HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L94-0016 - ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTING - SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTL94 -0016
EDI GATEWAY
NORTH
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
P.O. Box 47600 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -7600 • (206) 407 -6000 • TDD Only (Hearing impaired) (206) 407 -6006
May 23, 1994
Mr. L. Rick Beeler
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd
Tukwila WA 98188
Dear Mr. Beeler:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of
nonsignificance for the construction of a warehouse and office
building, proposed by SGA Corporation. We reviewed the
environmental checklist and have.. the following comments.
A shoreline permit will be required for this project. The
proposed project must be consistent with all applicable policies
and other provisions of the SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT Shoreline Management Act, its rules,
and the local shoreline master program.
If you have any questions, please call Ms. Linda Rankin with our
Shorelands Program at (206) 407 -6527.
Sincerely,
Rebecca J. I'4zman
Environmental Review Section
RI:
94 -3725
cc: Linda Rankin, Shorelands
RECEIVED
MfiV 2 5 1994
COIv11VI U N i. F Y
DEVELOPMENT
Date: 6- May -94 14 :04
From: VERNON (VERNON UMETSU)
To: JACK
Copies -to: VERNON
Subject: EDI SEPA.
Importance: HIGH
Message -id: 654ECA2D01AEARAE
I think we need to see the ORIGINAL GATEWAY SEPA because of two
questionable practices being proposed in the EDI project (the method of
traffic calculation and dumping parking lot runoff into the Duwamish w/o
cleaning via a recently installed outfall).
Bob Hart says he wasn't able to find it when Bob Betts asked for it.
I would recommend issuing the MDNS, but requiring that it be delivered to
us 10 days into the 15 day comment. period. This requirement would be in a
separate letter with no reference in the MDNS. Alternatively, I would not
issue the MDNS until it was delivered (this would delay the BAR hearing).
„Ati
A F F I D A V I T
I, Sylvia A. Osby
J Notice of Public Hearing
D Notice of Public Meeting
O Board of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
jj Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet •
El Planning' Commission Agenda
Packet
O Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
O F D I S T R I B U T I O N
hereby declare that:
ONotice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
Shoreline Management Permit
X(XDetermination of Non -
significance
Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
0Determination of Significance'
and Scoping Notice.
ONotice of Action
U Official Notice
Other
7 Other
was mailed to each of the following addresses on May 12, 1994
FAXED TO SEATTLE TIMES (5- 11 -94) - Published May 13, 1994
MAILED TO DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - SEPA
MAILED TO ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE VIA ECOLOGY
MAILED TO APPLICANT
MAILED TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
SENT TO MAYOR, CITY CLERK
Name of Project E.D.I. GATEWAY NORTH Signatur
File Number L94 -0016
2
BATCH:NUMBER
CUSTOMER - NAME BOB .HART
(PEASE .A LV H :E:: STAT E;,
250064
. C/G TDUCIARYSERV '0F . W
PO: BOX: 12688 ..
.SEATTLE WA 98111
7994 COMMENTS
' 0.733'00= 0020 -00
,/ 'NELSON; JAMES: C'
. PO :. BOX . 187
ARLINGTON.WA
.073300 - 0030-08 .
GUSTAFSON'THEODORE'E
: 16822: SE. 136TH : ST.
RENTON ;WA
671119
98223
549999
98055
..102304-9043-07
SEAGATE /GATEWAY'NORTH.PROPE429999
'/ -34700MT:. DIABLO BLVD, : SUITEa A100'
LAFAYETTE'CA• 94549
102304"9055-02° .
CAROSINO RINALDO
.106521 DES MOINES' WAY
SEATTLE 'WA .
102304x9071 -02'
CAROSINO:RINALDO'M.
10652 DES MOINES WAY S'
SEATTLE WA
752846
98168
911721
98168
300 — •010 -02
ON;JAMES'C:
OX :1'87
GTON WA •
0733
GUS
16
R
10230
SEA
347
LA
0-0. —05
SON.THEODORE Et
SE 136TH :ST.
WA
1 -05
E /GATEWAY NORTH PR0PE429999
DIABLO BLVD, SUITE A100
E . CA 94.549
671119.
98223 '
•549999
••- 98055
102304
SEAGA
3470
•LAFA
06
GATEWAY NORTH PROPE429999
.DIABLO BLVD,-SUITE A100
ACA 94549
102304 - 9059-08 .
