Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L93-0010 - GATEWAY CORPORATE CENTER - BUILDING #10 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)l93-0010 13075 gateway drive gateway corporate center #10 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director January 17, 1997 Bob Hart SGA Corporation 6414 204th Street SW #200 Lynnwood, WA 98036 RE: Gateway Corporate Center - Building No. 10 Dear Bob: I have reviewed your revised plans and descriptions for Building No. 10 and compared them with the previously approved plans. Following are my findings: SEPA: The existing SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT can be used for completion of the project. As you suggest with regard to traffic impacts, modifications to the SEPA may be made to address project changes. Shoreline Permit: A new shoreline permit is required as L93 -0012 has expired. Design Review: The BAR approval expired June 17, 1996 per Condition #1 of that approval. Even without that expiration, administrative authority to approve modifications to BAR approved designs is limited to "minor, insignificant • modifications which have no impact on the design" (TMC 18.60.030(3)). The proposed project results in several changes which impact design such as . expanded parking and service areas, added screen wall, and modified building footprint and architectural details. These changes do not qualify as minor and insignificant. The applications for Shoreline and BAR approval can be submitted concurrently, in which case they will be treated as Type 4 permits and be heard simultaneously before the Planning Commission /Board of Architectural Review. Upon determination that your applications are complete, we will schedule the project for the next available public hearing, no sooner than 60 days from the determination of completeness. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Enclosed are the current shoreline and BAR applications for your use. Note that the requirements for mailing labels have expanded to include all properties within 500 feet of the site and all labels for all tenants as well as owners located within that radius need to be provided. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to call me at 431 -3663. Sincerely, Jimerson As-ociate Planner cc: Project Files: L93 -0010 L93 -0011 L93 -0012 CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCT A 67,127 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE /OFFICE BUILDING. PROVIDE PARKING FOR 234 CARS, ACCOMPANIED BY PEDE`_TRIAN AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS. PROPONENT: KEMPER REAL ESTATE LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF' ANY: ADDRESS: 13075 GATEWAY DR PARCEL NO: .000480 -00.10 SEC. /TWN /RNG: 15/23/4 LEAD AGENCY:. CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO L93 -0010 The City,has determined that -the proposal does not have a probable _.ignificant 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 envir-onniental checklist and other: information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The conditions to this SEPA Determination are attached. Thic DNS.' i . issued. under 197 -11 - 340(2) . Comments must be submitted by l The lead agency will not act can this oposal 'F,r- 15 days from the date below. . Rick reeler, Responsible'Official City of Tukwila, (206) 431 -3680 6300 Southcenter.Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98183 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. ILA, Wq p 'j ►,. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor `�(S'� ij Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director 'ME .... 1908 PROJECT: DATE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: OWNER: .FILE REFERENCE: THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE GATEWAY CORPORATE PARK BUILDING #10 June 2, 1993 To construct a 67,127 square foot warehouse /office building. Provide parking for 234 cars, accompanied by pedestrian and landscape improvements. 13075 Gateway Drive, just south of the Boeing Employee Credit Union Building and adjacent to the Duwamish River. David Kehle Kemper Real Estate Management Company L93 -0010 SEPA 03 -93 This is a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD The environmental review of this proposal consisted of an analysis based on the following documents included in the environmental record: A. SEPA Checklist submitted by Robert Hart, dated 9 March 93. B. Letter from Robert Hart to City Engineer Ron Cameron, dated 5 May 93 in regard to traffic mitigations. C. Letter from Robert Hart to Parks & Recreation Director Don Williams dated May 5, 1993. D. GeoEngineers, Inc. Field Report of 27 March 1992. E. Letter from Daniel Balmelli of Barghausen Consulting Engineers to Phil Fraser of Tukwila Public Works Department of 6 May 1993 in regard to the proposed storm drainage system. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Gateway #10 MDNS 6/2/93, Page 2 F. Extensive file of mitigations contained in EPIC 32 -87, Tukwila's environmental clearances for the Gateway Master Plan. G. Memorandum from City Engineer Ron Cameron to Planner Moira Carr- Bradshaw of 7 July 89 in regard to determining a fair share for traffic mitigations in the Gateway Corporate Park. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to construct its tenth building in the Gateway Corporate Park. This building's design is schematic in the sense that specific tenants /users are not yet identified. The facility will contain two stories, and will have a height of 30 feet, except at the main entry, which will be three feet higher. Parking is well above City requirements (234 stalls provided, versus 170 required.) This assumes the proposed building would be used 100 % for office activities. If it were used for warehouse activities, the parking required would be substantially less than this 170 figure. Access to the site is by of Gateway Drive, and by dedication of an adjoining access road. The access road is to be 36 feet in width. It will provide additional service along the project's western property line to the adjacent truck terminal. The 4.4 acre site is presently vacant and level. It has been used as a truck and bus repair facility. Former structures have been demolished, and previous soil contamination has been corrected. Leaking fuel tanks have been removed, and the contaminated soils have been incinerated. The site is now "clean." See Environmental Review reference Ila II A pumping station for storm water lies at the site's east property line. The facility provides protection for this proposed building as well as Gateway buildings #8 and #9 and the 10 -acre truck terminal to the south of the site. The project abuts the site of a future River Trail along the Duwamish River. The trail will go over the stormwater pumping outfalls. It will have a pedestrian connection to the proposed building. The City owns this strip of riverfront, which measures approximately 445 feet along the project's easterly property line. L.- PRINCIPAL CHECKLIST ITEMS TRAFFIC Gateway #10 MDNS 6/2/93, Page 3 Previous recorded Traffic Improvement Agreements establish that there will be a future linkage road between Gateway Drive and the Allentown area on the north side of the Duwamish River. The access road and bridge would be along the northern property line of the proposed Gateway #10 site. Such improvements are neither budgeted nor designed. Access to the adjacent truck terminal site will require improvement of an access road along the proposal's westerly property line. Specific uses for this building could run the range from entirely office to entirely warehouse. Most likely they will be a combination of the two. A preliminary traffic distribution study (see Environmental Review Reference B) indicates that this facility would have similar types of trips as created by use of the adjacent Building #9. Daily trips are estimated at 1,091. This is based on the assumption that 27,000 square feet is for warehouse activities, and 40,500 square feet for office uses. A subsequent "fair share" allocation suggests the facility would have to pay $20,218 for improvements. Fair Share Allocations identified the project would impact four intersections in the area. They are addressed below. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance is appropriate since the environmental review indicates no probability of significant adverse environmental impacts from the proposal. Traffic: Mitigations can be precisely determined when a specific building use is identified: office, warehouse, retail, etc. The present $20,218 Fair Share Allocation is based on an conservative assumption where 2 /3rds of the use is office, and 1 /3rd is warehouse. Streets: While service from Gateway Drive is adequate, a separate street access from Gateway across the west side of the property is necessary, especially given the presence of the adjoining truck terminal. Drainage: The pumping facility and existing drainage lines are adequate for controlling site drainage, Soils: Contaminated soils have been eliminated. .....: • Gateway #10 MDNS 6/2/93, Page 4 MITIGATED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. If, prior to approval or issuance of permits, the allocation of space in the building is different than assumed (40,500 square feet office and 27,000 square feet warehouse), the applicant is to submit a follow -up traffic study. The study is to provide trip generation and distribution as well as a re- calculation of the $20,218 fair share contribution for traffic mitigation. 2. Prior to approval or issuance of building permits, the applicant is to dedicate a minimum 35 -foot wide public right -of -way along the site's westerly property line in order to provide suitable access to the adjoining property. Prepared by: R. S. Betts cc: J. Pace 05 '11/93 09:22 FAN 206 861 6050 GEOENGINEER S uo, GeoEngineers 111c. 8410 154th Avenue N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 (206) 861-6000 FIELD REL RT File No.1161a-01q-- R ti/7 !Kg- 023- 7...s Project Pro ci A / ti ce4 Profrtiy Date a /z/72 Rep No. Ow • 1 6( rd Pro Prepared by: ail CW1 M heA,lee- Location: TiAdk LAO ia , ks-A Arrival Time: i.,0 : ... • Pa e: / of Purpose. of Visit: , , '-' CO vi .-f-...- AAAA vial-70-m Eva,IL.tct,4-ic-m Weather. _4- c.A.AA , 6,0 ' F Depart.Time: : 1 q-oo Permit No. RA-A -7c)se , We vi...4ifr el -I- in e 0.&we si 4-e al --I l4e rco L4 e--- ) c ' I B017 H ax k a 5x-ciford %ix-I-I-le}, +0 czveq.: I v ct1 e -1-k e .5i i-e -or ke.: 1Yre--.f.,c,vtc e 4 C.e)1,1-1-dowiAit 0 of.,11.c-pi or (2oLvrcc6' -1- 14eAc or . .Eya) (461,41 CM E3t ; Yit'.-- 14a,1 ol7se4 voi-icrtil a4A A 0) fie6.--10)1( eivativa -17041 • iv o C-44e-im4c --161- or e,W ar-e-?4A14-Qt fr 4frrV24 cot • ObseAev e;G41 . ow. : The -PoilotAilvto 1., 114 a41bvo x i KA __J co. r e 5(.7i4 ellAa.iTC u ...) olio tArli 145 --r-vte 5i e 4- vx Is 4-i vvim_ -br:=Itir, +:, k4tA ,-,, 1., 16 / F--t.> P-0 Alt) ---, ,--...„ • tztva az ÷r• st. (6.P 0 irs, lir 4 GOKICR ETE • 3-5' Hi 6f1-1 Pr : A-pgc:"1_6 ( 18- TH K.) or ilr 1111111111111111111111113 -- "" - — co NTA-I N r r.r- : 4 r . . . . N i s . r . . . r " c ..." U rQ DP v EL° PC P v i PF MOI-151-1E D .Flavta' 111M11 I ON-517T , e-0, hi TA I NA-IS So I L 11-1A-7 volts• immehmom imurlIMMIIIIIIIIII■IMINIMIIIIilla , NO KJ- DE T Ec...-r - 6) EXCE.- F xCAV Aro fv ir 41 KE,0,10v D -17, Expt, / L..irtop PT ?ow P.5 I Agin :- : ..: • ....1111t7. ti— - IIMI1111111111111111E:3111111111111111n116■L EK1 n N6 450 V _________________________— 17-YA.VR -7-1/F3C.X./7- 1 5 Poi t.6 FROM ttrE otivt.,,, tpr upLopr-W 55 6 A1..i..010 1k1.) 1,A ts2z..4,4 v•r] 5 i I 1.- Cal sl*VC.1 bp EUJIL.DPS-, LOCA1E I›, 1 CPv126E L^91W12 Or: T•vtic..4 (SP __--, X 1 r 1 N 4 ,...--..... w.Fb7 0 F r-I.E .1rF PMvR-P A R.--A •-•,-- tN-IFKA-Y GO t45neuart-r) - C.11 Al N Limx, FENCE ,a-1-1 j NO .-A LEI •---, NIA/ 1-'ic"...fr: 1 kre--- -7T-/z..i.4 i 'A-t- -----i GlAxeie,,,--.-.4.4d 4-14.--i}- --f-ti c &t' 1 e- C.,>14A 1"? e:le-lt .1 C't.% &e-?./171?..e l'44/1.1.1J ., , , J .. . 1 . -J • ..1 ..,, _._1 ,0 . . „ . : ;,‘,7 0, . r CtAf • . 2 • 144.12 firweyo , e litA) (won 1:-. 1-e rita e4cc.aA-evl-erc-i;-1 e..-:.,ix..497,11 ccri 8i-to PZIA • ncl c sfiz-,1;441.). le. 62,1c).0 C.G14.4A1i cz.4,1 c2 V -k • ro Pfe,i i V2C.i kie./rf4e34 • CO VICA erVi•S NO 64506 of vs'. 22-c [-R%?6e.04 Cr7,1 V iL1/10,) / PO( C4-Ory e.),..a.,11A,n4f F. -+ert e at. Fe This report presents opinions loaned as a result of our observation of activities relating to geolechnical engineering We rely on the contractor to comply with the plane and specif italic agents. OW !WTI will not be responsible for tot) or site eatery on this proJecL 4 ' 4 throughout the duranon 01 the project irrespective of the presence of our representative. Cturrwork ttcki ros (1.01 Include supervision or direction of the actual work of the Contractor, his employees 4 V. Attachments: A Distribution: J6 cc. R le rit's i g - 023 R7-3 laict - 011-i - MAY 1 1 1993 Signed' DT.E.VELOPiviENT Zukvroryvv,it".. k4 ,ici GEI 454 ICEmPER Kemper Real Estate Management Company 12720 Gateway Drive, Suite 107, Seattle, Washington 98168 • 206/241 -1103 • Fax 206/241 -2191 May 5, 1993 Ron Cameron Jack Pace City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: SEPA - Bldg 10 - Gateway Corporate Center Dear Ron and