Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA99-027 Vol 1
CITY OF RENTON LL II Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 4, 1999 TO:lntersted Agencies and Parties SUBJECT: Southport Planned Action Environmental Review Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of Supplemental EIS Project Number LUA-99-027, ECF Dear Reader: Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Determination of Significance (DS) for the above referenced project. The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee, at its regular meeting on March 2, 1999, decided to issue the DS because of potential impacts in areas of: Earth, Air Quality, Water (Stormwater/Groundwater/Water Quality); Plants and Animals; Noise; Land and Shoreline Use; Socioeconomics (Population, Housing, Employment); Aesthetics, Light and Glare; Transportation; Public Services and Utilities (Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Police Services; Schools; Parks and Recreation; Water; Wastewater; Solid Waste). SCOPING: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the Supplemental EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before 5:00 p.m. on March 29, 1999. A public scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m., located at the City Council Chambers 7th Floor), Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you are interested in attending the scoping meeting please contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, (425) 430-6575, to obtain the meeting date and time and to ensure that the meeting has not been rescheduled. APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance, in writing, pursuant to RMC 4-8-110E, accompanied by a non-refundable $75.00 appeal fee, no later than 5:00 PM on March 22, 1999, to: Renton Hearing Examiner, c/o City Clerk, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-6578. For the Environmental Review Committee, C- C)) 7 isa Grueter Project Manager DSLTR.DOC 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 C.) 1 Y O NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EIS DATE: March 8,1999 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027,ECF APPLICATION NAME: Southport Planned Action Environmental Review PROPONENT: Seco Development Inc(Rex Allen) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Southport Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to conside potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washingtor shoreline. Environmental studies will consider redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and offices uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone,and several development permits. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington,West of Lake Washington Boulevard and I-405.The propose' is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations or the west. Access is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. rf VIM c..Ce.ren Pert 1 Lase r.,r„niren VAInereLne 3. EIS REQUIRED: The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the environmen An environmental impact statement(EIS)is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c)and will be prepared.A Supplement Environmental Impact Statement (SETS) is required which will supplement previous Environmental Impact Statemen: prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan. Materials indicating likely environmental impacts (i.e., scoping documen can be reviewed at our offices. LEAD AGENCY:Environmental Review Committee City of Renton SCOPING:The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the Supplemental EIS: Earth, Air Quality, Water (Stormwater/Groundwater/Water Quality): Plants and Animals; Noise; Land a Shoreline Use; Socioeconomics (Population, Housing, Employment):Aesthetics, Licht and Glare: Transportatic Public Services and Utilities (Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Police Services; Scncots; Parks 2 Recreation;Water;Wastewater;Solid Waste). Agencies,affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the Supplemental EIS. YE may comment on alternatives,mitigation measures,probable significant adverse impacts,and licenses or other approw. that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before 5:00 p.m.on March 29,1999. A public scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m.,located at the City Council Chambers (7 Floor), Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you are interested in attending the scopir meeting please contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, (425)430-6575, to obtain the meeting do and time and to ensure that the meeting has not been rescheduled. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee Development Planning Section Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental Review Other Permits which may be required: The SEIS will address the Proposed Action which includes: Adoption of a Planned Action designation Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and concurrent Rezone from Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential) Zoning Code Text Amendment Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan The Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA,for each specific development phase,would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. The process assumes that a final Master Plan and site plan(s) for individual phases as well as shoreline substantial development permit applications will be submitted at a later stage as a Planned Action. Application for construction- related permits from the City of Renton and other state and federal agencies, potentially including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404, 401 permits, stormwater discharge/NPDES, building and construction permits, etc., required for long-term redevelopment of the site would also be requested for approval subsequent to the adoption of the Planned Action approval. Issuance of these and other required development permits is included within the scope of environmental review for the Proposed Action. Since future development may qualify as a Planned Action which may not require additional environmental review, comments regarding the environmental review should be submitted during this scoping period and during the Draft SEIS(when available)comment period to ensure concerns are considered. Requested Studies: See scoping topics for SETS above. LOCATION WHERE APPLICATION MAY BE REVIEWED:Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: See scoping section above regarding scoping meeting. A public hearing before the Planning Commission will be scheduled at a later date related to the Draft Supplemental EIS(when prepared)and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone application. Land use applications submitted after the Planned Action designation(e.g.site plans or shoreline substantial development permits)may also require public hearings. APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance, in writing, pursuant to RMC 4-8-110E, accompanied by a non-refundable$75.00 appeal fee,no later than 5:00 p.m.March 22,1999,to: Renton Hearing Examiner City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 To appeal this Declaration,you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen (14)days of the date that the Declaration of Significance has been published in the official city newspaper. See City Code Section 4-8- 110E, RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. There shall be only one appeal of a Declaration of Significance,and if an appeal has already been filed,your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or may be dismissed if the other appeal has already been heard. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the above office to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. CONTACT PERSON: If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,contact Lisa Grueter at(425)430-6578. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PUBLICATION DATE: March 8,1999 DATE OF DECISION: March 2, 1999 PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 24, 1999 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 2, 1999 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EIS APPLICATION NUMBER(S): LUA-99-027, ECF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Southport Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to consider potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Environmental studies will consider redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several land use development and building permits. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is from Lake Washington Boulevard. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required which will supplement previous Environmental Impact Statements prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan. PROPONENT: Seco Development Inc. (Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington, West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405 EIS REQUIRED: The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. Materials indicating likely environmental impacts (i.e., scoping document) can be reviewed at our offices. LEAD AGENCY: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the Supplemental EIS: Earth, Air Quality, Water (Stormwater/Groundwater/Water Quality); Plants and Animals; Noise; Land and Shoreline Use; Socioeconomics (Population, Housing, Employment); Aesthetics, Light and Glare; Transportation; Public Services and Utilities (Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Police Services; Schools; Parks and Recreation; Water; Wastewater; Solid Waste). SCOPING: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the Supplemental EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before 5:00 p.m. on March 29, 1999. A public scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m., located at the City Council Chambers (7th Floor), Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you are interested in attending the scoping meeting please contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, (425) 430-6575, to obtain the meeting date and time and to ensure that the meeting has not been rescheduled. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee Development Planning Section Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance, in writing, pursuant to RMC 4-8-110E, accompanied by a non-refundable $75.00 appeal fee, no later than 5:00 p.m. March 22, 1999, to: DSIG.DOC Renton Hearing Examiner City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 To appeal this Declaration, you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen 14) days of the date that the Declaration of Significance has been published in the official city newspaper. See City Code Section 4-8-110E, RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. There shall be only one appeal of a Declaration of Significance, and if an appeal has already been filed, your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or may be dismissed if the other appeal has already been heard. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the above office to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. PUBLICATION DATE: March 8, 1999 DATE OF DECISION:March 2, 1999 SIGNATURES: GHQ mnist i 3/ 9 Gregg Zim man 5 DATE 7 Departme t f PI nning/Building/Public Works e_ct Ji( 3)0i? Jim She herd d istrator DATP E Community Service Department Lee Wbeerer, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DSIG.DOC Lead Agency: City of Renton EIS Required: The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement(EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will supplement previous Environmental Impact Statements prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan. The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the Supplemental EIS: Earth, Air Quality, Water (Stormwater/Groundwater/Water Quality); Plants and Animals; Noise; Land and Shoreline Use; Socioeconomics (Population, Housing, Employment); Aesthetics, Light and Glare; Transportation; Public Services and Utilities (Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Police Services; Schools; Parks and Recreation; Water; Wastewater; Solid Waste). Scoping: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the Supplemental EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before 5:00 p.m. on March 29, 1999. Written comments should be addressed to: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 A public scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m., located at the City Council Chambers (7th Floor), Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you are interested in attending the scoping meeting please contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, (425) 430-6575, to obtain the meeting date and time and to ensure that the meeting has not been rescheduled. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee Address: City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator DATE Cri 4-)417/3 "Or/olf,fri 3/2.-/C7 SHRTSCPE.DOC\ CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EIS PROPOSED SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION The City of Renton is requesting comments on the scope of the EIS for the proposed Southport Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). A more detailed description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives and those elements of the environment preliminarily identified for consideration and analysis in the SEIS is available from the City of Renton. Description Of Proposal: The Southport Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to consider potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Seco Development is proposing that phased redevelopment of the Shuffleton Steam Plant site be designated by the City as a Planned Action pursuant to SEPA. The Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase, would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. Environmental studies will consider redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several land use development and building permits. Preliminary plans for the Southport site include creating a mixed-use development with private and public amenities and recreational opportunities. Presently,preliminary conceptual plans would result in the following ranges of development: 543 to 581 attached multi-family residential dwelling units 38,000 square feet of retail/service 500,000 to 750,000 square feet of office The uses would be developed above structured parking. Including parking levels, the heights of the buildings would range from 5 to 8 stories above grade. Presently, preliminary conceptual plans indicate that residential and commercial uses would be located in the northern portion of the site along Lake Washington, and the office uses would be located in the middle and southern portions of the site. Public amenities proposed include a boardwalk promenade at the waters edge the full width of the property that would offer opportunities for walking, outdoor dining, visual access to the lake and an extension of the lake walk at the adjacent Coulon Park. An existing dock would be retained and potentially enhanced to allow for guest moorage. The mixed-use project would be constructed in phases. Proponent: Seco Development Inc. (Rex Allen) Location Of Proposal: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is from Lake Washington Boulevard. SHRTSCPE.DOC\ SHUFFLETON VICINITY MAP i cooQ NIII NikGeneCoulonPark - 0 • Lake Washington Shoreline illibialii -.N\.:-•• SITE O o 4 • 0 W.i' A 0 O 4 0 04O fi 0 111‘ i 0 ilk 0 o . 0 o I u z c----A f Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Site boundary 0. Dennison0e • 23 February 1999 0 40 0 8 0 0 1 :4,800 s n 11 111i11 ! 11111 11111 I I lit 111111 111111 111111 1 1111 s a1tl a,;yob I I I 11 1 11111IItII11III11111111 1 I I I11 11 1 1 v. I I t l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N d 0 p Ill 11 111i1i111t1iiii1111i1 1iti11i1i1l111111111 ri oo 11 1 11 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 ! I I III I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 III l 1 1 1 1 0,- 0 HI 1 1 111111111t11111111111ItI1111I111I1I1t111111111t1i111111111 ar 1 1 1 1 l 11 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 I1l 1I 111l 1I ! laI iI 1, l t1I 11 t i 1 l lI l 1 II 1 oI z t t 11 i II 1 1 t 1 1 1 t 111t i 1 l 1 1 I III l i l 11 1 r''' d D 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I II 1 I1 I I 11 I1I11I1Ii ;IX !1idZQ0111111111I11111111111111 Q.p I I I I I 1 l l l i7{ . .II ; 11l1I11Il 11liIl 1I iC -. 0 1 I I I t I I I il ! roo 11 fI1I 1I ' WI " 1 ! 1I1I ",,f i I I I I 1 1 1 y Pa) 1 1 1 1 1 1f I1 1 1 1 11 1 1 u an1 __-0`} I I I I I I I I I ! I l I l l l l 1 1 1 1 I 1 I l I I I I I 1 l l l l l OO ioap'?II II ' lilt I I1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I1 1I1I1I I1I1l1l a l 1 1 1 1 1 t i 1 t i i 1 i i 1 i l 1 i 1 l 1 1 1t 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1mIIII1111111111111 ! I 1 1 I 1 I . 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 Ft" z I111t1i1t111i111111111111i11111111111 I1 1I111I1 11111f11111111111 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 I f 11 1 1 ! I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 T 1111II ! IIIIt111Ii11I1I 1111111I11111 t 11111111I111III111111111I C.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 f I 1 M V'11I I It It1IIIIII11111I ! IlI ! II . 1 . 1 . 1IIIIli111111111111t ! I --1 e- I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I01:rn Logen Ave. N I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I --,- 1yi111111111111111111i1111111111i11111illlllilillllill11111 J n I I I I I t l l l l l l l l l l 1 1 1 1 1 t l l l l I I I I l l l l l l l I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I tt"!II rns 1 1 1 I i I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I i I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 d 0 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ' l 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ave, N I I I I I I I , i I I I I l ) I t l l l l l l l y z 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I t I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 f I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 ; 1 i IOR'els Ave. kJ '.3. 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 l l 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 PcI. Ave. N e. 111111IIIIfI ! itl ! I11111it1I11111 1 t 0o Y 11 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pork Ave. N Park Ave. N t 1 1 1 1 1 l l ill 1 ' 1 c. a?1 S c911 u0\"JP.,. .L z pr;Ps Carden Ave. N a, Cam Ct. r' CDsa N 21,y vaPl ' Meadow Ave. NE ::;,.. 1` F11 s z i__.3 0I I I Jones Ave. NE z r. T Kennewick Z Kennewick 1 r J Lincoln o JN t:: Monterey'4 Monterey ) 1 n Monterey 1---1 1. •. ::S n p/ 6/9 Ave. NE `^V F— /"--` a vd A'F Aberdeen Ave. NE Aberdeen Ave. NE Aberdeen Ave. NEa' Aberdeen Q o. buy, z a z z 0 a a N y*if. Maine P.ve. Z z T Elaine Ave. NE CD :4 o Comas " w 34c0 .. i c iL:, 2. , en c."+ G r ' T f o n T -„ Dayton Doyton Dayton Dayton O _ Edmonds Ave en T , NE Dayton Arm I Edmonds 1•.> Ave. NE p a 7 2 Z no 1 n: a p CITY OF RENTON y_.......__._, Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 R I ' .' . .2 = U •5 2 3 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED f , E'$ ' v S 012:1a u SI* POIr**1 J t n- ramgJamesPeterson1;,,;r 111301KennewickAveNE Renton, WA 98056 limo' i H!OT DELI VERA S/ 1S ADDRESSE t" ; i•; 1NABLE TO FC co co ETURN TO si 4 tA, jA Ili 0 'abide 67 .'1. " li,i,illihii, IWiiii,i„iiiiiiiihiliwisi,i,iiihiluil{i CITY OF RENTON yi \ Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 4, 1999 TO:Intersted Agencies and Parties SUBJECT: Southport Planned Action Environmental Review Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of Supplemental EIS Project Number LUA-99-027, ECF Dear Reader: Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Determination of Significance (DS) for the above referenced project. The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee, at its regular meeting on March 2, 1999, decided to issue the DS because of potential impacts in areas of: Earth, Air Quality, Water (Stormwater/Groundwater/Water Quality); Plants and Animals; Noise; Land and Shoreline Use; Socioeconomics (Population, Housing, Employment); Aesthetics, Light and Glare; Transportation; Public Services and Utilities (Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Police Services; Schools; Parks and Recreation; Water; Wastewater; Solid Waste). SCOPING: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the Supplemental EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before 5:00 p.m. on March 29, 1999. A public scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m., located at the City Council Chambers 7th Floor), Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you are interested in attending the scoping meeting please contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, (425) 430-6575, to obtain the meeting date and time and to ensure that the meeting has not been rescheduled. APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance, in writing, pursuant to RMC 4-8-110E, accompanied by a non-refundable $75.00 appeal fee, no later than 5:00 PM on March 22, 1999, to: Renton Hearing Examiner, do City Clerk, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-6578. For the Environmental Review Committee, C isa Grueter Project Manager DsLTtt-Doe 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer e; O' I+ A + NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EIS DATE: March 8,1999 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027,ECF APPLICATION NAME: Southport Planned Action Environmental Review PROPONENT: Seco Development Inc(Rex Allen) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Southport Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to consid potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washingtc shoreline. Environmental studies will consider redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed ut development including residential, retail and offices uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone,and several development permits. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington,West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405.The propos is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations c the west. Access is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. f—Q `! rn.hins.nn P ITC e ita C• 1 EIS REQUIRED: The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the environme An environmental impact statement(EIS)is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c)and will be prepared.A Supplemer, Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is required which will supplement previous Environmental Impact Stateme' prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan. Materials indicating likely environmental impacts (i.e., scoping documc can be reviewed at our offices. LEAD AGENCY: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton SCOPING:The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the Supplemental EIS: Earth, Air Quality, Water (Stormwater/Groundwater/Water Quality); Plants and Animals; Noise; Land Shoreline Use; Socioeconomics (Population, Housing, Employment);Aesthetics, Light and Glare; Transportat Public Services and Utilities (Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Police Services; Schools; Parks Recreation;Water;Wastewater;Solid Waste). Agencies. affected tribes,and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the Supplemental EIS. 'r may comment on alternatives,mitigation measures,probable significant adverse impacts,and licenses or other appro'. that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before 5:00 p.m.on March 29,1999. A public scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m.,located at the City Council Chambers Floor), Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you are interested in attending the scop meeting please contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, (425)430-6575, to obtain the meeting c and time and to ensure that the meeting has not been rescheduled. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee • Development Planning Section Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental Review Other Permits which may be required: The SEIS will address the Proposed Action which includes: Adoption of a Planned Action designation Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and concurrent Rezone from Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential) Zoning Code Text Amendment Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan The Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA,for each specific development phase,would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. The process assumes that a final Master Plan and site plan(s) for individual phases as well as shoreline substantial development permit applications will be submitted at a later stage as a Planned Action. Application for construction- related permits from the City of Renton and other state and federal agencies, potentially including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404, 401 permits, stormwater discharge/NPDES, building and construction permits, etc., required for long-term redevelopment of the site would also be requested for approval subsequent to the adoption of the Planned Action approval. Issuance of these and other required development permits is included within the scope of environmental review for the Proposed Action. Since future development may qualify as a Planned Action which may not require additional environmental review, comments regarding the environmental review should be submitted during this scoping period and during the Draft SETS(when available)comment period to ensure concerns are considered. Requested Studies: See scoping topics for SEIS above. LOCATION WHERE APPLICATION MAY BE REVIEWED:Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: See scoping section above regarding scoping meeting. A public hearing before the Planning Commission will be scheduled at a later date related to the Draft Supplemental EIS(when prepared)and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone application. Land use applications submitted after the Planned Action designation(e.g.site plans or shoreline substantial development permits)may also require public hearings. APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance, in writing, pursuant to RMC 4-8-110E, accompanied by a non-refundable S75.00 appeal fee,no later than 5:00 p.m.March 22,1999,to: Renton Hearing Examiner City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 To appeal this Declaration,you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen(14)days of the date that the Declaration of Significance has been published in the official city newspaper. See City Code Section 4-8- 110E, RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. There shall be only one appeal of a Declaration of Significance,and if an appeal has already been filed,your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or may be dismissed if the other appeal has already been heard. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the above office to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. CONTACT PERSON: If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,contact Lisa Grueter at(425)430-6578. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PUBLICATION DATE: March 8, 1999 DATE OF DECISION: March 2, 1999 PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 24, 1999 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 2, 1999 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EIS APPLICATION NUMBER(S): LUA-99-027, ECF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Southport Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to consider potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Environmental studies will consider redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several land use development and building permits. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is from Lake Washington Boulevard. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required which will supplement previous Environmental Impact Statements prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan. PROPONENT: Seco Development Inc. (Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington, West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405 EIS REQUIRED: The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. Materials indicating likely environmental impacts (i.e., scoping document) can be reviewed at our offices. LEAD AGENCY: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the Supplemental EIS: Earth, Air Quality, Water (Stormwater/Groundwater/Water Quality); Plants and Animals; Noise; Land and Shoreline Use; Socioeconomics (Population, Housing, Employment); Aesthetics, Light and Glare; Transportation; Public Services and Utilities (Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Police Services; Schools; Parks and Recreation; Water; Wastewater; Solid Waste). SCOPING: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the Supplemental EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before 5:00 p.m. on March 29, 1999. A public scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m., located at the City Council Chambers (7th Floor), Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you are interested in attending the scoping meeting please contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, (425) 430-6575, to obtain the meeting date and time and to ensure that the meeting has not been rescheduled. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee Development Planning Section Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance, in writing, pursuant to RMC 4-8-110E, accompanied by a non-refundable$75.00 appeal fee, no later than 5:00 p.m. March 22, 1999, to: DSIG.DOC Renton Hearing Examiner City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 To appeal this Declaration, you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen 14) days of the date that the Declaration of Significance has been published in the official city newspaper. See City Code Section 4-8-110E, RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. There shall be only one appeal of a Declaration of Significance, and if an appeal has already been filed, your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or may dismissed if the other appeal has already been heard. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the above office to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. PUBLICATION DATE: March 8, 1999 DATE OF DECISION:March 2, 1999 SIGNATURES: ti6P 3/7. Gregg Zim man bmni afore". DATE r Departme t f PI nning/Building/Public Works 3)0it?7 Jim PShe herd, d istrator DATE Community Service Department rdL... .._.7 . . . . 1 Lee Wpeel r, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DSIG.DOC Lead Agency: City of Renton EIS Required: The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will supplement previous Environmental Impact Statements prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan. The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the Supplemental EIS: Earth, Air Quality, Water (Stormwater/Groundwater/Water Quality); Plants and Animals; Noise; Land and Shoreline Use; Socioeconomics (Population, Housing, Employment); Aesthetics, Light and Glare; Transportation; Public Services and Utilities (Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Police Services; Schools; Parks and Recreation; Water; Wastewater; Solid Waste). Scoping: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the Supplemental EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before 5:00 p.m. on March 29, 1999. Written comments should be addressed to: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 A public scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m., located at the City Council Chambers (7th Floor), Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you are interested in attending the scoping meeting please contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, (425)430-6575,to obtain the meeting date and time and to ensure that the meeting has not been rescheduled. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee Address: City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator DATE 473 HA7A7m 3/g-/.99 SHRTSCPE.DOC\ CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EIS PROPOSED SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION The City of Renton is requesting comments on the scope of the EIS for the proposed Southport Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). A more detailed description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives and those elements of the environment preliminarily identified for consideration and analysis in the SEIS is available from the City of Renton. Description Of Proposal: The Southport Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to consider potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Seco Development is proposing that phased redevelopment of the Shuffleton Steam Plant site be designated by the City as a Planned Action pursuant to SEPA. The Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase, would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. Environmental studies will consider redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several land use development and building permits. Preliminary plans for the Southport site include creating a mixed-use development with private and public amenities and recreational opportunities. Presently,preliminary conceptual plans would result in the following ranges of development: 543 to 581 attached multi-family residential dwelling units 38,000 square feet of retaillservice 500,000 to 750,000 square feet of office The uses would be developed above structured parking. Including parking levels, the heights of the buildings would range from 5 to 8 stories above grade. Presently, preliminary conceptual plans indicate that residential and commercial uses would be located in the northern portion of the site along Lake Washington, and the office uses would be located in the middle and southern portions of the site. Public amenities proposed include a boardwalk promenade at the waters edge the full width of the property that would offer opportunities for walking, outdoor dining, visual access to the lake and an extension of the lake walk at the adjacent Coulon Park. An existing dock would be retained and potentially enhanced to allow for guest moorage. The mixed-use project would be constructed in phases. Proponent: Seco Development Inc. (Rex Allen) Location Of Proposal: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is from Lake Washington Boulevard. SHRTSCPE.DOC\ SHUFFLETON VICINITY MAP O NI1 NiiGeneCoulonPark il Lake Washington i Shoreline 4.S' N c.. / 4. SITE O o 10o . c1 50 O i 4 0 o 0 o 0 0 f t o ru 0 z cu c-----A co Ca Neighborhoods Sc Strategic Planning Site boundary 0. ED/N/SP 0. Dennison 23 February 1999 0 400 800 1 :4,800 I 11 1 1 1 I II 11 1 1 1 1 11 1 f 1 1 I I 1 I I I II I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 . 7 N any 1a"ro 1 Il111t111111111I11lIlIIl1111111I11lIlIllllllllllllllllll11111I1lIIlI b a III11111111111111111111111111111111111111I111111111111I ( 111l1111111111 o II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 11 I II 1 11 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 ( 1 1 r'o p I I I 1 1 1 1 1 ! I I 1 1 I I 1 I II I I 1 I 11 I 1 I II I I II I 1 co , 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 Noroi I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I t I 11 I I 1 I II I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 11 I 1 W• Om II 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 k 1 i I 1 I I I 1 11 I 1 I I I 1111 I I I I I I 11 I I I 1 1 1111 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 A n Zoe• 11l111l11l1 ' II111III ! 11111111III i11l1l1 111lIlI ' 111lIlI ' 1p\,7 III , I III I t I I I I I I I 1 t [ I I I i I I I I 1 I 1 1 ap[/1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 I I III I }t},` I3I I I I I I I I l I I I G map O a ' IIIII11111111111 ' 11111lIl1l1llll ' IIIlII1 JI ! 1 ' 111111I1111I1111I1111 yC -I roC 11 1 I I III I 1 I 11 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1M,, I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I p a(lL 'Q N121 N 11111111111111111111 ' 1 ) 1I1111llllllt Illyi1l111111111111111 aJ-II I 1 I I I I l I 1 1 f I I ! I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m 11111 ( 1 I I f l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l l l t l l l l l l l l E II11111111I11111 ! 11111I11f11111I IiIi ii i ii IIIIIIIIlI1l11111111 m 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 11 I 1 I I III I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 z 111I111I11I11I111I 11 111111 Ili 1' I11111111111111111111111111 v1 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I c I I I l I 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 ( 1 I I 1 I 11 I 11 l 1 rt I l 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 i 1 I l l l III l 11 l l I l l l 1 1 1 1 l l l t l l •I I I ( I I I I I I II 11 , 1 I IPic^ II I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I III I I I I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I I , 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 I ' Illll ' Illllllll ' i ' 1l111111111 I ' I ' l ll I ! ' 1 ! 11111111LoganAve. N 11 1 1 1 I III I 1 I I I 1 I 1 t I I 1 I III I 11 1 II I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I 11 I 11 J A I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 II I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 I I I I I II I ti Witliorns 1 ill 1 ill 1 1 1 1 11 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ave. N 1 ! 1 11111111111111I11111111111111 ; 1I1I1I1 ! 1I111 rii Al z I ' 1 • l ' l ! IlI1I ' I ' 1 ' 1 ' I ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' I ' I ' i ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' I---3WedsAve. N I . I1 ! 11111 ! 1111111111111111 11 ! 11I1I O11111II111tII11 Pell), Ave. N 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I Qo I I I I I I I t I I I I I Park Ave. N Park Ave. N Ilil I III I t I a PI I I I Uo\` 1{oti. ji:?->> Gorden Ave. N a, h Carden , O r 3- Ct. VI Ud1 J l 1 ls1 f' Meadow Ave. NE 1.. z a 15 ir- 11 1 a,,n,,N N ro; s'' Jones Ave. NE 7 Os. t Kennewick z Kennewick 71 41 Lincoln I Monterey, Monterey Monterey r t9 F-+ Unse 6wo Ave.Are. NE `^ 1-- ;:; 1 Nf Aberdeen Ave. NE Aberdeen Ave. NE _ Aberdeen Ave. NECO6> Aberdeen O 4 O ?' ik( *.E Blaine ke, z, m ;, T Blaine Ave. NE c-IOt1;" v, g T Camas ' fltic. 1 Sc ) s r , Dayton Da ton Dayton"' T Dayton y Edmonds P.ve NC Dayton A 1 Edmonds Ave. NE O 5 J r z O nog-" Z ' n r l CITY OF RENTON r. Planning/Building/Public Works a G T. r; i; 1055 South GradyWayRenton Washington 98055 CID y414 t 7'9cisit1wQ .5 2 6 k ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED n' `: p r t.0`3 r 9 9 f G fl' - Pacific Argo Company 903 Houser Way North Renton, WA 98055 t 7n : l OT DELI VERA s AS ADDRESS: v, ifs' UNABLE TO Et a' RETURN TO A s Il,l„I„I,li,,,,l,i„{,I,,,11,{ I,I,{„1,i,,,11,,,{,l„{{,,,L{,I,{„{,f,{{,,,{ a © CITY OF RENTON7.41_____ __NA Planning/Building/Public Works 77 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED s-` , 03 07_, .L:iti n_'1 f'FE`.t]V1-ED '=;F}:a \,IN 5r 1 4. IWVYU' y I/ ` J V T 301 n 4 ,..... '' ,,7, , / afri'4 /1 181O5 JAMES E.PETERSON 1301 LINCOLN PL NE RENTON WA 98056-2853 NOT DELIVERABLEAS`AD 5RESSED UNA TO FORWARD NO SUCH# / ATTEMPTED,NOT KNOWN REFUSED INSUFFICIENT(DDRESS FT NO ADDRESS DECEASED IIVNCEAIMED_ BOX CLOSED, NO FWD VACANT_ NO RECEPTACLE_ INITIALS RTE# RENTON Q\'. c: p CITY OF 1 Public Works f' , r Planning/Building I I 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED I J a 1=LP1 'RE' OF.TEp SEA 1.f1{.I 781 a ue ywQ PACIFIC AGRO COMPOANY k.,N.,„. n , l PO BOX 326iC/ 4 RENTON WA 98057-0326 sa; E.; 1IVER r' t. . • ) . v a: en c)DREssi i,I,I,J,I,,,iI,,,I,I„11„,I,I,I,I„I,I,II,t,! ETOFG:, Cr' ! i .„0.1.9e. '/.:,a= 1 111 1 I I I I a r,• RN TO “.hts 6 0 CITY OF RENTON f-: 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 JAG 0 4'fi • f z n 9 n ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED fro,.f.: 't;, 5\‘‘.\(\ 61\ t(AS' ,,,Oib— 6,-',- (75-e-) ile—A-} ---- To E6 t,: SFNo`R v? t4ç9v s . 04- c4) 41 C4g:k4/1/1"t)VI' '' 14°' gtX f , goo. Dept. of Dev. &E ron. Services i J „ , V 6i) 9s2c Q Land Use Se es Division 6 3600 - 13 Place SE RPttp P WA QRnni-1 ann V G, ' NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED 1 1/1Atj bj)CA UNABLE TO FORWARD 0 0 CITY OF RENTON Il",, .— LL 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton,Washington 98055 Z0 .99z ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED iL"ialtpp U.$. Pt $TASE 40' 01 '17/)\ '-`1.jUI-4-'1-56(- 1 eicv m0)(1/I '' -- )e/(-1 if— City of Mercer I , d G,// j 6-?,0- Depart nient of Cginmu.: y,Dev p ent 3505- 88th-Ave SE A 7 C t) PQ'Box 440 2^,4 ierceyhsland`, ,A 9 -14 NOT DE" avw 11 AS AD rco UNABIt fARO ot ca' c.)/, T ..) cam% crc.r.a% 111ui1lii1,,ttrit111I 1t Iit11tllntltti1 111lt11t RETU4N R .. 4, -- a 0 CITY OF RENTON 02 IE - ".,7• , Planning/Building/Public Works i L-' 0 5 SEP 1 Ts 8 #a1055SouthGradyWay - Renton Washington 98055 V f 3 — E:,.;i vw 1 cJi '01.DW f] t ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Q a.4. 7204260 U.S. POSTAGE i 09 18 99 FM PRESORTED SEA WA 981 Ikuno Masterson King County, ESA Policy Office 500 Yesler Street Seattle, WA 98104 NO SUCH y nn s tqt T !, 4 fTt 4z t1 t 1 t1ff 1 i1j !! {( 1` !! ss tt 1!SiiETURN T :.s:r,u,",;::; 71 i-0' cG:.b? :. G I111,.1..Iil{Aliti1.11.ti,tilttilt{Illlisiii1,111,,Miiii1,1 p CITY OF RENTON ti* Planning/Building/Public Works JUN29'99 '!I 331055SouthGradyWay - Renton Washington 98055 NmETEA ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Zy; u.*. vosrwte p left no address WI such number _ F' 0 Attempted-Not knows r t k 0 k paii. cVe,s o I No ',VCH 6b6 E Sift Po i ADDRESS t 1 111 r I CAS I e C tYQP-E-- I RETURN TO ENDER R';,: / Z llluuill)II,illulliinitIlIlullguilmissillin I 0 © CITY OF RENTON o N 4 . A r t = `2 , ru Planning/Building/Public Works 1 ti a i t' " MAR 1 2 9 9 ?„9$0S1055SouthGradyWay - Renton Washington 98055 a 7.2 .. 3 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 0 3 1 3 3" F E : Il!'2 26 E s.436s At$ JAMES E.PETERSON 1 01.,LINcp N PL NE E T U f N -, O A 98056-2853 1 '' 0 WRITER-- arW LI ADDRESSEE ihKNO VN r., 44s ,6--..,—, , 11.1„1„idf,i,il,i„i „,11„,l,l„ii,,,l,i,1,i,.1,1,,,f1,1 lli .. r CITY OF RENTON ail Planning/Building/Public Works a T., o O " MAR 1 2'9 9 s.-io o* 41 5 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 w ; a,r cn cc s PrETE. I. ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 3 F D k6' N • Ids TM PHUNG T.PHAM 5512 MORRIS AV S 98086 a I RETURN Tri F,Nrw;i. Wci ', WI,r :S/--,-.., Iltl il,ti lltiat4i{illil„tI1iti{,IttIIt<<lLiIl f l,l i1 i N1iiiii t p CITY OF RENTON a. 7cti t.LL Planning/Building/Public Works o a 4 "E a T T 0 i: r 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 o . AAR t 2'9 9 ;' ca loci t:1 0 O b ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 03 R 1 9 9 t R F R E 5 4 R T f lul If•1 VA 9 E 1 0- r 4.4..14260 . POSTAGE PACIFIC AGRO COMPOANY PO BOX 326 RENTON Wq gg057-0326 o it E ... J,' S AbDRESSED a`iw sl ABLE Tu Fut`f1ARD GD c" 1ETURN TO SENOER a, b, + iittri •32.32- itltt,tt'alntt,tleeltitulielatlttlitttitlatlttillm1111 crn p CITY OF RENTON A r r<= -1 • IA Planning/Building/Public Works w ' c -y ' 1*** 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 0 ARA 1 2'9 S ;!^, e: - 0 ,3 ® 6 i s ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Of III 99 F C ittatt6J; 6.k. dickT1141* V) ,4 N • Re 'ona sit Authority '21 Second A ue,M/S 151 OSee, WA 9810 G Ate: ike Wold 4.`1 N^ "EIVERABIA c.E 67 " A. —RESSED at/w LI Ut.Aw_r.TO FORWARD CD CT> mjN4. Rf:''.'..1y To SENDER 6- VI y-: I I ItEI i ll„I 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 11,1L/ 11 1 II,I ilitlille l litlilt.,lli1 1i4l SECO DEVELOPMENT INC . 11009 NE 11r4 STREET• BELLEvUE, WASHINGTON 98004 TEL: 425/688-3085 • I'AX: 425/63 7-3 922 EMAIL: seco@secodev.com Facsimile Transmittal Cover Sheet DATE: TO: S • -eK TEL NO: COMPANY: /, D/ e`A/ 0.V Akei) FAX NO: ' . 7, FROM; _AC TEL NO: Number of pages to Follow: / S 9 r / 4, A1 49, A Ned- C/77L6.O fr1t 72O/1 o 1 iilf-a 4 ,6':>' /A- arc 4 96 A.e' ./;%1L10/IVA•r 54...>„)e mm j.t)&' Mr%• (./ - z, 4:2"/Y\T-1.°14 r : a I1JrroRd,gTtON CONTAINED H THANK YOU HEREIN REGIAPLF'HCl EVER, NO REPR.ESEN7ATJONOR TYAR NTYIS MADE AS TOTHEACCURACYHEREOF. 6 .i1 ' d 6LZV '°U ZZ61 -LE9-g 1U3Nd013A30 033S NdtiE : 1 6661 ' 0E ' M EiLE 1I la Imwmo.....amdiminime UTHPO SECO Development 11009 NE 11 fD St. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Rich Schipanski Huckell/Weinman Associates 205 Lake Street South,Suite 202 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Re: Southport Development SETS Response to Request for Information Memorandum dated 3/12/99(revised 3/15/99) Dear Rich: I am writing in response to the referenced memo and can provide the following information as you requested. Existing Conditions: 1. The existing shoreline consists of a concrete bulkhead at the water edge the entire width of the site. The easternendofthewallisinterruptedbyanintakestructureforacoolingwatertunnelwhichservedtheplant. Thetunnelentranceisprotectedbyaweirwhichformsatriangularshapeagainstthebulkheadasitturnsnorth along the eastern property line. The outflow for the cooling loop is on the western edge of the property andflowsalongthedockatthewestsideandthennorthwestalongtheshorelinetothepointofdischarge. PugetSoundEnergyhasrecentlyfiledanapplicationtoremovethisdischargetunnel. Adjacent to the discharge tunnel along the west property line is a wood dock structure extending approximately 200 feet north into LakeWashington. The dock was used by fuel barges which loaded fuel into surface storage tanks on the shore. Existing on the dock are some piping structures for the fuel unloading and a watchman's tower at the north end.In approximately the center of the water frontage is a wood dock structure supported on wood pilings. It isapproximately125feetlongparalleltotheshoreand20feetwide. It is elevated approximately 2 feet above theleveloftheshorebehindthebulkhead. To the east of the dock are 10 to 15 abandoned piles that presumablysupportedadditionaldockspaceinthepast. 2. Existing sources of light on the site are generally limited to the existing structures. The steam plant building hastallwindowsthroughwhichtheinteriorlightingshinesatnight. There are a few decorative lampposts on thesouthandeastsidesofthesteamplant. Some of the smaller outbuildings have exterior yard lights mounted ontheirwallsforlightingneartheirentries. Along the dock at the west end of the site are five existing polemountedfixtures. Adjacent to the intake tunnel entrance at the east side of the site are two high intensity polemountedfixturesandapolemountedyardlight. (See attached photos.) The Boeing building adjacent to the west property line and the PSE buildings to the south have exterior wall-mounted lighting. There are parkinglotlightsinGeneCoulonParkadjacenttotheeastsideofthesite. Proposed Action 1. The sponsors objectives for this project are attached. 2. A schedule is attached to respond to the issue of phasing of the development. Please note that the schedule and construction activities durations are approximately the same for Plan A and Plan B.3. A table with a break down of the various areas requested is attached for your use.4. The bulk of the retail space indicated in the proposal will be restaurant uses. The approximate distribution is asfollows: 12,500 square feet of quality restaurant, 12,500 sf of high turnover sit down restaurant,and 13,000 sfofspecialtyretail. Page 1 6 ./z ' d 6LZti ' °N ZZ61 -LE9-gZ17 1N3'Jd013A30 003S Nd9C : 1 6661 ' O€ ' M 5. A memo regarding pile placement is attached for your reference. The piles utilized on this project will be driven wood and steel piles of varying length between 60 feet and 130 feet. After some minor grading to prepare the site area and locate the piles a mobile crane is brought on site to carry the pile driver. Piles are driven by blows from a hammer until they reach the appropriate soil depth. Please refer to the attached schedule for pile placement duration for each building area. The number of piles required for the entire site is estimated at approximately 2000. We are currently investigating a proprietary grout injected pile system which does not require driving the piles and typically has a higher capacity which would decrease the number of pilesrequired. 6. Please see the attached table outlining the various impervious site areas. 7. Grading volumes on the site are estimated to be approximately 20,000 cubic yards of cut and 25,000 cubic yards of fill. These are preliminary estimates. The grading plan will continue to be developed 8. Exterior lighting for roads and walks would be mounted on poles approx. 15 feet tall. Some sign lighting ant the main building entrances is anticipated. The waterfront promenade would be illuminated by pole mounted and bollard type lighting,with the bollards along the water edge and the pole mounted luminaires placed closer to the buildings and in the courtyards between the buildings. Please refer to the attached information sheets for the general types and styles of exterior fixtures. 9, Passive recreational features will consist of benches and sitting areas lining the promenade and public plazas and courtyards with artwork which adjoin the promenade. The western terminus of the promenade is envisioned as a large public plaza with a central focal point which might include a water feature and a monumental signature identity element The existing children's play area immediately adjacent to the eastern terminus of the promenade will be redesigned to incorporate the connection between the project and the park,and new equipment will be installed. 10. Solid waste in the residential buildings will be compacted in wheeled carts and towed to a convenient collection point at each building location on collection day. Recycling containers will be placed adjacent to the solid waste compactor and can also be wheeled to a pick up location. In the office buildings a central compactor for solid wastc and containers for recycled mixed paper will be located in the service areas for each building. A waste management plan will be developed with Waste Management-Rainier,the local service provider. See attached service list and rate sheet. Let me know if you need any more information. Sincerely, 911:111 Rex Allen Project Manager Page 2 6 !i£ ' d 6LZtr ' oN Zl61 -LE9-9Zti 1N3Nld013A30 003S ;Vd9E : I 6E61 ' OE ' 14 V.144 41 ri r6,41 v QA0QThro ,` The SOUThrORT Vision... To create an architecturally significant waterfront gateway to the City of Renton. Office, residential, and retail will buffer and create a transition of the industrial neighborhood to the park. SOUTH PORT is sensitive to the marine environment welcoming visitors and residents to the shores of Lake Washington. 6I/ ' d 6LZti ' oN 2 6l-LC9-SZb 1N3Wd013A30 003S NdL6 : l 666i 'OVAPIN Mar • 30. 1999_ 1 : 37PM SECO DEVELOPMENT 425- 637- 1922 No • 4279 P . 5/ 19 o C C c c : t tl "- 1 6 5; . . co W 2 v is c- -• f m x . o CC]] g cl `-- ao y 2 2 o 6 a v 4 m 2. T it a C te W to m C- W m O y J ( 0 m w F `!! m O p _. IA 1t3 m . 3 t a r O_ a N - n O gals" m 3 c<sp N 10 2 C 47 ^ r g D D to C m ti a' - m A a3 vP0nii - S ro9. to A 02S 4 - o a y pI Ut s o d 3 a m s' R. Oo p, 0. w c 5 1, cn O o• $ 3 co m v 6. R ' g a C ' 7 o u J g co' O 3CP In E. Y• u, N I1 Is y• L-:., _*-...-.. f...... 1,__ a.__ i,...,.«._- i-,:,...._,._.- f____ •.:_ y--_.--.....-_.. .+- 1 r_ - i-. . ..'...-- a.,.._ 7: i--- 4- r• •-•••• 4-'- T--- i•••... 1-••• 1•- i-- e.,. w_...-_ i : : i , ice`.,_..- . I ! i ! 1 ! : 1 fr co 1.__,.. i.._._ 1____ tF-, j,..._, 4._. 1. -._. y.__.}_ ; y- }... w•••-• _._.. y. .,_- i- . tom..• i_-•.*.- i-. r. t..,. ti;_-_.- 3 i i ; 1 i j i t' , ; ; i > w- r-.- i- -.... t_,- i•. ./„_ t . i- 1--- 4-• ,._. l . 1•-.-. L- ,.--, -•_, T-- f_-..,,:...,..,`....... f t N 4....., 4.....„.. .;..... 4...... 4._ 1........ L...„..„ ,_. s•--- i--. i.,._..'..- y--•:..__• _, q, 1--- s-. iii.... f- I-- ._... 1.•-•- If.- r..__.-.. 1 ii e--- -- 4•-•-_}.--., I.. .._....-- i• - t-•- ...•. •-•- r-- i . i...._.---- t••••.._ i.. - . r.-.. ... w,.i *._ •.- j 1 i E 1 j i i j j : i I M i ! i h- it-- L- ! i ••--.!. f•-.- 5.`_.... 7...... y ,.-+-.- Y-- ." i,.... 1"' /.-.. L• ,,..- 1-.... i....-• 4.._.,.., ; 1,.^_ i_-- t--- 4- s.- 1 4,--. r'- i---- i..,: _ 1,-..-.}.... 4-_ ° y,,.. f-.-_ .•.. t-,,. a,.__:-_ 4...-.. f...... .-.- y....., i...,.-_-•_ ., i•-•- 4...-. t-_ -+ 1.._....- a:- -_+._ ..__ -.. 4 r. w.-... .'._ i-,».,-- -_ 1. .•._;-`` a i j I t 1 I I I , I G i 1 w. wi....,.. f.. r.•..... i_—. 1..—,-.-. i-..._ i isi.....! .. 1•^ f_—. 1`.•`_. l+- _. 1.._—••.._ 111 . 1._ _ ...... L. i_ {- .,,),-- r fib- 4.--.:-- 4- 4-- 4.. 1 _ w..•!! ,•-•-• 1---•! t i- 1 1.-__ i- i 1_ ! ! i x i.-.+.._". p,.... T._- __ r,{-_.•- T..-• r.....:.•_.. Ta,.••._,. i-__...^-! f+•... 1. 4.....) ' !.._ m• J.._ I 1 j ! s - i i I i i i i i i ! i i i o ,...o 7-__ i -. 5,,,- 1-• .! t-. a...._ i.,- 4• -.. r.-;..-.«-_ .. t i i--:,.- i.---!--. f.. . t_.. --- 1--- T---- r" ;..._. F_,- 1 I 1 _ i... 1 4 ; v M S i'--: --_,:. i---'+-... i.....-» - T-... f-•-... . 1•..- i--, i...----- 1--- . t•.....:.._..;...... tw,.-- ..-!..-` Z4 I i i j 1 . 1 , ; l i ! 1 ! _...-. 1 i i ! i N > i.--, w :._-. j_- 1.,. . i.--.-.. r_. Y..-.--_- e• t.• r- . i...-- 1.-...,+ 1..._ -._-. S•.,... -.:-- y_, i__+_..-«-..,.... Y.... a--- N 1 e.•-.- 1-. i . f,.. - r! wI 1... .. t. 1r..[_. c -_ i.- i » r _.- i _ 1.,.;. y_. -._. L_ O 1-..-:.._- F.. "— •••••:-. y'-._. --- i«_•. 1.. 1- 1 '- --,. 1.—' L•—._,.. 1...__ - tom-•—•- 1.• i-- I,- I- T-...,. 1 f- -.., w. i..._ t-... i•._.. i..-_ I---.,-., j,..,. 4-..:.--«..-.. r-. t••- t-- - p4 '-... 1.-.,- t- r.- 1-,- 4--- sr-- -, F-.. l-.-- t..-...-.,' - t_„.,;-- ..- . i.....;- i 1_,..; i_-- 4---' i'-.. ,.- 11- . 1----.-- i---!..._.^_- 4-•.- 1-.. 3...- G-- ti.-- i..-- f--- i«•- 1.'.-!'-";..".,. 1._^"- 3'._...._-... i••-. 3-..-_.+_-,,- ii iI i 1 i ? ? ! i i j : ! L i 1 j i-- i- i ! av 1 i , i ! ri , i ! i ; 1 i i 1 1 j i j j -- f- t---'- ".--- t-•_ 1•--- 1--- i-- i--•... j.-_ t--_:---!.... 1--'--- -.` 1^,. N,-^ 1- 1--,.. f••,..` i,_-+ i w.. wL •_... r.•..- + . 2-...-... n, i.....-:..+ 1 r. Z..... 2.._.. 1r 1•• r.. l...-. L._.. 1...—. y„_._ i•-. i+..,., tr..-{.-.... t_. .:-.... i._-- t---. 1--.- i•..,-,.-. ,.,... i-- f- ,-.,...... i---- i--- .._ i.._.. i--- f--- r---. i.--- a--^ -.- i j I I j : 1... i--+- 1--. i..-- t-. j_- e...... s__._,--- i-- i.•-+- Y- r---!-•". 4--- 1--- 1-_•.' i--'+ i-•- t.- i-•. i_..... i.-•-' i--- i--• ii I it i -.-.,;-._•;,.,,,_; -.., t_ ' j : ; -.--_ ,-"-÷ 71 i._' i__'-. i i ± ..«... i--- --- f-_' 1-. i-_, 4,.-. P..._{.-..-:•- i.,.-. ir-- i L--- y, I--... i : 1 .!__^ 1....- I..--. t_ I -'^. t-..- k.-.. i-"_.' e-,"-'" 1 T•--•--• j•--. 5._ •! - i-,.. L. 4-. 4-•-.•. j... '-.--..•..:..-..,- 1 5-.-_^" -:.._ ..... .... j•,,,,-' If 1 ! + i i i ; : 1 I i i i i 1 ' i { ! ' I i I 1 ! 1- 3 f•.----- i___.. w... .-;.._:-,... i,- t- t«.••- 1----..._.-.• s.»-•,"_'_... T.._...:.__. s-- i--. i_.-..- f-._.-..-.... L... 1_ i -.• j i ! i.__ f_.-:•-. _...... i..... j,_._.. i-"- t..__«.. v.- --_,-.,,_ a_-..._ i-.-_'....,. i,,,_. T;.._._ i...,.,..:.__. y..- f._,. ._. i.- i--.._., 0 a o-,Souflipo,f r-- Architectural Schedule N li0! 2000 2001 NM 2003 IA S OD11ASONDJF1JAJJAfMAMJASNJFNANJJASOMOJFMAMJJA1310121JfAAJJJo TaalclAe,e l l J I [J I i I l o i t o i l I l l l ( I I i I l I I l I I T j 11 ! l l l I l i l ! I I l I l l I Architect/Commercial I I ! t i ` } ! '_Ii ` i I I 1 ' 1 i 4_ -_•_•s_ : --..l_.1_ ' _.._..1_` t.... _......i....), 1,._....._1....1....1...:._.» .,).__i.... i.._..._. L....• I•-..1:.-i•-.._.'..... _I_._4'4. ._....I.--.. 32 Concept Site Plan t i t I I I t :1...I I } i {_.. .... r t f_._'1 -1n 3 Bulk,Height,Setbacks I 1 1 ( i...l. - ' i t T.. _..._ .. ...l._.i.. t T...[ ....;_. iw. i 1_.. -_..1 t i ......i....:._1..._ _.!_..ir....:..._.!._..1•...i._1._..._.;-._ ._..F...C.._;..._:._ 1-_I-_. i I _t_._.i--1. ..i_.f_ Building I i 1. i i i t - r I I i 4 1 1 1... ...._.....- !s 1 Schematics f._.. •1 i • ; ._..I T F f i i.....f.. r ,.._ _. t I i .. i K Design Development i I 1 1. 11 I_ 1 i } s j 1 f ' I I I h. i.....t.-. .... 1.. __. .1..._ . . r_.}_.. i...-t_ :.-._ Construction Document i .... I-... 1 1_. , __ I i 39 Per]nitApplication j_. 1 .. _.. ...{ .. _.i i._ '. l .. °.i i... E._. ....f.=. I._. ...f t _ N ]i Pile Driving I i _i. ..f... ...1 ...1...` . i.. ((( 1 _1.....i_..t. ._ lilt ' CV 1II1I j_}_ _.Y.` I9 1i i . r_.y_...,...--f_.......«., r._ .....,...1_...-...i}........-.}.........;.... d.._.+-_.......I._.1..._1....4...A_.1._r....' S... ._. f ii r-Building 2 r _ F- i s 1 i ' ` ' f .i Schematics HEEfE 1..-.•- -..*.-.._ i- _.t-. ....1....._ ... k... 1._ __ _. .. __ .....-. I. Design Development f_.t._. _ (_.I.....t.-.4--! 1.....i t._ _.. i _.f..., i ConatructionDocuments f. i._.... I.....;....i._*... 1....T...._..... -F- --—. }._..........I._. _ i l... _.}.-.1.. 1 i I 1 .....)._..._.' i I , i i i l j Permit Application I I ; t I °i_.. f _I , IiiiiiiI L 44 Pile DrivIng i 1 j , i i I r , 1 i_..# ! 1-jj T....I - -...... I 11 1 # i 1 I-LJt'r Building Construction t _1- 1 -1._I - . 1 _ 1 .. ._1.. 4._ j r... 1 I t f I ON Building 3 1__i_ ..-i-. -.I._L_.. -1--)....•_...*._. .-1..t_.!_- .. .__y..... 1.....*....} r....,-•_I-.-.r..• - s_._4-.*.._i..._i_.............:._.,....}._.._...:.....:....:._.. J g 1....3.. 1 '- 1... _ I ..1....1.. ° ..1 t......t.._.f..._f_.. I_: .i... l ' :-....; _i.....! . t_.. 1.-_i... i.._:LI Schematics fV i .. . ...,.._. f 1 i-•y._-i- l r _.1._. 1 i-_. 1._..... I 1 1_. . L" as i , - i E ! f 1 i I ! i 1 I i I 1 Design Developmer 1_. 31 ._ t....i._-... i--...._1_ i .i i... --•} 1 i .... 1•...:.i -I I I_.- s i.-.. t•.-'._F.. 1_.. _ t...t..=F_ i t 1_. o SI Construction Documents 1 t 1 ' f ' i i i ' _ - ! [ i f i I iL1J r... r_!. I _.4_..... HZt_± L_ ...`. 1 L I . t f t r ' '_ I i11 r _._`. r. 43 i'_; 1 fi ii... 1 i t11(I f... t.. r L_ 1 4-. _.-.:.... `......_: _. 1_^ .. t.....1... j_....c__.i.._. _ y.... j- S4Buitdn Cons ruction I , •+-_..1 I I.... t 1_.1 t f i 1 1t t 1._ ...1 . t g r t ( 1 ...{._-; . l i l t ? 1 j t i t } _....j.. , . . I , I 1 1 (1 . t j 11 a 00 CS, 1 CT,rn 0 cn t` P,g ect A.42413 Tact MAum„a • Ronal Up Tog Roiad UP Pic Dse Th. Pro7csa Summafy ^ Rated Up/Melons 0 Pop Southport- Area Summary Square Feet Acres Dry Land Site Area 620,300 Structure Areas Buildings 1 ,2 &3 Roof area 106,500 2.4 Parking area 57,600 1 .3 Courtyard 20,000 0.5 TOTAL 1 ,2 & 3 184,100 4,2 - Buildings AB & C Building A Roof area 27,300 0.6 Courtyard 7,900 0.2 TOTAL 36,200 0.8 Building B Roof area 42,800 1 ,0 Courtyard 16,400 4 TOTAL 59,200 1 ,4 Building C 1 Roof area 48,500 1 . 1 Courtyard — 18,300 4 TOTAL 66,900 ! 1 .5 TOTAL A, B & C 161 ,300 3.7 TOTAL STRUCTURES 345,4-00 7.9 Paved Areas Roads 105.900 2.4 Sidewalks 28,500 0,7 Esplanade 21 ,500 O.5 Plazas 19,500 0.5 TOTAL 175,400 4.0 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AI?EA 520,800 11 ,9 Landscaped Area 99,500 2 3 6 .iL ' d 6LZb ' N ZZ61 -LE9-OZti 1N3N1d013A30 003S ',, ,N1d6E : 1 _6661 ' OE ' ael • Mar 24 89 02. 47p 4; 747-8561 P• 1 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS INC MEMORANDUM 13256 N.G?fJtA M.(No Thup Ray) Soils 16 Mime.wT 911035 To Seto pLt ref • R 11+7.561 R Attn. gri A/lry aaa• l of z From D.t• 1--.ci 2y /191 Pro).ct l,Pori w 990 17Joeueobor Sub)oct Prc.);-,:....r p4S >. 37 -/flZZ3PG,.. LtcS Fa>< Nutwbor YZS TL.. Erik 4 cD ptl. ra-Q'1 Cy.tq,J4 ... `&plc_ 51/1) S lj 5AI, sa ( W A ca.;H-• ) wi?1. i l sf Oi.e /Ayr oC ..ce q..-eic,.,•se_ to c)ehse_ s4t,a _ k&e_sc so;b "crc Jesse Vet) e::iekse c1.J sdf4 Set _ JJ J Deep ror.,4ca io0.5 Arroar to Le- U,e ,osf 4.rt'rorr+411C J-C(r. for S.-4 or of [lie re5,0eti}.o1 £l m+.•.erG o) b...1c}1 S) To J` T r nn .5lays cd..1A r roL J 41.7e oii-j ra ) bK 4.k c io 2" ,of sc fl er.ctif rckrt,.,e /o 1L. 1,-.4,1 es 54o..lc1 L txr Zelej. O ti c s laL 1-jj}. reciesirrAti Arcas 1;v: sre_c res,c e>`,LA)) rd1c.;1 or jr,) raw 4Al2'Au1 Pik5 pre(erA1 J Jr;.-)u, (I; er) cJecl, or m-c,e{e) ins}411e .,, ,e ,.ec1 ti..- etise .as. A.. ..11o..-lc cti "' 1,,,L,la Lt Ad.:suable sdL pikes 6rryDx. 8" E;,o) - l-/;4cr eArxmci/;cs 30-35 1a.,,> slo..l4 be Pns::(,1e, wi}I, 51e4 P;re r;1e5 1104.07+ i . A;4.,efer of ie. 71.e lc.. 0 etr L&c p;1es will l;keij Y rj 13et ace4. bG 4 J € O ['cc+ o.. 4ke rbrfl, a e- :fa or 1.1.0 s; e. P:lc is es ac. 61) & 74> tree- Are- c..,}: Pa}Ca o not e r oT Ile- s,L•. cc:L)C6.')(a..;h W;lje,- 1'U5,1 YSS ZavirAt) FI , ' F17b 'OU 77F1 -IfQ-C7b INgNJrinlghqn O'qc Naf ; 1 FFFI ' nrieNl Mar 24 99 02. 47p 4 747-8561 p. 2 A Of 11 GEOTEf H 13256NE20d,S roc.,Suite 16 Bellevue,WA 98005 P.O. BoxACO4SULTANTS, INC.T WA 9Ra01206-747-5618 FAX 747-8561 206-621-5990 FAX 627-2114 MEMORANDUM JN TO Sr par n 7 ofAGE a_COMPANY DATE VADDRESS FAX PHONE SUBJEC r 1 rAel P I .`rt7 _'y ter r; f f se:j, 1.1147k. S.`t1L LLA 4 463 L.. cai, bc_ r L. 1 t1 s r ar 5 abler. D w:E t P k...r ,a - f T7 _ Gip rT n-r;47e r 7 Sw A• 17 I I/ f y j_TQ f iy:S.G 1 rT i ++147144 /Svc L J ' f 1 irh 7 t r r c(/c PL11SGOd Q J aafric-2:Zic.L_ Cc: • 61/6 d 6l?.b ' oN 776I -1E9-Gl,b IN3Jd013/130 003S ;l' '] : 6 ' ? a '1` 17-1AR 18 '9 9 e 8:36AM 4-ATTL TG COMM (206) 6Z4-563- rrtAirl , •• I: 1 cLT - •ar - --i< 0 4•c e to any landscape design. • - from dome,con-.• c- -• -I cap style in 4 black.bronze,white..green.limestone,or sandstone finishes.Durable construction from die-cast aluminum louvers to a ca_st aluminum anchor base means long life and low maintenance for this very attractive light. ing system. CL81 CL83 CL82 CONE TOP HEX TOP DOMETOP r I 1--; I— (203 cm) —18- S. DOMETOP203cm) IO.S cm) At\ A46\ REFLECIDR: right white diffusion. 4 1 ab,1 1, LOUVER:411.i pw 17 i't',...e'aluminum.0.188'thick..4.• „ i .•..••da a !..1 ar I IC-— Light cut-off.5°below honzontaL11il• 4,:aii 1 P. i ''. L____ GLOBE 41-1/2* "Th' it Tempered ribbed gloss,giosketed 005,1 or) ...,,,a11‘L. grid floating(pressure held). 11.4...,,. SET SCREWS(3): Allen head,Stainless. 1,11t ;Pi', Loosen for remmfoins. 0,• ei:•..- lir,°•‘''. -sik.N. 11r4.,..144., L. 1..'..?.":'*\Y• ik y,41-,:,,.12,...f.; 4 , i 01' ,.,'""'"-- -- 1 1.4 V•,,.,'1...4.: - IS.,,..1.ni Z:::.1'4'.'''1... 7..'-. 0,Ki...P. -,-.AL r • 4.'1'-4'• -kr, )7.4.,....*.......N>d t.;,:,',.0,riv ' A13:41):: BALLAST:s Potty),prewred and tested I-LPE4....,:f.1..,,•.;;;AW.Liedt. %, , ,, 7,')...".:i1;•';":,!'-210..,-Arit 'r : Alt: 1., g.EcTRI CAL CHASSIS:1.,:;;...:.•;: ri'r•ir,e'r '43`..e u — ()charmed red(0.090)supports ballast t.'"';. t.i%ii: :-, .-44 2 equrpmeric werh @AV;&connect v•, , • . ,..,, ",..,..41 0 tamp,uL ca approved 4::,?.. .,-......-....s_ ,,r.. . ..,•$k1 IDA _ LOWER HOUSING r?...:•',...iziei1,I: .„4.174*: :'---c' x' 49°0.D.x O.I 2.5" s • ii!"':4,;:.!:; :4, :i. :c wall cartoon. f•:',4..f,',V,:e:,444'. •,17;••••,-67'-.4f 1/4:'..;'.:;';•!':7. V*'4 CONDUIT STUB: c.:,'. ...:-:'•?:;1•171.....,, .c.,LI . Ey oihers).i 1'r. :-014.4:"-' 5' 2-4°1 Ai., • ' 4.1%.4,U51?•. :','"-•t- ANCHOR eASE 3:izgo.r1/4)-,*-;%!I— Dle-cast.aluminum.avixdocic. it,V.):3"1, 1*, v!"" ....- r r.' :.., ': .i......'•47•.,..•,;7:4'., 4.',..4 A.• f.".".„.y.:74,0•:'•:: , .., 1;. '.: 3 .i..i.,..,i,;:?. ....;.,,,r1-.4-,... ...A.• 4= 3., .. to0::- "'3:.•,*•Az,.az:4W ...,„,• 1, i.L'" ,, ';:init , .,„., 1 I ANC.HOR BOLT: t'..-.. .?.:Ii .171;‹,,ir • p.3317'-dlo6.illotiNt!Cci,14'sohn26zeci 11:$'f,V1k.4ilt,,, e-55,*, .4:1-..4.14;x.V7?'• ,'. e,..4;:.::k./00...g„.L__. '."! 71,0e.F,/7-‘, ..'i:,.....1.,?eke ,444.1',,.. ' 1:: 1:1. :,...,t.1R44.-.•*.r C DOLT CIRCLE:c, ;•:;...1,."...,4-...... txttL4':'.:i.q:erIPP..44.4.75•rta.ref1.4tci•Al;:q.r... • ''''',.."-. 1.i" % ,-% ...i 4",T TEMPLATE;(not 1,0 scait)A,;:nt4i•izi‘ .•. 6 tSt ', . (Use factory supplied1 ., c,r.Z.:410,;„11'.,Nc.,..L. . \ ', — template only)0 r.:,{..,44,fEr., iry-,, r"*.74. i •,t,.CA4. 1 CONDUIT AREA:t •,.-.s.• t•f.:".-.11',i';' ;+e$•tii.)14s1= '„..,. j.....:',....'-4,....i'4:1,4...:ft-,4111.7%.„: kk,..'4.1.....*•-' 0/ or.,4,,,t?op 6, 1,"•:i';'''':1."'r.'r 116.4,,Nt., C:.:4'. 7'' '"$!61r4or e•••••••'SI:.4.1%!e4P:tt. IIIit ., .. . ' .4 . gt.,,,,,..$.,...V. 2 • I'st••,c • •.I.'i: 1•,1,.4 +37411A,I . si 4•"\liliAns.,,,i 0 ' :•.:••••'.: A%.E.•••;1,' gi,1;.... i•. t mi):1:03,.irt 1.,:ilI 4,s . .,.••••:.ts,, ,r4,- 4044,,,,,L s 7.,I.,•'•zel'..-•resift•A611.1.;:a;•::. , 61/C1 ' d 6LZIroN ZZ61 -/C9-GZ/ IN3Nd013A30 033S 11 d6C: 1 6661 'OE' leiN rit-tm kr; • eIt l:.jVH11 5LH 111— • TG COMM (206) 624-5639 P.3i7 FEATURES T1ge---.... __•-_..._._ . .....___..._ ._. ..... HOUSING—Extruded,one-piece aluminum,0.156'wall thickness. Catalog number.__.,..•._,._•Top cover is a weldment of .156'wall extrusion and 0.250'top r plate. When lowers are used, top is secured to housing with three concealed Allen screws.42'overall height standard. 110nRCII Architectural BollardsENCLOSURE—Clear,seamless 100%virgin acrylic,1/4-wall,flushfitting.Gasketed fluted glass enclosure,when louvers are used. I(B (8GASKETiNG—Closed-cell EPDM. LAMP—Use coated lamp with Metal Halide sources. OPTICS—Hydroformed,fluted, anodized,aluminum upper reilec 8" Decorative Round tor combined with spun aluminum,anodized,flared cone is scan-70/100W METAL HALIDEdard.Cylindrical lower reflectors or cast-aluminum louvers also available. BALLAST/ELECTRICAL SYSTEM—High power factor ballast 100"Jr copper wound and factory tested for reliable operation.Electri- ca components are tray-mounted with quick-disconnect plugandareaccessiblethroughbottomofbollard. FINISH—Standard finish is dark bronze(ODB) polyester powder,electrostatically-applied and oven-cured. Other colors avail- srableasoptions. ANCHOR BOLTS—Four 1/2'x 11•with double nuts and washers, shipped separately).4-1/2'bolt circle template included. SOCKET—Porcelain,vertically-oriented,medium-base pulse-rated socket with copper alloy,nickel-plated shell and center contact LISTING—UL 1572 listed for wet locations and CSA certified(see options). a- L.- Weight 70W 31.01bd141 kg 100W 910 lbs/110 kg ORDERING INFORMATION Example: KBC8 70M RS 120 SF DOBChoosethebo$fece cstrtelog nomenclature man seat suds your needs and w•@e It on the appropriate lilac,Order accassortee a separate catalog number. 1(BCa T I Series j ( Wattage J r Reflector 1 [Voltage 70M 70W MH 9 J ` Options JlStandardRatedCone120ShippedInstill/ad is fixture Arc$iteetural Cetera(powder finish'mom 10oW MH RS Type V distribution 201 SF Single fuse 1120,277,347Vurn+p rat tnqusea Optional CYlind ical No only,not available with TB) bronze r Colors Reflector 277 CIF Double fuse(2011,240 only, 008 Dark bbronzee(standard) DWHwhkeCYASpecularAlzakr347notavailablewithTB) CYB BlackARak 11E HTA Overall height 24' DEL Black CYG Gold Alrak 4130 Overall height 30• Classic Colors CYF Flat black s Overall height 3C OMB Medium bronzeNa Louvers FD Festoon outlet DNA Natural aluminum, LV Cast-aluminum lowers FG Ground-fault festoon outlet 0S2 Sandstone Sit Scribed Ion laGC Charcoal grey CR Corrosion/esisam finish DTG Tennis green CSA CSA-labeled for shipment to DBR Bright red Canada (120.277,347V only) DSB Steel blue Accessories NOTES Fteld.nstalled,Order as separate eatal 1 Alzak ie a registered trademark of AI.COA.op"urttber. 2 Optional multi•tap ballast(t20,VA Ise,277V1RISHafl-Shield for 8-round' 3 Not available wish IS option. e Aodklonal architectural colors ausilaele;please sea paint brochure. fr. L/THQAft41 L/GHT/NG SPECIFICATION OUTDOOR UGMTiNG 155-KBC$ 6li'l f d 6LZti ' ° N61 -LE9-9lb 1N3N1d013A30 033S NldOt : l 6661 ' OE' 1e J ntHt< 111 -yJ FAH:H-(Hri ATTLfN . COMM 06) 624 Jr— P.47, 1';+..i I our • _ syste ez ntem- porar • ,gn with roof lines and metal detailing rerni- niscent of another era.It is a style that interacts well LARGE TECHTRA with many architecture environments and can be seen complementing railroad stations,waterfronts.and LU M I N AI RE boardwalks. CAGE Cast aluminum guard CF7P SOCKET: Porcelain,lamp by others,etNr-- , REFLECTOR Specular aluminum 4;..:1: h I S_ wth 0-IS degree tit allotment. Ilj i+. WI°okxrurwm1. 1: ..: • a•, t.,• i I tBE: U,Y,stobh7ited,polyeprflonare. it- 1 CAGE TOP,liJ'P 4)keyhole slots to remove s„;rope for relampng.)__ o ( Cost aluminum. w: BALLAST: I Factory pm-wired and tested. BANDS:" as aluminum. POST FITTER I Sspps inrw o 4•pole and a I attached with stainless S,steel fasteners. f t WIDTH: I.27 3/4" (703 an). HEIGHT: i-r` '' ' 1.f.Ni II285/8' (717 cm). r .it .- .s U. . s CAST NECK: Welded to housing s. Ili BALLAST: FoctarY prtw4r4 and tested nig I BALLAST HOUSING Case aluminum. ICAGE TOP. iv—i. g)keyhole slots to remove cage for relamping, r. REFLECTOR: I; ISpew/or aluminum, rot Owith o-IS degree ok adlustmcnt I LOWERS: s 1 Spun olumfium. IIIIIII IASOCKET: WIDTH: 1Portelan,temp by otttcr i 27 3/4' (70,5 an). i HEIGHT: GUARDsoI CAGE: Cot 30 3/4" (78.i cm). t aluminum. I6 61/Z1 ' d 6LZl ' °N ZZ6l -LE9-5Zb 1N3NJd013A30 033S "ld017 : l N6661 ' OE ' aey`J rIHK 1 •yy Uri:37RM SEATTL c ' ,TG COMM (206) 624-5639 PP.5/7 11111 Pole top luminaires with clear 6 impact resistant DR acrylic enclosure,Die cast aluminum louvers painted white Die cast aluminum fitter and four-rlb cage. Sib tits 3"0.0.pole top or tenon. Color:Black or white. Lamo Lumen A 19 9789P 2 18W PLC 2500 273, 1331 MSS 1 70W E'17 HPS 6400 2714 13 6 9898MH 1 100W ED.17 MH 8500 27.4 133/4 Poles for above luminaires-see page 217 SEGP. 179 61/El 'd 6LZV ' oU ZZ6l -L£9-OZti IN3Nd013A30 003S 6661 ' OE ' ael r1RR 18 '99 00:301:1M SEPiTTL' ' TG COMM (206) 624-5639 P.6/7 7. V.. 7— F_ Pole top luminaires. V Heavy 1/4'thick aluminum disk att_aq:1,... I I supported by stainless steel struts. f 9 i Clear acrytic enclosure. v C 1( Electronic ballasts for compact rI 1; fluorescent sources are Standard I' for-15'F starting. Siio nts 3.O.D.tenon, a•I i Color:Black or white I Note-8102.8103 recommended I t for polcs12'high-io;fl06HA or T ,. 1108HA.S1OS•8106 recommended for poles16"high-le.916HR or 1508HA•See page 217. I I ' 1. mp Lumen Color A B 81O2P 2 26W PLC _ 3600 31'1/225 s S103MH 1 70W ED•17 MH 5500 31 A 25 8105P 3 27W PLL 5400 39V4 301/2 8106114H 1 100W ED•17 MH 8500 39'/4 304 Poles for above luminaires-sec page 217 c SEGA 1,67 i 61,'til 'd 6LZ17 ' °N ZZ6l -LE9-5Zti I0d013A30 033S "ldlt : I 6661 ' OEHE'h MAR 18 '99 08:38AM SEATT TG COMM (206) 6.2475 P•7'7 Luminaire delivers subtle, glare-free illumination: available in two Stepped steel pole features double welded transition and flush handsizes.Lower housing is cast aluminum alloy.Precision formed reftac- hole. Luminaire is available from 50 to 250 metal halide or highforis'hnished on the inside with a high reflectance white paint to pressure sodium. Standard finish is automotive quality enamel inenhanceperformance.Standard internal louver is available in white matte metallic silver, dark bronze or black.Special colors availableacrylicorspecularaluminumwithoptionalhousesideshield. t ; POST TOP B-PAPA BfiACKET C.-TRI BRACKET till 1.1 Fl _ lid. mot F , . 31.T 111 --. - IIITh1 I4.`,......,/ 0-TRLWALL BtACKl•T F-PARA WILL BRACKET I IIIJ:JiJ I T Iw vo ita e... i 41,tc„1•J I VALENCIA MODEL INFORMATION etudet Limp Pale Mounting AC600 70 PIH/HPS 8•-10' A-B-C-D-E AC800 250 MH/HPS 12'-si' A^B-C-D-E hess -nericaCOLI9TEO AJJ1 UGttTIPG GROUP COMPANY Specifications subject to changewithout notice. e39 Washburn Switch Road Photometric data•See Technical Section. P.O.Box 630 6 Shelby,NC 26151Poledimension:pie nominal Phne+v 7n4.471.22" c•-••^••:7'^^^^ A1,'Cl ' d 6L7ti • 0N ZZ61 -L£9-9Zti 1N3Hd013A30 033S V'ldlti : l 6661 ' 0£ jey'1 Mar-17-99 12 :38P WM RA ER 2433(P_ O1 WASTE MANAGEMENT FAX 'I'R.\NSN1ITTAL 15Y- 51A41--C1-6- 63511 S 143RI) STREET TI'I;\\ ILA., WA 98168 PHONE \1 \fl31 R (206)243-.11)50 FAX NUN 206)243-33ct) DATE TI\IF NO PAGES• I INCLL"OING COVER) TO:`1) ; Cp-t v -aL FROti1 J'lI( 1 C0N11(E\TS F YOL' DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF I';-!E l'AG S. PLEASE CALL US AT (206)24;.4o5o WARNING. This niessa_"e is iutcndec s':tlt I..r!Itt,•!I•:of tht:i ideal or entity to a hick if is•iddresscdandrttii ;ainailt information ih:u is pntd c ' rnlie1 i :lal and,venipt for discloser;;under la i. If ionarenottitsintendedr;re.i teal_ i::1.al Ilwt au uu dis:sntin:unon or.copin of thisp u h:;h: n connotitit.atton is strictly prcluutted. It t.'t, ;t: 1: J1\ l !his coin 11llniC:itj<it in error. pieaa !IsiriiiecJiatct) by telephone:rtd return this••i imi; II ::__ tt: ;i: :ti ;1_:Ihute address t::i;hc PostalScrvio: Th:utfi :rc. d 6LZ17 '01\1 ZZ6l-L69-9Zti 11\11\1d013A30 003S 1Nd1 : l 6661 ' OE ' apytl Mar-17-99 12:38P WM RA (ER 2433 3 P_O2 WASTE MANAGEMENT - RAINIER CITY OF RENTON EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST, 1999 1 Can 12,55 1 x Month N/A_ 2 Can 19.95 2nd yardwaste cart 64,62 3 Can 26.90 Extra units (15 gal,) 3.70 4 Can 34.30 Return trips 3.00 5Can 41.70 Each add. 25' N/A Mini Can (10 gal.) 6.00 over curb service Senior Mini Can must call city-varies Disabled Mini Can 6.00 l of -6)-.00 Cans 3.00/per pickup Each additional can 3.00/per pickup Min. Mo. Charge 4 cans 12.00/month r ;71,57 1[77, _, 4.00. .;fix > r so rc....2 , li, .' , O4Ei 3rRrrf is > a YW f a M, i' t r.: 90 gal cart 0.00 0.00 $10.40 45.07 84.94 127.41 1 yd 17.00 7.89 $14,35 70,07 123.15 180.78 1.5 yd 17.00 8.65 $20.20 96.18 171.59 253.06 2 yd 17.00 9.79 $25.05 118.34 5211.73 312.70 3 yd 17.00 $11.25 $36.25 168,33 304.18 450.66 4 yd 17.00 $12,28 $47.40 217.68 423,08 628.48 6 yd 17.00 $20.44 $66.45 308,39 596,34 884.28 8 yd 17.00 $24,99 $94.15 432,97 719.19. $1.066.29 2 yd compactor 3 yd compactor 173.75 4 yd compactor 196.75 6 yd compactor 213.20 Minimum monthly charge per container. 4 pick ups plus rent M... ... . ° 0 w „ b , o... :e lei aii 4yd -Del.$24.65, Daily rental $4.50/day, Per pu $85.20, Deposit $100.00 61/Ll 'd 6Llti ' oN ll6l -LE9-Olti 1N3H013A30 033S bNdlt: 1 6661 ' OE ' M Mar-17-99 3,2 :38P WM RA; ER 2433C - -P_03 WASTE MANAGEMENT- RAINIER CITY OF RENTON EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST, 1999 41...I7'h f.l.CkJik S ••. ;':4,...ha : 1.F., `«..'+ i.i i'ia.::,tr 1,..• a s, :'*!-^? N ,yAS ,, . i,ec>+c 'F,>taa.2s 7.1 `e vr;?y\ g s:.': .:,.o .. 10 yd N/A N/A N/A 1 d N/A N/A N/A 20 yd 24.65 $62.31 $94.15 2 hauls Per Month Minimum 25 yd N/A N/A N/A 30 yd 24.65 $76.66 $105.90 plus $82.50 per ton 40 yd 24.65 $94.48 $117:20 Sas v:eaw. of fc.;.. > _ 10 yd 121.80 20 yd 121.80 2 hauls Per Month Minimum 25 yd N/A 30 yd 211.50 40 yd 282.00 plus$82.50 per ton 7.05 per yard Industrial Services (Boeing) Compacted 20 yd $143.40 per pickup 40 yd container open $110.60 per pickup Loose waste $5.50 per yard r , ti ,y.. -`im r r+e1r c.` e 7T.,-ii,PY:wwtaZ7r.is?4 'Av ., ;NI., ,4it,.r•.:AAvA53iy?'''' ...'' w` .ii:j.U.tlii.h:w t= y;, .nto. ? ;as w' ,i,,, r^ fail. „tm,w, <Stix X,x,i F 9:A q as e61,, `. a \ rc 10 yd N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 yd 4.98 $24.65 $133.30 500.00- 25 yd N/A N/A N/A N/A plus$82.50 per ton 30 yd 5.70 $24.65 $164.30 800.00 40 yd 6,42 $24.65 $195.65 1.000.00 Pi Com'I can distance chg (over 50) 3.00/occurrence Opening gates/Unlocking Containers 3.00/occurrence Hydraulic and electric disconnects 10,00/occurrence Return trip 10.00/trip Rollout over 15' 3.00 Container must fit on property or a street permit may be needed'-" i 61/81 'd 6LZr°N ZZ61-L89-9Z17 1N3 1d013A30 003S 11dZ17 : 1 6661 ' 08 ' ,I N Mar-17-99 12:39P WM RA ER 2433( P_O4 WASTE MANAGEMENT-RAINIER KING COUNTY EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST, 1999 t174. . w . sRti.i ,T ., A i,QMp+'.:'8M.}:'r : :' A v ^ -, P"! nQ Vry[/ r,t: 'X4sR 9 .4., e`....aw,!,. ;' ri ax•, p,p4 a r- vgd{' Q# pk.R:n p.43,m o . • ?r. or>C..: V )riY re.5N6_' v,•" twee: 3i .•.' Y :i :>)11 t:s 2-x06b'i'£:F L, I.: k •w ': F 4 ' s 90 gal cart 1,50 3.00 14.50 27.50 40.50 1 yd 3.30 5.90 28.87 54.43 80.00 1.5 yd 4.40 8.48 41.15 77.89 114.64 2 yd 6.05 $10.05 49.60 93.15 136.70 3 yd 7.43 $14.16 68.79 130.15 191.51 4 yd 8.53 $16.71 80.94 153.35 225.76 6 yd 13.20 $17.77 90.20 167.21 244.21 8 yd 14.85 $21.88 109.68 204.48 299.29 1 !7"7ii.z i `Y .?,. an. :N i•'v,• `. N. Z) `'•1' y, Nh prS !. vy. y.:4.•'f.,-,-, , , ,X.y 4 a • ,- of y y `lM .aY N[Jl1YN t`> ` J ; i--I- - O 'CO toC e 17, y, 7n'VI p «F n, Z.'{ h It YA?, 'CrC yy M y- t >>.,=ti 4 ci>a s ss t..+ o,c• 0) !uV in 1 7 G g:ex ' x.• C>cp+ . d E» R a r ,, <' 4 uss T, i, ,e s. ;e,Y- ir, ;,,A z t a iae a. is1lily'" y C 4„, .. s K '..sT r"\` o.i,'.s:>nc r .. ,.,,,,-•.... w' :usC* 0•V. . s_. rsaa at 'cS^ '{r s 90 gal cart 1.50 3.00 14.50 27.50 40.50 1 yd 3.30 5.90 28.87 54.43 80.00 2.00 1.5 yd 4.40 8.48 41.15 77.89 114.64 2.00 2 yd 6.05 $10.05 49.60 93.15 136.70 2.00 3 yd 7.43 $14.16 68.79 130.15 191.51 2,00. 4 yd 8.53 9.23 48.53 88.52 128.52 VARIES 6 yd 13.20 $12.92 69.19 125.17 181.16 VARIES 8 yd 14.85 $16.62 86.87 158.89 230.91 VARIES 104?, Wi''rt ./ iG ya d al•, T . yi Fit-l^i 9 C„ . ay yqyuaGate 7 ^(ox '''' yi,14, z,.., 6EIlii.,"-75 'tN, ; o/Aeg ld P > rge e 90 gal cart 1.50 6.92 31.49 61.47 91.46 r... ar,V 6G,is.l 4,XI' ' `C sk R^s``, }y`a>;i :: l F.fC^ I k ';Kr tsy ti (y t aa_•¢lsi`I4 ss c a;°.]` rtw s. W,. s Yfo s A'7' r)'..x.:.Sha2C!'9"I''': Y x x50VV' Cf" 4X1g i 5 'r`", Dt µ s a; 64 gal cart 1.50 5.88 Y" 26.98 52.46 77.94 1 yd 3.00 9.47 44.04 85.07 126.11_ 2 yd 5.40 $16.51 76.94 148.49 220.03 3 yd 6.80 $23.82 110.02 213,24 316.46 4 yd 7.80 $29.57 135.94 $264.07 392,21 6 yd 12.00 $37.83 175.93 339,86 503.79 8 yd 13.60 $48.53 223.90 434.19 644,49 61/6 ! • d 6LZ1 '°N ZZ6l -LE9-gZ/ IN3k1013A30 003S NdE47 : 1 666l ' 0E • a41 i rz rictwiED ' Q nutzs . 6 tom io l/ rc? G .- ,;. . 4; (- e--z si e-sef, eS 86 -v/ h h r 4,- i 1 jli i 6 i Q di fai 0-s!cY % MAR 2 9 '999 N.r° SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION/SUPPLEMENTAL EIS SCOPING COMMENTS THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDS-MARCH 29, 1999,5:00 P.M. RETURN COMMENTS TO: CITY OF RENTON ATTN: LISA GRUETER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/NEIGHBORHOODS AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY RENTON,WA 98055 PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY NAME: ADDRESS:3304 di //i/ViRCE , /a_iv N 9d11 rc COMMENTS: a, TIJ SF &/JLD)/'/(z.S A,D1.CE/%/ 7 11LF Ake, Leh/lE WALL FAc%yc 7/if ii4RK:' I) G THE CareMIEIZCWILATtlI L £SABLLSHME. oil GRai1LID Rook Linuco CBE AR Aa' FQair 77/s P, s/Pi Walt!) lit e• I3E Aariis F /tea i OAK (GAYE yS) ? L 1QLJLD L3 7 S MACK FRS r &El< Dazi /DAB' /43 WOULD An/Y L JThLDOW S OR S<win14 GL 45.5 Doeilis OH ThAY lvR4i, Safii&Cf r 4JVDA4/S/4 Filattl Iiig P, e vii// " Is ilif IIPPQQxln WEIGH?' OF 1 f 80ainiq IthLO/AlG 76 Ti</k Jii f cc 71( S/ 1 Noci [Abu, 7 C /ROP05(D io S9OR 131//LDIl/G 5 Co/fPA1 c LR - I i I I 1 1 PUBCS.DOC\ SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING March 23, 1999,7 p.m. City Council Chambers SIGN-IN SHEET NAME/AGENCY ADDRESS PHONE# DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK? I 7 37/S r ALP 5 33 i/E1/ rw/ l 25 j- 173I e5 0D 3 ti ?1'4 0-a4)T 7 7/ PUBSIGN.DOC\ 0 III SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW March 23, 1999,3 p.m. City Scoping Session,Human Resources Training Room SIGN-IN SHEET NAME/DIVISION EXTENSION CA% -1-1-0/15 al_ dal6e/t I/ 7 1 15 L $ /]ôrn3b Utz/,fie 3 7c 31 X 7 248 t.t (ek AFZAL\72. 45 eerrt.e_m 7 is ptA.eks /FIke, 702 4i ad Ma 4ti Try -- 7 a 2 e5 e 3etldck____ lEets thlq' c v ri PS'k C61+.M sz cr' 6- 0 Aykow kitviti.... tthfo., Visitlei 47 >31-1-10 RN C\A SC\-4 faVdAs. - ill/iAbnrnx•,C425) 520 -46 3 4 ---(-- 0 M hs-Y-Ai - ti 1 CITYSIGN.DOC\ 4110 0e2-7 SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW March 22, 1999, 1:30 p.m. Human Resources Training Room SIGN-IN SHEET NAME AND AGENCY ADDRESS PHONE# E-MAIL o Arc., Atipmdid AGNSIGN.DOC\ OM Lisa Grueter From: Leslie Betlach To:Lisa Grueter Subject: Southport EIS Scoping Date: Fri, Mar 26, 1999 3:20PM Priority: High Lisa, Please see attached doc. Also, I spoke to Kate McKinstry and faxed a copy to her as well. Please call me at x-6619 if you have questions. Leslie File Attachment: SOUTHPT.DOC> > Page 1 43) IP CITY OF REN'_TON Community Services MEMORANDUM Date: March 27, 1999 To:Lisa Grueter, Planner From: Leslie Betlach, Parks Director Re: Southport EIS Scoping Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Southport EIS Scoping Project. Following are elements that parks would like addressed as part of the scoping process: 1. Setback requirements of the development along the common park boundary. There are two (2) issues here: a. Mature oak trees along the park property adjacent to the proposed development. Proposed improvements should not encroach upon the root zone. Typically new construction (structures, fill, etc.) should remain outside the dripline of the tree in order to minimize impacts. Recommend a certified arborist look at site, proposed improvements, and make recommendations. b. Building heights will impact the amount of sunlight that penetrates the Park property. Vegetation will be impacted as well as the play area. Sun/shadow analysis should be performed. 2.' Trail access along the waterfront to Coulon park. The Play area should be re- master planned by a licensed landscape architect as part of the Southport project so the new connection does not direct pedestrians into play area. 3.Parking impacts. The Southport Development proposes utilizing parking attendants and paid parking within the development. Coulon Park does not charge for parking. It is likely that the park will be impacted due to people using the park for free 401/11 Southport EIS Sco inPP g Page 2 3/29/99 parking and then walking to the Southport Development to conduct business, participate in retail shopping, etc. 4.Impacts to the Lake Washington Loop Trail located along the Lake Washington Blvd. due to increased traffic flow. This is part of a regional trail system that ties into the Burke-Gillman Trail system. 5.Impacts to the traffic flow to Coulon Park due to increased traffic flow to this development. In addition, there is an easement area with the railroad that will need to be shared with the park users. The easement area is located between the Lake Washington Blvd. and the Park/Southport entrances. 6.Impacts to the increased use of the Park facility due to the development of the Southport project and trail connection. 7. Impacts of the proposed secondary emergency access for the Southport Development through Coulon Park needs to be addressed. Recommend that this be included as part of the re-master plan of playground/parking/road access. a.Impacts to play area - no vehicular access through play area/increased ped. flow into play area through point of secondary access. b.Impacts to drive and south parking lot. (Potential for stall removal) c.Impacts to trees and vegetation due to road construction. (Potential for tree removal/injury). See above comments re; certified arborist. d.Impacts to park as this will create more public access into the park area. 8.Impacts to primarily after hours security to Coulon Park and the Deptartment of Natural Resources Property. (Site of potential future trail connection). 9.Provision for trail connection to the Department of Natural Resources Property. Recommend a licensed landscape architect look at trail connections. 10. Provision for utilities, maintenance and recreation easements through the Southport Project for a continuous pedestrian trail from the Department of Natural Resources property to Coulon Park. 11. Consideration for a unified trail connection utilizing design elements from Coulon Park to the Southport Development including: benches, litter receptacles, walkway lighting, bollards, drinking fountains, tree grates and guards and plant materials. 12. Impacts on the shoreline, Bird Island, and Coulon Park Coulon from potential boat traffic to the Southport Development. SOUTHPT.DOC/Southport EIS Scopingiv3n9,99i934AM 411SouthportEISScoping Page 3 3/29/99 cc: Jim Shepherd, Community Services Administrator SOUTHPT.DOC/Southport EIS Scoping i v 3rz999,9 J4 ens CITXF RENTON AlMol Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Planning MPSusan Carlson,Administrator Jesse Tanner,Mayor March 25, 1999 Rex Allen Seco Development, Inc. 11009 NE l lth Street Bellevue,WA 98004 SUBJECT: SHORELINE SETBACKS FOR MIXED USE STRUCTURES Dear 1 n: Sue Carlson and I have discussed your latest conceptual plan in relation to the shoreline setback. Sue went to Carillon Point and paced setbacks from near shore buildings to the water's edge. The minimum distance was 30 feet,but the setback was typically 40 to 50 feet. The building facades undulated. Where there were fire lanes in the near shore area,the distance was 30 feet between bollards. Your proposed setback of 35 feet from most structures is an improvement over previous plans as are the larger plazas in two locations. We are concerned that the eastern promenade connection with Gene Coulon Park would decrease to 25 feet - can this be modified to allow for a more "inviting" connection to the Park? In deciding whether an administrative determination is appropriate for mixed use structure setbacks and to ensure the SEIS analysis of land use/shoreline impacts is addressed, it would be beneficial to have the following information as soon as possible: Provide a plan at 1"= 20 feet or 1"= 40 feet for an area extending 100 feet back from the shoreline and show the connection to the Park trail, placement of lighting standards and benches along the entire frontage, and other shoreline promenade improvements along the entire frontage in order to show how pedestrians, emergency access vehicles, and the commercial uses would utilize the space. Leslie Betlach, Parks Director, has suggested in comments that the promenade incorporate Coulon Park architectural amenities (benches, grates, waste receptacles, plant materials, lighting, handrail details)to create a smooth transition from the Park trail design to the Southport design. We are more comfortable with the 35 foot setback than 25 foot setback of course, but once the detailed shoreline frontage plan is prepared, we can better assess whether the 35 feet can adequately function for all its intended purposes or whether a larger setback is warranted. We realize that you are still at a conceptual stage moving towards a more specific planning stage,but this issue will affect site design to a significant degree. If an administrative determination is made, it would be published with the SEIS. If you have any questiens,please contact me at(425)430-6578. Sincerely, C>Z) Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner cc: Sue Carlson H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\S HUFFLTN\S ETB KLET.DOC 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: MARCH 25, 1999 TO: LISA GRUETER FROM: NEIL WATTS /V i W SUBJECT:TRIP GENERATION VALUES FOR VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL USES In the EIS for the Southport/Shuffleton site, a no action alternative considering development of the site with its current industrial (IH) zoning is to be evaluated. This alternative could be evaluated several ways. This memo is a brief summary of the daily trip generation rates for different potential uses under the industrial zoning for this site. Land Use Rate Basis (per) Daily Rate Range General Light Industrial (110) 1000 s.f. floor area 6.97 trips 1.58 to 16.87 Acre 51.80 5.21 to 159.37 General Heavy Industrial (120) 1000 s.f. floor area 1.50 0.58 to 1.84 Acre 6.75 1.66 to 25.01 Industrial Park (130) 1000 s.f. floor area 6.97 0.91 to 36.97 Acre 62.90 13.8 to 1272.6 Manufacturing (140) 1000 s.f. floor area 3.85 0.50 to 52.05 Acre 38.88 2.54 to 396.00 Single Tenant Office Building (715) 1000 s.f. floor area 11.50 5.33 to 35.68 Descriptions of these uses, from the ITE Trip Generation Manual: General Light Industrial: Light industrial facilities usually employ fewer than 500 persons and have an emphasis on activities other than manufacturing. Nevertheless, the distinction between light industrial and manufacturing is sometimes vague. Typical light industrial activities include printing plants, material testing laboratories, assemblers of data processing equipment, and power stations; all of the facilities surveyed were free-standing and devoted to a single use. General Heavy Industrial: Heavy industrial facilities usually have a high number of employees per industrial plant and could also be categorized as manufacturing facilities. The distinction between heavy industrial and manufacturing is vague. However, heavy industrial uses are limited to the manufacturing of large items. Industrial Park: Industrial parks are areas containing a number of industrial or related facilities. They are characterized by a mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse facilities with a wide MARCH 25, 1999 PAGE 2 variation in the proportion of each type of use from one location to another. Many industrial parks contain highly diversified facilities - some with a large number of small businesses and others with one or two dominant industries. Manufacturing: Manufacturing facilities are sites where the primary activity is the conversion of raw materials or parts into finished products. Size and type of activity may vary substantially from one facility to another. In addition to actual production of goods, manufacturing facilities generally also have office, warehouse, research, and associated functions. Single Tenant Office Building: A single tenant office building generally contains the offices, meeting rooms, and space for file storage and data processing of a single business or company, and possibly other service functions including a restaurant or cafeteria. An administrative headquarters office building is allowed in the industrial zones, provided these offices are associated with a primary permitted use on the same site or a contiguous site. The office uses may be developed in conjunction with, or subsequent to, the industrial use. The office uses may serve the administrative needs of employees company-wide including those employees located on other sites. I suggest examining an alternative that includes an administrative headquarters office building in combination with an industrial park type use. This seems the most likely scenario to occur on this site under the current zoning, and would also result in the greatest amount of traffic generation. The actual traffic analysis will be based on peak hour trip generation values, rather than the daily trip figures listed above. These values were use for comparison of the traffic levels between the different potential uses. cc Lee Haro F f MAR 2 9 'g99 CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 25, 1999 TO: Lisa Grueter FROM: Ron Straka SUBJECT: Southport Planned Action EIS,ECF-99-027 The following are the Surface Water Utility comments regarding the scoping notice for Southport Planned Action EIS. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Earth: The potential for soil liquefaction during seismic events needs to be analyzed and compared to the type and intensity of development that is proposed. The potential for liquefaction and associated structural mitigation measures, may dictate the type and size of structures that can economically by constructed on the site. Potential for erosion from the site during construction will need to be evaluated in the EIS and mitigation measures identified. WATER RESOURCES: Stormwater Drainage/Runoff: The primary concern with runoff from the site will be water quality. The direct discharge to Lake Washington, without peak rate runoff control (detention), is allowed for this site since it has lake frontage. However, water quality treatment for impervious surfaces subject to vehicular uses should be required. All runoff from the site should be treated prior to discharge into Lake Washington, even though the site is developed. The site has not been in use for a number of years. Therefore, there has not been the pollutant generating activities on the site that will be present following redevelopment,which justifies the need to provide water quality treatment from the whole site. Be advised the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife may require stricter stormwater drainage standards to be met as a condition of a Hydraulic Project Approval Permit, if required. If the project has to cross Johns Creek,the existing culvert crossing may need to be improved for flow conveyance and fish passage. If runoff from the site will drain to John's Creek, impacts to the stream and associated habitat enhancement mitigation measures may also need to be considered. Shoreline Habitat: A wetland inventory of the site should be done as part of the EIS to confirm if and/or where wetlands exist on the site. If wetlands do exist on the site, that could affect the development proposal. Lake Washington Shoreline is designated Shoreline of Statewide Significance by State TS SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\ROCS\1999\FILETWO\99-199.DOC March 25, 1999 Page 2 standards. The shoreline on the Southport site is designated Urban. Commercial buildings must be set back from the shoreline 50 feet unless a variance is granted by the HEX (4-3-090L.5.d) Residential development structures must be setback from the shoreline 25 feet. There is no proposal to provide a buffer along the shoreline due to the fact that the site is already developed. The City could demonstrate its commitment to protect fisheries resources by requiring the shoreline to be restored with a buffer or other mitigation measures. The fisheries research is showing that most of the Chinook and other juvenile salmonid species are found in the near-shore habitat around Lake Washington's southern and eastern shorelines. Fisheries: Due to the importance of the near-shore habitat, the applicant may want to consider integrating some near-shore habitat enhancement into the project proposal. The project will need to evaluate its impacts on Endangered Species. Due to the listing of Chinook Salmon under the Endangered Species Act(ESA),expect a lot of attention to be focused on the project shoreline area, especially if a Federal permit is required for the project. If a Federal permit is required or Federal funds are used in the construction of the project (buildings, streets, utilities), then Section 7 consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service will be required as part of the permitting process. If you have any questions regarding my comments,please contact me at X-7248. cc: Lys Homsby V J L J J J IL t v v v r v J T J V ,J V V J J V I 205 Lake Street South,Suite 202 Kirkland.Washington 98(133 Huckell/V1/einman Associates, Inc. rr: "2;'v,- 6. A1:(2S)828v861 E•1naiL'hw:u ruil.hlcvon.com FACSIMILE COVER SHEET TO: FROM: D COMPANY: DATE: C 1 of Re.ni,,., 3/2 /5 RE 5 Pc,- OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER PHONE/FAX NUMBER: PROJECT #: C135 ") 410 • 736L9 URGENT 0 FOR REVIEW 0 PLEASE REPLY IE HARD COPY TO FOLLOW COMMENTS: 03-23-99 [2:02PM FROM HUCKELL WWE[NMAN ASOC TO 943073009907 P002 Land• Use 205 Lake Street South.Suite 202 Environmental and•Kirkland.Washington 98033 1 1 Regulatory Analysis 425)828-4463 kitin nA FCOnOmicsFax fa25)82B-38SAggig, Ilu islative Research and Drafting F.-Mail.hwaiP.mail.halcyon.com MEMORANDUM- March 23, 1999 To: Rex Allen SECO Development cc: Lisa Grueter City of Renton From: Rich Schipanski R5 Huckell/Weinman Associates Re: Southport Development SEIS As we discussed at our meeting at the City of Renton on Monday 3/22, the following project information will be included in the project information package to be provided by SECO Development by Friday 3/26. 1. A description of all over- and in-water structures to be replaced or removed, including the surface of docks, will be provided. This description should include a description of the condition of the existing material, reason for the proposed replacement or removal, and a description of the proposed replacement material. 2. A description of the potential uses for the dock, including water taxi and gi lest mnnrage, will be provided. In regard to guest moorage, a description of the anticipated parameters for guest moorage use (i.e. length of moorage time allowed) should be provided. 3. A Conceptual Utility Plan illustrating proposed water, sewer and storm drainage systems on the site will be provided. A brief written description of each system should also be provided for clarification. A separate plan showing the existing water, sewer and storm drainage systems on the site will also be provided. 4. A description of the total number of parking spaces for each proposed land use residential, commercial, office) and a comparison to applicable City of Renton parking olatiJdIJa ivt carat type of uas will be piuviJeJ. If ttut iii Uvilipilallt;G with ariy requirement, indicate what process required for approval (variance, administrative decision) It was indicated that the preliminary geotechnical feasibility study by Geotech Consultants will be provided to us by Wednesday 3/24. The description of the No Action Alternative was discussed and it was decided that the No Action Alternative will consist of two sub-parts. One will involve no change to the comprehensive plan and no redevelopment of the site; this will provide the traditional baseline for EIS comparison. In addition, the No Action alternative will consider the type and level of 03-23-99 12:02PM FROM HUCKELL I'FINMAN ASOC TO 943073009907 P003 4 industrial redevelopment that could occur on the site under existing plan and zoning designations. Industrial redevelopment of the site will be considered to be a continuation of the type of development at the adjacent Boeing Facility and will generally consist of 100 to 150 foot high buildings placed a minimum of 25 feet from the shoreline edge. Approximately 90 percent of the site will be considered to be impervious surface. Entranco will analyze the existing access constraints to help determine the maximum number of vehicle trips and corresponding building square foot assumptions. Unless we hear differently, we assume that these assumptions are acceptable to the City and the applicant. As you are aware, there has been a delay in receiving information given changes to the conceptual plan. Since our schedule to complete the EIS is extremely aggressive, any delay is critical. Once we have received all relevant project information, we will advise the City as to any anticipated delays in the schedule for the preliminary Draft SEIS. We expect that any such delay will be on the order of days rather than weeks. 2 tifY o CityofRenton v 4R .: DEPARMENTOFECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, o NEIGHBORHOODS, and STRATEGIC PLANNING Date: 3/22/99 Sixth Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 TO: o,,V1 115 FROM: 1Uu1/ rc'vvvm"<' CjtU 61)Tewt Phone: Phone: 425) r,—( F, p Fax Phone: ( ) L, Fax Phone: (425) 430-7300 a ISUBJECT: I Number of pages including cover sheet r^ REMARKS: Original to Urgent Reply Please For your be mailed ASAP Comment review SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED ACTION SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING DOCUMENT City of Renton Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division Economic Development/Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Department March 8, 1999 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE &REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED ACTION SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS) INTRODUCTION The City of Renton is requesting comments on the scope of the Supplemental EIS for the proposed Southport Planned Action. This document provides a description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives and those elements of the environment preliminarily identified for consideration and analysis in this SEIS. Scoping: Agencies, affected tribes and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of theSEIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts and licenses or other approvals that may be required. All comments must be received by March 29, 1999 for consideration in the proposed scope of the Supplemental EIS. Written comments should be addressed to: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 A public scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m., located at the City Council Chambers (7th Floor),Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you are interested in attending the scoping meeting please contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, (425)430-6575, to obtain the meeting date and time and to ensure that the meeting has not been rescheduled. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Proponent:Seco Development Lead Agency: City of Renton Preliminary Scoping Document 1 Southport Planned Action DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Seco Development is proposing that phased redevelopment of the Shuffleton Steam Plant site be designated by the City as a Planned Action pursuant to SEPA. The Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase, would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. The Proposed Action includes: Adoption of a Planned Action designation Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and concurrent Rezone (from Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential) Zoning Code Text Amendment Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan Process assumes that a final Master Plan and site plan(s) for individual phases as well as shoreline substantial development permit applications will be submitted at a later stage as a Planned Action. Application for construction-related permits from the City of Renton and other state and federal agencies, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404, 401 permits, stormwater discharge/NPDES, building and construction permits, etc., required for long-term redevelopment of the site would also be requested for approval subsequent to the adoption of the Planned Action approval. Issuance of these and other required development permits is included within the scope of environmental review for the Proposed Action. To facilitate the City's consideration of the Planned Action designation and environmental review of implementation of the Planned Action, a conceptual redevelopment plan for the site will be formulated. The Master Plan will provide conceptual information on potential mix of uses, building density and height, access/circulation, recreation and open space opportunities and other development features. Location of the Proposal/Site Area The site is located along the Lake Washington shoreline, between the Boeing industrial complex and Gene Coulon Park. (vicinity map attached). The Southport redevelopment would occur on approximately 17 acres. This acreage also includes about 2 acres of water where the property boundaries extend over Lake Washington. The existing building area of the Steam Plant and ancillary buildings equals about 100,000 square feet. The proponent estimates that the existing development and improvements cover more than 90% of the site with impervious surfaces. Preliminary Scoping Document 2 Southport Planned Action Master Plan Features Preliminary plans for the Southport site include creating a mixed-use development with private and public amenities and recreational opportunities. Presently,preliminary conceptual plans would result in the following ranges of development: 543 to 581 attached multi-family residential dwelling units 38,000 square feet of retail/service 500,000 to 750,000 square feet of office The uses would be developed above structured parking. Including parking levels, the heights of the buildings would range from 5 to 8 stories above grade. Presently, preliminary conceptual plans indicate that residential and commercial uses would be located in the northern portion of the site along Lake Washington, and the office uses would be located in the middle and southern portions of the site. Public amenities proposed include a boardwalk promenade at the waters edge the full width of the property that would offer opportunities for walking, outdoor dining, visual access to the lake and an extension of the lake walk at the adjacent Coulon Park. An existing dock would be retained and potentially enhanced to allow for guest moorage. The mixed-use project would be constructed in phases. The proposal would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and concurrent rezone from Employment Area-Industrial/Heavy Industrial (EAI/IH) to Center Office Residential (COR). The intention of the Center Office/Residential (COR) designation is to create a compact, urban development with high amenity value, that serves as a gateway to the City. The zone is written for specific districts of the City. For example COR-1 applies to the Stoneway Concrete vicinity, and COR-2 applies to the Port Quendall vicinity, and some of the development standards vary by location. A new COR-3 zoning text section would need to be prepared for the Southport site. The zoning would be similar to the other two COR zones which allow flexibility of use combinations and development standards which encourage redevelopment. The zones typically require Master Plans although the procedures vary. Relationship to Remediation Process Environmental investigations at the Shuffleton Steam Plant are documented in three reports: 1.Final Environmental Site Investigation, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility, Renton, Washington, prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated April 15, 1996 by Hart Crowser, Inc. 2.Remedial Action Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility, Renton, Washington, prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated December 6,1996 by Hart Crowser, Inc. 3.Final Sediment Characterization Report on the Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility DNR Lease Area, Renton, Washington, prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated November 7, 1997, prepared for Puget Sound Energy by Wineman Environmental Consulting in conjunction with Hart Crowser, Inc. Environmental Cleanup Summary: An environmental site investigation was performed at the Shuffleton Facility in 1995 to identify the nature and extent of chemical contaminants present in site soil, offshore sediment, and groundwater. As part of that investigation, an extensive site history was developed, including a series of interviews with site workers and research of historical records. A potential for releases of chemical contaminants were identified on several areas of the site as a result of that study. Subsequently, a Phase II sampling plan was developed to test site soil, sediment, and groundwater for a broad range of potential contaminants. Preliminary Scoping Document 3 Southport Planned Action In 1996, 71 soil samples were collected from borings, test pits and surface soils. Heavy range petroleum hydrocarbons were identified in over half of the sample collected in a variety of site locations. Eight of those samples contained total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) above the cleanup standard. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected in two samples at levels slightly above the residential cleanup standard. Lead was also detected above residential cleanup standards primarily in surface soils around structures that had been painted with lead-based paint. Some arsenic was discovered in railroad ballast materials. No volatile or semi-volatile priority pollutants had been detected at levels of concern. Asbestos fire-brick was discovered buried in several locations and the asbestos content of the surrounding soils was above levels that would be protective of human health. Freshwater sediment samples were collected in the adjoining harbor area. No contaminants were detected at levels exceeding screening criteria. The concentration of contaminants detected in the sediments were below those found in other areas of Lake Washington, the Ship Canal, and Lake Union and other areas with treated pilings. Shallow groundwater under the site was characterized by installing nine monitoring wells. Results indicate that except for naturally-elevated levels of arsenic, no contaminants were discovered in site groundwater above the State cleanup levels for drinking water. Site Remediation Plan: In late 1996, a remedial work plan was developed to remediate those areas of the site where contaminants (primarily petroleum, lead and arsenic, and lesser amount of PCB and asbestos) were discovered above cleanup levels. That plan was implemented in late 1998. All site soils were to be cleaned up to residential standards. Eleven areas on the site were identified for excavation of contaminated soil. As of late January 1999, 9 of the 11 excavation zones were completed. Over 700 cubic yards of contaminated soil had been removed from the site for disposal or treatment. In addition, demolition of four site structures was called out in the remedial work plan. These include removal of two large above ground storage tanks, removal of the site railroad spur and removal of an underground fuel pipeline from the former tanks to the pumphouse; these activities were reviewed in City applications for environmental and shoreline permits. The remedial action is scheduled to be completed by March 1999. Following that, a cleanup action report will be submitted to the Depattinent of Ecology for their review and expected designation as a no further action site. Since the remedial action is nearly complete, it is anticipated that the issue of on-site hazardous materials will not be a topic of the Supplemental EIS. Licenses, Permits and Necessary Approvals The following permits and approvals may be required for phased redevelopment of the site: City of Renton: Planned Action Designation Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Zoning Code Text Amendment Master Site Plan Approval and individual site plan approvals by phase Shoreline Substantial Development Approval Shoreline Variance or Conditional Use, if applicable Conditional Use Permits, if applicable Variances, if applicable Clearing, grading, demolition, construction, building and mechanical permits Roadway access approval Parking and Loading Regulation Modification Preliminary Scoping Document 4 Southport Planned Action Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority Washington Department of Ecology: Hazardous Waste-No Further Action Letter NPDES permit approval Shoreline Substantial Development Approval Possible Shoreline Variance or Conditional Use Water Quality Certification Coastal Zone Management Certification Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Hydraulic Project Approval Washington Department of Natural Resources: Aquatic Use Authorization US Army Corps of Engineers: Section 401 and 404 Permits if needed US Environmental Protection Agency: CERCLA/MTCA Clearance All other licenses and permits required to allow redevelopment of the site under the Master Site Plan. ALTERNATIVES CHOSEN FOR ANALYSIS In addition to the Proposed Action described above, alternatives to be considered in this EIS will include the following: No-Action -- Continuation of some form of industrial use of the property. No comprehensive plan amendment nor rezone of the site would result; Design Alternative --This alternative would also feature a mixed-use development. Primary distinctions from the Proposed Action would include reconfiguration of the location of residential, commercial and office uses where office, and mixed residential-commercial uses would be located in the northern portion of the site, and office and residential uses would be located in the middle and southern portions of the site. Total units and square footage of building space would be similar to the Proposed Action. Other major infrastructure elements would be similar to the proposal, and phasing of development would also be similar. EIS APPROACH EIS Required -- The lead agency has determined that this proposal could have significant adverse impacts on the environment. A Supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) to the Comprehensive Plan EIS documents is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. The SEIS is intended to address all probable significant impacts that would occur as a result of redevelopment to the mixed-use center. The EIS is intended to provide a sufficient level of detail and analysis such that further environmental review under SEPA for each specific development phase will not be necessary, assuming that each phase is consistent with the Planned Action designation. Since the analysis will address a major Comprehensive Plan Amendment, this SEIS will build upon previous environmental documents prepared for comprehensive planning efforts conducted by the City of Renton, as well as documents prepared for nearby sites and resources. Some of the documents that will be consulted and incorporated by reference, as appropriate, into the analysis of this EIS include: Preliminary Scoping Document 5 Southport Planned Action Proposed Land Use dement of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Draft and Final EIS January, 1992 and February, 1993) City of Renton Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan Supplemental DEIS and FEIS December, 1994 and February, 1995) Shuffleton Complex Soil Remediation, Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated, LUA 93-072, ECF, June 1993 Shuffleton Tank Removal, Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated, LUA 96-103, ECF, September 1996 Shuffleton Soil Remediation, Determination of Non-Significance, LUA 98-115, ECF, SM, August 1998 ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT The lead agency has preliminarily identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS. Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts as a result of construction and operation of the proposal and alternatives will be identified and evaluated for each of the following elements of the environment. Mitigation measures will also be identified, as appropriate and warranted. Natural Environment Earth: The site is generally flat with a slight topographic slope toward Lake Washington. Typical of industrial sites in the vicinity, the site has been drained and filled with sands, gravels, and demolition debris over the years. A site-specific analysis of soil, and geologic conditions will be prepared. This analysis would primarily utilize data provided in previous documents. Applicable maps and cross sections will be provided. A discussion of applicable geologic hazards will address the sites'potential as a seismic hazard area. Anticipated building construction methods for development of the site will be described. An evaluation of the anticipated impacts of proposed construction at the site will be conducted. The potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts will be evaluated. Any limitations of the sites' soils for grading and for support of structures and roads will be described. Construction de-watering issues would be discussed. Finally, any risks of, eonstruction and building placement associated with potential seismic events (liquefaction) will be addressed. Mitigation measures which may be relevant to minimize impacts on the site will be identified. Air Quality: Consistent with the requirements of regulatory agencies, the assessment of air quality impacts will be based on carbon monoxide concentrations. Receptor locations will be selected adjacent to affected intersections, and possibly at the nearest off-site residential locations or other sensitive receivers. Existing conditions, the Proposed Action, and alternatives will be modeled. Modeled concentrations will be compared to ambient standards to determine the potential significance of impacts. Relevant mitigating measures to reduce any identified impact from increased traffic will be discussed and incorporated from the transportation analysis. A discussion of adjacent industrial activities will be provided which address the potential for fumes or vapors (for example, painting activities at the Boeing plant). Potential mitigation on the Southport site will be described. Construction-related air quality impacts during demolition and construction, such as the potential for generation of dust during site grading activities, will also be discussed. Measure to mitigate air quality emissions during construction will also be addressed. Preliminary Scoping Document 6 Southport Planned Action Water Resources The site is located in the glacial deposits of the Cedar River valley. The regional groundwater flow is characterized by recharge in the uplands and discharge to the north into Lake Washington. Because of the discharge upward into Lake Washington in the vicinity of the site, shallow groundwater at the site is not expected to flow downward to deeper water-bearing units. Groundwater beneath the site was observed at depths of 3 to 5 feet below grade during sampling activities. Based on measurements at 19 groundwater monitoring well locations in September and December 1995, groundwater at the site flows in a north to northwesterly direction toward the lake at a relatively slow rate. Stormwater Drainage/Runoff-- Existing drainage patterns, runoff rates and volumes will be described. Post-development runoff patterns, volumes and flows would be estimated. Design parameters for stormwater facilities would be determined and discharge will be forecast. Adopted surface water drainage standards will be assessed, and the need for any mitigation identified. Groundwater-- Groundwater levels on-site and immediately adjacent to the site (Lake Washington) will be described based primarily on existing data. The direction of groundwater flow will be documented. The contribution of infiltration on-site to groundwater and surface water resources will be described. The impacts of changes in land use on infiltration and groundwater movement will be evaluated. Any potential impacts to groundwater quality conditions will be assessed. Measures to mitigate any identified groundwater impacts will be addressed. Water Quality -- Existing water quality conditions in lower Lake Washington will be described based on available data. City of Renton plans, policies and regulations relevant to surface water quality management and use of Best Management Practices will be identified. Water quality impacts during construction and post-development will be assessed, including potential impacts resulting from erosion and stormwater pollutants typical of urban runoff. Potential impacts to Lake Washington will be addressed. Post-development water quality composition will be estimated using existing literature, with consideration of the effect of proposed water quality treatment facilities. Predicted changes in water quality for Lake Washington will be compared to relevant standards. Opportunities for mitigating any identified impacts will be described and examined. Plants and Animals Shoreline Habitat- Much of the site is improved with impervious surfaces, and there is an existing bulkhead. An assessment of the existing shoreline buffer area of Lake Washington will be provided relative to any upland habitat value, if present. Currently, Renton's wetland inventories do not identify potential wetlands on the site. Potential impacts to upland habitats and wetlands, if any, from project construction and post-development will be addressed, including potential impacts from increased erosion, water quality changes and increased human activity. Fisheries- Aquatic and riparian habitat along the Lake Washington shoreline on, and adjacent to, the site will be characterized in terms of fisheries habitat and functions. Information will also be obtained from local, State, Federal and Tribal agencies. Potential impacts on fisheries resources from both construction and operation of the proposal will be assessed. Such impacts could include effects on habitat due to potential increases in erosion/sedimentation during construction, changes in water quality conditions, and others. Mitigation plans may be examined. Preliminary Scoping Document 7 Southport Planned Action Built Environment Noise: Relevant federal, state, and local sound level criteria will be identified and discussed for impacts of the project on surrounding sites (traffic and construction noise impacts) and impacts of surrounding uses (e.g. Boeing industrial operations) on the subject site. Baseline sound level measurements will be collected on-site and in the project area to measure sound levels from off-site sources, and also during the peak traffic period and at other times of the day, if necessary. Off-site measurements will be taken at locations representative of sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site. Measured sound levels will be compared with relevant sound level criteria to describe the existing sound environment in the project area. Future traffic noise levels from project-affected roadways will be calculated using FHWA's NOISE model, a traffic noise prediction procedure. The NOISE model calculates the equivalent sound level Leq) generated by traffic based on traffic volume, speed and vehicle mix. Model calculations will be compared with relevant criteria to gauge impacts. Impact assessment will be based on existing noise levels and on traffic information provided by the traffic consultant. Construction noise will be evaluated by specific construction activity and phase (i.e., pile driving, excavation, etc.), using published sound levels of construction noise. These sound levels will be adjusted to represent the actual distances to potential receptor locations surrounding the project site. Potential means for mitigating any identified on- and off-site noise sources, traffic, and other noise impacts will be discussed. Pertinent regulations covering construction noise, and potential constraints on the timing and duration of construction noise events, will be identified, as warranted. Land and Shoreline Use: The Land Use analysis will focus on the specific land use patterns in the area adjacent to the site and in nearby neighborhoods. Land use designations and zoning for the site and surrounding properties will be described. The EIS will also describe the type and mix of uses, zoning, density, scale and shoreline uses both on site and in the surrounding community. A discussion of the site's historical activities will also be included based on available information. A site-specific analysis of the compatibility of the design, scale, and features of the Proposed Action and alternatives with immediately surrounding uses will be provided. The redevelopment of the site with mixed uses will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone from Employment Area - Industrial/Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential. The potential impacts of rezoning and development of a mixed use development on surrounding parcels will be addressed. The Land Use analysis may include a discussion of potential land use trade-offs relating to provision of substantial employment and multi-family housing on the site versus within other designated centers in the City. The Relationship to Plans and Policies analysis will summarize relevant policies and provisions from City of Renton, regional, State, and Federal plans and regulations. City land use, transportation and related plans, ordinances or regulations and will discuss the general consistency or inconsistency of the proposal. The EIS will contain a specific evaluation of the relationship of the proposal to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. This analysis will address relevant policies on the Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Capital Facilities, Utilities, Economic Development and Environmental Elements. The relationship of the proposal to the City's Shoreline Master Program will be assessed with emphasis on goals and policies, use regulations, and development standards (e.g. setbacks, building height, potential need for variances or conditional use permits). The site's proposed shoreline uses will be assessed relative to the Shoreline Master Programs' policies and standards related to encouragement of Preliminary Scoping Document 8 Southport Planned Action water-enjoyment uses, intensity-of use and public access. Measures to mitigate any adverse land use impacts to the surrounding community and uses will be identified, as warranted. The proposal's consistency with the City's Zoning Code, and proposed Office/Residential zone provisions will be evaluated. In addition, the proposal's relationship to other applicable standards/regulations (i.e., Critical Areas Ordinance) will be addressed. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone will be evaluated relative to City criteria for such actions and consistency with relevant plans, policies, and regulations. Finally, the proposed zoning code text amendment describing the potential COR development standards will be assessed relative to applicable plans and policies. Other plans and regulations which could be evaluated include the Growth Management Act, ShorelineManagementAct, Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and others. Socioeconomics (Population, Housing, Employment): A description of the existing jobs currently on site will be provided. A description of the existing and future forecasted population, housing, and employment levels and characteristics in the area will be provided. Future housing and employment needs identified by the City will be discussed. The specific number. and type of jobs that could be created on site as part of the proposal will be estimated based on standard ratios. The on-site population that will be generated by the specific type of housing units will be estimated as well. These projections will be compared to the assumptions used bytheCitytogaugeanyimportantdifferences. Furthermore, the number.of estimated jobs and populationwillbecomparedtooverall, adopted forecasts and targets for City growth, to determine the proposal's percentage of such overall growth. Finally, the potential impacts of introducing a new employment base and population to the surrounding community will be assessed (interrelated with the Land Use analysis). Measures to mitigate any adverse impacts to population, employment and housing conditions will be identified. Aesthetics, Light and Glare: Existing aesthetic qualities and scenic resources of the site and the surrounding area, including Lake Washington, will be identified. The existing industrial character of the site will be described. A description of the general viewshed to the site including photos from several vantage points will be provided to visually document existing conditions. Vantage points could include views from Gene Coulon Park, Cedar River Trail,roadways, and nearby residential districts. The potential impacts to views from these areas from redevelopment of the site will be evaluated. The proposed uses, heights, design, and shoreline and water-related features will be considered relative toexistinguses. Visual impacts of the proposal as seen from selected viewpoints area parks and roadways, and representative existing residential areas, will be evaluated. The change in aesthetic character of the site from industrial to mixed-use center will be evaluated, particularly related to design, scale, intensity and compatibility with the surrounding aesthetic character.Any additional mitigating measures to reduce any visual impacts of the proposal that are not included in the proposed design and are warranted will be evaluated. Existing sources of light and glare from adjacent industrial uses and existing on-site uses will be identified. The potential impacts of light and glare from redevelopment on surrounding land uses and Preliminary Scoping Document 9 Southport Planned Action from Lake Washington itself wilf be addressed. Measures to mitigate impacts from light and glare from off-site and on-site sources will be identified, as appropriate. Transportation: An overview of existing conditions within the study area will be provided. A description of the local arterial network, including Park Avenue North, Lake Washington Blvd., SR900, and WSDOT I-405 will be included. Existing trips associated with current on-site uses will be discussed. Levels of service at nearby intersections will be analyzed. There are several transportation issues regarding the location of the proposed development that will be addressed, including: impacts to the existing roadway network, impacts to the Burlington Northern Railroad; access to the I-405 freeway; and cumulative traffic impacts of the proposed development and the neighboring Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. In addition, safety, non-motorized facilities, emergency vehicle access, and transit impacts will be addressed. Trip generation and distribution will be determined for the Proposed Action and alternatives. The City's transportation model would be used to determine trip distribution. The City's transportation model will also be used to determine future year(year of opening for the proposed development) traffic forecasts for the roadway network surrounding the project site. Future year forecasts will include traffic generated by pipeline and approved development identified by the City. The future year forecasts will be used as baseline traffic for the determination of traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The roadway network will be analyzed for the project year of opening during the p.m. peak hour based on a level of service (delay) analysis. The level of service analysis will include project-impacted intersections, including site access locations. Appropriate mitigation will be identified for vehicular traffic impacts, and will include options for trip reduction through Transportation Demand Management (this could include options for mode split, peak trip spreading, etc.). Potential increases in mode split to transit, HOV and non-motorized travel will be explored. Mitigation would also address, where appropriate, railroad facilities, safety and emergency vehicle access. Public Services and Utilities: Fire and Emergency Medical Services - Existing fire and emergency medical services will be discussed. The current staffing levels, equipment and facilities of the City of Renton Fire Department will be described, and any service deficiencies identified. Specific stations that respond to the site will be identified. Current demand for services (number of calls) will be assessed based on available information. Response times to the site, and any existing mutual aid agreements between service providers, will be described. Any information on estimated future increases in fire and emergency medical service calls without the proposal will be provided. Available water resources for fire flow purposes will be documented (interrelated with the Utilities section below). An estimate of the added demand on fire and emergency services from the proposal will be made based on information provided by the Renton Fire Depai tiiient or on data available from other jurisdictions. Impacts on response times to the site will be addressed. The need for additional fire and emergency medical services from redevelopment on a phased basis will be determined. The potential need to hire additional personnel, purchase more equipment, or build additional facilities will be assessed. Emergency access routes and on-site exits including the ability of emergency vehicles to gain access to the site during times of traffic congestion will be evaluated. Potential impacts will be assessed relative to planned improvements identified in the Capital Facilities Element. Additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined, as warranted. Preliminary Scoping Document 10 Southport Planned Action Police Services - Existing police services will be described. The current staffing levels, equipment and facilities of the Renton Police Department will be described and any service deficiencies identified. Specific stations that respond to the site will be identified. Current demand for services number of calls) will be assessed based on available information. Response times to the site, and any existing mutual aid agreements between service providers, will be described. Any information on estimated future increases in police service calls without the proposal will be provided. Current crime rates in the site vicinity will be described. An estimate of the added demand on police services, both during construction and operation of the proposal, will be made. Potential impacts on response times, the need for additional personnel,police vehicles, or facilities will be discussed. Potential impacts will be assessed relative to planned improvements identified in the Capital Facilities Element. Additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined, as warranted. Schools - Existing student enrollment, capacity and projected enrollment will be described for the schools that serve the site vicinity. Student enrollment forecasts for future years will be identified as available. Current plans by the Renton School District to construct new facilities, or make facility improvements, will be discussed, and existing transportation services available to/from the schools servicing this site will be identified. Any existing capacity problems will be identified. The number of students expected to be generated by the proposal will be estimated using the appropriate school district formula. The capacity of the schools in the site vicinity to accommodate the projected student population will be evaluated. Any need for additional improvements will be identified. Potential impacts to school bus transportation operations will be assessed. Additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined, as appropriate. Parks - Existing parks, recreational facilities and trails in the site vicinity will be identified, and their adequacy to serve the existing population will be analyzed using City of Renton standards for parks and recreational facilities contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Planned improvements in the area, identified in the Capital Facilities Element, will be described. Proposed, on-site recreational facilities and opportunities will be described. The impacts of the proposal on existing parks (especially Gene Coulon Park located adjacent to the site), recreational facilities and trails will be assessed, given the proposed on-site facilities. The availability of these facilities to residents and employees of the development, as well as the general public will be discussed. Additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined, as warranted. Water- The existing City of Renton water storage and distribution system in the site vicinity will be described and its current capacities identified. Existing fire flow capability to the site will be determined. Any existing problems or deficiencies in the system will be assessed. The planned improvements identified in the City's Capital Facilities Plan will be reviewed. The project's water demand in terms of peak flow for both domestic use and fire protection will be quantified. Demand related to all proposed uses and project phases will be calculated. The capacity of the existing system to accommodate the project's demand, and the project's relationship to planned improvements in the area will be evaluated. Additional improvements to mitigate project impacts will be determined. The relationship of the proposed system to the adopted water system level of service standards will be discussed. Preliminary Scoping Document 11 Southport Planned Action Wastewater- The existing City of Renton/Metro wastewater collection, discharge and treatment system will be described and current capacities identified. Any existing problems or deficiencies in the system will be described. The planned improvements identified in the City's Capital Facilities Plan will be reviewed. The project's increased sewage flow generation will be quantified, based on demand from all proposed uses and phases. The capacity of the existing system to accommodate the project's increased flows will be determined, and the project's relationship to any planned improvements evaluated. The capacity of the Metro treatment plant to accommodate added flows from the project will be addressed. Additional improvements to mitigate project impacts will be determined. The relationship of the proposed system to the adopted wastewater system level of service standards will be assessed. Stormwater-Existing stormwater facilities, any planned improvements, project impacts to stormwater runoff volumes; rates and facilities and relevant mitigation measures will be discussed and evaluated in the Water Resources section of the EIS. Solid Waste- Existing solid waste collection, transfer and disposal services and facilities will be described. Recycling programs available to the project site will be identified. Current capabilities of Waste Management-Rainier to collect and transport waste and the Renton Transfer Station to receive waste will be assessed; additionally, the capacity of the Cedar Hills landfill to accommodate all solid waste from the City of Renton will be evaluated. Planned improvements, identified in the King County Solid Waste Management Plan, will be reviewed. The project's increased waste generation will be quantified. The ability of the collection, transfer and disposal facilities to adequately handle the project's waste will be assessed. Any additional upgrades in service or facilities, as a result of the proposal, will be determined. Opportunities for recycling and other waste management programs will be examined. FINAL EIS When the Draft SEIS is completed, it will be issued and made available for public and agency review and comment. Comments received within the designated comment period (usually thirty days) will be incorporated into a Final SEIS, together with appropriate responses to those comments. Final action on the proposal will not be taken prior to issuance of the Final SEIS. Preliminary Scoping Document 12 Southport Planned Action ill I I I11 I 1111 I I I11 I I III 1 111t1 111111 I I1111 I I II m d Itltllititlti1111111111 tit iltllt1111ttltlttI tltttlll i ttltltttit IIIIiIII II1111i11111I It ' 11ti111i111111111111111111111tItIIIItt11111 N o ni z I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 tit I 1 1 1 1 1 ' I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I II 11 1 1 1 1 I III 1 w•\c-o_ I I I 1 I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I 1 I I I i I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I Op I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I ( l I I I I I Ili I 11 I I III I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I n` 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 ry•p I I I I i l l l l l i t t i l i l l l l I;'I I i III I II 1 I I III I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t l I I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I G ro 0 p as - 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 tit 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 it 1 1 1 1 ro o •t r ` ! I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I II `I I I I I I i I tilt 4 p 0' a,a(Lti23 y;),i r t: I I I I I i l l l i l l l l l l l l l l I 11 i l l l l l l l 11 O ljo,,+1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- I I 1 1 1 1 11 r O 1 1 I I 11, 1 I I I 11 I I 1 I I I I I . 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m R. I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I i l I I I I I I i l IIIII11111111111111 IiIII1111111111I1IIITT m J-' I I II II II I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 V L S tilltltilitltltltttlttlttitttttttlttt 11II11t1111 III ttllltltt I I I I I I I I I I I I i l l l l l I I I I I I III I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [y 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 II IIIIIIIIIItIItI1I1I1T11 , 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I r 1111111111tllllllltlllllllllitlllltltilltltll e I I I I I I I i l l l l l l l I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 ce IOT.:n Ave Id I111111ttlllliltlltlittttltlt111111111t1ti11111111t1111'II tZIIIIII1111111111111111111111o. I l 11111 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ' n _ I l i 11111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11111 1 it!/' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ms 1111 Ii iIiIiIiIiIItltllitltltl111111111tllllI 1 Av't. k I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F3 W 'Is ;ve. Fl 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I t Ii111ttlltttlt1111111t111111 ' 0 to 11 I t I t I I I I I I I 1 I 1 F'cf.v r vc. hl I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I ' 1 I I I t I t I 1 I I I I I I I I I I , I I l l fv'\ 1 Po!'„, A;,. f, I',:rk Ave N I III 1 s.,\gc.oN' '' ti L Uo\"' cn C,nden Ave °J u• Carden ,,, 0 Ci. o r.: N nd ,,, avYsd Ic Meadow Ave. NE F Jones Ave. Nt z O s Kennewick z Kennewick F— Lincoln k l 171 ri Monterey T Monterey `' Monterey t iii Slince J Ave. NE z in I N f' Aberdeen Ave. NE Aberdeen Ave. NC Aberdeen Ave. NE 00 Aberdeen tom, Q J' =, "J't' m T Blaine Ave. NE nQui, 10ine Avc. Qii.ii. CD J n`i r`, COrT105 s; 11s Da ton TiJ ; 1 C I , A„, , -,; :- ' . T Dayton Da yton Doyton -t--y to iI11 I f . ti ytafl 4., O - - I;la„„1 Aw' . Edmonds A,vc. tE. SHUFr LETON VICINITY M-P i Nto XtGeneCoulonPark Lake Washington Shoreline 4... ç•• \. off. 6v III SITE O o k:. p 1 IPPFc- 30 f.0 4o1 1 iii 00 0 0/ eb- J C u 0 z Ca c, ' I O, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Site boundary ED/N/SP 0. Dennison E' TO 23 February 1999 0 400 800 1 :4,800 ERRATA SHEET Southport Development Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Document issued 3/8/99 Master Plan Features," page 3: Based upon recent information from the proponent, the heights of the building would range from 5 to 10 stories instead of 5 to 8 stories. No changes are noted for the numbers of units or square footages. Air Quality," page 6: Because the level of traffic improvements needed are unknown at this time, carbon monoxide modeling would not be included in the scope, but may be evaluated in the future if warranted. City of Renton Economic Development/Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Dept.3/10/99 AC( CY City of Renton Cs-DEPARTMENT OF ru ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, and V STRATEGIC PLANNING Date: 3/18/99 Sixth Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 TO:Mike Blumen FROM: Lisa Grueter Huckell/Weinman City of Renton Phone: 425)828-4463 Phone: 425) 430-6578 Fax Phone: (425) 828-3861 Fax Phone: (425) 430-7300 SUBJECT: Mailing List - Agency Number of pages including cover sheet Scoping REMARKS: Original to Urgent Reply X Please X For your be mailed ASAP Comment review Here is the list of agencies contacted for the Agency scoping meeting. It is based on a standard list for EIS distribution that our Development Services Division keeps. As far as the City divisions scoping meeting,I invited all Depaitiuent heads and most Division heads(including Mayor's Office, Planning/Building/Public Works,Fire,Police,Community Services,Human Resources/Risk Management,Finance and Information Services,City Attorney's Office,City Clerk,City Hearing Examiner)that I thought would be interested. The City's services and utilities will be represented including Fire,Police,Water,Wastewater, Stormwater,Parks,Transportation,etc. cc: Rex Allen,Seco Development(425-637-1922) AGENCIES CONTACTED FOR AGENCY SCOPING MEETING from Renton standard EIS mailing list) Boundary Review Board Central Environmental Health City of Bellevue Dept. of Development and Environmental Services City of Kent Planning Department City of Tukwila Planning and Building Department Duwamish Tribal Office King Co. Courthouse King County Dept. of Public Works King County Resource Planning King County Soil Conservation King County Wastewater Treatment Division Muckleshoot Tribe Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Puget Sound Energy Puget Sound Regional Council Puget Sound Water Quality Regional Transit Authority Renton Chamber of Commerce Renton School District Seattle Public Utilities State Department of Ecology-EIS Review State Department of Ecology-Environmental Review Section State Department of Ecology- SEPA Register State Department of Ecology- Shorelands State Department of Fish and Wildlife -Bellevue and Olympia State Dept. of Natural Resources US Environmental Protection Agency University of Washington US Army Corps of Engineers US Department of Agriculture US Department of Housing and Urban Development US West Valley Medical Center WA Environmental Council WSDOT AGCYSCP.DOC\ R Lisa Grueter From: Lisa Grueter To: Sandra K. Seeger Subject: 99-027 Party of Record Date: Thursday, March 18, 1999 2:56PM Please add to our Southport Party of Record List: Shirley Milliren 1020 N. 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 425) 271-2096 Thanks! Page 1 Ar Lisa Grueter From: Lisa Grueter To: Sandra K. Seeger Subject: 99-027 Party of Record Date: Monday, March 15, 1999 7:27AM Please add the following person as a Party of Record for Southport: Correen Orton Legacy Partners 1756 114th Ave SE, Suite 135 Bellevue, WA 98004 Thanks. Page 1 205 Lake Street South,Suite 202 Kirkland,Washington 98033 Hu kell/Weinman Associates, Inc. E-mail hwa@malhlgyonc8orn Memorandum MAR 1 9 1999 Date: March 18, 1999 r<r To: Southport Supplemental EIS Team Carl Hadley -Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Ken Oswell -Entranco Richard Steffel - McCulley Frick& Gilman Wendy Bucher- KPFF Jennifer Kaufmann - Enviroissues Kenichi Nakano - Nakano Associates cc: Lisa Grueter- City of Renton Rex Allen - SECO Development From: Mike Blumen and Rich Schipanski Re: Southport Development SEIS —Technical Memo & Style Guide The r urpose of this Technical Memo & Style Guide is to reiterate management, communication and administrative considerations associated with this project and provide guidance on the propc sed format for the Draft SEIS. 1.SCOPE OF WORK and SCHEDULE Huckll/Weinman Associates is in the process of executing a Consultant Agreement with the City of Renton. The document includes as Exhibit A, the Scope of Work for the Draft Supp lemental EIS. The Scope of Work included as Exhibit A, along with the City of Renton's Marcn 8, 1999 Scoping Document, serve as the preliminary Scope of Services for this project. Both of these documents, along with the proposed SEIS schedule are attached to this nemo. The scoping period will conclude on March 29th. There is a possibility that new items may arise during scoping that could affect your scope. We will keep you infor ned. Soutl'port Development SEIS- Tech. Memo 1 Subccnsultant Agreements are being prepared for each consultant. The subconsulatnt agreements will be executed by HWA immediately upon execution of our overall contract with the City and will be sent to each of you at that time. City Council approval of the contract is a techni ality and the City has given us verbal authorization to proceed. The s ;hedule for the Draft SEIS and the Final SEIS is enclosed with this Technical Memo. As the schedule indicates, the timeline is very tight -- resulting in submittal of the 1st prelim. Draft SEIS :o the City of Renton and the applicant the week of April 26, 1999. For that to happen, HWA will need all technical reports by Monday April 12, in order to review for completeness, compile the data into the format for the DSEIS, edit the entire document and produce it for submittal during the week of 4/26. As we discussed, we would like to receive KPFF's and AESI's reports earlier, is possible, in order to allow for some flexibility in review. There can be no waiver from this schedule without prior approval; given the overall schedule, every me needs to perform on time. 2. COMMUNICATION Subconsultants can contact City staff as needed (i.e. public works, engineering, etc.). Any questions for the applicant should be directed to Huckell/Weinman Associates; we will pass-on requE sted information to the applicant and copy the City. Copies of all correspondence and critical phone (notes) or e-mail messages should be sent to us. Status reports should be provided to us every two weeks, with the first one due on March 26. The :status reports can be provided to us via mail, fax or e-male. Any immediate concerns or budg Mt issues should be communicated to us as soon as possible so we can alert the City and the a pplicant. All in mices are due by the 30`h of the month for inclusion in our invoice to the City of Renton. 3.PROJECT TEAM The 'ollowing identifies members of our project team. Firm/Point-of-Contact Telephone #FAX# Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. 425-828-4463 425-828-3861 205 _ake Street South, #202 Kirkland, WA 98033 Conlacts: Mike Blumen and Rich Schipanski e-mail: hwa@mail.halcyon.com Southport Development SEIS- Tech. Memo 2 Firm/Point-of-Contact Telephone #FAX# Assoc iated Earth Sciences 425-827-7701 425-827-5424 911 Fi th Avenue, Suite 100 Kirklar d, WA 98033 Conta;t: Carl Hadley e-mail chadely@aesgeo.com Entra ico 425-454-5600 425-454-0220 1090C NE 8th Street, Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98004-4405 Contact: Ken Oswell e-mai oswell@entranco.com McCi Hey Frick & Gilman 425-921-4000 425-921-4040 1920;; - 36th Avenue W., Suite 101 Lynnwood, WA 98036-5707 Conti ct: Richard Steffel e-ma'I: rsteffel@mfgsea.com KPFF 206-622-5822 206-622-8130 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101 Contact: Wendy Butcher e-mail: wendyb@kpff.com Envi-olssues 206-269-5041 206-269-5046 101 ;;tewart Street, Suite 1101 Seat le, WA 98101 Contact: Jennifer Kaufmann e-mE il: envissues@halcyon.com Nakano Associates 206-292-9392 206-292-9640 300 E. Pike, Suite 2000 CVO (7Tt Seattle, WA 98122 Con act: Kenichi Nakano e-mail: em@nakanoassociates.com Sou''Iport Development SEIS- Tech. Memo 3 Firm/Point-of-Contact Telephone #FAX# City a. Renton 425-430-6578 425-430-7300 Depari ment of Economic Development, Neighborhoods an i Strategic Planning Renton City Hall - 6'h Floor 1055 ;;outh Grady Way Rento 1, WA 98055 Conta:;t: Lisa Grueter e-mail Igrueter@cisenton.wa.us.us. 4.DEIS SECTION SEQUENCE The following is the DEIS section sequence that we intend to use for this document: FACT SHEET I. SUMMARY II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION and ALTERNATIVES III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES and UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS A. EARTH B. AIR QUALITY C. WATER RESOURCES (stormwater, groundwater, water quality) D. PLANTS AND ANIMALS (shoreline habitat, fisheries) E. NOISE F. LAND AND SHORELINE USE G. POPULATION/HOUSING/EMPLOYMENT H. AESTHETICS, LIGHT AND GLARE I. TRANSPORTATION J. PUBLIC SERVICES (fire, police, schools, parks) K. UTILITIES (water, sewer, solid waste) References Appendices A. Distribution List B. 5.EIS FORMAT The following is the format we will use when preparing sections of this DSEIS; please format your reports as close as possible to the listed format: margins -- 1 inch all around and justified single line spacing SoL thport Development SE/S- Tech. Memo 4 type style -- Aerial 11 pt. for text; Aerial 10 pt for tables (Aerial 8 pt. for notes and sources in tables) no indents for paragraphs section formatting (e.g., upper/lower case, bold, underlined, italics, etc.) -- per the following examples: A. EARTH Affected Environment text Significant Impacts of the Proposed Action text for Plans A and B Impacts of the Alternatives No Action Alternative text Mitigation Measures text Unavoidable Adverse Impacts text for Plans A and B.. Summary Please provide a synopsis of your analysis for use in the Summary. I intend to insert the impact information into a matrix. formatting for tables -- Aerial 11 pt., except footnotes (8pt.) -- per the following example: Southport Development SEIS- Tech. Memo 5 Table 1 BUILDING AREA BY FUNCTION sq. ft. percent of net sq.ft. Total Gross Square Footage 178,879 Net Square Footage 93,911 100% Project Component Laboratories and Laboratory Support 68,971 73.4% Based on Schematic Design documents(MBT, 1999b). 6.PRODUCT Plez:se e-mail and hard-copy mail your sections to us. We use Word for Windows, Version 7.0, so the format should be any one of the following in order that we may convert the file (preferred are listed first): Word for Windows (version 7.0) -- preferable Word for Windows (version 3.0) WordPerfect (from 5.1 - 4.1) DOS Text or ASCII Thanks again for your help. S)uthport Development SEIS- Tech.Memo 6 July Task Name Start Finish 04 6/21 6/28 7/5 7/12 7/19 7/26 Authorization to Proceed Wed 3/3/99 Wed 3/ Project Kickoff Meeting Mon 3/8/99 Mon 3/ Scoping Notice Wed 3/3/99 Tue 3/' Agency Scoping Meeting Mon 3/22/99 Mon 3/2. Public Scoping Meeting Fri 3/26/99 Fri 3/2, Scoping Period Fri 3/12/99 Fri 4/: Prepare Preliminary Draft SEIS Wed 3/3/99 Tue 4/2: Receive Description of Alts.Wed 3/3/99 Mon 3/1! Prepare Alts.Desc.Chpt.of SETS Wed 3/10/99 Thu 3/1 f City/Applicant Review of Alts Chpt Fri 3/19/99 Tue 3/2_ Impact Analysis Mon 3/15/99 Wed 4/ Technical Reports Due Mon 4/12/99 Mon 4/1; Internal Review&Production Tue 4/20/99 Tue 4/2C Submit PDSEIS to City Tue 4/27/99 Tue 4/27 City&Applicant Review Wed 4/28/99 Fri 5/7 Prepare revisions to PDSEIS Mon 5/10/99 Wed 5/19 Submit revised PDSEIS to City Wed 5/19/99 Wed 5/19 City final review Thu 5/20/99 Mon 5/24, Final revisions/printing of SDEIS Thu 5/27/99 Thu 5/27, Submit DSEIS to City for distribution Fri 5/28/99 Fri 5/28, DSEIS Comment Period Fri 5/28/99 Mon 6/28 DSEIS Public Hearing Wed 6/16/99 Wed 6/16, Review comments received Mon 6/28/99 Wed 6/30/ Prepare Preliminary Final SEIS Mon 6/21/99 Thu 7/15/ Technical Responses Due Wed 6/30/99 Tue 7/6/ Internal review&production Wed 7/7/99 Tue 7/1 3/ Submit PFSEIS to City Wed 7/14/99 Wed 7/14/ City&Applicant Review Thu 7/15/99 Tue 7/20/ Prepare revisions to PFSEIS Tue 7/20/99 Mon 7/26/ City final review Mon 7/26/99 Tue 7/27/ Final revisions&printing Tue 7/27/99 Wed 7/28/ Submit FSEIS to City for distribution Fri 7/30/99 Fri 7/30/' Exhibit A SOU THPORT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED ACT/ON SEIS SCOPE OF WORK This proposed scope of work contains three subsections: A) INTRODUCTION — an overall summary of our approach to the preparation of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement that will lead to a Planned Action designation; B) PROJECT MANAGEMENT— how we intend to efficiently manage the Supplemental EIS on an accelerated schedule; and, C) KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES — our scope of analysis for the identified elements of the Draft Supplemental EIS. A. INTRODUCTION Understanding of the Proposal The CO y of Renton desires the assistance of a consultant to prepare a planned action EIS for redevelopment of a site located along Lake Washington immediately north of Boeing and south of Gene Coulon Park. The approximately 17-acre Southport site (including privately owned shorelE nds) is the location of the Shuffelton Steam Plant and is in the process of being remediated pursuant to MTCA (a determination of "No Further Action" from the DOE is pending). This scope of work assumes that site clean-up and remediation have been completed and will not be considered as part of the SEIS analysis. The site is currently designated for industrial development in the comprehensive plan and on the zoning map. SECO Development has developed two mixed use concept alternatives for redevelopment of the site; these involve varying mixes and levels of residential, commercial and office uses. The existing power plant could be integrated into redevelopment plans. Types of improvements and amenities are only generally described. An existirg dock could be used for guest moorage. No in-water construction or modifications to the shoreline or existing bulkheads are proposed. A public walkway would be constructed along the shore ine. The proposal is to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning map/code to guide appropriate mixed-use development on the site. (We are assuming at this time that amendment of the City's Shoreline Master Program would not be involved.) These programmatic actions, based on alternative site development scenarios, would be the subject of an EIS supplementing the EISs prepared on the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Element. Based on its analysis of significant adverse impacts, the planned action SEIS would identify mitigation measures that could be t anslated into policies and regulations applicable to the site, which would guide site rede'elopment. Pursuant to state regulations, a subsequent development proposal consistent with and implementing the planned action described in the EIS would not require additional envii onmental review (assuming that all significant impacts were previously identified). The City desires to publish a Draft SEIS approximately late May and a Final SEIS late July. City of Renton Huckell/Weinman Associates Inc. Soul hport Development SEIS Scope of Work I-1 SEPA Planned Actions Southport is proposed as a "planned action" under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Planned actions are projects -- including sub-area plans and phased projects -- that are designated by ordinance, have had their environmental impacts adequately addressed in an EIS on the planned action proposal, and implement the proposal addressed in an EIS. The statute and rules for planned actions (RCW 43.21 C.031 & WAC 197-11-164) requires GMA jurisdictions and applicants to address site-specific environmental impacts of planned projects early in the planning process; environmental review is focused on the planning stage rather than the permitting stage. Early review is intended to provide more certainty for project applicants regardin 3 what will be required and more certainty to the public regarding how impacts will be mitigated. For qualifying projects, permit processing time can be reduced because impacts can be studied and appropriate mitigation determined before an applicant submits a project application. The EIS for a planned action is intended to provide site-specific project-level analysis of environmental impacts and to adequately mitigate identified impacts. A project subsequently proposed as a planned action must show: (1) that it is consistent with and will imp ement any conditions or mitigation measures identified in the designating ordinance; and 2) the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the project have been adequately address ed in the EIS prepared on the planned action proposal (based on review of an environ mental checklist filed with the project application). If the project meets these criteria, a threshold determination or project EIS is not required. Public notice Ind involvement are tied to the underlying permit. If an EIS or SEIS is required, its scope is limited to significant adverse environmental impacts that were not adequately addressed in the EIS used to designate the planned action. Consistent with the goal of a planned action, the Southport SEIS will evaluate the alternatives at as close 1 o a project level of analysis as possible, recognizing the conceptual nature of site planning at this time and the programmatic nature of the proposed action. We will work with the applicant to identif i project specific details so that the evaluation will be premised upon the project being develc ped for proposal, including all alternatives. The approach of the SEIS will be to utilize inform ation from the applicant to develop a range of use scenarios and to identify potential constraints or impacts associated with each. Mitigation measures in the SEIS, and conditions of approval in the Planned Action ordinance, would help the City to establish site design parameters and performance standards (through revised comprehensive plan polices and development regulations), and create a link between environmental review and the applicant's project planning throulh a team work approach with the applicant so as to create appropriate land use designations and controls which, along with necessary mitigation, will achieve a successful project. The (;ity's amendment of its Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the site, along with envir)nmental review contained in the SEIS, will then provide the context for preparation and revie N of a site-specific development application. The alternative use scenarios analyzed in the SEIS will include a "worst case" or maximum build out alternative as defined by the applicant; addressing the impacts and mitigations of this alter iative will help ensure that the ultimate planned action falls within the envelope of dev€lopment alternatives defined and analyzed in the EIS. This will minimize the need for further SEPA review and further the objective of expediting permitting for consistent projects. City of Renton Huckell/Weinman Associates Inc. Sous hport Development SEIS Scope of Work 1-2 B. PROJECT MANAGEMENT Michael '3lumen will serve as project manager and Richard Schipanski as assistant project manager Richard Weinman will serve as principal in charge. Ken Oswell of Entranco will manage the trans)ortation component of the EIS. Richard Steffel of MFG will manage the air quality and noise analyses. Andy Kindig of AESI will manage the water quality and fisheries analyses; he will be supported by Carl Hadley. Ron Leimkuhler of KPFF will manage the infrastructure analysis. Curtis Kc ger of AESI will manage the soil and groundwater analyses.; he will be supported by Otto Paris, Jil Wheeler, and Gary Stevens. Jennifer Kauffman of Envirolssues would be available to provide public participation assistance, if desired by the City of Renton. Timely coordination and completion of the Supplemental EIS will require an effective management plan, wh ich is outlined below. One of H/WA's key emphases is regular communication to allow identifies ition and resolution of problems as early as possible and to foster team understanding of EIS issues and findings. Communications with the applicant to further understand or refine develop-nent concepts will be conducted in consultation with the City of Renton. Our experienced principal-in-charge and project manager will establish a priority for regular communication with the City of Renton. Our plan consists of the following elements. Administration Prepare a Technical Memo at the outset of the project that defines tasks, responsibilities, due dates, lines of communication, document format, and measures to control overall quality, budgets and schedule and provide copies to team members including the City and the applicant; schedule the EIS project team's internal work program and achieve full concurrence with the City and the applicant; coordinate project team data needs; provide all necessary administrative coordination between the project team, the City of Renton, and the applicant; monitor project team work progress on at least a weekly (and, at certain times, daily) basis; monitor the budget associated with the project, based on weekly internal accounting reports; and provide the City of Renton and the applicant a status report of EIS progress every two weeks (more frequently if desired) along with preliminary versions of the Draft and Final SEIS. Quality Control Ensure that the Supplemental EIS complies with the City's SEPA process as well as state requirements; City of Renton Hucke///Weinman Associates Inc. Sou'hport Development SE/S Scope of Work 1-3 ensure that the analysis of the alternatives is thorough, objective and written in plain language; in,;orporate graphics into the Draft SEIS wherever possible to further public understanding of the proposal and potential environmental impacts; and edit the document to ensure that it is concise, while at the same time contains sufficient detail to allow meaningful and comprehensive analysis and comment by agencies and it dividuals. Project Definition The project definition meetings will help assure that the EIS team analyzes a proposal that i!; consistent with the intent of the City and the applicant. Kick-Off Meeting -- we will conduct this meeting at the outset of the project with key members of our SETS consultant team meet to discuss the final SETS scope, project data needs, project schedule, appropriate methodology, and team coordination procedures. Preliminary Fact Sheet/Project Description & Alternatives Meeting — we will attend this meeting with representatives of the City of Renton and the applicant to ensure complete understanding of the scope of the development concepts. C. ANALYSIS OF KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES SEIS Alternatives The primary action(s) evaluated in the SEIS will be amendment of the City's Comprehensive Plan land u se map from the current Industrial Employment Area designation to one that permits mixed- use development, the Center Office Residential (COR) designation. The City's COR designation is tailorei to fit specific properties; plan policies and standards, therefore, reflect constraints and issues. A concurrent zoning reclassification from Heavy Industrial to Center Office/Residential would also be required. Two alternative mixed-use scenarios (Plan A and Plan B) plus a No Action Alternative will be analy:ed. The No Action alternative will have two sub-parts. One will involve no change to the comprehensive plan and no redevelopment of the site; this will provide the traditional baseline for EIS comparison. In addition, the No Action alternative will consider the type and level of industrial redevelopment that could occur on the site under existing plan and zoning designations. Assumptions will be formulated with the City This evaluation (which will be primarily qualitative) may provide a useful context for considering the effects of a change in plan designation. A design alternative that reconfigures building locations on the site is not assumed for this analysis but is included as an optional item for the Final SEIS. It is assumed that total building square footage under this optional design alternative would not change from that analyzed for the mixed- use scenarios (Plans A or B). City of Renton Huckell Weinman Associates Inc. Soul bport Development SEIS Scope of Work 1-4 Elements of the Environment Analyzed The approach for analyzing the elements of the environment is presented below. Our EIS scope will be consistent with the final Scoping Document to be issued by the City of Renton as part of the public scraping process. There are several areas of analysis, identified as optional items in this scope of work and in the budget, that may be authorized by the City at a future point in the process. Work on these elements will not commence prior to authorization from the City. Natura I Environment Earth The Mc del Toxics Control Act process and completed site remediation activities will be summar zed. For purposes of the scope, we assume that a "No Further Action" will be designated by DOE It is assumed that the issue of hazardous materials will not be an element of the SETS. Existing site environmental data prepared by Wineman & Associates Inc. and other relevant geotecf•nical studies prepared by the applicant will utilized for evaluating existing conditions at the site. Additional data will be obtained and reviewed for the site vicinity only if needed to complete the analysis of impacts. Field activities will be limited to a single site reconnaissance. A discuss ion of applicable geologic hazards will address the site's potential as a seismic hazard area. The analysis of potential impacts to soil under the alternatives will include: (1) erosion hazards along the shoreline; (2) potential for sediment transport to Lake Washington; (3) potential for soil liquefaction during seismic events; (4) soil suitability for proposed development, including any limitati ms of the site's soils for grading and building support; and (5) construction dewatering issues The impacts will be evaluated based on existing regulatory criteria and guidance docurr ents, anticipated construction activities, and post-construction development. Where signifil;ant impacts are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be identified. Storn water Drainage and Water Quality The %rater quality section will (1) document existing drainage patterns, runoff rates and runoff volurr es (2) document existing water quality conditions on the site, in Lake Washington in the vicinity of the site, and in John's Creek (3) forecast water quality conditions resulting from the alternatives, (4) evaluate impacts and (5) recommend mitigation measures to avoic/prevent/minimize impacts. Design parameters for drainage facilities would be determined and post development runoff patterns, volumes and flows estimated. The significant surface water features on the site are the Lake Washington shoreline and John's Creek at the southern edge of the property. (It is assumed that no wetlands are present on the site. If wetland area is found on the site, an amendment to the contract would be required to anal Sze wetland conditions and impacts.) Existing data characterizing Lake Washington and John's Creek will be compiled to define the Affected Environment. If adequate data for Lake Was hington in the site vicinity and John's Creek are lacking to evaluate metals, hardness, and City of Renton Hucke///Weinman Associates Inc. Sou hport Development SE/S Scope of Work 5 BOD in the context of ESA, water quality sampling at the shoreline and John's Creek may be required (the cost for conducting water quality sampling is listed under Optional Items in the attached budget). Potenti 31 impacts to nearshore lake and John's Creek water quality will be estimated, using the existinc background data from the literature, for the contributing area of the project to the discharge(s), and the nature of the alternative land use and drainage system. The design parameters for storm water quality treatment facilities on the site will be determined and discharge from on-site storm water quality treatment facilities will be forecast. Data relating to design parameter treatment facility efficacy for contaminant removal will also be described from local literature and study results. Regulations germane to water quality will be described. Water quality impacts treatment meeting the design parameters will be evaluated based on established surface water cuality standards, the expected change from background water quality, and fisheries protecti)n. If additional mitigation measures are warranted, they will be identified for use as performance standards. Fisheries and Shoreline Habitat The pri nary fisheries issues related to redevelopment of the site are associated with Lake Washington, including migrants to and from the Cedar River. Lake Washington supports a variety of anad-omous salmonids, including chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon, and steelhead and cutthroat trout. Runs of non-anadromous kokanee salmon are also present as well as a wide variety of non-salmonid species. Of particular importance to the project is the population of sockeye salmon juveniles which rear in Lake Washington. These fish may utilize the shoreline and offshore habitat along the site for rearing and migration. Existing fisheries conditions within John's Creek w II also be described. The fisheries section of the Draft SETS will: assess existing conditions; evaluate direct, indirect and cumulati re impacts; and, recommend mitigation measures that would avoid or minimize impacts. A professional fisheries biologist (Carl Hadley of AESI) will conduct a habitat survey of the immediate shoreline area to characterize existing conditions of fish habitat. Riparian shoreline habitat, nearshore substrate and depth, and bank character will be examined during the reconnai;sance. Because considerable information is available about fisheries use of the nearshore environment, it is assumed that additional offshore boat surveys will not be necessary. Informati Dn will be obtained from the WDFW, WDOE, Muckleshoot Tribe, King County, City of Renton, and University of Washington. Results will be used to assess benefits to fisheries resource; of the project's nearshore and riparian habitat. Relative value of habitat associated with the site will be compared with nearby properties. Habitat features of regional significance (if any) will be id?ntified for special consideration. Existing information on John's Creek will be obtained from the NDFW, WDOE, Muckleshoot Tribe, and the City of Renton, as available. (It is assumed that no w 3tlands are present on the site. If wetland area is found on the site, an amendment to the contract would be required to analyze wetland conditions and impacts.) Potential Lake Washington fisheries impacts to sediment production, water quality and water quantity will be addressed. Potential fisheries impacts relating to removal of existing piping and other equ pment, and potential for guest moorage at the dock will be identified. Potential fisheries impacts relating to increased human activity along the shoreline, including walkway lighting, will be identified. Potential impacts to shoreline habitat from construction and post-development will be addressed, including potential impacts from increased erosion, water quality changes and City of Renton Hucke///Weinman Associates Inc. Southport I)eveiopment SEIS Scope of Work i_g increa: ed human activity. Potential water quality and water quantity impacts to John's Creek will also be addressed. If potential negative impacts to fisheries and shoreline habitat resources are identified, performance standards with the intent of avoiding or minimizing impacts will be provided. If impacts are deemed unavoidable, appropriate mitigation plans will be developed. Groun water Existing site environmental data prepared by Wineman & Associates Inc. and other relevant hydrog aologic studies prepared by the applicant will be utilized for evaluating existing infiltration and gi oundwater flow conditions at the site and immediately adjacent to the site (Lake Washington). Additional, available data will be obtained and reviewed for the site vicinity only if needed to complete the analysis of impacts. The analysis of potential impacts to groundwater under the alternatives will focus on the relationship of proposed land uses on infiltration and groundwater flow. Any potential impact to groundwater quality conditions will be assessed. The impacts will be evaluated based on existing regulatory criteria and guidance documents, anticipated construction activities, and post- constru ction development issues. Where significant impacts are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be identified. Land and Shoreline Use Plans Policies. The EI;; will evaluate the relationship of the alternatives to key federal, state and local plans, policies and regulations. The EIS will concisely summarize relevant policies and regulations and discuss how the alternatives are consistent or inconsistent. Information in the prior EISs for the Comprehensive Plan and/or Land Use Element will be adopted or incorporated by reference wherever possible. Primary City of Renton documents evaluated will include the City's Comprehensive Plan (including a discus;sion on the "Gateway" concept), Zoning Code and other development regulations (e.g. Critical area regulations), and the Shoreline Master Program. Key shoreline issues will include management policies and use regulations that deal with the appropriateness of the proposed use in the a Dplicable shoreline environment, development standards (including setbacks and building height), and public access. Major :state programs evaluated would include the Growth Management Act (since a comprehensive plan and zoning amendment is proposed) and the Shoreline Management Act policies and preferences for shorelines of state-wide significance). The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan would also be evaluated. Federal programs likely to be involved directly or indirectly) include the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. Land U:;e Patterns The types, intensity and pattern of land use would be described (through narrative and graphics) for the site and the adjacent area. Land Use designations and zoning for the site and surrounding City of Re nton Hucke///We/nman Associates Inc. Southpor`Development SE/S Scope of Work 1-7 properties will be described. A discussion of the site's historical activities will also be included based on available information. Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts would identified for each alternative based on the mix and intensi:y of uses and patterns of activity; potential conflicts and compatibility's with adjacent uses would be identified. A focus of the analysis would be on the compatibility of alternatives with industrial uses to the south, Gene Coulon Park and recreational activities to the north, nearby residential neighborhoods, and the range of activities that occur on Lake Washington. A discus ;ion of potential land use trade-offs relating to provision of substantial employment and multifa icily housing on the site versus within other designated centers in the city will be provided. AestAletics/Light and Glare Our analysis of aesthetics will involve compilation of a visual inventory of the site and surrounding area. The focus of this inventory will be to describe the overall visual character of the area in terms of the pattern of built and natural landscapes, existing view corridors to and through the site, and visual landmark (both natural and built). The aesthetics analysis will describe the height and bulk of proposed buildings (as embodied in the alternatives) and address the relationship of the buildings to the scale of uses in the site vicinity. A focus of the aesthetic analysis will be the relationship between the scale of redevelopment and Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park to the immediate east and the Boeing Facility to the immediate west. The potential for light and glare impacts to the park and other land uses will also be identifiE d. Existinc° light and glare from the adjacent Boeing facility reaching the site will be described. Potenti,1l impacts to future users of the site from light and glare from the Boeing facility will be analyz€d. Propos,;d visual inventory methodology will involve the use of computer-based visual simulations to provide the opportunity for broad comparisons. The computer-based visual simulations will be general ed by Nakano Associates. The visual analysis will include: A viewshed map will be prepared showing the primary views to the site; Digital photographs will be taken from up to four key viewpoints (possibly including Gene Coulon Park, Cedar River Trail, a vicinity roadway, and a residential area; at least one of the photographs will depict the Boeing Plant). These photographs will be used to document the existing conditions and show the No Action Alternative; computer model illustration of the general bulk and scale of potential buildings and relationship to surrounding uses, including the Boeing Plant, will be developed ; Photomontages illustrating the highest level of potential building development (Plan B) as iewed from the four viewpoints will be generated from the computer model. A fifth photomontage illustrating a lower level of potential building development (Plan A) as iewed from the park will also be provided. City of Ri'nton Huckell/Weinman Associates Inc. Southpoi f Development SEIS Scope of Work 1-8 The vi:•uaI analysis will address how the height, bulk and scale, and design of the alternatives will be peri;eived from various viewpoints and how the structures would relate to scenic corridors. The budget assumes five computer generated representations. Identifi 3d mitigation will be limited to measures reasonably implemented on the site (no measures requiring implementation by the Boeing Company will be identified). Tram iportation The transportation analysis will describe the existing transportation network in the vicinity of the site. There are several transportation issues regarding the location of the proposed development that will be addressed, including: impacts to the existing roadway network; impacts to the Burlington Northern railroad; access to the Interstate 405 freeway; and, cumulative traffic impacts of the proposed development and the neighboring Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. In additio 1, safety, non-motorized facilities, emergency vehicle access, and transit impacts will be addressed. TranspDrtation information contained in the Southport Access Study (Access Study), currently being prepared by Entranco, will be incorporated into the SEIS where reasonable. For example, the trip generation will have been prepared for the Access Study. The City's transportation model will be ased to determine the trip distribution for the alternatives. Currently, there is not an up-to-date transportation demand forecasting model available to predict future tear traffic volumes. As a result, future year (project year of opening) forecasts will be developed by using a city-approved growth factor for Lake Washington Boulevard, N 30th Street, N 44th Street, Park Drive, Park Avenue, Garden Avenue, and Houser Way. In addition, traffic generated by pipeline and approved development identified by the City will be included in the future year forecasts. The future year forecasts will be used as baseline traffic for the determ nation of traffic impacts related to the proposed development. A portion of this work will be performed in the access study. The remaining work will be performed during this EIS process. The City is currently updating their existing transportation demand forecasting model. If the update is complete prior to SEIS publication, the model forecasts may be compared to the growth factor approach used in this SEIS. If significant discrepancies exist, the forecasting may need to be re-addressed (this additional work, if needed, is not included in this scope or associated budget . The roadway network will be analyzed for the project year of opening during the a.m. and p.m. peak hpur based on a level of service (delay) analysis. This task will be partially performed in the access study, however a larger study area is assumed for the SEIS than is being analyzed in the access study. Therefore, some supplemental analysis, including traffic count and street inventory data collection, will be required to satisfy the requirements of an EIS. The level of service analysi ; will include project-impacted intersections, including site access locations. Up to 11 intersections have been assumed for this scope and associated budget. The intersections include: Lake Washington Boulevard/site access Lake Washington Boulevard/Park Avenue/Park Drive Lake Washington Boulevard/N. 30th Street City of 'enton Huckell/Weinman Associates Inc. Southpc rt Development SE/S Scope of Work 1-9 Lake Washington Boulevard/N. 44th Street Park Drive/I-405 southbound ramps Park Drive/I-405 northbound ramps Burnett Avenue/N. 30th Street N. 30th Street/I-405 southbound ramps N. 30th Street/I-405 northbound ramps N. 44th Street/I-405 southbound ramps N. 44th Street/I-405 northbound ramps For intersections controlled by the WSDOT, such as the interstate ramp intersections, the WSDOT requims a Transyt-7f analysis, with queue length calculations. Transyt-7f is a traffic operations analysis software package. Therefore queue length estimates and a Transyt-7f analysis will be performed for this SEIS at WSDOT controlled intersections. Information gained from the Access Study will be utilized to identify means of analyzing site access and m tigating potential transportation impacts for the development alternatives in the project year of opening. A larger study area will be assumed for the SEIS than was assumed for the Access Study. Mitiga ion measures/performance standards for vehicular traffic impacts, as well as for impacts to non-motorized facilities, railroad facilities, transit, safety and emergency vehicle access will be identif ed. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program will also be addressed. Infrastructure Water and Sewer The a lalysis will include a review of existing City of Renton and Metro utility information for water and sanitary sewer. Existing sewer and water system capacities and constraints will be described. Planned water and sewer system improvements will be identified. Demands for water and sewer from :ite redevelopment will be estimated. Utilizing the City's water system model, the ability of the e'isting water system to adequately supply site development will be analyzed. Any sewer system capacity impacts will be identified, including the capacity of the Metro treatment plant to accon modate added flows from the project. The proposal's relationship to any planned sewer and water system improvements will be evaluated. Where significant impacts are identified, including the need for any significant system upgrades, appropriate mitigation measures that can be used as perfor nance standards will be provided. Solid Waste The analysis will include a review of existing Waste Management-Rainier utility information for solid waste. Existing solid waste system capacities and constraints will be described. Planned solid waste system improvements will be identified. The amount of solid waste generated from the site w II be estimated. The capability of Waste Management-Rainier to collect and transport solid waste from the site, and the capacity of applicable landfill facilities (Cedar Hills landfill) to acconimodate solid waste from the City of Renton (including waste generated from the site), will be evaluated. The proposal's relationship to any planned solid waste system improvements will be evaluated. Where significant impacts are identified, including the need for any significant system City of Renton Huckell/Weinman Associates Inc. Southl ort Development SEIS Scope of Work 1-10 upgrades, appropriate mitigation measures that can be used as performance standards will be provided. Population/Housing/Employment The ar alysis would review City population/housing and employment targets. It would also review the development capacity analysis contained in the prior SEIS prepared (by Huckell/Weinman Associates) for the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. The primary issue evaluated would be ho v/if the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning change (and potential development proposal) could affect adopted targets and/or capacity. The alternatives could, for example, reduce the potential for industrial jobs but increase the potential for office and retail jobs. Any net change in employment capacity would be identified by using employee per square foot ratios ;issumed in the Comprehensive Plan and other Puget Sound jurisdictions (updated to reflect recent development trends). Any such change would also be evaluated relative to City economic development goals and policies. The relationship of the residential population expected for the proposal/alternatives to recent City growth trends and GMA-based population targets would be identified. The type and quantity of housing would be evaluated in terms of how it meets City targets and relates to recent growth trends Nois? Noise mpacts from construction and from project generated traffic will be analyzed. During construction, the driving of piles will generate the greatest potential for impacts. The potential impact of pile driving noise will be assessed by assembling previously measured data or available publisl ed data for pile driving noise and sound levels at the nearest sensitive receptors using distance attenuation calculations. Typical construction noise levels for other construction activities i.e. grading, building construction) will be characterized based on published sound levels and a qualita:ive evaluation of the potential for off-site construction noise impacts to the park and residential uses in the vicinity (primarily the residential uses along Lk. Washington Blvd. east of the park) will be made. Pertinent regulations covering construction noise will be reviewed and discussed. Potential traffic noise impacts will be determined at two park locations in the vicinity of the site entrance and, if the traffic analysis indicates that traffic from the proposal will utilize Lake Washington Blvd., at two locations along Lake Washington Blvd. to the north and east of the site by documenting existin sound levels and calculating future noise levels using an FHWA traffic noise prediction procec ure (the NOISE model). Existing and future calculated sound levels will be compared to relevant local, state, and federal noise criteria to provide decision makers a frame of reference for assess ing potential noise impacts due to traffic to and from the site. Noise elated to operation of the proposal is likely to be less of an issue. However, if it is possible to delineate specific on-site noise sources with the potential to affect sound levels at sensitive receivers i.e. large HVAC systems), off-site sound levels will be calculated for up to 5 on and off-site source/receiver combinations. If necessary, the effects of the combination of on-site sources on off- site receptors will be calculated. City of Renton Huckeli/Weinman Associates Inc. Southport Development SEIS Scope of Work I-11 Noise mpacts to proposed site uses from activities at the adjacent Boeing facility will be identified. Boeinc will be contacted, with the assistance of the City of Renton, to determine Boeing's operational schedule and potential noisiest activities. Short-term measurements of the noisiest activities will be taken. If deemed necessary, one unattended 24-hour sound level measurement will be taken to characterize the average day-night sound level on the site with Boeing activity. These measured sound levels will be compared with local and federal guidelines and criteria to determine potential noise impacts. The pc tential impact of vibration from pile driving on the adjacent Boeing plant will be assessed. The background vibration levels at the nearest Boeing facility use while the facility is in operation will be measu red. Vibration levels at this location when the facility is not in operation will be measured to deterrr ine Boeing's contribution to vibration levels. Vibration levels at this location with pile driving will be estimated. (It should be noted that some assistance from the City of Renton may be neces:ary to obtain access to the Boeing plant for MFG personnel.) Where significant impacts are identified, appropriate mitigation measures that can be used as performance standards will be provided. Identified mitigation will be limited to measures that can be reasonably implemented on the project site (no measures requiring implementation by the Boeing Company will be identified). Air Cr uality The existing air quality characteristics of the area will be described based on available PSCAPA data. The pc tential for air quality impacts from emissions during construction and emissions from project- relatec traffic will be described qualitatively. Potential impacts to future residents and occupants of the site from the adjacent Boeing paint facility, in terms of the potential for fumes or vapors, will be identifi?.d. Where significant impacts are identified, appropriate mitigation that can be implemented on-site will be described. If the I ransportation analysis indicates that improvements to WDOT roadway(s) would be required and it s determined by the City of Renton, in consultation with the SETS team, that an air quality conformance analysis is required, this optional analysis could consist of the following. The 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations would be calculated using standard EPA-approved models. Consistency with ambient air quality standards will be assessed by comparing predicted carbon monoxide concentrations with adopted 1-hour and 8-hour standards. The Environmental Protection Agency's Mobile5a - Mobile Source Emission Model will be utilized to calcule to the rates at which pollutants are emitted from vehicles. Mobile5a is a fifth generation model that calculates the quantity of carbon monoxide emitted per vehicle-mile-traveled based on the vehicle mix, calendar year, the fraction of vehicles which are warmed up, the vehicle speed, and other f actors. The ERA's CAL3QHC 2.0 dispersion model will be utilized to predict ambient concentrations from traffic lata and Mobile emission factors. The CAL3QHC model is the latest in the Caline model series, which is widely recognized as the best available for evaluating traffic air quality impacts. City of 4enton Huckeii/Weinman Associates Inc. Southp art Development SEIS Scope of Work 1-12 w CAL3QHC is designed to evaluate pollutant emissions from traffic on both free-flow roads and idling at intersections. CO concentrations at up to three signalized intersections will be evaluated using CAL3QHC to calculzAe CO levels at specific locations called "receptors." Receptor locations will be selected adjacent to affected intersections, and possibly at the nearest residential locations or other sensitive receivers. Modeling will simulate worst-case meteorological conditions by assuming a light wind nearly paralleling the most congested roadway at an intersection, and stable atmospheric conditions. Pub! c Services Fire/Emergency Medical Protection and Police Our a ialysis will involve a compilation of existing fire/emergency medical protection and police protec:ion services in the vicinity of the site. The fire district and police precinct serving the site vicinity will be identified. The specific fire station and police station serving the site, and current demand for police and fire service (i.e. number of police and fire/emergency calls) will be descri)ed. Existing fire and police response times to the site, and any existing mutual aid agreements between service providers will be described. Any information on estimated fire and police service calls without the proposal will be provided. Increases in police and fire/emergency medical protection demand from redevelopment will be estimated utilizing police and fire call-to-population ratios provided by the Renton Fire and Police Departments. Impacts on response times to the site will be addressed. The need for additional fire and police services from redevelopment will be determined. The potential need to hire additicnal personnel, purchase more equipment, or build additional facilities will be assessed. Emerc ency access routes and on-site exits including the ability of emergency vehicles to gain access; to the site during times of traffic congestion will be evaluated Where significant impacts are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be provided. Schools Existir g student enrollment, capacity and projected enrollment will be described for the schools that s,)rve the site vicinity. Student enrollment forecasts for future years will be identified as available. Current plans by the Renton School District to construct new facilities, or make facility impro\ements, will be discussed, and existing transportation services available to/from the schools servicing the site will be identified. Any existing capacity concerns will be identified. The n amber of students expected to be generated by the proposal will be estimated using the appropriate school district formula; the specific residential product likely to be built on the site will also b 3 considered. The capacity of the schools in the site vicinity to accommodate the projected studer t population will be evaluated. Any need for additional improvements will be identified. Potential impacts to school bus transportation operations will be assessed. Where significant impac s are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be provided. City of Renton Huckell/Weinman Associates Inc. Southport Development SEIS Scope of Work 1--13 Parks'Recreation Our analysis will identify and describe park and recreation facilities in the vicinity of the site. The adequ icy of existing facilities to serve the existing population will be described using City of Renton standards in the Comprehensive Plan. Because of the proximity of Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, a more detailed discussion on the recreational features of this park will be provided. Informal recreational uses in the site vicinity, including boating and cycling, will be described. Applicable City of Rer ton standards for park and recreation space will be identified. Requii ements for on-site recreation facilities based on City of Renton requirements will be identified. Propo Jed on-site recreational facilities on the site, including public walkways, would be described. The a iailability of the on-site recreational features to the site population and general public will be descri)ed. The increase in demand for existing formal and informal park and recreation facilities will be de:scribed, with particular attention to the potential for impacts to Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. Appropriate mitigation could include standards for on-site recreational facilities or other measi res (programmatic or financial) to address impacts to park use. Public Involvement/Agency Coordination Public Involvement We w II assist the City during the Supplemental EIS scoping and Supplemental Draft EIS periods by prE partition of two newsletters, one subsequent to the scoping period and one during the Draft SETS comment period, summarizing the issues raised during scoping and the environmental reviem process. The context of these newsletters will be coordinated with the City prior to their produ;tion. Huckell/Weinman Associates will assist in the coordination of public hearings as well the sloping meeting and the Draft SEIS hearing). Age!icy Coordination In ad iition to the public scoping meeting, we propose to coordinate a separate scoping meeting/open house to solicit input from state, federal and tribal agencies. At this meeting, the Planned Action SEPA approach would be described to help agencies understand that the approach of the SETS will be to develop design parameters and performance standards, rather than analyze a specific development proposal. This approach would also help to identify agency concerns early in the process and allow the project team and City to address those concerns in the Supplemental EIS analysis and resulting mitigation measures. We would also help to coordinate any follow-up meetings between agency representatives, project team I nembers and City staff to discuss agency issues and/or suggestions for mitigation measures two meetings assumed). City of Renton Huckell/Weinman Associates Inc. South;port Development SEIS Scope of Work 1-14 MAR-03-1999 18:36 CITY F RENTON 5 430 7300 P.03/17 SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED ACTION SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING DOCUMENT City of Renton Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division Economic Development/Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Department March 8, 1999 NEY P-98%425 430 7300 03-03-99 07:42PM P003 St24 MpR-03-1999 18:36 CIT` RENTON 5 430 7300 P.04/17 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE &REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED ACTION SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS) INT2OD'UCTION The City of Renton is requesting comments on the scope of the Supplemental EIS for the proposed Sout iport Planned Action. This document provides a description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives and those elements of the environment preliminarily identified for consideration and analysis in th s SEIS. Scol ing: Agencies, affected tribes and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the SEE. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts and licenses or other approvals that may be required. All Comments must be received by March 29. 1999 for consideration in the proposed scope of the SupF lemental EIS. Written comments should be addressed to: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 A pi blic scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m., located at the City Coui zcil Chambers (7th Floor),Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055. If you are inter:sted in attending the scoping meeting please contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Divi;;ion, (425)430-6575,to obtain the meeting date and time and to ensure that the meeting has not been rescl.eduled. Rest onsible Official: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 1055 South Orady Way Renton,WA 98055 Pro!onent:Seco Development Lear Agency: City of Renton Preliminary Scoping Docwnsent 1 Southport Planned Action P 98%425 430 7300 03-03-99 07:42PM P004 #24 MfR-03--1999 18:37 ClT = RENTC l 15 430 7300 P.05r17 DESCRIPTION OF 111, PROPOSAL Sea Development is proposing that phased redevelopment of the Shuffleton Steam Plant site bedesi,mated by the City as a Planned Action pursuant to SEPA. The Planned Action designation by theCitywouldreflectadecisionthatadequateenvironmentalreviewhasbeencompletedandfurtherenvi-onmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase, would not be necessary if it isdete:mined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Actionordiilance. The roposed Action includes: Adoption of a Planned Action designation Corn 3rehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and concurrent Rezone (from Heavy Industrial toCent:r Office Residential) Zoni ig Code Text Amendment Preli:ninary Conceptual Master Plan Proc ss assumes that a final Master Plan and site plan(s) for individual phases as well as shorelinesubstintialdevelopmentpermitapplicationswillbesubmittedatalaterstageasaPlannedAction.Appl cation for construction-related permits from the City of Renton and other state and federal agencies,including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404, 401 permits, stormwater discharge/NPDES,build ng and construction permits, etc., required for long-term redevelopment of the site would also berequestedforapprovalsubsequenttotheadoptionofthePlannedActionapproval. Issuance of these andotherrequireddevelopmentpermitsisincludedwithinthescopeofenvironmentalreviewforthePropcsedAction, To fa:ilitate the City's consideration of the Planned Action designation and environmental review ofimplenentationofthePlannedAction, a conceptual redevelopment plan for the site will be formulated.The Master Plan will provide conceptual information on potential mix of uses, building density andheigh., access/circulation, recreation and open space opportunities and other development features, Locat on of the Proposal/Site Area The s to is located along the Lake Washington shoreline, between the Boeing industrial complex andGeneO:oulon Park. (vicinity map attached). The Southport redevelopment would occur on approximately 17 acres. This acreage also includes about2acre: of water where the property boundaries extend over Lake Washington. The existing building areaoftheSteamPlantandancillarybuildingsequalsabout100,000 square feet. The proponent estimatesthattteexistingdevelopmentandimprovementscovermorethan90% of the site with impervioussurface.s. Prelim',ary Scoprng Docutnenr Southpo•t Planned Action 2 99% 425 430 7300 03-03-99 07:42PM P005 #24 Ice-03-1999 18:37 CI T RENTON 5 430 7300 P.06/17 Man er Plan Features Preli ninary plans for the Southport site include creating a mixed-use development with private and public amenities and recreational opportunities. Presently,preliminary conceptual plans would result in the f illowing ranges of development: 543 to 581 attached multi-family residential dwelling units 38,000 square feet of retail/service 500,000 to 750,000 square feet of office The uses would be developed above structured parking. Including parking levels, the heights of the build ings would range from 5 to 8 stories above grade. Presently, preliminary conceptual plans indicate that •esidential and commervial uses would be located in the northern portion of the site along Lake Washington, and the office uses would be located in the middle and southern portions of the site. Public amenities proposed include a boardwalk promenade at the waters edge the full width of the prop( rty that would offer opportunities for walking, outdoor dining, visual access to the lake and an exter sion of the lake walk at the adjacent Coulon Park. An existing dock would be retained and poter tially enhanced to allow for guest moorage. The mixed-use project would be constructed in phases. The 1•roposal would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and concurrent rezone from Employment Area,Industrial/Heavy Industrial (EAI/IH) to Center Office Residential (COR). The intention of the Cent(r Office/Residential (COR) designation is to create a compact, urban development with high amenity value, that serves as a gateway to the City. The zone is written for specific districts of the City. For e)(ample COR-1 applies to the Stoneway Concrete vicinity, and COR-2 applies to the Port Quendall vicin.ty, and some of the development standards vary by location. A new COR-3 zoning text section would need to be prepared for the Southport site. The zoning would be similar to the other two COR zone: which allow flexibility of use combinations and development standards which encourage redev elopment. The zones typically require Master Plans although the procedures vary. Relit ottship to Retnediation Process Envir)nrnental investigations at the Shuffleton Steam Plant are documented in three reports: 1.Final Environmental Site Investigation, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility, Renton, Washington, prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated April 15, 1996 by Hart Crowser,Inc.2.Remedial Action Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility, Renton, Washington, prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated December 6,1996 by Hart Crowser, Inc.3.Final Sediment Characterization Report on the Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility DNR Lease Area, Renton, Washington, prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated November 7, 1997, prepared for Puget Sound Energy by Wineman Environmental Consulting in conjunctionwithHartCrowser, Inc. Envir mnmental Cleanup Summary: An environmental site investigation was performed at the Shuffleton Facili yin 1995 to,identify the nature and extent of chemical contaminants present in site soil, offshore sedim!nt, and groundwater. As part of that investigation, an extensive site history was developed,includ ing a series of interviews with site workers and research of historical records. A potential for releas:s of chemical contaminants were identified on several areas of the site as a result of that study.Subse luently, a Phase II sampling plan was developed to test site soil, sediment, and groundwater for abroadrangeofpotentialcontaminants. Prelim nary Scoping Document 3SouthpinPlannedAction ri-98% 425 430 7300 03-03-99 07:42PM P006 #24 MAR-03-1999 18 37 CIT1 RENTON 430 7300 P.07/17 In 1996, 71 soil samples were collected from borings, test pits and surface soils. Heavy range petroleum hydrocarbons were identified in over half of the sample collected in a variety of site locations. Eight of those samples contained total petroleum hydrocarbons (TIE) above the cleanup standard. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected in two samples at levels slightly above the residential clear,up standard. Lead was also detected above residential cleanup standards primarily in surface soils around structures that had been painted with lead-based paint. Some arsenic was discovered in railroad balla;t materials. No volatile or semi-volatile priority pollutants had been detected at levels of concern. Asbe stos fire-brick was discovered buried in several locations and the asbestos content of the surrounding soils was above levels that would be protective of human health. Freshwater sediment samples were collected in the adjoining harbor area. No contaminants were detec ted at levels exceeding screening criteria. The concentration of contaminants detected in the sedir ients were below those found in other areas of Lake Washington, the Ship Canal, and Lake Union and c ther areas with treated pilings. Shall ow groundwater under the site was characterized by installing nine monitoring wells. Results indic ate that except for naturally-elevated levels of arsenic, no contaminants were discovered in site grow tdwater above the State cleanup levels for drinking water. Site.?emediatu>n Plan: In late 1996,a remedial work plan was developed to remediate those areas of the site t There contaminants (primarily petroleum, lead and arsenic, and lesser amount of PCB and asbestos) were discovered above cleanup levels. That plan was implemented in late 1998. All site soils were to be c.:eaned up to residential standards. Eleven areas on the site were identified for excavation of contaminated.soil. As of late January 1999, 9 of the 11 excavation zones were completed. Over 700 cubic yards of contaminated soil had been removed from the site for disposal or treatment. In addition, demolition of four site structures was called out in the remedial work plan. These include removal of two large above ground storage tanks, removal of the site railroad spur and removal of an underground fuel pipeline from the former tanks to the pumphouse; these activities were reviewed in City applications for envii onmental and shoreline permits. The I emedial action is scheduled to be completed by March 1999. Following that, a cleanup action report will he submitted to the Department of Ecology for their review and expected designation as a no further actio i site. Since the remedial action is nearly complete, it is anticipated that the issue of on-site ha.zaa does materials will not be a topic of the Supplemental EIS. Lice,!ses,Permits and Necessary Approvals The i ollowing permits and approvals may be required for phased redevelopment of the site: City >f Renton! Planned Action Designation Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Zoning Code Text Amendment Master Site Plan Approval and individual site plan approvals by phase Shoreline Substantial Development Approval Shoreline Variance or Conditional Use,if applicable Conditional Use Permits, if applicable Variances, if applicable Clearing, grading, demolition,construction, building and mechanical permits Roadway access approval Parking and Loading Regulation Modification Prelu unary Scoping Document 4 South 7orr Planned Action R-98%425 430 7300 03-03-99 07: 42PM P007 #24 03-1999 18:38 cIT1 _- RENTON 5 430 7300 P.08/17 Puge Sound Air Pollution Control Authority Was}ington Department of Ecology: Hazardous Waste-No Further Action Letter NPDES permit approval Shoreline Substantial Development Approval Possible Shoreline Variance or Conditional Use Water Quality Certification Coastal Zone Management Certification Was}ington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Hydraulic Project Approval Wasi ington Department of Natural Resources: Aquatic Use Authorization US A any Corps of Engineers: Section 401 and 404 Permits if needed US E wironmental Protection Agency: CERCLA/MTCA Clearance All o her licenses and permits required to allow redevelopment of the site under the Master Site Plan. ALTERNATIVES CHOSEN FOR ANALYSIS In addition to the Proposed Action described above, alternatives to be considered in this EIS will include the fc flowing: No-A ction — Continuation of some form of industrial use of the property. No comprehensive plan amen dment nor rezone of the site would result; Desii n Alternative —This alternative would also feature a mixed-use development. Primary distinctions from the Proposed Action would include reconfiguration of the location of residential, commercial and offict uses where office, and mixed residential-commercial uses would be located in the northern portion of thi: site, and office and residential uses would be located in the middle and southern portions of the site. Total units and square footage of building space would be similar to the Proposed Action. Other majo: infrastructure elements would be similar to the proposal, and phasing of development w9_41d-also- be sii filar. EIS 1 PPROACH EIS .Required -- The lead agency has determined that this proposal could have significant adverse impai:ts on the environment. A Supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) to the Comi)rehensive Plan EIS documents is required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. The 3EIS is intended to address all probable significant impacts that would occur as a result of redev elopment in the mixed-use center. The EIS is intended to provide a sufficient level of detail and analy zs such that further environmental review under SEPA for each specific development phase will not be ne:essary, assuming that each phase is consistent with the Planned Action designation. Since the analysis will address a major Comprehensive Plan Amendment, this SETS will build upon previ )us environmental documents prepared for comprehensive planning efforts conducted by the City of Rentc n, as well as documents prepared for nearby sites and resources. Some of the documents that will be co'isulted and incorporated by reference, as appropriate, into the analysis of this EIS include: Prelin<inary Scopbrg Document 5 SouthA'ort Planned Action F.-98% 425 430 7300 03-03-99 07:42PM P008 #24 I -03-1999 1B:3B CIT ' RENTON 5 430 7300 P.09 1? Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Draft and Final EIS January, 1992 and February, 1993) City of Renton Drat and Final Comprehensive Plan Supplemental DEIS and FEIS December, 1994 and February, 1995) Shuffleton Complex Soil Remediation, Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated, LUA 93-072, ECF, June 1993 Shuffleton Tank Removal,Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated, LUA 96-103,ECF, September 1996 Shuffleton Soil Remediation, Determination of Non-Significance, LUA 98-115, ECF, SM, August 1998 14'.r,E 1i ENTS OF TEEL ENVIRONMENT The lead agency has preliminarily identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS. Direct, indir:ct and cumulative impacts as a result of construction and operation of the proposal and alternatives will ,e identified and evaluated for each of the following elements of the environment. Mitigation meas ores will also be identified, as appropriate and warranted. Nate ral Environment Earth: The site is generally flat with a slight topographic slope toward Lake Washington. Typical of indu;trial sites in the vicinity, the site has been drained and filled with sands, gravels, and demolition debri;over the years. A sit:-specific analysis of soil, and geologic conditions will be prepared. This analysis would primarilyutiliz: data provided in previous documents. Applicable maps and cross sections will be provided. A discussion of applicable geologic hazards will address the sites'potential as a seismic hazard area. Antic ipated building construction methods for development of the site will be described. An evaluationoftheanticipatedimpactsofproposedconstructionatthesitewillbeconducted. The potential for erosii in and sedimentation impacts will be evaluated. Any limitations of the sites' soils for grading andforsIpportofstructuresandroadswillbedescribed. Construction de-watering issues would bediseu>sed. Finally, any risks of construction and building placement associated with potential seismic events (liquefaction) will be addressed. Mitigation measures which may be relevant to minimize impactsonthesitewillbeidentified. Air Quality: Consistent with the requirements of regulatory agencies, the assessment of air qualityimpactswillbebasedoncarbonmonoxideconcentrations. Receptor locations will be selected adjacent to af.ected intersections, and possibly at the nearest off-site residential locations or other sensitivereceiers. Existing conditions, the Proposed Action, and alternatives will be modeled. Modeled concentrations will be compared to ambient standards to determine the potential significance of impacts. Relev ant mitigating measures to reduce any identified impact from increased traffic will be discussed andincorl,orated from the transportation analysis. A dis;ussion of adjacent industrial activities will be provided which address the potential for fumes orvapors (for example, painting activities at the Boeing plant). Potential mitigation on the Southport sitewillb-described. Construction-related air quality impacts during demolition and construction, such as the potential forgenerationofdustduringsitegradingactivities, will also be discussed. Measure to mitigate air qualityemisaonsduringconstructionwillalsobeaddressed_ Preliminary Scoping Document 6SouthportPlannedAction 425 430 7300 03-03-99 07:42PM P009 #24 MAR-03--1999 18:39 CIT = RENTON 5 430 7300 P.1ev17 Wat,sr Resources The site is located in the glacial deposits of the Cedar River valley. The regional groundwater flow is characterized by recharge in the uplands and discharge to the north into Lake Washington. Because of the discharge upward into Lake Washington in the vicinity of the site, shallow groundwater at the site is not expected to flow downward to deeper water-bearing units. Groundwater beneath the site was observed at depths of 3 to 5 feet below grade during sampling activities. Based on measurements at 19 groundwater monitoring well locations in September and December 1995, groundwater at the site flows in a;forth to northwesterly direction toward the lake at a relatively slow rate. y Qn nwater ,Urct nage/Runcf-- Existing drainage patterns, runoff rates and volumes will be described. Post development runoff patterns, volumes and flows would be estimated. Design parameters for store wwater facilities would be determined and discharge will be forecast. Adopted surface water draw age standards will be assessed, and the need for any mitigation identified. roc'ndwater -- Groundwater levels on-site and immediately adjacent to the site (Lake Washington) will be d:scribed based primarily on existing data. The direction of groundwater flow will be documented. The :ontrbution of infiltration on-site to groundwater and surface water resources will be described, The imp cis of changes in land use on infiltration and groundwater movement will be evaluated. Any pote itial impacts to groundwater quality conditions will be assessed. Measures to mitigate any identified grou idwater impacts will be addressed. Watt r Quality--Existing water quality conditions in lower Lake Washington will be described based on avail able data. City of Renton plans, policies and regulations relevant to surface water quality mar':.gement and use of Best Management Practices will be identified. Water quality impacts during cons ruction and post-development will be assessed, including potential impacts resulting from erosion and stormwater pollutants typical of urban runoff. Potential impacts to Lake Washington will be addr:ssed. Post-development water quality composition will be estimated using existing literature, with cons deration of the effect of proposed water quality treatment facilities. Predicted changes in water quality for Lake Washington will be compared to relevant standards. Opportunities for mitigating any ideni ified impacts will be described and examined. Flans and Animals Shoreline Habitat- Much of the site is improved with impervious surfaces, and there is an existing bulk]lead. An assessment of the existing shoreline buffer area of Lake Washington will be provided relati ve to any upland habitat value, if present. Currently, Renton's wetland inventories do not identify poter teal wetlands on the site. Potential impacts to upland habitats and wetlands, if any, from project construction and post-development will be addressed, including potential impacts from increased erosion, water quality changes and increased human activity. isht ries- Aquatic and riparian habitat along the Lake Washington shoreline on, and adjacent to, the site will l le characterized in terms of fisheries habitat and functions. Information will also be obtained from local State,Federal and Tribal agencies. Potential impacts on fisheries resources from both construction and iperation of the proposal will be assessed. Such impacts could include effects on habitat due to poter tial increases in erosion/sedimentation during construction, changes in water quality conditions, and other 3. Mitigation plans may be examined. Prelu Binary Scoping Document 7 South,ort Planned Action R-9994 425 430 7300 03-03-99 07 :42PM P010 #24 MAR-03-1999 18:39 C I T RENTON 25 430 7300 P.11/17 Buil Environment Noise: Relevant federal, state, and local sound level criteria will be identified and discussed for impacts of tl&e project on surrounding sites (traffic and construction noise impacts) and impacts of surrounding uses (e.g.Boeing industrial operations) on the subject site. Base line sound level measurements will be collected on-site and in the project area to measure sound levels from off-site sources, and also during the peak traffic period and at other times of the day, if nece>sary. Off-site measurements will be taken at locations representative of sensitive receptors in the vicir ity of the site. Measured sound levels will be compared with relevant sound level criteria to describe the a aisting sound environment in the project area. Futu•e traffic noise levels from project-affected roadways will be calculated using FHWA's NOISE rood:l, a traffic noise prediction procedure. The NOISE model calculates the equivalent sound level Leq generated by traffic based on traffic volume, speed and vehicle mix. Model calculations will be coral,ared with relevant criteria to gauge impacts. Impact assessment will be based on existing noise level;and on traffic information provided by the traffic consultant. Con:traction noise will be evaluated by specific construction activity and phase (i.e., pile driving, exca'ration, etc.), using published sound levels of construction noise. These sound levels will be adjusted to represent the actual distances to potential receptor locations surrounding the project site. Potential means for mitigating any identified on- and off-site noise sources, traffic, and other noise impa:ts will be discussed. Pertinent regulations covering construction noise, and potential constraints on the timing and duration of construction noise events, will be identified,as warranted. Lane and Shoreline Use: The Land Use analysis will focus on the specific land use patterns in the area adjac ent to the situ and in nearby neighborhoods. Land use designations and zoning for the site and surrounding properties will be described. The EIS will also describe the type and mix of uses, zoning, density, scale and shoreline uses both on site and in the surrounding community. A discussion of the site's historical activities will also be included based on available information. A site-specific analysis of the compatibility of the design, scale, and features of the Proposed Action and alternatives with immediately surrounding uses will be provided. The redevelopment of the site with mixed uses will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone from Employment Area - Industrial/Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential. The potential impacts of rezoning and development of a mixed use development on surrounding parcels will be addressed. The Land Use analysis may include a discussion of potential land use trade-offs relating to provision of substantial empl )yment and multi-family housing on the site versus within other designated centers in the City. The Lelationship to Plans and Policies analysis will summarize relevant policies and provisions from CityofRenton, regional, State, and Federal plans and regulations. City land use, transportation and related plans ordinances or regulations and will discuss the general consistency or inconsistency of the proposal. The EIS will contain a specific .evaluation of the relationship of the proposal to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. This analysis will address relevant policies on the Land Use, Transportation, Hous ng, Capital Facilities,Utilities, Economic Development and Environmental Elements. The relationship of the proposal to the City's Shoreline Master Program will be assessed with emphasis on goals and policies, use regulations, and development standards (e.g. setbacks, building height, poten:jai need for variances or conditional use permits). The site's proposed shoreline uses will be asses:ed relative to the Shoreline Master Programs' policies and standards related to encouragement of Prelin inary Scoping Document 8South)Hart Planned Action R-99X 425 430 7300 03-03-99 07: 42PM P011 3t24 MAR-03-:999 18:40 C I T ' RENTON 5 430 7300 P. 12/1? water-enjoyment uses, intensity of use and public access. Measures to mitigate any adverse land use impacts to the surrounding community and uses will be identified, as warranted. The proposal's consistency with the City's Zoning Code, and proposed Office/Residential zone provisions will be evaluated. In addition, the proposal's relationship to other applicable standards/regulations (i.e., Critical Areas Ordinance) will be addressed. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone will be evaluated relative to City criteria for such actions and consistency with relevant plans, policies, and regulations. Finally, the proposed zoning code text amendment descr bing the potential COR development standards will be assessed relative to applicable plans and polici es. Other plans and regulations which could be evaluated include the Growth Management Act, Shoreline Management Act, Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, nd others. Socioeconomics (Population, Housing, Employment): A description of the existing jobs currently on site till be provided. A description of the existing and future forecasted population, housing, and emplc yment levels and characteristics in the area will be provided. Future housing and employment needs identified by the City will be discussed, The specific number and type of jobs that could be created on site as part of the proposal will be estimated based on standard ratios. The on-site population that will be generated by the specific type of housing units will be estimated as well. These projections will be compared to the assumptions used by the City to gauge any important differences. Furthermore, the number,of estimated jobs and population will t e compared to overall, adopted forecasts and targets for City growth, to determine the proposal's perce itage of such overall growth. Finally, the potential impacts of introducing a new employment base and population to the surrounding comnunity will be assessed(interrelated with the Land Use analysis). Meas zres to mitigate any adverse impacts to population, employment and housing conditions will be identified. Aesthetics, Light and Glare: Existing aesthetic qualities and scenic resources of the site and the surroilnding area, including Lake Washington, will be identified. The existing industrial character of the site v ill be described. A description of the general viewshed to the site including photos from several vanta;e points will be provided to visually document existing conditions. Vantage points could include views from Gene Coulon Park, Cedar River Trail,roadways, and nearby residential districts. The F otential impacts to views from these areas from redevelopment of the site will be evaluated. The propc sed uses, heights, design, and shoreline and water-related features will be considered relative to exist'g uses. Visual impacts of the proposal as seen from selected viewpoints area parks and roadways, and representative existing residential areas, will be evaluated. The change in aesthetic character of the site from industrial to mixed-use center will be evaluated, particularly related to design, scale, intensity and compatibility with the surrounding aesthetic character. Any f dditional mitigating measures to reduce any visual impacts of the proposal that are not included in the pr 3posed design and are warranted will be evaluated. Existing sources of light and glare from adjacent industrial uses and existing on-site uses will be identi led. The potential impacts of light and glare from redevelopment on surrounding land uses and Prelin inary Scoping Document 9 South]ort Planned Action R-99% 425 430 7300 03-03-99 07: 42PM P012 #24 3-1999 18:40e rCIT = RENTON 5 430 7300 P.13/17 from Lake Washington itself will be addressed. Measures to mitigate impacts from light and glare from off-site and on-site sources will be identified, as appropriate. Tram;portation: An overview of existing conditions within the study area will be provided. A description of the local arterial network, including Park Avenue North,Lake Washington Blvd., SR900, and WSDOT I-405 will be included. Existing trips associated with current on-site uses will be discussed. Levels of servi,:e at nearby intersections will be analyzed. There: are several transportation issues regarding the location of the proposed development that will be addre ssed, including: impacts to the existing roadway network, impacts to the Burlington Northern Railr)ad; access to the 1-405 freeway; and cumulative traffic impacts of the proposed development and the r eighboring Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. In addition, safety, non-motorized facilities, emergency vehicle access, and transit impacts will be addressed. Trip generation and distribution will be determined for the Proposed Action and alternatives. The City's transportation model would be used to determine trip distribution. The City's transportation model will also be used to determine future year(year of opening for the proposed development) traffic forecasts for the roadway network surrounding the project site. Future year forecasts will include traffic generated by pipeline and approved development identified by the City. The future year forecasts will be used as baseline traffic for the determination of traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The i oadway network will be analyzed for the project year of opening during the p.m.peak hour based on a level of service (delay) analysis. The level of service analysis will include project-impacted inten ections,including site access locations. Appr opriate mitigation will be identified for vehicular traffic impacts, and will include options for trip redid.tion through Transportation Demand Management (this could include options for mode split, peak trip :preading, etc.). Potential increases in mode split to transit, HOV and non-motorized travel will be exple,red. Mitigation would also address, where appropriate, railroad facilities, safety and emergency vehicle access. Public Services and Utilities: Fire and Emergency Medical Services - Existing fire and emergency medical services will be c iseussed. The current staffing levels,equipment and facilities of the City of Renton Fire Department rill be described, and any service deficiencies identified. Specific stations that respond to the site gill be identified. Current demand for services (number of calls) will be assessed based on available iaforrnation_ Response times to the site, and any existing mutual aid agreements between service providers, will be described. Any information on estimated future increases in fire and emergency medical service calls without the proposal will be provided. Available water resources for fire flow purposes will be documented(interrelated with the Utilities section below). An estimate of the added demand on fire and emergency services from the proposal will be made 1 ased on information provided by the Renton Fire Department or on data available from other j irisdictions. Impacts on response times to the site will be addressed. The need for additional fire End emergency medical services from redevelopment on a phased basis will be determined_ The x otential need to hire additional personnel, purchase more equipment, or build additional facilities will be assessed. Emergency access routes and on-site cxits including the ability of emergency ehicles to gain access to the site during times of traffic congestion will be evaluated. Potential i npacts will be assessed relative to planned improvements identified in the Capital Facilities Element. additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined, as warranted. Preli,'unary Scoping Document 10 Saud port Planned Action R-gg%425 430 7300 03-03-99 07 : 42PM P013 St24 41 CITI RENTON ac5 430 7300 P.14/1?MAF?-03-1999 18 l'olice Services - Existing police services will be described. The current staffing Ievels, equipment and facilities of the Renton Police Department will be described and any service deficiencies identified. Specific stations that respond to the site will be identified. Current demand for services lumber of calls) will be assessed based on available information. Response times to the site, and any existing mutual aid agreements between service providers, will be described. Any information c n estimated future increases in police service calls without the proposal will be provided. Current crime rates in the site vicinity will be described. in estimate of the added demand on police services, both during construction and operation of the proposal, will be made. Potential impacts on response times,the need for additional personnel, police vehicles, or facilities will be discussed. Potential impacts will be assessed relative to planned is nprovements identified in the Capital Facilities Element. Additional improvements to mitigate any s gnificant impacts will be determined, as warranted. Schools - Existing student enrollment, capacity and projected enrollment will be described for the s:hools that serve the site vicinity. Student enrollment forecasts for future years will be identified as available. Current plans by the Renton School District to construct new facilities, or make facility improvements, will be discussed, and existing transportation services available to/from the schools s n;vicing this site will be identified. Any existing capacity problems will be identified. 1 he number of students expected to.be generated by the proposal will be estimated using the a)propriate school district formula. The capacity of the schools in the site vicinity to accommodate the projected student population will be evaluated. Any need for additional improvements will be identified. Potential impacts to school bus transportation operations will be assessed. Additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined, as appropriate. Farks- Existing parks,recreational facilities and trails in the site vicinity will be identified, and their a iequacy to serve the existing population will be analyzed using City of Renton standards for parks a.id recreational facilities contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Planned improvements in the area, is entitled in the Capital Facilities Element, will be described. P-oposed, on-site recreational facilities and opportunities will be described. The impacts of the p.oposal on existing parks (especially Gene Coulon Park located adjacent to the site), recreational fiucilities and trails will be assessed, given the proposed on-site facilities. The availability of these facilities to residents and employees of the development, as well as the general public will be discussed. Additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined, as arranted. later- The existing City of Renton water storage and distribution system in the site vicinity will bedescribedanditscurrentcapacitiesidentified. Existing fire flow capability to the site will be dntermined. Any existing problems or deficiencies in the system will be assessed. The planned improvements identified in the City's Capital Facilities Plan will be reviewed. The project's water demand in terms of peak flow for both domestic use and fire protection will be quantified. Demand re Iated to all proposed uses and project phases will be calculated. The capacity of the existing system to accommodate the project's demand, and the project's relationship to planned improvements in the ai ca will be evaluated. Additional improvements to mitigate project impacts will be determined. The relationship of the proposed system to the adopted water system level of service standards will be discussed. Preliminary Scoping Document 11 _ South;ort Planned Action R-99%425 430 7300 03-03-99 07: 42PM P014 #24 MAR-03-1999 18:41 CIT RENTON 5 430 7300 P. 15/17 jVgg water- The existing City of Renton/Metro wastewater collection, discharge and treatment system will be described and current capacities identified. Any existing problems or deficiencies in the system will be described. The planned improvements identified in the City's Capital Facilities l'Ian will be reviewed. The project's increased sewage flow generation will be quantified, based on c.emand from all proposed uses and phases. The capacity of the existing system to accommodate the project's increased flows will be determined, and the project's relationship to any planned improvements evaluated. The capacity of the Metro treatment plant to accommodate added flows from the project will be addressed. Additional improvements to mitigate project impacts will be determined. The relationship of the proposed system to the adopted wastewater system level of ervice standards will be assessed. 7tormwoter- Existing stormwater facilities,any planned improvements, project impacts to stormwater t unoff volumes; rates and facilities and relevant mitigation measures will be discussed and evaluated i a the Water Resources section of the EIS. solid Waste- Existing solid waste collection, transfer and disposal services and facilities will be c iescnbed. Recycling programs available to the project site will be identified. Current capabilities of haste Management-Rainier to collect and transport waste and the Renton Transfer Station to receive waste will be assessed; additionally, the capacity of the Cedar Hills landfill to accommodate all solid waste from the City of Renton will be evaluated. Planned improvements, identified in the King t;ounty Solid Waste Management Plan, will be reviewed. The project's increased waste generation will be quantified. The ability of the collection, transfer and disposal facilities to adequately handle the project's wash will be assessed. Any additional upgrades in service or facilities, as a result of the proposal, will be determined. Opportunities for recycling and other waste management programs will 1 examined. FIN,iL EIS Whe a the Draft SEIS is completed, it will be issued and made available for public and agency review and coon nent. Comments received within the designated.comment period (usually thirty days) will be incoi porated into a Final SEIS, together with appropriate responses to those comments. Final action on the F roposal will not be taken prior to issuance of the Final SEIS. Prelu urinary Scoping Document 12 South part Planned Action F.-99% 425 430 7300 03-03-99 07: 42PM P015 #24 MAR-03-1999 19:42 CIT` RENTON 5 430 7300 P.16/1? SHUFFLETON LOCATION MAP NE 27th SI. N? 6lh St. < i I NE8 HE 24th St. W 1 NE 231:s if- - - .. _ - ; II6. 1 NE 20th St. i d c I a 14th o NE12thSL I Q1i'• lu z lik oiL)1c7 8 z e 13 j Renton NE 1Oth Municipal e I Pt. Airport NE 10th i5t. t NE 9, NE 9th `l E7° tv 5. cNE 9th St., lx NE titt PI. 4 c- M. e a F p f N6thSt J 1 i 0 NE 7th - c I. o x t. R\\ 4. it N 8t St as S t \ l N 6i. St. 43' '1% 3 3: Sth Sl. cZo•, 1.... 13 ii_ . 4 * 111, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning 0 1 ,500 3 ,000Or0. Dennis on 1a4. 23 February 1988 1 :18,000 12-9996 425 430 7300 03-03-99 07:42PM P016 3t24 sY O‘ e City of Renton cz, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, and STRATEGIC PLANNING Date: 3/15/99 Sixth Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 TO: n. drib n, FROM:6 2e i_19-\ fl Phone: has-) '1SS= ,r,/8/ Phone: 425) 5 7I/ Fax Phone: (Yi ) 4jee g Fax Phone: (425) 430-7300 ISUBJECT: I Number of pages including cover sheet REMARKS: Original to Urgent Reply Please For your be mailed ASAP Comment / review OA 9 w L 1 Y d fie-- We-Lb_ 4 Q • C 4{44- b-cutleGt dicuT % 3`) (jur-'6)+ fwfaI . 7 mom ERRATA SHEET In a two-page text with the title "City of Renton, Determination of Signficance and Request for Comments on Scope of Supplemental EIS, Proposed Southport Planned Action" signed and dated on March 2, 1999,the following change should be noted: Description of Proposal": Based upon recent information from the proponent, the heights of the building would range from 5 to 10 stories instead of 5 to 8 stories. No changes are noted for the numbers of units or square footages. City of Renton Economic Development/Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Dept.3/10/99 SY NT re NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING CITY OF RENTON The City invites all interested parties to comment on the environmental elements to be evaluated in the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review: SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT NO: LUA 99-027, ECF The Southport Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to consider potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Environmental studies will consider redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several land use development and building permits. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is from Lake Washington Boulevard. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SETS) is required which will supplement previous Environmental Impact Statements prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan. A public meeting will be held by the Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department on Tuesday, March 23, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. During the meeting, the public will have the opportunity to ask questions of City staff members and to make verbal and written comments on the scoping process for the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review. You may also comment in writing on the proposed scope of the Supplemental EIS, additional significant adverse impacts, suggestions for alternatives or mitigation measures, licenses, or other approvals that may be required. Please submit written comments to: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 All comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., March 29, 1999 for consideration in the proposed scope of the Supplemental EIS. If you have questions or would like additional information, please contact Lisa Grueter at (425)430-6578. Publication Date: March 12, 1999 SCOPENOT.DOC\ 03-15-99 01 :58PM FROM HUCKELL V1 "rMAN ASOC TO 943073001111 p001 a •1 2U Lake Street South.Suite 202 IncKirkland, Washington 98033 Huckel//1'lleinman Associates, 1 c &snail;hWa A n:ul?hatEt:373T FACSIMILE COVER SHEET TO:FROM: 1L,t S 3 G e4ru er c\-, `lit e COMPANY: DATE: CAI e_eh, -, 61 1 S-1 t RE S P I OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER 3 PHONE/FAX NUMBER: PROJECT #: Cal ls) Ain- 13 0 URGENT FOR REVIEW Ll PLEASE REPLY 0 HARD COPY TO FOLLOW COMMENTS: vrkawt-o _ 03-15-99 01 : 58PM FROM HUCKELL WE1_NMAN ASUC '1'C YtiR7UUU1111 rUL Lana Use 205 Lake StrawSouth,Suite 202 Environmental and Kirkland,Washington 98033 1 Regulatory Analysis 425)S28-4463 11 Legislative Research PAW (-925)828 3861 1 and Drafting E•Mail hwaC mail.halcyon.ccrn MEMORANDUM -March 12, 1999 Revised March 15, 1999) To: Rex Allen SECO Development Lisa Grueter City of Renton From: Rich Schipanski HuckelWVeinman Associates Re: Southport Development SEIS The following memo is an update to the memo sent on March 12. All revisions are indicated by italics. This memorandum outlines some of the additional information (beyond that provided to date) that we will need to prepare the project description and environmental analysis for the Southport SEIS. This information request is separate from any additional information that the technical consultants may have. Some of this information may be included in your package of site condition documentation to be provided next Tuesday. Where definitive information is not available, you can provide us with ranges or assumptions. Over time, the need for additional information or detail may arise. Because of the aggressive schedule for this SEIS, we would like to receive the requested information by Friday March 19 (or sooner if possible). Please also note that we would like to meet with Mithun Architects to obtain graphic information necessary to prepare the photomontages. xxlsg Conditions 1. Please provide a description of the physical characteristics of the shoreline including bulkheads, docks etc.). 2. Please provide a description of the existing sources of light on the site. Proposed Action 1. Please provide a list of the Sponsors Objectives" for the proposal. This list is required by SEPA and is a listing of the primary project goals (example: "Create a mixed-use development which is in harmony with the surrounding marine environment"). Southport Development SEIS Information Needs 7 03-15-99 O1 : 58PM FROM HUCKELL WEINMAN ASOC TO 943073001111 PO03 2. Please provide a d000ription of the proposed phasing schedule (if any), development proposed under each phase, and determine the expected buildout period (when all units and space will be occupied). Please provide this information for both Plan A and Plan B. 3. Please provide a table which identifies all site area (in acres) as either: structure area (building or parking structure); roadway; paved sidewalks, boardwalks or trails; landscaped open space; natural open space; and, other (define). If you feel that any other categories are appropriate, please include. Please provide this information for both Plans A and B. 4. Please describe assumptions, if any, regarding the specific uses proposed/anticipated for the retail use area. 5. Describe the anticipated process of pile placement, numbers of anticipated pilings, and describe which structures, including roadways, would be on piles. Will all piloc bo placod during one construction season or over several seasons? 6. Calculate the amount of impervious surface anticipated on the site after development. Please provide a breakdown of the impervious surfaces by roof area, roads, walkways and other. 7. Please provide a breakdown of proposed cut and fill by use (i.e. amount of grading required for roadways, buildings, walkways, etc.). 8. Please describe the anticipated type and height of proposed outdoor lighting, including roadway and building lighting. Please also describe lighting for the shoreline boardwalk and dock. 9. Please provide any known details on passive recreational features (i.e. public open space, benches) and active recreational features (i.e. children's playground equipment). 10. Please describe the proposed provisions for solid waste collection and recycling. Southport Development SEIS Information Needs 2 CITY of RENTON tt Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 12, 1999 Jeff Haynie,P.E. Entranco 10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98004 Dear Mr. Haynie: Please find enclosed results of a travel demand model distribution exercise. These distributions were developed to provide information for use in the assignment of trips from the proposed Southport development site. The data provided is not a modeled representation of the proposed project, but instead simply a reassignment of unaltered trip tables to a modified model network that may be used to gauge general trip distribution from the project.site '" Typical distributions for two trip types, residential and generalemplo+ment, are provided. These distributions were developed by'altering existing ceritroids which are located proximate to the site so that their network loadinN ' 'ocproposedg curred only at the site of the proposed project entrance. A select link:analysiswas conducted,,and trips across`six sceenlines were identified. These screenlines capture all of the potentialroutes"to/from the project site. Distributions for productions ,(outbound) and attractions (inbound) are provided for daily trips and PM Peak hour trips. Small traffic volumes are generated'for employment PM Peak attractions, so this distribution should be used with caution. The residential distribution may be more appropriate for the commercial uses proposed with this project. Finally, it should be noted that these distributions assume a site improvement which establishes a two way connection to Houser Way from the project entrance on Lake Washington Blvd. Currently,only a one-way(southbound)connection exists. Please feel free to call me at (425) 430-7232 with any questions you may have regarding this or related data. Sincerely, Stephen S.Rolle,P.E. Transportation Engineer c: Lee Haro enclosures 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer 1 19 „x.,,`Pa 1-9 CD 0Z AIr'g lowI1 vd' 1-30 h-T 4-v+.ydof tiit mod yid C ?/ Tu rnO `4 - l;" bi a lil\'' s% f" c) g _. j1Z 1 z I\ 1 Pat j t 1 nj,9Z. ii-\;"U 74 QZ cj a i soy b l, Lwd • II 9 kLLicoA 405 Pin o.f 3./N r 1 -MLA (A Aug A i.,,; 2 1 tc4)i Ili Y Ly A1 s, 4.; t Fa S4. Pc...^ti Ate. I-3-6lu PM 2810 ell 1' t, z « o t h N 39; i-Lio ci 1 1V1 mil t I, 1 55 T 1-,1_,,,o,:m CD 1,9Z ' Q' 1:' illikAi: ''' f'?I'' '‘''.''''.. 1 .. idAi:F3c1-1:c5- 44 f'*:% ° I`^^rn-'O tit Lei 7• • cs ' 5I• b vid' Y... 9 1 \r•so irl c/ ' Oh,,' T ca ' 4 J 9,,, 6) 0 hd r 10x r r tk q I Lk c.AQt4. Pci\ o• 0 405 N 1! t-4oc S" r p -( i V7 i 1 G 14 p, PM P.tLIkr r4 ate 4r Et, e ter 0 In O`(b 1,:( 2g% i 7 1 C.;;; at O a r 41•6 sTAr£ MAR 1 6 1999 44 oy1reap State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Region 4 Office: 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard-Mill Creek,Washington 98012-(425)775-1311 March 12, 1999 Lisa Grueter, Project Manager City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Planning/Building/Public Works Department 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Ms. Grueter: SUBJECT: Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of Supplemental EIS; Southport Planned Action,File Number LUA-99-027, ECF, Lake Washington, Tributary to Ship Canal,King County,WRIA 08.LKWA The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)has reviewed the above-referenced State Environmental Policy Act document and offers the following comments at this time. Other comments may be offered if the project progresses. A Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA; RCW 75.20, WAC 220-110; to be issued by WDFW)will be required for the project to discharge stormwater to Lake Washington. WDFW requires the design of stormwater facilities to meet or exceed the requirements of the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. Redevelopment criteria will be applied for this site. An HPA would also be required for any other construction within the ordinary high water line of Lake Washington, such as pier or bulkhead work. Redevelopment of this site affords a prime opportunity to restore shoreline habitat which is critical for juvenile chinook salmon,which are soon the be listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service as a threatened species, and other salmonid species. As these fish migrate out of the Cedar River,they utilize shallow nearshore habitats for rearing. WDFW hopes that the City of Renton will place a high priority on habitat restoration at the site, contrary to the intensive and environmentally unfriendly uses which are proposed. WDFW believes that there are adequate recreational facilities already constructed at Gene Coulon Park, and that this section of shoreline should be restored as critical fish habitat and protected from further human impacts. In view of the need for habitat restoration, WDFW encourages the City to require a buffer on the shoreline to protect the restored habitat and appropriate signage Ms. Grueter March 12, 1999 Page 2 designating critical habitat to prevent human and pet intrusions. If signage does not prove to be sufficient to prevent damage to the habitat,then fences would need to be constructed. The scoping notice did not mention habitat as a beneficial use of the site designated by the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program. Was this an oversight, or does the City's Shoreline Master Program not include habitat as a beneficial use? Please pass this information on to the project proponent. WDFW appreciates your cooperation in our efforts to preserve,protect,perpetuate, and manage the fish and wildlife resources of the state of Washington. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at(425) 649-7042. Sincerely, Larry Fisher Area Habitat Biologist LF:lf:CORsport.s cc: WDFW, SEPA Coordinator WDOE, SEPA Coordinator 03-11-99 01 :43PM FROM HUCKELL V1F1NMAN ASCC TO 943073009907 P001 205 l. kc$tact South.Suit 202 111.111.111111.1111111.11111111111.1.1111111111111.111111111111 Kirkland,Wsshingtrni 98033 Phonc:(42:)S23-44&1 Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. f mail hw,;:=tsl4j n-Tam FACSIMILE COVER SHEET TO: FROM: S w Cy'Li L COMPANY: AP DATE: 3 ( / 5 RE r OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER U" (A-Pt- 3 PHONE/FA NUMBER: PROJECT #: `Cc/o • 2)' ,-{30-Z 3 o G URGENT R REVIEW 0 PLEASE REPLY HARD COPY TO FOLLOW COMMENTS: n _ e Jc. CU cD Southport Information Database 3l14I99a 0 d , 1Geotech Proposal for Soils Report SECO 1/29/98 2Duane Heldman& Survey of existing Site/Statistics PSE 1/4/99 Boudary line atqustment drawingAssociates 3-PSE Nistory of previous and current employment at Shuffleton Plant SECO 2/1/99 Prepared by Km Lane at SECO request to provide Historical traffic Information x 4tThe Tramp()Group WVeekly Parking Demand Estimate SECO 2/4/9SBased on Proiect Description, Master s anO Use Applicatiarn rr 0—tart Crows& final Environrnantal Site Investigation PSE A/8/Bt} rri o r--•- -: Crowser Remedial Action Plan PSE 12/6196 Q n Environmental Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report PSE 2/19/99T nsultin9 m } ire Environmental Final Sediment Characterization report PSE 11/7/97 Icr Suiting innrnental Associates Drat Sampling Plan for Due Diligence, Environmental Sampling SECO 1/27/93 4-w• .- 17 ntrana Scope of Services,Access Analysis _ CITY 2/26/99 1- " Shuffieton Steam Plant Existing Civil and Engineering Drawings SECO 1/27/99 ti Index d cc1 • E Confidentiality Agreement SECO 6/9/977 cc 17 •uget Western Inc.ALTA/ACSM Survey Requirements PSE 9I23188 18 - Tramp°Group Proposal for Transportation, er neering services, preliminary SECO 1s2 y anatysia for mixed-use Project 0 1•' : Trartspo Group Trip Generation Summary SECO 2/12/99Based on Project Description, Maser O Land Use Appliarfzon 20 : Transpo Group Parking Demand Calculations,Plan A&B SECO 2/4/99 P co a K fl • O) O 0 co . u Page 1 Southport Information Database 3/141439. o ae 21 pSE Puget Power Shuftleton Power Plant Trailing Program Section PSE 6/1/80 o V111 Steam Staton Operator and Watch Electrician o SSE PSE-Department of Ecology Correspondence Summary SECO 1/21/94 23-City of Renton City Comments. Pre-application Meeting CITY 1/22/98 24 1neman Environmental ding Notes/JackPaauw PSEJSEC 3/1/99 Consulting 0 25t8ush, Reed&Hitchings. Land Survey Services,Topographic Mapping Proposal SECO 2/819B _.._ ._.._. rInc. rr, 26\The Transpo Group Traffic Impact Fee Estimate SECO 1/2819 27fEnvironrnental AssoolatesSoU rt DueDli enceg (Environmental Aspects) SECO 1I22193 rn 28)+lrneman Envlrcrtmant i Supplemental Sampling Plan PSE 2/21199 Consulting o a n N 7 y tj i 2 t 'Fr `fit f_Ic i ,?.j V!'' }`•tr `:, 15' -lt rn Co co tit c=, C.J CO CO 7 O W O G"7 Vi CJ G O O> N 11 O W Page 2 CITY (IF RENTON u Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Planning Jesse Tanner,Mayor Susan Carlson,Administrator March 10, 1999 Mike Blumen, Principal Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. 205 Lake Street South, Suite 202 Kirkland, WA 98033 Transmitted Via FAX SUBJECT: SOUTHPORT SCOPE OF SERVICES Dear Mike: I am writing to confirm our conversations about issues to be addressed in the Scope of Services which we discussed on Monday at a meeting and by phone since then. This letter does not summarize every issue, but highlights key items. Based upon Monday's meeting and my discussions with Sue Carlson,your scope will reflect the following: Alternatives to be analyzed include: No Action with No Development No Action with Development under Heavy Industrial Zone (assume continuation of Boeing-type"buildings) Plan A Plan B A "Design Alternative" would be reviewed in the Final EIS if needed. You will be including analysis of a Design Alternative in the Final EIS as an "optional" item which would only be conducted upon written authorization by the City. Fisheries: At this point, Seco Development indicated that they are proposing no changes to the bulkhead and no "bump outs." There would be lighting of the promenade though lighting standard placement has not been finalized; City staff indicated that lighting would be needed for security along the trail among other reasons. Rex Allen of Seco Development discussed that they would like to remove some equipment from the existing dock. However, they are not proposing any additional in-water structures. City staff indicated that use of the dock for guest moorage could be used as a credit towards transportation impacts, and would be an amenity for the site. Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are needed in any case for the development. Based upon Monday's discussion, your scope for fisheries would be retained. You clarified that your scope for the fisheries issue related only to water quality, and "human activity" on shoreline (which would address lighting issue). Related to water quality, AESI will review existing documentation and determine if the water quality data is sufficient, or if limited sampling is needed. Your scope did not assume analysis of new in-water structures. Sue and I discussed this morning how to handle the issue of lighting and the dock. The issue of lighting should be covered and is assumed in your scope for impacts related to human activity" along the shoreline. H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\S HUFFLTN\H W LET.DOC 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 Page 2 March 10, 1999 Given Seco Development's desire to limit shoreline issues related to the dock, and City staff concerns about addressing the issue of the dock in the EIS to cover future potential activities, we discussed an approach to qualitatively address the issue that wouldn't impact the budget much (you are confirming this with AESI). Regarding equipment removal and guest moorage, the approach would be to indicate that the proponent is not currently proposing enhancement of the dock,but that if it was pursued in the future, the potential impacts would be "X" (described qualitatively), and potential mitigation measures would be indicated. Air Quality: Staff will contact agencies to let them know that carbon monoxide modeling would not be conducted at this time, but may be addressed at a later date if traffic improvements warrant the analysis. You will include carbon monoxide modeling as an "optional" item which would only be conducted upon written authorization by the City. Noise: The issues of pile driving and vibration will be added to the scope along with noise impacts from Boeing on the Southport site. Traffic: Entranco is revising their scope. Since the scope for the access analysis was reduced, the EIS scope would be changed to reflect that additional information would be generated for the EIS. Agency Coordination: This task was included in your proposal and would be retained. The following paragraphs summarize discussions from Monday about Seco Development's responsibilities to provide information and about the permit process: Project Description: Seco Development is reworking the conceptual site plans which may change building footprints and heights, mostly affecting the office portion. The number of units and square footages would not change. The new conceptual plans will be provided by Seco Development to the City and you by Tuesday, March 16. Seco Development will also provide estimated construction dates for the project. The information provided by Seco Development will be the basis for the Project Description for purposes of the Draft EIS. Existing Data: Seco Development will provide you with a list of existing documents. You would then prepare a list of which documents you need. Rex Allen is due to give you the list as soon as possible. Shoreline Setbacks: The City's Shoreline Master Program requires a 25 foot setback for residential structures and a 50 foot setback for commercial structures. Mixed use structures are not addressed in the Master Program. The applicant will provide the City with substantive information about the promenade design, courtyard design and the need for the proposed 25 foot setback for the mixed-use structures (this would be provided by Seco Development to the City this week). City staff will determine if there is significant justification for an administrative determination allowing setbacks less than 50 feet, or if variances would be needed. If an administrative determination is made, it would be published along with the Draft EIS. Timing of Shoreline/Site Plan Permits: It was discussed that the shoreline permits and site plan applications would be submitted later. The Final EIS (and confirmation that the Page 3 March 10, 1999 plans fall within the Planned Action Ordinance) needs to be completed prior to issuance of the permits. I think this letter addresses most of the concerns we discussed. If you have any other questions, please let me know(425-430-6578). Thank you. Sincerely, Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner cc: Sue Carlson Jennifer Toth Henning Mike Kattermann Larry Warren Rex Allen,Seco Development Michael Christ,Seco Development Brent Carson,Buck and Gordon Jim Hanken,Schwabe,Williamson&Wyatt CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: City Divisions/Departments Reviewing Land Use Applications FROM: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578) E; SUBJECT: Southport Development Planned Action and EIS BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background In December 1998, the City Council was briefed about a proposed mixed-use development on a portion of the Shuffleton site. Based upon the briefmg,the Council indicated an interest in having a mixed-use development on the site which is located adjacent to Lake Washington, Gene Coulon Park and Boeing facilities. In late January, the proponent submitted a pre-application. Proponents of the Southport proposal have discussed with staff what process and permits are needed to achieve a mixed use development on the existing industrial site. Key approvals needed include a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone from Employment Area- Industrial/Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential. A new COR-3 zone would need to be written for the site. Site plans and shoreline substantial development permits, and other land use and construction permits would be required as well. The key permit would be the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/concurrent rezone which are only considered once a year (applications need to be submitted by March 31, 1999 and they are usually approved in the Fall). Because the Comprehensive Plan EIS work completed a few years ago did not address any other designations for the site other than industrial, and because of the level of development of the mixed uses has the potential to generate additional traffic and demand for services, it appears that a Supplemental EIS is warranted. On March 1, 1999, the City Council approved a resolution which authorizes City staff to initiate study of the redevelopment of the Shuffleton site, and to conduct the efforts to facilitate a Planned Action under State law. The following general approach has been discussed by staff: An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared. It will be funded by the project proponent. TS_SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\DIVMEM.DOC\lg March 8, 1999 Page 2 The EIS will analyze applications for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone and new COR zone standards. The City will review the project as a potential Planned Action. Conceptual plans will be provided in order to ensure that the level of detail in the EIS is sufficient to designate a Planned Action. The Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase,would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. The process assumes that a "master plan" application as well as shoreline permit applications will be submitted at a later stage as a Planned Action. Project Description Preliminary plans for the Southport site include creating a mixed-use development with private and public amenities and recreational opportunities. Presently, preliminary conceptual plans would result in the following ranges of development: 543 to 581 attached multi-family residential dwelling units 38,000 square feet of retail/service 500,000 to 750,000 square feet of office The uses would be developed above structured parking. Including parking levels, the heights of the buildings would range from 5 to 8 stories. Presently, conceptual plans indicate that residential and commercial uses would be located in the northern portion of the site along Lake Washington, and the office uses would be located in the middle and southern portions of the site. Public amenities will include a boardwalk promenade at the waters edge the full width of the property that will offer opportunities for walking, outdoor dining, visual access to the lake and an extension of the lake walk at the adjacent Coulon Park. In discussions with the proponent, it appears an existing dock will be retained and potentially enhanced to allow for guest moorage. Both Plans A and B (attached) would be addressed in the EIS. Please note the proponents have recently indicated that there may be some changes to the diagrams as soon as next week which may reconfigure some building footprints and alter some building heights (office buildings would be higher,but not residential). Instead of a range of 5 to 8 stories in height,there would be a range of 5 to 10 stories in height. The number of units and square feet would be the same as shown in the Scoping documents. Permits Required The following permits and approvals may be required for phased redevelopment of the site: City of Renton: Planned Action Designation Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Zoning Code Text Amendment Master Site Plan Approval and individual site plan approvals by phase Shoreline Substantial Development Approval March 8, 1999 Page 3 Shoreline Variance or Conditional Use,if applicable Conditional Use Permits,if applicable Variances,if applicable Clearing,grading,demolition,construction,building and mechanical permits Roadway access approval Parking and Loading Regulation Modification Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority Washington Department of Ecology: Hazardous Waste-No Further Action Letter NPDES permit approval Shoreline Substantial Development Approval Possible Shoreline Variance or Conditional Use Water Quality Certification Coastal Zone Management Certification Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Hydraulic Project Approval Washington Department of Natural Resources: Aquatic Use Authorization US Army Corps of Engineers: Section 401 and 404 Permits if needed US Environmental Protection Agency: CERCLA/MTCA Clearance All other licenses and permits required to allow redevelopment of the site under the Master Site Plan. REQUEST FOR EARLY REVIEW On February 23, 1999 Seco Development submitted a request for early environmental review. RMC 4-9-070L allows for an applicant to request early notice of whether a determination of significance will be issued. On March 2, 1999, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Significance attached) which was published on March 8, 1999. A Preliminary Scoping Document was sent to agencies as well and is enclosed for your review. Please note that the Errata sheet attached to the Scoping document shows a change to the Air Quality scope. The proposed carbon monoxide modeling would not be conducted, unless warranted by the level of transportation improvements. However, air quality issues related to construction and operation of the adjacent Boeing plant would be addressed. COMMENT PERIOD The Determination of Significance started a 21-day comment period in which agencies, citizens and other can submit comments about what issues, alternatives, mitigation, etc. should be addressed in the Supplemental EIS under preparation. Where applicable, City divisions and departments should submit comments during this 21-day period to be sure your concerns will be addressed. The end of the comment period is 5:00 p.m.,Monday,March 29, 1999. An agency scoping meeting (for municipalities, agencies and Tribes) is scheduled for March 22, 1999 at 1:30 p.m. in the Human Resources Training Room. A public scoping meeting is scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers. A scoping meeting for City March 8, 1999 Page 4 departments/divisions is scheduled for Tuesday, March 23, 1999 at 3:00 p.m. in the Human Resources Training Room. The City's environmental consultants will be there to help answer questions. There will also be an opportunity for divisions/depaitiiients to comment on draft(s) of the document later when available. CONSULTANTS The Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Department in consultation with the Development Services Division requested Statements of Qualifications and created a short list of consultants to consider for professional environmental consulting services. The list was adopted by the Council on February 22, 1999. Two of the three firms most suited for the Planned Action approach were asked to prepare a proposal for a Planned Action/Supplemental EIS. The Department has selected a firm Huckell/Weinman and Associates) for the Southport Planned Action/Supplemental EIS and is negotiating a contract. Please contact me with any questions(x 6578). Thank you. City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public V.— ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ';70 COMMENTS DUE: 3Ps1'96/ APPLICATION NO: LUA99-027,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: 3/8/99 3 [t L l`1 APPLICANT: SECO Development PROJECT MANAGER: Lisa Grueter 6518 PROJECT TITLE: Southport WORK ORDER NO: 78504 LOCATION: Shuffleton Steam Plant, btwn Gene Coulon Park and Boeing facilities SITE AREA: 17 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Development would consist of a mixed use, residential and commercial project with public amenities along Lake Washington. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Animals Use UtilitiesaAnimalsTransportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Ldocbo 4) 7cac Signature of Director r A thorized Representative Date 311-9 DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 DATE: March\, 1999 TO: Audrey Moore, Renton Police Department FROM: Katie McKinstry RE: Information Request for the Southport Development Planned Action SETS The following is a list of information needed to complete the Southport Development Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. As the study progresses, additional information or confirmation could be necessary. Please forward the information requested to Katie McKinstry by Friday, March 26, or earlier if possible. A site vicinity map, brief project description and site plan are enclosed for your reference. Thank you. Existing Conditions 4, woes the department have any mutual aid agreements with ojher departments? 4,3 kilow often are these mutual aid agreements used? i, (r NIJ" b/C) 2. How large is your service area (square miles)? What are the boundaries? Could f(p. ice, you provide a service area map? 3. Can you provide information on current crime rates in your service area? 4. How many stations do you operate and what are their locations? l V S 5. Which stations are the closest and second-closest to the site? 6. What is the service area population? L(U,Zl 7. How many police officers are employed with the department? 's._o 8. How many police officers are in the office and responding to calls at one time? l9. How many police officers are assigned to the station closest to the site? 10. How many support staff do you employ? 3{ 11.What equipment do you have (e.g., cars)? z SAW 12!Are there any existing service deficiencies?(fel. u) C (j i"(C 13:Are there any planned improvements? 14, Can you provide the number of service calls for each of the past 5 years (preferably broken out by type of call)? 15. What is the average response time for the department? 111i4; I'E.T. Yh:.i\ N 16. Is there any estimate of future increases in police calls without the proposal? Conditions with Proposal 17. Do you currently handle calls to the site? 18.What is the estimated impact to the department from the project? 19. Can you estimate the number of calls the proposal would generate during the construction period? 20. Can you estimate the number of calls the proposal would generate when in full operation? 21. What is the estimated response time to the site? Would it change with development of the project? 22. Do you currently have enough equipment and personnel to handle service calls? 23.Would you need to hire additional staff to address project site? Additional police officers? April 1st, 1999 Katie McKinstry Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. 205 Lake St. S., Suite 202 Kirkland, WA. 98033 Dear Ms. McKinstry, The following information is provided in response to your request regarding the possible impact on police services that the Southport Development will necessitate. Existing Conditions: 1.Yes the Renton Police Department has mutual-aid agreements with other police departments. These agreements are mainly used for Emergency Services Unit call-outs in response to major emergency situations, and for pursuits when we chase a suspect into another jurisdiction. Mutual aid agreements are used 1-2 times per month, on average. 2.The City of Renton area is 16.6 miles. City maps that detail the city's boundaries can be obtained locally. 3.Yes, copy attached for 1998 statistics. 4.One police station, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton. 5.n/a 6.Approximately 46,270 Renton residents. 7.86 police officers. 8.This varies depending on the time of day and whether or not officers are in court or have time off. Most officers work 12 hour shifts, with three days on duty and three days off We also have a Traffic Division and Bike Patrol Unit that provide patrol on various days/times. Minimum manning for Day Shift is 6 patrol officers, and minimum manning for Night Shift is 7 patrol officers. 9.Patrol Officers are not assigned to the police station. 10. 34 non-commissioned personnel. 11. 36 marked patrol vehicles, and 28 unmarked vehicles. 12. Information unavailable at the time I wrote this. 13. Information unavailable at the time I wrote this. 14. Renton Police Calls For Service: 1998: 48,122 1997: 48,710 1996: 49,645 1995: 47,945 1994: 44,451 15. Average Response Times, 1998: Priority I 3.61 minutes Priority II 8.99 minutes Priority III 13.58 minutes Priority IV 24.10 minutes 16. No. The site is currently developed,but the business is vacant. We have no police calls for service to this location as it currently is. Conditions With Proposal: 17. Refer to #16, above. 18. We estimate 942 additional police calls for service annually to this site as it is currently proposed. 19. Not accurately. Building construction sites report crimes such as Commercial Burglary, malicious mischief and theft of construction tools and materials that are not secured by construction workers. It is anticipated the construction of this site will include those listed crimes. 20. Refer to#18, above. 21. The estimated police response time to the site depends entirely upon the nature of the call. If it's a serious crime in progress where someone's life is in jeopardy, that's a Priority I response and would have a response time of approximately 3.61 minutes. For a crime such as a purse theft that occurred last week and the victim just noticed it was gone, that would be a Priority IV call and would result in an approximate 24.10 minute response time. 22. No. 23. The addition of 942 police calls for service would result in the necessity of 1.15 police patrol officers to maintain current public safety levels. One Renton Police Officer responded to 816 police calls for service annually, for 1998_ I will provide the answers to questions #12 and #13 as soon as I have the information. In the meantime, if I can assist in any other way,please give me a call. Sincerely, Audrey Moore Crime Prevention Unit Renton Police Department 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA. 98055 425) 430-7520 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: CO tvviai. 'e 4 L.CO COMMENTS DUE: 3)21 `lc/ APPLICATION NO: LUA99-027,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: 3/8/99 3 110191 APPLICANT: SECO Development PROJECT MANAGER: Lisa GrueteA (051 S PROJECT TITLE: Southport WORK ORDER NO: 78504 oFEON LOCATION: Shuffleton Steam Plant, btwn Gene Coulon Park and Boeing facilities 14d,gz l: ioor SITE AREA: 17 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): 0'atj1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Development would consist of a mixed use, residential and commercial iijts'1 w DInenities along Lake Washington. VV A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shorellne Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/Hlstoric/Cuttural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS/ U g R 61 Da J cr c 1"4ia / ha),,, Ce-pciar ma re We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date7 2 DEVAPP.DOC Rev 10/93 o CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM MAR 1 71999 WNTO ECO'C ICf}F'/FLOPMi:NT, DATE: March 17, 1999 TO: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Comments for South Port Planned Action Environmental Review 1. The preliminary fire flow has not been determined due to lack of specific construction details. Primary fire hydrants are required within 150-feet of the structures and the secondary hydrants are required within 300-feet of the structures. The required fire flow determines the number of required hydrants. If fire flows exceed 2,500 GPM looped fire mains would be required around the building(s). 2. The fire mitigation fees are applicable at the rate of $388 per multi-family unit. Fire mitigation fees for the commercial buildings are applicable at the rate of 0.52 per square foot of building area. 3. An approved fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all structures. 4. An approved fire alarm system shall be installed throughout all structures. 5. City ordinance requires a minimum of two access roadways into this project. Access roadways shall meet fire department requirements for 20-feet width and turning radius of 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside. Dead-end access roadways shall not exceed 150-feet unless an approved turnaround is provided. Roadways shall be signed as fire lanes per city ordinance. Recommend application of City of Renton street standards throughout the project in order to meet expected population size. If secondary access is proposed on neighboring properties, emergency access easements would have to be obtained and recorded prior to construction. All secondary access roads shall meet the same requirements for primary access and be fully paved. 6. Fire department apparatus access is required within 150-feet of all points on the buildings. Proposal as shown does not come close to meeting this requirement. In addition, it will not be possible for aerial ladders to reach the majority of any residential structure. 7. The proposed plan does not appear to have sufficient parking spaces. The plans and the size of the site will not have extra, incidental parking available. The parking must be built into the development or it will be a continuous parking enforcement problem. Consequently, we are recommending a minimum of two parking spaces per dwelling unit and 1 guest space for every two dwelling units. These spaces would be in addition to the parking required to support the ar • 4 retail/commercial activities, which are proposed for the gi uund floor on the lakeside. 8. Renton Fire Department requires a copy of the cleanup action report from the applicant and a copy of the expected designation of no further action from Department of Ecology in order to finalize the permits for the removal of the two aboveground fuel tanks. CT:ct Sport2 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public bvvl Rs ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: {-are. Neu .AA-46-v\ COMMENTS DUE: 3)M(96/ APPLICATION NO: LUA99-027,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: 3/8/99 3 lit)I clq APPLICANT: SECO Development PROJECT MANAGER: Lisa Grueter (951S PROJECT TITLE: Southport WORK ORDER NO: 78504 'FN-ON FERE DE- LOCATION: Shuffleton Steam Plant, btwn Gene Coulon Park and Boeing facilities RE PREVFNTlnnl RI!Pr,. SITE AREA: 17 acres 1 BUILDING AREA(gross):MAR 1 1 109r; SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Development would consist of a mixed use, residential and commercial project with public amenities along Lake Washington. L V L A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use k Utilities Animals Transportation k Environmental Health Public Services y Energy/Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 1 inG'dC /S /00 fel pcl-t 111'56 /h,.1DIt' - Wit y et-t 1aK Cott a A 1 N e/Jet-J/04 B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS O-/ C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS a do/EGA 0 a el 0Iiei 3 We have reviewed this application with articular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where a ditional information is neede roped),assess this proposal. a4 `/ 3 /Zf/7 çi9, nireor Director or Authorized Represe tive DateEVDOCRev.10/93 Ss Y o CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM vTo DATE: March 11, 1999 TO: Jennifer Toth Henning, Senior Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Preliminary Comments for South Port 1. The preliminary fire flow has not been determined due to lack of specific construction details. Primary fire hydrants are required within 150-feet of the structures and the secondary hydrants are required within 300-feet of the structures. The required fire flow determines the number of required hydrants. If fire flows exceed 2,500 GPM looped fire mains would be required around the building(s). 2. The fire mitigation fees are applicable at the rate of $388 per multi-family unit: 512 multi-family units x $388.00 = $198,656.00 Fire mitigation fees for the commercial buildings are applicable at the rate of 0.52 per square foot of building area: 411,950 square feet x $0.52 = $214,214.00 3. An approved fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all structures. 4. An approved fire alarm system shall be installed throughout all structures. 5. City ordinance requires a minimum of two access roadways into this project. Access roadways shall meet fire department requirements for 20-feet width and turning radius of 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside. Dead-end access roadways shall not exceed 150-feet unless an approved turnaround is provided. Roadways shall be signed as fire lanes per city ordinance. Recommend application of City of Renton street standards throughout the project in order to meet expected population size. If secondary access is proposed on neighboring properties, emergency access easements would have to be obtained and recorded prior to construction. All secondary access roads shall meet the same requirements for primary access and be fully paved. 6. Fire department apparatus access is required within 150-feet of all points on the buildings. Proposal as shown does not come close to meeting this requirement. In addition, it will not be possible for aerial ladders to reach the majority of any residential structure. 7. The proposed plan does not appear to have sufficient parking spaces. The plans and the size of the site will not have extra, incidental parking available. The parking must be built into the development or it will be a continuous parking enforcement problem. Consequently, we are recommending a minimum of two parking spaces per dwelling unit and 1 guest space for every two dwelling units. These spaces would be in addition to the parking required to support the retail/commercial activities, which are proposed for the ground floor on the lakeside. CT:ct sport City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: lal\'pavl— COMMENTS DUE: 3)M( APPLICATION NO: LUA99-027,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: 3/8/99 3 I I0 91 APPLICANT: SECO Development PROJECT MANAGER: Lisa Grueter (o518 PROJECT TITLE: Southport WORK ORDER NO: 78504 LOCATION: Shuffleton Steam Plant, btwn Gene Coulon Park and Boeing facilities SITE AREA: 17 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Development would consist of a mixed use, residential and commercial project with public amenities along Lake Washington. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet The developer should be notified and made aware that aircraft operate into and from the Renton Municipal Airport 24-hours per day and 7 days per week, and that aircraft operate at low altitudes within the area between I-405 and the airport. B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS When the new COR-3 zone is written for the site, it is requested that the new zone wording include the statement that the zone, and the intended development, is compatible with the operation of the airport now and in the future. C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Structure height is restricted to not more than 179 feet above sea level . The proposed 10-story buildings may approach that elevation limitation, with apurtenances. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informatio ' needed to property assess this proposal. Q atiktgAd flip, t9R1 Signatur • Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.0• Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONr REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: j COMMENTS DUE: 3)21I `1Gf APPLICATION NO: LUA99-027,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: 3/8/99 3110191 APPLICANT: SECO Development PROJECT MANAGER: Lisa Grueter (0518 PROJECT TITLE: Southport WORK ORDER NO: 78504 LOCATION: Shuffleton Steam Plant, btwn Gene Coulon Park and Boeing facilities SITE AREA: 17 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Development would consist of a mixed use, residential and commercial project with public amenities along Lake Washington. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water S ec tare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet C' 17 CrrILtG . GZ;'1./S l'TGP/fi' af,_ 0--0 c.A., ,e-r,e,frziLL%a "-- cla_Q._ f 7"-,D6.-- */ 2P--9 e"At;=vg'—;:'-' :-1 /A— ae-Oceer- ec1/a-filizT04=z--4- ---~716--, 0..-74-af et,i, g0 a cce `z2 B. POLICY-RELATED COMME /9a-{G/6- c ter 'emu i ad ,. 1Yiz /92 5v21'fZ CI i4(.-o1,a2 fachs lG f-eei iu-eo(1-, 49jriC/1"2.ag'Peere-:ff--\ ecir/e) C-rIte.,e; 41C1Sit-i_fr z e ec/) ib a-.4-p--k-7a--e i 4°-'`, 7)A-td2",,171----d,&.-zryi-L,C4C9 ODE-RELATED COMMENTS il.ta) , d..C.... 14-41.16 7-1,e*Z-efGX' 71 A=4C._, 4) ..- /1-e72/-1-4-2-C-- viX/),d 61.--, 1 lig'). -- 4.—ems . azp. (Q 6Z, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information i eeded to properly assess this proposal. jfi 97/ Signature of Dir r or Authorized Representative Dat DEVAPP DOC Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Tv 31vk \10Y\ COMMENTS DUE: 3)21I iG/ APPLICATION NO: LUA99-027,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: 3/8/99 3 (io I APPLICANT: SECO Development PROJECT MANAGER: Lisa Grueter (o518 PROJECT TITLE: Southport WORK ORDER NO: 78504 rrTY OF RENTON LOCATION: Shuffleton Steam Plant, btwn Gene Coulon Park and Boeing facilities MAR I ti SITE AREA: 17 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): 1i99 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Development would consist of a mixed use, residential and cotht ieldpwirit h,public amenities along Lake Washington. r4U1V A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/HistoriclCulturai Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS El G/ •,,,,7stiPPlewKtalc5uc ;teed to ma weee a. t tat Ltd t-..""` ctv1a t ;rs fts ttwr drve/O trig C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS k)v (-o PI1 v41,r t1,444 t INaQ We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. N3 I 5199 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10193 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Pb1 Reuleu:—WitUr COMMENTS DUE: 3 J201 196/ APPLICATION NO: LUA99-027,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: 3/8/99 3 110191 APPLICANT: SECO Development PROJECT MANAGER: Lisa Grueter (0518 PROJECT TITLE: Southport WORK ORDER NOP Rant LOCATION: Shuffleton Steam Plant, btwn Gene Coulon Park and Boeing facilities 5 SITE AREA: 17 acres I BUILDING AREA(gros) SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Development would consist of a mixed use, residential Ufilgglioneirda*e g ?With public amenities along Lake Washington. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS ccG fi trtloheti Vtelto d15Cu4,4c04 ;(ecowli4tio(d betroild Z=k2 p vo005e d (t st toOttio.ta C tittg vw4.4/ l.e .tait'eoi epvvl evtrw c ddre.V 5witkui 6-15 . C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Nv COWItd 41 t1 51At'' • We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to property assess this proposal. IJ ' Al 3/5/if Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ce \k COMMENTS DUE: 3)?I cici APPLICATION NO: LUA99-027,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: 3/8/99 3 ho`cm APPLICANT: SECO Development PROJECT MANAGER: Lisa Grueter (0518 PROJECT TITLE: Southport WORK ORDER NO: 78504 T1'OF RFITON LOCATION: Shuffleton Steam Plant, btwn Gene Coulon Park and Boeing facilities MP 1 USITEAREA: 17 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross):19R SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Development would consist of a mixed use, residential and commercial-pFojActOL4Wic amenities along Lake Washington. IVISION A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS 4:°4114q.b;644fierV(Pli' C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS y 1 l i,'atc 'rumhi1 tietTwftnC e( NI 4N &) lfll 1 t eOwl au15fc4Q foctrati, a-2.2za Avid tiftei oti Vaud t4),2,c ) . We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to property assess this proposal. 020.3/isho Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: LOV1.01M1C, Del` eyy -1,j-COMMENTS DUE: 3 J2$1(61 APPLICATION NO: LUA99-027,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: 3/8/99 3 i io 191 APPLICANT: SECO Development PROJECT MANAGER: Lisa Grueter (o516 PROJECT TITLE: Southport WORK ORDER NO: 78504 LOCATION: Shuffleton Steam Plant, btwn Gene Coulon Park and Boeing facilities SITE AREA: 17 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Development would consist of a mixed use, residential and commercial project with public amenities along Lake Washington. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/HistorfdCufural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wher bditi atii _on is needed to properly assess this proposal. 37/.iM Signature Director or horized Representative Date DEVAPP. Rev.10/93 ti Y o City of Rentonc2DEPARTMENTOF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Nrvo NEIGHBORHOODS, and STRATEGIC PLANNING Date: 3/8/99 Sixth Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 TO: lorrl FROM: jy6r(J-2-f..e,r khaa_ey /ax-fm '3 8/2/ Oc Peninq Phone: 4 ) ;- 5/f-13 Phone: 425) 0c7430 (p 5 7s Fax Phone: ( vs}4,5/_ s;,-4 6 9 Fax Phone: (425) 430-7300 ISUBJECT: L t.)` /L?Or- - I Number of pages including cover sheet REMARKS: Original to Urgent Reply Please For your be mailed ASAP Comment "review yew_ 6 JuA,e__ m r wediorb a_bede- Sool-(=A-Die cf able.t/ -/z:frd , eooceioh-ed gams 10af ab),/ . wiaVaz°dnie- _/97/7}al pakv) soh 11) I n " A44 T614- ia-lje-d 9 bthiyi Qmd to-orn13 L u v 1" 0Al2_, t1,13e 6,14 ced----e-dCWL of--0 Cam , ' CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EIS PROPOSED SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION The City of Renton is requesting comments on the scope of the EIS for the proposed Southport Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). A more detailed description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives and those elements of the environment preliminarily identified for consideration and analysis in the SEIS is available from the City of Renton. Description Of Proposal: The Southport Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to consider potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Seco Development is proposing that phased redevelopment of the Shuffleton Steam Plant site be designated by the City as a Planned Action pursuant to SEPA. The Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase, would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. Environmental studies will consider redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several land use development and building permits. Preliminary plans for the Southport site include creating a mixed-use development with private and public amenities and recreational opportunities. Presently,preliminary conceptual plans would result in the following ranges of development: 543 to 581 attached multi-family residential dwelling units 38,000 square feet of retail/service 500,000 to 750,000 square feet of office The uses would be developed above structured parking. Including parking levels, the heights of the buildings would range from 5 to 8 stories above grade. Presently, preliminary conceptual plans indicate that residential and commercial uses would be located in the northern portion of the site along Lake Washington,and the office uses would be located in the middle and southern portions of the site. Public amenities proposed include a boardwalk promenade at the waters edge the full width of the property that would offer opportunities for walking, outdoor dining, visual access to the lake and an extension of the lake walk at the adjacent Coulon Park. An existing dock would be retained and potentially enhanced to allow for guest moorage. The mixed-use project would be constructed in phases. Proponent: Seco Development Inc. (Rex Allen) Location Of Proposal: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is from Lake Washington Boulevard. SHRTSCPE.DOC\ Lead Agency: City of Renton EIS Required: The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will supplement previous Environmental Impact Statements prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan. The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the Supplemental EIS: Earth, Air Quality, Water (Stormwater/Groundwater/Water Quality); Plants and Animals; Noise; Land and Shoreline Use; Socioeconomics (Population, Housing, Employment); Aesthetics, Light and Glare; Transportation; Public Services and Utilities (Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Police Services; Schools; Parks and Recreation; Water; Wastewater; Solid Waste). Scoping: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the Supplemental EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before 5:00 p.m. on March 29, 1999. Written comments should be addressed to: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 A public scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m., located at the City Council Chambers (7th Floor), Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you are interested in attending the scoping meeting please contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, (425)430-6575, to obtain the meeting date and time and to ensure that the meeting has not been rescheduled. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee Address: City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator DATE G) 4 Sri 0 eim SHRTSCPE.DOC\ c. Ln cn it 1 1 III 1 1 111 1 I III 11 1i1 1 1 111 1 1 1i1 1 1 111 I I Ii Eft 5- anti aitaut! a lllllltlllililtlillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllitllllllltlilililil N • 5 1 p 11 I I I i I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I t I I I 1 1 I i I i I t I I I I I I r. I t l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l f l l l l l l l l i l l lO • o IIII111I1tII111i11Itit11111t111111II11II11111111111t111 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 e 0 11111111111I1IIt1111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlItI N OCR] Z IIIitIIil"iI1IIlttit111t1Ii111IItlililililil IiItlllilllillliltlilililil w• O\ Oa) r 1t l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l t l l 1 1 1 I i I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I i I I 1 i l l t 1 1 1 1 n CT 1 1 I 1 I I i I i I I 1 I I I 1 t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 CDCb i l l l l i l l l l l l l l l l l l l iI I I l i t l l l l l l l I I I I I I I I I ( I 1 I I I 1 t 1 I It.1i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 t'V O 8 111111111I1111111111111I111111itt1 ( 111t1tff11 11111111111111111111111 10 s a,'0`p 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 004d r_.-- 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 I 1 I I 1 f I 1 I t I 1 1 P t i t t t i t i 1 i I 1 d p C c a1s;;an)tl 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I O 111111 11111111111111111111ililllillltl11 IIIilIli111lliltlilililtlil, m ty s 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I •I 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0o m J 111111 1111 1 111TTIIIIIlili111lIIIII1IiiiI11IIIIlIIIIIIV1111111I"' 1 1 111111I11111 t111i11I1111IIi11111i 1I 1I1111111111 c 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 p, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I i I I I I I I 1 I 1 ri I111111111111111111111111111111 I1 11111111111I1iitltli11111 I'D Logan Ave. N 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-= r). I I I I I I f t I 1 1 t 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i l 1 I i t 1 1 1 n i IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItI t-- Cl i"i°1r1S I NI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l l l t LAve. N 11 IIIIItItIIIIIlIlIillliltllllliitlllilitllil I w z Ii11 it1t1I111111111i11111I11111illiitliill Wells Ave. N "' 1 1 1 I t i i I I i t I I I I 1 I i I I 1 0pi- 11 1 1 I I I I I I i I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I P Peli Ave. N (: 1;? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Y111111111111 III I I I I I I I I I I I Poi. Ave. N Park Ave. N I I 1 1 1 i 1 1 III I , 1 c,.ttt1`ol'ay a nib•'ValLz c Np it:.OCarden ,Carden Ave. N IT 7 -Ct. an 2sb kaP1o9 z Meadow Ave. NE t` z ff1-3 4.II n } 3f na 1 Jones Ave. NE L_ C..) Kennewick 2 Kennewick F aLincoln Monterey Monterey ` Monterey tSL..set ova Ave. NET Cu V 1--- '` N N( • Aberdeen Ave. NE Aberdeen Ave. NE Aberdeen Ave. NE CO a' Aberdeen CD kr / Yp, th. rn r z O Q 3 iYo Blaine Ave. n' z T Blaine Ave. NE r^ In p Q o y t1E. co ;z z o_ pi v rs c- m m Comas r s p kr1,C) co o R ten..It 0 rl -n ' . ::. T D;ly{on Uoylon Dayton Dayton C.D Edmonds Ave ;, yton Asa I Edmonds Ave. NEO 1. p a r:. aff rn SHUr r LETON VICINITY M P i Q Gene Coulon Park - INLakeWashington Shoreline 4 111,i . .\-.::, c.. i .._..1. SITE O o p 1. O , ii 0 c' ''0 0J4/ 0 ax O ill o z:,. o 1,lict\ c, c' O 1z cc c------\\1 z I Gti1 o, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Site boundary 0. DenP0. Dennison It? TO 23 February 1999 0 400 80 0 1 :4,800 giI ,)7//1 sii6 c- ezt c CITY OF RENTON PCCEIV ! FEB 2 4 1999 BUILDING DIVISION 4 r PARKING PARKING / PARKING 51.1 k 47.9k 37.0k 2) firs. 1) firs. 0 / (I) firs. 0 10kj ' j//y k H 1\c 7 C_ I POWER PLANT PARKING 115.0k (3) firs. PARKING 36.2k (3) firs. Retail Area -- 38k total Parking Area -- 643.1k total SITE PLAN 'A' AND 'B' PARKING/ RETAIL PLAN ARH We Ivi r.Southport February.'Febr 3.IWO M IT II U N .,.. ..... .. Renton, WA mob ......... nr K I liwr,hale bj , CITY OFV RENTON PFCEIF0 FEB 2 4 1999 BUILDING DIVISION j s% j dilly PA 20.3 k 35.1 k 42 3 firs. (4) firs. OFFICE POWER PLANT11 Cs_...,I OFFICE 51.4k (3) firs. OFFICE 25.0k 2) firs. OFFICE 31.8k (3) firs. \ Residential -- 491.3k sf total 491.3k/ 543 units = 900' avg. gross per unit Office -- 300 k sf total Power Plant and Addition -- 200k sf total DEVELOPMENT PLAN 'A' RESIDENTIAL/ OFFICE PLAN ARH rite Southport MIT II u N •,• • • Renton, WA fib/?el-- tle/1-e. / - (nary - CITY OF RENTON RECEIVFC FEB 2 4 1999 BUILDING DIVISION j• 20.3 k 35.1 k 4) firs. (5) firs. OFFICE POWER PLANT 1 i OFFICE 51.4k (5) firs. OFFICE 25.0k 4) firs. OFFICE 31.8k (5) firs. \ Residential -- 527k sf total 527k/ 581 units = 910' avg. gross per unit Office -- 500k sf total Power Plant and Addition -- 250k sf total DEVELOPMENT PLAN 'B' RESIDENTIAL/ OFFICE PLAN Nw nr. Southport M I T H U N WJWpdhit.-bRenton, WA 4, c*- CITY C _ RENTON Economic Development, Neighborhoods and PlanningPg Jesse Tanner,Mayor Susan Carlson,Administrator March 10, 1999 TO:Interested Municipalities, Agencies and Tribes SUBJECT: Southport Planned Action Environmental Review Project Number LUA-99-027, ECF Scoping Meetings Scoping Document Errata Dear Reader: Transmitted herewith are scoping meeting notices for the above referenced project. As was mentioned in the Determination of Signficance previously provided, the City is planning to hold a public scoping meeting on Tuesday, March 23, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. We have also added a day-time Agency scoping meeting on Monday, March 22, 1999 at 1:30 p.m. in the Human Resources Training Room. You may wish to attend one or the other meeting based upon your schedule. Also enclosed is an Errata sheet related to the Southport Scoping Document dated March 8, 1999 mailed previously to Agencies and Tribes. First, a change is noted for the Section under"Master Plan Features," page 3: based upon recent information from the proponent, the heights of the building would range from 5 to 10 stories instead of 5 to 8 stories. No changes are noted for the numbers of units or square footages. Second, on page 6 under"Air Quality," because the level of traffic improvements needed are unknown at this time, carbon monoxide modeling would not be included in the scope, but may be evaluated in the future if warranted. Please make a note of the changes. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at(425)430-6578. Sincerely, Lisa Grueter Project Manager cc: Environmental Review Committee AGNERR.DOC 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 C. This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CI.( TY li 0 NTO NOTICE OF SCOPING MEETING CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/NEIGHBORHOODS STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILL HOLD AN AGENCY SCOPING MEETING AT Renton City Hall Human Resources Training Room, 7th Floor 1055 S. Grady Way March 22, 1999, beginning at 1:30 p.m. The City invites all interested municipalities, agencies, and Native American Tribes to comment on the environmental elements to be evaluated in the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review: SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT NO: LUA 99-027, ECF The Southport Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to consider potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Environmental studies will consider redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several land use development and building permits. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is from Lake Washington Boulevard. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is required which will supplement previous Environmental Impact Statements prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan. An Agency Scoping Meeting will be held by the Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department on Monday, March 22, 1999, at 1:30 p.m., in the Human Resources Training Room on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. During the meeting, you will have the opportunity to ask questions of City staff members and to make verbal and written comments on the scoping process for the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review. You may also comment in writing on the proposed scope of the Supplemental EIS, additional significant adverse impacts, suggestions for alternatives or mitigation measures, licenses, or other approvals that may be required. Please submit written comments to: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 All comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., March 29, 1999 for consideration in the proposed scope of the Supplemental EIS. If you have questions or would like additional information, please contact Lisa Grueter at(425)430-6578. Date of Notice: March 10, 1999 SCOPEAGN.DOC\ fY S-O vt yr, NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING CITY OF RENTON The City invites all interested parties to comment on the environmental elements to be evaluated in the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review: SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT NO: LUA 99-027, ECF The Southport Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to consider potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Environmental studies will consider redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several land use development and building permits. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is from Lake Washington Boulevard. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement(SEIS) is required which will supplement previous Environmental Impact Statements prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan. A public meeting will be held by the Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department on Tuesday, March 23, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. During the meeting, the public will have the opportunity to ask questions of City staff members and to make verbal and written comments on the scoping process for the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review. You may also comment in writing on the proposed scope of the Supplemental EIS, additional significant adverse impacts, suggestions for alternatives or mitigation measures, licenses, or other approvals that may be required. Please submit written comments to: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 All comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., March 29, 1999 for consideration in the proposed scope of the Supplemental EIS. If you have questions or would like additional information, please contact Lisa Grueter at(425)430-6578. Publication Date: March 12, 1999 SCOPENOT.DOC\ ERRATA SHEET Southport Development Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Document issued 3/8/99 Master Plan Features," page 3: Based upon recent information from the proponent, the heights of the building would range from 5 to 10 stories instead of 5 to 8 stories. No changes are noted for the numbers of units or square footages. Air Quality," page 6: Because the level of traffic improvements needed are unknown at this time, carbon monoxide modeling would not be included in the scope,but may be evaluated in the future if warranted. City of Renton Economic Development/Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Dept.3/10/99 eIs L.ik6 N J. .o.Sound Air Pollution Control Agcy i Wilkinson y Journal of Commerce 110 Union Street,#500 ndary Review Board 3ox 11050 Seattle,WA 98101-2038 810-3rd Avenue,#608 Seattle,WA 98111 Seattle,WA 98104-1693 Dept. of Natural Resources-SEPA Duwanush Tribal Office Jerry Opatz PO Box 47015 140 Rainier Ave S, Suite 7 U.S.E.P.A. Olympia,WA 98504-7015 Renton, WA 98055 1200-6th Ave,M/S WD-136 Seattle,WA 98101 Journal American KC Dept. of Public Works City of Kent 1705 - 132nd Avenue NE Solid Waste Division Planning Department Bellevue,WA 98005 400 Yesler Way,Room 600 220-4th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104-2637 Kent, WA 98032-5895 King Co.Resource Planning King Co. Courthouse Dept. of Dev. &Environ. Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW EIS Review Coordinator Rm 400 Land Use Services Division Renton,WA 98055-1219 516 Third Avenue 3600- 136th Place SE Seattle,WA 98104 Bellevue, WA 98006-1400 Mark Carey,Mgr King Co.Public Library King Co. Soil Conservation WA Environmental Council ATTN: Susie Wheeler ATTN: Jack Davis hoN92tO15L4 300-8th Avenue North 935 Powell Avenue SW Seattle, WA 981041-S-fe 3`/0 Seattle,WA 98109 Renton,WA 98055 Rod Malcom,Fisheries Puget Sound Energy Puget Sound Water Quality Muckleshoot Indian Tribe ATTN: EIS Review Abbot Raphael Hall 39015 - 172nd Avenue SE 620 South Grady Way MS PV-15 Auburn,WA 98002 Renton, WA 98055 Olympia, WA 98504--0900 Renton Chamber of Commerce Renton School District#403 Seattle-Kin ounty eQp ti tim)i ov 300 Rainier Avenue North 435 Main Avenue South Health a ices Dept. 4-1e6,14-trj Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 110 Perf twine P1-6th floor 11 Z —L041h Seattle, A 98104 Se.4,`F%1z MS Reoe Seattle Post-Intellegencer Seattle Times-Eastside Edition Shirley Lukhang Business News Business News Seattle Public Utilities 101 Elliot Avenue West PO Box 70 710-2nd Avenue, 9th floor Seattle, WA 98111 Seattle,WA 98111 Seattle, WA 98104-1712 WA ST Dept. of Ecology State Dept. of Ecology(2 copies) Dept. of Ecology SEPA Register Environmental Review Section Attn: EIS Review PO Box 47703,PV-11 PO Box 47703 Northwest Regional Office Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 3190 - 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 State Dept. of Ecology Don Hurter Larry Fisher Attn: Permit Coordinator WSDOT WA Dept. of Fish&Wildlife Shorelands 15700 Dayton Ave N,MS-122 22516 SE 64th Pl,#230 M/S PV-11 PO Box 330310 Issaquah, WA 98027 Olympia, WA 98504 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 WA Dept. of Fish&Wildlife KC Wastewater Treatment Division City of Tukwila 600 Capital Way North Environmental Planners Planning&Bldg Dept. Olympia, WA 98501-1091 821 Second Avenue,M/S 81 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Seattle, WA 98104-1598 Tukwila, WA 98188 E IS 1-.f tea US west Schneider Army Corp. of Engineers Attn: Cheryl Sanderson Dept. of Wildlife kale District Office 1600-7th Avenue,Rm#2512 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. PO Box C-3755 Seattle,WA 98191 Mill Creek,WA 98012 Seattle, WA 98124 U.S.Dept. of Agriculture Secretary's Representative Dennis Ryan, CAUP Soil Conservation Office U.S.Dept. of Housing&Urban Dev. University of Washington 935 Powell SW 909 First Avenue 410 Gould Hall,JO-40 Renton,WA 98055 Seattle,WA 98104 Seattle,WA 98195 South County Journal Valley Medical Center Puget Sound Energy PO Box 130 400 South 43rd Street Washington Natural Gas Company Kent,WA 98035 Renton, WA 98055 815 Mercer Seattle,WA 98111 Puget Sound Regional Council Regional Transit Authority 1011 Western Avenue,#500 821 Second Avenue,M/S 151 City Attorney Seattle,WA 98104-1035 Seattle,WA 98104 Attn: Mike Wold City Council(7) Fire Department Hearing Examiner Lee Wheeler) Renton Public Library Renton Public Library Mayor Highlands Branch(2) Main Branch(3) Attn. Mayor's Assistant Parks Board(1) Parks and Recreation Dept. Planning Commission C 2.4' 1/).C2,&tx;Ltici-Ski<.t - Police Dept. Public Works Dept. P1 1I"1 ' Gregg Zimmerman)Mike Kattermann) r totika c.LI:J 1/ 5o e 5U 1 `( 7 Lc>. tx_ S h 5ii e t vo i'f LJ T :/,./ Jf^o ti,t.. c- 0 57 of igg-c - k/ cw : e .„, c- Cp nwtu.Gy 9 lelq wT h' 3505 - V Wv e SC rVit P° PX) ta:12di Uti\ 5e040 - l44-0 tv LD‘ik itotAr r 1/- L12 E`"- `• . Po3'7Jjt.& MC 144`t C ta-lam 41,P/1 NJOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING CITY OF RENTON The City invites all interested parties to comment on the environmental elements to be evaluated in the Southport Planned AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION A S OU Environmental Review: OUTHPORT PLANN NED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT NO:LUA 99-027, ECF Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the The Southport Planned Action environ- mental review is being initiated in order to consider potential development concepts SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 Washington shoreline. Environmental studies will consider redevelopment con- cepts of the property from industrial uses a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal to a mixed use development including newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months reas amennitiecrial, retail and its a uses as well as recreationaldes, which will prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language require a Comprehensive Plan continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County Amendment/re-zone. and several land Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper order of the Superior Court of the use prop sal is located and building permits.pp 9by P The proposal is adjacent to Lake State of Washington for King County. Washington between Gene Coulon Park The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County op rhei east theh Boeing Accessmanuf is fromoperationsonwest. Access from Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers Lake Washington Boulevard. A during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Supplemental Environmen-tal Impact Statement (SEIS) is required which will supplement previous Environmental LUA-99-027, ECF Impact Statements prepared for the Menton Comprehensive Plan. A oblic meeting will be held by the as published on: 3/12/99 Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department on Tuesday, March 23, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., inThefullamountofthefeechargedforsaidforegoingpublicationisthesumof$86.25, the Council Chambers on the seventh floor charged to Acct. No. 8051067. of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, enton.WA 98055. Coring the meeting,the public will have Legal Number 5832 lithe opportunity to ask questions of City J staff members and to make verbal and rY G written comments on the scoping process Legal Clerk, South C unty Journal for the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review.You may also com- ment in writing on the proposed scope of the Supplemental EIS, additional signifi- Subscribed and sworn before me on this z3 ay of 4111j4,19qc) adverse impacts, suggestions for atives or mitigation measures, licens- t. C-4„0114 6....4y,- r other approvals that may oe ad. Please submit written co,nmerts 6ttascrrrrao " i Lisa Greeter,Senior Planner v ,‘‘ I•• •r ,,., Economic Development/Neighborhoods j i Notary Public of the State of Washington and Strategic PlanningDepartment3 . g P Z`• "N` residing in Renton City of Rentonh;oo 1055 South GradyWay v,oT.,^, . .King County, Washington Renton,WA sao54: per All comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., March 29, 1999 for consideration in ip PUGLAC' c,' o the proposed scope of the Supplemental el•••F EIS. If you have questions or would like 1i q)• .e ? 6 Z 0-•.- e®> additional information,please contact Lisa i Op I,A`5 v, Publication Grueter at(425) Date: March 812, 1999 Published in the South County Journal March 12, 1999. 5832 TY i's O immiR NTT, NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING CITY OF RENTON The City invites all interested parties to comment on the environmental elements to be evaluated in the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review: SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT NO: LUA 99-027, ECF The Southport Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to consider potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Environmental studies will consider redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several land use development and building permits. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is from Lake Washington Boulevard. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement(SEIS) is required which will supplement previous Environmental Impact Statements prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan. A public meeting will be held by the Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department on Tuesday, March 23, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. During the meeting, the public will have the opportunity to ask questions of City staff members and to make verbal and written comments on the scoping process for the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review. You may also comment in writing on the proposed scope of the Supplemental EIS, additional significant adverse impacts, suggestions for alternatives or mitigation measures, licenses, or other approvals that may be required. Please submit written comments to: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 All comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., March 29, 1999 for consideration in the proposed scope of the Supplemental EIS. If you have questions or would like additional information, please contact Lisa Grueter at(425)430-6578. Publication Date: March 12, 1999 Ls 1 ink_ SCOPENOT.DOC\ ERRATA SHEET Southport Development Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Document issued 3/8/99 Master Plan Features," page 3: Based upon recent information from the proponent, the heights of the building would range from 5 to 10 stories instead of 5 to 8 stories. No changes are noted for the numbers of units or square footages. Air Quality," page 6: Because the level of traffic improvements needed are unknown at this time, carbon monoxide modeling would not be included in the scope, but may be evaluated in the future if warranted. City of Renton Economic Development/Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Dept.3/10/99 4 TY Cis: s NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING CITY OF RENTON The City invites all interested parties to comment on the environmental elements to be evaluated in the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review: SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT NO: LUA 99-027, ECF The Southport Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to consider potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Environmental studies will consider redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several land use development and building permits. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is from Lake Washington Boulevard. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SETS) is required which will supplement previous Environmental Impact Statements prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan. A public meeting will be held by the Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department on Tuesday, March 23, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. During the meeting, the public will have the opportunity to ask questions of City staff members and to make verbal and written comments on the scoping process for the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review. You may also comment in writing on the proposed scope of the Supplemental EIS, additional significant adverse impacts, suggestions for alternatives or mitigation measures, licenses, or other approvals that may be required. Please submit written comments to: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 All comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., March 29, 1999 for consideration in the proposed scope of the Supplemental EIS. If you have questions or would like additional information, please contact Lisa Grueter at (425)430-6578. UA 3I1( 1611 Publication Date: March 12, 1999 6ULL a)? 7ht_ 2/4-6 6{1-ad.°, SCOPENOT.DOC\ 4/of wyc' C JC ERRATA SHEET In a two-page text with the title "City of Renton, Determination of Signficance and Request for Comments on Scope of Supplemental EIS, Proposed Southport Planned Action" signed and dated on March 2, 1999, the following change should be noted: Description of Proposal": Based upon recent information from the proponent, the heights of the building would range from 5 to 10 stories instead of 5 to 8 stories. No changes are noted for the numbers of units or square footages. City of Renton Economic Development/Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Dept.3/10/99 h S-4 of- ID b qg -021 , ems JOANN R.AUSEN LARRY L.BABB JAMES BERGMAN 1331 KENNEWICK AVE NE 1316 LINCOLN PL NE 1164 ABERDEEN AVE NE RENTON WA 98056-2816 RENTON WA 98056-2852 RENTON WA 98056-2827 RONALD A.BERGMAN NORTHRN SANTA FE BURLINGTON CITY OF RENTON 2208 NORTHEAST 12TH STREET 1700 E GOLF RD#400 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98056-2914 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173-5804 RENTON WA 98055-2132 CARL A.COLASURDO JOHN G.DECHAINEAU ROBERT W. EDWARDS 1507 JONES AV NE 1325 KENNEWICK AV NE 3719 PARK AVE N RENTON WA 98056-2818 RENTON WA 98056-2816 RENTON WA 98056-1523 JAMES L.FOX JAN R.FRANDSEN GENE T.GALYEAN 1313 KENNEWICK AVE NE 1701 NE 14TH ST 18458 8TH AVE S RENTON WA 98056-2816 RENTON WA 98056-2838 SEATTLE WA 98148-1914 LAUREE GALYEAN GREG A.GARNER HOWARD ENTERPRISES INC 1208 LINCOLN PL NE 1209 LINCOLHN PL NE PO BOX 79014 RENTON WA 98056-2854 RENTON WA 98056 SEATTLE WA 98119-7914 HA N. HUYNH IREISEN PROPERTIES INC THOMAS L.KELLER 1713 NE 14TH ST PO BOX 80612 1408 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056-2838 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55408-8612 RENTON WA 98056-2808 MOSLEY KIRKMAN GARY A.LAND WILLIAM S.LEWIS 1002 N 35TH ST 11404 137TH AVE SE 1401 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056-1954 RENTON WA 98059-4405 RENTON WA 98056-2847 NICHOLAS S.&TRACY A. LORRIGAN JAMES MARTINDALE JAMES S.&DEBRA MARTINDALE 1724 NE 14TH ST 9712 237TH PL SW 9712 237TH PLACE SW RENTON WA 98056-2837 EDMONDS WA 98020-5645 EDMONDS WA 98020-5645 JAMES MEDZEGIAN ANDY H.NGUYEN PACIFIC AGRO COMPOANY 11914 SE 78TH ST 1318 KENNEWICK AV NE PO BOX 326 NEWCASTLE WA 98056-9178 RENTON WA 98056-2815 RENTON WA 98057-0326 JAMES E.PETERSON PHUNG T.PHAM SOUND ENERGY PUGET 1301 LINCOLN PL NE 5512 MORRIS AV S PO BOX 90868 RENTON WA 98056-2853 RENTON WA 98055 BELLEVUE WA 98009-0868 LIDDY LLC RICH LARRY R.SCHLUTER DON SCHUMSKY 6202 S 151ST PL 1702 NE 14TH ST 2019 JONES AVE NE TUKWILA WA 98188-2581 RENTON WA 98056-2837 RENTON WA 98056-2659 DAVID W.SUDDUTH B.D.THANEDAR THE BOEING COMPANY 1425 JONES AVE NE 1707 NE 14TH ST PO BOX 3703 RENTON WA 98056-2847 RENTON WA 98056-2838 SEATTLE WA 98124-3703 THE BOEING COMPANY THE BOEING COMPANY LUONG VU PO BOX 3707 MS 1F-09 1513 JONES AVE NE SEATTLE WA 98124-2207 SEATTLE WA 98124 RENTON WA 98056-2818 HARRIS E.WATSON MAX R.WILLIAMS 1319 KENNEWICKAVE N E 1409 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056-2816 RENTON WA 98056-2847 Sandra K. Seeger From: Lisa Grueter To: Sandra K. Seeger Subject: Parties of Record - 99-027 Date: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 3:55PM Please add the following names to the Party of Record List for Southport (Shuffleton): Diane G. Esmay P.O. Box 59264 Renton, WA 98058 she needs a copy of the 4 page DS description that Gregg signed) Ralph Evans 3306 NE 11th Place Renton, WA 98056 he needs a public hearing notice which I will give tomorrow) Thanks. Page 1 Lisa Grueter From: Julie A. Brewer To: Lisa Grueter Subject: Addresses Date: Thu, Mar 4, 1999 1 1:10AM Kim Browne 1003 N. 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 Marleen Mandt 1408 N. 26th St. Renton, WA 98056 Renee Perrault 2520 Park Place N. Renton, Wa 98056 You might also send to Rich Wagner (Planning Commission) he lives in Kennydale na tI G S Packct 314t9& Page 1 Sandra K. Seeger From: Lisa Grueter To: Sandra K. Seeger Subject: Southport DS packet, 99-027 Date: Monday, March 08, 1999 5:08PM I have two addresses for the North Renton and Kennydale Defense Fund: Darrel Inglemund North Renton and Kennydale Defense Fund 1309 N. 30th Street Renton, WA 98056 Sevfi 31611 9(1 Marge Richter North Renton and Kennydale Defense Fund 300 Meadow Avenue N. Renton, WA 98055 Please send them what was sent to the Kennydale Neh'd Association (I think the NOA and the shorter DS document - right?) Page 1 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EIS APPLICATION NUMBER(S): LUA-99-027, ECF AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Southport Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to consider Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Environmental studies will con-SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL sider redevelopment concepts of the pro- perty600S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 from industrialincludinguses sio a mixed useatdevelopmentresidential, retail and office uses as well as recreational ameniadailynewspaperseventimesaweek. Said newspaper is a le al Comprehensiver whichlwill require a published 7) 9 Plan Amendment/rezone, newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months and several land use development and prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language building permits. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the manufacturing operations on the west. State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a LUA-99-027-ECF as published on: 3/8/99 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$174.20, charged to Acct. No. 8051067. Legal Number 5808 Legal 1er ; ou h ^^ Joo I 6v/(- `) u Subscribed and sworn before me on this ?3 day of 1/11/1,4144.1966 l67,V)„, ( 1:161-7t1C7L Notary Public of the State of Washington residing in Renton King County, Washington CITY UV RENTON a T \ Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Planning J e Tanner,Mayor Susan Carlson, Administrator March 4, 1999 Rex Allen Seco Development 11009 NE l lth Street Bellevue,WA 98004 SUBJECT: SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION/SEIS Dear Mr. Allen: Enclosed is a copy of Resolution 3379 which indicates the City's intent to study a Planned Action designation and conduct environmental review related to the Shuffleton site. Also, the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)met on March 2, 1998 to review your request for early environmental review and a determination. The ERC issued a Determination of Significance which will be published on March 8, 1999. Agencies as well as property owners in the site vicinity are being sent a Notice of Application/Determination of Significance and a preliminary scoping document (see enclosed). Also the site and surrounding area will be posted with the notices. The enclosed Preliminary Scoping Document was initially drafted prior to' receipt of the consultant proposals. Prior to ERC's determination, I tried to ensure the Preliminary Scoping Document was compatible with either consultant proposal as we had not made a consultant selection then. The selected consultant's Scope of Work will probably be more detailed in some areas than the Preliminary Scoping Document as we work with them to define some tasks more completely. Also, in the Preliminary Scoping Document, I tried to list all possible permits that you may need indicating that the Supplemental EIS would cover these items. I looked at a Permit Handbook prepared by the State Department of Ecology along with your list of potential permits and came up with a list which covers a large range of items which you may or may not ultimately need depending on your final designs for the project. The purpose of the scoping notices are to solicit comment on the proposed project, environmental topics and alternatives. After the close of the comment period, we can assess if the comments would result in a change to the scope of the Supplemental EIS,and whether that would affect any consultant contracts. If you have any questions,please let me know(425-430-6578). Thank you. Sincerely, 11 ) Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner cc: Sue Carlson Document2 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 al This oaoer contains 50%recycled material.20%oost consumer Sandra K. Seeger From: Lisa Grueter To: Sandra K. Seeger Subject: Southport DS packet, 99-027 Date: Monday, March 08, 1999 5:08PM I have two addresses for the North Renton and Kennydale Defense Fund: Darrel Inglemund North Renton and Kennydale Defense Fund 1309 N. 30th Street Renton, WA 98056 Sevi 319 Marge Richter North Renton and Kennydale Defense Fund 300 Meadow Avenue N. Renton, WA 98055 Please send them what was sent to the Kennydale Neh'd Association (I think the NOA and the shorter DS document - right?) Page 1 4 C 40.14, r( . aa `3. PUGET PUGET SOUND OPOLturoN cO Ain CONTROL AGENCY sNOA °ERSO/v AGENCY AIR POLLUTION ro616: 3Als4:3:vp- FE8 ax:(20g51 E 7522rt10 Website:w ca.° r93-5- ici9 union Street,Suite50p geatt e A.org ashington 98 t 0 7 2038 L% ScE Gr"u cr- cI MUng `r u MAR 8 1999 m r yl -Q Red, Cl 4 c- 1055 3 Grat V14j Rt,,, ah ) LSA 9S'cS6- a,AN Fla Vi h S) Ac+ Fro) i- Lua -9R-p27, E°F 1 ; J- kevc evncloSt, ' C f73 o e;u5 n icnS me,7 2vni5$ah e$ n+c S Lyc r u ecsc trio--c '1N,c.Y Our viQn e iS Je n A;), ro 4 vh Cep-i 5cn Puget Suund Air Pollution Contrc.1 Agency 110 Union Street, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98101-2038: Abigail Lee (206) 689-4059 Emission Report March 4, 1999 BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE (RENTON) File #: 13125 EPA#: 033- 52 Location(KING County): Mailing Address: 800 Logan Ave N PO Box 3707, MC 63-41 Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Jonathan Turvey L M Babich III Env Engr Supvr Env Affairs Mgr 425) 234-9228 425) 234-1766 Standard Industrial Classification(SIC): 3721 Aircraft North American Industry Classification System(NAICS): 336411 Aircraft Manufacturing 1997 Air Contaminant Emission Summary From last year's Emission Report; fees based on tons/year) Criteria Contaminants: pounds/1997 tons /1997 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 23,146 12 Nitrogen Oxides (NO2) 288,962 144 Particulate Matter(PM 10) 7,251 4 Sulfur Oxides (SO2) 8,947 4 CAS#Flags Air Contaminants:pounds/1997 tons /1997 71-55-6 T H 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform) 398 1 76-13-1 T 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 70,041 35 123-91-1 V T H 1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethylene oxide) 2 1 108-03-2 V T 1-Nitropropane 1,098 1 128-37-0 V T 2,6-Ditert.butyl-p-cresol 16 1 78-93-3 VTH 2-Butanone (MEK; Methyl ethyl ketone) 92,342 46 79-46-9 V T H 2-Nitropropane 5 1 107-87-9 V T 2-Pentanone (Methyl propyl ketone) 79,729 40 67-64-1 T Acetone 4,290 2 7429-90-5 T Aluminum (alkyls and soluble salts) 48 1 7664-41-7 T Ammonia(NH3) 5,301 3 12125-02-9 T Ammonium chloride fumes 3 1 8052-42-4 V T Asphalt(petroleum) fumes 15 1 94-36-0 V T Benzoyl peroxide 53 1 117-81-7 V T H Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) 23 1 Page No. 1 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 110 Union Street, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98101-2038: Abigail Lee (206) 689-4059 Emission Report March 4, 1999 BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE (RENTON) File #: 13125 EPA#: 033-52 13765-19-0 T H Calcium chromate, anhydrous 1 1 1333-86-4 T Carbon black 15 1 75-45-6 T Chlorodifluoromethane (Freon 22 propellant) 1,218 1 67-66-3 V T H Chloroform 13 1 76-15-3 T Chloropentafluoroethane 95 1 7440-47-3 T H Chromium and compounds 2 1 7440-48-4 T H Cobalt and compounds 1 1 98-82-8 VT H Cumene (Isopropylbenzene) 10 1 110-82-7 V T Cyclohexane 211 1 108-94-1 V T Cyclohexanone 5,959 3 123-42-2 V T Diacetone alcohol 33 1 84-74-2 V T H Dibutyl phthalate 3 1 77-58-7 V Dibutyltin dilurate 1 1 75-71-8 T Dichlorodifluoromethane 136 1 75-09-2 T H Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)47 1 111-40-0 VT Diethylenetriamine (DETA) 868 1 108-83-8 V T Diisobutyl ketone 257 1 34590-94-8 V T Dipropylene glycol methyl ether 4 1 330-54-1 V T Diuron 13 1 106-89-8 V T H Epichlorohydrin(1-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane) 3 1 141-43-5 V T Ethanolamine (Monethanol amine) 4 1 141-78-6 V T Ethyl acetate 4,870 2 64-17-5 VT Ethyl alcohol (Ethanol) 3,594 2 100-41-4 VTH Ethyl benzene 147 1 78-10-4 V T Ethyl silicate 33 1 107-15-3 V T Ethylene diamine 25 1 107-06-2 V T H Ethylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane) 11 1 107-21-1 VTH Ethylene glycol 12 1 50-00-0 V T H Formaldehyde 24 1 64-18-6 V T Formic acid (methanoic acid) 2 1 GLYET V T H Glycol ethers 2,357 1 142-82-5 V T Heptane (n-Heptane) 43 1 822-06-0 V T H Hexamethylene diisocyanate 74 1 110-54-3 V T H Hexane (n-Hexane) 804 1 43103 V T Hexane, other isomers 43 1 7647-01-0 T H Hydrochloric acid (Hydrogen chloride)8 1 7664-39-3 T H Hydrogen fluoride (Hydrofluoric acid) 11 1 1309-37-1 T Iron oxide fumes, Fe2O3 as Fe 1 1 110-19-0 V T Isobutyl acetate 7,759 4 78-83-1 V T Isobutyl alcohol 2,060 1 Page No. 2 Puget Suund Air Pollution Control Agency 110 Union Street, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98101-2038: Abigail Lee (206) 689-4059 Emission Report March 4, 1999 BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE (RENTON) File #: 13125 EPA#: 033-52 108-21-4 V T Isopropyl acetate 157 1 67-63-0 V T Isopropyl alcohol (Isopropanol)9,562 5 7439-92-1 T H Lead and compounds 1 1 1309-48-4 T Magnesium oxide fumes 1 1 79-41-4 V T Methacrylic acid 2 1 137-05-3 V T Methyl 2-cyanoacrylate 94 1 67-56-1 V T H Methyl alcohol (Methanol) 304 1 1338-23-4 V T Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide 6 1 108-10-1 VTH Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK; Hexone) 15,061 8 80-62-6 V T H Methyl methacrylate 12 1 110-43-0 V T Methyl n-amyl ketone 11,258 6 1634-04-4 V T H Methyl tert butyl ether 191 1 109-87-5 V T Methylal 3 1 101-68-8 V T H Methylene bis(phenyl isocyanate)(Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate MDI) 4 1 110-91-8 V T Morpholine 1 1 8030-30-6 V T Naphtha(Rubber solvents) 15 1 91-20-3 V T H Naphthalene 4 1 7697-37-2 T Nitric acid 61 1 79-24-3 V T Nitroethane 1,173 1 43207 V Other Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 40,543 20 8002-74-2 V T Parafin wax fumes 1 1 109-66-0 V T Pentane 122 1 127-18-4 T H Perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene) 114 1 108-95-2 VTH Phenol 135 1 7664-38-2 T Phosphoric acid 36 1 107-98-2 V T Propylene glycol mono-methyl ether 502 1 75-56-9 V T H Propylene oxide 24 1 1310-73-2 T Sodium hydroxide 8 1 7789-06-2 T H Strontium Chromate 126 1 100-42-5 V T H Styrene 970 1 7664-93-9 T Sulfuric acid 1 1 109-99-9 V T Tetrahydrofuran 186 1 108-88-3 V T H Toluene 45,519 23 584-84-9 V T H Toluene-2,4-diisocyanate (TDI)68 1 126-73-8 V T Tributyl phosphate 374 1 79-01-6 V T H Trichloroethylene 13 1 75-69-4 T Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) 41 1 115-86-6 V T Triphenyl phosphate 17 1 8032-32-4 V T VM & P Naphtha 167 1 Page No. 3 Puget Sound Air Pollution Contra.. agency 110 Union Street, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98101-2038: Abigail Lee (206) 689-4059 Emission Report March 4, 1999 BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE (RENTON) File #: 13125 EPA#: 033-52 25013-15-4 V T Vinyl toluene 24 1 VOC V Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 1,016 1 1330-20-7 V T H Xylenes 4,400 2 13530-65-9 T Zinc chromates 1 1 1314-13-2 T Zinc oxide, fumes 2 1 1477-55-0 V T m-Xylene a,a'-diamine (Benzenedimethanamine) 62 1 123-86-4 V T n-Butyl acetate 14,508 7 71-36-3 V T n-Butyl alcohol 2,349 1 2426-08-6 V T n-Butyl glycidyl ether(BGE) 56 1 71-23-8 V T n-Propyl alcohol 4,952 2 78-92-2 V T sec-Butyl alcohol 2,648 1 75-65-0 V T tert-Butyl alcohol 128 1 Volatile Organic Compounds Total (V)359,151 180 Toxic Air Contaminants Total (T) 399,599 200 Hazardous Air Pollutants Total (H) 163,244 82 Page No. 4 r 1 Betty Nokes From: Esmay, Dianne G To: Betty Nokes Subject: Economic Development Date: Thursday, March 04, 1999 12:33PM Hello, Recently I read an article regarding some proposed development on the south end of Lake Washington, adjacent to Boeing and the Coulon Park area. As I remember this was to be retail/business. I am trying to recall this article and cannot seem to remember if I read of it in the Seattle Times or South County Journal. I'm wondering if you could direct me to where I may find more information about this project, and if you possibly recall this article in the paper (web actually). Thanks, Dianne Esmay, 425.965.7542 RiCs\ h Es t. o 66x 59,,21, 41 9ô -g 5ratf-e ' ')9' add-661 ee..J 46../.510 Page 1 p CITY OF RENTON' CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF.SERVICE BY MAILING On the '`1 day of 1 V10 GV1 199$, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing 5Copovk9 dccuYvt-eik 1-h13-1c.c of 049pLcatkYln documents. This information was sent to: Name 1 Representing Ce aktucL Signature of Sender) STATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for th'e uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 0-A- 1i, l`r 5 1 2-) CCJt-c - /\ CQ ti ti,ii Nofary Public it and for the State of Wa ington Notary (Print)MAR I I YN KAIMMC H EFF My appointment expo 9 Project Name: Sovtln r-t Project Number: !^ Upt Lr NOTARY.DOC ErIS LASE Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agcy da Wilkinson Lily Journal of Commerce 110 Union Street,#500 undary Review Board J Box 11050 Seattle,WA 98101-2038 810-3rd Avenue,#608 Seattle,WA 98111 Seattle,WA 98104-1693 Dept. of Natural Resources-SEPA Duwamish Tribal Office Jerry Opatz PO Box 47015 140 Rainier Ave S, Suite 7 U.S.E.P.A. Olympia,WA 98504-7015 Renton, WA 98055 1200-6th Ave,M/S WD-136 Seattle,WA 98101 Journal American KC Dept. of Public Works City of Kent 1705 - 132nd Avenue NE Solid Waste Division Planning Department Bellevue,WA 98005 400 Yesler Way,Room 600 220-4th Avenue South Seattle,WA 98104-2637 Kent,WA 98032-5895 King Co.Resource Planning King Co. Courthouse Dept.of Dev. &Environ. Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW EIS Review Coordinator Rm 400 Land Use Services Division Renton,WA 98055-1219 516 Third Avenue 3600- 136th Place SE Seattle,WA 98104 Bellevue, WA 98006-1400 Mark Carey,Mgr King Co.Public Library King Co. Soil Conservation WA Environmental Council ATTN: Susie Wheeler ATTN: Jack Davis 1100 Second Avenue,#102 300-8th Avenue North 935 Powell Avenue SW Seattle,WA 98101 Seattle,WA 98109 Renton,WA 98055 Rod Malcom,Fisheries Puget Sound Energy Puget Sound Water Quality Muckleshoot Indian Tribe ATTN: EIS Review Abbot Raphael Hall 39015 - 172nd Avenue SE 620 South Grady Way MS PV-15 Auburn,WA 98002 Renton,WA 98055 Olympia,WA 98504--0900 Renton Chamber of Commerce Renton School District#403 Seattle-King County 300 Rainier Avenue North 435 Main Avenue South Health Services Dept. Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 110 Perfontaine P1-6th floor Seattle,WA 98104 Seattle Post-Intellegencer Seattle Times-Eastside Edition Shirley Lukhang Business News Business News Seattle Public Utilities 101 Elliot Avenue West PO Box 70 710-2nd Avenue, 9th floor Seattle,WA 98111 Seattle,WA 98111 Seattle,WA 98104-1712 WA ST Dept. of Ecology State Dept. of Ecology(2 copies) Dept. of Ecology SEPA Register Environmental Review Section Attn: EIS Review PO Box 47703,PV-11 PO Box 47703 Northwest Regional Office Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Olympia,WA 98504-7703 3190- 160th Avenue SE Bellevue,WA 98008-5452 State Dept. of Ecology Don Hurter Larry Fisher Attn: Permit Coordinator WSDOT WA Dept. of Fish&Wildlife Shorelands 15700 Dayton Ave N,MS-122 22516 SE 64th Pl,#230 M/S PV-11 PO Box 330310 Issaquah,WA 98027 Olympia, WA 98504 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 WA Dept. of Fish&Wildlife KC Wastewater Treatment Division City of Tukwila 600 Capital Way North Environmental Planners Planning&Bldg Dept. Olympia, WA 98501-1091 821 Second Avenue,M/S 81 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Seattle, WA 98104-1598 Tukwila, WA 98188 E Is LABELS US West Phil Schneider U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers Attn: Cheryl Sanderson WA Dept.of Wildlife Seattle District Office 1600-7th Avenue,Rm#2512 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. PO Box C-3755 Seattle,WA 98191 Mill Creek,WA 98012 Seattle,WA 98124 U.S.Dept. of Agriculture Secretary's Representative Dennis Ryan,CAUP Soil Conservation Office U.S.Dept.of Housing&Urban Dev. University of Washington 935 Powell SW 909 First Avenue 410 Gould Hall,JO-40 Renton,WA 98055 Seattle,WA 98104 Seattle,WA 98195 South County Journal Valley Medical Center Puget Sound Energy PO Box 130 400 South 43rd Street Washington Natural Gas Company Kent,WA 98035 Renton,WA 98055 815 Mercer Seattle, WA 98111 Puget Sound Regional Council Regional Transit Authority 1011 Western Avenue,#500 821 Second Avenue,M/S 151 City Attorney Seattle,WA 98104-1035 Seattle,WA 98104 Attn: Mike Wold City Council(7) Fire Department Hearing Examiner Lee Wheeler) Renton Public Library Renton Public Library Mayor Highlands Branch(2) Main Branch(3) Attn. Mayor's Assistant Parks Board(1) Parks and Recreation Dept. Planning Commission l bt2.gc(x)C, S'afe' ,c Police Dept. Public Works Dept. PI • P`""'ma`it. Gregg Zimmerman)Mike Kattermann) doeaim-`t Lowy sve cdai 4 e- o d % v WZ/ iuVla001AP - Covwway le(gT 3S05 - N e SCz l' C 1 PO I ls- , l / Esoqo , l44t0 L D\rl i eitc-&`- . C C ad vt:kk4 a"wta-vI17Luz 31Lbtk eo 'ab c 3i ii JQnC. V 4 t Z att\. & `f 0 CiLt_C-k- 41,Ph:f-a4 71-0 hebi-e- ILtai c 'Cli ., Ga'l@•vilja)-L-'- C' Lisa Grueter From: Julie A. Brewer To:Lisa Grueter Subject: Addresses Date: Thu, Mar 4, 1999 11:10AM Kim Browne 1003 N. 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 Marleen Mandt 1408 N. 26th St. Renton, WA 98056 Renee Perrault 2520 Park Place N. Renton, Wa 98056 You might also send to Rich Wagner (Planning Commission) he lives in Kennydale 1A0A\Jl IS Packt 31419E Page 1 CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS within 300 feet of the subject site PROJECT NAME: BOUT P0 APPLICATION NO: LUA - 99 • 021 , c-[ = The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER CITY OF RENTON RECEIvro FEB 2 4 1999 BUILDING DIVISION Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Continued) NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Applicant Certification At'i-,hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: City of Renton Technical Services Records Title Company Records Al King County Assessors Records Signed Date '24-1 j Applicant) NOTARY ATTESTED: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington, residing at— ,e n-)-Oi- LU f'r . on the V` I- day of 3.., -Qi-- 19 6 . Signed a ; (V( x MARILYN KAMCHEFF Notary Public) D° enumuQQvvu Vn.nr O man For City of Renton Use**** CERTIFICATION OF MAILING I, WWI C E , hereby certify that notices of the proposed application were mailed to City Employee) each listed property owner on 4 MA12- qol Signed e itiA idr." - Date: 4 VAS CA NOTARY ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing fit e on the y--1. day of \,-y\(` c..(, 19 5'5 Signed 1, iI. listprop.doc REV 07l9 MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 2 APN 1......„..—.........--........-- O Vners Prope y Mdress Mal Address Mal CIty/State Mall Z1 Phone No 1 334390-3364-05 AUSEN JOANN RIHW 1331 KENNEWICK AVE NE 1331 KENNEWICK AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 2 334390-2564-05 BABB LARRY LIHW 1316 LINCOLN PL NE 1316 LINCOLN PL NE RENTON WA 98056 4251255-4596 3 082305-9001-00 BERGMAN JAMES 1164 ABERDEEN AVE NE 1164 ABERDEEN AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 4 334390-2560-09 BERGMAN RONALD A 1908 NE 12TH ST 2208 NORTHEAST 12TH STREET RENTON WA 98056 425/255-7566 5 052305-9003-01 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE 1700 E GOLF RD#400 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 6 082305-9027-00 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE 900 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD 1700 E GOLF RD#400 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 7 082305-9191-00 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE 900 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N 1700 E GOLF RD#400 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 8 334450-0775-01 CITY OF RENTON 1100 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 9 334450-0075-08 COLASURDO CARL A 1507 JONES AVE NE 1507 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 l0 334390-3360-09 DECHAINEAU JOHN G 1325 KENNEWICK AVE NE 1325 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 425/235-0927 11 334390-3402-09 EDWARDS ROBERT W JR 3719 PARK AVE N RENTON WA 98056 12 334390-3361-08 FOX JAMES L 1313 KENNEWICK AVE NE 1313 KENNEWICK AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 425/255-5141 _ 13 334390-3400-01 FRANDSEN JAN R 1701 NE 14TH ST 1701 NE 14TH ST RENTON WA 98056 425/228-2771 14 334390-2559-02 GALYEAN GENE T 18458 8TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 98148 2061243-1734 is 334390-2561-08 GALYEAN LAUREE/SE 1208 LINCOLN PL NE 1208 LINCOLN PL NE RENTON WA 98056 2061255-7689 16 334390-3362-07 GARNER GREG A ETAL 1209 LINCOLN PL NE 1209 LINCOLHN PL NE RENTON WA 98056 17 082305-9168-09 HOWARD ENTERPRISES INC 925 HOUSER WAY N PO BOX 79014 SEATTLE WA 98119 18 334390-3405-06 HUYNH HA N 1713 NE 14TH ST 1713 NE 14TH ST RENTON WA 98056 19 334390-3359-02 IREISEN PROPERTIES INC 1215 LINCOLN PL NE PO BOX 80612 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55408 20 334390-3441-02 KELLER THOMAS L 1408 JONES AVE NE 1408 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 21 334450-0395-01 KIRKMAN MOSLEY/SE 1002 N 35TH ST RENTON WA 98056 22 334450-0375-05 KIRKMAN PAULINE ET AL 1002 N 35TH ST RENTON WA 98056 23 052305-9036-02 KIRKMAN PAULINE H 1002 N 35TH ST RENTON WA 98056 24 334450-0080-01 KIRKMAN PAULINE HITR 1002 N 35TH ST RENTON WA 98056 25 334450-0052-05 LAND GARY A 1501 JONES AVE NE 11404 137TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 26 334450-0045-05 LEWIS WILLIAM S 1401 JONES AVE NE 1401 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 425/255-5886 27 334390-3440-03 LORRIGAN NICHOLAS S&TRACY A 1724 NE 14TH ST 1724 NE 14TH ST RENTON WA 98056 28 334450-0390-06 MARTINDALE JAMES 9712 237TH PL SW EDMONDS WA 98020 29 052305-9072-07 MARTINDALE JAMES S&DEBRA 9712 237TH PLACE SW EDMONDS WA 98020 30 334390-3366-03 MEDZEGIAN JAMESIHW 1326 KENNEWICK AVE NE 11914 SE 78TH ST NEWCASTLE WA 98056 425/2553391 31 334390-3365-04 NGUYEN ANDY H ETAL 1318 KENNEWICK AVE NE 1318 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 32 082305-9198-03 PACIFIC AGRO COMPOANY 903 HOUSER WAY N PO BOX 326 RENTON WA 98057 33 334390-3363-06 PETERSON JAMES E 1301 KENNEWICK AVE NE 1301 LINCOLN PL NE RENTON WA 98056 34 334450-0005-03 PHAM PHUNG T 5512 MORRIS AV S RENTON WA 98055 35 334390-3410-09 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 36 082305-9056-04 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC 900 HOUSER WAY N PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 37 082305-9057-03 PUGET SOUND ENERGYIELEC 900 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 38 082305-9178-07 PUGET SOUND ENERGYIELEC 920 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 39 334450-0006-02 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC 1100 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 _ ao 082305-9167-00 RICH LIDDY LLC 919 HOUSER WAY N 6202 S 151ST PL TUKWILA WA 98188 41 334390-3450-00 SCHLUTER LARRY R 1702 NE 14TH ST 1702 NE 14TH ST RENTON WA 98056 42 334450-0007-01 SCHUMSKY DON/HW 2019 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 43 334450-0050-07 SUDDUTH DAVID W 1425 JONES AVE NE 1425 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 1996 Win2Data 2000 Page: 1 of 2 44 334390-3401-00 THANEDAR B D 1707 NE 14TH ST 1707 NE 14TH ST RENTON WA 98056 4251255-7476 45 082305-9011-08 THE BOEING COMPANY 801 GARDEN AVE N PO BOX 3703 SEATTLE WA 98124 46 082305-9171-04 THE BOEING COMPANY 915 HOUSER WAY N PO BOX 3703 SEATTLE WA 98124 47 082305-9079-07 THE BOEING COMPANY 800 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD PO BOX 3703 SEATTLE WA 98124 49 082305-9187-06 THE BOEING COMPANY 910 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N PO BOX 3703 SEATTLE WA 98124 49 082305-9204-05 THE BOEING COMPANY 800 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N PO BOX 3703 SEATTLE WA 98124 so 072305-9001-01-0 THE BOEING COMPANY 800 PARK AVE N PO BOX 3707 SEATTLE WA 98124 51 072305-9001-01-0 THE BOEING COMPANY 800 PARK AVE N PO BOX 3707 SEATTLE WA 98124 52 072305-9001-01-0 THE BOEING COMPANY 800 PARK AVE N PO BOX 3707 SEATTLE WA 98124 53 072305-9001-92-0 THE BOEING COMPANY 800 PARK AVE N MS 1F-09 SEATTLE WA 98124 54 072305-9001-92-0 THE BOEING COMPANY 800 PARK AVE N MS 1F-09 SEATTLE WA 98124 55 072305-9001-92-0 THE BOEING COMPANY 800 PARK AVE N MS 1F-09 SEATTLE WA 98124 56 334450-0076-07 VU LUONG 1513 JONES AVE NE 1513 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 2061228-8164 57 334390-3358-03 WATSON HARRIS E 1319 KENNEWICK AVE NE 1319 KENNEWICK AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 4251255-8601 58 334450-0051-06 WILLIAMS MAX R 1409 JONES AVE NE 1409 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 425/226-5010 1996 Win2Data 2000 Page: 2 of 2 CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED FEB 2 4 1999 BUILDING DIVISION rAi, Situ 1331 KENNEWICK AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2816 C068 Lot Area:8,270 PN:: 334390-3364-05 Rec/Sale Dt: 05/24/1984 05/24/1984 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,730 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $69,500 Zoning: SF Use: SFF: Doc#: 8405240640 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: AU:3EN JOANN R/HW Rooms:7 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 2 Half: 1 Yr Built: 1971 Mail: 1331 KENNEWICK AVE NE; RENTON WA 98056-2816 C068 Phone: 2) SitLs: 1316 LINCOLN PL NE, RENTON WA 98056-2852 C044 Lot Area:19,107 APN: 334390-2564-05 Rec/Sale Dt: 05/02/1988 05/02/1988 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,380 County: KIN G,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: SFI: Doc#: 8805020576 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: BAI3B LARRY L/HW Rooms:8 Bedrms: 5 Map Pg: 626-E6 DAIJA JO Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1919 Mail: 1316 LINCOLN PL NE; RENTON WA 98056-2852 C044 Phone: 425/255-4596 3) SitL s: 1164 ABERDEEN AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2827 C044 Lot Area:10,952 APN: 082305-9001-00 Rec/Sale Dt: 10/13/1989 10/12/1989 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,450 County: KIN G,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: SFI{ Doc#: 8910131191 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: BE 2GMAN JAMES Rooms:8 Bedrms: 4 Map Pg: 626-E6 HE DI Full Baths: 1 Half: 1 Yr Built: 1946 Mail: 11E4 ABERDEEN AVE NE; RENTON WA 98056-2827 C044 Phone: 4) Siti s: 1908 NE 12TH ST, RENTON WA 98056-2843 C044 Lot Area:31,970 APN: 334390-2560-09 Rec/Sale Dt: 01/28/1994 01/27/1994 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,400 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $140,000 Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 9401281557 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: BE 7GMAN RONALD A Rooms:6 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-E6 CLkUDETTE Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1951 Mail: 22C 8 NORTHEAST 12TH STREET; RENTON WA 98056-2914 C044 Phone: 425/255-7566 5) Sitt.s: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:500,940 APN: 052 305-9003-01 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KIN G,WA Sale Price: Zoning: P-1 Use: RESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: Cnty Use: 901 Owners: BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 17(0 E GOLF RD#400; SCHAUMBURG IL 60173-5804 C040 Phone: 6) Sitt s: 900 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD, RENTON WA 98055 Lot Area:170,200 APN: 082 305-9027-00 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KIN G,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: EASEMENT Doc#: Cnty Use: 953 Owners: BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 565-E7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 17(0 E GOLF RD #400; SCHAUMBURG IL 60173-5804 C040 Phone: 7) Sits s: 900 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N, RENTON WA 98055 Lot Area:49,700 APN: 08;305-9191-00 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KINIG,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: EASEMENT Doc#: Cnty Use: 953 Owners: BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 565-E7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 17(0 E GOLF RD #400; SCHAUMBURG IL 60173-5804 C040 Phone: 1996 Win2DatI 2000 Page: 1 of 9 r8) Sit is: 1100 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N, RENTON WA 98056 C073 Lot Area:1,045,440 APN: 334450-0775-01 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: P1 Use: ZC O Doc#: Cnty Use: 349 Owners: CI-"Y OF RENTON Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 595-E1 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 201) MILL AVE S; RENTON WA 98055-2132 C087 Phone: 9) Sit is: 1507 JONES AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2818 C068 Lot Area:8,442 APN: 334450-0075-08 Rec/Sale Dt: 03/31/1998 03/27/1998 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,880 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $170,000 Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 9803311311 Cnty Use:101 Owners: CC LASURDO CARL A Rooms:6 Bedrms: 2 Map Pg: 626-D6 NW RY A Full Baths: 2 Half: Yr Built: 1979 Mail: 151)7 JONES AV NE; RENTON WA 98056-2818 C068 Phone: 10)Sit is: 1325 KENNEWICK AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2816 C068 Lot Area:7,784 APN: 334390-3360-09 Rec/Sale Dt: 09/08/1993 08/24/1993 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,180 County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 9309080785 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: DE CHAINEAU JOHN G Rooms:7 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 AN ITA V Full Baths: 2 Half: Yr Built: 1976 Mail: 13;.'5 KENNEWICK AV NE; RENTON WA 98056-2816 C068 Phone: 425/235-0927 11)Sib is: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:31,500 APN: 33,L390-3402-09 Rec/Sale Dt: 12/29/1982 12/29/1982 Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: RESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: 8212290805 Cnty Use: 901 Owners: EDWARDS ROBERT W JR Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-E6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 37' 9 PARK AVE N; RENTON WA 98056-1523 C046 Phone: 12)Sib is: 1313 KENNEWICK AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2816 C068 Lot Area:8,480 APN: 334-390-3361-08 Rec/Sale Dt: 10/22/1991 10/14/1991 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,670 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $166,000 Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 9110221542 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: FOX JAMES L Rooms:6 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 2 Half: Yr Built: 1979 Mail: 13' 3 KENNEWICK AVE NE; RENTON WA 98056-2816 C068 Phone: 425/255-5141 13)Sit is: 1701 NE 14TH ST, RENTON WA 98056-2838 C068 Lot Area:10,500 APN: 33, 390-3400-01 Rec/Sale Dt: 08/24/1978 08/24/1978 Bldg/Liv Area: 3,090 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $80,500 Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 7808240001 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: FRANDSEN JAN R Rooms:7 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 2 Half: Yr Built: 1977 Mail: 171u1 NE 14TH ST; RENTON WA 98056-2838 C068 Phone: 425/228-2771 14)Situs: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:27,126 APN: 33490-2559-02 Rec/Sale Dt: 06/15/1989 06/15/1989 Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: RESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: 8906151348 Cnty Use: 901 Owners: GP LYEAN GENE T Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-E6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 18i.58 8TH AVE S; SEATTLE WA 98148-1914 C071 Phone: 206/243-1734 1996 Win2Dati 2000 Page: 2 of 9 15)Sits s: 1208 LINCOLN PL NE, RENTON WA 98056-2854 C044 Lot Area:10,960 APN: 334 390-2561-08 Rec/Sale Dt: 12/29/1983 12/29/1983 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,750 County: KIP G,WA Sale Price: $53,000 Zoning: SF Use: SF? Doc#: 8312290184 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: GALYEAN LAUREE/SE Rooms:6 Bedrms: 4 Map Pg: 626-E6 Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1918 Mail: 12(8 LINCOLN PL NE; RENTON WA 98056-2854 C044 Phone: 206/255-7689 16)Sitt s: 1209 LINCOLN PL NE, RENTON WA 98056-2855 C044 Lot Area:18,223 APN: 33z 390-3362-07 Rec/Sale Dt: 11/06/1998 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,070 County: KIP G,WA Sale Price: $218,950 Zoning: SF Use: SF 2 Doc#: Cnty Use:101 Owners: GARNER GREG A ETAL Rooms:6 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-E6 Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1910 Mail: 12(9 LINCOLHN PL NE; RENTON WA 98056 Phone: 17)Sit Is: 925 HOUSER WAY N, RENTON WA 98055-1509 C037 Lot Area:68,450 APN: 08:305-9168-09 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: 15,125 County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1 H Use: WE.REHOUSE Doc#: Cnty Use: 503 Owners: HC WARD ENTERPRISES INC Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: 1965 Mail: PC BOX 79014; SEATTLE WA 98119-7914 B900 Phone: 18)Sitias: 1713 NE 14TH ST, RENTON WA 98056-2838 C068 Lot Area:10,500 APN: 334.390-3405-06 Rec/Sale Dt: 04/18/1996 04/11/1996 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,000 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $162,500 Zoning: SF Use: SF 2 Doc#: 9604180677 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: HUYNH HA N Rooms:7 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 MI.01 B Full Baths: 2 Half: 1 Yr Built: 1979 Mail: 17' 3 NE 14TH ST; RENTON WA 98056-2838 C068 Phone: 19) Sit is: 1215 LINCOLN PL NE, RENTON WA 98056-2855 C044 Lot Area:31,311 APN: 33,•390-3359-02 Rec/Sale Dt: 11/18/1991 10/18/1991 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,620 County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: SFR. Doc#: 9111180909 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: IRE:ISEN PROPERTIES INC Rooms:8 Bedrms: 5 Map Pg: 626-E6 Full Baths: 1 Half: 2 Yr Built: 1969 Mail: PC BOX 80612; MINNEAPOLIS MN 55408-8612 B011 Phone: 20) Sit is: 1408 JONES AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2808 C068 Lot Area:10,885 APN: 334390-3441-02 Rec/Sale Dt: 04/07/1998 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,250 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $169,500 Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: Cnty Use: 101 Owners: KELLER THOMAS L Rooms:7 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 SA RABETH 0 Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1955 Mail: 14018 JONES AV NE; RENTON WA 98056-2808 C068 Phone: 21)Sit is: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:13,845 APN: 33.4450-0395-01 Rec/Sale Dt: 11/29/1983 11/29/1983 Bldg/Liv Area: County: KIIJG,WA Sale Price: $5,000 Zoning: SF Use: RESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: 8311290541 Cnty Use: 901 Owners: KIRKMAN MOSLEY/SE Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 HAZEL Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 1012 N 35TH ST; RENTON WA 98056-1954 C046 Phone: 1996 Win2Dala 2000 Page: 3 of 9 22) Sitiis: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:23,054 APN: 334450-0375-05 Rec/Sale Dt: 03/11/1987 03/11/1987 Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: $14,000 Zoning: SF Use: RESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: 8703111447 Cnty Use: 901 Owners: KIRKMAN PAULINE ET AL Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 101)2 N 35TH ST; RENTON WA 98056-1954 C046 Phone: 23)Sit is: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:26,680 APN: 05!305-9036-02 Rec/Sale Dt: 03/13/1984 03/13/1984 Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: MF-1 Use: RESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: 8403131015 Cnty Use: 901 Owners: KIRKMAN PAULINE H Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 10)2 N 35TH ST; RENTON WA 98056-1954 C046 Phone: 24)Sit as: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:52,272 APN: 331450-0080-01 Rec/Sale Dt: 10/26/1983 10/26/1983 Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: RESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: 8310260353 Cnty Use: 901 Owners: KIRKMAN PAULINE H/TR Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 1002 N 35TH ST; RENTON WA 98056-1954 C046 Phone: 25)Sil Js: 1501 JONES AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2818 C068 Lot Area:12,485 APN: 334450-0052-05 Rec/Sale Dt: 04/14/1978 04/14/1978 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,660 County: KI r1G,WA Sale Price: $34,500 Zoning: SF Use: SF R Doc#: 7804140718 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: Li ND GARY A Rooms:7 Bedrms: 4 Map Pg: 626-D6 LONG SALLY Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1901 Mail: 11404 137TH AVE SE; RENTON WA 98059-4405 C048 Phone: 26)Si'us: 1401 JONES AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2847 C068 Lot Area:18,000 APN: 334450-0045-05 Rec/Sale Dt: 01/24/1996 12/07/1995 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,240 County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 9601240688 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: LEWIS WILLIAM S Rooms:8 Bedrms: 5 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1919 Mail: 1401 JONES AV NE; RENTON WA 98056-2847 C068 Phone: 425/255-5886 27)Si us: 1724 NE 14TH ST, RENTON WA 98056-2837 C068 Lot Area:14,375 APN: 3:4390-3440-03 Rec/Sale Dt: 07/06/1998 06/26/1998 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,160 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $184,000 Zoning: SF Use: SI'R Doc#: 9807060909 Cnty Use:101 Owners: LORRIGAN NICHOLAS S &TRACY A Rooms:6 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1943 Mail: 1 i 24 NE 14TH ST; RENTON WA 98056-2837 C068 Phone: 28)Situs: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:69,696 APN: 334450-0390-06 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: RESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: Cnty Use: 901 Owners: MARTINDALE JAMES Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 9112 237TH PL SW; EDMONDS WA 98020-5645 CO21 Phone: 1996 Win2Dz to 2000 Page: 4 of 9 29) Situ , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:22,197 APN: 052 305-9072-07 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: MF-1 Use: RESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: Cnty Use: 901 Owners: MA 2TINDALE JAMES S& DEBRA Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 9712 237TH PLACE SW; EDMONDS WA 98020-5645 CO21 Phone: 30)Sit s: 1326 KENNEWICK AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2815 C068 Lot Area:12,810 APN: 334390-3366-03 Rec/Sale Dt: 03/17/1981 03/17/1981 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,700 County: KIN G,WA Sale Price: $50,000 Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 8103170469 Cnty Use:101 Owners: MEDZEGIAN JAMES/HW Rooms:4 Bedrms: 1 Map Pg: 626-D6 JO\NNE Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1926 Mail: 11S 14 SE 78TH ST; NEWCASTLE WA 98056-9178 C058 Phone: 425/255-3391 31)Sitiis: 1318 KENNEWICK AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2815 C068 Lot Area:13,230 APN: 33,d390-3365-04 Rec/Sale Dt: 07/21/1997 07/01/1997 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,900 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $195,000 Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 9707211396 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: NC UYEN ANDY H ETAL Rooms:8 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 3 Half: Yr Built: 1975 Mail: 1318 KENNEWICK AV NE; RENTON WA 98056-2815 C068 Phone: 32)Sit is: 903 HOUSER WAY N, RENTON WA 98055-1509 C037 Lot Area:24,800 APN: 082305-9198-03 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: 5,478 County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1 H Use: WAREHOUSE Doc#: Cnty Use: 502 Owners: PI CIFIC AGRO COMPOANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: 1982 Mail: PC) BOX 326; RENTON WA 98057-0326 B003 Phone: 33)Si'us: 1301 KENNEWICK AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2816 C068 Lot Area:8,480 APN: 334390-3363-06 Rec/Sale Dt: 07/23/1993 07/20/1993 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,090 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $99,950 Zoning: SF Use: SIR Doc#: 9307231261 Cnty Use:101 Owners: PIETERSON JAMES E Rooms:6 Bedrms: 4 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1928 Mail: 1:01 LINCOLN PL NE; RENTON WA 98056-2853 C044 Phone: 34)Situs: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:24,300 APN: 334450-0005-03 Rec/Sale Dt: 05/28/1998 04/21/1998 Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: $135,000 Zoning: CC Use: SFR Doc#: 9805282186 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: PHAM PHUNG T Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 LIEN T N N Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 5312 MORRIS AV S; RENTON WA 98055 Phone: 35)S tus: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:7,447 APN: 3 34390-3410-09 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: RESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: Cnty Use: 901 Owners: P UGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-E6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: P O BOX 90868; BELLEVUE WA 98009-0868 B900 Phone: 1996 Win2D 3ta 2000 Page: 5 of 9 36)Sit.s: 900 HOUSER WAY N, RENTON WA 98055-1571 C037 Lot Area:79,400 APN: 082305-9056-04 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KIrN G,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1 H Use: EA 3EMENT Doc#: Cnty Use: 953 Owners: PU 3ET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: PO BOX 90868; BELLEVUE WA 98009-0868 B900 Phone: 37)Situs: 900 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N, RENTON WA 98055 Lot Area:250 APN: 08;'.305-9057-03 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1 H Use: EASEMENT Doc#: Cnty Use: 953 Owners: PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 565-E7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: PC BOX 90868; BELLEVUE WA 98009-0868 B900 Phone: 38)Sit is: 920 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD, RENTON WA 98055 Lot Area:119,602 APN: 08?305-9178-07 Rec/Sale Dt: 12/14/1988 12/14/1988 Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: $30,000 Zoning: 1 H Use: U1 ILITIES Doc#: 8812140278 Cnty Use: 622 Owners: P1 GET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 565-E7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: PO BOX 90868; BELLEVUE WA 98009-0868 B900 Phone: 39)Si1 us: 1100 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N, RENTON WA 98056 C073 Lot Area:85,725 APN: 334450-0006-02 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KI VG,WA Sale Price: Zoning: CC Use: IN JUSTRIAL ACREAGE Doc#: Cnty Use: 932 Owners: PIIGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 595-E1 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: PI) BOX 90868; BELLEVUE WA 98009-0868 B900 Phone: 40)Si us: 919 HOUSER WAY N, RENTON WA 98055-1509 C037 Lot Area:42,400 APN: Of 2305-9167-00 Rec/Sale Dt: 06/05/1998 06/04/1998 Bldg/Liv Area: 11,200 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $700,000 Zoning: 1 H Use: IAAREHOUSE Doc#: 9806051711 Cnty Use: 503 Owners: R CH LIDDY LLC Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: 1965 Mail: 6;02 S 151ST PL; TUKWILA WA 98188-2581 C069 Phone: 41)S tus: 1702 NE 14TH ST, RENTON WA 98056-2837 C068 Lot Area:7,752 APN: 334390-3450-00 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: 1,940 County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: Cnty Use: 101 Owners: SCHLUTER LARRY R Rooms:8 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 2 Half: Yr Built: 1977 Mail: 1702 NE 14TH ST; RENTON WA 98056-2837 C068 Phone: 42)S itus: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:54,886 APN: 334450-0007-01 Rec/Sale Dt: 12/30/1983 12/30/1983 Bldg/Liv Area: County: N ING,WA Sale Price: $195,000 Zoning: CC Use: F ESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: 8312300594 Cnty Use: 901 Owners: :CHUMSKY DON/HW Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 IIIARGE Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 2019 JONES AVE NE; RENTON WA 98056-2659 C068 Phone: 1996 Win2D3ta 2000 Page: 6 of 9 43)Sit s: 1425 JONES AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2847 C068 Lot Area:6,000 APN: 334450-0050-07 Rec/Sale Dt: 12/07/1993 12/03/1993 Bldg/Liv Area: 700 County: KIrs G,WA Sale Price: $91,950 Zoning: SF Use: SF? Doc#: 9312071776 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: SUDDUTH DAVID W Rooms:4 Bedrms: 2 Map Pg: 626-D6 JU _IE A Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1949 Mail: 14: 5 JONES AVE NE; RENTON WA 98056-2847 C068 Phone: 44)Sib is: 1707 NE 14TH ST, RENTON WA 98056-2838 C068 Lot Area:41,106 APN: 31.390-3401-00 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: 3,380 County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: Cnty Use:101 Owners: THANEDAR B D Rooms:9 Bedrms: 5 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 3 Half: Yr Built: 1978 Mail: 17)7 NE 14TH ST; RENTON WA 98056-2838 C068 Phone: 425/255-7476 45)Sit as: 801 GARDEN AVE N, RENTON WA 98055 C037 Lot Area:1,916,640 APN: 082305-9011-08 Rec/Sale Dt: 11/15/1988 11/15/1988 Bldg/Liv Area: County: KI JG,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: IN)USTRIAL PLANT Doc#: 8811150482 Cnty Use: 625 Owners: TI- E BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: PO BOX 3703; SEATTLE WA 98124-3703 B900 Phone: 46)Si us: 915 HOUSER WAY N, RENTON WA 98055-1509 C037 Lot Area:68,470 APN: 082305-9171-04 Rec/Sale Dt: 02/01/1991 01/25/1991 Bldg/Liv Area: 20,812 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $825,000 Zoning: 1H Use: WAREHOUSE Doc#: 9102010802 Cnty Use: 503 Owners: TILE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: 1965 Mail: Pi) BOX 3703; SEATTLE WA 98124-3703 B900 Phone: 47)Situs: 800 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD, RENTON WA 98055 Lot Area:1,350,360 APN: 082305-9079-07 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: INDUSTRIAL PLANT Doc#: Cnty Use: 625 Owners: THE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 565-E7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: PO BOX 3703; SEATTLE WA 98124-3703 B900 Phone: 48)Situs: 910 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N, RENTON WA 98055 Lot Area:114,432 APN: 082305-9187-06 Rec/Sale Dt: 12/14/1988 12/14/1988 Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: $30,000 Zoning: 1H Use: PARKING STRUCTURE Doc#: 8812140277 Cnty Use: 401 Owners: T-IE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 565-E7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: F O BOX 3703; SEATTLE WA 98124-3703 B900 Phone: 49)itus: 800 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N, RENTON WA 98055 Lot Area:309,306 APN: 082305-9204-05 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: II ING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE Doc#: Cnty Use: 933 Owners: 1 HE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 565-E7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: PO BOX 3703; SEATTLE WA 98124-3703 B900 Phone: 1996 Win2Cata 2000 Page: 7 of 9 50) Sitt s: 800 PARK AVE N, RENTON WA 98055 C037 Lot Area:6,490,440 APN: 072305-9001-01-000 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: MULTIPLE USES Doc#: Cnty Use: 625 Owners: THE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: PO BOX 3707; SEATTLE WA 98124-2207 B900 Phone: 51)Sit is: 800 PARK AVE N, RENTON WA 98055 C037 Lot Area:6,490,440 APN: 07: 305-9001-01-001 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: 1 County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: INDUSTRIAL PLANT Doc#: Cnty Use: 625 Owners: THE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: PC BOX 3707; SEATTLE WA 98124-2207 B900 Phone: 52)Sit Js: 800 PARK AVE N, RENTON WA 98055 C037 Lot Area:6,490,440 APN: 072305-9001-01-002 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KI4G,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: IN)USTRIAL PLANT Doc#: Cnty Use: 625 Owners: Th E BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: PO BOX 3707; SEATTLE WA 98124-2207 B900 Phone: 53)Si'us: 800 PARK AVE N, RENTON WA 98055 C037 Lot Area:6,490,440 APN: 072305-9001-92-000 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: M JLTIPLE USES Doc#: Cnty Use: 625 Owners: THE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: M 3 1 F-09; SEATTLE WA 98124 Phone: 54)Si:us: 800 PARK AVE N, RENTON WA 98055 C037 Lot Area:6,490,440 APN: 01 2305-9001-92-001 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: INDUSTRIAL PLANT Doc#: Cnty Use: 625 Owners: THE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: MS 1F-09; SEATTLE WA 98124 Phone: 55)S tus: 800 PARK AVE N, RENTON WA 98055 C037 Lot Area:6,490,440 APN: 0'2305-9001-92-002 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: INDUSTRIAL PLANT Doc#: Cnty Use: 625 Owners: THE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: MS 1F-09; SEATTLE WA 98124 Phone: 56)E itus: 1513 JONES AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2818 C068 Lot Area:8,505 APN: 334450-0076-07 Rec/Sale Dt: 05/14/1990 05/09/1990 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,780 County: I ING,WA Sale Price: $144,000 Zoning: SF Use: F.FR Doc#: 9005141839 Cnty Use:101 Owners: \U LUONG Rooms:7 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 1 RAN TRAN Full Baths: 2 Half: 1 Yr Built: 1979 Mail: 1513 JONES AVE NE; RENTON WA 98056-2818 C068 Phone: 206/228-8164 1996 Win2Data 2000 Page: 8 of 9 r57) Sit s: 1319 KENNEWICK AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2816 C068 Lot Area:8,193 APN: 334 390-3358-03 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: 3,040 County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: Cnty Use:101 Owners: WATSON HARRIS E Rooms:7 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 2 Half: 1 Yr Built: 1974 Mail: 1319 KENNEWICK AVE N E; RENTON WA 98056-2816 C068 Phone: 425/255-8601 58)Sit is: 1409 JONES AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2847 C068 Lot Area:8,390 APN: 33. 450-0051-06 Rec/Sale Dt: 04/09/1993 04/02/1993 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,020 County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: Dl PLEX Doc#: 9304091273 Cnty Use:102 Owners: WILLIAMS MAX R Rooms:5 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 MI:HELE M Full Baths: 2 Half: Yr Built: 1949 Mail: 14)9 JONES AVE NE; RENTON WA 98056-2847 C068 Phone: 425/226-5010 1996 Win2Cata 2000 Page: 9 of 9 CITY OF RENTON F ECEIV 0 FEB 2 4 1999 BUILDING DIVISION iP- APN j Owners Property Address MalEAddress J Mat CItylstate IMal€ZIP Phone No 1 334390-3364-05 AUSEN JOANN RIHW 1331 KENNEWICK AVE NE 1331 KENNEWICK AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 2 334390-2564-05 BABB LARRY UHW 1316 LINCOLN PL NE 1316 LINCOLN PL NE RENTON WA 98056 425/255-4596 3 082305-9001-00 BERGMAN JAMES 1164 ABERDEEN AVE NE 1164 ABERDEEN AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 4 334390-2560-09 BERGMAN RONALD A 1908 NE 12TH ST 2208 NORTHEAST 12TH STREET RENTON WA 98056 425/255-7566 5 052305-9003-01 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE _ 1700 E GOLF RD#400 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 6 082305-9027-00 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE 900 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD 1700 E GOLF RD#400 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 7 082305-9191-00 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE 900 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N 1700 E GOLF RD#400 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 8 334450-0775-01 CITY OF RENTON 1100 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 9 334450-0075-08 COLASURDO CARL A 1507 JONES AVE NE 1507 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 10 334390-3360-09 DECHAINEAU JOHN G 1325 KENNEWICK AVE NE 1325 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 425/235-0927 _ 11 334390-3402-09 EDWARDS ROBERT W JR 3719 PARK AVE N RENTON WA 98056 12 334390-3361-08 FOX JAMES L 1313 KENNEWICK AVE NE 1313 KENNEWICK AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 425/255-5141 13 334390-3400-01 FRANDSEN JAN R 1701 NE 14TH ST 1701 NE 14TH ST RENTON WA 98056 425/228-2771 14 334390-2559-02 GALYEAN GENE T 18458 8TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 98148 206/243-1734 15 334390-2561-08 GALYEAN LAUREE/SE 1208 LINCOLN PL NE 1208 LINCOLN PL NE RENTON WA 98056 206/255-7689 16 334390-3362-07 GARNER GREG A ETAL 1209 LINCOLN PL NE 1209 LINCOLHN PL NE RENTON WA 98056 17 082305-9168-09 HOWARD ENTERPRISES INC 925 HOUSER WAY N PO BOX 79014 SEATTLE WA 98119 le 334390-3405-06 HUYNH HA N 1713 NE 14TH ST 1713 NE 14TH ST RENTON WA 98056 19 334390-3359-02 IREISEN PROPERTIES INC 1215 LINCOLN PL NE PO BOX 80612 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55408 20 334390-3441-02 KELLER THOMAS L 1408 JONES AVE NE 1408 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 21 334450-0395-01 KIRKMAN MOSLEY/SE 1002 N 35TH ST RENTON WA 98056 22 334450-0375-05 KIRKMAN PAULINE ET AL 1002 N 35TH ST RENTON WA 98056 23 052305-9036-02 KIRKMAN PAULINE H 1002 N 35TH ST RENTON WA 98056 24 334450-0080-01 KIRKMAN PAULINE HITR 1002 N 35TH ST RENTON WA 98056 25 334450-0052-05 LAND GARY A 1501 JONES AVE NE 11404 137TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 26 334450-0045-05 LEWIS WILLIAM S 1401 JONES AVE NE 1401 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 425/255-5886 27 334390-3440-03 LORRIGAN NICHOLAS S&TRACY A 1724 NE 14TH ST 1724 NE 14TH ST RENTON WA 98056 28 334450-0390-06 MARTINDALE JAMES 9712 237TH PL SW EDMONDS WA 98020 29 052305-9072-07 MARTINDALE JAMES S&DEBRA 9712 237TH PLACE SW EDMONDS WA 98020 30 334390-3366-03 MEDZEGIAN JAMESIHW 1326 KENNEWICK AVE NE 11914 SE 78TH ST NEWCASTLE WA 98056 4251255-3391 _ 31 334390-3365-04 NGUYEN ANDY H ETAL 1318 KENNEWICK AVE NE 1318 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 32 082305-9198-03 PACIFIC AGRO COMPOANY 903 HOUSER WAY N PO BOX 326 RENTON WA 98057 33 334390-3363-06 PETERSON JAMES E 1301 KENNEWICK AVE NE 1301 LINCOLN PL NE RENTON WA 98056 34 334450-0005-03 PHAM PHUNG T 5512 MORRIS AV S RENTON WA 98055 35 334390-3410-09 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 36 082305-9056-04 PUGET SOUND ENERGYIELEC 900 HOUSER WAY N PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 37 082305-9057-03 PUGET SOUND ENERGYIELEC 900 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 38 082305-9178-07 PUGET SOUND ENERGYIELEC 920 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 39 334450-0006-02 PUGET SOUND ENERGYIELEC 1100 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 40 082305-9167-00 RICH LIDDY LLC 919 HOUSER WAY N 6202 S 151ST PL TUKWILA WA 98188 41 334390-3450-00 SCHLUTER LARRY R 1702 NE 14TH ST 1702 NE 14TH ST RENTON WA 98056 42 334450-0007-01 SCHUMSKY DONIHW 2019 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 43 334450-0050-07 SUDDUTH DAVID W 1425 JONES AVE NE 1425 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 c 1996\A/in2134th 2000 Page: 1 of 2 APiV Owners PrcpeP#y kiiii S ai#kiii Ss iiiittiy/S€ate Maii Ziii Phone. 44 334390-3401-00 •THANEDAR B D 1707 NE 14TH ST 1707 NE 14TH ST RENTON WA 98056 425/255-7476 45 082305-9011-08 ,THE BOEING COMPANY 801 GARDEN AVE N PO BOX 3703 SEATTLE WA 98124 46 082305-9171-04 THE BOEING COMPANY 915 HOUSER WAY N PO BOX 3703 SEATTLE WA 98124 47 082305-9079-07 _THE BOEING COMPANY 800 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD PO BOX 3703 SEATTLE WA 98124 4e 082305-9187-06 THE BOEING COMPANY 910 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N PO BOX 3703 SEATTLE WA 98124 49 082305-9204-05 THE BOEING COMPANY 800 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N PO BOX 3703 SEATTLE WA 98124 so 072305-9001-01-0 THE BOEING COMPANY 800 PARK AVE N PO BOX 3707 SEATTLE WA 98124 51 072305-9001-01-0THE BOEING COMPANY 800 PARK AVE N PO BOX 3707 SEATTLE WA 98124 52 072305-9001-01-0 THE BOEING COMPANY 800 PARK AVE N PO BOX 3707 SEATTLE WA 98124 53 072305-9001-92-0THE BOEING COMPANY 800 PARK AVE N MS 1 F-09 SEATTLE WA 98124 54 072305-9001-92-0 THE BOEING COMPANY 800 PARK AVE N MS 1F-09 SEATTLE WA 98124 ss 072305-9001-92-0 THE BOEING COMPANY 800 PARK AVE N MS 1F-09 SEATTLE WA 98124 56 334450-0076-07 VU LUONG 1513 JONES AVE NE 1513 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 206/228-8164 57 334390-3358-03 WATSON HARRIS E 1319 KENNEWICK AVE NE 1319 KENNEWICK AVE N E RENTON WA 98056 425/255-8601 se 334450-0051-06 WILLIAMS MAX R 1409 JONES AVE NE 1409 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 425/226-5010 1996 Win2Data 2000 Page: 2 of 2 sr • R ECEIVE CITY OF RENTON D FEB 2 41999 BUILDING DIVISION 1) Sit'is: 1331 KENNEWICK AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2816 C068 Lot Area:8,270 APN: 334390-3364-05 Rec/Sale Dt: 05/24/1984 05/24/1984 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,730 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $69,500 Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 8405240640 Cnty Use:101 Owners: Al SEN JOANN R/HW Rooms:7 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 2 Half: 1 Yr Built: 1971 Mail: 1331 KENNEWICK AVE NE; RENTON WA 98056-2816 C068 Phone: 2) Sit as: 1316 LINCOLN PL NE, RENTON WA 98056-2852 C044 Lot Area:19,107 APN: 334390-2564-05 Rec/Sale Dt: 05/02/1988 05/02/1988 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,380 County: KI VG,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 8805020576 Cnty Use:101 Owners: B) BB LARRY L/HW Rooms:8 Bedrms: 5 Map Pg: 626-E6 DANA JO Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1919 Mail: 1316 LINCOLN PL NE; RENTON WA 98056-2852 C044 Phone: 425/255-4596 3) Si us: 1164 ABERDEEN AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2827 C044 Lot Area:10,952 APN: OF 2305-9001-00 Rec/Sale Dt: 10/13/1989 10/12/1989 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,450 County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: SlrR Doc#: 8910131191 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: BIERGMAN JAMES Rooms:8 Bedrms: 4 Map Pg: 626-E6 H1EIDI Full Baths: 1 Half: 1 Yr Built: 1946 Mail: 1"64 ABERDEEN AVE NE; RENTON WA 98056-2827 C044 Phone: 4) Situs: 1908 NE 12TH ST, RENTON WA 98056-2843 C044 Lot Area:31,970 APN: 334390-2560-09 Rec/Sale Dt: 01/28/1994 01/27/1994 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,400 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $140,000 Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 9401281557 Cnty Use:101 Owners: BERGMAN RONALD A Rooms:6 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-E6 CLAUDETTE Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1951 Mail: 2208 NORTHEAST 12TH STREET; RENTON WA 98056-2914 C044 Phone: 425/255-7566 5) S tus: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:500,940 APN: 0.32305-9003-01 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KNG,WA Sale Price: Zoning: P-1 Use: RESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: Cnty Use: 901 Owners: BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 1 700 E GOLF RD #400; SCHAUMBURG IL 60173-5804 C040 Phone: 6) Situs: 900 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD, RENTON WA 98055 Lot Area:170,200 APN: 032305-9027-00 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: N ING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1 H Use: EASEMENT Doc#: Cnty Use: 953 Owners: E URLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 565-E7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 1700 E GOLF RD#400; SCHAUMBURG IL 60173-5804 C040 Phone: 7) F.itus: 900 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N, RENTON WA 98055 Lot Area:49,700 APN: C82305-9191-00 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1 H Use: EASEMENT Doc#: Cnty Use: 953 Owners: BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 565-E7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 1700 E GOLF RD #400; SCHAUMBURG IL 60173-5804 C040 Phone: 1996 Win2Cata 2000 Page: 1 of 9 8) Sitiis: 1100 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N, RENTON WA 98056 C073 Lot Area:1,045,440 APN: 33,450-0775-01 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: P1 Use: ZC O Doc#: Cnty Use: 349 Owners: CI"Y OF RENTON Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 595-E1 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 20) MILL AVE S; RENTON WA 98055-2132 C087 Phone: 9) Sit as: 1507 JONES AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2818 C068 Lot Area:8,442 APN: 331450-0075-08 Rec/Sale Dt: 03/31/1998 03/27/1998 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,880 County: KI NIG,WA Sale Price: $170,000 Zoning: SF Use: SF R Doc#: 9803311311 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: C()LASURDO CARL A Rooms:6 Bedrms: 2 Map Pg: 626-D6 MARRY A Full Baths: 2 Half: Yr Built: 1979 Mail: 1537 JONES AV NE; RENTON WA 98056-2818 C068 Phone: 10)Si.us: 1325 KENNEWICK AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2816 C068 Lot Area:7,784 APN: 33 4390-3360-09 Rec/Sale Dt: 09/08/1993 08/24/1993 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,180 County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: SIR Doc#: 9309080785 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: DIECHAINEAU JOHN G Rooms:7 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 AIJITA V Full Baths: 2 Half: Yr Built: 1976 Mail: 1:25 KENNEWICK AV NE; RENTON WA 98056-2816 C068 Phone: 425/235-0927 11)Situs: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:31,500 APN: 334390-3402-09 Rec/Sale Dt: 12/29/1982 12/29/1982 Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: RESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: 8212290805 Cnty Use: 901 Owners: EDWARDS ROBERT W JR Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-E6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 3719 PARK AVE N; RENTON WA 98056-1523 C046 Phone: 12)S tus: 1313 KENNEWICK AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2816 C068 Lot Area:8,480 APN: 1t4390-3361-08 Rec/Sale Dt: 10/22/1991 10/14/1991 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,670 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $166,000 Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 9110221542 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: F DX JAMES L Rooms:6 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 2 Half: Yr Built: 1979 Mail: 1 313 KENNEWICK AVE NE; RENTON WA 98056-2816 C068 Phone: 425/255-5141 13) S tus: 1701 NE 14TH ST, RENTON WA 98056-2838 C068 Lot Area:10,500 APN: 334390-3400-01 Rec/Sale Dt: 08/24/1978 08/24/1978 Bldg/Liv Area: 3,090 County: 11ING,WA Sale Price: $80,500 Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 7808240001 Cnty Use:101 Owners: FRANDSEN JAN R Rooms:7 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 2 Half: Yr Built: 1977 Mail: 1701 NE 14TH ST; RENTON WA 98056-2838 C068 Phone: 425/228-2771 14)itus: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:27,126 APN: 234390-2559-02 Rec/Sale Dt: 06/15/1989 06/15/1989 Bldg/Liv Area: County: PING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: FESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: 8906151348 Cnty Use: 901 Owners: (3ALYEAN GENE T Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-E6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 18458 8TH AVE S; SEATTLE WA 98148-1914 C071 Phone: 206/243-1734 1996 Win2C ata 2000 Page: 2 of 9 15) Sibs: 1208 LINCOLN PL NE, RENTON WA 98056-2854 C044 Lot Area:10,960 APN: 334 390-2561-08 ReclSale Dt: 12/29/1983 12/29/1983 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,750 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $53,000 Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 8312290184 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: GA LYEAN LAUREE/SE Rooms:6 Bedrms: 4 Map Pg: 626-E6 Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1918 Mail: 121)8 LINCOLN PL NE; RENTON WA 98056-2854 C044 Phone: 206/255-7689 16)Sit is: 1209 LINCOLN PL NE, RENTON WA 98056-2855 C044 Lot Area:18,223 APN: 33 t390-3362-07 Rec/Sale Dt: 11/06/1998 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,070 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $218,950 Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: Cnty Use: 101 Owners: G/1RNER GREG A ETAL Rooms:6 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-E6 Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1910 Mail: 1239 LINCOLHN PL NE; RENTON WA 98056 Phone: 17)Si'us: 925 HOUSER WAY N, RENTON WA 98055-1509 C037 Lot Area:68,450 APN: 082305-9168-09 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: 15,125 County: KI VG,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1 H Use: WAREHOUSE Doc#: Cnty Use: 503 Owners: HOWARD ENTERPRISES INC Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: 1965 Mail: PI) BOX 79014; SEATTLE WA 98119-7914 B900 Phone: 18)Si:us: 1713 NE 14TH ST, RENTON WA 98056-2838 C068 Lot Area:10,500 APN: 334390-3405-06 Rec/Sale Dt: 04/18/1996 04/11/1996 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,000 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $162,500 Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 9604180677 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: H JYNH HA N Rooms:7 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 MJOI B Full Baths: 2 Half: 1 Yr Built: 1979 Mail: C'13 NE 14TH ST; RENTON WA 98056-2838 C068 Phone: 19)S tus: 1215 LINCOLN PL NE, RENTON WA 98056-2855 C044 Lot Area:31,311 APN: 3:3390-3359-02 Rec/Sale Dt: 11/18/1991 10/18/1991 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,620 County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 9111180909 Cnty Use:101 Owners: IREISEN PROPERTIES INC Rooms:8 Bedrms: 5 Map Pg: 626-E6 Full Baths: 1 Half: 2 Yr Built: 1969 Mail: PO BOX 80612; MINNEAPOLIS MN 55408-8612 B011 Phone: 20)Situs: 1408 JONES AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2808 C068 Lot Area:10,885 APN: 334390-3441-02 Rec/Sale Dt: 04/07/1998 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,250 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $169,500 Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: Cnty Use:101 Owners: I ELLER THOMAS L Rooms:7 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 S ARABETH 0 Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1955 Mail: 1408 JONES AV NE; RENTON WA 98056-2808 C068 Phone: 21)F.itus: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:13,845 APN: 334450-0395-01 Rec/Sale Dt: 11/29/1983 11/29/1983 Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: $5,000 Zoning: SF Use: F:ESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: 8311290541 Cnty Use: 901 Owners: KIRKMAN MOSLEY/SE Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 HAZEL Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 1002 N 35TH ST; RENTON WA 98056-1954 C046 Phone: 1996 Win2C ata 2000 Page: 3 of 9 22) ' Sit is: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:23,054 APN: 33 1450-0375-05 Rec/Sale Dt: 03/11/1987 03/11/1987 Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: $14,000 Zoning: SF Use: RE SIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: 8703111447 Cnty Use: 901 Owners: KIRKMAN PAULINE ET AL Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 1032 N 35TH ST; RENTON WA 98056-1954 C046 Phone: 23)Silus: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:26,680 APN: 052305-9036-02 Rec/Sale Dt: 03/13/1984 03/13/1984 Bldg/Liv Area: County: KIVG, WA Sale Price: Zoning: MF-1 Use: RESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: 8403131015 Cnty Use: 901 Owners: KIRKMAN PAULINE H Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 1CO2 N 35TH ST; RENTON WA 98056-1954 C046 Phone: 24)Si us: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:52,272 APN: 33 4450-0080-01 Rec/Sale Dt: 10/26/1983 10/26/1983 Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: RESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: 8310260353 Cnty Use: 901 Owners: KIRKMAN PAULINE H/TR Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 1(02 N 35TH ST; RENTON WA 98056-1954 C046 Phone: 25)Situs: 1501 JONES AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2818 C068 Lot Area:12,485 APN: 334450-0052-05 Rec/Sale Dt: 04/14/1978 04/14/1978 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,660 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $34,500 Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 7804140718 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: LAND GARY A Rooms:7 Bedrms: 4 Map Pg: 626-D6 LONG SALLY Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1901 Mail: 11404 137TH AVE SE; RENTON WA 98059-4405 C048 Phone: 26)S tus: 1401 JONES AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2847 C068 Lot Area:18,000 APN: 3 14450-0045-05 Rec/Sale Dt: 01/24/1996 12/07/1995 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,240 County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 9601240688 Cnty Use:101 Owners: L EWIS WILLIAM S Rooms:8 Bedrms: 5 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1919 Mail: 1 101 JONES AV NE; RENTON WA 98056-2847 C068 Phone: 425/255-5886 27)S,tus: 1724 NE 14TH ST, RENTON WA 98056-2837 C068 Lot Area:14,375 APN: 334390-3440-03 Rec/Sale Dt: 07/06/1998 06/26/1998 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,160 County: N ING,WA Sale Price: $184,000 Zoning: SF Use: S FR Doc#: 9807060909 Cnty Use:101 Owners: L ORRIGAN NICHOLAS S&TRACY A Rooms:6 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1943 Mail: 1724 NE 14TH ST; RENTON WA 98056-2837 C068 Phone: 28)itus: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:69,696 APN: 334450-0390-06 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: I'.ING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: F.ESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: Cnty Use: 901 Owners: MARTINDALE JAMES Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: f 712 237TH PL SW; EDMONDS WA 98020-5645 CO21 Phone: 1996 Win2Data 2000 Page: 4 of 9 29) ' Sit is: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:22,197 APN: 05 2305-9072-07 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KIIJG,WA Sale Price: Zoning: MF-1 Use: RE SIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: Cnty Use: 901 Owners: MIATINDALE JAMES S & DEBRA Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 9712 237TH PLACE SW; EDMONDS WA 98020-5645 CO21 Phone: 30)Sil us: 1326 KENNEWICK AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2815 C068 Lot Area:12,810 APN: 334390-3366-03 Rec/Sale Dt: 03/17/1981 03/17/1981 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,700 County: KI VG,WA Sale Price: $50,000 Zoning: SF Use: SIR Doc#: 8103170469 Cnty Use:101 Owners: M EDZEGIAN JAMES/HW Rooms:4 Bedrms: 1 Map Pg: 626-D6 JOANNE Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1926 Mail: 11914 SE 78TH ST; NEWCASTLE WA 98056-9178 C058 Phone: 425/255-3391 31)Si us: 1318 KENNEWICK AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2815 C068 Lot Area:13,230 APN: 3:4390-3365-04 Rec/Sale Dt: 07/21/1997 07/01/1997 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,900 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $195,000 Zoning: SF Use: SIR Doc#: 9707211396 Cnty Use:101 Owners: NGUYEN ANDY H ETAL Rooms:8 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 3 Half: Yr Built: 1975 Mail: 1: 18 KENNEWICK AV NE; RENTON WA 98056-2815 C068 Phone: 32)Situs: 903 HOUSER WAY N, RENTON WA 98055-1509 C037 Lot Area:24,800 APN: 082305-9198-03 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: 5,478 County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1 H Use: WAREHOUSE Doc#: Cnty Use: 502 Owners: PACIFIC AGRO COMPOANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: 1982 Mail: P J BOX 326; RENTON WA 98057-0326 B003 Phone: 33)S tus: 1301 KENNEWICK AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2816 C068 Lot Area:8,480 APN: 3.14390-3363-06 Rec/Sale Dt: 07/23/1993 07/20/1993 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,090 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $99,950 Zoning: SF Use: SFR Doc#: 9307231261 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: PETERSON JAMES E Rooms:6 Bedrms: 4 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1928 Mail: 1 301 LINCOLN PL NE; RENTON WA 98056-2853 C044 Phone: 34)Situs: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:24,300 APN: 334450-0005-03 Rec/Sale Dt: 05/28/1998 04/21/1998 Bldg/Liv Area: County: H ING,WA Sale Price: $135,000 Zoning: CC Use: 5 FR Doc#: 9805282186 Cnty Use:101 Owners: F HAM PHUNG T Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 LIEN T N N Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: 5512 MORRIS AV S; RENTON WA 98055 Phone: 35)itus: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:7,447 APN: 334390-3410-09 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: PING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: F:ESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: Cnty Use: 901 Owners: F'UGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-E6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: PO BOX 90868; BELLEVUE WA 98009-0868 B900 Phone: 1996 Win2Cata 2000 Page: 5 of 9 36) ' Sit is: 900 HOUSER WAY N, RENTON WA 98055-1571 C037 Lot Area:79,400 APN: 082305-9056-04 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KI 4G,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1 H Use: El SEMENT Doc#: Cnty Use: 953 Owners: PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: PO BOX 90868; BELLEVUE WA 98009-0868 B900 Phone: 37)Si us: 900 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N, RENTON WA 98055 Lot Area:250 APN: 082305-9057-03 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1 H Use: EASEMENT Doc#: Cnty Use: 953 Owners: PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 565-E7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: PI) BOX 90868; BELLEVUE WA 98009-0868 B900 Phone: 38)Si us: 920 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD, RENTON WA 98055 Lot Area:119,602 APN: 0E 2305-9178-07 Rec/Sale Dt: 12/14/1988 12/14/1988 Bldg/Liv Area: County: KI NG,WA Sale Price: $30,000 Zoning: 1 H Use: UTILITIES Doc#: 8812140278 Cnty Use: 622 Owners: P'JGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 565-E7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: P 3 BOX 90868; BELLEVUE WA 98009-0868 B900 Phone: 39)S tus: 1100 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N, RENTON WA 98056 C073 Lot Area:85,725 APN: 3:.14450-0006-02 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: CC Use: INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE Doc#: Cnty Use: 932 Owners: PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 595-E1 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: PO BOX 90868; BELLEVUE WA 98009-0868 B900 Phone: 40)S tus: 919 HOUSER WAY N, RENTON WA 98055-1509 C037 Lot Area:42,400 APN: 0 32305-9167-00 Rec/Sale Dt: 06/05/1998 06/04/1998 Bldg/Liv Area: 11,200 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $700,000 Zoning: 1H Use: WAREHOUSE Doc#: 9806051711 Cnty Use: 503 Owners: RICH LIDDY LLC Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: 1965 Mail: 6202 S 151ST PL; TUKWILA WA 98188-2581 C069 Phone: 41)E itus: 1702 NE 14TH ST, RENTON WA 98056-2837 C068 Lot Area:7,752 APN: 334390-3450-00 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: 1,940 County: N ING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: F.FR Doc#: Cnty Use:101 Owners: F.CHLUTER LARRY R Rooms:8 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 2 Half: Yr Built: 1977 Mail: 1702 NE 14TH ST; RENTON WA 98056-2837 C068 Phone: 42)itus: , RENTON WA 98056 Lot Area:54,886 APN: 234450-0007-01 Rec/Sale Dt: 12/30/1983 12/30/1983 Bldg/Liv Area: County: FLING,WA Sale Price: $195,000 Zoning: CC Use: F:ESIDENTIAL LOT Doc#: 8312300594 Cnty Use: 901 Owners: :;CHUMSKY DON/HW Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 PIARGE Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: :019 JONES AVE NE; RENTON WA 98056-2659 C068 Phone: 1996 Win2Cata 2000 Page: 6 of 9 43) ' Sitjs: 1425 JONES AVE NE, REN ION WA 98056-2847 C068 Lot Area:6,000 APN: 331450-0050-07 Rec/Sale Dt: 12/07/1993 12/03/1993 Bldg/Liv Area: 700 County: KI‘JG,WA Sale Price: $91,950 Zoning: SF Use: SF R Doc#: 9312071776 Cnty Use:101 Owners: SIUDDUTH DAVID W Rooms:4 Bedrms: 2 Map Pg: 626-D6 Jl LIE A Full Baths: 1 Half: Yr Built: 1949 Mail: 1425 JONES AVE NE; RENTON WA 98056-2847 C068 Phone: 44)Si us: 1707 NE 14TH ST, RENTON WA 98056-2838 C068 Lot Area:41,106 APN: 334390-3401-00 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: 3,380 County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: SIR Doc#: Cnty Use:101 Owners: TIIANEDAR B D Rooms:9 Bedrms: 5 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 3 Half: Yr Built: 1978 Mail: 1707 NE 14TH ST; RENTON WA 98056-2838 C068 Phone: 425/255-7476 45)Si-us: 801 GARDEN AVE N, RENTON WA 98055 C037 Lot Area:1,916,640 APN: OF 2305-9011-08 Rec/Sale Dt: 11/15/1988 11/15/1988 Bldg/Liv Area: County: K NG,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: IN DUSTRIAL PLANT Doc#: 8811150482 Cnty Use: 625 Owners: THE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: PO BOX 3703; SEATTLE WA 98124-3703 B900 Phone: 46)Slus: 915 HOUSER WAY N, RENTON WA 98055-1509 C037 Lot Area:68,470 APN: 01;2305-9171-04 Rec/Sale Dt: 02/01/1991 01/25/1991 Bldg/Liv Area: 20,812 County: K NG,WA Sale Price: $825,000 Zoning: 1H Use: V AREHOUSE Doc#: 9102010802 Cnty Use: 503 Owners: T iE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: 1965 Mail: P D BOX 3703; SEATTLE WA 98124-3703 B900 Phone: 47)Situs: 800 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD, RENTON WA 98055 Lot Area:1,350,360 APN: 082305-9079-07 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: INDUSTRIAL PLANT Doc#: Cnty Use: 625 Owners: TrIE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 565-E7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: F O BOX 3703; SEATTLE WA 98124-3703 B900 Phone: 48)itus: 910 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N, RENTON WA 98055 Lot Area:114,432 APN: 052305-9187-06 Rec/Sale Dt: 12/14/1988 12/14/1988 Bldg/Liv Area: County: PING,WA Sale Price: $30,000 Zoning: 1H Use: F ARKING STRUCTURE Doc#: 8812140277 Cnty Use: 401 Owners: 1HE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 565-E7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: F 0 BOX 3703; SEATTLE WA 98124-3703 B900 Phone: 49)itus: 800 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N, RENTON WA 98055 Lot Area:309,306 APN: C 82305-9204-05 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: LING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: I VDUSTRIAL ACREAGE Doc#: Cnty Use: 933 Owners: THE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 565-E7 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: PO BOX 3703; SEATTLE WA 98124-3703 B900 Phone: 1996 Win2E ata 2000 Page: 7 of 9 50) ' Sit is: 800 PARK AVE N, RENTON WA 98055 C037 Lot Area:6,490,440 APN: 07'-305-9001-01-000 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: MULTIPLE USES Doc#: Cnty Use: 625 Owners: TF E BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: PCB BOX 3707; SEATTLE WA 98124-2207 B900 Phone: 51)Sit us: 800 PARK AVE N, RENTON WA 98055 C037 Lot Area:6,490,440 APN: 072305-9001-01-001 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KI VG, WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: INDUSTRIAL PLANT Doc#: Cnty Use: 625 Owners: THE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: PO BOX 3707; SEATTLE WA 98124-2207 B900 Phone: 52)Si us: 800 PARK AVE N, RENTON WA 98055 C037 Lot Area:6,490,440 APN: 0i 2305-9001-01-002 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: INDUSTRIAL PLANT Doc#: Cnty Use: 625 Owners: THE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: P) BOX 3707; SEATTLE WA 98124-2207 B900 Phone: 53)S tus: 800 PARK AVE N, RENTON WA 98055 C037 Lot Area:6,490,440 APN: 0'"2305-9001-92-000 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: K NG,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: MULTIPLE USES Doc#: Cnty Use: 625 Owners: T-IE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: N S 1F-09; SEATTLE WA 98124 Phone: 54)S tus: 800 PARK AVE N, RENTON WA 98055 C037 Lot Area:6,490,440 APN: 072305-9001-92-001 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: INDUSTRIAL PLANT Doc#: Cnty Use: 625 Owners: THE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: MS 1F-09; SEATTLE WA 98124 Phone: 55)itus: 800 PARK AVE N, RENTON WA 98055 C037 Lot Area:6,490,440 APN: C 72305-9001-92-002 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: 1H Use: I JDUSTRIAL PLANT Doc#: Cnty Use: 625 Owners: 1 HE BOEING COMPANY Rooms: Bedrms: Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: Half: Yr Built: Mail: MS 1F-09; SEATTLE WA 98124 Phone: 56)Titus: 1513 JONES AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2818 C068 Lot Area:8,505 APN: : 34450-0076-07 Rec/Sale Dt: 05/14/1990 05/09/1990 Bldg/Liv Area: 1,780 County: KING,WA Sale Price: $144,000 Zoning: SF Use: 3FR Doc#: 9005141839 Cnty Use: 101 Owners: '/U LUONG Rooms:7 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 RAN TRAN Full Baths: 2 Half: 1 Yr Built: 1979 Mail: ' 513 JONES AVE NE; RENTON WA 98056-2818 C068 Phone: 206/228-8164 1996 Win2C ata 2000 Page: 8 of 9 57) ' Si1us: 1319 KENNEWICK AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2816 C068 Lot Area:8,193 APN: 334390-3358-03 Rec/Sale Dt: Bldg/Liv Area: 3,040 County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: SI R Doc#: Cnty Use:101 Owners: WATSON HARRIS E Rooms:7 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 Full Baths: 2 Half: 1 Yr Built: 1974 Mail: 1i 19 KENNEWICK AVE N E; RENTON WA 98056-2816 C068 Phone: 425/255-8601 58)Situs: 1409 JONES AVE NE, RENTON WA 98056-2847 C068 Lot Area:8,390 APN: 334450-0051-06 Rec/Sale Dt: 04/09/1993 04/02/1993 Bldg/Liv Area: 2,020 County: KING,WA Sale Price: Zoning: SF Use: DUPLEX Doc#: 9304091273 Cnty Use:102 Owners: WILLIAMS MAX R Rooms:5 Bedrms: 3 Map Pg: 626-D6 MICHELE M Full Baths: 2 Half: Yr Built: 1949 Mail: 149 JONES AVE NE; RENTON WA 98056-2847 C068 Phone: 425/226-5010 1996 Win2C ata 2000 Page: 9 of 9 411 RE CECITY OFIV RENTON O FEB 2 4 1999 BUILDING DIVISION JOANN R.AUSEN LARRY L.BABB JAMES BERGMAN 1331 KENNEWICK AVE NE 1316 LINCOLN PL NE 1164 ABERDEEN AVE NE RENTON WA 98056-2816 RENTON WA 98056-2852 RENTON WA 98056-2827 RONALD A.BERGMAN NORTHRN SANTA FE BURLINGTON CITY OF RENTON 2208 NORTHEAST 12TH STREET 1700 E GOLF RD#400 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98056-2914 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173-5804 RENTON WA 98055-2132 CARL A.COLASURDO JOHN G.DECHAINEAU ROBERT W.EDWARDS 1507 JONES AV NE 1325 KENNEWICK AV NE 3719 PARK AVE N RENTON WA 98056-2818 RENTON WA 98056-2816 RENTON WA 98056-1523 JAMES L. FOX JAN R.FRANDSEN GENE T.GALYEAN 1313 KENNEWICK AVE NE 1701 NE 14TH ST 18458 8TH AVE S RENTON WA 98056-2816 RENTON WA 98056-2838 SEATTLE WA 98148-1914 LAUREE GALYEAN GREG A.GARNER HOWARD ENTERPRISES INC 1208 LINCOLN PL NE 1209 LINCOLHN PL NE PO BOX 79014 RENTON WA 98056-2854 RENTON WA 98056 SEATTLE WA 98119-7914 HA N.HUYNH IREISEN PROPERTIES INC THOMAS L.KELLER 1713 NE 14TH ST PO BOX 80612 1408 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056-2838 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55408-8612 RENTON WA 98056-2808 MOSLEY KIRKMAN GARY A.LAND WILLIAM S.LEWIS 1002 N 35TH ST 11404 137TH AVE SE 1401 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056-1954 RENTON WA 98059-4405 RENTON WA 98056-2847 NICHOLAS S.&TRACY A. LORRIGAN JAMES MARTINDALE JAMES S.&DEBRA MARTINDALE 1724 NE 14TH ST 9712 237TH PL SW 9712 237TH PLACE SW RENTON WA 98056-2837 EDMONDS WA 98020-5645 EDMONDS WA 98020-5645 JAMES MEDZEGIAN ANDY H. NGUYEN PACIFIC AGRO COMPOANY 11914 SE 78TH ST 1318 KENNEWICK AV NE PO BOX 326 NEWCASTLE WA 98056-9178 RENTON WA 98056-2815 RENTON WA 98057-0326 JAMES E.PETERSON PHUNG T.PHAM SOUND ENERGY PUGET 1301 LINCOLN PL NE 5512 MORRIS AV S PO BOX 90868 RENTON WA 98056-2853 RENTON WA 98055 BELLEVUE WA 98009-0868 LIDDY LLC RICH LARRY R.SCHLUTER DON SCHUMSKY 6202 S 151ST PL 1702 NE 14TH ST 2019 JONES AVE NE TUKWILA WA 98188-2581 RENTON WA 98056-2837 RENTON WA 98056-2659 DAVID W.SUDDUTH B.D.THANEDAR THE BOEING COMPANY 1425 JONES AVE NE 1707 NE 14TH ST PO BOX 3703 RENTON WA 98056-2847 RENTON WA 98056-2838 SEATTLE WA 98124-3703 THE BOEING COMPANY THE BOEING COMPANY LUONG VU PO BOX 3707 MS 1 F-09 1513 JONES AVE NE SEATTLE WA 98124-2207 SEATTLE WA 98124 RENTON WA 98056-2818 HARRIS E.WATSON MAX R.WILLIAMS 1319 KENNEWICK AVE N E 1409 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056-2816 RENTON WA 98056-2847 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EIS APPLICATION NUMBER(S): LUA-99-027, ECF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Southport Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to consider potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Environmental studies will consider re levelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several land use development and building permits. The proposal is to sated adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing oK erations on the west. Access is from Lake Washington Boulevard. A Supplemental Environmental In pact Statement (EIS) is required which will supplement previous Environmental Impact Statements prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan. PROPONENT:Seco Development Inc. (Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington, West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405 E S REQUIRED: The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) aid will be prepared. Materials indicating likely environmental impacts (i.e., scoping document) can be rE viewed at our offices. L EAD AGENCY: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the Supplemental EIS: Earth, Air Quality, Water (Stormwater/Groundwater/Water Quality); Plants and Animals; Noise; Land and Shoreline Use; Socioeconomics (Population, Housing, Employment); Aesthetics, Light and Glare; Transportation; Public Services and Utilities (Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Police Services; Schools; Parks and Recreation; Water; Wastewater; Solid Waste). F.COPING: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the Supplemental EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant a iverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be s ibmitted in writing and received before 5:00 p.m. on March 29, 1999. F public scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m., located at the City Council Chambers (7th Floor), Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you are interested in attending the scoping meeting please contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Envision, (425) 430-6575, to obtain the meeting date and time and to ensure that the meeting has not teen rescheduled. F'.esponsible Official: Environmental Review Committee Development Planning Section Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance, in writing, pursuant to RMC 4-8-110E, accompanied by a non-refundable $75.00 appeal fee, no later than 5:00 p.m. March 22, 1999, to: Renton Hearing Examiner City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 To appeal this Declaration, you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fcurteen (14) days of the date that the Declaration of Significance has been published in the official city newspaper. See City Code Section 4-8-110E, RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. There shall be only one appeal of a Declaration of Significance, and if an appeal has already been filed, your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or may be dismissed if the other appeal has already been heard. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact tf e above office to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. PJBLICATION DATE: March 8, 1999 kLk ccit # St 0(01 P601\cat c-v- E' • r] vri•O Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee Development Planning Section Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. NOTICE OF APPLICATION Renton. 055 W 9805Wayn,WA 98055 AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Permits/Review Requested: Environmental Review AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF Other Permits which may be required: The SETS will address the Proposed Action which includes: SUPPLEMENTAL EIS Adoption of a Planned Action designation Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and concurrent Rezone from Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential) Zoning Code Text Amendment DATE: March 8,1999 Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027,ECF The Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA,for each specific development phase,would not be necessary if It is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance TheAPPLICATIONNAME: Southport Planned Action Environmental Review process assumes that a final Master Plan and site plan(s)for individual phases as well as shoreline substantial PROPONENT: Seco Development Inc(Rex Men) development permit applications will be submitted at a later stage as a Planned Action. Application for construction- related permits from the City of Renton and other state and federal agencies,potentially including U.S.Army Corps of PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The SouthEngineers Section 404,401 permits,stormwater discharge/NPOES,building and construction permits,etc.,required forSouthportPlannedActionenvironmentalreviewisbeinginitiatedinordertoconsiderlong-term redevelopment of the site would also be requested for approval subsequent to the adoption of the Plannedpotentialdevelopmentconceptsfortheredevelopmentofapproximately17acreslocatedadjacenttotheLakeWashingtonActionapproval. Issuance of these and other required development permits is included within the scope of environmentalshoreline.Environmental studies will consider redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use review for the Proposed Action. Since future development may qualify as a Planned Action which may not requiredevelopmentincludingresidential,retail and offices uses as well as recreational amenities,which will require a additional environmental review,comments regarding the environmental review should be submitted during this scopingComprehensivePlanAmendment/rezone,and several development permits. period and during the Draft SEIS(when available)comment period to ensure concerns are considered. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington,West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405.The proposal Requested Studies: See scoping topics for SEIS above.is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations onthewest.Access is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. LOCATION WHERE APPLICATION MAY 9 BE REVIEWED: Planning/Building/Public Works Division.Development Services y Department.1055 South Grady Way.Renton,WA 98055 XT' N,• PUBLIC HEARING: See scoping section above regarding scoping meeting.A public hearing i.iT before the Planning Commission will be scheduled al a later date related vi,_ `-r; • to the Draft Supplemental EIS(when prepared)and the Comprehensivel• • Plan Amendment/Rezone application.Land use applications submitteds L. after the Planned Action designation(e.g.site plans or shoreline substantial development permits)may also require public hearings. z.s APPEAL: You mayappeal this determination of significance,in writing, accompaniedbyyPPgpursuanttoRMC4-8-1 tOE. a t y non-refundable 575.00 appeal fee.no later than 5.00 p.m.March 22,1999.to: Ir Renton Hearing Examiner City Clerk 0'J`';-OI : 1055 South Grady Way 1 Renton,WA 98055 EIS REQUIRED:The lead agency has determined this proposal ..— To appeal this Declaration,you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen(14)days of theislikelytohaveasignificantimpactontheenvironment. date that the Declaration of Significance has been published in the official city newspaper. See City Code Section 4-8-An environmental Impact statement(EIS)is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c)and will be prepared.A Supplemental 110E.RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. There shall be only one appeal of a Declaration ofEnvironmentalImpactStatement(SEIS)is required which will supplement previous Environmental Impact Statements Significance,and if an appeal has already been filed,your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or maypreparedfortheRentonComprehensivePlan. Materials indicating likely environmental impacts(i.e.,scoping document) be dismissed if the other appeal has already been heard. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections.can be reviewed at our Offices. Contact the above office to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. LEAD AGENCY: Environmental Review Committee CONTACT PERSON: If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record andCityofRenton receive additional information by mail,contact Lisa Grueter at(425)430-6578.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project.SCOPING:The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the Supplemental EIS: Earth, Air Quality, Water(Stormwaler/Groundwaterobater Quality),Plants and Animals; Noise; Land and PUBLICATION DATE: March 8,1999 Shoreline Use;Socioeconomics(Population.Housing,Employment);Aesthetics,Light and Glare;Transportation, DATE OF DECISION:March 2,1999PublicServicesandUtilities(Fire and Emergency Medical Services;Police Services;Schools;Parks endRecreation;Water;Wastewater;Solid Waste). PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 24,1999 Agencies,affected tribes,and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the Supplemental EIS. You may comment on alternatives,mitigation measures,probable significant adverse impacts,and licenses or other approvals NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 2,1999 that maybe required.Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before 5:00 p.m.on March 29,1999. A public scoping meeting Is tentatively scheduled for March 23,1999 at 7 p.m..located el the City Council Chambers(7th Floor),Renton City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton.WA 98055.If you are interested in attending the scopingmeetingpleasecontacttheNeighborhoodsandStrategicPlanningDivision,(425)430-6575.to obtain the meeting date PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATIONandhmeandtoensurethatthemeetinghasnotbeenrescheduled. CERTIFICATION I, _ iC a , hereby certify that I41— copies of the above document were posted by me in 14- conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on KRACC-44 S / Ili c1 Signed: l,i A I EST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public,e State of Washington residing in‘—"-- d-y,,,k e-, , , on the q'-1 1-, day • 14p Q 1`'i 9. t — r ef-A-t-t-gi- s:6)--2,e-2-1.1 .A..0-72. MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 TeDCITY ( r RENTON 11. I Planning/Building/Public Works Department 7 e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 4, 1999 TO:Intersted Agencies and Parties SUBJEC Southport Planned Action Environmental Review Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of Supplemental EIS Project Number LUA-99-027, ECF Dear Rea ier: Transmittod herewith is a copy of the Determination of Significance (DS) for the above referenced project. The City c f Renton Environmental Review Committee, at its regular meeting on March 2, 1999, decided to issue the DS because cf potential impacts in areas of: Earth, Air Quality, Water (Stormwater/Groundwater/Water Quality); Plants and Animals; Noise; Land and SI oreline Use; Socioeconomics (Population, Housing, Employment); Aesthetics, Light and Glare; Transportation; Pt,blic Services and Utilities (Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Police Services; Schools; Parks and Recreation; Water; Wastewater; Solid Waste). SCOPING Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the Suppleme ital EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses of other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before 5:00 p.m. on March 29, 1999. A public sl:oping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m., located at the City Council Chambers 7th Floor) Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you are interested in attending the scoping meeting pl..ase contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, (425) 430-6575, to obtain the meeting date and time a id to ensure that the meeting has not been rescheduled. APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance, in writing, pursuant to RMC 4-8-110E, accompanied by a non-refundable $75.00 appeal fee, no later than 5:00 PM on March 22, 1999, to: Renton Hearing Examiner, c/o City Clerk, 105! South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-6578. For the Environmental Review Committee, e4-41./ isa Grueter Project Manager DSLTR.DOC 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer tiSY O i3e + a.B Y.P' NT NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EIS DATE: March 8,1999 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027,ECF APPLICATION NAME: Southport Planned Action Environmental Review PROPONENT: Seco Development Inc(Rex Allen) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Southport Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to consider potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Environmental studies will consider redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and offices uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone,and several development permits. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington,West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405.The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. Gene Colon Park •\' `- Lake Mashmaton Cr wSkorrl,ne 111 SITE o. ...•t / l i0 O o It`C\ EIS REQUIRED: The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement(EIS)is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c)and will be prepared.A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SETS) is required which will supplement previous Environmental Impact Statements prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan. Materials indicating likely environmental impacts(i.e.,scoping document) can be reviewed at our offices. LEAD AGENCY: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton SCOPING:The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the Supplemental EIS: Earth, Air Quality, Water (Stormwater/Groundwater/Water Quality); Plants and Animals; Noise; Land and Shoreline Use; Socioeconomics(Population, Housing, Employment);Aesthetics,Light and Glare;Transportation; Public Services and Utilities (Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Police Services; Schools; Parks and Recreation;Water;Wastewater;Solid Waste). Agencies,affected tribes,and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the Supplemental EIS. You may comment on alternatives,mitigation measures,probable significant adverse impacts,and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before 5:00 p.m.on March 29,1999. A public scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m.,located at the City Council Chambers(7th Floor), Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you are interested in attending the scoping meeting please contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, (425)430-6575, to obtain the meeting date and time and to ensure that the meeting has not been rescheduled. P,esporlsible Official: Enviri ital Review Committee Devel nt Planning Section Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental Review Other Permits which may be required: The SEIS will address the Proposed Action which includes: Adoption of a Planned Action designation Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and concurrent Rezone from Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential) Zoning Code Text Amendment Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan The Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA,for each specific development phase,would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. The process assumes that a final Master Plan and site plan(s) for individual phases as well as shoreline substantial development permit applications will be submitted at a later stage as a Planned Action. Application for construction- related permits from the City of Renton and other state and federal agencies, potentially including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404, 401 permits, stormwater discharge/NPDES, building and construction permits, etc., required for long-term redevelopment of the site would also be requested for approval subsequent to the adoption of the Planned Action approval. Issuance of these and other required development permits is included within the scope of environmental review for the Proposed Action. Since future development may qualify as a Planned Action which may not require additional environmental review, comments regarding the environmental review should be submitted during this scoping period and during the Draft SEIS(when available)comment period to ensure concerns are considered. Requested Studies: See scoping topics for SEIS above. LOCATION WHERE APPLICATION MAY BE REVIEWED:Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: See scoping section above regarding scoping meeting. A public hearing before the Planning Commission will be scheduled at a later date related to the Draft Supplemental EIS(when prepared)and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone application. Land use applications submitted after the Planned Action designation(e.g.site plans or shoreline substantial development permits)may also require public hearings. APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance, in writing, pursuant to RMC 4-8-110E, accompanied by a non-refundable$75.00 appeal fee,no later than 5:00 p.m.March 22,1999,to: Renton Hearing Examiner City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 To appeal this Declaration,you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen(14)days of the date that the Declaration of Significance has been published in the official city newspaper. See City Code Section 4-8- 110E, RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. There shall be only one appeal of a Declaration of Significance,and if an appeal has already been filed,your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or may be dismissed if the other appeal has already been heard. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the above office to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. CONTACT PERSON: If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,contact Lisa Grueter at(425)430-6578. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PUBLICATION DATE: March 8,1999 DATE OF DECISION: March 2,1999 PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 24,1999 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 2,1999 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION Rw CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EIS PROPOSED SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION The City of Renton is requesting comments on the scope of the EIS for the proposed Southport Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). A more detailed description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives and those elements of the environment preliminarily identified for consideration and analysis in the SEIS is available from the City of Renton. Description Of Proposal: The Southport Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to consider potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Seco Development is proposing that phased redevelopment of the Shuffleton Steam Plant site be designated by the City as a Planned Action pursuant to SEPA. The Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase, would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. Environmental studies will consider redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several land use development and building permits. Preliminary plans for the Southport site include creating a mixed-use development with private and public amenities and recreational opportunities. Presently,preliminary conceptual plans would result in the following ranges of development: 543 to 581 attached multi-family residential dwelling units 38,000 square feet of retail/service 500,000 to 750,000 square feet of office The uses would be developed above structured parking. Including parking levels, the heights of the buildings would range from 5 to 8 stories above grade. Presently, preliminary conceptual plans indicate that residential and commercial uses would be located in the northern portion of the site along Lake Washington,and the office uses would be located in the middle and southern portions of the site. Public amenities proposed include a boardwalk promenade at the waters edge the full width of the property that would offer opportunities for walking, outdoor dining, visual access to the lake and an extension of the lake walk at the adjacent Coulon Park. An existing dock would be retained and potentially enhanced to allow for guest moorage. The mixed-use project would be constructed in phases. Proponent: Seco Development Inc. (Rex Allen) Location Of Proposal: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is from Lake Washington Boulevard. SHRTSCPE.DOC\ Lead Agency: City of Renton EIS Required: The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement(EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will supplement previous Environmental Impact Statements prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan. The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the Supplemental EIS: Earth, Air Quality, Water (Stormwater/Groundwater/Water Quality); Plants and Animals; Noise; Land and Shoreline Use; Socioeconomics (Population, Housing, Employment); Aesthetics, Light and Glare; Transportation; Public Services and Utilities (Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Police Services; Schools; Parks and Recreation; Water; Wastewater; Solid Waste). Scoping: Agencies,affected tribes,and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the Supplemental EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before 5:00 p.m.on March 29, 1999. Written comments should be addressed to: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 A public scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m., located at the City Council Chambers (7th Floor), Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you are interested in attending the scoping meeting please contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, (425)430-6575,to obtain the meeting date and time and to ensure that the meeting has not been rescheduled. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee Address: City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator DATE 4-14 773 0,e/Redi 3/g-/g 7 SHRTSCPE.DOC\ L r... z z 4, z ` b WL O 3N ' any SpuoWP 3N P' any sptuowp3 O N 3 dny UO Aoa in CO ail uo Ao uoll( o( ViY UOII DQ 1 I) UO} D() I- E.' sw rU , f aGa J O cv N SO LU — O z z 6, Q ci W 3N ' any al Dlg £ a w L awolp 3N a, N C. tat 2 T y at O O Z 1 uaapiagy g' i co 3N ' any uaapaagy 3N ' any uaap agy 3N aany ua paagb I Anil has 1 •- 11 a in3N y ) Lns dalaluo L- ta) aluo apt cti UIO Ui w 131MauUaN Z 1a! MauuaN z Q J 3N and Sauop SeS : o No% v'wz tk N ' ansf Mopoalry N cCd 1>`v• v lO 0 t. apJDO x5 N ' any uapJOO s vd N N Loke{ 6s I i I 1 1 I I I I i I 11 N • any Tod N ' aW 1- 10d Z f1 1111111111i1 11111111 , i M 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 v N . any Ailad 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i l i i l l l i 1 1 1 I I I i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 any s1aM E— I 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 4 1 ; Co`D i 1 ' 1 ! 1 1 1 t l ! I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I z c+, I i t I l i 1 f I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I N y ru+ On i 1 l ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t I 1 1 I l i I ii L1. I f i I I 1 I I I t I I I I I I I I i I I I I i 1 I l i l i l i 1 1 1 1 1 i l 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 V i ' Ililllililililliiiiililliiliiiiiilllililliiiiiiiilllii 0 L- I 1 ! 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I i 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I an uobo SiD i ! i l l l l ! I I I 1 1 ! I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N y l a) 1 111111I111111111111111ii1 ' ii 11111111f1111111111111111111111 I I I I I I I I f i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i l l l l 1 CA s. 1 , 1 , 11111i11111111Ii1I11i11 „ L, 111I1111111 , 1 , 1 , 1lllil111iiiiillilii i l l l i l l i t t i l I E . I i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f i i l l Co Cl) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! i i `] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ! 1 I t I I I 1 1 I 1 f 1 1 1 I i I 1 I I I 1 z I I I I I I I I I I i i lI 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 cki 1I11 11111111I1111i1t111111 1111i11111111ii11111111111111111111111 U, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 I 1 c i ! i I I i I I I i I I 1 I I I I I I I d w 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I f• O .•. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1' 0; 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Side 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 t 1 1 I i 11 i 1 I I 1 1 I 1 t 1 I I i 1 I 1 1 I N Rive{ er p, I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i0IIi, Ii111illililililliilili1i1111111111111i R'' U as. 111111I1111111111111111 I i I I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 i I i 1 1 1 I 1 CeaCir p o cd I I i i l l i l l l ii i l l l i i l i l l l l i l l l l l l l p E' q I I I I I I I I t i 1 i 1 I f I i I l i l i i i l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ! I I I I i l i l l I I I I I i I i i l l l l l l l i l l i 4\>= ly 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t I IQ, gi . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 mIIIIIIII { 111 zAilililllilllilililliii ^ iIliIl111lllllliilllllllilllllillllillliii' A cn 11111111111111 1l1i1 1111111111111I1i1111111111111111111111111111111i11 Z w ocv 1 1111111111111 111111111111111111111 1 11111111111111111111111111111111111 0 ",' I ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 ° o 94.--1):- 4+ 11i111111111i1111111i11111111i1il1liiIIIliiiilllliiillllilillllill111iI pqO. IA U711111I11111111111I11111111111111i1111111111f1111111i1111IIllI1l1111 1 ^° rTS“ f-, y2 i11I1111f11I111111111111111111111 cn u 1 1 1 1 11 III I f 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 r. SHUF 1. LETON VICINITY I 1 dP i il 6••Q 1 Gene Coulon Park - Lake Washington Shoreline 4. VilioisN\-.:. SITE O o k:. N. p 1‘. i' o l PPP'30 0 c.0 0, 1‘ 110. 0 a o0 111 V. o u 0 z S' \ m fa 04, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Site boundary P t DennisonTo20. 0 4 0 0 80 03February1999 1 :4,800 ERRATA SHEET In a two-page text with the title "City of Renton, Determination of Signficance and Request for Comments on Scope-of Supplemental EIS, Proposed Southport Planned Action" signed and dated on March 2, 1999,the following change should be noted: Description of Proposal": Based upon recent information from the proponent, the heights of the building would range from 5 to 10 stories instead of 5 to 8 stories. No changes are noted for the numbers of units or square footages. City of Renton Economic Development/Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Dept.3/10/99 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EIS APPLICATION NUMBER(S): LUA-99-027, ECF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Southport Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to consider potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Environmental studies will consider redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several land use development and building permits. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is from Lake Washington Boulevard. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required which will supplement previous Environmental Impact Statements prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan. PROPONENT:Seco Development Inc. (Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington, West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405 EIS REQUIRED: The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. Materials indicating likely environmental impacts (i.e., scoping document) can be reviewed at our offices. LEAD AGENCY: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the Supplemental EIS: Earth, Air Quality, Water (Stormwater/Groundwater/Water Quality); Plants and Animals; Noise; Land and Shoreline Use; Socioeconomics (Population, Housing, Employment); Aesthetics, Light and Glare; Transportation; Public Services and Utilities (Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Police Services; Schools; Parks and Recreation; Water; Wastewater; Solid Waste). SCOPING: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the Supplemental EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before 5:00 p.m. on March 29, 1999. A public scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m., located at the City Council Chambers (7th Floor), Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you are interested in attending the scoping meeting please contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, (425) 430-6575, to obtain the meeting date and time and to ensure that the meeting has not been rescheduled. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee Development Planning Section Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance, in writing, pursuant to RMC 4-8-110E, accompanied by a non-refundable $75.00 appeal fee, no later than 5:00 p.m. March 22, 1999, to: DSIG.DOC a. Renton Hearing Examiner City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 To appeal this Declaration, you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen 14) days of the date that the Declaration of Significance has been published in the official city newspaper. See City Code Section 4-8-110E, RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. There shall be only one appeal of a Declaration of Significance, and if an appeal has already been filed, your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or may be dismissed if the other appeal has already been heard. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the above office to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. PUBLICATION DATE: March 8, 1999 DATE OF DECISION:March 2, 1999 SIGNATURES: Jao 3/2 9 Gregg Zim man Il n stra o DATE Departme t f PI nning/Building/Public Works 3 / PJie herd d istrator ak DA Community Service Department 7.9 a Lee Wpeel r, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DSIG.DOC SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED ACTION SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING DOCUMENT City of Renton Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division Economic Development/Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Department March 8, 1999 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE&REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED ACTION SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT(SEIS) INTRODUCTION The City of Renton is requesting comments on the scope of the Supplemental EIS for the proposed Southport Planned Action. This document provides a description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives and those elements of the environment preliminarily identified for consideration and analysis in this SEIS. Scoping: Agencies,affected tribes and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the SEIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts and licenses or other approvals that may be required. All comments must be received by March 29, 1999 for consideration in the proposed scope of the Supplemental EIS. Written comments should be addressed to: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 A public scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m., located at the City Council Chambers(7th Floor),Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you are interested in attending the scoping meeting please contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, (425)430-6575,to obtain the meeting date and time and to ensure that the meeting has not been rescheduled. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Proponent:Seco Development Lead Agency: City of Renton Preliminary Scoping Document 1 Southport Planned Action DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Seco Development is proposing that phased redevelopment of the Shuffleton Steam Plant site be designated by the City as a Planned Action pursuant to SEPA. The Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase, would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. The Proposed Action includes: Adoption of a Planned Action designation Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and concurrent Rezone (from Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential) Zoning Code Text Amendment Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan Process assumes that a final Master Plan and site plan(s) for individual phases as well as shoreline substantial development permit applications will be submitted at a later stage as a Planned Action. Application for construction-related permits from the City of Renton and other state and federal agencies, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404, 401 permits, stormwater discharge/NPDES, building and construction permits, etc., required for long-term redevelopment of the site would also be requested for approval subsequent to the adoption of the Planned Action approval. Issuance of these and other required development permits is included within the scope of environmental review for the Proposed Action. To facilitate the City's consideration of the Planned Action designation and environmental review of implementation of the Planned Action, a conceptual redevelopment plan for the site will be formulated. The Master Plan will provide conceptual information on potential mix of uses, building density and height,access/circulation,recreation and open space opportunities and other development features. Location of the Proposal/Site Area The site is located along the Lake Washington shoreline, between the Boeing industrial complex and Gene Coulon Park. (vicinity map attached). The Southport redevelopment would occur on approximately 17 acres. This acreage also includes about 2 acres of water where the property boundaries extend over Lake Washington. The existing building area of the Steam Plant and ancillary buildings equals about 100,000 square feet. The proponent estimates that the existing development and improvements cover more than 90% of the site with impervious surfaces. Preliminary Scoping Document 2 Southport Planned Action Master Plan Features Preliminary plans for the Southport site include creating a mixed-use development with private and public amenities and recreational opportunities. Presently,preliminary conceptual plans would result in the following ranges of development: 543 to 581 attached multi-family residential dwelling units 38,000 square feet of retail/service 500,000 to 750,000 square feet of office The uses would be developed above structured parking. Including parking levels, the heights of the buildings would range from 5 to 8 stories above grade. Presently, preliminary conceptual plans indicate that residential and commercial uses would be located in the northern portion of the site along Lake Washington,and the office uses would be located in the middle and southern portions of the site. Public amenities proposed include a boardwalk promenade at the waters edge the full width of the property that would offer opportunities for walking, outdoor dining, visual access to the lake and an extension of the lake walk at the adjacent Coulon Park. An existing dock would be retained and potentially enhanced to allow for guest moorage. The mixed-use project would be constructed in phases. The proposal would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and concurrent rezone from Employment Area-Industrial/Heavy Industrial (EAI/IH) to Center Office Residential (COR). The intention of the Center Office/Residential (COR) designation is to create a compact, urban development with high amenity value, that serves as a gateway to the City. The zone is written for specific districts of the City. For example COR-1 applies to the Stoneway Concrete vicinity, and COR-2 applies to the Port Quendall vicinity, and some of the development standards vary by location. A new COR-3 zoning text section would need to be prepared for the Southport site. The zoning would be similar to the other two COR zones which allow flexibility of use combinations and development standards which encourage redevelopment. The zones typically require Master Plans although the procedures vary. Relationship to Remediation Process Environmental investigations at the Shuffleton Steam Plant are documented in three reports: 1.Final Environmental Site Investigation, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility, Renton, Washington, prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated April 15, 1996 by Hart Crowser,Inc. 2.Remedial Action Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility, Renton, Washington, prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated December 6,1996 by Hart Crowser,Inc. 3.Final Sediment Characterization Report on the Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility DNR Lease Area, Renton, Washington, prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated November 7, 1997, prepared for Puget Sound Energy by Wineman Environmental Consulting in conjunction with Hart Crowser,Inc. Environmental Cleanup Summary: An environmental site investigation was performed at the Shuffleton Facility in 1995 to identify the nature and extent of chemical contaminants present in site soil, offshore sediment, and groundwater. As part of that investigation, an extensive site history was developed, including a series of interviews with site workers and research of historical records. A potential for releases of chemical contaminants were identified on several areas of the site as a result of that study. Subsequently, a Phase II sampling plan was developed to test site soil, sediment, and groundwater for a broad range of potential contaminants. Preliminary Scoping Document 3 Southport Planned Action In 1996, 71 soil samples were collected from borings, test pits and surface soils. Heavy range petroleum hydrocarbons were identified in over half of the sample collected in a variety of site locations. Eight of those samples contained total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) above the cleanup standard. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected in two samples at levels slightly above the residential cleanup standard. Lead was also detected above residential cleanup standards primarily in surface soils around structures that had been painted with lead-based paint. Some arsenic was discovered in railroad ballast materials. No volatile or semi-volatile priority pollutants had been detected at levels of concern. Asbestos fire-brick was discovered buried in several locations and the asbestos content of the surrounding soils was above levels that would be protective of human health. Freshwater sediment samples were collected in the adjoining harbor area. No contaminants were detected at levels exceeding screening criteria. The concentration of contaminants detected in the sediments were below those found in other areas of Lake Washington, the Ship Canal, and Lake Union and other areas with treated pilings. Shallow groundwater under the site was characterized by installing nine monitoring wells. Results indicate that except for naturally-elevated levels of arsenic, no contaminants were discovered in site groundwater above the State cleanup levels for drinking water. Site Remediation Plan: In late 1996,a remedial work plan was developed to remediate those areas of the site where contaminants (primarily petroleum, lead and arsenic, and lesser amount of PCB and asbestos) were discovered above cleanup levels. That plan was implemented in late 1998. All site soils were to be cleaned up to residential standards. Eleven areas on the site were identified for excavation of contaminated soil. As of late January 1999, 9 of the 11 excavation zones were completed. Over 700 cubic yards of contaminated soil had been removed from the site for disposal or treatment. In addition, demolition of four site structures was called out in the remedial work plan. These include removal of two large above ground storage tanks, removal of the site railroad spur and removal of an underground fuel pipeline from the former tanks to the pumphouse; these activities were reviewed in City applications for environmental and shoreline permits. The remedial action is scheduled to be completed by March 1999. Following that, a cleanup action report will be submitted to the Department of Ecology for their review and expected designation as a no further action site. Since the remedial action is nearly complete, it is anticipated that the issue of on-site hazardous materials will not be a topic of the Supplemental EIS. Licenses,Permits and Necessary Approvals The following permits and approvals may be required for phased redevelopment of the site: City of Renton: Planned Action Designation Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Zoning Code Text Amendment Master Site Plan Approval and individual site plan approvals by phase Shoreline Substantial Development Approval Shoreline Variance or Conditional Use,if applicable Conditional Use Permits,if applicable Variances,if applicable Clearing,grading,demolition,construction,building and mechanical permits Roadway access approval Parking and Loading Regulation Modification Preliminary Scoping Document 4 Southport Planned Action Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority Washington Department of Ecology: Hazardous Waste-No Further Action Letter NPDES permit approval Shoreline Substantial Development Approval Possible Shoreline Variance or Conditional Use Water Quality Certification Coastal Zone Management Certification Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Hydraulic Project Approval Washington Department of Natural Resources: Aquatic Use Authorization US Army Corps of Engineers: Section 401 and 404 Permits if needed US Environmental Protection Agency: CERCLA/MTCA Clearance All other licenses and permits required to allow redevelopment of the site under the Master Site Plan. ALTERNATIVES CHOSEN FOR ANALYSIS In addition to the Proposed Action described above, alternatives to be considered in this EIS will include the following: No-Action -- Continuation of some form of industrial use of the property. No comprehensive plan amendment nor rezone of the site would result; Design Alternative--This alternative would also feature a mixed-use development. Primary distinctions from the Proposed Action would include reconfiguration of the location of residential, commercial and office uses where office, and mixed residential-commercial uses would be located in the northern portion of the site, and office and residential uses would be located in the middle and southern portions of the site. Total units and square footage of building space would be similar to the Proposed Action. Other major infrastructure elements would be similar to the proposal, and phasing of development would also be similar. EIS APPROACH EIS Required -- The lead agency has determined that this proposal could have significant adverse impacts on the environment. A Supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) to the Comprehensive Plan EIS documents is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c)and will be prepared. The SEIS is intended to address all probable significant impacts that would occur as a result of redevelopment to the mixed-use center. The EIS is intended to provide a sufficient level of detail and analysis such that further environmental review under SEPA for each specific development phase will not be necessary, assuming that each phase is consistent with the Planned Action designation. Since the analysis will address a major Comprehensive Plan Amendment, this SEIS will build upon previous environmental documents prepared for comprehensive planning efforts conducted by the City of Renton, as well as documents prepared for nearby sites and resources. Some of the documents that will be consulted and incorporated by reference,as appropriate,into the analysis of this EIS include: Preliminary Scoping Document 5 Southport Planned Action Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Draft and Final EIS January, 1992 and February, 1993) City of Renton Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan Supplemental DEIS and FEIS December, 1994 and February, 1995) Shuffleton Complex Soil Remediation, Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated, LUA 93-072,ECF,June 1993 Shuffleton Tank Removal,Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated,LUA 96-103, ECF, September 1996 Shuffleton Soil Remediation, Determination of Non-Significance, LUA 98-115, ECF, SM, August 1998 ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT The lead agency has preliminarily identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS. Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts as a result of construction and operation of the proposal and alternatives will be identified and evaluated for each of the following elements of the environment. Mitigation measures will also be identified,as appropriate and warranted. Natural Environment Earth: The site is generally flat with a slight topographic slope toward Lake Washington. Typical of industrial sites in the vicinity, the site has been drained and filled with sands, gravels, and demolition debris over the years. A site-specific analysis of soil, and geologic conditions will be prepared. This analysis would primarily utilize data provided in previous documents. Applicable maps and cross sections will be provided. A discussion of applicable geologic hazards will address the sites'potential as a seismic hazard area. Anticipated building construction methods for development of the site will be described. An evaluation of the anticipated impacts of proposed construction at the site will be conducted. The potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts will be evaluated. Any limitations of the sites' soils for grading and for support of structures and roads will be described. Construction de-watering issues would be discussed. Finally, any risks of construction and building placement associated with potential seismic events (liquefaction)will be addressed. Mitigation measures which may be relevant to minimize impacts on the site will be identified. Air Quality: Consistent with the requirements of regulatory agencies, the assessment of air quality impacts will be based on carbon monoxide concentrations. Receptor locations will be selected adjacent to affected intersections, and possibly at the nearest off-site residential locations or other sensitive receivers. Existing conditions, the Proposed Action, and alternatives will be modeled. Modeled concentrations will be compared to ambient standards to determine the potential significance of impacts. Relevant mitigating measures to reduce any identified impact from increased traffic will be discussed and incorporated from the transportation analysis. A discussion of adjacent industrial activities will be provided which address the potential for fumes or vapors (for example, painting activities at the Boeing plant). Potential mitigation on the Southport site will be described. Construction-related air quality impacts during demolition and construction, such as the potential for generation of dust during site grading activities, will also be discussed. Measure to mitigate air quality emissions during construction will also be addressed. Preliminary Scoping Document 6 Southport Planned Action Hater Resources The site is located in the glacial deposits of the Cedar River valley. The regional groundwater flow is characterized by recharge in the uplands and discharge to the north into Lake Washington. Because of the discharge upward into Lake Washington in the vicinity of the site, shallow groundwater at the site is not expected to flow downward to deeper water-bearing units. Groundwater beneath the site was observed at depths of 3 to 5 feet below grade during sampling activities. Based on measurements at 19 groundwater monitoring well locations in September and December 1995, groundwater at the site flows in a north to northwesterly direction toward the lake at a relatively slow rate. Stormwater Drainage/Runoff-- Existing drainage patterns, runoff rates and volumes will be described. Post-development runoff patterns, volumes and flows would be estimated. Design parameters for stormwater facilities would be determined and discharge will be forecast. Adopted surface water drainage standards will be assessed,and the need for any mitigation identified. Groundwater-- Groundwater levels on-site and immediately adjacent to the site (Lake Washington) will be described based primarily on existing data. The direction of groundwater flow will be documented. The contribution of infiltration on-site to groundwater and surface water resources will be described. The impacts of changes in land use on infiltration and groundwater movement will be evaluated. Any potential impacts to groundwater quality conditions will be assessed. Measures to mitigate any identified groundwater impacts will be addressed. Water Quality -- Existing water quality conditions in lower Lake Washington will be described based on available data. City of Renton plans, policies and regulations relevant to surface water quality management and use of Best Management Practices will be identified. Water quality impacts during construction and post-development will be assessed, including potential impacts resulting from erosion and stormwater pollutants typical of urban runoff. Potential impacts to Lake Washington will be addressed. Post-development water quality composition will be estimated using existing literature, with consideration of the effect of proposed water quality treatment facilities. Predicted changes in water quality for Lake Washington will be compared to relevant standards. Opportunities for mitigating any identified impacts will be described and examined. Plants and Animals Shoreline Habitat- Much of the site is improved with impervious surfaces, and there is an existing bulkhead. An assessment of the existing shoreline buffer area of Lake Washington will be provided relative to any upland habitat value, if present. Currently, Renton's wetland inventories do not identify potential wetlands on the site. Potential impacts to upland habitats and wetlands, if any, from project construction and post-development will be addressed,including potential impacts from increased erosion, water quality changes and increased human activity. Fisheries-Aquatic and riparian habitat along the Lake Washington shoreline on, and adjacent to, the site will be characterized in terms of fisheries habitat and functions. Information will also be obtained from local, State, Federal and Tribal agencies. Potential impacts on fisheries resources from both construction and operation of the proposal will be assessed. Such impacts could include effects on habitat due to potential increases in erosion/sedimentation during construction, changes in water quality conditions, and others. Mitigation plans may be examined. Preliminary Scoping Document 7 Southport Planned Action Built Environment Noise: Relevant federal, state, and local sound level criteria will be identified and discussed for impacts of the project on surrounding sites (traffic and construction noise impacts) and impacts of surrounding uses(e.g.Boeing industrial operations)on the subject site. Baseline sound level measurements will be collected on-site and in the project area to measure sound levels from off-site sources, and also during the peak traffic period and at other times of the day, if necessary. Off-site measurements will be taken at locations representative of sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site. Measured sound levels will be compared with relevant sound level criteria to describe the existing sound environment in the project area. Future traffic noise levels from project-affected roadways will be calculated using FHWA's NOISE model, a traffic noise prediction procedure. The NOISE model calculates the equivalent sound level Leq) generated by traffic based on traffic volume, speed and vehicle mix. Model calculations will be compared with relevant criteria to gauge impacts. Impact assessment will be based on existing noise levels and on traffic information provided by the traffic consultant. Construction noise will be evaluated by specific construction activity and phase (i.e., pile driving, excavation, etc.),using published sound levels of construction noise. These sound levels will be adjusted to represent the actual distances to potential receptor locations surrounding the project site. Potential means for mitigating any identified on- and off-site noise sources, traffic, and other noise impacts will be discussed. Pertinent regulations covering construction noise, and potential constraints on the timing and duration of construction noise events,will be identified,as warranted. Land and Shoreline Use: The Land Use analysis will focus on the specific land use patterns in the area adjacent to the site and in nearby neighborhoods. Land use designations and zoning for the site and surrounding properties will be described. The EIS will also describe the type and mix of uses, zoning, density, scale and shoreline uses both on site and in the surrounding community. A discussion of the site's historical activities will also be included based on available information. A site-specific analysis of the compatibility of the design, scale, and features of the Proposed Action and alternatives with immediately surrounding uses will be provided. The redevelopment of the site with mixed uses will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone from Employment Area - Industrial/Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential. The potential impacts of rezoning and development of a mixed use development on surrounding parcels will be addressed. The Land Use analysis may include a discussion of potential land use trade-offs relating to provision of substantial employment and multi-family housing on the site versus within other designated centers in the City. The Relationship to Plans and Policies analysis will summarize relevant policies and provisions from City of Renton, regional, State, and Federal plans and regulations. City land use, transportation and related plans, ordinances or regulations and will discuss the general consistency or inconsistency of the proposal. The EIS will contain a specific .evaluation of the relationship of the proposal to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. This analysis will address relevant policies on the Land Use, Transportation, Housing,Capital Facilities,Utilities,Economic Development and Environmental Elements. The relationship of the proposal to the City's Shoreline Master Program will be assessed with emphasis on goals and policies, use regulations, and development standards (e.g. setbacks, building height, potential need for variances or conditional use permits). The site's proposed shoreline uses will be assessed relative to the Shoreline Master Programs' policies and standards related to encouragement of Preliminary Scoping Document 8 Southport Planned Action water-enjoyment uses, intensity of use and public access. Measures to mitigate any adverse land use impacts to the surrounding community and uses will be identified,as warranted. The proposal's consistency with the City's Zoning Code, and proposed Office/Residential zone provisions will be evaluated. In addition, the proposal's relationship to other applicable standards/regulations (i.e., Critical Areas Ordinance) will be addressed. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone will be evaluated relative to City criteria for such actions and consistency with relevant plans, policies, and regulations. Finally, the proposed zoning code text amendment describing the potential COR development standards will be assessed relative to applicable plans and policies. Other plans and regulations which could be evaluated include the Growth Management Act, Shoreline Management Act, Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act,and others. Socioeconomics (Population, Housing, Employment): A description of the existing jobs currently on site will be provided. A description of the existing and future forecasted population, housing, and employment levels and characteristics in the area will be provided.Future housing and employment needs identified by the City will be discussed. The specific number and type of jobs that could be created on site as part of the proposal will be estimated based on standard ratios. The on-site population that will be generated by the specific type of housing units will be estimated as well. These projections will be compared to the assumptions used by the City to gauge any important differences. Furthermore, the number of estimated jobs and population will be compared to overall, adopted forecasts and targets for City growth, to determine the proposal's percentage of such overall growth. Finally, the potential impacts of introducing a new employment base and population to the surrounding community will be assessed(interrelated with the Land Use analysis). Measures to mitigate any adverse impacts to population, employment and housing conditions will be identified. Aesthetics, Light and Glare: Existing aesthetic qualities and scenic resources of the site and the surrounding area, including Lake Washington, will be identified. The existing industrial character of the site will be described. A description of the general viewshed to the site including photos from several vantage points will be provided to visually document existing conditions. Vantage points could include views from Gene Coulon Park,Cedar River Trail,roadways,and nearby residential districts. The potential impacts to views from these areas from redevelopment of the site will be evaluated. The proposed uses, heights, design, and shoreline and water-related features will be considered relative to existing uses. Visual impacts of the proposal as seen from selected viewpoints area parks and roadways, and representative existing residential areas,will be evaluated. The change in aesthetic character of the site from industrial to mixed-use center will be evaluated, particularly related to design, scale, intensity and compatibility with the surrounding aesthetic character. Any additional mitigating measures to reduce any visual impacts of the proposal that are not included in the proposed design and are warranted will be evaluated. Existing sources of light and glare from adjacent industrial uses and existing on-site uses will be identified. The potential impacts of light and glare from redevelopment on surrounding land uses and Preliminary Scoping Document 9 Southport Planned Action from Lake Washington itself will be addressed. Measures to mitigate impacts from light and glare from off-site and on-site sources will be identified,as appropriate. Transportation: An overview of existing conditions within the study area will be provided.A description of the local arterial network,including Park Avenue North,Lake Washington Blvd., SR900, and WSDOT I-405 will be included. Existing trips associated with current on-site uses will be discussed. Levels of service at nearby intersections will be analyzed. There are several transportation issues regarding the location of the proposed development that will be addressed, including: impacts to the existing roadway network, impacts to the Burlington Northern Railroad; access to the I-405 freeway; and cumulative traffic impacts of the proposed development and the neighboring Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. In addition, safety, non-motorized facilities, emergency vehicle access,and transit impacts will be addressed. Trip generation and distribution will be determined for the Proposed Action and alternatives. The City's transportation model would be used to determine trip distribution. The City's transportation model will also be used to determine future year(year of opening for the proposed development)traffic forecasts for the roadway network surrounding the project site. Future year forecasts will include traffic generated by pipeline and approved development identified by the City. The future year forecasts will be used as baseline traffic for the determination of traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The roadway network will be analyzed for the project year of opening during the p.m.peak hour based on a level of service (delay) analysis. The level of service analysis will include project-impacted intersections,including site access locations. Appropriate mitigation will be identified for vehicular traffic impacts, and will include options for trip reduction through Transportation Demand Management (this could include options for mode split, peak trip spreading, etc.). Potential increases in mode split to transit, HOV and non-motorized travel will be explored. Mitigation would also address, where appropriate, railroad facilities, safety and emergency vehicle access. Public Services and Utilities: Fire and Emergency Medical Services - Existing fire and emergency medical services will be discussed. The current staffmg levels,equipment and facilities of the City of Renton Fire Department will be described, and any service deficiencies identified. Specific stations that respond to the site will be identified. Current demand for services (number of calls) will be assessed based on available information. Response times to the site, and any existing mutual aid agreements between service providers, will be described. Any information on estimated future increases in fire and emergency medical service calls without the proposal will be provided. Available water resources for fire flow purposes will be documented(interrelated with the Utilities section below). An estimate of the added demand on fire and emergency services from the proposal will be made based on information provided by the Renton Fire Department or on data available from other jurisdictions. Impacts on response times to the site will be addressed. The need for additional fire and emergency medical services from redevelopment on a phased basis will be determined. The potential need to hire additional personnel, purchase more equipment, or build additional facilities will be assessed. Emergency access routes and on-site exits including the ability of emergency vehicles to gain access to the site during times of traffic congestion will be evaluated. Potential impacts will be assessed relative to planned improvements identified in the Capital Facilities Element. Additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined, as warranted. Preliminary Scoping Document 10 Southport Planned Action Police Services - Existing police services will be described. The current staffmg levels, equipment and facilities of the Renton Police Department will be described and any service deficiencies identified. Specific stations that respond to the site will be identified. Current demand for services number of calls) will be assessed based on available information. Response times to the site, and any existing mutual aid agreements between service providers, will be described. Any information on estimated future increases in police service calls without the proposal will be provided. Current crime rates in the site vicinity will be described. An estimate of the added demand on police services, both during construction and operation of the proposal,will be made. Potential impacts on response times,the need for additional personnel,police vehicles, or facilities will be discussed. Potential impacts will be assessed relative to planned improvements identified in the Capital Facilities Element. Additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined,as warranted. Schools - Existing student enrollment, capacity and projected enrollment will be described for the schools that serve the site vicinity. Student enrollment forecasts for future years will be identified as available. Current plans by the Renton School District to construct new facilities, or make facility improvements, will be discussed, and existing transportation services available to/from the schools servicing this site will be identified. Any existing capacity problems will be identified. The number of students expected to be generated by the proposal will be estimated using the appropriate school district formula. The capacity of the schools in the site vicinity to accommodate the projected student population will be evaluated. Any need for additional improvements will be identified. Potential impacts to school bus transportation operations will be assessed. Additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined, as appropriate. Parks - Existing parks,recreational facilities and trails in the site vicinity will be identified, and their adequacy to serve the existing population will be analyzed using City of Renton standards for parks and recreational facilities contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Planned improvements in the area, identified in the Capital Facilities Element,will be described. Proposed, on-site recreational facilities and opportunities will be described. The impacts of the proposal on existing parks (especially Gene Coulon Park located adjacent to the site), recreational facilities and trails will be assessed, given the proposed on-site facilities. The availability of these facilities to residents and employees of the development, as well as the general public will be discussed. Additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined, as warranted. Water- The existing City of Renton water storage and distribution system in the site vicinity will be described and its current capacities identified. Existing fire flow capability to the site will be determined. Any existing problems or deficiencies in the system will be assessed. The planned improvements identified in the City's Capital Facilities Plan will be reviewed. The project's water demand in terms of peak flow for both domestic use and fire protection will be quantified. Demand related to all proposed uses and project phases will be calculated. The capacity of the existing system to accommodate the project's demand, and the project's relationship to planned improvements in the area will be evaluated. Additional improvements to mitigate project impacts will be determined. The relationship of the proposed system to the adopted water system level of service standards will be discussed. Preliminary Scoping Document 11 Southport Planned Action Wastewater- The existing City of Renton/Metro wastewater collection, discharge and treatment system will be described and current capacities identified. Any existing problems or deficiencies in the system will be described. The planned improvements identified in the City's Capital Facilities Plan will be reviewed. The project's increased sewage flow generation will be quantified, based on demand from all proposed uses and phases. The capacity of the existing system to accommodate the project's increased flows will be determined, and the project's relationship to any planned improvements evaluated. The capacity of the Metro treatment plant to accommodate added flows from the project will be addressed. Additional improvements to mitigate project impacts will be determined. The relationship of the proposed system to the adopted wastewater system level of service standards will be assessed. Stormwater-Existing stormwater facilities, any planned improvements,project impacts to stormwater runoff volumes; rates and facilities and relevant mitigation measures will be discussed and evaluated in the Water Resources section of the EIS. Solid Waste- Existing solid waste collection, transfer and disposal services and facilities will be described. Recycling programs available to the project site will be identified. Current capabilities of Waste Management-Rainier to collect and transport waste and the Renton Transfer Station to receive waste will be assessed; additionally, the capacity of the Cedar Hills landfill to accommodate all solid waste from the City of Renton will be evaluated. Planned improvements, identified in the King County Solid Waste Management Plan, will be reviewed. The project's increased waste generation will be quantified. The ability of the collection, transfer and disposal facilities to adequately handle the project's waste will be assessed. Any additional upgrades in service or facilities, as a result of the proposal, will be determined. Opportunities for recycling and other waste management programs will be examined. FINAL EIS When the Draft SEIS is completed, it will be issued and made available for public and agency review and comment. Comments received within the designated comment period (usually thirty days) will be incorporated into a Final SEIS, together with appropriate responses to those comments. Final action on the proposal will not be taken prior to issuance of the Final SEIS. Preliminary Scoping Document 12 Southport Planned Action vz I I I I I I I I I I i i I I • I I I I I I I f l 11 I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 f I I I If s salt'+,a K i I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I I i I I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I i I I 1 I i 1CIIIIIIII111111II1IIIIiI11III1I11II d 0 , 11 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIit111111111111111111OOo0o11111111f11I1II11111111111tI11111 1 1 1 r. 3 rTho 111t1111111111111111111tliiill1111111111111111111ti1I1I111f11t111i11111 w t l l l l l l l l ! I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I i I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 i I N OtI Z i t l l l i f l l l i l l l l t l l l l ti II i l l l i l l l l l l l ca• 0 1 1 1 1 I t 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 f 1 I i I 1 1 1 I l i l i i 1 i ! I I I I I i i l l l l i i i l i l l I i l l i t l i l l l l l i lroty\"' 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t l l l l i l i i i i i l l i l l l l l Con Z Q4 r-•-• I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I t t C. \P' III f I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 0prnQ' r I I 1 I I I 1 t 1 1 I I t I I t i I 1 I I I I 1 I t I I I II 1 ro 11 I t I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I i i I I I I I I I I I I I Ia,7 I I I I I I illy l t i t l i t i i l l JI I i l l l l l i l l t lwo 1 J.q f,--• 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I rl, ! i i i I I I i I I 1 p oo 0'"• l----i i I 1 1 1 I I I t I i i i I 1 I i I I c 'E vi i 1 1 I i I I 1 I f I o IQaptisjat'. Iliititiillititilllilil111illiiitliiiiiii i.iiiililillfiliiitililliliit co a Iiiililililililililililifililiiilllillillilililililililliili111111i1CO rnJ 1I1 1 1 1 I111 11111 1 1 1 11f111tltill1IIi1lI1IlifIlI111iiiiI111111iIlitiitiltililllllici) i1111111i11111111Illlliilil I il ii lltilll111III1I11II1iI1 . 1 tiill1I1111111111I( niiilliliiilitliltiitillliitllli11ia III11111Ii1lltlillflllllitliltLo ..nAve. N t1111f1l1lItIItt itI1iiI 1 , 1 11 I i i I I I 1 f I i ! i I 1 I ! i I i i t I 1 rItll11111tli , i 11 1 1 1 1 I ! 1 I I I b 14'i!;Ams i i i 1 I i I i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 f i I i i I 1 1 Ave. N I ( • I I i i I t I I i f i I I I I I i t I i I i 11 w —_ z fEll I IIIIIIIIIIIllillliIII1111111131111ltitl n 0 Wells Ave.. N "' 111k10 1111111 1111iliiitliltlilttili11111iii I"-3 0 IT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 00' cn lilllilliliilil11111111i1l11111 ! cm PCIEy Ave. N 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 Pork Ave. N Park Ave. N I Iililili1i1111 , i1 1 s,;la a° a i Soft JcrzNCI' U l a L st Garden Ave. N a' Carden „ Q z —'Ct. T N and vapso J l Meadow Ave. NE z 1"E']s Fi-II cn a5tta OctziJonesAve. NE z O a 1 Kennewick rn Kennewick f—zrn Lincoln C,N F Monterey Monterey MontereyfrCn5A y--• 1i v Sun t Ave. NE`n VsAFs!rn I—+ F-- vr/ H£ Aberdeen Ave. NE Aberdeen Ave. NE - Aberdeen Ave. NECOcylAberdeen O o 9, Blaine Ave. NE ylA a;z O o boy Blaine Ave. zczz _ rn O 4 O smms QCCfittlS .v«s p if „ Dayton Dayton ili• CZ a v° r-Dayton Dayton Edmonds Ave .r NE D0 °n Alto O Edmonds Ave. NE a. CD L S g I l I1( m SHUFI. IJETON VICINITY MP 118 ilk Gene Coulon Park - Lake Washington Shoreline 4. IiiiiiligoriN\-.:: L 0(> 4.. SITE O o O i! v i 0< 0 frill°.0 Op o i Q O o 0111‘\ o ill WO O r o o , 0 z C5 \ CO fP- c, 0. DenO Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Site boundary ED/N/SPc0. Dennison P4, rro 23 February 1999 0 400 800 fir;,.,......., 1 :4,800 ERRATA SHEET Southport Development Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Document issued 3/8/99 Master Plan Features," page 3: Based upon recent information from the proponent, the heights of the building would range from 5 to 10 stories instead of 5 to 8 stories. No changes are noted for the numbers of units or square footages. Air Quality," page 6: Because the level of traffic improvements needed are unknown at this time, carbon monoxide modeling would not be included in the scope, but may be evaluated in the future if warranted. City of Renton Economic Development/Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Dept.3/10/99 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 3379 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY STAFF TO INITIATE WORK, COMMISSION STUDIES, EXPEND FUNDS, AND TAKE OTHER STEPS TO STUDY THE REDEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY GENERALLY KNOWN AS THE SHUFFLETON PLANT AREA LOCATED WEST OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF PARK AVENUE NORTH (SR-900) AND TO FACILITATE A PLANNED ACTION" UNDER STATE LAW. WHEREAS, property commonly known as the Shuffleton Plant property is being marketed for redevelopment; and WHEREAS, the location of the Shuffleton Plant property along the shores of Lake Washington and immediately adjacent to Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park makes it both a highly desirable and a very visible parcel of property; and WHEREAS, this property represents one of the last major undeveloped or underdeveloped waterfront locations on Lake Washington, both within the City and in the King County area, and WHEREAS, this property has high visibility from I-405 and Lake Washington; and WHEREAS, this property has superior access to I-405; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton wishes to encourage quality development that provides an aesthetic landmark for the City and to ensure that this unique site is ultimately developed in a manner advantageous to the citizenry of the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, redevelopment of this property has a potential of providing a significant stable tax base and a substantial employment base for the City of Renton; and 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3 3 7 9 WHEREAS, redevelopment of the property offers an opportunity for increased public access to the shorelines of Lake Washington and provides an opportunity to join this waterfront site with Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park and the Cedar River Trail; and WHEREAS, the development of this property may create a significant demand upon the City's utilities and utility improvements, and upgrades are time consuming, expensive, and require coordination between service providers and between the service providers and customers; and WHEREAS, redevelopment of this property will provide challenges to the transportation infrastructure in the general area including ensuring easy access to and from I-405; and WHEREAS, transportation improvements are generally quite costly and time consuming and need to be planned as part of a functioning part of the entire transportation system; and WHEREAS, the City has been approached by SECO Development concerning the redevelopment of this property pursuant to a master planned phased development; and WHEREAS, the City is specifically authorized by state statute to designate a phased development proposal such as that proposed by SECO Development as a planned action; and WHEREAS, the process of determining whether a planned action should be designated will provide a method of providing a community forum to discuss issues related to the redevelopment of this property; and WHEREAS, consideration of designating a planned action will provide an opportunity for the City to study the general area of this proposed development before specific development plans have been submitted so as to provide the developer with guidance, conduct environmental review while in advance of the project in order to avoid unnecessary environmental consequences, and further to avoid conflicts with the City, the general public and the developer; and 7 RESOLUTION NO. 3379 WHEREAS, consideration of designating a planned action will provide an early opportunity for public participation in the environmental and permitting processes; and WHEREAS, consideration of designating a planned action will provide an early opportunity to study and address environmental impacts which might be caused by such planned action; and WHEREAS, consideration of designating a planned action will provide the opportunity to expedite the project permit process and increase regulatory certainty, thereby increasing the likelihood that the site will be developed to provide to the public those benefits identified in the planned action; and WHEREAS, should SECO Development not develop this property, the studies undertaken at this time will add certainty to later redevelopment projects which would encourage redevelopment; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The staff is hereby authorized and directed to study the redevelopment of the Shuffleton site, which is generally known as the Shuffleton Plant area located west of Lake Washington Boulevard and north of Park Avenue North (SR-900), and graphically represented in the drawing attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein as if fully set forth. SECTION III. The staff is further authorized to meet with SECO Development and the public to engage in a collaborative process to answer planning, legal and other concerns about redevelopment of this property. In particular, the staff is to undertake an early and thorough environmental analysis of this project and to recommend to the City Council whether 3 RESOLUTION NO. 3379 the statutory prerequisites for a planned action designation of the site would be satisfied and whether a planned action should be designated. SECTION IV. The staff is directed and authorized to formulate the appropriate description of the planned action or range of planned actions including performance standards and environmental impact mitigation for the site, and to determine whether additional environmental analysis is necessary and the nature, extent, and form of such additional environmental analysis to satisfy SEPA's planned action authority. SECTION V. The staff is further directed that if it is to recommend to the Council that a planned action be designated, that staff draft a proposed planned action ordinance for phased development of the site pursuant to a developer agreement with the City. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 1st day of March 1999. Marilyn J. ters n, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 1st day of March 1999. Jesse'Tanner, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.716:2/23/99:as. 4 SH u FFLETON VICINITY MAP h . Gene Coulon Park 1 Lake Washington Shoreline 1. N\: SITE O o v t L\J 0 ' J 0 4 aa V C. . 0 4 0O o K> 0 zr-III‘\ o o ' u c----A ENeighborhoods & Strategic Planning Site " Q 0. Deni2. Dennison 0 A 0023February1999t• 1 :4,801 f,I SECO DEVELOPMENT, INC . 11009 NE 1 lill STREET•BELLEVUE, WASHINGToN 98004 TEL: 425/688-3085 • FAX: 425/637-1922 4EMAIL: seco@secodev.com FEB 2 5 1999 Facsimile Transmittal Cover Sheet DATE: TO: I, IS 4 6,(kierirA. TEL NO: COMPANY: errr 144 7 FAX NO: FROM: /4)Z 42A1(074) TEL NO: Number of Pages to Follow: 4-61/41e e-S-e. tedir-iK 64coro&-r ôi2fele-40•Jits'ie4e4 6114, /fr DoKli THANK YOU ALL INFVRMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS DEEMED RELIABLE;HOWEVER, NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY*IS MADE AS TO THE ACCURACY HEREOF- NEW LOT B - TAX LOT 055 THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 1 AND 2 IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND ALL THOSE PORTIONS OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS FRONTING THEREON, ALL MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTH UNE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND SUCH LINE PRODUCED WESTERLY 959.35 FEET, TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY'S RIGHT OF WAY (FORMERLY NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY'S LAKE WASHINGTON LINE) AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, ON SAID WESTERLY MARGIN OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY'S RIGHT OF WAY, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 74'38'01" WEST, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1388.68 FEET, THROUGH AN INCLUDED ANGLE OF 4'14'26" FOR AND ARC LENGTH OF 102.78 FEET 102.76 FEET CHORD DEF.); THENCE SOUTH 7544'38" WEST 240.72 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 46'51'03" WEST 282.66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 8749'09" WEST 85.74 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43'47'07" WEST 119.14 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 46'43'23" WEST 646.03 FEET, TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL E, AS SHOWN ON CITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 004-88 AS RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NUMBER 8808309006; THENCE NORTH 14'34'17" WEST, ALONG SAID LINE, 277.53 FEET, TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF PARCEL C OF SAID LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT; THENCE NORTH 43'07'33" WEST 718.12 FEET, TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS AS LAID OUT BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 46'52'27' EAST, ALONG SAID INNER HARBOR LINE, 607.64 FEET, TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT; THENCE SOUTH 43-07'33" EAST 679.03 FEET, TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING AN ANGLE POINT IN THE NORTH LINE OF PUGET SOUND ENERGY'S SHUFFLETON COMPLEX AND THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 PRODUCED; THENCE SOUTH 88 48'46" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 PRODUCED, 761-47 FEET. TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY'S RIGHT OF WAY AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 744,949 SQUARE FEET OR 17.102 ACRES. CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: February 25, 1999 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578)p6 SUBJECT: Request for Early Environmental Review- Southport Development LUA 99-027 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background In December 1998, the City Council was briefed about a proposed mixed-use development on a portion of the Shuffleton site. Based upon the briefmg, the Council indicated an interest in having a mixed-use development on the site which is located adjacent to Lake Washington, Gene Coulon Park and Boeing facilities. In late January, the proponent submitted a pre-application. Proponents of the Southport proposal have discussed with staff what process and permits are needed to achieve a mixed use development on the existing industrial site. Key approvals needed include a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone from Employment Area- Industrial/Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential. A new COR-3 zone would need to be written for the site. Site plans and shoreline substantial development permits,and other land use and construction permits would be required as well. The key permit would be the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/concurrent rezone which are only considered once a year (applications need to be submitted by March 31, 1999 and they are usually approved in the Fall). Because the Comprehensive Plan EIS work completed a few years ago did not address any other designations for the site other than industrial, and because of the level of development of the mixed uses has the potential to generate additional traffic and demand for services, it appears that a Supplemental EIS is warranted. On March 1, 1999,the City Council will consider a resolution which authorizes and directs City staff to initiate study of the redevelopment of the Shuffleton site, and to conduct the efforts to facilitate a Planned Action under State law. The following general approach has been discussed by staff: An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared. It will be funded by the project proponent. TS SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\ERCMEM.DOC\lg February 25, 1999 Page 2 The EIS will analyze applications for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone and new COR zone standards. The City will review the project as a potential Planned Action. Conceptual plans will be provided in order to ensure that the level of detail in the EIS is sufficient to designate a Planned Action. Process assumes that a"master plan"application as well as shoreline permit applications will be submitted at a later stage as a Planned Action. Project Description Preliminary plans for the Southport site include creating a mixed-use development with private and public amenities and recreational opportunities. Presently, preliminary conceptual plans would result in the following ranges of development: 543 to 581 attached multi-family residential dwelling units 38,000 square feet of retail/service 500,000 to 750,000 square feet of office The uses would be developed above structured parking. Including parking levels, the heights of the buildings would range from 5 to 8 stories. Presently, conceptual plans indicate that residential and commercial uses would be located in the northern portion of the site along Lake Washington, and the office uses would be located in the middle and southern portions of the site. Public amenities will include a boardwalk promenade at the waters edge the full width of the property that will offer opportunities for walking, outdoor dining, visual access to the lake and an extension of the lake walk at the adjacent Coulon Park. In discussions with the proponent, it appears an existing dock will be retained and potentially enhanced to allow for guest moorage. The proponent favors Plan A, but other plans which could be considered in environmental review Plan B and a Reconfigured Plan A)are also included. Permits Required The following permits and approvals will likely be required for phased redevelopment of the site: City of Renton: Planned Action Designation Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Zoning Code Text Amendment Master Plan Approval and individual site plan approvals by phase Shoreline Substantial Development Approval Clearing,grading,building and mechanical permits Roadway access approval Parking and Loading Regulations Modification Washington DOE: NPDES permit approval February 25, 1999 Page 3 Shoreline Substantial Development Approval Possible Shoreline Variance or Conditional Use Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Hydraulic Project Approval US Army Corps of Engineers: Section 401 and 404 Permits if needed All other licenses and permits required to allow redevelopment of the site. The proponent's list of applications is attached and addresses some additional permits which may or may not be needed at this point. REQUEST FOR EARLY REVIEW On February 23, 1999 Seco Development submitted a request for early environmental review and provided an application form,legal description,mailing labels for parcels(parcels within 1,000 feet), project description and conceptual plans for the Environmental Review Committee's review. RMC 4-9-070L allows for an applicant to request early notice of whether a determination of significance will be issued. Although submittal of a checklist is normally required per Section 4-9-070K15, another provision in Section 4-9-070J1 indicates that one is not required if the agency and applicant agree that an EIS is required. The intent would be to issue a Determination of Significance indicating areas to be analyzed and begin the scoping process. Initiating scoping early will help achieve the consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone in a timely manner along with the City's other Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests, and allow the proponent to submitt subsequent applications for site plan and shoreline permits in the Fall that would have limited environmental review if consistent with the Planned Action. Construction of early phases would then begin. Staff is requesting that ERC consider issuing the Determination of Significance on March 2, 1999 for publication by March 8, 1999 as appropriate. Staff would like to discuss the length of the scoping process (e.g. 21 versus 30 days, scheduling of a scoping meeting) with ERC in order to fmalize the determination and supporting documents. A draft determination and scoping document are provided for ERC's review. Staff would also like to discuss distribution of notices. Preliminary, staff plans to issue a notice of application and determination of significance which would be posted on the site and mailed to neighboring property owners (applicant has submitted labels for properties within 1,000 feet), as well as to the City's list of agencies/surrounding jurisdictions, and potentially to identified neighborhood groups. CONSULTANTS The Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Department in consultation with the Development Services Division requested Statements of Qualifications and created a short list of consultants to consider for professional environmental consulting services. The list was adopted by the Council on February 22, 1999. Two of the three firms most suited for the Planned Action approach have been asked to prepare a proposal for a Planned Action/Supplemental EIS. Proposals are to be received today. The Department will select a firm and negotiate a contract. February 25, 1999 Page 4 Review of the proposals may result in changes to the draft scoping document routed to ERC. Any changes will be noted on Tuesday,March 1, 1999. cc: Sue Carlson Jennifer Toth Henning Vr4 cif O VTHPO SEC 0 Development 11009 NE 11th St. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Lisa Grueter City of Renton Planning Department Renton City Hall 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Southport Land Use Permit—Master Application Dear Lisa, Enclosed you will find application materials for the referenced project. We are submitting information for our Land Use Permit Master Application. This information is submitted in support of our request for an early environmental review of this project. We anticipate that the scale of this project will require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement and we are requesting early review in order to establish a determination. We are interested in pursuing the entitlement process as quickly as possible. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this application or if additional information is required. Since y,, Rex Allen Project Manager CITY OF FENTON PPCErkirn FEB 2 4 1999 BUILDING DIVISION LL O e^LITH PO SECO Development 11009 NE 11th St. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Proposal Description Southport is envisioned as a vibrant mixed use development located at an important gateway to the City of Renton. Bustling streetscapes will be created, lined with shops and restaurants to form an urban neighborhood atmosphere in the residential enclave. Amenities shared by the residential tenants of Southport will include; secured parking, and an elevated plaza with views of the lake. A pedestrian link through this area of the project will extend to the waterfront providing a visual and experiential connection to the office buildings at the interior. Office buildings at the interior will be the visual terminus of this link, anchoring the site to the waterfront and enhancing the gateway to the City. Public amenities will include a boardwalk promenade at the waters edge the full width of the property that will offer opportunities for walking, outdoor dining, visual access to the lake and an extension of the lake walk at the adjacent Coulon Park. This connection will provide shopping and dining opportunities for park users, extending their experience further along the waterfront and into the Southport neighborhood. Focal points of interest will be created along the boardwalk with special paving, art work or water features. Benches and landscape planters will surround these focal points and complement their design. The office development will front on tree lined Southport Boulevard and will offer views of Coulon Park and Mount Rainier. The focus of the entry boulevard is a public piazza ringed with shops, housing and offices, creating the essential core of this mixed use community. High quality design will create clear statements of use and identity and will be complimented by special finishes, paving or art work greatly enhancing the pedestrian experience and integrating the various uses into a unified whole. We intend to create Southport to be a vital urban mixed use community with a variety of working, living, shopping and dining opportunities which will provide a rich experience of Lake Washington and the City of Renton. Conceptual site plan diagrams are included to illustrate the potential site development. Please see attached drawings. CITY OF RENTON PECEIVF! I F E B 2 4 1999 i BUILDING DIVISION 4e4fr L UTH PO SECO Development 11009 NE 11"^ St. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Southport Project Statistics Plan A Residential Component Building Average Approx. Total Unit Distribution Parking unit size Building Area Units (Studio- 1 BR -2BR/2Bath) 1.3 per DU Building A 650 127,200 166 S=30%, 1BR=50%, 2BR=20% 216 Building B 800 193,200 205 S=30%,1BR=50%, 2BR=20% 267 Building C 850 170,900 171 S=0%, 1 BR=50%, 2BR=50% 222 Totals 491,300 543 705 Retail Component Approx. Parking Area 1/1000 SF Building A 5000 Building B 15000 Building C 18000 Plant Bldg. 0 Totals 38,000 38 Office Component Approx. Parking Building Area 3/1000 SF New 300,000 3 buildings @ 100K-over 900 Construction parking Existing 200,000 600 Power house Totals 500,000 1,500 Grand Total Total Totals Building Area Parking 1,029,300 2243 This number includes shared parking. Please refer to enclosed parking study by Transpo CITY OF RENTON RECEWWF FEB 2 4 1999 BUILDING DIVISION RFCVCITY OF EIRENTONFD D FEB 2 4 1999 ra BUILDING DIVISION 1 V' O UTHPO SEC 0 Development 11009 NE 11'^ St. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Southport Project Statistics Plan B Residential Component Building Average Approx.Total Unit Distribution Parking unit size Building Area Units (Studio- 1 BR-2BR/2Bath)1.3 per DU Building A 650 132,000 173 S=30%, 1BR=50%, 2BR=20% 224 Building B 800 210,000 223 S=30%,1BR=50%, 2BR=20% 290 Building C 850 185,000 185 S=0%, 1BR=50%, 2BR=50% 241 Totals 527,000 581 755 Retail Component Approx. Parking Area 1/1000 SF Building A 5000 Building B 15000 Building C 18000 Power House 0 Totals 38,000 38 Office Component Approx. Parking Building Area 3/1000 SF New 500,000 3 buildings @ 100K-over 1500 Construction parking Existing 250,000 750 Power house Totals 750,000 2,250 Grand Total Total Totals Building Parking Area 1,315,000 3043 This number includes shared parking. Please refer to enclosed parking study by Transpo CITY OF RENTON P CEIVo FEB 2 4 1999 BUILDING DIVISION PARKINGLii(14NG PARKING 51.1 kk 37.0k 2) firs. rs. Y ( 1) firs. 11] r 0 1\ e- '1 POWER PLANT l PARKING 115.8k (3) firs. PARKING 36.2k (3) firs. \ I Retail Area -- 38k total T Parking Area -- 643.1k total 1 I SITE PLAN 'A' AND 'B' 1 p PARKING/ RETAIL PLAN 1 I Southport ARM r.br„Q„ 3.IOW MIT II UN .. ,,.,, , ,. Renton, WA IAJpd/.nrb CITY OF RENTON PFCEIVFO FEB 2 4 1999 BUILDING DIVISION 1 1 P 20.3 k 35.1 k 416,3 firs. 3 firs. LOFFICE POWER PLANT t..... OFFICE 51.4k (3) firs. OFFICE 25.0k 2) firs. OFFICE 31.8k (3) firs. Residential -- 491.3k sf total 491.3k/ 543 units = 900' avg. gross per unit Office -- 300 k sf total Power Plant and Addition -- 200k sf total i" DEVELOPMENT PLAN 'A' RESIDENTIAL/ OFFICE PLAN Southport Os 143111.00 flyJ.MO MITIIUN Renton, WA 0415 CITY OF RENTON PECEIVFO F E B 2 41999 BUILDING DIVISION j ri j 4 i 74 /44. /4 r t../w4 EJri 4 35.1 k `\ 4)) firs.5) firs. OFFICE POWER PLANT — CH OFFICE 51.4k (5) flrs. OFFICE 25.0k 4) firs. OFFICE 31.8k (5) flrs. Residential -- 527k sf total T 527k/ 581 units = 910' avg. gross per unit Office -- 500k sf total Power Plant and Addition -- 250k sf total DEVELOPMENT PLAN 'B' RESIDENTIAL/ OFFICE PLAN SouthportAltH ars r.bruory 3. 1 MIT H USN ..... .. . 9$3$J d/Nrb Renton, WA CITY OF AENTON RECEIVc0 FEB 2 4 1999 LBUILDING DIVISION tot; s .4 co t,, , o 9 / i C w; DFIse• v i I FL^' i i/. ii/ C 20.3 k 35.1 k 3) firs. (4) firs. \\ i LOFFICE POWER PLANT C re' OFFICE 51.4k (3) firs. N. iN 15.214 e \\ Residential -- 491.3k sf total 491.3k/ 543 units = 900' avg. gross per unit 1 Office -- 300 k sf total Power Plant and Addition -- 200k sf total i l n DEVELOPMENT PLAN 'A'/ALrow RESIDENTIAL/ OFFICE PLAN Southport Renton, WA CITY OF RENTON PFCEIV ) FEB 2 41999 I BUILDING DIVISION PARKING PARKING `;; PARKING 51.1 k 47.9k " . „ 37.0k 2) firs. 1) firs. 1) firs. 10k 1Ok LPOWER PLANT PARKING 115.8k E2A-Ka4b Retail Arca -- 38k total Parking Area -- 643.1k total n SITE PLAN 'A' AND 'B'/AL-rP_Ae 4 p PARKING/ RETAIL PLAN Southport Renton, WA L AO A^ UTHPO SECO Development 11009 NE 11 r^ St. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Project Phasing Southport construction will be undertaken in several phases as follows: Grading and demolition — Grading and earth work will be the first activities undertaken at Southport. Early issue of a grading permit is desirable in order to do preloading of some of the site soils. Demolition of existing structures that will not be reused will be undertaken in this phase. Infrastructure — Demolition of existing utilities and extension of new utilities will be undertaken first, followed by road improvements. Connection points will be established for the various building pad sites and the utilities will be extended to those locations. Building Construction— Building construction will begin at the northwest end of the site, adjacent to the lake and proceed south and east. Buildings A and B of the residential portion will be completed first, followed by the waterfront improvements. Building construction continued— Construction of the office buildings and their associated parking structures, will be the last phase of construction on this site. These buildings will be built in stages in conjunction with building C of the residential portion. This is a generalized and preliminary description of the site development phases at Southport. It is our intention to move continuously and agressively to complete the mixed use development as expeditiously as possible. 1.4 el 4411.1. vTHPO SEC 0 Development 11009 NE 11th St. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Permit Requirements PERMITS—CITY A. Land Use 1.Comprehensive Plan revision 2. Development Standard (Rezone)revision 3. Possible Conditional Use 4. Possible Variance B. Shoreline Management 1.Shoreline Master Plan Permit 2.Variance 3.Conditional Use 4.Possible Revision to Master Program—similar to rezone Miscellaneous 1.Cleaning Permit—removal of vegetation over 6"in diameter 2.Grading Permit 3.Building Permit PERMITS—FEDERAL A. Army Corps of Engineers 1.404,401 permits(filling or impacting navigable bodies of water—Lake Washington) 2.Wetlands B. EPA 1.CERCLA/MTCA clearance CITY OF FENTON RECEIVED FEB 2 4 1999 UILDING DIVISION I Permit Requirements (cont.) PERMITS—STATE A. Water 1.Any work in Lake Washington a.Fisheries b. Ecology c.DNR 2.Uplands a.Wetlands, DOE b. Streams, DOE/Fisheries c.Erosion B. Air 1.Puget Sound Air Pollution Authority C. Ground 1.DOE—hazardous waste; NFA letter Note: No Adjacent Puget Sound Power and Light Properties are under contract at this time and are not contemplated for by surplus in the foreseeable future. CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED FEB 2 4 1999 WILDING DIVISION 1 DRAFT CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EIS APPLICATION NUMBER(S): LUA-99-027, EIS DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Southport Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to consider potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Environmental studies will consider redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several land use development and building permits. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is from Lake Washington Boulevard. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required which will supplement previous Environmental Impact Statements prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan. PROPONENT:Seco Development Inc. (Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington, West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405 EIS REQUIRED: The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. Materials indicating likely environmental impacts (i.e., scoping document) can be reviewed at our offices. LEAD AGENCY: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: Earth, Air Quality, Water; Plants and Animals; Noise; Land and Shoreline Use; Socioeconomics Population, Housing, Employment); Aesthetics, Light and Glare; Transportation; Public Services and Utilities (Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Police Services; Schools; Parks; Water; Wastewater; Solid Waste). SCOPING: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before 5:00 p.m. on March _, 1999. A public scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March , 1999 at p.m., located at If you are interested in attending the scoping meeting please contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, (425) 430-6575, to obtain the meeting date and time and to ensure that the meeting has not been rescheduled. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee Development Planning Section Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance, in writing, pursuant to RMC 4-8-110E, accompanied by a non-refundable$75.00 appeal fee, no later than 5:00 p.m. March_, 1999, to: DSIG.DOC Renton Hearing Examiner City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 To appeal this Declaration, you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen 14)days of the date that the Declaration of Significance has been published in the official city newspaper. See City Code Section 4-8-110E, RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. There shall be only one appeal of a Declaration of Significance, and if an appeal has already been filed, your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or may be dismissed if the other appeal has already been heard. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the above office to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. PUBLICATION DATE: March , 1999 DATE OF DECISION: March 2, 1999 SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmerman,Administrator DATE Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Jim Shepherd, Administrator DATE Community Service Department Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DSIG.DOC DRAFT SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED ACTION SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING DOCUMENT City of Renton Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division Economic Development/Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Department March , 1999 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE&REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED ACTION SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT(SEIS) INTRODUCTION The City of Renton is requesting comments on the scope of the Supplemental EIS for the proposed Southport Planned Action. This document provides a description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives and those elements of the environment preliminarily identified for consideration and analysis in this SEIS. Scoping: Agencies, affected tribes and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the SEIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts and licenses.or other approvals that may be required. All comments must be received by March . 1999 for consideration in the proposed scope of the EIS. Written comments should be addressed to: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Proponent:Seco Development Lead Agency: City of Renton Preliminary Scoping Document 1 Southport Planned Action DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Seco Development is proposing that phased redevelopment of the Shuffleton Steam Plant site be designated by the City as a Planned Action pursuant to SEPA. The Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase, would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. The Proposed Action includes: Adoption of a Planned Action designation Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and concurrent Rezone (from Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential) Zoning Code Text Amendment Conceptual Master Plan Process assumes that a final Master Plan and site plan(s) for individual phases as well as shoreline substantial development permit applications will be submitted at a later stage as a Planned Action. Application for construction-related permits from the City of Renton and other state and federal agencies including: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404, 401 permits, stormwater discharge/NPDES, building permits, etc. required for long-term redevelopment of the site would also be requested for approval subsequent to the adoption of the Planned Action approval. Issuance of these and other required development permits is included within the scope of environmental review for the Proposed Action. To facilitate the City's consideration of the Planned Action designation and environmental review of implementation of the Planned Action, a conceptual redevelopment plan for the site will be formulated. The Master Plan will provide conceptual information on potential mix of uses, building density and height,access/circulation,recreation and open space opportunities and other development features. Location of the Proposal/Site Area The site is located along the Lake Washington shoreline,between the Boeing industrial complex and Gene Coulon Park. (vicinity map attached). The Southport redevelopment would occur on approximately 17 acres. This acreage also includes about 2 acres of water where the property boundaries extend over Lake Washington. The existing building area of the Steam Plant and ancillary buildings equals about 100,000 square feet. The proponent estimates that the existing development and improvements cover more than 90%of the site with impervious surfaces. Preliminary Scoping Document 2 Southport Planned Action Master Plan Features Preliminary plans for the Southport site include creating a mixed-use development with private and public amenities and recreational opportunities. Presently,preliminary conceptual plans would result in the following ranges of development: 543 to 581 attached multi-family residential dwelling units 38,000 square feet of retail/service 500,000 to 750,000 square feet of office The uses would be developed above structured parking. Including parking levels, the heights of the buildings would range from 5 to 8 stories above grade. Presently, conceptual plans indicate that residential and commercial uses would be located in the northern portion of the site along Lake Washington,and the office uses would be located in the middle and southern portions of the site. Public amenities proposed include a boardwalk promenade at the waters edge the full width of the property that would offer opportunities for walking, outdoor dining, visual access to the lake and an extension of the lake walk at the adjacent Coulon Park. An existing dock would be retained and potentially enhanced to allow for guest moorage. The mixed-use project would be constructed in phases. The proposal would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and concurrent rezone from Employment Area-Industrial/Heavy Industrial (EAI/IH) to Center Office Residential (COR). The intention of the Center Office/Residential (COR) designation is to create a compact, urban development with high amenity value,that serves as a gateway to the City. The zone is written for specific districts of the City. For example COR-1 applies to the Stoneway Concrete vicinity, and COR-2 applies to the Port Quendall vicinity, and some of the development standards vary by location. A new COR-3 zoning text section would need to be prepared for the Southport site. The zoning would be similar to the other two COR zones which allow flexibility of use combinations and development standards which encourage redevelopment. The zones typically require Master Plans although the procedures vary. Relationship to Remediation Process Environmental investigations at the Shuffleton Steam Plant are documented in three reports: 1 Final Environmental Site Investigation, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility,Renton,Washington, prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated April 15, 1996 by Hart Crowser,Inc. 2 Remedial Action Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility,Renton,Washington,prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated December 6,1996 by Hart Crowser, Inc. 3 Final Sediment Characterization Report on the Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility DNR Lease Area, Renton,Washington,prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated November 7, 1997,prepared for Puget Sound Energy by Wineman Environmental Consulting in conjunction with Hart Crowser,Inc. Environmental Cleanup Summary: An environmental site investigation was performed at the Shuffleton Facility in 1995 to identify the nature and extent of chemical contaminants present in site soil, offshore sediment,and groundwater. As part of that investigation,an extensive site history was developed, including a series of interviews with site workers and research of historical records. A potential for releases of chemical contaminants were identified on several areas of the site as a result of that study. Subsequently,a Phase II sampling plan was developed to test site soil,sediment, and groundwater for a broad range of potential contaminants. Preliminary Scoping Document 3 Southport Planned Action In 1996, 71 soil samples were collected from borings,test pits and surface soils. Heavy range petroleum hydrocarbons were identified in over half of the sample collected in a variety of site locations. Eight of those samples contained TPU above the cleanup standard. PCBs were detected in two samples at levels slightly above the residential cleanup standard. Lead was also detected above residential cleanup standards primarily in surface soils around structures that had been painted with lead-based paint. Some arsenic was discovered in railroad ballast materials. No volatile or semi-volatile priority pollutants had been detected at levels of concern. Asbestos fire-brick was discovered buried in several locations and the asbestos content of the surrounding soils was above levels that would be protective of human health. Freshwater sediment samples were collected in the adjoining harbor area. No contaminants were detected at levels exceeding screening criteria,The concentration of contaminants detected in the sediments were below those found in other areas of Lake Washington,the Ship Canal, and Lake Union and other areas with treated pilings. Shallow groundwater under the site was characterized by installing nine monitoring wells.Results indicate that except for naturally-elevated levels of arsenic,no contaminants were discovered in site groundwater above the State cleanup levels for drinking water. Site Remediation Plan: In late 1996,a remedial work plan was developed to remediate those areas of the site where contaminants(primarily petroleum,lead and arsenic,and lesser amount of PCB and asbestos) were discovered above cleanup levels. That plan was implemented in late 1998. All site soils were to be cleaned up to residential standards. Eleven areas on the site were identified for excavation of contaminated soil. As of late January 1999,9 of the 11 excavation zones were completed. Over 700 cubic yards of contaminated soil had been removed from the site for disposal or treatment. In addition, demolition of four site structures was called out in the remedial work plan. These include removal of two large above ground storage tanks,removal of the site railroad spur and removal of an underground fuel pipeline from the former tanks to the pumphouse. The remedial action is scheduled to be completed by March 1999. Following that, a cleanup action report will be submitted to the Department of Ecology for their review and expected designation as a no further action site. Since the remedial action is nearly complete, it is anticipated that the issue of on-site hazardous materials will not be a topic of the Supplemental EIS. Licenses,Permits and Necessary Approvals The following permits and approvals will likely be required for phased redevelopment of the site: City of Renton: Planned Action Designation Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Zoning Code Text Amendment Master Site Plan Approval and individual site plan approvals by phase Shoreline Substantial Development Approval Clearing,grading,building and mechanical permits Roadway access approval Parking and Loading Regulation Modification Washington Department of Ecology: NPDES permit approval Shoreline Substantial Development Approval Possible Shoreline Variance or Conditional Use Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Hydraulic Project Approval Preliminary Scoping Document 4 Southport Planned Action US Army Corps of Engineers: Section 401 and 404 Permits if needed All other licenses and permits required to allow redevelopment of the site under the Master Site Plan. ALTERNATIVES CHOSEN FOR ANALYSIS In addition to the Proposed Action described above, alternatives to be considered in this EIS will include the following: No-Action -- Continuation of some form of industrial use of the property. No comprehensive plan amendment nor rezone of the site would result; Design Alternative --This alternative would also feature a mixed-use development. Primary distinctions from the Proposed Action would include reconfiguration of the location of residential, commercial and office uses where office, and mixed residential-commercial uses would be located in the northern portion of the site, and office and residential uses would be located in the middle and southern portions of the site. Total units and square footage of building space would be similar to the Proposed Action. Other major infrastructure elements would be similar to the proposal, and phasing of development would also be similar. EIS APPROACH EIS Required -- The lead agency has determined that this proposal could have significant adverse impacts on the environment. A Supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) to the Comprehensive Plan EIS documents is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c)and will be prepared. The SEIS is intended to address all probable significant impacts that would occur as a result of redevelopment to the mixed-use center. The EIS is intended to provide a sufficient level of detail and analysis such that further environmental review under SEPA for each specific development phase will not be necessary, assuming that each phase is consistent with the Planned Action designation. Since the analysis will address a major Comprehensive Plan Amendment, this SEIS will build upon previous environmental documents prepared for comprehensive planning efforts conducted by the City of Renton, as well as documents prepared for nearby sites and resources. Some of the documents that will be consulted and incorporated by reference,as appropriate,into the analysis of this EIS include: Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Draft and Final EIS January, 1992 and February, 1993) City of Renton Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan Supplemental DEIS and FEIS December, 1994 and February, 1995) ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT The lead agency has preliminarily identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS. Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts as a result of construction and operation of the proposal and alternatives will be identified and evaluated for each of the following elements of the environment. Mitigation measures will also be identified, as appropriate and warranted. Preliminary Scoping Document 5 Southport Planned Action Natural Environment Earth:The site is generally flat with a slight topographic slope toward Lake Washington. Typical of industrial sites in the vicinity,the site has been drained and filled with sands,gravels, and demolition debris over the years. A site-specific analysis of soil, and geologic conditions will be prepared. This analysis will build upon the data provided in previous documents. Any limitations of the sites' soils for grading and for support of structures and roads will be described. Applicable maps and cross sections will be provided. A discussion of applicable geologic hazards will emphasize the sites'potential as a seismic hazard area. Anticipated building construction methods for development of the site will be described. An evaluation of the anticipated impacts of proposed construction at the site will be conducted. The quantities and depths of cuts and fills will be estimated, and any need for import/export of material identified. The potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts will be evaluated. Finally, any risks of construction and building placement associated with potential seismic events (liquefaction) will be addressed. Mitigation measures which may be relevant to minimize impacts on the site will be identified. Air Quality: Consistent with the requirements of regulatory agencies, the assessment of air quality impacts will be based on carbon monoxide concentrations. Receptor locations will be selected adjacent to affected intersections, and at the nearest off-site residential locations. Existing conditions, the Proposed Action, and alternatives will be modeled. Modeled concentrations will be compared to ambient standards to determine the potential significance of impacts. Relevant mitigating measures to reduce any identified impact from increased traffic will be discussed and incorporated from the transportation analysis. A discussion of adjacent industrial activities will be provided which address the potential for fumes or vapors (for example, painting activities at the Boeing plant). Potential mitigation on the Southport site will be described. Construction-related air quality impacts, such as the potential for generation of dust during site grading activities, will also be discussed. Measure to mitigate air quality emissions during construction will also be addressed. Water Resources The site is located in the glacial deposits of the Cedar River valley. The regional groundwater flow is characterized by recharge in the uplands and discharge to the north into Lake Washington. Because of the discharge upward into Lake Washington in the vicinity of the site, shallow groundwater at the site is not expected to flow downward to deeper water-bearing units. Groundwater beneath the site was observed at depths of 3 to 5 feet below grade during sampling activities. Based on measurements at 19 groundwater monitoring well locations in September and December 1995, groundwater at the site flows in a north to northwesterly direction toward the lake at a relatively slow rate. Stormwater Drainage/Runoff-- Existing drainage patterns, runoff rates and volumes will be described. Post-development runoff patterns, volumes and flows will be calculated. Post-developed drainage flows from all on and off-site impervious project features and improvements will be determined. The relationship of the proposed drainage system to the adopted surface water drainage standards will be assessed,and the need for any mitigation identified. Preliminary Scoping Document 6 Southport Planned Action Groundwater-- Groundwater levels on-site and immediately adjacent to the site (Lake Washington) will be described based on past and current investigations. The direction of groundwater flow will be documented. The contribution of infiltration on-site to groundwater and surface water resources will be described. The impacts of changes in land use on infiltration and groundwater movement will be evaluated. Any potential impacts to groundwater quality conditions will be assessed. Measures to mitigate any identified groundwater impacts will be addressed. Water Quality -- Existing water quality conditions in lower Lake Washington will be described based on available data. An assessment of any wetlands, seeps or swales will be performed. Currently, Renton's wetland inventories do not identify potential wetlands on the site. City of Renton plans, policies and regulations relevant to surface water quality management and use of Best Management Practices will be identified. Water quality impacts during construction and post-development will be assessed, including potential impacts resulting from erosion and stormwater pollutants typical of urban runoff. Potential impacts to Lake Washington will be addressed. Post-development water quality composition will be estimated using existing literature, with consideration of the effect of proposed water quality treatment facilities.Predicted changes in water quality for Lake Washington will be compared to relevant standards. Opportunities for mitigating any identified impacts will be described and examined. Plants and Animals Shoreline Habitat- An assessment of the existing shoreline buffer area of Lake Washington will be provided relative to any upland habitat value. Potential impacts to upland habitats and any identified wetlands from project construction and post-development will be addressed, including potential impacts from increased erosion,water quality changes and increased human activity. Fisheries- Aquatic and riparian habitat along the Lake Washington shoreline on, and adjacent to, the site will be characterized in terms of fisheries habitat and functions. Potential impacts on fisheries resources from both construction and operation of the proposal will be assessed. Such impacts could include effects on habitat due to potential increases in erosion/sedimentation during construction, changes in water quality conditions, the influence of in-water structures on salmon/predator interactions. Mitigation plans and/or opportunities for habitat enhancement will be examined. Built Environment Noise: Relevant federal, state, and local sound level criteria will be identified and discussed for impacts of the project on surrounding sites (traffic and construction noise impacts) and impacts of surrounding uses(e.g.Boeing industrial operations)on the subject site. Baseline sound level measurements will be collected in the project area to measure sound levels from off- site sources, and also during the peak traffic period and at other times of the day, if necessary. These measurements will be taken at locations representative of sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site. Measured sound levels will be compared with relevant sound level criteria to describe the existing sound environment in the project area. Future traffic noise levels from project-affected roadways will be calculated using FHWA's NOISE model, a traffic noise prediction procedure. The NOISE model calculates the equivalent sound level Leq) generated by traffic based on traffic volume, speed and vehicle mix. Model calculations will be compared with relevant criteria to gauge impacts. Impact assessment will be based on existing noise levels and on traffic information provided by the traffic consultant. Preliminary Scoping Document 7 Southport Planned Action Construction noise will be evaluated by specific construction activity and phase (i.e., pile driving, excavation, etc.), using sound levels of construction noise published by the US EPA, as well as previously documented construction noise levels at comparable developments. These sound levels will be adjusted to represent the actual distances to potential receptor locations surrounding the project site. Potential means for mitigating any identified off-site noise sources, traffic, and other noise impacts will be discussed. Pertinent regulations covering construction noise, and potential constraints on the timing and duration of construction noise events,will be identified,as warranted. Land and Shoreline Use: The Land Use analysis will focus on the specific land use patterns in the area adjacent to the site and in nearby neighborhoods. Land use designations and zoning for the site and surrounding properties will be described. The EIS will also describe the type and mix of uses, zoning, density, scale and shoreline uses both on site and in the surrounding community. A discussion of the site's historical activities will also be included based on available information. A site-specific analysis of the compatibility of the design, scale, and features of the Proposed Action and alternatives with immediately surrounding uses will be provided. The redevelopment of the site with mixed uses will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone from Employment Area - Industrial/Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential.. The potential impacts of rezoning and development of a mixed use development on surrounding parcels will be addressed. The Land Use analysis will include a discussion of potential land use trade-offs relating to provision of substantial employment and multi-family housing on the site versus within other designated centers in the City. Finally, the site's proposed shoreline uses will be assessed relative to the Shoreline Master Programs' encouragement of water-enjoyment uses, intensity of use and public access. Measures to mitigate any adverse land use impacts to the surrounding community and uses will be identified, as warranted. The Relationship to Plans and Policies analysis will summarize relevant policies and provisions from City land use, transportation and related plans, ordinances or regulations and will discuss the general consistency or inconsistency of the proposal. The EIS will contain a specific evaluation of the relationship of the proposal to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. This analysis will address relevant policies on the Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Capital Facilities, Utilities, Economic Development and Environmental Elements. The relationship of the proposal to the City's Shoreline Master Program will be assessed with emphasis on goals and policies and specific use regulations. The proposal's consistency with the City's Zoning Code, and proposed Office/Residential zone provisions will be evaluated. In addition, the proposal's relationship to other applicable standards/regulations (i.e., Critical Areas Ordinance) will be addressed. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone will be evaluated relative to City criteria for such actions and consistency with relevant plans, policies, and regulations. Finally, the proposed zoning code text amendment describing the potential COR development standards will be assessed relative to applicable plans and policies. Socioeconomics (Population, Housing, Employment): A description of the existing jobs currently on site will be provided. A description of the existing and future forecasted population, housing, and employment levels and characteristics in the area will be provided. Types of jobs and their relationship to housing needs will be assessed. Future housing and employment needs identified by the City will be discussed. The specific number and type of jobs that could be created on site as part of the proposal will be estimated based on standard ratios. The on-site population that will be generated by the specific type of housing units will be estimated as well. These projections will be compared to the assumptions used by the City to gauge any important differences. Furthermore, the number of estimated jobs and population Preliminary Scoping Document 8 Southport Planned Action will be compared to overall, adopted forecasts and targets for City growth, to determine the proposal's percentage of such overall growth. Finally, the potential impacts of introducing a new employment base and population to the surrounding community will be assessed(interrelated with the Land Use analysis). Measures to mitigate any adverse impacts to population, employment and housing conditions will be identified. Aesthetics, Light and Glare: Existing aesthetic qualities and scenic resources of the site and the surrounding area, including Lake Washington,will be identified. The existing industrial character of the site will be described. A description of the general viewshed to the site including photos from several vantage points will be provided to visually document existing conditions. Vantage points could include views from Gene Coulon Park,Cedar River Trail,roadways,and nearby residential districts. The potential impacts to views from these areas from redevelopment of the site will be evaluated. The proposed uses, heights, design, and shoreline and water-related features will be considered relative to existing uses. Visual impacts of the proposal as seen from selected viewpoints area parks and roadways, and representative existing residential areas,will be evaluated. The change in aesthetic character of the site from industrial to mixed-use center will be evaluated, particularly related to design, scale, intensity and compatibility with the surrounding aesthetic character. Any additional mitigating measures to reduce any visual impacts of the proposal that are not included in the proposed design and are warranted will be evaluated. Existing sources of light and glare from adjacent industrial uses and existing on-site uses will be identified. The potential impacts of light and glare from redevelopment on surrounding land uses and from Lake Washington itself will be addressed. Measures to mitigate impacts from light and glare from off-site and on-site sources will be identified,as appropriate. Transportation: An overview of existing conditions within the study area will be provided.A description of the local arterial network,including Park Avenue North,Lake Washington Blvd., SR900, and WSDOT I-405 will be included. This will include data on traffic volumes (daily, peak period), accident history, roadway network characteristics, peaking characteristics, existing operation and traffic control, existing public transportation services, non-motorized facilities, as well as any current problems/concerns related to traffic operations and safety. The current mode split between single-occupant, drive alone traffic and ride-sharing trips, transit and non-motorized travel will be documented. Existing levels of service by mode will also be documented using the City of Renton and Puget Sound Regional Council travel models. Existing trips associated with current on-site uses will be discussed. Traffic volume forecasts for the future baseline or No-Action scenario will be estimated using the Renton EMME-2 traffic model and applicable land use assumptions for the future. Intersection level of service LOS) analysis and analysis of travel time between zones level of service (City of Renton's criteria for acceptable traffic operations throughout Renton) will be conducted for up to five (5) intersections in the area, providing a baseline against which the proposal will be compared. The analysis will identify transportation improvement needs in the project study area for this scenario, along with the future mode split assumptions. Impacts on future transportation conditions, associated with redevelopment under the proposal, will be addressed. This will include estimating person-trip generation from the development, identifying trip distribution, applying mode split to the person trips to estimate trips by mode, and assigning traffic Preliminary Scoping Document 9 Southport Planned Action vehicle trips)to the future network. Future transportation operations,will be evaluated using intersection LOS techniques and Renton travel time level of service standards for the five (5) intersections. Impacts related to construction phase(s) traffic will also be identified. Specific impacts associated with proposed on-site access/circulation features will be assessed; impacts to Lake Washington Blvd. and the nearby I- 405 access ramps will be particularly emphasized. A comparison of traffic volumes and impacts from the proposal with volumes and impacts estimated as part of the Comprehensive Plan will be provided. Potential improvements to the local and state road network required as a result of redevelopment will be addressed, and will be compared to improvements identified in the City's Six-year Transportation Program and Renton Arterial Plan. Impacts on the non- motorized transportation system (pedestrian and bicycle trails and movement), HOV and transit operations and options, accidents and traffic safety, and railroad operations will be evaluated. The relationship of the proposal to applicable transportation plans and policies in the Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed(integrated with the Relationship to Plans and Policies section). Appropriate mitigation will be identified, including options for trip reduction through Transportation Demand Management (this could include options for mode split, peak trip spreading, etc.). Potential increases in mode split to transit,HOV and non-motorized travel will be explored. Public Services and Utilities: Fire and Emergency Medical Services - Existing fire and emergency medical services will be discussed. The current staffmg levels,equipment and facilities of the City of Renton Fire Department will be described, and any service deficiencies identified. Specific stations that respond to the site will be identified. Current demand for services (number of calls)will be assessed based on available information. Response times to the site, and any existing mutual aid agreements between service providers, will be described. Any information on estimated future increases in fire and emergency medical service calls without the proposal will be provided. Available water resources for fire flow purposes will be documented(interrelated with the Utilities section below). An estimate of the added demand on fire and emergency services from the proposal will be made based on information provided by the Renton Fire Department or on data available from other jurisdictions. Impacts on response times to the site will be addressed. The need for additional fire and emergency medical services from redevelopment on a phased basis will be determined. The potential need to hire additional personnel, purchase more equipment, or build additional facilities will be assessed. Emergency access routes and on-site exits including the ability of emergency vehicles to gain access to the site during times of traffic congestion will be evaluated. Potential impacts will be assessed relative to planned improvements identified in the Capital Facilities Element. Additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined,as warranted. Police Services - Existing police services will be described. The current staffing levels, equipment and facilities of the Renton Police Department will be described and any service deficiencies identified. Specific stations that respond to the site will be identified. Current demand for services number of calls) will be assessed based on available information. Response times to the site, and any existing mutual aid agreements between service providers, will be described. Any information on estimated future increases in police service calls without the proposal will be provided. Current crime rates in the site vicinity will be described. An estimate of the added demand on police services, both during construction and operation of the proposal,will be made. Potential impacts on response times,the need for additional personnel,police vehicles, or facilities will be discussed. Potential impacts will be assessed relative to planned Preliminary Scoping Document 10 Southport Planned Action improvements identified in the Capital Facilities Element. Additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined,as warranted. Schools - Existing student enrollment, capacity and projected enrollment will be described for the schools that serve the site vicinity. Student enrollment forecasts for future years will be identified as available. Current plans by the Renton School District to construct new facilities, or make facility improvements, will be discussed, and existing transportation services available to/from the schools servicing this site will be identified. Any existing capacity problems will be identified. The number of students expected to be generated by the proposal will be estimated using the appropriate school district formula. The capacity of the schools in the site vicinity to accommodate the projected student population will be evaluated. Any need for additional improvements will be identified. Potential impacts to school bus transportation operations will be assessed. Additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined,as appropriate. Parks - Existing parks,recreational facilities and trails in the site vicinity will be identified, and their adequacy to serve the existing population will be analyzed using City of Renton standards for parks and recreational facilities contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Planned improvements in the area, identified in the Capital Facilities Element,will be described. Proposed, on-site recreational facilities and opportunities will be described. The impacts of the proposal on existing parks (especially Gene Coulon Park located adjacent to the site), recreational facilities and trails will be assessed, given the proposed on-site facilities. The availability of these facilities to residents and employees of the development, as well as the general public will be discussed. Additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined, as warranted. Water- The existing City of Renton water storage and distribution system in the site vicinity will be described and its' current capacities identified. Existing fire flow capability to the site will be determined. Any existing problems or deficiencies in the system will be assessed. The planned improvements identified in the City's Capital Facilities Plan will be reviewed. The project's water demand in terms of peak flow for both domestic use and fire protection will be quantified. Demand related to all proposed uses and project phases will be calculated. The capacity of the existing system to accommodate the project's demand, and the project's relationship to planned improvements in the area will be evaluated. Additional improvements to mitigate project impacts will be determined. The relationship of the proposed system to the adopted water system level of service standards will be discussed. Wastewater- The existing City of Renton/Metro wastewater collection, discharge and treatment system will be described and current capacities identified. Any existing problems or deficiencies in the system will be described. The planned improvements identified in the City's Capital Facilities Plan will be reviewed. The project's increased sewage flow generation will be quantified, based on demand from all proposed uses and phases. The capacity of the existing system to accommodate the project's increased flows will be determined, and the project's relationship to any planned improvements evaluated. The capacity of the Metro treatment plant to accommodate added flows from the project will be addressed. Additional improvements to mitigate project impacts will be determined. The relationship of the proposed system to the adopted wastewater system level of service standards will be assessed. Preliminary Scoping Document 11 Southport Planned Action L Stormwater-Existing stormwater facilities, any planned improvements,project impacts to stormwater runoff volumes;rates and facilities and relevant mitigation measures will be discussed and evaluated in the Water Resources section of the EIS. Solid Waste- Existing solid waste collection, transfer and disposal services and facilities will be described. Recycling programs available to the project site will be identified. Current capabilities of Waste Management-Rainier to collect and transport waste and the Renton Transfer Station to receive waste will be assessed; additionally, the capacity of the Cedar Hills landfill to accommodate all solid waste from the City of Renton will be evaluated. Planned improvements, identified in the King County Solid Waste Management Plan, will be reviewed. The project's increased waste generation will be quantified. The ability of the collection, transfer and disposal facilities to adequately handle the project's waste will be assessed. Any additional upgrades in service or facilities, as a result of the proposal, will be determined. Opportunities for recycling and other waste management programs will be examined. FINAL EIS When the Draft SEIS is completed,it will be issued and made available for public and agency review and comment. Comments received within the designated comment period (usually thirty days) will be incorporated into a Final SEIS, together with appropriate responses to those comments. Final action on the proposal will not be taken prior to issuance of the Final SEIS. Preliminary Scoping Document 12 Southport Planned Action SHUFt' LETON LOCATION MAP z II Nc21thSt. Z61h St a 2 4' 3( 2_ c rd 4, NE 24th St NE N 24th 4,Z oI. a. 1 ei NE 23r µ, me., 4 W ilictshili_ gtOrt,_ 0;t. NE 20th St. cZ o z Z t r No 0 c OMYI 0.., N= 16th St. c w z o o c V. k' o 14h r Eo NE 12th St. IJ \ / o z E4::: Lii 1, Z Q v 1 11111c. Renton NE 10th Municipal c) t Pi. Airport c NE 10th St. co L V il 4=. NE 9th PL NE Li 5'. y NE 9th St. a NE 8th Pl. 1. N N Q> 11111`^ Z N 8th St. c; q. ic IIIIIIIII o Qa. t. Q CZ c o o 47+ rf, Ja • K. N th St. m st l ea th St. d. N5kh 5t. t. v t::. i JS 3 ci a c O ndgoc N 4ti; Si. oti O Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning 0 1 , 5 00 3, 0 0 0 op 0. Dennison s:•::•::•:• s:•:•::=::•: To 23 February 1999 1 : 18, 000 U u SHUFt'LETON VICINITY MAP i A Gene Coulon Park Lake Washington Shoreline 4. Iiiioff: SITE O o k. 0 a l 50 0 Q Ar o ii‘ o\ p WO o o 5 \ 0 z f0 0, 4, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Site boundary tit ED/N/SP Q 0. Dennison To 23 February 1999 0 400 800 1 :4,800 SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED ACTION SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING DOCUMENT City of Renton Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division Economic Development/Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Department March 8—, 1999 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE&REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED ACTION SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS) INTRODUCTION The City of Renton is requesting comments on the scope of the Supplemental EIS for the proposed Southport Planned Action. This document provides a description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives and those elements of the environment preliminarily identified for consideration and analysis in this SEIS. Scoping: Agencies, affected tribes and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the SEIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts and licenses or other approvals that may be required. All comments must be received by March 29, 1999 for consideration in the proposed scope of the Supplemental EIS. Written comments should be addressed to: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 A public scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 23, 1999 at 7 p.m., located at the City Council Chambers (7th Floor), Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you are interested in attending the scoping meeting please contact the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, (425)430-6575, to obtain the meeting date and time and to ensure that the meeting has not been rescheduled. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Proponent:Seco Development Lead Agency: City of Renton Preliminary Scoping Document 1 Southport Planned Action DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Seco Development is proposing that phased redevelopment of the Shuffleton Steam Plant site be designated by the City as a Planned Action pursuant to SEPA. The Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase, would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. The Proposed Action includes: Adoption of a Planned Action designation Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and concurrent Rezone (from Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential) Zoning Code Text Amendment Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan Process assumes that a final Master Plan and site plan(s) for individual phases as well as shoreline substantial development permit applications will be submitted at a later stage as a Planned Action. Application for construction-related permits from the City of Renton and other state and federal agencies, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404, 401 permits, stormwater discharge/NPDES, building and construction permits, etc., required for long-term redevelopment of the site would also be requested for approval subsequent to the adoption of the Planned Action approval. Issuance of these and other required development permits is included within the scope of environmental review for the Proposed Action. To facilitate the City's consideration of the Planned Action designation and environmental review of implementation of the Planned Action, a conceptual redevelopment plan for the site will be formulated. The Master Plan will provide conceptual information on potential mix of uses, building density and height, access/circulation, recreation and open space opportunities and other development features. Location of the Proposal/Site Area The site is located along the Lake Washington shoreline,between the Boeing industrial complex and Gene Coulon Park. (vicinity map attached). The Southport redevelopment would occur on approximately 17 acres. This acreage also includes about 2 acres of water where the property boundaries extend over Lake Washington. The existing building area of the Steam Plant and ancillary buildings equals about 100,000 square feet. The proponent estimates that the existing development and improvements cover more than 90% of the site with impervious surfaces. Preliminary Scoping Document 2 Southport Planned Action Master Plan Features Preliminary plans for the Southport site include creating a mixed-use development with private and public amenities and recreational opportunities. Presently,preliminary conceptual plans would result in the following ranges of development: 543 to 581 attached multi-family residential dwelling units 38,000 square feet of retaiUservice 500,000 to 750,000 square feet of office The uses would be developed above structured parking. Including parking levels, the heights of the I buildings would range from 5 to 8 stories above grade. Presently, preliminary conceptual plans indicate that residential and commercial uses would be located in the northern portion of the site along Lake Washington, and the office uses would be located in the middle and southern portions of the site. Public amenities proposed include a boardwalk promenade at the waters edge the full width of the property that would offer opportunities for walking, outdoor dining, visual access to the lake and an extension of the lake walk at the adjacent Coulon Park. An existing dock would be retained and potentially enhanced to allow for guest moorage. The mixed-use project would be constructed in phases. The proposal would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and concurrent rezone from Employment Area-Industrial/Heavy Industrial (EAI/IH) to Center Office Residential (COR). The intention of the Center Office/Residential (COR) designation is to create a compact, urban development with high amenity value, that serves as a gateway to the City. The zone is written for specific districts of the City. For example COR-1 applies to the Stoneway Concrete vicinity, and COR-2 applies to the Port Quendall vicinity, and some of the development standards vary by location. A new COR-3 zoning text section would need to be prepared for the Southport site. The zoning would be similar to the other two COR zones which allow flexibility of use combinations and development standards which encourage redevelopment. The zones typically require Master Plans although the procedures vary. Relationship to Remediation Process Environmental investigations at the Shuffleton Steam Plant are documented in three reports: 1, Final Environmental Site Investigation, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility,Renton, Washington, prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated April 15, 1996 by Hart Crowser, Inc. 2,Remedial Action Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility,Renton,Washington, prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated December 6,1996 by Hart Crowser, Inc. 3, Final Sediment Characterization Report on the Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility DNR Lease Area, Renton, Washington,prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated November 7, 1997,prepared for Puget Sound Energy by Wineman Environmental Consulting in conjunction with Hart Crowser, Inc. Environmental Cleanup Summary: An environmental site investigation was performed at the Shuffleton Facility in 1995 to identify the nature and extent of chemical contaminants present in site soil, offshore sediment, and groundwater. As part of that investigation, an extensive site history was developed, including a series of interviews with site workers and research of historical records. A potential for releases of chemical contaminants were identified on several areas of the site as a result of that study. Subsequently, a Phase II sampling plan was developed to test site soil, sediment, and groundwater for a broad range of potential contaminants. Preliminary Scoping Document 3 Southport Planned Action In 1996, 71 soil samples were collected from borings, test pits and surface soils. Heavy range petroleum hydrocarbons were identified in over half of the sample collected in a variety of site locations. Eight of those samples contained total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHLTW above the cleanup standard. Polychlorinated bir henyls (PCBs),were detected in two samples at levels slightly above the residential cleanup standard. Lead was also detected above residential cleanup standards primarily in surface soils around structures that had been painted with lead-based paint. Some arsenic was discovered in railroad ballast materials. No volatile or semi-volatile priority pollutants had been detected at levels of concern. Asbestos fire-brick was discovered buried in several locations and the asbestos content of the surrounding soils was above levels that would be protective of human health. Freshwater sediment samples were collected in the adjoining harbor area. No contaminants were I detected at levels exceeding screening criteria„_The concentration of contaminants detected in the sediments were below those found in other areas of Lake Washington,the Ship Canal, and Lake Union and other areas with treated pilings. Shallow groundwater under the site was characterized by installing nine monitoring wells. Results indicate that except for naturally-elevated levels of arsenic,no contaminants were discovered in site groundwater above the State cleanup levels for drinking water. Site Remediation Plan: In late 1996, a remedial work plan was developed to remediate those areas of the site where contaminants(primarily petroleum, lead and arsenic, and lesser amount of PCB and asbestos) were discovered above cleanup levels. That plan was implemented in late 1998. All site soils were to be cleaned up to residential standards. Eleven areas on the site were identified for excavation of contaminated soil. As of late January 1999, 9 of the 11 excavation zones were completed. Over 700 cubic yards of contaminated soil had been removed from the site for disposal or treatment. In addition, demolition of four site structures was called out in the remedial work plan. These include removal of two large above ground storage tanks,removal of the site railroad spur and removal of an underground fuel pipeline from the former tanks to the pumphouse; these activities were reviewed in City applications for environmental and shoreline permits.- The remedial action is scheduled to be completed by March 1999. Following that, a cleanup action report will be submitted to the Department of Ecology for their review and expected designation as a no further action site. Since the remedial action is nearly complete, it is anticipated that the issue of on-site hazardous materials will not be a topic of the Supplemental EIS. Licenses, Permits and Necessary Approvals IThe following permits and approvals mavwill likely be required for phased redevelopment of the site: City of Renton: Planned Action Designation Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Zoning Code Text Amendment Master Site Plan Approval and individual site plan approvals by phase Shoreline Substantial Development Approval Shoreline Variance or Conditional Use, if applicable Conditional Use Permits, if applicable Variances, if applicable Clearing, grading, demolition, construction,building and mechanical permits Roadway access approval Parking and Loading Regulation Modification Preliminary Scoping Document 4 Southport Planned Action Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority Washington Department of Ecology: Hazardous Waste-No Further Action Letter NPDES permit approval Shoreline Substantial Development Approval Possible Shoreline Variance or Conditional Use Water Quality Certification Coastal Zone Management Certification Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Hydraulic Project Approval Washington Department of Natural Resources: Aquatic Use Authorization US Army Corps of Engineers: Section 401 and 404 Permits if needed US Environmental Protection Agency: CERCLA/MTCA Clearance All other licenses and permits required to allow redevelopment of the site under the Master Site Plan. ALTERNATIVES CHOSEN FOR ANALYSIS In addition to the Proposed Action described above, alternatives to be considered in this EIS will include the following: No-Action -- Continuation of some form of industrial use of the property. No comprehensive plan amendment nor rezone of the site would result; Design Alternative --This alternative would also feature a mixed-use development. Primary distinctions from the Proposed Action would include reconfiguration of the location of residential, commercial and office uses where office, and mixed residential-commercial uses would be located in the northern portion of the site, and office and residential uses would be located in the middle and southern portions of the site. Total units and square footage of building space would be similar to the Proposed Action. Other major infrastructure elements would be similar to the proposal, and phasing of development would also be similar. EIS APPROACH EIS Required -- The lead agency has determined that this proposal could have significant adverse impacts on the environment. A Supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) to the Comprehensive Plan EIS documents is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. The SEIS is intended to address all probable significant impacts that would occur as a result of redevelopment to the mixed-use center. The EIS is intended to provide a sufficient level of detail and analysis such that further environmental review under SEPA for each specific development phase will not be necessary, assuming that each phase is consistent with the Planned Action designation. Since the analysis will address a major Comprehensive Plan Amendment, this SEIS will build upon previous environmental documents prepared for comprehensive planning efforts conducted by the City of Renton, as well as documents prepared for nearby sites and resources. Some of the documents that will be consulted and incorporated by reference, as appropriate, into the analysis of this EIS include: Preliminary Scoping Document 5 Southport Planned Action Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Draft and Final EIS January, 1992 and February, 1993) City ofRenton Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan Supplemental DEIS and FEIS December, 1994 and February, 1995) Shuffleton Complex Soil Remediation,Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated, LUA 93-072, ECF, June 1993 Shuffleton Tank Removal,Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated, LUA 96-103, ECF, September 1996 Shuffleton Soil Remediation, Determination of Non-Significance, LUA 98-115, ECF, SM, August 1998 ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT The lead agency has preliminarily identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS. Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts as a result of construction and operation of the proposal and alternatives will be identified and evaluated for each of the following elements of the environment. Mitigation measures will also be identified, as appropriate and warranted. Natural Environment Earth: The site is generally flat with a slight topographic slope toward Lake Washington. Typical of industrial sites in the vicinity, the site has been drained and filled with sands, gravels, and demolition debris over the years. A site-specific analysis of soil, and geologic conditions will be prepared. This analysis would primarily utilize will-build-upon-the data provided in previous documents. Any limitations of the sites' soils for grading and for support of structures and roads will be described. Applicable maps and cross sections will be provided. A discussion of applicable geologic hazards will addressen'e the sites' potential as a seismic hazard area. Anticipated building construction methods for development of the site will be described. An evaluation of the anticipated impacts of proposed construction at the site will be conducted. The quantities and The potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts will be evaluated. Any limitations of the sites' soils for grading and for support of structures and roads will be described. -Construction de-watering issues would be discussed. Finally, any risks of construction and building placement associated with potential seismic events (liquefaction) will be addressed. Mitigation measures which may be relevant to minimize impacts on the site will be identified. Air Quality: Consistent with the requirements of regulatory agencies, the assessment of air quality impacts will be based on carbon monoxide concentrations. Receptor locations will be selected adjacent to affected intersections, and possibly at the nearest off-site residential locations or other sensitive receivers. Existing conditions, the Proposed Action, and alternatives will be modeled. Modeled concentrations will be compared to ambient standards to determine the potential significance of impacts. Relevant mitigating measures to reduce any identified impact from increased traffic will be discussed and incorporated from the transportation analysis. A discussion of adjacent industrial activities will be provided which address the potential for fumes or vapors (for example, painting activities at the Boeing plant). Potential mitigation on the Southport site will be described. Preliminary Scoping Document 6 Southport Planned Action l I Construction-related air quality impacts,during demolition and construction, such as the potential for generation of dust during site grading activities, will also be discussed. Measure to mitigate air quality emissions during construction will also be addressed. Water Resources The site is located in the glacial deposits of the Cedar River valley. The regional groundwater flow is characterized by recharge in the uplands and discharge to the north into Lake Washington. Because of the discharge upward into Lake Washington in the vicinity of the site,shallow groundwater at the site is not expected to flow downward to deeper water-bearing units. Groundwater beneath the site was observed at depths of 3 to 5 feet below grade during sampling activities. Based on measurements at 19 groundwater monitoring well locations in September and December 1995, groundwater at the site flows in a north to northwesterly direction toward the lake at a relatively slow rate. Stormwater Drainage/Runoff`'-- Existing drainage patterns, runoff rates and volumes will be described. Post-development runoff patterns, volumes and flows would be estimated Design parameters for stormwater facilities would be determined and discharge will be forecast. wed Aadopted surface water drainage standards will be assessed,and the need for any mitigation identified. Groundwater-- Groundwater levels on-site and immediately adjacent to the site (Lake Washington) will I be d escribed based primarily on existing data The direction of groundwater flow will be documented.The contribution of infiltration on-site to groundwater and surface water resources will be described. The impacts of changes in land use on infiltration and groundwater movement will be evaluated. Any potential impacts to groundwater quality conditions will be assessed. Measures to mitigate any identified groundwater impacts will be addressed. Water Quality-- Existing water quality conditions in lower Lake Washington will be described based on available data. ity of Renton plans, policies and regulations relevant to surface water quality management and use of Best Management Practices will be identified. Water quality impacts during construction and post-development will be assessed, including potential impacts resulting from erosion and stormwater pollutants typical of urban runoff. Potential impacts to Lake Washington will be addressed. Post-development water quality composition will be estimated using existing literature, with consideration of the effect of proposed water quality treatment facilities.Predicted changes in water quality for Lake Washington will be compared to relevant standards. Opportunities for mitigating any identified impacts will be described and examined. Plants and Animals Shoreline Habitat- Much of the site is improved with impervious surfaces, and there is an existing bulkhead. An assessment of the existing shoreline buffer area of Lake Washington will be provided relative to any upland habitat value, if present. Currently, Renton's wetland inventories do not identify potential wetlands on the site. Potential impacts to upland habitats and wetlands, if any, from project construction and post-development will be addressed, including potential impacts from increased erosion,water quality changes and increased human activity. Fisheries- Aquatic and riparian habitat along the Lake Washington shoreline on, and adjacent to, the site will be characterized in terms of fisheries habitat and functions. Information will also be obtained from local, State,Federal and Tribal agencies. Potential impacts on fisheries resources from both construction Preliminary Scoping Document 7 Southport Planned Action and operation of the proposal will be assessed. Such impacts could include effects on habitat due to potential increases in erosion/sedimentation during construction, changes in water quality conditions, and othersthe influence of in water structures en salmon/predator interactions. Mitigation plans aver may will be examined. Built Environment Noise: Relevant federal, state, and local sound level criteria will be identified and discussed for impacts of the project on surrounding sites (traffic and construction noise impacts) and impacts of surrounding uses (e.g.Boeing industrial operations) on the subject site. I Baseline sound level measurements will be collected on-site and in the project area to measure sound levels from off-site sources, and also during the peak traffic period and at other times of the day, if I necessary. Off-siteTese measurements will be taken at locations representative of sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site. Measured sound levels will be compared with relevant sound level criteria to describe the existing sound environment in the project area. Future traffic noise levels from project-affected roadways will be calculated using FHWA's NOISE model, a traffic noise prediction procedure. The NOISE model calculates the equivalent sound level Leq) generated by traffic based on traffic volume, speed and vehicle mix. Model calculations will be compared with relevant criteria to gauge impacts. Impact assessment will be based on existing noise levels and on traffic information provided by the traffic consultant. Construction noise will be evaluated by specific construction activity and phase (i.e., pile driving, excavation, etc.), using published sound levels of construction noise published by the US EPA, as well as These sound levels will be adjusted to represent the actual distances to potential receptor locations surrounding the project site. Potential means for mitigating any identified on- and off-site noise sources, traffic, and other noise impacts will be discussed. Pertinent regulations covering construction noise, and potential constraints on the timing and duration of construction noise events,will be identified, as warranted. Land and Shoreline Use: The Land Use analysis will focus on the specific land use patterns in the area adjacent to the site and in nearby neighborhoods. Land use designations and zoning for the site and surrounding properties will be described. The EIS will also describe the type and mix of uses, zoning, density, scale and shoreline uses both on site and in the surrounding community. A discussion of the site's historical activities will also be included based on available information. A site-specific analysis of the compatibility of the design, scale, and features of the Proposed Action and alternatives with immediately surrounding uses will be provided. The redevelopment of the site with mixed uses will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone from Employment Area - Industrial/Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential.— The potential impacts of rezoning and development of a mixed use development on surrounding parcels will be addressed. The Land Use analysis maywiti include a discussion of potential land use trade-offs relating to provision of substantial employment and multi-family housing on the site versus within other designated centers in the City. sed shoreline uses will be assessed relative to the Shoreline Master Programs' encouragement of water enjoyment uses, intensity of use and public access. Measures to mitigate any adverse land use impacts to the surrounding community and uses will be identified, as warranted. Preliminary Scoping Document 8 Southport Planned Action IThe Relationship to Plans and Policies analysis will summarize relevant policies and provisions from City of Renton. regional, State, and Federal plans and regulations. City land use, transportation and related plans, ordinances or regulations and will discuss the general consistency or inconsistency of the proposal. The EIS will contain a specific evaluation of the relationship of the proposal to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. This analysis will address relevant policies on the Land Use, Transportation, Housing,Capital Facilities,Utilities, Economic Development and Environmental Elements. The relationship of the proposal to the City's Shoreline Master Program will be assessed with emphasis on goals and policies, a use regulations. and development standards (e.g. setbacks, building height, potential need for variances or conditional use permits). The site's proposed shoreline uses will be assessed relative to the Shoreline Master Programs' policies and standards related to encouragement of water-enjoyment uses, intensity of use and public access. Measures to mitigate any adverse land use impcts to the surrounding community and uses will be identified,as warranted. The proposal's consistency with the City's Zoning Code, and proposed Office/Residential zone provisions will be evaluated. In addition, the proposal's relationship to other applicable standards/regulations (i.e., Critical Areas Ordinance) will be addressed. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone will be evaluated relative to City criteria for such actions and consistency with relevant plans, policies, and regulations. Finally, the proposed zoning code text amendment describing the potential COR development standards will be assessed relative to applicable plans and policies. Other plans and regulations which could be evaluated include the Growth Management Act, Shoreline Management Act. Puget Sound Water Oualitv Management Plan. Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and others. Socioeconomics (Population, Housing, Employment): A description of the existing jobs currently on site will be provided. A description of the existing and future forecasted population, housing, and employment levels and characteristics in the area will be provided. bossing needs will be assessed. Future housing and employment needs identified by the City will be discussed. The specific number and type of jobs that could be created on site as part of the proposal will be estimated based on standard ratios. The on-site population that will be generated by the specific type of housing units will be estimated as well. These projections will be compared to the assumptions used by the City to gauge any important differences. Furthermore, the number of estimated jobs and population will be compared to overall, adopted forecasts and targets for City growth, to determine the proposal's percentage of such overall growth. Finally, the potential impacts of introducing a new employment base and population to the surrounding community will be assessed(interrelated with the Land Use analysis). Measures to mitigate any adverse impacts to population, employment and housing conditions will be identified. Aesthetics, Light and Glare: Existing aesthetic qualities and scenic resources of the site and the surrounding area, including Lake Washington, will be identified. The existing industrial character of the site will be described. A description of the general viewshed to the site including photos from several vantage points will be provided to visually document existing conditions. Vantage points could include views from Gene Coulon Park,Cedar River Trail,roadways,and nearby residential districts. Preliminary Scoping Document 9 Southport Planned Action The potential impacts to views from these areas from redevelopment of the site will be evaluated. The proposed uses, heights, design, and shoreline and water-related features will be considered relative to existing uses. Visual impacts of the proposal as seen from selected viewpoints area parks and roadways, and representative existing residential areas,will be evaluated. The change in aesthetic character of the site from industrial to mixed-use center will be evaluated, particularly related to design, scale, intensity and compatibility with the surrounding aesthetic character. Any additional mitigating measures to reduce any visual impacts of the proposal that are not included in the proposed design and are warranted will be evaluated. Existing sources of light and glare from adjacent industrial uses and existing on-site uses will be identified. The potential impacts of light and glare from redevelopment on surrounding land uses and from Lake Washington itself will be addressed. Measures to mitigate impacts from light and glare from off-site and on-site sources will be identified,as appropriate. Transportation: An overview of existing conditions within the study area will be provided. A description of the local arterial network,including Park Avenue North, Lake Washington Blvd., SR900, and WSDOT I-405 will be included. Existing trips associated with current on-site uses will be discussed. Levels of service at nearby intersections will be analyzed. There are several transportation issues regarding the location of the proposed development that will be addressed, including: impacts to the existing roadway network, impacts to•the Burlington Northern Railroad: access to the I-405 freeway; and cumulative traffic impacts of the proposed development and the neighboring Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. In addition, safety. non-motorized facilities. emergency vehicle access,and transit impacts will be addressed. Trip generation and distribution will be determined for the Proposed Action and alternatives. The City's transportation model would be used to determine trip distribution. The Citv's transportation model will also be used.to determine future year(year of opening for the proposed development) traffic forecasts for the roadway network surrounding the proiect site. Future year forecasts will include traffic generated by pipeline and approved development identified by the City. The future year forecasts will be used as baseline traffic for the determination of traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The roadway network will be analyzed for the project year of opening during the p.m.peak hour based on a level of service (delay) analysis. The level of service analysis will include project-impacted intersections, including site access locations. s it clude d t -on t a volumes dsl}-peek—period),accident piste , characteristics, peaking characteristics, existing operation and traffic) control, existing public area, providing a baseline against which the proposal will be compared. The analysis will identify Preliminary Scoping Document 10 Southport Planned Action transportation improvement needs in the project study area for this scenario, along with the future mode split-esst tiers. operations and options, accidents and txzffic safety, and railroad operations will be evaluated. The Appropriate mitigation will be identified for vehicular traffic impacts, and will include4Hxg options for trip reduction through Transportation Demand Management (this could include options for mode split, peak trip spreading, etc.). Potential increases in mode split to transit, HOV and non-motorized travel will be Iexplored. Mitigation would also address, where appropriate, railroad facilities, safety and emergency vehicle access. Public Services and Utilities: Fire and Emergency Medical Services - Existing fire and emergency medical services will be discussed. The current staffmg levels,equipment and facilities of the City of Renton Fire Department will be described, and any service deficiencies identified. Specific stations that respond to the site will be identified. Current demand for services (number of calls)will be assessed based on available information. Response times to the site, and any existing mutual aid agreements between service providers, will be described. Any information on estimated future increases in fire and emergency medical service calls without the proposal will be provided. Available water resources for fire flow purposes will be documented(interrelated with the Utilities section below). An estimate of the added demand on fire and emergency services from the proposal will be made based on information provided by the Renton Fire Department or on data available from other jurisdictions. Impacts on response times to the site will be addressed. The need for additional fire and emergency medical services from redevelopment on a phased basis will be determined. The potential need to hire additional personnel, purchase more equipment, or build additional facilities will be assessed. Emergency access routes and on-site exits including the ability of emergency vehicles to gain access to the site during times of traffic congestion will be evaluated. Potential impacts will be assessed relative to planned improvements identified in the Capital Facilities Element. Additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined, as warranted. Police Services - Existing police services will be described. The current staffing levels, equipment and facilities of the Renton Police Department will be described and any service deficiencies identified. Specific stations that respond to the site will be identified. Current demand for services M eliminary Scoping Document 11 uthport Planned Action number of calls) will be assessed based on available information. Response times to the site, and any existing mutual aid agreements between service providers, will be described. Any information on estimated future increases in police service calls without the proposal will be provided. Current crime rates in the site vicinity will be described. An estimate of the added demand on police services, both during construction and operation of the proposal,will be made. Potential impacts on response times,the need for additional personnel,police vehicles, or facilities will be discussed. Potential impacts will be assessed relative to planned improvements identified in the Capital Facilities Element. Additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined, as warranted. Schools - Existing student enrollment, capacity and projected enrollment will be described for the schools that serve the site vicinity. Student enrollment forecasts for future years will be identified as available. Current plans by the Renton School District to construct new facilities, or make facility improvements, will be discussed, and existing transportation services available to/from the schools servicing this site will be identified. Any existing capacity problems will be identified. The number of students expected to be generated by the proposal will be estimated using the appropriate school district formula. The capacity of the schools in the site vicinity to accommodate the projected student population will be evaluated. Any need for additional improvements will be identified. Potential impacts to school bus transportation operations will be assessed. Additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined, as appropriate. Parks - Existing parks, recreational facilities and trails in the site vicinity will be identified, and their adequacy to serve the existing population will be analyzed using City of Renton standards for parks and recreational facilities contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Planned improvements in the area, identified in the Capital Facilities Element, will be described. Proposed, on-site recreational facilities and opportunities will be described. The impacts of the proposal on existing parks (especially Gene Coulon Park located adjacent to the site), recreational facilities and trails will be assessed, given the proposed on-site facilities. The availability of these facilities to residents and employees of the development, as well as the general public will be discussed. Additional improvements to mitigate any significant impacts will be determined, as warranted. Water- The existing City of Renton water storage and distribution system in the site vicinity will be described and its current capacities identified. Existing fire flow capability to the site will be determined. Any existing problems or deficiencies in the system will be assessed. The planned improvements identified in the City's Capital Facilities Plan will be reviewed. The project's water demand in terms of peak flow for both domestic use and fire protection will be quantified. Demand related to all proposed uses and project phases will be calculated. The capacity of the existing system to accommodate the project's demand, and the project's relationship to planned improvements in the area will be evaluated. Additional improvements to mitigate project impacts will be determined. The relationship of the proposed system to the adopted water system level of service standards will be discussed. Wastewater- The existing City of Renton/Metro wastewater collection, discharge and treatment system will be described and current capacities identified. Any existing problems or deficiencies in the system will be described. The planned improvements identified in the City's Capital Facilities Plan will be reviewed. The project's increased sewage flow generation will be quantified, based on demand from all proposed uses and phases. The capacity of the existing system to accommodate the Preliminary Scoping Document 12 Southport Planned Action project's increased flows will be determined, and the project's relationship to any planned improvements evaluated. The capacity of the Metro treatment plant to accommodate added flows from the project will be addressed. Additional improvements to mitigate project impacts will be determined. The relationship of the proposed system to the adopted wastewater system level of service standards will be assessed. Stormwater- Existing stormwater facilities, any planned improvements,project impacts to stormwater runoff volumes; rates and facilities and relevant mitigation measures will be discussed and evaluated in the Water Resources section of the EIS. Solid Waste- Existing solid waste collection, transfer and disposal services and facilities will be described. Recycling programs available to the project site will be identified. Current capabilities of Waste Management-Rainier to collect and transport waste and the Renton Transfer Station to receive waste will be assessed; additionally, the capacity of the Cedar Hills landfill to accommodate all solid waste from the City of Renton will be evaluated. Planned improvements, identified in the King County Solid Waste Management Plan, will be reviewed. The project's increased waste generation will be quantified. The ability of the collection, transfer and disposal facilities to adequately handle the project's waste will be assessed. Any additional upgrades in service or facilities, as a result of the proposal, will be determined. Opportunities for recycling and other waste management programs will be examined. FINAL EIS When the Draft SEIS is completed, it will be issued and made available for public and agency review and comment. Comments received within the designated comment period (usually thirty days) will be incorporated into a Final SEIS, together with appropriate responses to those comments. Final action on the proposal will not be taken prior to issuance of the Final SEIS. Preliminary Scoping Document 13 Southport Planned Action r I I I I I I 1 1 I I I1 11 I I C n 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1rJ100.C) K 1 1 I I I it 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 II I I I I I I t ! 1 1 I I t I I t 1 1 y 11 • ar.+ rn i I l i l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l Ili l l l l l l l l l 3 O IItItItIt111tIt1111I111111111111111111111111111111t111111I O y :o 1IIIIIIIIlIl111I IilllllillllllllllllllllllillllllllillillllIItl1l111111I111111111111t1t111f111IIIlltIl• 11I1111f11111111111IllliiilililillillI I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 11 , 1 I I 1 I I i I 1 I t I 1 w. et 11111111111111f111111111111lllllllllif li l , i 1 1 I I I I IL 11111111t1f1111111I m C ZCr4 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I i I I t 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I !I i I 1 I ' i I I I I I I I t p' r`— I I I i I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1' 1'' ' I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I l i l l l i i l l l i I I I I I I I I I 1 I IIlllllll ( f 1 I1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 lllllllillllllllllli I I I i I I I I I I i I I 1 I I I II 1 I 1 { I I I I I I 1 I co fa, i I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1I i 1 I I I i I 1I Im1111111I11111111111111111111111111111111111 ! III IIIIIII1111t1 11111111111111111111111111111111t111r2I'Zi I111I1111111i1111Ii f I 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 i l l l l l l i l ! I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I III I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l l l l l l l t i l l I f rn I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J c* I i I I I III I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I t I ! I I I I I I I I 1 ( , K Y2 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I• I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l 1 I 1 I I i I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a) Loan Ave. N I t I I I t i I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I pqv1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I i 1 ! I I I 1 I 1 1 I-r A. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I i t I I I I I I I l1IIII ilIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl ! I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I , i 11 I d lk i I I I I i l II l l l l l l l l ! I I I I I I--I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ' 1 t l 1 nn4c i I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I ! l i l l w 1 1 11 t 1 t 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I i l l l l l i l V%>I; Ave. 1•1 `-'•.' I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 ! i l 1-3 0 I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I t I 1 i I I 01 ! f ! 11111111111 ! 111 ! 11 1 I 11I 1 clv Ave, N I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 ! ill 1 1Z Pork: Ave. N Park Ave. N I ( 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 i gat 1 rA43- 40v4-.t!\` vit Z Cordell .Ave. N r_, Carden , Q Ct. r ,,,,,,,)d i' l=" N.3 T Meadow Ave. NE nori I0' Jones Ave. NE T Kennewick Kennewick rn Fi f N Lincoln y Monterey 5-Monterey )l __ MontereyC,, f b Ave. NE z 1 t--+ NL 4 *.. Aberdeen Ave. NE Aberdeen Ave. NE Aberdeen Ave. NE CO C s0 Aberdeen iyoy tlF Blaine Ave. r" T Blaine Ave. NE 1.1 O Comos r-s ii y JSO') w ,0 'o N 1:15.: i(, r Fr- Dayton Dayton OnytoniiDayton 5 V Ili. ,, A.,( !' 1!ll lifl 4. J I 0 I I SHUFFLETON VICINli IT MAP i Q NII .i Gene Coulon Park - lt‘Lake Washington Shoreline l. Ili Li CCS\ N......-::, SITE Oo p in ` 1 0 c.0 i 001 o c , 0 11 Iv u o z 4 1 c01 a 1 coNeighborhoods Sc Strategic Planning Site boundary ED/N/SP 0.. Dennison To 23 February 1999 0 400 800 1 :4,800 o CITY *F RENTON A: Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 2, 1999 Rex Allen SECO Development, Inc. 11009 NE 11th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: Southport LUA99-027,ECF Dear Mr. Allen: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application for early review is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. You will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at (425) 430-6578, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lisa Grueter Project Manager cc: Puget Sound Energy Puget Western, Inc. vwriLirc.wL. 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 Ica_ 3YX.•+Cd`-yta` r` a r. i •...x * } CITY JF'RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator January 13, 1999 Mr. Robert B. Bo President t 1 'rBoyd, 1 Puget Western,Inc. 19515 North Creek Parkway, Suite 310 JAN 151999 Bothell,WA 98011 ANONEIGI ut vc 6nvf,STRAEGRC PANNINGSubject: Puget Sound Energy's Shuffleton Site Public Street Rights to Railroad Crossing Area Dear Mr. Boyd, This letter is in reference to the rights granted to the City of Renton (`City') by the Northern Pacific Railway Company via instrument dated June 19, 1967. This easement document was recorded in King County under recording number 6201855, a copy of which is enclosed. The referenced railroad easement grants to the public via the City of Renton the use of the grade crossing as a `toublic street only"and is subject to conditions which allow the railroad to use their property and limits the rights of the City to grant construction right to others. In the event of abandonment or disuse these rights will cease. To further emphasize the intent of the original grant from the Railway Company, the right-of-way has been improved with curbs, sidewalks and street pavement. Additionally,Puget Sound Power & Light Company granted rights to the City across Puget ownership,as a continuation of the same street. These rights were granted under King County recording number 6317510, a copy of which is attached. Puget Sound Power & Light and now Puget Sound Energy have utilized the easement across the railroad property for public street purposes since the date of the Railway Company grant. The City has no plans to abandon this street crossing of the railroad. It is the City's understanding that present and future owners of the Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton site, together with all other members of the general public, have the right to utilize the easement area for public street purposes, and cannot be restricted from this use. If you have further questions regarding this access easement, please contact Neil Watts at 425-430- 7278. Sincerely, n q310101-e01 - Gregg Zimmrman Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department cc:Sue Carlson Jim Hanson Attachments SHUFLT-1.DOC\ 1055 South// Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 eziThug nanar rnntaine cn%rarvrlarl malarial 9f1^/_nnct rnncumar compass •• COAST AUCTION MANAGEMENT December 10, 1998 Susan Carlson City of Renton Renton City Hall-6t Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: SHUFFELTON SITE Dear Sue, Noise buffering of the residential units on this site can be achieved in a manner similar to the Waterfront Landings project built on the Seattle waterfront. At that site we had a great deal of noise and vibration generated by the Burlington Northern Railroad and the Alaskan Way viaduct. As construction manger for this large-scale urban project t was very concerned that the final product be successful in the market place_ To deaden the noise and create a serene environment for the$300,000-$800,000 condominiums in the project, we utilized a concrete masonry sound wall, which was very effective. The units were well received and the project sold out prior to completion of construction. Waterfront Landings is an excellent example of effective use of sound sensitive construction techniques_ I am confident that the use of similar techniques on this project can produce equally effective results. Sincerely, Compass Construction Management 6i?..62taigAi Ken Coleman President P.O. BOX 22281, SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 99122 r TEL:206.320.8741 FAX:206.323.4719 r ken®c3mpeSSco^str.com S/Z ' d StiZI ' oN ZZ6l -LC9-90 1N3Wd013A30 003S Wd917: 11 8661 til ' a0 CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION x^^~ rrotFIENTON RECEIVEDLANDUSEPERMIT FEBEB 2 4 1999 MASTER APPLICATION I 5U)L (NG pIVi51.7NI PROPERTY OWNERS} PROJECT INFORMATION Note: If ther 3'is more than one legal owner,please attach an additional notarized Ma,ter'APPlication for each owner. PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: 'AI j et J tit h of L So tki-k V 1 PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: Dn DADDRESS: i2 M cyt,c r. 5tra Glr\vt -1 fo n •-/t'hn I tot R P VLF- n J 1 ZIP: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):CITY: L l I fD l o( TELEPHONE NUMBER: (2 (p) 224 — 2}0 2_ EXISTING LAND USE(S): 1 Ot Gts1Y`lAAPPLICANT (if other than owner) GO p-t(I Q PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: G E V n e fi I [G ti11)c 0 vtGe PtsideK ietl - Cohnn-erc COMPANY (if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: S1- PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable):I Inoq NE l [ ' C.o12- M_ CITY: pc t1e V e_ ZIP: ci )Oh/ EXISTING ZONING: Fl J TELEPHONE NUMBER: ('1-zc3) fob$ . 30 E5r-,- PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): CONTACT PERSON C i p SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): NAME: I I 1 COMPANY (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: 77) (o De ve I op r n h Iv)C, Igo Im i'l l i 'v- ADDRESS: Oc , NE r CJ IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? CITY: p?0, It V e.. ZIP' 19 D O4 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? TELEPHONE NUMBER: 1 t p e [ { P Lo K€ Was ki I f I LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach separate sheet if necessary) Abbvev)ct.t-ee1 ' Sec -huh TpwoGhitp 2 'N, 1bn a r fe Debileel DC ,cir rtiVv-) dh,r_d . TYPE Qt= APPLICATION & FEES Check all >application types that apply City staff will determine fees ANNEXATION SUBDIVISION: COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT REZONE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL PERMIT SHORT PLAT TEMPORARY PERMIT TENTATIVE PLAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PRELIMINARY PLAT SITE PLAN APPROVAL FINAL PLAT GRADE & FILL PERMIT NO. CU. YDS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $_ VARIANCE FROM SECTION:PRELIMINARY WAIVER FINAL WETLAND PERMIT ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: MANAGEMENT PERMIT BINDING SITE PLAN SHORELINE REVIEWS: SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ CONDITIONAL USE VARIANCE EXEMPTION No Charsae ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REVISION AFFIDAVITOF OWNERSHIPI I, (Print Name) declare that I am (please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application, the authorized representative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. vi Q`k V J t s* .r S r C• t1 1114D9ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me,tM otery IR nd for the State of VV residing at P••! j ••• ti,• Name of Owner/Representative)l/V O P dlnvl t [-ems ,on the L ` •' SON • L IP 1 Fe-0 19. 1 ,t,oTAR 101) Signature of Owner/Representative) A•• PUB o 1, : Signature of Notary Public) ti•• i'4 11112•••' '• OF•WAS'it1 is section to be completed by City Staff.) City File Number: L V: '4.-r 1 A AAD BSP CAP-S CAP-U CPA CU-A CU-H( LLA MHP FPUD FP PP R RVMP SAA SA-H SHPL-A SME TP -V-A V-B V-H W TOTAL FEES: $.,J/ TOTAL'POSTAGE PROVIDED: $ MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 8/97 0 SCHEDULE A2 Order No. 377186-5K DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 1 AND 2 IN SECTION 8 , TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND ALL OF THOSE PORTIONS OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS FRONTING THEREON, ALL MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 8 , TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER QF SAID SECTION 8 ; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1 AND ALONG SUCH LINE PRODUCED WESTERLY 955 . 21 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY' S LAKE WASHINGTON LINE, THIS BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID MARGIN OF SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY 1827 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT NO. 6 OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS AS SHOWN ON SHEET NO. 3 OF MAP PREPARED BY UDO HESSE AND FILED IN CAUSE NO. 156371 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KING COUNTY ENTITLED SEATTLE FACTORY SITES COMPANY, ET AL VS . ANNIE J. ADAMS, ET AL; THENCE NORTH 33°11' 40 . 4 " WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT NO. 6, 1374 . 54 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS AS LAID OUT BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 45°45' EAST ALONG SAID INNER HARBOR LINE 975 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44°15' EAST 680 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, PRODUCED; THENCE EASTERLY 765 . 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ALONG THE EXTENSION OF THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 , AS DESCRIBED ABOVE, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; LESS THAT PORTION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL DEEDED TO THE BOEING COMPANY BY DEED DATED FEBRUARY 11 , 1966 AND FILED FOR RECORD UNDER AUDITOR' S RECORDING NO. 5988091 ; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION DEEDED TO THE BOEING COMPANY BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 30 , 1988 AND RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8812140278 . C+ONTI D) CITY OF RENTON RECEIVE FEB 2 41999 Page 3 BUILDING DIVISION DESCRIPTION CONT. ORDER NO. 377186-5K PARCEL B : A TRIANGULAR TRACT OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8 , TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, INCLUDING WITHIN THIS TRACT CERTAIN PORTIONS OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS AS SHOWN ON SHEETS 3 AND 4 OF THE MAP PREPARED BY UDO HESSE UNDER KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 156371, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, IN SAID SECTION 8 ; THENCE NORTH 88°51 ' 05" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1 , AND ALONG THE WESTERLY PRODUCTION OF SAID LINE, A DISTANCE OF 960 . 01 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF THE ABANDONED BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILWAY NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY) ; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 88°51' 05" WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY PRODUCTION, 761 . 39 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO AN EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT, SAID MONUMENT BEING AN ANGLE POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE SHUFFLETON STEAM PLANT PROPERTY; THENCE NORTH 43°06 ' 56" WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE, 680 . 06 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS AS LAID OUT BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH 46°52 ' 27" WEST ALONG SAID INNER HARBOR LINE, 607 . 89 FEET; THENCE WITHIN SAID SHORE LANDS SOUTH 43°06' 56" EAST, 717 . 73 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 43°06' 56" EAST, 215 . 18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 46°53 ' 04 " WEST, 116 . 87 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14°36 ' 26" WEST, 244 . 87 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL C: A TRIANGULAR TRACT OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8 , TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, INCLUDING WITHIN THIS TRACT CERTAIN PORTIONS OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS AS SHOWN ON SHEETS 3 AND 4 OF THE MAP PREPARED BY UDO HESSE UNDER KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 156371 , MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 , IN SAID SECTION 8 ; CONTINUED) CITY OFIVE RENTON RECED Page 4 FEB 2 4 1999 BUILDING DIVISION DESCRIPTION CONT. ORDER NO. 377186-5K THENCE NORTH 88°51' 05" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1 , AND ALONG THE WESTERLY PRODUCTION OF SAID LINE, A DISTANCE OF 960 . 01 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF THE ABANDONED BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILWAY NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY) RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 88°51' 05" WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY PRODUCTION, 761 . 39 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO AN EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT, SAID MONUMENT BEING AN ANGLE POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE SHUFFLETON STEAM PLANT PROPERTY; THENCE NORTH 43°06 ' 56" WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE, 680 . 06 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS AS LAID OUT BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH 46°52 ' 27" WEST ALONG SAID INNER HARBOR LINE, 607 . 89 FEET; THENCE WITHIN SAID SHORE LANDS SOUTH 43°06 ' 56" EAST, 717 . 73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14°36' 26" EAST, 741 . 50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID ABANDONED BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 14°36' 26" WEST, 151 . 34 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 31°37 ' 32" EAST, 138 . 74 FEET TO SAID NORTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE SOUTH 50°51' 48" WEST ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY MARGIN, 44 . 69 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. RECEIVED Page 5 FEB 2 41999 BUILDING DIVISION di lb 1,..4 .1 All L VTH PO SECO Development 11009 NE 11 rn St. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Lisa Grueter City of Renton Planning Department Renton City Hall 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington 98055 Re: Southport Land Use Permit—Master Application Dear Lisa, Enclosed you will fmd application materials for the referenced project. We are submitting information for our Land Use Permit Master Application. This information is submitted in support of our request for an early environmental review of this project. We anticipate that the scale of this project will require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement and we are requesting early review in order to establish a determination. We are interested in pursuing the entitlement process as quickly as possible. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this application or if additional information is required. Since y, sei --, Rex Allen Project Manager 1 CITY OF RENTON FEB 2 4 1999 BUILDING DIVISION 111) SECO DEVELOPMENT, INC . 11009 NE 11TH STREET•BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 TEL: 425/688-3085 • FAX' 425/637-1922 EIvIATh: seco@se cod ev.corn FEB 2 5 1999 Facsimile Transmittal Cover Sheet DATE: 2 ' 2 J- ,err TO: I I S l 1'k TEL NO: COMPANY: A 7 FAX NO:7 FROM: TEL NO: Number of Pages to Follow: toe.i-aip-ria#4 rre Cokfrifrtwl:r . i4tect. e.)r S of y feie.40.0.),l4 S 1 61.14i /fr 490 i 0JS THANK YOU ALL INFORMATION CONTAINP.23 HEREIN IS,D.RFM£D RLrLIABLE;HOWEVER, NO RFPRESF.N'IATION OR WARRANTYIS MADE AS TO THE,ACCURACY HEREOF T/I fi 7,f oN ZZ61 -L 9-M7 1N3Wd013A30 003S Wd£Z : Z 6661 ' gZ ' ga3 s 1 411) NEW LOT B - TAX LOT 055 THAT PORTION OE GOVERNMENT LOTS 1 AND 2 IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W_M,, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND ALL THOSE PORTIONS OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS FRONTING THEREON, ALL MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTH UNE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND SUCH LINE PRODUCED WESTERLY 959.35 FEET, TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY'S RIGHT OF WAY (FORMERLY NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY'S LAKE WASHINGTON LINE) AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, ON SAID WESTERLY MARGIN OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY'S RIGHT OF WAY, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 74'38'O1" WEST, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1388.68 FEET, THROUGH AN INCLUDED ANGLE OF 4"14'26" FOR AND ARC LENGTH OF 102.78 FEET 102.76 FEET CHORD DEF.); THENCE SOUTH 75-44'38" WEST 240.72 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 46'51'03" WEST 282.66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 8749'09" WEST 85.74 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43'47'07" WEST 119.14 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 46'43'23 WEST 646.03 FEET, TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL E, AS SHOWN ON CITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 004-88 AS RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NUMBER 8808309006; THENCE NORTH 14"34'17' WEST, ALONG SAID LINE, 277_53 FEET, TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF PARCEL C OF SAID LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT; THENCE NORTH 43'07'33" WEST 718.12 FEET, TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS AS LAID OUT BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, THENCE NORTH 4652'27' EAST, ALONG SAID INNER HARBOR LINE, 607.64 FEET, TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT; THENCE SOUTH 43'07'33" EAST 679.03 FEET, TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING AN ANGLE POINT IN THE NORTH LINE OF PUGET SOUND ENERGY'S SHUFFLEION COMPLEX AND THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 PRODUCED; THENCE SOUTH 8548'46" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 PRODUCED, 761.47 FEET, TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY'S RIGHT OF WAY AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 744,949 SQUARE FEET OR 17.102 ACRES. Za ' d 60Z£ ' °N ZZ61 -1£9-gZ1J 1NY1d013A30 003S Wd£Z : Z 6661 ' gZ ' ga3 4111111 4 v..4 L V' O VTH PO SEC 0 Development 11009 NE 11"^ St. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Proposal Description Southport is envisioned as a vibrant mixed use development located at an important gateway to the City of Renton. Bustling streetscapes will be created, lined with shops and restaurants to form an urban neighborhood atmosphere in the residential enclave. Amenities shared by the residential tenants of Southport will include; secured parking, and an elevated plaza with views of the lake. A pedestrian link through this area of the project will extend to the waterfront providing a visual and experiential connection to the office buildings at the interior. Office buildings at the interior will be the visual terminus of this link, anchoring the site to the waterfront and enhancing the gateway to the City. Public amenities will include a boardwalk promenade at the waters edge the full width of the property that will offer opportunities for walking, outdoor dining, visual access to the lake and an extension of the lake walk at the adjacent Coulon Park. This connection will provide shopping and dining opportunities for park users, extending their experience further along the waterfront and into the Southport neighborhood. Focal points of interest will be created along the boardwalk with special paving, art work or water features. Benches and landscape planters will surround these focal points and complement their design. The office development will front on tree lined Southport Boulevard and will offer views of Coulon Park and Mount Rainier. The focus of the entry boulevard is a public piazza ringed with shops, housing and offices, creating the essential core of this mixed use community. High quality design will create clear statements of use and identity and will be complimented by special finishes, paving or art work greatly enhancing the pedestrian experience and integrating the various uses into a unified whole. We intend to create Southport to be a vital urban mixed use community with a variety of working, living, shopping and dining opportunities which will provide a rich experience of Lake Washington and the City of Renton. Conceptual site plan diagrams are included to illustrate the potential site development. Please see attached drawings. CITY OF RENTON P EC E!VF! FEB 2 4 1999 BUILDING DIVISION v.4 V' O A UTH PO SEC 0 Development 11009 NE 11th St. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Southport Project Statistics Plan A Residential Component Building Average Approx. Total Unit Distribution Parking unit size Building Area Units (Studio- 1 BR-2BR/2Bath) 1.3 per DU Building A 650 127,200 166 S=30%, 1BR=50%, 2BR=20% 216 Building B 800 193,200 205 5=30%,1BR=50%, 2BR=20% 267 Building C 850 170,900 171 S=0%, 1 BR=50%, 2BR=50% 222 Totals 491,300 543 705 Retail Component Approx. Parking Area 1/1000 SF Building A 5000 Building B 15000 Building C 18000 Plant Bldg. 0 Totals 38,000 38 Office Component Approx. Parking Building Area 3/1000 SF New 300,000 3 buildings @ 100K-over 900 Construction parking Existing 200,000 600 Power house Totals 500,000 1,500 Grand Total Total Totals Building Area Parking 1,029,300 2243 This number includes shared parking. Please refer to enclosed parking study by Transpo ECE1V CITY OF RENTON RF ) FEB 2 41999 BUILDING DIVISION 0 IP ver,4 A^ t O VTHPO SEC 0 Development 11009 NE 11 th St. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Project Phasing Southport construction will be undertaken in several phases as follows: Grading and demolition — Grading and earth work will be the first activities undertaken at Southport. Early issue of a grading permit is desirable in order to do preloading of some of the site soils. Demolition of existing structures that will not be reused will be undertaken in this phase. Infrastructure — Demolition of existing utilities and extension of new utilities will be undertaken first, followed by road improvements. Connection points will be established for the various building pad sites and the utilities will be extended to those locations. Building Construction — Building construction will begin at the northwest end of the site, adjacent to the lake and proceed south and east. Buildings A and B of the residential portion will be completed first, followed by the waterfront improvements. Building construction continued— Construction of the office buildings and their associated parking structures, will be the last phase of construction on this site. These buildings will be built in stages in conjunction with building C of the residential portion. This is a generalized and preliminary description of the site development phases at Southport. It is our intention to move continuously and agressively to complete the mixed use development as expeditiously as possible. At. rni$ /h royl Mui NA:t 47 4 1profecl- 204. 9'-oa7 VELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS: REQUIREMENTS: ! BY: BY: Calculations, Survey, prainaapkoLwain! Plan I t ch a it Drainage Report 2 Ste& I U Elevations, Architectural 3 nVo aipfz ,Q) Elevations. Grariinn , eJytC, rZew Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy)4 Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 Flaod'Plain Man ifportucableA Floor Plans 3AND4 Geotechnical Report z!3 i u AJ GradingPlan, Conceptual 2P Grading Plan, Detailed 2 King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site I andscaoinn Plan Cnnceotuala Description4 C,M SN Of. • ) 1! A;• _ h+'a tP.o t of surrnfinriinn Pr_OL? 1LOwneI'sa f/Ilailina Labels for Pronertv Owners 4 Fp/000 f.,'1L W Map of Existing Site Conditions Master Application Form 4 Monument Cards (one per monument) , Parking, l_ Qvera ecL& Laltdscaoin 1 dj+go- 4Analsis l fe.#4,yruNd Y t LO(J Plan Reductions (PMTs) 4 cietiAmitx ,Y , diti Postage 4 vS2..6/5 Public Works Approval Letter2 Title Report or Plat Certificate 4 Topography Map (5' contours)a Traffi.•.. Study 2 C PIV Plan 1[SA rlJ ii Tree Cutting/Vegetation Clearing Pl n 4 6414#6 '`tftrUISL ytilitiPs Plan. Generalized 2 C% j Lt CAM0.21X •w• 4, Wetlands Delineation.=a Wetlands Planting Plana 41/4 . etlands Study 4 E PA cktc.G I'Sf Pre ff.UtreuS-This requirement may be waived by: v 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: VD+)t 4 Drt 2. Public Works Plan Review Section Q 3. Building Section DATE: /a !9 4. Development Planning Section 740k- I,c ' h:\d visions\develop.serkiev.plan.ing\waiver.xis CITY OF RENTON Itri IT, Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Planning Jesse Tanner,Mayor Susan Carlson,Administrator October 4, 1999 Karen Walters,Fisheries Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015-172nd Avenue SE Auburn,WA 98002 Dear Ms. Walters: Per your discussion with Lisa Grueter in late July 1999, enclosed are copies of documents you requested related to the Southport site (Shuffleton Steam Plant site). You requested copies of Determinations of Non-Significance and site remediation reports listed in the Southport Development Planned Action Draft Supplemental EIS, and you also requested a copy of a report related to the Lake Washington Pollutant Abatement Program. If you have any questions,you may contact Lisa Grueter at Bucher,Willis and Ratliff Corporation, (206)448-2123. You may also contact me at(425)430-6591. Thank you. Sincerely, Susan Carlson,Administrator 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 Site Environmental Remediation Summary An environmental site investigation was performed at the Shuffleton site in 1995 to identify the nature and extent of chemical contaminants present in site soil, offshore sediment, and groundwater. As part of that investigation, an extensive site history was developed, including a series of interviews with site workers and research of historical records. Potential for releases of chemical contaminants were identified on several areas of the site as a result of that study. Subsequently, a sampling plan was developed to test site soil, sediment, and groundwater for a broad range of potential contaminants. In 1996, 71 soil samples were collected from borings, test pits and surface soils. Heavy range petroleum hydrocarbons were identified in over half of the sample collected in a variety of site locations. Freshwater sediment samples were collected in the adjoining lake area. No contaminants were detected at levels exceeding screening criteria. The concentration of contaminants detected in the sediments were below those found in other areas of Lake Washington, the Ship Canal, and Lake Union and other areas with treated pilings. Shallow groundwater under the site was characterized by installing nine monitoring wells. Results indicate that except for naturally-elevated levels of arsenic, no contaminants were discovered in site groundwater above the State cleanup levels for drinking water. In late 1996, a remedial work plan was developed to remediate (clean up) those areas of the site where contaminants (primarily petroleum, lead and arsenic, and lesser amount of PCB and asbestos) were discovered above cleanup levels. That plan was implemented in late 1998. All site soils were to be cleaned up to residential standards. Eleven areas on the site were identified for excavation of contaminated soil. Over 15,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil have been removed from the site for disposal or treatment. In addition, demolition of four site structures was called out in the remedial work plan. These include removal of two large above ground storage tanks, removal of the site railroad spur and removal of an underground fuel pipeline from the former tanks to the pumphouse. These activities were reviewed and approved as part of applications for environmental and shoreline permits from the City of Renton. The remedial action has been completed. A cleanup action report will be submitted to the Department of Ecology (DOE) for their review, and designation as a no further action site is expected by late summer, 1999. Designation as "no further action" by DOE indicates that the cleanup is adequate to meet state residential-level standards and that DOE has no present intention to take further action at the site. Therefore, the issue of on-site hazardous materials is not a topic of this Supplemental EIS. Environmental investigations at the Shuffleton Steam Plant are documented in the following three reports: 1. Final Environmental Site Investigation, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility, Renton, Washington, prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated April 15, 1996 by Hart Crowser, Inc. 2. Remedial Action Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility, Renton, Washington, prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated December 6, 1996 by Hart Crowser, . Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-8 I 3. Final Sediment Characterization Report on the Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility RDN Lease Area Inc, Renton, Washington, prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated November 7, 1997, prepare for Puget Sound Energy by Wineman Environmental Consulting in conjunction with Hart Crowser, Inc. 4. Shuffleton Complex Soil Remediation, Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated, June, 1993. 5. Shuffleton Tank Removal, Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated, September, 1996. 6. Shuffleton Soil Remediation, Determination of Non-Significance, August, 1998. Documents 1, 2 and 3 are on file and available for review at the Department of Ecology. Documents 4, 5 and 6 are on file and available for review at the City of Renton. Shoreline Area The site, which is located at the southern end of Lake Washington, contains approximately 608 lineal feet of Lake Washington shoreline. The site shoreline, which has historically been used in support of the site's industrial uses, consists entirely of concrete bulkhead. Shoreline vegetation is sparse and is limited to Scott's broom and scattered grasses. In support of the historic industrial use of the site, improvements along the site's shoreline have been made. Existing shoreline improvements include: a concrete bulkhead at the waters edge; a water intake tunnel, associated gate and filter structures, and a log boom at the entrance to the intake tunnel at the eastern edge of the site; a water discharge tunnel and associated gate and filter structures at the western edge of the site; a series of sheet piles forming a channel to direct the flow of water discharged from the discharge tunnel —the sheet pile discharge channel travels north along the property line and parallel and immediately adjacent to the dock for approximately 220 feet and turns northwest along the DNR property in front of the Boeing property for approximately 600 feet Puget Sound Energy has filed a separate permit application to the City of Renton and DNR for removal of the 600-foot portion of the sheet piles located along DNR property in front of Boeing); a wood dock, measuring approximately 200 feet long and three feet wide (the dock has a handrail on each side, lights, and, at periodic points, finger piers extending out to wood pile dolphins about 15 feet from the edge of the dock) located near the western edge of the site, immediately east of the discharge tunnel; a wood dock approximately 125 feet long parallel to the shoreline and 20 feet wide, located in the central portion of the site's shoreline; and, approximately 30 to 40 abandoned piles to the immediate east of the parallel dock. J I Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-9 04 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: September 28, 1999 TO: Lee Wheeler, Chuck Duffy FROM: Sue Carlson . ( SUBJECT: Southport Mitigation Document—Fire Lane Requirements I am responding to your September 24, 1999 memo regarding the Southport promenade and fire access. I believe'hat your concerns have been addressed,and that appropriate emergency access will be provided. The Southport Planned Action Mitigation Document lists mitigation measures that are requirements beyond code provisions. At the conclusion of the document are "Advisory Notes to Developer/Applicant"which notify future developers/applicants of code requirements which would apply to future development applications. Code requirements may function as mitigation measures,but they are not listed as mitigation measures because we already have the authority to apply them to development applications. Becaus: the Uniform Fire Code requires access within a certain distance of structures, the measure appears in the "Advisory Notes to Developer/Applicant." These measures are not appealable. The discussion of the fire lanes is intended to illustrate how current conceptual plans are addressing code require ents. There is a description of the potential fire lane system including the promenade. At the 1.st ERC meeting dated September 14, 1999, we discussed that at this point the developer intends to provi•e a fire lane along the promenade given their current conceptual designs. The main concern that you exp essed was ensuring that the applicant is aware that the access area needs to be kept clear and be distingu shable. We also discussed the level of investment in the promenade, and the amenity it will provide. Becaus=we are dealing with a Planned Action, site plan applications would be made later, potentially by other developers, and it's possible that different building configurations and different fire emergency access c•uld be proposed. At the ERC meeting, we discussed the wording of the sentence referencing the promen.de,and that it would be conditional. The language is intended to say that if a fire lane is required along th promenade,it must meet City standards. Seco Development is continuing its design process and intends to submit site plan applications later this year pe ding approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezone, Municipal Code Amendments, etc. Li . Grueter has confirmed again today that their designs continue to include the promenade as an emerge cy access area. You may want to contact Rex Allen at Seco Development (425) 688-3080 ext. 311 for urther discussion. If you have any other questions,please contact me at extension 6591. cc: E vironmental Review Committee La y Warren Lisa Grueter 4 f 0 RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT Fa C MEMORANDUM Nrro DATE: September 24, 1999 TO: Sue C I on THROUGH: 1fe6ter FROM: Chuck Duffy SUBJECT: September 15, 1999 Memo Southport Mitigation Document - Final" I have reviewed your memo "Southport Mitigation Document - Final" of September 15, 1999 regarding wording that has been added concerning the trail maintenance and fire access to the promenade area. The new wording very clearly requires a "public recreation easement". However, the wording does not specifically address the need for a fire lane on the promenade. It is my understanding that the intent of this new wording is to avoid potential interpretation problems. Consequently, I believe the lack of specific reference to a fire lane will continue the potential interpretation problem. The, need for a fire lane on the promenade arises from the already limited Fire Department access throughout this unique and dense development. Several compromises were made regarding Fire Department access. These compromises were made with the understanding that the promenade would provide critical access. Without the promenade fire lane, all Fire Department access throughout Southport will need to be reconsidered. It is my understanding that you are coordinating communications with SECO Development. I am concerned that they could misinterpret the wording in the final mitigation document. I would appreciate it if you would inform SECO of the Fire Department concerns in order to avoid confusion in the future. CC: Larry Warren A TRANSPORTATION A Transportation Demand Management(TDM)program will be implemented. TDM is a tool for managing the amount of traffic a development generates. Through various TDM programs, traffic could be reduced overall or shifted to non-peak times of the day. The State of Washington's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program, implemented through the City's Commute Trip Reduction regulations in RMC10-13, requires employers who have 100 or more employees commuting to a single location, between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., to implement TDM programs. Some TDM programs could include: Transit incentives Guaranteed ride home program Flex-time hours Telecommuting Preferential parking for vanpools and carpools Parking pricing Secured bicycle parking Financial Incentives Haul Routes and Hours: A construction plan showing haul routes and hours will be required. RMC 4-4-030.C) FIRE SERVICES Approved fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems will be installed throughout all structures. (RMC 4-5-070) City ordinances require a minimum of two access roadways into the project. An emergency access would be provided via the 45-foot wide pedestrian plaza located immediately south of Building B with access from Gene Coulon Park's southern parking lot. Removable vehicle barriers would block ordinary vehicle traffic. (RMC 4-5-070) Fire department apparatus access is required within 150 feet of all points on the building. The fire lanes along the secondary access, and along the south/southwest site perimeter, would meet fire department requirements by having widths of 20 feet. Roadways would be signed as fire lanes. If later proposals require access along the promenade for emergency apparatus, then the access shall meet applicable code requirements and ensure the access areas are distinguishable. (RMC 4-5-070) A designated fire lane,to serve the eastern side of the development, would be provided by the existing drive aisle in the Gene Coulon Park parking lot to the immediate east. The park drive aisle would be signed as a fire lane. (RMC 4-5-070) c.;`(-4 Southport Planned Action 31 Mitigation Document 0ti Y o RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NTo DATE: September 24, 1999 TO: Sue C/fon THROUGH: / g6ter FROM: Chuck Duffy SUBJECT: September 15, 1999 Memo Southport Mitigation Document - Final" I have reviewed your memo "Southport Mitigation Document - Final" of September 15, 1999 regarding wording that has been added concerning the trail maintenance and fire access to the promenade area. The new wording very clearly requires a "public recreation easement". However, the wording does not specifically address the need for a fire lane on the promenade. It is my understanding that the intent of this new wording is to avoid potential interpretation problems. Consequently, I believe the lack of specific reference to a fire lane will continue the potential interpretation problem. The need for a fire lane on the promenade arises from the already limited Fire Department access throughout this unique and dense development. Several compromises were made regarding Fire Department access. These compromises were made with the understanding that the promenade would provide critical access. Without the promenade fire lane, all Fire Department access throughout Southport will need to be reconsidered. It is my understanding that you are coordinating communications with SECO Development. I am concerned that they could misinterpret the wording in the final mitigation document. I would appreciate it if you would inform SECO of the Fire Department concerns in order to avoid confusion in the future. CC: Larry Warren CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE:September 20, 1999 TO: Gregg Zimmerman FROM:Sandra Mert SUBJECT: Southport Traffic Improvements—Public Benefits. Ba kground and Purpose of Issue Paper: Th Transportation Systems Division has conducted a review of the proposed Southport traffic mit gation plan in order to gauge the overall public benefits of proposed transportation im rovements. The mitigation plan was developed to provide acceptable access to the proposed So thport development, as well as reduce impacts of the development on the existing transportation system. Because some of the elements of the proposed mitigation plan have local an regional benefits that improve upon the existing system and support transportation in the City on wider basis, the City should apply some transportation funding, such as mitigation funds, to ele ents of the plan. It is the purpose of this issue paper to identify from both a quantitative and qu litative perspective this justification, and to recommend how much of the citywide mitigation fee should be applied to the improvements. Pr posed Improvements: Th proposed mitigation plan consists of improvements to two intersections as well as to the road se ent between the two intersections. Channelization changes at the Park Ave. N. / Lake W shington Blvd. intersection would create a two left turn lanes from east-bound Park Ave. onto La e Washington Blvd. Additionally, widening on the Lake Washington Blvd. leg would create twq left turn lanes onto eastbound Park Ave., while maintaining an exclusive right turn lane. At the entrance to Coulon Park/Southport on Lake Washington Blvd., the current three-way stop co trolled intersection would be replaced with a traffic signal. The Coulon access road would be wi ened to include exclusive left and right turn lanes. Between the two intersections, widening w uld create a road cross section of four or five lanes, resulting in increased queue storage ca acity and separating turning and through movements at intersections. erall Transportation Benefits within Southport Mitigation Plan: W ile the Southport project is the catalyst for these improvements, their benefits will extend be and the project to serve the overall transportation system as well. Following is a summary of ov rall general benefits of these proposed roadway improvements(also refer to Table 1,below): 1) Improved Intersection Efficiency at Park/Lake Washington Blvd. signalized intersection The proposed signal improvements and associated roadway widening will have a City-wide benefit by improving the efficiency of the intersection. The dual left turn movements will increase the turning capacity, and therefore decrease the signal cycle time required for these movements. Separating through and turning movements into individual lanes will have a similar effect. 2) Houser Way/Boeing Access The signal improvements at the Coulon/Southport entrance and the creation of a second northbound lane on Houser Way will help ensure free-flow access to the Boeing parking lots accessed by the Houser Way loop. This important road provides the most direct access for employees commuting from the north and east. Additionally, the importance of this route could increase significantly with further development of the Boeing site. Table ll-Intersection levels of service information Intersection of Park Ave N/Lake Washington Blvd 2004 Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Max Queue AM Max Queue PM LOS-Delay LOS Delay Lk Wash Blvd Lk Wash Blvd 2004,no build E-62.9 sec/veh D—39.0 sec/veh 250 ft 250 ft 2004,Southport scenario A&existing F—103.3 sec/veh F—121.7 sec/veh 375 600 road conditions 2004,Southport&road improvements C—34.4 sec/veh D—41.8 secveh 300 400 Intersection of Lake Washington Blvd/Coulon-Southport/Houser Way 2004 Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Max Queue AM Max Queue PM LOS-Delay LOS Delay All approaches All approaches No-Build(Southport) F-52.6 sec/veh B—10.8 sec/veh 500ft+ 80ft Southport scenario A&existing road F—279.6 sec/veh F—235.4 sec/veh Inadequate Inadequate conditions 2004,Southport&road improvements B—14.9 sec/veh B—16.9 sec/veh 200/175/175 125175/150 adequate) adequate) 3) Kennydale Neighborhood Protection The improvements are designed to encourage traffic from Southport, Coulon Park, and the surrounding area to access the regional transportation system using Park Ave. N. rather than the local streets in the Kennydale neighborhood. These improvements will decrease the amount of northbound through traffic that would otherwise use Lake Washington Blvd. and other streets in the Kennydale neighborhood. 4) Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements Improvements required to the railroad crossings at Lake Washington Blvd. and the Coulon/Southport access road will benefit all users of these streets. In fact, most of the automobiles using the Lake Washington Blvd. railroad crossing will be non-Southport generated traffic. H:Trans/admin/sandra/feesp2 r 5) Pres-rvin Park Access The si_ al at the Coulon/Southport access road will allow continued safe access and egress for Coulon Park p,trons (particularly large vehicles and boat trailers). Aside from signalization, other options availab e for preserving acceptable level of service at this intersection (even without the Southport develo'ment) would require removing stop sign control for the cross traffic flow (Lake Washington Blvd). The traffic signal will allow an acceptable LOS to be maintained while still providing the protect,d intersection movements critical for the larger vehicles using the park facility. Concu rency Issues The tr.nsportation mitigation fee is to be applied toward citywide transportation improvements that improv- mobility in the city and in the region. All of the above benefits to a greater or lesser degree assist in mee ing the City's transportation Level of Service Standard and concurrency application. However, benefi . #1 (Park Ave./Lake Washington Blvd. signal improvement) and #2 (Houser Way loop enhanc-ment)directly improve and enhance regional mobility and assist in improving travel times, which is the .asis of the City's LOS standard. The HOV Direct Access improvement at the Park Avenue/1-405 interch;nge directly adjacent to the project (currently estimated at a cost of $30 million dollars) in combi ation with the other above identified improvements clearly enhances regional transportation mobili as part of a system. Cost :timate and Recommended Contribution The m.st current cost estimate has needed transportation improvements at $1.2 million dollars. This estimate will change as the project moves into design and construction contract documents are developed. Becau•e of this, it is recommended that citywide transportation application be expressed as a percentage of the •roject. Based upon the above information, it is recommended that the City allocate collected mitigation funding at 50% of the improvements identified, but that the citywide participation be"capped" at the '-e collected should costs increase from the attached estimate. Additi o nal Considerations and Understandings: The d:signation of transportation funding to this project would be contingent on a commitment by the City t• require that redevelopment of the Boeing parking lot between Garden Avenue and Houser Way be done i such a way that the Houser loop provides a primary access point and that left turns from Park Avenu- onto Garden Avenue continue to be prohibited. This requirement recognizes the commitments the Ci currently has with the surrounding residents — such as not permitting northbound traffic from House Way to Lake Washington Blvd. —could be reconsidered should the Boeing development come to fruitio and a new public process,which the City has committed to initiating in that event, supports other transp rtation solutions consistent with the outcome of that public process. C:Jay Covington Sue Carlson Larry Warren H:Trans/adm in/sandra/feesp2 I. CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the_l-1 day of Seat-ew r 1999, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing rn t3a}tc-I\ doc.u.vv\ev / no-hc_e of- a\iatl ‘b+I A.l documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing See aktud1 Signature of Sender) StUr d.ti V- SfJ,-.21-c1--- STATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that d et v signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for 3hhuses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: A ?-d, 1155 a-A--c-a,-,v ..c Notary Publi in and f r the State of W ington z P HFIIL N KAMCHEFF Notary (Print)RY PUBLIC F My appointmen KAMCHEFF STATE F WASHINGTON MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:8-2943COMMISSIONEXPIRES i 2:), 2003 Souvo Project Number: LU ,99 0ZJ1 , L,l__!' NOTARY,DOC 0-34,1ra-t- r5fisjriiticia-i-4-vulcs( . Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agcy da Wilkinson Journal or Commerce 110 Union Street,#500 Vol undary Review Board i Box 11050 Seattle,WA 98101-2038 =17L 810-3rd Avenue,#608 INC:*‘ Seattle,WA 98111 hOa Seattle,WA 98104-1693 Dept. of Natural Resources-SEPA Duwanush Tribal Office Jerry Opatz PO Box 47015 Zf"f[' 140 Rainier Ave S,Suite 7 t . U.S.E.P.A. =l Olympia,WA 98504-7015 Renton,WA 98055 1200-6th Ave,M/S WD-136 Seattle,WA 98101 Journal American KC Dept. of Public Works City of Kentnut 1705 - 132nd Avenue NE Solid Waste Division Tlat Planning Department Hock., Bellevue,WA 98005 400 Yesler Way,Room 600 220-4th Avenue South Seattle,WA 98104-2637 Kent,WA 98032-5895 King Co.Resource Planning King Co. Courthouse King County Dev.&Environ. Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW 'zi-j= EIS Review Coordinator Rm 40q Attn: SEPA Section Z.Renton,WA 98055-1219 516 Third Avenue 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW = Seattle,WA 98104 Renton,WA 98055-1219 King Co.Public Library King Co. Soil Conservation WA Environmental Council ATTN: Susie Wheeler = ATTN: Jack Davis 615-2nd Avenue, Ste 380 Y\Ofl. 300-8th Avenue North 935 Powell Avenue SW '=Imo- Seattle,WA 98104 Seattle,WA 98109 Renton,WA 98055 Rod Malcom,Fisheries Puget Sound Energy Puget Sound Water Quality Muckleshoot Indian Tribe ATTN: EIS Review noa Abbot Raphael Hall 39015 - 172nd Avenue SE _ • 915 South Grady Way MS PV-15 Is Auburn,WA 98002 Renton,WA 98055 Olympia,WA 98504--0900 Renton Chamber of Commerce Renton School District#403 Central Environmental Health 300 Rainier Avenue North V\OQ 300 SW 7th Street . I 172-20th Avenue = Mr_Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 1 Seattle,WA 98122 Seattle Post-Intellegencer Seattle Times-Eastside Edition Shirley1 ang Ep1c.S1i1 e1SSSSW). Business News hOQ Business News n00` Seattle Public Utilities nom_ 101 Elliot Avenue West PO Box 70 710-2nd Avenue, 9th floor Seattle,WA 98111 _ Seattle,WA 98111 Seattle, WA 98104-1712 WA ST Dept. of Ecology State Dept.of Ecology(2 copies) Dept.of Ecology SEPA Register Environmental Review Section Attn: EIS Review PO Box 47703,PV-11 PO Box 47703 Z Northwest Regional Office 'MITE- Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Olympia,WA 98504-7703 3190-160th Avenue SE Bellevue,WA 98008-5452 State Dept. of Ecology Don Hurter Lary Fisher Attn: Shorelands Permit Coordinator WSDOT WA Dept.of Fish&Wildlife M/S PV-11 15700 Dayton Ave N,MS-122 do Dept.of Ecology Olympia, WA 98504 ' PO Box 330310 T I 3190-160th Avenue SE Seattle,WA 98133-9710 Bellevue,WA 98008 A t. o ish Wildl a KC Wastewater Treatment Division City of Tukwila O 6 0 ital y Environmental Planners . I. Planning&Bldg Dept. 01 pia, A 85 1-1 9 821 Second Avenue,M/S 81 6200 Southcenter Blvd. US West hil c eid U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers Attn: Cheryl Sanderson ' e o i ' Seattle District Office 1600-7th Avenue,Rm#2512 6 1 I PO Box C-3755 I Seattle,WA 98191 1 ee 01 Seattle,WA 98124 U.S.Dept. of Agriculture Secretary's Representative Dennis Ryan, CAUP Soil Conservation Office roo . U.S.Dept. of Housing&Urban Dev. University of Washington noel 935 Powell SW 909 First Avenue y10O 410 Gould Hall,JO-40 Renton,WA 98055 Seattle,WA 98104 Seattle,WA 98195 South County Journal Valley Medical Center Puget Sound Energy PO Box 130 Yl OQ. 400 South 43rd Street h 00, Washington Natural Gas Company Kent,WA 980:35 Renton,WA 98055 815 Mercer h0CL. Seattle,WA 98111 Puget Sound Regional Council Regional Transit Authority City of Bellevue 1011 Western Avenue,#500 I 1100 Second Avenue, Ste 500 Dept of Planning&Community Dev. Seattle,WA 98104-1035 Seattle, WA 98101-3423 -i I-M Po Box 90012 Attn: EIS Reviewer Bellevue,WA 98009-9012 h00, Attn:Environmental Services City Council(7) 1 -v = Fire Department Hearing Examiner i I-JELeeWheeler) I= Renton Public Library _lit.. Renton Public Library I Mayor -I I la Highlands Branch(2) Main Branch(3) _ Jim Shepherd) Parks Board(I) T. Community Services Dept. =ITC Planning Commission (4) T. PB/PW Dept. =I im Sue Carlson Police Dept. Ill Gregg Zimmerman Economic Development = ' City Attorney TIn Lee Havo (iJocuMe4 A- tl u)atic- (tDecoV\NLvT) DeeAnn Kirkpatrick i National Marine Fisheries Services 7600 Sand Point Way NE,Bldg. 1 Seattle,WA 98112 Jeff Chan Aquatic Research Group Fish and Wildlife Service 4- I at US Department of the Interior Western Washington Office 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 Lacey,WA 98503 City of Mercer Island Development Services Dept. 9611 SE 36d1 IMercerIsland,WA 98040 City of Newcastle 13020 SE 72" d Place, Suite A I a. Newcastle, WA 98059 Mike Rowswell WUTC I PO Box 47250 Olympia,WA 98504-7250 Ikuno Masterson King Coutny,ESA Policy Office hr0. 500 Yesler Street Seattle,WA 98104 0 4-= /ut..)7,?b ei, :au ia 6/I vissacv* J '6i497-Pcolgs ci AA ITbo(.- Rtcovtl Diane G.Esmay ialph Evans Kim Browne A/PO Box 59264 1 d A 3306 NE 11th Place *QA 1003 North 28th Place r 5 E 15 Renton,WA 98058 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Correen Orton v/R Shirley Milliren Marge Richter Legacy Partners 1020 N.28th Place A/OA 300 Meadow Avenue N. /1''C A 1756 114th Avenue SE,Suite 135 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98055 Bellevue,WA 98004 Paul Bergen t/)A Elizabeth Warman Seco Development FS /5EnviroIssues /" Manager,Local Government Relations Attn: Rex Allen 101 Stewart Street#101 The Boeing Company 10843 NE 8th Street Q Seattle,WA 98101 PO Box 3707 MC 14-49 A70 Suite 200 Seattle,WA 98124-2207 Bellevue,WA 98004 Celia Barton Bob Boyd FS. -1 S John Anderson State Dept.of Natur Resources Puget Western Inc. a) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 950 Farman Street N n fd A 19515 North Creek Prkwy,Suite 310 110 Union Street,Suite 500 PO Box 68 r Bothell,WA 98011 Seattle,WA 98101-2038 iv Enumclaw,WA 980 2-0068 Larry Fisher Bruce A.Coffey Larry Martin Dept.of Fish and Wildlife Foster Pepper&Shefelman PLLC Vulcan Northwest Region 4 Office 1111 Third Avenue,Suite 3400 4/Dij 110 110th Avenue NE,#550 /1'1 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. jVo•A Seattle,WA 98101-3299 Bellevue,WA 98004 Mill Creek,WA 98012 David Halinen James Hanken Mr.Robert Cugini,VP Halinen Law Office,P.S. Schwabe Williamson&Wyatt 4101 Lake Washington Boulevard 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 /1/04 US Bank Centre,Suite 3400 PO Box 359 Al/OA- Bellevue,WA 9800'1420 Fifth Avenue 1/D4 Renton,WA 98057 Seattle,WA 98101-2339 Chuck Wolfe Donald E.Marcy Marleen Mandt Foster Pepper&Sh-lfelman PLLC Cairncross&Hempelmann,P.S. 1408 N.26th Street NQ A 1111 Third Avenue,Suite 3400 ,t/04 701 Fifth Avenue 1/OA Renton,WA 98056 Seattle,WA 98101-,299 Seattle,WA 98104-7016 / Renee Perrault Darrel Inglemund Dick McCann 2520 Park Place N. A .4 North Renton&Kennydale Defense Fund Perkins Coie LLP Renton,WA 98056 1309 N.30th Street 1201 Third Avenue,40th Fl. Fs t/S Renton,WA 98056 Seattle,WA 98101-3099 1) Inez Petersen Charles E.Maduell Kevin Teague 3306 Lake Washin on Blvd.N#2 Perkins Coie LLP 1/4'fr 1111 3'd Avenue,#3400 /0.4 Renton,WA 98056 1909 F6E f 5 1201 Third Avenue,48th Floor Seattle,WA 98101 Seattle,WA 98101-3099 C r:5 7s ( 1) Richard Wagner Rosemary Quesenberry Dennis McLerran 2411 Garden Court r-S /5 3609 SE 18th Court FS JS Puget Sound Air Polution Control Agency Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98058 110 Union Street,Suite 500 1) 1-) Seattle,WA 98101-2038 A °/9 rnk aoc, 4' Barbara Questad Environmental Pla er 5 sK.C.Wastewater Tr atment Division 821 Second Avenue Seattle,WA 98104-1598 Joann R.Ausen Try Babb Ines Bergman 1331 Kennewick.Ave.NE t 16 Lincoln Place NE 1 464 Aberdeen Ave.NE Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 aA\ ce,\JeJ, Ronald Bergman n0a S Northern Santa Fe Burlington Carl Colasurdo 2208 NE 12th Street 1700 E.Golf Road#400 1507 Jones Ave.NE Renton WA 98056 Schaumburg IL 60173 Renton WA 98056 John Dechaineau Robert Edwards James Fox 1325 Kennewick Ave.NE 3719 Park Ave.No. 1313 Kennewick Ave.NE Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 Jan Frandsen Gene Galyean Lauree Galyean 1701 NE 14th St. 18458—8th Ave. So. 1208 Lincoln Pl.NE Renton,WA 98056 Seattle,WA 98148 Renton,WA 98056 U Greg Garner Howard Enterprises,Inc. Han Huynh 1209 Lincoln Pl.NE PO Box 79014 1713 NE 14t St. Renton WA 98056 Seattle,WA 98119 Renton WA 98056 Ireisen Properties,Inc.Thomas Keller Mosley Kirkman C` PO Box 80612 1408 Jones Ave.NE 1002 N. 35th St. Minneapolis,MN 55408 Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 Gary Land William Lewis Nicholas&Tracy Lorrigan 11404—137`h Ave.SE 1401 Jones Ave.NE 1724 NE 14th St. Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 c James Martindale James Medzegian Andy Nguyen 9712—237` h Pl. SW 11914 SE 78t St. 1318 Kennewick Ave.NE Edmonds,WA 98020 Newcastle WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 c Puget Sound Energy Liddy LLC Rich Larry Schluter PO Box 90868 6202 S. 1515`Place 1702 NE 14`h St. Bellevue WA 98009 Tukwila WA 98188 Renton WA 98056 Don Schumsky David Sudduth B.D.Thanedar 2019 Jones Ave.NE 1425 Jones Ave.NE 1707 NE 14th St. Renton WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 The Boeing Company The Boeing Company The Boeing Company PO Box 3703 PO Box 3707 PO Box 3707,M/S 1F-09 Seattle WA 98124 Seattle WA 98124-2207 Seattle WA 98124 Luong Vu irris Watson fax Williams 1513 Jones Ave.NE 319 Kennewick Ave.NE 409 Jones Ave.NE Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 r CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY MITIGATION DOCUMENT Nctice is hereby given that the City of Renton has issued the Mitigation Document for the Southport Planned Action on September 17, 1999 pursuant to WAC 197-11-660 and RMC 4-9- 070, and is available for public review. Copies have been provided for review at the Renton Municipal Library (the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch), and in the Renton Municipal Building at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, (both in the Development Services Division and Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department — 6th floor; and in the City Clerk's Office —7th floor). PROPOSAL: The proposed Southport Planned Action considers potential redevelopment concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Redevelopment concepts review changes from the current industrial uses to a mixed use development including, residential, commercial, and office uses as well as re:;reational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several development permits. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027, ECF, CPA, R PROPONENT: Seco Development Inc. (Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington, West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. LEAD AGENCY: Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way I- Renton, WA 98055 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The Mitigation Document is available for purchase from the Development Services Division Customer Service Desk on the 6th floor of the Renton Municipal Building. It may be purchased for$5.54 including tax, plus postage where applicable. PUBLIC REVIEW/APPEAL: A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was required for the proposal under 43.21 C.030(2)(c) and RMC 4-9-070. The impacts described in the Southport Development Planned Action SEIS and other information on file with the City of Renton are the basis for the mitigating measures established in the Mitigation Document. This Mitigation Document is designated by the City of Renton as the first decision document for the proposal. Upon issuance of this Mitigation Document, a twenty (20) day appeal period commences. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680 and RMC 4-8-110.E, the adequacy of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and the Mitigation Document may be appealed. Appeals must: 1) state specific objections of fact and/or law; 2) be submitted in writing by 5:00 p.m. October 7, 1999; and 3) be accompanied by a filing fee of $75.00. Appeals should be addressed to Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Renton Municipal Building, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Sue Carlson, City of Renton, Economic Development/Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Department at 425-430-6591. PUBLICATION DATE: September 17, 1999 DATE OF DECISION: September 13, 1999 SIGNATURES: 0 em rman dminist , D // 111 Gregg99 Planning/ u din ublic Works Department l- n - r4--/ vzi,( g l ice( Jim Administrator DATEShepherd, Community Services Department L6,1'FCt_e_ d 0,2 Lee Wheeler, Fire Chie DATE Renton Fire Department CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY MITIGATION DOCUMENT Notice is hereby given that the City of Renton has issued the Mitigation Document for the Southport Planned Action on September 17, 1999 pursuant to WAC 197-11-660 and RMC 4-9-070, and is available for public review. Copies have been provided for review at the Renton Municipal Library (the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch), and in the Renton Municipal Building at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, (both in the Development Services Division and Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department—6th floor; and in the City Clerk's Office—7th floor). PROPOSAL: The proposed Southport Planned Action considers potential redevelopment concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Redevelopment concepts review changes from the current industrial uses to a mixed use development including, residential, commercial, and office uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several development permits. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027, ECF, CPA, R PROPONENT: Seco Development Inc. (Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington, West of Lake Washington Boulevard and I- 405. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. LEAD AGENCY: Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 DOCUMENT PURCHASE: The Mitigation Document is available for purchase from the Development Services Division Customer Service Desk on the 6th floor of the Renton Municipal Building. It may be purchased for$5.54 including tax, plus postage where applicable. PUBLIC REVIEW/APPEAL: A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was required for the proposal under 43.21 C.030(2)(c) and RMC 4-9-070. The impacts described in the Southport Development Planned Action SEIS and other information on file with the City of Renton are the basis for the mitigating measures established in the Mitigation Document. This Mitigation Document is designated by the City of Renton as the first decision document for the proposal. Upon issuance of this Mitigation Document, a twenty (20) day appeal period commences. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680 and RMC 4-8-110.E, the adequacy of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and the Mitigation Document may be appealed. Appeals must: 1) state specific objections of fact and/or law; 2) be submitted in writing by 5:00 p.m. October 7, 1999; and 3) be accompanied by a filing fee of$75.00. Appeals should be addressed to Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Renton Municipal Building, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Sue Carlson, City of Renton, Economic Development/Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Department at 425-430-6591. PUBLICATION DATE: September 17, 1999 commences. Pursuant to WAC 197-11- - 680 and RMC 4-8-110.E, the adequacy of the Supplemental Environmental Impact pp y Statement and the Mitigation Document AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION may be appealed. Appeals must: 1) state specific objections of fact and/or law;2)be submitted in writing by 5:00 p.m. October Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the 7, 1999;and 3)be accompanied by a filing fee of $75.00. Appeals should be addressed to Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL Examiner, City of Renton, Renton Municipal Building, 1055 South Grady Way, 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 CITY OF RENTON RentonADDITIONAL,WA 98055. INFORMATION: IfNOTICEOF( ABILITY AND would like additional information, please ou AVAILABILITY a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal MITIGATION DOCUMENT contact Sue Carlson, City of Renton, newspaper ofgeneral publication and is now and has been for more than six months Notice is hereby given that the City of Economic Development/Neighborhoods & Renton has issued the Mitigation Strategic Planning Department at 425-430- prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language Document for the Southport Planned 6591. continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County Action on September 17, 1999 pursuant to PUBLICATION DATE: September 17, WAC 197-11-660 and RMC 4-9-070,and isJournalhasbeenapprovedasalegalnewspaperbyorderoftheSuperiorCourtofthe available for public review. Copies have Published in the South County Jour State of Washington for King County. been provided for review at the Renton September 17, 1999.6590 The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County Municipal Library(the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch), and in the Renton Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers Municipal Building at 1055 South Grady during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Way, Renton, WA 98055, (both in the Development Services Division and Economic Development, Neighborhoods Seco Development, Inc. as published on: 9/17/99 It The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoin tion is th sum of$132.25, charged to Acct. No. 8051067. 9l/SL+ keg OL L' 9L/L L+ Ws LL 99'0- Legal Number 6590 Ws L- "ALOE LZ0- 9/L- 9/LOS ze/s+ zeeLZ 96 0 9L/L+ 91/4LgL 9L'0' egal C erk, outh County Journal ea 9 V L WEL- 9L/SEE 9Z'Li 9A- BAZZ 9L,L+ 9L/ 84+ 91/4L£L 4C0- 9L/ L— 9L/S9 4IllSubscribedandswornbeforemeonthis `i day of 1 9/L+ 9L,,ZLzl 9Vs6 L'aLP 91/4+ 9L/LQ L,O'L- 9L/LZ— 9L/LL6L 00N11111 i lift, 914+ We9 LL6iaMZ N 9L/ s- 9£ 9L'L, ek t SF0 1 FF9 'o t i W /9LoL L4'0- IlLUOOZ N `/sr 9 ae ss,E-9L/e- 9Lse L I'l- uafieuoZ 0 We- WS£ LL.0- Z.` o *••••••0 `4,:'.'•ei S. 9L/e+ WeLZ LZ'O+ s xewoZ 0NotaryPublicoftheStateofWashington9L/e— WsOg 0Z'Z+Ldoguo2 0 A-A Q••V Ftl•.p zeis+ z9/s9 d 002 0 9/L- 9L/eLZZ 49'L+ oTagy a residing in Renton I 9L/LL- W eLV L4'L+ eJgaZ 0 >/L+ ,,C ZS•o+ y- KingCounty, Washington L 9l/- 9I/ +uAdeAeZ o 9L6+ 9yL9n 9L'oi vo_ Y 9 s9e Lzz oa Z N 9/s+ so'z 0 2-2 9L/s L- 4/eOEP 49 Z+ 7 •.• L e Lit, O.' o 9L/e,- /LZ4 4Z'L+IQfl56uA N 94- 9LP E9'N i N••• oo W ez 9/L04 44'£+ uiJOA N z4- >/cLZ 66'94 j 0. • Zo sL/L- 9L 64.L+dOMgiSA 0 sI/s+ 9L/LEb Z£'04 ii,•j'r••C 2 S 2 •'••G00 9L/R— >/e9LP IL POHueA N >A- a/LSE 9Z'9+ i,, F • •.•......,. i, >` sL/L L+ 9L/tpl 9L'0+ A 0 9/s l+ >/e6L 90'L+ s,,/ °A. jASN000000c 9/,- L9 904+L NO110E ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NOTICE OF ISSUANCE NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY MITIGATION DOCUMENT Notice is hereby given that the City of Renton has issued the Mitigation Document for the Southport Planned Action on September 17,1999 pursuant to WAC 197-11-660 and RMC 4-9-070,and is available for public review. Copies have been provided for review at the Renton Municipal Library(the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch),and in the Renton Municipal Building at 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,(both in the Development Services Division and Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department-6 floor;and in the City Clerk's Office-T" Moor). PROPOSAL:The proposed Southport Planned Action considers potential redevelopment concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Redevelopment concepts review changes from the current industrial uses to a mixed use development including,residential,commercial,and office uses as well as recreational amenities,which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendmenureione,and several development permits. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027,ECF,CPA,R PROPONENT: Seco Development Inc.(Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington,West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405.The proposal n located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west Access is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. LEAD AGENCY: Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The Mitigation Document is available for purchase from the Development Services Division Customer Service Desk on the 6'floor of the Renton Municipal Building. It may be purchased for 55.54 including tax,plus postage where applicable. PUBUC REVIEW/APPEAL: A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement(SETS)was required for the proposal under 43.21C.030(2)(c)and RMC 4-9-070. The impacts described In the Southport Development Planned Action SETS and other information on file with the City of Renton are the basis for the mitigating measures established in the Mitigation Document.This Mitigation Document is designated by the City of Renton as the first decision document to the proposal. Upon issuance of this Mitigation Document,a twenty(20)day appeal period commences. Pursuant to WAG 197-11-680 and RMC 4-8-110.E,the adequacy of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and the Mitigation Document may be appealed. Appeals must:1)state specific objections of fact and/or law;2)be submitted in writing by 5:00 p.m. October 7,1999;and 3)be accompanied by a filing fee of 575.00. Appeals should be addressed to Fred J.Kaufman. Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,Renton Municipal Building,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information,please contact Sue Carlson,City of Renton, Economic Development/Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Department at 425-430-6591. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. CERTIFICATION I, .-re&SjC/k 6Z' ,Pa-A , hereby certify that lc% copies of the above document were posted by me in to conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on , A? nleet2. I( ,, v9' Gi Signed: ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public, in for the State of Washington residing ui on the 30 D'..day of.. l 4 4 MARLLYN KACHEFF NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES MARILYN KAMCHEFF JUNE 29, 2003 MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:September 15, 1999 TO: Environmental Review CommitteeFROM: Sue Carlson(ext. 6591) A CONTACT: Lisa Grueter(BWR 206-448-2123) SUBJECT: Southport Mitigation Document-Final Based upon the memos to ERC dated September 9 and 10, 1999, and the comments from the last ERC meeting regarding trail maintenance and fire access to the promenade, changes have been incorporated into the Southport Mitigation Document. Typographical and grammatical editing have also occurred. The Mitigation Document will be published on Friday, September 17, 1999, and you will receive a copy of it. Since the ERC meeting on September 13, 1999, Lisa Grueter noted language that could be a potential interpretation problem, and after discussions with Jennifer Henning, made a change that better reflected the intent of the mitigation measure related to trail easements: The property owner(s) and developer(s) as appropriate, shall dedicate, develop, and maintain a public recreation easement for physical access along the promenade and shall dedicate a ublic recreation easement for physical access to and use of the dock to ensure long-term opportunities for public access to the shoreline. Th.clarification was made because it has been intended that the City would have an easement to acc ss and use the dock as a future connection to trails to the west. As written prior to the cl• i fication the language could have been misinterpreted as requiring an easement up to, but not inc ding the dock. As : general note,we are interpreting the mitigation measures as being applicable to the activities ana yzed in the SEIS. For instance, if impact pile driving is conducted then there are noise and vib ation mitigation measures related to that activity. If impact pile driving is not used, some not.e and vibration measures would not apply. If •u have any questions,please contact Lisa Grueter or me. Thank you. cc: Lisa Grueter Jennifer Henning AC: TRAL\,SYS2\DEPTS\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\.GRUETER\SHUFFLTN\ercmem9.doc\cor I GO ENTRANCO 10900 NE 8TH STREET,SUITE 300 425)454-5600 BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004 ON'NN'CP ti3i ft% R30014W091-0I3PI 1N311dO13A3G 3IPIONO03 iV ED LETTER OF 6661. I d3S SEP 1 4 1999 X TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM a n a ECONOMIC DEVE . "E ue arlson, Administrator Date: 9/7/99 NEIGH90?H'a AND s RATEu'IC P.ANWI I y of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Project No.: 1-99029 Renton, WA 98055 Title: Attention: Sue Re: Southport X ATTACHED 0 ORIGINALS UNDER SEPARATE COVER 0 PRINTS 0 OTHER FOR YOUR:X INFORMATION/USE X AS REQUESTED 0 OTHER OUR ACTION: X REVIEWED 0 NOT APPROVED APPROVED 0 SEE REMARKS REQUESTED ACTION: X APPROVAL 0 REVIEW&COMMENT 0 MAKE CORRECTIONS NOTED REVISE AND RESUBMIT 0 OTHER NO.OF DRAWING COPIES NUMBER DESCRIPTION 1 Revised Opinion of Cost Summary and Itemization Spreadsheets. 1 Addressed City of Renton Comments List. Remarks: Dear Sue, Attached is the revised opinion of probable feasibility-level costs for the Southport project per the City of Renton comments received on August 23, 1999. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Brad Stein or myself at 425-454-5600. It has been a pleasure working with the City of Renton on this project. Thank you. By: Mike Bertram, P.E..../1) cc: File Brad Stein Copies to: Project File, Day File a021ot(2/98) ENTRANCO Southport OPINION OF PROBABLE FEASIBILITY-LEVEL COSTS PHASE: Feasibility SEGMENT Lake Washington Boulevard DATE: July 22,1999 PROJ.NO. 1199029(ENTRANCO) NOTES: NO Right-of-way Cost Available I.RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION&EASEMENTS 0 II.CONSTRUCTION 1.Grading/Drainage 105,090 1 A)Clear,Grub,Demo,Removal 1,800 1.C)Drainage(WO/Det/Conv) 684,095 I B) Roadway Excay.AJnsuit. 10,570 1.D)Borrow/Emb.Comp.8,625 2.Structures 28,800 2 A)Bridge 0 2 B) Walls 28,800.00 3.Surfacing/Paving 54,778 3.A)Pavement/Shldrs 44,248 SC)Planing/Sawcutting 6,405 3.8)Curb Gutter 6 Sidewalk 4,125 4.Roadside Development 23,749 4.A)Landscaping 641 4.B) Temp Erosion Control 23,109 4.C)Site Improvements 0 4.D) Utilities SO 5.Traffic Services&Safety 417,292 5.A) Traffic Control Devices(Barrier/Guardrail) 5,600 S E)Channelization 5,500 5.B) Traffic Signals 150,000 5.P) Traffic Control Labor 28,886 5.C)Illumination(Roadway) 42,050 5.G)Railroad Crossing Gates/Signal S180,000 5.D)Signing 5,256 6.Miscellaneous Items Not Yet Estimated 62,971 10.0%of$629,709(Lines 1 Through 5) 692,680 7.Allowance for Feasibility-Level Accuracy 138,536 20.0%of$692,680(Lines 1 through 6) 138,536 8.Mobiiizaton 83,122 10.0%of$831,216(Lines 1 Through 7) 914,338 9.Sales Tax 0 8.6%of$0,000(Utilities-Line 4.0) 10.Construction Work by Others at Owner's Expense 0 Construction Work by Others 11.Agreements 0 Utility Agreements,etc. 914,338 12.Construction Engineering 73,147 8.0%of$914,338(Lines 1 through 10) 13.Construction Contingency 45,717 5.0%of$914,338(Lines 1 Through 10) 1,033,201 III.PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 1.Design Engineering 154,980 15.0%of$1,033,201(CONSTRUCTION cost) 2.Agency Administration 20,664 2.0%of$1,033,201(CONSTRUCTION cost) 175,644 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST(UNADJUSTED) 1,208,846 Escalation effect on construction costs: 0.0%of$1,033,201(CONSTRUCTION cost) 0 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 1,208,846 Assumptions: 1. Units costs are based upon the most recent versions of the WSDOT bid tabs. 2. Right-of-way acquisition costs are not included in this estimate. 3. Existing Lake Washington Boulevard pavement will require an overlay. Planing will occur adjacent to existing curb and gutter. 4. Existing edge of pavement will require sawcutting. 5. This estimate is based on the April 29,1999 conceptual site plan prepared by Entranco,Inc. 6. Utility reconstruction and coordination is not included in this estimate. 7. The construction estimate for railroad crossing signal and gates was provided by Mike Rosewell of the W.U.T.C.,(360)664-1265. 8. Removal of structures and obstructions is not included in this estimate and is assumed to be included in the contingency line item. 9. It is assumed that the location of detention and water quality facilities is within 200 feet of the project discharge location. 10. 300-foot long,4-foot high retaining wall will be required along the eastern edge of the reconstructed ditch. 11. It is assumed that water quality and detention facilities will not be required to treat the entire roadway prism,just the newly created impervious areas. 12. A 140%water quality and detention facilities sizing factor has been added for ESA compliance. 13. Per City of Renton,Construction Engineering is estimated to be 8%for line item 12. 14. Per City of Renton,design engineering is estimated to be 17%for line item 111.1 and 111.2 combined. 15. Per City of Renton,18-Storm Sewer Pipe is$45/ft.and$150/ft for 48'Storm Sewer Pipe. 16. Per City of Renton,the unit cost for Catch Basin Type 2,48'diameter is$2,200/each. 17. Per City of Renton,the unit cost for Gravel Borrow including Haul is$15/ton. 18. Per City of Renton,the unit cost for Crushed Surfacing is$18/ton. 19. Per City of Renton,the unit cost for Asphalt Treated Base is$35/ton. 20. Per City of Renton,the unit cost for Asphalt Concrete Class B is$40/ton. r:\99029%cosiest\spsum2.xls Pnnted 917/99 E.wnafed Probable lio bry-Level Cots Southport Checked M•M6 9 Dela p/IN Prepared by MHB Date 97,99 LW Blvd Std. Approx. Item No. Item Item Description Spec Quantly Total Price Unit Estimated Unit Pnce Cameo, Comments 1 0001 Mobihzatlon 1-09 I 10.0% t $ 57,771,48 LS I 10T.Pecwx to o.usedrw MokBraion: 6 0035 Clsanng and Grubbing 2-01 0.3E $1,800.00 AC 5,000.00 IA t01 0120.Removing Asphalt Concrete Pavement 50.00 SY 3.00 IA t01 0050 Removal Bridge 2472 50.00 LS IA Sawcutting Asphalt Concrete Pavement 805 82,415.00 LF 53.00 3C Planing Bpir 4eous Pavement 796 53,990.00 SY 55.00 3C 14.99 Stormwater Detention Pond Excavation Incl.Haul 0.15 53,360.00 AC-Imp. 522,400.00 IC Unk price is per acre 0$new nperviou.(Ses backup cake for price derive 21 1040 Channel Excavation Inc.Haul 2.10 0.15 5735.00 AC-Imp. 4,900.00 IC Blo wela unk price per acre of new impervious(200 long,3:1 side elope., 44 3396 Plain Cone.Stone Sewer Pipe 18 in.Diem 7-04 1,200 554,000.00 LF 45.00 IC Assume all drainage pipes average out to be 18'pipe,Unit price include a Reinforced Conc.Storm Sewer Pipe 48 in.dam 7-04 5a $8,400.00 LF 150.00 IC Extend four existing 48'diameter culverts 54 3105 Catch B.. Type 2 48 M.Diae. 7-OS 8 $17,600.00 EA 52,200.00 IC Aswm•all CBY average out to be 48'Type 2 Catch Buns(in4 it 0431 Gravel Bon3tw Incl.Haul 2-03 555 58,325.00 TON 515.00 ID 12 0470 Embankment Compaction 2-03 300 5300.00 CY 51.00 ID Roadway Excavation including Haul 1,057 $10,570.00 CY 510.00 1B 13.94 Brldge Bl---- 2-09 0.00 - LS 2A 13.96 Bridge B2 2-09 0.00 LS 2A 19.96 Bridge 83 2-09 50.00 LS 2A 13.97 Bridge B4 2-09 50.00 LS 2A 13A6 Bridge BS 2-09 50.00 LS 2A 13.99 Bridge Be 2-09 50.00 LS 2A 12.91 'Retaining Y/Wls(2,10, 1,200 528,800.00 SF 524.00 28 12,92 Retaining Walls(10'-20) 50.00 SF 24.00 2B 12.93 Retaining Walls(20'-30') 50.00 SF 524,00 28 22 5100 Crushed qu4ecing Base Course 4-04 116 52,088.00 TON 18.00 3A Pet,section a 4'ACP CLB,5'ATB,3'CSBC 24 5510 Asphalt Treated Base 4-06 224 - 57,840.00 TON 535.00 3A Pvt.section a 4'ACP CLB,5'ATB,3'CSBC 26 5765 Asphalt Conc.Pavement CL.B 6-04 858 534,320.00 TON 840.00 3A Pet.section a 4'ACP CLB,5'ATB,3'CSBC,2'overlay to•aatng. 79 6704 Cement Cone.Curb and Butter 8-04 50.00 LF 8.00 3B 74 6727 Extruded'Curb 8-04 1,375 54,125.00 IF 53.00 3B 79.00 7055 Cement Cone.Sidewalk 8-14 50.00 SY 520.00 3B 79,01 6777 Cant-inplace Concrete Barrier BM 0.00 LF 35.00 3B 79.02 6751 t Seam Guardrail Type 1 8-14 400 55600.00 LF 14.00 SA Unit price includes allowance for anchors 49 6489 romp Water Potlulion/Eros.Control 4,0% S23,108.59 EST. L 48 4%of construction co.I 49.0/ 8064 Seeding,Mulching,and Fertilizing 0.21 $640.50 AC 3,050.00 4A $0.07 per sq.II Hydroseed 99 Signal System Complete(3 leg) 8-20 1 590,000.00 LS 590,000.00 58 Includes all excavation.footings,wiring,fixtures,signals 90 'Signal System Complete(4 leg) 8.20 50.00 LS 5120,000.00 5B Includes all excavation,looting",wiring,fixtures,signals 90.01 Signal Modification(31eg) 8-20 50.00 LS 545,000.00 SB Includes all excavation,footings,wiring,fixtures,signals 60.O2 Signal oddicNlon(4 leg) 8-20 1 580,000.00 LS 580,000.00 58 Include*all excavation,footings,wiring,fixtures,signals 90,07 Raikoa Crossing -_ - 8-20 1 5180,000.00 LS 5180,000.00 5G Includes all excavation,footings,wiring,fixtures,signals ff 6904 Illurrxna ion System Complete(Resdwey)B•20 4,20E 542,050.00 LF•Lan• ----- 510.00 6C Includes allexcavation,conduit,wining and fixtures(S 10 Per tool-one)(Se 53 6890 Permanent Signing 8.21 4,205 $5,258.25 LF-Lane 51.25 SD - $1.25 per loot-lane(S.backup for unit price oak) 83.01 8890 Sign Bridge 8.21 0.00 EA 525,000.00 SD Includes excavation,foundation,structure.sign 75.90 Channatzation I 809 5,500 -r 55.500.00 LF(Len•e1) 51.00 6E 51,00 per low-(lane+l)(See backup for sine price oak) AFItirifirgt+ 711k Control 5 0% 1 $28 885.74 EST 5F 5%of Oe Catstrvcuon C,.1 104 Aluminum Handrail 50.00 LF 515.00 50 For Welts and Bridges may^,. Paps 1 of 1 Printed W7/99 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM RECEIVES DATE:August 18, 1999 AUG 2 0 1999 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTTO: Lisa Grueter NEIGHSCRFODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING FROM: Nick Afzali SUBJECT: SouthportlLake Washington Boulevard Improvements Feasibility Level Cost Estimate A review of the Cost Estimate Summary and Cost Estimate Breakdown (copies attached) has resulted in the following comments and recommendations: Cost Estimate Summary Assumption 3 at bottom: For this level of cost estimate and because of the extensive amount of restriping required, should assume that Lake Washington Boulevard will require an overlay of both the new and existing pavement. Assumption 4: For this level of cost estimate should assume that existing pavement 04- will require sawcutting. Assumption 7: Did the W.U.T.C. representative agree that only one railroad- o'1-1•. o crossing signal would be needed? It was our understanding from previous discussions` that two crossing signals may be required.K'v 1.1PO' Why are the individual cost estimates for the various items IA, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A-4D, 5A-5D higher than the costs shown on the Cost Estimate Breakdown? For Item 12,Construction Engineering,the City uses 8%. For Section 111, Preliminary Engineering (or Preconstruction Engineering), the City 04." uses 17% to include studies, environmental analyses, preliminary and final design, preparation of contract plans and specifications, and administration. Cost Estimate Breakdown Include quantity and cost for saw-cutting existing pavement per comment above. L•Also may need to include quantity and cost for Removing Asphalt Concrete Pavement. Regarding Item 8.03, Removal of Retaining Walls, should quantity and cost for removing existing gabion wall on east side of roadway be included? For Item 44, Storm Sewer Pipe 18-inch Diameter, recommend using a Unit Price of 45.00 per lineal foot. Also recommend using a Unit Price of between $140.00 and 04--• $160.00 per lineal foot for Storm Sewer Pipe 48-inch Diameter. LISA GI doc4mn, For Item 54, Catch Basin Type 2 48-inch Diameter, recommend a Unit Price of al"'2,200 per each. For Item 11,Gravel Borrow Including Haul, recommend using a Unit Price of$15.00 per ton. O. For Item 22, Crushed Surfacing Top Course, recommend using a Unit Price of 18.00 per ton. off. For Item 24, Asphalt Treated Base, recommending using a Unit'Price of$35.00 per Ton. o. • For Item 26, Asphalt Concrete Pavement Class B, recommend using a Unit Price of 40.00 per Ton. O. • Include quantity and cost for Asphalt Concrete Overlay per comment above. Recommend using a Unit Price of$40.00 per Ton. The thickness and thus the quantity and price of Item 26 will need to be adjusted downward to reflect adding the asphalt overlay. Regarding Item 90.02, Railroad Crossing, confirm that only one railroad signal crossing is needed. (See previous comment above.) The above recommended Unit Price adjustments are based on outside contractor bids for several recent City-initiated construction projects and King County development site improvement unit prices for storm sewers and catch basins. cc:Bob Mahn Lee Haro Ron Straka Attachments LISA GI docknm 11,;4:2qtgitt,- l's; : ',''''''.4.."-:C= A-,...=:,,,lit- .,,,trief- -' '''V '',YE.,,,,‘"•;:/,"0.7.G./.46.4"*".''f,r1SC4,----A -v"V5"."."44'kl . 'I..'.1"41.."1-'1.9.41")slt'tf'r''tC-.3.ZIt'"''st .- ''''':.`'..-'... .; ... 24.W.-. ,,:.'..--'''''7' "1 ..'-,••••::.. 4. 1.-..":' • '''' ,1;''..7 7.,‘• '''-.-.''1:'`'',,,,; 7..--.; A!;: x.,,,4,4 -,',' 4,,,,2,: ''PP":.0',,;-:%,*41.. . --4,;-7-7.,^''--,--,.,;, ' ''''•;;-- ' -r-- . "',-.4%-,,,,, itt- .4- '"-k---,,t,-41---1 ;7'e'0.'741•1';:.."ilLg ,,,,,Itty";","1,,„:44,t, :t..-44`4,.. '•;.4-.'•'<y' •,i,.;'4,'" ._ -.,t'-;.c„ i4t..11'....-ct,,,,......-1 1' *- t..14. 1.4-,-'• v.45,1 T.,, .ts.,..0- L., - , .4,64.00,Ativi 'sr,. lic.,----4. ' --ro.;,•,.. As* 0,..:24-1- zA, 4:i -r,, •4-,...,- ,e- -4-) -1-,,.....* r,P-bale. , • , . .- ,i414 r.'*. ‘,. ,-,, 4.s- , . de,: . r. .. - ., ....„(4,,,S.:.....„,, 4„. ,.„ '3'.7;-',.. .„ _, .,;'‘ "'L('..'''" , , , .-'•" T,IT' '; ,' *" , 1:1 17,.;:.- '. ' T--- '-'''.° '''' ' --..- :::;', ' • 't''. 1- - - • ,'-' '' . Project Name Page f of Project No:By:. . Date: 67.7/7,". 0 Telephone Message --To/From -,-,.,- -Phone No: 0 Memo to the File_-7 - Of • ••--: ‘ -...- . _ . - 12-meeting Notes' '.- tt dAen ees. - - erre2. El Other: Subject. - Mes age: •"-- ' •,',••• ki: 1'`t,74,t- A"-- 't • .---•-• -•;-,..,••••••-•-•-•-s: _ , , - _ pc.V.-• - ---i,----,eid. ,, //,_, '- -: Ae. ' 1 5,14re, ak•- 44(i--1",6.095. i,k-,.,,•.:-: '..--::-'-..4,1.• ::• - -... •••,..., , 7.--k-,- ` ----, ' -- • 1 ,,,-. -...,-:•, •f--",-.- 1,..*:„•.. , tt7,.„. r...,, ,,,_- ..-_ , ,.,_ , ,,, .,.. ..... kb; - itft'i -:--; - n:-71... C"...•- ,:".2'-7' ''.••'-' doix t bje,e47in ,,j.,_ . f.',-.,•-•"--,.'0----'R.4A-1-- <471* - - •_,N.-; k. :. . / - P fe4riete, 1- ^,e',I'S' '-',,............,`,.'y 7.-'A..., , . ,g,";;;'1.4.14,' ., y.,- ...w ,o. .-.. 1701,-‘ 74APP177r1..-. A,y--,..i.v,V.0 el •L , illnlab .._._^,..„, . P.^:r>"^- •-:;/".1. 014 '_ '':( .:,11;,5 a..": '',',•:•": '- ' ".-?,/, .-' '.7 -''' / ciedosiedt 4 4,&,K/e• d g", -..•......-.. 7.,•.......,.!..-=•,,5.,--„,-'1-,,‘.....4,, -z-, k.• 4,0 "----,----- a,-.,---9:. a A• ..—k V1-•CWYe. .;41%. /0.2..., ./ '^ ", r,... 0. .,Vil i . gget4'. 67.4.414/ejsete t;‘.; ,.. , ,/, It.r.•,..,,,:t!...,;;:s1:2 '.., '; `.'•:-.,-7:, `.f;'1.e'rf 1 - fellfri,"‘ ite'.1''' ' - '•-• of LIJM zi tc- ,(14,,,,, ,-;,•• ''" aa r3r,,,i/rxe- A eivzfisid it,...t.,:,„;;:,rt.....,:.,,(4.,i,..):„. , ,,.,,,, ,,,,r13VA'k'.I), Wit.....‘,4-„,Z....,.3" t... Xiekt, •_...#,,,,,,,.-6, 44.,..,y, Ar,t.,4--14-:',4'... '-'0P,.-,.4;',,' 4_, ---.."--`•• re-, ,..) - '„ Iv°joie.- '-' - A-03 100'95). 4...,,,-...,.. s1.,, -.rtAle•`j r'..1'.41/4- 4p-..., ,- -,,,,, .., , A1 f...-- 1... 4,... .....44•.• Qi.','. 4,,k.s, •...,. --:-.1',14.41, r4....:.: fliV e, ,- ' '.4 etliAa j• t-jj 4.,-*', ' i'-.7,_‘-, - 7_,,..,r::*,, ,,,,,,::,,,,.,.1„,„..1,,....,.0.,"%.„.i...•••?...";:::••'s---. 7:'- A:.•''. -:'-'7'411'''4'4:11)1 ''. Ir'.. .-.4''''''.•.'''''.1--:'".**':.. t." :1:-.......t'''.-- ' i' . -'''': . '''''' ' ' s.41'.-..'''''';4.":1:4; e 5:'''...11.:Ci.:.'41: '''''.7P'.."':-il'.:rt:':lti,,,...--'.:':2,44.4:,L-.k:i-,--42•:-:..--,i,-t,.''-:".-:', 4.4-:f•-%6 r• .".. . :, W/:. i L ,.... z p "tefr• ."':'.'''e•S 114 '..'.. '4''.'49r.,:,P. ,F 1:1,1111P''' "1:(.1.tei:A..k..: .;-4.Z....t...'W,4ttcvAt.lzet'•..-- •-. 0 -r"-- 1-1.-; —::.1::,-. 1' etle. — ..• , -I'l!,..-,if,-..,,sk-;v .:.: 6101 11,1 , ..1,;T.,-,...-.;,-..,',„-,.-:•••...:....., "i. TA:';;•-•i'Z',...""r9";•t•,,,,-.,,v,.:.<•*;'s-.4.„,141:04,0.:-...., -.7z.g.,4...4.;41,,Z.zo Ai.14.V......' 'IV. •RI- . • '..' '..;?..,.•.:7.7:.,...... •.::,.., :4.a.i,-.4•;,.. •:.,.. ,..,, '.7' IA 'ig;-,,;.44‘.. _,-. ;51411, -,..:::i....,•,..,_.:-.,. •, i!'.!,,.41-..2.t,;(,'"-e4-4L,,?:„ :",,:s' ..•;';.,,:(.,i..;';:th:lei:,:-'''''''..40,.,;. .i=k!„.•,.,:tt ,, ,Si?Fy!:::, ' . ''letr, . -- . ,C..,,,....,:),;,. y4.„,!itty ....:.....4. ,•.,s.".;!--.,:,,:','„'.4,7' 4,04/ C,f,-.,,' , tf,i•' ear/fie, j_. .,_ . ;.. • 4, 4,:i,„...,...„..,,.t. .,...,. ‘ v ..,.... 4„,,,. 1,, ," .- •k.,-.. • ., t,.1.;ileif,-•‘,4: :kr-444 7.--. ..' •,.,4A, -k. • . .•. 1 i,-. -"‘. • ., •V, 4+.-__k -4''r'-""• ,-."'' "'".-!"' '''' 4.* 4,At44.'4,' ''" ' -''' • ' ;;;• li' ' .7"..:7.'%%4.:. '. z.,-A.„„," t...t....,.. Attee....A., . _ ......00, ., -A,0 -a-,.."..:2-.:.......-..-•- ----------..?...77.-.7-17,-..,,,,,,,,,,....., ,,,,„_,,,.4„. i.., .:4,...-.,!,..1.,0*,-ri,-..,,i,-.P.,...,s-..„..1.'0.7!- L,-. 77: ..., , ,, , ,-...timm,,,,: -,,,f45?-4„, e....-..-I.e,,,,-74,,... ..,„ . ... ....-.. •. : --- ...,‘. . L---.-.... a,, 4,4 ,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,r.,.w41.0* . .4.7.1.,17 .--,-v,li-,,,,,,,,,fis,....•V.0141"7:Nt. 2 -:.;.-1 .:;.•;,;..'•-17.:4:4,,'1•'-",.'2...-?.. .k:-1.•:.'.:'-',";;'-'"?'...';';':''''''' -....,...,,,, i14.4.r,=.4 ; '' c.U.1•04f,-,r,-<4.,.. 0'-sf..-f...- . '7" _ e--. '.,.. z..f.r..4,•,• -;t0P ••• " ••-g-**,;:,..Z.4'", '!"-- -- .- 1,..... 7...\ -. . t:,,,,,:g.... •, - 4.:.t.,.:.fA-1,.;;:i:V.7.,:f. i'l.. .......i.;:.; ,,.., • •-f.'..,ii,j,"7p,',145: '...,$:.*:' --t 14, -411.1!;.::,10-,,t ,....-"4,1....# 4-....,itst.tx • r4,44")4.)4,1°V1•043 !"-.4'` 1 .'"'''''-'" '' A i.e.•". . .,''.4,-'fr- : A.,;." tL%14:2',,*- - ----....;,;-„,-...,,,.....-,.,...4:0-t,,,4_, '-, .- r,''i 4.- .. •-•\.01t..1',.t.- -- 7„ :i ..,'"r.. '--.'-''''.:'-'•:".-', *'-; fT_ s'-, ...,...„--';• 4".'-' c't t it...... ' ": ‘z:-.4r...-4.r.';',7.•::‘-'2-?--5", z..-",...xl. • . 0.•44-f L.toc...,:":4'., ). .. ....t...... 3-"--- -", - --- ".1"-.-“,„„•,...7 ;':-7,1^7.7.,"' : . r tr...' ,_ ::7? -.. ' ' . - •,'., '', '..• . -_, ' ._. _ .....- .•. .....- 7..=.V.,-....*, 1.7-• :...,.•..voi..,,,....a,..r1...", 1..--Ns4 0-4••;:,....,-%7z..:.• 7.:3'...'ai..42-"t*- t. --'-' 1--'r"-944.•.,,,,,..4, ;;t4-‘' ...ti: ,A; -trri;',:;41.•!..::::. r....Y‘.:.,-.,.:_- A.:-7....-..,-,.--7,:st-.„ •,.,...•.,..: ..,...:.• . •..-- .-',.•-•'-, 7-der-4.-",.-..r.•:,fit ....-...,:tr--4.7,-;.2 • ;" _...L.: - t:.-.-„.,-; -,--_.1..,...*,...i. - .:•.,:7!..:•.p..7 . ...,. 7. 7.-:71.. -,-...7 1 ' g. I '0:_krft.ii....'':`,.....''- -.''•••"--',...A 3,,.;',„ .4 : 4,...-14:. .......-,-.. 0.1--.- ..-0r...44,,,,-0,0t.: 41 +2 ...„....4.`,"_•,,..%-.....-- ...;_;'.1.:...C.'...P..--.'-;.. ( vr t.":77-•.:::,::,":"F"i',.'",,,r,' +.--'1,4 -...,;-z..^:-.,,Wwi.:00,--,,,..'0,'....!.14-4,-„...„-.,,:,...,.: ...4. 41.44-='.4.-1,-447i' .Altes:'''46' '''''''.. .1 ‘". c'"',- '‘. "'- ' • '. ''*-'--'," '''"-..:'" i'.i, ' ''',. --: • -'.}-4,, ..r..1W1fr;":)--':''S,".""-,t':"`-'•'•".'"'•"....,-- iii Tr--1,-"" ir-4;,,„. ., -*V.,ZP4. . ....1" --.: , ..,:',",,,,,:.,....',."4',1.,!,4 LP",, „ . ..., , " 4•."`-'` '''..", = 4."""t'A -. • . 4-.",.'"..,*i"'' '"""": - "';',11fi.eil,4'''''''1414,"..4‘:::" .-'.-.'-4F .' -"" IC*-=';'-''.- 444.4..ti ',--7-: - - -•-• • • " ----"-,',•z--"k••••, •••:14","7,7'"-_, •-t'. -,,•----• --..- ".P.4F,a-.i.-, .,,,,,,,.,-,.:,-,-...,.-4,4,, r- - ....4...y...-_.• - -.''' •-r.z.-,,..,.,_-..k...,-..,...- . • t.ii,-. L.- 7,-".. 5.:•‘.-:-.,...--_-.:... .&•-4,-it,y.--,-;;11.,7;•.'.•-•.;',.-, '11.0e.- ,„,.7..Y , ,-1, irt;7'.. ''' 1"^"'1",,i' ',„-1,..41,.:;","": -•!4..;'4":4' :".,..."--"•;,4-',..C-C-:-1,?..‘0.ht,'-.1,71,-; "414, " .W.444. ,,,P4',..,,,,",Cree4..6.,,,. ,:,;,., - ,,..". t, ."-r"..",,..1%•'?it,',• "A",-9,, ,,-i.3',"eF„,,,,i. .;„ f..;_ ..,/.. ,. ... -:...3..":,-!.,,,-"'S . -1.1"..,.. ,c,:a::-- --, '.. -:.:,...-2..,-.'.'47-,..::•:.•7:-..:::,-.4,--•„.-7.7-,-,•••0 =,!•.,...,-.-4.- Tli5irilefoi ' 4-4iiiteolr''' iti-,.,..414-1-,*'' i:.,-• •-, - " ,kiiti.-41.4-..,...1<-4`,1.--...+.7A.Tat,,N,T, ,...k..;7•-7.•-••. -•""," '' '• - ", :r:,..• r=.4,- --•:-•••'•,::;•;!.!"-•%-•-••••>•.,•- x"--. " ' •-e '-- '-2''''''>''''-'-*2e-7, 17.' '‘, '-..'01444'014.*,ct,,,,A;-11.-:f2.0,- '''%' 7•74-r--,',714olitir r''' :- 7 ..' .._'":117 -1.:'4.1-,-.7.:97:7a....1,1,, „ r.,,,,.71-;4;7. 7!4&-.7.,.. .._.47-s. t--. r". 1,,.'",;..c;.-.‘,:".4"..,....,-.'" IiirMn''' " ' .S,„.te,-,,,,<3,_‘.,:.. ..tkVgio,„15"-...„,-k":".•:-':'!:Z, ;","_;_'"._,,,, r,.;," t...„,7,...r., e-,.., 41- • . .-:.---‘::-.4674.'""1.! e. t.*XF'.;-,e--,‘45 ..e -:*.•..,,. -....f.•.,47:...F.,4.,---Tr-J.- .,. .. t.,,,, .,,, ,.,,.crti,-,xi- _ '-.7..,- 4.,.... ,,g,ete-,.-.:..;.•,:.,,,..',--,--,.!• ."- s,:_],/r."- ris'->coor...7--,4,.. V.'" ,...;:t:',._,;;",;::ft."71t',,f.r._.„'!,'(,,,„'5-:,::',."1,....T.:.,"".7:1144 r 4.4L-FT..,..•. ,:-...:-..:-.-if:-.."-::4*S4-‘-.1%-."7- --"•-.•••• •••7!•-•. --' ' " „.' • '.' -, iii‘A'''';''' f)._..14.•?-- '„ 1,0/ c.2._c..,-.-,,,,, -,...-3,04,--..,:.%,..,..,,,04.-.0,...1:7.0::,-,,,,,:f.-.. ..t. ...44.‘aA.:%- ,.. :.-..:.:..:-......-..z"..::: ",",4-&-3.-" .- -4;•• - """4_...,t‘''''''11:,''''./.44X7,4",er-NV.:-',... -. . .'",k..,F.,-; . " 'T,P. ''' ' ' -."" - "` •--:"'-'-"'"--r"V..4-,44*i"..`,"„"'•" 41‘,4"V.- H--"Cet",''.4i1V,,itliii'rt. • '',., \.-v..-. 1.,,,,. . ,-,,,..i.:(7., .•:,-.. - •_ .- ...--..,..,::. r,:;: .1.-.....„-„,..ww,,.". . ' ",.•,,,,,,,••'..-t..,:•,-.;.•''•,•,ii--,) ..-',..,•,_,••.••,,<.,%.i•:-.• :,-, -. ", c, ,, 6.. ..-i' - '''- -.-7 -:kt? •1,-,,,.4i',•,:i'4:,,r4.•;,-.,'"..-.."-: - ,'•iri,•;;Y• Vi -', •0 -!ott.,_ ,.„,r 16;:.:•:, ,,'',.:-*J•?1' ,it.-3 417-7- 0 ' " .fit I' • ,•10'"XIN ,-..414.-ft:/.1c.t....,4,...., , ",.... ..•. • • 1_.;- .._--..- - ::, • . • •...•. - ,- .-_ - .., ..,.., 1%...--i..11 - • 0..-...-., 7•;'•-:-..,W. - "....,:r' 1;%;.;-', . - - ,--7'..'-',.,;,. - -...., •. LF.•-•rt'-'7•:-.5"•-'-'`,"' ''''''''.‘"-''"'''''-'4,_-,..-At- ::•-..t..."-t..14"Wil: ,-i... -r--- ', . . .-._ .,.:. '..,.,--,-,-•,.:,.. c.-1,...-.•..'. '.:,2_,:,• ••$-.... .•,:,'•-,--.,,.,.-i:: :,_-_.:;;_;=_..'.._1. - _ „ .c. .,...,..‹.".g4...-,,..,-.., -34..itter-,•., , -81435 - - ..,,..W:- ....,- .-,,,,,,,,,,:v.i.-•,:-...?...i. ....,..,,,, n 0:40,- ..., .. _ 0. t4._ie7 4. ,eiA4.t•i,-,',',f‘ , c,iso ..:::1-.,-E.1.-,i,-- .- v.:., t 7-4'----4-:.;:-'---'4„." -1*--..-,:-.-t-:-?,,,,,-;,!:,.;.,:i.,.•ri,v.1:;‘,-..:-*-..7:1:i,,„::„,,. -,...„ -*cri.r.-4-..s•i:Azi.-:ve;.441-av, -.--,, . ., - ..--. . ,... ,' 4...4*,•ik-,-..,,,, -4t,•=•.... 4-•.‘zw•-z.:-...:--. - -4„.....4.4...•!..-.dx.,: at.!.....-,...ket.-_,-.-.....i..,7...e- ,,,,..--,-1;7.--,; ,„., _ :i... :,.:-...74:::.7,AA ..... te."4-11.-QT714",0..r.i.T.,---,--,' . ,t' - ,10t..,-F..;,-Z,.....-4,.;:'44,‘,14;f4".. ..:,„. 1.7*. 44raikei`14,,,,t,- '-' 4"t • n7, 1';'/..e .^-'-',ir:'''A.2-'7' --..:,-7:• 7_,=1.:"TticiXti -', .,-',',..„..:_ •17,;•.,,91:5..__t.:•••:.p.'*-:-....42j..--&,. .-%-_-,t-,•,;•...:,,•;.- -;; etta v.'," •-• ' ,..,,.-4;..--, ,..ilty,,,,ieik,..,.....„.„ . w. 1,,,,...,,----...-..i-A...,,,,,,..e.,,,..ztv.-..-4 -,...- _, L_____,..... z.v.:#-... ..,.......:74.,,,, e :-.,..;;;?#. .,-•.> - , . . i-5.,:*'- ."' 0.-' fr ..-'st.,-, -77$3,-;--itc-it , - . . "- - t...,. ',..•:•7:,-, :!'' 4.,fi;,•-,17'".....-71! :•,f=--r--4-14.-----14,•- -..-e"...i.e..•,,•:'! ... 1,..-:.,A,z,,••"7',,,,,F4,•:;.:-.4,-. 14,-.,r,./,' if--e--,... . '" •Mr;v4V• 77..44'; •-•-,'''' ,, c!, : „,".•„,.-,, t,*,-,,4,,,:::iu.4: ;,o:.,,o..A.v' 44.t. • '.-,-.y.?,---,,-. r-.--„,,,, -,,:.!:,...":4,:-..,-----!- ---. --. - :,, rf,/, 4,--2-74-7,'1.-.• -. - 2 '..%cF`'V • -.' .- 4-'-',-.6...__, -i. ..,Ar:',‘-'.. ,A1-••,,..._!'•.: ',&47:4.1keig(i:717.•* 1-• e...5< 1.Vs...:7.A :-.'-'••- .1......1 ,;:...n:';:‘.77.'7"r* .-‘7 ,- -4;k,--"ii..:.:'t' , ';','-. att4‘44-,--.'---;: r • 0111,'N75774.6,':0 of dr..-1-.,-.-*N4:.7•--.1^4iYtz. **,.::;•••;7.-•i-:.:-i.Avla"-..k-1-.....,e4.-,-A, -4•44.,-;f'....*--,..--‘--,', -- ..--.-.'.ef',..,'Ye",..;., ......,....„-;... •,,,,..,,.. ,...... a„..../.. ,t,,,„. e,..i.,.,....) ,,,,,,,,,,,:,,,,_.,,..,„*.v.,.....::.<,....,,, -. ...., •, -•4.411,<„20, 14.4,,&*,,,‘...,_,,,,,....-‘ 2'.,..- .-..,, ,,,---;:vr.,....,,,,,..,,--4,---'94-....4,--..,,.-.....--- `Iv• . t,..a;r7p ktii,-',;(t,‘i..-i,-.....„4,-,1 4-fv....3,1.77r.i..-1.1F*,:lic.w.vt-40rZttc.,vii.,.: L,-,,_-,„- ••• --,..:.,--:::-__-_—;. 4.:.,_;z7:7- ,ie:::-..i.. ----:-. '. :'i,...,--...,-;:„.-„,--,,:-:*4,,..-_,...-s*.•--- ,1-4,...w,i....--,-,.,,t,,, 0,-.44-;',,,---,.- . --, - -7.5- -c•-04...,7.1,:•.•,....„-ye.,-...,,,., -•,--. 1?-.-,,,-1.,--.•, -.'.--...-: .„ _. . 2.: 2':'.:-.' i''''''',''At -.,,;*''' -' • . ••- -- _,•,:'.?:.S..•: .„.,;-: ' ... . . --,..<-:.-- ......:_-,:.:,::' -:_.,...; .' . ' ' • • .. '-' ' 7..:.e.. ....,..." -g?",14Wrie‘ft..44-7;i:r_'1.1". 1 .',....,Is%*".i,4,....,‘'.-'-':, . -• It.k........-•;4-N.--.. -,. -- -:. - ,.. -. L.. ',--5 ' C.,..L.P..ree"''''.-'.-,,....-1-:'‘C'''''''.7'."''-7'N' ... J:f7.,,i-,2..... .:al/74C*W").•••- . -,‘'.-C- 4',. r"drii..'...._ _ Ii__. "... r.i -;'-'-''T.4.-ti;.-0.7itt 714-Fsgv-. ..,:'-'-''..':-.;:L. .L. :-..-- s'' i...;;4.1;.6':.:-'• 11 -e.Cerc 5-0,70‹44,-- -,...0:--- -.;;;.c --,--'-'::--,2,-.7tr.,-,- -4,..,•,--,;•;-, -4,frAge.p r r .., 4,4.‘,A sr.-, ., ....,. ...... r.::-,. r r 2.. 1,---,':•;:r-: .. .,.g"-2;i.J.- ---' -" -• -•.; .....,,,,. -,.,,.-- ------ 7.•(..gi---7•!, •-,....- • -•••••=," F-'161,1.:-.0 ..-..-.7:--. . 6.- -It:442o'-. 04'..'"'.. ,...-7.1 : ,,..;, ,.,,, t..;":"'7'7:7..,......,",',,.',.. -...*_ .-A " I.'" . .'".,••.:47''.' S • !,01.•;: . -`0".W5g-tise. 7"'•"' .-,_,,,, ,-• •-.-- Yoi,gr# .:7,,'i4,- _ ,„_. ,_ c. -,;•,-....1...- . 01,g .3.::::::-,,,.,,-. 0.; - ,, ..„. ;-,4:1i-,1,;.4.,. • ,:. . _.• ,,,. A!..::.:,. !_:?;.,•,:.,1,,,:*,-...i,..,4- .- - • •a P. --'-.-„*...-7,7,4_ '.!.,.... ..., %..-t-il '?'-...;i .. 17 ,N-2,:.. ,-„-•IIP: 'rr, ,^,-- 1,...ii, Vir ...W..... ,j,..t544.,.0:,...Sr.•-....• *-",„;,..,,3,t7,,,a,.. .. -i- 7. • .44 • 4.44,,,t,,,ii,-',- ,' g•-, •••?...,.?. --",,,, - .....,n...,...7 .404. , ,c„, ,,,rid....i c..,,,-.4.:,..-'4,v.,.: . 1.0t....... .cerse,4 r,„,..-,-,... e4i. --44.,,aftre. ,, , --4,?•-?!,,i,'--t-r,-- n-•N''''''''.7....,.4.-'''..*.- ' '4...‘fs:F. ..t-i..___:i..fi::-.:'..-__-.,S....`.. .: 1;-..1: ;.. , .4A,,:;;"/'.."*.".3* , ...S.e.:-.7.‘ iL n7"-- ---:-. •.,... ;4-' ''..1-7".- ' L.:.-.`,-',... ,.`::',- , -• Ele..!.., . ,........,....-..: .. ":.:/;:: ; 11.4,47- .. - - .„.1.--_,.•,... :2.:,-.0-1":„.,g-c7.,„:44.„4,,,., fL -t-,- 4'"; • ' -(,' i'll•:,Mii:;*-1.;‘:':--.`1.=-.. i.-,..'.1 !. ./..'"i*':i. ;..^./;.. ,, -.;"gAi..Y.Eti14,,,,, , •.'''''.i""(.5.';%.-.:.'" 't;-4,7- /•'.,*:;?,1,'>.. ,1-/,!'. .:•...,„.-Z4. .,,4,.-i..44.,...64. .;J'.."-7.047;ii':4-4 : 1/4.:'-';',..--t.•i..,-!,,---'".-.4iY...'.!- r,.... .,. .. ..",..„ ,.. .,*...,-- •':'.• "' ... ' ..„ ..,,,. ''.'" . .1.. .1.;14ftl'f'n;., ' -..r,:" .."..`1; •k' 'Clf.`,.- . 4., -?'!.;.,N'•::;_;'):',-;!-.'.;,:"",;',1:ix•- 7 "',x,'"'"T",:V... "*A,,VAryt 1.: ; '4„. '4‘.,,Xte,4 '', ....1*. e.,"!''''"'""C:„" 4:.,i. '," i -'I::I'' -,".:•%''' ...".:-.111.i.:"- .--..,"-!' - •,,,,,...-,4,4N-„ ,. :,,,,,...,....,..,, ,., - ••,,..,..,3 t .„4„.k.....i..;....;,Li.;.‘„-- -. ;,...,'„•,;,,,,,',,,..4.,t,,A„,r',...."0.r.,r,,..,4,,,,A,. T, 4„.,1,1.;,,,,,,.43.:,,,,,,,N, ,, ,,...• A:.',1.1..,,'',4,,.... t..,.-{,-,4;.,.A.. 1,.% 11,:;;..3.4,.,.. ',- . 7,."4,:i,:...`!,.'r.?':'.7.`...r;Y..#&:-.....ti'i Il' '' 4,oZt,:.;-.<'...1'?..1','".. -...,,,-/:.......,-..,r4r.r,p-,...v-Y•r- •b,'' `5,;=;';ZA-7.:4-.1.0„.'"?;et,- :.,.,, 14:::. --.,: srwts-Itirv,:i1N-'..',1•'ny..... ..• ..:.--;.-F.,.b.-;.:.:.•,''_ :..z,:r.,.....,;71.4..vai . P -r. ir. -- - ' .4,5-e.'-,..-;,v1:-.. . ...-. ; ...t. 3,....,;" ,,it4, .:.0.r..$,1:.» ..,.,_ ..-.',..,...:,-/t,, k.;- .".-..:4-„kti-,,:•;*:."*,:-.,,.•'4,-"•,.;''X''''"/..:ii%'..".N...:,-"-; ''.,' I. 1-`7.,' 1","1,.;'.14%?.it.)'-',4''' ' (."-'7'.4.c.......;,,iAw4',.rt-riT -TV.-,..Z.,',''.., -..14.-,... ,4,A.1.... ,,-.•:,,,,...: -v A t”..,,,,,,...,..1,,,,...:ry..4, • k ....-L...s...401,”...10',..y.....,4.:;5„ ,.;‘,'1 -.;,j.,41.,,-..p.,...,,,, .,!',..., ,,,.... .ir,, c ,,,,,,,,,,,..A. p.v., ..... '','._- I, ,,,,e..,..,,,,-,-.:`,"„".v..4,4 .,. . ,..,!4t- , .A.--.1.-..„,i,-.., 4,;5"..--.1,. A-',A.;..r.7.-t7.--"At),,t,s.: '-•%,-M141" f'4"44'...1,' -"-'.e-",%"•,a.",r,,i,Zi.", ...CIVN,f.\‘'...40,14,4,*"?. -",' '' '.‘,01c,'41"174-r• -• 1/4- ' i't,4,-,, ' ",,,. c . ..44,wese. --..-•7.,z.-:.7 s•••.,p7.--t,1. 7'.,• .. f.'`.•-----.' - • '''.4.6-. 'Y-1-" ' ' .."" " ' ' ' . SEP-10-1999 16:18 BLIP - SEATTLE 206 441 1622 P.02/08 C:CC%I\BUCHEcoWILLIS R ORAT pRATLIFF CMEMORANDUM TO: Sue Carlson, Administrator, Economic Development/Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Department CC: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Lisa Grueter C' SUBJECT: Southport Mitigation Document and Planned Action Ordinance DATE: Friday,September 10, 1999 Project# 99289.01 Mitigation Document Rex Allen of Seco Development, has provided comments about the proposed mitigation document dated September 9,1999. His comments are attached. Regarding his comments I would respond as follows: Page 8, Geotechnical Engineering Considerations. I would recommend keeping the minimum or maximum numbers because by and large these measures are written with would's" and "should's" and are dependent upon final designs. Also, in the preliminary paragraph,it is recognized that the measures may be modified upon review and acceptance by the Building Official. However, I recommend changing the last bullet on page 8 to add a reference that the necessity of the vibration monitoring ".. shall be determined by a qualified geotechnical engineer retained by the developer ..." And I would add to the end of same bullet that The geotechnical engineer recommendations shall be subject to review and acceptance by the City Building Official." Page 9, Structural Fill. Based upon discussions with Neil Watts, Plan Review Supervisor, it is also my understanding that the City would not require maintenance bonds or set-asides for private roads and private utilities/facilities. Pages 10-11, Air Quality. The use of HVAC filters would be required, but the language describing filter types is written with "would's". Although the language is conditional, I would recommend that a sentence be added indicating that "Other filter types or technologies providing equal or greater protection may be approved for use upon authorization by the City. Pages 10-11, Air Quality, and other locations referencing cooperation with Boeing. The requirement to place HVAC systems away from plumes indicates that a study "would" be prepared by the developers in cooperation with Boeing. The measure also indicates the City's intent to facilitate efforts to collect sufficient data. 2003 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 100 SEATTLE,WASHIINGTON 98121-2193 206/448.2123 FAX:206/441-1622 SEP-10-1999 16:18 BLIP - SEATTLE 206 441 1622 P.03/08 BWR - MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) September 10, 1999 - Page 2 However, on page 19 related to noise and vibration, the first bullet should be modified by adding a sentence indicating that "the City will facilitate cooperation/coordination between the developer and The Boeing Company as needed." Page 19, Pile Driving Vibration. The purpose of the grout injected pile system or equivalent within 100 feet of the wastewater treatment facility is related to the SEIS analysis that impact pile driving within that arca could result in vibration exceeding the threshold of damage. I recommend keeping the 100 feet parameter, but the measure could be modified with the addition of the following language at the end of the last sentence - "..., or within an alternate distance/area as recommended by the geotechnical engineer upon acceptance by the City." Transportation Mitigation Measures. I think the suggestions made by the developer should be discussed at the ERC meeting on Monday. Other changes that need be made include changing "east to west" to be "west to east" in the first bullet on page 22. Also, the issue of maintenance responsibility should be discussed for the recreation easement on page 26 . Finally, for ERC review, I've prepared draft notices of issuance and a cover letter which ERC would sign on Monday. Planned Action Ordinance There would be three changes to the draft Planned Action Ordinance attached to your September 1, 1999 memo. First, at the ERC meeting dated September 7, 1999, Zanetta Fontes recommended that Section 1.0 be reworded to add "for this site" after the words review process." Second, in Section 4, the date of review would be December 1, 2004. Third, since the last ERC meeting, Zanetta has not been able to reach Everett attorneys. However, she recommends rewording Section 5 by adding the following phrase at the end of the sentence,"EXCEPT provision of any Uniform Code shall supersede." SEP-10-1999 16:19 PLR — SEATTLE 206 441 1622 P.04/08 1.A rbk O 4^ UT1PO '` S E C 0 Development 10843 NE8th Sf.,Sulte 200. Bellevue, Woshington 98004 September 10, 1999 Lisa Grueter Senior Planner Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning City of Renton Renton City Hall — 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 re: Draft Southport Mitigation Document— review comments Dear Lisa, I have received the referenced document and have the following comments: Geotechnical Engineering Considerations (pg. 8) — I would prefer to eliminate references to minimum or maximum standards (i.e. "a minimum of 12 inches of structural fill") for the various code related issues in this and other sections. I totally agree that a Geotechnical Engineer be required for this project and I would like for him to make these recommendations regarding minimum or maximum standards (in deference to the City Building Department.) Structural Fill (pg. 9) - Long term maintenance will be required of the road and related improvements. I understand we will not be required to post any sort of Maintenance bond to ensure the facilities are maintained. Air Quality (pgs. 10-11) — The mitigations for the HVAC system discuss synthetic fiber filters and activated carbon filters. Other technologies exist that may outperform activated carbon for this use. I would like to see some flexibility in this requirement. I am concerned with the requirement to cooperate with Boeing in this and subsequent sections. I agree that cooperation needs to occur but I am concerned that by requiring it in this mitigation document will give Boeing an unintentional control of the development process. I fear that Boeing may be too slow to respond to the issues and my design and construction schedule will be unnecessarily delayed. Some softening of Ea ' d ZOS6 '°N 301dJ0 NIV1N Wd60 : 1 6661 '0l ' d8S SEP-10-1999 16:19 SEATTLE 206 441 1622 P.05/08 the language (shall to should?) and insertion of the City's willingness to help coordinate would be helpful. Pile Driving Vibration (pg. 19) — An injected grout pile system is being considered for the foundation system, however it's use should not be required anywhere on site. The use of this type of system should be at the future developer's discretion. As long as the mitigations for other types of systems are met, their use should be allowed. Transportation Mitigation measures (pgs. 25 —25) — I would like clarification on the timing of the Traffic Mitigation fee, and the deadline for the road improvements. What I would like to propose is this: The Traffic fee is calculated at the time the Phase 2 Site Plan is submitted, based on the levels of development shown. It is anticipated that a Level 1 Site Plan for Building B will be submitted also at that time. I propose to pay the mitigation fee and have the road improvements completed as a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy of Building B. I anticipate that the Level 2 Site Plan may show lower than anticipated development levels for the future phases (which avoids overpayment of the mitigation fee) which would then be amended when the Level 1 Site Plans for future phases are submitted. For example, in the initial Level 2 Site Plan we may show only 400,000 sf of office and 150 hotel rooms in the future phases. When the Level 1 Site Plans for these phases are submitted the actual development levels will be known and any difference in the mitigation fee can be paid at that time. Please consider these comments prior to finalizing the Mitigation document. Sinc ely Rex Allen Project Manager d Z056' °N 30WO NlV'iN Nd01 : 1 6661 ' 01 ' aaS SEP-10-1999 16:19 Pmp - SEATTLE 206 441 1622 P.06/08 CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY MITIGATION DOCUMENT Notice is hereby given that the City of Renton has issued the Mitigation Document for the Southport Planned Action on September 17, 1999 pursuant to WAC 197-11-660 and RMC 4-9- 070, and is available for public review. Copies have been provided for review at the Renton Municipal Library (the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch), and in the Renton Municipal Building at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, (both in the Development Services Division and Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department — 6th floor; and in the City Clerk's Office—7t"floor). PROPOSAL: The proposed Southport Planned Action considers potential redevelopment concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Redevelopment concepts review changes from the current industrial uses to a mixed use development including, residential, commercial, and office uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several development permits. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027, ECF, CPA, R PROPONENT: Seco Development Inc. (Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of LaKe Washington, West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. LEAD AGENCY: Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The Mitigation Document is available for purchase from the Development Services Division Customer Service Desk on the 6th floor of the Renton Municipal Building. It may be purchased for$5.54 including tax, plus postage where applicable. PUBLIC REVIEW/APPEAL: A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was required for the proposal under 43.21C.030(2)(c) and RMC 4-9-070. The impacts described in the Southport Development Planned Action SEIS and other information on file with the City of Renton are the basis for the mitigating measures established in the Mitigation Document. This SEP-10-1999 16:20 Pi,ia - SEATTLE 206 441 1622 P.07/08 Mitigation Document is designated by the City of Renton as the first decision document for the proposal. Upon issuance of this Mitigation Document, a twenty (20) day appeal period commences. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680 and RMC 4-8-110.E, the adequacy of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and the Mitigation Document may be appealed. Appeals must: 1) state specific objections of fact and/or law; 2) be submitted in writing by 5:00 p.m. October 7, 1999; and 3) be accompanied by a filing fee of $75.00. Appeals should be addressed to Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Renton Municipal Building, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Sue Carlson, City of Renton, Economic Development/Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Department at 425-430-6591. PUBLICATION DATE: September 17, 1999 DATE OF DECISION: September 13, 1999 SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator DATE Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jim Shepherd, Administrator DATE Community Services Department Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department SEP-10-1999 16:20 BAR - SEATTLE 206 441 1622 P.08/06 September 17, 1999 Dear Reader: Attached is a copy of the Mitigation Document for the Southport Planned Action, City of Renton, Washington. The proposed Southport Planned Action considers potential redevelopment concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Redevelopment concepts review changes from the current industrial uses to a mixed use development including, residential, commercial, and office uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several development permits. A Planned Action Ordinance is anticipated to be adopted for the proposal. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. A Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase, would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in the Planned Action Ordinance. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was required for the proposal under 43.21 C.030(2)(c) and RMC 4-9-070. The impacts described in the Southport Development Planned Action SEIS and other information on file with the City of Renton are the basis for the mitigating measures established in the Mitigation Document. This Mitigation Document is designated by the City of Renton as the first decision document for the proposal. Upon issuance of this Mitigation Document, a twenty (20) day appeal period commences. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680 and RMC 4-8-110.E, the adequacy of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and the Mitigation Document may be appealed. Appeals must: 1) state specific objections of fact and/or law; 2) be submitted in writing by 5:00 p.m. October 7, 1999; and 3) be accompanied by a filing fee of $75.00. Appeals should be addressed to Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Renton Municipal Building, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you would like additional information, please contact Sue Carlson, City of Renton, Economic Development/Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Department at 425-430-6591. For the Environmental Review Committee, Gregg Zimmerman Administrator, Planning/Building/Public Works TOTAL P.08 5 "" CITY F RENTON jikit 4` N.„ Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator September 9, 1999 Dear Reader: Attached is a copy of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review. The FSEIS addresses potential redevelopment of the 17-acre Shuffleton Steam Plant site located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. The proposal would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several land use development and building permits. A Planned Action Ordinance is anticipated to be adopted for the proposal. A Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase, would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. This Supplemental EIS for the Southport Planned Action supplements the two EIS documents prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan: the Draft and Final EIS for the Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and the Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan Supplemental EIS. Pursuant to the State SEPA laws and rules, the City issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review on June 29, 1999. A 30-day comment period expired on July 29, 1999. The DSEIS studied redevelopment of the subject site from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities. The DSEIS analyzed the Proposed Action Plans A and B which include residential, commercial, and office uses of varying intensity, and two No Action alternatives. The FSEIS provides responses to comments on the DSEIS, and makes corrections to the DSEIS. Additionally, this FSEIS reviews a new alternative, Plan C which also includes residential, commercial, and office uses at different development levels than Plans A or B. Based upon the Final SEIS, the City will develop a Mitigation Document which will list the measures addressing significant adverse impacts on the environment. The City of Renton will not take any official action on the proposal until the issuance of the Mitigation Document. Upon issuance of the Mitigation Document by the Environmental Review Committee, there will be a twenty day appeal period during which the adequacy of the Final SETS and the Mitigation Document may be appealed, pursuant to SEPA rules WAC 197-11) and the City of Renton's Municipal Code (RMC 4-8-110.E.4). If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call Sue Carlson, Administrator, Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department at (425) 430-6591. We thank you for your interest. For the Environmental Review Committee, t)a'f-fl twat Gregg ZiMtrierman Administrator, Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 alThis oaoer contains 50%recycled material.20 nnst rnnsumer CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/NEIGHBHORHOODS & STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:September 9, 1999 TO: King Parker,Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Sue Carlson CONTACT: Lisa Grueter(BWR 206-448-2123) SUBJECT: Southport Planned Action—Final Supplemental EIS Attached is a copy of the Southport Planned Action Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) which is being distributed to Federal, State and local agencies as well as to all City Departments. This Supplemental EIS for the Southport Planned Action supplements the two EIS documents prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan: the Draft and Final EIS for the Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and the Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan Supplemental EIS. Pursuant to the State SEPA laws and rules, the City issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review on June 29, 1999. A 30-day comment period expired on July 29, 1999. The DSEIS studied redevelopment of the subject site from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities. The DSEIS analyzed the Proposed Action Plans A and B which include residential, commercial, and office uses of varying intensity, and two No Action alternatives. The FSEIS provides responses to comments on the DSEIS, and makes corrections to the DSEIS. Additionally, this FSEIS reviews a new alternative, Plan C which also includes residential, commercial,and office uses at different development levels than Plans A or B. The Planning and Development Committee (and ultimately the full City Council) is considering the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezone, Code Amendments, and Planned Action designation for the Southport site. Please review the environmental documents as they relate to these items. If you have any questions,please contact me at extension 6591. Thank you. cc; Jesse Tanner,Mayor Jay Covington CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\counci lmem2.dot\cor CITY OF RENTON F ter---- CI LL Planning/Building/Public Works I OW' 4(+: i5 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 co}- SEP 0 9'9 9 _ Q 3 0 5 • ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED BTE72042ME60R U.S. POSTAGE U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Office 935 Powell SW Renton, WA 98055 I s 1,,f _1 I SILCSS/7,:.-.r fllhillif:list ililldilf:illmillifil!„ldililiif:llr:lld CI OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the q day ofPtnn‘oclf' 1999, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed a velo a containing r 15 f nott.e cf tSSUAawticc. atiatlaottkAl documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing tccte c VvtA) Signature of Sender) 50."dt a k . Semr.Y- STATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 71 1(e ` signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act forte uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 1 C1 ems 064 Notary Public ity and fort e State of WaTlingtonMARILYNKAMCHEFF1MARILYNKAMCHEFF NOTARY PUBLIC Notary (Print) MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:8-29-03 4 STATE OF WASHINGTON 1 My appointment expires: COMMISSION EXPIRES r JUNE 29, 2003 Project Name: SoLYttn?ov" Project Number: LU{s% .141 NOTARY.DOC 6*tt F-5. r5 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agcy 1da Wilkinson •aily Journal of Commerce 110 Union Street,#500 Vol undary Review Board Box 11050 Seattle,WA 98101-2038 =,I Ix. 810-3rd Avenue,#608 n00N Seattle,WA 98111 h0a, Seattle,WA 98104-1693 Dept.of Natural Resources-SEPA Duwamish Tribal Office Jerry Opatz PO Box 47015 t 140 Rainier Ave S, Suite 7 -t . U.S.E.P.A. =I Olympia,WA 98504-7015 Renton,WA 98055 1200-6th Ave,M/S WD-136 Seattle,WA 98101 Journal American nOQ KC Dept. of Public Works City of Kent 1705 - 132nd Avenue NE Solid Waste Division TIZE Planning Department h°Qr Bellevue,WA 98005 400 Yesler Way,Room 600 220-4th Avenue South Seattle,WA 98104-2637 Kent,WA 98032-5895 King Co.Resource Planning King Co. Courthouse King County Dev. &Environ. Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW '= EIS Review Coordinator Rm 400 Attn: SEPA Section Renton,WA 98055-1219 516 Third Avenue I. 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW = Seattle,WA 98104 Renton,WA 98055-1219 King Co.Public Library King Co. Soil Conservation WA Environmental Council ATTN: Susie Wheeler ATTN: Jack Davis 615-2nd Avenue, Ste 380 11O0._. 300-8th Avenue North 935 Powell Avenue SW Z 1.a Seattle,WA 98104 Seattle,WA 98109 Renton, WA 98055 Rod Malcom,Fisheries Puget Sound Energy Puget Sound Water Quality Muckleshoot Indian Tribe ATTN: EIS Review noa Abbot Raphael Hall I39015 - 172nd Avenue SE .2915 South Grady Way MS PV-15 Auburn,WA 98002 Renton,WA 98055 Olympia,WA 98504--0900 Renton Chamber of Commerce Renton School District#403 Central Environmental Health 300 Rainier Avenue North Y\QC 300 SW 7th Street 172-20th Avenue I.Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 =tn. Seattle, WA 98122 Seattle Post-Intellegencer Seattle Times-Eastside Edition Shirley Zang Business News 11001/4 Business News Seattle Public Utilities 1100.-, 101 Elliot Avenue West PO Box 70 00. 710-2nd Avenue, 9th floor Seattle,WA 98111 _ Seattle,WA 98111 Seattle, WA 98104-1712 WA ST Dept. of Ecology State Dept.of Ecology(2 copies) Dept.of Ecology SEPA Register Environmental Review Section Attn: EIS Review IPOBox47703,PV-11 PO Box 47703 Northwest Regional Office Z 3Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 ellB - 160th Avenue SE Bellevue,WA 98008-5452 State Dept. of Ecology Don Hurter Larry Fisher Attn: Shorelands Permit Coordinator WSDOT WA Dept. of Fish&Wildlife lM/S PV-11 15700 Dayton Ave N,MS-122 c/o Dept. of Ecology z Olympia,WA 98504 I PO Box 330310 1 3190-160th Avenue SE Ymp Seattle,WA 98133-9710 Bellevue,WA 98008 A t. o ish Wildl a KC Wastewater Treatment Division City of Tukwila Oa_6 0 a ital y Environmental Planners Iir_ Planning&Bldg Dept. 01 pia, A 85 1-1 9 821 Second Avenue,M/S 81 6200 Southcenter Blvd. S US West hil c eid U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers Attn: Cheryl Sanderson ham' e o i ' Seattle District Office 1600-7th Avenue,Rm#2512 6 1 1 PO Box C-3755 I I ir Seattle,WA 98191 1 ee 01 Seattle,WA 98124 U.S.Dept. of Agriculture Secretary's Representative Dennis Ryan, CAUP Soil Conservation Office how U.S.Dept. of Housing&Urban Dev. University of Washington nod._ 935 Powell SW 909 First Avenue nOQ. 410 Gould Hall,JO-40 Renton,WA 98055 Seattle,WA 98104 Seattle,WA 98195 South County Journal Valley Medical Center Puget Sound Energy PO Box 130 r100, 400 South 43rd Street h 0 0, Washington Natural Gas Company Kent,WA 98035 Renton,WA 98055 815 Mercer rock_ Seattle,WA 98111 Puget Sound Regional Council Regional Transit Authority City of Bellevue 1011 Western Avenue,#500 1 1100 Second Avenue, Ste 500 Dept of Planning&Community Dev. Seattle,WA 98104-1035 i.rm Seattle,WA 98101-3423 '=I1:[ PO Box 90012 Attn: EIS Reviewer Bellevue,WA 98009-9012 n00 .. Attn:Environmental Services City Council(7) 1 -v = Fire Department Hearing Examiner "I 2 IT Lee Wheeler) I I7= Renton Public Library Ztim Renton Public Library I I Mayor 11HighlandsBranch(2) Main Branch(3) Jim Shepherd) Parks Board(1) T. Community Services Dept.=ITC Planning Commission (q) T. PB/PW Dept. =I r. Sue Carlson I tc' Police Dept. Milt Gregg Zimmerman Economic Development City Attorney T-IIE DeeAnn Kirkpatrick S 1.11NationalMarineFisheriesServices 7600 Sand Point Way NE,Bldg. 1 Seattle,WA 98112 Jeff Chan Aquatic Research Group Fish and Wildlife Service t- I US Department of the Interior Western Washington Office 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 Lacey,WA 98503 City of Mercer Island Development Services Dept. 9611 SE 36t 1MercerIsland,WA 98040 City of Newcastle 13020 SE 72nd Place, Suite A ( IL Newcastle, WA 98059 Mike Rowswell WUTC 1-ar PO Box 47250 Olympia,WA 98504-7250 Ikuno Masterson King Coutny,ESA Policy Office ha0. 500 Yesler Street Seattle,WA 98104 VD#_ xitypce 1/4 bib h vis to d)i Fc-Fis PaIr' Diane G.Esmay ^ ph Evans i Browne l Y/PO Box 59264 d/4 3306 NE 11th Place MA'' 1003 North 28th Place Fs E is Renton,WA 98058 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Correen Orton 4//v f} Shirley Milliren Marge Richter Legacy Partners 1020 N.28th Place 4/0/4 300 Meadow Avenue N. //DA 1756 114th Avenue SE,Suite 135 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98055 Bellevue,WA 98004 Paul Bergen Aid A Elizabeth Warman Seco Development Fs /c5EnviroIssuesManager,Local Government Relations Attn: Rex Allen 101 Stewart Street#101 The Boeing Company 10843 NE 8th Street L.Q Seattle,WA 98101 PO Box 3707 MC 14-49 /1/04 Suite 200 Seattle,WA 98124-2207 Bellevue,WA 98004 Celia Barton Bob Boyd F ). /5 John Anderson State Dept.of Natural Resources Puget Western Inc. GI) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 950 Farman Street N. 1/0 A 19515 North Creek Prkwy,Suite 310 110 Union Street,Suite 500 0POBox68YBothell,WA 98011 Seattle,WA 98101-2038 N Enumclaw,WA 98022-0068 Larry Fisher Bruce A.Coffey Larry Martin Dept.of Fish and Wildlife Foster Pepper&Shefelman PLLC Vulcan Northwest Region 4 Office 1111 Third Avenue,Suite 3400 61; 110 110th Avenue NE,#550 Aida 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. /VOX Seattle,WA 98101-3299 Bellevue,WA 98004 Mill Creek,WA 98012 David Halinen James Hanken Mr.Robert Cugini,VP Halinen Law Offices,P.S. Schwabe Williamson&Wyatt 4101 Lake Washington Boulevard 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 N0/1 US Bank Centre,Suite 3400 PO Box 359 AXO,4- Bellevue,WA 98004 1420 Fifth Avenue V 0 4 Renton,WA 98057 Seattle,WA 98101-2339 Chuck Wolfe Donald E.Marcy Marleen Mandt Foster Pepper&Shelfelman PLLC Caimcross&Hempelmann,P.S. 1408 N.26th Street A/0A 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 p4 701 Fifth Avenue Renton,WA 98056 Seattle,WA 98101-3299 Seattle,WA 98104-7016 /V 0' Renee Perrault Darrel Inglemund Dick McCann 2520 Park Place N. J/D A- North Renton&Kennydale Defense Fund Perkins Coie LLP Renton,WA 98056 1309 N. 30th Street 1201 Third Avenue,40th Fl. Fs /,s Renton,WA 98056 Al04- Seattle,WA 98101-3099 1) Inez Petersen Charles E.Maduell Kevin Teague 3306 Lake Washington Blvd.N#2 Perkins Coie LLP M 1111 3rd Avenue,#3400 /FDA Renton,WA 98056-1909 F$E 15 1201 Third Avenue,48th Floor Seattle,WA 98101 1)Seattle,WA 98101-3099 r5E/S ( 1) Richard Wagner Rosemary Quesenberry Dennis McLerran 2411 Garden Court N. r-,5 IS 3609 SE 18th Court FE/s Puget Sound Air Polution Control Agency Renton,WA 98056 v Renton,WA 98058 110 Union Street,Suite 500 ,,/ l ..1) 1 Seattle,WA 98101-2038 DA Barbara Questad Environmental Planner S SK.C.Wastewater Treatment Division 821 Second Avenue Seattle,WA 98104-1598 1-VoPCV‘.4.r o Wvv--J Joann R.Ausen rry Babb nes Bergman 1331 Kennewick Ave.NE 16 Lincoln Place NE 64 Aberdeen Ave.NE Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 aA\ Ronald Bergman n00- S Northern Santa Fe Burlington Carl Colasurdo 2208 NE 12th Street 1700 E. Golf Road#400 1507 Jones Ave.NE Renton WA 98056 Schaumburg IL 60173 Renton WA 98056 John Dechaineau Robert Edwards James Fox 1325 Kennewick Ave.NE 3719 Park Ave.No. 1313 Kennewick Ave.NE Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 Jan Frandsen Gene Galyean Lauree Galyean 1701 NE 14th St. 18458—8th Ave. So. 1208 Lincoln Pl.NE Renton,WA 98056 Seattle,WA 98148 Renton,WA 98056 n Greg Gamer Howard Enterprises,Inc. Han Huynh 1209 Lincoln Pl.NE PO Box 79014 1713 NE 14th St. Renton WA 98056 Seattle,WA 98119 Renton WA 98056 il Ireisen Properties,Inc.Thomas Keller Mosley Kirkman PO Box 80612 1408 Jones Ave.NE 1002 N. 35th St. Minneapolis,MN 55408 Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 Gary Land William Lewis Nicholas&Tracy Lorrigan 11404—137th Ave.SE 1401 Jones Ave.NE 1724 NE 14`h St. 4 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 c I James Martindale James Medzegian Andy Nguyen k 9712—237th Pl. SW 11914 SE 78th St. 1318 Kennewick Ave.NE Edmonds,WA 98020 Newcastle WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 Puget Sound Energy Liddy LLC Rich Larry Schluter PO Box 90868 6202 S. 15151 Place 1702 NE 14th St. Bellevue WA 98009 Tukwila WA 98188 Renton WA 98056 Don Schumsky David Sudduth B.D.Thanedar 2019 Jones Ave.NE 1425 Jones Ave.NE 1707 NE 14th St. Renton WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 The Boeing Company The Boeing Company The Boeing Company PO Box 3703 PO Box 3707 PO Box 3707,M/S 1F-09 Seattle WA 98124 Seattle WA 98124-2207 Seattle WA 98124 I,uong Vu Lrris Watson ax Williams 1513 Jones Ave.NE 19 Kennewick Ave.NE 109 Jones Ave.NE Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Notice is hereby given under SEPA, WAC 197-11-460, that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the proposal described below was issued on September 9, 1999, and is available for public review. Copies have been provided for review at the Renton Municipal Library (the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch), and in the Renton Municipal Building at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055, (both in the Development Services Division and Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department—6th floor; and in the City Clerk's office—7th floor). PROPOSAL: The Southport Planned Action environmental review considers potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. The SEIS reviews redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, commercial, and offices uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several development permits. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027, ECF, CPA, R PROPONENT:Seco Development Inc (Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington, West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. LEAD AGENCY: Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The FSEIS document is available for purchase from the Development Services Division Customer Service Desk on the 6th floor of the Renton Municipal Building. It may be purchased for$10.19 including tax, plus postage, where applicable. REVIEW PROCESS: Based upon the Final SEIS, the City will develop a Mitigation Document which will list the measures addressing significant adverse impacts on the environment. The City of Renton will not take any official action on the proposal until the issuance of the Mitigation Document. Upon issuance of the Mitigation Document by the Environmental Review Committee, there will be a twenty day appeal period during which the adequacy of the Final SEIS and the Mitigation Document may be appealed, pursuant to SEPA rules (WAC 197-11) and the City of Renton's Municipal Code (RMC 4-8-110.E.4). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Sue Carlson, City of Renton, Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department at 425-430-6591. PUBLICATION DATE: September 9, 1999 DATE OF DECISION: August 31, 1999 SIGNATURES: 2).) -e ryrGreggrrrermatI,,A mini to D I 74— Departme"nt/of Planning/Building/Public Works Lck 4cfJiShepherd, dmini rator DA Community Service Department iee ---,,e./7„ i-,ik 5--/,(,-, e heeler, Fire dhief DATE Renton Fire Department CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Notice is hereby given under SEPA, WAC 197-11-460, that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the proposal described below was issued on September 9, 1999, and is available for public review. Copies have been provided for review at the Renton Municipal Library (the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch), and in the Renton Municipal Building at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055, (both in the Development Services Division and Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department—6th floor; and in the City Clerk's office—7th floor). PROPOSAL: The Southport Planned Action environmental review considers potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. The SEIS reviews redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, commercial, and offices uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several development permits. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027, ECF, CPA, R PROPONENT:Seco Development Inc(Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington, West of Lake Washington Boulevard and I- 405. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. LEAD AGENCY: Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The FSEIS document is available for purchase from the Development Services Division Customer Service Desk on the 6th floor of the Renton Municipal Building. It may be purchased for$10.19 including tax, plus postage, where applicable. REVIEW PROCESS: Based upon the Final SEIS, the City will develop a Mitigation Document which will list the measures addressing significant adverse impacts on the environment. The City of Renton will not take any official action on the proposal until the issuance of the Mitigation Document. Upon issuance of the Mitigation Document by the Environmental Review Committee, there will be a twenty day appeal period during which the adequacy of the Final SEIS and the Mitigation Document may be appealed, pursuant to SEPA rules (WAC 197-11) and the City of Renton's Municipal Code (RMC 4-8-110.E.4). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Sue Carlson, City of Renton, Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department at 425-430-6591. PUBLICATION DATE: September 9, 1999 located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. The SETS reviews redevelop- ment concepts of the property from indus- trial uses to a mixed use development - including residential,commercial,and offic- es uses as well as recreational amenities, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several develop- ment permits. Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027, ECF, CPA, R PROPONENT: Seco Development Inc SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 Lake Washington, West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405.The pro- posal is located adjacent to Lake a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing opera-newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months tions on the west. Access is located from prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language Lake Washington Boulevard. Develop-continually as a dailynewspaper in Kent, KingCount Washington. The South CountyLEAD AGENCY: Economicdy g ment/Neighbdrhoods and Strategic Plano Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the ing Department State of Washington for King County. City of Renton 1055 South Grady WayThenoticeintheexactformattached, was published in the South County Renton,WA 98055 Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Environmental during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Cityiof Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way LUA-99-027 Seco Development, Inc. Renton,WA 98055DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The FSEIS document is available for as published on: 9/9/99 purchase from the Development Services Division Customer Service Desk on the 6th floor of the Renton Municipal Building. It The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publi tion is the sum of$115.00, may be purchased for$10.19 including tax, charged to Acct. No. 8051067. plus postage,where applicable. REVIEW PROCESS: Based upon the Final SEIS, the City will develop a Legal Number 6554 Mitigation Document which will list the measures addressing significant adverse CITY OF RENTON impacts on the environment. The City of Legal Clerk, So County Journal NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILA- Renton will not take any official action on BILITY the proposal until the issuance of the ram\ FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMEN- Mitigation Document. Upon issuance of the TAL IMPACT STATEMENT Mitigation Document by the Environmental Subscribed and sworn before me on this 4 day of 19 g'( Notice is hereby given under SEPA, Review Committee, there will be a twenty WAC 197-11-460, that the Final Supple- day appeal period during which the ade- mental Environmental Impact Statement quacy of the Final SEIS and the Mitigation 11111@111//o n. FSEIS) for the proposal described below Document may be appealed, pursuant to a` A• e t.5• f f Br Y-YdVtu was issued on September 9, 1999. and is SEPA rules (WAC 197-11) and the City of Q,„S :l L.,rf lovo available for public review. Copies have Renton's Municipal Code (RMC 4-8- o ;h. i roo been provided for review at the Renton 110.E.4). v A Notary Public of the State of Washington Municipal Library(the Main Branch and the ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would d Y• .3TF n— ' '.'• residing in Renton Highlands Branch), and in the Renton like additional information, please contact o= e KingCounty, Washington Municipal Building at 1055 South Grady Sue Carlson, City of Renton, Economic y g Way. Renton. Washington 98055, (both in Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic a; ,t o the Development Services Division and Planning Department at 425-430-6591. o'• Economic Development, Neighborhoods Published in the South County Journal e p. G,; and Strategic Planning Department—6th September 9, 1999.6554 1r'r` •••..2 6 ?.••' ;.. floor; and in the City Clerk's office —7th rrr/°P j ASkk',+0 PROPOSAL. The Southport Planned Action environmental review considers potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres NoancE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NOTICE OF ISSUANCE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Notice is hereby given under SEPA,WAC 197-11-460,that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Slalement FSEIS)for the proposal described below was Issued on September 9,1999,and Is available for public review. Copies have been provided for review at the Renton Municipal Library(the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch),and in the Renton Municipal Building at 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,Washington 98055,(both in the Development Services Division and Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department-6°i floor;and in the City Clerk's office-7r'floor). PROPOSAL: The Southport Planned Action environmental review considers potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. The SEIS reviews redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, commercial, and offices uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendrnengrezone,and several development permits. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027,ECF,CPA,R PROPONENT: Seco Development Inc(Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South o1 Lake Washington,West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405.The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west.Access Is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. LEAD AGENCY: Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 96055 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The FSEIS document is available for purchase from the Development Services Division Customer Service Desk on the 6'floor of the Renton Municipal Building. It may be purchased for S10.18 including tax,plus postage,where applicable. REVIEW PROCESS: Based upon the Final SEIS,the City will develop a Mitigation Document which will list the measures addressing significant adverse impacts on the environment.The City of Renton will not take any official action on the proposal until the issuance of the Mitigation Document. Upon Issuance of the Mitigation Document by the Environmental Review Committee,there will be a twenty day appeal period during which the adequacy of the Final SEIS and the Mitigation Document may be appealed,pursuant to SEPA rules(WAC 197-11)and the City of Renton's Municipal Code(RMC 4-8-110.E.4). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would Ilk.additional Information,please contact Sue Carlson,City of Renton,Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department at 425430-6591. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. CERTIFICATION I, la>,6 442‘e )<J1 , hereby certify that Imo/ copies of the above document were posted by me in () conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on 1 A t )9'' Signed: ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public, ' and the State of Washington residing in „ ,,L on the /-/ /r day of y 4 5 S . x:l':ua.aE oa. MARILYN Ili MCHEFFCUtA-, _ NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 JUNE 2'), 2003 9 ,sue CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/NEIGHBHORHOODS & STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:September 9, 1999 TO: King Parker,Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Sue Carlson CONTACT: Lisa Grueter(BWR 206-448-2123) SUBJECT: Southport Planned Action—Final Supplemental EIS Attached is a copy of the Southport Planned Action Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) which is being distributed to Federal, State and local agencies as well as to all City Departments. This Supplemental EIS for the Southport Planned Action supplements the two EIS documents prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan: the Draft and Final EIS for the Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and the Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan Supplemental EIS. Pursuant to the State SEPA laws and rules, the City issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement(DSEIS) for the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review on June 29, 1999. A 30-day comment period expired on July 29, 1999. The DSEIS studied redevelopment of the subject site from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities. The DSEIS analyzed the Proposed Action Plans A and B which include residential, commercial, and office uses of varying intensity, and two No Action alternatives. The FSEIS provides responses to comments on the DSEIS, and makes corrections to the DSEIS. Additionally, this FSEIS reviews a new alternative, Plan C which also includes residential, commercial,and office uses at different development levels than Plans A or B. The Planning and Development Committee (and ultimately the full City Council) is considering the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezone, Code Amendments, and Planned Action designation for the Southport site. Please review the environmental documents as they relate to these items. If you have any questions,please contact me at extension 6591. Thank you. cc: Jesse Tanner,Mayor Jay Covington CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\councilmem2.dot\cor CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:September 9, 1999 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Sue Carlson(ext. 6591) CONTACT: Lisa Grueter(BWR 206-448-2123) Jr SUBJECT: Southport—Draft Mitigation Document#2 Attached for your review is a revised Draft Mitigation Document. Again the document shows the changes to the mitigation measures proposed in the Draft and Final SEIS with strikeout and underline. Additioxial measures provided in the Final SEIS are shown in boxes. Changes since the previous Draft Mitigation Document circulated on August 26, 1999 are shown with gray highlights (these would be the key changes made since your last review). The ERC will consider the document next week (most likely the ERC meeting will occur on Monday instead of Tuesday because of a schedule conflict), and it is recommended that the document be approved with any necessary changes at the meeting, and issued by September 17, 1999. Based upon meetings held August 31 and September 7, 1999, ERC discussed or requested the following changes: Modify traffic impact fee language indicating that the fee will be paid to the City and the City will determine its contribution to the road improvements based upon the level of public benefit. Regarding the design of the improvements at the shared driveways between the site and Gene Coulon Park, indicate that the design should minimize queues in the Park. Move water and waste-water easement language from the advisory notes to the mitigation measures section. Code allowances address easements in subdivisions. It is not clear when and if the property will be subdivided. Eliminate tax revenue statements in the advisory notes. Define Level I and II site plans since several mitigation measures are tied to these future applications. Indicate in Land Use and Parks mitigation measures that the listed setbacks apply to the perimeter of the site. The site may be subdivided in the future, and without this clarification there could be some confusion. Additionally, since ERC review, we have taken another close look at mitigation language to assist with future interpretations. Lisa Grueter met with Jennifer Henning to better define the timing and review responsibility of the mitigation measures. A summary of the additional key changes include: Define"shall"and similar terms. Amend the Introduction to say that unless otherwise indicated, the developer(s) would be responsible for funding and carrying out mitigation measures. This is already noted throughout the mitigation measure sections. Where appropriate, indicate more often which City division would review plans, etc. In the Earth mitigation measures related to erosion control,the Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan measures have been moved from the advisory notes to the mitigation measures section. This is because while most measures are found in current regulations, some are not(e.g.tightlining). In the Earth mitigation measures related to foundations, the vibration mitigation measures are clarified to apply if there is impact pile driving. In the Water mitigation measures, the Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control/Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan measures have been moved from the advisory notes to the mitigation measures section. Again, this is because while most measures are found in current regulations, some are not(e.g. seasonal limitations on mass grading). In the Water mitigation measures, language has been added to indicate that the City may authorize or require use of an amended DOE or City Stormwater manual. This would be consistent with City regulations to apply current or future adopted manuals (RMC 4-4-030.C). Also, since the project will be phased,or implemented by other developers,this new language may be more appropriate. In the Fisheries section, the erosion control mitigation measures have been amended to indicate several items as mandatory rather than conditional(e.g. seasonal limitations on mass grading). Several measures related to Police, Schools and Solid Waste have been amended to show the timing of plan submittals. The water/wastewater mitigation measures have been amended to indicate several items as mandatory rather than conditional, such as coordination with utility providers. Also the line sizes are shown as minimums in case future plans show a need for larger lines. Also, for your review, a sample cover letter and notice of issuance are attached. These will be finalized prior to your next meeting for your approval. We have provided the attached Draft Mitigation Document to the applicant for their review. Any comments will be forwarded to ERC. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. cc: Lisa Grueter DRAFT SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION MITIGATION DOCUMENT 0 Tr 9 City of Renton Prepared By: Economic Development/Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Department With Assistance By: Bucher,Willis and Ratliff Corporation September 17, 1999 MITIGATION DOCUMENT SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The State Environmental Policy Act (S EPA) requires environmental review for project and non-project proposals that may have significant impacts upon the environment. In order to meet SEPA requirements,the Environmental Review Committee for the City of Renton issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Southport Development Planned Action in on June 2291999, and a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in on September 9, 1999. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement are referenced collectively herein as the "SEIS". The SETS has identified significant impacts that would occur with the future redevelopment of the subject site together with a number of possible measures to mitigate those significant impacts. The purpose of this Mitigation Document is to establish specific mitigation measures, based upon significant impacts identified in the SEIS_ that—The mitigation measures would apply to future development proposals, which are comparable to the Proposed Action reviewed in the SEIS, and which are located on the approximately 17.1 acre subject site (see Figure 1). The mitigation measures may also apply to off-site improvements where analyzed in the SEIS.. USE OF TERMS As several similar terms are utilized in this Mitigation Document, the following phrases or words are defined briefly: SEPA Terms The discussion or mitigation measures may refer to the words action, proposed action, or proposal, and for reference these terms are identified below. Since Planned Action may be confused with Proposed Action,these phrases are also explained below. Action" means projects or programs financed, licensed, regulated, conducted or approved by an Agency. "Project actions" involve decisions on a specific project such as a construction or management activity for a defined geographic area. "Non-project" actions involve decisions about policies,plans or programs. (see WAC 197-11-704) Planned Action" refers to types of project actions that are designated by ordinance for a specific geographic area and addressed in an EIS, in conjunction with a comprehensive plan or subarea plan, a fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development or phased project. see WAC 197-11-164) Proposal" means a proposed action which may be actions and regulatory decisions of an agency, or any actions proposed by applicants. (see WAC 197-11-784) Other Terms Utilized in Mitigation Document The subject site is may be referenced as Southport or site or subject site in this document. Mitigation measures may also apply to off-site improvements analyzed in the SEIS. 2 09/09/99 This document includes mitigation measures which are tied to the approval of site plans, termed Level II or Level 1 site plans. Current City regulations require a "master development plan" for development in Center Office Residential Zones (RMC 4-2-120.B and 4-2-120.C). Site plan regulations are found in RMC 4-9-200 and 4-9-210 and defined in RMC 4-8-120.D. The Proposed Action includes proposed code amendments which would consolidate permit procedures and clarify terminology A Level II site plan is equivalent to the"master development plan"or"master site plan." A Level I site plan is equivalent to the current definition of"site plan." The mitigation measures that refer to Level I and Level II site plans assume adoption of proposed code amendments that consolidate and clarify site plan procedures. General Interpretation Where a mitigation measure includes the word "shall" or "will" the requirement is mandatory. Where should" or "would" appear the words convey the City's expectation and desires given circumstances presently known, with recognition that pertinent alternate or equivalent requirements may be imposed as more detailed design or reports are conducted consistent with the mitigation measures. Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measure requirements to prepare plans, conduct studies, construct improvements, conduct maintenance activities, etc., are the responsibility of the future developer(s)to fund and/or carry out. SEPA REQUIREMENTS State regulations(Washington Administrative Code I97-I I)and local regulations(City of Renton Title 4,. Chapter 9)govern the development of mitigation measures to address identified environmental impacts. The primary regulatory chapters are cited below. As appropriate, key sections of those chapters are described. WAC 197-11-060, titled Content of Environmental Review states in part, that agencies shall carefully consider the range of probable impacts, including short—term and long—term effects," including "those that are likely to arise or exist over the lifetime of a proposal" or, in some cases, continue beyond the life of the proposal. WAC 197-11-330, titled Threshold Determination Process requires, in part, that the responsible official take into account the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of a proposal when determining whether a proposal has significant adverse impacts. In reaching a decision, SEPA states that the responsible official shall not balance whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather shall consider whether a proposal has any probable cignificant adverse environmental impacts. WAC 197-I1-448, title Relationship of EIS to Other Requirements states, in part, that SEPA contemplates that the general welfare, social, economic, and other requirements and essential considerations of state policy will be taken into account in weighing and balancing alternatives and in making final decisions." The EIS provides a basis upon which the responsible agency and officials can make the balancing judgment mandated by SEPA, because the EIS provides information on environmental costs and impacts. WAC 197-11-768 titled Definition of Mitigation. This section defines mitigation as: 1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;. 3 09/09/99 2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; 3) Rectifying the impact by repairing,rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 5) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments;and/or 6) Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. WAC 197-11-660(1)Substantive Authority and Mitigation. Decision-makers may impose mitigation measures designed to mitigate the environmental impacts, subject to the following limitations: a) Mitigation measures or denials shall be based on policies,plans,rules,or regulations formally designated by the agency; b) Mitigation measures shall be related to specific, adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental document on the proposal and shall be stated in writing by the decision maker; e) Mitigation measures shall be reasonable and capable of being accomplished. d) Responsibility for implementing mitigation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of its proposal. Voluntary additional mitigation may occur. e) Before requiring mitigation measures, agencies shall consider whether local, state, or federal requirements and enforcement would mitigate an identified significant impact. g) If, during project review, a jurisdiction's development regulations or comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, or in other applicable local, state or federal laws or rules, provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project action under RCW 43.21C.240, the jurisdiction shall not impose additional mitigation under this chapter. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES. Proposed Action The Proposed Action reviewed in the SETS includes: Adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and concurrent Rezone(from Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential) Municipal Code Text Amendments Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan approval The City through Resolution 337 identified the subject property as a site under consideration for a Planned Action designation pursuant to SEPA(WAC 197-11-168( c)). The Planned Action designation, when adopted by the City, would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been 4 09/09/99 completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase, would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. This process assumes that a final Master Plan (Level II Site Plans) and site plan (Level I Site Plan) for individual phases, as well as shoreline substantial development permit applications, will be submitted at a later stage as Planned Actions. Applications for construction-related permits from the City of Renton and other state and federal agencies, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404, 401 permits, stormwater discharge/NPDES, building and construction permits, etc., required for tong-term redevelopment of the site would also be requested for approval subsequent to the adoption of the Planned Action Ordinance. Issuance of these and other required development permits is included within the scope of environmental review for the Proposed Action. To facilitate the City's consideration of the Planned Action designation and environmental review of implementation of the Planned Action, a preliminary Conceptual Master Plan for the site has been formulated. The Master Plan provides conceptual information on the potential mix of uses, building density and height, access/circulation, recreation and open space opportunities and other development features. The intensity of site development would fall within the range of development represented by Conceptual Master Plan scenarios A(Plan A), scenario B (Plan B) and scenario C(Plan C). Plans A and C represent the lower end of the development range, with Plan A consisting of 543 multifamily residential units, 38,000 square feet of retail area, and 500,000 square feet of office space, and Plan C consisting of 377 multifamily residential units, 220 hotel units, 30,000 square feet of retail area, and 500,000 square feet of office space(refer to Chapter 2 of the Final Supplemental EIS for a description of the Plan Alternatives). Plan B represents the upper end of the development range and would consist of 581 multifamily residential units, 38,000 square feet of retail area, and 750,000 square feet of office space. Each plan calls for substantial public spaces and amenities including provisions for public access to Lake Washington. Summary of Alternatives Two alternatives to the Proposed Action are analyzed in the SETS: No Action-No Development Alternative-Under this alternative,the existing steam plant building would remain and storage use of the site would continue for the foreseeable future. No Action - Future Industrial Development - Under this alternative,industrial redevelopment of the site, consistent with the existing Comprehensive PIan land use designation of Employment Area - Industrial and zoning classification of Industrial-Heavy (IH), is assumed. Industrial redevelopment under this alternative is assumed to consist of approximately 230,000 square feet of manufacturing (high bay style) space and approximately 70,000 square feet of associated office space. Applicability of Mitigation Document This mitigation document applies to the Proposed Action, Plans A, B,or C, analyzed in the SEIS. For the mitigation document to apply to future development proposals, they must be comparable to or within the range established by Plans A, B,and C as shown below: 5 09/09/99 Use/Height Plan A Plan B Plan C Multifamily Residential Units 543 581 377 Retail Area in Sq.Ft. 38,000 38,000 30,000 Commercial Area in Sq.Ft. 500,000 750,000 500,000 Hotel Area in Sq.Ft.(rooms)N/A N/A 115,800(220) Residential Building Heights in Stories(feet)' 5(50 ft.) 5(50 ft.) 5(50 ft.) Hotel Building Height in Stories(feet) N/A N/A 7(75') Office Building Heights in Stories(feet) 8-10(105-125 ft) 10(125 ft.)8-10(105-125 ft) 1 Residential buildings would be 50 feet above finished grade and 58 feet above existing grade. If future proposed plans exceed the maximum development parameters reviewed, supplemental environmental review may be required under SEPA Rules. MITIGATION DOCUMENT Based upon the SEIS, this Mitigation Document identifies significant adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated to occur in conjunction with the development of the Proposed Action. Mitigation measures are hereby established under SEPA rules to address specific impacts identified in the SETS, based upon the Proposed Action. As indicated in the SETS, numerous state and local regulations will govern development of the subject site, and application of those regulations will also serve to mitigate certain significant adverse environmental impacts. Pertinent regulations will be applied to future specific development applications. Additional consistency review under the Planned Action, site plan review, shoreline permits, and other permit approvals will be required for specific development actions under the Proposed Action. Additional conditions may be imposed based upon the analysis of the proposal in relationship to code requirements or review criteria. Seco Development or another future applicant may request modifications to mitigation measures established herein,if appropriate and as a result of changed circumstances, in order to allow an equivalent substitute mitigation or removal of a mitigation requirement. Such modifications would be evaluated prior to adoption by the City,based upon SEPA Rules. As permitted under SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-660), it is recognized that there may be some adverse impacts that are unavoidable because reasonable or feasible mitigation cannot be achieved for the Proposed Action. Provided below for each element of the environment analyzed in the SETS for the Proposed Action are: a) summary of significant environmental impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative); (b) a summary of unavoidable adverse impacts; (c)mitigation measures established by this Mitigation Document;and(d)a list of federal and state laws and local policies/regulations on which mitigation measures are based. In combination,regulations applicable to each element of the environment and mitigation measures imposed by this Document will mitigate all significant environmental impacts caused by the Proposed Action, except for those impacts that are identified as"unavoidable adverse impacts." 6 09/09/99 I 1.EARTH a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to soils, geology, erosion conditions, and seismic conditions. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS. Clearing and grading operations during construction could increase the erosion potential on the site. Loose to soft soils underlying the site would be susceptible to settlement under normal building loads, necessitating use of pile foundations for all buildings. Proposed buildings would be subject to liquefaction potential during seismic events, necessitating use of pile foundations for all buildings. Removal of existing underground features (including piles supporting the steam plant and utilities)could result in areas of soft soil or ground depressions. Based upon preliminary grading plans,areas of grading would extend into Gene Coulon Park. b. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Provided that reasonable mitigation measures are properly followed,no significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SETS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SETS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): Erosion Mitigation Measures A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESC) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)would-will be required to prevent and control erosion and discharge, according to City of Renton (RMC 4-4-030 and 4-6-030) and Department of Ecology standards. The Plan Review Supervisor shall determine appropriate standards in accordance with adopted requirements and the recommendations of the SETS. To mitigate and reduce the sheet and channel erosion hazard potential on the Southport site under the Proposed Action, the TESC and SWPPP could-would include, but are not limited to the following measures: Surface water and domestic discharge, either during or after construction, would not randomly daylight on the site. All temporary and/or permanent devices used to collect surface runoff shall be directed into tightlined systems that would discharge into an approved stormwater facility, unless the Plan Review Supervisor determines that an alternate measure providing equivalent control is permissible. Soils to be used around the site during construction would be stored in such a manner to minimize erosion. Protective measures could include, but are not necessarily limited to, use of strawbales, covering with plastic sheeting or the use of silt fences. 7 09/09/99 The majority of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces under the Proposed Action with roughly 15 percent of the site to consist of landscaping and vegetated areas. Source control mitigation measures would be conducted for cleared areas. All exposed subgrades would be seeded, covered with plastic sheeting, or otherwise protected during inclement weather or the wetter,winter months. During construction, silt fences,or other methods such as straw bales,would be placed along the boundaries to Lake Washington, John's Creek, and Gene Coulon Park to reduce the potential of sediment-laden runoff discharging into these areas. In addition, rock check dams would be established along roadways during construction. Temporary sedimentation traps or ponds would be installed to provide erosion and sediment transport control during construction. Details of the TESC and SWPPP would-shall be determined as part of the construction permit I review process. The A qualified geotechnical engineer retained by the developer(s) should-shall review the grading, erosion, and drainage plans prior to final design. The geotechnical engineer shall be retained by the developer in order to further assist in mitigating erosion and sediment transport hazards during and after development. Additional erosion mitigation measures may be offered required at the time of final design in response to site-specific plans. Certification of the installation, maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities shall be required prior to finalization of construction permits. Seismic Mitigation measures would-beare required to reduce the risk of potential liquefaction on any proposed structures. In general, this would require utilizing a deepened foundation system as discussed under Geotechnical Engineering Considerations below. Geotechnical Engineering Considerations Potential geotechnical impacts would be adequately mitigated through characterization of surface and subsurface conditions, proper geotechnical engineering, structural design, and proper construction implementation of the design. The preliminary geotechnical report prepared by Geotech Consultants,Inc. 1999) addresses potential geotechnical mitigation measures. Such measures are presented below. As part of the building design process, additional, specific measures could be identified, or the measures below could be modified upon review and acceptance by the City Building Official unless the measure is written as mandatory. Foundations A deepened foundation would be required for support of the proposed buildings to reduce potential differential settlement and liquefaction impacts. Floor slabs would be pile supported if settlement to the slabs would be a concern. The necessity of a vibration monitoring program for structures on and off the site as a result of pile driving could shall be determined during the design phase as more detailed information on construction techniques are finalized. 8 09/09/99 If impact pile driving is proposed, The the qualified geotechnical engineer retained by the developer(s) 6e4d-shall survey existing structures surrounding the site, including buildings, surface improvements, bulkheads, and buried utilities,to determine if pile-driving vibrations pose a potential threat to any existing structures, as part of the building design review process. If existing foundation piles are to be reused, the soundness of the piles should-shall be tested to the satisfaction of the geotechnical and structural engineers retained by the developer(s) and to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. If piles are not to be reused, they should be exposed, and cut off at an elevation to be determined by the geotechnical and structural engineers. Site Preparation A minimum of 12 inches of structural fill, compacted and proofrolled per the geotechnical engineer's recommendations, would be placed beneath the pavement,non-pile supported slabs, or structural fill areas to reduce potential settlement impacts. Alternatively, the subgrade could be chemically treated utilizing lime, kiln dust, or cement. The use of geotextile fabric or overexcavation of soft soils and replacement with structural fill could also be required to obtain a firm unyielding subgrade. The exact construction methodologies utilized would be dependent on final design plans. Excavations to remove or demolish below-grade structures could encounter ground water and require excavation shoring and dewatering to reduce settlement hazards. Dewatering wee -shall be conducted in a manner that would minimize potential impacts due to settlement. The quantity of water removed could be reduced along with the magnitude of the resulting settlement through proper design of the dewatering system and construction sequencing. In addition,proper disposal of dewatering effluent would-shall be stipulated in the design specifications for the placement of utilities. Structural Fill Up to 7 feet of fill would be required to support roadway areas, and in some cases, slab-on-grade floors that are not a settlement concern. All structural fill would-shall be placed and compacted as recommended by the qualified geotechnical engineer retained by the developer(s). Proper subgrade preparation and drainage control would be necessary for the roadways, utilities, or structural fill bodies. The on-site sediments are moisture-sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. These sediments would require drying prior to their use in structural fills, and the use of these soils in structural fills would be limited to favorable dry weather conditions. If fill is placed in wet weather,or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, imported backfill consisting of free-draining granular material would-shall be required. Some areas such as utility trenches, manholes, vaults, and heavy traffic roadways could still be susceptible to settlement under these soil conditions, and long-term maintenance of roadway areas would-beis required. Geotechnical oversight would-will be an integral part of #perms-the site's design and construction process. Geotechnical reports prepared by future developers will require City review and acceptance. A geotechnical review of the design plans would be performed before the plans are finalized to assist in reducing potential geotechnical impacts. s is typica l witx. similar 9 09/09/99 Construction monitoring would-will be required during the foundation and earthwork activities. In this manner, the adequacy of the foundation and earthwork would be evaluated as construction progresses, and appropriate responses to site conditions would be addressed in the field. d. Nexus: City of Renton Uniform Building Code (RMC 4-5-050); City of Renton Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations (RMC 4-4-060); King County Stormwater Management Manual adopted by the City of Renton,RMC 4-6-030);City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 2. AIR QUALITY a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3/Appendix B of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to air quality in terms of construction activities, generated traffic, and indirect air emissions and odors from adjacent property. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3/Appendix B of the SEIS. Building demolition and grading would generate suspended particulate matter. Removal of asbestos from the steam plant building would be required and would comply with EPA and PSAPCA regulations. Site population could be exposed to air pollutants from the adjacent Boeing facility. Based on recent Boeing modeling analysis, Boeing emissions comply with PSAPCA's Acceptable Source Impact levels. Effects would be unlikely under reasonably assumed Boeing operations. Air pollutants from the Boeing facility could enter HVAC systems of proposed office buildings. Adverse health effects within proposed buildings would not be anticipated under reasonably assumed operation. Proposed office building could induce existing Boeing emissions to reach the ground more often building downwash effect). Effects would be unlikely under reasonably assumed Boeing operations. Odors from The Boeing Company operations could be perceived as a nuisance by site population. Modeling conducted by Boeing indicates potential odors would be below recognized thresholds. b. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: No unavoidable adverse impacts from construction or operation of future development on the site would result. Emissions from existing industrial sources in the area could potentially affect on-site locations and cause adverse impacts. Modeling completed by Boeing indicates that no adverse health impacts or significant odor effects would result under any reasonably assumed operations at Boeing facilities. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of Boeing to protect human health from harmful exposures to any air pollutant emitted at their facility, as well as from nuisance impacts related to odors. Mitigation measures identified below would likely preclude significant adverse impacts. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3/Appendix B of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): 10 09/09/99 Construction E' si( r9— st,ctio ent nd mould—be- reduced b+- using relatively new, Proposed to be excluded because a significant impact was not identified in the SETS] Dust produced by construction couldwill be reduced by using a number of best management practices and techniques, exemplified in the remainder of this paragraph. Areas of exposed soils such as storage yards and construction roadways could be sprayed with water or other dust suppressants. Soils carried out of the construction area by exiting trucks could be minimized by wheel washing and covering dusty truck loads. Finally, soil that does escape the construction area on exiting vehicles could be reduced with an effective street-cleaning effort. Indirect Impacts The Air Quality analysis of the SEIS indicated a potential range of impacts in terms of indoor air quality impacts, ground-level air quality impacts, and odors. Modeling conducted by The Boeing Company concluded that air pollutant concentrations would not exceed allowed levels (either NAAQS or ASIL's), and would not exceed recognized odor thresholds. The modeling was based upon reasonably assumed Boeing operations. Under normal circumstances, impacts are not anticipated. To respond to the range of potential impacts, and because future operations may change, and because some recommended air quality mitigation measures require consideration during design,the following measures shall be implemented by future developer(s): Filters on the roof HVAC systems shall be installed. The filter system would need to filter particulates as well as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). A synthetic fiber filter media would remove the particulate load while an activated carbon filter would remove most VOCs. faeility-=Sueh-filter-systenis-eeukl-be-evensiwr however, HVAC systems shall be placed at a location where plumes from the Boeing facility would be less likely to reach the air intake vents. To accomplish this, a detailed study would need to be conducted by the developers, with Boeing's cooperation, to assess the optimum locations for intake vents. As needed, the City will assist in efforts to obtain sufficient data from The Boeing Company. d. Nexus: City of Renton Grading Excavation and Mining Regulations (RMC 4 1 060); City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 3. WATER a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to water quantity and quality. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS. 11 09/09/99 Surface Water Quantity The proposal would eliminate the western ditch. Potential for stream bank erosion along John's Creek could increase, requiring on site detention for this area, unless drainage from the on site John's Creek basin area is discharged to the Lake Washington system. Groundwater Quality Shallow groundwater table could require dewatering during placement of utilities. No adverse impacts to the underlying aquifer would result. Surface Water Quality Construction could increase potential for sedimentation and increased levels of pH to John's Creek and Lake Washington. To preclude such impacts, Temporary Erosion Control Measures could be implemented. Development of the preliminary conceptual master plan would increase the amount of area in vehicle- access surface (roadways and parking) increasing potential for stormwater-related pollutants to reach surface waters. With the proposed water quality wet vault, stormwater discharge to Lake Washington would be within state standards, with the exception of zinc, lead, and fecal coliforms. Adequate dilution in the lake would be achieved to prevent significant impacts from these sources. Widening of Lake Washington Blvd. would require lengthening of culverts passing John's Creek under the roadway and increase roadway area subject to traffic. With water quality treatment, no significant water quality impacts are anticipated. With potential future waterfront improvements subject to a separate permit process(to the dock at the west end and pedestrian improvements at the east end), no in-water work or dredging is assumed. Impacts would be limited to accidental spills during construction,localized increases in hydrocarbons from increased boat traffic and resuspension of sediments due to prop wash. b. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: With implementation of mitigation measures, none are expected. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): Surface Water Future developer(s) shall design. implement and maintain a stormwater control system which is consistent with City requirements and which achieves comparable stormwater control as the system analyzed in the SEES. 12 09/09/99 Groundwater Groundwater may be encountered during construction of utility trenches or any other below-grade earthwork activities. Dewatering would--shall be conducted in a manner that would minimize potential impacts due to settlement. The quantity of water removed would be reduced along with the magnitude of the resulting settlement through proper design of the dewatering system and construction sequencing. Construction techniques such as reducing the length of trench open at one time could be required. The specific location, extent, and depth of utilities would dictate the dewatering design, and in turn the quantity of water that should be removed. Specific recommendations would-shall be determined during the design phase once plans are finalized, as part of more detailed geotechnical evaluation. In addition, proper disposal of dewatering effluent would shall be stipulated in the design specifications for the placement of utilities. Water Quality A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESC) and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) woul--will be prepared and implemented to prevent introduction of sediment, turbid water, construction waste, or accidental spills of hydrocarbons to Lake Washington or John's Creek during construction. Details of these plans-wouldshall be prepared during the construction permit review process with the City of Renton(RMC 4-4-030; 4-6-030)and Department of Ecology (refer to the EARTH section for identification of possible TESC measures). The TESC plan court-alsoshall include restricting mass grading to the dry season, and if grading activities are proposed in the wet season, the applicant-future developer wotildneed-teshall prepare a grading plan for City review and approval that minimizes erosion;—. The plan shall also address capture and filtration of silted water before release; and prohibition-prohibit ef-on-site release of concrete wash- out, unless it is to temporary, lined ponds. The 1992 Department of Ecology (DOE) Manual standards for stormwater quality treatment would shall be utilized for treatment system design; these standards are more stringent than the 1990 KC Manual requirements that the City of Renton has adopted. Water quality treatment of surfaces routinely accessible to motor vehicles would be provided by wet vault(s) designed to the 1992 DOE standards. Or upon City authorization or requirement, future developer(s) may utilize a future amended DOE manual for stormwater quality or future adopted or amended City stormwater manual, with equal or greater standards. Four inches of compost could--shall be tilled to an approximate depth of 6 inches under all landscaped areas to be lawn. This organic layer would: a) increase infiltration and water retention under the turf rooted zone, which would reduce leaching and enhance evapotranspiration; b) create organic binding sites for organic pesticides and metals; and c) create an organic substrate for microbial growth, which would biodegrade organic pesticides and reduce leaching of nitrogen through uptake and denitrification. If pesticides are to be used,they eeuld-shall be selected from low-mobility products. If(1) the ratio of roof/walkway/fire lane to parking/roadway surfaces falls substantially below those identified for the Proposed Action in the SEIS and if(2) there is a corresponding potential increase in average daily trips, then additional metals removal is shall be recommended—required for discharge to Lake Washington. Additional removal could be achieved by use of a compost filter or other underground filter insert added to the wet vault system for Lake Washington. 13 09/09/99 Native vegetation or locally adapted landscaping species seuld-shall be used, as-where possible, to avoid the need for pesticides. This shall be addressed in any required landscape plans. Any plans for future construction of waterfront improvements would have eshall be reviewed and approved by appropriate agencies, such as the City of Renton, Department of Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Ecology and the US Army Corps of Engineers. 4e eeeur. Water quality impacts from operation of a future guest dock would be limited given as no permanent moorage, haul-out or fueling facilities would be allowed. Resuspension of sediments from prop wash could-would be mitigated by control of boat speeds near the dock and shore and other measures which would be identified at the time of a future application. d. Nexus: King County Stormwater Management Manual (adopted in RMC 4-6-030); Grading, Excavation, and Mining Regulations (RMC 4-4-060); City of Renton Zoning Code (RMC 4-2); City of Renton Shoreline Master Program(RMC 4-3-090;Ord.4716);City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 4.FISHERIES&AQUATIC ANIMALS a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to water quantity and quality. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS. Fisheries Site grading and filling of intake/return tunnels (Lake Washington) would increase potential sedimentation in Lake Washington and John's Creek. With proposed erosion control measures, impacts to fisheries habitat would not be significant. The limited existing riparian vegetation (consisting of exotic grasses and blackberry with little fisheries habitat value)along Lake Washington and John's Creek would be impacted by construction. No new in-water or over water fisheries are proposed. However, the waterfront promenade would result in increased human activity and lighting near the Lake Washington shoreline. With proposed mitigation measures, no significant impacts are anticipated. Future waterfront improvements or enhancement of pedestrian connections on the east and west sides of the site could be made, subject to a separate permit process. Potential future improvements could increase over-water structures, impact water quality from increased boat traffic on a localized basis, and increase lighting levels,which could impact fisheries resources. Widening of Lake Washington Boulevard would require lengthening of culverts passing John's Creek. Pond habitat would temporarily be eliminated and could displace fish currently using that portion of the creek. Water quality degradation from sediments or turbidity could occur during construction. No permanent impacts would be anticipated. 