YELLOW FREIGHT:SYSTEM•INC. 621152
PO 80X'.7270
OVERL•AND'PARK KS - 66207
CITY OF TUKWILA
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
'DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
Construct a new 25,900 s.f. warehouse /office
building with 45 parking spaces. The 28 ft. high,
two story building will be sited along the Duwam-
ish River and shoreline trail. The development
area is 1.72 areas on a 3.81 acre parcel.
PROPONENT: SGA CORPORATION
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING
ADDRESS:
PARCEL NO:
SEC /TWN /RNG:
LEAD AGENCY:
3414. S 116 ST
102304 -9012
10 -23 -4
STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY:
CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: L94- 0016'.=
The City has determined .. that the proposal .;does ,not have a probable`;
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental
impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c)
This decision was made after review of a completed environmental
checklist and other information on file with the lead agency:, This
is available to the public on, request.
********************************************'*** *' * * * * ** * * * * * * .* * * ** * * *: * * * ** **
Th i DNS- i ss esiunder 197-11-340(2). comments must be submitted by
YJ . The lead agency will not 'act on
this pro•osamli:r 15 days from the date below.'.
47/W)
eler, Responsible Official Date
City of Tukwila, (206) 431 -3680
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
You may appeal this determination to- the ;;City 'Clerk at City Hall, 6200
Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila,, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the
above signature date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for
specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the
expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City
Clerk and Department of Community Development.
CITY OF TUKWILA
Supplemental Environmental Checklist Information
L94 -0016: EDI Gateway Building No. 9
May 6, 1994
The following modifications to the environmental checklist are herewith incorporated.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD
The environmental review of this proposal consisted of an analysis based on the
following documents included in the environmental record:
Reference A. SEPA Checklist submitted by Robert Hart, dated 21 March 94.
Reference B. Letter from Robert Hart to City Engineer Ron Cameron, dated 17 Feb 94
in regard to traffic mitigations.
A. 11 (pg. 3) Description of Proposal: This 25,400 sq. ft. building is the eighth of ten
planned structures for the Gateway North Business Park. It is designed for Electrical
Distributing, Inc., a distributor of electronic equipment. The 28 foot high building will
house approximately 15 employees. There will be offices located on a small mezzanine,
or elsewhere on the main floor of the building. The structure is roughly square in
shape. Its elevations will be similar to those already built
in the park, consisting of alternating bands of windows and scored concrete panels.
Parking will surround the structure on three sides. Loading bays and docks will face
west, away from views from either the shoreline or the street.
Parking is above City requirements (45 stalls provided, versus 38 required.) Reference
B indicates that up to 5,000 square feet of the main floor will be in office uses. This, plus
the 3000 square foot mezzanine, would total 8,000 square feet in office uses. The
remaining 17,400 square feet would be in warehouse activities.
Access to the site is by South 116th Street, and then by shared driveways with the EB
Bradley building (Gateway #8) to the west and a future structure to be built to the east.
Curb cuts for these access drives are already installed.
The 3.81 acre site is presently vacant and level. The applicant proposes to short -plat the
parcel into two lots, of which this EDI building would be the 1.72 westerly one.
Approximately 46,700 square feet of impervious surfaces are being proposed for this
EDI site.
The project abuts the site of the existing Tukwila. River Trail along the Duwamish
River. The trail will have a pedestrian connection to the building's northeast corner.
B.3.c.1(pg. 5) Drainage: The applicant noted in the checklist (Reference A), " Storm
drainage to be in accordance with the drainage system designed as part of the master
plan in 1989. Water will sheet -flow into biofiltration swales." Drainage actually consists
of two systems. One anticipates that water will sheet -flow to a swale along South 116th
Street, while the other proposes a system of catch - basins and culverts to carry water to
an existing rock -lined ditch and subsequent outfall to the Duwamish River. This second
system would be used jointly with adjacent development, such as the EB Bradley
building to the west.
B.3.d.(pg. 8) Run -off Mitigation: The applicant is to install oil -water separators to
treat storm water flows from those parking and loading areas that do not drain to the
bio -swale located along South 116th Street.
B.14.f. Traffic Impact Analysis: A traffic study was done for the entire Gateway
industrial /business park while it was in King County. The traffic study estimated a
total park trip generation of 671 during the AM peak hour.
The existing park development with the proposed building, has a trip generation of
647peak hour trips. Future development in remaining park area may exceed the trip
generation estimate. A traffic study, including actual traffic counts, will be required in
conjunction with the development of the remaining area of this parcel. Further traffic
mitigation measures will be required if shown to be justified in that study.
