehicular Circulation Employment Levels. The current employment level of The Boeing Company within the Duwamish study area is 21,400, based on Boeing data from May 1991. Under the No Action alternative, the work force at the Boeing Duwamish area would increase by approximately 3,600 employees, or 17 percent over current employment. The total number of employees for the No Action alternative would be 25,000. This increase in employment would be accomplished without construction of new buildings and is con- sistent with recent historical employment levels in the corridor. New employees would all be in the manufacturing sector. The project would continue to operate with three 1002074F.SEA/24 3/19/92 4 -24 shifts: 80 percent of the employees on first shift, 15 percent on second shift, and 5 per- cent on third shift. All projections of future baseline Boeingrelated traffic volumes are based on these assumptions. Street System. The existing street system was updated to base year 2002 by incorporat- ing the funded improvements outlined under "Planned and Programmed Improvements" in the Existing Conditions section (above). Those improvements included HOV lanes on I -5, reconstruction of the 16th Avenue South bridge, and the widening of East Marginal Way South. Traffic Volumes. Travel demand forecasts were developed fox year 2002 daily traffic levels using the City of Tukwila traffic model. The residential acid commercial concen- trations were assumed to follow current development patterns: to the year 2002. Back- ground population growth is estimated at an average :;annual 'rate of 1.5 percent per year........... Trip generation for the No Action alternative was::derived from the trip generation • rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, Fifth Edition. The daily rates for office and flightline uses were further 'adjusted to represent Boeing's facilities. The trip generation rates for ';each "`°landruse type are summarized in Table 4 -6. -6 Estiafed `Daily Trip Generation .::.::.: Existing Conditions No Action Alternative Land Use Trip... :. Rate '`'�: :,:. : ' : Employees Trips Employees Trips Percent Increase Manufacturing 2.1 ' 2,400 5,040 6,000 12,600 150% Office 2.9 14,900 43,210 14,900 4,320 0% Laboratory/ Office 2.5 3,500 8,750 3,500 8,750 0% Flightline 2.0 600 1,200 600 1,200 0% TOTAL 21,400 58,200 25,000 65,760 13% Average Trips Per Employee 2.72 2.63 Existing Boeing facilities would generate approximately 13 percent higher traffic vol- umes by 2002, as summarized in Table 4 -6. Average trips generated per employee per day are estimated to decrease from 2.71 to 2.63. The reduction in the trip rate is due 1002074F.SEA/25 3/19/92 4 -25 to a higher percentage of workers in manufacturing. Traffic volume forecasts are esti- mated assuming existing mode splits. Implementation of transportation demand man- agement measures as a method of trip reduction is discussed in the following section, Transit and HOV. Trip distribution for the No Action alternative would also follow existing patterns, as illustrated in Figure 4 -9. The trip distribution pattern was estimated from the informa- tion supplied by the Puget Sound Council of Governments, The Boeing Company, and the City of Tukwila, and is consistent with the Tukwila traffic model forecasts. See Appendix E for origin and destination data from PSCOG. The trip generation was combined with the trip distribution to produce year 2002 baseline volumes using the Tukwila traffic model. Results of the forecasts are presented,A Figure 4 -10. Typical increases in volume in the area are 3 percent to 15 percerit for 2002, as compared to the existing conditions. Evaluation of the Oxbow Interchange. CH2M Hill developed `a::iubarea model for the City of Tukwila as part of the Tukwila CapacityiAnd.:lDeficiency Study, currently in its final stages. The model was used to analyze potential access improvements to the Duwamish area in conjunction with the East'MarginaliWay design study currently being prepared by Entranco Engineers. The access; studyfgcused on three alternatives: com- plete the Oxbow /SR 99 interchange; buildi'a >new interchange at SR 599/East Marginal Way; and grade- separate the East 1Vlarginaa Way /South Boeing Access Road inter- change. change. Combinations of the three alternatives :were also analyzed. The study concluded that the best alternative was completion of the Oxbow /SR 99 in- : terchange. However, the-evaluation assumed Boeing Company employment levels of about 30,000 in tho luwamish corridor Under the current proposal, employment would be capped a.651(100, wh;icl i would mean that about 13,000 fewer trips per day would be generated by:::the development than in the scenario used for the previous evaluation. Therefore, this' EIS provides additional analysis of the potential improve- ments under proposed action employment levels. Analysis of year 2002 conditions indicates that the construction of a southbound on- ramp onto SR 99 at the Oxbow site would divert approximately 3,000 trips per day from East Marginal Way South and Pacific Highway South to SR 99. The estimated LOS would be F on East Marginal Way South south of the Boeing Access Road, C on East Marginal Way South north of the Boeing Access Road, F on Pacific Highway South, and D on SR 99 without improvements at the Oxbow interchange. With the southbound on -ramp at the Oxbow interchange, the LOS on Pacific Highway South would improve to D/E. The LOS analysis suggests that improvements other than a southbound on -ramp at the Oxbow interchange may provide equivalent benefits. One option would be to widen Pacific Highway South between SR 99 and the South Boeing Access Road/East Marginal Way South intersection to six/seven lanes. This option would improve the 1002074F.SEA/26 3/19/92 4 -26 ' , .............. N11aa�Y pond �' •••; 209; 4% te 20% 35% O s% • LEGEND —II. Direction of Travel 20% Percent Distribution Source: PSCOG, City of Tukwila, and The Boeing Company Figure 4 -9 PERCENT DAILY PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 00 so� ..... Mitaay.A::•?�:::•: 5,200 ...*;;;'■••;60 if 34,200 10,500 : :'465° 29,200 41: 194,000 ' 204,700 • 204,700 LEGEND —01. Direction of Travel 100,000 Two-way Daily Project Traffic Volumes Source: City of Tukwila and WSDOT. Figure 4 -10 FORECAST 2002 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH NO- ACTION ALTERNATIVE �' estimated LOS for the section to C/D. The improvement would include a dual left -turn lane onto southbound SR 599, a two -lane ramp, and a new six-lane bridge over the Duwamish River. Additional studies are underway to determine the feasibility of widening the SR 599 on -ramp. Initial opinions of cost suggest that this improvement could be built for $5 to $6 million, assuming that no right -of -way is required. Level of Service. Estimated LOS at selected roadway segments for the year 2002 No Action alternative are shown in Figure 4 -11 and Table 4 -7. With the planned improve- ments along East Marginal Way South, the arterial would continue to operate at LOS C or better along segments north of the South Boeing Access Road. South of the South Boeing Access Road, East Marginal Way. South would drop to LOS F. Widening this section to five lanes from its current two lanes would improve the estimated LOS to D or better. Table 4-7:::. .. :, ; ° Level of Service (LOS) for Selecfed'Roadways Roadway .. ::. ,. Level of Service Eiristinw .::::No,;Action Conditions' Alternative Proposed Action Manufacturing Center SR 99, SR 509 to S. 102nd Street (Oxbow) :i °..:,:. C ? C C C SR 99, S. 102nd Street (Oxbow) to'Pacift .::;;. Highway S. •• ` °::,. C:�. D D D SR 99, south. of Pacific::f#ighway 5:. ::; E E E D E. Marginal Way S., S. Michigan Street to S. Boeing Access Road :: ;: C C C/D C E. Marginal Way S, S. Boeing '!Dews Road to Interurban Avenue • E F F F Pacific Highway S. E F F E S. Boeing Access Road D E E D Airport Way S., S. Michigan Street to S. Boeing Access Road C C C C Cloverdale Street D .. D D D 14th Avenue S. from Cloverdale Street to SR 99 C E E D West Marginal Place C C C C Des Moines Way S. C D D D 16th Avenue S. Bridge C E E D 1002074F.SEA/29 3/19/92 4 -29 LEGEND • •• •• LOS C • • .. LOSD ■ -- LOSE LOS F Figure 4 -11 ESTIMATED LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR YEAR 2002 WITH NO- ACTION ALTERNATIVE — South Boeing Access Road, the 16th Avenue South Bridge, and Pacific Highway South would change from the current LOS D to LOS E or F. Interstate 5, South Michigan Street, and the First Avenue South bridge would continue to operate at LOS E or F. All other roadways within the study area would remain at LOS D or better. Accidents Additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic attributable to the study area may increase the general accident level, but is not expected to significantly alter the overall accident pattern. Improvements to East Marginal Way South and 16th . Avenue South would reduce accidents and improve safety. Parking The No Action alternative would require 18,550 parliiz g spaces:: dur: ng the peak park- ing demand and would result in a shortfall of 5501 spaces~:; Table 4 -8 presents the parking supply and demand;. within the study area for the No Action alternative. The estimated long -teen and short -term parking demand, as well as the employment breakdown by shifts, are aiso,.ineluded in Table 4 -8. It is assumed that, during the peak parking demand peridds, :100:: :percent of the first shift would overlap with 50 percent of the second shift, consistent with Boeing's policy of staggered start times within each shift. Table 4 -8 Estimated Ptirking Supply and Demand —No Action Alternative Shift Employees Peak Parking Demand Long -Term . Short-Term First 20 000 16,650 350 Second 3,750 3,125 , -- Third 1,250 1,040 -- Total Total Parking Supply 25,000 -- 18,550a 18,000b 'Combination of 100 percent long -term for first shift, and 50 per- cent of second shift plus short -term demand. bShortfall of 550 spaces. 1002074F.SEAq/31 3/19/92 4 -31 Transit and HOV Ride- Sharing. The master Transportation Management Plan (TMP) would continue under the No Action alternative, although the recent Transportation Demand Manage- ment (TDM) legislation (SSHB 1671, Sections 10 through 25) would increase emphasis on employer TMPs. Examples of SOV reduction goals for the No Action alternative are presented in Table 4 -9. The area SOV rate is approximately 87 percent; therefore, the base number of SOV trips would be 87 percent of the number of employees. Re- duction goals are then computed relative to this base number of SOV trips. The 1999 SOV reduction goal would dictate a maximum of 11,300 SOVs. This translates to 57 percent of first -shift employees arriving to work by SOV and 43 percent by other modes. Approximately 21 percent of first -shift employees/ ,200) would need to change from SOV mode to carpools, vanpools, and transit.. Table 4 -9. SOV Reduction No Action Alternative. Boeing SOVa Area::S;OV ..(e cen0 Base;! Tripb ::t5% Reduction (1995) 25% Reduction (1997) 35% Reduction (1999) Existing first -shift (17,100) employees No Action (20,000 first -shift employees) 13,350 aBased on existing mode4sp1i,t of 78 percent SOV. bBased on TDM legislation,, 14,$75 17,400 12,650 14,800 11,160 13,100 9,760 11,300 Transit Service. There are no existing plans for service improvements within the study area. However, the Regional Transit Project proposes about a 40 percent increase in transit service over the next 10 years. This transit service increase will be subject to voter approval in 1992. The Regional Transit Project high - capacity system alternatives are planned for approximately 2010 and the Boeing Duwamish proposed action is scheduled to be in place by 2002, so the future baseline will be evaluated with the assumption of aggressive TMP programs by employers. Transit ridership would in- crease from 1,710 for existing conditions to 2,000 for the No Action Alternative. Transit stop locations will be re- evaluated in conjunction with the programmed East Marginal Way South improvements. Transit stops would be located where feasible and in a way that decreases walking distances to the extent possible. Bus turnouts would be provided wherever sufficient right -of -way exists. 1002074F.SEAq/32 3/19/92 4 -32 Nonmotorized Transportation Nonmotorized transportation facilities and conditions would remain similar to existing conditions. Improved sidewalks and bikeways would be provided for the length of the study area, in conjunction with programmed East Marginal Way South improvements. Goods Movement Truck Traffic. The increase in the number of employees in the area would increase truck traffic by approximately 10 to 15 percent. Truck traffic would continue to make up approximately 15 percent of total traffic. This increase is.:relatively minimal when compared with the daily volumes of arterial roadways within'. the study area Rail Transportation. The railroad spur along the west side of East Marginal Way South may be removed as part of the planned improvements id :this. arterial. Air Transportation. The conditions would remain the same as existing. PROPOSED ACTION Vehicular Circulation Employment Levels. The proposed action. would include construction of new Boeing facilities in the Duwamish area .to :allow more laboratory and office space and reduce manufacturing facilities.... ...With this :::proposal, employment would increase from the existing 21,400 to 25,000: employees'V the year 2002. This is an increase of 3,600 em- ployees (17 percent) ''over existing: conditions, similar to the No Action alternative. The Boeing facilities in the study area:` would continue to operate with three shifts. How- ever, because of the change * emphasis from manufacturing to laboratory/office uses, the proportion of employees...Oh first shift would increase from 80 to 90 percent, with 8 percent on second shift and 2 percent on third shift. The higher first -shift percentage would further increase peak -hour trip generation. Street System. The street system would be the same as for the No Action alternative. Planned and programmed improvements, including Boeing contributions previously required as SEPA mitigation, would be completed. Traffic Volumes. Trip generation at full implementation of the proposed redevelop- ment are shown in Table 4 -10. Also shown are trip generation figures for the No Action and Manufacturing Center alternatives. Daily traffic volumes generated by the facilities would decrease by approximately 1 percent as compared to the No Action alternative. Although there would be a slight decrease in daily traffic for the proposed action as compared to the No Action alternative, the peak -hour traffic would increase by approximately 15 percent because of the greater concentration of workers in the first shift. As .compared to existing conditions, the peak -hour volume would increase by 1002074F.SEAq/33 3/19/92 4 -33 - - -Table 4 -10 - Estimated Year 2002 Daily Trip Generation For the Proposed Action and Alternatives Land Use Trip Rate No Action Alternative Proposed Action Manufacturing Center Alternative Employees Trips Employees Trips Employees Trips Manufacturing 2.1 6,000 ii `_:. 12,600 4,900 10,290 4,800 10,000 Office 2.9 14,900 .::: ` `;.43,210 13,100 37,990 11,920 34,570 Laboratory/Office 2.5 3,500;,. ,:: ' 8;750::;. 5,500 13,750 2,800 7,000 Flight Line 2.0 600.'. 1,500 3,000 480 960 TOTAL 25,000 ::: ` 65760 ; 25,000 65,030 20,000 52,530 Average Trips Per Employee 2.63 :: :. 2.61 2.63 1002015E.SEA 1002015E.SEA/1 3/19/92 over 30 percent. Because of the change in first -shift employment, the peak -hour volume increases would have additional impacts, particularly on East Marginal Way, Pacific Highway South, and South Boeing Access Road. Trip distribution for the proposed action would follow the same patterns as in the No Action alternative. Although there would be some shift in the types of workers, the residential location of these workers would follow essentially the same pattern as today. This assumption is based on data from PSCOG for Boeing locations in Tukwila and the Duwamish corridor (see Appendix E). The trip generation figures were combined with the trip distribution patterns (Figure 4 -9) to produce year 2002 daily volumes with the proposed project, as illustrated in Figure 4 -12. Level of Service. Projected LOS levels along selected .r+aaday segments are repre- sented in Figure 4 -13. Most roadway segments would:: main unchanged as compared to the No Action alternative. East Marginal Way South wouldg'continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) north .of Soutifi:Boeing .Access Road. The sections of East Marginal Way South from Pacific Higlwky South to just north of the • m: Developmental Center would change fro the cut ent :LOS C to LOS D, because of the increase in first -shift employment. The 'getion ggsouth of Pacific Highway South would operate at LOS F. The South BoeingAccess.°°Road would drop from LOS E to F because of the increase in first -shift employment::.. • Effects of Potential Mitigations on Vehicular`Circulation. Potential mitigation meas- ures are discussed in a subsequei�t.::s °ectiou t this chapter. The primary focus of the mitigation is on development:::.of g a: transportation management plan (TMP). The goal of the TMP is to reditceg°°total' trip!:geration by providing incentives for non -SOV modes. If successfuily 4Mplemented, the mitigation measures would lessen the impacts described above for the 'proposed: ?'action. Implementation of roadway.:unprovements in the project vicinity would still be needed to provide adequate operating conditions on Pacific Highway South and on East Mar- ginal Way south of the South Boeing Access Road. As with the No Action alternative, widening of Pacific Highway South and the southbound on -ramp to SR 599 would provide an adequate level of service. The construction of a southbound on -ramp at the Oxbow interchange would also provide adequate LOS, although at a somewhat higher cost. Additional studies currently underway will determine the feasibility of widening the on -ramp at the Pacific Highway /SR 599 interchange. In either case, additional improvements to East Marginal Way south of the South Boeing Access Road would be required to mitigate impacts. A level -of- service comparison of the two options is shown in Table 4 -11. 1002074F.SEAq/35 3/19/92 4 -35 {1 54,600 15:. 35,300 • De? MoGms Way So. 26,200 co- 13,650 193.400 204,500 • 204,500 LEGEND —jj► Direction of Travel 10,000 Two -way Daily Project Traffic Volumes Source: City of Tukwila and WSDOT Figure 4 -12 FORECAST 2002 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROPOSED ACTION �Yi�:►:syf':�.4.: 99 r.•:• w •..71#:s:►f:::�e::iclK.'•::iw•: %' 1 LEGEND •• LOS C or better •••• LOSD ■�� LOSE LOS F Note: LOS estimates reflect proposed increase in first shift employment. Figure 4 -13 ESTIMATED LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR YEAR.2002 WITH PROPOSED ACTION Accidents Although the additional vehicular and nonmotorized traffic attributable to the pro- posed action would increase the risk of accidents, it is anticipated that the overall acci- dent rate or pattern would be similar to existing conditions. Anticipated increased transit patronage with the proposed action would produce higher volumes of pedestrian traffic. This traffic, coupled with possible increased bicycle activity, would increase the likelihood of bicycle and pedestrian accidents with auto- mobiles, buses, and parked vehicles. However, the accident history within the study area indicates that these types of accidents are rare. Table 4 -11 Evaluation of Oxbow Interchange Year 2002 Level of Service Comparisons Roadway Segment Baseline& ...:::;With''iOxbow ` :... Improvementsb With Pacific Highway South Widening` Pacific Highway South F::. ' ':.;.:° D/E C/D East Marginal Way north : of Boeing Access Road `'::: ° D: ; C D East Marginal Way south::;:.. of Boeing Access Road:...., '' ; " 'Improvements t9. Marginal Way north of Boeing Access Road. bBaseline improvements phis southbound on -ramp to SR 99. `Baseline improvements. lus widening of Pacific Highway South and south- bound ramp to SR 599:.i Parking Estimated peak parking demand for the project site is summarized in Table 4 -12 for the proposed action as well as the No Action and Manufacturing Center alternatives. The peak parking demand for the proposed action, at the current average vehicle oc- cupancy, would increase to approximately 19,940 spaces. The peak parking demand would exceed the parking supply by approximately 1,940 spaces, or 11 percent. 1002074F.SEAq/38 3/19/92 4 -38 Table 4 -12 Estimated Peak Parking Demand (Proposed Action and Alternatives) Manufacturing No Action Proposed Center Alternative Action Alternative Employees 25,000 25,000 20,000 • First shift 20,000 22,500 17,000 • Second shift 3,750 2,000 2,000 • Third shift 1,250 500 :: '';: 1,000 Total Peak Parking Demand 18,550 19,940 ": 17,850 • Long -term 18,200 19,590 ' ;: '` :;: 17,500 • Short -term 350 .350 :: '° :: 350 Total Parking Supply 18,000 :. 