Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA98-113 1 BOEING LONGACRES OFFICE PARK HELISTOP SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS 1. LOP DEIS Excerpts 2. LOP FEIS Excerpts 3. LOP Appendix I DEIS . • DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL Cs IMPACT STATEMENT City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Volume I - Environmental Impact Statement Text Longacres Office Park Boeing Commercial Airplane Group August 1994 Renton, Washington Prepared by: Jones&Stokes Associates,Inc. Bellevue, Washington � 1 1.4 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 1.4.1 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action, Office Park (Dispersed Pattern) The Proposed Action is a phased office park. Under this proposal, the general development pattern would be a suburban, campus-like design, with individual mid-rise buildings dispersed throughout the site. The conceptual plan includes the construction of approximately 2.5 million square feet of office space over 10 to 15 years. It is anticipated that 15 separate office buildings would be constructed over this period and, upon completion, approximately 10,000 employees would occupy the site. The office park may include an employee center and a 2,000-seat conference center. Of the 164 acres, 59 acres (36%) are proposed to be impervious surface covered by buildings, parking area, and roadways; 11 acres (7%) include a lake/stormwater detention system; and 94 acres (57%) are landscaping and open space. Also proposed is connection to a well to withdraw groundwater to maintain water levels in the-lake/stormwater detention system. Construction and operation of a helistop is proposed on the southwestern portion of the office park, north of the southernmost building. The Boeing Company estimates that flights in and out of the helistop would average one flight per month. The helistop would not provide fuel or maintenance for the helicopter. These services would be obtained at local airfields such as Paine Field and Boeing Field. Private vehicles are assumed to be a major mode of transportation to and from the site; however, the use of public transit (vanpools and carpools) will be encouraged. Surface parking lots would be provided adjacent to the office buildings but are sized to induce high occupancy vehicle (HOV)participation; compliance with the Commuter Trip Reduction Act is required as well. The office park plan is consistent with the City of Renton's Employment-Office designation under the Interim Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan (City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department 1993). 1.4.2 Alternative 2 - Office Park (Clustered Pattern) Alternative 2 is an office park with a clustered development pattern. This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action in the total amount of square footage, location of the lake/stormwater detention system, phasing period for construction, and total number of employees at completion. Alternative 2 would have seven mid-rise buildings with 2.5 million square feet of space, compared to the 15 buildings under the Proposed Action. In addition to surface parking, two parking structures are proposed. Of the 164 acres, 49 acres (30%) are proposed as impervious surface, 11 acres (7%) for the lake/stormwater detention system, and 104 acres (63%) as landscaping and open space. The well discussed under the RE1rrON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 1 08/22/94u 1-4 CHAPTER I Proposed Action would also be installed. A helistop would also be constructed and operated on the southwest portion of the site under this alternative. As with the Proposed Action, this alternative is consistent with the City of Renton's Employment-Office designation under the Interim Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan (City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department 1993). In contrast to the dispersed pattern of the Proposed Action, the plan for Alternative 2 would group buildings into nodes or clusters. The buildings would be located to accommodate primary transportation corridors such as Oakesdale Avenue Southwest, the connection to the West Valley Highway (State Route 181) and Burlington Northern Railroad, and the east-west connector road through the site (if included in final design plans). 1.4.3 Alternative 3 - Office Development/Light Industry (Incremental Pattern) Under Alternative 3, the site would be developed as 8 to 10 individual parcels, approximately 20 acres each,with each parcel improved separately by The Boeing Company for office or light industrial uses consistent with the zoning and comprehensive plans in effect at the time of development. If this alternative is selected, the five existing parcels would be reconfigured to achieve the approximate 20-acre parcel size. However, the parcels shown in Figure 2-3 were used as the basis for the impact analysis in this DEIS. This alternative would be comparable to the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 in the construction of approximately 2.5 million square feet of building space over 10 to 15 years. The employment population would be approximately 8,500 people; this is less than the employment population of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 since fewer employees. would be needed for light industrial uses. Up to 25% of the total building area is assumed to be designated for light industrial uses, with the remaining 75% for office uses. Of the 164 acres, 109 acres (66%) would be impervious surface, and 55 acres (34%) would be landscaping and open space. A stormwater detention system would be developed separately for each parcel. The acreage, location, and type of detention facilities are unknown at this time; these facilities would be located in the open space area on the site. The proposed well would not be installed. The site would not be developed as a planned office park. Open space and landscaping would be provided on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Few large contiguous areas of open space and landscaping would be planned. Transportation and parking requirements would be determined for individual development proposals. It is not known if a helistop would be built and operated under Alternative 3. RENTON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 1 08/22/94u 1-5 CHAPTER 1 Table 1-1. Continued g z Significant Unavoidable pSignificant Impacts Mitigation Measures Adverse Impacts cz R = Mitigation required by federal,state,or local regulations. 0 = Optional mitigation. • Contaminated areas currently exist on-site and may require • Investigate known contaminated areas to determine if cleanup is • None remediation necessary,if so,clean up these areas and report and remediate additional contaminated sites encountered during construction(R) Alternative 2: • Same as Proposed Action • Same as Proposed Action • Same as Proposed Action Alternative 3: • Same as Proposed Action,but potential for greater variety and • Same as Proposed Action • Same as Proposed quantity of hazardous materials on-site due to light industrial Action component No Action Alternative: • Contaminated areas currently exist on-site and may require • Investigate known contaminated areas to determine if cleanup is • None remediation necessary;if so,clean up these areas and report and remediate additional contaminated sites encountered during construction(R) CHAPTER 10-I.vrm USE Proposed Action: • Potential disturbance to surrounding land uses during construction • See Chapters 3,4,and 8 for mitigation for construction-related • None impacts to earth,air,and noise,respectively(R) • Hearing Examiner conditional use permit for helistop(R) • Potential inconsistency with Renton policies encouraging parking • Renton could encourage use of parking structures(0) • None structures for office developments Alternative 2: • Potential disturbance to surrounding land uses during construction • See Chapters 3,4,and 8 for mitigation for construction-related • None impacts to earth,air,and noise,respectively(R) • Hearing Examiner conditional use permit for helistop(R) Alternative 3: ro • Same as Proposed Action,except development of parking structure • Same as Proposed Action • None is unknown SEPA requires that the EIS analyze only the No Action Alternative plus other reasonable alternatives for achieving the proposal's objective on the same site (WAC 197-11- 440[5][d]). The requirement that only "reasonable" alternatives be considered is intended to place appropriate limits on the number and range of alternatives as well as the amount of detailed analysis for each alternative (WAC 197-11-440[5][b][1]). Four alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, have been developed for analysis in this DEIS. 2.4.2 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action, Office Park (Dispersed Pattern) The Proposed Action is a phased office park. Under this proposal, the general development pattern would be a suburban, campus-like design, with individual buildings dispersed throughout the site (Figure 2-1). The conceptual plan includes the construction of approximately 2.5 million square feet of office space over 10 to 15 years (Table 2-1). It is anticipated that 15 separate office buildings would be constructed over this period and, upon completion, approximately 10,000 employees would occupy the site. The office park may include an employee center and a 2,000-seat conference center. Of the 164 acres, 59 acres (36%) are proposed to be impervious surface covered by buildings, parking area, and roadways; 11 acres (7%) include a lake/stormwater detention system; and 94 acres (57%) are landscaping and open space. Also proposed is connection to a well to withdraw groundwater to maintain water levels in the lake/stormwater detention system. Construction and operation of a helistop is proposed on the southwestern portion of the office park, north of the southernmost building. The Boeing Company estimates that flights in and out of the helistop would average one flight per month. The helistop would not provide fuel or maintenance for the helicopter. These services would be obtained at local airfields such as Paine Field and Boeing Field. Private vehicles are assumed to be a major mode of transportation to and from the site; however, the use of public transit (vanpools and carpools) will be encouraged. Surface parking lots would be provided adjacent to the office buildings but are sized to induce high occupancy vehicle (HOV)participation; compliance with the Commuter Trip Reduction Act is required as well. The office park plan is consistent with the City of Renton's Employment-Office designation under the Interim Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan (City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department 1993). RENTON/BOONG DEIS VOLUME 1 08/22/93u 2-4 CHAPTER 2 —CSTC • — --- ti itlff l'h N I---- �� i -- — ( - y «sr.Q-z,' _ �T"+ O P ♦tip,.- u - 5JL I� �' r • - I. , —, • — j 19TH S% I N _ �,� - � 1 _'�" '�: 3s _ i ; "� ' K .. t•t Imo® f 1 , r =1 - .. - -- . .. _- { ' SITE PLAN r =- For EIS Submission N C. - l A.F. "1'Il tiTRF.M1' Mr I, 272 � __iT :TP I --< 0 400 April 75, 1993 WIT:=1 '—` " - LONGACRES PARK MASTER PLAN I I- 7E The Boeing-Company -- � _ _ Skidmore, Owings&Merrill San Francisco _ 4 _ -- _ I Figure 2-1 . Site Plan for Proposed Action, Office Park (Dispersed Pattern) 8.3.1.1 Operation of Proposed Helistop As part of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, a helistop would be constructed in the southwestern portion of the site. Currently, The Boeing Company operates two helicopters in the Puget Sound area. In the future, only one helicopter, a Sikorsky Model S-76B, will be operating. It is estimated that flights in and out of Longacres Office Park will average one flight per month. This is based on existing helicopter use at other facilities. Currently, flights in and out of Paine Field average less than once per month. Flights in and out of the Boeing Computer Center (BCS) average three to four times per year. The most heavily used site is Auburn, with flights in and out still averaging less than once per month. The typical noise level associated with helicopters is 76 to 84 dBA at a distance of 500 feet from the aircraft. This is similar to noise levels described earlier for various pieces of construction equipment. Current noise abatement procedures for helicopter flight include reducing operating speeds and decreasing the approach and take-off angle at the helistop. While helicopter noise is not regulated, it is assumed that flights in and out of Longacres Office Park would occur during typical business hours and that noise abatement procedures would be used. Helicopter noise could temporarily disturb or distract area residents; however,because of the small number of projected flights in and out of Longacres Office Park, disruptions would be infrequent and short. It is important to note that a helicopter flight school is currently operating south of the site with many take-offs and landings occurring each day. It is unlikely that The Boeing Company operation would noticeably increase helicopter activity in the area. Long-term noise impacts would not be expected. 83.1.2 Effects of Noise on Wildlife The infrequent helicopter landings and takeoffs at the site would result in a temporary increase in noise levels in the vicinity of the helistop and the South Marsh which is located approximately 700 feet from the helistop at its closest distance. Wildlife species that are known to occur in the South Marsh and elsewhere on the project site are described in Volume 2, Appendix D. Noise levels at the nest site and South Marsh would temporarily increase during helicopter landings and takeoffs. At a distance of 500 feet (a distance that would only be achieved during helicopter flyovers), the decibel level at the nest site and South Marsh would temporarily increase from 68 dBA to approximately 80 dBA (Table 8-2). The response of wildlife to noise has been found to vary with species and, more importantly, with the level of adaption to noise achieved by the wildlife (Fletcher and Busnel 1978). Wildlife, including raptors, are known to adapt to both visual and auditory man-caused intrusions, and under some circumstances, be attracted to noisy settings (e.g., airports) such that the potential for collisions between birds and aircraft becomes a problem RE1fON/BOIING DEIS 8-12 VOLUME� 1 08/22/94u (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1980). The use of helicopters is a common technique for wildlife surveys, including surveys of raptor nests and use (Cooperrider et al. 1986). Studies of the effects of noise on nesting raptors is limited however, a study by Holthuijzen et al. (1990) on the effects of blasting (instantaneous noise) on nesting prairie falcons in southwestern Idaho, concluded that loud (range 129-141 dB at nests) and infrequent (1-2 per day) events did not adversely affect behavioral repertoire, productivity or occupancy of nesting falcons. Given the proposed infrequent use of the helistop, the relatively low noise levels of the helicopter (80 dBA at 500 feet), helicopter use as currently proposed, would not likely cause a significant adverse impact on wildlife on the project site or adjacent properties. 8.3.2 Assessment of 2010 Noise Impacts The purpose of this analysis is to provide information describing existing ambient noise levels within the project area. As discussed, existing noise levels are primarily the result of vehicles traveling on roadways adjacent to the project site. Ambient noise levels monitored or modeled at single receptor sites are based on traffic conditions and other noise sources near each receptor. Dominant noise sources vary with receptor location. Traffic noise levels currently exceed FHWA noise abatement criteria at some sensitive receptors located along heavily traveled roadways. Traffic-generated noise, as opposed to a single noise source (e.g., manufacturing facilities), is exempt from regulation pursuant to Chapter 173-60-050(4)(a) WAC. Under existing conditions there are few trips generated relative to traffic volumes on adjacent roadways. As a general rule, there must be a doubling of traffic volume to have a 3 dBA increase in traffic-generated noise. Additionally, observations indicate that vehicles traveling to and from the site, primarily on South 158th Street, do so at a rate of speed lower than vehicles traveling on adjacent roadways. There are no single-source noise generators on the project site. As a result, activities on the project site and vehicles traveling to and from the site would contribute negligibly to existing noise levels. Based on studies of existing conditions, it was determined that a 2010 noise analysis would not be necessary for the proposed project. The traffic volumes represent full build- out conditions in the City and reflect a worst case traffic scenario for the project study area. As discussed, traffic is the predominant source of noise within and surrounding the project area. Daily activities associated with the operation of office center developments do not typically generate significant noise. The primary noise source associated with office center developments would be traffic entering and exiting the complex. It is assumed that activities at the proposed development, under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2,would be characteristic of typical office park developments. Light industrial activities associated PDIDN/BOE]NG DEIS Q-13 VOLUMEME 1 08/22/94u O with Alternative 3 (e.g., assembly of components such as wire harnesses) could generate additional project-related stationary noise. However, it is anticipated that activities would take place indoors, minimising noise exposure to outside or off-site receptors. After project completion, the most significant noise source attributable to the proposed project that could affect area receptors would likely continue to be traffic traveling to and from the project site, which would overwhelm other noise sources on the project site. Under existing conditions, modeled noise levels show exceedance of the FHWA abatement criteria at five of the seven receptors (Table 8-6). A 3 dBA increase in ambient noise levels is a typical impact threshold used in noise analyses when existing levels exceed FHWA criteria. In other words, if ambient noise levels increase by at least 3 dBA at any receptor under 2010 conditions when existing noise levels exceed the FHWA criteria, the project is considered to have a significant noise impact. A 3 dBA increase is used as an impact threshold because noise levels must increase by approximately 3 dBA before the increase is perceptible to the human ear (White 1975). To produce a net 3 dBA increase in ambient noise levels attributable to the project, operation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3 would require a two-fold increase in peak hour 2010 traffic volumes. Additionally, traffic would have to travel at the same speed as under existing conditions. It is unlikely that either of these scenarios would occur under 2010 conditions with the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3. Although traffic volumes associated with the proposed project would not cause a two- fold increase of traffic volumes in the study area, the project would generate additional trips on the road network surrounding the project site. This increase is likely to cause a slight elevation in measurable-ambient noise levels; however, the increase is unlikely to exceed 1 to 2 dBA. A 1 to 2 dBA increase would be imperceptible to the human ear and, therefore, by definition, it does not represent a significant noise impact. In summary, a 2010 noise analysis was not performed because traffic volumes predicted to be generated under the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 would not cause a two-fold increase in traffic volumes beyond that which would occur under future year conditions without the project. Therefore, future year with project traffic conditions would not cause noise levels to increase by the 3 dBA impact threshold discussed above. Additionally, while traffic attributable to the proposed project may cause some measurable increase in ambient noise levels, it is unlikely that the increase would be perceptible to the human ear. 8.3.3 Cumulative Impacts For noise to noticeably increase, traffic volumes on the road network within and surrounding the project area would have to increase two-fold, with vehicles traveling at existing speeds. This is unlikely considering the anticipated operating conditions on roadways adjacent to the site (see Chapter 14). As a result, it is unlikely that development of this and other planned projects within proximity to sensitive noise receptors identified in RF7TION/BOEING DES VOLUME 1 08/22/94u 8-14 CHAPTER 8 • this analysis would generate traffic volumes large enough to noticeably increase ambient noise levels within and surrounding the project area. Development of new stationary noise generators (e.g., light industrial facilities) could affect 2010 noise levels, but land use changes that could result in significant new sources of noise are not anticipated. Given the proposed infrequent use of the helistop, helicopter use as proposed would not cause a significant or adverse impact to those species on the project site or adjacent properties. 8.4 MITIGATION MEASURES 8.4.1 Required Mitigation The following mitigation measures listed below are required by code. Site plan approval is also required and with that approval the hearing examiner may impose additional conditions to mitigate adverse impacts (Title IV, City of Renton Building Regulations, Chapter 31, Section 33). • Restrict outdoor construction activities to specific times. • Ensure that all construction equipment has sound control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. • Provide a noise education program for operators of excavation equipment and haul trucks. • Construct temporary barriers around loud stationary equipment. • Use electrically powered equipment instead of pneumatically driven machines when possible. 8.4.2 Other Mitigation As discussed, light industrial activities associated with Alternative 3 could generate additional project-related noise. Specific mitigation measures could be incorporated into site and building designs when the kinds of light industrial activities that would take place and the equipment that would be used are determined. RENiON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 1 08/22 u 8-15 cHAinER 8 • The_following are mitigation measures that could be utilized to minimize impacts from stationary noise sources for the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3. • I imit hours of outdoor operation (loading/unloading trucks, moving materials etc.) to between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. • Design on-site circulation patterns to minimize noise impacts to adjacent properties and avoid wildlife habitat areas. 8.5 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS No unavoidable adverse noise impacts would occur. 8.6 CITATIONS Barry, T. M., and J. A. Reagan. 1978. FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model. (FHWA-RD-77-108.) Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC. Bowlby, W., S. Higgans, and J. Reagan. 1982. Noise barrier cost reduction procedure, STAMINA 2.0/OPTIMA users manual. (FHWA/FD-82/011a.) Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC. Cooperrider, A. Y., R. J. Boyd, H. R. Stuart. 1986. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Denver, CO. Fletcher, J. L., and R. G. Busnel. 1978. Effects of noise on wildlife. Academic Press. New York, NY. Holthuijzen, A. M. A., W. G. Eastland, A. R. Ansell, M. N. Kochert, R. D. Williams, and L. S. Young. 1990. Effects of blasting on behavior and productivity of nesting prairie falcons. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 18, No. 3. p. 270-281. Bethesda, MD. Sculley, R. 1990. Working with noise data: A guide for planners. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. Sacramento, CA. U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. 1970. Environmental quality: the first annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC. RENdiON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 1 08/22/94u 8-16 cw rlEx 8 l FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 8 Co ..` IMPACT STATEMENT City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Longacres Office Park Boeing Commercial Airplane Group March 1995 Renton, Washington Prepared by: Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. Bellevue, Washington • • to establish and maintain a high quality, safe, and efficient working environment for employees, customers, and visitors while ensuring effective site access, movement between buildings, and the necessary level of site security (Stewart pers. comm.). 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 13.1 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action, Office Park (Dispersed Pattern) The Proposed Action is a phased office park. Under this proposal, the general development pattern would be a suburban, campus-like design, with individual mid-rise buildings dispersed throughout the site. The conceptual plan includes the construction of approximately 2.5 million square feet of office space over 10 to 15 years. It is anticipated that 15 separate office buildings would be constructed over this period and, upon completion, approximately 10,000 employees would occupy the site. The office park may include an employee center and a 2,000-seat conference center. Of the 164 acres, 59 acres (36%) are proposed to be impervious surface covered by buildings, parking area, and roadways; 11 acres (7%) include a lake/stormwater detention system; and 94 acres (57%) are landscaping and open space. Also proposed is connection to a well to withdraw groundwater to maintain water levels in the lake/stormwater detention system. Construction and operation of a helistop is proposed on the southwestern portion of the office park, north of the southernmost building. The Boeing Company estimates that flights in and out of the helistop would average one flight per month. The helistop would not provide fuel or maintenance for the helicopter. These services would be obtained at local airfields such as Paine Field and Boeing Field. Private vehicles are assumed to be a major mode of transportation to and from the site; however, the use of public transit (vanpools and carpools) will be encouraged. Surface parking lots would be provided adjacent to the office buildings but are sized to induce high occupancy vehicle (HOV)participation; compliance with the Commuter Trip Reduction Act is required as well. The office park plan is consistent with the City of Renton's Employment-Office designation under the Interim Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan (City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department 1993). 13.2 Alternative 2 - Office Park (Clustered Pattern) - Alternative 2 is an office park with a clustered development pattern. This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action in the total amount of square footage, location of RENTON/BOEING FEIS CHAPTER 1 • 03/20/95u 1-3 Table 1-1. Continued t3 z Significant Unavoidable • 8 Significant Impacts Mitigation Measures Adverse Impacts 9 R = Mitigation required by federal,state,or local regulations. 0 = Optional mitigation. • Contaminated areas currently exist on-site and may require • Investigate known contaminated areas to determine if cleanup is • None remediation necessary; if so,clean up these areas and report and remediate additional contaminated sites encountered during construction(R) Alternative 2: • Same as Proposed Action • Same as Proposed Action • Same as Proposed Action Alternative 3: • Same as Proposed Action,but potential for greater variety and • Same as Proposed Action • Same as Proposed quantity of hazardous materials on-site due to light industrial Action component No Action Alternative: • Contaminated areas currently exist on-site and may require • Investigate known contaminated areas to determine if cleanup is • None remediation necessary; if so,clean up these areas and report and remediate additional contaminated sites encountered during construction (R) CHAPTER 10-L.ND USE Proposed Action: • Potential disturbance to surrounding land uses during construction • See Chapters 3,4,and 8 for mitigation for construction-related • None impacts to earth,air,and noise,respectively(R) • Hearing Examiner conditional use permit for helistop(R) • Potential inconsistency with Renton policies encouraging parking • Renton could encourage use of parking structures(0) • None structures for office developments Alternative 2: • Potential disturbance to surrounding land uses during construction • See Chapters 3,4,and 8 for mitigation for construction-related • None impacts to earth,air,and noise,respectively(R) • Hearing Examiner conditional use permit for helistop(R) Alternative 3: • Same as Proposed Action,except development of parking structure • Same as Proposed Action • None is unknown cacundcav uOu vwiofu/ Appendix I Technical Report for Noise The Boeing Company Longacres Office Park Renton, Washington Prepared for: City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Prepared by: Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 2820 Northup Way, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004-1419 (206) 822-1077 August 22, 1994 • This document should be cited as: Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1994. Noise, The Boeing Company Longacres Office Park, Renton, Washington. Technical report. August 22. (JSA 91-129.) Bellevue,WA. Prepared for City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works, Renton, WA. • Table of Contents Page 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Description 1 1.2 Historical Land Use 1 1.3 Regional Project Location 2 1.4 Local Project Area 2 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 2.1 Background Information on Noise 2 2.1.1 Noise Terminology and Decibel Scales 2 2.1.2 Working with Decibel Values 4 2.2 Guidelines for Interpreting Noise Levels 4 2.2.1 Federal Agency Guidelines 4 2.2.2 State Agency Guidelines 5 2.2.3 Local Agency Guidelines - 8 2.3 Monitoring Existing Noise Levels 8 2.3.1 Monitored Ambient Noise Levels 8 2.4 Predicted Noise Levels 11 2.4.1 Model Description 11 2.4.2 Model Validation 11 2.4.3 Model Traffic Data 12 2.4.4 Description of the Roadway Network and Receptors 12 2.4.5 Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors under Existing Conditions 12 2.5 Conclusions 15 3 CITATIONS 16 RENTON/BOEING DEIS • VOLUME 2 08/22/94u 1 APPENDIX 1 • List of Tables and Figures Page Table 1 Weighted Sound Levels and Human Response 3 2 Federal Highway Administration Noise Abatement Criteria 6 3 Maximum Permissible Environmental Noise Levels 7 4 Short-Term Noise Monitoring Sites 9 5 Traffic Characteristics and Recorded Short-Term Noise Levels within the Project Area under Existing Conditions 10 6 Description of Sensitive Receptor Sites within Project Area 13 7 1992 Modeled Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptor Sites within Project Area 14 Figure 1 Vicinity Map, The Boeing Company Longacres Office Park; Renton, Washington follows 1 Local Project Area for Noise Analysis follows 2 3 Short-Term Noise Monitoring Sites follows 9 4 Sensitive Noise Receptor Locations follows 12 RENTON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 2 O8/22/94 u 11 APPENDIX I 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description The Boeing Company proposes to develop an office park on a 164-acre property which is a portion of the site of the former Longacres Park Racetrack in Renton, Washington (Figure 1). The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzes a proposed development plan, two additional development alternatives, and the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 (the Proposed Action) and Alternative 2 include the construction of approximately 2.5 million square feet of office space developed over 10 to 15 years. With the Proposed Action, it is anticipated that 15 separate office buildings would be constructed. Alternative 2 would include 7 buildings and 2 parking garages. Approximately 10,000 employees would occupy the development at completion for both the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. Alternative 3 proposes that the site be subdivided into 8 to 10 individual parcels (of 16 to 20 acres each) and developed for office and light industrial uses. Approximately 8,500 employees would occupy the site. Under No Action,the fourth alternative, the site would remain undeveloped. It is expected that The Boeing Company would perform routine maintenance on the grounds of the former racetrack, such as mowing and maintaining drainage ditches and culverts. If the City of Renton determined that existing structures constituted a public hazard or nuisance, it is likely that such structures would be demolished. The purpose of this technical report is to describe the existing noise conditions that impact or may impact sensitive receptors surrounding the project site. 1.2 Historical Land Use Prior to the construction of Longacres Park Racetrack in 1933, the site was used for agricultural purposes. The racetrack was used primarily for thoroughbred horse racing,but between racing seasons it was also used for such events as automobile shows. Live horse racing ended in September 1992. Satellite racing continued until February 1994. Portions of the racing facilities, including tracks, grandstands, barns and stables, dining facilities, and parking areas, remain on the site. RENTON/BOEING DEIS - VOLUME 2 O8/22/94u 1 APPENDIX I 'L7wr•:t i .E :.i}4}�5: 1 o gum, }.. i i i,i I ' f , l� +,+; % 't i}, !a !^ x.' t�ll j�ln t'Ij� Iv +tf X• 'i * iv1P , i ': tili t t CZ #i x i ;Ij 7t *It.::":'''' ''.yE ' . : I i#l. ,i{i P } 11!'! sit +• h r it}'., v %,�pp@ ' * ' s w �t!, t,f•1 ,> * wr � t� +�+ M ��' R + y ��,.. iSt �� : ::�'::} � ellke ,t. sea t: �. � tit !:..1t +1 t" x h f t 11 I t �I .:ih:# +##u .. ,/� 1 i z # feet.:?•'«..... �,1: + .... r1..tt: .{•t:i�'+•�; +�#" y•e• �a�E A'f yfiil i } 0 II r+,.,t +:: X XC:% + R • h h +h .+^EEIi;t7t 66 ` �5,,.• •. ) riii • t !� + i !1.rl! .. + +++ J t <';.. %: ♦ }. , 1.4 t}3 5..'1.: tse } i i!!:• { �+ + * f iEt.,� : ..fix tl.E!l �t0 iii . + i co ' +++ r`r f i o ti� w.. .. Ix 1" x ;«Ir . 'f t i lit,•1•4 a) • ff ' tt -' »� c x �: "al, {+�'�A"` S• t ' ! i#t t't c ! 111 )Et aEt el ! ktw*o-wao-acoa'+ .ar ! ,�. 7ft t i :.}: all I a r n t :r s x *a t E J ! t {++• : +7.C�+{ riF iv .. �f v t ��ii. !y %.:i.. ,,- .. EcE E E tE:kit[xtt c :ii +! `Ir h h .,; j :.. k ,,'I P t., , ti i.,}h .1: i i t:%S ii C•4' i ' '1 ', �. ��. : 1 �' :a '.:�• Maii� .i'14`.I I `,i G. ply_ "�'� A. .:+ +i i U . r I !mli' ..Y' ' ! _' 4 iliGi I f 11� kk IE J ! •� ' }tt1: i: . i r . ::ti I y xt : ' t ,?'t t ' 1 7irrt hwr£ xrot 1 f .,j a' 1.. {' +• 1•►k$ I I� e' '1 •j : }, x I hwaoY . ::. f y k 3 I. # s x f ,cdE .i �} •e : 1 t',I 4, : :: '•S:: ...... x 3E .. t 75Ooo•a %•:::f�� b, ` Y. ,.T5:. 4'::. t { U I �.R Via::: i;:j.f.Lf'LL'} + 1, : p:x"`R :A.„.:..'.- _.I .{ :'? i; K :..+.';' :• :... �. ...: ..... -t1i:1. # �.+ }i#3•.•w,"f tr 3+:#lx:.'ii. V L 11 :. . ; ` 1. :;-�2:' ....+a:.M ...F :x.•• '* :vF c�31 M:x'+ :j:.. t: t. i ! ZY x, 1 ;i I i., } to x ... ... ^ EE ;1 t > �+�>•'',•}1:.:,,c....:•:*�y.'::.}} 1A �v is �t i I i &.. • ct ,� 'S�;:y�t4`V:"`'' �+. � •+•r } • t rt E '•� 1 #ili I 1. .:x••!g y�P1 'Et -:?•.•: >•.r:::::.;*�y, _ . ,ifl. i In l ° e t. +x, 1 x :x•x t0. "IV A: 4 #S 13. a , Itir}`FFF ts°� ' •t, ... ,rill! :. :, r, r: 4.4c F: C + s � `�F p #y. f .., t+,.:: 1 '1.. ,■[ ' yI'k �i'i`l�i'F'•i#�`:L:r..,1 +t.':Itt>r.� E;n.,, :.• ::`h41:`' ,i t + ,+i+:;i«+L; + ;J: CO �:. 'G' l•.y:�;� i' i, t•I I'll br:.: .:!r':^•I,t.i}::. .}. .:I ::.: IA Y F 'I {.L: i i# i i + +k • Y O .1.. h... �11 It q ;.,; ..,. ,is t 1.. _�`•#•ins:gt;::;..}: }:.pa}` ':1' t-:r <5,. .. ... st• y., 4,1>wti 1:11:1:I,"""- "I P-.{i , h, �,tFl, tl/' 4k '�i .;.'�71i i!• '�' t I I tt�k��t..,..:::.*'..4,:,41,1.1:11";� �L ,• . I :��t , ��•;:ti'•v•;�}`M1;;;x�:: f i•.i + ' �- � 1 ,;.:..., sl'';1• *i I L ' 14:i i,I 5:.f} ,1h�F'• :f1—'Mil �E-— C iY �' 7 I !tI IL 3 iCt:+., ..:•••: ++ I ty I �iIPe4 i�ti kk .,,;'t1}�• r, .I r ,��&qCC '^.,.+,:x: ::} y =cn '- + fI :fit ` ,� w: h :.# kp5 '1 �i R L�I.i %1,,,r.„ ,.�,.I.:� t y^.:.� 4 ^t.:�'V f ilt 'Kx�} 7 I—" 1 X • w w.k I 5• + .+ I1. . .4...t' • "t rNi. '.'.>`,. }•tc 1 : n::c„ k hzi!: (l k f t.' +#+:} .+ 1 ,.dr.t - �. +� P :F lrtiiaY t• � .:s+x1�...E b A "9! t •.`•+ •kl .c . co ' :}a 1 • ��.. `1M •Y`'�n i :,: +ft+• 'qlt! 11:,• ay iai i:... ..; :iiik'C:;�:i•�" cc 1{ + }:. x l [i I..if1!i! f.11.v ;:•.l,1i:..�!r...iM.t L _ % 7i '.1: !IE + ..ryyy lbedoxx ` :im fi i t 'S., }. 1k1 1i•xi!E G o Vk � i t i .t r .t.i.'t!;1! i .• ..... *"# I �1 F•a :Y vott i Y !, 7 r h f s ....'6 ec' • •K./ ) ;;e.RT.'1Af t ."+' • #.:i i::,. ..+ • w `7. 0 Ix.; ' x. !!:i!? .s { : i -.$+ i`.e• v' • •re • +. . +lh..W.•i1[ +. e ,�-i: C'' t^•'^�63G.. J.�:-:. 1:'..}:••:•: .. ` I r• ,• -.^af:' srrol:..:1 k et/. ';..i• .rt r?^ .. . .y 1.tE•; s i + j....• .. 1 I,>: :. .. 5 k" t+f :EI: :,,+,•.. +:;.. si r htt;:eit:; (� t il:it7 f+• <tya. "+7 t $E i.t/a :•' tip !i! e...' • CC E _ :ri.:1• .w;tisitl. •i: \: ,:ei ll" ,+,, t. + 1 I ,y 2c;aea.' $;r. a e , ••'l Jt: ,i;}%. t�.!R I.+, .•.T,.S+:` •i.•• .rt.'7:^�'• ti:i i 1 :70t: ::: 7 :,.. 7: ti I r "k k ••I.r.:i:: i?! o :kK:i •:i!•,. Y < `• ' F::I J'!: •. U f �!t !!i ii4'., + h ; t is R}i �l:t :. .< i r— ;� tisi' •i r!! :!I rtl h:`t !! 'l+iripii t :y 1 !'in '+ .mo ►1 ::i q: C ��1 7 � '7' E + +++. n: r.l•+ ' ti 5v' 1 �I' P... it !I � �•ic is 1::: t� .: l .:ui• :t'•� ! ;I..::•6._ =•.8c;;. i :! i!!E! lrik,' k ! 3 :+tl:.s!I :H +'!: 4 r 1P i x ; t . t t i •in, t••+r t , !:'' it� ;T: • :•::h: ra ,�'.,. .�ttlE! ° Q1 1 .• fi, 4:9�ii I i •+�rsi"',.1: ..i x:! r :��'4+. '.i � � � !i!%'':•..• p�� .fit[ ;!: k4 i'�:'ijxE Et:: I!trlE .q. ; f f k r:- y'*ic: }sA: l�� •n:^"c kE�i f 17.iih'i I n 1ta s a7111.lit! !!!E i. �h t + i • +r la Ei( 3axt ,� # t* !i! .tE .! �! �y� r .{ * tr. ... 1 is ad • }1i :Eki11 ! --! 1a1 :{ ::•! °::' ., .. .C,;4 :,.. _ .. ::: ;.1o:z:•• ....�.�bt, ..�' .ri'• .. s4tia J} ,f. ! ! rt... ;f a .iuu}watt,.. • 1.3 Regional Project Location Renton occupies approximately 16 square miles at the south end of Lake Washington. It is located near the junction of Interstates 5 and 405 (I-5 and I-405), and is within a short distance of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Renton is at the crossroads of the regional transportation network. 1.4 Local Project Area For the purpose of the noise analysis, the local project area is defined as the area north of Southwest 43rd Street, east of State Route (SR) 181, west of SR 167, and south of Southwest Grady Way (Figure 2). 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Background Information on Noise _ The purpose of this report is to identify existing noise levels at receptors located adjacent to or surrounding the project site. Because existing noise levels are generated primarily by motor vehicles operating on the surrounding road network, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise abatement criteria are used to determine whether noise levels exceed standards developed by the FHWA to ensure protection of public health or welfare. 2.1.1 Noise Terminology and Decibel Scales Sound travels through the air as waves of minute air pressure fluctuations caused by vibration. In general, sound waves travel away from the noise source as an expanding spherical surface. The energy contained in a sound wave is consequently spread over an increasing area as it travels away from the source. This results in a decrease in loudness at greater distances from the noise source. Sound-level meters measure the actual pressure fluctuations caused by sound waves, with separate measurements made for different sound frequency ranges. These measurements are reported in a logarithmic decibel (dB) scale. Most sounds consist of a broad range of sound frequencies. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies, many frequency-weighting schemes have been used to develop composite decibel scales that approximate the way the human ear responds to noise levels. The "A- weighted" decibel scale (dBA) is the scale most widely used for this purpose (Table 1). RENTON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 2 O8/22/94u 2 APPENDIX I oq 00. -4. • S... S*Gra• W .144 © w ,I�� 3SW16th 1 E rn Street • m l�k y a Pia s>:::::::::.. bEgoomfam SW 27th Street Strander Blvd. 0 O 0 167 0 To 3 174 N w SW 34th Street w c Y al G m m et �i o m _ L Y Q O y SW 41 st Street cb 1 cD S 'eo. S;ree; _ SW 43rd Street I N s,O. Figure 2. Local Project Area for Noise Analysis • Table 1. Weighted Sound Levels and Human Response Sound Source dBA* Response Criteria Carrier deck jet operation 140 Limit amplified speech 130 Painfully loud Jet takeoff(200 feet) 120 Threshold of feeling and pain Discotheque Maximum vocal effort Auto horn (3 feet) Riveting machine 110 Jet takeoff(2,000 feet) Shout (0.5 foot) 100 Very annoying New York subway station Heavy truck (50 feet) 90 Hearing damage (8 hours) Pneumatic drill (50 feet) Passenger train (100 feet) 80 Annoying Helicopter (in-flight, 500 feet) Freight train (50 feet) Freeway traffic (50 feet) 70 Telephone use difficult Intrusive Air conditioning unit (20 feet) 60 Light auto traffic (50 feet) 50 Quiet Living room Bedroom Library 40 Soft whisper (15 feet) 30 Very quiet Broadcasting studio 20 10 Just audible • 0 Threshold of hearing • Typical A-weighted sound levels taken with a sound-level meter and expressed as decibels on the scale. The "A" scale approximates the frequency response of the human ear. Source: U.S. Council on Environmental Quality 1970. RENTON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 2 08/22/94o 3 APPENDIX I Varying noise levels are often described in terms of the equivalent constant decibel level. Equivalent noise levels (Leq) are used to develop single-value descriptions of average noise exposure over various periods of time. Such average noise exposure ratings often include additional weighting factors for annoyance potential attributable to time of day or other considerations. The Leq data used for these average noise exposure descriptors are generally based on A-weighted sound-level measurements. 2.1.2 Working with Decibel Values The nature of decibel scales is such that individual decibel ratings for different noise sources cannot be added directly to give the rating of the combination of these sources. Two noise sources producing equal decibel ratings at a given location will produce a composite noise level 3 dB greater than either sound alone. When two noise sources differ by 10 dB, the composite noise level will be only 0.4 dB greater than the louder source alone. Most people have difficulty distinguishing the louder of two noise sources if they differ by less than 1.5 to 2.0 dB. In general, a 10 dB increase in noise level is perceived as a doubling in loudness. A 2 dB increase represents a 15% increase in loudness. When distance is the only factor considered, sound levels from an isolated noise source will typically decrease by about 6 dB for every doubling of distance away from the noise source. When the noise source is essentially a continuous line (e.g., vehicle traffic on a highway), noise levels decrease by about 3 dB for every doubling of distance. 2.2 Guidelines for Interpreting Noise Levels. Various federal, state, and local agencies have developed guidelines for evaluating land use compatibility under different noise level ranges. For general reference, these guidelines are discussed in detail here. Because existing noise levels within the project area are generated primarily by motor vehicles operating on the road network surrounding the project site, FHWA criteria are used to evaluate the significance of noise levels under existing conditions. 2..1 Federal Agency Guidelines The federal Noise Control Act of 1972(Public Law 92-574)established a requirement that all federal agencies administer federal programs to promote an environment free from noises that may jeopardize public health or welfare. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given the responsibility of providing information to the public regarding identifiable effects of noise on public health or welfare,publishing information on the levels of environmental noise that will protect the public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety, coordinating federal research and activities related to noise control, and establishing federal noise emission standards for selected products distributed in interstate RENTON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 2 08/22/9eu 4 APPENDIX I commerce._ The federal Noise Control Act also directed that all federal agencies comply with applicable federal, state, interstate, and local noise control regulations. Although the EPA was given significant public information and federal agency coordination roles, each federal agency retains authority to adopt noise regulations pertaining to agency programs. The EPA can require other federal agencies to justify their noise regulations in terms of the federal Noise Control Act policy requirements. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration retains primary authority for setting workplace noise exposure standards. In the interest of aviation safety, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration retains primary jurisdiction over aircraft noise standards. The FHWA has adopted criteria for evaluating noise impacts associated with federally funded highway projects and for determining whether these impacts are sufficient to justify funding noise mitigation actions (47 FR 131:29653-29656). The FHWA noise abatement criteria are based on peak hour Leg noise levels. The peak 1-hour Leq criteria for residential, educational, and healthcare faciities are 67 dB outdoors and 52 dB indoors. The peak 1-hour Leq criterion for commercial and industrial areas is 72 dB (outdoors). Table 2 lists noise abatement criteria specified in the Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual. While the proposed project is not considered a highway project, noise generated within the project area under existing conditions can be attributed to motor vehicles operating on the road network adjacent to and surrounding the project site. Therefore, FHWA criteria are used to evaluate the significance of ambient noise levels under existing conditions. 2.2.2 State Agency Guidelines The Washington Administration Code (Chapter 173-60 WAC) specifies noise limits that restrict both the level and duration of noise measured at any given point within a receiving property. The maximum permissible environmental noise levels depend on the land use of the property containing the noise source and the land use of the property receiving that noise (Table 3). Land uses are categorized as follows: • Class A includes lands where humans reside and sleep. This includes residential areas, parks, camps, health facilities, and correctional facilities. • Class B includes lands not used for human habitation where protection against noise interference with speech is required,including commercial and retail areas; theaters, stadiums, and fairgrounds; and facilities for educational, religious, and government use. • Class C includes lands used for economic activities where higher noise levels than experienced in other areas are normally anticipated,including industrial and agricultural areas. RENfON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 2 O8/22/94u 5 APPENDDC I Table 2. Federal Highway Administration Noise Abatement Criteria ecl Activity Noise Levels Category (dBA) Description of Receptor A 57 (exterior) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need, and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose B 67 (exterior) Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals C 72 (exterior) Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above D -- Undeveloped lands E 52 (interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums Source: 47 FR 29653, July 8, 1982. • RENTON/BOEiNG DEIS 6 VOLUME 2 08/Z2/94u APPENDIX I • Table 3. Maximum Permissible Environmental Noise Levels (dBA) Land Use of Receiving Properties Class A Land Use Containing Day Nights Class B Class C Noise Source Class A (residential) 55 45 57 60 Class B (commercial) 57 47 60 65 Class C (industrial) 60 50 65 70 * Between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the noise limitations are reduced by 10 dBA for Class A land uses. Sources: Chapter 173-60 WAC, City of Renton Title 8 Health and Sanitation, Chapter 7. • RENTON/BOEING DEIS • VOLUME 2 08/22/94u 7 APPENDIX I At any hour of the day or night, the applicable noise limitation for any receiving property may be exceeded in any 1-hour period by no more than: • 5 dBA for a total of 15 minutes, • 10 dBA for a total of 5 minutes, and • 15 dBA for a total of 1.5 minutes. Sounds created by motor vehicles regulated by Chapter 173-62 WAC and sounds resulting from construction activity at temporary construction sites are exempt from all provisions of 173-60 WAC. Noise from activities (including truck operations) within facility boundaries is subject to provisions contained in Chapter 173-60 WAC. 2.2.3 Local Agency Guidelines The City of Renton, through Title 8, Chapter 7 of the Zoning Code, has adopted noise limitations criteria established under Chapter 173-60 WAC and shown in Table 3. As stated, traffic-related noise is exempt from Chapter 173-60 WAC. The regulations contained in Chapter 173-60 WAC are applicable only to single-source noise generators (e.g., manufacturing facilities). For the purpose of determining the_significance of existing noise levels, FHWA noise abatement criteria (Table 2) will be used. 2.3 Monitoring Existing Noise Levels Noise monitoring was conducted in the project area between 4 and 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 30, 1992, and between 1 and 3 p.m. on Thursday, October 1, 1992. Testing was performed to validate and calibrate the traffic noise prediction model and to document existing noise levels. Short-term (15-minute) monitoring was conducted at five sites within the project area. Noise monitoring locations are described in Table 4. Figure 3 shows the short-term monitoring locations. 23.1 Monitored Ambient Noise Levels Table 5 shows the traffic volumes,fleet mix, and approximate travel speed of vehicles in the immediate vicinity of the monitoring sites. Table 5 also shows the resulting ambient noise levels at the monitoring sites. Vehicles in the fleet mix are defined as follows: • Automobiles and light trucks include all vehicles with two axles and four wheels designed primarily for transportation of nine or fewer passengers or for the transportation of cargo. Generally, the vehicle weight is less than 10,000 pounds. REN7ON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 2 p 08/22/94u 8 APPENDIX I , . . • Table 4. Short-Term Noise Monitoring Sites Monitoring Site Site Location 1 Nendel's Inn parking lot on southwest corner of SR 181 and South 158th Street 2 Commercial center located on the northwest corner of East Valley Road and Southwest 43rd Street 3 Holiday Inn Hotel parking lot located on the southeast corner of Southwest Grady Way and SR 167 4 Parking lot of the office/business park located on the south side of Southwest 43rd Street across from the single-family residential units abutting the Southwest 43rd Street right-of-way between Oakesdale Avenue Southwest and SR 181 5 Parking lot adjacent to and south of the single-family dwelling units located on the east side of SR 181 between South 158th Street and Strander Boulevard - Note: Monitoring locations are shown in Figure 3. RENTON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 2 08/22/94u 9 APPENDIX 1 e S 3 SGra• W W Ae41 /k.- o SW,sth o c• street cc 0 > I158tt+s Oi J 1795w-- -+:<::z:>::i::s:::ra::>::>:z:»;::>:::::;: SW 27th Street Strander Blvd. O t= SW 34th Street W w 3 Y ec G - m _ � Q Q _ m C m SW 41st Street s 180th Street SW 43rd Street 2 4 N Sit 0 9t Figure 3. Short-Term Noise Monitoring Sites Table 5. Traffic Characteristics and Recorded Short-Term Noise Levels within the Project Area under Existing Conditions Vehicle Fleet Mix' Autos/ Light Medium Heavy Approx. FHWA Monitored Monitoring Location Trucks Trucks Trucks Speed' Criteria` Level° Site 1 (Category B)` 639 19 30 35 67 69 Site 2 (Category C)` 508 11 19 25 72 68 Site 3 (Category B) 610 1 5 25 67 68 Site 4 (Category B) 421 14 26 35 67 68 Site 5 (Category B) 568 26 24 40 67 68 a Vehicle fleet mix is in numbers of vehicles counted per monitoring period. °Approximate speeds are in miles per hour. ` Criteria are in Lea in dBA. - o Monitored levels are 15-minute Lec in dBA. ` See Table 2 for definitions of Categories B and C. RENTON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 2 68/22/94u 10 APPENDIX I • Medium trucks include all vehicles having two axles and six wheels designed for transportation of cargo. Generally, the vehicle weight is greater than 10,000 pounds but less than 26,000 pounds. • Heavy trucks include all vehicles having three or more axles and designed for transportation of cargo. Generally, the vehicle weight is greater than 26,000 pounds. As shown in Table 5, the FHWA noise abatement criterion of 67 dBA Leg for Category B receptors is currently exceeded at all monitored sites located within the project area. This is largely a result of the large number of medium and heavy trucks operating on the local road network. Monitored ambient noise levels at the Category C receptor are within the FHWA noise abatement criteria for Category C receptors. 2.4 Predicted Noise Levels 2.4.1 Model Description Traffic noise levels were predicted using the FHWA Noise Prediction Model as specified in Report FHWA-RD-77-108 (Barry and Reagan 1978). STAMINA 2.0 (Bowlby et al. 1982) is a computer implementation of the FHWA noise model that was used in this analysis. The STAMINA 2.0 program can process up to 30 roadways, each of which may have up to 14 links. Speeds are limited to between 30 and 60 miles per hour (mph). Input speeds less than 30 mph are defaulted to 30 mph, and input speeds greater than 60 mph are defaulted to 60 mph. When traffic speeds are less than 30 mph, the model predicts noise levels higher than those actually occurring. When actual speeds are greater than 60 mph, the model predicts noise levels lower than those actually occurring. 2.4.2 Model Validation Peak p.m. hour traffic volumes and speeds were used as input to the STAMINA 2.0 program. Nominal speeds between 30 and 40 mph were used for surface streets within the project area; speeds on mainline SR 167 and 1-405 ranged from 45 to 55 mph. Generally, modeled noise levels compared favorably with those measured at monitoring sites; however, there are characteristics within the project area that are difficult to simulate within the STAMINA 2.0 program. These are changes in terrain elevation, the presence of elevated roadways, and the presence of buildings or other shielding devices between roadways and receptor sites. As a result, some minor adjustments were made to the STAMINA 2.0 model Leg predictions to more closely approximate actual monitored noise levels. RENTON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 2 08/22/94u 11 APPENDDC I 2.4.3 Model Traffic Data Traffic volumes and speeds for existing and future-year conditions were determined from traffic data provided by The Transpo Group and on-site observations. The traffic volumes represent full build-out conditions and reflect a worst case traffic scenario. The intent of the modeling is to determine peak hourly noise levels for comparison with FHWA criteria. Vehicle fleet mix percentages were calculated based on the average fleet mix observed during on-site noise monitoring. For the purpose of this analysis, the fleet mix is: automobiles and light trucks (94%), medium trucks (2%), and heavy trucks (4%). When applicable, traffic speeds were adjusted based on the volume-to-capacity ratio of the roadway. Level-of-service (LOS) C volumes and speeds were used on roadways where the calculated LOS is C, D, E, or F. The LOS C speed and volume are generally considered to result in the highest noise level that will occur on a given roadway because the highest free-flowing speed occurs under these conditions. 2.4.4 Description of the Roadway Network and Receptors A roadway network was developed for the project area. Some road improvements are planned. These could include construction of a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) interchange at SR 167 and Southwest 27th Street. This improvement is expected to occur in the future; therefore, it was not included as part of the existing road network. Few sensitive receptors (houses, schools, etc.) exist within the project area, as commercial and light industrial facilities are the dominant land uses in the area. Eight receptors were identified within the project area. Receptor locations are shown in Figure 4. A drop-off rate of 3 to 4.5 dB per doubling of distance was used to simulate noise attenuation between the source and receptor. Receptor locations are defined in Table 6. 2.4.5 Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors under Existing Conditions Table 7 shows noise levels at sensitive receptors within the project area under existing conditions using 1992 p.m. peak hour traffic volumes and the existing fleet mix. As shown, the modeled noise levels exceed FHWA noise abatement criteria at Receptors 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7. The FHWA criteria are currently not exceeded at Receptor 4 (Valley Medical Center). As shown in Table 5, FHWA criteria are exceeded at Monitoring Site 5. Data collected at Monitoring Site 5 were intended to simulate existing noise conditions at Receptor 3 (Table 6). The monitored noise levels (68 dBA) are approximately I dBA higher than modeled noise levels (67 dBA) (Table 7). A 1 dBA variation is an imperceptible difference. It is likely that existing noise levels at Receptor 3 are equal to or marginally exceed FHWA criteria during the p.m. peak hour. RENTON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 2 08/22/944u 12 APPENDIX I r 94. e SW Gra• O ir-Np)Pr-o / E 3 SW 161h b!' N Street c tL � H k Z UV si U: SW 27th Street Strander Blvd. O O O 0 a SW 34th Street W `L 3 N a < Q m O m x SW41stStreet m O C7 S t sot:,street 3 SW 43rd Street N 61W Figure 4. Sensitive Noise Receptor Locations r " M • Table 6. Description of Sensitive Receptor Sites within Project Area Receptor Site Description 1 Nendel's Inn located on west side of SR 181 south of South 158th Street 2 Single-family dwelling units located on east side of SR 181 between South 158th Street and Strander Boulevard 3 Single-family dwelling units abutting the north side of Southwest 43rd Street between Oakesdale Avenue Southwest and SR 181 4 Valley Medical Centers 5 Holiday Inn located east of SR 167, south of Southwest Grady Way, and north of I-405 6 Single-family residential area located between Raymond Avenue Southwest and Lind Avenue Southwest, north of I-405, and south of Southwest Grady Way 7 Single-family residential area located between Lind Avenue Southwest and SR 167, north of 1-405, and south of Southwest Grady Way a Valley Medical Center is outside the study area; however, it was selected because of its sensitivity as a receptor. RENfON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 2 08/22/944u 13 APPENDDC I , Table 7. 1992 Modeled Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptor Sites within Project Area FHWA Receptor Receptor Modeled FHWA Criteria Receptor Category' Description Noise Levels (dBA)' 1 B Nendel's Inn located on west side 68 67 of SR 181 south of South 158th Street 2 B Single-family dwelling units located 68 67 on east side of SR 181 between South 158th Street and Strander Boulevard 3 B Single-family dwelling units 67 67 abutting the north side of Southwest 43rd Street between Oakesdale Avenue Southwest and SR 181 4 B Valley Medical Center' 65 67 5 B Holiday Inn located east of SR 167, 67 67 south of Southwest Grady Way, and - north of I-405 6 B Single-family residential area 69 67 located between Raymond Avenue Southwest and Lind Avenue Southwest, north of I-405, and south of Southwest Grady Way 7 B Single-family residential area 69 67 located between Lind Avenue Southwest and SR 167, north of I- 405, and south of Southwest Grady Way Note: Receptor locations are shown in Figure 4. ' For Category B land uses, see Table 2. ° Outside of study area; however, chosen as a receptor because of its proximate location and sensitivity to noise. RENTON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 2 08/22/94u 14 APPENDDC I 2.5 Conclusions The purpose of this analysis was to provide information describing existing ambient noise levels within the project area. As discussed, existing noise levels are generated primarily from vehicles traveling on roadways adjacent to the project site. Noise levels currently exceed FHWA noise abatement criteria at some sensitive receptors located along heavily traveled roadways. Traffic-generated noise, as opposed to a single noise source (e.g., manufacturing facilities), is exempt from regulation pursuant to Chapter 173-60 WAC. Under existing conditions, the proposed project site generates few trips relative to traffic volumes on adjacent roadways. Additionally, observations indicate that vehicles traveling to and from the site, primarily from South 158th Street, do so at a rate of speed lower than vehicles traveling on adjacent roadways. There are no single-source noise generators on the project site. As a result, activities on the project site and vehicles traveling to and from the site contribute negligibly to existing noise levels. Construction of the proposed project would likely increase ambient noise levels within the project area. However, noise generated from project construction is considered a short-term impact and is not regulated pursuant to Chapter 173-60 WAC. To minimize construction noise impacts, it is assumed that the City would establish customary requirements for construction contractors to maintain noise muffling apparatus on all heavy equipment operated within the area. A future-year noise analysis will not likely be necessary for the proposed project for several reasons which are herein described. As reported, traffic is the predominant source of noise within and surrounding the project area. The studies of existing conditions were based upon 2010 traffic volumes presented in a transportation report issued by The Transpo Group in February 1993, which assumed full build-out of the City, and therefore, reflect a worst case traffic scenario. Since The Transpo Group's report was issued, the City of Renton has prepared the Interim and Draft Final Transportation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan (City of Renton 1993, 1994), using Puget Sound Regional Council traffic forecast data, with adjustments made to reflect particular conditions within the City. Overall, the revised traffic numbers reflect lower 2010 traffic volumes within the study area than those numbers projected under full build-out conditions. A new noise study would not be necessary with the revised (lower) numbers, as these numbers are not sufficiently different to cause a perceptible change in 2010 noise levels over those levels that would occur under full build-out conditions within the study area. Additionally, daily activities associated with the operation of office center developments do not typically generate significant noise levels. It is assumed that activities associated with the proposed development, under each development alternative, would be RENTON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 2 08/22/94u 15 APPENDIX I a characteristic.of typical office developments. After project completion, the most significant noise source attributable to the proposed project would continue to be traffic traveling to and from the project site. Under existing conditions, modeled noise levels show exceedance of the FHWA abatement criteria at six of the seven receptors. Under future-year conditions, a 3 dBA increase in ambient noise levels is a typical impact threshold used in noise analyses when existing levels exceed FHWA criteria. In other words, if ambient noise levels increase by at least 3 dBA under future-year "with project" conditions when existing noise levels exceed the FHWA criteria, the project is considered to have a significant noise impact. A 3 dBA increase is used as an impact threshold because noise levels must increase by a minimum of 3 dBA before the increase is perceptible to the human ear. To produce a net 3 dBA increase in ambient noise levels attributable to the project, traffic volumes attributable to operation of the proposed project would have to cause a two-fold increase in total future- year volumes. Additionally, traffic would have to travel at the same speed as under existing conditions. As shown in the traffic analysis, it is unlikely that either of these scenarios would occur under future-year "with project" conditions. Although traffic volumes attributable to the proposed project are not likely to cause a two-fold increase in future-year volumes, the project would generate a significant number of additional trips on the road network surrounding the project site._ This increase is likely to cause a slight elevation in measurable ambient noise levels; however, the increase is unlikely to exceed 1 to 2 dBA. A 1 to 2 dBA increase is imperceptible to the human ear; therefore, it does not represent a significant noise impact. In summary, the justification for not performing a future-year noise analysis is that future-year traffic volumes attributable to the proposed project are not likely to cause a two- fold increase in traffic volumes that would occur under normal growth conditions. Therefore, traffic attributable to the proposed project would not cause noise levels to increase by the 3 dBA impact threshold discussed above. Additionally, while traffic attributable to the proposed project may cause some measurable increase in ambient noise levels, it is unlikely that the increase would be perceptible to the human ear. 3 CITATIONS Barry, T. M., and J. A. Reagan. 1978. FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model. (FHWA-RD-77-108.) Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC. Bowlby, W., S. Higgans, and J. Reagan. 1982. Noise barrier cost reduction procedure, STAMINA 2.0/OPTIMA users manual. (FHWA/FD-82/011a.) Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC. RENTON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 2 08/22/94u 16 APPENDIX U.S. Council on Environmental Quality._, 1970. Environmental quality: the first annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC. W&H Pacific. 1991. Aerial photograph_of Longacres Park. Bellevue,'WA. 1__ • REN7ON/BOEING DEIS VOLUME 2 08/22/Wu 17 APPENDIX I p 't T S I`wr /' " U.S.Department • �\ •• of Transportation Seattle Airports District Office „um� Y;l Federal Aviation 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W.,Suite 250 ••'^ Administration Renton,Washington 98055-4056 - August 5, 1998 Mr. Richard J. Ford Boeing Company P. O. Box 3707 • m/s 19-35 Seattle, WA 98124 Dear Mr. Ford: We have studied your Notice of Landing Area Proposal, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Form 7480-1, to establish a private use use heliport, Longacres Heliport, Renton, Washington, at latitude 47° 27' 34"N and longitude 122° 14' 14"W (NAD 1983). Aeronautical Study 98-SEA-150-NRA indicates that the proposal would not be contrary to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace. Therefore, we have no objection to its establishment. This airspace determination should not be construed to mean FAA approval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is only a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft. In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effect the proposal would have on existing or contemplated traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effects it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, and the effects that existing or proposed man-made objects (on file with the FAA) and natural objects within the affected area would have on the heliport proposal. This determination no way preempts or waives any ordinance, laws, or regulations of any other governmental body or agency. No evaluation of the environmental aspects of your proposal has been made, therefore, this determination does not constitute environmental approval under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. You should be aware that the FAA cannot prevent the construction of a structure near the heliport. The airport environs can only be protected through such means as local zoning ordinances or acquisition of property rights. Kt, S - 4 2 We recommend that the proposal be developed per established heliport design standards. For this purpose, the FAA has prepared a useful and interesting handbook entitled " Heliport Design", Advisory Circular 150-5390-2. Chapter 2 on Private Use Heliports of this publication is enclosed. When the proposal becomes operational, please complete and return the enclosed FAA Form 5010-5, "Airport Master Record", which is pre-addressed for that purpose. The enclosed "Appendix 1, Description and Instruction for Each Data Element" is provided for your use in completing this form. If the proposal does not become operational and/or the FAA Form 5010-5 is not submitted by, June 30, 1999, this airspace determination will expire. A time extension may be requested, but its issuance will be dependent upon a review of aeronautical activity in the area. If in the future you wish to open the heliport to public use, a new airspace determination will be required. Thank you for your cooperation and patience in this matter. If you have any questions, please call me at (425) 227-2655. Sincerely, JGGc.�j . Paul F. Johnson, P.E. Civil Engineer Washington Section 4 Enclosures: Dimensional standards FAA Form 5010-5 Appendix 1 to 5010-5 Heliport Design cc: Northwest Public Power Association Washington State Aeronautics (w/7480-1 and map) AAS-330 (w/7480-1 and map) ANM-530 ANM-900 (w/7480-1 and map) -_ ANM-902 (w/7480-1 and map) AWP-930 (w/7480-1 and map) • FIGU' 1: HELISTOP LOCATION : ,�.P • -- A,.. .1, . `*� ra ,-,-' er„......,,,,,,„..._ 0,. .„ , , ,, 1' ,.....- ,,yro,40iop--unpla- . 'A'1 - --F 4 footbrid\ t_.:,. .1:17; 4,1*r....,0001 '`.•!\fth-r.M•••. 412:--iri:P"'° t AIDIFT*011 OM \ 1 s' %%, 444 \ ‘ IA:.r 7':74.1riretiAr 1160,a.--411111111LE l ‘0 .-I.JX4 int \v);--..,05. 1 . 1 Aiiiw - - __as...„-- -Zti'4!IlarfN. 11111111111PV 1101Wig06\lee-11-. ‘4.-it.! : 9 ‘._ ktn asii.k.feittiairem MIL :al `w' ` VNYVIKIWISIW � �� , , ' •/r �ri� r i� �. -�,moo1' .. N.oui II � '��` I Plent \ IVijiIiii `_♦ �,�fr,tSewage �;A � �� `\ir dN\ A\ VS,i,, • Nb- r / _ �. wit ,(0t Iii \Z„. '''' 6.-4 A% tc\:,4, Wilr-', 6 4 . earn r 'lye( V 'IL A i •v‘Ift&-qcf,roLvtiateo. t 2 ....1 OVA., 7,„_:-.0 ..„,,,,,riri,„,. i,„ i r'liii .,- - - ---- - 11�1�►_ ; . .ii,Arailtiobb.4.A. ( � II �! 46 D . • osaiskla. 41.. law \Atilrilakslii. Southcenter I'll _ _ - , v _= IA .. .:.-z-.._---.-_-----=5. 71. Attiiits; I Mall 7 11i�. L i ,(I, a ,„„ :.:, .t f ><-_____-_,..„ g .� 'is c. • ,.. ' 1 _ . __ 4. 11 likk p Y \ `%• II l — y..--ter 1 • IVO Mil _726 44 ; i ( 253.0 \`hTukwila II ,J . i oo, mirge t,..\ —7-Aprjr::: Illt:' I I:1 % :Al tibll I 11 . 1• oCC<Q1lik i\i‘. Pri41.11P. liktta lin c il I p Ai 171 Green: am ir 1.dr....11=36.1WpIlilfArigral ..sidi• . .L 1 �. LiiJLL_ iftjj $_I. ' RFMO � i •f 1I I LJ I i s I� ^r L,mac T4000 1:2 • ir 1 .5 _0METERS IMO 2000id r i 1 .5 0 1 \/ 11 4 MILES \ � •,••,. 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0000 7000 0000 1000 10000 4 '‘ r k" • ' i tSUY/ag7 1. 1 r\0 al iFFT . 1 / l $Ub5VIII U 1) Note: Radius shown is 1NM. Sources: USGS Renton Quadrangle, 1994; USGS Des Moines Quadrangle, 1995. V_)(IA_ eta •.,, . 1 ........-.." . I - - I r.„ — , __ _--,---- ...., - _ ,.., .... 1---1.---F.----r--/,1 S.W. 16TH STREET ---,..--1-: \ \ktIt„\ t, s, r••••• • CD ; / :: PROPER . 1 I I LINE \ N: S 2W. 19TH STREET _ • il 1 ± leff2 t• 11 --1 r j CITY 1 il ci 1, CITY dF I • OF ------- i, st TUKWICA : IIII I I. \ PliOJETT SITE ,--...,. RENTON : t :!„,..—J A S.W. 23RD STREET \ D ..Y, . -BOEING _!-J 4 I •j PROPERTY LINE S.W. 27TH STREET ----------- 3 E. 1.1 II 4 -.... ) W ati 6 i t .. 3 Si i [ S.W. 34TH STREET ch I , , • I' li / ,.., ' . g . ... ., . • I : . ) SITE LOCATION n ,....., ...,..._ d I— \,‘ I i I .. ••-- • ' 40----- ,-k. )_ cp.Pgi-"c". ... ..-----.. .. .....• ._. ....• , • .. ,---1-49 ------:-7:::---------------.---- -- ..\\ts, k \ . „, -- - --..— ....___.... ,... . \ \---', /-',-:-. .,:...--.::.---""-' --. \ \\s, .,-...;-...3.---_-- - ..,..._-- - s W. 16TH STREET N. / ' .- ...•-•t:'''..---* x... \ • c0 i ..,:- ....... *1- ' ...., L.--(iil ,... i ' :i PROPER !' <•f_ s.w. 19TH STREET7___........,..,,_ 1 1 i LINE ‘ -• 10 ., ellY11111 s,:',AI , ! , 1 I I I UNI ' I i ; —A___ NA 15i1Vit-- CO I ITY ti 1 IIT 11 1 + ,t crn, CIF i '---;. Mit TUKWILA i •'.. PIct OJE SITE RENTON -----/ _ .. t., S.W. 23RD STREET w\ I ! \..a B• VI/~11044 1 m k i i 1 z Cii i I f \_BOEING 0 7 ‘ PROPERTY S.W. 27TH STREET N k ....-........ . - ..I 1 LINE At .9 l \ 1 o- 1.1 .: fri c i gs eg 0 > 0 ll ol r ..-- •-- o. > (.,i z' 5 0 _ ca z Ln in u: 0: rn .., <• .• r < S.W. 34TH STREET a_ : L..: ! --' 11 !i. (r) z • ;in .Y., . . / : w csi , 41 N , r- il \ / . . ; NI- r-- 1 • 1••,-) , SITE LOCATION SCALE: NONE _I I_ k n t 0 L ' ---- Oita. .a-' '.�• � t. .. lc) G 'xt .rlF+' r7i S —, t �i• 11 flf '` `' , CSTC BLDG 25 01 1 _. it V �t ,0/1,..".), „:_"...:-./i,311. .:-.,,..,,) ....( 4:0.= ..,,.._„,..,. o .:: ... 'i .. \tlrr ,. .. . zv` 1_, ..„,: :.:.,.., ,L r' 1.. .„ t ;i '' ` - ,f .) , BLDG. % Q1i''` ' /% a - 25-20 > BLDG. r '� _ 25-10 • 4111 I_ i T, , ,,_,fi,, i i JI! J I II - , , ,.,.i e 1 E I: .. ,.. 3� : .,. . ;.f ' \. . rl! HELISTOP .‘ —, — I `, PROJECT SITE _ -^� --= I� \.J J 1 :..;, �% III I>I io.I ° _ZS iL rr ...-AbAk:.,i: 1 HELISTOP PROJECT tx. t' SITE PLAN NOTES: r • F ......__:_ PROJECT SITE AREA: 3.10 AC (APPROX) �: = ICI 7 TOTAL BUILDING AREA: N/A SII 21st t„., ,\ • 1'—_!‹.:C PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: N/A 0 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: N/A PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS: N/A TOTAL LANDSCAPING: 0.5 AC REQUIRED SETBACK: 80' DIAMETER F.A.T.O. PROPOSED SETBACK: 80' DIAMETER F.A.T.O. - " 'fEmp SITE PLAN N C I V I L . I N C- 600 108th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 (425) 452-8000 P:\JOB\013747\2210\DWG\SEPA0348.dwg ianeke/6.24.98 ______,,_ r _.....,,.... ::::.,.. „...• ...... „,, ---( • ...._ ....____ ...... . . _ .......... ...... .. .• ........___. ......... .... . __.• ... . • _.. ., ...,......, ,,- ......_:„....,.,,"-,--- ,, _ __,,-- :.• •• _ .. , • ___....„7----- ,... ! - r...- '.. .. • *...----- ,. -.-.27.:::_-,..-:-::.i-::::..•,.. :::.,...::, c)\ --3- ---3:; \\ :21-. ..-..,-- --.:1.2k-ii.-:---:_lj..:.T:-iJ--.--_-LiTT:4:1 17:::;7"-;:7•.::;-'Ei.i.-7:-;;::-... <...-- \ '......, i . \ N. ".-:..::„.i.,„.....:.;:i.::::;.•.:-...„..i::._:,,•-i,.......1?:17,::....;F:i..-.7_4:t:7:. ..,...._•... . ,:. ,,,,--::::::::::::::::::::::::: ! .. ....„...........„:„... ......,..., , , ,....; . 1! /7 1 sir • f • • 9T _ '11 • 1 L.--— S W.. .:•,:::.,,.,L. .1": C) _..: S 1 5B-T4 II 11:111 . ...j,•::::•: HELIS TOP -:::-;:,,:f:.:::.:::I 1 IIVI. ''''''-, ....... . - ------- = -- ._...----- ......._: It‘il PROJECT 8 iii.',8 tli.8• — ••.. 0: SITE ......,.. ' III\ III Iii.i;ii' CITY OF : t RENTON 1 11 CITY OF :,I •'. TUKWILA: ' \—BOEING I PROPERTY .. S—.W...2-3-R-D-"'ST. ... LINE-\. J ....... ..... .., . • --.1:.. •'.• 1 0:: 0 A Zi S • W • P 7TH STREET ,, _ ..... ::.... „ .,: _ __..--.....„...., ...7.:„....:- rri:i CDr5) ... .......... .1 ' .,. fi BOEING yi: PROPERTY pi 5,..,.f ...-->`.. LINE-\ ';':::" - _____] Tri i C _ _ \ II m. - - 2 < 0 k': ' (I) >--- C) . cl > Li__I (Au L J xi . s____------___ z D%> - § ITI = : f-- s 1-1-1 < > L S.W. 34TH STREET •••...... - : 4 > 0 1 .•' x I ii < m , m x I I (x) i I NI < ,. : ii . I,,' . . 1 , ...„,..-- 7 1 ; LL_I . ti : • i; . : / II: i : : • --•- : = i I •• ;, . _.....-------...... ,--. \--•\...., ..-:"/ . ,, 1 .—e. 1 , 1 INCH .300' (APPROXIMATELY) . 0 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS 0 WSDOT 0 BNSF RAILWAY ®CITY OF RENTON ©GLACIER PARK PROP. 0 HUNTER DOUGLAS 12)McLEOD HELISTOP PROJECT ®CITY OF SEATTLE 8 ALLPAC CONTAINER. INC. NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP PAJOB\013747\2210\DWG\SEPA0349 DWG lonekc/8 23.98 ct;I5 I THE BOEING COMPANY Y i , a, HELISTOP PROJECT i j,a W i!N a tTli RENTON WASHINGTON ZN w U •.'= C�1 PRE-APPLICATION SUBMITTAL ! mUz -8 JULY 2, 1998 so f"I ( I H T P T _ i /// SITE .,-I`I .. - ^" {. ` BOEING PROPERTY UNE </ i kik : O ,o I', l�jf i.(, NE ISTOP•PROJECT --- -�1 Rioslit it 3 z '1` �P. i CITYI OF o # a >f—� 6M �1 © . v�o�mr 1 RENTON ' ,.., , -1 al _� J R:..uasIm I { 4 V 1 4.� �,%/�� tLl'; ! IROEING PROPFRIY ,I s...n,,,snm . PROPERTY- 1 j UNE __..__... ..._...... UNE 11 A ING :i VA L } \ ROPERTY I .l PROPERTY ' f Oi f1LQCITh i..NM MEET I I`• II I II jj1gg3g VICINITY MAP SITE LOCATION SITE PLAN (��, I SCALE.NONE ��,,,,,,,,�� SCALE NONE SCAT F: NONE �,I s Fl I PERMIT SET I i aE:ozoz.es i SIAE.2lC2ll.tt i lI/2,YG2i121EttU 0 I 4 1 ■ f, ,, I CITY OF RENTON .- � f `` SECTIONS 24 k 25, t i T23N R4E W.M. : 1\\\\�,r ' tac9?Q;'''� l WETLANDS MAP HELISTOP PROJECT � CSTC PROPERTY Llti `.. 4 RENTON, WASHINGTON iiiii�\ LONGACRES OFFICV. •a`t s, BOEIA/G SEPA SUBMITTAL PARK (LOP) a '' )FGFND o Aso eoo i't\ PROPERTY LINE P 7901 OAKESDALE AVE. S.W. I vl:nwv9; ,+' MAIL STOP 20-30 GRAPHIC CCAIF 'F' , �''' ,,,,./..,, EXIST. CSTC WETLANDS RENTON WA, 98055 DRAWING_OF_ ♦ • fit' �•. d - �" �. REVISION 0 DATE:spa/95 r rT 1 sal t i� RESERVED CSTC WETLANDS \ � , �� \\` ♦ Iltf$r Sttlt ' p//rs 1r/ii \� �/ EXIST. LONGACRES OFFICE r GELF- : \� ♦♦ I i +.7- •-,' /3r"///, -N r %\ \\t PARK WETLANDS [ I PERMIT SET 0fy.cd >`"'°t\ \\ •-=.•t s' ,.,t '.a-. 1 ' m ' r t iyY , J r. r r \. r i \ .: '•♦ t't \\y ♦\y ._ ^' • PROPERTY OF C.: 9 l n .77_ `. yr,! y,-�\-. _R 11 `I. 1�1� :M ft ` C4Di(R'RIVER'PIPEy1NE I 'LOP ` t'Y•`i-r•r-rt-t-•":arr'_rrtr•+'�'�'�. !. --�..- .� 6r*�:. f t PROPERTY _. t,,:.e .w ..r. r )i7i! '+ ...:./.. 1 '�tt,tart P E i`r .". rrt^•rr." r♦ - >' \�,•'�\�; I{, v i u.,v«.-.�s,3:Y..�. ls+s..L \._ ...: • •l...•.I 1'trt.:rt�•y Ei't tl. , \\\ ( t 1 �s -,.i -! +, I ,�,� , t .•�-5>.:___ j /,. ( £ . \ ,t a s I � w�I a I u. x E 4.a \4 i L.:...., . ,- s / .... - ,..1.:.s..xn. a ilt til uil; w'� \I{ F{ / �„y �-a.'t { - \ I.I•:..t '14 >I1'� . 1 !II''''' 1 .' I 1 4; .• / I ti� l� I1` ar — CSTC 't a t.. !�' �.II_.tl: � �r f .. i1.}_1Y I sn I pt-� U ( / r • �� rJD 1-� „_- t? .� //!PROPERTY' 1••.- i fEk ,F W ` rI J ` a D@ It .. .,� �. _ Q E...Jack �1 CST E 1•:Gtk.. /1 mil\ i/!�t FRS t .d,.';$, �j '" ,.:14. >r �.:r._.. i k y f 1 _-7-7,. -%rf t` // c �;\�\ '? )I $1 :t;. 3`r.7m - �� I t�•\� •r -1 yy t."! ..,._ ryfly �/f 25-01 /. .♦_caf t•.. , !V 5 I 1i - r (.$ ,Jr J '• 25-02 1. i I t CSTC I • // t/ ,r o» i• ,t` .-eT i-7, ` r�t' -1, , N ..}.. / '? '' BUILDING it t \ +../_--�• �,; n - : t� ji•l t i� te r\ '' il a 1_� .1—.+ �[ �_ �'_,` !t _: -,I L i�J... �t !_/ ��}. rS .ir t ri • ! i, f •1 ems- \ .*' ; .. - ... .. ... t C7 • iiF :, -!!/ \.;.'T\ 1. -• ,, 1,2 ".. I,Ij - -- -L.__-z'- cam..,. 4 i-i) \ •, �,'. ;. ,�j////. -1 iiF • / /- // /• \ >, tr �\ \ r .. t ..Jr . i .. J/ jj/ / E i i ✓ /r% \\ ,al t J - t / IA1m tw......,':i "\ wS�alia° \\\ t• r • 1 J-• tLk _ •, .-. // F ,� tl �. � l�`t� i 11• Y .r ., t. +; � �/.�/ ('1 l 9 Il ry / '�.l , -� ��..` .,` .` 1 . ', :':.ri'ftT•Y'F"- i / i; \ \ G/�\ I. t tl '.i.,,..:,,........" -�....:' ... t�`�J ♦ / / I 1.. !( ,j fj 1 tlt: ' ��\ >_ �� \ -K /: ram/ v/ \ rifo/ r t. .., Ir ' + ,.,' } P....1.,rw± I r 1 \ •/%// �\Teo, 1 t,`t t r 1� �•f: "•� }, t. it • N! �,Y{ /. x '! .+ .: �� q t, .........4 .f t r /:,/ / : \..; l t t y L e�'C ..(, ,, is` I` f t ( ° i �1+'\.� �,: /i , ' IF,rt-. .�r� r+ t ? ! ' �\ \ / :/ ti• trot tl ftl ! l lelf / ` %. ;Fill { ,'`t .x_� r S i t i t \ ,! '•'I�1 \\ i Q� /� .r l / me CC I! ftl l i _t _ -..•.. /: �' 1 ` , �r-:1<t,�-:1-rr t �i \\ a ,�'" ;li I1 r• 5i 1•.. 4 e S C t - .1` ,, `\1\\ j' ip':'„ . \`:�\�' j•�_/ I \ ,r1r t�� P ! /t'1 11 7:_t. -( • r_.t ®` j ,� �`\ S��'I'•t:l"I I I'1 � \� \ // �� I III \ _ // , /0 i rit / • • !, \ •• tr \ r �(��"�- F•L •�,�\.`\��,/�: \`� , . T.I-t" i '+, ::::: .. _: i � "- rr r 1 iEXI•IL t•}; \•i' ..,:\ \'‘,,,t t, \\ .. \� . .. '_vFtLitiE..:' .._,.� .,... r i / 1 •. till (/ ' - �i STOCKPILE /: \\ �.. i .`,1\` • -., ._._ _. r / ...1' '� - h '.,• ) i I , 1 rat:, l,' t c \\\ t\\` I tl 1• \ i :J J ,' �`.4 .«ql ti /. r. L.-.j'/ _._ uY: ..\- f fl r r/ //�•: 7 �k \ � ,., `\1 ,, ,, • r/,1�\......;a \`1' '�--•..i ,..i% I .��i� s J 1,I,1li 1; tl ��. f \• •:_ .--./ r�/I r `Vr. 1`'L. {. ,...„. iii �\/ 1 .: - :�. '��'. . . _. u.�-.ia..+. . .' 4�.Z,•• L.. f :_- --.. _.�..:; i ' I,- It II{ td( ,\J f/j t , -� 1 / I. t 1 \, t _ LOP PROPERTY LINE _ \�, - .....- ... . BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY 1 1 nn \\t\. i Srardrup s „n. \. c l v I cFs - \ ••• ( Om • • . .:. a a . i CSTC PROPERTY LIME 1111111 FLOODPLAIN AREAS '• LONGACRES OFFICtt`' �: * BELOW ELEVATION 1ELE I PARK (LOP) i (FEMA FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION) a ISO ..'CC _ I;oo �YYY PROPERTY LINE L--->_ -- I • � G,4A4'�.0 SCYF J'' i IIII I- I r Ii It1111 r 1N ' III llillllI I �0�1I PERMIT SETIIIIIIII 1.Y1I 41 'Ihhhi I !I ;C�y6`. 1111111��OI1 lI II 0il� • II��I . 4 ,III ozo2.ae 1 �,��° II ttt,,! �� III 11 i II II ,-,-............-......,..A.„.,,,.... 1 SQ f - �lf� i,�� I �� ,i PROPERTY OF �r` (in, ' t {744 I, I, .`�, 1II11I, ..CITY OF SEATTLE +l \....� `v } • 1 pIi•IVIllll,ll' ii I f:•C.,I 1 1..1 µ R•� R ) UT�RE OAKESDALE AVEN 4W t uil,:..r,..w, k III *,, IIII v }lE- UNE . +" '� rr c i.. I, I. . _ Tit .. . I P TY 7 7 . L �i ..:...�'. I „ "III , • --r— L-t-, II 1I .....; � \�fn_� �� lu:.:. 'Su1.'.I fy '1 III '1 J. 4 '..4�._.0... I.� yn I. I .� ...�. { �•F) r� J i / w n �r CSTC { 1' A1,1.Kr) _ Y II :-1 1__ ` Q y I -� • UNEPERTY , £ .x:.Y � I :``' IIII )... a( li': �� I �,. rt .�.•.. ' J f 1,_JK ,/�y I IIII ` :.4f I�, . 25-Ot I `. '':1'...: i)""t O� T ."._ I• 1�J' � :.:�--'/� �+ f rr i yI,K �ftT ..iv:J?S r; • 25-02 I{' • CSTC IIII I f C{ I• Y' _ ��...__ �,i # �� _. ` _.. , I.i' ' •.1 BUILDING h 7 ^". `� " 4 s I {' _ I,i I.....; II III III 1 GI 4 :Ail11 ill i it i I �'� � i_n. 1 , E ; 1 % \ 4 , lr. - / / 1 1, / f 1 "1` IIII III III •p p.�11III II ti i' t � IIJ�/ , IIII I, ,. ,:/'/ , r t ,£ > '' F ; I .�': IIII I 1 , .' •:,.'. /� /�'' pr7 r � tltx `f•T`I.i:Ir'ffrh• r/ �- 1 ., N11111MI II�1p.A• 11�1111�11'rl�l!I41'� I I ; ' T /f• 1 ! I..i'tI !' 1 f,i.' II11111 III I1 N s , '(,.. III II II ll ', .14 ! r 4 I • 1n-r-crrrrr y 1, M�iil)lhjllNlI ';�i I II 1111• 111 I f I) I �Op g !! `• 1,11 \ ,, ..!` /�. or. + ;411jI jl�ll 4 II`�,III III t 11 i ! ;i'' ` ` `: - i. ``.__._� 9 :qlyI I sIIIIII' I I I I I I ii � I II I,III .I i. FI p'RUI II I of G� K 11 !1 III 11 ' / ,` Il ,. ��1i�,�j�ly �7�;.•.i:il ..I r�ICI�h1• � 91 .%� '' I • •••• .<: II • } 1 J �I \.._ •', j ;g r)..wma t ! .I,I 1 ., 1 ��\lq' li • �/ I. t• / I - I ( _ I I1 411 untulllluu■.M%�I FiI I •Y J , L- jf 1 ,, 11�11iIIIIIM._,.°/tam' III• II ? , i(,.i ,r M1 t 1 ,,,if{ iTIMiTf II II�� a a� �; i� } II ( ? i Y '_ V. ,:,':iTi•I'II .111.11...11 II.1+ 11IIII11i1' $£�liiliw III II,IIII! t I •! h t ,., r1 II • I ; I.S Iii`J C`Y i` �`�.,, {{ '.� rr•+^rr 111 4:� J%�„'%+w'1 dill ;i M IIII ..4 / 1 . L t i ;g ` `JN II•• , �•',1 mI. u s.: .'"y/ i 1 ' A I� r-f _ 1 1 y' :: 111 / It— , �- OIL G ;r �.\ • •4plr l' s�8 .:. j ii.,, I I L: I pE+ .. : r, '' �•• II .. I j I:'I ",.... PILE T, ,, `.`�\,1� ``:.... ! n�_"`'ll•■�■rolii III I; 'I I;111I'11111111111ii��illi.i ; I I • ,t f IIN;II / �i; t �, ,;; 4 1 1 �•�,'� 11 / I.. � I III �� _... .1� '"'Ki. 1 I r r\f1 ",x�;,�\�� -,�� .�~ III llllllijll'I!,. --�.A.--- - - �, _.� .1 ,-'.f //r , �� , �. ��;�,� HI, Ill�ul ;,� II �'�'(I�i��, � uRlllli'i IIII l � 121.117 ��• T�•� ,i I �! : �' �� ..,/%/• ��,>:-�` . •` ! 1 11 II I > 1 ?1 •! �j' i' / 1 5 '�' IIII IIII1 I • A I ' III! 1111117:1H° IV '; -" k 7 -�II N I . I IIIIII IIII 0 I I �. r:. -. :=_ � :ff,�r" LOP PROPERTY LINE �^� ' f •. BURLING70N NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY '`.tpit NS .: ._. ■wrdrr' S�T�: .. . .... .. .. .� ..■ .. nCL''''' Ilan FLOODPLAIN MAP (10.4) ..�— I .R BOE/NG "°� HELI3T0 PROJECT ,,, a.m. (MOINSI01 LacAC S OFF S Pwa _a_ LYNNWOOD SNOHOMISH CO. KING CO. POULSBO P431)1i REDMOND m o I 2 ac' o J` O SEATTLE0 k. BRE TO fr4,,, TON VASHON ISLAND KENT 2 MAPLE VALLEY O o 0 SITE LOCATION sr O AUBURN 0_ a V1 \C7 KING CO. 0 / PIERCE CO. 0 TACOMA O' VICINITY MAP SCALE: NONE 'tL 111_ t y - s W N.$, . i6TH STREET ... 1 �9 CO -i tI BOEING ,.'' t} 2 ;' il PROPERTY .. 1 S W_i9TH STREET .; i I LINE U....... sT CITYti CITY OF.p TUKWIyAj �_Hifi I RENTON PROJE f SITE �` I i f J � S.W. 23RD STREET i i._ rn BOEING M tt i i PROPERTY I S.w. 2 7'H STREET N i 121 2 10 . LINE _...._... U ` co W 1' O W 2; z 2'Ij p Q . 14 .. V S.W. 34TH STREET L,.: 3 • i o , o 1 lI IJ t g fN f II • a II M ii O - • SITE LOCATION0 SCALE: NONE L 252304-9004-07 CITY OF RENTON 369700 200 MILL AVE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 252304-9006-05 MELEOD STUART 139999 213 LAKE ST_SOUTH KIRKLANJ WA 98033 252304-9019-00 CITY OF RENTON 209800 CITY HALL 200 MILL AVE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 252304-9022-05 BURLINGTON NCRTHRN SANTA FE715175 TAX DEPT 1700 E GOLF RD ::400 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 252304-9024-03 0 W R R & NAV CC 201303 UNION PACIFIC RR CORP PO BOX 2500 BROOMFIELD CO 80020 252304-9037-08 CITY OF SEATTLE 647777 WATER DEPT COUNTY CITY BLDG 252304-9058-02 KOCH HANS GEORGE 190139 % ALLPAK CONTAINER 1100 SW 27TH ST RENTON WA 98055 334040-5300-01 RENA.ROYA CAPITAL COMPANY L.699999 1001 4TH AVE b4700 SEATTLE WA 98154 334040-5305-06 CITY OF RENTON 609800 200 MILL AVE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 334040-6120-07 3ITNEY-GROUWS CC 541786 108 FACTORY AVE N RENTON WA 98055 334040-6255-04 CITY OF RENTON 360557 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 242304-9037-09 SCHOBER INC 610198 1400 MONSTER RD SW RENTON WA 98055 242304-9054-07 THE BRIDGE GROUP 461302 16443 SE 35TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98008 242304-9056-05 LONGACRES JOINT VENTURE 8N3561 921 MIDDLE FORK RD ONALASKA WA 98570 242304-9086-09 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC 790503 PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 242304-9115-04 HUNTER DOUGLAS REAL PROPERT719999 2 PARK WAY RT 173 UPPER SADDLE RVR NY 07458 242304-9128-C9 PUGET WESTERN INC 529800 19515 NORTH CREEK PKWY SUITE 310 BOTHELL WA 93011 r 242304-912'9-08 DRAINAGE GIST 1 597777 601 WEST GOWE ST KENT WA 98032 242304-9132-C3 PIERRE JAMES P 715432 PO BOX 27069 SEATTLE WA 98125 242304-9133-02 PUGET WESTERN INC 559800 19515 NORTH CREEK PKWY V310 BOTHELL WA 98011 242304-9137-08 MCLEOD STUART 839800 213 LAKE ST S KIRKLAND WA 98033 252304-9001-00 CITY OF RENTON 369700 200 MILL AVE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 ****************************************3 COMMENTS 7 000580-0007-01 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FF715175 TAX DEPT 1700 E GOLF RD ;�400 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 000580-0013-03 MCLEOD STUART 271011 213 LAKE ST S KIRKLAND WA 98033 000580-0017-09 CITY OF SEATTLE 000580-0019-07 CITY OF RENTON 369700 200 MILL AVE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 000580-0036-06 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC 790503 PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 90866 BELLEVUE WA 98009 125381-0230-06 CITY OF RENTON 369700 200 MILL AVE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 242304-9004-08 PIERRE JAME P 601103 PO BOX 27069 SEATTLE WA 98125 242304-9020-08 ORB LTD PARTNERSHIP 859999 200 S BROAD ST 6 FLR PHILADELPHIA PA 19102 242304-9028-00 BURLINGTON NCRTHRN SANTA FE715175 TAX DEPT 1700 E GOLF RD ;;400 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 242304-9034-02 MCLEOD STUART 109999 213 LAKE ST S KIRKLAND WA 98033 a ` ,• CIT _ OF RENTON City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J. Petersen December 15, 1998 Charles E. Maduell 1201 Third Avenue, 40th floor Seattle, WA 98101 Re: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit; Boeing/Longacres Helistop; File #CU-98-113 Dear Mr. Maduell: At the regular Council meeting of December 14, 1998, the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee which found that there was a substantial error of fact in the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding Condition#1. Therefore, the City Council reversed the decision of the Hearing Examiner relating to Condition No. 1, and eliminated that condition which would have required reapplication for another conditional use permit after five years. A copy of the Planning and Development Committee report is enclosed for your information. If I can provide additional information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Marilyn J. sen City Clerk cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Council President Bob Edwards Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510 /FAX(425)430-6516 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting December 14, 1998 Council Chambers Monday, 7:30 p.m. MINUTES Municipal Building CALL TO ORDER Mayor Jesse Tanner led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order_ ROLL CALL OF BOB EDWARDS, Council President; KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER;DAN COUNCILMEMBERS CLAWSON; KING PARKER; TIMOTHY SCHLITZER;RANDY CORMAN; TOM NELSON. CITY STAFF IN JESSE TANNER,Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ATTENDANCE LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; MARILYN PETERSEN,City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; SUSAN CARLSON, Economic Development,Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Administrator; VICTORIA RUNKLE,Finance& Information Services Administrator; JOE MCGUIRE,Court Services Director; PAUL KUSAKABE, Fiscal Services Director; JENNIFER TOTH HENNING; Senior Planner; JUDGE TERRY LEE JURADO,Municipal Court;DEREK TODD,Finance Analyst; COMMANDER DENNIS GERBER,Police Department. APPROVAL OF MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL COUNCIL MINUTES APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 07, 1998, AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. SWEARING-IN The Honorable Carmen Otero, retired King County Superior Court Judge, CEREMONY administered the oath of acceptance to Municipal Court Judge,Terry Lee Municipal Court: Judge Terry Jurado. Lee Jurado Judge Otero explained that she has known Judge Jurado since he served as her bailiff when she was a judge in Superior Court. She said she was so impressed with his attitude that she encouraged him to pursue becoming a judge. Expressing his thanks,Judge Jurado stated that Judge Otero is a great example of what a judge should be. RECESS MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY PARKER,RECESS FOR JUDGE JURADO'S WELCOMING RECEPTION. Time: 7:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:55 p.m.,roll was called; all Councilmembers present. APPEAL Planning&Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a report Planning& Development regarding the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision approving the helistop Committee construction and operation at Boeing's headquarters building(901 Oakesdale Appeal: The Boeing Co. Ave. SW) for an initial period of five years; appeal filed on 11/02/98 by Helistop on Oakesdale Ave Charles E. Maudell. The Committee convened on December 3, 1998,to SW,CU-98-113 consider the appeal. Boeing expects to use the helistop to bring in prospective customers to its headquarters. It expects that the helistop will be used for one to eight helicopter trips per month and be otherwise available for use by the community in emergencies. One of the conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner would have required Boeing to reapply for another conditional use permit after five years. Boeing appealed this condition. The Committee found that there was a substantial error of fact in the Hearing APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date /0'- /V-7g. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT December 14, 1998 Boeing Longacres Helistop File No.: LUA-98-113, CU-H (Referred November 16, 1998) The Planning and Development Committee convened on December 3, 1998 to consider the appeal of the Boeing Company. Boeing sought a conditional use permit to construct and operate a helistop at the Boeing Longacres site, located at 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW. Boeing expects to use the helistop to bring in prospective customers to its headquarters. It expects that the helistop will be used for one to eight helicopter trips per month and be otherwise available for use by the community in emergencies. One of the conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner would have required Boeing to reapply for another conditional use permit after five years. Boeing appealed this condition. The committee found that there was a substantial error of fact in the Hearing Examiner's decision. Specifically, the committee found there was no evidence in the record to support: 1) Conclusion#5 as it relates to noise problems or the concern regarding future requests by other landowners for similar permits; 2) Conclusion#6 as it relates to noise; 3) Conclusion#12 as it relates to noise and future requests by other landowners for similar permits. As it appears those conclusions led to the imposition of Condition#1, there was no evidence to support that condition imposed by the Hearing Examiner. lit 9.4t4t. AclArtt . Planning and Developme Dmmittee Report December 3, 1998 Page-2 Therefore, the Committee recommends that the City Council reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner relating to Condition#1 and eliminate that condition. / attut) /CO 4-61 - (../t)/\c,_fzf2_g-- Kathy Keollr-Wheeler, Chair C7 Tim Schlitzer, ice hair Dan Clawson, Member C1.1:4 maa November 16, 1998 Renton City Council Minutes Page 378 of service durations ranging from 15 years to one year. AUDIENCE COMMENT Dale Christie, operator of Hillcrest Bowl at 2809 NE Sunset Blvd.,Renton, Citizen Comment: Christie— 98056, asked that the City reduce its current tax on pull tabs from 5% of gross Pull Tab Tax Reduction revenues to a more equitable figure. Mr. Christie said the current tax amounts to 20% of his net income from pull tabs, which he considered too high. For example, last quarter he had$201,000 in revenues from pull tabs,but paid out $146,000 in prizes. Of the remaining$55,000, he paid the City more than $10,000 in taxes. Mr. Christie claimed that several cities around the state now assess taxes on pull tab revenues according to net,rather than gross,revenues. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Mr. Parker asked that the Administration provide the committee with as much information as possible on this subject, including a sample form used for reporting pull tab revenues and calculating the tax owing. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Appeal: The Boeing Co. City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision approving Helistop on Oakesdale Ave construction and operation of a helistop at Boeing's headquarters building(901 SW,A-98- Oakesdale Ave. SW) for an initial period of five years; appeal filed on 11/02/98 by Charles E. Maudell, accompanied by the required fee. Refer to Planning& Development Committee. Executive: CitySource Printing Executive Department recommended approval of a contract in the amount of &Distribution(Contract $64,800 with the Renton Reporter to print and distribute CitySource,the City's w/Renton Reporter) newsletter to its citizens, on as a monthly basis in 1999 and 2000. Refer to Community Services Committee. HR&RM: Broker&Claims Human Resources&Risk Management Department recommended the Administration Agreements cancellation of agreements with Arthur J. Gallagher&Co. and Giesy, Greer& Gunn, Inc. for broker and claims administration services,respectively; and further recommended that Renton become a member of the Washington Cities Insurance Authority effective January 1, 1999, for purposes of liability and property protection. Refer to Finance Committee. Streets: Main Ave S Transit Transportation Systems Division recommended that Council receive a briefing Way (Contra-Flow)Project on the design of the Main Ave. S.Transit Way (or Contra-Flow)project. Refer to Transportation Committee. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from Dolores J. Gibbons, Superintendent of Renton Citizen Comment: Renton School District 403,requesting that the City clarify and/or modify its Sign School District—Electronic Code with respect to an electronic readerboard sign at McKnight Middle Readerboard Sign at McKnight School. MOVED BY SCHLITZER, SECONDED BY PARKER,COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Nelson Correspondence was read from J.J. Nelson, Vice President of Facilities Asset (The Boeing Company)— Management for The Boeing Company,PO Box 3707, Seattle, 98124, Oakesdale Ave SW Extension expressing gratitude to the City for successfully completing the Oakesdale Ave. SW extension within budget and on time. Citizen Comment: Schott— Correspondence was read from Lawrence F. Schott, 1210 N. 33rd Pl.,Renton, Human Services Funding 98056, urging the City to increase its human services funding in the 1999-2000 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL A GEND I I)IL L AI#: 1. 0.• SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: 11/16/98 Dept/Div/Board....City Clerk Staff Contact Marilyn Petersen AGENDA STATUS: Consent XX SUBJECT: Public Hearing Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision approving construction Correspondence... &operation of a helistop at Boeing headquarters building, Ordinance 901 Oakesdale Ave.SW,for an initial period of five(5)years. Resolution File No.LUA-98-113.CU-H.ECF Old Business EXHIBITS: New Business A. City Clerk's letter Study Session B. Appeal(11/02/98) Other C. Request for Reconsideration&Response(10/20/98) D. Hearing Examiner's Report&Decision(9/28/98) RECOMMENDED ACTION: I APPROVALS: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Legal Dept Finance Dept Other FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Expenditure Required Transfer/Amendment.... Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal filed by Charles E.Maduell of Perkins Coie LLP,representing The Boeing Company(Conrad Szymczak),accompanied by required fee received on 11/02/98. CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen November 4, 1998 APPEAL FILED BY: Charles E. Maduell, Perkins Coie LLP Representative: The Boeing Company, Conrad Szymczak RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision 9/28/98 approving construction & operation of a helistop at Boeing headquarters building, 901 Oakesdale Ave. SW, for an initial period of five (5) years. File No. LUA-98-113, CU-H-ECF To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision for conditional use of a helistop at Boeing headquarters for an initial period of five years has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-16.B., within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council secretary at 425 430-6501 for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of hearing examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425 430-6504. Sincerely, Ulni\CAP.1 Brenda Fritsvold Deputy City Clerk Attachment 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510 / FAX(425)430-6516 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20 post consumer 1 CO I. Appeals: Table 4, Land Use Permit Proce- dures, lists the development permits that additional evidence is required, the 4-8-17: COUNCIL ACTION: reviewed by the City and the review author- Council shall remand the matter to the Any application requiring action by the icy responsible for open record appeals,closed Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of City Council shall be evidenced by minute entry record appeals and judicial appeals.The City additional evidence.The cost of transcription unless otherwise required by law. When taking has consolidated the permit process to allow 4-8-16: APPEAL: Unless an ordinance of the hearing recordb shall borne by the anyt such final action,thetheCouncil shallrdmake and for only one(1)open record appeal of all per- epplicant. In the absence of an entry upon enter findings of fact from the record and conclu- providing for review of decision of the the record of an order by the City Council sions therefrom which support its action. Unless Examiner requires review thereof by the authorizing new or additional evidence or otherwise specified,the City Council shall be pre- mit decisions associated with a single devel- Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved testimony, and a remand to the Hearing sumed to have adopted the Examiner's findings opment application.Appeals pursuant to this by the Examiner's written decision or Examiner for receipt of such evidence or tes- and conclusions. section are intended to comply with the Land recommendation may submit a notice of appeal timony,it shall be presumed that no new or Use Petition Act,Chapter 36.70C RCW. to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the additional evidence or testimony has been A. In the case of a change of the zone classifica- City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days accepted by the City Council, and that the tion of property(rezone),the City Clerk shall 1. Time For Initiating Appeal.An appeal to from the date of the Examiners written report. record before the City Council is identical to place the ordinance on the Council's agenda Superior Court of a land use decision, as The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a the hearing record before the Hearing Exam- for first reading. Final reading of the ordi- defined herein, must be filed within twenty fee in accordance with the fee schedule of the iner.(Ord.4389,1-25-93) nance shall not occur until all conditions, one(21)days of the issuance of the land use City.(Ord.3658,9-13.82) restrictions or modifications which may have decision. For purposes of this section, the A. The written notice of appeal shall fully, E. The consideration by the City Council shall been required by the Council have been date on which a land use decision is issued is: be based solely upon the record,the llearing accomplished or provisions for compliance clearly and thoroughly specify the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and made to the satisfaction of the Legal Depart- a. Three(3)days after a written decision substantial error(s) in fact or law which additional submissions by parties. ment. is mailed by the City or, if not mailed, the exist in the record of the proceedings from date on which the local jurisdiction provides which the appellant seeks relief. Facsimile F. If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing B. All other applications requiring Council notice that a written decision is publicly filing of a notice of appeal is authorized Examiner on an application submitted pursu- action shall be placed on the Council's agenda available; • pursuant to the conditions detailed in ant to Section 4.8-10A and aRer examination Cor consideration.(Ord.3454,7.28-80) Renton City Code Section 4-8-11C. (Ord. • of the record,the Council determines that a b. If the land use decision is made by ordi- 4353,6.1-92) substantial error in fact or law exists in the C. The action of the Council approving,modify- nance or resolution by the City Council,sit- record, it may. remand the proceeding to ing or rejecting a decision of the Examiner ting in a quasi-judicial capacity,the date the B. Within five(5)days of receipt of the notice Examiner for reconsideration,or modify, or shall be final and conclusive,unless appealed body passes the ordinance or resolution;or of'appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all reverse the decision of the Examiner accord- within the time frames established under parties of record of the receipt of the ingly. �S_ectinn 4.36-7L(Ord.3725,5-9-83;amd.Ord. c. if neither a or b of this subsection appeal.Other parties of record may submit g y 4660,3-17-97) applies,the date the decision is entered into letters in support of their positions within C. If,upon appeal from a recommendation of the the public record. ten(10)days of the dates of mailing of the Hearing Examiner upon an application sub- notificationapp of the filing of the notice of mitred pursuant to Section 4-8-10B or C,and 4-8-18: SEVEI1AI1ILITY: 2. Standing.Those persons with standing to appeal. afer examination of the record,the Council The provisions of this Ordinance are bring an appeal of a land use decision are determines that a substantial error in fact or hereby declared to be severable. If any word, limited to the applicant,the owner of prop C. Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the law exists in the record,or that a recommen- phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, section or arty to which land use decisions are directed, members of the City Council all of the dation of the Hearing Examiner should be dis- part in or of this Ordinance, or the application and any other person aggrieved or adversely pertinent documents, including the written regarded or modified, the City Council may thereof to any person or circumstance,is declared affected by the land use decision or who decision or recommendation, findings and remand the proceeding to the Examiner for invalid,the remaining provisions and the applica- would be aggrieved or adversely affected by a conclusions contained in the Examiner's reconsideration, or enter its own decision tion of such provisions to other persons or circum- reversal or modification of the land use deci- report,the notice of appeal,and additional upon the application pursuant to Section 4-8- stances shall not be affected thereby, but shall anon.The terms "aggrieved' and 'adversely letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 10B or C. remain in full force and effect,the Mayor and City affected"are defined in RCW 36.70C.060. 3658,9-13-82) Council hereby declaring that they would have D. No public hearingshall be held bythe City II. In any event,the decision of the City Council ordained the remaining provisions of this Ordi- 3. Content Of Appeal Submittal. The con- shall be in writing and shall specify any mod- nance without the word,phrase,clause,sentence, tent,procedure and other requirements of an Council. No new or additional evidence or itied or amended findings and conclusions paragraph, section or part or the application appeal of a land use decision are governed by testimony shall be accepted by the City other than those set forth in the report of the thereof,so held invalid. Chapter 36.70C RCW which is incorporated Council unless a showing is made by the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding herein by reference as if fully set forth. party offering the evidence that the shall be supported by substantial evidence in evidence could not reasonably have been the record. The burden of proof shall rest 4. Other Appeals. Appeals to Superior available at the time of the hearing before with the appellant.(Ord.3658,9-13-82) Court from decisions other than a land use the Examiner. If the Council determines decision,as defined herein,shall be appealed within the time frame established by ordi- nance.If there is no appeal time established by an ordinance,and there is no statute ape- cifically preempting the area and establish- ing a time frame for appeal, any appeal, whether through extraordinary writ or other- I 497 wise,shall be brought within twenty one(21) City of Renton days of the decision.(Ord.4587,3-18-1996; amd.Ord.4660,3-17-97) APPEAL CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION leOtINZaitITY COUNCIL. FILE NO. LUA-98-113, CU-H RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE APPLICATION NAME: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Boeing Longacres Helistop The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner,dated September 28 and October 20 19 98 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY , APPELLANT: The Boeing Company REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): PERKINS COIE LLP Name: Conrad Szymczak Name: Charles E. Maduell Address: P.O. Box 3707, M/S 20-30 Address: 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone No. 425-477-0094 Telephone No. 206-583-8888 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets,if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) NONE No. Error: ---�- CITY OF RENTON NOV U 2.1998 Lf;0a .m. Correction: RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: See attached. Correction: OTHER: No. Error: See attached. Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: X Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Delete Condition No. 1 on p.6 of the Hearir. Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Examiner's Decision . er Appel t/Representative Signature Date f(77 /747/ NOTE: Please refer to Title IV,Chapter 8,of the Renton Municipal Code,and Section 4-8-16,for specific procedures. heappeal.doc City of Renton City Code Title IV-Building Chapter 8 -Hearing Examiner Section 16 -Appeal 4-8-16: APPEAL: Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) A. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. Facsimile filing of a notice of appeal is authorized pursuant to the conditions detailed in Renton City Code Section 4-8-11C. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92). B. Within five(5)days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten(10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. C. Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) D. No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council may remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-93) E. The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. F. If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-8-10A and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify,or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. G. If,upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-8-1 OB or C,and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record,or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application pursuant to Section 4-8-10B of C. H. In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) heappeal.doc 2. SPECIFICATIONS OF ERRORS CONCLUSIONS: No. 4 Error: The Examiner erred in concluding that "[i]t is hard to say that there is community need for a private helipad located at a private site" and in basing Condition No. 1, at least in part, on this conclusion. Correction: Delete Condition No. 1 on page 6 of the Hearing Examiner's Decision ("The Conditional Use Permit shall be issued for an initial period of five(5) years.") from the CUP approval. No. 5 Error: The Examiner erred in concluding that the CUP should be subject to renewal in case noise problems arise in the future or because of the possible precedential effect of approval of a CUP for the Longacres helistop. Correction: Delete this conclusion and delete Condition No. 1 from the CUP approval. No. 6 Error: The Examiner erred in concluding that "[n]oise, though, could be an issue, particularly for the homes perched on the hill east of the site" and in using this conclusion as a basis for imposition of Condition No. 1. Correction: Delete the second sentence of Conclusion No. 6 and delete Condition No. 1. No. 12 Error: The Examiner erred in concluding that approval of the CUP for the Boeing Longacres helistop will create a precedent and should be subject to further review, and by using these conclusions as a basis to impose Condition No 1. Correction: Delete first and third sentences of Conclusion No. 12 and delete Condition No. 1. OTHER: Error: The Examiner erred in imposing Condition No. 1 in his Decision approving the CUP, issued September 28, 1998. Correction: Delete Condition No. 1. Error: The Examiner erred in denying Boeing's Request for Reconsideration of Condition No. 1 on the grounds stated in his letter of denial dated October 20, 1998, which appear to be based upon the Examiner's concerns about community need served by a private helipad at an office site within the Green River Valley. Correction: Reverse the Examiner's denial of the Request for Reconsideration and delete Condition No. 1 from the CUP approval. t09901-0001/SB983060.0541 11/2/98 1 2 CITY OF RENTON 3 4 NOV 0 2 1998 5 RECEIVED 6 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 7 8 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 9 10 CITY OF RENTON 11 12 13 NO. LUA-98-113, CU-H 14 In Re The Boeing Company, Boeing 15 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF 16 Longacres Helistop--Conditional Use Permit APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER 17 Application,18 CONDITION 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The BoeingCompany ("Boeing") submits this statement in support of its 26 P Y PP 28 appeal, pursuant to Renton CityCode § 4-8-16, of the HearingExaminer's imposition 28 PP , P 29 of Condition No. 1 in its decision approving a conditional usepermit for a helistopat 30 31 32 g Longacres Lon acres Office Park. 33 34 1. INTRODUCTION 35 36 The Hearing Examiner, in his Report and Decision ("Decision") dated 37 38 September 28, 1998, approved a conditional use permit ("CUP") for a helistop at 39 40 Boeing Longacres Office Park subject to four conditions. Boeing objects only to the 41 42 first enumerated condition (Condition No. 1) in the Decision, which provides as 43 44 follows: "The Conditional Use Permit shall be issued for an initial period of five (5) 45 46 years." Decision, p. 6. 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 1 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 On October 12, 1998, Boeing requested reconsideration by the Hearing 2 3 Examiner of Condition No. 1 as part of his approval of the CUP for the helistop. On 4 5 October 20, 1998, the Examiner denied the request for reconsideration. The 6 7 Examiner also stated that Boeing could appeal the decision to the City Council within 8 9 14 days of the decision. 10 11 Boeing timely filed its appeal on November 2, 1998. 12 13 I1. ARGUMENT 14 15 The Examiner's imposition of Condition No. 1 in his decision approving the 16 17 CUP for the Boeing helistop appears to be based upon three Examiner conclusions: 18 19 (1) that the permit should be subject to review or possible renewal in case noise 20 21 problems arise or become an issue, particularly for the homes perched on the hill east 22 23 of the site [Examiner Conclusions 5, 6 and 12 in Decision]; (2) that approval of this 24 25 use could create a precedent for such uses in the Valley area of the City, making it 26 27 necessary in the future to consider the overall impacts of private helistops at various 28 29 sites in the Valley [Conclusions 5, 12 in Decision]; and (3) that a five-year term is 30 31 warranted because there is little community need served by a private helipad at an 32 33 office site in the Green River Valley [Conclusion 4 in Decision; see also Examiner 34 35 Decision Denying Reconsideration]. Decision, p. 5-6. 36 37 These conclusions, which are not supported by findings of fact or evidence in 38 39 the record, do not justify or support a condition limiting the helistop CUP to a five- 40 41 year term. Such errors in fact, law and judgment, which are more fully set forth 42 43 below,justify modification of the Examiner's decision and removal of Condition 44 45 No. 1 from the CUP approval. 46 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 2 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.1931 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 A. The Hearing Examiner Erred in Limiting the CUP to a Five-Year 2 Term Based Upon the Possibility of Future, Speculative Noise 3 4 Impacts from Operation of the Proposed Helistop 5 6 On the one hand, the Examiner's conclusions acknowledge that the proposed 7 8 Longacres helistop will not result in any adverse impacts to residential neighborhoods. 9 10 For example, the Examiner concludes that it "appears that the applicant's site is large 11 12 enough that most of the impacts should be contained on the site." Decision, p. 5 13 14 (Conclusion No. 5). The Examiner further concludes that "there is a goodly 15 16 separation between the use and that residential community [on the hill east of the 17 18 site]." Decision, p. 5 (Conclusion No. 5). These conclusions are based upon 19 20 substantial evidence in the record. 21 22 On the other hand, the Examiner also concludes that "noise problems" from 23 24 operation of the helistop may "arise" and noise "could be an issue, particularly for the 25 26 homes perched on the hill east of the site." Decision, p. 5 (Conclusion No. 5 & 6). 27 28 No Examiner findings or evidence in the record supports these conclusions. 29 30 Instead, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates that there will be 31 32 no substantial or undue adverse noise impacts on surrounding properties from 33 34 operation of the proposed helistop. According to the evidence in the record and the 35 36 unrebutted testimony of the applicant's noise expert, Ray Klein, any potential noise 37 38 impacts on residential neighborhoods, including those on the hill to the east of the 39 40 site, would at most be negligible, especially given the location of the helistop in the 41 42 middle of an office park surrounded by commercial and industrial uses, its distance 43 44 from residential neighborhoods (more than a mile), the infrequent use of the helistop, 45 46 the proposed flight path of the helicopter away from residential neighborhoods, and 47 the level of existing ambient noise levels in the area. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 3 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193j Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 There is thus no evidence in the record to support the Examiner's conclusions 2 3 that noise problems from operation of the helistop may arise or be an issue, especially 4 5 with respect to any residential neighborhoods in the City. Accordingly, the Examiner 6 7 substantially erred in limiting the term of the CUP for the Longacres helistop to a term 8 9 of five years based upon such speculative, future noise impacts. 10 11 B. The Examiner Erred in Limiting the Term of the CUP for the 12 Longacres Helistop Based Upon the Possibility that Future 13 14 Applicants May Seek to Develop and Operate Private Helistops in 15 the Area 16 17 An additional basis for limiting the CUP for the Longacres helistop to a five- 18 19 year term in Condition No. 1 is the Examiner's conclusion that approval of this use 20 21 could create a precedent for other uses in the Valley area of the City, and a 22 23 proliferation of such requests or even a few more such requests in the future may 24 25 make it necessary to consider the overall impacts of private helistops at various sites 26 27 in the Valley. (Conclusion No. 5) Decision, p. 6. No evidence in the record or 28 29 Examiner findings support this conclusion which, even if true, does not support or 30 31 justify limiting the term of the CUP for this proposed helistop to five years. 32 33 In the first place, there is no evidence to suggest that approval of a CUP for the 34 35 Longacres helistop will create a precedent for more such uses in the future. For 36 37 example, there is no evidence to suggest that other property owners or potential 38 39 applicants in the area have tried without success to locate private helistops on their 40 41 property. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that there are other potential applicants 42 43 who are interested in siting a helistop on their property or have been awaiting the 44 45 decision in this case before applying to operate a helistop. In fact, private helipads 46 47 have been allowed as conditional uses in the Renton Zoning Code for a number of STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 4 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03 003-0 1 5 3/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 years. The fact that Boeing apparently is the first to apply to site a private helistop 2 3 outside of an airport or a hospital should not in any way affect or limit approval of its 4 5 CUP. 6 7 In addition, the approval of a CUP for a helistop, or any other conditional use 8 9 for that matter, cannot as a matter of law be said to establish a precedent for such uses 10 ii or to encourage their proliferation. Conditional use permit applications, unlike 12 13 applications for permitted uses, are intended to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to 14 15 determine if such otherwise prohibited uses should be permitted in a particular zone, 16 17 based upon the existing surrounding uses and subject to whatever conditions may be 18 19 necessary, if even possible, to make such use consistent and compatible with 20 21 surrounding uses. R.C.C. § 4-31-36. In other words, the conditional use permit 22 23 process is designed to prevent the proliferation of materially detrimental or 24 25 incompatible uses in areas of the City. 26 27 Thus, not only will approval of Boeing's CUP application for a helistop not 28 29 have precedential effect, it is in fact likely to have the opposite effect. CUP criteria in 30 31 the Renton City Code, one of which prohibits the "detrimental overconcentration of a 32 33 particular use within the city or within the immediate area of the proposed use," 34 35 would actually make it more difficult to site another helistop in the vicinity. R.C.C. 36 37 § 4-31-36(C)(2)(a). Although Boeing in this case was able to demonstrate that the 38 39 location of a helistop at the Longacres Office Park would not result in a detrimental 40 41 overconcentration of such uses in the vicinity or area, future applicants seeking 42 43 helistops in the vicinity or area may not be able to make such a showing because of 44 45 the existence of the Longacres helistop, in which case their application may denied or 46 47 conditioned, as appropriate. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 5 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 In addition, impacts, cumulative or otherwise, from additional helistops in the 2 3 vicinity or area can and will be evaluated and addressed through the conditional use 4 5 permit approval process. If they cannot, then they should be addressed legislatively 6 7 by the Renton City Council. In any event, Boeing should not be penalized simply 8 9 because it apparently was the first to apply to site a helistop outside of an airport or 10 11 hospital. Instead, as a result of its being the first to site this conditional use, it will 12 13 become an existing use against which future, conditional use permit applications for 14 15 helistops will be evaluated. This is exactly how the conditional use permit approval 16 17 process is intended to work. If, as a result, it makes it more difficult for other 18 19 helistops to locate in the vicinity, it is not the fault of Boeing or the zoning code; 20 21 rather, it is the fault of those who could have but failed to apply earlier for a helistop. 22 23 Thus, although there is no evidence to suggest that approval of the Longacres 24 25 helistop will somehow create a precedence for additional private helistops in the 26 27 Valley area, even if it does, application for such uses will be subject to the conditional 28 29 use permit process and any impacts from additional private helistops in the Valley can 30 31 and should be addressed through the conditional use permit process. It should not 32 33 affect or limit the CUP approved for the Longacres helistop, which satisfies all 34 35 applicable conditional use permit criteria, and the Examiner erred in limiting the term 36 37 of the CUP for the Longacres helistop on this basis. 38 39 C. The Examiner Erred to the Extent He Based Condition No. 1 on the 40 Community Need for the I-Ielistop 41 42 Although not expressly a basis for Condition No. 1, the Examiner in both his 43 44 45 Decision and in his denial of Boeing's motion for reconsideration of Condition No. 1 46 implies that because "there is relatively little community need for a private helistop at 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 6 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.I93] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 an office site within the Green River Valley," a five-year permit term "is not 2 3 unreasonable." See Letter from Hearing Examiner, dated October 20, 1998, 4 5 Re: Denial of Request for Reconsideration ("Reconsideration Decision"). In this 6 7 regard, the Examiner erred to the extent community need was a basis for imposition of 8 9 Condition No. 1. io 11 In the first place, the Examiner's interpretation of community need in the 12 13 context of the conditional use at issue here is overly narrow and erroneous. The 14 1s Examiner appears to interpret the "community need" criterion in R.C.C. 16 17 4-31-36(C)(2) for a conditional use permit as being synonymous with "public use and 18 19 interest." Reconsideration Decision. If that were the case, no conditional use permits 20 21 for private activities, such as for "service clubs and organizations", could be approved 22 23 under the code. 24 25 Instead, it is clear that the purpose of the "community need" requirement for 26 27 conditional use permits is two-fold: (1) to make sure that there is sufficient need for 28 29 the use at the particular location so as to avoid a "detrimental overconcentration" of 30 31 such uses in any area and (2) to ensure that the "proposed location is suited for the 32 33 proposed use." R.C.C. 4-31-36(C)(2). In fact, these two factors, in support of which 34 35 Boeing submitted substantial evidence demonstrating compliance therewith for its 36 37 proposed helistop, are the only two factors that are expressly required by the Renton 38 39 City Code to be satisfied to meet the "community need" requirement. Id. 40 41 In any event, even under the Examiner's overly broad interpretation of 42 43 community need, Boeing has demonstrated that there is a community need for the 44 45 helistop at Longacres sufficient to justify the CUP. Not only would it be available for 46 47 public agency use in the event of a public emergency or disaster, it will provide an STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 7 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 important accessory use to the newly opened Boeing Commercial Airplane Group's 2 3 Headquarters Building at the Longacres Office Park. As such, it links significant 4 5 Boeing facilities in the City of Renton, which provide important public and 6 7 community benefits to the City, to Boeing's other facilities throughout the Puget 8 9 Sound region, all of which have on-site helipads and can be accessed by helicopter. 10 11 Although the Examiner acknowledges that Boeing has sufficiently 12 13 demonstrated community need to justify approval of the CUP for the Longacres 14 15 helistop, and the Examiner in fact approved the CUP, the Examiner nonetheless seems 16 17 to suggest that the fact that there may be less community need for the Boeing helistop 18 19 than for a helistop at a hospital, for example, somehow justifies a five-year term on 20 21 the Boeing helistop. Even if you accept the Examiner's premise about differing levels 22 23 of community need, this premise does not support his conclusion. In other words, the 24 25 level of community need for the Boeing helistop bears no relationship to and in no 26 27 way supports a five-year permit term. In fact, the only justification for the five-year 28 29 permit term appears to be the Examiner's concern about future noise impacts and 30 31 future precedent. As earlier demonstrated, any such concerns are wholly speculative 32 33 and unsupported by evidence in the record. There are thus no defensible grounds for 34 35 limiting the CUP for Boeing's Longacres helistop to a five-year term, whether on the 36 37 basis of community need, future noise impacts, or future precedent. 38 39 iiI. CONCLUSION 40 41 The proposed Longacres helistop is an important component of the recently- 42 43 completed Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters Building, for it will 44 45 connect the new Longacres Boeing operations at Longacres with Boeing's other 46 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 8 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.1931 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 • • 1 facilities throughout the Puget Sound region, all of which can be accessed by 2 3 helicopter. 4 5 The proposed Longacres helistop has been designed and located so as to 6 7 minimize any impacts to surrounding areas and communities and, as the evidence in 8 9 the record demonstrates, any noise impacts to surrounding areas, including the 10 11 residential areas east of the site, will at most be negligible. Although the Examiner in 12 13 his Decision has expressed concerns about future potential noise problems from 14 15 operation of the helistop, there is no evidence to justify his concerns. Given the 16 17 speculative nature of this possibility, however, a condition limiting the term of the 18 19 helistop CUP to five years is neither reasonable nor appropriate. 20 21 For these reasons, Boeing respectfully requests that the City Council remove 22 23 Condition No. 1 from the Hearing Examiner's approval of the CUP for the Boeing 24 25 helistop. 26 27 DATED: November 2, 1998. 28 29 30 PERKINS COTE LLP 31 32 33 34 By 35 Charles E. Maduell, WSBA # 15491 36 Attorneys for The Boeing Company 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 9 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206)583-8888 CITY OF RENTON NOV 021998 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3 4 5 I certify that on November , 1998, I caused to be served via legal messenger a true 6 7 and correct copy of the foregoing Statement in Support of Appeal of Hearing Examiner 8 9 Condition upon the following: 10 11 Jennifer Henning 12 13 Project Manager - Development Services 14 City of Renton 15 1055 S. Grady Way 16 Renton, WA 98055 17 18 Fred J. Kaufman 19 20 Hearing Examiner 21 City of Renton 22 1055 S. Grady Way 23 Renton, WA 98055 24 25 26 (04-t.4 AGO L J 27 Vicki Gea in 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 PERKINS COTE LLP CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 THIRD AVENUE, 40TH FLOOR•SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3099 TELEPHONE: 206 583-8888• FACSIMILE: 206 583-8500 C]TY OF RENrON November 11, 1998 NO V ) 2 1998 Cr RECEIVED Brenda Fritsvold Deputy City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision 9/28/98 File No. LUA-98-113, CH-H-ECF Dear Ms. Fritsvold: Enclosed is a signed copy of the Statement in Support of Appeal submitted by The Boeing Company in the above-referenced project. The original Statement was inadvertently filed unsigned when submitted on November 2. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. S. cerely, 4/7/ harles E. Maduell Of Counsel CEM:vg Enclosure [03003-0352/SB983150.054] ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE DENVER HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES OLYMPIA PORTLAND SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C. STRATEGIC ALLIANCE: RUSSELL& DUMOULIN, VANCOUVER, CANADA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 9 10 CITY OF RENTON 11 12 13 NO. LUA-98-113, CU-H 14 In Re The Boeing Company, Boeing 15 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF 16 Longacres Helistop--Conditional Use Permit APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER 17 Application, 18 CONDITION 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Company The BoeingCom an ("Boeing") support submits this statement in su ort of its 28 28 appeal, pursuant to Renton CityCode § 4-8-16 of the Hearing Examiner's imposition 29 30 of Condition No. 1 in its decision approving a conditional use permit for a helistop at 31 BoeingLongacres Office Park. 32 g 33 34 I. INTRODUCTION 35 36 The Hearing Examiner, in his Report and Decision ("Decision") dated 37 38 September 28, 1998, approved a conditional use permit ("CUP") for a helistop at 39 ao Boeing Longacres Office Park subject to four conditions. Boeing objects only to the 41 42 first enumerated condition (Condition No. 1) in the Decision, which provides as 43 44 follows: "The Conditional Use Permit shall be issued for an initial period of five (5) 45 46 years." Decision, p. 6. 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 1 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03 003-0 1 5 3/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 On October 12, 1998, Boeing requested reconsideration by the Hearing 2 3 Examiner of Condition No. 1 as part of his approval of the CUP for the helistop. On 4 5 October 20, 1998, the Examiner denied the request for reconsideration. The 6 7 Examiner also stated that Boeing could appeal the decision to the City Council within 8 9 14 days of the decision. 10 11 Boeing timely filed its appeal on November 2, 1998. 12 13 Ii. ARGUMENT 14 15 The Examiner's imposition of Condition No. 1 in his decision approving the 16 17 CUP for the Boeing helistop appears to be based upon three Examiner conclusions: 18 19 (1) that the permit should be subject to review or possible renewal in case noise 20 21 problems arise or become an issue, particularly for the homes perched on the hill east 22 23 of the site [Examiner Conclusions 5, 6 and 12 in Decision]; (2) that approval of this 24 25 use could create a precedent for such uses in the Valley area of the City, making it 26 27 necessary in the future to consider the overall impacts of private helistops at various 28 29 sites in the Valley [Conclusions 5, 12 in Decision]; and (3) that a five-year term is 30 31 warranted because there is little community need served by a private helipad at an 32 33 office site in the Green River Valley [Conclusion 4 in Decision; see also Examiner 34 35 Decision Denying Reconsideration]. Decision, p. 5-6. 36 37 These conclusions, which are not supported by findings of fact or evidence in 38 39 the record, do not justify or support a condition limiting the helistop CUP to a five- 40 41 year term. Such errors in fact, law and judgment, which are more fully set forth 42 43 below,justify modification of the Examiner's decision and removal of Condition 44 45 No. 1 from the CUP approval. 46 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 2 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193i Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 A. The Hearing Examiner Erred in Limiting the CUP to a Five-Year 2 Term Based Upon the Possibility of Future, Speculative Noise 3 4 Impacts from Operation of the Proposed Helistop 5 6 On the one hand, the Examiner's conclusions acknowledge that the proposed 7 8 Longacres helistop will not result in any adverse impacts to residential neighborhoods. 9 10 For example, the Examiner concludes that it "appears that the applicant's site is large 11 12 enough that most of the impacts should be contained on the site." Decision, p. 5 13 14 (Conclusion No. 5). The Examiner further concludes that "there is a goodly 15 16 separation between the use and that residential community [on the hill east of the 17 18 site]." Decision, p. 5 (Conclusion No. 5). These conclusions are based upon 19 20 substantial evidence in the record. 21 22 On the other hand, the Examiner also concludes that "noise problems" from 23 24 operation of the helistop may "arise" and noise "could be an issue, particularly for the 25 26 homes perched on the hill east of the site." Decision, p. 5 (Conclusion No. 5 & 6). 27 28 No Examiner findings or evidence in the record supports these conclusions. 29 30 Instead, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates that there will be 31 32 no substantial or undue adverse noise impacts on surrounding properties from 33 34 operation of the proposed helistop. According to the evidence in the record and the 35 36 unrebutted testimony of the applicant's noise expert, Ray Klein, any potential noise 37 38 impacts on residential neighborhoods, including those on the hill to the east of the 39 40 site, would at most be negligible, especially given the location of the helistop in the 41 42 middle of an office park surrounded by commercial and industrial uses, its distance 43 44 from residential neighborhoods (more than a mile), the infrequent use of the helistop, 45 46 the proposed flight path of the helicopter away from residential neighborhoods, and 47 the level of existing ambient noise levels in the area. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 3 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 There is thus no evidence in the record to support the Examiner's conclusions 2 3 that noise problems from operation of the helistop may arise or be an issue, especially 4 5 with respect to any residential neighborhoods in the City. Accordingly, the Examiner 6 7 substantially erred in limiting the term of the CUP for the Longacres helistop to a term 8 9 of five years based upon such speculative, future noise impacts. 10 11 B. The Examiner Erred in Limiting the Term of the CUP for the 12 Longacres Helistop Based Upon the Possibility that Future 13 14 Applicants May Seek to Develop and Operate Private Helistops in 15 the Area 16 17 An additional basis for limiting the CUP for the Longacres helistop to a five- 18 19 year term in Condition No. 1 is the Examiner's conclusion that approval of this use 20 21 could create a precedent for other uses in the Valley area of the City, and a 22 23 proliferation of such requests or even a few more such requests in the future may 24 25 make it necessary to consider the overall impacts of private helistops at various sites 26 27 in the Valley. (Conclusion No. 5) Decision, p. 6. No evidence in the record or 28 29 Examiner findings support this conclusion which, even if true, does not support or 30 31 justify limiting the term of the CUP for this proposed helistop to five years. 32 33 In the first place, there is no evidence to suggest that approval of a CUP for the 34 35 Longacres helistop will create a precedent for more such uses in the future. For 36 37 example, there is no evidence to suggest that other property owners or potential 38 39 applicants in the area have tried without success to locate private helistops on their 40 41 property. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that there are other potential applicants 42 43 who are interested in siting a helistop on their property or have been awaiting the 44 45 decision in this case before applying to operate a helistop. In fact, private helipads 46 47 have been allowed as conditional uses in the Renton Zoning Code for a number of STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 4 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03 003-0 1 5 3/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 • S 1 years. The fact that Boeing apparently is the first to apply to site a private helistop 2 3 outside of an airport or a hospital should not in any way affect or limit approval of its 4 5 CUP. 6 7 In addition, the approval of a CUP for a helistop, or any other conditional use 8 9 for that matter, cannot as a matter of law be said to establish a precedent for such uses 10 11 or to encourage their proliferation. Conditional use permit applications, unlike 12 13 applications for permitted uses, are intended to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to 14 15 determine if such otherwise prohibited uses should be permitted in a particular zone, 16 17 based upon the existing surrounding uses and subject to whatever conditions may be 18 19 necessary, if even possible, to make such use consistent and compatible with 20 21 surrounding uses. R.C.C. § 4-31-36. In other words, the conditional u'se permit 22 23 process is designed to prevent the proliferation of materially detrimental or 24 25 incompatible uses in areas of the City. 26 27 Thus, not only will approval of Boeing's CUP application for a helistop not 28 29 have precedential effect, it is in fact likely to have the opposite effect. CUP criteria in 30 31 the Renton City Code, one of which prohibits the "detrimental overconcentration of a 32 33 particular use within the city or within the immediate area of the proposed use," 34 35 would actually make it more difficult to site another helistop in the vicinity. R.C.C. 36 37 § 4-31-36( )(2)(a). Although Boeing in this case was able to demonstrate that the 38 39 location of a helistop at the Longacres Office Park would not result in a detrimental 40 41 overconcentration of such uses in the vicinity or area, future applicants seeking 42 43 helistops in the vicinity or area may not be able tc make such a showing because of 44 45 the existence of the Longacres helistop, in which case their application may denied or 46 47 conditioned, as appropriate. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 5 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 • 1 In addition, impacts, cumulative or otherwise, from additional helistops in the 2 3 vicinity or area can and will be evaluated and addressed through the conditional use 4 5 permit approval process. If they cannot, then they should be addressed legislatively 6 7 by the Renton City Council. In any event, Boeing should not be penalized simply 8 9 because it apparently was the first to apply to site a helistop outside of an airport or 10 11 hospital. Instead, as a result of its being the first to site this conditional use, it will 12 13 become an existing use against which future, conditional use permit applications for 14 15 helistops will be evaluated. This is exactly how the conditional use permit approval 16 17 process is intended to work. If, as a result, it makes it more difficult for other 18 19 helistops to locate in the vicinity, it is not the fault of Boeing or the zoning code; 20 21 rather, it is the fault of those who could have but failed to apply earlier for a helistop. 22 23 Thus, although there is no evidence to suggest that approval of the Longacres 24 25 helistop will somehow create a precedence for additional private helistops in the 26 27 Valley area, even if it does, application for such uses will be subject to the conditional 28 29 use permit process and any impacts from additional private helistops in the Valley can 30 31 and should be addressed through the conditional use permit process. It should not 32 33 affect or limit the CUP approved for the Longacres helistop, which satisfies all 34 35 applicable conditional use permit criteria, and the Examiner erred in limiting the term 36 37 of the CUP for the Longacres helistop on this basis. 38 39 C. The Examiner Erred to the Extent He Based Condition No. 1 on the 40 Community Need for the Ilelistop 41 42 Although not expressly a basis for Condition No. 1, the Examiner in both his 43 44 45 Decision and in his denial of Boeing's motion for reconsideration of Condition No. 1 47 implies that because "there is relatively little community need for a private helistop at STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 6 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 • • 1 an office site within the Green River Valley," a five-year permit term "is not 2 3 unreasonable." See Letter from Hearing Examiner, dated October 20, 1998, 4 s Re: Denial of Request for Reconsideration ("Reconsideration Decision"). In this 6 7 regard, the Examiner erred to the extent community need was a basis for imposition of 8 9 Condition No. 1. to 11 In the first place, the Examiner's interpretation of community need in the 12 13 context of the conditional use at issue here is overly n:-arrow and erroneous. The 14 Is Examiner appears to interpret the "community need" criterion in R.C.C. 16 17 4-31-36(C)(2) for a conditional use permit as being synonymous with "public use and 18 19 interest." Reconsideration Decision. If that were the case, no conditional use permits 20 21 for private activities, such as for "service clubs and organizations", could be approved 22 23 under the code. 24 25 Instead, it is clear that the purpose of the "community need" requirement for 26 27 conditional use permits is two-fold: (1) to make sure that there is sufficient need for 28 29 the use at the particular location so as to avoid a "detrimental overconcentration" of 30 31 such uses in any area and (2) to ensure that the "proposed location is suited for the 32 33 proposed use." R.C.C. 4-31-36(C)(2). In fact, these two factors, in support of which 34 35 Boeing submitted substantial evidence demonstrating compliance therewith for its 36 37 proposed helistop, are the only two factos that are expressly required by the Renton 38 39 City Code to be satisfied to meet the "community need" requirement. Id. 40 41 In any event, even under the Examiner's overly broad interpretation of 42 43 community need, Boeing has demonstrated that there is a community need for the 44 45 helistop at Longacres sufficient to justify the CUP. Not only would it be available for 46 47 public agency use in the event of a public emergency or disaster, it will provide an STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 7 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0 1 5 3/SB982790.1931 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 important accessory use to the newly opened Boeing Commercial Airplane Group's 2 3 Headquarters Building at the Longacres Office Park. As such, it links significant 4 5 Boeing facilities in the City of Renton, which provide important public and 6 7 community benefits to the City, to Boeing's other facilities throughout the Puget 8 9 Sound region, all of which have on-site helipads and can be accessed by helicopter. 10 11 Although the Examiner acknowledges that Boeing has sufficiently 12 13 demonstrated community need to justify approval of the CUP for the Longacres 14 1s helistop, and the Examiner in fact approved the CUP, the Examiner nonetheless seems 16 17 to suggest that the fact that there may be less community need for the Boeing helistop 18 19 than for a helistop at a hospital, for example, somehow justifies a five-year term on 20 21 the Boeing helistop. Even if you accept the Examiner's premise about differing levels 22 23 of community need, this premise does not support his conclusion. In other words, the 24 25 level of community need for the Boeing helistop bears no relationship to and in no 26 27 way supports a five-year permit term. In fact, the only justification for the five-year 28 29 permit term appears to be the Examiner's concern about future noise impacts and 30 31 future precedent. As earlier demonstrated, any such concerns are wholly speculative 32 33 and unsupported by evidence in the record. There are thus no defensible grounds for 34 35 limiting the CUP for Boeing's Longacres helistop to a five-year term, whether on the 36 37 basis of community need, future noise impacts, or future precedent. 38 39 III. CONCLUSION 40 41 The proposed Longacres helistop is an important component of the recently- 42 43 completed Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters Building, for it will 44 45 connect the new Longacres Boeing operations at Longacres with Boeing's other 46 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 8 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0 1 5 31SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 facilities throughout the Puget Sound region, all of which can be accessed by 2 3 helicopter. 4 5 The proposed Longacres helistop has been designed and located so as to 6 7 minimize any impacts to surrounding areas and communities and, as the evidence in 8 9 the record demonstrates, any noise impacts to surrounding areas, including the 10 ii residential areas east of the site, will at most be negligible. Although the Examiner in 12 13 his Decision has expressed concerns about future potential noise problems from 14 15 operation of the helistop, there is no evidence to justify his concerns. Given the 16 17 speculative nature of this possibility, however, a condition limiting the term of the 18 19 helistop CUP to five years is neither reasonable nor appropriate. 20 21 For these reasons, Boeing respectfully requests that the City Council remove 22 23 Condition No. 1 from the Hearing Examiner's approval of the CUP for the Boeing 24 25 helistop. 26 27 DATED: November 2, 1998. 28 29 30 PERKINS COIE LLP 31 32 34 34 By 'gA/14/( 35 arles E. Maduell, WSBA # 15491 36 Attorneys for The Boeing Company 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION- 9 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 • 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE • 3 4 5 I certifythat on November 6 off- 1998, I caused to be served via legal messenger a true 7 and correct copy of the foregoing Statement in Support of Appeal of Hearing Examiner 8 9 Condition upon the following: 10 11 12 Jennifer Henning 13 Project Manager - Development Services 14 City of Renton 15 1055 S. Grady Way 16 Renton, WA 98055 17 18 Fred J. Kaufman 19 20 Hearing Examiner 21 City of Renton 22 1055 S. Grady Way 23 Renton, WA 98055 24 25 26 tc_t u ii Vicki Gea in 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 PERKINS COTE LLP CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0 1 5 3/SB982790.1931 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 iy November 4, 1998 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF KING Brenda Fritsvold, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 4th day of November, 1998, at the hour of 5:00 p.m your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision filed by Charles E. Maduell, representative for The Boeing Company (File No. LUA-98-1113, CU-H, ECF). Brenda Fritsv ld, Deputy City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 4th day of November 1998. Vh Michele Neumann Notary Public in and for the tae�of Washington, residing in !( 4 i7li Jennifer Henning Chuck Maduell City of Renton Perkins Coie LLP Development Services Div. 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Conrad Szymczak Rudolph Hobbs Ray Klein The Boeing Company The Boeing Company The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, MS 20-30 P.O. Box 3707, MS 14-HC P.O. Box 3707, MS 1W-03 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 6 © CITI 3F RENTON ar?r L City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J. Petersen November 4, 1998 APPEAL FILED BY: Charles E. Maduell, Perkins Coie LLP Representative: The Boeing Company, Conrad Szymczak RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision 9/28/98 approving construction& operation of a helistop at Boeing headquarters building, 901 Oakesdale Ave. SW, for an initial period of five (5) years. File No. LUA-98-113, CU-H-ECF To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision for conditional use of a helistop at Boeing headquarters for an initial period of five years has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-16.B.,within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting,please call the Council secretary at 425 430-6501 for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of hearing examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425 430-6504. Sincerely, if\I\IAI\CAQ(AeOVNG6' Brenda Fritsvold Deputy City Clerk Attachment 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer ofr I. Appeals: Table 4, Land Use Permit Proce- dures, lists the development permits that itadditionalhl the is required, the 4-8-17: AOUNCIL onACTION: reviewed by the City and the review Exail holl remand timatter to the Any application requiring action nut y y ity responsible for open record appeals,closed author- Examiner for reconsideration and receiptr of City Council shall eqe iredeby minute entrya record appeals and judicial appeals.The City additional evidence.The cost transcription unless otherwise required by law. When taking has consolidated the permit process to allow 4.8-16: APPEAL: Unless an ordinance of the hearing record shall be borne by the any such final action,the Council shall make and for only one(1)open record appeal of all per- applicant. In the absence of an entry upon enter findings of fact from the record and conclu- providing for review of decision of the the record of an order by the City Council sions therefrom which support its action. Unless Examiner requires review thereof by the authorizing new or additional evidence or otherwise specified,the City Council shall be pre- mit decisions associated with a single devel- Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved testimony, and a remand to the Hearing sumed to have adopted the Examiner's findings opment application.Appeals pursuant to this by the Examiner's written decision or Examiner for receipt of such evidence or tes- and conclusions. section are intended to comply with the Land recommendation may submit a notice of appeal timony,it shall be presumed that no new or Use Petition Act,Chapter 36.70C RCW. to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the additional evidence or testimony has been A. In the case of a change of the zone classifica- City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days accepted by the City Council, and that the tion of property(rezone),the City Clerk shall 1. Time For Initiating Appeal.An appeal to from the date of the Examiner's written report. record before the City Council is identical to place the ordinance on the Council's agenda Superior Court of a land use decision, as The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by athe hearing record before the Hearing Exam- for first reading. Final reading of the ordi- defined herein,must be filed within twenty fee in accordance with the fee schedule of thee iner.(Ord.4389,1-25-93) nance shall not occur until all conditions, one(21)days of the issuance of the land use City.(Ord.3658,9-13-82) restrictions or modifications which may have decision. For purposes of this section, the A. The written notice of appeal shall fully, E. The consideration by the City Council shall been required by the Council have been date on which a land use decision is issued is: clearly and thoroughly specify the be based solely upon the record,the Hearing accomplished or provisions for compliance substantial error(s) in fact or law which additional submissionsby p Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and made to the satisfaction of the Legal Depart- a. Three(3)days after a written decision — arties. ment. is mailed by the City or,if not mailed, the exist in the record of the proceedings from date on which the local jurisdiction provides which the appellant seeks relief. Facsimile F. If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing B. All other applications requiring Council notice that a written decision is publicly filing of a notice of appeal is authorized Examiner on an application submitted pursu- action shall be placed on the Council's agenda available; pursuant to the conditions detailed in ant to Section 4-8-10A and after examination for consideration.(Ord.3454,7-28-80) Renton City Code Section 4-8-11C. (Ord. of the record,the Council determines that a b. If the land use decision is made by ordi- 4353,6-1-92) substantial error in fact or law exists in the C. The action of the Council approving,modify- nance or resolution by the City Council,sit- B. Within five(5)days of receipt of the notice record, it may remand the proceeding to ing or rejecting a decision of the Examiner ting in a quasi-judicial capacity,the date the of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or shall be final and conclusive,unless appealed body passes the ordinance or resolution;or reverse the decision of the Examiner accord- within the time frames established under parties of record of the receipt of the ingly. Serr;o4-4y(Ord.3725,5-9-83;amd.Ord. a If neither a or b of this subsection appeal.Other parties of record may submit 4660,3-17-97) applies,the date the decision is entered into letters in support of their positions within C. If,upon appeal from a recommendation of the the public record. ten fica days of the dates of mailing the of Hearing Examiner upon an application sub- notification of the filing of the noticemitted pursuant to Section 4-8-1OB or C,and 4-8-18: SEVERABILITY: 2. Standing.Those persons with standing to appeal. after examination of the record,the Council The provisions of this Ordinance are bring an appeal of a land use decision are C. Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the determines that a substantial error in fact or hereby declared to be severable. If any word, limited to the applicant,the owner of prop- members of the City Council all of the law exists in the record,or that a recommen- phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, section or erty to which land use decisions are directed, dation of the Hearing Examiner should be dis- part in or of this Ordinance, or the application pertinent documents, including the written and any other person aggrieved or adversely decision or recommendation, findings and regarded or modified, the City Council may thereof to any person or circumstance,is declared affected by the land use decision or who conclusions contained in the Examiner's remand the proceeding to the Examiner for invalid,the remaining provisions and the applica- would be aggrieved or adversely affected by a report,the notice of appeal,and additional reconsideration, or enter its own decision tion of such provisions to other persons or circum- reversal or modification of the land use deci- upon the application pursuant to Section 4-8- stances shall not be affected thereby, but shall sion. The terms"aggrieved" and "adversely letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 10B or C. remain in full force and effect,the Mayor and City affected"are defined in RCW 36.70C.060. 3658,9-13-82) Council hereby declaring that they would have hearing shall be held bythe City H. In any event,the decision of the City Council ordained the remaining provisions of this Ordi- 3. Content Of Appeal Submittal. The con- D. No public shall be in writing and shall specify any mod- nance without the word,phrase,clause,sentence, tent,procedure and other requirements of an Council. No new or additional evidence or ified or amended findings and conclusions paragraph, section or part or the application appeal of a land use decision are governed by testimony shall be accepted by the City other than those set forth in the report of the thereof,so held invalid. Chapter 36.70C RCW which is incorporated Council unless a showing is made by the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding herein by reference as if fully set forth. party offering the evidence that the shall be supported by substantial evidence in evidence could not reasonably have been the record. The burden of proof shall rest 4. Other Appeals. Appeals to Superior available at the time of the hearing before with the appellant.(Ord.3658,9-13-82) Court from decisions other than a land use the Examiner. If the Council determines decision,as defined herein,shall be appealed within the time frame established by ordi- nance.If there is no appeal time established by an ordinance,and there is no statute spe- cifically preempting the area and establish- -. ing a time frame for appeal, any appeal, whether through extraordinary writ or other- 497 wise,shall be brought within twenty one(21) City of Renton days of the decision. (Ord. 4587, 3-18-1996; amd.Ord.4660,3-17-97) • APPEAL _ • HEARING EXAMINER • CITY OF RENTON WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION NO tlfi•It62,211ITY COUNCIL. FILE NO. LUA-98-113, CU-H RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE APPLICATION NAME: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Boeing Longacres Helistop The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner,dated September 28 and October 20 19 98 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: The Boeing Company REPRESENTATIVE(IF ANY): PERKINS COIE LLP Name: Conrad Szymczak Name: Charles E. Maduell Address: P.O. Box 3707, M/S 20-30 Address: 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone No. 425-477-0094 Telephone No. 206-583-8888 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) NONE No. Error: CITY OF RENTON NOV U 2.1998 Correction: Oa pp.m,RCCEIVCD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: See attached. Correction: OTHER: No. Error: See attached. Correction: • 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: x Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Delete Condition No. 1 on p.6 of the Hearing Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Examiner's Decision er /(4711/ Appel t/Representative Sig ature Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV,Chapter 8,of the Renton Municipal Code,and Section 4-8-16,for specific procedures. heappeal.doc _ 1 City of Renton City Code Title IV-Building Chapter 8 -Hearing Examiner Section 16 -Appeal 4-8-16: APPEAL: Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk,within fourteen(14)calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) A. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. Facsimile filing of a notice of appeal is authorized pursuant to the conditions detailed in Renton City Code Section 4-8-11C. (Ord.4353, 6-1-92). B. Within five(5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten(10)days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. C. Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) D. No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council may remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-93) E. The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. F. If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-8-10A and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration,or modify,or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. G. If,upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-8-1OB or C, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record,or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application pursuant to Section 4-8-1OB of C. H. In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) heappeal.doc 2. SPECIFICATIONS OF ERRORS CONCLUSIONS: No. 4 Error: The Examiner erred in concluding that "[i]t is hard to say that there is community need for a private helipad located at a private site" and in basing Condition No. 1, at least in part, on this conclusion. Correction: Delete Condition No. 1 on page 6 of the Hearing Examiner's Decision ("The Conditional Use Permit shall be issued for an initial period of five(5) years.") from the CUP approval. No. 5 Error: The Examiner erred in concluding that the CUP should be subject to renewal in case noise problems arise in the future or because of the possible precedential effect of approval of a CUP for the Longacres helistop. Correction: Delete this conclusion and delete Condition No. 1 from the CUP approval. No. 6 Error: The Examiner erred in concluding that "[n]oise, though, could be an issue, particularly for the homes perched on the hill east of the site" and in using this conclusion as a basis for imposition of Condition No. 1. Correction: Delete the second sentence of Conclusion No. 6 and delete Condition No. 1. No. 12 Error: The Examiner erred in concluding that approval of the CUP for the Boeing Longacres helistop will create a precedent and should be subject to further review, and by using these conclusions as a basis to impose Condition No. 1. Correction: Delete first and third sentences of Conclusion No. 12 and delete Condition No. 1 . OTHER: Error: The Examiner erred in imposing Condition No. 1 in his Decision approving the CUP, issued September 28, 1998. Correction: Delete Condition No. 1. Error: The Examiner erred in denying Boeing's Request for Reconsideration of Condition No. 1 on the grounds stated in his letter of denial dated October 20, 1998, which appear to be based upon the Examiner's concerns about community need served by a private helipad at an office site within the Green River Valley. Correction: Reverse the Examiner's denial of the Request for Reconsideration and delete Condition No. I from the CUP approval. [09901-0001/SB983060.054] 11/2/98 1 2 CITY OF RENTON 3 N0V021998 5 6 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 7 8 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 9 10 CITY OF RENTON 11 12 13 NO. LUA-98-113, CU-H 14 In Re The Boeing Company, Boeing 15 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF 16 Longacres Helistop--Conditional Use Permit APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER 17 Application, 18 CONDITION 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Boeing Company ("Boeing") submits this statement in support of its 28 28 appeal, pursuant to Renton CityCode § 4-8-16 of the Hearing Examiner's imposition 29 30 of Condition No. 1 in its decision approving a conditional use permit for a helistop at 31 32 g Longacres Lon acres Office Park. 33 34 I. INTRODUCTION 35 36 The Hearing Examiner, in his Report and Decision ("Decision") dated 37 38 September 28, 1998, approved a conditional use permit ("CUP") for a helistop at 39 40 Boeing Longacres Office Park subject to four conditions. Boeing objects only to the 41 42 first enumerated condition (Condition No. 1) in the Decision, which provides as 43 44 follows: "The Conditional Use Permit shall be issued for an initial period of five (5) 45 46 years." Decision, p. 6. 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 1 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 On October 12, 1998, Boeing requested reconsideration by the Hearing 2 3 Examiner of Condition No. 1 as part of his approval of the CUP for the helistop. On 4 5 October 20, 1998, the Examiner denied the request for reconsideration. The 6 7 Examiner also stated that Boeing could appeal the decision to the City Council within 8 9 14 days of the decision. 10 11 Boeing timely filed its appeal on November 2, 1998. 12 13 ii. ARGUMENT 14 15 The Examiner's imposition of Condition No. 1 in his decision approving the 16 17 CUP for the Boeing helistop appears to be based upon three Examiner conclusions: 18 19 (1) that the permit should be subject to review or possible renewal in case noise 20 21 problems arise or become an issue, particularly for the homes perched on the hill east 22 23 of the site [Examiner Conclusions 5, 6 and 12 in Decision]; (2) that approval of this 24 25 use could create a precedent for such uses in the Valley area of the City, making it 26 27 necessaiy in the future to consider the overall impacts of private helistops at various 28 29 sites in the Valley [Conclusions 5, 12 in Decision]; and (3) that a five-year term is 30 31 warranted because there is little community need served by a private helipad at an 32 33 office site in the Green River Valley [Conclusion 4 in Decision; see also Examiner 34 35 Decision Denying Reconsideration]. Decision, p. 5-6. 36 37 These conclusions, which are not supported by findings of fact or evidence in 38 39 the record, do not justify or support a condition limiting the helistop CUP to a five- 40 41 year term. Such errors in fact, law and judgment, which are more fully set forth 42 43 below,justify modification of the Examiner's decision and removal of Condition 44 45 No. 1 from the CUP approval. 46 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 2 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.1931 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 A. The Hearing Examiner Erred in Limiting the CUP to a Five-Year 2 Term Based Upon the Possibility of Future, Speculative Noise 3 4 Impacts from Operation of the Proposed Helistop 5 6 On the one hand, the Examiner's conclusions acknowledge that the proposed 7 8 Longacres helistop will not result in any adverse impacts to residential neighborhoods. 9 10 For example, the Examiner concludes that it "appears that the applicant's site is large 11 12 enough that most of the impacts should be contained on the site." Decision, p. 5 13 14 (Conclusion No. 5). The Examiner further concludes that "there is a goodly 15 16 separation between the use and that residential community [on the hill east of the 17 18 site]." Decision, p. 5 (Conclusion No. 5). These conclusions are based upon 19 20 substantial evidence in the record. 21 22 On the other hand, the Examiner also concludes that "noise problems" from 23 24 operation of the helistop may "arise" and noise "could be an issue, particularly for the 25 26 homes perched on the hill east of the site." Decision, p. 5 (Conclusion No. 5 & 6). 27 28 No Examiner findings or evidence in the record supports these conclusions. 29 30 Instead, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates that there will be 31 32 no substantial or undue adverse noise impacts on surrounding properties from 33 34 operation of the proposed helistop. According to the evidence in the record and the 35 36 unrebutted testimony of the applicant's noise expert, Ray Klein, any potential noise 37 38 impacts on residential neighborhoods, including those on the hill to the east of the 39 40 site, would at most be negligible, especially given the location of the helistop in the 41 42 middle of an office park surrounded by commercial and industrial uses, its distance 43 44 from residential neighborhoods (more than a mile), the infrequent use of the helistop, 45 46 the proposed flight path of the helicopter away from residential neighborhoods, and 47 the level of existing ambient noise levels in the area. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 3 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03 003-0 1 5 3/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 There is thus no evidence in the record to support the Examiner's conclusions 2 3 that noise problems from operation of the helistop may arise or be an issue, especially 4 5 with respect to any residential neighborhoods in the City. Accordingly, the Examiner 6 7 substantially erred in limiting the term of the CUP for the Longacres helistop to a term 8 9 of five years based upon such speculative, future noise impacts. 10 11 B. The Examiner Erred in Limiting the Term of the CUP for the 12 Longacres Helistop Based Upon the Possibility that Future 13 14 Applicants May Seek to Develop and Operate Private Helistops in 15 the Area 16 17 An additional basis for limiting the CUP for the Longacres helistop to a five- 18 19 year term in Condition No. 1 is the Examiner's conclusion that approval of this use 20 21 could create a precedent for other uses in the Valley area of the City, and a 22 23 proliferation of such requests or even a few more such requests in the future may 24 25 make it necessary to consider the overall impacts of private helistops at various sites 26 27 in the Valley. (Conclusion No. 5) Decision, p. 6. No evidence in the record or 28 29 Examiner findings support this conclusion which, even if true, does not support or 30 31 justify limiting the term of the CUP for this proposed helistop to five years. 32 33 In the first place, there is no evidence to suggest that approval of a CUP for the 34 35 Longacres helistop will create a precedent for more such uses in the future. For 36 37 example, there is no evidence to suggest that other property owners or potential 38 39 applicants in the area have tried without success to locate private helistops on their 40 41 property. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that there are other potential applicants 42 43 who are interested in siting a helistop on their property or have been awaiting the 44 45 decision in this case before applying to operate a helistop. In fact, private helipads 46 47 have been allowed as conditional uses in the Renton Zoning Code for a number of STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 4 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor 103003-0153/SB982790.1931 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 years. The fact that Boeing apparently is the first to apply to site a private helistop 2 3 outside of an airport or a hospital should not in any way affect or limit approval of its 4 5 CUP. 6 7 In addition, the approval of a CUP for a helistop, or any other conditional use 8 9 for that matter, cannot as a matter of law be said to establish a precedent for such uses 10 11 or to encourage their proliferation. Conditional use permit applications, unlike 12 13 applications for permitted uses, are intended to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to 14 1s determine if such otherwise prohibited uses should be permitted in a particular zone, 16 17 based upon the existing surrounding uses and subject to whatever conditions may be 18 19 necessary, if even possible, to make such use consistent and compatible with 20 21 surrounding uses. R.C.C. § 4-31-36. In other words, the conditional use permit 22 23 process is designed to prevent the proliferation of materially detrimental or 24 25 incompatible uses in areas of the City. 26 27 Thus, not only will approval of Boeing's CUP application for a helistop not 28 29 have precedential effect, it is in fact likely to have the opposite effect. CUP criteria in 30 31 the Renton City Code, one of which prohibits the "detrimental overconcentration of a 32 33 particular use within the city or within the immediate area of the proposed use," 34 35 would actually make it more difficult to site another helistop in the vicinity. R.C.C. 36 37 § 4-31-36(C)(2)(a). Although Boeing in this case was able to demonstrate that the 38 39 location of a helistop at the Longacres Office Park would not result in a detrimental 40 41 overconcentration of such uses in the vicinity or area, future applicants seeking 42 43 helistops in the vicinity or area may not be able to make such a showing because of 44 45 the existence of the Longacres helistop, in which case their application may denied or 46 47 conditioned, as appropriate. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LIP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 5 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 In addition, impacts, cumulative or otherwise, from additional helistops in the 2 3 vicinity or area can and will be evaluated and addressed through the conditional use 4 5 permit approval process. If they cannot, then they should be addressed legislatively 6 7 by the Renton City Council. In any event, Boeing should not be penalized simply 8 9 because it apparently was the first to apply to site a helistop outside of an airport or 10 11 hospital. Instead, as a result of its being the first to site this conditional use, it will 12 13 become an existing use against which future, conditional use permit applications for 14 15 helistops will be evaluated. This is exactly how the conditional use permit approval 16 17 process is intended to work. If, as a result, it makes it more difficult for other 18 19 helistops to locate in the vicinity, it is not the fault of Boeing or the zoning code; 20 21 rather, it is the fault of those who could have but failed to apply earlier for a helistop. 22 23 Thus, although there is no evidence to suggest that approval of the Longacres 24 25 helistop will somehow create a precedence for additional private helistops in the 26 27 Valley area, even if it does, application for such uses will be subject to the conditional 28 29 use permit process and any impacts from additional private helistops in the Valley can 30 31 and should be addressed through the conditional use permit process. It should not 32 33 affect or limit the CUP approved for the Longacres helistop, which satisfies all 34 35 applicable conditional use permit criteria, and the Examiner erred in limiting the term 36 37 of the CUP for the Longacres helistop on this basis. 38 39 C. The Examiner Erred to the Extent He Based Condition No. 1 on the ao Community Need for the helistop 41 42 Although not expressly a basis for Condition No. I, the Examiner in both his 43 44 45 Decision and in his denial of Boeing's motion for reconsideration of Condition No. 1 46 implies that because "there is relatively little community need for a private helistop at 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 6 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0 1 5 3/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 an office site within the Green River Valley," a five-year permit term "is not 2 3 unreasonable." See Letter from Hearing Examiner, dated October 20, 1998, 4 5 Re: Denial of Request for Reconsideration ("Reconsideration Decision"). In this 6 7 regard, the Examiner erred to the extent community need was a basis for imposition of 8 9 Condition No. 1. 10 11 In the first place, the Examiner's interpretation of community need in the 12 13 context of the conditional use at issue here is overly narrow and erroneous. The 14 15 Examiner appears to interpret the "community need" criterion in R.C.C. 16 17 4-31-36(C)(2) for a conditional use permit as being synonymous with "public use and 18 19 interest." Reconsideration Decision. If that were the case, no conditional use permits 20 21 for private activities, such as for "service clubs and organizations", could be approved 22 23 under the code. 24 25 Instead, it is clear that the purpose of the "community need" requirement for 26 27 conditional use permits is two-fold: (1) to make sure that there is sufficient need for 28 29 the use at the particular location so as to avoid a "detrimental overconcentration" of 30 31 such uses in any area and (2) to ensure that the "proposed location is suited for the 32 33 proposed use." R.C.C. 4-3 1-36(C)(2). In fact, these two factors, in support of which 34 35 Boeing submitted substantial evidence demonstrating compliance therewith for its 36 37 proposed helistop, are the only two factors that are expressly required by the Renton 38 39 City Code to be satisfied to meet the "community need" requirement. Id. 40 41 In any event, even under the Examiner's overly broad interpretation of 42 43 community need, Boeing has demonstrated that there is a community need for the 44 45 helistop at Longacres sufficient to justify the CUP. Not only would it be available for 46 47 public agency use in the event of a public emergency or disaster, it will provide an STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 7 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 important accessory use to the newly opened Boeing Commercial Airplane Group's 2 3 Headquarters Building at the Longacres Office Park. As such, it links significant 4 5 Boeing facilities in the City of Renton, which provide important public and 6 7 community benefits to the City, to Boeing's other facilities throughout the Puget 8 9 Sound region, all of which have on-site helipads and can be accessed by helicopter. 10 11 Although the Examiner acknowledges that Boeing has sufficiently 12 13 demonstrated community need to justify approval of the CUP for the Longacres 14 15 helistop, and the Examiner in fact approved the CUP, the Examiner nonetheless seems 16 17 to suggest that the fact that there may be less community need for the Boeing helistop 18 19 than for a helistop at a hospital, for example, somehow justifies a five-year term on 20 21 the Boeing helistop. Even if you accept the Examiner's premise about differing levels 22 23 of community need, this premise does not support his conclusion. In other words, the 24 25 level of community need for the Boeing helistop bears no relationship to and in no 26 27 way supports a five-year permit term. In fact, the only justification for the five-year 28 29 permit term appears to be the Examiner's concern about future noise impacts and 30 31 future precedent. As earlier demonstrated, any such concerns are wholly speculative 32 33 and unsupported by evidence in the record. There are thus no defensible grounds for 34 35 limiting the CUP for Boeing's Longacres helistop to a five-year term, whether on the 36 37 basis of community need, future noise impacts, or future precedent. 38 39 iii. CONCLUSION 40 41 The proposed Longacres helistop is an important component of the recently- 42 43 completed Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters Building, for it will 44 45 connect the new Longacres Boeing operations at Longacres with Boeing's other 46 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 8 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.1931 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 facilities throughout the Puget Sound region, all of which can be accessed by 2 3 helicopter. 4 5 The proposed Longacres helistop has been designed and located so as to 6 7 minimize any impacts to surrounding areas and communities and, as the evidence in 8 9 the record demonstrates, any noise impacts to surrounding areas, including the 10 ii residential areas east of the site, will at most be negligible. Although the Examiner in 12 13 his Decision has expressed concerns about future potential noise problems from 14 is operation of the helistop, there is no evidence to justify his concerns. Given the 16 17 speculative nature of this possibility, however, a condition limiting the term of the 18 19 helistop CUP to five years is neither reasonable nor appropriate. 20 21 For these reasons, Boeing respectfully requests that the City Council remove 22 23 Condition No. 1 from the Hearing Examiner's approval of the CUP for the Boeing 24 25 helistop. 26 27 DATED: November 2, 1998. 28 29 30 PERKINS COIE LLP 31 32 33 34 By 35 Charles E. Maduell, WSBA # 15491 36 Attorneys for The Boein Com an 37 Y g p Y 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION- 9 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206)583-8888 CITY OF RENTON NOV 021998 RECED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3 4 5 I certify that on November c9—, 1998, I caused to be served via legal messenger a true 6 7 and correct copy of the foregoing Statement in Support of Appeal of Hearing Examiner 8 9 Condition upon the following: 10 11 12 Jennifer Henning 13 Project Manager - Development Services 14 City of Renton 15 1055 S. Grady Way 16 Renton, WA 98055 17 18 Fred J. Kaufman 19 20 Hearing Examiner 21 City of Renton 22 1055 S. Grady Way 23 Renton, WA 98055 24 25 • 26 k.)t d.0 27 28 Vicki Gea in 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 PERKINS COIE LLP CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 City of Renton Revenue/Check Documentation CITY OF RENTON Date: //- - fir NOV 0 21998 Source: City Clerk CITY uL K!S OFFICE • Amount: 75, CV Account Code: 000.000.00.345.81.00.000001 Description: Appeal 214# - 9 F- 1/3 e zt q ei a z2 - By: J. CHECK PERKINS COTE LLP 1201 THIRD AVI 40th FLOOR SEATTLE,WA 98 1 0 1-3099 CI k i 2lOO NO. 569563 INVOICE DATE INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOUNT PAYMENT AMOUNT 11/02/98 9817712 $75 . 00 $0 . 00 $75 . 00= CITY OF RENTON NOV C 2 1998 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PERKINS COTE LLP 1201 THIRD A JE.-10th FLOOR SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099 C R2100 CHECKNO 569563 IN%01( DATE INVOR F;NL'M tIER INVOICE AMOUNT NI l'Al NH.NI AMOUNT 11/02/98 9817712 $75 . 00 $0 . 00 $75 . 00= CITY OF RENTON NOV L 2 1998 RECEIVED CiTY CLERK'S OFFICE DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENT THIS MULTI-TONE AREA OF THE DOCUMENT CHANGES COLOR GRADUALLY AND EVENLY FROM DARK TO LIGHT WITH DARKER AREAS BOTH TOP AND BOTTOM. -,qc.-• • y Jos v,k Alft` rfr ^113( ,1114", - -4-, --1)r,,,,410 • -111,--Tv-111v se, -- ERKINS OIE LLP Main Otfiee/CASC 1250 DATE CRECKNO. P.O.BOX.3586,Seattle.WA 98124 11/02/98 569563 1201 Third Avenue.40TH Floor Seattle.Washington 98101-3099 (206)58.3-8888 AMOUNT *********$75 . 00 E:› >1 > - CO Perkins LLPI[krdio EVEN Coie H CTSCM 1:)AYIII SEVENTY—FIVE DOLLARS AND 00 CENTS ********** PERKINS COLE IAA, PAY TO ORDER OF: Volt)IF NOT NEGOTIATED wn HIN SEX MON111S City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton WA 98055 056956311' 1: L 250000 241: 67449 00911' CITY CLERK DIVISION Send Copies To: Date: / CITY ATTORNEY /7 CITY COUNCIL (ind. Mayor, SQy C. 4 n«usyr, COMMUNITY SERVICES/PARKS EDNSP/ECONOMIC DEVELOP. $fi (�i e r/so� FINANCE/INFO SERVICES m *Gan / FIRE DEPT/FIRE PREVENTION #9rt Larson / HEARING EXAMINER HUMAN RESOURCES/RISK MGMT HUMAN SERVICES LIBRARIES MAYOR/EXECUTIVE MUNICIPAL COURT 9 PLANNING COMMISSION POLICE CODIFIER NEWSPAPER 11 _ S PARTIES OF RECORD IPlanning/Building/Public Works: / ADMINISTRATION arv9 ZI fflerniar / AIRPORT (�ai/ Red Lahry ineckJ IT a DEVELOPMENT SERVICES J rn 'censor) I TRANSPORTATION SERVICES SQfldra ) 1eye- I UTILITIES&TECH SERVICES Lys {iOrh siV / File CU- 911- /3 -mum CITI )F RENTON --,, Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman October 20, 1998 Mr. Charles Maduell Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Re: Request for Reconsideration of Decision re Boeing Longacres Helistop File No. LUA98-113,CU-H Dear Mr. Maduell: This office believes that the condition to limit the initial permit to five (5) years is appropriate. It would appear that the applicant does not understand that as a Conditional Use Permit reasonable conditions may be attached to the permit. The fact that The Boeing Company is the first to apply for a permit for a private helipad does not mean it is simply entitled to such a permit. As noted, a helipad is a conditional use. It was a stretch in the first place to find that a helipad serving the private interests of Boeing served the public use and interest. There is relatively little community need served by a private helipad at an office site within the Green River Valley. The helipad at the hospital is clearly a public or community-generated need. Any helipad or operations at the airport are appropriately based at an airport. The condition to allow the City to review this permit after an initial operating period of about five years to review any unforeseen problems or aspects, and to possibly require consolidation, is not unreasonable. Clearly, each such permit is reviewable in its own right as the applicant notes. Just because Boeing is the first to submit an application,however, does not mean that later applicants should be barred because the City then finds that there are too many such private uses within the vicinity. Again, community need requires assessment and the "first in time" should not necessarily be used to bar other entrants when the community need, if there is such, could be better served if such uses were consolidated. Therefore,the condition will not be altered. The applicant may appeal this decision to the City Council within 14 days of this decision. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Project Manager 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 This oaner contains 50%recycled material.20%cost consumer cb CITY OF RENTON 111) ' - �'JJ 12 1998 O C T 1 2 1998 RECEIVED 1 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER 9 10 CITY OF RENTON 11 12 13 NO. LUA-98-113, CU-H 14 In Re The Boeing Company, Boeing 15 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 16 Longacres Helistop--Conditional Use Permit 17 Application, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1. RELIEF REQUESTED 26 27 The Boeing Company ("Boeing"), pursuant to Renton City Code § 4-8-15, 28 29 respectfully requests reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner of Condition No. 1 in 30 31 its decision approving a conditional use permit for a helistop at Boeing Longacres 32 33 Office Park. 34 35 II. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF AND ARGUMENT 36 37 The Hearing Examiner, in his Report and Decision ("Decision") dated 38 39 40 September 28, 1998, approved a conditional use permit ("CUP") for a helistop at 41 Boeing Longacres Office Park subject to four conditions. Boeing objects only to the 42 43 first enumerated condition (Condition No. 1) in the Decision, which provides as 44 45 46 follows: "The Conditional Use Permit shall be issued for an initial period of five (5) 47 years." Decision, p. 6. This five-year permit term in Condition No. 1 appears to be PERKINS COIE LLP REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 1 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 based upon two Examiner conclusions: (1) that the permit should be subject to review 2 3 or possible renewal in case noise problems arise or become an issue, particularly for 4 5 the homes perched on the hill east of the site [Examiner Conclusions 5, 6 and 12]; and 6 7 (2) that approval of this use could create a precedent for such uses in the Valley area 8 9 of the City, making it necessary in the future to consider the overall impacts of private to 11 helistops at various sites in the Valley [Conclusions 5, 12]. Decision, p. 5-6. 12 13 These conclusions, which are not supported by findings of fact or evidence in 14 is the record, do not justify or support a condition limiting the helistop CUP to a five- 16 17 year term. Such errors in fact, law and judgment, which are more fully set forth 18 19 below,justify reconsideration and removal of Condition No. 1 from the Decision. In 20 21 the alternative, in order to address the Examiner's concern about future potential noise 22 23 problems arising from operation of the helistop, Condition No. 1 should be replaced 24 25 by a condition more narrowly tailored to this concern -- one that would require permit 26 27 renewal only if monitoring and review by the City at some time in the future revealed 28 29 actual, unresolved noise problems warranting such renewal. 30 31 A. The CUP Should Not Be Limited to a Five-Year Term Based Upon 32 the Possibility of Future, Speculative Noise Impacts from Operation 33 34 of the Proposed Helistop 35 36 On the one hand, the Examiner's conclusions acknowledge that the proposed 37 38 Longacres helistop will not result in any adverse impacts to residential neighborhoods. 39 40 For example, the Examiner concludes that it "appears that the applicant's site is large 41 42 enough that most of the impacts should be contained on the site." Decision, p. 5 43 44 (Conclusion No. 5). The Examiner further concludes that "there is a goodly 45 46 separation between the use and that residential community [on the hill east of the 47 PERKINS COIE LLP REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 site]." Decision, p. 5 (Conclusion No. 5). These conclusions are based upon 2 3 substantial evidence in the record. 4 5 On the other hand, the Examiner also concludes that "noise problems" from 6 7 operation of the helistop may "arise" and noise "could be an issue, particularly for the 8 9 homes perched on the hill east of the site." Decision, p. 5 (Conclusion No. 5 & 6). 