If, prior to issuance of permits the allocation of office space in the building is greater
than 8,000 square feet, the applicant is to submit an amendment to the traffic study,
which confirms that the site's overall calculated peak hour trips will not be exceeded. If
the trips exceed this number, the applicant is to demonstrate to the Responsible
Official's satisfaction suitable mitigating measures to reduce impacts on the street
system.
we
May 2, 1994
Mr. Ron Cameron
City Engineer
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Re: SEPA - E.D.I. - Bldg 9 - Gateway North
Dear Ron,
CORPORATION
Revision
This revision provides an update to the February letter regarding traffic at the
proposed EDI building. We have fine -tuned the office layout and now have
slightly different square footage numbers of office and warehouse. The
revised figures are highligheted below:
Our most current information on Gateway North's square footage and usage is
as follows:
Bldg Total Sq. Ft, Office Warehouse
1 59,300 15,418 43,882
2 54,179 16,685 37,494
3 28,510 7,698 20,812
4 37,679 11,052 26,627
5 36,554 13,159 23,395
6 50,254 12,899 37,355
8 40,000 6,000 34,000
F.D.I. 23,663 5,514 ' 18,149
TOTAL 330,139 88,425 241,714
Shown below is a comparison of the above actual and proposed E.D.I. Bldg
figures with Table 3, page 12 of the January, 1989 TDA Traffic Study:
A.M. Peak Total P.M. Peak Total
TDA Actual
TDA Actual
Office 205 253 214. 266
Warehouse 466 394 451 382
TOTAL 671 647 665 648
The contribution to traffic from E.D.I. will actually be much less than the
above Table indicates. With only 12 employees, and about 15 Will Call
customers a day, a conservative peak hour daily trip would be about 625
compared to the •647 shown above. • The daily trips for peak hours for the
existing and proposed building are below the levels at which further
mitigation was recommended.
GENERAL
CONTRACTORS
•
CONSTRUCTION
AND
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT •
6414 204th ST. S.W., SUITE #200 LYNNWOOD,WASHINGTON 98036 206 118 2191 FAX 206 118 2196 # SGACO * *084BS
There are two additional buildings planned at Gateway North which would total
approximately 62,000 square feet of office and warehouse.
The Channelization work at East Marginal Way has been completed and
appears to be working very effectively. To date, I have not noticed nor have
heard of any problems relative to traffic congestion.
It is my understanding that any subsequent mitigation (traffic signal) will be
analyzed with future development projects within the park.
Please let me know if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
obert Hart
Vice President
CORPORATION
May 2, 1994
Mr. Robert Betts
10423 Main Street #4
Bellevue, WA 98004 -5984
Re: Gateway North - Bldg 9 (EDI)
Dear Bob,
The following comments pertain to various staff report items as presented in
your May 1, 1994 letter:
1. Affidavit of Ownership: The City of Tukwila is in the process of reviewing a
Short Plat. Buyer and Seller wish to close on the land purchase immediately
after the short plat is recorded. I estimate recording the week of May 16th. I
suggest we set a drop -dead date after which Kemper (Seller) would sign the
application if the deal isn't closed.
2. Square Footage: Although the office design is not 100% complete, the
current square footages are as follows: Office = 5,514 (4,251 - 1st; 1,263 - mezz.),
Warehouse = 18,149, Bldg. Footprint = 22,400 sq. ft.
3. Picnic. Plaza. Steps: We are providing steps to the river trail but feel it
would not be appropriate to provide picnic tables or benches. The trail access
is on the opposite side of the office. Maintenance and control of a picnic area
would be difficult and thus could provide more of a nuisance than a benefit to
the employees of EDI who have stated that they would not not use a table or
benches.
4. Riverbank slope: The section drawings are incorrect and will be re- drawn.
We plan to provide for EDI the same landscape and slope condition as Bldg 8
(E.B. Bradley). From the trail, the berm will be at between 2 to 1 to 3 to 1 slope
to the back wall. This will result in a top elevation of between 16.00± and
19.00±_ (The trail elevation is at 11.00). For reference, the existing top -of -bank
is at 16.00±. There is no reason for the architect to draw top of berm at floor
elevation. The back footings will be low enough to accomodate the berm.
5. North Elevation aesthetics: The design as submitted reflects the same
scheme as the E.B. Bradley building. The results of that design are very
striking; not only were we successful in breaking up the mass of the back
wall, but the result is far more appealing than any other element at Gateway
North. The back wall of EDI is 150 feet long compared to 370 feet at E.B.