Jack, ReaL esTaTe manacemenT This letter is to clarify discrepancies between stated square footage numbers for the proposed Bldg 10. The square footage indicated on the SEPA checklist was approximate. The square footage shown on the recently submitted site plan shows the accurate number and should control. Robert Hart Development Manager Y 051993 COMMUN1Ty DEVELOPMENT LOPMENT • FIZ Lw. david kehle February 26, 1993 City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review Project Goals and Objectives RE: Gateway Corporate Center Building 10 �fr The project consists of doing the final development piece in the Gateway Corporate Center. The site design reflects considerations for a new north /south road connecting Gateway Drive to 48th Ave. South, of which improvements will be done along the property frontage. In addition, a future street crossing the Duwamish is being planned along the sites northern boundery. Access will not be anticipated from the street as it will probably start its elevation to a bridge across the Duwamish along our site. The Duwamish River is to the east and a truck terminal is to the south. The anticipated building uses will be similar to the recently completed building 9. This is a multiple tenanted building with a common dock area. The building has been oriented to front on the two road frontages and the Duwamish and has a concealed loading area internal to itself and oriented away from direct public view. Parking surrounds the building providing a less intensive impact than a major parking lot and allows for multiple entries to the building. In the event a single user takes the building, a more significant architectural entry feature is planned on the north face and to facilitate entries and provide facade modulation and interest along the east and west facades, building elements protrude defining potential entries. Access for pedestrian traffic is provided with a sidewalk linkage from Gateway Drive, along the new street and then passing in front of the new building and then providing access to the Public Plaza and the River front trail system. Pedestrian access is also being provided via a cinder path along the north property line where a future sidewalk will occur. This linkage will access directly to the river trail. Dumpsters including recycling dumpsters are planned along the south property line and are enclosed in screened walls and landscaping. Circulation will occur from the new north /south street and the entries line up with the previous developed building 9 entries. (206)433 -8997 ❑ 12878 INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH ❑ SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98168 City of Tukwila Board of Arch. Review Project Goals & Objectives The building itself carries on the use of materials and colors and architectural style which Gateway Corporate Center is known for. Landscaping in excess of code minimums with a tie into the trail frontage improvements will continue the already established planting styles and mixes and will provide the final touches to the park. The building facades reflect the structural grid being utilized and the columnade look adds texture and rhythm to the building. The first floor areas are recessed 3' to further reinforce the columnade look and provides additional architectural relief. The fenestration, both upper and lower will be the dark glass and aluminum frames which provides a nice contrast in color. The building color scheme will match the 3 color building schemes in the rest of the park. Additional building excitement is being created in the corners where the building steps back and then a lower spandrel infills the void. This is open above and provides an interesting positioning of the trees and greatly modulates the facade. The east and west facades have a minor entry element which provides not only a horizontal modulation but a vertical modulation as well. The significant architectural feature occurs on the north face which will have the greatest visual exposure. It is intended to pick up a design arch element from the BECU building while not competing with it. The recessed first floor also enables the landscaping to be bermed up onto a concrete bulkhead. This provides greater vertical relief to the building. A public amenity is being proposed at the juncture of the site pedestrian linkage and the trial improvements. Benches, tables, textured concrete patterning, pick