1 18,000 18,000 Surplus (shortfall) (550) ° (1,940) 150 The parking shortfall would be accommodate•; bymplementing a TMP. No new park- ing facilities are planned; additional` °carpool; alid vanpool spaces would be designated as demand increased. Successful; implementation of the TMP would reduce the park- ing demand and could eliminate:: the parkin shortfall. The shortfall could also be reduced by changing the shift Percentages i.e., decreasing first shift and increasing second and third shift... Additional parking may be provided as part of any new buildings constructed. Transit and HOV Ride- Sharing. The Boeing Duwamish redevelopment proposal includes as mitigation a goal of reducing the number of employees commuting by SOV. The SOV reduction goals of SSHB 1671, as applied to project employment, are presented in Table 4 -13 below. The 1999 SOV reduction goal dictates a maximum number of SOVs for each alternative. As noted previously, a reduction from 78 percent to 57 percent in the existing SOV commute rate would be required to reach this goal and would necessitate the implementation of an aggressive TMP. 1002074F.SEAq/39 3/19/92 4 -39 Table 4-13 ■ SOV Reduction Goals—Proposed Action and Alternatives Boeing SOVa Area SOVb (percent) Base SOV Trips 15% Reduction (1995) 25% Reduction (1997) 35% Reduction (1999) Existing Conditions (17,100 first-shift employees) 13,350 87 14,900 12,600 11,200 9,700 No Action (20,000 first-shift employees) 15,600 87 17,400 14,800 13,100 11,300 Proposed Action (22,500 first-shift employees) 17,600 87 19,600 16,600 , :: .::• 14,700 12,700 Manufacturing Center Alternative (16,000 first-shift employees) 12,500 87 13,900 - .iil 1,800 ' , 10,400 9,000 'Based on existing mode split of 78 percent SOV bBased on trip legislation. Achieving the SOV reduction goal of 35 percent would require a mode split of 57 per- cent SOV commuters and would involve substantial increases in other modes. The share by mode will depenctsonievvhat on incentives and physical improvements in the system (such as light rail versus an .:all-bus system). Potential mode split scenarios to accomplish the 57 percent SOY goal are summarized in Table 4-14. Table 4-14 Mode Split Percentage for SOV Goals (First-Shift Employees) Existing Scenario A: Bus Only Scenario B: Light Rail SOV 78 57 57 Carpool 10 25 20 Vanpool 1 2 2 Transit 10 15 20 Other 1 1 1 AVO I 1.2 I 1.42 1.47 1002074F.SEAq/40 3/19/92 4-40 Transit Service. An increased .emphasis on transit service and transit ridership would be necessary to meet SOV goals. For transit trips to increase significantly, they must be competitive in time and cost compared to SOV travel. Transit trips would generally be longer than SOV trips because of time spent traveling from the home to the bus stop, transfers enroute, and walking distances from the bus stop to the work site. Transit ridership is estimated to increase from 2,000 for the No Action alternative . to 3,000 for Scenario A and 4,000 JFor Scenario: B with the proposed action. Transit ridership could be further increased by locating transit stops as close to the workplace as possible. General transit studies have shown that people are willing to walk 500 to 1,000 feet from the transit stop to the home or workplace. This guideline would be difficult to adhere to with a the current configuration of Boeing sites in rela- tion to East Marginal Way. However, it is common for -Boeing employees along the Duwamish corridor to walk anywhere from 100 to 1,000 feet from the parking lot to the workplace. The total trip time on transit could be more .competitive with SOV travel time if the transit stop -to- workplace walking distance were less than the walking distance from the SOV parking lot to the workplace„ :..Irt other words, transit ridership could be increased by locating transit stops closer to -the; workplace than the SOV park - ing lots. Remote parking at the north or south_ ends, of,the corridor for SOV com- muters would be consistent with this emphasis .pn*'transit ridership. Pedestrian access to conveniences normally reached by car could...also reduce vehicle trips and improve the efficiency of a transit trip. For stores, dry cleaners, and cafes could be located adjacent to the transif stop or onsite. The employee density in,.the::corridorwith the proposed action would be approximately 35 employees per acre:' :A..density �Qf '50 employees per acre has been suggested as a guideline to support significant:: transit-use. Productive transit routes (a cost-effective- ness measurement) are 'difficult: to provide at levels less than the guidelines. The pro- posed project would consist;;of, approximately 10,489,000 square feet of floor area The FAR for the proposal would be 0.37, an increase of 0.02 from the existing FAR of 0.35; desirable FAR for effective transit service is a minimum of 0.30. The proposed shift from manufacturing to research and development could provide opportunities for site design that would increase the employee density and FAR. Buildings clustered and located as close as possible to East Marginal Way South (and the transit stops) would increase the effective density of the campus and improve the ability of transit to serve Boeing employees. Attention to landscape design features that "showcase" transit stops at major driveway entrances may also assist in improving transit ridership. In addition, because transit service is oriented primarily to first -shift employees, increasing the percentage of first -shift employees would further increase transit ridership. High - Capacity Transit. The proposed action provides opportunities for site design compatible with high - capacity transit or rail transportation. Employee density could be increased in the vicinity of rail stations. This would reduce walking distances and 1002074F.SEAq /41 3/19/92 4 -41 overall travel time for rail trips, thus making the rail trip more convenient and competitive with the automobile. Average station spacing in a rail system is from 1.5 to 2 miles. For the East Marginal Way South alternative alignment, stations could then be located at the north and south ends of the study area, with one station in the center. An onsite shuttle system or people -mover could enhance the system and provide convenient service for Boeing employees. Station design could accommodate convenience features to reduce the number of short trips and the need for a private automobile at the work site. The proposed commuter rail system and the Rainier Avenue South or Martin Luther King, Jr., Way South alternative rail alignments would require a..lpcal shuttle system or people -mover from the rail stations to the Boeing Duwamisn .obrridor. Rail transportation has the potential to carry large numbers of employees. People tend to ride public transportation if there is a cost savings and tine savings, if it is convenient, and if they feel safe. Cost savings could be::increased:::through subsidized rail passes, fees imposed for SOV parking, or dramatic increases in the price of fuel. Time savings are experienced only if employees have • a convenient station near their home or workplace or if SOV travel time,on' :surface'streets increases significantly due to congestion. The closer the station is to l,le'workplace the more significant the time savings. To add to their convenience, rail . istations can be integrated into the site de- sign and even into the building design:'::: Rail transportation would require intermodal:_ transfers that would add to the overall travel time compared to ..SOV transportation. For example, an employee might drive to a rail station, wait for a :.:tr. in ridetl e, train to the South Boeing Access station, then transfer to a local shuttle. This ` trip •:could be longer than the SOV trip and would reduce the rail trip's :competitive advantage. Minimizing the number of transfers would improve the time advantage ;. of rail transportation. Nonmotorized Transportation Project design would incorporate pedestrian- friendly features such as walkways to tran- sit stops and parking lots and grade separations of East Marginal Way South where appropriate. As noted above, studies have shown that the maximum distance a transit patron will walk to a transit station is 1,000 feet. Shortest -path pedestrian routes and convenient pedestrian access improve the accessibility and desirability of transit. Ped- estrian routes should be direct, clean, safe, adequately lit, and covered where appropriate. Bicycle routes should maintain a travelway that is clean and clear of obstructions. Sheltered bicycle parking and employee facilities would be provided with the proposed project. 1002074F.SEAq /42 3/19/92 4 -42 Goods Movement Truck Traffic. There would be only minimal changes in the truck traffic as compared to the No Action alternative. A decreased emphasis on manufacturing may slightly reduce truck traffic associated with the project site. Rail Transportation. There would be no change from the No Action alternative. Air Transportation. The conditions would remain the same as existing. MANUFACTURING CENTER ALTERNATIVE Vehicular Circulation Employment Levels. Employment levels for the..Manufacturing..Center alternative would be less than for the No Action alternative,' Manufacturing activities would employ approximately 4,800 people, with 11,920 office employees, 2,800 laboratory/ office employees, and 480 flightline employees:... The total employment for the Manufacturing Center alternative would be 200:00. The shift distribution would be the same as.flr:.the No Action alternative: 80 percent of employees would be on the first: shift, 15 percent on second shift, and 5 percent on third shift.. Street System. The street-systeiii:woi.ld be'the same as for the No Action alternative. Traffic Volumes. Trip; generation and distribution are assumed to be the same as in the No Action alternative. Trip"generation for the Manufacturing Center alternative is presented in Table 4 -6 "::Theaverage trips per employee are estimated at 2.63. Traffic volumes on the street system. are shown in Figure 4 -14. Level of Service. As shown in Table 4 -7 and Figure 4 -15, estimated LOS would im- prove as compared to either the proposed action or the No Action alternative. Only East Marginal Way south of the Boeing Access Road would decrease to F from a higher level of service. Pacific Highway South would continue to operate at LOS E, and East Marginal Way north of the Boeing Access Road would operate at C. Accidents The overall accident rate or pattern would be similar to that for the No Action alternative. 1002074F.SEAq /43 3/19/92 4 -43 24,700 4, 400 Eas(�� 49,50t; Way 33,000 - Sc? 6.00 ,:..Q_a Moires Way So. 22,600 13,000 191,400 203,600 .... 11,000 203,600 LEGEND —jam Direction of Travel 14,000 Two -way Daily Project Traffic Volumes Source: City of Tukwila and WSDOT. Figure 4 -14 FORECAST 2002 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH MANUFACTURING CENTER ALTERNATIVE - - - - - - - - - - - - :a Fi► R��<."• a: a ::.�t�.Y'�1t'r;iF•:.i�l:•:r�:•: ► ►.':a1U;::�1t^' LEGEND • •• •• LOS C •••• LOSD • LOSE LOS F Source: City of Tukwila and WSDOT. Figure 4 -15 ESTIMATED LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR YEAR 2002 WITH MANUFACTURING CENTER ALTERNATIVE Parking Peak parking demand is a function of the total number of employees and the percent- age of those employees working in the first shift. Because first -shift employment levels are lower for this alternative than either the No Action alternative or the proposed action, the peak demand is less. The peak parking demand for the Manufacturing Center alternative would be 17,850 spaces. There would be a surplus of 150 spaces. Successful implementation of a TMP would further decrease peak parking demand. Designation of additional car- pool and vanpool spaces may be required as part of that program. Transit and HOV Ride- Sharing. The Manufacturing Center alternative;: would be to the TDM legislation and SOV reduction goals even though the absolute number of SOVs would be less because the SOV reduction goals are based on the number of employees. An aggressive TMP, as outlined in the proposal mitigation measures, would still be needed. Transit Service. The Manufacturing Cd ter: °°alternative would decrease the square footage of developed space to 4,645,000 square feet ;.:and decrease the number of em- ployees to 20,000. The employes : density would be approximately 31 employees per acre, and the FAR would be 016. ' 'he..:lower density development would not be as easily integrated with a transit :system: rah sit stop locations should be reevaluated in conjunction with the programmed Bast Marginal Way South improvements. Transit stops should be located `where feasi"b.e and in a way that decreases walking distances to the extent possible. High - Capacity Transit. ail and transit plans should be carefully reviewed as existing facilities are upgraded to take advantage of opportunities to integrate with rail transit plans. Nonmotorized Transportation Impacts would be the same as for the No Action alternative. Goods Movement The level of employment in the manufacturing section would be essentially the same as for the proposed action. Truck and rail travel would also be similar. 1002074F.SEAq /46 3/19/92 4 -46 MITIGATION MEASURES PREVIOUSLY COMMITTED MITIGATION The following mitigation measures are required as part of the previous development: • Construct a southbound on -ramp to SR 99 at the Oxbow interchange (South 102nd Street). This improvement is being reevaluated as part of this EIS and parallel studies. Alternative improvements may be imposed as a substitute for this requirement. • Construct frontage improvements on East Marginal Way South. • Construct intersection improvements at_the East *Marginal Way South/ South Boeing Access Road/Pacific Highway South intersection. •. Replace existing controllers and cabinets at 10 intersections along East Marginal Way (Seattle city limits to .:South Boeing Access Road) and install interconnect wires. • Contribute a pro - rata: share for`the..Firsr Avenue South Bridge project. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES. Physical Improvements The proposed project adds traffic to ° two LOS F corridors for which improvements have been identified in the Tukw ila Capacity and Deficiency Study (currently in its final stages). These two corridors are Pacific Highway South and the portion of East Marginal Way south of th B.oeing Access Road. Level -of- service analysis for the proposed action has identified the section of East Marginal Way south of the South Boeing Access Road as operating at LOS F. In order to improve this LOS, the roadway should be widened to 4/5 lanes. A pro -rata share to this improvement by the Boeing Company would address project impacts on this road segment. As noted in Table 4 -11, the Pacific Highway South LOS is improved with either Oxbow interchange improvements or Pacific Highway South /SR 500 ramp widenings. If the Oxbow interchange southbound on -ramp is not constructed, then widening of Pacific Highway South and the southbound on -ramp to SR 599 would be required to mitigate impacts. No physical improvement to the regional system (I -5, SR 99, Michigan Street, and Boeing Access Road) are proposed as part of this program. To the extent that a TMP 1002074F.SEAq /47 3/19/'92 4 -47 supports regional goals and successfully reduces SOV commute trips, it would reduce impacts on existing facilities. Transportation Management Plan Successful implementation of a TMP that reduces SOV commute trips would be ac- complished through a combination of transit and rideshare incentives; facilities de- signed with attention to transit and rail compatibility and to pedestrian comfort, safety, and enjoyment; and disincentives for single - occupancy- vehicle commuting to assist in maintaining roadway conditions in the study area at baseline (No Action) levels of serv- ice. The master TMP adopted by Boeing and Metro is included in Appendix B. As part of that master TMP, Boeing currently provides a $15 totinsit pass subsidy. Boeing is committed to implementing a TMP that will reduce::SOV commute trips. As part of that TMP, some or all of the following • elements :::could be explored or considered: • Meter gates during the p.m..,peak -flour shift change to give HOVs pri- ority. SOVs would only be A Mowed to exit. if there were no HOV queue. • Increase the subsidies of varipools a°nd•;:Metro transit passes. The pur- pose would be to stimulate any latent markets to meet TMP perform- ance goals. As of June :30x:::1991, IRS tax -free limits on transit subsidies increased from $15:10 $20 • Establish goals: and t lnebnes for reducing SOV commute trips. • Install InstalPpeimaneni traffic counters at all entrances. Monitor traffic vol- umes and,:coitduct_.annual surveys of SOVs, carpools and vanpools. • Provide onsite building coordinators and a main . commuter office for information and production of annual reports. • Provide commuter information kiosks in lobbies and lunch rooms. • Provide periodic Metro vanpool driver training onsite and /or in the even- ings. (Currently, the training is an all -day Saturday session.) • Provide carpool/vanpool load /unload zones at the entrance to each building. • Conduct aggressive marketing, including quarterly promotional events. • Inform new employees of the TMP, HOV incentives, and Metro routes and schedules. 1002074F.SEAq /48 3/19/'92 4 -48 • Provide preferential close -in parking for vanpools and HOVs. Restrict the SOV parking supply. • Prepare an annual TMP report outlining activities, results, and future actions. • Provide convenient bike racks and employee facilities, including showers. • Provide a transportation allowance to employees and initiate parking fees at the same value as the transportation allowance. There would be no net cost to the employees; however, employee.s:;,who• chose to give up their parking spaces could apply the transportation allowance to other modes of transportation. Allow for a possible iticrease in parking fees if TMP goals are not reached. • Initiate a guaranteed ride home program for carpool;: vanpool, and tran- sit riders. • Provide subscription bus or'van service to outlying areas. For example, a Boeing van could provide:service from an Issaquah Park - and -Ride to the Duwamish sites. • Provide convenient,. direct;•conifortable, and safe pedestrian access from transit stops to the workplace.-.::Locate buildings as close to the street as possible. Distances :. from transit stops to the workplace should be less than those fr SOV lots to the workplace. • Re- evaluate the location of all transit stops in the corridor from Michi- gan Avenue to South Boeing Access Road. Locate transit stops as near as possible ta:.concentrated work sites and /or entrance gates. • Lease space for convenience services adjacent to transit stops, or provide locations for convenience services onsite. • Work with staff on transit stop design and transit - compatible site designs, including potential locations for light rail stations. 1002074F.SEAq /49 3/19/92 Establish a "brain trust" committee to review the TMP . on an annual basis. The committee would be responsible for reviewing transit stop locations and design, pedestrian design features, parking lot design, TMP goals and incentives, and status of the program. The committee should include representatives from Boeing, Metro, and the City of Tukwila. 4 -49 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS • Peak -hour traffic volumes will increase unless SOV reduction goals of SSHB 1671 are met. • Total accidents may increase. • Transit ridership increases may require additional transit service. 