Bradley. Relative to Bldg 8 (E.B. Bradley), the modulation shown for EDI breaks
up the mass more effectively. The presence of fractured -fin concrete, wide
reveals, 2nd floor windows, and four separate paint colors add significant
variety and texture. The berm and abundant landscaping will also soften and
provide contrast to the concrete surface. I'll submit pictures of Bldg 8 at the
Design Review meeting.
GENERAL
CONTRACTORS
•
CONSTRUCTION
AND
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
6414 204th ST. S.W., SUITE #200 LYNN WOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 206 118 2191 FAX 206 118 2196 # SGACO * *084BS
- .ih::.tY �A4.•t
6. South Elevation: The south facade cannot be seen from the River. Gateway
North is a private business park which is accessed by a private road.. The
design of building elevations is controlled by Gateway North's CC &R's. EDI's
south facade has 65 feet without lower windows. However the building is
skewed with the parking area and includes vertical landscaping at this area.
By comparison, Bldg 8 has 111 feet of un- broken concrete surface plus 50 feet
of loading doors at the south elevation and Bldg 3 also has loading doors at its
front elevation.
The other items you mentioned will be shown and submitted on the revised
drawings.
Thanks for all your prompt attention to this project.
Sincerely,
SGA Corporation
Robert Hart
Vice President
1
To:
Bob Betts, Planning Division
From. John A. Pierog, PW Development Engineer
April 22, 1994
Date:
Subject: Gateway North Building No. 9 (E.D.I.)
3414 South 116th Street
SEPA Review
Activity No. L94 -0016
Review Comments
The above project activity was reviewed at the April 19th Public
Works plan review meeting. The following are our specific comments:
1. SEPA Comments
The update to the January, 1989 traffic study was reviewed
by the City Engineer. His comments were that, when the next
building is proposed, existing traffic volumes will need to
be measured on East Marginal Way South and South 116th
Street, proposed new volumes added and signal warrants
evaluated. For this project, there are no additional
requirements.
2. Miscellaneous Comments
A. Development plans will need to show details associated
with the domestic water service.
B. New landscaping should be drought tolerant. If permanent
irrigation plumbing is installed, a conservation system
shall be utilized.
C. Design plans shall include a cross - section showing the
bioswale and french drain on the north side of the
building.
D. Identify which catch basin has oil /water separation.
E. All elevations shall be referenced to the NGV Datum.
RECEIVED
APR 2 51994
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
F. Need earthwork quantities for cut /excavation, fill/back-
f ill and haul. A TESC plan will need to be .provided.
If you have any questions concerning the above, please let me know.
JAP /jap
cf: Development File
Gontr ;No.
Epic File No. 49y-ClO /6
Fee .$ 325 • Receipt No.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:Building 9 - E.D.I. - Gateway North
2. Name of applicant: SGA Corporation
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 6414 204th St. S.W.
Suite #200, T.ynnunnri, WA 98036 - c/n Rnh Hart - (206) 778 -2191
4. Date checklist prepared: 2/17/94
5. _Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): duly 1994
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain. No
mAR 1 1.19&4
`ti".: C) mmU 1T
-2-
•
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
Tukwila Building Permit
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete
• description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be
summarized here.
Building 9 -22, 3QQsquare feet
Use will be office and warehouse in accordance with the M -1 zoning.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if
any, and section, township, and range, if•known. If a proposal would occur over
a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map,' and topographic map, if reasonably
available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica-
tions related to this checklist.
Location is in Gateway North, bordered by So. 116th Street to the South,.
and West, the Duwamish River to the North, and a vacant lot of apprximatet1y _.
1.7 acres to the East. (See site plan attached).
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on_ the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
The property lies within the Shoreline 20Q_foot
-3-
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC/ ' Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one):
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, ottrt�
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? Less than 2%
c. What general types of soils are found on the site
(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If
you know the classification of agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farmland.
Site was primarily vacant land prior to grading
work in 1989. Soils consist primarily of silty
fine to medium sand with occasional gravel.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
No
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of fill. No new fill required.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
No erosion expected due to flat site.
g.
About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
Total will have about 20% building coverage and
60% asphalt.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any:
None required
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from
the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors,
industrial wood smoke) during construction and when
the project is completed? If any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
Auto, truck and equipment during consjruc-
tion, none being significant. Auto and
truck emissions after construction.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any:
During earthwork activity, dust control
measures will be implemented.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including year -
round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into.
No water on site. Duwamish River is
adjacent to site.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach
available plans.
