Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA89-063 400 South 43rd Street Renton, \VA 98055 206.228.3450 N VS*FAX 206•ST•2593 ,N Valley PLANNING DIVISION Medical CITY OF RENTON Center JUN 0 4 1991 June 3, 1991 RECEWED Mr. Mike Ferris Ms. Betty Mosher Mr. Charles Mosher Valley Gardens Health Center 601 South Carr Road Renton, WA 98055 RE: l. )B-II/Va11ey Gardens Agreement Dear Mike, Betty and Charles, PleasP find enclosed a revised Page 2 to our analysis of the hospital 's compliance with the landlusP settlement agreement. The new format distinguishes between Actual Vacant Space and Hospital Occupied Space. We also removed the Radiology Joint Venture front the Hospital Occupied Space in Valley Professional Building North pursuant to Mike Farris' request. As we discussed, the hospital is fulfilling its obligation by occupying additional space in M)B-II. This removes medical-dental space from the market which would otherwise be available to prospective tenants. As we also discussed, this, caMbined with the projected vacancies in the Valley Professional Center North and MJB-II, will create an occupancy ratio of medical-dental space on campus which is less than the same ratio for space in the community. We also feel confident that the vacancy rates in the community will decrease in the next few years as additional tenants move into the area, particularly since we do not anticipate that any new medical-dental space will be constructed. We appreciate your cooperation in reaching an understanding on working with the settlement agreement. Mike suggested that we update these figures approximately every six months. John Scott and I will be happy to meet with you again sometime near the end of the year. We trust that these conditions are acceptable and we will procede accordingly unless we hear from you shortly. ✓ y ours, Eric J. Th General Enclosure cc: Valley Medical Center: b :1 ear 5L0(kfit v`'\ John Scott D m_k A I t/m.da„ Richard Roodman City of Renton: I11cny5on M.D. Lenora Blauman EJT:psd BUILDING HOSPITAL S.F. VACANT OWNED Valley Professional Center North 46,782 4,6451 8,0142 MOB-II 81.7563 4,0874 14,0005 128,538 8,732 22,014 Campus Medical-Dental Space Occupancy Ratio: 30,746/128,538 = 76% Community Medical-Dental Space Occupancy Ratio = 77.91% 1WoQnen's Health Specialists (vacated by move into MOB-II) . 2Valley Residency Program. 3Excludes the first floor of MOB-II, which is not "medical-dental" space. 4Estimated minimum 5% vacancy. 5Hospital Programs: Children's Therapy/Hand Clinic/Radiology/Lab Station. , • cu o3-g7 BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT August 2, 1989 A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT: Medical Office Building, No. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-063-89 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application for environmental approval of a proposed five-story medical office building with 100,000 gross square foot. The building will include an auditorium on the first floor, approximately 2, 000 square feet in size. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Property located at 400 South 43rd Street. •BUILDING AND ZONING DEPAAiMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER August 2, 1989 PAGE 2 B. ISSUES: Land Use The applicant is proposing the construction of another medical office building to be located south of the recently constructed MOB. The development of the hospital campus, at this point in time, is occurring rapidly, in some cases faster than VMC had anticipated when the Master Site Plan and Function Program document was submitted in November of 1987. The plan briefly explores the hospital campus for a ten year period._ . The document does not discuss how the campus will be developed as a cohesive unit. Currently, as each project is submitted staff are constantly having to reevaluate the impacts of the on an incremental basis, trying to ensure that the cumulative impacts are addressed. The expansion of the hospital will (and has) stimulated development of support services in the area. It is time to reevaluate the changes proposed in the near and distant future to ensure orderly growth. TRAFFIC Development of the campus will have major impacts on transportation. While the applicant has recently submitted an updated traffic study which appears to be based upon development on the north campus. As noted in the existing Master Plan submitted to the City, significant projects are planned on the South Campus which may have a bearing on the off-site improvements planned for the area. • The study discusses the fact that VMC is "updating its Master Site Plan which will provide a construction program of required facilities to meet anticipated growth. " The traffic study is dated March 29, 1989. As noted by Traffic Engineering, substantial development projects are proposed after 1995. PUBLIC SERVICES The expansion of the campus raises concerns with respect to adequate fire protection. Concern has been expressed that the amount of on-site and off- site traffic in the immediate area of the hospital could impact BUILDING AND ZONING DEPnit'i'MENT - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER August 2, 1989 PAGE 3 the response times of emergency equipment. Further, that the on- site circulation and the proposed reduction in the opportunity to easily access various buildings on-campus poses a major concern particularly in serving the main campus building on the north side. Again, these concerns can only be addressed through a comprehensive . evaluation of campus development. C. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Significance with the following areas of concern: Land Use, Traffic and Public Services. D. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS: Various City departments have reviewed and commented upon the project. These comments are as follows: LAND USE COMMENTS Police Department: Land Use: Approved with conditions. Installation of lights on ground floor to ensure pedestrian safety. . Skybridges being equipped with doors on each end so that they can be secured at night to keepout vagrants. Fire Prevention Bureau: Land Use: Not approved. Any development and/or construction shall comply with current Fire and Building Codes and Ordinances. A second means of approved access is required. Fire Department access road/lanes shall be paved minimum width 20' ;minimum height 13'6". Preliminary fire flow calculations show a fire flow of 2250 gpm is required. 3 hydrants with a minimum flow of 1000 gpm each is required. Primary hydrant is required to be within 150 feet of the structure. Secondary hydrants are required to be within 300 feet of the structure. An approved automatic sprinkler system is required to protect the total structure. All fire department access roads are to be paved and installed prior to construction. All fire hydrants are required to be installed an approved prior to construction. Access for Fire Dept. between MOBII._,and PSYCH Wing does not meet minimum standards for width or turning radius. BUILDING AND ZONING DEPA:KiMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER August 2, 1989 PAGE 4 Design Engineering: Land Use: Not approved. Cannot approve site plan without final civil drawings for review. Traffic Engineering: Land Use: Approved with conditions. See attached memo. Utility Engineering: Land Use: Not approved. Submit separate/water plan and sanitary sewer plan. Watermain improvements plans and sanitary sewer improvement plans must meet City of Renton standards for utilities extensions by developers. Approved water and sewer plan required. Storm Water Utility: Land Use: Approved. The oil/water separators will be baffled oil/water separators wherever the new on-site drainage ties into the existing drainage. A temporary erosion/control plan will contain an erosion control pond, with sizing for volume using KCCD nomograph method or OS inch-acre. Parks and Recreation: Land Use: No comments on sheet. Building Division: Land Use: Approved with conditions. No building code check done at this time. Current Planning Division: Land Use: No comment sheet. Long Range Planning: Land Use: Request for EIS. ENVIRONMENTMAL COMMENTS Police Department: Probable minor impact - public services. No lighting is planned to be installed on the building. Lighting will be necessary along first floor that will illuminate hidden areas behind pillars. Fire Prevention Bureau: Probable major impact - transportation and public services. 1) Traffic both off- site and on-site is reaching a pointwhere loading could impact response times of emergency equipment. 2) On-site circulation and reduction of access to existing core building is a concern to the Fire. Dept. Particularly due to the fact the existing hospital is not fully sprinklered. Design Engineering: Probable minor impacts - earth, air, transportation, public services. More information necessary - utilities. No existing utility information provided. • BUILDING AND ZONING DEP;11x MENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER August 2, 1989 PAGE 5 Traffic Engineering: Probable minor impacts - all elements but transportation. Probable major impact - transportation. See attached memo. Utility Engineering: Probable minor impact - utilities. Require separate watermain and sanitary sewer plans for extension and relocation of existing utilities (water and sewer) to serve subject building. Plans must meet City of Renton standards for extension of existing utilities by developers. Storm Water Utility: Probable minor impact - water. The oil/water separators will be baffled oil/water separators wherever the new on-site drainage ties into the existing drainage. A temporary erosion/control plan will contain an erosion control pond with sizing for volume using KCCD nomograph method or OS inch- acre. Parks and Recreation: Probable minor impact - recreation. It would be helpful in reviewing the ongoing development of the Valley Medical Center to include a landscaping/campus amenities plan with each addition so that a better idea of the end product could be measured. Building Division: Probable minor impact - housing. Current Planning Division: No comment sheet. Long Range Planning: Proposed project may have significant impacts on traffic (cumulative impacts) and the land use in Talbot Road area. Therefore, an EIS is recommended. July 18, 1989 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW VALLEY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING #2 Immediate Requirements: 1. Driveway #3 to be realigned with South 177th Street. 2. Assessment for LID 329 (SW 43rd Street widening, Talbot Road South to SR-167 on/off ramps) . Rate $22.97 per trip generated. Trip rate per update traffic analysis for master site plan is 2,860 trips (submittal date 3/31/89) . $22.97 x 2,860 = $65,694.20 Delayed Evaluations After 1995: 3. To insure safe access to and from the various driveways and roadway intersecting with Talbot Road South between South 43rd Street and South 177th Street, an evaluation for the need of a centerlane two-way left-turn facilities needs to be provided after 1995 when the bulk of the Valley Medical site expansion is generated. 4. Valley Medical Center expansion to insure the intersection of Talbot Road South and South 43rd Street maintains a service level of "E" or better through the expansion period. Re-evaluation to be provided after 1995. 5.. Valley Medical Center expansion to insure the intersection of SR-167 ramps with South 43rd Street be maintained at a "D" or better. Intersection capacity analysis to be provided after 1995 when the bulk of the site expansion traffic has been generated. • • ig.•��i � .�'. 4 ''• ;1 F, a• • .fit ,,,•. MAHLUM & NORDFORS ARCHITECTURE•FACILITY PLANNING•INTERIORS John Mahlum,FAIA Gregory E.Lewis,AIA Vincent Nordfors,AIA Daniel E.J.Broggel,AIA Michael J.Yates,AIA Michael L.Smith,AIA May 1, 1991 PLANNING DIVISION Ms. Lenora Blauman CITY OF RENTON Senior Planner City of Renton Planning Division MAY - 2 1991 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RECEIVED Project: Valley Medical Center MOB II Land Use/EIS (89008.00) Subject: Conditions to Approval of Conditional Use Reference Documents: 1 . Hearing Examiner's report and decision, Valley Medical Center MOB II, dated April 15, 1991, File No. CU-063-89. 2. Department of planning/building/public works preliminary report to the Hearing Examiner, Valley Medical Center MOB II, dated March 19, 1991, File No. ECF; CU-063-90. Dear Ms. Blauman: The following solar glare analysis is submitted in response to the City of Renton Planning Division's Departmental Recommendation, dated March 19, 1991, to the Hearing Examiner as a condition to approval and the Hearing Examiner's related condition for Approval, dated April 15, 1991. Window Treatment The specified glazing is tinted rather than reflective (see Attachment A—Page 6 of the glazing specification). Only 12 percent of average visible daylight is reflected when the sun is within 45 degrees of perpendicular to the plane of the glazing (see Attachment B—Manufacturer's Glazing Data). This property substantially diminishes the potential for glare at other than the most acute angles of reflection. Analysis—South Face of MOB II 1. Both Talbot Road and South 43rd Street are similar in elevation to the top windows at the MOB II. Afternoon reflections from the south facing side of the MOB II will hit the ground or be blocked by the Talbot Building or the hospital building before it reaches either Talbot Road or 43rd Street. 2. Highway 167 is lower than the MOB II. However, morning sunlight reaching the south face of the MOB II from an azimuth direction outside 45 degrees from the perpendicular (resulting in greater than 12 percent visible reflected light) would not reach the highway. On the example shown (Attachment C) morning sun on the winter solstice at approximately 9:30 am would have an angle above the horizon of 10 degrees . At this angle, reflected light from the top windows of the MOB II would fall on campus grounds before reaching the highway (see Attachment D). Higher sun angles would of course result in reflected light being kept even closer within the Valley Medical Center campus grounds. Light from lower angles would be blocked by the adjacent Talbot and hospital buildings before reaching the MOB II. 2505 Third Avenue, Suite 219, Seattle, WA 98121 (206)441-4151, Fax 441-0478 A Corporation with Offices in Seattle and Portland - B Ms. Lenora Blauman Senior Planner City of Renton Building Department VMC MOB II May 1, 1991 Page 2 3. Elevations shown on Attachment D are taken from the campus survey, a portion of which is provided as Attachment E. Analysis—West Face of MOB II 1 . Talbot Road and South 43rd Street will not be effected by reflections from the west face of the MOB II. In the winter months, the sun sets low in the horizon to the southwest, potentially causing long distance reflections to the northwest towards Highway 167 (see Attachment F). 2. In example No. 1, a sun angle of 2.5 degrees is plotted for just before sunset on the winter Solstice. The angle of reflection would be nearly due south . The distance of reflection from the top windows would be 1,650 feet. Referring to the aerial photo (Attachment G) the reflection would ground out before reaching Highway 167. Earlier reflections would be shorter and farther east. Later reflections would be minimal due to the sun being obscured by ground features at angles lower than 2.5 degrees. 3. In Example No. 2, a sun angle of 20 degrees is plotted for late afternoon on the equinox. The angle of reflection is west of south, but because of the higher sun angle, the length of the reflection from the top windows of the MOB II grounds out 200 feet from the building, well short of the highway. Summary 1 . The specified glazing reflects only 12 percent of visible light when the angle of incidence is less that 45 degrees from perpendicular to the plane of the glass. 