1002074F.SEAq 1002074F.SEAq /50 3/19/92 4 -50 Part III Other Potential Impacts and Mitigation- Measures ' Chapter 5 POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT. EXISTING CONDITIONS Boeing employment statistics used in this chapter are estimates based on Boeing employment records dated October 1990. This set of data, which provides the best comparison with regional data available from the 1990 census, indicates that Boeing employment in the Duwamish corridor was 25,000. Other chapters in this document have used an existing employment population of 21,400, whiokwas based on employ- ment figures available in May 1991. In the early 1960s, population in the corridor was as high as 40,000. Table 5 -1 demonstrates the fluctuation s,:in`,employment population in the corridor in the last 4 years. The range in employment polulation is indicative of the fluctuations that occur in the aerospace industry.;as a whole: :as:.well as at Boeing facilities. For context, a summary of population,, housing, sand employment statistics in the Puget Sound region is provided in Table Table S:-1 ing :::.......:::: Summary of Boe Duwamish''Corridor Population ::1988 through 1992 January 1988: Jan+i art19 22,159 employees 24,972 employees Jarituary 1990 26,621 employees Jan is y x:1:99; 22,802 employees January 1992 20,224 employees Table 5 -2 Puget Sound Region Population, Housing, and Employment by County 1990 King Kitsap Pierce Snohomish Total Population 1,507,300 189,705 586,200 465,600 2,748,800 Households 615,800 69,300 214,700 171,700 1,071,500 Employment 870,700 72,200 216,000 138,100 1,297,000 10020D09.SEA/1 3/19/92 5 -1 POPULATION The Boeing Company employs approximately 100,000 people in the Puget Sound region, which includes King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. The numbers and percentages of Boeing employees in each of the four counties are shown in Table 5 -3. The Boeing- related population in the region (i.e., those people who are employed by Boeing and their families) is approximately 243,470 people, or about 9 percent of the region's total population. The majority of employees working in the Duwamish corridor .reside in southern King County. The concentrations of employees in various communities, based on employee records that show residence by zip code, are shown in Table 5 -4. County King Table 5-3 Regional Population Boeing Employees Boein - Rela Population ..County 69,500 99,712 169,212 Percent of County/ Region 11 Kitsap 500 '717 1,217 .01 Pierce 17,216 29,216 .05 Snohomish 8,000 25,825 43,825 13 TOTAL li 143,469 243,469 9 HOUSING While there are 100,000 Boeing employees in the region, the number of Boeing house- holds is slightly less, given that some households have more than one Boeing employee in residence. Boeing records indicate that the ratio of households to employees is 0.97. Thus, as shown in Table 5 -5, there are an estimated 97,000 Boeing households, which constitute 9 percent of the 1,071,500 households in the region. Households indirectly supported by Boeing are also shown in Table 5 -5. In all, 265,500 households (25 per- cent of all Puget Sound region households) are affected by Boeing's operations. 10020D09.SEAR 3/19/'92 5-2 Table 5-4 Residence of Boeing Duwamish Corridor Employees by Community Community No. of Employees Percent of Total Seattle 6,700 27 Renton 3,200 13 Auburn 3,300 13 Kent 4,600 14 Bellevue 2,300 9 Bothell/Everett 2,000 8 Puyallup/Tacoma 2,700 , 11 Other 1,200 5 TOTAL 25,000 .... 100 .,• .. . .:„:.• Table 5.5 Boeing-Related Housing County 101.. Boeing Households Indirect Boeing Households Total Percent of County/Region King 67,415 113,625 181,040 29 Kitsap 485 4,725 5,210 7 Pierce 11,640 22,800 34,440 16 Snohomish 17,460 27,300 44,760 26 TOTAL 97,000 168,450 I 265,450 25 EMPLOYMENT Distribution of the approximately 100,000 Boeing employees among the various Boeing facilities is shown in Table 5-6. 10020D09.SEA/3 3/19/92 5-3 Table 5 -6 Boeing Employment by Plant and Job Type Plant Number of Jobs Manufacturing Technology / Engineering Professional/ Administrative Seattle 25,000 10,000 3,750 11,250 Everett 24,000 13,200 7,920 2,880 Renton 25,000 6,250 7,500 11,250 Kent 15,250 3,050 4,270 : 7,930 Auburn 10,750 6,880 :: 2,150 • 1,720 TOTAL 100,000 39,380 :: ` 25,590 ::: 35,030 There are two ways in which The Boeing Companyindirectly affects the regional econ- omy, and specifically employment levels in the::region. first, Boeing is a major pur- chaser of goods and services. These purchases include everything from legal and other professional services to inputs to Boeing's 'production:: processes from other aerospace firms. As Boeing's demand for these goods l and services changes, the output of firms that supply goods and services .: to Boeing changes in response, and consequently employment levels in these firms ::change:: as::well. In turn, Boeing's suppliers change their demands for goods and .,ser !ices and the cycle continues. The second way in.::whi'ch Boeing, indirectly affects employment levels in the region occurs when Boeing igniployee s and employees of the firms that supply Boeing with goods and services, spend'tbeir hicome. As the number of employees at both Boeing and its supplier firms chaiages;``their demand for goods and services changes, thereby affecting employment levels'in the firms that produce these goods and services. To the extent that employment in these secondary supplier firms is affected, there are more or less people spending their income on additional goods and services. Because of this "chain reaction," the indirect and induced effects tend to affect the entire region's econ- omy rather than just the immediate study area. The relationship between employment at Boeing and the resulting indirect employment was estimated in a 1989 study that analyzed Boeing's economic impact on the Puget Sound region and the state of Washington (Pascal, Pedersen, and Conway, 1989). This study estimated a Boeing 'jobs- multiplier" of 2.3 for the Puget Sound region. In other words, one Boeing job supports 2.3 additional jobs in the region. Using this multiplier and other criteria, it is estimated that an additional 230,000 jobs, or 8 percent of the 1,297,000 jobs in the region, are indirectly generated by Boeing employment. Twenty - five percent of all jobs in the region are directly or indirectly supported by Boeing (Table 5 -7). 10020D09.SEA/4 3/19/92 5 -4 The study also noted that more than 80 percent of Boeing's indirect impact on the region results from the spending patterns of its employees, rather than from Boeing's purchases of goods and services. These impacts tend to occur in places where the Boeing employees live rather than where they work. .The two types of indirect impacts caused by Boeing are discussed in greater detail below in the Impacts section. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE ALTERNATIVES The proposed action assumes that with redevelopment of the Duwamish corridor the number of Boeing jobs within the Puget Sound region would remain stable at 25,000 employees. (The addition of 3,600 employees in the corridor to 'the 21,400 population base for the proposed action would be accomplished by;transferring employees from other Boeing facilities in the region.) With the Manufacturing Center, alternative employment would decrease to 20,000 employees int'he. corridor. Table :5 -7 Boeing-Related Employment by Coun ty County King Kitsap Pierce Boeing Jobs ::;...,Indirect:: Boeing Jobs 69,500 :::,500 :: 2,900 Snohomish 1;2,000 22,900 Total 254,200 3,400 31,500 40,900 Percent of County/Region 29 5 15. 30 TOTAL 100,00000' ' 230,000 330,000 25 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS In general, construction employment is considered to be readily available and suffi- ciently mobile to serve regional needs. Construction workers often commute longer distances than other workers because the location of their work changes from project to project. Workers required for construction of facilities under the proposed action and the alternatives would most likely commute from their current residences rather than relocate to the project area during the construction period. Therefore, any construction impacts on population and housing are expected to be minimal. 10020D09.SEA/5 3/19/92 5 -5 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Direct Impacts (All Build Alternatives) None of the alternatives represents a net increase or decrease in Boeing employment in the region, nor do they represent a shift in the type of employment at The Boeing Company. In each alternative, Boeing is simply relocating certain jobs within the Puget Sound region. Therefore, there would be no net increase or decrease in population, housing, or employment in the region as a direct result of any of the proposed alterna- tives. The extent to which Boeing employees will change their places; of residence, causing a shift in Boeing - related population and households, as a result of being relocated to a different facility is difficult to quantify. It is not uncommon: for Boeing employees to be transferred periodically from one Puget Sound site to another. ° In. the short term, it is anticipated that affected Boeing employees would adjust, their commuting travel pat- terns terns rather than relocate their place of residence to an area closer to their new employment site The proposed action would relocate many engineering/office posi- tions from Boeing facilities in south King- County °-to -:the Duwamish corridor and relocate manufacturing positions from the corridor to `Boeing facilities in south King County and other sites. The majority of employees :::now working in the corridor live in south King County communities, suggesting that the distance to work would not be a major factor in changing places of restdence ` In the long term, some employees could relocate to areas closer to their iiew places of employment; however, given the central location of the study area, this nmber' would likely be minimal. Indirect Impacts (All Alternatves) Because none of the proposed` alternatives represents a net increase or decrease in regional employment or a;sIift::n the type of employment at Boeing, no change in the total number of jobs in the'region is expected to result from the proposed action and alternatives. To the extent that Boeing employees change their place of residence in response to being transferred, shifts in the location of indirect Boeing- generated jobs in the region may occur. However, as has already been mentioned, any change in the place of residence of Boeing employees is likely to be minimal; consequently, any shift in the location of indirect jobs is also likely to be insignificant to the region. Review of population, housing, and employment impacts on specific communities would occur with upgrades of Boeing facilities at other facilities in the Puget Sound region. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required on the part of The Boeing Company beyond the normal practice of hiring local residents to the extent possible. 10020D09.SEA/6 3/19/92 5 -6 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS No unavoidable adverse impacts would result from the proposed action. 10020D09.SEA 10020D09.SEA/7 3/19/92 5 -7 Chapter 6 Am EXISTING CONDITIONS CLIMATE The Puget Sound region has a relatively mild climate. The Olympic Mountains buffer the area from the weather that arrives from the Pacific Ocean. The summer months are characterized by moderate temperatures along with light aril variable winds, which tend to blow from the north. Summer weather is often dominated by persistent high pressure cells. This weather pattern can contribute to the formation of photochemical smog, as indicated by ozone concentrations downwind .a .urban .urban enters. Storm fronts pass through the area frequently during the :`spring and fall and occasion- ally during the winter. These strong storm fronts.Are usually the source of the region's southerly winds. Winter weather can also produce extremely stable or stagnant condi- tions that coincide with temperature inversions:::, Under:: these conditions, pollutant dispersion is extremely limited; as a result, concentratiops of pollutants are normally at their highest levels during this season.:.: POLLUTANTS The U.S. Environmental::Protectioa Agency (EPA) sets, standards for permissible levels of certain pollutants .:in ;::the -:atmosphere. Geographic areas in which a primary or secondary national ::ambient air quality standard is violated are designated as "non- attainment areas" forq,tlittt. particular pollutant. A summary of the EPA air quality standards, along with Washmg'ton State and Puget Sound region standards, is presented in Table 6 -1. The study area is located within nonattainment areas for several pollutants. Since November 1990, the area has been designated as nonattainment for particulate matter (measured as PM10).1 In November 1991, EPA redesignated the entire Seattle - Tacoma urban area (as defined by the Washington State Department of Transporta- tion, from Marysville to south of Tacoma) as a nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (CO). Finally, in January 1992, EPA designated all of King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties as nonattainment areas for ozone. Specific pollutants and their sources in the study area are discussed below. 1Particulate matter in the atmosphere can be measured either as total suspended par- ticulates (TSP) or as particles 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10). In July 1987, EPA adopted new standards based on PM10 rather than TSP. Washington State and Puget Sound region standards still use the TSP measurement. 1002074D.SEA/1 3119/92 6-1 Table 6-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant EPA (primary) EPA (secondary) Washington State Puget Sound Region Carbon Monoxide 8-hr average 1-hr average 9 ppm 35 ppm 9 ppm 35 ppm 9 ppm 35 ppm PM10 Annual arithmetic mean 24-hr averagea 50 Ag/m3 150 Ag/m3 50 Ag/m3 150 Ag/m3 50 Ag/m3 150:AW1113 50 ii,g/m3 150 Ag/m3 TSP Annual geometric mean 24-hr average . ,,,:.::::::::: :::, ::;:. :::. 3 ::. 'V Lg/m3 1[644, • 3 60 gg/11132 150 Ihglin- Ozone ' 1-hr averageb 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm .::. ••:' an ppm an ppm Sulfur dioxide 1 Annual average 30-day average • 24-hr average 3-hr average 1-hr averaged 1-hr average ' 5-min averagee 0.03 ppm 0.14 ppm .:. .:••,. .:: :: ... :, :„. . .• . ...: :ii,, ": „,.. ::.... r„: - 6450 ppm . . .: 0.02 ppm :. - 0.10 ppm a25 ppm OAO ppm 0.02 ppm 004 ppm au) ppme 0.25 ppm 0.40 ppmc 1.00 ppm Lad Calendar quarter • :::: „ . average ,::. •• ,::,. ,Ef, :i:,..,' 1.54.4.,t/M3 1.5 tlgjrn3 -- 1.5 1.kg/m3 '''4:: :'. Nitrogen dioxide Annual average .4'il; .:•, ••:' 0.05'ppm 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm •. a ' Standard attained when expected number of days per year with a 24-hour concentration above 150 p.,g/m3 is equal to one or less. b Standard attained when expected number of days per year with an hourly average above 0.12 ppm is equal to one or less. C Sulfur dioxide short-term standard should never be exceeded. d Not to be exceeded more than twice in 7 days. e Not to be exceeded more than once in 8 hours. Note: Annual, quarterly, and 30-day standards are never to be exceeded. Shorter-term standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year, unless noted otherwise. sea8004/077.51 sea8004/077.51/2 10/16/91 6-2 Sources of Air Quality Data. There is a lack of monitoring data for the specific project area. Monitored parameters that represent air quality in the general project area include PM10, SO2 (sulfur dioxide), and meteorological conditions. These parameters are monitored at the Duwamish station, located at 4752 East Marginal Way South approximately 1 mile north of the study area boundary. Other air quality parameters will be discussed here in qualitative terms and by inference from other monitoring station data. Ambient monitoring data discussed in this chapter are summarized in Table 6-2. Table 6 -2 1990 Air Quality Data Pollutant Station Location Observed Levels ,:; , ° ::: 'Notes PM10 Duwamish 4752 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle 3 ° 36.2 µgut 134 µg/& ° 119 pig/m1'"':. Ann . ual arithm :eti:.., c mean :.- Maximum day (3/1/90) 210 high day (2/28/90) TSP Duwamish 4752 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle i7.5-g%in3 321 ,gJite3 279 µgfm3' ' Annual geometric mean "Maximum day (3/1/90) '2nd high day (2/28/90) (18 days >150 µg/m3) Lead Harbor Island 2555 13th Avenue SW" :: ° Seattle ":.. 026 gtm3 : 0.52 ig/m3 064 µg/m3 :;.:: 0.49 µg/m3 1st quarter average 2nd quarter average 3rd quarter. average 4th quarter average Ozone Lake Sammamish State: Park '' :.. ''• ::: 20050 SE 54th`' :;:. ;: Issaquah 0.126 ppm 0.123 ppm - 0.108 ppm 0.096 ppm High daily 1 -hr average (7/12/90) 2nd highest (8/11/90) 3rd highest (8/12/90) 4th highest (7120/90) CO (1989) Fire Station No. 10 301 2nd Avenue S. Seattle 7 ppm 6 ppm . 5 ppm High 8-hr average (1/20/89) 2nd highest (2/12/89) 3rd highest (1/18/89) SO2 • Duwamish 4752 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle 0.009 ppm 0.028 ppm 0.092 ppm 0.109 ppm Annual arithmetic mean Maximum 24 -hr average (1/27/90) Maximum 3 -hr average (1/27/90) Maximum 1 -hr average (1/27/90) Particulate Matter. In addition to being in a PM10 nonattainment area, the project area is within a previously designated nonattainment area for TSP. Typical sources of PM10 and TSP are slash burning, wood burning (both wood stoves and fireplaces), industrial sources, auto and truck traffic, and construction activities. The primary sources in the study area are industrial. 1002074D.SEA/3 3/19/92 6-3 Lead. Lead concentrations in this region have for years been observed to be less than the ambient air quality standard levels. This difference can be attributed to the closing of the secondary lead smelter on Harbor Island and to the phasing out of leaded gaso- line. The nearest monitoring location with lead monitoring results is the Harbor Island station, located at 2555 13th Avenue S.W., approximately 3.5 miles north of the study area. Since lead concentrations have not been a problem for some time, lead sampling at the South Park station at 723 Concord Street, which is closer to the study area, was discontinued on September 30, 1988. Ozone. Ozone is the principal oxidant found in photochemical smog. It is formed through a complex series of chemical reactions involving volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen, and sunlight. VOCs and oxides .of nitrogen are emitted by both industrial and area sources. Oxides of nitrogen are produced almost exclusively by fuel combustion; VOC emissions are produced both by:;eotnbustion and by a variety of fugitive emission sources. Since ozone formation requires time for chemical reactions to be completed, ozone reaches its peak concentration several miles downwind .from the source of its precursor components. Ozone pollution is a regionar phenomenon:. The Duwamish corridor, as well as the entire central Puget Sound Basin :w ll'likely' °contribute both to ozone levels observed at the nearest monitoring station in Issaquah (at Lake Sammamish State Park and to levels recorded as far away as the stat.ic,p in Mount Rainier National Park. Carbon Monoxide. Carbon mpnrixide,!(CO),is highly localized pollutant. Collectively, motor vehicles emit more CO than. any other source. For Puget Sound cities, motor vehicles are the principal source:: o CO::causing the ambient levels to exceed air quality standards. The CO monitoring stationused f€r this analysis was located 4 miles north of the study area at Fire Station No 10,,.Iocated at 301 2nd Avenue South in Seattle. Monitoring at this site was discontinued in 1989. Although this station was the closest to the study area that monitored CO, it is important to note that it was located in downtown Seattle and is included in the analysis only for reference purposes. CO levels in the study area should be far less, due to the comparatively lower traffic volumes in the study area than in downtown Seattle. Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (S02) is produced mainly by the combustion of fuels containing sulfur, such as oil and coal. Since the Duwamish corridor is a significant industrial area, ambient monitoring data are collected locally (at 4752 East Marginal Way South) to quantify the impacts in this area. The study area is classified as an at- tainment area for SO2 ambient air quality standards. Nitrogen Dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide is produced through combustion processes followed by further atmospheric reactions. Oxides of nitrogen (NO and NO2, also referred to as NOx) are produced in high- temperature combustion conditions with excess air. Further 1002074D.SEA/4 3/19/92 6-4 reactions in the atmosphere convert NO to NO2. While only NO2 has known adverse health effects, the NO emissions also contribute to the reactions that form ozone. NO„ is controlled as a point source pollutant (e.g., from vents and stacks), but no ambient monitoring data are collected for NO2 in this region. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED ACTION The proposed redevelopment involves the gradual .replacement of 3.7 million square feet of manufacturing and office space with buildings that would have approximately 4.3 million square feet of space and would be dedicated.::largely to research, develop- ment, and administrative activities. The net effect an:;a r. quality would be a dis- placement of large sources of VOC emissions, such as painting operations, from the Duwamish corridor to elsewhere in the Puget Sound region. While the proposed re- search labs and prototype manufacturing facilities. would undoubtedly produce emis- sions of VOCs, the overall levels of emissions are expected to decrease significantly. Should any manufacturing process be decommissioned :and not moved to another plant in the Puget Sound region, the reduction inannual.::VOC °emissions could be taken as credits by The Boeing Company to be use& as offsets for future projects. In addition to . VOCs, the manufacturing facilities also contribute moderate amounts of particulate emissions to the air As.a:: 'esult°of faint overspray. These, too, would be significantly reduced through replacement of manufacturing buildings with research and office buildings. All point sources requxrIng air quality permits must be registered with the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency .;(PSAPCA). Under the current regulations, many of the facilities proposed for coltstruction would be exempt from registration due to their min- imal generation of air pollutants. If registration is required, it is PSAPCA's policy to require Best Available Control Technology (BACT) on the new sources and to evaluate each source's specific air quality impacts. BACT is an emission control strategy that incorporates add -on equipment, specific production or operations methods, or a combination of both. PSAPCA requires BACT on a case -by -case basis after consider- ation of available technology, environmental and energy impacts, and the cost of com- plying with the emission limitations. r Transportation sources commonly produce emissions of CO, NO and hydrocarbons. Air quality analyses usually focus on CO impacts because they are local to a project site. VOC and NO emissions are involved in the ozone formation process but are not associated with known local air quality impacts. Ozone formation is a regional air quality issue that is difficult to discuss on a project- specific basis. 1002074D.SEA/5 3/19/92 6-5 An emissions burden analysis was performed for CO generated from motor vehicles in the study area. The analysis was based on data developed in the transportation analysis discussed in Chapter 4. This analysis provides a means of comparing CO impacts from each alternative. Weekday emissions of CO from motor vehicles .within the project area are expected to be lower under the proposed action for the year. 2002 than existing CO emissions for 1991, due to laws requiring cleaner- burning engines in new vehicles. Study area CO emissions for the existing conditions (1991) and for all alternatives (2002) are shown in Table 6 -3. Table 6 -3 Weekday Project Area CO Emission (tons) 1991 Existing Conditions 19.2 2002 Alternatives No Action Proposed ..:: Action .: Manufacturing Center 14.3 13.9 Although slower traffic speeds and ::increased idling periods, with a resulting decrease in engine efficiency, may occur atsome intersections within the study area under the pro- posed action, cleaner- burning vehicles shotild offset any CO emission increases resulting from traffic congestion.:.: Therefore;:: MANUFACTURING CENTER ALTERNATIVE The CO ambient air concentrations under the Manufacturing Center alternative are expected to slightly lower than those for the No Action alternative. This can be attributed to fewer average weekday vehicle trips as a result of the smaller number of employees in this alternative. No CO ambient air standard will be threatened under this alternative. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE With the No Action alternative, there would likely be a general improvement over existing CO levels. This would be attributed to cleaner emissions from motor vehicles and reduced traffic congestion as planned and programmed roadway improvements are put into place. .. • MITIGATION MEASIJ: S No mitigation is required for operational ' impacts of the proposed redevelopment. Assuming that no other major developments,:or °rnajar,:air pollutant generators are proposed in the Duwamish corridor, it is anticipated:.. that the overall air quality in the corridor will remain the same as or improve over existing conditions by the year 2002, regardless of which alternative ieselected... This will largely be the result of reduced CO emissions from motor vehicles.. ':The` Boeing-Company's transportation management plan (TMP), proposed as..part of:themitigation for transportation - related impacts, will further benefit air quail ty izt;;the: corridor. As noted above, point: source erflissions are regulated by PSAPCA. Mitigation may be required on a project- speclfic basis if major emission sources are proposed. Construction- related mitigation will also be determined on a project- specific basis. Emissions from construction equipment and trucks can be reduced by using newer or better - maintained equipment. Emissions can also be reduced by avoiding prolonged periods of vehicle idling. Truck traffic into and out of the construction area should be controlled to minimize congestion during peak commuting hours. This would minimize secondary air quality impacts caused by reduced travel speeds in the project area. The construction contractor must comply with PSAPCA's Regulation 9.15, which re- quires that reasonable precautions be taken to avoid dust emissions. Such precautions may include spraying water or chemical dust suppressants on bare soils during dry, windy weather. Soils carried out of the construction site on the sides and wheels of trucks could be minimized by hosing down the trucks prior to their exiting from the site. Soil that does escape the construction area should be cleaned up with a street cleaner. 1002074D.SEA/7 3/19/92 6 -7 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Air quality could be affected on a short -term basis by dust emissions during construction. 1002074D.SEA 1002074D.SEA/8 3/19/92 6 -8 Chapter 7 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH This chapter addresses potential releases to the environment affecting public health and noise. Existing conditions, impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable adverse impacts are discussed separately for each topic. • EXISTING CONDITIONS The manufacture and production of aircraft and aircraft ;parts use materials and gen- erate wastes that are classified as hazardous under federal °and :state laws. Lab /office and manufacturing activities are the primary users and :generators pf these substances. Other sources include the flightline, which uses arid.° stores petroleum products, and office activities, which use small amounts of office.-products (such as copier chemicals and cleaners) that may be classified as hazardous: A substance that is defined as hazardouslexhibitseertain .characteristics, such as ignit- ability, corrosivity, reactivity, toxicity, or caciogenicity° that can be harmful to human health or the environment if the substance is:::released in an uncontrolled manner. Similarly, the term "dangerous wasteH; is defined an the State of Washington Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173 -303) andrefers::to waste materials that exhibit certain characteristics. Dangerous wastes °° and hazardous materials are affected by different regulations, and facilities-that use..Such: materials or generate such wastes must comply with specific requirements. Unless the: distinction between the two is made, the term "hazardous substances ' will be used in this chapter to mean both "hazardous materials" and "dangerous wastes::: Typical examples of hazardous materials used in the manufacturing processes include paints, solvents, and petroleum products. Typical examples of dangerous wastes gen- erated from these activities include caustics, acids, solvents, paints, metals, used petro- leum products, wastewater, and other wastes. These hazardous substances are cur- rently used and generated at all of the project area sites, with the exception of the Duwamish Office Park East. The "Affected Media and Contaminants Report," prepared quarterly by the Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program, identifies potential hazardous sites that are being monitored by Ecology. The affected "media" or environments that could potentially be affected by one or more contaminants include groundwater, surface water, air, soils, and sediments. The January 1992 report identified five Boeing sites: Thompson/Issacson, two sites at North Boeing Field, Plant 2, and the Developmental Center. These sites have been identified as needing further investigation to determine whether they should be placed on the State's Hazardous Sites List. Once a site is 10020C3E.SEA/1 3/19/'92 7 -1 placed on the Hazardous Sites List, it is generally ranked in priority for remediation or cleanup. The Developmental Center, Plant 2, and North Boeing Field (together with Seattle City Light) are also being monitored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), more commonly known as the Superfund program. These sites have been undergoing cleanup and monitoring efforts since the early 1980s. The Boeing Company has recently developed a corporate policy that emphasizes reduc- ing the use of hazardous materials, minimizing the generation.of hazardous waste, and ensuring proper handling and disposal of all waste. More detail is presented in Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal under "Soil Remediation." Copies of ;Environmental Management Plans, Spill Prevention;:and Conitrol Plans, and Hazard- ous Waste Management Plans for sites in the project area are on "file with the City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development.::: REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Federal, state, and local laws regulate the storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous substances. Appendix D provides a more •detailed 'sunmary of laws and regulations that are applicable to the onsite activities. Relevant requirements are briefly described here. Under the federal and state Regulations, the following actions, among others,:: ar:e,tequired:::: • Material. Safety Biwa Sheets (MSDS) for hazardous chemicals exceeding certain gtiantitesniust be provided to the King County Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), the State Emergency Response Commis- sion (SERC), and local fire departments. • An annual report of a facilities inventory of hazardous chemicals present in excess of certain quantities must be made to the LEPC, SERC, and local fire departments. • An annual summary of toxic chemical releases from the facility must be reported to the EPA and Ecology. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations (U.S. Department of Transporta- tion) regulate the transport of hazardous substances on public highways, railways, and waterways. The regulations include reporting requirements and specific packaging, labeling, and shipping procedures. 10020C3E.SEA/2 3/19/92 7 -2 Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requires specific design measures, operating standards, monitoring procedures, notification requirements, and recordkeeping procedures for underground storage tanks that contain petroleum or hazardous substances. The Clean Water Act requires facilities that store specified volumes of oil products to prepare a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan that identifies and establishes procedures and equipment to prevent the discharge of oil to navigable waters. Under the Washington Dangerous Waste Regulations, facilities,that generate dangerous waste above certain quantities must follow specific procedures „tor waste accumulation, handling, and disposal. A Preparedness and Prevention program must be implemented that identifies the communication system, the preventative's:. emergency response equipment, and the arrangements with local authorities:. A contingency plan must also be prepared that incorporates specific emergency procedures for.: events that involve dangerous waste releases, fires, or explosions. ,:..The:. contingency plan also includes material on emergency preparedness and prevention, response procedures, and person- nel training. Article 80 of the 1988 Uniform Fire Code (UPC). is..the "primary applicable local regula- tion. Article 80 establishes requirements for the prevention, control, and mitigation of dangerous conditions related to hazardous substances, and for the management of haz- ardous substances. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Proposed Action With development of the proposed action, upgrading of existing structures and develop- ment of new buildings would likely improve conditions and make handling of hazardous substances more efficient. To the extent possible, materials storage areas and waste accumulation areas will be consolidated, centralized, and located closer to delivery and pick -up access points. Use and generation of hazardous substances would be in accordance with applicable regulations and would be similar to or improved over existing practices. Exact quan- tities and types of substances used and generated would be included in project- specific environmental review. In general, the decrease in manufacturing activity, as compared with existing conditions, is expected to reduce the amount of manufacturing -type haz- ardous substances used and generated. The increase in lab /office use would, con- versely, increase the amount of other types of hazardous substances used and gen- erated. Existing plans such as SPCC and contingency plans, as well as Community 10020C3E.SEA/3 3/19/92 7 -3 Right -to -Know information, would be updated to reflect any changes as part of project - specific development. The existence of hazardous substances onsite, and their transportation to and from sites, creates the potential for errors or accidents that could result in an on- or offsite release of hazardous substances. If measures to control and contain the release failed, released substances could enter the air, surface water, groundwater, or soil. Depending on the nature of the release (the type, form, and quantity of the substance), its prox- imity to people or sensitive resources, and the conditions (e.g., weather, traffic), the releases could have adverse effects on human health or the environment. As described above, a variety of measures are mandated to prevent such incidents and to respond to an incident should it occur. These include :emergency prevention and response equipment, procedures, and training; containment areas,:for stored substances; monitoring systems to identify leaks or spills; training of personnel. handling the sub- stances; coordination with other responding agencies; and:.. promulgation of information about the substances. On a project- specific basis, environmental' .assessments of the ares identified for redevelopment of the Duwamish corridor: will° be 'performed as a first step, prior to demolition and construction activities. The environmental assessments will be : performed using the Washington State Model Toxics Control Act (MCTA) requirements „as the basis for the analyses, detection limits, and remediation alternative evaluations. The assessments include the following three strategies: • Assess the.qualityof'soil at the site This would include an evaluation of the need -for removal, treatment, or disposal. • Assess the quality of groundwater beneath the site. • Assess the subsurface of the site for buried objects such as unknown underground storage tanks or unmapped utility pipelines. If the environmental assessment indicates that contamination is present on a site pro- posed for redevelopment, notification will be made to Ecology as required by the MTCA. The situation would then be properly characterized, and a cleanup action plan would be developed. The plan would identify preferred cleanup methods and specify the cleanup standards and other pertinent requirements. If contaminated soils are discovered at a site, onsite soil remediation would be performed whenever possible. When the situation dictates that the material be deposited offsite, it would be trans- ported to an approved disposal location. 10020C3E.SEA/4 3/19/92 7 -4 When development includes demolition of existing structures, a survey for asbestos will be conducted. Known sources of asbestos will be removed and disposed of prior to demolition by a qualified asbestos removal firm. Manufacturing Center Alternative The same types of hazardous and dangerous materials used under existing conditions would be used for the manufacturing alternative. The upgrading of facilities would tend to decrease environmental heath risks through improvements to delivery and stor- age capabilities. No Action Alternative The No Action alternative would maintain existing conditions;. no changes to the exist- ing quantity, type, or management of hazardous substances would occur, except as otherwise required by law. MITIGATION: MEASUS The management of hazardous materials and' dangerous wastes is regulated to prevent releases and to mitigate adverse°° impacts associated with these substances that may present a hazard to human health or.,the,environment. The proposed action and any alternatives would be required °to comply :with all applicable existing laws that regulate hazardous materials and:::dangercus °.wastes: Compliance with regulations would be addressed on a project - specific basis as individual projects were . proposed and per- mitted. Onsite soil remediation'sheiuld��be performed whenever feasible to minimize impacts to offsite landfills and lower'the:,`risk to the general public of potential exposure to con- taminated materials during transportation. A qualified asbestos removal firm will be contracted to survey a site for the presence of asbestos prior to demolition of existing structures. If asbestos is found, a qualified asbestos removal firm will be contracted to properly identify, handle, and dispose of all asbestos - contaminated debris. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS With the proposed action, the quantity of certain types of hazardous substances associ- ated with manufacturing activities would decrease, and other types of hazardous sub- stances associated with lab /office activities would increase. As with existing conditions, the existence of these substances on the site and their transportation to and from the site presents the potential for errors or accidents that could result in an on- or offsite 10020C3E.SEA/5 3/19/92 7 -5 release of hazardous substances to the air, surface water, groundwater, or soil. These releases, if uncontrolled, could adversely affect human health or the environment. NOISE INTRODUCTION Human response to noise is subjective and can vary greatly from person to person. Factors that influence individual response include the intensity, frequency, time, and pattern of the noise; the amount of background noise . present before an intruding noise; and the nature of the work or activity that the noise .::affects. Environmental noise is measured in units called A- weighted...decibels, abbreviated as dBA. The A- weighted decibel scale was developed to approximate the sensitivity of the human ear to different frequencies by de- emphasizing frequencies to which the ear is less sensitive. The scale is logarithmic; each 10 lBki i crease is perceived by a listener as a doubling of loudness. For example, 80 dBA is jugged by a typical listener to be about twice as loud as 70 dBA and four tittles `asloud'as 60 dBA. The smallest change in noise level that humans can hear is about 2...t6.3.. decibels; increases in average or cumulative noise levels of 5 dBA or more are noticeable under ordinary conditions. Normal conversation ranges between 55 .land 65. dBA when the speakers are 3 to 6 feet apart. Quiet urban nighttime noise::levels.Tange in the low 40s dBA; noise levels during the day in a noisy urban :::arrea,, are:. frequently as high as 80 dBA. Noise levels above 110 dBA become intolerable a td can result in hearing loss. Figure 7 -1 shows sound levels for some connon noise `sources: REGULATIONS The noise ordinances of Tukwila, King County, and Seattle establish maximum environ- mental noise levels that cannot be exceeded in any 1 -hour period. The maximum allowable noise levels vary depending on the classification of both the receiving prop- erty and the noise source (e.g., residential, industrial). The classification system is called the Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement (EDNA) and is generally based on a property's use. The maximum noise level for each land use type in relation to the receiving property is shown in Table 7 -1. The noise limits apply at the property line. Construction sounds audible to commercial or industrial receiving properties are exempt from the noise limitations at all times. Construction noise audible to rural or residential receiving properties is exempt from the noise limitations during daytime hours only. 10020C3E.SEA/6 3/19/92 7 -6 CONTINUOUS EXPOSURE CAN CAUSE HEARING LOSS SLEEP INTERFERENCE 140 — Threshold of pain Military jet aircraft takeoff 130 — with afterburner from aircraft carrier at 50 ft 120 110 — Jet takeoff at 200 ft Auto horn at 3 ft Choinsaw Noisy snowmobile Lawn mower 100 — Power tools at 3 ft Noisy motorcycle at 50 ft 90 — Heavy truck at 50 ft Quiet snowmobile at 50 ft 80 — Busy urban street in daytime Quiet motorcycle at 50 ft Normal automobile Commercial area 70 — 60 — Conversation at 3 ft 50 — Quiet residential area 40 — 30 — Quiet home library Bedroom at night Concert hall (background) 10 — Broadcasting studio 0 — Threshold of hearing Figure 7 -1 TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS (dBA) The maximum permissible noise levels are similar among the three jurisdictions, as shown in Table 7 -1, except that Seattle and Tukwila do not have rural districts. Between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends, the noise limitations shown in the table are reduced by 10 dBA for receiving properties located in rural or residential areas. (The City of Tukwila observes the 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Table 7 -1 Maximum Permissible Noise Limitations EDNA of Noise Source EDNA of Receiving i .perty ( dBA) Rural Residential ; �Commerciai ;, Industrial King County Tukwila,:;:: Seattle, and .: King County Tukwila, Seattle, and King County Tukwila, Seattle, and King County Rural 49 52.' ..:::::::::... :::::..... "$5 57 Residential 52 :: ' :: 55: ' . 