Yes - Landscaping, parking and building structure
within 200 feet inaccordance with regulations as
shown on the attached site plan.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material
that would be placed in or removed from surface
water or wetlands and indicate the area of the
site that would' be affected. Indicate the
source of fill material.
None
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known.
No
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
Site is above flood plain.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of
waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge.
No
_ •
ars
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known.
No
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged
into the ground from septic tanks or other sour-
ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;
industrial, containing the following
chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the .
general size of the system, the number of such
systems, the number of houses to be served (if
applicable), or the number of animals or humans
the system(s) are expected to serve.
None
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm
water) and method of collection and disposal, if
any (include quantities, if known). Where will
this water flow? Will this water flow into
other waters? If so, describe.
Storm drainage to be in accordance with_
drainage system designed with master plan in
1989. Water will sheet -flaw into biofilttat:_jQrJ l
swales. Outfall is the Duwamish River,
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe.
No
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
Potential impacts to be insignificant
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
site:
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
evergreen tree: fir,.cedar, pine, other
shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, •
skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered?
Weeds.and grass - Development will add
trees shrubs and more appealing landscaping
and vegetation.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site.
None
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any:
Landscaping will utilize Northewst
native plant materialA_grass,_deciduous_____
and evergreen.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have 'been
observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
None
mammals: deer, bear, elk, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other: None
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site.
None
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain.
None
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any:
None
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil,
wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether
it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Natural Ras for heat. Elecrric
__for ,power and
b. Would your project affect the potential use of, solar
energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe. No
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are
included in the plans of this proposal? List other
proposed measures to reduce or control energy
impacts, if any:
Building would be designed to
meet State Energy Code.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,
including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe. None
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required.
None
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any: N/A
b. Noise .
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may
affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)?
East Marginal Way
2) What types and levels of noise would be created
by or associated with the project on a short -
term or a long -term basis (for example: traf-
fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate
what hours noise would come from the site.
Construction noise from lam to 6pm
Auto and truck traffic will not be
significant.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
Mufflers on construction vehicles.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties?
Site is currently a vacant lot.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe.
No knowledge of past agriculture use.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
None
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site? M -1
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? Light manufacturing
If applicable, what is the current shoreline. master
program designation of the site?
Urban
g.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
No
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project?
+/- 15
j. Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace?
None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any:
None required
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected.land uses and
plans, if- any:
Project will be.in compliance with all
applicable codes and ordinances.
C�
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income
housing? None
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low -
income housing.
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any:
N/A
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest, height of any proposed .
structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
Height is approximately 24 feet,
exterior tilt -up structure with
reveals; fainted with a three color _
scheme.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed?
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any:
Truck loading is hid•dgp
behind wings _ of the l;uilding.„
Landscaping all around
break up buildings meSEA__•___
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
Light at night at parkci ng anri ] narii ng arpaa _
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views?
No
c. What existing. off -site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal?
Street lighting will not have a negative effect.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any:
Light fixtures will be directed down.to parking
and walkways.
12. Recreation
•
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
A trail is planned along the Duwamish River.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing
recreational uses? If so, describe.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the or_oject or applicant, if any:
No negative impact.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro-
posed for, national, state, or local preservation
registers known to be on or next to the site? If
so, generally describe.
No
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any:
N/A
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the
site, and describe proposed accss to the existing
street system. Show on site plans, if any.
So. 116th S primariv treet is the road ihi.ah
serves Gateway North from East Marginal Way.
b. Is the.site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop?
Yes - Bus Routes aid= East Marginal Way.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate?
Project would provide approximatg y 40 parking
stalls.
Evaluation for
\.._ Agency Use Only
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,
or improvements to existing roads or streets, not
including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).
No
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of). water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe.
No
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur.
Approximately 60 daily trips.
g•
Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any:
Encourage ride sharing and public •
• transportation.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for
public services (for example: fire protection,
police protection, health care, schools, other)? If
so, generally describe.
Increased need is not expected.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any.
Design factors should minimize impacts on public
services, ie., fully sprinklered buildings
with 24 hour monitoring.
-16-
16. Utilities
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
.lble at the site:
water refuse service,
septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the
project, the utility providing the service, and the
general construction activities on the site or in
the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
All utilities are stubbed to the site as part
of the master plan development in 1989/1990.
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.
-17
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPL ICAt1....
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT
PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the
objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the
aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This
information provides a general overall perspective of the
proposed action in the context of the environmental infor-
mation provided and the submitted plans, documents., suppor -.
ti.ve information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal?