2. Talbot Road and South 43rd Street will not be affected by glare because of blocking from the Talbot and hospital buildings. 3. Morning reflections from the south face of the MOB II and afternoon reflections from the west face of MOB II will ground out before reaching Highway 167. 4. There will be no significant impacts from glare on the surrounding roads. Therefore, no changes to glazing type or window treatment to reduce glare are be necessary. Should you have any questions, or need further clarification, please do not hesitate to call. Si,n er ly, ja o if n I ar ine ; Project Archi ect;` DCJ/tre cc: Romulo Almeria, Valley Medical Center 89008.00 L003.DCJ • MARLIN & NORDFORS ARCHITECI°S SECTION 08800 PAGE 6 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER GLAZING MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING II F. vTnte'd 'GTAss Two thicknesses of 1/4—inch glass, 1—inch overall thickness interior sheet, clear; exterior. sheet 'col.or Libbey—Owens—Ford Ellipse Blue— Green or equivalent, 1/4—inch thick heat absorbing glass, or similar product. All fabrication including any edgework and drilled holes shall be performed before tempering (where required) is performed. G. Spandrel Glass Equal to Spandrelite by P.P.G. , single pane, custom color to match adjacent transparent glass. H. 1/2—Inch Tempered Glass Equal to Herculite by P.P.G. Provide 3/4—inch system if required for lateral loading by governing codes. Provide Milgard finish for all etched glazing. I. Insulating Glass 1. Double Glazed: Two thicknesses of 1/4—inch glass, 1—inch overall thickness. Interior sheet clear, exterior sheet tinted colored glass, color as selected by Architect, 1/4—inch thick heat absorbing glass or similar product. 2. Triple Glazed: Three thicknesses of 1/4—inch glass, 1-1/2—inch overall thickness. Interior sheets clear glass. Exterior sheet tinted colored laminated glass, color as selected by Architect, 1/4—inch thick heat absorbing glass or similar product. 2.02 GLAZING COMPOUND A. Glazing in Wood Armglaze Type "M" by DAP, Inc. , or Permaglaze Type "W" by Biddle Company. B. Glazing in Aluminum and Steel Gray Glazing compound 1012 by DAP, Inc. , or Permaglaze Type "A" by Biddle Company. 2.03 MISCELLANEOUS (T:AZING MATERIALS S A. Setting Blocks Neopren4 or other resilient blocks of 70 to 90 Shore A durometer hardness, tested for compatibility with specified glazing sealants. 1cr1J4u&Jr A - t. 08810/LOF BuyLine 2759 Float Glass Performance Data' Monolithic`' _ . • • Clear and Tinted Glass Transmittance Reflectance U-Value' Shading Coefficients' Nominal - Float Thickness Average' Solar Ultra- Average' • Relative' Venetian Glass Daylight . violet' Daylight SolarHeat Gain Summer Winter No Blinds Draperies Shade ' in ram , %" % % % % Eng SI Eng SI . Eng SI Light Med Light Med Dark SS 3/32 2.5 86 82 218 688 1.12 1.02 90 DS 1/8 3 84 80 8 214 676 1.11 6.3 1.00 56 .61 5/32 4 82 78 211 667 1.03 .98 .64 .70 .55 3/16 5 8980 76 8 7 208 657 .58 1.10 .97 6.2 .55 .60 1/4 6 S8 78 75 205 648 1.09 .96 Clear 3/8 10 86 71 68 192 607 1.02 1.06 .89 .62 .52 .67 6.0 1/2 12 84 65 64 483 57 1.01 1.04 . .84 .61 .50 54 .63 5/8 16 83 61 61 6 175 551 1.00 5.7 1.02 5.8 .80 .54 .6) .49 .52 .61 3/4 19 81 56 58 7 167 527 .99 5.6 1.00 5.6 .77 59 .48 .51 59 1 25 78 49 52 154 485 .96 5.4 .96 5.4 .70 .53 .57 .45 .47 _54 1/4 6 76 51 51 7 6 162 510 1.09 6.2 1.09 6.2 .73 .53 .58 .46 .49 56 Blue-Green 3/8 10 67 38 39 6 5 139 438 1.08 6.1 1.06 6.0 .62 .48 .51 .43 .4-1 _5() 1/8 3 62 63 56 182 574 1.08 6.1 1.11 6.3 .83 54 .61 .50 _54 .63 6 6 3/16 5 5(1 53 47 164 519 1.10 .75 .58 .47 .50 .57 1 6.2 .53 Grey 1/4 6 45 48 43 157 495 1.09 6.2 1.09 .71 .57 .46 .48 .55 1 3/8 10 28 31 19 128 404 1.06 6.0 .56 .4-1 .46 .40 .42 .40 1/2 12 19 22 21 4 4 112 1 353 1.118 6.1 1.04 5,9 .48 .S .40 _3 1/8 3 68 65 50 184 582 1.08 6.1 6.3 .85 .54 61 .51 .55 .64 : 1.10 3/16 5 58 55 40 n 6 168 530 .76 .59 .47 .50 .58 ! 62 51 Bronze 1/4 6 54 11 ;t, 161 07 1.09 6.2 1.09 .73 .. .58 .46 I .49 .sn ; 3/8 10 38 34 22 132 418 1.06 6.1) 59 .4n .48 .42 .44 .48 _ 1/2 12 28 24 14 I 116 367 I.08 6.1 1.04 5.9 .51 .41 .43 I .39 I .41 , Insulating Glass ' • . (IiisylatmgGlass • • 1 Transmittance `::Reflectance:. Relative' "=- U-Value' I Shading Coefficients' Nominal FloatHeat Gain Air Sppace Air Space 1 Thickness Average' Ultra!Averages Air Space 1/4"(6mm) 1/2"(13mm) No ! Venetian • Glass Daylight Solar violet'Da L" 'Solar P Shade i Blinds Draperies Y,e# 1/2"(13mm) Summer Winter Summer Winter in mm % % % % % Eng SI Eng SI Eng SI Eng SI Eng SI • I Light Med Light Med Dark 1/8 3 81 7(1 64 13 185 583 .57 .89 , ,55 .62 .52 .57 .67 .55 3.1 .49 2.8 Clear 3/16 5 80 64 59 14 176 556 .62 3.5 3.2 .84 . .51 .58 .49 .53 .59 .56 1/4 6 78 62 56 12 172 542 _56 3.2 .48 2.7 .82 .50 .56 .48 .52 .58 Bliir'^' / ' 1/4 , 68 40 38 S,,1; 8 127 399 .61 3.6 _56 3.2 .57 3.2 .48 2.7 .59 .38 .41 .40 .45 .46 1/8 3 56 53 45 9 9 150 474 .63 .57 .56 .71 1 .44 .49 ,44 .48 ,52 .49 2.8 Grey 3/16 5 45 42 36 8 8 . 130 410 3.6 3.2 3.2 .61 ' .39 .42 .41 .45 .47 1/4 6 40 38 ,32 7 121 383 .64 5(� r7 .48 2.7 .57 .37 .40 .39 .44 .45 1/8 3 61 55 40 10 10 153 483 .63 .57 .56 .73 : .45 • .50 .45 .49 .53 .49 2.8 Bronze 3/16 5 52 44 31 9 8 134 423 3.6 3.2 3.2 .63 , .40 .4-1 .41 .46 .48 1/4 6 48 40 27 8 7 125 396 .64 57 .48 2.7 .59 , .38 :1 .40 .45 .46 Eng= English units.U-Values:Blu/(hr x It's"F).Relative 1 teat Cain:Btu/(hr x It'). Summer U-Values and Shading Coefficients are based on an outdoor temperature SI=Metric units.U-Values:W/(m'x CC).Relative I teat Gain:W/nr. of 89°F(32"C),an indoor temperature of 75°F(24'Cl,a star intensity of 250 Btu/(hr x fPl,(789 W/nr),and a 7.5 mph(12 kph)wind velocity. I. Nominal values shown.Heal gain,U-Valois and Shading Coefficients calculated from LBL Window 3.1. . 4. The UV Solar Transmissions are based on the standard intensity versus wavelength fur the sun's radiation when the sun is at 60'zenith angle and measured at normal 2. Based onASHRAEsolar intensity ol200Btu/01rxIt),(631 W/nrl and anoutdoor incidence to the glass surface. temperature of 14'F(8'Cl higher than indoor. 5. Insulating glass constructed of equal thicknesses of glassfind a clear inboard light. 3. Winter U-Values are based on an outdoor temperature of(1"r I-1WO.all indoor temperature of 70°F(21"CI,and a 15 mph(24 kph)wind velocity with no sun. 6. CIE standard illuminant C,pub.15.2(1986). 23 k! rACIIA1I *Jc .5 • • W 1�►rIE12. L�I \ S. 43RD STREET PP1P13�C• :9: �U _ • ` r 1 w ,- ' i ,�\ ilk 4 a-4 gu i L 'H.l4 fkLTI?IJGE I°— I°I' U �� /!� Az1MUT+¢ S30 . irf/St 28° O.L"f11uDM 9At1 , �I, ! tii 0 Ap 111 ?,7° "LTITuvE. 3PH � j 1. ‘ 11 III* d/\ r ♦ 1 4i u 1Nox _ .. Q /�L?I?uvo. 10 - 30 4 4 .; i AzInuTH 530 - 7`I° kl-..1. 4\ co -_ ,410° P\L'fl?uPE 7.tl. -RAPP--- .1////lit kit ?� o !z�i' � '� i 1�I/4 = I o Pal...?I-ruPE ; PM 17 isisf _- tic, 1 ati 41 .i411,,,....w.40010atifirlir iiii:- :.,:-. _, , -._...-4, 111„,.. .. a, ..._ --.1_.„ '50° "L..11-Tu P 0- -7 AM 0 V •1±- �, •ahw / 3o ALTITUP� 5 Pi'1 vk. ---.4( / 0.1‘. z. 41, .., . 1..1 him E.K. Se Ls-Tic-E. V11701:1 jiPPri as a. JI"t ?,LTITI-1DE_ 8 - 3o° 1 - 1* ,,PO" ! it 5 Iti 1 _ o itia_ mi • 06 att pt „1/4..._% ito; ....... 6 ALTI"fUD� 5- Poi • .. S g° ALTITup� 7 rr1 , ,L.Ag. N o?T++ VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER 0 1� Z� NORTH SCALE: 1 = 200 -0 I \ • MAHLUM & NORDFOI -- ARCHITECTURE•FACILITY PLANNING•INTERIUtcs 2505 Third Avenue,Suite 219,Seattle,WA 98121 • • Project Project No. O VAAG /Vag DatelTime 371/g/ Subject To ,���� /`�j /TPA/ pl_4l,v viv6-, DiU/5/av�aeA� 6e i7✓ /A-r,y IS • From n. �//Ci/� ❑Memo 0 Minutes ❑Telecon ❑Field Report /a Other pA A't• - it11//9.-Y ' --;'‘'. \,. \ , i k.1?: '''' o • ''..-4D--t1,-(i-iii /MO* s„ • G f • Ca • • ,>; - / • Mom.+' ^::.(..V % 1• ?.--,, "O,•+,,,.,. W, '3 .q<. f�.,. : RCN.. ~ am � '`) , , • .e r- r /' I N? , K...w „..,,- •.,,,,,. ---..., I. ).--1\ - C:13('7,,...;,*(: ....:\.... '.........r. . ,".....2 6 ;-'-' .. 1 1 < i I MNl 020-9/89 •'f::--tf'"f�`...CC�:XG•;,J `E ?:!i'{ ::,t':: ,14..,+-r✓lip;i><,. .:cr.•. :'ri'.�^JA+•, 'z _ _ - • {r r {: i'b+• '..F':v,.�..,7,:^`{. :q'+,t,;u' P=' ',r'•.A. - .��..�f' 'i,i '�.i:- - MAHLUM &NORDFOF ARCHITECTURE•.FACILITY PLANNING•INTERIORS 2505 Third Avenue,Suite 219,Seattle,WA 98121 ' Project l�'�if Ai GGv,/ ......... e2�y l�� On .zrProject No. QQ�0 .` . DatelTime U Subject ��yy ���� e n G ,/� � To 3z:use-- �r N ,k,tiA /S From e`NraC! /Ait/x//A.L/i d/l//S/DEC! ❑Memo 0 Minutes ❑Telecon ❑Field Report (Other Eft. . ,L/ • _._.. % ._ . : - - T - • -� ' t �,r 4 , 3 ! -1 - ;-----;!- ----.- - ._. . . ... _ . _ . . .. . . t • • \ ' - .• • • . \ /I t; I / I • / ''./,'It. .-._ • • • • • ;' i - ,. . , • J : j -‘,4•1 1 , ' : j W. : : VI M I i - 1 } 1 f Mo*i mn_o/Ro L_r.-i__J ) L=L4 . .._______________j( �y 1 _ S. 43RD STREET evii ' 4Iiiiilviii-- . 24.ru,,, --„..7 - )1--a Ec)-- . a .1,p 55 i t72 O ' / -6 W11•1 2 1_STE c Z. S• asr TO Hwy �x) • ir A2jMUTH 63° Pmrzu or wEsf . - �r S 1PG� 7 i IP . . If 1 1 9'2� .-► illt. � 2a PLTi'tZ..�E 3 pm y d r j 2.S° VI S1AA4Ce. 74.) Hwy65) ( ` eo2C1. /if' § wm � Ia ,6 1-1 / I N , o Arv-e,ale ,<,4. .9 4*, , g1±173 7 . 'i.00I1 0 ( c,I1 : 'A lb, eUH 53- -7q° /2l‘ AJvCe W 1-iwy 7 ELEvAPk Of- Guts - Hwy • 0 za Ya ° Tld-t aF 2.54 4 X 721 _ o 10°ALT(-rarE- 5 ek /*t,.:. .::::, ‘.4,.7. 7 4114 10 8 L AMAMI. or r Q'sMICI - : !VI. :::t:':6::::',i::NIL:::4::k1 L4r ref L±I 7aci 2.5 .% j-qmimWar w • ow "AV,: S ALT1TuvE g PM '�'�1 t 2 A'fAft*, Z1) 4r-t ! 0- Ill : liti . - (I°L , Li �-C.c MM��2 SaZ- (cam I - • p EL. Q8 !►� _� -1I I 1 ` Q. 4w� i �cl-T� r ,t 8- 3a� o �` - -r `l �°r/ ' . Muff#-t �j1{- - 117 12 FL Z� �` Ir• .. ~ fUILU/t-l�a kt/EST � s uo yc ` S o TtTuve_. 7Cm r x �— a = � VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER iiii. 0 . .00 za„ NORTH ___,. 4-prk o•fit . lei4r.- SCALE: 1" = 200'-0" - l \ \ ,r ji ' , , . • ' ' i ' •• • • ,t, . • _. • _ w.•'11, 121 ,! .- _,5„, ,. . ,• , . _ 1.,.._____._....,.._ . , i i . , : ,. 44 $'/$1 ''... ! •-- , /— ..,41'; : ...,.."-vs.:'....-17 i . .. , ' ti • I, :• , ...- , • • , I'l- .-:: !.{..----- 111111:-.1: • , /. . . • ..... r: '''..: \":. • • +w ft, .' )1/4/44„1. ri . '' •f O p t Ii' I O a ; I ' '.P.i7vi,: '.li.N. V ' i. (Y‘*'(:4;.„,i5,: ..' .jill" " ., ...„....mi ,. .t.'‘ "S—r-;'..:'v'':---'":g—:.';'EPA:...UJ-1,... .17:1117s_G-.."--:::•iTit 1.-7-7. --T'""c- 7,..., -,---.t..f;;*l' ------74„,.777:-----4Az -.1. / , ; it)/,.. ,,_. ,„ i ,...*:-M.'..-..:,.. ..,....,.. ,1:7 .., , . ..; .., .! ... i i-7.—1-4.1 .., .•• • ,t j i !Vi.iii••/ ; T• •` __ r - _ ,• : Vr c, - '( J ` .•'• L. F -r F -1'i .1 '-" L�.. � ,'• , ^ 1 j -r` •11 47 - r` ' #' • • �� „ ; )� Ji Fil:- t , '4'7uTlL. P r., t . .. . / 1 �.!•F ^? `` +gyp ' ,� • ~ ' 1 C L— - 'Jr r •,rY- `1i •A, .�. _ i�—t, It t• !r 49' • r 'I•L �• Z�' —�•l'•, :._,• L.._r��.._ .,� - t w� i 1�•� ' : 2,7''' r 4 I .117.tli i 1 7411 ii ,. . _ • .•., . .. . t_ . _t.::! .. .. - 1 �i 1t;*t 7' Y.- a 4 kj itry • • 4,�r r .3111 .. • .a.; ••• ..1 ••-• —•:- . . •/,'g.-1',.1 .1.... -I 4-I vv. T .. • ..• ll fitr • l a. l'''..1k.. : itt. If . • '. • � � It : ' _ . �tj" J+ r � r.----II Sic .�1 1�•' - ,.� q �E —r�. - r_____f,! 17 • NV ' .4,U: _1` k . ir • . r 4%. $i • • .„.. is ....' .7:-..1 • " • i,• . 1 :• • • ' '� �1 r1 •���.�•O% .•.1 4 'I p • +�r- r a" a - / . .1' i' i .• 'till I f 1 , J a 1 1 . ...V4,r1rtediel ' 1 f •.'.Y'4 - t 4 . , .. ...------- •' ••• • 1 ` . .11 1 7• �.; ♦i F :�,_1�,/ a J�r.1 .a�, 1 - ,. L , ,\ ' ,.1"�,. .�� 1r. I A. }i Ir , . . .,P 1 Iii y 1.%iY—dirtier' <f 1411►�s�1' t� 1 1 =1 _- it {i... _\ . • . MAHLUM & NORDFO ARCHITECTURE•FACILITY PLANNING•INTERIORS 2505 Third Avenue,Suite 219,Seattle,WA 98121 Project ` 1 2 Project No. twaG, VX/k Af 06 � �/�Q DatelTime /T1l Subject / M / 6� �j ' / �/ �,! To yA, ��� / /5 4 / A �/ /�`�Q&/1.6_.A 73 From t"'/G/ ❑Memo U Minutes 'elecon U Field Report U Other ® L vva aid M J I ors kia/-Z f 4.ie` 'S ue 1 rpo f , 4,0s' Cs ✓��/e tom. S✓ c_6-1/vH al J iak drity f7S rerv/re el///`-e,/a ✓Z r'r i -C / /`1,✓I d,w S/oh 'S lam° .4.4.4ve--/) aloe NOVA , Vi(/I MN1020-9/89 4'0"f� ! � CITY vF RENTON Hearing Examiner Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J.Kaufman May 1, 1991 • • John Scott Assistant Administrator Valley Medical Center 400 South 43rd Renton, WA 98055 RE: Medical Office Building -2 File No. CU-063-89 Dear Mr. Scott: The Examiner' s Report regarding the referenced application which was published April 15, 1991 has not been appealed within the 14-day period established by ordinance. Therefore, this matter is considered final and is being transmitted to the City Clerk this date for filing. Please feel free to contact this office if further assistance or information is required. Sincerely, • e 2,4 FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK:dk cc: City Clerk Building Division Planning Division Omi Almeda, Facilities Officer, VMC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton. Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2593 / AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. County. of King ) DOTTY KLINGMAN , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 15th day of April , 1.991- affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this [J741k day of Y-1 I , 1991,. • 4 ' ', Notary P4. is in a d fo the State of Washington, residing f(� h , therein. Application, Petition, or Case il: \ALLEY MEDICAL CENTER - CU-063-89 • (The minutes contain a list of the parties of .record.) April 15, 1991 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER (MOB-2) File No: CU-063-89 LOCATION: South 43rd Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Conditional Use permit to construct a five level medical office building on a portion of the campus currently used as a parking lot. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Division Recommendation: Approval, with conditions. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT: The Planning Division Report was received by the Examiner on March 26, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Division Report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The hearing was opened on April 2, 1991 at 9:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #2 - Site and Landscape Plan Exhibit #3 - Elevation Plan The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by LENORA BLAUMAN, SENIOR PLANNER. A summary of her testimony follows. The city has been considering this proposal and working with the applicant since 1989, as a part of another proposal (ambulatory care center). At that time the various impacts were looked at from the development and it was determined that the master campus plan on file at that time was not current. A determination of significance was issued for the combined projects (proposed medical office building and ambulatory care center). There were three main issues in the EIS - land use, public services and transportation. An environmental impact statement was prepared and mitigated conditions were issued by the ERC. In a background review of this proposal she noted the request is for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new medical office building on a portion of the hospital campus that is currently being used as a parking lot. The office building will serve as a private practice facility which will be leased to a physicians group; the planned structure exceeds the 50 ft. height limit (57 ft. planned); the entire site is 32 acres with the project comprising 1.4 acres; surrounding uses were reviewed; the proposed building will be 103 ft. above sea level with the building to the east 130 ft. and the street to the east of the site approximately 100 ft above sea level. Reviewing the ERC mitigation document Planner Blauman read the conditions into the record which covered such requirements as the restriction of the proposed meeting rooms and kitchen facilities to hospital-related uses only; the applicant should covenant the building to restrict 75% of its leasable area to secondary and tertiary practices to lessen land use and traffic impacts; applicant complete a long range master plan within 18 months of the issuance of this building permit; payment of monies for an additional 4040 vehicle trips; Ievise the Transportation Management Plan; and the applicant shall carry out their voluntary agreement to sprinkler the hospital according to an agreed-upon schedule. Blauman also reviewed the TMP, traffic impacts, parking, view corridors, vehicle and pedestrian Valley Medical Center CU-063-89 April 15, 1991 Page 2 linkages, landscaping, on-site recreational facilities, noise, air quality, medical building occupancy rates, and the overall Master Plan for Valley Medical Center. In her review of the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit, Ms. BLAUMAN said the proposed development does comply with the Comprehensive Plan; to address noise from construction there will be no construction permitted between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM with no impacts expected to the adjacent properties. It is felt this new service is needed in the community and will provide a means for "one-stop" patient care, with a minimum amount of vehicle travel. Doctors within this proposed facility can make referrals for additional specialized medical treatment to patients without sending them to other areas of the city. Use of primary care facilities located in outlying areas of the city is encouraged, with this type of off-campus facility being periodically reviewed by the city as a part of the master campus plan for VMC. The area is suitable for the proposed use; handicapped parking is provided to the south of the proposed building; the proposed building would increase the impervious surface from 70% to 71% on the site; although the height of the building will exceed the 50 ft. limit, the 57 ft. height requested will not appear that tall due to the site's topography and terrain. Continuing, Planner Blauman said there should be no shadow impacts; services in the proposed building will be compatible with other services offered within the hospital campus and surrounding medical buildings; there will be improved landscaping between the buildings and parking garage. Concern had been expressed about possible glare problems to the traffic along Highway 167 prompting the applicant to prepare a solar glare program and revise window designs. It was noted there are currently 1677 parking stalls on campus. Of that number, 91 will be deleted with the construction of the proposed building. Of the 1586 remaining parking stalls, 360 will be used to serve the proposed structure, and the remaining 1226 stalls should be sufficient to serve the existing campus. Staff had recommended the building be re-oriented a few more degrees to the southwest to improve view corridors. Recreational facilities are located on-campus, and acknowledgement was given a letter presented by the applicants clarifying what recreation activities are available. The ERC has also requested the applicant contribute to recreational amenities off-campus for the benefit of the general community, but staff feels the recreation amenities now located on the hospital campus should be adequate to meet the needs of the hospital staff as well as the public. At this time Planner Blauman read into the record the recommended staff conditions (see copy attached). Responding on behalf of Valley Medical Center was JOHN SCOTT, Assistant Administrator, 400 So. 43rd, Renton 98055. Mr. Scott read a Project Description Summary into the record along with a list of ten (10) objectives supporting this proposed new facility (copy in Exhibit #1). He said there has been a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) in effect at Valley Medical Center for over three years and most of the goals are already in effect. The meeting complex will seat approximately 200. Further response was received from GREG LEWIS, 2505 - 3rd Avenue, Suite 219, Seattle, 98112 who said the Master Plan for the hospital campus was developed in 1982 and revised in 1987. The plan continues to show this site and the site east of MOB-1 as combined hospital/office space. The space above the conference center in the new building will be leased to physicians. The space used in the conference center will be for continuing medical education for physicians as well as educational out-reach programs for the community. Mr. Lewis advised the Master Plan that is being updated continues to show a combined use of hospital use and office space as evidenced in this proposal and feels the Master Plan is showing good land use and coordination of the campus buildings. OMI ALMEDA, Facilities Officer for VMC, 400 So. 43rd, Renton 98055 addressed the Transportation Management Plan stating the plan now in effect is meeting the required Metro goals of 10%, with hospital staff continuing to work with Metro. On February 20, 1991 a letter from Metro confirmed the aggressive management plan the hospital is implementing with features such as a full-time transportation coordinator, a rider information center, and ride sharing. Regarding construction, Mr. Almeda said they will comply with the city standards for noise control. Other aspects of the construction management plan will be worked out with the city. KEITH DEARBORN, 3400 Pacific First Center, Seattle, 98101 representing Valley Gardens Health Center, said it is believed his clients would render no opinion on this proposal contingent upon a settlement read into the record at the appeal hearing of March 19, 1991. He requested, and was granted, a short recess to confirm this agreement with Attorney Eric Thoman, General Counsel for Valley Medical Center. At 10:10 A.M. the hearing continued and Attorney Dearborne confirmed a settlement had been reached. He thanked the Hearing Examiner and staff for their time and patience with the parties involved in bringing the appeal agreement to a conclusion. Testifying for the city's Transportation Division was JOE ARMSTRONG. He was asked if the LID that is proposed for the 43rd.Street/Talbot area will restore some of the area intersections to acceptable levels so traffic flows more smoothly. His response was that the proposed project will help the intersections by providing additional lanes for eastbound and westbound traffic which will allow traffic to ingress onto the north and south campus of the hospital grounds, thereby freeing up thru traffic in Valley Medical Center CU-063-89 April 15, 1991 Page 3 the area. Also, a eastbound right turn lane will be provided which should relieve some congestion in the afternoon hours and should help the ingress and egress for two buildings located on the south side of the hospital. Also addressing this subject was OMI ALMEDA stating an important part of this LID project is the construction of the tunnel which is critical to the LID on 43rd because it will relieve the pressure at the intersection leading to offices on their campus. He noted the tunnel will connect the two campuses. PLANNER BLAUMAN referred to uses on the main floor of MOB-2 stating some of the meeting rooms will be from other places on campus. The cafeteria expansion will provide better service to employees on campus which means they will not have to leave the campus for lunch - thereby relieving some of the traffic impacts. She had no further comments. 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 11:00 A.M. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Valley Medical Center, with Dan Jardine/Mahlum and Nordfors, filed a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit 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, determined that an EIS was required for the proposal, and one was prepared. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 400 South 43rd Street. The site is located on the campus of Valley Medical Center which is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of South 43rd Street and Talbot Road South. SR-167 is located immediately west of the campus. The actual site for the proposed building is on the northwest quadrant of the hospital's campus. 6. The area near the intersection of Talbot and 43rd is dominated by medically related uses including the hospital and numerous clinics and medical offices. Single family uses are located east and north of the site. 7. The subject site was annexed to the city with the adoption of Ordinance 1743, enacted in April, 1959. The site was reclassified to its current P-1 (Public/QuasiPublic) zoning with the adoption of Ordinance 2345, enacted in July, 1967. 8. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of Public and Quasi-Public uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 9. The development of a private/public sponsored project in the P-1 zone requires conditional use review. Additionally, a building exceeding the height limits of the P-1 zone also requires conditional use review. 10. The applicant proposes using approximately 1.4 acres of the 32 acre campus for the office building. The site is now used for a parking lot. Staff analysis indicates that there will be sufficient parking on the site even with the elimination of this parking area. 11. The proposed office building will be five (5) stories tall and contain 110,966 square feet of office space. 12. The building will be used to provide auditorium space, conference rooms, kitchen facilities and medical offices. 13. The ERC limited the type of medical offices that can be established in the building after concluding that secondary and tertiary facilities would attract fewer separate vehicle trips. Apparently visits to specialist would be coupled with some other business on the campus thereby eliminating second trips for testing or admissions. These traffic reductions are entirely speculative. Primary practice physicians would make up approximately 25 percent of the occupants of the building, with the remainder being specialists. Valley Medical Center CU-063-89 April 15, 1991 Page 4 14. Topographically the campus slopes downward toward the west. Talbot Road is located at approximately elevation 100 feet. The top of the of the new building will be at an elevation of approximately 103 feet. 15. The five-story building will be 57 feet tall which is approximately the same height as the other office buildings on the campus. 16. The approximately 110,966 square feet will be divided over the five floors. The projection is that the building will be filled over a period of approximately 3 to 5 years since the absorption rate for similar structures has been approximately 30,000 square feet per year. The additional office space may very well compete with surrounding uses, and staff attempted to distinguish between Class A and Class B occupancies. 17. The building will have a footprint of approximately 21,600 square feet. The earlier office building has a footprint of approximately 18,000 square feet and the Chin Hills Building has a footprint of approximately 14,000 square feet. 18. The building will be oriented in along the east-west axis. The long facades, the north and south facades, will have articulated sections. The northeast corner of the building will have a number of steps that avoid creating a plain ninety degree corner. The south facade will also step outward near the southeast corner. The exterior treatment will match other buildings on campus. The new building will be connected to the existing garage and the existing medical office building by skybridges. 19. Staff has determined that of the total complement of parking available on campus, 1,586 stalls, this building will require 360 stalls. Staff further determined that the remaining 1,226 stalls are sufficient to meet the parking requirements of the rest of the developed campus. 20. Staff estimated that the new building will generate approximately 4,040 average weekday vehicle trip ends. The Level of Service (LOS) for intersections in the area vary from LOS C to LOS F. The main areas of poor service are at South 43rd and Talbot and 43rd between the site and SR-167. The applicant has already agreed to join LID 329 which will add lanes to the intersection and construct a tunnel under 43rd to connect the north and south campuses of the hospital. The applicant will be contributing additional funding to the LID for a pro rata share of this additional traffic. 21. In addition to the LID, the applicant has an active Transportation Management Plan (TMP) that includes car pooling, incentive parking rates, transit pass subsidy and an on-site transportation manager. If a ten percent reduction in traffic is not achieved staff will reanalyze the occupancy and any new proposal. 22. The applicant proposes landscaping around the perimeter of the new building. The landscaping will be integrated with existing landscaping. Staff has recommended that additional plantings be incorporated near the adjacent structures, the parking garage and psychiatric wing, to soften those buildings' appearances. Overall there will be a slight decrease in landscaping, from 63 percent to 62 percent, but plantings will be enhanced. 23. The applicant is working with the Fire Department to provide uniform fire suppression equipment, including sprinklers, on the entire campus. The new building will contain sprinklers. 24. The applicant has agreed to provide $20,000 for recreational uses, particularly the trail system, near the campus. An exercise therapy area provides recreation, at a fee, for various persons employed on the campus. The system is also open to the general public on a limited basis. The system was not supposed to be open to the general public when it was first reviewed. 25. Staff recommended that the auditorium and meeting room use be limited to internal programs and meetings offered at the hospital to discourage any additional traffic. 26. An appeal was filed by a neighboring property owner challenging the SEPA process and the EIS. A settlement of that dispute was reached by the parties. That settlement is hereby incorporated, and insofar as it would modify the original application, the application is considered modified for purposes of this consideration. Other issues by and between the parties that do not deal directly with the design, traffic, and leasing of this specific proposal are not considered herein. Valley Medical Center CU-063-89 April 15, 1991 Page 5 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; 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 proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance, and the Conditional Use Permit should be approved. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site and general vicinity for public and quasi-public uses, and the proposed medical office building complies with this designation. Medical uses are permitted uses in a P-1 zone, subject to site plan review. The proposed medical office building is subject to the similar but slightly more rigorous Conditional Use Criteria since the building would exceed the 50 foot height limit permitted in the P-1 zone. 3. The main issue is whether the Comprehensive Plan intends, in this context, to limit the use of the limited land in actual public ownership to public uses. Put another way, should this publicly owned site be usurped for what is primarily private development. Staff's review indicated that there appears to be sufficient space for potential hospital uses and that a proposed Master Plan will address this issue more directly. While the Master Plan will provide more insight into this issue it would obviously be too late, if space were found to be at a premium. With that said, this review will, at this juncture, defer to the hospital's determination on whether the space is appropriately used for private development. 