14 09/09/99 b.Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: With implementation of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would result. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): Fisheries The following mitigation measures are intended to minimize the potential for impacts to fisheries resources from redevelopment of the site. Directional lighting and shading provisions for all light standards along the promenade on the Lake Washington shoreline side would shall be implemented. The cooling water tunnel entrances would-shall be permanently sealed prior to backfilling the tunnel. The plug would consist of a pre-constructed structure made of concrete or other non-corrosive material and would be placed in the tunnel from above. Native shrub and tree species would-shall be planted along the shoreline of John's Creek to replace the existing blackberry bushes. Native species such as sallal (Gaultheria shallon), Oregon grape Berberis nervosa), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), elderberry Sambucus sp.), willow (Salix sp.) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) would be considered to provide some additional benefit from allochthonous(non-native) contribution and insect productivity to fisheries resources in the creek and Lake Washington. As part of the required Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESC) and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), mass grading shall be limited to the dry season,. and there shall be collection and treatment of turbid water. Or, #€-i grading activities are proposed in the wet season, the future developer applicant--would-shall need-to-prepare a grading plan for City review and approval that minimizes erosion. Additional water quality measures, identified in the EARTH and WATER sections of this SEIS this Mitigation Document would also benefit fisheries resources. Future Waterfront/Dock Improvements The preliminary Conceptual—conceptual Maser Plan (Pla. n er Plan n) aoesdevelopment plans reviewed in the SEIS do not include plans for waterfront improvements on the west or east side. Such improvements would-shall be subject to separate, future applications sponsored by the City or applicant the developer(s). Measures generally applicable to the minimization of impacts to fisheries resources from future potential waterfront improvements at the west side, and potential future access improvements to the park on the east side, would be required at the time such improvements would be permitted. Dependent upon specific future applications, the following measures shall be considered and applied where appropriate: Minimize over-water structure. Construct all walking surfaces to allow as much natural light penetration as possible. 15 09/09/99 Remove unnecessary structures such as abandoned or unused pilings, dolphins, finger piers, sheetpile, etc. Minimize vertical structures (e.g., pilings, walls) in the water column. Use light colored materials. Minimize structure in the nearshore area used by salmonids during migration. d. Nexus: King County Stormwater Manual (adopted by Renton in RMC 4-6-030); Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Regulations(RMC 4-4-130); City of Renton Shoreline Master Program(RMC 4-3-090; Ord. 4716); City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 5.NOISE AND VIBRATION a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3/Appendix C of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to noise and vibration. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS. Construction activities, including pile driving and use of heavy equipment, would generate noise through much of the 5 year construction period. These activities would generate maximum sound levels that would be higher than existing sound levels. Pile driving activities have the potential to cause ground-borne vibration at nearby structures at the Boeing Plant. Nearby Boeing buildings would not be anticipated to be impacted, however, the wastewater treatment plant could be susceptible to vibration impacts. Multiple pile driving at anyone time would be precluded to minimize the potential for impacts. Residential areas east of the site could be affected by HVAC noise above allowable night-time noise levels, depending on the type and location of the HVAC units. b. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Redevelopment would increase sound levels at off-site locations as a result I of pile driving and other construction activities. The relative impact of these increases would depend on the specific timing and the duration of noise events. If construction activities, including equipment start- ups and other noisy preparations are limited to daytime hours, and other reasonable mitigation measures are employed to reduce on-site production and off-site transmission of construction noise, off-site impacts related to construction noise would be minimized. Complying with the state noise rule limit restricting construction activities to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. would preclude construction noise impacts during legally defined nighttime hours. Other mitigation measures to reduce noise generation and/or off-site transmission of pile-driving, vibration from pile driving and other construction noise employed by construction contractors would reduce the potential for significant off-site impacts. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3/Appendix C of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): 16 09/09/99 Construction Noise Although the conservative nature of the construction noise analysis likely overstates actual construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receivers, there remains a potential for noise impacts from uncontrolled construction noise sources on-site. Because construction noise during daytime hours is exempt from the limits in Washington's noise rule,no mitigation is required in order to comply with the state or local noise limits. However, due to the potential for noise impacts, and because construction would might take place over five years, the use of mitigation measures to reduce potential noise impacts is warranted. Some-of the-The following construction practices could shall be used to help minimize potential noise impacts. cause—Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. Or, the Development Services Division Director may authorize alternate construction hours for reasonable cause,consistent with City regulations where applicable. poly-Properly sized and maintained mufflers, engine intake silencers, engine enclosures, and turning off idle equipment shall be required in construction contracts. to-off-site-losationsr Construction contracts could-shall specify that all equipment and especially mufflers be maintained in good working order. Contracts could-shall further specify that engine enclosures be used on non-portable equipment when the engine is the dominant source of noise, and that stationary equipment would-shall be placed as far away from sensitive receiving locations as possible. Where this is infeasible, portable noise barriers ceald shall be placed around the equipment with the opening directed away from the sensitive receiving locations such as Gene Coulon Park, or future on-site residential dwelling which may be constructed prior to construction of other uses on-site. to-To the extent feasible,the substitution of I hydraulic or electric models for impact tools such as jack hammers, rock drills and pavement breakers to reduce construction and demolition noise shall be required in construction contracts. Construction contracts shall require, to the extent feasible, that ambient-sensing vehicle back-up alarms that-also 17 09/09/99 meetmeeting OSHA standards shall be used. possible-annoyance. Pile Driving Noise Pile driving col-shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. No pile driving work shall be permitted on Saturdays or Sundays. Or, the Development Services Division Director may authorize alternate construction hours for reasonable cause, consistent with City regulations where applicable. A grout injected pile system or other equivalent system which would not require impact driving shall be evaluated. If the grout injected pile system or equivalent is not chosen, the following mitigation measures sow-shall be applied to the impact pile driving activities. less. Where a grout pile driving system or equivalent system is not selected, and impact pile driving activities are conducted, One-at least one ore mere-of the following noise reduction measures could shall be used to mitigate potential pile driving noise: Insert a wooden or plastic dolly between the pile head and the hammer_ Apply a damping compound to steel piles to reduce the vibration/ringing, Silence exhaust gas pulsations from the engines of diesel-powered hammers_ Remove any unnecessary hanging chains; fix any loose bolts, panels, or over-slack leader guides, Use a cushioned method in conjunction with a "heavy hammer-short drop" practice. This requires using interference fit guides to prevent kicking, rolling and vibration in the pile. While the overall sound level is not substantially reduced, the nature of the sound may be less annoying to people. Regular equipment service and maintenance_ n nothe tential mitigation fo, act driver „ld be t„ e Use a Hoesch Noise Abatement Tower. A-polyurethane layer 150 mm thick is-€eamed-on-t;e-inuerwalls of ewe els. This 18 09/09/99 expensive,however. Pile Driving Vibration As part of the detailed building design process, a qualified geotechnical engineer retained by the developer(s) could-shall survey existing structures in the surrounding area to more thoroughly determine the potential for vibration related impacts. In addition, a pile driving test near the western site boundary cow-shall be conducted while vibration measurements are taken at the closest Boeing facilities. facilities. As stated previously, a grout injected pile system or equivalent syst which would not require impact driving shall be evaluated. The geotechnical survey and test pile drive in the previous mitigation measure wed-will determine whether a grout pile driving system or equivalent is warranted. Additionally > the nd. oil tmes site m o ult > less If warranted, the grout pile driving system or equivalent would-shall be apprepfiate-utilized for the area within 100 feet of the wastewater treatment facility to protect against potential structural damage. To reduce potential vibration impacts at the nearest Boeing facilities, multiple pile driving activities cow-shall be precluded from occurring very near the western site boundary. The distance shall be determined as part of the survey by the qualified geotechnical engineer retained by the developer(s). Operational Noise Specific studies on the potential for significant HVAC noise impacts could-shall be conducted by the developer as part of the building design process. If such studies indicate that HVAC equipment noise could cause noise impacts at the nearest residences overlooking the site, the following mitigation measures could be employed. The need for such measures should-shall be determined as part of the building permit process. Place noise barriers around the HVAC units. Choose quieter equipment. Provide silencers on the air intake and exhaust. d. Nexus: City of Renton Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations (RMC 4-4-060); City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 19 09/09/99 6.LAND USE a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to land use. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3 of the SEIS. Proposal-The Proposed Action would result in the permanent conversion of 14.2 acres of existing industrial land to office,residential and commercial retail land uses. Proposal-The Proposed Action would result in a trade-off between industrial land and Center Office Residential(COR)lands in the city. A one percent reduction in total industrial land and an 11 percent increase in COR land would result. The proposed building area would be greater than the existing building area on the site. Planned uses would provide a land use transition between industrial use to the west and park/residential use to the east. Densities would be greater than nearby residential areas, however. The proposed land uses would increase the level of human activity on the site. b. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the intensification of development on the site, displacement of some existing industrial uses, and permanent conversion of industrial land to a mixed use redevelopment. A substantial difference in building scale between on-site development and Gene Coulon Park would result. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): The preliminary Conceptual Master Plan includes approximately 4.7 acres(Plan A)to 4.6 acres(Plan C) to 4.2 acres (Plan B) of open space which would help offset proposed intensification of the site. Of the total amount of open space provided on the site, approximately 3.2 acres (Plans A and C) to 3.0 acres (Plan B) would be located at ground-level and outside of structures (i.e., excluding courtyards above parking structures). If future site plans propose less amounts of open space, the City shall determine if the proposal is consistent with City policies and standards. Along the subject site perimeter, Minimum-minimum building setbacks of 10 to 30 feet would-shall be provided between proposed buildings and adjacent properties. Along the subject site perimeter, The the minimum average side setback would-shall equal 20 feet. Minimum Ssetbacks from Building B, or similarly situated structures, to the Gene Coulon Park property boundary shall be 10 to 22 feet, with ana minimum average setback of 16 feet. Building setbacks from Lake Washington would be a minimum of 35 feet. d. Nexus: City of Renton Zoning Code (RMC 4-2); City of Renton Shoreline Master Program RMC 4-3-090; Ord. 4716); City of Renton Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan; City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 20 09/09/99 7.RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS AND POLICIES a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to relevant plans and policies. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3 of the SEIS. The Proposed Action,which includes needed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code,would be generally consistent with relevant City plans,policies and regulations. In order to accommodate redevelopment under Plan A, modifications to City parking and surface water regulations may be needed. Additionally, a variance could be needed from Land Clearing and Tree Cutting regulations if vegetation is removed within 25 feet of Johns Creek. Either a conditional use permit, variance, and/or an administrative determination of the Shoreline Master Program would be needed relative to setbacks for mixed use (residential and commercial) buildings if proposed as shown in Plans A or B. Plan C would not require special permits or authorizations related to shoreline setbacks. Other permits required for the proposal are listed in the Fact Sheet of the SEIS. b. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:None are anticipated. c.Mitigation Measures: No specific mitigation measures are warranted. See discussion of needed modifications,variances,and other permits. d. Nexus: Non-applicable. 8. POPULATION,HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT a.Significant Impacts: Proposed residential use would increase the population by between 720 and 1,037 people, 5%to 8% I of the City's population forecasted to be added between 1990 and 2010. Dwellings would help meet City's housing targets. Proposal would add between 1,751 to 2,584 employees, 6%to 9.5%of City's 1990-2010 employment target. b. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. c.Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be necessary. d. Nexus: Non-applicable. 9.AESTHETICS,LIGHT& GLARE a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to aesthetics and light and glare. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SETS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3 of the SETS. The visual character of the site would change from low density industrial use to higher density mixed use. 21 09/09/99 From distant viewpoints, site development would appear as a continuation of the building mass of the Boeing Plant. Office buildings would step-down in height, from east to west, and would provide a height transition from Boeing to the proposed residential buildings and Gene Coulon Park to the east. From the playground in Gene Coulon Park, residential Building B, located 10 to 22 feet from the Park Iwouldsignificantlyaffectthevisualcharacteroftheimmediatearea. The optional fire lane along east side of Building C could encroach upon the drip line of certain trees along the west boundary with Gene Coulon Park. With implementation of arborist recommendations,. no significant impacts to trees would be anticipated from the optional fire lane. Proposed buildings would increase the amount of shade east over the Park playground. The greatest increase in shade would occur late in the afternoon during the winter months-the time of year with lowest number of sunny days and lowest park utilization. b. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: The scale and height of buildings on the site would increase subsequent to redevelopment. Some increase in shading and glare conditions at the adjacent Gene Coulon Park children's playground area would occur. Regarding identified impacts to Gene Coulon Park, additional mitigation considered could include increased setbacks,reduced heights, or stepped/graduated heights for Building B. These measures are not proposed as they could affect other building placements/heights as well as the achievement of sponsor objectives. However, the Proposed Action includes code amendments addressing building modulation and articulation for buildings immediately adjacent to public parks, open space and trails: This measure could help to partially offset some identified impacts depending on specific building designs developed for site plan and building permit applications. e.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): The preliminary Conceptual Master Plan includes approximately 4.7 acres (Plan A)to 4.6 acres(Plan to 4.2 acres (Plan B) of open space and public amenities which would help offset proposed intensification of the site. Of the total amount of open space provided on the site approximately 3.2 acres(Plans A and C)to 3.0 acres(Plan B)would be located at ground level and outside of structures i.e. excluding courtyards and above parking structures). If future site plans propose less amounts of open space, the City would shall determine if the proposal is consistent with the City's policies and standards. Along the subject site perimeter, minimum building setbacks of 10 to 30 feet w -shall be provided between proposed buildings and adjacent properties. Along the subject site perimeter, Tthe minimum average side setback would-shall be-equa1 20 feet. Minimum Ssetbacks from Building B, or similarly situated structures, to the Gene Coulon Park property boundary shall be 10 to 22 feet, with an-a minimum average setback of 16 feet. Building setbacks from Lake Washington would be a minimum of 35 feet_ t tfail Trail and outdoor area design elements of the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan (e.g., benches, gates, waste receptacles, plant materials, lighting, handrail details)would-shall be consistent compatible with the Gene Coulon Park design theme as determined by the City. 22 09/09/99 Modulation and articulation of buildings adjacent to or abutting public parks, open space or trails shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City, and where applicable, shall be consistent with City regulations. If the optional fire lane along the east side of Building C were to be constructed, instead of providing emergency access via the Coulon Park parking lot drive aisle to the east as proposed, arborist recommendations limiting intrusions within the drip line of trees along the western edge of the park wool--shall be implemented to help ensure the long-term survival of the trees. Arborist recommendations include minimizing disruptions within the tree root zone (drip-line), minimizing the amount of fill within root zone areas, and possibly utilizing pervious paving materials for the fire lane(refer to Appendix E of the Draft SEIS for detail). f d. Nexus: City of Renton Zoning Code(RMC 4-2);City of Renton Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Regulations(RMC 4-4-130);City of Renton Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan; City of Renton Shoreline Master Program(RMC 4-3-090,Ord. 4716);City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 10. TRANSPORTATION a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3/Appendix D of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to the transportation system. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3/Appendix D of the SEIS. Plan A,B and C would generate between 9,367 and 11,202 net daily trips, including between 1,005 to 1,273 AM peak hour trips, and between 1,061 and 1,355 PM net peak hour trips in 2004. The number of new trips generated by Plans A and C would be less than the City's concurrency ordinance estimated annual average, and all plans would meet the 1999 trip bank forecasts. Plans A, B,and C would pass the City's concurrency test. Without off-site roadway improvements, proposed development would result in decreased LOS compared to 2004 background conditions at the following intersections: Park Drive/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Blvd. during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours; and Lake Washington Blvd./Site Access/Houser Way and N. 30th Street/I-405 northbound ramps during the p.m. peak hour. Proposed roadway improvements would be provided at the Park Drive/Garden Ave/Lake Washington Boulevard and Lake Washington Boulevard/Houser Way/Site Access Intersections to achieve acceptable levels of service. Vehicles exiting the site during. the PM peak-hour would experience significant delay at the site driveway. Proposed parking supply for residential and commercial uses does not meet City rates for Plans A and B. Proposed parking rates for the hotel use does not meet City rates in Plan C. In terms of the parking demand analysis, proposed parking supply for retail uses in Plans A and B would be insufficient on weekdays. 23 09/09/99 If paid parking is implemented for office uses on the subject site, it could have a spillover effect on the free parking provided at Gene Coulon Park. With increased traffic, additional conflicts could result for vehicles crossing at the existing railroad crossings(no impact to trains would be anticipated). The City and the developer(s) would work with BNSF and the UTC during the design of improvements on Lake Washington Blvd. to determine the best railroad crossing solution(i.e.,automatic gates and/or signals). The Proposal-Proposed Action would generate demand for area transit, pedestrian and bicycle I facilities. On-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including sidewalks, promenade, crosswalks and connections to existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities would be provided. Transit incentives could be provided as part of a TDM program. b. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: The Proposed Action would increase the number of vehicles using area roadways. With implementation of mitigation measures,no significant impacts would be anticipated. c.Mitigation Measures: The miti•ation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3/Appendix D of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): A traffic/road improvement plan shall be prepared and approved prior to approval of a site plan Level I). Improvements shall be implemented at the time demand or safety warrants. The road improvements shall be consistent generally with the following features: At the Park Drive/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection, the existing channelization on the Park Avenue approach would be restriped to accommodate one shared through/right lane, one through lane, and two left-turn lanes. On the Lake Washington Boulevard approach,the approach would be restriped to accommodate one right-turn lane and two left-turn lanes. The westbound free right-turn lane from Park Drive to Lake Washington Boulevard would yield to the eastbound Ieft-turning vehicles from Park Avenue to Lake Washington Boulevard_ A signal would be provided at the Lake Washington Boulevard/Houser Way/South Site Access intersection. The Soutlportsubject site/Gene Coulon Park shared access approach would be widened to three I lanes(one left-turn, one right-turn and one entering lane). The section of Lake Washington Boulevard between Park Drive and the joint Sou ortSite/Gene Coulon Park shared access would be widened by approximately 12 feet to accommodate two southbound lanes, one northbound left turn lane, and one northbound through lane. To minimize the safety hazard from left-turns in and out of the Boeing parking lot, left turns may need to be restricted. One solution could be placement of a c-curb along the centerline of Lake Washington Boulevard just north of Park Drive to restrict left-turns into and out of the Boeing 24 09/09/99 parking lot. Alternate parking lot access may be available from N 10th Street. Prior to final design, coordination with Boeing shall occur to determine specific mitigation. The City shall assist with coordination efforts as needed. The improvements shall be funded by the future developer(s), or through a City Local Improvement District. Traffic impact mitigation fees would-shall be paid to the City of Renton at the rate of$75 per daily trip generated, consistent with the City of Renton Resolution Na. 31.00 ($702,525 under Plan A.and 840 150 ,„der Plan u) n d ustments t„ the f es sible f r developments „ idin., high Appropriate fees would-shall be determined in accordance with Resolution 3100 prior to approval of a site plan (Level II). Because the traffic/road improvements would also address traffic growth unrelated to the development of the subject site, the City will use all or a portion of the traffic impact mitigation fees to fund the portion of the traffic/road improvements required that the City determines will provide benefit to the public. The City and the applicant-future developer(s)would-shall continue to work with the BNSF railroad I during the design of improvements on Lake Washington Boulevard to determine the most appropriate railroad crossing solution. Potential solutions could include signal pre-emption and cantilever- mounted flashing lights with or without gates. The specific design of the internal intersection of the Seutlsite access driveway and the Gene Coulon Park access road would-shall be formulated prior to approval of Level I site plan(s) that necessitate the improvements. The design shall minimize queue lengths within Gene Coulon Park. The design weal-shall insure that traffic into both properties would not spill back onto Lake Washington Boulevard. The applicant future developer(s) would prepare a parking management plan for review and approval by the City prior to the issuance of building or construction permits. Based upon any supplementary information during the preparation of Level I site plans or the traffic/road improvement plan, Fors urpeses,"Children at Play" signs could be installed in and around the Gene Coulon Park access road and near Sontliper-ts-the site's residential areas, and/or speed bumps could be installed on the internal roadways to encourage slower speeds and enhance overall safety. A traffic monitoring plan seuld-shall -be conducted for two years after full buildout to determine if any modifications to traffic/road improvements are warranted based upon actual travel patterns. The monitoring could--would be conducted as part of the City's regular traffic count program. Where feasible, the road design sheuldshall consider potential contingency measures to ensure that road improvements will function as designed to encourage traffic movements to the south of the project site. d. Nexus: City of Renton Parking Regulations (RMC 4-4-080); City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvement Program; City of Renton Street Arterial Plan; City of Renton Traffic Mitigation Resolution and Fee(Resolution 3100); City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 25 09/09/99 11. FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES a.Significant Impacts:Chapter 3 of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to fire department services. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3 of the SEIS. The Proposed Action would generate additional fire protection and emergency service demands on the City of Renton Fire Department. b. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. e.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): Per Resolution#28952913, fire mitigation fees weald-shall be paid to the City at the rate of$388 per multi-family unit, and $0.52 per square foot of commercial building area. Credit shall be given for existing structure square footage. d. Nexus: City of Renton Uniform Fire Code (RMC 4-5-070); City of Renton Uniform Building Code (RMC 4-5-050); Fire Department Master Plan; Fire Mitigation Resolution and Fee (Resolution 2913);Renton Comprehensive Plan. 12. POLICE a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to police services. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3 of the SEIS. The Proposed Action would generate additional demands for police protection. Due to the additional population,demand for police security in Gene Coulon Park could increase. b. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): Prior to the issuance of building permits, The a_ pplica„t of future developer(s) redevelop--of the site could shall coordinate with the Police Department to include on-site safety features that would help lower the demand for service. d. Nexus: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 26 09/09/99 13. SCHOOLS a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SETS includes an examination of significant impacts to school facilities and services. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SETS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3 of the SETS. Residential use would generate additional students in the Renton School.District. b. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3 of the SETS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): Prior to issuance of residential building permits, The the applicant-future developer(s) d shall coordinate with the school district to ensure safe and efficient bus transportation to and from the site. Prior to issuance of residential building permits, Adequate adequate provisions would—shall be f provided on-site for bus turn-around(s) or on Lake Washington Boulevard for a bus pull-out as applicable. d. Nexus: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 14. PARKS a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to parks and recreation facilities and services. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3 of the SETS. Plans A, B, or C would increase the demand on nearby park and recreational facilities. Using the City of Renton's Parks level service standards, approximately 20 to 29 31 acres of parks and recreational facilities would be required to serve site population. Residents would likely use nearby park and recreational facilities for active needs. The Gene Coulon Park playground would experience higher levels of activity. Increased level of activity at Gene Coulon Park could cause need for additional security in the Park. However,presence of resident population could enhance perception of security at the park. b. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: No unavoidable adverse park impacts would occur with implementation of mitigation measures. Refer to the Aesthetics section above regarding other unavoidable impacts. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3 of the SETS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): Subject to City approval, future site plans (Levels 11 and I) shall includes substantial on-site public and private recreational features, including public access to 27 09/09/99 Lake Washington, a waterfront promenade, public plaza areas and courtyards. The promenade would shall serve as an extension of the trail in Gene Coulon Park and would provide an opportunity for a future connection to properties to the west and the Cedar River Trail. The playground in Gene Coulon Park would shall be redesigned to ensure that the pedestrian connection between the park and SEetr-the subject site would not direct pedestrians into the playground area. the-redesignA conceptual redesign shall be prepared by the developer(s) prior to approval of a site plan (Level II) with oversight by the City. The-applantFuture developer(s) shall comply with the City's Park Mitigation Fee Policy (Resolution 3082), which allows a variety of approaches to mitigate impacts (e.g. dedication, fees, provision of on-site facilities). I plied fully act f es th0 ut of approximately $192,500 for Plan A. The impact fee is equal to $354.51 per multi-family dwelling unit. The fee shall be determined and applied in accordance with Resolution 3082. Trail and outdoor area design elements of the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan (e.g., benches,grates,waste receptacles,plant materials,lighting, handrail details) shall be compatible with the Gene Coulon Park design theme as determined by the City to achieve an effective transition. The property owner(s) and developer(s)as appropriate, shall dedicate and develop a public recreation easement for physical access along the promenade and shall dedicate a public recreation easement for physical access to the dock to ensure long-term opportunities for public access to the shoreline. If the optional fire lane along the east side of Building C were to be constructed instead of providing emergency access via the Gene Coulon Park parking lot drive aisle to the east as proposed, arborist recommendations limiting intrusions within the drip line of trees along the western edge of the park wettld--shall be implemented to help ensure the long-term survival of the trees. Arborist recommendations include minimizing disruptions within the trees' drip-line, minimizing the amount of fill within the drip-line area,and possibly utilizing pervious paving materials for the fire lane(refer to Appendix E in the Draft SEIS for detail). d. Nexus: City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090; Ord. 4716); Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan; City of Renton Parks Mitigation and Fee(Resolution 3082); City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 15. WATER SUPPLY a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to water supply. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3 of the SEIS. Development wilt result in additional domestic water demand. b.Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:None would be expected. 28 09/09/99 CO Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): Redevelopment will require construction of a new-minimum 10-inch line looped through the site. This line would connect to the existing 6-inch line serving Gene Coulon Park. The 6-inch connection to Lake Washington Boulevard would be replaced with a minimum 10-inch line. These improvements would insure adequate water pressure and fire flow capacity for Southportfuture development on the site. Construction beneath Burlington Northern Railroad's tracks and in the public right-of-way wolf-will be required to install the new connection. The following mitigation measures wouldwoold4ilielyshall apply: Construction plan review and scheduling with all affected utilities and the railroad would-shall be coordinated well in advance of construction. Dependent upon final approved plans and methodologies, Bering-boring and jacking would likely be required for construction underneath the existing rail lines. A minimum 15-foot wide utility easement would--shall be provided to allow City access to water tines for maintenance/repair. d. Nexus: City of Renton Uniform Fire Code (RMC 4-5-070); City of Renton Comprehensive Water System Plan; City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 16. WASTEWATER a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SETS includes an examination of significant impacts to wastewater utility service. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SETS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3 of the SETS. Peak sanitary sewer flows would increase. b. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:None would be expected. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): The existing 8-inch sewer line would--shall be replaced with a minimum 10-inch line to insure adequate capacity to handle the estimated flows Installation of the new—minimum 10-inch sewer line wow--will require construction beneath Burlington Northern Railroad's tracks, as well as construction in the public right-of-way. The following mitigation measures shall apply: Construction plan review and scheduling with all affected utilities and the railroadwould-shall be coordinated well in advance of construction. 29 09/09/99 Dependent upon final approved plans and methodolgies, B g-boring and jacking would likely be required for construction underneath existing rails. A minimum 15-foot wide utility easement would-shall be provided to allow City access to sewer lines f for maintenance/repair. d. Nexus: City of Renton Long Range Wastewater Management Plan; City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 17. SOLID WASTE a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SETS includes an examination of significant impacts to solid waste services. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3 of the SEIS. Residential uses and commercial uses would generate additional tons of solid waste annually b. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3 of the SEIS.. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developers): T cantFuture developer(s)would shall develop a plan for waste reduction, reuse and recycling both during construction and post-development to reduce solid waste disposal demands. The plan would-shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Renton Solid Waste Utility prior to issuance of building and construction permits. d. Nexus: Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. 30 09/09/99 ADVISORY NOTES TO DEVLOPERJAPPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the Mitigation Document Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process. The SEIS did not list all potential applicable code requirements, but identified the key code requirements that would act to mitigate identified environmental impacts. It is assumed that all applicable federal, state, and local regulations would be applied. The primary set of applicable local regulations is found in Title 4 of the Renton Municipal Code which addresses Administration and Enforcement, Land Use Districts, Environmental Regulations and Special Districts, Property Development Standards, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, Street and Utility Standards, Subdivision Regulations, Permits and Decisions, Procedures and Review Criteria, and Non-conforming Structures, Uses and Lots. Specific code requirements identified in the SEIS that would act as mitigation include: EARTH Seismic All proposed structures will be designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code(RMC 4- 5-050) Geotechnical Considerations- Stuctural Fill Final grading plans wet shall ensure that existing grades are met at the property line with Gene Coulon Park. (RMC 4-4-060.H.4) AIR QUALITY General-Construction and Operation Rules and regulations as promulgated by Federal and State Clean Air Acts,the State DOE(RCW 70.94; WAC 173-400), and PSAPCA (RCW 70.94; PSAPCA Regulations I, IL and III) would apply to the Proposed Action as well as to activities of adjacent and abutting sites. NOISE Construction Noise Washington's noise limits apply to construction noise during nighttime hours; therefore, construction activities could be limited to daytime hours to the extent practicable. This restriction could include all noisy start-up and preparatory activities such as starting engines before 7:00 a.m., which can disturb people trying to sleep. Noise from any work during nighttime hours after 10 p.m.)received in residentially zoned areas would be subject to the nighttime noise limits in the Washington Administrative Code. (WAC 173-60) Maximum noise levels during construction would be required to comply with City of Renton Development Regulations for Grading, Excavation and Mining(RMC 4-4-060). 31 09/09/99 TRANSPORTATION A Transportation Demand Management(TDM)program sot will be implemented. TDM is a tool for managing the amount of traffic a development generates. Through various TDM programs,traffic could be reduced overall or shifted to non-peak times of the day. The State of Washington's Commute Trip Reduction(CTR)program,implemented through the City's Commute Trip Reduction regulations in RMC 10-13,requires employers who have 100 or more employees commuting to a single location,between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.,to implement TDM programs. Some TDM programs could include: Transit incentives Guaranteed ride home program Flex-time hours Telecommuting Preferential parking for vanpools and carpools Parking pricing Secured bicycle parking Financial Incentives Haul Routes and Hours: A construction plan showing haul routes and hours would will he required. (RMC 4-4-030.C) FIRE SERVICES Approved fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems would-will be installed throughout all structures. (RMC 4-5-070) City ordinances require a minimum of two access roadways into the project. An emergency access would be provided via the 45-foot wide pedestrian plaza located immediately south of Building B with access from Gene Coulon Park's southern parking lot. Removable vehicle barriers would block ordinary vehicle traffic. (RMC 4-5-0701 Fire department apparatus access is required within 150 feet of all points on the building. The fire lanes along the secondary access,and along the south/southwest site perimeter,would meet fire department requirements by having widths of 20 feet. Roadways would be signed as fire Ianes. (RMC 4-5-070) A designated fire Iane,to serve the eastern side of the development,would be provided by the existing drive aisle in the Gene Coulon Park parking lot to the immediate east. The park drive aisle would be signed as a fire lane. (RMC 4-5-070j 32 09/09/99 SCHOOLS PARKS Tax ac 33 09/09/99 SOUTIIPORT VICINITY Mti1 ) kGeneCoulonPark - Lake Washington Shoreline 1. o SOUTHPORT O o k: N.- O Q 0 o K .o y\--- 1co GATT 04, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Site boundary E0. DennPison0. Dennison TO 23 February 1999 0 400 800 Wit,.....,,..,.. 1 :4,800 sayy-0 rkCITYOFRENTON NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY MITIGATION DOCUMENT APPLICATION NO(S): ECF;R;SA-044-89 APPLICANT: Lincoln Property Company PROJECT NAME: The Bluffs DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Contract Rezone and Site Plan Approval of a 22.6 acre site from R-1 Residential to the R-3 Residential designation and the construction of a 165 unit residential condominium complex on a site in the northern portion of the City of Renton. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Between Lake Washington Boulevard North and 1-405, east of Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee, under WAC 197-11-660, has issued a mitigation document to address the environmental impacts expected from the potential development of The Bluffs. An environmental impact statement was required for this project under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and other documents cited in the ordinance. The impacts described in that statements and the subsequent Addendum are the basis for the mitigating measures in the mitigation document. This decision was made by the Environmental Review Committee after review of the completed environmental impact statement and Addendum and other information on file with the lead agency. Any interested party may appeal these conditions in writing by 5:00 p.m., October 29, 1992, to the Renton Hearing Examiner. Any appeal as to the adequacy of the FEIS and/or the Addendum to the FEIS must also be filed by 5:00 p.m., October 29, 1992. See City Code Section 4-8-11, WAC 197-11-680 for further details and RCW 43.21 C.075. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact City of Renton, Community Development Department to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee c/o Don Erickson, Secretary Development Planning Section Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 PUBLICATION DATE: October 9, 1992 DATE OF DECISION:October 7, 1992 SIGNATURES: 7z7t‘, .----/ erl----- 7---IVZ— 6 ----.2 --"Ve___— Ly :A. Guttmann, Administrator DATE artment of Planning/Building/Public Works r.,........ 70d /9Qz Sam Chastain, Administrator DATE Community Service Department o— 7 77— ee er, Fire Chief DATE e n ire Department csig 4% : CITY O. REN /TON u Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator October 9, 1992 SUBJECT: The Bluffs ECF;R;SA-044-89 Dear Interested Party: This is to inform you that, under SEPA, RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-660, the City of Renton has issued a mitigation document for The Bluffs Environmental Impact Statement. Copies of the document are available at the public information counter (SEPA Information Center) in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Renton Municipal Building located at 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055. Reading copies are available in the Renton Municipal Library at the above address. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: THE BLUFFS ECF;R;SA-044-89 The applicant has requested Contract Rezone and Site Plan Approval to allow construction of a residential condominium complex consisting of six residential condominium buildings containing a total of 165 dwelling units, a recreation center and parking for 368 vehicles. The units are slated for sale to middle to upper income market. The site contains 22.6 acres and approximately 11.2. acres would be developed in buildings, parking, drives and re-landscaped open space. Approximately 11.4 acres or 51 percent of the site would be left as natural open space. Recreational amenities include a recreation center, swimming pool, pedestrian walkway system, public trail and natural open space. The proposal would incorporate design elements similar to the architecture in Gene Coulon Park, providing a synergistic relationship between the complex and the nearby park. The proposed entrance driveway has been revised to provide 24 foot wide with an internal turnaround for emergency vehicles. The revised access plan retains the secondary emergency access road at the north end of the site. Any interested party may appeal these conditions in writing by 5:00 p.m., October 29, 1992. See City Code Section 4-8- 11, WAC 197-11-680 for further details and RCW 43.21 C.075. Any appeal as to the adequacy of the FEIS must be filed with the Hearing Examiner within twenty (20) days of the date the decision was made to issue the mitigation document. All appeals must be received by October 29, 1992, 5:00 p.m. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections to either the mitigation document and/or the FEIS. If you have anyy questions about either document or the procedures for either appeal, please contact Paul Forsander at 235-2550. rely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Secretary to the ERC bltr 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ential CITY OF RENTON The NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY lating on as ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT lation MITIGATION DOCUMENT Notice is hereby given under SEPA, RCW 43.21C.080 (Notice of Action) and the City of Renton Environmental public Review Ordinance (Building Regulations Title IV, Chapter 6), that the City of Renton issued the Mitigation DocumentiicipalforBoeingLongacresOfficeParkonMay30, 1995. The document is available for public review at the Renton floor) Municipal Library (the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch), and in the Renton Municipal Building at 200 MillAvenueSouth, Renton Washington 98055, (both in the Development Services Division (3rd floor) and in the CityClerk's Office (1st floor). pf the 0 per PROPONENT: The Boeing Company APPLICATION FILE: LUA 91-128 ECF F this PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Office Park 1 this paled, PROPOSAL: The Boeing Company has submitted conceptual plans for an office park development ("Longacres itions Office Park") on approximately 164 acres of the former Longacres Park Racetrack. The office park would includeoffices, an employee center, and related support and utility facilities. The office park would be developed over a tenyeartofifteenyearperiodinaccordancewiththecorporateneedsofTheBoeingCompany.h the ed in LOCATION: The northern boundary of the project site is formed generally by The Boeing Company's Customerssed • • s Services Training Center. The southern boundary lies approximately 1,000 feet south of Southwest 27th Street. nton, $ Oakesdale Avenue Southwest, if extended, generally forms the site's eastern border. The Burlington NorthernJ_Railroad tracks form the western boundary of the project site (and the western limits of the City of Renton). ding, LEAD AGENCY: City'of Renton, Planning/Building/public Works Department rr'`ACTION:The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee, under WAC 197-11-660, has issued a g the Mitigation Document to address the environmental impacts anticipated from the potential development of the BoeingLongacresOfficePark (Longacres Office Park). lin to An EIS was required for this project under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and other documents cited in the ordinance. Thegillbe •impacts described in that EIS and other information on file with the City of Renton are the basis for the mitigatingpark measures established in the Mitigation Document. This Mitigation Document is designated by the City of Renton asthefirstdecisiondocumentforLongacresOfficePark. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The Mitigation Document (and the EIS on which it is based) are available for publicAyof review at the Renton Municipal Libraryp the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch), and in the Renton MunicipalBuildingat200MillAvenueSouth, Renton Washington 98055, both in the Development Services Division (3rd floor)and in the City Clerk's Office (1st floor). fiThe Mitigation Document is available for purchase from the Development Services Division on the third floor of theti .;Renton Municipal Building for a cost of $10.00, plus tax. The Draft EIS is available for purchase for $20.00 pervolume (or$30.00 per set), plus tax. The Final EIS is available for purchase for$10.00, plus tax.PUBLIC REVIEW/APPEAL PERIOD: Under SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-680), following the issuance of thisMitigationDocument, a a thirty (30) day appeal period will be provided (May 30 - June 29, 1995). During thishirty (30) day period, the adequacy of the EIS and the Mitigation Measures Document may be appealed,Pursuant to SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-680, RCW 43.21C.075) and the City of Renton's Building RegulationsitleIV, Chapter 6 (Environmental Review Ordinance) and Title IV Chapter 8 (Hearing Examiner Ordinance). Any interested party may file an appeal as to the adequacy of the Mitigation Document and/or the EIS on which theMitigationDocumentisbased. Appeals must: (1) state specific objections of fact and/or law; (2) be submitted iningby5:00 PM on June 29, 1995; and (c) accompanied by a filing fee of $75.00. Appeals should be addressedo: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,shington 98055. f Questions should be addressed to: Lenora Blauman, Project Manager, Renton Municipal Building,. Planning/Building/Public Works Department, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055. The City of Renton will take no action related to the proposed Boeing Longacres Office Park Development during the ElappealperiodfortheMitigationDocument. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS: Following the approval of the Mitigation Document, Boeing may begin to INi submit applications for specific development actions permitted for Longacres Office Park. These applications will be reviewed under SEPA Rules and under City of Renton policies and regulations applicable to the planned office park development. 11/1 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information please contact Lenora Blauman, City of Renton, Planning/Building/Public Works Department at 235-2550. Date of Decision: May 23, 1995 Publication Date: May 30, 1995 SIGNATURES: 4eac? 3'rnm 5'/z 3i/95 Gregg Zimmerman,Administrator DATE Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Sam Chastain,Administrator DA E Community Se Departm t tf< 77-PX Lee heeler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department R', S.24c1/1,10-02.._. 4i CITY r/F RENTON ea I ,. Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 30, 1995 SUBJECT: Mitigation Document for the Boeing Longacres Office Park (LUA 091-128 ECF) Dear Reader: Attached is a copy of the Mitigation Document for The Boeing Longacres Office Park Development, City of Renton, Washington. PROPOSAL: The Boeing Company has submitted conceptual plans for a proposed new office park complex on a 164 acre site located on the former Longacres Park Racetrack property in Renton, Washington. The proposed 2.5 million square foot development would include offices, an employee center, related support and utility facilities, and open space amenities. The office park would be developed over a ten year to fifteen year period in accordance with the corporate needs of The Boeing Company. Approximately 10,0000 employees would work at the Longacres Office park complex at its completion. LOCATION: The northern boundary of the project site is formed generally by The Boeing Company's Customer Services Training Center. The southern boundary lies approximately 1,000 feet south of Southwest 27th Street. Oakesdale Avenue Southwest, if extended, generally forms the site's eastern border. The Burlington Northern Railroad tracks form the western boundary of the project site (and the western limits of the City of Renton). ALTERNATIVES/IMPACTS TO ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT Pursuant to State of Washington Growth Management Act regulations, the City issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in 1994 and a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in 1995 for the Boeing Longacres Office Park. The EIS prepared for this proposed (conceptual) development, under the direction of the City of Renton, by Jones & Stokes, Associates, consultants, included a review of four alternatives: The Proposed Action (Alternative 1) is described as including approximately 15 office and ancillary services structures, in a dispersed development pattern, as well as parking, approximately 94 acres of landscaping, and a lake (as an water amenity and storm water detention system). Alternative 2 similarly includes approximately 15 office and ancillary services structures, however, these structures would be designed in a clustered development pattern and some structured parking would be provided as well. Approximately 104 acres of landscaping and the previously described lake system would be provided with this alternative. Alternative 3 has been defined to include a mix of offices (approximately 75% of development) and light industrial uses (25% of development), parking and landscaping. Under this alternative, the site is assumed to be developed incrementally, so that the design, space allocation and location of improvements would likely also be developed incrementally. Alternative 4 is a "No Action" alternative, which assumes that the site will remain unoccupied. For each alternative, the contents of the DEIS included discussion of identified potential impacts to the following environmental elements: earth; air quality; water (surface and groundwater); natural environment (wetlands, terrestrial and aquatic resources); noise; hazardous materials; land and shorelines use; population, housing and socioeconomics; visual resources; historic and cultural resources; transportation; utilities and natural resources; public services. The DEIS generally delineated mitigation measures to address identified significant impacts. The FEIS provided: (1) a summary of the purposes and content of the DEIS; (2) a Summary Table of Significant Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts identified in the DEIS; (3) a description and discussion of additional factual information to supplement discussion in the DEIS with respect to selected existing conditions, impacts, and potential mitigation measures; and (4) letters of comment on the DEIS (16 letters received from government agencies, community members and other interested parties) and the City's response to those letters. ACTION:Based upon the analysis and findings established in the EIS, and based upon Boeing corporate requirements, Alternative 1 (also identified as the "Proposed Action") has been selected as the preferred option for development of Longacres Office Park. The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee, under WAC 197-11- 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton,Washington 98055 660, has issued a Mitigation Document to address the environmental impacts anticipated from the potential development of the Boeing Longacres Office Park (Longacres Office Park). An EIS was required for this project under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and other documents cited in the ordinance. The impacts described in that EIS and other information on file with the City of Renton are the basis for the mitigating measures established.in the Mitigation Document. This Mitigation Document is designated by the City of Renton as the first decision document for Longacres Office Park. Information in the EIS and other documents has been utilized by the City of Renton to develop the Mitigation Document for Longacres Office Park, consistent with the intent of the State Environmental policy Act (SEPA). DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The Mitigation Document (and the EIS on which it is based) are available for public F review at the Renton Municipal Library (the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch), and in the Renton Municipal Building at 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton Washington 98055, both in the Development Services Division (3rd floor) and in the City Clerk's Office (1st floor). The Mitigation Document is available for purchase from the Development Services Division on the third floor of the Renton Municipal Building for a cost of $10.00, plus tax. The Draft EIS is available for purchase for $20.00 per volume (or$30.00 per set), plus tax. The Final EIS is available for purchase for$10.00, plus tax. PUBLIC REVIEW/APPEAL PERIOD: Under SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-680), following the issuance of this Mitigation Document, a a thirty (30) day appeal period will be provided (May 30 - June 29, 1995). During this thirty (30) day period, the adequacy of the EIS and the Mitigation Measures Document may be appealed, pursuant to SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-680, RCW 43.21C.075) and the City of Renton's Building Regulations Title IV, Chapter 6 (Environmental Review Ordinance) and Title IV Chapter 8 (Hearing Examiner Ordinance). Any interested party may file an appeal as to the adequacy of the Mitigation Document and/or the EIS on which the IMitigationDocumentisbased. Appeals must: (1) state specific objections of fact and/or law; (2) be submitted in writing by 5:00 PM on June 29, 1995; and (c) accompanied by a filing fee of $75.00. Appeals should be addressed to: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055. Questions should be addressed to: Lenora Blauman, Project Manager, Renton Municipal Building, Planning/Building/Public Works Department, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055. The City of Renton will take no action related to the proposed Boeing Longacres Office Park Development during the appeal period for the Mitigation Document. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS: Following the approval of the Mitigation Document, Boeing may begin to submit applications for specific development actions permitted for Longacres Office Park. These applications will be reviewed under SEPA Rules and under City of Renton policies and regulations applicable to the planned office park development. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information please contact Lenora Blauman, City of Renton, Planning/Building/Public Works Department at 235-2550. Sincerely, Gregg Al. Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department Lisa Grueter From: Gregg A. Zimmerman To: Lisa Grueter; Sue A. Carlson Cc: Jana Hanson; Jennefer Toth Henning; Sandra L. Meyer Subject: Southport Planned Action Mitigation Document Date: Friday, September 03, 1999 12:50PM Please find attached my proposed modifications to a bullet included in the Transportation Mitigation section of the Southport Planned Action Mitigation Document. I am faxing a copy to the City Attorney. File Attachment: doc2.doc» Page 1 CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 7, 1999 TO: Sue Carlson; Lisa Grueter FROM: Gregg Zimmerman SUBJECT: Modifications to Southport Planned Action Mitigation Document I offer the following as a revision to the last bullet at the bottom of page 22,under 10. Transportation, c. Mitigation Measures,of the Southport Planned Action Mitigation Document. I am also requesting that some written clarification be provided in the Mitigation Document about timing of the Level II(Master) Site Plan and the Level I Site Plan. Several of the Transportation Mitigation Measures are tied into approval of the Level I and/or Level II Site Plans,and it is unclear to me how this corresponds to the build out and phasing of the project. Because of this lack of clarity,I am not sure whether the timing of the Transportation Mitigation provisions are acceptable to me. My main intention in the below revisions is to remove any reference to "credit of fees". Bottom of page 22,under 10.c.,Transportation Mitigation Measures, last bullet on p. 22: Traffic impact mitigation fees shall be paid to the City of Renton at the rate of$75 per daily trip generated, consistent with the City of Renton Resolution No. 3100. Appropriate fees and any credits shall be determined in accordance with Resolution 3100 prior to approval of a site plan Level II). Because the traffic/road improvements would also address traffic growth unrelated to the development of the subject site, therefore providing public benefit.credit of fees toward:, the City will use all or a portion of the traffic impact mitigation fees to fund the portion of the traffic/road improvements required that the City determines will provide benefit to the public. hall be made to the extent allowable under Resolution 3100. cc: TS SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\DOC2.DOCDee 24[\:WW6O1)011AMFMO.i))T i CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:September 1, 1999 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Sue Carlson CONTACT: Lisa Grueter(BWR 206-448-2123) SUBJECT: Draft Planned Action Ordinance Attached is a draft Planned Action Ordinance that would apply to the Southport site. Also attached is a copy of the applicable Washington Administrative Code sections that apply to Planned Action Ordinances. We will discuss the proposed Ordinance at your next ERC meeting dated September 7, 1999. If needed we can wrap up discussions on September 14, 1999. The key exhibit to the Ordinance will be the Mitigation Document. We will finalize the Mitigation Document by September 14, 1999. Following ERC input on August 31, 1999, we are making changes. cc: Larry Warren Lisa Grueter H:\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\ERCMEM7.doc\cor DRAFT CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE WHEREAS, RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164, - 168, and —172 allow and govern the application of a Planned Action designation; and, WHEREAS, in Resolution 3379, the City indicated its intent to study and consider a Planned Action designation for the Shuffleton Steam Plant site, also known as the Southport site;and, WHEREAS, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) has been prepared for a portion of the Shuffleton Steam Plant site, entitled the Southport Development Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and such document considers the potential environmental impacts of a phased mixed-use project on 17 acres of property within the City limits; and, WHEREAS, with Ordinance the City has amended the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for the subject area from Employment Area—Industrial to Center Office Residential; and, WHEREAS, with Ordinance the City has amended the Zoning Map from Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential; and, WHEREAS, this Ordinance would designate certain land uses and activities as "planned actions" which would be consistent with the Center Office Residential designation and zone; NOW, THEREFORE,THE CITY OF RENTON DOES ORDAIN: Sc;:tion 1: Purpose. The City of Renton declares that the purpose of this ordinance is to: A. Set forth a procedure designating certain project actions within the subject site as planned actions"consistent with state law,43.21C.031 RCW; and, B. Provide the public with an understanding as to what constitutes a planned action and how land use applications which qualify as planned actions will be processed by the City; and, C. Streamline and expedite the land use permit review process by relying on completed and existing detailed environmental analysis for the subject site; and, D. Combine environmental analysis with land use planning;. It is the express purpose of this ordinance that all the City's development codes be applied together with the mitigation framework described in Section 3 of this Ordinance for the purpose of processing planned actions. Section 2: Findings. The City Council finds that: A. The Southport Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) addresses all significant environmental impacts associated with the planned action scenarios described in the SEIS for Plans A,B,and C as referenced therein; and, B. The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Document, Exhibit A of this Ordinance, together with the City's development standards, are adequate to mitigate the significant adverse environmental impacts of the planned action scenarios,Plans A,B, and C; and, 1 08/31/99 C. The expedited permit review procedure set forth in this Ordinance is and will be a benefit to the public,protects the environment, and enhances economic development; and, D. Opportunities for public involvement and review have been provided, and comments have been considered which has resulted in modifications to mitigation measures and planned action conceptual alternatives. Section 3: Procedure and Criteria for Evaluating and Determining Projects as Planned Actions. A. Planned Action Site. The Planned Action designation shall apply to approximately 17 acres of property commonly referred to as the Shuffleton Steam Plan site, also known as the Southport site, and referred to in this Ordinance as the "subject site." The property is illustrated in Exhibit B, and legally described in Exhibit C. Additionally, the Planned Action designation shall apply to any off-site improvements necessitated by the proposed development on the subject site, where the off-site improvements have been analyzed in the SEIS. B. Environmental Document. A planned action designation for a site-specific permit application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the Southport Development Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) issued by the City on September 9, 1999. The Mitigation Document, Exhibit A, is based upon the analysis in the SEIS. The Mitigation Document, together with existing City codes, ordinances, and standards shall provide the framework for the decision by the City to impose conditions on a planned action project. Other environmental documents incorporated by reference in the SEIS may also be utilized to assist in analyzing impacts and determining appropriate mitigation measures. C. Planned Action Designated. Uses and activities described in the SEIS, subject to the thresholds described in Section 3.D, and subject to the mitigation measures described in Exhibit A, are designated planned actions pursuant to 43.21.C.031 RCW. D. Planned Action Thresholds. 1.Land Use. Subject to the mitigation measures described in Exhibit A, the following land uses and development levels, together with their customary accessory uses and amenities described in the SEIS, are planned actions pursuant to 43.21.C.031 RCW: a) Land Uses. The following uses are the primary uses analyzed under the Proposed Action Alternatives identified in the SEIS: 1) Office 2) Retail commercial, including restaurants 3) Attached residential dwellings 4) Hotel b) Land Use Review Threshold. The Planned Action designation applies to future development proposals which are comparable to or within the range established by SEIS Proposed Action Plans A,B, and C as shown below: 2 08/31/99 Use/Height Plan A Plan B Plan C Multifamily Residential Units 543 581 377 Retail Area in Sq.Ft. 38,000 38,000 30,000 Commercial Area in Sq.Ft. 500,000 750,000 500,000 Hotel Area in Sq.Ft.(rooms) N/A N/A 115,800(220) If future proposed plans exceed the maximum development parameters reviewed, supplemental environmental review may be required under SEPA Rules. If proposed plans significantly change the location of uses in a manner which would negatively affect land use compatibility (for example, move commercial and office uses in such a manner that they would not buffer residential uses from the nearby manufacturing uses),additional SEPA review would be required. 2.Building Heights and Thresholds: Building heights shall not exceed the maximum heights allowed in the Center Office Residential Zone. The maximum building heights reviewed in the SEIS are as shown on Exhibit D. In comparison with the building heights reviewed in the SEIS, a proposed increase in height greater than 10% shall required additional SEPA review addressing aesthetics and shadows. • 3.Building Setbacks: Refer to Exhibit A, Land Use and Aesthetics/Light and Glare Mitigation Measures. 4.Open Space: Refer to Exhibit A,Land Use,Aesthetics/Light and Glare, and Parks Mitigation Measures. 5.Transportation: a) Trip Ranges: The range of trips reviewed in the SEIS are as follows: Trip Generation Net New Trips Reviewed in SEIS Time Range-Net New Trips AM Peak Hour 355-1,273 PM Peak Hour 370-1,355 Daily Total 2,898-11,202 b) Trip Threshold: Uses or activities which would exceed the maximum trip levels shown above must complete additional SEPA review. c) Road Improvements: The planned action would require off-site road improvements at the Park Avenue/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection, the intersection located at the shared site/Gene Coulon Park entrance and Lake Washington Boulevard, and along Lake Washington Boulevard between the two identified intersections. These road improvements 3 08/31/99 have been analyzed in the SEIS. Significant changes to the road improvement plan that have the potential to significantly increase impacts to air quality, water quality, fisheries resources, or noise levels beyond the levels analyzed in the SEIS would require additional SEPA review. 6.Earth: A significant change in amount of grading assumed in the preliminary grading plans analyzed in the SEIS which has the potential to adversely affect water quality or fisheries shall require additional SEPA Review. 7.Air Quality: A significant change in configuration, increase in building heights, or significant decrease in setbacks between residential and manufacturing uses, which could affect localized air quality and odor conditions would require additional SEPA Review. For the purposes of air quality analysis: a) A significant change in configuration to the planned action scenarios Plans A, B, or C) reviewed in the SEIS, would be a 10% or greater decrease in the minimum building setbacks between uses and the shared property line with The Boeing Company. Or, a 10% or greater change in setbacks between buildings to be constructed on the subject site which have the potential to negatively affect building downwash. b) A significant decrease in the setbacks between residential and manufacturing uses would be a 10% or greater decrease in the minimum building setbacks between residential uses and the shared property line with The Boeing Company. c) Significant building height changes would equal a 10% or greater increase in height above the maximum heights reviewed in the SEIS. 8.Water. The following changes to the planned action scenarios reviewed in the SEIS would require additional SEPA review: a) Change in peak flows to Johns Creek significantly exceeding the options reviewed in the SEIS. b) Increase in number of outfalls to Johns Creek or Lake Washington beyond proposals rev.iewed in the SEIS. 9. Fisheries Resources: In-water construction or in-water uses or activities shall require additional SEPA Review. 10. Public Services and Utilities: A significant increase in the number of square feet or dwelling units beyond the maximum number reviewed in the SEIS would require additional SEPA review to address impacts to Fire,Police, Schools,Parks,Water,Wastewater, Solid Waste, as applicable. E. Planned Action Review Criteria. 1.The Director of Development Services, or the Director's designee, is hereby authorized to designate a project application as a planned action pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031(2)(a), if the project application meets all of the following conditions: a) The project is located on the subject site as described in Section 3A, or is an off-site improvement directly related to a proposed development on the subject site; and, 4 08/31/99 b) The project is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan adopted under RCW 36.70A; and, c) The project's significant environmental impacts have been.adequately addressed in the SEIS; and, d) The project complies with the Planned Action thresholds in Section 3D of this Ordinance; and, e) The Director has determined that the project's significant impacts have been mitigated through the application of the Mitigation Document in Exhibit A, as well as other City requirements and conditions, which together constitute sufficient mitigation for the significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project; and f)The proposed project complies with all applicable local, state and federal regulations, and where appropriate,needed variances or modifications or other special permits have been requested; and, g) The proposed project is not an essential public facility. F. Effect of Planned Action. 1.Upon designation by the Director that the project qualifies as a planned action, the project shall not be subject to a SEPA threshold determination, an environmental impact statement(EIS),or any additional review under SEPA. 2. Being designated a planned action means that a proposed project has been reviewed in accordance with this Ordinance, and found to be consistent with the development parameters and environmental analysis included in the SEIS. 3. Planned actions will not be subject to further procedural review under SEPA. However, projects will be subject to conditions designed to mitigate any environmental impacts which may result from the project proposal, and projects will be subject to whatever permit requirements are deemed appropriate by the City under State and City laws and ordinances. The planned action designation shall not excuse a project from meeting the City's code and ordinance requirements apart from the SEPA process. G. Planned Action Permit Process. The Director shall establish a procedure to review projects and to determine whether they meet the criteria as planned actions under State laws and City codes and ordinances. The procedure shall consist, at a minimum, of the following: 1.Development applications shall meet the requirements of RMC Chapters 4-8 and 4-9. Applications shall be made on forms provided by the Department and shall include a SEPA checklist or revised SEPA checklist [where approved through WAC 197-11-315(2)] or such other environmental review forms provided by the Planning/Building/Public Work Department. The checklist may be incorporated into the form of an application; 2. The Director shall determine whether the application is complete as provided in RMC Chapter 4-8. 5 08/31/99 3.If the project application is within an area designated as a Planned Action, the application shall be reviewed to determine whether the proposed application is consistent with and meets all of the qualifications specified in Section 3 of this Ordinance. 4.Upon review of a complete application by the City, the Director shall determine whether the project qualifies as a planned action. If the project does qualify, the Director shall notify the applicant, and the project shall proceed in accordance with the appropriate permit procedure, except that no additional SEPA review,threshold determination,or EIS shall be required. 5.Public notice for projects that qualify as planned actions shall be tied to the underlying permit. If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit,the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a planned action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit,no special notice is required. 6.If a project is determined not to be a planned action, the Director shall notify the applicant and prescribe a SEPA review procedure consistent with the City SEPA procedures and state laws. The notice to the applicant shall describe the elements of the application that result in disqualification as a planned action. 7.Projects disqualified as a planned action may use or incorporate relevant elements of the environmental review analysis in the SEIS prepared for the Planned Action, as well as other environmental documents to assist in meeting SEPA requirements. The Environmental Review Committee may choose to limit the scope of the SEPA review to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the SEIS. Section 4: Time Period. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed no later than December 20004 by the Development Services Director to determine its continuing validity with respect to the environmental conditions of the subject site and vicinity and applicability of planned action requirements. Based upon this review, this Ordinance may be amended as needed, and another review period may be specified. Section 5: Conflict. In the event of a conflict between the Ordinance or any mitigation measures imposed pursuant thereto and any ordinance, or regulation of the City, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control. Section 6: Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or its application be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this_day of 1999. Marilyn J.Petersen, City Clerk 6 08/31/99 APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this_day of 1999. Jesse Tanner,Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J.Warren,City Attorney Date of Publication: 7 08/31/99 EXHIBIT A MITIGATION DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 17, 1999 8 08/31/99 SOUr1IiPORT VICINITY Mm i. 'rf2 11118 NikGeneCoulonPark - S Lake Washington Shoreline t SOUTHPORT 0 * s. S Li Allig• Il 1--.. k, 0 frail' NV t3 V i t c„-------- 1\rtr S 5 SS t\ 1 is 1 l rahF C j a, i Gtiz 0,, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Si Ute boundary a ED/N/SP 0. Dennison QQ TO 23 February 1999 EXHIBIT B 0 4 0 0 O 0 ILLUSTRATIVE MAP 1 :4,8 EXHIBIT C LEGAL DESCRIPTION 10 08/31/99 Maximum Building Heights 75 iiii.};:{• 125' iiiiiiii• iiii iiii iiii"<> ;iiii fr...... iiiiiiii.{:::58 D iiii:,::: iiiiii%„.....y:......iis.„...i:'r•:.,...::::..„..,.„........,,.:.:.::,..•...•.:,..., iw...}}ii ii}:0....}.•iiii;:......ii ii.:}q......}:...........ii ii.:..... iiii:•::•}::is4::{y}:'•}....:..''i'}:•'{:':....iiii•:'}}:;}}{.•..iiii}ii..., r::}}iiii:?}}>i::•:::::{:Y iiii}{}•Y.jis}::;iiii{:i{;iiii:+;':}:i:4ii:<:i`i:::}:t<k:i:'::C:iiY:O}}i:{?:}:^:!L:??:•:•:4}:i.}}}": i i:::?:ti+i::}:iiiiJii:vii$i?:{:i:>?:!'i:ti::v:iiii ::i::ti:iii:•'::}:;iiii}}iiii: i:.•} ::ii.}......iiii••;•••.•y:::::::••• ti:i :?. ...................................................: iiii i Ji.}iiii{;}iiii•is}iiii}.....•ii::'}::'.iiii::}.i}j{iiii:................ . . iiii+!$shi::::'::isi iii : iiii:{:::ti:iii:) {:j:ii? ?iiiij}:i:;:i::::::•'+?:i;•v,??, ti?.::„.}:i???.l..yJ:}:.}:.}:.}:.}:?.}:.:'ir:.}}:{.{{{;;;;:.}:•}:{iYi}:}:.:v:• n ;:{.Y: :{iiii•}:.vn ri.:i::i.::„vii:}::*::f?.iiii?:ij::...}:.:i:. Y.•.,+ v^i,.i Li:?yi4vi::Niiiiri:•'}::ij$:;.ri 4. .:1{ iiii}.}.::::.Y:::,,.:t::n??F:::.F"::f'"r'<''' ..}::•}.:} :•...•}:{ iiii. 3 iiii i•JC:':::} ;i,+'•,?,i N::Y:;:y'v.+•:;r}{:Yi} i2ii.•.:•:iiii\:`•::::i::::ivv:}:i}:i::v. 4: {:}}{Y{.}}.}}iiii.}:{{{?.{..ii; vn•.•:.v iinJ:i•?iiii'::::{:"iiii'::~:{j?ti}tir::v K :• iiii•.Stc°'\• •` g:{': w }}}iiii::k*i:..Y{{::y *i*:.S., ;y :.Y:.,•{.Y r;;;4j;}; .'{•;x::{4'<.},. n::r.Y: :::vYt}iiii:•}3t::'':d$:i:'f,':c'::3t..::k.•. .}.'::f}•..`.:.:::::i{.:.{.}:.};;?.:. r y}t}.a iiiiii : ::..:::y.::::ig::a.^•xn•.•'.:;}{Y4.:. r:.'}:?:}.,•::•x{iiii.;:•::{:•.iiii•.'•:{;>:.:;Y.::.;:.:.}: E v: r';:;iii:::: :}::....fi ::R iiiii::}:}:':;iii}+.::iiigi::iiii r::•''::lf.{{{iiii?•}:•iY.{{f }{:.}%:•i:}h:{•:{:vr'vi<;.::?{:.:v•:}{•:};:: ?J.:i}i:r:}r•:{}:{y f.. :i{:w.:.:.: ... }:.iiii.:iiii;%..}:. •} } iiii::.;•T}:{?:{:::i4yi•'}'{'4 iii!gl•}4:•:}•}}iiii}l§I%w::: ii}:•}::w;.};:}:ii:Kiiiii::.;:i'3::;:.:::?::•Y.{:f.}"• iiiiii''.•:iiii.:{::::iKU:ixl4y:i•}.}•i:}:?iiii?ti:?iiii•:•;.:}.}.v. tii}}::Si:S::ti.•::::::::.:}:::vi :}:} ii: .{••}{3 i{C :;;;yi>,i; iiii£,.iiii}iiii;i':!4::?:'i,:i{:;:}}::}.y e h. .}i::• tY+i:•.h;{ii}:;n:' .ni..:i:i iK{{Y+iiii.. r iiii::;::;'iiii i•••1+ r::,J}iiii::?:::::}:K•::: :}:iiii}'{'•iiii::}:'fy{}'`}.`,'{ .{iiii tr:gE:i};.'':{}•:' 4Mf•.v Y:::{;}};• ii::v::: ti ci:E::v}•r::Y::?::. n,'••: v l}{ i;Y+iiii':; ti?::.::::;ii:}}:'::?:G:O'{:{?iiii' vJy iiii..}. . . iiii:}}ji::}•}•}::::•::::.:y.}i.. v_;: :•:.4:::.:. i,K.4 r.:.v. {:iti}:•<:niH::tiv±::'.•dS{{ :F-0 r Soul., -).-Dort -lannec_ Action o 200 400 G e Neighborhoods & Strategic Planningc)1. :2 4 0 0 L. Grueter, 0. Dennison EXHIBIT D 18 August 1999 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS SEPA Rules process, or impacts specifically reserved in a plan EIS for WAC 197-11-168 Ordinances or resolutions designating project review. planned actions—Procedures for adoption. (1) If a GMA 4) In deciding whether a project specific adverse county/city chooses to designate a planned action, the planned environmental impact has been adequately addressed by an action must be designated by ordinance or resolution. Public existing rule or law of another agency with jurisdiction, the notice and opportunity for public comment shall be provided as GMA county/city shall consult orally or in writing with that part of the agency's process for adopting the ordinance or agency and may expressly defer to that agency. In making this resolution. deferral, the GMA county/city shall base or condition its 2)The ordinance or resolution: project approval on compliance with these other existing rules a) Shall describe the type(s) of project action being or laws. designated as a planned action; 5) If a GMA county/city's comprehensive plan, subarea b)Shall describe how the planned action meets the criteria plan, or development regulations adequately address some or in WAC 197-11-164 (including specific reference to the EIS all of a project's probable specific adverse environmental that addresses any significant environmental impacts of the impacts, as determined under subsections (1) and (2) of this planned action); section, the GMA county/city shall not require additional c) Shall include a finding that the environmental impacts mitigation under this chapter for those impacts.of the planned action have been identified and adequately 6) In making the determination in subsection (1) of this addressed in the EIS, subject to project review under WAC section,nothing in this section requires review of the adequacy 197-11-172;and of the environmental analysis associated with the d) Should identify any specific mitigation measures other comprehensive plans and development regulations that are than applicable development regulations that must be applied to being relied upon to make that determination. a project for it to qualify as the planned action. Statutory Authority: 1995 c 347 (ESHB 1724) and RCW 3) If the GMA county/city has not limited the planned 43.21C.110. 97-21-030 (Order 95-16), § 197-11-158, filed action to a specific time period identified in the EIS, it may do 10/10/97,effective 11/10/97.] so in the ordinance or resolution designating the planned action. 4) The GMA county/city is encouraged to provide a WAC 197-11-164 Planned actions—Definition and criteria. periodic review and update procedure for the planned action to 1) Under RCW 43.21C.031, GMA counties/cities may monitor implementation and consider changes as warranted. designate a planned action. A planned action means one or [Statutory Authority: 1995 c 347 (ESHB 1724) and RCW more types of project action that: 43.21C.110. 97-21-030 (Order 95-16), § 197-11-168, filed a) Are designated planned actions by an ordinance or 10/10/97,effective 11/10/97.] resolution adopted by a GMA county/city; b) Have had the significant environmental impacts WAC 197-11-172Planned actions—Project review. (1) adequately addressed in an EIS prepared in conjunction with:Review of a project proposed as a planned action is intended to i)A comprehensive plan or subarea plan adopted under be simpler and more focused than for other projects. A project chapter 36.70A RCW;or proposed as a planned action must qualify as the planned action ii)A fully contained community, a master planned resort, designated in the planned action ordinance or resolution, and a master planned development,or a phased project; must meet the statutory criteria for a planned action in RCW c) Are subsequent or implementing projects for the 43.21C.031. Planned action project review shall include: proposals listed in(b)of this subsection; a) Verification that the project meets the description in, d)Are located within an urban growth area, as defined in and will implement any applicable conditions or mitigation RCW 36.70A.030, or are located within a master planned measures identified in,the designating ordinance or resolution; resort; and e) Are not essential public facilities, as defined in RCW b) Verification that the probable significant adverse 36.70A.200;and environmental impacts of the project have been adequately f) Are consistent with a comprehensive plan adopted addressed in the EIS prepared under WAC 197-11-164 (1)(b) under chapter 36.70A RCW. through review of an environmental checklist or other project 2) A GMA county/city shall limit planned actions to review form as specified in WAC 197-11-315, filed with the certain types of development or to specific geographical areas project application. that are less extensive than the jurisdictional boundaries of the 2)(a) If the project meets the requirements of subsection GMA county/city.1)of this section,the project shall qualify as the planned action 3) A GMA county/city may limit a planned action to a designated by the GMA county/city, and a project threshold time period identified in the EIS or the designating ordinance or determination or EIS is not required. Nothing in this section resolution adopted under WAC 197-11-168. limits a GMA county/city from using this chapter or other Statutory Authority: 1995 c 347 (ESHB 1724) and RCW applicable law to place conditions on the project in order to 43.21C.110. 97-21-030 (Order 95-16), § 197-11-164, filed mitigate nonsignificant impacts through the normal local 10/10/97,effective 11/10/97.] project review and permitting process. WAC(4/15/98) Ch. 197-11 WAC—p.7] SEPA Rules b) If the project does not meet the requirements of WAC 197-11-220 SEPA/GMA definitions. For subsection(1)of this section,the project is not a planned action purposes of SEPA: and a threshold determination is required. In conducting the 1)"Formal SEPA documents"mean: additional environmental review under this chapter, the lead a)A nonproject environmental checklist/DNS; agency may use information in existing environmental b)A notice of adoption with or without an addendum; documents, including the EIS used to designate the planned c)An addendum; action (refer to WAC 197-11-330 (2)(a) and 197-11-600 d)An EIS;or through 197-11-635). If an EIS or SEIS is prepared on the e)An integrated GMA document. proposed project, its scope is limited to those probable 2) "GMA" means the Growth Management Act, chapter significant adverse environmental impacts that were not 36.70A RCW and those statutes codified in other chapters of adequately addressed in the EIS used to designate the planned the Revised Code of Washington that were enacted or amended action. as part of chapter 17,Laws of 1990 1st ex. sess.and chapter 32, 3) Public notice for projects that qualify as planned Laws of 1991 sp.sess. actions shall be tied to the underlying permit. If notice is 3) "Proposed GMA action" means a proposal for a GMA otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall action that has been issued for public and interagency state that the project has qualified as a planned action. If notice comment. It does not include drafts, preliminary drafts, orisnototherwiserequiredfortheunderlyingpermit, no special other materials or processes that have been used to developnoticeisrequired. However, the GMA county/city is GMA documents or elements of GMA documents. Such drafts encouraged to provide some form of public notice as deemed are not considered a "proposal" as defined in WAC 197-11- appropriate. 784. Statutory Authority: 1995 c 347 (ESHB 1724) and RCW 4) "GMA action" means policies, plans and regulations 43.21C.110. 97-21-030 (Order 95-16), § 197-11-172, filed adopted or amended under RCW 36.70A.106 or 36.70A.210. 10/10/97,effective 11/10/97.] Actions do not include preliminary determinations on the scope and content of GMA actions, appeals of GMA actions, actions WAC 197-11-210 SEPA/GMA integration. (1) The by the governor or by the growth management hearings boards. purpose of WAC 197-11-210 through 197-11-235 is to 5) "Integrated GMA document"means a GMA document authorize GMA counties/cities to integrate the requirements of which contains or combines environmental analysis under SEPA and the Growth Management Act(GMA) to ensure that SEPA. environmental analyses under SEPA can occur concurrently [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21C.110. 95-07-023 (Order with and as an integral part of the planning and decision 94-22),§ 197-11-220,filed 3/6/95,effective 4/6/95.] making under GMA. Nothing in these sections is intended to jeopardize the adequacy or require the revision of any SEPA WAC 197-11-228 Overall SEPAJGMA integration or GMA processes,analyses or document deadlines specified in procedures. (1) "Joint process." GMA jurisdictions areGMA. authorized to combine SEPA and GMA processes and analyses 2) GMA counties/cities may use the procedures of these and to issue combined documents. rules to satisfy the requirements of SEPA for GMA actions. 2) "Phasing and level of detail." To integrate SEPA and Other jurisdictions planning under GMA may also use these GMA: integration procedures.a) The appropriate scope and level of detail of 3) Environmental analysis at each stage of the GMA environmental review should be tailored to the GMA action planning process should, at a minimum, address the being developed or considered for adoption. environmental impacts associated with planning decisions at b) Jurisdictions may modify SEPA phased review as that stage of the planning process. Impacts associated with necessary to track the phasing of GMA actions, as provided inlaterplanningstagesmayalsobeaddressed. Environmental GMA and the procedural criteria in chapter 365-195 WAC. analysis that analyzes environmental impacts in the GMA (For example, actions of narrower scope, such as interim urban planning process can: growth boundaries or interim development regulations, subarea a)Result in better-informed GMA planning decisions; plans,and plan elements may be adopted prior to GMA actions b) Avoid delays, duplication and paperwork in project- of broader scope, such as an overall comprehensive planlevelenvironmentalanalysis;and revision.) c) Narrow the scope of environmental review and c) The process of integrating SEPA and GMA should mitigation under SEPA at the project level. begin at the early stages of plan development. One purpose of Statutory Authority: 1995 c 347 (ESHB 1724) and RCW an integrated GMA document (see WAC 197-11-235) is to 43.21C.110. 97-21-030 (Order 95-16), § 197-11-210, filed ensure that studies conducted early in the planning and environmental analysis process are available and useful10/10/97, effective 11/10/97. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21C.110. 95-07-023 (Order 94-22), § 197-11-210, filed throughout the planning and analysis process (see WAC 197- 3/6/95,effective 4/6/95.] 11-230(2) and 197-11-235). Although early planning documents and environmental analyses such as documents on concepts or plan elements,may serve specific purposes and are Ch.197-11 WAC—p.8] WAC(4/15/98) DRAFT MITIGATION DOCUMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AUGUST 31, 1999 Method Impacts, Mitigation, Nexus Developers" New Mitigation in FSEIS in boxes Applicability Plans A, B, and C (p. 4) Earth Mitigation Building Official Review Air Quality Apply mitigation related to filters and vent location Range of potential impacts, future operations, consideration during design Noise Specific construction hours, with reasonable cause for change Pile driving noise, address with construction hours, and with options for alternate systems or silencing equipment Much of the mitigation is dependent on ultimate design, construction methods Land Use/Aesthetics Range of open space, review if open space levels decrease Building setbacks, minimum average with Building B Modulation and articulation Transportation Timing of improvements Funding Application of impact fees Traffic Monitoring (should be in box) Fire Many measures in SEIS seem to be code requirements (see p. 31) Mitigation measure, apply fee with credit for existing structures Parks Playground redesign prior to Level II site plan (developer prepared with City oversight) Mitigation fee Dedicate an easement Advisory Notes Tax revenues? Water/Wastewater Easements SECO DEVELOPMENT, INC . 10843 NE 8TH STREET SUITE 200 •BELLEVUE, WASH NGTON 98004 TEL: 425/688-3085 • FAX: 425/637-1922 EMAIL: seco@secodev.com Facsimile Transmittal Cover Sheet DATE: 6 . TO: L(.5+lLt010( TEL NO: COMPANY: it Pbithi1Wf FAX NO: 4 • 1 W) FROM: 4414413 TEL NO: Number of Pages to Follow: I 40S01D 124JJI4& Ori' )P2 pcfiki.aort4 i(4\4 THANK You ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS DEEMED RELIABLE;HOWEVER, NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY IS M,IDE AS iv THE ACCURACY HEREOF. Z/1 'd L016 '°N 301dd0 NIVIN WdL0:Z1 6661 '9Zlnd D a c OR Weekday Parking Demand Estimate Southport Mixed-Use (Revised Plan A for FEIS) The TRANSPO Group, Inc. Use Apartments Condos Hotel(rooms) Retail(si) Restaurants(st) Office(sf)3 Total Amount/Size 170 206 220 5 10,000 20,000 500,000 Rate 1.04 1.11 0.81 3.23 12.49 use equation s_ eak Parking Demands 177 229 178 32 250 1,133 at Full Occupancy` 100%u 100% 4 9D% 85% 85%90% Peak Peak Peak Internal Peak Internal Peak Peak Parking D Hourly Hourly Hourly Hoody Hourly Hourly Hourly Capture Hourty Hourly Capture Hourly Hourly Hourly Required tor Time Variation6 Demand Variation° Demand Variations Demand Variation° Rate' Demand Variation° Rate? Demand Variation° Demand Southport 71 o T 6:00 AM 100% 177 100% 229 100% 198 0% 0%0 0% 0%0 3% 38 642 c-, m 7:00 AM 87% 154 87% 199 85% 168 8% 0%3 2% 0%6 20% 252 782 8:00 AM 79% 140 79% 181 65% 129 18% 0%7 5% 0% 15 63% 793 1,265 9:00 AM 73% 129 73% 167 55% 109 42% 0% 16 10% 0% 29 93% 1,171 1,621 10:0D AM 68% 120 68% 156 45%89 68% 0% 26 20% 0% 59 100% 1,259 1,709 11:00AM 59% 104 59% 135 35%69 87% 10% 29 30% 0% 88 100% 1,259 1,684 12:00 PM 60% 106 60% 137 30%59 97% 10% 33 50% 10% 132 90% 1,133 1,600 1:00 PM 59'/° 104 59% 135 30%59 100% 10% 34 70% 10% 185 90% 1,133 1,650 2:00 PM 60% 106 60% 137 35%69 97% 10% 33 60% 10% 159 9r/u 1,221 1,725 3:00 PM 61°A 108 61% 140 35%69 95% 10% 32 60% 10% 159 93% 1,171 1,679 4:00 PM 66% 117 66% 151 45%89 87% 10% 29 50% 10% 132 77% 969 1,487 5:00 PM 77% 136 77% 176 60% 119 79% 10% 27 70% 10% 185 47% 592 1,235 6:00 PM 85% 150 85% 195 70% 138 82% 10% 28 90% 10% 238 23% 290 1,039 7:00 PM 94% 166 94% 215 75% 148 89% 10% 30 100% 10% 265 7% 88 912 8:00 PM 96% 170 96% 220 90% 178 87% 10% 29 100% 10% 265 7% 88 950 9:00 PM 98% 173 98% 224 95% 188 61% 10% 21 100% 10% 265 3% 38 909 10:00 PM 99% 175 99% 227 100% 198 32% 10% 11 90% 10% 238 3% 38 887 11:00 PM 100% 177 100% 229 100% 198 13% 10%4 70% 10% 185 0%0 793 12:00 AM 100% 177 100% 229 100% 198 0% 10%0 50% 10% 132 0%0 736 Maximum 177 229 198 34 265 1,259 1,725 z 1. Peak Parking Demand is ti parked cars on a weekday. Calculations are based on rates or equations from ITE's Parking Generation manual,2nd Edition. 2. The%at Full Occupancy,also called the Practical Capacity,is%of parking stalls being utilized at full capacity. The range typically varies between 85%and 100%. 3. The Peak Parking Demand calculations for the Office space is based on the equation from ITE's Packing Generation manual since the R2 term exceeds 0.80. 4. Assumed to be 100%for the Apartment and Condos based on the assumption that each unit would have one assigned parking stall that would not be available tar other uses. 5. The peak parking rate is applied to the total number of rooms,which is 220 for the hotel. 6. The hourly variation in peak parking utilization is based on studies conducted for similar uses,as documented in the Urban Land Institute's(ULI)Shared Parking report. 7. Internal Capture rate accounts for a reduction in vehicles due to the high density mixed-use characteristic of the site; 10%is consistent with trip generation calculations. ti ti Peak Parking Demand is 1,725 occurring at 2:00 PM on a typical weekday. M:1991992351Parking\FEIS PARKING.xls(Plan A-FEIS] The TRANSPO Group, 08/26/1999 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: August 26, 1999 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Sue Carlson s,(., CONTACT: Lisa Grueter(BWR 206-448-2123) SUBJECT: Issuance of Southport Preliminary Final Supplemental EIS—LUA 99- 027 • In accordance with memos dated August 19 and August 23, 1999, and ERC direction on August 24, 1999, corrections to the Preliminary Final Supplemental EIS #1 are being made by the consultant. In addition, after the last ERC meeting, Larry Warren and Lisa Grueter prepared a response to comments regarding alternative sites. It is attached for your review. As needed, this response would be incorporated into the Prelini'inary Final SEIS#2. The Preliminary Final SEIS#2 should be provided by the consultant to the City on August 31, 1999. We will review the document to ensure necessary corrections have been made. On August 31, 1999, staff will ask the ERC to issue the Final SEIS. Attached are the forms that ERC would sign on August 31, 1999. The publication date would be September 9, 1999. Also, on August 31, 1999 we will discuss a draft Mitigation Document which would be issued a week after the Final SEIS. The draft Mitigation Document will be provided to you in advance of the August 31, 1999 meeting. A projected publication date is September 17, 1999. If you have any questions,please give me a call (ext. 6591). Thank you. cc: Lisa Grueter DRAFT 1.Alternative sites analysis is not required where other locations for the type of proposed uses have been considered in existing planning documents (WAC 197-11-440). Additionally, SEPA regulations indicate that "[t]he SEIS should not include analysis of actions, alternatives, or impacts that is in the previously prepared EIS." (WAC 197-11- 620) The Southport Planned Action Supplemental EIS supplements and incorporates by reference the Environmental Impact Statements prepared by the City of Renton for its Comprehensive Plan: Draft and Final EIS for the Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan 1993, and the Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan Supplemental EIS 1995 (see page 2-2 of the Southport Planned Action Draft Supplemental EIS). The referenced EIS's analyzed potential alternative sites for Center Office Residential (COR) designations within the City. Therefore, alternative sites analysis has been accomplished. The Southport Planned Action Supplemental EIS prepared for the subject area addresses Planned Action alternatives not previously considered in the referenced EIS's. DRAFT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS August 25, 1999 DRAFT CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Notice is hereby given under SEPA, WAC 197-11-460, that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the proposal described below was issued on September 9, 1999, and is available for public review. Copies have been provided for review at the Renton Municipal Library (the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch), and in the Renton Municipal Building at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055, (both in the Development Services Division and Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department—6th floor; and in the City Clerk's office—7th floor). PROPOSAL: The Southport Planned Action environmental review considers potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. The SEIS reviews redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, commercial, and offices uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several development permits. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027, ECF, CPA, R PROPONENT:Seco Development Inc(Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington, West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. LEAD AGENCY: Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The FSEIS document is available for purchase from the Development Services Division Customer Service Desk on the 6th floor of the Renton Municipal Building. It may be purchased for$ plus tax and postage, where applicable. REVIEW PROCESS: Based upon the Final SEIS, the City will develop a Mitigation Document which will list the measures addressing significant adverse impacts on the environment. The City of Renton will not take any official action on the proposal until the issuance of the Mitigation Document. Upon issuance of the Mitigation Document by the Environmental Review Committee, there will be a twenty day appeal period during which the adequacy of the Final SEIS and the Mitigation Document may be appealed, pursuant to SEPA rules (WAC 197-11) and the City of Renton's Municipal Code (RMC 4-8-110.E.4). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Sue Carlson, City of Renton, Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department at 425-430-6591. PUBLICATION DATE: September 9, 1999 DATE OF DECISION: August 31, 1999 SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator DATE Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Jim Shepherd, Administrator DATE Community Service Department Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DRAFT September 9, 1999 Dear Reader: Attached is a copy of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review. The FSEIS addresses potential redevelopment of the 17-acre Shuffleton Steam Plant site located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. The proposal would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several land use development and building permits. A Planned Action Ordinance is anticipated to be adopted for the proposal. A Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase, would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. This Supplemental EIS for the Southport Planned Action supplements the two EIS documents prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan: the Draft and Final EIS for the Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and the Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan Supplemental EIS. Pursuant to the State SEPA laws and rules, the City issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review on June 29, 1999. A 30-day comment period expired on July 29, 1999. The DSEIS studied redevelopment of the subject site from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities. The DSEIS analyzed the Proposed Action Plans A and B which include residential, commercial, and office uses of varying intensity, and two No Action alternatives. The FSEIS provides responses to comments on the DSEIS, and makes corrections to the DSEIS. Additionally, this FSEIS reviews a new alternative, Plan C which also includes residential, commercial, and office uses at different development levels than Plans A or B. Based upon the Final SETS, the City will develop a Mitigation Document which will list the measures addressing significant adverse impacts on the environment. The City of Renton will not take any official action on the proposal until the issuance of the Mitigation Document. Upon issuance of the Mitigation Document by the Environmental Review Committee, there will be a twenty day appeal period during which the adequacy of the Final SETS and the Mitigation Document may be appealed, pursuant to SEPA rules WAC 197-11) and the City of Renton's Municipal Code (RMC 4-8-110.E.4). if you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call Sue Carlson, Administrator, Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department at (425) 430-6591. We thank you for your interest. For the Environmental Review Committee, Gregg Zimmerman Administrator, Planning/Building/Public Works rt 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: August 26, 1999 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Sue Carlson jr— CONTACT: Lisa Grueter(BWR 206-448-2123) SUBJECT: Draft Southport Planned Action Mitigation Document—LUA 99-027 Attached is a draft Mitigation Document for your review. The document summarizes impacts, and lists mitigation measures for identified impacts. Strike-out and underline show how the mitigation measures listed in the Draft SEIS would be modified to reduce unnecessary language, and to add "shall's" and will's"where needed. Boxes around mitigation measures or other text identify additional mitigation or code requirements from the Preliminary Final SEIS. The schedule includes review of the Mitigation Document at ERC's August 31, 1999 meeting. It would need to be approved by your September 14, 1999 meeting. It would be published on September 17, 1999. It needs to be issued at least 7 days after the issuance of the Final SEIS (to be approved August 31, 1999 and issued on September 9, 1999). After the Mitigation Document is issued, a 20-day appeal period would start. After the appeal period closes, the City Council will finish its consideration of the various ordinances that need to be approved for the subject site, including the Planned Action Ordinance. The approved Mitigation Document would be attached to the Planned Action Ordinance. Other than attaching the Mitigation Document, the Planned Action Ordinance would list any other parameters that would define the Planned Action. We would like to discuss the Planned Action parameters with you at a future ERC meeting(September 7 or 14, 1999). If you have any questions,please give me a call(ext. 6591). Thank you. cc: Lisa Greeter MITIGATION DOCUMENT SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review for project and non-project proposals that may have significant impacts upon the environment. In order to meet SEPA requirements,the Environmental Review Committee for the City of Renton issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Southport Development Planned Action in June 1999, and a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in September 1999. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement are referenced collectively herein as the "SEIS". The SEIS has identified significant impacts that would occur with the future redevelopment of the subject site together with a number of possible measures to mitigate those significant impacts. The purpose of this Mitigation Document is to establish specific mitigation measures, based upon significant impacts identified in the EIS that would apply to future development proposals, comparable to the Proposed Action reviewed in the SEIS,located on the subject site(see Figure 1). USE OF TERMS As several similar terms are utilized in this Mitigation Document, the following phrases or words are defined briefly: Action" means projects or programs fmanced, licensed, regulated, conducted or approved by an Agency. "Project actions" involve decisions on a specific project such as a construction or management activity for a defined geographic area. "Non-project" actions involve decisions about policies,plans or programs. (see WAC 197-11-704) Planned Action" refers to types of project actions that are designated by ordinance for a specific geographic area and addressed in an EIS, in conjunction with a comprehensive plan or subarea plan, a fully contained community,a master planned resort, a master planned development or phased project. see WAC 197-11-164) Proposal"means a proposed action which may be actions and regulatory decisions of an agency, or any actions proposed by applicants. (see WAC 197-11-784) SEPA REQUIREMENTS State regulations(Washington Administrative Code 197-11) and local regulations(City of Renton Title 4, Chapter 9) govern the development of mitigation measures to address identified environmental impacts. The primary regulatory chapters are cited below. As appropriate, key sections of those chapters are described. WAC 197-11-060, titled Content of Environmental Review states in part, that agencies shall carefully consider the range of probable impacts, including short—term and long—term effects," including "those that are likely to arise or exist over the lifetime of a proposal" or, in some cases, continue beyond the life of the proposal. 1 08/26/99 WAC 197-11-330, titled Threshold Determination Process requires, in part, that the responsible official take into account the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of a proposal when determining whether a proposal has significant adverse impacts. In reaching a decision, SEPA states that the responsible official shall not balance whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather shall consider whether a proposal has any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. WAC 197-11-448, title Relationship of EIS to Other Requirements states, in part, that SEPA contemplates that the general welfare, social, economic, and other requirements and essential considerations of state policy will be taken into account in weighing and balancing alternatives and in making final decisions." The EIS provides a basis upon which the responsible agency and officials can make the balancing judgment mandated by SEPA, because the EIS provides information on environmental costs and impacts. WAC 197-11-768 titled Definition of Mitigation. This section defines mitigation as: 1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology,or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; 3) Rectifying the impact by repairing,rehabilitating,or restoring the affected environment; 4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 5) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or 6) Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. WAC 197-11-660(1) Substantive Authority and Mitigation. Decision-makers may impose mitigation measures designed to mitigate the environmental impacts, subject to the following limitations: a) Mitigation measures or denials shall be based on policies,plans,rules,or regulations formally designated by the agency; b) Mitigation measures shall be related to specific, adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental document on the proposal and shall be stated in writing by the decision maker; c) Mitigation measures shall be reasonable and capable of being accomplished. d) Responsibility for implementing mitigation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of its proposal. Voluntary additional mitigation may occur. e) Before requiring mitigation measures, agencies shall consider whether local, state, or federal requirements and enforcement would mitigate an identified significant impact. g) If, during project review, a jurisdiction's development regulations or comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, or in other applicable local, state or federal laws or rules, provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental 2 08/26/99 r c ' impacts of the project action under RCW 43.21C.240, the jurisdiction shall not impose additional mitigation under this chapter. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Proposed Action The Proposed Action reviewed in the SEIS includes: Adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and concurrent Rezone (from Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential) Municipal Code Text Amendments Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan approval The City through Resolution 3379 identified the subject property as a site under consideration for a Planned Action designation pursuant to SEPA (WAC 197-11-168(c )). The Planned Action designation, when adopted by the City, would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase, would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. This process assumes that a final Master Plan (Level II Site Plans) and site plan (Level I Site Plan) for individual phases, as well as shoreline substantial development permit applications,will be submitted at a later stage as Planned Actions. Applications for construction-related permits from the City of Renton and other state and federal agencies, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404, 401 permits, stormwater discharge/NPDES, building and construction permits, etc., required for long-term redevelopment of the site would also be requested for approval subsequent to the adoption of the Planned Action Ordinance. Issuance of these and other required development permits is included within the scope of environmental review for the Proposed Action. To facilitate the City's consideration of the Planned Action designation and environmental review of implementation of the Planned Action, a preliminary Conceptual Master Plan for the site has been formulated. The Master Plan provides conceptual information on the potential mix of uses, building density and height, access/circulation, recreation and open space opportunities and other development features. The intensity of site development would fall within the range of development represented by Conceptual Master Plan scenarios A(Plan A), scenario B (Plan B) and scenario C (Plan C). Plans A and C represent the lower end of the development range, with Plan A consisting of 543 multifamily residential units, 38,000 square feet of retail area, and 500,000 square feet of office space, and Plan C consisting of 377 multifamily residential units,220 hotel units, 30,000 square feet of retail area, and 500,000 square feet of office space (refer to Chapter 2 of the Final Supplemental EIS for a description of the Plan Alternatives). Plan B represents the upper end of the development range and would consist of 581 multifamily residential units, 38,000 square feet of retail area, and 750,000 square feet of office space. Each plan calls for substantial public spaces and amenities including provisions for public access to Lake Washington. Summary of Alternatives Two alternatives to the Proposed Action are analyzed in the SEIS: 3 08/26/99 No Action-No Development Alternative-Under this alternative,the existing steam plant building would remain and storage use of the site would continue for the foreseeable future. No Action - Future Industrial Development - Under this alternative, industrial redevelopment of the site, consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Employment Area - Industrial and zoning classification of Industrial-Heavy (III), is assumed. Industrial redevelopment under this alternative is assumed to consist of approximately 230,000 square feet of manufacturing (high bay style) space and approximately 70,000 square feet of associated office space. Applicability of Mitigation Document This mitigation document applies to the Proposed Action, Plans A,B, or C, analyzed in the SEIS. For the mitigation document to apply to future development proposals, they must be comparable to or within the range established by Plans A,B,and C as shown below: Use/Height Plan A Plan B Plan C Multifamily Residential Units 543 581 377 Retail Area in Sq.Ft. 38,000 38,000 30,000 Commercial Area in Sq.Ft. 500,000 750,000 500,000 Hotel Area in Sq.Ft.(rooms)N/A N/A 115,800(220) Residential Building Heights in Stories(feet)' 5(50 ft.) 5(50 ft.) 5(50 ft.) Hotel Building Height in Stories(feet) N/A N/A 7(75') Office Building Heights in Stories(feet) 8-10(105-125 ft) 10(125 ft.) 8-10(105-125 ft) Residential buildings would be 50 feet above finished grade and 58 feet above existing grade. If future proposed plans exceed the maximum development parameters reviewed, supplemental environmental review may be required under SEPA Rules. MITIGATION DOCUMENT Based upon the SEIS, this Mitigation Document identifies significant adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated to occur in conjunction with the development of the Proposed Action. Mitigation measures are hereby established under SEPA rules to address specific impacts identified in the SEIS, based upon the Proposed Action. As indicated in the SEIS, numerous state and local regulations will govern development of the subject site, and application of those regulations will also serve to mitigate certain significant adverse environmental impacts. Regulations applicable to specific development actions will be those in effect at the time that a specific development action is vested for land use. Additional consistency review under the Planned Action, site plan review, shoreline permits, and other permit approvals will be required for specific development actions under the Proposed Action. Additional conditions may be imposed based upon the analysis of the proposal in relationship to code requirements or review criteria. Seco Development or another future applicant may request modifications to mitigation measures established herein, if appropriate and as a result of changed circumstances,in order to allow an equivalent 4 08/26/99 substitute mitigation or removal of a mitigation requirement. Such modifications would be evaluated prior to adoption by the City,based upon SEPA Rules. As permitted under SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-660), it is recognized that there may be some adverse impacts that are unavoidable because reasonable or feasible mitigation cannot be achieved for the Proposed Action. Provided below for each element of the environment analyzed in the SEIS for the Proposed Action are: a) summary of significant environmental impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative); (b) a summary of unavoidable adverse impacts; (c)mitigation measures established by this Mitigation Document; and(d) a list of federal and state laws and local policies/regulations on which mitigation measures are based. In combination,regulations applicable to each element of the environment and mitigation measures imposed by this Document will mitigate all significant environmental impacts caused by the Proposed Action, except for those impacts that are identified as"unavoidable adverse impacts." 5 08/26/99 1.EARTH a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to soils, geology, erosion conditions, and seismic conditions. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS. Clearing and grading operations during construction could increase the erosion potential on the site. Loose to soft soils underlying the site would be susceptible to settlement under normal building loads,necessitating use of pile foundations for all buildings. Proposed buildings would be subject to liquefaction potential during seismic events, necessitating use of pile foundations for all buildings. Removal of existing underground features (including piles supporting the steam plant and utilities)could result in areas of soft soil or ground depressions. Based upon preliminary grading plans, areas of grading would extend into Gene Coulon Park. b. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Provided that reasonable mitigation measures are properly followed,no significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): Erosion Mitigation Measures The-A geotechnical engineer sly-shall review the grading, erosion, and drainage plans prior to final design to further assist in mitigating erosion and sediment transport hazards during and after development. Additional erosion mitigation measures may be offered at the time of final design in response to site-specific plans. Seismic Mitigation measures would required to reduce the risk of potential liquefaction on any proposed structures. In general, this would require utilizing a deepened foundation system as discussed under Geotechnical Engineering Considerations below. Geotechnical Engineering Considerations Potential geotechnical impacts would be adequately mitigated through characterization of surface and subsurface conditions, proper geotechnical engineering, structural design, and proper construction implementation of the design. The preliminary geotechnical report prepared by Geotech Consultants,Inc. 1999) addresses potential geotechnical mitigation measures. Such measures are presented below. As 6 08/26/99 part of the building design process, additional, specific measures could be identified, or the measures below could be modified upon review and acceptance hy the City Building Ofl ici,l. Foundations A deepened foundation would be required for support of the proposed buildings to reduce potential differential settlement and liquefaction impacts. Floor slabs would be pile supported if settlement to the slabs would be a concern. The necessity of a vibration monitoring program for structures on and off the site as a result of pile driving could shall be determined during the design phase as more detailed information on I construction techniques are finalized. The-A geotechnical engineer Geoid-shall survey existing structures surrounding the site, including buildings, surface improvements, bulkheads, and buried utilities, to determine if pile-driving vibrations pose a potential threat to any existing structures, as part of the building design review process. If existing foundation piles are to be reused, the soundness of the piles should shall be tested to the I satisfaction of the geotechnical and structural engineers. If piles are not to be reused, they should be exposed,and cut off at an elevation to be determined by the geotechnical and structural engineers. Site Preparation A minimum of 12 inches of structural fill, compacted and proofrolled per the geotechnical engineer's recommendations, would be placed beneath the pavement, non-pile supported slabs, or structural fill areas to reduce potential settlement impacts. Alternatively, the subgrade could be chemically treated utilizing lime, kiln dust, or cement. The use of geotextile fabric or overexcavation of soft soils and replacement with structural fill could also be required to obtain a firm unyielding subgrade. The exact construction methodologies utilized would be dependent on final design plans. Excavations to remove or demolish below-grade structures could encounter ground water and require excavation shoring and dewatering to reduce settlement hazards. Dewatering shall be I conducted in a manner that would minimize potential impacts due to settlement. The quantity of water removed could be reduced along with the magnitude of the resulting settlement through proper design of the dewatering system and construction sequencing. In addition, proper disposal of dewatering effluent would be stipulated in the design specifications for the placement of utilities. Structural Fill Up to 7 feet of fill would be required to support roadway areas, and in some cases, slab-on-grade floors that are not a settlement concern. All structural fill shall be placed and compacted as I recommended by the geotechnical engineer. Proper subgrade preparation and drainage control would be necessary for the roadways,utilities, or structural fill bodies. The on-site sediments are moisture-sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. These sediments would require drying prior to their use in structural fills, and the use of these soils in structural fills would be limited to favorable dry weather conditions. If fill is placed in wet weather, or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, imported backfill consisting of free-draining granular material shall be required. 7 08/26/99 Some areas such as utility trenches, manholes, vaults, and heavy traffic roadways could still be susceptible to settlement under these soil conditions, and long-term maintenance of roadway areas would-beis required. Geotechnical oversight would-will be an integral part of Southpert'frthe site's design and construction process. Geotechnical reports prepared by future developers will require City review and acceptance. A geotechnical review of the design plans would be performed before the plans are finalized to assist in reducing potential geotechnical impacts. As is typical with similar projects in this region, construction monitoring would-will be required during the foundation and earthwork activities. In this manner, the adequacy of the foundation and earthwork would be evaluated as construction progresses,and appropriate responses to site conditions would be addressed in the field. Nexus: City of Renton Uniform Building Code(RMC 4-5-050); City of Renton Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations(RMC 4-4-060); King County Stormwater Management Manual (adopted by the City of Renton,RMC 4-6-030); City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 2.AIR QUALITY a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3/Appendix B of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to air quality in terms of construction activities, generated traffic, and indirect air emissions and odors from adjacent property. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3/Appendix B of the SEIS. Building demolition and grading would generate suspended particulate matter. Removal of asbestos from the steam plant building would be required and would comply with EPA and PSAPCA regulations. Site population could be exposed to air pollutants from the adjacent Boeing facility. Based on recent Boeing modeling analysis, Boeing emissions comply with PSAPCA's Acceptable Source Impact levels. Effects would be unlikely under reasonably assumed Boeing operations. Air pollutants from the Boeing facility could enter HVAC systems of proposed office buildings. Adverse health effects within proposed buildings would not be anticipated under reasonably assumed operation. Proposed office building could induce existing Boeing emissions to reach the ground more often building downwash effect). Effects would be unlikely under reasonably assumed Boeing operations. Odors from Boeing operations could be perceived as a nuisance by site population. Modeling conducted by Boeing indicates potential odors would be below recognized thresholds. b. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: No unavoidable adverse impacts from construction or operation of future development on the site would result. Emissions from existing industrial sources in the area could potentially affect on-site locations and cause adverse impacts. Modeling completed by Boeing indicates that no adverse health impacts or significant odor effects would result under any reasonably assumed operations at Boeing facilities. Ultimately, it is the 8 08/26/99 responsibility of Boeing to protect human health from harmful exposures to any air pollutant emitted at their facility, as well as from nuisance impacts related to odors. Mitigation measures identified below would likely preclude significant adverse impacts. c. Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3/Appendix B of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): Construction Emissions from construction equipmext and trucks could be reduced by using relatively new, Proposed to be excluded because a significant impact was not identified in the SEIS] Dust produced by construction eeuld-will be reduced by using a number of techniques, exemplified in the remainder of this paragraph. Areas of exposed soils such as storage yards and construction roadways could be sprayed with water or other dust suppressants. Soils carried out of the construction area by exiting trucks could be minimized by wheel washing and covering dusty truck loads. Finally, soil that does escape the construction area on exiting vehicles could be reduced with an effective street-cleaning effort. Indirect Impacts The Air Quality analysis of the SEIS indicated a potential range of impacts in terms of indoor air quality impacts, ground-level air quality impacts, and odors. Modeling conducted by The Boeing Company concluded that air pollutant concentrations would not exceed allowed levels (either NAAQS or ASIL's), and would not exceed recognized odor thresholds. The modeling was based upon reasonably assumed Boeing operations. Under normal circumstances, impacts are not anticipated. To respond to the range of potential impacts, and because future operations may change, and because some recommended air quality mitigation measures require consideration during design, the following measures shall be implemented by future developer(s): Filters on the roof HVAC systems shall be installed. The filter system would need to filter particulates as well as volatile organic compounds(VOCs). A synthetic fiber filter media would remove the particulate load while an activated carbon filter would remove most VOCs. Activated carbon filters e e f.c er odor* HVAC systems shall be placed at a location where plumes from the Boeing facility would be less likely to reach the air intake vents. To accomplish this, a detailed study would need to be conducted, with Boeing's cooperation, to assess the optimum locations for intake vents. As needed, the City will assist in efforts to obtain sufficient data from Boeing. d.Nexus: City of Renton Grading Excavation and Mining Regulations (RMC 4-4-060); City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 9 08/26/99 3.WATER a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to water quantity and quality. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS. Surface Water Quantity The proposal would eliminate the western ditch. Potential for stream bank erosion along John's Creek could increase, requiring on site detention for this area, unless drainage from the on site John's Creek basin area is discharged to the Lake Washington system. Groundwater Quality Shallow groundwater table could require dewatering during placement of utilities. No adverse impacts to the underlying aquifer would result. Surface Water Quality Construction could increase potential for sedimentation and increased levels of pH to John's Creek and Lake Washington. To preclude such impacts, Temporary Erosion Control Measures could be implemented. Development of the preliminary conceptual master plan would increase the amount of area in vehicle- access surface (roadways and parking) increasing potential for stormwater-related pollutants to reach surface waters. With the proposed water quality wet vault, stormwater discharge to Lake Washington would be within state standards, with the exception of zinc, lead, and fecal coliforms. Adequate dilution in the lake would be achieved to prevent significant impacts from these sources. Widening of Lake Washington Blvd. would require lengthening of culverts passing John's Creek under the roadway and increase roadway area subject to traffic. With water quality treatment, no significant water quality impacts are anticipated. With potential future waterfront improvements subject to a separate permit process(to the dock at the west end and pedestrian improvements at the east end), no in-water work or dredging is assumed. Impacts would be limited to accidental spills during construction,localized increases in hydrocarbons from increased boat traffic and resuspension of sediments due to prop wash. b. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: With implementation of mitigation measures, none are expected. c. Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): 10 08/26/99 Surface Water With proper implementation and maintenance of the propoced stormwater control cyntem, no Future developer(s) shall implement and maintain a stormwater control system which is consistent with City requirements and which achieves comparable stonnwater control as the system analyzed in the SEIS. Groundwater Groundwater may be encountered during construction of utility trenches or any other below-grade earthwork activities. Dewatering would shall be conducted in a manner that would minimize potential impacts due to settlement. The quantity of water removed would be reduced along with the magnitude of the resulting settlement through proper design of the dewatering system and construction sequencing. Construction techniques such as reducing the length of trench open at one time could be required. The specific location, extent, and depth of utilities would dictate the dewatering design, and in turn the quantity of water that should be removed. Specific recommendations would be determined during the design phase once plans are finalized, as part of more detailed geotechnical evaluation. In addition, proper disposal of dewatering effluent would shall be stipulated in the design specifications for the placement of utilities. Water Quality The 1992 Department of Ecology (DOE) Manual standards for stormwater quality treatment would shall be utilized for treatment system design; these standards are more stringent than the 1990 KC Manual requirements that the City of Renton has adopted. Water quality treatment of surfaces routinely accessible to motor vehicles would be provided by wet vault(s) designed to the 1992 DOE standards. Future developer(s) may elect to utilize a future amended DOE manual for stormwater quality,with equal or greater standards. Four inches of compost could shall be tilled to an approximate depth of 6 inches under all landscaped I areas to be lawn. This organic layer would: a) increase infiltration and water retention under the turf rooted zone, which would reduce leaching and enhance evapotranspiration; b) create organic binding sites for organic pesticides and metals; and c) create an organic substrate for microbial growth, which would biodegrade organic pesticides and reduce leaching of nitrogen through uptake and denitrification. If pesticides are to be used,they sew-shall be selected from low-mobility products. If(1) the ratio of roof/walkway/fire lane to parking/roadway surfaces falls substantially below those identified under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan, and if(2) there is a corresponding potential increase in average daily trips, then additional metals removal is recommended for discharge to Lake Washington. Additional removal could be achieved by use of a compost filter or other underground filter insert added to the wet vault system for Lake Washington. If needed, it is 11 08/26/99 Native vegetation or locally adapted landscaping species could shall be used, as-where possible, to avoid the need for pesticides. This shall be addressed in any required landscape plans. Any plans for future construction of waterfront improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Renton, Department of Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Ecology and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Water quality impacts from operation of a future guest dock would be limited given no permanent moorage,haul-out or fueling facilities would be allowed. Resuspension of sediments from prop wash could be mitigated by control of boat speeds near the dock and shore. d. Nexus: King County Stormwater Management Manual (adopted in RMC 4-6-030); Grading, Excavation, and Mining Regulations (RMC 4-4-060); City of Renton Zoning Code (RMC 4-2); City of Renton Shoreline Master Program(RMC 4-3-090; Ord.4716); City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 4.FISHERIES&AQUATIC ANIMALS a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to water quantity and quality. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS. Fisheries Site grading and filling of intake/return tunnels (Lake Washington) would increase potential sedimentation in Lake Washington and John's Creek. With proposed erosion control measures, impacts to fisheries habitat would not be significant. The limited existing riparian vegetation (consisting of exotic grasses and blackberry with little fisheries habitat value)along Lake Washington and John's Creek would be impacted by construction. No new in-water or over water fisheries are proposed. However, the waterfront promenade would result in increased human activity and lighting near the Lake Washington shoreline. With proposed mitigation measures,no significant impacts are anticipated. Future waterfront improvements or enhancement of pedestrian connections on the east and west sides of the site could be made, subject to a separate permit process. Potential future improvements could increase over-water structures, impact water quality from increased boat traffic on a localized basis, and increase lighting levels,which could impact fisheries resources. Widening of.Lake Washington Boulevard would require lengthening of culverts passing John's Creek. Pond habitat would temporarily be eliminated and could displace fish currently using that portion of the creek. Water quality degradation from sediments or turbidity could occur during construction. No permanent impacts would be anticipated. b.Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: With implementation of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would result. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended 12 08/26/99 mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): Fisheries The following mitigation measures are intended to minimize the potential for impacts to fisheries resources from redevelopment of the site. Directional lighting and shading provisions for all light standards along the promenade on the Lake Washington shoreline side would shall be implemented. The cooling water tunnel entrances shall be permanently sealed prior to backfilling the tunnel. The plug would consist of a pre-constructed structure made of concrete or other non-corrosive material and would be placed in the tunnel from above. Native shrub and tree species would-shall be planted along the shoreline of John's Creek to replace the existing blackberry bushes. Native species such as sallal (Gaultheria shallon), Oregon grape Berberis nervosa), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), elderberry Sambucus sp.), willow (Salix sp.) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) would be considered to provide some additional benefit from allochthonous (non-native) contribution and insect productivity to fisheries resources in the creek and Lake Washington. Water quality measures would include limiting mass grading to the dry season and collection and treatment of turbid water. If grading activities are proposed in the wet season, the future developer applicant would shall need-te-prepare a grading plan for City review and approval that minimizes erosion. Additional water quality measures, identified in the EARTH and WATER sections of this SEIS this Mitigation Document would also benefit fisheries resources. Future Waterfront/Dock Improvements The preliminary Conceptual conceptual Muter Plan (Plan A or Plan B) doeadevelopment plans do I not include plans for waterfront improvements on the west or east side. Such improvements would be subject to separate, future applications sponsored by the City or applicant the developer(s). Measures I generally applicable to the minimization of impacts to fisheries resources from future potential waterfront improvements at the west side,and potential future access improvements to the park on the east side, ould be required at the time such improvements would be permitted-_ Minimize over-water structure. Construct all walking surfaces to allow as much natural light penetration as possible. Remove unnecessary structures such as abandoned or unused pilings, dolphins, finger piers, sheetpile,etc. Minimize vertical structures (e.g., pilings, walls) in the water column. Use light colored materials. Minimize structure in the nearshore area used by salmonids during migration. 13 08/26/99 d. Nexus: King County Stormwater Manual (adopted by Renton in RMC 4-6-030); Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Regulations (RMC 4-4-130); City of Renton Shoreline Master Program(RMC 4-3-090; Ord.4716); City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 5.NOISE AND VIBRATION a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3/Appendix C of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to noise and vibration. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts,see Chapter 3/Appendix A of the SEIS. Construction activities, including pile driving and use of heavy equipment, would generate noise through much of the 5 year construction period. These activities would generate maximum sound levels that would be higher than existing sound levels. Pile driving activities have the potential to cause ground-borne vibration at nearby structures at the Boeing Plant. Nearby Boeing buildings would not be anticipated to be impacted, however, the wastewater treatment plant could be susceptible to vibration impacts. Multiple pile driving at anyone time would be precluded to minimize the potential for impacts. Residential areas east of the site could be affected by HVAC noise above allowable night-time noise levels,depending on the type and location of the HVAC units. b.Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Redevelopment would increase sound levels at off-site locations as a result of pile driving and other construction activities. The relative impact of these increases would depend on the specific timing and the duration of noise events. If construction activities, including equipment start- ups and other noisy preparations are limited to daytime hours, and other reasonable mitigation measures are employed to reduce on-site production and off-site transmission of construction noise, off-site impacts related to construction noise would be minimized. Complying with the state noise rule limit restricting construction activities to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. would preclude construction noise impacts during legally defined nighttime hours. Other mitigation measures to reduce noise generation and/or off-site transmission of pile-driving, vibration from pile driving and other construction noise employed by construction contractors would reduce the potential for significant off-site impacts. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3/Appendix C of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): Construction Noise Although the conservative nature of the construction noise analysis likely overstates actual construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receivers, there remains a potential for noise impacts from uncontrolled construction noise sources on-site. Because construction noise during daytime hours is exempt from the limits in Washington's noise rule, no mitigation is required in order to comply with the state or local noise limits. However, due to the potential for noise impacts, and because construction under Plan ^ B .. ould might take place over five years,the use of mitigation 14 08/26/99 measures to reduce potential noise impacts is warranted. Come of the The following construction practices eeold-shall be used to help minimize potential noise impacts. Construction hours could be limited, such as to the hour° between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. during the week and 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Saturdays. Administrative authorization to allow alternate onstruction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. The Development Services Division Director may authorize alternate construction hours for reasonable cause, consistent with City regulations where applicable. properly Properly sized and maintained mufflers, engine intake silencers, engine enclosures, and turning off idle equipment shall be required in construction contracts. sentinuoucly-and contribute-to high, eteady-backgrou nd noise-levels. In ition to g to off cite locations, construction Construction contracts Gott-shall specify that all equipment and especially mufflers be maintained in good working order. Contracts eeuld-shall further specify that engine enclosures be used on non-portable equipment when the engine is the dominant source of noise, and that stationary equipment weal-shall be placed as far away from sensitive receiving locations as possible. Where this is infeasible, portable noise barriers could shall be placed around the equipment with the opening directed away from the sensitive receiving locations such as Gene Coulon Park, or future on-site residential dwelling which may be constructed prior to construction of other uses on-site. te-To the extent feasible in construction contracts, to stbstittitethe substitution of hydraulic or electric models for impact tools such as jack hammers, rock drills and pavement breakers to reduce construction and demolition noise shall he required. Noise from material handling could be minimized by requiring operator° to lift rather than drag fro ch de ot_a do fr strue i, city Contract l,l Construction contracts shall require to the extent feasible that ambient-sensing vehicle back-up alarms that also eetmeeting OSHA standards shall be used. a vehicle is about to back up, and emit a signal only 10 dBA louder than the existing level (aa p 15 08/26/99 Pile Driving Noise Pile driving eeold-shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock(8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. No pile driving work shall be permitted on Saturdays or Sundays. li it fail « e e to these times of the dny n.t those days of the . eek when « pte n .ant The Development Services Division Director may authorize alternate construction hours for reasonable cause, consistent with City regulations where applicable. A grout injected pile system or other equivalent system which would not require impact driving shall be evaluated. be substtn ball eye expensive the conven Tonal i pact pi}e dri ing-syste If the grout injected pile system or equivalent is not chosen, the following mitigation measures eeuld-shall be applied to the impact pile driving activities. less. Where a grout pile driving system or equivalent system is not selected, and impact pile driving activities are conducted, Ane-at least one ore more of the following noise reduction measures could shall be used to mitigate potential pile driving noise: Insert a wooden or plastic dolly between the pile head and the hammer Apply a damping compound to steel piles to reduce the vibration/ringing Silence exhaust gas pulsations from the engines of diesel-powered hammers Remove any unnecessary hanging chains; fix any loose bolts, panels, or over-slack leader guides Use a cushioned method in conjunction with a "heavy hammer-short drop" practice. This requires using interference fit guides to prevent kicking, rolling and vibration in the pile. While the overall sound level is not substantially reduced,the nature of the sound may be less annoying to people. Regular equipment service and maintenance Another potential mitigation for impact drivers would be to use a Hoesch Noise Abatement Tower. is crevice a ete the hammmer aixQ :Ven pile. It was desigt3ed 9 eV}e the comprised of a "sandwiched" layer of 2 mm steel, .1 mm plastic, and 1.5 mm stool. A can red e ; t pi e t.:. • ng « e by « to 20 dl A. r«,wb ks ; t,,to the a; however. 16 08/26/99 Pile Driving Vibration As part of the detailed building design process, a geotechnical engineer could shall survey existing structures in the surrounding area to more thoroughly determine the potential for vibration related impacts. In addition,a pile driving test near the western site boundary could-shall be conducted while vibration measurements are taken at the closest Boeing facilities. As stated previously, a grout injected pile system or equivalent system which would not require impact driving shall be evaluated. -Depending-on-the-specific-equipment-and However, this sys could substantially increase-pile drivingsests. The geotechnical survey and test pile drive in the previous mitigation measure will determine whether a grout pile driving system or equivalent is warranted. Additionally, the sandy soil types on site may result in less vibration potential. If warranted, the grout pile driving system or equivalent would—shall be appropriate-utilized for the area within 100 feet of the wastewater treatment facility to protect against potential structural damage. To reduce potential vibration impacts at the nearest Boeing facilities, multiple pile driving activities could-shall be precluded from occurring very near the western site boundary. The distance shall be determined as part of the survey by the geotechnical engineer. Operational Noise Specific studies on the potential for significant HVAC noise impacts eeuld-shall be conducted as part of the building design process. If such studies indicate that HVAC equipment noise could cause noise impacts at the nearest residences overlooking the site, the following mitigation measures could be employed. The need for such measures should-shall be determined as part of the building permit process. Place noise barriers around the HVAC units. Choose quieter equipment. Provide silencers on the air intake and exhaust. d. Nexus: City of Renton Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations (RMC 4-4-060); City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 6.LAND USE a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to land use. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3 of the SEIS. Proposal would result in the permanent conversion of 14.2 acres of existing industrial land to office, residential and commercial retail land uses. 17 08/26/99 Proposal would result in a trade-off between industrial land and Center Office Residential (COR) lands in the city. A one percent reduction in total industrial land and an 11 percent increase in COR land would result. The proposed building area would be greater than the existing building area on the site. Planned uses would provide a land use transition between industrial use to the west and park/residential use to the east. Densities would be greater than nearby residential areas,however. The proposed land uses would increase the level of human activity on the site. b.Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the intensification of development on the site, displacement of some existing industrial uses, and permanent conversion of industrial land to a mixed use redevelopment. A substantial difference in building scale between on-site development and Gene Coulon Park would result. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): The preliminary Conceptual Master Plan includes approximately 4.7 acres(Plan A)to 4.6 acres (Plan C) to 4.2 acres (Plan B) of open space which would help offset proposed intensification of the site. Of the total amount of open space provided on the site, approximately 3.2 acres (Plans A and C) to 3.0 acres (Plan B) would be located at ground-level and outside of structures (i.e., excluding courtyards above parking structures). If future site plans propose less amounts of open space, the City would-shall determine if the proposal is consistent with City policies and standards. Minimum building setbacks of 10 to 30 feet would shall be provided between proposed buildings and adjacent properties. The minimum average side setback would—shall equal 20 feet. Setbacks from Building B to the Gene Coulon Park property boundary would shall be 10 to 22 feet, with an average setback of 16 feet. Building setbacks from Lake Washington would be a minimum of 35 feet. d. Nexus: City of Renton Zoning Code (RMC 4-2); City of Renton Shoreline Master Program RMC 4-3-090; Ord. 4716); City of Renton Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan; City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 7.RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS AND POLICIES a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to relevant plans and policies. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts,see Chapter 3 of the SEIS. The Proposed Action, which includes needed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code,would be generally consistent with relevant City plans,policies and regulations. 18 08/26/99 In order to accommodate redevelopment under Plan A, modifications to City parking and surface water regulations may be needed. Additionally, a variance could be needed from Land Clearing and Tree Cutting regulations if vegetation is removed within 25 feet of Johns Creek. Either a conditional use permit, variance, and/or an administrative determination of the Shoreline Master Program would be needed relative to setbacks for mixed use (residential and commercial) buildings if proposed as shown in Plans A or B. Plan C would not require special permits or authorizations related to shoreline setbacks. Other permits required for the proposal are listed in the Fact Sheet of the SEIS. b.Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:None are anticipated. c.Mitigation Measures: No specific mitigation measures are warranted. See discussion of needed modifications,variances,and other permits. d. Nexus: Non-applicable. 8.POPULATION,HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT a.Significant Impacts: Proposed residential use would increase the population by between 720 and 1,037 people, 5% to 8% of the City's population forecasted to be added between 1990 and 2010. Dwellings would help meet City's housing targets. Proposal would add between 1,751 to 2,584 employees, 6%to 9.5% of City's 1990-2010 employment target. b.Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. c.Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be necessary. d. Nexus: Non-applicable. 9.AESTHETICS,LIGHT&GLARE a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to aesthetics and light and glare. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3 of the SEIS. The visual character of the site would change from low density industrial use to higher density mixed use. From distant viewpoints, site development would appear as a continuation of the building mass of the Boeing Plant. Office buildings would step-down in height, from east to west, and would provide a height transition from Boeing to the proposed residential buildings and Gene Coulon Park to the east. From the playground in Gene Coulon Park,residential Building B,located 10 to 22 feet from the Park boundary,would significantly affect the visual character of the immediate area. The optional fire lane along east side of Building C could encroach upon the drip line of certain trees along the west boundary with Gene Coulon Park. With implementation of arborist recommendations, no significant impacts to trees would be anticipated from the optional fire lane. 19 08/26/99 Proposed buildings would increase the amount of shade east over the Park playground. The greatest increase in shade would occur late in the afternoon during the winter months - the time of year with lowest number of sunny days and lowest park utilization. b. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: The scale and height of buildings on the site would increase subsequent to redevelopment. Some increase in shading and glare conditions at the adjacent Gene Coulon Park children's playground area would occur. Regarding identified impacts to Gene Coulon Park,additional mitigation considered could include increased setbacks,reduced heights, or stepped/graduated heights for Building B. These measures are not proposed as they could affect other building placements/heights as well as the achievement of sponsor objectives. However, the Proposed Action includes code amendments addressing building modulation and articulation for buildings immediately adjacent to public parks, open space and trails. This measure could help to partially offset some identified impacts depending on specific building designs developed for site plan and building permit applications. c. Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): The preliminary Conceptual Master Plan includes approximately 4.7 acres (Plan A)to 4.6 acres (Plan c) to 4.2 acres (Plan B) of open space and public amenities which would help offset proposed intensification of the site. Of the total amount of open space provided on the site approximately 3.2 acres(Plans A and C)to 3.0 acres(Plan B)would be located at ground level and outside of structures i.e. excluding courtyards and above parking structures). If future site plans propose less amounts of open space, the City would-shall determine if the proposal is consistent with the City's policies and standards. Minimum building setbacks of 10 to 30 feet would be provided between proposed buildings and adjacent properties. The minimum average side setback would shall be 20 feet. Setbacks from Building B to the Gene Coulon Park property boundary shall be 10 to 22 feet, with an average setback of 16 feet. Building setbacks from Lake Washington would be a minimum of 35 feet. Certain trail and outdoor area design elements of the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan (e.g., benches, gates, waste receptacles,plant materials,lighting, handrail details) shall be eensietent compatible with the Gene Coulon Park design theme. Modulation and articulation of buildings adjacent to or abutting public parks, open space or trails shall be provided, and where applicable. consistent with City regulations. If the optional fire lane along the east side of Building C were to be constructed, instead of providing emergency access via the Coulon Park parking lot drive aisle to the east as proposed, arborist recommendations limiting intrusions within the drip line of trees along the western edge of the park would—shall be implemented to help ensure the long-term survival of the trees. Arborist recommendations include minimizing disruptions within the tree root zone (drip-line), minimizing 20 08/26/99 the amount of fill within root zone areas, and possibly utilizing pervious paving materials for the fire lane(refer to Appendix E for detail). d. Nexus: City of Renton Zoning Code(RMC 4-2); City of Renton Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Regulations(RMC 4-4-130); City of Renton Comprehensive Park,Recreation and Open Space Plan; City of Renton Shoreline Master Program(RMC 4-3-090, Ord.4716); City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 10. TRANSPORTATION a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3/Appendix D of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to the transportation system. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3/Appendix D of the SEIS. Plan A,B and C would generate between 9,367 and 11,202 net daily trips,including between 1,005 to 1,273 AM peak hour trips,and between 1,061 and 1,355 PM net peak hour trips in 2004. The number of new trips generated by Plans A and C would be less than the City's concurrency ordinance estimated annual average, and all plans would meet the 1999 trip bank forecasts. Plans A, B,and C would pass the City's concurrency test. Without off-site roadway improvements, proposed development would result in decreased LOS compared to 2004 background conditions at the following intersections: Park Drive/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Blvd. during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours; and Lake Washington Blvd./Site Access/Houser Way and N. 301 Street/I-405 northbound ramps during the p.m.peak hour. Proposed roadway improvements would be provided at the Park Drive/Garden Ave/Lake Washington Boulevard and Lake Washington Boulevard/Houser Way/Site Access Intersections to achieve acceptable levels of service. Vehicles exiting the site during the PM peak-hour would experience significant delay at the site driveway. Proposed parking supply for residential and commercial uses does not meet City rates for Plans A and B. Proposed parking rates for the hotel use does not meet City rates in Plan C. In terms of the parking demand analysis, proposed parking supply for retail uses in Plans A and B would be insufficient on weekdays. If paid parking is implemented for office uses on the subject site, it could have a spillover effect on the free parking provided at Gene Coulon Park. With increased traffic, additional conflicts could result for vehicles crossing at the existing railroad crossings(no impact to trains would be anticipated). The City and the developer(s) would work with BNSF and the UTC during the design of improvements on Lake Washington Blvd. to determine the best railroad crossing solution(i.e.,automatic gates and/or signals). The Proposal would generate demand for area transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. On-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including sidewalks, promenade, crosswalks and connections to existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities would be provided. Transit incentives could be provided as part of a TDM program. 21 08/26/99 Emergency secondary access would be provided. The drive aisle in Gene Coulon Park adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site would provide emergency access to the east side of the subject site. A fire lane along the east side on Building C is an option. b.Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: The Proposed Action would increase the number of vehicles using area roadways. With implementation of mitigation measures,no significant impacts would be anticipated. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3/Appendix D of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): A traffic/road improvement plan shall be prepared and approved prior to approval of a site plan Level I). Improvements shall be implemented at the time demand or safety warrants. The road improvements shall be consistent generally with the following features: At the Park Drive/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection, the existing channelization on the Park Avenue approach would be restriped to accommodate one shared through/right lane, one through lane, and two left-turn lanes. On the Lake Washington Boulevard approach, the approach would be restriped to accommodate one right-turn lane and two left-turn lanes. The westbound free right-turn lane from Park Drive to Lake Washington Boulevard would yield to the eastbound left-turning vehicles from Park Avenue to Lake Washington Boulevard. A signal would be provided at the Lake Washington Boulevard/Houser Way/Southport Site I Access intersection. The Southportsubject site/Gene Coulon Park shared access approach would be widened to three lanes(one left-turn,one right-turn and one entering lane). The section of Lake Washington Boulevard between Park Drive and the joint goethee4Site/Gene Coulon Park shared access would be widened by approximately 12 feet to accommodate two southbound lanes,one northbound left turn lane, and one northbound through lane. To minimize the safety hazard from left-turns in and out of the Boeing parking lot, left turns may need to be restricted. One solution could be placement of a c-curb along the centerline of Lake Washington Boulevard just north of Park Drive to restrict left-turns into and out of the Boeing parking lot. Alternate parking lot access may be available from N 10th Street. Prior to final design, coordination with Boeing would bo appropriatoshall occur to determine specific mitigation. The City shall assist with coordination efforts as needed. The improvements shall be funded by the future developer(s), or through a City Local Improvement District. Traffic impact mitigation fees shall be paid to the City of Renton at the rate of$75 per daily trip generated, consistent with the City of Renton Resolution No. 3100 ($702,525 under Plan A and 8'10,150 under Plan B). velopmentc pry employment or caloc tax to the City. Appropriate fees and any credits would-shall be determined in accordance with Resolution 3100 prior to approval of a site plan (Level II). Because the traffic/road 22 08/26/99 improvements would also address traffic growth unrelated to the-development of the subject site, credit of fees towards the traffic/road improvements required shall be made to the extent allowable under Resolution 3100. The City and the applicant future developer(s) wow-shall continue to work with the BNSF railroad during the design of improvements on Lake Washington Boulevard to determine the most appropriate railroad crossing solution. Potential solutions could include signal pre-emption and cantilever- mounted flashing lights with or without gates. The specific design of the internal intersection of the So> ort-site access driveway and the Gene Coulon Park access road would shall be formulated prior to approval of Level I site plan(s) that necessitate the improvements. The design shall insure that traffic into both properties would not spill back onto Lake Washington Boulevard. The tipplioant developer(s) shall prepare a parking management plan for review and approval by the City prior to the issuance of building or construction permits. Based upon any supplementary information during the preparation of Level I site plans or the traffic/road improvement plan,Fuses;"Children at Play" signs could be installed in and around the Gene Coulon Park access road and near Southport's the site's residential areas, and/or speed bumps could be installed on the internal roadways to encourage slower speeds and enhance overall safety. A traffic monitoring plan shall be implemented for two years after full buildout to determine if any modifications to traffic/road improvements are warranted based upon actual travel patterns. The monitoring would be conducted as part of the City's regular traffic count program. Where feasible, the road design shall consider potential contingency measures to ensure that road improvements will function as designed to encourage traffic movements to the south of the project site. d. Nexus: City of Renton Parking Regulations (RMC 4-4-080); City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvement Program; City of Renton Street Arterial Plan; City of Renton Traffic Mitigation Resolution and Fee(Resolution 3100); City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 11. FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to fire department services. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3 of the SEIS. The Proposed Action would generate additional fire protection and emergency service demands on the City of Renton Fire Department. b.Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): 23 08/26/99 Per Resolution#28952913, fire mitigation fees would-shall be paid to the City at the rate of$388 per multi-family unit, and $0.52 per square foot of commercial building area. Credit shall be given for existing structure square footage. d. Nexus: City of Renton Uniform Fire Code (RMC 4-5-070); City of Renton Uniform Building Code (RMC 4-5-050); Fire Department Master Plan; Fire Mitigation Resolution and Fee (Resolution 2913);Renton Comprehensive Plan. 12. POLICE a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to police services. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3 of the SEIS. The Proposed Action would generate additional demands for police protection. Due to the additional population,demand for police security in Gene Coulon Park could increase. b.Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): During the building design phase, The applicant of future developer(s) f the site shall coordinate with the Police Department to include on-site safety features that would help lower the demand for service. d. Nexus: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 13. SCHOOLS a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to school facilities and services. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3 of the SEIS. Residential use would generate additional students in the Renton School District. b.Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): Pnor to occupancy. the applicant future developer(s) shall coordinate with the school district to ensure safe and efficient bus transportation to and from the site. 24 08/26/99 Prior to occupancy, Adequate—adequate provisions shall be provided on-site for bus turn- around(s)or on Lake Washington Boulevard for a bus pull-out as applicable. d. Nexus: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 14. PARKS a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to parks and recreation facilities and services. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts,see Chapter 3 of the SEIS. Plan A would increase the demand on nearby park and recreational facilities. Using the City of Renton's Parks level service standards, approximately 20 to 29 acres of parks and recreational facilities would be required to serve site population. Residents would likely use nearby park and recreational facilities for active needs. The Gene Coulon Park playground would experience higher levels of activity. Increased level of activity at Gene Coulon Park could cause need for additional security in the Park. However,presence of resident population could enhance perception of security at the park. b.Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: No unavoidable adverse park impacts would occur with implementation of mitigation measures. Refer to the Aesthetics section above regarding other unavoidable impacts. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): The preliminary Conceptual Master PlanFuture site plans (Levels II and I) shall includes substantial on-site public and private recreational features, including public access to Lake Washington, a waterfront promenade, public plaza areas and courtyards. The promenade would shall serve as an I extension of the trail in Gene Coulon Park and would provide an opportunity for a future connection to properties to the west and the Cedar River Trail. The playground in Gene Coulon Park wore-shall be redesigned to ensure that the pedestrian connection between the park and the subject site would not direct pedestrians into the playground area. The redesign would be accomplished by the City, unless the applicant accomplisher, the redesignA conceptual redesign shall be prepared by the developer(s) prior to approval of a site plan (Level I1) with oversight by the City. If undertaken by the applicant, oredit againct the required mitigation feo could be allowed by the City. The applioantFuture developer(s) would be required toshall comply with the City's Park Mitigation Fee Policy (Resolution 3082), which allows a variety of approaches to mitigate impacts (e.g. dedication, fees, provision of on-site facilities). If appliod fully, impact foec in the amount of approximately $192,500 for Plan A.The impact fee is equal to $354.51 per multi-family dwelling unit. The fee shall be determined and applied in accordance with Resolution 3082. 25 08/26/99 Certain trail and outdoor area design elements of the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan (e.g., benches, grates, waste receptacles,plant materials,lighting,handrail details) shall be compatible with the Gene Coulon Park design theme to achieve an effective transition. The City would require that the applicantThe property owner(s) shall dedicate a public recreation easement along the promenade and dock to ensure long-term opportunities for public access to the shoreline. If the optional fire lane along the east side of Building C were to be constructed instead of providing emergency access via the Gene Coulon Park parking lot drive aisle to the east as proposed, arborist recommendations limiting intrusions within the drip line of trees along the western edge of the park would shall be implemented to help ensure the long-term survival of the trees. Arborist recommendations include minimizing disruptions within the trees' drip-line, minimizing the amount of fill within the drip-line area, and possibly utilizing pervious paving materials for the fire lane(refer to Appendix B for detail). d. Nexus: City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090; Ord. 4716); Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan; City of Renton Parks Mitigation and Fee (Resolution 3082); City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 15. WATER SUPPLY a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to water supply. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3 of the SEIS. Development will result in additional domestic water demand. b.Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:None would be expected. c. Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): Redevelopment under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan wouldwill require construction of a I new 10-inch line looped through the site. This line would connect to the existing 6-inch line serving Gene Coulon Park. The 6-inch connection to Lake Washington Boulevard would be replaced with a 10-inch line. These improvements would insure adequate water pressure and fire flow capacity for future development on the site. Construction beneath Burlington Northern Railroad's tracks and in the public right-of-way wed-will I be required to install the new connection. The following mitigation measures would likely apply: Construction plan review and scheduling with all affected utilities and the railroad would be coordinated well in advance of construction. Boring and jacking would likely be required for construction underneath the existing rail lines. 26 08/26/99 d. Nexus: City of Renton Uniform Fire Code (RMC 4-5-070); City of Renton Comprehensive Water System Plan; City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 16. WASTEWATER a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to wastewater utility service. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts,see Chapter 3 of the SEIS. Peak sanitary sewer flows would increase. b.Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:None would be expected. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): The existing 8-inch sewer line wed-shall be replaced with a 10-inch line to insure adequate capacity to handle the estimated flows from Southport under Plan A or B. Installation of the new 10-inch sewer line would will require construction beneath Burlington Northern Railroad's tracks, as well as construction in the public right-of-way. The following mitigation measures would likely apply: Construction plan review and scheduling with all affected utilities and the railroad would be coordinated well in advance of construction. Boring and jacking would likely be required for construction underneath existing rails. d. Nexus: City of Renton Long Range Wastewater Management Plan; City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 17. SOLID WASTE a.Significant Impacts: Chapter 3 of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to solid waste services. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter 3 of the SEIS. Residential uses and commercial uses would generate additional tons of solid waste annually b.Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. c.Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. These measures are based upon the proposed and recommended mitigation measures identified in the SEIS. The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the future developer(s): 27 08/26/99 The applicantFuture developer(s)would shall develop a plan for waste reduction,reuse and recycling both during construction and post-development to reduce solid waste disposal demands. The plan wed-shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Renton Solid Waste Utility. I d. Nexus: Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. I 28 08/26/99 ADVISORY NOTES TO DEVLOPER/APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the Mitigation Document. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process. The SEIS did not list all potential applicable code requirements,but identified the key code requirements that would act to mitigate identified environmental impacts. It is assumed that all applicable federal, state, and local regulations would be applied. The primary set of applicable local regulations is found in Title 4 of the Renton Municipal Code which addresses Administration and Enforcement, Land Use Districts, Environmental Regulations and Special Districts, Property Development Standards, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, Street and Utility Standards, Subdivision Regulations, Permits and Decisions, Procedures and Review Criteria, and Non-conforming Structures, Uses and Lots. Specific code requirements identified in the SEIS that would act as mitigation include: EARTH Erosion A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan(TESC)and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)twill be required to prevent and control erosion and discharge, according to City of Renton(RMC 4-6-030)and Department of Ecology standards. To mitigate and reduce the sheet and channel erosion hazard potential on the Southport site under the Proposed Action,the TESC and SWPPP could include the following: Surface water and domestic discharge,either during or after construction,would not randomly daylight on the site. All temporary and/or permanent devices used to collect surface runoff would be directed into tightlined systems that would discharge into an approved stormwater facility. Soils to be used around the site during construction would be stored in such a manner to minimize erosion. Protective measures could include,but are not necessarily limited to,use of strawbales, covering with plastic sheeting or the use of silt fences. The majority of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces under the Proposed Action with roughly 15 percent of the site to consist of landscaping and vegetated areas. Source control mitigation measures would be conducted for cleared areas. All exposed subgrades would be seeded,covered with plastic sheeting,or otherwise protected during inclement weather or the wetter,winter months. During construction, silt fences,or other methods such as straw bales,would be placed along the boundaries to Lake Washington,John's Creek,and Gene Coulon Park to reduce the potential of sediment-laden runoff discharging into these areas. In addition,rock check dams would be established along roadways during construction. Temporary sedimentation traps or ponds would be installed to provide erosion and sediment transport control during construction. Details of the TESC and SWPPP would be determined as part of the construction permit review process. 29 08/26/99 All proposed structures will be designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code(RMC 4- 5-050) Geotechnical Considerations-Stuctural Fill Grading plans would-shall ensure that existing grades are met at the property line with Gene Coulon Park. (RMC 4-4-060.H.4) AIR QUALITY General- Construction and Operation Rules and regulations as promulgated by Federal and State Clean Air Acts,the State DOE(WAC and PSAPCA( would apply to the Proposed Action as well as to activities of adjacent and abutting sites. WATER Wal er Quality A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan(TESC)and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)would be prepared and implemented to prevent introduction of sediment,turbid water,construction waste,or accidental spills of hydrocarbons to Lake Washington or John's Creek during construction. Details of these plans would be prepared during the construction permit review process with the City of Renton(RMC 4-6-030)and Department of Ecology(refer to the EARTH section for identification of possible TESC measures). The TESC plan could also include restricting mass grading to the dry season, and if grading activities are proposed in the wet season,the applicant future developer would need to I prepare a grading plan for City review and approval that minimizes erosion; capture and filtration of silted water before release; and prohibition of on-site release of concrete wash-out,unless it is to temporary,lined ponds. NOISE Construction Noise Washington's noise limits apply to construction noise during nighttime hours;therefore, construction activities could be limited to daytime hours to the extent practicable. This restriction could include all noisy start-up and preparatory activities such as starting engines before 7:00 a.m.,which can disturb people trying to sleep. Noise from any work during nighttime hours after 10 p.m.)received in residentially zoned areas would be subject to the nighttime noise limits in the Washington Administrative Code. (WAC Maximum noise levels during construction would be required to comply with City of Renton Development Regulations for Grading,Excavation and Mining(4-4-060). TRANSPORTATION A Transportation Demand Management(TDM)program could will be implemented. TDM is a tool for managing the amount of traffic a development generates. Through various TDM 30 08/26/99 programs,traffic could be reduced overall or shifted to non-peak times of the day. The State of Washington's Commute Trip Reduction(CTR)program,implemented through the City's Commute Trip Reduction regulations in RMC 10-13,requires employers who have 100 or more employees commuting to a single location,between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.,to implement TDM programs. Some TDM programs could include: Transit incentives Guaranteed ride home program Flex-time hours Telecommuting Preferential parking for vanpools and carpools Parking pricing Secured bicycle parking Financial Incentives Haul Routes and Hours:A construction plan showing haul routes and hours would will be required. (RMC 4-4-030.C) FIRE SERVICES Approved fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems would will be installed throughout all structures. (RMC 4-5-070) City ordinances require a minimum of two access roadways into the project. An emergency access would be provided via the 45-foot wide pedestrian plaza located immediately south of Building B with access from Gene Coulon Park's southern parking lot. Removable vehicle barriers would block ordinary vehicle traffic. (RMC 4-5-070) Fire department apparatus access is required within 150 feet of all points on the building. The fire lanes along the secondary access,and along the south/southwest site perimeter,would meet fire department requirements by having widths of 20 feet. Roadways would be signed as fire lanes. (RMC 4-5-070) A designated fire lane,to serve the eastern side of the development,would be provided by the existing drive aisle in the Gene Coulon Park parking lot to the immediate east. The park drive aisle would be signed as a fire lane. (RMC 4-5-070) Tax revenues generated from redevelopment of the site under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan,accruing to the City of Renton,would help offset the direct fire service impacts of the project. POLICE SERVICES Tax revenues generated from redevelopment of the site under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan, accruing to the City of Renton,would help offset the direct police service impacts of the project. SCHOOLS Property tax revenues from development under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan would accrue to the Renton School District and would help offset the effects of added students. 31 08/26/99 PARKS Tax revenues generated from redevelopment of the site under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan, accruing to the City of Renton,would help offset the direct park impacts of the project. WATER A 15-foot wide utility easement would be provided to allow City access to water lines for maintenance/repair. (RMC 4-7-200.D) WASTEWATER A 15-foot wide utility easement would be provided to allow City access to sewer lines for maintenance/repair. (RMC 4-7-200.D) 32 08/26/99 1, I— II ,'1 111 1, II 1 I, 'I 1 I, l 7 1. I, 11 ,.. - 1 1 Lake j ashin ton II II III iI , I , ti II ; ' I Ii 1,, I, II .1 '''1 '''' II, II LI' I r II 'II IF III III 11 5 II 1 I J do I III I 1 f' La ISUBJECTSITEuG Coulon Park 1' 1 . 4Shoreline 1 I' r ; '' i I 1' 1 I' '` rr am-'" I L_j % li I 5F ;- 11 r' i.;\\ r f II ii\ 11 111 11\ \ 1 1 111 _~ j_ _ _ ll j IIII 1II i i i' 1 I 1__-1 ti IIi. r h I II II 1 'III 1 r II f 1` III III III III I i1 1 II I F I' 1 'I II II ll_- -I`' I' 1 I 1 1 j 1' y I I ''.S II r--, 1 l III 1 1' I I II 'II - - I, I I I.IC' ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Outline August 24, 1999 Proposal-Clarification Clarify how Plan C improves upon Plans A and B. Plans A and B are plans that are "fixed in time." Plan C as new alternative. Identify as Preferred in Final SEIS or in Mitigation Document? New code—upper story setbacks. Response to Comments—Additional Information Alternatives(location;density). Air and odor modeling. Traffic Distribution Sensitivity Modeling. Aesthetics—View Points. Mitigation Measures Additional Code Requirements Acting as Mitigation UBC as mitigation for seismic hazards. Reference noise level requirements from Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations. Construction,Plan—haul routes and hours. Add specific construction hours rather than refer only to WAC night-time noise limits. New Mitigation Odor title notice. (No significant indirect noise or vibration impacts identified,and a title notice is not proposed for noise and vibration.) Traffic Monitoring Amended Mitigation Fire mitigation fee—reference credit for existing structure square footage. Move TDM measure from recommended to required based upon City's CTR regulations. Reference new average setback for Building B near the Park. Ff CITY k..,F R ON LLy Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Planning Jesse Tanner,Mayor Susan Carlson,Administrator August 24, 1999 Dick McCann DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Perkins Coie LLP CITY OF RENTON 1201 Third Avenue,48th Floor AUG 2 4 1999 Seattle,WA 98101-3099 v SUBJECT: REQUEST—SOUTHPORT PARTY OF RECORD RECEIVED Dear Dick: I am writing to confirm that you are listed as a party of record for the Southport proposal, files . 99-027, ECF; 99-M-2/99-T-3. Upon your request at our meeting June 17, 1999,we added your name and firm as a party of record. Since then,we have mailed to you copies of staff reports, staff report supplements,hearing notices, and a notice of Draft SEIS availability. Additionally, when Sarah Mortensen reviewed our files on July 14, 1999,we coordinated with her to ensure that you had received available staff reports. If you have any questions about the mailings,please let me know. I have contacted Jana Hanson and Jennifer Henning in our Development Services Division to alert them of your desire to be a party of record on all future Southport related applications. The Development Services Division would review all future development applications, aside from the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,associated Rezone,and Municipal Code Amendments. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions at(425)430-6591. Sincerely, Sue Carlson,Administrator cc: Jana Hanson Jennifer Henning Lisa Grueter,Bucher,Willis and Ratliff H:\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\dmporlet.doc\cor 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:August 23, 1999 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Sue Carlson(ext. 6591) CONTACT: Lisa Grueter(BWR 206-448-2123) SUBJECT: Supplemental Report-Review of Southport Preliminary Final Supplemental EIS Additional Corrections Supplementing 8/19/99 Memo After starting to prepare the Mitigation Document, and speaking with other City staff in Plan Review, we have noted some additional changes that should be included in the Preliminary Final Supplemental EIS. In sum,the changes would add a code requirement that acts as mitigation(hour routes and hours), add a specific construction hour mitigation measure addressing construction noise, and add a line about an HVAC noise impact identified in the Draft SEIS. Applicant Comments Since you've received the August 19, 1999 memo, the applicant has indicated no changes to the Preliminary FSEIS. In response to the staff proposed traffic monitoring mitigation measure, Seco Development does not oppose an approach where the City would conduct the monitoring as part of its regular traffic count program, but would also like to promote the idea of planning for contingencies during the road design phase (e.g. build the improvements in such a way that they could easily accommodate modifications because there has been some contingency planning). The new recommended traffic monitoring mitigation measure in the Final SEIS could read: A traffic monitoring plan would be conducted for two years after full development occupancy to determine if any modifications to traffic/road improvements are warranted based upon actual travel patterns. The monitoring would be conducted as part of the City's regular traffic count program. Where feasible, the road design shall consider potential contingency measures to ensure that road improvements will function as designed to encourage traffic movements to the south of the project site. No new staff comments were received. cc: Lisa Grueter CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\ercmem4.doc\cor SUPPLEMENT TO LIST OF SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES PRELIMINARY FINAL SEIS#1 Page 1-21, Noise: Add as a listed impact, based on the Draft SEIS, that "Residential areas east of the site could be affected by HVAC noise above allowable night-time noise levels, depending on the type and location of the HVAC units. Add as construction noise mitigation that construction activities would be restricted to 7 a.m. and 8 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Saturdays. No work would be allowed on Sundays. (For general construction, the EIS already identified WAC night-time noise limits apply between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. which means that other than applying the new mitigation language, the limits would be 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Also, it should be noted that EIS mitigation measures already indicate that pile driving would be restricted to weekdays only.) Page 1-36, Transportation: Add under the list of required mitigation, reference to the requirements to prepare a construction plan showing haul routes and hours(RMC 4-4-30.C). Include the above items as Additional Corrections to the Draft SEIS on page 14. CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\ercmem4.doc\cor CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: August 26, 1999 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Sue Carlson CONTACT: Lisa Grueter(BWR 206-448-2123) SUBJECT: Issuance of Southport Preliminary Final Supplemental EIS—LUA 99- 027 In accordance with memos dated August 19 and August 23, 1999, and ERC direction on August 24, 1999, corrections to the Preliminary Final Supplemental EIS #1 are being made by the consultant. In addition, after the last ERC meeting, Larry Warren and Lisa Grueter prepared a response to comments regarding alternative sites. It is attached for your review. As needed, this response would be incorporated into the Preliminary Final SEIS#2. The Preliminary Final SEIS#2 should be provided by the consultant to the City on August 31, 1999. We will review the document to ensure necessary corrections have been made. On August 31, 1999, staff will ask the ERC to issue the Final SEIS. Attached are the forms that ERC would sign on August 31, 1999. The publication date would be September 9, 1999. Also, on August 31, 1999 we will discuss a draft Mitigation Document which would be issued a week after the Final SEIS. The draft Mitigation Document will be provided to you in advance of the August 31, 1999 meeting. A projected publication date is September 17, 1999. If you have any questions,please give me a call (ext. 6591). Thank you. cc: Lisa Grueter DRAFT Alternative sites analysis is not required where other locations for the type of proposed uses have been considered in existing planning documents (WAC 197-11-440). Additionally, SEPA regulations indicate that "[t]he SEIS should not include analysis of actions, alternatives, or impacts that is in the previously prepared EIS." (WAC 197-11- 620) The Southport Planned Action Supplemental EIS supplements and incorporates by reference the Environmental Impact Statements prepared by the City of Renton for its Comprehensive Plan: Draft and Final EIS for the Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan 1993, and the Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan Supplemental EIS 1995 (see page 2-2 of the Southport Planned Action Draft Supplemental EIS). The referenced EIS's analyzed potential alternative sites for Center Office Residential (COR) designations within the City. Therefore, alternative sites analysis has been accomplished. The Southport Planned Action Supplemental EIS prepared for the subject area addresses Planned Action alternatives not previously considered in the referenced EIS's. DRAFT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS August 25, 1999 DRAFT CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Notice is hereby given under SEPA, WAC 197-11-460, that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the proposal described below was issued on September 9, 1999, and is available for public review. Copies have been provided for review at the Renton Municipal Library (the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch), and in the Renton Municipal Building at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055, (both in the Development Services Division and Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department—6th floor; and in the City Clerk's office—7th floor). PROPOSAL: The Southport Planned Action environmental review considers potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. The SEIS reviews redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, commercial, and offices uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several development permits. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027, ECF, CPA, R PROPONENT:Seco Development Inc(Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington, West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. LEAD AGENCY: Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The FSEIS document is available for purchase from the Development Services Division Customer Service Desk on the 6th floor of the Renton Municipal Building. It may be purchased for$ plus tax and postage,where applicable. REVIEW PROCESS: Based upon the Final SEIS, the City will develop a Mitigation Document which will list the measures addressing significant adverse impacts on the environment. The City of Renton will not take any official action on the proposal until the issuance of the Mitigation Document. Upon issuance of the Mitigation Document by the Environmental Review Committee, there will be a twenty day appeal period during which the adequacy of the Final SEIS and the Mitigation Document may be appealed, pursuant to SEPA rules (WAC 197-11) and the City of Renton's Municipal Code (RMC 4-8-110.E.4). a ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Sue Carlson, City of Renton, Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department at 425-430-6591. PUBLICATION DATE: September 9, 1999 DATE OF DECISION: August 31, 1999 SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator DATE Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Jim Shepherd, Administrator DATE Community Service Department Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DRAFT September 9, 1999 Dear Reader: Attached is a copy of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review. The FSEIS addresses potential redevelopment of the 17-acre Shuffleton Steam Plant site located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. The proposal would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several land use development and building permits. A Planned Action Ordinance is anticipated to be adopted for the proposal. A P anned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase, would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. This Supplemental EIS for the Southport Planned Action supplements the two EIS documents prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan: the Draft and Final EIS for the Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and the Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan Supplemental EIS. Pursuant to the State SEPA laws and rules, the City issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review on June 29, 1999. A 30-day comment period expired on July 29, 1999. The DSEIS studied redevelopment of the subject site from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities. The DSEIS analyzed the Proposed Action Plans A and B which include residential, commercial, and office uses of varying intensity, and two No Action alternatives. The FSEIS provides responses to comments on the DSEIS, and makes corrections to the DSEIS. Additionally, this FSEIS reviews a new alternative, Plan C which also includes residential, commercial, and office uses at different development levels than Plans A or B. Based upon the Final SEIS, the City will develop a Mitigation Document which will list the measures addressing significant adverse impacts on the environment. The City of Renton will not take any official action on the proposal until the issuance of the Mitigation Document. Upon issuance of the Mitigation Document by the Environmental Review Committee, there will be a twenty day appeal period during which the adequacy of the Final SEIS and the Mitigation Document may be appealed, pursuant to SEPA rules WAC 197-11) and the City of Renton's Municipal Code (RMC 4-8-110.E.4). If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call Sue Carlson, Administrator, Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department at (425)430-6591. We thank you for your interest. For the Environmental Review Committee, Gregg Zimmerman Administrator, Planning/Building/Public Works CITY RENTON LL • Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Planning 7 e Tanner,Mayor Susan Carlson,Administrator August 23, 1999 Brad Stein Entranco, Inc. 10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 300 Bellevue,WA 98004-4405 SUBJECT: SOUTHPORT—ROAD IMPROVEMENT COST ANALYSIS Dear Brad: Thank you for providing your Southport road improvement cost estimate. Attached you will find City comments on your July 22, 1999 cost estimate. Mostly, we have questions or clarifications. Please review the comments and make any necessary changes or responses. Please provide your revised cost estimate by August 31, 1999. Thank you. Sincerely, 4( Sue Carlson, Administrator Attachment cc: Lisa Grueter CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTMentcostcom.doc 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 C1A This naner,ontains 50%recycled material.20%cost consumer CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM RECEIVED DATE:August 18, 1999 AUG 2 0 1999 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.TO: Lisa Greeter NEIGHBORHOODS. AND STRATEGPC Pi.ANNtNQ FROM: Nick Afzali SUBJECT: Southport/Lake Washington Boulevard Improvements Feasibility Level Cost Estimate A review of the Cost Estimate Summary and Cost Estimate Breakdown (copies attached) has resulted in the following comments and recommendations: Cost Estimate Summary Assumption 3 at bottom: For this level of cost estimate and because of the extensive amount of restriping required, should assume that Lake Washington Boulevard will require an overlay of both the new and existing pavement. Assumption 4: For this level of cost estimate should assume that existing pavement will require sawcutting. Assumption 7: Did the W.U.T.C. representative agree that only one railroad- crossing signal would be needed? It was our understanding from previous discussions that two crossing signals may be required. Why are the individual cost estimates for the various items IA, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A-4D, 5A-5D higher than the costs shown on the Cost Estimate Breakdown? For Item 12,Construction Engineering,the City uses 8%. For Section 111, Preliminary Engineering (or Preconstruction Engineering), the City uses 17% to include studies, environmental analyses, preliminary and final design, preparation of contract plans and specifications, and administration. Cost Estimate Breakdown Include quantity and cost for saw-cutting existing pavement per comment above. Also may need to include quantity and cost for Removing Asphalt Concrete Pavement. Regarding Item 8.03, Removal of Retaining Walls, should quantity and cost for removing existing gabion wall on east side of roadway be included? For Item 44, Storm Sewer Pipe 18-inch Diameter, recommend using a Unit Price of 45.00 per lineal foot. Also recommend using a Unit Price of between $140.00 and 160.00 per lineal foot for Storm Sewer Pipe 48-inch Diameter. LISA Gl.doc\nm For Item 54, Catch Basin Type 2 48-inch Diameter, recommend a Unit Price of 2,200 per each. For Item 11, Gravel Borrow Including Haul, recommend using a Unit Price of$15.00 per ton. For Item 22, Crushed Surfacing Top Course, recommend using a Unit Price of 18.00 per ton. For Item 24, Asphalt Treated Base, recommending using a Unit'Price of$35.00 per Ton. For Item 26, Asphalt Concrete Pavement Class B, recommend using a Unit Price of 40.00 per Ton. Include quantity and cost for Asphalt Concrete Overlay per comment above. Recommend using a Unit Price of$40.00 per Ton. The thickness and thus the quantity and price of Item 26 will need to be adjusted downward to reflect adding the asphalt overlay. Regarding Item 90.02, Railroad Crossing, confirm that only one railroad signal crossing is needed. (See previous comment above.) The above recommended Unit Price adjustments are based on outside contractor bids for several recent City-initiated construction projects and King County development site improvement unit prices for storm sewers and catch basins. cc: Bob Mahn Lee Haro Ron Straka Attachments LISA_GI doc\nm ENTRANCO Southport OPINION OF PROBABLE FEASIBILITY-LEVEL COSTS PHASE Feasibility SEGMENT Lake Washington Boulevard DATE July 22,1999 PROJ.NO. 1-99029(ENTRANCO) NOTES: No Right-of-way Cost Available I.RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION&EASEMENTS II.CONSTRUCTION SO 1.Grading/Drainage 574,474 1.A) pear,Grua.Demo.Remora]1,890 1.C)Drainage(% DetrCarv) 556.800 1.8) Roadway Excav/lhtsrit 511,099 1.13)Borro cab.Comp.4,686 2.Structures 30,240 2_A)Bridge 5o 28) Watts 530240.00 3.Surfacing/Paving 18.853 3.()PasemenVSNdrs 14,522 3.8)Curb Gutter$Sidewalk 4,331 • 4.Roadside Development 20.942 4.A)Landscaping 673 4.13)Temp Erasion Control S20,?69 4.C)Site improvements ' 0 4.D)(Poldes 5.Traffic Services&Safety 433,163 5A) Traffic Control Devices(Barr eeGuardrat) 5,880 5.E)Cnannedzaean 5,775 5.8) Traffic Signals 157,500 5.F) Traffic Control Labor 525.336 5.C)illumination(Roadway) 544,153 5.G)Railroad Crossing Gates/Signal 5189,000 SD)Slgrrp . 5,519 6.Miscellaneous Items Not Yet Estimated 57,767 10.0%of$577,671((.kes 1 though 5) i 635,438 7.Allowance for Feasibility-Level Accuracy 127,088 20.0%of 5635.438(Lines 1 through 6) 5127,088 8.Mobilization 76,253 io.o%of$762.526(tires 1 through 7) 838,779 9.Sales Tax • SO 8.6%of 50.000((Xtlities•Line 4.0) 10.Construction Work by Others at Owners Expense S0 Construction Work by Others 11.Agreements 0 Utility Agreements,etc.838,779 12.Construction Engineering 83,878 10.0%o5838,779(Lines 1 through 10) 13.Construction Contingency 41,939 5.0%of$838.779(Linea 1 through 10) 964,596 Ill.PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 1.Design Engineering 96,460 f 0.0%a 5964,596(CONSTRUCTION cost). 2.Agency Administration 19,292 2.0%of 596096(CONSTRUCTION cosi) 5115,751 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST(UNADJUSTED) 51,080,347 Escalation effect on construction costs: 0.0%of$964,596(CONSTRUCTION cost) SO TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 51,080,347 Assumptions: - 1. Units costs are based upon the most recent versions of the WSDOT bid tabs. 2. Right-of-way acquisition costs are not included in this estimate. 3. Existing Lake Washington Boulevard pavement wil not require an overlay. 4. Existing edge of pavement Is In good condition and will not required sawcutting. 5. This estimate Is based on the Apri 29,1999 conceptual site plan prepared by Entranco,Inc. 6. Utility reconstruction and coordination is not included in this estimate. 7. The construction estimate for railroad crossing signal and gates was provided by Mike Rosewei of the W.U.T.C..(360)664-1265. 8.•Removal of structures and obstructions Is not Included In this estimate. 9. It Is assumed that the location of detention and water quality faciities is within 200 feet of the project discharge location. 10. 300-foot long,4-foot high retaining wall wit be required along the eastern edge of the reconstructed ditch. 11. It is assumed that water quality and detention facilities will not be required to treat the entire roadway prism,just the newly created impervious areas. 12. A 140%water quality and detention facilities sizing factor has been added for ESA compliance. w'yrol.c a9029'N5*eWpiwmxh Ivd. Prepared by: MHB SW.Approx. Date: 7/22/99 Item No. Item Item Description Spec Ouan' Total Price Unit Estimated Unit Price Catwon Comments 1 00011 Mobilization I 1-09 10.0% $50,672.93 LS 10%Porcvnt to boa ua.d tor Mobilrabon 2-01 0 36 $1,800.00 AC 5,000.00 1A 6.01 0120 Removing Asphalt Concrete Pavement o.w 8.01 0050 Removal Bridge 2-02 0.00 LS 1A 8.02 0050 0.00 LS IA 8.03 0050 Removal of Retaining Walls 2-02 0.00 LS 1A MI 14.99-Stormwater Detention Pond Excavation Ind.Haul i 0.15 $3,360.00 AC-Imp. 22,400.00 1C Unit price is per acre of new impervious(See backup calcs for price derivation) 21 1040 Channel Excavation Inc.Haul 2-10 0.15 735.00 AC-Imp. 34,900.00•1C Bioswale unit price per acre of new impervious(200'long,3:1 side slopes,5 foot bottom.4 feet deepxSee backup for unit cost derivation) 44 Iiiii Plain Conc Storm Sewer Pipe 18 in.Diem.7-04 ! 1,200 $30,000.00 LF 25.00:1C Assume all drainage pipes averse out to be 18"pipe,Unit price includes excavation,pipe bedding,shoring and testing Reinforced Conc.Storm Sewer Pipe 48 in.Diam.7-04 56 5,600.00 LF 100.00 1C Extend four existing 48"diameter culverts 54 3105 Catch Basin Type 2 48 in.Dam. 7-05 8 514,400.00 EA 1,800.00 1C Assume all CB's average out to be 48"Type 2 Catch Basins I. I t 11 0431 Gravel Borrow Ind.Haul 2-03 555 4,162.50 TON 7.50 1D 12 0470 Embankment Compaction 2-03 300 300.00 CY 1.00 ID Roadway Excavation including Haul 1,057 $10,570.00 CY 10.00 1D Mill 13.94-Bridge B1 2-09 0.00 LS 2A 13.95-Bridge B2 2-09 0.00 LS . 2A 13.96-Bridge B3 2-09 0.00 LS 2A 13.97 111111 Bridge B4 I 2-09 0.00 LS 13.98-Bridge B5 2-09 0.00 LS 13.99-Bridge B6 2-09 0.00 LS 2A 12,91 I.Retaining Walls(2-10) I 1,200 $28,800.00 SF 24.00 2B i 12.92-Retaining Walls(10'-20)I 0.00 SF 24.00 2B 12.93-Retaining Walls(20'-30)0.00 • SF 24.00 2B 111. 22 5100 Crushed Surfacing Base Course 4-04 116 1,740.00 ' TON 515.00 3A Pvt.section=4"ACP CLB,5"ATB,3"CSBC 24 5510 Asphalt Treated Base 4-06 224 6,720.00 TON i 30.00 3A Pvt.section=4"ACP CLB,5"ATB,3"CSBC 26 5765 Asphalt Conc.Pavement CL.B 5-04 179 5,370.00 i TON 30.00 3A Pvt_section=4"ACP CLB,5"ATB,3"CSBC 73 6704 Cement Conc.Curb and Gutter 8-04 0.00 LF 8.00 3BI 74 -Extruded Curb 8-04 1,375 $4,125.00 LF 3.00 3B 79.00 7055 Cement Conc.Sidewalk 8-14 0.00 SY 20.00 3B 79.01 lati Cast-in-place Concrete Barrier 8-14 0.00 LF I 35.00 138 79.02 6751 Beam Guardrail Type 1 8-14 400 5,600.00 LF 14.00 I3B ,Unit price includes allowance for anchors i i I 49 6489 Temp.Water Pollution/Eros.Control I 4.0% $20,269.17 EST 4B 4%of construction cost 49.01! 8064 Seeding,Mulching,and Fertilizing 0.21 i $640.50 AC 3,050.00 j4B $0.07 per sq.ft Hydroseed = _- 1-• I 89 Signal System Complete(3leg) 8-20 1 90,000.00 LS 90,000.00 158 ;Includes all excavation,footings,wiring,fixtures,signals 90 ' !Signal System Complete(4 leg) 8-20 0.00 LS 120,000.00 aB !Includes all excavation,footings,wiring,fixtures,signals - 90.01 ;Signal Modification(3 leg) 8-20 0.00 LS 45,000.00 'SB 'Includes all excavation,footings,wiring,fixtures,signals 90.02 ;Signal Modification(4 leg) 8-20 1 60,000.00 LS 60,000.00 5B Includes all excavation,footings,wiring,tortures,signals 90.02 Railroad Crossing 8-20 1 180,000.00 LS 180,000.00'58 'Includes all excavation,footings,wiring,fixtures,signals 81 6904 Illumination System Complete(Roadway) 8-20 4,205 $42,050.00 J LF-Lane 510.00 SC Includes all excavation,conduit,wiring and fixtures($10 per foot-lane)(See backup for unit price calc) 83 i 6890 Permanent Signing 8-21 4,205 $5,256.25 LF-Lane 1.25 5D ;$1.25 per foot-lane(See backup for unit price calc) - 83.01 6890',Sign Bridge 8-21 0.00 EA 25,000.00 5D Includes excavation,foundation,structure,sign i 75.90. Channelization 8-09 5,500 55,500.00 ;LF{lane+1)' 51.00 'SE ,$1.00 per foot-(lane+1)(See backup for unit price calk) I 2.90 !Traffic Control i 1 5-0 h $25,336.46 EST SF - l5%of the Construction Cost I en nn I F S15.00 5G 'For Walls and Bridges CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: August 20, 1999 TO: Jay Covington Larry Warren Sue Carlson Victoria Runkle Nick Afzali Leslie Betlach Lisa Grueter Jana Hanson Lee Haro Bob Mahn Sandra Meyer Jim Shepherd Neil Watts FROM: Gregg Zimmerman & SUBJECT: SOUTHPORT TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS,LID APPROACH This morning I briefed Victoria about the proposal to fund the off site transportation improvements associated with the Southport project, and Finance will be working up some LID debt service schedules based upon a$1.3 million estimate for the Lake Washington Blvd. street and signal improvements. The approach that we have discussed is to form an LID that would allow the up front costs associated with the street improvements and the traffic mitigation fee to be amortized over time. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated to be around $708,000. I have been putting a great deal of thought about exactly how this approach should be implemented. Our policy with development projects in the past has consistently been to collect the traffic mitigation fee up front and to have the developer construct off site transportation improvements necessitated by their project, with the City sometimes contributing funding toward the project proportionate with the public benefit to be derived. We must be cautious not to implement an approach that significantly departs from our policy, or that sets a precedent that leads to transportation improvements and mitigation fee payment disproportionately low compared to the impacts of future projects. TS SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\Document2 August 20, 1999 Page 2 I believe these objectives can be achieved by the approach that we are pursuing. However, in order to achieve all of these goals,the approach needs to provide the following: 1) The City and the Developer need to reach agreement about the percentage of the project costs that provide public benefit, and the percentage of the costs that provide private benefit. 2) An LID approach will be used,with the respective shares assigned to the City and the Developer based upon the agreed proportions of public and private benefit. 3) The traffic mitigation fee(approximately$700,000)can be applied to this project, and therefore to the LID. However, it must be counted as the City's contribution, not as the developer's contribution. This is in keeping with our policy that developments must pay their required traffic benefit fee in addition to performing their proportionate share of off site transportation improvements associated with the project. The theory is that the developer pays the City the traffic mitigation fee, and the City chooses to spend the money on the Lake Washingtj.n.Boulevard improvements as an eligible project to address transportation concurrency needs, and as the City's contribution to this project. 4) Some examples how this would work. Say the project costs$1.4 Million, and the traffic mitigation fee is $0.7 Million(easy numbers to work with). A) Scenario A,the City and developer determine that the Lake Washington Blvd. project involves 50%public benefit and 50% private benefit. The City's 50%contribution would be the $0.7 Million traffic mitigation fee,and the developer 50%contribution would be$0.7 Million. Because the developer owes the traffic mitigation fee,the end result is that the developer would assume 100%of the LID payments. B) Scenario B,the City and developer determine that the Lake Washington Blvd. project involves 75%public benefit and 25%private benefit. 50%of the City's contribution would be the $0.7 Million traffic mitigation fee, and 25%of the City's contribution would be additional City funding for the project. 25%of the funding would be the developer's contribution. The end result is that the developer would assume 75%of the LID payment, and the City would assume 25%of the LID payment. C) Scenario C,the City and developer determine that the Lake Washington Blvd. project involves 25%public benefit and 75%private benefit. The City's 25%contribution would be$0.35 Million of the traffic mitigation fee,while the developer's contribution would be the other 75%of the funding. The end result is that the developer would assume 100%of the LID payment,and in addition the developer would pay the City up front the $0.35 Million of the traffic mitigation fee that was not committed to the project. This approach would be fair and equitable,would be consistent with our current policy,would not set undesirable precedent, and would allow most or all of the developer's up front transportation costs to be amortized in the form of LID payments over 10 or 20 years. cc: 11101III BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF 11IUPIk. CORPORATIO N MEMORANDUM TO: Sue Carlson,Administrator.Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning cc: Leslie Betlach, Jay Covington, Jana Hanson, Lee Haro, Sandra Meyer, Jim Shepherd,Larry Warren,Neil Watts,Gregg Zimmerman FROM: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner/Project ManagerryG SUBJECT: Southport Mitigation Fees DATE: Thursday, August 05, 1999 Project# 99289.01 This memo summarizes our meeting held August 12, 1999 regarding Southport mitigation fees. Except for Jana Hanson and Jim Shepherd,everyone listed above attended.the meeting. Parks Mitigation Fees: The parks fees are based upon a rate of $354.51 per dwelling unit. With 377 dwelling units, the fee would equal $133,650.27. Per the mitigation measures, we will also be provided an easement for the promenade and dock, and we will ask for a conceptual playground redesign. Fire Mitigation Fees: The fee is based upon a rate of $0.52/square foot of commercial office, retail,hotel) use, and $388 per individual unit. Credit would be given for the 98,405 square feet of existing structures. The estimated fee would be $677,047.80. Transportation Mitigation Fees: The fee is based upon $75.00 per daily trip generated, although the resolution allows fee reductions for employment-generating uses. The net new daily trips associated with Plan C would equal 9,443. If the $75 trip rate is utilized, the fee would equal $708,225. The cost to construct the improvements exceeds the maximum traffic mitigation fee (the cost is initially estimated at$1,080,347 which will probably be adjusted upward somewhat based upon items not fully considered such as pavement overlay, additional rail crossing improvements, and additional surface water improvements). The level of service at the Park Avenue/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection and the site entrance at Lake Washington Boulevard will deteriorate based upon background traffic growth aside from the Southport development; however, development on the Southport site will contribute significantly to the need for improvements. The improvements will be needed most likely with the first development phase based upon discussions with staff at Entranco, Inc. We discussed and generally agreed with the following approach to the traffic mitigation fee: Credit the full traffic mitigation fee towards the cost of the off-site road improvements. The cost of the improvements beyond the credited amount would be the developer's responsibility. 2003 WESTERN AVE,STE 100,MARKET PLACE ONE•SEArrLE,WA 98121 •206.448.2123 FAX:206 441 1622 a , BW' - MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) August 16. 1999 - Page 2 redit the full traffic mitigation fee towards the cost of the off-site road improvements. The c ist of the improvements beyond the credited amount could be financed through an LID. U redit or waive the full traffic mitigation fee, and finance the entire off-site road Wrovements through an LID. Lar , Warren will review Resolution 3100 about how we may waive or credit fees. There are pro isions to adjust fees for developments providing high employment or sales tax to the City. Ple.-e contact me with any questions (206-448-2123). Thank you. CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: August 19, 1999 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Sue Carlson -'del_'_ CONTACT: Lisa Grueter,BWR 206-448-2123 SUBJECT: Review of Southport Preliminary Final Supplemental EIS#1-LUA 99-027 On August 11, 1999,the Committee was provided a full copy of the Preliminary Final Supplemental EIS 1. This memo describes general recommendations, corrections, and issues we would like to present to the Committee for direction prior to correcting and releasing a public Final Supplemental EIS. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS At the August 24, 199 meeting,staff will request that the Environmental Review Committee: Provide input and direction related to content and corrections to the Preliminary Final SEIS #1 described below. Substantive changes to the document are recommended in the attachment to this memo. Minor typographical errors, data corrections, or clarifications are not listed, but would be provided as well to the consultant. We will discuss the schedule for the Final SEIS which assumes that on August 31, 1999, the City will receive a Preliminary Final SEIS #2. We are anticipating that the Preliminary Final SEIS #2 will only need minor editing, and that we will ask on that date for the ERC to sign documentation that the Final SEIS should be issued. A projected publication date is September 9, 1999. Also, on August 31, 1999 we will discuss a draft Mitigation Document which would be issued a week after the Final SEIS. The draft Mitigation Document will be provided to you in advance of the August 31, 1999 meeting. A projected publication date is September 17, 1999. PLAN C The applicant has formulated a new conceptual plan intended to respond to environmental analysis, public comment,and market conditions. Plan C would include six buildings over structured parking. As under Plans A and B, three of the buildings (Buildings 1, 2 and 3) would contain commercial office use, and two of the buildings Buildings B and C) would contain residential uses. However, Building A would be developed for hotel use, as compared to residential use under Plans A and B. Buildings 1, 2 and A would also contain some retail uses at the ground level. August 19, 1999 Page 2 Building locations are generally similar among Plans A,B and C. Differences between Plan C and Plans A and B include greater compliance with the Shoreline Master Program setbacks. Building B would have residential uses only, and its 35-foot setback would exceed the Shoreline Master Program requirements. Building 1 would have a restaurant/retail structure in front of the office portion of the building. Shoreline setbacks would be reduced to 100 feet for Building 1,but would still be in excess of Shoreline Master Program requirements. Building A would have an increased shoreline setback of 50 feet that would meet the Shoreline Master Program requirements. Also, Building B has also been pivoted in Plan C to allow for a greater setback from Gene Coulon Park. A comparison of development levels is shown below: Use Characteristics Plan A Plan B Plan C Multifamily Residential Units 543 581 377 Retail Area in Sq.Ft. 38,000 38,000 30,000 Commercial Office Area in Sq.Ft. 500,000 750,000 500,000 Residential Building Height in Stories(feet)1 5(50 ft.) 5(50 ft.) 5(50 ft.) Hotel Building Height in Stories(feet) N/A N/A 7(75 ft.) Office Building Height in Stories(feet) 8-10(105-125 ft.) 10(125 ft.) 8-10(105-125 ft.) Total Parking Spaces 2,243 3,043 2,623 1 Residential buildings would be 50 feet above fmished grade and 58 feet above existing grade. In general,Plan C is similar to Plan A and less intense than Plan B, and the environmental analysis in the Draft SEIS would substantially apply to Plan C. Code amendments have been further refined in response to Plan C to address upper story setbacks for buildings between 50 and 75 feet in height, and to limit height within 100 feet of the shoreline to no more than 75 feet. Refer to the Preliminary Final SEIS Chapter 2. CHANGES TO MITIGATION MEASURES Changes to some mitigation measures listed in the Preliminary Final SEIS are recommended as follows: Application of the Uniform Building Code would be a requirement that addresses seismic impacts. Based upon ongoing discussions between Seco Development and Boeing, and in response to PSAPCA comments, a measure would be added to require title/lease notices about potential odor. In terms of construction noise,reference would be made to noise levels standards found in the City's Grading,Excavation and Mining Regulations. It's recommended that the title/lease notice mitigation not refer to noise and vibration since the Draft SEIS indicated no significant impact. August 19, 1999 Page 3 It's recommended that the fire mitigation fee measure reference the ability to be credited for existing structures. The Transportation Demand Management mitigation measure would be moved from the recommended list to the required list since it is based upon the City's Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance. Other minor changes and corrections to mitigation measures are noted in the Preliminary Final SEIS #1 in the summary matrix. A list of substantive changes attached to this document should also be referenced. As the Mitigation Document is drafted,any additional mitigation changes will be noted. One other item, which may warrant ERC attention, is that the Planning Commission recommended that the proposed code amendments address a title/lease notice regarding Park activities. Staff believes that the measure would not be appropriate for a list of development standards,but could be included with the Planned Action Ordinance, or may warrant inclusion in the environmental documentation (SEIS and/or mitigation document). This will be discussed with ERC. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT SEIS COMMENTS Seven comment letters were received during the Draft SEIS comment period. A public hearing was held, but no citizens participated. ERC attention to proposed responses to comments is encouraged(see Chapter 3 of the Preliminary Final SEIS and the attached substantive corrections). Some comments request additional information regarding alternatives, traffic sensitivity analysis, air quality data and other items. In general, the approach has been to support the analysis found in the Draft SEIS. Staff will discuss with ERC, the comments and responses related to additional information requested in more detail at the meeting. COMMENTS FROM DEPARTMENTS/DIVISIONS Comments were received from the Fire Department and are attached to this memo. A summary of the comments is provided below. Fire Department: Fire Department concerns include the proposed amount of parking. Also there is a concern that any road design ensure no gridlock conditions in order to achieve adequate response times; some ideas would be to have shoulders or other places for vehicles to pull over at the site intersection. Another concern is to ensure that it is noted in the environmental documents that the promenade would be part of the fire lane system. The SEIS notes that the proposed parking does not meet City standards although it exceeds a parking demand analysis. With Plan C, the only use that would not meet City parking rate standards would be the hotel. (It should also be noted that in order to achieve some of the proposed parking rates, the proponent may request a modification to utilize a National Parking Association design standard.) As site plans are refined and submitted after the Planned Action designation, the proponent would finalize the amount and location of parking. The developer has indicated that they may have excess parking in some buildings that could be utilized for other uses. Also,the peak hour demand for some uses would be different allowing for shared parking. The Renton parking regulations encourage shared parking where uses have different peak utilization. Also, the mitigation measures would require the preparation of a Parking Management Plan which would detail how parking for each use would be provided,how parking 3 08/19/99 August 19, 1999 Page 4 will be enforced, how and if fees would be charged, and how shared parking would be accomplished. For example, the Parking Management Plan may show valet parking for the hotel to ensure that guests do not have to parking in another building and walk through difficult weather. The SEIS analyzes a couple of alternatives related to site access, one of which would assure no backup problems on Lake Washington Boulevard, and that there are other options that can be reviewed during the design phase. Finally, the SEIS does address the use of the promenade as a fire lane on pages 2-24 and 3-208. No other staff comments were received to date. Any other comments will be forwarded to ERC prior to the meeting. Comments from Applicant Comments from the applicant have not been received, but would be forwarded to ERC with any staff recommendations as needed. If you have any questions,please give me a call (ext. 6591). Thank you. cc: Lisa Grueter 4 08/19/99 LIST OF SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES PRELIMINARY FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIS#1 Fact Sheet Under "Proposed Action," reference City Resolution 3379 which indicates the City's intent to facilitate a Planned Action for the subject site. Facilitation of the Planned Action was initiated by the City in response to Seco Development's potential redevelopment plans. Under "Date of Implementation," if implementation means application review and approvals then 1999 is accurate; if implementation means initiation of construction, the revised phasing plan for Plan C begins in early 2000. Table of Contents Delete reference to Appendix B — Transportation Memos. A response consolidating information presented in the memos will be prepared in response to comments made by Kim Browne in letter 4. Summary Change footer to refer to"Final"instead of"Draft". Page 1-3, under Earth impacts, add the following: "Areas of proposed grading extend into Gene Coulon Park." Identification of this impacts was made in the text of the Draft SEIS, and should be stated in the chart because a mitigation measure (required by Code) is provided to mitigate the impact. Page 1-4, Earth, add under Seismic Hazard mitigation measure a measure which references the City's adopted UBC as an existing code that would help mitigate potential seismic impacts. The Draft SEIS assumes on page 3-8 that structures would be designed per current codes upon discussion of earthquake related ground motion. Page 1-12, Air Quality, in reference to the added mitigation measure addressing title notices, the language should refer to odors, and not noise and vibration since the section is related to the impacts identified in the air quality analysis. Added mitigation measures and the basis for them should be explained in Chapter 3. The overall conclusions of the air quality section showed potential exposure of site users to Boeing emissions and odor, but that Boeing modeling indicated that emissions and odors would be below recognized thresholds. On a site-specific visit, an odor was detected. The addition of a mitigation measure addressing title notices for odor would respond to the potential range in impacts identified,and would respond to any future changed conditions. Page 1-27, under Noise: Page 1-21 and the Draft SEIS indicate that site users may be exposed to noise from Boeing and the Airport, but that the distance of the noise sources and/or the location of the office buildings intervening between the sources and the proposed residential uses was anticipated not to result in significant impacts. The Summary Matrix on page 1-27 should delete the proposed title notice as it does not respond to an identified significant impact. Page 1-29, under Land Use Mitigation Measures, show a modified building setback mitigation measure for Proposed Action Plan C, Building B, that indicates a setback of 10 to 22 feet, and an average setback of 16 feet near Gene Coulon Park. Page 1-30, under Relationship to Plans and Policies, Proposed Action Plan C would have less impacts because the buildings along the shoreline would meet all required Shoreline Master Program setbacks(Building 1 — 100 feet;Building A—50 feet;Building B,now all residential—35 feet). 5 08/19/99 Page 1-32, under Aesthetics, Light and Glare, delete amendatory language in the first paragraph addressing Plan A, and add under Plan C that there would be a comparative improvement with greater building setbacks. Page 1-33, Aesthetics, Light and Glare: The first bullet addressing setbacks should not be amended. Under Proposed Action Plan C, the amended mitigation measure should appear which indicates a setback of 10 to 22 feet,and an average setback of 16 feet near Gene Coulon Park. Page 1-33,Aesthetics,Light and Glare: Third bullet,confirm whether amended language is needed. Page 1-38, Transportation: Move the TDM mitigation measure from the Recommended section to the list of Required mitigation measures. The measure relates to the City's Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance. Show this also as a correction in Chapter 2. Page 1-39, under Fire and Emergency Services mitigation measures, correct the reference to the Fire Mitigation Resolution. Resolution 2895 has been superseded by Resolution 2913. Also discuss that credit would be given for existing structure square footage. Page 1-47, under Solid Waste, Proposed Action Plan B: the language repeats language found under Plan A. Instead say"Same as Plan A." Chapter 2 Changes to the Proposed Action and Environmental Analysis Page 1, last paragraph: Make other comparisons with Plan C. Under Plan C, Building B would be residential only instead of mixed-use, and that the footprint of Building 1 would change with the addition of a proposed restaurant/retail space at 35' height. The shoreline setback of Building 1 would change from 150' to 100', and the setback for Building B would increase from 35' to 50'. Building B having only residential uses would comply with Shoreline Master Program setbacks. Page 3,paragraph 1: the total number of residential units should be corrected from 337 to 377. Page 3, paragraph 3: correct the number of stories for the hotel to be seven instead of six. Confirm whether one story will be a basement level or ground level parking area. Page 3, Table 1, based upon revised parking information from Seco Development, the total number of parking spaces for Plan C would equal 2,623, not 2,673. The number of stories for the hotel should be 7 instead of six according to discussions with Seco Development(the height would still be 75'). These changes should be reflected in other charts and paragraphs as needed. Page 4, second paragraph, add a discussion that Plan C meets required shoreline setbacks (see above). Page 4,last paragraph,correct parking discussion per above change. Page 5,Table 3 and Appendix A,Table 4: The estimated peak demand for hotel uses is 164,not 178. The proposed parking supply was modified by Seco Development on July 22, 1999 to be equal to the parking demand at 164. At this point given conceptual designs, the idea of 50 stalls in Building B being excess and available to the hotel is likely,but the specific solution to the hotel parking will be provided with more specific site plans at a later date, and therefore, the number of stalls proposed is 164 at this time according to the developer. Shared parking allowances in the Renton Municipal Code,Transportation Management plans, or request for parking modifications are potential options to address the shortfall. In any case, a Parking Management Plan would be provided by mitigation measures to address garage operations, and the location of shared stalls,if any.) 6 08/19/99 The apartment and condominium lines should be combined. The total number of units would result in a code requirement of 660, would exceed the parking demand, and would,be matched by the proposed parking supply. An additional footnote should be added to reflect parking information supplied by Seco Development, Inc. that"modifications to parking stall standards may be requested to achieve this number of stalls." Page 6, Air Quality: Fifth sentence, change 400 feet to 380 feet. Prior to last sentence of the paragraph,discuss Boeing model results and PSAPCA regulations. Page 6,Water: Cover briefly the summary of issues shown on page 1-12. Page 7, Land Use: Discuss that Shoreline Master Program setbacks would be met for Plan C which is less impact than for Plans A and B. Page 8, Population/Housing/Employment: First full paragraph, show assumptions for calculation of hotel employees. The Draft SEIS shows the assumptions for the other employment uses. Page 8, Aesthetics, Light and Glare: Third sentence, after referencing the exhibit, explain the white lines which show increased height of Building A, under Plan C in comparison to Building A under Plans A and B. Strike "As under Plans A and B" from the beginning of the fifth sentence. The increased setback from Gene Coulon Park applies to Plan C. Plan C's greater setback is in part a response to the environmental review in the Draft SEIS and public comments. (Plans A and B should not be corrected on page 12 to show a greater setback. The Draft SEIS analyzed Plans A and B as they were originally proposed by the applicant. Plan C refines the building setback.) Page 9, Figure 2: Confirm whether the 35' high restaurant/retail space in front of Building 1 was accounted in the preparation of the montage photo. Page 11, first paragraph, correct total parking supply and shortfall. Reference the Renton Municipal Code allowances for shared parking in addition to parking modifications. Page 12,Building B Setback: Should be shown as a feature of new Plan C and not as a correction to Plans A and B,as noted above. Page 12, Building 1 Addition: This section should be shown as a feature of Plan C and not as a revision to Plans A or B. In the first sentence, clarify whether the Building 1 addition would be single story, as it would be 35' high. Also clarify that maximization of views would be from the proposed restaurant/retail space. Page 13,Additional Proposed Municipal Code Amendments: Number 1 should be deleted because it is a code amendment that was proposed as part of the Proposed Action in the Draft SEIS (see page 2- 13). Instead, another new code amendment that should be shown as additional proposed would be the maximum 75 foot height limit for buildings or portions of buildings within 100 feet of the shoreline. Page 13, second paragraph under Upper-Level Setbacks: The criteria for the proposed modification process would include whether solar access would be the same or better, and if there is more variation in height,bulk and scale. Page 14, Additional Corrections to the Draft SEIS, include corrections to the price of the documents in the Fact Sheet. Page 14, Additional Corrections to the Draft SEIS, add corrections to the Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution to be 2913 instead of 2895. This would be a correction to pages 3-218 and 3-219 of the Draft SEIS,and page 1-39 of the Preliminary Final SEIS. Page 14, show as a mitigation measure correction that the TDM measure on page 3-214 is Required rather than Recommended since it references the City's Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance. 7 08/19/99 Page 15 -Add a Section describing additional mitigation proposed for odor and noise(title notice for odor,and reference to Mining,Grading and Excavation Regulations for construction noise levels). Chapter 3 Comment Letters and Responses Response to Letter 1, Comment 1: Rewrite first sentence to reflect that the analysis projected a range of impacts, considered Boeing model results, and the results of a site visit. Change the figure of 400 feet in sentence 4 to say 380 feet. Response to Letter 1, Comment 2: Add to the response a notation of the proposed mitigation measures in the Draft SEIS, as well as the changes in Plan C, and the additional title notice mitigation measure. Response to Letter 1, Comment 3: Also refer back to Responses 1 and 2. Response to Letter 3, Comment 2, second paragraph: Change the figure of 400 feet in sentence 5 to say 380 feet. Response to Letter 3, Comment 3, first full paragraph: Comprehensive Plan Amendments with concurrent rezones are processed as shown in RMC Section 4-9-020, and do not at this time include review criteria,equivalent to section 4-9-180. Therefore,delete the fourth sentence. Response to Letter 3, Comment 3, second full paragraph: In the second sentence, insert February before 1995. In the third sentence, indicate that maintenance of the plant was suspended no earlier than mid-1995 and maybe later (according to Bob Boyd, Puget Western). Last sentence of paragraph, needs to be rewritten. In 1993, Puget Sound Energy was issued a DNS for soil remediation activities, but it is uncertain as to whether that program was implemented. Based upon information from Seco Development and Puget Western, remediation activities started in earnest after 1996, and were completed in 1999 assuming a higher residential clean-up standard. In any case, after the adoption of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan, soil remediation activities intensified and were completed per pages 2-8 and 2-9 of the Draft SEIS. Response to Letter 4, Comment 1:Delete first sentence. Re-write response to reflect that modulation and articulation standards were proposed in Draft SEIS, and to reflect that Plan C assumes a greater setback between Building B and the Park in comparison to Plans A and B. Mitigation measures would be applied through a mitigation document that would be issued after the Final SEIS. Also, the City Council could consider alternate code amendments while reviewing the merits of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, rezone, and code amendment application. Also, the Planned Action Ordinance will identify required mitigation measures. Response to Letter 4,Comment 2: Strike first sentence. Response to Letter 4, Comment 3: Rewrite last sentence to indicate that the comment will be forwarded to the appropriate decision maker. Response to letter 4,Comment 4: Strike the first sentence. Response to Letter 4, Comment 6: Strike the third sentence. Add a paragraph explaining the methodology to determine the distribution rather than referring to three memos. See attached page. Response to Letter 4, Comment 7: Rewrite second sentence to indicate that the City will determine which mitigation measures to apply as part of the development of the Mitigation Document and the Planned Action Ordinance. Also indicate that the measure is being moved to the Required list rather than the Recommended list because the measure is related to the City's Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance. Response to Letter 6, Comment 2: Discuss Plan C as a reduced density alternative that still meets the COR intent. 8 08/19/99 Response to Letter 7, Comment 2, paragraph three: Rewrite the second sentence to say "For legislative code amendments that apply City-wide, area-wide or zone-wide, procedures do not involve property-specific notification." Also, add a sentence to the end of the paragraph which indicates,"Also public hearing notices were published in the newspaper." Response to Letter 7, Comment 4,paragraph three: strike "clearing and grading permits and" in the parentheses. Response to Letter 7, Comment 7, first paragraph, third sentence: For residential buildings, verify that one parking level would be partly below existing grade where soil conditions allow. Response to Letter 7, Comment 10: Two items need to be verified. First, verify that courtyards are intended to be private open space for the site residents, and shouldn't be listed as publicly accessible. Second, verify that "informal walking trails" would be located in landscaped areas. Note the locations in the Draft SEIS that describe upper-level versus ground-level open space. Response to Letter 7, Comment 11: Add that the private street improvements would include sidewalks, that some commercial uses will be oriented to the street, and that buildings will have entrances to the street. These features along with others noted are characteristics of a"main street." Response to Letter 7, Comment 13, second paragraph: Rewrite the fifth sentence to say "Also, Plan C parking assumes a modification request would be granted to allow a National Parking Association Add after the fifth sentence that"the Renton Municipal Code allows for shared parking in some cases for uses with different peak utilization." With allowances for some shared parking and a modification to stall size,compliance with Renton parking rates is anticipated. Add to the end of the paragraph discussion that mitigation measures would require a Parking Management Plan. Response to Letter 7,Comment 15: Should the number 15 be moved to the top of page 16 in front of the first paragraph? Response to Letter 7, Comments 16 and 17: Should these responses be combined to respond to Comments 16 and 17? Response to Letter 7, Comment 20: One view from Sunset Boulevard NE seems sufficient. A map showing the additional viewpoints should be provided. On that map the location of the significant deciduous vegetation from Sunset Boulevard NE which would substantially filter or block views could be noted. In the last paragraph, add to the discussion that changes in views from I-405 are not anticipated to be significant due to the distance,intervening industrial areas that are the primary view from the freeway,etc. In sentence five,define what"relatively high percentage means." Response to Letter 7, Comment 25: Delete the first sentence. Verify whether courtyards will be accessible to the public. Also discuss potential credits against fees or other approaches to park mitigation found in the Resolution. Response to Letter 7,Comment 28: Strike first sentence. Mention potential credit for the conceptual playground redesign. Appendix A Page 3,bullet four: Would LOS analysis be considered quantitative instead of qualitative? Page 10 and 11,correct parking supply information per comments made above. 9 08/19/99 SOUTHPORT FINAL SEIS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Final SEIS—Potential Response to Kim Browne's Comment#6 The City's transportation model is based upon existing traffic patterns and base year land use. This computerized transportation model is calibrated to replicate existing traffic during the p.m. peak hour as well as daily traffic. Forecast traffic is based upon projected changes in land use. Forecast traffic is distributed upon a future year transportation network. The model has been widely used by the City over the past several years to analyze impacts to the City's transportation network from diverse development proposals. The model was used as a basis to determine trip distribution for the Southport Development. City Traffic Engineers used the City's EMME/2 traffic model to estimate trip distributions for residential and employment uses. First, land use mixes in two Traffic Analysis Zones, which utilize Lake Washington Boulevard, were applied to the site in two separate model runs. One analysis zone is primarily residential,including both single family and multi-family,with some commercial uses. The other analysis zone is primarily office and manufacturing. The results of applying the two different land use mixes resulted in a range of estimated daily and p.m. peak hour trip distributions. Second, reviewing the variation in the estimated distributions for the two different land use mixes, as well as historic/existing traffic counts, and the level/type of transportation improvements in the road network area under review,the consulting Traffic Engineers for the SEIS judged that a 5%distribution to Lake Washington Boulevard was valid. The City confirmed the distribution estimates. It should also be noted that efforts have been made to discourage traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard through the stop signs, and speed limits. The distance of the interchanges north of the Southport site,and the excess interchange capacity at Park Avenue would act to encourage trips from the Southport site to the Park Avenue interchange. The traffic mitigation measures, including the channelization plan, would be constructed to direct traffic towards the Park Avenue interchange, and provide additional capacity for that movement. An additional mitigation measure could be recommended to establish a two year monitoring program after development occupancy that would review actual traffic distribution, and if needed, any modifications to the channelization plan could be made to ensure traffic is directed away from Lake Washington Boulevard to the north. 10 08/19/99 STY RE RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT o MEMORANDUM ANT DATE: August 17, 1999 TO:Sue Carlson Lisa Grueter FROM: Chuck Duffy, Fire Marshal ( ,'`1, SUBJECT: Response - Southport Preliminary Final Supplemental EIS I hav reviewed the Southport Preliminary Final Supplemental EIS (August 1999). My concerns continue to remain the same as have been stated in previous correspondence. Specifically, the adequacy of residential parking (quantity and location), primary emergency access to the site during peak travel hours, and the use of the lakeside promenade as a Fire Lane. The cuantity of hotel parking for "Plan C" is clearly inadequate. In Chapter Two, "Changes to the Propcsed Action and Environmental Analysis", the City requirements call for 293 hotel parking spaces. Howe er, only 164 spaces are planned for the hotel site, which leaves a shortage of 129 parking spaces. The proposal calls for using 50 spaces in the adjacent apartment building "B". This raises the total hotel parking to 214 spaces, still 79 spaces short of the City requirements. The use of parking spaces in the adjacent apartment building "B" raises two issues. First, the hotel guest! will be required to walk outside to another building in order to park. This will create a strong incentive during bad weather for guests to use alternative parking spots (i.e. Fire Lanes). In addition, I am not clear if the 50 spaces in question are being counted twice, once for the hotel total and again for the apartment total. The location of the residential parking for the apartments and condos is important. The residential parking needs to be in the same building as the dwelling units. If the parking is located in other structures such as the office complex, then the same incentive as noted above will encourage people to park in the Fire Lanes. The primary emergency access to the site will be the access from Lake Washington Blvd. During peak traffic hours, this access will be constricted where it crosses the railroad tracks. The constriction will slow the response times for the first responding units because the traffic will have limited means to yield the right-of way. Additional shoulder width is needed in this area. Finally, the location of fire lanes is discussed in various places throughout the EIS. However, the use of the lakeside promenade is not mentioned. Due to the unique and dense nature of the development, I want to insure that this access is kept in the plans. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please let me know if you have any questions. cc: Lee Wheeler Jim Gray Corey Thomas Lisa Grueter From: Lisa Grueter To: Gail Reed Subject: RE: Southport Final SETS Date: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 8:31AM Gail - The document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft SEIS. It shows Plan C which is similar to Plan A, and more beneficial as it reduces the number of dwelling units and replaces a residential building with a hotel. To save time, the primary analysis of Plan C is contained in Chapter 2 and Appendix A. You may also want to scan the summary table in Chapter 1 for any changes in mitigation measures shown with underline. The remainder of the document is probably less relevant for you. If you have the time to scan the document, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Lisa From: Gail Reed To: Lisa Grueter Subject: RE: Southport Final SEIS Date: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 7:13AM I received the copy on either Friday and was on vacation. I have not had much time to review the report. Do you want comments based on a quick but incomplete review? From: Lisa Grueter To: Leslie Betlach; Chuck Duffy; Audrey Moore; Jennefer Toth Henning; Lee E. Haro; Larry Meckling; Neil R. Watts; Gail Reed; Ronald J. Straka Cc: Nick Afzali Subject: Southport Final SEIS Date: Monday, August 16, 1999 3:35PM Last week, a copy of the Preliminary Final SEIS was routed to you for your review. If you have any comments, please give them to my by Wednesday morning, August 18th because I need to write the ERC report. Thanks for your help. Page 1 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM RECEIVED DATE:August 18, 1999 AUG 2 0 1999 JECONOCDEVELOPMEIJT.TO: Lisa GreeterNEIGHBORHOODS AND STRATEGIC PLANNtN FROM: Nick Afzali g SUBJECT: Southport/Lake Washington Boulevard Improvements Feasibility Level Cost Estimate A review of the Cost Estimate Summary and Cost Estimate Breakdown (copies attached) has resulted in the following comments and recommendations: Cost Estimate Summary Assumption 3 at bottom: For this level of cost estimate and because of the extensive amount of restriping required, should assume that Lake Washington Boulevard will require an overlay of both the new and existing pavement. Assumption 4: For this level of cost estimate should assume that existing pavement will require sawcutting. Assumption 7: Did the W.U.T.C. representative agree that only one railroad- crossing signal would be needed? It was our understanding from previous discussions that two crossing signals may be required. Why are the individual cost estimates for the various items 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A-4D, 5A-5D higher than the costs shown on the Cost Estimate Breakdown? For Item 12,Construction Engineering,the City uses 8%. For Section 111, Preliminary Engineering (or Preconstruction Engineering), the City uses 17% to include studies, environmental analyses, preliminary and final design, preparation of contract plans and specifications,and administration. Cost Estimate Breakdown Include quantity and cost for saw-cutting existing pavement per comment above. Also may need to include quantity and cost for Removing Asphalt Concrete Pavement. Regarding Item 8.03, Removal of Retaining Walls, should quantity and cost for removing existing gabion wall on east side of roadway be included? For Item 44, Storm Sewer Pipe 18-inch Diameter, recommend using a Unit Price of 45.00 per lineal foot. Also recommend using a Unit Price of between $140.00 and 160.00 per lineal foot for Storm Sewer Pipe 48-inch Diameter. LISA GI.doc\nm For Item 54, Catch Basin Type 2 48-inch Diameter, recommend a Unit Price of 2,200 per each. For Item 11, Gravel Borrow Including Haul, recommend using a Unit Price of$15.00 per ton. For Item 22, Crushed Surfacing Top Course, recommend using a Unit Price of 18.00 per ton. For Item 24, Asphalt Treated Base, recommending using a Unit Price of$35.00 per Ton. For Item 26, Asphalt Concrete Pavement Class B, recommend using a Unit Price of 40.00 per Ton. Include quantity and cost for Asphalt Concrete Overlay per comment above. Recommend using a Unit Price of$40.00 per Ton. The thickness and thus the quantity and price of Item 26 will need to be adjusted downward to reflect adding the asphalt overlay. Regarding Item 90.02, Railroad Crossing, confirm that only one railroad signal crossing is needed. (See previous comment above.) The above recommended Unit Price adjustments are based on outside contractor bids for several recent City-initiated construction projects and King County development site improvement unit prices for storm sewers and catch basins. cc: Bob Mahn Lee Haro Ron Straka Attachments LISA Gl.docnm ENT.RANCO Southport OPINION OF PROBABLE FEASIBILITY-LEVEL COSTS PHASE: Feasibility SEGMENT Lake Washington Boulevard DATE July 22,1999 PROJ.NO. 1-99029(ENTRANCO) NOTES: No Right-of-way Cost Available I.RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION&EASEMENTS CONSTRUCTION SO 1.Grading/Drainage 74,474 1 A)Gear,Grub.Demo,Removal 1,890 1.C)Drainage(WO/DetfConv) 56,800 - . 1.8) Roadway ExcavfUnsult. 511,099 1.0)Borrow/Emb.Comp.4,686 2.Structures 30,240 2A)Bridge SO 2.8) Walls 530240.00 3.Surlacing/Paving 18,853 344)Pavement/Shldrs S14,522 3.8)Curb Gutter 6 Sidewalk 4,331 4.Roadside Development 20,942 4.A)Landscaping 673 4.B) Temp Erosion Control 20269 4.C)Site Improvements S0 4.0) Miles 0 5.Traffic Services&Safety 433,163 5.A) Traffic Control Devices(Barrier/Guardrail) 5,880 5.E)Channellzatlon 5,775 5.8) Traffic Signals 157,500 5.F) Traffic Control Labor 25,336 5.C)/Rumination(Roadway) 544,153 5.G)Railroad Crossing Gates/Signal $,89,000 5.0)Signing 5,519 6.Miscellaneous Items Not Yet Estimated 57,767 10.0%of$577,671(Lines I through 5) 635,4387.Allowance for Feasibility-Level Accuracy 127,088 20.0%of$635,438(Lines 1 Through 6) 127,088 8.Mobilization 76,253 10.0%of$762,526(Lines I through 7) 838,779 9.Sales Tax 0 8.6%of$0.000(Utilities.Une 4.0) 10.Construction Work by Others at Owner's Expense 0 Construction Work by Others 11.Agreements 0 Utility Agreements,etc. 838,779 12.Construction Engineering 83,878 10.0%of$838.779(Lines 1 through 10) 13.Construction Contingency 41,939 5.0%of$638,779(Lines1 through 10) 964,596 III.PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 1.Design Engineering 96,460 10.0%of$964,596(CONSTRUCTION cost) 12.Agency Administration 19292 2.0%o/S964,596(CONSTRUCTION cost) 115,751 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST(UNADJUSTED) S1,080,347 Escalation effect on construction costs: 0.0%of$964,596(CONSTRUCTION cost) 0 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST Si,080,347 Assumptions: 1. Units costs are based upon the most recent versions of the WSDOT bid tabs. 2. Right-of-way acquisition costs are not included in this estimate. 3. Existing Lake Washington Boulevard pavement will not require an overlay. 4. Existing edge of pavement is In good condition and will not required sawcutting. 5. This estimate is based on the April 29,1999 conceptual site plan prepared by Entranco,Inc. 6. Utility reconstruction and coordination is not included in this estimate. 7. The construction estimate for railroad Crossing signal and gates was provided by Mike Rosewei of the W.U.T.C..(360)664-1265. 8. Removal of structures and obstructions Is not included in this estimate. 9. It is assumed that the location of detention and water quality facilities is within 200 feet of the project discharge location. 10. 300-foot long,4-foot high retaining wall will be required along the eastern edge of the reconstructed ditch. 11. It is assumed that water quality and detention facilities wit not be required to treat the entire roadway prism,just the newly created impervious areas.12. A 140%water quality and detention facilities sizing factor has been added for ESA compliance. wprolecu WY02fNetm.mGr.poumxi ed. Prepared by. MHB Std.Approx. Date. 7/22/99 Item No Item It,..,-sorption Spec Quantity Total Price Unit Estimated Unit Price Category Comments 1 0001 Mobilization 1-09 10.0% $50,672.93 LS 10%Percent to be used for Mobilization: 6 0035'Clearing and Grubbing 2-01 0.36 $1,800.00 AC 5,000.00 1A o.ul 1 ll icancn,ruiy.,oN1.,.,.,i i.,...,..;'d-;7emerrt o::53in,_.Z 8.01 0050 Removal Bridge 2-02 0.00 LS 1A 8.02 0050 0.00 LS IA 8.03 0050 Removal of Retaining Walls 2-02 0.00 LS 1A 14.99 Stormwater Detention Pond Excavation Ind.Haul 0.15 $3,360.00 AC-Imp. 22,400.00 1C Unit price is per acre of new impervious(See backup calcs for price derivation) 21 1040 Channel Excavation Inc.Haul 2-10 0.15 735.00 AC-Imp. 4,900.00 1C Bioswale unit price per acre of new impervious(200'long,3:1 side slopes,5 foot bottom,4 feet deep)(See backup for unit cost derivation) 44 3396 Plain Conn Storm Sewer Pipe 18 in.Diam. 7-04 1,200 $30,000.00 LF 25.00 1C Assume all drainage pipes average out to be 18"pipe.Unit price includes excavation,pipe bedding,shoring and testing Reinforced Conc.Storm Sewer Pipe 48 in.Diam.7-04 56 5,600.00 LF 100.00 1C Extend four existing 48"diameter culverts 54 3105 Catch Basin Type 2 48 in.Diam. 7-05 8 14,400.00 EA 1,800.00 1C Assume all CB's average out to be 48"Type 2 Catch Basins 11 0431 Gravel Borrow Ind.Haul 2-03 555 4,162.50 TON 7.50 ID 12 0470 Embankment Compaction 2-03 300 300.00 CY 1.00 1D Roadway Excavation including Haul 1,057 $10,570.00 CY 10.00 1D 13.94 Bridge B1 2-09 0.00 LS 2A 13.95 Bridge B2 2-09 0.00 LS . 