-> Gz oP 4 c2 5, 000 114 'E C, t�C— ((Ka us /o�F�
2. What are the, alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives? A(5AIC
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action: uaef&
-22-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only .
4. Does the proposal. .conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan? N'0
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the .conflict(s)
are: GOM Pe-Y- tSl Cc r'y crVEZ.oPMG 7
S nn)A1e2)S.
-23-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
R
0
a
i
PZI
s.
a
<•
1
k
Y ,� U 1.• ! e t
•
-3
: p i I it
— .... =. _.
30llIE,0 'run
Iw UM
"Q t,41n taw (J (169101d1.IL no.
-ne,00•r.tf� olarnal
......u...........0.......1.6....7.17.
V O C E 1 C e 11:1C 3 N O H.1 3 1 3 1
N 1,: IQ IHbllll1l
"" "•_—
.0U1 SJeeui u3 Bumnsuo9
ueeneyBise
NV1d 3dV3SONV1
,.ti
1�1•a
`,.If11H7
.011•d,.
n. ^' 4
ued pmaa w+
R
0
a
i
PZI
s.
a
<•
1
k
Y ,� U 1.• ! e t
•
-3
: p i I it
�.. .._...
�.
.01*W13 'MC
UUU CM
VIM 11111YV
^o■imn cdMnaurb 1naLr•oGel
-11'W-0.11 td1nalarna^
.R.•INV INV .ar• «.•... r. .rf.
•MPI.•$ w4rw41.1 O'WM3 wMq/r.n
.,181 :iiiu`suJ Yu"InsuO)
ussneyaie8
rl ,I.: ��.......•••I...
�,; C B C C '1Z•
:
..
1 0 Z 30014.13131
dfl f)N!J N!115 1(1 IMVMN I
I
°:".4'
—°
..
...,r,,
ryAL
..ola..r
u01 A71110Sd • N
r
0
eco.i e loPOObRC/o0 _ "..co
"VIOO210..O71'021
uvola •ilg
'MI
wank1
l ' C 1 L / 1 0 L 1 N O N / 3l 11
, • .111[).19 N•,IS .0 11.,,.1.111
7 : 4 1
*warn
ANN=
r
0
7
••••■••••
173,
N
H.
L
I A
13.
!! •
••••
‘4'
•
•
0
1
1.
0
1
H\
j
1•
I
r
L
(=C
•••
0
0
........===::•
MIMS 111311 i
1134/111111
uee AIMS
enAtromoaci,
-0,10010,811.1LCD313-171111.
...11
SUOIWAlbsa
C
, • .1 • 1
1Z11
• •
• . •
110L 3N0F1.13131
.1110H9 N ' l l , 10 111V1111
4
.......2.%71===
..••••■••••
• ...m.
01•117012 • • •
443•31%
._../. /my%
.314 ........
.._.,...,
Me. ., ,,c
1,04 A.1111=11 NOM
7
••••■••••
173,
N
H.
L
I A
13.
!! •
••••
‘4'
•
•
0
1
1.
0
1
H\
j
1•
I
r
L
(=C
•••
0
0
•
•
a
............::::-.Z•
1111121111M 'Mill ii,
11111•111
NM Pall
'COMO 1200410.0.r01001101......-.1
"trarCa0b0.11.2241212213
- _
sucbol•••22
....'S 121102 2N0 ma1121
dm, h?) N.11,1(1111Vt11111
rm.. sn.
•
mum ....
.
.im-
41.0......
Attlaai 4.01
.
•
a
4 .
Y
E
a e1
Q•
� ttj
10
z
-awe co~/AirbWJo
'LV/O /10�.0>1'971
well el half
��t C ILO • 0 L 11401440101
.I Ii rI N'1 1,11•: in .HVN1111
r-=---1,==
MAIN
Y
A
+■OS.r
— y,
ssJ_J1N17y O1
•r
Y
E
a e1
Q•
� ttj
10
z
•egi
co
P
P
g A.
CO
0
Igg
b �
tk93‘1° 4k)6
N 1%° fa°„;::9•4:6'w
LOT 1
50' INGRESS, EGRESS
& UTILITIES ESM'T
REC. N0. 9003121481
30' INGRESS, EGRESS
& UTILITIES ESM'T
PER REC. NO.
9309220848 1
LOT 2
ADJUSTED
LOT LINE
PER 'REC. N0.