4. Staff did an extensive analysis of whether there is a community need for the proposed building in this location. What can ultimately be said is that doctors tend to congregate near hospitals, that the demand for office space is there, although not tremendous, and that the campus location will be very competitive with more remote locations. While this office is not entirely satisfied with the estimate that secondary and tertiary medical uses will generate fewer trips because of overlapping scheduling and visits, the implementation of other transportation improvements will presumably accommodate the additional traffic that will be generated in this area. Finally, if traffic continues to worsen, patients may demand clinic visitations closer to residential areas which will cut down the commute times and overall traffic. 5. Outside of the competitive arena and traffic, the location of the building, its size, and the topography of the campus should minimize the impacts on adjacent property. The building should be all but invisible sandwiched between the parking garage and the psychiatric wing, and downslope from the companion medical office building. 6. The proposed building is compatible in scale with surrounding hospital structures which all top out at an elevation of approximately 100 to 130 feet, and are all four to five stories in height. In the context of height, which required the conditional use review, the proposed structure is compatible with its surroundings, and will not particularly interfere with views or the entry of light and air to the campus. The extra seven (7) feet over the fifty feet permitted outright in the P-1 zone will not unduly affect the public health, safety or welfare. As indicated earlier, the building is located in an area where it will be minimally intrusive. In addition, the fact that the first floor will be primarily for meeting space, classroom presentations and an auditorium will limit the amount of traffic actually generated since these areas will not be fully occupied offices. Valley Medical Center CU-063-89 April 15, 1991 Page 6 7. While discussing the auditorium and meeting rooms, staffs' recommendation that the space will be limited and not open to the general public on a regular basis is appropriate. Therefore, the auditorium should be used solely for internal programs and meetings of the hospital such as employee meetings. The auditorium should not be used for general purpose meetings or conferences with more than 15 or 20 outside conferees. Since such an auditorium though could serve for occasional community meetings of an area wide nature, the auditorium should be available to community groups not more than once a month. All such general purpose meetings should occur no earlier than 7:00 P.M. to avoid interfering with the P.M. rush hour traffic. The hospital board may use the auditorium for its open public meetings as necessary. 8. There is sufficient parking on the campus to accommodate the parking requirements for both this new addition to the campus and for the remainder of the campus. This new building will be connected directly to the parking garage by a skybridge. In addition, the TMP required by the city will hopefully reduce the demand for parking. 9. Pedestrian circulation will be handled by both the skybridges connecting the building to others on campus and the outside walkways. Traffic circulation on campus is adequate. Staff has indicated that the new addition can adequately be served by the new LID for the Talbot and 43rd intersection, and the new tunnel. The ERC imposed a number of transportation mitigation measures and this office will not revisit those issues in this forum other than to require that the LID be completed prior the occupancy of this new addition. 10. The proposed landscaping will soften the building as will its stepped-back design. The landscaping around the perimeter of the building appears adequate and will integrate the new building into the campus. Additional plantings as suggested by staff to soften the facades of the immediately adjacent buildings is appropriate. The limited landscaping now in place was only intended to buffer an open parking lot. 11. As indicate above, the site is served by the City of Renton for public services. With the installation of a sprinkler system in the new building, and with the continued renovation of the on-site sprinkler system, the site has, or will have, adequate fire protection. 12. One issue which staff will have to resolve will be the potential need to modify the glazing materials after staff analysis of the glare information. 13. In conclusion, the building appears well-designed, fits in with the remainder of the campus, and the additional height should not adversely impact either operations on the campus or adjacent uses in the vicinity of the hospital. DECISION The Conditional Use Permit for a 57 foot medical office building is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. The application is considered modified for purposes of this consideration by the settlement of the SEPA appeal, and the settlement is hereby incorporated insofar as it would modify the original application. 3. LID 329 shall be completed prior to the occupancy of this new building. 4. The auditorium shall be used solely for internal programs and meetings of the hospital, such as employee meetings. The auditorium shall not be used for general purpose meetings or conferences with more than 15 or 20 outside conferees. The auditorium may be used for occasional community meetings of an area wide nature, as long as such community meetings do not occur more than once a month. All such general purpose meetings shall occur no earlier than 7:00 P.M. to avoid interfering with the P.M. rush hour traffic. The hospital board may use the auditorium for its open public meetings as necessary. These restrictions shall be incorporated into a restrictive covenant 5. The applicant shall modify the glazing materials, window alignment or other window glass properties as determined by staff to provide safe and non-intrusive glare. 6. The applicant shall provide additional plantings to soften the facades of the immediately adjacent buildings. All landscape materials shall be subject to staff review and approval. Valley Medical Center CU-063-89 April 15, 1991 Page 7 7. The applicant shall provide a surety device subject to the approval of the city attorney and staff to guarantee the landscaping materials will be replaced during the initial three years after installation. 8. Subject to the approval of staff, the applicant shall develop a construction agreement to address hauling routes, hours of operation and erosion and dust control measures. ORDERED THIS 15th day of April, 1991. FRED J. K FMAN HEARING KAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 15th day of April, 1991 to the parties of record: John Scott Assistant Administrator Valley Medical Center 400 So. 43rd Renton, WA 98055 Greg Lewis 2505 - 3rd, Suite 219 Seattle, WA 98112 Omi Almeda Facilities Officer Valley Medical Center 400 So. 43rd Renton, WA 98055 Keith Dearborn Attorney At Law 3400 Pacific First Center Seattle, WA 98101 Joe Armstrong Transportation Systems Division City of Renton TRANSMITTED THIS 15th day of April, 1991 to the following: Mayor Earl Clymer Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Lynn A. Guttmann, Administrator Members, Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson, Development Services Manager Gary Gotti, Fire Marshal Ronald Nelson, Building Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant Transportation Systems Division Valley Daily News Utilities System Division 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. April 29, 1991. 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. 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. Valley Medical Center CU-063-89 April 15, 1991 Page 8 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. `PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II PUBLIC HEARING March 19, 1991 Page 10 H. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommend that the Hearing Examiner take the following actions with respect to the application from Valley Medical Center for conditional use permits to allow an entrepreneurial medical office building (CU 063-89)with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions established by the Environmental Review Committee In the Mitigation Measures document issued January 7, 1991 (amended February 21, 1991) and duly Issued by the City. (See Exhibit A) 2. The applicant shall, in order to address visual/aesthetic impacts, privacy/defensible space Impacts, and light/air circulation impacts, provide a revised site plan for the MOB II which rotates the building +/-25 degrees on its axis In a southwesterly direction. The plan shall be approved by the Development Planning Section prior to Issuance of site preparation/building permits for MOB II. (Note 2.1: The modifications to building design/location can be coordinated with the skybridges so that no major redesign is required for that improvement. The skybridge linking MOB II to the Parking Garage must be a minimum of 13'6" above ground level to allow fire emergency equipment to travel beneath that access. Both skybridges must be sprinklered and should include security systems to preserve safety of persons and property.) 3. The applicant shall, in order to address light/glare impacts from MOB II, provide: a) a solar/glare analysis (diagram)for those hours of the day on the equinox, and on summer and winter solstices, when the angle of reflected sunlight is at 30 degrees or less with the horizon In order that staff can ascertain whether reflected glare is likely to Impact S.R. 167, S.W. 43rd Street or Talbot Road. This diagram shall be submitted to the Development Services Section and Development Planning Section in conjunction with the Building Permit Application so that staff can ascertain whether windows in MOB II must be redesigned (e.g., recessed placement, angulation) so that glare from those glassed areas does not impair vision of persons driving vehicles along Talbot Road, S.R. 167 or S.W. 43rd Street. Study findings and a window treatment plan shall be approved by the Development Planning Section prior to issuance of site preparation/building permits for MOB II. 4. The applicant shall, in order to address aesthetic impacts, provide a revised landscaping plan which: a) ensures that landscaping remains coordinated with the site plan when revisions are made to the axis for MOB II; b) upgrades plantings at the northern boundary of the Psychiatric Wing and the southern boundary of the parking garage to ensure a pleasing vista from MOB II. Plans shall be approved by the Development Planning Section prior to issuance of site preparation/building permits for MOB II. (Note 4.1: Landscaping abutting the parking garage will also require approval by the Fire Department to ensure that planting materials and locations do not hamper access by fire fighting equipment.) • 5. The applicant shall provide a landscaping surety device, equal to.ten percent (10%) of the value of new landscaping, to be valid for a three (3) year period. The device must be approved by the City Attorney and provided in advance of the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. 6. The.applicant shall, In order to address on-site recreation impacts: a) provide new active/passive recreation facilities for MOB it employees either within the proposed structure or at another convenient location on the campus; and b) provide a plan for increased accessibility to existing facilities for staff members (by eliminating the "health club" program except for members of the public who utilize facilities for therapeutic purposes). This plan is to be approved by the Development Planning Section (in consultation with Parks and Recreation) prior to issuance of site preparation/building permits for MOB II; all improvements are to be installed/made available for employee utilization prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for MOB II. 7. The applicant is encouraged, in order to address off-site community recreation impacts,to make a voluntary contribution of $20,000 toward implementation of the Master Trail Plan improvements slated for Springbrook Avenue. 8. The applicant, in order to address construction-related impacts, shall develop a construction management plan Including the following components: a) an erosion control element; b) an element which restricts hauling operations, allowing those operation to occur only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. 8:30 p.m.; c) an element which establishes a hauling route which is acceptable to the City; d) a schedule which restricts on site construction operations, allowing those operations to occur only during the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. to control noise; e) an element which provides for wheel-washing of construction vehicles prior to prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER • Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II PUBLIC HEARING March 19, 1991 Page 11 their departure from the site;f) an element which provides for periodic watering down of the site to contain dust and debris; g) a fee of$2,000.00 to be deposited for street clean-up; and h) a signage plan which defines appropriate travel routes and identifies construction areas to protect public safety and facilitate provision of emergency services. These plans shall be approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any site preparation/building permits for MOB II. NOTE: All on-site and off-site improvements mandated by Code, including, but not limited to, provision of utilities easements, updating of related utilities service agreements, undergrounding of power lines, and payment of utilities fees, shall be completed prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the subject developments. prelmrpt VALLEY MEDICAL AMBULATORY CARE CO FFICE BUILDING ANDENTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REVISED MITIGATION DOCUMENT The EIS for this project has Identified a number.of possible mitigation measures for impacts that were considered to be significant or potentially significant (as defined by quantitative measures whenever such measures were found to exist). These mesures and others which the responsible the environmentre the subject of this mitigation document official may determine are warranted to protect a WAC 197-11-660 Substantive Authority and Mitigation requires that mitigation measures be based on policies, plans, rules or regulations formally designated by the agency. It also requires that mitigation measures shall be related to specific adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental document on the proposal: 'After its decision each agency shall make available to the public a document that states the decisions.ts. including aument ll nystate the mitigation measures, if any, that will monitoriing of environmental impacts." (WAC 197-11- implemented as part of the decisions, 660(1)(b)) This document is intended to meet this requirement. WAC 197-11-440 EIS Contents states that an EIS shall contain the following: fact sheet, table of contents, summary, alternatives including the proposed action, affected environment, significant Impacts and mitigation measures. The parts of the affected environment to be discussed can be determined through the scoping process which shall narrow the scope of every EiS to the probable significant adverse Impacts and reasonable alternatives, including mitigation measures. The Environmental Review Committee for the City of Renton discussed the FEIS on December 21,1990. It was officially sent to the Department of Ecology on December 27, 1990,thereby starting the 20 day appeal period. WAC 197-11-060 Content of Environmental Review states that agencies shall ashllll)"carefully i refinelude 'thosesidthat aer ee rangege of probable Impacts, including short-term and long-term eff Impacts to arise or exist over the lifetime of a proposal", or, in some cases even longer. WAC 197-11-330 Threshold Determination Process requires the responsible official to take into account the following when determining • whether a proposal has significant adverse Impacts: . 