10 11 No Examiner findings or evidence in the record supports these conclusions. 12 13 Instead, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates that there will be 14 15 no substantial or undue adverse noise impacts on surrounding properties from 16 17 operation of the proposed helistop. According to the evidence in the record and the 18 19 unrebutted testimony of the applicant's noise expert, Ray Klein, any potential noise 20 21 impacts on residential neighborhoods, including those on the hill to the east of the 22 23 site, would at most be negligible, especially given the location of the helistop in the 24 25 middle of an office park surrounded by commercial and industrial uses, its distance 26 27 from residential neighborhoods (more than a mile), the infrequent use of the helistop, 28 29 the proposed flight path of the helicopter away from residential neighborhoods, and 30 31 the level of existing ambient noise levels in the area. 32 33 There is thus no evidence in the record to support the Examiner's conclusions 34 35 that noise problems from operation of the helistop may arise or be an issue, especially 36 37 with respect to any residential neighborhoods in the City. Accordingly, the CUP for 38 39 the Longacres helistop should not be limited to a term of five years based upon such 40 41 speculative, future noise impacts. 42 43 44 45 46 47 PERKINS COTE LLP REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 3 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.1931 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206)583-8888 B. The Possibility that Future Applicants May Seek to Develop and 2 Operate Private Helistops in the Area Is Not an Appropriate Basis 3 4 for Limiting the Term of the CUP for the Longacres Helistop 5 6 An additional basis for limiting the CUP for the Longacres helistop to a five- 7 8 year term in Condition No. 1 is the Examiner's conclusion that approval of this use 9 10 could create a precedent for other uses in the Valley area of the City, and a 11 12 proliferation of such requests or even a few more such requests in the future may 13 14 make it necessary to consider the overall impacts of private helistops at various sites 15 16 in the Valley. (Conclusion No. 5) Decision, p. 6. No evidence in the record or 17 18 Examiner findings support this conclusion which, even if true, does not support or 19 20 justify limiting the term of the CUP for this proposed helistop to five years. 21 22 In the first place, there is no evidence to suggest that approval of a CUP for the 23 24 Longacres helistop will create a precedent for more such uses in the future. For 25 26 example, there is no evidence to suggest that other property owners or potential 27 28 applicants in the area have tried without success to locate private helistops on their 29 30 property. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that there are other potential applicants 31 32 who are interested in siting a helistop on their property or have been awaiting the 33 34 decision in this case before applying to operate a helistop. In fact, private helipads 35 36 have been allowed as conditional uses in the Renton Zoning Code for a number of 37 38 years. The fact that Boeing apparently is the first to apply to site a private helistop 39 40 outside of an airport or a hospital should not in any way affect or limit approval of its 41 42 CUP. 43 44 In addition, the approval of a CUP for a helistop, or any other conditional use 45 46 for that matter, cannot as a matter of law be said to establish a precedent for such uses 47 or to encourage their proliferation. Conditional use permit applications, unlike PERKINS COIE LLP REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 applications for permitted uses, are intended to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to 2 3 determine if such otherwise prohibited uses should be permitted in a particular zone, 4 s based upon the existing surrounding uses and subject to whatever conditions may be 6 7 necessary, if even possible, to make such use consistent and compatible with 8 9 surrounding uses. R.C.C. § 4-31-36. In other words, the conditional use permit 10 11 process is designed to prevent the proliferation of materially detrimental or 12 13 incompatible uses in areas of the City. 14 15 Thus, not only will approval of Boeing's CUP application for a helistop not 16 17 have precedential effect, it is in fact likely to have the opposite effect. CUP criteria in 18 19 the Renton City Code, one of which prohibits the "detrimental overconcentration of a 20 21 particular use within the city or within the immediate area of the proposed use," 22 23 would actually make it more difficult to site another helistop in the vicinity. R.C.C. 24 25 § 4-31-36(C)(2)(a). Although Boeing in this case was able to demonstrate that the 26 27 location of a helistop at the Longacres Office Park would not result in a detrimental 28 29 overconcentration of such uses in the vicinity or area, future applicants seeking 30 31 helistops in the vicinity or area may not be able to make such a showing because of 32 33 the existence of the Longacres helistop, in which case their application may denied or 34 35 conditioned, as appropriate. 36 37 In addition, impacts, cumulative or otherwise, from additional helistops in the 38 39 vicinity or area can and will be evaluated and addressed through the conditional use 40 41 permit approval process. If they cannot, then they should be addressed legislatively 42 43 by the Renton City Council. In any event, Boeing should not be penalized simply 44 45 because it was the first to apply to site a helistop outside of an airport or hospital. 46 47 Instead, as a result of its being the first to site this conditional use, it will become an PERKINS COTE LLP REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 existing use against which future, conditional use permit applications for helistops 2 3 will be evaluated. This is exactly how the conditional use permit approval process is 4 5 intended to work. If, as a result, it makes it more difficult for other helistops to locate 6 7 in the vicinity, it is not the fault of Boeing or the zoning code; rather, it is the fault of 8 9 those who could have but failed to apply earlier for a helistop. 10 11 Thus, although there is no evidence to suggest that approval of the Longacres 12 13 helistop will somehow create a precedence for additional private helistops in the 14 15 Valley area, even if it does, application for such uses will be subject to the conditional 16 17 use permit process and any impacts from additional private helistops in the Valley can 18 19 and should be addressed through the conditional use permit process. It should not 20 21 affect or limit the CUP approved for the Longacres helistop, which satisfies all 22 23 applicable conditional use permit criteria, and the Examiner should reconsider limiting 24 25 the term of the CUP for the Longacres helistop on this basis. 26 27 C. Examiner Concerns About Potential Future Noise Problems from 28 Operation of the Longacres Helistop, Given Their Speculative 29 30 Nature, Should be Addressed Through a More Narrowly Tailored 31 Condition that Requires Additional Permit Review Only if Such 32 Problems Actually Arise 33 34 In conclusion no. 5, the Examiner states that "the permit should probably be 35 36 subject to review or possible renewal in case noise problems or other issues . . . arise." 37 38 Decision, p. 6. Similarly, in conclusion no. 12, the Examiner states that the proposed 39 40 helistop "should be subject to further review to assure it remains an acceptable, 41 42 neighborly use." Decision, p. 6. Although the record does not support the need for 43 44 such review of potential future noise impacts, even if it did, permit renewal, with its 45 46 attendant costs and the possibility of imposition of additional conditions or even 47 PERKINS COIE LLP REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 6 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 denial, should only be required if potential problems actually materialize. In other 2 3 words, Boeing should not be required to apply for another conditional use permit in 4 5 five years regardless of whether the noise problems that the Examiner believes may 6 7 arise in the future in fact arise. Instead, at most, Boeing should be required to renew 8 9 its existing CUP for the helistop only if review and monitoring by the City of Renton Io 11 at some point in the future reveals the need for such additional review and renewal, as 12 13 for example, if there are numerous unresolved complaints from residents in the 14 15 surrounding residential neighborhoods about operation of the Longacres helistop. 16 17 As the Examiner concluded in conclusion no. 12, "[a]t the moment, it appears 18 19 reasonable to approve the proposed use." Decision, p. 6. In other words, the 20 21 proposed Longacres helistop satisfies the applicable criteria for approval of a CUP for 22 23 this use. Examiner concerns about potential future noise problems from operation of 24 25 the Longacres helistop, given their speculative nature, should be addressed through a 26 27 more narrowly tailored condition that requires additional permit review only if such 28 29 problems actually arise. If the Examiner believes a condition is necessary to address 30 31 the possibility of future noise impacts, then Condition No. 1 should be replaced by a 32 33 condition such as the following: 34 35 1. Within five (5) years, the City shall determine whether 36 there are unresolved noise problems from operation of the 38 helistopthat warrant renewal of the conditional use permit. If the 38 39 City determines that such noise problems exist the City may 40 require the applicant to reapply for a permit to continue to 41 operate a helistop at the Longacres Office Park site. If not, no 42 43 permit renewal or reapplication shall be required. 44 45 46 47 PERKINS COTE LLP REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 7 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 3 The proposed Longacres helistop is an important component of the recently- 4 5 completed Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters building, for it will 6 7 connect the new Longacres Boeing operations with Boeing's other facilities 8 9 throughout the Puget Sound region, all of which can be accessed by helicopter. to it The proposed Longacres helistop has been designed and located so as to 12 13 minimize any impacts to surrounding areas and communities and, as the evidence in 14 15 the record demonstrates, any noise impacts to surrounding areas, including the 16 17 residential areas east of the site, will at most be negligible. Although the Examiner in 18 19 his Decision has expressed concerns about future potential noise problems from 20 21 operation of the helistop, given the speculative nature of such concerns, a condition 22 23 limiting the term of the helistop CUP to five years is neither reasonable nor 24 25 appropriate. Nevertheless, if the Examiner believes a condition is necessary to ensure 26 27 that no noise problems from operation of the helistop arise in the future, any such 28 29 condition should be more narrowly tailored so that Boeing would only have to reapply 30 31 for a CUP if such noise problems actually arise. 32 33 For these reasons, Boeing respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider 34 35 imposition of Condition No. 1. 36 37 DATED: October 12, 1998. 38 39 ao PERKINS COIE LLP 41 42 43 44 By e,-,S 46 Charles E. Maduell, WSBA # 15491 4 47 Attorneys for The Boeing Company PERKINS COIF LLP REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 8 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0 1 5 3/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 • 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3 4 5 I certify that on October 12, 1998, I caused to be served via legal messenger a true 6 7 and correct copy of the foregoing Request for Reconsideration upon the following: 8 9 Jennifer Henning 10 11 Project Manager - Development Services 12 City of Renton 13 1055 S. Grady Way 14 Renton, WA 98055 15 16 Fred J. Kaufman 17 Hearing Examiner 18 19 City of Renton 20 1055 S. Grady Way 21 Renton, WA 98055 22 23 • 24 , QkI tn-1 25 26 Vicki Gea • 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 PERKINS COIE LLP CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King ) MARILYN MOSES , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 28th day of September ,1998, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: i� U (� f, / l (A.t) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this e day of • • , 1998. '''\51Q.dikl4actP\--(0k, Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at . ,-herein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Boeing Longacres Helistop LUA98-113,CU-H The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT September 28, 1998 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: The Boeing Company Boeing Longacres Helistop File No.: LUA-98-113,CU-H LOCATION: Longacres Office Park,901 Oakesdale Ave. SW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To construct and operate a helistop at Boeing Headquarters Building SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on September 2, 1998. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report,examining available information on file with the application,field checking the property and surrounding area;the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the September 8, 1998 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, September 8, 1998,at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Vicinity map application,proof of posting,proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 3: Site plan Exhibit No.4: Supporting environmental documents Exhibit No. 5: FAA approval letter dated 8/5/98 Exhibit No.6: USGS Quadrangle Map The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by JENNIFER HENNING,Project Manager, Development Services,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, Washington 98055. The applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct a helicopter takeoff and landing area at Boeing Longacres Park. The site is located in the Green River Valley portion of the City,just south of I-405,to the west of SR-167 and The Boeing Company Boeing Longacres Helistop File No.: LUA-98-113,CU-H September 28, 1998 Page 2 east of the City of Tukwila boundaries. The purpose of the helistop is to operate a private helicopter area in connection with Boeing headquarters office building. This project would include a 26 foot square concrete area for touch-down and lift-off of helicopters and would be surrounded by an 80-foot diameter circular asphalt area,or a 40-foot radius. This development would have perimeter lighting and a windsock. The lighting and wind sock light would be activated through radio signals from the pilot of the helicopter. Flights in and out of the helistop would be expected to average a minimum of one per month or maximum of eight flights per month. No helicopters would be based at this facility,none would be fueled,nor would any be maintained at this site. The use of this helistop is to bring visitors,clients and customers in an out of the facility. An existing paved area of 15,000 square feet would be modified with new markings on the pavement and installation of the wind sock and lighting. There would be some additional impervious surface added in terms of an access road to connect to the helistop. Biofiltration facilities would also be installed along the access road. Helicopters would take off and approach the helistop to and from the north-northwest and the south. The flight paths of the helicopters would be generally to the center of the site over existing parking areas,storm water ponds and vacant land. This project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)and received a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M). The mitigation requires that the landing pad and area adjacent to the helistop be free of any unnecessary dust and debris that could result in dust impacts during helicopter maneuvers. Applicant has submitted a dust management plan and has stated that in order to minimize the dust being disturbed during takeoff and landing,the soils surrounding the asphalt pad would be planted in naturally occurring grasses and the landing pad and immediate landscaping would be maintained on an as-needed basis. This portion of the City is designated Employment Area-Valley in the Comprehensive Plan, and it permits office,commercial and industrial uses. Helicopter landing areas or helistops are permitted as an accessory use. The zoning for this area is designated Commercial Office(CO)and permits helistops as an accessory use subject to a conditional use permit. The proposal meets all the development standards of the CO zone including height, setback and lot coverage requirements. The proposal does not require any additional parking and there will be no additional vehicle traffic generated. The applicant has provided a noise analysis which indicates that the typical noise associated with helicopters is 76 to 84 decibels at a distance of 500 feet from the aircraft. This particular facility would be located several hundred feet from any property boundaries. It is not expected to create any impact,particularly given the infrequent use and the fact that there is already a helicopter school that operates out of Boeing Field that over- flies this site several times a day. There are no scheduled hours of operation. A new family daycare center being operated at this site is on the east side of the property with the corporate building located between the helistop and the daycare center. Noise abatement measures would be implemented,particularly during ascent and descent. There are no other helicopter takeoff and landing facilities in the immediate area. The Valley Medical Center about a mile and a half away does have a helicopter landing area. Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit subject to the condition that they be required to comply with the ERC mitigation measure for management of dust on the site. Chuck Maduell, 1201 Third Avenue,40th Floor, Seattle, Washington 98101, attorney for applicant herein, introduced additional exhibits. He pointed out that there has been no public comment or opposition to the proposed helistop. The Boeing Company Boeing Longacres Helistop File No.: LUA-98-113,CU-H September 28, 1998 Page 3 Conrad Szymczak, Boeing Company,P.O. Box 3707,MS 20-30, Seattle,Washington 98124-2207, applicant representative herein,stated that applicant did not want to be limited to a maximum of 8 flights per month. The projection at this time is a maximum of 8,but this depends upon the season and business demands. The traffic would occur mainly during the daylight hours,but there may be some rare occasions for flights at night. Regarding the residential areas to the east of the site,this project is expected to generate less noise than the existing helicopter flights from the Renton Municipal Airport and the helicopter school from Boeing Field. Rudolph Hobbs,Boeing Company,P.O.Box 3707,MS 14-HC, Seattle, Washington 98124,pilot for the applicant herein, stated that the use of the helistop facility is going to be primarily for executives and customers and will link to the various Boeing sites in the northwest area. Regarding the actual flights,helicopters do not need a lot of space for takeoff and landing, and the take-off path can be varied depending on the wind. Flights will always take off into the wind and land into the wind. The predominant winds in this area run north and south, and predominant traffic through this corridor is along the railroad track. Ray Klein,Boeing Company,P.O.Box 3707,MS 1W-03, Seattle,Washington 98124-2207, applicant representative herein, addressed the noise issue. When the helicopter is taking off it takes approximately 8 to 10 seconds to go south and out of the area,moving away from a residential area. As it is moving away the noise is also abating. The ambient level of noise in the community itself is such that residents will probably not hear the helicopters taking off and landing The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak,and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:45 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant,Rick Ford,The Boeing Company,filed a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a helicopter landing pad in a Commercial Office(CO)Zone. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW. The site is located on the Boeing Longacres Office Park campus south of SW 16th and east of Oakesdale. The pad will be located southwest of the new headquarters building. It is intended to serve the executives of the Boeing Company and their clientele. The Boeing Company Boeing Longacres Helistop File No.: LUA-98-113,CU-H September 28, 1998 Page 4 6. The subject site is an approximately 3.1 acre portion of the larger Boeing Longacres campus. The site is level and already is paved. 7. The subject site was annexed to the City in a series of actions including Ordinances 1745, 1764 and ending with Ordinance 1928. 8. The subject site is zoned CO,a status it received with the adoption of Ordinance 4404 enacted in June 1993. 9. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as Employment Area Valley,but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 10. The area is developed with a mix of office and warehouse uses south and east of the site. A railroad line is located west of the site. Similar uses are located in Tukwila west of the rail line. Residential uses are located east of the site above the valley floor. 11. The applicant proposes developing what they term a private helistop. It will primarily serve the applicant, although staff noted it could be used for emergency evacuations by emergency services personnel. Helicopters would be based elsewhere and would only visit the site when needed. They would not be fueled or maintained at this location. 12. It would consist of a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area. It would be surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take-off area. There would be perimeter lighting and a lighted windsock. The lighting would not be on at all times,but be activated by a pilot either approaching or at the site. 13. The flight path should generally be oriented along a north-south route. Noise should be generally confined to the flight path. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant for a Conditional Use Permit must demonstrate that the use is in the public interest,will not impair the health, safety or welfare of the general public and is in compliance with the criteria found in Section 4-31-36(C)which provides in part that: a. The proposal generally conforms with the Comprehensive Plan; b. There is a general community need for the proposed use at the proposed location; c. There will be no undue impacts on adjacent property; d. The proposed use is compatible in scale with the adjacent residential uses, if any; e. Parking,unless otherwise permitted,will not occur in the required yards; f. Traffic and pedestrian circulation will be safe and adequate for the proposed project; g. Noise, light and glare will not cause an adverse affect on neighboring property; The Boeing Company Boeing Longacres Helistop File No.: LUA-98-113,CU-H September 28, 1998 Page 5 h. Landscaping shall be sufficient to buffer the use from rights-of-way and neighboring property where appropriate; and i. Adequate public services are available to serve the proposal. The requested conditional use appears justified subject to the conditions enumerated below. 2. The use is an accessory use to an office complex and as such is acceptable under the Comprehensive Plan for this area. The use will not generate any new employment in this area. 3. This proposed use will result in limited changes and construction in the area. It would appear that the proposal meets Zoning Code requirements in that the CO Zone does permit helipads as an accessory use subject to conditional use criteria. 4. It is hard to say that there is a community need for a private helipad located at a private site. It appears that the pad would be available for public use by emergency agencies if a need arose. A condition assuring such availability will help justify the community need for such a facility at the Boeing complex. 5. In addition,the permit should probably be subject to review or possible renewal in case noise problems or other issues that have not been addressed with this novel use arise. Similarly,approving this use could create a precedent and other users in the Valley area of the City might want similar amenities. In that event,the City might want to consider consolidating such uses or co-locating them,much as it does cellular tower sites. While this probably is not an immediate problem, a proliferation of such requests or even a few more such requests might make it necessary to consider the overall impacts of private helistops at various sites in the Valley. Therefore, it seems appropriate to condition or limit this initial permit to perhaps five years after which time the state of the art and state of land use patterns in this area can be reevaluated. To keep the use operational,the applicant could apply for a new conditional use permit well before this one is to expire. 6. It appears that the applicant's site is large enough that most of the impacts should be contained on the site. Noise,though,could be an issue,particularly for the homes perched on the hill east of the site. It appears that there is a goodly separation between the use and that residential community. Nonetheless, the applicant should maintain a flight path as far from the hill as possible. 7. The proposed use will be more or less a flat landing area with windsock and lighting. It should not be particularly out of scale with any of the adjacent development,whether residential or commercial. 8. The use will not require any additional parking on a permanent basis. 9. Lighting will be activated on an as-needed basis and should not create any undue impacts on the public or adjacent properties. 10. The overall complex is well landscaped. The proposed use will be closely maintained to avoid debris hazards when operating the helicopter. 11. The site is adequately served by needed public services. 12. In conclusion,as the first private helicopter site outside of the airport and hospital, it will create a precedent and must be carefully observed to assure that any precedent it sets is appropriate. At the The Boeing Company Boeing Longacres Helistop File No.: LUA-98-113,CU-H September 28, 1998 Page 6 moment it appears reasonable to approve the proposed use. As noted, however, it should be subject to further review to assure it remains an acceptable,neighborly use. DECISION: The Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Conditional Use Permit shall be issued for an initial period of five(5)years. 2. The applicant shall maintain a flight path as far from the eastern,residentially developed hill as possible. 3. The applicant shall make the facility available at no cost to emergency agencies as needed. 4. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. ORDERED THIS 28th day of September, 1998. FRED J.KAU N HEARING E MINER TRANSMITTED THIS 28th day of September, 1998 to the parties of record: Jennifer Henning Chuck Maduell Conrad Szymczak 1055 S Grady Way 1201 Third Ave.,40th Floor The Boeing Company Renton,WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98101 PO Box 3707,MS 20-30 Seattle,WA 98124-2207 Rudolph Hobbs Ray Klein The Boeing Company The Boeing Company PO Box 3707,MS 14-HC PO Box 3707,MS 1W-03 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle,WA 98124-2207 TRANSMI 1-1ED THIS 28th day of September, 1998 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,PlanBldg/PW Administrator Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director Chuck Duffy,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ.Dev.Administrator South County Journal The Boeing Company Boeing Longacres Helistop File No.: LUA-98-113,CU-H September 28, 1998 Page 7 Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed ja writing on or before 5:00 p.m..October 12. 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 16,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk,accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. ttN f :� _ = ~f� \ %.1,. (Nn „.\,..;.)--, \\‘,`, 1 — liU :_ri..i2-74Z5c.,:z:Z'i:::-.4:1-:;1::TT:.:1:;-'2 77.a.i•':-.11.17,71:-:::7-'4••••:1::::::::::!:17. 7.4_<-:::::.....:17:11.......: ,..- .6TH_ SIELT' < \\ N‘ _,,,,</ 1017_17-..._:;:___„,11 i- :,•IN\ \.,s::,,,.--, ...:±,4.::....,.---,-,----:-• - 1 1 € . .. Yi - E f 1... )1 0. =.*:::; d L_ ,/ f S 9 S .. t „„ ,. 1 , ,„„. • f �,> ycly • O I j : ST f, -& F 1„.;,, S BTH____1: --t ;..'. HELISTOP ;;�tf 't It _.._. PROJECT j:S'. _• ^1 7 SITE . I CITE( OF i ;;'•', • OY • JRENTON .. CITY OF i f " t.' TUKWILA I BOEING :s :1. PROPERTY ;' LINE�� S W. 23RD ST. .: 'J ' # j c:, ,...., .:i co, 0 •• z:: „..., ,:: `t‘: —oA.: .i = S . W . ! 7TH STREET — z: , ., C)O 0 Z• D BOEING I `• PROPERTY M Z F. LINE ;: D 13 +t; EC C� g71 �; - - - - N v f r• © z W D r.: -< b 1 S m y _I x I ' I S.W. 34TH STREET I • C in x N Cr) i I t Tri Q ii 4 f W • i 1••:.---- C �, i I 1. _�I a -47 —J I I ` i 1 INCH - 300' I . 0i (APPROXIMATELY) ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS 0 WSDOT ®BNSF RAILWAY (2)CITY OF RENTON ©GLACIER PARK PROP.®HUNTER DOUGLAS H E L I S T O P P R O J E C T 8 McLEOD ®CITY OF SEATTLE ®ALLPAC CONTAINER, INC. NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL M A P P:\AB\0137.7\2210\O.10\SCP O...OWC wn e/6.23.96 -------- - --- 'r,•\_sF i,_ .:,,,..4.6.,.:: \-:Ir:.-. :,... ...x.-----_...:<,. i Qs) '• tnt,_ -•''''„•--—- .s1471 74 n",totr..34.. ,_.2 \. . , 4.:,.,•..}:,,!-,..:.::I s4 1 3 A f . rf)'3' li 1 i it:1:*SIC BLDG ..- • - -11t ...• ,•:. .--i li, 1 I., , • : •.:: ri.a,_..);i4v„,„ ..„ , i r• ?* r •-n: ., .i....i .:1•WR,.3 ..,v3v.:::::, \ :/ .: il••/ „A---i-,.., -. • t: ,. fti:::', i 1Ttig -,i.e:•Th:*. n ./ • -- -4- --4--;,-.2.7"?_' • :., \ _- . .44: • • :s• ntti., *.i, \:-.:,- :;.. $ ----15,. I. -•:•: .i;•.Ei •:!! • i,..„X 1::: Ca'illi; ... t,,4. N.: ' • ‘...). ..:•:•:•:•:.:4,o• 4:"...}:, •:•:•:•:•:;:;:•. •••?..„kii.Ci,,, '... ‘4.. al 1 • :. :1:• I : '"..'. • : rY .; • iii . .•!.;••; 4 • L_ .----- -'',T."7-'al,_—_: '' ./74-A L.-''.6. . i ":- - -- ___ ;I oil . II : c-----•, r----1 'qt.' ' 'I ,,----.... - ' —1 I 1 -L'''" T•1.2. --" . t BLDG._ / / - 25-20 e••: . BLDG1 i • . ) ._.., - ,--4su.vaziri- -t 25-10 n/....p:4,(. 4 "7.';'--..'®• 'A' AM i Fir - .;.N. iji7 j__.‘.L. ..«.-,-.:) . - *)----- .... • ,,,2f/ i 177:64-r....,w251'• . ia jr...::.:-. -TILIRI 2..'r; ,3.1, . :•:-;:, l I , b L........., MEI li 31 )'-jit% I'll r''P's : ir•\ !, Lti 1 t. 1 . 8.'E I • . : I a J _ " V • -.2—'''''.\• .7.....:: -1::-Al 1 ! i" . s. :*:"\"--.."-. :1 1. ....;"'-i•i N.-.`,..;:,--".:,... 1 i . _'i : ! !I 'l 1 • .:$: „,-;;•:•'- \ '` '\ :: ---: -, -. . - i :i i ! ; /• : i HELISTOP ..1„.s.'..,), I \i :i •<.\i, imi'• PROJECT SITE _,): ) --7,*1.1- • - -::)A- L.'" ........_4,,_•-• .-_-- ..i: Lii >.. •1.12,.• ., , ...< • , ,••• ••-_,‘...11. . 1 1.. i 1 li 41i. ,<C ..j if HELISTOP PROJECT • ?:, • 1 1.A...1, f.,, ‘:, CI r,• A 0,f'•:..(---) ' r-; ii•;s ii3R,•-r: SITE PLAN NOTES: --,--4--4",,A*,. .g,I. 1 I PROJECT SITE AREA: 3.10 AC (APPROX) 7--- A.i-.------- , ;,.. ",... TOTAL BUILDING AREA: N/A .1 '‘'.• PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: N/A CD PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: N/A PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS: N/A TOTAL LANDSCAPING: 0.5 AC REQUIRED SETBACK: 80' DIAMETER F.A.T.O. PROPOSED SETBACK: 80' DIAMETER F.A.T.O. Svordr ,:,.E@ CIVIL ., INC. SITE PLAN 600 108th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 to _9 ice :Fr (425) 452-8000 PAJOB\013747\2210\DWG\SEPA0348 dvt<1 lan•ke/6 24 98 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHINGTON a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal The Environmental Review Committee newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months (ERC)has issued a Determination of Non- Significance - Mitigated for the following prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language project under the authority of the Renton continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County Municipal Code. Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper order of the Superior Court of the BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP pp 9by {� LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF State of Washington for King County. Environmental review for development and The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County operation of a private helistop at the Boeing Headquarters Building. Location: Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers 901 Oakesdale Ave.SW. during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a I Appeals of the environmental determina- tion must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, August 24, 1998. Appeals must Boeing Longacres Helistop be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South as published on: 8/10/98 Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055.Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of,$52.11 Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B.Additional information regarding the appeal Legal Number 5046 process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)235-2501. • A Public Hearing will be held by the ;' Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular • ,/,I ��.r��/ meeting in the Council Chambers on the C r " 2 ♦ �!/" seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Legal Clerk, South County Journal Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on September 08, 1998 at 9:00 AM to consid- er/�Q�j the Conditional Use Permit.The applic- Subscribed and sworn before me on this - da 19`� ant or representative of the applicant is y of �^ required to be present at the public hear- ing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed.the appeal will be heard as part JCJC9"�^\n _ /� of this pubd hein thng. `` 11t1lllit,- V\ ,( �(/� Published in the South County Journal ```NN�, ^/♦♦♦i tVJ August 10, 1998.5046 •S�p�j •.• '/,,. Notary Public of the State of Washington '4-.:. .' residing in Renton . ;,1.1^p _ King County, Washington -Ski /IiIIIII WI CITY OF RENTON` CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFE:.IDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the day of Sep--'evvnlaa,1r-- , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing qe 30A tine \kearkvk§1 kv� documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing R‘c_.k +Fov& f3c>e.\_v� (Signature of Sender) SIVA J.& SPn ' 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 the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 0 —9- Notary Public'` and for the State of shington Notary (Print My appointmeMISS C m IUN EXPIRES 6/29/99 Project Name: Ij • e;A-1 i`^'��L' M �aLVe K�kc il) p Project Number: 1 LUP\ - k3 , c_.)-t+ ,Ec NOTARY.DOC CITY OF RENTON . HEARING FAMINE '.. ;. ... PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 08, 1898 ......;:.:: AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The apphcatiOn(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they wl l be heart Items*11 be called for'heanng et the discretion of the Nearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Stiegman Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-026,SHPL-H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Jim Jaeger of Jaeger Engineering has applied, on behalf of Walter Stiegman, to subdivide a 4.99 acre parcel into eight (8) residential lots and a separate tract for wetlands. Six of the parcels (new lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7) would range from 5,757 - 6,336 square feet in size. New Lot No. 4 would be 9,540 s.f., new Lot 8 would be 75,295 square feet, and Tract A would be 47,164 square feet. Category II and Ill wetlands are present on the site. Access to the short plat would be from an existing street, Wells Avenue South. City Code requires the extension of public streets through the short plat to serve the short plat and adjacent landlocked parcels. The applicant proposes to dedicate right-of- way for the future construction of a public street to the west, but will seek a deferral or waiver for the street improvements until such time that the adjacent parcels develop. The proposed right-of-way would cross two wetlands, and the applicant proposes to recreate the wetlands either on site or off-site when the future impacts occur. The proposal requires environmental review and short plat approval. Location: Wells Avenue South, south of South 32nd Street. PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Helistop PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-113,CU-H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of the Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26-foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40-foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take-off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Flights in and out of Longacres Office Park are expected to average one (1) to eight (8) flights per month. Helicopters would not be based, fueled or maintained at the helistop. Construction of the helistop would not result in the addition of any new impervious surfaces. An existing paved area 15,000 s.f. in size would be modified with markings on the pavement and the installation of a windsock and lighting to accommodate the proposed helistop. However, approximately 4,500 square feet of new impervious surface would be added to enlarge an existing 18,000 s.f. access road to 22,500 s.f. Biofiltration facilities along the access road to the helistop would also be installed. Location: Longacres Office Park, 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW. AGNDA.DOC City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: September 8, 1998 Project Name: Boeing Longacres Helistop Applicant/ Mr. Rick Ford Address: The Boeing Company PO Box 3707, m/s/19-35 Seattle, WA 98124 Owner/ The Boeing Company Address: attn: Rick Ford PO Box 3707, m/s 19-35 Seattle, WA 98124 File Number: LUA-098-113,CU-H, ECF Project Manager: Jennifer Toth Henning • Project Description: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of the Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26-foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40-foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take-off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Flights in and out of Longacres Office Park are expected to average one (1) to eight (8) flights per month. Helicopters would not be based, fueled or maintained at the helistop. Construction of the helistop would not result in the addition of any new impervious surfaces. An existing paved area 15,000 s.f. in size would be modified with markings on the pavement and the installation of a windsock and lighting to accommodate the proposed helistop. However, approximately 4,500 square feet of new impervious surface would be added to enlarge an existing 18,000 s.f. access road to 22,500 s.f. Biofiltration facilities along the access road to the helistop would also be installed. Project Location: Longacres Office Park, 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW Gi1C (Is . i `• STREET S.W. 16TH RD \ o11 -BOEING Fc r PROPERTY '•; f S.W. 19TH STREET = :i I (,i LINE • i. . i OF }i Hmai MI RENTON • PROJEe SITE S.W. 23RD STREET t: N , City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP LUA-98-113, CU-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 Page 2 of 7 B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: The Boeing Company 2. Zoning Designation: Commercial Office (CO) 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Employment Area Valley (EAV) Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: Offices, parking areas, stormwater facilities, vacant 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters Building, Boeing Longacres Customer Services Training Center Building, industrial and commercial office uses. East: Boeing Family Care Center, industrial and commercial office use South: vacant, industrial and commercial office uses West: commercial office and retail uses 6. Access: via Oakesdale Avenue SW 7. Site Area: 3.1 acres 8. Project Data: area comments Existing Building Area: Not applicable to proposal New Building Area: Not applicable, no buildings are proposed Total Building Area: Not applicable. C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan 4498 2/20/95 Zoning 4404 6/7/93 Annexation 1745 4/15/59 Annexation 1764 5/19/59 Annexation 1928 12/19/61 Annexation 4040 2/9/88 Longacres Office Park LUA-91-128,ECF 5/95 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: Water: Not applicable to proposal Sewer: Not applicable to proposal HEX.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP LUA-98-113, CU-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 Page 3 of 7 Surface Water/Storm Water: Not applicable to proposal 2. Fire Protection: per City of Renton Fire Department 3. Transit: Not applicable to proposal 4. Schools: Not applicable to this conditional use permit 5. Recreation: Springbrook Creek Trail located east of the site E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Section 4-31-16: Commercial Office (CO) Zone 2. Section 4-31-36: Conditional Use Permit F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element-- Employment Area - Valley Policies G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of the Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26-foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40-foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take-off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Flights in and out of Longacres Office Park are expected to average one (1) to eight (8) flights per month. Helicopters would not be based, fueled or maintained at the helistop. Construction of the helistop would not result in the addition of any new impervious surfaces. An existing paved area 15,000 s.f. in size would be modified with markings on the pavement and the installation of a windsock and lighting to accommodate the proposed helistop. However, approximately 4,500 square feet of new impervious surface would be added to enlarge an existing 18,000 s.f. access road to 22,500 s.f. Biofiltration facilities along the access road to the helistop would also be installed. Helicopters would takeoff and approach the helistop to/from the north/northwest and south. The flight path of the helicopters would be through the center of the site, over parking areas, stormwater ponds and vacant land. Lighting of the helistop and wind sock would be activated using radio signals initiated by the helicopter pilot. HEX.DOC , City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP LUA-98-113, CU-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 Page 4 of 7 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on August 4, 1998, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) on August 4, 1998. The ERC issued one mitigation measure that the applicant is required to comply with. The mitigation measure is as follows: 1. The applicant shall be required to maintain the helistop landing pad and area adjacent to the helistop to be free of unnecessary dust and debris that could result in dust impacts during helicopter maneuvers. The applicant shall develop a maintenance plan to address dust impacts. The maintenance plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of the building permit. The applicant has submitted a dust management plan. In order to minimize dust being disturbed during takeoffs and landings, the soils surrounding the asphalt pad will be planted in naturally occurring grasses, and the landing pad and immediate landscaping will be maintained on an as- needed basis. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Section 4-31-36 lists 11 criteria that the Hearing Examiner is asked to consider, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on a Conditional Use application. These include the following: (5A) CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMP. PLAN, ZONING CODE& OTHER ORDINANCES: The proposed use shall be compatible with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standard of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City of Renton. (1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT The proposed helistop is located in an area designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan as Employment Area - Valley (EAV). The proposal would be incidental to and associated with the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters Office Building at the Boeing Longacres Office Park. Objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan seek to ensure "quality development" in the Employment Area - Valley designation (Objective LU-EE.c). HEX.DOC . City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP LUA-98-113, CU-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 Page 5 of 7 Policies of the Comprehensive Plan also encourage compatible and related land uses to locate in proximity to one another (LU-212.2), and encourage vehicular connections between adjacent parking areas (LU-212.21). The proposed helistop is located in proximity to compatible and related land uses. It is proposed to be located adjacent to the BCAG Headquarters Building, for which it would be used. A road would connect the helistop to the Headquarters Building and parking lot. The helistop is also proposed to be located in the middle of the Longacres Office Park and is surrounded by, and compatible with, commercial, industrial and office building in the Valley area. (2) ZONING CODE The Commercial Office (CO) permits helipads only as an accessory use and subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Hearing Examiner. The helistop would be accessory to the existing and proposed master planned office development on the site. Offices are a primary permitted use in the CO Zone. Accessory uses must be associated by clearly incidental to the use it is subordinate to. The helistop would be used as part of business conducted in the Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters structure. Furthermore, the proposal meets development standards of the CO Zone including height, setback, and lot coverage requirements. (58) COMMUNITY NEED: There shall be a community need for the proposed use at the proposed location. In the determination of community need, the Hearing Examiner shall consider the following factors, among all other relevant information: (1) The proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental over concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. There are no other helicopter landing/take-off facilities in the Valley area. The nearest helipad or helistop is presently located at the Valley Medical Hospital, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the proposed helistop site. Presently, a helicopter school operates from Seattle's Boeing Field and flies over the site on a regular basis. The helicopter traffic generated by the proposal would incrementally increase air traffic over the site and in the area. The flight approach/take-off path is depicted in the project application materials as generally north/south. Site development below the flight path includes parking lots, stormwater ponds, and undeveloped areas. The proposal would incrementally increase helicopter traffic in the area, but the traffic would be infrequent, from one to 8 flights per month. The proposal would also establish a helicopter landing pad that could be used by emergency services personnel if needed. (2) That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. The project site is appropriate for the proposed helistop as the site is large, open and without overhead power lines or other vertical features that could interfere with flight operations. The helistop would serve the Boeing Longacres campus, particularly the Headquarters Office Building. Its location would be central to the site, but would generally be buffered from the day care center by Headquarters Office Building. Noise and dust generated would not be expected to impact the Headquarters Office Building, Customer Service Training Center, or day care center. (5C) EFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. HEX.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP LUA-98-113, CU-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 Page 6 of 7 Noise from operation of helicopters would occur, but would be infrequent. The location of the proposed helistop on the center portion of the site would approximately 300 feet from the closest point of the Headquarters Office Building. It would be convenient to the building it is intended to serve, yet approximately 1,000 feet from the day care, diminishing noise impacts to a use on the site that is not office or commercial in nature. In addition, the helistop would comply with development standards of the CO Zone that are to be evaluated as part Conditional Use Permit. Those standards include, lot coverage, setbacks and height limits. (5D) COMPATIBILITY: The proposed use shall be compatible with the residential scale and character of the neighborhood. (Ord 3599, 1-11-82) Not applicable, as no residential development is located in the vicinity of the proposal. (5E) PARKING: Parking under the building structure should be encouraged. Lot coverage may be increased to as much as seventy-five percent(75%) of the lot coverage requirement of the zone, in which the proposed use is located, if all parking is provided underground or within the structure. (Ord. 3903, 4-22-85) The proposed helistop would not trigger any parking requirements. A private driveway will connect the helistop with an existing parking lot for the Boeing Headquarters Office Building. (5F) TRAFFIC: Traffic and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the proposed use and surrounding area shall be reviewed for potential effects on, and to ensure safe movement in the surrounding area. Vehicular access to the proposed helistop would be provided by a private road connecting to the Headquarters Office Building parking lot. The proposed helistop would not generate additional vehicular traffic. Pedestrian access to and from the helistop is not provided for, as passengers would be transported to and from the helistop in a vehicle that would shuttle them to their destination. (5G) NOISE, GLARE: Potential noise, light and glare impacts shall be evaluated based on the location of the proposed use on the lot and the location of on-site parking areas, outdoor recreational areas and refuse storage areas. The typical noise associated with helicopters is 76 to 84 dBA at a distance of 500 feet from the aircraft. This is similar to noise levels for certain types of construction equipment. While helicopter noise is not regulated, the applicant has assumed that flights in and out of Longacres Office Park would occur during typical business hours. Noise abatement procedures would be implemented, particularly during ascent and descent. Pilots would be instructed to set flight profiles that establish shallow angles of descent to and ascent from the helistop. The typical flight path (north and south from the helistop) would result in the helicopter being 800 to 1,000 feet altitude at one-half mile from the helistop. Helicopter noise could temporarily disturb or distract people in the area. However, flights in and out of Longacres Office Park would be infrequent and the disruption would be short in duration. The helicopter traffic would be minimal as compared to an existing helicopter flight school that operated south of the project site, with several take-off and landing maneuvers each day. HEX.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP LUA-98-113, CU-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 Page 7 of 7 Light and/or glare impacts are not anticipated with the proposal. Lighting would be provided on the helistop, but it would be radio activated by the helicopter pilots. Only the helicopter pad and directional wind sock would be illuminated. The pad lights are low lumen and directed down, and by nature are designed to not result in glare that could disrupt a pilots night vision. The wind sock would be internally lit to provide good visibility for the pilot and in order to prevent glare to the surrounding area. (5H) LANDSCAPING: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by building or paving. The Hearing Examiner may require additional landscaping to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. No landscaping is proposed. The applicant intends to restore disturbed areas by returning it to grass. (51) ACCESSORY USES: Accessory uses to conditional uses such as day schools, auditoriums used for social and sport activities, health centers, convents, preschool facilities, convalescent homes and others of a similar nature shall be considered to be separate uses and shall be subject to the provisions of the use district in which they are located. Not applicable to this proposal. (5J) CONVERSION: No existing building or structure shall be converted to a conditional use unless such building or structure complies, or is brought into compliance, with the provisions of this Chapter. Not applicable to this proposal. (5K) PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The proposed use and location shall be adequately served by and not impose an undue burden on any public improvements, facilities, utilities, and services. Approval of a conditional use permit may be conditional upon the provision and/or guarantee by the applicant of necessary public improvements, facilities, utilities, and/or services. The proposed helistop is adequately served by public improvements and would not require the extension of City utility systems. H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Boeing Longacres Helistop, Project File No. LUA-98-113, CU-H, ECF, subject to the following conditions: (1) Compliance with ERC Mitigation Measure: The applicant is required to comply with the Mitigation Measure which was required by the Environmental Review Committee Threshold Determination prior to the issuance of a building permit. HEX.DOC City u,nenton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: " COMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113,CU--H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1.998 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 78411 LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW SITE AREA: 3.1 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 Wafer 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 NO None B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS The placement and use of a helistop at the indicated location poses no problem to airport operations. The area surrounding the helistop should be designated as a Compatible Use area, and the size of the area so designated should be large enough to permit low flying helicopters to traverse the area. The Airport will not be responsible for receiving or answering noise or low flying aircraft complaints , and a department to do so should be identified. Will helicopter flights be restricted to daytime only, or will flights be permitted both day and night? C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS None 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 additi information is •ded to property assess this proposal. Signature of irector or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DO Rev.10/93 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICANT: The Boeing Company (Rick Ford) PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Helistop DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, August 24, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)235-2501. PUBLICATION DATE: August 10, 1998 DATE OF DECISION: August 04, 1998 SIGNATURES: g' j/ ,:-/, ---77,,,,e, 6-1/ 23 r gg Zimmerman, A ministrator DATE epartment of Planning/Building/Public Works „ 0%,Si Ji SheP herd,Admi strator DATE Community Services ,e,,, ,2./Z ,i- /- 7.d°- / Lee h eler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DNSMSIG.DOC CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICANT: The Boeing Company (Rick Ford) PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Helistop DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review (ECF). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall be required to maintain the helistop landing pad and area adjacent to the helistop to be free of unnecessary dust and debris that could result in dust impacts during helicopter maneuvers. The applicant shall develop a maintenance plan to address dust impacts. The maintenance plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of the building permit. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICANT: The Boeing Company (Rick Ford) PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Helistop DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. General Applicant has filed a Notice of Landing Area Proposal with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Airport Manager The placement and use of a helistop at the indicated location poses no problem to airport operations. The areas surrounding the helistop should be designated as a Compatible Use area, and the size of the area so designated should be large enough to permit low flying helicopters to traverse the area. The Airport will not be responsible for receiving or answering noise or low flying aircraft complains, and a department to do so should be identified. . , . L.,... ,f- ...y., ..w.1!..:,,,:-„;.: '....-r ,.s:i5.,i1:. :;4. •''--(z - vir...,-. .••••-•••::...:-•:,•,:,:*-1••••••••.-::::: •': .1•4? -;i5:•.%,,,i :-;,-,..,...,.....,v,--, N t .(.,..........__ rt,,,,,,,,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,:..:,•:,*•-:-:-Iti•ly?,. ........:::4:7;'•.....1,...,: . x ...... '.:1.___„?V.•:;'' ::,' ?,- \ „..,..:....if ..:::;-•(":.... .,.,.\....‘ .139,/if r t 4:e.gjii '4.5V- k''''''''''''''-^4t-11.•:„.1 ' ••"14"1.4CSTC BLDG. 25-01 li,:.r.. ..:,ii:. -- .1 i i•.: -1 1, , ', , \I -;:::::: t:::::I- ' ';':'' -• I''.::::,--::1,..I A,' r / "-I - .t. 4, 0,9 :;::.- - •%. -;„,,,::::, • i::. .:,. •t„V ..--- ;:- s'''''--. - i;- •' i liog,,.. :;f.i.. .1,...::::„ '14 ' ....i:f :•: '. -..._ --.:,. 1.•'111,1i': ' '''`',....-,' 11 ,r.iii5NA.L L 1.'-m..•it-- r 1 . 0 ...-...—'\,-2 N....:1,,,--•.-;(.,.,::1;1'.• • ..•.%,--:.:::;-.'':1.::t-'.:-:::,-•,,:-":-:-::::;.-:.:.::.,,::.."-::7:'7-.-.-...-.-:,._.:.:.:...;..M:...i.'w::.::i::::K..".:::&::::ii:::E::\..:.,.:,:--:.:.-..,-:.1:-.:.-.-::..:..':± -''- :;1,:4.7 c:..r.,......s.......;..:.1: : \\ 1.... \ „.::_. 1: ,,,frr_7 :,uiit! 1 BLDG. iji„;\• BLDG. , .LJ:,i..ii , 2 .--4.44%i:. '` ,, /zL::-. -),- 25-20 _._ / — ': - -.-- WI' • 25-10 ..-4-410(1e., .....it.i..i I . i ]. I _,I1!::: . i S fftem2:'‘-' "--- ' Zig ,I ll•I . ,f; .....:.,..:: I • s„.... ,..; ...i.N.,,, v.777 . . : , !,. ..:::;.: 111:.-1 ) ,..,,,..1:.,..,1111:1_,. -1E.,."111,..11, 1 LI 11. .1; if . :....::‘ =ill II ,•:•:::• •• . Ca'p = ::;i ,.... •,..,...:4 i':: ,`,•••••. . " :--:--: •-•-• IASI- My ...,:•r:: HELISTOP k' !.'I5a._.'t._.S?P.-.r„•:-t•,A*.:"-.i 4;.!.Z.ti;1-i'_w, -,..K-,P4--•-O..1.-,.--/_,t-1.f= PROJECT SITE = -° - ;,--.-,m,..-,,.`Ie-.'\.r.:•:N-,•.:...::i1i 6:•0 o Ei.1i,t 41!.1I:; tc•1i''i•S -...\'N•\:\ ',.•f1I„->1 - ..•. I .-::• ..-. ,)-:;4; :1 ::-:: - ..!-•41:. < f. . .. HELISTOP PROJECT i, 1 i I., I. 1 '.III , (: 41 In SITE PLAN NOTES: .t.._ ,_,..,,,___..ttw i.i,: 3:,..( fm -;'`..- —/ i--. ---..ii.--n-=-4.r. it-.4.•Kt . ..-= 4.•tv ,:s:;-.F: 1 3.10 AC (APPROX) :-. z:,• 4!..... PROJECT SITE AREA: . . TOTAL BUILDING AREA: N/A • ,.,%;iff: ''' PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: N/A CD PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: N/A PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS: N/A TOTAL LANDSCAPING: 0.5 AC REQUIRED SETBACK: 80' DIAMETER F.A.T.O. PROPOSED SETBACK: 80' DIAMETER F.A.T.O. CIVIL . INC. 600 108th Avenue N.E. SITE PLAN Bellevue, WA 98004 (425) 452-8000 p.v08\013747\2210\DwG\5EpA0348 dwq lonekc/6 24 98 I \\\\ 0 --------- -- - - . t` - I �- '........"k" • ......— r.:9,..\\O, ti — 4 C -. ,.:::::::::..•_.:,:„....:....:........ •.__ _............„ . , \‘‘ %.,,,, L \\-_ 4..- •,.. �:\ .,:e .„...... .r.ii........_. ...... .... ....:...' .••—•..--: _Th _ r_, .,1.7-.. u 3.W . _ ^ •_ T ff ;i iD:it ' ,•wr: S . W . 91 — ..• sm _....--- i,i, S • W • 1 ._, T — .... r : . . ),..i ,,,, \: : - s.. . :i.. I-. . . ,... . ,t,..........1., .r{ 1 .,.:_.• _tt*E C) S 1 gBTH• ST ; HELISTOP •g-hf I 1 :... ... ..._ PROJECT ,.i `. SITE ° O. I CITY OF CITY• OF Ii O I ---- RENTON TUKWIIA; ''I BOEING PROPERTY i.._.....--- _ '.,' LINE — — S.W. 23RD ST. i 5 '0 — Y r ,, I Z' 1 -..`'`i` 0, I S . W . ! 7 T — STREET Y1 .: T, z, 1 OO Q Z -BOEING 1 ('�/ii >I! PROPERTY I__L rr1 Z -4 LINE ...v � rn —I n m71 : _ Fri r Cf) v > r-; W WI I ' I pi O 1 . C g o U t Q 3 S.W. 34TH STREET • a D m m x f i ; • TI N \/ l I ii ; . • ;:j' ; r, f O W I is \... C I \- -/ _. c 1 INCH = 300' IN ; (APPROXIMATELY) ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS U WSDOT 65 BNSF RAILWAY ©CITY OF RENTON ©GLACIER PARK PROP. H E L I S T O P PROJECT 0 HUNTER DOUGLAS (McLEOD ®CITY OF sEATTLE ©ALLPAC CONTAINER, INC. NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL M A P P:\J08\013747\2210\DWG\SEPM349.DWG bneMc/6.23.96 ... r FIGURE 2 _ -. Pg11 -' \I et" SECTIONS 24 & 25. T23N R4E W.M.---. , 001 'I • 0 4. -..A. k . s soo . L ORNHEG AFNELuCosRNTNE.0Sopy in0A sr::41 ETNJEI Gs TCNP7A Rt,1 K HELISTOP PROJECT oie .,-,': \ ,, \''' - ,/ s'>., 0 '50 300 600 01 e,.. ;. , J. ,..-,.., \ ,lefe cl ....- , . .... CRAPWC SCALE SITE MAP ii: riS..:z•-• y BOEING CSTC PROP RTY‘kE .r. I-/... ..' .el---:'.:::::.:::`\•." BOEING LONGACR OFFICE .fn._ w tirLitL=ZAV ( r, iirg PROPERTY / !t • . .4,01 . '. 1901 OAKESDALE AVE. S.W. MAIL STOP 20-30 ' /, / .,_ \,f • /"'•>**4•('• •.' RENTON WA. 98055 ' ;A„.•''•,-.,:.'\.4.61.; - - ,-...--i,,_ . • :77:777:. ,,f, .• -..,-.'--. ---- 1,.' ...- • ' .• '... 9;1;1,:,,,•,,57. 0-1. ;;,,,••;:. ...„,---yf.-.:::::.:::_----2:—:—__.:.:::-.---.. --......\ tir;$0! 1.7,' ,, ,g ..*:.......-37,re-: ....s.S7In...--,...6-....:36-.,-,..........-- •',F . . • JCIN6/,` ,i iiii ,,1,..vt.. v% .1.7<i'd# •44.r..:.....t.a..r.i.•••': irdIfiZa....,......•';;;.\\‘ ' •. . . CPI- 0 .•• :....../1,lijk A pa,.- - ,c,le °•,,r, ,Z..• '11.•••' '-',._ ...::•,..........-•--•••;\• s.Z.IN\\ • ', •. ',In'PP d'•SP'- ....,, ,r f 1 •//'.‘ li 'I .../'.... ...t, ....,, ...„ ' I `NI.1 t ! or!,1, , ..,:, .:::::••••• ,..,lz.. fl- ..• ..- „, „/• •, ' -, ;„.'":. ,0.11i;:-;:.VN%Pt, !:'n (------------) ) :,1'.;• 4,',.:-:::.-_-•••••",.....—---- -, •./.1/0 .11100. "S.,:,.::,!,„1„. ,• %.„.„.,, ,,;• ,s,....,......,,,„...—. 11111111111111P• PROPERTY OF ". ; ',...="\‘...-,1 P i •-i‘ ; ,...••••'....: -,...... 0.4..Vbit,==:EtsciI.:fA, /!; /* -RNER"PIPELINE . I.? ••••,1 ••,.:. r., \ •I .,.. CI . BOEING ... , til PROPERIY •'•••••••••-------- .--- --."..-..:-...:•-,'44././.1 ort. 14 UNE r.„.,... 'Cs.- . ,.....::71.-.1.-.0t-, ••---.4'. .. •:...',......._ •..'' • ' ' . ''''•• • -A.":1•'•-•:AIZ\ .4?-...'` NU SW -.•-- . ...L;tit44;:rtunr;=14 Ii7,',..;...;;::::n ,:-.--7,-::. ..,t,v,„It. k,-,;.,i,c, . ,,,=TURE °AK ,..-- - ..: .„..• :;.‘:. .._„,,_,..,:',•;.-' 1-•\1.':•••- =--,-.,--NL,.'' ,7' ",-;„;,;7:4.:,..,4•••••••.4.-1..42.7,t4rs.. ,?r,A",:7 -=_:',:‘` ". .7:-r,r-"'"i :. . .. .. F..,, ,,,....% F.....3 1. " if\\,:. -,\* . , ,1%,IY .: ,..-i-i, 'V.-----• ' % ...,::,;,,- , ...,__,. : -1 ,, --...y.„ ..„„.„, :•,... I .,,.‘v., -i - i - /1.1:01•211!)• Itti.:41,t:....11 .....Itt. -A ..!,,,I ..:;....";,, ., ,i....„t„,..,, , ,, .,sir,,,,,.... , . _,_., Ai , , , ,%.,..?,,.‘ „'• ?....=- ;7 ,: • • • '' '• ---' V---7`. lir ' \ -(1' - . . •1 . t.„.,.„.,.1 64 ri :t 1,to \ '‘‘);‘,Ts, ' t ,IEEE 0:,:,-,. :. ,.. 4 '.... ''.1' /,. V..„..-.:,-z:.::: : / /it, ,, r.--•• ,,,,- -,„; • ;!; ipif,t ,:hit,,,. pl., .. , . i CD:,:•k. ), ) / '—''---A 1 V SOUTH'-',••• 9c?TING i 1 If ' •littV21.11111'.::... jp ,,,,iii,,... /.7.,7* A: ,i..fp•- •pRoemyli; , ; 25_02 ..,1,1....- • •.....--.r.,. ,.4,./,„1. ,,,,,,11/ ,I li::,_ BLDG „..1,.: r :...-7.•,, ::,•`:• .,,.. . ., ,47-.1'''—iiri..C., ..:,.. ..,),,,c,r1;;J-,,:',.--:-.'----__L.-..-,,i7: l/i:iy\--\Zii://,..: 1,17...,,,.____ /.411.1 illtit.:\ • ! 25-02. ...il' ' 2 ...,0,31 iiri. .,...-.., gis.,T,D,NG ___, ,,,. i: 11.'''. ;:. ' ); , 4.,,..4.:•7...-\--• •-r— I `,..:' • - 'Cr--. SI-I--''''.1. 25-20 '"10,itt44,4T,411,.,16 i,•41 NA 41 I ly,„‘ .:: :,:,,,. .-,f -/ -----;. s.--...-:.,.,,---. ,,„ ....._..,..ii 1,•••.:, ._,,,,, :.::,. „.,...,.,... ii , ,,,,,,./.:: ',11:067 :__. ..-thiii•--iiiii• -- ••• "13 A;r-F, :. :. 4 ?I -77 ,.. \ 1..., ti f• )!1 i li, "if ' - .- .” ' -i:..10,.:- 1'-'..."- '''•,-'4 P-- • -----• -ee-----:•-, . •,..•r .. % 'cs- -- •-• ' ^ • c - •-.."-- ./../ ;•• - ‘ 'i rn 1 .,...._................... , 1,,..-_>_.....e..i i..I.r.t.:..._/ ,CYFFJCEJ,ITAIL- • :::-.-..--• •„_..„,,•,z.,........,. '-',.__. . . I 'v';'%).'.i. \\'kJ,' -c.•'-'.-- ''''‘.11•1:•,./.:11(--- --. • ... ..._-_-,-,S . )13h 1 • • ( ,...... . '•.''f s.,i i ( ! '“..-7..;::::47:i ':.‘ ' ' f ' • -." \ .Z.-..' -''N ....., : :\.:n /1. •.N.77-'•---'-", -:•-•----' ÷,77..---7,--r:• 1,.....1 L__. -. ------... •-• /...- , . \ ..;• .,..1.t_..,._;... ——7.--..r,,, -;,i-I'.:-•-i:-..L•••-,..i•-•-•••;1.::. • ‘ .• \ -•-• ..., •-•• % c - 1 ; L_ ? /1/v/7,///7,-/-,----../_i :-.....,100\s---•:. ‘r. -si:'\,(....71,\ ...i::': • -.----'7-7 z-,--- ..,......- _.7.5.54.'141,;- /--`: -----„-'4..----:/- 's ‘ .''f-\'',....;')I.-4.1(7."4'‘ii_..11_,....1?(.1i!? ip(pgTi.CAK: \ko;;CFDATt :('-'........:12.1 -,\ ‘ 1 :',.5 ":, , ".: .1 :: Vil . ' • i/r • • "-- •:.:o,s.,,‘`. .1 ., 1!C.::,,'1,...,4: , ,': // „ , i . __ • s.,„V.A,:to.'. .,.'•,`, •••••7't--,,,.... 7,,,/ ,,,,,./ ;.- ‘1.,,,,,.T , 1: ,),.---..zig,,,/, ,. 16.'', 's I /( I! i1,17„FFIP.t !.s. -.......f.—Th '1' • i : ., . 3i-- r ; ; . i....,—i...--,_ —-- ;. ..,,,,\ „...s.....:.....:-., ,,,......,.., , ,,e I:'i i,:i • ,... ....i.t...,.4.1. /sils.Z,,,i1.,N I ! Ai) t . • ‘ \ \\\\ 'VI P"1" 17.. :..I 1111 /cV7 Vik7%); te-i.. • --- ,'.• .0.1,„,,.....,. .. ,, f•...„...,‘ ,., • //; ";:447:5-I'' .. 4:-s .. -- ,--A--•.4 1-..= ' ‘: ; t' %f ••• ", -• •• •...17/ 1,feroff lAjl rt\ `, I ' / ifil.;) ''.• •' I 1 ' F a 'IT5f ." lir..'11-"-') ):'.. . „„--.:::-.\••••• 1 ^ !) i; il 1 i : :,- ii. ',/li .„,1 . i • E;---•-•:.....--.-.. (=Di ,...,-••-:',...Z.,6,;, ..,:•-...,, p;• , \ / 111,:i'l .i./4- ilAi• 1.' •' 1- ''!li Ni ':'k ! \ •! e . ---1;-'-'i•-:•••;t*-1:-',F.7.. i r. \A\ „is.• i_ . . i 1 ... 1,,,,;- x.liFi: I-- . ,.. . 4 it'll, ------t,------------------_-_.n..--_,-1.-,=,-.,•;•.i ,., ,.. .. . 1 . . . 1 . I I, 1 , ... . i 4.. . . .- \t ,. - .. , , k ...,._,::0,—,-------------- ------s.....,_____—,- ---=---------_,....__ — --,._:-.-----;,,-_---;-.--4:-----!,.,,--:,- .....,.....-,..-......:-.,---..,,,/,..."(,--?....,,..: ,..,...[..isi 1-t\—.., .:,,,,,.1„,:i:,!! i, 1 ,1,:ii, r ;, ;,,,i,. ••.s.,:r.ocs.sTc.,,....,_ .:,.,:,:;---.....,,,,,,...„...-tk..r.,.......2„..-- ..., ----, 0,s.,• .0• ,..,......3'1 '';'''''' 1 -''''.**'-"11:112:- -,, 7" ---"*.'-' ,....:4"..,... , ' . .. . -,:::....inftr"...-1 ..."-::-.::::-*;<, .,...,5, 7 • • ' i is__,. '../I .1 „I" V Ai ,: i. ,!I c i 1 :' ..; • ' ;',1.,` ' 1! .....'.1 \ .‘:\\\;‘, ' ,\''...i2fMk.,,.' ? `)...,,,.:7': - •-• ...:"..' *.. ..".-.. ...'..... .. ••• ••=7..,...1: .....L......''.-=::.......":.:7,7'..,;:.....„,1.,..1....*:;,,.. ,e. '.•',,.....;...../.:1...**LI i/': '1 . iir,,,..,, , ,, !,,.. .., ,.,),,\ ;;..& ,......-.,•El., ' , ,'•\ 1 = !,'''',. ..• ... l E.:, -. .. •• . ,./ • ,i ) : ....-. \=‘'y-.';....`',"( ••••4.-. -'''.1: .'N,' „- -, / ,.,. . , ; .... -- .-- .t . i:. , :I •I i : • i../ .:....„- ''/%( 1`....:\H-- .._.../- .'"=".."::)7';" 0 ,'-II ii iL• i ? : .. -...._. „. ,••• 254, : -..-...- ', ! . `.'s s::•••••.',•-e i;f• .---i-ze••••.“=---fr, ', e- •• ---s. - ----;*'"' . •,i.! ::. •,'...‘7--:-.1.:1,7"/-.--),%:.- •t:'•.-72. --;,.--..•.,‘:•`:::::--:•-7::.zisr''..:•::-.-A, /' , ' \Yo'',- . '-• ''' `•••, . i .....4 ...' , , , ....•....' 1. •. . ..... ......,., .... ........, ..•, , ..... 4 BOEING PROPERTY LINE • . . . .. BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY • * ;r:;',•• " '' •\ •-•:.•:liFiik.'..•.. .i , • Sverdrup '.i.:. •. • • . . • / - rt t i j1t t "" ��T.:.it'a L Qi� gtittttiiii� i ■mamas ili'Yttifr I k t f T ++�I , v6v�fvn il6vtvtu(avyRu&u5unv�ueit�vsurvBv�i•nvivi C i •rn{�� : ,...../ R. / it Id•},:.. - " !( i R o ■ .,�.. I C= I." R INI 'fl, - 1�•DvtiaaCt ievle6YEa�6lfi 6slakCtiOiOlii:caAia30lioii•ESOQOi iOwE HQ■aYblfoYOQi6 —'t I ;., R^ y t (( �n MI �1 -'dl ;� ,.. ,• - . it ,j�_titi`; am :pi — r, k{ :v`s fI. 3.1 st vnurc�isv m i u i a v u v iRui ,. —Q; C} �t f eC I 7 .Q ; 1i, 0,- a i u c ---E..E-- fr$4`0.'„`et. .t 0 o n o 0 0 0'- ..a o`u -c o"b e/}){�3., 4 '! r i c ;tom A A li; i t Y ,6 y�� 1 .. ' ^ _ i Y 1 O f�. o �:: _ \ trS rAro STRWPwO — 41 IAPPROAIN/IAREOIf PATH- ..... — —— ' —•——•_•_——_•_• \.... "-� ----ACII/TAREOiT 1—,.„,_—_/7_—___21-_— /..-- 1 — — --___— EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEM } /-- -- _ _ _ - '- ----- — --- -- ------ — —— — \ MIIO wluroR . • Zilli — —— 7 � (tstar .L e .� / .. a L� 1 I —— .- — \ Sctl.F lwt 'k 1 ) \ / t ) ----------7------ .c-:' 7- : , ■vsr+r/' r!te :" — " "'-" OW — — ACOTT'+11R a` ""` HELISTOP LAYOUT SKETCH A,.o.a�. ,... �" BOE/NG "~ R oal BCAG HEL ME D Q PRTERS y FIG. 3 5 =r M HASITII toil Aq[s*TOM PIM..... 08-25-98 06: O6AM P01 DUST CONTROL PLAN and REVISED NUMBER OF FLIGHTS for Proposed Boeing Headquarters Building Helistop Project No. LUA-98-113, CU-H, ECF Project Description The proposed project is to construct and operate a private helistop at the Boeing Longacres Office Park to serve the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group (BCAG) Headquarters Building. The helistop will be located on a 3.10 acre (135,000 sq. ft.) site southwest of the BCAG Headquarters Building. Flights Flights in and out of the Longacres Office Park are expected to average one to€ei eight flights per month. Helicopters will not be based, fueled or maintained at the helistop. Dust Plan The helistop will consist of a 26-foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) surrounded by a 40-foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and takeoff area (FATO). On landings and takeoffs, airborne dust and grit is a very serious ingestion threat to turbine type engines as used in the Sikorsky 76A. To minimize dust being disturbed during takeoffs and landings, the soil surrounding the asphalt pad will be planted in naturally occurring grasses. The landing pad and the immediate landscape surrounding the area will be maintained on an as-needed basis. Post-IY Fax Note 7671 °8tea.29 31100, 0 To40WH1 FEE H • From 12 1 c-p 1X-U Co./Dept Co.12, of4 tKt. Phone a Phone# p69 6 rev,.4-S r3 e2 o Fax* [helistop dust control.doc] 8/25/98 „ ' CIT' OF RENTON .LL I Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator August 25, 1998 Mr. Rick Ford The Boeing Company PO Box 3707, M/S 19-35 Seattle, WA 98124 SUBJECT: Boeing Longacres Helistop Project No. LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF Dear Mr. Ford: This letter is to inform you that the comment and appeal periods have ended for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination. The applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures. As you know, a Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on September 08, 1998 at 9:00 AM to consider the Conditional Use Permit. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7286. For the Environmen I Review Committee, "w1�OfiNtij e Toth Henning Project Manager FINALAOC 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING' On the '1 day of A" , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containin I RC.. devAftnwollrvIs documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Department of Ecology Don Hurter WSDOT KC Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher Washington Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman Department of Natural Resources Shirley Lukhang Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Indian Tribe Rod Malcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Joe Jainga Puget Sound Energy (Signature of Sender) k . Sr...c,..T - STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that (►,i2 ?) . 'e signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act fdf the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. in Dated: l ,4_ /Si /' 'fi e Notary Public in d for the State of Wa ngton Notary(Print) MARILYN KAMCHEFF My appointment iras; vArrivrmrESION EXPIRES 6/29/9u Project Name: $oetmLcuilacres. te-ligtor Project Number: WY°I cm. 113,GV-ti E(., NOTARY.DOC • ss s • vs .1,- • - a a r. •..."I I " . • *V to, e • 'tt • • • .. 1 CIT'x OF .RENTON .. . ' Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator August 06, 1998 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on August 04, 1998: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). Location: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, August 24, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)235-2501. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7286. For the Environmental Review Committee, i4 c -IN Jennifer Toth-Henn ng Project Manager cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Shirley Lukhang, Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Joe Jainga, Puget Sound Energy AGNCYLTR DOC\ 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 MThis paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer c. CITY OF RENTON -•11. Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator August 06, 1998 Mr. Rick Ford The Boeing Company PO Box 3707, M/S 19-35 Seattle, WA 98124 SUBJECT: Boeing Longacres Helistop Project No. LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF Dear Mr. Ford: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project. The ERC, on August 04, 1998, issued a threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. See the enclosed Mitigation Measures document. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, August 24, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)235-2501. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 south Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on September 08, 1998 at 9:00 AM to consider the Conditional Use Permit. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7286. For the Environmental Review Committee, r OfIL4N, PI)41/W-• Jennifer Toth enning Project Manager Enclosure DNSMLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Thie..mr.ar r....Inine snei rarur sari r„atariai 2n i nr,et r,r,r,ei imar CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICANT: The Boeing Company (Rick Ford) PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Helistop DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall be required to maintain the helistop landing pad and area adjacent to the helistop to be free of unnecessary dust and debris that could result in dust impacts during helicopter maneuvers. The applicant shall develop a maintenance plan to address dust impacts. The maintenance plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of the building permit. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICANT: The Boeing Company (Rick Ford) PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Helistop DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. General Applicant has filed a Notice of Landing Area Proposal with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Airport Manager The placement and use of a helistop at the indicated location poses no problem to airport operations. The areas surrounding the helistop should be designated as a Compatible Use area, and the size of the area so designated should be large enough to permit low flying helicopters to traverse the area. The Airport will not be responsible for receiving or answering noise or low flying aircraft complains, and a department to do so should be identified. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICANT: The Boeing Company (Rick Ford) PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Helistop DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, August 24, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)235-2501. PUBLICATION DATE: August 10, 1998 DATE OF DECISION: August 04, 1998 SIGNATURES: / :' /_i ce c;-.-, / c' ' J `�4 regg Zimmerman, Administrator DATE �/Department of Planning/Building/Public Works „..; Ka__x_k f/cV,il di Shepherd, Admi►iis P , trator DATE Community Services L" A e 7/(.2/4 \-- ,?' /". (t-' / Lee, h eler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DNSMSIG.DOC CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICANT: The Boeing Company (Rick Ford) PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Helistop DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review (ECF). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall be required to maintain the helistop landing pad and area adjacent to the helistop to be free of unnecessary dust and debris that could result in dust impacts during helicopter maneuvers. The applicant shall develop a maintenance plan to address dust impacts. The maintenance plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of the building permit. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICANT: The Boeing Company (Rick Ford) PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Helistop DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. General Applicant has filed a Notice of Landing Area Proposal with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Airport Manager The placement and use of a helistop at the indicated location poses no problem to airport operations. The areas surrounding the helistop should be designated as a Compatible Use area, and the size of the area so designated should be large enough to permit low flying helicopters to traverse the area. The Airport will not be responsible for receiving or answering noise or low flying aircraft complains, and a department to do so should be identified. NoincE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION . POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: BOEING LONGACRES HEUSTOP PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-113,CU•t1,ECF The applicant,Rick Ford,has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 28 fool square concrete touchdown and lin-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be Installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU)Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF).Location:901 Oakesdale Avenue SW. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 6:00 PM,August 24,1998. Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required 575.00 application lee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.11B. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office.(425)235-2501. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the 71h Roof of City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,Washington,on September 08,1998 at 9:00 AM to consider the request for a Conditional Use Permit. If the Environmental Determination is appealed,the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. i• . � . a A 4 eo[ea � 40, .M. . Iilj f • 'j LITr r.......- il ..„ ; RENTON P Fr SIT aa..is Imo I • �a rr , . I I. 4 1 __.._.._t.. l I 3 I , �e . . • 8 i • Ar 1 i ; o $i T c LOCATION t FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, P EASSE CONTACT S ON AT THE 4 IT 7 OF0 RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICDO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION tPlease Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. I CERTIFICATION T, / 7I f///'v%r I , hereby certify that copies of the above document were posted by me in -3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on tivvsr 7 /f� • Signed: `1�,, ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public,in and for the State of Washington residing i ,,, , on the >y ri-- day of a c-•L/ „ • --- - 7 Getc\ /�--„ v MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 ss: ":1.1—"NIVIA)t 'AYJIFIAM i ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). Location: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, August 24, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are govemed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)235-2501. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the 7th floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on September 08, 1998 at 9:00 AM to consider the request for a Conditional Use Permit. If the Environmental Determination is appealed,the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. r- ,'-'----; ?-:": :;--L.-. .W.-I-... �t .n .......x�. ._ s.w.16tR STNEEr r^ .1iI , \ ,...:::::::...--r., \ --7,:il 'll. :If -BOEING """`''/ n x I I' PROPERI i I /' s.w. I9TH STREET_ i l i I: LINE 4 li 5 15BTN.Sf.....i1 VY II i t~i IT ft OF1 CRY CiFI I i TUKWILA' /III-� .4..iTl�ili I RENTON P9 JE f SITE II.......j A S.W.-Y]Ro STREET a' ' \-BOEING t 3 w ' I PROPERTY ( s.w.27TK STREET {: LINE — .................._.........._... ......— ,., !'' . '.1 L..— ..... ...i g Ci 1 i e ' ...--- a 3 ii II O I S.W.]ITN!TT. j YI 3 • 1 i1 \ / i n SITE LOCATION ' SCALE: NONE 4-4- L FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE 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. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF Environmental review for development and operation of a private helistop at the Boeing Headquarters Building. Location: 901 Oakesdale Ave. SW. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, August 24, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)235-2501. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 south Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on September 08, 1998 at 9:00 AM to consider the Conditional Use Permit. The applicant or representative of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Publication Date: August 10, 1998 Account No. 51067 dnsmpub.dot STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE August 4, 1998 Project Name Boeing Longacres Helistop Applicant The Boeing Company (Rick Ford) PO Box 3707 m/s 19-35 Seattle, WA 98124 File Number LUA-098-113,CU,ECF Project Manager Jennifer Toth Henning Project Description The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of the Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26-foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40-foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take-off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. It is anticipated that the helistop would be used approximately one time per month. Construction of the helistop would not result in the addition of any new impervious surfaces. An existing paved area 15,000 s.f. in size would be modified with markings on the pavement and the installation of a windsock and lighting to accommodate the proposed helistop. However, approximately 4,500 square feet of new impervious surface would be added to enlarge an existing 18,000 s.f. access road to 22,500 s.f. Biofiltration facilities along the access road to the helistop would also be installed. The proposal requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and environmental review. Project Location 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW Exist. Bldg. Area gsf Not applicable Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf Not applicable Site Area 3.1 acres Total Building Area gsf Not applicable RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommend that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated(DNS-M). _... sr.+sTe s111ER BOEING PROPERN ;' w imp... LINE r CITY OF U . RENTON P'OJEe SITE p,'s.w.231 • • BOEING • PROPERTY I s.w.27.1 MEET LINE ....... ......_._.. Project Location Map ERCRPT.DOC City ofRenton P/B/PW Department ronmental Review Committee Staff Report Boeing Helistop LUA-98-113, CU-H,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 4,1998 Page2 of 4 B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON- SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. X Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The applicant shall be required to maintain the helistop landing pad and area adjacent to the helistop to be free of unnecessary dust and debris that could result in dust impacts during helicopter maneuvers. The applicant shall develop a maintenance plan to address dust impacts. The maintenance plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of the building permit. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. General Applicant has filed a Notice of Landing Area Proposal with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Airport Manager The placement and use of a helistop at the indicated location poses no problem to airport operations. The areas surrounding the helistop should be designated as a Compatible Use area, and the size of the area so designated should be large enough to permit low flying helicopters to traverse the area. The Airport will not be responsible for receiving or answering noise or low flying aircraft complains, and a department to do so should be identified. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Noise Impacts: Increase in ambient noise levels would be expected to occur during construction and operation of the helistop. Construction projects of this type produce noise levels which range from 68 to 98 dbA at 50 feet from the specific equipment. Construction is proposed to occur over two shifts with working hours approximately 6:00 am to 11:00 pm. Noise resulting from construction activity would be controlled through best management practices such as maintaining and muffling construction equipment. The typical noise associated with the operation of helicopters is 76 to 84 dbA at a distance of 500 feet from the aircraft. It is expected that helicopter flights would occur during typical business hours and the applicant proposes ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department .onmental Review Committee Staff Report Boeing Helistop LUA-98-113, CU-H,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFAUGUST 4, 1998 Page3 of 4 using noise abatement procedures such as: pilots setting flight profiles that establish shallow angles of descent to and ascent from the helistop. The most noise is generated when helicopters either approach or take off from the helistop. The typical flight path (north and south from the helistop) has the helicopter at 800 to 1,000 feet altitude at one-half mile from the helistop. Helicopter noise could temporarily disturb or distract area residents; however, because of the small number of projected flights in an and out of the Longacres Office Park (approximately one time per month), disruptions would be infrequent and short in duration. Noise resulting from helicopter operations would be controlled by reducing operating speeds and decreasing the approach and take-off angle at the helistop. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation measure required. Nexus: Not applicable. 2. Air Impacts: During and following construction vehicular emissions and dust would be released. The operation of equipment and vehicles, including helicopters, will be regulated by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and the Washington State Department of Ecology. Additional potential mitigation measures to reduce emissions include ensuring that machines are well maintained, and the site will be sprayed with water as required to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall be required to maintain the helistop landing pad and area adjacent to the helistop to be free of unnecessary dust and debris that could result in dust impacts during helicopter maneuvers. The applicant shall develop a maintenance plan to address dust impacts. The maintenance plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of the building permit. Nexus: Environmental Ordinance (SEPA). 3. Storm water/Floodplain Impacts: Construction of the helistop would not result in the addition of any new impervious surfaces. An existing paved area 15,000 s.f. in size would be modified with markings on the pavement and the installation of a windsock and lighting to accommodate the proposed helistop. However, approximately 4,500 square feet of new impervious surface would be added to enlarge an existing 18,000 s.f. access road to 22,500 s.f. Biofiltration facilities along the access road to the helistop would also be installed. Runoff from the helistop facility will flow to existing stormwater ponds or the stormwater swales located on the former Longacres site, within the original main racing oval. The project site is located in the vicinity of Springbrook Creek, which has an associated floodplain based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping. This proposal is located outside of the limits of the floodway, but is within the flood fringe, or that portion of the plain located outside the floodway which is covered by flood water during base flood. According to the FEMA maps (Panel 53033C0978F) the critical floodplain elevation in the vicinity of this project is 16.4 feet based on National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929. The City of Renton has established floodplain elevations based on current conditions (based on City of Renton Administrative Policy Determination dated June 26, 1997). This determination makes use of the City's hydrologic and hydraulic model results rather than FEMA mapping for determination of compensatory storage requirements. No portion of the project will be subject to flooding based on the City's 13.2 foot floodplain elevation. Therefore, no compensatory storage volume is required. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable. ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department ronmental Review Committee Staff Report Boeing Helistop LUA-98-113, CU-H,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 4,1998 Page4 of 4 E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, August 24, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)235-2501. ERCRPT.DOC City or Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: tWh4hA Derv,elo itOMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1998. APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 78411 LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW SITE AREA: 3.1 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 tia eot-tCY t SS(L) ) 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 property assess this proposal. .Of 7/ y/9 ' Signature of Dir or or Autho i-. Re resentative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 • City Benton Department of Planning/Building/f...,...;Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:��}�t1� COMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-1 I CU-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1.998 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 78411 / LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW SITE AREA: 3.1 acres t BUILDING AREA Wass): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 i'' Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet Ci 1i c jn ut 1.d.� . 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 additio al information is needed to properly assess is proposal. cOttd Signature of 'rector 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: pk‘r.b or""C. ' COMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1.998 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) _ PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 78411 LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW SITE AREA: 3.1 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 Wafer 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 YEAS 14,000 Feet NO None B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS The placement and use of a helistop at the indicated location poses no problem to airport operations. The area surrounding the helistop should be designated as a Compatible Use area, and the size of the area so designated should be large enough to permit low flying helicopters to traverse the area. The Airport will not be responsible for receiving or answering noise or low flying aircraft complaints , and a department to do so should be identified. Will helicopter flights be restricted to daytime only, or will flights be permitted both day and night? C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS None 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 additi 'nformation is ded to properly assess this proposal. 061 Signature o irector or Authorized Representative Datejetif DEVAPP.DO Rev 10/93 u) i---1 rn .. s , ril r— , --1 - u) - „,-.- ................... WEST VALLEY HWY •—'I ,,,_.....,.,......____ CD \\ .• -1 ..---;. ' \ ii(1.1;e4,...._........ ••••.- ,,,\ „,...".„.",,,-24••• UNION PACIFIC .13A1LBOAD-. ____ —0"r1 I\ ..- _.......e...... „z - . - -4-... '''-------- ----- \s •i"e . BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD .......2/'• —0 -..... • ......... ... - -- ---- -,...3'''. .,„ CITY LIMITS a a ...........,,;/.....- ''''''' 0 / 13 r ........_____ m co 1 ..... \ \,..., \s, rri is / , it c 0 ...:. 1....... i 0 , z -ti rT1 1 - \ i,....„\, -I li I m m z . TJ ery) t ; ,•,c) \ z -0 rn i_i 11 \-a ...----• m m -2 1 • IL,--J ° ii j. __' ...._, I .1 T_ __r• 1 ---\\ : -1 • • 1 I :------ . Or- \ I -- —. - — -- '•------"----------..--7.2.- 1 ii I I \ - — ----------------- i OAKESDALE AVENUE i , ! (i) 1 ...,...-% •-•,,o' ...e..• ! I 10 i •• . .. .: ;.. i ! • k k (..4 01' 1 i i I n.) , 1 --I i : . • i -4 70 ! i 1 1 1 • • 0 o ri, i . . ... .•. •I t i a \ . • .. . . . , * • 1 1 . 1 1 1 I % ......._4—.......-1. 1. ) : I • I--. 1 1 \ 1• : 1 I 1 I k 1 I I I I cri I , . . _i. LIND AVENUE SW c.n i. t ... -----....-----...._....._ [ 1--- • I r.) 1----- lxi rn 1 q I rrl' q i i 1 1 \ \ \ CA . i I 1 f • . •OX 1,• 1 / cn I NI /"... —:1 I IEAST VALLEY RD. --- _— --------.... m 1 M t HWY 1 67 / '' 1 , , --...-•. =1 7........ ..1.1 - ------.....- •-• '0 11��(�1IIC =_ _=4 "=_— _ .:",:-,.:,:_ - h...A r___=_==_ _" D _ `'.- 1 (T1-/ e—7_:.E 0E-4 EEE.E 345 FE-, il 0 =___==___- ==__==_==__=_ =_====_= - -- t . R. 1T?i 7 X�SSS�ti2b ar. - ` 1n "= =="=-= _ __"=-==-_-=___ -=.tear.}xa ��. �ccr_1 1c►. ,� f , . gra,Enr4 azi--- __ _...r. af,___ a-. Il.r7 LA ki EE-E:57:3E-EEE:a:EPEEEEEE:"::::1:Ea..:"".--.C.:;::::::"EE-:-E":3---EE:EtE:UEEEEF:":::.:::::E:::::::;E:MEEEEEEEEEEE::::::.:24;K:KEEEEEEEEE::::::, ,fi•!. ..:7 anLlZ` 1;.: Tifitiall 4;C_n"--1 - 174_S Ti ii III i --:-:----_--::::-_--_-----:-_-::::::::::::::::::::z--:'-::E-S_:::;::_:F:::E:-:::.::_tE:EL-E::::z:::::E::::::-_.::_:::-_.:::...:E::_.:-:-:i..-::s;::.:E:::::::::f::::,::::v Li.m_s .,,,m. ik........ . II I L--- - i -=========== ====- - LtY1:T.: tt __= --__ _ v`r�1�. �'-1 to .a_ a_ �1. \a_a 'r 1-;)) N MI I Ifil ill r )'.• --;Z:-.-:::::51-K:3::-1:::-CE:E:FEEEE:-EEEE:f4:-:.ECE:::.:E::::::::::-:-X-:-.:-::::::::::::::::::::: : ::::::::::::14. 1 ._. ._ 1 .. 4.tik 4.c 1 N' tip _I-) ilh'T'"Tw:"'-:"'K::::EE-_--t.r.:E:-::::::E:::::E::::.:E:E:3::::::::::::::::::::::::_. _:::::::::::::::::‘_ , lUd-I 1 .S...k "". 07--ii_111,1,— ir--- D 11 . \Nal-Eii 1..„,..„-3-'.."..741.,;„,1/4. z.:::::::::::..