2A 13.96 Bridge B3 2-09 0.00 LS 2A 13.97 Bridge B4 2-09 0.00 LS 2A 13.98 Bridge B5 2-09 0.00 LS 2A 13.99 Bridge B6 2-09 0.00 LS 2A 12.91 Retaining Walls(2'-10) 1,200 $28,800.00 SF ( 24.00 2B 12.92 Retaining Walls(10'-20) 0.00 SF 24.00 2B 12.93 Retaining Walls(20'-30') 0.00 SF 24.00 2B 22 5100 Crushed Surfacing Base Course I 4-04 116 1,740.00 TON 15.00 3A Pvt section=4"ACP CLB,5"ATB,3"CSBC 24 5510 Asphalt Treated Base t 4-06 224 6,720.00 TON 30.00 3A Pvt section=4"ACP CLB,5"ATB,3"CSBC 26 5765 Asphalt Conc.Pavement CL.B 5-04 179 5,370.00 TON 30.00 3A Pvt.section=4"ACP CLB,5"ATB,3"CSBC 73 6704 Cement Conc.Curb and Gutter 8-04 0.00 LF 8.00 3B 74 6727 Extruded Curb 8-04 1,375 $4,125.00 LF 3.00 3B 79.00 7055 Cement Conc.Sidewalk 8-14 0.00 SY 20.00 3B 79.01 6777 Cast-in-place Concrete Barrier 8-14 0.00 LF 35.00 3B 79.02 6751 Beam Guardrail Type 1 8-14 400 5,600.00 LF 14.00 38 Unit price includes allowance for anchors 49 6489 Temp.Water Pollution/Eros.Control 4.0% $20,269.17 EST 4B 4%of construction cost 49.01 8064 Seeding,Mulching,and Fertilizing 0.21 640.50 AC 3,050.00 4B $0.07 per sq.ft Hydroseed 1I 89 Signal System Complete(3 leg) 8-20 { 1 90,000.00 LS 90,000.00}Sit Includes all excavation,footings,wiring,fixtures,signals 90 Signal System Complete(4 leg) 8-20 0.00 LS 120,000.00 ISB Includes at excavation,footings,wiring,fixtures,signals 90.01 Signal Modification(3 leg) 8-20 0.00 LS 45,000.00 5B Includes all excavation,footings,wiring,fixtures,signals 90.02 Signal Modification(4g leg) 8-20 1 60,000.00 LS 60,000.00{58 Includes all excavation,footings,wiring,fixtures,signals 90.02 Railroad Crossing 8-20 1 180,000.00 LS I 180,000.00 5E1 Includes all excavation,footings,wiring,fixtures,signals 81 I 6904 Illumination System Complete(Roadway) 8-20 -1 4,205 $42,050.00 LF-Lane 10.00 I SC Includes all excavation,conduit,wiring and fixtures($10 per foot-lane)(See backup for unit price calc) 83 6890 Permanent Signing 8-21 4,205 $5,256.25 LF-Lane 1.25 ISD $1.25 per foot-lane(See backup for unit price calc) 83.01 6890 Sign Bridge 8-21 0.00 EA 25,000.00 1SD Includes excavation,foundation,structure,sign 75.90 Channelization 8-09 5,500 I $5,500.00 LF-(Lane+1)I 1.00 !SE IS1.00 per foot-(lane+1)(See backup for unit price tale) T 2.90 Traffic Control 5.0% $25,336.46 EST SF 5%of the Construction Cost 104 Aluminum Handrail 0.00 LF 15.00 15G ':For Walls and Bridges ry) RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DATE: August 17, 1999 TO:Sue Carlson Lisa Grueter FROM: Chuck Duffy, Fire Marshal LqI-, SUBJECT: Response - Southport Preliminary Final Supplemental EIS I have -eviewed the Southport Preliminary Final Supplemental EIS (August 1999). My concerns continue to remain the same as have been stated in previous correspondence. Specifically, the adequacy of residential parking (quantity and location), primary emergency access to the site during peak travel hours, and th use of the lakeside promenade as a Fire Lane. The cuantity of hotel parking for "Plan C" is clearly inadequate. In Chapter Two, "Changes to the Proposed Action and Environmental Analysis", the City requirements call for 293 hotel parking spaces. Howe ter, only 164 spaces are planned for the hotel site, which leaves a shortage of 129 parking spaces. The F roposal calls for using 50 spaces in the adjacent apartment building "B". This raises the total hotel parking to 214 spaces, still 79 spaces short of the City requirements. The use of parking spaces in the adjacent apartment building "B" raises two issues. First, the hotel guests will be required to walk outside to another building in order to park. This will create a strong incentive during bad weather for guests to use alternative parking spots (i.e. Fire Lanes). In addition, I am riot clear if the 50 spaces in question are being counted twice, once for the hotel total and again for the apartment total. The location of the residential parking for the apartments and condos is important. The residential park ing needs to be in the same building as the dwelling units. If the parking is located in other structures sue r as the office complex, then the same incentive as noted above will encourage people to park in the Fire Lanes. Thf primary emergency access to the site will be the access from Lake Washington Blvd. During peak traffic hours, this access will be constricted where it crosses the railroad tracks. The constriction will slow the response times for the first responding units because the traffic will have limited means to yield the rig t-of-way. Additional shoulder width is needed in this area. Finally, the location of fire lanes is discussed in various places throughout the EIS. However, the use of this lakeside promenade is not mentioned. Due to the unique and dense nature of the development, I went to insure that this access is kept in the plans. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please let me know if you have any questions. cc: Lee Wheeler Jim Gray Corey Thomas 1111111111, BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF I IIM\ CORPORATIC N MEMORANDUM TO: Sue Carlson,Administrator,Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning cc: Leslie Betlach, Jay Covington, Jana Hanson, Lee Haro, Sandra Meyer, Jim Shepherd,Larry Warren,Neil Watts,Gregg Zimmerman FROM: Lisa Grueter,Senior Planner/Project Manager SUBJECT: Southport Mitigation Fees ik"6 DATE: Thursday,Augustlf , 1999 Project# 99289.01 This memo summarizes our meeting held August 12, 1999 regarding Southport mitigation fees. Except for Jana Hanson and Jim Shepherd,everyone listed above attended the meeting. Parks Mitigation Fees: The parks fees are based upon a rate of $354.51 per dwelling unit. With 377 dwelling units,the fee would equal$133,650.27. Per the mitigation measures,we will also be provided an easement for the promenade and dock, and we will ask for a conceptual playground redesign. Fire Mitigation Fees: The fee is based upon a rate of $0.52/square foot of commercial office,retail,hotel) use, and$388 per individual unit. Credit would be given for the 98,405 square feet of existing structures. The estimated fee would be$677,047.80. Transportation Mitigation Fees: The fee is based upon $75.00 per daily trip generated, although the resolution allows fee reductions for employment-generating uses. The net new daily trips associated with Plan C would equal 9,443. If the $75 trip rate is utilized, the fee would equal $708,225. The cost to construct the improvements exceeds the maximum traffic mitigation fee (the cost is initially estimated at$1,080,347 which will probably be adjusted upward somewhat based upon items not fully considered such as pavement overlay, additional rail crossing improvements, and additional surface water improvements). The level of service at the Park Avenue/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection and the site entrance at Lake Washington Boulevard will deteriorate based upon background traffic growth aside from the Southport development; however, development on the Southport site will contribute significantly to the need for improvements. The improvements will be needed most likely with the first development phase based upon discussions with staff at Entranco,Inc. We discussed and generally agreed with the following approach to the traffic mitigation fee: Credit the full traffic mitigation fee towards the cost of the off-site road improvements. The cost of the improvements beyond the credited amount would be the developer's responsibility. 2003 WESTERN AvE,STE 100,MARKET PLACE ONE SEATTLE,WA 98121 206.448.2123 FAX:206.441.1622 BWR - MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) August 16, 1999 - Page 2 Credit the full traffic mitigation fee towards the cost of the off-site road improvements. The cost of the improvements beyond the credited amount could be financed through an LID. Credit or waive the full traffic mitigation fee, and finance the entire off-site road improvements through an LID. Larry Warren will review Resolution 3100 about how we may waive or credit fees. There are provisions to adjust fees for developments providing high employment or sales tax to the City. lease contact me with any questions (206-448-2123). Thank you. PERKINS COTE LLP 1 1AUG 1999 1201 THIRD AVENUE,48TH FLOOR•SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3099 TELEPHONE: 206 583-8888 FACSIMILE: 206 583-8500 STHA-i EGC PLANNING RICHARD E.McCANN 206)583-8616 August 9, 1999 Susan Carlson Administrator Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Southport Development Project File Nos. LUA 99-027, ECF; 99-M-2; 99-T-3 Dear Sue: This is to formally request that I be placed on your mailing list for any and all City activities that relate to or will affect the Southport Development Planned Action project. This request specifically includes, but is not limited to, activities with respect to the Environmental Impact Statement, including issuance of the Final EIS; the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezone; issuance of the shoreline substantial development permit; and any other actions or activities being undertaken by the City with respect to this project. I will appreciate your written confirmation that I am on the mailing list for each of these activities, as well as any others that may be underway now or are initiated in the future. Cordially, Richard E. McCann REM:vg 03 003-0241/S B992210.131] ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C. STRATEGIC ALLIANCE:RUSSELL&DuMOULIN,VANCOUVER,CANADA CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: August 11, 1999 TO: Departments/Divisions Reviewing Project Files Lee Haro,Transportation Systems Division FROM: Sue Carlson Ji"' CONTACT: Lisa Grueter(BWR,206-448-2123) SUBJECT: Southport Preliminary Final Supplemental EIS Attached for your review is a copy of the Preliminary Final Supplemental EIS. It analyzes a revised conceptual plan, and it responds to comments received during the Draft Supplemental EIS comment period. Based upon the environmental review process, and, in particular, discussions with The Boeing Company, Seco Development prepared a revised conceptual plan which decreases the residential dwellings, and adds a hotel. Also, there has been a small reduction in the retail square footage. The comment period on the Southport Planned Action Draft Supplemental EIS expired on July 29, 1999. We received seven comment letters. We have provided responses to all letters. We are waiting for input from Larry Warren about one of the comments, and once we have that input,we can forward it to you. Please review the document and provide comments by August 18, 1999. Any written correspondence can be directed to Lisa Grueter, care of the Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department. We will forward your comments to Lisa at Bucher, Willis and Ratliff. After receiving your input, Lisa will prepare a report to the Environmental Review Committee, and the document will be discussed at the ERC meeting to be held August 24, 1999. If you have any questions,please call Lisa Grueter at the number above. Thank you. cc: Jennifer Henning Ron Straka Environmental Review Committee CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/ BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM Date:August 9, 1999 RECEivEbi To: Lisa Grueter AUG 1 1 1999 From: Lee Harcg ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.v NEIGHBORHOODS. AND STRATEGIC PLANNING Subject: Southport Traffic Impact Analysis We have reviewed the two comment letters related to the traffic impacts of the proposed Southport project. Three issues have been raised in these letters: 1)traffic distribution; 2)pipeline projects; and, 3) the growth factor rate. The following is our response to these issues. Traffic Distribution Steve Rolle conducted the traffic distributions using the transportation model. He coordinated his efforts with Entranco. The outcome of the distribution analysis resulted in 5% of traffic generated by the Southport project being assigned to Lake Washington Boulevard north of the entrance to Gene Coulon/Southport. The methodologies are documented in Steve's memo dated March 30th and Entranco's memo dated March 23` d ( copies attached). It should be noted the City's computerized traffic model using EMME/2 software) is calibrated to replicate the existing traffic during PM peak hour and forecasts traffic based on the changes to land use (type and quantity). We have been using this model widely to examine the potential impacts of different development proposals to the City's transportation network. Pipeline Projects The traffic study for Southport considers the approved projects along Lake Washington Boulevard. The projects that were included are: The Bluffs a 174-unit apartment complex; the Labrador Plat a 66-lot subdivision;and Tamaron Pointe,a 182-unit apartment complex. Growth Factor Rate Based on our historical counts', the 2% growth rate seems reasonable. However, traffic flow varies due to different parameters. These parameters include the number of Boeing employees and Gene Coulon Park traffic during summer. The 2% growth rate is widely used by the jurisdictions in the Seattle area to predict the future traffic. It should be noted that the traffic study for the Southport project examines the performance of the transportation system near the Southport project during the summer. Therefore, the Park traffic was also considered as the background traffic. Enclosures: 2 memos cc: Nick Afzali 1987 to 1999 for the vicinity of Lake Washington Boulevard H:\TRANS\PLNG\NICK SOPOTCMS.doc alre CITY F RENTON smiL Planning/Building/Public Works Department 7 e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 12, 1999 Jeff Haynie, P.E. Entranco 10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98004 Dear Mr. Haynie: Please find enclosed results of a travel demand model distribution exercise. These distributions were developed to provide information for use in the assignment of trips from the proposed Southport development site. The data provided is not a modeled representation of the proposed project, but instead simply a reassignment of unaltered trip tables to a modified model network that may be used to gauge general trip distribution from the project site. Typical distributions for two trip types, residential and general employment, are provided. These distributions were developed by altering existing centroids which are located proximate to the proposed site so that their network loading occurred only at the site of the proposed project entrance. A select link analysis was conducted, and trips across six sceenlines were identified. These screenlines capture all of the potential routes to/from the project site. Distributions for productions (outbound) and attractions (inbound) are provided for daily trips and PM Peak hour trips. Small traffic volumes are generated for employment PM Peak attractions, so this distribution should be used with caution. The residential distribution may be more appropriate for the commercial uses proposed with this project. Finally, it should be noted that these distributions assume a site improvement which establishes a two way connection to Houser Way from the project entrance on Lake Washington Blvd. Currently,only a one-way(southbound)connection exists. Please feel free to call me at (425) 430-7232 with any questions you may have regarding this or related data. Sincerely, J . Stephen S. Rolle,P.E. Transportation Engineer c: Lee Haro enclosures 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 a This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer R I Oq, t,, 405 t \- f-__ ,,oc-- ss, r 2U`(0 f r Vl 1 rr G 41 Gt1h1 b. t IZ e k re--c J 0 '(. ,:,:I L S.)1-. tP---k 4-,z_ 1--/-10C-, P M 4s-f, NA -1`fo a) 1 t AS +d 2.V 9'S0h-j vl C scli CD t •log "cl Yd d v4: r'''oi illik T v.r.n,-A t i-)0 AZ.\ -z-dj fin$z 1,yU lirI O/ _ 5Z W qa 1 NI 3'. c 0 .1 op `Irv" r UC)"e 91 '"G 1 LI Wd Z:Z C 5Jc -S 17- T 7")t CD I,,z '1 S, 1--yd Sol 4 f''' oicly.i_ce .-^<b- lk i" Q d wd -1.7. d A t2._ 1 Zdi c7„ 91 q Nr-0 ipybWd v" .50h- T I 9' val vrAl\ i, %S017 I II LI, c,)AQIL_ PO\ 6)-4; 405 N1ILoci c I; 1.;1. t.) 11.Io i I G 111 fie p;c' PR P.t ivwdr M peg s ' r 1 ? /. 0,1( - 2s I) t'ivy' a i-i 1,1111111 BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF IMIPI\ CORPORATIO N MEMORANDUM TO: Sue Carlson,Administrator,Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning cc: Leslie Betlach, Jay Covington, Jana Hanson, Lee Haro, Sandra Meyer, Jim Shepherd,Lan-y Warren,Neil Watts,Gregg Zimmerman FROM: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner/Project Manager cy6 SUBJECT: Southport Mitigation Fees DATE: Thursday,August 05, 1999 Project# 99289 We will meet on Thursday August 12, 1999 in conference room 511 at 1 p.m. to finalize our discussion of Southport mitigation fees. We need to resolve our approach in order to prepare a mitigation document. On July 15, 1999 we met to discuss the City's parks, fire, and transportation mitigation fees. The resolutions authorizing the fees provide some latitude for staff to determine the ultimate fees and any credits. Regarding parks,we discussed requiring the full mitigation fee, along with a dedication of the promenade and dock,and a conceptual playground plan. Although some credit could be given for dedication of the promenade/dock, and possibly the conceptual playground re-design, we discussed that with the fire lane agreement to utilize the Park parking lot, that the City should request the full fees,dedication,and a conceptual playground redesign plan. Regarding the fire mitigation fees, credit would be given for existing structures. Refer to Jim Gray's memo dated July 22, 1999. (See Attachment A) In order to come to some conclusions about the transportation mitigation fee,we needed a cost estimate for the off-site road improvements, and Seco Development's phasing plan reflecting their new development concept which includes a hotel. The requested information is provided below. Development Plan Plans A, B and C propose the following development levels: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT RANGE Use Characteristics Plan A Plan B Plan C Multifamily Residential Units 543 581 377 Retail Area in Sq. Ft. 38,000 38,000 30,000 Commercial Area in Sq. Ft. 500,000 750,000 500,000 Hotel Area in Sq. Ft. 115,800 Residential Building Heights in Stories1 6 6 6 2003 WESTERN AvE,Sm 100,MARKET PLACE ONE SEATmE,WA 98121 206.448.2123 FAX:206.441.1622 BWR - MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) August 5, 1999 - Page 2 Use Characteristics Plan A Plan B Plan C Hotel Building Height in Stories 7 Office Building Heights is Stories 8-10 10 8-10 Total Parking Spaces 2,243 3,043 2,433 I The height of the residential buildings is estimated at 58 feet for all plans,and was the height assumed in the DSEIS aesthetics analysis. Previous charts interpreted the buildings as 5 stories,but changes to grading plans may result in a perceived height of 6 stories from some locations. lan C is attached (see Attachment B). In contrast to previous plans,Building A would become hotel with some retail/restaurant area, and Building B would become entirely residential. e height of Building A would increase from 50 to 75 feet. lan C would be a preferred alternative since it would result in the long-term residential uses eing located further from The Boeing Company property line, and required shoreline setbacks ould be met for all residential and commercial buildings. I asing for Plan C would occur as follows: It is anticipated that construction of the main site access roadway, the waterfront promenade, and Buildings B and C would begin in early 2000 with construction completed in late 2001. Construction of Building 1 would begin in late 2000 and be completed in early 2002. Construction of Building 2 would begin in late 2001 and be completed in early 2003. Construction of Building 3 would begin in late 2002 and end in late 2003 or early 2004. Construction of Building A would begin in early 2003 and end in late 2004. It is anticipated that full buildout of Southport would occur by late 2004. tigation Fees Net including any fees required by ordinance (e.g. system development charges), the fees ap lied through the SEPA process would total: Parks Mitigation Fees: The parks fees are based upon a rate of $354.51 per dwelling unit. With 377 dwelling units,the fee would equal$133,650.27. I ire Mitigation Fees: The fee is based upon a rate of $0.52/square foot of commercial office,retail,hotel) use, and $388 per individual unit. Credit would be given for the 98,405 quare feet of existing structures. The estimated fee would be$677,047.80. ransportation Mitigation Fees: The fee is based upon $75.00 per daily trip generated, lthough the resolution allows fee reductions for employment-generating uses. The net ew daily trips associated with Plan C would equal 9,443. If the $75 trip rate is utilized, e fee would equal $708,225. BWR - MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) August 5, 1999 - Page 3 Off-site Road Improvement Costs The Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department requested that Entranco Inc.prepare a cost estimate of their feasibility level road improvement plan dated 4/29/99. Their estimate to construct the improvements totals $1,080,347. (See Attachment C) The Transportation Systems Division is reviewing Entranco's cost estimate, and will suggest corrections if needed. It should be noted that Seco Development has independently requested that Merlin Construction provide a cost estimate as well. The results of the Merlino estimate will be provided prior to or at our meeting on August 12,1999. The cost to construct the improvements exceeds the maximum traffic mitigation fee. At our meeting on August 12, 1999 we will discuss: Fee rate Whether to apply some or all of the fee towards the off-site improvements Timing of improvements Funding responsibilities/mechanisms Please contact me with any questions(206-448-2123). Thank you. G- Y get CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: July 22, 1999 TO: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner FROM:Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Southport Fire Mitigation Fees The following comments are related to the fire mitigation fees as they apply to the Southport project. Existing buildings and structures that are demolished, may have the square footage deducted from the new structures for the mitigation fee calculations. Credit will be given for the 98,405 square feet of existing structures that are to be demolished. Either the square footage or the dollar amount, based on $.52 a square foot, may be used for this calculation. The Fire Mitigation fees are based on the following: Apartment Buildings; $388.00 per individual unit. This fee also includes associated parking areas or structures. Commercial Buildings; (Retail, office, restaurant, hotels and associated structures). $.52 a square foot of the total structure square footages. The actual fees will be based on the building permit set of plans as they are completed and submitted for permit review. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. ATTACHMENT A ri UTH PO SECO Development 11009 NE 11,^ St. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Existing Site Statistics Existing Building Areas Information from Lot Line Revision Shuffleton Complex By: Duane Hartman &Associates, Inc. Surveyors Building Area (in SQ. Fr.)Acres Shuffleton Power Plant(Footprint) 36,770 Mezzanines and Equipment Floors (approx.) 35,000 Total Power Plant Area 71,770 Pumphouse 3,705 Shed 640 1 Story Wood Frame Building 1,580 Warehouse 14,110 Transformer Structure 6,600 Total Existing Building Area 98,405 Total Site Area - New Lot"B" 744,799 17.098 Total Impervious Area 694,463 Impervious Area Existing 93.24 4.--__ ATTACHMENT B e7/ o. i 1 i ii• i 1 i I i___ fl I i•• i I 1 7 f I— ill a ! ri 0 7 IW'• -' CD 13 B I (I) cr imemw 0-5 • 'r----- Eri ii L.mow I U) r. i A 0 nil i o 4— ---)ImiiimmikOR;\ I C 2 u u Vi 13 1 2 0 Cl) 4fe i pg i sik1/4, 0 gig ' d —N8L' oN ' ' 331dd0 NIVN NdWZ11.4661 . N. Inr------ ENTRANCO RECEIVED JUL 271g9e ECOMOMIC D VELoi-k-_w-July 23, 1999 NEIGHANDsTRA OR CZA_,,.vC Ms. Sue Carlson Administrator City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 10900 Re: Southport- Road Improvement Cost Analysis NE 8TH STREET Dear Sue: SUITE 300 BELLEVUE Attached is the feasibility-level cost opinion for the above referenced project per our July 15, 1999 agreement. Provided are estimated costs for major project elements WASHINGTON such as retaining walls, signals, rail crossing improvements, drainage, illumination and 98004-4405 asphalt. ..Quantities for these and other associated items are based on Entranco's April 29, 1999 conceptual site plan and are available upon request. TELEPHONE Deriving feasibility-level opinions of costs inherently requires a number of assumptions and allowances and/or contingencies to account for items difficult to quantify at this 425 454 5600 time. At the bottom of the attached spreadsheet are assumptions upon which the cost opinion was based. TOLL FREE While preparing this opinion of cost, Entranco has been coordinating with Rex Allen of SECO Development. SECO requested Merlino Construction to prepare a parallel 800 454 5601 feasibility-level opinion of cost for this project. Merlino provided Entranco their draft estimate on July 22, 1999, but insufficient data was available to make a direct comparison with our estimate. If greater detail can be supplied by SECO from Merlino, FAX Entranco would be pleased to review this information on behalf of the City. 425 454 0220 Sue, if you have any questions or comments regarding this project, please feel free to call either myself or Mike Bertram at (425) 454-5600. Thank you. INTERNET Sincerely, www encranco.com ENTRANCO, Inc. e)r-ad Brad Stein, P.E Project Manager BLS:mhb w\projects\99029Vetmem99Vcar0723:sks ARIZONA CALIFORNIA Enclosures IDAHO OREGON UTAH WASHINGTON ATTACHMENT C 4., ENTRANCO Southport OPINION OF PROBABLE FEASIBILITY-LEVEL COSTS PHASE: Feasibility SEGMENT Lake Washington Boulevard DATE: July 22,1999 PROJ.NO. 1-99029(ENTRANCO) NOTES: No Right-of-way Cost Available I.RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION&EASEMENTS SO II.CONSTRUCTION 1.Grading/Drainage 74,474 1.A) Clear,Grub.Demo,Removal S1,890 1.C) Drainage(WOIDet/Conv) S56,800 1.6) Roadway Excay./Unsuit. 11,099 1.D) Borrow/Emb.Comp.4,686 2.Structures 30,240 2.A) Bridge 0 2.8) Walls 30240.00 3.Surfacing/Paving 18,853 3.A) Pavement/ShkNs 14,522 3.B) Curb Gutter8 Sidewalk 4.331 4.Roadside Development 20,942 4.A) Landscaping 673 4.6) Temp Erosion Control 20,269 4.C) Slte Improvements 0 4.D) Utilities 0 5.Traffic Services&Safety 433,163 5.A) Traffic Control Devices(Barrier/Guardrail) 5,880 5.E)Channelization 5,775 5.B) Traffic Signals 157,500 5.F) Traffic Control Labor 25,336 5.C) Illumination(Roadway) S44,153 5.G) Railroad Crossing Gates/Signal $189,000 5.0)Signing 5,519 6.Miscellaneous Items Not Yet Estimated 57,767 10.0%of$577,671(Lines 1 through 5) 635,438 7.Allowance for Feasibility-Level Accuracy 127,088 20.0%of$635,438(Lines 1 through 6) 127,088 8.Mobilization 76,253 10.0%of S762,526(Lines 1 through 7) 838,779 9.Sales Tax 0 8.6%of$0.000(Utilities-Line 4.D) 10.Construction Work by Others at Owner's Expense 0 Construction Work by Others 11.Agreements 0 Utility Agreements,etc. 838,779 12.Construction Engineering 83,878 10.0%of$838.779(Lines 1 through 10) 13.Construction Contingency 41,939 5.0%of.S838.779(Lines 1 through 10) 964,596 III.PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 1.Design Engineering 96,460 10.0%of$964,596(CONSTRUCTION cost) Agency Administration 19,292 2.0%of$964,596(CONSTRUCTION cost) 115,751 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST(UNADJUSTED) S1,080,347 Escalation effect on construction costs: 0.0%of$964,596(CONSTRUCTION cost) SO TOTAL ESTIMATED COST S1,080,347 Assumptions: 1. Units costs are based upon the most recent versions of the WSDOT bid tabs. 2. Right-of-way acquisition costs are not included in this estimate. 3. Existing Lake Washington Boulevard pavement will not require an overlay. 4. Existing edge of pavement is In good condition and will not required sawcutting. 5. This estimate is based on the April 29,1999 conceptual site plan prepared by Entranco,Inc. 6. Utility reconstruction and coordination is not included in this estimate. 7. The construction estimate for railroad crossing signal and gates was provided by Mike Rosewell of the W.U.T.C.,(360)664-1265. 8. Removal of structures and obstructions is not included in this estimate. 9. It is assumed that the location of detention and water quality facilities is within 200 feet of the project discharge location. 10. 300-foot tong,4-foot high retaining wall will be required along the eastern edge of the reconstructed ditch. 11. It is assumed that water quality and detention facilities will not be required to treat the entire roadway prism,just the newly created impervious areas. 12. A 140%water quality and detention facilities sizing factor has been added for ESA compliance. ve proiec toV 9029Uetrne m99Upa u m x h I MMO BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF IDUPIL CORPORATIO N MEMORANDUM TO: Sue Carlson,Administrator,Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Rex Allen, Seco Development Mike Blumen,Huckell/Weinman Associates,Inc. City of Renton File 99-027,ECF FROM: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner/Project Manager SUBJECT: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Informal Comments-Southport DATE: Thursday,August 05, 1999 Project# 99289 The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize a phone conversation with Karen Walters of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. On July 29, 1999, Ms. Walters called me while at the City of Renton offices and requested copies of background reports and documents referenced in the Southport Planned Action Draft Supplemental EIS (Southport DSEIS). The documents she requested included reports addressing site remediation work, the related Determinations of Non-Significance and Mitigated-Determinations of Non-Significance, and a referenced water quality report prepared by Herrera and Associates in 1993 for the Lake Washington Pollutant Abatement Program. Additionally, Ms. Walters indicated that she would not be providing comments related to the Southport DSEIS. However, she wanted to informally indicate her thoughts about the project, and requested that I pass the information to the developer and their consultants. She did not plan to provide DSEIS comments due to her workload priorities, and may be interested in commenting upon future NEPA documents if prepared. I indicated that the only likely federal permit would be one from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers related to the off-site road improvements, and that I wasn't certain about their environmental review process. I also explained that the Planned Action designation when applied would mean no further environmental review, at least through the City of Renton, for future applications if they are consistent with the development levels reviewed. I mentioned there could be comment opportunities through the notice of application procedure for future site plan or shoreline permits. Generally, Ms. Walters felt that the Southport DSEIS looked okay and did a pretty good job of disclosing impacts. Should would encourage, as further design work is conducted, that there be greater shoreline setbacks, and some rehabilitation of the lakeshore. She also recommended use of the 1998 King County Surface Water Manual, particularly a core requirement in Chapter 2, page 14. Her concern was related to water quality impacts upon juvenile salmonids. Also she was concerned about the emphasis upon peak flows to Johns Creek versus overall increases in flow. There may be a need to increase flow water refuge habitats. If there will be pumping of stormwater, she suggested that water quality be considered. She felt the water quality data reported in the DSEIS were from monitoring stations that were not necessarily localized. She 2003 WESTERN AVE,STE 100,MARKET PLACE ONE SEATTLE,WA 98121 206.448.2123 FAX:206.441.1622 BWR - MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) August 5, 1999 - Page 2 suggested attention to source control and materials. She indicated her comments were finer points in the whole picture. I confirmed her previous statements that she wished her comments to be passed informally to th- developer and consultants, and that she would not be submitting formal comments about the DSEIS. I also said I would gather her requested documents, have them copied and mail the when ready. RECEIVED AUG 4 1999 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. July 29, 1999 AND STRATNEIGHBORHOODS.EGIC PLANNING City of Renton Economical Development/Neighborhoods& Strategic Planning Department 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Attention: Lisa Grueter Subject: Southport Planned Action - Draft Supplemental EIS Comments Dear Ms. Grueter: I write to express my excitement about the proposed Southport project located at the existing Shuffleton Plant. This project would make an exciting addition to our City. I think the Administration is making an excellent recommendation to Council to rezone this site to COR. As was discussed by the Planning Commission,this is an appropriate zoning for the redevelopment of this site. However, I am concerned that certain impacts were not analyzed in the Draft EIS Supplement and therefore jeopardize the integrity of the document. Because I think Southport could make a positive contribution to our community,current inadequacies in the draft must be corrected. Please note that I am commenting only on items for which I am familiar. The EIS has many technical issues for which I have no ability or expertise with which to comment. Page 2-3 - Development Regulations The last sentence notes that this project-specific document will "clarify zoning code text for all COR zoned districts." This document is for a particular Planned Action, and for it to include analysis of other COR zones are most inappropriate. Imagine the reasonable surprise of a property owner adjacent another COR zone discovering that the analysis of the revisions were buried in some other application. This action is not Renton's idea of full disclosure. Page 2-4 - EIS and Adoption of Planned Action Ordinance This section notes that "the Conceptual Master Plan is intended to meet the requirements of Level 2 site plan" is misleading. Although the Administration may be considering amendments to the development regulations, these amendments have not been discussed in the public forum, nor have they been advanced to Council.Thus, to imply that the plan meets some non-existent requirement is misleading. City of Renton/ L. Greuter July 29, 1999 Page 2 Page 2-5 - Future Designation and Approvals This section should be expanded such that one unfamiliar with the SEPA process and the newly- adopted process of Proposed Actions in the City of Renton, can get a better understanding of the public process. For this paragraph to simply conclude that "there would be no administrative SEPA procedural appeal" is not sufficiently enlightening, especially since the Administration, and more importantly the citizens, have very little experience with a Planned Action Ordinance. Page 2-12 - Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments, Policy LU-125 As was discussed at the Planning Commission, there is no need to eliminate the words "small scale." This phrase has been taken out of context. Staff is incorrectly reading the paragraph. Policy LU-125 speaks to the appropriate development of commercial uses such as retail and services. It then goes on to make the exception that "certain other commercial uses may occur if they are proposed with small scale businesses." The term "small scale" in LU-125 is not inconsistent with the words "major commercial uses" in the same sentence. The staff has simply been misreading the intent and the wording of this phrase. As noted by the Planning Commission,the words "small scale" should remain. Page 2-13 -Municipal Code Text Amendments (Continued) As noted above, amendments to the Master Plan Development Process have not been adopted and are not relevant to this document. Page 2-15 -Mix of Uses (Continued) This section goes out of its way to create the case that these are five-story buildings. Only a close reading of the parenthetical phrases shows that these, in fact, are six-story buildings. Only because the first floor parking is proposed to be backfilled can five stories even be discussed. The buildings are not being lowered into the ground; the ground is being raised an entire story around the buildings. True, this backfill does allow the buildings to be classified as five stories, but it is not true that they will be seen as only five stories high. These paragraphs should be rewritten such that all readers and decision makers understand the actual height, and that existing grade is not being used to hide the real height. Additionally, Table 1 should be revised to six stories and 60 feet above existing grade, noting that the bottom story would be buried through grade fabrication. These same corrections should be made on page 2-19,Residential Use. Page 2-19 -Residential Use Because the residential density is being calculated over the entire site, but will only be built in a portion of the site, it would be very helpful to a decision maker to also note what the apparent density will be of the residential portions of the development. Page 2-20 - Site Population and Employment It should be highlighted that, as indicated in Table 3, 69% of all the units will be studio or one- bedroom. This highlighting is appropriate since it is a uniquely high combination of small units when compared to both historic and recent other projects in our community. City of Renton/ L. Greuter July 29, 1999 Page 3 Page 2-21 - Open Space and Recreational Features It is important to note that approximately 65% of the space claimed as "Open Space" is in inaccessible areas, such as the perimeter landscaping and distant corners of the project. True, this space does meet the City's definition of open space, but the reader and decision-makers must clearly understand the definition. It is also important to know that a super-majority of the Open Space does support the conclusion that the "open space areas are intended to create a pedestrian-friendly community" as the text so states. Page 2-23 - Vehicular Access and Circulation Noted is the sentence "This roadway is intended to be the "main street" of the Southport development." The use of the term main street is illusionary. It creates an impression of a warm and friendly space, but a simple review of the site plan and site data reveals quickly that the buildings facing this street at the first level are typically parking garages. No office space is proposed in the first two floors of the offices or in the first floor of the residential buildings. No retail or commercial uses or storefront uses are proposed for any portions of the length of this road, until one arrives at the final terminus, adjacent Building A. To construe this environment as "main street" is extremely misleading. On Page 2-24, this section continues with a notation that a fire lane is proposed along the eastern side of the development. Citizens and decision-makers must understand that this means that any setback of the buildings from the property line of Coullon Park is not landscaped, is in fact gravel or asphalt. Hardly the connection of the western edge of Coullon Park that I think our citizens envision. The EIS Supplement should note this fact , rather than require the reader to discover it. Page 2-24 - Parking The applicant proposes a reduction of parking standards for the residential and retail uses. This reduction is not discussed in the document, and yet this reduction is mandatory for the proposed density to be achieved. Thus, any parking reduction is inobstricably linked to the density approval. Such a link should be noted and discussed at length in this environmental document. This section also to notes "the City's Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator will administratively determine the appropriate standards to apply." I may be wrong, but I find no where in the City documents that the Administrator has this authority to overrule parking requirements set by the City Council without a public process and environmental review. The Administration's use of such authority should only come with the authorization of our community's citizens, and not be inappropriately claimed in an environmental document. Page 2-26 -Alternatives to the Proposed Action It is indicated in the last sentence that "no feasible design alternative was defined or considered under the COR designation in this Supplemental EIS." This is the result of the document's assertion that "while it is possible to formulate a conceptual master plan that features a mix of different uses or lower densities that would be consistent with the COR goals, such a plan would not be consistent with the sponsor's objectives." This assertion is not true. City of Renton/ L. Greuter July 29, 1999 Page 4 This document asks us to think that a density of 60 DU to the acre is the only alternative. In fact, the actual proposed density,even in the most-intensive plan, is only 41 DU to the acre (581 DU divided by 14.2 acres). Staff additionally suggested that to the Planning Commission that,in fact, the 14.2 acre deviser is incorrect because of the current discussions at the City regarding a new definition of "net density.These discussions have not advanced through a public process, nor have they been adopted by Council. Therefore,to recalculate density by some yet undefined denominator is not valid. Furthermore, since the application was filed,the applicant has stated that he does not wish to proceed with Building A as residential dwelling units. It was reported to the Planning Commission that the applicant has amended the application to change Building A to a hotel. Thus, by the applicant's request,the density will be lowered to approximately 34 DU to the acre. Therefore, this Supplemental EIS document cannot argue or even assert, that a lower density plan would not be consistent with the sponsor's objectives. A lower density alternative is appropriate and reasonable, and should be reviewed in this supplemental document. Without such a review,this document will not meet the requirements of SEPA. Additionally,the proposed increase of density to 60 DU to the acre is unsubstantiated in any of the COR zones. These COR zone densities were the result of an extensive public process and have gone unchallenged in these zones. This Supplemental EIS does not discuss why the 60 DU per acre should be considered at COR 3, but not the other zones. One could easily argue that the other areas should be developed more intensively than this site, due to their larger size and, in the case of COR 1, its closer proximity to downtown. Page 3-144 - The Use of the Site — View Analysis This particular section of the Supplemental EIS is severely flawed. First, there are primary view corridors through this site from the east which were not considered or analyzed. Second, the actual graphics showing the view impacts are not correct. There exists primary views over this site to Lake Washington,Mercer Island, and Seattle beyond from Interstate 405 and Sunset Boulevard. In fact, these are the first views of Lake Washington from any points to the south. Not only are these the first views, they are a few of the rare views of Lake Washington that connect and define the City as a lakeside community. One's next view of the lake when traveling north through our community is only blocks short of our far northern City boundary. Renton has always prided itself on being a lakefront community, and one of the few whose lakefront is open to the public. These visual connections from I-405 and from Sunset Boulevard above 405, are critical to this connection. Therefore, these views should be considered in the EIS. Protection of view corridors from upland properties was a primary element of the Planning Commission's adoption of COR in our community. The Comprehensive Plan highlights the need for view protection and view corridors in LU-276 through LU-281. These six policies apply City-wide. City of Renton/ L. Greuter July 29, 1999 Page 5 They specifically require that view corridors be protected. These policies have not been reviewed or even mentioned in the Supplement EIS for Southport. When Council adopted the COR zone, (previous POR),it highlighted that all Master Development Plans should depict their relationships to "view corridors".The COR zoning code notes that establishment of view corridors from upland boundaries of the site to the shoreline" are important elements of the design.View corridors are important, and especially view corridors that millions of people enjoy every year. Page 3-155- Views to the Site (including Figure 17, 18, 19 &20) The graphic portrayal of the impacts of Southport on these views is not correct. This conclusion can be discovered by simply extrapolating a horizon line from the photograph and tracing the vanishing points from the tops of the buildings. As indicated in the text, the Boeing Building is 120-feet high. The proposed Southport Buildings are 125-feet. These view studies, however, show that the Southport Buildings are lower than the larger Boeing Building... and the base line are not that dissimilar These figures use a graphic illusion to portray the actual height of the buildings. The text tells us that these buildings are five to ten stories in height, and yet, as best seen in Figure 18, the visual portrayal of the window fenestration implies that these buildings are only two stories in height. Similarly, as seen in Figure 19,these buildings are fenestrated to appear only,two stories in height, but we know from the text that they are five stories in height. This visual illusion and delusion must be corrected. Since I respect the work of Nakano Associates, I can only assume that they were not given the correct information in preparing these figures. Page 3-230 - Parks This section of the Supplemental EIS is severely flawed. Although it has a lot of facts and tables, it provides insufficient information to support the conclusions. The fact is Southport proposes no meaningful recreational or park activities, and proposes no meaningful mitigation of impacts on the adjacent Coullon Park. Park mitigation fees are established in the community as a method to mitigate parks' impacts by providing funds to increase park facilities. Southport will have a major impact on Coullon Park, and this impact is cannot be mitigated by any amount of money, simply because the park is already seasonally maximized. On Page 2-234,the document asserts that "nearby parks that residents would likely use include: the regional Coullon Park and the following neighborhood parks; Kennydale Lions Park,North Highlands Park,Windsor Hill Park,Jones Park and Erlington Park." This statement is just plain false. It is incomprehensible how someone living adjacent Coullon Park would get in a car to drive to any of these other parks. The statement in the EIS simply deludes the reader into thinking that the impacts of the residences would not be as great as one might imagine; great assertion,no support. City of Renton/ L. Greuter July 29, 1999 Page 6 On Page 2-238 there is the statement that "if undertaken by the applicant, credit against the required mitigation fee could be allowed by City." It should be highlighted that this really means that although one might be able to calculate a mitigation fee, one can also negotiate it away. Conclusions I hope that Economical Development/Neighborhoods &Planning Division of the City of Renton is able to accommodate these suggestions and will re-publish a much-improved document in support of the Southport Development Planned Action. I do think that COR is the right zone for this property, but I also believe that a full analysis of all the impacts must be completed before any Planned Actixi is adopted. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, chard L.Wagner,AIA cc: Members of the Renton City Council 1 1 2 3 4 CITY OF RENTON 5 6 NOTICE OF ISSUANCE 7 8 DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 9 10 PUBLIC HEARING TO ACCEPT COMMENTS 11 12 13 14 Southport: Land use number LUA-99-027 , ECF, CPA, R 15 16 17 18 19 7 : 00 p.m. 20 21 July 20, 1999 22 23 1055 South Grady Way 24 25 Renton, Washington 0RbI PAM AND MIKE WEEKLEY, COURT REPORTERS 206-623-3614 2 1 2 3 AT 7 : 35 WITH NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS IN ATTENDANCE 4 THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED. ) 5 6 7 APPEARANCES 8 9 10 FOR CITY OF RENTON: LISA GRUETER 11 Senior Planner/ Project Manager 7th floor Renton Municipal Bldg 12 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 13 EIS CONSULTANTS : RICHARD SCHIPANSKI 14 AND MICHAEL BLUMEN Suite 202 15 205 Lake Street South Kirkland, Wa 98033 16 FOR SECO DEVELOPMENT: REX ALLEN 17 Suite 200 10843 N. E. 8th Street, 18 Bellevue, Wa 98004 19 PROPERTY OWNER: ROBERT BOYD 20 Puget Western Suite 310 21 19515 North Creek Parkway Bothell, Wa 98011 22 Pamela Weekley 23 Court Reporter Phone 623-3614 or 833-2278 24 Suite 419 810 Third Avenue 25 Seattle, Wa 98104 CSR NO. WEEKLPM411DS PAM AND MIKE WEEKLEY, COURT REPORTERS 206-623-3614 CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ISSUANCE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Not ce is hereby given under SEPA, WAC 197-11-510, that the Draft Supplemental Ern ironmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the proposal described below was issued on June 29, 1999, and is available for public review and comment. Copies have been provided for review at 1 ie Renton Municipal Library (the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch), and in the Renton Municipal Building at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055, (both in the Development Services Division and Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic PIE nning Department—6th floor; and in the City Clerk's office—79'floor). PF OPOSAL: The Southport Planned Action environmental review considers potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately.17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. The DSEIS reviews redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and offices uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several development permits. AND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027, ECF, CPA, R PROPONENT: Seco Development Inc(Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington, West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is located from Lake V1 ashington Boulevard. DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The DSEIS documents (Volume I — Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Text and Volume II — Technical Appendices) are a/ailable for purchase from the Development Services Division Customer Service Desk on the 6th fl)or of the Renton Municipal Building. Each volume may be purchased independently for $30.00 p us tax and postage, where applicable. COMMENT PERIOD: Written public comment on the DSEIS will be accepted for a 30 day review period, ending 5:00 p.m., July 29, 1999 and should be addressed to: Lisa Grueter Senior Planner/Project Manager Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Renton Municipal Building 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 public hearing has also been scheduled to accept written and oral comments on the DSEIS, and will be held on July 20, 1999, 7:00 p.m., at the Renton City Council Chambers (7th Floor), ocated at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. PUBLICATION DATE: June 29, 1999 DATE OF DECISION: June 22, 1999 SIGNATURES: sqGrggZimran, Ad .nistrator D partm nt f Planning/Building/Public orks DATE m Shepherd, Ad nistrator ommunity Service Department DAT Lee W e ler, Fire Chief Renton Fire Department DATE i is 411 I/ Overview Introductions Southport Planned Action Availability of EIS Environmental Review Purpose of Meeting Use of Comments Public Hearing -Draft Summary of Proposal/Alternatives Supplemental EIS Process-City July 20, 1999 Public Comment/Questions Introductions Availability of EIS/Location to Review Staff City Hall Consultants Libraries Applicant Purpose of Draft SEIS Use of Comments/Related Meeting Documents Allow for oral and/or written comments Response to comments in FSEIS Comments should relate to the adequacy Mitigation Document of the DSEIS Comments may address methodology, Planned Action Ordinance additional info., mitigation measures,etc. 1 i r' Lake Washington A Location SOUTHPORT Coulon Park uShoreline_ OoOo 1\11P. Proposal Summary Alternatives Redevelopment of Industrially Zoned site Proponent Plan A(lower range) Mixed use-residential, retail, office Proponent Plan B (upper range) Residential 543-581 multi-family units Retail 38,000 s.f. No Action (No Action-No Development; Office 500,000 to 750,000 s.f. No Action with Industrial Dev.) Building Heights-5 to 10 stories including parking FSEIS- May review alternative in response to comments/changed sponsor objectives Process Process (cont.) Prepare Supplemental EIS Key permits/authorizations from City: supplements Comp. Plan EIS's) Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Analyze at a level of detail sufficient to: Amendments(EA-I to COR) Concurrent Rezone(IH to COR) Designate a Planned Action Municipal Code Text Amendments Address issues for future permits/authorizations Planned Action Ordinance Environmental review for future phases Role of Planning Commission/City not necessary if consistent with Planned Council Action 2 l M Process (cont.) Public Comment Permits submitted later as part of Planned Action Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Clearing,grading, building,etc.permits Other permits, refer to Fact Sheet in DSEIS Staff Contact Lisa Grueter- Economic Development, Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning 425)430-6575 3 1 1 2 3 4 CITY OF RENTON 5 6 NOTICE OF ISSUANCE 7 8 DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 9 30 PUBLIC HEARING TO ACCEPT COMMENTS 11 12 13 14 Southport: Land use number LUA-99-027 , ECF, CPA, R 15 16 17 18 19 7 : 00 p.m. 20 21 July 20, 1999 22 23 1055 South Grady Way 24 25 Renton, Washington COPY PAM AND MIKE WEEKLEY, COURT REPORTERS 206-623-3614 2 1 2 3 AT 7 : 35 WITH NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS IN ATTENDANCE 4 THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED. ) 5 6 7 APPEARANCES 8 9 10 FOR CITY OF RENTON: LISA GRUETER 11 Senior Planner/ Project Manager 7th floor Renton Municipal Bldg 12 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 13 EIS CONSULTANTS: RICHARD SCHIPANSKI 14 AND MICHAEL BLUMEN Suite 202 15 205 Lake Street South Kirkland, Wa 98033 16 FOR SECO DEVELOPMENT: REX ALLEN 17 Suite 200 10843 N. E. 8th Street, 18 Bellevue, Wa 98004 19 PROPERTY OWNER: ROBERT BOYD 20 Puget Western Suite 310 21 19515 North Creek Parkway Bothell , Wa 98011 22 Pamela Weekley 23 Court Reporter Phone 623-3614 or 833-2278 24 Suite 419 810 Third Avenue 25 Seattle, Wa 98104 CSR NO. WEEKLPM411DS PAM AND MIKE WEEKLEY, COURT REPORTERS 206-623-3614 CITY RENTON Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Planning J e Tanner,Mayor Susan Carlson,Administrator July 30, 1999 Mike Blumen,Principal Huckell/Weinman Associates,Inc. 205 Lake Street South, Suite 202 Kirkland,WA 98033 SUBJECT: SOUTHPORT DRAFT SEIS COMMENTS Dear Mike: Although I faxed letters as they arrived, attached is a complete set of comment letters received in response to the Draft SEIS. Please contact me as needed to discuss responses to comments for the Final SEIS. Thank you. Sincerel , Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner cc: 1 ex Allen,Seco Development CENTRAL\.SYS2\DEPTS\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\.GRUETER\SHUFFLTN\hwdseiscom.doc 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 JUL. 29 ''99 (TFU) :6 :43 SAYLIS AR CECTS 206 453 6 PAGE 1/6 JUL 2 9 1999 Jul:29, 1999 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.NEIGHBORHOODS. AND STRATEGIC PLANNING Ci;y of Renton Economical Development/Neighborhoods& Strategic Planning Department I(55 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 ttention: Lisa Grueter Subject: Southport Planned Action-Draft Supplemental EIS Comments Dear Ms. Grueter: write to express my excitement about the proposed Southport project located at the existing Shuffleton Plant. This project would make an exciting addition to our City. I think the Administration is making an excellent recommendation to Council to rezone this site to COR. As was discussed by the Planning Commission,this is an appropriate zoning for the redevelopment of this site. However, I am concerned that certain impacts west not analyzed in the Draft EIS Supplement and therefore jeopardize the integrity of the document. Because I think Southport could make a positive contribution to our community, current inadequacies in the draft must be corrected. Please note that I am commenting only on items for which I am familiar. The EIS has many technical issues for which I have no ability or expertise with which to comment. Page 2-3 - Development Ruidations The last sentence notes that this project-specific document will "clarify zoning code text for all COR zoned districts." This document is for a particular Planned Action, and for it to include analysis of other COR zones are most inappropriate. Imagine the reasonable surprise of a property owner adjacent another COR zone discovering that the analysis of the revisions were buried in some other application.This action is not Renton's idea of full disclosure. Pie 2-4 - EIS and Adoption Qf Pfan ed Action Ordinance This section notes that "the Conceptual Master Plan is intended to meet the requirements of Level 2 site plan" is misleading. Although the Administration may be considering amendments to the development regulations, these amendments have not been discussed in the public forum, nor have they been advanced to Council.Thus,to imply that the plan meets some non-existent requirement is misleading. JUL 29 ' 99 (THJ) ;6 44 SAYLIS AR ECTS 206 453 6 PAGE 2/6 City of Renton/ L. Greuter July 29, 1999 Page 2 qge 2-5 - PutHsre Designation and Approvals Tl is section should be expanded such that one unfamiliar with the SEPA process and the newly- ad ppted process of Proposed Actions in the City of Renton, can get a better understanding of the pt blic process. For this paragraph to simply conclude that "there would be no administrative SEPA px ocedural appeal" is not sufficiently enlightening, especially since the Administration, and more importantly the citizens, have very little experience with a Planned Action Ordinance. gage 2-12 - Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments—Policy LU-125 As was discussed at the Planning Commission,there is no need to eliminate the words "small scale." This phrase has been taken out of context. Staff is incorrectly reading the paragraph. Policy LU-125 speaks to the appropriate development of commercial uses such as retail and services. It then goes on to make the exception that "certain other commercial uses may occur if they are proposed with small tale businesses." The term "small scale" in LU-125 is not inconsistent with the words "major commercial uses" in the same sentence. The staff has simply been misreading the intent and the wording of this phrase. As noted by the Planning Commission,the words "small scale" should remain. Page 2.13 •Municipal Code Text Amendments ICQ .nmedJ As noted above, amendments to the Master Plan Development Process have not been adopted and are not relevant to this document. Page 2-15 -Mix of Usll ICQntinued) This section goes out of its way to create the case that these are five-story buildings. Only a close reading of the parenthetical phrases shows that these, in fact, are six-story buildings. Only because the first floor parking is proposed to be backfilled can five stories even be discussed. The buildings are not being lowered into the ground; the ground is being raised an entire story around the buildings. True, this backfill does allow the buildings to be classified as five stories, but it is not true that they will be seen as only five stories high. These paragraphs should be rewritten such that all readers and decision makers understand the actual height, and that existing grade is not being used to hide the real height. Additionally, Table 1 should be revised to six stories and 60 feet above existing grade, noting that the bottom story would be buried through grade fabrication. These same corrections should be made on page 2-19,Residential Use. Page 2-19 - .residential Use Because the residential density is being calculated over the entire site, but will only be built in a portion of the site, it would be very helpful to a decision maker to also note what the apparent density will be of the residential portions of the development. Page 2-20 - Site Population and Employment It should be highlighted that, as indicated in Table 3, 69% of all the units will be studio or one- bedroom. This highlighting is appropriate since it is a uniquely high combination of small units when compared to both historic and recent other projects in our community. J•UL. 29 : 99 (THU) 16 44 BAYLIS AI TECTS 206 453 ,PAGE. 3/6 City.of Renton/ L. Greuter Jul) 29, 1999 Paf.e 3 Lase 2.21 " Q12e1 .5p4ce d Recreationcll Fe11tures It .s important to note that approximately 65% of the space claimed as "Open Space" is in inaccessible areas, such as the perimeter landscaping and distant corners of the project. True,this sF ace does meet the City's definition of open space, but the reader and decision-makers must clearly understand the definition. It is also important to know that a super-majority of the Open Space does support the conclusion that the "open space areas are intended to create a pedestrian-friendly community" as the text so states. Wage 2-23 - Vehicular Access and Circulation Noted is the sentence "This roadway is intended to be the "main street" of the Southport development." The use of the term main street is illusionary. It creates an impression of a warm and friendly space, but a simple review of the site plan and site data reveals quickly that the buildings facing this street at the first level are typically parking garages. No office space is proposed in the first two floors of the offices or in the first floor of the residential buildings. No retail or commercial uses or storefront uses are proposed for any portions of the length of this road,until one arrives at the final terminus, adjacent Building A. To construe this environment as "main street" is extremely misleading. On Page 2-24, this section continues with a notation that a fire lane is proposed along the eastern side of the development. Citizens and decision-makers must understand that this means that any setback of the buildings from the property line of Coullon Park is not landscaped, is in fact gravel or asphalt. Hardly the connection of the western edge of Coullon Park that I think our citizens envision. The EIS Supplement should note this fact , rather than require the reader to discover it. Page 2-24 -Parking The applicant proposes a reduction of parking standards for the residential and retail uses. This reduction is not discussed in the document, and yet this reduction is mandatory for the proposed density to be achieved. Thus, any parking reduction is inobstricably linked to the density approval. Such a link should be noted and discussed at length in this environmental document. This section also to notes "the City's Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator will administratively determine the appropriate standards to apply." I may be wrong, but I find no where in the City documents that the Administrator has this authority to overrule parking requirements set by the City Council without a public process and environmental review. The Administration's use of such authority should only come with the authorization of our community's citizens, and not be inappropriately claimed in an environmental document. Page 2-26 -Alternatives to the ProposcdAction It is indicated in the last sentence that "no feasible design alternative was defined or considered under the COR designation in this Supplemental EIS." This is the result of the document's assertion that "while it is possible to formulate a conceptual master plan that features a mix of different uses or lower densities that would be consistent with the COR goals, such a plan would not be consistent with the sponsor's objectives." This assertion is not true. JUL. 29 "99 (TH'J) 16 :44 BAYLIS AA TECTS 206 453 3 PAGE. 4/6 City of Renton/ L. Greuter July 29, 1999 Page 4 Thi document asks us to think that a density of 60 DU to the acre is the only alternative. In fact, the actual proposed density,even in the most-intensive plan, is only 41 DU to the acre (581 DU divided by 14.2 acres). Staff additionally suggested that to the Planning Commission that, in fact, the 14..2 acre deviser is incorrect because of the current discussions at the City regarding a new definition of '"net density.These discussions have not advanced through a public process, nor have they been adopted by Council. Therefore,to recalculate density by some yet undefined denominator is not val,d. Furthermore, since the application was filed,the applicant has stated that he does not with to pr)ceed with Building A as residential dwelling units. It was reported to the Planning Commission that the applicant has amended the application to change Building A to a hotel. Thus, by the applicant's request, the density will be lowered to approximately 34 DU to the acre. Therefore, this Supplemental EIS document cannot argue or even assert, that a lower density plan would not be cc nsistent with the sponsor's objectives. A lower density alternative is appropriate and reasonable, and should be reviewed in this supplemental document. Without such a review,this document will not meet the requirements of S EPA. Additionally,the proposed increase of density to 60 DU to the acre is unsubstantiated in any of the COR zones. These COR zone densities were the result of an extensive public process and have gone t.nchallenged in these zones. This Supplemental EIS does not discuss why the 60 DU per acre hould be considered at COR 3, but not the other zones. One could easily argue that the other areas hould be developed more intensively than this site, due to their larger size and, in the case of COR i, its closer proximity to downtown. Page 3-144 - The Use tlf the Site — View Analysis This particular section of the Supplemental EIS is severely flawed. First, there are primary view corridors through this site from the east which were not considered or analyzed. Second, the actual graphics showing the view impacts are not correct. There exists primary views over this site to Lake Washington,Mercer Island, and Seattle beyond from Interstate 405 and Sunset Boulevard. In fact, these are the first views of Lake Washington from any points to the south. Not only are these the first views, they are a few of the rare views of Lake Washington that connect and define the City as a lakeside community. One's next view of the lake when traveling north through our community is only blocks short of our far northern City boundary. Renton has always prided itself on being a lakefront community,and one of the few whose lakefront is open to the public. These visual connections from I-405 and from Sunset Boulevard above 405, are critical to this connection. Therefore, these views should be considered in the EIS. Protection of view corridors from upland properties was a primary element of the Planning Commission's adoption of COR in our community. The Comprehensive Plan highlights the need for view protection and view corridors in LU-276 through LU-281. These six policies apply City-wide. City of Renton/ L. Greuter July 25, 1999 Page They specifically require that view corridors be protected. These policies have not been reviewed or even mentioned in the Supplement EIS for Southport. Whei Council adopted the COR zone, (previous POR),it highlighted that all Master Development Plan should depict their relationships to "view corridors". The COR zoning code notes that ests.blishment of view corridors from upland boundaries of the site to the shoreline" are important elements of the design. View corridors are important, and especially view corridors that millions of people enjoy every year. pa,c 3455 • Views la the Sitc (including FiFltre 17J8. 19 &20) The graphic portrayal of the impacts of Southport on these views is not correct. This conclusion can be discovered by simply etrapolating a horizon line from the photograph and tracing the vanishing points from the tops of the buildings. As indicated in the text, the Boeing Building is 120-feet high. The proposed Southport Buildings are 125-feet. These view studies, however, show that the Southport Buildings are lower than the larger Boeing Building...and the base line are not that di:similir T iese figures use a graphic illusion to portray the actual height of the buildings. The text tells us that tl ese buildings are five to ten stories in height, and yet, as best seen in Figure 18, the visual portrayal o 'the window fenestration implies that these buildings are only two stories in height. Similarly, as siren in Figure 19,these buildings are fenestrated to appear only, two stories in height, but we know om the text that they are five stories in height. This visual illusion and delusion must be corrected. Since I respect the work of Nakano Associates, I can only assume that they were not given the correct information in preparing these figures. 3age 3-2,30 -Parks this section of the Supplemental EIS is severely flawed. Although it has a lot of facts and tables, it Provides insufficient information to support the conclusions. The fact is Southport proposes no meaningful recreational or park activities, and proposes no meaningful mitigation of impacts on the adjacent Coullon Park. Park mitigation fees are established in the community as a method to mitigate parks' impacts by providing funds to increase park facilities. Southport will have a major impact on Coullon Park, and this impact is cannot be mitigated by any amount of money, simply because the park is already seasonally maximized. On Puf 2-234, the document asserts that "nearby parks that residents would likely use include: the regional Coullon Park and the following neighborhood parks; Kennydale Lions Park, North Highlands Park,Windsor Hill Park,Jones Park and Erlington Park." This statement is just plain false. It is incomprehensible how someone living adjacent Coullon Park would get in a car to drive to any of these other parks. The statement in the EIS simply deludes the reader into thinking that the impacts of the residences would not be as great as one might imagine; great assertion, no support. City o F Renton/ L. Greuter July 29, 1999 Page E, On Jsge 2-238 there is the statement that "if undertaken by the applicant, credit against the required mitigation fee could be allowed by City." It should be highlighted that this really means that altho•igh one might be able to calculate a mitigation fee, one can also negotiate it away. Conclusions I hope that Economical Development/Neighborhoods&Planning Division of the City of Renton is able .o accommodate these suggestions and will re-publish a much-improved document in support of the 5 outhport Development Planned Action. I gla think that COR is the right zone for this property, but l also believe that a full analysis of all the impacts must be completed before any Planned Action is ad)pted. Thai ik you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, 261)\164'4A .— c'lard L. Wagner,ALA cc. Members of the Renton City Council 07/29/11999 14:55 4252714396 NW SPARKS PAGE 01 SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS Thank you for allowing me to enter my personal comments on the Southport site. Please consider the adverse impact of the Southport development on the adjacent existing city park. Increased use by residents, friends, and family will create additional strain on existing facilities. When weather permits, the park is stuffed with people. Children playing,joggers, cyclists, vehicles pulling boats, coupled with the increased density of the Southport site, a stroll in the park may be less than enjoyable. An additional concern is the limited access to the site (only one way in and one way out). When one considers deliveries to the Southport site, school buses, residential traffic, business stimulated traffic, a lower density may be desirable. The Southport site is a beautiful site but dense development without adequate parking and roadways has potential for disaster. Cordially, Rosemary Quesenberry 3609 Southeast 18 Court Renton 1'1 RECEIVED JUL 2 9 1999 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS. AND STRATEGIC PLANNING ryJ PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENC' KING COUNTY A KITSAP COUNTY .s PIERCE COUNTY a SNOHOMISH COUNTY July 28, 1999 Beverly Franklin, Secretary RECEIVED Renton Planning Commission JUL 2 9 4999 1055 S. Grady Way ECONOMIC DEVELOPMgNT. Renton, WA 98055 AND STNEIRATEGIC PLANNAIG Dear Ms. Franklin: DSEIS: Proposed Southport Application Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Southport Development Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS). We have found that addressing land use incompatibility issues during the planning process can greatly reduce the negative air quality impacts that can occur if residential communities are located near industrial facilities. The focus of our comments is to prevent negative impacts, especially odor and nuisances, and avoid the untenable situation of trying to respond to an aggravated community once the rezoning has occurred. We would appreciate your consideration of the following: Based on our previous experiences, coating operations, such as those that occur at the Boeing Commercial Airplane Renton facility, have a strong possibility of having an odor impact on any neighboring community. We have found that developments located near facilities that use solvents are negatively impacted by these odors. Although we require that facilities use reasonable precautions to minimize odors, this is often not enough to eliminate odor impacts. Even though the DSEIS indicates that Boeing has demonstrated that odor thresholds will not he exceeded, we have found modeling calculations do not always represent reality, especially regarding odor issues. It is of particular concern that the DSEIS states that the personnel conducting a site inspection detected solvent odors at the proposed location for rezoning. Although our regulations specifically state that "It shall be unlawful for any person to cause or allow the emission of any air contaminant in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics and duration as is, or is likely to be, injurious to human health, plant or animal life, or property, or which unreasonably interferes with enjoyment of life and property", there is often a major gap between public perception and our Agency's Dennis J.McLerran,Air Pollution Control Officer BOARD OF DIRECTORS Margaret Pageler,City of Seattle,Board Chair Lynn S.Horton,Mayor,Bremerton Brian Ebersole,Mayor,Tacoma Janet Chalupnik,Member at Large Dave Somers,Snohomish County Council Charlotte Garrido,Commissioner,Kitsap CountyEdwardD.Hansen,Mayor,Everett Ron Sims,King County Executive Doug Sutherland,Pierce County Executive 110 Union Street,Suite 500,Seattle,Washington 98101-2038 .> (206)343-8800 .1 (800)552-3565 FAX:(206)343-7522 Beverly Franklin, Secretary Renton Planning Commission July 28, 1999 Page Two ability to satisfactorily address this perception. Because we have not been provided with the details of the modeling analysis performed by Boeing, we cannot confirm the adequacy of this study. At other locations, we have found that facilities can adequately demonstrate compliance with this regulation, yet the neighboring community still perceives an unacceptable impact on its health and enjoyment of life. As noted above, we were unable to evaluate Boeing's modeling analysis demonstrating that Acceptable Source Impact Levels (ASILs) and odor thresholds were not exceeded since the information was considered confidential and not included in the DSEIS. Although this modeling analysis does not guarantee there will not be odor and nuisance concerns by neighboring communities, an analysis that indicated there would be an exceedance would be unacceptable. We recommend that our Agency or an independent consultant review the analysis for adequacy. In particular, it would be important to ensure that all sources were included in the evaluation and that realistic modeling assumptions were used. It is critical to recognize that citizen complaints about air quality caused by incompatible land uses cannot always be successfully addressed by our regulations. We would strongly recommend that the City reconsider the appropriateness of this proposed rezoning. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me at (206) 689- 4004 or Maggie Corbin at (206) 689-4057. Sincerely, Dennis J. McLerran Air Pollution Control Officer DJM/lh cc: Dave Kircher John Anderson July 28, 1999 RECEIVED JUL 2 9 i999 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. NEIGHBORHOODS. Ms. Lisa Grueter AND STRATEGIC PLANNING Project Manager EDNSP Department Renton Municipal Building 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Southport Development Planned Action DSEIS Dear Ms. Grueter: Please accept the following comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Southport Development Planned Action. Aesthetics Building B would be located 10 feet from the Gene Coulon Park play area and would significantly affect the visual character of the immediate area"(page 1-34, DSEIS). The following Mitigation Measures should become a part of the Proposal to offset this significant effect. Increase the building setback for Building B to a minimum of 20 feet. Terrace the East facade of Building B so the top floors are further away from the park, thereby minimizing the"overlooking" effect. Plant tall trees between Building B and the play ground. Parks According to the DSEIS,the fire lane adjacent to Building C could harm existing oak trees. The set back for Building C should be increased to allow the fire lane to be built without encroaching within the oak tree's drip line. A trail connection between Southport and Gene Coulon is proposed. This connection would occur within the existing play ground area. Redesigning the play area to accommodate this trail connection should be done with the objective of minimizing the amount of playground area lost. The play area is well used and would probably be even more intensely used with the buildout of Southport. One possible design is to hug the trail along the waterfront. This area is currently a landscaped border and conversion to a trail would not significantly reduce the playground area. Proposed changes to the playground area should be made available for the public to review and comment on prior to finalization of plans. Traffic To forecast background traffic conditions for 2004,the DSEIS used a 2 percent annual growthrate. Did the analysis use the traffic counts for the 3 projects currently in the pipeline for development: Labrador Subdivision, Bluffs Apartments, and Tamaron Pointe Apartments? Inclusion of these counts would provide a more accurate picture of future background traffic. Ifnotincluded, the traffic analysis should be re-done including this information. For the traffic forecasts, it was assumed that only 5 percent of the Project trips would come to and from Lake Washington Boulevard. This seems like an incredibly low assumption given the frequent traffic jams on I-405 and the ease of bypassing that traffic by using Lake Washington Boulevard. A sensitivity analysis should be done to see how this 5 percent assumption affects overall analysis results. An analysis of traffic impacts assuming 10 and 25 percent of the traffic uses Lake Washington Boulevard should be done. This would give the City and local residents information on a range of possible impacts on Lake Washington Boulevard and the opportunity toconsidermitigatingmeasures. This proposal has the real potential of creating a traffic bottleneck at the south end of Lake Washington Boulevard, making residents of Kennydale trapped by traffic on I-405 and traffic at Southport. This would diminish our neighborhood's quality of life. TDM measures should be required for this proposal, not just recommended. I challenge the City Council to be proactiveandworkwithfutureresidentsandemployersatSouthporttoimplementTDMprograms. Thank you. Sincerely, 134-AA,.. Len_j.)„,fiL.. Kim Browne 1003 N 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 PERKINS COIE LLP NOISIAla owning f 1201 THIRD AVENUE,48TH FLOOR•SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3099 6661 8 z 1nr TELEPHONE: 206 583-8888•FACSIMILE: 206 583-8500 a RNA9,? RICHARD E.McCANN 206)583-8616 July 28, 1999 HAND DELIVERED Lisa Grueter Senior Planner Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Southport Development Planned Action Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Dear Ms. Grueter: We represent The Boeing Company. The proposed Southport project is located immediately adjacent to The Boeing Company's manufacturing facility for its 737 and 757 aircraft. The Boeing Company has carefully reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("DSEIS") for the Southport Development Planned Action and has some concerns. We have met extensively with City staff and the developer to address these concerns and are hopeful that an agreement will be reached with the developer and the City to resolve these issues. Pending resolution, however, we have the following comments on the Draft SEIS: 1.The DSEIS fails to address an alternative site for the proposed project even though a rezone is required for this site. 2.The discussion of land use impacts does not adequately address the incompatibility of locating residential uses adjacent to industrial uses. 3.The DSEIS fails to address changed conditions that would justify consideration of a rezone at this time. 03003-0241/S B992 070.09 8] ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D C. STRATFGIC Al I IANCF. RIISSFI I F.nuMnlll IN ve urni niro rer.iens Lisa Grueter July 28, 1999 Page 2 4.The DSEIS fails to adequately consider the impact of the substantially increased impervious surface and runoff into Lake Washington on salmonid habitat. orQ Cordially, rd Richard E. McCann REM:vg 03003-0241'SB992070.098] 7/28/99 0 RECEIVED JUL141999KingCounty Wastewater Treatment Division ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. HDepartmentofNaturalResourcesANDSTRATEGIC PLANNING 821 Second Avenue Seattle,WA 98104-1598 July 8, 1999 Lisa Grueter, Project Manager Economic Development/Neighborhoods Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Southport Development Planned Action Dear Ms. Grueter: The King County Wastewater Treatment Division (WTD) has reviewed the Southport Development Planned Action: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. As noted in the Wastewater section of the document (pages 3-242 through 3-244), the proposed action would replace the existing eight-inch connector sewer line with a ten-inch line. This line would connect to the WTD's Eastside Interceptor. Mitigation measures indicate that the applicant would coordinate construction plan review and scheduling well in advance of construction with all affected utilities. The WTD requests that construction drawings for the proposed connection to the Eastside Interceptor be submitted to Eric Davison in the CIP-Civil/Architectural Section, King County Wastewater Treatment Division, during design for review and approval. Eric can be reached at (206) 684-1707. Please note that our address will change when we move to a new building in mid-August: King County Wastewater Treatment Division 201 South Jackson Street, MS KSC-NR-0505 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have questions, I can be reached at (206) 684-1227. Sincerely, yy / l ciVD" JJJ Barbara Questad Environmental Planner uthpoRt Traffic Impacts C E! I F v. Ine yl •Z JUL 1 3 19 3306 Lake WashrBl d NSubject: Southport Traffic Impacts Renton Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 11:37:41 -0700 EcoNona c oEvt ov E WA 98056-1909 NEtGHBOAH007S. From: Kim Browne <kbrowne@halcyonWhi 4TEG1c PLANNIN To: postle@lucent.com, alan.w.withers@boeing.corn, annhan@msn.com, bikesnob@msn.com, blinksoft@worldnet.att.net, bogey@nwlink.com, clgalvinia@aol.com, cwjrenton@worldnet.att.net, . daletnum4@aol.com, david.dolling@gte.net, guntargte.net, H4Hopkins@aol.com, habakom@aol.com,jerryc@fishermills.com,jking3 achmcc.org,jmvian ci aol.com, karenjalat@aol.corn, KCOMAC@aol.cotn, kwack@oz.net, labrador4@aol.com, laurieb@mvseac.com, LCKNIC@aol.com, lelievre@nwlink.com, letyoungaol.com, lkolesar@gte.net, loreez@uswest.net, m.dipasqualeexcite.com, mad_maxm@msn.com, mcnally@mbcc.com, mduke@msn.com, michel-t@qualmed.com (wk), mikes@highlandsscc.org, mm2522@msn.com, mmaxwell@ricochet.net, nash24a@aol.com, oldbrush@mindspring.com, paigemcgrath@hotmail.com, raymond.kusumi@gte.net, rcinque@aa.net, ritaann@transport.com, rsecrest@msn.com, sbboyd@carblink.net, steve.ruegge@metrokc.gov, sunrun7@eskimo.com, swmurphy37@aol.com, tommy.roger@aol.com, vlittleman.aol.com@smtp04.nwnexus.com, wagnerr@baylisarchitects.corn, webgirl@seanet.corn, wjdonald@nwiink, wldw23@email.mot.corn Here is information about Southport's impact on traffic in our neighborhood. Lisa Grueter, the City Planner in charge of the Southport proposal, wrote this email in response to comments from Inez Petersen, one of our neighbors. You can email Lisa Grueter questions and comments at Lgrueter@ci.renton.wa.us>. You must, however, send a signed copy of youremailtoLisainorderforittobeconsideredofficial. Send comments to Lisa Grueter, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Wa 98055. Lisa Grueter wrote: Thank you for your interest in the Southport proposal. I am responding to your e-mail sent to Sue Carlson on June 30, 1999. Controlling traffic north of the Southport site on Lake Washington Boulevard is a high priority fortheCity. Your comments were as follows: "I will be interested to see what the environmental impact statement says about increased traffic in the Kennydale area. There is no question that this development will increase traffic on the Boulevard, so whether this is acknowledged in the report and whether suggestions to control heavier traffic are mentioned are of great concern to me. The Boeing traffic already makes Lake Washington Boulevard a speedwayinthemorningandafterwork. If Southpark goes ahead, you must acknowledge the traffic problem and do something about it; for example; speed bumps or those circle gardens at intersections to slow traffic. TheyareneededNOWevenwithoutSouthpark. " The Southport Planned Action Draft Supplemental EIS was issued on June 29, 1999. The Southport Draft Supplemental EIS does address transportation issues. Ten intersections are reviewed: Park Drive/I-405 northbound ramps, Park Drive/I-405 southbound ramps, Park Drive/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard (LWB) , LWB/Site Access/Houser Way, NE44th Street/I-405 northbound ramps, NE 44th Street/I-405 southbound ramps, N 30th Street/I-405 northbound ramps, N 30th Street/I-405 southbound ramps, and N 30th Street/Burnett Avenue, and N 30th Street/LWB. Based on the City's transportation model and existing travel patterns in the site vicinity, the traffic trips generated by the development were calculated and distributed. The trip distribution indicates 5$ of the Southport Traffic Impacts traffic would be to and from the north on Lake Washington Boulevard. ThemajorityoftripsgeneratedbythedevelopmentwouldoccuronI-405 (northandsouth - 60s) and on Park Drive (east and south - The primary impacts of the proposal would occur at the site entrance/LWB andParkDrive/Garden Avenue/LWB. The impacts can be mitigated with channelization improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard (only betweenParkDriveandthesiteentrance) , and signal improvements at bothintersections. A signal would be installed at the site entrance (which isalsosharedbyGeneCoulonPark) and LWB. With mitigation measures,appropriate levels of service would be achieved. Generally, the proposal 's effects upon the remaining intersections were notfoundtobesignificant. With the proposed project, the N 30th Street/I_405northboundrampswouldexperiencealowerlevelofservice, but the delayincreasewouldbelessthan2secondsoverbackgroudconditionsforthebuildoutyear. The NE 44th/I-405 ramps with or without the Southportproposalexperiencepoorlevelsofservice. Improvements to the NE44th/I-405 ramps are planned in the City's 6-year Transportation ImprovementProgram. I hope this information addresses your concerns. If you would like tocontactmefuther, my phone number is (425) 430-6578. Below I have listedcommentopportunitiesrelatedtoSouthport. 1 . Copies of the Southport Planned Action Draft Supplemental EIS can bereviwedattheCitylibrariesandatCityHall (City Clerk's office andDevelopmentServicesDivision) . Copies can also be purchased at theDevelopmentServicesDivisioncounter (6th floor of City Hall) . The commentdeadlineis5p.m. July 29, 1999. Written comments should be addressed toLisaGrueter, Senior Planner/Project Manager, Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department, RentonMunicipalBuilding, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. A publichearingregardingtheDraftSupplementalEISwillbeheldonJuly20, 1999at7p.m. in the City Council Chambers (7th floor) . 2. The Planning Commission will hold a separate public hearing on July 14,1999 at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (7th floor) to take commentsaboutthemeritsoftheComprehensivePlanAmendments, Rezone and MunicipalCodeAmendmentsrequestedfortheSouthportproposal. If you cannot attendthePlanningCoirwilssionhearing, you may send leLLers regarding the Southport Comprehensive Plan/Code amendments by July 14th to Larry Brosnan,Chair, Renton Planning Commission, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Regarding conurrent deadlines, based un City policy, E-mail comments' are rieLacceptedunlesstheyarefollowedupwithwrittenandsignedcomments. Thank you again for your interest. Lisa Grueter, Senior PlannerCOV 14tet j_ 14 014— 40 VIAAke /4-4(Ae 44/1 ._ x_4),1.4)? r. ink1-€ 62 bx-"Y‘' C L ltc: y e 66• AwAr- 6Ak V„di(P ablA4)1 0-7v 414. 1,1)A-6 nr' CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:July 30, 1999 TO: File 99-027 FROM: Lisa Grueter SUBJECT: Additional Changes to Proposed COR Zone Attached are replacement pages for the proposed Center Office Residential code amendments submitted on March 31, 1999, and updated periodically since that time. Seco Development is considering an alternative conceptual plan that would replace Building A with a hotel. This building would be up to 75 feet in height and would be setback fifty feet from the shoreline. The new proposed Building A would be 25 feet taller than the previously proposed Building A. To further address shading potential along the shoreline, and ensure compatibility with other buildings and uses on the site, the attached replacement pages for the proposed COR code amendments would introduce a maximum building height of 75 feet for buildings located within 100 feet of the shoreline. For buildings that are taller than 50 feet and within 100 feet of the shoreline, upper-story setbacks (10 feet for fifth story and each succeeding story)would apply. There would be an administrative modification process available to provide a different upper-story setback if solar access would be the same or better and if there is a variation in height in comparison to other buildings. These amendments would apply only to the proposed COR-3 zone. These changes would be considered a part of the new alternative to be reviewed in the Final SEIS. cc:Sue Carlson CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\S HUFFLTN\codechgheight.doc\cor 7/19/99 4-1 .050 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The regulation of land development is a cooperative activity including many different elected and app ointed boards and City staff. The specific responsibilities of these bodies is set forth below: A. PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR OR DESIGNEE: 1. Authority: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his or her designee shall review and act an the following: k. Modifications to development standards in the Centers Residential Demonstration Overlay District, anc Center Office Residential-3 (COR-3) District . 4-2-020 PURPOSE AND INTENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS: P. CENTER OFFICE RESIDENTIAL ZONE (COR 1-andd COR 2, and COR-3): The purpose of the Center Office/Residential 1 and 2 Zone (COR 1 and 2)Zone is to provide for a mix of intensive office and residential activity in a high quality, master planned development which is integrated with the natural env ronment. Commercial retail uses which support the primary uses of the site and are architecturally and functionally integrated are permitted. Also commercial uses which provide high economic value may be allowed if des gned with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR zone. Certain il into uses. Policies governing these uses are primarily contained in the Land Use Element, Center Office/Residential sec ion Chapter 4, Section V"Office/Residential Centers,"of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. The scale and Ioce tion of these sites will typically denote a gateway into the City and should be designed accordingly(see also Land Use Element, Community Design -Chapter 9, Section IV"Gateways"section). Since the sites function as gateways, the site planning should incorporate features of interest and use for the users. In o•der to address differing site conditions, and recognizing the gateway and environmentally sensitive features of there sites, this Zone is divided into three (3)two (2)sections: COR 1 and COR 2, and COR 3. COR 1 and 2 share the same uses and development standards, but differ in heights allowed. COR 3 shares a majority of uses allowed in C OR1 and 2 as well as most development standards, but differs primarily in densities allowed. COR 1 is applied to tt e property known as the Stoneway Concrete Site. COR 2 is applied to the property known as the Port Quendall Site -COR 3 is applied to the property known as the Shuffleton Site. 1 7/19/99 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CD CO COR HEIGHT 250 ft.8,17,28 COR 114: 10 stories and/or 125 five ft.8,1s.28 Maximum Building Height, 95 ft.8,13,28 except for uses having a COR 2 and 316: 10 stories and/or 125 ft.; Public Suffix" (P) pro vided the master plan includes a designation30 balance of building height, bulk and density.8,34 Maximum Building Height 20 ft. more than the maximum height 20 ft. more than the maximum height NA When a Building is allowed in the adjacent residential allowed in the adjacent residential zone.8 Adjacent to a Lot zone.8,22 Designated as Residential on the City Comprehensive Plan Maximum Height for See RMC 44140G.See RMC 44140G. See RMC 44140G. Wireless Communication Facilities SCREENING Minimum Required for NA None required except when a CO lot NA Outdoor Loading, Repair, abuts or is adjacent to a residential zoned Maintenance or Work lot2, then a fence, or landscaping, or a Areas landscaped berm, or a combination thereof to achieve adequate visual or acoustical screening as determined by the Reviewing Official.' Surface-Mounted Utility Must be screened from public view. Must be screened from public view. Must be screened from public view. and Mechanical Equipment Roof Top Equipment Must be enclosed so as to be Must be enclosed so as to be shielded Must be enclosed so as to be shielded Except for shielded from view.from view.from view. Telecommunication Equipment) SCREENING (Continued) 7/19/99 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CD CO COR DENSITY (Net Density in Dwelling Units per Acre) COR-3 Zone: To consider shade/shadow SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS effects and encourage compatibility, the following modulation/articulation and upper-story setbacks shall apply in the COR-3 Zone. Modulation/Articulation: Buildings that are immediately adjacent or abutting a public park, open space, or trail shall incorporate at least one of the features in items 1 through 3, and shall provide item 4: 1. Incorporate building modulation to reduce the overall bulk and mass of buildings, or 2. For each dwelling unit, provide at least one architectural projection not less than two feet from the wall plane and not less than four feet wide, or 3. Vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and facades of a minimum of two feet at an interval of a minimum of 40 feet on a building face or an equivalent standard which adds interest and quality to the project; and 4. Provide building articulation and textural variety. Upper Story Setbacks: Buildings or portions of buildings which exceed fifty feet (50') in height34 which are located within one hundred feet (100') of the shoreline shall include upper story 351) 7/19/99 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CD CO COR setbacks for the facade facing the shoreline and for facades facing publically accessible plazas as follows: The minimum setback for a fifth story and suceedinq stories shall be ten feet(10'1 minimum from the preceding story, applicable to each story. Projects not meeting the upper story setbacks defined above may be approved through a modification process when superior design is demonstrated. Application may be made for modification of these development standards pursuant to RMC section 4-9-250.D. For a modification to be granted, the project must comply with the decision and design criteria stipulated in RMC section 4-9- 250.D.2 and D.4 . 35c 7/19/99 Bonus in COR 1: A bonus density of not more than five (5) dwelling units per acre may be allowed; provided there is a balance of height, bulk and density established through a floor area ratio system and/or a master plan to be decided at the time of site plan review. Bonus in COR 2: A bonus density of not more than two (2) du/acre for each provision may be allowed; provided, there is a balance of height, bulk and density established addressing the following public benefits: a) Provision of continuous pedestrian access to the shoreline consistent with requirements of the Shoreline Management Act and fitting a circulation pattern within the site, b) Provision of an additional twenty five foot 25') setback from the shoreline above that required by the Shoreline Management Act, c) Establishment of view corridors from upland boundaries of the site to the shoreline, d) Water Related Uses. If the applicant wishes to reach these bonus objectives in a different system, a system of floor area ratios may be established for the property to be determined at the time of site plan review as approved by Council. 33. RESERVED —for Convenience Commercial Zone Amendments 34. COR-3 Zone Only: Buildings or portions of buildings which are within one hundred feet 100') of the shoreline shall not exceed a maximum height of seventy five feet (75'). 41 COR3ZONE\ 7/19/99 1.This information is required only for those home occupations that will have customer visits,more than six(6)business deliveries per week,or external indication of commercial activity. 2.Level of detail limited to scope listed in RMC 49210A. 3.Level of detail required may be reduced by Administrator. 4.For conditional use permit applications for wireless communication facilities,the applicant shall submit a preliminary sketch(five(5)copies)for preliminary staff review prior to submittal 5.Only required for projects requiring a public hearing. 6.Only required for residential projects requesting modification to special development standards in a Centers Residential Demonstration District Section 4-3-120.B.3,or for any development subject to special develoment standards requiring upper story setbacks in the Center Office Residential—3(COR-3) Zone,Section 4-2-120.B. Number of required copies (if any) is indicated in each column unless waived by the Development Services Division. 48 rYnr,17ONF 7/19/99 4-8-120.D. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING, PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT APPLICATIONS: 18. Definitions R: Report on Design Criteria for Modifications: A written evaluation issued by the Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Administrator. This report assesses whether a proposed project qualifies as a superior design and is eligible for modification of development standards based on adopted criteria of Section 4-3-250.D.3 and D.4 19. Definitions S: Site Plan, Level (Land Use Review: A single fully dimensioned plan sheet drawn at a scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1" =20') (or other scale approved by the Development Services Division Director) clearly indicating the following: a. Name of proposed project, b. Date, scale, and north arrow oriented to the top of the paper/plan sheet, c. Drawing of the subject property with all property lines dimensioned and names of adjacent streets, d. Widths of all adjacent streets and alleys, e. The location of all existing public improvements including, but not limited to, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, median islands, street trees, fire hydrants, utility poles, etc., along the full property frontage, f. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structures, parking and loading areas, driveways, existing on-site trees, existing or proposed fencing or retaining walls, freestanding signs, easements, refuse and recycling areas, freestanding lighting fixtures, utility junction boxes, public utility transformers, storage areas, buffer areas, open spaces, and landscaped areas, g. The location and dimensions of natural features such as streams, lakes, marshes and wetlands, h. Ordinary high water mark, existing and proposed, if applicable, i. For wireless communication facilities, indicate type and locations of existing and new plant materials used to screen facility components and the proposed color(s) for the facility, j. A legend listing the following must be included on one of the site plan sheets: i. Total square footage of the site, ii. Square footage (by floor and overall total) of each individual building and/or use, COR3ZONE\ 49 7/19/99 iii. Total square footage of all buildings (footprint of each building), iv. Percentage of lot coverage, v. Square footage of all landscaping (total, parking lot, and wildlife habitat), vi. Allowable and proposed building height, vii. Building setbacks required by Code, viii. Proposed building setbacks, ix. Parking analysis, including: Number of stalls required, by use; number of stalls provided, by use, Sizes of stalls and angles, Location and number of handicap stalls, compact, employee and/or guest parking stalls, Location and size of curb cuts, Traffic flow within the parking, loading, and maneuvering areas and ingress and egress, Location of wheel stops, Loading space, Stacking space, Location and dimensions of bicycle racks, carpool parking spaces, and other facilities designed to accommodate access to the site, Square footage of interior parking lot landscaping. Site Plan, Land Use, Level II: A single fully dimensioned plan sheet drawn at a scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1" =20') (or other scale approved by the Development Services Division Director) consisting of a conceptual plan indicating the following: a. Information from Site Plan Level I items a, b, and c. b. A legend listing the following must be included on one of the sheets: Total square footage of the site, Square footage (by floor and overall total) of each individual building and/or use, Total estimated square footage of all buildings (footprint of each building), COR3ZONE\ 50 7/19/99 Percentage estimate of lot coverage, Square footage estimate of all landscaping (total and parking lot), Allowable and proposed building height, Building setbacks proposed and required by Code, Parking analysis, including estimated number, size, and type of stalls required, by use and number of stalls provided, by use. c. General location and size of buildings and uses, d. Phasing of development, e. Major access points and access to public streets, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, public transit stops, f. Critical areas, q. Focal points within the project (e.q., public plazas, art work, gateways both into the site and into the City, etc.) h. Private and public open space provisions, and recreation areas i. View corridors, j. Public access to water and/or shoreline areas. 51COR3ZONE\ 7/19/99 4-9-250.D. MODIFICATION PROCEDURES: 1. Application Time and Decision Authority: Modification from standards, either in whole or in part, shall be subject to approval by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department upon submittal in writing of jurisdiction for such modification. Application will be made prior to detailed engineering and design. 2. Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, and that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Code, and that such modification: a. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; and b. Will not be injurious to other property(s) in the vicinity; and c. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and d. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and e. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. (Ord. 4517, 5- 8-1995) 3. Additional Decision Criteria Only for Center Residential Demonstration District: 4. ADDITIONAL DECISION CRITERIA ONLY FOR CENTER OFFICE RESIDENTIAL-3 COR-3) ZONE: For a modification to special upper story setback standards in the COR-3 zone, RMC Section 4-2-120B, the Department shall rely on the recommendations contained within the Report on Design Criteria for Modifications prepared by the Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Administrator or designee as the basis for approval or denial of the request. In addition to the criteria in Section 4-9-250.D.2, the request for modification in the COR-3 zone requirements for upper story setbacks shall meet all of the following criteria: a.In comparison to the standard upper story setbacks, the proposed building design will achieve the same or better results in terms of solar access to the public shoreline trails/opens space and publically accessble plazas; the building will allow access to sunlight along the public trail/open space system and plazas abutting the shoreline during daytime and seasonal periods protected for peak utilization by pedestrians. b.The building will create a step in perceived height, bulk and scale in comparison to buildings surrounding the subject building. COR3ZONE\ 72 JUL 29 ' 99 (THU) 16 43 BAYLIS ARCHITECTS 206 453 S013 rAL 1/O REC EIVED JUL 2 9 1999 July 29, 1999 ECONOMIC CODSANDSTRATEGICPLANNING City of Renton Economical Development/Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Department 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Attention: Lisa Grueter Subject: Southport Planned Action- Draft Supplemental EIS Comments Dear Ms. Grueter: I write to express my excitement about the proposed Southport project located at the existing Shuffleton Plant. This project would make an exciting addition to our City. I think the Administration is making an excellent recommendation to Council to rezone this site to COR. As was discussed by the Planning Commission,this is an appropriate zoning for the redevelopment of this site. However, I am concerned that certain impacts were not analyzed in the Draft EIS Supplement and therefore jeopardize the integrity of the document. Because I think Southport could make a positive contribution to our community, current inadequacies in the draft must be corrected. Please note that I am commenting only on items for which I am familiar. The EIS has many technical issues for which I have no ability or expertise with which to comment. Page 2-3 •Development Regulations The last sentence notes that this project-specific document will "clarify zoning code text for all COR zoned districts." This document is for a particular Planned Action, and for it to include analysis of other COR zones are most inappropriate. Imagine the reasonable surprise of a property owner adjacent another COR zone discovering that the analysis of the revisions were buried in some other application.This action is not Renton's idea of full disclosure. Page 2-4 • . IS and Adoption of Planned Action Ordinance This section notes that "the Conceptual Master Plan is intended to meet the requirements of Level 2 site plan" is misleading. Although the Administration may be considering amendments to thedevelopmentregulations, these amendments have not been discussed in the public forum, nor have they been advanced to Council.Thus, to imply that the plan meets some non-existent requirement is misleading. JUL 29 ' 99 (THU) :6 44 SAYLIS ARCHITECTS 206 453 5013 PAGE. 2/6 City of Renton/ L. Greuter July 29, 1999 Page 2 Page 2-S - Puture Desipnatian and Approvals This section should be expanded such that one unfamiliar with the SEPA process and the newly- adopted process of Proposed Actions in the City of Renton, can get a better understanding of the public process. For this paragraph to simply conclude that "there would be no administrative SEPA procedural appeal" is not sufficiently enlightening, especially since the Administration, and more importantly the citizens, have very little experience with a Planned Action Ordinance. Page 2-12 - Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments. Policy LU-125 As was discussed at the Planning Commission,there is no need to eliminate the words "small scale." This phrase has been taken out of context. Staff is incorrectly reading the paragraph. Policy LU-125 speaks to the appropriate development of commercial uses such as retail and services. It then goes on to make the exception that "certain other commercial uses may occur if they are proposed with small scale businesses." The term "small scale" in LU-125 is not inconsistent with the words "major commercial uses" in the same sentence. The staff has simply been misreading the intent and the wording of this phrase. As noted by the Planning Commission,the words "small scale" should remain. Page 2.13 •Municipal Code Text Amendments (Continued) As noted above, amendments to the Master Plan Development Process have not been adopted and are not relevant to this document. Page 2-1 S-Mix of Uses (Continued1 This section goes out of its way to create the case that these are five-story buildings. Only a close reading of the parenthetical phrases shows that these, in fact, are six-story buildings. Only because the first floor parking is proposed to be backfilled can five stories even be discussed. The buildings are not being lowered into the ground; the ground is being raised an entire story around the buildings. True, this backfill does allow the buildings to be classified as five stories, but it is not true that they will be seen as only five stories high. These paragraphs should be rewritten such that all readers and decision makers understand the actual height, and that existing grade is not being used to hide the real height. Additionally, Table 1 should be revised to six stories and 60 feet above existing grade, noting that the bottom story would be buried through grade fabrication. These same corrections should be made on page 2-19,Residential Use. Page 2-19 - Relidential Use Because the residential density is being calculated over the entire site, but will only be built in a portion of the site, it would be very helpful to a decision maker to also note what the apparent density will be of the residential portions of the development. Page 2-2Q - Site Population and Employment It should be highlighted that, as indicated in Table 3, 69% of all the units will be studio or one- bedroom. This highlighting is appropriate since it is a uniquely high combination of small units when compared to both historic and recent other projects in our community. JUL 29 ' 39 (THU) :6 44 BAYLIS ARCHITECTS 206 453 5013 YAGh:. 3/6 City of Renton/ L. Greuter July 29, 1999 Page 3 Page 2.21 - Open Space and Recreational Feature. It is important to note that approximately 65% of the space claimed as "Open Space" is in inaccessible areas, such as the perimeter landscaping and distant corners of the project. True, this space does meet the City's definition of open space, but the reader and decision-makers must dearly understand the definition. It is also important to know that a super-majority of the Open Space does support the conclusion that the "open space areas are intended to create a pedestrian-friendly community" as the text so states. Page 2-23 - Vehicular Access and Circulation Noted is the sentence "This roadway is intended to be the "main street" of the Southport development." The use of the term main street is illusionary. It creates an impression of a warm and friendly space, but a simple review of the site plan and site data reveals quickly that the buildings facing this street at the first level are typically parking garages. No office space is proposed in the first two floors of the offices or in the first floor of the residential buildings. No retail or commercial uses or storefront uses are proposed for any portions of the length of this road, until one arrives at the final terminus, adjacent Building A. To construe this environment as "main street" is extremely misleading, On Page 2-24, this section continues with a notation that a fire lane is proposed along the eastern side of the development. Citizens and decision-makers must understand that this means that any setback of the buildings from the property line of Coullon Park is not landscaped, is in fact gravel or asphalt. Hardly the connection of the western edge of Coullon Park that I think our citizens envision. The EIS Supplement should note this fact , rather than require the reader to discover it. Page 2-24 -Parking The applicant proposes a reduction of parking standards for the residential and retail uses. This reduction is not discussed in the document, and yet this reduction is mandatory for the proposed density to be achieved. Thus, any parking reduction is inobstricably linked to the density approval. Such a link should be noted and discussed at length in this environmental document. This section also to notes "the City's Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator will administratively determine the appropriate standards to apply." I may be wrong, but I find no where in the City documents that the Administrator has this authority to overrule parking requirements set by the City Council without a public process and environmental review. The Administration's use of such authority should only come with the authorization of our community's citizens, and not be inappropriately claimed in an environmental document. Page 2-26 -Alternatives to the Proposed Action It is indicated in the last sentence that "no feasible design alternative was defined or considered under the COR designation in this Supplemental EIS." This is the result of the document's assertion that "while it is possible to formulate a conceptual master plan that features a mix of different uses or lower densities that would be consistent with the COR goals, such a plan would not be consistent with the sponsor's objectives." This assertion is not true. JUL. 29 ' 99 (THU) 16 44 BAYLIS ARCHITECTS 206 453 6013 PAGE 4/6 City of Renton/ L. Greuter July 29, 1999 Page 4 This document asks us to think that a density of 60 DU to the acre is the only alternative. In fact, the actual proposed density, even in the most-intensive plan, is only 41 DU to the acre (581 DU divided by 14.2 acres). Staff additionally suggested that to the Planning Commission that,in fact, the 14.2 acre deviser is incorrect because of the current discussions at the City regarding a new definition of "net density.These discussions have not advanced through a public process, nor have they been adopted by Council. Therefore, to recalculate density by some yet undefined denominator is not valid. Furthermore, since the application was filed,the applicant has stated that he does not wish to proceed with Building A as residential dwelling units. It was reported to the Planning Commission that the applicant has amended the application to change Building A to a hotel. Thus, by the applicant's request, the density will be lowered to approximately 34 DU to the acre. Therefore, this Supplemental EIS document cannot argue or even assert, that a lower density plan would not be consistent with the sponsor's objectives. A lower density alternative is appropriate and reasonable, and should be reviewed in this supplemental document. Without such a review,this document will not meet the requirements of SEPA. Additionally,the proposed increase of density to 60 DU to the acre is unsubstantiated in any of the COR zones. These COR zone densities were the result of an extensive public process and have gone unchallenged in these zones. This Supplemental EIS does not discuss why the 60 DU per acre should be considered at COR 3, but not the other zones. One could easily argue that the other areas should be developed more intensively than this site, due to their larger size and, in the case of COR 1, its closer proximity to downtown. Page 3-144 - The Use of the Site - View Analysis This particular section of the Supplemental EIS is severely flawed. First,there are primary view corridors through this site from the east which were not considered or analyzed. Second, the actual graphics showing the view impacts are not correct. There exists primary views over this site to Lake Washington,Mercer Island, and Seattle beyond from Interstate 405 and Sunset Boulevard. In fact, these are the first views of Lake Washington from any points to the south. Not only are these the first views, they are a few of the rare views of Lake Washington that connect and define the City as a lakeside community. One's next view of the lake when traveling north through our community is only blocks short of our far northern City boundary. Renton has always prided itself on being a lakefront community, and one of the few whose lakefront is open to the public. These visual connections from I-405 and from Sunset Boulevard above 405, are critical to this connection. Therefore, these views should be considered in the EIS. Protection of view corridors from upland properties was a primary element of the Planning Commission's adoption of COR in our community. The Comprehensive Plan highlights the need for view protection and view corridors in LU-276 through LU-281. These six policies apply CiSy-wide. City of Renton/ L. Greuter July 29, 1999 Page 5 They specifically require that view corridors be protected. These policies have not been reviewed or even mentioned in the Supplement EIS for Southport. When Council adopted the COR zone, (previous POR), it highlighted that all Master Development Plans should depict their relationships to "view corridors".The COR zoning code notes that establishment of view corridors from upland boundaries of the site to the shoreline" are important elements of the design. View corridors are important, and especially view corridors that millions of people enjoy every year. Page 3.155 • Views to the Site(including Figure 17,,t$. 19 &20) The graphic portrayal of the impacts of Southport on these views is not correct. This conclusion can be discovered by simply etrapolating a horizon line from the photograph and tracing the vanishing points from the tops of the buildings. As indicated in the text, the Boeing Building is 120-feet high. The proposed Southport Buildings are 125-feet. These view studies, however, show that the Southport Buildings are lower than the larger Boeing Building... and the base line are not that dissimilar These figures use a graphic illusion to portray the actual height of the buildings. The text tells us that these buildings are five to ten stories in height, and yet, as best seen in Figure 18, the visual portrayal of the window fenestration implies that these buildings are only two stories in height. Similarly, as seen in Figure 19,these buildings are fenestrated to appear only, two stories in height, but we know from the text that they are five stories in height. This visual illusion and delusion must be corrected. Since I respect the work of Nakano Associates, I can only assume that they were not given the correct information in preparing these figures. Page 3-230 - Parks This section of the Supplemental EIS is severely flawed. Although it has a lot of facts and tables, it provides insufficient information to support the conclusions. The fact is Southport proposes no meaningful recreational or park activities, and proposes no meaningful mitigation of impacts on the adjacent Coullon Park. Park mitigation fees are established in the community as a method to mitigate parks' impacts by providing funds to increase park facilities. Southport will have a major impact on Coullon Park, and this impact is cannot be mitigated by any amount of money, simply because the park is already seasonally maximized. On Page 2.234, the document asserts that "nearby parks that residents would likely use include: the regional Coullon Park and the following neighborhood parks; Kennydale Lions Park,North Highlands Park,Windsor Hill Park,Jones Park and Erlington Park." This statement is just plain false. It is incomprehensible how someone living adjacent Coullon Park would get in a car to drive to any of these other parks. The statement in the EIS simply deludes the reader into thinking that the impacts of the residences would not be as great as one might imagine; great assertion, no support. p/Z 30Vd sloe sSfi 90Z Si:D3i.IHJHV SI"IAV$ 9' 9 : (nH.L) 66 . 6Z "Ir City of Renton/ L. Greuter July 29, 1999 Page 6 On Page 2•238 there is the statement that "if undertaken by the applicant, credit against the required mitigation fee could be allowed by City." It should be highlighted that this really means that although one might be able to calculate a mitigation fee,one can also negotiate it away. Conclusiow I hope that Economical Development/Neighborhoods&Planning Division of the City of Renton is able to accommodate these suggestions and will re-publish a much-improved document in support of the Southport Development Planned Action. I sk think that COR is the right zone for this property, but I also believe that a full analysis of all the impacts must be completed before any Planned Actin is adopted. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, chard L.Wagner,AIA cc: Members of the Renton City Council I/i 2 Vd EI09 E517 90Z S.LJ3.LIHOdV SI'IAVS 50 Li (nH.L) 66 . 6Z -Inr 07/29/1999 14:55 4252714396 NW SPARKS rA(at el SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS Thank you for allowing me to enter my personal comments on the Southport site. Please consider the adverse impact of the Southport development on the adjacent existing city park. Increased use by residents, friends, and family will create additional strain on existing facilities. When weather permits, the park is stuffed with people. Children playing,joggers, cyclists, vehicles pulling boats, coupled with the increased density of the Southport site, a stroll in the park may be less than enjoyable. An additional concern is the limited access to the site (only one way in and one way out). When one considers deliveries to the Southport site, school buses, residential traffic, business stimulated traffic, a lower density may be desirable. The Southport site is a beautiful site but dense development without adequate parking and roadways has potential for disaster. Cordially, Rosemary Quesenberry 3609 Southeast 18 Court Renton 14° RECEIVED JUL 2 9 1999 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:July 28, 1999 TO: Lee Haro,Nick Afzali FROM: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578 62 SUBJECT: Southport Traffic Comments Attached are two comment letters related to traffic impacts. The first letter is from Inez Petersen, and contains my response. The second letter is from Kim Browne, and I would like your assistance to respond to questions about our traffic assumptions. Please document our annual growth factor, and that we did include projects in the"pipeline." For questions related to our trip distribution, please provide a basis for our 5% assumption on Lake Washington Boulevard. I would like your input about whether her suggestion of additional analysis with other assumptions is warranted. Based on our conversations to date, there is good basis for our trip distribution assumption, and our analysis is valid. Also, are there specific improvements that could discourage use of Lake Washington Boulevard beyond what measures we have reviewed(and which account for use of the access by the Park)? Please provide a response by August 2, 1999. Thanks for your assistance. cc: Sue Carlson CENTRAL\S YS2\DEPTS\Economi cDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LG RUETER\S HUFFLTN\lhcommem.doc\cor Southport Traffic Impacts DRECEIVF Inez P 1-lyl etersen JUL 1 3 19 3306 Lake Wash Blvd N #2Subject: Southport Traffic Impacts Renton, WA 98056-1909Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 11:37:41 -0 0 ECON G zERvgpg E T, From: Kim Browne <kbrowne@halc TEGIC PLANNI To: postle@lucent.com, alan.w.withers@boeing.com, annhan@msn.com, bikesnob@msn.com, blinksoft@worldnet.att.net, bogey@nwlink.com, clgalvinia@aol.com, cwjrenton@worldnet.att.net, daletnum4@aol.com, david.dolling@gte.net, guntar@gte.net, H4Hopkins@aol.com, habakorn@aol.com,jerryc@fishermills.com,jking3@chmcc.org,jmvian@aol.com, karenjalat@aol.com, KCOMAC@aol.com, kwack@oz.net, labrador4@aol.com, laurieb@mvseac.com, LCKNIC@aol.com, lelievre@nwlink.com, letyoung@aol.com, lkolesar@gte.net, loreez@uswest.net, m.dipasquale@excite.com, mad_maxm@msn.com, mcnally@mbcc.com, mduke@msn.com, michel-t@qualmed.com (wk), mikes@highlandsscc.org, mm2522@msn.com, mmaxwell@ricochetnet, nash24a@aol.com, oldbrush@mindspring.com, paigemcgrath@hotmail.com, raymond.kusumi@gte.net, rcinque@aa.net, ritaann@transport.com, rsecrest@msn.com, sbboyd@carblink.net, steve.ruegge@metrokc.gov, sunrun7@eskimo.com, swmurphy37@aol.com, tommy.roger@aol.com, vlittleman.aol.com@smtp04.nwnexus.com, wagnerr@bayhisarchitects.com, webgirl@seanet.com, wjdonald@nwlink, wldw23@email.mot.com Here is information about Southport's impact on traffic in our neighborhood. Lisa Grueter, the City Planner in charge of the Southport proposal, wrote this email in response to comments from Inez Petersen, one of our neighbors. You can email Lisa Grueter questions and comments at Lgrueter@ci.renton.wa.us>. You must, however, send a signed copy of your email to Lisa in order for it to be considered official. Send comments to Lisa Grueter, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Wa 98055. Lisa Grueter wrote: Thank you for your interest in the Southport proposal. I am responding to your e-mail sent to Sue Carlson on June 30, 1999. Controlling traffic north of the Southport site on Lake Washington Boulevard is a high priority for the City. Your comments were as follows: "I will be interested to see what the environmental impact statement says about increased traffic in the Kennydale area. There is no question that this development will increase traffic on the Boulevard, so whether this is acknowledged in the report and whether suggestions to control heavier traffic are mentioned are of great concern to me. The Boeing traffic already makes Lake Washington Boulevard a speedway in the morning and after work. If Southpark goes ahead, you must acknowledge the traffic problem and do something about it; for example; speed bumps or those circle gardens at intersections to slow traffic. They are needed NOW even without Southpark. " The Southport Planned Action Draft Supplemental EIS was issued on June 29, 1999. The Southport Draft Supplemental EIS does address transportation issues. Ten intersections are reviewed: Park Drive/I-405 northbound ramps, Park Drive/I-405 southbound ramps, Park Drive/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard (LWB) , LWB/Site Access/Houser Way, NE44th Street/I-405 northbound ramps, NE 44th Street/I-405 southbound ramps, N 30th Street/I-405 northbound ramps, N 30th Street/I-405 southbound ramps, and N 30th Street/Burnett Avenue, and N 30th Street/LWB. Based on the City's transportation model and existing travel patterns in the site vicinity, the traffic trips generated by the development were calculated and distributed. The trip distribution indicates 5% of the of2 SOWliport itaia Impacts traffic would be to and from the north on Lake Washington Boulevard. The majority of trips generated by the development would occur on 1-405 (north and south - 60%) and on Park Drive (east and south - 35%) . The primary impacts of the proposal would occur at the site entrance/LWB and Park Drive/Garden Avenue/LWB. The impacts can be mitigated with channelization improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard (only between Park Drive and the site entrance) , and signal improvements at both intersections. A signal would be installed at the site entrance (which is also shared by Gene Coulon Park) and LWB. With mitigation measures, appropriate levels of service would be achieved. Generally, the proposal 's effects upon the remaining intersections were not found to be significant. With the proposed project, the N 30th Street/I-405 northbound ramps would experience a lower level of service, but the delay increase would be less than 2 seconds over backgroud conditions for the buildout year. The NE 44th/I-405 ramps with or without the Southport proposal experience poor levels of service. Improvements to the NE 44th/I-405 ramps are planned in the City's 6-year Transportation Improvement Program. I hope this information addresses your concerns. If you would like to contact me futher, my phone number is (425) 430-6578. Below I have listed comment opportunities related to Southport. 1. Copies of the Southport Planned Action Draft Supplemental EIS can be reviwed at the City libraries and at City Hall (City Clerk's office and Development Services Division) . Copies can also be purchased at the Development Services Division counter (6th floor of City Hall) . The comment deadline is 5 p.m. July 29, 1999. Written comments should be addressed to Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner/Project Manager, Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department, Renton Municipal Building, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. A public hearing regarding the Draft Supplemental EIS will be held on July 20, 1999 at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (7th floor) . 2. The Planning Commission will hold a separate public hearing on July 14, 1999 at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (7th floor) to take comments about the merits of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezone and Municipal Code Amendments requested for the Southport proposal. If you cannot attend the Planning Commission hearing, you may send letters regarding the Southport Comprehensive Plan/Code amendments by July 14th to Larry Brosman, Chair, Renton Planning Commission, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Regarding comment deadlines, based on City policy, E-mail comments are not accepted unless they are followed up with written and signed comments. Thank you again for your interest. A-116ter"---. IAV 4-0 Lisa Grueter, SSenior Planner) 4-(4A- 4;e I V ciAle J2A,z AAQAAr e,attAA4,U,94. 2 of 2 I v1 1/00 1 n• From:Kimberly Ann Browne Enwiro Economies Fax:(425)225-7791 Voi S)226.7/91 To:Lisa Grueter at:City of Renton Page 2 of3 Wednesday,July 29,1999 9:45:15 As July28, 1999 RECEIVED JUL 2 8 1999 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. NEIGHBORHOODS. Ms.Lisa Grueter AND STRATEGIC PLANNING Project Manager EDNSP Department Renton Municipal Building 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 RE: Southport Development Planned Action DSEIS Dear Ms. Grueter: Please accept the following comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Southport Development Planned Action. Aesthetics Building B would be located 10 feet from the Gene Coulon Park play area and would significantly affect the visual character of the immediate area"(page 1-34,DSEIS). The following Mitigation Measures should become a part of the Proposal to offset this significant effect. Increase the building setback for Building B to a minimum of 20 feet. Terrace the East façade of Building B so the top floors are further away from the park, thereby minimizing the"overlooking"effect. Plant tall trees between Building B and the play ground. Parks According to the DSEIS,the fire lane adjacent to Building C could harm existing oak trees. The set back for Building C should be increased to allow the fire lane to be built without encroaching within the oak tree's drip line. A trail connection between Southport and Gene Coulon is proposed. This connection would occur within the existing play ground area. Redesigning the play area to accommodate this trail connection should be done with the objective of minimizing the amount of playground area lost. The play area is well used and would probably be even more intensely used with the buildout of Southport. One possible design is to hug the trail along the waterfront. This area is currently a landscaped border and conversion to a trail would not significantly reduce the playground area. Proposed changes to the playground area should be made available for the public to review and comment on prior to finalization of plans. From:Kimberly Ann Browne EnvIro Economics Fax:(425)226.7791 Vol, )225-TT91 To:Lisa Grustsr at:City of Renton Paps 3 of 3 Wednesday,July 28,1999 9:45.57 AM Traffic To forecast background traffic conditions for 2004,the DSEIS used a 2 percent annual growth rate. Did the analysis use the traffic counts for the 3 projects currently in the pipeline for development: Labrador Subdivision,Bluffs Apartments, and Tamaron Pointe Apartments? Inclusion of these counts would provide a more accurate picture of future background traffic. If not included,the traffic analysis should be re-done including this information. For the traffic forecasts,it was assumed that only 5 percent of the Project trips would come to and from Lake Washington Boulevard. This seems like an incredibly low assumption given the frequent traffic jams on I-405 and the ease of bypassing that traffic by using Lake Washington Boulevard. A sensitivity analysis should be done to see how this 5 percent assumption affects overall analysis results. An analysis of traffic impacts assuming 10 and 25 percent of the traffic uses Lake Washington Boulevard should be done. This would give the City and local residents information on a range of possible impacts on Lake Washington Boulevard and the opportunity to consider mitigating measures. This proposal has the real potential of creating a traffic bottleneck at the south end of Lake Washington Boulevard,making residents of Kennydale trapped by traffic on I-405 and traffic at Southport. This would diminish our neighborhood's quality of life. TDM measures should be required for this proposal,not just recommended. I challenge the City Council to be proactive and work with future residents and employers at Southport to implement TDM programs. Thank you. Sincerely, Kim Browne 1003 N 28`s Place Renton,WA 98056 A PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY KING COUNTY KITSAP COUNTY PIERCE COUNTY SNOHOMISH COUNTY July 28, 1999 BeverlyFranklin, Secretary Renton Planning Commission JUL 2 9 1999 1055 S. Grady Way ECONOMIC DEVELOP mENT. Renton, WA 98055 AND STRATEGIC PLANNING Dear Ms. Franklin: DSEIS: Proposed Southport Application Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Southport Development Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS). We have found that addressing land use incompatibility issues during the planning process can greatly reduce the negative air quality impacts that can occur if residential communities are located near industrial facilities. The focus of our comments is to prevent negative impacts, especially odor and nuisances, and avoid the untenable situation of trying to respond to an aggravated community once the rezoning has occurred. We would appreciate your consideration of the following: Based on our previous experiences, coating operations, such as those that occur at the Boeing Commercial Airplane Renton facility, have a strong possibility of having an odor impact on any neighboring community. We have found that developments located near facilities that use solvents are negatively impacted by these odors. Although we require that facilities use reasonable precautions to minimize odors, this is often not enough to eliminate odor impacts. Even though the DSEIS indicates that Boeing has demonstrated that odor thresholds will not be exceeded, we have found modeling calculations do not always represent reality, especially regarding odor issues. It is of particular concern that the DSEIS states that the personnel conducting a site inspection detected solvent odors at the proposed location for rezoning. Although our regulations specifically state that "It shall be unlawful for any person to cause or allow the emission of any air contaminant in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics and duration as is, or is likely to be, injurious to human health, plant or animal life, or property, or which unreasonably interferes with enjoyment of life and property", there is often a major gap between public perception and our Agency's Dennis J.McLerran,Air Pollution Control Officer BOARD OF DIRECTORS Margaret Pageler,City of Seattle,Board Chair Lynn S.Horton,Mayor,Bremerton Brian Ebersole,Mayor,Tacoma Janet Chalupnik,Member at Large Dave Somers,Snohomish County Council Charlotte Garrido,Commissioner,Kitsap County Edward D.Hansen,Mayor,Everett Ron Sims,King County Executive Doug Sutherland,Pierce County Executive 110 Union Street,Suite 500,Seattle,Washington 98101-2038 206)343-8800 800)552-3565 FAX:(206)343-7522 printed on recycled paper Beverly Franklin, Secretary Renton Planning Commission July 28, 1999 Page Two ability to satisfactorily address this perception. Because we have not been provided with the details of the modeling analysis performed by Boeing, we cannot confirm the adequacy of this study. At other locations, we have found that facilities can adequately demonstrate compliance with this regulation, yet the neighboring community still perceives an unacceptable impact on its health and enjoyment of life. As noted above, we were unable to evaluate Boeing's modeling analysis demonstrating that Acceptable Source Impact Levels (ASILs) and odor thresholds were not exceeded since the information was considered confidential and not included in the DSEIS. Although this modeling analysis does not guarantee there will not be odor and nuisance concerns by neighboring communities, an analysis that indicated there would be an exceedance would be unacceptable. We recommend that our Agency or an independent consultant review the analysis for adequacy. In particular, it would be important to ensure that all sources were included in the evaluation and that realistic modeling assumptions were used. It is critical to recognize that citizen complaints about air quality caused by incompatible land uses cannot always be successfully addressed by our regulations. We would strongly recommend that the City reconsider the appropriateness of this proposed rezoning. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me at (206) 689- 4004 or Maggie Corbin at (206) 689-4057. Sincerely, Dennis J. McLerran Air Pollution Control Officer DJM/lh cc: Dave Kircher John Anderson July 28, 1999 RECEIVED JUL 2 9 1999 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS. AND STRATEGIC PLANNINGMs. Lisa Grueter Project Manager EDNSP Department Renton Municipal Building 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Southport Development Planned Action DSEIS Dear Ms. Grueter: Please accept the following comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Southport Development Planned Action. Aesthetics Building B would be located 10 feet from the Gene Coulon Park play area and would significantly affect the visual character of the immediate area" (page 1-34, DSEIS). The following Mitigation Measures should become a part of the Proposal to offset this significant effect. Increase the building setback for Building B to a minimum of 20 feet. Terrace the East facade of Building B so the top floors are further away from the park, thereby minimizing the"overlooking" effect. Plant tall trees between Building B and the play ground. Parks According to the DSEIS,the fire lane adjacent to Building C could harm existing oak trees. The set back for Building C should be increased to allow the fire lane to be built without encroaching within the oak tree's drip line. A trail connection between Southport and Gene Coulon is proposed. This connection would occur within the existing play ground area. Redesigning the play area to accommodate this trail connection should be done with the objective of minimizing the amount of playground area lost. The play area is well used and would probably be even more intensely used with the buildout of Southport. One possible design is to hug the trail along the waterfront. This area is currently a landscaped border and conversion to a trail would not significantly reduce the playground area. Proposed changes to the playground area should be made available for the public to review and comment on prior to finalization of plans. Traffic To forecast background traffic conditions for 2004, the DSEIS used a 2 percent annual growth rate. Did the analysis use the traffic counts for the 3 projects currently in the pipeline for development: Labrador Subdivision, Bluffs Apartments, and Tamaron Pointe Apartments? Inclusion of these counts would provide a more accurate picture of future background traffic. If not included, the traffic analysis should be re-done including this information. For the traffic forecasts, it was assumed that only 5 percent of the Project trips would come to and from Lake Washington Boulevard. This seems like an incredibly low assumption given the frequent traffic jams on I-405 and the ease of bypassing that traffic by using Lake Washington Boulevard. A sensitivity analysis should be done to see how this 5 percent assumption affects overall analysis results. An analysis of traffic impacts assuming 10 and 25 percent of the traffic uses Lake Washington Boulevard should be done. This would give the City and local residents information on a range of possible impacts on Lake Washington Boulevard and the opportunity to consider mitigating measures. This proposal has the real potential of creating a traffic bottleneck at the south end of Lake Washington Boulevard, making residents of Kennydale trapped by traffic on I-405 and traffic at Southport. This would diminish our neighborhood's quality of life. TDM measures should be required for this proposal, not just recommended. I challenge the City Council to be proactive and work with future residents and employers at Southport to implement TDM programs. Thank you. Sincerely, 64...AA, Len J.,,A....sts. Kim Browne 1003 N 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 From:Kimberly Ann Browns Enviro Economics Fax:(426)226.7791 Voice:(025)226-7791 To:Lisa Grueter at:city of Renton rage 1 or a weanesaay,Jury 2u,1999 a:oa:n AM r RECEIVED JUL 2 8 1999 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING CFC11"CVER PAGE Date: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 Time:9:44:06 AM 3 Pages To: Lisa Grueter Company: City of Renton Fax: 430-7300 Voice: From: Kimberly Ann Browne Company: Enviro Economics Fax: (425) 226-7791 Voice: (425) 226-7791 Subject: Southport DSEIS Please accept the attached comment letter. I will put a copy in the mail. Thank you, Kim Browne From:Kimberly Ann Browne Enviro Economics Fax:(425)226-7791 Voice:(425)226.7791 To:Lisa Grueter at:City of Renton Page 2 of3 Wednesday,July 28,1999 9:05:15 AM July 28, 1999 RECEIVED JUL 2 8 1999 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, Ms. Lisa Grueter AND STRATEGIC PLANNING Project Manager EDNSP Department Renton Municipal Building 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Southport Development Planned Action DSEIS Dear Ms. Grueter: Please accept the following comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Southport Development Planned Action. Aesthetics Building B would be located 10 feet from the Gene Coulon Park play area and would significantly affect the visual character of the immediate area"(page 1-34,DSEIS). The following Mitigation Measures should become a part of the Proposal to offset this significant effect. Increase the building setback for Building B to a minimum of 20 feet. Terrace the East façade of Building B so the top floors are further away from the park, thereby minimizing the"overlooking"effect. Plant tall trees between Building B and the play ground. Parks According to the DSEIS,the fire lane adjacent to Building C could harm existing oak trees. The set back for Building C should be increased to allow the fire lane to be built without encroaching within the oak tree's drip line. A trail connection between Southport and Gene Coulon is proposed. This connection would occur within the existing play ground area. Redesigning the play area to accommodate this trail connection should be done with the objective of minimizing the amount of playground area lost. The play area is well used and would probably be even more intensely used with the buildout of Southport. One possible design is to hug the trail along the waterfront. This area is currently a landscaped border and conversion to a trail would not significantly reduce the playground area. Proposed changes to the playground area should be made available for the public to review and comment on prior to finalization of plans. From:Kimberly Ann Browne Enviro Economics Fax:(425)226-7791 Voice:(425)226-7791 To:Lisa Grueter at:City of Renton Page 3 of 3 Wednesday,July 28,1999 9:45:57 AM Traffic To forecast background traffic conditions for 2004,the DSEIS used a 2 percent annual growth rate. Did the analysis use the traffic counts for the 3 projects currently in the pipeline for development: Labrador Subdivision, Bluffs Apartments, and Tamaron Pointe Apartments? Inclusion of these counts would provide a more accurate picture of future background traffic. If not included,the traffic analysis should be re-done including this information. For the traffic forecasts, it was assumed that only 5 percent of the Project trips would come to and from Lake Washington Boulevard. This seems like an incredibly low assumption given the frequent traffic jams on I-405 and the ease of bypassing that traffic by using Lake Washington Boulevard. A sensitivity analysis should be done to see how this 5 percent assumption affects overall analysis results. An analysis of traffic impacts assuming 10 and 25 percent of the traffic uses Lake Washington Boulevard should be done. This would give the City and local residents information on a range of possible impacts on Lake Washington Boulevard and the opportunity to consider mitigating measures. This proposal has the real potential of creating a traffic bottleneck at the south end of Lake Washington Boulevard,making residents of Kennydale trapped by traffic on I-405 and traffic at Southport. This would diminish our neighborhood's quality of life. TDM measures should be required for this proposal,not just recommended. I challenge the City Council to be proactive and work with future residents and employers at Southport to implement TDM programs. Thank you. Sincerely, Kim Browne 1003 N 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 r• PERKINS COTE Linn o si ia ONialin 1201 THIRD AVENUE, 48TH FLOOR•SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3099 6661 $ 1 n r TELEPHONE: 206 583-8888 FACSIMILE: 206 583-8500 a 63 3 a 3 NON U OAl10 RicHARD E.MCCANN 206)583-8616 July 28, 1999 HAND DELIVERED Lisa Grueter Senior Planner Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Southport Development Planned Action Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Dear Ms. Grueter: We represent The Boeing Company. The proposed Southport project is located immediately adjacent to The Boeing Company's manufacturing facility for its 737 and 757 aircraft. The Boeing Company has carefully reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("DSEIS") for the Southport Development Planned Action and has some concerns. We have met extensively with City staff and the developer to address these concerns and are hopeful that an agreement will be reached with the developer and the City to resolve these issues. Pending resolution, however, we have the following comments on the Draft SEIS: 1. The DSEIS fails to address an alternative site for the proposed project even though a rezone is required for this site. 2. The discussion of land use impacts does not adequately address the incompatibility of locating residential uses adjacent to industrial uses. 3. The DSEIS fails to address changed conditions that would justify consideration of a rezone at this time. 03003-0241/SB992070.098] ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C. STRATEGIC ALLIANCE: RUSSELL&DuMOULIN,VANCOUVER,CANADA Lisa Grueter July 28, 1999 Page 2 4. The DSEIS fails to adequately consider the impact of the substantially increased impervious surface and runoff into Lake Washington on salmonid habitat. Cordially, Richard E. McCann REM:vg 03003-0241/SB992070.098] 7/28/99 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:July 27, 1999 TO: Lee Haro,Nick Afzali FROM: Lisa Grueterae SUBJECT: Southport Cost Estimate;New Plan C Parking Analysis Recently we received the new Plan C for analysis in the Final SEIS. It replaces Building A with a Hotel. Building B would be all residential, and, therefore, the total square feet of commercial space is reduced. Per our recent conversation, Entranco has looked at the hotel and reduction in retail and the alternative would be within a percentage point or two of Plan A trip levels. By falling in between Plan A and B trip levels (which have both been analyzed, and which result in the same mitigation needs), the Final SEIS will discuss more broadly how Plan C compares to Plans A and B. Another calculation of intersection levels of service would not be provided. Regarding Plan C, Seco Development is assuming that with a reduced parking stall size they can meet residential and retail parking rates required by the City. The City's office rates would be met. Hotel parking appears to be less than our code requirements, but meets ITE Parking Generation peak demand estimates. If you have any comments,please let me know. Regarding cost estimates, Entranco provided their estimate yesterday and a copy is attached. Please review it and let me know if there are any corrections that need to be made. Thanks for your assistance. cc: Sue Carlson CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\.GRUETER\SHUFFLTN\trancostlh.doc\cor ti•4 icy reA.. u T H po SECO Development 10843 NE 8th St.Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Southport Project Statistics Plan C July 14,1999 Commercial Component Building Approx. Height Description Parking Building Area Hotel Only) Building A 115,800 75' max ht. 220 room hotel + Retail and 164* parking Residential Component Building Average Approx. Total Unit Distribution Parking unit size Building Area Units Studio- 1 BR-2BR/2Bath) 1.75 per DU Building B 850 171,200 171 5=30%,1BR=50%, 2BR=20% 300 Building C 800 194,000 206 S=0%, 1 BR=50%, 2BR=50% 360 Totals 365,200 377 660'" Retail Component Approx. Parking Area 10/1000 SF Restaurant 10,000 Sit down—high turn over 133 Restaurant 10,000 Quality restaurant 132 Specialty 10,000 34 Retail Totals 30,000 299' Office Component Approx. Height Description Parking Building Area 3/1000 SF Building 1 200,000 125' max ht 6 stories over 4 stories parking 600 Building 2 166,666 115' 5 stories over 4 stories parking 500 Building 3 133,334 105' 4 stories over 4 stories parking 400 Existing Demolish Power house Totals 500,000 1,500 Grand Total Total Totals Building Area Parking 1,011,000 2,433 Parking provided per Parking Demand Study by TRANSPO dated 7/19/99. Location of shared stalls and garage operation will be detailed in a Parking Management Plan. Modifications to parking stall standards may be requested to achieve this number of stalls. i n i n i , n u 1•\I J J n \I I W IAI t I J f1 I • 7 1 7 7• I n l' Weekday Parking Demand Estimate Southport Mixed-Use (Revised Plan C for FEIS) The TRANSPO Group, Inc. Use Apartments Condos Hotel(occ.rooms) Retail(sf) Restaurants(sf) Office(sf) 3 Total Amount/Size 170 206 183 5 10,000 20,000 500,000 Rate 1.04 1.11 0.81 3.23 12.49 use equation eak Parking Dennand1 177 229 148 32 250 1,133 al Full Occupancy2 100% ° 100% n 90% 85% 85%90% Peak Peak Peak Internal peak Internal Peak Peak Parking Hourly Hourly Hourly Hourly Hourly Hourly Hourly Capture Hourly Hourly Capture Hourly Hourly Hourly Required for Time Variation6 Demand Variations Demand Variation° Demand Variation° Rate? Demand Variation° Rate? Demand Variation° Demand Southport 6:00 AM 100% 177 100% 229 100% 164 0% 0%0 0% 0%0 3% 38 608 7:00 AM 87% 154 87% 199 85% 140 8% 0%3 2% 0%6 20% 252 778 8:00 AM 79% 140 79% 181 65% 107 18% 0%7 5% 0% 15 63% 793 1,276 9:00 AM 73% 129 73% 167 55%90 42% 0% 16 10% 0% 29 93% 1,171 1,619 10:00 AM 68% 120 68% 156 45%74 68% 0% 26 20V. 0% 59 100% 1,259 1,710 11:00 AM 59% 104 59% 135 35%58 87% 10% 29 30% 0% 88 100% 1,259 1.689 12'00 PM 60% 106 60% 137 30%49 97% 109'0 33 50% 10% 132 90`yo 1,133 1,599 1:00 PM 59% 104 59% 135 30%49 100% 10% 34 70% 10% 185 90% 1,133 1,640 2:00 PM 60% 106 60% 137 35%58 97% 10% 33 80% 10% 159 97% 1,221 1,705 3:00 PM 61% 108 61% 140 35%58 95% 10% 32 80% 10% 159 93% 1,171 1,668 4:00 PM 66% 117 68% 151 45%74 87% 10% 29 50% 10% 132 77%, 989 1,456 5:00 PM 77% 136 77% 176 60%99 79% 10% 27 70% 10% 185 47% 592 1,190 6:00 PM 85% 150 85% 195 70% 115 82% 10% 28 90% 10% 238 239'0 290 1,000 7:00 PM 94% 166 94% 215 75% 123 89% 10% 30 100% 10% 265 7% 88 879 8:00 PM 98% 170 98% 220 90% 148 879'0 10% 29 100% 10% 265 7% 88 895 9:00 PM 98% 173 98% 224 95% 156 61% 10% 21 100% 10% 265 3% 38 869 10:00 PM 99% 175 99% 227 100% 164 32% 10% 11 90% 10% 238 3% 38 845 11:00 PM 100% 177 100% 229 100% 164 13% 10%4 70% 10% 185 0%0 759 12:00 AM 100% 177 100% 229 100% 164 0% 10%0 50% 10% 132 0%0 702 L Maximum 177 229 164 34 265 1,259 1,710 1. Peak Parking Demand is ff parked cars on a weekday. Calculations are based on rates or equations from ITE's Parking Generation manual,2nd Edition. 2. The%at Full Occupancy,also called the Practical Capacity,is%of parking stalls being utilized at full capacity. The range typically varies between 85%and 100%. 3. The Peak Parking Demand calculations for the Office space is based on the equation from ITE's Parking Generation manual since the R2 term exceeds 0.80. n n 4. Assumed to be 100%for the Apartment and Condos based on the assumption that each unit would have one assigned parking stall that would not be available for other uses. 5. The 183 occupied rooms is based on an 83%occupancy rate for the 220-room hotel. 6. The hourly variation in peak parking utilization is based on studies conducted for similar uses,as documented In the Urban Land Institute's(ULI)Shared Parking report. 7. Internal Capture rate accounts For a reduction in vehicles due to the high density mixed-use characteristic of the site;10%is consistent with trip generation calculations. Peak Parking Demand is 1,710 occurring at 10:00 AM on a typical weekday. m Y?M9c)?351ParkinplFEIS PARKING2_xls Plan A-FEIS] The TRANSPO Group, 7/21/99 Southport Area Summary-Site Plan C Revised 7/14/99 Square Feet Acres Dry Land Site Area 620,300 14.2 Buildings 1, 2 &3 Roof Area 110,000 2.5 Parking Area 57,600 1.3 Courtyard 20,000 0.5 Total 187,600 4.3 Building A, B &C Building A Roof Area 26,300 0.6 Courtyard 4,300 0.1 Total 30,600 0.7 Building B Roof Area 42,800 1.0 Courtyard 16,400 0.4 Total 59,200 1.4 Building C Roof Area 48,500 1.1 Courtyard 18,300 0.4 Total 66,800 1.5 Total Building A, B & C 156,600 SUBTOTAL STRUCTURED AREAS 344,200 7.9 Paved Areas Roads 105,900 2.4 Sidewalks 28,500 0.7 Esplanade 24,500 0.6 Plazas 16,500 0.4 Total 175,400 4.0 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA 519,600 12 Landscape Area 100,700 2.2 n ,L . , ,ni i .n,i OHNI NIACC : C FFRI ' Il ' Ili Jul . 21 . 1 .:,- j11Jbl-) 1Yi MAIN lftl- lUt POJ , I ( UL 4Z: 161/2.) Cr sklac, 41`" cv„4,. 143;,, tvQt, MI Cf) a r,. ` 14, I 1E-------- ill C i 5_ l _, fl cy,o Sr— qui vs- ic 1 1 1 L. -± n i - Hill 0 D- ( J.) i ig 1 1 z- co I Li-, ARNIM ---- i 41111111m.11111111111 0 D I I 1 N I i 1 i k7—...-,------ j 1— 1 I 1 1/4' iSji 3 0 0 I 2 ps. ._./ ,',. .. -, —...- ;?.•-• ... a i i f • A 0 GO 0 crr_ ...... ,• : Evi 1 _ r' s Al 04 Sit II II 1=,,.. . ..._, .. : I A 0 ---- 1 .- 14 4 (44 i i i 30 ENTRANCO July 23, 1999 Ms. Sue Carlson Administrator City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 IosOo Re: Southport— Road Improvement Cost Analysis NE.TN STREET Dear Sue: SUITE)00 RELLE9VE Attached is the feasibility-level cost opinion for the above referenced project per our July 15, 1999 agreement. Provided are estimated costs for major project elements WASHINGTON such as retaining wall:;, signals, rail crossing improvements, drainage, illumination and lEoo,•++os asphalt. Quantities for these and other associated items are based on Entranco's April 29, 1999 conceptual site plan and are available upon request. TELEPHONE Deriving feasibility-level opinions of costs inherently requires a number of assumptions and allowances and/or contingencies to account for items difficult to quantify at this 15 ,S+ 5600 time. At the bottom of the attached spreadsheet are assumptions upon which the cost opinion was based. TOIL FREE While preparing this opinion of cost, Entranco has been coordinating with Rex Allen of SECO Development. SECO requested Merlino Construction to prepare a parallel e00+5+5601 feasibility-level opinion of cost for this project. Merlino provided Entranco their draft estimate on July 22, 1999, but insufficient data was available to make a direct comparison with our estimate. If greater detail can be supplied by SECO from Merlino, FAX Entranco would be pleased to review this information on behalf of the City. 15 +;+0210 Sue, if you have any ciuestions or comments regarding this project, please feel free to call either myself or Mike Bertram at(425) 454-5600. Thank you. INTERNET Sincerely, ENTRANCO, Inc. y Brad Stein, P.E Project Manager BLS:mhb wy iecta99029Vmm°m99vcaA72.1:01 ARIZONA CALIFOKNIA Enclosures IDA4O OREGON UTAH WASFIINGTON 2,11T •fV.•(T O ie7i7A r 430 ENTRANCO Southport OPINION OF PROBABLE FEASIBILITY-LEVEL C OSTS PHASE: Feasibility SEGMENT Lake Washington Boulevard DATE: July 22,1999 PROJ.NO. 1-99029(ENTRANCO) NOTES: No Right-of-way Cast Available I.RIGHT OF WAY ACOUISITION 8,EASEMENT:; SO II.CONSTRUCTION 1. rading/Drainage 574,474 EA)Cl.ar,Orvb.Demo,Aamav0/ 51.890 1,0)f7raxlepa(WO.CavCony MAX 1.9)RoadwayEacavNnauit. Sn,0D5 1.0)eorrew0mb.Cane. SACeis 2.Structures 30,240 2.A)Mgt SO Z.8) Mill 30,24000 3.SW/acing/Paving 1 e.853 2A)Pavqment,Shldrs l4.22 38)Curb Ganef S Stdewark a,33t 4 Roadside Development S20,942 4,A)Undaesoinp Se73 4,8)Temp Eroaian Conked S20,200 4.C)Site Imprwamraas SO 4.0)UfMaas S0 5.TreHie Services&Safety 5433.183 14) Traffic Connor Devices(IS;IrriooGuardr s) S5.000 1E1 Charamenoon S5.775 38)name Slgnels S r57,500 5.F) no*Comm.!Coot S25.338 SC)rhismMe00nfRoadway) S44,153 5.G)RattroidCrravrpGatos/Sfsnal S102.000 S.D)Signing S5.519 0.Miscellaneous hems Not Yet Estimated 57,767 0.0%ot$577,07t(tines 1'trough 5)835,438 7,Allowance for Feasibility-Level Accuracy 5127,088 20.0%ofS835,438(Lkro2 I through 6J Sr27.000 8.Mobilization 76253 I O.0%oI$782,520(Linos 1)frt oupn>)5838,779 9.Sales Tax 30 8.5%of S0.000(U11110,0-Une 4.0) 10.Construction Work by Others at Owner's Expert a S0 Construction work Oy Others 11.Agreements 0 UNily Apyeomanre,We, 3'838,779 12.Construction Engineering 83,878 10Ax of St130,779(Una:1 through 10) 13.Construction Contingency 41,939 3.0%dS030,772Woos 11hr0ugh 10) 984,698 III.PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 1.Design Engineering 96,460 leo%dS964.560(CONSTRUCTIONe9O 2.Agency Administration 19292 2.0%d$064 590(CONSTRUCTION east/ 3115,751 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST(UNADJUSTED) 31,080,347 Escalation effect on construction cost;: 0.0%of Set 4,590(CONSTRUCTION cost)SO TOTAL ESTIMATED COST S1,080,347 A.s.wmptlons: 1, Units coats are based upon bra most recent version;o,the WSDOT bid labs. 2. Right-of-way acquisition costa are not Included h Ihla r Ornate. 3. Eslelkrg Lake Washington Boulevard pavement will no'require an overlay. 4. Existing edgo of pavement Is In good condition and wit,not required sawcuaing. 5.This esimate b based on the Apra 29.1930 canceplut I site plan prepared by Entrance.Inc. e. Way reconstruction and coordination Is not Included It Ihts estimate. 7. Tha construction estimate far railroad crossing signal 3Id gales was provided by Mike Rosewoll al the W UT C.,(350)e04.1255. O. Remove!of structures and obstructions Is not Included in this estimate. 9. It Is assumed that the location or detention and water q rally facilities In within 200 feel of Sin prolect discharge location. 10, 300-toot long,4-teol high retaining wall wit bo require f along the eastern edge of Ole rnconsiructed each. 11. II Is assumed that water quality aria detention faellheet w'it not be required to treat the entire roadway prism,just the newly Created imporvlous areas. 12. A 140%water quality and detention facilities slzhp(tier has been added for ESA compliance. woyaa.t wotwwwwme,uww. i. ,rv.rT.rn t•vs n4,•rT as i07 i 1 A ERC RECOMMENDATIONS SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS ERC accept the draft with needed revisions. Changes identified in June 18, 1999 memo. ERC authorize distribution of the corrected Draft. Publish a notice of availability of the Draft EIS on June 29, 1999. Between June 22 and June 29,the consultant would incorporate requested revisions and print the document by June 29. ERC concur in a public hearing date. Staff has reserved the City Council Chambers for a public hearing on the Draft EIS.The date would be July 20, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. KEY CHANGES Protect Description Amend the draft COR code amendments with a building modulation/articulation requirement for structures next to the Park,rather than including an undefined mitigation measure in the Aesthetics section. Related to shoreline setbacks for mixed use structures,show a range of possibilities(determination, variance,or conditional use permit). A CUP appears to be the most likely route. The discussion of parking would add that the proponent may achieve substantial compliance with parking regulations if the City applies a National Parking Association design standard. Analysis Preliminary Draft#2 adds analysis in the Air Quality,Water,Fisheries and Transportation sections. 1 Mitigation Measures 1. Does not list all code requirements. Lists those that act as mitigation. Earth 2. Amend mitigation measures to show potential use of straw bales to limit sediment and run-off(Parks Comments) 3. Add a mitigation measure to ensure grading does not extend into the Park(Parks Comments) Air Quality 4. Remove mitigation measure addressing offsite source mitigation.(ED/N/SP; Seco) 5. Add mitigation measure addressing compliance with Federal, State, and PSAPCA air quality regulations Water and Fisheries 6. Generally limit mass grading to the dry season, but indicate that if grading is proposed in the wet season,the City would review grading plans to ensure erosion is minimized.(Seco) 7. For potential water quality filter,maintenance would be intensive,but not necessarily expensive. Noise 8. Regarding vibration, clarify that the grout pile system would occur if warranted based on additional geotech. study and test pile drive. The system would apply to the area within 100 feet of the wastewater treatment facility. Land Use 9. For open space, clarify that if future plans provide less open space, the City would determine if the proposal meets City policies and standards. 10. For setbacks,show the minimum average side setback. Relationship to Plans and Policies 11. Show code references as necessary,and refer to Fact Sheet. Aesthetics 12. See changes per numbers 8 and 9 above regarding open space and setbacks. 13. Eliminate articulation mitigation, and refer to proposed code amendments addressing modulation and articulation. 14. Remove reference to maximum percent intrusion into root zone. The information about possible solutions for the optional fire lane will be provided in an appendix. 15. Issue of additional building height/setback options(Parks) Transportation 2 7 16. C-curbs near Boeing parking access— show as a potential mitigation measure, and reference need to coordinate. 17. Replace long parking arrangement mitigation measure with a measure referencing a requirement for a parking management plan prepared for City approval prior to issuance of building/construction permits. 18. Timing of access design for site—would be prepared as part of site plan(Level II)—does timing work? 19. Reference City's commute trip reduction regulations. 20. Indicate that for mitigation fees,reductions may be possible for high employment/sales tax uses. Fire 21. Delete mitigation related to optional fire lane—it is part of the project description. Parks 22. Clarify responsibility of park playground redesign (done by City; applicant could do with City oversight). 23. Remove reference to maximum percent intrusion into root zone. The information about possible solutions for the optional fire lane will be provided in an appendix. Solid Waste 24. Clarify mitigation measure with solid waste plan to require City review. 25. Eliminate tax revenue measure—utility is an enterprise fund. 3 r T ENTRANCO RECEIVE' JUL 2 71999 ECOMOMIc DEVEL0,4,.ENiJuly23, 1999 AND NEIGHBORHOODS. E GIC ANNINC Ms. Sue Carlson Administrator City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 1oeoo Re: Southport— Road Improvement Cost Analysis NE 8TH STREET Dear Sue: SUITE 300 BELLEVUE Attached is the feasibility-level cost opinion for the above referenced project per our July 15, 1999 agreement. Provided are estimated costs for major project elements WASHINGTON such as retaining walls, signals, rail crossing improvements, drainage, illumination and 9e004-4405 asphalt. Quantities for these and other associated items are based on Entranco's April 29, 1999 conceptual site plan and are available upon request. Deriving feasibility-level opinions of costs inherently requires a number of assumptionsTELEPHONE and allowances and/or contingencies to account for items difficult to quantify at this 425 454 5600 time. At the bottom of the attached spreadsheet are assumptions upon which the cost opinion was based. TOLL FREE While preparing this opinion of cost, Entranco has been coordinating with Rex Allen of SECO Development. SECO requested Merlino Construction to prepare a parallel 800 454 5601 feasibility-level opinion of cost for this project. Merlino provided Entranco their draft estimate on July 22, 1999, but insufficient data was available to make a direct comparison with our estimate. If greater detail can be supplied by SECO from Merlino, FAX Entranco would be pleased to review this information on behalf of the City. 425 454 022) Sue, if you have any questions or comments regarding this project, please feel free to call either myself or Mike Bertram at (425) 454-5600. Thank you. INTERNET Sincerely, www entranco.corn ENTRANCO, Inc. et'ad Brad Stein, P.E Project Manager BLS:mhb w\projects\99029U etmem99Ucar0723:sks ARIZONA CALIFORNIA Enclosures IDAHO OREGON UTAH WASHINGTON F ENTRANCO Southport OPINION OF PROBABLE FEASIBILITY-LEVEL COSTS PHASE: Feasibility SEGMENT Lake Washington Boulevard DATE: July 22,1999 PROJ.NO. 1-99029(ENTRANCO) NOTES: No Right-of-way Cost Available I.RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION&EASEMENTS SO II.CONSTRUCTION 1.Grading/Drainage 74,474 1.A)Clear,Grub,Demo,Removal 1,890 1.C) Drainage(WO/Det/Conv) 56,800 1.B)Roadway Excay./Unsuit. 11,099 1.D)Borrow/Emb.Comp.4,686 2.Structures 30,240 2.A)Bridge 0 2.B) Walls 30,240.00 3.Surfacing/Paving 18,853 3.A)Pavement/Shldrs 14,522 3.8)Curb Gutter&Sidewalk 4,331 4.Roadside Development 20,942 4.A)Landscaping 673 4.B) Temp Erosion Control 20,269 4.C)Site Improvements 0 4.13) Utilities 0 5.Traffic Services&Safety 433,163 5.A) Traffic Control Devices(Barrier/Guardrail) 5,880 5.E)Channelization 5,775 5.B) Traffic Signals 157,500 5.F) Traffic Control Labor 25,336 5.C) Illumination(Roadway) 44,153 5.G)Railroad Crossing Gates/Signal $189,000 5.D)Signing 5,519 6.Miscellaneous Items Not Yet Estimated 57,767 10.0%of$577,671(Lines 1 Through 5) 635,438 7.Allowance for Feasibility-Level Accuracy 127,088 20.0%of$635,438(Lines 1 through 8) 127,088 8.Mobilization 76,253 10.0%of$762,526(Lines 1 Through 7) 838,779 9.Sales Tax 0 8.6%of$0,000(Utilities-Line 4.D) 10.Construction Work by Others at Owner's Expense 0 Construction Work by Others 11.Agreements 0 Utility Agreements,etc. 838,779 12.Construction Engineering 83,878 10.0%of$838,779(Lines 1 Through 10) 13.Construction Contingency 41,939 5.0%of$838,779(Lines 1 through 10) 964,596 III.PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 1.Design Engineering 96,460 10.0%of$964,596(CONSTRUCTION cost) 2.Agency Administration 19,292 2.0%of$964,596(CONSTRUCTION cost) 1 115,751 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST(UNADJUSTED) 1,080,347 Escalation effect on construction costs: 0.0%of$964,596(CONSTRUCTION cost) SO TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 1,080,347 Assumptions: 1. Units costs are based upon the most recent versions of the WSDOT bid tabs. 2. Right-of-way acquisition costs are not included in this estimate. 3. Existing Lake Washington Boulevard pavement will not require an overlay. 4. Existing edge of pavement is in good condition and will not required sawcutting. 5. This estimate is based on the April 29,1999 conceptual site plan prepared by Entranco,Inc. 6. Utility reconstruction and coordination is not included in this estimate. 7. The construction estimate for railroad crossing signal and gates was provided by Mike Rosewell of the W.U.T.C.,(360)664-1265. 8. Removal of structures and obstructions is not included in this estimate. 9. It is assumed that the location of detention and water quality facilities is within 200 feet of the project discharge location. 10. 300-foot long,4-foot high retaining wall will be required along the eastern edge of the reconstructed ditch. 11. It is assumed that water quality and detention facilities will not be required to treat the entire roadway prism,just the newly created impervious areas. 12. A 140%water quality and detention facilities sizing factor has been added for ESA compliance. w:prolecb\99029Uelmem99\vpeum.xb SECO DEVELOPMENT, INC . 10843 NE 8r"STREET, SLIM 200 •BELLEVtJE, WASHINGTON 98004 TEL: 425/688-3085 • FAX: 425/637-1922 EMA[L: seco@secodev.com Facsimile Transmittal Cover Sheet DATE:1 dam- 1/ TO: biro o3 /71% TEL NO: COMPANY: li , 7C/ r FAX NO: 71.0z9 FROM: 404 TELTEL NO: Number of Pages to Follow: 2 S-2 RAU h6 e&-kts'W THANK YOU ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS DEEMED RELIABLE:HOWEVER, NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY IS MADE AS TO THE ACCURACY HEREOF. 11/1 d IL9L ' ON 301dd0 NIVNJ Nd90 : Z 6661 1 SUBJEC 'ROPERT`' 1 .51 AC 1 260,0' Tr. tii..7.ys••tlY1•Gr r r I O, R ::::% Aft"rY_-'i- : AIM- __ S_[^S' 1 L . _ A rg M nun • t urn aa a•• MOW airt BIdg . A r 14. i o; r 4S7-1 i c0 0) 1 1 Bldg . 1 t I 1-\ 1/ 1/ rni 1 , __ f x„ i Bldg , 2 I.,ul co it Er r,R 611 w ',, OQ"ru m i MO 1311 00 it. Plan A Sitc Plan Soutnpor : J 14, 1999 b/Z 'd IL9L ' °1\1 301dd0 NVJ Nd50 : Z 6661 ' OZ ' Inr Jul . 20 . 1999 2 : bPM MAIN UFFIUt No . /0/ N . J/4 ci ''' s .- ________________________________ Ns, AK__I I ! j i j e`>?- c• it N \ t w 1 4mil. ,-,i 411111111 Mr. n ) L, dill u 2i9 . 5 'r 1 11r 111i r= 1i 01 L I 1 I i SUBJECT MOPEPrTY i 7.51 AC M 1 i tai::t' 0 f i , i 1-____11a , ,;Bldg. P. Lz!=a1 \titcoseiti. IIPIPZ4Vilt 0 re. -lig c•;,') te n l I wit`# i ' Bldg. 1 1 ( Ia Sit i2, Bldg. 2 LD.A J n r - a c• . iitAiro_Atigi eel 1 Bldg. 3 7PlanASitePlan 0laQ Southoort 1 tiiti ' d—IL9L '°N 301dd0 NIV V Nd90 : Z 6661 ' OZ ' Inr -~ SECO DEVELOPMENT, INC . 10843 NE 8T"STREET, SurrE 200 •BELLEvuE, WASHINGTON 98004 TEL: 425/688-3085 • FAX: 425/637-1922 EMAIL: seco@secodev.com Facsimile Transmittal Cover Sheet DATE: "I 22 TO: 1:/ - &Wiebi> TEL NO: COM.PA,NY: / , v , 4/4 6G FAX NO: FROM: /4/, TEL NO: Number of Pages to Follow: / 5= %2s%ems 4 260 - 42; THANK YOU ALL INFORM/770N CONTAINED HEREIN IS DEEMED RELIABLE:HOWEVER, NO REPRESENTA 77ON OR WARRANTY IS MADE AS 7D THE ACCURACY HEREOF. Zil 'd 918L ' °N 30I3d0 NI'01 NdOl : Zl 6661 ' ZZ ' Inf 114 tre V' O df• UTH poi` SECO Development 10843 NE eth St.Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Southport Project Statistics Plan C July 14,1999 Commercial Component Building Approx. Height Description Parking Building Area Hotel Only) Building A 115,800 75' max ht. 220 room hotel + Retail and 164* parking Residential Component Building Average Approx. Total Unit Distribution Parking unit size Building Area Units Studio- 1 BR-2BR/2Bath) 1.75 per DU Building B 850 171,200 171 S=30%,1BR=50%, 2BR=20% 300 Building C S00 194,000 206 S=0%, 1BR=50%, 2BR=50% 360 Totals 365,200 377 660*` Retail Component Approx. Parking L Area 10/1000 SF Restaurant 10,000 Sit down—high turn over 133 Restaurant 10,000 Quality restaurant 132 Specialty 10,000 34 Retail Totals 30,000 299* Office Component Approx. Height Description Parking Building Area 3/1000 SF Building 1 200,000 125' max ht 6 stories over 4 stories parking 600 Building 2 166,666 115' 5 stories over 4 stories parking 500 Building 3 133,334 105' 4 stories over 4 stories parking 400 Existing Demolish Power house Totals 500,000 1,500 Grand Total Total Totals Building Area Parking 1,011,000 2,433 Parking provided per Parking Demand Study by TRANSPO dated 7/19/99. Location of shared stalls and garage operation will be detailed in a Parking Management Plan. Modifications to parking stall standards may be requested to achieve this number of stalls. Z/Z ' d 916L ' °N 3013d0 NIV I'ldOl : Zl 6661 ' zz ' Inr SECO DEVELOPMENT, INC . 10843 NE 8'STREET, SUITE 200 •BELLEvUE, WASHINGTON 98004 TEL: 425/688-3085 • FAX: 425/637-1922 EMML: seco@secodev.corn Facsimile Transmittal Cover Sheet DATE:g,4767 TO: j 4 ‘/el?tf TEL NO: COMPANY:FAX44414.S/mJ6 FAX NO: FROM: At `4,*ou TEL NO: Number of Pages to Follow: rife / 'd AK A/ems/44 ,.J fi4.(44-- 57t6 THANK YOU ALL iNFORMA770N CONTAINED HEREIN IS DEEMED RELIABLE:HOWEVER, NO REPRESENTA770N OR WARRANTY IS MADE AS TO THE ACCURACY HEREOF. 6/1 'd U BL 'OU 301330 N1VH Hc1Zti : ll 6661 ' ZZ ' Inr yor,4 iiri 1 r4 UTH P0 lik SECO Development 10843 NE 8th St.Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Southport Project Statistics Plan C July 14,1999 Commercial Component Building Approx. Height Description Parking Building Area Hotel Only) Building A 115,800 75' max ht. 220 room hotel + Retail and 164* parking Residential Component Building Average Approx. Total Unit Distribution Parking unit size Building Area Units Studio- 1 BR-2BR/2Bath) 1.75 per DU Building B 850 171,200 171 S=30%,1BR=50%, 2BR=20% 300 Building C 800 194,000 206 S=0%, 1 BR=50%, 2BR=50% 360 Totals 365,200 377 660** Retail Component Approx. Parking Area 10/1000 SF Restaurant 10,000 Sit down—high turn over 133 Restaurant 10,000 Quality restaurant 132 Specialty 10,000 34 Retail Totals 30,000 299* Office Component r lding . Height Description Parking Building Area 3/1000 SF Building 1 200,000 125' max ht 6 stories over 4 stories parking 600 Building 2 166,666 115' 5 stories over 4 stories parking 500 Building 3 133,334 105' 4 stories over 4 stories parking 400 Existing Demolish Power house Totals 500,000 1,500 Grand Total Total Totals Building Area Parking 1,011,000 2,433 Parking provided per Parking Demand Study by TRANSPO dated 7/19/99. Location of shared stalls and garage operation will be detailed in a Parking Management Plan. Modifications to parking stall standards may be requested to achieve this number of stalls. g/Z 'd ZZ8L ' °N 3DIdd0 vide hdO : Z ! 6661 ' ZZ ' In(' Southport Area Summary -Site Plan C Revised 7/14/99 Square Feet Acres Dry Land Site Area 620,300 14.2 Buildings 1, 2 &3 Roof Area 110,000 2.5 Parking Area 57,600 1.3 Courtyard 20,000 0.5 Total 187,600 4.3 Building A, B &C Building A Roof Area 26,300 0.6 Courtyard/Atrium 4,300 0.1 Total 30,600 0.7 Building B Roof Area 42,800 1.0 Courtyard 16,400 0.4 Total 59,200 1.4' Building C Roof Area 48,500 1.1 Courtyard 18,300 0.4 Total 66,800 1.5 Total Building A, B & C 156,600 SUBTOTAL STRUCTURED AREAS 344,200 7.9 Paved Areas Roads 105,900 2.4 Sidewalks 28,500 0.7 Esplanade 24,500 0.6 Plazas 16,500 0.4 Total 175,400 4.0 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA 519,600 12 Landscape Area 100,700 2.2 5/E 'd ZZBL'°N 3DHHd0 NidN w,dEb : ZI 6661 ' ZZ' Inr Weekday Parking Demand Estimate IV N Southport Mixed-Use (Revised Plan C for FELS) The TRANSPO Group, Inc. Co Use Apartments Condos Hotel(occ.rooms) Retail(sf) Restaurants(sf) Office(st)3 Total Amount/Size 170 206 183 5 10,000 20,000 500,000 Rate 1.04 1.11 0.81 3.23 12.49 use equation w v eak Parking Demand' 177 229 148 32 250 1,133 at Full Occupancy2 100% ° 100% 4 90% 85% 85%90% Peak Peak Peak Internal Peak Internal Peak Peak Parking Houdy Hourly Hourly Hourly Hourly Hourly Hourly Capture Hourly Hourly Capture Hourly Hourly Hourly Required for Time Variation Demand Variations Demand Variations Demand Variation° Rater Demand Varialion6 Rater Demand Variation& Demand Southport o T 6:00 AM 100% 177 100% 229 100% 164 0% 0%0 0% 0%0 3% 38 608 T' 7:00 AM 87°% 154 87% 199 85% 140 8% 0%3 2% 0%6 20% 252 778 m 8:00 AM 79% 140 79% 181 65% 107 18% 0%7 5% 0% 15 63% 793 1,276 9:00 AM 73% 129 73% 167 55%9D 42943 0% 16 10°% 0% 29 93% 1,171 1,619 10:00 AM 66% 120 66'/0 156 45%74 68% 0% 26 20'/0 0% 59 100% 1,259 1,710 11:00 AM 59% 104 59% 135 35%58 87% 10°% 29 30% 0% 88 100% 1,259 1.689 12:00 PM 60% 106 60% 137 30%49 97% 10% 33 50% 10% 132 90% 1,133 1,599 1:00 PM 59% 104 59% 135 30%49 100% 10% 34 70% 10% 185 90% 1,133 1,640 2:00 PM 60% 106 60% 137 35%58 97% 10% 33 60% 10% 159 97% 1,221 1,705 3:00 PM 61% 108 61% 140 35%58 95% 10% 32 60% 10% 159 93% 1,171 1,668 4:00 PM 66% 117 66% 151 45%74 87% 10% 29 50% 10% 132 77% 969 1,456 5:00 PM 77% 136 77% 176 60%99 79% 10% 27 70% 10% 185 47% 592 1,190 6:00 PM 85% 150 85% 195 70% 115 82% 10% 28 90% 10% 238 23% 290 1,000 7:00 PM 94% 166 94% 215 75% 123 89% 10% 30 100% 10% 265 7% 88 879 8:00 PM 96% 170 96% 220 90% 148 87% 10% 29 100% 10% 265 7% 88 895 9:00 PM 98% 173 98% 224 95% 156 61% 10% 21 100% 10% 265 3% 38 869 10:00 PM 99% 175 99% 227 100% 164 32% 10% 11 90% 10% 238 3% 38 845 11:00 PM 100% 177 100% 229 100% 164 13% 10°%4 70% 10% 185 0%0 759 12:00 AM 100% 177 100% 229 100% 164 0% 10%0 50% 10% 132 0%0 702 Maximum 177 229 164 34 265 1,259 1,710 a 1. Peak Parking Demand is if parked cars on a weekday. Calculations are based on rates or equations from ITE's Parking Generation manual,2nd Edition. 2_ The%at Full Occupancy,also called the Practical Capacity,is%of parking stalls being utilized at full capacity. The range typically varies between 85%and 100%.o 3. The Peak Parking Demand calculations for the Office space is based on the equation from ITE's Parki g Generation manual since the R2 term exceeds 0.80. 4. Assumed to be 100%for the Apartment and Condos based on the assumption that each unit would have one assigned parking stall that would not be available for other uses. 5. The 183 occupied rooms is based on an 83%occupancy rate for the 220-room hotel. 6. The hourly variation in peak parking utilization is based on studies conducted for similar uses,as documented in the Urban Land Institute's(ULI)Shared Parking report. T, 7. Internal Capture rate accounts for a reduction in vehicles due to the high density mixed-use characteristic of the site;10%is consistent with trip generation calculations. Peak Parking Demand is 1,710 occurring at 10:00 AM on a typical weekday. M:1991992351ParkinglFEIS PARKING2.xis(Plan A-FEISI The TRANSPO Group, 7/21/99 H Jul . 22 . 1999<12 : 14PM MAIN OFFICE No.7822- P . 5/5 acs as 0 ' i Q 1 El 6 -L.'. .--M, 2 a 0 g c ] 1.. T_-.-'. 70 w Y NS. 1, s .m g 1 1111 c i 0 C I i 1 AIM= 7 N ao F Q N D I I 1 1/- a 4 _ - 1/ o t. / - - r - _.. r / 1 i , O u iI ' ` O i. 1 ) i/ 1/// t. CY U O• et 44 CITY OF RENTON NTo FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: July 22, 1999 TO: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner FROM:Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Southport Fire Mitigation FeesPg The following comments are related to the fire mitigation fees as they apply to the Southport project. Existing buildings and structures that are demolished, may have the square footage deducted from the new structures for the mitigation fee calculations. Credit will be given for the 98,405 square feet of existing structures that are to be demolished. Either the square footage or the dollar amount, based on $.52 a square foot, may be used for this calculation. The Fire Mitigation fees are based on the following: Apartment Buildings; $388.00 per individual unit. This fee also includes associated parking areas or structures. Commercial Buildings; (Retail, office, restaurant, hotels and associated structures). $.52 a square foot of the total structure square footages. The actual fees will be based on the building permit set of plans as they are completed and submitted for permit review. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. SECO DEVELOPMENT, INC . 10843 NE 81}'STREET, SUITE 200 •BELLEvUE, WASHrNGTON 98004 TEL: 425/688-3085 • FAx: 425/637-1922 EMAIL: seco@secodev.com Facsimile Transmittal Cover Sheet DATE: '74/ ' TO: A's G/l,/r.1T TEL NO: COMPANY: / 44.4 ,„je, FAX NO: 31j- 7 FROM: L' TEL NO: Number of Pages to Follow: G.)/S'14 S LS' k 4,./1, 0. THANK You ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS DEEMED RELIABLE:HOW EvER. NO REPRESENTA770N OR WARRANTY Is MADE AS TO THE ACCURACY HEREOF. 5i1 'd Z9LL '°N 301dd0 NIVN! Nd££ : £ 6661 ' IZ ' Inf 1614 el ira V• O uTH po SECO Development 10843 NE 8th St Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Southport Project Statistics PIan C July 14,1999 Commercial Component Building Approx. Height Description Parking Building Area Hotel Only) Building A 115,800 75' max ht. 220 room hotel + Retail and 164* parking Residential Component Building Average Approx, Total Unit Distribution Parking unit size Building Area Units Studio- 1 BR-2BR/2Bath) 1.75 per DU Building B 850 171,200 171 S=30%,1 BR=50%. 2BR=20% 300(+50 for Hotel use)** Building C 800 194,000 206 S=0%. 1 BR=50%, 2BR=50% 360 660 Totals 365,200 377 710 Retail Component Approx. Parking Area 10/1000 SF Restaurant 10,000 Sit down —high turn over 133 Restaurant 10,000 Quality restaurant 132 Specialty 10,000 34 Retail Totals 30,000 299* Office Component Approx. Height Description Parking Building Area 3/1000 SF Building 1 200,000 125' max ht 6 stories over 4 stories parking 600 Building 2 166,666 115' 5 stories over 4 stories parking 500 Building 3 133,334 105' 4 stories over 4 stories parking 400 Existing Demolish Power house Totals 500,000 1,260* Grand Total Total Totals Building Area Parking 1,011,000 2,433 Parking provided per Parking Demand Study by TRANSPO dated 7/19/99 Location of stalls and garage operation will be detailed in a Parking Management Plan 5/Z ' d Z9LL' °N 33WO Nld ! Nd6E : E 6661 ' 1Z' Inr Weekday Parking Demand Estimate Southport Mixed-Use (Revised Plan C for FEIS) The TRANSPO Group, Inc. N LO Use Apartments Condos Hotel(occ.rooms) Retail(sf) Restaurants(sf) Office(sf) 3 Total Q. Amount/Size 170 206 183 5 10,000 20,000 500,000 Rate 1.04 1.11 0.81 3.23 12.49 use equation eak Parking Demand 177 229 148 32 250 1,133 at Full Occupancy2 100% 4 100% 4 90`yo 85% 85%90% Peak Peak Peak Internal peak Internal Peak Peak Parking Hourly Hourly Hourly Hourly Hourly Hourly Hourly Capture Hourly Hourly Capture Hourly Hourly Hourly Required for Time Variation Demand Variations Demand Variation° Demand Variation° Ratez Demand Variation° Rater Demand Variation° Demand Southport 6:00 AM 100% 177 100% 229 100% 164 0% 0%0 0% 0%0 3% 38 608 7:00 AM 87% 154 87% 199 85% 140 8% 0%3 2% 0%6 20% 252 778 8:00 AM 79% 140 79% 181 65% 107 18% 0%7 5% 0% 15 63% 793 1,276 9:00 AM 73% 129 73% 167 55%90 42% 0% 16 10% 0% 29 93% 1,171 1,619 10:00 AM 68% 120 68% 156 45%74 68% 0% 26 20% 0% 59 100% 1,259 1,710 11:00 AM 59% 104 59% 135 35%58 87% 10% 29 30% 0% 88 100% 1,259 1,689 12'00 PM 60% 106 60% 137 30%49 97% 10% 33 50% 10% 132 90% 1,133 1,599 1:00 PM 59% 104 59% 135 30%49 100% 10% 34 70% 10% 185 90% 1,133 1,640 2:00 PM 60% 106 60% 137 35%58 97% 10% 33 60% 10% 159 97% 1,221 1,705 3:00 PM 61% 108 61% 140 35%58 95% 10% 32 80% 10% 159 93%y0 1,171 1,668 4:OD PM 66% 117 66% 151 45%74 87% 10% 29 50% 10% 132 77% 969 1,456 w 5:0D PM 77% 136 77% 176 60%99 79% 10% 27 70% 10% 185 47% 592 1,190 v 6:00 PM 85% 150 85% 195 70% 115 82% 10% 28 90% 10% 238 23% 290 1,000 Li__ 7:0D PM 94% 186 94% 215 75% 123 89% 10% 30 100% 10% 285 7% 88 879 0 8:00 PM 98% 170 98% 220 90% 148 87% 10% 29 100% 10% 265 7% 88 895 z 9:00 PM 98% 173 98% 224 95% 156 61% 10% 21 100% 10% 265 3% 38 869 10:00 PM 99% 175 99% 227 100% 164 32% 10% 11 90% 10% 238 3% 38 845 11:00 PM 100% 177 100% 229 100% 164 13% 10%4 70% 10% 185 0%0 759 12:00 AM 100% 177 100% 229 100% 164 0% 10%0 50% 10% 132 0%0 702 a Maximum 177 229 164 34 265 1,259 1,710 1. Peak Parking Demand is ft:parked cars on a weekday. Calculations are based on rates or equations from ITE's Parking Generation manual,2nd Edition. 2. The%at Full Occupancy,also called the Practical Capacity,is%of parking stalls being utilized at full capacity. The range typically varies between 85%and 100%. 3. The Peak Parking Demand calculations for the Office space is based on the equation from ITE's Parking Generation manual since the R2 term exceeds 0.80. 4. Assumed to be 100%for the Apartment and Condos based on the assumption that each unit would have one assigned parking stall that would not be available for other uses. 5. The 183 occupied rooms is based on an 83%occupancy rate for the 220-room hotel. 6. The hourly variation in peak parking utilization is based on studies conducted for similar uses,as documented In the Urban Land Institute's(ULI)Shared Parking report. c, 7. Internal Capture rate accounts for a reduction in vehicles due to the high density mixed-use characteristic of the site; 10%is consistent with trip generation calculations. Peak Parking Demand is 1,710 occurring at ` 10:00 AM on a typical weekday. M:1991992351Parking\FEIS PARKING2.xls(Plan A-FEISJ The TRANSPO Group, 7/21/99 Southport Area Summary-Site Plan C Revised 7/14199 Square Feet Acres Dry Land Site Area 620,300 14.2 Buildings 1,2 &3 Roof Area 110,000 2.5 Parking Area 57,600 1.3 Courtyard 20,000 0.5 Total 187,600 4.3 Building A, B &C Building A Roof Area 26,300 0.6 Courtyard 4,300 0.1 Total 30,600 0.7 Building B Roof Area 42,800 1.0 Courtyard 16,400 0.4 Total 59,200 1.4 Building C Roof Area 48,500 1.1 Courtyard 18,300 0.4 Total 66,800 1.5 Total Building A, B & C 156,600 SUBTOTAL STRUCTURED AREAS 344,200 7.9 Paved Areas Roads 105,900 2.4 Sidewalks 28,500 0.7 Esplanade 24,500 0.6 Plazas 16,500 0.4 Total 175,400 4,0 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA 519,600 12 Landscape Area 100,700 2.2 gib ' d Z9LL '°N 3DIddO NIVN Ndg€ : E 6661 Jz' i r Jul . 21 . 1999.7,- 3 : 36PM MAIN OFFICE No . 7762 P. 5/5 e°' 0 kyclo p, 1 Via% Ire to ft ti* I i ® co 0 1 2Qi L -± (} Fir JIllN 9 c cm I n In1' l. t ES 7...-- i co 1 V II4. -0 0 ' Aml2 I A 11J D0rN 11111 i.\.` al I 1 1• / a. — O L 1 , 0 ilf :-/ Overview Introductions Southport Planned Action Availability of EIS Environmental Review Purpose of Meeting Use of Comments Public Hearing -Draft 1 •Summary of Proposal/Alternatives Supplemental EIS Process-City July 20, 1999 Public Comment/Questions Introductions Availability of EIS/Location to Review Staff City Hall Consultants Libraries Applicant Purpose of Draft SEIS Use of Comments/Related Meeting Documents Allow for oral and/or written comments Response to comments in FSEIS Comments should relate to the adequacy Mitigation Document of the DSEIS Planned Action Ordinance Comments may address methodology, additional info., mitigation measures,etc. Lake Washington p Location4AI 11117 SOUTHPORT o Coulon Park n Shoreline o viz° j 1 Proposal Summary Alternatives Redevelopment of Industrially Zoned site Proponent Plan A(lower range) Mixed use-residential, retail, office Proponent Plan B(upper range) Residential 543-581 multi-family units No Action (No Action-No Development; Retail 38,000 s.f. No Action with Industrial Dev.) Office 500,000 to 750,000 s.f. Building Heights-5 to 10 stories including parking FSEIS - May review alternative in response to comments/changed sponsor objectives Process Process (cont.) Prepare Supplemental EIS Key permits/authorizations from City: supplements Comp. Plan EIS's) Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Analyze at a level of detail sufficient to: Amendments(EA-I to COR) Concurrent Rezone(IH to COR) Designate a Planned Action Municipal Code Text Amendments Address issues for future permits/authorizations Planned Action Ordinance Environmental review for future phases Role of Planning Commission/City not necessary if consistent with Planned Council Action 2 Process (cont.) Public Comment Permits submitted later as part of Planned Action Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Clearing,grading,building,etc.permits Other permits, refer to Fact Sheet in DSEIS Staff Contact Lisa Grueter-Economic Development, Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning 425)430-6575 3 A r SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS COMMENTS THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDS-JULY 29, 1999, 5:00 P.M. RETURN COMMENTS TO: CITY OF RENTON ATTN: LISA GRUETER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/NEIGHBORHOODS AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY RENTON,WA 98055 PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY NAME: ADDRESS: COMMENTS: SIGNATURE: DSEISCS\ tit, ANT° SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, July 20, 1999 7:00 p.m. Name Address Zip Phone Wish to Want to be Number Speak?added to mailing list? r Lisa Grueter From: Clarice Gomes To: Arneta J. Henninger; Barbella Magas; Brent Richards; Byron Wilson; Craig L. Burnell; Clarice Gomes; Clinton E. Morgan; Carrie K. Olson (Davis); Dan Thompson; Gene Schneider; Jan A. Conklin; Jessica Gendreau; Jennefer Toth Henning; Jessica L. Olson; Karen E. Codiga; Kayren K. Kittrick; Larry Meckling; Laureen M. Nicolay; Leslie M. Nishihira; Mary Burgy; Marilyn J. Kamcheff; Mike Snook; Mark Wetherbee; Neil Maune; Neil R. Watts; Paul Baker; Phil Hudgens; Paul C. Lumbert; Peter Rosen; Robert L. Arthur; Rick Kokko; Roy Publico; Sandy Minniti; Steve Pinkham; Sandra K. Seeger; Tom Main Cc: Lisa Grueter Subject: Southport Presentation Date: Tuesday, July 20, 1999 8:53AM There will be a Development Services Division staff meeting next week as follows, and your attendance is requested. When: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 Where:Council Chambers, 7th floor Time: 9:00 a.m. Subject: Southport Development update (former Puget Power steam plant site), by Lisa Grueter Thank you. Page 1 SOUTHPORT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT RANGE Use Characteristics Plan A Plan B Plan C Multifamily Residential Units 543 581 377 Retail Area in Sq.Ft. 38,000 38,000 30,000 Commercial Area in Sq.Ft. 500,000 750,000 500,000 Residential Building Heights in Stories 5 5 5 Office Building Heights is Stories 8-10 10 8-10 Hotel Building Height in Stories 7 Total Parking Spaces 2,243 3,043 2,433 07/28/99 A Lake Washington ili, liMi IRIllb.of> SOUTHPORT Coulon Park 41. Shoreline 0 1114 1114 Am Illrfr i> 0ii‘ " >, o. zs 0 4 I f I j 110L Si Ir o i 1 1 2 3 4 CITY OF RENTON 5 6 NOTICE OF ISSUANCE 7 8 DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 9 10 PUBLIC HEARING TO ACCEPT COMMENTS 11 12 13 14 Southport: Land use number LUA-99-027 , ECF, CPA, R 15 16 17 18 19 7 : 00 p.m. 20 21 July 20, 1999 22 23 1055 South Grady Way 24 25 Renton, Washington cOp"y PAM AND MIKE WEEKLEY, COURT REPORTERS 206-623-3614 2 1 2 3 AT 7 : 35 WITH NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS IN ATTENDANCE 4 THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED. ) 5 6 7 APPEARANCES 8 9 10 FOR CITY OF RENTON: LISA GRUETER 11 Senior Planner/ Project Manager 7th floor Renton Municipal Bldg 12 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 13 EIS CONSULTANTS: RICHARD SCHIPANSKI 14 AND MICHAEL BLUMEN Suite 202 15 205 Lake Street South Kirkland, Wa 98033 16 FOR SECO DEVELOPMENT: REX ALLEN 17 Suite 200 10843 N. E. 8th Street, 18 Bellevue, Wa 98004 19 PROPERTY OWNER: ROBERT BOYD 20 Puget Western Suite 310 21 19515 North Creek Parkway Bothell , Wa 98011 22 Pamela Weekley 23 Court Reporter Phone 623-3614 or 833-2278 24 Suite 419 810 Third Avenue 25 Seattle, Wa 98104 CSR NO. WEEKLPM411DS PAM AND MIKE WEEKLEY, COURT REPORTERS 206-623-3614 CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ISSUANCE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Notice Is hereby given under SEPA, WAC 197-11-510, that the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the proposal described below was issued on June 29, 1999, and is available for public review and comment. Copies have been provided for review at the Renton Municipal Library (the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch), and in the Renton Municipal Building at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055, (both In the Development Services Division and Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department—6th floor; and in the City Clerk's office—r floor). PROPOSAL: The Southport Planned Action environmental review considers potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately.17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. The DSEIS reviews redevelopment concepts of the property from Industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and offices uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several development permits. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027, ECF, CPA, R PROPONENT: Seco Development Inc(Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington, West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The DSEIS documents (Volume I — Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Text and Volume II — Technical Appendices) are available for purchase from the Development Services Division Customer Service Desk on the 6th floor of the Renton Municipal Building. Each volume may be purchased independently for $30.00 plus tax and postage, where applicable. COMMENT PERIOD: Written public comment on the DSEIS will be accepted for a 30 day review period, ending 5:00 p.m., July 29, 1999 and should be addressed to: Lisa Grueter Senior Planner/Project Manager Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Renton Municipal Building 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 A public hearing has also been scheduled to accept written and oral comments on the DSEIS, and will be held on July 20, 1999, 7:00 p.m., at the Renton City Council Chambers (7th Floor), located at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. Overview Southport Planned Action Introductions Availability of EISEnvironmentalReviewPurposeofMeeting Use of Comments Public Hearing-Draft Summary of Proposal/AlternativesSupplementalEIS Process-CityJuly20, 1999 Public Comment/Questions Introductions Availability of EIS/Location to Review Staff City Hall Consultants Libraries Applicant Purpose of Draft SEIS Use of Comments/Related Meeting Documents Allow for oral and/or written comments Response to comments in FSEIS Comments should relate to the adequacy Mitigation DocumentoftheDSEIS Comments may address methodology, Planned Action Ordinance additional info., mitigation measures,etc. 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:July 19, 1999 TO: Jim Gray FROM: Lisa Grueter SUBJECT: Fire Mitigation Fee Based upon our conversation last Thursday,July 15, 1999,there is a potential fire mitigation fee reduction based upon existing building square footages. Existing building square footages are shown on the attached sheet provided by Seco Development in February 1999. The total square footage of existing buildings is 98,405 square feet. The proposed square footages, including parking levels, are shown below. BUILDING PLAN A—Square Feet PLAN B—Square Feet Including Parking) Including Parking) Residential Total 767,830 808,030 Office Tower Total 1,003,320 1,253,320 TOTAL 1,771,150 2,061,350 Please note that the applicant is preparing a Plan"C" for review in the Final Supplemental EIS which will show less residential square footage,and the addition of a hotel. When I receive the statistics about the new alternative plan, I will forward it to you to calculate the fees for that alternative. Please respond with the fee calculations by July 22,1999. If you have any questions,please contact me at extension 6578. I would like to draft a mitigation document as soon as possible. Thank you. cc: Sue Carlson H:\Economic Development\STRATP LN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTMj graymem.dot\cor 4 vs- ri11.V' O UTH PO SEC 0 Development 11009 NE 11"^ St. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Existing Site Statistics Existing Building Areas Information from Lot Line Revision Shuffleton Complex By: Duane Hartman &Associates, Inc. Surveyors Building Area (in SQ. FT.)Acres Shuffleton Power Plant(Footprint) 36,770 Mezzanines and Equipment Floors(approx.) 35,000 Total Power Plant Area 71,770 Pumphouse 3,705 Shed 640 1 Story Wood Frame Building 1.580 Warehouse 14,110 Transformer Structure 6,600 Total Existing Building Area 98,405 Total Site Area - New Lot"B" 744,799 17.098 Total Impervious Area 694,463 Impervious Area Existing 93.24 fie 0 RECEIVED JUL 14 1999 King County ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,Wastewater Treatment Division NEIGHBORHOODS., Department of Natural Resources AND STRATEGIC PLANNING 821 Second Avenue Seattle,WA 98104-1598 July 8, 1999 Lisa Grueter, Project Manager Economic Development/Neighborhoods Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 RE: Southport Development Planned Action Dear Ms. Grueter: The King County Wastewater Treatment Division (WTD)has reviewed the Southport Development Planned Action: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. As noted in the Wastewater section of the document (pages 3-242 through 3-244), the proposed action would replace the existing eight-inch connector sewer line with a ten-inch line. This line would connect to the WTD's Eastside Interceptor. Mitigation measures indicate that the applicant would coordinate construction plan review and scheduling well in advance of construction with all affected utilities. The WTD requests that construction drawings for the proposed connection to the Eastside Interceptor be submitted to Eric Davison in the CIP-Civil/Architectural Section, King County Wastewater Treatment Division, during design for review and approval. Eric can be reached at (206) 684-1707. Please note that our address will change when we move to a new building in mid-August: King County Wastewater Treatment Division 201 South Jackson Street,MS KSC-NR-0505 Seattle,WA 98104-3855 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have questions, I can be reached at(206)684-1227. Sincerely, AAA_ Barbara Questad Environmental Planner CLEAN WATER —A SOUND INVESTMENT Southport Traffic ImpactsREC- ri-`t- nez Petersen JUL 1 3 1g 3306 Lake Wash Blvd N #2Subject: Southport Traffic Impacts Renton, WA 98056-1909Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 11:37:41 -0 0 ECONOMICBORHOODEVELOF'MSE T. NEIGH From: Kim Browne <kbrowne@halc TEGIC PLANNI To: postle@lucent.com, alan.w.withers@boeing.com, annhan@rnsn.com, bikesnob@msn.com, blinksoft@worldnet.att.net, bogey@nwlink.com, clgalvinia@aol.com, cwjrenton@worldnet.att.net, daletnum4@aol.com, david.dolling@gte.net, guntar@gte.net, H4Hopkins@aol.com, habakorn@aol.com,jerryc@fishermills.com,jking3@chmcc.org,jmvian@aol.com, karenjalat@aol.com, KCOMAC@aol.com, kwack@oz.net, labrador4@aol.com, laurieb@mvseac.com, LCKNIC@aol.com, lelievre@nwlink.com, letyoung@aol.com, lkolesar@gte.net, loreez@uswest.net, m.dipasquale@excite.com, mad_maxm@msn.com, mcnally@mbcc.com, mduke@msn.com, michel-t@qualtned.com(wk), mikes@highlandsscc.org, mm2522@msn.com, mmaxwell@ricochet.net, nash24a@aol.com, oldbrush@mindspring.com, paigemcgrath@hotmail.com, raymond.kusumi@gte.net, rcinque@aa.net, ritaann@transport.com, rsecrest@msn.com, sbboyd@carblink.net, steve.ruegge@metrokc.gov, sunrun7@eskimo.com, swmurphy37@aol.com, tommy.roger@aol.com, vlittleman.aol.com@smtp04.nwnexus.com, wagnerr@baylisarchitects.com, webgirl@seanet.com, wjdonald@nwlink, wldw23@email.mot.com Here is information about Southport's impact on traffic in our neighborhood. Lisa Grueter, the City Planner in charge of the Southport proposal, wrote this email in response to comments from Inez Petersen, one of our neighbors. You can email Lisa Grueter questions and comments at Lgrueter@ci.renton.wa.us>. You must, however, send a signed copy of your email to Lisa in order for it to be considered official. Send comments to Lisa Grueter, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Wa 98055. Lisa Grueter wrote: Thank you for your interest in the Southport proposal. I am responding to your e-mail sent to Sue Carlson on June 30, 1999. Controlling traffic north of. the Southport site on Lake Washington Boulevard is a high priority for the City. Your comments were as follows: "I will be interested to see what the environmental impact statement says about increased traffic in the Kennydale area. There is no question that this development will increase traffic on the Boulevard, so whether this is acknowledged in the report and whether suggestions to control heavier traffic are mentioned are of great concern to me. The Boeing traffic already makes Lake Washington Boulevard a speedway in the morning and after work. If Southpark goes ahead, you must acknowledge the traffic problem and do something about it; for example; speed bumps or those circle gardens at intersections to slow traffic. They are needed NOW even without Southpark. " The Southport Planned Action Draft Supplemental EIS was issued on June 29, 1999. The Southport Draft Supplemental EIS does address transportation issues. Ten intersections are reviewed: Park Drive/I-405 northbound ramps, Park Drive/I-405 southbound ramps, Park Drive/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard (LWB) , LWB/Site Access/Houser Way, NE44th Street/I-405 northbound ramps, NE 44th Street/I-405 southbound ramps, N 30th Street/I-405 northbound ramps, N 30th Street/I-405 southbound ramps, and N 30th Street/Burnett Avenue, and N 30th Street/LWB. Based on the City's transportation model and existing travel patterns in the site vicinity, the traffic trips generated by the development were calculated and distributed. The trip distribution indicates 5% of the of2 7/1 1/99 1 n•1. Souiihpori Traffic linpacis traffic would be to and from the north on Lake Washington Boulevard. The majority of trips generated by the development would occur on 1-405 (north and south - 60%) and on Park Drive (east and south - 35%) . The primary impacts of the proposal would occur at the site entrance/LWB and Park Drive/Garden Avenue/LWB. The impacts can be mitigated with channelization improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard (only between Park Drive and the site entrance) , and signal improvements at both intersections. A signal would be installed at the site entrance (which is also shared by Gene Coulon Park) and LWB. With mitigation measures, appropriate levels of service would be achieved. Generally, the proposal 's effects upon the remaining intersections were not found to be significant. With the proposed project, the N 30th Street/I-405 northbound ramps would experience a lower level of service, but the delay increase would be less than 2 seconds over backgroud conditions for the buildout year. The NE 44th/I-405 ramps with or without the Southport proposal experience poor levels of service. Improvements to the NE 44th/I-405 ramps are planned in the City's 6-year Transportation Improvement Program. I hope this information addresses your concerns. If you would like to contact me father, my phone number is (425) 430-6578. Below I have listed comment opportunities related to Southport. 1. Copies of the Southport Planned Action Draft Supplemental EIS can be reviwed at the City libraries and at City Hall (City Clerk's office and Development Services Division) . Copies can also be purchased at the Development Services Division counter (6th floor of City Ball) . The comment deadline is 5 p.m. July 29, 1999. Written comments should be addressed to Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner/Project Manager, Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department, Renton Municipal Building, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. A public hearing regarding the Draft Supplemental EIS will be held on July 20, 1999 at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (7th floor) . 2. The Planning Commission will hold a separate public hearing on July 14, 1999 at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (7th floor) to take comments about the merits of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezone and Municipal Code Amendments requested for the Southport proposal. If you cannot attend the Planning Commission hearing, you may send letters regarding the Southport Comprehensive Plan/Code amendments by July 14th to Larry Brosman, Chair, Renton Planning Commission, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Regarding comment deadlines, based on City policy, E-mail comments are not accepted unless they are followed up with written and signed comments. Thank you again for your interest. Lisa Grueter, Senior 4„,4A4A4;se cve 6 1,41e4fikda o-yv vy, , c?). Y 2of2 7/11/99 10:2 qOSc. d,c4 , r 6 r C ' ¢' liil Ili tl fllll!!l III Ft1lil t f.iilf l.t ti! fi! jI ii{ Lisa Grueter From: webgirl@seanet.com To: Lisa Grueter Subject: Re: Relpy - Southport Proposal Date: Thursday, July 01, 1999 11:03AM You City people are crazy if you think this little two-mile stretch called Kennydale can survive as the wonderful 'RESIDENTIAL' area that it is with the development you plan at the south end and at Quindall. I only hope people that live in this area see the potential disaster and rise against your ideas. If you plan on pursuing both developments, then I hope one of them ends up like your Barnett bus development. I just finished reading more carefully what you are planning for Southport. Good heavens. The signs must be in the eyes of everyone in Planning and Development. Yippee!! More taxes - that means more money for the City and that means we can spend more'111111111' Inez Petersen 3306 Lake Wash Blvd North #2 Renton, WA 98056 425.255.5543 Lisa Grueter wrote: Thank you for your interest in the Southport proposal. I am responding to your e-mail sent to Sue Carlson on June 30, 1999. Controlling traffic north of the Southport site on Lake Washington Boulevard is a high priority for the City. Your comments were as follows: "I will be interested to see what the environmental impact statement says about increased traffic in the Kennydale area. There is no question that this development will increase traffic on the Boulevard, so whether this is acknowledged in the report and whether suggestions to control heavier traffic are mentioned are of great concern to me. The Boeing traffic already makes Lake Washington Boulevard a speedway in the morning and after work. If Southpark goes ahead, you must acknowledge the traffic problem and do something about it; for example; speed bumps or those circle gardens at intersections to slow traffic. They are needed NOW even without Southpark." The Southport Planned Action Draft Supplemental EIS was issued on June 29, 1999. The Southport Draft Supplemental EIS does address transportation issues. Ten intersections are reviewed: Park Drive/I.405 northbound ramps, Park Drive/I.405 southbound ramps, Park Drive/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard (LWB), LWB/Site Access/Houser Way, NE44th Street/I.405 northbound ramps, NE 44th Street/I-405 southbound ramps, N 30th Street/I-405 northbound ramps, N 30th Street/I.405 southbound ramps, and N 30th Street/Burnett Avenue, and N 30th Street/LWB. Based on the City's transportation model and existing travel patterns in the Page 1 site vicinity, the traffic trips generated by the development were calculated and distributed. The trip distribution indicates 5% of the traffic would be to and from the north on Lake Washington Boulevard. The majority of trips generated by the development would occur on 1.405 (north and south • 60%) and on Park Drive (east and south - 35%). The primary impacts of the proposal would occur at the site entrance/LWB and Park Drive/Garden Avenue/LWB. The impacts can be mitigated with channelization improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard (only between Park Drive and the site entrance), and signal improvements at both intersections. A signal would be installed at the site entrance (which is also shared by Gene Coulon Park) and LWB. With mitigation measures, appropriate levels of service would be achieved. Generally, the proposal's effects upon the remaining intersections were not found to be significant. With the proposed project, the N 30th Street/I-405 northbound ramps would experience a lower level of service, but the delay increase would be less than 2 seconds over backgroud conditions for the buildout year. The NE 44th/I.405 ramps with or without the Southport proposal experience poor levels of service. Improvements to the NE 44th/I.405 ramps are planned in the City's 6-year Transportation Improvement Program. I hope this information addresses your concerns. If you would like to contact me futher, my phone number is (425) 430.6578. Below I have listed comment opportunities related to Southport. 1. Copies of the Southport Planned Action Draft Supplemental EIS can be reviwed at the City libraries and at City Hall (City Clerk's office and Development Services Division). Copies can also be purchased at the Development Services Division counter (6th floor of City Hall). The comment deadline is 5 p.m. July 29, 1999. Written comments should be addressed to Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner/Project Manager, Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department, Renton Municipal Building, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. A public hearing regarding the Draft Supplemental EIS will be held on July 20, 1999 at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (7th floor). 2. The Planning Commission will hold a separate public hearing on July 14, 1999 at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (7th floor) to take comments about the merits of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezone and Municipal Code Amendments requested for the Southport proposal. If you cannot attend the Planning Commission hearing, you may send letters regarding the Southport Comprehensive Plan/Code amendments by July 14th to Larry Brosman, Chair, Renton Planning Commission, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Regarding comment deadlines, based on City policy, E-mail comments are not accepted unless they are followed up with written and signed comments. Thank you again for your interest. Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Page 2 Lisa Grueter From: Sue A. Carlson To: Lisa Grueter Subject: FW: Comment on the Southpark Development Date: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 11:09AM Lisa-This is a comment from Inez Peterson. Could you call or e-mail her with some traffic information and conditions? Let her know that controlling traffic north of Southport on Lake Washington Blvd is a high priority for us. From: webgirl@seanet.com To: Sue A. Carlson Subject: Comment on the Southpark Development Date: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 9:40AM I will be interested to see what the environmental impact statement says about increased traffic in the Kennydale area. There is no question that this development will increase traffic on the Boulevard, so whether this is acknowledged in the report and whether suggestions to control heavier traffic are mentioned are of great concern to me. The Boeing traffic already makes Lake Washington Boulevard a speedway in the morning and after work. If Southpark goes ahead, you must acknowledge the traffic problem and do something about it; for example; speed bumps or those circle gardens at intersections to slow traffic. They are needed NOW even without Southpark. Inez Petersen 3306 Lake Wash Blvd North #2 Renton, WA 98056 telno 425-255-5543 email webgirl@seanet.com Page 1 Lisa Grueter From: Lisa Grueter To: Sandra K. Seeger; Judy Wright Subject: Southport Party of Record Date: Thursday, July 01, 1999 11:33AM Please add the following person to our party of record list for Southport: Inez Petersen 3306 Lake Wash Blvd North #2 Renton, WA 98056 Page 1 JUL. 1.1999 10:04RM LIIIHUN rHKINLKS 11V.GQ7 F.A, J. M ii.: ". ..r1f7, ..,,. 1!;1 ,160011 ,<:A. L & .i \As,. To: Lisa Greeter From:Andrew Hoyer Company: Renton Building Department Project: Southport Fax #: 425-430-7300 Project 9831800 R x NR Date Sent: July 1, 1999 Page 1 of 1 Lisa-- Here are preliminary proposed garage square footages for the SECO Southport Project Building A-55,630 s.f. Building B-105,000 s.f, Building C-132,400 s.f. Commercial Buildings-503,320 s.f. Let me know if you need anything else. Sincerely, Andrew Hoyer Mithun Partners,Inc. 414 Olive Way, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 623-3344 /FAX (206) 623-7005 Lisa Grueter From: Kim Browne To: alan.w.withers@boeing.com; annhan@msn.com; bikesnob@msn.com; blinksoft@worldnet.att.net; bogey@nwlink.com; clgalvinia@aol.com; cwjrenton@worldnet.att.net; daletnum4@aol.com; david.dolling@gte.net; guntar@gte.net; H4Hopkins@aol.com; habakorn@aol.com; jerryc@fishermills.com; jking3@chmcc.org; jmvian@aol.com; karenjalat@aol.com; KCOMAC@aol.com; kwack@oz.net; labrador4@aol.com; laurieb@mvseac.com; LCKNIC@aol.com; lelievre@nwlink.com; letyoung@aol.com; lkolesar@gte.net; loreez@uswest.net; m.dipasquale@excite.com; mad_maxm@msn.com; mcnally@mbcc.com; mduke@msn.com; wk; mikes@highlandsscc.org; mm2522@msn.com; mmaxwell@ricochet.net; nash24a@aol.com; oldbrush@mindspring.com; paigemcgrath@hotmail.com; raymond.kusumi@gte.net; rcinque@aa.net; ritaann@transport.com; rsecrest@msn.com; sbboyd@carblink.net; steve.ruegge@metrokc.gov; sunrun7@eskimo.com; swmurphy37@aol.com; tommy.roger@aol.com; vlittleman.aol.com@smtpl0.nwnexus.com; wagnerr@baylisarchitects.com; wetsgirl@seanet.com; wjdonald@nwlink; wldw23@email.mot.com; Jbrewer@ci.renton.wa.us; Lisa Grueter Subject: Southport Public Comment Date: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 10:31PM File Attachment: SOUTHPOR.DOC» If you are interested in expressing your views to the City regarding Southport, NOW IS THE TIME! The Draft SEIS has been issued and is available for review at the Renton Main Branch and Highlands Library. In addition to the DSEIS, the City Planning Commission is reviewing proposed amendments to the City Comprehensive Plan and City Code needed for Southport. Some of these proposed amendments have implications for the Port Quendall and Stoneway sites (both zoned Center, Office, Residential--COR). For your information, I have attached the Executive Summary for the proposed amendments. It also includes a description of the conceptual development plan for Southport. IF YOU CAN'T READ THE ATTACHMENT AND WANT A COPY, PLEASE CALL KIM BROWNE AT 226.7791. HERE IS A SCHEDULE OF PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITIES: Please pass this information on to at least one of your neighbors.) 1. Written comment on the DSEIS will be accepted until 5:00 pm, July 29, 1999 and should be addressed to Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner/Project Manager, Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department, Renton Municipal Building, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 2. A Public Hearing on the DSEIS will be held on July 20th at 7:00 pm, in the Renton City Council Chambers (7th floor), Renton Municipal Building. Written and oral comments regarding the DSEIS will be taken. Page 1 41111/ 3. A Planning Commission Public Hearing for the proposed Comprehensive Plan/Code amendments will be held on July 14th at 7:00 pm, in the Renton City Council Chambers (7th floor of municipal building). 4. Send letters regarding the Southport Comprehensive Plan/Code amendments by July 14th to Larry Brosman, Chair, Renton Planning Commission, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. 5. Public comment on the Southport Comp Plan/Code amendments can be taken at the July 7th Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 pm, in the Renton City Council Chambers. Arrive early and sign-in on the public comment sheet. There will also be a copy of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement at the upcoming KNA Quarterly Meeting to be held on July 20th, 7:00 to 8:00 pm at the Kennydale Memorial Hall. SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE! Kim Browne Page 2 06/30/99 AMENDMENT 98-M-2 SOUTHPORT ON LAKE WASHINGTON AND 98-T-3 COR POLICY AND ASSOCIATED RMC CHANGES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROPOSAL The Southport Planned Action Environmental Review is being conducted to consider potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. The proposal includes redevelopment of the property from industrial uses to a mixed-use development including residential, retail and office uses as well as recreational amenities. For the Planning Commission's review,the Southport proposal will require: A Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone from Employment Area — Industrial/Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential. Center Office Residential policy amendments Renton Municipal Code amendments PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The focus of the Planning Commission's review will be to make recommendations about the suitability of the Center Office Residential plan and zoning designation for the subject site, as well as recommendations related to the proposed policy and code amendments. Information about a preliminary conceptual plan is provided to help illustrate how development may occur given the potential application of the Center Office Residential designation and zone. Although the proponent has provided a preliminary conceptual plan illustrating potential development comments, it is primarily used to help facilitate environmental review and a Planned Action resolution or ordinance, and is not provided for critique. Work on the Planned Action ordinance will occur subsequent to the Planning Commission review as the environmental and public review process continues with the City Council. ISSUE SUMMARY Should the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone proposal be approved from Employment Area—Industrial/Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential? Should the amendments to Center Office Residential policies be made? Should the proposed Renton Municipal Code Amendments addressing uses, development standards, and permit process be approved? RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations to Planning Commission SOUTHPOR 1 06/30/99 Approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment/concurrent Rezone from Employment Area—Industrial/Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential. Approve the proposed policy amendments to accommodate the density of the Southport proposal, eliminate the "small scale"retail phrase as a consistency measure, and add a policy recognizing retention of industrial uses on industrially zoned properties. Approve the proposed Renton Municipal Code amendments to COR uses, development standards, and permit process. The Planned Action Ordinance would be prepared and reviewed with the City Council later in the process. Through City Council review, in the Planned Action Ordinance the City would adopt thresholds of development,performance standards, and development phasing that reflect the environmental and public review process,and the goals of the City and proponent for the site. ANALYSIS History of Site The Shuffleton Steam Plant site contains approximately 27-acres, approximately 17-acres of which comprise the Southport site. Puget Sound Energy will retain ownership of the 10 acres immediately south of the Southport site. The Shuffleton Steam Plant, located on the Southport portion of the site, was constructed in 1929 and served as an oil-fired, steam-powered electrical generation plant from 1929 to the mid-1950s. Because of an abundance of electrical power available in the region by the mid-1950s,power from the steam plant was needed only to provide power during peak load seasons, emergencies, and equipment outages. The last time the steam plant operated for power production was 1989. Uses—Site and Vicinity The site is surrounded immediately by industrial and park uses. In general the site and vicinity uses include: Site—Industrial use as power plant(refer to Attachment C) East and Northeast—Gene Coulon Park,Kennydale Neighborhood West and South—Industrial Boeing Operations,Puget Sound Energy property to be retained Northwest-Lake Washington Site and Vicinity Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations The proposed site is designated as Employment Area—Industrial/Heavy Industrial as is the adjacent Boeing property to the west and south. Gene Coulon Park on the east is designated Residential Rural in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned P-1. The P-1 zone is estimated to be redesignated in the future to R-1 or Resource Conservation with a "P" suffix. To the northeast across Lake Washington Boulevard, land is designated as Residential Multi-Family Infill/RM-I. Refer to Attachment D- Zoning Maps. SOUTHPOR 2 06/30/99 Proposal Proposed Map Amendment Area The Southport proposal will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone from Employment Area—Industrial/Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential, and would apply to 17.1 acres of the Shuffleton Site. (Refer again to Attachment B) The remaining 10 acres of the Shuffleton site would be retained by Puget Sound Energy and would continue to be designated as Employment Area — Industrial/Heavy Industrial. The applicant has prepared several statements which address the relationship of the request to the public health, safety and welfare, the changing needs of the City, compatibility with goals of the City, compatibility with surrounding properties, effects upon community facilities, suitability of the site. Refer to Attachment E. Proposed Conceptual Plan Southport is envisioned as an active mixed-use neighborhood with public and private amenities and recreational opportunities. The planned mixed-use development would contain a mixture of residential, office and retail uses located in six buildings above single or multilevel parking structures. Housing would be located in close proximity to existing and new employment centers. Public amenities would include public access to Lake Washington via a boardwalk promenade along the shoreline that would provide opportunities for walking, outdoor dining, visual access to the lake and an extension of the lake walk at the adjacent Gene Coulon Park. Redevelopment of the site would consist of the demolition and removal of the existing steam plant building and the phased construction of a mixed-use development. Refer to Table 1 for potential development levels. To facilitate the City's consideration of the Planned Action designation and environmental review of implementation of the Planned Action, a preliminary Conceptual Master Plan for the site has been formulated. Refer to Attachment F—Plan "A". The preliminary Conceptual Master Plan provides conceptual information on the potential mix of uses, building density and height, access/circulation, recreation and open space opportunities and other development features. (Plan B is not shown, but has a nearly identical layout; it's the building heights that primarily differ.) Table 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT RANGE Use Characteristics Plan A Plan B Multifamily Residential Units 543 581 Retail Area in Sq. Ft. 38,000 38,000 Commercial Area in Sq.Ft. 500,000 750,000 Residential Building Heights in Stories 5 5 SOUTHPOR 3 06/30/99 Use Characteristics Plan A Plan B Office Building Heights is Stories 8-10 10 Total Parking Spaces 2,243 3,043 Proposed Policy and Code Amendments Staff has noted that policy amendments would be needed as well as code amendments to the Center Office/Residential zone and other portions of Title 4 to accommodate the Southport proposal. See Attachment G. The following charts and text describe the proposed policy and code amendments to the Center Office/Residential land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan and to Title 4. These amendments were filed by staff as a companion to the privately initiated map amendments. Policy amendments include: LU-125, delete "small scale"as a descriptor of retail uses—housekeeping/consistency measure LU-131, create density range and allow a maximum net density of 60 units per acre, which through proposed development standards would only be applied to the Southport site. LU-136,recognize existing industrial uses when applying COR designations Use allowance amendments include: Change intent of COR zone to recognize COR-3. Add hotel as a permitted use which does not have to be combined with a convention center or office and residential Eating and drinking establishments - the amendments would affect some conditions applicable to the use. Conditions would allow for freestanding restaurants subject to size minimums and to being architecturally and functionally integrated into a project. Eliminate mini-marts. Have consistent permit types for Parks and Open Space that recognize the COR requirement for master"plans. Make marinas a primary use instead of a secondary use. In all COR zones allow for all of the types of offices listed in the larger use table. Add shoe repair to allowed service uses. Allow car washes as accessory and allowed inside parking garages. Eliminate gas stations. Allow commercial and non-commercial parking garages as permitted uses. SOUTHPOR 4 06/30/99 Don't allow industrial uses/expansion on COR-3 site. Delete recycling collection centers. Outdoor storage is prohibited, and a housekeeping amendment would delete an inapplicable condition. Code -Development Standard Amendments The density maximum would be changed to be higher for the Southport site (60 du/ac), but would not change for the Port Quendall or Stoneway sites. For the Southport site, the special shoreline setback language allows the City some ability to increase the 25 foot shoreline setbacks that apply to some uses such as residential, where appropriate. This would not apply to the other COR zoned sites. For the Southport site only, a provision requiring building modulation and articulation would be added. It would apply to buildings adjacent or abutting public parks, open space or trails. Outdoor storage requirements are deleted because it is not permitted in any of the COR zones. This is a housekeeping measure. The master plan development requirement would be modified to require the plans (to be called Level II Site Plans) for all contiguous properties zoned COR regardless of ownership in order to assure appropriate coordination of access and infrastructure. This would apply in all COR zones. Amendments to the Master Development Plan review process are also proposed to eliminate inconsistencies and integrate the COR master plan review process with the Site Plan review process. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY Staff has prepared a preliminary policy review. However, there will be additional policy review in the Supplemental EIS prepared by the consultants, and the staff report may be amended in the future. While some policy amendments have been identified above for consistency with proposed densities, a preliminary staff analysis shows that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone proposal is generally consistent with: Policies guiding the location of"Center"designations COR policies addressing master plan features,public review, access and circulation Regional Growth policies to maintain a balance of single family and multi-family growth Housing Element policies to achieve dwelling unit targets Economic Development policies to expand the City's office and retail base The code amendments likewise are generally found to be consistent with COR policies that address allowable land uses and development parameters. SOUTHPOR 5 06/30/99 A preliminary analysis of the conceptual plan in relation to COR policies is included in the report,but will occur more specifically in the future when site plan applications are submitted. A concurrent rezone to COR would be needed at the time the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map is amended with the category COR. Zoning code amendments are needed to accommodate the proposed development. CAPACITY ANALYSIS The site was not included in the original land use capacity analysis as a site that would add employment or residential uses. With the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, there would be added capacity for employment and residential growth. SOUTHPOR 6 Lisa Grueter From: Lisa Grueter To: Kim Browne' Subject: Southport Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 1:25PM Kim - Here is the executive summary from the Southport staff report. File Attachment: 99M2T3ES.DOC» It is essentially the same executive summary that I sent to you a couple of weeks ago. Under the proposed code amendments section on page 5 of the summary, I added a bullet item indicating : "For the Southport site only, a provision requiring building modulation and articulation would be added. It would apply to buildings adjacent or abutting public parks, open space or trails." I will send you a copy of a memo that describes the proposed additional code amendment for building modulation/articulation. Otherwise there is no other additional text. I just corrected a typographical error. Also ( I forgot to mention by phone) based on the final printing costs, the cost of the Draft Supplemental EIS is less than we anticipated and indicated in the notices. The cost for Volume I or II would be $25 plus tax (total cost $27.15). Postage would be additional. Per the Notice of Issuance, there are copies of the EIS for review at City Hall (City Clerk and Development Services Division), and there are copies at the Main Library and Highlands Library. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your interest. Lisa Grueter (430-6578) Page 1 CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ISSUANCE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Notice is hereby given under SEPA, WAC 197-11-510, that the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the proposal described below was issued on June 29, 1999, and is available for public review and comment. Copies have been provided for review at the Renton Municipal Library (the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch), and in the Renton Municipal Building at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055, (both in the Development Services Division and Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department—6th floor; and in the City Clerk's office—7th floor). PROPOSAL: The Southport Planned Action environmental review considers potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. The DSEIS reviews redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and offices uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several development permits. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027, ECF, CPA, R PROPONENT:Seco Development Inc(Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington, West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The DSEIS documents (Volume I — Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Text and Volume II —Technical Appendices) are available for purchase from the Development Services Division Customer Service Desk on the 6th floor of the Renton Municipal Building. Each volume may be purchased independently for $30.00 plus tax and postage, where applicable. COMMENT PERIOD: Written public comment on the DSEIS will be accepted for a 30 day review period, ending 5:00 p.m., July 29, 1999 and should be addressed to: Lisa Grueter Senior Planner/Project Manager Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Renton Municipal Building 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 A public hearing has also been scheduled to accept written and oral comments on the DSEIS, and will be held on July 20, 1999, 7:00 p.m., at the Renton City Council Chambers (7th Floor), located at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. PUBLICATION DATE: June 29, 1999 DATE OF DECISION: June 22, 1999 SIGNATURES: ZZ Z / Gr gg Zim. r an, Ad 'nistrator DATE D partment of Planning/Building/Public orks m hepherd, Ad nistrator DATE ommunity Service Department Lee a ler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department Diane-G.Esmay 1ph Evans m Browne PO Box 59264 06 NE 11th Place 03 North 28th Place Renton,WA 98058 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Correen Orton Shirley Milliren Marge Richter Legacy Partners 1020 North 28th Place No.Renton&Kennydale Defense Fund 1756- 114th Avenue SE, Suite 135 Renton,WA 98056 300 Meadow Avenue North Bellevue, WA 98004 Renton,WA 98055 Paul Bergen/is v\\.i i va t 5 5 U e S Marleen Mandt Renee Perrault 101 Stewart Street#101 1408 N.26th Street 2520 Park Place N. Seattle,WA 98101 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Mr.Darrel Inglemund Dick McCann Bruce Coffey No.Renton&Kennydale Defense Fund Perkins Coie LLP Foster Pepper&Shefelman PLLC 1309 N. 30th Street 1201 Third Avenue,40th floor 1111 Third Ave., Suite 3400 Renton,WA 98056 Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Seattle,WA 98101-3299 Chuck Wolfe Donald E.Marcy Larry Martin Foster Pepper&Shefelman PLLC Caimcross&Hempelmann,P.S. Vulcan Northwest 1111 Third Ave., Suite 3400 701 Fifth Avenue,70th floor 110— 110th Avenue NE,#550 Seattle,WA 98101-3299 Columbia Center Bellevue,WA 98004 Seattle,WA 98104-7016 Mr.David Halinen Mr.James Hanken Mr.Robert Cugini Halinen Law Offices, P.S. Schwabe Williamson&Wyatt 4101 Lake Washington Boulevard Bellevue Place/Seafirst Building U.S.Bank Centre,Suite 3400 PO Box 359 10500 NE 8th,Suite 1900 1420 Fifth Avenue Renton, WA 98057 Bellevue,WA 98004 Seattle,WA 98101-2339 Ms.Elizabeth Warman Manager,Local Government Relations The Boeing Company PO Box 3707,M/C 14-49 Seattle,WA 98124-2207 o}iCe `"f ESSuanC-e_ 1 of e— of 1.ss u o.vAc-C- 3 YA S.- 4t b k gq • oZI . a JOANN R.AUSEN LARRY L.BABB JAMES BERGMAN 1331 KENNEWICK AVE NE 1316 LINCOLN PL NE 1164 ABERDEEN AVE NE RENTON WA 98056-2816 RENTON WA 98056-2852 RENTON WA 98056-2827 RONALD A.BERGMAN NORTHRN SANTA FE BURLINGTON CITY OF RENTON 2208 NORTHEAST 12TH STREET 1700 E GOLF RD#400 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98056-2914 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173-5804 RENTON WA 98055-2132 CARL A.COLASURDO JOHN G.DECHAINEAU ROBERT W.EDWARDS 1507 JONES AV NE 1325 KENNEWICK AV NE 3719 PARK AVE N RENTON WA 98056-2818 RENTON WA 98056-2816 RENTON WA 98056-1523 JAMES L.FOX JAN R.FRANDSEN GENE T.GALYEAN 1313 KENNEWICK AVE NE 1701 NE 14TH ST 18458 8TH AVE S RENTON WA 98056-2816 RENTON WA 98056-2838 SEATTLE WA 98148-1914 LAUREE GALYEAN GREG A.GARNER HOWARD ENTERPRISES INC 1208 LINCOLN PL NE 1209 LINCOLHN PL NE PO BOX 79014 RENTON WA 98056-2854 RENTON WA 98056 SEATTLE WA 98119-7914 HA N.HUYNH IREISEN PROPERTIES INC THOMAS L.KELLER 1713 NE 14TH ST PO BOX 80612 1408 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056-2838 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55408-8612 RENTON WA 98056-2808 MOSLEY KIRKMAN GARY A.LAND WILLIAM S.LEWIS 1002 N 35TH ST 11404137TH AVE SE 1401 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056-1954 RENTON WA 98059-4405 RENTON WA 98056-2847 NICHOLAS S.&TRACY A.LORRIGAN JAMES MARTINDALE JAMES S.& BRA MARTINDALE 1724 NE 14TH ST 9712 237TH PL SW 9712 237T PLACE SW RENTON WA 98056-2837 EDMONDS WA 98020-5645 EDMON WA 98020-5645 JAMES MEDZEGIAN ANDY H.NGUYEN PACIFIC AG COMPOANY 11914 SE 78TH ST 1318 KENNEWICK AV NE PO BOX NEWCASTLE WA 98056-9178 RENTON WA 98056-2815 RENT WA 98057-0326 JAMES E. PE RSON PHUNG T.PHA SOUND ENERGY PUGET 1301 LING N PL NE 5512 MOR AV S PO BOX 90868 RENTOINA 98056-2853 RENTO A 98055 BELLEVUE WA 98009-0868 LIDDY LLC RICH LARRY R.SCHLUTER DON SCHUMSKY 6202 S 151ST PL 1702 NE 14TH ST 2019 JONES AVE NE TUKWILA WA 98188-2581 RENTON WA 98056-2837 RENTON WA 98056-2659 DAVID W.SUDDUTH B.D.THANEDAR THE BOEING COMPANY 1425 JONES AVE NE 1707 NE 14TH ST PO BOX 3703 RENTON WA 98056-2847 RENTON WA 98056-2838 SEATTLE WA 98124-3703 THE BOEING COMPANY THE BOEING COMPANY LUONG VU PO BOX 3707 MS 1F-09 1513 JONES AVE NE SEATTLE WA 98124-2207 SEATTLE WA 98124 RENTON WA 98056-2818 HARRIS E.WATSON MAX R.WILLIAMS 1319 KENNEWICK AVE N E 1409 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056-2816 RENTON WA 98056-2847 0 CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING Or the Z1t3' day of ; vv .. 1999, I deposited in the mails of the United Stites, a sealed envelope containing DSEtS documents. This information was sent to: Na ne Representing Sec eittltdeLetk E ignature of Sender) StAtkf .va- K • Se;.. ..J.-cslr— SATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that C ir,-»oeGCk. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the itAes and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Y MC Notary Public i and for the State of Wash4 on NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON Notary (Print)MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES My appointmr YAP 1•MENT EXPIRES:6-2%03 JUNE 29, 2003 Project Name: South pow Project Number: LOP‘ • 99 • 02. 1, E C N,,TARY.DOC Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agcy la Wilkinson ily Journal of Commerce 110 Union Street,#500 Vol Mary Review Board Box 11050 Seattle, WA 98101-2038 I 810-3rd Avenue,#608 nog Seattle,WA 98111 nOQ Seattle, WA 98104-1693 Dept. of Natural Resources-SEPA Duwamish Tribal Office Jerry Opatz PO Box 47015 Z/- [' 140 Rainier Ave S, Suite 7 -Z tic. U.S.E.P.A. = (ZL Olympia,WA 98504-7015 Renton,WA 98055 1200-6th Ave,MIS WD-136 Seattle,WA 98101 Journal American hoQ KC Dept.of Public Works City of Kent 1705 - 132nd Avenue NE Solid Waste Division Zi3i Planning Department hpa, Bellevue, WA 98005 400 Yesler Way,Room 600 220-4th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104-2637 Kent,WA 98032-5895 King Co. Resource Planning King Co. Courthouse King County Dev. &Environ. Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW '= EIS Review Coordinator Rm 400 Attn: SEPA Section Renton,WA 98055-1219 516 Third Avenue I. 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW - Seattle,WA 98104 Renton,WA 98055-1219 King Co.Public Library King Co. Soil Conservation WA Environmental Council ATTN: Susie Wheeler =litATTN: Jack Davis 615 -2nd Avenue, Ste 380 roo._, 300-8th Avenue North 935 Powell Avenue SW Z Iir Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98109 Renton,WA 98055 Rod Malcom,Fisheries Puget Sound Energy Puget Sound Water Quality Muckleshoot Indian Tribe ATTN: EIS Review noa. Abbot Raphael Hall I39015 - 172nd Avenue SE = 915 South Grady Way MS PV-15 Auburn, WA 98002 Renton,WA 98055 Olympia,WA 98504--0900 Renton Chamber of Commerce Renton School District#403 Central Environmental Health 300 Rainier Avenue North hOQ 300 SW 7th Street 172-20th Avenue IRenton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 I Seattle,WA 98122 = '. Seattle Post-Intellegencer Seattle Times-Eastside Edition Shirley Lukhang Business News hOQ Business News Seattle Public Utilities YIOCL, 101 Elliot Avenue West PO Box 70 1no0." 710-2nd Avenue, 9th floor Seattle,WA 98111 Seattle,WA 98111 Seattle,WA 98104-1712 WA ST Dept. of Ecology State Dept. of Ecology(2 copies) Dept.of Ecology SEPA Register 11 Environmental Review Section Attn: EIS Review IPOBox47703,PV-11 PO Box 47703 hi.. Northwest Regional Office Z Olympia,WA 98504-7703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 ellB - 160th Avenue SE Bellevue,WA 98008-5452 State Dept. of Ecology Don Hurter Larry Fisher Attn: Shorelands Permit Coordinator WSDOT WA Dept.of Fish&Wildlife IM/S PV-11 W•I3I 15700 Dayton Ave N,MS-122 do Dept.of Ecology Olympia,WA 98504 PO Box 330310 I 3190-160th Avenue SE Seattle,WA 98133-9710 Bellevue,WA 98008 A r,;it. o ish Wildl a KC Wastewater Treatment Division City of Tukwila h0a._ 6 t 0 1 a t ital y Environmental Planners = . 3:r_. Planning&Bldg Dept. 014, pia, A 85 1-1 9 821 Second Avenue,M/S 81 6200 Southcenter Blvd. US West hil c eid u.a. Army Corp. of Engineers Attn: Cheryl Sanderson n00," e o i ' Seattle District Office 1600-7th Avenue,Rm#2512 6 1 1 PO Box C-3755 I I IC Seattle,WA 98191 1 ee 01 Seattle,WA 98124 U.S.Dept. of Agriculture Secretary's Representative Dennis Ryan, CAUP Soil Conservation Office hocL. U.S.Dept. of Housing&Urban Dev. University of Washington h0ct_ 935 Powell SW 909 First Avenue h 00—. 410 Gould Hall,JO-40 Renton,WA 98055 Seattle,WA 98104 Seattle,WA 98195 South County Journal Valley Medical Center Puget Sound Energy PO Box 130 Y100.„ 400 South 43rd Street yA00,„ Washington Natural Gas Company Kent,WA 98035 Renton,WA 98055 815 Mercer V1001/4., Seattle,WA 98111 Puget Sound Regional Council Regional Transit Authority City of Bellevue 1011 Western Avenue,#500 1100 Second Avenue, Ste 500 Dept.of Planning&Community Dev. Seattle,WA 98104-1035 MI-n. Seattle,WA 98101-3423 =I'TM PO Box 90012 Attn: EIS Reviewer Bellevue,WA 98009-9012 VI 00, Attn:Environmental Services City Council(7) 1 ..1 = Fire Department Hearing Examiner i I-E.Lee Wheeler) T.Ia Renton Public Library =}'"R- Renton Public Library. 1I Mayor '=I ILHighlandsBranch(2) t Main Branch(3) 11- Jim Shepherd) Parks Board(1) 'T Community Services Dept. =I-1:E Planning Commission (Q) I PB/PW Dept. =I IL Sue Carlson Police Dept. Ill" Gregg Zimmerman 1 Economic Development = (tn. City Attorney T-111 DeeAnn Kirkpatrick National Marine Fisheries Services 7600 Sand Point Way NE,Bldg. 1 Seattle,WA 98112 Jeff Chan Aquatic Research Group Fish and Wildlife Service 4- US Department of the Interior Western Washington Office 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 Lacey,WA 98503 City of Mercer Island Development Services Dept. 9611 SE 36t Mercer Island,WA 98040 City of Newcastle 13020 SE 72nd Place, Suite A I ILNewcastle,WA 98059 Mike Rowswell WUTC I-ar PO Box 47250 Olympia, WA 98504-7250 Ikuno Masterson King Coutny,ESA Policy Office hbQ 500 Yesler Street Seattle,WA 98104 e,ob Bogy ct uJestervI , lhc, irr Iq 51 5 n , Cv-eak Pav cwa, i f' 4atleh (3 0 Iq11;SO4\Gl 1, ww q>30 ii CITY ‘5F RENTON IL i -. Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator June 29, 1999 Dear Reader: Attached is a copy of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the Southport Planned Action Environmental Review. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is from Lake Washington Boulevard. For the 17-acre site, the DSEIS studies redevelopment from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail.and office uses as well as recreational amenities. The proposal would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several land use development and building permits. A Planned Action Ordinance is anticipated to be adopted for the proposal. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required which will supplement previous Environmental Impact Statements prepared for the Renton Comprehensive Plan. Two previous EIS documents were prepared for the Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and the Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan. This Supplemental EIS for the Southport Planned Action provides a project level supplement to the two EIS documents prepared for the Comprehensive Plan. A Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase, would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. The City of Renton, in accordance with the SEPA process, issued a Scoping Notice and Scoping Document on March 8, 1999, and held a public scoping meeting on March 23, 1999. The issues identified through the scoping process are addressed in the DSEIS. Areas addressed in the DSEIS include: earth, air quality, water, fisheries and aquatic species; noise; land use; socioeconomics (population, housing, employment); aesthetics/light and glare; transportation; and public services and utilities. For each environmental topic, an analysis is provided and significant environmental impacts attributable to the Proposed Action are reported. Analysis of the Proposed Action addresses two conceptual plans, and analysis of two No Action alternatives is also provided. Where significant impacts are determined to exist, then required mitigation and options for possible additional mitigation of the impact are presented. Written public comment on the DSEIS will be accepted for a 30 day review period, ending 5:00 p.m., July 29, 1999 and should be addressed to: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner/Project Manager, Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department, Renton Municipal Building, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. A public hearing has also been scheduled to accept written and oral comments on the DSEIS, and will be held on July 20, 1999, 7:00 p.m., at the Renton City Council Chambers (7`" Floor), located at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. Following the public comment period, the City will prepare and issue a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) which will include responses to the comments received during the public comment period. The City will then issue a Mitigation Document which will set forth the necessary conditions for the approval of the Proposed Action. 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 a 1_, nese, --- - June 29, 1999 Page-2 If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call Lisa Grueter, Project Manager, at 425)430-6578. We thank you for your interest. For the Environmental Review Committee, Gregg Zimmerman Administrator, Planning/Building/Public Works 0 CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ISSUANCE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Notice is hereby given under SEPA, WAC 197-11-510, that the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the proposal described below was issued on June 29, 1999, and is available for public review and comment. Copies have been provided for review at the Renton Municipal Library (the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch), and in the Renton Municipal Building at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055, (both in the Development Services Division and Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department—6th floor; and in the City Clerk's office—7th floor). PROPOSAL: The Southport Planned Action environmental review considers potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. The DSEIS reviews redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and offices uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several development permits. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027, ECF, CPA, R PROPONENT:Seco Development Inc(Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington, West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The DSEIS documents (Volume I — Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Text and Volume II — Technical Appendices) are available for purchase from the Development Services Division Customer Service Desk on the 6th floor of the Renton Municipal Building. Each volume may be purchased independently for $30.00 plus tax and postage, where applicable. COMMENT PERIOD: Written public comment on the DSEIS will be accepted for a 30 day review period, ending 5:00 p.m., July 29, 1999 and should be addressed to: Lisa Grueter Senior Planner/Project Manager Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Renton Municipal Building 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 A public hearing has also been scheduled to accept written and oral comments on the DSEIS, and will be held on July 20, 1999, 7:00 p.m., at the Renton City Council Chambers (7th Floor), located at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. PUBLICATION DATE: June 29, 1999 DATE OF DECISION: June 22, 1999 SIGNATURES: cq Gr gg Zim r an, Ad 'nistrator DA E Departm ,t of Planning/Building/Public orks m Shepherd, Ad nistrator DATE ommunity Service Department Lee W e ler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department NoncE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NOTICE OF ISSUANCE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Notice Is hereby given under SEPA,WAG 107-11-510,that the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement DSEIS)for the proposal described below was issued on June 29,1999,and Is available for public review and comment. Copies have been provided for review at the Renton Municipal Ubrary(the Main Brandt and the Highlands Branch),and In the Renton Municipal Building at 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,Washington 98055,(both In the Development Services Division and Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department—8'floor,and in the City Clerk's office—7'floor). PROPOSAL: The Southport Planned Action environmental review considers potential development concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. The DSEIS reviews redevelopment concepts of the property from Industrial uses to a mixed use development Including residential,retell and offices uses as well as recreational amenities,which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone,and several development permits. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027,ECF,CPA,R PROPONENT: Seco Development Inc(Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL South of Lake Washington.West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405.The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west.Access Is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The DSEIS documents (Volume I — Draft Supplemental Environmental impact Statement Text and Volume II—Technical Appendices)are available for purchase from the Development Services Division Customer Service Desk on the a floor of the Renton Municipal Building. Each volume may be purchased Independently for 830.00 plus tax and postage,where applicable. COMMENT PERIOD: Written public comment on the DSEIS will be accepted for a 30 day review period,ending 5:00 p.m.,July 29,1999 and should be addressed to: Usa Gmeter Senior Planner/Project Manager Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Renton Municipal Building 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 A public hearing has also been scheduled to accept written and oral comments on the DSEIS,and will be held on July 20,1999,7:00 p.m.,at the Renton City Council Chambers(7*Floor),baled at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,Washington 98055. L............L.......... r `\_ r -a;-e 0 `' 0 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEAS CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please Include the project NUMBER When calling for proper file Identification. CERTIFICATION I, t 1 S& 6 rL) hereby certify that / copies of the above document were posted by me in 10 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on 1 997 Signe ii: A A ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn b fore me, a Nortary Pita ic, in and for._se State of Washington residing in< on the ,3 -rk day of ;+ /q/, MARILYN KAMCHEFF i. NOTARY PUBLIC 91)-a-/-2/4A..e...p7 ISTATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 20, 2003 faiMiLlN IrfAmotigfir ter APttiNfiblEtif tXPIRES:6-29.03 CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ISSUANCE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT N.)tice is hereby given under SEPA, WAC 197-11-510, that the Draft Supplemental E vironmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the proposal described below was issued on June 2'4, 1999, and is available for public review and comment. Copies have been provided for review a the Renton Municipal Library (the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch), and in the Renton N?unicipal Building at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055, (both in the C evelopment Services Division and Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department—6th floor; and in the City Clerk's office—7th floor). FROPOSAL: The Southport Planned Action environmental review considers potential c.evelopment concepts for the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the lake Washington shoreline. The DSEIS reviews redevelopment concepts of the property from i idustrial uses to a mixed use development including residential, retail and offices uses as well as l ecreational amenities, which will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several ievelopment permits. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027, ECF, CPA, R PROPONENT:Seco Development Inc (Rex Allen) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Lake Washington, West of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is located from Lake Washington Boulevard. DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The DSEIS documents (Volume I — Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Text and Volume II — Technical Appendices) are available for purchase from the Development Services Division Customer Service Desk on the 6th floor of the Renton Municipal Building. Each volume may be purchased independently for$30.00 plus tax and postage, where applicable. COMMENT PERIOD: Written public comment on the DSEIS will be accepted for a 30 day review period, ending 5:00 p.m., July 29, 1999 and should be addressed to: Lisa Grueter Senior Planner/Project Manager Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Renton Municipal Building 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 A public hearing has also been scheduled to accept written and oral comments on the DSEIS, and will be held on July 20, 1999, 7:00 p.m., at the Renton City Council Chambers (7th Floor), located at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton;Washington 98055. PUBLICATION DATE: June 29, 1999 Account No. 51067 CITY OF RENTON and Strategic Planning Department - 6th NOTICE OF ISSUANCE floor: and in the City Clerk's office - 7;h DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL floor). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSAL: The Southport Planned AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Notice is hereby given under SEPA, Action environmental review considers WAC 197 11 510, that the Draft potential development concepts for the Supplemental Environmental Impact redevelopment of approximately 17 acres Charlotte Ann Kassens first dulysworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the Statement (DSEIS) for the proposal located adjacent to the Lake Washington 9 described below was issued on June 29, shoreline. The DSEIS reviews redevelop- 1999,and is available for public review and ment concepts of the property from indus- comment. Copies have been provided for trial uses to a mixed use development SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL review at the Renton Municipal Library(the including residential,retail and offices uses Main Branch and the Highlands Branch), as well as recreational amenities, which 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 and in the Renton Municipal Building at will require a Comprehensive Plan 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. Amendment/rezone, and several develop- Washington 98055, (both in the ment permits. a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal Development Services Division and LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-027, ECF, newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months Economic Development, Neighborhoods CPA.R prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language PROPONENT: Seco Development Inc continuallyas a dailynewspaper in Kent, KingCounty, Washington. The South County Rex Allen) 9 LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: South of Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the Lake Washington, West of Lake State of Washington for King County. Washington Boulevard and 1-405.The pro- posal is located adjacent to Lake The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County Washington between Gene Coulon Park on Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers the east and Boeing manufacturing opera- tionsduringthebelowstatedperiod. The annexed notice, a L Washingtono the west. ulevar is located from Lake Boulevard. DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: LUA-99-027 The DSEIS documents (Volume I - Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Text and Volume II -Technical as published on: 6/29/99 Appendices) are available for purchase from the Development Services Division Customer Service Desk on the 6th floor of The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$103.50, the Renton Municipal Building. Each charged to Acct. No. 8051067.volume may be purchased independently for $30.00 plus tax cand epostage,nwherle applicable. Legal Number 6294 COMMENT PERIOD: Written public com 4ment on the DSEIS will be accepted for a 30 day review period, ending 5:00 p.m.. Legal lerkSouth County Journal July 29, 1999 and should be addressed to: Lisa Grueter Senior Planner/Project Manager y Q,-- (1 Economic Development/Neighborhoods Subscribed and sworn before me on this day of ' , , i , 19 and Strategic Planning Department Renton Municipal Buildingj 1055 South Grady Way 1-n Renton,WA 98055 0111111ry1o A public hearing has also been scheduled oo N• t.1; p*' L n" to accept written and oral comments on the g5w• • y vo DSEIS, and will be held on July 20, 1999, Z`r•r1'f'- `,I. Notary Public of the State of Washington 7:00 p.m., at the Renton City Council A.;-p Chambers (7th Floor), located at 1055 1, 3. residing in Renton South Grady Way, Renton, Washington King County. Washington 98055. c— PUBLICATION DATE: June 29, 1999 l'. _ Published in the South County Journal t, ^ June 29. 