'The same proposal may have significant adverse impact In one location but not in another location;" "the absolute quantitative effects of a proposal are also important, and may result in a significant adverse impact regardless of the nature of the existing environment"; and "Several marginal impacts when considered together may result in a significant adverse impact"; In reaching such a decision SEPA states that the responsible official shall not balance whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse Impacts, but rather, shall consider whether a proposal has any probable significant adverse environmental Impacts under the rules stated above. THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action is the construction of'a five-story, 110,970 square foot, medical office building (net leasable area: 103,270 sq. ft.) on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center campus. Also included in the Proposed Action Is the relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC space for existing, crowded medical services. As a result of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) scoping process, comments were received from governmental agencies and Interested citizens regarding the major issues that needed to be analyzed in this EiS. Those issues included the following: • o Land Use: relationship of the propose action and alternatives to land use patterns in the area, existing plans and policies, and westerly views; ;_: • • o Traffic and Parking: effect of the Proposed Action and alternatives on traffic, parking and circulation;and o Public Services-Fire: impact on existing City of Renton fire protective services. As noted In the SEPA rules, the content of the EIS Is determined by the Lead Agency (in this case,the City of Renton) based, In part, on key sections of the SEPA Rules (197-11-402, 408, 430 and 440) together with results of the EIS soaping process. The Draft EIS Included an analysis of the Proposed Action and each of the alternatives' Impacts on land use,traffic and parking, and public services-fire. In response to citizen and agency Input on the DEIS,the Final EIS addressed questions on Air Quality, Energy, Environmental Health, Noise, Land Use, Aesthetics, Transportation, Transit, Public Services-Fire, and Revenue generated by the proposed action on the VMC campus. A. LAND USE Zoning • The zoning for the area is P-1. The Ambulatory Care Center meets the requirements of the zoning. However, the EIS acknowledges.the need for a conditional use permit in order for the medical office building to address several zoning requirements. 1. The hospital is a principal use under the zone and private medical office buildings are allowed under a conditional use permit as an accessary use In a separate building from the main hospital. (RMC 4-31-9(3)(h)) The medical office building will be owned by'the hospital, but four of the five proposed floors will be leased to private providers. Since four- . fifths of the building will be leased by private physicians, the building could be considered a private medical office building. . 2. The medical office building proposes an auditorium, meeting rooms, and kitchen facilities on the first floor. If this facility is to be used for activities unrelated to the principal use, the hospital, such as social, music and sport events, it would be subject to a conditional use permit as an accessory use for the hospital. (RMC 4-31-36 4 9) The EIS analyzes Impacts from hospital related uses of this facility. Other uses such as convention, dramatic or musical productions were not researched as to their impacts or mitigating measures. 3. The medical office building will need a conditional use permit to meet the zoning requirements for height. ' The proposed height of 70' exceeds the P-1 zone 50' requirements. (RMC 4-31-9(D)(3)). in order for a conditional use to be granted the proposal will have to meet the conditional use criteria listed in RMC 4-31-36: 'compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan; Community Need; Effect on Adjacent Properties; Compatibility; Parking; Traffic; Noise, Glare; Landscaping; • Accessory Uses. . RECOMMENDATION: 1. That'the conditional use permit for Valley Medical Center restrict the auditorium, meeting rooms and kitchen facilities to hospital related uses only. • -2- • No additional measures suggested. Other impacts will be addressed during the Conditional Use permit process. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance.4-6-22;WAC 197-11-660(1)(e), RMC 4-31- 36(4) & (9), RMC 4-31-9(D)(3) Off Campus The Comprehensive Plan designates the VMC campus and area surrounding as Public/Ouasi- Public. The proposed MOB and ACC relocation is compatible with this designation. The area surrounding the VMC campus has residential, office and open space land uses. The relocation of the ambulatory care center will have no additional land use Impacts over those already in existence. The proposed medical building is compatible with adjacent medical office buildings in the area. Because it is located within the campus and separated from the residential uses by streets and open space areas, It will not impact the adjacent residential areas with light, glare, noise, shadow, view Interruption, or noxious odors. However, use of the first floor facilities, auditoriums, meeting rooms, kitchen, for non-hospital related uses could Impact the surrounding land iuses. Impactslcould come t and glare from evening or weekend use with additional traffic, reduced parking supply, possible ligfic and noise during hours not normally associated with traffic impacts from the hospital. These potential impacts are not analyzed in the EiS. • Arguments have been made that this building will increase the supply of medical office space and will cause nearby private buildings to experience vacancies. Public comments'received on the DEIS requested an economic analysts of the Impact of this building on the adjacent privately owned medical office buildings (existing Valley Gardens Building). Economic nal19s r are 1no ot a required part of the environmental impact statement (see WAC 197-11-448(1), WAC ) and RMC 4-6-16). However, Impacts on adjacent properties are considered in the conditional use permit analysis under the criteria of community need. Therefore,while an impact may be expected from completion of the building, it was determined that it would be discussed in the context of the conditional use application. However,the EIS recognizes that the tenant mix of the MOB II could affect the occupancy rates of nearby privately owned medical office buildings. Historically, Class A space (this proposal) has been occupied by larger/expanding speciality medical practices, where wood-frame space has been occupied by smaller or newer.practices. Vacancy rates for Class A space in the area are 11.7% presently and the vacancy rate for wood-frame space is 16.2%. It is expected that some physicians would move their practices from other nearby locations to become part of the • development. The EIS states that VMC projects an absorption rate of 30,000 to 40,000 sq. ft. per •year. Under these rates, It would take 3-5 years to fill the buildings. Theoretically, this building would compete with only other Class A type buildings, (existing Valley Gardens Building, Chinn Hills and Talbot Professional Center Buildings, the latter two owned by VMC). However, it should not Interfere with the market need for wood-frame office space. One of the EiS alternatives is a reduced scale building. This four story building, would be filled within 2-5 years, using the above mentioned absorption rate. This would allow some of the market demand to be met off-campus and could that are the nditional use issues. However, hospital related are now over there is no indication that specialty tyPa medical offices concentrated In the area. '' ' -3- • • Alternatively, an argument could be made that primarily specialized medical practitioners should be leaseholders In the proposal, as long as It can be shown that there is a strong symbiotic relationship between the hospital and the practitioners housed here. Typically, secondary and tertiary medical practitioners rely on diagnostic equipment and laboratories that are associated with a major hospital and because of proximity and convenience,•will refer patients there for treatment. Since these specialists are generally the ones providing the treatment services within the hospital, a strong working relationship can generally be shown that would support the notion that the proposed location Is suited for the proposed use. Both doctor and patient auto trips could arguably be fewer with these types of practices located close to the hospital. Were the proposed medical office building to be used for primary medical care, it might be argued that neighborhood convenience could be better served by locating such facilities closer to residential areas. Also, since primary care physicians have a much lower hospital referral rate for their patients than do specialists, It would make little sense to draw additional unrelated traffic Into an already congested area such as this. This recommendation is based on a similar recommendation for Medical Office Building I, a sister building to the proposed MOB II. This first building, permitted In spring of 1989, had a covenant which restricted the physician usage to 75 percent secondary and tertiary practices and 25 percent to primary care practices. This covenant addressed the minimization of traffic impacts generated by the tenants in the building. Traffic impacts are a concern for MOB II as well. However, there is no Indication in the EIS for MOB II that the traffic impacts from this building will be more substantial than those from MOB I. 'With the mitigation of additional traffic fees, a revised Transportation Management Plan, and increased emphasis on HOV promotion, it Is not necessary to restrict MOB II beyond MOB I. Therefore,the same 25 percent covenant for the maximum amount of primary care space on MOB I would reasonably apply to both buildings. RECOMMENDATION: • 2. •That the VMC covenant the building to restrict 75% of its leasable area to secondary and tertiary practices to lessen land use and traffic Impacts. The remaining'25% ' could be leased to non-hospital dependent primary care physicians. No additional mitigation measures specified. The conditional use process will further address this impact. • Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6-22, WAC 197-11-448(1, 3) and WAC 197-11-660. On Campus • The EIS notes that implementation'of the Proposed Action would slightly change the use and character of the campus in the immediate vicinity of the site. Existing surface parking would be replaced with a five-story building, driveways and surface parking. Overall pattern of land use on • campus would change slightly: health-related land uses would Increase from an existing 5.93% building lot coverage to 7.09%. Amount of land area devoted to parking and driveways would decrease from 26.35% to 25.85% and landscaping/undeveloped areas would decrease from 62.87%to 62.22%. No impact is expected from the relocation and consolidation of the Ambulatory Care Center and infilling of the space vacated by existing ACC programs. -4- • The medical office building Is compatible with surrounding iceIs its usises on ampExistiusg mee pr prooffiposed architecture is compatible with surrounding buildings as buildings are 57' high with 18,400 square feet in the Talbot Professional Center and 14,000 square feet in the Chin Hills Building. However, this proposal is one of many received from the Valley Medical Center. In the past two years, over $18,800,000 of building permits have been issued to VMC. From this standpoint, the building will have a cumulative Impact as part of the overall development of the campus. Overall campus development concerns revolve around amount of open space,view impacts, landscaping, building envelopes, traffic generation, utility Impacts, fire and police calls, park needs, storm water provision, and .economic effects. Because the proposals are scattered throughout time, the city is unable to review the overall campus development as an integrated whole and fully ascertain.the probable impacts on the community. Continued development on the VMC campus could have a significant cumulative impact. The applicant has voluntarily agreed to undertake a Master Plan s Update for ther entire at on with This plan would cover the above listed concerns as well as othe City of Renton. A programmatic environmental impact statement will be done on the master plan. RECOMMENDATION: 3. That Valley Medical Center v18�months of therily te a long issuance of this permit.Campusrane Master The City and •.• .41 be filed with the City within VMC shall agree upon the content, scope of work, and review process of the plan prior to its initiation. . . • .. NOTE TO APPLICANT:.;The City of Renton, as lead agency, expects Valley Medical Center • . • •• to complete a programmatic EIS on a Master Plan for the campus, before any subsequent development-related actions are taken at will thelally increase VMC Campus.he(Remodelingf employees,visitors, and/or vehicularparking Paces on which will not result in any of the above Impacts, Is exempt.) • This note addresses the overall wmSPA WAC 19cts of P-111 704t 774, and 442) would requied development and re ' • r • development on campus. State la ( g Impacts, be that an EIS, addressing all elements of the environment includin cumulativeImpa • prepared on the Master Plan if a threshold determination of significance Lead enen Y by the lead agency. Since the Master Plan has not yet been received by thethreshold determination cannot yet be issued. To label this Note as a Recommendation could be considered as speculative and therefore,would be premature. • However, the City of Renton wishes Valley Medical Center to know that of the Master continued cooperation is necessary on the formulation and timely completion lan. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660(1)(d), RMC 4-6-22. VIEWS: The five story MOB will affect territorial views looking230 feet along Talbot Road Stand is framed by the Green River Valley. The' present view corridor extendsroughly will •the Chin Hills Building and Talbot Professional e at would dimition inish, b the ut but notpel miinate'ntheiview view somewhat. A reduction In height ofstory corridor impact. Only a change in•siting of the building would mitigate thi's impact. -5- r • • • Alternative 3, the siting of the building In the south campus would alleviate the view Impact along Talbot Road but would impact views from S.W. 43rd Street. Other views along the Talbot corridor would still be available if the project were completed. The view Impact is not considered significant. The VMC could rotate the building on its axis, shifting It to the southwest. While additional parking spaces would most probably be lost, the campus provides an oversupply of parking presently. This shifting would alleviate the view Impact. RECOMMENDATION: No mitigating measures suggested. TRAFFIC It is general knowledge that the area around Valley Medical Center is very congested. Of the eleven Intersections in the Immediate vicinity, four are presently functioning at LOS E and F, as reported in the EIS.. Generally, growth in the area is expected to continue. Without the project, five Intersections will function at LOS F by 1995. With the project, two additional Intersections will fall from LOC B and C to LOS D. This'would have seven of the eleven intersections at LOS D or F. The LOS at several of VMC's driveways are also reduced as a direct result of the Proposed Action. However, LID 329 will improve these levels. Presently, yearly accident averages on East Valley Road S.W. 43rd Street and S.W. 43rd and Talbot Road S. Indicates these areas are high accident locations. The proposed MOB II would generate an additional 4,040 vehicular trips on an average weekday, with 169 of those trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 397 trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed relocation of the ACC will generate little if any additional traffic.. As mentioned above,the overall background growth in the area will reduce the LOS, contribute to probable higher accident rates, and generally Increase congestion for the road network with or without the project.. The increase in traffic from VMC facilities represents.an approximate 3% to 10% impact at various intersections. For the overall impacts, VMC should pay their fair share of needed Improvements. The EIS identifies that amount as $22.97 per trip for the additional trips directly generated from the proposal. , The $92,798.80 trip fee Is In addition to the VMC contributions to LID #329, a sum totalling approximately$2 million. LID #329's major purpose is to address traffic impacts in this congested corridor from previous development, and It Is perhaps the major hope for traffic mitigation for the hospital and surrounding properties... However, it has become increasingly apparent that in addition to VMC's and the City's contributions to the LID, which were based on work programs updated from the 1982 original scope of work, additional costs may arise. In order to assure that LID #329 Is completed expeditiously, the $92,798.80 will be prioritized towards this project. First priority will be to address new work items specifically related to Improved traffic flow. If monies are left after the LID Is completed, they will be utilized on other road projects as specified in the recommendation. RECOMMENDATIONS: 4. That VMC shall pay $92,798.80 in fees for the additional 4040 trips at $22.97 per trip to be used to Improve the roadway network off-site within a one mile radius of the • campus. The City will endeavor to use the money as specified below: -6- • RECOMMENDATIONS: 6. That Valley Medical Center shall abide by their voluntary agreement with the City to fully sprinkler the hospital according to schedule agreed upon. REVENUE: Arguments were made during the DEIS comment period that the medical office building would generate more revenue for the City if it were privately owned rather than hospital owned and leased. After reviewing both.scenarios, the FEIS found that a leased medical building would generate approximately $500 more revenue•to the City that a privately owned building. Therefore, no significant impact Is expected. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660(1)(d) RECOMMENDATIONS: No additional mitigating measures. OTHER ELEMENTS: In response to citizen comments on the DEIS, the following impacts were investigated In the FEiS: energy, environmental health, aesthetics, and noise. They were found to be Insignificant. • F • • -9- • Priority expenditures of this fund should be directed to new or unanticipated costs for IJD #329, including but not limited to: impacts on private pacts on through the engins from eeriing cd ontingency gency budgettruction work, nof the LID. utilities shall not be used through 9 for bikeways. 5. That VMC will review and revise the TMP to increase its effectiveness. These revisions will include: o evaluation of the goals identified In the TMP (a reduction of 10% In SOV trips) within six months of the Issuance of this permit. The SOV evaluation shall: a) use 1987 employee trips as a base figure; determine ifa10 percent reductionen hl been made on these trips; b) o calculate 1990 emp y tripsand cainelat0 percent reduction for differential growth between 1987 and 1990; employee trips for MOBII/ACC O percent reductionreduction; asa) total a, b and check;.and e) c to determine.total trips and the 10 percent determine methods for reaching the reduction. • A report shall be submitted to the City showing results of the evaluation. e installed If rgetdinged o as are not met, additional Incentive for HOV participation shall necessary: • o • Increased staff effort by the Building Transportation Coordinator and more promotion of HOV incentives. • o Further discounts.for carpool parking and increased rates for private vehicle trips, excluding clients and visitors. o . Implementation of the transit discount pass programto o in crease the employeesubsidy by is least 10°,6 each year if the annual goal of 10% of eligib participating g not met:(not to exceed the price of the transit pass). o Participation in the annual cost of vanpool operation (iin employees a � neoptovaping free ree parking located In proximity to' buildings and allowing plo Ys transit discount to the participant's vanpool fare) In an amount not to exceed $5000 per year if the evaluation show the SOV reduction goal has not been met. The subsidy shall begin upon completion of the TMP evaluation report if that • report shows the SOV goals are not achieved. The subsidy shall continue until the goal is met. o . Investigation of use of off-hours HOV vehicles owned by the Hospital for employee vanpool use. o Provide measures to ensure that HOV users can c e home in case of irregular events such as personal emergencies and unexpected o e. Promote alternatives to SOV by a variety of programs and services Including, but not limited to: - providing a Transportation Information Center in the building; - semi-annual promotion of HOV program; • x. • -7- • • • • • • - appointment, staffing and training in conjunction with existing Metro programs of a Building Transportation Coordinator's (BTC) office; • - Instituting a program to promote commuting by bus (Including the transit subsidy for employees) offering flexible working hours five days per week to certain employee groups to reduce employee trips during peak hours of congestion. - working with Metro to develop a work program and time frame to modify transit routes and times to improve the service for VMC employees. o The VMC Transportation Coordinator.will submit a biannual report to the Development Services Division, showing how goals are being met, or adjustments made in order to meet goals. If the 10% reduction in SOV Is not accomplished within one year, the City will reassess further development on campus. Subsequent development under the Master Plan update that would Increase the number of staff employed on campus and/or the number of visitors and/or the number of parking stalls shall be evaluated in light of the TMP goals and the EIS for the Master Plan, and mitigating measures will be Imposed. Mitigation could Include, but is not limited to: Increased traffic fees; transportation and traffic Improvements;and restricted or phased developments. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6-22; WAC 197=11-660; City of Renton Comprehensive Plan .Goal. VII.A; Green River Valley Policy Plan, Transportation Goal, Policies. AIR QUALITY: Additional analysis was perfornmed for the FEIS on the air quality impact of the proposal. It was found that air quality willl improve with any of the alternatives, primarily as a function of Improved emission devices on cars. The proposed action would increase air emissions by 6%, however, • emissions would still be 18% lower than today. The proposal is, therefore, not expected to have any significant Impacts. ' . .. RECOMMENDATIONS: No additional mitigating measures. See traffic measures. PUBLIC SERVICES--FIRE Currently, Valley Medical Center's hospital complex Is not fully sprinkled, and therefore, does not meet City of Renton fire code. Public safety Is an issue for this facility and without remedy, could, pose a significant Impact for future'services. Additional building on campus could complicate the amount of time and space available for fire response. However, the City and the Center have agreed upon a schedule for fully complying with the code. The new building and relocated ACC area will be fully sprinklered. No significant Impacts are, therefore, expected from the proposal or the alternatives. • -8- • • • • _ _ , V. ' Jy `` ^ 2. 50 .34 ST VALLEY C 2.4 Jim 8. iM Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II E[F`,[U-063r89 ' TOTAL AREA prOpct s1tp l 4 'acres APPLICANT ' Valley Medical Center '� _^ _ PRINCIPAL ACCESS Talbot Road South EXISTING ZONING p-1 , Public Use EXISTING USE Valley Medical Center PROPOSED USE five-level medical office building (#ith outside parkinq) COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE P/LAN PUblic/OUaSi7P'ubliC U�e 7R to COMMENTS Located at South 43rd Street . i g I i ; ' 1 I - I11.1 sj. 8 _. ......v-slos 1 I 1 I • f i ..� (7., 14 O .._ __ :-•^ ..Ir rr...c _. . _ .._. I 7 1 rn�o- ...4 r::-.7--;Y;;-%r•r�;;•.,.; ..._. ...�.�1-.-,--I I al 0 `t'e n I I•.R 7u 4 } I — — 3 � I U j `� � :`mi I I Il I W �w • I , . R�x- . 7. - I I Z _ - - .. ql I I ' ir� � ,r UJ ►-I C< 1 -il I ..Ir , a Il- . PEI � L I. I — a— - w.-i'p s : . . , ,II I - . . .1-, 1 ,4_11 0 . LT_ • J 111)' _ I min • 1ini, JLI, II l I a I I I I I ] l I I I 1 -F , _ _ . I —�e..®....tr..�.-.-.r - I i two.wamm II I I C 41 I I - .. - - . s+efl�'tOEO SQJT7-I F-1•E"I"TIA`.I ._ .. .. • t 4 . i 1 i ' • • I I I I I i 1 I I I . • I 1 I 1 I I - --- ----- — j I 1 I i i i I I I . r I _ _ � . •_ _ - ei I I I I I 1 I I I ill11 I I I - I I I I I ! I I g _ I I I I I I I I ! IXI d • • ---------#------T- I a I I I �; -- I I I I I I j • I i rim iff, I i j i I I I I �i 1 j o i -• - - 1 l i I I I 1 j 1 i DiriIr' I I . . _ _ ._ u . . . . . Cy i1 Li i I I I I I I _---;a -- j j. i i i i j j IIj I 1 -' j I w • ':;, :- •:•....,:..- _ �-.- 11 1-`t 1 I I I I i I I I I - • _ I I I I I I - I I 1 I I I I I I. I I -- - I j I I -1 1 I I I I III I I 'I.I I I I 1 I iL----ii___i , 1 1 I `� • I I I I I I j - —P--•- == — a I I I I- I I I j I j I I • FOURTH AND FIFTH FLOOR PLAN ' IKON DM . I TT RUM I ro ism t:- -. - - .._.. -- +gym rwi .. - - .. • • , ' A-5 .. .• - ' . • _ . - . . . . • • . . .. . . ... . - . .. .• • •. .. • . .. '0- — 0 .1 1 --- - 1) • o — _ I 0 . I, 1 i - G --- • 0 - -0 _ 0 , 451 -. . . . i . • • .... : ... . •.•. •• - •. ... •: •._ • .. - " . ... . .. . , . . • .•• • . .. . . . .. . . .- , . . . _ . . . • • I. __ -"HUH • • • ....... • • •. •. _ .... .. , ...... ••• ..._ . _. r 1 i i i 11 1/- 1 r1 i iiiiii i i 1,1 i if , r /Hull _ .I .1 ....---_-..-.....-:.:,---.::-..:..:-. .-:.-..---... , . _...:....-..._•:-..,:....-,: . . . • _ A 1 I , iiiiiii1111112r • ...• . .... illl 11/ 1 AtUld • " • • • • • . - -.• • - . .. _ . . . _- • •P', ; • - - - _. . .• . . .. . .-.- .• -• •-• 1= .. _ il I I IiIILI 1 Li • • . • )1 I 1 1 11 ki I. F . II . • I . . • . .. .._ ,.. . - •—•• •-._ -: A 111 • i • 1=1 . . 0 --- 0 -es --.. ..„._,-:•••,•-•....„..--z4.-.-.•.-• ••••,-__,....,..,....-.., -,,,,, --- •----- - ' li 1 1 I 1/ 1 Ail 0 1111111IL .__ _ __._ _ _._ _ - a 0 _•• —iv.---•--,-•<,' ..4''''''.•'..-....---'' 5'*-ci.jr.1-:?•"•'- 7.°-.1-..-:A--••••eri E,--------k-- --•.•• ..,.----',.'.t----:7.-.e •-• i 1 • _. _._.._. • ..___ _ ,....1_- =—_7__ 1 _ liz g ,..',•_:•••• -.' .:-.•:-7--•::-•::::'':.-__-.?:-.-.4' f....I..-- '4----::.'.-,-• • ". g TO -'''.7.---:-..E-••-•.-C-:'-'•-•'.......:-... -'',.'--,-.1. :.- .....--;--.:'•••:•.'•'L.-....'.---:'.11.t•--- ..11 1 , 1 -___ — —4— II omi -—•-.' ., _ --.7_ . •-•r••• I . I I . ca FI ••••••• -•••;,--_-1--,..:.:•••••_---•-'17--::::::-..-4•::.---•-• _.-....-...-:-;•:-..-•:•••••,---::,.-..-:-..:•• I I i . n 74 .• 1 . . , ______• ___________________ _____ . ii_i_i_ O - a :--:------ :-f""••••••••:-.• -..*:7_."_:• ...• -. .: -.:.--.-.`.:-.r-:• . ... •. t.g.•. E_. _ .,..,....-.0. _- c) g El 0 •• . .•.. .. . . . . . . .. ..:. . .. ... .- C.) ® -0 • II , . .:1„...'-.2. ..:;.-.,:...:.,... :::,.. .;....., ,,,..y-, ... i4....:i.2.. .;;;17 ...- 5.7...74-7.:::::::? . . _ _,.., ....... _; ... ., . . ... • • •_ ,. .• ... .14 --•-•-!--..---.:::••••:-,---.;•!-- --.-,.--::.-,--- ..:,----. - ....... :-.. '. : I T. . lioltillor . • ...„..0 + . i . I , IIii irr ..,...f + ,t.. ..... . .. .. - . .. . .. . - . .. . .. .. .: • .. ' . . - . " .. .. . . . 11 _--- rill - --7 1 __7•HH [I I __ .... 1 7 1i .' •: .- - .._... . , .. - • . .... . . . ..• " ' ... . . . ... . . . . . .. .. , .. . 1111 r N....a • • I I ' I 1 V / r 1 1 1 /...c- /', - ... ..„ t ,_. • . ..•• .. . .. .. " .... __. .. •• • ---_ •_.•• •••_- . ._ - - ...___ I - • . • 41- . . _ • • . .•• Ve - .. . .: • i.- . . . . ••••••• . ... 0 0 i ,no:17.02 . . _ . " ' • .-. ' _ • . . . . . . ._ I . ___ 1 .,_- ... ....._. • . .. -• - - .....1..._- Fri --L, . ..,.., ...., . 4 :: .oso •" . .• .• . • - • . • • • . , • • • • • ... . ., • •.. • . • . ...-••••"..---. . 1 I - r. .- •• • -•. • • . " - • ..•_ • • _____„....,-.••••:................... _____ ... __,7 'r. 11..ROIC.A. •66/....1...16 . .. ..... .. : .. — --....• „.••..... „.. „. • - • . . , ... .. .... . . . - . • . - We:57 _ A"'14 .... 1.- •:- .. - : :--.'--- "'-:.••::• :'. - . 7 . .% . . _ ------ - . . . . ... • - 1 . - .. _ . . Cu - -si , . =viol:R2'.77--"'-' MAR 1 S Ie.a 'E AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION , - LeAnne Hutton ,being first duly sworn on oath states 51 067 that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the • NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE i VALLEY DAILY NEWS I DETERMINATION a G FOR AMENDMENT TO A MITIGATION O I It" • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition DOCUMENT Notice is given under SEPA, RCW i 1 i 1 i i 43.21C.075 and WAC 19711-660, that the Daily_newspapers published six (6) times a week. That said newspapers City of Renton has amended a mitigation ii are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six ; document which addresses the environmen- gtal impacts expected from the potential months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published development of Valley Medical Center's in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King Medical Office Building II and Ambulatory County, E Washington. The ValleyDailyNews has been approved as a legal Care Center. Copies of the document are g ppavailable at the public informatian counter newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for (SEPA) Information Center) in the Develop- ment Services Division, Third Floor, Renton King County. Municipal Building located at 200 Mill Ave- nue South, Renton, Washington 98055. The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Kent Edition , Reading copies are available in the Renton Municipal Library at the above address. i xx x Renton Edition xx , Auburn Edition xx , (and not in DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL i supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers Valley Medical Center proposes to build al during the below stated period. The annexed notice a P si b 1 i c Notice 110 970 sf medical office building on the! northwest portion of the Valley Medical i Campus. Also included in the proposed #5 4 0 1 action is a Building Permit for relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center(ACC)' to another building on campus and use of was published on March 1 , .1991 the vacated ACC space for medical servic- _ es. Any interested party may appeal these The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoingpublication is the conditions in writing by 5:00 p.m., March g g o 15, 1991. See City Code Section 4-8-11, sum of$ 54 •..9 5 • 4 5-23, 4 6-6, WAC 197-11-680 for further details and RCW 43.21 C.075. To appeal this Declaration, you must file r , your appeal document with the Hearing 1S i I Examiner within fourteen (14) days of the - 0 p,- (.