=:-::- --:-::-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ,::::::::::::::::_s t,, , ._,-,- lj m 'b _IA . i ; V' #10*6 _,,,MN *% :::::::::::::----:;:::::::::::::::::::_::::3-::::;_::::::::::::-- ---- tN..'o...,.11. ,--11 1..10-1la i-M ob nr, f' Q/ 7``ll Q(� 1 / J 1 . i© - (��Nyl' __ __�AT� �a:RV/iJl./�.//.:-....k,/(�� I. .o; p. --i j oki 1,i•" x::.i:,:g1:---iE1rEi.r:_...::_.i.:..l--t_-..i4;- ,A,, _,1° Lz:I'l!iii ie0ipcliJ4-!—iit.n,1-L.1I....4 �1� /' Gleam �.v1aw :® 4*. �; - ' i ' t "U 11 -O • • Iiw -'� 1 a , r." 11 '. re 1. _) t\ Lwna Q �Y " •j tJa He n w m J w1 i .1!! Ir..A' i N f . I ±E-1 . 1 r i•_--.-4.-AI \t 0, 0_4 qoil NMMI IMMEO!' *A—1 yy��}(Q�Ai�)) m Q •�- (=a ,r/ Y�Nr Ili. '. c•171 \•I i -1 _L F: e 'aAII 'A 1—IM TA1 NIIREllgil, tab FM' " 4 , ‘2, . --- lea, S • illi14 .. 4 1 PI rIA FNI , CO . ..VOIRIMPOW ,....414,:iai ill it! ..-..... ,.„... umwill ‘,..... .,..,,-.....,41, ....,,,1 h.t. .141/40411 ,f/. 2''.r•w. / 1' .1 Ni I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I p fe".-- , .-4--__2Li '41,i gm*ii i tt'&,. „. , 401-,14-‘ 711-.7-T,,t--MEIVCIiillE3F?' ,.._ —1- \___ . „a -----AA 1 0 VII L pv,:k 1.1, i 40,,,,,,,,z7,14 4,.,,,., \ ,iim-41-Ip g . . WA IL 3;:0 PE Fdp"' ail 1.111 • -. Ls, i 1 .. 1 obi fapp . . 4 r,. I oil,le ra, r� \-,1 i .� ' ' .. a Ibn. 1' •L ) ),41°-'1', ":: '..-.. ,'„-.:PM R-t aOrki ..,..AAA ` �0°114111111\ f` % --. i 4,i---:4- ./'7-I` — --- ' co ,,. .,_ . ,. , c..\\1 45 1 a'` --. 1 _ -cif"I[�p.A Mnn �� aL L1' 7 1. IIIPIP' -a !I.11 ( . •A. a I VWCINIIPPED. - TO 0o w m ! a j t- _, .,.. i'-' E I JI Sr...=Pr Iti ____R/Lri. Sal i•S. 1 1' I :—;) t '51 - 1.41. % I ‘1111,%46 1 I 4 i;42311411 I. . i.j,,,,.. 1 . . '-'4. to \ -14-11 i _,-1 .-qq6:1)41 i 1/ A F. r \IA. ) 1 I 1 i m i4J ) i: 4 Rr A S. E City T, rcenton Department of Planning/Building/P__..- Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: hav-ks COMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1.998 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 78411 LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW SITE AREA: 3.1 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 LancYShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet aZle 1tJ , B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS .. 24e 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 0 roperly assess this proposal. /W 7Y- Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Dafe DE VAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 RENTWI City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works del?I1R�PT ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW $MEET • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ! '\, •, PreV 4.1\ COMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 19981`(�� APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1.998 �V�o APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 78411 LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW SITE AREA: 3.1 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 LancYShoreline Use __ Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet AJ 0 M Ivo-- lorac-A 'u iJ V B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS , 1 lf C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 1 , 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 additiona 'nformation is needed to pr.i>erly assess this proposal. avq)LD LP- , 7/►I, , ,A3A Signature of irector or Authorized Representativ Date DEVAPP.Dac Rev 1C193 City or Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: p\ah Revteu) _ W0.1ix- COMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1.998C� -OA- APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning" PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 7841L LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW SITE AREA: 3.1 acres l BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Iv�� tf) C o M WIt11 . 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. Aieat '1)ccc) -7/Z4/q i Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev 1C/93 City .,. Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:Tvaunsf ik-hene\ COMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1998 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 78411 0 LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW 1 SITE AREA: 3.1 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A �� , `> OA" SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS No cow1W1crtl• 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. P1204 7A.+ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City or Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:( L-kSe,v.v L.e4 COMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1.998 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning,,, etrOm PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 78411 LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW SITE AREA: 3.1 acres 1 BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to deveroPVk7'operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 LancYShorellne 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 AA)/yam 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 additi al information is needed to properly assess this proposal. $' ture of Director o uthonzed Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev 10/93 City i.,. ..anton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS , wa3tewua —. COMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1.998 0/7), APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning , �c � PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop , WORK ORDER NO: 78411 �� 7, OA/ LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW 6(4t4`y • j .96 SITE AREA: 3.1 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 LightGlare 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 C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS ICJ po w)y 1 wA • 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 Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS within 300 feet of the subject site PROJECT NAME: A Qeites) APPLICATION NO: g Jt' II )GU-'N 1 t 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 ,,y pge NUMBER DEVELOPMENT,I.ANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 1 .1 1998 RECEIVED (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) (Continued) NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Applicant Certification I, / 1 Tk. t I , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: O City of Renton Technical Services Records O Title Company Records / ` King County Assessors Records Signed / Date ."7//0/1 (Applicant) ((( NOTARY ATTESTED: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and the State of Washington, residing at rl,o n-,o✓l on the 63Y`'day of t " , 19 ci e. Signed - ICJ c _ vt--'Z '` (Notary Public) L CERTIFICATION OF MAILING . I, I � ereby certify that notices of the proposed application were mailed to (City Employee) each listed property owner on ` •" :: '. � Signed NOTARY ;>:: ':: ,:. :::::.::::::. • ATTEST: y ,tribe and sworn before me a Public, and for the State of Washm ton residing at % • on the • day of 19 Signed" ? . v ' Iistprop.doc REV07/95 MARILYN KAMCHEFF c7" - G4.9h9 2 , , , , ;<i;<,* F;<;<n;<n;i{c;c*$;<;<;<>;c*s;<;<i ;<;<>4sk**,,*;<;c;<i,<;<;<$$<;<;c;cif$<,<i,*14*isac,<,<,<a;<*14;<; ,<;<;<1'<i,<1;<)<****, :< BATCH NUMBER: LS COMMENTS 1< CUSTOMER NAME PERKINS CO1E 000580-0007-01 000580-0007-01 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE715175 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE715175 TAX DEPT TAX DEPT 1700 E GOLF RD 0400 1700 E GOLF RD 0400 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 000580-0013-03 000580-0013-03 MCLEOD STUART 271011 MCLEOD STUART 271011 213 LAKE ST S 213 LAKE ST S KIRKLAND WA 98033 KIRKLAND WA 98033 000580-0017-09 000580-0017-09 CITY OF SEATTLE CITY OF SEATTLE 000580-0019-07 000580-0019-07 CITY OF RENTON 369700 CITY OF RENTON 369700 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 000580-0036-06 000580-0036-06 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC 790503 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC 790503 PROPERTY TAX DEPT PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 90868 PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 BELLEVUE WA 98009 125381-0230-06 125381-0230-06 CITY OF RENTON 369700 CITY OF RENTON 369700 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 242304-9004-08 242304-9004-08 PIERRE JAME P 601103 PIERRE JAME P 601103 PO BOX 27069 PO BOX 27069 SEATTLE WA 98125 SEATTLE WA 98125 242304-9020-08 242304-9020-08 DRB LTD PARTNERSHIP 859999 ORB LTD PARTNERSHIP 859999 200 S BROAD ST 6 FLR 200 S BROAD ST 6 FLR PHILADELPHIA PA 19102 PHILADELPHIA PA 19102 242304-9028-00 242304-9028-00 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE715175 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE715175 TAX DEPT TAX DEPT 1700 E GOLF RD 0400 1700 E GOLF RD 1,400 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 242304-9034-02 242304-9034-02 MCLEOD STUART 109999 MCLEOD STUART 109999 213 LAKE ST S 213 LAKE ST S KIRKLAND WA 98033 KIRKLAND WA 98033 a 242304-9037-09 242304-9037-09 SCHOBER INC 610198 SCHOBER INC 610198 1400 MONSTER RD SW 1400 MONSTER RD SW RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 . THE BRIDGE GROUP 44'302 1.r THE BRIDGE GROUP 461302 16443 SE 35TH ST <� 16443 SE 35TH ST 1' BELLEVUE WA ..:008 `'"+ BELLEVUE WA 98008 4, it • - 242304-9056-05 il 242304-9056-05 LONGACRES JOINT VENTURE 8N3581 LONGACRES JOINT VENTURE 8N3581 �` 921 MIDDLE FORK RD 921 MIDDLE FORK RD ONALASKA WA 98570 ONALASKA WA 98570 242304-9086-09 242304-9086-09 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC 790503 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC 790503 PROPERTY TAX DEPT PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 90868 PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 BELLEVUE WA 98009 242304-9115-04 242304-9115-04 HUNTER DOUGLAS REAL PROPERT719999 HUNTER DOUGLAS REAL PROPERT719999 2 PARK WAY RT 173 2 PARK WAY RT 173 UPPER SADDLE RVR NY 07458 UPPER SADDLE RVR NY 07458 242304-9128-09 242304-9128-09 , PUGET WESTERN INC 529800 PUGET WESTERN INC 529800 19515 NORTH CREEK PKWY SUITE 310 19515 NORTH CREEK PKWY SUITE 310 BOTHELL WA 98011 BOTHELL WA 98011 242304-9129-08 242304-9129-08 DRAINAGE DIST 1 597777 DRAINAGE DIST 1 597777 601 WEST GOWE ST 601 WEST GOWE ST KENT WA 98032 KENT WA 98032 242304-9132-03 242304-9132-03 PIERRE JAMES P 715432 PIERRE JAMES P 715432 PO BOX 27069 PO BOX 27069 SEATTLE WA 98125 SEATTLE WA 98125 242304-9133-02 242304-9133-02 PUGET WESTERN INC 559800 PUGET WESTERN INC 559800 19515 NORTH CREEK PKWY 0310 19515 NORTH CREEK PKWY 6310 BOTHELL WA 98011 BOTHELL WA 98011 242304-9137-08 242304-9137-08 MCLEOD STUART 839800 MCLEOD STUART 839800 213 LAKE ST S 213 LAKE ST S KIRKLAND WA 98033 KIRKLAND WA 98033 252304-9001-00 252304-9001-00 - CITY OF RENTON 369700 CITY OF RENTON 369700 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 ,. 252304-9004-07 252304-9004-07 CITY OF RENTON 369700 CITY OF RENTON 369700 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 • A 252304-9006-05 252304-9006-05 MELEOD STUART 139999 MELEOD STUART 139999 213 LAKE ST_SOUTH 213 LAKE ST_SOUTH e KIRKLAND WA 98033 KIRKLAND WA 98033 0 b 252304-9019-00 252304-9019-00 CITY OF RENTON 209800 CITY OF RENTON 209800 CITY HALL CITY HALL 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 252304-9022-05 252304-9022-05 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE715175 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE715175 TAX DEPT TAX DEPT 1700 E GOLF RD 0400 1700 E GOLF RD 0400 SCHAUM W RG IL 60173 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 252304-9024-03 252304-9024-03 O W R R E NAV CO 201303 OWRRE NAV CO 201303 ' UNION PACIFIC RR CORP % UNION PACIFIC RR CORP PO BOX 2500 PO BOX 2500 BROOMFIELD CO 80020 BROOMFIELD CO 80020 252304-9037-08 252304-9037-08 CITY OF SEATTLE 647777 CITY OF SEATTLE 647777 WATER DEPT WATER DEPT COUNTY CITY BLDG COUNTY CITY BLDG 252304-9058-02 252304-9058-02 KOCH HANS GEORGE 190139 KOCH HANS GEORGE 190139 9 ALLPAK CONTAINER R ALLPAK CONTAINER 1100 SW 27TH ST 1100 SW 27TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 334040-5300-01 334040-5300-01 BENAROYA CAPITAL COMPANY L.699999 BENAROYA CAPITAL COMPANY L.699999 1001 4TH AVE 04700 1001 4TH AVE 04700 SEATTLE WA 98154 SEATTLE WA 98154 334040-5305-06 334040-5305-06 ' CITY OF RENTON 609800 CITY OF RENTON 609800 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 334040-6120-07 334040-6120-07 BITNEY—GROUWS CO 541786 BITNEY—GROUWS CO 541786 108 FACTORY AVE N 01 108 FACTORY AVE N ;,1 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 • 334040-6255-04 334040-6255-04 CITY OF RENTON 360557 CITY OF RENTON 360557 200 MILL AVE S 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 •RENTON WA 98055 G1'Y 0", 1. Noise:operation of the holicopt known practices to reduce noise such as:reducing operating + w speeds and decreasing the eppr___._..J take-off angle at the helistop. 2. Dust:maintain area surrounding helistop to be free of unnecessary debris that could result In dust -,N S,. impacts during helicopter maneuvers. NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jennifer Toth Henning,Project Manager,Development Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5'.00 PM on August 24,1998.This matter is also SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED scheduled 1 for a public Grady nWon If you are Interested in attending the healing,please contact the Developm,September 8,1998 at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers.7111 Floor ent Se vices Building,105r south 9 Division,(425)430-7282,to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled.If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner.If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a parry of record end receive DATE: additional information by mail,contact Ms.Henning at(425)430-7286.Anyone who submits written comments will July 21,1998 automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICATION NAME: BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP !PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant,Rick Ford,has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 fool diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed.Project requires Conditional Use(CU)Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). PROJECT LOCATION: 901 Oakeadale Avenue SW OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED(DNS-M):As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project Therefore,as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to glue notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued.Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period.There will be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated(DNS-M).A 14 day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: July 13,1998 r I • NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 21,1998 \ .i.'..,.. _i----..1 S Permits/Review Requested: Conditional Use Permit Environmental Review(SEPA) Other Permits which may be required: FAA Notice of Proposed Cons Wction or Alteration , -� • -;;Oi.- s.ike,sell {, Requested Studies: None E;- '(.\ '� I �) eonxc 4ii \ s ,,u srnc j. • `r Location where application may Ii.. twcvc -- be reviewed; Plannesglgullding/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, I 1 , 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98058 "° -. In I or PUBLIC HEARING: September 8,1998 - .... i SiTRENTON . -�, e u_,>om� CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: r �.�.i I ,.-. .+( V i Land Use/Zoning: Commercial Office(CO)Zone-The proposed helistop Is permitted as an $ + sor.c $ i accessory use in the Commercial Office Zone subject to approval of a Heanng - ix[_, 1._4•:.•TM ,_ , rw,xwn Examiner Conditional Use Permit.It appears that the proposal would comply = with applicable development standards o1 the Zoning Code,and that it would be I . I _t 1.' consistent with policies of the Comprehensive Plan. I. 999. Environmental Documents that g I B Evaluate the Proposed Project: Draft Environmental Impact Statement,Longacres Office Park(August,1994), Sl 1 �` II Final Environmental Impact Statement,Longecres Office Park(March 1995), `I rO Environmental Impact Statement Mitigation Document,Longacres Office Park Of j I,: '' . - . Project(August 1993). R6 ' • Development Regulations S I Used For Project Mitigation: The proposal is subject to the Cilys SEPA Ordinance,Conditional Use Permit R G Criteria,Zoning Code,Public Works Standard's,Uniform Building Code,Uniform 1 �_ • . .• Fire Code.In addition,the proposal is subject to the Federal Aviation 9 F/ Administration's review and approval. E.Proposed Mitigation Measures: $> E IACATION N The following Mitigator Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.These recommended Mitigation w.t Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. GENMALOT.DOC GENMALOT.DOC CERTIFICATION I, \JG/111/lf ' �l o� M#h1 a hereby certify that .3 copies of the above document were posted by me in ' cons icuous laces on or nearby the described property on n JWfj Z-iP �q� r` %.(114 igne .i."PiW h' 4'z,t to of ATTEST: Subcribed sworn before me, a No % Pub in . '.r the Sta r� Washington residing u,\/)eo 71 i , on the day of , l y 1" i I (1}-(f/.1 C25.7.(t. 1.7.4 6''....it I? • MARILYN KAMCHEFF. COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 Y 0 uit NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED DATE: July 21,1998 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICATION NAME: BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU)Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). PROJECT LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED(DNS-M): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore,as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14 day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: July 13, 1998 • NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 21,1998 Permits/Review Requested: Conditional Use Permit,Environmental Review(SEPA) Other Permits which may be required: FAA Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration Requested Studies: None Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, /� 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98058 S PUBLIC HEARING: September 8,1998 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use/Zoning: Commercial Office(CO)Zone--The proposed helistop is permitted as an accessory use in the Commercial Office Zone subject to approval of a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. It appears that the proposal would comply with applicable development standards of the Zoning Code,and that it would be consistent with policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Draft Environmental Impact Statement,Longacres Office Park(August, 1994), Final Environmental Impact Statement,Longacres Office Park(March 1995), Environmental Impact Statement Mitigation Document,Longacres Office Park Project(August 1993). Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The proposal is subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance,Conditional Use Permit Criteria,Zoning Code,Public Works Standard's,Uniform Building Code,Uniform Fire Code. In addition,the proposal is subject to the Federal Aviation Administration's review and approval. • Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. GENMALOT.DOC 1.' Noise: operation of the helicopters wi own practices to reduce noise such as: reducin rating speeds and decreasing the approach i Tke-off angle at the helistop. 2. Dust: maintain area surrounding helistop to be free of unnecessary debris that could result in dust impacts during helicopter maneuvers. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jennifer Toth Henning,Project Manager,Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on August 24,1998. This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on Tuesday,September 8,1998 at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,7th Floor Municipal Building,1055 South Grady Way. If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division,(425)430-7282,to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,contact Ms.Henning at(425)430-7286. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION r— ' r`-: -- ;k. y... �f . . / \ ', \C ....as. S.W. fE s. '. BOEING :'" ; ! c I PROPERTY : j �(4_ s.w.19TH STREETr__.,... I LINE I . TKSK I CITY : .I on'CIF i TUKWILIA . .Ifl'III , RENTON ' • • PROJECT SITE iI J S„ S.W.23RD STREET TO a, : BOEING 7 r,1it ` i PROPERTY I S.W.27T/STREET 16 ' i j ! LINE -- �, -----------.... Io 3 .. 5 : . ......_._. o t u z I MN O' ...----..._... at i S.W.]RN STREET • . c,0 N U I z • o / I , I4 8 :, i I ..j T. :\ a n j s n :l i 6 SITE LOCATION GN , SCALE: NONE J L GENMALOT.DOC CITY OF RENTON - .1 Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • July 21, 1998 Mr. Rick Ford The Boeing Company PO Box 3707, M/S 19-35 Seattle, WA 98124 SUBJECT: Boeing Longacres Helistop Project No. LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF Dear Mr. Ford: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on August 04, 1998. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at(425)430-7286, if you have any questions. Sincerely, f,,0 4) 4_ei(A,i.A 4,), nif r Toth enning Project Manager ACCPTLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY''OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION Note: If there is more than one legal owner, please attach an additional'. notarized Master Application for each owner. PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: LONIoA.CQES H LL) 6 roP 1366I V Ga. 2t<I_ i--om0 PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: PO. Bo,. 3707 ti 4 ict•39 4 DJAC 6H r (wrsr) TO Lei 0 ( d IL ES AAL E - 13oEt KG N EADQ V4RTERS CITY: SE'ArTLE µ/,A, ZIP: g8i24 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): SEE A rrA 6 Et 1_E C"A.LS TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING LAND USE(S): Zoe, LSS 98g8 CONSTbZUGrt(pN 21,LCtslt� APPLICANT (If other than owner) PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: NEL( 6rop COMPANY(if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: EAV ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): NA oEve CITY: ZIP: EXISTING ZONING: �?uiPM NT1-1--ANN1NG RENTON TELEPHONE NUMBER: D JUL 13 1998 PROPOSED ZONING (if app �t'VED CONTACT PERSON N a SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): Q NAME:* O CL p 3. l A arz.tES COMPANY (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: c3oE Co ADDRESS: AN • IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? CITY: ZIP: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY [�t� SENSITIVE AREA? TELEPHONE NUMBER: ZOlo toSS—C1$U(J N b >:: LEGAL DESCRIPTION O'F.PROPERTY. Attach 40 are e:Aheet tt10 essay Se/10GL- cturtkZe, , -6 P3 TYPE OF'APPLICATION & FEES': Check'alt applicat190:I pes that apply C..ty staff w.11 deterr'nme feed. _ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: _ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ _ REZONE $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT S _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ ©.00 _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ _ SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _ FINAL PLAT $ _ GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: 1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY _WAIVER S FINAL _ WETLAND PERMIT $ ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: _ SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _ CONDITIONAL USE $ _ VARIANCE $ EXEMPTION $No Charge ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REVISION $ I, (Print Name) gu.HgS•R) 3 FORD ,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. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, if. and IZ t!14 4 .D 4 FD V-p for the State of LU A residing at (Name of Owner/Represe tive ?$ , on the d! day of (Signature of Owner/Rep es tive) (Signature of tary Public) (This section to;be completed bC 4 IO3N R City File NumberK— {/ A AAD BSP CAPS CAP U CPA CU A CU H ECF LA MHP:. FPUD FP PP R RVMP: SA A SA.H SHFL A :SHPL=H SP :SM SME .T... : .:A B V H W MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 8/97 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • Helistop Longacres Office Park City of Renton The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, M/S 19-35 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 4447, JU OF N At ONN/NG ( 1 1998 3RFcE/ VFD July 9, 1998 Rick Ford 206 655-9888 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Headquarters Building Helistop 2. Name of applicant: The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 M/S 19-35 Seattle, Washington 98124-2207 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Rick Ford Facilities Asset Management Organization The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 M/S 19-35 Seattle, Washington 98124-2207 206 655-9888 4. Date checklist prepared: July 8, 1997 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The site is proposed to be constructed and available for use in October 1998. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Future additions, or expansions of the facilities are not anticipated at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 1 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc)-1 7/7/9R 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Longacres Office Park (August 1994) ("LOP DEIS") Final Environmental Impact Statement, Longacres Office Park (March 1995) ("LOP FEIS") Environmental Impact Statement, Mitigation Document, Longacres Office Park (May, 1995) Jurisdictional Wetland Determination for Longacres Office Park Project (August 1993) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Possible Permits Federal: FAA approval on "Notice of Landing Area Proposal" See application -- Exhibit G State of Washington: None known at this time City of Renton/Local: Conditional Use State Environmental Policy Act Review/Approval Electrical Permit 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 2 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc)-1 7/7/98 answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The proposed project is to construct and operate a private helistop at the Boeing Longacres Office park to serve the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group (BCAG) Headquarters Building. Flights in and out of the helistop will average one flight per month. Helicopters will not be based or maintained at the helistop. The helistop will serve the Longacres Office park and will be used to land privately owned helicopters for the purpose of loading or unloading occupants. The helistop will be located on a 3.10 acre site southwest of the BCAG Headquarters Building. The location is shown on the Site Plan, Exhibit A The helistop will consist of a 26-foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) surrounded by a 40-foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and takeoff area (FATO), with perimeter lighting and a pole-mounted windsock with lighting for night use. Vehicular access to the helistop will be provided from the south by a private road connecting to the BCAG headquarters Building parking lot. The proposed helistop will make use of the existing paved parking area and access road for the BCAG headquarters temporary construction trailer offices, with minor modifications to add a concrete TLOF and to connect the existing access road to the Headquarters Building parking lot. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range of boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The 3.10 acre (135,000 sq. ft.) site is located south of 1-405, to the west of Oakesdale Avenue (under construction), and due east of the Renton/Tukwila boundary as shown in the Site Plan, Exhibit A The legal description is attached as Exhibit B ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 3 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/9R 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1 . Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other . Flat, with slight slopes. See LOP DEIS sec. 3.2.1, Topography and Vol. II, pp. 1-7, Technical Report, Earth Resources. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope on the site is approximately 2%. See 5-6 LOP DEIS sec. 3.2.1 , Topography and Vol. II, Technical Report for Earth Resources. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The helistop site is located in an area of soils classified by the USDA Soil Conservation Survey (1973) as "urban Land". "Urban land" is soil modified by distribution of natural layers with addition of fill material. Soils are believed to be predominantly inter-layered silt, sandy silt, silty sand and sands underlaid or interbedded with marine (Estuarine) organic silt and fluvial sand. See LOP DEIS, sec. 3.2.3, Soils and Vol. II, Exhibit 3, Soil, Sediment and Water Analysis. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No, but as reported in the LOP DEIS, unconsolidated subsurface deposits contain unstable soils. See LOP DEIS, sec. 3.2.3, Soils and Vol. II, Technical Report for Earth Resources, p.6. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 4 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 The site will be graded and excavated as required for constructing the fire department turnaround. Some fill (less than 40 cubic yards) will be required to replace excavated material. The approximate quantity of fill is detailed in the attached Off- sight Surface Water Management Analysis, Exhibit D. The source of fill has not yet been determined. See LOP DEIS sec. 3.3 Impacts. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes. Precipitation and surface water runoff may cause erosion during construction. At project completion, erosion impacts are not anticipated. There will be no excavation left bare and thus no erosion impacts. The site is classified as low erosion hazard. See LOP DEIS sec. 3.2.3, Soils; sec. 3.3 Impacts and Vol. II, technical Report for Earth Resources, p. 6. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Type of Impervious Existing Proposed Surface Conditions Conditions Pavement 15,000 sf 15,000 sf Access Road 18,000 sf 22,500 sf Total Site 33,000 sf 37,500 sf (Percent) (24%) (28%) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Appropriate measures, such as silt fences, hay bale filters, hydroseedings, and settlement ponds, will be used to control erosion during clearing and construction. After construction, exposed soils will be landscaped with stabilizing vegetation. See LOP DEIS sec. 3.3.1 .2, Geology / Soils, p 3-6. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 5 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known. During construction, vehicle and construction equipment emissions and dust will be released. After completion of construction, combustion emissions from the aircraft's engines will be released. See LOP DEIS sec, 4, Air Quality and Vol. II Appendix B, Air Quality Technical Report. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None See LOP DEIS sec. 4-3.2.2, Air Cumulative Impacts, p. 4-14. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Mitigation measures will be implemented as required to meet or exceed all applicable standards as required by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and the Department of Ecology. Additional potential mitigation measures to reduce emissions include ensuring that machines and equipment used during construction are well maintained, and wetting the site as required to reduce fugitive dust emissions. 3. Water a. Surface (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Springbrook Creek is situated to the east of the site. This stream flows into the Green River via the Black River pump station. The Green River passes about 1 .1 miles to the west of the site. There is one class 3, wetland outside of the project boundaries but within the immediate vicinity. The ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 6 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc)-1 7/7/98 wetland is located adjacent to the north corner of the site. See Wetland Map, Exhibit C. See LOP DEIS, sec. 6.2, Surface Water, Existing Conditions and Vol. II, Technical Report for Water Resources. (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The site is within 200 feet of the wetland mentioned above. (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes. See attached FEMA 100-Year Flood Plain Map, Exhibit E , and LOP DEIS, sec. 3.2.1 , Topography, and Vol. II Technical Report for Water Resources. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 7 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 See LOP DEIS, sec. 5.3.1 .1 , Ground Water, Construction / Operation Impacts. (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals . . .; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water runoff will result from impervious surfaces, helistop and access road. All runoff will be treated through by bio-filtration filter strips surrounding the pad and access road The storm water treatment system will be designed in accordance with City of Renton Building Regulations, Chapter 22. See the Off-sight Surface Water Management Analysis, Exhibit D and LOP DEIS, sec. 6.3, Surface Water Impacts and Vol. II, Technical Report for Water Resources. (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. It is not anticipated that waste materials will enter the ground or surface waters. Refer to Section 7 of this document, Environmental Health. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The storm water drainage system will be designed to conform to the Storm Water Management Manual for the Puget Sound Region. Appropriate mitigation measures will be initiated during construction to reduce and control surface water runoff impacts. Surface runoff control features will be designed and detailed on ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 8 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 the specific project erosion and sedimentation drawings that are subject to review and approval from the City of Renton prior to the issuing of permits. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: The following types of vegetation are found on the site. shrubs grass b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Approximately 0.14 acres of the 3.10 acre site, will be converted to impervious surface from their existing grassy or vegetated state. The types of vegetation to be cleared include old ornamental shrubs and lawn areas. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. See LOP DEIS, sec. 7.2.1 Vegetation and Vol. II, Technical Report for Wetlands, Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: A landscaping will be mainly grasses. See LOP DEIS, sec. 7.3.1 .1 , Vegetation Impacts. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site are listed below: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, ducks and geese mammals: none fish: Earlier reports have suggested the possible use of Springbrook Creek as winter habitat for salmon. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 9 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 See LOP DEIS sec. 7.2.3, Wildlife and Vol. II, Technical Report for Wetlands, Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. See LOP DEIS, sec. 7.3.1 .3, Wildlife and Vol. II, Technical Report for Wetlands, Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes. The site is within the Pacific Flyway migration route. Migratory waterfowl, wading birds and raptors have been observed in the vicinity. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Destruction of active nests will be avoided. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will be the primary energy source used to meet the completed project's energy needs. See LOP DEIS, sec. 15.3.1 .4 Electrical Energy and sec. 15.3.1 .5, Natural Gas, Petroleum. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. The helistop lighting will be designed to meet the energy codes and to minimize the wasteful use of energy. See LOP DEIS, sec. 1 5.3.1 .4, Electrical Energy. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 10 [:h=listop-1 sepa.doc)-1 7/7/98 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Usual oils, greases, fuel and solvents will be present during construction. Aircraft will not be fueled, or have any routine maintenance performed at the helistop. See LOP DEIS, sec. 9.3.1 .1 , Hazardous Materials, Construction Operation Impacts. (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services will be required. See LOP DEIS sec. 16.3, Emergency Services, Impacts. (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: All personnel training, contingency plans, reporting and other similar requirements imposed by federal, state and local regulations are in place. b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? No impact anticipated. See LOP DEIS sec. 8.2.1 , Noise, Background Information. (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Increases in traffic noise during construction may occur. Temporary noise impacts during site construction are anticipated. Construction projects of this type typically ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 11 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/9R produce noise levels which range from 68 to 98 dbA at 50 feet from the specific equipment. Construction is proposed to occur over two shifts with working hours approximately 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. The construction haul routes have not been determined at this time. Traffic to and from the site will contribute to existing background noise levels. The typical noise associated with helicopters is 76 to 84dBA at a distance of 500 feet from the aircraft. This is similar to noise levels described above for various pieces of construction equipment While helicopter noise is not regulated, it assumed that flights in and out of Longacres Office Park would occur during typical business hours and the noise abatement procedures will be used. The typical flight path (north and south from helistop) has the helicopter at 1000 feet altitude at 1/2 mile from the helistop. Helicopter noise could temporarily disturb or distract area residents; however, because of the small number of projected flights in and out of the Longacres Office Park, disruptions would be infrequent and short. It is important to note that a helicopter flight school is currently operating south of the sight with many take-offs and landings occurring each day. Long-term noise impacts would not be expected. See LOP DEIS, sec. 8.3 Noise Impacts and VOL. II, Technical Report for Noise. (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction equipment will be well maintained and muffled. Equipment will not operate before 6:00 a.m. or after 11 :00 p.m. Current noise abatement procedures for helicopter flight include reducing operating speeds and decreasing the approach and take-off angle at the helistop. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 12 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? A portion of the site is used for temporary parking and access to the BCAG Headquarters Building construction trailers. Uses of surrounding properties include commercial office, industrial warehouse and vacant commercial land. See Exhibit F for listing of surrounding property uses. See LOP DEIS, sec. 10.2, Land Use, Existing Conditions. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Yes. A portion of the site was used for a dairy farm from at least the mid-1920s until 1933, when the Longacres race track was opened. This site was used as the infield area until the race track closed in1993. See LOP DEIS, sec. 10.1 , Land use. c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Commercial Office. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Employment Area -- Valley g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 13 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposed use is compatible with the comprehensive plan Employment Area -- Valley designation and the existing CO zoning classification. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high-, middle- or low-income housing. No living units will be provided. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high-, middle-, or low-income housing. None See LOP DEIS, sec. 1 1 .3.1 .2, Housing and Population. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 14 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/9B The windsock will be approximately six feet high. No building is proposed b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No impact. See LOP DEIS, sec. 12, Visual Resources. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 11 . Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light and glare impacts are not anticipated. Lights on the Helistop will be radio activated by the pilots and are designed to illuminate the pad only. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Light and glare impacts are not anticipated. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None anticipated. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Springbrook Creek trail, walking paths and interpretive information is available at the Customer Services Training Center. See LOP DEIS, sec. 16.2.3, Parks and Recreation. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 15 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. See LOP DEIS, sec. 16.3.1 .3, Parks and Recreation. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. See LOP DEIS, sec.13.2.1 , Historical Conditions. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None have been identified on the project site. There have been indications and artifacts from earlier Indian settlements found in the general area. See LOP DEIS, sec.13.2.1 , Historical Conditions and Vol. II, technical Report for Cultural Resources. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Although previous excavations have disclosed no indications of archaeological significance, if artifacts are uncovered, work in that area will be halted pending notification and response from appropriate agencies. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on the site plans, if any. Oakesdale Avenue (City of Renton) will serve the project site. See LOP DEIS, sec. 14.2.1 , Transportation, and Vol. II, Technical Report for Transportation. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 16 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? None. See LOP DEIS, sec. 14.2.12, Transit System and Vol. II, Technical Report for Transportation. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None. No existing parking spaces will be eliminated. See LOP DEIS, sec. 14.4 Transportation Impacts. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Burlington Northern and Union Pacific Railroad Lines are located west of the project site, but will not be impacted by this proposal. See LOP DEIS, sec. 14.2.2, Transportation Mode Usage. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The proposed project will not generate additional vehicular trips. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. None is anticipated. See LOP DEIS, sec. 16.3, Impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 17 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: None. See LOP DEIS, sec. 16.4, Mitigation. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Electricity is currently available with sufficient capacity to accommodate the requirements of this proposal. See LOP DEIS, sec. 15.2.1 , Utilities. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Utility Proposed Purveyor Electricity Puget Sound Energy See LOP DEIS, sec. 15.3, Utilities. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Richard J. Ford Date Submitted: 1 —9 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 18 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc)-1 7/7/98 E.SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the contest of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objectives(s) of the proposal? To construct a helistop to support the occupants of the BCAG headquarters Building. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? Alternatives were not examined. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Not applicable 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Renton Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? No. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Not required. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 19 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 Exhibits Site Plan & Neighborhood Detail Map A Legal Description B Wetland Map C Surface Water Management Analysis D Flood Plain Map E Surrounding Property Owners F FAA Application G Project Narrative & Justification H Exhibit A . - -I - -,,r- \\_-„:•3 L ,,g i I i \--sit '. . 19k 1.',:-"" _ ''''• ' ..„- --..;,,;,,,00,4:::!•it'nal it.g....tral.. r.40„,...,.,,,.' -- nre,_.. „.„,,,, 1 ____7_,____,-. --...tom.,,,Zrisr4r-leer•PkIn11,01ell V•clara i •0,.- """--- — ---; -7" .. *047,;!,!rmirV-q":".."",4. • •')i, ... . b;‘ ' -'11 /11 , 1.• ..2:,....:::.i:':;;=.`r I .........' ..". ''`7"'.. ,5" .:..1 V. 1 I :j• qlS I it'':i•li 1 : I ,-*-'.. • ' CSTC BLDG. 25-01 i WI" :Y.A. 0...T..-- \ 7: —1.r,,,I., i El - .!'• , : - j.l. ....c_.. li• . •'•7/ li ''' .":,... ‘)./Ak. '4'., ::: •:. I 1 / ,: i .„...... .., .. • I, .. , , •,..., , . • ,. •r'. ' ''', I ' i' • ', .-----. =441'/:i- •'' ' I'': ':.• • 441,•,. i ,_, . . .‘. , . , , .. • •—.; ,, „ ..___...... .. ,..: .... ... „1..... -._.,..-. 4:.,:,,-.;,• -..".-: , -... - -,.. r, „ - .-. ..i. - - ts .: .: ••I'i.: ...3 • k,,'I ;, 11. 41 • z.k... ---A ,r,' ij)i /‘ .S/ '‘•:',5,.'! ':. •'..:(::::C A i . !;;: ‘:, • _i' I,,,-_)...- , . ,4.).,.. ..,_ , 1• \ *--1. 'A'N- - 1 - .,._.,„.„...:::::. . ....„ ....„-..... ,,,,,,..•: A::• ; :1 A - . .Z.:;:*:::. :',.::' vs ,..::,!'• \\•:,.. :ii ,,,, \ , '1_ . : ...... • i: : : ::,...-..,.__...,........ ...," , 1,14,„; , , _. . _.. iy . . ..„ , --.- _ -___ • 1 ..,.:,,.. .... ----:--- Jek6f11, 'Hi .' • 1 ••... ..,_: :, . ... . ,,/,‘„,,.,,, • •-„:„._____<--,.....„........../r. \\ 0.11'." •---:....7 1 k , 0 i ..4.'!--.1 ,:i I 7 — !!! 1 if , -......, •-c.o , -... ..... .. ,I I , „..:--0. :i -- tamigumv.111PL,„.4 • 1 25- 10 f.N.,..... 14,.• .,..1 s,....„,-. . . n<_,,i,'; ..;:.'E•,-/- ,/ ,;- . ! !) . 1 . . - -. 1.1.• -. //, .... .- - I .' • • " . -i • • , : . /..... .<-7--:-‘...-- ;---s, ., A':•:•••••F4....t •' .. . . 1.•11,C0:••••7,:...„ T ,,,,,, ci- f.,-- , 411 • I • E- i I . I •__, ! : ,, .- -N,,,, \ _ t.17.: : ......-- , • : ,,x --;.,,::;•.:: li/ *,- • ', •• • dilili :III ,. , : • f p, I. ••••.,.......) ! et 1, MI t,j' . I .: '•I h;11 I I% I ; : 1 1 IIIIIIIIIII . • • 1 In's: i \ 't f = • ! i i . • \,....„:,k, ........../ ii i , ... ' 1-\ % A . . i I •••• 1,!r• ;i ‘CV V' • ' il • I • I •:•• -1 I • I .-1' !: 1 ! t f i i ..- ._ M d! 4;1 \ • .=. :t4 ,,, s __ , I..;1 .1 . •4 .I:MIMI .. -4k. r....t : I 1 i • i. 1 f -:.:: :: I t 'I ; 1 .'t•• i ' : • •..:''. :\,.. `•••,:•••..,.. VII • 1111';'i-- -I .... ; Ile ii • • • . • • •-.1 . 1 ; . : , . , — • •. • .. 1 I ! ....._ . i i l .,.!••••\`..., .• \ ;J: I I .. !I n ! HELISTOP \ ., ., __ \ \ • f PROJECT SITE .: ,v.. ....._._ ••••111 II• - • t: -1 liLb gi•I'51 I I I .•••• I.- -,14,40 al'' Ill „,-...r• e _ - . u_ t, 1: r•' W, i: a.i flt • W: t > __ .-., , • , As ir :.,"... -•• f' t,:i;.••'4 :•,..r:Sfi:40ort7S--....(.•-•-•‘, i4"'"*" 4-Z4.s.•44i.j....4.. . .'. :1;i: I 1 I I , I ' 6/lIglii i / • ... .... .4.. .j..:7.••••?-1! ' 14 . 'Pw'Atr•al'I;j1titr'•• .I4 e‘: / 1 14 '1 • 1' ; V: ! I HELISTOP PROJECT 1. ;. , , ., ...• ; ,,-: •,• c• ..., ; ; :.,i• r,,,sr—) ,, 4 :: ,i ' • ) !.jf .sr`c, SITE PLAN NOTES. • :: i, L .1 '•?i:j( --v ••,.. , _ , ., -e.„ , ;-#::.4.„4,. ..,_,....... ..,_•-,--:::,, ...z.,,•:,,...„-: •• ..,:...._:„ :., :...s.:..„, „,„,44:_.„.•• 2......,.......„..,...z....:„..,,•, .. , „...$.., 1 1 . 1,1,..,,,, . ...„,„: • . , ... PROJECT SITE AREA: 3. 1 0 AC (APP R 0 X) --'.. 1 ,. .... • ,. TOTAL 3UILDING AREA: N/A _. n _01 !, .: :. — ' S\\ Z I SI c,., ,- , 1 :, 2:. •__. . PARKI \G SPACES REQUIRED: \/A , PAKI \G SPACES PROVIDED: \/A PA <I \G SPACE 3IVE\SIO\S: N/A • 1 . TOTAL LAN3SCAPI \G: • 0.5 AC . , REQUIRED SET3AC <: 80' DIAMETER F.A.T.O. PROPOSED SET3ACK: 80' DIAMETER F.A.T.O. PLAN C IV I- L. . INC _ SITE . 600 108th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 100 50' Q 100' 200' (4 2 5) 45 2-8000 P'\JOB\01 3747\2210\DWG\SEPA0348.dw_q loneke/6.24.98 • . . ' .. . . _ . . ' iill ..,. • ....... .. . . . ...•••••'.......;•••'""1 • '.'t '' • • '', Cn ...,-•......,•• \`, lil , ..-• .....• .... ... -- .•• . %; 0 : ........• ....•• ...• .....•••• • .. 7 ..........• .....•••• ..•••••''*: \ % r . . ..... -•..--•. ........-••-• ••• ...••••........•-••••• •••• ••••- ', ', VI ••••.......:::.:* ..-- ••^•- •-••- , , .... : •-•••-`,,.......• • .- : . , .. ....••-"- ,,,.... ....,.•••••.......•-• . .....-•_-::::::—., r-- i. ...-•••.."....;••'•..." 1 I . • .\•`‘,4"'i .••1,••••-`..... ---- - .......-._ -- ...--- . : ...... ., . - ..-• -- - ... . . „. ,,,,,,,,, ,\---,-,,..-- \ -- 0 5 ......••••'"„.. V#4, • ',' ..;;>...' . • . \ . ..' •.',... \ .\\ \ ..... ,7 ....: .:.-::-17:. • , s.;\ //..:.:::::,...*::•............i,..;...::::,.:.,..:...;;;;;:.:7.:-..::q.::;'":......7.:17:...... •;:.:..1.7....E.,.,..E.L.-177.1417.;:::::.47f:i7,:::::::: ::-..-.--.......7.. ::"..::::: 7:-.7:::•:::t:. 7.- ---.:::'''-'-'''''':.-E:;,:::-.. ..t.7..--.22<1..,,N, k :. • ..„, - —... . ..-.. ... .L..\.','......s. , , 0 ...........;:..,..,,,, , . .-,.... .-...— - . — ---- \ ^' •• ..... .... •-, """ -...... . \ .... .4.-.:....,,' ••••?:.5' ... •`tt,...::".,,-....),,„ f..... , i,• . .• \ ...*.„ • ...::'..''''., .•-7.•,./1.. ...."1".•'' a n c: ii-r:frrrr.,77r.r... i . • CD— .:: .... . -3,„.. ... .,,..:.-., ..;......—,--..,., ii 1 : ii..--:;: \ s„••••:•. :, i 1 1.1 i '.:, .......:"..1.2.......r..- „''••:::::.::::•••••: :::::::::•"°- \ ‘•::•• S.. ...............1‘-',-'e•-: -11 L.,:.. t *---..............., : .," ..,:%;:::,:-'• i:. .11 I ....,'....^:.;''.• . •.. .., :f•I •''.••••'..'"-- .: - ,-..-•' 1 ..•1' \ ....!i ii.: 1 i ei , 1 `-• ..g S 'I 911 _ ............_ • ,, t • . .., ,., , , 0 W • 0:i e :; • i ,; _ _. • 1 -*.*R7 - f It : [ ' ',.. .••••••':.'••• ' i 1 %..-r__ __ or 0 1 ' i . •: i --. :sv•• •'. .47,47 . . . . , 7.5...7......:...1 .. ..:7:.::-...-:....-4...:::::•-::::::::'..'! pH RE 0L I JSETcOTP 'P '§•t:• •4 .';.:,.' •• • . : I .•,,, ••. • i .-•••:: SITE - tlir If rn - : CITY OF , i ..A•if ii kini •• I RENTON I ‘,,,.,:• , CITY OF ' ! I . ,........................ s . • BOEING •. TUKWILA: i I PROPERTY . . . :: - . ..... ... ,. . • ..• , r . ---.... . "" '• S.W. 23RD ST. _ i . .. ,.‘ :i 1 filliF _______LINE_ , c 1 ..... :1 1 ci 4 i., , _ 8 , • „, 73,„ S . W • A S T R I -•.- ... 1 c • 5 z : BOEING I D> , PROPERTY Fri . › 1 LINE \1/4. 2N 1-2 ) :> "ri 1 — I 1 1— --.-- -71 x i . < -) >---- >' x *,• 6 › , . ,:.• ... • < I__L_J r- -<: 1 : tii I 1J 02 '........s mz r-- 73 i Fri 10 i co ' c ___I It j>. ..--,, xi pi --‹ 0 il .. ; 0 (1) ___J = i!„ . III , .• . ,.,..... ,---> , • L .... ' S.W. 34TH STREET . ir WA,WON : 0 , ; > i 1 I r r 1 X .. i. • ! ii1. I I 1 N (x) . < 1: • I. . I j / • \ 1 1 i .....,.. • • , ........_ _ .•• • : ! • .•• . . 0 .... s... ,, ... \..s. ...,./ . .. -. ........... .... j i ... ... ,, .. _ i . r- • : ia- _. . I:i., (Al F,PI NRCOH = O)(I MAT3ELY0. ) . • ,,-_,— ....••, (I) ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ®WSDOT e BNSF RAILWAY 0 CITY OF RENTON © GLACIER PARK PROP. 0 HUNTER DOUGLAS 12) McLEOD HELISTOP PROJECT ® CITY OF SEATTLE 8 ALLPAC CONTAINER, INC. pAJoet\ot 3747\2210\OwC\SEPA0349.DWG lonekc/6.23.98 NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP — Exhibit B -King County Assessor's Account Numbers: 242304-9022 Parcel 1 000580-0018 Parcel A 000580-0001 Parcel'B 000580-0016 Parcel C 252304-9062-06 Parcel F 252304-9002-09 Parcel G 252304-9041-02 Parcel G 242304-9048-06 Parcel I 242304-9049-06 Parcel J 242304-9050-01 Parcel J 242304-9052-09 Parcel K 242304-9055-06 Parcel L 242304-9071 Parcel M • • R-6040-LLP-M087.DOC PARCEL A All that certain real property situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, being a portion of Henry A. Meader's Donation Land Claim No. 46 in Sections 24 and 25, Township 23N., Range 4E., W.M., and a portion of Government Lot 8 in said Section 24, and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the North line of'said Donation Land Claim No. 46, with the most Westerly line of Government Lot' 13 in said Section 24; thence from said POINT OF BEGINNING S00°56'17"W 1257.95 feet; thence S01°02'56"W 154.52 feet to the northerly line of the City of Seattle Bow Lake Pipeline right-of-way as conveyed by deed'recorded under Recording No. 4131067, King County records; thence along said northerly line S72°44'48"W 436.96 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 122.55 feet and a central angle of 20°01'15", an arc length of 42.82 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve N87°13'57"W 1377.97 feet to the East right-of-way line of the Burlington Northern Railway; thence along said East right-of-way line NO2°07'43"E 1709.63 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 2107.00 feet and a central angle of 14°09'08", an arc length of 520.44 feet to the westerly line of the former Puget Sound Shore Railroad Company's Seattle Line; thence along said westerly line NO2°07'43"E 221.30 feet to the southeasterly line of the parcel conveyed to the State of Washington by deed recorded under A.F.11 8412140016, King County records; thence along said southeasterly line N66°17'56"E 35.69 feet to a point on a line that is parallel with the South line of said Section 24, and passes through the most southerly corner of the southernmost of two.concrete abutments near the westerly extension of S.W. 16th Street; thence along said parallel line S87°43'33"E 67.88 feet to the easterly line of said former Puget Sound Shore Railroad Company's Seattle Line; thence along said easterly line NO2°07'43"E 11.96 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of I-405; thence along said southerly right-of-way line N81°57'27"E 43.10 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 603.14 feet and a central angle of 19°04'30", an arc length of 200.80 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve N62°52'S7"E 90.32 feet; thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line S00°22'11"W 1022.22 feet to the North line of said Donation Land Claim No. 46; thence along said North line S87°13'57"E 1462.38 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 72.83 Acres of Land more or less. The Basis of Bearings for this description is the Record of Survey for Broad acres, Inc., recorded in Book 10 of Surveys at page 2, under Recording No. 7707289002, King County records. 1 l►/7 I. , • • /L. S. 27193 'o 'fl ri5..n MAL/FWC 4/ °sr P 5T\C 11-07-91 1 ,1( LANO e PARCELA.LEG 3-2464-3806 �._....__ . . PARCEL B All that certain real property situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, being a portion of Henry A. Meader's Donation Land Claim No. 46 in Sections 24 and 25, Township 23 N., Range 4 E., W. M., and a portion of Government Lot 13 in said Section 24, and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of said Government Lot 13; thence from said POINT OF BEGINNING along the North line of said Government Lot 13 S87°26'45"E 504.52 feet to the northerly prolongation of the East line of said Donation Land Claim No. 46; thence along said prolongation and East line S02°46'03"W 1336.86 to the North line of the City of Seattle Bow Lake Pipeline right-of-way as conveyed by deed recorded under Recording No. 4131067, King County records; thence along said North line from a tangent that bears S84°32'34"W, along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 935.00 feet and a central angle of 11°47'46", an arc length of 192.50 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve S72°44'48"W 288.62 feet; thence leaving said North line N01°02'56"E 154.52 feet;' thence NOO°56'17"E 1326.91 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 15.51 Acres of Land more or less. The Basis of Bearings for this description is the Record of Survey for Broadacres Inc., recorded in Book 10 of Surveys at page 2, under Recording No. 7707289002, King County records. (-1-#11//l/ I .ram+ L.S. 27193 / � ��o, - `''ti o\-;22 "%r7 1.44 4( LAl1O 5 -r \1�ay1. MAL/FWC 11-07-91 PARCELB.LEG 3-2464-3806 • Printed a,, 0N Pa PACIFIC • PARCEL C All that certain real property situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, being that portion of Henry A. Meader's Donation Land Claim No. 46, in Section 25, T.23N., R.4E., W.M., described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the South line of said Donation Claim, and the East line of Government Lot 10 in the N.E. 'A of said Section 25; thence from said POINT OF BEGINNING along said South line N87°13'57"W 1842.90 feet to the East line of the Burlington Northern Railway; thence along last said East line NO2°06'48"E 129.69 feet and NO2°07'43"E 251.58 feet to the South line of the Bow Lake Pipe Line as conveyed by deed recorded under recording No. 4131067, King County records; thence along said South line S87°13'57"E 1377.63 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 152.55 feet and a central angle of 20°01'15", an arc length of 53.30 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve N72°44'48"E 427.04 feet to the northerly prolongation of the East line of Government Lot 10; thence along said northerly prolongation S01°02'56"W 536.89 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 16.87 Acres of land more or less. The Basis of Bearings for this description is the Record of Survey for Broadacres Inc., recorded in Book 10 of Surveys at page 2, under Recording No. 7707289002, King County records. Kl: G�� . ' /1214 44i :47.441'14 LP L.S. 27193 ` ider • MAL/FWC 11-07-91 • PAR CELC.LEG 3-2464-3806 im Printed on Recyck0 Papa - • PARCEL F All that certain real property situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, being a portion of Government Lots 10& 11 in Section 25, Township 23N., Range 4E., W.M., and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of thee South line of Henry A. Meader's Donation Land Claim No. 46, with the Fast line of said Government Lot 10; thence from said POINT OF BEGINNING along said Fast line SO1°02'56"W 255.38 feet; thence leaving' said East line N88°16'S5"W 1847.57 feet to a point on the Fast line of the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of way which is 289.12 feet Southerly, as measured along said right-of way line, from the intersection thereof with the South line of said Donation Land Claim No. 46; thence along last said Fast line NO2°06'48"E 289.12 feet to the South line of said Donation Land Claim; thence along said South line S87°13'57"E 1842.90 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 11.53 Acres of Land more or less. The Basis of Bearings for this description is the Record of Survey for Broadacres, Inc., recorded in Book 10 of Surveys at page 2, under Recording No. 7707289002, King County records. V ' F,ZNI. Gi wAsy, < , L. S. 3 z t k* t::: o 4)cal ,pWO ;( LAgp 5#_�, //27 7/ -.r FWC 11-21-91 PARCELF.LEG 3-2464-3806 • 1 . O.w.i.w....°......w°...... . . IJ/!1 PARCEL G All that certain real property situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, being a portion of Government Lots 10 and 11, and of the S.W. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4, and of the S.E. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4, all in Section 25, Township 23N., Range 4E., W.M., and being more particularly described as follows: _ BEGINNING at a point on the Fast line of said Government Lot 10, distant thereon • S01°02'56"W 255.38 feet from the intersection thereof with the South line of Henry Meader's Donation land Claim No. 46 thence from said POINT OF BEGINNING, along said Fast line of Government Lot 10, and the east line of said S.W. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 of Section 25, S01°02'56"W 1112.01 feet to a line that is parallel with and 545.6 feet northerly of the East- West centerline of said Section 25 (measured along the Fact line of said S.W. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4); thence along said parallel line N87°57'42"W 1908.19 feet to a line that is parallel with and 60.00 feet Fast of the Fast line of the Burlington Northern Railway right-of-way; thence along last said parallel line NO2°06'48"E 554.48 feet; thence N04°08'49"W 550.24 feet to a point on said East line of said Burlington Northern Railway right-of-way, distant thereon S02°06'48"W 289.12 feet from the intersection thereof with the South Line of said Donation Land Claim No. 46; thence S88°16'55"E 1847.57 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 46.06 Acres of Land more or less. The Basis of Bearings for this description is the Record of Survey for Broadacres, Inc., recorded in Book 10 of Surveys at page 2, under Recording No. 7707289002, King County records. • o C L. S. 2719 � �` F`�djp4, R 5 `‘-i//Z7-7 FWC 11-27-91 PARCELG.LEG 3-2464-3806 Printed on � PACIFIC Exhibit C iii }< / rf SECTIONS 24 25, CITY OF RENTON dh :.,�f A 4.t".r T23N R4E W.M. \ / f� 41 BOE�iVG WETLANDS MAP HELISTOP PROJECT r,'\>� =�-�-\�' CSTCLONGACRES PROPERTYOFFIC llt ` ... 7 RENTON,SEPASUBMI WASHTTINGTONLi AL \\\ t PARK (LIP) g 7 Z LECFNR 1901 OAKESDALE AVE. S.W. 1 ems-GRAPHIC JOD SCALE soo p PROPERTY LINE +`tt. MAIL STOP 20-30 WETLAND V "?t . \\ EXIST. CSTC WETLANDSDRAWING_OP_ E• d: • �.,♦.- � RENTON WA. 98055 .»'., :'; H ,' ��... area + `\ �' RESERVED CSTC WETLANDS REVISION 0 M E ', `\ it!'2 �i ! • /, /�/urif ' imiEXIST. LONGACRES OFFICE C PERMIT SET ‘-\..v. m ;(1. n T e I\\\♦ r:.P'�„�. .. r ?R. _ f'•T s\\•'' •�`1 �_.-..._��__ �' PROPERTY OF W i n r•-_;.. ¢ \. \ .--.. • ��: L :::f• �. / TILE �� : cV T •:.: F-< 1 \`- . . J i i_�a,`�" �f/ /"� ^C�CitR'PoVER-PIP�ME f •LOP at r�..5swecss: • \ ' _ I _ •7 toPROPERtti trr -ITIr•^rttrm r1r \ t. glal _ .'�•. . ✓ UNE r . )w.tw .u.t.aat wtw `r \\f�yf'I t �•) \ .sl'«j1.`INt :�•�>� q7 .._. aww�_ai - Ui...tr�..;t1t.! Iri''''''4 �;" \\�\ Y .. •W ^\:-a.., ,, V .... T. :/•:/. r: •.I C \ < I r '•ti; grta- �- .�` f, _ aev`w1 / - • Y -, ,.: ....: �-• Y i� !,♦ �� \ Z `i �}� ti -+�4�\ i! � I � tyL�� .{ j tr % / .... ..:.L is ! i.: C .�,t.i,tirmi,fiu,r V ::Iv. / t� ;,-r: j 1 1`, :t�:%- -74 i' [! % �•/j i 'lt ler, 'i'r:lt #•;mi'•� 1 , , ,�},° :. 1/F :r ' i .�_ ( h r ` �' �Y--.'*c.a s` __ i 1• r� 1. 1,!/j�/ PaRO�PERT/' 1#: : r ,4 •J 11`,1 �7M .�• �fi ; If - ontin 11794t11V tT7R I•-47 ,.ctR '2* - rj-•.r� / f ,J„_J ~ .r ::1Z �. � f j V // • ttt II �pf� py� 1(r ��a'7�^ Y LME _ . /l 4. .,'t . -i , mR Y >{ ` r-i,1 ,•-/ft\,,n • • 7--71 •;A„, -`'-'i r•+,�vt..,,.-- ;1r n •,/ 1 25-01 ( �:• ��;jl !•L 5 �p 815 j 1�{ ` f\ ijt ry.y`I Y} ♦ JSL: � , :�' %t,••� j j 25 02 , .. CSTC ti % 4't y nrad �i ISA , -.1, i ..a. " } t` / \i ;t, .. v; Ir .r•�!.&!81f'>]riR' ria f\y ) \-.' •'t,vy 4..r:. r.7% .'/� BUILDING • 7 • /� � � .. , . ......i!/r �.._. '', t t trt_,?^ui...w.?.[... �_ _•_ — q �''ii ''• �r•'.r•..r �\_�•`. r/� � \ E �.� l) \?Y- _ice- •'y��Y'. ._- -y� • )r // t_f # I i /i,�; \t\ 1:r � . • -,/ Y -\.� _two ��-rR .. ..... !„, • ,.:j; ,i ,l. 't 1 }J jj . 1. / , ,.�; . \ ,t1L i I '� i , I.rWo, .._ y.. , \�C;' �. __-i 7\ I._ y. \' `\ // j t / �7" \ .,\ / \, / ,:... -Ili ,. ,, 'l a.__ ! , ``� »-...\` j/ * ',/ / \\\ \\�♦ . t___.\ I t 7 i / � � jtt..r', / r 1 � ill { . ,_ 1. :\ `. �, «. a: // / / \\ : \\�;y \v ;Fe.-..,,,,,,...,_:..;....-., ?+ / ;r,� ./' \\\‘ 0 Q / i 11 1 .. I f �1 \ \. \ /, i♦ Ilf..�.,4f�11: / / \\\` \\%; 'i':: t;r/�\ /\t'i``'\.. ( f; �.. '\\ ,t J a jt it .a • ,\:1l 1; T1 '� \ "\ j 1"•!ai1'Ttt17 '1 ,1 Vf ! \ �` �ri�iri�i\ / °.\ 1. \ �—!/.)j% !\,\\,`y5'1r i_.�1%'1( -7 5!I Li k" f 1f!. i Z _,• -----\,...... 'V/ i \ -•J / ,l' 4 t i. �: malty t t / ` \ rC.:::':':.'".'''''"'''''' ,. .., j t ! ! ! \ ;+ \ \\\•.. f /l `•' Ill,: ii .1 ' Y)FFICE t4s"`!'! r( ii 'l //?( , \-. -.` \ ' 1 SEE ` \ ;:/ I mo\ } rr,/;/f J�:t .i I, .f Ji' it 1,e : ®• r\- �/' \ \1, 4 C•...t.�,...':01 l i \� ( go `- f / 1, 1 „,.. 1: r! • i : •,,, 7> , �'=-.4-�_:,.• -_' -�` /••.. \ \ \ y-.�-•crt. LII \. �!/ i __/- ,p/• � J,�/�/ /i r; , 11 �Zi � !1 if.!? � 't � ; -� �:� ��t, �' • \,,,,,,,,,.,, �' W \ .... :r '''• 4! d I' — �(�/j��.: ' //�' i` il ! i !t �' < \ } III.. Lry-. ,.. j. \ \ �,•• ..7 ` \�. ::?;;}�\ rr '�% ,� __ /%%": /�/ / t ..1 u; I ;�1 ,. `t. if.. \ ,\}1 . \\ \t \ v- f f.//f, !.,' \ -_—% �� //r �i',•r .1.. ! f t r t : ' `EX NG . ;I' i\ \\ ./. \ \ . \\ r li _ •ii i.,.:r.er .�I.I• _— _ _ -/ ,1 -.7 •1 ; i ;I\11 :I / \\ •. // Q�� 3y f; \\``\,,, ;\ "7 t`kL y '-.__. ._..._ _ r_ _ .. _ .._-4.:, l�%.� V I} i . Y ,•f!• iii•Q ii i {° l iij , 1 (jt STOCKPILE i`1,.• `a`,,\ j \ ` - _` ..awe--.. _ZeC :a.' Y' ` y/' ,,-iq..L ^-�0— �L t I rI " 1• \ ( J. 1Tjj, ` \ ^.\I , ...... ..., \ ` \ ! —._...__. h „yd. �• \1 iv..eL�I r 11 iL t• it i 1,i 1 !I , O • ,, \ \r ; ) • i y , _```—\�.... .;- ; :s 1 f e...__.__a I,! :i II �Li / �,;\ • 1 ter.,. / :' /` , \ a E� .. .•.®... •t!vL'_r:w....r' .._=-•' - ..y,,.._... -. ! _,....._ li t r� it r \\\ \\t• �1.\---�'\ \_.��yy,:.;;..:.r.^'� :► _.rd..._ tii f'-�� . '\ i tr--� �,/ �'!�'-'t. -��-_�`.�.. :..�j.� /" �:x .::�\ \ 1 \ �•;,'� ,,,SiY��ats•. - LOP PROPERTY LINE �; _ - � - _ !.. _ �4�Mr _._. '.:G....... ..- ... ._...... BURLINCTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY t .._.. _. . ..1:."-**1.:!::. .. -.. .._ -_ - u \\\;\\1�` Sverdrup C I V I L- INC. iS. \, :, 'L 1! i NY Exhibit D 4," _. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT OFF-SITE ANALYSIS REPORT Helistop Project Site Development Longacres Office Park Renton, Washington July, 1998 Prepared By: Sverdrup Civil, Inc. Bellevue,Washington Prepared For: BOEING Commercial Airplane Group SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT OFF-SITE ANALYSIS REPORT Helistop Project Site Development Longacres Office Park Renton, Washington July, 1998 . was 6. 4 K 4,77 22RQ•O oN Cs �,� 7/89 8 EXPIRES 06/05/ 'oo / Prepared By: Sverdrup Civil, Inc. Bellevue,Washington REPORT OVERVIEW A. Purpose This report is submitted to fulfill the Storm and Surface Water Drainage portion of the City of Renton Building Regulations, Chapter 22. The City's Surface Water Management Division requires that a Level 1 off-site analysis be completed in accordance with Section 1.2.2, "Core Requirement #2: Off-Site Analysis" of the King County Surface Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. B. Introduction The Boeing Longacres Helistop Project Site is located in the City of Renton, Washington, on the Boeing Longacres Office Park property. Longacres Office Park ("LOP") is a corporate office complex developed by The Boeing Company on the site of the former Longacres Park Racetrack in Renton, Washington. The 1994 EIS prepared by the City of Renton analyzed a preferred alternative Master Plan for LOP. This preferred alternative projected the construction of approximately 15 buildings on the 164 acre site over 15-20 years. To date, property immediately north of the LOP site has been developed by Boeing for its Customer Services Training Center ("CSTC," 1993). Within the LOP campus itself, both the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters Building and the Boeing-Renton Family Care Center (a day care facility for children of Boeing employees) are currently under construction. In addition, an extension of Oakesdale Avenue SW, which will serve as a major access to LOP, is currently under construction by the City of Renton. The proposed action is to install and construct a private helistop facility, which will be constructed on an existing paved parking area. Infrastructure improvements will consist of less than 5,000 square feet of new pavement, helistop marker lighting and striping, a windsock and surface water management biofiltration facilities (filter strips) along the access road to the helistop. The site location and vicinity maps are detailed on Figures 1 and 2. Helistop Project Level I Analysis Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 013747\22I0\engr1/41m_IvIl.doc Page 1 Jul) I99R II REGIONAL OVERVIEW A. Green River The watershed area of the Green River above Renton is 450 square miles. Above the Howard A. Hanson Dam the watershed area is 215 square miles. The Green River flow is controlled by the Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, which is responsible for the regulation of dam outflows from the Howard A. Hanson Dam at Eagle Gorge on the upper Green River. The regulation limits the flow at Auburn to less than 12,000 cfs for up to a 500-year storm frequency. This flow rate represents a 2-year recurrence flood event if the stream were not regulated. The flood profiles for the Green River in the vicinity of the Longacres site indicate the same flood elevation for both the 10-year and the 500-year flood frequency. Flood profiles of the Green River with and without levees generally indicate the same elevation of 23.2 feet in the vicinity of the CSTC site, opposite S. 158th Street (Longacres Way). Elevation 23.2 is significantly below the West Valley Highway which is at approximately elevation 25 to 29 adjacent to the project site. Therefore, floodwater from the Green River will not enter the site during a 500 year or lesser flood. On July 18, 1985, the Green River Management Agreement was entered into by King County and the cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila. This agreement was updated in 1992 and generally outlines and provides guidelines for improvements, monitoring, operations, and financial responsibilities. Important operating procedures are presented for the P-1 pump station, including maximum pumping rates from Springbrook Creek/Black River as follows: Helistop Project Level/Analysis Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 013747\2210\engrAdm_Ivll.doc Page 2 July, 1992i Black River (P-1) Pumping Operations Limits Measured Green River Black River (P-1) Flows at Auburn Maximum Allowable Pumping Gage (cfs) (cfs) Less than 9,000 cfs As required 9,000 cfs 2,945 cfs (I) 9,500 cfs 2,900 cfs 10,000 cfs 2,400 cfs 10,500 cfs 1,900 cfs 11,000 cfs 1,400 cfs 11,500 cfs 900 cfs 12,000 cfs See Note (2) Note 1: Assumes full installed capacity is available. Note 2: Maximum allowable pumping rate is 400 cfs to zero depending on levee monitoring by King County Director of Public Works or his designee. Further restrictions on P-1 pumping capacity may be required per the Pumping Operations Plan. B. Springbrook Creek The confluence of Springbrook Creek with the Black River is established by FEMA as the upstream end of the P-1 storage bay of the Black River. This confluence point is 0.6 miles upstream of the Black River P-1 pumping station and 1 mile upstream of the confluence of the Black River with the Green River. The watershed area of Springbrook Creek is 21.9 square miles with the following peak discharges: Peak Discharges CFS at Confluence Design Storm Event Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) 10-year 590 50-year 930 100-year 1,100 500-year 1,550 Helistop Project Level I Analysis Sverdrup Civil, leo. 013747\2210\engr\dm_Ivll.doc Page 3 July, 1998 In the area of the project site the 100-year flood elevation is indicated as 16.4 at SW 16th Street and 16.0 at SW 23rd Street. This is because the 1989 FEMA update for lower Springbrook Creek only extended up to SW 16th Street. The _ drop in flood elevation upstream of SW 16th Street is a discrepancy between the 1989 FEMA update and the previous study that was not resolved. The flooding elevation of 16.4 is obtained by using the 875 cfs capacity of the P-1 pump station in operation at the time of the FEMA study assuming no pumping restrictions from flooding on the Green River when a 100-year flood occurs on Springbrook Creek. The highest elevation occurs in the forebay when the flood flow is less than the peak of 1,110 cfs, during the downward leg of the hydrograph at a flow rate of approximately 785 cfs. This high water elevation in the forebay is 15.0. This elevation is used in a HEC-2 (Hydraulic Engineering Model for Floodway Water Surface Profiles) to generate upstream water levels to SW 16th Street. This results in an elevation of 16.42 at the SW 16th Street bridge. The FEMA data does not include provisions for the SW 16th Street Bridge with a 60-foot span compared to the old span of 36 feet. It does not include the new multi-barrel box culvert under Grady Way, the box culvert constructed under I-405 or the completed P-1 Channel cross section from the mouth of Springbrook Creek up to the SW 16th Street bridge. The City of Renton authorized R.W. Beck and Associates, Inc. to complete the "East Side Green River Watershed Project Hydraulic Analysis Report," dated December 1996. This report recognizes conditions beyond those of the FEMA studies, such as the current Black River Pump Station operation plan, Black River Pump Station capacity, P-1 channel improvements, future land use conditions, the proposed City of Kent Lagoons project, and other infrastructure improvements planned by the City of Kent and the Washington State Department of Transportation. The result of these improvements and future development result in Springbrook Creek water surface elevations considerably lower than those reported by FEMA, in fact, the most extreme water surface elevation reported is approximately 13.2 at the practice track outfall under future 100-year, "storage" conditions assuming no further capacity improvements. This is 3.2 feet lower than that reported by FEMA. The City of Renton now utilizes the results of the latest modeling to determine flood elevations for the purpose of compensatory storage. The City of Renton is currently coordinating additional Springbrook Creek channel improvements from SW 16th Street upstream to a point south of the future Oakesdale Avenue SW bridge at Springbrook Creek. These improvements are being constructed concurrently with Phase 1A of the Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension to limit disturbance to the creek, wetland areas and adjacent property owners. The improvements will reduce flood elevations somewhat from current conditions by improving channel capacity and storage volume. Helistop Project Level 1 Analysis Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 013747\2210\engr\drn_IvIl.doc Page 4 July. 199h C. Black River The Black River as it exists today is 1 mile in length and its confluence with the Green River is 11.0 miles upstream of Puget Sound. A pumping station is located on the Black River 0.3 miles upstream of its confluence with the Green River. The watershed area at the pump station is 24.8 square miles, which includes the 21.9 square miles of Springbrook Creek. The pumping station has no gravity flow provisions. All upstream flows must be pumped up to a gravity open channel which discharges to the Green River. The fully installed nominal rated pumping capacity of the station is 2,945 cfs. There are eight main pumps with one of the larger pumps currently off-line. There are five diesel pumps rated at 514 cfs, two diesel pumps at 150 cfs, and one automated electric pump rated at 75 cfs. The FEMA study was based on the nominal installed capacity at the time of 875 cfs as the pump station's firm capacity of maximum discharge. The pump station has a forebay (called the P-1 pond storage area) that was expanded by excavation in 1984. The pump station's current installed nominal operating capacity is 2,431 cfs. The 1989 FEMA study indicates that peak outflows from the pump station had not exceeded 525 cfs (November, 1986 event with nominal P-1 pond storage). On March 4, 1991, the pump station operator reported a pumping rate of 750 cfs. During the February 1996 event the pump station operator had to operate 1 large pump, the two medium pumps, and the small pump for a combined nominal capacity of 889 cfs. According to the pump station's operating plan, the first large pump is to be activated when the level in the forebay reaches elevation 4.0. According to FEMA, a Green River flow of 12,000 cfs equates to elevation 19.0 downstream of the pump station. The pump room floor elevation is 25.0 NGVD. Since all upstream flow must be pumped the electric pumps are automated by float switches. The larger diesel pumps must be manually started and are used as required to pump out the storage pond. Trash racks are cleaned periodically depending on the debris build-up. There have been some flap gate failures with the rocker arm breaking off. However, the pump bays can be isolated from backflow with stoplogs. Helistop Project Level I Analysis Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 013747\2210\engr\drn_Ivll.doc Page 5 July, 1998 An upstream fish ladder at the pump station is operated during the upstream migration period from mid-September through January. Between early April and mid-June the downstream migration is accommodated by an air lift system. A simplified fish counter consisting of a paddle in the upstream migration trough counts electronically the number of fish passing. Historical fish counts are as follows (H. Allmendinger, personal communication): Black River Fish Counts Season Number of Fish 83-84 155 84-85 119 85-86 47 86-87 82 87-88 166 88-89 95 89-90 77 90-91 70 91-92 107 92-93 291 93-94 120 94-95 268 95-96 355 96-97 206 III OFF-SITE ANALYSIS A. Study Area Definition and Maps The tributary drainage area to the proposed project site is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 indicates that under existing conditions, the proposed project site is within Drainage Basin 4. There is no runoff from upstream areas draining to the proposed helistop project site. A portion of the runoff from Drainage Basin 4 is collected in the building, landscape or parking areas of the Boeing BCAG Headquarters Building project (under construction) and directed to existing Pond "B." As described within Section IV(B) and Figure C.1 of Drainage Report - BCAG Headquarters Building 25-20 Site Development, Sverdrup, July, 1997, Pond "B" drains through a 24-inch diameter reinforced concrete storm drain constructed as part of the 25-20 development, and joins an older 36-inch diameter corrugated metal storm drain at Manhole H5 before discharging to an open swale in the area of the original practice track. The practice track swale empties to another existing 36-inch CMP which outfalls through a flap gate at the east property line. From the property line, Helislop Project Level I Analysis Sverdrup Civil, Ino. 013747\22I0\engr\drn_Ivll.doc Page 6 July, 1998 flow travels easterly through an existing swale before entering a third 36-inch CMP which discharges directly to Springbrook Creek. The remainder of runoff in the basin is collected by several swales within the former main racing oval of Longacres Park. Flow from these swales joins discharge from Pond `B" at existing Manhole H2, and is then conveyed by the same system described in the previous paragraph. Springbrook Creek is more than 1/4 mile from the proposed project site. Construction of this project will not affect the boundaries of the drainage basins. Runoff from the helistop facility will flow to either Pond "B" or the swales within the original main racing oval. B. Resource Review 1. Critical Drainage Area The proposed project site does not lie within a designated critical drainage area as indicated within Reference 3 Critical Drainage Area Requirements of the KCSWDM. The study area falls within the City's East Side Green River Drainage Basin, which has been extensively studied and modeled by the City of Renton. 2. Floodplain/floodway (FEMA Maps) The project site is in the vicinity of Springbrook Creek, which has an associated floodplain based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping. This project is outside the limits of the floodway but is within the flood fringe, or that portion of the plain outside the floodway which is covered by flood waters during the base flood. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 53033C0978F and Flood Profile 45P for Springbrook Creek, the 100-year floodplain elevation in the vicinity of this project is 16.4 feet based on National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929. Actual floodplain compensatory storage volume calculations will utilize the appropriate City of Renton-established floodplain elevation, as described in the City's Administrative Policy Determination, dated June 26, 1997. This determination makes use of the City's hydrologic and hydraulic model results rather than FEMA mapping for determination of compensatory storage requirements. No portion of the project will be subject to flooding based on the City's 13.2 foot floodplain elevation, therefore, no compensatory storage volume is required. Helistop Project Level I Analysis Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 013747\2210\engr\dm_Ivll.doc Page 7 July, 1998 3. Other Off-Site Analyses Other drainage reports in the vicinity of this project site are those prepared by Sverdrup for previous Boeing Longacres site development projects. The reports are: . CSTC Site Development TIR, October, 1992 . Drainage Report - BCAG Headquarters Building 25-20 Site Development, July, 1997 . Drainage Report - The Boeing Family Center Building 25-10 Site Development, January 1998. The drainage issues raised in these reports were addressed during construction of the respective projects and do not constitute problems at this time. 4. Sensitive Areas Folio Wetlands - No portions of the project area are listed as wetland areas in the folio, however, wetland mapping was previously completed for the Boeing Longacres property, identifying a number of wetland areas. Existing wetland areas are currently protected by filter fabric and chain link fencing, which will left in place for the duration of construction of this project. The nearest Longacres wetlands are within 50 feet of existing pavement proposed to be converted to the project site access road. Stream and Flood Hazard Areas - No portions of the project area are indicated to be within streams or 100-year floodplains, however, the project site drains to Springbrook Creek, which is a Class 2 stream (with salmonids). Springbrook Creek is approximately 1,600 feet downstream of the proposed project site. Erosion Hazard Areas - No portions of the project area are classified as erosion hazard areas. Landslide Hazard Areas - No portions of the project area are classified as landslide hazard areas. Seismic Hazard Areas - No portions of the project area are considered seismic hazard areas. Coal Mine Hazard Areas - No portions of the project area are considered coal mine hazard areas. 5. SWM Division Drainage Investigation Section Problem Database No problems are documented at this project site. All drainage, flooding or erosion problems within the Springbrook Creek main stem are being addressed by the City's channel improvement projects. Helistop Project Level I Analysis Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 013747\2210\engr\drn_lvll.doc Page 8 July, 1998 6. USDA King County Soils Survey This information is shown in Figure 3. The soils within this project site are _ classified as Urban Land. C. Field Inspection Sverdrup completed a field visit May 28, 1998. The temperature was about 65°F and the sky was clear. According to National Weather Service (NWS) records for the Sea-Tac International Airport Station, total precipitation for the 6 days preceding the May 28th field investigation was 1.00 inches. The investigation revealed that some portions of the existing Boeing drainage system (open channels) outside of the CSTC, Headquarters and Family Center sites were covered by vegetation, but no evidence of flooding, erosion or plugging was apparent. It was also noted that the proposed project site discharge location at Springbrook Creek was operating correctly and showed no signs of erosion. The discharge point is a 36-inch steel tide gate at the practice track outfall (at the east property line,just upstream of Springbrook Creek). D. Drainage System Description and Problem Screening No problems were noted. E. Mitigation No drainage problems were noted, therefore, mitigation is not required. Helistop Project Level 1 Analysis Sverdrup Civil, Ino. 013747\2210\engr\drn_Ivl1.doc Page 9 July, 1998 HELISTOP PROJECT SITE DEVELOPMENT „„„,1 \ 4r U r ,., " i'•lir; ' r : v Clyde El I ,,,f , s i s Te 5 HilP • Inglewood it 1. y i g T7anl+ ��• 5 at) NON If ^Ir. rJllie CNII•'\I i a ,, m �` ; IxTN _f7� fY`F S •@�p�f @ 1." Seattle, \• .••'_ Medin• „ . o�.� ; G_ *o per/�j�y!! �h,Celina • ,anlf Bellevue ( 4 , 1• _�_ Pd;Plr.r,inah:rl',,.Y`0� i Coll Col • r'y, S s= 3 �t7 305 _ ,Yaltt.,,,gaalma:' 1_i♦ I 1"-"' i tti I, i rip Dlnwmiah.- — _ - '('un . t t my Kulgdom. l, ` s ✓ : E 6CA \, # ' Y Ristor to 5, / f T3nR f ©4 • _ •ih♦ 3 l00 ,' rl r 11 'Point ,l r5F ,!f'T I 'Pant lit. - R,r lin s _ a \ •tip Jv �7 I i PoeN ,r E '' .,row■ ,f 1_iilA ,,,3 I >,i s O MTn S s' Eastgdte tMD . \ii/� 4. ..��L:;n' ,'� % ,n •♦`=<Bellevue nAe `� �. WAY 1 Commumry 3 /�. IE@ o vY\w T �� ` '.f M'rCe �> Cortege— ®4 rat'Sarkimamish ' 1s] ind'� ' $ rt Hi115 is• MI cast CREttTTN ST•EN E� ,� ry Mu.evm of ' °try• .3_MnT ---1 s ` Fii•,rN e Issaquah t80 'at ,:,EDe■xw•sT 'a, ♦�f I y N 3DT/sr • evrN /" H \ J a -'(I '15 AI s White & CD �:♦ i� uv yl 'ON,. s� Do/DAm \ Center \' i0 y i� Pbfnf \ . b'♦�h ♦ Reim: y h1 •t t -10 t "vi\ ..'�...tt . ii ) ... 1.. w ®TN ST� Y S ntoncl/'',o ErXEfT SE 12eTN STx RI N. \ • :? 4 1 • 'ti 900 .i t.'NE Cc Rw' T, i41(EY r,O T \ Riverton ,4%t V) '''w S /41 ,♦ ' Heights ,,.,nn o vukwila �- 0 �`.Point Buries sT o '• r•® —. \z , • ' .. Z in ,'EWES , `J ��SEA 5sT ♦•• •"'r. • ® y 4,Iy EENTON®...LE-- v',� • SEA-TAC ;.�I "'.1%I �t V COVE IA/■t S�v. 5 INTL ® z nw• r s •o .RPOR X +� .o • teTN ST Fairsvood t , Vashon �au+r A 1 ��r .T `o^ 6 .t.M n b z •C,JF o ErE4 * o sT i Normandy • o IteTH STeto PRO . CT \1 P rk aC '' o S1 Sxo.TX Vashon \ EAST ® ,S 5 Wei E� E I < E •Center J\ �®1' - W; dp/ 6 \ O ®" SE 12 • Si I o• Des 4` © 5 212TN • b' d N SW •4`411P _ 1 v /.Mall` O sE N • Valley j. Sxxwm s�' -4.---------._ Moines ,2 IT. l .<' t(TH 4c ,1 zw IaPAR' NON RD� Robinson 1 • Kent se xoTN ST SE xoTN ST `y'• •Burtm po,nt Zenith . n 11 ii i M, 3 F / Y`' 0° Highlne Q 0VtaSr Q 4 1 ?E �a°OOckton`or 5� Saltwater �° m S 3�•ol 4 t A • 0 ,e „4s 2T2ND ST i 4 - --IUNGIE, •a oner) _ r t'• �- PASSAGE en Q \ el Covington Est SE xTarN sr r. Redondo♦ 1 s nn. Si - • Tq,, F ✓ Point _�/IL y ®; i tFl 'INDTaT"'",E ED< RM/ R >~ Green u River 0 Dash 5 Community College b �I.rc„n,. ._ oftc E -/ 's Point 6 q '', 3 V l5T 5T SE axrN sr s� f ——1 PbwTt .-, xioni ST O i®• , e1N ST SE n -MACE oTr.M4vQ b■D •nPm+, Feder.I W: :n;. �onflIji o Auburn �,� to ):...,, 1 t ' E�IY t. _rk n sw c„M ....�D�•O�®/♦_ ,v • _ ,NmfY �.I�..., ...�^tt^`eve^�4 =<..la N . onEM CEMENT 4 ELW �r y LOCATION MAP Source: Washington Official State Highway Map,WSDOT FIGURE 1 Helistop Project Level 1 Analysis Sverdrup Civil, Ino. 013747\2210\engAdm_lvll.doc Figure 1 July, 1998 HELISTOP PROJECT SITE DEVELOPMENT -/;'Black • .--Riuer V .3 `\ - C ,./ ,•` B „3 I ' 17 ` i /,7z ., — ' 11' 'umping sta 1, 1 El (till' P.1..v a, g f Ii1 iipmp� ' _ , �� if 11'.'i • 1p r or0 ,s _ ■ ii I .0 %.,IWO • 113,1,...---N ,..-.....„. iossik rlanA0Qs. _ .---f.. GR.,1-":--:_ ----, .. .• •:... -04 1,,,L N,-14:31111111111 IP* it iv !. 3 \tiZ%�.r o . . _ ,," r l'iji!.-7 7113E3.--:- , ,-. . :- .-.7.1 ,.7r-\-4111141,44k4S \11, ft ' 1 ' ' .e." ' \\ Pla' bill. \ 1 hiTV 1 A P - - I It - fli 4,7)., rillaii k 4' �_, (.- • PROJECT SITEif"' r !be i . i/L lij...11 I 46 M i ,/! ��'\, ' ��, III _ iil� _,,,,-oe y 'I .ram , 1ii!: .., .., ,,,,,, • . '14-- -- 7/,, ...„,,,_ ,.6 - ,,, �� .,kaa I I �oil \ j ;, ' , N, I! -- .1 ' \ . ;.. ,' 17.1 / .s0 # /iiir-- . ,- / \ , 1 ;;;/1.--:.:\ • Gree, iins - 1i i It. -" ---I�� - 0 ji. .. ,L. • '•, 1=� - .1 L, i � , - r11l1 A‘t. ,�, ,6Orillia IIII 1 a 1 . . '• Y ` ) •i�i\ , -- )' ------------- Zoit7,-• - ,- •. • • F '' '' -i 4111.4111\A011)\''. • I 1 i LiZINI___________r\im I I '11‘\ i NM ; ' Pig 1( "' r:-..„..„' C<.- VICINITY MAP Source: USGS Renton Quadrangle FIGURE 2 Helistop Project Level 1 Analysis Sverdrup Civil, Mo. 013747\22I0\engr\dm_Ivll.doc Figure 2 July, 1998 - .SUB ,. ' •"-- BASIN - . ' 0 46 , . ;:*, 4,i • 4 A.141S1,A,, SCALE: NONE SPRINGBROOK CREEK .. . ‘N.4.. .,.,:lKO'•r ,' --------_ ,,, '\ .•e 1:1, - ----'.,.-'•91N•*'•'••••• 7--- -. - . . ,\ -4-• ., • 444 r "\‘_.-.%••••-..:'..N.:. gir — —,---,--- -;.,,,,) i ..-_ A N'';.. rt, k ..- --,•.- 4' , I 1 .-• C 4 - 'i •--4......4''...--,.:4,'" • ..?; : e ,,,.,.. ..-• .......-„,....„ .. ,r,jr, .; •......,...%.---,,,,4, ,i, \ • '-.. .'* •' ' I ( .'---* .,k...s'N ' --- - •A,:,Li• ::,.. ,,:. 4 ;,...;17.-,,icio.,-..1;s -• , -!--,‘ --..----.0---e xtw_ •• • ; ,-. ........ ..,......44r -- -----,..01, --------"-.- ' ---- i •-..e, 411114_1_,—' '.,- - ,-{,444Wil MARI%h*,, -.. • k.,,,z, 4....4..ya. .:,...r.r.-.-.---i'j''' -.,...-_--.. .. .c....-..r--P.k. r"gir-44.--;.... -,••••••••- •- _...r.,...... . ,„.. -_,... .-,........_;..... .,,,..........-...----,...,27 ..___,-,_- .101 . :-,- .,. I '0 .1 \ „ . • 1 k ,,,\\\• 6,4-744,1411ritt-lois- ,- -- ilia* ir..1 ..implin.- -, r,-.•- -• . (_ mu n41: , 4.: .''''Ir t 1.v.7- --i ib. '! D ..4 .I .. i .. •"fflrfAr 4Ni . ..-, i.,..N" low..za.t, 2 ! t.... er • '': ):, P,iiirlIC4--telltf j. -7: --- 'r'' "'''.. s'" 171fAiMilMlf.- . - .1' ‘'.a.--: ,•' , Al\--;"" 4 ' OW ' r'n4Sti4:',461 I __ `• \ . ._:.,.... . .1 I tge....-- -t—2 0 4.+-'ir44.1•"--r-i. ...jsi4';''.1-----. .'" -"'I'iltir.r .-- - 14 li" . . ' '--'-'11141116'1"1 - ft ' °.'1-1* I kNolo .,_,''' ' k.R' -7'It 1 '1 • .........._.,. .......4...... _ '1111110.-411 .111 M. 'NThtt • \ : : PR eimirrei.•- ••ir-• ... .7_,....,,TiLet, w.„.••-..... .7/ ..., n, II 4 ,4,\• );10.st.:„ill .1..) . 111").(1.011 r - 11- :10, N, Nilitiii( I 1 i r alho , !.1 ij,40in ; IltItigN,. I i ti •• _. . --- 3 cli''' .1 .7.b7._......... Iiiii• I ''.!:7'...:4:: . r ( ''' . :)fli 11.7!%\tz:1\:4'''''L.,__•::..7 .11711_14itre:'4.1:/ ./I '. ) 14':'111', fli , is 11 1,,,,.:i'ii:"._ i 4c SW 16th ST \ --".7i":',' •`I \ ( ••••,* , "-"--- '"''''---'------r. IN .1.1'.... ii... I-405 ' ' '..,\ il'.;1;;;7.11''?,IIIL 'JP'. c.„ ....."ttir74 '.,,,voiriro% ---;- -------1-13:5:17 . - . ' - - rill.tgrillt 11.1"..c .::'.,,...77---_,-1 .......h \ ... _ .r. 1 ,..___.‘ ii,: , ,, ilor.1,7_01_, SITE SOIL GROUPS tot,„ ,*,t 41011111FliAllft. I;ii.ili I .:.H7". -- IV .-, . •.,..„.._ z..........„.4.,E•-- '"ar....-. .. ,.. ....... Mb*. --"NMI vy -dile.' k6 1!.[1.ilk. , ...-: r .44."111.k.) U R - URBAN LAND \ - ' ' ------11"-I-er -- \ • =7-7- WO - WOODINVILLE SILT LOAM \ PY - PUYALLUP FINE SANDY LOA41. t• - • .' I3NRR-if-:......,. i --iiM NC - NEWBERG SILT LOAM , • - - • , r ,,, , - .4 ,.... 1 UPRR I ' _-_; : :i • . _ ._ 1 :--::.::'.:::i•i.::; n . .,•,- . , _. it .... . _ .... .,:.,_-_-__,•_ _ :::,. r _ • et ; CVA/01 ..........-• 'ff-f-` - .•,i: 1 i -,:•:.1?1:•. . .. ..v. ::,.:.:. 1,1 A 111/411..... - ..f •Mail.....1016-% AM LE-.. .1`'''1304 lijai '''..:1151. .:..'71. - ._ _. _ _ ... \ \ \ vt -----i ' -,-,.. 1r— • ..§ ' .iF 11 ,_____. . --* -----• s . ...,-.. "P.., mitis f 1' , .:, /.. .:,...:;:•:::• . e...,,, ,a1Mi . _.....___ ri,p,„..„,..„---- -.;,.......,. . • — - :,...._ _.....m, ,4.11,,, ,„ , ok ........_ ,,,,,s, .•,-.,.. , , ------------ T1 L,- - . -It --------•1714r.'rmr.' 5 • \ Sverdrup .......•°)""%'-'..z." CtVIL. i•JC. gm 442- vr.......... min 9en ow MIN // WNW Sit UM NM It VMS _ 11111 ACCEPT/AMY T. Ibusf: DRAINAGE BASIN MAP INECr .., _ LIII &AAC WATER iliNACEIIDIT OFF§TrigETSIS REPCRT FIG. 3 - ... I 70E%1 VC ammo rt ism MS 004.111 01241$ HELISTOP PROJECT - 011.)UIII C'"141EBsiovc 1 . 4/44/NO MI MI CTRL)MASTER LONGACRES MICE NM Exhibit E -•• t' A-.0•• ,,cy., 411911 ...00.... „ ,,, '. • 4" , ..: , MI FLOODPLAIN AREAS C-- STC PROPERTY LI .-- '''' BELOW ELEVATION 16.4 soo • r 0 150 300 I I ... ... LONCACRES OFFIC •••••-,1••••4[.. •... , (FEMA FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION) 01 . .4„: GRAPHIC RCAI r PROPERTY LINE/ .„,.....„, . • ' lee iil''.c.10 It • • :. i T.,...,•,-'c.',. ..t.,.02-'•;145'•;--..afz-t.: iiir...,.,.'life:1111V , 11,1.1 1 , i 1111,111111.111111 Irt11/ _, „Ill r PERMIT SET -1 L .7.07.02.08 j r,. . r....„ . .........„ . „ .:. , , lihilill1111 ,1,,,,, i ,1, . Iii, : i . ..,... ...„.„:,_:,..,4....,.„„ ii,o,„,„„1,.. ., ,A , 11- S‘-..Zi.'"' - -- --s f m ...., ,.:•:- dift,.:;1 . i teo; " • i v.-4a.\- ' -. •- r' !pill I 1,1 C3''' 'i..5;...;11141',41 ''1'' i044. 4 ) "-....;"A*4'> -..,.•i: ,III 11 III '••• '.'r ill IIP" 1 ':' i 111:1 ' ::‘•'"". .rA p., , != 1"111 II11'0 ; 111 '" 1 PROPERTY OF . ''''', ct'itv k:, •P. • :ni 50'. -..... :Jire oily, : 'kill ! 1, • I 1 .-2- f --: '‘"i,'II' ... !Ill!pliIII!!.,0 inimili!!! .. 0 , ' ' ifililli . glEgAZ,t,s,Z,T-TrliEp544E i i 1 •LOP ....: _. -,..:,.._.; 110-1 I Ili. ;; ' " -:•--•r;' .P"•,ti .1 1 (1""111144°11 '''''' 1111' 1111'11111111 7 • :;•-,;:s..-----.;•:, 1•;;;,,_--. .--.- A • :.,:_._ .--, j. 1: -",,.. -- .-, . ., 11 III; pil 1 ilillilly i •- ,41,„1 i.,i, I\:.. /4 ,,,,,.,,,,,,,,e4,44., :....-,-,A;.,,,• --A,...--4,-;;•:•, --- --.... _-..-- •• .----- --A," , ' '; 11 1 im Hi 1FUTaRE OAKESDALE.AyENUE'SY4._,I ;A PROPERTY LJNE e.:::..:. N-'.-ji+•rP%i.41. . ' -.:‘r. -- .:' ' i.-.,--.7--•-•••....::,..„. ,_ ..... ,„ wiliiiI" --7 --\--- -Ir-N . . "'-'7'N,77-; 74.: -1:-_:...,-:--..1 i." t•.,....4•;.r. ....,44 r•••tf.'.11..t1 0,,,...•• ,,,,..:.,,,..; .. . ,:..,. .::..::urt../..-v,Vr., ...,.. - ..v.-.1, -1..--..4!; •',C.:.S-...'T.C.:'-...:,.11•.; ..i....TtE;., - ...' .•'.VV&erAN,`4,l,,g.-w,V,,.4g,4r,t40-I iiti ctn1i4 tl11-2p't‘4-.,-44-._-.,;'-'.--,:1,-.:1..,„i,-•,-':.'.-H/-.-',...:i..,-:1• •. . ' r 'ir:,,.:,,',.i''Fsp:,(F4;- .•.:::.„,.-..'.,'.-;.:2.-'..-.-.-,,1.),--.-..-(.:..-..c) ,•.L, .7;",. "- 0,. . , ',.• / I-• .• lIII . -----' -6 I..'r ' .."-•• : . ' ' • UNE .: :-.1 11 ' / •'' 3ii, ,to• ,*5-r 4it(c-i,,,; r".,.- . .•:j- .-----, 4. i' 1:1 LY ,7----- --,: •,..--A';,_-_ ,w,::-.7.,...-:.,,,4/.; y th •'' ').'',1 -1 '•c\'',‘j• : P :•' ' 'SIT ',' . .1':' '''' ;'• :' [ ,. )--17----if•c : •,q-_-_,...:.;:::j:.(ii 1 .1... ,- •-v"„ L•- I i - -r4lef:" ...g....„1„\...i..4,...4.-,.- , -......... :-3. :....-7-•-,,-„; : '....- _.....,__. . ......t.e.L..: ..... C.-E. )ri.t.. Z ..t 1' i •Pi / 'i` 1:( . 1 ,-.., . .-' ' ---...•..-.:=.-._zz.•:::;-:::.).-,........ ;''''-- --"'=4--.-71----.-: - c• . . i: !-, -..... ; 4k.„,,,,,,,L i k, L______L:' , • . •J BUILDING ---- *'- : 11 : •-',- ',---.-:'-'4.::----.- ..----w, . . •":-*--'1 --, i.. , (c.A.. \ \ : ‘,1,11 : N... . . , , ,u• • ! ,c.-.-_-..... .• I. 1 1 'VIII ••10 0 li!i. illiki!liii:!1!::•:;F:iiiiii"11 ! I ',.,''--:3-:'-'--;•- •'::7 ............,`-.-- ') •!: ' /\•:'''"''"1 \ \ k• 1 . '.-- : ........„ - : r‘ --I --. `r . ."-- • i ) j /-'' . I 1 i• .1V:111111111!! rl 1011 1 igil 1 ilil 1 41 ili ___ , •• i,:i.; $; /7- 4 ii •Ilii illy1,5,1A. iili. 1 0, 1 'N,:‘ , •-,,,, .\ ..-..-_-•,,i--E ..;--,-,--b, • • , .... , _ .:,.. ,.., / i , ...........,„ . 1, ,„ , , .. ,-,( ‘ //it ;.. .# 11 , / !,,, . ,•7;111 r 11110 1.!klit :I! iii11111111111 1 ilk!11111"..... 1.1111111 11 1 PA 't • I/ ' 110 • .!111;111L1, 11114111111 % \ 7;$fr.",-.Wii::::e:t.• 1 :ll 1 Ii !1*--, :., ; II))"*.**,' ' f,--, -- • /- ' - ; II ,,.....,..,.... .1,, ,i,.,,,,,,,... ./...,,*Ii tc, 4:,,,,Tic :: !! 11 i ,,, I) A ? ... ......,, "I I t cer.„,..,,,,,,„4 ,J i , ,4 v(,......,..,.,„.,1,:., 1 , , . .....!.:..,1 Iiiiiiitilllilliti,i0.9.4..sFiiiiilitill iiiii.,lip 0 1 1 .111 fl \\,..:\ ,..... ..r i•.......t_.,...-J., • .1 , , 1 1 IIIII!''';':1:: if.1.... :'... .N.-'11 ::,-,i.f1W-III :: i‘: I ii :ii i:/I \,--, - --\-. su. 11.. y -11i! ii.''O 'r• fv it v7),iiii it .