up the linkage design at the drive lane crossings and low light boulards will provide night time security. The building, site, access and ammenities being provide, all fit very well into the Gateway Corporate master plan. This is the logical conclusion of the improvements and is very much in keeping with the Gateway Corporate goals and I am sure, the goals of the City of Tukwila. Sincerely, David Kehle To Moira Carr-Brad. From: Ron Cameron Subject: Gateway Bed��rd/BECU expansion Date: July 7, 1989 This memo explains the Fair Share and mitigations to serve the INCREASED Bedford/BECU traffic. The 1984 traffic analysis projected 2,696 vehicle trips per day (VPD) with the build out of 493,850 GSF; TDA reports that the 249,112 GSF constructed is generating 2,748 VPD. TDA projects the new build out traffic generation to be 12,601 in the year 2000 and 9,763 in 1990. That's an increase of 9,905 VPD in the year 2000 and about 7,000 in 1990. The City's approval of the project was for 2,696 VPD, not 12,601. The Fair Share and mitigations described in this memo are for the increased traffic, the difference between the 2,696 and 12,601 VPD. The Fair Share was determined by: measuring existing traffic (Figure 1) developing a trip distribution (Figure 2) distributing increased BECU/Bedford traffic (Figure 3) determining future traffic (Figure 4) and calculating the per cent that the increased BECU/Bedford traffic is of the total increase (future traffic - existing). The existing street system and control is esscnLzally operating safely and efficiently. The increase in traffic wili require widening, signal control, pedestrian improvements, lighting, and similar safety and capacity needs. The Fair Share is the fraction calculated by dividing the increased develorment traffic by the • total traffic increase. EXISTING TRAFFIC The current daily traffic totals are shown on Figure 1. Additional counts have been made to supplement the TDA information. Further counts are being made to complete the analysis. ' DA reports LOS for existing.conditions in Table 3. The SR599 NB Off left turn at Interurban and the SR599 SB Off at S 133rd Street have LO E. The report explains that signals are warranted for these two locations. It is important to remember that warrant volumes are threshold numbers - meeting warrants does not require a signal but allows signal installation. TRIP DISTRIBUTION � »`_ To: Moira Carr-Bradshaw From: Ron Cameron Subject: Gateway Bedford/BECU Date: July 1989 • A trip distribution was developed. The 1984 Wilsey & Hamm distribution was the basis and it was modified to reflect the extensive Boeing development in the Riverton area; that a substantial amount of the increased traffic is projected to be generated by the Boeing Credit Union and considering proximity of Boeing employees; the TDA information, and PSCOG GRVTAP information. Figure 2 shows the distribution and Figure 3 shows the increased BECU/Bedford traffic distribution. FUTURE TRAFFIC CH2M is currently completing Tukwila's Transportation Plan by generating Year 2010 volumes and identifying capacity deficiencies. Additional work is to be performed in the Gateway area. Future volumes have been identified using the CH2M work, growth factors determined using the CH2M findings, PSCOG projections, TDA projections, and existing count data. These were reviewed, discussed with CH2M, and revised her additional work was needed. The Future volumes are shown on Figure 4. INCREASED TRAFFIC/ The 1990 increased traffic generated by BeJfcrd/BECU will be about 7,000 VPD (9,763 less 2,696) as shown in Figure 6 of TDA's report. TDA projected the increased traffic using credit union transaction data and the existing rates fcr t�e Bedford expansion. The existing rates were determined from TDA counts and existing GFA. Calculating trip generation using ITE rates shows a higher amount. TDA also calculated trip generation for the year 2000. That projection is for 12,601 VPD - an increase of 9,905 VPD (12,601 - 2,696). The current 7,000 increase is about 4 times the original projection. The year 2000 increase of 9,905 is aboUt 5 times the original projection. The original study assened a warehouse - light industrial use actually, it is developing with office and retail. '.The ITE trip generation difference between office park and warehouse/light industrial is about 4 times as much. For example, office parks generate trips at 196 per acre compared to