1999.6294 O/?17 1A1f s111p01` so\ oa' s CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/NEIGHBHORHOODS & STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:June 29, 1999 TO: King Parker, Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Sue Carlson STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Grueter SUBJECT: Southport Planned Action—Draft Supplemental EIS The Southport Planned Action Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement(Draft SEIS) is being distributed to Federal, State and local agencies as well as to all City Departments. The document addresses potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures associated with the Southport application. Alternatives to the mixed-use development are also reviewed. Later this year,the Planning and Development Committee and ultimately the full City Council will consider the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezone, Code Amendments,and Planned Action designation for the Southport site. Volume I which contains the Draft SEIS text will be provided to each City Council Member. Volume II contains Technical Appendices. Two copies of Volume II will be provided to Julia Medzegian. Any City Councilmembers which are interested in the details may review Volume II. If you would like a copy of Volume II in addition to Volume I,please contact Lisa Grueter at extension 6578. Thank you. cc: Jesse Tanner,Mayor Jay Covington H:\PBP W\W W 8ODOT\MEMOS\COUNCIL.DOT\cor CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: June 24, 1999 TO: File 99-027,CPA,R,ECF FROM: Lisa Grueter c5/6 SUBJECT:Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text and Code Amendments - Amended Pages On March 31, 1999 I submitted proposed draft Comprehensive Plan policy amendments and Renton Municipal Code amendments in support of the proposed Southport Planned Action proposal. On April 20, 1999,I filed a couple of minor amendments to the original proposal. Based on the environmental review of the Southport proposal, issues such as building modulation and articulation were raised in relationship to compatibility and shade effects upon Gene Coulon Park. Staff decided to write an amendment to the proposed COR-3 code that would apply to the Southport site that would address building modulation and articulation along public parks, open space and trails. Therefore, page 37 of the proposed code would be amended as shown on the attachment. The language is based upon similar requirements recently adopted for the Center Suburban zone. Also, related to the proposed policy amendments, the new policy LU-136 uses the word "shall" which needs to be changed to "should"because all policy language uses "may" or"should." Code language,on the other hand,uses"shall"in most cases. The revised policy is also attached. cc: Sue Carlson Jana Hanson Laureen Nicolay TS_SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\- CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\CODECHG2.doc\cor e. gateways, f. structured parking,and g. other features meeting the spirit and intent of these policies. Policy LU-136. Consistent with the locational criteria for Centers, Center Office Residential designations may be placed on properties adjacent or abutting a variety of residential, commercial or industrial designations. Center Office Residential designations placed next to higher intensity zones such as industrial may provide for a transition to lesser intense designations. Where placed next to industrial designations, site design of Center Office Residential properties should consider the long-term retention of the adjacent or abutting industrial uses. Reserved Policy LU-137. Reserved POLAMD\ 2 6/24/99 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CD CO COR in accordance with requirements in Section 4-9-200 #e-Zening AdmiRistr-ater. Level I Site Pfflans for each phase of the project shall comply with the approved Level II Site Planmaster-plan. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT COR-3: To consider shade/shadow STANDARD effects and encourage compatibility: buildings that are immediately adjacent or abutting a public park, open space, or trail shall incorporate at least one of the features in items 1 through 3, and shall provide item 4: 1. Incorporate building modulation to reduce the overall bulk and mass of buildings, or 2. For each dwelling unit, provide at least one architectural projection not less than two feet from the wall plane and not less than four feet wide,or 3. Vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and facades of a minimum of two feet at an interval of a minimum of 40 feet on a building face or an equivalent standard which adds interest and quality to the project; and 4. Provide building articulation and textural variety. 37 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: June 23, 1999 TO: File 99-027, CPA, R, ECF FROM: Lisa Grueter SUBJECT:Southport Environmental Review—Hearing and SEIS Process In an April 15, 1999 memo to the file, a hearing process was described as follows: Schedule a hearing or public meeting on the Draft Supplemental EIS separate from hearings on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone. The Environmental Review Committee would hold the hearing or public meeting or may be able to delegate the responsibility to other staff. The Planning Commission would hold a hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Concurrent rezone along with other Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications. If needed due to changes in the proposal or other significant reasons, the City Council may schedule another public hearing related to the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Based upon additional schedule review, and discussions with Jana Hanson and Larry Warren on June 9, 1999, the hearing and environmental process would be conducted generally as described above. It appears likely that a City Council hearing would be needed to address the Planned Action Ordinance. The hearing could also address the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone application, etc. as needed if there are significant changes. A 20-day appeal period of the Final EIS is included the City's SEPA regulations (see RMC 4-8- 110E4.a.iii). Per Larry Warren, the appeal period would commence at the time that the Environmental Review Committee issues a mitigation document. If an appeal is filed, the appeal would go to the Hearing Examiner (see RMC 4-8-080H, Type X Permit, footnote 2). Per Larry Warren, it would be desirable to schedule any needed hearings with the City Council subsequent to the appeal period. If no appeal is filed, or when the appeal is concluded, the City Council would hold any required public hearings on the Planned Action Ordinance and/or the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone, etc. ordinances. cc: Sue Carlson Larry Warren Rex Allen,Seco Development Jim Hanken,Schwabe,Williamson&Wyatt Peter Buck,Buck and Gordon TS_SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-H:\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\PRCSMEM2.DOC\cor ERC RECOMMENDATIONS SOUTHPORT PLANNED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS ERC accept the draft with needed revisions. Changes identified in June 18, 1999 memo. ERC authorize distribution of the corrected Draft. Publish a notice of availability of the Draft EIS on June 29, 1999. Between June 22 and June 29,the consultant would incorporate requested revisions and print the document by June 29. ERC concur in a public hearing date. Staff has reserved the City Council Chambers for a public hearing on the Draft EIS.The date would be July 20, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. KEY CHANGES Project Description Amend the draft COR code amendments with a building modulation/articulation requirement for structures next to the Park,rather than including an undefined mitigation measure in the Aesthetics section. Related to shoreline setbacks for mixed use structures,show a range of possibilities(determination, variance,or conditional use permit). A CUP appears to be the most likely route. The discussion of parking would add that the proponent may achieve substantial compliance with parking regulations if the City applies a National Parking Association design standard. Analysis Preliminary Draft#2 adds analysis in the Air Quality,Water,Fisheries and Transportation sections. 1 Mitigation Measures 1. Does not list all code requirements. Lists those that act as mitigation. Earth 2. Amend mitigation measures to show potential use of straw bales to limit sediment and run-off(Parks Comments) 3. Add a mitigation measure to ensure grading does not extend into the Park(Parks Comments) Air Quality 4. Remove mitigation measure addressing offsite source mitigation.(ED/N/SP;Seco) 5. Add mitigation measure addressing compliance with Federal, State, and PSAPCA air quality regulations Water and Fisheries 6. Generally limit mass grading to the dry season, but indicate that if grading is proposed in the wet season,the City would review grading plans to ensure erosion is minimized.(Seco) 7. For potential water quality filter,maintenance would be intensive,but not necessarily expensive. Noise 8. Regarding vibration, clarify that the grout pile system would occur if warranted based on additional geotech. study and test pile drive. The system would apply to the area within 100 feet of the wastewater treatment facility. Land Use 9. For open space, clarify that if future plans provide less open space, the City would determine if the proposal meets City policies and standards. 10. For setbacks,show the minimum average side setback. Relationship to Plans and Policies 11. Show code references as necessary,and refer to Fact Sheet. Aesthetics 12. See changes per numbers 8 and 9 above regarding open space and setbacks. 13. Eliminate articulation mitigation, and refer to proposed code amendments addressing modulation and articulation. 14. Remove reference to maximum percent intrusion into root zone. The information about possible solutions for the optional fire lane will be provided in an appendix. 15. Issue of additional building height/setback options(Parks) Transportation 2 16. C-curbs near Boeing parking access—show as a potential mitigation measure, and reference need to coordinate. 17. Replace long parking arrangement mitigation measure with a measure referencing a requirement for a parking management plan prepared for City approval prior to issuance of building/construction permits. 18. Timing of access design for site—would be prepared as part of site plan(Level II)—does timing work? 19. Reference City's commute trip reduction regulations. 20. Indicate that for mitigation fees,reductions may be possible for high employment/sales tax uses. Fire 21. Delete mitigation related to optional fire lane—it is part of the project description. Parks 22. Clarify responsibility of park playground redesign (done by City; applicant could do with City oversight). 23. Remove reference to maximum percent intrusion into root zone. The information about possible solutions for the optional fire lane will be provided in an appendix. Solid Waste 24. Clarify mitigation measure with solid waste plan to require City review. 25. Eliminate tax revenue measure—utility is an enterprise fund. 3 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: June 18, 1999 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578)c,6' SUBJECT: Review of Southport Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS#2—LUA 99-027 On June 15, 1999, The Committee received a summary as well as a full copy of the of the Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS #2. This memo describes general recommendations, corrections, and issues we would like to present to the Committee for final direction prior to releasing a public Draft Supplemental EIS. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS At the June 22nd meeting staff will request that: ERC accept the draft with needed revisions. Substantive revisions are listed in the attachment to this memo. Minor typographical errors, data corrections, or clarifications are not listed, but would be provided as well to the consultant. ERC authorize distribution of the corrected Draft. At this time, we would like to prepare and publish a notice of availability of the Draft EIS (see attached example from the Boeing Longacres EIS). The notice of availability would be published on June 29, 1999. Between June 22 and June 29, the consultant would incorporate requested revisions and print the document by June 29. ERC concur in a public hearing date. Staff has tentatively reserved the City Council Chambers for a public hearing on the Draft EIS. The date would be July 20, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. Consistent with the ERC direction on May 25, 1999, the authority to conduct the hearing would be delegated to staff. The Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Staff would conduct the meeting with its EIS consultants. DISCUSSION OF KEY CHANGES Project Description We propose to amend the draft COR code amendments with a building modulation/articulation requirement for structures next to the Park, rather than including a mitigation measure in the Aesthetics section. (See attachments.) June 1 F, 1999 Page 2 We had planned to publish a determination related to shoreline setbacks and the required permit process for mixed use structures,but we will probably wait to see if there is a design alternative first that would be addressed in the Final SEIS. In the meantime we are showing a range of possibilities determination,variance,or conditional use permit). A CUP appears to be the most likely route. The discussion of parking would add that the proponent may achieve substantial compliance with parking regulations if the City applies a National Parking Association design standard. Analysis The current draft adds analysis in a variety of chapters related to indirect air quality impacts, CO air quality monitoring at intersections, the Western Pond Turtle, and the potential water and fisheries impacts of the Lake Washington Boulevard Channelization Plan. Based on staff review of the document, adjustments in impact discussions are needed as indicated in the attached list of changes. No new analysis of issues would be needed. Mitigation Measures We are proposing to eliminate or modify several mitigation measures identified on the attached list of changes(see items in boxes). We will highlight these changes at the ERC meeting to ensure that there is agreement about which mitigation measures are reasonable and which are not. Comments from Departments/Divisions Comments were received from the Parks Division, Transportation Systems Division, Development and Planning Division, Fire Department, Solid Waste Utility, and the Airport Manager. The majority of comments are minor and can be incorporated. A summary of the comments is provided below. Parks(See attached comments): The majority of Parks Division comments are minor adjustments and can be incorporated. The following paragraphs address the substantive comments,and how we would propose to address them in the SEIS. Alternate building setbacks, and building heights near the Park could reduce the shade impacts. These ideas can be mentioned in the discussion as potential options, but the options could affect sponsor objectives for the development. It should be noted, we are proposing to amend the draft COR code amendments by adding standards for modulation and articulation(see attached). Comments about site access are noted. In an appendix,the consultants do provide discussion that the site access alternatives are not recommendations, and that there are other options that can be reviewed during the design phase. This language will appear in the SEIS Transportation Chapter. In the parking discussion, the SEIS describes that the parking for residential and restaurant/retail uses would not be fee based (page 3-201). It will be noted that the proponent has indicated that the City's parking rates could be substantially met if the City applies a National Parking Association design standard. The TDM measure, which references fee parking as one potential element, would continue to be presented. There is a mitigation measure that the applicant prepare a parking management plan. This plan would ensure that parking is sufficiently managed to ensure that effects upon the Park are minimized. June 18, 1999 Page 3 Transportation: Comments include: Provide the back up analysis for the turning vehicles onto Boeing driveway located on Lake Washington Boulevard. In regard of the entrance to Southport site and issues related to the traffic exiting the park, the theoretical analysis seems reasonable. However, this access to Southport (intersection) requires additional analysis to explore potential solutions without a need for stop sign for the motorists exiting the park. The consultants have been asked to provide the back up data for the Boeing driveway. Also, see attached comments about the discussion of c-curbs. Regarding site entrance issues, as mentioned above, the consultants do provide discussion that the site access alternatives are not recommendations, and that there are other options that can be reviewed during the design phase. Development and Planning: Minor typographical errors and corrections were noted. Airport Manager: Minor clarifications were requested. Fire Department: Fire Department concerns include the proposed amount of parking. Also there is a concern that any road design ensure no gridlock conditions especially in the PM peak in order to achieve adequate response times; some ideas would be to have shoulders or other places for vehicles to pull over at the site intersection. The SEIS notes that the proposed parking does not meet City standards although it exceeds a parking demand analysis. Language will be added to indicate that .the proponent may achieve substantial compliance with City parking rates if the City applies a National Parking Association design standard. The SEIS analyzes a couple of alternatives related to site access, one of which would assure no backup problems on Lake Washington Boulevard, and that there are other options that can be reviewed during the design phase. Solid Waste: Comments include that the mitigation measure related to review of a waste management plan be clarified, and that the tax revenue mitigation measure be eliminated since the Solid Waste Utility operates on an enterprise fund. These changes can be made. Comments were not received to date from Plan Review,Police or the Surface Water Utility. Comments from Applicant Comments from the applicant are attached. Transportation comments are minor and can be incorporated. The air quality comments can be addressed, and it should be noted that staff had some of the same comments. The request to modify the mitigation measure related to limiting mass grading to the dry season can be accommodated to an extent. Speaking with Neil Watts, the City should generally limit mass grading to the dry season, but there could be some limited grading in the wet season. Language could be added to June 18, 1999 Page 4 mitigation measures in the water and fisheries sections to say: TESC plans could include restricting mass grading to the dry season, and if grading activities are proposed in the wet season, the applicant would need to prepare a grading plan for City review and approval that minimizes erosion. If you have any questions,please give me a call(ext. 6578). Thank you. cc: Sue Carlson June 18, 1999 Page 5 LIST OF SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS#2 Project Description In the Fact Sheet,we should list a short plat as a potential permit. Page 2-3, 5th paragraph: Clarify that "The office building setbacks comply with the Shoreline Master Program. Setbacks for mixed residential/retail structures are not addressed in the Shoreline Master Program. An administrative determination interpreting applicable provisions could be made, or a conditional use permit for unclassified uses could be required, or a variance from commercial building setbacks could be sought." Page 2-4, 1st paragraph: Address the Planned Action criteria regarding consistency with an adopted comprehensive plan: "With the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, a mixed use redevelopment of the site would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan." Page 2-8, 3rd and 4th paragraph: The status of the site remediation should be updated with information from the applicant. Page 2-12, Description of Code Amendments: Amend the code proposal to add a requirement for building articulation in the COR-3 zone where property abuts a public park or open space. Page 2-24, add paragraph under parking: "The applicant has provided a parking demand analysis based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual. Based on this analysis, the proposed parking supply would exceed peak parking demands. Alternatively,the applicant has indicated that the total number of spaces could be increased to substantially meet City regulations if the City applied a National Parking Association design standard. The City's Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator will administratively determine the appropriate standards to apply considering the modification criteria, the mixed use nature of the proposal which lends itself to some shared parking, and other pertinent analysis and information supplied by the proponent." Page 2-29: Are air quality issues related to Boeing a"major issue to be resolved"? Analysis Page 3-1: Related to mitigation measures, describe that"Not all code requirements are listed—just those that would act to limit identified environmental impacts; all applicable requirements of Renton's Municipal Code and ordinances would be applied to future development permit applications." Page 3-25, first paragraph: Rewrite last sentence of first paragraph: "An odor downwind from the Boeing plant was noticed during a May 24, 1999 site visit; this observed odor may have stemmed from fugitive emissions that were not considered in the modeling, or could have originated at some other upwind source.. This observation is based on a single site visit; odor monitoring was not conducted." Page 3-26, second paragraph: reword third sentence to say: "Modeling conducted by Boeing indicates that potential odors would be below recognized thresholds. As described previously, an odor downwind from the Boeing plant was noticed during a May 1999 site visit; this observed odor may have stemmed from fugitive emissions that were not considered in the modeling, or could have originated at some other upwind source. This observation is based on a single site visit; odor monitoring was not conducted... In the event of either ... June 18, 1999 Page 6 Page 3-30: Distinguish between required versus recommended mitigation measures. Page 3-30: Add a mitigation measure under "Required by Code category" which references compliance with PSAPCA and EPA regulations for asbestos removal, air quality, and odors. Page 3-31: Delete mitigation about off-site mitigation efforts related to indirect impacts. Page 3-31: Given modeling results, and potential mitigation, copy sentence 2 of paragraph 2 to the last paragraph to read: Emissions from existing industrial sources in the area could potentially affect on-site locations and cause adverse impacts. Modeling completed by Boeing indicates that no adverse health impacts or significant odor effects would result under any reasonably assumed operations at Boeing facilities. Ultimately it is the responsibility of Boeing to protect human health from harmful exposures to any air pollutant emitted at their facility, as well as from nuisance impacts to odors. Mitigation measures identified above would likely preclude significant adverse impacts." Page 3-52: Amend the third bullet to indicate that annual maintenance is intensive. (per conversations with Neil Watts the annual maintenance is not very expensive,but is intensive.) Page 3-54: Add a description of John's Creek conditions off site near Lake Washington Boulevard based on additional work by AESI. Page 3-65, first sentence of last paragraph: Will there be minimal in-water work? This contradicts previous statements (e.g. page 3-61 last paragraph). Page 3-66, discuss AESI's impact analysis of Lake Washington Boulevard road improvements. Page 3-82, 3rd paragraph: Language should be added that based on GIS mapping and aerial photos, the nearest structure in Gene Coulon Park would be over 100 feet away from the eastern site property line. Vibration impacts are not anticipated. (Confirmed with consultant) Page 3-84, 2nd paragraph: There are general statements that office buildings would serve somewhat as noise barriers for the residential buildings. A sentence should be added that "A 10 to 20 dBA reduction due to the office structures could be expected." (Confirmed with the consultant) Page 3-84, 3rd paragraph: There are statements about large distances and intervening buildings related to the jet engine testing. We should add a sentence indicating the approximate distance from the site. The noise consultant estimates that the jet engine testing would occur over a '/2 mile (2,600 to 3,400 feet)away from the site. Page 3-90, second pile driving mitigation measure: Clarify the mitigation measure. The geotechnical survey and test pile drive in the previous mitigation measure would determine whether a grout pile driving system is warranted. Additionally, the sandy soil types onsite may result in less vibration potential. If warranted, the grout pile driving system would be appropriate for the area within 100 feet of the wastewater treatment facility. (confirmed with consultant). Page 3-102, first bullet: Add a sentence indicating if future site plans propose less amounts of open space,the City would determine if the proposal is consistent with City policies and standards. Page 3-102: Minimum building setbacks proposed by applicant- should we establish minimum side yards along the Park for future development plans submitted as part of a Planned Action? For example a minimum average setback of 20 feet. Page 3-125, third paragraph: The maximum height is established through the current FAA approved Airport Layout Plan. Page 3-131: The list of potential permits and modifications could be expanded or there could be reference made to the fact sheet. June 18, 1999 Page 7 Pages 3-132 to 3-138: Throughout chapter, ensure there is a consistent time frame referenced (the Comprehensive Plan projections cover 1990 to 2010,not 1995, 1996 or 2016). Page 3-168: Remove second mitigation bullet and amend the code proposal to require building modulation where buildings are adjacent to a park or open space. Page 3-180, 3rd and 7th paragraph: Correct errors regarding whether public access would not be provided with an industrial development. For industrial development,public access is required if the industrial use is neither water-dependent, nor water-related. The SMP defines public access as being either visual or physical approach. It's possible that depending on the nature of the industrial use and need for security or safety that public access would not be provided in the same amount as under the proposed conceptual plans. Page 3-191: We should indicate that among other criteria, the City considered Resolution 2708. which discusses minimizing traffic in single family areas in North Renton and Kennydale, in developing a preliminary channelization plan. The design of the channelization plan mitigates transportation impacts. Page 3-191: Queue analysis at Boeing parking access shows potential blockage of left turns — provide supporting data. Page 3-192, 3-207, 3-208: Are there other solutions than c-curbing? Indicate that based on data, the driveway access blockage from queues may require mitigation to avoid potential safety impacts. A potential mitigation would be c-curbs. Prior to final design, coordination with Boeing would be appropriate to determine appropriate mitigation. Page 3-195, for site access intersection control, provide additional information from Entranco's report in the appendix that describes the results in more detail and provides other options for further review. Page 3-195: Add information about the City's Parking Code and also about the possibility of meeting City parking rates if the City applies National Parking Association design standards. Page 3-208, last paragraph: When should design be completed? Is the Level II Site Plan the appropriate time? Page 3-209, third paragraph: Reword the mitigation measure to require a parking management plan approved by the City prior to the issuance of building or construction permits. Page 3-209: Reference the City's CTR ordinance (RMC 10-13). Page 3-124, delete last bullet: The optional fire lane approach is not a mitigation measure. It's an optional part of the project description. Delete the mitigation. Page 3-231: Replace paragraph 1 with the mitigation measure language on page 3-232,third bullet. Page 3-244: Reword the first mitigation to indicate the applicant would prepare a plan for waste reduction for review by the Solid Waste Utility. Page 3-244: Delete the tax revenue mitigation because the Solid Waste Utility receives no revenue from the general fund. General Amend summary chart to address the above comments. June 18, 1999 Page 8 If a mitigation measure is provided by Code,indicate code references where possible. a vv. ted ir• rob& UTH Po ECO Development 10843 NE 81A St.Sulte 200 Bellevue, Washington 98004 June 17, 1999 Lisa Grueter Senior Planner Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Renton City Hall--6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 93055 Re:Draft#2 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Dear Lisa, We have received the second Draft copy and have a few comments. Most comments revolve around two sections of the SEIS,the Air Quality and Fisheries sections. Air Quality: Page 3-30 "The odor issues associated with any alternative development would be similar to those dexcribed for Plan A, except that a maunfacturingfacility or other industrial use would likely be less sensitive to odors than either office or residential uses." This statement is very presumptive of the type of manufacturing or industrial use that may locate on this site. There are undoubtedly some industrial uses(office)and manufacturing(pharmaceutical)that could be as sensitive to odors/pollutants as residential uses. I would like to see this comparative portion of the statement removed. Page 3-31 Indirect Impacts— "Mitigation efforts could be concentrated at the source of the emissions. The applicant could work with Boeing to reduced their emissions or increase the dispersion of air pollutants." I don't believe it should be suggested that we should need to do any mitigation of perceived problems generated by an adjacent site. This comment should be removed. Fisheries Page 3-67 Mitigation measures "..limiting mass grading to the dry season." I would rather propose this mitigation for some distance(25 feet,50 feet?)from the nearby waters so that grading and pile driving activities on the balance of the site could continue during the rainy season. The site is so flat there is little danger of erosion during storm events and sedimentation and silt can be controlled by normal construction practices even during the rainy season. I would like this section to be changed to eliminate or modify the dry season aspect. Attached is a copy of page 3-63 with a few typographical errors circled that are relatively minor. I have e-mailed the comments on the Transportation section that were supplied by Jeff Schramm of Transpo for your review as well. Sincerely Rex Allen Project Manager Page 1 Clearing and grading for construction would expose erodible soils and increase the rate of surface water runoff from storms due to compaction and elimination of vegetative cover. The most significant increase in erosion hazard potential would be during the construction phase when earthwork activities commence. Although the site is virtually flat, localized erosion from surface water flows could occur if adequate temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures a-e not implemented (refer to the EARTH section for identification of recommended TESC measures). The impact of fine sediment potentially delivered to fish habitat in John's Creek and Lake Washington would depend on the time of year sediment was delivered. Fine sediment would yt be created during all grading activity, but would not livered to fish-bearing waters until runof during the wet season provided sufficient water to mobilize and transport the material. ""he fine sediment could impact resident rou an possibly soc ceye s awni el quality in John's Creek, if it were not controlled by TESC measures. The Lake Washington substrate )ffshore of the site is primarily silt based. Assuming standard erosion and sediment control ME asures are implemented, the small amounts of additional fine sediment that could be delivered to the lake would not materially impact habitat in Lake Washington. Impacts to Riparian Vegetation Riparian buffers typically perform many functions essential to fish survival and productivity. Vegetation in riparian areas shades streams and maintains cool water temperatures needed by , most fish. Tree canopy cover can affect water quality by blocking solar radiation and 6—a- . resultant increase in water temperature (Beschta et al., 1987; Sullivan et al., 1990). Loss of shade can lead to increases in water temperature during the day. Because salmonids are a cold-blooded species, stream temperature is an extremely important factor affecting production, metabo ism, growth, survival, behavior, and habitat utilization. Plant roots stabilize stream banks and help control erosion and sedimentation. Adjacent vegetation creates overhanging cover for fish. Riparian habitat contributes leaves, twigs, and insects to streams, thereby providit lg basic food and nutrients that support fish and aquatic wildlife. Large trees that fall into streams create pools, riffles, backwater, small dams, and off-channel habitat that are necessary to fish for cover, spawning, rearing, and protection from predators. Pools help maintain riffles where gravehessential for spawning accumulates. Riparian vegetation, litter layers, and soils filter incoming sediments and pollutants, thereby assisting in the maintenance of high water quality needed for healthy fish populations. Riparian habitat moderates stream volumes by reducing peak flows during flooding periods and by storing and slowly releasing water into streams during low flows (Knutson and Naef, 1997). With the exception of a few willows (Salix sp.) near John's Creek, existing riparian vegetation associated with all three on-site surface water features (Lake Washington, John's Creek and the ditch or the west side) consists entirely of exotic grasses and blackberry with little beneficial value to fisheries resources. The limited existing riparian function in all three surface waters wou d be impacted by construction under Plan A and Plan B. Although no grading is anticipated within the riparian area of John's Creek, exotic plants would be removed and replaced with native species (blackberry bushes n e entrance access road would be re Fm i for aes-thetic purposes This loss of exotic vegetation would not be anticipate •to have any significant effect on—ff habitat. Surthport Development Planned Action Fisheries and Aquatic Anin.efs Dr tfi'Supplemental EIS 3-63 Lisa Grueter From: Rex Allen To: Lisa Grueter Subject: FW: TRANSPO Review of Southport Date: Thursday, June 17, 1999 1:12PM Lisa, Comments from Jeff Schramm... I'll follow up with mine later this afternoon. R— Original Message From: Jeff Schramm [SMTP:jeffs@transpo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 5:40 PM To: Rex Allen (E-mail) Cc: Torsten Lienau (E-mail); Chris Forster (E-mail) Subject TRANSPO Review of Southport I have reviewed the Transportation section and Appendices for the latest version of the preliminary Draft EIS for Southport (June 1999). Entranco did an excellent overall job on the EIS. They addressed the majority of my comments from the May 1999 version, and were also able to address the complex issues related to site access operations and design for Southport, Gene Coulon Park, and the railroad crossing. I have only two comments: 1. The Parking Demand spreadsheets were not included. Page 29 of Transportation Appendix says they were to be included in Appendix F. 2. The overall labeling of the Transportation Appendices is confusing. The main Transportation Appendix D refers to several sub-appendices (A to G). I would suggest that these sub-appendices be labeled D-1, D-2, etc., or some other convention that indicates that these are sub-appendices to the main Transportation Appendix D. Please call or email if you have any questions regarding my review or comments. Also, once the DEIS is published, can you please forward me a copy? Thanks. Jeff Schramm Transportation Engineer The TRANSPO Group, Inc. 11730 • 118th Avenue NE Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034.7120 phone (425) 821-3665 fax (425) 825-8434 jeffs@transpo.com Page 1 41 CITY OF RENTON Community Services MEMORANDUM Date: June 17, 1999 To:Lisa Grueter From: Leslie Betlach, Parks Director Re: Southport Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS #2 - Review Comments LUA 99-027 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment upon the Southport Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Following are comments, by chapter, that are pertinent to the Parks Department: CHAPTER II Generally, should the items addressed under Chapter III - Affected Environment be incorporated, (following), then modifications would be required in this Chapter for consistency. In addition are following comments for Chapter II: 1. Page 2-23, First Bullet Revise "Pedestrian use to connect the trail system of Southport to the Cedar River Trail" (delete "Boeing portion of the Lake Washington Trail"). 2. Page 2-23, First Paragraph Delete "Lake Washington" in the last line to read "Cedar River Trail with the trail in Coulon Park." CHAPTER III AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT - EARTH Review Comments-Southport EIS Page2 6/18/99 1. Page 3-11, Mitigation Measures, Geologic Hazards, Other Recommended Measures In previous preliminary grading plans, the area of grading extended into Coulon Park. The developer should meet existing at the property line without disturbing Parks property. Use of straw bales along John's Creek within the confines of the Parks property for erosion control is preferred to the use of silt fencing and fine gravels which are difficult to remove upon completion. WATER 1. Page 3-32, Introduction John's Creek is likely not a man-made creek, but rather a natural drainage that has been modified and re-aligned by man. AESTHETICS, LIGHT & GLARE 1. Page 3-140, Principal viewer Groups and Selected Viewpoints, Paragraph 1 Revise The primary "viewer" to "user". 2. Page 3-149, Shading Conditions, Paragraph 2. There is no discussion regarding the increased shading to the turf area north of the play area during the winter months. The increased shading will likely result in the growth of moss and soggy soil conditions. 3. Page 3-149, paragraph 3/Page 3-156 Shading Conditions Perhaps a more accurate description of the change in shaded area to the playground attributed to building height and location would be to use percentage of area shaded. For example: Winter Solstice @ 2;30 P,M. Existing Conditions is 50% coverage/ Proposed conditions is 100% coverage. (Please note that the graphic reflects leaves on the trees during this time of year when in fact all of the trees are deciduous and there are no leaves). The Existing Shading Conditions would be approximate 10% Coverage/Proposed Conditions 100%. Spring/Fall Equinox @ 5:00 P.M. Existing Conditions is 40% coverage/Proposed Conditions 80% coverage. 4. Page 3-167 and 3-168, Mitigation Measures There is no discussion regarding what the potential impacts would be to the Play Area pertinent to shading, glare and visual quality if any of the following occurred: Southport review comments-EIS/I1:38 AM/6/18/99/SPORTEIS Review Comments-Southport EIS Page3 6/18/99 1. Increased building setbacks from the park property, 2. Stair stepping the vertical building height downward closer to the play area, 3. Reducing the overall building height. 5. Page 3-168, Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts See item #4 above as some impacts may be minimized. TRANSPORTATION 1. Page 3-176, Pedestrian/Bicycle Access, Paragraph 1 and Figure 33 Revise to include bike trail along the west side of 1-405 to coal Creek Parkway from Hazelwood Lane to Ripley Lane. 2. Page 3-195 - 3-201, On-Site Parking I am assuming this section will be modified per the 6/10/99 Follow- up Memorandum. However, the discussion about the excess office parking being available for the retail use requires clarification as to whether the retail/restaurant users will be required to pay for parking, again increasing the potential for use of Coulon Stalls. Please note that the reference to summer weekends, the park's lots are usually over capacity should also include weekdays - especially if there is a special event or it is a hot, sunny day. 3. Page 3-202, Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Sentence #3 needs to be further defined to The existing pedestrian trail through Gene Coulon ....to provide an additional pedestrian (delete bicycle) access route in the area. Bicycles are not allowed in Coulon Park on the trails, only on the roads. The Trail from the mouth of the Cedar River to Coulon Park would be solely for pedestrians. 4. Page 35, Site Access (Information provided by Lisa) Although, 2 traffic scenarios are being presented, with no recommendation being made at this time, there is concern regarding Scenario 2. Scenario 2 would require exiting vehicles from Coulon Park to stop, thereby diminishing queue spillback from Lake Washington Boulevard. The anticipated delay for vehicles exiting Coulon Park is 5 seconds. This analysis makes the assumption that vehicles exiting Southport and vehicles exiting Coulon Park will take turns. Upon seeing a truck and trailer trying to exit Coulon, the more likely scenario for a vehicle exiting Southport would be to move ahead into the traffic so that the Southport vehicle does not have to travel behind the truck and trailer. With an average delay of over 60 seconds for vehicles exiting Southport under Scenario 2, it is even more likely that the vehicles exiting Coulon Park will have problems doing so. Southport review comments-EIS/I I:38 AM/6/18/99/SPORTEIS Review Comments-Southport EIS Page4 6/18/99 5. Page 3-209, Mitigation Measures/Other Recommended Measures There is discussion regarding a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program with one of the elements including Parking pricing which again has the effect of promoting Coulon Park as a parking area for the Southport Development. PARKS ENVIRONMENT 1. Page 3-325, last sentience of paragraph #1. The City (within its boundaries) has one (1) swimming pool located at Hazen High School. 2. Page 3-325, second paragraph. The Lake Washington Trail is a separate trail from the trail located in Coulon Park. The Lake Washington Trail as defined in the Comprehensive Trails Plan on page 22 follows the existing 1-405 Trail, Ripley Lane, Lake Washington Blvd. over to the Cedar River Trail at 6th Avenue. The Lake Washington Trail is a pedestrian and bicycle trail. On page 49 of the same plan is a description for bike users under the sub-title of Lake Washington Loop which follows the same route. (In the Revised Trails Plan, which is currently being conducted, the Lake Washington Trail will be renamed to the Lake Washington Loop Trail and will continue to be a pedestrian/bicycle route - however not through Coulon Park. A separate pedestrian only trail from and through Coulon Park, via Southport, DNR and Boeing over to the mouth of the River and the Cedar River Trail is proposed. Phase I of this trail from the mouth of the River over the water in front of Boeing is nearing completion. 3. Page 3-325, second paragraph, Line 5 Revise "tree" to "three". 4. Page 3-325, second paragraph, Line 7. Revise "Clam Light" to "Clam Lights Festival, delete the word "the", and delete the word Concert". . 5. Page 3-325, second paragraph, Line 8 Revise "reaches" to "exceeds". Southport review comments-EIS/1 I:38 AM/6/18/99/SPORTEIS Review Comments- Southport EIS Pages 6/18/99 6. Page 3-325, last paragraph Revise "Highlands Park" to "Highlands Neighborhood Center and Park". Revise "Honey Creek" to "Honey Creek/May Creek". Revise "two swimming pools" to "one swimming pool". 7. Page 3-327, Connection to Lake Washington Trail See discussion on item #2, above and revise Paragraph accordingly. The connection proposed as part of the Southport development would be a pedestrian trail only from the Cedar River trail at the mouth of the River (trail existing), over the water in front of Boeing (Phase I nearing completion) over the water also in front of Boeing (Phase II) across the DNR property (Phase III) and through Southport (Phase IV) to Gene Coulon Park. 8. Page 3-328, Proposed Recreational Facilities The 1 .5 acres of Courtyards appear to be for private use only, however there is discussion that they could be used as public space - clarification is needed. If these are private courtyards the acreage can not be used to offset a public recreation impacts, i.e. mitigation. The 2.2 acres of landscaped area is required as part of the design of the project - clarification is needed as to how this serves as a recreational opportunity. Many of the landscape improvements are street trees and courtyard landscaping. The term "boardwalk" promenade is utilized. This promenade has been described as concrete in other locations and clarification is needed. 9. Page 3-329, Paragraph 1, second to the last line. Delete "Lake Washington Trail" and revise to "trail in Gene Coulon....". 10. Page 3-329, Impacts to Off-Site Facilities, Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1 indicates that passive recreational needs could be met on site, however on Page 3-328, Table 50, 13.17 acres of Open Space, or passive recreation opportunities, would be required to satisfy the needs of this development. Approximately 4.7 acres of open space are included as part of this development, a portion of which does not meet the criteria for passive recreation, i.e. landscaped areas such as street trees. The following parks in this paragraph are not identified on page 3-325, last paragraph, as neighborhood parks that would likely be utilized by residents of this development: North Highlands Park, Windsor Hill Park, Jones Park and Earlington Park. In addition, parks listed on page 3-325 that are not included as part of this paragraph include: Kennydale Beach Park Sunset Park and Highlands Neighborhood Center and Park. Clarification is needed. Southport review comments-EIS/11:38 AM/6/18/99/SPORTEIS Review Comments-Southport EIS Page6 6/18/99 11. Page 3-329, Impacts to Off-Site Facilities, Paragraph 3 Potential boat traffic would not only increase activity in proximity to the wildlife island and park's boat launch but also the swimming beach which is located between the wildlife island and boat launch area. In addition, potential boat traffic could impact the revegetated and naturalized bank adjacent to the DNR property. 12. Page 3-329 Impacts to Off-Site Facilities, last paragraph Revise "Cedar River Park" to Cedar River Park and the Renton Community Center". Revise "Senior Center" to "Senior Activity Center". It is highly unlikely that residents of this development would utilized Sunset Court Park as this park provides no restroom facilities, parking (except for on street), and includes a small play area and a couple of table. Revise "Honey Creek" to "Honey Creek/May Creek". Revise "Lake Loop Trail" to Lake Washington Loop Trail." 13. Page 3-330, Impacts to Off-site Facilities, first paragraph Delete "one City owned outdoor pool at Liberty Park". 14. Page 3-330, Other Potential Impacts to Gene Couon Park, last paragraph. Increased levels of activity at Coulon Park would also cause the need for additional grounds maintenance and additional facility maintenance, necessitating the need for additional materials and supplies, equipment and man hours. In addition, the increased use would likely include the swimming beach and boat launch areas necessitating the need for additional recreation man hours. 15. Parking, Paragraph 1 There is discussion that fee parking for office uses on site would likely be implemented with no charge for residential, guest, retail or on-street parking. However, in the Transportation Element it is recommended that the excess office parking be utilized to offset the deficiencies of the retail and residential parking. The potential outcome would be for Coulon park to be utilized not only for office parking free of charge but for the retail and residential use free of charge. Fee based parking is not recommended. 16. Parking, Paragraph 2 Revise the peak crowds at the park "(summer evenings and weekends)" to "peak season May - Sept." as indicated on Page 3-174. The Peak Park Season of May - September, will coincide with peak office parking demand (weekdays). 17. Mitigation Measures, bullet 1 Courtyards are defined as a private recreational feature which differs from earlier discussions. Revise "Lake Washington Trail" to "trail". Southport review comments-EIS/11:38 AM/6/I8/99/SPORTEIS Review Comments-Southport EIS Page7 6/18/99 18. Mitigation measures, Bullet 2 Discussion about who bears the responsibility for the playground redesign differs from page 3-228. Please clarify. 19. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None are listed, however the PARKS element discusses on page 3-230, the impacts of the building height and increased shade-in the play area. Further discussion is included in the Aesthetics, Light and Glare Section with significant unavoidable adverse impacts identified. There should be consistency between the 2 sections. Should you have any questions please contact me at x-6619. cc: Jim Shepherd Southport review comments-EIS/11:38 AM/6/18/99/SPORTEIS EXAM IP CITY OF RENTON AU NOTICE OF ISSUANCE 6 22 199 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 0 Notice is hereby given under SEPA, RCW 43.216.080, that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposal described below was issued on August 22, 1994, and is available for public review and comment. Copies have been provided for review at the Renton Municipal Library (the Main Branch and the Highlands Branch), and in the Renton Municipal Building at 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055, (both in the Development Services Division 3rd floor) and in the City Clerk's Office (1st floor). PROPOSAL: The Boeing Company has submitted conceptual plans for an office park development ("Longacres Office Park") on approximately 164 acres of the former Longacres Park Racetrack. The office park would include offices, an employee center, and related support and utility facilities. The office park would be developed over a ten year to fifteen year period in accordance with the corporate needs of The Boeing Company. FILE: LUA 91-128,ECF PROPONENT: The Boeing Company LOCATION The Northern boundary of the project site is formed generally by The Boeing Company's Customer Services'Training Center. The Southern boundary lies approximately 1,000 feet South of Southwest 27th Street. Oakesdale Avenue Southwest, if extended, generally forms the site's Eastern border. The Burlington Northern Railroad tracks form the Western boundary of the project site (and the Western limits of the City of Renton). DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The DEIS documents (Volume I - Environmental Impact Statement Text) and Volume II - Technical Appendices) are available for purchase from the Development Services Division Customer on the third floor of the Renton Municipal Building. A packaged set of Volume I and II may be purchased for $30.00 plus tax. The volumes may also each be purchased independently for a cost of$20.00 per volume, plus tax. COMMENT PERIOD: Written public comment on the DEIS will be accepted for a 30 day review period, ending September 21, 1994 and should be addressed to: Lenora Blauman Senior Planner/Project Manager Planning/Building/Public Works Department Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 A public me eting has also been scheduled to accept written and oral comments on the DEIS. This public meeting will be held in the 12enton Community Center on September 13, 1994 from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM. The Community Center is located at 1715 Maple Valley Highway, Renton, Washington 98055. a NOTICE OF DEIS ISSUANCE LUA-91-128,ECF PAGE-2- PUBLICATION DATE: August 22, 1994 DATE OF DECISION: August 16, 1994 SIGNATURES: 4. l v f'4.-211 Gregg Zimme an, Administrator DATE Department Planning/Building/Public Works c151 Sam Chastain, Administrator • DATE Community Service Department Lee jae er, ire Chie DATE Re on Fire Department DSSG.DOC 6/18/99 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CD I CO COR in accordance with requirements in Section 4-9-200by the Zoning Administrator. Level I Site Pplans for each phase of the project shall comply with the approved Level II Site Planmaster plan. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT COR-3: To consider shade/shadow STANDARD effects and encourage compatibility: buildings that are immediately adjacent or abutting a public park, open space, or trail shall incorporate at least one of the features in items 1 through 3, and shall provide item 4: 1. Incorporate building modulation to reduce the overall bulk and mass of buildings, or 2. For each dwelling unit, provide at least one architectural projection not less than two feet from the wall plane and not less than four feet wide, or 3. Vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and facades of a minimum of two feet at an interval of a minimum of 40 feet on a building face or an equivalent standard which adds interest and quality to the project. 4. Provide building articulation and textural variety. DRAFT 37 SECO DEVELOPMENT , INC . 10843 NE 8TM STREET, SUITE 200 • BELLEVtJE, WASHINGTON 98004 TEL: 425/688-3085 • FAX: 425/637-1922 EMAIL: seco@secodev,com Facsimile Transmittal Cover Sheet DATE:1/.01/ TO: //94 Z:->Al4eWle TEL NO: COMPANY:FAX FAX NO: FROM: - Aie: !ji( TEL NO: Number of Pages to Follow: e7r14.10477rS 41 ,awr 4/2_ THANK YOU ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS DEEMED RELIABLE:HOWEVER,NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY IS MADE AS TO THE ACCURACY HEREOF. il 'd £L99 ' °N ZZ6l -L£9-9Zti lN3V'1d013A30 003S Wd£5 : Z 6661 ' Ll ' unr Vo4 so uTH Po SEC 0 Development 10843 NE 8'" St.Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 98004 June 17, 1999 Lisa Grueter Senior Planner Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Renton City Hall--6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Re: Draft#2 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Dear Lisa, We have received the second Draft copy and have a few comments. Most comments revolve around two sections of the SEIS,the Air Quality and Fisheries sections. Air Quality: Page 3-30 "The odor issues associated with any alternative development would be similar to those dexcribed for Plan A, except that a mauufacturing facility or other industrial use would likely be less sensitive to odors than either office or residential uses." This statement is very presumptive of the type of manufacturing or industrial use that may locate on this site. There are undoubtedly some industrial uses(office)and manufacturing(pharmaceutical)that could be as sensitive to odors/pollutants as residential uses. I would like to see this comparative portion of the statement removed. Page 3-31 Indirect Impacts— "Mitigation efforts could be concentrated ar the source of the emissions. The applicant could work with Boeing to reduced their emissions or increase the dispersion of air pollutants." I don't believe it should be suggested that we should need to do any mitigation of perceived problems generated by an adjacent site. This comment should be removed. Fisheries Page 3-67 Mitigation measures "..limiting mass grading to the dry season.." I would rather propose this mitigation for some distance(25 feet, 50 feet?)from the nearby waters so that grading and pile driving activities on the balance of the site could continue during the rainy season. The site is so flat there is little danger of erosion during storm events and sedimentation and silt can be controlled by normal construction practices even during the rainy season. I would like this section to be changed to eliminate or modify the dry season aspect. Attached is a copy of page 3-63 with a few typographical errors circled that are relatively minor. I have e-xnailed the comments on the Transportation section that were supplied by Jeff Schramm of Transpo for your review as well. Sincerely Rex Allen Project Manager Page 1 E/Z ' d EL99 '°N ZZ61 -LE9-9Zti 1N3k013A30 003S 6E61 ' Ll ' unr Clearing and grading for construction would expose erodible soils and increase the rate of surface water runoff from storms due to compaction and elimination of vegetative cover, The most significant increase in erosion hazard potential would be during the construction phase when earthwork activities commence. Although the site is virtually flat, localized erosion from surface water flows could occur if adequate temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures are not implemented (refer to the EARTH section for identification of recommended TESC measures). The impact of fine sediment potentially delivered to fish habitat in John's Creek and Lake Washington would depend on the time of year sediment was delivered. Fine sediment wouldm,14& be created during all grading activity, b would not •' - •.- • -livered to fish-bearing waters until runoff during the wet season provided sufficient water to mobilize and transport the material. The fine sediment could impact resident rou an. possi• y soc eye s•- ' • - .. •el quality in John's Creek, if it were not controlled by TESC measures. The Lake Washington substrate offshore of the site is primarily silt based. Assuming standard erosion and sediment control measures are implemented, the small amounts of additional fine sediment that could be delivered to the lake would not materially impact habitat in Lake Washington. Impacts to Riparian Vegetation Riparian buffers typically perform many functions essential to fish survival and productivity. Vegetation in riparian areas shades streams and maintains cool water temperatures needed b most fish. Tree canopy cover can affect water quality by blocking solar radiation and —a- . resultant increase in water temperature (Beschta et al., 1987; Sullivan et al., 1990). Loss of shade can lead to increases in water temperature during the day. Because salmonids are a cold-blooded species, stream temperature is an extremely important factor affecting production, metabolism, growth, survival, behavior, and habitat utilization. Plant roots stabilize stream banks and help control erosion and sedimentation. Adjacent vegetation creates overhanging cover for fish. Riparian habitat contributes leaves, twigs, and insects to streams, thereby providing basic food and nutrients that support fish and aquatic wildlife. Large trees that fall into streams create pools, riffles, backwater, small dams, and off-channel habitat that are necessary to fish for cover, spawning, rearing, and protection from predators. Pools help maintain riffles where gravel kessential for spawning accumulates. Riparian vegetation, litter layers, and soils filter incoming sediments and pollutants, thereby assisting in the maintenance of high water quality needed for healthy fish populations. Riparian habitat moderates stream volumes by reducing peak flows during flooding periods and by storing and slowly releasing water into streams during low flows (Knutson and Naef, 1997)_ With the exception of a few willows (Salix sp.) near John's Creek, existing riparian vegetation associated with all three on-site surface water features (Lake Washington, John's Creek and the ditch or the west side) consists entirely of exotic grasses and blackberry with little beneficial value to fisheries resources. The limited existing riparian function in all three surface waters would be impacted by construction under Plan A and Plan B. Although no grading is anticipated within the riparian area of John's Creek, exotic lants would be removed and replaced with native species (blackberry bushes n r i entrance access road would be remove for aes etic purposes . is oss of exotic vegetation would not be anticipate3.to h eavanysigniticanaectonishabitat. Southport Development Planned Action Fisheries and Aquatic Animals Draft Supplemental EIS 3-63 EiE d EL99 ' DU ZZ61 -LE9-9Zti 11\13N1d013A30 003S ildti9 : Z 6661 L1 ' U11(' Lisa Grueter From: Rex Allen To: Lisa Grueter Subject: FW: TRANSPO Review of Southport Date: Thursday, June 17, 1999 1:12PM Lisa, Comments from Jeff Schramm... I'll follow up with mine later this afternoon. R- Original Message From: Jeff Schramm [SMTP:jeffs@transpo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 5:40 PM To: Rex Allen (E-mail) Cc: Torsten Lienau (E-mail); Chris Forster (E-mail) Subject: TRANSPO Review of Southport I have reviewed the Transportation section and Appendices for the latest version of the preliminary Draft EIS for Southport (June 1999). Entranco did an excellent overall job on the EIS. They addressed the majority of my comments from the May 1999 version, and were also able to address the complex issues related to site access operations and design for Southport, Gene Coulon Park, and the railroad crossing. I have only two comments: 1. The Parking Demand spreadsheets were not included. Page 29 of Transportation Appendix says they were to be included in Appendix F. 2. The overall labeling of the Transportation Appendices is confusing. The main Transportation Appendix D refers to several sub-appendices (A to G). I would suggest that these sub-appendices be labeled D-1, D-2, etc., or some other convention that indicates that these are sub-appendices to the main Transportation Appendix D. Please call or email if you have any questions regarding my review or comments. Also, once the DEIS is published, can you please forward me a copy? Thanks. Jeff Schramm Transportation Engineer The TRANSPO Group, Inc. 11730 - 118th Avenue NE Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 phone (425) 821-3665 fax (425) 825-8434 jeffs@transpo.com Page 1 a" o RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT V(-S MEMORANDUM DATE: June 18, 1999 TO: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner FROM: Chuck Duffy, Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Comments - Southport Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS #2 - LUA 99-027 My concerns are two-fold. First, the proposed parking is substantially under the City of Renton parking standards (page 2-34). I understand that Lee Wheeler and Sue Carlson have had in- depth discussions on this topic. My second concern is the Southport/Gene Coulon/Lake Washington Blvd intersection. This intersection is the key access point. It controls both the primary and secondary means of access to the site. Consequently, traffic flow in this area must remain flowing. Any gridlock congestion, particularly during the PM peak hours will cause serious delays for responding units. This intersection is very constrained due to the railroad, etc. Consequently, if gridlock occurs, there are no secondary areas that will allow traffic to move out of the way. A parallel situation occurs on the freeways. However, due to the center median and outside shoulder areas, vehicles can move to allow emergency vehicles to pass. Unfortunately, I do not see these secondary areas for the intersection. Please contact me at x7028 if you have any questions. CC: Lee Wheeler CITY OF RENTON Community Services MEMORANDUM Date: June 17, 1999 To:Lisa Grueter From: Leslie Betlach, Parks Director Re: Southport Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS #2 - Review Comments LUA 99-027 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment upon the Southport Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Following are comments, by chapter, that are pertinent to the Parks Department: CHAPTER II Generally, should the items addressed under Chapter III - Affected Environment be incorporated, (following), then modifications would be required in this Chapter for consistency. In addition are following comments for Chapter II: 1. Page 2-23, First Bullet Revise "Pedestrian use to connect the trail system of Southport to the Cedar River Trail" (delete "Boeing portion of the Lake Washington Trail"). 2. Page 2-23, First Paragraph Delete "Lake Washington" in the last line to read "Cedar River Trail with the trail in Coulon Park." CHAPTER III AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT - EARTH Review Comments-Southport EIS Page2 7/14/99 1. Page 3-11, Mitigation Measures, Geologic Hazards, Other Recommended Measures In previous preliminary grading plans, the area of grading extended into Coulon Park. The developer should meet existing at the property line without disturbing Parks property. Use of straw bales along John's Creek within the confines of the Parks property for erosion control is preferred to the use of silt fencing and fine gravels which are difficult to remove upon completion. WATER 1. Page 3-32, Introduction John's Creek is likely not a man-made creek, but rather a natural drainage that has been modified and re-aligned by man. AESTHETICS, LIGHT & GLARE 1. Page 3-140, Principal viewer Groups and Selected Viewpoints, Paragraph 1 Revise The primary "viewer" to "user". 2. Page 3-149, Shading Conditions, Paragraph 2. There is no discussion regarding the increased shading to the turf area north of the play area during the winter months. The increased shading will likely result in the growth of moss and soggy soil conditions. 3. Page 3-149, paragraph 3/Page 3-156 Shading Conditions Perhaps a more accurate description of the change in shaded area to the playground attributed to building height and location would be to use percentage of area shaded. For example: Winter Solstice @ 2;30 P,M. Existing Conditions is 50% coverage/ Proposed conditions is 100% coverage. (Please note that the graphic reflects leaves on the trees during this time of year when in fact all of the trees are deciduous and there are no leaves). The Existing Shading Conditions would be approximate 10% Coverage/Proposed Conditions 100%. Spring/Fall Equinox @ 5:00 P.M. Existing Conditions is 40% coverage/Proposed Conditions 80% coverage. 4. Page 3-167 and 3-168, Mitigation Measures There is no discussion regarding what the potential impacts would be to the Play Area pertinent to shading, glare and visual quality if any of the following occurred: Southport review comments-EIS/10:12 AM/7/14/99/SPORTEIS 111)• Review Comments- Southport EIS Page3 7/14/99 1. Increased building setbacks from the park property, 2. Stair stepping the vertical building height downward closer to the play area, 3. Reducing the overall building height. 5. Page 3-168, Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts See item #4 above as some impacts may be minimized. TRANSPORTATION 1. Page 3-176, Pedestrian/Bicycle Access, Paragraph 1 and Figure 33 Revise to include bike trail along the west side of 1-405 to coal Creek Parkway from Hazelwood Lane to Ripley Lane. 2. Page 3-195 - 3-201, On-Site Parking I am assuming this section will be modified per the 6/10/99 Follow- up Memorandum. However, the discussion about the excess office parking being available for the retail use requires clarification as to whether the retail/restaurant users will be required to pay for parking, again increasing the potential for use of Coulon Stalls. Please note that the reference to summer weekends, the park's lots are usually over capacity should also include weekdays - especially if there is a special event or it is a hot, sunny day. 3. Page 3-202, Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Sentence #3 needs to be further defined to The existing pedestrian trail through Gene Coulon ....to provide an additional pedestrian (delete bicycle) access route in the area. Bicycles are not allowed in Coulon Park on the trails, only on the roads. The Trail from the mouth of the Cedar River to Coulon Park would be solely for pedestrians. 4. Page 35, Site Access (Information provided by Lisa) Although, 2 traffic scenarios are being presented, with no recommendation being made at this time, there is concern regarding Scenario 2. Scenario 2 would require exiting vehicles from Coulon Park to stop, thereby diminishing queue spillback from Lake Washington Boulevard. The anticipated delay for vehicles exiting Coulon Park is 5 seconds. This analysis makes the assumption that vehicles exiting Southport and vehicles exiting Coulon Park will take turns. Upon seeing a truck and trailer trying to exit Coulon, the more likely scenario for a vehicle exiting Southport would be to move ahead into the traffic so that the Southport vehicle does not have to travel behind the truck and trailer. With an average delay of over 60 seconds for vehicles exiting Southport under Scenario 2, it is even more likely that the vehicles exiting Coulon Park will have problems doing so. Southport review comments-EIS/10:12 AM/7/14/99/SPORTEIS Review Comments- Southport EIS Page4 7/14/99 5. Page 3-209, Mitigation Measures/Other Recommended Measures There is discussion regarding a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program with one of the elements including Parking pricing which again has the effect of prompting Coulon Park as a parking area for the Southport Development. PARKS ENVIRONMENT 1. Page 3-325, last sentience of paragraph #1. The City (within its boundaries) has one (1) swimming pool located at Hazen High School. 2. Page 3-325, second paragraph. The Lake Washington Trail is a separate trail from the trail located in Coulon Park. The Lake Nashington Trail as defined in the Comprehensive Trails Plan on page 22 follows the e) isting 1-405 Trail, Ripley Lane, Lake Washington Blvd. over to the Cedar River Trail at 6th Avenue. The Lake Washington Trail is a pedestrian and bicycle trail. On page 49 of the same plan is a description for bike users under the sub-title of Lake Washington Loop which follows the same route. (In the Revised Trails Plan, which is currently being conducted, the Lake Washington Trail will be renamed to the Lake Washington Loop Trail and will continue to be a pedestrian/bicycle route - however not throucih Coulon Park. A separate pedestrian only trail from and through Coulon Park, via Southport, DNR and Boeing over to the mouth of the River and the Cedar River Trail is proposed. Phase I of this trail from the mouth of the River over the water in front of Boeing is nearing completion. 3. Page 3-325, second paragraph, Line 5 Revise "tree" to "three". 4. Page 3-325, second paragraph, Line 7. Reviso "Clam Light" to "Clam Lights Festival, delete the word "the", and delete the word Concert". . 5. Page 3-325, second paragraph, Line 8 Revisr: "reaches" to "exceeds". Southport re\Iew comments-EIS/10:12 AM/7/14/99/SPORTEIS Review Comments-Southport EIS Pages 7/14/99 6. Page 3-325, last paragraph Revise "Highlands Park" to "Highlands Neighborhood Center and Park". Revise "Honey Creek" to "Honey Creek/May Creek". Revise "two swimming pools" to "one swimming pool". 7. Page 3-327, Connection to Lake Washington Trail See discussion on item #2, above and revise Paragraph accordingly. The connection proposed as part of the Southport development would be a pedestrian trail only from the Cedar River trail at the mouth of the River (trail existing), over the water in front of Boeing (Phase I nearing completion) over the water also in front of Boeing (Phase II) across the DNR property (Phase III) and through Southport (Phase IV) to Gene Coulon Park. 8. Page 3-328, Proposed Recreational Facilities The 1.5 acres of Courtyards appear to be for private use only, however there is discussion that they could be used as public space - clarification is needed. If these are private courtyards the acreage can not be used to offset a public recreation impacts, i.e. mitigation. The 2.2 acres of landscaped area is required as part of the design of the project - clarification is needed as to how this serves as a recreational opportunity. Many of the landscape improvements are street trees and courtyard landscaping. The term "boardwalk" promenade is utilized. This promenade has been described as concrete in other locations and clarification is needed. 9. Page 3-329, Paragraph 1, second to the last line. Delete "Lake Washington Trail" and revise to "trail in Gene Coulon....". 10. Page 3-329, Impacts to Off-Site Facilities, Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1 indicates that passive recreational needs could be met on site, however on Page 3-328, Table 50, 13.17 acres of Open Space, or passive recreation opportunities, would be required to satisfy the needs of this development. Approximately 4.7 acres of open space are included as part of this development, a portion of which does not meet the criteria for passive recreation, i.e. landscaped areas such as street trees. The following parks in this paragraph are not identified on page 3-325, last paragraph, as neighborhood parks that would likely be utilized by residents of this development: North Highlands Park, Windsor Hill Park, Jones Park and Earlington Park. In addition, parks listed on page 3-325 that are not included as part of this paragraph include: Kennydale Beach Park Sunset Park and Highlands Neighborhood Center and Park. Clarification is needed. Southport review comments-EIS/10 12 AM/7/14/99/SPORTEIS Review Comments-Southport EIS Page6 7/14/99 11. Page 3-329, Impacts to Off-Site Facilities, Paragraph 3 Potential boat traffic would not only increase activity in proximity to the wildlife island and park's boat launch but also the swimming beach which is located between the wildlife island and boat launch area. In addition, potential boat traffic could impact the revegetated and naturalized bank adjacent to the DNR property. 12. Page 3-329 Impacts to Off-Site Facilities, last paragraph Revise "Cedar River Park" to Cedar River Park and the Renton Community Center". Revise "Senior Center" to "Senior Activity Center". It is highly unlikely that residents of this development would utilized Sunset Court Park as this park provides no restroom facilities, parking (except for on street), and includes a small play area and a couple of table. Revise "Honey Creek" to "Honey Creek/May Creek". Revise "Lake Loop Trail" to Lake Washington Loop Trail." 13. Page 3-330, Impacts to Off-site Facilities, first paragraph Delete "one City owned outdoor pool at Liberty Park". 14. Page 3-330, Other Potential Impacts to Gene Couon Park, last paragraph. Increased levels of activity at Coulon Park would also cause the need for additional grounds maintenance and additional facility maintenance, necessitating the need for additional materials and supplies, equipment and man hours. In addition, the increased use would likely include the swimming beach and boat launch areas necessitating the need for additional recreation man hours. 15. Parking, Paragraph 1 There is discussion that fee parking for office uses on site would likely be implemented with no charge for residential, guest, retail or on-street parking. However, in the Transportation Element it is recommended that the excess office parking be utilized to offset the deficiencies of the retail and residential parking. The potential outcome would be for Coulon park to be utilized not only for office parking free of charge but for the retail and residential use free of charge. Fee based parking is not recommended. 16. Parking, Paragraph 2 Revise the peak crowds at the park "(summer evenings and weekends)" to "peak season May - Sept." as indicated on Page 3-174. The Peak Park Season of May - September, will coincide with peak office parking demand (weekdays). 17. Mitigation Measures, bullet 1 Courtyards are defined as a private recreational feature which differs from earlier discussions. Revise "Lake Washington Trail" to "trail". Southport review comments-EIS/10 12 AM/7/14/99/SPORTEIS Review Comments-Southport EIS Page7 7/14/99 18. Mitigation measures, Bullet 2 Discussion about who bears the responsibility for the playground redesign differs from page 3-228. Please clarify. 19. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None are listed, however the PARKS element discusses on page 3-230, the impacts of the building height and increased shade-in the play area. Further discussion is included in the Aesthetics, Light and Glare Section with significant unavoidable adverse impacts identified. There should be consistency between the 2 sections. Should you have any questions please contact me at x-6619. cc: Jim Shepherd Southport review comments-EIS/10:12 AM/7/14/99/SPORTEIS a 1 Lisa Grueter From: Lisa Grueter To: Leslie Betlach Subject: Noise and Traffic Date: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 2:50PM I spoke with the noise consultant. If buildings are located 100 feet away from pile driving activities, there wouldn't be a vibration issue (see page 3.82). I had Owen measure the distance from the property line to the nearest park buildings (using our GIS maps which are based on photogrametric aerials) and he measured 128 feet approximately. If you want, we can have the EIS include a statement that the park buildings are more than 100 feet away from the property line. Related to Entranco's analysis of the driveways, I spoke with Jeff Haynie at Entranco. Their work assumed summer traffic. The chart shows a minor back up and minor delay if there is a stop sign for cars exiting the Park. He said he understood your concern about drivers not letting vehicles pass (including those hauling boats), but he feels that the impact would not be significant based on their work. The analysis is presented to help the City in preparing designs later, but they are not recommending one approach over the other, and there could be other solutions. I haven't heard from Nick yet. I hope this covers your concerns. Thanks. Page 1 RECEIVED JUN 1 6 1999 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING17(14/1A,01751/ Aallatf: dAL AXAJIW ", ` de-Py 2 4e,/}mize., 44, ,c, ioWtd hia,c2.Ce„ ja)U LO a4) Awi,d 4-1/14(1 Azazu?..0 //2-0 a-e Lew d 4i6.467 A /(//49 m n. Chu etc,'et.t CITY OF RENTON D 24er.ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, 4'4 NEIGHBORHOODS,AND STRATEGIC PLANNING kINN15MEMORANDUM Coy 1999 4.1 4n h DATE: June 14, 1999 n eer,•RF "-N Pt. TO: Departments/Divisions Reviewing Project Files Lee Haro,Transportation Systems Division FROM: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578) 0 SUBJECT: Southport Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS#2—LUA 99-027 The second Preliminary Draft SEIS is here for your review. I've copied the summary and sections that interest each Division/Department rather than routing the whole document. If after reading the summary you would like additional sections that I haven't given you,please let me know. Please review the attached sections, and provide comments by Thursday morning,June 17, 1999. I will be going to ERC on June 22nd, and having your comments on Thursday, June 17th will allow me to compile the comments into a memo due the same day. I need to return comments to the SEIS consultants on June 23rd. You can make your comments in the margins of the document instead of providing a memo, unless you prefer to write a memo. Attention should be paid to the mitigation measures and whether they are reasonable, and related to identified impacts. New/changed information in Preliminary Draft#2 includes: Air quality CO modeling at a couple of key intersections. More information about indirect air quality impacts (the EIS consultants have spoken with Boeing consultants). Information about the Burlington Northern railroad, site entrance queues, and noon peak hour traffic at Park Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard,parking demand and other issues. Biological analysis of the potential channelization plan on Lake Washington Boulevard. Information about the Western Pond Turtle. I will be reviewing the documents against previous comments from the Divisions and Departments. If you have any questions,please give me a call (ext. 6578). Thank you. cc: Sue Carlson Jennifer Henning Ron Straka Environmental Review Committee SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED ACTION DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT City of Renton Economic Development/Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Department June, 1999 FACT SHEET PROJECT TITLE Southport Development Planned Action PROPOSED ACTION The applicant, SECO Development, is proposing that phased redevelopment of the Shuffleton Steam Plant site be designated by the City as a Planned Action pursuant to SEPA (WAC 197-11- 168( c )). The Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase, would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. The Proposed Action includes: Adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and concurrent Rezone (from Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential) Municipal Code Text Amendments Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan approval This process assumes that a final Master Plan (Level II site plan) and site plan(s) (Level I site plans) for individual phases, as well as shoreline substantial development permit applications, will be submitted at a later stage as Planned Actions. Applications for construction-related permits from the City of Renton and other state and federal agencies, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404, 401 permits, stormwater discharge/NPDES, building and construction permits, etc., required for long-term redevelopment of the site would also be requested for approval, as needed, subsequent to the adoption of the Planned Action Ordinance. Issuance of these and other required development permits is included within the scope of environmental review for the Proposed Action. To facilitate the City's consideration of the Planned Action designation and environmental review of implementation of the Planned Action, a preliminary Conceptual Master Plan for the site has been formulated. The Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan provides conceptual information on the potential mix of uses, building density and height, access/circulation, recreation and open space opportunities and other development features. The intensity of site development would fall within the range of development represented by Conceptual Master Plan scenario A Plan A) and Conceptual Master Plan scenario B (Plan B). Plan A represents the lower point of the development range and would consist of 543 multifamily residential units, 38,000 square feet of Southport Development Planned Action Fact Sheet Draft Supplemental EIS II M w retail area, and 500,000 square feet of office space. Plan B represents the upper point of the development range and would consist of 581 multifamily residential units, 38,000 square feet of retail area, and 750,000 square feet of office space. Each plancallsforsubstantialpublicspacesandamenitiesincluding provisions for public access to Lake Washington. ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives to the Proposed Action are analyzed in this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). No Action - No Development Alternative - Under this alternative, the existing steam plant building would remain and storage use of the site would continue for the foreseeable future. Access to the site would continue to be from the shared access roadway with GeneCoulonPark. Public access to Lake Washington and the opportunity for a public trail linking to the park to the east would not be provided. No new development would occur. No Action - Future Industrial Development - Under this alternative, industrial redevelopment of the site, consistent with the existingComprehensivePlanlandusedesignationofEmploymentArea - Industrial and zoning classification of Industrial-Heavy (IH), is assumed. Industrial redevelopment under this alternative is assumed to consist of approximately 230,000 square feet of manufacturing (high bay style) space and approximately 70,000 square feet of associated office space. It is anticipated that industrial redevelopment of the site would result in the demolition of the Shuffleton Steam Plant. LOCATION The site is located along the Lake Washington shoreline, between the Boeing industrial complex and Gene Coulon Park. PROPONENT/APPLICANT SECO Development DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION 1999 with phased development following necessary permitapprovals. LEAD AGENCY City of Renton Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic PlanningDepartment City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Southport Development Planned Action Fact SheetDraftSupplementalEISil N CONTACT PERSON Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425) 430-6578 REQUIRED APPROVALS The following permits and approvals may be required for phased redevelopment of the site: City of Renton: Planned Action Designation Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Municipal Code Text Amendments Master Site Plan Approval (Level ll site plan) and individual site plan approvals (Level I site plan) by phase Shoreline Substantial Development Approval Clearing, grading, demolition, construction, building and mechanical permits Roadway access approval Parking and Loading Regulation Modification Surface Water Regulation Modification (possible) Variances, if applicable Washington Department of Ecology: NPDES permit approval Shoreline Substantial Development Approval Possible Shoreline Variance or Conditional Use Water Quality Certification Coastal Zone Management Certification Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Hydraulic Project Approval (possible) Washington Department of Natural Resources: Aquatic Use Authorization US Army Corps of Engineers: Section 401 and 404 Permits (possible) All other licenses and permits required to allow redevelopment of the site under the Master Site Plan (Level II site plan). Southport Development Planned Action Fact Sheet Drift Supplemental EIS Iv 1111 w PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS This Supplemental EIS supplements two previous Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) that were issued by the City of Renton in support of the City's comprehensive planning efforts. These EIS documents were prepared for the Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan (1993) and the Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan (1995). EIS AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS Primary Author, EIS Coordination, Land Use, Population/Housing/Employment, Aesthetics, and Public Services Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. 205 Lake St. S., Suite 202 Kirkland, WA 98033 Geotechnical, Groundwater, Water Quality and Fisheries Analysis Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 - 5kh Ave., Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 Noise and Air Quality Impact Analysis McCulley, Frick & Gilman, Inc. 19203 36`h Ave W., Suite 101 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Transportation Analysis Entranco, Inc. 10900 NE 8`h St., Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98004 Utility Analyses kpff Consulting Engineers 1201 3rd Ave, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101 LOCATION C)F BACK- GROUND INFORMATION Information in project files is available at City of Renton Economic Development/Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department. DATE OF DRAFT SEIS ISSUANCE DATE COMMENTS DUE DRAFT SEIS PURCHASE PRICE Southport Development Planned Action Fact SheetDraftSupplementalEISV w TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page Fact Sheet Table of Contents vi List of Figures vii List of Tables viii CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY 1-1 CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-1 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION MEASURES AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 3-1 EARTH Affected Environment 3-1 Significant Impacts of the Proposed Action 3-6 Significant Impacts of the Alternatives 3-10 Mitigation Measures 3-11 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3-14 AIR QUALITY Affected Environment 3-15 Significant Impacts of the Proposed Action 3-22 Significant Impacts of the Alternatives 3-29 Mitigation Measures 3-30 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3-31 WATER Affected Environment 3-32 Significant Impacts of the Proposed Action 3-37 Significant Impacts of the Alternatives 3-50 Mitigation Measures 3-51 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3-52 FISHERIES RESOURCES Affected Environment 3-53 Significant Impacts of the Proposed Action 3-61 Significant Impacts of the Alternatives 3-66 Mitigation Measures 3-67 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3-68 NOISE Affected Environment 3-69 Significant Impacts of the Proposed Action 3-74 Significant Impacts of the Alternatives 3-87 Southport Development Planned Action Fact Sheet Draft Supplemental EIS vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Mitigation Measures 3-88SignificantUnavoidableAdverseImpacts3-91 LAND USE Affected Environment 3-92SignificantImpactsoftheProposedAction3-97SignificantImpactsoftheAlternatives3-101 Mitigation Measures 3-102 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3-102 RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS AND POLICIES 3-103 POPULATION, HOUSING & EMPLOYMENT Affected Environment 3-132SignificantImpactsoftheProposedAction3-136 Significant Impacts of the Alternatives 3-138 Mitigation Measures 3-138SignificantUnavoidableAdverseImpacts3-138 AESTHETICS, LIGHT AND GLARE Affected Environment 3-139SignificantImpactsoftheProposedAction3-150SignificantImpactsoftheAlternatives3-167 Mitigation Measures 3-167UnavoidableSignificantAdverseImpacts3-168 TRANSPORTATION Introduction 3-169 Affected Environment 3-169 Significant Impacts of the Proposed Action 3-179SignificantImpactsoftheAlternatives3-203 Mitigation Measures 3-208 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts 3-210 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3-211 DISTRIBUTION LIST REFERENCES Southport Development Planned Action Fact SheetDraftSupplementalEISvii APPENDICES Appendix A - Southport Geology, Groundwater, Water Quality and Fisheries Technical Analysis prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Appendix B - Southport Development Planned Action SEIS Air Quality Analysis prepared by McCulley, Frick & Gilman, Inc. Appendix C - Southport Development Planned Action SEIS Environmental Noise Analysis prepared by McCulley, Frick & Gilman, Inc. Appendix D - Transportation Section of the Supplemental EIS prepared by Entranco, Inc. Appendix E -Arborist Recommendations, prepared by The Portico Group. Southport Development Planned Action Fact Sheet Draft Supplemental EIS viii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Vicinity Map 2-7 2. Existing Site Conditions Map 2-10 3. Development Plan A- Site Plan 2-16 4. Development Plan B - Site Plan 2-17 5. Design Sketch 2-18 6. Fault Map 3-5 7. Existing Land Use Map 3-94 8. Existing Zoning Map 3-96 9. Viewpoint Location Map 3-141 10. Existing View from Jones Ave. NE at 14th St. 3-142 11. Existing View from Gene Coulon Park Dock 3-143 12. Existing View from Gene Coulon Park Playground 3-144 13. Existing View from Park Ave. 3-145 14. Existing View from Lake Washington Blvd. at Burnett Ave 3-146 15. Existing View from Mercer Island 3-147 16. Existing View from Cedar River Trail 3-148 17. View from Jones Ave. NE at 14th St. - Plan B 3-152 18. View from Gene Coulon Park Dock- Plan B 3-153 19. View from Gene Coulon Park Playground - Plan B 3-154 20. View from Park Ave. - Plan B 3-155 21. Shading Conditions -Winter Solstice 12:00 Noon 3-157 22. Shading Conditions -Winter Solstice 2:30 PM 3-158 23. Shading Conditions - Spring/Fall Equinox 12:00 Noon 3-159 24. Shading Conditions - Spring/Fall Equinox 2:30 PM 3-160 25. Shading Conditions - Spring/Fall Equinox 5:00 PM 3-161 26. Shading Conditions - Summer Solstice 12:00 Noon 3-162 27. Shading Conditions - Summer Solstice 2:30 PM 3-163 28. Shading Conditions - Summer Solstice 5:00 PM 3-164 29. Existing Roadway Network 3-170 30. Traffic Control and Channelization 3-172 31. Existing 1999 Traffic Volumes 3-173 32. Summer 1999 Existing Traffic Volumes 3-175 33. Nonmotorized Facilities 3-178 34. Accident Total 3-180 35. 2004 Background Traffic Volumes 3-182 36. 2004 Plan A Trip Distribution 3-186 37. 2004 Plan B Trip Distribution 3-187 38. 2004 Total Traffic Volumes - Plan A 3-188 39. 2004 Total Traffic Volumes - Plan B 3-189 40. Off-Site Roadway Improvement Plan 3-193 41. Plan A Access Queue AM 3-197 42. Plan A Access Queue PM 3-198 Southport Development Planned Action Fact Sheet Draft Supplemental EIS lx w TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 43. Plan B Access Queue AM 3-19944. Plan B Access Queue PM 3-20045. Alternative Trip Distribution 3-205 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Proposed Development Range 2-15 2. Proposed Uses by Acreage 2-193. Proposed Residential Unit Types 2-204. Uses by Acreage - No Action Alternatives, Sub Part 2 2-285. Ambient Air Quality Standards 3-166. Boeing Commercial Airplane (Renton) 1997 Emissions Report 3-177. Lake Class and Class AA (Extraordinary) Water Quality Standards for Lake Washington and it's Tributaries 3-288. Peak Flows (CFS) Discharging to John's Creek Under Developed Site Conditions 3-389. Untreated Stormwater Runoff Quality 3-44 10. Discharge Quality from the Wet Vault Before and After Mixing with Roof and WalkwayRunoff 3-4411.Acute and Chronic Water Quality Standards for Lake Washington 3-4512. Acute and Chronic Water Quality Standards for John's Creek 3-4713. Fish Species in Lake Washington 3-56 14. Comparison of Shoreline Conditions within the Site Area and Those Along the SurroundingShoreline 3-59 15. Comparison of Overwater Pier Coverage within the Site area (1997) and Along theSurroundingShoreline (1989)3-5916. Washington Maximum Permissible Sound Levels (dBA) 3-71 17. FHWA Roadway Noise Abatement Criteria 3-7218. Existing Off-Site Environmental Sound Levels (dBA)3-7319. Existing On-Site Environmental Sound Levels (dBA)3-7420. Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment Noise (dBA) 3-7521. Range of Calculated Construction Noise Levels (dBA) 3-7622. Calculated Sound Levels from Project Related Pile Driving (dBA) 3-7823. Existing Vibration Levels - Boeing Plant 3-8024. Potential Pile Driving Vibration Levels - Boeing Plant 3-8125. Estimated HVAC Noise Levels (dBA) at Buildout of Plan A 3-8326. Calculated Traffic Noise Levels (dBA) 3-8627. Population 1990-1998 3-13328. Population Forecasts 3-13329. City of Renton Housing Unit Types, 1990-1998 (% of total) 3-13430. Housing Characteristics of FAX 4130 3-135 31. 1999 Existing Level of Service 3-177 32. 2004 Background Level of Service 3-183 Southport Development Planned Action Fact SheetDraftSupplementalEISx w TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 33. Southport Trip Generation 3-185 34. 2004 Level of Service for Southport 3-190 35. 2004 Mitigated Level of Service 3-194 36. 2004 Delay and Queue Summary 3-196 37. Trip Generation - Industrial Redevelopment Alternative 3-203 38. 2004 Level of Service for Industrial Redevelopment Alternative 3-206 39. 2004 Mitigated Level of Service for Industrial Redevelopment Alternative 3-207 40. Number of Calls for Service 3-212 41. Renton Calls for Police Service 3-215 42. Response Times, 1998 3-216 43. City of Renton Crime Statistics 3-216 44. Enrollment Trends and Projections 3-220 45. Enrollment Projects 3-221 46. Estimated Number of Students due to Development under Plan A 3-222 47. Estimated Number of Students due to Development under Plan B 3-223 48. Parks/Open Space in Renton 3-226 49. Level of Service Standards for Parks and Open Space 3-227 50. Park/Recreational Facility Standards Under the Proposed Action (Plan A) 3-228 51. Solid Waste Disposal at Buildout Plan A 3-242 52. Solid Waste Disposal at Buildout Plan B 3-243 53. Solid Waste Disposal at Buildout No Action - Future Industrial Development Alternatives 3-244 Southport Development Planned Action Fact Sheet Draft Supplemental EIS xl CHAPTER II DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft Supplemental EIS) presents a description of the Proposed Action, including adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance, and approval of Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments, Rezone and Zoning Code Text Amendments, and Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan, for the 17-acre site. A brief overview of pertinent planning and environmental review actions undertaken by the City of Renton that relate to the site is also provided. A detailed description of impacts, mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts is contained in Chapter III of this Draft Supplemental EIS. A more specific discussion of the proposal's relationsftp to applicable plans, policies and regulations is provided in Chapter III as well. A description of the alternatives to the Proposed Action is also provided in this section. OVERVIEW Planning Process Growth Management Act The Growth Management Act (GMA), adopted by the 1990 Washington State Legislature and amended periodically thereafter, contains a comprehensive framework for managing growth and development within local jurisdictions. Many of the provisions of the GMA apply to the state's largest and fastest growing jurisdictions, including King County and all cities within the county. Additionally, some provisions (such as requirements to identify and regulate critical areas) apply to all local jurisdictions. Comprehensive plans for cities planning under GMA must include a land use element (including a future land use map), housing element, transportation element, public facilities element, and utilities element. Additional elements may be added at the local jurisdiction's option. The GMA plan must provide for adequate capacity to accommodate the city's share of projected regional growth. The plan must also ensure that planned and financed infrastructure can support planned growth at a locally acceptable level of service. As required by the GMA, the City of Renton has prepared and adopted a local comprehensive plan to guide future development and fulfill the City's responsibilities under GMA. Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-1 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan was adopted in February 1995 and is consistent with the requirements and provisions of GMA. The Plan includes land use, transportation, housing, capital facilities, utilities, downtown, economic development and environmental elements. To accommodate projected employment and residential growth in the city, the Comprehensive Plan envisions a more compact urban city. One mechanism to achieve a more compact urban environment is the encouragement of higher residential densities, mixed use commercial/residential projects, and office/residential centers. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies new or expanded public facilities on a city wide basis needed to serve growth projected to occur within the city. To'\\ allow the proposed mix of uses on the Southport site, the proposal would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (and concurrent rezone) from the existing Employment Area - Indhstrial designation to Center Office Residential (COR). The intention of the COR Comprehensive Plan designation is to create a compact, urban development with high amenity value, that serves as a gateway to the City. Primary uses in the COR should include complexes of offices or residential developments, hotels and convention centers, research and development facilities, and corporate headquarters. Commercial uses such as retail and services should also be permitted provided that they support the primary uses of the site and are architecturally and functionally integrated into the development. Incentives which encourage a mix of uses and structured parking should be provided for development in the COR designation. Comprehensive Plan Environmental Review Two f nvironmental Impact Statements (EIS) were issued by the City of Renton in support of its comprehensive planning efforts. These EIS documents, Draft and Final EIS on the Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and the Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan Supplemental EIS, are incorporated by reference as part of this Supplemental EIS for the Southport Development Planned Action. These previously prepared EIS documents are briefly described below. Land Use Element EIS This EIS analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the adoption of the Interim Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. The Interim Land Use Element established the basic physical form of the city and defined the location and relationship between various land uses. The EIS analyzed the environmental impacts for earth, air quality, water, plants I& animals, land use, noise, infrastructure, housing, and transportation. The environmental impact analysis was programmatic in nature and did not analyze project specific impacts on individual sites. The Draft EIS was issued in January, 1992 and the Final EIS was issued in February, 1993. Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-2 4I Comprehensive Plan EIS The Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan Supplemental EIS supplemented the analysis contained in the Land Use Element EIS to: evaluate environmental impacts associated with Comprehensive Plan Elements developed after adoption of the Interim Land Use Element; identify changed conditions and circumstances; and, evaluate potential changes to the Interim Land Use Element prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. As for the Land Use Element EIS, the environmental impact analysis was programmatic in nature and did not analyze project specific impacts on individual sites. The Draft Supplemental EIS was issued in December, 1994 and the Final Supplemental EIS was issued in February, 1995. Development Regulations The City of Renton Development Regulations (Title 4) provide regulations relating to Zoning Districts, Environmental Regulation, Property Development Standards, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, Street and Utility Standards, Subdivision Regulations, Permits, and Procedures and Review Criteria. These regulations are consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan. The Proposed Action includes a rezone from the existing Industrial-Heavy Zone (IH) to the Center Office Residential zone (COR) for the Southport site. Because the site is proposed to be the third COR zone in the City, the proposed zoning designation for the site is COR-3. Amendments to the Zoning Code (Chapter 2 of the Development Regulations) are also proposed to accommodate the proposed COR zoning for the site, as well as to clarify zoning code text for all COR zone districts. Shoreline Master Program The City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) was adopted in 1983, with subsequent revisions in 1985, 1990, 1993 and 1998. The SMP regulates use and development of all land lying within 200 feet of a designated shoreline in the city. Within the vicinity of the project site, the shoreline of Lake Washington is under the jurisdiction of the SMP and is designated Urban Environment. The objective of the Urban Environment designation is to ensure optimum utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas by providing for public use, especially along the water's edge. In accordance with state law, redevelopment of the Southport site would require approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for development within 200 feet of the shorelines of Lake Washington. The preliminary Conceptual Master Plan would be consistent with the applicable setback provisions of the SMP, with shoreline setbacks of 35 feet provided for residential buildings with limited amounts of retail space, and 50 feet provided for office buildings. An average shoreline setback of 70 feet would be provided. Planned Action Process According to WAC 197-11-164 (under RCW 43.21C.031), a Planned Action is defined as a project that: is designated a planned action by ordinance; has had the significant environmental impacts addressed in an EIS; prepared in conjunction with a comprehensive plan or subarea plan, or a fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-3 J r or a phased project; is located within an urban growth area, or is a master planned resort; is not an essential public facility; and, is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan. Consistent with WAC 197-11-164, the Proposed Action involves designation of the phased redevelopment of the Southport site as a Planned Action. Designating projects as Planned Actions shifts environmental review of a project from the time a specific permit application is made to an earlier phase in the planning process. The intent is to provide more detailed environmental analysis during planning and the consideration of land use changes, rather than at the project permit review stage. The basic steps in designating Planned Action projects are to prepare an EIS, designate the Planned Action project by adoption of an ordinance, and review future permit applications for development relative to their consistency with the designated Planned Action. EIS and Adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance The significant environmental impacts of projects designated as Planned Actions must be identified and adequately analyzed in an EIS (WAC 197-11-164). Planned Action projects should only be designated when a city can reasonably analyze the site specific impacts that would occur as a result of the types of projects designated (WAC 197-11-168( c )). To facilitate the City's consideration of the Planned Action and for the purpose of review and analysis of potential environmental impacts, a Conceptual Master Plan has been formulated by the applicant. This plan, which is the subject of analysis in this EIS, addresses a range of potential site redevelopment, characterized as Plan A and Plan B. (The Conceptual Master Plan, is intended to meet the requirements of the "Level II Site Plan" reflected in the proposed amendments to the Development Regulations.) It provides conceptual information on a potential mix of uses, building density and height, access/circulation, recreation and open space oppo unities and other development features. This potential development range is intended to provi e a basis from which to identify impacts and necessary mitigation for future rede elopment of this site. The range of potential development includes the maximum density and i tensity of development that could be expected on the site (Plan B). Again, no specific devel pment applications have been submitted to date for redevelopment of the Southport site. Folio ing the completion of the EIS process, the City of Renton would designate the Planned Action\,by ordinance. According to WAC 197-11-168, the ordinance designating the Planned Action'shall include the following: describe the type(s) of project action being designated as a Planned Action; include a finding that the probable, significant environmental impacts of the Planned Action have been identified and adequately addressed in an EIS; and, identify any specific mitigation measures that must be applied to a project for it to qualify as planned action. Future Designation and Approvals It is anticipated that SECO Development, applicant and sponsor of the Proposed Action, would submit applications for redevelopment of the site, consistent with the COR goals, policies and regulations subsequent to approval of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning amendments and adoption of the Planned Action ordinance by the City Council. When a permit application is submitted for a project that is being proposed as a planned action project, the city must verify the following: the project meets the description of any project(s) designated as a planned action Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-4 4 by ordinance or resolution; the probable significant adverse environmental impacts were adequately addressed in the EIS; and, the project is consistent with applicable conditions or mitigation measures outlined in the ordinance. If the project meets the consistency requirements, the project would qualify as a planned action project. Neither a threshold determination nor an EIS will be required. Consequently, there would be no administrative SEPA procedural appeal. The planned action project would continue through the permit process pursuant to any notice and other requirements contained in the Development Regulations. It is assumed that a final Master Plan (or Level II Site Plan as proposed in an amendment to the Development Regulations) and site plans for individual phases, as well as shoreline substantial development permit applications, would be submitted to the City of Renton for review and approval subsequent to the approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and concurrent rezone and adoption of the Planned Action Ordinance. These plans and applications would be submitted as proposed Planned Actions. Applications for construction-related permits from the City of Renton, and other state and federal agencies, required for redevelopment of the site, would also be requested for approval subsequent to the adoption of the Planned Action ordinance (a list of possible permits and approvals that may be required for phased redevelopment of the site is included in the Fact Sheet of this Supplemental EIS). Issuance of all required development permits is included within the scope of environmental review for the Proposed Action contained herein. Environmental Review Supplement to Previous EIS As mentioned previously, two previous Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) were issued by the City of Renton in support of the City's comprehensive planning efforts. These EIS documents were prepared for the Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and the Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan. The environmental analysis in these documents addressed the impacts of growth within the City and necessary mitigation on an overall basis, as opposed to impacts that would result from any specific development project. This Supplemental EIS provides a project level supplement to the two EIS documents prepared for the Comprehensive Plan. Specific actions analyzed in this Supplemental EIS include: approval of a Planned Action Ordinance; Comprehensive Plan Map and text amendments, along with a concurrent rezone to Center Office Residential (COR); and Zoning Code Text Amendments. A Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan is also analyzed in this Supplemental EIS to facilitate environmental review and establish development levels for the Planned Action Ordinance. This Supplemental EIS evaluates the impacts of a specific range of development on the site intended to be consistent with the City of Renton's goals for the COR land use designation (refer to the Plans and Policies section of Chapter III of this Supplemental EIS for further discussion of the relationship of the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan to City goals). This Supplemental EIS is intended to fulfill SEPA requirements for future development proposals qualifying as Planned Action projects. Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-5 Site Description Location The Southport site is located along the southern shoreline of Lake Washington, between the Boeing facility and Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park (see Figure 1 - Vicinity Map). The 17.1-acre site includes 14.2 acres of upland area and 2.9 acres of shorelands immediately off-shore in Lake Washington. The site is bounded by Lake Washington to the north, Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park to the east, the Boeing facility to the west, and a Puget Sound Energy substation and Park Avenue N. to the south. Historic Use of Site The Shuffleton Steam Plant site contains approximately 27 acres, approximately 17 acres of which comprise the Southport site. Puget Sound Energy will retain ownership of about 10 acres. The Shuffleton Steam Plant, located on the Southport portion of the site, was constructed in 1929 and served as an oil-fired, steam-powered electrical generation plant from 1929 to the mid-1950s. Because of an abundance of electrical power available in the region by the mid-1950s, power from the steam plant was needed only to provide power during peak load seasons, emergencies, and equipment outages. The last time the steam plant operated for power production was 1989. At it's maximum operational status, approximately 250 people were employed at the site. Under current conditions, approximately 60 people are employed at the steam plant site, the majority of which are not located on the Southport portion (Boyd, Puget Western, April, 1999). The grounds around the steam plant have been used as storage area for miscellaneous equipment, including transformers, capacitors, regulators, and bushings. An electrical substation and substation maintenance facilities have also been located on the site, south of the Southport portion of the site, since the 1950s. This portion of the Shuffleton Steam Plant site has also been used for the storage of miscellaneous equipment. Access to the site has been provided via a private roadway connecting with the southern access road to Gene Coulon Park, which intersects with Lake Washington Boulevard N. Site Environmental Remediation Summary An environmental site investigation was performed at the Shuffleton site in 1995 to identify the nature and extent of chemical contaminants present in site soil, offshore sediment, and groundwater. As part of that investigation, an extensive site history was developed, including a series of interviews with site workers and research of historical records. Potential for releases of chemical contaminants were identified on several areas of the site as a result of that study. Subsequently, a sampling plan was developed to test site soil, sediment, and groundwater for a broad range of potential contaminants. Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-6 coo d 405 5 0 03 Lake Washington Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park 217 Park Dr/Ve SR 90 Site Boeing 2tuRenton 13. Plant m cco Z C co Renton m Airport Cedar River 13 Trail m c m N. =6th Street z 1 Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates,Inc. Figure 1 Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. Southport Development Planned Action Vicinity Map In 1996, 71 soil samples were collected from borings, test pits and surface soils. Heavy range petroleum hydrocarbons were identified in over half of the sample collected in a variety of site locations. Freshwater sediment samples were collected in the adjoining lake area. No contaminants were detected at levels exceeding screening criteria. The concentration of contaminants detected in the sediments were below those found in other areas of Lake Washington, the Ship Canal, and Lake Union and other areas with treated pilings. Shallow groundwater under the site was characterized by installing nine monitoring wells. Results indicate that except for naturally-elevated levels of arsenic, no contaminants were discovered in site groundwater above the State cleanup levels for drinking water. In late 1996, a remedial work plan was developed to remediate (clean up) those areas of the site where contaminants (primarily petroleum, lead and arsenic, and lesser amount of PCB and asbestos) were discovered above cleanup levels. That plan was implemented in late 1998. All site soils were to be cleaned up to residential standards. Eleven areas on the site were identified for excavation of contaminated soil. Over _ cubic yards of contaminated soil have been removed from the site for disposal or treatment. In addition, demolition of four site structures was called out in the remedial work plan. These include removal of two large above ground storage tanks, removal of the site railroad spur and removal of an underground fuel pipeline from the former tanks to the pumphouse. These activities were reviewed and approved as part of applications for environmental and shoreline permits from the City of Renton. The remedial action has been completed (verify). A cleanup action report will be submitted to the Department of Ecology (DOE) for their review, and designation as a no further action site is expected. Designation as "no further,action" by DOE indicates that the cleanup is adequate to meet state residential-level standards and that DOE has no present intention to take further action at the site. Therefore, the issue of on-site hazardous materials is not a topic of this Supplemental EIS. Environmental investigations at the Shuffleton Steam Plant are documented in the following three reports: 1. Final Environmental Site Investigation, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility, Renton, Washington, prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated April 15, 1996 by Hart Crowser, Inc. 2. Remedial Action Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility, Renton, Washington, prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated December 6, 1996 by Hart Crowser, . 3. Final Sediment Characterization Report on the Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility DNR Lease Area Inc, Renton, Washington, prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company dated November 7, 1997, prepare for Puget Sound Energy by Wineman Environmental Consulting in conjunction with Hart Crowser, Inc. 4. Shuffleton Complex Soil Remediation, Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated, June, 1993. Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-8 la 5. Shuffleton Tank Removal, Determination, of Non-Significance-Mitigated, September, 1996. 6. Shuffleton Soil Remediation, Determination of Non-Significance, August, 1998. Documents 1, 2 and 3 are on file and available for review at the Department of Ecology. Documents 4, 5 and 6 are on file and available for review at the City of Renton. Shoreline Area The site, which is located at the southern end of Lake Washington, contains approximately 608 lineal feet of Lake Washington shoreline. The site shoreline, which has historically been used in support of the site's industrial uses, consists entirely of concrete bulkhead. Shoreline vegetation is sparse and is limited to Scott's broom and scattered grasses. In support of the historic industrial use of the site, improvements along the site's shoreline have been made. Existing shoreline improvements include: a concrete bulkhead at the waters edge; a water intake tunnel, associated gate and filter structures, and a log boom at the entrance to the intake tunnel at the eastern edge of the site; a water discharge tunnel and associated gate anc filter structures at the western edge of the site; a series of sheet piles forming a channel to direct the flow of water discharged from the discharge tunnel —the sheet pile discharge channel travels north along the property line and parallel and immediately adjacent to the dock for approximately 220 feet and turns northwest along the DNR property in front of the Boeing property for approximately 600 feet (Puget Sound Energy has filed a separate permit application to the City of Renton and DNR for removal of the 600-foot portion of the sheet piles located along DNR property in front of Boeing); a wood dock, measuring approximately 200 feet long and three feet wide (the dock has a handrail on each side, lights, and, at periodic points, finger piers extending out to wood pile dolphins about 15 feet from the edge of the dock) located near the western edge of the site, immediately east of the discharge tunnel; a wood dock approximately 125 feet long parallel to the shoreline and 20 feet wide, located in the central portion of the site's shoreline; and, approximately 30 to 40 abandoned piles to the immediate east of the parallel dock. Existing Site and Vicinity Land Uses Over the past 80 years, the Southport site has undergone numerous physical changes, including clearing, draining and filling, and the establishment of the Shuffleton Steam Plant facility and associated uses. The site currently contains seven buildings, including the 36,700 sq. ft. power plant, three small storage buildings, a 3,750 sq. ft. pumphouse, a 5,000 sq. ft. transformer structure, and a 14,110 sq. ft. warehouse. The steam plant building is approximately 60 feet in height, upon which sit three approximately 40-foot tall stacks. Other uses on the site include asphalt parking and storage area (recently removed and replaced with gravel as part of the remediation effort), roadways, railroad spur line, and landscaped area. Based on improvements in place prior to remediation activities, approximately 90 percent of the site was in impervious surface; it is assumed that 50 percent of the site is now in impervious surface (see Figure 2 - Existing Site Conditions). Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-9 0 0 4,/\\ t Pe' i \30 IF a q JOHN'S WATER AREA Mr- ti q;° i INCLUDED tti LOT"111 h . 20 CREEK o` GENE COULON MEMORIAL BEACH PARK talc. 20//) it§::::^ tor,.., • 1 A:2:2w"01..,. n,ez PARCEL "B" ti `. r f' 4:1-.I744,8 ate: 1 ,\• v, / ;. . fr na j'j .F L ham `1 L ` 1 m IA=auun S\.l[ t ms l r ,., *1 r 'f' 1 airN' µme + y Jeers CAM 14 I ii , 3 Yp . of t` 1 owl. DRAINAGE a. `'/ ti, ti p ' }. PARCEL C• DITCH o /, l I; t N... rBOEINGt v.a lzt r / / LEGEND a tIt Water quality ti sample location 1 o Illi P4'. A N PARCEL •A" Shoreline Edge 0 150 300 Source: Associated Earth Sciences,Inc. t f FEET l Figure 2 Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. Southport Development Planned Action Existing Site Conditions The Puget Sound Energy property to the immediate south contains nine buildings, including five small storage buildings, a 15,750 sq. ft. high bay building, 2,130 sq. ft. control house, and a one-story concrete "high voltage" building. Other uses on the adjacent Puget Sound Energy property include outdoor storage of power system equipment including transformers, roadways and parking areas, a railroad spur line, and some landscaped area. Land uses in the vicinity of the site include Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park and the Kennydale residential neighborhood to the east and northeast. The Boeing Plant is located to the immediate west and southwest. The Puget Sound Energy property, Lake Washington Boulevard N., Park Avenue N., and the north Renton neighborhood are located to the south. Lake Washington is located to the immediate north of the site; Mercer Island is located approximately 2 miles to the north, across Lake Washington. PROPOSED ACTION The proposal is for adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance, and approval of Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and a concurrent Rezone (from Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential), Zoning Code Text Amendments, and a Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan to allow phased redevelopment of the site. Discussion of the Planned Action Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments, and Zoning Code Amendments is provided below. A description of the Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan is provided in the following section. A more detailed analysis of the proposed map and text amendments is provided in the Land Use section of Chapter III of this document. Adoption of Planned Action Ordinance The proposed redevelopment of the Southport site is proposed to be designated by the City of Renton, via ordinance or resolution, as a Planned Action pursuant to SEPA (WAC 197-11-168). The adoption of a Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and that further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development application, would not be necessary if it is determined that each future project is consistent with the development levels specified in the Planned Action ordinance. Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments The site's land use designation on the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map is proposed to be changed from the existing Employment Area-Industrial (EA-I) designation to the Center Office Residential (COR) designation. The intention of the COR designation is to encourage compact, mixed-use urban developments integrated with natural amenities. Amendments to certain Comprehensive Plan policies are also proposed to accommodate the proposed COR-3 designation of the site as well as to clarify policies for all COR designated sites. The primary Comprehensive Plan policy amendments relating to the site include the following: Policy LU-125 would be amended to eliminate the words "small scale." Elimination of the words "small scale" removes an inconsistency with the words "major Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-11 commercial use" in the same sentence. Larger commercial retail and service uses may locate on COR-1 and COR-2 sites depending on the mix of uses authorized in the required master plans (Level II site plans). Big box retail would still be discouraged in CORo-1 and COR-2 sites by requirement that there be multiple businesses, and that they be designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR. On the Southport site (COR-3) only retail use accessory to the primary office and residential uses would be allowed. Policy LU-131 would be amended to allow maximum net residential densities of 60 units per acre on the site assuming that water, promenade/plazas, street and sidewalk areas are deducted from the gross area. While the policy would be amended to have a density range with a higher maximum density, no changes are proposed to the maximum densities for other COR designated areas which are applied through the zoning regulation. Policy LU-136 would be added to the Comprehensive Plan to recognize the long term retention of industrial uses on industrially zoned property in the vicinity of COR designated sites. Zoning Code Text Amendment The site's land use district in the City of Renton Zoning Map Book is proposed to be changed from the existing Industrial-Heavy Zone (IH) to the Center Office Residential Zone COR (COR- 3). Amendments to the zoning code text are proposed to accommodate the proposed COR-3 district for the site, as well as to clarify zoning code text for all COR districts. The primary zoning code text amendments relating to the site include the following: Minimum net residential densities would be added and maximum densities modified to the Development Standards Table for COR zones (City of Renton Development Regulations section 4-2-120B). For the COR-3 Zone, the minimum net residential density would be 16 dwelling units per acre and the maximum net residential density would be 60 dwelling units per acre. Maximum densities would not change for other COR-zoned sites. Shoreline setback provisions would be added to the Development Standards Table for the COR-3 Zone. This provision would allow the City discretion to increase the applicable 25-foot shoreline setbacks that apply to some uses such as residential. This provision could allow for increased public and emergency access to shoreline areas. The maximum building height in the COR-3 Zone would be 10 stories and/or 125 feet, provided the master plan includes a balance of height, bulk and density. Commercial and non-commercial parking garages would be added as a permitted use. Currently, non-commercial garages are allowed as accessory uses and limited Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-12 S in size. The change would allow for larger parking garages - as proposed at Southport. This amendment would relate to all COR zones. Industrial uses/expansion would not be allowed on the COR-3 site. This amendment would affect the Southport site only. Amendments modifying the master plan development process to require plans (to be called Level II Site Plans) for all contiguous properties zoned COR whether under the same ownership or not. This amendment would relate to all COR zones. Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan Overall Concept To facilitate the City's consideration of the Planned Action designation and environmental review of implementation of the Planned Action, a preliminary Conceptual Master Plan for the site has been formulated. The preliminary Conceptual Master Plan provides conceptual information and generalized building foot-prints on the potential mix of uses, building density and height, access/circulation, recreation and open space opportunities and other development features. It is intended to be consistent with the applicant's objectives for redevelopment of the site, based on their analysis of local market conditions and overall financial feasibility. Southport is envisioned as an active mixed-use neighborhood with public and private amenities and recreational opportunities. The planned mixed-use development would contain a mixture of residential, office and retail uses located in six buildings above single or multilevel parking structures. Housing would be located in close proximity to existing and new employment centers. Public amenities would include public access to Lake Washington via a boardwalk promenade along the shoreline that would provide opportunities for walking, outdoor dining, visual access to the lake and an extension of the lake walk at the adjacent Gene Coulon Park. Sponsor's Objectives The primary objectives of the Southport Development, as formulated by the City of Renton and the applicant, are as follows: Create a compact, urban development with high amenity value that includes a compatible mix of office, residential and retail uses, consistent with the Center Office Residential goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Create an architecturally notable waterfront gateway to the City of Renton. Create an overall urban design concept that is consistent throughout the site and compatible with adjacent uses. Provide appropriate use and visual transition from Gene Coulon Park to the east and the industrial neighborhood to the west. Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-13 Incorporate building heights that are compatible with both Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park and the Boeing industrial buildings. Create a development that is sensitive to the Lake's natural systems and provides opportunities for visitors and residents to visually or physically access the shoreline of Lake Washington. Reduce potential water quality impacts to Lake Washington by limiting the amount of surface parking. Provide the opportunity to expand the employment and tax base of the city. Promote and accommodate transit, pedestrian and alternative modes of transportation to/from the site. Establish a mixed use development that will provide housing at high densities in close proximity to existing and new employment centers. Provide a public walkway that will extend the Lake Washington Trail system from Gene Coulon Park, and provide the opportunity to link with the Cedar River Trail. Allow for redevelopment of the property that is financially viable from a real estate market perspective and allows a reasonable financial return. Mix of Uses Redevelopment of the site would consist of the demolition and removal of the existing steam plant building and the phased construction of a mixed-use development. Existing asbestos in the steam plant would be abated prior to the demolition of the building. Asbestos in the building is primarily associated with steam lines and pipes. The removal of the asbestos would utilize the existing rail spur to bring rail cars into the plant and load sections of encased piping for direct shipment to a disposal site. All work would be subject to applicable Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency standards, and would likely include the tenting of the building and covering of train car loads during asbestos removal to minimize the release of dust. The intensity of site development would fall within the range of development represented by Conceptual Master Plan scenario A (Plan A) and Conceptual Master Plan scenario B (Plan B). Plan A represents the lower point of the development range and would consist of 543 multifamily residential units, 38,000 square feet of retail area, and 500,000 square feet of office space. Plan B represents the upper point of the development range and would consist of 581 multifamily residential units, 38,000 square feet of retail area, and 750,000 square feet of office space. Plans A and B both include six buildings (with a total of ten building towers) over structured parking. Three of the buildings (Buildings 1, 2 and 3) would contain office use, and three of the buildings (Buildings A, B and C) would contain residential uses. Buildings 1, A and B would also contain some retail uses at the ground level. The residential buildings under both plans would be located along the northern and eastern edges of the site, adjacent to Lake Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-14 Washington and Gene Coulon Park. Under both plans, the three office buildings would be located in the western portion of the site, with the westernmost building adjacent to the Boeing facility. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the conceptual plans for Plan A and Plan B, respectively. Although specifics of building design have not been determined, a representation of the type of building design possible for the site is presented in Figure 5. Under Plan A, the residential buildings would be approximately 50 feet high above finished grade, and would contain five stories above finished grade (four stories over one level of structured parking and one basement-level parking area). The heights of the office buildings would vary, stepping down in height from northwest to southeast. Building 1, located adjacent to the Boeing facility, would be the tallest at 125 feet and would contain 10 stories (six stories over four stories of structured parking). Buildings 2 and 3 would progressively step down in height, with Building 2 at nine stories (115 feet) and Building 3 at eight stories (105 feet). Under Plan B, the residential buildings would be the same height as under Plan A. The height of all three office buildings under Plan B would be 125 feet and would consist of six stories over four stories of structured parking. The office buildings 2 and 3 would be taller under Plan B to accommodate the greater amount of office space. Table 1 summarizes the range of potential development under each plan. Table 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT RANGE Use Characteristics Plan A Plan B Multifamily Residential Units 543 581 Retail Area in Sq. Ft. 38,000 38,000 Commercial Area in Sq. Ft. 500,000 750,000 Residential Building Heights in Stories (including parking) 5 5 Office Building Heights is Stories (including parking) 8-10 10 Total Parking Spaces 2,243 3,043 Site development under both Plans A and B would include office and residential buildings above parking structures. Under both plans, a 35-foot wide boardwalk promenade along the lake edge, extending along the existing bulkhead shoreline of the site would provide physical and visual access to the lake and Gene Coulon Park. In addition, numerous plazas and walkways would be provided throughout the site. Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-15 4 C..7 x r,. y:f aaa•:•;::::::.:•:':: .• ;y`ti't• '...: i: •...... r i Building A i.,::: Al I Building B 1,1.71-:-i ii qiiitivr;:Yf' it i i ` a CS _ - i • -=Air.14 1.W` S •111 , Building 1 44.:N_ r- - 'I' Ar.f.11.12,...-.. l l 1 .1-.... c.It so a_ Building C AO At i _!0 ':::: ,/.\\:,,,„;44,,,,54;,,I f IIll i, i tt c l j' i ii NRFIg} m 1 4jt.i14r.. S '41 S.. lipr 1111A.Y V Promenade ere i. claStYPlaza1rs.. a i 1r zI' l i' Courtyard o'"- h - D L 1 Source: Mithun Partners,Inc. Lk. Wash. Blvd. Southport Development Figure 3 Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. Planned Action Development Plan A- Site Plan c r..., '1,r+1` }',r ti,}'d r7Jr :i. }::.Y:Y;.*., •• •;;::Y.`',Yr."Pt' Building A3, ;: virXrf(:):::::;Xv::•`..N4,.ti::: :::'}:Grief,': •.; . . it---- _ 4:4 ri l, 0 Building B 4 tBuilding1rii tu., w. NM ice., -' piifKs Building 2 1 . Building 37 IIIII`; i p.- i I® Eir t Building C t.iii• lrb' t4tirstd7ctt /'"t I ® O / I kik 41..-,..- MIA IMP Ile"14.- Ogg gg g gg: j v 'i jeki0._ Z.— e: ;11 7 •••# VA.%/. x;: Promenade D is i,. 11111Plazatli-. 11 .iii Courtyard a i ':' 1)1 1-L.-1-1-..- o iao soo N•• s ' if N. Lk.Wash. Blvd.Source: Mithun Partners,Inc. Figure 4 Southport Development Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. Planned Action Development Plan B -Site Plan A '': 1 v, fit`F - q" tt a t Y-eq 'W 7 1 r 4, tJ4 i". i, Y RM y # .. YT.1 1 ije • 4 '• '` ..•yam tJa.-rt k ,../ a ' J - 31 x r i to r 1 ., / .- el 1 w.LIt r+. --: '" *.;. is jgp M iii k i ( sS. aw t -.E-. J` i '"pia , - i 7' "+:flit/- 'AI '1f1 a k y'11A,:,,r^.,, t ` i- '' N*fi a :1 ill®// . 1°°' • f a._ - 7' /.- d=` 7 , and i f. t 4 5:ter._.,. r dam/j t ri t r:r..ri,. -. J,> x!`irv. W ` 1 ® iI 9• i i i ; 6, i12'-' 0/kito% r.,'_;;, ,,,. . . . 1r _rf:7'. iw,:-.:Ji _ zit-,... 4...t, , . . do 1 11 _ ,i 0 I, 1 f l'ilirF, - - 0 4' 1 iiii,, i , ,,' it JJII' 1 .ill°J i11f.y 1N ..s +,,firm t . c i9 772.m. ' " 116 t. tea] r !1 4 ate t J gyp{ rt t c .Sa a t. i,ii. ,. , ille- - ail''. ffi roI Y6l `t,, Q"+ a 5;. allIF,`1.51 1l \ t, ® t`_ . r7.,.:.Ll:.;,.. 1F 7' jle, eri d' E_ Yam' i r' r. 1 I Y`4 a`5* , i ' ¢ t,,s P — y _. t + Source: Mithun Partners,Inc. Southport Development Figure 5 Hucke!!/Weinman Associates, Inc. Planned Action Design Sketch Looking North from Promenade) s i The percentage of the site proposed to be utilized for structures, plazas, roadways, sidewalks, waterfront boardwalk, and landscaping would be similar under both plans, although there are some differences as illustrated in Table 2. As indicated in Table 2, the amount of area in buildings and parking would be approximately 0.6 acre greater under Plan B to accommodate the additional office space and number of residential units. Conversely, the amount of plaza, courtyard and landscaped area would be approximately 0.6 acre greater under Plan A. The area in roadways and waterfront promenade would be the same under both Plans A and B. Table 2 PROPOSED USES BY ACREAGE PLAN A PLAN B Use Site Site Site Site Acreage Percentage Acreage Percentage Structure Area buildings and parking 6.4 45 7.0 49 courtyard 1.5 10 1.2 8 Plaza Area 0.5 4 0.4 3 Roadways 2.4 17 2.4 17 Sidewalks 0.7 5 0.6 4 Waterfront Promenade 0.5 4 0.5 4 Landscaped Area 2.2 15 2.1 15 TOTAL 14.2 100 14.2 100 Residential Use As illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, the three residential buildings (Buildings A, B and C) would be located along the northern and eastern site boundaries, adjacent to Lake Washington and Gene Coulon Park. Under both Plans A and B, the residential buildings would be four stories of residential use over one story of structured parking above finished grade, and there would also be a basement level parking area. The height of all residential buildings would be 50 feet. The number of residential units on the site would range from 543 under Plan A to 581 under Plan B. Residential units would be apartment type ranging in size from studio to two-bedroom units. Although the total number of studio, 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units vary between Plan A and Plan B, the percentage of units in the various types would be similar in both plans. A break- down of anticipated residential unit distribution for both Plans A and B is presented in Table 3. Overall gross site residential density would range from approximately 38 to 41 dwelling units per acre, based on the 14.2-acre upland portion of the site. Assuming that the promenade, plaza, street and sidewalk areas are deducted from the gross site area, net residential densities would range between 54 and 58 dwelling units per acre. Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-19 1111 s Table 3 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL UNIT TYPES PLAN A PLAN B Residential Unit Type Number Percentage Number of Percentage of Units of Total Units of Total Studio Units 101 19 108 19 1-Bedroom Units 272 50 290 50 2-Bedroom Units 170 31 183 31 TOTAL 543 100 581 100 Office Development The amount of office use on the site would range from approximately 500,000 sq. ft. under Plan A to approximately 750,000 sq. ft. under Plan B. Under both plans, office use would be located in three building towers over structured parking in the western portion of the site, with the western most building tower being located adjacent to the Boeing facility. To accommodate the additional 250,000 sq. ft. of office space under Plan B, two of the three office buildings would be taller than under Plan A. Under Plan B, all three office buildings would be a total of ten stories six stories of office over four stories of structures parking) and would be 125 feet in height. Under Plan A, Building 1 would be the same height as under Plan B. However, Buildings 2 and 3 under Plan A would be nine stories (115 feet) and eight stories (105 feet), respectively. Retail Development Under both Plans A and B, approximately 38,000 sq. ft. of commercial retail space would be provided on the ground floors of Buildings 1, A and B. Located along the interior access roadways and the waterfront promenade, the retail space would be anticipated to consist of approximately 12,500 square feet of quality restaurant, 12,500 square feet of high-turnover sit- down restaurant, and approximately 13,000 square feet of specialty retail use. The retail use is intended to meet the everyday needs of Southport residents, guests and employees, and to provide services for the greater north Renton and Kennydale communities. Site Population and Employment At buildout, the residential component would generate a permanent resident population of approximately 1,037 under Plan A and approximately 1,110 under Plan B. This resident estimate assumes an average of 1.9 persons per unit (City of Renton, 1999). At buildout, the average daily population of employees on the site would be approximately 1,751 (1,667 office employees and 84 retail employees) under Plan A and approximately 2,584 2,500 office employees and 84 retail employees) under Plan B; based on 450 sq. ft./employee for retail and 300 sq. ft./employee for office. Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-20 1111 Open Space and Recreational Features The preliminary Conceptual Master Plan includes approximately 4.7 acres (Plan A) to 4.2 acres Plan B) of open space on the site (defined as area not in building, roadway or sidewalk). The on-site open space areas are intended to create a pedestrian-friendly community which is urban in character, and orients to and takes advantage of the existing marine and shoreline environment. Under Plan A, the on-site open space would total 4.7 acres and would include approximately 1.5 acres in courtyard area, 0.5 acre in waterfront boardwalk promenade area, 0.5 acre in plaza area, and 2.2 acres in landscape area (see Figure 3). The amount of open space area outside of structures (i.e., not including the courtyards above parking structures) would equal approximately 3.2 acres. Under Plan B, the on-site open space would total 4.2 acres and would include approximately 1.2 acres in courtyard area, 0.5 acre in waterfront boardwalk area, 0.4 acre in plaza area, and 2.1 acres in landscape area (see Figure 4). The smaller amount of courtyard area, plaza area, and landscape area under Plan B is primarily due to the larger building area required to accommodate the greater amount of commercial office space and number of residential units. The amount of open space area outside of structures (i.e., not including the courtyards above parking structures) would equal approximately 3 acres. Passive recreational amenities under both Plans A and B would consist of benches and other sitting areas lining the primary site access road, courtyards, waterfront promenade and plaza areas. The major waterfront plaza, which would be located at the terminus of the primary site access road, could include a water feature (fountain) and monument, and would provide opportunities for public gatherings, entertainment and passive recreation. Shoreline Development Proposed Action The proposed waterfront promenade would be identical under both Plans A and B, and would be limited to the upland area of the site beginning at the existing bulkhead. The existing intake and discharge tunnels would be abandoned and fill material would be placed inside a portion of the tunnels(it is anticipated that the fill material would be placed in the tunnel from above and no in-water work would be required. The existing filter and gate structures associated with the tunnels would be removed. The existing docks would be abandoned but would not be removed. The finger piers, dolphins and lighting associated with the west dock would remain. Gates or fencing would be provided to prevent public access to the docks. The waterfront promenade would be 35 feet in width and would run the entire length of the site's shoreline (see Figures 3 and 4). The promenade would include a concrete curb on top of the existing bulkhead (also concrete) on which a metal guardrail would be mounted. The majority of the promenade would be in scored concrete, with inserts of precast concrete or stone pavers. Outdoor furniture along the promenade, including benches, light standards, bollards and trash receptacles, would be consistent in design with those in the adjacent park to help identify the promenade as a public space. A connection to the trail system of Gene Coulon Park would be provided at the eastern terminus of the promenade. As indicated, the west end Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-21 of the promenade would contain a public waterfront plaza which could include a monument and a water feature (fountain). The primary functions of the proposed waterfront promenade would be as follows: Provide a buffer/setback between the proposed buildings and Lake Washington. Provide public access to the lake shoreline. Provide a section of the Lake Washington Trail that would connect with the existing trail in Gene Coulon Park. Provide the opportunity for future connection to the City's planned trail system to the west (the Boeing portion of the Lake Washington trail and the Cedar River Trail). Provide the opportunity for public gathering space. The eastern terminus of the waterfront promenade would align with the northern portion of the children's playground area in Gene Coulon Park. Because this portion of the park does not currently contain any portion of the park's paved trail system, a redesign of the children's playground area and the trail system of the park would be required to provide a direct connection to the waterfront promenade. It is anticipated that a redesign of this portion of the park to accommodate a connection with the waterfront promenade would be accomplished by the City of Renton. However, it is possible that the applicant, with direct oversight by the City, could accomplish the park redesign. If the applicant conducted the park redesign, the City could consider this effort as an off-set to the City's required park and recreation mitigation fee contribution (refer to the Parks and Recreation section of Public Services in Chapter III of this Supplemental EIS for further discussion). No new in-water or over-water structures are proposed under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan. Potential Future Dock Use Under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan, no use of the existing 200-foot long dock near the site's western boundary is proposed. However, it is possible that the City of Renton or the site developer, could propose some future public use of the dock. As part of the consideration and review of the Planned Action designation, potential future improvements to the dock and possible uses are conceptually identified and evaluated in this Supplemental EIS. Any future improvements would be subject to the City or developer securing the necessary local, state and federal permits. Future applications for improvements to and use of the dock would be considered relative to the qualitative impacts and mitigation discussion contained herein. Prior to any potential future use of the dock, it is assumed that the existing 3 foot width of the dock would need to be expanded to approximately 18 feet to safely accommodate public use. Any expansion of the width of the dock would likely utilize the existing sheet piles located immediately west of the dock. According to survey maps, the width of the sheet pile area is approximately 15 feet. With the 3 foot width of the existing dock, dock expansion into this area would allow for 18 feet of dock width. Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-22 11 S Potential future public use of the dock could include the following: Pedestrian use to connect the trail system of Southport to the Boeing portion of the Lake Washington Trail. Water taxi use to provide an alternative means of transportation to/from the site on Lake Washington. Guest moorage for boats of persons wishing to utilize on-site businesses or public amenities. It is anticipated that guest boats would be limited to those small to medium in size (less than 45 feet in length) and would be allowed a maximum of 4 hours of moorage time. Expansion of the dock width would also make possible a future connection to the City's planned trail system to the west (the Boeing portion of the Lake Washington Trail and the Cedar River Trail). The Boeing portion of the Lake Washington Trail is a planned pedestrian trail to be located on DNR property located along the shoreline immediately north of the Boeing facility - this trail could eventually connect the Cedar River Trail with the Lake Washington Trail. Similar to the dock on the western side of the site, future applications for enhancing the connection to the park at the east end could be sponsored by the City or applicant. Options include creating a floating foot bridge (over the existing log boom) to create a connection near the end of the existing walkway in the park; or, covering the existing "notch" in the existing bulkhead with a wood dock structure utilizing the existing pilings in this area. Vehicular Access and Circulation Primary vehicular access to the site would be provided by a new private roadway connecting to the southern access roadway to Gene Coulon Park, which connects with Lake Washington Boulevard N (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway design would be similar under Plans A and B. This roadway is intended to be the "Main Street" of the Southport development. The "right-of- way" would be approximately _ to 56 feet wide and approximately 1,300 feet in length, with one lane in each direction. This roadway would allow access to/from parking garages, and would feature turn lanes at intersections. On-street parallel parking would be provided along portions of this roadway. This roadway would terminate at the northwestern corner of the site, where a turn-around area would be provided. Two internal on-site access roadways would intersect with the main roadway. The first internal access road would flow around the perimeter of the office use portion of the site and along portions of the southern and western site boundaries. This roadway would provide vehicular and service truck access to the office building parking garages (Buildings 1, 2 and 3). The second internal access road would intersect with the main roadway between residential Buildings A and B. This roadway would provide access to the parking garages associated with Buildings A and B. Terminating near the northern portion of the site, a turn-around would be provided. Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-23 111 Secondary emergency vehicle access to the site would be provided by an approximately 45- foot wide pedestrian plaza area located immediately south of Building B (see Figure 3). Emergency vehicle access to this area, which would contain removable vehicle barriers at the site boundary to block ordinary traffic, would be provided from Gene Coulon Park's southern parking lot. Each building would be accessible by emergency vehicles via looped fire lanes along the southern and western site boundaries, looping around the office buildings (Buildings 1, 2 and 3) and along the eastern site boundary, between Building C and the park, and via the promenade. It is proposed that a designated fire lane to serve the eastern side of Building C be provided by the drive aisle in the Gene Coulon Park parking lot to the immediate east. An optional approach would be to provide a 20-foot wide fire lane along the east side of Building C. Because the optional fire lane could encroach upon the drip line of some of the trees along the western edge of Gene Coulon Park, arborist recommendations limiting intrusions would help to ensure the long-term survival of the trees. Parking The preliminary Conceptual Master Plan includes a total of approximately 2,243 parking stalls under Plan A and approximately 3,043 parking stalls under Plan B. Under both Plans A and B, the majority of the parking would be provided beneath the proposed buildings, in parking structures, primarily above grade. A limited amount of surface parking would be provided in the southwest corner of the site, on the roof of the four-story parking structure associated with the office buildings. Approximately 50 to 75 spaces of on-street parallel parking would also be available along the main access roadway. According to the City of Renton Development Standards (section 4-4-080F), the minimum number of required parking spaces for the proposed mix of uses is a minimum of 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet for professional offices (to a maximum of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 gsf), 1.5 spaces per multifamily residential unit with 1 guest space per four residential units, 1 space per 100 square feet of restaurant use, and 1 space per 500 square feet or 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet (to a maximum of 5 spaces per 1,000 gsf) of retail store use, depending on retail category. Consistent with the City's parking standards for professional offices, 3 spaces of parking per 1,000 square of office space would be provided. However, the proposed 1.3 parking spaces per residential unit, no provision for guest parking spaces, and the proposed 1 parking space per 1,000 square feet of restaurant and retail store use would not meet the City of Renton parking standards. To allow the proposed amount of parking for residential and retail uses, a modification from the parking standards, as provided for in the City of Renton Development regulations (section 4-9-250D), would be required. Modifications are administrative approvals that must be deemed to: meet the objectives of the code requirement; not be injurious to other properties; conform to the intent and purpose of the code; can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and, will not create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity. The City will determine if such proposed modifications are warranted. It is likely that parking for the office uses on the site would be fee based. The decision whether to charge for parking associated with the office use, and the amount of fee to be charged, would be determined by the office developer in the future based on local market conditions. If a Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-24 s fee were to be charged for office parking, it is anticipated that the parking fee for such spaces would be discounted during evenings, weekends and holidays. No charge for residential, residential guest, retail or on-street parking would be anticipated. Utilities Stormwater Stormwater from the majority of the site (approximately 13.3 acres) would be directed to Lake Washington. No detention would be required for stormwater runoff directed to the lake. However, runoff from approximately 3.7-acres of paved area exposed to rainfall, including roadways and parking areas, would be directed to an underground water quality wetvault sized to the standards of the Department of Ecology (DOE) Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. Roof runoff would bypass the wetvault and discharge directly to the lake. Following treatment, runoff would be released to Lake Washington via an existing 10-inch outfall pipe. An approximately 0.94-acre area in the southeastern portion of the site currently drains to Johns Creek. Under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan, development proposed for this area would include a portion of the main site access road (0.29-acre), courtyard (0.16-acre), and open space area (0.49-acre). Stormwater from the portion of the site draining to John's Creek would controlled by one of the following three options. Option 1 would involve the collection of runoff from the entire 0.94-acre area, direction of runoff from the 0.29-acre portion of the roadway to a water quality wetvault designed to DOE Manual standards, direction of all runoff (both treated and untreated) to a detention facility to control stream bank erosion, and release to John's Creek via an existing 10-inch outfall pipe located on the northern bank of the creek. Option 2 would entail the pumping of runoff from the approximately 0.29-acre portion of the roadway in the John's Creek drainage area to the wetvault treatment system discharging to Lake Washington. Runoff from the remaining courtyard and open space area would be directed to a detention facility prior to release to John's Creek via the existing outfall pipe. Because roadway runoff, which would contain pollutants associated with vehicular traffic, would be piped to the Lake Washington wetvault treatment system, no water quality treatment would be required under Option 2. Option 3 would entail the pumping of all stormwater runoff from this area to the Lake Washington system described in the above paragraph. Water and Sewer Domestic water, fire protection and irrigation needs would be met by a looped system of 10-inch water mains on the site. The system would extend from the existing 12-inch water main in Lake Washington Boulevard N. and the existing 10-inch main extended into the site. Available fire flow exceeds 2,500 gallons per minute and would meet City of Renton Fire Department Code requirements. Sanitary sewer service to the proposal would be provided by an upgrade to the existing on-site 8-inch line to a 10-inch line connecting to the existing METRO sewer line Lake Washington Boulevard N. Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-25 111 111 Pha§inq Development of the Master Plan elements included in the proposed Planned Action would be phased over an approximately five year period beginning in late 1999 and ending in early 2004. The building construction sequence would begin at the north end of the site and proceed to the south. It is anticipated that there would be no gap in the construction process. The general sequence of construction would be as follows: 1) building demolition and clearing; 2) grading and pile driving; 3) roadway and building construction; and 4) landscaping. It is anticipated that construction of the main site access roadway, the waterfront promenade, and Buildings A and B would begin in late 1999 with construction completed in mid 2001. Construction of Building 1 would begin in mid 2000 and be completed in late 2001. Con truction of Building 2 would begin in mid 2001 and be completed in mid 2002. Construction of Buildings C and 3 would begin in early 2002 and end in late 2003 or early 2004. It is anticipated that full occupancy of Southport would occur in late 2004. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION In addition to the Proposed Action described above, a No-Action Alternative is considered in this Supplemental EIS. A design alternative representing a different mix of land uses is not analyzed in this Supplemental EIS for the following reasons: 1) The Proposed Action is intended to implement the specific goals of the City of Renton COR Comprehensive Plan land use designation and zoning classification. A preliminary Conceptual Master Plan has been formulated with consideration of that intent and consistent with the Sponsor's Objectives previously outlined in this section. Any alternative that does not meet the COR goals would also not approximate the sponsor's objectives and, according to SEPA (WAC 197-11-440 (5)), would not be considered a reasonable alternative. 2) A range of potential site development, intended to be consistent with the goals of the COR land use designation (Plans A and B), is considered under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan. An alternative that called for reconfiguration of the office and residential uses on the site residential on the west, office on the east) was considered but rejected. Such a reconfiguration was determined by the City and applicant to be less compatible with both the industrial facility to the west and the park to the east. It was further determined that such a plan could have greater environmental impacts and would not meet the Sponsor's Objectives. While it is possible to formulate a conceptual master plan that features a mix of different uses or lower densities that would be consistent with COR goals, such a plan would not be consistent with the Sponsor's Objectives. Therefore, no feasible design alternative was defined or considered under the COR designation in this Supplemental EIS. Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-26 i41 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative analyzed in this Supplemental EIS consists of two sub-parts. 1) The first sub-part assumes no redevelopment of the site and a continuation of existing site conditions. 2) The second sub-part considers future industrial redevelopment of the site consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan land use designation and zoning classification. Alternative Sub part I - No Action Under the Alternative 1, the existing steam plant and storage use of the site would continue for the foreseeable future. Access to the site would continue to be from the shared access roadway with Gene Coulon Park. Public access to Lake Washington and the opportunity for a public trail linking to the park to the east and the planned Boeing section of the Lake Washington Trail to the west would not be provided. As under current conditions, approximately 60 persons would continue to be employed at the overall steam plant site. The majority of these workers would not be located on the Southport portion of the site, however. Alternative Sub part 2- Industrial Redevelopment of the Site Given that remediation of the site has been completed and the steam plant has not been operational since 1989, it is logical to assume that some form of redevelopment of the site would occur in the future. If the Proposed Action does not proceed, it is likely that the site would be placed on the market for sale to an industrial/office user. Under Alternative 2, therefore, industrial redevelopment of the site, consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Employment Area - Industrial and zoning classification of Industrial- Heavy (IH), is assumed. To facilitate the environmental review of these distinct land use scenarios for the site (mixed use vs. industrial redevelopment), certain assumptions were made regarding possible industrial use of the site. The following assumptions are intended to allow a conceptual-level comparison of impacts between this No-Action scenario and the Proposed Action; it is recognized that a range of assumptions are potentially feasible. For example, under current zoning (IH), administrative headquarters office use (associated with a primary permitted use on the same or contiguous site) is allowed and could occur at a comparative intensity to the Proposed Action. In addition, various forms of industrial use could theoretically occur, including light industrial, warehouse, heavy industrial, and assembly operation. Given the specific characteristics and waterfront location of the site and surrounding uses, the following assumptions were determined by the City to be most relevant for review in this Supplemental EIS. Industrial redevelopment under this alternative would consist of approximately 230,000 square feet of manufacturing (high bay style) space and approximately 70,000 square feet of associated office space. It is anticipated that industrial redevelopment of the site would result in the demolition of the Shuffleton Steam Plant. The assumed use by acreage is provided in Table 4. Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-27 j Table 4 USES BY ACREAGE - NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE SUB-PART 2 Use Site Acreage Site Percentage Mandfacturing Building 5.3 37 Office Building 0.8 6 Surface Parking/Roadways 6.1 43 Setback Areas and Open Space 2.0 14 TbTAL 14.2 100 n 25 footUnderthissalternative, applicable setbacks include a 25 foot shoreline setback from Lake Washington and a 50-foot setback from the Gene Coulon Park boundary. Approximately 86 percent of the site would be redeveloped. It is assumed that the manufacturing building would be typical of high bay type buildings in existing industrial areas in the City of Renton, and would be single story with a height of approximately 30 feet. The office building, which would be assumed to support the manufacturing use, would be two stories with a height of approximately 25 feet. It should be noted that the City or Renton Development Regulations allow buildings of unlimited height in the IH zone, subject to certain conditions. It is estimated that approximately 418 persons would be employed by the manufacturing facility and that approximately 233 persons would be employed by the office building; based on 300 sq. ft./employee for office use and 550 sq. ft./employee for manufacturing use. Acce$s to the site would continue to be from the shared access roadway with Gene Coulon Park. It is assumed that the on-site portion of the access roadway would be improved to accommodate the additional traffic. Approximately 663 parking spaces would be required, with all parking being provided via surface parking lots. Depending of the type of uses locating on the site, the existing dock facilities could be utilized to support on-site industrial activity. It is assumed for purposes of environmental review that minor improvements to the dock facility would be made and regular industrial barge transport and delivery would occur to/from the site (several times per week). BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF DELAYING PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action includes adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance, redesignation of the Southport site from Industrial to Center Office/Residential and approval of a preliminary Conceptual Master Plan to allow redevelopment of a mixed-use community. The preliminary Conceptual Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the goal of the COR designation to create a compact, urban shoreline development with high amenity value. Redevelopment as proposed would accommodate a portion of the 20-year targeted residential and employment growth within the City of Renton. Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-28 a Delaying implementation of the Proposed Action would delay the potential impacts identified in this SEIS; this delay could be considered environmentally beneficial in the short-term. Site alteration from industrial to mixed-uses, increased traffic congestion, air quality increased noise and levels of human activity and the construction of dense buildings would be delayed or foreclosed for the foreseeable future. The site would remain in industrial use, and would likely be marketed to a potential industrial user, however. Deferring implementation would delay and could preclude the opportunity for increased public access to the Lake Washington shoreline and development of a link in the city's trail system. Further, delay in implementation could foreclose options to redesignate the site to allow mixed-uses, if expanded industrial uses are developed in the near term. MAJOR ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance, approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment and concurrent rezone and, ultimately, redevelopment of the Southport site under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan would change the character of the site from industrial to a mixed-use community. As identified in the RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS AND POLICIES section of this Draft SEIS, the Conceptual Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Center Office/Residential (COR) designation in the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan 1995). According to the analysis presented herein, redevelopment of the site, under the COR designation and according to the range of development contemplated in the Conceptual Master Plan (Plan A or Plan B), would result in certain environmental impacts. Mitigation measures to address potential impacts from redevelopment are also identified in this SETS. Key environmental issues and options facing the decision-maker include: Land use impacts, principally pertaining to compatibility with surrounding uses, intensity of development and tradeoffs of uses, as they relate to industrial versus mixed-use residential, office and retail) redevelopment, particularly in light of the recently completed remediation of the site. The visual impacts of relatively tall buildings on the Southport site, particularly in relation to Gene Coulon Park, and the benefits of increased public access to Lake Washington, trail connections and other public amenities that are contemplated under mixed-use redevelopment. The potential for air quality impacts to proposed site uses from existing industrial uses in the area. The impact of additional traffic on area roadways and at nearby intersections. Mitigation measures necessary to reduce potential noise impacts from phased construction on nearby residents and park users. Redevelopment under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan would result in a new, dense population and employment base in the urban core of the city. The impacts highlighted above Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-29 should be considered in light of the adopted goals, policies and regulations of the City of Renton and its stated vision for accommodating growth in the Comprehensive Plan. Southport Development Planned Action Project Description Draft Supplemental EIS 2-30 111 SOLID WASTE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Wast€ Management — Rainier has a contract with the City of Renton Solid Waste Utility to provic a solid waste services to the City. The contract expires in December, 1999, and whether the contract will be extended was not known at the time this EIS was prepared. Specific services provided include residential and commercial garbage collection, residential recyclables collection, and residential yard waste collection (Knight, 1999). If the contract were continued with another provider, the services provided would likely be similar (Knight, 1999). The I*.ing County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (1992) guides the City's solid waste, planning. The Plan contains recommendations to achieve the county's waste reduction and recycling goal of 65 percent by 2000, as well as recommendations for upgrading the County's solid waste transfer and disposal system. Waste Management — Rainier serves approximately 11,000 residential customers in the City of Renton, and also serves the commercial and industrial uses in the service area. In Renton, on- site collection of recyclables is available to all multi-family residents, and curbside collection of recyclables is available to single-family and duplex residents. Yard waste collection is available to al single family and duplex residents except mobile home park residents. Collection cont liners for these programs are provided by the Solid Waste Utility. The contract with Waste Management — Rainier includes recycling and yard waste services, which are voluntary Renton, 1996). Waste Management - Rainier's overall service area includes the City of Renton and portions of unincorporated King County near the cities of Kent, Bellevue, Issaquah, Burien and SeaTac, as well as parts of White Center. Waste Management — Rainier serves approximately 32,000 resicential customers in unincorporated King County, for a total residential customer base of approximately 43,000 (Aiton, 1999). Refuse hauled from the City of Renton is transported to the Renton Transfer Station, at 3021 N.E. 4th Street in Renton. Located on 10 acres, the transfer station accepts approximately 350 5C0 tons of residential and commercial waste per day, transported by about 200 vehicles per day. The station has recently been upgraded with new gutters and roof panels. If needed, the station could accommodate approximately 100 additional tons per day, as long as additional transfer station employees were added (Williams, 1999). There are currently no specific plans to increase capacity. According to the City's Comprehensive Plan, the County anticipates closing the Renton Transfer Station by 2010, after expanding the Bow Lake Transfer Station in Tukwila or building another transfer facility in the Tukwila area. Solid waste from Renton would then be transported to the Factoria Transfer Station in Bellevue, or the Bow Lake/Tukwila Transfer Station. These two locations are expected to have capacity to handle Renton's solid waste in the future (Renton, 1996). Currently, after being deposited in trailers at the Renton Transfer Station, the waste is compacted and transported in the trailers to the Cedar Hills Landfill, located at 22805 Cedar Grcve Road S.E., in Maple Valley. The landfill accepts mixed municipal solid waste (no hazardous waste), and is owned and operated by King County. Projected tonnage of solid Southport Development Planned Action Public Services and Utilities Draft Supplemental EIS 3-240 wase is based on anticipated population and recycling rates, and refuse generation rate trends. The landfill accepts approximately 800,000 to 850,000 tons of solid waste per year, and currently has the capacity for approximately 13 million additional tons. The Cedar Hills landfill has apacity to accept solid waste at projected rates until 2012. If King County attains the goalof65percentwastereductionandrecyclingbytheyear2000, Cedar Hills is expected to remain in operation until 2019. Because environmental issues and community resistance make the siting of another landfill in King County unlikely, waste export possibilities will be explored by the King County Solid Waste Division for future disposal after the Cedar Hills landfill closes (KingCounty, 1992). The construction, demolition and land clearing debris (CDL) portion of solid waste generated inRentonandcollectedbyWasteManagement - Rainier is transported by freight train to a 20,000-acre landfill in Arlington, Oregon for disposal (Aiton, 1999a). The Black River Transfer Station, located within Renton city limits, is under contract with King County Solid Waste to provide CDL transfer and disposal services to self-haul customers (Knight, 1999). Rabanco Allied Wasted) owns and operates the Black River Transfer Station. A 30-yard roll-off container is currently located at the Southport site, and is picked up once aweekbyWasteManagement — Rainier (Aiton, 1999). It is estimated that the site currently generates approximately two to three tons of solid waste per week or 100 to 150 tons per yearAlton, 1999). SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Development Plan A Development under the preliminary Master Plan (Plan A) would generate solid waste byresidentialandcommercialuses. This would contribute to increased volumes for solid waste collection, transfer, processing and disposal. Development of the site would also generate construction, demolition and land-clearing debris. For the purpose of analyzing long-term waste disposal, solid waste disposal rates of 1.5 tons/multi-family unit/year, 1.8 tons/1,000 sq. ft. of office and retail uses, and 2.7 tons/1,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses were used (Bridges, 1999). These are generation rates —they do not assume that a portion of the waste would be recycled. Therefore, the estimated amounts of solid waste disposal by each development component shown in Table 51 are conservative, assuming recycling would occur as part of redevelopment. At build-out, the estimated total solid waste disposal by the 543 residential units would be approximately 793 tons annually, and the estimated disposal by commercial uses would be 1,006 tons annually. Each year after buildout, the development would dispose of approximately1,799 tons of solid waste. Southport Development Planned Action Public Services and Utilities Draft Supplemental EIS 3-241 11/4 The intensity of site development would fall within the range of development represented byConceptualMasterPlanscenarioA (Plan A) and Conceptual Master Plan scenario B (Plan B). Plan A represents the lower point of the development range and would consist of 543 multifamily residential units, 38,000 square feet of retail area, and 500,000 square feet of officespace. Plan B represents the upper point of the development range and would consist of 581 multifamily residential units, 38,000 square feet of retail area, and 750,000 square feet of officespace. Each plan calls for substantial public spaces and amenities including provisions forpublicaccesstoLakeWashington. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives to the Proposed Action are analyzed in this Supplemental Environment;1IImpactStatement (EIS). No Action - No Development Alternative - Under this alternative, th existing steam plant building would remain and storage use of the site would continue for th 3foreseeablefuture. Access to the site would continue to be from the shared access roadway/with Gene Coulon Park. Public access to Lake Washington and the opportunity for a public traillinkingtotheparktotheeastwouldnotbeprovided. No new development would occur. No Action - Future Industrial Development - Under this alternative, industrial redevelopment of the site, consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan land use designation of EmploymentArea - Industrial and zoning classification of Industrial-Heavy (IH), is assumed. Industrial redevelopment under this alternative is assumed to consist of approximately 230,000 squarefeetofmanufacturing (high bay style) space and approximately 70,000 square feet ofassociatedofficespace. It is anticipated that industrial redevelopment of the site would result inthedemolitionoftheShuffletonSteamPlant. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEIS1-2 A t CHAPTER I SUMMARY This section provides a summary of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impacts Statement for the Southport Development Planned Action. It briefly describes the proposal (including a range of potential development represented by Conceptual Master Plan scenarios A and B) and two alternatives, and lists anticipated impacts, mitigation measures and significant unavoidable adverse impacts. A matrix in this chapter provides a comparative overview of impacts identified for the proposal and alternatives. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The applicant, SECO Development, is proposing that phased redevelopment of the Shuffleton Steam Plant site be designated by the City as a Planned Action pursuant to SEPA (WAC 197- 11-168( c )). The Planned Action designation by the City would reflect a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development phase, would not be necessary if it is determined that each phase is consistent with the development levels specified in a Planned Action ordinance. The Proposed Action includes: Adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and concurrent Rezone (from Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential) Zoning Code Text Amendment Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan approval This process assumes that a final Master Plan (Level II Site Plans) and site plan (Level I Site Plan) for individual phases, as well as shoreline substantial development permit applications, will be submitted at a later stage as Planned Actions. Applications for construction-related permits from the City of Renton and other state and federal agencies, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404, 401 permits, stormwater discharge/NPDES, building and construction permits, etc., required for long-term redevelopment of the site would also be requested for approval subsequent to the adoption of the Planned Action Ordinance. Issuance of these and other required development permits is included within the scope of environmental review for the Proposed Action. To facilitate the City's consideration of the Planned Action designation and environmental review of implementation of the Planned Action, a preliminary Conceptual Master Plan for the site has been formulated. The Master Plan provides conceptual information on the potential mix of uses, building density and height, access/circulation, recreation and open space opportunities and other development features. Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS I SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT EARTH I I Impacts Clearing and grading operations during construction could Same as Plan A No clearing or grading. Similar to Plans A. increase the erosion potential on the site. Loose to soft soils underlying the site would be susceptible to Same as Plan A. No impact. Similar to Plan A settlement under normal building loads, necessitating use of pile foundation for a building. Proposed buildings would be subject to liquefaction potential Same as Plan A. Existing buildings would be Similar to Plan A. during seismic events, necessitating use of pile foundations subject to liquefaction. for all buildings. Removal of existing underground features (including piles Same as Plan A. No removal of existing Similar to Plan A. supporting the steam plant and utilities)could result in areas underground facilities of soft soil or ground depressions. required. Mitigation Measures Geologic Hazards Required by Code// Proposed by Applicant Erosion Mitigation Measures A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. TESC)and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP)would be required to prevent and control erosion and discharge, according to City of Renton and Department of Ecology standards. To mitigate and reduce the sheet and channel erosion hazard potential on the Southport site under the Proposed Action, the TESC and SWPPP could include the following: Surface water and domestic discharge, either during or Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. after construction,would not randomly daylight on the site. All temporary and/or permanent devices used to collect surface runoff would be directed into tightlined systems that discharge into an approved storm water facility. Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-3 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENTEARTH (continued) Soils to be used around the site during construction Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. would be stored in such a manner to minimize erosion. Protective measures could include, but are not necessarily limited to,covering with plastic sheeting or the use of silt fences. The majority of the site would be covered with Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. TheimpervioussurfacesundertheProposedActionwithamountoflandscaped roughly 15 percent of the site to consist of landscaping area would be less.and vegetated areas. Source control mitigation measures would be conducted for cleared areas. All exposed subgrades would be seeded,covered with plastic sheeting, or otherwise protected during inclement weather or the wetter,winter months. During construction, silt fences would be constructed Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. along the boundaries to Lake Washington, John's Creek, and Gene Coulon Park to reduce the potential of sediment-laden runoff discharging into these areas. In addition, rock check dams would be established along roadways during construction. Temporary sedimentation traps or ponds would be Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A.installed to provide erosion and sediment transport control during construction. Details of the TESC and SWPPP would be determined Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. as part of the construction permit review process. Landslide Measures No landslide mitigation measures would be required. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEIS S-4 F x r A x n 7nJ ii.' SUMMARY MATRIX a ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION I NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INUUJ I KIAL REDEVELOPMENT EARTH (continued) Seismic Hazard Measures Mitigation measures would be required to reduce the risk Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. of potential liquefaction on any proposed structures. In general, this would require utilizing a deepened foundation system as discussed under Geotechnical Engineering Considerations below. Geotechnical Considerations Potential geotechnical impacts would be adequately Same as Plan A. None. None. mitigated through characterization of surface and subsurface conditions, proper geotechnical engineering, structural design,and proper construction implementation of the design. The preliminary geotechnical report prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. (1999)addresses potential geotechnical mitigation measures. Such measures are presented below. As part of the building design process, additional, specific measures could be identified, or the measures below could be modified. Foundations A deepened foundation would be required for support of Same as Plan A. Same as Plan A. Same as Plan A. the proposed buildings to reduce potential differential settlement and liquefaction impacts. Floor slabs would be pile supported if settlement to the Same as Plan A. Same as Plan A. Same as Plan A. slabs would be a concern. Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-5 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INQUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENTEARTH (continued) Site Preparation A minimum of 12 inches of structural fill, compacted and Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. proofrolled per the geotechnical engineer's recommendations, would be placed beneath the pavement, non-pile supported slabs, or structural fill areas to reduce potential settlement impacts. Alternatively,the subgrade could be chemically treated utilizing lime, kiln dust, or cement. The use of geotextile fabric or overexcavation of soft soils and replacement with structural fill could also be required to obtain a firm unyielding subgrade. The exact construction methodologies utilized would be dependent on final design plans. Excavations to remove or demolish below-grade Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. structures could encounter ground water and require excavation shoring and dewatering to reduce settlement hazards. Dewatering would be conducted in a manner that would minimize potential impacts due to settlement. The quantity of water removed could be reduced along with the magnitude of the resulting settlement through proper design of the dewatering system and construction sequencing. In addition, proper disposal of dewatering effluent would be stipulated in the design specifications for the placement of utilities. Structural Fill Up to 7 feet of fill would be required to support roadway Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. areas, and in some cases, slab-on-grade floors that are not a settlement concern. All structural fill would be placed and compacted as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. Proper subgrade preparation and drainage control would be necessary for the roadways, utilities, or structural fill bodies. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEISS-6 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT EARTH (continued) The on-site sediments are moisture-sensitive and subject Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. to disturbance when wet. These sediments would require drying prior to their use in structural fills, and the use of these soils in structural fills would be limited to favorable dry weather conditions. If fill is placed in wet weather, or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, imported backfill consisting of free-draining granular material would be required. Some areas such as utility trenches, manholes,vaults, Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. and heavy traffic roadways could still be susceptible to settlement under these soil conditions, and long-term maintenance of roadway areas would be required. Geotechnical oversight would be an integral part of Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. Southport's design and construction process. A geotechnical review of the design plans would be performed before the plans are finalized to assist in reducing potential geotechnical impacts. As is typical with similar projects in this region, construction monitoring would be required during the foundation and earthwork activities. In this manner, the adequacy of the foundation and earthwork would be evaluated as construction progresses, and appropriate responses to site conditions would be addressed in the field. Other Recommendations Geologic Hazards Erosion Mitigation Measures The geotechnical engineer should review the grading, Same as Plan A. None. None. erosion, and drainage plans prior to final design to further assist in mitigating erosion and sediment transport hazards during and after development. Additional erosion mitigation measures may be offered at the time of final design in response to site-specific plans. Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-7 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION r NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUS?RIAL EARTH (continued) F; " . REDEVELOPMENT Geotechnal Considerations Foundations The necessity of a vibration monitoring program for Same as Plan A. None.. None. structures on and off the site as a result of pile driving could be determined during the design phase as more detailed information on construction techniques are finalized. The geotechnical engineer could survey existing Same as Plan A. None. None. structures surrounding the site, including buildings, surface improvements, bulkheads, and buried utilities,to determine if pile-driving vibrations pose a potential threat to any existing structures, as part of the building design review process. If existing foundation piles are to be reused,the Same as Plan A. None. None. soundness of the piles should be tested to the satisfaction of the geotechnical and structural engineers. If piles are not to be reused,they should be exposed, and cut off at an elevation to be determined by the geotechnical and structural engineers. Significant Unavoidable Geologic Hazards Adverse Impacts Erosion Unavoidable erosion impacts as a result of development of Same as Plan A. No Impact. Similar to Plan A. the Proposed Action would include some increase in soil loss during construction. However, provided reasonable mitigation measures are properly followed, it is anticipated that sediment transport would be contained within the development area, and no impacts to the on-site water features or off-site areas would be anticipated. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEISS-8 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE iNDUSTRiAL j I I REDEVELOPMENT EARTH (continued) Landslides The risk of landslides on the site is extremely low, and no Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Seismic Hazards Any earthquake damage to the proposed development would Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. be caused by the intensity and acceleration associated with the event and not by specific site conditions,provided the mitigation measures are properly followed. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. Geotechnical Impacts Deep foundations have been recommended to reduce ground Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. settlement impacts, particularly during an earthquake. Support of sidewalks, roadways, and utilities on deep foundations is impractical and susceptible to settlement. Proper construction techniques would reduce the settlement risks; however, long-term maintenance of these areas should be anticipated. Overall, no significant impacts are anticipated. AIR QUALITY Impacts Building demolition and grading would generate suspended Same as Plan A. No impact. Similar to Plan A. particulate matter. Removal of asbestos from the steam plant building would Same as Plan A. No impact. Similar to Plan A. comply with EPA and PSAPCA regulations. Increased vehicular traffic would generate carbon monoxide Traffic volumes would No impact. Traffic volumes less CO). Estimated CO levels would be below EPA standards. be greater than under than Plan A. Plan A. Estimated CO levels would be below EPA standards. Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-9 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT AIR QUALITY(continued) Site population would be exposed to air pollutants from the Same as Plan A. Same as Plan A. Same as Plan A. adjacent Boeing facility. Boeing emissions comply with the Acceptable Source Impact levels. Air pollutants from the Boeing facility could enter HVAC Same as Plan A. No impact. Similar to Plan A. systems of proposed office buildings. Adverse health effects within proposed buildings would not be anticipated. Proposed office building could induce existing Boeing Same as Plan A. No impact. Shorter buildings exhaust stack plumes to reach the ground more often. would have a lesser However, significant air quality impacts would not be effect on exhaust stack anticipated. plumes. Odors from Boeing operations could be perceived by site Same as Plan A. Same as Plan A.Same as Plan A. population. Mitigation Measures Construction Required by Code/ Proposed by Applicant • Emissions from construction equipment and trucks could Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A.. be reduced by using relatively new,well-maintained equipment. Avoiding prolonged periods of vehicle idling and engine-powered equipment would also reduce emissions. Trucking materials to and from the site could be scheduled to minimize congestion during peak travel times and thereby minimize secondary air quality impacts caused by reduced travel speeds. Dust produced by construction could be reduced by using a Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. number of techniques. Areas of exposed soils such as storage yards and construction roadways could be sprayed with water or other dust suppressants. Soils carried out of the construction area by exiting trucks could be minimized by wheel washing and covering dusty truck loads. Finally, soil that does escape the construction area on exiting vehicles could be reduced with an effective street-cleaning effort. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEIS5-10 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT AIR QUALITY(continued) Operation Traffic Sources Because dispersion modeling indicates that none of the Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. alternatives would result in CO concentrations exceeding the 1-hour or 8-hour NAAQSs, no mitigation of potential air quality impacts is warranted. Indirect Impacts There may be the potential for air quality impacts to future Same as Plan A. None. None. residents and tenants of Southport from the nearby existing industrial sources; mitigation measures may or may not be applicable. Modeling completed by Boeing indicates that no adverse health impacts or significant odor effects would result under any reasonably assumed operations at Boeing facilities. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of Boeing to protect human health from harmful exposures to any air pollutants emitted at their facility,as well as from nuisance impacts due to odors. The City of Renton will determine whether mitigation can be Same as Plan A. None. None. required of Southport,if significant impacts are possible and are due to existing, off-site sources. Mitigation,if any,will be determined as part of the consideration of the Planned Action Ordinance. The following mitigation measures are,therefore, shown for informational purposes only. The indoor air quality of the office buildings could be improved Same as Plan A. None. None. by using filters on the roof HVAC systems. The filter system would need to filter particulates as well as volatile organic compounds(VOCs). A synthetic fiber filter media would remove the particulate load while an activated carbon filter would remove most VOCs. Activated carbon filters can remove fumes,odors,solvents, hydrocarbons,and organic vapors, but may not ensure all pollutants emitted by Boeing's paint facility. Such filter systems could be expensive,however. Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-11 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE T INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT AIR QUALITY(continued) Indoor air quality could also be improved by placing the Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. HVAC systems at a location where plumes from the Boeing facility would be less likely to reach the air intake vents. To accomplish this,a detailed study would need to be conducted,with Boeing's cooperation,to assess the optimum locations for intake vents. Mitigation efforts could be concentrated at the source of Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. emissions. The applicant could work with Boeing to reduce their emissions or increase the dispersion of air pollutants. However, Boeing has probably already applied measures for reducing these emissions,so any such additional mitigation measures would be an additional expense. Significant Unavoidable No unavoidable adverse impacts from construction or Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A.Adverse Impacts operation of Southport would result. Emissions from existing industrial sources in the area could Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. potentially affect on-site locations and cause adverse impacts. Mitigation measures identified above would likely preclude significant adverse impacts. WATER Impacts Surface Water Quality The proposal would eliminate the western ditch. Same as Plan A. No impact. Same as Plan A. Potential for stream bank erosion along John's Creek would Same as Plan A. No impact. Same as Plan A. increase, requiring alternative detention for this area. Groundwater Quality Shallow groundwater table could require dewatering during Same as Plan A No impact. Similar to Plan A. placement of utilities. Surface Water Quality Construction would increase potential for sedimentation and Same as Plan A. No impact. Similar to Plan A. increased levels of pH to John's Creek and Lake Washington. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEIS5-12 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT WATER(continued) Development of the preliminary conceptual master plan Same as Plan A. No impact. Area in vehicle access would increase the amount of area in vehicle-access surface greater than under roadways and parking). master plan, although traffic volumes would be less, resulting in less potential for water impacts. With the proposed water quality wet vault, stormwater Same as Plan A. No impact. Less potential for discharge to Lake Washington would be within state water quality impacts. standards,with the exception of zinc, lead, and fecal coliforms. Widening of Lake Washington Blvd.Would require Same as Plan A. No impacts. No widening of Lake lengthening of culverts passing John's Creek under the Washington Blvd. roadway and increase roadway area subject to traffic. With required. water quality treatment, no significant water quality impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Required by Code! Hydrogeology Proposed by Applicant Surface Water With proper implementation and maintenance of the Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. proposed stormwater control system, no additional mitigation would be required. Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-13 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT WATER(continued) Groundwater Ground water may be encountered during construction of Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. utility trenches or any other below-grade earthwork activities. Dewatering would be conducted in a manner that would minimize potential impacts due to settlement. The quantity of water removed would be reduced along with the magnitude of the resulting settlement through proper design of the dewatering system and construction sequencing. Construction techniques such as reducing the length of trench open at one time could be required. The specific location, extent, and depth of utilities would dictate the dewatering design, and in turn the quantity of water that should be removed. Specific recommendations would be determined during the design phase once plans are finalized, as part of more detailed geotechnical evaluation. In addition, proper disposal of dewatering effluent would be stipulated in the design specifications for the placement of utilities. Water Quality A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. TESC) and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP) would be prepared and implemented to prevent introduction of sediment, turbid water, construction waste, or accidental spills of hydrocarbons to Lake Washington or John's Creek during construction. Details of these plans would be prepared during the construction permit review process with the City of Renton and Department of Ecology (refer to the EARTH section for identification of possible TESC measures). The TESC plan could also include restricting on mass grading to the dry season; capture and filtration of silted water before release; and prohibition of on-site release of concrete wash-out, unless it is to temporary, lined ponds. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEISS-14 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE i I I REDEVELOPMENT WATER(continued) The 1992 Department of Ecology (DOE) Manual standards for stormwater quality treatment would be utilized for treatment system design;these standards are more stringent than the 1990 KC Manual requirements that the City of Renton has adopted. Water quality treatment of surfaces routinely accessible to motor vehicles would be provided by wet vault(s) designed to the 1992 DOE standards. Other Recommended Four inches of compost could be tilled to an approximate Measures depth of 6 inches under all landscaped areas to be lawn. This organic layer would: a) increase infiltration and water retention under the turf rooted zone,which would reduce leaching and enhance evapotranspiration; b)create organic binding sites for organic pesticides and metals; and c)create an organic substrate for microbial growth, which would biodegrade organic pesticides and reduce leaching of nitrogen through uptake and denitrification. This additional compost would represent a minimal added cost. If pesticides are to be used,they could be selected from low-mobility products. Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-15 SUMMARY MATRIX x t 2 z ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE IN( TRIAL REDEVELOPMENT IWATER(continued) If(1)the ratio of roof/walkway/fire lane to parking/roadway surfaces falls substantially below those identified under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan, and if(2)there is a corresponding potential increase in average daily trips, then additional metals removal is recommended for discharge to Lake Washington. Additional removal could be achieved by use of a compost filter or other underground filter insert added to the wet vault system for Lake Washington. If needed,it is reasonable to expect that a compost filter system would have sufficient metals removal capability to reduce metals to within water quality standards prior to discharge,or to not increase the dilution required to achieve standards compliance beyond that level evaluated in this SETS. A compost filter system could be installed at a moderate cost(relative to the proposed wet vaults), however, annual maintenance costs could be very expensive. Native vegetation or locally adapted landscaping species could be used, as possible,to avoid the need for pesticides. Significant Unavoidable With implementation of mitigation measures, none are Same as Plan A. None.Adverse Impacts expected. FISHERIES & AQUATIC ANIMALS Impacts Fisheries Site grading and filling of intake/return tunnels (Lake Same as Plan A. No impact. Same as proposal.Washington)would increase potential sedimentation in Lake Washington and John's Creek. With proposed erosion control measures, impacts to fisheries habitat would not be significant. The limited existing riparian vegetation (consisting of exotic Same as Plan A. No impact. Same as proposal.grasses and blackberry with little fisheries habitat value) along Lake Washington and John's Creek would be impacted by construction. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEISS-16 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE iNDUS T RiAL l I I I REDEVELOPMENT FISHERIES (continued) No new in-water or over water fisheries are proposed. Same as Plan A. No impact. Similar to Proposal. However,the waterfront promenade would result in increased human activity and lighting near the Lake Washington shoreline. With proposed mitigation measures, no significant impacts are anticipated. Stormwater runoff would exceed state standards for zinc,Same as Plan A. No impact. Less potential for lead and fecal coliforms and would require dilution in water quality impacts. receiving waters to meet standards. The estimated low levels would not significantly impact fisheries resources. Although not proposed,future improvements to docks on the Same as Plan A. No impact. Some industrial use of east and west sides of the site could be made, subject to the dock could occur. separate permits. Potential future dock improvements could Depending on extent increase in-water and over-water structures, impact water of dock use, impact quality from increased boat traffic, and increase lighting would be similar to or levels,which could impact fisheries resources. greater than under Plan A. Western Pond Turtle Because there are no known Western Pond Turtle population Same as Plan A. Same as Plan A.Same as Plan A. or habitat in the site vicinity, no impacts to the Western Pond Turtle are anticipated Mitigation Measures Required by Code/ Fisheries Proposed by Applicant The following mitigation measures are intended to minimize Same as Plan A. None. None. the potential for impacts to fisheries resources from redevelopment of the site. Directional lighting and shading provisions for all light standards along the promenade on the Lake Washington shoreline side would be implemented. The cooling water tunnel entrances would be permanently sealed prior to backfilling the tunnel.The plug would consist of a pre-constructed structure made of concrete or other non- corrosive material and would be placed in the tunnel from above. FISHERIES (continued) Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-17 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL - REDEVELOPMENT; Native shrub and tree species would be planted along Same as Plan A. None. Some plantings couldtheshorelineofJohn's Creek to replace the existing be required. blackberry bushes. Native species such as sallal Gaultheria shallon), Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa), snowberry(Symphoricarpos albus), salmonberry(Rubus spectabilis), elderberry(Sambucus sp.),willow(Salix sp.) and western redcedar(Thuja plicata)would be considered to provide some additional benefit from allochthonous (non-native)contribution and insect productivity to fisheries resources in the creek and Lake Washington. Water quality measures would include limiting mass Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. grading to the dry season and collection and treatment of turbid water. Additional water quality measures, identified in the EARTH and WATER sections of this SEIS would also benefit fisheries resources. Western Pond Turtle No mitigation measures are warranted.Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. Other Recommended Fisheries Measures The preliminary Conceptual Master Plan (Plan A or Plan Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. B) does not include plans for waterfront improvements on the west or east side. Such improvements would be subject to separate,future applications sponsored by the City or applicant. Measures generally applicable to the minimization of impacts to fisheries resources from future potential waterfront improvements at the west side, and potential future access improvements to the park on the east side, are highlighted below. Minimize over-water structure. Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEISS-18 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT FISHERIES (continued) Construct all walking surfaces to allow as much natural Same as Plan A. None. None. light penetration as possible. Remove unnecessary structures such as abandoned or Same as Plan A. None. None. unused pilings, dolphins, finger piers, sheetpile, etc. Minimize vertical structures (e.g., pilings,walls) in the Same as Plan A. None. None. water column. Use light colored materials. Minimize structure in the nearshore area used by Same as Plan A. None. None. salmonids during migration. Significant Unavoidable With implementation of mitigation measures, no significant Same as Plan A. None. None. Adverse Impacts unavoidable adverse impacts would result. NOISE Impacts Construction activities, including pile driving and use of heavy Same as Plan A. No impact. Similar to proposal but equipment, would generate noise through much of the 5 year over a shorter construction period. These activities would generate construction period. maximum sound levels that would be higher than existing sound levels. Pile driving activities have the potential to cause ground- Same as Plan A. No impact. Pile driving would be borne vibration at nearby structures at the Boeing Plant. required for industrial Nearby Boeing buildings would not be anticipated to be and office buildings, impacted, however,the wastewater treatment plant could be and impacts would be susceptible to vibration impacts. Multiple pile driving at similar to the proposal. anyone time would be precluded to minimize the potential for impacts. Future on-site residents, employees and park uses would Same as Plan A. No impact. Depending on the type receive noise from HVAC units. Significant noise impacts of industrial use, would not be anticipated. HVAC noise would be similar to or less than the proposal. Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-19 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT NOISE (continued) Future residents and employees on the site would be Same as Plan A. No impact. Noise impact to exposed to noise from the Boeing Plant and the Renton employees same as Municipal Airport. Noise levels from Boeing and the airport Plan A. would not result in significant impacts to site users. Traffic from the proposal would increase noise levels along Same as Plan A. No impact. Traffic levels would be Lake Washington Blvd. and portions of Gene Coulon Park. less than under Significant noise impacts would not be anticipated. proposal, however, because of a higher percentage of truck traffic, traffic noise could be similar to or greater than under the proposal.Mitigation Measures Required by Code/ Construction Noise Proposed by Applicant Washington's noise limits apply to construction noise Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. during nighttime hours; therefore, construction activities could be limited to daytime hours to the extent practicable. This restriction could include all noisy start- up and preparatory activities such as starting engines before 7:00 a.m.,which can disturb people trying to sleep. Noise from any work during nighttime hours (after 10 p.m.) received in residentially zoned areas would be subject to the nighttime noise limits in the Washington Administrative Code. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEISS20 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT NOISE (continued) Other Recommended Construction Noise Measures Although the conservative nature of the construction Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. noise analysis likely overstates actual construction noise Shorter construction levels at nearby sensitive receivers, there remains a period. potential for noise impacts from uncontrolled construction noise sources on-site. Because construction noise during daytime hours is exempt from the limits in Washington's noise rule, no mitigation is required in order to comply with the state or local noise limits. However,due to the potential for noise impacts, and because construction under Plan A or B would take place over five years,the use of mitigation measures to reduce potential noise impacts is warranted. Some of the following construction practices could be used to help minimize potential noise impacts. Relatively simple and inexpensive practices could reduce Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. the effects of construction noise on people nearby. For example, construction noise could be reduced with properly sized and maintained mufflers, engine intake silencers, engine enclosures, and turning off idle equipment. Such measures are especially effective for engines used in pumps, compressors,welding machines,and similar equipment that operate continuously and contribute to high, steady background noise levels. In addition to providing about a 10-dBA reduction in equivalent sound levels, such measures would demonstrate the contractors'commitment to minimizing noise impacts during construction. Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-21 SUMMARY MATRIX r r• ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENTNOISE (continued) In order to reduce the generation of on-site construction Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. noise and the transmission of such noise to off-site locations, construction contracts could specify that all equipment and especially mufflers be maintained in good working order. Contracts could further specify that engine enclosures be used on non-portable equipment when the engine is the dominant source of noise and that stationary equipment would be placed as far away from sensitive receiving locations as possible. Where this is infeasible, portable noise barriers could be placed around the equipment with the opening directed away from the sensitive receiving locations. Construction contractors could be asked,to the extent Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A.feasible, to substitute hydraulic or electric models for impact tools such as jack hammers, rock drills and pavement breakers to reduce construction and demolition noise. Noise from material handling could be minimized by requiring operators to lift rather than drag materials wherever feasible. Although back-up alarms are exempt from the noise Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. ordinances (and required by OSHA), noises from such devices are among the most annoying sounds from a construction site. Contracts could suggest that where feasible, equipment operators would drive forward rather than backward to minimize this noise. Alternately, potential mitigation could include using ambient-sensing vehicle back-up alarms that also meet OSHA standards. These devices sample the ambient sound level when a vehicle is about to back up,and emit a signal only 10- dBA louder than the existing level (as opposed to emitting a signal at a preset, maximum level). Construction contracts could suggest the use of such devices to reduce the noise perceived at off-site locations and thereby reduce possible annoyance. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEISS-22 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE 714:..i v..+Tnii+i_ m I REDEVELOPMENT NOISE(continued) I Pile Driving Noise Pile driving could be limited to weekdays during those Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. hours considered less sensitive to nearby residents. This would limit this noise source to those times of the day and those days of the week when people are most likely to be away from home and when there would be fewer visitors to Gene Coulon Park. This time restriction also would limit pile driving to times when other noise sources would make the addition of pile-driving noise less noticeable. A grout injected pile system could be evaluated which Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. would not require impact driving. Depending on the equipment and procedures used for this system,this could reduce the noise associated with pile driving activities. However, this system would likely be substantially more expensive than conventional impact pile driving systems. If the grout injected pile system is not chosen,the following mitigation measures could be applied to the impact pile driving activities. There are a number of simple measures that could Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. reduce the noise generated by impact-type pile driving. These measures would provide only limited reduction, however,generally 5 dBA or less. One ore more of the following noise reduction measures could be used to mitigate potential pile driving noise: Insert a wooden or plastic dolly between the pile Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. head and the hammer Apply a damping compound to steel piles to reduce Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. the vibration/ringing Silence exhaust gas pulsations from the engines of Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. diesel-powered hammers Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-23 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT INOISE (continued) Remove any unnecessary hanging chains;fix any Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. loose bolts, panels, or over-slack leader guides Use a cushioned method in conjunction with a Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. heavy hammer-short drop" practice. This requires using interference fit guides to prevent kicking, rolling and vibration in the pile. While the overall sound level is not substantially reduced, the nature of the sound may be less annoying to people. Regular equipment service and maintenance Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. Another potential mitigation for impact drivers would Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. be to use a Hoesch Noise Abatement Tower. This device encloses the hammer and driven pile. It was designed to provide the maximum sound level reduction with minimum possible weight. The composite panel is comprised of a"sandwiched" layer of 2 mm steel, .4 mm plastic, and 1.5 mm steel. A polyurethane layer 150 mm thick is foamed on the inner walls of the panels. This enclosure can reduce impact pile driving noise by up to 20 dBA. Drawbacks include the difficulty of using this device on uneven ground, slopes, or in water. This mitigation could be expensive, however. Pile Driving Vibration As part of the detailed building design process, a Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. geotechnical engineer could survey existing structures in the surrounding area to more thoroughly determine the potential for vibration related impacts. In addition, a pile driving test near the western site boundary could be conducted while vibration measurements are taken at the closest Boeing facilities. This test could more accurately determine whether the actual pile driving vibration levels have the potential to cause structural damage, and whether vibration could be perceptible inside the facilities. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEISS-24 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE f I i i11I.JU:5 I RiML REDEVELOPMENT NOISE (continued) As stated previously, a grout injected pile system could Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. be evaluated which would not require impact driving. Depending on the specific equipment and procedures used, this system could reduce the vibration associated with pile driving activities. However,this system could substantially increase pile driving costs. The vibration analysis presented herein was based on Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. potential vibration levels from a single impact pile driver in operation. Unlike standard construction noise,total vibration levels could substantially increase if multiple vibration intensive activities occur at the same time. Therefore, to reduce potential vibration impacts at the nearest Boeing facilities, multiple pile driving activities could be precluded from occurring very near the western site boundary. Operational Noise Specific studies on the potential for significant HVAC Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. noise impacts could be conducted as part of the building design process. If such studies indicate that HVAC equipment noise could cause noise impacts at the nearest residences overlooking the site,the following mitigation measures could be employed. The need for such measures should be determined as part of the building permit process. Place noise barriers around the HVAC units. Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. Choose quieter equipment. Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. Provide silencers on the air intake and exhaust. Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-25 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE iNDUS TRIAL REDEVELOPMENT NOISE(continued) Significant Unavoidable The proposed redevelopment would increase sound levels at Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A,Adverse Impacts off-site locations as a result of pile driving and other although the construction activities. The relative impact of these increases construction periodwoulddependonthespecifictimingandthedurationofnoisewouldbeshorter. events. If construction activities, including equipment start- ups and other noisy preparations are limited to daytime hours, and other reasonable mitigation measures are employed to reduce on-site production and off-site transmission of construction noise, off-site impacts related to construction noise would be minimized. Complying with the state noise rule limit restricting Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. construction activities to 7 a.m.to 10 p.m.would preclude construction noise impacts during legally defined nighttime hours. Other mitigation measures to reduce noise generation and/or off-site transmission of pile-driving,vibration from pile driving and other construction noise employed by construction contractors would reduce the potential for significant off-site impacts. LAND USE Impacts Proposal would result in the permanent conversion of 14.2 Same as Plan A. No change in land use.No change in land use. acres of existing industrial land to office, residential and retail land uses. Proposal would result in a trade-off between industrial land Same as Plan A. No change in land use.No change in land use. and Center Office Residential (COR) lands in the city.COR goals not met. COR goals not met. The proposed development of approximately 1,000,000 sq.ft. Approximately No additional building area Approximately 300,000ofbuildingareawouldbegreaterthantheexistingbuilding1,300,00-sq.ft.of developed. sq. ft.would be area on the site. building area would developed, less than be developed. under the proposal.Proposed buildings would provide a transition in building Generally same as Building area would not Building height wouldheightfromBoeingtothePark. Plan A, although the increase, building transition be lower than under taller office buildings would not be provided. the proposal and would not provide the would provide less same height transition. transition. LAND USE (continued) Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEISS-26 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE i I 11\LIV3 1l\IAL. REDEVELOPMENT Planned uses would provide a land use transition between Same as Plan A. No land use transition No land use transition industrial on the west and park/residential to the east. would be provided. would be provided. Use could be incompatible with park. The proposed land uses would increase the level of activity Plan B would result in The current activity level of The level of activity on the site. a slightly higher level the site would remain. would increase, but to of activity than Plan a lower level than A. under the proposal. Approximately 4.7 acres of open space would be provided, Approximately 4.2 No access to the waterfront No access to the including a waterfront promenade. acres of open space would be provided. waterfront would be would be provided, a provided. waterfront promenade would be provided. 411111 The demand for services and pressures for redevelopment of Same as Plan A. No increase in demand for Some increase in existing commercial land could increase. services or pressure for demand for services redevelopment of existing and pressures for commercial lands. commercial redevelopment could increase, but not to the extent under the proposal. Mitigation Measures The preliminary Conceptual Master Plan includes Same as Plan A. None. Less open space Required by Code! approximately 4.7 acres (Plan A)to 4.2 acres (Plan B)of would be provided. Proposed by Applicant open space which would help offset proposed intensification of the site. Of the total amount of open space provided on the site, approximately 3.2 acres Plan A)to 3.0 acres (Plan B)would be located at ground-level and outside of structures (i.e., excluding courtyards above parking structures). Minimum building setbacks of 10 to 30 feet would be Same as Plan A. None. Lesser setbacks would provided between proposed buildings and adjacent be provided.1111, properties. Building setbacks from Lake Washington would be a minimum of 35 feet. Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-27 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A I PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT LAND USE (continued) Significant Unavoidable Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the Same as Plan A. None. No loss of industrialAdverseImpactsintensificationofdevelopmentonthesite, displacement of land. Lesser some existing industrial uses, and permanent conversion of difference in buildingindustriallandtoamixeduseredevelopment. A significant size. difference in building scale between on-site development and Gene Coulon Park would result. POPULATION, HOUSINGIIPANDEMPLOYMENT Impacts Proposed residential use would increase population by 1,037 Residential use would No increase in population No increase in people, 7% of the City's population project to be added increase population would occur. population wouldbetween1996and2010. by 1,110 people, 8% occur. of the City's population projection to be added between 1996 and 2010. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures would be necessary. Same as Plan A. None. Same as Plan A. Significant Unavoidable No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Adverse Impacts AESTHETICS, LIGHT& GLARE Impacts The visual character of the site would change from low Similar to Plan A,No change. Visual character would building density industrial to higher building density mixed building scale would change but not to the use. be slightly more. extent as under proposal.0 From distant viewpoints, site development would appear as a Similar to Plan A,No impact. Buildings would be continuation of the building mass of the Boeing Plant. Office limited height lower than under Buildings would step-down in height, from east to west, and transition between proposal and morewouldprovideaheighttransitionfromBoeingtotheproposedBoeingPlantandtransitionwouldbe residential buildings/park and Boeing. proposed residential provided. However, building/park.because there is no maximum height limit under existing zoning, building could be taller, with less transition, AESTEHTICS, LIGHT&than under proposal. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEIS5-28 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT PI UTtIRP INDUSTRIAL I 1 REDEVELOPMENT GLARE (continued) From the playground in Gene Coulon Park, residential Same as Plan A. No impact. View from the Building B, located 10 feet from the Park boundary,would playground would be significantly affect the visual character of the immediate area. changed but not to the extent as under the proposal. The optional fire lane along east side of building C could Same as Plan A. No impact. No impact. encroach upon the drip line trees. With implementation of arborist recommendations, no significant impacts to trees would be anticipated from the optional fire lane. Proposed buildings would increase the amount of shade east Same as Plan A. No impact. Shading would occur over the Park playground. The greatest increase in shade but not to the extent as would occur late in the afternoon during the winter months- under the Proposal. time of year with lowest number of sunny days and lowest park utilization. The level of glare and lighting from the site would increase, Same as Plan A. No impact. Less than under but no significant impacts anticipated. Proposal, although lighting for any outdoor storage could be a major source of light. Mitigation Measures The preliminary Conceptual Master Plan includes Same as Plan A. None. None. Required by Code/ approximately 4.7 acres (Plan A)to 4.2 acres(Plan B)of Proposed by Applicant open space and public amenities which would help offset proposed intensification of the site. Minimum building setbacks of 10 to 30 feet would be Same as Plan A. None. Setbacks would be provided between proposed buildings and adjacent less. properties. Building setbacks from Lake Washington1111 would be a minimum of 35 feet. Certain trail and outdoor area design elements of the Same as Plan A. None. None. preliminary Conceptual Master Plan (e.g., benches, gates, waste receptacles, plant materials, lighting, handrail details) would be consistent with the Gene Coulon Park design theme. Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-29 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT AESTHETICS, LIGHT& GLARE (continued) Design of the residential buildings would include facade Same as Plan A. None. None. articulation to provide visual variety and to soften the intensity of the proposed buildings. Other Recommended If the optional fire lane along the east side of Building C Same as Plan A. None. None.Measures were to be constructed, instead of providing emergency110accessviatheCoulonParkparkinglotdriveaisletothe east as proposed, arborist recommendations limiting intrusions within the drip line of trees along the western edge of the park would be implemented to help ensure the long-term survival of the trees. Arborist recommendations include minimizing disruptions within the tree root zone(drip-line)to 30 percent of the root zone area, minimizing the amount of fill within root zone areas, and possibly utilizing pervious paving materials for the fire lane (refer to Appendix E for detail). Significant Unavoidable The scale and height of buildings on the site would increase Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan AAdverseImpactssubsequenttoredevelopment. Some increase in shading although less buildingandglareconditionsattheadjacentGeneCoulonParkscaleandshading.children's playground area would occur. TRANSPORTATION Impacts Plan A would generate 9,367 net daily trips, including 1,005 Plan B would No new trips. 2,898 daily trips,AM and 1,061 PM net peak hour trips in 2004. generate 11,202 net including 355 AM 10 daily trips, including and 370 PM peak 1,273 AM and 1,355 hour trips. PM net peak hour trips in 2004. Proposed roadway improvements would be provided at the Same as Plan A. No impact. Slightly less off-siteParkDrive/Garden Ave/Lake Washington Boulevard and roadwayLakeWashingtonBoulevard/Houser Way/Southport Access improvements Intersections to achieve acceptable levels of service. required. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEIS5-30 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION continued) With improvements, all intersections would operate at Same as Plan A. No impact. Same as Plan A. acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better). Vehicles exiting the site during the PM peak-hour would Somewhat greater No impact. Less than Plan A. experience significant delay at the Southport driveway. level of delay. Proposed parking supply for retail uses would be insufficient Same as Plan A. No impact. Parking would be on weekdays; additional parking for retail uses could be sufficient. provided by excess parking supply for office use. 410 If paid parking is implented for office uses at Southport, it Similar to Plan A.No impact. No impact. could have a spillover effect on the free parking provided at Because of the larger Gene Coulon Park. amount of office use, impact could be greater. The Proposal would generate demand for area transit, Same as Plan A. No new pedestrian, bicycle Less demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Pedestrian and bicycle or transit facilities would be transit, pedestrian and facilities, including sidewalks, promenade, crosswalks and provided.bicycle facilities. No connections to existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities would new transit, pedestrian be provided. Transit incentives could be provided as part of a and bicycle facilities TDM program.provided. Emergency secondary access would be provided. The drive Same as Plan A. None. None. aisle in Gene Coulon Park adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site would provide emergency access to Building C. A fire lane along the east side on Building C is an option. Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-31 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION continued) Mitigation Measures At the Park Drive/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Same as Plan A. None. Less off-site roadwayRequiredbyCode/ Boulevard intersection, the existing channelization on the improvements.Proposed by Applicant Park Avenue approach would be restriped to accommodate one shared through/right lane,one IPthroughlane, and two left-turn lanes. On the Lake Washington Boulevard approach, the approach would be restriped to accommodate one right-turn lane and two left-turn lanes. The westbound free right-turn lane from Park Drive to Lake Washington Boulevard would yield to the eastbound left-turning vehicles from Park Avenue to Lake Washington Boulevard. To minimize the safety hazard from left-turns in and out Same as Plan A. None. Same as Plan A. of the Boeing parking lot, a c-curb would be provided along the centerline of Lake Washington Boulevard just north of Park Drive to restrict left-turns into and out of the Boeing parking lot. A signal would be provided at the Lake Washington Same as Plan A. None. Boulevard/Houser Way/Southport Access intersection. The Southport/Gene Coulon Park shared access Same as Plan A. None. Not required. approach would be widened to three lanes (one left-turn,1110oneright-turn and one entering lane). The section of Lake Washington Boulevard between Same as Plan A. None. Not required. Park Drive and the joint Southport/Gene Coulon Park shared access would be widened by approximately 12 feet to accommodate two southbound lanes, one northbound left turn lane, and one northbound through lane. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEISS-32 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INLJUSTf'KIAL REDEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION continued) The specific design of the internal intersection of the Same as Plan A. None. None. Southport access driveway and the Gene Coulon Park access road would be formulated as part of the final Master Plan(Level II Site Plan) review by the City. The design would insure that traffic into both properties would not spill back onto Lake Washington Boulevard. Traffic impact mitigation fees would be paid to the City of Same as Plan A. None. A fee of$217,350 Renton at the rate of$75 per daily trip generated, would be required. consistent with the City of Renton Resolution No. 3100 702,525 under Plan A and $840,150 under Plan B). The City and the applicant would continue to work with Same as Plan A. None. Coordination with the BNSF railroad during the design of improvements on BNSF would be Lake Washington Boulevard to determine the most required. appropriate railroad crossing solution. Potential solutions could include signal pre-emption and cantilever-mounted flashing lights with or without gates. Other Recommended An agreement regarding parking arrangements between Same as Plan A. None. None. Measures Southport and Gene Coulon Park could be formulated. Parking restrictions during the weekday morning peak hours for the parking stalls at Gene Coulon Park could be implemented. In addition, a random monitoring plan could be implemented during the weekday morning peak hours to discourage interdevelopment parking. Southport could provide additional parking for the Park during Southport's off-peak hours (weekday evenings and weekends). For safety purposes,"Children at Play" signs could be Same as Plan A. None. None. installed in and around the Gene Coulon Park access road and near Southport's residential areas, and/or speed bumps could be installed on the internal roadways to encourage slower speeds and enhance overall safety. Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-33 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT FIRE T' tie T-)4ri cA continued) A Transportation Demand Management(TDM) program Same as Plan A. None. None. could be implemented. TDM is a tool for managing the amount of traffic a development generates. Through various TDM programs,traffic can be reduced overall or shifted to non-peak times of the day. The State of Washington's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program requires employers who have 100 or more employees commuting to a single location, between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., to implement TDM programs. Some TDM programs include: Transit incentives Guaranteed ride home program Flex-time hours Telecommuting Preferential parking for vanpools and carpools Parking pricing Secured bicycle parking Financial Incentives Significant Unavoidable The Proposed Action would increase the number of vehicles Same as Plan A. None. The number ofAdverseImpactsusingarearoadways. With implementation of mitigation vehicles would measures, no significant impacts would be anticipated. increase, total vehicles would be less than proposal.FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Impacts Plan A would generate additional fire protection and A total of 196 fire No additional demand for A total of 27 fire emergency services demands on the City of Renton Fire protection and fire and emergency protection andDepartment. The estimated buildout population would emergency service services would be emergency services generate 173 calls per year. calls would be generated. calls would be generated per year.generated. Emergency vehicle access to all buildings would be provided. Same as Plan A. No impact. Emergency access would be required. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEISS-34 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A I PROPOSED ACTION 1 NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE i:ivOUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT I FIRE continued) The department anticipated the ability to adequately serve Same as Plan A. No impact. Same as Plan A. the proposed development. Required by Per Resolution#2895, fire mitigation fees would be paid Same as Plan A. No impact. Fire mitigation fees Code/Proposed by to the City at the rate of$388 per multi-family unit, and would be required. Applicant 0.52 per square foot of commercial building area. Approved fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems Same as Plan A. None. would be installed throughout all structures. An emergency access would be provided via the 45-foot Same as Plan A. None. Emergency access wide pedestrian plaza located immediately south of would be required. Building B with access from Gene Coulon Park's Alignment would likely southern parking lot. Removable vehicle barriers would differ from proposal. block ordinary vehicle traffic. The fire lanes along the secondary access, and along Same as Plan A. None. Same as above. the south/southwest site perimeter, would meet fire department requirements by having widths of 20 feet. Roadways would be signed as fire lanes. A designated fire lane, to serve the eastern side of Same as Plan A. None. Same as above. Building C,would be provided by the existing 20-foot wide drive aisle in the Gene Coulon Park parking lot to the immediate east. The park drive aisle would be signed as a fire lane. Tax revenues generated from redevelopment of the site Same as Plan A. None. Same as Plan A. under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan, accruing to the City of Renton,would help offset the direct fire service impacts of the project. Other Recommended An optional fire lane approach for Building C would be to Same as Plan A. None. None. Measures provide a 20-foot wide on-site fire lane along the east side of the building. Significant Unavoidable No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Same as Plan A. None. Same as Plan A. Adverse Impacts Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-35 SUMMARYMATRIX' k tQ A ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL POLICE I I I REDEVELOPMENT Impacts Plan A would generate additional demands for police A total of No additional demand. Approximately 155protection. Upon buildout, approximately 780 police call per approximately 942 calls for service wouldyearwouldbegenerated. police calls would be be generated annually. generated per year.Response times would be similar to existing conditions. Same as Plan A. No impact. Same as Plan A. Due to the additional population, demand for police security Same as Plan A. No impact. Impact would be lessIPinGeneCoulonParkcouldincrease. than Plan A. The Renton Police Department does not anticipate significant Same as Plan A. No impact. Same as Plan A. adverse impacts on facilities, equipment or staffing. Mitigation Measures Tax revenues generated from redevelopment of the site Same as Plan A. None. Same as Plan A.Required by Code/ under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan, accruingProposedbyApplicanttotheCityofRenton,would help offset the direct police service impacts of the project. Other Recommended The applicant of future redevelopment of the site could Same as Plan A. None. None.Measures coordinate with the Police Department to include on-site safety features that would help lower the demand for service. Significant Unavoidable No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Same as Plan A. None. Same as Plan A.Adverse Impacts SCHOOLS dilImpactsResidentialusewouldbeanticipatedtogenerateResidentialusewouldNoimpact. No impact. approximately 231 additional students in the Renton School generate District. approximately 247 additional students in the Renton School District. The Renton School District anticipates that the schools Same as Plan A. No impact. No impact. serving the site would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional students. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEISS-36 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIALfIREDEVELOPMENT SCHOOLS (continued) The district anticipates that its transportation system could Same as Plan A. No impact. No impact. accommodate the students associated with Southport. Mitigation Measures Property tax revenues from development under the Same as Plan A. None. None. Required by Code! preliminary Conceptual Master Plan would accrue to the Proposed by Applicant Renton School District and would help offset the effects of added students. The applicant would coordinate with the school district to Same as Plan A. None. None. ensure safe and efficient bus transportation to and from the site. 1111 Adequate provisions would be provided on-site for bus Same as Plan A. None. None. turn-around(s) or on Lake Washington Boulevard for a bus pull-out as applicable. Significant Unavoidable No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Same as Plan A. None. None. Adverse Impacts PARKS Impacts Plan A would increase the demand on nearby park and Plan B would require No impact. Some increase in park recreational facilities. Using the City of Renton's Parks level approximately 31 use, but less than service standards, approximately 29 acres of parks and acres of parks and under Proposal. recreational facilities would be required to serve site recreational facilities population. to serve site population. Approximately 4.7 acres of open space would be provided. Approximately 4.2 None. No public open space. acres of open space would be provided. A waterfront promenade and trail link to Gene Coulon Park Same as Plan A. None. No trail connections or and potentially to the DNR trail on the Boeing property would waterfront access be provided. provided. The Gene Coulon Park playground would experience higher Same as Plan A. No impact. No impact. levels of activity. Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-37 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT PARKS (continued) Increased level of activity at Gene Coulon Park could cause Same as Plan A. None. None. need for additional security in the Park. However, presence of resident population could enhance service of security at the park. Mitigation Measures The preliminary Conceptual Master Plan includes Same as Plan A. None. None.Required by Code/ substantial on-site public and private recreational 110ProposedbyApplicantfeatures, including public access to Lake Washington, a waterfront promenade, public plaza areas and courtyards. The promenade would serve as an extension of the Lake Washington Trail from Gene Coulon Park and would provide an opportunity for a future connection to properties to the west and the Cedar River Trail. The playground in Gene Coulon Park would be Same as Plan A. None. None. redesigned to ensure that the pedestrian connection between the park and Southport would not direct pedestrians into the playground area. The bearer of the responsibility for the playground redesign would be determined by the City. If undertaken by the applicant, credit against the required mitigation fee could be allowed by the City. The applicant would be required to comply with the City's Same as Plan A. None. Parks fee based on Park Mitigation Fee Policy(Resolution 3082),which new residential units.IMOallowsavarietyofapproachestomitigateimpacts (e.g. No fee would be dedication, fees, provision of on-site facilities). If applied required. fully, impact fees in the amount of approximately 192,500 for Plan A, and approximately$206,000 for Plan B Certain trail and outdoor area design elements of the Same as Plan A. None. None. preliminary Conceptual Master Plan (e.g., benches, grates,waste receptacles, plant materials, lighting, handrail details)would be consistent with the Gene Coulon Park design theme to achieve an effective transition. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEISS-38 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT PARKS (continued) The City would require that the applicant dedicate a Same as Plan A. None. None. public recreation easement along the promenade and dock to ensure long-term opportunities for public access to the shoreline. Tax revenues generated from redevelopment of the site Same as Plan A. None. Same as Plan A. under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan, accruing to the City of Renton,would help offset the direct park impacts of the project. Other Recommended If the optional fire lane along the east side of Building C Same as Plan A. None. None. Measures were to be constructed instead of providing emergency access via the Gene Coulon Park parking lot drive aisle to the east as proposed, arborist recommendations limiting intrusions within the drip line of trees along the western edge of the park would be implemented to help ensure the long-term survival of the trees. Arborist recommendations include minimizing disruptions within the trees' drip-line to 30 percent of the drip-line area, minimizing the amount of fill within the drip-line area, and possibly utilizing pervious paving materials for the fire lane (refer to Appendix E for detail). Same as Plan A. None. Same as Plan A. Significant Unavoidable No unavoidable adverse impacts would occur with Adverse Impacts implementation of mitigation measures. WATER SUPPLY Impacts Plan A would result in a domestic water demand of 240 gpm. Plan B would require No impact. Increased domestic The overall city water supply system has the capacity to 290 gpm for domestic water demand, but11111 serve proposed development. use. The overall city less than under water supply system Proposal. has the capacity to serve proposed development. A minimum of 3,000 gpm would be required for fire flow. The Same as Plan A. No impact. Similar to Plan A. overall city water system has the capacity to provide fire flow requirements. Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-39 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENTWATERSUPPLY continued) Mitigation Meausures Redevelopment under the preliminary Conceptual Same as Plan A. None. Some water systemRequiredbyCode/ Master Plan would require construction of a new 10-inch improvements wouldProposedbyApplicantlineloopedthroughthesite. This line would connect to be required. the existing 6-inch line serving Gene Coulon Park. The 6-inch connection to Lake Washington Boulevard would 110bereplacedwitha10-inch line. These improvements would insure adequate water pressure and fire flow capacity for Southport. Construction beneath Burlington Northern Railroad's Same as Plan A. None. Likely same as Plan A.tracks and in the public right-of-way would be required to install the new connection. The following mitigation measures would likely apply: Construction plan review and scheduling with all affected utilities and the railroad would be coordinated well in advance of construction. Boring and jacking would likely be required for construction underneath the existing rail lines. A 15-foot wide utility easement would be provided to Same as Plan A. None. Likely same as Plan A.allow City access to water lines for maintenance/repair. illSignificantUnavoidableNonewouldbeexpected. Same as Plan A. None. Same as Plan A.Adverse Impacts WASTEWATER Impacts Peak sanitary sewer flows generated by Plan A would be 600 Peak sanitary sewer No impact. Peak sanitary sewergpm. The overall city sewer system has the capacity to serve flows generated by flows would be 150proposeddevelopment. Plan B would be 915 gpm. The overall gpm. The overall city system has the sewer system has the capacity to serve capacity to serve Industrial proposed Redevelopment. development. Southport Development Planned Action SummaryDraftSupplementalEIS 5-40 SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT i PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE tunl IBTOI A I 9q^ I I REDEVELOPMENT WASTEWATER continued) Mitigation Measures The existing 8-inch sewer line would be replaced with a Same as Plan A. None. None. Required by 10-inch line to insure adequate capacity to handle the Code/Proposed by estimated flows from Southport under Plan A or B. Applicant Installation of the new 10-inch sewer line would require Same as Plan A. None. None. construction beneath Burlington Northern Railroad's tracks, as well as construction in the public right-of-way.SO The following mitigation measures would likely apply: Construction plan review and scheduling with all affected utilities and the railroad would be coordinated well in advance of construction. Boring and jacking would likely be required for construction underneath existing rails. A 15-foot wide utility easement would be provided to Same as Plan A. None. None. allow City access to sewer lines for maintenance and repair. Significant Unavoidable None would be expected. Same as Plan A. None. Same as Plan A. Adverse Impacts 1111/ Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-41 MATRIXIISUMMARY ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT SOLID WASTE Impacts Residential uses would generate approximately 793 tons of Residential uses No additional collection, Industrial uses would solid waste and commercial uses would generate would generate transfer and disposal would generate 663 tons of approximately 1,006 tons of solid waste annually, at buildout. approximately 848 be required. waste annually atTotalannualsolidwastewouldbe1,799 tons. tons of solid waste. buildout. Commercial uses would generate approximately 1,462 410tonsofsolidwaste annually, at buildout. Total annual solid waste would be 2,310 tons. Solid waste services would be provided on site. Same as Plan A. No additional generation of Industrial uses could U solid waste. generate other form of waste (potentially toxic IC1 or hazardous 1° 9- materials). Y r\Y A plan for waste reduction, reuse and recycling both during A plan for waste None. None. construction and post development to reduce solid waste reduction, reuse andAI1}( disposal demands wouhi_be developed by the applicant and .; . recycling both duringtheSolidWasteUtility. uve) v64 construction and post1' yy development to T reduce solid wasteV. v i,- v" C disposal demands dillwouldbedeveloped Wre ° P \ 4 ' AAl, by the applicant and9\A v 1V the Solid Waste Utility.Mitigation Measures The applicant would work with the City of Renton Solid Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A.Required by Code/ Waste Utility to develop a plan for waste reduction, reuse Proposed by Applicant and recycling both during construction and post- development to reduce solid waste disposal demands. ax regenerated from redevelopment of the site Same as Plan A. None. Similar to Plan A. under the preliminary Conceptual Master plan, accruing to the City of Renton,would help offset any direct solid 1 waste service impacts of the project. Southport Development Planned C,r SummaryDraftSupplementalEIS42e ( 1 Uv_ 0 1 ' SUMMARY MATRIX ELEMENT PROPOSED ACTION PLAN A PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION PLAN B NO DEVELOPMENT FUTURE INDUSTRIAL I i i REDEVELOPMENT Significant Unavoidable No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Same as Plan A. None. Same as Plan A. Adverse Impacts S 11111 Southport Development Planned Action Summary Draft Supplemental EIS S-43 Lisa Grueter From: Nick Afzali To: Lisa Grueter Subject: FW: Southport EIS Date: Thursday, June 17, 1999 9:48AM From: Nick Afzali To: Lee E. Haro Subject: Southport EIS Date: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 5:02PM As we discussed this afternoon, these are my comments to the EIS. I think we need to see the back up analysis for the turning vehicles onto Boeing driveway located on Lake Washington Boulevard. In regard of the entrance to Southport site and issues related to the traffic exiting the park, the theoretical analysis seems reasonable. However, this access to Southport (intersection) requires additional analysis to explore potential solutions without a need for stop sign for the motorists exiting the park. Page 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: June 15, 1999 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578)a SUBJECT: Southport Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS#2—LUA 99-027 The second Preliminary Draft SEIS is being circulated to various Departments and Divisions. For your review, I've copied both the SEIS summary and project description. A full copy of the SEIS is also provided should you wish to review some sections in detail. New/changed information in Preliminary Draft#2 includes: Air quality CO modeling at a couple of key intersections. More information about indirect air quality impacts (the EIS consultants have spoken with Boeing consultants). Information about the Burlington Northern railroad, site entrance queues, and noon peak hour traffic at Park Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard,parking demand and other issues. Biological analysis of the potential channelization plan on Lake Washington Boulevard. Information about the Western Pond Turtle. I will be reviewing the documents against previous comments from the Divisions and Departments. At the June 22nd meeting staff will request that: ERC accept the draft with needed revisions. I will list needed revisions in a forthcoming memo based on Depai lment/Division review. ERC authorize distribution of the corrected Draft. ERC concur in a public hearing date. If you have any questions,please give me a call (ext. 6578). Thank you. cc: Sue Carlson 205 Lake Street South,Suite 202 Kirkland Washington 98033 Phone:(425)828-4463 Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. E-mail:hw• mslhalcyon.xom TRANSMITTAL FORM TO: L DATE: p ti 5 /5l3' COMPANY: ATTENTION: 641 6'14°' Ve4-43 tvlo ko-t4--, P c- s bQ 44_, 6 PHONE/FAX NUMBER: FROM: URGENT 71OR REVIEW 0 PLEASE REPLY COMMENTS: MTS CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: June 14, 1999 TO: Departments/Divisions Reviewing Project Files Lee Haro,Transportation Systems Division FROM: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578) c7eCj SUBJECT: Southport Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS#2—LUA 99-027 The second Preliminary Draft SEIS is here for your review. I've copied the summary and sections that interest each Division/Department rather than routing the whole document. If after reading the summary you would like additional sections that I haven't given you,please let me know. Please review the attached sections, and provide comments by Thursday morning,June 17, 1999. I will be going to ERC on June 22nd, and having your comments on Thursday, June 17th will allow me to compile the comments into a memo due the same day. I need to return comments to the SEIS consultants on June 23rd. You can make your comments in the margins of the document instead of providing a memo, unless you prefer to write a memo. Attention should be paid to the mitigation measures and whether they are reasonable, and related to identified impacts. New/changed information in Preliminary Draft#2 includes: Air quality CO modeling at a couple of key intersections. More information about indirect air quality impacts (the EIS consultants have spoken with Boeing consultants). Information about the Burlington Northern railroad, site entrance queues, and noon peak hour traffic at Park Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard,parking demand and other issues. Biological analysis of the potential channelization plan on Lake Washington Boulevard. Information about the Western Pond Turtle. I will be reviewing the documents against previous comments from the Divisions and Depai tments. If you have any questions,please give me a call(ext. 6578). Thank you. cc: Sue Carlson Jennifer Henning Ron Straka Environmental Review Committee CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:June 10, 1999 TO: Leslie Betlach,Lee Haro,Jim Shepherd,Neil Watts,Lee Wheeler,Gregg Zimmerman FROM: Lisa Grueter SUBJECT: Southport Parking Issues Thank you for meeting to discuss Southport parking issues. Currently the Southport developer is proposing parking stall numbers that would be below City standards for their proposed retail/restaurant and residential uses. We discussed the following approach: The number of required stalls(1.5 plus .25 guest per dwelling unit)should be met for residential uses. The City would consider alternate stall sizes/layouts similar to Bellevue's code which is based on National Parking Association reports(Recommended Guidelines for Parking Geometrics,August 1989). For retail and restaurant uses,the developer should at a minimum provide an amount that meets peak hour demand. Based on Transpo's demand analysis for Plan A which utilizes ITE parking rates,the peak hour need would equal 201 spaces total (36 for retail and 165 for restaurant). It was understood that parking stall sizes may also need to be modified as described above. The office parking supply would exceed the demand analysis and would meet City minimum parking standards. No issues were raised related to the office parking proposed. It was noted that during the evening,it could be possible to utilize office parking for other uses. The group also felt that the developer should prepare a parking management plan. To avoid conflicts with Gene Coulon Park, delaying implementation of paid parking for office users was discussed(e.g. delay for one year). I will contact Seco Development to indicate that based on the information provided to date,the City is amenable to consideration of a parking modification request that meets the above conditions. If you have any questions,please let me know(x 6578). Thank you. - cc: Sue Carlson CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\PKGAG.DOC\cor CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:June 7, 1999 TO: Nick Afzali, Lee Haro,Ron Straka,Neil Watts FROM: Lisa Grueter/G SUBJECT: Southport—Additional Biological Review Today I received additional biological review of the channelization plan, and the Western Pond Turtle issue. It is only a few pages long. The biology consultant wanted some earlier feedback this week on these issues before we receive the second full copy of the preliminary SEIS on June 14th. If you have a chance to take a look at it in the next couple of days,please let me know your thoughts on that portion by Wednesday afternoon,June 9th. Document4\cor JUN-04-1999 FRI 12: 14 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 01 ASIaDTIATEDC FAX COVERSCIENCES, INC 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100, Kirkland,Washington 98003 Phone (425) 827-7701 Fax(425) 827-5424 SHEET DATE: 4 June 1999 TIME: 12:03 PM PROJECT NO.: KB99114A PROJECT NAME: Southport DESCRIPTION OF ITEM(S) SENT: Additional Text for Review TO: Lisa Grueter City of Renton 425) 430-7300 F RO IVI w Carl Hadley AESI Phone#: (425) 827-7701 x225 Number of Pages: 10 (Including cover sheet) 0 Urgent For your review As requested Reply requested COMMENTS: Lisa: Attached for your review are the Fish and Water Quality analyses for the two new sections (western pond turtles, road expansion) requested by the City for the Southport Project. Please let me know ASAP if you have any comments. Thanks. JUN-04-1999 FRI 12: 14 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 E'" 5424 P. 02 Western Pond Turtle Habitat Requirements/Population Status The western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) is found from southern British Columbia south to northern California, along the Columbia River Gorge, in eastern Oregon and south central Idaho in the northwest United States. They are known to occur from sea level to about 6,000 feet Nussbaum et al., 1983). The species is a highly aquatic turtle that inhabits streams, ponds, lakes, and permanent and ephemeral wetlands (Washington Department of Wildlife [WDW), 1993). They require basking sites, such as partially submerged logs, vegetation mats, rocks, and mud banks (Nussbaum et al., 1983). The diet consists primarily of small invertebrates, carrion, and plant material. In Washington, the species hibernate during the winter months in upland habitats adjacent to water bodies or in mud bottoms of lakes or ponds. Nesting occurs from May to August in hard soils with scant vegetative cover up to 650 feet from the watercourse. Nesting activity typically peaks during May and June at which time female western pond turtles leave the water to find a nesting site (Nussbaum et al., 1983). The females normally leave the watercourse for 1 day to excavate a nest site and deposit eggs. Nests are usually placed in well-drained soils in relatively level areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation and/or grasses. Approximately 3 months are required for the eggs to hatch. It is thought the hatchlings stay in the nest area to overwinter. Western pond turtles are long-lived, with an estimated life span of 50 to 70 years. They are generally wary of human activity (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW], 1999). The western pond turtle population decline can be attributed primarily to habitat loss and alteration (WDW, 1993). Filling of wetlands, residential and industrial development, and water diversion projects have reduced available habitat and have isolated populations. For example, human disturbance can keep females from crossing over land to lay eggs. Loss of lakeside vegetation can make habitat less suitable for hatchlings and juveniles. In addition, exotic non- native turtles, such as the red-eared sliders, compete with the native western pond turtle for nesting habitat and other resources. Other exotics such as some large introduced fishes and the bullfrog prey on juvenile turtles (WDW, 1993). The western pond turtle is listed as a federal species of concern. The species was petitioned for federal endangered species status in 1992, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined the petition not warranted in 1993 (WDFW, 1999). Western pond turtles are recognized as an endangered species in Washington State. Recently, WDFW published a Draft Western Pond Turtle Recovery Plan. The goal of the State recovery plan is to re-establish self- sustaining populations of western pond turtles in Puget Sound and Columbia Gorge regions WDFW, 1999). No known viable populations of western pond turtle are known to presently occur in the Puget Sound area (WDW, 1993). However, it is believed isolated, relic individuals exist (McAllister, K., personal communication, May 25, 1999). A possible sighting of a western pond turtle was recorded on the western shores of Lake Washington, near Leschi Park in 1992. However, follow-up trapping efforts did not confirm the presence of the turtle (McAllister, K., personal communication, May 25, 1999). King County biologists believe there is a remote chance individual turtles may still be found in Lake Washington where suitable habitat exists (Richter, K., personal communication, May 26, 1999). 