-.; -1\;,,, i I \\,\ .1[w---r-t-1-1 - : 1 1 „ ,•-• 11 1 11 .!!!*-11::NIN...A:::111,ii:.:. 1,.!:!1,11, ! 1 ,Iii i ..„.0 , 1 .,-11,1 . 1..o•••,!;:iiiii,,,!ki,..0::::-...--;-iissigo ,.:',.: I' rimrtkoi ..r.ii:vio;iiiiiitillilvovorr; . .....i.,„:::::....__::,..,........,•••III • ., .. , .. _,1 ,, . 11,,..: I. til. •• s,5.,,- ,-r, 'j,s 'N'L I---/---Yi4 , 4 .11,11 1.11 q ;• ', ;I' i' / 1-1 -4-• --- CO --::::: 1' , ., . .„ , ., • \ \ •,, •l''.4.1''.:;:.!.:'t::1: 1 11 ,••,. ... . 41 1 1 111111 . _...., ..,,Illiilk/1111, ' ag:i111:',. .i,1 „. .. ____.. . .-1_.„..,.,_1411111'rall'i'•: 1::1; !,..,-.14 \" r Ili :'1.'-111:11111..' i l!'" 14'. : II 'fc 1111 C ) 1 ill ((‘`.1•--s ---1.\-\c:-.7C.PN''':: ..\.!::' k,:-.VP1:-;;;14,...:14. i: I 1.,.I' i.r ! Viiiiii':" I'I ' ' .71'7 ... 411 ' ' ' .4' 1 I ill . Vu": 4 . \4 ..,,..!.....;A::-=...,....iw....iir.:::.::!.:1!rT,,,;; It a LANT,....:k - ...' 1 Ai.:11 r•I;• \‘, \.., .1'1.an'T. • 11'. 0 I 4•1';•*.' . ; - ••1 ;....,...„ ....,.134.1.141.11,i;;:i1;:;1O401111,,i11111; 1..0,01;!•!T!1.4.1'Pl;;;I.F;;;*.;0038 .0v :, 1, , 1 I ‘,....Ex1,0T.NG\ ',1., \ .v...f. li , yi 5 1.. ....„.41...ME :..1.. c. . -..!::,.:.%i i,, . il li . i:. I II / I!iil iiiiIIIIIII , ...., ....\ 1111111.11111ii 1 11111111111plpil I . I ,, .-. 41110 1 ,_.,. ,,,i ii ill .,: . !1,.j. .. ) I!ill .\- \\k' \, --,t,;:;rx.:,;!•! - .A...!'•:.. '• -1.-1 III_ POE III 1,1011 0 id 11111,II 11 !ii!!11 ill ; I 111111-'.p::::. __.:-._::-._. 4.5,-,:t,•._.. ..-__,-.:i. ...:,,,,..-ei gi .., /},/,'': wt,,t ....../1,\.. . ' ' 1111 ii!v4 19 III III III II:.1.111 LIM , \,‘ ,,%,1%„,, 1.;,..i 4 I 1 l'Ii:•...-...11.11 1 ,i,1... 0 /lir.. ,..:,..-., - ......„- 6 11111111111111111111 11111111;1111 i 1111 I ''''''' -- I III 1 .1 .1 I ..:If' .1:1 1' :ii !:I'l 1.1 .: r t? 111:(:\sTios-c:K":11"--.L:,-••••; p.....'fAl...:.1,:. :, :: .. .. „• , t,,' , .I''.11 l'l''''I II ' i 1 I I!i l! 111111 1(111 ----;.....--- )-1;(-;it.: - • i,..........-.7„ .,-..7.f..--:7:1..:.:-.-<1;:,-..........‹.:::::9 ,,.......1`,,, r \\`‘ ,4k'', iiiIi0111 111111 HO I 1 I 1 11'11 111111 1'111' 11101111 i ,, .,__-- ;- ,..---- fir-1''1;.':. ...r\---.....--j- "---' '-'.--- --"--.-.---.' - • ' I ' ".11141 1 i te?' .--.1---- '7!--.!. •111.11.1:.. J. .....qili,1!. .11 .11 ..,01,1 ..111.1. .. .. -441 -------- - :7:' ..-77: --•,•------- ,•:•:-•-1:1,•-•--'`..' - --- , •....' ....,....:.1- : • LOP PROPE/Ti LINE `, ....lior....*:-.,--,'" BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY . . •'...•',.1.8::::::.•;••••'''•• Sverdrup Lt.r....irr.„-.. ‘ ,,'itoip40 • ! : limn alms row ww \ %... ... "" "nu ,„,..., • . FLOODPLAIN MAP (10.4) low. w rm.. ww cam FLOODPLAIN ••11.• “- 170EINE' ........... ....• ..•A.... HELISTOP PROJECT ..... **.•low052 i ...; ,...„. ,.. 57E2 1.0.D.CRES Vitt PAK -CF- ......• (CVO 121 Exhibit F Exhibit G 7:- WUH rl H rr N va � v YUUH flbtt 1 - fit 1 lJ I n . r 1/ i �••' ' Cr" • ncv vwu f . .I Deportment d Icnspo otton NC ;E OF LANDING AREA PROP( 1L Fadand&elation Administration Name of Proponent.Individual or Organization Address of Proponent,Individual or Organization (No.,Street, City,State,Zip Code) Boeing Co. - Richard J. Ford P.O. Box 3707 m/s 19-35 ❑ Check if the property owner's name and address are different than above, Seattle, W d. 98124 and list property owner's name and address on the reverse. ® Establishment or Activation 0 Deactivation or Abandonment J 1 OF 0 Airport 0 Ultralight Flightpark 0 Vertiport ❑ Alteration 0 Change of Status Q) Heliport 0 Seaplane Base 0 Other(Specify) A. Location of Landing Area 1. Associated City/State 2. County/State(Physical Location of Airport) 3. Distance and Direction From Renton/Wa. King Conty - Washington Associated City or Town 4. Name of Landing Area 5. Latitude 6. Longitude 7. Elevation sae Direction Longacres Heli -stop 47 °1 . 2J1 34 1a21 14 � 114 �_ 16 n' B. Purpose Type Use If Change of Status or Alteration,Describe Change ❑ Construction Dates ❑ Public Establishment or To Begln/Began Est Completion (T Private change to traffic ❑ Private Use of Public Land/Waters pattem(Describe10-98 1 1-98 on reverse). Ref.A5 Above D.Landing Area Data Existing(if any) Proposed C.Other Landing Areas Direction Distance Rwy 11 Rwy I/2 Rwy It3 Rwy Rwy Rwy From From 1. Magnetic Bearing of Runway(s)or Landing Landing A Sealare(s) Length of Runway(s)or.Sealarie(s) Renton Municipal NNE 2NM ip. in Feet Seattle-Tacoma -Q' Width of Runway(s)or Sealane(s) International W -13NM �� in Feet Type of Runway Surface a (Concrete,Asphalt, Turf,Etc.) Dimensions Approach and 2- Take offArea(FATO)in Feet 80` DI A dimensions of Touchdown and 2 6'X 2 6' . Lift-Off Area(TLOF)in Feet Magnetic Direction of Ingress/Egress 160.57328° E.Obstructions Direction Distance a' Routes From From = Lands g Lidding Type of Surface Concrete T L-)F t Type AaAre4 Area Area (Turf,concrete,rooftop,etc.) A cph u l t FA-0 3. Description of Lighting(If any) Perimeter of Direction of Prevailing Wind Alt FATO w/ Yellow Lights F.Operational Data I 1. Estimated or Actual Number Based Aircraft Airport Present Anticipated Presort AnOdpensd F1tp ipert. (II cat Indicate 5 Years Heliport (If est Indicate S Years Simplon/base by latter"El Hence by h eti('El Hence ^ Wei-Engine Under 39)3 Da MC+1H NONF N(1N F_, Sinviam vine okerxmt MGWNONF NONE . Mar' G.Other Considerations Direction Distance 2 Average Number Monthly Landings From From Presort Anticipated ' Prosent Anticipated Identification Landing Landing (tr ast Mdleae. 5 Years • (H asr indlCSte 5 Y ears Area Area by letter'El Hence by weer"El Hence . ,let Helicopter 5 5 Talbot H i3li School E 1 NM Tvbopop fitrarcitt Renton Residential N,E .5L11'iV- cider Tukwila Residential W,WSW.5-1 N M-a are IFFI Procedures For The Airport Anticipated Sewage Disposal Plant N .5NM CA No ❑ Yes Within Years Type Navaid: Black River Disposal NE .5NM H.Application for Airport Licensing t ❑ Has Berx1 Made El Not N Required 0 County I. ❑ Win Be Made 0 State 0 Municipal Autlnority I. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that all of the above statements made by me a d corn ete to the best of my knowledge. Name,title(and address 11 different than above)of person filing Signor I thenotice—typeoAA prim -2__y frt G Z fk K- ,,C 20-3 Q 0 E, /J 6 Co f1 ft 1#1 AL t R P�n eve-, ,P Date of Signature Telephone No.(Precede with area code) it_e/ wii 98/�q- 9-20? ?.49pG T (206) 655-9888 • FIGI. C 1: HELISTOP LOCATION AP o.„ L.(`45 \.\ ''..:-/c,...-.f....: • �� % -ate Footbrid � c• / %�0 `'!,1 � �� ! \ ��• r►�.�1 7 ----7-. ..„4„„......4i a ii lir fiz.x41.11, ``ram g 1 ='(� ,.�t ■ ioi)i-c/ik l'kb,\Ik- \\�y•ari' 'ct\`• I� i 'jl ' �: It E `l�I riCT �\ 1WiN I 1 Pppwer, a � "moo �� '`''�'? 1`i .05 t;, �: ��` o�i. f,'e'` Se age B• '-• ♦ ' `�� 'Ft: 01,,,,, ‘, \ itt \INIL, ir--;;;---;::. :7 . .. L-A...-i___)... _. ::..3.4.. all 'avi \el' 47. 2114Pi9OANGIEI- .-- ; ....:-. 4.- erifilingibil \ ( \�� di . . 24 -"II Vki � � k bst Stir r 1114141_ � � o il le,gmtkAC+._.::_tt....- vt 1 11 - — - — -I „ / um ., ,3 I X '-_• ARTAIINIAk 1T1SP 1.- i;fri °I il : • ;--:VF ' r--4 I' 46 Gu r •1 ,I1 Southcenter II „ _' =y I IF)0, . . i • L Ul rAn \N Y•---—---—____ _ I it %. • =-.- -• OkMallIME1 li a i ti lel VP- I alatits*9 1 III fl?. .P.126r n "I' j 's ,' 4#4 \\ 1 7 ....-...Z . 11 t ; 140 a ird a \ iMM. Om.-■jii -. 1. - ;pin/4_ . w ■` e. I I!!Tukwila Ill" 1111111V!" d ) ., 1 1 1` i , / .: 1 . 7,tir. v.: \ 1, 1461) 1, fit.r 0 1,1 oil 6 _'.� •// �Os-� _�—♦'� - `tsar. -e • i..116,... --:___ •—• - "...1 ri 11 ' bi itai.. mitim. , „ . . -ID ,Li I./ 4i: • . "`1 • Q r. �IOw� RFMO-- -- --- ---= _� '2r��OMR j w , • ,,,1-,_c SCALE 1:24 000 r -. 1 .5 ' — iI KILOMETERS 1 y ) 1,-, /1 1000 0 METERS 1000 2000id f 1 . _0 _—__- 1 �l� MILES •: •,, 1000 ti. :' : 3000 4000 5000 5000 1000 MOO 1000 100000 ,41 + , 5L'ijr.4.1=ilill 111111111,,, ii___, H__, j -. Subs imal. rip, flit Iwo' 1p.,,..-1 - .. :. .„.. — ,...... . L. . li i • • OM-- Note: Radius shown is 1NM. Sources: USGS Renton Quadrangle, 1994; USGS Des Moines Quadrangle, 1995. .... �• �r,i.xiflr 1 �� SECTIONS 24 do 25, L RENTON,SWASH NGTON K FIGURE 2 e to ',_ _ �� T23N R4E W.M. HELISTOP PROJECT €f � - FM TIr JITiO$ — —� • HELISTOP PROJECT • . r e f, / , >� i SITE MAP / BOEING i CRAP I!IC SCALE ��,is CSTC PROP�RTY 1`f INE \ ...� �• "'` \\t BOEING LONGACRE OFFICE'• :' ��`F'��G PARK (LOP) *�� r ,:;. 1901 OAKESDALE AVE. S.W. ritlz,,,,,.:... : to,1: PROPERTY LINE > is 'F ' �(� ,�f r fir.f ..g..w,w•' MAIL STOP 20-30 4' `�.. ,t. ;,-��,�'�'� yF Fd,`, RENTON WA. 98055 , •_t !b/fr . /il ,!i ` �.i• "1,• i,"! ) --_- ... -..` ------- G�(i,Yc. 1.„. \ < 9t�r t rI!� \4Y�C" i ,C /t-r t�c ``_ _—_.•_' �\O € , �/ :r\ 11 tl fl i, `�.y ,rc 'dl' °tii/ =:_i �� G fL0 i# -'._ `r`\l` 1tC"� i!' f!JJ:; \_ �,-. •• �\ ��\\ !:4 0\� / 'r d•'% c.;1./i-ot tJ. I }.l A-'� 0 1 A! ,r' ,Jf, t. • '�i• • ,t\ , ! '�_•", .I r"...., ilIlleIIIIIIIIIIIIIPP" a 01. l: •' /��/�1 \\\ `/"/i/1' — \ .,\ • �i\Z ��J //,.•,J k. PROPERTY OF �.>`•' \�' »' t Sp, `- ,J '11 ��` / / G.........,.....„...„, �,,, �\� iCRY OF� TILE `\•. /r ' "" >Y / /• E WERIp61.INE BOEINC /i �_' r!'4gwi c t..1...1 -I- �`� _ - - —/ r i • PROPERTY na:m:•m•m:•ni:n•:a1.,• =ia •_. �\ - _ - -17f — ♦ NE i \ L [ �;! \ !• - OAKESDAL AVENUE SW _ �•r-:.- ✓� {1:111�•6Ft:1'5441,i 11,1".!I:I:it.i. :1S•Li::i: tU( \ . �< ♦• -- -__ ..._ -• ,-- ..._ _ _ _ -.__.. _ ..✓_. UTURE � �' ' .. .. •: .- .,,,...1:::3_„ „/•-'••;. 'u, \�\\\., • 'R::ti::11:.a!;ui:ai: •.s .. ::!ri•111::nt� i/ :._. _ .'".7. ,.}\- ^\t .' •...., ._1 ? ./ '' - ! It t� ��..�1 ;; � ..1.,, • \ t I } .._.._-•- •.....-+..._ llai.l•1iaa, IT[Tt'•iii i.^ �• t 1.- \�\ i\ _ Itr :/:. • t"� .. '• r•- '- r•� `//:'rr•-- ! / `'�-1r • �_' E i•• :!,\l} t!t�• .� �\�. ii:A:at .illii; i:.l::Ei :al A:, lit i t • _;.- \v ti _ i' • ••rl E • ,r.:.1•t.'u - I!•iti i� �: �s��'11� 1 ..1 .. r .. _ /. 1 ;--• /" �./ N/_-'"'•...f-it-r./' \l, �75. -"" - _'t': d • J +-•�.: -• 4t30E1NC^ 1.•- T • .:i i •+ ' tip=,, i. .1 f ,i y ` ..._—_..... I!' i r ee.`_�` p'�_ .':_ 1 rt { - ..t :4/il _ )ttt i•rtr"1 ,_!! i ! j 1 i y. •tom �itMj/ J i i'� :/-•.TC /' i:;!I;ir,? lJt: t, ' - ' .,.A.. am-,,, -.—.... i =„,,,;:1lcti - 1 t 1SOUTH • ? l : • /i ,j.•.;JJ '. lt r II'— _:' � -__.. 1 I r:.tom=♦`- +( -—+. �1 PROPERTY .i,.. ..........:... ............ tj .k, � �..._..�_, • ► �• � , j Li t ! Y /Jij +J n�.., :..5 ' t _ ,%S-' t, a,a f 1` y _ ... t;'' ` J , i � <' 1 t NE ! '•;1 / ,,• t )( tf xx; BLDG t t t 1f t y :! )` ("—7'! 131:: ::....?:7.-•-::.--i_7:1('-:.7..1.• � � �...... a �t i J 'i t f7 �- t ��/JIC.�i •I "1 JJ, Jr l / J', .�.... .��• €€ )�MfVcs1! !! _• _ 1 i• .�/ ' iliiTi.: 25-20 tti.; 1=t : t t:u } tL.1.E3�5 Iy ! 4: . a...�' `/�a i ��'iY �: � .\25-01 r /l I t I'":17i1 .Lit: t(7iit'. t T.'a(` iFi - J 41 : t t • • t C•1 25-02 i II I11 - CSTC4 J r/ ir< :t' _• l '�• :f`• ;'� `• : _ 4 �` _ ..._ 1.i ' ll BUILDING i 1 4.....:•?;./..)74/ ) • r i .,i t_r .._. <r:r�<. f \ ! 'd t :: .i--7,--*; ,. --,,-- iip ,„ _ � _: . •f/ /� \. ti 11;. .: (�J. HELfTO -. ��\� r F — J` ' e� r` t \• _ ..•T / f • i i t ,\%•,j I `\ t s ,.71 I. / ` ',i !;'—, Tr T1 : . if r .. � � \_/! // / AF �`�\ � \ �� \l�s.• /Sys.r '•'S T �.�T'e� .:.,' �, ' / ! ; ' is; `; I -iIi /r i/ i i .! (• i \ .rt ' ; PP(�/� ; r/� / /_ -/� j ,.� / i . r i s' �i : � � i • , f , !,J /!/r / T"•y` 'i'i"•'�.. •..�. '% L.4'�}�t/�CFi s L, VA ,. 'i/`S C 1�/� at is Ir•'s:l:..f:} i 1 ! _ _ '�� N \ %%%\;i• 1 \ :_�'— :f , t '1.a,i, 'III .i •t—�'4:J i,.,;4 ! 1 K �ol� 1�/'1T t•'t i , '• :,. ...,t Uj ' ' ! ' �, \''......• l ia, \4•'� \ •I r, /I / 1 t �s•---j . . . .. 1 !! ` 1 '.'i I%J �' ' �1 j1 i• .->, i` -i1 ! I? : Fi-`- • •.- f.`:: f T .. -.\,\ ` i ,, 1 : : L i >' \ �t' i`` ` /. �' / `\ ' ii I 1 ! /'` ` I FFI• E !I /•— 1 ! , t /S.,• ; i i i `� \\ st .fr I /i/ / l ' 1 • i t" i. p / il `: t .i 1 — t t l ,i; , i• < ..•-3•-1n,.ir of L•'=t?"A J` N' :'Y 1' . \ L. _ r.. �� I t .!/_ _ �11•/,'•\ /, t. i' �f , /iJ ,' J `` . t\ •� I. • • i v\....... i .Nu "VI /'J J / i i ! \\ I � _ -- «�r-%�', 1 J :r,• I' ' !: `��Y 1: ( �' $�T� .—. L_J* J. t 1 , i ' t • .\ 4 � /+ b-'i({^J E/ // i` \ I ; :F 11 i<Jr` i ! i A �. \i :: •. :'• �f ii. •-_ J.„+1. . _ ,--- _-.1`�`� ' ; 1 •f � t f '--Yid // �� / f t � I I, �` � � / (i i•/• I'' It !1` .i: !�1 :/11 tl �. J { { �•t f _ , _•a _• ♦\\�. � �—.._ • . uur. .„r!X {gam /J ,� 1' i l - I 111 \ %Al ! 1 I i}i1 1 ! fit! {'!_"•_ '�. `V "ti,,i �{ \ i `?.: \, -: 11 i \�._ i�>�/./. ,// \ 1 /// 1 / i I I \I ° I I :!l Ei h �' it i J ( ,M1 i s�.� l • 1 ;` , ' �ll n itl � + _��_� I \: =y�� j . \'; r ////!: ! :F of ( i !:1 :! I :,1 i i. \\ ,\.•'/ '.; ur.. 1:° / eaM1 �. +mac i `�_--_ �� /'f / / t ,* I ♦• !"i !< 1 !!' ' i .1 ;.r 11' •-1'Tc-:71j "l`.e '� .< �..��_—� /� t' l —_ � � / . • ... 1 / J .J. ,'i: ! I` E! I \. !' +; i '� •': 1 r ▪ ;',. :� y :r' t o•- -♦ 1C\• _ aAll /��!rGo��.,-�— —-- 1 \\�__-__ ..�.. ;, ! ! r' •EXI TING :\t`-�:, �. �. =��'' tw — _— -�,� :,_. ��.�� /j ! tij !i i • SOIL i ! . i 1' ▪ f, •` \ ,t i�},.1.• � ^`r+ba � - 1= s:i;.'., mow � •.t,•i''I j. a' I 'STOCKPILE "\ �,!°._! '�``. :a '• `at, , 1'!.. .....':^^:-•iP.S:' -_.._.._. ... •s ...�......•----. - _ i . f j /. .3 i a .�'_• ;,.,,, :�'.ti z. t •t to t ` ; r r,: •.-. 1 ^.•y . ,�,<,'. •" •-.:._, • ... —•-. __...-.. - .>. .... `a! .. .i:.!!i ./ '♦, • :'v. ,. , r tr • • r ':..'`s ,, ak i *::q'l' l�\e,� ...-...... ,• , //� `( - r•+ .f \;'• •.. r !' .s 1�I s • •..•''/ 'f t, j- r... t I I f. I. • J•` +r t i:. a ..•., - EIN PROPERTY LINE x`"�>ti.. • „>••. BO G P OPE NE f, w•+ o BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAYp Sverdrup CIVIL , P o 2 't �.... „I r ; :.::.. I t 4. t�.('►siaii=: .....:+.. i,: :s ••..� (ii i i• i ■ ■ iii ■•Ni♦iiii� . _41 .,::::_:. m I'us'i�Olitr p6uraull�ou>i uau5vsu�iukii.1a2 0-201 •au$oa SOw�SOh011111Oi�toi0i • 0 Li : ,.,. ..,. <� ;_,. ii� :;i:.%-:ZINI Eli=_•€i:"`r:1 11° :: I�ai�ar�+>�croilaoror C !O)�o d�rrs�+�lo�i��oasloHot��iji�a;o o. . , . � ao ��onot�l u' Oas6I —� ` t �z�\-.•.�^C :•s�.i.r..c:ors:i, n n • • ,111 i•i i==iiil:il`::•i 3.....i;if• �REI- 1 1 .' £ ` '•.�. IIIN ii: r ,• .3a i EL sasSaai• -is i i / fiiiiii ■iaii• is ass '�`' �.,` •�t.• :'' �sc.z11+:� �•�.,i .0 0110Sakdii losualiasuilpeSubia�iu�iiu160.01101011011.smiLO� ,AV C•16rai1lii IOits �ill .J' —dCr *":..4 . ti:i'+5:�.1':., �; •�,U. !a0.t01 C_••4uY•••rya •_ . lin Ir.— v. ; 1 r _ 4. 11(IeI^_ "V..-.. :i •, \_i,�.. :i.4. ..t'• i.t .....: wi I a AI] t •� - I f 5 / .\'.1 ct,' ..,jwl•• - ''=,-' .L': :• nt.fr. _Y�`+j^�!`�. �h .',{. ': �. s' _,.-,... ,` ~: ,;:�a. :; :`s:=.. t o ;; •_4• a a iT 4�o a' a a o LQ^C� s o A..CF :U ::.. ! , . �• ,. ',_ c '94:4: i_ \'- ':.-..e `Y t . TFtA1 ER 1"-1 RUC ` :�fit-:i.i. tg=, O. TRAILER• 410- � a f ,Agll \\\ �({(�� FATO jSTRIPPINC . . . . .. . . •APPROACH/TAKEOFF PATH 1...... _ - -� /. . . . . . .... . ..'''' APPROACH/TAKEOFF PA1H / • _ , 77, /--• _�� — I EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT - . . . .. —_ (EUPA .... .'" ,.••• j _ WHO IHOICATOR ar / /— Scd• In Foot ..... a /— • — • SV 0 I I, ,) \ ,... Niii..... \-o l'' ) ----'------) .r.'w'.p too Mao A**ILL C I., t V1L, NC. Mr..) .it�eo0 n I." �" ""�"I HELISTOP LAYOUT SKETCH twice!Aim �' yR E. t'� w tn.t•o M[ •'t• MO. n r.tao we ACCfy7AblJTY M Oa/s•JO• Moo tar Zi — BOE/NG `�� MR .1l • BCAG HEADQUARTERS �aFIG. 3 yrrnowal HELISTOP •`Ft s 4.....". by(lam INC ACRES OFFICE PMD 6,,,, Exhibit H PROJECT NARRATIVE AND JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED BOEING HEADQUARTERS BUILDING HELISTOP Project Description The proposed project is to construct and operate a private helistop at the Boeing Longacres Office Park to serve the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group (BCAG) Headquarters Building. The helistop will be located on a 3.10 acre (135,000 sq. ft.) site southwest of the BCAG Headquarters Building. Flights in and out of the Longacres Office Park are expected to average one to four flights per month. Helicopters will not be based,fueled or maintained at the helistop. The helistop will consist of a 26-foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) surrounded by a 40-foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and takeoff area (FATO), with perimeter lighting and a pole-mounted windsock with lighting for night use. Vehicular access to the helistop will be provided from the south by a private road connecting to the BCAG Headquarters Building parking lot. The helistop will make use of the existing paved parking area and access road for the BCAG Headquarters temporary construction trailer offices, with minor modifications to add the concrete TLOF, to allow for an emergency turnaround for fire department vehicles, and to connect the access road to the Headquarters parking lot. Consistency with Conditional Use Criteria The site for the proposed helistop is currently zoned Commercial Office (CO). In this zone, a helipad is an accessory use which requires a hearing examiner conditional use permit. RMC 4-31-16(B)(5)(f). Consistent with these zoning requirements, the helistop is proposed as an accessory use to the permitted and recently constructed BCAG Headquarters Building on the Longacres Office Park site and complies with all relevant criteria in RMC 4-31-36(C) for approval of a conditional use permit, as follows: 1. Comprehensive Plan: Under this criteria, the proposed helistop must be "compatible with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City." RMC 4-31-36(C)(1). The helistop is proposed to be located within an area designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Employment Area-Valley. As an accessory use, the helistop will be incidental to and associated with the BCAG Headquarters Building at the Boeing Longacres Office Park. As such, it furthers and is compatible with the objectives of the Employment Area-Valley designation, which are to "ensure quality development" and to "provide for a [03003-0153/helistop justif.letter.doc] 7/7/98 } t mix of employment-based uses, including, commercial, office and industrial development to support the economic development of the City of Renton." LU-EE(a) & (c) It is also consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies that implement these objectives, such as the following: (1) Compatible and related land uses should be encouraged to locate in proximity to one another. LU-212.2 (2) Developments should be encouraged to achieve greater efficiency in site utilization and result in benefits to users with techniques including: a. shared facilities such as parking and site access, recreation facilities and amenities; b. an improved ability to serve development with transit by centralizing transit stops; and c. an opportunity to provide support services (e.g.,copy center, coffee shop or lunch facilities,express mail services" for nearly development that otherwise might not exist. LU-212.6 (3) Vehicular connections between adjacent parking areas are encouraged. . . . LU-212.21 The proposed helistop is located in proximity to compatible and related land uses. It is adjacent to the BCAG Headquarters Building,for which it will used, and will be connected to the Headquarters Building by a road providing vehicular access between the building parking lot and the helistop. It is also in the middle of the Longacres Office Park and surrounded by and compatible with commercial,industrial and office buildings in the valley area. The proposed helistop is compatible with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. It is also compatible with Zoning Ordinance standards. As required by RCW 4-31- 16(B)(5)(f), which permits helipads in a CO zone only as an accessory use,the proposed helistop use is subordinate to the BCAG Headquarters Building on the same lot, "with which it is associated but clearly incidental to." RCM 4-31-2(definition of"Accessory Use"). The proposed helistop is compatible with all other development standards in the CO zone, including height, setback and lot area requirements. RMC 4-31-16(D) 2. Community Need: In determining whether there is community need for the proposed use at the proposed location,the hearing examiner is required to consider the following factors: [03003-0153/helistop justif.letter.doc] -2- 7/7/98 1 a. The proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental over concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. b. That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. RMC 4-31-36(C)(2) Both of these community need factors support the proposed helistop at the Boeing Longacres Office Park. There is not a detrimental overconcentration of helipads or helistops in the City or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed helistop. The nearest helipad or helistop is at the Valley Hospital, more than 1.5 miles to the southeast from the proposed helistop site. In addition,the helistop location at Longacres Office Park is appropriate and well- suited for the proposed use, which is to serve the BCAG Headquarters Building. The proposed helistop is adjacent to the Headquarters Building, in the middle of the Boeing Longacres Park, and surrounded by industrial, office and commercial uses. It is also far from any potentially incompatible residential uses and areas, most of which are more than a mile from the site of the proposed helistop. These factors support a determination of community need. 3. Effect on Adjacent Properties: Under this criteria, "the proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property." RMC 4-31-36(3). The only potential adverse impact from proposed helistop at Longacres Office Park is noise from operation of the helistop. However, given the infrequent use of the helistop, its location, and the nature of the surrounding uses, any such impacts are not significant. In addition, the proposed helistop will easily satisfy the three required site requirements listed under 4-31-36C)(3), which require compliance with the lot coverage, yard and height requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. The lot coverage restrictions in the CO zone apply only to buildings and no building is proposed as part of the helistop. The yard requirements are not applicable to the proposed helistop. The maximum structure height in the CO zone is 250 feet, well above the highest point of the proposed helistop, which is the top of windsock at six feet. RMC 4-31-16(D)(4)(a). 4. Traffic: Under this criteria, "[t]raffic and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the proposed use and surrounding area shall be reviewed for potential effects on, and to ensure safe movement in the surrounding area." RMC 4-31-36(C). Vehicular access to the proposed helistop will be provided by a private road connecting to the BCAG Headquarters Building parking lot. The proposed helistop will not result in any impacts to traffic. Pedestrian access to and from the helistop is not necessary and will not be provided. [03003-0153/helistop justif.letter.doc] -3- 7/7/98 5. Noise, Glare: The typical noise associated with helicopters is 76 to 84dBA at a distance of 500 feet from the aircraft. This is similar to noise levels described above for various pieces of construction equipment. While helicopter noise is not regulated, it assumed that flights in and out of Longacres Office Park would occur during typical business hours and the noise abatement procedures will be used. Abatement procedures include the pilots setting flight profiles that establish shallow angles of decent to and accent from the helistop. It's at these times when the helicopters generate the most noise. The typical flight path(north and south from helistop) has the helicopter at 800 to1000 feet altitude at l mile from the helistop. Helicopter noise could temporarily disturb or distract area residents; however, because of the small number of projected flights in and out of the Longacres Office Park, disruptions would be infrequent and short. It is important to note that a helicopter flight school is currently operating south of the sight with many take-offs and landings occurring each day. Long-term noise impacts would not be expected. Light and/or glare impacts are not anticipated. Lights on the helistop will be radio activated by the pilots and are designed to illuminate the pad and windsock only. The pad lights are low lumen down wash type and designed not to glare and disrupt the pilots night vision. The wind sock is internally lit providing good visibility for the pilot and very minimal glare to the surrounding area. 6. Landscaping: Under this criteria, landscaping must be provided "in all areas not occupied by buildings or paving" and the hearing examiner can require "additional landscaping to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use." RMC 4-31-36(C)(3)(8). The applicant proposes to return any disturbed soil to its natural grassy state. No additional landscaping is necessary to buffer adjacent properties from the use of the helistop. 7. Public improvements: The proposed helistop is adequately served by and does not impose a burden on any public improvements,facilities,utilities and services. [03003-0153/helistop justif.letter.doc] -4- 7/7/98 1 _ - . ; ' . ' ' ;1:.' ''�'t�, P s' �a� .•� " e �i; L :.- . `* Yr 4fi.141 �r ; " ''' �. I �1,ty it 1 � 4 t� '- b ��',c>tr ' � 4 1l '�,r: 7<A,,;'''':'-',.';',1,'.":,''.';,';;'.°..ii'''.111.'-',.;:i,„,-1';'''''.4 l i�11^� �i qq‘' i i• i I • I r" • ,' tI t"a % t i a 14' t$ciVi•1 C",/Sir' +' 'x • + 1 wi+ .de te•it ,' �'ilkk, 'r•' 1 +L• t •,,,, fi.r t@:.: • • 4 ] ,.+'.;�i� 7r ~i 4 to ,nt..r,, �- + `' t -1R u'rtr 1,a.'i '',,t- - • ',F i.. * i nl t .4a i,,:"T d ?n'' i �,M;;� 'i' r s 3 i a lrlyc-, -gyp" t:A.� 1 .I'i� �..� �> a4 i1w,,};,;t ��"'.; ` * a94, {, Tt' 7 L ri .Y " r;' '�nm'; ';�7N. ,'� "r'_,K .> . Y �d ,'nf } 11 Ft .,�.-, A' _ . CITY OF RENTON Date: - Development Services N 0 0 0 7 7 , M ' Planning&Zoning 235-2550 City Staff Authorization ,, fit, • • ee, 4/1(---49 .,`-i,,,-,- Boeing Contact: f%(', a Project Name: �\�� -.,,, ' gif.. Work Order/Function e . Organization#: `-' r Site Plan A roval 000/345.81.00.17 Appeals&Waivers 000/345.81.00.03 PP r4: Binding Site Plan/Short Plat 000/345.81.00.04 Variance Fees 000/345.81.00.19 • G� Planning/Zoning Misc.000/345.81.00.20 ' Conditional Use Fees r. 000/345.81.00.06 � � ° g . Environmental Review Fees 000/345.81.00.07 ►(9 40 Maps(taxed) 000/341.50.00.00 Photo Copies 000/341.60.00.24r Grading&Filling Fees 000/345.81.00.11 P Publications taxed 000/341.60.00.24 v:. Lot Line Adjustment 000/345.81.00.12 (taxed) Routine Vegetation Mgmt. 000/345.81.00.15 Postage 000/05.519.90.42.01 ,fig ;, 000/231.70.00.00 :, Shoreline Substantial Dev 000/345.81.00.16 Tax ere- Other(Description) ," Acct# Amount Total: ��• �0 t- Approved For Payment: �� Boeing Represen ative Signa e . ...... .. .. ............. ':::i:::..:r::•::i::iiii:: • :::.•..:.+...:::::.:::.. ::Num . .::r•:::::::L: :v:'::i}:::}::5:j:::::?:::::::is:::::j::i\''>i:'f::.T'::::::::::::::':i::i;:;:;:::i:: .. :``: .:iipi>:::::;: : IZ:�'CC:C)lll]#I�YIYnbei" ::> � '' .::..�:.:�`?:°:''.::::':;<a>3i`i`::;::`:;::.;�:4i�:;:"''::::;`:::::2::;;<i:... .:. .. ... :::. .... ........... '': DSpinzn2C1 7/31/92 A� • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS LAND.USE;;PERMIT SUBMITTAL WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS. REQUIREMENTS: BY: `BY. .' . Calculations, Survey, N/" /1D�'ht'c ' • Drainage.Control Plan 2 ,mN Drainage Report 2 dn f Elevations ArchitecturalsnNo4 /�/ Elevations, Grading 2 Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy)4 • Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 Flood Plain Map, if applicable 4 Floor Plans 3AND4djni /V " ..---• Geotechnacal Report2ANos Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 Grading Plan, Detailed z. King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site 4 Landscaping Plan,•Conceptuala w" `'' f Legal Description 4 List of Surrounding Property Owners 4 Mailing Labels for Property Owners 4 Map of Existing Site Conditions 4 Master Application Form 4 • Monument Cards (one per monument) , Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 Plan Reductions (PMTs) 4 Postage 4 Public Works Approval Letter 2 Title Report or Plat Certificate 4 Topography Map (5' contours)3 Traffic Study 2 Tree CuttingNegetation Clearing Plan 4 Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 Wetlands Delineation Mapa � tf I' Wetlands Planting Plan 4 Q N`f Wetlands'Study 4 This requirement may be waived by: //e4;571//;° 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: i ' 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: 9/2 4. Development Planning Section h'\division s\develop ser\dev nlan inn\waiver xis **************************************************************** City of Renton WA Reprinted: 07/13/98 13 : 15 Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R9804229 Amount : 2 , 509 . 28 07/13/98 13 : 15 Payment Method: BILL Notation: TO BE BILLED Init : LN Project # : LUA98-113 Type : LUA Land Use Actions Parcel No: 242304-9022 Site Address : 1901 OAKESDALE AV SW Total Fees : 2 , 509 .28 This Payment 2 , 509 .28 Total ALL Pmts : 2 , 509 .28 Balance: . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0006 Conditional Use Fees 2 , 000 . 00 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 500 . 00 000 . 05 . 519 . 90 . 42 . 1 Postage 9 . 28 •• °` _ CIT ,- OF RENTON City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J. Petersen December 15, 1998 Charles E. Maduell 1201 Third Avenue, 40th floor Seattle, WA 98101 Re: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit; Boeing/Longacres Helistop; File#CU-98-113 Dear Mr. Maduell: At the regular Council meeting of December 14, 1998, the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee which found that there was a substantial error of fact in the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding Condition#1. Therefore, the City Council reversed the decision of the Hearing Examiner relating to Condition No. 1, and eliminated that condition which would have required reapplication for another conditional use permit after five years. A copy of the Planning and Development Committee report is enclosed for your information. If I can provide additional information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Marilyn J. sen City Clerk cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Council President Bob Edwards Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510 / FAX(425)430-6516 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting December 14, 1998 Council Chambers Monday, 7:30 p.m. MINUTES Municipal Building CALL TO ORDER Mayor Jesse Tanner led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF BOB EDWARDS,Council President; KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER;DAN COUNCILMEMBERS CLAWSON; KING PARKER; TIMOTHY SCHLITZER;RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON. CITY STAFF IN JESSE TANNER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ATTENDANCE LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; MARILYN PETERSEN,City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN,Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; SUSAN CARLSON, Economic Development,Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Administrator; VICTORIA RUNKLE,Finance& Information Services Administrator; JOE MCGUIRE,Court Services Director; PAUL KUSAKABE, Fiscal Services Director;JENNIFER TOTH HENNING; Senior Planner; JUDGE TERRY LEE JURADO,Municipal Court;DEREK TODD,Finance Analyst; COMMANDER DENNIS GERBER,Police Department. APPROVAL OF MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL COUNCIL MINUTES APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 07, 1998, AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. SWEARING-IN The Honorable Carmen Otero, retired King County Superior Court Judge, CEREMONY administered the oath of acceptance to Municipal Court Judge,Terry Lee Municipal Court: Judge Terry Jurado. Lee Jurado Judge Otero explained that she has known Judge Jurado since he served as her bailiff when she was a judge in Superior Court. She said she was so impressed with his attitude that she encouraged him to pursue becoming a judge. Expressing his thanks,Judge Jurado stated that Judge Otero is a great example of what a judge should be. RECESS MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY PARKER,RECESS FOR JUDGE JURADO'S WELCOMING RECEPTION. Time: 7:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:55 p.m.,roll was called; all Councilmembers present. APPEAL Planning&Development Committee Chair KeoIker-Wheeler presented a report Planning& Development regarding the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision approving the helistop Committee construction and operation at Boeing's headquarters building(901 Oakesdale Appeal: The Boeing Co. Ave. SW) for an initial period of five years; appeal filed on 11/02/98 by Helistop on Oakesdale Ave Charles E. Maudell. The Committee convened on December 3, 1998,to SW,CU-98-113 consider the appeal. Boeing expects to use the helistop to bring in prospective customers to its headquarters. It expects that the helistop will be used for one to eight helicopter trips per month and be otherwise available for use by the community in emergencies. One of the conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner would have required Boeing to reapply for another conditional use permit after five years. Boeing appealed this condition. The Committee found that there was a substantial error of fact in the Hearing December 14, 1998 Renton City Council Minutes Page 410 t Examiner's decision. Specifically,the Committee found there was no evidence in the record to support: 1. Conclusion#5 as it relates to noise problems or the concern regarding future requests by other landowners for similar permits; 2. Conclusion#6 as it relates to noise; 3. Conclusion#12 as it relates to noise and future requests by other landowners for similar permits. As it appears those conclusions led to the imposition of Condition#1,there was no evidence to support that condition imposed by the Hearing Examiner. Therefore,the Committee recommended that the City Council reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner relating to Condition#1 and eliminate that condition. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 1998 and beyond. Items noted included: * On December 8th, over 150 dedicated Senior Activity Center Volunteers were honored for their work during the past year. * The Fire Station#14 Training Tower was dedicated on December 7th to the memory of Battalion Chief Larry Eager, who advocated advancement of the fire service through training. Regional Issues: Regional Mayor Tanner reported that at a meeting held last Thursday, the Regional Wastewater Services Plan Water Quality Committee voted eight to three for a three-plant option for the Regional Wastewater Services Plan. The matter will go before the County Council in January or February of next year. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Appointment: Planning Mayor Tanner recommended that Natalie Dohrn, 3815 Monterey Pl.NE, Commission Renton, 98056,be appointed to the Planning Commission for a three-year term expiring 6/30/2001. Refer to Community Services Committee. City Clerk: 1998 General City Clerk submitted 1998 General Election certification; Proposition No. 1, Election Certification,Family Family Pool Construction Bonds- 7,025 Yes votes and 5,770 No votes Pool Bond (defeated). Information. City Clerk: TCI& AT&T City Clerk/Cable Manager recommended approving the merger of the existing Cable TV Franchise Merger cable television franchise between TCI and AT&T. Refer to Community Services Committee. Court Case: Eager v. Renton et Court Case filed by Russ Eager in United States District Court in an al,CRT-98-015 undetermined amount alleging wrongful and malicious arrest and imprisonment, excessive force, and assault and/or battery in connection with his arrest(for theft and resisting arrest) on 10/19/96. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. Court Case: Spivey and Court Case filed by Bernadine Spivey and Claudette Thomas in an Thomas v. Renton, CRT-98- undetermined amount alleging bodily injuries and pain and suffering in 014 connection with an automobile/pedestrian accident on 8/11/98. Refer to C Attorney and Insurance Services. APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date i'a. /V PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT December 14, 1998 Boeing Longacres Helistop File No.: LUA-98-113, CU-H (Referred November 16, 1998) The Planning and Development Committee convened on December 3, 1998 to consider the appeal of the Boeing Company. Boeing sought a conditional use permit to construct and operate a helistop at the Boeing Longacres site, located at 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW. Boeing expects to use the helistop to bring in prospective customers to its headquarters. It expects that the helistop will be used for one to eight helicopter trips per month and be otherwise available for use by the community in emergencies. One of the conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner would have required Boeing to reapply for another conditional use permit after five years. Boeing appealed this condition. The committee found that there was a substantial error of fact in the Hearing Examiner's decision. Specifically, the committee found there was no evidence in the record to support: 1) Conclusion#5 as it relates to noise problems or the concern regarding future requests by other landowners for similar permits; 2) Conclusion#6 as it relates to noise; 3) Conclusion#12 as it relates to noise and future requests by other landowners for similar permits. As it appears those conclusions led to the imposition of Condition#1, there was no evidence to support that condition imposed by the Hearing Examiner. Planning and Developme Dmmittee Report December 3, 1998 Page-2 Therefore, the Committee recommends that the City Council reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner relating to Condition#1 and eliminate that condition. I , 1 Kathy Keolkr-Wheeler, Chair $01- C7 Tim Schlitzer, ice hair Dan Clawson, Member C1.1:4 maa November 16, 1998 Renton City Council Minutes Page 378 of service durations ranging from 15 years to one year. AUDIENCE COMMENT Dale Christie, operator of Hillcrest Bowl at 2809 NE Sunset Blvd.,Renton, Citizen Comment: Christie— 98056, asked that the City reduce its current tax on pull tabs from 5%of gross Pull Tab Tax Reduction revenues to a more equitable figure. Mr. Christie said the current tax amounts to 20%of his net income from pull tabs, which he considered too high. For example, last quarter he had$201,000 in revenues from pull tabs,but paid out $146,000 in prizes. Of the remaining$55,000, he paid the City more than $10,000 in taxes. Mr. Christie claimed that several cities around the state now assess taxes on pull tab revenues according to net,rather than gross,revenues. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Mr.Parker asked that the Administration provide the committee with as much information as possible on this subject, including a sample form used for reporting pull tab revenues and calculating the tax owing. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Appeal: The Boeing Co. City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision approving Helistop on Oakesdale Ave construction and operation of a helistop at Boeing's headquarters building(901 SW,A-98- l k) Oakesdale Ave. SW) for an initial period of five years; appeal filed on 11/02/98 by Charles E. Maudell, accompanied by the required fee. Refer to Planning& Development Committee. Executive: CitySource Printing Executive Department recommended approval of a contract in the amount of &Distribution(Contract $64,800 with the Renton Reporter to print and distribute CitySource,the City's w/Renton Reporter) newsletter to its citizens,on as a monthly basis in 1999 and 2000. Refer to Community Services Committee. HR&RM: Broker&Claims Human Resources&Risk Management Department recommended the Administration Agreements cancellation of agreements with Arthur J. Gallagher&Co. and Giesy, Greer& Gunn, Inc. for broker and claims administration services,respectively; and further recommended that Renton become a member of the Washington Cities Insurance Authority effective January 1, 1999, for purposes of liability and property protection. Refer to Finance Committee. Streets: Main Ave S Transit Transportation Systems Division recommended that Council receive a briefing Way(Contra-Flow)Project on the design of the Main Ave. S.Transit Way (or Contra-Flow)project. Refer to Transportation Committee. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from Dolores J. Gibbons, Superintendent of Renton Citizen Comment: Renton School District 403,requesting that the City clarify and/or modify its Sign School District—Electronic Code with respect to an electronic readerboard sign at McKnight Middle Readerboard Sign at McKnight School. MOVED BY SCHLITZER, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Nelson Correspondence was read from J.J. Nelson, Vice President of Facilities Asset (The Boeing Company)— Management for The Boeing Company, PO Box 3707, Seattle, 98124, Oakesdale Ave SW Extension expressing gratitude to the City for successfully completing the OakesdaIe Ave. SW extension within budget and on time. Citizen Comment: Schott— Correspondence was read from Lawrence F. Schott, 1210 N. 33rd Pl.,Renton, Human Services Funding 98056, urging the City to increase its human services funding in the 1999-2000 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDn 1;ILL AI#: 1. 0. • SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: 11/16/98 Dept/Div/Board....City Clerk Staff Contact Marilyn Petersen AGENDA STATUS: Consent XX SUBJECT: Public Hearing Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision approving construction Correspondence... &operation of a helistop at Boeing headquarters building, Ordinance 901 Oakesdale Ave. SW,for an initial period of five(5)years. Resolution File No.LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF Old Business EXHIBITS: New Business A. City Clerk's letter Study Session B. Appeal(11/02/98) Other C. Request for Reconsideration&Response(10/20/98) D. Hearing Examiner's Report&Decision(9/28/98) RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. I Legal Dept Finance Dept Other FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Expenditure Required Transfer/Amendment.... Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal filed by Charles E.Maduell of Perkins Coie LLP,representing The Boeing Company(Conrad Szymczak),accompanied by required fee received on 11/02/98. CITY OF RENTON oil 1% City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen November 4, 1998 APPEAL FILED BY: Charles E. Maduell, Perkins Coie LLP Representative: The Boeing Company, Conrad Szymczak RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision 9/28/98 approving construction & operation of a helistop at Boeing headquarters building, 901 Oakesdale Ave. SW, for an initial period of five (5) years. File No. LUA-98-113, CU-H-ECF To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision for conditional use of a helistop at Boeing headquarters for an initial period of five years has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-16.B., within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council secretary at 425 430-6501 for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of hearing examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425 430-6504. Sincerely, in\lni\O)\91 Brenda Fritsvold Deputy City Clerk Attachment 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510 / FAX(425)430-6516 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer I CD I. Appeals: Table 4, Land Use Permit Proce- dures, lists the development permits that additional evidence is required, the 4-8-17: COUNCIL ACTION:Examiner reviewed by the City and the review author- • ECouncil shall remand the matter to the Any application requiring action by the icy responsible for open record appeals,closed Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of City Council shall be evidenced by minute entry record appeals and judicial appeals.The City additional evidence.The cost of transcription unless otherwise required by law. When taking has the permit process to allow • of the hearing record shall be borne by the any such final action,the Council shall make and for only one consolidated open record appeal of all per- providing APPEAL: Unless an ordinance applicant. In the absence of an entry upon enter findings of fact from the record and conclu- providing for review of decision of the the record of an order by the City Council &ions therefrom which support its action. Unless Examiner requires review thereof by the authorizing new or additional evidence or otherwise specified,the City Council shall be pre- snit decisions associated with a single devel- Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved testimony, and a remand to the Hearing sumed to have adopted the Examiner's findings opment application.Appeals pursuant to this by the Examiner's written decision or Examiner for receipt of such evidence or tes- and conclusions. section are intended to comply with the Land recommendation may submit a notice of appeal timony,it shall be presumed that no new or Use Petition Act,Chapter 36.70C RCW. to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the additional evidence or testimony has been A. In the case of a change of the zone classifica- City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days accepted by the City Council, and that the tion of property(rezone),the City Clerk shall 1. Time For Initiating Appeal.An appeal to from the date of the Examiner's written report. record before the City Council is identical to place the ordinance on the Council's agenda Superior Court of a land use decision, as The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a the hearing record before the Hearing Exam- for first reading. Final reading of the ordi- defined herein,must be filed within twenty fee in accordance with the fee schedule of the iner.(Ord.4389,1-25-93) nance shall not occur until all conditions, one(21)days of the issuance of the land use City.(Ord.3658,9-13-82) restrictions or modifications which may have decision. For purposes of this section, the E. The consideration by the City Council shall been required by the Council have been date on which a land use decision is issued is: A. The written notice of appeal shall fully, be based solely upon the record,the Hearing accomplished or provisions for compliance clearly and thoroughly specify the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and made to the satisfaction of the Legal Depart- a. Three(3)days after a written decision substantial error(s) in fact or law which additional submissions by parties. ment. is mailed by the City or,if not mailed, the exist in the record of the proceedings from date on which the local jurisdiction provides which the appellant seeks relief. Facsimile F. If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing B. All other applications requiring Council notice that a written decision is publicly filing of a notice of appeal is authorized Examiner on an application submitted pursu- action shall be placed on the Council's agenda available; • pursuant to the conditions detailed in ant to Section 4.8-10A end after examination for consideration.(Ord.3454,7.28.80) b. If the land use decision is made by ordi- Renton City Code Section 4-8-11C. (Ord. • of the record,the Council determines that a a353,6-1-92) substantial error in fact or law exists in the C. The action of the Council approving,modify nance or resolution by the City Council,sit- B. Within five(5)days of receipt of the notice record, it may, remand the proceeding to ing or rejecting a decision of the Examiner ting in a quasi-judicial capacity,the date the of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all Examiner for reconsideration,or modify, or shall be final and conclusive,unless appealed body passes the ordinance or resolution;or reverse the decision of the Examiner accord- within the time frames established under parties of record of the receipt of the g y Seetior 4.36=7L(Ord.3725,5-9-83;amd.Ord. c. If neither a or b of this subsection appeal.Other parties of record may submit in46ti0,3-17-97) applies,the date the decision is entered into letters in support of their positions within G. If,upon appeal from a recommendation of the the public record. ten(10)days of the dates of mailing of the Hearing Examiner upon an application sub- notification of the filing of the notice of mitted pursuant to Section 4-8•10B or C,and 4-8-18: SEVEIIABILITY: 2. Standing.Those persons with standing to appeal. after examination of the record,the Council The provisions of this Ordinance are bring an appeal of a land use decision are determines that a substantial error in fact or hereby declared to be severable. If any word, limited to the applicant,the owner of prop C. Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the law exists in the record,or that a recommen- phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, section or erty to which land use decisions are directed, members of the City Council all of the dation of the Hearing Examiner should be dis- part in or of this Ordinance, or the application and any other person aggrieved or adversely pertinent documents,including the written regarded or modified, the City Council may thereof to any person or circumstance,is declared affected by the land use decision or who decision or recommendation, findings and remand the proceeding to the Examiner for invalid,the remaining provisions and the applies- would be aggrieved or adversely affected by a conclusions contained in the Examiner's reconsideration, or enter its own decision tion of such provisions to other persons or circum- reversal or modification of the land use deci- report,the notice of appeal,and additional upon the application pursuant to Section 4-8• stances shall not be affected thereby, but shall sion. The terms 'aggrieved" and 'adversely letters submitted by the parties. (Ord.. l0B or C. remain in full force and effect,the Mayor and City affected'are defined in RCW 36.70C.060. 3658,9-13-82) Council hereby declaring that they would have D. No public hearing shall be held by the City 11. In any event,the decision of the City Council ordained the remaining provisions of this Ordi- 3. Content Of Appeal Submittal. The con- shall be in writing and shall specify any mod- nance without the word,phrase,clause,sentence, tent,procedure and other requirements of an Council. No new or additional evidence or ified or amended findings and conclusions paragraph, section or part or the application appeal of a land use decision are governed by testimony shall be accepted by the City other than those set forth in the report of the thereof,so held invalid. Chapter 36.70C RCW which is incorporated Council unless a showing is made by the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding herein by reference as if fully set forth. party offering the evidence that the shall be supported by substantial evidence in evidence could not reasonably have been 4. Other Appeals. Appeals to Superior the record. The burden of proof shall rest available at the time of the hearing before with the appellant.(Ord.3658,9-13-82) Court from decisions other than a land use the Examiner. If the Council determines decision,as defined herein,shall be appealed within the time frame established by ordi- nance.If there is no appeal time established • by an ordinance,and there is no statute spe- cifically preempting the area and establish- ing a time frame for appeal, any appeal, whether through extraordinary writ or other- 497 wise,shall be brought within twenty one(21) City of Renton days of the decision.(Ord.4587,3-18-1996; amd.Ord.4660,3-17-97) APPEAL CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION tee tlfts1ZdattrlY COUNCIL. FILE NO. LUA-98-113, CU-H RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE APPLICATION NAME: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Boeing Lonqacres Helistop The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner,dated September 28 and October 20 19 98 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY , APPELLANT: The Boeing Company REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): PERKINS COIE LLP Name: Conrad Szymczak Name: Charles E. Maduell Address: P.O. Box 3707, M/S 20-30 Address: 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone No. 425-477-0094 Telephone No. 206-583-8888 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets. if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) NONE No. Error: CITY OF RENTON NOV U 2.1998 Li;oa pp.rr), Correction: RECEIVED GTY CLERK'S OFFICE CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: See attached. Correction: OTHER: No. Error: See attached. Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: x Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Delete Condition No. 1 on p.6 of the Hearir Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Examiner's Decision . er /(479/ Appel tfRepresentative Signature Date NOTE: Please refer to Title N,Chapter 8,of the Renton Municipal Code,and Section 4-8-16,for specific procedures. heappeal.doc City of Renton City Code Title IV-Building Chapter 8 -Hearing Examiner Section 16 -Appeal 4-8-16: APPEAL: Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen(14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) A. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. Facsimile filing of a notice of appeal is authorized pursuant to the conditions detailed in Renton City Code Section 4-8-11C. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92). B. Within five(5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten(10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. C. Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) D. No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council may remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-93) E. The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. F. If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-8-10A and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify,or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. G. If,upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-8-1OB or C, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record,or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application pursuant to Section 4-8-10B of C. H. In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) heappeal.doc 2. SPECIFICATIONS OF ERRORS CONCLUSIONS: No. 4 Error: The Examiner erred in concluding that "[i]t is hard to say that there is community need for a private helipad located at a private site" and in basing Condition No. 1, at least in part, on this conclusion. Correction: Delete Condition No. 1 on page 6 of the Hearing Examiner's Decision ("The Conditional Use Permit shall be issued for an initial period of five(5) years.") from the CUP approval. No. 5 Error: The Examiner erred in concluding that the CUP should be subject to renewal in case noise problems arise in the future or because of the possible precedential effect of approval of a CUP for the Longacres helistop. Correction: Delete this conclusion and delete Condition No. 1 from the CUP approval. No. 6 Error: The Examiner erred in concluding that "[n]oise, though, could be an issue, particularly for the homes perched on the hill east of the site" and in using this conclusion as a basis for imposition of Condition No. 1. Correction: Delete the second sentence of Conclusion No. 6 and delete Condition No. 1. No. 12 Error: The Examiner erred in concluding that approval of the CUP for the Boeing Longacres helistop will create a precedent and should be subject to further review, and by using these conclusions as a basis to impose Condition No. 1. Correction: Delete first and third sentences of Conclusion No. 12 and delete Condition No. 1. OTHER: Error: The Examiner erred in imposing Condition No. 1 in his Decision approving the CUP, issued September 28, 1998. Correction: Delete Condition No. 1. Error: The Examiner erred in denying Boeing's Request for Reconsideration of Condition No. I on the grounds stated in his letter of denial dated October 20, 1998, which appear to be based upon the Examiner's concerns about community need served by a private helipad at an office site within the Green River Valley. Correction: Reverse the Examiner's denial of the Request for Reconsideration and delete Condition No. 1 from the CUP approval. [09901-0001/S B983060.054 J 11/2/98 1 2 CITY OF RENTON 3 4 NOV 0 2 1998 5 RECEIVED 6 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 7 8 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 9 10 CITY OF RENTON 11 12 13 NO. LUA-98-113, CU-H 14 In Re The Boeing Company, Boeing 15 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF 16 Longacres Helistop--Conditional Use Permit APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER 17 Application,18 CONDITION 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The BoeingCompany ("Boeing") submits this statement in support of its 26 P Y ( g ) pp 28 appeal, pursuant to Renton City Code § 4-8-16, of the Hearing Examiner's imposition 29 of Condition No. 1 in its decision approving a conditional usepermit for a helistopat 3o pp � g 31 32 Boeing Longacres Office Park. 33 34 I. INTRODUCTION 35 36 The Hearing Examiner, in his Report and Decision ("Decision") dated 37 38 September 28, 1998, approved a conditional use permit ("CUP") for a helistop at 39 40 Boeing Longacres Office Park subject to four conditions. Boeing objects only to the 41 42 first enumerated condition (Condition No. 1) in the Decision, which provides as 43 44 follows: "The Conditional Use Permit shall be issued for an initial period of five (5) 45 46 years." Decision, p. 6. 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 1 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 On October 12, 1998, Boeing requested reconsideration by the Hearing 2 3 Examiner of Condition No. 1 as part of his approval of the CUP for the helistop. On 4 5 October 20, 1998, the Examiner denied the request for reconsideration. The 6 7 Examiner also stated that Boeing could appeal the decision to the City Council within 8 9 14 days of the decision. 10 11 Boeing timely filed its appeal on November 2, 1998. 12 13 Ii. ARGUMENT 14 15 The Examiner's imposition of Condition No. 1 in his decision approving the 16 17 CUP for the Boeing helistop appears to be based upon three Examiner conclusions: 18 19 (1) that the permit should be subject to review or possible renewal in case noise 20 21 problems arise or become an issue, particularly for the homes perched on the hill east 22 23 of the site [Examiner Conclusions 5, 6 and 12 in Decision]; (2) that approval of this 24 25 use could create a precedent for such uses in the Valley area of the City, making it 26 27 necessary in the future to consider the overall impacts of private helistops at various 28 29 sites in the Valley [Conclusions 5, 12 in Decision]; and (3) that a five-year term is 30 31 warranted because there is little community need served by a private helipad at an 32 33 office site in the Green River Valley [Conclusion 4 in Decision; see also Examiner 34 35 Decision Denying Reconsideration]. Decision, p. 5-6. 36 37 These conclusions, which are not supported by findings of fact or evidence in 38 39 the record, do not justify or support a condition limiting the helistop CUP to a five- 40 41 year term. Such errors in fact, law and judgment, which are more fully set forth 42 43 below,justify modification of the Examiner's decision and removal of Condition 44 45 No. 1 from the CUP approval. 46 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 2 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor 103003-0i53/SB982790.1931 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 A. The Hearing Examiner Erred in Limiting the CUP to a Five-Year 2 Term Based Upon the Possibility of Future, Speculative Noise 3 4 Impacts from Operation of the Proposed Helistop 5 6 On the one hand, the Examiner's conclusions acknowledge that the proposed 7 8 Longacres helistop will not result in any adverse impacts to residential neighborhoods. 9 10 For example, the Examiner concludes that it "appears that the applicant's site is large 11 12 enough that most of the impacts should be contained on the site." Decision, p. 5 13 14 (Conclusion No. 5). The Examiner further concludes that "there is a goodly 15 16 separation between the use and that residential community [on the hill east of the 17 18 site]." Decision, p. 5 (Conclusion No. 5). These conclusions are based upon 19 20 substantial evidence in the record. 21 22 On the other hand, the Examiner also concludes that "noise problems" from 23 24 operation of the helistop may "arise" and noise "could be an issue, particularly for the 25 26 homes perched on the hill east of the site." Decision, p. 5 (Conclusion No. 5 & 6). 27 28 No Examiner findings or evidence in the record supports these conclusions. 29 30 Instead, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates that there will be 31 32 no substantial or undue adverse noise impacts on surrounding properties from 33 34 operation of the proposed helistop. According to the evidence in the record and the 35 36 unrebutted testimony of the applicant's noise expert, Ray Klein, any potential noise 37 38 impacts on residential neighborhoods, including those on the hill to the east of the 39 40 site, would at most be negligible, especially given the location of the helistop in the 41 42 middle of an office park surrounded by commercial and industrial uses, its distance 43 44 from residential neighborhoods (more than a mile), the infrequent use of the helistop, 45 46 the proposed flight path of the helicopter away from residential neighborhoods, and 47 the level of existing ambient noise levels in the area. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 3 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/S13982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 There is thus no evidence in the record to support the Examiner's conclusions 2 3 that noise problems from operation of the helistop may arise or be an issue, especially 4 5 with respect to any residential neighborhoods in the City. Accordingly, the Examiner 6 7 substantially erred in limiting the term of the CUP for the Longacres helistop to a term 8 9 of five years based upon such speculative, future noise impacts. 10 11 B. The Examiner Erred in Limiting the Term of the CUP for the 12 Longacres Helistop Based Upon the Possibility that Future 13 14 Applicants May Seek to Develop and Operate Private Helistops in 15 the Area 16 17 An additional basis for limiting the CUP for the Longacres helistop to a five- 18 19 year term in Condition No. 1 is the Examiner's conclusion that approval of this use 20 21 could create a precedent for other uses in the Valley area of the City, and a 22 23 proliferation of such requests or even a few more such requests in the future may 24 25 make it necessary to consider the overall impacts of private helistops at various sites 26 27 in the Valley. (Conclusion No. 5) Decision, p. 6. No evidence in the record or 28 29 Examiner findings support this conclusion which, even if true, does not support or 30 31 justify limiting the term of the CUP for this proposed helistop to five years. 32 33 In the first place, there is no evidence to suggest that approval of a CUP for the 34 35 Longacres helistop will create a precedent for more such uses in the future. For 36 37 example, there is no evidence to suggest that other property owners or potential 38 39 applicants in the area have tried without success to locate private helistops on their 40 41 property. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that there are other potential applicants 42 43 who are interested in siting a helistop on their property or have been awaiting the 44 45 decision in this case before applying to operate a helistop. In fact, private helipads 46 47 have been allowed as conditional uses in the Renton Zoning Code for a number of STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS ColE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 4 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03 003-0 1 5 3/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 years. The fact that Boeing apparently is the first to apply to site a private helistop 2 3 outside of an airport or a hospital should not in any way affect or limit approval of its 4 5 CUP. 6 7 In addition, the approval of a CUP for a helistop, or any other conditional use 8 9 for that matter, cannot as a matter of law be said to establish a precedent for such uses 10 11 or to encourage their proliferation. Conditional use permit applications, unlike 12 13 applications for permitted uses, are intended to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to 14 15 determine if such otherwise prohibited uses should be permitted in a particular zone, 16 17 based upon the existing surrounding uses and subject to whatever conditions may be 18 19 necessary, if even possible, to make such use consistent and compatible with 20 21 surrounding uses. R.C.C. § 4-31-36. In other words, the conditional use permit 22 23 process is designed to prevent the proliferation of materially detrimental or 24 25 incompatible uses in areas of the City. 26 27 Thus, not only will approval of Boeing's CUP application for a helistop not 28 29 have precedential effect, it is in fact likely to have the opposite effect. CUP criteria in 30 31 the Renton City Code, one of which prohibits the "detrimental overconcentration of a 32 33 particular use within the city or within the immediate area of the proposed use," 34 35 would actually make it more difficult to site another helistop in the vicinity. R.C.C. 36 37 § 4-31-36(C)(2)(a). Although Boeing in this case was able to demonstrate that the 38 39 location of a helistop at the Longacres Office Park would not result in a detrimental 40 41 overconcentration of such uses in the vicinity or area, future applicants seeking 42 43 helistops in the vicinity or area may not be able to make such a showing because of 44 45 the existence of the Longacres helistop, in which case their application may denied or 46 47 conditioned, as appropriate. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 5 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0 1 5 3/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 In addition, impacts, cumulative or otherwise, from additional helistops in the 2 3 vicinity or area can and will be evaluated and addressed through the conditional use 4 5 permit approval process. If they cannot, then they should be addressed legislatively 6 7 by the Renton City Council. In any event, Boeing should not be penalized simply 8 9 because it apparently was the first to apply to site a helistop outside of an airport or 10 i1 hospital. Instead, as a result of its being the first to site this conditional use, it will 12 13 become an existing use against which future, conditional use permit applications for 14 15 helistops will be evaluated. This is exactly how the conditional use permit approval 16 17 process is intended to work. If, as a result, it makes it more difficult for other 18 19 helistops to locate in the vicinity, it is not the fault of Boeing or the zoning code; 20 21 rather, it is the fault of those who could have but failed to apply earlier for a helistop. 22 23 Thus, although there is no evidence to suggest that approval of the Longacres 24 25 helistop will somehow create a precedence for additional private helistops in the 26 27 Valley area, even if it does, application for such uses will be subject to the conditional 28 29 use permit process and any impacts from additional private helistops in the Valley can 30 31 and should be addressed through the conditional use permit process. It should not 32 33 affect or limit the CUP approved for the Longacres helistop, which satisfies all 34 35 applicable conditional use permit criteria, and the Examiner erred in limiting the term 36 37 of the CUP for the Longacres helistop on this basis. 38 39 C. The Examiner Erred to the Extent He Based Condition No. 1 on the 40 Community Need for the helistop 41 42 Although not expressly a basis for Condition No. 1, the Examiner in both his 43 44 Decision and in his denial of Boeing's motion for reconsideration of Condition No. 1 45 a6implies that because "there is relatively little community need for a private helistop at STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 6 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/S13982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 an office site within the Green River Valley," a five-year permit term "is not 2 3 unreasonable." See Letter from Hearing Examiner, dated October 20, 1998, 4 5 Re: Denial of Request for Reconsideration ("Reconsideration Decision"). In this 6 7 regard, the Examiner erred to the extent community need was a basis for imposition of 8 9 Condition No. 1. 10 11 In the first place, the Examiner's interpretation of community need in the 12 13 context of the conditional use at issue here is overly narrow and erroneous. The 14 15 Examiner appears to interpret the "community need" criterion in R.C.C. 16 17 4-31-36(C)(2) for a conditional use permit as being synonymous with "public use and 18 19 interest." Reconsideration Decision. If that were the case, no conditional use permits 20 21 for private activities, such as for "service clubs and organizations", could be approved 22 23 under the code. 24 25 Instead, it is clear that the purpose of the "community need" requirement for 26 27 conditional use permits is two-fold: (1) to make sure that there is sufficient need for 28 29 the use at the particular location so as to avoid a "detrimental overconcentration" of 30 31 such uses in any area and (2) to ensure that the "proposed location is suited for the 32 33 proposed use." R.C.C. 4-31-36(C)(2). in fact, these two factors, in support of which 34 35 Boeing submitted substantial evidence demonstrating compliance therewith for its 36 37 proposed helistop, are the only two factors that are expressly required by the Renton 38 39 City Code to be satisfied to meet the "community need" requirement. Id. 40 41 In any event, even under the Examiner's overly broad interpretation of 42 43 community need, Boeing has demonstrated that there is a community need for the 44 45 helistop at Longacres sufficient to justify the CUP. Not only would it be available for 46 47 public agency use in the event of a public emergency or disaster, it will provide an STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 7 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0 1 5 3/S13982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 important accessory use to the newly opened Boeing Commercial Airplane Group's 2 3 Headquarters Building at the Longacres Office Park. As such, it links significant 4 5 Boeing facilities in the City of Renton, which provide important public and 6 7 community benefits to the City, to Boeing's other facilities throughout the Puget 8 9 Sound region, all of which have on-site helipads and can be accessed by helicopter. 10 it Although the Examiner acknowledges that Boeing has sufficiently 12 13 demonstrated community need to justify approval of the CUP for the Longacres 14 15 helistop, and the Examiner in fact approved the CUP, the Examiner nonetheless seems 16 17 to suggest that the fact that there may be less community need for the Boeing helistop 18 19 than for a helistop at a hospital, for example, somehow justifies a five-year term on 20 21 the Boeing helistop. Even if you accept the Examiner's premise about differing levels 22 23 of community need, this premise does not support his conclusion. In other words, the 24 25 level of community need for the Boeing helistop bears no relationship to and in no 26 27 way supports a five-year permit term. In fact, the only justification for the five-year 28 29 permit term appears to be the Examiner's concern about future noise impacts and 30 31 future precedent. As earlier demonstrated, any such concerns are wholly speculative 32 33 and unsupported by evidence in the record. There are thus no defensible grounds for 34 35 limiting the CUP for Boeing's Longacres helistop to a five-year term, whether on the 36 37 basis of community need, future noise impacts, or future precedent. 38 39 iiI. CONCLUSION 40 41 The proposed Longacres helistop is an important component of the recently- 42 43 completed Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters Building, for it will 44 45 connect the new Longacres Boeing operations at Longacres with Boeing's other 46 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS ColE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 8 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 facilities throughout the Puget Sound region, all of which can be accessed by 2 3 helicopter. 4 5 The proposed Longacres helistop has been designed and located so as to 6 7 minimize any impacts to surrounding areas and communities and, as the evidence in 8 9 the record demonstrates, any noise impacts to surrounding areas, including the 10 ii residential areas east of the site, will at most be negligible. Although the Examiner in 12 13 his Decision has expressed concerns about future potential noise problems from 14 15 operation of the helistop, there is no evidence to justify his concerns. Given the 16 17 speculative nature of this possibility, however, a condition limiting the term of the 18 19 helistop CUP to five years is neither reasonable nor appropriate. 20 21 For these reasons, Boeing respectfully requests that the City Council remove 22 23 Condition No. 1 from the Hearing Examiner's approval of the CUP for the Boeing 24 25 helistop. 26 27 DATED: November 2, 1998. 28 29 30 PERKINS COTE LLP 31 32 33 34 By 35 Charles E. Madueil, WSBA # 15491 36 Attorneys for The Boeing Company 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS Cow LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 9 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 CITY OF RENTON NOV 021998 RECEVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3 4 5 I certify that on November c9— 1998, I caused to be served via legal messenger a true 6 7 and correct copy of the foregoing Statement in Support of Appeal of Hearing Examiner 8 9 Condition upon the following: 10 11 12 Jennifer Henning 13 Project Manager - Development Services 14 City of Renton 15 1055 S. Grady Way 16 Renton, WA 98055 17 18 Fred J. Kaufman 19 20 Hearing Examiner 21 City of Renton 22 1055 S. Grady Way 23 Renton, WA 98055 24 25 26 27 28 Vicki Gea in 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 PERKINS COTE LLP CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 PERKINS COIE w' 1201 THIRD AVENUE,40TH FLOOR•SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3099 TELEPHONE:206 583-8888•FACSIMILE: 206 583-8500 CITY OF RENTON November 11, 1998 NOV 12 1998 RECITED CITY CLERK'S Oa©E Brenda Fritsvold Deputy City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision 9/28/98 File No. LUA-98-113, CH-H-ECF Dear Ms. Fritsvold: Enclosed is a signed copy of the Statement in Support of Appeal submitted by The Boeing Company in the above-referenced project. The original Statement was inadvertently filed unsigned when submitted on November 2. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. S• cerely, harles E. Maduell Of Counsel CEM:vg Enclosure [03003-0352/SB983150.054] ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE DENVER HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES OLYMPIA PORTLAND SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C. STRATEGIC ALLIANCE:RUSSELL&DuMOULIN,VANCOUVER,CANADA ' I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 9 10 CITY OF RENTON 11 12 13 NO. LUA-98-113, CU-H 14 15 In Re The Boeing Company, Boeing 16 Longacres Helistop--Conditional Use Permit STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF 17 Application, APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER 18 CONDITION 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Company The BoeingCom an ("Boeing") support submits this statement in su ort of its 28 appeal, pursuant to Renton CityCode 4-8-16, of the HearingExaminer's imposition 29 28 pP � § P 30 of Condition No. 1 in its decision approving a conditional use permit for a helistop at 31 BoeingLon acres Office Park. 32 g 33 34 1. INTRODUCTION 35 36 The Hearing Examiner, in his Report and Decision ("Decision") dated 37 38 September 28, 1998, approved a conditional use permit ("CUP") for a helistop at 39 4o Boeing Longacres Office Park subject to four conditions. Boeing objects only to the 41 42 first enumerated condition (Condition No. 1) in the Decision, which provides as 43 44 follows: "The Conditional Use Permit shall be issued for an initial period of five (5) 45 46 years." Decision, p. 6. 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - ] 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0 1 5 3/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 On October 12, 1998, Boeing requested reconsideration by the Hearing 2 3 Examiner of Condition No. 1 as part of his approval of the CUP for the helistop. On 4 5 October 20, 1998, the Examiner denied the request for reconsideration. The 6 • 7 Examiner also stated that Boeing could appeal the decision to the City Council within 8 9 14 days of the decision. 10 11 Boeing timely filed its appeal on November 2, 1998. 12 13 Ii. ARGUMENT 14 15 The Examiner's imposition of Condition No. 1 in his decision approving the 16 17 CUP for the Boeing helistop appears to be based upon three Examiner conclusions: 18 19 (1) that the permit should be subject to review or possible renewal in case noise 20 21 problems arise or become an issue, particularly for the homes perched on the hill east 22 23 of the site [Examiner Conclusions 5, 6 and 12 in Decision]; (2) that approval of this 24 25 use could create a precedent for such uses in the Valley area of the City, making it 26 27 necessary in the future to consider the overall impacts of private helistops at various 28 29 sites in the Valley [Conclusions 5, 12 in Decision]; and (3) that a five-year term is 30 31 warranted because there is little community need served by a private helipad at an 32 33 office site in the Green River Valley [Conclusion 4 in Decision; see also Examiner 34 35 Decision Denying Reconsideration]. Decision, p. 5-6. 36 37 These conclusions, which are not supported by findings of fact or evidence in 38 39 the record, do not justify or support a condition limiting the helistop CUP to a five- 40 41 year term. Such errors in fact, law and judgment, which are more fully set forth 42 43 below,justify modification of the Examiner's decision and removal of Condition 44 as No. 1 from the CUP approval. 46 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 2 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/sB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 A. The Hearing Examiner Erred in Limiting the CUP to a Five-Year 2 Term Based Upon the Possibility of Future, Speculative Noise 3 4 Impacts from Operation of the Proposed Helistop 5 6 On the one hand, the Examiner's conclusions acknowledge that the proposed 7 8 Longacres helistop will not result in any adverse impacts to residential neighborhoods. 9 10 For example, the Examiner concludes that it "appears that the applicant's site is large 11 12 enough that most of the impacts should be contained on the site." Decision, p. 5 13 14 (Conclusion No. 5). The Examiner further concludes that "there is a goodly 15 16 separation between the use and that residential community [on the hill east of the 17 18 site]." Decision, p. 5 (Conclusion No. 5). These conclusions are based upon 19 20 substantial evidence in the record. 21 22 On the other hand, the Examiner also concludes that "noise problems" from 23 24 operation of the helistop may "arise" and noise "could be an issue, particularly for the 25 26 homes perched on the hill east of the site." Decision, p. 5 (Conclusion No. 5 & 6). 27 28 No Examiner findings or evidence in the record supports these conclusions. 29 30 Instead, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates that there will be 31 32 no substantial or undue adverse noise impacts on surrounding properties from 33 34 operation of the proposed helistop. According to the evidence in the record and the 35 36 unrebutted testimony of the applicant's noise expert, Ray Klein, any potential noise 37 38 impacts on residential neighborhoods, including those on the hill to the east of the 39 40 site, would at most be negligible, especially given the location of the helistop in the 41 42 middle of an office park surrounded by commercial and industrial uses, its distance 43 44 from residential neighborhoods (more than a mile), the infrequent use of the helistop, 45 46 the proposed flight path of the helicopter away from residential neighborhoods, and 47 the level of existing ambient noise levels in the area. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 3 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 There is thus no evidence in the record to support the Examiner's conclusions 2 3 that noise problems from operation of the helistop may arise or be an issue, especially 4 s with respect to any residential neighborhoods in the City. Accordingly, the Examiner 6 7 substantially erred in limiting the term of the CUP for the Longacres helistop to a term 8 9 of five years based upon such speculative, future noise impacts. 10 11 B. The Examiner Erred in Limiting the Term of the CUP for the 12 Longacres Helistop Based Upon the Possibility that Future 13 14 Applicants May Seek to Develop and Operate Private Helistops in 15 the Area 16 17 An additional basis for limiting the CUP for the Longacres helistop to a five- 18 19 year term in Condition No. 1 is the Examiner's conclusion that approval of this use 20 21 could create a precedent for other uses in the Valley area of the City, and a 22 23 proliferation of such requests or even a few more such requests in the future may 24 25 make it necessary to consider the overall impacts of private helistops at various sites 26 27 in the Valley. (Conclusion No. 5) Decision, p. 6. No evidence in the record or 28 29 Examiner findings support this conclusion which, even if true, does not support or 30 31 justify limiting the term of the CUP for this proposed helistop to five years. 32 33 In the first place, there is no evidence to suggest that approval of a CUP for the 34 35 Longacres helistop will create a precedent for more such uses in the future. For 36 37 example, there is no evidence to suggest that other property owners or potential 38 39 applicants in the area have tried without success to locate private helistops on their 40 41 property. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that there are other potential applicants 42 43 who are interested in siting a helistop on their property or have been awaiting the 44 45 decision in this case before applying to operate a helistop. In fact, private helipads 46 47 have been allowed as conditional uses in the Renton Zoning Code for a number of STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 4 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03 003-0 1 5 3/S13982790.1931 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 years. The fact that Boeing apparently is the first to apply to site a private helistop 2 3 outside of an airport or a hospital should not in any way affect or limit approval of its 4 5 CUP. 6 7 In addition, the approval of a CUP for a helistop, or any other conditional use 8 9 for that matter, cannot as a matter of law be said to establish a precedent for such uses 10 11 or to encourage their proliferation. Conditional use permit applications, unlike 12 13 applications for permitted uses, are intended to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to 14 15 determine if such otherwise prohibited uses should be permitted in a particular zone, 16 17 based upon the existing surrounding uses and subject to whatever conditions may be 18 19 necessary, if even possible, to make such use consistent and compatible with 20 21 surrounding uses. R.C.C. § 4-31-36. In other words, the conditional Ise permit 22 23 process is designed to prevent the proliferation of materially detrimental or 24 25 incompatible uses in areas of the City. 26 27 Thus, not only will approval of Boeing's CUP application for a helistop not 28 29 have precedential effect, it is in fact likely to have the opposite effect. CUP criteria in 30 31 the Renton City Code, one of which prohibits the "detrimental overconcentration of a 32 33 particular use within the city or within the immediate area of the proposed use," 34 35 would actually make it more difficult to site another helistop in the vicinity. R.C.C. 36 37 § 4-31-36(C)(2)(a). Although Boeing in this case was able to demonstrate that the 38 39 location of a helistop at the Longacres Office Park would not result in a detrimental 40 41 overconcentration of such uses in the vicinity or area, future applicants seeking 42 43 helistops in the vicinity or area may not be able tc make such a showing because of 44 45 the existence of the Longacres helistop, in which case their application may denied or 46 47 conditioned, as appropriate. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 5 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 In addition, impacts, cumulative or otherwise, from additional helistops in the 2 3 vicinity or area can and will be evaluated and addressed through the conditional use 4 5 permit approval process. If they cannot, then they should be addressed legislatively 6 7 by the Renton City Council. In any event, Boeing should not be penalized simply 8 9 because it apparently was the first to apply to site a helistop outside of an airport or 10 11 hospital. Instead, as a result of its being the first to site this conditional use, it will 12 13 become an existing use against which future, conditional use permit applications for 14 15 helistops will be evaluated. This is exactly how the conditional use permit approval 16 17 process is intended to work. If, as a result, it makes it more difficult for other 18 19 helistops to locate in the vicinity, it is not the fault of Boeing or the zoning code; 20 21 rather, it is the fault of those who could have but failed to apply earlier for a helistop. 22 23 Thus, although there is no evidence to suggest that approval of the Longacres 24 25 helistop will somehow create a precedence for additional private helistops in the 26 27 Valley area, even if it does, application for such uses will be subject to the conditional 28 29 use permit process and any impacts from additional private helistops in the Valley can 30 31 and should be addressed through the conditional use permit process. It should not 32 33 affect or limit the CUP approved for the Longacres helistop, which satisfies all 34 35 applicable conditional use permit criteria, and the Examiner erred in limiting the term 36 37 of the CUP for the Longacres helistop on this basis. 38 39 C. The Examiner Erred to the Extent He Based Condition No. 1 on the 40 Community Need for the Helistop 41 42 Although not expressly a basis for Condition No. 1, the Examiner in both his 43 44 Decision and in his denial of Boeing's motion for reconsideration of Condition No. 1 45 46 implies that because "there is relatively little community need for a private helistop at 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 6 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 an office site within the Green River Valley," a five-year permit term "is not 2 3 unreasonable." See Letter from Hearing Examiner, dated October 20, 1998, 4 s Re: Denial of Request for Reconsideration ("Reconsideration Decision"). In this 6 7 regard, the Examiner erred to the extent community need was a basis for imposition of 8 9 Condition No. 1. to 11 In the first place, the Examiner's interpretation of community need in the 12 13 context of the conditional use at issue here is overly n:rrow and erroneous. The 14 1s Examiner appears to interpret the "community need" criterion in R.C.C. 16 17 4-31-36(C)(2) for a conditional use permit as being synonymous with "public use and 18 19 interest." Reconsideration Decision. If that were the case, no conditional use permits 20 21 for private activities, such as for "service clubs and organizations", could be approved 22 23 under the code. 24 25 Instead, it is clear that the purpose of the "community need" requirement for 26 27 conditional use permits is two-fold: (1) to make sure that there is sufficient need for 28 29 the use at the particular location so as to avoid a "detrimental overconcentration" of 30 31 such uses in any area and (2) to ensure that the "proposed location is suited for the 32 33 proposed use." R.C.C. 4-3 1-36(C)(2). In fact, these two factors, in support of which 34 35 Boeing submitted substantial evidence demonstrating compliance therewith for its 36 37 proposed helistop, are the only two factui.s that are expressly required by the Renton 38 39 City Code to be satisfied to meet the "community need" requirement. Id. 40 41 In any event, even under the Examiner's overly broad interpretation of 42 43 community need, Boeing has demonstrated that there is a community need for the 44 as helistop at Longacres sufficient to justify the CUP. Not only would it be available for 46 47 public agency use in the event of a public emergency or disaster, it will provide an STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 7 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 important accessory use to the newly opened Boeing Commercial Airplane Group's 2 3 Headquarters Building at the Longacres Office Park. As such, it links significant 4 5 Boeing facilities in the City of Renton, which provide important public and 6 7 community benefits to the City, to Boeing's other facilities throughout the Puget 8 9 Sound region, all of which have on-site helipads and can be accessed by helicopter. 10 11 Although the Examiner acknowledges that Boeing has sufficiently 12 13 demonstrated community need to justify approval of tile CUP for the Longacres 14 15 helistop, and the Examiner in fact approved the CUP, the Examiner nonetheless seems 16 17 to suggest that the fact that there may be less community need for the Boeing helistop 18 19 than for a helistop at a hospital, for example, somehow justifies a five-year term on 20 21 the Boeing helistop. Even if you accept the Examiner's premise about differing levels 22 23 of community need, this premise does not support his conclusion. In other words, the 24 25 level of community need for the Boeing helistop bears no relationship to and in no 26 27 way supports a five-year permit term. In fact, the only justification for the five-year 28 29 permit term appears to be the Examiner's concern about future noise impacts and 30 31 future precedent. As earlier demonstrated, any such concerns are wholly speculative 32 33 and unsupported by evidence in the record. There are thus no defensible grounds for 34 35 limiting the CUP for Boeing's Longacres helistop to a five-year term, whether on the 36 37 basis of community need, future noise impacts, or future precedent. 38 39 HI. CONCLUSION 40 41 The proposed Longacres helistop is an important component of the recently- 42 43 completed Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters Building, for it will 44 45 connect the new Longacres Boeing operations at Longacres with Boeing's other 46 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 8 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor 103003-0 1 5 3/SB982790.I931 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 facilities throughout the Puget Sound region, all of which can be accessed by 2 3 helicopter. 4 5 The proposed Longacres helistop has been designed and located so as to 6 7 minimize any impacts to surrounding areas and communities and, as the evidence in 8 9 the record demonstrates, any noise impacts to surrounding areas, including the to 11 residential areas east of the site, will at most be negligible. Although the Examiner in 12 13 his Decision has expressed concerns about future potential noise problems from 14 15 operation of the helistop, there is no evidence to justify his concerns. Given the 16 17 speculative nature of this possibility, however, a condition limiting the term of the 18 19 helistop CUP to five years is neither reasonable nor appropriate. 20 21 For these reasons, Boeing respectfully requests that the City Council remove 22 23 Condition No. 1 from the Hearing Examiner's approval of the CUP for the Boeing 24 25 helistop. 26 27 DATED: November 2, 1998. 28 29 30 PERKINS COIE LLP 31 32 33 34 By 35 arles E. Maduell, WSBA # 15491 36 Attorneys for The Boeing Company 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COIF LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION- 9 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206)583-8888 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3 4 5 I certifythat on November 6 off-, 1998, I caused to be served via legal messenger a true 7 and correct copy of the foregoing Statement in Support of Appeal of Hearing Examiner 8 9 Condition upon the following: 10 12 Jennifer Henning 13 Project Manager - Development Services 14 City of Renton 15 1055 S. Grady Way 16 Renton, WA 98055 17 18 Fred J. Kaufman 19 20 Hearing Examiner 21 City of Renton 22 1055 S. Grady Way 23 Renton, WA 98055 24 25 26 ti✓Lti 27 28 Vicki Geaiin 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 PERKINS COTE LLP CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193J Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206)583-8888 November 4, 1998 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF KING Brenda Fritsvold, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 4th day of November, 1998, at the hour of 5:00 p.m your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision filed by Charles E. Maduell, representative for The Boeing Company (File No. LUA-98-1113, CU-H, ECF). )11\N"111 Brenda Fritsv ld, Deputy City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 4th day of November 1998. P Michele Neumann Notary Public in and for the 4,tat of Washington, residing in -44( • •, l.1 A • ' •• % ." • , Jennifer Henning Chuck Maduell City of Renton Perkins Coie LLP Development Services Div. 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Conrad Szymczak Rudolph Hobbs Ray Klein The Boeing Company The Boeing Company The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, MS 20-30 P.O. Box 3707, MS 14-HC P.O. Box 3707, MS 1W-03 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 CITI 3F RENTON City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J. Petersen November 4, 1998 APPEAL FILED BY: Charles E. Maduell, Perkins Coie LLP Representative: The Boeing Company, Conrad Szymczak RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision 9/28/98 approving construction& operation of a helistop at Boeing headquarters building, 901 Oakesdale Ave. SW, for an initial period of five(5)years. File No. LUA-98-113, CU-H-ECF To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision for conditional use of a helistop at Boeing headquarters for an initial period of five years has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-16.B.,within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting,please call the Council secretary at 425 430-6501 for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of hearing examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner,no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call me at 425 430-6504. Sincerely, if\NAt\ok9IlvidlAtob. Brenda Fritsvold Deputy City Clerk Attachment 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516 0 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer r•a----.r •eltfk--- ••.,..A 4,t. eti,.,. . ,,,., , - , ., ,": .:''T*f,.