warehouses at 56 per acre. In all likelihood, the use will continue to evolve. This is what is occuring throughout the area. Gateway has excellent access with 15, 1405, and SR599 freeways as well as E Marginal Way, Pacific Highway, and Interurban/W Valley Roed. The excellent access will probably accelerate the evolution to "higher" use. ' The fact that one-half of the originally proposed development is To: Moira Carr-Bradshaw From: Ron Cameron Subject: Gateway Bedford/BECU Date: July 1989 generating more traffic than the original projection substantiates the change. The fair share traffic amount being used in ':his analysis is the rounded difference between the current 9,76a; projection and the original 2,696 projection. It is rounded to 7,000 VPD recoginizing that the projection can't be precise to the unit. It is conservative from the development perspective by using the current 7,000 increase instead of year 2000 i',1crease of 9.900 trips. FAIR SHARE The Future volumes show definite need for signal control and roadway capacity and safety improvements hicles and pedestrian). The existing conditions analysis by TDA reports signal warrants are met but no significant LD5 deficiencies are occuring Volume increases from existing to future create the safety and capacity needs for vehicles and pedestrians including the, signals, widening, sidewalks, lighting and so on The Fair Share is calculated by the proportion that the development traffic increase is of the total increase. Following is a tabulation of the Fair Share calculations for the: S 133rd St/SR 599 SB Off Interurban Ave/I5 NB On Interurban Ave/SR 599 NB On Interurban/SR599 NB Off S 133 St (Interurban - SR599 SB Off) Intersection Approach S 133/SR599 SB Off SB Off Westbound Eastbound Northbound Total Fairshare INCREASED BECU TRAFFIC 500 1,050 700 0 2,250 = TOTAL FUTURE 8,000 11,000 4,000 1,200 24,200 Increased BECU ________ Total Increase intersection intersection intersection intersection segment TOTAL EXI�T[NG 3,.500 6,000 2,800 800 13'100 = = TOTAL INCREASE 4,500 5,000 1,200 400 11,100 ' x^_ To: Moira Carr-Bradshaw From: Ron Cameron Subject: Gateway Bedford/BECU Date: July 1989 Intersection ' . Approach INCREASED BECU Interurban/I-5 NB On TRFFC FUTURE - EXISTING = INCREASE Northbound 700 15,000 11,000 4,000 Southbound 700 15,000 11,]00 4,000 Total 1,400 30,000 22,000 8,000 Increased BECU 1`400 Fairshare = ------ ------- = 18% Total Increase E,,000 Interurban/SR599 NB On FUTURE - EXISTING =. INCREASE Northbound 750 16,600 9,200 7,400 ' Southbound 450 99500 5;300 4,200 Total 1,650 35,600 19,800 15,800 / Increased BECU 1,650 Fairshare = -- - ------- = 10% Total Increase 15,800 Interurban/SR599 NB Off FUTURE - EXISTING = INCREASE NB Off 350 9,000 4,400 4,600 Northbound 1,050 20,000 1C`000 10,000 Southbound 1,050 13,000 6,700 6,300 � 0 0 0 0 Total 2,450 42,000 21-100 20,900 Increased BECU 2..450 Fairshare = ---_--- - ------- = 12% Total Increase 20,900 S 133 St (Interurban - SR599 SB Off) FUTURE - EXISTING = INCREASE Westbound 1,050 9,500 6,200 3,300 Eastbound 1,200 9,500 5'1500 4,000 Total 2,250 19,000 11,700 7,300 Fairshare = Increased BECU 2,250 Total Increase 7,300 = 317. To Moira Carr-Bradshaw From: Ron Cameron Subject: Gateway Bedford/BECU Date: July 1989 MITIGATIONS AND FAIRSHARE The improvements to provide for the increassd traffic include widenin( Interurban and S 133rd Street, interconnected and coordinated signals lighting, signing, and pedestrian improvemer.ts. The City is currentll working with WSDOT on a grant to improve Interurban with the grant tc provide about half of the funding. No other funding sources have beer identified for the other improvements. Tile Fair Share portion o' improvement costs and improvements for the unfunded projects: 20%. S 133 St/SR599 GB Off coordinatc.d signal, intersection 18% Interurban/I5 NB On coordineao signal, intersection Interurban/SR599 NB On coordinated signal, intersection. 