1 JUN-04-1999 FRI 12: 14 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 P" 5424 P. 03 Habitat Suitability in the Project Vicinity The John's Creek drainage upstream of the Southport property in the vicinity of the Lake Washington Boulevard expansion area was surveyed for suitable western pond turtle habitat. Under existing conditions, the lakefront portion of the Southport site does not offer habitat suitable for use by the western pond turtle. The shoreline bulkhead would prevent access to the shoreline for overwintering habitat or nesting investigations. Recent site use (Puget Sound Energy storage of vehicles and remediation)would likely have prevented the wary western pond turtle from utilizing the upland habitat for nesting, overwintering, and dispersal. Although logs captured along the shoreline provide an occasional basking opportunity, they are not permanent structures. No permanent basking sites or vegetation mats were observed. John's Creek and adjacent uplands do not provide habitat suitable for western pond turtle nesting, overwintering, or dispersal. Basking opportunities are limited to silty banks in fairly high traffic areas. The extensive culverts, steep slopes, close proximity to Lake Washington Boulevard traffic, and disturbances of the Burlington Northern Railroad provide conditions not normally associated with western pond turtles. Impacts to the Western Pond Turtle (Construction) No known viable western pond turtle populations occur in the Puget Sound region, and there have not been any recorded sightings of western pond turtles in southern Lake Washington or the project area in many years. Conditions adjacent to the Southport site including the Lake Washington shoreline and John's Creek do not provide habitat normally associated with the western pond turtle. Therefore, construction of the Southport project and off-site road expansion is not expected to adversely impact western pond turtles. Although riparian areas temporarily impacted by project construction should be restored after the road widening is completed, no special mitigation measures are recommended. Impacts to the Western Pond Turtle(Post-Construction) Under existing conditions, it is not likely that western pond turtles are found in the vicinity of the Southport site. Continued commercial and residential use of the area is not expected to negatively affect this condition. K89911AA15 G/1r99 Id—W97 2 JUN-04-1999 FRI 12: 15 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 PT' 5424 P. 04 8.0 OFF-SITE ROADWAY EXPANSION Project Description Access roads would require improvement in the vicinity of the Southport project entrance to mitigate traffic impacts for both the Plan A and Plan B alternatives. Plan A could generate an additional (approximately) 8,900 daily trips onto Lake Washington Boulevard, and Plan B could generate an additional 10,650 trips. Off-site road improvements that could be provided as mitigation for the added Southport traffic may require widening of the Gene Coulon Park access road to the east, which would not directly affect John's Creek. Southport is accessed from the Gene Coulon Park access road. To mitigate traffic impacts of Plan A or Plan B, Lake Washington Boulevard would have to be widened by approximately 12 feet. Widening of Lake Washington Boulevard would occur on the east side of the roadway, from north of North Park Drive up to the intersection with the Gene Coulon Park access road. Widening of Lake Washington Boulevard would require moving an open pond (Pond 1) (Figure 6). Pond 1 is part of John's Creek, located to the east of Lake Washington Boulevard. Pond 1 would need to be moved southeast approximately 15 to 25 feet to allow for the road expansion. Culverts passing John's Creek under Lake Washington Boulevard would have to be lengthened to accommodate the road expansion. Pond 1 is a collection point for at least two culverts and one ditch extending southwest along Lake Washington Boulevard. A ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard would be moved eastward to make room for a fill slope required for the road expansion. It is possible that a retaining wall would be required rather than a fill slope Schipanski, R. personal communication, May 18, 1999). Based on an on-site reconnaissance by AESI on May 28, 1999, the function of this ditch appears to be collection of drainage from Lake Washington Boulevard during storms, which passes as sheet flow through the grassed slope from the road to the ditch. The grassed slope therefore has a filter strip function for water quality improvement of the roadway runoff. The ditch was dry on May 28, 1999, indicating that it has no base flow component. From Collector Pond 1, John's Creek flows northwest, via multiple culverts under Lake Washington Boulevard, into a second linear pond (Pond 2) along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard. At the midpoint of this linear pond, several culverts convey water approximately 60 feet from Pond 2 into Pond 3, which drains under the Southport access road and becomes the John's Creek channel traversing Gene Coulon Park. TESC may include silt fences, covering of cleared areas with plastic on a temporary basis, rapid replanting, construction limited to the dry season, and minimizing disturbed areas (Watts, N., personal communication [memorandum], May 24, 1999). Erosion control and sedimentation plans provided by the City of Renton (Renton) Department of Public Works indicate installation of two rock check dams in Pond 3 to slow water velocity, provision for sediment traps in all existing and new catch basins according to Renton standard plans, placement of filter fabric around the perimeter of Ponds 1 and 2 prior to any construction, and limitation fill along Lake Washington Boulevard between mid-July and mid-September (Tudor Engineering Company, March 15, 1993 plans). It is assumed that the silt fencing around Pond 1 would not be feasible under current planning provided by Renton, because Pond 1 would be moved eastward Entranco conceptual plan dated April 29, 1999). Construction could affect John's Creek water quality as a result of work in Pond 1 and the associated ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard. Widening of the Gene Coulon Park access road to the east is unlikely to have any potential to affect John's Creek, since the work would be on the opposite side of the roadway from John's Creek. No culverts are shown on the maps supplied for this analysis under the park access road. If they did exist, it is assumed for the purposes of this analysis that they could be blocked from discharging to the Creek during construction. 1 JUN-04-1999 FRI 12: 15 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 p'7 5424 P. 05 After construction, water quality treatment for the approximately 8,300 to 10,000 square feet 0.19 to 0.23 acre) of added roadway surface would conform to the 1992 Ecology Manual Watts, N., personal communication [memorandum], May 24, 1999; Schipanski, R., personal communication, May 18, 1999; Grueter, L., personal communication, May 18, 1999). Those requirements for water quality treatment would exceed those in the 1990 KC Manual, which Renton has adopted by ordinance. There are two options for water quality treatment. The option most likely to be feasible would involve enlargement of an existing biofiltration swale on the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard, adjacent to the road widening project and opposite the ditch draining to Pond 1. The swale could be enlarged to treat an area of roadway at least equal to the added roadway surface. The less likely option would be use of an unused Houser Way right-of-way for placement of a wet pond. Problems with grade and elevations to capture and return the approximately 0.20 to 0.23 acre of roadway surface that would be required may render this option infeasible. Under either drainage treatment option, the roadway square footage being treated would not necessarily be the same square footage that is added. The area that would be treated would have to an area that is untreated at present. It is assumed that the filter strip function provided by the grassed slope to the ditch draining to Pond 1 could be replaced under both options. If retaining walls are required between Lake Washington Boulevard and the ditch to Pond 1, eliminating the filter strip function, it is assumed that an area equal in size to the portion of Lake Washington Boulevard served by that filter strip would be added to the total area treated by biofiltration swale or wet pond. Detention for the added impervious surface may not be required by Renton, due to the proximity of the road enhancement site to the confluence of John's Creek with Lake Washington. Options for handling detention include (1) no added detention, if inconsequential differences in flow rates and durations were shown to result; and (2) balancing impervious surface drainage to John's Creek by redirecting existing impervious surface drainage on the Southport project site to Lake Washington, such that no change in drainage to John's Creek would occur. At present, 0.33 acre of the existing Southport site is impervious area draining to John's Creek. Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Water Quality Construction Impacts Analysis Unlike the on-site Southport Plans A and B, expansion of Lake Washington Boulevard by 12 feet would require work within the John's Creek drainage, including repositioning Pond 1 and a new fill slope along the ditch draining to Pond 1, which could require realignment of that ditch. This work could introduce sediments and/or turbidity to John's Creek during construction and until the finished work was stabilized. John's Creek has year-round flow, so it would not be possible to manage this work during completely dry conditions. At the present stage of planning for a road expansion, no TESC specifics can be reasonably expected. Evaluation is therefore based on the likelihood that John's Creek base flow could be isolated from work on Pond 1 and the associated ditch, and that runoff from any storms during the limited season of construction could be adequately controlled before release to John's Creek. Standard TESC measures have been previously described (page 5-4). It is assumed that the work on Pond 1 could be managed so that base flow in John's Creek was diverted around the working area until re-stabilization of the site. Unlike John's Creek, the ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard would be dry during the site work proposed for mid-July to mid-September, unless a rainstorm sufficient to generate runoff occurred. Hydroseeding of the regraded slope above the ditch and the sides of the repositioned Pond 1 by mid-September, 2 JUN-04-1999 FRI 12: 16 PM AESI FAX NO, 425 5424 P. 06 with use of a tacifier, would be expected to reasonably minimize the risk of transporting sediment from erodible slopes into John's Creek. Prior to hydroseeding, temporary cover by plastic sheeting could be employed if adequate supplies are held at the construction site and were placed immediately over exposed slopes if a storm occurs. It is assumed that the ditch could be used as a temporary sediment trap during construction, with drainage outlet to John's Creek blocked until the site was stabilized. Given the construction limitation to the very driest part of the year in this region, it is reasonable to expect that the trapped water would not exceed storage capacity in the temporary facility, and that adequate time between rare summer storms would occur to allow settling and, if necessary, pumping the cleaned surface water from the sediment trap into John's Creek. Therefore, with typical TESC measures, the limited very dry season window for construction that is proposed, diversion of John's Creek base flows around the construction work, and the likelihood that construction runoff from rare summer storms could be retained and treated, only short-term and localized exceedance of turbidity standards would be expected during unseasonably severe summer storms. With proper implementation of a SWPPP and TESC plan, no long-term impacts to water quality would be reasonably expected. It is reasonable to assume that accidental spill provisions for the road widening would be comparable to those discussed for the Southport on-site construction (Section 4.0). Post-Construction impacts Analysis Two options for treatment have been proposed for runoff from the 0.19 to 0.23 acre of added roadway. These are biofiltration swale (most probable) and wet pond (less probable) treatment. Under Special Requirement #5 of the 1990 KC Manual adopted by Renton, if greater than 1 acre of new impervious surface subject to vehicular use discharges to a stream or lake without on-site peak rate runoff control, wet pond or water quality swale treatment is required. Although the road improvements would require less than '/. acre of new impervious surface, in conjunction with the Southport project the total area of improvements draining to Lake Washington would be greater than 1 acre. Although wet ponds are the preferred treatment device under Special Requirement #5, water quality swales (biofiltration swales) are also allowed if wet ponds are not feasible because of physical site constraints, such as those which may occur at the Houser Way right-of-way site. Even combined with the Southport Plan A or Plan B, the road improvements would not create more than 5 acres of impervious surface subject to greater than 2,500 vehicle trips per day, so Special Requirement #6 of the 1990 KC Manual for coalescing plate oil/water separators would not have been invoked. Since the 1992 Ecology Manual requires larger sizing of water quality treatment facilities than the 1990 KC Manual, Renton proposes the Ecology Manual be applied to the road expansion to obtain a better water quality result. Like the 1990 KC Manual, the 1992 Ecology Manual would not require use of an oil/water separator for the off-site road expansion, even in conjunction with Plan A or Plan B. If infiltration is not feasible, as is the case for this project due to the shallow ground water table, both wet pond (BMP RD.05) and biofiltration swale (BMP RB.05) treatments are equally ranked by the 1992 Ecology Manual for water quality treatment (reference Section I- 4.3 of the 1992 Ecology Manual). Development of a water quality model to quantify a forecast of treated water quality at discharge to John's Creek from the road improvements was not included in the scope of this report by Renton (Watts, N., personal communication [meeting], May 24, 1999). Therefore, the discussion which follows is qualitative, based on current applications of BMPs to highways and major arterials. Metro (1992) reported biofiltration swale performance for six storms at a 200-foot swale in the City of Mountlake Terrace, Washington. These performance data are summarized in Table 8-1. Table 5-2 established wet vault treatment expectations for the on-site Southport project. If the less likely option for a wet pond on the Houser Way right-of-way is employed, treatment by the 3 JUN-04-1999 FRI 12: 1B PM AESI FAX NO, 425 5424 P. 07 open wet pond would be superior to the wet vault treatment shown in Table 5-2 because of improved nutrient removal and less potential for scour of settled fines within the pond. Using the references shown in Table 5-2 for conventional wet ponds, open wet pond treatment expectations are contrasted with biofiltration swale performance expectations in Table 8-1. l COMPARISON OF EXPECTED CONTAMINANT REMOVALEFFICIENCES (%) FOR • BIOFILTRATIOPI'SWALES AND WE1;•PONDS • Hydro- Conform TSS 'TP NH3-N NO,=N Pb Zn Cu Carbons Bacteria Biofiltration 83 29 no data 0 67 63 46 75 0 Swale" Biofiltration 21-95 32-85 74 Swale l Wet Pond 80 40 50 50 40 45 39 60(3) 20 METRO 1992. Yu et al., 1993. n'Estimated for wet pond without oil/water separators. TSS=total suspended solids;TP=total phosphorus;NH3-N=ammonia-nitrogen:NO3-N=nitrate-nitrogen;Pb=total lead;Zn=total zinc; Cu=total copper. Biofiltration swales may be more effective than wet ponds for management of metals, but are less effective for control of fecal coliform bacteria and nutrients. Both biofiltration swales and wet ponds have been accepted as BMPs for treatment of highway runoff. Biofiltration swales and wet ponds, designed in accordance with the 1992 Ecology Manual, are specified as BMPs for highway runoff treatment in the Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT's) (1995) Highway Runoff Manual, which was approved by Ecology in February 1995 under the Puget Sound Highway Runoff Program WSDOT, 1997). The Virginia Department of Transportation evaluated a vegetated swale treating urban highway runoff during six storms. That study concluded that, if properly designed, a swale would be effective at removing TSS, total phosphorus, and total zinc, particularly for lower intensity storms with relatively long durations (Yu et al., 1993). The swale was less effective for treatment of runoff from summer thunderstorms, which are much more common in Virginia than in western Washington. The National Transportation Research Board evaluated stormwater management BMPs for highways in 1993 (Yu, 1993). That study concluded that grassed swales can be used as a preferred method of treating highway runoff, and that wet ponds can provide moderate efficiency for removing contaminants from highway runoff. A study undertaken for the Texas Department of Transportation concluded that grassed swales are effective for removal of metals, oil and grease, and suspended solids (Barrett et al., 1993). Wet ponds were recommended as the best choice when vegetative controls were not feasible, because of their increased cost, surrounding land use restrictions which often exist, and the land cost. 4 JUN-04-1999 FRI 12:17 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 "" 5424 P. 08 Based on the results of these studies under highway applications, water quality treatment by the most likely option of biofiltration swale would be in accordance with current BMPs, as would the less likely option of wet pond treatment. Both swale and wet pond treatment of highway runoff would be superior or comparable to that already described in Section 5.0 for vehicle surfaces. For that reason, impacts to John's Creek would not be exacerbated in terms of water contaminant concentrations by the road expansion, although metals loadings to the John's Creek drainage would increase due to the increased traffic volumes. Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Aquatic Species Affected Environment On May 28, 1999, the John's Creek drainage in the vicinity of the proposed road widening was surveyed to describe fish habitat. No precipitation had occurred within the last 72 hours. Flow was estimated to be about 3 cfs. Air temperature was approximately 55°F with 60 percent cloud cover. Pond 1, west of Lake Washington Boulevard, is a collection point for three culverts and a roadside drainage ditch (Figure 6). The ditch extends southwest along Lake Washington Boulevard in a shallow narrow swale. The ditch collects runoff from Lake Washington Boulevard during storms. On the day of the survey, the ditch was dry and had recently been mowed. Vegetation in the ditch consists of grasses, creeping buttercup, and horsetail. No fish habitat is provided by the swale. Pond 1 is 2.5 feet deep and approximately 8 feet wide at the wetted perimeter. The steep banks are composed of quarry rock and fine silts. Riparian vegetation is dominated by Himalayan blackberry, horsetail, willow, and Scot's broom. Substrate in Pond 1 consists primarily of quarry rock approximately 1 foot in diameter covered with filamentous algae growth. Sands and silts were sub-dominant. Upstream fish passage to Pond 1 is possible through large, low-gradient culverts under Lake Washington Boulevard. Although fish habitat in Pond 1 is fair to poor and substrate is not suitable for salmonid spawning, the area may be utilized for salmonid feeding or rearing. Other fishes such as sculpin or warm-water tolerant species may also forage in Pond 1. From Pond 1, John's Creek flows northwest, via four culverts under Lake Washington Boulevard, into a second linear pond (Pond 2) along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard. At the midpoint of this linear pond, three culverts convey water approximately 60 feet from Pond 2 under the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks into Pond 3 (Figure 6). The wetted width of both Ponds 2 and 3 was about 4 feet. Water depth was approximately 1.5 feet. The steep banks are composed of fine silts. Himalayan blackberry dominates the riparian vegetation. Douglas spirea, willow, horsetail, and Scot's broom are scattered. Channel substrate consisted of silts and sands. The linear ponds offer no habitat diversity; no salmonid spawning gravels, and limited cover. Habitat is fair to poor. However, the ponds are accessible by fish and it is assumed that various species including resident trout could be present. Construction Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Aquatic Species The widening of Lake Washington Boulevard from north of North Park Drive up to the 2 intersection with the Gene Coulon Park access road would temporarily eliminate the ditch 50, extending southwest along Lake Washington Boulevard. The realignment of that ditch does not directly affect fish use. However, the road widening requires moving Pond 1 southwest 5,0 t-za st. 5 JUN-04-1999 FRI 12: 17 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 8' 5424 P. 09 approximately 15 feet to allow for road expansion and associated culvert lengthening. Pond 1 habitat would be temporarily eliminated. This could displace fish currently utilizing that portion of the channel. Pond 2, Pond 3, and the rest of John's Creek are located immediately downstream of the construction activity in Pond 1. Although no direct impacts to this reach are planned, water quality degradation is possible. The repositioning of Pond 1 and the new fill slope along the ditch draining to Pond 1 could introduce sediments and/or turbidity to John's Creek during construction and until the finished work was stabilized. John's Creek has year-round flow, so it would not be possible to conduct this work during completely dry conditions. It is assumed the work on Pond 1 could be managed so that base flow in John's Creek was diverted around the working area until re-stabilization of the site. Removal of fish from work areas prior to construction is recommended. Water quality monitoring for turbidity and DO is also recommended. Installation of two rock check dams in Pond 3 to slow water velocities has been proposed by the City of Renton Department of Public Works. The construction of the check dams could potentially cause fish mortality, thus fish should be removed prior to placement of material. Construction would temporarily displace fishes from the upper John's Creek drainage. Fill and earthwork disturbance would be managed by TESC structures to minimize introduction of fines in the creek. After fish in the reach are collected and removed downstream, the fish barrier erected for collection should remain during construction. After hydroseeding, bank stabilization and an assessment of water quality, the fish barrier may be removed to allow upstream passage. No permanent impacts to fisheries resources in John's Creek are anticipated by the proposed road widening activity. Fish should be removed prior to any instream work in an area. Standard TESC measures should be adequate to protect water quality. Post-Construction Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Aquatic Species Direct changes to the physical configuration of John's Creek would be minor. The culverts under Lake Washington Boulevard would be lengthened by about 15 feet; however, no change in passage suitability is expected. Pond 1 would also be reconfigured slightly. Existing habitat quality is poor to fair and is expected to be in a similar state following construction. Some vegetation would be removed from the riparian areas adjacent to the creeks. This would be replaced with native species. Road widening activities would result in approximately 8,300 to 10,000 square feet of additional impervious surface in the basin. Detention of the additional runoff may not be required by Renton due to the proximity of Lake Washington and limited habitat suitability of John's Creek. If differences in flow rates and durations were shown to be consequential, additional runoff volumes could be balanced by redirecting runoff from an equal portion of impervious surface from the Southport site. John's Creek was originally designed and built to convey stormwater from large quantities of impervious surfaces upstream, thus only insignificant impacts to the existing habitat quality are expected from the proposed activity. Based on the results of the water quality analysis, water quality treatment of runoff from the new paved surfaces would not exacerbate existing water contaminant concentrations in John's Creek, although metals loadings to the John's Creek drainage could increase. A quantitative 6 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON JUN 1 71999 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PL CP`A""'NG MEMORANDUM DATE:June 7, 1999 TO: Leslie Betlach,Jim Shepherd FROM: Lisa Grueter SUBJECT: Southport Fire Lane Agreement Chuck and Lee have signed off on the latest draft of the Southport Fire Suppression Access Memorandum of Understanding. Based on our last conversations,I think it covers all Parks issues too. If this is the case,please sign the document. Thank you. H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\firemem3.doc\cor MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING SOUTHPORT FIRE SUPPRESSION ACCESS Fire Department, And Community Services Department BACKGROUND The proposed Southport Development would be located on 17 acres of the Shuffleton site. The site is bounded by Lake Washington on the north,Gene Coulon Park on the east,Puget Sound Energy property and Park Avenue on the South and Boeing property on the west. Preliminary conceptual plans include 6 buildings with 2 buildings abutting Gene Coulon Park: Building B would be setback 10 feet from the property line and Building C would be setback 30 feet from the property line. (See Attachments A and B). Although the applicant has prepared a preliminary conceptual grading and drainage plan showing a 20 foot fire lane east of Building C,this would intrude into the drip line of trees planted along the Gene Coulon Park boundary. The applicant has also discussed with the Fire Department about using the Park parking lot as an identified location to stage fire suppression activities for buildings B and C. The Fire Department is amenable to utilizing the parking lot drive aisle to stage fire suppression activities provided that hydrants are installed at appropriate locations,and provided there is a long term guarantee that a drive aisle would be maintained in the Park parking lot within a reasonable distance to access adjacent buildings as needed. The Parks Department is agreeable to the idea of the Fire Department utilizing the drive aisle to stage fire suppression activities,provided that the needed hydrants are designed and installed at the applicant's expense,and the pavement is restored where disturbed during hydrant installation. According to Larry Warren's discussions with Lisa Grueter,Senior Planner with Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning,Gene Coulon Park is public property and the Fire Department could utilize the site to stage fire suppression for an abutting property whether or not there is a fire lane on the Southport site. Because it is publicly owned,the City would not grant itself an easement to identify a fire lane,and we have never recorded a covenant on our own properties. However,the Parking and Loading Regulations would apply to any restriping of the parking lot,and the Community Services Department would coordinate with the Fire Department as needed during review of parking reconfigurations if ever proposed. AGREEMENT The parties agree that to reduce impervious surfaces,minimize impacts to existing trees at Gene Coulon Park,and achieve a more aesthetic setback/buffer between the Southport development and Gene Coulon Park,allowing fire suppression to be staged from the Gene Coulon Park site is desirable. To address Fire Department concerns about a long term guarantee that the drive aisle in Gene Coulon Park would be within a reasonable distance from the Southport property,and to indicate the conditions that are acceptable to the Community Services Department,this memorandum sets forth parameters and conditions. Based on the proposed Southport conceptual plans submitted to the City as a part of LUA 99-027,CPA,R,ECF,or plans which may be submitted in the future that have a similar layout,a fire lane on the Southport property would not be required,subject to the following conditions: 1. The parking lot drive aisle in the Gene Coulon Park will be the required fire lane for the east side of the Southport development. The 20-foot minimum Fire Lane width must be maintained at all times,marking according to City of Renton Development Regulations. This drive aisle/fire lane is part of an overall system of fire lanes surrounding the buildings on the east side of the project. Consequently,the drive aisle/fire lane must be maintained in or near its current location. This will insure the adequate distribution of all fire lanes around the buildings to within 150 feet of all exterior points. 1 5/26/99 2. In consultation with the Community Services Department,the Fire Department would determine whether signage identifying a fire lane and mechanisms to open gates after Park closure would be needed. 3. In consultation with the Community Services Department,the necessity of periodic gates in the fencing for passage by Fire Department personnel would be determined. The gates would be locked, and keys would be held by the Fire Department. To the extent feasible,the gates would be located in consideration of existing planters in the parking area to avoid removing parking or moving planters. Any work needed in the parking area would be subject to approval and restoration per condition number 5 below. 4. Repaving/restriping plans would be provided for review to the Fire Department by the Community Services Department if the Gene Coulon Park parking lot drive aisle location would change,to assure that it would be located within an acceptable distance from the adjacent development. 5. Fire hydrant planning, installation,and restoration of affected areas would be the developer's responsibility and expense. Fire hydrant planning and installation is subject to Fire and Community Services Department approval. 6. Nothing in the agreement shall supercede the requirements of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of Renton. SIGNATURES Parks Director Date Fire Marshall Date 7( 2 Administrator,Community Services Date L'/ Fire Chief Date FIREMOU 2 5/26/99 Lisa Grueter From: Chuck Duffy To: Lisa Grueter Subject: RE: Southport PDSEIS#1 Comments Date: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 10:30AM Lisa, Please see attached (hopefully). Chuck File Attachment: SOUTHP01.DOC» From: Lisa Grueter To: Chuck Duffy Subject: RE: Southport PDSEIS#1 Comments Date: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 6:52AM I didn't receive your attachment. Please send it again. Thanks. From: Chuck Duffy To: Lisa Grueter Subject: Southport PDSEIS#1 Comments Date: Friday, May 28, 1999 10:41AM Lisa, Please see attached. Thanks. Chuck Page 1 0tiVY 0 RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT as MEMORANDUM NTo. DATE: May 28, 1999 TO: Lisa Grueter FROM: Chuck Duffy, Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Southport PDSEIS#1 Comments - May 27, 1999 Thank you for your May 27th memo. The your Fire Department comments are very accurate. I have one question regarding the comments in the Transportation Planning section. The first bullet concludes by stating that the consultants need to address the `operational aspects". Does this mean that the consultant will be addressing emergency access when the intersection is gridlocked? Please advise. Thanks. CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:May 27, 1999 TO: Leslie Betlach,Chuck Duffy FROM: Lisa Grueter l SUBJECT: Southport—Fire Lane Agreement Attached is a revised draft memorandum of understanding. It has been modified to incorporate the language that Chuck requested in a May 24, 1999 memo,and also to incoporate the idea of the gates that came up at the ERC meeting. Please let me know if you have questions. If it appears complete,let me know and I will route a clean copy for you to sign. Thanks. cc: Sue Carlson H: CONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\FIREMEM2.doc\cor DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING SOUTHPORT FIRE SUPPRESSION ACCESS Fire Department, And Community Services Department BACKGROUND The proposed Southport Development would be located on 17 acres of the Shuffleton site. The site is bounded by Lake Washington on the north,Gene Coulon Park on the east,Puget Sound Energy property and Park Avenue on the South and Boeing property on the west. Preliminary conceptual plans include 6 buildings with 2 buildings abutting Gene Coulon Park: Building B would be setback 10 feet from the property line and Building C would be setback 30 feet from the property line. (See Attachments A and B). Although the applicant has prepared a preliminary conceptual grading and drainage plan showing a 20 foot fire lane east of Building C,this would intrude into the drip line of trees planted along the Gene Coulon Park boundary. The applicant has also discussed with the Fire Department about using the Park parking lot as an identified location to stage fire suppression activities for buildings B and C. The Fire Department is amenable to utilizing the parking lot drive aisle to stage fire suppression activities provided that hydrants are installed at appropriate locations,and provided there is a long term guarantee that a drive aisle would be maintained in the Park parking lot within a reasonable distance to access adjacent buildings as needed. The Parks Department is agreeable to the idea of the Fire Department utilizing the drive aisle to stage fire suppresslion activities,provided that the needed hydrants are designed and installed at the applicant's expense,and the pavement is restored where disturbed during hydrant installation. According to Larry Warren's discussions with Lisa Grueter,Senior Planner with Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning,Gene Coulon Park is public property and the Fire Department could utilize the site to stage fire suppression for an abutting property whether or not there is a fire lane on the Southport site. Because it is publicly owned,the City would not grant itself an easement to identify a fire lane,and we have never recorded a covenant on our own properties. However,the Parking and Loading Regulations would apply to any restriping of the parking lot,and the Community Services Department would coordinate with the Fire Department as needed during review of parking reconfigurations if ever proposed. AGREEMENT The parties agree that to reduce impervious surfaces,minimize impacts to existing trees at Gene Coulon Park,and achieve a more aesthetic setback/buffer between the Southport development and Gene Coulon Park,allowing fire suppression to be staged from the Gene Coulon Park site is desirable. To address Fire Department concerns about a long term guarantee that the drive aisle in Gene Coulon Park would be within a reasonable distance from the Southport property,and to indicate the conditions that are acceptable to the Community Services Department,this memorandum sets forth parameters and conditions. Based o the proposed Southport conceptual plans submitted to the City as a part of LUA 99-027,CPA,R,ECF,or plans which may be submitted in the future that have a similar layout,a fire lane on the Southport property would not be required,subject to the following conditions: 1. The parking lot drive aisle in the Gene Coulon Park will be the required fire lane for the east side of the Southport development. The 20-foot minimum Fire Lane width must be maintained at all times,marking according to City of Renton Development Regulations. This drive aisle/fire lane is part of an overall system of fire lanes surrounding the buildings on the east side of the project. Consequently,the drive aisle/fire lane must be maintained in or near its current location. This will insure the adequate distribution of all fire lanes around the buildings to within 150 feet of all exterior points. 1 5/26/99 2. In consultation with the Community Services Department,the Fire Department would determine whether signage identifying a fire lane and mechanisms to open gates after Park closure would be needed. 3. In consultation with the Community Services Department,the necessity of periodic gates in the fencing for passage by Fire Department personnel would be determined. The gates would be locked,and keys would be held by the Fire Department. To the extent feasible,the gates would be located in consideration of existing planters in the parking area to avoid removing parking or moving planters. Any work needed in the parking area would be subject to approval and restoration per condition number 5 below. 4. Repaving/restriping plans would be provided for review to the Fire Department by the Community Services Department if the Gene Coulon Park parking lot drive aisle location would change,to assure that it would be located within an acceptable distance from the adjacent development. 5. Fire hydrant planning,installation,and restoration of affected areas would be the developer's responsibility and expense. Fire hydrant planning and installation is subject to Fire and Community Services Department app#oval. 6. Nothing in the agreement shall supercede the requirements of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of Renton. SIGNATURES Parks Director Date Fire Marshall Date Administrator,Community Services Date Fire Chief Date FIREMOU 2 5/26/99 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:May 27, 1999 TO: Nick Afzali, Leslie Betlach, Chuck Duffy, Lee Haro, Ron Straka FROM: Lisa GrueterdG SUBJECT: Southport PDSEIS#1 Comments Thanks for reviewing the first preliminary Draft EIS and meeting to discuss your comments. Here is a list of comments made at our meeting,and some responses. Fire Department Fire Lane—preference is for a fire lane close to the buildings on the east side of the Southport site for enhanced response time,but ensuring continual access via the Gene Coulon Park driveway aisle would work given its location. A memo of understanding between Parks Division and Fire Marshall is being routed. I will ask the EIS consultants to amend the project description to show a preference for fire access for the east side of Southport from the drive aisle in Gene Coulon Park, and as an alternate, a fire lane near Building C which would be developed in a way to minimize impacts to the trees. Parking—preference is for 2 stalls per dwelling,but want to ensure we end up with at least the minimum requirement. Parking enforcement should be a last resort as a mitigation measure, we should try and address the issue through design if possible. Should the applicant pay an annual fee for parking enforcement? The problem times are evenings and weekends. The EIS will note that the proposed parking rate does not meet City code and that a modification would be required. The City will determine if a modification is appropriate or not. A meeting is being set up with administrators to discuss the issue. Promenade—it should be stated that the promenade would be used for emergency access and should be kept clear. I will pass the comment to the EIS consultants. Surface Water Utility Provide calculations for the size of the proposed vault. Confirm that roof drainage is being handled separate from the vehicular use areas. A memo was routed with plans on April 22, 1999 which shows the proposed calculations for the vault, and another copy is being routed. May 27, 1999 Page 2 Page 3-34, clarify in first and second paragraphs before Table 8,which stormwater manual applies with which conclusion(i.e. City's adopted KC manual vs. DOE manual). I will pass the comment to the EIS consultants. Agree that the proposed drainage system would treat all new paved areas subject to vehicular use using DOE standards for water quality treatment. Verify if Johns Creek is included in FEMA maps. Address that the negligible increase in flow would not contribute to potential flooding upstream. Johns Creek shows as an unnamed stream on the FEMA maps. It is in Zone X,areas determined to be ou side the 500 year floodplain. I will also direct the consultants to the information in an April 21, 1999 letter indicating there is no history of flooding of the Creek in the immediate project vicinity, and since installation of the 72-inch line upstream,there have not been flooding events upstream near PACCAR. There is reference to Johns Creek being"man made." The better terminology would be "a naturally occurring stream modified by man." The terminology"man made" is based on information in Jones and Stokes 1991 Stream Inventory which ways that Johns Creek is manmade drainage which was built to convey stormwater runoff from the Boeing plant. I will pass the comments on,and see if there are older maps or aerials that show natural drainage courses in the area. I Is there an endangered turtle species? Ensure the EIS covers all endangered species. The comments are noted. I will pass the issue to the consultants. Transportation Planning At the site entrance, have the EIS transportation consultants do more analysis to determine if a left-turn pocket is needed. They should review NCHRP Report 279 and ITE Left Turn Bay Warrants considering average daily traffic. They should look at not just the planning,but the operational aspects. At the Park Avenue/Lake Washington Blvd./Garden Avenue Intersection,the EIS transportation consultants should look at mid-day counts (provided by the City), and the effect upon Boeing's access (left turns there could affect queues on Park Avenue). Would c-curbs be needed? I will pass the comments to the consultants along with the traffic counts collected. Parks Division - Prefer use of Park drive aisle for fire lane than fire lane near Building C to help protect the trees. A memo of understanding between Parks Division and Fire Marshall is being routed. I will ask the EIS consultants to amend the project description to show a preference for fire access for the east side of Southport from the drive aisle in Gene Coulon Park, and as an alternate, a fire lane near Building C which would be developed in a way to minimize impacts to the trees. PDEISDIV May 27, 1999 Page 3 Is grading still proposed which extends into the Park? We have not received revised conceptual grading plans. However,based on the arborist/Portico recommendations and further discussions with the applicant, it is likely that grading on the east side of the buildings can be reduced. Confirm that promenade would be concrete. Sometimes the terminology says "boardwalk." (page 3-180) Based on information from the applicant,the promenade would be concrete. We can clarify that in the EIS. Page 3-152, 3-185—the shade impacts should also address that there would be impacts to turf moss). Require applicant to plant shade tolerant plants and fund annual replacement of sod. The possibility of shade impacts could be reviewed. The revenues generated by the development could be utilized to cover additional City maintenance costs. Page 3-179,third paragraph, add Kennydale Beach to the list. Table 39,the Parks Division has 1999 data. Page 3-183 —Peak crowds at the park could coincide with the peak office demand, during the summer. The above comments will be forwarded to the EIS consultants. Parking enforcement should be a last resort mitigation measure(p. 3-183 and Appendix D,page 39). Parking enforcement in parks has not been a priority for parking enforcement personnel. The EIS will note that the proposed parking rate does not meet City code and that a modification would be required. The City will determine if a modification is appropriate or not. A meeting is being set up with administrators to discuss the issue. Page 3-185,the maximum credit that can be given is 33%. Additional credit cannot be given beyond that for potential playground redesign. The mitigation measure will be made more general and refer to compliance with the mitigation Resolution. Based on discussions at ERC,there appears to be some latitude in determining appropriate mitigation and fee credits. This can be discussed further by staff. Page 3-185, add a mitigation measure to dedicate a recreation easement on the promenade and dock. I will pass the comment to the consultants. cc: Sue Carlson PDEISDIV 4i 110 CITY OF RENTON Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Planning Jesse Tanner,Mayor Susan Carlson,Administrator May 26, 1999 Mike Blumen,Principal Huckell/Weinman Associates,Inc. 205 Lake Street South, Suite 202 Kirkland,WA 98033 SUBJECT: SOUTHPORT PRELIMINARY DRAFT EIS#1 COMMENTS Dear Mike: Attached are the City's comments related to the above document. Our comments are contained in the memo addressed to the Environmental Review Committee as well as handwritten comments and various typed notes/e-mails throughout the document. Also attached are Seco Development's comments. Their comments about adding more information related to the clean-up would require coordination with them. Regarding comments about the drainage manual, the City has not adopted any new manual since the 1990 King County manual. However, a comparison of manuals could be made. The conservative nature of the air quality and noise analyses come up in City comments as well. Transportation comments appear to be appropriate requests for clarification of assumptions. Entranco should be able to respond based on their numerous e-mails and memos with our Transportation division. Our Environmental Review Committee added two other items. First, in response to staff comments about adding a mitigation measure related to articulation, there was a concern that this might be better addressesd as a plan condition. Possibly, articulation could be included as a code amendment to the COR development standards. Second, there was a question about whether NMFS should be contacted informally even if it isn't clear that federal permits would be involved. At this point, I am assuming that the schedule would be as outlined in my May 13, 1999 letter to you. The second draft would be due on June 8, 1999. At the same time, we need to discuss how to resolve air quality issues, and that topic may require a schedule adjustment. Please call me with any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, V Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner cc: Sue Carlson Rex Allen,Seco Development TS SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\HWPDILET.doc 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 tfECerrip- MAY CITY OF RENTON Fco^,omic 261999 PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS 'wOs-'R Egbc MEMORANDUM DATE: May 26, 1999 TO: Lisa Grueter FROM: Lee Haro /k STAFF CONTACT: Stephen Rolle,(425)430-7232 q7 SUBJECT: Southport -- Potential Transit Route The RUSH shuttle((Metro route 110)serves north Renton,terminating at the Kenworth Truck Plant on Houser Way North. Current routing follows Park Avenue North to North 8th Street, North 8th Street to Houser Way North and Houser Way North to Paccar and Kenworth. Shuttles operate every 15 minutes Monday through Friday. Funding for RUSH is largely provided by regular King County (Metro) operating funds. The City presently contributes 13% of the total funding, which covers the costs of providing free service and maintaining a 15-minute schedule during the midday period. The current schedule has very little latitude, and difficulty adhering to the schedule had been a recurring problem since shuttle inception. A change in routing to serve the Southport area via Lake Washington Blvd. and/or Houser Way North would likely further impact the schedule. Therefore, an additional funding (e.g. -- developer funds, etc.) source would have to be identified to cover the costs of increased service. Modifications to the street network on Houser Way might also be required, depending on the routing selected. Furthermore, since the RUSH shuttle is a regular Metro route, any route modifications would need to be supported and approved by Metro. At the present, the transit stops nearest to the Southport site are located on Park Avenue North near the intersection with Lake Washington Blvd. These stops are served by Metro routes 240 and 340, which provide access to downtown Renton (and the Transit Center), the Renton Highlands, and Kennydale, as well as the communities of Newcastle, Bellevue,Kirkland,Tukwila, and SeaTac. H:Trans/planning/s-rolle/shuttle f Y o City of Renton DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, a NEIGHBORHOODS, and STRATEGIC PLANNING Sixth Floor 1NTT0 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 www.ci.renton.wa.us Date: 05/26/99 TO:Liz Warman FROM: Lisa Grueter The Boeing Co. City of Renton Phone: 206) 544-0182 Phone: 425) 430-6578 Fax Phone: (206) 655-2133 Fax Phone: (425) 430-7300 ISUBJECT: Southport Air Quality I Number of pages including cover sheet 14 REMARKS: Original to Urgent Reply Please For your be mailed ASAP Comment review Per your conversations with Sue, here is a first draft air quality analysis from our EIS consultants. Also, following is a proposed scope and budget from our consultant to amend the preliminary draft analysis assuming we receive an authenticated summary of your modeling study from Boeing (CH2MHILL) or PSAPCA (assuming they could perform a third party review). Please have the information reviewed as soon as feasible. Thank you. cc: Sue Carlson I v‘'ilLv1L. Ahead of the curve AIR QUALITY Background information for this section is contained in Appendix B, Southport Development Planned Action SETS Air Quality Analysis prepared by McCulley, Frick & Gilman, Inc. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Three agencies have jurisdiction over the ambient air quality in the project area: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). These agencies establish regulations that govern both the concentrations of pollutants in the outdoor air and contaminant emissions from air pollution sources. Although their regulations are similar in stringency, each agency has established its own standards. Unless the state or local jurisdiction has adopted more stringent standards, the EPA standards apply. Consequently, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAAQSs) provide the "starting point" of state and local standards. Table 5 displays the outdoor or"ambient" air quality standards that apply to criteria pollutants in the project area. Criteria pollutants are a limited set of air pollutants for which there are federal ambient air quality standards intended to protect human health from harmful pollutant concentrations. They include the following six pollutants: particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. Each pollutant shown in Table 5 is a criteria pollutant. Some of the pollutants listed in Table 5 are subject to both "primary" and "secondary" federal standards. Primary standards are designed to protect human health with a margin of safety. Secondary standards are established to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with these pollutants, such as soiling, corrosion, or damage to vegetation. Ecology maintains a network of air quality monitoring stations throughout Washington State. In general, these stations are located where there may be air quality problems, and so are usually in or near urban areas or close to specific large air pollution sources. Other stations are located in remote areas to provide an indication of regional air pollution levels. Based on monitoring information collected over a period of years, the state (Ecology) and federal (EPA) agencies designate regions as being "attainment" or "nonattainment" areas for particular air pollutants. Attainment status is therefore a measure of whether air quality in an area complies with the federal health-based ambient air quality standards displayed in Table 5. The Washington State Department of Ecology and PSAPCA do not operate any ambient monitors in the City of Renton. The closest monitoring station in Kent measures only particulate matter. The next closest monitoring stations are in Seattle and Bellevue. Southport Development Planned Action Air Quality Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS 3-15 5/12/99 Table 5 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Pollutant National Washington PSAPCA Primary Secondary State Total Suspended Particulate Matter Annual Geometric Mean (pg/m3) 60 24-Hour Average(pg/m3) 150(a) Inhalable Particulate Matter(PMio) Annual Average(pg/m3)(b) 50 50 50 50 24-Hour Average (pg/m3) 150(°) 150(0 150(d) 150(d) Fine Particulate Matter(PM2.5) 9) c9> Annual Average (pg/m3) 15(e) 15(e) 24-Hour Average (pg/m3) 65 c° 65(f) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Annual Average (ppm) 0.03 0.02 0.02 24-Hour Average(ppm) 0.14(a) 0.10(a) 0.10 3-Hour Average (ppm) 0.50(a) 1-Hour Average (ppm) 0.25(h) 0.25"h" 1-Hour Average(ppm) 0.40(a) 0.40 Carbon Monoxide(CO) 8-Hour Average(ppm)( a)9 9 9 9 1-Hour Average(ppm)( a)35 35 35 35 Ozone(03) 8-Hour Average (ppm)0.08 0) 0.080) g) g) 1-Hour Average (ppm)0.120) 0.120) 0.12(d) 0.12(d) Nitrogen Dioxide(NO2) Annual Average (ppm)0.053 0.053 0.05 0.053 Lead (Pb) Quarterly Average(pg/m3) 1.5 1.5 1.5 NOTES:ug/m3=micrograms per cubic meter; ppm=parts per million; blank cells indicate no standard. All values not to be exceeded except as noted;all averages arithmetic except TSP annual geometric mean. a)Not to be exceeded more than once per year b)Attainment based on 3-year average c)Attainment based on 3-year average of the 99th percentile of 24-hour PMio concentrations d)Attainment if expected number of events above this limit is less than or equal to one e)Attainment based on 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors f) Attainment based on 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations g)Not yet established h)Not to be exceeded more than twice in seven consecutive days i) Attainment based on 3-year average of the 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration G) Federal 1-hour ozone standard to lapse in each existing nonattainment area after attainment demonstration based on existing standard as per note(d) Southport Development Planned Action Air Quality Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS 3-16 5/12/99 Existing air quality at the site is affected by local vehicular traffic sources and by a number of industrial sources in the area. Since the site is located along the Lake Washington shoreline between the Boeing Industrial Complex and Gene Coulon Park, the industrial emission sources from Boeing likely contribute a large portion of the air contaminants that affect the site. The following table (Table 6) summarizes Boeing's 1997 emissions of criteria pollutants (criteria pollutants are the pollutants listed in Table 5) and other pollutants. Table 6 BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE (RENTON) 1997 EMISSIONS REPORT Air Pollutant Emissions(tons/year) Criteria Pollutants Carbon Monoxide(CO) 12 Nitrogen Oxides (NO2) 144 Particulate Matter(PM1o)4 Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 4 Volatile Organic Compounds Total 180 Toxic Air Contaminants Total 200 Hazardous Air Pollutants Total 82 Source: (PSAPCA 1999a) Of the criteria pollutants, the Boeing Industrial Complex emits NO2 in the greatest quantities. Table 6 also shows that the Southport site is near a major source of volatile organic compounds and toxic air contaminants. These pollutants are described further below. Particulate Matter (PM10) Federal, state, and local regulations set limits for particles less than or equal to about 10 micrometers in diameter. This fraction of particulate matter, called PM 10, is important in terms of potential human health impacts, because particles this size can be inhaled deeply into human lungs. PM10 is generated by industrial activities and operations, fuel combustion sources like residential wood burning, motor vehicle engines and tires, and other sources. Such sources occasionally cause high PM10 levels in the Puget Sound region, and several areas in Seattle and Tacoma have been declared nonattainment areas because PM) concentrations sometimes exceed health standards. The Southport site, however, is in an area that attains the PM10 standard. At present, the site is a source of fugitive dust (PM10) due to the site's characteristics and ongoing uses. The site is characterized by flat terrain with about fifty percent exposed soils and fifty percent covered with buildings and asphalt (conditions subsequent to completed remediation). Wind erosion of exposed surfaces and on-site vehicle traffic generates fugitive dust. These sources generate more fugitive dust under high wind speeds and arid conditions. Since the site Southport Development Planned Action Air Quality Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS 3-17 5/12/99 has limited on-site traffic, existing fugitive emissions from the site are probably minimal from a long-term air quality perspective. Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Effective September 16, 1997, EPA implemented a new federal standard for particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (microns) in diameter (Federal Register 1997, page 2). This fine fraction of particulate matter mass is called PM2.5, and is a subset of PMio. Such small particles (e.g., a typical human hair is about 100 microns in diameter) can be breathed deeply into lungs, and are thought to represent the most dangerous size fraction in terms of human health. There are no PM2.5 data for the site study area, but since most particulate matter from industrial sources, residential wood burning, and vehicle exhaust emissions are in this size range, it is likely that the preponderance of wintertime emissions in the area are PM2.5. PSAPCA PM2.5 monitoring data for several locations in the central Puget Sound region indicate PM2.5 levels will likely comply with the new PM2.5 24-hour standard (65 ug/m3). These same data are less conclusive regarding compliance with the new annual average standard (15 pg/m3) (PSAPCA 1999b). Carbon Monoxide (CO) Carbon monoxide is the product of incomplete combustion, and it is generated by transportation sources and other fuel-burning activities like residential home heating, especially heating with solid fuels like coal or wood. CO is usually the pollutant of greatest concern related to transportation sources because it is the pollutant emitted in the greatest quantity for which short-term health standards exist. Short-term standards (as opposed to annual-average standards) are often the controlling, or most restrictive air pollution standards. There are two air quality standards for carbon monoxide: a 1-hour average standard of 35 parts per million (ppm) and an 8-hour average standard of 9 ppm. The 8-hour standard is usually the most restrictive. Both standards may be exceeded once each year without violating the standard. (See Table 5.) Unlike ozone, CO is a pollutant whose impact is usually very localized. The highest ambient concentrations of CO usually occur near congested roadways and intersections during periods of low temperatures, light winds, and stable atmospheric conditions. Such weather conditions reduce the mechanisms that disperse pollutants emitted into the air. Because the impact occurs so close to the source, it is not possible to extrapolate CO concentrations from regional data or distant monitors. There are no direct CO monitoring data for the site area, so there are no definitive indications of existing CO concentrations. The Southport site is located inside an area that once exceeded CO standards, as such the EPA designated a large portion of the Everett-Seattle-Tacoma urban area as nonattainment for CO. Since no monitoring stations have recorded violations of the standards in recent years, PSAPCA and Ecology petitioned the EPA to redesignate the area as attainment for CO. Based on that application, the EPA recently redesignated the Central Puget Sound region as attainment for CO. EPA also approved PSAPCA's associated maintenance plan to insure the area remains attainment for the CO standards. That plan relies on continuing the existing Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance program. The entire site area is therefore within a carbon monoxide maintenance area. Southport Development Planned Action Air Quality Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS 3-18 5/12/99 The existing air quality near the project site related to project traffic will be analyzed with dispersion modeling. This modeling has not yet been conducted. Ozone Ozone is a highly reactive form of oxygen created by sunlight-activated chemical transformations of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the ambient air. Unlike carbon monoxide concentrations that tend to occur very close to the source(s) of emissions, ozone problems tend to be regional in nature because the chemical reactions which produce ozone in the atmosphere occur over a period of time. During the lag time between emission and ozone formation, ozone precursors can be transported far from their sources. Transportation sources in the Puget Sound Region are a major contributor among a number of sources of ozone precursors. During the summer of 1990, ozone concentrations exceeded the 0.12-ppm NAAQS then in effect several times at monitoring stations in both Enumclaw and Lake Sammamish State Park. Because of these violations, EPA designated all of Snohomish, King, and Pierce Counties as nonattainment for ozone. The ozone nonattainment area was reduced in late 1992 to include all of Pierce County, all except a small portion in the northeast corner of King County, and the western portion of Snohomish County (Federal Register 1992, page 56777). The site area is within the ozone nonattainment area established in 1992. In September 1996, EPA redesignated the Puget Sound as attainment for ozone and approved the associated air quality maintenance plan (Federal Register, Vol 61, No. 188, pp 50438-50443). This plan includes measures to continue controlling ozone emissions and is intended to assure the standard is maintained for at least ten years. The site is therefore in an ozone maintenance area. In September 1997, EPA adopted a new standard for ozone. The new 0.08-ppm 8-hour standard replaced the older 1-hour standard. Compliance is now assessed based on the 4th highest reading each year averaged over a 3-year period. In summer 1997, there were several ozone measurements in the Puget Sound region that exceeded the new 8-hour standard. From these data, PSAPCA concluded that "The regional ozone trend is flat and marginally within the new federal standard." (PSAPCA 1999b) Although the site area is included in the ozone maintenance area, this status has no direct implications for the redevelopment plans under analysis. Toxic Air Pollutants In addition to the "criteria" pollutants listed in Table 5, there are a host of other contaminants in the air for which ambient air quality standards have not been set. Toxic air pollutants include known, suspected, and probable carcinogens, as well as toxic non-carcinogens listed in local or state regulations (e.g., Appendix A of PSAPCA's Regulation III, and Ecology's WAC 173-460-150 & 160). These pollutants are believed to impact human health at certain concentrations over specific averaging times. These concentration levels are called Acceptable Source Impact Levels ASILs). ASILs are not regulatory limits like the ambient air quality standards applied to criteria pollutants, but are instead a guide for assessing the potential impacts of new sources of toxic air pollutants. Southport Development Planned Action Air Quality Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS 3-19 5/12/99 Toxic air pollutants can be either particulate matter or a gaseous volatile organic compound VOC); thus certain pollutants can be included in more than one of the categories listed in Table 5. Individually, some VOCs are toxic, and include irritants and neurotoxins that can cause headaches and inability to concentrate. Some specific toxic VOCs include: Toluene, a common component of printing inks, paints and solvents that can affect the nervous system. Toluene is emitted into the outside air from businesses such as plastic wrapper printing facilities and painting operations. Trichloroethylene, a solvent commonly used to clean and degrease metal aircraft and other mechanical parts, which is a probable human carcinogen. When applying for a construction permit for a source that would increase toxic air pollutant emissions, an applicant must demonstrate that emissions from a proposed source are sufficiently low to protect human health and safety from potential carcinogenic and/or toxic effects. In this instance, Boeing, in previously submitted applications to PSAPCA would have demonstrated compliance for the ground-level locations on its property and on the Southport site. Based on this required review, it is likely that existing levels of toxic air pollutants and of the other compounds discussed below are within currently acceptable regulatory and guideline limits. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Volatile organic compounds are vapors containing carbon, hydrogen, and other elements including oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, chlorine, and fluoride that are gaseous under normal atmospheric conditions. VOCs are released by cleaning fluids, degreasing agents, gasoline, paints, and other widely used products. They include hydrocarbons, some toxic chemicals (e.g., diethyl sulfate, and tetramethyl lead) and some known carcinogens (e.g., benzene, and vinyl chloride). Regardless of toxicity, as a group VOCs are of concern as precursor ingredients of ozone. VOCs interact with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. Ozone can pose serious health problems by inflaming and irritating breathing passages, reducing resistance to illness, and causing coughing, wheezing, headaches, and nausea. People exposed to ozone can experience fatigue, shortness of breath, or pain during deep breaths. Hazardous Air Pollutants Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments lists 189 compounds classed as hazardous air pollutants, also referred to as "air toxics." These compounds include benzene, toluene, formaldehyde, mercury, arsenic, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and these substances are emitted from a wide variety of sources. Southport Development Planned Action Air Quality Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS 3-20 5/12/99 Odor The Boeing Commercial Industrial Complex operates a wastewater treatment facility near its eastern boundary with the Southport site. Any wastewater plant generates odorous gases that can be readily perceived by people when inhaled in non-dilute form. Consequently, wastewater plants are typically designed to vent these gases first through control equipment, then through a somewhat elevated stack. Other than control equipment, sufficient dilution with clean air can minimize odors from such sources. However, in the absence of sufficient dilution, emission plumes can reach the ground before they are diluted below the odor threshold. If people were present in any such areas, they would very likely perceive the partially diluted wastewater plant gases as distasteful odors. Wastewater treatment facilities are a common cause of odor complaints. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Development Plan A Construction Impacts During demolition of the existing steam plant building and other associated buildings and construction of the residential and office buildings, dust from demolition and excavation would contribute to ambient concentrations of suspended particulate matter. The demolition and construction contractor(s) would be required to comply with PSAPCA regulations including taking reasonable precautions to avoid fugitive dust emissions. Actions required of the contractor may include applying water directly to bare soil during dry weather. This regulation could also require street cleaning to prevent dirt, mud, and other debris deposits on paved roadways open to the public. It is known that asbestos exists in the steam plant building, primarily associated with steam lines and pipes. Removal would use the existing rail spur on the site to load sections of encased piping for direct shipment to an approved disposal site. During demolition, contractors also would be required to comply with EPA and PSAPCA regulations concerning the safe removal and disposal of any asbestos-containing materials. [USEPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) Asbestos Regulations (40 CFR 61, Subpart M); PSAPCA Regulation III, Article 4, Asbestos Control Standard] For example, any asbestos removal contractor(s) could be required to place airtight barriers around the entire building to prevent any asbestos from escaping the ambient air. As another safety precaution, it is expected that any asbestos containing materials would be loaded directly onto covered rail cars for off-site removal. Construction would require the use of heavy trucks and smaller equipment such as generators and compressors. These engines would emit air pollutants that would slightly degrade local air quality, but their emissions and resulting concentrations would be far outweighed by emissions from industrial sources around the site area. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected. Some phases of construction would cause odors detectable to some people near the site. This would be particularly true during paving operations using asphalt. The construction contractor(s) would have to comply with the PSAPCA regulations requiring the best available control measures Southport Development Planned Action Air Quality Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS 3-21 5/12/99 to control the emissions of odor-bearing air contaminates. Such odors from paving operations would be short-term. Operational Impacts Plan A represents a mixed-use development that would consist of 543 multifamily residential units, 38,000 square feet of retail area, and 500,000 square feet of office area. This amount of development would generate additional vehicular traffic, especially during the peak commuting hours. In the case of development projects that generate vehicular traffic, the air pollutant of major concern is carbon monoxide. Of the various vehicular emissions, CO is the pollutant emitted in the largest quantity for which an ambient air standard exists. Therefore, CO is the primary focus of this analysis. Air quality impacts near signalized intersections where vehicular traffic could cause or contribute to increased emissions of CO were evaluated. If project traffic would decrease intersection LOS to "D" or worse, by definition in EPA guidance (EPA 1992), the delay and congestion could cause or contribute to a potential CO concentrations exceeding the NAAQS. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis, two of the four signalized intersections nearby that would be affected by project-related traffic could have this potential. These potential problem intersections are the Lake Washington Boulevard intersections with both Park Avenue and the proposed Southport Entrance. MFG will prepare a quantitative analysis of pollutants as required by SEPA. MFG assumes that air quality conformity regulations (WAC 173-420) do not apply, since the transportation components of the Southport Development and any affected roadways would not be considered regionally significant arterials (as defined in conformity rules). MFG will conduct a site-specific analysis of air quality by estimating peak-hour CO concentrations near selected intersections. EPA's MOBILE5a model will be used to compile emission factors, and the CAL3QHC 2.0 dispersion model will be used to predict ambient CO concentrations. MFG will model air quality impacts of only Plan B, assuming that Plan A would result in lower levels due to lower traffic volumes. Plan B will be analyzed in the project's buildout year. MFG will note the relative difference between the No Action Alternative and Plan B and we will indicate whether the Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan potentially contributes to the reduction of frequency and severity of violations of NAAQS shown in Table 5 (if any). This analysis will be provided in the subsequent version of the DSEIS. Indirect Impacts - Potential Impacts to On-Site Locations from Existing Sources By virtue of its location, the Southport site is currently exposed to various industrial pollutants emitted nearby. For most of the year, the degree of exposure to pollutants is likely minimal. Under certain meteorological conditions (e.g., winds from the southwest and a neutral atmosphere), however, pollutant emissions from Boeing could impact the site. Under current conditions, it is unlikely that anyone on the site is adversely affected by these emissions. Southport Development Planned Action Air Quality Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS 3-22 5/12/99 However, redevelopment under Plan A could sufficiently change local conditions to result in air quality impacts on the site. Based on Boeing's Renton facility emissions inventory (Table 6), people using the site as planned in this proposal could be exposed to criteria pollutants, volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, and toxic air pollutants. Based on a qualitative review of these emissions and of the expected locations of proposed on-site buildings, the primary on-site air quality issues likely to be associated with Plan A include the following: the potential for poor air quality inside the proposed buildings caused by the intake of contaminated outdoor air; the potential for poor air quality at ground-level locations near the on-site office and residential towers induced by a change in local meteorology; and, the potential for nuisance odors from Boeing's wastewater treatment facility. Indoor Air Quality Impacts As indicated in the Affected Environment section, existing ground-level concentrations of air pollutants are probably within the levels allowed by the NAAQSs and ASILs. The proposed on- site redevelopment could, however, change the local conditions sufficiently to alter this situation. The proposal would increase the height of on-site receiving locations, potentially raising them to a level where plumes of pollutants emitted from nearby paint-booth stacks could reach the buildings during certain meteorological conditions. If the buildings have operable windows, pollutants could enter directly. A more likely scenario would be that pollutant emissions would enter the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system through the buildings' fresh air intake vents. The degree to which the industrial pollutants could affect indoor air quality range from no effect at all, to nuisance odors, to adverse health impacts to building occupants. In order to determine the likely effect, sufficiently detailed information is needed in order to conduct a quantitative dispersion modeling analysis. Ground-Level Impacts Ground-level concentrations of pollutants emitted from the existing paint-booth stacks could also be increased as a result of the construction of the proposed buildings. Through an effect known as building downwash, the Plan A office and residential buildings could influence local meteorology by inducing exhaust stack plumes to reach the ground more often than they might under current conditions without the new structures. This could increase the frequency of ground- level plume strikes and potentially cause previously compliant air pollutant concentrations to exceed allowed levels (either NAAQSs or ASILs). The proposed buildings have the potential to increase ground-level concentrations if the new buildings are higher than the existing paint-booth stacks and are within a distance from the stacks of about 5 times the building height. The proposed office buildings under Plan A are the closest structures to Boeing facilities; office buildings 1, 2, and 3 would be 125, 115, and 105 feet tall, respectively. Each of these office buildings would therefore be higher than the approximately 45' tall paint building stacks. Furthermore, each building would be well within the height times 5" Southport Development Planned Action Air Quality Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS 3-23 5/12/99 sphere of influence (5 x 45' = a distance of 225') that could affect the dispersion of exhaust stack emissions. Consequently, ground-level pollutant concentrations near each office building could increase, and the site could therefore be impacted by emissions from the Boeing facility. Treatment Plant Odors Odors from the wastewater treatment facility at Boeing could cause a nuisance to residents, guests, and employees of Southport. Under normal operations and some meteorological conditions (e.g., warm temperatures, winds from the southwest, and a stable atmosphere) treatment plant odors could at times be noticeable to some people on the site. In the event of either a spill or a breakdown of pollution control equipment at the plant, odorous gases released at ground level and transported to the site would be very likely to be perceived by anyone present at the time. If such an event occurred, people downwind from the plant would probably smell the treatment plant gases for the duration of the wind, or until the upset condition was corrected. People affected by odors from the plant could complain to PSAPCA, and plant operators would be subject to enforcement action if found to be at fault based on one or more PSAPCA inspections. Overall, the degree to which the proposed Southport redevelopment could be impacted by emissions from the Boeing facility is unknown. It is the responsibility of Boeing to protect the human health from harmful exposures to any air pollutants emitted at their facility, as well as from nuisance impacts due to odors. Boeing is aware of and investigating these issues. More information will be provided herein when it becomes available. Development Plan B Construction Impacts Construction impacts would be similar to those described in the discussion under Plan A. Operational Impacts Plan B represents a planned mixed-use development of 581 multifamily units, 38,000 square feet of retail area, 750,000 square feet of office use. This amount of development would generate more vehicular traffic than Plan A. MFG will evaluate the air quality impacts from traffic in the next version of the DEIS. Indirect Impacts - Potential Impacts to On-Site Locations from Existing Compared with Plan A, Plan B could have the same or worse indirect impacts to on-site locations. As explained in Indirect Impacts section of Plan A, air quality issues include the potential for poor air quality inside the proposed buildings, poor air quality at ground-level near the office and residential towers, and nuisance odors from Boeing's wastewater treatment facility. Each office building in Plan B would be 125 feet tall. This could create sensitive receiving locations in the path(s) of pollutant emissions from the existing Boeing facility. Ground-level concentrations also could increase as a result of the construction of tall buildings near the existing paint-booth stacks. Since Plan B would have higher buildings than Plan A, the proposed office towers with this Southport Development Planned Action Air Quality Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS 3-24 5/12/99 alternative could have a greater potential than Plan A to influence local meteorology and potentially increase ground-level concentrations. The odor issues associated with the Plan B redevelopment would be similar to those described for Plan A. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES No Action - No Redevelopment This alternative assumes no redevelopment of the site and a continuation of the existing conditions. The current sources of fugitive dust from the site would continue to impact air quality. Fugitive dust would be generated from movement of vehicles over gravel surface and from wind erosion over exposed surfaces. The air quality impacts of the No Action Alternative - No Redevelopment would not be significant. No Action - Future Industrial Redevelopment Under existing zoning, potential industrial development of the site could be comprised of up to 230,000 square feet of manufacturing and 70,000 square feet of two-story office space. Some manufacturing uses emit significant quantities of air pollution, while others emit almost nothing. If the alternative use was a significant source of pollution, the local air pollution control district would be notified and the source would need to obtain the appropriate permits. Therefore, significant quantities of direct emissions to the ambient air would be regulated by the local agencies. As with the Preliminary Conceptual Master Plan, industrial development would generate additional vehicular traffic. Transportation-related air quality impacts will be evaluated with dispersion modeling in the subsequent DEIS. Assumed manufacturing uses could be less likely to be affected by the paint-booth stacks from Boeing, since buildings would be less tall than Boeing's stacks, and could be further from the existing facility. Assuming this is the case, any industrial or manufacturing tenants probably would be exposed to the same air pollutant concentrations as those currently occurring on the site. For most of the year, the degree of exposure to pollutants would probably be minimal. Under certain meteorological conditions, however, winds blowing from the southwest could concentrate pollutant emissions from Boeing on the site. It should be noted that under the current (IH) zoning, no height limit exists; therefore, it is possible that taller buildings could be built on the site, that could approach or exceed the proposed heights under Plan A or B. Under such a scenario, buildings from future industrial development could result in the same sorts of changes to existing dispersion conditions as those explained for Plan A, Indirect Impacts — Potential Impacts to On-Site Location from Existing Sources. Tall buildings higher than the neighboring paint-booth stacks) could result in poor indoor air quality by placing elevated receiving locations nearby; these buildings could influence the local dispersion conditions to the extent that ground-level pollutant concentrations could increase relative to existing conditions. Southport Development Planned Action Air Quality Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS 3-25 5/12/99 The odor issues associated with any alternative development design would be similar to those described for Plan A, except that a manufacturing facility or other industrial use would likely be less sensitive to odors than either office or residential uses. Southport Development Planned Action Air Quality Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS 3-26 5/12/99 MAY 25 '99 03:34PM MCCULLY roTrK&GILMAN P.2/6 Southport Project Expanded Air Quality Investigations Option 1 - Further Qualitative Review W/ Summary of Boeing Analysis Task Person Hours Cost Total Cost Site visit, review of latest elevation drawings, examination MPZ 8 520i 520 of site geometry KJR _ 4 400 --- $400( RGS 4 420 420 Acquisition, review and analysis of local wind data MPZ 4 260 660 KJR 4 , 5400 Review summary of Boeing analysis to provide basis for MPZ 4 2602 conclusions regarding potential impacts K.4 S400 81RGS2210 MPZ 8 - L — Documentation KJR 2 ; 200 1,140 RGS.......... . ...4.....-----i.... ...----$420 MPZ 4 j 260 Miscellaneous Telcons, Meetings, PM, Etc. IUR _ I _ 4 400 1,380 RGS 4 S420 KLW I 4 300 1Estimated Expenses 100i Total 4,570: Required Data Latest elevation drawings i'Summary of Boeing modeling study authenticated by Boeing and/or PSAPCA Product Revised EIS section with expanded discussion of potential AQ impacts. Conclusions to be based on summary of modeling analysis. Will still be fairly speculative regarding potential for AQ and odor impacts on the Southport site. Estimated Schedule for Completion Within 7 working days of receiving the report summary. MFG, Inc. Page 1 of 5 5/25/99 ENVI`R NMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA MAY•25, 1 999 To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Jim Shepherd, Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief From: Jana Hanson, Development Services f erence Room l#62 Agenda listed below. Southport Draft EIS Grueter) LUA-99-02 T,ECF The Southr ort Planned Action environmental review is being initiated in order to consider potential development concepts fc r the redevelopment of approximately 17 acres located adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline. Environme ital studies will consider redevelopment concepts of the property from industrial uses to a mixed use developme it including residential, retail and offices uses as well as recreational amenities, which will require a Compreher sive Plan Amendment/rezone, and several development permits. Location: .South of Lake Washington, West of Lace Washington Boulevard and 1-405. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington between Gene Coulon Park on the east and Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. Access is located from Lake Washington Boulevard King Cow' ty Temporary Office Trailers (Consent) Nishihira) L UA-99-04 4,T,ECF The applicnnt, King Co. Dept. of Transportation, is requesting approval for the temporary location of six structures (five trailers—tv:o at 1,440 s.f., two at 840 s.f., one at 900 s.f., and one storage container at 400 s.f.) on the subject site. The temporary structures will be used to house King Co. survey crews and equipment until a permanent facility is completed. Location: 55 Monroe Avenue NE. Fields Short Plat(Consent) Nishihira) L UA-99-010,SHPL-A,ECF The applic rnts, Tom and Brenna Fields, are requesting administrative short plat approval and environmental review for the two lots subdivision of a .37 acre site located in the Residential —8 zone. Lot 1 is proposed at 8,249 square feet and is intendec for the construction of a single family residence. The existing residence on lot 2, proposed at 7,899 square feet, will r€main. The project site is located in an area designated as potential coal mine hazards on the City's Coal Mine Hazard Seisitive Areas Map. Location: 435 Renton Avenue South. South Rel rton Sewer Replacement, Phase 2 (Consent) Henning) L UA-99-063,ECF The City of Renton proposes to replace approximately 7,400 lineal feet of existing sewer mains in the following right-of- ways (ROW): Wells and Williams Avenue South between South 3rd Street and Grady; Burnett between South 3` and South 4th; South 5th between Main and Burnett; Burnett and South 6th east to Wells. Also, in alleys between: Burnett/Sc uth 6th to Smithers/Houser; Smithers/South 6th to Morris/Houser; Morris/South 6th to Whitworth/Houser; and in an easemt:tnt located west of the intersection of South 6th/Shattuck Avenue South (rear entry to Kentucky Fried Chicken and other ousinesses). Location: ROWs as described above. cc: J.Tanner,Mayor J.Covington,Chief Administrative Officer S.Carlson,Economic Development Admin. (R) J.Bray,Fire Prevention J.Hanson,P/B/PW Development Services Director (R) M.Kattermann,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Director (R) F.Kaufman,Hearing Examiner C.Duffy,Fire Prevention (R) J.Ivredzegian/Council S.Meyer,P/B/PW Transportation Systems Director S.Star,P/B/PW Admin L.Warren,City Attorney (R) a SOUTHPORT PRELIMINARY DRAFT EIS#1—ERC SUMMARY ERC RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDED PROJECT OUTSTANDING DATA(INCLUDE KEY STAFF COMMENTS STAFF MITIGATION COMMENTS DESCRIPTION CHANGES IN PDSEIS#2) Preliminary Draft EIS#1: Incorporate arborist report and options to Air Quality: CO modeling at 2 Plans and Policies: Beef up discussion of Earth: Construction mitigation about Provide input about content&corrections address trees along Park boundary. intersections some policies,and the SMP. Address paving exposed areas—necessary? Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Variance. Preliminary Draft EIS#2: Preferred fire lane option—use of drive Air Quality/odor: Boeing related impacts Aesthetics: Address tree removal at Air Quality: Need to better determine Review new data,recommend final aisle in GC Park;alternate fue lane near (current analysis is worst case and secondary emergency access. Address mitigation and responsibilities. corrections,authorize distribution Building C. speculative) shade impacts to plants/turf in Park. EIS Public Review: Fisheries/Water Quality: Biological Parks: Water: Ensure list is complete(e.g. 30-day comment period review of channelization plan(discussing Address tree/parking stall removal at dilution). Public meeting(hold or delegate to staff) with applicant idea of including analysis secondary access.Certain filters are recommended if the now to cover as part of Planned Action) Grading extending into the Park. project changes—what are the Impacts of fee based parking on Park. costs/benefits? Fisheries: Review of state-listed western Transportation: Noise: Construction noise mitigation— pond turtle Beef up discussion of pedestrian/bicycle are all measures necessary? usage and impacts. Pile driving hourly limitations—is there Transportation: Add information about Address left turn pocket at site entrance; more flexibility determining hours? Burlington Northern look at noon counts and Boeing access to A grout pile injection is probably more Land Use: Need to confirm approach to parking. expensive shoreline setbacks. Address aircraft noise,and height Are all pile driving mitigation measures restrictions. needed given the site's location? Concerns about parking provided,and Vibration mitigation—can some options parking enforcement as mitigation. be combined based on building location? Is trenching necessary? Include vibration monitoring APPLICANT COMMENTS Land Use: Distinguish between plan Add information about site clean-up features and additional mitigation. Clarify stormwater manuals used Show open space as a percentage and Air and Noise—worst case&speculative setbacks as minimum requirements? Transportation—various requests to Aesthetics: Add mitigation about clarify assumptions(e.g.intersection building articulation near the Park. selection,trip generation,etc.).Also, Issue of shade impacts to Park vegetation elaborate railroad,parking demand,etc. —assume revenues address discussions,and add TMP mitigation. ERC RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDED PROJECT OUTSTANDING DATA(INCLUDE KEY STAFF COMMENTS STAFF MITIGATION COMMENTS DESCRIPTION CHANGES IN PDSEIS#2) Transportation: Add transit/TDM in mitigation measures. Police: Tax revenue measure—apply to more sections. Parks: Issue of maximum parks fee credit. Generalize language to indicate Resolution used as a guide. Add mitigation to dedicate a recreation easement on the promenade and dock. Water and Sewer: Add mitigation related to easements General: The mitigation measures should identify applicable City regulations and requirements,required permits,mitigating features of the proposed conceptual plan, and additional proposed mitigation. CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:May 24, 1999 TO: Sue Carlson FROM: Lisa Grueter cy6 SUBJECT: Southport—Parks and Fire Mitigation Comments Per our conversation,here are some comments you may want to discuss with Jay Covington. Fire Department Chuck Duffy made some verbal comments at the May 19th staff meeting to discuss the Preliminary Draft SEIS. Parking—preference is for 2 stalls per dwelling,but want to ensure we end up with at least the minimum requirement. Parking enforcement should be a last resort as a mitigation measure,we should try and address the issue through design if possible. Should the applicant pay an annual fee for parking enforcement? The problem times are evenings and weekends. In his comment letter(see attached), Chuck did not discuss an annual parking enforcement fee, but he mentioned it at the staff meeting. Parks Division These are verbal comments from Leslie Betlach at the staff meeting May 19°i. The shade impacts should also address that there would be impacts to turf(moss). Add a mitigation measure for applicant to plant shade tolerant plants in the park and annually pay for new turf. Add a mitigation measure to dedicate a recreation easement on the promenade and dock. Sue - I think this is warranted based on the Shoreline Master Program and other regulations.) Parking enforcement should be a last resort mitigation measure(p. 3-183 and Appendix D, page 39). Parking enforcement in parks has not been a priority for parking enforcement personnel. (Chuck shared this comment.) Page 3-185, the maximum parks mitigation fee credit that can be given is 33%. Additional credit cannot be given beyond the 33% for potential playground redesign. H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\S HUFFLTN\sceisjay.doc\cor RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: May 19, 1999 TO: Lisa Grueter FROM: Chuck Duffy, Fire Marshal ( SUBJECT: South Port - Comments on Draft Supplemental EIS The primary area of concern is the proposed residential parking ratios of 1.3 parking spaces perdwellingunit. (Please see pages 23 and 24, pages 3-114 and 3-115, and Appendix DTransportationAnalysis" page 39.) This is less than the 1.75 parking spaces required by theCity (1.5 resident spaces plus .25 guest spaces per dwelling unit). The City has already experienced parking problems with 1.75 spaces per g unit.Consequently, lowering the ratio to 1.3 will create a permanent parking problem.The onlysolutionwillbetoincreaseparkingenforcementduringregularbusinesshoursandalsoduringeveningsandweekends. This is the least desirable option because it mandates a constantlevelofattention.t The best solution is to create adequate parking from the start. It is my understanding that the developer is proposing that the residents use the office parkinglotforeveningsandweekends. While this will add additional spaces, it is doubtful that theresidentswillreadilyusethem. These spaces will be across the street from the apartmentbuildingsinparkinggarages. Anyone using these spaces will have to walk a considerabledistance, a challenge when it is dark and raining and you are carrying anything. Residents andguestwillbemoreinclinedtousetheclosest, most convenient spot. This spot is generally theonlyavailablespace, the Fire Lane. Please let me know if you need any additional information. I have also made commentsregardingthePromenadeonpage3-117. CC: L e Wheeler Gary Gotti Jim Gray Corey Thomas CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: MAY 24, 1999 TO: LISA GRUETER FROM: NEIL WATTS SUBJECT:SOUTHPORT PROJECT— STREET IMPROVEMENTS RELATED WATER QUALITY QUESTIONS At the end of today's meeting, several questions were asked regarding water quality treatment for the potential street widening of Lake Washington Blvd N south of the project entrance. I have prepared brief responses to these questions which hopefully will suffice for now. 1. What TESC (temporary erosion and sedimentation control) measures would be recommended by the City for work along the easterly side of the street in the area of the culvert crossing? A list of appropriate best management practices should be developed for construction in this area. Items that might be included are silt fences, covering of cleared areas with plastic on a temporary basis, rapid replanting, construction limited to dry season, and minimizing disturbed areas. 2. Can the existing bio-swale along the westerly side of the street be widened and/or improved to provide additional water quality treatment? It appears that it would be possible to widen the existing swale to provide additional treatment. It also appears that the existing ditches along the east side of the street could be reconstructed as water quality swales to provide additional treatment for the street widening. 3. Can the portion of unused Houser Way right-of-way be reused for water quality treatment facilities for the street improvements? It appears that this area is at a higher elevation than the street, and would not be feasible for use for water quality treatment (bio-swales). This site might be practical if it were developed as a wetpond facility for the street runoff. 4. What standards should be used for the water quality improvements? The DOE Stormwater Management Manual is recommended for water quality treatment standards for this project, due to its proximity to John's Creek and Lake Washington. MAY 24, 1999 PAGE 2 5. What is involved with widening the roadway in the area of the culvert crossing? Implementation of the conceptual channelization/street improvement plan for mitigation of the traffic impacts of this project would require widening of the existing pavement by approximately 12 feet to the east in the area of the culvert crossing. This pavement section is for four lanes, requiring 48 feet from the existing curb on the west side of the street. cc: Ron Straka Lee Haro Y o, t RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT AR1' . AL MEMORANDUM DATE: May 24, 1999 TO: Lisa Grueter FROM: Chuck Duffy, Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Changes to the "SouthPort Fire Suppression Access" Agreement Please see the following changes for paragraphs #1 and #5. 1.The parking lot drive aisle in the Gene Coulon Park will be the required fire lane for the east side of the Southport development. The 20-foot minimum Fire Lane width must be maintained at all times, marking according to City of Renton Development Regulations. This drive aisle/fire lane is part of an overall system of fire lanes surrounding the buildings on the east side of the project. Consequently, the drive aisle/fire lane must be maintained in or near its' current location. This will insure the adequate distribution of all fire lanes around the building to within 150 feet of all exterior points. 5.Nothing in the agreement shall supercede the requirements of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of Renton. CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:May 21, 1999 TO: Leslie Betlach, Sue Carlson,Chuck Duffy, Sandra Meyer,Jim Shepherd,Neil Watts,Lee Wheeler,Gregg Zimmerman FROM: Lisa Grueter Oft SUBJECT: Southport Parking Meeting Attached is a copy of a parking memo related to Southport which some of you have already seen. Judy Wright has set up a meeting for Tuesday,May 25, 1999 at 11:00 a.m. in the Development Services conference room. Parking is an issue for several Departments. It also has a big effect on design of the proposal, and I'd like to give the Southport applicant an idea of our position related to parking. Given various Department viewpoints and concerns,a joint meeting will be helpful. Thank you. H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\pkgadmem.doc\cor CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:May 17, 1999 TO: Sue Carlson FROM:Lisa Grueter L/ r SUBJECT: Southport Parking Analysis Parking Demand Analysis Nick Afzali reviewed Seco Development's parking demand analysis dated 2/4/99 and provided some comments about the analysis. Overall,Transpo's methodology is based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual, and there is justification for the figures used. An exception would be that Transpo's methodology included the residential parking stalls as being available to other uses(inherent in the methodology)whereas it is probably better to assume the designated unit stalls as not being available to other uses. In sum,based on discussions and e-mails with Nick,the following minimum ratios could be considered when reviewing a parking modification request(comments made in relation to Plan A): The designated spaces should not be considered as available to other uses. It should be noted that the ITE residential parking standard is lower than most other jurisdictions' standards. Staff should decide a reasonable number of stalls for the residential uses based on City standards or another jurisdiction's standards, and should consider TDM/transit measures that may be required or provided. If a reduction in guest standards is deemed appropriate, 50 to 100 guest parking stalls could be reduced if the office parking was found to be located conveniently for evening residential guest parking. There will also be some on-street parking that is beyond the total parking proposed in the structures. The retail and restaurant parking proposed by the applicant is below the City's standards and below the ITE Parking Generation Manual standards. The 25% capture rate seems reasonable. If the City wishes to vary the standards below the normal requirement, utilizing the ITE standard with a capture rate assumption (results in 36 stalls for retail and 165 for restaurant) would be adequate for peak hours. It's possible that some retail/restaurant parking could be shared with office parking, particularly where peak usage will occur at different times than the peak office parking. There will be some on-street parking that is beyond the total parking proposed in the structures that could also partially meet the retail/restaurant need, but it should be reviewed in conjunction with any residential guest parking reduction. The proponent proposes to comply with the City's minimum office standard which is greater than the parking demand analysis would indicate. A chart is attached comparing various parking rates, assuming the uses included in Transpo's parking demand analysis. It should be noted that since Transpo's analysis, the applicant has proposed a different mix of apartments/condominiums, and a more refined breakdown of restaurant type. The ITE portion of TS SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\parkmem.doc\cor the comparison chart would change somewhat assuming the more refined mix of uses, but probably notsubstantially. Residential Rates—Renton and Elsewhere A chart is attached showing various parking standards in other jurisdictions. Southport's proposed 1.3 spaces per dwelling unit would meet or exceed the following standards: Seattle— 1.3 stalls per unit(general multi-family standard for 60+du's with a factor for size of bedrooms which applicant has provided) for most multi-family districts in the City. Higher rates would apply in portions of the University and Alki districts. Redmond— 1 stall per unit plus the I stall per 4 units guest ratio required for Redmond Town Center. However, the Southport rate would be less than required for multi-family dwellings outside of the Redmond Town Center in Redmond. Bellevue—Rate for Downtown mixed use proposals (no less than 1 stall per unit) with a demand analysis. Southport's proposed rate would be close to Bellevue's normal average rate for non- mixed use developments outside of the Downtown. The Southport rate would not meet Renton's, Kirkland's or King County's multi-family standards. Similar developments in Kirkland(Carillon Point) and in Kenmore(Lakepointe, approved in King County)have provided parking in the amounts that meet or exceed the jurisdictions' requirements. Summary Overall, it seems the minimum standards allowed through a parking modification for Plan A could be: Residential, if using Renton's standards—850 stalls assuming some shared guest parking Retail—meet the ITE rate at the site's peak hour with capture rates - 36 stalls Restaurant—meet the ITE rate at the site's peak hour with capture rates— 165 stalls Office— 1,500 stalls (proposal meets current Renton standards) The total would equal up to 2,551 stalls, depending on City decisions related to shared street parking, some shared residential guest/retail parking, and shared retail/restaurant/office parking. Also, I have had some conversations with Rex Allen at Seco Development, and he thinks they could increase their residential parking rate if we allowed a modification to stall sizes(a stall size in between our compact and standard stall). Please let me know if you'd like a joint meeting with other Departments, or if you'd like me to begin discussing the information with Gregg informally at first. Thanks. cc: Lee Haro Nick Afzali TS_SERVER\SYSZCOM MON\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\S HUFFLTN\parkmem.doc\cor n .TCA O t0 ' Weekday 04.4 Parking Demand Estimate for Southport Mixed-Use (Plan A) The TRANSPO Group, Inc. K Use Apartments Condos Retail Restaurants Office' Total pia Amount/Size 371 171 13,000 25,000 500,000 Rate 1.04 1.11 3.23 12.49 use equation m- Peak Parking Demand' 386 190 42 312 1.133 PCP at Full Occupancy' 100% 5 100% 85% 85% 90% r Peak Peak Internal Peak Internal Peak Peak Parking o Daily Hourly Daily Hourly Daily Capture Hourly Daily Capture Hourly Daily Hourly Required for x) 0 Time Variation6 Demand Variation Demand Variation Rate' Demand Variation Rate' Demand Variation Demand Southport 6:00 AM 100% 386 100% 190 0% 0%0 0% 0%0 3% 38 614 n 7:00 AM 87% 336 87% 165 8% 0%4 2%0%7 20% 252 764 8:00 AM 79% 305 79% 150 18% 0%9 5%0% 18 63% 793 1,275 9:00 AM 73% 282 73% 139 42% 0% 21 10%0% 37 93% 1,171 1,650 10:00 AM 68% 262 68% 129 68% 0% 34 20%0% 73 100% 1,259 1,757 11:00 AM 59% 228 59% 112 87% 25% 32 30% 25% 83 100% 1,259 1,714 12:00 PM 60% 232 60% 114 97% 25% 36 50% 25% 138 90% 1,133 1,653 1:00 PM 59°.%0 223 59% 112 100% 25% 37 70% 25% 193 90% 1,133 1,703 2:00 PM 60% 232 60% 114 97% 25% 36 60% 25% 165 97% 1,221 1,768 3:00 PM 61% 235 61% 116 95% 25% 35 60% 25% 165 93% 1,171 1,722 4:00 PM 66% 255 66% 125 87% 25% 32 50% 25% 138 77% 969 1,519 5:00'PM 77% 297 77% 146 79% 25% 29 70% 25% 193 47% 59? 1,257 N 6:00 PM 85% 328 85°/0 162 82% 0% 41 90% 25% 248 23% 290 1,069 4,,04, 7:00 PM 94% 363 94% 179 89% 0% 44 100% 25% 275 7% 88 949 P8:00 PM 96% 371 96% 182 87% 0% 43 100% 25% 275 7% 88 959 9:00 PM 98% 378 98% 186 61% 0% 30 100% 25% 275 3% 38 907 10:00 PM 99% 382 99% 188 32% 0% 16 90% 25% 248 3% 38 872 11:00 PM 100% 386 100% 190 13% 0%6 70% 25% 193 0%0 775 12.00 AM 100% 386 100% 190 0% 0%0 50% 25% 138 0%0 714 Maximum 386 190 44 275 1,259 1,768 4 r;,co 1. Peak Parking Demand is#parked cars on a weekday. Calculations are based on rates or equations from ITE's Parking Generation manual,2nd Edition. P 2. The%at Full Occupancy,also called the Practical Capacity,is%of parking stalls being utilized at full capacity. The range typically varies between 85%and 100%.o 3. The Peak Parking Demand calculations for the Office space is based on the equation from ITE's Parking Genera manual since the R2 term exceeds 0.80. 4. The 400 rooms represents the number of occupied rooms from the total 500 rooms assuming an occupancy rate of 80%. 5. Assumed to be 100%for the Apartment and Condos based on the assumption that each unit would have one assigned parking stall,not be available for other uses. 6. The daily variation in peak parking utilization is based on studies conducted for similar uses,as documented in the Urban Land institute's(ULI) Shared Parking port.n 7. rInternalCapturerateaccountsforareductioninvehiclesduetothehighdensitymixed-use characteristic of the site.Ln 0 Peak Parking Demand is 1,768 occurring at 2:00 PM on a typical weekday. M:\99\99235\Parking\Parking.xis[Plan A)The TRANSPO Group, 2/4/99 Tm I0 t Weekday 0 Parking Demand Estimate for Southport Mixed-Use (Plan B) The TRANSPO Group, Inc.liiZs Use Apartments Condos Retail Restaurants Office' Total o Amount/Size 400 185 13,000 25,000 750.000 sRate1.04 1.11 3.23 12.49 use equation Peak Parking Demand' 416 205 42 312 1,652 at Full Occupancy'' 100°/u 5 100% 85% 85% 90% g Peak Peak Internal Peak Internal peak Peak, Parkingc)Daily Hourly Daily Hourly Daily Capture Hourly Daily Capture Hourly Daily Hourly Required for oTimeVariation° Demand Variation Demand Variation Rate' Demand Variation Rate' Demand Variation Demand Southport c0 6:00 AM 100% 416 100% 205 0% 0%0 0% 0%0 3% 55 676 n 7:00 AM 87% 362 87% 178 8% 0%4 2% 0%7 20% 367 9188:00 AM 79% 329 79% 162 18% 0%9 5% 0% 18 63% 1,156 1,6749:00 AM 73% 304 73% 150 42% 0% 21 10'/° 0% 37 93% 1,707 2,21910:00 AM 68% 283 68% 139 68% 0% 34 20% 0% 73 100% 1,836 2,36511:00 AM 59% 245 59% 121 87% 25% 32 30% 25% 83 100% 1.836 2,31712:00 PM 60% 250 60% 123 97% 25% 36 50% 25% 138 90% 1,652 2,1991:00 PM 59% 245 59% 121 100% 25% 37 70% 25% 193 90% 1,652 2,2482:00 PM 60% 250 60% 123 97% 25% 36 60% 25% 165 97% 1,780 2,3543:00 PM 61% 254 61% 125 95% 25% 35 60% 25% 165 93% 1,707 2,2864:00 PM 66% 275 66% 135 87% 25% 32 50% 25% 138 77% 1.413 P1,993 V5:00 PM 77% 320 77% 158 79% 25% 29 70% 25% 193 47% 863 1,563 so 6:00 PM 85% 354 85% 174 82% 0% 41 90% 25% 248 23% 422 1,239 IV 07:00 PM 94% 391 94% 193 89% 0% 44 100% 25% 275 7% 128 1,031 a.w 8:00 PM 96% 399 96% 197 87% 0% 43 100% 25% 275 7% 128 1,042 P 9:00 PM 98% 408 98% 201 61% 0% 30 100% 25% 275 3% 55 96910:00 PM 99% 412 99% 203 32% 0% 16 90% 25% 248 3% 55 93411:00 PM 100% 416 100% 205 13% 0%6 70% 25% 193 0%0 82012:00 AM 100% 416 100% 205 0% 0%0 50% 25% 138 0%0 759 Maximum 416 205 44 275 1,836 2.365 11I Pso1. Peak Parking Demand is#parked cars on a weekday. Calculations are based on rates or equations from ITE's Parking Generation manual,2nd Edition. 4.. 2. The%at Full Occupancy,also called the Practical Capacity,is%of parking stalls being utilized at full capacity. The range typically varies between 85%and 100%. o3. The Peak Parking Demand calculations for the Office space is based on the equation from ITE's Parking Generatlomanual since the R2 term exceeds 0.80.o 4. The 400 rooms represents the number of occupied rooms from the total 500 rooms assuming an occupancy rate of 80%.5. Assumed to be 100%for the Apartment and Condos based on the assumption that each unit would have one assigned parking stall,not be available for other uses. so 6. The daily variation in peak parking utilization is based on studies conducted for similar uses,as documented In the Urban Land Institute's(ULI)Shared Parkinrcport.1.7. Internal Capture rate accounts for a reduction in vehicles due to the high density mixed-use characteristic of the site. i;,tio Peak Parking Demand is r 2,365 I occurring at 10:00 AM on a typical weekday. M:\99\99235\Parking\Parking.xls(Plan B( The TRANSPO Group, 2/4/99 4. . . .... . Ar ipr.g., r rat.,2 ICN, UTH PO SEC 0 Development 11009 NE 111" St. Bellevue. Washington 98004 Southport Project Statistics Plan A April 7, 1999 Residential Component Building Average Approx. Total Unit Distribution Parking unit size Building Area Units Studio - 1 BR-2BR/2Bath) 1.3 per DU Building A 600 109,200 166 S=30%, 16R=50%,2BR=20% 216 Building B 850 171,200 171 S=30%,1BR=50%, 26R=20% 222 Building C 800 194,000 206 S=0%, 1 BR=50%.2BR=50% 267 Totals 474,400 543 705 Retail Component Approx. Parking Area 1/1000 SF Building A 10000 Building B 0 Building C 18000 Building 1 10000 Totals 38,000 38 Office Component Approx. Height Description Parking Building Area 3/1000 SF New 500,000 3 buildings 166K - over 1500 Construction parking Building 1 200,000 125' max ht 6 stories over 4 st:ries parking 600 Building 2 166.666 115' 5 stories over 4 stories parking 500 Building 3 133.334 105' 4 stories over 4 s cries parking 400 Existing Demolish Power house - Totals 500,000 1,500 Grand Total Total Totals Building Area Parkln_g 1,012,400 2243 rdi so uTH PO SEC 0 Development 11009 NE 111" St. Eellevue. Washington 98004 Southport Project Statistics Plan )3 April 7, 1999 Residential Component Building Average Approx. Total Unit Distribution Parking unit size Building Area Units Studio - 1 BR -2BR I 28ath) 1.3 per DU Building A 600 120,000 173 S=30%, 1 BR=50%, 2BR=20% 224 Building B 850 185,000 185 S=30%,1BR=50%, 2BR=20% 241 Building C 800 210.000 223 S=0%, 1 BR=50%,2BR=50% 290 Totals 515,000 581 755 Retail Component Approx. Parking Area 1/1000 SF Building A 10000 Building B 0 Building C 18000 Building 1 10000 Totals 38,000 38 Office Component Approx. Description Parking BuildingA:ea 3/1000 SF Building 1 250,000 125' max ht 6 stories over 4 stories parking 750 Building 2 250,000 125' max ht 6 stories over 4 stories parking 750 Building 3 250,000 125' max ht 6 stories over 4 stories narking 750 Existing Demolish Power house Totals 750,000 2,250 Grand Total Total Totals Building Parking Area 1,315,000 3043 Weekday Parking Demand Estimate for Southport PLAN A City Developer Transpo Rate Total Rate Total Rate Max(1) Peak (2) Apartments . 372 1.5+1 every 815 1.3 no Guess 484 1.04 386 @12 AM 232 @ 60% Condos . 171 4 units (guest) 136 Parking 223 1.11 190 @12 AM 114 @ 60% I Total 950 707 576 346 Retail I, 13000 4-5/1000 sf gfa 52 1/1000 sf gfa 13 3.23 49 @1 PM, 36 @97%w/25% CR I assume 4 Resturant I 25000 1/100 sf gfa 250 1/1000 sf gfa 25 12.49 312,7-9 pm 165©60%w/25% CR I Total 308 38 201 Office I 500000 3-4.5/1000 sf , 3/1000 sf gfa 2.52(3) 1259, 10-11am 1221 @ 97% I. assume 3.0 1500 1500 1221 I I 2758 2245 1768 1) 100%occupancy 2) @ 2:00 PM is the parking demand peak hour for the entire site. 3) Rate for the 100%occupancy PLAN B City Developer Transpo Rate Total Rate Total Rate Max(1) Peak (2) Apartments I 400 1.5+ 1 every 878 1.3 no Guess 520 1.04 416, 11-12 AM 283 @ 68% Condos I 185 4 units (guest) 146 Parking 242 1.11 205, 11-12 AM 139 @ 68% Total 1024 762 621 422 Retail j 13000 4-5/1000 sf gfa 52 1/1000 sf gfa 13 3.23 49 @1 PM, 34 @68%w/0% CR assume 4.0 Resturant 25000 1/100 sf gfa 250 1/1000 sf gfa 25 12.49 312, 7-9 pm 73 @20%w/0% CR Total 308 38 107 Office 750000 3-4.5/1000 sf 3/1000 sf gfa 2.45(3) 1836, 10-11am 1836 @ 100% assume 3.0 2250 2250 1836 3583 3050 2365 1) 100%occupancy 2) @ 10:00 AM is the parking demand peak hour for the entire site. 3) Rate for the 100%occupancy Note: Transpo's parking demand analysis assumes a different ratio of apartments to condominiums than the applicant currently proposes, but the total number of units is nearly the same at 543 du's for Plan A and 581 for Plan B. PARKING REGULATIONS USE BELLEVUE KING CO. KIRKLAND REDMOND RENTON SEATTLE SINGLE USE Multi-Family Units Studio/I bed- 1.2/du Studio-I.2/du Multi-family zones Studio-1.2/du 1.5/du 2-10 du's-1.1/du 2 bed- 1.6/du 1 bed-1.5/du 1.7/du I bed.-1.5/du 1 guest space/every 4 11-30 du's- 1.15/du3bed- 1.8/du 2 bed-I.7/du Waterfront zones 2/du 2 bed-1.8/du units 31-60 du's-1.2/duGuest-no std. 3 bed-2/du Guest-no std. 3+bed-2/du 60+du's-1.25 Guest-no std. Guest-no std. Plus for du's with greater than 500 s.f., an additional.0002 per square foot in excess of 500 s.f.up to a maximum additional 15 spaces per du(net effect 1.4 max) In UW area-same as above except 1.5 stalls per du for units with 2 or more bedrooms. In Alki, 1.5 perduAverageRateliorstudio, 1 bed and For studio, 1 bed and Avg. 1.85 For studio, 1 bed and 2 bed: 1.34/du 2 bed: 1.47/du 2 bed: 1.5/du For studio to 3 bed: For studio to 3 bed: For studio to 3 bed: 1.45/du 1.6/du I.625/du Office 4 to 5/1,000 nsf 1/300 sf General 1/300 sf gfa Depends on zone-in Prof.,business 3- Admin.Office- Medical 1/200 sf gfa Commercial Office 4.5/1000 sf gfa 1/1,000 sf zone 3.5 to 4.5/1000 sf Medical 1/200 sf gfa Customer Service gfa Office 1/350 sfRetailFor< 15,000 nsf: 5 to 1/300 sf 1/300 sf gfa Depends on zone.Retail,supermkt 4- General retail sales5.5/1000 nsf Ranges from 2 to 5/1000 sf gfa 1/350 sfFor15,000 to 400,000 5.5/1000 sf gfa Other retail(e.g.nsf: 4/1,000 to hardware,shoe repair, 4.5/1000 etc.) 1/500 sf gfaRestaurantSitdown: 14/1000 nsf 1/75 sf of dining/ Office,Professional Sit down 9/1000 sf gfa 1/100 sf gfaTakeout: 16/1000 nsf lounging area Office and Take Out 10/1000 sf Residential,and gfa Commercial Zones- USE BELLEVUE KING CO. KIRKLAND REDMOND RENTON I SEATTLE 1/100 sf Waterfront—provide demand study MIXED USE Mixed Use Treat mixed use as an No requirements Carillon Pt.Zoned as Mixed use Total required is equal In ground floor of unclassified use. stated. There is a Planned Area. developments allowed to total required for multi-family building Have applicant do a modification process Parking was in Downtown zones. uses computed there is no minimum demand analysis. where Director can determined based on Downtown has its own separately unless requirement,but a Mixed use residential reduce requirement up ULI methodology. parking standards.building is a shopping maxium of 10 stalls is found Downtown. to 50%if the applicant Demand analysis Commercial 3.5 to center. For any other for the retail use. Even with demand can show parking which looked at mixed 5/1000 gfa. uses,off-street parking analysis,an applicant demand can be met uses(commercial and Apartments: 1 facilities may be There is some ability cannot go below 1 with a reduced office)and demand by space/du plus 1 guest shared as permitted for development space/du. Also,if the requirement. Shared hour of day. Required space for every 4 under joint use standards departures residential parking is parking may also be parking for mixed uses units. These standards regulations. and interpretations. gated or restricted, it approved.based on study. would apply to Modification process For somes uses, can't be counted Residential was not Redmond Town provided. departures may be towards commercial The Lakepointe mixed,but in separate Center Apartment granted for stall size parking. Master Plan in portion of site and development. and location,but not Kenmore was across Lake WA Blvd. Downtown does not necessarily granted for reviewed under King For dwellings, have much transit numbers required. County rules. As developer voluntarily service yet. Hoping to reported in an 11/97 exceeded the normal create demand for Draft SEIS,the 1.7/du requirement by transit. requirements for providing 2 stalls per parking included 1.5 unit. stalls per unit for apartments,2 stalls per unit for condominium,and for office or retail 1 stal1/300 square feet. As . CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:May 21, 1999 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578)G SUBJECT: Southport—Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS#1 STATUS/RECOMMENDATIONS The City has received the first preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS for Southport. It has been routed to the Divisions and Departments that normally review environmental documents. Additionally,portions of the document have been reviewed by other staff in Transportation Systems, Solid Waste, Surface Water, and Development Services Divisions. Key comments are described below. Detailed editorial comments or corrections are not described. A second draft of the document will be resubmitted to ERC after incorporation of City comments, and the addition of outstanding information(described below). Staff is asking the Environmental Review Committee to: 1. Provide input and direction related to content and corrections to the Preliminary Draft SEIS described below. (It should be noted that after the second draft is prepared, staff would focus on the new data presented in the second draft, and ask the Committee to authorize distribution of the draft pending completion of any corrections that are needed at that point.) 2. Concur with the approach to public review of a Draft SEIS. Staff has discussed the following approach with Larry Warren: Schedule a hearing or public meeting on the Draft Supplemental EIS separate from hearings on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone. The Environmental Review Committee would hold the hearing or public meeting or delegate the responsibility to staff. The Planning Commission would hold a hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Concurrent rezone along with other Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications. If another public hearing is needed due to changes in the proposal or other significant reasons,the City Council would hold an additional public hearing related to the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Southport proposal will require: 0 OAK fttt•tILi1[LI M p•a1r•w•.r f•II a1[• al.7.. y. r 0 etsstr a>i•11a11a11.1 aW(. .. `4.4.• r:• I i ® w ao°°svi.°`curc'TV os cr"s r wn :I./ / / l t.• L'J ';a.y w xuA St'L yQi li o.o.f,!r uti n Sn.t f ,- Qrta•buttus lt1.CaM nctnn..[r m rIu tF im p auoG.b'' :) t 'L°('.tl uta YSIR rli3)nui c•s l (u tt¢ss.1 j 1 zc 1 (p 41 Srr..-•-• o, ,,, •„..40••• ‘ k. ...;..... ..„ . . ..Si •40ce P.-'." It".:.•.•1.- N4ac 1 ) I :-. ---ek""" dfr,-1;;;;•:-:-4P-4.- -:_ ",:'. ._ „, C ioilIl.'- ,, ,....1..r .„,.....•... ....•.".1.2i'''''''':.,_...... 7.,,i.5ar.t.1,.....L....‘ 14O., „....•••••• 1i V „ LL if .N ICf 1 GENERAL NorTS st i.l:.0 K'irt a/,aa/c3l s----.-: J lain y .!; rL I. rw AIG,rEJ.I Yta,RC TOPS 1 AM 1 it Tate• t 1 CON o! s Fes,,G.ecoLI N-r_it'I J J• ifi.. 3:1-, • I - S1IaG N. r.a al su( S tx1 51511j rrF ', j,l r'' ,a, `n C 1. rR o.l.alutl.,as stta,.c,5cL am W.i r+- f yy ' s, 10 r /Iws fferrigli L on,--Vag 1.; ter! IN WOW STOWS 110 OWLS.SIT van n ro n. v 1• SyI•.Cij' j 1 a e t fa MOMS.II WIT i. iu t— µ Ry t 4l1 1•TlfT11C'*' rw.i„—, i) J/a ` r,>•n.N as s lei s1a•lwnR s>Y SKIT x r.,tir••nro.•• t ... ,..I.Tar-msr.. - F. a imermnl u f/J« ` - dec ci.. 0, _ ia,...„. U i ii, uia c(r.w f 1 L. 1R TUINIRATla.SEE aaT x tr+zL ' T•ia_r`-_ «•.wsi 119SmaP•. g 13p 3 C . L4. IRy 1 / i w JT l - a 4 C•11« 7.. .q• r T. FOR rooms.>a a(L,S n•A I7. a_ 1'+ ii, • In 6' 1 ^ J / L Foe raTTIK WAILS.SET aai IL II a S N y1 J 1.001,114 + i • u i-' • I// 1" 7- ' su r.•aiw m tT i 4!'•r'7 J_ ' is (t ra7/IC°I1 4 .4.7,n.r at T• . .. t - it e ,i"'_'„.... 5., r: s .z. sr_,--_,,,---._N r v,. , s aa.a..a, io N 7-__- i '- / Q U•J s.a.sli•. I lS'_ INVIgti b J... f' “ tE ass- j4. J' r. /;. •: i%, AM'al tWTa Obtoi-tte 1'y r.• S.TJIIu ....._`i••r, j I l% ; 7iR t. LYLML. 1. il= 7' _l` On 1.0, testa a. 1 _ .. p.'• 4. '.4,-.7G .=-RIM!i7' '"_ r/_'Y n (j., t•,Y• 6 f Ixr.»w • sta 1,Fa-» •s aav Aj S-• '^= f= Q G 'l r\e. . J/ t:r1 1 ara . . w, co A•,- ter• j 41S y., ;. R,."tc'_'' _ 7/ =j/ t •f1•tr,t•e•rtT•L tJi,.,s:1< n _T A T l.v •r. Li/1)2X.-`l' •, uo W I` ® `>: rS1 Y.,\ 1 i-"_--'¢• bri 2. m -4-_- •,riaali _ '.`' 411/c4 yv _ r_-.r-.- tCW C Pc 1 F;% r11. m+m.swt3--l. rLs[L.C;IL .(1SZi d, Y•f-C llryls`•1 1' `: .. W.",•KT1L fn.a 6n.tt1•,Sn I r._-- 1w.1c-w JfJ ten...,•.'_11 1 1) AbA, 1 i i/ r_Jr rte, Yi'''asar.^. ,., 111: I• ! d; • ..:, !' a., t.Awl _oyirminiiivir. jr!.',i'• y -%'% / Mt-M STOW•Ita is 4 • t ••r / y',„;,/%j% - 1 r...cs:__L•..-1 T I n' is•v.a,r t r' C% a/.•.Ng 4 ATC., -' Ai e.,,,li. 1` elcu tx anla w.c f 4::4, - A/lT IF•LN AL* /•lt•9/8A ' I I !: t 1"11.---.' -- ,.y',y1_/ 11 4. • Y' .'Sia 1)Ad0 l^- f K r• FI S!!L•ry.33 1'L 11 rX' . b Jib.-. N'W N t!f fi•O•'0400,•'•.• j'•1L.u13i44 an. i 1 or+vf.Ic z,.... iun.is• N •/ tLw V'wl O[R r//•• s .s.ra• ._v_„E M1\._.._. .: YaaTi T{... - L- r.• -•ej -- 1 R tl/140.74) ; FL r 13•us lnr ;%"• 4V•- _._' Sia•• •. •y, h; • sl.cAsocA AK •cL.LL. 1 ;, c..,.., t:/ SL.trafl 71'n t 4 t Sn.ra.c•LL L-tpJ13 a,, • i 1 rs.. .0}Y: /fII - /P. iI 1 1 ry • „i` - o•f : h' stir\ \ t '` j / f 3yV' imii,_ft1rf l hn ti'f,i:'`_ 7 Ali air _.fr 5 I:_ 15• r, - • s • a 0Alkr71./1' • ///////. Iccu,sr may R >^ Akk o ./ N. . i•1/ ;.i / Lr '•1 wuLlitms ir,e:« •r 1 4` '_'''• st rlr1• tNNt(i;! • ` » f•'\ ir. N ..i ), /.•, 'i •11 !' fr /1, s .•YO • ,1. 4 a. r•,. sltr•u.c sx t /i • 1 Ay,144..f i •..3 . r. w rat . 1 - 3`;^;; V. Q • A i fa'.ismo Nou rtR.a p R..,:tssrw¢r ra fw[k..iri 1' • >i 1 u lr.i'r•._' . i i •. 1 OEN4CENOTES• • if ./ '• rfiiar rn.tt[>•owL.IM•6r A Eason /1t MOO:IF WOW! , -•1 sm.1•.x r,s.,.s• •r:f 1 n f - t'rn:::' o 0OOtt QSAIR,41w LL3a/ • •• I i ,1' ®. rn161 pLY1N1 r IIIRRI." m.caatL Lau IV=Y toL11,c wp•• one WIT( ca.r w ...cam, \.`,.'.. '® Ra lit a.w•Ri••ttwwt- r r• • ...• 1 v.kr• '® re pm an rms a we.ru yv® ®...q; :.c4: I r II!41 K ifV al _j K1 .1 r2 . 1 rtr,s,. z- 4 ` _ ov..V` i m im amwL w•••7:Ir itt i••rC,ti- gfi rp K'AM i a ,' \ V. 0 •.:..` 1tail+rtifzz,;.•r.::- 1•, :.=• S. •j... , ;%f.-. : 3. y'! c -.•.,. •-;P(ba1«,nti.fln[...r..;.. ill r: % O_.`rOP KOIL',FE LSIT 1f '• ••_i• •IR. r:: • •. -- .' nK5•13R; OW OWIE "" li,OO A;. .i r tl 8 Figure 15 Proposed Mitigation for Plan A and Plan B -O Southport EIS E N T RAN c o Feasibility-Level Channelization P an a i g q QI y Y x r. 7,- te k 1. St ass. k May 21, 1999 Page 2 A Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone from Employment Area—Industrial/Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential. Center Office Residential policy amendments Renton Municipal Code amendments A Preliminary Conceptual Plan has been prepared to facilitate environmental review. The planned mixed-use development would contain a mixture of residential,office and retail uses located in six buildings above single or multilevel parking structures. Housing would be located in close proximity to existing and new employment centers. Public amenities would include public access to Lake Washington via a boardwalk promenade along the shoreline that would provide opportunities for walking, outdoor dining,visual access to the lake and an extension of the lake walk at the adjacent Gene Coulon Park. Refer to Attachment A which shows Plan A. Plan B is nearly identical to Plan A and is not shown. Table 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT RANGE Use Characteristics Plan A Plan B Multifamily Residential Units 543 581 Retail Area in Sq. Ft. 38,000 38,000 Commercial Area in Sq.Ft. 500,000 750,000 Residential Building Heights in Stories 5 5 Office Building Heights is Stories 8-10 10 Total Parking Spaces 2,243 3,043 Although not part of the current, Southport proposal,the EIS looks at the potential future expansion of the existing dock for pedestrian access,guest moorage and water taxi use. A future application would be made by the City or potentially the applicant. Suggested Prolect Description Modifications Staff recommends that the project description be amended.To reduce impervious surfaces,protect trees in neighboring Gene Coulon Park,and create a better buffer between the Park and Southport,the following amendments would be appropriate: Incorporate arborist solutions to trees in the Park in the Draft EIS and make the possible options a part of the project rather than mitigation measures. Show a preferred option of having a designated Fire Lane in the Park drive aisle,and as an alternative, show a Fire Lane near Building C that would take into account arborist solutions. May 21, 1999 Page 3 The applicant is aware of the project description amendments and is supportive. Related to the fire lanes for Buildings B and C,the Fire Department prefers a fire lane near the buildings on the Southport site for enhanced response times,but is comfortable with certain conditions that the drive aisle in the Park parking lot can meet code requirements. The Parks Division prefers the use of the Park drive aisle as a fire lane to reduce potential impacts to trees along the property line in the Park. A general comment from Plan Review includes whether the discussion of project phasing is too limiting, and whether alternate phasing options should be considered. ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICS The following paragraphs summarize potential significant impacts based on the first preliminary draft. Proposed mitigation measures are attached. 1.Earth Impacts: Erosion during construction—earthwork. Sediment transport due to construction dewatering activities. Sidewall cave-ins during excavation of utility trenches. Fill soils and alluvium sediments susceptible to liquefaction. Ground motion(earthquakes). Mitigation Measures: See attached. Significant Unavoidable Impacts: No significant impacts are anticipated. Data Gaps/Staff Comments: Minor comments/clarifications requested by staff. 2.Air Quality Impacts: During construction—suspended particulate matter. Asbestos removal in Steam Plant. Construction odors(e.g. from paving). Potential CO concentrations at poor LOS intersections(modeling information to be included in Draft#2). Potential for poor air quality inside the proposed buildings caused by the intake of contaminated outdoor air(related to Boeing emissions). Potential for poor air quality at ground-level locations near the on-site office and residential towers induced by a change in local meteorology(related to Boeing emissions). Potential for nuisance odors from Boeing's wastewater treatment facility. May 21, 1999 Page 4 Mitigation Measures: See attached. Significant Unavoidable Impacts: To be determined. Data Gaps/Staff Comments: The analysis related to air quality/odor impacts from Boeing is fairly speculative, and worst case,as are the mitigation measures,and the section needs to be edited for content as well as better determining mitigation and responsibilities. Boeing has had their own consultants prepare detailed modeling,but at this time is not open to sharing the information. From Boeing staff, verbally,we have been told that the presence of taller buildings near the Boeing plant should not result in toxic pollutant concentrations,but there may be odor impacts that lead to nuisance complaints. The City's air consultant is being asked to prepare an additional scope of work to determine if there is any information that can be added to qualify the analysis with more data. Modeling of CO concentrations at two intersections is being conducted by the air consultants and will be included in the second Preliminary Draft SEIS. Staff has some other more minor comments and clarifications for the consultants. 3.Water Impacts: Only 0.94 acres of the 14.2 upland acres drain to Johns Creek. Some drainage options for Johns Creek could include diverting drainage naturally discharging to Johns Creek,but the diversion would be minimal. An administrative modification would be required. Given the minimal amount of flow to be diverted,and the proximity of the discharge to the Lake, sufficient cause to allow such an approval may exist. Erosion and discharge of turbid water to Johns Creek and Lake Washington during construction. Dewatering has the greatest potential for risk to water quality during construction. No additional outfalls to Johns Creek or the Lake are anticipated at this time. During detailed design,if additional outfalls are needed,an HPA and other permits would be required. Water quality construction impacts from uncontrolled storm runoff during construction, accidental spills,or dewatering associated with outfall construction. Construction related influences(suspended sediments,construction equipment petroleum spills, concrete rinsate„etc.)could violate water quality standards in receiving waters near the points of discharge. Stormwater discharge to Lake Washington could exceed some acute and/or chronic standards prior to dilution at the discharge point(zinc,lead,turbidity, fecal coliforms). Under one drainage plan option,Johns Creek could receive combined vehicle surface and roof/walkway surface runoff. Lead and fecal coliforms in the discharge could exceed water quality standards for Johns Creek. Johns Creek water quality during storms has always exceeded forecast concentrations for lead and fecal coliforms. Therefore,no change to the existing condition would be evident under site redevelopment. Under other drainage plan options, all runoff would be diverted(pumped)to Lake Washington after treatment. Under these other options,water quality discharge to Johns Creek would be improved because of the elimination of existing untreated roadway drainage into the creek. May 21, 1999 Page 5 Risk of landscaping chemicals(fertilizer and pesticides/herbicides)reaching Lake Washington or Johns Creek. Future use of guest dock—potential impacts could include water quality construction impacts, localized increase in hydrocarbons from the increased boat traffic and suspended sediments from prop wash. Mitigation Measures: See attached. Significant Unavoidable Impacts: With mitigation,none anticipated. Data Gaps/Staff Comments: A general comment includes ensuring that mitigation measures match identified impacts. Some mitigation measures seem to be included in the discussion of impacts,but don't appear in the mitigation list. Other comments from the Surface Water Utility include support for use of the 1992 DOE surface water manual for water quality treatment, clarification that the negligible increase in runoff to Johns Creek would not contribute to potential flooding upstream, and that description of Johns Creek should be as a natural stream modified by man rather than"man made." The consultants will be addressing potential issues related to the off-site road improvements needed on Lake Washington Boulevard. This information will appear in PDSEIS#2. 4.Fisheries Impacts: Construction activities could affect(coarse and fine sediment,uncured concrete) Lake Washington and Johns Creek. A drainage ditch(no resident fish,poor habitat)would be filled and replaced by water quality treatment elsewhere onsite. Limited, existing riparian function along Lake Washington, Johns Creek and the drainage ditch would be eliminated by construction and development,but loss of mostly exotic vegetation not expected to have a significant effect on fish habitat. Increased human activity and lighting near the Lake. Potential future dock use—impacts to water quality from boat activity,habitat degradation from shading by dock facilities and boats, added habitat for predators of salmon. Mitigation Measures: See attached. Significant Unavoidable Impacts: With mitigation,none anticipated. Data Gaps/Staff Comments: There should be confirmation of how much work could be near Johns Creek. Other comments from the Surface Water Utility include ensuring that all endangered species are covered, including potentially an endangered turtle species, if appropriate. Other comments from Development Services include whether NMFS has been contacted by the biologist related to ESA issues, and whether a biological assessment is needed. The consultants will be addressing potential issues related to the off-site road improvements needed on Lake Washington Boulevard. This information will appear in PDSEIS#2. May 21, 1999 Page 6 5.Noise Impacts: Construction noise,including pile driving noise,could affect recreational and residential uses, and although exempt from state noise limits could be bothersome to sensitive receivers. Pile driving vibration impacts—perceptible to employees at Boeing paint facility and waste water treatment plant. Pile driving vibration—outer wastewater treatment tanks could be subject to structural damage if vibration occurs within 100 feet and is in upper end of reference vibration range. HVAC units on buildings could potentially exceed nighttime noise levels in a nearby residential area(NE 14th Street/Jones Ave.NE). Jet engine testing may be audible at Southport site,but anticipated to be infrequent and with distances and intervening structures,not considered significant. Mitigation Measures: See attached. Significant Unavoidable Impacts: Temporary construction noise. Data Gaps/Staff Comments: Comments include questions about pile driving vibration mitigation and whether options can be combined based on location of the buildings. Plan Review comments include a request for elaboration of the mitigation measures,and the inclusion of monitoring. 6.Land Use Impacts: Permanent conversion of industrial land to mixed use. Bulk and scale of buildings would be increased in close proximity to Gene Coulon Park. Density greater than density in other residential areas to east and northeast. Increased demand for goods and services,not met on site could be met,most likely by existing retail uses east of the site,east of I-405. To the extent that retail needs are not met,there could be increased pressure for expansion of business uses, or conversion or redevelopment of some existing businesses. Because of the lack of commercially zoned land in the area, and predominance of land ownership by large manufacturing businesses,the potential for a significant increase in commercial uses would be limited. Mitigation Measures: See attached. Significant Unavoidable Impacts: Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the intensification of development on the site,displacement of some existing industrial use,and permanent conversation of industrial land to a mixed use redevelopment. A significant difference in building scale between on-site development and Gene Coulon Park would result. Data Gaps/Staff Comments: Comments include a need to rework the area context descriptions, correction of some numbers, and other editing. Also,there should be a distinction in the mitigation measures May 21, 1999 Page 7 between mitigating features of the proposed conceptual plan,and any other mitigation measures we may want to apply. To assist with the Planned Action Ordinance in the future,mitigation measures should show open space acres as percent minimums and proposed setbacks as minimums. 7.Plans and Policies Impacts: Proposed parking does not meet Code requirements. A modification would be needed. Potential impact to trees in Gene Coulon Park from grading or development activity in tree root zone. Mitigation Measures: Section not provided. Significant Unavoidable Impacts: Section not provided. Data Gaps/Staff Comments: This section is not complete yet. More discussion of Comprehensive Plan policies needs to be included. The discussion of Shoreline Master Program compliance should identify the proposal as a water-enjoyment/water-oriented use. Also, it should be noted that a Tree Cutting and Land Clearing variance could be needed if vegetation/trees would be cleared within 25 feet of Johns Creek. Comments from the Fire Department address ensuring that the promenade is clearly identified as a fire lane in addition to being identified as dedicated for pedestrian use. Outstanding information includes how the City will approach the shoreline setback for the mixed residential/retail buildings. The SMP requires 25' setbacks for residential buildings, and 50' setbacks for commercial buildings. There is no mixed use standard. The determination would indicate that the two mixed residential-retail buildings along the shoreline are consistent with the Shoreline Master Program by providing a minimum 35' setback and an average 70' setback. Originally,we had thought about publishing the determination along with the Draft EIS, and then if there were no appeals the determination would stand. Additional input has been solicited from DOE, and their comments have been forwarded to the City Attorney to indicate an appropriate direction. 8.Population,Housing,Employment Impacts: No negative impacts identified. Increase of between 1,037 to 1,110 persons. Increased housing of 543-581 dwellings which helps meet targets. Additional 1,751 to 2,584 employees. Mitigation Measures: None Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None Data Gaps/Staff Comments: Some corrections to figures and dates are needed. May 21, 1999 Page 8 9.Aesthetics, Light and Glare Impacts: View from Gene Coulon Park would be substantially changed. Encroachment of fire lane and grading intrudes into drip line of trees which act as a buffer between Park and development. Shading of playground greater in Winter(2:30 p.m.)and Spring/Fall equinox(5:00 p.m.),but during peak utilization in Summer,the increase in shade would be minimal. Potential glare impacts to children's playground during morning hours when sun is in the east. Mitigation Measures: See attached. Significant Unavoidable Impacts: The scale and height of buildings would increase subsequent to redevelopment. Some increase in shading and glare conditions at the Park playground area would occur. Data Gaps/Staff Comments: Information from the applicant's arborist report should be included. It should be noted in this section and under Parks and Recreation that the emergency secondary access will probably require the removal of one or two trees depending on width. Also,there should be a distinction in the mitigation measures between mitigating features of the proposed conceptual plan, and any other mitigation measures we may want to apply. We should discuss potential mitigation addressing building articulation or other features that could be incorporated into the buildings,particularly near the Park. The Parks Division has requested that the shade analysis indicate impacts to Park plants and turf as a result of increased shading. 10. Transportation Impacts: Plan A—9,367 net new daily trips; Plan B - 11,202 net new daily trips. Primary impacts to intersections at site entrance/Lake Washington Boulevard, and Park Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard/Garden Avenue. See Tables 1 and 4 for calculated delays and LOS. Onsite parking—fee based parking possible for office uses. It's possible that office users would park at Gene Coulon Park which is at full capacity during summer months. If fees are reduced or waived on evenings and weekends, overflow parking from Park during summer could affect Southport. Increased demand for transit,particularly during a.m. and p.m.peak hours. Increased demand for pedestrian and bicycle activity along Lake Washington Boulevard. Accidents/safety—attraction of more trips south of site access and Park Drive. Queues on private accessways. May 21, 1999 Page 9 Mitigation Measures: Refer to channelization plan. Signalize site entrance/Lake Washington Boulevard. Park Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard/Garden Avenue intersection improvements. Widen Lake Washington Boulevard from Park Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard/Garden Avenue intersection to site entrance intersection. Mitigation Fees Negotiated parking agreement addressing Park and Southport Parking enforcement,monitoring Children at play signs and speedbumps in park and in residential portion. Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None identified. Data Gaps/Staff Comments: The consultant is preparing information related to railroad impacts. The section should beef up discussions of bike and pedestrian impacts and usage, as well as transit options in mitigation. The Transportation Planning Division has requested: At the site entrance,have the EIS transportation consultants do more analysis to determine if a left- turn pocket is needed. They should review NCHRP Report 279 and ITE Left Turn Bay Warrants considering average daily traffic. They should look at not just the planning,but the operational aspects. At the Park Avenue/Lake Washington Blvd./Garden Avenue Intersection,the EIS transportation consultants should look at mid-day counts(provided by the City), and the effect upon Boeing's access left turns there could affect queues on Park Avenue). Would c-curbs be needed? Comments from the Airport Manager include addressing that while the site is not directly under areas routinely utilized by aircraft that there is a potential for aircraft to operate as low as 179 feet, and that there could be noise although exempt in state law. Potential height restrictions should be addressed. Concerns from the Fire Department and Parks Division include the amount of parking proposed as well as the reliance on parking enforcement as a mitigation measure. Comments from the Plan Review Division address that parking demand information and a discussion of parking adequacy should be incorporated. 11. Fire/EMS Impacts: 173 to 196 calls per year,creating need for 2 to 2.3 FTE firefighters, and 0.2 to 0.31~"1'h support staff,based on existing staff to calls ratios. Mitigation Measures: See attached. Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None identified. May 21, 1999 Page 10 Data Gaps/Staff Comments: There should be a distinction in mitigation between code requirements, mitigating plan features, and any additional mitigation needed. The Fire Dept Intent has raised concerns about the amount of parking proposed, and the inclination of future site users to park in the Fire Lane which would require increased parking enforcement during regular business hours and evenings and weekends. The FTE formula should be reviewed, as it apparently was not supplied by staff. Also,the discussion should indicate that the promenade needs to be clearly identified as a fire lane in addition to being identified as dedicated for pedestrian use. 12. Police Impacts: 780 to 942 additional calls, and 1 to 1.2 FTE police officer based on existing calls per officer ratios. Mitigation Measures: See attached. Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None identified. Data Gaps/Staff Comments: No significant comments. The FTE formula should be reviewed, as it apparently was not supplied by staff. 13. Schools Impacts: 231 to 247 elementary,middle and high school students. Mitigation Measures: See attached. Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None identified. Data Gaps/Staff Comments: No significant comments. 14. Parks/Recreation Impacts: Increased demand on nearby parks and recreational facilities, especially Gene Coulon Park. If using recommended standards, 29 to 31 acres of recreational facilities would be needed to serve estimated population at Southport. A redesign of the children's playground area and the trail system of the park would be required to ensure adequate circulation and connection to the waterfront promenade. Fire lane/grading impacts to trees in Park. Parking—see above. Mitigation Measures: See attached. May 21, 1999 Page 11 Significant Unavoidable Impacts: With implementation of mitigation measures,none anticipated. Data Gaps/Staff Comments: Information from the arborist report should be included. Also a discussion of the potential to remove one or two trees and a couple of parking stalls at the emergency secondary access should be addressed. Comments from the Parks Division include: a preference for use of the drive aisle in the Park as a fire lane rather than a fire lane and grading affect Park trees,concern about grading potentially extending into the Park,confirmation that the promenade would be concrete,concerns about parking impacts of fee based parking on the Park and overlap of peak parking demands during the summer. Related to mitigation measures,the Parks Division would like clarifications about credits given towards facility dedication and playground redesign. Mitigation measures should indicate a requirement to dedicate a recreation easement on the promenade and dock. Other data clarifications are also requested. 15. Water Impacts: 240 to 290 gpm would be required for domestic maximum water day demand. To achieve fire flow,a looped water main would be required. Looped main and fire hydrants would need to be conveyed to the City, and an easement would be required. Mitigation Measures: See attached. Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None identified. Data Gaps/Staff Comments: Comments are minor. Should the mitigation measures reference the need for an easement? 16. Wastewater Impacts: Peak sanitary sewer flows 600 to 915 gpm. Flows would exceed capacity of existing 8-inch line. Mitigation Measures: See attached. Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None identified. Data Gaps/Staff Comments: Minor comments and clarifications. 17. Solid Waste Impacts: 1,799 to 2,310 tons of solid waste per year at buildout. Mitigation Measures: See attached. May 21, 1999 Page 12 Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None identified. Data Gaps/Staff Comments: Comments from the Solid Waste section include clarifications about collection services,recycling goals,the location of solid waste transfer stations, and that given the City will be renegotiating its contract with the City's collection contractor,the mitigation measure should not mention the current provider specifically. GENERAL ISSUES The mitigation measures should be presented in a manner which will facilitate the Planned Action should it ultimately be applied to the site. The mitigation measures should identify applicable City regulations and requirements,required permits,mitigating features of the proposed conceptual plan, and additional proposed mitigation. Mitigation for the future dock should be identified separately from mitigation needed for the proposed Southport actions. APPLICANT COMMENTS In accordance with the funding agreement between the City and Seco Development,the applicant was provided copies of the Preliminary Draft SEIS. Seco Development recently provided comments as shown in the attachment. Staff has not had an opportunity to review and respond to the comments. It is at the City's discretion to include or exclude their comments. Their comments can be discussed at the meeting. cc: Sue Carlson iIIIMMINW t} `.Q2ti :=¢ t ' ?fi?k //usSx•:4. :i... Building A om. \.,,.,,..•. T.• = "•'.,; .ec'. o 1--"•--r L Building B EI P: `ivrxemra t i 1 1A=NA...--- .0 I i i firtI771 i Ay* '- :;',4,..e,.. AN 0 :I. .‘,.3:-.14 - Building 1 k1 i =` r Building 2 iiiI _____.-.,..--e•ii., Building 3 I 1... „--- 711•11iii illb ate' =. it; Building C ii r..(:, 1.1/1.0),:54,,,,...4 ii•t fete, L fit 1 il+ ` viz E. At APromenadeO - i 0 n:=;,:- Plaza P3) r!''' -try Courtyard 7 .--- 4 T\ . "'I V/i- 1 ` 1i=s.'-0 100 2C0 N. Source: Mithun Partners,Inc. Figure 3SouthportDevelopment Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. Planned Action Development Plan A- Site Plan riciiminary Draft SEIS#1 MITIGATION MEASURES The following pages provide a list of currently proposed mitigation measures. Staff comments are interspersed t\o discuss appropriateness or feasibility. EARTH Geologic Hazards Erosion Mitigation Measures A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESC) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required to prevent and control erosion and discharge, according to City of Renton and Department of Ecology standards. To mitigate and reduce the sheet and channel erosion hazard potential on the Southport site under the Proposed Action, the TESC and SWPPP could include the following: Surface water and domestic discharge, either during or after construction, should not randomly daylight on the site. All temporary and/or permanent devices used to collect surface runoff should be directed into tightlined systems that discharge into an approved storm water facility. Soils to be used around the site during construction should be stored in such a manner to minimize erosion. Protective measures may include, but are not necessarily limited to, covering with plastic sheeting or the use of silt fences. The majority of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces under the Proposed Action with roughly 15 percent of the site to consist of landscaping and vegetated areas. Source control mitigation measures should be conducted for cleared areas. All exposed subgrades should be seeded, covered with plastic sheeting, or otherwise protected during inclement weather or the wetter,winter months. During construction, silt fences should be constructed along the boundaries to Lake Washington, John's Creek, and Gene Coulon Park to reduce the potential of sediment-laden runoff discharging into these areas. In addition,rock check dams should be established along roadways during construction. Temporary sedimentation traps or ponds should be installed to provide erosion and sediment transport control during construction. The geotechnical engineer should review the grading, erosion, and drainage plans prior to final design to further assist in mitigating erosion and sediment transport hazards during and after development. Additional erosion mitigation measures may be offered at the time of final design in response to site-specific plans. Details of the TESC and SWPPP would be determined as part of the construction permit review process. Landslide Measures No landslide mitigation measures would be required. 1 rreliminary Draft SEIS#1 Seismic Hazard Measures Mitigation measures would be required to reduce the risk of potential liquefaction on any proposed structures. In general,this would require utilizing a deepened foundation system as discussed under Geotechnical Engineering Considerations below. Geotechnical Considerations Potential geotechnical impacts could be adequately mitigated through characterization of surface and subsurface conditions, proper geotechnical engineering, structural design, and proper construction implementation of the design. The preliminary geotechnical report prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. (1999) addresses potential geotechnical mitigation measures. Such measures are presented below. As part of the building design process, additional, specific measures could be identified,or the measures below could be modified. Foundations A deepened foundation would be required for support of the proposed buildings to reduce potential differential settlement and liquefaction impacts. Floor slabs should be pile supported if settlement to the slabs would be a concern. The necessity of a vibration monitoring program for structures on and off the site as a result of pile driving would be determined during the design phase as more detailed information on construction techniques are finalized. The geotechnical engineer could survey existing structures surrounding the site, including buildings, surface improvements, bulkheads, and buried utilities, to determine if pile-driving vibrations pose a potential threat to any existing structures, as part of the building design review process. If existing foundation piles are to be reused,the soundness of the piles should be tested to the satisfaction of the geotechnical and structural engineers. If piles are not to be reused, they should be exposed, and cut off at an elevation to be determined by the geotechnical and structural engineers. Site Preparation A minimum of 12 inches of structural fill, compacted and proofrolled per the geotechnical engineer's recommendations, should be placed beneath the pavement, non-pile supported slabs, or structural fill areas to reduce potential settlement impacts. Alternatively, the subgrade could be chemically treated utilizing lime, kiln dust, or cement. The use of geotextile fabric or overexcavation of soft soils and replacement with structural fill could also be required to obtain a firm unyielding subgrade. The exact construction methodologies utilized would be dependent on final design plans. Excavations to remove or demolish below-grade structures could encounter ground water and require excavation shoring and dewatering to reduce settlement hazards. Dewatering should be conducted in a manner that would minimize potential impacts due to settlement. The quantity of water removed could be reduced along with the magnitude of the resulting 2 rLcaiminary Draft SEIS#1 settlement through proper design of the dewatering system and construction sequencing. In addition, proper disposal of dewatering effluent should be stipulated in the design specifications for the placement of utilities. Structural Fill Up to 7 feet of fill could be required to support roadway areas, and in some cases, slab-on- grade floors that are not a settlement concern. All structural fill should be placed and compacted as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. Proper subgrade preparation and drainage control would be necessary for the roadways,utilities,or structural fill bodies. The on-site sediments are moisture-sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. These sediments would require drying prior to their use in structural fills, and the use of these soils in structural fills would be limited to favorable dry weather conditions. If fill is placed in wet weather, or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, imported backfill consisting of free- draining granular material would be required. Some areas such as utility trenches, manholes, vaults, and heavy traffic roadways could still be susceptible to settlement under these soil conditions, and long-term maintenance of roadway areas would be required. Additional Considerations Geotechnical oversight would be an integral part of Southport's design and construction process. A geotechnical review of the design plans would be performed before the plans are finalized to assist in reducing potential geotechnical impacts. As is typical with similar projects in this region, construction monitoring would be required during the foundation and earthwork activities. In this manner, the adequacy of the foundation and earthwork would be evaluated as construction progresses, and appropriate responses to site conditions would be addressed in the field. AIR QUALITY Construction Emissions from construction equipment and trucks could be reduced by using relatively new, well-maintained equipment. Avoiding prolonged periods of vehicle idling and engine-powered equipment would also reduce emissions. Trucking materials to and from the site could be scheduled to minimize congestion during peak travel times and thereby minimize secondary air quality impacts caused by reduced travel speeds. Dust produced by construction could be reduced by using a number of techniques. Areas of exposed soils such as storage yards and construction roadways could be sprayed with water or other dust suppressants. Roads and other areas that might be exposed for prolonged periods could be paved, planted with a vegetation ground cover or covered with gravel. Soils carried out of the construction area by exiting trucks could be minimized by wheel washing and covering dusty truck loads. Finally, soil that does escape the construction area on exiting vehicles could be reduced with an effective street-cleaning effort. Staff Comment: Regarding paving exposed areas, is this necessary given the site is developed and paved already?] 3 rreiiminary Draft SEIS#1 Operation Traffic Sources Because dispersion modeling has not yet been performed,it is not yet possible to determine whether mitigation is warranted or to suggest or evaluate specific mitigation measures to alleviate air quality impacts. Specific analyses and recommendations for mitigation measures, if any, will be provided as part of the modeling effort. Indirect Impacts There may be the potential for air quality impacts to future residents and tenants of Southport from the nearby existing industrial sources;mitigation measures may or may not be applicable. The City of Renton will determine whether mitigation can be required of Southport, if significant impacts are possible, as part of the consideration of the Planned Action Ordinance. The following mitigation measures are,therefore,shown for informational purposes only. The indoor air quality of the office buildings could be improved using filters on the roof HVAC systems. The filter system would need to filter particulates as well as VOCs. A synthetic fiber filter media would remove the particulate load while an activated carbon filter would remove most VOCs. Activated carbon filters can remove fumes, odors, solvents, hydrocarbons, and organic vapors. However,filters might not stop some pollutants emitted by Boeing's painting operation. Indoor air quality could also be improved by placing the HVAC systems at or near ground level. A ground-level intake would need to be placed away from vehicular emissions and away from any potential downwash effects. Mitigation efforts could be concentrated at the source of emissions. The applicant could work with Boeing to reduce their emissions or increase the dispersion of air pollutants. However, Boeing has already probably applied the most effective measures for reducing these emissions, so any such additional mitigation measures could be very costly. Staff Comments: The analysis related to air quality/odor impacts from Boeing is fairly speculative, and worst case, as are the mitigation measures, and the section needs to be edited for content as well as better determining mitigation and responsibilities. Boeing has had their own consultants prepare detailed modeling, but at this time is not open to sharing the information. From Boeing staff, verbally, we have been told that the presence of taller buildings near the Boeing plant should not result in toxic pollutant concentrations, but there may be odor impacts that lead to nuisance complaints. The City's air consultant is being asked to prepare an additional scope of work to determine if there is any information that can be added to qualms the analysis with more data.] 4 iminary Draft SEIS#1 WATER Staff Comment: A general comment includes ensuring that mitigation measures match identified impacts. Some mitigation measures seem to be included in the discussion of impacts, but don't appear in the mitigation list.] Hydrogeology Surface Water With proper implementation and maintenance of the proposed stormwater control system, no additional mitigation would be required. Groundwater Ground water may be encountered during construction of utility trenches or any other below- grade earthwork activities. Dewatering should be conducted in a manner that would minimize potential impacts due to settlement. The quantity of water removed could be reduced along with the magnitude of the resulting settlement through proper design of the dewatering system and construction sequencing. Construction techniques such as reducing the length of trench open at one time could be required. The specific location, extent, and depth of utilities would dictate the dewatering design, and in turn the quantity of water that should be removed. Specific recommendations would be determined during the design phase once plans are finalized, as part of more detailed geotechnical evaluation. In addition, proper disposal of dewatering effluent should be stipulated in the design specifications for the placement of utilities. Water Quality A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESC) and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared and implemented to prevent introduction of sediment, turbid water, construction waste, or accidental spills of hydrocarbons to Lake Washington or John's Creek during construction. Details of these plans would be prepared during the construction permit review process with the City of Renton and Department of Ecology (refer to the EARTH section for identification of possible TESC measures). The TESC plan could also include restricting on mass grading to the dry season; capture and filtration of silted water before release; and prohibition of on-site release of concrete wash- out,unless it is to temporary,lined ponds. The 1992 Department of Ecology (DOE) Manual standards for stormwater quality treatment would be utilized for treatment system design; these standards are more stringent than the 1990 KC Manual requirements that the City of Renton has adopted. Water quality treatment of surfaces routinely accessible to motor vehicles would be provided by wet vault(s) designed to the 1992 DOE standards. Four inches of compost could be tilled to an approximate depth of 6 inches under all landscaped areas to be lawn. This organic layer would: a)increase infiltration and water retention under the turf rooted zone,which would reduce leaching and enhance evapotranspiration;b)create organic binding sites for organic pesticides and metals; and c) create an organic substrate for microbial growth,which would biodegrade organic pesticides and reduce leaching of nitrogen through uptake and denitrification. 5 Preliminary Draft SEIS#1 If pesticides are to be used,they could be selected from low-mobility products. If (1) the ratio of roof/walkway/fire lane to parking/roadway surfaces falls substantially below those identified under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan, and if(2) there is a corresponding potential increase in average daily trips, then additional metals removal is recommended for discharge to Lake Washington. Additional removal could be achieved by use of a compost filter or other underground filter insert added to the wet vault system for Lake Washington. If needed, the filter system should have sufficient metals removal capability to reduce metals to within water quality standards prior to discharge, or to not increase the dilution required to achieve standards compliance beyond that level evaluated in this SEIS. Staff Comment: What are the costs and benefits associated with the above mitigation measure?] Native vegetation or locally adapted landscaping species could be used, as possible, to avoid the need for pesticides. FISHERIES RESOURCES The following mitigation measures are recommended to minimize the potential for impacts to fisheries resources from redevelopment of the site. Directional lighting and shading provisions for all light standards along the promenade on the Lake Washington shoreline side should be implemented. The cooling water tunnel entrances should be permanently sealed prior to backfilling the tunnel. The plug should consist of a pre-constructed structure made of concrete or other non- corrosive material. Native shrub and tree species could be planted along the shoreline of John's Creek to replace the existing blackberry bushes. Native species such as sallal (Gaultheria shallon), Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), elderberry (Sambucus sp.), willow (Salix sp.) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) are recommended to provide some additional benefit from allochthonous (non- native) contribution and insect productivity to fisheries resources in the creek and Lake Washington. Water quality measures should include limiting mass grading to the dry season and collection and treatment of turbid water. Additional water quality measures,identified in the EARTH and WATER sections of this SEIS would also benefit fisheries resources. The preliminary Conceptual Master Plan (Plan A or Plan B) does not include plans for improvements to the existing dock facilities. Such improvements would be subject to separate, future applications sponsored by the City or applicant. Measures generally applicable to the minimization of impacts to fisheries resources from future potential dock improvements are highlighted below. Minimize over-water structure. Construct all walking surfaces to allow as much natural light penetration as possible. 6 rreiiminary Draft SEIS#1 Remove unnecessary structures such as abandoned or unused pilings, dolphins, finger piers, sheetpile,etc. Minimize vertical structures(e.g.,pilings,walls)in the water column. Use light colored materials. Minimize structure in the nearshore area used by salmonids during migration. NOISE Construction Noise Because construction noise during daytime hours is exempt from the limits in Washington's noise rule, no mitigation is required in order to comply with the state or local noise limits. However, because the potential for on and off-site noise impacts from uncontrolled construction noise sources would exist, and because the construction would take place over 5 years, measures to reduce potential noise impacts are warranted and listed below. Washington's noise limits apply to construction noise during nighttime hours; therefore, construction activities could be limited to daytime hours to the extent practicable. This restriction could include all noisy start-up and preparatory activities such as starting engines before 7:00 a.m., which can disturb people trying to sleep. Noise from any work during nighttime hours (after 10 p.m.) received in residentially zoned areas would be subject to the nighttime noise limits in the Washington Administrative Code. Relatively simple and inexpensive practices could reduce the effects of construction noise on people nearby. For example, construction noise could be reduced with properly sized and maintained mufflers, engine intake silencers, engine enclosures, and turning off idle equipment. Such measures are especially effective for engines used in pumps, compressors, welding machines, and similar equipment that operate continuously and contribute to high, steady background noise levels. In addition to providing about a 10-dBA reduction in equivalent sound levels, such measures would demonstrate the contractors' commitment to minimizing noise impacts during construction. In order to reduce the generation of on-site construction noise and the transmission of such noise to off-site locations, construction contracts could specify that all equipment and especially mufflers be maintained in good working order. Contracts could further specify that engine enclosures be used on non-portable equipment when the engine is the dominant source of noise and that stationary equipment would be placed as far away from sensitive receiving locations as possible. Where this is infeasible, portable noise barriers could be placed around the equipment with the opening directed away from the sensitive receiving locations. Construction contractors could be asked, to the extent feasible, to substitute hydraulic or electric models for impact tools such as jack hammers, rock drills and pavement breakers to reduce construction and demolition noise. Noise from material handling could be minimized by requiring operators to lift rather than drag materials wherever feasible. Although back-up alarms are exempt from the noise ordinances,noises from such devices are among the most annoying sounds from a construction site. Contracts could suggest that where feasible, equipment operators would drive forward rather than backward to minimize 7 minary Draft SEIS#1 this noise. Alternately, potential mitigation could include using ambient-sensing vehicle back-up alarms. These devices sample the ambient sound level when a vehicle is about to back up,and emit a signal only 10-dBA louder than the existing level (as opposed to emitting a signal at a preset, maximum level). Construction contracts could suggest the use of such devices to reduce the noise perceived at off-site locations and thereby reduce possible annoyance. Staff Comment: Are all the above measures necessary given location of site in relation to surrounding uses?] Pile Driving Noise Pile driving could be limited to weekdays between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. This would limit this noise source to those times of the day and those days of the week when people are most likely to be away from home and when there would be fewer visitors to Gene Coulon Park. This time restriction also would limit pile driving to times when other noise sources would make the addition of pile-driving noise less noticeable. Staff Comment: Is there more flexibility in determining hours mentioned above?] A grout injected pile system could be evaluated which would not require impact driving. Depending on the equipment and procedures used for this system,this could reduce the noise associated with pile driving activities. If this system is not chosen, the following mitigation measures could be applied to the impact pile driving activities. Staff Comment: The grout injected pile system is probably much more expensive.] There are a number of simple measures that could reduce the noise generated by impact-type pile driving. These measures would provide only limited reduction, however, generally 5 dBA or less. Potential impact hammer noise reduction measures include the following: Insert a wooden or plastic dolly between the pile head and the hammer Apply a damping compound to steel piles to reduce the vibration/ringing Silence exhaust gas pulsations from the engines of diesel-powered hammers Remove any unnecessary hanging chains; fix any loose bolts,panels, or over-slack leader guides Use a cushioned method in conjunction with a "heavy hammer-short drop" practice. This requires using interference fit guides to prevent kicking,rolling and vibration in the pile. While the overall sound level is not substantially reduced,the nature of the sound may be less annoying to people. Regular equipment service and maintenance Another potential mitigation for impact drivers would be to use a Hoesch Noise Abatement Tower. This device encloses the hammer and driven pile. It was designed to provide the maximum sound level reduction with minimum possible weight. The composite panel is comprised of a "sandwiched" layer of 2 mm steel, .4 mm plastic, 8 iminary Draft SEIS#1 and 1.5 mm steel. A polyurethane layer 150 mm thick is foamed on the inner walls of the panels. This enclosure can reduce impact pile driving noise by up to 20 dBA. Drawbacks include the difficulty of using this device on uneven ground, slopes, or in water. This mitigation could be expensive,however. Staff Comment: Are all the above measures necessary given the site's location?] Pile Driving Vibration Staff Comments: Comments include questions about pile driving vibration mitigation and whether options can be combined based on location of the buildings. Plan Review comments include a request for elaboration of the mitigation measures, and the inclusion of monitoring.] As part of the detailed building design process, a geotechnical engineer could survey existing structures in the surrounding area to more thoroughly determine the potential for vibration related impacts. The need for vibration monitoring during pile driving could be determined at that time. As stated previously, a grout injected pile system could be evaluated which would not require impact driving. Depending on the specific equipment and procedures used, this system could reduce the vibration associated with pile driving activities. If this system is not chosen, the following mitigation measures could be applied to reduce the potential for ground-borne vibrations impacting operations at Boeing's paint facility and wastewater treatment plant. Dig a trench between the pile driving location and the western property boundary. The drawback is that the trench would have to be very wide and deep to be effective at the lower frequencies. Staff Comment: The above mitigation measure should be discussed to see if it's really necessary or if it could be deleted given other potential mitigation, and in light of highly conservative analysis.] Preclude multiple pile driving activities from occurring near the Boeing property boundary. Unlike noise, total vibration levels could be substantially reduced if only one vibration intensive activity occurs at a time. Operational Noise Specific studies on the potential for significant HVAC noise impacts could be conducted as part of the building design process. If such studies indicate that HVAC equipment noise could cause noise impacts at the nearest residences overlooking the site, the following mitigation measures could be employed. The need for such measures should be determined as part of the building permit process. Reorient the HVAC equipment so that the loudest side(HVAC unit noise is often directional) faces away from the most sensitive receptors. Place noise barriers around the HVAC units. Choose quieter equipment. 9 S urinary Draft SEIS#1 Provide silencers on the air intake and exhaust. LAND USE The preliminary Conceptual Master Plan includes approximately 4.7 acres (Plan A) to 4.2 acres(Plan B) of open space which would help offset proposed intensification of the site. Setbacks would be provided between proposed buildings and adjacent properties, and to Lake Washington. Staff Comment: There should be a distinction in the mitigation measures between mitigating features of the proposed conceptual plan, and any other mitigation measures we may want to apply. To assist with the Planned Action Ordinance in the future, mitigation measures should show open space acres as percent minimums and proposed setbacks as minimums.] POPULATION,HOUSING&EMPLOYMENT No mitigation measures would be necessary. AESTHETICS,LIGHT AND GLARE The preliminary Conceptual Master Plan includes approximately 4.7 acres (Plan A) to 4.2 acres (Plan B) of open space and public amenities which would help offset proposed intensification of the site. Setbacks would be provided between proposed buildings and adjacent properties. A certified arborist would be retained to assess the potential impacts of proposed construction activities on existing oak trees along the western edge of the park, adjacent to the proposed fire lane and berm at Southport. The arborist would offer recommendations for mitigation, as warranted. Certain trail and outdoor area design elements of the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan e.g., benches, gates, waste receptacles, plant materials, lighting, handrail details) wcould be consistent with the Gene Coulon Park design theme. Staff Comments: There should be a distinction in the mitigation measures between mitigating features of the proposed conceptual plan, and any other mitigation measures we may want to apply. We should discuss potential mitigation addressing building articulation or other features that could be incorporated into the buildings,particularly near the Park Ultimately, there may be landscape design elements proposed which would be different than the Park which would be attractive, and compatible.] PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES -FIRE Per Resolution #2895, fire mitigation fees would be paid to the City at the rate of$388 per multi-family unit,and$0.52 per square foot of commercial building area. Staff Comment: The PDSEIS calculates the mitigation fees as ranging from $490,444 to 635,188.] 10 111 iminary Draft SEIS#1 Approved fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems would be installed throughout all structures. An emergency access would be provided via the 45-foot wide pedestrian plaza located immediately south of Building B with access from Gene Coulon Park's southern parking lot. Removable vehicle barriers would block ordinary vehicle traffic. The fire lanes along the secondary access, along the south/southwest site perimeter, and along the eastern site perimeter would meet fire department requirements by having widths of 20 feet. Fire department apparatus access would be provided within 150 feet of all points on the buildings via the looped 20-foot-wide fire lanes. Roadways would be signed as fire lanes. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES -POLICE Tax revenues generated from redevelopment of the site under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan, accruing to the City of Renton, would help offset the direct police service impacts of the project. Staff Comment: Copy the tax revenue measure shown under Police and put under Fire and other public service mitigation sections.] The applicant of future redevelopment of the site could coordinate with the Police Department to include on-site safety features that would help lower the demand for service. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES -SCHOOLS Property tax revenues from development under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan would accrue to the Renton School District and would help offset the effects of added students. The applicant would coordinate with the school district to ensure safe and efficient bus transportation to and from the site. Adequate provisions would be provided on-site for bus turn-around(s) or on Lake Washington Boulevard for a bus pull-out as applicable. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES-PARKS The preliminary Conceptual Master Plan includes substantial on-site public and private recreational features, including public access to Lake Washington, a waterfront promenade, public plaza areas and courtyards. The promenade would serve as an extension of the Lake Washington Trail from Gene Coulon Park and would provide an opportunity for a future connection to properties to the west and the Cedar River Trail. The playground in Gene Coulon Park would be redesigned to ensure that the pedestrian connection between the park and Southport would not direct pedestrians into the playground area. The bearer of the responsibility for the playground redesign would be determined by the City. If undertaken by the applicant, credit against the required mitigation fee could be allowed by the City. 11 lbiminary Draft SEIS#1 A certified arborist would be retained to analyze and assess potential impacts upon established oak trees at the western edge of the park property, adjacent to the proposed berm and fire lane in Southport. The arborist would recommend mitigation options, if warranted. Per the City's Park Mitigation Fee Policy, impact fees in the amount of approximately 192,500 for Plan A, and approximately $206,000 for Plan B' would be contributed to the City to offset demands on the City's park and recreation system resulting from redevelopment of Southport. The applicant could offset 33 percent (maximum) of the fee amount by providing on-site park and recreational amenities. In addition, further credit for the applicant's contribution toward redesign of the playground area in Gene Coulon Park could be made by the City. Staff Comment: The Parks and Recreation Mitigation Resolution indicates that park/recreation impacts can be mitigated by one or more solutions including dedication, fees, etc. There is flexibility in how the Resolution is applied on a case by case basis. We should indicate that the City would apply the Resolution to guide mitigation, and not mention credit maximums.] Certain trail and outdoor area design elements of the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan e.g., benches, grates, waste receptacles, plant materials, lighting, handrail details) could be consistent with the Gene Coulon Park design theme to achieve an effective transition. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES -WATER&SEWER Redevelopment under the preliminary Conceptual Master Plan would require construction of a new 10-inch line looped through the site. This line would connect to the existing 6-inch line serving Gene Coulon Park. The 6-inch connection to Lake Washington Boulevard would be replaced with a 10-inch line. These improvements would insure adequate water pressure and fire flow capacity for Southport. The existing 8-inch sewer line would be replaced with a 10-inch line to insure adequate capacity to handle the estimated flows from Southport under Plan A or B. Construction beneath Burlington Northern Railroad's tracks and in the public right-of-way would be required to install the new connections. The following mitigation measures would likely apply: Construction plan review and scheduling with all affected utilities and the railroad would be coordinated well in advance of construction. Boring and jacking would likely be required for construction underneath the existing rail lines. Staff Comment:Should the mitigation measures reference the needfor an easement?] PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILTIES - SOLID WASTE Based on City of Renton Development Impact Mitigation Policy for Park and Recreation Facilities, 354.51/per multi-family unit. Calculations: Plan A: $354.51 x 543 units=$192,499,Plan B: $354.51 x 581 units=$205,970. 12 iminary Draft SEIS#1 A specific solid waste management plan would be formulated by the applicant of future redevelopment in conjunction with Waste Management—Rainier. TRANSPORTATION See excerpt pages which follow. 13 1 I Table 1 1999 EXISTING CONDITIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY :: '.t• i evt„ February/March Summer S i'"yi Per .j r s .! ! Z ,t., r y.-b°firs ,, rY Traffic ' Peak wxrf «`: `` ,, (+ it Intersection Control': Hour = Delay2 • LOS3 '; Delay2 LOS3 Park Drive/I-405 NB Ramps S A.M. 15.7 B 15.7 B I P.M. 21.3 C 21.4 C Park Drive/I-405 SB Ramps S A.M. 15.5 B 15.4 B P.M. 29.9 C 30.0 C Park Drive/Garden Avenue/LWB4 S A.M. 38.5 D 50.7 D P.M. 30.5 C 35.9 D LWB4/Southport Access/Houser Way AWS A.M. 25.5 D 35.0 D P.M. 9.3 A 10.4 B NE 44th Street/I-405 NB Ramps TWS A.M. ECL5 F ECL5 F P.M. 40.1 E 42.9 E NE 44th Street/I-405 SB Ramps TWS A.M. ECL5 F ECL5 F P.M. 18.4 C 19.1 C N 30th Street/I-405 NB Ramps AWS A.M. 21.8 C 21.8 C P.M. 22.9 C 23.4 C N 30th Street/I-405 SB Ramps AWS A.M. 9.6 A 9.6 A P.M. 14.6 B 14.7 B N 30th Street/Burnett Avenue AWS A.M. 7.7 A 7.7 A P.M. 7.6 A 7.6 A N 30th Street/LWB4 TWS A.M. 12.7 B 12.9 B P.M. 9.4 A 9.6 A Notas: 1. S=signalized intersection,AWS=all-way stop-controlled intersection,TWS=two-way stop-controlled intersection. 2. Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. At signalized intersections and all-way stop-controlled intersections,delay is based on the average control delay reported for the entire intersection. Delay at two-way stop-controlled intersections is based on average control delay for the worst movement. 3. LOS is the level of service based on the methodology outlined in the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual. 4. LWB=Lake Washington Boulevard. 5. ECL=exceeds calculable limits. Route 240 serves Clyde Hill, Downtown Bellevue, Factoria, Newport Hills, Newcastle, the Renton Boeing Park-n-Ride, and downtown Renton. On a weekday, the route runs in both directions between 5:00 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. with between 20- and 60-minute headways time between subsequent buses). Route 247 originates in Redmond in the morning, and serves Overlake, downtown Bellevue freeway stop, Eastgate, Newport Hills, the Renton Boeing Park-n-Ride, the South Renton Park-n-Ride, and Kent. There are four runs in the morning between 5:30 and 7:45 a.m., with 20- to 30-minute headways. The route is reversed in the p.m. peak, with five runs between 3:30 and 6:40 p.m., with 30-minute headways. I w:\990404eportsbseis(5/11/99)is 9 III Table 4 2004 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY FOR SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT - L ` Alternatives No Action ',:n c;‘-4 1, ?-.- ': No Action Industrial Plan A -Plan B • Traffic .Peak . F: •'y'i , Intersection Controls Hour Delay2, LLOS3 Delay2 LOS3 '. Delay2 LOS3 •Delay2 LOS3 Park Drive/I-405 NB S A.M. 16.4 B 22.2 C 24.1 C 25.6 C Ramps P.M. 21.9 C 24.2 C 24.0 C 24.0 C Park Drive/l-405 SB S A.M. 15.8 B 16.7 B 18.0 B 17.6 B Ramps P.M. 29.0 C 32.4 C 32.0 C 33.2 C Park Drive/Garden S A.M. 62.9 E 69.2 E 103.3 F 119.7 F Avenue/LWB4 P.M. 39.0 D 55.2 E 121.7 F 166.0 F LWB4/Southport AWS A.M. 52.6 F 62.0 F 279.6 F 416.5 F Access/Houser Way P.M. 10.8 B 30.5 D 235.4 F 356.5 F NE 44th Street/I-405 NB TWS A.M. ECL5 F ECL5 F ECL5 F ECL5 F Ramps P.M. 79.4 F 84.0 F 91.7 F 96.9 F NE 44th Street/I-405 SB TWS A.M. ECL5 F ECL5 F ECL5 F ECL5 F Ramps P.M. 22.6 C 23.2 C 24.2 C 24.8 C N 30th Street/I-405 NB AWS A.M. 30.9 D 30.9 D 30.9 D 30.9 D Ramps P.M. 33.8 D 34.7 D 35.7 E 36.4 E N 30th Street/I-405 SB AWS A.M. 10.1 B 10.1 B 10.1 B 10.1 B Ramps P.M. 17.3 C 17.4 C 17.6 C 17.7 C N 30th Street/Burnett AWS A.M. 7.9 A 7.9 A 7.9 A 7.9 A Avenue P.M. 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.7 A N 30th Street/LWB' TWS A.M. 13.6 B 13.8 B 14.2 B 14.3 B P.M. 9.7 A 9.8 A 9.9 A 10.0 B Notes: 1. S=signalized intersection,AWS=all-way stop-controlled intersection,TWS=two-way stop-controlled intersection. 2. Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. At signalized intersections and all-way stop-controlled intersections,delay is based on the average control delay reported for the entire intersection. Delay at two-way stop-controlled intersections is based on average control delay for the worst movement. 3. LOS is the level of service based on the methodology outlined in the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual. 4. LWB=Lake Washington Boulevard. 5. ECL=exceeds calculable limits. The 1-405 interchange at Park Drive will continue to operate well in 2004, at LOS C or better, under both No Action alternatives and without improvements: Plan A and Plan B Action Alternatives Table 4 presents the 2004 LOS analysis results for both Plan A and Plan B action alternatives. The analysis determined there were no differences between the Plan A and Plan B LOS, except at the N 30th Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection, where the LOS dropped from LOS A to LOS B in the p.m. peak hour for Plan B. By 2004 with the W:\99040veports\dseis(5/11/99)is 26 111 i 1 Accidents/Safety Issues No Action Alternatives The No Action - Future Industrial Development Alternative would attract more vehicle trips to and from the site—especially truck trips, which would result in an increase in vehicles primarily on Lake Washington Boulevard south of the site access and Park Drive. There isalwaysachancethataccidentswouldincreaseastrafficlevelsincrease. However, theinherentrandomnessandunpredictabilityofaccidentsmakesestimatinganincreasein accidents with respect to the No Action - Future Industrial Development Alternative very difficult and unreliable. An increase in accident probability would most likely occur at theintersectionswheretheincreasesintrafficvolumeswouldbethegreatest. Accident rates are not likely to increase significantly. Plan A and Plan B Action Alternatives Like the No Action - Future Industrial Development Alternative, the two action alternatives would attract more vehicle trips to and from the site, which would result in an increase in L'I vehicles primarily on Lake Washington Boulevard south of the site access and Park Drive. Mitigation Measures a Operational Conditions Because the poor LOS conditions at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange are a pre-existingcondition (LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and LOS E in the p.m. peak hour), whether any oftheactionornoactionalternativesarebuiltornot, and because the number of vehiclesthesealternativessendtotheinterchangeisminimal, mitigation at this interchange was not analyzed. Based on previous work within the City of Renton, it is estimated that these II intersections would probably operate at LOS D or better if they were both signalized. For both the Plan A and Plan B action alternatives, and the No Action - Future Industrial Development Alternative, the intersections of Park Drive/Garden Avenue/Lake WashingtonBoulevardandLakeWashingtonBoulevard/Houser Way/Southport Access need to bemitigatedtoachievethe2004NoActiondelayshownintable4. A mitigation plan was ii—ii developed for Plan A and Plan B action alternatives, and is illustrated in figure 15. The improvements shown in figure 15 are described below. At the Park Drive/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection, most of therecommendedimprovementscanbemadewithintheexistingpavement. On the Park i Avenue approach, it is recommended that the existing channelization be restriped to I accommodate one shared through/right lane, one through lane, and two left-turn lanes. On the Lake Washington Boulevard approach, it is recommended that the approach be restriped to accommodate one right-turn lane and two left-turn lanes. It is also Li recommended that the westbound free right-turn lane from Park Drive to Lake Washington Boulevard yield to the eastbound left-turning vehicles from Park Avenue to Lake Washington Boulevard. Currently, these right-turning vehicles do not have to yield to through traffic as they enter Lake Washington Boulevard in a dedicated lane. However, the to accommodate the recommended new left-turn lanes on Park Avenue, through traffic will Y, be realigned to use the lane where right-turning vehicles enter requiring the turning vehicles to yield to on-coming traffic. W:,99040vePons\dse,s(5/11/99)jc 29 v i 0/0OrNW.-.a..ti m`~_r :-. I/ o s=4":.-.• mom, ""'''' , (;' 1'.% d ) /-' fit -:to-rirO r f.may J-21 ,1". ill,.. E-3•""--........,,,........ ..___„, Irv-16 iii_i_sooto... ----........,-,,,,,...- --2.,,_ „...0_,..----A04.,.,,..ti,,_4, ,. i (M1' ax"S Oi jpp is a v.i Taar! ce ri y •<j 1 J/ l, • 4t4 .1/7 dye' e.7 4.....,,_,-,,,,,,,,-=.--_---m,.:-.—,,.-_,,.7—__—________..m..., .....,_-_____..,-_-_........- . SP.- W4VF"'r.7'' . AW ejusiramr40,..,.....4.eiry:-.7, it 0 `mil . I I acc i ra, a„ ; '- rz.,` la1'`it , i p4Y% . g li 11 //. sue 4 r ri.0 i L J' //fib t//F7/fi r ' a ibiD ?yk, 1•34—=" 1:,, 7:-.0.4414, i ...44 dtp,_::,.,7,...„:1.7_,_,....„,„ ..\.. roar,,,,,,....i., _______-.-_, r,'O M c u a d n g( s 9s,.. ,_,. . ------------------- --------------------------------------.. 0".. ,,k t--,I'..,' L. 110 ittIN au m p -,,. s•mr.,q Ull1QD 3.- I f m\, . :?a .` T el/i Figure 15 I Southport EIS Proposed Mitigation for Plan A and Plan B- E N r R A N c o Feasibility-Level Channelization Plan I S At the Lake Washington Boulevard/HSer n add t onu he Coulon Park rt Access intersection, it is recommended that a signal be installed.shared access approach should be widened to three lanes, with one left-turn and one right- lel turn lane leaving the site, and one receiving lane. Olstteg skeeWashingtone e hi Boulevard northbound approach, it is recommended that Paccommodate two southbound lanes, and one northbound left-turn lane and one northbound through lane. Lak Between the Southport Access and Drive, e lanes near ParkeDrive Lndedandfouelaneshneathe Boulevard be widened to accommodate f Southport Access (see figure 15). 111 For the No Action - Future Industrial Development Alternative the P, the ark Decommenced mitigation plan differs slightly from the one shown figure LakeAvenue/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection, the southbound approach Washington Boulevard) does not leftbe two turn anet-turn lans and one.ghtt n lane are needed ne rig -turn lane, as shown in figure 15. Instead, only one Therefore, Lake Washington Boulevard would not have to be lon Park and the industrial development on Lakeidenedtofivelanesr li Park Drive. Also, access to Gene Washington Boulevard would not have to e widened to three lanes. One lane in and one lane out would result in an acceptable b d LaForboththeParkDrive/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard an the LOS ke was re- Washington Boulevard/Houser Way/Southport Access intersections, the evaluated given the mitigation improvements shoimproown in vements, both ntersecure15.eionsprovideswold operate LOS analysis results. Given the proposedP at LOS D or better during both heak eA acriostionr altematthe No ve,lon which us- better o re tlhe same pi. Development Alternative and Plan LOS as for the 2004 No Action Alternative. Table 5 1: 4 2004 MITIGATED(LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY 47;S7 r l,,c No Action - Industrial Plan A Traffic Peak Intersection Control' Hour Delay2 LOS3 Delay2.~ LOS3 Delay2 LOS3 A.M.26.2 C 34.4 C 43.4 D Park Drive/Garden S D 41.8 D 49.7 D Avenue/LWB4 P.M.37.0 B 14.9 B 26.7 C LW B4/Southport S A.M.11.516 9 B 43_ D Access/Houser Way P.M.15.6 B r• Notes: 1. S=signalized intersection 2. Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. At signalized intersections delay is based on the average control delay reported for the entire intersection. 3. LOS is the level of service based on the methodology outlined in the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual. 4. LWB=Lake Washington Boulevard. 31 W.\99040veporlsW se,s(5111/99)lc I Under the Plan B action alternative, the recommended mitigation will result in LOS D conditions at the Park Drive/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection during both peak periods, and LOS C and D at the Lake Washington Boulevard/Houser Way/Southport Access intersection during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. A queue analysis was also performed at these two intersections to ensure that the recommended mitigation measures would accommodate the estimated queue lengths. Storage for vehicles at both intersections could be accommodated given the recommended improvements, assuming a 95th percentile queue length for design for all alternatives except Plan B. For Plan B, the southbound right-turn pocket on Lake Washington 111 Boulevard would be blocked approximately 5 percent of the time by the queue of vehicles in the two adjacent left-turn lanes. This would only occur during the p.m. peak hour. Site Access The internal intersection of the Gene Coulon Park access and the Southport Development access could not be analyzed using traditional LOS methodology. This is because it is very close to the Lake Washington Boulevard intersection and closely spaced intersections affect each other and need to be considered as a group or unit. As a result, a CORSIM traffic simulation was performed at this location, because it is capable of analyzing the operations of closely spaced intersections. CORSIM is a traffic simulation model that allows the user to visually observe a computer simulation of vehicles moving through a network of intersections. The No Action - Future Industrial Development Alternative and both the Plan A and Plan B action alternatives were simulated using the CORSIM model. A snapshot of the typical queues that can be expected at this internal intersection during both peak periods and for each alternative is provided in figures 16 through 21. As illustrated in figure 19, the on-site queue in the p.m. peak hour for the Plan A alternative will extend nearly to the access to the office parking garages. For the Plan B alternative, figure 21 illustrates that the p.m. peak-hour queue on site will cause gridlock conditions. The queues for the Gene Coulon Park driveway show one or fewer vehicles in any alternative during either peak period. Table 6 summarizes the average delay that can be expected by vehicles at the park and project driveway intersection. Under the No Action - Future Industrial Development Alternative, delay less than 6 second per vehicle can be expected at either driveway during either peak hour. Under the Plan A action alternative, the Southport driveway is expected to operate well in the a.m. peak hour; however, the p.m. peak hour will experience significant delay, equivalent to LOS F conditions. The Gene Coulon Park driveway should operate with 5 seconds of delay per vehicle or less, on average. Similar to the Plan A action alternative, the Plan B action alternative will experience excessive delay (LOS F) during the p.m. peak hour at the Southport driveway, but all other peak periods and driveways should operate with less than 10 seconds of delay per vehicle, on average. W:\99040\repons\dseis(5/11/99)jC 32 development could provide additional parking for the Gene Coulon Pak during thedevelopment's off peak hours—evening during the week and on weekends. Accidents/Safety Issues Because accident occurrences are unpredictable, it would be hard to mitigate them. However, with the improvements to Lake Washington Boulevard and Park Avenue, the added capacity should alleviate driver frustration and tendencies for drivers to take risks, as well as provide less congested roadways. In addition, during design of corridor improvements, a more detailed accident analysis can be made to determine if specific mitigation measures can be implemented in the design to help reduce the accident occurrences at these locations. In and around the Gene Coulon Park driveway, and near the residential areas for action alternatives, it is recommended that "Children at Play" signs be installed throughout these areas and/or that speed bumps be installed on the roadways to encourage slower speeds and enhance child safety. Air Quality To be determined. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no unavoidable adverse impacts anticipated for this project. p I I a W:\9904()Veportsk1seis(5r11/99)jc 40 S s SECO DEVELOPMENT , INC . 10843 NE 8T"STREET, SUITE 200 •BELLEvUE, WASHINGTON 98004 TEL: 425/688-3085 • FAX: 425/637-1922 EMAIL: seco@secodev.com Facsimile Transmittal Cover Sheet DATE: 5 9-1q TO: l4 t ( 1t4 TEL NO: COMPANY: VA/J' l GPz/A/Mr6 FAX NO: 4 - 73 s FROM:TEL NO: Number of Pages to Follow: arn- is epmenEA iS_ THANK You ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS DEEMED RELIABLE:HO WEVER..NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY IS MADE AS TO THE ACCURACY HEREOF. i . i n7nn •nu 77CI _ 1P0_C717 Im]II.UV1 A7f1 (1'17C Wa7b ' C PPgi • 117 . 0N tqw4 vilf rig%V• O vTHPO SECO Development 11009 NE 11t' St. Bellevue, Washington 98004 May 20, 1999 Lisa Grueter Senior Planner Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Renton City Hall—6`s Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Re: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Dear Lisa, We have received the Draft copy and have a few comments. Jim Hanken had the following suggestions: More information on the status of the environmental clean-up should be included. Since this is an identified problem with the site it warrants more discussion about it's resolution. The Water Quality section references the 1990 King County standards. A 1998 amendment to these standards has been adopted. The City of Renton statute that adopted the King County manual may have included any amendments to the document as well so that should be researched. Also a comparison of the amended King County standards with the 1992 DOE standards would be appropriate to determine which is more stringent. SECO comments are as follows: Most of our concerns center around the Air Quality impacts and to a lesser extent the Noise impacts indicated in the draft. As we have discussed,very little information was available for the consultant to base an opinion on. Our concern is that they voiced the most serious possible consequences without adequate information,causing perhaps needless alarm. We would like to work to provide complete information for the consultant prior to the issue of the next draft so that a more comprehensive discussion of the impacts can be achieved. I have attached the comments on the Transportation section that were supplied by Jeff Schramm of Transpo for your review as well. Sine ly ex Allen Project Manager Page 1 n-,AA . nu 77CI inn _P74, imnwJr117A7f1 r117C UI.174 . 0 gg i ' 117 . A li idlAY-20-S9 01 :15PM FROM-THE TRANSPOROUP INC, 4256258434 T-770 P.01/02 F-966 igimii Post-it"Fax Note 7671 D8165-Z44Q7 peg s z_ M Rqf, ,)t 6v; Fram a-e_ r6trAt,P,"\ Co/Dept. SE-..co Co "1-R6-NSPO The Phone k y `3`Q so Phone K l TranspoFsxMLIi,S--(o3`1-191.1—. Fax Piii 9 W —v E-134 Group MEMORANDUM T0: Rex Allen, SECO DATE: May 19, 1999 FROM: Jeff Schramm, TRANSPO TG:99235.00 SUBJECT: SOUTHPORT MIXED—USE PROJECT: REVIEW OF THE TRANSPORTATION APPENDIX OF DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS I have reviewed the transportation analysis (Appendix D) of the Draft Supplemental EIS (May. 1999), prepared by ENTRANCO. My comments are listed below, and also include the page number they apply to. There are also a few general comments. Please let me know if you have any questions, or would like to discuss any of my comments. 1. Why so much analysis of roads and interchanges north of the site? The study area suggests that the project will have greater impacts to areas north of the site, like Lake Washington Boulevard and neighborhoods to the north, rather than to the south. The EIS should provide some additional context to explain why so much emphasis put on areas to the north. (General) 2. The EIS should include a more detailed discussion of why the traffic analysis focuses on the peak summer condition (i.e. a worse-case analysis time period). Page 6) 3. Why is there a discussion of the City's Concurrency Standards in the Affected Environment section? It should be moved to the Impacts Section because it related to new development projects. (Move from Page 6 to Page 25) 4. Are the 10 study intersections really "near" the site? Consistent with comment 1 above, a better description should be provided explaining the scope of the study, and how the study intersections were chosen. (Page 8) 5. The Affected Environment section should address the current operation and use of the existing site access on Lake Washington Blvd to provide a consistent context in the Impacts Section. (Page 8) 6. Where is Hazelwood Drive? This is related to the location of bicycle lanes on Lake Washington Boulevard. (Page 10) 7. Will the EIS address Railroad issues related to the existing crossing at the site access? (Page 10) 8_ An Introduction section should be provided to address all areas of the traffic analysis (i.e. traffic volumes, operations, safety, etc.), (Page 14) rrp TPA NSPOnrni^ Irv- 11730118th Avenue N.E., 77ci _^ cn_r7i, AIAI7wani n7n r)') Q X;4 I,-7t : P 14FFRI li i htAY-20-99 01 :15PM FROM-THE TRANSPO ;;OUP INC. 4258258434 1 T-770 P.02/02 F-966 Rex Allen The May 19, 1999 TflInSpOPage -2- Group 9. Clarify the statement that the Industrial Park has the highest trip generation rate; compared to what? (Page 14) 10. Describe and provide explanation of the basis for assuming 10% internalization and 20% pass-by for the project trip generation. (Page 16) 11. Would trip distribution patterns really be the same for Plans A &B and the Future Industrial use? (Page 17) 12. A statement or explanation is needed in the Impacts Section that introduces or describes that the Mitigation Measures section of the analysis identifies improvements that address the deficiencies of the study intersections and site access. (Page 27) 13. Further explanation needed regarding to the statement that the parking demands for Coulon Park and Southport will have negative affect on each other. (Page 27) 14. Railroad impacts should be addressed in the Impacts Section, consistent with the Affected Environment section. Will the EIS address Railroad issues related to the existing crossing at the site access driveway? (Page 28) 15. Will a TMP be required for Southport? A general statement related to the TMP, and maybe some basic elements, should be referenced and discussed in the Mitigation Measures section. (Page 29) 16. The Mitigation Measures section says 44th Street interchange would operate better with traffic signals at the ramp intersections. This statement should also be discussed on Page 27 in Impacts Section. (Page 29) 17. Will the EIS address the impacts of Southport and Coulon Park related to the operation and design of the Railroad crossing at the site access? (Page 31) 18. The Mitigation Measures section introduces queuing analysis, but it is not included in Impacts Section, why? If possible, new analysis should not be introduced in the Mitigation Measures section, without it also being in the Impacts Section. (Page 32). 19. Improve the description of CORSIM. As an analysis tool, how is it used, why is it used, and how is it consistent with the HCM LOS analysis? (Page 32) 20. Does parking supply meet demand for Plans A &B? (Page 39) 21. Why is a more detailed accident analysis suggested? Is there an identified significant impact? How and why would it be implemented? (Page 40) k A991991.3SWP 5•t999 ES REVeEW.000 i o7or . nv 77R 1 -1 S q-Ut I N11N1dO11r110 OOHS NdEti : 6 6661 ' OZ ' A'1 SECO DEVELOPMENT , INC . 10843 NB 8'STREET, SUITE 200 •BELLEvUE, WASHINGTON 98004 TEL: 425/688-3085 • FAX: 425/637-1922 EMAIL: seco@secodev.com Facsimile Transmittal Cover Sheet DATE: 10-1 TO: 4 4` TEL NO: COMPANY: / _AurtAI auhuIi& FAX NO: icla- 13/3 FROM: _4 /4 / TEL NO: Number of Pages to Follow: ader'l t/c epr ienE%/i . THANK You ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS DEEMED RELIABLE:HOWEVER.NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY IS MADE AS TO THE ACCURACY HEREOF. 17/1 ' d 8Z85 ' °N ZZ6l -LE9-9Zti 1N3Nd013A30 033S WdZP : E 6661 ' OZ ' "W go_ Atat 1-/ THpo SECO Development 11009 NE 11'M St. Bellevue, Washington 98004 May 20, 1999 Lisa Grueter Senior Planner Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Renton City Hall—6`s Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Re: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Dear Lisa, We have received the Draft copy and have a few comments. Jim Hanken had the following suggestions: More information on the status of the environmental clean-up should be included. Since this is an identified problem with the site it warrants more discussion about it's resolution. The Water Quality section references the 1990 King County standards. A 1998 amendment to these standards has been adopted. The City of Renton statute that adopted the King County manual may have included any amendments to the document as well so that should be researched. Also a comparison of the amended King County standards with the 1992 DOE standards would be appropriate to determine which is more stringent. SECO comments are as follows: Most of our concerns center around the Air Quality impacts and to a lesser extent the Noise impacts indicated in the draft. As we have discussed,very little information was available for the consultant to base an opinion on. Our concern is that they voiced the most serious possible consequences without adequate information,causing perhaps needless alarm. We would like to work to provide complete information for the consultant prior to the issue of the next draft so that a more comprehensive discussion of the impacts can be achieved. I have attached the comments on the Transportation section that were supplied by Jeff Schramm of Transpo for your review as well. Sinc ly ex Allen Project Manager Page 1 biz. 'd R7,RG ' ON 7761 -/ -G7b 1N3U013A30 ODRS WdZ/ 1 6661 ' OZ ' Aeil r MAY-20-S9 01 .15PM FROM-THE TRANSP( UP INO, 4258258434 T-770 P.01/02 F-966 Post-fr Fax Note 7671 DaieS, - i pegas Z Tn l l 1/ F+om ? f QT' sG.Y,r61 vh r, Co.inept. SEy.o Co 1-Rii-NSPO The Phone a y 0 e0 Phone n(,i• = gZ'-3( . TranspoFax4l _J 3-y 1_19Z.Z Fax e LiZs4c•-..._A _91431 I Group MEMORANDUM TO: Rex Allen, SECO DATE: May 19, 1999 FROM: Jeff Schramm, TRANSPO TG:99235.00 SUBJECT: SOUTHPORT MIXED— USE PROJECT: REVIEW OF THE TRANSPORTATION APPENDIX OF DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS I have reviewed the transportation analysis (Appendix D) of the Draft Supplemental EIS (May1999), prepared by ENTRANCO. My comments are listed below, and also include the page number they apply to. There are also a few general comments. PIease let me know if you have any questions, or would like to discuss any of my comments. 1. Why so much analysis of roads and interchanges north of the site? The study area suggests that the project will have greater impacts to areas north of the site, like Lake Washington Boulevard and neighborhoods to the north, rather than to the south. The EIS should provide some additional context to explain why so much emphasis put on areas to the north. (General) 2. The EIS should include a more detailed discussion of why the traffic analysis focuses on the peak summer condition (i.e. a worse-case analysis time period). Page 6) 3. Why is there a discussion of the City's Concurrency Standards in the Affected Environment section? It should be moved to the Impacts Section because it related to new development projects. (Move from Page 6 to Page 25) 4. Are the I0 study intersections really "near"the site? Consistent with comment 1 above, a better description should be provided explaining the scope of the study, and how the study intersections were chosen. (Page 8) 5. The Affected Environment section should address the current operation and use of the existing site access on Lake Washington Blvd to provide a consistent context in the Impacts Section (Page 8) 6. Where is Hazelwood Drive? This is related to the location of bicycle lanes on Lake Washington Boulevard. (Page 10) 7. Will the EIS address Railroad issues related to the existing crossing at the site access? (Page 10) 8. An Introduction section should be provided to address all areas of the traffic analysis (i.e. traffic volumes, operations, safety, etc.). (Page 14) bpPR' H RTRG 'IoU 11730118th Avenue N.E., 7761 -LE9-gl17 ,1N3M013A30 —OASr' '4Nc1Zb1E 146661 OZ• A IAA -20-99 01 .15PM FROM-THE TRANSPO wwuP INC. 125825843d T-770 P.02/02 F-966 Rex Allen The May 19, 1999 TranspoPage -2- Group 9. Clarify the statement that the Industrial Park has the highest trip generation rate; compared to what? (Page 14) 10. Describe and provide explanation of the basis for assuming 10% internalization and 20% pass-by for the project trip generation. (Page 16) 11. Would trip distribution patterns really be the same for Plans A &B and the Future Industrial use? (Page 17) 12. A statement or explanation is needed in the Impacts Section that introduces or describes that the Mitigation Measures section of the analysis identifies improvements that address the deficiencies of the study intersections and site access. (Page 27) 13. Further explanation needed regarding to the statement that the parking demands for Coulon Park and Southport will have negative affect on each other. (Page 27) 14. Railroad impacts should be addressed in the Impacts Section, consistent with the Affected Environment section. Will the EIS address Railroad issues related to the existing crossing at the site access driveway? (Page 28) 15. Will a TMP be required for Southport? A general statement related to the TMP, and maybe some basic elements, should be referenced and discussed in the Mitigation Measures section. (Page 29) 16. The Mitigation Measures section says 44th Street interchange would operate better with traffic signals at the ramp intersections. This statement should also be discussed on Page 27 in Impacts Section.. (Page 29) 17. Will the EIS address the impacts of Southport and Coulon Park related to the operation and design of the Railroad crossing at the site access? (Page 31) 18. The Mitigation Measures section introduces queuing analysis, but it is not included in Impacts Section, why? If possible, new analysis should not be introduced in the Mitigation Measures section, without it also being in the Impacts Section (Page 32). 19. Improve the description of CORSIM. As an analysis tool, how is it used, why is it used, and how is it consistent with the HCM LOS analysis? (Page 32) 20. Does parking supply meet demand for Plans A &B? (Page 39) 21. Why is a more detailed accident analysis suggested? Is there an identified significant impact? How and why would it be implemented? (Page 40) A.t1491992J51WP.5-1999 EIS REVIEW.000 I n7nn . n11 77Cl _ rcn_r74, IKInuI.anl]A n n17C NI,JCb ' I' RPRI .f17 . 67NI CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:May 19, 1999 TO: Leslie Betlach, Chuck Duffy FROM: Lisa Grueter C,6 SUBJECT: Southport—Fire Lane Agreement Attached is a draft memorandum of understanding which incorporates your concerns about how the drive aisle at Gene Coulon Park could be used for fire suppression staging for the adjacent Southport development. The advantage would be reduced impervious surfaces, avoidance of impacts to the trees in Gene Coulon Park,and a better buffer between the Park and proposed development. Please let me know right away any changes that you have,and then it can be signed. Based on our discussions this morning,I will ask the EIS consultants to modify the project description related to the issue of the fire lanes on the east side of the Southport site. The preference would be to have a fire lane in the drive aisle in Gene Coulon Park with the noted conditions. An alternative would be to have a fire lane next to Building C,and it could be installed in a manner to help limit impacts to the trees. cc: Sue Carlson H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\firemem.doc\cor DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING SOUTHPORT FIRE SUPPRESSION ACCESS Fire Department, And Community Services Department BACKGROUND The proposed Southport Development would be located on 17 acres of the Shuffleton site. The site is bounded by Lake Washington on the north,Gene Coulon Park on the east,Puget Sound Energy property and Park Avenue on the South and Boeing property on the west. Preliminary conceptual plans include 6 buildings with 2 buildings abutting Gene Coulon Park: Building B would be setback 10 feet from the property line and Building C would be setback 30 feet from the property line. (See Attachments A and B). Although the applicant has prepared a preliminary conceptual grading and drainage plan showing a 20 foot fire lane east of Building C,this would intrude into the drip line of trees planted along the Gene Coulon Park boundary. The applicant has also discussed with the Fire Department about using the Park parking lot as an identified location to stage fire suppression activities for buildings B and C. The Fire Department is amenable to utilizing the parking lot drive aisle to stage fire suppression activities provided that hydrants are installed at appropriate locations,and provided there is a long term guarantee that a drive aisle would be maintained in the Park parking lot within a reasonable distance to access adjacent buildings as needed. The Parks Department is agreeable to the idea of the Fire Department utilizing the drive aisle to stage fire suppression activities,provided that the needed hydrants are designed and installed at the applicant's expense,and the pavement is restored where disturbed during hydrant installation. According to Larry Warren's discussions with Lisa Grueter,Senior Planner with Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning,Gene Coulon Park is public property and the Fire Department could utilize the site to stage fire suppression for an abutting property whether or not there is a fire lane on the Southport site. Because it is publicly owned,the City would not grant itself an easement to identify a fire lane,and we have never recorded a covenant on our own properties. However,the Parking and Loading Regulations would apply to any restriping of the parking lot,and the Community Services Department would coordinate with the Fire Department as needed during review of parking reconfigurations if ever proposed. AGREEMENT The parties agree that to reduce impervious surfaces,minimize impacts to existing trees at Gene Coulon Park,and achieve a more aesthetic setback/buffer between the Southport development and Gene Coulon Park,allowing fire suppression to be staged from the Gene Coulon Park site is desirable. To address Fire Department concerns about a long term guarantee that the drive aisle in Gene Coulon Park would be within a reasonable distance from the Southport property,and to indicate the conditions that are acceptable to the Community Services Department,this memorandum sets forth parameters and conditions. Based on the proposed Southport conceptual plans submitted to the City as a part of LUA 99-027,CPA,R,ECF,or plans which may be submitted in the future that have a similar layout,a fire lane on the Southport property would not be required,subject to the following conditions: 1. The drive aisle in the Gene Coulon Park parking lot most close to the Southport site shall be located within 150 feet of buildings to meet adopted Uniform Fire Code requirements. 2. In consultation with the Parks Department,the Fire Department would determine whether signage identifying a fire lane and mechanisms to open gates after Park closure would be needed. 1 5/19/99 3. Repaving/restriping plans would be provided for review to the Fire Department by the Community Services Department if the Gene Coulon Park parking lot drive aisle location would change,to assure that it would be located within an acceptable distance from the adjacent development. 4. Fire hydrant planning,installation,and restoration of affected areas would be the developer's responsibility and expense. Fire hydrant planning and installation is subject to Fire and Community Services Department approval. SIGNATURES Parks Director Date Fire Marshall Date Administrator,Community Services Date Fire Chief Date MOUZONE.DOC 2 5/19/99 t; 1\j-(, jZ I I `/... N.77= . EECO OEVELO/LYINT I SCALE i'-200 O to o.I•• 1 1i rn -`C. 1_ GENE COULD l M6MORIA •.m ! 1 1: Ln j_ .E l. P it•CH 'PARK.. 1 9l",\od! V V. r i,t.w • n1 .sk PAS' r 1 ? O +,+ d`' ON ten. T: R e..n o n ' mt` E LpS NGf` •`I OR LANDS • SiTE ,•,i d/\ / • l/Q I n r e`r c II61 '•'r/% c..1t t.• 1' Z t). 1...* /, ... ti \ rirg Ir•F\iM Y'.+. T w t1 p ' aw\Q Ill L,s+z:. ..£. Y;$IffiS R V d El 1`• zvt. 1 ;4-. .^i , NGTON SHORE LANDS !h i;IP w in 1 y`- 3R SU'PL•1+pKE..WASHI 1 L_L_ 1 ' „ 110.p Y•'-11 ice Q:/ i PIA O G..7td2 V ;_:L 710 Acrtt Tiq1 J z V.114 I 1 1 I m 1\\ NEIGHBORHOOD O ',`,••, 1 Y..-.__._. -• DETAIL MAP I . \ 1I ss•c.E+ I\ \ CI `I YHI • I I. r err I s Q! '0r _ F I 1 n I . a ! ! [ J. . . 1 0F 1 O y l. akc W a s h i n It ton i I8 B gr. Nit,..3 vNr\vy• - , o A i.a 1,, 1t , / ! !L* . il rl i ;`"e i's : i 11040: ' I iki r .„VI The l3ocing Corp !t!Y, 1q 4;1 Ill\ crr ( B Genc Coulon Park ki I 1 -1 ,-. 1 L I - 1. r- 3u N_I ' Ei Ni r- ..•1 - t 1' 1z ,I s••rc s, 1.119.1r/s. 1,.,,\ p}y S• k ,. iF .• • ,.: •„. i J ei .•0 :Is ..L:„ 6,%\ • cj c 1. - 2i Lw 3 11 ill k.....:\L' 16,10,.y...,,..... is II oa.. . O D Pugct Po.ticr 4 1 '!•isa• ' 6) i ' ti z 6 Rik+ l+ F 1 1 CO Vt.. 4. l liVIE S () U TIIPORT MIrnr\ s I' (- (1 I) e % c I o p to c n 1 C u r p o r :i 1 i .0 n I a r c h .', n , I ) ) 91 PLAN "A" f o RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: May 19, 1999 TO: Lisa Grueter FROM: Chuck Duffy, Fire Marshal ( SUBJECT: South Port- Comments on Draft Supplemental EIS The primary area of concern is the proposed residential parking ratios of 1.3 parking spaces per dwelling unit. (Please see pages 23 and 24, pages 3-114 and 3-115, and Appendix D Transportation Analysis" page 39.) This is less than the 1.75 parking spaces required by the City (1.5 resident spaces plus .25 guest spaces per dwelling unit). The City has already experienced parking problems with 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit. Consequently, lowering the ratio to 1.3 will create a permanent parking problem. The only solution will be to increase parking enforcement during regular business hours and also during evenings and weekends. This is the least desirable option because it mandates a constant level of attention.; The best solution is to create adequate parking from the start. It is my understanding that the developer is proposing that the residents use the office parking lot for evenings and weekends. While this will add additional spaces, it is doubtful that the residents will readily use them. These spaces will be across the street from the apartment buildings in parking garages. Anyone using these spaces will have to walk a considerable distance, a challenge when it is dark and raining and you are carrying anything. Residents and guest will be more inclined to use the closest, most convenient spot. This spot is generally the only available space, the Fire Lane. Please let me know if you need any additional information. I have also made comments regarding the Promenade on page 3-117. CC: Lee Wheeler Gary Gotti Jim Gray Corey Thomas Recreal ion Element Summary: The primary goal of the Recreation Element is to encourage water-oriented recreatic lnal activities that are available to the public (4.05.1). Local jurisdictions should join in a coopera`ive effort to expand recreational opportunities through programs of acquisition, develop nent, and maintenance of waterfront areas (4.05.1 D). Discussion: As mentioned in the discussion under the Public Access Element above, a substan:ial amount of public shoreline access would be provided under the proposal for pas ivP recreation use. Under the preliminary Concel the site's western boundary i 1/1)6 applicant, or a cooperative eff public use of the dock. A: M e S designation, potential future CLA- L ( " identified and evaluated in thi: to the City or applicant securin Expans on of the dock width fo the City s planned trail system the Cedar River Trail). The pedestrian trail to be located of the Boeing facility - this trail Washington "Lake Loop" Trail discussion). Circulation Element Summary: Pedestrian traffic is encouraged over vehicular traffic along the shoreline (4.06.01). l(t-A/`e Access points to and along the shoreline should be linked by pedestrian and bicycle pathways L 4 4.06.0.?C). Discussion: No vehicular access would be provided along the shoreline. The proposed 35- C(ecr ) foot wide waterfront promenade, which would primarily be dedicated for use by pedestrians, M- would be located along the entire length of the site's shoreline. Various connections to the ,; promer ade would be provided via plaza areas and courtyards associated with residential and office buildings. Environments Summery: The City of Renton's Shoreline Master Program designates three shoreline enviror ments. The shoreline environments, which have been characterized primarily by their natural characteristics, are Natural, Conservancy, and Urban. The entire Lake Washington shorelh ie in the City of Renton, including the shoreline of the site, is designated Urban. The of jective of the Urban environment is to ensure optimum utilization of shorelines within urbani2 ed areas by providing for public use, especially access to and along the water's edge , Southport Development Planned Action Plans and Policies Draft Ssipplemental EIS 3-117 Lisa Grueter From: Linda R. Knight To: Lisa Grueter Subject: Solid Waste's Southport EIS comments Date: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 5:10PM Here are my comments attached in a word 6.0 doc. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to comment. File Attachment: SOUTHP-1.DOC>> Page 1 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE:May 18, 1999 TO: Lisa Grueter FROM: Linda Knight SUBJECT: Solid Waste Comments: Southport EIS I have reviewed the Southport Development Planned Action Draft Supplemental EIS and comment as follows. P3-195 Paragraph 1. Specific services provided by Waste Management under contract to the City of Renton include: residential and commercial garbage collection;residential and multifamily recyclables collection; and residential yard waste collection . Paragraph 2. County's waste reduction and recycling goal is 65%by 2000. Mention of a 1995 goal does not seem as relevant as we approach the year 2000. Paragraph 3. This paragraph is confusing to me. First it begins by discussing the—number of residential customers in the City. Then it continues to describe Waste Management's service area. The City of Renton has control only over the contractual service area(ie: the city limits). While Waste Management does have other service areas,they have no direct impact on the services delivered within Renton City limits. I would suggest separating the specific service descriptions in 2 separate paragraphs—one that addresses the City of Renton and one that addresses the area outside the city limits. P3-196 Paragraph 2. I believe this paragraph refers only to the waste that Waste Management collects. Be aware that there is a CDL transfer station located within the city limits that accepts waste from self-haul customers. The transfer station is the Black River Transfer Station and is one of several that are under contract with King County Solid Waste to provide CDL transfer and disposal services. I believe it is owned and operated by Rabanco(Allied Waste). Paragraph 3 What is this referring to? There seems to be a disconnect(at least for me). This paragraph refers to a"30 yard roll-off container located at the site". What site? C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\SOUTHP-1.DOC\cor P3-197 Paragraph 1 This paragraph refers to"A specific waste management plan would be developed by the applicant of future redevelopment of the site in conjunction with Waste Management-Rainier." Again,our existing contract expires at the end of 1999 so any specific reference to Waste Management—Rainier and their future involvement should not be used. Perhaps you could substitute language that refers to"the City's collection contractor." Additionally,I do not understand the intent of this language. Is it merely to show good faith that the development will work with the collection contractor to devise a collection plan? Or is it really to develop a waste management plan?As manager of the City's Solid Waste Utility I have concern with language that only involves the developer and the collection contractor. As participants in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for King County,it is incumbent that we work with the community to achieve the waste reduction and recycling goals. I would like to have the developer work with the Solid Waste Utility(via our Business Recycling consultant)to develop a plan for waste reduction,reuse,and recycling both during development of the property and post development when the residents are moved in the businesses are up and running. To reiterate,there are several references following the above referenced paragraph that repeat the statement that a specific waste management plan will be developed by the applicant in conjunction with Waste Management—Rainier. These references to Waste Management specifically should be removed. If you have additional questions for me,please call me at extension 7397. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\SOUTHP—I.DOC\cor Lisa Grueter From: Gail Reed To: Lisa Grueter Cc: Lee E. Haro; Nick Afzali Subject: FW: Southport Draft Suppl EIS Date: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 7:47AM Lisa, The following is a comment concerning the Southport Draft EIS. I am aware that the Draft EIS addresses noises from adjacent Boeing buildings and activities, but the influence of the airport extends out at least 14,000 feet, within the horizontal and conical surfaces surrounding the airport, and that the effect is not so much the sound level as measured in db's, but may include the persistance of several small aircraft flying overhead at low altitudes every five minutes or so. Although the sounds from aircraft in flight are exempt from noise regulations by State law, these should perhaps be considered. I also feel that the airport should at least be mentioned in a Transportation section of such a document, and at least relate that the Southport area lies within the 10,000 foot area which imposes some height restrictions and is the largest area of aircraft activity. Once the residential portion of the development is constructed, and the developer has gone, the residents are the ones who have to contend with any impacts which were not addressed during the EIS phase of the project. It is not that the impacts are bad, but the potentials and the realities should perhaps at least be mentioned. From: Gail Reed To: Lee E. Haro Subject: Southport Draft Suppl EIS Date: Monday, May 17, 1999 11:38AM Lee, I have had time to only quickly look at the Southport Draft EIS. The Table of Contents of the Transportation Secton of the Suppl EIS contains only a review of what I term "traditional" transportation issues, that is, it does not include the airport. the Affected Environment includes transit, pedestrian/bicycle, railroad, etc., but no mention that the airport and the Boeing engine testing facilities are located close by and may have an impact on the residential portion of the Southport development. It is interesting to note that under the heading Unavoidable Adverse Impacts the study lists none. It is true that the Southport area is generally not directly under the areas routinely utilized by aircraft to approach and/or depart the airport, but it does lie beneath the airports horizontal surface with the potential that aircraft could operate at an altitude as low as 179 feet. The noise of aircraft departing to the north does tend to flow across the water and there have been complaints about aircraft engine noise from residents just north of Coulon Park. Gail Page 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:May 17, 1999 TO: Sue Carlson FROM: Lisa Gruete )r, SUBJECT: Southport Preliminary Draft SEIS #1 STATUS OF COMMENTS Last week we discussed that I would give you a copy of the EIS with my comments. I am half- way through the document and will give you my comments Tuesday morning. I have a meeting set up with staff for Wednesday morning to go over comments requiring group discussion. BOEING If you want to review some of the preliminary Draft SEIS before your meeting with Boeing, here is full copy of the preliminary Draft SEIS without my comments. If you want to review the Air Quality/Odor section related to Boeing operations,refer to the bottom of 3-22 to pages 3-27. We will need to decide how much information we will be able to review from Boeing that would help qualify the current speculative qualitative analysis (I realize that we also need to have a discussion about Boeing's positions versus the City's positions). Also related to Boeing, attached is an 11x17 blow up of the Park Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. Transportation Systems Division is reviewing counts at that location to help determine if Southport trips(left turns from Park Avenue to Lake Washington Boulevard heading north) would be affected by Boeing employees turning left into the parking area. If there were operational or safety problems, it's possible the City would want c-curbs. H:\ECON DE V\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\S HUFFLTN\scpdmem.doc\cor CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:May 17, 1999 TO: Sue Carlson FROM: Lisa GrueterjLL/ SUBJECT: Southport Parking Analysis Parking Demand Analysis Nick Afzali reviewed Seco Development's parking demand analysis dated 2/4/99 and provided some comments about the analysis. Overall, Transpo's methodology is based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual, and there is justification for the figures used. An exception would be that Transpo's methodology included the residential parking stalls as being available to other uses(inherent in the methodology) whereas it is probably better to assume the designated unit stalls as not being available to other uses. In sum,based on discussions and e-mails with Nick,the following minimum ratios could be considered when reviewing a parking modification request(comments made in relation to Plan A): The designated spaces should not be considered as available to other uses. It should be noted that the ITE residential parking standard is lower than most other jurisdictions' standards. Staff should decide a reasonable number of stalls for the residential uses based on City standards or another jurisdiction's standards, and should consider TDM/transit measures that may be required or provided. If a reduction in guest standards is deemed appropriate, 50 to 100 guest parking stalls could be reduced if the office parking was found to be located conveniently for evening residential guest parking. There will also be some on-street parking that is beyond the total parking proposed in the structures. The retail and restaurant parking proposed by the applicant is below the City's standards and below the ITE Parking Generation Manual standards. The 25%capture rate seems reasonable. If the City wishes to vary the standards below the normal requirement, utilizing the ITE standard with a capture rate assumption (results in 36 stalls for retail and 165 for restaurant)would be adequate for peak hours. It's possible that some retail/restaurant parking could be shared with office parking, particularly where peak usage will occur at different times than the peak office parking. There will be some on-street parking that is beyond the total parking proposed in the structures that could also partially meet the retail/restaurant need, but it should be reviewed in conjunction with any residential guest parking reduction. The proponent proposes to comply with the City's minimum office standard which is greater than the parking demand analysis would indicate. A chart is attached comparing various parking rates, assuming the uses included in Transpo's parking demand analysis. It should be noted that since Transpo's analysis, the applicant has proposed a different mix of apaitiiients/condominiums, and a more refined breakdown of restaurant type. The ITE portion of TS SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\parkmem.doc\cor the comparison chart would change somewhat assuming the more refined mix of uses,but probably not substantially. Residential Rates—Renton and Elsewhere A chart is attached showing various parking standards in other jurisdictions. Southport's proposed 1.3 spaces per dwelling unit would meet or exceed the following standards: Seattle— 1.3 stalls per unit(general multi-family standard for 60+du's with a factor for size of bedrooms which applicant has provided) for most multi-family districts in the City. Higher rates would apply in portions of the University and Alki districts. Redmond— 1 stall per unit plus the 1 stall per 4 units guest ratio required for Redmond Town Center. However, the Southport rate would be less than required for multi-family dwellings outside of the Redmond Town Center in Redmond. Bellevue—Rate for Downtown mixed use proposals (no less than 1 stall per unit)with a demand analysis. Southport's proposed rate would be close to Bellevue's normal average rate for non- mixed use developments outside of the Downtown. The Southport rate would not meet Renton's,Kirkland's or King County's multi-family standards. Similar developments in Kirkland(Carillon Point) and in Kenmore (Lakepointe, approved in King County)have provided parking in the amounts that meet or exceed the jurisdictions' requirements. Summary Overall, it seems the minimum standards allowed through a parking modification for Plan A could be: Residential, if using Renton's standards—850 stalls assuming some shared guest parking Retail—meet the ITE rate at the site's peak hour with capture rates - 36 stalls Restaurant—meet the ITE rate at the site's peak hour with capture rates— 165 stalls Office— 1,500 stalls (proposal meets current Renton standards) The total would equal up to 2,551 stalls, depending on City decisions related to shared street parking, some shared residential guest/retail parking, and shared retail/restaurant/office parking. Also, I have had some conversations with Rex Allen at Seco Development, and he thinks they could increase their residential parking rate if we allowed a modification to stall sizes(a stall size in between our compact and standard stall). Please let me know if you'd like a joint meeting with other Depal tnients, or if you'd like me to begin discussing the information with Gregg informally at first. Thanks. cc: Lee Haro Nick Afzali TS SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\parkmem.doc\cor Trn .w o + .A tGWeekday Parking Demand Estimate for Southport Mixed-Use (Plan A) The TRANSPO Group, Inc. m Use Apartments Condos Retail Restaurants Office3 Total I 0Amount/Size 371 171 13,000 25,000 500,000 TRate1.04 1.11 3.23 12.49 use equation Peak Parking Demand' 386 190 42 312 1,133 4 at Full Occupancy' 100% S 100% 85% 85% 90% N Peak Peak Internal Peak Internal Peak Peak. ParkingDailyHourlyDailyHourlyDailyCaptureHourlyDailyCaptureHourlyDailyHourlyRequiredfor c-) Time Variations Demand Variation Demand Variation Rate Demand Variation Rater Demand Variation Demand Southport 6:00 AM 100% 386 100% 190 0% 0%0 0% 0%0 3% 38 614 r) 7:00 AM 87% 336 87% 165 8% 0%4 2%0%7 20% 252 764 8:00 AM 79% 305 79% 150 18% 0%9 5% 0% 18 63% 793 1,275 9:00 AM 73% 282 73% 139 42% 0% 21 10%0% 37 93% 1,171 1,650 10:00AM 68% 262 68% 129 68% 0% 34 20% 0% 73 100% 1,259 1,757 11:00AM 59% 228 59% 112 87% 25% 32 30% 25% 83 100% 1.259 1,714 12:00 PM 60% 232 60% 114 97% 25% 36 50% 25% 138 90% 1,133 1,653 1:00 PM 59% 223 59% 112 100% 25% 37 70% 25% 193 90% 1,133 1.703 2:00 PM 60% 232 60% 114 97% 25% 36 60% 25% 165 97% 1,221 1,768 3:00 PM 61% 235 61% 116 95% 25% 35 60% 25% 165 93% 1,171 1.722 4:00 PM 66% 255 66% 125 87% 25% 32 50% 25% 138 77% 969 1,519 s- Ln5.00 PM 77% 297 77% 146 79% 25% 29 70% 25% 193 47% 592 1,257 coN6:00 PM 85% 328 85% 162 82% 0% 41 90% 25% 248 23% 290 1,069 0"0 7:00 PM 94% 363 94% 179 89% 0% 44 100% 25% 275 7% 88 949 As-P8:00 PM 96% 371 96% 182 87% 0% 43 100% 25% 275 7% 88 959 9:00 PM 98% 378 98% 186 61% 0% 30 100% 25% 275 3% 38 907 10:00 PM 99% 382 99% 188 32% 0% 16 90% 25% 248 3% 38 872 11:00 PM 100% 386 100% 190 13% 0%6 70% 25% 193 0%0 775 12:00 AM 100% 386 100% 190 0% 0%0 50% 25% 138 0%0 714 Maximum 386 190 44 275 1,259 1,768 a coA 1. Peak Parking Demand is#parked cars on a weekday. Calculations are based on rates or equations from ITE's Parking Generation manual,2nd Edition. 2. The%at Full Occupancy, also called the Practical Capacity,is%of parking stalls being utilized at full capacity. The range typically varies between 85%and 100%. 3. The Peak Parking Demand calculations for the Office space is based on the equation from ITE'S Parking Generatipmanual since the R2 term exceeds 0.80. 4. The 400 rooms represents the number of occupied rooms from the total 500 rooms assuming an occupancy rate of 80%. 5. Assumed to be 100%for the Apartment and Condos based on the assumption that each unit would have one assigned parking stall,not be available for other uses. 6. The daily variation in peak parking utilization is based on studies conducted for similar uses,as documented in the Urban Land Institute's(ULI)Shared Parking port.T 7. Internal Capture rate accounts for a reduction in vehicles due to the high density mixed-use characteristic of the site. 00 Peak Parking Demand is 1,768 occurring at 2:00 PM on a typical weekday. M:\99\99235\Parking\Parking.xis[Plan Al The TRANSPO Group, 2/4/99 TmcoC . A1 Weekday w Parking Demand Estimate for Southport Mixed-Use (Plan B) The TRANSPO Group, Inc. Use Apartments Condos Retail Restaurants Offices Total o Amount/Size 400 185 13,000 25,000 750,000 Rate 1.04 1.11 3.23 12.49 use equation Peak Parking Demand' 416 205 42 312 1,652 XI at Full Occupancy'' 100% 5 100% 85% 85% 90% v Peak Peak Internal Peak Internal Peak Peak Parking Daily Hourly Daily Hourly Daily Capture Hourly Daily Capture Hourly Daily Hourly Required for o Time Variation° Demand Variation Demand Variation Rate Demand Variation Rate Demand Variation Demand Southport v 6:00 AM 100% 416 100% 205 0% 0%0 0% 0%0 3% 55 676 7:00 AM 87% 362 87% 178 8% 0%4 2% 0%7 20% 367 918 8:00 AM 79% 329 79% 162 18% 0%9 5% 0% 18 63% 1,156 1,674 9:00 AM 73% 304 73% 150 42% 0% 21 106/. 0% 37 93% 1,707 2,219 10:00 AM 686/0 283 68% 139 68% 0% 34 20% 0% 73 100% 1,836 2,365 11:00 AM 59% 245 59% 121 87% 25% 32 30% 25% 83 100% 1,836 2,317 12:00 PM 60% 250 60% 123 97% 25% 36 50% 25% 138 90% 1,652 2,199 1:00 PM 59% 245 59% 121 100% 25% 37 70% 25% 193 90% 1,652 2,248 2:00 PM 60% 250 60% 123 97% 25% 36 60% 25% 165 97% 1,780 2,354 3:00 PM 61% 254 61% 125 95% 25% 35 60% 25% 165 93% 1,707 2,286 4- 4:00 PM 66% 275 66% 135 87% 25% 32 50% 25% 138 77% 1,413 1,993 N Ill 5:00 PM 77% 320 77% 158 79% 25% 29 70% 25% 193 47% 863 1,563 6:00 PM 85% 354 85% 174 82% 0% 41 90% 25% 248 23% 422 1,239 p 7:00 PM 94% 391 94% 193 89% 0% 44 100% 25% 275 7% 128 1,031 0 8:00 PM 966/0 399 96% 197 87% 0% 43 100% 25% 275 7% 128 1,042 9:00 PM 98% 408 98% 201 61% 0% 30 100% 25% 275 3% 55 969 10:00 PM 99% 412 99% 203 32% 0% 16 90% 25% 248 3% 55 934 11:00 PM 100% 416 100% 205 13% 0%6 70% 25% 193 0%0 820 12:00 AM 100% 416 100% 205 0% 0%0 50% 25% 138 0%0 759 Maximum 416 205 44 275 1,836 2,365 r IA i A 1. Peak Parking Demand is#parked cars on a weekday. Calculations are based on rates or equations from ITE's Parking Generation manual,2nd Edition. 2. The%at Full Occupancy,also called the Practical Capacity,is%of parking stalls being utilized at full capacity. The range typically varies between 85%and 100%. 3. The Peak Parking Demand calculations for the Office space is based on the equation from ITE's Parking GeneratiQmanual since the R2 term exceeds 0.80.w 4. The 400 rooms represents the number of occupied rooms from the total 500 rooms assuming an occupancy rate of 80%.00 5. Assumed to be 100%for the Apartment and Condos based on the assumption that each unit would have one assigned parking stall,not be available for other uses. 6. The daily variation in peak parking utilization is based on studies conducted for similar uses,as documented In the Urban Land Institute's(ULI)Shared Parkin port.T 7. Internal Capture rate accounts for a reduction in vehicles due to the high density mixed-use characteristic of the site. 5r 0 Peak Parking Demand is ' 2,365 occurring at 10:00 AM on a typical weekday. M:\99\99235\Parking\Parking.xis(Plan BI The TRANSPO Group, 2/4/99 41:10 ler Ir so uTH POck SEC 0 Development 11009 NE 111' St. Believue, Y/eshlagtor' 98004 Southport Project Statistics Plan A April 7, 1999 Residential Component Building Average Approx. Total Unit Distribution Parking unit size Building Area Units Studio - 1 BR-2BR/2Bath) 1.3 per DU Building A 600 109,200 166 S=30%, 1 BR=50%,2BR=20% 216 Building B 850 171,200 171 S=30%,1BR=50%, 2BR=20% 222 Building C 800 194,000 206 S=0%, 1 BR=50%.2BR=50% 267 Totals 474,400 543 705 Retail Component Approx. Parking Area 1/1000 SF Building A 10000 Building B 0 Building C 18000 Building 1 10000 Totals 38,000 38 Office Component Approx. Height Descripticn Parking Building Area 3/1000 SF New 500,000 3 buildings @ 166K-over 1500 Construction parking Building 1 200,000 125'max ht 6 stories over 4 stories parking 600 Building 2 166,666 115' 5 stories over 4 stories parking 500 Building 3 133,334 105' 4 stories over 4 stories parking 400 Existing Demolish Power house - Totals 500,000 1,500 Grand Total Total Totals Building Area Parking 1,012,400 2243 r; 4 „„,„ roA.s A. o UTHPO SEC 0 Development 11009 NE 11f" St. Bellevue. Washington 98004 Southport Project Statistics Plan 13 April 7, 1999 Residential Component Building Average Approx. Total Unit Distribution Parking unit size Building Area Units Studio - 1 BR-2BR/2Bath) 1.3 per DU Building A 600 120,000 173 S=30%, 1BR=50%, 2BR=20% 224 Building B 850 185,000 185 S=30%,1BR=50%,2BR=20% 241 Building C 800 210,000 223 S=0%, 1 BR=50%,2BR=50% 290 Totals 515,000 581 755 Retail Component Approx. Parking Area 1/1000 SF Building A 10000 Building B 0 Building C 18000 Building 1 10000 Totals 38,000 38 Office Component Approx. Description Parking Building Area 3/1000 SF Building 1 250,000 125' max ht 6 stories over 4 stories parking 750 Building 2 250.000 125' max ht 6 stories over 4 stories parking 750 Building 3 250,000 125' max ht 6 stories over 4 stones parking 750 Existing Demolish Power house Totals 750,000 2,250 Grand Total Total Totals Building Parking Area 1,315,000 3043 Weekday Parking Demand Estimate for Southport PLAN A City Developer Transpo Rate Total Rate Total Rate Max(1) Peak(2) Apartmen's 372 1.5+ 1 every 815 1.3 no Guess 484 1.04 386 @12 AM 232 @ 60% Condos ! 171 4 units (guest) 136 Parking 223 1.11 190 @12 AM 114 @ 60% Total 950 707 576 346 Retail 13000 4-5/1000 sf gfa 52 1/1000 sf gfa 13 3.23 49 @1 PM, 36 @97%w/25% CR assume 4 Resturant I 25000 1/100 sf gfa 250 1/1000 sf gfa 25 12.49 312, 7-9 pm 165 @60%w/25% CR Total 308 38 201 Office I 500000 3-4.5/1000 sf 3/1000 sf gfa 2.52 (3) 1259, 10-11am 1221 @ 97% assume 3.0 1500 1500 1221 2758 2245 1768 1) 100%o:cupancy 2) @ 2:0C PM is the parking demand peak hour for the entire site. 3) Rate fc r the 100% occupancy PLAN B City Developer Transpo Rate Total Rate Total Rate Max(1) Peak (2) Apartments I 400 1.5 + 1 every 878 1.3 no Guess 520 1.04 416, 11-12 AM 283 @ 68% Condos I 185 4 units (guest) 146 Parking 242 1.11 205, 11-12 AM 139 @ 68% Total 1024 762 621 422 Retail j 13000 4-5/1000 sf gfa 52 1/1000 sf gfa 13 3.23 49 @1 PM, 34 @68%w/0% CR assume 4.0 Resturanl 25000 1/100 sf gfa 250 1/1000 sf gfa 25 12.49 312, 7-9 pm 73 @20%wl0% CR Total 308 38 107 Office 750000 3-4.5/1000 sf 3/1000 sf gfa 2.45 (3) 1836, 10-11am 1836 @ 100% assume 3.0 2250 2250 1836 3583 3050 2365 1) 100% occupancy 2) @ 10:1)0 AM is the parking demand peak hour for the entire site. 3) Rate fur the 100%occupancy Note: Tram po's parking demand analysis assumes a different ratio of apartments to condominiums than the applicar t currently proposes, but the total number of units is nearly the same at 543 du's for Plan A and 581 for Plan B. PARKING REGULATIONS USE BELLEVUE KING CO. KIRKLAND _ REDMOND RENTON SEATTLE SINGLE USE Multi-Family Units Studio/1 bed-1.2/du Studio-1.2/du Multi-family zones Studio-1.2/du 1.5/du 2-10 du's-1.1/du 2 bed-1.6/du 1 bed-1.5/du 1.7/du 1 bed.-1.5/du 1 guest space/every 4 11-30 du's-1.15/du 3 bed-1.8/du 2 bed-1.7/du Waterfront zones 2/du 2 bed-1.8/du units 31-60 du's-1.2/du Guest-no std. 3 bed-2/du Guest-no std. 3+bed-2/du 60+du's-1.25 Guest-no std. Guest-no std. Plus for du's with greater than 500 s.f., an additional.0002 per square foot in excess of 500 s.f.up to a maximum additional 15 spaces per du(net effect 1.4 max) In UW area-same as above except 1.5 stalls per du for units with 2 or more bedrooms. In Alki, 1.5 per du Average Rate For studio, I bed and For studio, I bed and Avg. 1.85 For studio, 1 bed and 2 bed: 1.34/du 2 bed: I.47/du 2 bed: 1.5/du For studio to 3 bed: For studio to 3 bed: For studio to 3 bed: 1.45/du 1.6/du 1.625/du Office 4 to 5/1,000 nsf 1/300 sf General 1/300 sf gfa Depends on zone-in Prof.,business 3-Admin.Office- Medical 1/200 sf gfa Commercial Office 4.5/1000 sf gfa 1/1,000 sf zone 3.5 to 4.5/1000 sf Medical 1/200 sf gfa Customer Service gfa Office 1/350 sf Retail For< 15,000 nsf: 5 to 1/300 sf 1/300 sf gfa Depends on zone.Retail,supermkt 4- General retail sales 5.5/1000 nsf Ranges from 2 to 5/1000 sf gfa 1/350 sf For 15,000 to 400,000 5.5/1000 sf gfa Other retail(e.g. nsf: 4/1,000 to hardware,shoe repair, 4.5/1000 etc.) 1/500 sf gfa Restaurant Sit down: 14/1000 nsf 1/75 sf of dining/ Office,Professional Sit down 9/1000 sf gfa 1/100 sf gfa Takeout: 16/1000 nsf lounging area Office and Take Out 10/1000 sf Residential,and gfa Commercial Zones- USE BELLEVUE KING CO. KIRKLAND REDMOND RENTON SEATTLE 1/100 sf Waterfront—provide demand study MIXED USE Mixed Use Treat mixed use as an No requirements Carillon Pt.Zoned as Mixed use Total required is equal In ground floor of unclassified use. stated. There is a Planned Area. developments allowed to total required for multi-family building Have applicant do a modification process Parking was in Downtown zones. uses computed there is no minimum demand analysis. where Director can determined based on Downtown has its own separately unless requirement,but a Mixed use residential reduce requirement up ULI methodology. parking standards.building is a shopping maxium of 10 stalls is found Downtown. to 50%if the applicant Demand analysis Commercial 3.5 to center. For any other for the retail use. Even with demand can show parking which looked at mixed 5/1000 gfa. uses,off-street parking analysis,an applicant demand can be met uses(commercial and Apartments: 1 facilities may be There is some ability cannot go below 1 with a reduced office)and demand by space/du plus 1 guest shared as permitted for development space/du. Also,if the requirement. Shared hour of day. Required space for every 4 under joint use standards departures residential parking is parking may also be parking for mixed uses units. These standards regulations. and interpretations. gated or restricted,it approved.based on study. would apply to Modification process For somes uses, can't be counted Residential was not Redmond Town provided. departures may be towards commercial The Lakepointe mixed,but in separate Center Apartment granted for stall size parking. Master Plan in portion of site and development. and location,but not Kenmore was across Lake WA Blvd. Downtown does not necessarily granted for reviewed under King For dwellings, have much transit numbers required. County rules. As developer voluntarily service yet. Hoping to reported in an 11/97 exceeded the normal create demand for Draft SEIS,the 1.7/du requirement by transit. requirements for providing 2 stalls per parking included 1.5 unit. stalls per unit for apartments,2 stalls per unit for condominium,and for office or retail 1 stall/300 square feet. CITY VF RENTON a.lL - Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Planning Jesse Tanner,Mayor Susan Carlson,Administrator May 13, 1999 Rex Allen Seco Development 11009 NE l lth Street Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: SOUTHPORT PRELIMINARY DRAFT EIS Dear Rex: Enclosed are two copies of Preliminary Draft EIS #1. Although you thought two copies and electronic files were sufficient, there are graphics and appendices which are not available electronically. Huckell/Weinman is making 6 more hard copies, and I believe the additional copies will be ready tomorrow. In all, you will have 8 copies per the agreement between Seco Development and the City. If you would still like electronic versions of some files, you may contact Rich Schipanski. According to our agreement, you may make comments on the document, but the City will determine whether to incorporate the comments or not. In a revised scheduled that I have sent separately today, we plan to take proposed changes to our Environmental Review Committee on May 25, 1999, and return comments to Huckell/Weinman on May 26, 1999. In order to be sure we can discuss your concerns with staff if needed, we would need your comments by Wednesday, May 19, 1999. After May 26, 1999, Huckell/Weinman will prepare a second preliminary draft. Please note that there are some items missing from Preliminary Draft #1 that will arrive in Preliminary Draft#2: Air quality CO modeling at a couple of key intersections. Right now the Air Quality section is qualitative. As you are aware from our recent conversations and letters, the Air Quality consultants felt that they needed to perform some additional CO modeling. Also, to date the consultants have indicated that it's not clear as to whether we need to do an air quality conformity analysis at this point, or whether it would be better to wait for agency comments and prepare it for the Final EIS as needed. The air quality analysis addressing adjacent Boeing operations and its effect on the site is qualitative and "worst-case." Boeing is reviewing their own detailed reports on air quality and odors, and we have requested to review the information. If available, we would review it and decide how to approach the topic. Also, Entranco has not included information about railroad issues,because they were waiting for some direction from the City which they have now been given. Information about the railroad issues will be included in Preliminary Draft#2. TS SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\SECOPDRT.doc 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 Page 2 May 13, 1999 Other information which we anticipate including prior to issuing the Draft EIS is a biological analysis of the potential channelization plan on Lake Washington Boulevard. Because off-site improvements were not identified until recently, offsite improvements are not analyzed in the Preliminary Draft. I am coordinating with the consultants on this issue, and as you and I discussed yesterday, this will likely take a budget adjustment. I should know more early next week about the additional scope and budget, and I'll give you a call. If you have any questions,please let me know(425-430-6578). Thank you. Sincerely, C571):1-4" Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner cc: Sue Carlson Mike Blumen,Huckell/Weinman II' SECO DEVELOPMENT, INC . 