�L`L C lTh I date the decision was made.See City Code Section 4-8-11, 4-6-23, 4-6-6, RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further I 1 s.t Mar 91 as. Subscribed and sworn before me this day of 19 You should be prepared to make specific factualdetil objections. Contact City of Renton Development Planning Section to read or, .ask about the procedures for SEPA i appeals. — — - Published-in the Valley Daily News March' . /r 1, 1991 5401. - _ - -1 • Notary Public for the State of ,f ashin ton . • • • residing at A , , King County, Washington VDN#87 Revised 4/89 CITY OF RENTr"'' APR 1 1f1`' AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION CITYc�E � L e A n n e Hutton ,being first duly sworn on oath states 51 0 67 that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the $21.I7 VALLEY DAILY NEWS • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week. That said newspapers A Public Hearing will be held by the Ren- are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six ton Hearing Examiner at his regular meet- ingmonthsprior to the date ofpublication referred to, printed andpublished in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King March 19, 1991 at 9:00 a.m.to consider the County, Washington. The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal following petitions. newspaper order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB II by P g CU;ECF-063-89 King County. The applicant is seeking a conditional construct a live level medical office3jsepermit buildintog on now vacant property with- The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Kent Edition n the medical complex.The project is locat- x x , Renton Edition x x , Auburn Edition x X , (and not in ad at 400 S 43rd St. supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers Legal descriptions of the files noted PP g Y above are on file in the Development Ser- during the below stated period. The annexed notice a Pub 1 i c Notice vices Division, Third Floor, Municipal Build- ing, Renton. #5 4 27 All interested persons to said petitions are invited to present at the Public Hearing on March 19, 1991 at 9:00 a.m. to express was published on March 8 t h, 1991 their opinions. Published in the Valley Daily News March 8. 1991 5427. The full i ou f7 of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$ Subscribed and sworn before me this 2 7 th day of Mar 19 91 Notary Public for the State of Washington residing at King County, Washington VDN#87 Revised 4/89 400 South 43rd Street �> Renton, WA 98055 206022803450 a Valley sit‘ I� E FAX 206057502593 } Medical APR 011991 Center CITY g it-z 4Tro April 1, 1991 HEARING EXAMINER Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, WA. 98055 RE: Valley Medical Center Office Bldg. II Project Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner - Departmental Recommendations Dear Examiner Kaufman: The purpose of this letter is to reference and provide more information for section H (Departmental Recommendations) for the above referenced preliminary report. We will refer to the conditions listed under section H by number. They are as follows: 2 . Visual/Aesthetic/Privacy/Diffusible Space/Light/ Air Circulation Impacts. It is my understanding that the staff has decided to eliminate this recommendation after the submittal of information by Valley Medical Center. 6. On site Recreation Impacts. On site recreation facilities are now provided in the first floor Wellness Center of the Talbot Professional Center for VMC employees, physicians, and physician office staff. Criteria for utilization of these facilities are as follows: a) VMC employees may use the fitness center during all regular hours for no charge (this is a employee fringe benefit) . b) All VMC physicians and their office staff may use the fitness center during the same hours as VMC employees. They are charged a monthly membership fee. c) Community members may use the Fitness Center during the hours of 6 a.m to 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. and all day on Saturday. They are charged the same monthly fee as non-VMC employees. This restricted access to the community members assures more than adequate access for our patients, our employees, and MOB staff. With only 30 community members using the facility daily, the impact on access during these restricted hours is minimal. Fred Kaufman Page 2, Continued April 1, 1991 Therefore, it is the hospital 's position that more than adequate active/passive recreation facilities for MOB employees are provided at a convenient location on the campus. The following information is related to the community members that use the VMC Recreation Facilities: 1) there are approximately one hundred community members of the VMC Fitness Center. 2) Approximately thirty community members on any given day use the facility. 3) Approximately one-half of these community members are past VMC patients or therapy patients. Therefore we would argue that item B under condition number 6 [provide a plan for increased accessibility to existing facilities for staff members by eliminating the "health club" (program except for members of the public who utilize facilities for therapeutic purposes) ] is not a reasonable condition. Because half of the thirty daily members who _use the facility are former patients or are using the facilities for therapeutic purposes, this condition only excludes approximately fifteen members and (given the issue here is traffic and accessibility for existing members) little would be accomplished by complying with this condition. Valley Medical Center will agree not to market/advertise the VMC Fitness Center to the community, for use during peak Traffic periods and high utilization (by employees) periods. The city staff has made the assumption that approximately three to five hundred employees will be working in MOB II. However, the hospital calculates that the actual number of employees in the building will be approximately 180 excluding hospital employees on the first floor. This figure is arrived at by calculating that in an average physician office there are 2-3 employees for each physician. Assuming that approximately sixty physicians ultimately will utilize this building (this is the approximate capacity of the 2nd through 5th floors) 3 employees x 60 doctors = 180 employees. Fred Kaufman Page 3, continued April 1, 1991 In addition to the Wellness Center Facilities, VMC has five outdoor areas for activities including volley ball, lounging, dining, and a variety of recreational activities. These areas will be available for the MOB II employees. The hospital believes that the capacity of the Wellness Center could easily accommodate 200-300 new employees on the hospital campus. The cost to MOB II employees will be the same as the cost currently set for all other physicians and their staff. This cost, $42 .50/month has certainly not been a significant deterrent to individuals who desire to use the facilities. In addition, numerous free outdoor areas are available on campus. 7. Off-Site Community Recreation Impacts. The applicant is encouraged to make a voluntary contribution of $20, 000 towards IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MASTER TRAIL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS slated for Spring Brook Avenue. Valley Medical Center will agree to make a voluntary contribution of $20, 000 at the time that construction of the entire project is underway. This contribution would be contingent upon those monies being spent on trail plan improvements on Valley Medical Center property or property adjacent to Valley Medical Center. We hope that you will consider these issues, the information provided, and Valley Medical Center's desire to obtain conditions which are a mutually beneficial and to the City, VMC, and the surrounding neighborhood. Sincerely, John Scott Assistant Administrator • >HEA.... EXAMINER » < >> < > >< <> BLI<OHEARIN:G < :»>> >>::>< >:�><:»>�:»:»»><>< > ��<� ��>�< <> 1 e.app.ca ort(011.4.ted are orde of .0 cat on umber o Y and o...:eces5ar..Y. e ... ..... ::::: ::.9.::.. PROJECT NAME: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB II PROJECT NUMBERS: CU;ECF-063-89 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to construct a five-level medical office building on now vacant property within the medical complex. The project is located at 400 S 43rd St. PROJECT NAME: SERVICE STATION/SOUTH PUGET DRIVE PROJECT NUMBERS: CU;ECF-135-90 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval to remove three 12,000 gallon underground steel fuel storage tanks, install three 12,000 gallon double wall fiberglass fuel storage tanks, remove the existing service station and utility buildings and construct a one-story, 906 sf building. The project is located at 2022 South Puget Drive. PROJECT NAME: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB II/ACC EIS PROJECT NUMBERS: AAD-008-91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appellant, Valley Garden Health Center, is appealing the adequacy of the Final EIS for the Valley Medical Center expansion. The project is located at 400 South 43rd Street. I PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II PUBLIC HEARING March 19, 1991 Page 2 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities a. Water: The VMC campus Is served by a twelve Inch water main.(') b. Sewer: The VMC campus is served by an eight Inch sanitary sewer line.'► c. Storm Water Drainage: There is an eighteen inch storm drain with a catch basin south of the subject site.(') The City will call for VMC to underground selected utility lines and to provide utilities easements as related to development of the Medical Office Building. 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. • 3. Transit: Metro routes#149 and #909 run along Talbot Road South and Route #155 runs along S.43rd Street. 4. Schools: N/A 5. Recreation: Talbot Hill Park is approximately one mile north of the subject site. Selected VMC facilities have been made available to the public also. E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-31-9, Public Zone(P-1). 2. Section 4-31-36,Conditional Use Permit. F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1. Southeast Renton Plan, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986 (pgs.51- 54). 2. Community Facilities Goal, Objectives and Policies, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986 (pgs.24-26). G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. The applicant is seeking approval to develop an entrepreneurial (privately operated) medical office building (MOB II). The structure Is proposed to be 110,966 square feet (103,270 square feet of net leasable area) and to be five levels (57 feet) in height. Space will be utilized to provide medical offices, an auditorium, conference rooms and kitchen facilities. The building would be located In the northwest quadrant of the 32 acre complex, on a 1.4 acre portion of property which now is utilized, in part, for surface parking; open space exists in the remainder of the development area. The conditional use permit is required because the facility, while service related to VMC, is distinct from, the primary hospital/health care complex, In that it is designed to serve as a private facility (not operated by the hospital district as part of the public health care center), and because the planned structure, at 57 feet, exceeds the 50 foot height limited allowed for principally permitted uses in the P-1 zone. (Note: In addition to the MOB II, Valley Medical Center has applied for site plan approval to remodel an existing building, the Psychiatric Wing, in order to accommodate an Ambulatory Care Center. The Center was evaluated as a part of the underlying Environmental Impact Statement. Based upon the size and scope of the ACC,the project is being evaluated under the administrative site plan review provisions, rather than in public hearing. The administrative site plan review report will be published under separate cover.) prelmrpl P'ELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Va ley Medical Center Medical Office Building II P BLIC HEARING M.rch 19, 1991 Pal e 3 2. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21), a review of environmental Impacts was mandated for the above-referenced projects. A Determination of Significance was Issued and an Environmental Impact Statement was prepared including an analysis of the following potentially significant issues: a) land use; b) transportation (circulation, parking);and c) public services. 3. Representatives from all City departments have reviewed and commented upon the EIS and land use applications (site plan and conditional use). Comments provided for the EIS have been integrated by ERC into a Mitigation Measures document Issued January 7, 1991 (amended February 21,1991) and duly issued by the City. (See Exhibit A.) Similarly, staff provided comments upon the application for a conditional use permit for MOB II. These comments are attached and their contents are discussed in this report. 4. Conditional Use: 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: a. Comprehensive Plan: 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. The Comprehensive Plan designates the VMC campus and surrounding area as Public/Quasi-Public. The office building such as the structure which is proposed by the applicant (and/or recommended by staff) is allowed under the existing designation. This development, also, as proposed by the applicant (and/or recommended by staff), can be Interpreted to be generally compatible with a number of Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies. For example, under the Valley Plan, locational policies permit health care facilities, such as the planned complex, in public/quasi public designated areas. Land Development policies call for development to occur in a"logical, systematic manner"and for growth to occur on vacant lands zoned for (particular) uses, rather than directing growth to undeveloped areas. The project site is an essentially vacant area in a developed site -- it is utilized for parking but eliminated stalls will be replaced In an abutting parking structure as necessary to meet Code requirements. Community facilities policies call for health services to be coordinated in the Valley--the project, with conditions established in conjunction with environmental and land use review, could be considered to be coordinated with existing development. The proposed office development generally meets P-1 development standards (e.g., set backs). It would also meet the special standards for noise control established for the P-1 zone (e.g., noise controls from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Specific discussion about compliance with Parking and Loading Ordinance standards is reported below in Section G.4.e. Specific discussion about compliance with Landscaping Ordinance standards is reported in Section G.4.h. below. The medical building with the proposed purpose of providing office space for private physicians is likely to have land use, economic, and traffic Impacts upon adjacent property; these impacts are discussed throughout the body of this report. With limitations on types of users (i.e., primary practitioners will be permitted to utilize up to 25% of office space; 75% of the office space will be reserved secondary and tertiary practitioners) and with the planned phased occupancy,the type/level of those Impacts can likely be controlled. Staff note that the 57 foot height of the building does not conform to regulations which prescribe a 50 foot height limit for principally permitted uses. The planned building, with the additional height, could be allowed under a conditional use permit -- if it were to meet conditional use criteria --and the request to construct the building to this additional height is, In part, the subject of this conditional use permit application as well. pre mrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT T(, ..,E HEARING EXAMINER Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II PUBLIC HEARING March 19, 1991 Page 4 b. 