12% Interurban/SR599 NB Off coordinated signal, intersection Interurban/S 133rd St coordinate signal 31% S 133rd St (Interurban-SB off) roadway safety/capacity. The mitigation costs will include design, con'Aruction, and construction administration. WSDOT coordinat:on will be required. Cost estimates have not been made, even "pian-ling level" estimates as they have not been anticipated as being needF-d this soon. A developer's agreement should be entered that provides for Bedford/BECU funding the Fairshare improvemsnt cost prior to construction award. The agreement should be based on planning level cost estimates, the developers agree to their shares, a bond or simila/ measure is provided for the fair share, escrow deposit of the funds is required of the funds prior to construction award, and further award agreement is provided if the low bid is spbstaptially more than the estimate. Lower or higher bids would be proportionately shared. The agreement has an expiration date. 4 vr- V 0 U tv1.E.S • ,04• 1 I 4. o 1.1^:(;) • A R b F CD 7 0 T 10 t`) (.' t 1 6 f • ()Pi.,„) , 1000 vP-D VoLumEs vA.116. ion 1 Pic) (::3'll.rliI1112A.11011 s70 0 R\ 6INAI„ ,42.!Ip!.1 .z.,9 ken 4 1'N). V0L1)t‘Ar PRoJEctiorQ Contra; !o. Epic File No. ._ q' r Fee "-gin Receipt No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Building 10 - Gateway Corporate Center 2. Name of applicant: KEMPER REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC_ 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 12720 Gateway Drive Suite 107, Tukwila, WA 98168 - Mr. Bob Hart 2Q6- 241 -1103 4. Date checklist prepared: 11/30/92 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Start in mid 1993 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 -2- tem 9 ic93 DEVELOP v:`NT 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Tukwila Building_EarmiL 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 10 - 38,700 _ UseSai1Lhe offire 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 adjacent to Gateway Drive bsrderecL by the Duwamish River, Time DC truck terminal,_ and Boeing Employees Credit Union, 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 ,thg_ S.harel i ne_2Q0_font_znne _ TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAN B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, 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 has been covered with pavement and building structure since 1968. Subsurface includes sand fill over four to six feet underlain by_sand. 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% asphault. New development will decrease impervious surfaces. Evaluation for Agency Use Only .V �;...JL.,I1J :: #i:�:�::i:u ::;a "Y.yl,••n- ...,•.ri"L:f • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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 construc- 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. x:vvan,p3 .:: n•,:r ∎relrr.nu>kx::::;r�u: :i1Ai:a C,s..a'Y7X'Y£Y -�aw:c aN. A. 7,!M1•T.,::V.. f+: vV4S. 4Y.: c^,,, er..,: nr.rn7;n:e,:n +aWrnr:7r +)',Wa.:. 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 and parking within 200 feet. • 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. Nnnp 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 2 %P.;!'T.K;j:.'.S^"fa Alm'.:R <acuew�a�T. vxsr �vr• N. ct�: �Cg 'ctr:r'•YZS *x:i.�a:.,..ya,x,.. .::m^xn -_^s a59:* •;'S:;Sit `^r M;'L*.i 'J�2, ;t��`f:'. ^7`;.'�"�'.x'; :�: i�rr� Lla';' 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 raterials 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): I) 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. The existingstorm drainage system is planned to be used for the redevelopment. Storm water is co .ected in catch basins and run to a.puinp t. tion along 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: This development increases the pervious surfaces - less water to _.he existing system is the result. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: None deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain y 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? None - Development will add -Thi:i scaping and vegetation. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None '.'';,.'f"•'.�,...., air G ;r "`r;i°S.' IFJ.re. t'tn r.4.w �:.h :.:..:a.: •rcn -a+_� �.�a`J:I'.b::: ?LF;':!: +;•t;tt�rr:?faf(... Saab. v:^:.[!, ir.•'':( Pt::' n't.:7:^'d?!:;..:'� ?'t7di °,rZ"r S;�•`"t`vZ'riw" :,..... . Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscaping will utilize Northewst native plant material�g_rasss_ 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, beaver, other: None fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: None b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. None d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None a'r Evaluation for Agency Use Only 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, color) will be used to rneet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Natural gas for heat. Electric '_ for power_and limiting.