9309220848
NEW LOT LINE
PER THIS •
SHORT PLAT
25'71
1
30' INGRESS, EGRESS
& UTILITIES ESM'T
TO BE CREATED BY
THIS SHORT PLAT
LOT 3
.g.
1r
L24
tit p Glt
r
1'
i ' \1
1 1
/ ADJUSTED
LOT 1. PER I
1"- BOUNDARY I
/ LINE ADJ. NOf •
/ L93 -0053, I
REC. NO.
/ 9309220848 � •
1
1.2e
Num
'-C27 -- I
MA P
A
r
LINE TABLE
LINE BEARING
L1 S 11'16'04' E
L2 N 80'31'48' E
L3 N 78'14'34' E
1.4 N 79'53'37' E
1.5 N 79'53'37' E•
L6 N 89'07'•47" E
L7 S 85'35'20" E
L8 S 85'35'20' E
L9 • S 88'14'07" E
L/0 N 87'35'09' E
LI1 S 89'29'47' E
1.12 N 79'04'27' E
LINE OF L13 N 74'08'12" E
ORDINARY L/4 N 77'56'45" E
HIGH WATER L15 N 81'39'47" E
(AS WITNESSED L 16 N 53'07'03' W
BY THE LINE L / 7 N 48'02'30' W
OF VEGETATION L18 N 74'32'39' W
IN MAPPED3. 1:18 •N 78'39'54" W
LY, L20 N 81'20'44' W
L21 N 8I '20'44' W
L22 N 81'20'44' W
L23 S 82.47'48' W
S 07'08'23' E
S 08'39'16' W•
S 1/'16'04' E
90-I -SS 1.27 S 08'27'39' W
L28 N 10'34'25' E
LOT LINE L24
N PER SHORT L25
. PLAT L26
f PROPOSED 5'
• LOT. 1
l •1 I r
1
425
1
Ln
PROPOSED
LOT 2
L1
N S.
DISTANCE
354.74'
85.67'
103.06'
39.32'
.46.01'
72.79'
50.71'
.58.82'
45.01'
57.88'
188.93'
109.79'
88.41'
78.88'
24.26'
63.00'
175.40'
225.49'
128.28'
74.95'
270.00'
102.28'
101.13'
55.24'
55.43'
308.55'
314.93'
310.16'
°Pit t w'Sec-r sire
CURVE
CI
CURVE TABLE.
LENGTH
47.05
30' RIVER PROTECTION
ACCESS & MAINTAINANCE
ESM'T TO CITY OF TUKWILA.
REC. NO'S. 9003231500
9003231501 & 9003231504
Land Surveyor's Certificate:
This Boundary Line Adjustment /Lot Consolidation correctly
represents a survey* made by me or under my direction in
conformance with the requirements of appropriate State statute.
Name:
Date. Stamp:
Certificate No. RECEIVED
*A
•
lot consolidation does not require a survey of tI 2 9
perimeter unless the lines are adjusted. t "Iliti Page of
COMMUNITY
RADIUS
170.00
DELTA
15'51'28"
Map on File in Vault
• Direction:
Scale:
200 100. 0
iI-�-
SCALE: 1 " =200'
2C
Robert S. Betts, Inc
April 2,1994
Land Management
Conservation and
Development
Mr. Robert Hart
SGA Corporation
6414 204th Street SW
Lynwood, WA 98036
10423 Main Street
Suite Four
Bellevue, WA 98004 -5984
Phone 206/455.9640
FAX 206/455 -1258
Subject: Gateway North #9 (EDI); Tukwila 94 -0015, 16, 17
Dear Bob,
The City has retained me to provide the necessary staff support
to promptly process your application(s) for permits.
I've included a copy of the intended schedule to accomplish this
process, and have your approvals May 24th. Please review the
draft "Attachment" for EDI's project review, and call me with
any obvious conflicts from your perspective. Note I've
. scheduled you for some meetings in Tukwila. You need to tell
me if you can be there.
let: The schedule has to work around my times out of state (April 21-
A 24 and May 5 -14th) Vernon Umetsu will be out the week of
' April l8th. Vern will be the DCD staff person to actually
L:
};, present to the BAR at its hearing.
i
The other item, where I need your immediate assistance is that
it the City has to have multiple copies of the environmental
checklist, studies and drawings before it can distribute to the
it ...,:.
departments. I've included the distribution matrix so you can
•
see where all the paper goes.