57 60 Commercial 5 ` 57 ' : 60 65 Industrial 5 65 70 Sources: Chapter 25.08 Seattle Municipal Code, Chapter 12.86 King County Code, Chapter 8.22 Qf Tukwila Municipal Code. limitation 7 days a week.) Pcr sound levels of short duration, the noise levels shown in the table may be exceeded for any receiving property during any 1 -hour period by 15 dBA for 1.5 minutes, by 10 dBA for 5 minutes, and by 5 dBA for 15 minutes. Sounds originating from aircraft in flight and sounds that originate at airports and are directly related to flight operations are exempt from the provisions of the chapter at all. times. Sounds created by the testing or maintenance of aircraft or of aircraft compo- nents are exempt from provisions of the chapter between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. on week- days and between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekends (7 a.m. and 10 p.m., 7 days a week for property in the City of Tukwila). EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing noise levels in the Duwamish corridor were not monitored for this analysis because it was not anticipated that redevelopment of the corridor would create a 10020C3E.SEA/8 3/19/92 7 -8 permanent and significant increase in noise levels to sensitive receptors and also because data from earlier studies of the area were available. Findings from two relevant noise impact studies for the area are briefly described below. Environmental Noise Study for the South Park Neighborhood The Environmental Noise Study for the South Park Area of 8th Avenue South (1982) analyzed existing sound levels and noise sources in the residential area of the South Park neighborhood on the east side of 8th Avenue South between the Seattle city limits and South Director Street. The study also included a number of mitigation measures to address the noise impacts. The study focused on five noise sources: air traffic using Sea -Tac Airport, vehicle traffic on 8th Avenue South, industrial activities bordering 8th Avenue, South, distant traffic, and air traffic using Boeing Field/King County Airport: The Study presented the fol- lowing conclusions: • Aircraft noise from Sea -Tac Airport traffic was the dominant noise source in the area, generating ..at least:.. two- thirds of the total sound energy measured in a 24 -hoar Period • Boeing Field air traffic contributed an insignificant amount to total noise energy, although :this' may :chance in other parts of the South Park neigh- borhood that lie°.a1oug:fr.equeny used flight paths. • Noise levels frog .industrial areas fluctuated depending on type of activ- ity, distance, duration, and presence or absence of barriers, and con - tributed,:much less to the daily sound energy than Sea -Tac air traffic. In some areas, industrial sources created significant short-term noise levels at residentially .:,::zoned property and exceeded the limits of the King County Noise' Ordinance. • Vehicle traffic along 8th Avenue South may have contributed as much as approximately 25 percent of total noise levels, depending on the time of day and the traffic volumes. • Distant traffic (i.e., traffic on roads other than 8th Avenue South) con- tributed less than 10 percent of the total noise level. Airport Noise Impact Study for Boeing Field King County Airport The Airport Noise Impact Assessment Study for Boeing Field King County Inter- national Airport (1983) analyzed aircraft noise levels; conducted noise measurements at residential, commercial, and industrial sites in the community to predict noise levels; 10020C3E.SEA/9 3/19/'92 7 -9 evaluated present and future land use patterns to assess impacts; and provided three categories of recommendations to reduce noise impacts on sensitive land uses. Study Recommendations. The study's recommendations include an aviation program that would change the way aircraft use Boeing Field. Examples include using the full length of the runway for takeoffs, closing the short runway during certain hours, adjust- ing the time and location for run -ups, and making pilots aware of noise - sensitive uses. A land use management program outlines steps to be taken to establish more com- patible land uses within areas subject to aircraft noise. These steps include prohibiting new residential development in certain areas, amending building codes to require noise insulation for uses in certain areas, and instituting a voluntary:;;program of fair disclo- sure of noise levels on property for sale within certain areas.::,' A monitoring program is also recommended to establish procedures for monitoring thother two programs. The study suggests that, if the recommendations were implemented, the number of people subjected to aircraft noise at higher levels would be reduced from 5,500 in 1983 to 2,700 by 1988 and 2,000 by the year 2000. Projected Noise Levels. In the study, noise level.. mea §urentents were made for aircraft noise, background noise (without aircraft noire)::and combined aircraft and background noise. Measurements were made using the;.Ldnr `(Day -Night Noise Level) measure. Ldn is the average A- weighted sound: level during a 24 -hour period, with a 10 dB pen - alty applied to noise occurring:at::nigh (1:0p:m to 7 a.m.). At the time of the study 09824984 aircraft noise levels in the vicinity of the study area were between 75 `'Ldn,.,(itc. the immediate vicinity of the airport) and 65 Ldn (farther away from..th ; airport). ";.Background noise levels in the vicinity of the study area were in the range bf. 60 to165 Ldn. Traffic, railway, and industrial activities were the primary contributo's:tathe . background noise levels. Figure 7 -2 shows the estimated community noise pattern (background noise plus air- craft noise) from the study for the year 2000. The noise contours are estimates and can only be used for comparison; they do not precisely define noise levels .in a specific area. As described in the study, the estimated noise contours assume that total opera- tions at Boeing Field would increase, along with highway and rail activity, but that pop- ulation densities would remain relatively unchanged. The estimate also assumes no operational changes or facility modifications at Boeing Field that might change runway use or airport operation. The study concludes that quieter aircraft fleets are expected to provide the greatest contribution to a quieter community noise pattern in the year 2000. As shown, noise levels are in the range of 75 Ldn in the immediate vicinity of the air- port and 70 Ldn to the west, south, and east. Noise levels decrease further as the dis- tance from the airport increases. Noise levels in the South Park neighborhood were 10020C3E.SEA/10 3119/92 7 -10 Source: Airport Noise Impact Assessment Study for Boeing Field King County International Airport (Coffman and Associates, October 1983) 7 -11 Figure 7 -2 PROJECTED COMMUNITY NOISE PATTERN FOR THE YEAR 2000 predicted to be approximately. 65 Ldn, which exceeds the maximum permissible daytime noise level from an industrial noise source to a residential area (60 dBA). However, aircraft noise, the primary contributor to the noise levels, is exempt from the noise limitations. Run -up Noise. As part of the 1982 -1983 study, noise patterns associated with engine run -up activity at Boeing Field were evaluated to determine their contribution to the total aviation noise levels. Most of the run -ups are performed by The Boeing Company along the west ramp within the "blast fence" or noise control wall area. The Boeing Company restricts run -ups at all but the lowest thrust levels to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., and prohibits them on Sundays and holidays,: . On the basis of future projections of the types of aircraft` that would be used and the number of run -ups, the study developed Ldn contours fo tl*tstimated noise levels from run -up activity in 1988. Average .noise levels associated with'the run -up activities were projected to be between 65 and 55 dBA itvthevicinity of they run -up area The current number of aircraft run -ups has remained:.thc.,,satnie as that projected for 1988; consequently, current noise levels for run -up activities -,are expected to be the same as • those projected for that year. The study indicated that the impact of new'aircr.:afi °technology on run -up noise patterns would be of significant benefit. Even with increased numbers of aircraft, the average noise levels for 1988 were expected to.:be lower than the then current (1982) levels. The following measures were:,irecommended;,:to reduce noise impacts associated with run -up activities: • An arre0hould.... :be. designated for all jet engine maintenance run -ups other tban;;:Boeing Company aircraft. • Engine maihtenaince run -ups on non - Boeing Company aircraft should be strictly prohibited between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The Boeing Company run -up restrictions (Monday through Saturday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) should be maintained. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Noise - sensitive uses nearest to the study area include residential development in the South Park neighborhood (west and northwest of the site) and the Highline communi- ties (west and south). Noise impacts from the proposed action can be generally grouped into three categories: construction, operations, and traffic. 10020C3E.SEA/12 3/19/92 7 -12 Proposed Action Construction Impacts. Construction activities would be required on a number of sites in the study area throughout the 10 -year redevelopment period. Demolition activities, however, would take place primarily at Plant 2, North Duwamish Campus, and North Boeing Field. Demolition would occur periodically during the redevelopment period, but would be concentrated in the early and middle phases. Approximately 2.4 mil- lion square feet of floor area would be demolished at Plant 2, approximately 948,000 square feet at North Duwamish Campus (approximately 500,000 square feet has already been demolished), and approximately 300,000 square feet throughout other parts of the project area. Noise from construction and demolition may cause shortrteri :.temporary increases in existing noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the project'.site;:;however, noise from construction equipment during the day is exempt from the maximum noise levels. Operational Impacts. Because of the nature of the: activity, increases and changes to the office component of the proposed action would ,:notbe expected to increase noise levels in the study area Lab /office activities' are.not 'excpected to increase noise levels in the study area As with current conditions, devek.ptnontai °:.manufacturing activities would generate noise and would require noise control .As:. shown in Figure 3 -5, developmental manu- facturing would be located in`a. number areas in the corridor. All manufacturing activities would be enclosed, „.reducing noise impacts to adjacent uses. Due to the decrease in developmental,manufacturing as compared with existing conditions, it is not anticipated that the., clhatige in location or type of activity would increase noise levels in the vicinity of the study''area. Flightline operations alorg..the Duwamish corridor include engine testing and other accessory activities. With the proposed action, flightline activities would expand further to the north and closer to the existing commercially and residentially zoned areas across Ellis Avenue South. New engine testing facilities could be developed in the northern portion of North Boeing Field in the late 1990s. Future noise mitigation studies will be conducted at the time project - specific proposals are developed. As described above, the west ramp portion of the North Boeing Field area is used for aircraft run -up activities. Currently, there is space for 21 aircraft to be parked on the field, with the capability to perform five tests at any one time. The proposed action would increase the field's capacity to 24 aircraft parking stalls in 1992 and 28 in 1994. This would be expected to increase noise along East Marginal Way South. A 25 -foot noise mitigation wall is proposed to mitigate noise impacts. 10020C3E.SEA/13 3/19/92 7 -13 Traffic Impacts. It is not anticipated that additional traffic associated with the pro- posed action would result in increases in existing noise levels that would be noticeable to most people. A doubling in traffic volumes, for example, creates an approximately 3 dBA increase in noise levels. While this increase may be perceptible, it is not consid- ered a significant adverse impact. Additional traffic, especially trucks, along certain routes and during certain times of the day may create short-term noise level increases. Manufacturing Center Alternative Construction- related noise levels with the Manufacturing Center alternative would be similar to those for the proposed action. Demolition and new construction to replace outmoded facilities would occur. Operational noise impacts w uld be similar to those for the no- action alternative. No Action Alternative With the No Action alternative, existing conditions would:: remain. Noise impacts in the study area are not expected to change except as a`° :result of proposed traffic improve- ments, implementation of noise abatement'' actions at :Sea -Tac Airport, or other land use changes such as an increase or decrea §e °in- noise ;producing industrial activities on properties not associated with Boeing activl ;:::: MITIGATION MEASURES • Outdoor construction activities that generate. noise would be limited to between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. or as required. to meet the noise limitations specified in the regu- lations. New and upgraded faci ities.would be designed to meet the noise levels specified in the regulations. As part of the design process for individual sites, potential noise impacts would be considered in the selection of building materials for individual structures and the loca- tion of noise - generating activities. Noise buffers would be developed if noise levels exceeded the specified noise limitations. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Demolition and construction activities associated with the redevelopment of the Duwa- mish Corridor would create short-term and temporary increases in noise levels in the vicinity. In addition, noise level increases are expected as a result of some of the addi- tional activities that would be occurring onsite, including increased aircraft engine run - ups. Noise levels in residential areas may exceed the maximum permissible limits. 10020C3E.SEA/14 3/19/92 7 -14 Existing background noise levels are high and include Sea -Tac flight traffic, King County Airport flight traffic, and other operations that are exempt from the noise limitations. 10020C3E.SEA 10020C3E.SEA/15 3/19/92 7 -15 Chapter 8 STORMWATER AND WATER QUALITY This chapter describes the existing conditions, potential impacts, and mitigation mea- sures associated with stormwater for redevelopment activities included in the proposed action and alternatives. Surface water quality, as it relates to wildlife and aquatic resources, is also discussed. STORMWATER EXISTING CONDITIONS Figure 8 -1 shows the locations of the existing st©rin drain discharge points from the project area into the Duwamish Waterway. Metro 4nd..City of Seattle combined sewer overflow outfalls are also shown. Currently, storm drainage from the paved _portions. and rooftops of the study area discharges to the indicated points along the. Duwamish' Waterway. Oil/water separators have been installed on Boeing sites, but generally stormwater is otherwise untreated. Stormwater flows from the study; :area to the Duwamish Waterway either through a system of catch basins and sforin drains, .after collection in a trunk line, or directly overland to an outfall along the Waterway :::: The storm drainage system on Boeing sites is independent of the East Marginal '`.Way South roadway drainage system, which was recommended for improvement in a recent basin study (City of Tukwila 1990:23). More than 95 percert.df: the. study area is covered by impervious surfaces; conse- quently, most of the precipitation that falls on the site is eventually discharged directly to the Duwamish Waterway:rather than being allowed to filter to the ground. Precipi- tation falling on building rooftops is also conveyed to outfalls along the waterway. WATER QUALITY AND WILDLIFE HABITAT Water Quality The project area is adjacent to the Duwamish estuary. The Duwamish River is part of a 250- square -mile watershed in King County. The area includes all or portions of seven cities and the lands of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. The original drainage basin was approximately 1,642 square miles with a discharge of between 2,500 and , 9,000 cfs (cubic feet per second). Between the 1800s and the 1950s, the Duwamish River flood - plain was almost totally filled, tributary rivers were diverted, and the Duwamish was dredged and diked for industrial activity. The total drainage area was reduced to 10020C71.sEAn 3/19/92 8 -1 of VAL VUE CITY OF SEWER - ---1 -i SEATTLE DISTRICT _ / SEWERS • • • • • LEGEND • Points where Boeing storm sewers flow into Duwamish Waterway Q Metro CSO p City of Seattle Stormwater Outfall O City of Seattle CSO Metro CSO with Seattle CSO • and /or storm Source: The Boeing Company Tanner, C. D., 1991 Figure 8 -1 EXISTING STORM SEWERS 483 square miles, and annual, average flows have decreased to 1,530 cfs (Tanner, 1991:9). With the dredging and industrialization came the loss of the estuary's variety of extensive wetlands and nearshore habitats. Ninety -eight percent of the original wetland and riparian habitats in the basin are no longer evident. Over the course of this industrialization, the discharge of oils and other toxicants from industrial uses and from landfills (for domestic garbage) produced serious water quality problems in the Duwamish. Increased regulation of industrial discharges through NPDES (or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) and closure of landfills have considerably reduced these impacts. However, the results of past practices con- tinue to affect water quality. Portions of the Duwamish shoreline are not protected adequately from erosion, which has caused the loss of shoreline material to the water- way as well as some structural failures (piers and discharge outlets). Sedimentation from this erosion also has negative effects on water quality:,;::. Additionally, other non - point pollution sources (such as chemical and bacterialpollutiot) °continue to produce temperature increases and low dissolved oxygen: levels (also attributed to salt water t intrusion). These occurrences also negatively affec :.water .quality, which in turn affects plants and wildlife in the estuary. Despite these problems, the Duwamish River° °isgi : a`*Class B rating by the Washing- ton ._. ton State Department of Ecology (Ecology), which is interpreted as "good" water qual- ity. The Duwamish River and Waterway are included in the "Water - Quality Limited Waterbodies" list in Ecology's: 1990. ` Statewide Water Quality Assessment (303[B]) Report. According to Metro annual reports, :. past and current industrial discharges and non -point (stormwater) discharges are the primary reasons for impaired water quality. Water in the estuary:irequently exceeds the standards for coliform bacteria, tempera ture, and some metals. 'Standards are exceeded more frequently near the mouth of the estuary, downstream af:: the study area, than in the immediate study area Current nonpoint discharges fro,.