__._______ 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 -10- .: ew ..».v- ,ttrJ_�ou�..•xht.ia'iaaY .i:l:t's.,! •3.:Y (_. b. Noise ....L•:L,'.TF:*S4`?F'F A111' FK; if.•'• �:T. ?•.'C:M':ai. ^�vY'C(G".R":_Y .4 o ":.41�'1:'nn ..�v - i .. ago ., m�nn.rrv�.a ?n7�Y.r. : ^...�A9)_.. e��7xtR'�. +.�.....= ;'. ;Y.... '�t,'.'M11`.PI`f,Y::'.: �[•r i,'.. . 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other) ?___ _________________ Minor traffic noise from Gateway____..._.____ Drive. - - 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 7 am to 6. pm. 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? Allied Body Work. Liemalished recently) was a body repair _ahQp for__trucks and - buses. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. The site was pasture ,.and prior to 1968. c. Describe any structures on the site. Structures were demolished and removed in 1992. Evaluation for Agency Use Only �:'..:r: ".::.X;:- ✓5;A`N�v'Je 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 g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban 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? +/— 150 Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Previous use had abQut_0 penp1A k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None_required_ j• 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Project will be in complianrp with all applicable codes and ordinances. ^x�..n..x.C: ^ll:'. .ryMrA:r- �.F. +ii::cK:: ?pr;;- ? ^; ��:.:;.+•;; 9:'. Evaluation for Agency Use Only '.t,�+:.ti+': s :J!�Y._: t��:PY.1: .. - ...:!.1tt'f�.i ^'..P �•.r...5.rit>"+'bva+n .x r.�rtt+*!:':�. ✓..Mi:N:Plh >.f ^7 w:t. • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? None __..___________ ___.___._ b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or lbw - 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 -u_p structure with reveals; painted 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 hidden behind wings of the Landscaping all around ______break 4 ..... ,5'J.�.•i1, :4.r....,. ,. r. •_i. T: {�Y]'l C:,^ 41k, .��•i!,t�:4:4v:'Ci'��.� "!'!i`�: t?�.i "Sf?J:`h \C'.:c.•n::A :a.. 'x <� � r.. O v-1 u. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Lighting at night at •parking_____._.__,.____ and loading areas. 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 nom have a negative effect. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Light fixtures will be diracted 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 project or applicant, if Prospective tenana could include an exercin_e fsri 1; ty.. -14- '?:Si15: �1 ? ^,.•i�:i.. _.., vs•?lS"` �r.'i. � 1 .•.; V�7:�L "r'h`.`i..,!le¢• "�G�Y[! Evaluation for Agency Use Only ,,r,: .::1'r. r�.it '.L*_: ,, t,, .! : ^•r;,,rn. ^..•�•,•W.�JS�r..lu.., rr,:z+•mOw:t: >-ner� %i uF,�e ..,..wc.n _ 2... 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. Access will be from Gateway nr;vP b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop ?_i__ Yes — Bus Route .to go through Gateway Drive. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate ?r_____ Currentproj ect_woulA_pravide- 294 stalls. : rir. r.:: rv.rr.(<:nr1`- i�5'l+S+;Y' ^7w -. G'd!7:+r::4N•:ni :tif, v.4 Evaluation for Agency Use Only : �':, Erl T• n' l'• �; Yr;..; r. �: i::. �.."r'+'i�M.v�.ircr�....v:...1. ry. .. .�i. When. Yi... YS. �.....;•. x... y.... r. i ..n..e.,...n.u....ti.aw,....C..t J. ::.- ..,�4.- Y!±.V•!" ..�... .:..:.h -�.1. 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).__ Per Developers Agreement_.c3it_h ___________ Tukwila, a new road stub to property line will be regj red prior_ to completion of new e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, general iy 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 600 daily trips. The peak volumes of Gateway Corporate Center occur at noon. 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. Utilities a. Circle utili• : .t•f:.U'N`IY . ax+ c� :ll[k•L1::+nY?ncAAMASII.`3 -•A$t. NN.; ida'^.Yf.:rX+M'.tSTVACHAMAA'4. to Rt'.uuo^.r+nr n+sssa tly available at the site: water, refuse service, c 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. Util tti as that wErE._use.d far__the- o.d -• - - -- _buil dingwi 11 ha aull/able._.f.or the new project, 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. 4/6k-,t/-- s.1 7.+e.n ..ts.nrn+i>wt4rRtis : rbv: tsz4wra,.....u.••.•.,... »«....� Evaluation for Agency Use Only