•,ti- ":' ), • - ' • 'lett t . "'#irl-.1:%3L'"4*,$trt 4'.'''' ' l'9,V,%•*.:*:,'•;.?.."•11-* '• :.;:"; ,•••:.,; , :Le.4-‘•':W.,Litt,',pktie-•• , • ., 'WI''''• ••*-' '' ....r,e•4. ;:4; •" ,,l'•,z'' ,,,,,1,441-,i4,-.4"e-;714%'17;!'tV7,/%,.c,t •',."--`•4:,/,•','--",,,,'.4,,,-;‘„,t,,..t „ •,,,,: ''ac:.1"''‘,. "7..„,4•4-tet 4.,-,I*4, ''' ,„/".44-4''' telpA, ,.,_/.4'*"A,f4,4:01.Z..1 ".41"..,7 1.2.1'..'ri^377ifti9" ;.,i../'''''-,..!-,',*,,.../"-IV '',.4.` '4;1'. ::. ,.• ',. _.....'v"''''•' --,,t 7 . ,...,..,-,-1-,. ......--,kif.„0., 4.14 1,:‘,....,,.... ,. ,,NY- ••..4%;",......; - fe',"...?, *. •417rY''.r'T. ',^A• •,4-tr.., XI ,,(',t.. .,'`."::;, f''-,:t. ..4****'-'1V"‘-‘i-,-.* **.1,*,-„;*,'„-...'1'7,1*IP:: .:,;, ,, ,::.t ,,„„li,,.' , ,lift.0,-;-,--,-- 11. N. -..ilit'• * 1,,,,.,. '_ ,.` ..s,7..: -P2:.A, ',i r.:11:1*.i.'•;•,,,,,,f,,:y.,!4....4,..,-1, .,0.:7,,,,,4'"?.k..-,,,,'''" '‘,"Y"4.4., ''',.'„?..,;',..2.•.:1**,./S;-•"'"'N''".,''''f.4*••••':." '4.4414-,,,e;'14*"'":".'4'*".';".;4:...'..34"7;Vr.;. ',.."I',.7.'i.7:17,...i'.'"4-,4.'"'., -44'" 7,,,:'irlf24:-14-".!:"''','f'. •• ,'"..11;te'..1f4;4••4 :4;4 "if-.WI' 'NI 411."-lit'':'"1""4..;.i.‘:-‘:4 ..:14';':2"''''''''.:..;*4''Y'".•It 4,' ' ,i":.;:;;,:1..1'.•;,,-:,•4:.',..'..,''L''''.',"V‘I't ''',e••';i: '-'.1..4:',:',41;:lft. %,....?•;;;"•.:' '"''''' ''i-t,'?..:0:4/•••':"•;J''',:L'''' ',''`'' '.4': 41CS-':1:',":f:,",t44." '*$ ) :4%1•74744,,,C,W;;111,"."','1',i':ei..,1 ..,-.;%:‘ ',IY'•;•-'.- it',` ••:•••••-e?;?i•..-:'J- -•P-N-,.....;------•-•;:••-;-...'„).---‘••••i_4, -••- •,t''...44,:i''417,if.'•-,-'7,:-(4t,,4-•:„t,'" . •, '•;.: .'f.r.,';',.:',i:‘-:,-,•,•:4,1-,-...•,.- ;/,•,‘,4-fo,e. -1,,,,4' '-,4 V.,*t :'. "--',"'-' ',' -ti,‘",,,i'*;,-.'rt.-.•‘'. ..': r.,`-.. , .elr' '''iet4):0',-.- ` .',',7'`-'4:7-4'-,1‘4"•'.i .AI'0:-1,',.-d...P`'''‘,":''':"•'•'''-';',% .'''''',• 0.. f,..6,:-."-,,i-,.)-•il.-,';.‹. '..".,-;. •%." .,=',...•,, ., .— • •-'`...,''',.. •••_„1 -„--A t.-„t,.,..,-- ,,,,. • ,• „.4..‘.4e,...- „,.,„4„,,.1.-: . -..'•-,ti,, z' ..1,:1,??.01..P.- .. ,.,t, --..-, ,.., •r,.,..!.z•••••-4,,Ici )-f -g A- \sr,,,....,-,, ,,-,f t 4, •-, .--•!.... ,-.-,-\'`,- ••• -•;-,. l'-.4..A.;:z.xi 4../',.•-;,7,,4‘4*;•-,"! :*.,.. i; 1.- ,P,-,M, ''.* , -,,,e,3 ..4. Mr, 1:7„,,,,;;`0",;',.,:4` -',•;,‘:-,.;... .,:!:,, ,,....•;,,,,,-;'.'0„. il,., ," -.":7:'''',t;7!-',.." :‘,.,•',...Y.•:'. ''' k• '.•.:, 4':U1,'`..-* , ...4,'..44.i" -'-‘ .7.,e . ;;41*41.,,,;.;:,', ',-,Ak„, 1,„ V.?"5"r'l••••4,4,--c:4%,;•..li' ••• :,-V.,.i,.''- ''',-;•;•cy-',A-•,,,i. „I.r.'12:-..,", .::,:,.•.*,:2...•'1..;. .'':•'.,4,•,••••',:•Y.• .' '"x• --,•:--?1,;,,?r,.!tit' ''''''..1-'y .‘.• .":".` ,•':-'--`2N '''• _„,,, ..,..-7).--'..„,'--:'`'.'-a-,'.'-, ttlir'44':'-ir4..,,.:%‘*-141'`-:if''. ''''' '.'---."•-'''': ''''''1..2-• r... ...-..': ,. -•, :, ,,.....- ....:..7:-..,!-,,-„, ,:.4,.,....:A,..,-,„:„. r :,A..„y,„--4..,•.--- „„•••••4" 17(.. y --•••:.••••'--1-4#-• „•-• ,•,,,•••'' :. - . ' "-'.,,,,,'..••-,..,•--'",,.. :v' Z.Vi::,••11.-;;Y--,:•`':.,' , • .), '.,''.;z ".71'., • • '•."- :••14,0 -g-isx•.'''''•?--.4:'•-1•A•:-..'.- ! ., ':"C-1-*-•••• Is•it'•:',:'- ,': ' Nik'•''.`":''i''''''*"*'''''''' • • ., - ...„;. , 7„,,, _ , •• ' 4.,' „ „',. . -,, ,,,...441N;..","..i,,.,,ii 1..;;1",,,4.•4.,.-•.":".••',-4•''.`•,!N". ,,f.,,....''', ,-,.•,•• Z"Z.,, "rfy,,t7,fit,74i. -;*‘,„,...,.S,1,•:,,',,,Z'.,.rs` ;.,t',,e*:: !,.' ;4+4 4,5*,ir:"Ots*,*: -,1„.... - :. . ..„;*: kl-,,,,i:,„,4t`e.L.4'4,;' *4.:; • ...-;.1'.•., •-‘, -..- .°,4, - "' 35?..."-!•''' "'',.."' ..A., .-4.',64'11-`4'..".::, 4i'-'.'" Ittikr:1;;Ii..,:ir'5'..?,,,,y,...k,,-•-_.".:,;,r,","4.. "::.;,,.'''..;„:".';':4%,4;,....4,4,; f sr 7 ,t",„-... .V.,", * • ' .!':r.:*'' '*• *. T ..,:a't it '"^rib .40A--. *1' ,. .. 7, ", .••tr...., -,,,1 4 #'... A.*--,,,w.;„;r, .4 4,•!.. to,,,, , .',...,.•c:- ,.,1,* ; '..- ,, • t '{''7., _f'' -- 4 '-:_','!.r.te.C4I'L-4,..,N'Art% '''.-...,,,.*,(••'-`.i... .' .. --,t,-,;:::,,,:i.#--ilk- ;•,21.,,4•••,,r,,' !,f,>.-..,-%•'- : : .,.., ''''';.•:•>,':.•.. '',, .'.•.-:. . ......• ,.,,•;„. .1,,', ;,,,. • :,'.::::::...,;i-V!..6. -.:`,4.c.t,.i, ,-,..:...,,,.• ...;,t, •..,„:::„.,,,.,:. ,. .•::::„.u..„....:,..,.,• , - _1,,,Ar''''''.''./5t'f„..." .0:,It . ''`;":.- , ..'-',' C..,, tlt% .-ri:`- :'.. 1 4, • .• '`,..':._4::!'•,11, -,;'',;:.:,;',..%::.j.r..."•10;!....ke;t... ''• f3.-tiOtt:;--- s,' ,..z i7.404,1tZ:`7.4 ;':•-, ,'7rr,te:I.::,0,..%44,;ii:,:0,47;!:'. `...:-,% v,1:4''44,- 4'P'.--,,,•::?•-•`',r•• .' , •te.,•-. ..4..A3/4---. ,. - t,,-;;;„,,,A":Ve.•- -1-•;4.','"'" r • ,7,,'4.1...?,::,..; ,,.'"..,.4.154",.*". . ' -s'.4•:. : ,' Y4'.::.'.,'"•• r'..."'' .''-. s'•:4414..",?:4;/..11,1 T;:f;4iit$.4 4-,t'i,..S.:-..";":''T!'''''"t,' ..-*.4-e'r' 'i.. .'a .irt itr'. 11:, ,,..,,,e.••,., -,-0.s.,f•e -,,,-''''A'4--.41''' ' ri- •, •vr, - • ;,.. .- ..., ..- , . .:,r,''' -•,-..?, ..".,..,..'...,' ,,, re,`,„-q‘p-*',7).•,.._;.., ^,.` 'St;...17-7,•• „.•44,-...--- ,;_r,w,,;•• -set-4,.i.-„e7-....4. .*.,•••• _.'-•••••-•., •••-.... • ' •••,:its' •-•,_...t- ••••-. ' -•••• --•• ' '-• - .'••-•1----1 fi''; -•"**.** t's Pi...kW...4)4.f",*4''t,,, ''.**•:r1t*,.' tl,krt.s..14,e'''•,. •;.-••;'' -",:4 e.,,;-..,..,*4,4,- -;;14. - -..,. ,-,,;•'. •ka,,,:,• ,c... ,-,...4- 1,Air:-,,,,„-;.-: ....r .1A,t. ,. - t.t.:,. --sk--..t%'-:. " 4,,-t„),v,„..°.a.,A.,,,8:a.k.',-;.,-. ' ,i•- . -,-','-v,.- .Y,'=-;,.L. ,-,,. 4"•"•- I ..,,:...., .4',"•• 4., - • '' '. ''''''-a'. , ''0..''".**•1; jleq• ,'vli••• iht,•"V, .„.,,,/'•'' *,,••„,...,17 -.1,Ir.,,,*"•;•.,„,',..1,7,'"'"4:.a taf'...,,,,X.:4'ti,,,,,„Nipk ,,,•',,- 0.':,••,,,,i.lia,,,' ii ,...,•ki..•,..,,,•",,.Zw.„..,,tor,, --t‘, • 1:-.,.'-', ..,•'.• • .•. -t'*,..,:,' -:, - :,, . .-, ,..,.5.4 t „,,- .P.:41#-.,C;.: :Ir.! -.:,,.,:". ', ,'"!..,- ":.,or..,„44;''•'..2%;;tr-i*;,rf A '',44,- ri'i..ZIAY.'-'41'‘';;•- .-,,tilt VI*'' .'ir".; ..'Y:4-': Irfi.''.. .;,•-., '''',.....-w fir,''. 1',1*-‘41.-4.."''';e::41;;C.,'"•....11' tri;V:;:".:,..V, ......t.„14........17„).'7.!: ''......' ...4.:',,Vbitifitk -...,.:,:„. .J...„,. ,.. ii,f's•.-;1'rit; ,,,4•,17A--7.::".4?,filk.i.7.:;,f,47,.•.,--;;'',-:::$''-:.1-#„r-- It-'"„(A,,,,,N,4,t;,.... .2t,„t7;if,g•;;:;-...,i4ii•-, 45-;•••';',•-:1•.;""e•--1 r'•-r• '••.:••.-- -`-'‘'.- .Y•••• Al .74 ...- ••-s.:.A 2 -:J.:. -- : • ,,,,'-'A •-4 .;'' - —.--•ri .#41-?•'-•----,.• ‘-",. „,„•-,- r 1,2%‘;v11414 f,i,-;,..,34.44550,1.''N,'''51-r..;*(itr..44:.44"'"'t4-:.'...0';','''Ate.ls,AC''.4:r':e:' 04i An E ',!::7:-.'':/.., ' ::.' ::' ' '• '•-• -.••••-••- -:.:•.-;:C•••?`•• ;:-',-i-.3.,if,I.Oit',''',i'4,.'" 4' -.`... ' ..;''',..','£4 ,Y:, ..".-Imei,s'0....-..-,,,,,,,4„t.vi;;,:,..k!,;'), e,.4:44.,'-',,,IL‘•..1`,, .Z.,- , '4,1,,.?1,'" ',..';',•‘ti ;ILA . . t*,,,, '',J.*.:'t, .e:,...''..•, ,,,-,t--,,,-,A,4,4,,,,•,-,4,e,,,,,,'• ,,,464.-„-f,-„,,,, t•-",••• 0-'''f'":" "..„:"- . ,Vilt.6'."..st ?y,4„,...••kir.. e 4.1,..,:,,it.t.• .,_.'"?",•'.i'-c.,``,.:,---u,,,..4,*-4:,,,,,,Ill,,,,'' .?-t-..t.,i, F-til ii":4-: 4,j4, -;',' '",',r,"... ,'. -,';,:-5,;-..'" 4%'.; ,!''4;,,,..r.A'ticf,':;..ict.rnata,44*.??.t:.!7,_4•:,;;;...;`_:":"... 5-1....,,,'-; ' .1 -1W%.*'.!..',„ 4 CA'-',;„4„, ,,t5,4„,";,*',,:77,„--.,e.:•yy,-;., ty•-•rt-,117.;.•-•,-:'•'y...-g',,.x,-.1 '-S•":• :.„ , ,,, '',, , ..; : t''*.;.,; Nfr,•,*, .711;2,°;.:.-....:'-I'll,'AV:-.4'-'?.,A.s'I'':`-::!'r,.‘el."‘;',. ,'C'.1z.n 1, lit'NI 07 '' ..1,.?ltv... 11NYe,-1.1,;!',,,,-,i;-,',..',`.44..7.•.",7,..A_-:-`,:-%?;`;''.‘;'etr-4,'!••• ,:'.*1 r..-', !,.4,, .."'••-''; - •-s',:•4., "1;' ''''. ..•,','. -,•,-...7,t-,.„IF.:*`:.-..-1-. te 4,'''44•-•Us..','4.,;'. .,„•,-s,f...„•,,:- .;,.'"-v,„ .4.,,. t -t?,1'‘,,, •`,7 54-.,-,'W'1'01'4. .,°.4it•,,,,,,,,tfz...--t-,.6 iv.4( ,:—...;,.-_, 4.,,-4. -.,- -4-, %-;•:,- :, ' -,,,5,iv.,,,,'5'..,•;,°'-',.. .-:..4,,,•,..,•%-.,i... %,,,,-,,,Jx.-,,,Qt.:„..-:-.7.4.0.:,.t.. .._4,•;.•••7: ,4: ,••;",,, *.•',0.14,t,..i.-.,4,t,..,,-.1 ,,,ip -;1:4',;:„j'.!'.(I-1*.•:7 :•I•-&:-.-.-s',-:.:-'-^-ys;''...•.t4f-'.''.,'.,c.,,'!.."':.."„'.'?,.'.::'.'.;`-.i.'.,•,•''':,.''..-•.'•'•','--„-..,"-..,,•''.•;.'..,-.•:;,--.-.•"'.'•'','.-';''..`.,..'•-':•-;''..-.'.'7''.4•:.••••'.•:...•.4....•::._s.-.'',;2'1";„‘;:-,.2.',t-,,~.•.-'..:'::(.-•,„.:',4,:.-'-ta••.'.,'."rf•"r„,„i--....2-""‘t..•:.''-•''‘,.;.:,'"'..,''-,.'.,':,:,'".':'1';,.".;-:.,1,'-.:I,);.:;‘k'"'7..•0.,.,,„'-,'e";-,.).;.,,":P,t,4,;c,`5'",-(Ni.:4.Zs".--..1',t,..4.i;'1;.f'7!,,z',..}:1':''i:"';0zd'0r l;-.,4'%i-''''r•s-:'.:.4i,--'74;,i,.4,.•v"„Y:,-X"-:'0'•'-V•,-;-;e..'-::t 4-i‘-1f,:'.;.-re-t....t.....-:'..';-:;)'&4'-1.4-::4I;"*,1-,-i!e,;1‘''),,:k4'A.t.i4:'ky;."."!:i",;..,rt,!•-.;,4;`4.';,'.'.:,...;,:..',,-::-.-t-':..,';,',',,'1.':..'i.;''':,-'''a•:,,''--",,•..,,,;,‘,?'7-:-',,.,,..'?1,::..,•i-.".,:„144'51,i11',1',-.44,',1,,e,.,Dt 44;•*,..`•Ys44.oP1'‘4rI•-.:"K:4 1.,4*•,#,4 0t.--.5,etV-.'4...-,.44;'.-.*'!;,'%.d'P•••-'4;-.'_!,.,;'t.,,-.,,.i.,-41."-"e7t,•.,;0,r`..r4a;1.,.,'v,47.l.'eI"t.iIlr,;-'-i•,4-,9'.*p-,,%,1*.,5,1 1.'.i•..•"ff-:'t4V,,;, a-P.:k+. t,l,•i.t''-4‘i'',•.'e'..';-y-*,r.'.'','.•.'.!,s4..,'"';d4",.,1.,:..i'0:k4‘'-.4.'.'z.4:iv:'..,,;,,.-',*.1k,".7-'..*'.‘*-14r.,A\',-....5:;'-'-:4v-.-;-4--!•,-,.--,.",v-:,-,t,.,t,'-*:;'',-,,"'-;.t-:,',-''''';'::.''?"•.,4',.,::''-';•,,,•..,..'.-'.,...-:",.',‘,;'.-`. 4 . `' ' 8 - 4 ,•1/4 ‘Yui A ' [ ' 17 ,.;.1, I , krk .-''..-•,;-:•,''-'''.-'I:,,..•:%,,•:4ta-';..-:...,..-..:-•.1,.•'.t''%,.",':':')l,''0'-:.--.,4.44''&.."*'4-,;;"i7,..-n,.!r.-;:1 4.4,1 ;'• ..-.i .i,'; v . 'i -' ', ',' '"5...'":. '• : l' •, - .N: 1 j.,1.-,`Vik,,I. 15 't.,,,,-1-.. 5, .,..., '„.-.,u. y.„b•4,...-, -,. '14. , ,, ,-, , , - •• I",...,A7 .7'1::,orf......72.,..'„‘.'', -•,--,•"1.1.,-,..oli, r S.-..• ' ` : ••7 •:,::_tt.',,.".'..'':,,r;•2'f.,k4'.. ,4,••;',','„,, -,, ,.•-.,44.1.0"",-;-'7.1'ir,-4 ,.`","•,'.:`-.4•'•,,r'', '.,4 „:'..::-T. ' 7.4.,, •• ,..).,.-- ,•,•,..i•' -- ?' , 4.,-,1,.,•••7a'',* •-:j;',".'z't...''.41' ',.''',„''.4.•.,7•••••.4'''il‘r.,ji,r-t1 *.. 'It,' r'•••'''-',.`..;.• ''' ',.:•, %P.:10;i.:.r",:"%•:::.:' : ''',-,i-..k.'.:Nk•:::TN'rel.rt;'•?.•'",?.J-7 t''',:t1;:?',4:1:.,;",' " •„,--,4:7,-11,, ,,,. -41, .T.e.. IV r4.-,!;.. 141,-trk:::.=.a"...'..- ',--a.‘ --.:‘• •.::-,r IN.-747;'.‘...' ',. It1/4 , , • .7t . ,. ., ..• ••- Ak „.• •••• i., ,,,'-'...: ;‘,'1'• , '',,e',-4'."... "''''tV;;P' rr'ke.'(' '',..''''''. ''-',5 ..1rT, ; I.,.', .."' ,•"11,..,.,,..to%,„ ,..•,, :"..„,V-,. ,,',.'',ts$•,:-.. ',.' -;'t.t'-f 1 r.4.- .'r•.i.4.".,,,. '... ,'•i-;,'`',.r,,7.:„i,;::•:,::•::':;‘'",-,!:•:'.:, ',:'•*'•''.,.,'.'....'''..'-•',:'-.:-,4,:4'"1.:,.'!4'-.'"-,•/-:.,.,•,:;:e,••1"::,`l;:','2,,-,::"-.. 2-.,'.71`„'1.`:2:-'"%74,•.:2 1'.','1"::...:'',:'"',"•4•.''1:'''';'"':',:'.','''-,•••;-,•r;'-•'.,•,:•'•,'''4!-.'.1;1,i•,,;'-;A.,.e...n•:'rr,:•-,,e144,2-i-5 44,,•4-:4,:;-',,7•N,t', •2:;'.•2-•?-`.;A'":''':'';14.','".0.,.•:'#':•'4,,i1,i14e•''1.r,4-`.r'244‘t t;''.-t;'4•'"41,'iC-''4''4,'•?'t'1"7!7;"-.'3-›'.:-''1;e-‘,..-,.*t'-:.!"%-.s4-Tt,•t,1,-g''':i.''',,5.'.-/,-.v..0,:,o1-".;*..1,,';••7•A i••'','"',i--..,,'"-'.*:''..‘*.'431-''/.;''.'i''t:"..':,.-;.-•--?'1L.('..„A;2".-1,'1 7'CJ:1;'',,?t''''„•(--,:'"'1; ‘'•'-"'/'.'-•',':;-',;.t'4/I'4,5' ;,4 4'r-r,1ir.Ace%'"'tt 1,,',"i.,;"e....-':'',1*,'_y2l'it`1-,t,lA_''_t-.,rA-,',A,,i1't_p.';,'''T''....;,-,:4"‘-.,...,!,7-;t4.t,:.15.-i-,,i1..)•„•r-.'".4-"4e1,'..,4'-44,,','r'`,.,.N.,k4,e..7..o,7;y.i 0.*4,te-,-.--4.14-..4,-,,`.:,-ro„*,1 7'ivl-;n•;t.ie-;-:ki • .t-'•r t""•-o.'4"q:i%,'a.ckr,k-:;:.'..*It..'.V,,i.-%.':,-',:.,t.;.‘7•.'l•-•-;:YV.'4•.a'-.-7•'•:1'I•''e'A Ai1.•-,,.:.4-..,5‘'i'-*-,'Y,,!%.';''•',fr•,:-'ki•,!'.4i;r.li.'./'1t'.:,,-k1'-,'..'-4'7i,'f.•,i,.'-%;-'i,,,,,-2;-.'-,i",:-'-'',-i';"•A'.i,'•,?-.-;'1A.-..,-''.?4-'41 r•'''$.'4.•'-2-•.,:'-.---''1-.'.0•41• s , _ - ; .• -L --. , 1- • , , -. X - 4r ' , 4x4''' rV4 V : t 4 F , '-r•-,•\.'.,,'"-,.'".`..4.-"-'-‘i"-.--,6`,,4.-:,1X.•,,":,-,";%4.",-` ::'.,:•,:•, :.-;•'•. - .. i,,,•..,''.;...:'-'• , '-.'t.'.444*-'?'/:,1.*IF-:".,z ,:,.. .....,:;,....-',04,,4,,,-,•it. .: ry„..i...1" 4-;;;;;:y4.5";„ i',---‘i-i, ,-:,,,t, ?":1:._.0„-,•;;;;;Aki.c:,,r.,,,:,,::..., •,,,,•:,,,,,.. ., •, k .4,,,, ,,,..,• -.. .. . • .••... •,-. ...,5:"..:".'N:''..'-•: ,,,f)41.e„,*?...k'2,'''.1,'''4)::*,i'''C'''.‘" 1, ',...'"rl'‘'''-;,...;ii."? '...'4",*i*V":144,c#4 ip.9,/...i•t;,.;41:4; j.,,,-,4z.,,,,Th*V, •“_„4 t1.4,4".„1:2 -,,",,'A, .4-.;,Z,,:Li ..4* ,,...- . ,,, ,,, :, ,,,,.,,,, 7.'7,,i,:'.;,,...:'-''',.:1;.,„;,74',77W,:.!"Zili;ireVV':::!;'',,f4r.:1".".:41'.'itr,77 .:-••'*!L ,'",:15,..i," . ripyri:.'":;•,:-2_-".7k;;IW9,7.Ir. :',/(7'..4'',‘;r- 1:'•-• 1, .-';'.-..; , •-„,-- ', :,-,... .-;. ' ,,,,:4 ;,,."..41,4,40,AL.,,404,,e,...t.-,,1*,;',,-,,- ;;;,,\S!.1.;J,:%•:4,. ''.° ..-i4 4;c4,;:in,T.P.ii,40 •Ttl-‘s'r t'4,4"•‘1;'';',47';'....'•'.' '....,.,-"",4,4;'''f'4', .'• ' ,,''''3,,:' „ "_,-) '. ',.../ . " • -. .. ,,: . "r,,..._,,.'7' ,,,,,_ l',.ri-,,' ;,.7.7.4- -.,$•:,,--41,,i-.. ,',,,,,-.4.4....-54,4...4-4s ._.,,..,•,,,i1.5.,.;,-4.,,..'...v..e• 1.„,,...),i-p-,,,, v....',..,:tri.--•,..,:-..i.•,,,•-.,..o,,.4,.55„," - 'AS; 1 t•-•1 4 ,., , ..., ,, e e.,, • :, - - ,, ...,;:-,-,-..;i‘a. r.,,,F.-.:•Tant-X,'-'‘."1-.1.i ,,. - 4°.1-4.„ -,..,„'- - '..-,,,k..-'t....::-.4j.,.1..;.,,, ,,.‘,,,,,,i.',,: ''.*,:s„)4....,: t.'.....i!:,i....°:‘....fi--:‘. •,- ,%.:‘.,r'tkal'a ) .*-'•-•• . :- .. '-',:-.a :..---...,- :':,~e,, ,..-- , .4"- .,tist.',. F.':I.,,a:--,,, 1:1-e.v.e-i, '-?;-74.'7'• Jr a-.?'''''', 'Al-'' "-,,," ;Vgia.r4,,a,-..--....."-. -,a-1: ...i'• •; ,,,,-,---, :-;%;,!,.i '-' ... ,--t*'1=1-•:!:::-...4,;&'‘ is".- -'`.,%-4 aP"'i'”4- '1',Nlitliorl'.7. -,-.-4'''- -'. A-.,tlft'n ,4.-,•‘;':,y›.,km,. t..-`4. ,.;-,ia.......,',...1,-7,..-;,-...,,;,..1f.-,, ;(,,..',ar.0-;-..t....4i. r4 . 'f,-.1c•-'4,,,./,,,,;,.d:-...,.+.,.* ,..,,..rsie,$-,1.,,,,...k.,,,,-2,4...-: --`t_r. •..,•.•,.,‘, -,,"•• ' ,',,• .5•"- "ii• d-A,... •• -, .--•--,• , ,• •(,,....1. ,...., „.., ,..„•,- t•.1,;,?•-•.1.-e.•,_ ,,, ,...t..t„.tr,4„4-It-ec;4 , , ,,,,‘,44:#t i,„.,-1:.,, ."•-•4'..;,i,,,, '4:- A tr.0.: .',..,.,•• ',',''; ', i'.;•,'.._ rIr '`•,....4..",:i. '. - ' ' f'''• -' '' ''' ;''.. I '''''.:1' "-4'''.`!" 1 t'kr1....-:',Z r...'; .!.(.1:1!"..'''' . -,, -; ';* 1,— .,...r.r.,*....•••,.%,„.:-..,:.a: 40:0,t4:,,,,1-•7'j•."..,.". ,'. -'' ' . .":,':-.".t.,,, fni .!•":1 -4 4' • '.,-;.;-""" 's ....t,:':::',"% ",,,s4,:",,,,',k,i.94,1••*,-;,..,',:rt:'4.i ilic7_,,i4*" " (fr.:,%. 4,:**1.14.10•'(;. *yr(-',. 4;,,'e;"'. ''I‘''7!"3":•1'.:-"••••4'...'''••?.."4,,•.''4'. ?.."...:•;,,7,;.‘•1 '',...•'• *t '..•,•:,••'''; '•• '•., 7 '...,,,-'2,2°::';'-,'':. I. '`'N',,T., ::::,..',I.:•.:.-."--:-1"-:".4-tti5";15,4_. ,,,,,,,.'#41‘''''''''';'. ',,k-.11.,:3/4.." t,',7:1:42'Z;;',.*':,:t44-V''':..-*'!.,; 4•",„1_41.A:;:"Y.'s.',1;•.. rf',".;:::..'',..;,.”-,1 ' *• '"-r` ' +' '' '''''''''',.., ,:;,-* '''''",.4kr'-': ,-,,i . - ''. .,t, -' -. -,-,....-'-• -r-',: ,, ''‘,'; ,••,..,.v!," *.`Nt;::.-1. 1".., -.. ; ,' :.t "*....".;:`,:,:t. ,"•. '."..,'••, • '„ ,-.4..4..- 0,1 0 .. ••'*._tir 4•••••*'1".0.4, .,i,..N45','..,, 5--- , e-• • 13' -..., .. - ? ..,1.,4 14 •` '''''v ,t '-•f' •t-" l'' t, r •,"./..--: . ...-K;`,...• .. • ". • , 'i ,-',:,."-,'.,?-.'.." .'''. •••.."4.• 1,0 -.?,,,,,,, , 0.4,•.--..,, ,--,,, ..4,.,.. --,,,.., .,....- ,i,,, , .,,,,, - ,,,, s...,..„,„W., ,07?-.4. At A..,-,_.„...,,,-71-,2:1,-;,--i,....> •.,-',,..'4:,--, ,--'::.,-.-f.:-.. :',,‘--...15.1*/•14'er:„ficise i•-•,';•-': .r',•,s,-44.-*---.:-' -'1-''--,''''''.-...4' ,..-1 ,, ...' r..,,,:-,., , • ••:.-...,-.. , -., -N:----,.::.':•, -..21.4.1r•rf,- .!'. •-.11.:-.P.)---e--/,-,lit,".•.i.• ,..r.. -0.4„,„,•-.---`.11 '-.:4,-.• -. - 4 I:talc-..)41-• 14*•• • i • •••••. t• •• •• • • ••;...:•.g..„.• "'-'`.. ,. -..--*I; ' - . , .-, .• •• ,••••::,.•, .„•••,......;? .- , •-••:`," , ,--,t--II ,.: -,4...!:44--- •••1:-....r •,F.,•,,''''*-......t's 1./.**,,c1,*:"*fr(,*VA'',..':‘, :'',...7--I-..., .''.•1- •.•••te,a-, ,-'. '1'•• '' '• '- .-• P-', ,-,• '.7;'•----,''s' 4.414:44'd'- 44‘.4'N.L.:9•••1=.:.••1:'i-e`r`-'''.‘'t'••••'"1 •....';$..".•Z,:le-i),,- "I??.."-o•4 "1''" '' . ...,'Zrr.*.`I,S'' ;I::"..'' ''. ', . "`,4. ,,': f,"•-• ,t. N-•.,`'•.-. • ,-:-.::'•i: , ' . ',5,-.4'' ';;$ 1 "*.t..V., '4•!/,...3 *-1-,..-,•.-;.• .,/,- ik„,::•,.04,,,,,-,,,e,,••-16..t.•,,v-c-1.-„t'••*.74.• • 114 1,41.t.-• -0-1,-,'--•'..,: •••• •'.1••••-' z... •:?, .• •-•,,,.. •• c `-`- 4'... t. .-▪ , ='Al* .=-Vt.,V-t.,,i'-.".=:IC' .,t,--:;..",.., •-4; 4........1'-:.--. ..‹,'',,,•t-,1 is isre:./-tS,.:11,',/",_v-1;- ki.,-.• ', '-',.'•),'--,•••-..;-.. :-'-.',•`--. - ... ,, • -; - ; . - - • --, •- .,r.,i_.- -.........k, -. -, ,...I- -•,-4,, --, .1, •-*•-•z -;,-..---.= ..,. ,I. 4,--0,- '.. -'d-A-..., --.1 -,!-- . .--;.:‘iL-'- -,' ' •.,-,--,-.0' ,,...,:• :•' ' .t;.- '••-• -'•,.-,. .-- --'-"-", ,'" -',-.1;;;41?.• Ac4„0 ' ---*,,--4:•`' '"%t•-•,,..tvt„...1?-4-', ,,,„,--„-- ; 40:1,40,41,-: ;.- - , '',/,v.4.4,-....)-*:-'•,- -.,„.*-, -. •e-- '41 : '':1,',' .).''. ''"' ...1'..:*',‘:' ''.•'.. : .' ':".." . ''I..'... ,4.,‘'' .,.''' i'7':0 ,,e..t,,--, -vol.,-,40ir;.''-itt-Aft-t,.-nrg,' t.-P-e-47-'".,..'.5t' 4.-4, _,,, -.1-).- 7,,a`:41-44..7'i .`-.• ,''.--'.* 1,. 7ir,,, .' '.:-.‘ ..i•1. ';.-';'''r ., ..N 4' •i*' .;-llec' . *14.,-' 73.. 3.4--; k;"'t.'-..t.:1'4' ',.-:.• .••• •-k-,•tx *• --, A I* -.4... 1.:C;r1f-` .-;,,A/.,-, :r,c., ,''^i )'''1-,:,..--,',.i;.4;k .;',:.,4'. t' ;i.r.'1...,,,t,gp•: : -,:-..„...-r... ,•.,•:-.-,,si,40 ,,:,,, t . „,---, .., '''''•d't..• ".',7' '.''.‘t:'?,,'.. , .,. ,:": ,.- ,i,,..,,V,.,,,,,c, . .."' '',,,,,--. -/.2..v.y.f.-..:,•,.,..;,,,,,,,-_, ,;.„•.tfly.....-:.4•-•,*•zi,!..-11.g.•:h.: ..-Ai•-•,ik ,f 'St•-•••,..-1.--:-...•,:•-•:•,, •,-,-,,,3•_., •:•,-,: .-,„..,-;: .,•,...„,„ ' "'"7'.'"'.4 i;'.•': ", •••••.k ''''" 't"•: ' L'. *•' '* ' .7..14('''' t''`;*.i'• 4*-:.4.."*Zi•'''" 74441.1/4,t_.,ji. '' tti•- • .4,07* • 4.'1'1, -;k-^4,4/.:' 4".s..-•t' t,"'",:,?'y,-..' ,,.. .";•,,,'";•,'•'. .., ' 71 A'*, •:.-4,:t I-I,, ,• '-, 4 , "":•".../ '.,'".'1•"rd" ''1/4".1,14,-Af•;.-g,',4:-„,,.&..,-4 'Jr'44(X.Oisc‘;:' ,',Irst,--..,1/4.4,,,' 4)...:; . . ::,, :,z---;.:4 :.z'fA, . ...,:',,te•4.... . , ..i.- --‘,.:,-,,,-....„ ,•,..,,,, .„.,....,.;t-sk,t, .--.4-,...-: ...*4:41.,•,f.,-.47,44-,Er'',A. i.244.,'„,*,W,',.--, 4*..i'4.11.i ,„,ik,..,174. ,--..,,,,,.....,..,., ,..„. -§,.......,,,..:...-....,,,....,,, .- „....... . ..,,..:,. ,.. ,.. .4...: ,.. -.,„...,. tr.?5,....-44°. . '47.7 ,tr i •r-'1" e.1'•.:',':•••,•;4'r`r-•_,•IA'. ,4:a r, ,,,- .s.or. ,„,:.,. le •.^- 7%,.e, .7.::':!..' 0;.,-.•••-•"'''''.73'••, q••••„.•••• cf41,4V-1'_•1.1,•'$:r•:-."..;•%-ir" ••----..°:, * ' -."'iC-r••• 4,4:, ..r. :,,,,L,,,,p, ....:',i:'.,::.,%'-fiz".`!•'--",•,.-'' 4tillY 144. •140:0,..4.e"...*';Dt ,-1'....;";:;, ..j.ia-x a.; 1"lait'f:' :.*.!-‘,,'.•'":''' , , . '::".-^ Ig.",4"* 'r ' /._,..4.0'0, ,,..., ••••-ig.4-'w,...-....--: .-.aoi,,,l'.:--,-/,'".~.qt.'.--4-4-w. ,,....a,c' - • 4t,t, x'i nide-P .▪ ). ,. ,---,--.. ::.--,-..„ :•,-,..,:.Ift. ..P.i.:,,, -.., _.‘„,v.._ -e.vice- :0,4.,,,.71k,k,,,,41;-C:.7.;c..-cia-,,,k;-;'-'1..-‘".. ''.V -t '.';:,",`7, ''':',i," ',,v..zi''' '1,..,,... 0- ! . .`"',.1:' ) .; ., , ,- •.. .7.., 4 — I.., ,-.^4.," 3., ' 'ct. , 4"A4'.:7'i tv;:t A...k..,,vra, .. , , 4.,4,_,it,,ty*, ==t4tri, ,,,,,...,,,i,54i. , -, I, ,,,,,,s„,,, - ,,,. ,7r-",•-y- .„- ,•• r. — •,,' - ..-x . ,,..„....::,-.....„.,.,-,,,.ik.-_,;,44*,-„) '.%-054--s,,,iftt„„oei, „,, ;.t„,.....t...%k..f,- ,,,1„:.-..-t•-,-;,,,..,..tfr, , ;,.',.",•!,,s ....t..,-11.-A,," .?',....i,:-. .,-;4-0%.•.".,i,-;-.. .•,,i,',... . A ,t,ie ..,..,. ....,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,e,,,,,,c ti,,,,4,,,,,,,,,,,,, .1 .,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:.i.,.,,ny, ,, ‘..,„,,...., ,,,z), , -..„.,,, ...,;,..., ,,,:,...:,. '44,"•.; ;;• .:31.-...3.?-.:'"-,'"!'° .--•°.:: ••'',';•••-•-:',:-,-.'.,;-:.,;),•,', ..4=11'.,i° ..44.i‘,...tfs:c';'-S •."4",. ...' ,--t-', . i-,4T -14:‘ ' .•:- '.-ri%-i„Sr,f,ir. ''-‘.:?...:, :0 -,1,,,,,`-',S,',:•. "ZiT:.W. '''' ' 3.4':-'• :•-•' ...•••••3! --.'-' ',. ..., '•-=- ", '''••3,-..: . ,,''itz,, --,•4,LA,4y P.., -i,.-4:i, , .=.4. , .1-4.,• -.:_,..--,,..,:!:,,.. „:_ ..,1 ,,,-„:„..:- .,i,, - -;• ., :::. ---,.. ,• -t•.. ,•-•-'4,''', -^" 0" ts ', . .'Olt\'*1 :`, --.7,4-..,.. .. .,,-.:1-`i‘s,:,c.r.''.':'.,,'‘`k ..,,,,...-... i! I . +, .', elit'!)1 '.. V, ',---...r.4., j'1,••'=i" '' .1,5, ., *P"4..- _Al ,- ;.,..: ' ,,. ' ' ' .P"-v:-',47,n "..,'".:... .1..:" '711. ' '1' oi,. ''44-L*,•".10 4:4 .4. 'k" ''•••,-',,.,- r;e;,:'•-''' .:.*' j t,:, .‘ .7 •-.',.' ,..c •.',.;' ' l'"...-;• „„';•• ,543-, '`. .1,•,e,;!••iit„tr.:),fi•••• ...„,,,,-1-.•f,..••: 4.t.,,—.••11,7-4,•-• •4214*--; ;.,.•,"'.4.4..t;,,,, :iet•f.?•:.1•,,•;.';',11'•iri•s .'....t.';,_•,..,'"47„''5."- *'• •,'",‘, ''. ....'::::. *°-.... CI. ,;,51 AS. tirr:1.,..1,4/10,15.1:-.5' ;7;•v.4---,-, ,..,,,t '4' ii '-.V;',"‘..,a.:‘,.:,,:,•4$_,C./.1,;,,.r!•. „„.1.4'..."•;t:11.•-•.';Vok...,,...1.-.,....: -.F...., "Ps•,• lot v7.., •'s.;..."_ .,• --., , .:. :, ,4.• ...--.,.,.4.0.,:^ ,,. `.." , ,, ., 0. 11,:e•TX4 5.,;.,4-,•,„:4-11•4..k"..1:07, ,r„,, -"'43,,•••••..rglo:iz-.. ,.4 .N.1::44 t,„,i1,0,4..11,,',,,,,,,, .,,.,NI?.,,r;,4.1.„AN,,,..,'„ .-:',,:,,,,,..;,,,,, ,,, '•:...1",::".- ,-.y.•:.-.,••'•. ,.., -,;_,,‘, .,,k.', ••••,,•,,' tf.,:.,,t; .". ,'",,t, •,"* •:•.?„, ,,,H(1,i' .1,,,,e•;.**: l'.'r ti,i,',,C.4,', **".,51.04.f.,44,1'1, **,1*;:,-...*:,,'4,,:".•X,,,I.,.:.1.1.'7,..4,-,27.0-}4.0,„,..ii-,v;;,. 1,,',.e,'. ;r • ..;1'.,.,t--,,f':•-,-• -- „••,t,.• 1.--t.ite,',4:-..--,-•1-7 k d ,,,k,.;••• t„,42,.. zi,74,01.•"*.,,,,k•••,,•!1,,,„:-.y•'‘,-,-,t,e4iit,-4:-..-it -.,'",'1';'.7."4.g.-,••••t,,,,.,,....,. . ,,,-.....,,,-,,,,, .„, , ...-,,,_ ,,,,,,if,:2-‘;,,i,,,,,,,,,,:.).' lifft. 1 A.,, . /i 5,s , . .,.. , ' ,, • ."N.)..„.,.,.. .,.,, t..".‘,,, ;••.,'', ';L.,. ,,,r1 4 ye.4,-81 I ,,20,.,,f.„..,,,...,- .•.-”,.....,,,...yo.„,,i.....•;,..4_,,,c-,„?tyy„,•,-..;.. ..;•,..:.- .-1,,-- ,',-*' .** •' ...'''• kat.it.',4=:,': r t ' ,,'..t..' %.;.'t..;'" 44°',t' :fk! .Aik erS' ' ..et:it'OA; f,t',1 ':'4reo,.....,.4i --. -P L:.?...; "..Ik''• ' ':.- ' .",v,....':1- ,';,2.', ';',i'.N.„.,,,,,•:::,-:tI, -,'":,i p,r•. ..4,41,14,,':,att,14 , 74",,-,"...ias.t.1 '-a,i.,,,,,- ::-. -,,*- , a.;-7-•t:, ',.',-,!;\-.,,,-..'-'-,r-..',..:a.:;,i '4:4'1 , ' ,,,. ..tik.,-.-.-:'.'-'.• -:--1 ' .. ,,,,,,...,,-,-..,,,,,„•,..,,.....„.........,J.,.... -... , ..• 0* 1 4211, I. Appeals: Table 4, Land Use Permit Proce- dures, lists the development permits t ' that it shall is required,attto the 4-8-17: COUNCIL ACTION: reviewed by the City and the review Exa ho remande the matter to the Any applicatione requiring action by y ity responsible for open record appeals,closed author- Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of City s r shall eq evidencedir b minute entry record appeals and judicial appeals.The City additional evidence.The cost of transcription unless otherwise required by law. When taking has consolidated the permit process to allow 4-8-16: APPEAL: Unless an ordinance of the hearing record shall be borne by the any such final action,the Council shall make and for only one(1)open record appeal of all per- applicant. In the absence of an entry upon enter findings of fact from the record and conclu- providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the the record of an order by the City Council sions therefrom which support its action. Unless Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved authorizing new or additional evidence or otherwise specified,the City Council shall be pre- mit decisions associated with a single devel- by the Examiner's written decision or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing sumed to have adopted the Examiner's findings opment application.Appeals pursuant to this Examiner for receipt of such evidence or tes- and conclusions. section are intended to comply with the Land recommendation may submit a notice of appeal simony,it shall be presumed that no new or Use Petition Act,Chapter 36.70C RCN. to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the additional evidence or testimony has been A. In the case of a change of the zone classifica- City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days accepted by the City Council, and that the tion of property(rezone),the City Clerk shall 1. Time For Initiating Appeal.An appeal to from the date of the Examiner's written report. record before the City Council is identical to place the ordinance on the Council's agenda Superior Court of a land use decision, as The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by athe hearing record before the Hearing Exam- for first reading. Final reading of the ordi- defined herein,must be filed within twenty fee in accordance with the fee schedule of the iner.(Ord.4389,1-25-93) nance shall not occur until all conditions, one(21)days of the issuance of the land use City.(Ord.3658,9-13-82) restrictions or modifications which may have decision. For purposes of this section, the A. The written notice of appeal shall fully, E. The consideration by the City Council shall been required by the Council have been date on which a land use decision is issued is: clearly and thoroughly specify the be based solely upon the record,the Hearing accomplished or provisions for compliance Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and made to the satisfaction of the Legal Depart- a. Three(3)days after a written decision substantial error(s) in fact or law which additional submissions by parties. ment. is mailed by the City or,if not mailed, the exist in the record of the proceedings from date on which the local jurisdiction provides which the appellant seeks relief. Facsimile F. If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing B. All other applications requiring Council notice that a written decision is publicly filing of a notice of appeal is authorized Examiner on an application submitted pursu- action shall be placed on the Council's agenda available; pursuant to the conditions detailed in ant to Section 4-8-10A and after examination for consideration.(Ord.3454,7-28-80) Renton City Code Section 4-8-11C. (Ord. of the record,the Council determines that a b. If the land use decision is made by ordi- 4353,6-1-92) substantial error in fact or law exists in the C. The action of the Council approving,modify- nance or resolution by the City Council,sit- record, it may remand the proceeding to ing or rejecting a decision of the Examiner ting in a quasi-judicial capacity,the date the B. Within five(5)days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or shall be final and conclusive,unless appealed body passes the ordinance or resolution;or parties of record of the receipt of the reverse the decision of the Examiner accord- within the time frames established under ingly. SyestS on4-36-7L(Ord.3725,5-9-83;amd.Ord. c. If neither a or b of this subsection appeal.Other parties of record may submit 4660,3-17-97) applies,the date the decision is entered into letters in support of their positions within ten(10)days of the dates of mailing of the G. If,upon appeal from a recommendation of the the public record. Hearing Examiner upon an application sub- notification of the filing of the notice of witted pursuant to Section 4-8-10B or C,and 4-8-18: SEVERABILITY: 2. Standing.Those persons with standing to appeal. after examination of the record,the Council The provisions of this Ordinance are bring an appeal of a land use decision are determines that a substantial error in fact or hereby declared to be severable. If any word, limited to the applicant,the owner of prop- C. Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the law exists in the record,or that a recommen- phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, section or erty to which land use decisions are directed, members of the City Council all of the dation of the Hearing Examiner should be dis- part in or of this Ordinance, or the application and any other person aggrieved or adversely pertinent documents, including the written regarded or modified,the City Council may thereof to any person or circumstance,is declared affected by the land use decision or who decision or recommendation, findings and remand the proceeding to the Examiner for invalid,the remaining provisions and the applica- would be aggrieved or adversely affected by a conclusions contained i the Examiner's reconsideration, or enter its own decision tion of such provisions to other persons or circum- reversal or modification of the land use deci- report,the notice of appeal,and additional upon the application pursuant to Section 4-8- stances shall not be affected thereby, but shall sion. The terms "aggrieved" and"adversely letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 10B or C. remain in full force and effect,the Mayor and City affected"are defined in RCW 36.70C.060. 3658,9-13-82) Council hereby declaring that they would have D. No public hearing shall be held by the City H. In any event,the decision of the City Council ordained the remaining provisions of this Ordi- 3. Content Of Appeal Submittal. The con- Council. No new or additional evidence or shall be in writing and shall specify any mod- nance without the word,phrase,clause,sentence, tent,procedure and other requirements of an ified or amended findings and conclusions paragraph, section or part or the application appeal of a land use decision are governed by testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the other than those set forth in the report of the thereof,so held invalid. Chapter 36.70C RCW which is incorporated Hearing Examiner. Each material finding herein by reference as if fully set forth. party offering the evidence that the shall be supported by substantial evidence in evidence could not reasonably have been the record. The burden of proof shall rest 4. Other Appeals. Appeals to Superior available at the time of the hearing before with the appellant.(Ord.3658,9-13-82) Court from decisions other than a land use the Examiner. If the Council determines decision,as defined herein,shall be appealed within the time frame established by ordi- nance.If there is no appeal time established by an ordinance,and there is no statute spe- cifically preempting the area and establish- - ing a time frame for appeal, any appeal, whether through extraordinary writ or other- 497 wise,shall be brought within twenty one(21) City of Renton days of the decision. (Ord. 4587,3-18-1996; amd.Ord.4660,3-17-97) • APPEAL _ HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION teQ MitiZ 8thTY COUNCIL. FILE NO. LUA-98-113, CU-H RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE APPLICATION NAME: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Boeing Lonqacres Helistop The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner,dated September 28 and October 20 19 98 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: The Boeing Company REPRESENTATIVE(IF ANY): PERKINS COIE LLP Name: Conrad Szymczak Name: Charles E. Maduell Address: P.O. Box 3707, M/S 20-30 Address: 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone No. 425-477-0094 Telephone No. 206-583-8888 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) NONE No. Error: CITY OF RENTON NOV 0 21998 Correction: 9{:Oa .m, RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: See attached. Correction: OTHER: No. Error: See attached. Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: x Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Delete Condition No. 1 on p.6 of the Hearing Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Examiner's Decision er /tt-1.1444 /!/ 4 /1 Appel t/Representative Sig ature Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV,Chapter 8,of the Renton Municipal Code,and Section 4-8-16,for specific procedures. heappeal.doc _ 1 City of Renton City Code Title IV-Building Chapter 8 -Hearing Examiner Section 16 -Appeal 4-8-16: APPEAL: Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk,within fourteen(14)calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) A. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. Facsimile filing of a notice of appeal is authorized pursuant to the conditions detailed in Renton City Code Section 4-8-11C. (Ord.4353, 6-1-92). B. Within five(5)days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten(10)days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. C. Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) D. No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council may remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-93) E. The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. F. If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-8-10A and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration,or modify,or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. G. If,upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-8-10B or C,and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record,or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application pursuant to Section 4-8-1OB of C. H. In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) heappeal.doc 2. SPECIFICATIONS OF ERRORS CONCLUSIONS: No. 4 Error: The Examiner erred in concluding that "[i]t is hard to say that there is community need for a private helipad located at a private site" and in basing Condition No. 1, at least in part, on this conclusion. Correction: Delete Condition No. 1 on page 6 of the Hearing Examiner's Decision ("The Conditional Use Permit shall be issued for an initial period of five(5) years.") from the CUP approval. No. 5 Error: The Examiner erred in concluding that the CUP should be subject to renewal in case noise problems arise in the future or because of the possible precedential effect of approval of a CUP for the Longacres helistop. Correction: Delete this conclusion and delete Condition No. 1 from the CUP approval. No. 6 Error: The Examiner erred in concluding that "[n]oise, though, could be an issue, particularly for the homes perched on the hill east of the site" and in using this conclusion as a basis for imposition of Condition No. 1. Correction: Delete the second sentence of Conclusion No. 6 and delete Condition No. 1, No. 12 Error: The Examiner erred in concluding that approval of the CUP for the Boeing Longacres helistop will create a precedent and should be subject to further review, and by using these conclusions as a basis to impose Condition No. 1. Correction: Delete first and third sentences of Conclusion No. 12 and delete Condition No. 1. OTHER: Error: The Examiner erred in imposing Condition No. 1 in his Decision approving the CUP, issued September 28, 1998. Correction: Delete Condition No. 1. Error: The Examiner erred in denying Boeing's Request for Reconsideration of Condition No. 1 on the grounds stated in his letter of denial dated October 20, 1998, which appear to be based upon the Examiner's concerns about community need served by a private helipad at an office site within the Green River Valley. Correction: Reverse the Examiner's denial of the Request for Reconsideration and delete Condition No. 1 from the CUP approval. [09901-0001/SB983060.0541 11/2/98 • 1 2 CITY OF RENTON 3 NOV 0 2 1998 5 RECEIVED 6 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 7 8 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 9 10 CITY OF RENTON 11 12 13 NO. LUA-98-113, CU-H 14 In Re The Boeing Company, Boeing 15 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF 16 Longacres Helistop--Conditional Use Permit APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER 17 Application, 18 CONDITION 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The BoeingCompany ("Boeing") submits this statement in support of its 26 p Y ( g ) Pp 28 appeal, pursuant to Renton CityCode 4-8-16, of the HearingExaminer's imposition 28 pP § P 29 of Condition No. 1 in its decision approving a conditional usepermit for a helistopat 30 PP g 31 BoeingLon acres Office Park. 32 g 33 34 I. INTRODUCTION 35 36 The Hearing Examiner, in his Report and Decision ("Decision") dated 37 38 September 28, 1998, approved a conditional use permit ("CUP") for a helistop at 39 40 Boeing Longacres Office Park subject to four conditions. Boeing objects only to the 41 42 first enumerated condition (Condition No. 1) in the Decision, which provides as 43 44 follows: "The Conditional Use Permit shall be issued for an initial period of five (5) 45 46 years." Decision, p. 6. 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 1 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 On October 12, 1998, Boeing requested reconsideration by the Hearing 2 3 Examiner of Condition No. 1 as part of his approval of the CUP for the helistop. On 4 5 October 20, 1998, the Examiner denied the request for reconsideration. The 6 7 Examiner also stated that Boeing could appeal the decision to the City Council within 8 9 14 days of the decision. io 11 Boeing timely filed its appeal on November 2, 1998. 12 13 II. ARGUMENT 14 15 The Examiner's imposition of Condition No. 1 in his decision approving the 16 17 CUP for the Boeing helistop appears to be based upon three Examiner conclusions: 18 19 (1) that the permit should be subject to review or possible renewal in case noise 20 21 problems arise or become an issue, particularly for the homes perched on the hill east 22 23 of the site [Examiner Conclusions 5, 6 and 12 in Decision]; (2) that approval of this 24 25 use could create a precedent for such uses in the Valley area of the City, making it 26 27 necessary in the future to consider the overall impacts of private helistops at various 28 29 sites in the Valley [Conclusions 5, 12 in Decision]; and (3) that a five-year term is 30 31 warranted because there is little community need served by a private helipad at an 32 33 office site in the Green River Valley [Conclusion 4 in Decision; see also Examiner 34 35 Decision Denying Reconsideration]. Decision, p. 5-6. 36 37 These conclusions, which are not supported by findings of fact or evidence in 38 39 the record, do not justify or support a condition limiting the helistop CUP to a five- 40 41 year term. Such errors in fact, law and judgment, which are more fully set forth 42 43 below,justify modification of the Examiner's decision and removal of Condition 44 45 No, 1 from the CUP approval. 46 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 2 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.1931 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206)583-8888 1 A. The Hearing Examiner Erred in Limiting the CUP to a Five-Year 2 Term Based Upon the Possibility of Future, Speculative Noise 3 4 Impacts from Operation of the Proposed Helistop 5 6 On the one hand, the Examiner's conclusions acknowledge that the proposed 7 8 Longacres helistop will not result in any adverse impacts to residential neighborhoods. 9 10 For example, the Examiner concludes that it "appears that the applicant's site is large 11 12 enough that most of the impacts should be contained on the site." Decision, p. 5 13 14 (Conclusion No. 5). The Examiner further concludes that "there is a goodly 15 16 separation between the use and that residential community [on the hill east of the 17 18 site]." Decision, p. 5 (Conclusion No. 5). These conclusions are based upon 19 20 substantial evidence in the record. 21 22 On the other hand, the Examiner also concludes that "noise problems" from 23 24 operation of the helistop may "arise" and noise "could be an issue, particularly for the 25 26 homes perched on the hill east of the site." Decision, p. 5 (Conclusion No. 5 & 6). 27 28 No Examiner findings or evidence in the record supports these conclusions. 29 30 Instead, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates that there will be 31 32 no substantial or undue adverse noise impacts on surrounding properties from 33 34 operation of the proposed helistop. According to the evidence in the record and the 35 36 unrebutted testimony of the applicant's noise expert, Ray Klein, any potential noise 37 38 impacts on residential neighborhoods, including those on the hill to the east of the 39 40 site, would at most be negligible, especially given the location of the helistop in the 41 42 middle of an office park surrounded by commercial and industrial uses, its distance 43 44 from residential neighborhoods (more than a mile), the infrequent use of the helistop, 45 46 the proposed flight path of the helicopter away from residential neighborhoods, and 47 the level of existing ambient noise levels in the area. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 3 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 There is thus no evidence in the record to support the Examiner's conclusions 2 3 that noise problems from operation of the helistop may arise or be an issue, especially 4 5 with respect to any residential neighborhoods in the City. Accordingly, the Examiner 6 7 substantially erred in limiting the term of the CUP for the Longacres helistop to a term 8 9 of five years based upon such speculative, future noise impacts. 10 11 B. The Examiner Erred in Limiting the Term of the CUP for the 12 Longacres Helistop Based Upon the Possibility that Future 13 14 Applicants May Seek to Develop and Operate Private Helistops in 15 the Area 16 17 An additional basis for limiting the CUP for the Longacres helistop to a five- 18 19 year term in Condition No. 1 is the Examiner's conclusion that approval of this use 20 21 could create a precedent for other uses in the Valley area of the City, and a 22 23 proliferation of such requests or even a few more such requests in the future may 24 25 make it necessary to consider the overall impacts of private helistops at various sites 26 27 in the Valley. (Conclusion No. 5) Decision, p. 6. No evidence in the record or 28 29 Examiner findings support this conclusion which, even if true, does not support or 30 31 justify limiting the term of the CUP for this proposed helistop to five years. 32 33 In the first place, there is no evidence to suggest that approval of a CUP for the 34 35 Longacres helistop will create a precedent for more such uses in the future. For 36 37 example, there is no evidence to suggest that other property owners or potential 38 39 applicants in the area have tried without success to locate private helistops on their 40 41 property. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that there are other potential applicants 42 43 who are interested in siting a helistop on their property or have been awaiting the 44 45 decision in this case before applying to operate a helistop. In fact, private helipads 46 47 have been allowed as conditional uses in the Renton Zoning Code for a number of STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 4 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/S13982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 years. The fact that Boeing apparently is the first to apply to site a private helistop 2 3 outside of an airport or a hospital should not in any way affect or limit approval of its 4 5 CUP. 6 7 In addition, the approval of a CUP for a helistop, or any other conditional use 8 9 for that matter, cannot as a matter of law be said to establish a precedent for such uses 10 it or to encourage their proliferation. Conditional use permit applications, unlike 12 13 applications for permitted uses, are intended to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to 14 is determine if such otherwise prohibited uses should be permitted in a particular zone, 16 17 based upon the existing surrounding uses and subject to whatever conditions may be 18 19 necessary, if even possible, to make such use consistent and compatible with 20 21 surrounding uses. R.C.C. § 4-31-36. In other words, the conditional use permit 22 23 process is designed to prevent the proliferation of materially detrimental or 24 25 incompatible uses in areas of the City. 26 27 Thus, not only will approval of Boeing's CUP application for a helistop not 28 29 have precedential effect, it is in fact likely to have the opposite effect. CUP criteria in 30 31 the Renton City Code, one of which prohibits the "detrimental overconcentration of a 32 33 particular use within the city or within the immediate area of the proposed use," 34 35 would actually make it more difficult to site another helistop in the vicinity. R.C.C. 36 37 § 4-31-36(C)(2)(a). Although Boeing in this case was able to demonstrate that the 38 39 location of a helistop at the Longacres Office Park would not result in a detrimental 40 41 overconcentration of such uses in the vicinity or area, future applicants seeking 42 43 helistops in the vicinity or area may not be able to make such a showing because of 44 45 the existence of the Longacres helistop, in which case their application may denied or 46 47 conditioned, as appropriate. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE I.LP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 5 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 r In addition, impacts, cumulative or otherwise, from additional helistops in the 2 3 vicinity or area can and will be evaluated and addressed through the conditional use 4 5 permit approval process. If they cannot, then they should be addressed legislatively 6 7 by the Renton City Council. In any event, Boeing should not be penalized simply 8 9 because it apparently was the first to apply to site a helistop outside of an airport or 10 11 hospital. Instead, as a result of its being the first to site this conditional use, it will 12 13 become an existing use against which future, conditional use permit applications for 14 15 helistops will be evaluated. This is exactly how the conditional use permit approval 16 17 process is intended to work. If, as a result, it makes it more difficult for other 18 19 helistops to locate in the vicinity, it is not the fault of Boeing or the zoning code; 20 21 rather, it is the fault of those who could have but failed to apply earlier for a helistop. 22 23 Thus, although there is no evidence to suggest that approval of the Longacres 24 25 helistop will somehow create a precedence for additional private helistops in the 26 27 Valley area, even if it does, application for such uses will be subject to the conditional 28 29 use permit process and any impacts from additional private helistops in the Valley can 30 31 and should be addressed through the conditional use permit process. It should not 32 33 affect or limit the CUP approved for the Longacres helistop, which satisfies all 34 35 applicable conditional use permit criteria, and the Examiner erred in limiting the term 36 37 of the CUP for the Longacres helistop on this basis. 38 39 C. The Examiner Erred to the Extent He Based Condition No. 1 on the 40 Community Need for the iielistop 41 42 Although not expressly a basis for Condition No. 1, the Examiner in both his 43 44 45 Decision and in his denial of Boeing's motion for reconsideration of Condition No. 1 46 implies that because "there is relatively little community need for a private helistop at 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 6 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 an office site within the Green River Valley," a five-year permit term "is not 2 3 unreasonable." See Letter from Hearing Examiner, dated October 20, 1998, 4 5 Re: Denial of Request for Reconsideration ("Reconsideration Decision"). In this 6 7 regard, the Examiner erred to the extent community need was a basis for imposition of 8 9 Condition No. 1. 10 it In the first place, the Examiner's interpretation of community need in the 12 13 context of the conditional use at issue here is overly narrow and erroneous. The 14 15 Examiner appears to interpret the "community need" criterion in R.C.C. 16 17 4-31-36(C)(2) for a conditional use permit as being synonymous with "public use and 18 19 interest." Reconsideration Decision. If that were the case, no conditional use permits 20 21 for private activities, such as for "service clubs and organizations", could be approved 22 23 under the code. 24 25 Instead, it is clear that the purpose of the "community need" requirement for 26 27 conditional use permits is two-fold: (1) to make sure that there is sufficient need for 28 29 the use at the particular location so as to avoid a "detrimental overconcentration" of 30 31 such uses in any area and (2) to ensure that the "proposed location is suited for the 32 33 proposed use." R.C.C. 4-31-36(C)(2). In fact, these two factors, in support of which 34 35 Boeing submitted substantial evidence demonstrating compliance therewith for its 36 37 proposed helistop, are the only two factors that are expressly required by the Renton 38 39 City Code to be satisfied to meet the "community need" requirement. Id. 40 41 In any event, even under the Examiner's overly broad interpretation of 42 43 community need, Boeing has demonstrated that there is a community need for the 44 45 helistop at Longacres sufficient to justify the CUP. Not only would it be available for 46 47 public agency use in the event of a public emergency or disaster, it will provide an STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 7 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0 1 5 3/SB982'790.1931 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 important accessory use to the newly opened Boeing Commercial Airplane Group's 2 3 Headquarters Building at the Longacres Office Park. As such, it links significant 4 5 Boeing facilities in the City of Renton, which provide important public and 6 7 community benefits to the City, to Boeing's other facilities throughout the Puget 8 9 Sound region, all of which have on-site helipads and can be accessed by helicopter. 10 it Although the Examiner acknowledges that Boeing has sufficiently 12 13 demonstrated community need to justify approval of the CUP for the Longacres 14 15 helistop, and the Examiner in fact approved the CUP, the Examiner nonetheless seems 16 17 to suggest that the fact that there may be less community need for the Boeing helistop 18 19 than for a helistop at a hospital, for example, somehow justifies a five-year term on 20 21 the Boeing helistop. Even if you accept the Examiner's premise about differing levels 22 23 of community need, this premise does not support his conclusion. In other words, the 24 25 level of community need for the Boeing helistop bears no relationship to and in no 26 27 way supports a five-year permit term. In fact, the only justification for the five-year 28 29 permit term appears to be the Examiner's concern about future noise impacts and 30 31 future precedent. As earlier demonstrated, any such concerns are wholly speculative 32 33 and unsupported by evidence in the record. There are thus no defensible grounds for 34 35 limiting the CUP for Boeing's Longacres helistop to a five-year term, whether on the 36 37 basis of community need, future noise impacts, or future precedent. 38 39 iii. CONCLUSION 40 41 The proposed Longacres helistop is an important component of the recently- 42 43 completed Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters Building, for it will 44 45 connect the new Longacres Boeing operations at Longacres with Boeing's other 46 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION - 8 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.1931 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 facilities throughout the Puget Sound region, all of which can be accessed by 2 3 helicopter. 4 s The proposed Longacres helistop has been designed and located so as to 6 7 minimize any impacts to surrounding areas and communities and, as the evidence in 8 9 the record demonstrates, any noise impacts to surrounding areas, including the 10 ii residential areas east of the site, will at most be negligible. Although the Examiner in 12 13 his Decision has expressed concerns about future potential noise problems from 14 is operation of the helistop, there is no evidence to justify his concerns. Given the 16 17 speculative nature of this possibility, however, a condition limiting the term of the 18 19 helistop CUP to five years is neither reasonable nor appropriate. 20 21 For these reasons, Boeing respectfully requests that the City Council remove 22 23 Condition No. 1 from the Hearing Examiner's approval of the CUP for the Boeing 24 25 helistop. 26 27 DATED: November 2, 1998. 28 29 30 PERKINS COIE LLP 31 32 33 34 By 35 Charles E. Maduell, WSBA # 15491 36 Attorneys for The Boein Com an 37 Y g p Y 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF PERKINS COTE LLP HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION- 9 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206)583-8888 CITY OF RENTON NOV 021998 CITY CLERKRECE[S VED OFFICE 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3 4 5 I certify that on November <9-, 1998, I caused to be served via legal messenger a true 6 7 and correct copy of the foregoing Statement in Support of Appeal of Hearing Examiner 8 9 Condition upon the following: 10 11 12 Jennifer Henning 13 Project Manager - Development Services 14 City of Renton 15 1055 S. Grady Way 16 Renton, WA 98055 17 18 Fred J. Kaufman 19 20 Hearing Examiner 21 City of Renton 22 1055 S. Grady Way 23 Renton, WA 98055 24 25 26 tC"4 t j 27 Vicki Gea in 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 PERKINS COTE LLP CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 City of Renton Revenue/Check Documentation CITY OF RENTON Date: NOV 0 21998 Source: City Clerk CITY _RECEIVED CLERK'S OFFICE Amount: 75, 00 Account Code: 000.000.00.345.81.00.00nfoY Description: Appeal [—mil �7 �� 3 e z(-6 By: 66-7/1- • PERKINS COTE LLP 1201 THIRD AV] 40th FLOOR SEATTLE,WA 98101-3099 CI�k/2100 CHECK NO. 569563 INVOICE DATE INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOUNT PAYMENT AMOUNT 11/02/98 9817712 $75 . 00 $0 . 00 $75 . 00= CITY OF RENTON NOV ( 2 1998 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PERKINS COTE I,L1' 1201 THIRD A 1E.40th FL()()R SEATTLE,WA 98101-3099 C R2100 CHECKNo 569563 INVOICE DATE INVOICE NI NIIII•K INVOICI.AMOUNT DISCOUNT PA)SII.Is I A‘10IPVI 11/02/98 9817712 $75 . 00 $0 . 00 $75 . 00= CITY OF RENTON NOV ( 2 1998 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENT THIS MULTI-TONE AREA OF THE DOCUMENT CHANGES COLOR GRADUALLY AND EVENLY FROM DARK TO LIGHT WITH DARKER AREAS BOTH TOP AND BOTTOM. 17 . t1137:' f;'?..:'' Ilr';'...^ 7:"'7.-)n-14''':'-''fi'illIlre7:' - e41/ 7-Pt 411i":"711 :-.)-,4'.W.--11:Tl --7*-111,1,:7;,,iito7:::IttlTitiik,?,-, P CDATE CHECK NO. ERKINS OIE LLP Main Offic.a/CASC 1250 P.O. Box 3586,Seattle,WA 98124 11/02/98 569563 1201 Third Avenue.40TH Floor Seattle. Washington 98101-3099 • (206)58.3,8888 AMOUNT ----- EV N rib Perkins LLP %a 11:)4 >i › Coie USUM F PAY • SEVENTY—FIVE DOLLARS AND 00 CENTS ********** PERKINS COTE LLP ;' PAY TO VOID ORDER OF: Ill-NOT NLOOFIA I El)WTI IIIN SIX MONTHS i !, City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Kr, ; enton WA 98055 11. 569 56 31111 I: L 2 50000 21-01: 6 7449 0090 CITY CLERK DIVISION Send Copies To: Date: l CITY ATTORNEY /7 CITY COUNCIL (inc/. mayor, Say C, 4 news e f) COMMUNITY SERVICES/PARKS El EDNSP/ECONOMIC DEVELOP. MSN eprlso�G 4� FINANCE/INFO SERVICES * I FIRE DEPT/FIRE PREVENTION RH. Lars ' / HEARING EXAMINER HUMAN RESOURCES/RISK MGMT HUMAN SERVICES LIBRARIES MAYOR/EXECUTIVE MUNICIPAL COURT q PLANNING COMMISSION POLICE t .— CODIFIER NEWSPAPER 5" PARTIES OF RECORD Planning/Building/Public Works:/ ADMINISTRATION area, Z1 m irlerrrlar / AIRPORT Lai/ Reid try ft7eck'ii"19 a DEVELOPMENT SERVICES J rnrians0/1 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Sondra meye' 1 UTILITIES&TECH SERVICES Lys /lOrn shy / c,le eu- qy- /3 .. CITI )F RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman October 20, 1998 Mr. Charles Maduell Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Re: Request for Reconsideration of Decision re Boeing Longacres Helistop File No. LUA98-113,CU-H Dear Mr. Maduell: This office believes that the condition to limit the initial permit to five (5)years is appropriate. It would appear that the applicant does not understand that as a Conditional Use Permit reasonable conditions may be attached to the permit. The fact that The Boeing Company is the first to apply for a permit for a private helipad does not mean it is simply entitled to such a permit. As noted, a helipad is a conditional use. It was a stretch in the first place to find that a helipad serving the private interests of Boeing served the public use and interest. There is relatively little community need served by a private helipad at an office site within the Green River Valley. The helipad at the hospital is clearly a public or community-generated need. Any helipad or operations at the airport are appropriately based at an airport. The condition to allow the City to review this permit after an initial operating period of about five years to review any unforeseen problems or aspects, and to possibly require consolidation, is not unreasonable. Clearly, each such permit is reviewable in its own right as the applicant notes. Just because Boeing is the first to submit an application, however, does not mean that later applicants should be barred because the City then finds that there are too many such private uses within the vicinity. Again, community need requires assessment and the "first in time" should not necessarily be used to bar other entrants when the community need, if there is such, could be better served if such uses were consolidated. Therefore,the condition will not be altered. The applicant may appeal this decision to the City Council within 14 days of this decision. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner - cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Project Manager 1055 South Gradyad Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 ai This oaoer contains 50%recycled material.20%post consumer TF CITY OF RENTON Ii?) Cis— 1 2 1998 O C T 1 2 1998 1 RECEIVED 2 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER 9 10 CITY OF RENTON 11 12 13 NO. LUA-98-113, CU-H 14 In Re The Boeing Company, Boeing 15 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 16 Longacres Helistop--Conditional Use Permit 17 Application, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I. RELIEF REQUESTED 26 27 The Boeing Company ("Boeing"), pursuant to Renton City Code § 4-8-15, 28 29 respectfully requests reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner of Condition No. 1 in 30 31 its decision approving a conditional use permit for a helistop at Boeing Longacres 32 33 Office Park. 34 35 II. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF AND ARGUMENT 36 3gThe Hearing Examiner, in his Report and Decision ("Decision") dated 39 September 28, 1998, approved a conditional use permit ("CUP") for a helistop at 40 41 Boeing Longacres Office Park subject to four conditions. Boeing objects only to the 42 43 first enumerated condition (Condition No. 1) in the Decision, which provides as 44 45 46 follows: "The Conditional Use Permit shall be issued for an initial period of five (5) 47 years." Decision, p. 6. This five-year permit term in Condition No. 1 appears to be PERKINS COTE LLP REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 1 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 based upon two Examiner conclusions: (1) that the permit should be subject to review 2 3 or possible renewal in case noise problems arise or become an issue, particularly for 4 5 the homes perched on the hill east of the site [Examiner Conclusions 5, 6 and 12]; and 6 7 (2) that approval of this use could create a precedent for such uses in the Valley area 8 9 of the City, making it necessary in the future to consider the overall impacts of private 10 11 helistops at various sites in the Valley [Conclusions 5, 12]. Decision, p. 5-6. 12 13 These conclusions, which are not supported by findings of fact or evidence in 14 15 the record, do not justify or support a condition limiting the helistop CUP to a five- 16 17 year term. Such errors in fact, law and judgment, which are more fully set forth 18 19 below,justify reconsideration and removal of Condition No. 1 from the Decision. In 20 21 the alternative, in order to address the Examiner's concern about future potential noise 22 23 problems arising from operation of the helistop, Condition No. 1 should be replaced 24 25 by a condition more narrowly tailored to this concern -- one that would require permit 26 27 renewal only if monitoring and review by the City at some time in the future revealed 28 29 actual, unresolved noise problems warranting such renewal. 30 31 A. The CUP Should Not Be Limited to a Five-Year Term Based Upon 32 the Possibility of Future, Speculative Noise Impacts from Operation 33 34 of the Proposed Helistop 35 36 On the one hand, the Examiner's conclusions acknowledge that the proposed 37 38 Longacres helistop will not result in any adverse impacts to residential neighborhoods. 39 40 For example, the Examiner concludes that it "appears that the applicant's site is large 41 42 enough that most of the impacts should be contained on the site." Decision, p. 5 43 44 (Conclusion No. 5). The Examiner further concludes that "there is a goodly 45 46 separation between the use and that residential community [on the hill east of the 47 PERKINS COIE LLP REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206)583-8888 1 site]." Decision, p. 5 (Conclusion No. 5). These conclusions are based upon 2 3 substantial evidence in the record. 4 5 On the other hand, the Examiner also concludes that "noise problems" from 6 7 operation of the helistop may "arise" and noise "could be an issue, particularly for the 8 9 homes perched on the hill east of the site." Decision, p. 5 (Conclusion No. 5 & 6). 10 11 No Examiner findings or evidence in the record supports these conclusions. 12 13 Instead, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates that there will be 14 1s no substantial or undue adverse noise impacts on surrounding properties from 16 17 operation of the proposed helistop. According to the evidence in the record and the 18 19 unrebutted testimony of the applicant's noise expert, Ray Klein, any potential noise 20 21 impacts on residential neighborhoods, including those on the hill to the east of the 22 23 site, would at most be negligible, especially given the location of the helistop in the 24 25 middle of an office park surrounded by commercial and industrial uses, its distance 26 27 from residential neighborhoods (more than a mile), the infrequent use of the helistop, 28 29 the proposed flight path of the helicopter away from residential neighborhoods, and 30 31 the level of existing ambient noise levels in the area. 32 33 There is thus no evidence in the record to support the Examiner's conclusions 34 35 that noise problems from operation of the helistop may arise or be an issue, especially 36 37 with respect to any residential neighborhoods in the City. Accordingly, the CUP for 38 39 the Longacres helistop should not be limited to a term of five years based upon such 40 41 speculative, future noise impacts. 42 43 44 45 46 47 PERKINS COTE LLP REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 3 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 B. The Possibility that Future Applicants May Seek to Develop and 2 Operate Private Helistops in the Area Is Not an Appropriate Basis 3 4 for Limiting the Term of the CUP for the Longacres Helistop 5 6 An additional basis for limiting the CUP for the Longacres helistop to a five- 7 8 year term in Condition No. 1 is the Examiner's conclusion that approval of this use 9 10 could create a precedent for other uses in the Valley area of the City, and a 11 12 proliferation of such requests or even a few more such requests in the future may 13 14 make it necessary to consider the overall impacts of private helistops at various sites 15 16 in the Valley. (Conclusion No. 5) Decision, p. 6. No evidence in the record or 17 18 Examiner findings support this conclusion which, even if true, does not support or 19 20 justify limiting the term of the CUP for this proposed helistop to five years. 21 22 In the first place, there is no evidence to suggest that approval of a CUP for the 23 24 Longacres helistop will create a precedent for more such uses in the future. For 25 26 example, there is no evidence to suggest that other property owners or potential 27 28 applicants in the area have tried without success to locate private helistops on their 29 30 property. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that there are other potential applicants 31 32 who are interested in siting a helistop on their property or have been awaiting the 33 34 decision in this case before applying to operate a helistop. In fact, private helipads 35 36 have been allowed as conditional uses in the Renton Zoning Code for a number of 37 38 years. The fact that Boeing apparently is the first to apply to site a private helistop 39 40 outside of an airport or a hospital should not in any way affect or limit approval of its 41 42 CUP. 43 44 In addition, the approval of a CUP for a helistop, or any other conditional use 45 46 for that matter, cannot as a matter of law be said to establish a precedent for such uses 47 or to encourage their proliferation. Conditional use permit applications, unlike PERKINS COIE LLP REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206)583-8888 1 applications for permitted uses, are intended to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to 2 3 determine if such otherwise prohibited uses should be permitted in a particular zone, 4 5 based upon the existing surrounding uses and subject to whatever conditions may be 6 7 necessary, if even possible, to make such use consistent and compatible with 8 9 surrounding uses. R.C.C. § 4-31-36. In other words, the conditional use permit 10 11 process is designed to prevent the proliferation of materially detrimental or 12 13 incompatible uses in areas of the City. 14 15 Thus, not only will approval of Boeing's CUP application for a helistop not 16 17 have precedential effect, it is in fact likely to have the opposite effect. CUP criteria in 18 19 the Renton City Code, one of which prohibits the "detrimental overconcentration of a 20 21 particular use within the city or within the immediate area of the proposed use," 22 23 would actually make it more difficult to site another helistop in the vicinity. R.C.C. 24 25 § 4-31-36(C)(2)(a). Although Boeing in this case was able to demonstrate that the 26 27 location of a helistop at the Longacres Office Park would not result in a detrimental 28 29 overconcentration of such uses in the vicinity or area, future applicants seeking 30 31 helistops in the vicinity or area may not be able to make such a showing because of 32 33 the existence of the Longacres helistop, in which case their application may denied or 34 35 conditioned, as appropriate. 36 37 In addition, impacts, cumulative or otherwise, from additional helistops in the 38 39 vicinity or area can and will be evaluated and addressed through the conditional use 40 41 permit approval process. If they cannot, then they should be addressed legislatively 42 43 by the Renton City Council. In any event, Boeing should not be penalized simply 44 45 because it was the first to apply to site a helistop outside of an airport or hospital. 46 47 Instead, as a result of its being the first to site this conditional use, it will become an PERKINS COTE LLP REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 existing use against which future, conditional use permit applications for helistops 2 3 will be evaluated. This is exactly how the conditional use permit approval process is 4 5 intended to work. If, as a result, it makes it more difficult for other helistops to locate 6 7 in the vicinity, it is not the fault of Boeing or the zoning code; rather, it is the fault of 8 9 those who could have but failed to apply earlier for a helistop. 10 11 Thus, although there is no evidence to suggest that approval of the Longacres 12 13 helistop will somehow create a precedence for additional private helistops in the 14 15 Valley area, even if it does, application for such uses will be subject to the conditional 16 17 use permit process and any impacts from additional private helistops in the Valley can 18 19 and should be addressed through the conditional use permit process. It should not 20 21 affect or limit the CUP approved for the Longacres helistop, which satisfies all 22 23 applicable conditional use permit criteria, and the Examiner should reconsider limiting 24 25 the term of the CUP for the Longacres helistop on this basis. 26 27 C. Examiner Concerns About Potential Future Noise Problems from 28 Operation of the Longacres Helistop, Given Their Speculative 29 30 Nature, Should be Addressed Through a More Narrowly Tailored 31 Condition that Requires Additional Permit Review Only if Such 32 Problems Actually Arise 33 34 In conclusion no. 5, the Examiner states that "the permit should probably be 35 36 subject to review or possible renewal in case noise problems or other issues . . . arise." 37 38 Decision, p. 6. Similarly, in conclusion no. 12, the Examiner states that the proposed 39 40 helistop "should be subject to further review to assure it remains an acceptable, 41 42 neighborly use." Decision, p. 6. Although the record does not support the need for 43 44 such review of potential future noise impacts, even if it did, permit renewal, with its 45 46 attendant costs and the possibility of imposition of additional conditions or even 47 PERKINS COTE LLP REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 6 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 denial, should only be required if potential problems actually materialize. In other 2 3 words, Boeing should not be required to apply for another conditional use permit in 4 5 five years regardless of whether the noise problems that the Examiner believes may 6 7 arise in the future in fact arise. Instead, at most, Boeing should be required to renew 8 9 its existing CUP for the helistop only if review and monitoring by the City of Renton 10 11 at some point in the future reveals the need for such additional review and renewal, as 12 13 for example, if there are numerous unresolved complaints from residents in the 14 1s surrounding residential neighborhoods about operation of the Longacres helistop. 16 17 As the Examiner concluded in conclusion no. 12, "[a]t the moment, it appears 18 19 reasonable to approve the proposed use." Decision, p. 6. In other words, the 20 21 proposed Longacres helistop satisfies the applicable criteria for approval of a CUP for 22 23 this use. Examiner concerns about potential future noise problems from operation of 24 25 the Longacres helistop, given their speculative nature, should be addressed through a 26 27 more narrowly tailored condition that requires additional permit review only if such 28 29 problems actually arise. If the Examiner believes a condition is necessary to address 30 31 the possibility of future noise impacts, then Condition No. 1 should be replaced by a 32 33 condition such as the following: 34 35 1. Within five (5) years, the City shall determine whether 36 there are unresolved noise problems from operation of the 37 38 helistop that warrant renewal of the conditional use permit. If the 39 City determines that such noise problems exist the City may 40 require the applicant to reapply for a permit to continue to al operate a helistop at the Longacres Office Park site. If not, no 42 43 permit renewal or reapplication shall be required. 44 45 46 47 PERKINS COTE LLP REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 7 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 3 The proposed Longacres helistop is an important component of the recently- 4 5 completed Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters building, for it will 6 7 connect the new Longacres Boeing operations with Boeing's other facilities 8 9 throughout the Puget Sound region, all of which can be accessed by helicopter. 10 11 The proposed Longacres helistop has been designed and located so as to 12 13 minimize any impacts to surrounding areas and communities and, as the evidence in 14 15 the record demonstrates, any noise impacts to surrounding areas, including the 16 17 residential areas east of the site, will at most be negligible. Although the Examiner in 18 19 his Decision has expressed concerns about future potential noise problems from 20 21 operation of the helistop, given the speculative nature of such concerns, a condition 22 23 limiting the term of the helistop CUP to five years is neither reasonable nor 24 25 appropriate. Nevertheless, if the Examiner believes a condition is necessary to ensure 26 27 that no noise problems from operation of the helistop arise in the future, any such 28 29 condition should be more narrowly tailored so that Boeing would only have to reapply 30 31 for a CUP if such noise problems actually arise. 32 33 For these reasons, Boeing respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider 34 35 imposition of Condition No. 1. 36 37 DATED: October 12, 1998. 38 39 ao PERKINS COIE LLP 41 42 43 44 By04(11( /1 as Charles E. Maduell, WSBA # 15491 46 47 Attorneys for The Boeing Company PERKINS COIF LLP REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 8 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206)583-8888 • • 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3 4 5 I certify that on October 12, 1998, I caused to be served via legal messenger a true 6 7 and correct copy of the foregoing Request for Reconsideration upon the following: 8 9 10 Jennifer Henning 11 Project Manager - Development Services 12 City of Renton 13 1055 S. Grady Way 14 Renton, WA 98055 15 16 Fred J. Kaufman 17 Hearing Examiner 18 19 City of Renton 20 1055 S. Grady Way 21 Renton, WA 98055 22 23 24 ICiCA- f et,cv--/ 25 Vicki Gea • 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 PERKINS COTE LLP CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1 1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor [03003-0153/SB982790.193] Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King ) MARILYN MOSES , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 28th day of September ,1998, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: )/ /7 6 6A4t7 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this d` day of , 1998. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at .S.„ k9 Herein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Boeing Longacres Helistop LUA98-113,CU-H The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. it•.,,, . . • • N. • • . - • • .• • September 28, 1998 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: The Boeing Company Boeing Longacres Helistop File No.: LUA-98-113,CU-H LOCATION: Longacres Office Park,901 Oakesdale Ave. SW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To construct and operate a helistop at Boeing Headquarters Building SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on September 2, 1998. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area;the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the September 8, 1998 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, September 8, 1998, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity map application,proof of posting,proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Site plan Exhibit No.4: Supporting environmental documents Exhibit No. 5: FAA approval letter dated 8/5/98 Exhibit No.6: USGS Quadrangle Map The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by JENNIFER HENNING,Project Manager, Development Services,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, Washington 98055. The applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct a helicopter takeoff and landing area at Boeing Longacres Park. The site is located in the Green River Valley portion of the City,just south of I-405,to the west of SR-167 and The Boeing Company Boeing Longacres Helistop File No.: LUA-98-113,CU-H September 28, 1998 Page 2 east of the City of Tukwila boundaries. The purpose of the helistop is to operate a private helicopter area in connection with Boeing headquarters office building. This project would include a 26 foot square concrete area for touch-down and lift-off of helicopters and would be surrounded by an 80-foot diameter circular asphalt area,or a 40-foot radius. This development would have perimeter lighting and a windsock. The lighting and wind sock light would be activated through radio signals from the pilot of the helicopter. Flights in and out of the helistop would be expected to average a minimum of one per month or maximum of eight flights per month. No helicopters would be based at this facility,none would be fueled,nor would any be maintained at this site. The use of this helistop is to bring visitors,clients and customers in an out of the facility. An existing paved area of 15,000 square feet would be modified with new markings on the pavement and installation of the wind sock and lighting. There would be some additional impervious surface added in terms of an access road to connect to the helistop. Biofiltration facilities would also be installed along the access road. Helicopters would take off and approach the helistop to and from the north-northwest and the south. The flight paths of the helicopters would be generally to the center of the site over existing parking areas, storm water ponds and vacant land. This project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)and received a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M). The mitigation requires that the landing pad and area adjacent to the helistop be free of any unnecessary dust and debris that could result in dust impacts during helicopter maneuvers. Applicant has submitted a dust management plan and has stated that in order to minimize the dust being disturbed during takeoff and landing,the soils surrounding the asphalt pad would be planted in naturally occurring grasses and the landing pad and immediate landscaping would be maintained on an as-needed basis. This portion of the City is designated Employment Area-Valley in the Comprehensive Plan, and it permits office,commercial and industrial uses. Helicopter landing areas or helistops are permitted as an accessory use. The zoning for this area is designated Commercial Office(CO)and permits helistops as an accessory use subject to a conditional use permit. The proposal meets all the development standards of the CO zone including height, setback and lot coverage requirements. The proposal does not require any additional parking and there will be no additional vehicle traffic generated. The applicant has provided a noise analysis which indicates that the typical noise associated with helicopters is 76 to 84 decibels at a distance of 500 feet from the aircraft. This particular facility would be located several hundred feet from any property boundaries. It is not expected to create any impact,particularly given the infrequent use and the fact that there is already a helicopter school that operates out of Boeing Field that over- flies this site several times a day. There are no scheduled hours of operation. A new family daycare center being operated at this site is on the east side of the property with the corporate building located between the helistop and the daycare center. Noise abatement measures would be implemented,particularly during ascent and descent. There are no other helicopter takeoff and landing facilities in the immediate area. The Valley Medical Center about a mile and a half away does have a helicopter landing area. Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit subject to the condition that they be required to comply with the ERC mitigation measure for management of dust on the site. Chuck Maduell, 1201 Third Avenue,40th Floor, Seattle, Washington 98101,attorney for applicant herein, introduced additional exhibits. He pointed out that there has been no public comment or opposition to the proposed helistop. The Boeing Company Boeing Longacres Helistop File No.: LUA-98-113,CU-H September 28, 1998 Page 3 Conrad Szymczak,Boeing Company,P.O.Box 3707,MS 20-30, Seattle,Washington 98124-2207,applicant representative herein, stated that applicant did not want to be limited to a maximum of 8 flights per month. The projection at this time is a maximum of 8,but this depends upon the season and business demands. The traffic would occur mainly during the daylight hours,but there may be some rare occasions for flights at night. Regarding the residential areas to the east of the site,this project is expected to generate less noise than the existing helicopter flights from the Renton Municipal Airport and the helicopter school from Boeing Field. Rudolph Hobbs, Boeing Company,P.O.Box 3707,MS 14-HC, Seattle, Washington 98124,pilot for the applicant herein, stated that the use of the helistop facility is going to be primarily for executives and customers and will link to the various Boeing sites in the northwest area. Regarding the actual flights,helicopters do not need a lot of space for takeoff and landing,and the take-off path can be varied depending on the wind. Flights will always take off into the wind and land into the wind. The predominant winds in this area run north and south, and predominant traffic through this corridor is along the railroad track. Ray Klein,Boeing Company,P.O.Box 3707,MS 1W-03, Seattle,Washington 98124-2207, applicant representative herein,addressed the noise issue. When the helicopter is taking off it takes approximately 8 to 10 seconds to go south and out of the area,moving away from a residential area. As it is moving away the noise is also abating. The ambient level of noise in the community itself is such that residents will probably not hear the helicopters taking off and landing The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak,and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:45 a.m. FINDINGS.CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant,Rick Ford, The Boeing Company,filed a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a helicopter landing pad in a Commercial Office(CO)Zone. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW. The site is located on the Boeing Longacres Office Park campus south of SW 16th and east of Oakesdale. The pad will be located southwest of the new headquarters building. It is intended to serve the executives of the Boeing Company and their clientele. The Boeing Company Boeing Longacres Helistop File No.: LUA-98-113,CU-H September 28, 1998 Page 4 6. The subject site is an approximately 3.1 acre portion of the larger Boeing Longacres campus. The site is level and already is paved. 7. The subject site was annexed to the City in a series of actions including Ordinances 1745, 1764 and ending with Ordinance 1928. 8. The subject site is zoned CO,a status it received with the adoption of Ordinance 4404 enacted in June 1993. 9. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as Employment Area Valley,but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 10. The area is developed with a mix of office and warehouse uses south and east of the site. A railroad line is located west of the site. Similar uses are located in Tukwila west of the rail line. Residential uses are located east of the site above the valley floor. 11. The applicant proposes developing what they term a private helistop. It will primarily serve the applicant, although staff noted it could be used for emergency evacuations by emergency services personnel. Helicopters would be based elsewhere and would only visit the site when needed. They would not be fueled or maintained at this location. 12. It would consist of a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area. It would be surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take-off area. There would be perimeter lighting and a lighted windsock. The lighting would not be on at all times,but be activated by a pilot either approaching or at the site. 13. The flight path should generally be oriented along a north-south route. Noise should be generally confined to the flight path. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant for a Conditional Use Permit must demonstrate that the use is in the public interest,will not impair the health, safety or welfare of the general public and is in compliance with the criteria found in Section 4-31-36(C)which provides in part that: a. The proposal generally conforms with the Comprehensive Plan; b. There is a general community need for the proposed use at the proposed location; c. There will be no undue impacts on adjacent property; d. The proposed use is compatible in scale with the adjacent residential uses, if any; e. Parking,unless otherwise permitted,will not occur in the required yards; f. Traffic and pedestrian circulation will be safe and adequate for the proposed project; g. Noise, light and glare will not cause an adverse affect on neighboring property; The Boeing Company Boeing Longacres Helistop File No.: LUA-98-113,CU-H September 28, 1998 Page 5 h. Landscaping shall be sufficient to buffer the use from rights-of-way and neighboring property where appropriate; and i. Adequate public services are available to serve the proposal. The requested conditional use appears justified subject to the conditions enumerated below. 2. The use is an accessory use to an office complex and as such is acceptable under the Comprehensive Plan for this area. The use will not generate any new employment in this area. 3. This proposed use will result in limited changes and construction in the area. It would appear that the proposal meets Zoning Code requirements in that the CO Zone does permit helipads as an accessory use subject to conditional use criteria. 4. It is hard to say that there is a community need for a private helipad located at a private site. It appears that the pad would be available for public use by emergency agencies if a need arose. A condition assuring such availability will help justify the community need for such a facility at the Boeing complex. 5. In addition,the permit should probably be subject to review or possible renewal in case noise problems or other issues that have not been addressed with this novel use arise. Similarly, approving this use could create a precedent and other users in the Valley area of the City might want similar amenities. In that event,the City might want to consider consolidating such uses or co-locating them,much as it does cellular tower sites. While this probably is not an immediate problem,a proliferation of such requests or even a few more such requests might make it necessary to consider the overall impacts of private helistops at various sites in the Valley. Therefore, it seems appropriate to condition or limit this initial permit to perhaps five years after which time the state of the art and state of land use patterns in this area can be reevaluated. To keep the use operational,the applicant could apply for a new conditional use permit well before this one is to expire. 6. It appears that the applicant's site is large enough that most of the impacts should be contained on the site. Noise,though,could be an issue,particularly for the homes perched on the hill east of the site. It appears that there is a goodly separation between the use and that residential community. Nonetheless, the applicant should maintain a flight path as far from the hill as possible. 7. The proposed use will be more or less a flat landing area with windsock and lighting. It should not be particularly out of scale with any of the adjacent development,whether residential or commercial. 8. The use will not require any additional parking on a permanent basis. 9. Lighting will be activated on an as-needed basis and should not create any undue impacts on the public or adjacent properties. 10. The overall complex is well landscaped. The proposed use will be closely maintained to avoid debris hazards when operating the helicopter. 11. The site is adequately served by needed public services. 12. In conclusion,as the first private helicopter site outside of the airport and hospital, it will create a precedent and must be carefully observed to assure that any precedent it sets is appropriate. At the The Boeing Company Boeing Longacres Helistop File No.: LUA-98-113,CU-H September 28, 1998 Page 6 moment it appears reasonable to approve the proposed use. As noted,however, it should be subject to further review to assure it remains an acceptable,neighborly use. DECISION: The Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Conditional Use Permit shall be issued for an initial period of five(5)years. 2. The applicant shall maintain a flight path as far from the eastern,residentially developed hill as possible. 3. The applicant shall make the facility available at no cost to emergency agencies as needed. 4. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. ORDERED THIS 28th day of September, 1998. C+Ii------ FRED J.KAU N HEARING E MINER TRANSMI FI FD THIS 28th day of September, 1998 to the parties of record: Jennifer Henning Chuck Maduell Conrad Szymczak 1055 S Grady Way 1201 Third Ave.,40th Floor The Boeing Company Renton,WA 98055 Seattle,WA 98101 PO Box 3707,MS 20-30 Seattle,WA 98124-2207 Rudolph Hobbs Ray Klein The Boeing Company The Boeing Company PO Box 3707,MS 14-HC PO Box 3707,MS 1W-03 Seattle,WA 98124 Seattle,WA 98124-2207 TRANSMITTED THIS 28th day of September, 1998 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director Chuck Duffy,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ.Dev.Administrator South County Journal The Boeing Company Boeing Longacres Helistop File No.: LUA-98-113,CU-H September 28, 1998 Page 7 Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m..October 12. 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 16,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. . . 7--- _ ‘..1 • . 11,rt ...-....-----•' . ....- .....••••.....••••• :: l's "r• --. r•• -• ..---.- ;‘, '‘‘`, • ---•- r i ......-...--- — .....,...... .....- :::---- -.7,- - „ . . -.....--- i .....-.1:--•::::- I.--.::::::41..;-'1:Ni ii.;'-. r.:). ,........4 • -------: :•:.---, ,...-::::--- J:......,.....„...„:r--- .-...-:::---:-i: • ... ._...-.•'..'....:-^.....,FE.:i.i.:17.7.::.•....;,:.*.a.,:,:,:-.-.. .. ...,•:::--:--- \ ,,,,... ,.. ...'..sc.k.......4 i':•\*., \ ‘ • .:.. :•: ----5 4- • .'-'/.;:::',....;:7,-,...."1:.;:c,-3........„..5-7:7„----1:=::::::-1_,,,-...]:1--r:-.::,.::i.:;,,-,.-:-.,..:-..s.i...,...r,..:vv-...:?...7: :',7-:::::':::=.41-7;.-i..... :.,--..:f:74.::-.::-.....-.:::::::-............... ‘ -......,:-(--•";""'..:::—7 -()*..- .';- — — 1 6TH ST E____E..T...:.,,__,-v-..lill ..„..,,./..: ...,,,... ..„--,..„..,..„.......,.__,„___.....„., ..,,.._..4.,.......,: ,.....„. ...._...... • ....... ..... ... . ,t:::,,,:r..---:=•: .-,--, ... i CT) ::!Y:. .-...--;--::::;-.,;-"r-:: .:• )t ----J ii i ..,..-.55•5:" ,1 ,i :.: i 1. iiii ,•:- I ti '•-i 1 ) i 1 4.....:5„ 1 9TH .. S :;: :.. .: ..4.1 t s w . ._.......... .. \-..), r .;.--2 ,:. •. ••,,,..:•• tt,...,:::.... ,.... !Ili ..;ii -!-- - -;-,.•- ,\...,., C) 1 .... i. • ;...li S A 5B-I R.' ST 4 HELISTOP 1-.A•1•Al'::-:-.:•.:::.1. 1‘;',.... PROJECT liftliti./, I •e.I _, TUKWI 80EING ,...IC).!si•: SITE '1 -1 •:0;...•.' I .., .i. CITY OF ,.., ,... ••• •vi. -....:4. • CITY OF i l\_ „,.........-- RENTON t..,... ;...,. ;\ LAi 0 • I 1..„... PROPERTY : •,:‘. I Cy LINE—\\ ' S.W. 23RD ST. .. ! C.f Z:: 0 tt S . W . y 7TH STREET „. :• ..: .....___ _.. .„..s.. __ . r,•,:, ._ __ • ,,,, or-) ,. . . : \\_ , , .. F, .0,,,,,G r, >- ---J cli . _.., PROPERTY M > LINE 2N _J III ) --1 0 rnii • i i :: _ \ — — : :E 13 i<>, ?•(: , 1 1 1 1 r— 23 i: ••2 0 ... 0 :R1 r-- ,* * P I i-----. rmi : . : <C i • . > i: S.W. 34TH STREET 1 1 r __ _., i I • : '; 1 r)....›. 0 ii" . • 73 rim i 1... i N cr) i. - i • ii . i i —• (---- 1 i 1 : ..,,,... „....,.....v. 1 1 f i Hl'' 1 •N C ' ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS 1 INCH ,-. 300 0 WSDOT (5)EINSF RAILWAY OXIMATELY) )HUNTER DOUGLAS a)CITY OF RENTON 6 GLACIER PARK PROP. (3 a)McLEOD HELISTOP PROJECT 0 CITY OF SEATTLE (8)ALLPAC CONTAINER,PAJO8\013797\MO\OINC\SCP803.9 0.0 INC.99.•88/6 23.98 NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP rn\ '.. e...---....,.:--..-finl:_-:tv.s---,....,, :.,1+:: :-.*2: ,.;::.„,....„.ty.--. bec'Qs./ • ,..,,,_--— --• --7:::::••44..._:•:- ..._ ”roz..::::,:7. •,.. :A.:: :::. . : A •-•, 2' v.-4 ,• •••,•44.1,- ,4--8-,swalr."....--.-:„. --*,i: • f am.... ki •.:,, ..„......„3x r,..rs.„. i,•10 • II U Ilii":ZI CSTC BLDG. L25-01 :I.A.:::.1:-:, •:4 ' 4-. ...i 1 I i.• -1 1, . 4:,,,..i.1.:::.,. '1"--: ;Vi :-...'.._-:---7.---.--*--; 4.:,,,:,,:e..::::.• ,?:\ g • : :: '"-ti,..4 .1;VT•.:' .:::.•-•••,--,_ kk• +-%r e.i ,v/ .ek N.Pliiik .:?.k..•:'..k,, i ,,• . ., ,-.1\- -----, 1 :i .. • /1.,A-20. k -.. _..._,... .r:4:::giVt, : •%—is'':,, s•Y :1\--%'t-ii.: ..._.N.,, -i. •-":i 142t4:&,i:. ::, :,.\,..•,:s..%:., 4-.:: '; tt, - *4.• .1.1 1 i.i.t.:, : ..I .::::.,' ..' i 3'' .' `• ' n, .:ik‘' '''',1"..\,:,,,,x.,:::•:::;:,,, $ " .-‘ • 0, 'E.A' 1 5,' '-%,. -. 5•K"›,.01:1' ....._ ., .1. f--; \„ A . ;•,. ...„-- i ......, — , ., .. „ ---.... .•-.:::::::::7 .- I Nzti:3„ww., .\... . — rL .--..... „.',rr- j ,g)/.....-.4,--,.-,..m.-33..! /.1 " • / e- -- ,,I: •:, • -----:::,.. ,•-•'-'1 :,( -1.--T''' ' .-:•, : . tr:.1 7:.1-1;')...; ...:13 ,,---:/,,----::::::: \ 1'1 BLDG. F—.— //,,, t Z:••*. '. ''s,r 25-20 vija . BLDG. ••$:11 . .• 1 ,/,' •-......:•;--------7i-- uggarat a -pm.,:••'-1-- 7:-.4,ri) , 25-10 .• n„,......;:::::;...,, 1 :::2,-..;, : • ...,'• •:..e::-. —..L.;-...-----:•61 ill '''7' : -- •,/r7.---:,-,..,...._ :::.*\-"--,.. zzeli ,,;„.......... , 1i.::, 1 ; 7 ..fmtv.'.1 .-.----.- Zug sii. li„,..4- N )i \ )-(,:iff !Ii1P,:„,-,ti „......, , ,,...... ,. , /.1 I' i,,, ,4,4,, \ mit : . i_ ,..,, . , E.1 • I 3E i :". .., , ITTii.i; Y,':`,. . — ,_____,... .. - , . '---1 1 li; :::: .•.....-.,.:.,j 'r ‘‘v • \\: .7-.,.;.: 6. I . • . I°.i, I I 1 ,...1..'' i if '' N apt ...== ;1....T.,• ;••i! 1 ;.. I HELISTOP , „. ., ...,• ...___ ,c__,., ::t•....,, .....••.. , I _ . . ., —4-1-',.9 \ , \(1) PROJECT SITE — --?I 7" I'P.S- .. \ : ......67:....-. I•,: 1 I '..... .'5'.•__, • 4...7,•,, f.,,,i.,, -41-41101_11, . , 6 i _... . :•-•"---i fi: I a*':.•',.i.ki:•-1.:4fif -t 1 I ...,... ....:,.:.:. _____I) .„,...:.\ -.`:',........:"A 4.....: id< HELISTOP PROJECT . .:•:" ' ''01,1 f.', SITE PLAN NOTES: !•.,4....,:, k *Li?1::1;1 •e r-N :*21-i---: , \ ,e .....VACCZI"\. • \..x,...,,_,,,,I. I PROJECT SITE AREA: 3.10 AC (APPROX) --." •slkiV-r:---N SW 21 ST TOTAL BUILDING AREA: N/A r ,. .-.0 . ..• .., . ',..i f•• PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: N/A C) PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: N/A PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS: N/A TOTAL LANDSCAPING: 0.5 AC REQUIRED SETBACK: 80' DIAMETER F.A.T.O. PROPOSED SETBACK: 80' DIAMETER F.A.T.O. eveardr .,,Ep SITE PLAN CIVIL . INC. 600 108th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 toi :go' (425) 452-8000 al-S wink.,R7A71 la i n%Me,araAnNAR..-.. I /a la a R AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHINGTON a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal The Environmental Review Committee newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months (ERC)has issued a Determination of Non- Significance - Mitigated for the following prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language project under the authority of the Renton continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County Municipal Code. Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper order of the Superior Court of the BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP pp 9by Pe LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF State of Washington for King County. Environmental review for development and The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County operation of a private helistop at the Boeing Headquarters Building. Location: Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers 901 Oakesdale Ave.SW. during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a I Appeals of the environmental determina- tion must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, August 24, 1998. Appeals must Boeing Longacres Helistop be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South as published on: 8/10/98 Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055.Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of,$52.11 Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B.Additional information regarding the appeal Legal Number 5046 _ process erkm'sayOffice,be ob(tained425)235 2 from501.the Renton • A Public Hearing will be held by the �J Z ��—K Renti g Examiner at his regular meetingin the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Legal Clerk, South County Journal Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on September 08, 1998 at 9:00 AM to consid- �j er the Conditional Use Permit.The applic- Subscribed and sworn before me on this da ofPi-UJ , , 19`�Q ant or representative of the applicant is yrequired to be present at the public hear- ing. If the Environmental Determination is 17. \ ��//JJ o appealed, theappeal will be heard as part �� Q \y�1j� ofthislispedin thng.``.\\\WIIIlift,.' (_ 1_ a (/l�/� Published in the South County Journal tV/ August 10, 1998.5046 fc.% t NS•grp.j '�,, Notary Public of the State of Washington N •, �A- �.% residing in Renton ~' ` ' �'= King County, Washington N Tn CITY OF:RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF.SERVICE BY MAILING On the 3a day of p-V 1'- , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing 9eiDoy= •kt \-ke6Y1 documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing 1:?1ck love, 1v _qt (Signature of Sender) S. - STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that `n signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: C —Cf- Notary Publicdn and for the State of i:shington Notary (Print My appointme MMISS C fUN EXPIRES 6/29/99 Project Name: • E1� I ,e\v, l,crt,, aLve� kcJAL Project Number: NOTARY.DOC CITY OF RENTON H EARIN EXAMINE PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 08 1998 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9t .0 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS,7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL: • The application(s) listed•are in order of apptlratton number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for bearing St the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Stiegman Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-026,SHPL-H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Jim Jaeger of Jaeger Engineering has applied, on behalf of Walter Stiegman, to subdivide a 4.99 acre parcel into eight (8) residential lots and a separate tract for wetlands. Six of the parcels (new lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7) would range from 5,757 - 6,336 square feet in size. New Lot No. 4 would be 9,540 s.f., new Lot 8 would be 75,295 square feet, and Tract A would be 47,164 square feet. Category II and Ill wetlands are present on the site. Access to the short plat would be from an existing street, Wells Avenue South. City Code requires the extension of public streets through the short plat to serve the short plat and adjacent landlocked parcels. The applicant proposes to dedicate right-of- way for the future construction of a public street to the west, but will seek a deferral or waiver for the street improvements until such time that the adjacent parcels develop. The proposed right-of-way would cross two wetlands, and the applicant proposes to recreate the wetlands either on site or off-site when the future impacts occur. The proposal requires environmental review and short plat approval. Location: Wells Avenue South, south of South 32nd Street. PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Helistop PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-113,CU-H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of the Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26-foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40-foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take-off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Flights in and out of Longacres Office Park are expected to average one (1) to eight (8) flights per month. Helicopters would not be based, fueled or maintained at the helistop. Construction of the helistop would not result in the addition of any new impervious surfaces. An existing paved area 15,000 s.f. in size would be modified with markings on the pavement and the installation of a windsock and lighting to accommodate the proposed helistop. However, approximately 4,500 square feet of new impervious surface would be added to enlarge an existing 18,000 s.f. access road to 22,500 s.f. Biofiltration facilities along the access road to the helistop would also be installed. Location: Longacres Office Park, 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW. AGNDA.DOC City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: September 8, 1998 Project Name: Boeing Longacres Helistop Applicant/ Mr. Rick Ford Address: The Boeing Company PO Box 3707, m/s/19-35 Seattle, WA 98124 Owner/ The Boeing Company Address: attn: Rick Ford PO Box 3707, m/s 19-35 Seattle, WA 98124 File Number: LUA-098-113,CU-H, ECF Project Manager: Jennifer Toth Henning Project Description: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of the Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26-foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40-foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take-off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Flights in and out of Longacres Office Park are expected to average one (1) to eight (8) flights per month. Helicopters would not be based, fueled or maintained at the helistop. Construction of the helistop would not result in the addition of any new impervious surfaces. An existing paved area 15,000 s.f. in size would be modified with markings on the pavement and the installation of a windsock and lighting to accommodate the proposed helistop. However, approximately 4,500 square feet of new impervious surface would be added to enlarge an existing 18,000 s.f. access road to 22,500 s.f. Biofiltration facilities along the access road to the helistop would also be installed. Project Location: Longacres Office Park, 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW -- YtP .r :.ym . - .• ..__ ''•�.., .,M1 _...... ---- .......:S W 16TH STREET rs.v . (L3 if l \-BOEING PROPER FF� S.W. 19TH STREET • LINE > ' ;;> i CITY CIF i • I OF wn .; RENTON PROJEa SITE Ij in S.W. 23RD STREET • • , City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Heating Examiner BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP LUA-98-113, CU-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 Page 2 of 7 B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: The Boeing Company 2. Zoning Designation: Commercial Office (CO) 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Employment Area Valley (EAV) Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: Offices, parking areas, stormwater facilities, vacant 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters Building, Boeing Longacres Customer Services Training Center Building, industrial and commercial office uses. East: Boeing Family Care Center, industrial and commercial office use South: vacant, industrial and commercial office uses West: commercial office and retail uses 6. Access: via Oakesdale Avenue SW 7. Site Area: 3.1 acres 8. Project Data: _ area comments Existing Building Area: Not applicable to proposal New Building Area: Not applicable, no buildings are proposed Total Building Area: Not applicable. C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan 4498 2/20/95 Zoning 4404 6/7/93 Annexation 1745 4/15/59 Annexation 1764 5/19/59 Annexation 1928 12/19/61 Annexation 4040 2/9/88 Longacres Office Park LUA-91-128,ECF 5/95 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: Water: Not applicable to proposal Sewer: Not applicable to proposal HEX.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP LUA-98-113, CU-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 Page 3 of 7 Surface Water/Storm Water: Not applicable to proposal 2. Fire Protection: per City of Renton Fire Department 3. Transit: Not applicable to proposal 4. Schools: Not applicable to this conditional use permit 5. Recreation: Springbrook Creek Trail located east of the site E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Section 4-31-16: Commercial Office (CO) Zone 2. Section 4-31-36: Conditional Use Permit F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element-- Employment Area - Valley Policies G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of the Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26-foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40-foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take-off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Flights in and out of Longacres Office Park are expected to average one (1) to eight (8) flights per month. Helicopters would not be based, fueled or maintained at the helistop. Construction of the helistop would not result in the addition of any new impervious surfaces. An existing paved area 15,000 s.f. in size would be modified with markings on the pavement and the installation of a windsock and lighting to accommodate the proposed helistop. However, approximately 4,500 square feet of new impervious surface would be added to enlarge an existing 18,000 s.f. access road to 22,500 s.f. Biofiltration facilities along the access road to the helistop would also be installed. Helicopters would takeoff and approach the helistop to/from the north/northwest and south. The flight path of the helicopters would be through the center of the site, over parking areas, stormwater ponds and vacant land. Lighting of the helistop and wind sock would be activated using radio signals initiated by the helicopter pilot. HEX.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP LUA-98-113, CU-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 Page 4 of 7 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on August 4, 1998, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) on August 4, 1998. The ERC issued one mitigation measure that the applicant is required to comply with. The mitigation measure is as follows: 1. The applicant shall be required to maintain the helistop landing pad and area adjacent to the helistop to be free of unnecessary dust and debris that could result in dust impacts during helicopter maneuvers. The applicant shall develop a maintenance plan to address dust impacts. The maintenance plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of the building permit. The applicant has submitted a dust management plan. In order to minimize dust being disturbed during takeoffs and landings, the soils surrounding the asphalt pad will be planted in naturally occurring grasses, and the landing pad and immediate landscaping will be maintained on an as- needed basis. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Section 4-31-36 lists 11 criteria that the Hearing Examiner is asked to consider, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on a Conditional Use application. These include the following: (5A) CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMP. PLAN, ZONING CODE& OTHER ORDINANCES: The proposed use shall be compatible with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standard of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City of Renton. (1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT The proposed helistop is located in an area designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan as Employment Area - Valley (EAV). The proposal would be incidental to and associated with the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters Office Building at the Boeing Longacres Office Park. Objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan seek to ensure "quality development" in the Employment Area - Valley designation (Objective LU-EE.c). HEX.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP LUA-98-113, CU-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 Page 5 of 7 Policies of the Comprehensive Plan also encourage compatible and related land uses to locate in proximity to one another (LU-212.2), and encourage vehicular connections between adjacent parking areas (LU-212.21). The proposed helistop is located in proximity to compatible and related land uses. It is proposed to be located adjacent to the BCAG Headquarters Building, for which it would be used. A road would connect the helistop to the Headquarters Building and parking lot. The helistop is also proposed to be located in the middle of the Longacres Office Park and is surrounded by, and compatible with, commercial, industrial and office building in the Valley area. (2) ZONING CODE The Commercial Office (CO) permits helipads only as an accessory use and subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Hearing Examiner. The helistop would be accessory to the existing and proposed master planned office development on the site. Offices are a primary permitted use in the CO Zone. Accessory uses must be associated by clearly incidental to the use it is subordinate to. The helistop would be used as part of business conducted in the Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters structure. Furthermore, the proposal meets development standards of the CO Zone including height, setback, and lot coverage requirements. (58) COMMUNITY NEED: There shall be a community need for the proposed use at the proposed location. In the determination of community need, the Hearing Examiner shall consider the following factors, among all other relevant information: (1) The proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental over concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. There are no other helicopter landing/take-off facilities in the Valley area. The nearest helipad or helistop is presently located at the Valley Medical Hospital, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the proposed helistop site. Presently, a helicopter school operates from Seattle's Boeing Field and flies over the site on a regular basis. The helicopter traffic generated by the proposal would incrementally increase air traffic over the site and in the area. The flight approach/take-off path is depicted in the project application materials as generally north/south. Site development below the flight path includes parking lots, stormwater ponds, and undeveloped areas. The proposal would incrementally increase helicopter traffic in the area, but the traffic would be infrequent, from one to 8 flights per month. The proposal would also establish a helicopter landing pad that could be used by emergency services personnel if needed. (2) That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. The project site is appropriate for the proposed helistop as the site is large, open and without overhead power lines or other vertical features that could interfere with flight operations. The helistop would serve the Boeing Longacres campus, particularly the Headquarters Office Building. Its location would be central to the site, but would generally be buffered from the day care center by Headquarters Office Building. Noise and dust generated would not be expected to impact the Headquarters Office Building, Customer Service Training Center, or day care center. (5C) EFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. HEX.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP LUA-98-113, CU-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 Page 6 of 7 Noise from operation of helicopters would occur, but would be infrequent. The location of the proposed helistop on the center portion of the site would approximately 300 feet from the closest point of the Headquarters Office Building. It would be convenient to the building it is intended to serve, yet approximately 1,000 feet from the day care, diminishing noise impacts to a use on the site that is not office or commercial in nature. In addition, the helistop would comply with development standards of the CO Zone that are to be evaluated as part Conditional Use Permit. Those standards include, lot coverage, setbacks and height limits. (5D) COMPATIBILITY: The proposed use shall be compatible with the residential scale and character of the neighborhood. (Ord 3599, 1-11-82) Not applicable, as no residential development is located in the vicinity of the proposal. (5E) PARKING: Parking under the building structure should be encouraged. Lot coverage may be increased to as much as seventy-five percent (75%) of the lot coverage requirement of the zone, in which the proposed use is located, if all parking is provided underground or within the structure. (Ord. 3903, 4-22-85) The proposed helistop would not trigger any parking requirements. A private driveway will connect the helistop with an existing parking lot for the Boeing Headquarters Office Building. (5F) TRAFFIC: Traffic and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the proposed use and surrounding area shall be reviewed for potential effects on, and to ensure safe movement in the surrounding area. Vehicular access to the proposed helistop would be provided by a private road connecting to the Headquarters Office Building parking lot. The proposed helistop would not generate additional vehicular traffic. Pedestrian access to and from the helistop is not provided for, as passengers would be transported to and from the helistop in a vehicle that would shuttle them to their destination. (5G) NOISE, GLARE: Potential noise, light and glare impacts shall be evaluated based on the location of the proposed use on the lot and the location of on-site parking areas, outdoor recreational areas and refuse storage areas. The typical noise associated with helicopters is 76 to 84 dBA at a distance of 500 feet from the aircraft. This is similar to noise levels for certain types of construction equipment. While helicopter noise is not regulated, the applicant has assumed that flights in and out of Longacres Office Park would occur during typical business hours. Noise abatement procedures would be implemented, particularly during ascent and descent. Pilots would be instructed to set flight profiles that establish shallow angles of descent to and ascent from the helistop. The typical flight path (north and south from the helistop) would result in the helicopter being 800 to 1,000 feet altitude at one-half mile from the helistop. Helicopter noise could temporarily disturb or distract people in the area. However, flights in and out of Longacres Office Park would be infrequent and the disruption would be short in duration. The helicopter traffic would be minimal as compared to an existing helicopter flight school that operated south of the project site, with several take-off and landing maneuvers each day. HEX.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP LUA-98-113, CU-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 Page 7 of 7 Light and/or glare impacts are not anticipated with the proposal. Lighting would be provided on the helistop, but it would be radio activated by the helicopter pilots. Only the helicopter pad and directional wind sock would be illuminated. The pad lights are low lumen and directed down, and by nature are designed to not result in glare that could disrupt a pilots night vision. The wind sock would be internally lit to provide good visibility for the pilot and in order to prevent glare to the surrounding area. (5H) LANDSCAPING: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by building or paving. The Hearing Examiner may require additional landscaping to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. No landscaping is proposed. The applicant intends to restore disturbed areas by returning it to grass. (51) ACCESSORY USES: Accessory uses to conditional uses such as day schools, auditoriums used for social and sport activities, health centers, convents, preschool facilities, convalescent homes and others of a similar nature shall be considered to be separate uses and shall be subject to the provisions of the use district in which they are located. Not applicable to this proposal. (5J) CONVERSION: No existing building or structure shall be converted to a conditional use unless such building or structure complies, or is brought into compliance, with the provisions of this Chapter. Not applicable to this proposal. (5K) PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The proposed use and location shall be adequately served by and not impose an undue burden on any public improvements, facilities, utilities, and services. Approval of a conditional use permit may be conditional upon the provision and/or guarantee by the applicant of necessary public improvements, facilities, utilities, and/or services. The proposed helistop is adequately served by public improvements and would not require the extension of City utility systems. H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Boeing Longacres Helistop, Project File No. LUA-98-113, CU-H, ECF, subject to the following conditions: (1) Compliance with ERC Mitigation Measure: The applicant is required to comply with the Mitigation Measure which was required by the Environmental Review Committee Threshold Determination prior to the issuance of a building permit. HEX.DOC City w r.enton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works .__ ENVIRONMENTAL It DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: A1rl"o COMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1.998 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 78411 LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW SITE AREA: 3.1 acres l BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU)Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 i. Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet %MJ 14,000 Feet NO None B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS The placement and use of a helistop at the indicated location poses no problem to airport operations. The area surrounding the helistop should be designated as a Compatible Use area, and the size of the area so designated should be large enough to permit low flying helicopters to traverse the area. The Airport will not be responsible for receiving or answering noise or low flying aircraft complaints, and a department to do so should be identified. Will helicopter flights be restricted to daytime only, or will flights be permitted both day and night? C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS None 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 additi.•. 'nformation is •ded to properly assess this proposal. • i „al `\i 23 ( t'ffg Signature oft rector or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DO. Rev.1053 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICANT: The Boeing Company (Rick Ford) PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Helistop DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, August 24, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)235-2501. PUBLICATION DATE: August 10, 1998 DATE OF DECISION: August 04, 1998 SIGNATURES: fie,,.—/ -77,-e--, 6 (7:4i9 ez---. redz_ c - g-F1 regg Zimmerman,A ministrator DATE apartment of Planning/Building/Public Works 5-, , *,,„k i { ,!-. Ji Shepherd,Admi strator DATE // Community Services ,,,/z kje-e dP- 7- )e / Lee h eler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DNSMSIG.DOC CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICANT: The Boeing Company (Rick Ford) PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Helistop DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review (ECF). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall be required to maintain the helistop landing pad and area adjacent to the helistop to be free of unnecessary dust and debris that could result in dust impacts during helicopter maneuvers. The applicant shall develop a maintenance plan to address dust impacts. The maintenance plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of the building permit. • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICANT: The Boeing Company (Rick Ford) PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Helistop DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review (ECF). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. General Applicant has filed a Notice of Landing Area Proposal with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Airport Manager The placement and use of a helistop at the indicated location poses no problem to airport operations. The areas surrounding the helistop should be designated as a Compatible Use area, and the size of the area so designated should be large enough to permit low flying helicopters to traverse the area. The Airport will not be responsible for receiving or answering noise or low flying aircraft complains, and a department to do so should be identified. . . •-••:•'•. :,„ . . Iv ', ,,,,,_______— ....*--.,H7-71ws.... .-m:. .. •.1%.":.,,-:::.. '''':: ' '"'''''' .-kI4,...:o-c.f.;:.::::,'nci;Niiii:i:iii.;::.;...:::::ii.fa*.i..10 \.,./. 1... .,,._. cI. aiIi:;-10:::!2=f=a -.1,..-J,.. •, ,.,,,:;;"...--,:. ),,....::.....:: -1,if 11 4-i'::4 CSTC BLDG. 25-0 1 .4. : •-:,.. ......:...: -::. :::: ..,,• '::. I II. ' .'"1• . -..-'-....''. ''''0 A 1-11.•;1!: --...k. .-,.:-.1, .t. •...4 :ie.41:4":::k. ;;I:. ..„.,:, :::. i „ \ '/ '.../`\\=..A--ii-- :i,.:,....1.,,,:,-,:,... . .. 4 _... , \4'.1fs - ' -ir ' „:„..., .,.......„:„. ,_:,.., , . .. , .:,:ft,,„:„.. , si._.4. =1111.l,4::1 i'.;: • t ''.,-:-;:-.., ., '::4::E:1 ... ....A4,.. . '•,: .:,:!::::..N.'''',-:;.-qxki;4.1,2,•kf• 1 4 . •:: =, • ;.:s. A;:::::''' 'tti::::.:.:,‘... 1 1 II i iiii I • 3,.. — ----',• . 'Y,, ,:', .e,"':::-"..iiiEgi':: -''... ?I ' I. ... , < . . / • ,:t. %•%iii$::::igii::.- ". 11...15''. CDI .iA , 1 • - • x i /„I\'T1...k Ai,_!..k•„./-,.:iAii5ki..•..-,i .1•4 1,.7 ,..1.•1 11 V . 4 .. : BLDG. )' , ,....,:4:•:•I'44:::,,,..„-,-.,.M:kTic::::0::.- 25-20 Viii BLDG. 1'i..:,:ii • 25-10 '',, ' ---...•-;-;----':--• INVXMATiame.. -=-.4 :•:.:.f. ' '''.....0:!--;;.-- i--.7 _LL A 4.....,. ,. _ „,- I..I •:i -ff %i(t IN ri . MIS II .11 1 • i • , .., •, ,., :1 ii, . . . . . • 8.5 • I - , I .E.:,,, ;1 '''\s . — — ..-s:\: 5•5 - ---:.; 't li ses•:',.-::-- '''':: :....-:-.:::•-• . 1,,111= : : . • :; i ...:...-..-;:.:4 :.i • .• ::: P ....• :I ',1; „.:::,'''' ,. `---..- .::,'-' :‘,.' ---- • l i' I. —a: ,—= :1'.' •:::: I •---"" HELISTOP •-.t‘;:--).-- -- ' -2. PROJECT SITE = -1 _. -11.__ •/01 5 A.-, : ',..... ..::'': 1_1_1 >1=• 1 •02: ! ---- •-•i , `---"1 z,:p. . •,.....4.: ' ' ..- 4 :..i : :.C...' HELISTOP PROJECT 4 ., ...:1 i i iN j (-' '(.-1 f.P.ut......, SITE PLAN NOTES: .,„,....,.-: •-•-.6. 441.4:::,. I PROJECT SITE AREA: 3.10 AC (APPROX) , , : .... ............ TOTAL BUILDING AREA: N/A • f-- SW 21 ST PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: N/A CD PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: N/A PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS: N/A TOTAL LANDSCAPING: 0.5 AC REQUIRED SETBACK: 80' DIAMETER F.A.T.O. PROPOSED SETBACK: 80' DIAMETER F.A.T.O. ,....., •:,,,-v *r CIVIL . INC- SITE PLAN 600 108th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 icwo• (425) 452-8000 PAJO8\013747\2210\DWG\SEPA0348 dwg lonekc/6 24 98 ____...„__..„....„___. .....-.-......- 1% . ...• ....• „. ,...:::..... ........ 1,,,....., \••••,v,2, - .... - ••• ___:..,..._.,....i. ...... . , _... -.. ••-'--- _ __ ._-. : _ ._. . ...., 0 _ .. „....- ._ ..... __- ....• , r- _____.„..., .............._ :--, --- .....: -- • _ ._...1..-:-_-----:;. i--- I .._•.....,,,,.. ,..... •• ...... .... . ................,....:: ..-.,.(,). ...,_..._.- •, \ „:„.,....., \ „.,, •__•„:„.„.::::::.........:. .... ... .... . . ..__.. \ ,,,....., __:,. .\--:3_. -,----._.------1•••••:-.. \\,,,..?„‘ .:-:-.,,,:„,,,..____. .. -- .... .. --.-.-_-_-.-----:T.J:-,I----i::-'''J'-'-'-'----'.'ai::-4--r'z'''!( , ,...,. T .%. : 1 6TH , .. sTEE...,.\ ,:-......,..-. . . . . . _ ... ... --------:,,,,,--- \ . .........:...............,.,............ ., . ::(3--) .•.... ,,:::;,..,.;.„-:::,..,..:15:;:,----...... - i :1 1 : 11 - 1•1:., r I • ,...„.:-.......„..::::::„5:,..„ \ ,,, 4p..,:,......“0—:$:..:\1 , •7.• E 1, I ".:.-.•:::.-.7.:.:'-f- .. ;% 4,, , .) :!•• ', I ..,.„- , , • : g I i ./ 9TH S . S . W . • • ,.: •. . ...... .............., .. ....,....,..:. .. - -:iic.tori • .,,, i i•• •,:.: ‘,...: ki . • •• s . . -::5-n-;::::::-:.:••:.., .... • - -`i HELISTOP iri-*-ill*-1..'::',' . • ,...,1._ ......... PROJECT 1:i.H4.:4:4. I .. — •-• -----' ...‘i., 1 0 SI T E ..iii-.Ii1".i.il I I ... • ...-......... 4.:::,:,.:•:... • CITY OF • RENTON I I '..•....., '.. CITY OF 1 i:N ___......„ BOIN 1 i ....1.. , EG TUKWILA; ;i PROPERTY ; I _I ...... ......_......... , -\ LINE , . . S.W. 23RD ST. I 1 it _......----- \1 ! C f ... .... I ® : 0 i ....1 .... P 7j- ___ STREET ,_ ,‘ 0:: S • W • ,.. zi: ,: __________ ....:..,:,...__ ::._...... ... ........ . , cipr,) 1 z: rm BOEING I D> -- aZ PROPERTY CY FT, z __,• >. LINE —1 .0 r9: 71 p, — .%\ (I) (6 6 >--- r> : ICD1 , :1 I I I 1 ..° F ?z i J z - ... mcA>z ri 0 _I -< 11 (,) I ' >• 1 ___J I-- . = ii'! • l I ....... • FT-I ! • : . I > I f s, S.W. 34TH STREET , Ii , .. - ... : .•. • • rn2 . I li I 1 rn I i 1 d N x (f)•,; i i I it I ii I <: . .. . • • , • III •.. :,,,............,• ./.." I:: , 1 . ;t i .. „\ o; ), i —) %.‘,. ,.e., :::: I !:i \\,......., ..........,,/ I I :i ' ' 1 INCH = 300' - ik 11 (APPROXIMATELY) : ;y) ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS C)WSDOT 0 BNSF RAILWAY ®CITY OF RENTON ©GLACIER PARK PROP. 0 HUNTER DOUGLAS ©McLEOD HELISTOP PROJECT ®CITY OF SEATTLE ©ALLPAC CONTAINER, INC. NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP P:V013\013747\2210\DWG\SEPA0149 DWG lone./6 23.98 .._ 41'v LONGACRES OFFICE PARK - I " 7- - tst SECTIONS 24 & 25. RENTON. WASHINGTON a.0.1 - FIGURE 2 T23N R4E W.U. HEUSTOP PROJECT -. FAA NOTIFICATION __, VI .......p: \ ‘x•tc:3, 0 150 OGG 600 HELISTOP PROJECT gs- q: ...,/ BOEING CSTC PROP R7Y%V.KE .1-l/ . .." I ,';' '...' J: E.. \'1441;14° / . , - - GRAPHIC SCALE SITE MAP .41.:::-,-•::,,----;;N: " BOEING LONGACR OFFiCE -.• 1:•,.• •- 47ItirL=ZAIKG' '•••••„%;\, . K (LOP) , . ......411,41;",., '..:., 1901mA JOAKL EsSioDApLE20AVE30. S.W. r :_ ,,,,t•it • s _....*••'`',/ 2 • • •: RENTON WA, 98055 ;-'....,,,a-;‘,11i - - ,.Ar•-•07--- -• .,•• *--....•-• ,„•,„,,_.,_` dff`4(.4.::iii Ct.. `•-•, ;:," ••••;•-•:-.7:Yf..::::'.1•::::•••••-••••:•-••-..:::::.::::::-.... 1 ,,-e alf-4 .1101. 45.-r•r .. ,.•..,.-•7:. 1k2).;, 'II I iff, < ‘ *..7.Y. "•.,<-<<"-V-5,7.'..-..r..:,4•X:r;:.---„-fi'atf/=.=,=.-,.-;.-zz..\\ \\:-...,..-:•/•-,t.JA--..1.f' .:,?•• fl' - . rot.'"ot -,v-.7‘-, ,i ,,„i. "eN V . / 4 47.7 /.::::::-;frt----•-::,•`'''''''.4-!: ••..S.=• •‘„ •,k/' .••• ''''.4',$: 4.\\. A-. 011 ifia'-'' - ...r.I' e. /AO, *tit e 0,,,,00:,,,,r.t,,„.....,:..4,f.;,0, ...?,.., j;A:,)e . ,,.) 6,0. • -,:iz 1.1-ji . , : ,, ! f:, _ ../, ;,•,•;„40,,,. ,•• •,,F-- 7,•ifz-•;.K•-•:',:' (-)!/ /i,•0 ,-_____.........-5,,) ...... •i::,,,t,:;....;--./. 1 PROPERTY OF'''..,,...--- h.,<,i4:i*-. k;s\••/: iiii L.r.,..„,,,,,,...,---• 'I`$),...\';',..-.72::77:_._,_,,...__________7.....:..t.-s----77.7.7.--•''.:--'11',/''/JP, ._gre OF SEATTLE \ . e ... 1;4. • •„-.. -,__,,r. .... ,..--Sc)::; 4'.... ;_... iIto1WI-Fgd.iiia...-1161-Idgg:21';,./f 71 ' (... -g6W"WER.Vit'ELINE a. • BOEING PROPERTY . --*---, 1;•1 ' UNE ...",...7,..-; _.f h - ..•, . .'. --...- - - - --- - - ' , -:--''....-'. it,::;":.:;r:;.;•:!1 trt.l.i:147 ',1Ft.;f•• 01'7. c.1.4 ' TURE OAKESDALE AVENEI-r-SW ..., --,.,---,-,-.A- P•'. ,...=,..,-' '.--. ....' i >-.- - ..te. .1.,:-.•.,.....r-, ...Ik.-"` 9// ::-rr--''; 1 ' • ... ,,,,,. ' "P .4-:,,&;„„ •*\k.,. . r ,-, : -I _.......--•%,„ {.„,..,,:,3,1 trurra :*1,7.,:;\iV;R: ,,"\k*,,1 __... ,7.1 '.I .1.uaut;-tau, ?„3.4E:Al 1.;.111:i g ,. !!‘ ) , ,..,„ ; ,,,..4t,,,,,,;....../- ,• ; - , , i 1 V;;1;117::::V F,171-11.. ilti,t 1 VoT,,, ' . • .-. '`---, .N I MI I 1 INN i IL- ” •• = '-. '1 r, ' / • Vlix.s.•; :::'::-...1 7 > 1-"--" e-6'- 7 ) i---- )C `..--...7. 'IL 1 -7.-- -::•-: ::.,. , “ I C-11'Lk ), 4 ) ' • • .-c ; I - • 2s7cNIG '. ll', '. ] ..i...p.11,411 . ......... •..hi illii.7 hick' • iirr, ii-...)!i.:, ,ii,;_!., • :, ,._.... ,,ii''',..„ 1 i.i.:1...1:11:11.1.:UH:':::.111!1/::"'1.11::1 ''.. :rr.....:".. :T.._.:.........rr-'i"":._ ':-:---- ' ,„i''. :...-r7'.........,...1,''._1.:.... hlft': ......., ..„.........,L.' s...\°u:::1'...:-:,..--cl:1 , pRwERN, , , : , . L...i. .,, di,,,,....--.....N. ".... f-• ,j'il,11 ; y ii!!!!z:, ,.'.., ..,....„ ,.. !s 4 :1;, 1-,), A.„,,, . - r-711 v if. \ q- i-------,, 11 4 i tl'k (N(OliSi-k--. .11 ' '..0 '77%j•i 25-20 "fcr,',4-Tiri•,i4-Aisit;itir,;',, 0-.1 4 i .r(V .,, k,:..).. --1 7--'''''.4.7.:• t.. %.. 1,.... . . .. J,'•if l ss.:ii,':'1 .• 4 '' ' "..•.::, ,.::: :. • . A i .. -', A i,'k '• i' ' i ,-3, A;..,-1:.;-:..-V-•,i '.''''7-'1' i L..-_, '.1.__....... i‘1 25-02!I jl.- .. CSTC • ! ' /'///h ....:1i* 7.FI.H%..:::`...:;;;:•.**A1 ::.: - f'.-i r--.(J. ',..L )C--i-1 ----T.-1 i i i i-1-vi, ,.- cs--.....:z..,-,Ici t_., r:1 BUILDING _ ---,...- s- '-•• -.' ' ',..s.:1 i\ 11-•----•:a;1-•• s.. ";-' ,. ‘ •:-s•-•/ , -• _. ' - /i.,, , "-- \ i i •-- T.:• .7,,.... /.....),/ OFFICEFICE TAIL I,••••, .,• :,2_,..-.-- \-_. si -,i.- . 1--- - -•4_,... \ ; , .-•-i 1 \ ..z--- I! 1 1 -4 1 ,-;;;',-.-,:•-, .,,,i-s4.--,>\,., !,,,; ,,,_ , ,-1,•1. -.4: , ... -- • -., i s , '-'••••'--; ----;-,-,,;----.i.-f7: •:-----1.-_...,.(;..-ril •,. i A.4....,...,....,;X ?..-.', \ ‘ -L.-;------''''----- r/Z',--41'.\\N,\\*.:ki:: 7..c.''''.7:' 01'id' :7- . =- •'' --.N - % ss..\X.\-,p, /! ', N.7r<7-:7--,-:• '1'...:.''. 4--..47r.F.L.' -':77.71t.7.71-7:71- . ---...._ ,...• / ..- `; . \ N v .... :;....'__._t --...vr.: rE- -.,,-7:--i--•, •L:',...-._-.)1. '. \'-', --:' '''',-, ''..-. i /7' '"'..V.,",t1 \'‘N\\.../'1.• ' .:\1''I'''"'ir4:. -4- ; w- .:,..7- . _ .....kh...-\--;-‘'.77." . , ••• ;:: • • ti --.:-i'",--•--ti t•••.;•-• ' '• , s- . -`•••'• `,..,....,,'•- 1,_ : i,! ;.:,...1 ,_, : z:/..,/////////;:,/,2 ;,',4i,t,\\1,..4.,..,•.: f •\,i'\(1•\1:.:.\\Ikti'A•., •‘.. .-P:-...-..„,-' .....: , 7e/•••-•c 7 r.‘„,...:::, •.„\,,;I); 1,!..// /A; ,if i! ii !. rl Ni, ;;;:,. `7)! , -„, •-... :, .....;,,liy,14 1st ),__-_-_.-2;=_-, .......•. ,, "..--../ ,,,,,,,,...t.al. „„,„; ,i I., ,:. , ,f ,.. .. ,„- : -,-,.._. ,„\,.„,.,,.. . . 75 ,ilf ,17?.,-/- --.-,--,,..):• 4.,. /___,, 7N, -_-_19_,,_14c,,,cogs i, ., ..•Pfl,qv:,.;(1:AKOFF P T ‘ C.--:i.,':',7.11 . :: /i P!/; i i i" i - • .. .i:ili s , \s,*\:',\.\,.: *;'' \s .""'"74'-TY.- /i'li ii/-I • 0-4- • • •, • ..):‘‘',,,,i‘r. • :i.-74 . .: , frII-.4-4,-.4.,_,._t_•.i, ! : A Pl.....,-;-\-\ _ , „„;r •••:„ . !! ,1-4;„,ri ‘, i pi,• :r . : . 1-,-; --/-/-•-27 / : s'-4-1.-7.'; ' ',....;--.&I .....----- ; ,., .- \ ,:',,, ..,. (4-1'„, F____.--, (I 1.Liiii : ./... -._.1.!... I/II:::Asi t,.A,..it ii il : / 'i i A : '-•' I ‘1 \., \\\\ ..i-n.,..e:;.71 : .: i ; ;9 i&II-V-sit'S---- '' ''9:4' • ••••:7-,s,-17" -4'•sac'."-- 1,---• --1-/r• 1 % 0 :, ‘ : •.•••• *--'1'-i,'!.<frT,/, rr/-7'7. - "'"- -„--,.-----..iiiiitie-- -: :.---'<-/- \' 4.-•'•' 1.- \ 1 /!!;,;I i,.;.:. f I 11-1 t p t‘r ,, ,i,:! )„-- 1--/--,1 ,,,,.... -A\-"'"\\___ ,, ,,,„. .._ ,,,..,r-.„..----,X, .1 E., 't ‘ :Igrif.v,r1 i: !I 'I ,• •' i J , -4-- - c:=0------•'-''''' 1 N-21. s \:‘, % , '• 'UMW•. ,l':'4.",-..,/ /,./.. • ' \..s,•-.\ )11 f'1,11riblia ___ _._ n. .00;...,,' -''''''''''-'---,__,..-- .,----;;;..y.1;_______>%1___.---'-'7,,,., 2//I il ici,?ii.'ill'iliirtii.‘i•As;'il:r.li ii IP:. 1T:11‘ii ii 1 1:1 t ‘1. •I 1.:i! (%.1 ''......-.1:-'fr:, K:.::4\.:'::....\th*Ii....--ij \\\\ ‘.1 MC) .'/i§tInfri.11L,[' 117e- '. .1 f '''''''''-tC.-,5--_-_-_ .----- -. V,"' . ///;',/i:(A.:,: 'I 1:'.:.‘,..' i''i i' ii 1 '; sl \ : i 4!!i ,. .;-.._ •• ‘.,,, ....--..c.„.. d , . ,.• „, '.,-' lk:?;,,i:'I,I I, .____-- _____,_- __ -7.77_,,------ ,,,P'5,' -...-•""/4///il,;1 !!' . ! I. L.:i n%.:r., t " \'-'14 i:: ! I.'''! % :ExijriNG \ •,' r,.4 ',, \ „:„.„.•,,It._- ...,,‘,„,,,I, is,.\,A 'J.,c i 'i_..-----=-'-•---L-----------., --__=.1___--- - ----r.--_ ---:-_--------------- -''- .,'..;•‘'X /,* (--i) '• ii'I . N E i A', li : I, il;li I ;, ,;E.i \_,r,„ , si,-.1 ,.,,,g •\ : _--k- ••• ••• .0• ........ ,- f k,‘A"'''' ''.,',,,..ai:401-1-1.., .,iff.s...... .., -..\\. ! -- •,,•,.,.-.‘,., ,\-..iigi i. 1 F‘`...,.--.1 "<<rz...',../...,,..- ,4,..‘--z----------=--- ---=-----='---7:•*-';'--'„., ------,(;•....-'7:;:,... ...-' ''•2 : i!....TI ;di i.-' ,i../ ;: i I s t.li i ; .:•i •- --- \ •..',\‘‘‘. ,‘t,'..::: :.-•:.;,*:\•;•.',.:-. 4,-,-- .. __„• .:: ---,-- ......1,,,.. . - '' • ::::.,.- • -- -......':i• ,....,-"...1.------/ ...' ....- .A... i :'. •,' . j.: ::I•io ',I: : : 'il i I 1.P: s9TOCKPILE ....(r ,sysT.,\_••••, . ,••I. ••, .,....7-=':-7.:-...-;..,.;,. ,...-- - i f i •I " +! !!! ,. •, Ei i , . :i'. .•••• ' ;",:.i '4 ',. 1! ,,'="1 \\‘'.\\;\ \ ..\ ....L"..:-‘.), \‘,,,::.,‘ '---1:: ::':=::.*:*"L":: :::::-."-**-:- -•---': ..._._.. ! FP:.1YN•:'-''''' ''..=.;.; ----- •-•-- :s; :---7:':•-•'7"'', '''-•.* ' • •• ,-' * ''"-\ t-Z-:- .--\---r.---c", ,-..i.. , ,-4'L'''4'•'--s, I :I: '-._. ../ .;/.1 •• \,:1•1,',.1 ' •-..)::); \\:\\,\e, ..'•••;:, :.,„,:. ‘,f i •,,,•. -. , .„, -,,.< .., 1 , ;.. - ..... , ..........• ...- ,Ax 1 ..,.. .,...... .,,N.z. ,-, ..,--...- .-s'A4,._,..,/„-pf; •, ....;,...." '-.. -,-... ..;,----_ ... - - : '.... ......'..7:: '‘\.', '',',"..,',., ):::::. .,..... •••••••"-',:);'''.,:7.1-17:7,----:::,•,': - ------:'----•• t't---7.7:-*-Y ..-e.:.:- -.7! '.: j4, ..-,-.--fii,,i..:fi',; i.:,. 1. ill i,i;! iii .i."... .'-,:'.,"..---,,'.;//1.1;(' '.,1,-;...:,11,4:',.....i:• ' • - - •,, \,.,v ! f.''‘ i!..... . 3.:'. •'...`...:...f :...... '.........,..4?. '' )... • .`, .. ..'"'..;::".. ,..Z;... '\,........47:.7/......V ).:'. Z:::...71‘....';:.'..A:..,....'........ ,:i..,...:,........\', i". e .)... , .... I BOEING PROPERTY LINE . .. .. BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY • ••• .f•-•"' •.• • Sverdrup il • '.E.P ..s s' ,.', . •. .•. / 7� 1 ,t�4 iI �` Lil.°i. 4 'i4•;ii i Li. Liiiai[`isi[. i ■ ilia Hi'Y■BD+ 1 .r,; ilr 1I 1iI , I•oauisonoru�iiconur�uauii:uauucnokuHisvaoauBuii•ou$os Ao.caoasebi►o4olos 4:; ,i�t r Illll ll , 1( .. t ,II." I'1� i s+coriaie�iieaau�aon oiBoreaoiioioiiiso�roroaoireoaoa so�:cesn-imiiuiolss _'i I i 11� 1 l I( ll hi J a r elF -��: t J�=i Fi[itiii. HiiTi[ii!iii iiiiIiBNHiY[NU + t v : ..• -gyp r•. C YLudCEali:5a6atdtt�VFFu ufsutObuiiica`0gOlsvFi COW L- Q aS i n <S4' '"riC 7<94n1 mi:i 4e r--1 -T` 7; F r f A rr i? 1Mr.iltfl L7� 1M�-0M-' �-� u 3 e1� w, T r r •; ;IN �, �j �i � 't � a iE u o o:a16—Y"TOVO o';uan e 0 o n o 0 iti;' .n;-CC Or / i `2 ^r a it.y . . - 'v ."-:' !F z y � / ...x):;....,,..„t5 ,..,,.:,.:,:(0,....v..)..:, 1 Ois k-c �� pa 4 L \ pa 1 �rATTOO STRIPPING _ .� IAPPROAOI/IAREOrr PAM `�' ---•--___-_•_• _ L I APPROACH/TAKEOrr PATH J / —7 ----- EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT ...9 / '—i illp4 --1_. \ C\RIHO INpKATOR • • VVVboo l 1 1 Icy / ''' \ SW F fwt 1 d \ 4 7 3 ) .,.,.., �o a Q° C s i t •.. .. • ••-. P• •- — ^• ,,,,.S.. T ^T' ,;, HELISTOtH P LAYOUT SKETCH _ � 1 - BOE/NG . . R BCAG HEAK&GARTERS FIG. 3 " c g •••••• ;M RASTER Me AO DIKE MOO rza [S 08-25-98 06: 06AM - P01 • DUST CONTROL PLAN and REVISED NUMBER OF FLIGHTS for Proposed Boeing Headquarters Building Helistop Project No. LUA-98-113, CU-H,ECF Project Description The proposed project is to construct and operate a private helistop at the Boeing Longacres Office Park to serve the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group (BCAG) Headquarters Building. The helistop will be located on a 3.10 acre (135,000 sq. ft.) site southwest of the BCAG Headquarters Building. Flights Flights in and out of the Longacres Office Park are expected to average one to feuf eight flights per month. Helicopters will not be based, fueled or maintained at the helistop. Dust Plan The helistop will consist of a 26-foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) surrounded by a 40-foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and takeoff area (FAT( ). On landings and takeoffs, airborne dust and grit is a very serious ingestion threat to turbine type engines as used in the Sikorsky 76A. To minimize dust being disturbed during takeoffs and landings, the soil surrounding the asphalt pad will be planted in naturally occurring grasses. The landing pad and the immediate landscape surrounding the area will be maintained on an as-needed basis. Poat-Ir Fax Note 7671 DatU a9 pies► 1 To4 0114 ,FER H• From 1S 1 --p IL toCoJoept. Co.C3oet KG Phone# Phone* -A Qb ink 4' -. P3 b D Fax* F�+V ---- [helistop dust control.doc] 8/25/98 0 , e) CIT' OF RENTON .a. ( Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator August 25, 1998 Mr. Rick Ford The Boeing Company PO Box 3707, M/S 19-35 Seattle, WA 98124 SUBJECT: Boeing Longacres Helistop Project No. LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF Dear Mr. Ford: This letter is to inform you that the comment and appeal periods have ended for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination. The applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures. As you know, a Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on September 08, 1998 at 9:00 AM to consider the Conditional Use Permit. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7286. For the Environmen I Review Committee, "W1 ri,i0mitAij e Toth Henning Project Manager FINAL.DOC 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY'OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 'lam day ofgtI{C , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ORC, 44-cv vy qwv n\S documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Department of Ecology Don Hurter WSDOT KC Wastewater Treatment Division • Larry Fisher Washington Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman Department of Natural Resources Shirley Lukhang Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Indian Tribe Rod Malcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Joe Jainga Puget Sound Energy (Signature of Sender) istidi4L k . -er STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ,_ 5?-1"•,zzfeQ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act far the uses and purposes • mentioned in the instrument. Dated: l L, /y /1*e Notary Public in d for the State of Wa ngton Notary (Print) MARILYN KAMCHEFF My appointment(eigiailCSION EXPIRES 6i29/Vu Project Name: oetyuN Lek/lacy-es Ite-i S4°P Project Number: IuY°I ol$, 113,GU-ti ,E( NOTARY.DOC r 4.r I V �; CIT'� OF `RENTON am. ' te,„ Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator August 06, 1998 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on August 04, 1998: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). Location: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, August 24, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)235-2501. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7286. For the Environmental Review Committee, Q vNic t t-C\ t Jennifer Toth-Henning Project Manager cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Shirley Lukhang, Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Joe Jainga, Puget Sound Energy AGNCYLTP DCIC\ 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 COThis paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON ..IL Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator August 06, 1998 Mr. Rick Ford The Boeing Company PO Box 3707, M/S 19-35 Seattle, WA 98124 SUBJECT: Boeing Longacres Helistop Project No. LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF Dear Mr. Ford: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project. The ERC, on August 04, 1998, issued a threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. See the enclosed Mitigation Measures document. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, August 24, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)235-2501. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 south Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on September 08, 1998 at 9:00 AM to consider the Conditional Use Permit. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7286. For the Environmental Review Committee, _ OfkIN, P1,11/11/W"\ —Jennif r Toth enning Project Manager Enclosure DNSMLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Q {�)This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICANT: The Boeing Company (Rick Ford) PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Helistop DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review (ECF). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall be required to maintain the helistop landing pad and area adjacent to the helistop to be free of unnecessary dust and debris that could result in dust impacts during helicopter maneuvers. The applicant shall develop a maintenance plan to address dust impacts. The maintenance plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of the building permit. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICANT: The Boeing Company (Rick Ford) PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Helistop DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. General Applicant has filed a Notice of Landing Area Proposal with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Airport Manager The placement and use of a helistop at the indicated location poses no problem to airport operations. The areas surrounding the helistop should be designated as a Compatible Use area, and the size of the area so designated should be large enough to permit low flying helicopters to traverse the area. The Airport will not be responsible for receiving or answering noise or low flying aircraft complains, and a department to do so should be identified. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICANT: The Boeing Company (Rick Ford) PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Helistop DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, August 24, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)235-2501. PUBLICATION DATE: August 10, 1998 DATE OF DECISION: August 04, 1998 SIGNATURES: Oregg Zimmerman, A ministrator DATE Department of Planning/Building/Public Works OFce/w— Jim Shepherd, Admi stator DA E Community Services 7,-- / Lee. h eler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DNSMSIG.DOC CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICANT: The Boeing Company (Rick Ford) PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Helistop DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review (ECF). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall be required to maintain the helistop landing pad and area adjacent to the helistop to be free of unnecessary dust and debris that could result in dust impacts during helicopter maneuvers. The applicant shall develop a maintenance plan to address dust impacts. The maintenance plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of the building permit. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICANT: The Boeing Company (Rick Ford) PROJECT NAME: Boeing Longacres Helistop DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. General Applicant has filed a Notice of Landing Area Proposal with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Airport Manager The placement and use of a helistop at the indicated location poses no problem to airport operations. The areas surrounding the helistop should be designated as a Compatible Use area, and the size of the area so designated should be large enough to permit low flying helicopters to traverse the area. The Airport will not be responsible for receiving or answering noise or low flying aircraft complains, and a department to do so should be identified. • NoTtoE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION . POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: BOEING LONGACRES HEUSTOP PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF The applicant,Rick Ford,has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The protect would Include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and liftoff area surrounded by a 40 loot diameter circular asphalt final approach and lake on area. Perimeter • lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU)Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF).Location:901 Oakesdale Avenue SW. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 6:00 PM,August 24,1998. Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required$75.00 application lee with:Hearing Examiner,City o1 Renton, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055.Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-6.11B. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)235-2501. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting In the Council Chambers on the 71h floor of City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,Washington,on September 08.1998 at 9:00 AM to consider the request for a Conditional Use Permit.If the Environmental Determination is appealed,the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. r— r T :Y_ . k. L. § ,... nr .' it,. VI I e) uc e.". „r.a.. . ._....._. :a�l I i RENTON • IPROJE1T SIT 1� II _t._.._.....� Il,a.>,. ) Ia j! `wore ¢¢ _kJ $ i i l' I •---- 9 R gggggg Y . leO, I a..am wan i • W w ' i t g ` 1; I ` . 1 , : • o $}ATE IA»� ..,EtTION 6 E FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,P ES SE SOONTACT N AT THE 4 ITY OF0 RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERDO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION IPlease Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. - II CERTIFICATION I, Aff / (I,4/f l , hereby certify that y copies of the above document were posted by me in -3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property ontivs7 /91 • Signed: `L,, ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me,a Nortary Public,in and for the State of i �t Washington residing i , on the >y ri— day of (2c. L� „cA4, • ---- --nee,t. ,i—g—,-IN- e/b.V MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 •••• Alt ilYJIPAM • cs "-• • if ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use (CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). Location: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, August 24, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are govemed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)235-2501. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the 7th floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on September 08, 1998 at 9:00 AM to consider the request for a Conditional Use Permit. If the Environmental Determination is appealed,the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. r- .4 1 1 5 t - r"1a:: .� � � S.w.15TH STREET ^ / .1..:)'::%:1.1, 1 I BOEING PROPERI1� �4 s.W.19TH STREET_ it f LINE ! .,7 I ! 5 rt.E.—t I i j CITY Tu u ,,{I I RENTON PD,}(JEC�T SITE I j I!J , S.W.23RD STREET !1 !' r—..--..--'1 m \-BOEINC "' 1 PROPERTY I S.W.27TH STREET LINE iI \ I 1 g ° 4! J 1 ii W: U 3 g olr __ io " � ` I EJ" . a1 3 Ef S.W.NTM STREET g ; i x o i 1 I I n l i I n ... 0 SITE LOCATION SCALE. NONE L ' FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE 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. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF Environmental review for development and operation of a private helistop at the Boeing Headquarters Building. Location: 901 Oakesdale Ave. SW. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, August 24, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)235-2501. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 south Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on September 08, 1998 at 9:00 AM to consider the Conditional Use Permit. The applicant or representative of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Publication Date: August 10, 1998 Account No. 51067 dnsmpub.dot STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE August 4, 1998 Project Name Boeing Longacres Helistop Applicant The Boeing Company (Rick Ford) PO Box 3707 m/s 19-35 Seattle, WA 98124 File Number LUA-098-113,CU,ECF Project Manager Jennifer Toth Henning Project Description The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of the Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26-foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40-foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take-off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. It is anticipated that the helistop would be used approximately one time per month. Construction of the helistop would not result in the addition of any new impervious surfaces. An existing paved area 15,000 s.f. in size would be modified with markings on the pavement and the installation of a windsock and lighting to accommodate the proposed helistop. However, approximately 4,500 square feet of new impervious surface would be added to enlarge an existing 18,000 s.f. access road to 22,500 s.f. Biofiltration facilities along the access road to the helistop would also be installed. The proposal requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and environmental review. Project Location 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW Exist. Bldg. Area gsf Not applicable Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf Not applicable Site Area 3.1 acres Total Building Area gsf Not applicable RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommend that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated(DNS-M). S.M.1TII 11MLR BOEING PROPER i'J? `e} s.w.,9Tn iTM ET LINE ciTY M -a 1001 I OF drl _, Ti� cwn;n' RENTON P-OJEB. SITE s:w n, . BOEING • PROPERTY I S.2rn S REE, LINE Project Location Map ERCRPT.DOC E I NOR-TN City of Renton P/B/PW Department ronmental Review Committee Staff Report Boeing Helistop LUA-98-113, CU-H,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 4, 1998 Page2 of 4 B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE- MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. X Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The applicant shall be required to maintain the helistop landing pad and area adjacent to the helistop to be free of unnecessary dust and debris that could result in dust impacts during helicopter maneuvers. The applicant shall develop a maintenance plan to address dust impacts. The maintenance plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of the building permit. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. General Applicant has filed a Notice of Landing Area Proposal with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Airport Manager The placement and use of a helistop at the indicated location poses no problem to airport operations. The areas surrounding the helistop should be designated as a Compatible Use area, and the size of the area so designated should be large enough to permit low flying helicopters to traverse the area. The Airport will not be responsible for receiving or answering noise or low flying aircraft complains, and a department to do so should be identified. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Noise Impacts: Increase in ambient noise levels would be expected to occur during construction and operation of the helistop. Construction projects of this type produce noise levels which range from 68 to 98 dbA at 50 feet from the specific equipment. Construction is proposed to occur over two shifts with working hours approximately 6:00 am to 11:00 pm. Noise resulting from construction activity would be controlled through best management practices such as maintaining and muffling construction equipment. The typical noise associated with the operation of helicopters is 76 to 84 dbA at a distance of 500 feet from the aircraft. It is expected that helicopter flights would occur during typical business hours and the applicant proposes ERCR PT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department vnmental Review Committee Staff Report Boeing Helistop LUA-98-113, CU-H,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 4,1998 Page3 of 4 using noise abatement procedures such as: pilots setting flight profiles that establish shallow angles of descent to and ascent from the helistop. The most noise is generated when helicopters either approach or take off from the helistop. The typical flight path (north and south from the helistop) has the helicopter at 800 to 1,000 feet altitude at one-half mile from the helistop. Helicopter noise could temporarily disturb or distract area residents; however, because of the small number of projected flights in an and out of the Longacres Office Park (approximately one time per month), disruptions would be infrequent and short in duration. Noise resulting from helicopter operations would be controlled by reducing operating speeds and decreasing the approach and take-off angle at the helistop. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation measure required. Nexus: Not applicable. 2. Air Impacts: During and following construction vehicular emissions and dust would be released. The operation of equipment and vehicles, including helicopters, will be regulated by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and the Washington State Department of Ecology. Additional potential mitigation measures to reduce emissions include ensuring that machines are well maintained, and the site will be sprayed with water as required to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall be required to maintain the helistop landing pad and area adjacent to the helistop to be free of unnecessary dust and debris that could result in dust impacts during helicopter maneuvers. The applicant shall develop a maintenance plan to address dust impacts. The maintenance plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of the building permit. Nexus: Environmental Ordinance (SEPA). 3. Stormwater/Floodplain Impacts: Construction of the helistop would not result in the addition of any new impervious surfaces. An existing paved area 15,000 s.f. in size would be modified with markings on the pavement and the installation of a windsock and lighting to accommodate the proposed helistop. However, approximately 4,500 square feet of new impervious surface would be added to enlarge an existing 18,000 s.f. access road to 22,500 s.f. Biofiltration facilities along the access road to the helistop would also be installed. Runoff from the helistop facility will flow to existing stormwater ponds or the stormwater swales located on the former Longacres site, within the original main racing oval. The project site is located in the vicinity of Springbrook Creek, which has an associated floodplain based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping. This proposal is located outside of the limits of the floodway, but is within the flood fringe, or that portion of the plain located outside the floodway which is covered by flood water during base flood. According to the FEMA maps (Panel 53033C0978F) the critical floodplain elevation in the vicinity of this project is 16.4 feet based on National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929. The City of Renton has established floodplain elevations based on current conditions (based on City of Renton Administrative Policy Determination dated June 26, 1997). This determination makes use of the City's hydrologic and hydraulic model results rather than FEMA mapping for determination of compensatory storage requirements. No portion of the project will be subject to flooding based on the City's 13.2 foot floodplain elevation. Therefore, no compensatory storage volume is required. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable. ERCRPT.DOC City q Renton P/B/PW Department ronmental Review Committee Staff Report Boeing Helistop LUA-98-113, CU-H,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 4,1998 Page4 of 4 E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, August 24, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)235-2501. ERCRPT.DOC City or Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: �copw D to swy rOMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1.998 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 78411 LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW SITE AREA: 3.1 acres 1 BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 LancVShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ HistoriclCultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS �10 eomc-t issue) 80% 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. ..1,01- r 7fay/9? Signature of Dir or or Autho i-• Re resentative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev 10/93 City __ .?enton Department of Planning/Building/F...,...; Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: t b\kce COMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113 CU-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1.998 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 78411 LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW SITE AREA: 3.1 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 r' Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 7n&It-r L.m, C't pltCe .�� Ul,C1Z d� . 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 additio al information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Xi 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: An, COMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF` DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1998 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Fordj PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 78411 LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW SITE AREA: 3.1 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 LighVGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet Y0h5 14,000 Feet NO None B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS The placement and use of a helistop at the indicated location poses no problem to airport operations. The area surrounding the helistop should be designated as a Compatible Use area, and the size of the area so designated should be large enough to permit low flying helicopters to traverse the area. The Airport will not be responsible for receiving or answering noise or low flying aircraft complaints, and a department to do so should be identified. Will helicopter flights be restricted to daytime only, or will flights be permitted both day and night? C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS None 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 additi information is ded to properly assess this proposal. jteltSignature o irector or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DO Rev_10/93 H ELI STO P PROJECT SITE .. • ,...... _ {, i .........iii....1..........I..:. ,s ___ i _ `� `:�• `� ' - .W. 16TH STREET ,---. ' *- • __"' 41 -_ T i f T\ 5,0�/ (0 ?f I i T 1 1 ,� �4J i 1 1 ' ;• �,Q r ;1 i if F + I J. ; F I S.W. 19TH TREET i )� it i ` f11 15$TK Y I, �i',-„ J�. -.,..._1 CITY t i 'f'i S f — 1 :i 1 I OF ;: CITY OF' TUKWIbO BOEING 4 R E NTO N ' ' \ II PROPERTY _.. ...._..._..._._._ I `i ! LINE N S.W. 23RD STREET it i 1 :_ _ -� � � w • I j? Z W 's + I 1 Q Ia /E3I OEING L. Z ? i, '} 1 PROPERTY ; S.W. 27TH STREET LINE _._._...._.._ ' ! o I t o . + cc R = of w+' : i 1 1 g1 IT I I . 1 ------1 > IIi H _....._ cn _IZ> U1 ,, z I i rzI Z :, -J ci 511 o ._ __i 3 0-1 Z Iv + I Z a = +, S.W. 34TH STREET D ? D mil I • Z 'i > r II • W s \ Q I. i1 f a 'i ? ' I W f IQ I ii ;, \ • / o �... _ I IlkWill i ,•,.: Jy /n N I • r - 1 \11:1 •-• •K3JF a,Ie 1 !- (. N Nf.. • am_,__-_I 1•43 I ,1:11 I 10 I [I, I� L� MN N r � 1 +.` - t l ,Il K '. —1a,In Y, aw17 •lift /oli �. � n avl .• _• .■r.y F n rrr .■ II m w t i ' .- '1 A trOP-111W-461111 L MP IF.' io.: . 111 • ' .-Li . •<.: 2,1, !If\",' 4111KNNI Oa I O.' i ,cveitatt ,_. 1 r itl fa 0, . ..,,,,,, ( ii \ \ \\,, ,,,. -sin, ,, A __ 4hgf ._. i,- " I gn ' iiiCii,4110...--_,,,, rA ___\\,..,, _,,--.11. .... *.-4" ._. . \,„; ! ...,... „„,:h,a. ... _„„,.. ...„)„.6.,, .„, .„-, , 'A f : M AAA •��f'm 6 ` r >� a , r T_,_:A411: r -- c ill:.11 r -Al Iy A v. " — '''' li IL . 0 Avg' u.�IN® ,,4 - a ], _itie • . ��a l 1SHOO�`{` tit .=�11• `vU f „A, FRP' • 04 `'./!f4662prate fai 1 4. a.,. urde b.__,.. 4,41iiti. ....-virk -...„, , - , noihm., - 7.- •_____ti r-v- -- ,,,.. , 1 , ,i_. p girt4,-.. loiditv14.. — .)Nca,,I ./. .SV_Iltle '. . -4. ' • AP) / 0 - laiwritzi .4,-114* \ 'nor%'. ... - . icji:j' . ' ri-74 ;it _ . - , it. 1--rE , CH V A , No11413 Li iki-vg, kie. alk..,:k 4 .-- • !IV fri -aE[11P, m 0-- e a, of ' 1 [� it l = a 7 rli f ,' !'Ic yC�t fl. tram ` �—t ,s.,i, �rx I�:O Cc��I�r� rt� f �I��;a. l �� it:::-..-..: n �F4.1 .`.(7`®� l° M l° e mo m a." ri- ��_ � _ ( �l Oa^"`- �+o' WilMrtilig IIIIII7"' " i _ ••.. 1--M-01 u !-N4 .,\ Q E )o l rnra; t thi _ nil is - flyfetua 1 t t _-- =_� ' _-_=-_ �\-Nic--N ��<�� e�� t r ___ __ _ _ _ _________ __ �o i:isrsti..., 5 :_e ill f. _i,,et- i •-11:::::::::::::::::::: ..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-_--::::::::::::::-\ ''... w.._.,_ ,i 91 v i ki 9 il II1_ ..7"-- ‘1 .- IA. " A . r° _ VilitE-:123E: F.L.F.::::::32:E=H:32:::::K:22::::::::::::::_:::::IFE:::::::;E::___ '06;:. %5A \ ii054.., - i c ---ii, -Itsro — , _nirl, , a-E.:K=E:K.7: _:K.:::13:K:K=K:::::::::1=2::::::51:1•:_: 2_:-"•.t:_-.7:_:3.E.:::::•:__ -,..4 wourAim Q—I A 7 Imp,,_ V.::::::::::::-::::::::::::::::::::-:-:-::::::::::]:•:-.:•::::]:-.K:E:E:E=::::::::-.i.<*.:-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-_-_-_, ik____l_r IN , i,,, , -=-.)4*. -J-----1 nt„..., 1 Ilmii,.. - --::31:_::::3:_:::_E-:::::::_::-::::::::.::_:::_::::::::::::_::_::::::::::-:3:3:-:::::::::ThE:::::12:17:::__::::::::::::::::::::::.]:E:-......:::::::.:EIE:-:::::::__:::::::: >,qiii RIF\ -I.•*" Ni ^• 911 ki,...-----.1% ,_--.-:-:-....-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-.-:-_-_-_-_-_,_,_,_:_:_:_x_._:_,.... -.......:_:_:_:_,_:_:_:_:_- __:_:_,_:_:_:__k. b htliiiii 1 ��i..� y== =-=-=========-=— ====-===========-_==__--___=____ of fir.•A ,.� .1)-4.,(.1----ii -Aiii alk• „-- • 4'Z:ill 7 ..-•::::::::::::E:31K2.7:::::EEKEE:f-:::.-1:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-:-:::-:-.-.-:-:-:-:••:-:-:-- ..•:__--g.:::::::::::::::::::::_:_•:_x_:_:_:::::::_:_::: 7_, i., r _=_=-=_-=__--_=_;r::ti rilsi}S%tiYfi[{rojci -:_-:_'rt ----- --- ' City Ti rcenton Department of Planning/Building/P__.._ Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: rv.S COMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1.998 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 78411 LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW SITE AREA: 3.1 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet [/L/ C% Y// / B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS /eZitC0 C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS G 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 roperly assess this proposal. a72 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Dafe /� DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 • • t 10- e 1 .•—.^! ar ;104 . • At • RPIRP nor ENTo-FIRE City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works "i!?(DpT ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW:;S1-I TAB • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: F ve P{revvv ev, COMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 eik® APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1,998 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 78411 LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW SITE AREA: 3.1 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 iJ 0 M [oe— ii acA /alai B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS / /4 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 additiona 'nfonnation is needed to pr.;erly assess this proposal. C bd , 7/ 3/ Signature of irector or Authorized Representativ Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev 17,I93 City or Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: p\ lVteu.) _ W0.-rey— COMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1998. 0 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Tc4 Henning^, 704, PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 7841"1s , LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW ff , SITE AREA: 3.1 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 LancYShorellne 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 C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS �v C0WIWIG►1 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. VZ14/1 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev 10/93 City ... Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:Tv0.vNSoYlaClo-v\ COMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1998 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 78411 LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW nc � SITE AREA: 3.1 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A vo- yr- SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS No 0141 t otI• 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. 7/2-' +A g Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City or Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:t(h3 L-kk sPMI Cejs COMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1.998 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning , pR PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 78411 LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW SITE AREA: 3.1 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A su,vu SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to devefolA'I44=operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 Lanc/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 P6)/Ye C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS A/011/e 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 additi al information is needed to property assess this proposal. 77 $' ture of Director ohorized Representative / Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City L,. ,.anton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:51 t i,f I uzdeLats-rar., COMMENTS DUE: JULY 28, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 20, 1.998 G',fi, APPLICANT: The Boeing Company(Rick Ford) PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Hennin�9 PROJECT TITLE: Boeing Longacres Helistop WORK ORDER NO: 78411 ✓(l °M 4:54i LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW +wt_: SITE AREA: 3.1 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU) Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). 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 C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS �J LO IN1 yh C►4/l. • 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. 1 L.:" /q. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 r CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS within 300 feet of the subject site PROJECT NAME: Az)Oj CA-ed--) APPLICATION NO: 1 fl 1I3)GU� f 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 ,,Q NUMBER aG�Axvl_ DEVELOPMENT afANNIN(3 CITY OF RENTON JUL 1 R 1998 RECEIVED (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) (Continued) NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Applicant Certification I, / i k' 217:t , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: 0 City of Renton Technical Services Records CI Title Company Records y( King County Assessors Records Signed /1/1"—W/ Date 77//3/jg (Applicant) /// NOTARY ATTESTED: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in andfor the State of Washington, residing at ` `�nA:ova on the _63`►`"day of (J " , 19 qe. Signed • bli t)A-AL7 (Notary Public) 0 ****For City of Renton Use*':*** CERTIFICATION OF MAILING I, .s ,. ereby certify that notices of the proposed application were mailed to (City Employee) each.listed property owner on' 1 I .18 Signed SL <.Xp Date NOTARY A LEST crlbe and sworn before me, a Not Public, and €or the State of Washin ton residing at ��{ ;�y� on theda;y of , 19 Signec�� 1 listprop.doc REV07/95 MARILYN KAMCHEFF .c, - G69fg 2 , , , , >; c**,i.i,i;c*>,c;<**>;**>�< ,i;c*;c;c,<,*;<;*v�,<,<><**;c****><;<***,<>;<>Yi,<s<;<>4*;<****a,'<>,<>'<;<;<ajc**ic>;*;<> BATCH NUMBER: LS COMMENTS • a * CUSTOMER NAME PERKINS COIL *. • a 000580-0007-01 000580-0007-01 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE715175 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE715175 • TAX DEPT TAX DEPT 1700 E GOLF RD V400 1700 E GOLF RD 0400 • SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 000580-0013-03 000580-0013-03 MCLEOD STUART 271011 MCLEOD STUART 271011 213 LAKE ST S 213 LAKE ST S KIRKLAND WA 98033 - KIRKLAND WA 98033 000580-0017-09 000580-0017-09 CITY OF SEATTLE • CITY OF SEATTLE 000580-0019-07 000580-0019-07 CITY OF RENTON 369700 CITY OF RENTON 369700 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 000580-0036-06 000580-0036-06 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC 790503 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC 790503 PROPERTY TAX DEPT PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 90868 PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 BELLEVUE WA 98009 125381-0230-06 125381-0230-06 CITY OF RENTON 369700 CITY OF RENTON 369700 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 242304-9004-08 242304-9004-08 PIERRE JAME P 601103 PIERRE JAME P 601103 PO BOX 27069 PO BOX 27069 SEATTLE WA 98125 SEATTLE WA 98125 242304-9020-08 242304-9020-08 DRB- LTD PARTNERSHIP 859999 ORB LTD PARTNERSHIP 859999 200 S BROAD ST 6 FLR 200 S BROAD ST 6 FLR PHILADELPHIA PA 19102 PHILADELPHIA PA 19102 242304-9028-00 242304-9028-00 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE715175 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE715175 TAX DEPT TAX DEPT 1700 E GOLF RD V400 1700 E GOLF RD #400 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 SCHAUMBURG IL' 60173 242304-9034-02 242304-9034-02 MCLEOD STUART 109999 MCLEOD STUART 109999 213 LAKE ST S 213 LAKE ST S KIRKLAND WA 98033 KIRKLAND WA 98033 242304-9037-09 242304-9037-09 SCHOBER INC 610198 SCHOBER INC 610198 1400 MONSTER RD SW 1400 MONSTER RD SW RENTON WA 96055 RENTON WA 98055 viv THE BRIDGE GROUP 44'302 THE BRIDGE GROUP 461302 • 16443 SE 35TH ST 16443 SE 35TH ST f' BELLEVUE WA• _008 ;) BELLEVUE WA 98008 40 17 242304-9056-05 :-1 242304-9056-05 LONGACRES JOINT VENTURE 8N3581 •, I LONGACRES JOINT VENTURE 8N3581 • 921 MIDDLE FORK RD 921 MIDDLE FORK RD ONALASKA WA 98570 ONALASKA WA 98570 242304-9086-09 242304-9086-09 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC 790503 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC 790503 PROPERTY TAX DEPT PROPERTY TAX DEPT • PO BOX 90868 PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 BELLEVUE WA 98009 242304-9115-04 242304-9115-04 HUNTER DOUGLAS REAL PROPERT719999 HUNTER DOUGLAS REAL PROPERT719999 2 PARK WAY RT 173 2 PARK WAY RT 173 • UPPER SADDLE RVR NY 07458 UPPER SADDLE RVR NY 07458 • 242304-9128-09 242304-9128-09 PUGET WESTERN INC 529800 PUGET WESTERN INC 529800 19515 NORTH CREEK PKWY SUITE 310 19515 NORTH CREEK PKWY SUITE 310 BOTHELL WA 98011 BOTHELL WA 93011 242304-9129-08 242304-9129-08 DRAINAGE DIST 1 597777 DRAINAGE DIST 1 597777 601 WEST GOWE ST 601 WEST GOWE ST KENT WA 98032 KENT WA 98032 242304-9132-03 242304-9132-03 PIERRE JAMES P 715432 PIERRE JAMES P 715432 PO BOX 27069 PO BOX 27069 SEATTLE WA 98125 SEATTLE WA 98125 242304-9133-02 242304-9133-02 PUGET WESTERN INC 559800 PUGET WESTERN INC 559800 19515 NORTH CREEK PKWY 0310 19515 NORTH CREEK PKWY 6310 BOTHELL WA 98011 BOTHELL WA 98011 242304-9137-08 242304-9137-08 MCLEOD STUART 839800 MCLEOD STUART 839800 213 LAKE ST S 213 LAKE ST S KIRKLAND WA 98033 KIRKLAND WA 98033 252304-9001-00 252304-9001-00 - CITY OF RENTON 369700 CITY OF RENTON 369700 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 e 252304-9004-07 252304-9004-07 CITY OF RENTON 369700 CITY OF RENTON 369700 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 • RENTON WA 98055 252304-9006-05 252304-9006-05 MELEOD STUART 139999 MELEOD STUART 139999 213 LAKE ST_SOUTH 213 LAKE ST_SOUTH v KIRKLAND WA 98033 KIRKLAND WA 98033 f . 252304-9019-00 252304-9019-00 CITY OF RENTON 209800 CITY OF RENTON 209800 CITY HALL CITY HALL 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE SOUTH • RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 252304-9022-05 252304-9022-05 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE715175 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE715175 TAX DEPT TAX DEPT 1700 F GOLF RD 0400 1700 E GOLF RD 0400 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 252304-9024-03 252304-9024-03 O W R R E NAV CO 201303 O W R R C NAV CO 201303 7. UNION PACIFIC RR CORP % UNION PACIFIC RR CORP PO BOX 2500 PO BOX 2500 BROOMFIELD CO 80020 BROOMFIELD CO 80020 252304-9037-08 252304-9037-08 CITY OF SEATTLE 647777 CITY OF SEATTLE 647777 WATER DEPT WATER DEPT COUNTY CITY BLDG COUNTY CITY BLDG 252304-9058-02 252304-9058-02 KOCH HANS GEORGE 190139 KOCH HANS GEORGE 190139 ALLPAK CONTAINER % ALLPAK CONTAINER 1100 SW 27TH ST 1100 SW 27TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 334040-5300-01 334040-5300-01 BENAROYA CAPITAL COMPANY L.699999 BENAROYA CAPITAL COMPANY L.699999 1001 4TH AVE 04700 1001 4TH AVE 04700 SEATTLE WA 98154 SEATTLE WA 98154 334040-5305-06 334040-5305-06 ' CITY OF RENTON 609800 CITY OF RENTON 609800 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 334040-6120-07 334040-6120-07 BITNEY-GROUWS CO 541786 BITNEY-GROUWS CO 541786 108 FACTORY AVE N 01 108 FACTORY AVE N 01 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 • 334040-6255-04 334040-6255-04 CITY OF RENTON 360557 CITY OF RENTON 360557 200 MILL AVE S 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 0411, 1. Noise:operation of the helicopt mown practices tot reduce noise such as:reducing operating * speeds and decreasing the appr___.._.._takeoff angle at the halistop. '� .� 2. Dust:maintain area surrounding halistop to be free of unnecessary debris that could result in dust �NTD impacts during helicopter maneuvers. NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- Comments on the above application must submitted in writing to Jennifer Toth Henning,Project Manager,Development Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on August 24,1998.This matter is also scheduled fora public hearing on Tuesday,September 8,1998 at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,7th Flow Municipal SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED Building,1055 South Grady Way.If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division,(425)430-7282,to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled.If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner.If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive DATE: additional information by mail,contact Ms.Henning at(425)430-7286.Anyone who submits written comments will July 21,1998 automatically become a parry of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICATION NAME: BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant,Rick Ford.has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private halistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building.The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed.Project requires Conditional Use(CU)Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). PROJECT LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED(DNS-M):As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project.Therefore,as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued.Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period.There will be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated(DNS-M).A 14 day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: July 13,1998 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 21,1998 R Permits/Review Requested: Conditional Use Permit,Environmental Review(SEPA) Other Permits which may be required: FAA Notice at Proposed Construction or Alterations Q nre ° Requested Studies: None Location where application may ,sE'E ry ^�me.� be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, ) "I Can,7055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98058 x� F PUBLIC HEARING: September 8,1998 "'" F f . 1 RENTON • PROJEe SITE CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: — J s.•�o.r,� S • Land Use/Zoning: Commercial Office(CO)Zone—The proposed helistop is permitted as an i sat i accessory use in the Commercial Office Zone subject to approval of a Hearing • E I LIN "^" I s.:��.:�M� • NE Examiner Conditional Use Permit.It appears that the proposal would comply ` I '. with applicable development standards of the Zoning Code,and that it would be g ' H. consistent with policies of the Comprehensive Plan. a yq �' —.._.._i.J , i 3 - S Environmental Documents that r - Evaluate the Proposed Project: Draft Environmental Impact Statement,Longacres Office Park(August,1994), R Final Environmental Impact Statement,Longacres Office Park(March 1995), < u g 1 Y `g -g Environmental Impact Statement Mitigation Document,Longacres Office Park 3,3 • Project(August 1993). ,. • Development Regulations • • Used For Project Mit gation: The proposal is subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance,Conditional Use Permit i • Criteria,Zoning Code,Public Works Standard's,Uniform Building Code,Uniform '��___.,i a _ Fire Code.In addition,the proposal is subject to the Federal Aviation a " Administration's review and approval. Proposed Mitigation Measures: SITE I EI OCc TION The following Mitigation Measures will likely be Imposed on the proposed project.These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. GENMALOT.DOC GENMALOT.DOC CERTIFICATION • I, \jeAnir-Titii lledfh(e hereby certify that -3 copies of the above document wer e posted by me in ' cons icuous laces on or nearby the described property on �� 2.-I, �q� "6 igne i� lied W& t �. of ATTEST: Subcribed sworn before me, a No • Pub in • r the State rl Washington residing ".J)d-i4-,� , on the day of 'u.� �l 1" • 0 -7-2'7 5:2:(0, 21,e_A"--sfir MARILYN KAMCHEFF. COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 1fiY O + 14 + NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED DATE: July 21,1998 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF APPLICATION NAME: BOEING LONGACRES HELISTOP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Rick Ford, has applied on behalf of The Boeing Company to develop and operate a private helistop at The Boeing Headquarters Building. The project would include a 26 foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area surrounded by a 40 foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and take off area. Perimeter lighting and a windsock would be installed. Project requires Conditional Use(CU)Permit with a public hearing and Environmental Review(ECF). PROJECT LOCATION: 901 Oakesdale Avenue SW OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED(DNS-M): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore,as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14 day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: July 13, 1998 • NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 21,1998 Permits/Review Requested: Conditional Use Permit,Environmental Review(SEPA) Other Permits which may be required: FAA Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration Requested Studies: None Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98058 S 14- PUBLIC HEARING: September 8,1998 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use/Zoning: Commercial Office(CO)Zone--The proposed helistop is permitted as an accessory use in the Commercial Office Zone subject to approval of a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. It appears that the proposal would comply with applicable development standards of the Zoning Code,and that it would be consistent with policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Draft Environmental Impact Statement,Longacres Office Park(August,1994), Final Environmental Impact Statement,Longacres Office Park(March 1995), Environmental Impact Statement Mitigation Document,Longacres Office Park Project(August 1993). Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The proposal is subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance,Conditional Use Permit Criteria,Zoning Code,Public Works Standard's,Uniform Building Code,Uniform Fire Code. In addition,the proposal is subject to the Federal Aviation Administration's review and approval. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. GENMALOT.DOC 1.' Noise: operation of the helicopters wi own practices to reduce noise such as: reducin (rating speeds and decreasing the approach Ike-off angle at the helistop. 2. Dust: maintain area surrounding helistop to be free of unnecessary debris that could result in dust impacts during helicopter maneuvers. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jennifer Toth Henning,Project Manager,Development Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on August 24,1998. This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on Tuesday,September 8,1998 at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,7th Floor Municipal Building, 1055 South Grady Way. If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division,(425)430-7282,to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,contact Ms.Henning at(425)430-7286. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION i c w,x.,- .a .i.,....i \V.(1, 1_4 -._..._.._.. _ _.._:._..i _ /.- ` \i .^ _...._. s.w.isn.STREET ^11.: 46. �•' I j `br I 3- • ;: PROPERTy. 'J, �i^t s.w. Tim smgt r_ LINE .'7:1 —_......... ...... i f . x. SM�,._.� 1! IIII CITY 'Isisl : • OF n aFi an TUKWR;A ''Tw:1�•II 1 RENTON - • f PligislEa SITE 11..---1 ,3„ S.W.2JRO STREET II 1 �....114444.--^1 i RI •••I BOEING`— g wi t • ° PROPERTY I S.W.27TH STREET 1'1 . ! LINE !.i $ ` o W Li i o u S. O. N M V az• S.W.74TH STREET ........ In 21 g 3 ! i < i . N • i a \ / I 0 SITE LOCATION N SCALE: NONE J ^L ' GENMALOT.DOC '_ __ CITY OF RENTON a ; I Planning/Building/Public Works Department 7 e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator July 21, 1998 Mr. Rick Ford The Boeing Company PO Box 3707, M/S 19-35 Seattle, WA 98124 SUBJECT: Boeing Longacres Helistop Project No. LUA-98-113,CU-H,ECF Dear Mr. Ford: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on August 04, 1998. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at(425)430-7286, if you have any questions. Sincerely, nif r Toth enning Project Manager ACCPTLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 m ............ EVELO DIVISION:,':<::>:i:>:€:€:>:.::'; . :;:: : . MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY`OWNER(S) • PROJECT INFORMATION Note: If there is more than one legal owner, please attach an additional notarized Master Application for each owner. PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: _ L01•16 $ H E L( S TO P �61:1NL, C.e . 2►1.k- {—DZ0 PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: PO. [soy. 37D7 04I4 1q•35 /4 DJAC EH T (west) To lets IL ESAAL E - l30Ett4G NEADQ VAR-ERS CITY: SE-Arrl.E "/A ZIP: ctsiz4 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): SEE ATtAdNtC> L LS TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING LAND USE(S): 406, Lg5 4230 Co ST Q()LtlbN IPA.V_ H v APPLICANT (if other than owner) PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: NEL( 5rop COMPANY(if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: EA ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): NA CITY: ZIP: EXISTING ZONING: OFlivF;r NING ^ RENrpN TELEPHONE NUMBER: (J Ji/L. 13 1998 PROPOSED ZONING (if appCE'��D CCINTACT PERSON N SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): NAME:* r7 t � k �O�(� l� 3. / A62'ES COMPANY (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: s°c` N� 60 fl15, oov ADDRESS: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? CITY: ZIP: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY (�[�C�t� SENSITIVE AREA? TELEPHONE NUMBER: ZO& toS'S—a8`d$ N LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach separate sheet ssary Se1 r cc l s�7 . TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES'.... .:.:.;:.:...:..:.:::. .. ... Check all application types That appiy ;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 $ O.CO _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _ FINAL PLAT $ GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _ VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY _WAIVER $ _ FINAL _WETLAND PERMIT S _ ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: _ SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _ CONDITIONAL USE $ VARIANCE $ EXEMPTION $No Charge ,ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW _ REVISION $ ... AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP! .. ... I, (Print Name) RIt.WA.R1) . FQIL Q ,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. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public,it.and R 1!14 Q rz p for the State of LU A residing at (Name of Owner/Represe tive , on the 01 day of C`U — 19`7 (Signature of Owner/Rep es tive) �` (Signature of tary Public) ;< .:... (This section 30;be co.rrtpleted b}��pN��< Clty I Ie Number �� -�' j A AAD BSP CAPS CAP U CPA CU A C J Fi ECF LA MHP;.;.FPUD FP P:P.R. .f..iVMP::..SA_A SA'H SH..PL_A..:::SHPL=I-I ..SP.., SM,...`SME..::.T MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 8/97 . r ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Helistop Longecres Office Park City of Renton The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, M/S 19-35 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 FVC MINT p OFtt4 NINNIlyo ✓(/ 1`I 1998 RFc� VD July 9, 1998 Rick Ford 206 655-9888 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Headquarters Building Helistop 2. Name of applicant: The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 M/S 19-35 Seattle, Washington 98124-2207 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Rick Ford Facilities Asset Management Organization The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 M/S 19-35 Seattle, Washington 98124-2207 206 655-9888 4. Date checklist prepared: July 8, 1997 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The site is proposed to be constructed and available for use in October 1998. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Future additions, or expansions of the facilities are not anticipated at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 1 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc)-1 7/7/9R , 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Longacres Office Park (August 1994) ("LOP DEIS") Final Environmental Impact Statement, Longacres Office Park (March 1995) ("LOP FEIS") Environmental Impact Statement, Mitigation Document, Longacres Office Park (May, 1995) Jurisdictional Wetland Determination for Longacres Office Park Project (August 1993) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Possible Permits Federal: FAA approval on "Notice of Landing Area Proposal" See application -- Exhibit G State of Washington: None known at this time City of Renton/Local: Conditional Use State Environmental Policy Act Review/Approval Electrical Permit 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 2 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The proposed project is to construct and operate a private helistop at the Boeing Longacres Office park to serve the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group (BCAG) Headquarters Building. Flights in and out of the helistop will average one flight per month. Helicopters will not be based or maintained at the helistop. The helistop will serve the Longacres Office park and will be used to land privately owned helicopters for the purpose of loading or unloading occupants. The helistop will be located on a 3.10 acre site southwest of the BCAG Headquarters Building. The location is shown on the Site Plan, Exhibit A The helistop will consist of a 26-foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) surrounded by a 40-foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and takeoff area (FATO), with perimeter lighting and a pole-mounted windsock with lighting for night use. Vehicular access to the helistop will be provided from the south by a private road connecting to the BCAG headquarters Building parking lot. The proposed helistop will make use of the existing paved parking area and access road for the BCAG headquarters temporary construction trailer offices, with minor modifications to add a concrete TLOF and to connect the existing access road to the Headquarters Building parking lot. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range of boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The 3.10 acre (135,000 sq. ft.) site is located south of 1-405, to the west of Oakesdale Avenue (under construction), and due east of the Renton/Tukwila boundary as shown in the Site Plan, Exhibit A The legal description is attached as Exhibit B ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 3 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1 . Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Flat, with slight slopes. See LOP DEIS sec. 3.2.1 , Topography and Vol. II, pp. 1-7, Technical Report, Earth Resources. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope on the site is approximately 2%. See 5-6 LOP DEIS sec. 3.2.1 , Topography and Vol. II, Technical Report for Earth Resources. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The helistop site is located in an area of soils classified by the USDA Soil Conservation Survey (1973) as "urban Land". "Urban land" is soil modified by distribution of natural layers with addition of fill material. Soils are believed to be predominantly inter-layered silt, sandy silt, silty sand and sands underlaid or interbedded with marine (Estuarine) organic silt and fluvial sand. See LOP DEIS, sec. 3.2.3, Soils and Vol. II, Exhibit 3, Soil, Sediment and Water Analysis. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No, but as reported in the LOP DEIS, unconsolidated subsurface deposits contain unstable soils. See LOP DEIS, sec. 3.2.3, Soils and Vol. II, Technical Report for Earth Resources, p.6. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 4 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 The site will be graded and excavated as required for constructing the fire department turnaround. Some fill (less than 40 cubic yards) will be required to replace excavated material. The approximate quantity of fill is detailed in the attached Off- sight Surface Water Management Analysis, Exhibit D. The source of fill has not yet been determined. See LOP DEIS sec. 3.3 Impacts. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes. Precipitation and surface water runoff may cause erosion during construction. At project completion, erosion impacts are not anticipated. There will be no excavation left bare and thus no erosion impacts. The site is classified as low erosion hazard. See LOP DEIS sec. 3.2.3, Soils; sec. 3.3 Impacts and Vol. II, technical Report for Earth Resources, p. 6. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Type of Impervious Existing Proposed Surface Conditions Conditions Pavement 15,000 sf 15,000 sf Access Road 18,000 sf 22,500 sf Total Site 33,000 sf 37,500 sf (Percent) (24%) (28%) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Appropriate measures, such as silt fences, hay bale filters, hydroseedings, and settlement ponds, will be used to control erosion during clearing and construction. After construction, exposed soils will be landscaped with stabilizing vegetation. See LOP DEIS sec. 3.3.1 .2, Geology / Soils, p 3-6. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 5 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (I e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known. During construction, vehicle and construction equipment emissions and dust will be released. After completion of construction, combustion emissions from the aircraft's engines will be released. See LOP DEIS sec, 4, Air Quality and Vol. II Appendix B, Air Quality Technical Report. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None See LOP DEIS sec. 4-3.2.2, Air Cumulative Impacts, p. 4-14. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Mitigation measures will be implemented as required to meet or exceed all applicable standards as required by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and the Department of Ecology. Additional potential mitigation measures to reduce emissions include ensuring that machines and equipment used during construction are well maintained, and wetting the site as required to reduce fugitive dust emissions. 3. Water a. Surface (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Springbrook Creek is situated to the east of the site. This stream flows into the Green River via the Black River pump station. The Green River passes about 1 .1 miles to the west of the site. There is one class 3, wetland outside of the project boundaries but within the immediate vicinity. The ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 6 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 wetland is located adjacent to the north corner of the site. See Wetland Map, Exhibit C. See LOP DEIS, sec. 6.2, Surface Water, Existing Conditions and Vol. II, Technical Report for Water Resources. (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The site is within 200 feet of the wetland mentioned above. (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes. See attached FEMA 100-Year Flood Plain Map, Exhibit E , and LOP DEIS, sec. 3.2.1 , Topography, and Vol. II Technical Report for Water Resources. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 7 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc)-1 7/7/9R See LOP DEIS, sec. 5.3.1 .1 , Ground Water, Construction / Operation Impacts. (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals . . .; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water runoff will result from impervious surfaces, helistop and access road. All runoff will be treated through by bio-filtration filter strips surrounding the pad and access road The storm water treatment system will be designed in accordance with City of Renton Building Regulations, Chapter 22. See the Off-sight Surface Water Management Analysis, Exhibit D and LOP DEIS, sec. 6.3, Surface Water Impacts and Vol. II, Technical Report for Water Resources. (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. It is not anticipated that waste materials will enter the ground or surface waters. Refer to Section 7 of this document, Environmental Health. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The storm water drainage system will be designed to conform to the Storm Water Management Manual for the Puget Sound Region. Appropriate mitigation measures will be initiated during construction to reduce and control surface water runoff impacts. Surface runoff control features will be designed and detailed on ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 8 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 the specific project erosion and sedimentation drawings that are subject to review and approval from the City of Renton prior to the issuing of permits. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: The following types of vegetation are found on the site. shrubs grass b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Approximately 0.14 acres of the 3.10 acre site, will be converted to impervious surface from their existing grassy or vegetated state. The types of vegetation to be cleared include old ornamental shrubs and lawn areas. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. See LOP DEIS, sec. 7.2.1 Vegetation and Vol. II, Technical Report for Wetlands, Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: A landscaping will be mainly grasses. See LOP DEIS, sec. 7.3.1 .1 , Vegetation Impacts. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site are listed below: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, ducks and geese mammals: none fish: Earlier reports have suggested the possible use of Springbrook Creek as winter habitat for salmon. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 9 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/9R See LOP DEIS sec. 7.2.3, Wildlife and Vol. II, Technical Report for Wetlands, Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. See LOP DEIS, sec. 7.3.1 .3, Wildlife and Vol. II, Technical Report for Wetlands, Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes. The site is within the Pacific Flyway migration route. Migratory waterfowl, wading birds and raptors have been observed in the vicinity. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Destruction of active nests will be avoided. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will be the primary energy source used to meet the completed project's energy needs. See LOP DEIS, sec. 15.3.1 .4 Electrical Energy and sec. 1 5.3.1 .5, Natural Gas, Petroleum. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. The helistop lighting will be designed to meet the energy codes and to minimize the wasteful use of energy. See LOP DEIS, sec. 15.3.1 .4, Electrical Energy. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 10 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/9R 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Usual oils, greases, fuel and solvents will be present during construction. Aircraft will not be fueled, or have any routine maintenance performed at the helistop. See LOP DEIS, sec. 9.3.1 .1 , Hazardous Materials, Construction Operation Impacts. (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services will be required. See LOP DEIS sec. 16.3, Emergency Services, Impacts. (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: All personnel training, contingency plans, reporting and other similar requirements imposed by federal, state and local regulations are in place. b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? No impact anticipated. See LOP DEIS sec. 8.2.1 , Noise, Background Information. (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Increases in traffic noise during construction may occur. Temporary noise impacts during site construction are anticipated. Construction projects of this type typically ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 11 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 produce noise levels which range from 68 to 98 dbA at 50 feet from the specific equipment. Construction is proposed to occur over two shifts with working hours approximately 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. The construction haul routes have not been determined at this time. Traffic to and from the site will contribute to existing background noise levels. The typical noise associated with helicopters is 76 to 84dBA at a distance of 500 feet from the aircraft. This is similar to noise levels described above for various pieces of construction equipment While helicopter noise is not regulated, it assumed that flights in and out of Longacres Office Park would occur during typical business hours and the noise abatement procedures will be used. The typical flight path (north and south from helistop) has the helicopter at 1000 feet altitude at % mile from the helistop. Helicopter noise could temporarily disturb or distract area residents; however, because of the small number of projected flights in and out of the Longacres Office Park, disruptions would be infrequent and short. It is important to note that a helicopter flight school is currently operating south of the sight with many take-offs and landings occurring each day. Long-term noise impacts would not be expected. See LOP DEIS, sec. 8.3 Noise Impacts and VOL. II, Technical Report for Noise. (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction equipment will be well maintained and muffled. Equipment will not operate before 6:00 a.m. or after 11 :00 p.m. Current noise abatement procedures for helicopter flight include reducing operating speeds and decreasing the approach and take-off angle at the helistop. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 12 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? A portion of the site is used for temporary parking and access to the BCAG Headquarters Building construction trailers. Uses of surrounding properties include commercial office, industrial warehouse and vacant commercial land. See Exhibit F for listing of surrounding property uses. See LOP DEIS, sec. 10.2, Land Use, Existing Conditions. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Yes. A portion of the site was used for a dairy farm from at least the mid-1920s until 1933, when the Longacres race track was opened. This site was used as the infield area until the race track closed in1993. See LOP DEIS, sec. 10.1 , Land use. c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Commercial Office. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Employment Area -- Valley g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 13 (/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposed use is compatible with the comprehensive plan Employment Area -- Valley designation and the existing CO zoning classification. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high-, middle- or low-income housing. No living units will be provided. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high-, middle-, or low-income housing. None See LOP DEIS, sec. 11 .3.1 .2, Housing and Population. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 14 1/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 The windsock will be approximately six feet high. No building is proposed b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No impact. See LOP DEIS, sec. 12, Visual Resources. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 11 . Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light and glare impacts are not anticipated. Lights on the Helistop will be radio activated by the pilots and are designed to illuminate the pad only. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Light and glare impacts are not anticipated. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None anticipated. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Springbrook Creek trail, walking paths and interpretive information is available at the Customer Services Training Center. See LOP DEIS, sec. 16.2.3, Parks and Recreation. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 15 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. See LOP DEIS, sec. 16.3.1 .3, Parks and Recreation. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. See LOP DEIS, sec.13.2.1 , Historical Conditions. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None have been identified on the project site. There have been indications and artifacts from earlier Indian settlements found in the general area. See LOP DEIS, sec.13.2.1 , Historical Conditions and Vol. II, technical Report for Cultural Resources. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Although previous excavations have disclosed no indications of archaeological significance, if artifacts are uncovered, work in that area will be halted pending notification and response from appropriate agencies. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on the site plans, if any. Oakesdale Avenue (City of Renton) will serve the project site. See LOP DEIS, sec. 14.2.1 , Transportation, and Vol. II, Technical Report for Transportation. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 16 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? None. See LOP DEIS, sec. 14.2.12, Transit System and Vol. II, Technical Report for Transportation. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None. No existing parking spaces will be eliminated. See LOP DEIS, sec. 14.4 Transportation Impacts. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Burlington Northern and Union Pacific Railroad Lines are located west of the project site, but will not be impacted by this proposal. See LOP DEIS, sec. 14.2.2, Transportation Mode Usage. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The proposed project will not generate additional vehicular trips. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. None is anticipated. See LOP DEIS, sec. 16.3, Impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 17 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: None. See LOP DEIS, sec. 16.4, Mitigation. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Electricity is currently available with sufficient capacity to accommodate the requirements of this proposal. See LOP DEIS, sec. 15.2.1 , Utilities. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Utility Proposed Purveyor Electricity Puget Sound Energy See LOP DEIS, sec. 15.3, Utilities. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: //LW/ Richard J. Ford Date Submitted: -R-62%6 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 18 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/98 E.SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the contest of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objectives(s) of the proposal? To construct a helistop to support the occupants of the BCAG headquarters Building. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? Alternatives were not examined. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Not applicable 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Renton Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the P/an? No. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Not required. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 19 [/helistop-1 sepa.doc]-1 7/7/9R Exhibits Site Plan & Neighborhood Detail Map A Legal Description B Wetland Map C Surface Water Management Analysis D Flood Plain Map E Surrounding Property Owners F FAA Application G Project Narrative & Justification H Exhibit A 1 .Pea ��yy��••�� 1 !' \.'"....... '.. ., ., 0...*-P,,C) ' . 1-4: �- �' -' CSTC BLDG. 25-01 j i+' : 13 - ---i ' i - 4 r . 1: \ 'I.* , ..., :,• 0,..- I gi„.: ;,,S*:.,:. ( ' if' .,. .:I• it.. ,/ „.,....,..,.-(\ -......, -Ii:1: ,1... ,...,-.: •1. ,,.. ,N.,4,)::.. »•! -:.'�,...._ mil.• o \A• I;7-...._ . .,.... .• ' 3 "•I .....—. .:.. ...". ,,- --,,t ..,,, •„ :. .,:: \,.,.1,,.• ,,, , .„. ,, %,.., .., ..., !._ \\ .,,,,,. .,...,„ • ,,,, ::. —,1—)1*: N. Ix C) nr•-"rii mm! �;; i .... .. .. .ii + .....� y_ ,� r�;i'fi I;'��jj!'�:1 fi:, 1. 1 'A. r :........ ;... , ......„ ... \ ic_ "'; ! J ��, �� . BLDG. 0•1 i `_:° tt , �: \ 25-20 ' :c""'+? ; I BLDG. ..,<C 4li; • n.........,* 1.7.• •:•,1(1 1 .z '."J. ;.7i- . T // y'/ `` ✓ / 1 -III II ' / ��` $ •sF IIIII •J,! �`-�h I k.,\:\T/" 11111111111111 . d '! ' >I I >,. nl HELISTOP , ,:�%, '% PROJECT SITE = ... _.. , 'a�,� = o Iii I l I < 1{ 1A'�/��I 11 • a (101, i; r >,. g ! t I ..::(::C Z I_ oi . •▪ Ou ` }�• O V I 1 i• s`1.1 I:: Virltift1/4. 31 4t, ./ HELISTOP PROJECT 2 } 1 fn SITE PLAN NOTES: - .1 . sic?- -``\\t: . .. tz PROJECT SITE AREA: 3. 10 AC APPROX g. TOTAL 3UILDING AREA: A —, ! : :• "� 1 \ ...< PARK \G SPACES REQUIRED: N/A CD PARK \G SPACES PROVIDED: N/A PARK \G SPACE DIME\SIO\S: \ /A 0 TOTAL LA\ DSCAPING: • 0.5 AC REQUIRED SET3AC <: 80' DIAN ETER F.A.T.O. PROPOSED SET3AC <: 80' DIAvETER F.A.T.O. :„'-', v a 5'',/ r ,, r:. c I v I_ L . I N c _ SITE PLAN N 600 108th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 109' 50' 0 100' 20o' (425) 452-8000 P:\JOB\013747\2210\DWG\SEPA0348.dwg Ioneke/6.24.98 • . • . . . . - .... . , . . ..a......,..,,.._ ,.• . ,, , , 1 I i •• • .. • ',\ 0 I I I I .....--......--• .•••••••• . --•• • 'fl.•• • ', rn I '• ....•••• .....•••• • '+•• 0 ' ........• __...• '.'‘, 0 -............ , .-• ...-- , • '. 7... \i\\\ ' .. . .- .......• ..•-••• .•••••••••- \ ., , ...----1::••-•-- -'''' .......-. •• ' rl .....-• ,.......-- . ,•••••••-•:--V .---,1"....;•--1 i'...-- ... --. .. -... ..-••••••••1 ..-•-• • , ......-- .......------.:::::::-'--- ........•••••....-- . .",', Cvl . --::::•-••--' 1 i..,...........-.•::::.---- 1 Il ..•-• •-•••••• ..----......-• . l':•-•': . \ ._...-• ,. ,.•••••••• ....-.; . \, . . I , ' ,,tki .- -••-'-.-1-:-.•-:•:: ••••.\/A ...... ..• .....•-• -••••-• ......- \\ • .1, c:----- ' ••------,,--: --:-.7:-:.-7-_,:::::....:,..:.:,,,,..:::„.„. .........„:.. ......4_, . .,. ,1:'::--- d 11 i \ ..: /-;••- •-•::::.....--..-..---.-,.,...-_-7.:-.:=_.,,.17.-,7.1.. .:- . :.:'','- — ' •` • \\ N. • • ' \ \„„s. • . • , , \ •\••' .--- \\.: .r• • ••• .., '. •\ „. ••••N ••••:x ,!;eee'e..::::•:•.--; ...•-•••,-,(:-.:--r••••=i ‘i.' 1,,,:\ • —. \'. N ••"•.;\ .....,,,..e ,••••••;-;•::;••••• --• • — — \,.., fr..- ,,,, ...- 1...• .•...-....:;,..--- - • \ .......:•, ...;,;••-- . „,..---,r.-----, c.. z N.; :•• :71......,,..........",--:" , •-•••-- ,4••••••;;•••:•-•2 ......• ./ •• '• •' ,r-, 1 i: I: i II :; :'::: I I \•-• :: C) .7 '''k ' 1 1 ......-;,...0,.....!,......,•,.......,.. •.•4, ',..;.k.i: I II • L.LI l: :-*:1 • 1 \ :)./.../It'...-:•_:41. ...--. ....'2%.--' . • ,...,,. ..i,1 '...:-";:•". : \\,111 0 ; r., ...‘., . I 1 )1 .c154 ;) /1., $ il i 1 9T _ sT i.• . W • ...._ .: . ......... •••• „, _ •__ ,, ...... „ _. .. ._ • •, „. 4,.:.:•::•.: ::... , ;•.:. ii t.fg-- t.. ,• , . ..r.:.i .• 1 8-V H•I S-Y 41 ,,.:.:::,..;,-.....• • _ • - :g i,t i!f...,,,-,. . „•,:, . .. .• . • S • _ • --•.:::•,...- 1 HELISTOP •i •*•' • . li:if ii i ..: I • 0 . PROJECT ; .,• •i! SITE : I CITY OF ....,....,.: ••• . .... . • :,.. CITY OF ; ! I . " RENTON TUKWILA; I BOEING PROPERTY , r•.; .• .•. •-- " ,• : • . • . LINE —\\ . :• , • . . • . : S.W. 23RD ST. : .. . • ,:, • : 0..1 ..- . . .: --- 1; 1: .....•••-•• •• ..- •,, 4 Ii ..,, ‘% 2:: .; 0,! 8 •0!, • I i I . s T R .._— _—ti • z, i c 1 BOEING PROPERTY z --I:- • Fri >1 LINE —\ —I > -r1I •o rn I / I r- ,... . '. _ . •;, • < n > 6 •,‘,. .. Cr) 2" F 0 > v) 'I f" 1 ... I— •''' >I - ! M < III ,--.. . rn Fri io i I 1 co0 co :....• - : z ),:• ::—< ,-, 1 , _....• 07i .m 0 :i ,.. , ---- x * = * .. —< i ••. . .. [ _ S.W. 34TH STREET > : . • Wee.'NW/ . I: I •. • a> 0 . i i PO I i! < rri i F I rn . ii• 1 1 1 i I • it • .... I , I II 1 ; , ,.., / : ......... , L 1 , H • . . , .., i . .• ,.., :: II .. li ii ,,, • , ------ -.. .....•••••••-i if , i ! I i ( •. i i 1 INCH = 300' '. i :•-•-1 .,.... (APPROXIMATELY) ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS CI WSDOT 0 BNSF RAILWAY ©CITY OF RENTON 0 GU\CIER PARK PROP. HELISTOP PROJECT '0 HUNTER DOUGLAS C McLEOD ®CITY OF SEATTLE ©ALLPAC CONTAINER, INC. - P.,\JOB\013747\2210\13WC\SEPA.0349.0WG lonekt/6.23.98 NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP_ Exhibit B King County Assessor's Account Numbers: 242304-9022 Parcel 1 000580-0018 Parcel A 000580-0001 Parcel'B 000580-0016 Parcel C 252304-9062-06 Parcel F 252304-9002-09 Parcel G 252304-9041-02 Parcel G 242304-9048-06 Parcel I 242304-9049-06 Parcel J 242304-9050-01 Parcel J 242304-9052-09 Parce? K 242304-9055-06 Parcel L 242304-9071 Parcel M R-6040-LLP-M087.DOC 3/2 53 PARCEL A All that certain real property situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, being a portion of Henry A. Meader's Donation Land Claim No. 46 in Sections 24 and 25, Township 23N., Range 4E., W.M., and a portion of Government Lot 8 in said Section 24, and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the North line of said Donation Land Claim No. 46, with the most Westerly line of Government Lot' 13 in said Section 24; thence from said POINT OF BEGINNING S00°56'17"W 1257.95 feet; thence S01°02'56"W 154.52 feet to the northerly line of the City of Seattle Bow Lake Pipeline right-of-way as conveyed by deed'recorded under Recording No. 4131067, King County records; thence along said northerly line S72°44'48"W 436.96 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 122.55 feet and a central angle of 20°01'15", an arc length of 42.82 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve N87°13'57"W 1377.97 feet to the East right-of-way line of the Burlington Northern Railway; thence along said East right-of-way line NO2°07'43"E 1709.63 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 2107.00 feet and a central angle of 14°09'08", an arc length of 520.44 feet to the westerly line of the former Puget Sound Shore Railroad Company's Seattle Line; thence along said westerly line NO2°07'43"E 221.30 feet to the southeasterly line of the parcel conveyed to the State of Washington by deed recorded under A.F.I 8412140016, King County records; thence along said southeasterly line N66°17'56"E 35.69 feet to a point on a line that is parallel with the South line of said Section 24, and passes through the most southerly corner of the southernmost of two concrete abutments near the westerly extension of S.W. 16th Street; thence along said parallel line S87°43'33"E 67.88 feet to the easterly line of said former Puget Sound Shore Railroad Company's Seattle Line; thence along said easterly line NO2°07'43"E 11.96 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of I-405; thence along said southerly right-of-way line N81°57'27"E 43.10 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 603.14 feet and a central angle of 19°04'30", an arc length of 200.80 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve N62°52'S7"E 90.32 feet; thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line S00°22'11"W 1022.22 feet to the North line of said Donation Land Claim No. 46; thence along said North line S87°13'57"E 1462.38 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 72.83 Acres of Land more or less. The Basis of Bearings for this description is the Record of Survey for Broadacres, Inc., recorded in Book 10 of Surveys at page 2, under Recording No. 7707289002, King County records. L. S. 27193 / �° y'titilk `i ny• MAL/FWC (; : 9 Fo� ++Pe J�-,. • 11-07-91 tit14q%gL LAND e 1 PARCELA.LEG 3-2464-3806 . v"N • PARCEL B All that certain real property situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, being a portion of Henry A. Meader's Donation Land Claim No. 46 in Sections 24 and 25, Township 23 N., Range 4 E., W. M., and a portion of Government Lot 13 in said Section 24, and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of said Government Lot 13; thence from said POINT OF BEGINNING along the North line of said Government Lot 13 S87°26'45"E 504.52 feet to the northerly prolongation of the East line of said Donation Land Claim No. 46; thence along said prolongation and East line S02°46'03"W 1336.86 to the North line of the City of Seattle Bow Lake Pipeline right-of-way as conveyed by deed recorded under Recording No. 4131067, King County records; thence along said North line from a tangent that bears S84°32'34"W, along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 935.00 feet and a central angle of 11°47'46", an arc length of 192.50 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve S72°44'48"W 288.62 feet; thence leaving said North line NO1°02'56"E 154.52 feet;' thence NOO°56'17"E 1326.91 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 15.51 Acres of Land more or less. The Basis of Bearings for this description is the Record of Survey for Broadacres Inc., recorded in Book 10 of Surveys at page 2, under Recording No. 7707289002, King County records. a-#11/1/,/ 1. Gi ✓ L.S. 27193 , 4.� ��` ',i y `r / •i '4( LAt1D 1 MAL/FWC 11-07-91 PARCELB.LEG 3-2464-3806 • I Printed on Recycled PaOet PACIFIC • PARCEL C All that certain real property situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, being that portion of Henry A. Meader's Donation Land Claim No. 46, in Section 25, T.23N., R.4E., W.M., described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the South line of said Donation Claim, and the East line of Government Lot 10 in the N.E. 'A of said Section 25; thence from said POINT OF BEGINNING along said South line N87°13'57"W 1842.90 feet to the East line of the Burlington Northern Railway; thence along last said East line NO2°06'48"E 129.69 feet and NO2°07'43"E 251.58 feet to the South line of the Bow Lake Pipe Line as conveyed by deed recorded under recording No. 4131067, King County records; thence along said South line S87°13'57"E 1377.63 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 152.55 feet and a central angle of 20°01'15", an arc length of 53.30 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve N72°44'48"E 427.04 feet to the northerly prolongation of the East line of Government Lot 10; thence along said northerly prolongation S01°02'56"W 536.89 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 16.87 Acres of land more or less. The Basis of Bearings for this description is the Record of Survey for Broadacres Inc., recorded in Book 10 of Surveys at page 2, under Recording No. 7707289002, King County records. / • ezyl, I"le itgts L.S. 27193 iv " z 193� J °vAt LAND MAL/FWC 11-07-91 PARCELC.LEG 3-2464-3806 • Printed on Reacted Paper - PARCEL F All that certain real property situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, being a portion of Government Lots 10& 11 in Section 25, Township 23N., Range 4E., W.M., and being more particularly described as follows: • BEGINNING at the intersection of the,South line of Henry A. Meader's Donation Land Claim No. 46, with the East line of said Government Lot 10; thence from said POINT OF BEGINNING along said East line S01°02'56"W 255.38 feet; thence leaving' said East line N88°16'S5"W 1847.57 feet to a point on the East line of the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of way which is 289.12 feet Southerly, as measured along said right-of way line, from the intersection thereof with the South line of said Donation Land Claim No. 46; thence along last said East line NO2°06'48"E 289.12 feet to the South line of said Donation Land Claim; thence along said South line S87°13'57"E 1842.90 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 11.53 Acres of Land more or less. The Basis of Bearings for this description is the Record of Survey for Broadacres, Inc., recorded in Book 10 of Surveys at page 2, under Recording No. 7707289002, King County records. - - .,-(H1. Gi 1 Irl. .ot ' Why' cfr ,�e ;, L. S. '3 .�• z FWC 11-21-91 PARCELF.LEG 3-2464-3806 I 1 PARCEL G All that certain real property situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, being a portion of Government Lots 10 and 11, and of the S.W. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4, and of the S.E. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4, all in Section 25, Township 23N., Range 4E., W.M., and being more particularly described as follows: • BEGINNING at a point on the Fast line of said Government Lot 10, distant thereon • S01°02'56"W 255.38 feet from the intersection thereof with the South line of Henry Meader's Donation land Claim No. 46 thence from said POINT OF BEGINNING, along said Fast line of Government Lot 10, and the east line of said S.W. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 of Section 25, S01°02'56"W 1112.01 feet to a line that is parallel with and 545.6 feet northerly of the Fast- West centerline of said Section 25 (measured along the Fast line of said S.W. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4); thence along said parallel line N87°57'42"W 1908.19 feet to a line that is parallel with and 60.00 feet East of the Fast line of the Burlington Northern Railway right-of-way; thence along last said parallel line NO2°06'48"E 554.48 feet; thence N04°08'49"W 550.24 feet to a point on said Fast line of said Burlington Northern Railway right-of-way, distant thereon S02°06'48"W 289.12 feet from the intersection thereof with the South Line of said Donation Land Claim No. 46; thence S88°16'55"E 1847.57 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 46.06 Acres of Land more or less. • The Basis of Bearings for this description is the Record of Survey for Broadacres, Inc., recorded in Book 10 of Surveys at page 2, under Recording No. 7707289002, King County records. • L. S. 2719 G� R �` �f 9��b'irc �� YAL JJ/p A`-(/- FWC 11-27-91 PARCELG.LEG 3-2464-3806 I vrntea on �a PACIFIC Exhibit C .00'.i:.,7'• ' --;;•:% 4:',. SECTIONS 24 8c 25, CITY OF RENTON 4±-01••• 4', T23N R4E W.M. Ns dr*:...;$'7 ''-'•- WETLANDS MAP HELISTOP PROJECT,,, --,---. RENTON, WASHINGTON „e---- CSTC PROPERTY LINE \ '?'72:.... ''''''' SEPA SUBMTT iAL ..7--;----si 4/ Airzr -dnec LONGACRES OFFIC N‘••••,/,".: 0 130 300 SOO ^ ‘ ''`'.'•'.\\.,,,I,• ; PARK (LOP)I. 1.34.,..k LEGEND 1901 OAKESDALE AVE. S.W. I PROPERTY LINE ... :"...4k EXIST. CSTC WETLANDS MAiL STOP 20-30 RENTON WA, 98055 DRAWING_OF_ •"... •.•\; •• REVrSiON 0 DATE: 4•P% ..);:..•••••\', .:•"N :!i . tr ..;---....is•-•-••-•:-------'''-•-. -- ''-'1"11 Ill RESERVED CSTC WETLANDS 40'. : \....\, ,....,: .li,I,,-..../-":-..ti,..34, 11..', ...i,.f---,:-.•:;, c.:-.-.-- -::::::::::::•77:-.7::::, \-4 N\... % i 7 i::4:' . ''\''• ;47,>>7‘'''''/ ...7`:---' ".•1.,-.,-,.. -.:;:„.W, M . EXIST LONGACRES OFFICE PARK WETLANDS ' • ; r PERMIT SET ,65-4-05:' .-,.:,-. •...%' II'... .4*'.-^ .1'6-:.:•,•, •C .7'1-;-::::-----N:::::._,-- ---:--... .,\.••• ,\,. 07.02.98 04-COIP..„.•‘‘ iii Or , ".:..1.' ( s•,.'/. ,af---') •447,1 ; :\'‘,...,.;\, ,-\,....\-,K.....,..-..k._„, iti,. ,,,395'-4..!",..,;.;:,,,..;•* ,,,.\"‘N ;•,;;. ,..-;,,,....•-: --; "- i ,;. •,/, 11..-,1 v : :;:i; •, • , , ----,"R.‘r i si I --.- . I "r•:!> ,.... .*.e.1.1--. , ,Z,-:.:"' s',7z-', /4.-: i - :r...,t- =ik•qt. ' \r':- ------7f-''' -1-.-----'....7 1-- - -a-trai- - .b..,... . -LOP ;:irv,1"...C.t.f.r.:..t..:,....'.. ';`,.....-- '-."' .. e Ihe --•.-X. ) V, i.,,:Zs.:.:••..,„.......... _, . ,t 7 , ,,,..-- ,,, niVER Pl.q.7( ! • - :i g• PROPERTY Alliail ,.._ 114141.119teemas:.„-ir- .. --.:1.---.1::.1----__'' :,.. ,7-::._-.7:•..---1-- 1._ J. .......... . _JF6kr.A.Dran:TD1........tri.........111Mr:1„;;;•;;,..:if ..,;,..,..s., .4474.10r,........mrdiftisp _,i ..ai,l,...4,..;,,,,.....7,:g 1 g,.. ,,:, ...........-;;:-..-___. .. . ...... — ......!!9`:N ...,:).. .-77...- '-- , '• ., , _ ,, '• - ...,;-...,.. ... Vtl. t..,1 tlt,'1"" ;4 1 -''''' '. '‘'kj\.\,•\(,(,,--.I. 1:y1', . ..,. ,4. ....,,., . ..,-,,4F„,.,,, .. ...„,...... .....„... : ., ...- ----,,,r„,.,...-..„„-..- -,--__ .. . . 71° t, ...,„ i ,, , . • , . .• ,.:•.,•.1,,..•:;• .1• 4r..,!, r .;,' - L. A. •1'-'-'7.:3 7 4 i• ,.V --...\-'1. .'"--"-'''—'11• ' ' '..;' . .......'"?r, ... • I o 7 / /• , • r tf”.!,:4••:4...:1 fr•rrtm!A•1 Lut.e4.rz't. .1..VS., 2\•••':,;.*' ' i' ii:i 'r 'JAL 4,1,,:'.",,' • II 1,••u•i••••a .4 NI !.. 1..;.:.,t ••: .,..„....5...,,- r--,i\‘A.,_::..,- ,,, i .. .,4 ."- . ,. .-,• ......._.. 41-7i‘.-:*".':';'',... 0 firtA.-- 't'lli fi.'"\\\-:''',:-.--•.\\\,,:',.,!..,„,.- . :,.:::..4: .: , ' .7, 177 7__.,::•f I .. • 1..5.•7; 1...- -,,--"s% ..:'!: tr• e://'; 1 ‘------2.:'-' *7---'''''''°.--/r”7- . IT:.1.,,...7.,—..,.:2! „ i',/. -k i,! ir:•:;1•: . ......p;1; r4;.is+, i;1 : ., 2 ..,,gamitur,..,N.,.., Pr'..14.1..,s •,...wz.i.A.-2.A..)., :.,_,, „... .,.L., i (litk. •, __,..\.s i ;, / k...,57, ".'•-• - r- • ..•4/, ) tilk• 'I.''''' •: ..:1'11.; c.';721r>37 .•'''---7-71's- ;A,,,,' 7.1•*,-. ,, ,......-_-,-.-v.i,D i.( /.- ( Li-pr.-, :, ::. f ((sf k4;7:,;•;:7: .1'".;-•,. : •;) 5-1'..1;;;-..11rttITIVINEa''-''''p./..y:, 11\1-'1! ,e)-'`.; : f 7-'-`<•1 I•'•--,\4,,.. ',,,-------Arn\ ../ • / / " i :: ' Ng . , ! ,,..• ,/,..,,.//.//.,,,,,„ .,„vN,. 1,NmatAt- s .111!... :.,, , . , . : ., ...-...."4,._--.1..,,, . . 11. • // •1 : , •-...., ":. q - ' • : 1 fiz - 4 T."...-) r •J•-•.., J1 • --.74/ ;-"- •--- •-. i •:-...:./„. :.,....._ . . f•, ,,V, .,t , ,:,:r ..,,tz -,.,,f,i1 f C,,ilik,...M,WNW a..ti!9'7'.. ...r. . t....._.),...i). 1 _ (It. / \ - : ? •-,... .:. / / / . • .,f -1 ,.., • • ---- --'-.1.. • .;,--- I -:n: 1,1 vr .'..nn.., 4onto:nrz.-e. 4 . UN '7 L ',i,:; ; •\ ! .- -47t '\ v7). %..•://,/ . 7 -' ii-z.-. ...-. ..... .. • , --_,:.---- ---- i . ., ,'-f-------47-.J.t.,-_, .... . . ,.... -•.. . ..s: ,„ , .' ,:•--•-• ,,,-- 1. \ , ........ .....:„. .,,,•..•..., . ..,... •••..----- .. -....„ ' ...- ---- - -.,---...------....-..,. -•:• •••::7;. ‘ ' • -.i iii': : - ".>-----"."-",..7,\\\.s'•\\..,_.'',7 :"..‹..., /•' A-J, ! -t-, \•: , wc„,... f -si- •-....t.e.,..._.4---fl, •i ::;i i N... --...,-,.-: • ; , • % :_______,:.--e il'6 : .., ....- ..... ,\'\,,....,r,-- -‘-'...„„e„,. ; ,,., : 1 ', ,I.A.01„...,_...1i• • ""• -y., L . .., ,r ,,,,, \„......\---____.,...••\. / ., ..:, /, -..•-'' \,•\‘<\ '••••,),:-.;:f ,---,-___.,‘\• e . ,• 4,.. 1 : ,/,•-ii r i k, \s\\it....1 1 . '-r i e: (7,-----7::-.,---...,--:_..,f \ ii:T : ; '// / \\\\N \\\•.4:: t• \,1 ),\ ;: : rt .-, :.:'•:'\ ,,.4. j '-,/ , .-.7- \ %),I , /1: ii f 11 Iv ii ii li( ...,. 11,.11, ), -\\..._.\ * ;i -. ::.• ...: •••..i: /,/,",/,/ \ \N\\.•N,.>>.....::!8•• •;L\\j,z„.I\ ••••„\ it.t-.',"e:f•-<•..-•:L•s,-- •;,),,,,i I '... ')l:•-•-:_,-":::"-- ‘4\V s 7 . lf ii Ik i.' K..,,J( ) ;1;1 1\ ,, : ---„, --••• Z :,' .z,kri*ners;t::.1.341, //tif_r,/ \ \\\‘,..." \-••.:.i;::. :i:::i:? ''',`,>\: 7\,r4.'\' V.....- ..., ; ,,1',1,., '..„-':/'/,-' ts AV1,I, /..1 pcil L:: L:#AdicNs ii ii \ii 1 / I si ' I I, Nk/a-/ )7,-- . ., . ,..VF4,,,r1174 Iii ti,17 I f \\ F.'• ••••::::::::.,7 41 `\,,,,::: \;''''.;:., kk k , r--5 v,-.7.• f,,,,- .. ,••••\•11\ li. it ' •--1.i., p 1; j'!1'. ':i I., p t j ! hij ! IL. \ -----\ •-!::::, ,,,.. -•-• < „:: 0, i 1.: ,,..----.j,•/, f ''''• Iti• ' ' \\:, ...•:::::%$,S,jlke, \,-:: t.' • .)--- 7/"' ' • , ; ; : ):I i• ; .2.1_;..I• • /1:•?//1,4,;! p ,, (,i) , i - k . \ •••::.i. •••::-:,%,, ,, •.:,.4:::‘1. -_..'..-L,..;--:..• ---/...,-,3-"A j .. 1, . :..„.....,....,...,.:i::: • , / \ ., /ILI! j, •,/ ,77-:----; ,v svk-, ,_ I._, ,./ , k i r; : 1 \ ii::''''''' :P:1, : .//,\•\ \\.. .1:::.:.:: , '.1°'". \ r'fr7:::-. 1614.1--•..,.....,74.j.gol 1,-- ---,-,,y---% I /lb,liji,yr14 i li ‘`ti i .;• ",t. ,)11 1?;1;71-tk: ,,,L-71.:-..,--_.,,..c_=..2•---.:;:tz,`-'4.1 ' •. . ,...,. ,...::: ...;.*, ..•,--.::•:::;:i:S:1S:Zii%%:;;:;-,0 ,.1 '' / -----> i / / i 41j. I 1 1:';. '::.-.4?,. ii ii ',..11 14i \ ! l'i lil \ . ----• \ \!;;" :: ' ''' ' \ \, ..tt,...- ;‘ \‘: 77:71 :::: \ •.''' '..:•:• •••':•-•::.;::•:.::::::•fi :•-• ";;;:"•• ••5,-,/ ', __-_1 ' ''-1!" - . -- ///(/ Ii4- • j • 4, II :I.: i• ij rf,f1,1, i ; ::!. \F4TING , ij ,,.:.\ \ _,N...,:.....„r4...7. \\i\\'...::::.:,.:.•...:,.,::•:,:1:•::....::....-_,„:....;:...:;,............:::.x.-:...::.:,......:::::.:.:.:.....::::::.;.::;.:,:......,;:::,7.:::::...:t...,..,;&;_;.;.;-?;,::;-;L:i,,,,,:;:.__.d__..i*---- -=_---__----_ ___-------e', ._ .._.,_•__,...._--..i.:. ....,/,,,,....1 •.1..r.:.:.......:;-__„1:; it!): ti,fr:j1 :!i . II III;11 ( iii, 11 Iii sT:cKiLpaz \\ .-:-.:------.:7:7. Mi.::':''''-,'S-7', q ' 1 I '.26.--/411;; ift.. ,..,.;U il ill ' • !?1‘k A '.f .i "-'.-•:_4 \\\,. \ --,•- • ,4 -,-,- -- — -'"',..... . ............- ----- ji li ,:i •124: i ;. 1 ; \ \, ‘ V\ ..1 ' ! `:/i / — . .....--..-----" i 1:177:... --' ---,-.:-=:-------7-7:7--:'`-'7•z;-.,--7:'-'f, h:":' ''• ''''„)- --'. ' 's - • '') '';'• \ -s:: ;.- „-Jr- qz--:\---:' V -‘, , /7 . A ----- 1-, , ,,,,,, \„\.. :, ,i• ,.....t.,, ...,,,, I ,......, s i•I ‘.,), ,./.j____:.•••-___-_-- '4-754,--;••-•,/-/ ! s j 2 .......---- ; g ri,-'i :: i! :1 .i,/ \ iii ,----? ..../.,.../ji// i''‘'\---,<-;'.3 ' .•-•, / ...---......., ...-..... i' l.l r1/4.:... -.---. \ ' \'''' .'4b.,:'-. Is; .1; Als,N----1:6;",--\--1— ...' 7 I: J ' 1 •47..----‘ ei ! 11 1:;:jj r I I ,..,/- .--',./ / ,- I''''-c-N !,,, ,- \• '''‘‘. • 'N.,:le.,--• . ,..-....‘'.A....6."... . ..........e.;k7-,-&--F-'(Z:-...,t1,1 --.7.1....-..:Ts-74----- :--;1`" - I •....... :‘ .....--..—... A \\\\‘0) .;•-•• A r- .i'''''''''' ., -4-. i -.. . ----„,, :-.... ..A:4-...i....,E..“..f.-:...4-....:. --:-k,'"""*.::—•: j Z....."'....-:— ;1-----_____„, i . . ..)%:::.) JJ" il PA l• • / :..'k...0 • ;..S Th- 17.- ( 1 „ --------:.--::::--.. ,,e \\\'*„ L.I...•-,-N, ••,... ,..,_.---.,-,-r-t--N---, --...----q-----i-, ..,-, ,„:),,, ---- \ •-•r.- _.---- \ \\.\—k„----„,-,•-. , -...-\,•,--- -- .•... ,_ - ,-...%,_-..„-:::-..'.•••,..____ -:::•ii._•!_.--7.---:,,,..•-_-_-7,,,,.....-Lz:' , -..,--.-- .. ..,_,,,/::: ••-•.-:2-.._-• ------ L--- • K. .___ _ ,•,. \ \ N-..... 1 Ns- -I •••,'''.- -..: ' . --'---• •••-- 's-- •••••0..::::0':'7..- LoP rR.OPERTY LINE . .... ,.:.1............., .... .,... BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY i —--•- - -.A-.... -.7--:''..:**. "' .': L. .'7 ":".'''...77. \ ?N.., , _. --•.;"1. " . .\\4' :; ' Brordrup \\\ ••:.,- • C IVIL. INC. eit .• Exhibit D .s y s 4," SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT OFF-SITE ANALYSIS REPORT Helistop Project Site Development Longacres Office Park Renton, Washington July, 1998 Prepared By: Sverdrup Civil, Inc. Bellevue,Washington Prepared For: BOEING Commercial Airplane Group SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT OFF-SITE ANALYSIS REPORT Helistop Project Site Development Longacres Office Park Renton, Washington July, 1998 .a 4 to sc . 41152, c� . `?', V.'42 ONacs.;. 7%0 8 I EXPIRES 06/05/ 'oo I Prepared By: Sverdrup Civil, Inc. Bellevue, Washington REPORT OVERVIEW A. Purpose This report is submitted to fulfill the Storm and Surface Water Drainage portion of the City of Renton Building Regulations, Chapter 22. The City's Surface Water Management Division requires that a Level 1 off-site analysis be completed in accordance with Section 1.2.2, "Core Requirement #2: Off-Site Analysis" of the King County Surface Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. B. Introduction The Boeing Longacres Helistop Project Site is located in the City of Renton, Washington, on the Boeing Longacres Office Park property. Longacres Office Park ("LOP") is a corporate office complex developed by The Boeing Company on the site of the former Longacres Park Racetrack in Renton, Washington. The 1994 EIS prepared by the City of Renton analyzed a preferred alternative Master Plan for LOP. This preferred alternative projected the construction of approximately 15 buildings on the 164 acre site over 15-20 years. To date, property immediately north of the LOP site has been developed by Boeing for its Customer Services Training Center ("CSTC," 1993). Within the LOP campus itself, both the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters Building and the Boeing-Renton Family Care Center (a day care facility for children of Boeing employees) are currently under construction. In addition, an extension of Oakesdale Avenue SW, which will serve as a major access to LOP, is currently under construction by the City of Renton. The proposed action is to install and construct a private helistop facility, which will be constructed on an existing paved parking area. Infrastructure improvements will consist of less than 5,000 square feet of new pavement, helistop marker lighting and striping, a windsock and surface water management biofiltration facilities (filter strips) along the access road to the helistop. The site location and vicinity maps are detailed on Figures 1 and 2. Helistop Project Level 1 Analysis Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 013747\22I0\engrAdm_IvIl.doc Page 1 July 1998 II REGIONAL OVERVIEW A. Green River The watershed area of the Green River above Renton is 450 square miles. Above the Howard A. Hanson Dam the watershed area is 215 square miles. The Green River flow is controlled by the Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, which is responsible for the regulation of dam outflows from the Howard A. Hanson Dam at Eagle Gorge on the upper Green River. The regulation limits the flow at Auburn to less than 12,000 cfs for up to a 500-year storm frequency. This flow rate represents a 2-year recurrence flood event if the stream were not regulated. The flood profiles for the Green River in the vicinity of the Longacres site indicate the same flood elevation for both the 10-year and the 500-year flood frequency. Flood profiles of the Green River with and without levees generally indicate the same elevation of 23.2 feet in the vicinity of the CSTC site, opposite S. 158th Street (Longacres Way). Elevation 23.2 is significantly below the West Valley Highway which is at approximately elevation 25 to 29 adjacent to the project site. Therefore, floodwater from the Green River will not enter the site during a 500 year or lesser flood. On July 18, 1985, the Green River Management Agreement was entered into by King County and the cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila. This agreement was updated in 1992 and generally outlines and provides guidelines for improvements, monitoring, operations, and financial responsibilities. Important operating procedures are presented for the P-1 pump station, including maximum pumping rates from Springbrook Creek/Black River as follows: Helistop Project Level I Analysis Sverdrup Civil, leo. 0I3747\22IO\engr\drn_IvIl.doc Page 2 July, 1998 Black River (P-1) Pumping Operations Limits Measured Green River Black River (P-1) Flows at Auburn Maximum Allowable Pumping Gage (cfs) (cfs) Less than 9,000 cfs As required 9,000 cfs 2,945 cfs (I) 9,500 cfs 2,900 cfs 10,000 cfs 2,400 cfs 10,500 cfs 1,900 cfs 11,000 cfs 1,400 cfs 11,500 cfs 900 cfs 12,000 cfs See Note(2) Note 1: Assumes full installed capacity is available. Note 2: Maximum allowable pumping rate is 400 cfs to zero depending on levee monitoring by King County Director of Public Works or his designee. Further restrictions on P-1 pumping capacity may be required per the Pumping Operations Plan. B. Springbrook Creek The confluence of Springbrook Creek with the Black River is established by FEMA as the upstream end of the P-1 storage bay of the Black River. This confluence point is 0.6 miles upstream of the Black River P-1 pumping station and 1 mile upstream of the confluence of the Black River with the Green River. The watershed area of Springbrook Creek is 21.9 square miles with the following peak discharges: Peak Discharges CFS at Confluence Design Storm Event Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) 10-year 590 50-year 930 100-year 1,100 500-year 1,550 Helistop Project Level I Analysis Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 013747\2210\engr\drn_IvIl.doc Page 3 July, 1998 In the area of the project site the 100-year flood elevation is indicated as 16.4 at SW 16th Street and 16.0 at SW 23rd Street. This is because the 1989 FEMA update for lower Springbrook Creek only extended up to SW 16th Street. The drop in flood elevation upstream of SW 16th Street is a discrepancy between the 1989 FEMA update and the previous study that was not resolved. The flooding elevation of 16.4 is obtained by using the 875 cfs capacity of the P-1 pump station in operation at the time of the FEMA study assuming no pumping restrictions from flooding on the Green River when a 100-year flood occurs on Springbrook Creek. The highest elevation occurs in the forebay when the flood flow is less than the peak of 1,110 cfs, during the downward leg of the hydrograph at a flow rate of approximately 785 cfs. This high water elevation in the forebay is 15.0. This elevation is used in a HEC-2 (Hydraulic Engineering Model for Floodway Water Surface Profiles) to generate upstream water levels to SW 16th Street. This results in an elevation of 16.42 at the SW 16th Street bridge. The FEMA data does not include provisions for the SW 16th Street Bridge with a 60-foot span compared to the old span of 36 feet. It does not include the new multi-barrel box culvert under Grady Way, the box culvert constructed under I-405 or the completed P-1 Channel cross section from the mouth of Springbrook Creek up to the SW 16th Street bridge. The City of Renton authorized R.W. Beck and Associates, Inc. to complete the "East Side Green River Watershed Project Hydraulic Analysis Report," dated December 1996. This report recognizes conditions beyond those of the FEMA studies, such as the current Black River Pump Station operation plan, Black River Pump Station capacity, P-1 channel improvements, future land use conditions, the proposed City of Kent Lagoons project, and other infrastructure improvements planned by the City of Kent and the Washington State Department of Transportation. The result of these improvements and future development result in Springbrook Creek water surface elevations considerably lower than those reported by FEMA, in fact, the most extreme water surface elevation reported is approximately 13.2 at the practice track outfall under future 100-year, "storage" conditions assuming no further capacity improvements. This is 3.2 feet lower than that reported by FEMA. The City of Renton now utilizes the results of the latest modeling to determine flood elevations for the purpose of compensatory storage. The City of Renton is currently coordinating additional Springbrook Creek channel improvements from SW 16th Street upstream to a point south of the future Oakesdale Avenue SW bridge at Springbrook Creek. These improvements are being constructed concurrently with Phase 1A of the Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension to limit disturbance to the creek, wetland areas and adjacent property owners. The improvements will reduce flood elevations somewhat from current conditions by improving channel capacity and storage volume. Helistop Project Level 1 Analysis Sverdrup Civil, leo. 013747\2210\engr\dm_lvll.doc Page 4 July, t998 C. Black River The Black River as it exists today is 1 mile in length and its confluence with the Green River is 11.0 miles upstream of Puget Sound. A pumping station is located on the Black River 0.3 miles upstream of its confluence with the Green River. The watershed area at the pump station is 24.8 square miles, which includes the 21.9 square miles of Springbrook Creek. The pumping station has no gravity flow provisions. All upstream flows must be pumped up to a gravity open channel which discharges to the Green River. The fully installed nominal rated pumping capacity of the station is 2,945 cfs. There are eight main pumps with one of the larger pumps currently off-line. There are five diesel pumps rated at 514 cfs, two diesel pumps at 150 cfs, and one automated electric pump rated at 75 cfs. The FEMA study was based on the nominal installed capacity at the time of 875 cfs as the pump station's firm capacity of maximum discharge. The pump station has a forebay (called the P-1 pond storage area) that was expanded by excavation in 1984. The pump station's current installed nominal operating capacity is 2,431 cfs. The 1989 FEMA study indicates that peak outflows from the pump station had not exceeded 525 cfs (November, 1986 event with nominal P-1 pond storage). On March 4, 1991, the pump station operator reported a pumping rate of 750 cfs. During the February 1996 event the pump station operator had to operate 1 large pump, the two medium pumps, and the small pump for a combined nominal capacity of 889 cfs. According to the pump station's operating plan, the first large pump is to be activated when the level in the forebay reaches elevation 4.0. According to FEMA, a Green River flow of 12,000 cfs equates to elevation 19.0 downstream of the pump station. The pump room floor elevation is 25.0 NGVD. Since all upstream flow must be pumped the electric pumps are automated by float switches. The larger diesel pumps must be manually started and are used as required to pump out the storage pond. Trash racks are cleaned periodically depending on the debris build-up. There have been some flap gate failures with the rocker arm breaking off. However, the pump bays can be isolated from backflow with stoplogs. Helistop Project Level I Analysis Sverdrup Civil, Inc. Ol3747\22I0\eng\dm_Ivll.doc Page 5 Jul). 1998 An upstream fish ladder at the pump station is operated during the upstream migration period from mid-September through January. Between early April and mid-June the downstream migration is accommodated by an air lift system. A simplified fish counter consisting of a paddle in the upstream migration trough counts electronically the number of fish passing. Historical fish counts are as follows (H. Allmendinger, personal communication): Black River Fish Counts Season Number of Fish 83-84 155 84-85 119 85-86 47 86-87 82 87-88 166 88-89 95 89-90 77 90-91 70 91-92 107 92-93 291 93-94 120 94-95 268 95-96 355 96-97 206 III OFF-SITE ANALYSIS A. Study Area Definition and Maps The tributary drainage area to the proposed project site is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 indicates that under existing conditions, the proposed project site is within Drainage Basin 4. There is no runoff from upstream areas draining to the proposed helistop project site. A portion of the runoff from Drainage Basin 4 is collected in the building, landscape or parking areas of the Boeing BCAG Headquarters Building project (under construction) and directed to existing Pond "B." As described within Section IV(B) and Figure C.1 of Drainage Report - BCAG Headquarters Building 25-20 Site Development, Sverdrup, July, 1997, Pond "B" drains through a 24-inch diameter reinforced concrete storm drain constructed as part of the 25-20 development, and joins an older 36-inch diameter corrugated metal storm drain at Manhole H5 before discharging to an open swale in the area of the original practice track. The practice track swale empties to another existing 36-inch CMP which outfalls through a flap gate at the east property line. From the property line, Helistop Project Level 1 Analysis Sverdrup Civil. leo. 013747\2210\engr\dm_Ivll.doc Page 6 July, 1998 flow travels easterly through an existing swale before entering a third 36-inch CMP which discharges directly to Springbrook Creek. The remainder of runoff in the basin is collected by several swales within the former main racing oval of Longacres Park. Flow from these swales joins discharge from Pond `B" at existing Manhole H2, and is then conveyed by the same system described in the previous paragraph. Springbrook Creek is more than % mile from the proposed project site. Construction of this project will not affect the boundaries of the drainage basins. Runoff from the helistop facility will flow to either Pond `B" or the swales within the original main racing oval. B. Resource Review 1. Critical Drainage Area The proposed project site does not lie within a designated critical drainage area as indicated within Reference 3 Critical Drainage Area Requirements of the KCSWDM. The study area falls within the City's East Side Green River Drainage Basin, which has been extensively studied and modeled by the City of Renton. 2. Floodplain/floodway (FEMA Maps) The project site is in the vicinity of Springbrook Creek, which has an associated floodplain based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping. This project is outside the limits of the floodway but is within the flood fringe, or that portion of the plain outside the floodway which is covered by flood waters during the base flood. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (r"EMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 53033C0978F and Flood Profile 45P for Springbrook Creek, the 100-year floodplain elevation in the vicinity of this project is 16.4 feet based on National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929. Actual floodplain compensatory storage volume calculations will utilize the appropriate City of Renton-established floodplain elevation, as described in the City's Administrative Policy Determination, dated June 26, 1997. This determination makes use of the City's hydrologic and hydraulic model results rather than FEMA mapping for determination of compensatory storage requirements. No portion of the project will be subject to flooding based on the City's 13.2 foot floodplain elevation, therefore, no compensatory storage volume is required. Helistop Project Level 1 Analysis Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 013747\2210\engr\dm_Ivll.doc Page 7 July, 1998 3. Other Off-Site Analyses Other drainage reports in the vicinity of this project site are those prepared by Sverdrup for previous Boeing Longacres site development projects. The reports are: . CSTC Site Development T1R, October, 1992 . Drainage Report - BCAG Headquarters Building 25-20 Site Development, July, 1997 . Drainage Report - The Boeing Family Center Building 25-10 Site Development, January 1998. The drainage issues raised in these reports were addressed during construction of the respective projects and do not constitute problems at this time. 4. Sensitive Areas Folio Wetlands - No portions of the project area are listed as wetland areas in the folio, however, wetland mapping was previously completed for the Boeing Longacres property, identifying a number of wetland areas. Existing wetland areas are currently protected by filter fabric and chain link fencing, which will left in place for the duration of construction of this project. The nearest Longacres wetlands are within 50 feet of existing pavement proposed to be converted to the project site access road. Stream and Flood Hazard Areas - No portions of the project area are indicated to be within streams or 100-year floodplains, however, the project site drains to Springbrook Creek, which is a Class 2 stream (with salmonids). Springbrook Creek is approximately 1,600 feet downstream of the proposed project site. Erosion Hazard Areas - No portions of the project area are classified as erosion hazard areas. Landslide Hazard Areas - No portions of the project area are classified as landslide hazard areas. Seismic Hazard Areas - No portions of the project area are considered seismic hazard areas. Coal Mine Hazard Areas - No portions of the project area are considered coal mine hazard areas. 5. SWM Division Drainage Investigation Section Problem Database No problems are documented at this project site. All drainage, flooding or erosion problems within the Springbrook Creek main stem are being addressed by the City's channel improvement projects. Helistop Project Level I Analysis Sverdrup Civil, leo. 013747\22I0\engr\dm-Ivll.doc Page 8 July, 1998 6. USDA King County Soils Survey This information is shown in Figure 3. The soils within this project site are classified as Urban Land. C. Field Inspection Sverdrup completed a field visit May 28, 1998. The temperature was about 65°F and the sky was clear. According to National Weather Service (NWS) records for the Sea-Tac International Airport Station, total precipitation for the 6 days preceding the May 28th field investigation was 1.00 inches. The investigation revealed that some portions of the existing Boeing drainage system (open channels) outside of the CSTC, Headquarters and Family Center sites were covered by vegetation, but no evidence of flooding, erosion or plugging was apparent. It was also noted that the proposed project site discharge location at Springbrook Creek was operating correctly and showed no signs of erosion. The discharge point is a 36-inch steel tide gate at the practice track outfall (at the east property line,just upstream of Springbrook Creek). D. Drainage System Description and Problem Screening No problems were noted. E. Mitigation No drainage problems were noted, therefore, mitigation is not required. Helistop Project Level 1 Analysis Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 013747\2210\engr drn_Ivl l.doc Page 9 July, 1998 HELISTOP PROJECT SITE DEVELOPMENT itP. "W 5 <Clyde IN • 19 N2maAi �.':^ .. i`' U h*c•s��. � "�■ wWn- ■� 21M /t ' y e. = ®HIIIT,AB ' a NQftry Inglewood ,Ili.:('�.,11 r•�' 'R♦ 16 ♦ �" ; 17TX El ,I 4l zdl{t91 l >:t� Seattle ,�1,�.., `•�►�"may;_ k Medina„ o . �: t 1 :11;, I _y� L - ,�:►' 1, ''�1l c0•I ir°I ' "AB Bellevue ;' `r • /Scants •°IU e 3 = 4. I Duwamtth. _ 160 • Unieereey ) W `'O,' N\ 1 yT ; i AI i ,Head' ii.uorr EIr■2 , jn �( yEy Ktn.:ai L;� �� "tt B aUX� w Raslor2no/1� j r- ' r t ,%4B IP 5 ' {�4 s 1n * '�`�V x 2 n r n ci rI` /%AAb V rot. wA•:. I 1■ - RwTH n'• B . �� "I y Pant rof' x, I,1I^1., 163 '`> ° EastRate^ ,°AX Sa- a WAY S: �V� • •.� In r, '\ i ,iS,„ n<Bellevue MO~, ! " , Community.E I 4 e � ke 'a ,I\� �� ` „ M-�cer �; ° College ®�\ Saamamish `_g lir --s .� si •,6z sl nd • port Hills ;..:- � % r .t ;\?4A 6 N owne, 1\,m ?'. :r;1 AF• co,„caoft i R 1�'� a snunu r11XM 0 o g„ • I I 4 r+■ sRHY, Gomm• 1 b¢rearn at ✓� syA a° �E Suns, Ch M/IF [d •` FIIr7FX • Issaquah '' w w.e■Yen '. Q1 ! • Qt /,dr.2 1.! '`5 '�' White'''. •,4'� \ WAY °°"� /\ Do/pAM Center j `' ,� 1r etNrp� y5 it .?ANnt \ i ti '•��\• *'Rents.iiy l7i ® 1° b 1 T • 900 i1 ,• Hest r , \ Y h Skyway. ;oc 1; s.vrl -: aNsr u to •\ 3 nt•n'°'� 2m ST •'4SI 'iH 'Ii4ey tta t 4 • a© tit.. •I t —_• ' t \ / o sLa Riverton , t� d ssx+o I•.1 Heigh, o kwila �_ n '',Paint Burin sT ° .. . , nn .�2 2 a I v• 0 R ;'Beals 0~•.:7 � •��••■ •-r,✓•� '"M,I/.Y RENTON®TARO : , ,P • SEA-TAC % r I,�' v COVE TH•• � y<aOy AIRPOR ■�s ��W OPore A 8 �y se .,»TX sr Fairwood c Vashon'2 6 '�' P 2 .�o vFr,. c°r Normandy xo taliH ST• ® PRO" , C T a sm.TH .Viuhon _) EAST Pdr• .a ac -�J�1(/iRAee� € yt' .?� I` Center Q • g �/ ce Ro s 6 $ 1', / /. �' �� SE 205TH ST 11a ortate Des '` © S 212TH " 3yr' `E• Malle l Moines - - sE < I. Valley mn ST " °r 2 ,v.` I A 22em • r q Valley ■SOLE ' 'Kent SE 2ROTN ST3 illrja �A 8`rt7. _-)Point RobinsonRod'nSWI n •, _ SE 240TH ST<` 0 )PomF Zenith . _ �/ 8 ds,3 P e P Hlghl ne Woe,ST ' c Ta°°Dockton , \So' % Saltwater Comm g •• 1,< C 3 i( JP'� ( •-43 S. 2nNa ST 4 • `^RAi1cLEY ■a ID ® P J PASSAGE B Q \ 4 )/ Red0I1d0, S 2nTn •ST ,� - h Covinpn Ed SE 22gN ST I. G < • Ca'rr'�GION•�WY[R Rat l7 An*, -Dsh a ,ILjsn Communityrj p 'EM / Point CI •g• \ tt,. - �s s,�[E / Dw.• 6 Q co^," , 3 ,teTN sT > _1 SE 312TH ST 5 •+ ,f CN Fer1� PONE• 770~ WT °®• ://trAuburn2_ •eTX ST SE n i�__— 0SM't°S' ,OX'°RC Feder.I W: •e1"`K Li • :Ir• Aow+a \\ r, /4Lrth /3A3 ro ka POMP v` :'<)!' \e <SW 1, <330TX �®e� •� ■ _ -. `�\' AUBURN-9: DMMENCEMENT .'+,--.— 414A �� ire' While 'i e',Vade,, Ay ..-•��p'w M.,. si SW ...m Hlstor.a:llu r-i .0µlF�L .�.. i .„, LOCATION MAP Source: Washington Official State Highway Map,WSDOT FIGURE 1 Helistop Project Level 1 Analysis Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 013747\2210\engMm_]vll.doc Figure 1 July, 1998 HELISTOP PROJECT SITE DEVELOPMENT �_/�. Black ---Riuer I V 3--' _ ' `i/•''� g ✓3 I 1 7 1. i /_ 1.- '! Ii ,i's �� f �P�in Sta r 1 -__• � 9 r ,\%,,,‘,,moss _ _ 1 _ ,,,„,.,...„ 1 ,. : .1 ,., ,.._,.,,r iipw .... iii),1\:\:,, ,,, ,Iipir...i, 104111111 ilj l' . 'ill " leir. — .411--\'' s--'llirg ,1 2,-),','.F.i-.3g/,4,,§,.,,,, 1i:• oat(#e, f\ tt wage �i.-!.-- ..sa ♦ _� E'r'' ° ._•-:: �` 6.:-- \ Treq Pan �$$; \ GSA' l 1 ram �� ' \. -1.i:*1-t-4•7.t* o---- ...-.. \i 114.6Il'..--..''.t\,lA1._rie4\,. --ifl 4,liP.‘p.l..a.. 1ji&lw1Ai i Li1.i1.(I)t:.\(./k Plvr)iir c, -4a)\,; 1, V, . . r g2 4 bsta■ r A—Iltalih.,, •k.pn4..4.t.i_11 , , _ .. �.. ,� ram) j, 1, I 1i 4° PROJECT SITE _� ,iii- . � ■ ,I 46 M v\ ( a11 1411 w\ :el• ~ Y ar_ Tat': ...lj,:0 i it, Ai, .‘.,4 ,!! SUilta �v . II 411116i fir y. �--. — !ryy` , V r et ii..11 ■ i 1! 25 111 r �i 14' Tukwila Ilel F(''i I 1 i-1 s 1 —",-, r eb I • �/ 'I.; ifl III it 'Vto - ,`/ . `�-- 1= / . ,, '1. I I IllI . /II do civ dim i •�__—.--= j ��i I 1 , ' �.�., f ,..�. % .1 IV GreeneIII. _ 1 ./ s 1 p Orillia l L1-- I LJ .�� h� -,-I • ., iik '•, . ; `i i 11' ,1ffp1 !FIP!JI I _i .._._._J -i`?1 .,'" f'. co IL. o -.i;;�'- I; ilW191 I mi COFtP •; • ,1\ 11, .,..__,..._,,...lifiL,!,...1,7 Sui:I 36 , . 2;d ' ; _ �'f/• \: _ \WI. ' '. VICINITY MAP Source: USGS Renton Quadrangle FIGURE 2 Helistop Project Level I Analysis Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 013747\2210\engr\dm_lvll.doc Figure 2 July, 1998 4.# -:.-"-SUB ., . , 0 ..,. . ',- ......--' -' BASIN 4-8 \--444. \ \\.\ _____•_,- • _ _ _ SCALE: NONE SPRINGBROOK CREEK .:•'• N.:W..isollokZ4n,ip,•-•- ,,- ,,I, . -..._ ,-1.,.....„.love;,....4- - ....,. —,..-. .. •....._ '-•--- 1 ._____-- ----_2LJ, _., j .r.,.. ...,.. ...; ........"-' --',...",.,...--,.. :at. ,IP.:', &10' ........,..:.n.,:•NZ,4'1,,,...,, N \N'L*..',, .: ,7C• ..••.:-.1, s'A'* '-',„00111‘,.* * I .hlt !*ZiK;X‘'"•• ?‘ -. ' ' -''''' ..."s- 4AL -.us**••. . fillirrly.--;;;4 , .092"_ • 0„„__ -•___ • -'.44.-•• ', ''''- . i ..4 .-7--.:7-- --"'"""'". ___4140(..„. _ _. 1 'r..*;.:,..--,:..m........._ •-='' •illibi• 1 - .• MMTV IMININ h",..; '1 , kt:1 k...'.k.,if„,.•-,' 4/i14.11.11'.111;•%,.. ..... .,••••,1,-... "....•••41,..!.... .;155412,, ,,t.... ......- .rrot , "----.-••-mis011... ..;,,,-•• ••••.— _—",, _,...........„..... .. . . , • .''''"' , 1 ' c-'3:N`':;;:, 1 AZ:is c j.•iiiroma mpg -, mini t v i. WI- t —Jo. VSY1/47.t•7,,,--N, -- - --,T r:----- INVIN .: ,a, rk:-. ,...-,; iii±,..,, Nil:-witrirwimignigi ,-vim= , cf li 111 ...lino... ,,..,, „, ri•,,-,*,1-N,..,,.,.......„.. : 74, .,.,__„--Lit_:_-__I 0 tOPPAVO 0411_1.1,.ittm ,i; lizt,i—t L.putiimi !1111 • , , _ . gu, • - ........ 1. 10) b.-i,-,...-:.: ,,,..-4 Mk,--, ,-..uriasg. -,,, ., _ . MAW — kill.1..::•; ' '..V. • r. iii 111114111"."1.4.VI .illif.-;:-"t i - „..-- i .7,,,... ,,,, ..::.liiailf ...i... a=•.-_,,,„.... .. r i Fi - _ - - ... a -...- ,.,... ifol ,..,,,,,,-,ii 1. .:; rig,,.,w_dipiruiroar, MI . ; ,„,.. I ' ./ I.: ) IttifliiIIIMAI : .....___.. 1 • . . i -, , ! ..„ 1 . .7, ,,,41 *: 7. v• *•:.;iiir;iiiii•-iiiiiiri.--Miaik , . Millib•VAIII ir ' ,---"' ,* ', .,' 4.14. 4 .- '....,ii* ,.. . gur7:::". I C:'.4‘.•,.- i ---.4---riirradamia----- .; , ..-;--- Ji•Nqlgigr-4 1461W11tP xallip..._.•,., - . .: PR el i'''.! .• rdiks%1\141,-141bai'ili • I : Ir?. —,..,.....,......„ • i - -... „., \ 1 • , 1, ''' ... ••••,., \I.' E, it tilatikritim,'-",.."'-j11111 ' :114.:': 'c- '11VA ' 0 )iik. 4ar ill Aliilli• -*=- ,ii L---- If/ -11111110--'4 Aer-,. ' l'Arlf T IN ! .;l . IN: . • - ._ ASHdit ..-_ • : •-.1-Ti- ."... i' -.. i0 ' '' _.:i 7147-,.; .11',41;'.' \ , .....„....,v..4,IF.,:\..111lTo:diummeminimp..C:3.4r- _,Zrilltilijea:07:_.7.‘411.1PKI".komnadik:i1V52----1-mi- 6..:„..Lilb Tif t11.1'1:111:17. t 1.;,.. ... SW 16th ST 1-405 \ tii :-,,,: 1 -.:r.1'1_1: , i.......... ,.......... t:,i: SITE SOIL GROUPS i.„_pittworl, 11111111411V ivilanik. .. •• •' MilliTh."4° -...""elll '"7-14.1ii' .404.111%\r, ' • • ...; UR - URE3AN LAND \ . •:•:•:•:•:"..141 N -,--.4--e•415F6ACIII _...,...77!::"•:--.- _ .., ,....4 , - - -,..„ .....•.•.•. ..._ _ F-72-7:1 WO - WOODINVILLE SILT LOAM " - ••:. . .., ....___ g ••••••-••••••••• '•::::::: ::--------- \ ---- _ BNRR If-iiiiiiiii': PY - PUYALLUP FINE SANDY LOAM -t: - •\', _74.iiiii;iii. I , -4ii;F: NG NG - NEWBERG SILT LOAM . • - — - .4 k _ . :::i:•:::; .11 _ .1:,;:•._ . . UPRR I I _--.. ; • i t._ .,,,,,;..•-r! I I ---iiiiiiii n ii •\\ i'c-\\,'\,'‘,..\.\--•.-. m1a_,._,1fi_-n1ao.1.m...,•1-e•.n.,. :,,,.„r.'o.Ml1_iK.r.1d.S.m'1-ti pl1 i* •';1 i.I1_ -,.l:2,_..'-.-1-'--q„.-.-.-\r i1-_.r_06--,.-:Ii11.--i„,„i:_/A,,:fr W.:.,.::E.g7-i:_Si i:r-:].,;_1._-1'itV_.!:o..!:.•-r0,_.-1,.,,-,.-,•.-r.'::.-..",::t,,;7 -.7•:.11 v-.-2—4--1i--4M1 ii::C,,•,..v,:::..,.i:•.!.•...::•!.-1::•:!..-1::•!.-:;•)i.•4-,•::i.•..,,.•:"..,j f- •.,•••••••D••'-`9 C'--3-.-.1....•',.1I'1-r'. _, UR , 1 , „ i \ _-- , GREEN RIVER N- CIVIL. ra. N. MINN If VMS 1111 WM 161111111 --• Or WNW MI ZEPTABILITY 10.0 ipAloCIPIN:=4„ 1124,N IMMI !XXII DRAINAGE BASIN MAP _ - 'ntE SURFACE WAMI IIANACDIENT OFFSRE ANALYSIS REPISRT FIG. 3 A TOEZA ft; OMNI NI MR NC 01.24.111 'WI HELISTOP PROJECT i•si. - ' ' 013111111 a".Roman 1 (cnt)MASTER UNGACRES OFFICE PARK-si Exhibit E 111101 ite' 0,4.'".• I . 1111 d 1.4.:-..... ,-• ... , sCPPL.OSRANTOR.OPGK AEPR(7C..LR.RT0JOYEPP S..:R..ON...TFE.Y/C.L/..I .0. \,.,.,•••,..,4'.„."-•, 1..1.1 ,, :,.,/. . . 111111 BF(FLEEOLMgA,PFLEALLOIENOv D4ATPRIL0EAA4INS 1 E6L.4 .10 li - .,;1 ., ,,„ EV. ATION) 0I r ISOP GERmARPMRM3IC0 I 0T cr..S:F ET 1e'i 4 ,.. 11,01,10.0,11,i,1111,11i1 :11,111111- 111! iillgriliDyi '• . 1,-. •-..- •,,.-s.:.,-,„-.;\,..' .•, ,Iii!il.14111111;!,ilillii:is ii1.11.ii I 1 --:l',.... 1 . 1111 III ' 1.‘ 11,':',11 . .4e:..114:11111fliik..111)14:-.. . ‘. ii.. . ,:, ..i._.....zt..f.lc.,...:41•.•iiiiij,iii.11!1.11!,1411,11 L,...1,' I: \ 1 „cv,eliiiii!:,1144;iiiiii[iire 0111k.,.• P, 1 i ri4- ,-,:,•N,‘,.$ i:!;d91 il .1 :.f: oil ll "-• . II' . 1 II Pi PROPERTY OF -...----• , ,R. •,! !.. • (,f-).,, -,i . •r. L .rz 07.02.98 'LOP e..,04*.....-•••'', •11j1194•1'110:*:'.111111r101064 I ,, • •-2."7",-A..43., ‘•;,•;,. .IIIIIIIII i! L11111111;1411 91111111 II • hill• lit ,I i li l'i lerill OrY Or SEATTLE .•••••••••''s, ‘1164:.:1111r:A• I 1 •'''.:•!1".;.' "':r •::•.,8‘. s.1.• .!VIII i''',T:'.'.'211,11::,',1,:.9' •-, II.,"-. .,isg; ! ' II' dill 0 - couR RlyEa ripsonic : j 1.3 'PROPER rY •.0*,;;;,, •,,,,,,,,,,,,48••••:' .:,...-4:3•%..s>, .-Sk.-••• • L.:- :''.'Phi • . ,'.... *--,- I- '''.fl-'''--''l I,! .1ilTliiril'i 1 l. ...'- I l 1.1 1 ' '' 11111 1111 ' 4 - iii,......,i4iitii,, ,..........,.....,---..:-.-,,,,. •......;11,;y::;_,..., .,_,.::- _..,.,:,:--:',- -1,:-.''. 40. • '... III 1 1111 1 III l,I. i _ I I I i. 1 iFIfiliftE OAKESDALE AVENUE•SW ,1. :v) LINE..,\ • • •lei ' '0 . •\ ' ' -.,'•--4,:-•-••••••......- • • • II NI 'IElliMl!illit:11111MI 9:1'IN'Ililrlf!r:!::191',H11'.1111'1' 5' A-v,737--. \--:*---z.'" I 11,1 '.:iPilillili11111111111141111111111111' 1111111 •‘. ,---.........,.,,, . ., .„ . . , 0 , ...)_.\.-.,,. III' '''''' 111111111 1'1 11 r•rgr-r!i4 MI.....if-s.;i.. i i• i!)...,i it)efig i:1.1:• 1.. ,;i,1.• ':......,. ...:.,......,1:i..:‘,...L$7.71.,, -1,i sii 1 ,..,4.: ;1 , (.. • J : ----=-----:-.0 j :• f...--5 L'..r'"----N '-a----.3.::.-:iS......-..c.•••=•-•..-..":1 ' 1 1 I '1 1 i : ,, • ,, .) ...4•P :,:: . I: :54p •!: , : i • -- ---,' --1-- --,,,,.•.:.!-----••••••-•:, .: , 4--•,:-- -- •• -,....2. : .-5.....*,...„.. •,,..--0-6,, ,. 1 1 I ' IIIIIIII!II!!$11:11111 , /-pfttocpER : , , , . i-e.•v • ,..,„.7;_-..da.7.-:-..,......:_....4. .. i,0 1,:i - , ..,,,( '..,, . ,t.191'N-1 II 11 :Ir-kse-Tr-,i7n. ---•--r-7-----7,J- 1 f!fe"----.- . I.;•-• i -II I '• I /I, :..c,.2;/,,,.;,,. ..__4.)_ ..‘,A.1,... i:I.,..,.....:v.,;11....,. ...4...,.:...,,..2..............:i ...z. .1-......._„Q .::.....;z1:\..5,,,e2L,..c._. ---j-----.!.(i11-7--:ts,‘-.. i ..71--'•-•-:=•.:.1c1;LI 1----•' 11iIII;11!1.11.1 III I III I I 11 1111114 • . . ,:r C ) •-,V. ,ii i '., It Iv:r/ I:- :- • - . .. J, •;1 Jr - .ki '?,k..Z.-!_i.t5I.ikt,,,;4' .1,"6.Plunt''''1-••, sit-k. t,1 .. .; ,i. ,4-'1 '7-- ..) :)--.i.i.),N..,... ,- .,....,------d'i'llh011ilii 1..........ii 1 : . 25-01 11 •i 25-02 i t. • !.. CSIC I," I 1 , 0 c!,.,,,.,..._.1. ,.:1; ,ii.. ...1,v....._..1....,::::..::=._ _...,,.,..,,_,:-. )_......L. I ill . . J BuILDING .. ... ".---. , c' , • ,i 1 :' 4 crr'''''''•.'!""'* 'Imo,,.. i, II 1111 111111111 ---- •• ''‘... .....cyS.-.... ..., .. p, \.11-":-.'-:::- , , , I1 1111 1, eill"61111•1111'111111111 IIIII ill ' ,,...\\X---,, .: S •/ , .1 :r '-‘,114 r\ S \ 1111111111 1 ,„,... ,, ]::. t • '-'/'y ' ' 1 I . II 1.,I'lliii,11[111111 IIIR11111 lir ".110 1 1 li 01 1 1 ,..,,..0.,,,i .., i.,:',.! „f .. .1., li i ... , I.1,\ (, ) N... =... 'II,,, 1 11 I 11 • c :r 1.:--.^-:* ''. 'I' ''' 1 11. • 111"11111 111:i:,*it' 11111' 1 1 III 1,1 ,111:i.,:31l1:11!,I I h.."111 il I.1 ,,Ilip.;WIC!,, I i 1 ..1;t1.\. .,. ' A ,I ;I, L6 .. ii ... , 1). . { \ ) ,.. -....., • q. "k w o ii l':---•,ii.,. i !, i -:t.\ - Je,-- '•----"iii ' il 1111111 : rc..,-kilitiiii•--771 4, „4(.7 4.);/7 III •.'• - 11111'k,It/1111% . , 1 il, "11 111 . 11 1. 111 il ii.gielovIllus:::s. 11 1,111,1 IA'I 111... 01 11 I I 11111 1111011111 • o e g it 1.!iiiii:111111111i11111111 111111111 i 11 I I 1111:1\:. -II' ''(--ii IT- ii - 11' ; ' ' t i)/ \ ........., ...., , , • , e......,.......,...4.1 as, , 1 h h,Nilti,,,i:Ilii 1,1111:1141,1$;h11.!1:1,•,.:,..!1111111111 1;111.1 Ill ll ill 'I II . • \ : \ V., 5E. , : 1,...•,.,.,.,...a -.°li) / f ///, ,. 1 r, 1 11.1iIi:IIIA•;4111'?.,:Aiio 111::ipi!,:..!!;:iiiiii,i4;i1;i1L1-1111,11,:r;ii0ii..,11:0r4 / III' .i., .ii1Z-1?-y-ri i.1--TEr'N.:-,t:-.4----kt ..!..4,., h 11 lio'..II!,,;11...414.4:1.11 ,p r.,,i'l:,,,:lionomillilliNi0e4,01,01/A• 1111::,.. I r I. • 1: / ill ,,„ ....., .o 1 1 illq,••••40.411-1 ......:-.,,,!-N„:::!...!,!„„,„,:ott,,,r,.,.,....; . ..,„,(;,10 I. ;,,, .._:.____,.._,llmi„,.. .. .1.1.,... .,.:. .!.:,.:-.:.,.id7-. ... \ ; --;,..., -,..• ....1 1,1 \ 0 \ ;-- v -•..,.-..t.,....... • i I, - ),"'‘' -.-,...?, ,,..d., ,,,,..1..„!--,5:;.„--ci.: 4y.!!m1*iiiirgi,,,,w.:: 1 ,..--iit..i.i, -- ...,........ :i'. •00!, .:Ii.111.1.1....:•;-.(1il.111:'1.l''' 14 ..:t 4 #11) !1 .: 1 II 11 I I I , {• /f .....)\I:f f . ; i,q i ..s.EXISTING . ; ;1/ \ '\I' ',l'',....'C•44 Lc, L.j4•14;: 14-all.,111111411111LilLr.:::111.1:1t.11.1 1111=,. LI I.i i.1 i i 1 ..=. ...1Aii I111 I I I I 1111 d ; ! / i till -- ,,\\,;,\,, , ,\ v,tr.g,14 ,•:,i . , ..,„ ,.. .4_1, i„d:rr..„13,...„....00"..., .. . ,---;•;::::;.F;;:ar:1!;! i.1F-illi:;,1Te.ii; ---- , . -- ,ill ,:. ":: , I 1 i . ..... \ \\\ , ,.,„,,...0,1A1.. \ .;. ,..1,.. : pilliril; 1,1,1,)Ilil i.,s"1 li pillt i., •. • 11 • .r. _i\ 0,-vs ,-,...,..c.:, .„,•,, . \1 ,:,,rytlr,,,V1410111,,'" 1.lil11111111 - ., 11 I I I III 11'' i:,,(1: li 1 II 1.• . , ,,,, ...,ToscoKfi-p„_, t.,-)(.,-/,'-„,,,---„,..,:.-..\•,::. .: , ,,i ,,, „ . ,, , , L ip .' '__ I.'::'--'i.I ', ..,1011,1,c:1111i I ,_..,.;,---:e...,,L.1: /II i. :.. .,,Ii I).e....itjj 'll \-' • 1)'.1\ 111111,1111,11,till[tilt 111 . . " 10 I!" il: IIIIIIII 1,1111.1 1111111 I .1,111 • II III 11 '. I -.. ': • P"I ;#10.11111111 !!i.11,. ii,li it iv 1 +,, ‘,, % I,• II; .....•• 'III • !Ill iiihill 11,1i!! III 011111411!IIIIIii!iiii'wall 1 1 li I i y-----..-Aii,,li ig ,r- -...- , 10e'iss,-Ns.pi .... 1 -------5.--e'> -;;,, ':'\-• -.L..,,,--.--4- i:-.,---,...„ ..,-- ,,.. ,,..: -..,(,, .% \''r'+, .•...Hill 1'''' \\% :1/4 11111111111111111 '''' I I III • • 1111 II 11111 1111111 1 I 1111111/11 1111111111111i ill 11 I I 7,1.-...t'r'--- \ \ - - l.V.,!....,:•'''''... BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY \‘,:vv. .,,,•:::::••• i Sverdrup • 10111W Taw.. raw iPc ''CL" '". ''''• l'In FLOODKAIN MAP (16.4) .... ... OEM .M10/VIIWORD tr: ... sE ..., SuTuTtm.OJECT -11 AfF0E7N6 mn. ou ul , _ HELISTOP PR ,....xmo,, Pmeoc• /Mt)MASTER LC9CJOILS CiTICE PORKin. Exhibit F Exhibit G it'- TOUIi WidtiKJtlttI - titIHIIV MJ Ivvn %...vrI! ""tt" c,cvuwu / NC :E OF LANDING AREA PROP( 1L J,O,....d,,,.,. . r.d.rar A..4.e n a.d.inion flea Name of Proponent.Individual or Organization Address of Proponent,Individual or Organization (No.,Street, City,State,Zip Code) Boeing Co. - Richard J. Ford P.O. Box 3707 m/s 19-35 ❑ Check if the property owner's name and address are different than above. Seattle, W d. 98124 and list property owner's name and address on the reverse. ® Establishment or Activation 0 Deactivation or Abandonment } OF 0 Airport 0 Ultralight Flightpark 0 Vertiport ❑ Alteration 0 Change of Status CO Heliport 0 Seaplane Base 0 Other(Specify) A. Location of Landing Area 1. Associated City/State 2. County/State(Physical Location of Airport) 3. Distance and Direction From Renton/Wa. King Conty - Washington Associated City or Town d. Name of Landing Area 5. Latitude 6. Longitude 7. Elevation "'tiles Direction Longacres Heli -stop 47 `( . Zit 34 1221 14 1 14 ._ 16 n' B. Purpose Type Use If Change of Status or Alteration,Describe Change CIConstruction Dates ❑ Public Establishment or To Begin/Began Est.Completion ET Private change to traffic ❑ Private Use of Public Land/Waters Ott`rn(Desaibe10-98 1 1-98 on reverse). Rel.A5 Above D.Landing Area Data Fristing(if any) Proposed C.Other Landing Areas Direction Distance Rwy 111 Rwy 112 Rwy U3 Rwy Rwy Rwy From From 1t.. Magnetic Bearing of Runway(s)or Landing Landing A Sealane(s) Length of Runway(s)orSealare(s) Renton Municipal NNE 2NM In Feet Seattle-Tacoma .Q' Width of Runway(s)orSealane(s) International W a 3NM b� in Feet Type of Runway Surface a (Concrete,Asphalt, Turf, Etc.) Dimensions ( Approach and 2- kaffAreaF TO) 80' DI A i)imensionS of Touchdown and 2 6'X 2 6' Lift-Off Area(TLOF)in Feet Magnetic Direction of Ingress/Egr�,s 160.5y328° E.Obstructions Direction Distance = Routes From From Type ;Landing Ong l ing Type of Surface Concrete T L F Afe. Area Area (Turf,concrete,rooftop,etc.) Ace �i i t FA�0 3. Description of Lighting(If any) Perimeter of Direction of Prevailing Wind An FATO w/ Yellow Lights F.Operational Data 1. Estimated or Actual Number Based Aircraft I - Airpo- Pnwinr anticipated Rwent Anticipated Fighlpertt, (H cat indicate 5 Years Heliport (If est Indicate 5 Years Seaplane base by utter"El Hence by loner"El Hence I. i- lne r a"4 NONF NONE ,,,,-...,,i,b oArs,00ib "Gw NONF NONE Glider. G.Other Considerations Direction Distance 2. Average Number Monthly Landings From From Present Anticipated - c,e ant Anticipated Identification landing landing (H est kdreate 5 Years (If est indicate 5 Years Area Area by loner"El Herne by tenet'E') Hence Jet Het:coptx 5 5 Talbot Hill) School E 1 NM Turboprop t1lr.efgti Renton Residential N,E .5L1NN p, Glider Tukwila Residential W,WSW.5-1 N V a Are IFR Procedures For The Airport Anticipated Sewage Disposal Plant N .5 N M E4 No ❑ Yes Within Years Type Navaid: Black River Disposal NE .S N M H.Appiication for Airport Licensing I O Has Boon Made in Not Required 0 County ❑ Win Be Made ❑ State 0 Municipal Authority I. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that all of the above statements made by me d cote ere to the best of my knowledge. Name,title(and address if different than above)of person filing Sign i a this notice—type or prin C -?o�30APPWr Cok✓A(b s 2_ ,[-t G "1ek . Q 0 f i rJ 6-, Co/1 M' 111 L if. R Pl--1 N -6-.P Date of Signature Telephone No.(Precede with area code) (206) 655-9888 S6-R-ITL E, ii//4 Ci8f�t-f - 9-9-2-0? 7�6G le • FIGL ; 1: HELISTOP LOCATION A P '‘. V iP ; —• isofirs4rirftra aft-le.•--- Irdlial111-11111111-11111P. 0.„ <`'ll \ \.• i ,,, -----tr-:--- --- ,,• ; 4• A\'1A,\ ..1-41-p..e.\j h\ n \ ;, , ,� / J ♦ :.1 C. I.\.\.sYV -4 tA.t\ ``. I �� Black • 1 7 Ni /iii,: ri 11.3 2, , . 1%,,,,Impvr i, , - i ihrope 'A1N.9i ,'�Nr.,..6-st: ` 1 ` ■ Ppwer� rif , ,,,,, 1: 14,,w,:k k` •� `\ o1 • swage \t5 ' �� *.�••lgt4., lielt \ ,,f4,.' � � , \`°� �T� - • '-'�.�- er.eamoLch�� . it •''11 ('l ,; I tit �� _� �114111%OP y :. Imo_ go.. �:,. , 64• P "- al Pi 1146 - Ili INV awe• 47' .011 ihr 1 t:- __ isi vlk ::. Atioaurcenter I .(:,IIa U • _- __ 11 '� wili . ..i , t_ 1 IP et - ikeli \ ...�26, IL' Lt. i' 3.0_ I , - lit"Ira F I II;Tukwila I I lerja 1 _-_ . . 11 de r—,:-.7.-. ::-.;-= f i C _____!- ,._ 4.- ___:: )_' . 1 1 A , ,Orkl NI 7,11: I. 1 1,i <%. ti-lir-W- • % gal* i -i '"N‘• i .c\ i _AI 7 q4,41v ,I ofti L . b, L 1 ..- . 1 1 i ' ---! ., i ,� _. � ■gyp, , '��'��1 ,i1 �I i' Gi"E11 �. ! flatl1c,lt 4 diu�'iw:• .• • RE:NTO - �K'.L� -,� 1 1, fIIV�1 ■ la I ��c SCALE 124 0001 S 0, _ _ _ I ROMETERS12 11000 0 METERS 10002000IV; I S —�—MILES 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 S000 0000 2000 1000 0000 10000 •• •� �, .-.. ..� �. .�. �- _ z--sue •` A • rtn • _ ill 1 Subs 1111 ?1\ \IV -I .., fl IIII IOC' id ,r1.-41„.. - I ill AL 7.4"117 • al. Ma I / Note: Radius shown is 1 NM. Sources: USGS Renton Quadrangle, 1994; USGS Des Moines Quadrangle, 1995. `tY Alli7 SECTIONS 24 do 25, LONGACRES OFFICE PARK • g ' G, T23N R4E W.M. RENTON, WASHINGTONROJ FIGURE 2 \ HELISTOP PROJECT ��$• r►c i FM NOTIFICATION — — \ €��,��\�G0 --` /- 0 150 300 600 HELISTOP PROJECT ,, _-' BOEING CSTC PROPERTY SINEr !' / ca) i �lli sclwE SITE MAP .,,,w\�. BOEING LONGACRES OFFICE..""fi •��`= /L'ir .- \�;x:j PARK (LOP) '. `• 1901 AIL STOP -3 S.W. PROPERTY " .' ' '_`�• f+.`: E LINE ,tr S /� •{," MAIL STOP 20-30 R'� _ - a �'"'' , 'F,` _ RENTON WA, 98055 �c5./ 1 /` •-v� 1�1, iii(. .,>:• .i Oc� 1,ice. ."...,:!.?:.L„+--:i++G: .:;sue_%- —.. rx r G��OO� #1 /% tt'll \'\if`�. �it l !jilt �1` t G 75 > ,vc�6h`/i;! �.. `\._• ../ .-. �\�`;�` V f f ,• �\, r•�i- 1 lr�+1] + \,,o 1 �K•� /t \ :\ ♦, \N •-•t / 'r•"' 1 <�jicl r. tI;_� )4rf e 1/raj�•t� •t!! �t i' •• ,t�t 1 1 .._.-•-t,.•' /` ! Q� i •C°.,s.'' r� +:. t'/1 1• ,! / 1 a(_......... \t'•ls" 'i j l i±!4! �i `'• fit! 'i�'i •, , `�\. , sp. �, sue\ �� C r/ i i 7' (._............__._....,so .: `•\ / \1 . !• ' / !/ iI. ' PROPERTY `-/ i f.` ” 't.r ». f#' ! ' ({:, \\ ✓•� iy'I \f j` c� �1 j r TM OF E/fTTL_E `\• t /r c�� _•- • .art a t � \•C to �� -_ / Q� PROPERTY /i p, .., " - _ UNE ' _ _ -/sly j 1 iJ L 1 4 1 ; _ ` ri �. ° Tii.mi:•141.11.l.l.4f:t t1.ti,.i1:1:33. .•::: a,t Via•` •':''�\t- .-. _ - -- ..._- ..- -.- •- — — \ UTURE OAKESDAL AVENUE SW _ a • `,ait \\ ' 11:':ti:,:u.' n,:: , ,: .. a1;:nt':nib �.� �= ." L.:� .,:..;-._.• -\. i' \ / M i, ,:i�?� c...�.• w ,•. . l _ I ,,.i1� �,� ( �••�k:.'� �:. �\��\ -tit:' ti: r` 't•. .._..,�_•, N. � Y !•'• ... r \ lLts.,.,t.l.i,•t i'Ti TI1 �'ITN' ��\\\� 31:1aii .ill6:: ilaaEi :ai 1::Atli ci f " `e. �/:�� r .�• �J 1 ( !i\ • {11 \ ,y,\ _ '\1 :ya1/y,r. ,;- _/i �p-_ • i l•_�-i r'� ..4"J ``l t }.tii�.{ .t - :1L.T:3l:1•f.til f'.7ii"iT1ii; i.!-,T`- 1. ;t!,.°t t Ei • ��'-• f• / ri `._-•...... .!, i! i_w �`��- C_:3i. .�. r §i i L-.. / z BOEINC 1 s 1 1 �1" • ��- I . "• L ',�,[ 7 `! `, / /t r. I.--.• 1.—:• i :! CSTC li- t l •t li /%/ lt�;'i 7047;?t i t _ .r s. ._y i ,.ticJ�_ i I: s•� Y • 1 • ji• . v SOUTH:1--. r z % PROPERTY ....•.».: 5..•.._-.• 1 / u^ - t:: f UNE :� i ,2 rr 111 / /:'�' BLDG t�K f ,: t, > t; :'1•• I_ `'tl•v ;`. = ..� ,..: `/' �i;=/' /f S' ::l=! / e++ :. •: V ;-(if. ��l I � :,411 1 . 0 / 1 j• I t / i_ C �r ..:'1. :; 1 i , J MHK$ . t.l J ��/r ;•i 25-20 :Jti_� rnr: eit riatu., tii:� _ ,v/ ,-- i,t r • ( {'` - 1 S \ , 1 _ x' ? I ' 25-0� '/�,� 'i I'i17i•I Ltl: :IiTt"�I iialtt ?71?' ! ty .., :' i , t.- ,'� {, I.. _ ! 25-02?! 11: CSTC r' I, .. ,///i f/ h/ ? 1 6'' I,t'\ = F\ i•' / ? ':::' -'A ,14' 73 _ • - % E t r. ',III ' BUILDING /..._.1i1 I;? •;r/ '/ .!r n. - '' .. -M.. , �I \\ t/ ':Q._r....� :'�4 i-- �:� \ ! ! r . 1 :t � /:5': •/. , tt • -• _•1 1 ICE rl l\/\1 •,'�• 'Y� - __ • . • i! ! t `/ _ .-. .� rT i .. t A -.I E4 . /T .i`\t , t •' f `••1 t 1��x / . • . ..\ \ V •/: ,_.//� - _f'T,mob' - -- _ titt^ _ �.•.- • .` `.. • i 1 / / / /� - / ' ,,`‘ ,,. \' `�--,_ i•+ cl 11. ': • ...-i // - _ ..., , ......... . i/t /- f i >' , j _ 3C :I �, t —,•...... \... �. { I "� //i / 1 /--i i `t ,\ �1 r i ♦\ ', �`t «y: �...,•-,,,rr j�/� '.� '...:.�' \'•\‘t ` �' / ;j I' /. '/` :� `r•� `� \ \,..,.. ', 1� I_ �^ • _t .ti. r ! / %/ / /. >•\ \``t`�t 5,.,tli r •-� �'+r ;r . / i�.� t\, r} 1 ,�,I h'1 ��i •r is i i• x Y r • I • • ! I !/ }� ! / I r \ �i �ItN i_ r j ) —„''B`,t':�` `.a �~ \ `!! f/ •i• :k j, ja �: f \ 1 • • t_ Nt /•tri i / /r. \ ♦ n _� \ — -ter/ '7' ;,�''�. "� •,�tt 1',• {:it I �. • l• it• li i.\ i .1 i •� , \ \ -\. � `t • '•• .! / En r t'I:" t t r t,r j / % T rt+r ->�: L. -.t� i;7 3 • .i. :t: :i ! ; _ — \ \ ;;, \\ �-- ,!t . 11`' ., •i-4--(•4—,.t1--:.w—i _ /K OFF PAT�I._ . • ,', 1 ••I ) ...,-i , t i�:�1. "4! , t \\ ` \+•� j ..../ ;! l/!�' A • i •t' `1 i• ,j i` I' :'I !I �, J..>.i �` \ 1 1\\ \,, /-. l" i . i ; : ' 1 :;' / �t ` •�•% ., \ `5.,',fxr .. � ii' ,trr ; \\\ 3�1 I. i r !i !! iI gFFI�iE I �i 'I tom•' 1•f' 1 i j• _ �, -', ,,• , •. -� •r ..i_trr ,ice 1,( L �:. { ; { t1' \\`' :.v.'i//.! 1! '^ `• ,{ 1 I a !/ /�I �!: +c , 1' ` i7.7 `� - , '� ` 1, td! : t; % 1� - .. i .i: tJ r _.._�_. -! i 1\.�L l' 1 !� i i i i �: i •� �, / '�� ! ram, ,• •_ '____., , ' t• F - s ►y ,-1� i 'k ! / i .i,w•I ---� --r- t / , •! / i: '1`F�'r ' si,T . , -F- % i i • �` c' p r!� / . �•!• +. 1 \\ l I - I 1ji�Ifi ii :•! ! i1 >: Ti `; •°i 1 ri �( +�- - - '-i --'a-.:IN `:!•i \ , 4 rci�,G. �� -/ N m \ I ♦�.� I 1 •!i ; �. i! �I: i° 1 1!i I' S - �� . -._:\`� i �\--- t� ti •\ ,i.,,..- W133'^Il li �, / fr ' \ I i ( ;`I ,i 1 { '-.•;'„~ - - `1... • :\ tt „..i.,, ► • 7:,,.,:: �1 `/ �! !/, .2"!..• ^ - \ I {II ��. / l i ��/r'r / I! u,`i ,i I i 11 \�! °t i { !� `'i _ x�\t�:_ , `�1 \ \ P. - / '\, .`� ' I� �_�_-- �'/� 4:/ { /,// L i i \I ' 11 t� t: L I' I i t � -� \ 7<\\1j _..� • tt3 : ,i y _ � r� .I �� r //il 14 l •EF.1 i I i !•c I 1 'II . t ' `' 4 bt}%".. ` '1 i t. / ! • ./� 1� •� I —__.��' 1 , / ! r♦ i I \•. !�'1Ii t' .1 ii' --• t t \4, Z :', � ' \\ tf j•,q.d tj; q: �•�•"�� is �•�_ / ._./ /i i/,' it l� 1 Ii .+. � :I i j :i !I •,: 1 f�,•.;t. •`. ! \ 2 .:� vgc lk� �� • �� _�� .i x _//y /1// i( !i t. !• i' \• J r � j! t>r t` •,1 .. a: .��\ .: : - T . �� , �ti�-----�/ 1 \�__ - / .l i; r� 'EXISTINGi t •,, .� lE.:.A'A _ .T �� I, �� .. -/' p/ / y_. I :' i= i ! 1' % 1 ' \. `_.. \1�', :• �� __ �� _ )• ! - .i is lIIt i SOIL '1 .I .ai' \� H i' -t 1\t• 4,,t••` _.. ,' ,ap, - ...,� -. .i�.1.-'s`_^,.T'x! -- -/- / /. �• ... ! %! �' t}' - x •: • f EJ ,yri .c • t,t t ,F!i t.,_._.. .._...._...._.. ._...._.•1 f.=.._. - ..........�,►. .....';•r..•c ^'i'�::.._--�•�/ / i ( T KPI L . I i .I �! 1 .1 I � • • • „ iv•• y • '•ti . •i .-..'../ '''' a'\.r : • / /r.C\_ .. _ •• �- \:, _ I I j i ` • •:� -t -t.. ••.rs -f f .r, .. ...ter.,•.: _ -- f •t •:., �•✓ !.•, y_-...>....-, gi '. it .-._....... _C> Y-A.,,,, ..s .. .... ......»..... ........ ,. ._._..... i i T ! � .,.. w^ t ,.'. 1, .to :.v.,.. .. .. _... ''' :+ < - [___::..• _• - ,:. ,.r. ''". BOEING PROPERTY LINE : T. • BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY _ ~a ',ice :> '�• Svurdru " c 1 ., , ,_ . iN c_ 0 I F r c :.i`: i:: ; I I I _'l1;r;1, ..M :..;•.. :, :: •i•..::.., ;•,ilia g s "11 as visa's ■� m ■ a `�� =.:x € i. itA�gi 19owien »utli3 immeux iiukno tDlSo t�lj,ig %U olt. 0 Vs MO..,.�OSION110340SolQ . 'Y'r' TEPil ihilii „....- al '-• ier.iiiirlimi,Eiit:,''''''L',I!ii!'41E11 10o iti -'1 'i: r i::::». ii'iiiciiiii:Fx .' i !• I ; .-. t :.,:.:i; ...q. .. ..- : ~=:3.411:2 ...........................„!►t. can g I rim a _ en ` I( . t : = a lift ...-':-•• i.::;: i .. . o •• ,„t H • f !E • _ ' r --,k M; > , :; ` n - i -�e� - _� Si i` a c ,' ro ; , - �:C:l- :>� ;: :.- _ •i . - •• I — j _ � ' " ~- l 's'-^ ^,t!7 ,' i S' / :.': . 1 C . _ O .• _ } 4 0 ' _. 7- .1.L "�' ?Q.�' �_• G •t +Q:Q'Q' i 0 ..�!��j , - • t>_•- v`"'a.!"j'` 1, �:: .5 .':. �,Wry ��:: „2.o . 7........ - �� / , f' rx`` .• ` •'• inr • •'• '•«tij n �'•.- `'- y'•iTRAKERON rio' �:[:> YY Fti i~' Y. j:'., . • STRUC •' \ I 0 - . ' -D • 0 V.--- c.1 77 — _ Guild E. FAT, STRIPPING ///� 7 .,:(z/.\\ ../.. APPROACH/TAKEOFF PATH —.— _ - - _ - / -- / , APPROACH/TAKEOFF PATH / A... \'"".. ----) �, _ EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT _ — -— / _ _ ' HEUPAD (TLOF) - i �o INDICATOR '— J \ 7 so 2cr o so eo / / Scale to Feet / tq / g 7 i m ,, „_, r.„.„,...,..„......,,,,, �o I H A•0•1 CIVIL, INC. .� •il-auo0 ^' R .I� .0 m Ir.. Iv rw•a w1 .a sou isuiu Ow"ACLE➢TAb STM Wag �`` *Amu LAYOUT SKETCH s roan CO _ smr,.1+IS r/.am „�„ 1111Z Si it BEVEwPw1IT BOE/NG ave.,irr 'p` BCAG HEADQUARTERS FIG. 3 KUCOCO _t HAVER LONG ACI;ES o;TTa PAPD •• °�" 5 Exhibit H PROJECT NARRATIVE AND JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED BOEING HEADQUARTERS BUILDING HELISTOP Project Description The proposed project is to construct and operate a private helistop at the Boeing Longacres Office Park to serve the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group (BCAG) Headquarters Building. The helistop will be located on a 3.10 acre (135,000 sq. ft.) site southwest of the BCAG Headquarters Building. Flights in and out of the Longacres Office Park are expected to average one to four flights per month. Helicopters will not be based, fueled or maintained at the helistop. The helistop will consist of a 26-foot square concrete touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) surrounded by a 40-foot diameter circular asphalt final approach and takeoff area (FATO), with perimeter lighting and a pole-mounted windsock with lighting for night use. Vehicular access to the helistop will be provided from the south by a private road connecting to the BCAG Headquarters Building parking lot. The helistop will make use of the existing paved parking area and access road for the BCAG Headquarters temporary construction trailer offices, with minor modifications to add the concrete TLOF, to allow for an emergency turnaround for fire department vehicles, and to connect the access road to the Headquarters parking lot. Consistency with Conditional Use Criteria The site for the proposed helistop is currently zoned Commercial Office (CO). In this zone, a helipad is an accessory use which requires a hearing examiner conditional use permit. RMC 4-31-16(B)(5)(f). Consistent with these zoning requirements, the helistop is proposed as an accessory use to the permitted and recently constructed BCAG Headquarters Building on the Longacres Office Park site and complies with all relevant criteria in RMC 4-31-36(C) for approval of a conditional use permit, as follows: 1. Comprehensive Plan: Under this criteria,the proposed helistop must be "compatible with the general purpose, goals,objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City." RMC 4-31-36(C)(1). The helistop is proposed to be located within an area designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Employment Area-Valley. As an accessory use, the helistop will be incidental to and associated with the BCAG Headquarters Building at the Boeing Longacres Office Park. As such, it furthers and is compatible with the objectives of the Employment Area-Valley designation, which are to "ensure quality development" and to "provide for a [03003-0153/helistop justif.letter.doc] 7/7/98 mix of employment-based uses, including, commercial, office and industrial development to support the economic development of the City of Renton." LU-EE(a) & (c) It is also consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies that implement these objectives, such as the following: (1) Compatible and related land uses should be encouraged to locate in proximity to one another. LU-212.2 (2) Developments should be encouraged to achieve greater efficiency in site utilization and result in benefits to users with techniques including: a. shared facilities such as parking and site access, recreation facilities and amenities; b. an improved ability to serve development with transit by centralizing transit stops; and c. an opportunity to provide support services (e.g.,copy center, coffee shop or lunch facilities, express mail services" for nearly development that otherwise might not exist. LU-212.6 (3) Vehicular connections between adjacent parking areas are encouraged. . . . LU-212.21 The proposed helistop is located in proximity to compatible and related land uses. It is adjacent to the BCAG Headquarters Building,for which it will used, and will be connected to the Headquarters Building by a road providing vehicular access between the building parking lot and the helistop. It is also in the middle of the Longacres Office Park and surrounded by and compatible with commercial, industrial and office buildings in the valley area. The proposed helistop is compatible with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. It is also compatible with Zoning Ordinance standards. As required by RCW 4-31- 16(B)(5)(f), which permits helipads in a CO zone only as an accessory use, the proposed helistop use is subordinate to the BCAG Headquarters Building on the same lot, "with which it is associated but clearly incidental to." RCM 4-31-2(definition of"Accessory Use"). The proposed helistop is compatible with all other development standards in the CO zone, including height, setback and lot area requirements. RMC 4-31-16(D) 2. Community Need: In determining whether there is community need for the proposed use at the proposed location,the hearing examiner is required to consider the following factors: [03003-0153/helistop justif.letter.doc] -2- 7/7/98 1 ) t a. The proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental over concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. b. That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. RMC 4-31-36(C)(2) Both of these community need factors support the proposed helistop at the Boeing Longacres Office Park. There is not a detrimental overconcentration of helipads or helistops in the City or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed helistop. The nearest helipad or helistop is at the Valley Hospital,more than 1.5 miles to the southeast from the proposed helistop site. In addition, the helistop location at Longacres Office Park is appropriate and well- suited for the proposed use, which is to serve the BCAG Headquarters Building. The proposed helistop is adjacent to the Headquarters Building, in the middle of the Boeing Longacres Park, and surrounded by industrial, office and commercial uses. It is also far from any potentially incompatible residential uses and areas, most of which are more than a mile from the site of the proposed helistop. These factors support a determination of community need. 3. Effect on Adjacent Properties: Under this criteria, "the proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property." RMC 4-31-36(3). The only potential adverse impact from proposed helistop at Longacres Office Park is noise from operation of the helistop. However, given the infrequent use of the helistop, its location, and the nature of the surrounding uses, any such impacts are not significant. In addition, the proposed helistop will easily satisfy the three required site requirements listed under 4-31-36C)(3), which require compliance with the lot coverage, yard and height requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. The lot coverage restrictions in the CO zone apply only to buildings and no building is proposed as part of the helistop. The yard requirements are not applicable to the proposed helistop. The maximum structure height in the CO zone is 250 feet, well above the highest point of the proposed helistop, which is the top of windsock at six feet. RMC 4-31-16(D)(4)(a). 4. Traffic: Under this criteria, "[t]raffic and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the proposed use and surrounding area shall be reviewed for potential effects on, and to ensure safe movement in the surrounding area." RMC 4-31-36(C). Vehicular access to the proposed helistop will be provided by a private road connecting to the BCAG Headquarters Building parking lot. The proposed helistop will not result in any impacts to traffic. Pedestrian access to and from the helistop is not necessary and will not be provided. [03003-0153/helistop justif.letter.doc] -3- 7/7/98 • a a 5. Noise, Glare: The typical noise associated with helicopters is 76 to 84dBA at a distance of 500 feet from the aircraft. This is similar to noise levels described above for various pieces of construction equipment. While helicopter noise is not regulated, it assumed that flights in and out of Longacres Office Park would occur during typical business hours and the noise abatement procedures will be used. Abatement procedures include the pilots setting flight profiles that establish shallow angles of decent to and accent from the helistop. It's at these times when the helicopters generate the most noise. The typical flight path (north and south from helistop)has the helicopter at 800 to 1000 feet altitude at Y2 mile from the helistop. Helicopter noise could temporarily disturb or distract area residents; however, because of the small number of projected flights in and out of the Longacres Office Park, disruptions would be infrequent and short. It is important to note that a helicopter flight school is currently operating south of the sight with many take-offs and landings occurring each day. Long-term noise impacts would not be expected. Light and/or glare impacts are not anticipated. Lights on the helistop will be radio activated by the pilots and are designed to illuminate the pad and windsock only. The pad lights are low lumen down wash type and designed not to glare and disrupt the pilots night vision. The wind sock is internally lit providing good visibility for the pilot and very minimal glare to the surrounding area. 6. Landscaping: Under this criteria, landscaping must be provided "in all areas not occupied by buildings or paving" and the hearing examiner can require "additional landscaping to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use." RMC 4-31-36(C)(3)(8). The applicant proposes to return any disturbed soil to its natural grassy state. No additional landscaping is necessary to buffer adjacent properties from the use of the helistop. 7. Public improvements: The proposed helistop is adequately served by and does not impose a burden on any public improvements,facilities,utilities and services. [03003-0153/helistop justif.letter.doc] -4- 7/7/98 '..L.,;. ' --12 3 CITY OF RENTON Date: - Development Services No 0077 . Planning&Zoning 235-2550 City Staff Authorization /../(ALAiia, Boeing Contact: �1( ad Project Name: LL - f` v Organization#: Q ow Work Order/Function N } Appeals&Waivers 000/345.81.00.03 Site Plan Approval 000/345.81.00.17 Binding Site Plan/Short Plat 000/345.81.00.04 Variance Fees 000/345.81.00.19 Conditional Use Fees 000/345.81.00.06 0600..a2 Planning/Zoning Misc.000/345.81.00.20 Environmental Review Fees 000/345.81.00.07iQ,tp Maps(taxed) 000/341.50.00.00 Grading&Filling Fees 000/345.81.00.11 Photo Copies 000/341.60.00.24 taxed Lot Line Adjustment 000/345.81.00.12 Publications(taxed) 000/341.60.00.24 Routine Vegetation Mgmt. 000/345.81.00.15 Postage 000/05.519.90.42.01 ',,g r Shoreline Substantial Dev 000/345.81.00.16 Tax 000/231.70.00.00 -.: Other(Description) ws. s `r Acct# Amount Approved For Payment: // 'l Total: -oc1• ✓28 ft : Boeing Represen ative Signa e `" � :,:ii►R AcCloitl]#Number <: DSpinzn2C1 7 31!92 s._ as DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS: REQUIREMENTS: BY: BY: ; Calculations, Survey 1 l no G(., . q► —► Drainage Control Plan 2 4104 Drainage Report 2 on Elevations, Architectural3AND4 NJ Elevations, Grading 2 Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy)4 Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 Flood Plain Map,if applicable 4 Floor Plans 3AND4 (Ciajril /1/r7� Geotechnical Report 2 AND 3 dill I Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 Grading Plan,Detailed 2 King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site 4 Landscaping Plan, Conceptual 4 -wAt - Legal Description 4 List of Surrounding Property Owners 4 Mailing Labels for Property Owners 4 Map of Existing Site Conditions 4 Master Application Form 4 Monument!Cards (one per monument) Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 Plan Reductions (PMTs) 4 Postage 4 Public Works Approval Letter Title Report or Plat Certificate 4 Topography Map (5' contours)3 r Traffic Study 2 COX Tree Cutting/Vegetation Clearing Plana Crittof Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 Wetlands Delineation Map4 (rai N/ Wetlands Planting Plan 4 ci1 N!/A Wetlands Study 4 4 This requirement may be waived by: �A 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: �v, lie4sivp 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: 9 f2 q v 4. Development Planning Section h:\divisions\develop.ser\dev.plan.ina\waiver.xls **************************************************************** City of Renton WA Reprinted: 07/13/98 13 : 15 Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R9804229 Amount : 2 , 509 . 28 07/13/98 13 : 15 Payment Method: BILL Notation: TO BE BILLED Init : LN Project # : LUA98-113 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Parcel No: 242304-9022 Site Address : 1901 OAKESDALE AV SW Total Fees : 2 , 509 .28 This Payment 2 , 509 .28 Total ALL Pmts : 2 , 509 .28 Balance: . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0006 Conditional Use Fees 2 , 000 . 00 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 500 . 00 000 . 05 . 519 . 90 . 42 . 1 Postage 9 .28