�tlei ' study area to the Duwamish Waterway consist of untreated stormwater and, od occasion, untreated sewage from combined sewer over- flows, which would account for the bacterial pollution. Stormwater quality has not been determined, but is expected to be typical of discharges from paved streets and parking areas surrounding urban industrial sites in the Puget Sound region. Such discharges are likely to contain oil, grease, and toxic metals in varying amounts, sometimes exceeding water quality standards. Wildlife Habitat Although use of the Duwamish River estuary as a commercial and industrial waterway has seriously affected its water quality and habitat functions, the estuary continues to serve as feeding, rearing, spawning, nesting and transportation areas for a variety of plant, animal and fish species. Of the nine mammal species identified in the Tanner report (Tanner 1991: 11), the muskrat, Norway rat, raccoon, river otter, and Townsend vole are most likely to be observed among the widely dispersed small patches of inter- 10020C71.SEA/3 3/19/92 8 -3 tidal habitat and occasional brushy areas along the shorelines of the study area. Ducks, gulls, and songbirds are common to the area. Hawks, herons, and eagles have also been observed. Of particular concern is the degradation of water quality and habitat for fish. Since estuaries are important habitats for certain salmonid species, the decline of these species may be related to deteriorating water quality and the elimination of estuarine habitat. The Duwamish estuary serves as a migratory route for all anadromous fish entering the Green River system. Spawning occurs in the Green River and its tribu- taries. The Duwamish also serves as a transitional area between salt and fresh water and in particular as rearing area for chinook and chum salmon. Chinook and chum often spend from one to two months in the estuary. Trout species, such as steelhead and cutthroat, although they are not as common in the estuary, can spend one or two years in the lower waters before migrating out to sea. Existing Studies In response to water quality and habitat concerns; two .studies have recently been pub- lished. "Potential Intertidal Habitat Restoration Sites in the Duwamish River Estuary" was written by Curtis D. Tanner for the Port of Seattle (Engineering Department) and the U.S. EPA (Environmental Evaluations Branch) Additionally, King County (Department of Parks, Planning and Resources) and Metro (Water Resources Section) developed the Green - Duwamish Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan for the Department of Ecology. The effort was funded by the Centennial Clean Water Fund (Cigarette Tax) to implement one of the elements of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. The objective of the Tanner report was to determine the restoration opportunities available in the Duwamisfr River estuary on a comprehensive basis. Twenty -four poten- tial habitat restoration sites were identified in the report. While several of these sites are adjacent to Boeing -owned or leased properties, the only Boeing - controlled site identified in the report for potential restoration is Slip No. 6 at the Developmental Center. The Green - Duwamish Action Plan identified existing and potential water quality prob- lems in the watershed stemming from nonpoint sources, emphasizing the most signifi- cant and highest - priority concerns; identified source control strategies for prevention and correction of these priority nonpoint pollution sources; and developed a long -term implementation program, identifying specific actions and responsible parties. The source control strategies were developed for seven categories of priority nonpoint pollution sources: agriculture; failing septic systems; rapid urbanization; urban storm - water; forest practices and land clearing in urban areas; boats, marinas, and launch access points; and other nonpoint pollution- related problems. Other strategies related to education and administration of programs are also incorporated into the plan. The 10020C71.SEA/4 3/19/92 8 -4 majority of the strategies are program- oriented, addressing the larger regional issues and interagency coordination. Others are specific to geographic areas in the watershed. None of the geographic areas targeted for control strategies in the Green - Duwamish Action Plan are located on Boeing properties. The recommendations specific to the Duwamish subbasin are limited to nonpoint pollution control of Longfellow Creek in West Seattle. The Boeing Company's proposed redevelopment of its properties in the Duwamish corridor could, however, be affected in the future through policy, program, and regulatory measures taken by the various participants in the Action Plan. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS Demolition and construction activities could release suspended solids into stormwater if work on sites were to occur during periods of rainfall. Demolition and construction activities would be regulated, and individual site *activities would require permits and approvals. Since construction on some sites in the project area would involve clearing and grading areas larger than 5 acres, a National 'Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit application would be required prior to *:construction of individual sites. This program is administered in Washington... State by Ecology for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).: The purpose of the permit is to control pollutants, primarily sediment, in stormwater discharge 'during and after construction activities. OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Stormwater Proposed Action and Build Alternatives. New buildings in the project area would be developed in a campus -style design that would include landscaped building and parking areas. Grass -crete will be used as an alternative to more impervious paving materials where possible. The proposed action would have more landscape features than the Manufacturing Center alternative, but both alternatives would decrease the percentage of impervious surface from existing conditions. Increased landscaping would occur primarily at Plant 2, North Duwamish Campus, and portions of the Developmental Center as well as along the entire length of the shoreline. The decrease in impervious surfaces would allow a greater quantity of precipitation to be absorbed by vegetation and to reach the groundwater system. As a result, the quantity of stormwater dis- charged directly to the Duwamish Waterway would decrease. New development would incorporate recommendations of Ecology's Draft Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (June 1991). The manual suggests the 10020C71.SEA/5 3/19/92 8 -5 use of grassy (biofiltration) swales for stormwater detention to improve the quality of discharge water. Mechanical filtration systems will be used where biofiltration is not practical. All abandoned storm and sanitary sewer lines will be removed or, if removal is not possible, lines will be cleaned and grouted to prevent subsurface contamination from spills and leaks. As part of redevelopment activities, stormwater collection out - falls may be consolidated. As specific projects are proposed, other operational impacts, upgrading of existing oil/water separators, and construction of alternative collection and disposal systems will be addressed through appropriate permit approvals. No Action Alternative. With the No Action alternative, there would be minimal changes to the existing stormwater collection system. Water Quality and Wildlife Habitat Proposed Action and Manufacturing Center Alternative. Specific redevelopment proj- ects could eliminate process water discharges, require modifications to existing NPDES permits, or result in the need for new permits. Similarly, the current volume or charac- teristics of discharges to the sanitary sewer under Metro's Industrial Pretreatment program could also be affected. These issues : will be on a project- specific basis for permit approval. The proposed action could affect: ° surface water ' quality through runoff of pollutants from increased numbers of vehicles and through the increased potential for release of hazardous materials or dangerous:wastes. As described in Chapter 7, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous substances is regulated to prevent and, if neces- sary, respond to onsite: releases :. of°'these substances. As a result, stormwater drainage from the study area would primarily be affected by pollutants from vehicular traffic. As individual sites are traded, :new stormwater collection measures would be installed. Stormwater from redeveloped „paved areas, such as parking lots and roads, would be collected and conveyed to htofiltration swales and then discharged to the Duwamish Waterway. Providing biofiltration of stormwater prior to discharge would improve the quality of the stormwater reaching the waterway. Stormwater from the roofs of new structures would likely be conveyed into the same surface water biofiltration system. Pollutants in runoff from roads and parking lots in the project area are likely to be similar to pollutants generated in other light industrial and commercial areas. Typical pollutants in runoff from parking lots and roads include hydrocarbons (from fuels and lubricants) and metals (from wear of metal parts, brakes, and tires and from coolant and lubricant leakage). Studies indicate that these pollutants, as well as oil and grease, are effectively removed by biofiltration swales (Farris et al. and WSDOT). This indicates that the use of biofil- tration swales could minimize impacts to water quality in the Duwamish Waterway. 10020C71.SEA/6 3/19/92 8 -6 It is not anticipated that use of the estuary by fish and wildlife would be affected by the proposed action. The timing of construction activities for individual projects would be regulated by individual permits so that impacts to migrating fish would be minimal. Implementation of the stormwater measures described above would provide for treat- ment of stormwater and removal of many pollutants that are currently discharged into the estuary. These activities should improve the quality of water in the Duwamish Waterway, decreasing the potential impact on wildlife and habitat. In addition, The Boeing Company is proposing streambank enhancements in coordination with the appropriate agencies. This will include landscaping with native plants near the shore- line, which could also improve the fish and wildlife habitat in the study area. No Action Alternative. The No Action alternative would rhaifitain existing conditions in the project area Minimal improvements to existing water:.` quality:: or wildlife habitat are anticipated. MITIGATION MEASURES Redevelopment activity in ` the Duwamish. corridor' °could provide an opportunity to restore habitats lost during past developi ieiat .;;: :'`The' Boeing Company proposes to enhance habitat functions by working: w:th the Washington State Departments of Fish- eries and Wildlife and others.:fin identifying .::restoration opportunities on Boeing- controlled controlled properties. This could inclu:deTep acing riprap bulkheads with new retention structures and riparian vegetation;:: • While the proposed :action and build alternatives will benefit water quality, as well as fish and wildlife habitat R the Duwamish corridor, Boeing's redevelopment of the area provides an opportunity. ttor.examine stormwater drainage issues in a comprehensive manner. It would be sound ..planning practice for The Boeing Company to develop a drainage master plan for its properties along the Duwamish corridor and to coordinate the development of that plan with proposed roadway and utility improvements for East Marginal Way South. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS No unavoidable adverse impacts have been identified. 10020C71.SEA 10020C71.SEA/7 3/19/92 8 -7 Chapter 9 ENERGY EXISTING CONDITIONS The principal energy resources associated with operations in the Boeing Duwamish corridorr are electricity and natural gas. These resources are consumed for manufac- turing, use of equipment and appliances, lighting, heating, and cooling. The Boeing • Company participates in several retrofit and, energy conservation programs to reduce consumption, including the "Green Lights" program sponsored by the U.S. EPA. ELECTRICAL ENERGY In the study area, electrical energy is supplied by Seattle City Light (SCL). SCL pro- vides power to its service area through city - owned generating facilities and through power supply contracts with the Bonneville Powe;.Administration and utilities located in the mid - Columbia Basin. Industrial customers in. ;XL's service area consume ap- proximately 1500 aMWh (average megawatt...hours) annually, a little less than 20 per- cent of SCL's total load. Energy consumption' by The Boeing Company represents just over 30 percent of SCL's industrial consumption:- 'Boeing is SCL's largest consumer, with a demand of 113,8901W (kilowatts) of electrical energy (1989). Electrical energy is supplied to `Boeing' properties in the study area at 26 kV (kilovolts) from principal substations 'at nearly all the sites. The power is generally stepped down to 0.48 kV..fo r.:distribution. Estimated annual electric energy use by Boeing properties in the Duwamish corridor is 473 MWh and is summarized; by categories of use in Table 9 -1. It is estimated that 30 percent of the electricalenergy consumed by Boeing properties in the corridor is used for heating, ventilating `.and cooling; 40. percent is used for lighting; 20 percent is used for manufacturing; and 10 percent is used to supply power to the company's computer network. Table 9 -1 Summary of Annual Electrical Energy Use Uses Existing Conditions (MWh) Manufacturing 254.9 Office 146.1 Lab /Office 72.0 TOTAL 473.0 Peak Demand in MW 1 103.3 I 10020C42.SEA/1 3/19/92 9 -1 NATURAL GAS ENERGY The Boeing Company purchases natural gas from producers in Canada and in the southwestern and Rocky Mountain states. The company arranges transportation of the natural gas through Northwest Pipeline Company (NPC) facilities, which serve Washington Natural Gas (WNG). The Boeing Company then contracts with WNG to deliver the natural gas to Boeing properties in the corridor. Natural gas is supplied to Boeing facilities by 4- to 8 -inch lines from main pipelines under East Marginal Way South. The majority of natural gas is used to fuel boilers that supply steam for heating and ventilating systems as well as for processing of manufactured goods. The three largest consumers together use over 1,000,000 MMBtu (million British thermal units) of natural gas per year They are as follows: the Developmental` Center, including facilities at the Oxbow parcel -- 400,000 MMBtu/year;: Plant 2-- 525,000 MMBtu /year; and North Boeing Field -- 160,000 MMBtu/year. Ohter properties in the corridor each consume well under 100,000 MMBtu/year. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED AGTI °O!N AND ALTERNATIVES CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS Construction activities for the proposed .action and the manufacturing center alternative would require the use:: of electricity and petroleum products. Petroleum products would be used far constructioi vehicles and equipment. However, there is no recognized method available for estimating construction - related energy consumption. OPERATIONAL IMPA The Boeing Company is developing a region -wide energy management plan, which will be implemented in 1992. The goal of the plan for the Duwamish Corridor will be to retain electric and natural gas energy consumption at or below the present level by the year 2002. Peak demand is also expected to remain constant or be reduced. An added benefit is that there will be a more constant load on the system, rather than the shifting demand that now occurs. Conservation and load growth management strategies will be developed to attain this goal. The Boeing Company's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal discusses some of these strategies in more detail. With any of the build alternatives, consumption and peak demand within the 10 -year redevelopment period may temporarily increase over existing conditions. Analysis will be conducted as needed during project- specific environmental review. While no major energy- consumptive facility is proposed at this time, project - specific environmental review would also be conducted if one were proposed. 10020C42.SEA2 3/19/92 9 -2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Construction- related energy impacts may occur. 10020C42.SEA 10020C42.SEA/3 3/19/92 9 -3 Chapter 10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES EXISTING CONDITIONS Public services and utilities are provided by a number of jurisdictions in the Duwamish corridor. Because the corridor is an established industrial area, the existing infrastruc- ture has been in place and been maintained for many years. Solid waste, water, sani- tary, and storm sewer services are discussed below in the Utilities section. Electric and natural gas services are discussed in Chapter 9, Energy. Police, fire protection and emergency services are discussed below in the Public Services` section. UTILITIES Solid Waste Disposal Commercial solid waste collection and transfer services.. for Boeing properties in the Duwamish corridor are provided by TheBoeing Company's Licensed Transportation Division. Mixed municipal waste is transportednearby to the Eastmont Transfer Sta- tion. Eastmont is operated by Waste Management, Inc., and is located at 7201 West Marginal Way Southwest. Waste:from This privately operated facility is disposed of at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill,: located east :of Renton. Cedar Hills is operated as a regional facility by the Solid Waste Division • of King County's Department of Public Works. The 1989 King CountySolid Waste Management Plan evaluated three alternatives for future solid waste disposal.: The Cedar Hills Landfill would continue to operate under all three alternatives. T'lte''�expected life of Cedar Hills under the three alternatives ranges from 2008 to 2036: ',::l`he Cedar Hills Landfill will have the capacity to accept commercial solid waste from the region throughout the 10 -year period during which the Boeing Company proposes to redevelop properties in the Duwamish Corridor. Land clearing and demolition waste (LC/DW) has historically been a private- sector responsibility also because the waste is generated, collected, and transported primarily by private industry. The Newcastle Demolition Waste Landfill, located north of Ren- ton, is operated by Rabanco's Coal Creek Development Company. This landfill is the primary facility in the region permitted to accept demolition wastes. Newcastle is anticipated to close by 1993. Mount Olivet Landfill, located in Renton, also accepts demolition wastes. This landfill is operated by McKenna Construction Company for its owners, American Memorial Services. Mt. Olivet also has a very limited capacity. 10020C44.sEAn 3/19/92 10 -1 Because these nearby regional facilities for LC/DW disposal are nearing capacity, the Boeing Company's current plan requires that all LC/DW material be long - hauled to facilities outside the Puget Sound area. Boeing's "Disposal of Construction, Demolition and Land Clearing (CDL) Waste Plan" (October 1991) specifies that all CDL waste be disposed of at the Roosevelt Regional Landfill or the Columbia Ridge Landfill. Both of these landfills are located near the Columbia River. The Roosevelt Regional Land- fill is located in southeastern Klickitat County in Washington State. Columbia Ridge is located near the town of Arlington in Gilliam County, Oregon. Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal discusses procedures for handling non - hazardous waste material in more detail. Special waste collection and transfer services, such as for hazardous materials, is pro- vided by The Boeing Company's Corporate Safety, Health and Environmental Affairs (SHEA) Hazardous Waste Division. SHEA provides training :: to employees on the handing of hazardous materials and administers the Haz-Mat Response Team program. After special wastes are collected from Boeing sites, they are transported by Boeing to a privately operated transfer facility operated by. Burlington Environmental, Inc. (for- merly Chempro). Here the special waste is separated and transported to approved disposal sites. Storm and Sanitary Sewer Service Stormwater runoff in the study area .is managed and regulated by the study area's respective jurisdictions: for areas in King county, the Surface Water Management Division (SWM) of King County's.Departnient of Public Works; for areas in the City of Seattle, the Drainage and. Wastewater Utility (DWU); and for areas within the Tukwila city limits, the Tukwila ° Public Works Department. Stormwater runoff at Boeing properties along the�,cortidor is collected in onsite drains and pipelines, from which it is eventually discharged through :outfalls into the Duwamish Waterway. The East Mar- ginal Way Corporate Park..is also served by an open ditch, and the South Park site has some overland flow that reaches the waterway. (More detail on stormwater is provided in Chapter 8, Stormwater and Water Quality; Figure 8-1 shows the location of outfalls.) There are two sewer jurisdictions within the study area: the City of Seattle DWU and the Val Vue Sewer District. Their boundaries within the study area are shown on Figure 8 -1. The Oxbow site and the East Marginal Way Corporate Park are served by the Val Vue Sewer District; the remaining Boeing sites are served by the City of Seattle DWU. Effluent from these sanitary sewer lines is collected by the individual jurisdic- tions, then transferred to Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) trunklines and routed to existing treatment plants, from which it is discharged into Puget Sound. Existing sanitary sewer capacity within the project area appears adequate. 