10843 NE 8'STREET SUITE 200 •BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 TEL: 425/688-3085 • FAX: 425/637-1922 EMAIL: seco@secodev.com Facsimile Transmittal Cover Sheet DATE: 1^'4 ,1/ TO: -0" i TEL NO: COMPANY: ' !,fJ-„U ( FAX NO: FROM:TEL NO: Number of Pages to Follow: 4- A5p4a, c 'S S Oars „00 . ' • s r gP Coe tud. THANK YOU ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS DEEMED RELIABLE;HOWEVER,NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY IS MADE AS TO THE ACCURACY HEREOF. 9/1 ' d 8L99 ' °N ZZ61 -L£9-9Zti 1N3M013A30 003S MT7 : 1 16661 ' Z l ' APN rt '-'l MAY 04 '99 09:32AM PORTICO .. P.1/4 t Fax Transmittal Date: To:e T H E PORTICO Gvl.Ev" GROUP Fax No. ZS • &'37 • (6? From: 6Yl(G'r`tfi'acz Re:7 S uJ6 • G- Arrhilr tt Number of pages sending: including cover page. 1 ii,u/rranr Arc/rirrrrs 7'' / g/ iT 4- t c- "t-• G.a ati e lurrrprrvi:•r Z Ph,,,nrrl Fv4 f— S 7172 1 d SS/,c-14 - Ls f efef , .0/Gli54 -r2 •l;xhibil l/li 1 i1 i'G //tom 71-r.3 U —z4 /2 O d Olympic Tower 217 Pi,rt Street,Second F/ucr Sraa/e, IVi4 9e101-l5Ad T Z06.631.2/9L F 206.6311199 G/7 'r R/gq .ON 7,761 -/E9-97b 1113Wd013A30 033S NVZ17: 11 6661 ' Z1 ' Ae l Mav • 12 . 1999 11 : 42AM SECO DFVFLOPMENT 425-637- 1922 No . 5578 P. 3/5 r i 4) t m I., ia- g 01 i! ll t• A ' 4,444 H 1 1,------i: ....-- _-7_ -- -'- t ' . ': J I i 2 ; 1 qkg / b :: . 1 4, ' t I s w k QIC3 I 04q. Nt I U • i t tD I N 1 1 ag C2'd k i ONI 00Ild0d Wd2E:60 66, b0 At:IW May . 12 . 1999 11 :43AM SECO r/CLOPMENT 425-637- 1922 No . 5578 P . 4/5 1\ s\ I 4-=' ') 3, t Z 't : • . Xi6 . \ t 1 • ii, 1i Al W o j• 0 r N I'll ( N7--- . XII. ki 11: : i s 1 N sl A$ A._.ct P c It f j O/E'd JNI OJIlbOd Wd2E:60 66, b0 AdW MAY 04 '99 09:33AM PORTICO INC. P.4/4 1 iu I it 1. c! NVr__________1 r AW ii lil. Aitti tizt N 0 1,3 t s: t t r',) 10ho , VI Est k 11-4 f, 11° v P 114 h tir/ L. % ir. . Alt - i: i I u,,: . ' ''' sl 11 , s . ..... 6-....., ik r:o \ ii , r i tk) x 5/5 I' d 8L59 ' °N o ZZ61 -L£9-9Zti 1N3'ld0-i]iu0 003S 1Vd£b : 11 6661 ' Z1 ' A J CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:May 11, 1999 TO: Nick Afzali,Leslie Betlach,Lee Haro,Ron Straka,Neil Watts FROM: Lisa Grueter SUBJECT: Summary of Channelization Meeting-May 12, 1999 Thanks for meeting last week to discuss the channelization plan related to the Southport development. Here is a summary of our discussion,plus some follow-up discussion with Sue. 1. Review Channelization Plan a. Cost estimate considering different alignments due to the water surface issues. Also, how to handle issue of road improvements affecting creek in EIS/Planned Action. In terms of impacts to the creek,the degree of impact may be less if the alignment is shifted to the west side. A headwall would still be needed on the west side at a minimum. Based on environmental review,we would choose least environmentally damaging alternative. On the east side would lengthening the culvert result in a fish passage issue? If improvements are made to the east side, improvement of the ditch would need to be considered. However,it's not apparent that the alignment can be moved westward enough to avoid problems on the east. In terms of the EIS,there should be biological review of the 4/29/99 drawing(describe improvements, describe habitat value, address water quality,and determine mitigation). We should address the offsite improvement in the Draft EIS to be able to alert agencies. Since an HPA permit seems inevitable,would the DOE manual be triggered? Is there an exemption for detention? Nick Afzali has roughly calculated the square footage increase in impervious surfaces to be around 8,300 square feet. We discussed that the 4/29/99 drawing by Entranco does not have to be redrawn to show a westward alignment. Redrafting can be done by Seco Development later if they want to determine differences in cost. b. Boeing Access Road possible restrictions and coordinating with Boeing Company. Counts were collected last week,but there aren't separate exit/entrance counts. Based on data right now,peak utilization occurs at 1 p.m. and at 11 p.m.which probably means that c-curbs will not be needed given Boeing's operations today. However,counts are being conducted at Park Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard for the left turn movement to see if there will be a queue problem at noon time if cars need to make left turns into the Boeing Access Road. Counts are being conducted again to determine entrance/exit volumes. We may need to alert Boeing. c. Park entrance channelization plan(possibility of a left turn pocket for entering vehicles) TS SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\TRANMEMI.DOC\cor Entranco has provided a queue analysis in the Preliminary Draft EIS which needs to be reviewed to determine if a left turn pocket is needed. If needed, the 4/29/99 drawing should be amended. d. Park Ave.LWB intersection improvements to accommodate additional pedestrian traffic. Based on Preliminary Draft EIS traffic report LOS results, we should determine if the channelization plan on Park Avenue(west leg)needs to be amended by Entranco. e. How to finalize access study and channelization plan, and what do we need Entranco vs. City to do? Based on a site entrance queue analysis and review of the Park Avenue intersection LOS, we should determine if the channelization plan needs to be amended by Entranco. The railroad impacts still need to be addressed by Entranco(see below). It is likely that rather than revising the preliminary access report,the changes would be reflected in the EIS documentation which incorporated the access analysis. 2. Railroad crossings (possibility of gates) a. Improvements to existing crossings. To finish the access report and to make the EIS report complete, Entranco needs to look at the LAG report and determine if the criteria to install gates are met at two locations at the future intersection at the site entrance. Entranco should also look at the coordination of the intersection signal with the gate. Entranco should call Burlington Northern to get information about the number, length and speed of trains. Nick Afzali has a couple of contacts at Burlington Northern. This information has been given to Entranco. Seco Development can contact BNSF early if they wish. There may be Federal funding to help install the gate,which may require a biological assessment. The assessment could probably be a 1 page letter from a biologist submitted to DOT. The City could possibly share in the funding for the gates potentially(at least for the one needed along Lake Washington Boulevard). This would be decided later. b. Parks Division-idea of another crossing. This was just an idea,and does not need to be discussed further. The channelization plan looks like it will discourage left turns into the Park parking lot from the Southport site. c. Direction to Entranco in approaching BNSF. See "a"above. 3. Funding. a. Entranco's scope and budget Entranco's scope would include: Developing a feasibility level opinion of cost to include the major project elements(retaining walls, signals, drainage,illumination, asphalt). The estimate will be consistent with the detail outlined on the existing base map with the red line plan TS_SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\TRANMEM 1.DOC\cor submitted to the City dated 4/29/99. Cost would be $3,750. To review 2 options at the Johns Creek culvert, add another$1,500. The$3,700 fee seems reasonable(the$1,500 cost came in after the meeting). We need to direct Entranco to look at the storm system costs,and account for relocating the upstream ditch. We may want to include a cross-section. Also, Entranco should account for the cost of gates at the railroad crossings. Speaking with Sue,it seems that this cost analysis can be completed at a later date when we are closer to a formal site plan submittal. The main purpose of the access study including the channelization plan was to determine if improvements are feasible,and that has been demonstrated. b. Use of impact fees,potential City participation. We discussed the developer's responsibilities related to the cost of off-site transportation improvements and the mitigation fee. This issue still needs to be determined, at a policy level. cc: Sue Carlson, TS_SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\TRANMEM 1.DOC\cor CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: May 7, 1999 TO: Lisa Grueter FROM: Tom Boyns, 7209 • ?; SUBJECT: Request for Review of Railroad Easements Southport Entrance We have reviewed the easements as requested. We find no conflict concerning the status of the crossing. As Mr. Zimmerman stated in his letter, this is a public crossing and there is no plan to terminate the public use of the crossing. There is no concern about limiting the use of the full area described in the easement. Therefore if we need to reconfigure the roadway to suit current and future needs we have every right to do so; subject only to proper notification of the railroad and coordination of the construction to avoid impediment to the railroad operations of that active line. We are aware that the Parks Department would like an additional crossing. We suggest that in accordance with City Policy a plan be prepared and budget approved for their project. Once these elements are completed we can approach the railroad with a request for a new crossing. We will need to demonstrate that the new crossing will provide safety improvements for the railroad as well as solving our needs, for example relieving high volume or high accident experience at an existing crossing. Please feel free to discuss with us any remaining concerns you may have at your convenience. CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4 1999 4.5a r AY `- 1999 TO: Tom Boyns CITY OF RENTON FROM: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578) .*:1:6Engineering Dept. SUBJECT: Southport—Railroad Easements Per our conversation yesterday,I've attached a Southport Title Report,Easement descriptions, and a letter from Gregg Zimmerman to Puget Western Inc.,the current property owner. Please review the railroad easements and let me know if there are concerns about the current easement in relation to the access improvements we looked over yesterday. Also, Leslie Betlach raised the idea of another railroad crossing to access Gene Coulon Park. Would this affect our current easement? Thanks for your help. TS_SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\- TS SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\tbease.doc if ._ •Y - is max r; A ct f r CITY .OF RENTON t.,Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,AdministratorJesseTanner,Mayor January 13, 1999 Mr. Robert B. Boyd,President Irl ' 11:::Puget Western, Inc. JA N 119515NorthCreekParkway, Suite 310 5BothellWA98011ELL.,,,„,„ a NEIGHl3 LvcANDSItiAE: icSubject: Puget Sound Energy's Shuffleton Site Public Street Rights to Railroad Crossing Area Dear Mr. Boyd, This letter is in reference to the rights granted to the City of Renton (`City') by the Northern Pacific Railway Company via instrument dated June 19, 1967. This easement document was recorded in King County under recording number 6201855, a copy of which is enclosed. The referenced railroad easement grants to the public via the City of Renton the use of the grade crossing as a `public street only"and is subject to conditions which allow the railroad to use their property and limits the rights of the City to grant construction right to others. In the event of abandonment or disuse these rights will cease. To further emphasize the intent of the original grant from the Railway Company, the right-of-way has been improved with curbs, sidewalks and street pavement. Additionally, Puget Sound Power & Light Company granted rights to the City across Puget ownership, as a continuation of the same street. These rights were granted under King County recording number 6317510, a copy of which is attached. Puget Sound Power & Light and now Puget Sound Energy have utilized the easement across the railroad property for public street purposes since the date of the Railway Company grant. The City has no plans to abandon this street crossing of the railroad. It is the City's understanding that present and future owners of the Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton site, together with all other members of the general public, have the right to utilize the easement area for public street purposes, and cannot be restricted from this use. If you have further questions regarding this access easement, please contact Neil Watts at 425-430- 7278. Sincerely, i iiiegq 3101friteida -- GreggZimmrman,Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department cc:Sue Carlson Jim Hanson Attachments SHUFLT-1.DOC\ 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 cn, r emu..-. 1405-682 11 I the individuals deearlbodt. and who n-oated the within in:trr wont, and eokno:rlodcod to i re that „ gr.. j eG and sealed the ame as Chair free and voluntary set and dead for the swoon and purposes Herein rnti0.red.1111 1 Titnees .ry hand and official seal the day and year in this eertifloato first above rLttwt,i I (C. d. C. notarial reel) C. C. CLMDer: I Cos. :s. Jan 16, 1031) notary Publics lratul for the State of It I :.Yashlnctest, residing at Seattle. I I ` Filedi for record at roquoat of-•aahinp;on Title Ina Co Dee 31, 10:0 at 18 sin past 3 T. Y. 1 lag/1/`y Coor(,o A. Crnnt, County Auditor it r • 250'3193 I The City of Seattle To uit Claim Deed I. Seth II. 3lorford 1 Quit Claim Deed no city of St.ttle, a mt-tteipal corporation of the State of 7lachinGton, in consideration of:tise I t Curlrod Twenty-five (f,:215.00) Dollars to it pals!, hereby convoys and quitalatac to Soth II. Dorford, all 1 1. rich:, titlo and •atorost in and to tho foliai:-; doscrtbod :coal 'strata, in Y.int County, TioshtnCton, to-; J. -• volt• 1.ot 2, 31oo:c i of t.h. Greer. ;4 o arIt :hors Addition• a-cos the portion :andcod .:r street purposos pursuant to Ordinance Ilo 51536, Causo Ilo 19E433, for tho natabtlaIssont of north Croon Lake::ay r d' In"itnoas ThoroeT. `•ho said City of 1oat:lo has -*used this lnetrttment to De oxoouted by its a '`y• Mayor and City Ccaptrallor therormto duly author/sod pursuant to the provisions of Ordinanco Ilo 5a44 0.s=r.-?I and has ceased 1ta corporation seal to be !:ore•_:o af.r.od, this 23 day of aovonhor, _020. i•:.'- 4' ••_' me C of +. Corp. ;eel) The Clay of Seattle j:fit-:. q; Frank ?.dt•itrdo, It: Major T1V..r.::.'_i 13 Attest: II. Carroll, 1a :} Comet r l - Y roller. I State of TaohUtct t y i.1 L-?~ County of King This is c. Carol that on this 23rd day of aov••Sber, 1928 o'' before no, the stdersigned, a notary Public in and for the :tato of;iaohinCton, duly oaatsslonod and overt, personally appoarod Frank =dnard and II. 4. Carroll, to vio peraonally 1s•wan to Do t.`.: haver aid aV,^^i lc4t.;,"tie,. 7L riCi:y Comptroller, rdenootivoly, of The City of »ast:le, the mtml ipal corporation that uxoou:od L`.e :ore- Yri+.;7c....;i 1 ping inotrment, and :.sistorrledCvd to too that they sip7tod and coaled tllo sera litho fro° and voluntary act 5l.a ',: and deed of said municipal oorporatioa, and on ouch atatod that the wore aut:tori:ed to oxoouto said in-•a •—: s 1 y w= strtaent, and that the soap affixed la rho seal of anid a s:101po_ corporation.r pV,T.[ T_ Yitnes :rand and of natal coal :.•c .:1•r .tad your In this eart1rioate first oboes written. i.''teah J. 11, K. notarial Seal) John 7:, }•.oily WV' 'b. Call. ?x. Cot 6, 1031) llotary ?ublio In and for the State of 3‘. Tnatrington, rnaidl.n0 at Seattle.ros4 r. 7 1 F'Lsd for r000nl at roque•t of Ourno11 _ _'er:ord Doo :I, 1028 at 42 min pw.:t 3 f •' a%t r••..j • A Ls/; CoorCo ... C an ett y.. ,d bF Tp"'1 :ji` ::. 2dio0368 Fuld Sound l'o'ser k Lir}tt Company F 1l`\/ a.•;.51'+:i1' To AaostoK. l—!•••i `• f lot •• ill1 Faoitio Coast ;tali reed Company iw e//._,t)t . This Indenturo, Endo aril or.torod late :Ilia 31:t dayof Doombor, 1028 and botrroon riit;ot 501 rt, _.. -~~ by r rower 4 Licht Company, a cow;oration orCeni:od ors axis:Inc rr4or end 1p• virtue or• rho lano_of rho State 1 of rassaehue.tta, party Cr :10 •fist part, aid l'aoifio Coast dtUlr^.d tospany, a nor.ornt1nn orpnl: odMIME11 and axis:LnIc tailor a:4 try :•ireuo of :he la:t of the Star.* of 77,rhi.^ct•en, (ferooirly is'....: rh:lw r.. PColucb is h Arco: ;cunt .allraad :tpary) party of ..:o coeond ;o rC, itnos-oth:i 7 .-:' That 7.'rerons, non:oapornnooualv '+lt:: the o-a att.ion and dal Irary or this tndonture he .nl.l :ecrrd '`la:_ •.. pewit !tan mode, oxotv:*d evil deilt•eret tr. :la .r:r of rile first mrt n .iced eor:tol•In' :r el.•. rv.r:r a"•h• emu. -`'- first p.rt :ao o:hur panic) :h., fol;wtnC ' Iliad tract, plu oa or _.;o..l of tarot 1)'SnC •n.l Lilai; Ire i^ nCn County. 7.•a.11 Ln&t en, end nor* port I cuI Orly dos erlhed •o follows, to-.r1:: i'.• I A of the.. portions of 0orornrant :.at. Ono (1) aryl > rrro (2) In Joet ion 0, tosl.1` -1 ;:or..:, s panCe 0 :act. .. Y. In King County, Washington. ..'.1 of shoo. portirns or L.,", ,...liln,;tc- t::n^• :.rda rrntln,, ':hero on• .11 eat. ps rtier l.rly•assert...4 as rollers, r.u..•.v..- T-•!cl'!.• e'...._-.. .'a I. ..- - e et .•••.1- ...•_... 11.'r C)J ) 11 I•) N o_ iii: ii)I • Zia){ , • i ...,..Ynrool .1: ilorinnl'C •: too ncrt'•^ st .•cr0^_-- _ `_- _ _ ._. .. worth, Rant!' 5 :e: • 1:-. ani: :o cr e: r:e..arr,,en: low c. (1) ;o at!on , M !P1n: ..a inr :ha ct•r:d:rntt: ecrnor of thoaction0; t IU1%00 wstorly pion narthonet •1' rtur or laid a( aJwnorth11roofta'dLot1an: a y I .1. :t •'.sr. foot awro or lose :o an :section lair such sine redotoll;ae D oed eeeter2 955.21 't -1th who raaorl;. ow-: e:' ..1• '-' :L4L,'•. talln+t)• Coapany•: Lake r'lfltt-or-nay or who d:orthorn tatifleISi ... r-' dri ton line, bo1nC tho true pole: of Se61nn1nS: thence amtthnsesrl; alone :old tar,-,tn of :aid rifft-of-ray 1027 foot Dort or loll :o it: in;orsoetion 'te :;to sotrh=n:torly s -.:Z.:.: boutl+lary of Tract 1:o 6 of '•ako :nahlnCton ;ha-* land: as a and filed in t,7uso Co 156371 in :.y, Su heap en .hoot :its 3 of nap pram-.q• OAo iisaaoperi:: Cou- of Kin, County, on:ltlod 3oat:le Factor; Silos Con- vtvi'•.••' parry et al, n. Ann J. ;data, et al: :hanon Gott;; 3• 11+ 4C.%." colt ..ion :a ar-r•••Iof trot do 6 1Sil.L-; foot _are or lava to G !d :outh:roatorly Douadnrl in:ter harbor t`"' • ' out by tho.State of 17aah1n on; lino of Lndx .•a:hLt tan Shore Lands a• laid; tar..). .-mri'.6 :honoo north 45. 45 ` ua•t nitang laid Snnor hariorllao ?75 foot; :hence rrcrw S17t=" - mouth M." 1.. oast 660 loot mono or loll t:a 2 point on tho north lino of Governaont Lot 1, ptudueed; h~` {4 y 1 thonoo oaatorly 765.50 foot nor. or less alehe who ex':anaion of tho north Line of Gaveemmnt Lot 1, Os t 1" deotc=lbod above* :o the .ruo pays: of ba Y4Ln1111-.1. C= S: oontalning 40.2CC ae-aa Coro or seas, n=t tat-o parloulerly shsnn on l o s ,;,,+}. I hereto a-narcd and mde a fin,-- heroof. M:y th"_-.'• rho Northnoat Sound:.r, lino of .:old :root Wing oeineidant Olt), the anittlnL Lear harbor line IIA aIhorotoforolaidoutandostabli:hod by the 3ta;o of Taahtncton; and ft 7floroaa, who :000nd party is tho manor of lands and 'hero landa lying iaaodiatoly north of and !iIwAWin.wlw: .h^ w+.t•`a ___-:.w•. i,.vuC e:' lattQ to aconvoy d :o iL t 7ound Poster & Light C•+ emny, as afore-I v»? ?^..said, said lardo so eenod by :ho :000nd party havinc frentn.w Z4't a; lore, harbor lino of 317.215 foot aice- Eni. o :mid throat .1 30 comoye.t u\• :ooutd ;.<.r_y :o fire: party n-d the said t•)^ a•rr•J t - aro shown on who print tuarnod =ahiLi; ".1" ord =ado a lat+da ornod ty J:a :000nd party y Par .:o-ocf.. yi: Ile++ 'horoforo, i.• -'?.-n ennaldoratton of the prnninea, and for a valuahla oon:tdorution each :_ the a: or in hand -aid, who f:.:: part'.', ter !two:." an a-. ;:'it: :ueeoa:ora and aaal doe: :tarot?! covenant and nGr'oo to and lath the :ail ;tarty the second par., its su000ar.or. and nar,irin that the harbor piton ad-I!: ..7::' • '•o aoent to, in front of and bordcrtr on ';:s coat northerly 2G0 feat (roasnrod along aid L:nor harbor 1 La .r- t,r. l:ra of said !rccl .1 :hall, so ar as for=l:sod lea and who ubito au' o-!:!Os haring aces of of ho i ':' v ono, forovnr So loft Opar, art: =oh:true:oil for tho 'tan of -,tor craft a: a al!p; and that rater craft i ' : moving to and .trim or bar:hin at :he .•^aond party+s staid property, or at such :rho:: ur thorvoa as rat• bo built :hocoon, or in front thoroof, a: t J` " nforcraft oc^tt, to and ..^r® or lwrthinr a: :hr. said i'arool' t; •^ L. 1 of the firstparty, or auan wharf or ri:arvns as fay Yrivbobuiltthereon,on, or in front tl.orrof, ahn 11 have ` tho tactual and joint use of ouch slip. This covoro.-t shall attach to and tan -1th the land above Cosar!Sad as faros: .1 and shall bo bL^dir.0 upon the _sir. ,first pert..;, it: :ucoe:ners tad daci,,;,a. Irr_ t""+a o iho ooeord Dart:: for Stool:' and S:s au000:aoro ant n:t:fno deco harob;• covenant ar.0 alroo to and 1~"-'—`'`' th :h^ :mid fir:: :arty, Its aueooa:on sad s_:ii7a, :o ;ay as nod shoo rsrueatod by first party, ; I• ^ ;; part ono-;•-1S of any rentals raid wry :he fin- party In the ;co of ::a oh inr on on the harbor area lyinr in Z.'e.0 51. f• ront of, adjaooat to ncd berdorlaL .n Lilo ....at northerly CFO foot (mnanared alone said lunar harbor line) tr _o• f said Areol . cor.•.royod by the second ;••.r:;• to ..h..., first gory. In 7Stnoao .heroof', who parties het•o:a be.•w •<a:sud :t:a.w ^ruaonts to So o-wou:o.; by ...hot: dui•: tant.h ..1 hL•!. CC-_ _ ._ -'.^l_ ._ ..: :'-. ..... L+ '•)• 1---L..:;... P.• .. r. ,l ... •:o. .•-r. .w+l i tlot :oar.0 :'sour L L1Utt :saran), 1 6'r 1i 1 " U al:on Leonard. Proa4!ont w-. ltto:t: Jaanu B. 'novo. .:oarotar• S Cr--.°i"•"'( I• :. d. L'o. ;worn. ;Dal; i+oific Coast :lnilt•oad •loapany11::f," '„'. .. c`T: C. anrC, froaidont om: 1s _,_.St:ua:Id. .:.Ltlfln:, ,loarotnr>• ztYr':J1'nrorod to forts 4`"[t',?,. rattan :.•;(ono tlkz t. .:-tat;On, II R_:.;'.ir{..r nra VOd :in tO naan.^1:.1.11•n G1 i • s 0. L. n. .wI".I'a..•ut a . 1.. ...a 'cl',j 67,4 nr.'+rdnro, +no.+:r cr inn; .;awn 1 .r:.:;iT o to {i •,z1: •..ems.:•!.. itn-.n of —::.1r.,-un 1., op I - : on vs .: a+tag a Litt:. ...at day t 14. y'•ti o oo=tor 10::6, 1>o fora ..-a, :anal', jj{{''1 I nn^un red ... r, I.•,.•,•,...I n^•. .:ncuw II. tic—,• _u .•r, :.1.,r.•n to •.o •!... I•rn..',dont and ':a or et•ry, ,.•.,••n_l.:••d• 4• ` .1.._'1 '_•= of iVrot toured B'o•.•.r 1 :.lrht ConMr>)', the nor:nrn:icn :hot oteovto,I the •tti.in an.i :ors.otn_ I a.•w,na, 11 1•••r--•'- M r rx; :olal,mlod(od The a.id :n:tr.a.r.w. 1, .•a _.,. .. • ,nd voluntary net artu:oed c. f ••,oh oorrer,:Son ^r he a"r t '. . •• . .. . : i , sl.' Ali.;; i ',4...•tr,(..! : •*..4.,isl e:::.''''..." I.*.4,..,..•,$:k •. .1_, . ...,S ;; . ....t...,-. . ..:*... ..5. 4...,'..:::1.f.. ..,...:t i t.c.,...:4, ri. ,1:1 ...z.....; ? :4.f'• , j., t' •',. : T • 1.,2; .• I 1441.44:..0.10 1•143t,'t.1" :111*-40:)iar'••••••• 11 t i:!-,:. . '•7..,„•Fritl- '':`../..•:- 1 r* i ' '"..t.;:lttli•vi • ' ; ..----;•!;•‘'..til: 'ti 1 :?::;fzt• 4c131:••• ',..p....i•i--z-it:i • •`..,'4' 4,1...-.7.f.,Ft••.... ...•,•••1;xci•E, ie. i •-t!.*:. •;•,•al 3'1 .: ••• ' .- 1. i.... r..,%,- ;•;4....„.....;,..;,: ....• a •;,• .:.%,Arc.•,,,,,:,:,, i.„ .14 ; ;V:switir::: ..: ;A 11.:,; 'f; 4•44 th• • il 0.011 . ...,40,. 0... ii,,pilk•,0/4,,I....11...dzi .f.:...s.•" ...,,, ,... t ,...)•.• 1.. ..,, ... .,....4,4s.r.•:. ..i. . •iit; p.. olivir,i:4 ••••. et ,p.I•tf, .v, ,sa.s. •ft it.04,1. I•ii• .....•ff,•••••• •.•go'l)r, l'4,7..71, • i..."02,1" -' ••• ': •1f5, j..1.1:::• ;.r: .; ;,- t. • %,4.-,• 1 ;...os .i tit: i• .:ie..... • i•••,. --y••••t::., tit'. ,* .t.:L/..A ..,.; t ..,.,. ....iic../; :..r.1.• .::...; . . t• .A.P,• 4 .'. . i x ijeta-a••••a-. 7 . 4...11 ...a. . i ° kl. ..4.41..1-.,''", k-lir..., ._...': 1.'.9.1: : Zit'441.!..111.1; ri .!.°:.; ..t.. 1::;f:iiittre. ;;.‘...: ..., i 4b.).(/ ,;ji., 1 ., 14. 451",:ft 4eas:, 2-, . il . 4. .' •• 1 • it .•',. • : ''kW, ••azi r„ia ., .. . rs. fr3 • . 4 " . • . 1. -4.... :SA ' ,... - I : -T 1•-•lc s ••1-- 02:_i--k EL._s- - L'. la 4. _ ... 1. ."11.. ;ac,,,r-zr:ormv.. ..zitrs.ftest tiLi......---doulL-I3tifEn ... .. •, . E11.__ r../Iirantravt: • wrist • r.,........„..._1,,. t_, ..........-.4 L,........L,.t.z.,....,„i..,,x_.z..t._...,...7...a....:-..zz..>- _-1.=,.........ITIMIIIIMISIMONIMM 1= 1,:a ====gr=elfjeirZ2EraliellielrEMMiliarhataiirillirfetnieMIEEINZEMEMrrtiM irguzzassattems---- "I. . 4.14: '';.;•!!''.: . 7-71--------.--'''''-'-'"....'‘ 1 ..:•..4::7J;c1.. ,SmatiqP,I;i0,2 0.-.,r77,,-1,t ..v.:.. ..t._,a.:. ,ILL.. •.... -_1..-....,,......1,,,..?..g.....-. 7.. _ -, I ipiris r..f.Av 0 ,a ,., . r•44,1: v--,,, 11....:-.. .....1. -.....k-r., ....,.,,.i4-r.,1..4;.,,,,,. ii 1 ;- a t.,....; ." ;f;P.:,;;,,,;-;I:.:,;•••••:,,.. ..1 ta•SI P'...1-f's 1 , 1, ... s.1 l'*1 1;sr,:.1,1 ...: ..•L., t3. 0. i/1..4444 p ,-a . •r.r.•Isla ft it.tiv7e-illtif'''.fli fir..r::'1, .1'.'.j:' .-' ' If:; • ' 134 I.t. 4; fr.t.i;ii. /174 .. -- '..' If :414-.4Wisr274 •'.'-r •••••Vt•'.. 141'imrAlliFt4e-if • `.4-',..,••ff t•• .. .3 or, .-4.1..3.1: ,....., t, ,.x., .,, .,. ..:q. .....-.i;•:1 rt.1,r,.%'," '•". ‘ ' . i ..-:e .-' 1..t. 1411i-i-a *.r. l'..;-i'• *.7:.(.4.....(;;;i4, 1••• 4 i ' i V•11!;):2 lit *l.'1.-11:')I -VPif !'.s.V1,:;.:,:,....'-.1.. 7.;....i•- e li.tri 'L.'01,Z.:12.••Iftli.37lii!; li-ii01*•!.! lr'..4 1.1,11 7/• : Vatig.1 i .. • 11&,:'._alito tfilf.I.,fil j.k,...y. ;.,,,,,- 4 ..,1.•,.i.i.i .. .,, ,e • iii.l..lif i..',;: '!,4) T' Frei'1 .,4% ,.. 1 eit•t -•..." . eifiir:4:441;1 i,r;J:17.1:::.1. ,:'.i;?.,:f:110 ,pi O.., ; Eta!'.:;,., )1,et:tfiNqiii.f7;.4., :f -.:k.:,.e:',..,:. i•..ji ..7...'i-;,_ ‘,., 4..!., ..•i 1,0.•7..7.1if tit-12.;;17:1:1;1-;•',WIpo1'• ''' VF •• •*:' 7. 4..1 zio r ...V.Fi:A;.'qUi.iv -'. ..•i it'-b;• .1.i: i.ihiRy. if,•-•,',:>...'it.'''.0,-).fT7' 4'..til/..':t.1":7.-1;.":; :7,'.;... v.,ir.: .,,. :to:ms.. .01::94. 4:q. 4 .1 tr7;n:$':'..911'.'• :'•...^is,':0,411.-...54.‘t:. v:. . ...,-r.,,,,,:l'7:,%1-• .,.•••:;t:)i...v../.••••f,‘,.:,1„.;T; t :. •,:,'.; •:;. .1,..iI1,N 4 1 ....:!, . ..l'i4i, :4:f t , 1.1•4.......A1 I ••••71'.'1V(V,.•••!t,i,;It'i,i!.!•'.:-71.7-itt.lIct i cii;.'.!:'..:, ,-..i. .•i•,:... •;.,.. .1.1.i: .....,.::,!.. :.,.,,.:••••••••,; ".?,! . . .11 7,...1.iii „.4.;,.: L. ;4, ..i. ,..,.:„-'1'1 ., : .4, w,.-reil.r.t.7,145; :i,r.i..1(. , 7 i- ,..:;. •••L.1..:•••:t-;Q !!,!•i!,:,;• e• r•i!,.e..!.i ilit,,;tif.',,,1,00,,-,14 04.4.:.:L.•-,. f :.. .,.1; ,..- ...;;.., ,-, ,_ ..4...„ .f„..... ,..1 : . :-• ii3?•'•..` t,i1 -r,1`11,7-,.. k-sr,,,.- • ;•)• ' 't•'...'1 • -'..c.41',•::•klio-, ;.....1!., • ' , .... :: 1 .;; :t•i: I, fi:II;plt;7'-',..f.i. -.4.:_rs:J4 f.•;.ii 10 i f '45f,:=17-.1'..f... oi,,;.-:, s, 5.•.. .:.:1.:•....! ..,'....!.....;...!•... .;,...;•,: „...:,, ,.. 7, .1'1: .",e -.11..111 • :.' ' - -14_ _.• a KNIR4-1, ',%; -,•-• l,i•-..:'I".a 1,--•: .....:1**•'Y;:•li•-v.::i,!:--;,i'. :12 :',,..,... ...i'il'Is pl ri..itt.I.: ,.;,,,.!...,...,i., ;,...i.. .. ..-....::;.. •% f.-, 7..... : i.,1-; i:rti •-•:: 4irt-•• ;• : i •• woare,,,A-j t:.;.-44-.:;,;;•!4.....r f .: ". 1 ..i.. ....) :.;",-..-.01.1,4.40,0; :i-... ..,...-.Li;.....i.„."- c,‘.•• i,"‘,1111 tie/:,.!;.: 1. .--.:.. :,,,::.-..,/ •.:•=1;),-..'...1:11 `• •4 " c: 7'.. Votli;Ap tic-i ---rr. •• t--••• •- •: • -,.. r •-.'• jeoi, • t• • •••, l• a'-t•j;0 i',...•‘ilk, tUt •:. •• ,. •• • :..J.t. i::- ''.•'. '.'...•.1.' J;•••• .•• -1 4; jk.,- ' 1.1ket .....% -.`i's "r I.'. ....•INI ittti•P•01;'!il.' i''.':;.i1; ,,:i.. ir'•el '..1!1-..11..ri,:i.I..7'N• i, !,,•;•*,:- . • .1'.:•..il.;?•:s•' "•'..1'.ga 'I. . •is.;.1,j f -- ,' 11.1,..!...r.IF .Z. ... •••l' :i.'..,r•':;I•ei 1,.':S.4 II:,......1,..!IP!':i..t, .t:.&;' :'. .;i:••3 ':iti i•1;1•!.:/...i:*.‘".:11r• -. 1. C.:.If% ');',. :.".-.yeli.)•••-,:i.....f. F./ .:.•,•;Al2,... . ,11,,t4i.1 . . •,• v• A • .1,7 .1..tc.I. if..ik-'-‘...iit:1-! v i.•:"...;+..!;.,-)f: p•;%9441: 1.. ;:ii..-Li..f.r.i-j. •.I kr:11.f,o," 3.'•';',•:'!;• r!., ,...,•!-. 1.,.,,:..:.- 2-•-r-i:',-,-!:,; 41 -4. ,A., II,tri f 2 .„ , '. •...L, •'s•so •.. al ,43•:. ft..; ,,d,:tif wi;1....z.•,),%1;•• k....!..e.1;.1,1;.),...' r;14,...:';..1...• ',..*,,,.',..,; i• ..., !'`j..,•-.. ',I' !./ VI n:J1:^r:,,iiti3,41'.-,;- el. t: ' . ;'1 •.7.t.is?tki`,-1.. .*.• ".• t •'"... 4 •1'.It? rj;A...4.°v-:"r•rist' `r1....-.1%i•.K•i'14.-.:t-i.... M.'••••••:•t•A: ';';;;-:;-•:),,Y-:4 ,•,•Ef-,; •;-'...f*,' '*.•1"....ti '4. t'.•I1 .j•I' ' .ri' f !Ilkil;19,....ii l':.!i..:: . i•:.4...11t1i.fe Virriti 1 .:1E1 1-,,:„T k l• izfil;!-,.., ....•.• :.: ....:•i•-..••••••`. ;=.;:... :..,:•.'. •;;,-•;,••* 9.•31;.ifh ?;:•..'::.1t5)..."it r,, . .7.4.k.. .; • ..• .t .44. •! rlt?p) :;fe..%. ! pt.i. , : •',T f.:e.1 t..r.'..1.t.t;:t4.r.1 '..1. I. ..!..7. .1 .:-....- 7.....':.t(l'`;%•''• •.-..;•.•'., *; '...; .l'.1:..:'1 I''''':'.... ...(....);.14:•)i..."3•041 1.?.:4',.? :/„1....; e.*! i•-`6,- ';';:::z; 'Isi,dvtte.: 7, ... 1:1:--.':1 I • -;! :1;'+•;(v...11Nixi;wvit.P1-,• )-i'l l?','•'IP.'7,•ii..'4,•; '.?(.`, .;!7::!. •. ' ''•••,- !"..4'.•••:1 R.:..::V,1 i:i.,,2 -1.:`,1.:":4ID,1 Jii;,. 1.1.• r,1 ti....;• . t. .1' ..,.:/ ..'..... .• ..•• 1, .;`•. ? j.•: ,t••',•,,--:...% .' ,..,••• f•;,•t•' •,..;t. '... •pi..ii):4111.?1;.triS''-.1. i1:11%.•:i.,. I 1; i4.1....011.4ti ' 11] ki:. s-C•',' Letit:ti..1.if .,11.r.:1111i..? ;7'..,.;. 11:,. 4;:-.7;* Li''.4;•-iif.'".f,,•.;11:.:1144?7,-.131%.4-iiie;1;11.41. 7...4 g.).•iir.-i!';'). t.. i" 1. 7••!..'?......11iii:. .:i:'...:•:..i... ;'-,:".,.7i.,1,-1..-it''..:':•;„:.. ..:.1-..fq-1::.:1?..,:.!;i::::it?; .....eiltit4.'41 i' l..-..tt.,..#4 I. 1,-,, Ii„ ,- . tIV...J.P.I.A•c!tw,!PF. :: t: - .',-.. 01&,;ii:6•4,-.11tra.ktrA5',.4:i.i;...)t 1(r.•••,';Ir'.•t. J:-1 I:::*! .. ri*:' '....;., .. •T ' ' t:,• '.ri.,;•01'...,..3,f,10.1..;",4 yr.t. P..1.$II !II! 15.:iiiii1,-..o• 'a- t,. ,..,- I. . 1) pr•,.;...,1•••!..i r..1 .,.. :0-)1•":•!k If;••.1::f x.,,ff.ri .-1-g .'.1.;;.i/i''','',..?,-i.!,i,-:.....1.0 r.- :.• ., f:f.7:.• f::-.. •• ...:1 1'...'.'.::,;‘,.,,:::',•::•*.t li...,.;',t:1Ii;...t.,,t1,...i.l..., i i, k'.: 4,; t•.-M7.1'.,!r,,:.•,..::.;.,..,,: i...,i.,-, 1;......:7...,...... ..eilrzif,),Vi..:1:3:41 . ......,.!...•„4“.r ,.•, I.r. ',t, •:',. ...,,.:5:)..- 1- .,r.! ;: - :;• sr,•;•.e...:•iir-Ay:.1i 1.••4.144ttt! fi'' Ali 1!;t:.;',: •••... 7 .'• .. (.... •, * it; allit: t.,.. 7,.: 1:: •.1.,..r..;it..'.1."........ tis• st. :::: ii rit. '.........„::',...;•1...... 0.: 11-,.:. 1.1',1::..:•:;•::. ....1..:....:: ..-..::.1.,....:.... s:::::.. s`:...;'• .,;...; 1.....,...i.. i.. 1......;:::.1.1. 1..'„......‘ 3. 1'.::. :..;:::.,,,, i ''4.r:.:.sql Ili /'%•.. 14 I • • ' .ggi.".6 •,1'4.• '1.*:''....'••••• i .; .-..",.;I::•;•i t..li:t*.;g i':.I••'•:::kilt 1. ''::'4'i"Z:.!•;:•. 1,!I.1i ,:' :..it .. .1 ••••• ;. .....:if. I It: 0.•.;1 Of/PO ' ' yet 0i'sikiJil; .;g. r..,•. . .i...... '.....-•. • •,1U,.:' I ..•'. i•.-9,* 1."),• .• r.1f.:•!::.1..;• •,- • ,•: ...1• , ?.•., •- ft [, •,i•I •,•-,, t• qr../.1 ...1), c,' i :Uick• ..-Irl "'e •i4r.1.3.1;;• ,r4;14.;irit..: '••1'...: ,,,,..;1 • - 14. ,),(1,41 :0,1.1:T.,r1,,:•••,• ,-,LI;5 Vs.-,..1:.1,..T.;-.).;Aci. 1,i '.z..;istit 1 ......1,11746 Ir,-..,..1. 4.1 e,,,i.4 t.•,;,•.;::..:•:.,.........4 r..,..:......:-.•,..,..i.jii,••;(:•t;.....‘ip;;42..: ••4,-.' .".f iz,,:.:J. i.1.1:111 :EfifiFtli'r . -. • ;',.- •? yi% ii,i,:ilt..4.:4,4.-: i 1;:.).:5.-ri r., r;-..•;1 1..,;;14.)!1::-..:::,fi...-,:,....1.l'...: .•• ••:•:.. •f. ( i;'..4".'''..1..:...,'1., 0-; .', ...j:;•.,.;?.• ...1.;., • ;'a c.!,..L.r.ii'l 1 cf.;,.......IP?if:** 1.:',.:1.!:',14EVA'..q.if.:.4.% 34 .' 4...7.. .".'. .;.41./.:::: ':•.*,:'•:' ....'... !: '',. • ... ..7.,..,...rj% tr , , t ‘•. •.,b :,% • . "..-:•„1 ; .:3 '..• ‘if 41.F;lor!'•• ial1P:till/"Iklq.it•it r ' ifir IR... 4/ 11'i!itili ‘1.1:itlitf •:. it!!'1,1%.11.r.!•-i I;ag k.• 1:6+" t t .-00:t '-'''' r; ,' v;i1,4,-. •,,-.z.leb.7-) j„.• , t• ,d A 0.-„;).11:_61 •S ''''.:(•• f '' i 4'X. - . i.le-.72% rii4.• i ini. • Inilltp,•'i„Vi 44.-.1e. 4..,f,. ..,5 ... • ,...., c !.. . . c. :.,srAL ii.9,..1 . 3•,1‘. '.4 C • . s. ti•ti-4!I lit'. I4. ' z...v...%. ,, 1 ,;i: , T.:4..i I. 10 i. • '411 1 grilld.'......1.'.!:.11V.0::.41,tilit at• I; i ii,T1) ••4;iiNdtr..)•!!?P'-''•0'1'2' 1.‘t;t:tl,`,..;c. tiTil:.• -1k1:- a p I.' IA* .-ti 11$4','Itt*`!-;)•ti' it- C' ' i 1(-0i•j% .i''telt. . 7_\°*&'-t'./_ '.; ..' '. -,. i.. i .... i .fl!.• '3 ... ,: -.V.,-,.y.•'!„..:;' ,i ,....,. • , - E;.-17.-'.'''•___•):=,",f... -:f......;, 1•:.•,' !... in, .:',, _.•:- -ifetze.•:!.. .4t 1 :"-,41. ft'•rititz, (...4-'7ez.Ff\---v. (.• ',..'' "'. --- -,'N.L -'). Rif,, ..1. il'• j... - loll -.4.‘-'• ir'';•!7 i A/ 'i'llt:;.'ill -ig3'1..;:g•til v'sitilri -.-;r P!1".1.;`,7:1(;!;:,:.7. ; ' 1°.- i -ii ' .0 • 41-,. :41; • - ilk';' 1,.'4 • P'.'%442 •.' i-7'',• ...ft, : :•11X-A-' I; - 4.;,q-, l'i s Vi" t:If 4 1....-'ilit:iiigIViiLi:A:-Ciiiii-14T2%;ififre .1;4.iktil'-4.'•. 1.;;ici:%:., i . .'•sA''..•,',,.,..1:i • ....:411". •.•i 1.... • i,k3•Cri. i, -' .04-fl'-_ ;4(,," ... ' ‘.t" / • .1-- i, f:r""'a', .. ''' ' .1.-. . 1 L :•--. . i r t4:11.:J.,,,,0,1tclt.i...14-.,...41 iti tall --.4„.Y, ,re•-•,-.7k..)-dr:r••;,.r.•.,•.' Sal ittaifer ,; 161;4'' l' lijr!/ ./.:•.;,,....•C13.1; .:4:16.,1110.1.1qtiP: 1:11: 4' ..;• s : . sibTJLiii.),41..71.1.1..../ Yo,;-;..1 glitiitk.. . . pp.1 4 4 :• ..' • ..16../Mr..?•' .• ' ' ...':;01. ... r..• . ' .I t a. a. ', (-I r.I.* :',. /.. - . V.: 1.• p I , r ,,,.., xi, 4. . )., . ,t.,.. ... 2 . .. ,I 1..):,3:iii . 4 A.3. 't/ .•i'trA I' ,- &I'.::, .) 4.. q.' I ybkif.,- .r, tii -,,,* - ...., t•,.:„. . i„i.1/4-- ....t - • •ii....1;,; 4:1 i.,.. .:1.,;#714-,fii s- : a • 7: i._::. 1:::! : •1_;.,14 v44.1t.v.41.04fir .0. 4:: • i ;:f1('...1 4 ''l... lie •.' 1 '... Ag;--g-r,;1!f: if-iz;, i'•' r...XbIt i•,„ .g.i .;ri •4.- 'i '41r...60'44' If`' • •'''. L A•tiN•li .1:1.r 4,:.141r4•°11: .•.. 1:•!6;II' ..p rP"• tirki ,#:aSei 1-?.P.14 ii..L'1.; • '1'..4 '.e.• 'kl ....' IT.: t 1 -!`'.. .., '.t:tsIll?';iiiili li 41..2iviy , 1 4(fi' l'et.4";•-:. t.',I.?.kJ.. 1:.1. 11.g..uild 4..i. •€: •.1)041 ' :I i -.v..'.-f ; -.V.77 ';I:4-4;-1 I :P.-.-.t.'. t.g. •,-, •;.t, rek..- ;-„,. .,, IF.- r.i • -4 I '.1 . itt•tli.a-4 tii•II •.-1,1...'i..',1;* 9.71' IP%'.6 Y. - fig.),‘• ;t4A7.- i '-.1* ," •4'...A. ,ti.t •-.1•tt,ri. i•Akilit • -: i .t." -.1 .. ,.. ' --r I :1 4 i,":Tii(11 litry ,-ii:i...,.....„,,,' k.p.• j• : ..4 g .F.A.j. 1.14 04,11,11:i t fl:Li til. :.......e.,.1 1.. . a.t.:r...:‘, 4; 4....i ....:... f.IP .4 .. . . ft. • It 44'. .04g.5:F.4.1..gr 1,:•11.10;7:/;:4*:" • •..:.j.‘' ..... k. ' •. • LT i •vt•211 t'.' . A. litS 6"...41+$1 ,ri 4.: • • : .. ., R ?II, .t;:a i '.1 #1,%(il.:F21C4.ir.Z sl illff13[11.:40.1.t.tritr;11;;? rt:CP Ai i.,: '4''1'741' - 12 t... „hi., g i lt IA r, tNtst.Si 1, ;. .., pa 4....r.. :Pt. • *--- '-. '.F. ' ' Xil,I •1 t-.;:..f,mk ..4..,14,. . i ,,, . , ): 4 -it,-04. • , %.- e .. . •::. J... . I, .. ., i . :S..`!1" Olis 'Cl. 4itt r' Y--€.-1 tf:.it.4.4itget, - f •i a .;•4 li I'. .( V;,. I r .1:(1..)-'1.: 11.1'•;1. ••11":11111.117111.74:71irri"... Ise‘eilHert41! al'4" 1:41lk.j'il! 'il.lii 1.0Z)::. g" e.'f.•• 4 *St'7?* ).1:4:P'•••••. 3.‘..113.;. c..;-.t.:itt:•*:-.it-...it...4 +....- Vt r Vjir -; 1•47_3:11:**:;"i - j. r Ra "ilzR ii• ' 1- 4.,. ) . cr,i.%),.-37o.c,z7z4v.:." r, •.e? •ir.:31--ti;i3,1. .1 •C" Y l' .?-• ..lis.:Z 1.1.1,4:44.• • , i•'-‘1. .---,tal ....4i;:d It.7 :. 1 14 -. ct:3:•.-:''...241' ? • :Al: ..,V, '.;ip •-.04.1; : •kil./.''' •.` - r.Y ;iii,. .fli ..- :v.i. 4.A ..t.%...,'..,4t-v(ft...._vi...%. ,Iiii441. i.11:.,,-. -it..•.! ..,...pi..:-..-.4i.. ..,...-,....,A,.,-.E. '4,.*'••,,,,,n 1 t q't'f.- 11....,:' --4 S...... ....''..-*; 7 ..i , ,• sAr.,4-,, `..•., ,,„ _ 5,, • ,Z;. : ..?..14 i. .r, ..:?•'' iiv.- .Ij t'I k4 El Z.t.f ..iii-'q r.ltif 4!Y.b ...4.:s-zy. 7-4Vr••• •2:1•1.fi,;iiii •"ci '`.. •••" .„ v:gr• ,, ... -if.L.,41 , : .ili-;Al .p .."1:14, • ..pi41.4 iiiii it.L.• . : • ..I i•-. .,.1i.:51-, . :i,., ...1.,.11c1.':' . •S?'t ,°. l';.'1.--. t:• Digili'1.4 .Ell .os.:t •i; vi...0 '•':3 .f:,f.'". •••-;• :I...1_1. #:,;.;_t it:7;.;;: it 4.?-1•,/ i,.---..--••• . .-.• i• .• •• ...__.,._ r 1i it, 7 ... 1. 7.• . 7.; ':4 1t .i. •'''••••1 . 1 e I •s, I - 6.-g- ----------7------ ' .. ' I T-t- 1 L " -: . 14iti 1:!..:t•:.,:1 • irg 111 1 --•. ; ..._ ..-_:.::'•: :,•- - • • y. 1409-034 1•,'",.,s and purpaaaa th.roin nontion.d.'and•aaoh.at them' on oath stataa that ha wa----a outh-----oriaad: ma a::::: trit- I.: 4:.14:. ----- said•instrumnt and that theteal affixed.11 thaaerperali noalefsaid'ibernersatana o. . K.:-.....'•.•• -...- ••••In Tinos, thareaf,....2 harat hereunto iit i.r hand and aftlx,:d Tr..affielal seal the day7r2-v. ....,........7.-: 7,.....7,..,.; abet* +mitten. ••••••1,-;,...- t.,„,:,.. • ..;::..„-. •:..7 • •• •„,. •••• . S-r2.•'..%'-if"•-• (I.. .i. 3. Ifotari.;1*.til)...e...1..-bliiitY:. '4 ''-'r- 11 zl• ' • `• 1 (Con."'.1. July.10, 10:0):....,..: ....., . :Natary.Publis in and for the State 7. I-.•:::::. . •''';'..' . •: ... 'it F.V.::"-,:•-••• :.-.'' ''...'..- .' *: •...of Staahinclien, molding at 4 histtla. 011 4 State of rashingtod'."-'4S-tri'il'-'''''') ..-----..71 7•• ''• -•---:•- .7.t 7•n-..• .. - a: ." i.:-••• 1:-i. 77177• -_;•.- 3- - ,..;-:•.—;--- .: •,:::';.-.•••••• -%••••---:-- . - . - .i i S. ......::''''... '' County or Tine :' - ---:-.---* • - -... ... On thio 21st.day or Deocoaber,.1928, baton no personally ap-: r....J.:. 1 T........,.....,-..64 R. c 'sant trot It. II.Noticing, to no known to be the •irceidont and Zearetary, rasp:oat/v*1y, of 1 ' , : I•:••...?".•;‘," '''''''••I Mains Coast Railroad Onspluty, the...corporation that eteauted the within and forotol inetrusont, and : I • . •-•'. 1.1. 7.4;.;•.;;.;7•:•.1;•;•17.•:.4"-* •clonowledcod he said ins trienttetoa thr :roe.and roluntary lot arsidood'of oald.00rporation•for tho ii t.'41-1"7:.'-- .cthroa ana puriolos theroiniaIntionod, and *oak or ihaes on with sr.toted that ho =a authorised to oxeoutoi wee- I Said inotrwn.nt and that tl•.s seal affixod to the oorporate seal of said oorporotion. 7.'.1? A ; • -1 '7.::::'--:'; .: r"."-r -•••••••••..' In Witn'•is Vheroof, 'l have horounto sot Sty hand and 1:114dd lay or:1,,,,,uti seal the d,y ,rd year 0 , 0.0••%......,... • I.•. I. '"-g•'.•:`:. - first above written. Si • l'.. (-I. ...-..7..-.T-;"'":'• I (1.. D: U. not&rt.1 34.1)- " Lillian B. Nye 46411 so: O. ""1:;.15•'n.7•:•••...1•••• 7.7..-:.": "•:......-.... (Mi. • Jon 10, 1020) Notary rublio in and for the Itato of e shin-ton, rocidinc at Seattle. Z.:. .:1.1.... .... Tiled for reoord at roquoat of .7. D. Stratton Jan 2, 1029 at 54 min tdet 1:: P. U. 1101.-' 1- f 71:i'!•••••,••••••••4.?"- ' ' (...\ ii t.• umycy coorco A. crone, county Atriiter 4., 7.-,:''.--.: a 11.';'...i.V2dr •+ 1 : ./. 3 A -i ?::: ac=2 bra 1 509 3 CA Orgies A. 31nalair ft'•••••:::-.'7' .. To Nit Clain Doed wt4.4:71:177:-. Ifillian 0. Estop et ux e'r ra.,3:,3^- fr.•,,o1"",r.-q---* ' ••-•-' -Ws --Idon'Ure Lade this nineteenth day of SePtonbor, in the year of our Lord Oro Thou:And !lint+ nundrod and fwenty-eicht Between Graoo A. Sinclair the party of the first part, and l'illio=C. ::top and 7:r.. .7.-+ Claxe. lay Satip. his Witt. the p1rti011 at the e000rsi port+ lifii ITitnossotht That the said rty of the first part, for and in censiderotion of the st= of One 6rP7-177.17 .---i- ps7. • . ,.. Sz,"..:".,-.7•:‘;-.I. .N0/100 (.71'.00) Dollars lawful money of tho Ittitvd 3tatos, to her in hand paid .y the raid partios of "-:.d «_ 3:11"::'''"/ sooand part, the recoipt whereof is hereby goknoycledcod, dooa by theme pr000nts rents*, roloosa, and forever ElN.:--7,-.--•..•:.-7, quit-olaio. unto the :aid portico of vivo aeoond part and to their heirs and aaairna all rici•t, tit1A, in- 7•••••• .' 7. ... -.-• terost and estato or said part.; or the first part in and to all,:that,oorta in lot, pietas or poroal of :arsi P--.,....,......- . . git.t., lyinc and toinc in the cottn•.,;• of tin, 3tata of nhahincton, and particularly botvded and doscrib-9.•. 1.."---, ,• EVACodnofollows, tO•••iti The South ton (10) foot of Lot Zunt•sr 3Lx Ilundrod Pifty-sovon, in I.a)21 View Camater y, forworl•r PO known as the Itnsortio Cemotery of 30attlo, situotod in the City or Zeottla. at Toothor with all and 'Jocular the tonoar:nts, horoditaenta and appurtonanoos thortunto bolonoinc F. 4.:. or in nnyn.is• appertaining, and the reversion And reversions, romaindor and revaind•rs, rents, laauos and profita thereof. to have and to (told all and sincular the said promise.* tocothor with the appurtenn000s, unto told, 6. _ party of theao wand port and to their heirs and ads/cos forever 2W0414 in 7.1.tnoos 'Thereof, The said party of the first part Iota horounto act sot . hand and seal the '13:•• a ._ _.and year first above written 1 1 igloo. Sooloo and Dolirorod in Froconoe of - Craoo A. 3inolair (Sool) 3 047.4 3tato of ntshinct cat 1 .,,,•::.. . . . 2....7.-::99 Cotaity of T.inc This Sc to Certify, That on this 19th day of Septomber. '‘• • ...4- 1 1029 before ste E. L. Ilowstrca, a.Noturf Public' in and for the :Jot* of rashincton,f..• I to v sworn, porsonotly Mail a rft 041 A. 31no1air to no know% to be the individual doaoritad in and who o IOU adt duly acestiasione4 and r ." -• • the within '-natrusent, and aolzorried thatrdtono oho aimed and sealed tho sano no her :roe and v°1•' "°' '•• :rel sot and dood for the toes and purpones %L.:..ro in 'motioned. I:Stool's :and and official seal the day and year In this oortiflosto first nbovo rritt•n. e.. Z. R. N. I:otarial 30.1) Z. R. Norratroa 7. :J.... - ftN..•Cc . . Lor 24, 103C) tNotaryPublicinandforthe3t•to f tfaahinctun, ro•idinc At ...Attie. t. Filed for reoord at request of if. u. not•o Jon L', 10E0 at id tin pt•t 1 r. ,,, w. I /s.r..'O•erct. A. Oran!, County Audittr MS T.•...LA•„, 0... s'•«••••. .esorwvi,..!,.:• . It nft• e 2509407 Sirs. Mar}•-G. Smith 1 1; 1.5iii i1. t 0 0arnnty Do•d 17, tt 1 leaner X. Batt i1. 1 t I I• TM oraneor, 1 ry 6. Balth, • tridow, new and at the Lisa of acquiring title, for aIIM , ,`; retie"' et Ten ! tb lp0 collars !a 1rtn1 paid, eortroya and +n\rranu to Eleanor to I'll••I Y. Batt the fe SaI: ' + i desalbed Real %state:• 11011a F' e , jlf.w The D at fifteen (15) toot of Lot stghtean (18), and the, Nett t+nrty-roue and oneifI' t feet of Lot ail»uen (19), Block fourteen (14), Llingford Division of Croon l 11:112 Ue Additi Ili: r I F7 t of Settle. L0 tla Z:I r• r. L r I ` !S: l j Situated in tM County of sing, !tau of Tins fag an. l• ii a ymle S.I.=yi I Baled this eighth day of Fcen.eb.r, 1921. c 7+fir giiirmIII `E c..—e lit- Mrs. Wary C. !with Seri.E1:7 1k J'`41a.T i State of rats:U=5ton i !ita'*-' t-'r SI:f +°'etr1lifillfil I. the undersirpod. a Notary FatI;a,•Jo 6ereo' certify as •i_, t?at ishth day of November, ni; i 1e ' personally nppeared Defx• as_Mary G. Smith, to =o kiorn to De the individual dicerlDcd iiaii i n, s 1 be r: t l awaited the within instrument, and acknowledged that she signed and sealed the sane at her free sty rvoluntarylotanddeedfortheusesandpurposesthereinmontioned. f :F c$it'J e r, i 3 Given under ay hand end official seal this eighth day of 2favomber, A.D. 1928. I• 1I.Y. I! eR tt>; II iM S I!U. Notarial deal) E 1 II. ltysra II 'tf Ca:. =z. Apr. 19, 1932) Novary Public in and for :he State of !: Washington, residingoIIIitEd'..t Seattle. CIIS it p>t s Tiia.i for record at request of Continental Uuttml Say. !link, Jan. 2, 1929 at 54 sin oast 2 Pi,Elm2111II IL111 II 31113 GsorLe A. Grant, County Auditor 1 ar.rtrr t t 1111 I ' I t: 25094051 Frank Meade, of _sILCIiiirMitilWiligliiiill 1_. J 1''• Lilt`.. I Tom. ? ii tt" r+ i+trrtn:y Wired I' l Ted McCoy, at al I' I'e iti Is asm•Ieses.w ee The Grantor_, ?ram Mends and his wife, • "swat J.3 Ft ii f AD iiile0! a ra Meade, for and in consideration of tva )'t .i •.•.••-a+nur•d (,ii5G. iO} Dollars in hand paid, convoys and warrants to Fred and Ray McCoy, the 1•—• 1 •• _ following described real estate Y. gnn•s, tie : I d !1•M 4.4." Lot Nine (9), Block :hurt -!bras A tie tt etw uoostmmse ao----Y (33), all in Carleton Park, •n ddition to the Cityf`# F( t{ attar_!- :o plat of ofTiSoatsis711ili ..-I - I _ t: ••- r ioorueu in Volume 21 of Flats at pa 94 ofSe tho records of .vine County, State sILe-OfI• Subject to Dulld n triezoressaigreationeas on :woo of flat.I't`'••. Y' t situated t7 Sing. State of ram hingten. in tM Coon ofIIIl ;f.. fl..Dtted Decanter 31, A.D. 1328. j JJi t am i Signed in ;roams'. of_ II I .• I,._ ..l Prank Meade 61istemofmahingtanMargaretJ. Meade 1 f I t" County of Bins ) SS t' iltls I,to certify that on this 2n4 day of January,j Notary ilDlia in and for the StaInt of Ins ry' A.D. 1927, Dolor• ma, A. L. S•dgwiok, I Knston. Y adui mmiestoned and e*orn `arsonally ors• ?l+niI : l• i ,. ".-. Ceade and MarS+r•t J. Mead*, his wife, to as /saw„ to ,e the individuals desorihsd in anA oho •:eo:t.d1 - tI.. within i' instrument, ern1 • 1 d I I f i'.l volun a eknow a gnd to me that they eign•d and sealed the same •• their ;•re• andIY •et and deed for tn. .. i, r.S Wrpo•ea therein mentioned.MilllI .., Nitnass ny hand •nd o!flcicl see l the dayi1 '- !, '•A.L,• Notarial Ss.tl) and year in this certificate first above written. 11 ! ea •. „ Gas. e. ab. 14, 19:1) A. L. S•dgelok i II ! j1 I I '" •:1••• •^IsmNotary Public in and for tin, :Late of ti I l' w•• " Piled for record at r•?u•a vashington, residing at Seattle, - t II f '~4,_ j XJ r t of ° y !aCay, an. 2, !92 S6 it , 1_ .-•yC err: 9 at min past 2 P.N. IjrL. 1. George A. Grant, County Auditor11t " ,•k• 2ftp9411: Patine Con:: i:rm csnpart TO t 1!II •F..•yv Puget Swad Power 4 :J Sat Company D.semnmt This Content _. 1II Railroada r..0 inc" :`l;a 3.1 d4y of i,o oars bar, 1:28, :•e tw.rn the Nei f1. .:C."Mig As:ing:onformerly kn•„n INOarper. a(xf er'nSt•d and ss(atln; under and by virtue st :1 e. lawn of the Su:r "f I y road Coale n Ivt r-.y of the fir Nil s-atirse' t.Calumet' k T\t gat ;curd nail,and i:cn;'tn%, her a(na(:rr rllrA 'sl l" r _r _+, r.0 .atstinr, under a CC Sound Power A n - 1 C party of the 'standvirtpnrtf/o Lee o! th•-ste:.. o aaaso,Iaaht ar+ant+ereim!Ser celled.. t^r. I Pay,-- itnecaet`: 44..f.,! 11 19-.7.2.1 bat in consideration of the sum of fro Cellar (31.00) paid try the 2. r company t• ties Re L lr ea d IN:pete'•••• ii 1 C theaspeeY• t re"' Pt...!5.*hi,h is hereby•olcrtow lodged, and in oenipid•rati en of the mu tua 1 dependent pr eel ae• I . I.we•-•t• ia.'..L-•,•7••,'".•.orseetr:*a••:•4/ t"-•-•-•• -••• ' i ow .• I,..,•••.,, 4...•f...142....v:.•2W.. .,i•••••?•u•!"•9••• •_,...•:. ;•• , -.....9 I a414 ;#::. . ......•.:. S.,....0, 1: L7.476:.:•...,......=.1l..,76.- ".., -7-,-••-„,-77-2„,7er2, ;•-•••••••z-r:;•„-.::.-•:•••••-•1:fe-..;t he Power Coq:Any the right, pr2.ri le ge and anther:.ty •i'l:/• X:,..,•: .. :::-._*.‘tr.'&•-7 _,,,• -*...-•.:,...-;_-.• .'.'".-'.. •••Na••••-•'..ir,--.,......1...1„ •-•-.1-Aiw• ..• -:•••••• . ....'•.' .• ' 7 " 1*tam nsst5 so i on and dis tritest:.or, line or 1.tes, together22_.;;;::„••:;.•”•••%•TZT-___••--A", . r.;:,.1..-,•-f;••••••2•f:•••••.7.•••• ..•i••'.‘ .%••,-:-e.;•......,•-•.".. ..,. .f. Q:-:••• --......, .• •.:.: 4....:1:.,st.•;•nd ap parterm noes eonneatad therewith, and mach other I lt(22b •7' :• • :.::-‘AN.:: ;•'' ".1--•'• •••,erl-•!-11'r l•!'-..a9.1"-•• ••'.-• •• ..‘ 71.' 6:1ir7r.... .1 1,,... ...;‘,.. ....1;•I,.7.g:WeiPIP.tr:tr.;&. :'le!‘;:',-:•:..:77-:-...:--.1..." 'eatleeel el ti on. me porn a ory remote *antral cab DIM. ra di o ;len to ty, - 7"•......,'44.777,;......2 ti.:::.;:,:t_. 17.3,,, 77;77..a...77.........,...:::,... .......: cpodi ant in the opera ti.on of a large generating I ut::-=•'•0.11 4 fm..r-e.g:r .-7.7---;-.---t-,-..-cr,-,...-4 i• .77.21:•. I 1;...,1••es\..: .,_,..7.1,ba.....7.0..;.k.„.:_-,•-.‘,......-:•n.o.„,„.7.;,.......„.,,.•4.:.....•drer •nd •or me s t he two followinc do:orri bed pa r Da ls of 7.,:gi Ataw•-•T------"". -"': hen rai lr mid tracks of the Re ilr cad um-pony to wit: •, ItI 17.••......-..........,;,........ta!2 =-77. --..4-5 . 1,1;.•7 :7-7.3%--Z.-•=•,25!...a.; f 11 •;,• t• 1 ••:- --.-•-•••••''..77.r,•:.•i-;---"3„ •--....: --..:. = __""'"-=-7-. -----.!..7=-_.- „: .. • •e 1.:11 C. towns 1.-":: 1....• Y.r.:t... tor.r. .. ..-o: ••-... - ., 7::..:__-:t-L.:_-_-..-.......- -....-.:._____.__77. . 7.,____. .........7.7.--___-.i.. ...... 1 l' i4,,,=..........w............... - ........- wig,.•. ..„,..,•:,-____•-".-2.-' ... r" •••-; sidticn of the North lin• of the •t•:••••_• Zowera--; 111111i 7::. ..: . 77.••• M.11-0- 4°.,,ai Z.;;•-•::••••••1:-;47:-a44.7::0 i the Lake neehtagt an Ara mo h of the ?a 41-122.• Co*let• • I • r0ramber7 iii";•'•4.-;„•••••..-1.1.4,S.C•-•• ••• ...,...!....... e.-•va.."...,-7.0::-7‘571.• 31 i 7•••• ."v..:...1 "..... ,r‘-.- ,_....... ........ _....„............:, --,.. fiv d%._ch.--of-way boundary 70 feet more ar Iss• to its I . .. 7----.z•-.......--;-...„- wr.....*!fne••••-•p•-•••+.Wrifwe'ai...••••••2• .7 r•••••%••••••'7•••2-••••11.24,1161“....-"'-e. la cy•r"- '•c" •- ......-m-,:.-sc-,.7.T.c."..c.";....A..., yl,.. euwtY Permanent 'Cie.'s).#12; thonee Nort her-i.:4 11 II 3,4:1 • ,.li.:7•••‘::•72-•-:••••••:•:•‘•••..: -.S••-4'•'••••••••••...•.- •••• •._•:*.•,•...; w......t.....;.......,........, .-.-. 1 1 •••• i. 41 : free Lod -• 17-7--'7•••••‘:- • „ kr7?-••••-777-0"i•CR".....%•::•••••-,-•-•'.1:••thee7:#12. 60 feet more er less to its inter e•etl.on wi thpr, i........• ...••••••-•••••••-4.4.1;.1:::=77.4:7.:I.........=.:7.7::::-..t:::11: Lot..1. thono• 'Looter ly•long said Werth.line of Gcherr.-I •-.• -* •••••:tt..1' I 7-------•-w-W77:----:-! -•••••:-"•••: • ••__,. c.. 7..=.7"•:. 7.7..:---77•;7777,7.47...Z.--.1-;:--,75:ii-r-,' •i7,'...:•:.-:••. •--7,:;••••-%7•••-••;.1.oh;14'distant 100 fs•t D.s tor ly fr ore sea sur•d at richt I • • . i rt••••,•t-77.-ii.••=z-,•V.,:ff;:i7.,:::777..:--,-.-.s$:.:.•••'• • i.:::, .::...r)-7.-.,.._,.:.S-..-;•. 2.,74‘ 7,2:.. .... ..r.,-.on Branch of the ra cf.fl• :emit Rat'read; thence S althea et-11 I .. 1 a to'of '-sum i., •-••• .,• • •'•'. 12•-•••. s.74..„2.'!•••:4;• 4:•... r.:....,.....••••• ••_•••••••',";:•02.16 1-721_ t...:: a nd d i s ta rs t 100 feet ••s tor ly f rat measured at 2 1111111M1 7-..e.'1".". 7' •".... 1.1.. 7-"....r..!tr- "{'-'••-••••••••, ',=Writ toned •-%I.lz ea d; thence 7:.•ter ly 180 feet c ore er lees I InalgiZart; mist 2 2.;711 2,..:.. -.-;.....2.•'southerly :ram 0...awed at rich: •nclos :o the north IL_211111 4, ."-• 4..:-.•, ••'...,,, • •.Z.: "...:..• ' ' ' .. r..-0 ATIA.M•r."..Cti on id th ths Zaotor ly ri ght-of-way Lou n.....ry ii i• III de XL • r(•'..7.777.•'....": r--,:...--.7-7 ortherly 50 feet more or loos along said richt-of-woy I 7•-•..-,:t., a 1- ":::• . :-... '.•--.••••'.7.2.:•••.......--1Hf-......•'LI rig2i4f-way boundary of the to Washington Branch of I • •' •;....:••1 r. 4..„-.... ,........,.:•_.;....-• _ • • ..,.. ••_..•••__ - ,... i.--4,-....... xfly•-1.70.-feet more or less •long said Railroad right-of-way I • ..-11:.•i .ne„._211:,•„the_a bove =anti onod Cove rnmen t :At 1 pr aluted west- : •: -c•_••••2.•...5,,,•!;,.-...a.7.-_-:..-.•-•••-:',.:.."- -----••••••-••••••••••;--•••••••:• - ••- 77-= 1 .. 7.7....w.....z...-::,.....,..:',7...."•. ,..•.r.....4.,...;.sea...e..:...\,27-.. ..i:-- -If nc,sat 4!er odti arid W ort h line of :tee'err-c IL:nt •-t 1 t a thz re-:-,:..--::-•• . Fr-7,-.•••••.7.---?..--....- - " ..,_.. 44. I f tnts- 7-•,-.1,4...- a::::•.Thirit,...,s_.:::,.%•:.• i:T:•••:..;••• :::'•;-..2.-----;j '.,-.. ..-:.;•'-d..iii ., 4 It.--,(...:::!•_- 1,7r.:7.17:•.P';;,,,,••••••-.:1•"...-1.,;... . •••_.•?'",•-.."...".. ••••.".2.12:1••:,...rter,(217:$) of the 11ortheast Quartor (NZ ) of Section a, I s•-a. 1 Aattl. 1..... 2:•;;;'&`',..,••••....7••••,...:-•..-•'-"r.t-•••••,::_- •• .4!:•--7--..:; -••• •ei i Tr' -......"......... ....-• - E.--... :16..slarlx described as follows: I e:: --:•7-•7?•.---' -., •:--. :7.- amalumerla l• to of%arra c.:„.••_•_•......:r,-.7:.•........c.::,...,•••••••; ... .-___•• 42":" .er- : ..-'-...••••••••"; hie abowe„menti or.ed Section S and runhIng thonoe Da ctor ly i 41.r.e...H.' 4 I. a t,-„, ii7.....-.,.....-..,:4.7-...-..4:-..! •,,-.47.z..-:,.;;.i-.7. z.: . ..,:.:.- •-.,:-...7.4 ., 7-rt.. . -... . __• • ,.....,.:: mertrot. ea .o its int/reaction with the westerly right .. ••:!'"7.-"le: s y,... 1. T:•_--.:••••,:;•-•••-•;-.-,•::-4._77-. 7•,:-.•:;.•::(:".....7.. ' .....:7-- • •• ..••• •••?:/...aili;:c.x.gt Railroad whi oh is the true point of lee n- ! ' Me tong s•aTri ght-of-wa y boundary to • point ZOO fleet a out 21-I • Ili I or ly free saessiiii4 .. ..„_ • , -••.*„ said Northqine of.8eati on 8; thence.tast•rly 50 feet mor• or i -lags •lena.g •s1.1.a. 4 . ...:..-...• . ; .-. , :•-.11, .4' ..200f.fse•-eouther1.7:1"rces measertad.s.t.ricrtit.sitgls. ao.ih• /fort q-. • •....": :•:.: 1.11„llne of Se ati•••- •••-a - - D,Star.rright-of4My•bo.u...1arycat-02WW Se id Now oa t 1 1 i•••'.: • :. -' • • • -, ••'i••. •_.••,_c_......,......•• -.-•.• , .• .. •-• • II • Bra n el 1 I •• of the•Net '2"...• -- • . • •- '' ••• ••••• ida right-mf-w•Y-bemiedar•-•101....foot.acre•or i less 1 et, a • I to its,int.. "4!'V....':- •• • •..• 4 ... . . . . edtr.t i.tbrnee.lreater14•1 a long said Werth 11 ne i ... - •i.-__:-.:.::a••••••••••.............._ - 7 a al I I M Aso:tett 1 .1......... „..... • • -...... • . •• •11(g.parti,Issi•mer.. ••• • I a and 1 '...:::41-iill•• •--- •••- - •• • " '3.---"'"n77"""Ztai.M amp). ..,r./...„•... 1 iii- 7-7; -7--,•,:.--._-,.......--.--,..--.••• Tirsisant-jah.,-e-etat Drat ty ni th p le ns j ararassem...8- rg......544 o.......,•:,!::"! haherwinc„ bor;. mme e 51.11413•'4 „•••• nel, or the Rail- II ' •.:•.:.• .-: ton. ; Irte.. C " o • 2..: wt:•••!'-. II e---m IIi i Tart.Wilk ,_ IMO no er for•his I • eiSiLtbs• •••••••acum."'•-•••••• oonetructiort, the i • .• ••. 4 ilit•32' 1 11ppr...ala.... n.,..4i• iken••• '•• •treating. unit fe or 4•••••' --• • • • - -• • • ••-''':• I ' • --N ; I'Ai lr on e..7 I:• ..1..• i 1 L.....•:re,,`,41,... to.roe,sone:1)1e and I 4 a uneeti'fa: r.....:.* 'I 71..LT2.2.1 i 7.;•• Vil .14`... 1 ./..st. n..., . be Power ,:caspany•• .. 1 ault.,•44. 7....ru. wil . wv21:14...;. c.. iii:12;re.y: min.sulhatyngs.ng; i 1 u,g4.0.. - • 611.1.041:166.6.1 Z... rift •...,. I theu-0,4 .-.1 ...A , •.. ' •';' 1. ,41 ..,..1 P'••".44- . f E,...I p wi:c.,,,,h ''ft.- 54'44 trozito,74-'74 ...a... c".If r.tiku7.::: fl Al t : I 4.r II.!...- 104Ae......„....v.".i..?•• • .2*......1 ....• ...! t•.... t: .: 4;..... "":".-.-nitt-ti.- ii. ,...h. ;:.k?V_,\.111. 1k.i•-ri 2117-1:441.;.. i •-• I I-, • BA i 115, , n. •,.... ,, • •-•-•••••••we•-•••••(yiew- ;•••'. 13.1.. ..4:11,.14:1!: • • . or ;:, ss•••-:.-r- ......;?), cfs '• 't _ _ .t..)d.sistirRILI:pesase: •16::•.4. ' ' x- .‘,77-1"` • • was-Jur: i et.this-•• ael..„' .•/;,.. . • I' 4,.. ,:$41%_,L . .14,4. • 7.. 4:1•••Ir-.1....- -de• PI .1"1/4:r4 r-setv-at.•.,,, 7: .. ••..."'.* i g la.. las Pplissesi- '..4-eit• . 1.1",•` . 4240••••41.4itp; , _._sthtirctar • -r:.-2.r4. , f Iii. goo . ear,lo..... et •fore* • ..... 4•••• • - 4.•ft • • • r'i;° 21.41...,.: 7........... . _ itiv,";....:._•. 1 , .IST.01 -•". . -:'s .• ' •' --.17:•:••_;„••tri,..... 3gr_r er-7.:illEFRESMI rigAiliMI - 4 . r; .. .—..... ,.. .„ ..--:;, „.4.:.•••. .... • •••,...;• .-r •‘••' '• . -•.. .. •• t• .• - • ••••• • -• •".:r.r...,s,le,Ain-. -*•.';is.., t.3i . • ' " -........,. ..:•-?.•.••••,. !. ... • • ' :.:........ •••••••. .;:•..- -.---::... .. . 1.•• •••: ...•• . 11.• cif 1.4•All... •' . 1 r: r.- .:: : .... .. .. 7 ; -.'• • . •...1•• .. • • : • : •i -•••• ..• :•••-ieic•-e,.,V;ty-M6E • --' t•74,-s 1_,...t.....w.t. • .. 437...=7.—..,47, ....1„, . . • . :. ..- . • • ',.-, .-*.-_..•. ,-: ':•.. •::•-•. .. • •••• .... •-•-,•,c3:- hi- r zi, •0.--":7--isz.V•Tr!st:pr.:.. .z. •-_. . . .:- •• " -: -,* •...• • :-.-: •• •• .. :•• •:-.••• •:.....,mie...c.„*.-- 4,- i•:'•. • ••,••••••• •-•.; "•-.7 •.- ,•.- -r,-..- -.I.leet . If"-:---'•-•1..\.T:11.^. V.....-77.•."1-.---••'• .:1•.....•. ,... •: :. I: . . ' ..".•:. •.7-iti:••• '''''. 1•••••••-•-•I'. : ••••::- • '-• ' ''''..'''"••el...:17-1: 1---s77.•:-•.: 1.1 f•17-:. .•---... . .. . .4 • • . . a „I • •• •... • - ... .• ••;:.,..-,.....,, .S.... ,.. .. ii.; .....„.. 7..; ..":.,..zs:. 3 .........„:„....„.::,......- ..c.t. -••••• - ' *. •. - :312(44-3.13.1..? ----.. _. ..:.---...-.-, ... : !...•_r.,7,...,,,..../..tfi A•-- •.-.Z,-.-.••••••"T=441.".i hrird..4••-_,.... .'• i"7".' •.'7 2)C.i-.......... I 7:Z• . ... ... •,.. _ :-,....,,c't'''',•:../... .-.2.7-1:41- --' '' . - a 4--...„,• 4-1: " -•••••• Tsts-la aEZVENT, ma dm-and--entered Inta7.-- nai-•-•••;e2,--day: , - '..::.c•. ,z,...____.II ..*.••11.•,.....1•••• .._:.,,.._._-., . • t.. . i•---.-7- I--'- a "1941,, by-Allrati7legan 1:137=-5012717-etRESEL-_ --,--• ..1%......7..--. a I '- 4 "31 • . r _, . • .." t.'a `. " ... 0 ' the •Cli•s: -.9At---71r—..., - -,•• ..t . .._ i; i 4'2'(likerein'oalled Power COmpamy), and PACIFIC••Cp•AST,• h. .11.7.;07,---..... ••••• !.-:--i1.7.-_::....- 1 ,... .. -=••'•• ; ."". •a'earporation', a•s party of the'second'part, •(hw.rein ca 1 red . ••. •: .• i i.:•.Reclricr Coast).,--;• • .... _ -..._-_,.....-.:-....•;•:.•....:• . • . . ' f'• L--.1,-,---••-•=•••• ••--- •!--W •I•TN •E 3...%-5.,?-•14-I---- ...,•••-,-- .' •-i-::------"---•- --....--;•••- ----•---,Ii7--:s-- WKEREAS,•Power•t-ompany is t..e_own e r or c•rttiupland .I-: and the .sec ond-class shore/ander in front thereof., •lying • • ' -•----=. ' . r.--,- I.:i easter:1.x-of':Williams street (Coucty 'Floall n th•*No. 3761 is' e City—r: • X •.. t OrRenton-, Xing County, Washington, upon which land Power- Cgspny.'has.:nonstructed and now operates an elec tris wr.era'Ling ...",. , . -fr- plant:in:to-in aa •I ts..ftOtaxtfleton 'Steam Plant"; and '' .... i -. Z.: ..;,:IVIERE:AS, •Defense Plarkt-L-orpora Clone an a tinc;.•'oTW', .. • -•'- ' ."' ••.: I' I L.: V. . • ,. • 4-od-certa in li.nd 'lying or. .: 1— —. s. the. wee.s.ta.rJj._sine-of (aid Williams :-77-7,..: et,_ar:d - plr.r:t ;,;:- rr•e -. . w. 1. .:,.• • li.;:-.. n6act7t-ure Of :Aix:orart is no,: Ix. course of. Cons truc...1r.-.. :on saf.d land to be operated by .•..101:and 4.17;:rb rt. -ompt.41, -:•n : or..•r'..• .•---- %NJ i .., C9ahany, has ha rg eotore givin fne• Austin Comper.y,' 1...e :;,,ntr.ct-r uoing said..contruction cork for uoeing A irer&ft• Coalpch:/, ?rr- - • . - i ! • 21.ssiott to lay taiaporary• spur tracks across-tr.e prop?rtz_of- • _ •_..:-...._........ i :t•• I-•1- • .% Power Company to provide a s;;1 tch tr./. connection a•i th toe. Laee• -•' •a 1 ..; 1faabineton.belt Line•_Eailroad of tr.e•Nor toe rn Pacific :.a'Ivey 1 I . e 1. •••• .. . COtipany; but _mith tbe•-•expres+ reservation ult.t suc:. turaphrary. • • _• . - i i 1'--. i L,:...,;;;‘91c14 when laid snall he-sublect to joint arid-oonston-user !*.y - • ' ••••• z:-..:...r.••-both-the Northern Pacific• fiel.lway Company and Niel fic Coas-t :__,. • . . t...if. • ,1::•J• ...te....,-, ...._ i I ' I _. 14....1t; Co. for tilt+ siOviwownt .of frw Iva to and from th!; i Ecrpiff2...ston Steam Plany ana ti 1 3 o to and from the•hoein ir:raft • V.4 ' ••----•-••••••••• -I: -:--....• • . , „, V.. • r'''.". 4'''-... "" . 1:11ant; • • i • a. 7•;„ :-`,!,,,,-ft.:15.-....."-... •. • • ••• , g 4.4,4,. 4;•...0... ,•• 1 • . - 1 1: 1 1 ..;; j10k4411F...r• .•,. . . •• • ll I...• . i f• .44 t a -ril ` vi• Ir.I••• . . • I 4-.-_-..: • ' • ' V. • I • : ' ,„ L•-•A'' 1.S.. •1:*. •• •'. . .'...... •: I , I 4 g. ,i•.• I. ',.. a . 1T- -...:'•,....=: • .. • .. .. . •a .0. :.,r, ' JV ' ' '• tr... " •-••1 of . 4 r A• r,,,-, . -• ,---estit.: .,..4.-Ir...r.:•:•4-.....0. .7"'"7"-. '• Xsigswr:.•,..r.,.. "... ..cf:V.7:4P.,...7"7"''''''" ., ,, 4.1-,;•.F• • -•••••.(4.:*''P......,""•.•4-''''''... ...;•;.7.. le•i.,•••••%•%•67.1(:01••••-tri.'47.'d•4•"- --•`'. 2"'',':•:;:-PL7'sf•-•71 ;...tb!-.T.::::.--Pas.'•.;-'•'••'-''•;.• '7'ke•;' •• 4 I*7.:7'--iz‘i-- "'''4_,Itt-lz; fir'1.-.4A-..:.*,1'..'":',TI:..::;,.6,-;* fLeitt'::•,'2.,:•;:t- •,%"'44•°' •"'•:•-•L!-.••• . : i_--e. JE g . - '. i A:".f•••• ". • : .- ••• ,1L;•,Vs-e•-:fz.:•,: ;•.*:?•:=7;77:::.' ;. • :t:•' - • . s• r• .:'-4-.•:•..:-4...e...:4''''...7--re:tr:'•'•••.:•-`75::.••7'''"tr.'%• t;..t• ''. • '. •44Pfitt -.."-2....._4?..A...17'31.• ''le. 1711- ... Z-•••• '•e ••• • •••• • '' k.5.: '• :_' •:•••' - •'" .. ••-'''...:...;• - '1•••st''''t.• 1••-•. A 1.-•--'-:-• '!.'"'' '• •• ' '•'• 4.1:7*. s'-‘..":•••• •'•-.,•.::• .•. ".' .• 4''.'• a ---ii.-:-....-:._,mc,:Nrix.-- .:.7.... ....--- •-----% ,- • ••---.- . • - ner.. 11.1.1 . •••• '• '•. •-• ''... ‘"'. ... % : .. 4- •77•7.-••••'.•.'.7..-• :.....1, ....•••!.........3..,W r-.‘j.;..g.:"' ••- .• •'. ' •.'v•*:.•:21:••.. ...1..%•4: 1 -••• •'-..."77.'...• ...=7". . ...:::•:.-7 -----,..:._:...-.. *-z: 7•;:•.;--;;--• . ...:-.....„,,....F...!• • ;•-itli-,-.... 1-7::*6_,•4;.....;•100.:. ........„,•,...•.•::‘,7___, . .-- • •:-.•• .• .•.•-••- • .•=.•-•-7---.... • • ::, ..,...=• .. ---1..--: ••• ..Vg. .- s, _4.:• . '! 4.' r.fill X";7,4',0'.'•-*:;'•"."i•-4"7•••....lb* ' milurron 19„ooms idsratibn-•at •thi-benstilii.fts:5'-•--`;•= F.:•=-. 11 ..-:.•r r: 4...• '''''......:4• ;,•a:4-f-•••Niod•Z- W •:•-•7.-e• •: 0 iteozsta•to *Postorl'Cospaly-.(ran:_th...tannalrnAllaoplitan,,,,,•••••:,:i!...:_,...,, i, ,,..•...•-.-. -111 ,.• ,r---- •:. • -4i-..r..:...;•.r. 17.-b, a•rsixtr-trioir-trf..41sittitim-COtit"upon•t . riche_at . . •--. ...-.... -1-••7:• ATI tk. liPT:i.tii•Erassorittlid• and-in•-relgt,fi-creiral-i-dtr pAomiiiil. x.`? k...i.:..•••• ..: .•,....." .••••_ - •:-. . z..-2.=...:•••.-•:•......,;-_....-ArALre_e_40414tit-4:iltt_atip.t..iiniedi-4311. ..•1146:-.7-p.tr,t,c,7-Frili:C` /IC-:. oast to..',..4',. __„;... :T..' •:-.:•,,•;:7-• -•....•• •••:. .• "••• '., ••:"7",- • •• • . -• . ..:7:. ' .:: .. .•%,„....••••7.-'7. •': '.. ..•. 14''.:-',••••'-'• :....'••;.",'1.7t•F• .••••'.:••'' .-:'bs•'-kspt apt!. p.arforisid by it, and to .041i141 it. to tonnact.'its--Fr...•:•-i•A; •'''- •... • . .....• • .. . • P4karmnteittr-tritemp• -ar.s '..•3 pir tracics.'ro:: th• #oei:ng•-pIang'.:::..-;•::• -•": 7.-. ;-.::-r:rand. to-avail'It s ilt-df"suall•ColtmanUtirirrifle go'therein*? -..•zr.:,...*--.4. 4-474'•"••••••••'•••-•..".--••- ...7. •...-. '.. --- ....... ..,•,•••-.-:'• ...•••".....'ti:..'i.••.::..% ..:::.....*.‘:...7., .,.u..,..,..............,..„ 7 0,19•1;grants..to Pa a if las-Cosa t-;tne7riritit 'privi • •-•'' • i--.--..3:iiii-and-ActIthorkty•to-cOnit-Fuat,_'maintain 81144').pfere•teepur t.gack-over and a aro;(-the rtaislw ing._d es cribiae land•of Power•••• • •*. • '‘•' • 13-;• L..•---.•--.,-.-.. .. ..,..-a.--• It ••-colipany.Un the• location*shown 'upon the•mat, hereto a ttirchet.- r'• . mliick'is.identified by th igna turii or 47.-•P. ol'f/Yea.t.e.„::... ••• ....-:-•.** "- i...- • ...:.;;..:d:•:•:Tmr•,Perr.Wr.:ConParl and •• at.Alt.A• for Pacific COast,...:--.. '' • 1 - -s,•,•• ••••_ •_,.•• :.'.k.1......r •• • - • . R.:1::. •• - r.:,••.stio-wit • -- • • • • . 1-;••; 4-... • .-.. s.-. That .part of. the land_of-the •Poyer. Company in the „ •ii•••••-:-:••••••_•.. .-810-uf.Section 8 •and NE* of Section:I, 1'wp. 23, X -.. • • : • Bangs- 1:East,-II.M.i King-Coun•ty-7-Washink ton; and the . •. _ ..• , .__7•••• '..".1sinand Class 8hore Lands lying in front tharear;-1,1V- • •--;• - '.. .i.t.-.-,---7.- . -'eluded wkthin..a...s trip of-land. 17 feet in width •Isaving .. ....__....... .: ,- ._.:.._7-a--•-••••••••••• 6-1/2,feet of.such..width on each aide of the -follow- .. _ 17'30i:••••••••:•-"-L•7•-•- :-‘•• • Lint deicribed nen tir 1 t.,..A. t,'..e c:...7.•'' '.• •• ••• -4. :•••• ..-7'.' ' • ' . 36-113iming at-l• point in the. sea film line be wash . ••4_•__••••••••••..•-:•-•.• .: Bee:ions .3 and 8 in 'rwp. 23 N..., Rang.:•5' mast, V.M. . • : p.radansd-rasterirr-inich point is.211..95 f 01:t•..witert*o.:-=-"-••- "-7 Z7',... ''""" •••' •• • measured-ilong-:-.said;=emettan-rtni-, :fi-oa the; was terlY..;.. 'iv.si,!•'4.,.•••••••?•!'*-.line•••of*.right_of,way of th e7-Itorth ern. Pacific •R•f;• Co.;7.. ...I.. .- .: •••••••-..thenie.Southerly along an 11°00.1 curve to the right*a'' :••••-7' •' :" 1.13tance pf_73.00-tt-;---to,.*-poinv=e3-4-eat-westerlyr- -• .-" ._ • t•;;::•;,1!••.'...:.•,-":*•-• •••••.;• . isipititred-als•-right.angle s.,,. from.-said lorthern Panitle.. •••.••••••s.- . • ••• . 4... 4,40.*!a right..of war- line;''thence southerly t• •••• tieng a straitht•lino, tangent tolist-;*descrihed • . , • •• . ••777- •-• curve*. I.:distal:ma or' 211.00 feet• to .a-rpertnt .17:30-1' .. - • - •• ••'• • 7.g•:••:".:-.:: . •:•r- : • - ..srastarin7staisnrad at. right angle i, tram• ea id linnthisra.7 - --:.r•-•-• •••-•._ •••:...-•Pacifiet'4% Co.fir right of_may.lido;••• theism*,Antharly .•:_-_777•-•-;... st:•-.-7-,:.:',•-•.....•••• ;.••-- alatic..a.r.36),._sigrwa to. .•' g4ta-.41344*ne,401166711.1' • i• • • s •t:8.50 f t. wap.terly, neidurecr It -••• .• • • :- - V::.;..i‘....,?64`'•:• •••../ 81114_,L•ani IA; frog'said I,..P'.• Ay.. Cowl srrigh.ror•nnr?-7• 7‘l'••••••••• ••••••••.• " .• _Ix. ••..':•••": •••••• .• 2"4-"71.r-.. :•'''' ''4''''•'• 111310.1iit• bit-ii. ttio.'true-poini•ilf.7.1i.ginriing:ot!'-.:‘ :'..;.:•••• I'.•• :•: -. ; ,- •1••'r • • •• .• 'thilet breut , IL:of:Via. 17.00:.t.t, **trip:of"land-41_6i -•'.'•::'-:, ..••-• I•••:" FN:..7,.,•,,;;... :,•Qeseribill;: ,theta,-acicrtheily-ilong a line distant I.:..• , ••••• •...-Tr• - • le„,44:,,z.. .-•:"-.::::.`.-'.... vr:•::;•-....05gilte-•-.Wittar).7_r"-aietaured •at• right.. angle-el. from,and••••;••••::•.••••,'••••••_•••••••,- • : '':'••••z.,• •• -. ••••:la" arckth: taut Xi: P. Ry. •Co a t 1. right of way Line,:i.--... ,.... ..I• . . ... ........-q;..., ,,..4`;',-..e"'"' .,•:: • a:digit/mai tif:172520 ." to a point of...connection wit.4%;,.;_-:::.".: .•_•;:.•-••......* - ... I,•••••• .erl•:-.--• •'.'le;!. the:*SeerpOrazi-4pmrtrack from the N. p.. Ry.•Co.-1irier___.a,........;. ir'7•7:••••• ..."-- 70...• ,liashiggLcok Bolt riiiroid •to;-the plant' irti•'ef. .....,:•c..7. i..:.:-..---•••••• • .. ....,6--- ---•••:;---,---: Beethl Arfsibitt: ane west. of Williasi*-84rfat;212:1414!%•7!••:•;'.•• ........ g7""' S.tf."'• .\;Palk?'at Banton• •-• • :• ' - . 01,:,.._ , -•••' T1•••••.._.' ' ':••'-''.f•hf.•1 ..,•''''' •'ft.:, ••. • ..• ' • •1 , . •• • • -•-` ' ••'•:!•;••".......••••• '.'. : . 4''',.`, .4 lit,t-fr-•.‘:•••••::••••:::: ..; ;.:•• • : " _ • . '• l •,.;:l.f...J. .1.:-."."r•q•:•••'- • : .. :. -".n•• •• . . . • • • . . • .. . • , ••• . w.. r..:. t:o• o:.p-..•. s a..•_" 0 4.4:.:.... r.... 1."...!.,‘-••••......*..;..•-..••k:::• . ..•:...-:.--. . --•.•.... -,--. ••.•. T._ 4•'":7= ;•# i.. _ ' . . . -: . . •• :: •,• . - . I-lPi:4r.l..h il •..... a• l ' , . r.•yi - e .w"7 1 .4e. 7V i :,,• I. - . .. 2-VOLT • S^^//' !•.'; 7j:'' ••1.L. _L . .J. •.. J. v. i.} .4*-Sir^::•f_E •04 01i'' r .'ram• v.1ti :.•. iiiY.r -' t i.vt? i a,+,. .'• .'..•i • :• 4 +.-'t :y -. si V t+'"Z . i'. __. -- ,'".., - .i_ p. LT 'a ••.TX._:-.4•• A _^ 1; w•_. .."'.: Xlso that r s• . paw- t d la ndof-=4ere=Powor Cc: aiudsi-w3-t 3 rip•-oraja w inY.r e1ular •la F. i3 h."3rin.a.tm o xSt said P..: I wr;•.Co jl--r flt'_Qf`-Isar-a d'-zoseaencing• it the :-••+-='4-:. _ north rine •of .saril-3scti,n S.produced•'Neat tellers. •': r•' said- Cep l•• •2 •00 feet,,:meastired along• above•_ddscribed ;c.er.ter.: ..• —• '- .: line • to" a Trtt +.hare- said a trii. po p is.)l.:00 :net 4%.•*:.' _ •ia:width;. thence• southi,,lr 166-80••feet,` eAasurn-aronrsaif'cints -rJM'V":polf"ti ':asrt • said st:1.p is 17• feet-in,.aidth-and_4:ie_polnt..of-. - a- ol faction with ;bovc describ.d 17.00 'ft, •strip. yi=sis•=ss3riP--of-leisd•=6•4E: wteth Iyinc. r j••:•<<•:`•••.-: •westerly'of:an•adjoining',said: yr-foot-" czip Ind . extending'from the southerly.end:of said-l7, o-t. strioi'tnentr-a 'distance of 6=j feet. e _ri.g it.s--herein grunted are subject toThe the, C011?.1hg• • .•. terms s d: conditions,:which Pazific Coast• expressly. u•ss::m i• and:•ag!rees.••to perfora,s el thou t yr. agreement'-try Pucitic• •'--• Coast•'sucn' rights would not ie. granted, krPe• tic Coast• a•rees-to ,install and. maint.; nB • 1, a con- y: nwwfion-on-.ai•Sd•-.i..r•-•.tr.ftok Q t 3 •point..n ills 6.:• a hoer•-on- .'ld•` - rExhl'lt with .the -axis spur. •t'scV. :f Powar• ' Oeio.cny'd;:on • • It,!''property wrw ve. dtlsc ri:, d to, erve lower ivapur:vix su:'f;-ton _• teas Plant. 'Prom the ?oint where suc:• spur trace a ?;w•!t: Coapahy. Ieavei .the 1•7 foot-'rt-:jht of way rttlretnobo,- +•...,':r: •ral .E it•ihall be:solely. owed-and'- maInteinoir hi. Pnw•,r ,;•amaeny• - ---- a 2.—only a.•singl•: spur tract, s:ha11 •c cons tr'.:ct.G wi.nln•. i thi right• af- ay-mot+-rain-Kran ted. =a G.1 ri-.c..:_•x:.;, u. j -- r<ptL"• jiac' to be conatrncta.: t• ern,.seal; ,•.-.: j ?nc::_;c t Co rn-, Jnnvg ect_.ii.: r .-" - -- L.•.-na-'r.,•' -.:- i 1. i8talffl_eton St.eem Plant or Power i:ompsny yc.'. t.. ec:cC :ras Last r tiro ra-•T••_ssanutacLuring. plant of .:oc3r_.• Ai roreft 'Coia'pany, .:,nd • i 21.-aQt•.':a 'used r any-j rvlce to any 3t-1er pur.en or. prop a'r'ty'sifnout.prior written con:sent •? om 7owtlr•t ompuny.. ?wolf io j •shirt iinagr;ees that esx•ana21 not he permitted t.: sand 2:;;a' Onnts!aid.-spur• traces' for. unreasonable period s-Of .tune. L.' • : r r 3 •- _ r •..••:L z." V. ' . •• ..:- .••••t' ;Z:tt-.. ••",.'.. '•V1.7- -...:::." *'*:....*en::••• r.. , .. _. •.. lc14i. .•-•... -0-.-- .,.7.7:i ....-14;•;..- ..!-7'•••1•'..'.. !....:...i.':'"Y7r.7 . ' • • '..• 5'7"".." 71Pft •i11 112 . • -,.. r . *4•.•.:..'-:4-• :•:•••;*•:.:•,..-:..:.:,r.• :...:-•' :'..i.. ..'": . *.....r', :::.:.:..-.:,•:13._4.--; -:.,-!....,..7: 7: • ... ..I 4.„ott.e.s.4:•...--.••••-......:,•••••, -,..•.•-:••••• •••••-.. • ••••-••.- • ••••• • • :. . • ::-....1. . ...:.. • ., . .•••• ,-..:.:,-3 Mti . ••;•...,..--..4"• t•...........• '• '••••;*•` • .... ••• "-al,- ••• •• •. • "!•• -' :• •*- ••••,0; •..":•... A. ;, ••••... .....4.-„-.E,;..--.•,....)-...-Tt i:.•.4. 1''..::4444.4......*:',--- ..... -.•.1"...':•---:.."'-.*. n.q. 1-:*:' .::.. .."•'.7 •-0 !' • ••-. = . -`'.'....4%.*.• •-...: . te,... -srfM4...4..:.. .....":.?.....-....-.^2„.....• l..' .7:• .. .. 1*r1.%."'.•••:..,;. .7•-. .'t ,....... ..1.1:-...-77. -: •. .:1z ..........,,i):4... _...... ,..„,v.,.....73T7. : :.,..-- , •-...%• :.•- .. - . . , -:7S ; •• . :.•• ....• '".• •...., •••• '....,,, •!•• 1 I!" . • st.:.t:•• ;••46.. ... tit7:4..-:...• ".• ,77.--- .*Z•444;t? - • :... 7 ill,7-,,-..-.:,......• 9. .• •••• .7. ..3.- rad/ LCOast.a4ree.a••tb 'ins tall -alia—tjairtallii;k.:.. :.:.:s..•tur;r!..;.••.•%4‘,. r.r•,._katatrirrttililimPriM TITsaidspur 'track at • poilit.,-ne • .".-• ^- ' g tx*-774.....7.•:'....*•:= 7_,:... 4• -i . , .. ... .____enr-4....ha......L..Z.LL..:•...;;. .4r:;....,i ...r.,::/t.:,:•.•:.;,:-.._• ..bart2rhotindar-r.ot Power. Coupa !s.:Oro partr•of ourri.Eef t •='-';'• • 1--1" "la 4.:.nr •-•-•,_.•••••-•"•.-7. .. •• •t•• • - ima ago anti'/6 he we..•tel. Tg, trairtr-$ -., 1- Cd$:..L.:-MI • .• .1- •'. •:' '''•''''''. ..:' ..... 41..4 .:.• :. 1MaiL•I ---17...adiVirf ielet pr.o.per.-4-euse_aa-so 11,1.„surf.aos deal:mai, •: '''r'. •'-'. niturs41-y. (Lowing therein and:also'a surf,icieht'cii:cyftrt-under.-n:::"-..••••"- - . 1._ . the roadway hereinafter. mentioned,.:Leading into the Shia flo....;.' .*** • tot:Plant,- to Ears for. the water flow,trig in the titan e het' • • ••• Iff'•- •.'72'4:---••-"•••:.•41e.ehm-aer-thegnr*PeeLf•bai.righ•C=or-earir7--='._ 7 i 71. Pacific Coast agrees (a.) to••t down-the existing. 3;...*:::•.-••=,=--..i.".:'--- rinee-el-grcur•the• weetirrli. margin .eir ..the*Nlc;r them Pacific.tall.... ". . s,..• • : •• wat4;Conipanyt s richt of .a •and. rebuild.. •e..sane in a:goon;-7"---•7- • 0. . ant....*$',ten t ta1 itentnir on a line two'reef wes te ily• from••cle- . • _ ...._7"."'"7:7- 1 .••:-:•‘.:71.• : t•i- •.• 2. .. 1."- --•-• •• .• VO kiel'17 star gir of tile right of way here?.ri-granaElThj_ to_ ..-- .... inatall in said fence _a_-gGod ar.d su frit Ven4.-•ga Le where• stich r • ‘.•• - t-Tenee'aros•s•s the ev.tl.: track of Power Company leading to tr.,.e 4.•‘•- .. , ". . Shntflaton Steam •Plailtr _(c) --to Install and''main-Lath In7-0-a- '• - - 1-.---•7.- •';-• - t-•-• condition at the• place indicated un sal:: i•xhiPic 6 ..;rede 'cross-. • - 4•-••••:•---..-.- - • 4•4-'•-•• •..) ffir %11'!"-X-.111.121,i+3**?-111.-"•4 manner un el.:11-.Cle' ii7zng_rope••---:===-- - 1 .•,. Ir17.- •. • —Tay, An Lila roadway •Iaaainy. from .the co ',acent eta... rlii.411117'11 • . . ... r.: — •.. ••.• -...• .. .:bastorly.of the. Northern Pac.ific t rim?: to• t!.. -hufflatons Plant; ,• 17-----; •-2. .P.,-;•-•••:.____..1--z_-,.:,-7 -CT-1o.set' •said fence-.einti axis Ling -wirea, asts,,...etc.,7bamt...aL--....- rim --. feald--crosain as-shown on said. '.7.xhi';.:t, ann to instal a iii,4 •-•; . . . i .. . 77- t-',:•-."7--,i::i.-.:.-.'.':-• ...-aarnisC.Itna*.i.oadwayi•. (a) to keep the rigat of *say iltireick.__-... .-. ...-_: Ftlar•7'..‘,.' , .-„-*.— -••••••.... • : 1,. ...---- granted:_f ret:1121=ria-r...a t -all' Lilled .from &II oru7s•:: an. 1- ,-- ...l - ••• A A .• d Udders.. • T• •'......''. „," •-.;• Irowth• • (r) -•to•aaintain th; stop+ or any rill on. said r VI • - 7, -• • . 1Ofis2-art- a-pitetrnorrea-ter--tnarr one--f-oot-T•rtioal-1*.r7ctind---6- -- , Pr-.4. ':• :•-Oniaehelf feet hcirisonta;;, and not to 'perm!.t zne...mi terlal e pr. an..T-7- . ' I ,.L----••••-•• „-fill-tcp. roach within lase then two feet from the.fence: akors,.- '.... ••• airitianinti all thereof to be clone to the sstisfactIon of...•.,•••• ...:...:„. . .4:r."••••••...4.•••.•'•"..."1: • 1.1.::-.....•'.'...-...'••••• • :'.: I • .• •• '- 's , • . ' -.-.. . 7 '-•:• ••-.Power••.CospanT. 7.-•; II. f". •• y...:.__•.......! •I 4...• t... 1.,,e6 4..' of . .. re---4.-- . .2-- •... 0. 4.• 4:Yi•-1.?..0.-.4..., -.•• ..er 77.. ...7::.......w. * • 4;••••••• •'I.. • P 4.,...C...7 .•,4,?••::;•Fi e_N.::: -:•-•••••••.4 • 1 . . c i _ 5. P.rc.f1C. ;as_L..harrby assumas_fu11 ra pn"}"! 11Ly 11. fin a^Y• Par..._. _s. .=crf- ac• s.vyPr:, - -ny 9r.r•:'Ja:)•- •,a r:.L19n wr..•C,7)r.v. ---1D..:....1.- a2-FSORb: Zf!.• '-'•a?'`".-st11C"Z'-Li r..• fI C-i - '. IRl.3i.i I 9riL - ' L iT.lfr m '. Lt fir• r:1: `tLJ - r r Lr• i?: J71 r•.. 1' jam• r 1 ride u or. 1 Jf and .+at -r•: )I: . ':411 s; O.. . • _ - _ uU. r._ SL. 1c :J:.... '.fir .1r, • - .,v-• ' !. . :1 - .,1• •-- .e• so1 i nur 14.1 4.1t 11 n:1:1:. _I r ... r f 11 1 Ile C.Z0341II!; nrjvl Ler"- Over . ... , .. rA.• • • , , - . ,: reln r:. •:a•' : n, .:L nt•.. r _ j. tti: Ipr,rA• •.• nr j..f,ly:rtnr J^_aon ,per 6ract-,-tn ••9:: - ;1-. _• , • •-: -- •^lc: .i •••v:)•. ••c.L ..LL-, -' -- •— f c1: • ; Ir rin:. wr: rrt .Aid . ^1;'lt an1ll" ..e le rmine. li i f1 ht to cunt_:,ur ..t, .,,. :a. '. .! • ' . -1., t •,' .A. ,pon :,Len r . r j ! n _ St. v v•ve•• •7•Lt.rva.....otetl:.77:1."! :••zi..`:=...;-:';'•......:';'?' .-.. •• - . 4 .a.7!","fiSt..,:,-;r.I.r:,• ....."-7 ••• '.;.• • • .' a a......... 7••••--••••• •••••••...4 : ••,,,e0.1111,1LIrICSE,20/1:*1:02584•'• .1. •• •• • * _ _P.f..-.......f......:..,..., •.4.. •. : F$.12j, art• 7-:::7--fr:Ge4. . . .o-•:;.. 6..: • 4.-14.i-it..-c-!::.•-.:: i •;• e r'', be-.- ...-• 07 -.: :.%, • itteb;eonuser tracis shall e rale for-t-.7e purpose- f- • Lt..- • •"; • • extending its own spur to rercn anC to continue to ,terve trio• g MN7-"--"Feing-plant. b— d..: It.i"aelf.le %lora t snail a4-elat- ant ni' t:-.T t.;1-ga..anii . • • coed 1,ti .an-r-t•rerein ate two, ?ore:, C:oapwny. Ana 11 r..av• T.?•• right to pwrfare sue:: nufaul Loci •Twil•cations its. anz nlet tne oast Lnarrof from Pacific Coast, ni,-at Its. el•-rtIon,. to. w ite.raina te the r..1.gn.t a nery in erz-n ten. ar4..1.7.1-weepJ Ire P.c-1,21.-e- ." nal t...Lo-r-e-sove_i_to-trenIca •aud c.t.r.nr•.pro •wrty rrom s a id" rigr.t Li.st,0- -. of amy.; prowl Ted, hownver, Pnwqr :311311/1y 3.-4.11 `awe tfit ri.::•,: -.1:'.... .• at lta 61.•:11t1311 t) r5. titre ?lcIr 12 :;(1);.;•t ;: .-•e•:„.1_.c...-.1 -t-.) •ea in- • • - . d.j. tr.in and. pnwr•:t.: ...Li .inur '. IsC:: 1,1on 1.•:•2 rt.••:t. Ir. ..,... ::—Neln -1_ei ' -. I••o.1 01A.1.. trantsid (rpm t•I• nortTewrlf lin- ,r .?-prer ,:omp: ny I 3 propwrty to S..Z. , 1,c..._..:.• ,...,a point 15.2 f •;ouellt t:serl) frodi ooint ":3" v.owr. u.on said L'-.......•-1.uit, .Lox--..n.-•oli Glnuane• of set tetilne. ',Tyr-rice- t-... the san;e• ..-- 1• -- • • - -._ .• - •--. -.. . ..... ..• hufrieton .;teu.: Plant. 7. 9• It 1.a %MG.,*r P tom: :.,.• . '..., ‘• .r..... . 'A r. • -.' '•,-;>^ ...or ny servtiik I ta`••••isnif r:.t•ton 'Zig.= Pli-...: •: -...:, •••.- L.: t., '.!... r7.1.1- road at •Pacific Coast over prou...rt, -.3: :•••••t:t11-: .*.•ot.e t Ifir.; ta- lacant to the Sittfrle T...m I tear. pl;.:t•-_,:. -..,.. ....••••:..., •t•••• 7ow!r• t•Company :Leases! t•it• portion lt" :!b: 1 1ptt; •-r.,.r. ....•-•.::,• ei.cific c• •Coaet. pr_2perty *.an in 3 truarh..-. .- ..-.-• :-.: -: ten June I, for AI:parlor' •-.net int; .iline I, ,94:?.. '.I non 7"Imp 16-.inr. ".•,.., Paciftc• or----''"7"Coast Tr. 1 t'm lour trac•: upon 1-....•• rt„.••!.. ,!• •r .• .• :•••tr..gran tee —_ . .. 1 and eonnne tion of. Po,..4r tTompany' - r;),Ir •l'..•, t•iw new •our track • L.:;...••••••• Of ?a•ci fic•.Cot at, the .'.It Li-Ii.i., b 1*:, '••T•t 1 or-,..I Ni.a 11 t,e s- •... r. ..... .: '•• deemed cancellod ;we. 411 ut_Powwr •cirr • n•:'5 r: .ftt... In i.ti to. i.h•.port;On or .1.no:. xr•-.•I,t •• 4,,. Jr :,,...c. ••••,:. i+ng•I:i.0 .:On.i t prop•r'.-:. 17.-.' .• • •- - - . ball 1••• deemed •..t vr. •n,... 10• Plrisan..r t. common .1.,•,r. '''..,'!.'.0 In imy p•r:-...n.n I 1 pur tr-aa a...or nig a Pow•r Conoany „r..,p.1 r•t t . ..•r v• Ct.• na sin IL -Ala"t. • - I • • . 6--- 1. - . ; 1 , , V7I ZI 1 I I r85'•!•kc.,1•) t " r L ..1--.-- — ars not. , ..n.-". • •••!'• , •-:. e..." ••••'" *:-•.•-•-. • • •I f ent m . •••-- m , T" ' -. "- '--- .' ' . :4-%. ..m.:.1-- zr•t--- --,- .... i r-- m.o....0 •••••••••••••••••• re rI4 at 1.•••:••••. •. " A:..... L ....... ...._ 4 r7.117' C.:1. ...a ... rf, 4 -. : •• e .. 7 . ..:.. 04.r t ,-. P.:11.• , .*:•••••1r•-•1 l'. I! •I•••.•I 1;." • •• I r.-• 1•11L'..•:.. 4. •• - Ii qt..- 4i,' , ,p-rf i 1 I 1 .6.,,4 1 , I . 0 i i •I f, Z1 " ; it , c .7: -.), I t t I t . i Z:ti ry •,, 1 • • 1- ::t .• pe r....411. .1.. . ,.......9.; ti . t--3 '1 •' 4"''"•*_•4, a .. 1•-..,./ • -.. - .7 .• '•• 01111A.C14 :.:•••• C.err••••.)r••' N' . 1.(11trtir..::•:?., ••r;.. ••^.r. ”•• • • I 11.-•••'-. nd vo lun•.•-. • :. . .•• 1,: bInnor,.• • •• • • I• •• ellthOriz4 '... — • .', .,- I:. • •• 14 c•I'l ' ,r; -r. '• •r• 1 ..!....-.... r.-;•:"...1 I. 1•7'• 11; ".1.r.-.7 . •. -- 41.0.1,:••(101 .4.. .•:•-lc 1. .,, • : I3 -..... i S. ... 4 .--• I ...:.•- I 17.....:-. 7,,,• 2 1:._, 7 I .' I - I __ IL. 7. i- i 3 ''- 7- 1 J.t- i• 4 . ..-- 1 . t-4.4 tit 'ti 1•••) W 117'4 360 19ti3. ("eta rinslEDuiURS nad• this S/ day of pOrtER f LIGET.CO , a, itassa anon etts corporation, ker•Ana ft•r rd•rrsd.•to as t h• .Power C.=paw'.. •the liOnTHER! _EACI FIG..HAI:=..Y C( &1 Y, • . .--- a,i. - yt000ntin corporation. and the PACIFIC COAST-1. -aa.•00. - - - r r .faah lnstoe t = rprration, her•lssafter aoll•cti•ely, called the 'lie Ca paniaa., i< - .. •ITFLSSLTIi, t taa t. For and is °om\deratl'n ol..tn. SUB of Fire ::imt1red FSft--seven .nhd ri0,1I0v I:: dollars to It in hand Fetid, the r•c lpt whereof 1• hereby •ekaa.ledged• the Posner Poer Conp.ro• has graat•d and by Use, ; t•resants. • un:,. ::il .e.. T t• the 1AlA isi.ror,d c•aspanlw, treit•aucooesors end 00.:tEae, jointly or atrv•r•li7 es their Intersat o,etr•.ct:.. Q.t-hs trwci[s tn.reva 'aq Craa '_:sea- :n _i:a a orn.r. for '.. , •.•?pure. b.. rad opera!' -reraon cert ln ratIrowd trrcX3,'tr..: Col:a'•ir:c Asa•::-1t.nd Ptf >,alnttlnias P G f traeta of la rat insofar ..a the 3R_,0 are within tea 1•roparty of ant: Poesr ..o.,arp'. Sttsat• in the County d CS:b and Stet• of N.• 1aSto. o-eft: e-: h&._Q/t_tain-a C:in ot.1•`u w•frayty..lr.r)_ w.T •t rn wl•'ti.;`Ge1i.:; tr:.'(i:.: fe•+t—. wide e ease rl]• at' the C.GL•r lira .,f pare ant.: ;'r r-r-•.Gk mi. 1••n'..A n•r•)uII: n said atri• u cc lax 54 141.a0.11a...i:dL oat.-u ;i01. ' .act:tic r.er-to - and surd• • port he r-:of, pre::rr•d lt. tits 't:-.'I'• al' ata 'Is•r1::- =.., 1•,e-r M . •ld sal tw•Or s:o.+.Na ay .t.•t•d 3.p,r•au.oar 21, 1.94Z, r.•.l.e:: dui;/ .._ . ---..,, -art 1•teto i l.- ._. ha..&:.:•11bit ". , and further re.1eed t:ctn-,r I'', 1:.:Z. Allao. 1u 0j•e'. to eNne•,in peen oa t lxty. (v..• '..a er. .-.1. 1c• r... •r tar•in. that enrta1.0 strip of l..:d t.a:rty (:., , 1'••:'• It. ..,•:tn ••e::.y 'err . iv) .•'t wide do anon 114. of the veal•. ins of :he • .,ptir s•.r..A iat_or.r7 'r'rt, O11Zhi-ittecned };lti.loi . , w.l•, . . . •se.... iwd 'as.rlt• .,. r •.t ••.r..• .^tore., . . rolt.f T'r.iL W on swi•t tzr:I:1t -;,•-. Provided tar.!. should ..,. sat,! 'a 1 It o•..i :;or;•'a:i••a -sr •,1'lr.w.« :n ..r.• tfii, tr•olu fret.. .aid •trip. •.r -i .lnr thew, tta strip nr .•rips Cron .r.ICn aid ):r•.:ca ate r.00v.,1 ar+;1 revert •' •n. •ir»:a^-. I1t-KITIC---;i r.iu:r_.CF. Yoe•:. _o-•,•.cy- ..wa ea.cv•.n ,•.. :r.se::• . s:. ' - .'•; Ina year first el.o.• writ_.,,. Lc...-. Z` -1-___-- - 1 . 3-TAT:,' U.' r:rauily1....t 1 Alsalat.nt—•_•- .— • 04susty_of £io . • ) • Oe this' t r'L A•v of r... a 19•:. y nAr-. 1 , tC. F. T•rr• o me .flown 'o be U.• •.1.:a i'r..,t:e::: •r.• • ••rpor,r -'.•t an•eut•d the within sad f ore t•,t:j lua traps.::: I:.^ •:curt.1• •,...I ..1•' taw f, .,a- .t to•b• tar fr.e and, t0lu.ntaty act rut i.en -•r .•to carp.- ' -t1.•,., fo, r.h.. .u.•.. .'tr: nl174-+w tn•reia aa.ctioe•d, and 0.0 ...•••h •twtet! . ••s •.,•toil ..., still 1astrtnnent at,d _:at _:.• •.••, .l: '..A --a .. rpor•,., ... : ... corporation. I. TXli 1'pltE;caOF. 11.a'e h.r•iu'- ..•t sty I . .•1. •. : lier. ,fly o! I 1.1.1 en.: the dam. and.. ear 'eat •uo.• wr1 it•n. c::l.. ., , 1.r •. _ .— _*.-.._ 1 . tit'." l• k; r;, f 1. Na•.nry runic In and :or •rid f' laese.•Id: • `' ,.y Cutuity •nA 9,•t r.a 1r,1 al L`• t wt . ie.ttt., 1. •.I.1 •t•.••. . x rr t :. .•.iM ' 4` It. ale. : t I :' uin Lon..••i 1 jr 1V1Jcr^^14•..[ I 1'r r ME OOl4tR... IVt,.. ,. A..000,tyk-1 M . h 1. y.,;{, tea_ S t ^.,,,.:y .. .. ry •*±.r/Rr0'.!!kf 7'. wi. r_:Ci.1._.w _. •.._ • 7•: - -.: e. !Mb IIIr e..» - - . -. r. .,. _ a'y.'¢r• •:. 3li T.....,•N... - .J'...,r •'• L ,1 ..11" `,.I•1• 'r_' _ . }'._•'' • yj'" '7":LkQ'.riy;-••1rv'i,:' r.ct.+.•.••r:1.. . y,•.+.r••,,. . 7• .:~•-• .r a,_..•. • s. '':..-1e,... It ria'f1iQ•= tj...•••es t•• . I l• =?r rot`.'tbe'Com' 1 'or''Y1ne aid..tote.o. :ash t. t p• ta r'` °; art; o::tt e:`=1n r^r*-tteoLli- ws•'of-thd at•*— Q' n•;--f-Jev1-^:•-t r$ ar'nciD r... T- aaot1scorcoi FC: _and-In.-co::e:de-n:id::• of :i • sum' ca'f :'no_iolla o -, 1 valuable cone idorrsc ion'•to :. r+prd. er+n ^.'c• r I I aZ kcknowl u. • - .. Is w• rrc -enc.roso, x'.eaer.tA%Web :'a:: Co [.e •ortF:c:'n :a el':i•c .:ailrn,•-r•••--r^ or ons rr'c or no:•st i - WO i;na ilcro,.-.2.. p.7: tbe' ".Reli e:: Co::.ran;", ror t.`.o, .. o:: •.. ow--r-••- - e.:•--1--mot! .-'a:, :.r•. 01 .-- -• ..r :•'::ed •• •' -• q. +~ 4ti:_..m. _- •• i 1__-_•-ar-s----- ' ;::,-'-o:•r- o^ ..n a r , i.... .a).`ee't••r' -n 11 ::..r'• ^pi:'Jar, 1-_ :crth Iandnorth-:oa= •r'•, :-e. ."p:.17 '+.':.taporr;:' r ati 146.1.4,•.1.: ..• •• ..,.. for t' r a:e:.deck.1 n t •^t• • n .:ca 'io tr-on• 0i tticx• 31'•ie ;,; _..A or:a-•-'f.-') •' , :-•er. 24:-%4.'~-t .•. . .wttioh tltla 'one r: en: ,^.._ Ai.b•. . t.-_..•'4u r•?.l:ri••Y. =--r'.L)Ci.ad i,ere to',. Jca m•a`rlted ?x! 'r.lt ''1"-w•r--r'-f: - :-... , ... ,c o ir.r : '':ce 1 -. ..Ct ^:_:cc= of • ' ••"•••_a,,_ocruer Zi rod. line or.Bpi. a ::':" c:: c .:1:: r. ;'a -r::. :L-ht. . f-_ of.-way. w w 3: . , .e ',r ^- _>cr•>n:^ " 'construct:-- . .- fai-' irjtaissin• ar:rl onerntl: a trr.'r.' cc+:rr•CC n; w#t:. cracks joint]Q-- - r- . o•w•nect''by the.'F(ni'lwn•' r;om•'1n:r•• •r!r, ••• Z'. • r. -:.. 0" :F• nr: C .s:.•". B.IR. CO. .• t.+ a•.,'. •.•: -ysvin, th, ,oezng Aircraft :or.. Y : ala- 1- =c• -n, 1 d t3 l=tta: 31Y+(vy,,.: ::point,:. egstal,.. r dd'•000rdlsrate -:t•a1.: rnapcct: Kith ;,t'c react-or the L-'': aver prorl:ree.to se id Peel! r;oant •H. H. oo i b_• •• 11 r •bi aatrumen Sao- 3 111 At. ' trit)r an:d fo+ncl-owriec: .:aoita«"'' .•.-•. - • ferit V.- •%,t. .. ': 3 . •_ _ .. . i.ytf-. ..i.zr V , 1•• r 0-::. •. ,ice' ALL`-- or "-.'*.71`•"..-.- .:-4.t, . •••••'......--.: ..•":. '... •' '••• :.,•. "....•. I..l.k......: X•-#':....f..'.j.! 4." . eI1i111a v F'. 4.••••..::-;.••.. 7•.7•::....:.-•k..:'. 8. 3 1.-, 1...' t*,.'.'•.•...•.••Z".,:-i-......' 4., 5,- 4.4:?••:•• %.•-''••:.:. • 1-•-•- •-T. •.•.•.,..• t fl..:•e.. 7-:•.••:.•••- 7•_.-.••- e„- 4s.;... -,t'.•* 1 4:1. 7% • ' 1 f inth vent h lway Cecpnyhrsa tts l t i: 4 .•:;.'. event the fe he pre41843 hereby granted, the sae aa1 reverte m m Z•..... r•-•••.--•.i* 4..•-'•..••.-: a•..•• r•" r" h•" s•:..so; 1;- I,to'••••if 7. "•*: ,•--.--- .•..•_....-:--s•-•• :--. _,,,__:'''.?•----.... r . •-virrerr--fir4rin.17-'isT4--511i:17 Tut-....., •th-e-rt-t--,„ . - 7'..:.. u.poilli.••••- b....Z.0C aA t. li r. ...::. b:::,:,••••..:."..,:-.;; 5 A...:. ...,C eta..3 . .."Or -e: . :;1.1.,er.:•7'.?e :1. .:. .:•.:••• . :-. ts 1 7.. : :----- .' 17 ' 7';.'... .. . I.r •.‘ ... cons tri:o t!-F.; :r.a 1.••••••A 1 7:I.'• A".e.. 7.-,.e r••*.'.-r 3 6 to. -re ck ."r tri c ks. ,--.: .. ••`. 14-is •63e•./..-t 1- •ri-tod ih'•••••• •- •1-.6 - t-1- • -• •••• .. ....-•L.:1•.r• . .. . I CCrt6:.1' X. a. CO. 8!• ,..ft.. •:s• 1 -ft ;r-•::ten I t.t.r."11..*.:' .. • ii I Dec t.:.3:-..-l•L.t.1- L.h a ta•64.....k . : .Cf... 1:(11..::::...:.:: i-i.:• EL:...: ....J..!.,..:,•,• ... I.14,..--• .----- 4.---÷"r.:, . .._-__ _, Z„ZILlat .4.1..cr...:. ... i ...:.....-,,. . . 71; ::'....... .. • i• r , '.-6- i'•••:,• ••• •i." !'!:•••• • : •. • , : •••• • '• • . l• these rres-e-Ls '•••r, .14.-_, .•...et ./...; •' •••.-4. .1,-•t t t.n,di• T.-- I 7' 4101....... o. • 5IE I 4--,•"-4-1". •C •rr• -. mo,: .• I I r • r.........-..:----..:-. - It 4 1 r n....... ...:. l• s.... it 1 rms.I 7•1 I 1,:':2:,(:::1 I err .-. i sit a....... -- --- D. d. TOKitikaC2 I Ittld A::3.Z..s :-..t ••#-:•••%. :'" : • 77- 1 .I .r ... ; ..,.„.:...r::e.,...t....kim...r..:..... I.._................... ....• . ....: 1i L• c.--I 1• -..• t•'.•...t.: ,:-...• .... . : 7-74.....-- 1 e 1.".F: rt .• ... III f• -. . . 4 I L.:....: . .• . _ 7=-7-71iftIra a Lai - •• • • s- , ... 1••• , _- •. 4. !...) s'...--- •. r: • •• •• •--.../-7,. 77 ..-ri.• ow.2 m. .,..-• c. ..,-; 4,41 y, 0. t\ s.......:::; 11 o . ar•-3 t• •. 44. . Iv•:-.:-• ad,. e-- 'Z'•••••‘..- vi.........-. .----- -..•4.. ... 4"...f2• I....9. 61::.^......;,,,, x,...., -..,..... ... • 46-....6.1 et ,/./.cc, R;.,..;....:I.A/./....., e:.....2).;....4,4:„.„......,...... • •. • .• IL,if -. 0 ..... 44.1.. ft.:* • 1.• • ! '`...11:- fro.. • ***..'....:.,'f.vT."7:7.;•• ' '. . • 7:'7?••• 4. 4,13 r••••,..: ' . ..:...:•10••„...t...•- •„ : -. 7,:•• 11111Q CIE 1§ c' j Or, ": :: ".w.... "J."..: - 7 k.....;,,::: .1.:.4.tei:,_:.. ."rv,.."••7%* i:••••:••-:' 4 ... ...•,...ri.j.:11. S, 7••• •••• ' N..--.•.**. t••••ti"": III.• 9*. ••i..... k.;,.. , ..:3•-•---, fe..:!" ••-•(..*:•-.7 es,....tat"-..•••:.. - , ,, .. r:".•-, v: .•.;.•:':'"" ...s.:;:.:..171:::.' r7.'•.4: 1:0.7. •,-P••••!•411;:,..Ifsit.:: tte#--:•,...!"101•,.•..: ; ..• .• -.. .....•:..:t.elo,':::•••....:.•,.:,-•'. . u•;,.. l• 7, e.•--, 0..-., t. l r. 1.•,..'., t•.-, q.,:....,424;t-. r.7".•4.;., ...-..r.4•; y•;..••. P.•.L,,...t.-a.... y.'`. F v:.:...--,- i-l..• 1.- 4,.- r--.,-.,„•;.. r...••-.. 4!-:.-m"-•'. r. r--. i:k-.-.:;.;.:-:-,-,. 41.,..",..'..'-::- -•... 1.,1•'•.:• E:'-"-....:.,,- 4.,: 7-:.-:..•.•.-•-::;.,..:. 1,. 4;.- 4• 1.-•.„*:•.-;-.-.•..•• 7.,....:. r,,:..: ZN, a":`•,-: 4 so -c ....4. ,. . 2.-4....•tt1i..• o 4 t. ir:- r,.'. 1-'•.--,•:.•..v 4 r t „diI 4 ..: : i ... 1W-. p-- t-.. 2•'-.1••• l-'.,••..::.';.•,• t•• z..•... 7.14001...,._.p. i..;. 1 . 7.:,•" 4?"4 •• , 07: •.:....:,,..1,1. •...• . ••,,,-.‘•-,,,.. 4.,,i07. -7- '''•..: 7.•,.........,.2.1.-;aa---e."••,._-•--..:-Viz.:v..:,; .... .........."..11V"*"...?..••;.'....'794A-• •••'" 1 1,„ •.•• .• ., st.,,,•....•::.0.11. ... ..... ' 1...... •...tt ....,..,- I;wi•4,.......--. ir....•••••t Ilt.!7.n.:.114,..g.T.ir .y, ":.7"..1.••••'.7•: 7.•"---, 1•••••••er Y•• • ' ew- :--'"-. • . -- 't 7.•, ... 7'lir ,cs-• .., • ' ...i "air.. 1 •,: --1..••••;‘.4" -!' suiwie-s•-•. ..-,4z-,i•-• tC••• •:'.:.. • ...;11:1 :::: ;•..1163:11ter:I:Qs:this . --Lai,.-;.?--- ve;F". •:Le...! • - -;-- bey z;-.---.---7ii 7,.. i:4-.: '• PC •.• '• r,tr-• -twesse•rocrr.sanwrourea tamer catcrAms;;•,i, • ••• • : 9•. C.3 -- 1 • . list* ,ialladl- - -...,• •:. -.• • !. 1‘I: Grantorw..:ant:Sat CITY•CV 111212011;14niiiiiiir:-• • - • 'here isrmallefill.:.e.....r. •. ......,:„.,. Grantsee. ..•-,t;:t.;...:,7.:••••;:..,:--•........;....x!e!.:.--.-•:e. = .W1.,- A:t*Ese••--ritt-'--....---,A-- • 1,1;47-x... 4-. ..vs•-..,-'lle:-Nr4.,..;•ft.2-:.•:4• it••::,••' 7•,_..-:.-7• W...11311133g131• - :.: •••,_•_-1'..'! 7:4'..--!......t4%1•4:5.4.e.i.. -.1;.,... .....-PO•4.....: L",.. 7' ..•••• 7t1,7,&,•74$ 7::!.....; .• 1:.fWisiiks1.: 7.-;Isr•sErtetail... .. :e.,.;‘44'.7":• 5••'..S.:11 '-' ...f.1.),7 ;•••• Z.•41.. . 7. . 1 .•.9,44t"!:;4'.....".406..-AV._ ..11r.til''...,..-:'...1..7"..:4'... .‘r.•'I'. . • '.0": . a ' 7::•:•••That.in.cone idaration .if the suit of.Ome.Dollse(31:00):.•:fa:hood,paid•..•A; • receipt•of which:is.hereby ackramaldgi&t:'sedan iserformaiice*by Grease•oL the Tr.coveskants..haireiniftatL set lorth....Gtantor;hereby,grentsmets'Grantee.4,..eitTsciat•-:.s-1.....'• '•••••• .....• :. Ipz•---. warranty;of:ienyi kind.;:•••e..right-:of:wayLtoryroadamerrasolF.reiate&:utility:per posee";: .„..•..,..,7. ::.i.,'.....,,,;'" •. .„,",•:•.,' :7, , • . ..-- :... , re) •-. over and•across-and.following described leati!Mitiatedi inl the.County at Xing;t1t1,.7!..,:: -..7-•-,-.- • .„7., • •..,. . - 0. sga.cqrof-Wasnangtony-to..wit: ete.L.T.L....44..r • . ..1- •! ---....-7-•':•;.1-,:•:::..7.;•-7.-- :-.7:-.7.• „ . -• Vii.••:- -••.1 '--- •••••-::,•i....,..., .-,,....,;;. i...„-.10;.....-arzr•igh4.;:k 71,4-4-,•;,,trfe...:•.;,.. .-.--,..exe.ve-,!--:•-•••:--. Az;-...F-::. „... -..:-........„;.. 4-.'........, -••• ...' vt4-5-.----4...:•••••%14,::..- c•-• ,-, ..L.. .."-.-17 .s: 26•Fk!::•...•,..:A.V:t.,••1 ..kk,•CeSeetSCing••ant.the!.Northisstitierier,Mf:Cover=sent Lot-.I - te.„.....1,,.i.••• ••••.,-.r.r:e--.•••.•:..t,vak• .3-:-...rarv.....• i•-•• s,ti.i.,,,r Tomm..ei.r•23:16ortliZiangeiSseisOffilliiiit-"`- •a- ' -7",•-.:.''._;, :;•„.....e. -•:...-" 2-•'•-••-..---.4.e.. '''..t:•,:r.•....- •••:•• 4....ro•-.-•..7,-,-,-..-.::,s7•••• -mr-Th"---"-"--7-T -••••••:•••-- Ite. 4_, • Meridian, thence North.33°31..!03".WesFaioni.,5- thislabll-•-ic - • • ,...'i.:-...•-•': _.,,,..4,c''' . --..;'••• "'"-• .---.- - • Oa fif"" ••....line of said Section 11;;the rdisilnite-:Of:960.Or.7iseCto.".4 4.„..f.;n4c• •-:.; 7.. -tfl z•!-.1•:. -,..•••• •=-..•.7.-•:„:,-,..... VitUit. a in the Northeast.corner of the Shut/latex.Steen.Planr I- ..?'7:•.* '7•"••!'!".;v5 *- .*--''''.. ,•" ...:'; •.- 7 . •••'' s‘., • 7... V .4• . "X.. ., ....4,...,k,....,.,..L:.. ,Zik.•••.....:;. ., 10, ve-3-• property; said.corner being onthe--curving vestarly...0‘.0t...k.4 zrz........t,..........„......f.,__;;,--$4 - boundary of.the Northern.Pacific lailmay;right:ME way-,1,-.-..-44,1/4-10.1...:?:. --:fet.•;,;;;:.,...,::.•,..k• . of radius. r,38e.68 feet•from.:jobesicar.the center bears-.,--;•••••-iw..-r•_r••-.:,.:,-.••r- ••.;. ' ---• •._ sY•-..••••••,-.:..ir,..iir:-..e.:,..i.•••••••-• :• •..ie„.1----,:- 7--••.--- ••1-17:::----:.. North-74°33'25r.West;:thencirec•ntinuinellertth 7•••,A.-.r.I7.•••-•:.,..-,...• ....• t.....". .:-..11.,...±.4....................••••••-•4. re. 38°51'05". West 56.32•feet,. thence-South,le2.1'31.',•Eastc" ."•••••••-t-oolr•----.,,,n zi.•-_-..--,16 7 - • - '..: .7- - . . f•',- - &.:•'-'-r-- •-•^ :-.tt.."•7: . • ,-:.-..!••.-.....; .',••;.$:-.-...:.::... .... g.,..; a0u•giAM14.71102;.S4.ALeaVOtt4a4poinciemis.l.tihdt;Omata:tre,..01! o T'•.'.175.7:=7-'7:'--.11.FT:.----';":'••Northern.Pact!le'tallier rig •Ores* siitirpe ..,be 43.4,..• •• ,..; .-•:,-......•:„3.;..Pa-.......,.- ...: I" • on•a cUrve.!oE.radius-.I;333.63.feet fron•-itheice:.:thAr:7e-r.. i, sX,' ::.,.'.i.-m;:,,-..n..„.t.,..•:t•-. ;:f. I . t •••••.center bears-North...70°23'59° Westirtbasacei•lesrtheasterly":- ----,0v- -• • f--..- - r;...vi .- -.- .•• -..,......_.....:. 1.along..said i curving:liOuodary.:an.arc.:length.o V 102.73 • ^Jo!'"-'1"jr;&.-:.,••=,‘ *--r.- •-,1!-•.&•.:=•-1,'- ez........31,..--,. I..'"•ti;'''.• r,•••.4.-- et-....r.€7..-44"4C. - ts•-".:--.•-•-i-'•;--4:, ...,-..e....-- e•feet more:or;less.,.tcs.the,point:or beginning • - ,,, ik,-.Ft,...,&.•;,,.-.:,-.,-.;.?!..,..‹,:.:., ...t.,, . ..4...e,,..:7.-.,....=,.,-.,•,„....-..1;„:.......,...1,.;...4.1.. 2- 7:&:!....;gtf.4:1".•:;:f.v.St•• ••;•301V.tt-e•rA..r.i.-5:-..1..-.4.‘---e..-- ,:s•x_ r.,"'• This-easement:is:granted,on',tba.';.follovireg;terms,amoLcorsditioeis z•...t'--:.:. -1.-,•±25,Dja-Ag ...:..,-:,.' 22•. •41b4;- •Z--• -- iiy........,..•::: ,....7.:-.....-x. ,••.. 4-4,-......1.-..-..v.....1!- •....6,,,-. *.--•••, -• • 7;r9.;:t..-xl,a•12;.r..s....43,.. .,•,...: ..,s, : 4"."•;',•••*-.T.'-- --,--r..:'•••••••••7-..... _•7'..'s-77-'-^--•• 41 16,, •:-''"."• 4".••••••••"".";;Z"...7.• 74:"`74.1:1 . •• :7 :17,••'••f-'•"1'•-r Said roadway and reLtted tutilitiesm shall.:DSc cotistroctedrIen&maist-15"•4_-:-. ...,,,,..ki,^4 rs-7.;:r•••,:i:-:flz.1-.--i-'-'-w-- - 4(61-1-....•tabled at the sole expense'of..the..Grantee.7anCiVi;'goielfaier;orkmenliki.resume"- r.."... -;',.'•••"?....' r e_iten..4:2t•.••-;.':-.:z•.-- -14.4. 11;' i•?Vt.+.-V,.......rnzz. -,R•r •••‘,..4%tk:.1-'.""•-•:'••e'r:F.,Ze''. tcy•;.,..t.:-.... •2 Grantee:agrees to save and held Grantor.LitRiess-.frees all:loss.or. ..... :•.:-_...i••• . ::.....,-._: .. ••••••;.--..:...„•:-...t.-,;.:!:,' i.,..-.. z•,,...:„. k•••••••...••••7•••••'••'. damage-which may be due to..the:exercise,by•Grantem•-of:-the-righc..here in gr enema.-4..:.,,- -.....4.`4. • •••14:7S:•.... rk.C.att•-.7;...-S....:......!,:.ri,.. 4•••• , 7.1:..,--•,...7••••••f--•.............- .....:1;W.'. and from all eleims:for such•dmaige-by whomsoever Madis'and.to.1 indemnify Grantor-'.7 4t, ....::1:-.•, for all such Loss, damage and claisis.,"T:-:'••••:•':•-ez,:•-,:-1-.._.7.;-',...:;.•,•zz,•_..-:"...,-,- -, Lt. - -... * 1"3-,0 :.• 1 - .. • • •• - ---..- f:•'•••••.. -•:_, ..••••••...^.• .•-•.•...:.•:, •e,::.i ••• .4.5"••••.,v, ..b...••• . - land ":•••, ei•tr4f,Arir'=""••^r`• 1:•"..".• '''..1'.ft:••V•r" 7:•'' :• '•• ••• 3.-.Grantor:re se rve a.:the..rright to use:said, for.its.own purposes:-47 C_.•"fr4. ' •••••''• ,."' -•''.• - ....t-•-'•'''- Lths .!•••••-•--•••• •- . , . .... 7,-........c74.4,..•- .........--...,•.. 7i••:•:*.• its arty way. and"to grant•rights.'in said'linditi'lOthere Zii;ie,incoasi scent w ,•.........--.....,7.7.r :".•-•.:•,.......•.r.--1 .....:•.:••• .. 1 gr:.•.... .'.. :.:• ••the right herein granted to Grantee,:and..Grantee-hereby. asmaes:'alall risk of.i,••g•:•:"-• •..Y ..-:;•,... -....=•:,,,-,.:.,:.-... -_..•- ....: IT.loss or damage,,.!melodies; damage or,:Sill:try::to par.sions or.;to'property, s-which Miry ...7..........,-......•- - ...I,-..:. --•.'• .2:-.• • •• • •-• 1,7;• ••.,... be suffered•by Grantee- resulting from Crantor!s•use.of isaadlan& any,of its. ..,. • . 1•,.. .. •. . - . 4.4470^-•.40.::•equipmene;thereon.S.,whether.:said damage:tor in Jurr.be•due:ta,thensegligencezor.,4pnf;74-:..%-serti.-. .,'-fittirz::;•a...L.V.;62). ci-• -3,i; .-- .......,.. e.m-,_ •..: .,..7.-4 4.:•-•.r.7.-•":"'"*.•'-Crantor;,"its servants or agentsor:othirwisez-Nte .. i".„i•;,..:•-•,..r.,•••• •••-,-,....-.-•;,.;:-.. ..i.,-,---1'7....,:-.-.;•_..,..- - --...___---1,...,'•••?...., 7 ..t....:•• •Y....7.....•.•'. '.'.;Z•.... .,....-;.k...,it'''',--,-.nli.z'.;:-,- .':•.---..-,2':-:•:7.,._ ,.•• _... , _. ".---,..--4-7!"..5.-.-7.-4-.:;.•‘:--7-7-.,' •-.,':'-::::•e,;.;.1 ,-..:".-.:......c..-,?-2---;•-...1.7.712a."-.:Nin-:',.• 1 ... . ,.-• 4,.•••..g•-•:••:- -..,,. Z.k•.g.,.< .1.,.117:fr...... 1-,•:•A.,:-•••••.`;.Zi....'.1 7.4'#•7•-•--.•'• ••••••••'*0•-••"•••-•::: .:-:.- .-.774..-4 . ,.f.,,.......4--.7,..j .-•:-'..77.. •177..;_,W7k, i ',••••:';:7:31:•••••:...,...;•••••4 '."'The.rights:hereby'granted:shalt.'continue.:and be in.force,until,•••- -.:•.- •••,....•...7.;.... •• • ..;.. ....:-:-... , - .4-,......4, • such.time.as the Grantee shall permanently•:abandon:•tha::Use:ii•f2•:?..ski.diiedway,E.at : . :• --:-... .-.-.-•-):. 7-..."-:- '' '-'t,hich t i.ciir-right.i here in.:granted shall cease-a:a'de iiiiiiine:.'.7iVr---lerH.....,..."‘„f:•:"•:,17.7.1.7Ftt.--•••7...`2.....;:,, . ..-.- ,....t':.!"--;•*- :54.""--. '-'....":••,-,--.- s!lz•••'- '1.3•••• --:•`4.•:A• ',Y••,: ;;5•:•'•-•'-: -:;••••••--•'-:;••••:]6!:,ri 7••:,-":.'S•;,7:5-:--:.:ti•lifls.4.411.-. ..k.f."4-.t4.-1- , :..:. ••...-v-I-h- ••' ..-4.------.;:.. ..j,':‘••..- -....',=••••••:;.1.1 z• :;`,-71f-c7:-'4 -• P"'• -"IN WrINESS WHEREOF this:.instrument'be3••.been executed.by..the.parties ..•-.':.;:. ..A. . • ..:.•••:. .::.....:•-7.7:. • • . . -.Int' itert tOSWS,day and'year first above written. .ei::34- ,-'.1441---&-;if?.. 717,-!--;'4.42.: ,.1fr...4.- .. ''' iNet-fr'•.•.•4:-•,•• ,•••• •• ." .•••••••1...0>-•.: , :'•..-.:•••-•-"•''..-..-•-: ••-"••=77""'-'1:"I'''..1•;• '••••16-4'''''.•'''.f%C."•''•‘••••••••-••••••••••••`::'••.. • ..S'•..,/:. t.• . ...':•7: 17: .... re s• • .0••• -i.:-,..•• • •‘-r.-1.-......:.-.•,•:;.- ....,•.•st•-_,:o. :..-,f,.:.1.=.......;.......:2-44--,L...-4...,--.•-,,,...,,,., • ..:. .. -z. f' •!..--•-•.;;;;;Ar-..e.:f./--et ..••• -. 7- :-.; ' .--•:::..,:.: ....-..-• ••••'...-- L.-v.. AM,: -F4a:...% *, ' 4 1.;•'••.. l•1PLI;41"...1.••.•'.• • 4 • 1;145(...-‘7P1 *Y..••• •. .• c-..:1^.-•,i-A- 7-•'• 'r%• s... uciou z;:.; 1.,•s-1:-.. .:* - • - : •' -- :•-•... •-: -•.• ----••:.••. • •••••,-,•:;Z:7. :..,:••••-..."'‘,,,... 0,_ •.••C.• l,,..i i ••`........•••?••' • "' . • ....• ; ',..: .. , . ,t,...*;;;.....,,,::• a . '1.•,. RMIZAt 1••••""•;'•;"'•:. '.,77..47. •• • •-• -- .;•.r.; 7, .,..:.•• ;..-.•".„....±.,.•...::....::....:•-;•-•,. ,.)•-••:•••‘:.. ...;7:'"•• . 7'...- ., -:. •••• • '..:. • :":-: • • t•,:.;:•,.-.:,•:.•:,;.'zi;•..yrp 71.•-• • -.- , -' ' ': ... .-11•'''''''.-- ..• • ' ' 3..1‘.,..=-•• ..,•: .. -., 1....4...'''.7.:c'-..-•••( 6.41. . r.-...,&,4•••••=4;71.-1/ ...:"--,c.:7'...:, 77 4 7..77.-1,y.::"...•;:t:14•Zelf4X1kVe-./ji-j...77}*t.' •-•:'•••"-'-•- ••••••••.....•. : • .•. .;•...• •••:.'...• 7-2•.....r.., •- M.-- .,.. --- r;-";17-"•":---,----,.-41-4--;:,.. a;•--,1-:&okra Lary••-•-:-.-=..--,.-,-._;.;••._, ...:I'"..m-,..r.. -4,........ "TC‘K.-- GRANEIZE• • -„,...... F.,, ti,,,, ...,::.-----...„..,1/,-•-•i.--........":=. ..: .-7• '-'' €=,-;":-.77- -4-••••••-•--"--• - :--7"....."...- - "•'":""•'.."1 -• ''''''*---"'-'•••'''-'"--"••`:'" t.:4•kirmoi.':,i:',i• ,'' • -• ''..i:...g4. t...f.;:„Kee"''F.tt".*•.:•1•••'''?''•••''''' --':•4•VIeV''::::.., ' IT ,.CLERK. -au. •• "'-• -•:'•F2'.'" a...,..,..:4„,;(,,,;...-.:-_,_ , -• ..1.;•:..,....._:%.•::---:-..*--,:f.'''..---tr.:-• :..i,-a•-•-r-i",:-Zs----kg •••......... "?':- '''‘TFT -•-•'..• •••••-•-:- ff,.-..........,,„...... ,,,-,• ,......... .-4..,. ,....„..i........-. ,_._. -.‘....--,...•...'spi..14!"41....'`.i•••::re...-.•-:;::.: ,• ..j.,...:'•- - .,• ,... - • •- • 7...FPS: ,..?Zr,WyliliCer.-.:r-1,i-,%44...grAz .47..c,7!-'.-...irr./f13gr4-47• 1:::Igit.&-07A,ZOiki:,til•Z:47.:-•'i'•:••:,f:.•..,:f 4,t e! • • ..•••••••`•-•••:''. . •••••••• '' '' e-t.,; ••• L. .......7...7.,.., ...,•••":.:.:-.•41.....:V......:... • A.4 le•kaf.....•• o 4frCFS:tr•0,11V..--'•'::1.:4"....:' ..-:•V. •Tifese.',1"'f:;:•••414714-4._::kf...'-"•;•;*;*:: : T•• ; _1•71070.1 .•.7-1-...?.•!.*.fs•.•!-• •••-•••-:...;,••. ..'....*"-'1.4*• • • -* * • •* •••• 7".*.:••:•C• -••Aat..- • ..... tt.tito.-7.7.1-vi:::...2'1....•••t:::,;.• .‘• .-.---,..'..%A. . - F.- ...----..;=• .... verwc--..,,.•-•:::•-•-."-,.-.- • ... -• -.-. •. .. . ss...i.,P=:!,,-; '•Ar-:;„:•-lti.,...*ce7,-•,.:.....4•••••,•,•.re-c. l'i-V.If:::::•...Z**;,-....-..-... 7.,.* r•Ztr.........ra-1.::•,k--r!--•--. :7-,-.••••:,....,,-•..;.:4-r...,-,i- ... •.••., , . 7 ..•,-: K.F.....7.!•••,.. .•':'..i•-•••••••i4:f''.44•!,•-•'-‘1"::.7:::'•• ' ••••••:- .r.:,"*•....:• •.:'•••••r. riar.6: y-:•__.....11.7..... •.• 7..:'.•;".1 ••;,... AP.. /i , 11 ION 8, 7 ?3 N•, if?5E. d art z _NW r 0 1/ f q/03/6900I 39 i' r I L ' / V R" • 1 1 1,P1 • r,N f za le l,` I X is Y/C/N/TY NIP c it',,r0/Iaras ri 6j( ) y/ vw; J/ i 3 I - / LEaAL IaESC'.C/PT/ONE 4/44 74.7! /f C7:.#' \ i.. 4,... /.id . / ifv, AT,. . fiffirki fir 11 fw1:11); tr. 47t4/ 4 .rrwol44/,;,,,,::; " 4: 44.r. W. 1w/ cAlPilO• ti AVM-4 V. q. 1 Wi n./f y/.' r mt r( Jifi rr we A, INN.f ,ert„ JJ•//A!I' 1 ' • ; z zii 1iv/,l/N.//Lrwr/ ed. Ar{sue,7r l n/ M r-.awl yMv 00./4, M d\ 4,y i.,f+tvilfw yj ,1.,-/1•l Iv• Q /'`.'• MvY Ifin^.1/i iv 1111 Iw w . M AA. Qi+1•r.. rw I" 4- d 11 * 4.A. ey 4 Alt, t, 1 Ibru I 4 1 i 4 A'''';'r i A[COADIND clAnnCArr, A.I. IM SURVIVOR'S C[Rrl/ICAr1ONt I • 1, €* sz'r M,rY•W.,Qrzy_; Ir V- ' PINT J. mien/ I a I•r .1 r^b reap c•rvKIIy roor.K^I• • .Y,Ky aurae i YNI I e^/Irw/NA ./ 1 7.&FFIE1 IuIV,A,{rr 1•_,•1 w la M ... .I ...meow .. Wrestle.. (^ K••rlMt. r no. me. It• tee rNcho...•au d the"erg, lRK•rttlry tl err n•. K lr...__H wrv.rc. sues-, •1 tee Act. N.-1A• request N Icoll•tarsi Ar..R.I. /I•,7•d .o ' AI-i t •1 YIcAKI O. MIA IAu a7r1•r •I oA'.s'fOa1 ,u-. 1 ea... l y 1- ••gi.a^/. Mr•Moat %•.AM!' ' WVCarl.Mw IIOJ! tI• v/>/'1 .4//L f Y•w.pr YII. H MY.rh clt..l 0. Ws. IAA H•f.N. r o: 4". (-I .i........: frip)04 I° r rNe / I Il5edL. 41,1 i i A i/ Gj.1.i.. 14 1... 1/ . .." T' s r C. r )./ A? 7. NI Able-f: N.c....///.w-di....h.rw.44.,..... jf... •efio./.M.ofr.f%../ H/I-/A.r 6 -.a' RECOROINO CERTIFICATE: A.F. No. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION: F1f.d lor read 1M• day of Ma Gaol am~fly r•pr.a.nb • I!_,.f at In by am or WIN by dine ton In accent- • with Use nNIYer.wd of rho &mo.,. Roc Yobbo*-of a..rr.ys, pope . et MA. Act, as Me merit a ,/er n e e r.w.00f or YleOo.l O. YIs. this Frey .f OKn.rQe- ,it l!e-Z/r .Cori.rt.No. t: Yr Ao/or pt. of M orsa ewo.l a Mix. I.L.S. Y;: s- 1 - r.....--- pi 5 7,0 , SEcraw 5 f ti a\ril NW) Sci'io t 8, r 23 AA, 47.-E T s. ivrr lIT t . y03/ 900/ q t b 7l j (1rr'N ff . rTmrr fr`iljefN'.7.r r..r.r) el LEGAL oEsceIPrioN:oe r Tsd,,../,.a..."‘......... 4 ar.-('JAid(r),,rr A/.c../,%awi j if,44.4.0,.P .ffi//44'//.,.r.(wyLw"Y nii .,/i/ c4' .r.err/per/liof.:.G.Arver Goo* .7 4arm., w/.ws n'I wirovi V/%Aar: r, i/y./.i/rdireed n.ww,/Awrrw l 4er(/).G.:.4' ..a(rj f IJ:ffr SEr/,IlA!, .o. i:./.4f' /4 rr iriwri.lei G// y rs..i.1,7, ~./ ., Y!1 t/ r/mow.-+r r Orr 4 w. n/e7•71r. ,rvAi Air ow ir.w..w/gi r/dr.(/.d..r./lW f /frrr Ar/mc Pw•%i..y!3 t/wrr. .ifrnliy/s+/r w• 4(r 4-4w w.vrf..' ..y; t1j i .../we/7 0, //I7.4+•/w r •.luA r•/0/ . w+7,.`.,, A'Awe /r f..4....4.7 w/Airei.,f.////r ii . //+. lirr/...ai we dG..+ w-are/J . d w Akre, /G.G rr 46. /S(,37/.r/,dr/gaw.irr G..-/ /cy Ge..y ../:/.cd /..Griry 1. r w/.r.Q.6wi 6 WWI. Awry Ni AI J3'/r:"/: jr5/ r/w wy Adds .ri my.... d Tirr//(l.G,/J7l.SI m'r.•r.4rr r ' .v4.'.//nv ii/.,.../L .1.4. r/ r.v 4/o'nq/6j'/..e_Co/r•./ dr.r/i/.vrSrn; .-Lrrs +C!'.(f.fm'o/.i.", '.. r'anew-Ave ,; -;r J.*- fort.* .c/'/ 'civil !,/b 4Gr/Av r r rL.,, w./a.. A. 46 ff Lw darn-.win (/, /rsd/ed• rifrxr err4 1 s O rft/..w.ei.C-rr a /. riw..e. 1./•/[/w!/.1 4— 6027.4 wv r/G/( .i /iris/6.d"'"... 4w ;/ // v r. r•• wn s. IFS5 o/-/irr n/4 s.nr abrv.Ard 4.. okra/c6/ed .sr6..r /; /yta arcs r/La/sir ra rti c«dir// i //frnr/ay ,(i. ..11'//of/. e fYUE7 R7'ER rrwy wog c"^ u°., aatrvCtiOn — fIIRTI.IL F''NLLIRY.!!'/R!'CY- oe....wa. t1 ur».., roe. ..91946FFLCT71A/STEAM PL.INT r A..owlw 3Z.I,R w rrr K r ltrLL. 4 r.os.•rrfw r.nt ?-/7.1J f 177'neJ Grr.!w. !/ma rb• i 6.•° tn..w. W .Mass r,av•Tom' lit 7714 71.4707 I IC ar 1 V. ltri{ 1... lk°-.4l L.,U.:,l l,...r..•,_..:.. wr-.... . hi...0j' I I.81g1I110a, 1• 1.'4'.r.r I 1 1 II I .1 I 4, GOV'T LOT 2,SEC. 8,T. 23 N., R.5 E,W M. g 0 o7 c 1 1 KING COUNTY, WASMINGTON IC cett.__cr:CQIo1"IQ^1 3-7/77 I.• s, Ip1 11.II •1...N,.11 I...1 1.11 I..111 .n1.1.1.,al I/6•/\* \ b..; na a.te 1 tttttt ay. Lair et ..... •••• ea..a f 1..1 un. 11.11 .1_MI 11.y...til\r,1 Illl•rasa'111:'ll.1.11 Ipn I,1.r.I r,e . ...,1'rl i , M;U11 1• Ilnlw I,11 1•Ir ...•e 1 1 Y1d". 11.11. I_1 .. .n/.11• ..•11'11•1111 1111.1111,,1 :. d1/ 1'll••11' e Imo 111iw1.1''lt.1 ea/Pa.I.Ma.111•14 11.1.0 10 1,reel I f 1.1.1 1w1.1I 1 1,•' 1 111 11 11n: rasa...a 1..I,..•. 111.1 II....11111 Mil 1f 1WOlrU PARCEL C t.narma.1116 1w.1...n..........• i AYLA 12,1171 59 0 a I • 1 J Aber fUwcz CAc yqp/LtrVreN GL.I/r I 111101 1•'. OLN7?v CLAN?k 1 ,• •• I111 1 q hYIrO•.ul 1 1101•n pn O 1 anal.. n.P.11,.re.».gran a. a«. pa NI . i/Cb.1.nJ•1 f1y•,a..n b1 m1111.01 ••11.11 ' n 11. ' _U. 11:;... Iota M11 ..we IU1.wuU i I C/ A1QClL C wta.. ' w 1=1_.a1.I_.1. Ma.1, al./n.r,n:a,.1. AaU H.HI 3q/It i1.1, wl n1,n u:.nl rn.n.0. 11a..1 1l 11.1 11y1 11.fa al elan_111 1_U 110.4.‘1•1 y U.1 j w l I•I 11.11 1.11 Ir..r11. .1 1.1.,1 l 1•• w II.p1. ..11'1.'1.11 111•1.1a n '1 11.11 K Oa..,IV Oa t Intla 1.11 1,011900 e ^. er.l..• n, n\ NEW O•PDPER 1111•.nose.Ma 6•I....e.m 111PILO r U11n1.•• 1 L• 'a B0uv0A4Y >Y I. .' m, I 5 1 f n.I w.. ...1. havytrl, .t qa. A 0 0ilui r'in+mn0L... 1«.. Vn.. . 11 1... an 1.1.. i, A0EA 1.011 6yryt 1/1RL. Iiff[I41 r Pe I.,.• c Ip Cbt.*i*11•.r'.v an Y, `\ y 1111.5.I m .11n._I. II`1.61 lama d 1111 . 1.10 r..:.M d OL ry.1M11 _. lawn 1wu11.lea.....ola"wuwn.. 11•01a l w10tilljl,Mpp 1 nr...11 DWI 1. w _.. ..M. 11 • MD ra 11.1 Iva. W. _ tag r1 tat lee p1111. 1:1 1I11 ll WA • 11'11'1111, 1 t.n:..1 1,,t1 1 f 11 ;, mg.'''. n11, 1...... tat 1.0 Ir an w n.Ill 1." r,'• I 11•I1'II'10.0 w1 II Tn' rapI 1..n1.1 .w 1_1111w it.Is w.ra nn.I_I..1,11. 1 1 Lola. Ilt••i1 & :I tr11.1.11.• lei 1,1.V110. t 4101111L8 1t 1to.ct ll'1 cu llrlt alt I I••1t RECORD OF SURV:Y I IµIII lot 1• M 1 It/war_ Lb.•ht ,!1_ Yll ire. Q _,, B.C.AC. 11•41.... r:.... I 1 w N]W. y,SEOG,T23N^M.5E,VKM. mwn coow/,. vmoownnx uu'mm"n'wv WUW3 ~~ L^ r forl SCAC of AT 11 1k CIAOCZL C. bwkx%w' ADPA jl sopl,' CO-Am ' Z. t P-D-1) nccono o+ sonvcv..,,~. ~,`~,. 0/4 titnErit.. itift.DAT A ITI WI vrr or cligio:rrow or sommy Et°,077.21 1u3427 a ill: K in..; Court Ni 1101...ipilinjuin)1111111_11114ff I el RECO F 7.•:11:1 Cafa. 071 TIE Live.. .....•CI II r, sTATI: or WA:MINI:TUN) RECORDS 4 L:: is KING CG'Ai YNI C.:Ewell-1' or Kustc; ) C I. -4... L) 1-4 ta. ROG,T.,..7 i,...im: 1.iv::1: duly :-.wcrytt c cz)Ul I “;./til, UtTrist...s :Intl :.:rys 00 StAC Tibvi .14-.,--is a vc.g is:t.c.r....1 kinil sairril..1.; 7 IMT iii: iciacic :1 Ntn ...c.y sir t:sus.' wit iv', b.8 i......10 %...ar. 1-,..%:,.1-di•t1 sin Cla.• t" - clay ,,r NAL502.c...A 'Se) • in vcalunt. 69 „t• sitry,:ys at page i 7...eici lent-1111.4 Nulislit.n. B8030 S cl c)c -5 nvcords or King County, 1:1:c01.1.1:: S. 1:1 Pin.inn?. IN.p.orriiii•sa tga:.1 I;mgr•nt. 711AV Cheri Im•i rtg .1i1 c.rrcir., Oro a IT imit .8 rirvcc...t..s :1.c: In I 1.1w ill:: elcangt. Ian s:1 id mu.:,.1.: 1--........,i_2. 1-1 rza 1,t5.at? Lt r4.E. 73 e_....,...,s....,Gt .,s4,s...s L.:.- 4-(..' G 2_ zi ‘,.I c.. 1'... •1-•.. el.) crx •r,,', 11‘V..4...\".. cs....C.e. (' . . C1611 LAIVa 1....sid survi-ym•Surveyor Seal , t•rr. Nii. l r_.)i suusciti 11E11 AND til-.'HUN Cu be 1'1 se,• im• 1 li id. r :-.:, v LN, J•j — 1,1s)Cii i..), NI)lie in Jut! Cut. Cl,.• N I.,i.• ''I i ..• - , ..r; ...llzpill i ng ton, t•••s i,I lit:4 a C 42:V.- .•• - 14-\17.V.L 1.0\.) Su c•vvy ;tm.h•x c.4,1•1•L•yr(II ;ma .o1.1),•,.vt•t1 Iv . 1:;it;:, r....1•11 y 1:1•1•..rd• 11.1...rt mow n.1'.:;:: FORM APPROVED BY k INC COunTY Pltul:Cu I*111t; ...Tlunt.0.5 UFF ICE ac.7i.L.11i 1 i.) 1:.;.:.1.1 )11 1 I I I _..1 - • ._..- sommomernowsill N.W. I ,SEC.©,T.23 N.,R.5 E.,W.M. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Llo.jr_pfdrallisN 1 i l 3 1 I 0 1 k\.----. 1),-Z.'-''-,t,_......i'' At.22:1:0 d o' if er/_OI ue ARC", ill ICr + li fr i i oaarcc c` a[IJTOM PUNT l F• PVG[T Pow CO I i: ...rr.t,e..erl I'll SUVrflerow,L/m..M/f ur V 4 t A' ...r.iw i.' I 1 ••.V (A/•a tlr.yll 1' I I ow II I. /Aat1 /144 cunt t __... ..... . ... 1'1 (:nMI.1.1141_Af4'. Pa•f ` , R euZ:a ausa r... r..r_ -_ 4 t:C .!s!). , 11 Ncw AQC1ccQTY ar.y.....'.. —_— A OOu•rOOQY cK(FACEO eV 1)00 I_f!•t l uorurvr•1 wrv.. .._>..•o•ov ac— ./ q • AaQC1/ O sanwrr ADie !.0)l tb rt t ri Tecuo 1tP 4 Y lr w .... ...V_... ..• ISc,Pc..nR•/.°t.6 y, d' N xr aanr r u.f $iA N' rt ro rr.Rr-....0.1 t I• ke I[ ) /!nb• DIU(a & .4rratl,t,,./u. tvvlrnll:a u•Ir/:ult_ ..+.-' CITY OF RENTCWucoeotr-s ct•ru.` Il•+ c..... 1 c t 1. LOT LINE ADJUSTI.ItNT NO. 004-88 IIlwaact .: ZS'l ...-• -- THE BOEING COMPAIIY i a ri1 y. . Y•11` S. ...n...,.+x%L.:I L:(..inl.lirl/r.i::!:.aw ........ ... 1 1 l N.W. i,SEC.8,T.23N.,R.5Er,W.M.r•. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1 r.._FIN • 2 cR.cliuol Lsi4__ .i•••4 II• r.w•• 1. I zIca2a I r — MT.. wM Iw/w rryllir••r w.0•. •r••.w I..•I Irr I\•A.1. • Ib\•• 1 1 L .. 1•1. •• to L. .....•••• tl..yam_.••g @Ism r• le 1tee e!•.,. .s.. ".....I.11 r 1.•I••11I 11 .•• i.. D'"'4K r, I •'• 1:I .y,..` rr•.•w••...........(J.•y n 11. LE'.21311 y 1.N•r .—.L f...• W:4.r fyr ..- 7` u •. ••. 1.I••Ii••J..Iur •. l• rr1• •y M 1 rly.r• gf Pn r• W..• I.I.y.r••y.1,/r.r1•Ir.•` N~.•••.rr•yl.•y 1..•. u•-,• r.•Lr.r• w1 to"..rl.•PI•M I•y r••• .••..•.••r.•.•.... I 11 r1" r 11•.l 1 Ir.•• r,T.•ifi'!!Ir„/I 11 •Al,rtflt_.. .— rr,•M,;.r.J•••.••..w 1.••..,.ill N_ / brl.• (h...ds & .iuoLlotre,hr. talv[.oit'f cc+tnrc.tcDc•...•.c c•,»••r, CITY OF RENTON +tco•lol•'t cc•Inlurc a 1 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT :.. r2.i•4 ;,I.tJ, tl•.I(LtLu_ >r f- '__,._::':::':: _ NO. 004-88 L i _L,. _t_i ,t THE BOEING COMPANY M_ 1'1.IL A 2.41.;..'. ::r . .. . .,• r.............r.J:rL\iu••..... w737• FIRE MAIN EASEMENT 84,07,26 00401 B RECO F 3.00 CASi1Sa_ 5.00 ypjThis indenture made this 0734d da of 1D 7 between PUGET SOUND POWER i LIGHT COMPANY, Was$beton corporation ("Grantor" herein), and CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal corporation ("Grantee" Herein)' TITNESSETH: That in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid, receipt of which is h:•reby acknowledged, and performance by Grantee of the covenants3. hereinafter set forth, Grantor hereby grants unto Grantee an easement for the purpose of maintena:.;,e, testing and inspection s of_a fire main with- the s eeesaary appurtenances ("Fas-i)ritY"le {c liASTA • across and under the following property, situated in ring C , Washington: See legal description attached as Exhibit "A"V111E0141510%9F REu9kDS Cis pU11ELEC1TMIS11cctt 1. Said Facility is as underground pipe; it shall consiANG 4 of single line of pipe not over 10 inches inside diameter, 3 fire hydrants and other appurtenances thereto. O 2. Grantee agrees to save and bold Grantor harmless from all loss or damage which may be due to the exercise by Grantee I of the right herein granted and from all claims for such damage CL` by whomsoever made and to indemnify Grantor for all such loss, damage and claims, except damage caused by Grantor. 3. Grantor reserves the right to use said land for its own purposes in any way and to grant rights in said land to others, not inconsistent with the right herein grac:ed to Grantee, subject to the following: r A. No storage or buildings are allowed within the area described in Exhibit "A"; B. no power lines can be buried parallel to and within five 5) feet of the centerline of the Facility; and f any other utili_ies that are buried parallel to and within five (5) feet of the centerline of said Facility that are damaged during Grantee's routine maintenance, testing and inspection of said Facility shall be repaired or replaced at the Grantor's expense. Grantor agrees to save and hold Grantee harmless from all loss or damage to said other utilities which may occur as a result of Grantee performing such routine maintenance, testing and inspection of said Facility. Prior to any digging cc, performed by Grantee within the area described in Exhibit A', Grantee shall notify and cooperate with Grantor in iu 1 the coordination of its activities with ;hose of Grantor Itominimizeconflicts, insure protection to each party's facilities, prevent hazardous condition, or minimize interruption of Grantor's operations. 4. The right hereby granted shall cease and terminate whenever Grantee shall have permanently abandoned the use of said Facility. i5. Grantee, its successors or assigns, stall have the right, - I upon a minimum of one (1) business day's prior notice, at such times as may be necessary to enter upon said above described property for the purpose of routine maintenance, testing and inspection of said Facility, provided, that such maintenance, testing !.nspection of said Facility shall be accomplished in such a manner that disturbance to the existing private improvement and private property shall be rinimiced. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of any erergency requiring immediate access to the Facility by me Grantee, Grantee may take such action upon such notice to Grantor as is reasonable \^`ns'a under the circustances. f 1 vire.- 401-12 FIRS MAIN EASEWENT PUGET SOU'W POWER k LIGHT COMPANY, Grantor CITY OF RENTON, Grantee In the event said improvements or property are disturbed, they will ue replaced in as good a condition as they were immediately before the property was entered upon by the Grantee. 6. Grantor reserves the right to relocate said Facility, provided said relocation conforms to the Grantee's Fire Protection and Utilities Department r&+uirements. 7. Grantee shall not block or impair access to Grantor's remaining property at any time, of which said Facility is a portion, or interrupt Grantor's business. 8. This easement shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be binding on the successors, heirs, and assigns o1 both t parties hereto. 0 Accepted by: PUGET SOUND POWER k LIGHT COMPANY CITY OF RENTON O By: Cahn)..L± • 1t r1 Q•o C4;)` BY: Dtrector RealEstate ItsYor tAttest: P City Clerk J:";Llr:• t STATE OF WASHINGTON 1 SS. COUNTY OF 1 On thus 1GC' day of - 1983 before me the undersigned Wm. IC. Arthur to me known to be the Director Real Estate d PUGET SOUND POWER&LIGHT COMPANY.the mrpora::_71 that exacuted the foregoing instrument and acnowledged the said insnument to be the free and voluni-•act and deed of said corporation_for the ases and purposes:herein znen&med and on oath stated that he is authorized to eremite the said instrument WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and L. firs+ above written_ k• . Nocuy public to for the State of q' a on.washinst reeiding at it G ETCH IB IT "A" A strip of land 15 feet in width having 7.5 feet of such width on each side of the following described centerline: Commencing at the Meander corner on the North line of the North-west quarter of Section 8, Township 23 North flange 5 East,X.M., in the City of Renton, Ling County, Washington; thenceNorth88'50'12" Nest along an extension of said North lineofsaidNorthwestquarterofSection8, a distance of 813.99feettotheTruePointofBegin: 1ng; tbeaeeuth 43.08'08"East, a distance of 10.22 feet to a point hereinafter designated Point "A"; thence continuing South 43.08'08" East a distance of 219.33 feet to a point hereinafter designated Point'B"; thence continuing South 43'08'08" East, a distance of 39.64 feet; thence South 20'38'10" East, a distance of 252.80 feet; thence South 43'08'08" East a distance of 52.63 feet to a pointhereinafterdesignatedPoint "C"; thence continuing South43'08'08" East, a distance of 257.56 feet to the terminus of the centerline. LESS that portion of said described easement lying within the 100 foot right of way of the Burlington Northern FRailroad. 1 F TOGETHER WITH a strip of land 15 feet in width having 7.5 feet o_ such width on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at Point "A" as mentioned in the above description; thence South 46'51'52" Test, a distance of 17.25 feet to the terminus of the centerline. AND TOGETHER T::H a strip of land15feetinwidthhaving7.' feet of such width on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at PointB" as mentioned in the above descript:-)n; thence South 46'51'52"Test, a distance of 39.34 feet to the terminus of the centerline. AND TOGETHER WITH a strip of land 15 feet in widtn having 7.5 feet of such width on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at Point "C" as mentioned in the above description; thence South 46°S1'52" Test, a distance of 361.9O feet, thence South 43'08'08" East, a distance of 18.52 feet to the terminus of the centerline. CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 1999 TO: Steve Rolle FROM: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578)&6 SUBJECT: Southport—Potential Transit Route The Southport proposal would result in a relatively large population/employment base and number of trips. The Southport site is located next to Gene Coulon Park which is another destination that could benefit from additional transit access. Transit serves Park Avenue/SR-900 in the vicinity, but transit service is not provided along Lake Washington Boulevard. Please let me know the possibility of extending RUSH to serve Southport site as well as Gene Coulon Park. Thanks for your help. cc: Lee Haro TS SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\sirush.doc CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Departments/Divisions Reviewing Project Files Lee Haro,Transportation Systems Division FROM: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578) e7 SUBJECT: Southport Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS #1/LUA-99-027 As promised on April 22nd when I routed Southport plans to you, when the SEIS arrived, there would be a quick turn around requested. Being a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request that can only be reviewed once a year, coupled with the proposed phasing plan means that this project is on a fast track. Now the first Preliminary Draft SEIS is here for your review. Please review the document, and provide comments by Wednesday,May 19, 1999. You can make your comments in the margins of the document instead of providing a memo, unless you prefer to write a memo. There is a meeting set up for May 19, 1999 at 9 a.m. in the Council Conference Room, 7th floor, to go over comments that would require group discussion or coordination. I will be going to ERC on May 25th, and having your comments on Wednesday May 19th will allow me to bring forward key concerns and compile the comments. I need to return comments to the SEIS consultants on May 26th. Please note that there are some items missing from Preliminary Draft #1 that will arrive in Preliminary Draft#2: Air quality CO modeling at a couple of key intersections. Right now the Air Quality section is qualitative. Upon review of the some of the traffic data the Air Quality consultant felt that they needed to perform some additional CO modeling. Also, please note that so far the consultants have indicated that it's not clear as to whether we need to do an air quality conformity analysis at this point, or whether it would be better to wait for agency comments and prepare it for the Final EIS as needed. If you have input on that topic,please let me know. The air quality analysis addressing adjacent Boeing operations and its effect on the site is qualitative and "worst-case." Boeing is reviewing their own detailed reports on air quality and odors, and we have requested to review the information. If available, we would review it and decide how to approach the topic. Also, Entranco has not included information about railroad issues, because they were waiting for some direction from the City which they have now been given. Information about the railroad issues will be included in Preliminary Draft#2. Ma) 12, 1999 Page 2 Other information which we anticipate including prior to issuing the Draft EIS is a biological analysis of the potential channelization plan on Lake Washington Boulevard. So far, offsite improvements are not analyzed. I am coordinating with the consultants on this issue. If you have any questions,please give me a call(ext. 6578). Thank you. cc: Sue Carlson Jennifer Henning Ron Straka Environmental Review Committee CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:May 6, 1999 TO: Nick Afzali FROM: Lisa Gruete S SUBJECT: Southport Parking Demand Analysis Lee suggested that I have you review Seco Development's Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Transpo. Please review the demand analysis assumptions and accuracy. Also provided are pages showing: The number of stalls that Seco is proposing overall and by building. In addition to structured parking,they are proposing some on-street parking(on the private street)of approximately 50-75 spaces. A draft chart comparing parking rates from other jurisdictions. I am still waiting on some information from Kenmore and Seattle. Another chart was prepared by Bill Stalzer and Associates a couple of years ago for a wide range of uses. I'd like your input early next week(before Wednesday May 12th, if possible). Thanks. cc: Sue Carlson Lee Haro Neil Watts H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\napark.doc\cor Tm 9 . A Weekday WParkingDemandEstimateforSouthportMixed-Use (Plan A) The TRANSPO Group, Inc.w Use Apartments Condos Retail Restaurants Office' TotalAmount/Size 371 171 13,000 25,000 500,000Rate1.04 1.11 3.23 12.49 use equation mPeakParkingDemand386190423121,133 70atFullOccupancy` 100% 5 100% 85% 85% 90% N Peak Peak Internal Peak Internal Peak Peak Parking c3 Daily Hourly Daily Hourly Daily Capture Hourly Daily Capture Hourly Daily Hourly Required forTimeVariation6DemandVariationDemandVariationRate' Demand Variation Rate7 Demand Variation Demand Southport 6:00 AM 100% 386 100% 190 0% 0%0 0%0%0 3% 38 614 n 7:00 AM 87% 336 87% 165 8% 0%4 2%0%7 20% 252 7648:00 AM 79% 305 79% 150 18% 0%9 5%0% 18 63% 793 1,2759:00 AM 73% 282 73% 139 42% 0% 21 10%0% 37 93% 1,171 1,65010:00AM 68% 262 68% 129 68% 0% 34 20%0% 73 100% 1,259 1,75711:00 AM 59% 228 59% 112 87% 25% 32 30% 25% 83 100% 1,259 1,71412:00 PM 60% 232 60% 114 97% 25% 36 50% 25% 138 90% 1,133 1,6531:00 PM 59% 228 59% 112 100% 25% 37 70% 25% 193 90% 1.133 1,7032:00 PM 60% 232 60% 114 97% 25% 36 60% 25% 165 97% 1,221 1,7683:00 PM 61% 235 61% 116 95% 25% 35 60% 25% 165 93% 1,171 1,7224:00 PM 66% 255 66% 125 87% 25% 32 50% 25% 138 77% 969 1,519 N5:00'PM 77% 297 77% 146 79% 25% 29 70% 25% 193 47% 592 1,2576:00 PM 85% 328 85% 162 82% 0% 41 90% 25% 248 23% 290 1,069 os 7:00 PM 94% 363 94% 179 89% 0% 44 100% 25% 275 7% 88 949 A 8:00 PM 96% 371 96% 182 87% 0% 43 100% 25% 275 7% 88 9599:00 PM 98% 378 98% 186 61% 0% 30 100% 25% 275 3% 38 90710:00 PM 99% 382 99% 188 32% 0% 16 90% 25% 248 3% 38 87211:00 PM 100% 386 100% 190 13% 0%6 70% 25% 193 0%0 77512:00 AM 100% 386 100% 190 0% 0%0 50% 25% 138 0%0 714 Maximum 386 190 44 275 1,259 1,768 i' ACO1. Peak Parking Demand is#parked cars on a weekday. Calculations are based on rates or equations from ITE's Parking Generation manual,2nd Edition. A 2. The%at Full Occupancy,also called the Practical Capacity,is%of parking stalls being utilized at full capacity. The range typically varies between 85%and 100%.0 3. The Peak Parking Demand calculations for the Office space is based on the equation from ITE' Parking Generatiomanual since the R2 term exceeds 0.80. 4. The 400 rooms represents the number of occupied rooms from the total 500 rooms assuming an occupancy rate of 80%. N 5. Assumed to be 100%for the Apartment and Condos based on the assumption that each unit would have one assigned parking stall,not be available for other uses.6. The daily variation in peak parking utilization is based on studies conducted for similar uses,as documented in the Urban Land Institute's(ULI) Shared Parking port.T7. Internal Capture rate accounts for a reduction in vehicles due to the high density mixed-use characteristic of the site. o Peak Parking Demand is 1,768 occurring at 2:00 PM on a typical weekday. M:\99\99235\Parking\Parking.xls[Plan A) The TRANSPO Group, 2/4/99 Trn .cv - A Weekday W Parking Demand Estimate for Southport Mixed-Use (Plan B) The TRANSPO Group, Inc.Gil Use Apartments Condos Retail Restaurants Office' Total o Amount/Size 400 185 13,000 25,000 750,000 m1 Rate 1.04 1.11 3.23 12.49 use equation m Peak Parking Demand' 416 205 42 312 1,652 q at Full Occupancyz 100% 5 100% 85% 85% 90% N Peak Peak Internal Peak Internal Peak Peak Parking cp Daily Hourly Daily Hourly Daily Capture Hourly Daily Capture Hourly Daily Hourly Required for Time Variation° Demand Variation Demand Variation Rate' Demand Variation Rate' Demand Variation Demand Southport z 6:00 AM 100% 416 100% 205 0% 0%0 0% 0%0 3% 55 676 n 7:00 AM 87% 362 87% 178 8% 0%4 2% 0%7 20% 367 918 8:00 AM 79% 329 79% 162 18% 0%9 5% 0% 18 63% 1,156 1,674 9:00 AM 73% 304 73% 150 42% 0% 21 10% 0% 37 93% 1,707 2,219 10:00 AM 68% 283 68% 139 68% 0% 34 20% 0% 73 100% 1,836 2,365 11:00AM 59% 245 59% 121 87% 25% 32 30% 25% 83 100% 1,836 2,317 12:00 PM 60% 250 60% 123 97% 25% 36 50% 25% 138 90% 1,652 2,199 1:00 PM 59% 245 59% 121 100% 25% 37 70% 25% 193 90% 1,652 2,248 2:00 PM 60% 250 60% 123 97% 25% 36 60% 25% 165 97% 1,780 2,354 3:00 PM 61% 254 61% 125 95% 25% 35 60% 25% 165 93% 1,707 2,286 4:00 PM 66% 275 66% 135 87% 25% 32 50% 25% 138 77% 1,413 1,993 A 5:00 PM 77% 320 77% 158 79% 25% 29 70% 25% 193 47% 863 1,563 N 6:00 PM 85% 354 85% 174 82% 0% 41 90% 25% 248 23% 422 1,239 LTI A 7:00 PM 94% 391 94% 193 89% 0% 44 100% 25% 275 7% 128 1,031 A 8:00 PM 96% 399 96% 197 87% 0% 43 100% 25% 275 7% 128 1,042 9:00 PM 98% 408 98% 201 61% 0% 30 100% 25% 275 3% 55 969 10:00 PM 99% 412 99% 203 32% 0% 16 90% 25% 248 3% 55 934 11:00 PM 100% 416 100% 205 13% 0%6 70% 25% 193 0%0 820 12:00 AM 100°/0 416 100% 205 0% 0%0 50% 25% 138 0%0 759 71Maximum416205442751,836 2,365 noA 1. Peak Parking Demand is#parked cars on a weekday. Calculations are based on rates or equations from ITE's Parking Generation manual,2nd Edition. 2. The%at Full Occupancy,also called the Practical Capacity,is%of parking stalls being utilized at full capacity. The range typically varies between 85%and 100%.0 3. The Peak Parking Demand calculations for the Office space is based on the equation from ITE'6 Parking Generatiomanual since the R'term exceeds 0.80. W 4. The 400 rooms represents the number of occupied rooms from the total 500 rooms assuming an occupancy rate of 80%.o 5. Assumed to be 100%for the Apartment and Condos based on the assumption that each unit would have one assigned parking stall,not be available for other uses. 6. The daily variation in peak parking utilization is based on studies conducted for similar uses,as documented in the Urban Land Institute's(ULI)Shared Parkinyport.T 7. Internal Capture rate accounts for a reduction in vehicles due to the high density mixed-use characteristic of the site. Peak Parking Demand is 2,365 occurring at 10:00 AM on a typical weekday. M:\99\99235\Parking\Parking.xls(Plan Bi The TRANSPO Group, 2/4/99 UTHpO SEC 0 Development 11009 NE 1 r" St. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Southport Project Statistics Plan A April 7, 1999 Residential Component Building Average Approx. Total Unit Distribution Parking unit size Building Area Units Studio - 1 BR-2BR/2Bath) 1.3 per DU Building A 600 109,200 166 S=30%, 1BR=50%,2BR=20% 216 Building B 850 171,200 171 S=30%,1BR=50%, 2BR=20% 222 Building C 800 194,000 206 S=0%, 1BR=50%, 2BR=50% 267 Totals 474,400 543 705 Retail Component Approx. Parking Area 1/1000 SF Building A 10000 Building B 0 Building C 18000 Building 1 10000 Totals 38,000 38 Office Component Approx. Height Description Parking Building Area 3/1000 SF New 500,000 3 buildings @ 166K-over 1500 Construction parking Building 1 200,000 125'max ht 6 stories over 4 stories parking 600 Building 2 166,666 115' 5 stories over 4 stories parking 500 Building 3 133,334 105' 4 stories over 4 stories parking 400 Existing Demolish Power house Totals 500,000 1,500 Grand Total Total Totals Building Area Parking 1,012,400 2243 4 ird 0 UTHpO SEC 0 Development 11009 NE 11'^ St. Bellevue. Washington 98004 Southport Project Statistics Plan B April 7, 1999 Residential Component Building Average Approx. Total Unit Distribution Parking unit size Building Area Units Studio - 1 BR -2BR/2Bath) 1.3 per DU Building A 600 120,000 173 S=30%, 1 BR=50%, 2BR=20% 224 Building B 850 185,000 185 S=30%,1BR=50%, 2BR=20% 241 Building C 800 210.000 223 S=0%, 1 BR=50%, 2BR=50% 290 Totals 515,000 581 755 Retail Component Approx. Parking Area 1/1000 SF Building A 10000 Building B 0 Building C 18000 Building 1 10000 Totals 38,000 38 Office Component Approx. Description Parking Building Area 3/1000 SF Building 1 250,000 125' max ht 6 stories over 4 stories parking 750 Building 2 250,000 125' max ht 6 stories over 4 stories parking 750 Building 3 250,000 125' max ht 6 stories over 4 stories parking 750 Existing Demolish Power house Totals 750,000 2,250 Grand Total Total Totals Building Parking Area 1,315,000 30.43 DRAFT PARKING REGULATIONS USE BELLEVUE KENMORE KING CO. KIRKLAND REDMOND RENTON SEATTLE SINGLE USE Multi-Family Studio/1 bed— Studio— 1.2/du i Multi-family zones Studio— 1.2/du 1.5/du Units 1.2/du 1 bed— 1.5/du I 1.7/du 1 bed.—1.5/du 1 guest space/ 2 bed—1.6/du 2 bed— 1.7/du 1 Waterfront zones 2 bed—1.8/du every 4 units 3 bed—1.8/du 3 bed—2/du 2/du 3+bed—2/du Guest—no std. Guest—no std.Guest—no std.Guest—no std. Average Rate For studio, 1 bed For studio, 1 bed Avg. 1.85 For studio, I bed and 2 bed: 1.34/du and 2 bed: 1.47/du and 2 bed: 1.5/du For studio to 3 For studio to 3 For studio to 3 bed: 1.45/du bed: 1.6/du bed: 1.625/du Office 4 to 5/1,000 nsf 1/300 sf General 1/300 sf Depends on zone— Prof.,business 3- gfa in Commercial 4.5/1000 sf gfa Medical 1/200 sf Office zone 3.5 to Medical 1/200 sf gfa 4.5/1000 sf gfa gfa Retail For< 15,000 nsf: 1/300 sf 1/300 sf gfa Depends on zone. Retail,supermkt 4- 5 to 5.5/1000 nsf Ranges from 2 to 5/1000 sf gfa For 15,000 to 5.5/1000 sf gfa Other retail(e.g. 400,000 nsf: hardware,shoe 4/1,000 to repair,etc.) 1/500 4.5/1000 sf gfa Restaurant Sit down: 14/1000 1/75 sf of dining/ Office,Sit down 9/1000 sf 1/100 sf gfa nsf lounging area Professional Office gfa Takeout: 16/1000 and Residential, Take Out 10/1000 nsf and Commercial sf gfa Zones—1/100 sf Waterfront— provide demand study MIXED USE Mixed Use Treat mixed use as No requirements Carillon Pt.Zoned Mixed use Total required is an unclassified stated. There is a as Planned Area. developments equal to total use. Have modification Parking was allowed in required for uses applicant do a process where determined based Downtown zones. computed demand analysis. Director can on ULI Downtown has its separately unless Mixed use reduce requirement methodology. own parking building is a USE BELLEVUE KENMORE KING CO. KIRKLAND REDMOND RENTON SEATTLE residential is found up to 50%if the Demand analysis standards. shopping center. Downtown. Even applicant can show which looked at Commercial 3.5 to For any other uses, with demand parking demand mixed uses 5/1000 gfa. off-street parking analysis,an can be met with a (commercial and Apartments: 1 facilities may be applicant cannot reduced office)and demand space/du plus I shared as permitted go below I requirement. by hour of day. guest space for under joint use space/du. Also,if Shared parking Required parking every 4 units. regulations. the residential may also be for mixed uses These standards Modification parking is gated or approved. based on study. would apply to process provided. restricted,it can't Residential was Redmond Town be counted towards not mixed,but in Center Apartment commercial separate portion of development. parking. site and across Downtown does Lake WA Blvd. not have much For dwellings,transit service yet. developer Hoping to create voluntarily demand for transit. exceeded the normal I.7/du requirement by providing 2 stalls per unit. ATTACHMENT A Comparison Parking ChartctiviyRelator01nnpiaBeilevueI{enf Aburtis: RESIDENTIAL Single-Family 2 spaces per du 2 per du allowed 2 spaces per du 2 spaces per du 1 per 2 bdr. du;2 du)tandem tandem allowed per 3 or more bdr. allowed du. Two-family 2 spaces per du, 2 per du,tandem No standard 2 spaces per du 1.5 per 1 &2 bdr tandem allowed allowed du,2 per 3 or more bdr. du. Multi-family& 1-1/2 spaces per Studio: 1 du 1 bdrm =1.2 per I space per ea 1.5 space per each 1 Apartments du other: 1.5 per du du,2 bdrm=1.6 per efficency apt.,2 &2 bdrm du,2 du, 3+bdrm=1.8 space per du for spaces per each 3+ per du development w/50 du or more du's, 1.8 space per du for development w/>49 du's Guest parking 1 space per 4 du's No standard No standard No standard No standard in apts. or PUDs with 5 or more units Recreational Optional and as 1 space per 10 No standard For developments Developments in follows: less than 50 lots or units of 50 du's or more excess of 50du's= units=0;1 space for each 1 screened space for more than 50= 1; 15 du's each 10 du's for every 15 units Multi-dwelling 1 space for 4 dus No standard Min= 8 per unit; 1 per 4 du 1 per 3 du for low-income max= 1. 5 per unit min. of 4 spaces elderly Boarding and I space for No standard 1 space per rented Same as Renton Same as Renton Lodging Houses proprietor. I space room for each sleeping room. 1 space for each 4 employees Mobile Homes 2 spaces per trailer 2 spaces per lot No standard 2 spaces per I space per each t &2 site. I screened or unit mobile home site bdrm unit,2 spaces space for each 10 whichever is Same as Renton per each 3+unit, 1 lots for recreational greater space per 10 sites for vehicles. recreational laundry areas Travel Trailers I space for each Same as Renton trailer site Hotels 1 space for each 1 space per 9 per guest room* Same as Renton 1.25 per sleeping guest room plus 2 room, 1 space unit spaces per 3 per managers employees unit* Motels and I space for each I space per room, .9 per guest room* No standard 1.25 per sleeping Cabins sleeping or du.2 I space per unit spaces per 3 managers unit* employees Restaurants,banquet rms,lounges,retail etc.require addtl parking Hotel banquet/meeting rms 6 per 1,000 sf; restaurants figured separately i:\datarntnoka\compcht.doc4/1/9711:21 AM 1 COMMER.CT.AL Rertt4a 01Ympia Revue Kent;Auhu : Banks Min. of 4/max.of Gfa up to 3,000 Min: 4 per 1,000 1 space per 200 1 per 250 sf of gfa 5 spaces per each sf= I space for nsf,max: 5 per sf of gfa 1,000 sf of gfa each 250 sf.Gfa 1,000 nsf between2,00I to 7,500 sf=1 space for each 300 sq ft. Drive-up 5 stacking spaces No standard No standard No standard No standard windows per station Professional Min. of 3/max.of Same as banks;gfa Min: 4 per 1,000 1 space per 250 1 space per 250 gfa offices and 4.5 spaces per between 7501 to nsf, max: 5 per gfa businesses each 1,000 sf of 40,000 sf=1 space 1,000 nsf gfa for each 350 sf. Gfa of 40,001 and greater=1 space for ea 400 sf Shopping centers Min. of 4/max of Less than 15,000 Less than 15,000 nsf Centers w/gla No standard 5 per each 1,000 sf.=3.5 spaces min=5: 1,000 nsf, less than 400,000 sf of gfa per 1000 sf.=4 max=5.5: 1,000;sf=4.5 per 1,000 spaces for each 15,000-409,000 nsf sf of gla;centers 1000 sf. gfa, min=4: 1,000 nsf over 400,000 sf max=5: 1,000; more than 400,000-600,000 of gla=5 per 400,000 sf.=4.5 nsf min=4: 1,000 nsf 1,000sf of gla spaces per 1000 max=5: 1,000;more sq.ft gfa than 600,000 nsf min=5: 1,000 max=5:1,000 Restaurants,night I space per 100 sf 10 spaces per 14 per 1,000 sf 1 per 100 sf of clubs,taverns and of gfa 1,000 sf gfa lounges Retail-stores, Min,or 4/max.of Same as Shopping Personal service 3 1 per 200 sf of 1 per 200 sf gfa supermarkets, 5 spaces per each Centers,except 1,000 nsf or per gfa minimum of 6 department stores 1,000 sf of gfa salons=3.5 spaces 1.5 per fixed and personal per 1,000 sf. station service shops Other retail 1 space per 500 sf 3.5 spaced per Same as Shopping 1 space per 500 No standard establishments: of gfa 1,000 sf Centers sf of gfa service shops, clothing or shoe repair shops, furniture, appliance, hardware stores Drive-in business I space per 50 sf No standard No standard 1 per 100 sf of 1 per 100 sf of gfa of gfa gfa Uncovered 1 space per 2,000 No standard Same as Shopping I space per 5,000 No standard commercial area, sf of retail sales Centers sf.of retail sales outdoor nurseries area area,except when located in a Shopping Center Outdoor retail sales 1 space per 5,000 No standard Same as Shopping Same as I space per 5,000 sf of areas. new used car sf Centers Uncovered outdoor sales area; 1 lots Commercial area space per 1,000 st of showroom; I space per 250 sf of office(min.6 spaces) Motor vehicle 1 space per 400 sf 3.5 spaces per 3 per 1,000 nsf Same as Renton No standard repair and service of gfa 1,000 sf gfa or I space per 300 sf Combination sit- 1 space per 75 sf 10 spaces per 3 per 1,000 nsf Same as Renton No standard down-drive-in of gfa 1000 sf. restaurant Public post office 3 space per 1,000 sf No standard No standard No standard No standard j:\datarntnpkg\compcht.doc4/1/972:14 PM 2 I1 IBFISTRIAL RlOotonAgognOlympta' Bellevue Kent Anhurn Manufacturing, Min. of 1/max.of 1 space per 2 1.5 per 1,000 nsf 1 per 1,000 sf of No standard research and 1.5 spaces per employee @ max gfa testing 1,000 sf of gfa shift.(min.2 laboratories, but to include spaces) creameries, warehouse space) bottling establishments, bakeries,canneries, printing,and engraving shops Warehouses and 1 space per 1,500 Gfa of 0-10,000 sf. 1.5 per 1,000 nsf 1 space per each No standard storage buildings sf of gfa 1 space per 1,000 2,000 sf. of gfa. sf.gfa of 10,001 to Max 2%gfa of 20,000 sf.= 10 office may be spaces+7.5 for included w/o each 1000 sf.. beyond 10,000 sf.addtl.parking gfa over 20,000 sf.= 18 spaces+.5 for each 1,000 sf. beyond 20,000 sf. or 1 space per employee Uncovered 1 space per 2,000 No standard No standard No standard No standard storage area sf of area Airplane No parking required No standard No standard No standard No standard hangars,tie- for hangar space or down areas tie-down areas. Associated offices: 1 per 200 sf. RECREATION! Renton Olympia Bellevue Kent Auburn 41 It SEN>E,INT Auditoriums,1 per 4 fixed seats 1 space per 4.5 1 per 4 fixed seats Same as Renton No standard theaters, places or 1 per 100 sf of fixed seats; 1 or 10 per 1,000 nsf or public floor area of main space for each 3 (if there are no assembly, auditorium or permitted fixed seats) stadiums and principal place of occupants, if no assembly not outdoor sports containing fixed fixed seats areas seats,whichever is greater Bowling alleys 5 per each alley 5 per each alley No standard 5 per each alley No standard Dance halls, 1 per 40 sf of gfa 5 per 1,000 sf 1 per 200 sf of skating rinks gfa Golf driving ranges 1 per each driving No standard No standard Same as Renton No standard station Miniature golf 1 per each hole No standard No standard Same as Renton No standard courses Marinas 2 per 3 slips. A No standard 1 per 2 slips No standard No standard private marina associated with a res. complex, 1 per 3 slips. Loading areas for 1 per 25 slips.No standard No standard No standard No standard marinas Other 1 per each occupant No standard No standard No standard 1 per 100 sf of gfa recreational based upon 50%of health and fitness the max.occupant clubs) load as established by the Renton Bldg. and Fire Codes j:\datarntnpkg\compcht.doc4/1/9711:21 AM 3 XDUCATIP IAL ltenEon 211010 C. Kenf Auburn . Sr. high schools: 1 per employee, 1 I per classroom No standard Same as Renton public,parochial per 10 students &office,+ 1 and private enrolled. I off- space for each street space for student of legal each bus kept at driving age; school.assembly is a separate use Colleges and 1 per employee, I No standard No standard I visitor parking No standard universities per 3 students for each 100 residing on students;2.5 campus, I per 5 spaces per students not employee; 1 residing on space per each 3 campus. I off- students residing street space for on campus; 1 each bus kept at space for each 5 school. day student residing off campus; 1 bus space for each bus kept on campus Elementary and 1 per employee 1 1 per 12 students 2.5 per Jr.high school off-street space of design employee; I for each bus kept capacity visitor space for at school. each 100 students; 1 bus space for each bus kept on campus Libraries and 1 per 250 sf in 1 space per 300 No standard I per 250 sf in No standard museums office and public sf. or public floor office and public use area,or 3.3 use spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. Day care 1 per employee. 2 1 space per each No standard 1 per employee No standard loading spaces per staff; I space per loading/ 25 children each 10 students unloading areas enrolled MEDICAL Reutor3 Olympia E3e11evve Kent Auburn Medical and I per 200 sf of gfa 4 per 1,000 sf of 4.5 per 1,000 nsf Same as Renton No standard dental offices gfa Convalescent,1 per 2 1 per 2 reg. beds, Min. .33 per bed; 1 per 2 emp. No standard nursing and employees, 1 per 1 per 2 reg. emp. max. 1 per bed 1 per 3 beds health 3 beds. A on the largest institutions minimum of 10 shift. spaces is required Hospitals 1 per 3 beds, 1 per Same as above 1 per patient bed Same as Renton No standard staff doctor, 1 per 3 employees j:\datarntnpkg\compcht.doc4/1/972:14 PM 4 REL[GiDUS Rentvn lymps Bellevue; Kent Auburn Churches 1 per 5 seats in the 1 space per 4 1 per 4 fixed seats Same as Renton main auditorium. seats;if no or 10 per 1,000 nsf A minimum of 10 individual seats, spaces is required. 1 space for each 6 feet of bench or 6 spaces per each 1,000 sf. if no fixed seating Mortuaries or I per 100 sf of No standard Same as above Same as Renton 1 per 4 seats funeral homes floor area of computed as 7 sf assembly rooms of floor area per seat DEAD No space required No standard No standard No standard No standard STORAGE SPACE USES NO Staff to decide Clearly similar Min. and max. Amount of SPECIFIED based on closest use shall meet number of spaces parking to be use(s) listed above such use determined by determined by and information requirements; if Direct rbasedon planningoannnPg Provided by the no apparent parking demand department based applicant similarity,a documentation on staffPPtY Parking demand from applicant,experience,ence study requireduired evidence in similar use9 to determine available studies requirementsements and standard torelated use, documentation required parking provid edbby fo r use as applicant determined by other comparable jurisdictions j:\datarntnpkg\compcht.doc4/1/9711:21 AM 5 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 1999 TO: Departments/Divisions Reviewing Project Files Lee Haro,Transportation Systems Division FROM: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578)c SUBJECT: Southport Conceptual Utility Plan Correction Conceptual utility plans were routed to you on April 22, 1999 for early review. The Conceptual Grading and Drainage plans prepared by Coughlin Porter Lundeen mislabel a road on the west side of the proposal near the office buildings as a Fire Lane. The paved area along the office and parking structures will be used for general traffic circulation. Although labeled incorrectly, the engineer has assumed in the water quality treatment plans that the area would be subject to vehicular use. If you have any questions,please give me a call(ext. 6578). Thank you. cc: Ron Straka TS SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\FLCROUTE.doc\cor MAY 03 '99 11:48AM PORTICO INC. P.1/5 r• Fax Transmittal Date: May 3, 1999 To: Lisa Grueter T r: P0RTiC:o Senior Planner G R O U.(' City of Renton Fax No. 425-430-7300 From: Michael Basil The Portico Group Re: Arborists Report A rthi;rr/.r Number of pages sending: 5 including cover page. landscape Aroliteac Interpretive Planners Designers Olympic Tor,,,• 117 Pine Star/.Sri r,fr/d i•%r,ul' Sitiale. WA 96101-1500 l'206.6.1.?104 1 2O6.611.4'100 p n rti cn(?ip o rrl ror rn ap.com MAY 03 '99 11:49AM PORTICO INC. P.2/5 April 29, 1999 ' TO: Michael Basil, Project Manager CC: Rex Allen, Seco Development FROM: Kathleen Day, Consulting Arborist, The Portico'Group T F1 OR11CO SUBJECT: Arborist Report GROUP PROJECT: Southport Development The following report is a summary of the assessment made of 21 Northern Red Oaks ( uercus rubra) that lie near the southwestern property line in Gene Coulon Park. These trees area adjacent to the proposed Southport Development property in the vicinity of Lake Washington Boulevard and rll,r t. Park Avenue North in Renton. The assessment included the verification of size in diameter, health and condition, and actual dripline line locations in relationship to the proposed site plan. Diameter measurements (DBH- Diameter at'Breast Height), were taken are 4.5 feet from the base of the 1 n dvttl ` trees. ntrniica/s Summary Report The 21 trees range in size from 16"-34" in diameter. They are hl,,.rprrnt,, approximately 30-35 years of age and are relatively young in relation to manner, their life expectancy. The health and condition of the trees is excellent with the exception of two trees that have developed co-dominant leaders with weak attachments. For these two trees this structural defect will become an increasing problem as the trees age and the weight and density of the C;:hibit nr.riglert canopies expands. The co-dominant leaders result in included bark that is architecturally weak, often causing the splitting and trunk failure at this union. One of the trees is located at the center point of a proposed fire lane access to the Southport. property through the Gene Coulon Park parking lot. It is labeled as Tree A on the attached key plan. Removal of this co- dominant leader tree for a fire lane access would seem to have the least amount of impact on the remaining trees. Grading and roadway paving would then occur in the areaimmediately over the removed tree. The other alternative would be to slip the access lane between Tree A and an adjacent tree. However, the associated grading and root zone disruption would impact the root zone of both trees adjacent to the fire lane. The dripline locations are accurate as indicated on the survey and grading plan; they range from 20-35' from the base of the trees and extend into the Southport property. The dripline serves as a general visual indicator for the y,Npl, CJh', extent of root development. The most currentresearch indicates feeder 4'17 Pi,:?Sow,ser,,,i,1?low roots extend beyond the dripline, especially for deciduous trees. The root • . Pcnrtle, hJrl 9A/U/-;5UJI206t12/.,lot, F_06.621.219f' put/icoc+pnrriragroxp.r uln MAY 03 '99 11:48AM PORTICO TI'Jr. P.3/5 distribution pattern for these Oaks is symmetrical as indicated by the trunk flare development and exposed structural surface roots. Some erosion has occurred on the western side of the trees, up to 6-8 inches in most locations. Surface root development has not caused any heaving or uplifting of asphalt on either side of the trees'. THE As a general rule of thumb,up to 1/3 of a tree's root zone could be p c m i c o impacted without any visual impacts to the tree canopy. Younger trees G iw sx accommodate disruptions better than mature trees. Recommendations In addition to the dripline providing a visual indicator for root development,. it also serves as a directive for the placement of tree protection fencing during site development to minimize grade changes and soil compaction within the root zone. Research studies indicate that changing the grades more than 6 inches effects the moisture and air relationships to the surface feeder roots. The 2:1 berm proposed on the grading plan (at the proposed fire lane) would require a fill of 3-4 feet over the existing root zones. The toe of the proposed berm is located 4-5 feet from the base of the trees. Reducing the amount of fill over ,these root zones will be critical. In addition, pervious paving materials at the fire lane will help maintain moisture and air circulation to the root zones. Additional exploration of the site and proposed plan would need to occur before specific strategies for tree preservation can be further developed. MAY 03 '99 11:49AM PORTICO TN'r P.475 A. q J t V, e 1,,•% j,/,‘ • 7' d° / • 7.' d)) 4 ., 1. 0 4 e '' , i fti 1W, I s•„ •\''':\• • 1 0 1.,.. •-- • s lik. :• • 110 Orli \ 1k. i If.'• \ . • X. \ • I. '' • e*.‘• 1 7 7.•`..••/‘. " s •.." z.. ....N , Z ‘ ... .....\•A..„,,,,., 4:\ 64%,\' V 1.... • 1••••1„...::: ::;: 1 s 2:4•,, '\ ‘. l TREE A I \ C0-DINAtiT-LEDEA• ti-.... N`j_11. • • •1 ‘ Zz......... •.'' \•' .•:,v i. s \ IRE e 4,,,„ : \ i'\ • s•••••.•CO-ON LEADER N., ..A . , si s .. /Nif ; 1 \v..,... %, i ei.......:)..\ . . ...,.... ..\4... d , I s 7- \•• 64") • I i , e.., \ \ ", J 7 ) i r / st N 148641., .,o. • i 1 ••• 7'''' ....„ 7%.. \ ./ \4, , •••,.- 7 —`"--,,,......,-...-- •-'-j\\ " \lei\•I' s-••... 0•.-141 r 190 , ,, e-••'-' 1- yl.N.4.' • . \‘‘,. I Av,iww r,.., . t-s . ( s: Z„,•••- ‘...,/C".•=0.„ P,.: 1_\.. i . / , :••—............. --%. --< J, v -- 7-,r,• '-\ e• ; 't‘ .."'", A.-.- - i, ..-_r__ _ J WI s. i-i-- ,' • 'j l'-'"'A° ———''—.—s4 41 1 7:31.4C— • 1/ ; 0.°‘ 7,•4L•," ... t." / \ --..._..1 i , i l'irt r s d-egr-7 Val., 5'• .,N,7.:7! ss.e- __ i,' . O' •-'.--..-.....\ r t.-- 4116. ••.. i 0 -..- u._...--:-.1-.._.--- -Iv'NI, • , 4(\. . IL.-A-AL....06..._.•- .. 7 / Ii, :: II. 'I 04....... I •!..:11411, L. 7 4 ,,/ N !;...7.4, i I,I', $.„ :I .,/ /4.: •... 1 e f 41' arsk,.., I I;;-...•••,.“:. ' 1' r, Gr),........, .• i\ ‘" \::-...• r,No.:\ ,:..\ 1'!', .".. 4.•**"' K h,.:: ,‘,...i.\\ "\\ 1..,1 \Pr.." 1 I:1 : 1 .•i.: r • I.:i "1,•1... !.•• .. / 11(eavll• 10 \ ‘.. 1;•t;:s; • '' ../ 1 MAY 03 '99 11:49AM PORTICO INC. r.5i• SOUTHPORT• TREE EVALUATION KEY 1'= 50'• S THE PORTICO GROUP 0; i ir-:::-..y.---;--„ .,/ j,...‘.. .c,,Lc2..- („.i.r— I 0.--;--, Air 4 tatItts,I .,,.., ...___ 14 r„...,, , j I rA'` - _,^ -./ IT- 4, °•.., /ter •\`• V I y r eV CITY k F RENTON Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Planning Jesse Tanner,Mayor Susan Carlson,Administrator May 3, 1999 Bob Fritzen Shorelands and Water Resources Department of Ecology,Northwest Regional Office 3190-160th Ave. SE Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 SUBJECT: SMP INTERPRETATION Dear Bob: Per our conversation, enclosed is a draft determination related to shoreline setbacks for mixed use structures. Our Shoreline Master Program has some ambiguities when it comes to mixed use structures versus single use structures. Also enclosed are a neighborhood detail map, and a preliminary conceptual site plan. The Southport proposal is a mixed office, residential and commercial development which would be developed on the Shuffleton Steam Plant site next to Lake Washington. The Southport proposal would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone from Industrial - Heavy to Center Office Residential. The industrial site was contaminated, but is currently being remediated to residential-level standards. The remediation and redevelopment of the site are important for the City and the region in terms of meeting multiple goals related to growth management, environmental remediation, and economic development. A Supplemental EIS is under preparation. We anticipate that the administrative determination would be issued about the time the SEIS is circulated. We would like your input on the draft determination. Please feel free to call me at (425) 430-6578. Thanks for your assistance. Sincerely, Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner cc: Sue Carlson TS_SERVER\SYS2\COM MON\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\BFSMPDET.DOC 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 DRAFT CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION INTERPRETATION/POLICY DECISION MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: Section 4-3-090L. 5, L.7, and L14, Shoreline Master Program Specific Use Regulations for Commercial Developments, Industrial Developments, and Residential Development, respectively. Shoreline Master Program Regulations, City of Renton Municipal Code RMC. (Corresponds to Shoreline Master Program Sections 7.05.02, 7.07.02, and 7.14.01.B) REFERENCE: Renton Municipal Code and Renton Shoreline Master Program SUBJECT: Shoreline setbacks for Mixed Use Structures BACKGROUND: The City has received preliminary conceptual master plans for the Southport Development proposed on the Shuffleton Steam Plant Site. The site is approximately17acreslocatedadjacenttotheLakeWashingtonShoreline. The site is designated Employment Area - Industrial/Heavy Industrial currently, and was intensively used by Puget Sound Energy since the 1920's. The site has an existing concrete bulkhead the full width of the shoreline frontage (approximately 607 feet of frontage). The Southport proponent is requesting a land use and zoning designation of Center Office Residential which would accommodate their proposal to have office, residential, and commercial uses. Three buildings would be located within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program. Overall, the Southport Development proposes: 543 to 581 attached multi-family residential dwelling units 38,000 square feet of retail/service 500,000 to 750,000 square feet of office A shoreline promenade and plazas would be provided along the shoreline frontage. The promenade and plazas, retail/service uses,would be open to the public. The promenade would establish a key link in the City's planned Trails System and continue the Lake Washington Trail from Gene Coulon Park immediately to the east. The applicable Shoreline Master Program environment is Urban which is intended to ensure optimum utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas by providing for public use, especially access to and along the water's edge and by managing development so that it enhances and maintains shorelines for a multiplicity of viable and necessary urban uses." It is also recognized in the Shoreline Master Program that"The Urban environment is an area of high-intensity land use including residential, commercial, and industrial development. " The development would meet the definition for water-oriented uses since it contains improvements facilitating public access to the shorelines of the state. In addition, the public access and enjoyment uses such as restaurants, and mixed-use commercial/ office would meet the definition of water-enjoyment. There would also be retail uses in the residential buildings. (For definitions, please refer to RMC Section 4-11-230 and Shoreline Master Program Sections 9.48 and 9.49.) Three buildings would be located within 200 feet of the Lake Washington Shoreline: Building 1, a proposed commercial office building (approximately between 200,000 to 250,000 s.f., excluding parking)and Buildings A and B which are proposed to contain 337 to 358 dwellings (approximately between 280,400 to 305,000 square feet, excluding parking). The proposed 38,000 square feet of commercial retail space would be divided amongst buildings 1, A and B. In terms of usage, the vast majority of the buildings A and B would be residential. About ten percent or less of the residential buildings would have commercial retail space. The amount of retail space in the residential buildings is substantially less than common accessory use conditions which limit accessory use size to less than 33% or 50% of the gross floor area depending on use and zone. The Uniform Building Code would classify the buildings as residential where less than 10% of the building contains commercial square footage. The Shoreline Master Program establishes the following minimum setbacks: STRUCTURE USE MINIMUM SETBACK Commercial A commercial building should be located no closer than fifty (50)feet to the ordinary high water mark; however, the Land Use Hearing Examiner may reduce this requirement through the variance process for good reason for those structures that allow public access to and along the water's edge. Industrial Industrial structures shall be set back 25 feet minimum from the ordinary high water mark. Residential Residential structures are set back inland from the ordinary high water mark a minimum of twenty five (25) feet, or consistent with setback provisions of the Renton Municipal Code, whichever provides the greater setback. The Shoreline Master Program provides setbacks for commercial structures and residential structures, but does not have a setback requirement for mixed-use structures. The Center Office Residential Zone currently has no setback requirements. A draft zone has been prepared for the Southport site should it be redesignated to Center Office Residential (COR). The proposed COR zone text for the Southport Site indicates the following proposed shoreline setback: In COR 3,where the applicable Shoreline Master Program setback is less than 50 feet, the City may increase the setback up to 100% if the City determines additional setback area is needed to assure adequate public access, emergency access or other site planning or environmental considerations. Although in earlier versions of the conceptual plans the proponent placed mixed residential buildings 25 feet from the Shoreline, the applicant has demonstrated that the following setbacks can be accomplished: Building 1 is proposed to have a setback of 2 150 feet well in excess of the 50 foot minimum. Buildings A and B would have a setback of 35 feet which is a midpoint between the residential and commercial standard for single use buildings. For the three buildings in the Shoreline jurisdiction, there would be an average setback of 70 feet and a minimum setback of 35 feet. Building facadeswouldcomprise67% of the 607 linear feet of the promenade. JUSTIFICATION: There is a gap in the current Shoreline Master Program Regulations related to a mix of commercial and residential uses in a single structure. If the retail uses were omitted from the residential buildings, the proposed buildings would exceed the 25 foot minimum setback. The retail component in the primarily residential buildings is small in terms of square footage, yet it helps provide the water-oriented/water enjoyment uses promoted in the Shoreline Master Program. The Uniform Building Code would classify thebuildingsasresidentialwherelessthan10% of the building contains commercial square footage. A minimum setback of 35 feet for the mixed residential structures which have a small amount of commercial will accommodate for a large pedestrian promenade along the existing bulkhead, and accommodate emergency access. The overall average setback for the development exceeds the largest minimum setback in the Shoreline Master Program which is 50 feet for commercial buildings. DECISION: The Southport development, as proposed, complies with the Shoreline Master Program setbacks for commercial structures, and for mixed residential/commercial structures by providing the following setbacks: Residential buildings with limited amount of commercial: 35 feet Commercial office building: 50 feet Overall average setback: 70 feet. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL DATE: APPEAL PROCESS: To appeal this determination, a written appeal--accompanied by therequired $75.00 filing fee--must be filed with the City's Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, 425-430-6515) no more than 14 days from the date of this decision. Your submittal should explain the basis for the appeal. Section 4-8-110 of the Renton Municipal Code provides further information on the appeal process. 3 t t P== ei...\A0/.• \ .'\ • i I 125 9160 CCCCC° UNI • ins. PN 4$ t,.,%,-.,. ‘,... • \.*. :i .-.:8.-LI IEE gi ,, •1...1.:ti fi: Z.. SCALE r-200' C e.... • 4 4.s.0\ b 4? e ri•'..':.A r.F.1 till r - GENE COUL9k MEMGRIAl. • ',Iv-4,r°- -1 1.t L'' 7.7. 4$1,:' e' • w t; t:• .....,e''' 1 70 .. 07---. p ;•".0. 4°'' EPEACH PARK 1 , • e ir*;,.., s.-F-.1,•:.1..- • i • CC •, 0....: e., \ 431!ter l?'"+'' S) t: 1 3 4 V 1NACI •' •. 1 • F.- ..- 1.P.-•-.',k o1/\.n. •• i. , • , ill cc z 1: v..:::,:-.F.ir....÷,..., -, t , i o -±- '4' le'e I OS ••••11 f. • ,..... • r 1 h 4.5!i 4.C. / A . R e n : •€, ,;•• i•.;',' A .! P34°5 i ,.. e":.. '''.. SITE ;•••.._\•: - k4•)k\ 4.\,\: cL.•:. p..I.k.. L., t.- iASk..e..-.,. r,. Nct. siog 1...s.. 1t.x0A$i0rt" 0."0.•"- 4 oRooCo\ L.--.- o..... 1\-• . .• 0•••-.' c...."e,.<'.•.\".-•. . 0•''\''-‘ 4,'',, A•.,-. C•/,/\ i/' 1,. t. 1 1/4e•_, t/ t(-,.•,' I 7tf•..t,'..,1*• 0/ I...../ urivsHINGTON SHORE LANDS l/'.. 4I. t•r•'. i.•,l" G.•e.../•t•• A t.iel.;.rII;;‘".," s,,.-,...-•-,\••.:•--.•..„.,•._• c s•\. n.•a• 1•ID0(_ C.... 1 CJ. P.‘ Tr.. r. d:OA1ia*reeO"; l. 4, 4E1i:.• t\ 2..1:F.4.. !...,14.'1/. ':"r-\ d." C2 4:. 1.11..... \"!••:•'''':•\".' I I I 1 '1';.\ 1-, •Pt•P'10' S • .e 4:.;.t.-i.,.. 0.--, f' fr' GNI let 2 1 • a:A it ','• ill i ......- 1 c..\, .. ,0. c. C, ,....... Co •••• : ••,:," 7/01sres . GNI IN 3 ; MMAues V..Z\ f•"A' -\ ci- 0 N.''' 2 I 7I.Ilk> 1...I..' If f , j .t ; 2 1 `. .c.. .. 1 21 1 e. , 1. . ' , /C-3 , 0.t. 14 •• AY !• A.- c\ \ 1 P<:" 15'. 0 ,,‘' NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP Ltir' ww V. • tn • \\ --' 4:::':*". . 33 \. \in Keg• . 1 : 110I 1. 1 1i. I I • I r- '., ...., . • V \ \ 1 1 II Co t.: 74: .---___ 1.1.3 I a 171 • L. • ••• tai 1 n I Iltil 0 r ----- 14'• T1--- I 1 11 :!. .' i. . . _ . .1: _:\ OF 1 0\ .. I. a k c 11• a s h i n It t o n t 1.! V\ ,. . • .."• — '^ NS•A..' — - i. " ' ' or"..I of, I. i films': r VI: q. r 7 N.404 u k) 1, ! Zfi t ftg i 0: 11 .'IN At • • :1.‘:••1,,•`. t f4S r g -15} iIhr13ocing (' or \ .III eki 40 I C i• ulnn I' arl;)—i 1 - i . \ ....,.. iier.:,:" zati 'nil z ipo.,:,11, , . . . i la um.e;+••.-o •..... .• .•,\ 4.ri• *.:.:\. /.':, 1 — s• a 1 1' u g c l l' o\V c r' !,..: •d :ler•9,r.:it P II { otr r" v ire, tad f i' t>s' it 1. MI SOUT ' IIPORT NV n(.' I I i C () I) i \ r I n I, in i Itt (' n r it it r a t i „ It I :, r i h U I •) ! ,t I r i 4 Lisa Grueter From: Jeff Haynie To: Lisa Grueter; Lee E. Haro Cc: Torsten Lienau Subject: FW: Southport Residential Only Analysis Date: Monday, May 03, 1999 7:12PM Lisa, In response to your email, the work we did to come to the conclusion below was only a couple hours of work. It was not included in our original scope of work but since it was only a few hours, we conducted the analysis. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks Original Message From: Jeff Haynie Sent:Monday, May 03, 1999 6:20 PM To: rex alien' Cc: Lee E. Haro'; 'Lisa Grueter'; Jeff Haynie; Torsten Lienau Subject: FW: Southport Residential Only Analysis Rex, Please review the emails below. It does not look as if it is possible to avoid the culverts. Please let me know if you need anything else. I will be in hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday, and will return to the office on Thursday. Thanks Original Message From: Mike Bertram Sent Monday, May 03, 1999 11:39 AM To: Jeff Haynie Subject: RE: Southport Residential Only Analysis Holding the western edge of pavement as our plan calls for and providing 36 feet of pavement would put the face of curb approximately 4 feet from the culvert ends. If we add in an extruded curb and guardrail along the eastern e.p., this eats up another 2 feet. So, you would at best have to construct head walls at the culverts and retaining walls along the eastern e.p. to stay away from extending the culverts. Keep in mind this would all be throw away when the ultimate is constructed. Mike Original Message From: Chris Forster Sent: Sunday, May 02, 1999 4:56 PM To: Jeff Haynie Page 1 Subject: Southport Residential Only Analysis I conducted an analysis at the G.C. Park Entrance on Lake Washington Boulevard with Plan A (residential units only). The analysis was conducted to determine whether modifications to the drainage structure under Lk. Wa. Blvd. would be necessary if only residential units were built. Since the intersection already operates at LOS F for the 2004 No Action scenario, we assumed that a traffic signal must be installed with Plan A residential only) to bring it down to LOS D. The results showed that the intersection would operate at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The queuing analysis showed that during the p.m. peak hour, the NB left-turn 95th percentile queue was 150 feet. The drainage structure lies approximately 190 feet south of the GC park entrance, where there is approximately 27 feet of pavement width. Based on the queue storage required for the NB left turn (150') + taper, approximately 3 lanes (36' of pavement width) would be required at the location of the drainage structure. Page 2 ti: le City of Renton, 1% DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, T4/. NEIGHBORHOODS, and STRATEGIC PLANNING Date: 4/29/99 Sixth Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 TO:Rich Schipanski FROM: Lisa Grueter Huckell/Weinman City of Renton Phone: 425) 828-4463 Phone: 425) 430-6578 Fax Phone: (425) 828-3861 Fax Phone: (425) 430-7300 ISUBJECT: M i§,,c. I Number of pages including cover sheet 3 REMARKS: Original to Urgent Reply Please X For your be mailed ASAP Comment review Nearby Projects: Follow are maps showing 3 nearby projects: The Bluffs-(approved not yet developed)Approximately 180 multi-family units on 22.3 acres Tamaron Pointe Apartments(approved,not yet developed)- 182 multi-family units on 10.69 acres Labrador Preliminary Nat-(pending)Between 51 and 62 lots with detached dwellings(number of units depends on outcome of rezone request) Project Description: I spoke with Rex Allen about the future potential"east end"improvements he referenced in an April 7, 1999 memo(projects that are not part of their current proposal,but which could be pursued in the future). He thinks the creation of a floating foot bridge using the existing log boom is a future possibility. The filling in of the"notch"to expand the promenade is less likely as a future project. We should add to the Project Description a short paragraph about the"east end alternatives,"at least about the foot bridge. Nearby Dock Widths: Leslie Betlach had somCone pace off the widths of nearby docks. The width at the Boat House to the west is 12 feet. The width of the docks at Coulon ark in front of Ivars is 12 to 16 feet. Please let me know if y u have any questions. Thanks. cc: Rex Allen,Seco Development(425-637-1922) lb1444141,.. 40, , L1f. ' \,..... 7, 4• 11. i /',/, ,,,,' 1111110, s'_ J. w" . A ue ul ... wsV »/ w'` ait sr, ''` N 4 ,.. 1,,' ".' ''' ';',' 11 ' w 7. 10 .... fiif" f‘ ,.:,„..;:: o-,- 1.- sA. ‘. 9 ‘ z, u' r'•': 1 le.< a,%,' , 19• ft•-. j N4. iil •- Ylc` I 1• nY% IA•.,[ r• m\ V• i,,,,...,.;(,„,. friY th ill;V, . - ,,, 1,. P.‘,/,; 177((( I. Ai Ili 71, 114.4-'" kx1,. '` 4 ‘ V- J.. CI,' 4.- fig ' iriq, f Cm) ,‘::: i g 41 si, Cons) A r li "` 1,.. ic 4 /. I ! WC'>;:.,-.‘, •-'' "' c'‘, , • ( ' 1 , , ' . ,. p' i . ,, 7,\ Alt, A . re,'. 1. 4 ' , is-,,, pe,,..., , Itg. 3.. . 1,. ,-..,;,,..,;„ , P,— ) 11 I Of' — to. ' i troit-<-';' v,<,....,..,- th",- - ' ,,., 1 ‘,‘ 7.. 4" .., a 4.. „,. 4x ......" ,, 4, 40 4 g Igo , k,: 7'''':-" w ,— — ______ 1 1\" `! MIS\ NN11 1 I'. Wri, 1 I 14 A. t, !, l' k,t‘ tti•:. .. .,‘. :—• ..: P'' c,..)- V/ sc. A...-, t.. 1. 3".„ ,:.- 72: *./.... \ It,\ A ', / i' i; ily1; M1, S` All 11 ' Via' P. F i' Irp. , o4\ 1/ 11 Y<' / n ':;, i I%) jam ll , 1\ 1 \ I'; w M, 1l\ 1 \ CD/` 4. Nnl KS\ 1 Q W Z In^" 7 1` l\ d N `\' xia ``\ ^ ' 1 \' it 17,-. \ \\ i\ W v........_......... 7... p' ii/ i''' 1' i O L/ i' ' r 1r,,, t : ` t; kN y 1rlig. talti::., 0, 41:-.-: ` 1r01,,, M% 1' 111'// r; t`„ C" i , , slT '\\\•, 1 • 1,\ 11a'• YTSS••'" 11,.,., jlY 1, ter. I/ Ih ± 4 11 4. r;:" '-, 54: 7- 4, 7-. 4. 1 f7/ 4, 11/ 1; .', 4" 4.:::... .-*- z'%.' S '. \\ rt; IIW ) Gcd cs v' I/' 10 ai/ r} " R'" Ji•`•\ t t n, l f 1 t 1\\\ lwiks\ r z:/'?.::.: : I, 0 ,,,,, 2:',,.. ..,'------, 41 3,-... z .,' , N‘,- As1 4 A--..--,-?. 0,-,'„ ,-. ',,, s , 10A1,---.- 43 7., ts..,, r, . 2. i. i, , . 7,..: Lit‘ osmAirztt:.-- 1.,,, ),,,, ; $ vk, .. 6 ___. ii'-' 1‘;‘, .-- zko„ : 4 AP,` 7, 4iJ140 tt!,:;%-' \ ° IIV% ii f•' 4\ vOr . k L ei 114c1• yli tly. r,..,./ O fI‘ L1. 4 . 0__ 1.,' „.‘'\"\ tt,"-= 1----- nti' ` . 1 zl_ may w .,, 7. , ir::) . a. 1 1 CI. W v 11/41,. ,---,:, a,(„.,,, 4.. w1w1\ n z 1 O o VA, 0 ry' 1Itil 101 q \\\.. it 4 To, It A t , ifi; F U C. o jrnitii Sss,. N: A i \‘`::;-- i, Zzl!; "\ ''' - 1 * ".° 206. 4 ( ' IX 1.-- 2 C_ FF{ li . \ ilt w l\ iiNin l _ f,',.._=' n', r i.- y, r"\ i \ Inyl C L //`\ tli IMItfb1 1, d 1iuj1+'. 1 11: 1, `: ;%: a.. 1\ Yib.,, J I t LLig I n\ hn 1 1-' • . t g... s ' r, CL) Vr. .'. 1-;..„., , ite, ., ., k Illii) imp 4.7..;. 1, 07;„ 7...;•, t,:, r..,„, 4, 7:- 1- , ‘ 44, 1‘ 11. \ ' , ;\ I: ill/ 10 ':,), i; . .....,". qE: i. e6. I( ;;•, z. Z; ic, 4::;„ -... '‘;:).•,..". i.; . 1. 24f.',., .., .**, i,,:•,:%.....;',. 4. k. L.rp: 7,.,,,,.,_ .,;.,...,... e. .,. da I I 74.'-'*';''' i '.:.* T0e4:: i!.; ir' I At. Z4... '' i_'' S 7' Z''!;" 4;.: 1 fallstC. Lis 01. 0,. 5 .. i. 4, r_ 4 . lbw VOL LI U-/----- 2 1•••• •• IA ' 01>\ 4\ t_- cfrUj. s V,. 1..., T,;., ,,,-; ji. 1.. r.. 7.- :„.---:;, 1% 1km- ell, 04 limiiC l,0 iati' 1A4!. c Z—-, z. - ,',;;;- . weir" Al Vim--\ iNs....._ v) D w ci deaf. _._- INFO ' 2 7: 4"' 018 k- 1- 1NIkili.‘ ii,, s? j, n 00 .... 1' f, iil, \ lit'•,( 414 ''';','''.', 1 `, 1:\‘> 1 • I 11 tolt ' t..; r* " I-- rmiti L1J— I I— Alfpws;` 100%.;,;: s Ns''.:-',, s‘,-. 3.::-•: i.*-'-'",:::.,-.;„ i , 1. 0; sscrNs,,,!, vs;..-..- 3... s.-?,:-_-.. A,' t.,.... --:..- ill , ,,...-•• ' 1° 20 •••... ( 0 44- v,, . N' A;;,,, tiN ss.------' 5,---- 1-- 1---:,_-,.,.. s. s. a• 4\ V.. 4--,.. q _.,,, . . 2 0 11 • ;;;: INgrt,\ 414„ . -- 1: 7;--*- 14- 44: 44' 4; 44',' i tr - 4 z' L. A.' ''. 7.. t., 8 1‘; ... Alti 1 t( 41%; 14,.$ •, h..: -.; ;-?%_-_ f_:":-.. 1:- 1-':;:`,( 1' 1, 0,',';‘;', Vo`. q _ T C: 1 oP, XL iit Sowan a Cle . ' n " 1"-- a: a0:, A, si• q. 1) V2. 4. 14::,..._ • Ii_.;: 433 al ':,.. lit...& ,,‘ C. ,... \ c.,, z sipdlig.: = 73. 7 .< 7; aggg0" 1:-:, Cl taIiRk.% ':' itlY, Mr - n141- s li ; 1.. Vikl,. \.• .' - 1 s' i' !-?:. 0141k ...,-,<•, ilze,,, /,,,,,,,//: 12, A .-,... ... \ ti• 4„` sl;',.,,,. we ---. 77- 7, 411- L \ 1rntteszp1; • ; , .\;• S;,: s,; 3 4—• .- i ., 1 Aosg"- rs; ," '-- . , a, '' - i. , k s.',,,';'', 2,, ,, j,..,: siTssess. ssszs :::- II • E, 1 t... . ;,... , Ili)\ i‘ d, 1 '••\\ '•-,. -' 0 ! - I --.• ,‘• \ tii . — 111210N < 1 MP s‘•\‘‘‘‘,\‘‘ s: Ns, S.- .;;' g* " 41' 21" 4.. i.:,'‘‘‘. 4, VW sIZ‘,\\‘‘,: t__ 4:.:: . 4,..•:„... 711... k;::[:.,:‘,, . li . 11;:. ' :,- •L cg:,•,: , ::: ; - - 2: 1 #% \ J..- s' Qw. 5.-_,:--, 77r7q( I f!, Pose. p IV :: zs:,,,,,,„,, , ,, c1 ,.. e, A4- 1,,,,. ior •:,, r 1.........„ g yr/ , 1, . — ; .. .._:. A• d' i it 01, \`‘,\:‘:, I '' rng 1,.1FPI 4: 111:404‘. ri,' rtir;;,: kVer: 41 :, :,;,`;‘, 1 1. 11AIIII Ei ...- 1..---. 1' 1' : c' ' 0, '''::::: "; 3 \ - 7- 1! a- 4 . :' C 111 litif0 , 1: 10.,§ 64_• tirAlej,i., k*, Alghilli. P, O, I,,‘ , \ ' . ilp t: . • -,-...,,,- a . 4,, kt. itw- .-. li,-, t, A, . „,,,, s ...,.,_,_,,, all '.!,' ", jci , CAN -;,;,,,,,•,,• tiva•- 10011, 2/- 7, 41 Ists:;, , ' '-- .‘ r''.' 1\ k_ IA, VI All " 74- 11 4 r..?„,. TA ',,‘.',,,:,‘,..•. ‘• ; 11,;„,,, g, , f.-..--‘ , - .',, ,,-., •. \:-.--....:::-.:‘, ft\\\\ 0ii * ke, i 40-, 2; v.,\ III,, c& A, 4P- 45,./ .‘,•:,:-,,'„ ‘ s,,‘',,,.,,$ c;:,\, 7 _ . 1 fiki, v;. Viio . AV .„* k • s. s\, , \ . mils_ 1. 1 m. „ a c: 3 4 ,, I i iii • -', `• Ns:,' I ‘ • li taniginsimmai • rasserralilarimeins14 141`,„ 4"as! r. 0414" ' • ,, \ 4,:;`-‘ , ..." 1. 1‘..... 44, IT - A14,`, 7 ''''', i k 1411. 11114 '" .,.,,,...„`": ti...... 711: ' .' r itit-a ii . • ' \\\*\ '''-, Irifli HI illi ( 040 44 ; A . k.. k,., , Iit- ss••.-. 1"" 1" 1"..,.(''"//',"', 71: r.;',,,-, 4;',/'''' ,;-:_ 1 ripil , 741; - 4 I . I ,,, 1 \ ' t\\\\\\';':' 1' s . ill:. .; 4= if:;'. 0W,.=-..: 1•• N, ',.\: \ lii ley czeil 111 IP 1 I'. f.' , , N \ \‘‘.( : 7 ,'' .. 40-......*:::%:• 5::*;: i.;' ', • N, `,‘ . ' s. Eli 41 , / i:! . 1‘'''' e7 , 41,' I',-. r. 41...-. 7.,..,;::••••:. 1.%; 11,..;..... .• N• 11 I\ I , r N 1 k'-'' i 1 - i 0 iglifiM.:---; • ' .' ' 1::: 44'. 4\ \ sW, 1‘, V \ 1 miff Lig. 4.:;;;% edisk= " elfaft.i. - ./ ni irntrittirtia. iciat' - o- p. e. iq: i- fi k '3'." 44H4'""" 4 '":).‘"* I' i' s N t. 77;-- z=_.-___„-: 4.,.. N.„,„ . IA% . x Nki 1: 1: 1Ir ik...,,,, 14 ,..,__. 114-5------;: Vz,: 44. 14: 73-4- 7. i.: 11 s'''.'• .' 1'" 4" 11. 4471 .-, - '• ' ' ‘*% ss '.. I i. I 111. 111 . di; _ :__, - tz: tgesirjr,.. k.:\ ' ' ' 4Y4*/ ° CM* A '" ••-•.'• Next N.,.\\, N I a 1 iiiiiwimiliwolit ,'", ,..--,-- 4.---- f. f_ z"_=. 1-:= 7,- 7i' l- z,`..,-,‘" ' i'" I‘ ,' l'' . 1- tin". 4. 0s: viik -.. N. r., N-.- 0111 A‘.. A.,--,...”--- ,-. 1--.. ":".'- 1, - . -- f9 v . ". 11. 11 19arliffliFilltrahnt Mitiii 1; 1 111° fp pi.. 1. 7, 1) :, . r % ; 14, 12, mint, 04t1.- rwa-,_ ki 03-- 1,.._' 1, 1 If. Wilf AAP V la..._ - /" I ' it% illih sift' maiiiii 4-- 0 ; I - LA a-.;_ x_ x_: Lti.: u]/. 1. IL. L.. 1 ' tli ' 4 VA II il 111 ti r- Prink II II illiaffreilpr. r.... r: 1i& JJLI.. Z... - C. I. it la ill jg. II 1 4 I ta i iv 9 gi// 1 I — ts 7 ____ Qr3:- / a 1 9 -a7 CITY OF RENTON r.. Pkt PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS 4P MEMORANDUM 2i' 7999 roc..'t OoA DATE: April 27, 1999 TO: Lisa Grueter A(FROM: Sonja J. Fesser _ SUBJECT: Southport CPA/Rezone and Code Amendments Proposal Bob Mac Onie and I have reviewed the above referenced CPA/Rezone submittal and have the following comments: City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. 98-176 (King County Recording No. 9902019014)redefined the boundary lines of three parcels included in what was the"Shuffleton complex." It is assumed from the drawings/documents included in the subject submittal that the parcel intended for rezone and comprehensive plan amendment is "NEW LOT B" of said lot line adjustment. However,there are problems associated with this assumption. The Project Narrative included in the subject submittal does not clearly define which parcel is to be rezoned etc. The narrative mentions a seventeen-acre site to be rezoned from Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential (COR). This would indicate that the subject parcel is "NEW LOT B." The drawings submitted generally support this assumption,including the title report legal description that refers t9 Parcel B. But, the Master Application notes the King County Assessor's Account Nos. of two of Ole three parcels, 082305-9055 (NEW LOT B) and 082305-9178 (NEW LOT A). Additionally,there is no Map Exhibit for the rezone request. The legal descriptions contained within the Topographical Survey map(April 5 submittal) do not describe the parcels as they now exist after the lot line adjustment, and further, do not describe the parcels as they existed just prior to the lot line adjustment either. However,these three legal descriptions,taken together, do describe the total Shuffleton site. The use of current legal descriptions would be more useful and less confusing. In future, it would be helpful to be specific about what you want reviewed. TS_SER VER\SYS2\COMMON\\\TS_SERVER\SYS2\USR\SFESSER\SOUTHPRT.DOC y - CITY (IF RENTON s Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Planning Jesse Tanner,Mayor Susan Carlson,Administrator April22, 1999 Rex Allen Seco Development 11009 NE 11th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: SOUTHPORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EIS SCHEDULE Dear Rex: I am writing to confirm conversations we have had related to the Southport project description and SEIS schedule. Project Description On February 24 and on March 31, 1999,your applications for early environmental review and for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone assumed the following uses: 543 to 581 attached multi-family residential dwelling units 38,000 square feet of retail/service 500,000 to 750,000 square feet of office Between February 24 and March 31, 1999 you revised your conceptual site plan to relocate/reconfigure buildings and uses,but did not change the units or square footages. Work on the Preliminary Draft SEIS has been ongoing and assumes the above numbers. The traffic report makes further refinements about the uses to determine trip generation (e.g. restaurant quality, apartment type, etc.). On April 12, 1999 Michael Christ mentioned to Sue Carlson ideas about a hotel or inn replacing Building A (residential); however, you thought there were no plans for an "inn," but rather that some units may be leased long term to corporations for temporary employees. I confirmed with you that we should still assume that the Southport project description had not changed and would include the same number of units and square footages listed above. At our meeting yesterday regarding traffic issues, in response to Jeff Haynies's questions about whether to do more in-depth design/cost estimates for Plan A or Plan B, we decided to the more in-depth work for Plan A. However, it was mentioned that your Plan A would be closer to 528,000 square feet than 500,000 square feet of office. After the meeting Jeff Haynie and Torsten Lienau indicated that since they had already prepared documentation for the 500,000 square foot office proposal, changing the square footage amount to 528,000 would delay the EIS work by about two weeks. This in turn would delay air quality and potentially noise analysis, and ultimately delay Huckell/Weinman. H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\S ECOPD.DOC 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 Page 2 April 22, 1999 Michael, you, and I, along with the consultants discussed that it would be best to continue preparation of the SEIS assuming the 500,000 square feet. We are proceeding with the 500,000 square feet assumption for office in Plan A. The EIS will review both Plans A and B and discuss potential mitigation measures for both. For the access analysis work, Jeff Haynie will take a closer look at design/cost for Plan A traffic mitigation. I noted to you that in Huckell/Weinman's budget there was an option of addressing a design alternative in the Final SEIS, but that assumed no changes to the unit and square footage assumptions of the Draft SEIS. If we need to conduct additional traffic, air or noise or other quantitative work for the Final SEIS,a budget increase would probably be needed. Schedule and Budget As I mentioned in my April 2, 1999 letter, the schedule has been affected by the delay in receiving information about the revised conceptual plan. My schedule estimate of a one week delay was based on the consultants receiving outstanding information by April 6, 1999. Based on Huckell//Weinman's last progress report dated April 12, 1999, the schedule for the Preliminary Draft SEIS may need to be further adjusted to the second week of May because there was still outstanding information on April 12, 1999. Additional delays or plan modifications may result in budget increases because it means extra questions, coordination, and backtracking. Based on discussions with Mike and Rich Huckell/Weinman, I think nearly all data requests have been taken care of to date, and just minor questions remain. Thank you for your continued responsiveness to City and consultant requests and concerns. I can appreciate that you are juggling a lot of responsibilities. If you have any questions,please let me know(425-430-6578). Thank you. Sincerely, Lisa rueter, Senior Planner cc: Sue Carlson Mike Blumen,Huckell/Weinman Jeff Haynie,Entranco 4 CITY OF RENTON Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Planning Jesse Tanner,Mayor Susan Carlson,Administrator April 22, 1999 Mike Blumen,Principal Huckell/Weinman Associates,Inc. 205 Lake Street South, Suite 202 Kirkland,WA 98033 SUBJECT: TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING REGULATIONS Dear Mike: As currently proposed,the Southport Development proposes berms in proximity to the dripline of trees planted on the Park property. Based upon discussions with Neil Watts, Plan Review Supervisor, and Sue Carlson, we determined that Renton's Tree Cutting and Land Clearing regulations apply to trees on the Southport site and not to trees off-site. The issue of landscaping and trees may come into play in terms of aesthetics and land use compatibility, and landscaping could be required on the Southport property to address potential impacts if identified. Rex indicated that he is willing to landscape berms and other non- pavement/structural areas on the Southport site. After discussing the issue of mature trees on the Park property,we are assuming that the trees on the Park property will remain(except possibly at the emergency access location). Rex Allen is contacting an arborist to confirm that the Park trees wouldn't be affected by adjacent construction and development activities. If you have any questions,please give me a call(425-430-6578). Thanks. Sincerely, Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner cc: Sue Carlson Rex Allen,Seco Development H:\ECON DEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\S HUFFLTN\H WTREE.DOC 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 Plrl TTL{....u.n..n mc GflO .nn..n n....cn nl qno/ and rnne,imnr SECO DEVELOPMENT, INC 11009 NE 11Th STREET BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 TEL: 425/688-3085 • FAX: 425/637-1922 eft APR 2 z, EMAIL: seco@secodev.com Eco Z 499n ' ANn OMH gsv J STF,:Bp OOAMCNT Facsimile Transmittal Cover Sheet DATE: 4, TO: te.t0- TEL NO: COMPANY: a iW Avveki£i.w,t FAX NO:410 -73,t, FROM:k ,jet/ TEL NO: Number of Pages to Follow: AWOSiff MA' w/' Sle;e4(--4 r,j,dog2 A0040447 , 4214% ji2 s Ao/ THANK YOU ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED,HEREIN IS DEEMED RELIABLE;HOWEVER,NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANT YIS MADE AS TO THE ACCURACY HEREOF. Zil ' d 1L05 'oN ZZ61 -L69-9Zti 1N3k1013A30 003S INd1 : 1 6661 ' ZZ ' ada RPR.20. 19994:00PMMITFP "" °ARTNERSNO.0O7P.3i5 toes 47°1 \r \ i il irk Japuwwwwiwwruww illuiriii`iirugiiilk7%t' , M" cwwwwww.wwtrwwwriww L r1111111rruIgIrr++ rl e rtrttllNr1 % P „mod.. girea4' r!w I/// r ..., -ems,. T Iir Air 1111111111111111P1114V1.si./ ';r' u o iliQt. g %)0,- IA 1 .t.1iNavagivaxiiiitisitiiiiiv,4)( *or/ Iwo 11ow . scrAtimusumde; Aik. MIZeiP0I.44% 1-- QIit `a` a R . -„41 ,,irli, ! lizzaeresm:21sze.....7 . "4* 111/ 744?7,4,1$411 \ C.424'.1."111114' y-r a , camiz i .!f" f'Il •t• ii /o/% : mumSINI' tik ,W !Ilic„......._____api "al ir rIsm,r ERFadp. wmar Uri 1 I IIIimamLIRV_____g, a 14 , in. Rill. At4, 41, k ..MNgrAzv4,04f, A,____________, i ILftMwcia11EllikAtf ,... ''.,..? f,:,„ .. .s, A sul74Iiiiiiiro:40,.. 4Ali..., ''''''t441I Iiiiiti:141911410100 14. 1116511Righili n .NAii;4, rr .• a r 1 rr0!M.rr rr rrrtQ .„! ir„• ' GC 1 lira L. Zi7 ' d1L05 ' oNll61 -LE9-9l171N3M013A30003SNdC9: 16661 ' ll ' Jdd tit fig,Wer CbtyStA cyk Sew t rpfrlUpeel04144Gw c op A .47.,c)lv CITY OF RENTON4)3 1999 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLAN MEMORANDUM DATE: April 22, 1999 TO: Departments/Divisions Reviewing Project Files Lee Haro,Transportation Systems Division FROM: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578) ottz,q..ô , SUBJECT: Southport CPA/Rezone and Code Amendments Proposal The Southport applicant, Seco Development, submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone request on March 31, 1999. As part of their application, they submitted preliminary conceptual development plans which replace earlier conceptual plans they submitted as part of the request for early environmental review in February. Because the proposal requires Comprehensive Plan policy amendments (in addition to map amendments), and Municipal Code amendments, a draft set of policy and code amendments were prepared by staff, and submitted also on March 31, 1999. The Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS is under preparation and should be submitted to the City by the second week of May. When available, you will receive a copy. Because of the tight schedule, you will probably have a week to review the EIS. Because of the tight timeframes of the EIS, I am routing other information and plans in advance: The CPA/Rezone request Neighborhood Detail Map Topographic Map - (1) A topographic map submitted March 31 st which includes the Southport site and adjacent property to remain under ownership by PSE; (2) A more current detailed topographic survey of the Southport portion only that was provided after March 31 st. Conceptual site plans - (1) Plan A submitted on March 31st; (2) Other copies of Plan A along with Plan B, which have better labeling along with statistics on impervious/pervious surface breakdowns. Development statistics charts. Draft policy/code amendments. Title Report Please review the documents over the next two weeks in order to have an idea of issues when you are provided the Preliminary Draft EIS for review and comment. TS_SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\CPAROUTE.DOC\Ig f 4* April 22, 1999 Page 2 Also, the applicant has prepared preliminary conceptual utility plans which Were not submitted as part of the CPA/Rezone application, but which have been given to the EIS consultants for reference in determining potential impacts. Please also provide feedback related to these plans. Assuming the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone and Code amendments are approved, the applicant will be submitting site plan applications and conceptual utility plans later this year, and your early feedback will be helpful. If you have any questions, please give me a call (ext. 6578). Thank you. cc: Ron Straka Pt' 1 CITY OF REN1'ON per,ci;,gin APR 2 3 1999 BUILDINu ulvtSlO h,I`CITY OF RENTON O/ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, 4 NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING , f ;. MEMORANDUM jiv DATE: April22, 1999 TO: Departments/Divisions Reviewing Project Files Lee Haro,Transportation Systems Division FROM: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578) R 44* 7 SUBJECT: Southport CPA/Rezone and Code Amendments Proposal The Southport applicant, Seco Development, submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone request on March 31, 1999. As part of their application, they submitted preliminary conceptual development plans which replace earlier conceptual plans they submitted as part of the request for early environmental review in February. Because the proposal requires Comprehensive Plan policy amendments (in addition to map amendments), and Municipal Code amendments, a draft set of policy and code amendments were prepared by staff, and submitted also on March 31, 1999. The Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS is under preparation and should be submitted to the City by the second week of May. When available, you will receive a copy. Because of the tight schedule, you will probably have a week to review the EIS. Because of the tight timeframes of the EIS, I am routing other information and plans in advance: The CPA/Rezone request Neighborhood Detail Map Topographic Map - (1) A topographic map submitted March 31st which includes the Southport site and adjacent property to remain under ownership by PSE; (2) A more current detailed topographic survey of the Southport portion only that was provided after March 31st. Conceptual site plans - (1) Plan A submitted on March 31st; (2) Other copies of Plan A along with Plan B, which have better labeling along with statistics on impervious/pervious surface breakdowns. Development statistics charts. Draft policy/code amendments. Title Report Please review the documents over the next two weeks in order to have an idea of issues when you are provided the Preliminary Draft EIS for review and comment. TS_SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\CPAROUCE.DOC\Ig 6 w April22, 1999 Page 2 Also, the applicant has prepared preliminary conceptual utility plans which were not submitted as part of the CPA/Rezone application, but which have been given to the EIS consultants for reference in determining potential impacts. Please also provide feedback related to these plans. Assuming the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone and Code amendments are approved, the applicant will be submitting site plan applications and conceptual utility plans later this year, and your early feedback will be helpful. If you have any questions,please give me a call (ext. 6578). Thank you. cc: Ron Straka I• o ;CITY uF RENTON 11, • Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Planning Susan Carlson,AdministratorJesseTanner,Mayor April 21, 1999 Mike Blumen, Principal HuckelllWeinman Associates, Inc. 205 Lake Street South, Suite 202 Kirkland,WA 98033 SUBJECT: DRAINAGE PLAN CLARIFICATIONS Dear Mike: In response to Wendy Butcher's memo to Rex Allen and your follow-up questions, I am writing to summarize discussions between Rex Allen, Neil Watts and myself at a meeting on April 19, 1999. Which Manual Applies: The City has adopted the 1990 King County Surface Water Manual with some amendments (see RMC 4-6-030.A). Neil Watts, Plan Review Supervisor, feels it is appropriate to utilize the State DOE Manual related to water quality treatment. Water quality treatment would be needed to treat water from paved areas subject to vehicular use. For other surface water issues,assume use of the City's adopted manual (1990 King County). Which Project Areas Drain to Johns Creek: Rex Allen relayed that Nina Cousins of Coughlin Porter Lundeen calculated that 0.94 acres of the site drains to Johns Creek. Nina has confirmed this in writing. How Large is the Overall Basin: Johns Creek is located in the North Renton Surface Water Drainage Basin according to the November 1995 Draft Surface Water Utility Comprehensive Plan. The total basin area is 2.12 square miles. The other portion of the site is shown in the Lower Cedar River (Cedar Outfall portion) Surface Water Drainage Basin. Although shown in the Cedar Outfall basin,the majority of the site's drainage discharges directly to the Lake. History of Flooding: Based upon discussions with Neil Watts and Ron Straka, there is no history of flooding of the Creek in the immediate project vicinity. Neil indicated that detention would not be required if the flow and rate to the Creek is equivalent to the current flow and rate (Rex and Nina indicate that this will be the situation). Nina has provided information about potential flows being minimal and within exemption levels of the 1998 King County Manual which is more strict than the City's 1990 Manual. It is worthwhile reviewing the November 1995 Draft Surface Water Utility Comprehensive Plan which indicates flood waters have affected upstream sites near PACCAR and there may be issues with capacity of downstream culverts in the project vicinity. To address existing condition flooding problems, improvements have included the installation of a 72-inch storm drain between Garden Avenue North and North 8th Street and Lake Washington Boulevard. Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor, has indicated that since installation of the 72- inch line upstream,there have not been flooding events upstream near PACCAR. H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\HW DRAIN.DOC 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 cn. Page 2 April 21, 1999 The pages from the Draft Surface Water Utility Comprehensive Plan also show some water quality data which you may wish to review. The water quality samples for the report appear to have been collected in 1993. Amount Of Pervious/Impervious Surface: For the 0.94 acre area, Nina has provided the breakdown of pervious/impervious surface. Changes to Preliminary Conceptual Utility Plan dated April 8, 1999: After discussions with Rex and Neil related to water quality treatment, a written description of changes or alternatives to the Preliminary Conceptual Utility Plan dated April 8, 1999 has been provided by Nina Cousins including options for the Johns Creek discharge area. Options assuming pumping would require approval of an administrative modification application per RMC 4-9- 250 since utilization of a pump is not generally allowed by the City's adopted Surface Water manual. In terms of the EIS discussion you could describe the options for direct discharge and pumping provided by Nina Cousins, and address code consistency, maintenance, and required permits among other items. Based on Nina's memo provided yesterday, the proposed stormwater system would utilize the existing outfalls to the Lake and Creek. Nina indicates in her memo that "the potential for increasing the size of the existing outfalls and/or adding additional outfalls exists." Based on Rich Schipanski's question about how likely/unlikely this would be, I called Nina today and she indicated that it is unlikely that size increases or additional outfalls would be needed. She believes that they can work with the existing outfalls based on data she has generated to date (recognizing that they are at a conceptual level and not hard design), and at most they may need to add an emergency overflow outfall. Please direct this information to KPFF and AESI. If you have any questions,please let me know. Thank you. Sincerely, Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner cc: Sue Carlson Ron Straka Neil Watts Rex Allen,Seco Development Nina Cousins,Coughlin Porter Lundeen 061.4,frof CITY t;-; DRAFT SURFACE WATER OMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1995 City Council Bob Edwards Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Randy Corman Toni Nelson King Parker Timothy J. Schlitzer Daniel Clawson Mayor Jesse Tanner Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman Planning/Building Public Works Staff Ron Olsen Jack Crumley Ron Straka John Thompson Neil Watts Carolyn Boatsman Allen Johnson Lee Haro Prepared by HDR ENGINEERING, INC. in association with Gary Minton, Resource Planning Associates Tom Nesbitt, Nesbitt Planning and Management Sarah Barton, The Barton Group nE xir / Caw;% i'irl t` FIGURE II-)A4IMA kJ tiMA, r. _ SURFACE WATER i_I •u4. .t t DRAINAGE BASINS UI In LAKE WASHINGTON I. a L 1 s, IUKrAI. ee• 1;;;I rim,4, sue, 14 EE m; i. IN h1p i y I`' i f y BASINS NAMES 1 BLACK R1V61 S q i c TEAR. 1 M_ }:- $',.g` --.."'ei;' . • WEST LAKE WASFNGTON I i 4 ri1TL:`_' 1• r:' n I iiiiiLL EAST LAKE WASINGTON t “ 14MR•; ' a. N A 4Al1 ` ;ild'd i.e ' Fit o : t -. MAY CREEK P,' , [ [ y- r i V, LOWER CEDAR PVEA Rr+ c.s- t 71:7 t-r'- I 1 s. OUWMfSH 1: 841---r lI y 6P1 I L T-` 1ill 4 aouTA1.-prp 4r a r L 1 1 #' 1 1 4• .1 / '.u4 c0,1 I fir\ f/\ J 1 it I_' r f IMIII!1 LAEE Q"TNLEE i J a r..•' Ifll.i TIFFANY I.. l -*I' BASIS Y Er•. , / 1a1,( LEINo V:.. a D N Sub—Basin Names 4\ 1t'ryJl Sub—Basin 8oundr 1TV a I a 1 1d Municipal Boundries A. I = Urban Growth Boundary 3i•tl' VALLEY 1c2 JI I1< 61 —I— gel= 1, 2 I+e , 4 x iea. . •PIMP 0 4000 8000 M 1 C w s 1 II 11 I r i[r 6 i• a ,t` ' ,.li. • ea w l.l x... c i I i,!1 ,: L I i -.1 a P ' '"'fie vc-e,•..zr r c 1:4 8,0 0 0 i',.. .,t, ; i.c1 . 1 i. tli2.4 J . I C .) ( . _ PA a i, r T-'-' L.A HIE i— g ` ,1.` oTC R y r ya °i f •s r ._ ' _I +. \ e 1 to 1 _ '—, r 4. ?;r.. 1 6P 1 NG kE i._.O. M.Dotson o Je. _ I L S7.-7r' L'is c R.MacOnie. D.Visneski o•' i d s' aim L.I MAY 25.1995 i 11. AT v- 3 Y LAKE Illigr SOURCE CITY OF RENTON, 199E nE c q ' r FIGURE II-2 ISLAND: f eo 3,•" I. F I I CITY OF RENTONH SURFACE WATERr F L44.....,..,4_,..H!'---', 1:41. .''.: .\'''i "'=_: PROBLEM SITES LAZE •ASHINGTON 1 J lira I 7 L. e y. 4 •e+r a1 -rn s .+ SEATTI:$ . l",Ps'e _ It L y" `` j -o.; •': 4it:::,:;BASNS w S f1114-' B I\• t 7 •>. P' W.i ii JE..'. y' I. l.. ...r,, -\, . SOOS CHmc ram af, s ', • y * BLAcx FIVER 7tL 3 q PS1 f•'. •» rsr a rr `• -', .. h, ' t Z`-- t' ;i r.. WEST LAKE WASHNGTON 4 E Z`hl.` 4 1; 1 d ^ •, pg 4 y I N EAST LADE WASF*JGTONll Witt:. »srZ a ciyti 1 ` 1. w i t r WY aux A4 yi; ; 1: y • t411t).I LOWER CEDAR FIVER D DONNAS/1 tt.r;'*,••••..o,,,,,' ' ) 4,14.il---`= N%t: er 4 zifv, Malitiolo LLB11- mi Rata I it'll wig p9 e•P•10 Il" tea,.l YiAi, 9 1, PS 1f L= kuit i LASE Tatsr Ahig Hi f:-..... y'• rr s , *' p as,'s';_..",, r:• ,"„.`^ 1 i Z. i", __., Municipal Boundries TUK- 1214 . - _ P3 1D '\ va_. Ak Urban Growth Boundary 20MI‘ •• livirwl E .-, -- -.l 111 4` : a t y tl •IL'\ 0 400 0 8000 7I / I a I- ir 1 ••\, -,, i1 •1'1W2,71' J Ir,' PS- 'ii I'^t., •_ .. f. ;I. o.,. yil 3 1••Ps=a2 ate` I a, tidl i 11 _ 1:4 8,0 O O 41 y li s i I y. —, , i k Siy r^ •, ji I p M.Dotsoi x R.MacO nie. D.Visneski MAY 25• 1995tII',,, J T p[y I ar1+ Ip i L. " w it e`._ dr IWINE ei'_ i` I' I 'Yi ", JADY LAKE c/v orc rim,nc ocNrnu coos.. a. i ' KE i v 1 •' : t 1---- TABLE II-1 RENTON DRAINAGE BASIN AREAS (square miles) Basin Area between Potential current City Limits FutureTotalBasinBasinAreaandtheUrbanSurfaceWaterAreawithincurrentGrowthBoundaryUtilityServiceBasinsquaremiles)City Limits U.G.B.) Area May Creek 14.04 1.69 0.97 2.66 East Lake Washington 3.48 3.08 0.00 3.08 Gypsy 0.70 0.30 0.00 0.30 West Kennydale 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.31 South Kenneydale 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.35 North Renton 2.12 2.12 0.00 2.12 Cedar River 188.00 4.56 10.40 14.96 West Lake Washington 2.19 0.39 1.80 2.19 Black River 24.00 6.05 2.39 8.44 Soos Creek 65.63 0.01 3.22 3.23 Duwamish 130.00 0.02 1.31 1.33 Total Square Miles 427.34 15.80 20.09 35.78 r November 1995 11-4 Surface Water Utility Comprehensive Plan report, does not drain Gypsy Creek. To eliminate confusion this area has been called the Gypsy Sub-Basin" of the East Lake Washington Basin. imo Hydrology and Land Use - Present Conditions: The area drained by this culvert is a steep slope which has recently begun to be developed for commercial use and multi-family residential units. The 1986 report includes peak flood flow estimates for the current condition 25-year Dillstormof46cfs. However, the recent (April 1995) draft report on the Gypsy Sub-basin predicts that the current 25-year storm flow is 83 cfs. The 100-year value is predicted to be 101 cfs. Hydrology and Land Use - Future Conditions: This area drained by the "Gypsy Creek Culvert" near I-405, is zoned for neighborhood commercial development. Restaurants, multi- family residential complexes and other commercial uses will continue to be built in this basin. The flows predicted for the future conditions 25-year storm for the Gypsy sub-basin is 138 cfs draft report). This is an expected increase of over 66 percent from current conditions. Flooding - Present Conditions: Flooding in this basin is the result of significant new development in recent years without the necessary improvements to the drainage system. At several locations on SE 110th Place, water flows across the pavement in sheet flow because there are no ditches alongside the road to carry flow. Major flooding occurred in 1990 near the Denny's and McDonald's restaurants because the culverts under several streets and particularly under I-405 had insufficient capacity to handle the flows. Even after water passed under I-405,11111 the ditches and pipes on the west side of the freeway had insufficient capacity and properties along Ripley Lane were flooded. The locations where flooding has occurred historically are shown on Figure 11-2. Flooding - Future Conditions: Problems in the Gypsy sub-basin will increase because of the 111111 increase in impervious area expected in this area. Similar to South Kennydale area, there is 1111111potentialforincreasedfloodingandpossiblehillsideslopestabilityproblems. Even though the culvert under I-405 has been enlarged, flooding continues to occur indicating that there may be other problems. The study of the area currently underway has shown that many of the facilities are undersized at the present time and that higher future flows will increase the frequency of g 1111 Pill orth Renton Su b-basinSubbasin The North Renton sub-basin is one of the most critical drainage basins in the city because it PINdrainsahighlydevelopedareaofthecity (See Figure 11-1). The basin includes a developed upland area which slopes down to a flat valley floor along the Cedar River. Within the boundaries of the North Renton sub-basin are the PACCAR facility, portions of the Boeing facilities and numerous residential and commercial sites. Flows from the North Renton sub-basin enter several culvert systems and flow into John's Creek. This creek flows into Lake Washington at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. Both flood flows and water quality data are important for the bird and fish species established in the wildlife habitat near the outlet, in addition to the enjoyment of beach and boat launch facilities by the public. 11111 November 1995 11-15 Surface Water Utility Comprehensive Plan Hydrology and Land Use - Present Conditions: A February, 1992, drainage report prepared for the City of Renton and PACCAR (the South Garden Avenue Storm Drain) analyzed the capacity of the storm drain system as a planning tool for the design of a new truck plant at the PACCAR Renton site. The hydrologic analysis of the North Renton basin was conducted using the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph (SBUH) method to compute runoff rates. The basin was divided into sub-basins for analysis, and grouped, as presented in Table H-4. The upland basins were combined for an "East Basin" analysis. This basin includes the area south of Sunset Boulevard and east of I-405. The flows from this area flow into the storm system at the east end of North Eighth Street. The three northernmost sub-basins were combined into a "North Basin". The flows from this area drain residential neighborhoods and flow into a pond on the south side of Lake Washington Boulevard prior to discharging into Johns Creek. The "Valley Basin" includes all valley areas and some Boeing facilities which were not part of the PACCAR facility. The PACCAR site was modeled individually, as was "Sub-Basin 15", a small area straddling I-405 which drains into the PACCAR facility. Note that the values shown in Table II-4 represent the flows from each individual area and are not combined at the downstream locations. These analyses determined that, under current land use conditions, the runoff from the sub- basins is severely restricted by the limited capacity of the downstream facilities. As such, flood waters back up and flood portions of the PACCAR site. The analysis indicated that upgrading the existing storm system would be beneficial. As a result of this analysis additional storm drain improvements were designed and constructed for PACCAR and the City. Improvements included the installation of a 72-inch storm drain between the intersection of Garden Avenue North and North 8th Street and Lake Washington Blvd. Hydrology and Land Use - Future Conditions: Almost all of the North Renton sub-basin has been developed and no major changes in land use are expected to occur. Except for some minor infill in the residential areas in the North Basin and East Basin areas, little additional development is likely. Only minor changes in future flows are expected, thus these flows have not been modeled. TABLE H-4 PREDICTED PEAK FLOWS (CFS) FOR THE NORTH RENTON SUB-BASIN Current Sub-Basin 2-Year Peak 10-Year Peak 25-Year Peak 100-Year Peak Name Flood Flows Flood flows Flood flows flood Flows East Basin 94 155 191 228 North Basin 47 78 98 118 Valley Floor 20 30 35 41 PACCAR Site 10 15 18 21 Sub-Basin 15 11 18 22 25 November 1995 II-16 Surface Water Utility Comprehensive Plan Flooding - Present Conditions: As shown on Figure 11-2, flooding occurs at numerous locations within this basin. For the most part, it appears that the collection systems on the upland parts of the basin have sufficient capacity but when the flows reach the flatter, downstream portions of the basin, these pipes have insufficient capacity and flooding occurs. Recent installation of drainage pipes at the Boeing and PACCAR facilities and by the City of Renton should alleviate some of these problems. Flooding - Future Conditions: Because of the relatively small change in expected land use, flood flows are not expected to greatly increase. The installation of the pipes along Garden11.1 Avenue should have eliminated most of the flooding problems. Some capacity restrictions in the sub-basin will remain due to undersized storm systems components and backwater conditions from Lake Washington. Future high flows at the mouth of John's Creek and Lake Washington111111 may occur because of the increased pipe capacity. Cedar River Basin The Cedar River runs through downtown Renton while the Cedar River Basin extends far beyond the city boundaries. Sub-basins of the Cedar River Basin within Renton include the Lower Ceebar River, Maplewood, Mt. Olivet, Tiffany and Arnold. Several additional sub-basins are located within the UGB including Fairwood, Madsen, and Orting Hill. The drainage networks within this basin are quite varied. The Lower Cedar River sub-basin, for instance, drains downtown Renton, large portions of the Boeing facilities, and adjacent 11111industrialandcommercialareas. Closed pipe networks deliver surface runoff directly to the Cedar River. The upper portions of the basin, Maplewood and Tiffany, collect runoff in piped systems but typically discharge to natural stream channels before being conveyed to the Cedar River. 1111111 Basin Planning Status The City and King County entered into an interlocal agreement to develop a basin plan for the PIN Cedar River. In November, 1993, King County SWM produced the Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report. This report includes information on the environmental setting of the Cedar River, currently and in the geologic past, and analyses of surface water hydrology, flooding, erosion, water quality and aquatic habitats. The basin was studied for changing land use and its effects upon the river hydrology. The analyses divided the river basin into three geographic components. The components included the Upper Basin, the area above the Seattle Water Department's Landsburg Diversion, and the Middle and Lower Basins. This study addresses hydrologic problems in areas-within the city boundary, within the urban growth boundary, as well as the area beyond the city limits. The Cedar River Basin Plan is planned for completion in 1995; a draft "Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan" was completed in February, 1995. t__,November 1995 11-17 Surface Water Utility Comprehensive Plan Investigations and corrective actions in problem storm drains Investigation of spills, fish kills, improper connections, dumping, etc. Local coordination arrangements with neighboring jurisdictions. Public education Monitoring The likely expectation is that the City will be required to move towards the adoption of the PSWQMP Comprehensive Program to fulfill its obligations to the watershed permit noted above. Department of Ecology shows the City to be within their boundary for adoption of the PSWQMP Comprehensive Stormwater Program. CITY POLICIES AND THE SURFACE WATER QUALITY PROGRAM The City has established policies or made commitments to neighboring jurisdictions which must be taken into consideration in shaping a surface water quality program. The core of the City's policies are expressed in the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. The elements that bear on a surface water quality program are summarized in Table III-2. The City has met 15 of 16 commitments to improve conditions in the Green River basin (City of Renton, 1990) through the City's land use policies, its requirement for treatment in new developments, and its preparation of the Black River Water Quality Management Plan. The only commitment not met is the sponsoring of citizen cleanups in the creeks. TYPES AND SOURCES OF SURFACE WATER POLLUTION IN RENTON The types and sources of pollutants in Renton is typical of other urban areas. Table III-3 lists the pollutants most commonly found in urban runoff, and the more significant sources. Also presented in Table III-3 are the concentration ranges observed in Renton and elsewhere in urban areas. EXISTING WATER QUALITY AND ITS EE'r'ECTS ON BENEFICIAL USES Following is a brief summary of the existing water quality in each of the City's significant water bodies and its possible effect on existing beneficial uses. Their locations are shown in Figure 11-1. A detailed assessment is presented in Appendix J. cjc- Johns' Creek Summer is the period of most interest because of swimming and other water activities at Coulon Park. Water quality during dry weather is generally good with some exceptions. The fecal conform standard is exceeded and high nitrate concentrations exist indicating that there may be discharges of sewage to the storm drains by older exfiltrating and/or improperly connected sanitary sewers. November 1995 M-4 Surface Water Utility Comprehensive Plan 5 4 JnAdd iz.C' If they exist, sewage discharges should to be eliminated given the importance of Coulon Park. Preliminary testing suggests that sewage may be entering the storm drains. Storm sampling has detected several organic compounds not normally found in urban stormwater; their sources have not yet been located. The most important factor in limiting the health of the biological community in John's Creek is most likely excessive storm flows rather than degraded water quality. Lake Washington There are no data to judge the current level of water quality within the immediate area of the City shoreline but it is generally believed to be good. Water quality along Coulon Park is likely affected most by the water quality of John's Creek which is generally good with exceptions noted above. Sediment in the vicinity of the mouth of John's Creek and the outfall from the Black River Box Culvert appear to be moderately polluted. The concentrations of several sediment parameters exceeded those found at other outfalls in Lake Washington. The reason for this difference is not known, but may be because the Metro tested outfalls into Lake Washington are of tributaries that are primarily residential whereas the City's outfalls drain commercial and industrial areas. Cedar River The water quality is excellent and has remained essentially the same over the past 15 years. The City of Renton does not likely alter significantly the water quality of the Cedar River during storms as the City's loading is small relative to the river flow. Limited sampling has found in some City outfalls contaminated sediments and unusually highly polluted stormwater. The sediments should be removed and the sources of which should be located. However, the existing beneficial uses - swimming, floating, and fisheries - are not currently at risk. In the future, the beneficial uses of the water body may be impacted due to increased diversion of water resources for municipal water supply and increased development within the watershed. Maplewood Creek Maplewood likely has good if not excellent water quality during dry weather. Limited data indicate that during storms pollutant concentrations become elevated, in particular metals and nutrients, and probably petroleum products. It is likely that the water quality standards for some metals are exceeded during storms. The fishery is degraded, but most likely due to excessive stormwater flows, fish passage barriers and the lack of habitat structure rather than the temporary degradation of water quality during storms. The "Cedar River Basin Currents and Future Conditions Report," April 1993, documented a septic failure rate of approximately 13% within the Maplewood Creek sub-basin. This is higher than the normal septic system failure rate of 5% established by the Department of Health and could impact the quality of the water resources within the basin. Tiffany (Ginger) Creek Similar analysis as above for Maplewood Creek. November 1995 II ...7 Surface Water Utility Comprehensive Plan TABLE VI-2 SURFACE WATER UTILITY CIP MAJOR PROJECTS Y ' r ' `' ` 2`[` ' `'f' ' `i` 2z2( <' > ' <0+' "%! ''' '`^`j S[ % ' '}> ct ' ' >? ? 2f ' r ? ? ?' .. `'< >> r? .. ' •„> ? Gt9'K WMWMMOMMCOULONCULVERTMAINTENANCECREWSHAVERESPONDED1ICCA!:g;i:c;::it:::;;::::;.;;:;:: ,ii;i5:: ;::;;:;::;;:3;<i:? iP.b> .. :: 4y0 ...,...TO CONTINUE TO MONITOR CAPACITY PROBLEMS CAPACITY RESTRICTIONS( INNTHE.. o NO DEN I r ..iIMPROVEMENTS(RR FEW FLOODING COMPLAINTS IN THIS AREA. IN THIS AREA. FUTURE CAPACITY rxraxrrx;CQ3I PUNdlAIlQUREYfS..;iiTRACKSTOCOULONPARK) THE EXISTING DOWNSTREAM CULVERT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE NEEDED(CULVERT ROAD TRACKS STORM AND ODULpPARE AYN RAIL LOW f NONE IDENTIFIED SYSTEM FROM RR TRACKS TO COULON BEACH IMPROVEMENTS). SURFACE WATER QUALITY RESULT IN UPSTREAM FLOODING(N.ITN STRESTRICTTHECAPACITYOFTHE72' IMPROVEMENTS MAY ALSO NEED TO BE MADE AND GARDEN AVE). MAINTENANCE CREWSCITY/PACCAR STORM INTERCEPTOR AND MAY TO PROTECT THE SWIMMING BEACHCAUSEUPSTREAMFLOODINGINTHEFUTURE. (REGIONAL WETPONDIVAULT). HAVEN'T NOTED ANY PROBLEMS WITH TINS SYSTEM. CR-1-M LOWER CEDAR RIVER RIVER FLOODING IMPACT'S THE BOEING CEDAR RIVER BASIN PROJECTS(CR) NT THESEDIMENTMANAGEMENTBRIDGES,BOEING PROPERTY,AND PUBLIC CONTROL ALTERNATIVE TO BEIDEN D FLOOD IN NOVEMBE MAJOR RFLOODING1990. FLOODING OF PUBLIC PLAN(LOWER CEDAR BRIDGES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND CITY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CEDAR RIVER AND PRIVATE PROPERTY OCCURS,AND BOEING HIGH f,800,000 ARMY CORPS OFRIVER205FLOODCONTROLPROPERTY(PARKS,STREETS&AIRPORT). 205 FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT THAT IS ENGINEERS/ECOLOGYPROTECT)-LOGAN AVE N. SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION IN RIVER BRIDGES ARE THREATENED,DURING MORE FLOOD CONTROL GET NEAR BOEING(EAST CHANNEL HAS INCREASE THE FLOODPLAIN ESTIMATED TO STTLYIN ART IN),.997 NCONSTRUCTION FREQUENT FLOODS. PROBLEM WILL CONTINUED ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTPERIMETERRD)(CR-1-S OLD ELEVATION WHICH INCREASED FLOODING. SEDIMENT WORSE IN THE FUTURE DUE TO RFLOWSEDIMENTBUILDUPANDHIGHERFLOW CR-2-M STONEWAY GRAVEL, INUNDATION OR ISOLATION IN LARGER FLOOD BEING INVESTIGATED IN CEDAR RIVER BASIN RIVERA APTS.FLOOD INCARGOTHEATER,CITY EVENTS. PROBLEM RESULTS IN DAMAGE TO PLAN(CRBP)• FLOOD PROOFING OF CITY HALL CARCO&CITY HALL FLOODED LAST IN 1990, i HALL,RIVERA APTS.AND PUBLIC PROPERTY(CARGO THEATER.CITY EXTREME EVENTS. LOW fT23,000 WITH A FLOOD WALL COULD REDUCE NONE IDENTIFIED(CR),PRIVATE HOMES ALONG HALL)AND COULD IMPACT BRIDGES. FLOOD DAMAGE. CURRENT FLOODPIAIN DURING FLOOD). AN EXTREME&UNUSUAL EVENT(I(10 Hill goodwill ody)RIVER PROOFING MEASURES FOR PUBLIC AND YEAR DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SHOULD BEPRIVATEFACILITIESSHOULDBE REQUIRED DURING REDEVELOPMENT OFINVESTIGATED. PRIVATE PROPERTY. November 1995 VI-7 y,.ruyYw:,L + ... :.dly, J4a 4< a ."SURFACE WATER UnL1TYPROMIEMS-INVENTORY _ R '. ./14A i/os, ,:1,,,PROBLEM f PROBLEM vlclvllY BASIN S 1 COMMENTS FLOODING WATER AQUATIC& PROJECTSITE NUMBER / 1 U I gUALITY ..:WILDLI F IDENTIFIED TO j E3 HABITAT SOLVE THIS PPROBLEM PS-5O DENNEYS E. LAKE 11 LOCALIZED FLOODING OF X X ELW-3-SRESTAURANT@NEWASHTHESTREETANDON 44TH AND LK WA PRIVATE PROPERTY BLVD. OCCURS DUE TO LACK OF DOWNSTREAM SYSTEM CAPACITY. PS-51 ENTIRE BASIN AREA MAY 20 METALS, FECAL COLIFORM X MAY CREEKOFMAYCREEKCREEKANDTOTALSUSPENDEDBASINPLAN SOLIDS EXCEED STANDARDS PS-52 JOHNS CREEK AT EAST 14 LACK OF CHANNEL AND X ELW-2-MCOULONPARKLAKECULVERTCAPACITY WASH RESTRICT FLOWS WHICH RESULTS IN SURCHARGING OF THE UPSTREAM STORM SYSTEM (GARDEN AVENUE 72" CULVERT) AND PONDING IN STREETS AND PARKING LOTS. PS-53 1700 BLK NE 20TH EAST 13 UNDERSIZED CULVERTS X ELW-1-SLAKEANDDITCHES WASH CONTRIBUTE TO LOCALIZED FLOODING PS-54 N 26TH ST.; GARDEN EAST 12 NO DEFINED DRAINAGE X ELW-2-STOPARKPLN. LAKE SYSTEM WASH PS-55 NE 10TH AND MONROE EAST 14 LOCALIZED FLOODING OF X ELW-3-SAVENELAKETHESTREETANDPRIVATE WASH PROPERTY. FREQUENTLY OCCURS. THE STORM SYSTEM IN THE STREET LACKS CAPACITY. THE LACK OF DOWNSTREAM STORM SYSTEM CAPACITY MAY ALSO BE CAUSING THE PROBLEM. I:DOCS:95-480.Ix)c:M DD.ps Page 9 Appendix J Water Quality Assessment Prepared By Gary Minton Resource Planning Associates APPENDIX 2 Viewing: Table D-3 indicates that viewing occurs in almost every water body. However, a distinction is made with a footnote as to viewing by the general public using public access points such as a park, and viewing only by residents whose property abuts the water body. The distinction is made because realistically the City should in the near term focus its limited resources on water bodies with access by the general public rather than only by private property owners. Because of the lack of access even for abutting property owners, viewing is not considered a likely beneficial use in there water bodies. Fish and Wildlife: Attempting to maintain or enhance either of these beneficial uses must also recognize that other factors impact the viability of a water body to support the use. Fish require cover, food, proper water depth, and well vegetated riparian areas in addition to good water quality. The City should use its resources in a balanced manner to improve all habitat requirements rather than just water quality. Given the interest of the general public in maintaining or restoring salmonid fish in urban streams existing information on the condition of these species is summarized in Table D-4. A preliminary evaluation is provided as to the quality of the fish habitat and the constraints to its improvement. The information presented in Table D-4 is derived from fish surveys, not anecdotal knowledge As many of these surveys are old the current situation may be considerably different. SUMMARY OF WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY A..,Presented is a summary for each water body based upon the analysis presented in the later half of this appendix. Within the limitations of the existing data base the water quality, and in some cases sediment quality, is evaluated for each water body in Table D-1. The existing water quality is then contrasted to the beneficial uses. John's Creek With swimming at Coulon Park water quality during dry weather is of concern; it is generally good with two exceptions. The fecal coliform standard is routinely exceeded and high nitrate concentrations exist indicating sewage may be entering storm drains from sanitary sewers that are exfiltrating or inadvertently connected to storm drains. During storms organic compounds are below detection limits. Exceptions are PAH, chrysene, phthalate, 4-methylphenol, toulene, benzoic acid, and 1,3-dichlorobenzene. Their sources are unknown. Excessive storm flow rather than degraded water quality is likely the limiting factor for a healthy biological community. Because there is little vacant land remaining in the watershed conditions are not likely to change because of new development. The most important beneficial use in Renton may be recreation on the Lake Washington shoreline at Coulon Park and Kennydale Beach Park. The evidence is not strong that sewage is entering the storm drains in the John's Creek watershed. Nonetheless, it is prudent to determine if this is occurring given the importance of the park. There are no S7( data of stormwater discharges from drains within the immediate vicinity of Kennydale Beach Park. lift i Southern Shoreline of Lake Washington Of primary interest is the shoreline at Coulon Park and Kennydale Park because ofswimming. While there are no data conditions are generally believed to be good.Sediment in the vicinity of the mouth of John's Creek and the outfall from the BlackRiverBoxCulvertappeartobemoderatelypolluted. The concentrations of severalparametersfarexceededthosefoundbyMetroatotheroutfallsinLakeWashingtonThereasonfor-this difference is not known but it may be because the other outfallsdraintributariesthatareprimarilyresidentialwhereastheCity's outfalls drain areaswhichcontaincommercialandindustrialareas. New development will have a modest impact on the water and sediment quality of thej shoreline. Less than 200 acres of about 3,000 acres in the City and unincorporated KingCountythatdraindirectlytoLakeWashington (West Hill, North Renton, Kennydale andGypsyBasins) are undeveloped. The swimming area of Coulon Park is likely affected by the quality of John's Creek.Therefore, the above discussions regarding fecal coliform bacteria in John's Creek is ofconcerntotheuseofCoulonPark. It is not likely that swimming conditions atKennydale•Beach Park is at risk, but there are no data of storm discharges near the park. Cedar River and its tributaries in the City Water quality of the Cedar River is excellent and has not changed over theStormwaterfromtheCity's does not likely alter the water quality of the Cedar Rive ears. The City's loading is small relative to the flow of the River. However, stormwater fromsomeoftheCity's outfalls may be more highly polluted than is normal for urban areas.New development will have a modest impact on future water quality trends of the CedarRiver. Of 3,000 acres in the City that drain to river about 300 acres are undevelopedlandthatiszonedsingle-family residential. It Maplewood and Tiffany Creeks have been degraded by storm flows and pollutants fromresidentialdevelopmentintheCityandunincorporatedKingCountyty The water quality is excellent for swimming at Cedar River Park, boating (rafting, tubing),and fish/fishery. Of all water bodies in the City the Cedar River is at the least risk fordegradedwaterquality. May and Honey Creek The water quality of May Creek appears to have high fecal coliform bacteria and nitrateduringdryweatherconditions, suggesting failing septic tanks and/or seepage frommanurespreadonthefieldsofhobbyfarms. As only the lower 10% of the basin iswithintheCity, the sources of this degradation are likely in King County. There are,however, septic tanks in the City in the Honey Creek subbasin. There are no data on Honey Creek but it is likely that water quality is good during dryweatherwithconditionsworseningduringstormsinregardtoturbidityandmetals. APPENDIX 9 pollutants come upstream of the City any significant improvement in water and sediment quality requires action by the City of Kent. Renton should develop a definitive cooperative program with the City of Kent. CO‘IPARISON TO DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY STANDARDS The judgments presented in Table D-5 are based upon the analysis of water quality data and where possible the sediment data) presented in this appendix. Question marks appear in many places because of limited data. With the exceptions of May and Springbrook Creeks the City's water bodies generally meet water quality standards during periods of dry weather. All of the City's water bodies with the possible exception of the Cedar River probably do not meet standards during storms with respect to metals, fecal coliform, phosphorus, and turbidity. The likely causes of the water quality problems identified or suspected in each of the City's water bodies are presented in Table D-6. Only the water bodies within the City limits are presented as these are of most immediate concern to the City. As noted previously Springbrook and probably May Creek are signficantly degraded before they enter the City. COMPARISON OF WATER QUALITY TO BENEFICIAL USES Table D-7 presents judgments on the quality of the water for each beneficial use. Over the long term the City should try to achieve the water quality standards. In the short term the City's focus should be on incrementally improving all factors that affect the quality of a beneficial use rather than just water quality. As shown in Table D-4 here are other constraints to improving beneficial uses. PRIORITIES AND NEEDS Table D-8 presents one approach to establishing priorities. Three criteria are used as indicated in the table. Emphasis is given to public swimming because poor water quality presents the greatest risk to human health. From Table D-8 the following grouping is made. PRIORITY GROUPING WATER BODIES 1 John's - May, Honey, Springbrook, Black River PS Pond, Kennydale 3 Panther Creek wetland, Orting Hills, Tiffany, Maplewood 4 Cedar, Lake Washington, Gypsy APPENDIX 10 1 Johns Creek: It should be determined if the source of fecal coliform bacteria is exfiltrating and/or inappropriately connected sanitary sewers. Special testing procedures are now available that can indicate if the bacteria are of human origin. The industriaU commercial area should be searched for inappropriate connections of floor drains to the storm drain as possible sources of PAH, chrysene, phthalate, 4-methylphenol, toulene, benzoic acid, and 1,3-dichlorobenzene. Kennydale Creek and vicinity: flow from the creek and the drains within the immediate vicinity of the park should be checked for fecal coliform bacteria. If found in unusual quantities and of human origin, its sources should be identified. I Springbrook Creek: The City should develop a cooperative program with the City of I Kent which seeks to identify the underlying causes of the degraded water quality and j corrective solutions. Of immediate concern are summer water quality conditions given the desirability of improving summer rearing for salmonids. Black River Pump Station Pond: Sediment quality should be determined. The cooperative program mentioned above should also include measures to reduce the Iupstreamproductionofsedimentwhichsettlesinthepond. The industriaUcommercial area tributary to the Naches Avenue outfall should be searched for inappropriate connections of floor drains to the storm drain as possible sources of what appears to be higher than normal pollutant discharges. Honey and May Creeks: The commercial area tributary to the Honey Creek should be Isearchedforinappropriateconnectionsoffloordrainstothestormdrain. Of a lower priority is the need to evaluate the fish habitat quality of Honey Creek. Panther Creek wetland: There is a need to determine what fraction of stormwater passes through rather than around the wetland, and the nature of toxicant buildup (such as metals) in the wetland soils and flora. Cedar River: The commercial area tributary to the Logan Street Bridge outfall, where highly polluted sediments were recently found, to should be searched for inappropriate connections of floor drains to the storm drain. The sediments should be removed TABLE D-5 COMPARISON OF EXISTING WATER QUALITY TO STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS WATER BODY TEMP METALS OXYGEN FECAL AMMONIA NUTRIENTS pH TURBIDITY John's Crcck1'2 yes? 5 no?4 yes? no yes no no no Lake Washington3 ,___ yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Cedar Rivera yes yes? yes no yes no yes yes? Maplewood Creek yes? no?4 yes? no yes? no yes? no Tiffany(Ginger) Ck yes? no?4 yes? no? yes? no? yes? no? Molasses Creek yes'? no?4 yes? no? yes? no? yes? no? Madsen Creek yes'? no'?4 yes? no yes? no yes no Oning Hills Creek yes? no? 4 yes? no yes? no yes no May Creek3 yes? no4 yes'? no yes? no? yes? no? Honey Creek3 _ yes'' no4 yes? no? yes'? no? yes? no? Springbrook Creck3 no no no no yes no yes no Panther Ck Wetland no? no?4 no'? no? yes'? no? no? no? Black River PS Pond no? no? 4 no'? no? yes? no? yes? no? Panther Lake yes'? yes? yes'? yes?yes? no yes?yes? Rolling Hills Creek yes? no4 yes'? no? yes? no yes? no? Panther Creek yes? no4 yes'? no'? yes'? no yes no? Gypsy Basin ycs? no?4 yes? no? yes? no? yes? no? Kennydale Creek yes'? no?4 yes'? no'? yes'? no? yes? no? Skyway" Creek yes? no?4 yes'? no? yes? no? yes? no? I. Water bodies in bold are considered to be the most significant water bodies in the City's Urban Growth Boundary. 2. Of interest are the conditions at Coulon Park north to Kennydale Park. 3. Portion of stream or river in the City's Urban Growth Boundary. 4. Likely fails to meet metals standards during storms(most likely zinc and copper), but meets standards during dry weather base flows. 5. "?" indicates judgment based on little or no data APPENDIX 12 TABLE D-6 LIKELY CAUSES OF WATER QUALITY CONCERNS IN THE CITY'S WATER BODIES WATER BODY BASIN WATER QUALITY CONCERNS LIKELY CAUSES John's Creek North Renton Possible bacterial contamination during dry weather Improperly connected sanitary side sewers or floor drainsToxicorganics to the storm system; inaLakeWashingtonCedarModeratelycontaminatedsediments ppropriate or inadvertent dumping.Street runoff, improperly connected floor drains, inappropriate or inadvertent dumping via John's Creek and the Black River Culvert.Cedar River Cedar Contaminated sediments in storm drainsMayCreekMayHighbacteriaandnitrateduringdryand wet weather Improperly connected floor drains, inappropriate dumping Failing septic tanks and/or washoff from hobby farms inHoneyCreekMayHighturbidityandmetalsduringstormsunincorporatedKingCounty. Springbrook Creek Black River Low dissolved oxygen Urban runoff Poor water quality conditions exist before the creek reachesHighsummertemperatures Renton. Cause of poor dissolved oxygen not understood-Metal toxicity may be due to poor groundwater quality such as low DO,High fecal coliform bacteria and iron, sulfides and managanese which consume oxygenHighnutrients in the creek; high temHighturbidityandsuspendedsolids g peratures caused by lack of streamside shade; high turbidity during dry weather mayContaminatedsediments be due to iron in groundwater; poor water quality duringdryweathermeanscausesarenotsolelystreetwashoff during storms; may be failing septic tanks in the PantherCreekwatershed. Contaminated sediments caused byWesternProcessgandotherKent Panther Wetland Black River Possible introduction of high levels of nutrients, sediments Street runoff from Rolling Hills inputs d Panther Creek basin;and metals, and fluctuating water levels. phosphorus in Panther Creek may be from hobby farms.Black River Pump Black River Contaminated sediments, low dissolved oxygen, Same causes as noted for Springbrook Creek; discha rgesStationPondhightemperatures. Rolling Hills, Gypsy, from the Nachos Ave outfall.High metals during storms Stonnwater nmofhfrom streets.Kolling lilOrting Hills, Maplewood. l . pral .. I I ., 7'7 l l I 1 LI I i i i APPENDIX 13 TABLE D-7 EXISTING WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY1 RELATIVE TO THE NEEDS OF EACI1 BENEFICIAL USE, EXISTING OR POTENTIAL FISH/ WATER BODY BASIN SWIMMING VIEWING BOATING FISHING WILDLIFE John's Creek2 North Renton good fair good Lake Washington3,4 Cedar excellent? excellent excellent good good Cedar River4 Cedar excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent Maplewood Creek Cedar good? fair good Tiffany (Ginger) Creek Cedar _ good? fair? good? Molasses Creek Cedar good? fair? good? Madsen Creek Cedar good? fair good Oiling {dills Creek Cedar good? fair good May Creek4 May good? fair good Honey Creek4 May good? fair good Springhrook Creek4 Black River fair poor poor Panther Ck Wetland Black River good good? fair? good? Black River PS Pond Black River good? poor? fair? Panther Lake Black River good good good good? good? _ Rolling Hills Creek Black River good? fair? good? Panther Creek Black River good? fair? good? Unnamed Creek Gypsy good? fair'? good? Kennvdale Creek Kennvdale fair? good? Skyway" Creek West {till fair'? good? I. A blank space implies that water quality is not relevant for the particular beneficial use because it does not or cannot occur in the particular water body. 2 Water bodies in bold are considered to be the most significant water bodies in the City's Urban Growth Boundary. 3. Of interest are the conditions at Coulon Park north to Kennydale Park. 3. Portion of stream or river with the City's Urban Growth Boundary 5. "?" indicates judgment based on little or no data APPENDIX 14 TABLE D-8 PRIORITIZATION WATER BODY HIGHEST BENEFICIAL WATER IMPLENT TOTAL RANK EXISTING USE USE QUALITY ABILITY John's Creek i swimming 5 3 3 45 Lake Washington swimming 5 1 1 5 4 Cedar River swimming 5 I 1 5 4 Maplewood Creek fishery 3 3 1 9 3 Tiffany (Ginger) Creek fishery 3 3 1 9 3 Orting Hills Creek wildlife 1 3 3 9 3 May Creek fishery 3 3 1 9 3 Honey Creek viewing 3 3 1 9 3 Springbrook Creek fishery 3 5 I 15 2 Black River PS Pond Class I wetland 3 5 1 15 2 Panther Creek wetland Class I wetland 3 3 I 9 3 Gypsy Basin wildlife 1 3 1 3 4 Kennydale Creek swinuningl 5 I 3 15 2 1. Swimming in City park near outlet of the creek Criteria 1. beneficial use (show highest use only with heavy emphasis to swimming) swimming- highest priority -score 5 noncontact recreation such as viewing, education, fishing-score 3 significant biological resource such as salmonid fishery -score 3 general fishery or wildlife - third priority -score 1 Criteria 2. existing water quality poor -score 5 fair - score 3 good -score I Criteria 3. Implementability water body totally within City limits or formal agreement with neighboring jurisdiction-score 3 upper areas of watershed arc outside City limits-score I i 1Hiltio, i r.- •I 1 I 1 1 NORTH RENTON BASIN John's Creek Only about the final 2,000 feet of the original creek remains in open channel. Since Coulon Park has contact recreation (swimming), the primary concern is with bacteriological water quality during dry periods rather than storms, swimming seldom occurs during or immediately following storms. Of lesser concern, but not insignificant, are those parameters that affect the surface appearance such as floatables and sheens. Fishing occurs in the park; therefore the toxicant loadings in John's Creek and its impact on sediment and water quality along the shoreline of Lake Washington is also important. Conditions during base flows: Base flows were recently sampled by the City (Renton, 1993a) at six locations in the basin. The fecal coliform standard (50 organisms/ 100 mis) was exceeded at three of the stations, representing about 70% of the land within the basin Table D-9). Because the numbers are not high, 66 to 112, suggests that there are few if any improper connections of sanitary side sewers to the storm drain system. While the rather high nitrate concentrations at three stations (two of which also had the higher coliform counts) may indicate the presense of inproper connections, lawn fertilization may also be the cause. It is important to note that despite its widespread use as a standard fecal coliform bacteria is generally recognized as a poor indicator of the presense of pathogenic organisms Ecology, 1992; Field, et al, 1993). Research has shown that even when the fecal coliform counts far exceed the water quality standard, pathogenic organisms may not be present in significant numbers. Conversely, pathogenic organisms may be present in significant numbers even when the fecal coliform count is quite low. Because of its limitations Esherichia coli, fecal streptococci, and/or enterococci are considered better indicators. The concentrations of metals with two exceptions were far below the chronic standard. Copper was high at Station NR-3 relative to the other stations; this station is downstream of a residential area south of Sunset Parkway: a similar result was found for zinc at Station NR-1 that is also downstream of a mostly residential area. Although the two values do not significantly exceed the chronic standard, they suggest that inappropriate discharges are occurring. The drainage to Station NR-3 represents about 30% of the base flow; the drainage to Station NR-1 represents less than 5% Consequently, the impact of these flows on the concentrations of copper and zinc in John's Creek is modest. Conditions during storms: Significant increases in fecal coliform counts occur during storms. This may not be particularly important as park users are not likely swimming during a storm. Metals concentrations increase significantly. Copper and lead (dissolved fraction) likely exceed the chronic standard; copper may exceed the acute standard. Zinc may approach the chronic and acute standards. Most organic compounds are below the detection limits. Exceptions have been chrysene, PAHs, phthalates, 4-methyiphenol, toulene, benzoic acid, and 1,3-dichlorobenzene; their origins are unknown. APPENDIX 16 Regarding conditions for a biological community: The temperature and dissolved oxygen are excellent. Although the metals concentrations begin to approach and possible exceed chronic standards during storms, the momentary nature of the metals concentrations are not likely a major threat to the biological community in John's Creek. 1 The most likely constraints are unsatisfactory substrate (size distribution) and excessive flow rates during storms. While the storm sampled in Table D-9 was only about the 6- month storm, its flow rate exceeded the base flow by about a factor of five. CEDAR RIVER BASIN Lake Washington Southern Shoreline Beneficial uses: The City's interest is the southern shoreline, in particular from Coulon Park to Kennydale Park. Water and sediment quality: Even though there are no data within the vicinity of this shoreline, it is generally believed that water quality is good. The water quality at Coulon Park is likely more affected by John's Creek than the Cedar River despite its large flow. The river flow tends to enter Lake Washington submerged (about 30 feet) and move due north (Metro, 1975). As noted in the discussion of John's Creek, the data tend to suggest that there may be some sanitary side sewers improperly connected to the storm drain. Sediment near the mouth of John's Creek and the outfall from the Black River box culvert are similar in quality (Renton, 1993a). Comparison of the data to sediment quality guidelines (Table D-10) suggest that the sediments are moderately polluted with respect to several metals and organic compounds. The concentrations of several of these parameters far exceeded those found by Metro (Renton, 1993a) at other outfalls in Lake Washington Table D-10). The reason for the difference is not clear but it may be due to the Metro stations not be located at outfalls that drain commercial areas. Mainstem Cedar River Water quality in Renton: Analysis (Table D-1 1) of the data from Ecology's station at the Logan StFeet Bridge indicates that standards have been met with the exception of fecal coliform bacteria. Although the average count standard is met more than 10% of the samples did not which means the standard is not being met. The phosphorus guideline j King County, 1993) is frequently exceeded. However, the threshold value of 0.020 me!I is for the protection of Lake Washington rather than the Cedar River. The observed phosphorus levels do not likely adversely affect the biological community of the river. The situation with metals is unclear. King County (1993) sampled at the Bronson Street Bridge during four storms for copper, zinc, and lead. Neither the chronic nor acute standard was exceeded. However sampling (King County, 1993) of City outfalls and upstream tributaries during storms indicates the standards are frequently exceeded, sometimes by an order of magnitude. These findings are discussed below. 1111 TABLE D-9 JOHN'S CREEK - SUMMATION OF DATA' PARAMETER ' NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 NR-4 NR-5 NR-6 STANDARD Base flows Temperature (oC) 10.8 12 11.3 11 11.1 13.5 18 Dissolved oxygen (mg/1) 8.2 9.7 7.5 11.3 11.2 10.3 9 Turbidity (NTU) 1.4 1.3 8.6 5.4 0.6 6.9 5 Suspended solids(nag/1) 2.0 0.8 4.8 1.4 0.5 4 F. coliform (org/100 ml) 34J 1121 721 12J 66J 6J 502 Total phosphorus(mg/1)0.048 0.035 0.11 0.057 0.033 0.097 0.052 Ammonia (mg/I) 0.016 0.012 0.501 0.364 0.023 0.189 1.5-2.43 Nitrate (mg/I) 4.55 4.15 0.648 0.527 5 0.315 1.252 TPH (mg/1) 0.25U 0.25U 0.25U 0.25U 0.25U 0.26U 10 Total copper(mg/I) 0.0068 0.001 0.035 0.0013 0.0014 0.007 0.006-0.0154 Total lead (mg/1)0.0031 0.0018 0.0075 0.0013 0.0006 0.010 0.001-0.0044 Total zinc (mg/I)0.168 0.019 0.064 0.018 0.040 0.037 0.058-0.1354 Storms Temperature (oC) 10.8 11.1 11 11 11.1 11.3 18 Dissolved oxygen (mg/1) 10.6 9.5 9.8 9.7 8.8 13.2 9 Turbidity (NTU) 5.3j 3.7j 7.6j 9.7j 7.5j 2jm 5 Suspended solids(mg/I) 8.9 4.2 7.2 23 23 3.5m F. coliform (org/100 ml) 300 640 1730j 1080 560 350m 50 Total phosphorus(mg/I)0.071 - 0.051 0.062 0.124 0.112 0.028m 0.05 Ammonia (mg/I) 0.059 0.064 0.203 0.194 0.156 0.103m 1.5-2.4 Nitrate (mg/I) 0.106 _ 0.24 0.196 0.168 0.709 0.123m 1.25 TPH (nag/1)1.37 0.64 0.50 0.78 1.57 0.250um 10 Total copper(mg/I)0.0035 0.0025 0.0058 0.013 0.010 I 0.011jm 0.002-0.008 Total lead (mg/I)0.0061 0.0045 0.0061 0.018 0.019 0.051 0.0001-0.0015 Total zinc (tug/I)0.058 0.047 0.070 0.054 0.087 0.110 0.015-0.073 I. From "Pollution Source Characterization", Renton/Lake Washington Pollution Abatement Program, Draft, August 1993. 2. Guideline, not standard. 3. Varies with pH and temperature. 4. Chronic standard for dissolved metal which varies with hardness; dissolved/total assumed to be 0.50, 0.10, and 0.30 for copper, lead, and zinc respectively. 5. j -estimated value when result is less than detection limit: in - means of duplicate samples; ii - APPENDIX 18 TABLE D-10 LAKE WASHINGTON SEDIMENTS - SELECTED PARAMETERS' COULON WEST LAKE METRO METRO ONTARIO2PARAMETERPARKWASHINGTONOUTFALLSBACKGROUNDGUIDELINEArsenic (mg/kg) 16 13 20 18 4/5.5/33Cadmium (mg/kg)2.9 3.4 0.3 0.1 0.6/1/10Copper (mg/kg) 80 79 35 14 15/25/114Lead (mg/kg) 207 207 91 20 23/31/250Mercury (mg/kg) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.06Silver (mg/kg) 19.8 0.1/0.12/2 1.0 0.1 0.08Zinc (mg/kg) 478 369 98 42 65/110/800TotalPAH (mg/kg) 23 28 6 Total FIPAI-I 2024 2400/- 24 5.1 1.2PCBs (mg/kg) 1.3 3.9 0.13 Pyrene (mg/kg) 2 4 0.13 3.2 0.85 0.16Chrysene (mg/kg)2.5 3 0.33 3.7 0.6 0.1 1/10 1. Individual samples taken by City in 1992 (Renton, 1993). 2. Ontario Ministry of Environment: no effecUlowest effect/limit of tolerance ilmi CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: April 20, 1999 TO: Leslie Betlach FROM: Lisa Gruetei&G SUBJECT: Southport Waterfront Description; Preliminary Access Study As 1 mentioned last week, Seco Development prepared a waterfront development description. A copy is attached. Also, per my messages and e-mail today, here are preliminary access analysis results which show Levels of Service at key intersections. The meeting on April 21, 1999 (3-4:30 p.m. in the Fire Conference Room)will discuss possible mitigation approaches. TS_SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\LBETLACH.DOC\lg Lisa Grueter From: Lisa Grueter To: Sandra K. Seeger Subject: 99.027 Party of Record Date: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 9:45AM Boeing is notified as a property owner, and we notified Liz Warman before. We should add to our Partry of Record list: Elizabeth Warman Manager, Local Government Relations The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 MC 14-49 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Thanks. Page 1 Lisa Grueter From: Lisa Grueter To: Sandra K. Seeger Subject: 99-027 Parties of Record Date: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 8:30AM Here are names of persons interested or potentially interested in the Southport project based on the proposed COR policy and Renton Municipal Code amendments: Bruce A. Coffey Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101-3299 Chuck Wolfe Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101.3299 Donald E. Marcy Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue 70th Floor, Columbia Center Seattle, WA 98104-7016 Larry Martin Vulcan Northwest 110 - 110th Ave. NE, #550 Bellevue, WA 98004 David Halinen Halinen Law Offices, P.S. Bellevue Place/Seafirst Building 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 Bellevue, WA 98004 James Hanken Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt U.S. Bank Centre, Suite 3400 1420 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-2339 Mr. Robert Cugini, Vice President 4101 Lake Washington Boulevard P.O. Box 359 Renton, WA 98057 Page 1 Apr`-20-99 06: 36P CPL , In (Civil ) 206-34 5691 P . 01 COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN b1/ELOPM!.N.P rn A 11 CITY OF RP. G Fax Cover Sheet APR 2 7&(-J9 RECEIVED To: Lisa Grueter/City of Fax #425-430-7300 Date: April 20,1999 Renton By: Nina Cousins Cc: Rich Schipanski/HWA Fax#425-828-3861 Wendy Butcher/KPFF Fax#206-622-8130 Subject: Southport No. of Pages Including Cover: 3 Original Will Not Follow. Addendum to Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan The entire project site lies within the East Lake Washington drainage basin. The total site area is approximately 14.24 acres. Of this area approximately 13.3 acres currently drains directly to Lake Washington and 0.94 acres drains to John's Creek which outfails to Lake Washington within approximately 1000-feet. Descriptions of the proposed drainage systems for discharge to Lake Washington and John's Creek are as follows: Lake Washington System: Detention would not be required for the area draining directly to the lake. Water quality treatment would be accomplished using a wetvault per DOE standards. The wetvault would be sized based on the water quality design storm of 64% of the 2-yr/24-hr design storm. The wetvault would treat only the new impervious areas subject to vehicular use. Roof drainage and flows in excess of the water quality design storm would bypass the wetvault and drain directly to Lake Washington. Based on the current site plan, there are approximately 3.7 acres of impervious area subject to vehicular use. It was assumed the fire lane east of Building C would be closed to regular traffic and therefore it was not included in this estimate. The required water quality treatment volume for the site would be approximately 14,375 cubic feet. A wetvault required to treat this volume would be approximately 120'x20'x6' based on inside dimensions. Actual wetvault dimensioning will be adjusted for site constraints during design. 217 PINE STREET SUITE 300 SEATTLE.WA 98101 TEL: 206/343-0460 FAX: 206/343-S691 Apr-20-99 06: 37P CP' Inc . (Civil ) P^ 9-343-5691 P . 02 COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN John's Creek System: Three options for developed site areas discharging to John's Creek include the following: Option No. 1 Developed John's Creek site area including new roadway matches the existing site area Option No. 2 Developed John's Creek site area minus new roadway which would be pumped to Lake System Option No.3 Pump entire John's Creek site area to Lake System The following table describes the options for site areas and peak flows discharging to John's Creek: Site Areas and Peak Flows Discharging to John's Creek Option No. 1 Option No.2 Option No.3 Existing Conditions Developed Developed Pump Including Road Pumping Everything Road Site Areas (acres) Impervious 0.33 0.45 0.16 0.0 Pervious 0.61 0.49 0.49 0.0. Total 0.94 0.94 0.65 0.0 Peak Flows (cfs) 2-yr/24-hr 0.24 0.26 0.15 0.0 10-yr/24-hr 0.41 0.44 0.26 0.0 100-yr/24-hr 0.61 0.64 0.40 0.0 The above table indicates that all options for project improvements within the John's Creek discharge area generate less than a 0.1 cfs increase of the existing site conditions 100-yr/24-hr peak flow. The project site would be exempt from flow control per the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual both due to this negligible increase in peak flow and because the natural discharge location to John's Creek converges with Lake Washington within 4 mile. Application of DOE streambank erosion control and water quality treatment requirements to the proposed options result in the following: Option No. 1 would require detention for streambank erosion control and water quality treatment for the area subject to vehicular use per DOE standards. This would result in a detention volume of approximately 910 cubic feet and a water quality treatment volume of approximately 1120 cubic feet. Option No. 2 would need to provide a minimal detention volume of approximately 110 cubic feet with a release rate controlled to 1/2 the 2-yr/24-hr design storm. Water quality treatment for the roadway would be provided by the vault for the Lake System. The decrease in the 10- 2I7 PINE STREET SUITE 300 SEATTLE,WA 98101 TEL: 206/343-0460 FAX:206/343-569 I Apr.-20-99 06: 37P CPL , Ir Civil ) 206-3"" -5691 P . 03 COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN yr and 100-yr peak flow could be mitigated if necessary by adding additional clean roof area to the system, which would result in an increase in detention volume. Option No. 3 would not require detention. Water quality treatment for the roadway would be provided by the vault for the lake system. Flow control would be provided for the project in a manner to ensure the minimum level of control needed to protect downstream properties and resources from increases in peak, duration, and volume of runoff generated by new development. Collection and conveyance of stormwater for the entire project site would be accomplished using catchbasins, pumped force mains, and gravity sewers where possible to the existing 10- inch outfalls to Lake Washington and John's Creek. The potential for increasing the size of the existing outfalls and/or adding additional outfalls exists. Please contact me at (206) 343-0460 if you have further questions. Thank you, Nina Cousins 217 PINE STREET SUITE 300 SEATTLE,WA 98101 TEL: 206/343-0460 FAX: 206/343-5691 P(,un ReOl eW -WWI"' c CITY OF RENTON 23 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, a ru11Q L'-NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING uil_` V MEMORANDUM qqa,02. DATE: April 22, 1999 TO: Departments/Divisions Reviewing Project Files Lee Haro,Transportation Systems Division FROM: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578) 016 SUBJECT: Southport CPA/Rezone and Code Amendments Proposal The Southport applicant, Seco Development, submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone request on March 31, 1999. As part of their application, they submitted preliminary conceptual development plans which replace earlier conceptual plans they submitted as part of the request for early environmental review in February. Because the proposal requires Comprehensive Plan policy amendments (in addition to map amendments), and Municipal Code amendments, a draft set of policy and code amendments were prepared by staff, and submitted also on March 31, 1999. The Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS is under preparation and should be submitted to the City by the second week of May. When available, you will receive a copy. Because of the tight schedule, you will probably have a week to review the EIS. Because of the tight timeframes of the EIS, I am routing other information and plans in advance: The CPA/Rezone request Neighborhood Detail Map Topographic Map - (1) A topographic map submitted March 31st which includes the Southport site and adjacent property to remain under ownership by PSE; (2) A more current detailed topographic survey of the Southport portion only that was provided after March 31st. Conceptual site plans - (1) Plan A submitted on March 31st; (2) Other copies of Plan A along with Plan B, which have better labeling along with statistics on impervious/pervious surface breakdowns. Development statistics charts. Draft policy/code amendments. Title Report Please review the documents over the next two weeks in order to have an idea of issues when you are provided the Preliminary Draft EIS for review and comment. TS_SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\CPAROUTE.DOC\Ig April22, 1999 Page 2 Also, the applicant has prepared preliminary conceptual utility plans which were not submitted as part of the CPA/Rezone application, but which have been given to the EIS consultants for reference in determining potential impacts. Please also provide feedback related to these plans. Assuming the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone and Code amendments are approved, the applicant will be submitting site plan applications and conceptual utility plans later this year, and your early feedback will be helpful. If you have any questions,please give me a call (ext. 6578). Thank you. cc: Ron Straka I Wastury CITY OF RENTON c Etwo EIVFlaC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, 2 3 1999NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM BUILDINCa p V15 U DATE: April 22, 1999 TO: Departments/Divisions Reviewing Project Files Lee Haro, Transportation Systems Division FROM: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578) qg ncro SUBJECT: Southport CPA/Rezone and Code Amendments Proposal The Southport applicant, Seco Development, submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone request on March 31, 1999. As part of their application, they submitted preliminary conceptual development plans which replace earlier conceptual plans they submitted as part of the request for early environmental review in February. Because the proposal requires Comprehensive Plan policy amendments (in addition to map amendments), and Municipal Code amendments, a draft set of policy and code amendments were prepared by staff, and submitted also on March 31, 1999. The Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS is under preparation and should be submitted to the City by the second week of May. When available, you will receive a copy. Because of the tight schedule, you will probably have a week to review the EIS. Because of the tight timeframes of the EIS, I am routing other information and plans in advance: The CPA/Rezone request Neighborhood Detail Map Topographic Map - (1) A topographic map submitted March 31 st which includes the Southport site and adjacent property to remain under ownership by PSE; (2) A more current detailed topographic survey of the Southport portion only that was provided after March 31st. Conceptual site plans - (1) Plan A submitted on March 31 st; (2) Other copies of Plan A along with Plan B, which have better labeling along with statistics on impervious/pervious surface breakdowns. Development statistics charts. Draft policy/code amendments. Title Report Please review the documents over the next two weeks in order to have an idea of issues when you are provided the Preliminary Draft EIS for review and comment. TS_SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\CPAROUTE.DOC\lg April 22, 1999 Page 2 Also, the applicant has prepared preliminary conceptual utility plans which were not submitted as part of the CPA/Rezone application,but which have been given to the EIS consultants for reference in determining potential impacts. Please also provide feedback related to these plans. Assuming the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone and Code amendments are approved, the applicant will be submitting site plan applications and conceptual utility plans later this year, and your early feedback will be helpful. If you have any questions,please give me a call (ext. 6578). Thank you. cc: Ron Straka CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: April 22, 1999 TO: Departments/Divisions Reviewing Project Files Lee Haro,Transportation Systems Division FROM: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578) ce6 SUBJECT: Southport CPA/Rezone and Code Amendments Proposal The Southport applicant, Seco Development, submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone request on March 31, 1999. As part of their application, they submitted preliminary conceptual development plans which replace earlier conceptual plans they submitted as part of the request for early environmental review in February. Because the proposal requires Comprehensive Plan policy amendments (in addition to map amendments), and Municipal Code amendments, a draft set of policy and code amendments were prepared by staff, and submitted also on March 31, 1999. The Preliminary Draft Supplemental EIS is under preparation and should be submitted to the City by the second week of May. When available, you will receive a copy. Because of the tight schedule, you will probably have a week to review the EIS. Because of the tight timeframes of the EIS, I am routing other information and plans in advance: The CPA/Rezone request Neighborhood Detail Map Topographic Map - (1) A topographic map submitted March 31st which includes the Southport site and adjacent property to remain under ownership by PSE; (2) A more current detailed topographic survey of the Southport portion only that was provided after March 31st. Conceptual site plans - (1) Plan A submitted on March 31st; (2) Other copies of Plan A along with Plan B, which have better labeling along with statistics on impervious/pervious surface breakdowns. Development statistics charts. Draft policy/code amendments. Title Report Please review the documents over the next two weeks in order to have an idea of issues when you are provided the Preliminary Draft EIS for review and comment. TS_SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\CPAROUTE.DOC\lg April 22, 1999 Page 2 Also, the applicant has prepared preliminary conceptual utility plans which were not submitted as part of the CPA/Rezone application,but which have been given to the EIS consultants for reference in determining potential impacts. Please also provide feedback related to these plans. Assuming the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone and Code amendments are approved, the applicant will be submitting site plan applications and conceptual utility plans later this year, and your early feedback will be helpful. If you have any questions,please give me a call (ext. 6578). Thank you. cc: Ron Straka 04-19-99 08:46AM FROM HUCKELL INMAN ASOC TO 943073009907 OOI 205 Lake Street South,Suite 202 Kirkland.Washington 98033 Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. E-mail:h F athalcy nom FACSIMILE COVER SHEET TO: FROM: L S vpctr r liter COMPANY: DATE: 1 d REg, u OF PAGES IN LUDING COVER PHONE/FA NUMBER: PROJECT #: URGENT REVIEW 0 PLEASE REPLY 0 HARD COPY TO FOLLOW COMMENTS: p(AA Lie(-6 04-19-99 08:46AM FROM HUCKELL VIEIINMAN ASOC TO Y43U'13UUYYU7 rUU OR. 16. 1999 4.22PM NO. 8141 P. 1/1 Consuiring Engineers FAX TRANSMITTAL 2f/1 7'7lyd AwnUA, Suite 000 Snattre Washington 09101 Date April 16, 1999 2oe) €22-e822 Fax(206)e2 -9 3Q Job# 99168 Pralect Southport Development EIS No./Pages 1 Inc!,cover) To Rex Allen From Wendy Butcher Compsny SECO Development Fax# (425)637-1922 Post-it"Fax Note 7671 0.'D°1/(iP/411Phone# To l'amtioe44,41SubjelDrainagePlanClarificationsco•ept 1,)4 cb, Des ,!Alan/Comments 1-5 52,9 L•? M ( '- UZ flex: m a C4i 5.-3,g f( Fes# cam 602g'415O Mike Blumen asked me to list some of our thoughts related to the project's storm drainage_ We unde rstand you will be talking with Neil Watts, City of Renton, on Monday. It would be very helpful for AESI and us to have the information below so that we know how to approach our discussions of stain drainage in the EIS. Please double check with Neil Watts that the project will be able to be constructed under the 1990 King County Drainage Manual, Preliminary discussions with Andy Kindig. AESI. indicate that the 1990 measures will likely not provide adequate treatment prior to release to the lake. We need to know ASAP which project areas, if any will be draining to John's Creek. If it is decided that some area will drain to the lake, please ask Neil if there is any history of flooding at the creek and verify that detention would not be required. The water quality measures indicated on the current conceptual drainage plan for the road area draining to the creek do not appear to meet DOE criteria (>5000 feet of redevelopment). It Is very likely a more intensive method of water quality treatment will be required. The roof drains Of Building C draining to the creek might be beneficial to water quality and a good argument could be made that it avoids rediversion from existing drainage patterns. Additionally, pumping would not be required. Please ask Nina Cousins for the acreage of the existing site she estimated is currently going to John's Creek. I want to be consistent with her numbers in my discussion, Thanks. 1 hese are transmitted for your use as was requested 1 he original will not follow In the mail cc, Mike Blumen, Huckell-Weinman Ron Leimkuhler, KPFF sew' ,doc R-96% 04-16-99 05: 28PM P001 #19 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: April 15, 1999 TO: File 99-027,CPA,R,ECF FROM: Lisa Grueter SUBJECT:Southport Environmental Review-Hearing Process On March 18, 1999, I had conversations with Mike Blumen of Huckell/Weinman and with Mike Kattermann, Sue Carlson and Larry Warren regarding: Whether there would be a hearing on the Draft Supplemental EIS. Whether the Draft Supplemental EIS hearing would be combined with a hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Concurrent Rezone. Whether the Planning Commission and/or City Council should hold a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Whether if there was an appeal of the Final EIS would there be an appeal hearing combined with a hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Concurrent Rezone before the City Council, and how the Hearing Examiner would fit into the process. After reviewing SEPA rules, and the City's Title IV sections regarding permit process and appeals, we discussed using the following process: Schedule a hearing or public meeting on the Draft Supplemental EIS separate from hearings on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone. The Environmental Review Committee would hold the hearing or public meeting or may be able to delegate the responsibility to other staff. The Planning Commission would hold a hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Concurrent rezone along with other Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications. If needed due to changes in the proposal or other significant reasons, the City Council may schedule another public hearing related to the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Issues related to appeals,if any,would be discussed with the City Attorney as needed. On March 22, 1999, a draft of this memo was faxed to Seco Development, their attorney, and the SEIS consultant. I also discussed the approach with Rex Allen of Seco Development. No concerns were raised. cc: Sue Carlsor Mike Kattermann Larry Warren Rex Allen,Seco Development Jim Hanken,Schwabe,Williamson&Wyatt Mike Blumen,Huckell/Weinman TS SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHUFFLTN\PRCSMEM.DOC\lg hil itCOUGHLINPORTERLU7d Transmitt<<t APR Date: Apri114,1999 q C°Atois° EVES RA ND gTT R 19.ot)S -'vT To:City of Renton Project: Southport a NNG Planning Department 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Project No: C990570-01 Attn: Lisa Grueter By: Nina Cousins Memorandum Sent Via Mail Other Lisa, Rex Allen of SECO Development asked me to send you copies of the conceptual grading and uitlity plans for the Southport project. Please find attached copies of the conceptual grading and utility drawings C1.2,C1.3,and C1.4 for your use. If you have questions regarding or comments regarding this submittal,please contact me at(206)343- 0460 or Rex Allen at(425)688-3080. Thank you, Nina Cousins 217 PINE STREET• SUITE 300 • SEATTLE,WA 98101 • P:206/343-0460 • F:206/343-5691