.1 Checklist. We need 15 additional copies by Noon on April 6th
a (Wednesday)
Drawings. We need 6 more sets by Noon on April 6th, folded
A (8.5 x 11 is most desirable).
ftStudies. We need 4 more sets by Noon on April 6th.
fG
Mr. Hart/GSA C•p
Gateway #9 Schedulb
April 2, 1994 2
The "studies" may be just your letter to Ron Cameron of
February 17th in regard to traffic. Have you done any
additional geotechnical work? Any others? If so, let me know.
I will be in my office Monday Morning after 9:30. I'd
appreciate a call from you before Noon, so that if there are any
changes to the schedule from your perspective, I can make them
before my afternoon meeting in Tukwila.
Sinly,
Robert S. Betts
Encl.
cc: Vernon Umetsu /City of Tukwila
Mr. Pace ` EDI /Gateway 49 Support
April 2,1994 4
ATTACHMENT
DRAFT SCHEDULE FOR EDI PROJECT REVIEW DRAFT
SEPA
April 6 Distribute plans and studies to departments.
April 20 Departmental replies due back to DCD by Noon.
April 20 Applicant briefing in PM, possible requests for more
information.
April 25 Applicant resubmittals (if needed) AM/ Staff mtg PM.
April 28 Smooth Draft SEPA determination to Vernon.
May 2 Revisions to Smooth Draft. Review with applicant.
May 5 Final Draft SEPA to DCD. Review with applicant.
May 11 Issue determination. Distribute to applicant, others.
May 26 Public Hearing before BAR.
BAR
April 4 Reviews with DP and BB.
Apri112 Staff Review in DCD/ Vern review PM.
Apri113 Applicant briefing, possible requests for more
information.
April 20 Applicant resubmittals (if needed) AM
April 25 Staff meeting in PM. Review with applicant late PM.
April 28 Smooth Draft BAR report to Vernon.
May 2 Revisions to smooth draft. Review with applicant.
May 5 Final Draft BAR to DCD. Review with applicant.
May 19 Issue report. Distribute to applicant, BAR, others.
May 26 Public Hearing before BAR.
Shoreline,
April 8 Prepare forms.
April 15 Publish notice in Times.
April 25 ; Staff meeting PM. Review with applicant late PM.
April 28 Smooth draft determination to Vernon.
May 2 Revisions to smooth draft. Review with applicant.
May 5 Final draft conditions to DCD. Review w/ applicant.
May 26 Public Hearing before BAR/ PC.
May 30 End of 45 day comment period. (if published 4/15)
custswo
O - G cv 4 .
r67 C
C��kG�s�-
1.
1.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
•
CORPORATION
February 17, 1994
Mr. Ron Cameron
City Engineer
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Re: SEPA - E.D.I. - Bldg 9 - Gateway North
Dear Ron,
This letter provides an update to the January, 1989 traffic study propared by
TDA Inc. and addresses the traffic /mitigation discussed at the pre - application
meeting for E.D.I. - Building 9 at Gateway North.
Our most current information on Gateway North's square footage and usage is
as follows:
Bldg Total Sq, Ft. Office Warehouse
1 59,300 15,418 43,882
2 54,179 16,685 37,494
3 28,510 7,698 20,812
4 37,679 11,052 26,627
5 36,554 13,159 23,395
6 50,254 12,899 37,355
8 40,000 6,000 34,000
ED.', 22.300 5.000 17.300
TOTAL 328,776 87,911 240,865
Shown below is a comparison of the above actual and proposed E.D.I. Bldg
figures \vith Table 3, page 12 of the Traffic Study:
A.M. Peak Total P.M. Peak Total
TDA Actual TDA Actual
Office 205 252 214 264
Warehouse 466 393 451 381
TOTAL 671 645 665 645
The contribution to traffic from E.D.I. will actually be much less than the
above Table indicates. With only 12 employees, and about 15 Will Call
customers a day, a conservative peak hour daily trip would be about 625
compared to the 645 shown above. The daily trips for peak hours for the
existing and proposed building are below the levels at which further
mitigation was recommended.
GENERAL
CONTRACTORS
•
CONSTRUCTION
AND
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
6414 204th ST. S.W., SUITE #200 LYNNWOOD,WASHINGTON 98036 206 778 2191 FAX 206 118 2196 # SGACO * *084BS
There are two additional buildings planned at Gateway North which would total
approximately 62,000 square feet of office and warehouse.
The Channelization work at East Marginal Way has been completed and
appears to be working very effectively. To date, I have not noticed nor have
heard of any problems relative to traffic congestion.
It is my understanding that any subsequent mitigation (traffic signal) will be
analyzed with future development projects within the park.
Please let me know if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
obert Hart
Vice President