10020C44.SEA/2 3/19/92 10 -2 Water Service All domestic and fire protection water for Boeing properties in the Duwamish corridor is provided by the Seattle Water Department (SWD). The Boeing Company is SWD's largest single customer, consuming approximately 143 million gallons per year. Water is used for heating, cooling, and processing as well as for standard commercial uses. The majority of Boeing properties in the corridor have only recently been annexed into the City of Tukwila from King County. Because of agreements with King County, the City of Seattle has historically provided utility services in this area. The City of Tukwila Public Works Department is currently in the process of developing its Comprehensive Water Supply Plan, which includes an examination of service within the Duwamish corridor. Tukwila will soon be requesting that the area of ;.the corridor within the Tukwila city limits be transferred to its own water service :area.:::. Most Boeing sites in the study area are supplied by connections to. the 20 -inch SWD water main located under the East Marginal Way. South right-of-way. The North Boeing Field site is also served by SWD water mains under Ellis Avenue South, the Oxbow site by a main at West Marginal Way South, and-the South Park site by mains at South Trenton and Henderson Streets and -at Eighth Avenue South. The Developmental Center and theTThompson4Isaacson site are provided with fire protection water from large aboveground storage tanks. The other Boeing sites in the study area are served by separate fire protection water systems that are split onsite from the connecting water ' pipelines: °and loop around the perimeter of each parcel. Water capacity appears Ito be adequate at all Boeing sites. The existing fire protection water system is being examined as part of Tukwila's comprehensive water supply plan- • ning process. ::. PUBLIC SERVICES Fire Protection and Emergency Services Three fire departments serve the Duwamish corridor study area, providing fire trucks, aid cars, medic units, and hazardous material (HazMat) response units. The Tukwila Fire Department (TFD) handles the majority of Boeing - related calls for service. Service for the corridor is provided from three fire stations: Station 52 at 5900 South 147th, Station 53 at 12026 42nd South, and another station at 4237 South 144.th. Station 53 responds to the majority of calls. Emergency 911 calls are received by the Tukwila Police Department, where appropriate response teams are notified. Response times vary from 3 to 7 minutes, depending on the nature and location of the emergency 10020C44.SEA/3 3/19/'92 10 -3 and the time of day. The TFD will respond to calls within the Seattle city limits upon request. The Boeing Company also maintains a fully equipped and professionally trained fire department (BFD), including a HazMat team. The fire station is located at North Boeing Field. In addition to providing emergency response services in the corridor, the BFD is also responsible for prevention, permits, and inspections. The Seattle Fire Department provides service from its Myrtle Street Station to the north end of the study area and, through mutual aid agreements, to other parts of the corridor. Law Enforcement Properties in the Duwamish corridor are served by three law enforcement agencies: the Tukwila Police Department (TPD), the Seattle Police Department, and Boeing Security. Most disturbances in the corridor are handled by Boeing Security. However, the TPD responds to 911 calls or if Boeing so requests The TPD also responds if an arrest is to be made or if an arrest report :ot:investigation is required. Response times depend on the location of the disturbance, the time of day, and the priority of the disturbance. A typical. high - priority call has a response time of 3 to 4 minutes. IMPACTS OF Ti;IE:::PROP4SED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES UTILITIES Solid Waste Disposal The disposal of mixed municipal, commercial, manufacturing and special waste as a result of the proposed action and the Manufacturing Center alternative is not expected to adversely impact nearby regional landfill facilities. The Boeing Company has several programs related to waste reduction administered by the Boeing Support Services Material Division. These programs include recycling of paper and aluminum; reclama- tion of metals used in manufacturing; and rescue and salvage of furniture, equipment, and construction materials (such as offering these materials for sale at the Boeing Surplus Store). The production of demolition waste, however, could have considerable impact on nearby regional landfill facilities. The Newcastle Demolition Waste Landfill, which is near capacity, is the primary facility in the region that is permitted to accept demolition waste. 10020C44.SEA/4 3/19/92 10 -4 Demolition of existing structures would occur with the proposed action and the Manu- facturing Center alternative. Demolition debris would consist of soil, wood, concrete, asphalt, steel, glass, and pipe. Because of Newcastle's limited capacity to accept demo- lition waste, The Boeing Company has established priorities for the handling of non- hazardous waste materials. The priorities are intended to minimize the demolition waste by reusing materials onsite and by segregating and recycling demolition material. Reuse of material would reduce the amount of material deposited in solid waste facili- ties. An example would be the reuse of concrete demolition material as fill material for redevelopment construction where applicable. Recycling material that cannot be reused would also reduce the amount of waste that would otherwise be deposited in landfills. Many of the large, old manufacturing buildings in the Duwamish corridor are constructed from metal structural components that are readily recycled. Metal siding, wires, and pipes can all be recycled. Materials that cannot be reused or recycled would be disposed of:ateither the Roose- velt Regional or Columbia Ridge Landfills. Only clean .;soils would be taken to the Newcastle Landfill. The Boeing Company's proposal significantly reduces the impact on nearby regional landfill facilities. Storm and Sanitary Sewer Service Stormwater facilities are proposed. be provided onsite and not in the public right -of- way. However, as discussed in Chapter 8, T1ie*Boeing Company could take this oppor- tunity to coordinate development of a stowater drainage master plan with the juris- t:. .:.. dictions' plans for utility improvements along East Marginal Way South. Sanitary sewer pipeline :capacity also appears adequate. Pump station improvements may be required during..project specific review. Water Service While hydraulic analysis is in process as part of the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Water Supply Plan, preliminary review indicates that there is adequate supply to serve an additional 5,000 to 15,000 Boeing employees in the corridor with varying intensities of office, laboratory, and manufacturing uses. PUBLIC SERVICES Impacts as a result of the proposed action and alternatives are expected to be minimal. It is anticipated that adequate response capability could be maintained with existing and planned facilities, equipment, and staff. Construction - related impacts would be addressed on a project - specific basis. 10020C44.sEA/5 3/19/92 10 -5 Fire Protection and Emergency Services The increase in the number of employees would likely result in an increase in aid calls; however, fire calls would likely decrease as a result of restoration and replacement of old facilities. The Tukwila Fire Department has proposed to relocate Station 53 to a more central location to serve the Duwamish corridor and has also proposed to increase fire department staff. However, these changes are not related to proposed redevelopment of the Duwamish corridor by The Boeing Company. Construction - related impacts are likely to occur but would be addressed on a project- specific basis. Law Enforcement The increase in the number of employees would most likely..result in an increase in the demand for police services. However, because The Boeing Company provides its own security, the proposed increases in the number of Boeing employee$ are not expected to necessitate additional police personnel in the *tudy area MITIGATION MEASURES Other than the measures proposed for reducin .tbe impacts on nearby landfill facilities, no mitigation measures are required.... UNAVOIDAB ,E `ADVERSE IMPACTS No significant unavoidable diverse impacts are expected. 10020C44.SEA 10020C44.SEA/6 3/19/92 10 -6 } ) aMWh AVO Appendix A Glossary of Acronyms Average megawatt -hours Average vehicle occupancy BAC Best available control technology BAR Board of Architectural Review BFD Boeing Fire Department (Boeing) BMT Boeing Materials Technology (Boeing) BTU British thermal units CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Reset r e, Compensation and Liability Act CDL Construction, Demolition, and:. ,a dclearing (Boeing) CO Carbon monoxide • dBA A- weighted decibels ...:. DCLU Department of Construction and :.Laiid Use (Seattle) DEIS Draft environmental °:impact 'statement DWU Drainage and Wastewater Utility (Seattle) EDNA Environmental:D`esignatton'for Noise Abatement EIS Environmental iitipAct statement EPA U.S`' Eiviromi< ltat::Frotection Agency FAA FAR FederaI Aviation Administration Floor area ratio gsf Gross square feet HOV High - occupancy vehicle KCC King County Code kV Kilovolts kW Kilowatts IASL Integrated Aircraft Systems Laboratory (Boeing) Ldn Day -night noise levels LC/DW Land Clearing and Demolition Waste LEPC Local Emergency Planning Committee LOS Level of service 10020AD9.SEA/1 03/19/92 Metro Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle MP Mile post MPH Miles per hour MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet MW Megawatts MWh Megawatt -hours NO2 Nitrogen dioxide NPC Northwest Pipeline Company NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PM PMlo PPM PSAPCA Particulate matter Particulate matter less than 10 micrometers'n diameter Parts per million Puget Sound Air Pollution Control.. SCL Seattle City Light SED : Seattle Engineering Department SEPA State Environmental Policy' Act `.::. '' SERC State Emergency Responsc:Commissiotr' SHEA Safety, Health, and Envirtnmental.Affairs (Boeing) SMP Shoreline Master 'Program' :: SO2 Sulfur Dioxide' :: SOV Single- occupancy:;vehiele SPCC Spill Prevention: Control and Countermeasure SSHB, Second Substitute:H ouse Bill SWD ; Seattle: Water:; Department SWM Surface;. Water' Management (King County) TDM Transportation demand management TFD Tukwila Fire Department TMC ; Tukwila Municipal Code TMP Transportation management program TPD Tukwila Police Department TSM Transportation system management TSP Total suspended particulates UFC Uniform Fire Code V/C Volume to capacity (ratio) VOC Volatile organic compound VPD Vehicles per day WAC Washington Administrative Code WNG Washington Natural Gas WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation 10020AD9.SEA/2 03/19i92 ert- u cu alj �i1l - Appendix B REFERENCES LAND USE King County Airport. Master Development Plan for Boeing Field /King County International Airport, Seattle, Washington. Technical Report. August 1986. Motion 7029 adopted December 7, 1987. King County. Sensitive Areas Map Folio. December 1990. . Sensitive Areas Ordinance. August 29,::1990. King County and Municipality of Metropolitan. Seattle Metrd :.fin cooperation with Washington State Department of Ecology. :Green _ Duwamish Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan. Revised Concurrence Draft, June 1989; Final Plan, June 1991. •King County Department of Community •De velo ent; ;F canning Division. Draft High - line Communities Plan. November 1976. • . Highline Community Pkin Area `?oning. November 1981. . King County Coprehensive:.Flan. 1985. . King Colin Shoreline Management Master Program, Title 25. 1981. King County Depart ient::;of Parks, Planning, and Resources, Natural Resources and Parks Division. Draft Regional: Trails Plan, King County Open Space Program. October 1990. . Green River Trail Master Plan. January 1988. Port of Seattle. Comprehensive Public Access Plan for the Duwamish Waterway. September 1985. Seattle, City of. Department of Community Development, Housing and Neighborhood Development Division. South Park Neighborhood Plan and Draft Supplemental Environ- mental Impact Statement. March 1984. Seattle, City of. Engineering Department. Seattle Urban Trails Program -- Program Description. 1989 -90. 10020C47.sEA/1 3/19/'92 . Seattle Urban Trails System Map. 1991. B -1 Seattle, City of. Office of Long -Range Planning. Urban Trails Policy (Final Draft Pro- posed Open Space Policies). 1991. Seattle, City of. Office of Policy Planning. Empire /Rainier Development Project. August 1979. Southeast Effective Development. Rainier /Genessee Redevelopment Study and Business District Plan. 1986. Tanner, C. D. Potential Intertidal Habitat Restoration Sties in the Duwamish River Estuary. EPA 910/9 -91 -050. Final report prepared for the US. EPA and the Port of Seattle, Washington. Tukwila, City of. Department of Community Development '• Iaiming Division. City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. Mar..ch;:t982. . City of Tukwila Zoning Code. June:;: Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle ';(Metfo). through Effective Land Use Actions. May °1987..:: Puget Sound Council of;:.GGvernmerits, Seattle Engineering Department, and Metro. Table entitled "Estimated° Effect. of M Requirements on Employers." (n.d.) Snohomish County Transportation Authority and the Urban Transportation Administra- tion. A Guide to Land 'Us - and Public Transportation. December 1989. Encouraging Public Transportation Tukwila, City of. Draft Roadway Capacity and Deficiency Study. Prepared by CH2M HILL, Inc. April 1990. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Coffman Associates. Airport Noise Assessment Study for Boeing Field King County International Airport. October 1983. King County Solid Waste Division. Proposed Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Volumes 1 and 2. July 1989. Scientists /Citizens Organized on Policy Issues. Environmental Noise Study for the South Park Area of 8th Avenue South. Prepared by Michael R. Yauhs Associates. September 1992. 10020C47.SEA2 3/19/92 B -2 STORMWATER Farris, G., R. Swartz, and N. Wells. Environmental Management for the Metropolitan Area 11. Urban Drainage: Stormwater Monitoring Program. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro). 1974. King County and Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro), in cooperation with Washington State Department of Ecology. Green- Duwamish Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan. Revised Concurrence Draft, June 1989; Final Plan, June 1991. Tanner, C. D. Potential Intertidal Habitat Restoration Sties:: `in the Duwamish River Estuary. EPA 910/9 -91 -050. Final report prepared for . the :.0 I.J.S. EPA and the Port of Seattle, Washington. Tukwila, City of. Fire District No. 1 Basin Study,. Prepared by Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. April 1990. Washington State Department of Ecology.;;:. •Sto nwater * l lanagement Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. Public review draft, June 1991: Washington State Department::of. Transportation. Highway Water Quality Manual (Publication 22 -15). 1988.::: 10020C47.SEA 10020C47.SEA/3 3/19/92 B -3 • Appendix C Proposed Transportation Management Plan for Boeing North Duwamish Campus MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is entered into as of June 25, 1990 between The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle ( "Metro ") and The Boeing Company. 1. Metro and Boeing are parties to an Agreement dated as of December 18, 1989 (the "Agreement ") which created an administrative framework for addressing traffic problems of mutual concern to the parties. Addendum No. 1 to the Agreement, also dated December 18, 1989, provided that Boeing and Metro would co- operate to develop, define, and ratify a Master Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to serve as the foundation document for all jurisdictions of Boeing located within King County that require a TMP as part of an Environmental Impact Statement. 2'. Attached to. this Memorandum of Understanding as. Attachment A is a Master Transportation Management Plan. Boeing and Metro each hereby acknowledge, accept, and approve the terms of the Master TMP as attached, and each party hereby agrees that such TMP, as attached, fulfills the parties' respective obligations to develop, define, and ratify a TMP, as provided in the referenced Addendum No. 1. The parties have executed this Memorandum of Agreement as of the date first written above. THE BOEING COMPANY MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE GLB1:062:062290 C -1 By V ^� Its rDia•7AF /Si7— ATTACHMENT A MASTER TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.0 Purpose and Authority At major work sites Boeing employees represent a significant proportion of the local work force and have a corresponding influence on the local transportation network. The Master Transportation Management Plan offers a cooperative, voluntary and mutual statement of principals for use in guiding future transportation planning efforts designed to minimize the influence of Boeing employees on the Puget Sound regional transportation network. That network includes all forms of surface, roadway transportation. 2.0 Problem Statement A. Transportation networks serving Boeing sites within the region typically are at or approaching capacity. Pressure on the regional transportation network caused by regional growth make action imperative. 3.0 Objectives The Objectives of the proposed Master Transportation Management Plan are to: Improve the ingress and egress of Boeing employees at their workplaces in a timely manner Demonstrate a commitment by The Boeing Company to address regional transportation issues in cooperation with local, regional and state jurisdictions. Either reduce or achieve zero growth in vehicle trips generated from Boeing sites during the Peak P.M. Traffic period (3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.). Decrease Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) use at The Boeing Company work sites. 4.0 Strategies Strategies used in achieving the stated objectives may differ for various Boeing sites. Guidelines for the applicability of specific strategies may be found in Table A.1 (Attached) which identifies appropriate strategies for Urban, Suburban, and Scattered sites. C -2 06/22/90 4.1 Specific strategies to be used in achieving Objective 1: • Parking Management • Best Engineering and Site Design Practices • Monitoring • Modal separation 4.2 ,specific strategies to be used in achieving Objective 2: ▪ Transportation Coordinators • Preferred car pool and van pool parking ` Continued involvement in regional transportation issues ▪ Adoption of site specific Transportation Management Plans ▪ Establish focal point for generating regional and inter -local agreements on transportation issues. 4.3 Specific strategies to be used in achieving Objective 3: ' Bicycle facilities • Work scheduling and facilities locations ' Mode split goals ▪ Exploration of new technologies ▪ Cooperative agreements with local and state transportation agencies ' Evaluations 4.4 Specific Strategies to be used in achieving Objective 4: ' Promotional Campaigns ` Commuter information centers ▪ Improved facilities to support transit rideshare and carpool services • Fixed route transit service ▪ Ridematch service • Vanpools ' Customized Bus Service ' Incentive Program 06/22/90 C -3 5.0 , Implementation 5.1 Site Specific TMP's • Major Boeing sites within the Puget Sound Region will undertake development of a site specific Transportation Management Plan (TMP). These TMPs will include: 06/22/90 - mode split objective - promotion plan - specific strategies • Major Boeing sites within the Puget Sound Region will appoint an on -site Transportation Coordinator, to implement the TMP's. • Site TMP's will be closely coordinated with the local transit authorities and municipal agencies for consistency with the local transportation goals and objectives. • Site TMP's will develop a comprehensive monitoring and reporting schedule for measuring the effectiveness of the initiatives in accomplishing the objectives. • Site TMP's will be attached to this plan as addenda. 5.2 jvfeasurements Monitoring schedules for all sites will report measurements which provide an aggregate level of performance in attaining the goals and objectives of this plan. Specific measurements include, but are not limited to: Baseline vehicle count during P.M. peak (3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.) Site Population (and rate of change) Site Acreage (and rate of change) On Site Parking Stalls (and rate of change) On Site preferential parking stalls Site HOV use (and rate of change) 5.3 B iodic review with affected agencies Quarterly meetings will be held with local and regional . jurisdictions and authorities affected by this Master Transportation Management Plan. The purpose of these meetings is for regular updates on rogress, problems and program activities which have regional impact and significance. All parties to this plan will meet annually to review the goals, objectives and strategies of this plan and target further specific regional goals. 5.4 periodic reports on regional progress The findings, conclusions and opinions of the parties to this summarized annually and reported to all affected agencies. C -4 plan will be Table A.1 Service Emphasis Type of Site Primary Secondary Urban • Fixed route transit • Ridesharing • Specialized Service Suburban • Ridesharing • Custom Bus • Specialized Service • Fixed Route Service Scattered ' Ridesharing • Fixed Route Transit • Custom Bus • Specialized Service Support Programs Promotion Annual focused campaign Bus zone near building entrances Preferential Parking HOV support facilities Shift scheduling to support HOV use Cost share passes Company -wide passes Restrict parking supply Carpool incentives 06/22/90 C -5 PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN (TMP) Boeing North Duwamish Campus (NDC) Goal Boeing has entered into an agreement with Metro to jointly pursue methods to reduce single occupant vehicles (SOV) generated by Boeing Company facilities. This master TMP outlines objectives and strategies to achieve this goal as outlined in Attachment A. Objective The objective of the NDC TMP is to reduce volume exiting from the NDC site during the p.m. peak traffic period (3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.) by 5 percent. The existing (1990) volume is 1,310. The objective of the TMP is to reduce that volume to not more than 1,235. Program Actions and Incentives The following specific strategies and incentives are proposed as part of the TMP. These elements are consistent with Directors Rule 24 -88. 1. The owner /tenant shall provide subsidies in the amount of $15 to employees purchasing a monthly bus pass or partic- ipating in a registered public transit agency vanpool. 2. The owner /tenant shall provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. 3. A minimum of 10 percent of the long -term parking spaces shall be designated for carpools. 4. Space for secure and convenient parking for 20 bicycles including locking bicycle racks shall be provided on site. 5. The TMP shall include the following general actions as outlined in DR 24 -88. a. Building Transportation Coordinator b. Periodic Promotional Events c. Commuter Information Center d. Tenant Participation e. Ride Match Opportunities f. Employee Survey g. Reporting h. Program Evaluation ee /cc003 /NDCTMP C -6 Appendix D Summary of Laws and Regulations Affecting Regulated Materials Appendix D SUMMARY OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING REGULATED MATERIALS FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS EMERGENCY PLANNING AND RIGHT TO KNOW ACT (SARA TITLE III) SARA (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act) Title III was promulgated in 1986 and establishes requirements for federal, state, and locale igovernments and indus- try regarding emergency planning and community right -to -knout reporting on hazardous chemicals. The act is designed to help "first response units" (e.g., Fire Departments of local communities) respond to accidental releases of :il azardoWchemicals. The act is also intended to increase the public's knowledge of and access`itott information regard- ing the presence, storage, and use of hazardous chemicals in their communities and releases of these chemicals into the environment, Facilities that store specific quantities of chemicals designated under SARA Title III as "extremely hazardous substances" (EHS) :ark required; to notify the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) that...,they are::-subject to emergency planning require- ments of SARA Title III, designate;a`facilttyemergency coordinator, and notify the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC).of the designation. Facilities that store hazardous chemicals above specified::ttI reshald quantities must submit Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) and inverntory::;reports for the hazardous chemicals that exceed the threshold quantities°'' ' "The MSDSs and inventory reports are submitted to the SERC, the LEPC, :and .the local fire department. The inventory reports must include information pertainin% to:: the quantities of the hazardous chemicals stored, locations, type of storage, and the4cfie, icals' associated health and physical hazards. The LEPC can also require that the facility prepare an emergency response plan. Manufacturing facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use specified quantities of chemicals designated under SARA Title III as "toxic" must submit an annual report to the EPA and to the State regarding the discharge of these chemicals into the en- vironment. If a facility has a release of an extremely hazardous substance or a CERCLA (discussed below) hazardous substance above reportable quantities, specific notification procedures must be followed that include notifying state and local authorities. RCRA, SUBTITLE C-- HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was promulgated in 1976 to promote the protection of health and the environment and to conserve valuable ma- terial and energy resources. RCRA has been amended twice, most recently in 1984. sea8009/049.51/1 10/15/91 D -1 Subtitle C of RCRA regulates the management of hazardous waste through a 3 -step process that identifies wastes that must be regulated as hazardous; tracks the waste through its generation, storage, or disposal ( "cradle to grave "); and controls practices used during management of the waste by establishing technical and performance stand- ards and permitting requirements. EPA has promulgated regulations identifying the characteristics of hazardous waste and has established standards for hazardous waste generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities regarding record keeping, manifesting, reporting, and permitting. In Washington, most of the RCRA program is administered by the Depart- ment of Ecology. Authorization for administration of some portions of the program has not yet been granted to the State, and EPA is responsible ww for these portions. RCRA, SUBTITLE I -- UNDERGROUND STORAGE TAMS These regulations apply to underground storage tanks (UST) containing petroleum or substances defined as hazardous under CERCLA (discussed beloww), with the exception of substances regulated as hazardous wastes undetww R2.CRA. The regulations require underground storage tanks to comply with national industry design, construction, in- stallation, maintenance, and closure standards. °°I;;:IST systems are required to have spill and overfill prevention, leak detection systetns;::;and wt nk and piping corrosion protec- tion. The regulation also includes...specific .release- monitoring, reporting, corrective action, and inventory control requirements. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION ACT The United States Departmentww,of 'Transportation (DOT) administers the regulations promulgated under::the;,Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which are designed to protect the public from °the 70. shandling of hazardous materials. The regulations re- quire proper hazard classifications, packaging, labeling, placarding, and shipping papers for the transport of hazarddus materials. Hazardous materials are classified in the DOT regulations according to their chemical and physical properties or their relative hazard to health. The transportation of hazardous wastes (as defined by RCRA) is also regulated by these laws. The regulations include specific reporting requirements in the event of an incident involving hazardous materials or wastes during transport. CLEAN WATER ACT The Clean Water Act regulates the treatment and discharge of wastewater into surface waters and publicly owned sewage treatment plants. The Clean Water Act also re- quires facilities that store specified volumes of oil products to take measures to prevent spills and to prepare a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. The purpose of the plan is to identify and establish procedures, methods, and equip- ment to prevent the discharge of oil to navigable waters. Under the act, secondary containment is required for aboveground tanks that store oil products. sea8009/049.51/2 10/15/91 D -2 THE CLEAN AIR ACT The Clean Air Act regulates the control and discharge of contaminants into the air; applicable portions are discussed in Chapter 6, Air. COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION AND LIA- BILITY ACT OF 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund) CERCLA was promulgated in 1980. It requires facilities to notify the National Re- sponse Center of the releases of hazardous substances exceeding reportable quantities into the environment. The term "environment" includes navigable waters, groundwater, surface drinking water, land, and air. The definition of hazardous substances includes hazardous substances and toxic pollutants listed in the Clean ,Air Act, and any hazard- ous wastes having the characteristics described in RCRA,.'''' CERCLA, also known as Superfund, also regulates the investigation and clea 'inr of sites iwith past hazardous chemicals disposal problems. STATE LAWS AND GD ,,ATIONS HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL ACT (70:1 Regulations under this law are.,:referenceid:.as the: Dangerous Waste Regulations (Chap- . .. :.:, (Chap- ter 173 -303 WAC). These regula ions Anc:orperate portions of federal RCRA regula- tions and contain additional::regulationas pertaining to dangerous waste identification and management. These regulations designate solid wastes that are dangerous or acutely hazardous to the public health and environiimentr provide for surveillance and monitoring of these wastes from "cradle to grave "; establish specific requirements for generators of dangerous wastes and transfer, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities; and encourage recycling, reuse, reclamation, and recovery to the maximum extent possible. Requirements for generators and TSD facilities address permitting, record keeping, waste manifesting, facility operations and closure, and groundwater protection. WASTE REDUCTION ACT (70.95C RCW) The Waste Reduction Act requires hazardous waste generators who generate more than 2,640 pounds of hazardous waste per year and companies that use hazardous sub- stances to prepare hazardous substance and waste reduction plans. Regulations under this act are referenced as the Hazardous Waste Planning Regulations (Chap- ter 173 -307 WAC). The plan must include the following components, in order of pri- ority: hazardous substance use reduction, waste reduction, recycling, and treatment. The act also establishes new hazardous waste fees. Rules to implement these fees are referenced as the Hazardous Waste Fees Regulations (Chapter 173 -305 WAC). sea8009/049.51/3 10/16/91 D -3 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (90.48 RCW) This law regulates the discharge of contaminants into the waters of the state, which include lakes, rivers, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters within the jurisdiction of the state. Special provisions are in the law to regulate the discharge of oil into waters of the state and to establish reporting requirements for oil discharge and the obligation to collect and remove or contain, treat, and dispose of the discharged oil. WASHINGTON INDUSTRIAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT ( WISHA) Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) passed in 1970, individual states are allowed to administer their own employee safety and health plans and pro- grams. WISHA passed in 1973, and in 1976 Washington created the first fully opera- ::. tional state safety and health plan approved by ;t e "Federal::.;. Government. The regulations (Chapter 296 -24 and 296 -62 WAC) give'.the Washingtott;:State Department of Labor and Industry the primary responsibility` for worker health°`and safety in Wash- ington. Employers are required to comply with'eriployee health and safety standards and requirements including standards for _equipment, ekposure to hazards, hazard com- munication and training programs, ant ; accident prevention programs, as well as maintain records of accidents. Facility ci ::mplirnce::is;;:monitored through routine and event - specific inspections. MODEL TOXICS CONTROL AC The Model Toxics Cot:wed Act (MTCA) (Initiative 97), passed in 1988, requires the Department of Ecologyito clean.: up'isites where releases of hazardous substances that may present a threat to human health or the environment have occurred. The regula- tions (WAC 173- 340)qto implexnent MTCA took effect in May 1990. These regulations provide the framework for` Identifying, investigating, and selecting cleanup actions at hazardous substance siteso Washington. Cleanup standards were proposed as an amendment to the overall cleanup regulation (August 1, 1990, State Register (90 -15)). The amendments were finalized in January 1991 and became effective in February 1991. The act also imposes a 0.7 percent tax on the wholesale value of hazardous substances, including petroleum, to fund cleanup, regulatory, and citizen involvement programs. LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS The primary local law and regulation that affects hazardous materials and waste man- agement is the Uniform Fire Code. sea8009/C)49.51 /4 10/15/91 D -4 ,j 1988 UNIFORM FIRE CODE The 1988 UFC is much more detailed than earlier fire codes regarding hazardous ma- terials. Article 80 of the UFC establishes requirements for the prevention, control, and mitigation of dangerous conditions related to hazardous materials (including wastes) and for providing information needed by emergency response personnel. Requirements for the storage, dispensing, use, and handling of hazardous materials, as well as re- cording and notification requirements when an unauthorized discharge becomes re- portable under federal, state, or local regulations, are also addressed in Article 80. In addition, under the 1988 UFC the Fire Marshall can require Hazardous Materials Inventory Statements (HMIS) for each building in which.Jiazardous materials are stored, and a Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMI4P), which describe the hazardous materials operations at a facility, including:: monitoring, security, labeling, training, inspections, record keeping, and emergency. :Ouipment:' ::.. sea8009/049.51 sea8009/049.51/5 10/15/91 D -5 • Appendix. E PSCOG Traffic Origin and Destination Date Residence of Workers at Rant 2 (1991) 400 or greater (2) 200 to 399 (15) ® 75 to 199 (28) Less than 75 (105) * Plant 2 Source: Puget Sound Regional Council (formerly PSCOG) Residence of Workers at Development Center (1991) 300 or greater (9) 150 to 299 (13) ® 75 to 149 (17) 0 Less than 75 (111) * Development Center Source: Puget Sound Regional Council (formerly PSCOG) Appendix F Memorandum of Agreement MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (Revised October 23, 1991) Recitals The purpose of this Memorandum of Agreement is to coordinate review of a non - project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a 10 -year plan to redevelop properties owned or occupied by the Boeing Company in the East Marginal Way corridor, as described in Attachment A, (hereinafter "the Plan "). WHEREAS the Boeing Company has announced plans for the redevelopment of a substantial portion of its East Marginal Way corridor properties; and WHEREAS the City of Tukwila, acting as the lead agency under the State Environmental Policy Act with the agreement of the City of Seattle and King County, has issued a determination of significance for the Plan based upon the determination that the Plan is significant in both scope and potential adverse environmental impacts, and accordingly requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); and WHEREAS project construction activities under the Plan will occur over a 10 year period in the jurisdictions of the City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle and King County; and WHEREAS the close coordination of the non- project EIS scoping, development and review is critical for efficient and comprehensive management of the Plan; and WHEREAS parties to this agreement have determined it to be in their best interests to execute this Memorandum of Agreement in order to maximize public input and to enable consistent processing of the Plan; NOW THEREFORE the undersigned do hereby agree to the following: 1. The City of Tukwila shall continue to act as the lead agency with respect to the development of the non - project EIS for the Plan. As lead agency the City of Tukwila shall be responsible for all administrative matters relating to the coordination of environmental review for the Plan. 2. The City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle and King County shall jointly review, comment and set conditions for the Plan in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. 3. The City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle and King County shall utilize the EIS and its set of mitigating measures in subsequent review of individual building permits for compliance with each jurisdiction's environmental policies. 4. The City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle and King County shall retain all rights relating to the permitting or approval of proposed projects located within their respective jurisdictions. With respect to such projects each jurisdiction shall retain the right to require additional SEPA review and to act as lead agency. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT October 23, 1991 5. As lead agency for the non - project EIS, the City of Tukwila shall be responsible for provision of office space, appropriate logistical support and supervision of the EIS coordinator. 6. The City of Tukwila is responsible for collecting costs incurred by the parties to this agreement, and for submitting a monthly invoice to the Boeing Company for payment. 7. The City of Seattle and King County shall be reimbursed for time spent on non - project EIS scoping, development, review or comment. The City of Tukwila shall remit payment to the City of Seattle and King County based upon the hourly rate established with each jurisdiction's applicable fee ordinance. If a jurisdiction requires a deposit on hand prior to commencing the work, and if that jurisdiction will charge that deposit for services rendered, then that jurisdiction shall submit the estimated deposit request to the City of Tukwila, which will transmit that deposit amount to the jurisdiction. In turn, should circumstances warrant, the deposit shall be augmented or refunded. 8. Each party shall hold harmless the others, their agents or employees, from and against any and all liability arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property resulting in whole or in part from acts or omissions of each party, its agents, servants, officers, or employees. 9. This agreement shall be in full force and effect as of the date last executed and shall remain in effect until completion of the Plan or written agreement of the parties. Any party may terminate its further participation in this agreement by sending written notice to all other parties. Entered into this agday of Cll, 1991. Approved as to Form: Tukwila City 4ftorney Approved as to Form: Seatt City Attorney Approved as to Form: Deputy P osecu ' g Attorney King County THE CITY OF TUKWILA Director, Dept. o Community Development THE CITY OF SEATTLE Director, Dept. of Cons KING COUNTY rector, Dept. of Parks, Planning & Resources Appendix G Distribution List APPENDIX a) E O U O Ei