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 overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. Both within the VMC campus and in the vicinity of the site, a considerable amount of medical office space (entrepreneurial and governmental) already exists. This clustering Is seen to be generally desirable because it offers a "service node" for persons seeking both primary and specialized medical care, providing convenience of service to the consumer and minimizing such related Impacts as vehicle travel (by virtue of the fact that applicants may obtain physician care, laboratory work, testing, and other related services on the campus in a limited number of visits). Staff do note, however, that these benefits need to be evaluated, as well, in a context which includes an analysis of service/occupancy characteristics of on-site and neighborhood medical offices. For example, MOB ills defined as Class A medical office space --that is space which has been historically utilized for larger and/or expanding medical services by virtue of its design, location and operating fees. (Class B medical office space has historically been designed/located to be utilized by smaller or newer practices.) The vacancy rate for Class A medical office space in this area of the Valley is 11.7% presently, however, medical office buildings on the campus are fully (or close to fully) subscribed. The vacancy rate for Class B medical office space in this area of the Valley is 16.2%. Medical office space in other areas of the City is generally less sought after than similar space in the vicinity of the VMC; for example, a market analysis conducted for a potential medical office building In the northeast quadrant of the City (Anacortes and Sunset) indicated that potential lessors would select space nearer to VMC if it were available, based upon proximity to other medical practitioners and other patient services. The provision of a "health service node" in this area may serve to bring some additional traffic to the area, however, with this "node", visitors may coordinate medical appointments so that the number of trips to the area is reduced. The EIS states that VMC projects an absorption rate of 30,000 to 40,000 square feet of the proposed medical office space per year; at those rates, the building would be fully occupied within three to five years. (There is no independent confirmation of this assessment--however, occupancy of the Chin Hills Building and the Talbot Building on this site has generally been phased over several years. There is no independently confirmed lease rate information available concerning other nearby entrepreneurial office buildings, however,a survey informally conducted by staff Indicates that office buildings which are older than five years and which are well- maintained may have a higher occupancy rate -- up to 95% -- than do newer buildings in the area. Impacts on long-term hospital growth from the development of new entrepreneurial services are not certain at this time, but will be determined in conjunction with the Master Campus Plan. It is expected that some medical practitioners would move to MOB II from other nearby off-campus locations (e.g., Valley Gardens), and, perhaps, from on-campus locations as well (e.g., Chin Hills, Talbot Professional Center). Staff note that VMC rents space in some off-site facilities -- if those tenants move onto campus, occupancy rates of off-site facilities could be reduced resulting in potential impacts to land use and transportation impacts (by virtue of directing an increased number of traffic trips to a single location at VMC) as well as economic impacts. It is reasonable to assume that a number of potential MOB II tenants might utilize other nearby Class A medical office facilities if the proposed office building were not available, however, it is unlikely that occupancy rates of Class B medical office complexes would be affected. prelmrpt P ELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Va ley Medical Center Medical Office Building II P BLIC HEARING M.rch 19, 1991 Pa•e 5 Also of concern to staff is the desirability of introducing entrepreneurial developments Into a government facility. Staff do consider that It could be desirable to provide a facility to house special (secondary and tertiary) medical services that are hospital related, because these improvements can be accomplished under the Zoning Ordinance, In a way which could enhance the quality of medical care for consumers and minimize off-site impacts as well. There is no indication that there is an over-concentration of such specialty(secondary and tertiary) services in the area at this time. Further, as noted previously, staff research and Independent market research indicates that medical practitioners prefer to locate specialty (secondary and tertiary) offices on a medical campus in order to better meet their professional needs (e.g., educational facilities, availability of staff/equipment resources -- such as other special medical practitioners, technicians, laboratories) and to more effectively serve clients. In order to ensure that the development of MOB II does not result in undue impacts (e.g., traffic and congestion) to the local community, ERC established a mitigation measure calling for a covenant restricting 75% of leasable space to specialty (secondary and tertiary) practices. This mitigation measure will also serve to foster opportunitites for primary physicians who provide services which are not particularly related to hospital programs.to locate their offices at non-central locations (e.g., in residential communities). These measures are also intended to help to ensure that the surrounding community is not unduly impacted by this development by enabling off- campus complexes to appropriately compete to provide space for general practitioners (or specialty practitioners who prefer this alternative). (Note: The ERC has called for VMC to provide a Master Campus Plan. This Plan is to include an independent analysis of on-campus and off- campus impacts related to development of private medical office facilities at VMC. Since the applicant predicts that the building will not be fully occupied for three to five years, and since the Master Campus Plan is scheduled for completion within 18 months, it is intended that the Plan will lead to new development which is coordinated with existing and proposed VMC facilities, thus offering an opportunity to limit the over-concentration of services and coordinate measures to address impacts such as traffic volumes/patterns.) (2) That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. As noted previously in this report, the VMC campus is generally considered to be a suitable location for the addition of a limited amount of space for privately provided secondary and tertiary (hospital-related) medical services. The specifically selected location on the northwest quadrant of the campus is considered desirable because it is now developed primarily with surface parking which can be relocated as necessary to meet Code requirements. Open/landscaped areas also exist on the site; these combined areas will, of necessity, be reduced by this development (by approximately two percent) -- this change is not considered to be substantial. Recommendations will be made for improvements to existing/planned landscaping to compensate for loss of currently planted areas. c. Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The following site requirements shall be required: (1) Lot Coverage: Lot coverage in residential districts (R-1 and R-2) shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) and the lot coverage of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Lot coverage In all other zones shall conform to the requirements of zone in which the proposed use is to be located. The P-1 zone has no standards for lot coverage. With the proposed Office Building, total impervious surfaces on the 32 acre site will Increase from approximately 70% to approximately 71%. Presently, structures cover pre mrpt , PRELIMINARY REPORT TG i FIE HEARING EXAMINER - Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II• PUBLIC HEARING March 19, 1991 Page 6 approximately one-third of the site; the addition of the Medical Office Building (with a footprint of approximately 21,594 square feet)will result in only a minimal Increase to that coverage level. (2) Yards: Yards shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Additions to the structure shall not be allowed In any required yard. Boundary setback requirements for the P-1 zone are not applicable to this development as the Office Building is proposed to be located in an interior portion of the site. The Building is planned to be separated by a minimum of 50 feet from abutting structures and approximately 200 feet from the western site boundary. (3) Height: Building and structure heights shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Building heights should be related to surrounding used in order to allow optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures. As noted previously, the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to construct a 57 foot high Office Building (exceeding the 50 foot height limit in the P-1 zone). The Conditional Use Ordinance allows a structure to exceed the height requirement provided that the building height is related to surrounding uses in a manner which allows optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures. As designed, the structure would be generally compatible in height with nearby on-site office buildings. Based upon location of the building, surrounding uses, and sloped terrain,this structure is likely to create modest view disruption, light/glare impacts, and Impacts to air circulation for adjacent structures on the site. It may be visible from residential and commercial structures in the hilly area east of the site, causing some potential glare Impacts to those nearby off-site developments; based upon elevation differential no view disruption to vicinity developments Is anticipated. d. Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. (Ord 3599, 1-11-82) The proposed use -- an entrepreneurial medical office building -- Is related to the governmental medical services provided on the campus. The proposed Medical Office Building is considered to be generally compatible with the government health care services provided at this time at VMC, based upon the following: 1) limitations established by ERC to confine approximately 75% of the building to use by secondary and tertiary practitioners, who will provide services which complement those medical services now available on campus; 2) the anticipated phased occupancy which will enable Impacts of additional lessors/consumers to be identified and addressed; 3) plans to design/site MOB II in a manner which is consistent with existing development -- e.g., building height, design, exterior materials; and 4) coordination of MOB II with future site development through the Master Campus Plan (and programmatic Master Campus Environmental Impact Statement). The Medical Office Building (including medical services, auditorium/conference center, parking areas, cafeteria, recreation areas) as it is planned to be developed by VMC and/or as recommended by staff will --when combined with the medical services/facilities already available on the site — help to anchor the campus as a specialty health center, by enhancing service availability in this area. At the proposed 57 feet in height,the MOB II would be one of the tallest buildings at the Valley Medical Center. Because of its location among (and downhill from) other buildings of similar height (e.g., Chin Hills, Talbot Center) within the campus, and its similarity in scale/design to those existing structures, MOB II would appear to be generally compatible with those surrounding on-campus professional office uses. For example, MOB 11 would have a footprint of +/-21,600 square feet. The Talbot Professional Center has a footprint of 18,000 square feet and Is 57 feet in height;the Chin Hills Building has a footprint of 14,000 square feet and is 57 feet in height. The proposed office building would house approximately 300 - 400 prelmrpt P'ELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Va ley Medical Center Medical Office Building II P BLIC HEARING M.rch 19, 1991 Pas e 7 employees when fully occupied; the other office buildings can accommodate approximately 300 employees. Increasing the height of the proposed structure to 57 feet -- as opposed to constructing an additional structure on the site or increasing the footprint of the building -- generally ensures the availability of a greater amount of open space, thus enabling the installation of more amenities (e.g., landscaping, recreation facilities). Recommendations by ERC and staff for: 1) reservation of leasable space; and 2) controlled utilization of non-office space (e.g., auditorium, conference room, kitchen facilities are to be allowed only for hospital related uses such as staff training, professional conferences) should serve to help ensure that quality/quantity of service provided is preserved, that adequate amenities can be introduced/protected, and corollary impacts (such as vehicular and pedestrian traffic) can be appropriately addressed. Similarly the applicant's plans for phased occupancy should serve to control the introduction of additional employees and consumers/visitors onto the site, thus helping to achieve appropriate containment of land use impacts and limiting traffic impacts. In order to further enhance compatibility of the proposed MOB II with other campus development, staff will make a recommendation to re-orient the building to the southwest (approximately 25 degrees), to improve view corridors,to ensure adequate privacy, and to promote improved air and light circulation on the site. While this modification to the site plan may result in the loss of some surface parking, sufficient surface parking will be retained to adequately serve the building; reorientation should be designed to retain the skybridges at or near their present location, so that access to the abutting structures (e.g., parking garage) would not be disrupted. The location of the building on the campus is such that it is not likely that it will be perceived as being out of scale with other campus structures by those persons viewing it from nearby off-site developments. Further, staff will recommend conditions such as window treatment which minimize solar glare from windows to adjacent (on-site and off-site) land uses such as residences, commercial developments, offices and roadways and modifications to landscaping to address development characteristics. e. 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) At present, there are 1677 parking stalls available on campus now; approximately 91 stalls will be eliminated with the construction of the Medical Office Building. Of the 1586 remaining stalls, 360 stalls will be required to serve the proposed structure. The remaining 1226 stalls are sufficient to serve existing development. The currently available parking/loading areas (existing and under construction) and access routes meet requirements established in the City's Parking and Loading Ordinance. f. 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. Approximately 4,040 ADWVTE are anticipated to be generated in conjunction with utilization of the MOB II. As reported on attached Table I, levels of service/volumes on roadways abutting the VMC and in the general area are average (Level C)to poor(Level F) and growth on the campus from the proposed projects, as well as from future development on-campus and in the vicinity of the site, is anticipated to further impact vehicular/pedestrian circulation. On-campus and regional improvements have been proposed by the applicant (and/or recommended by ERC) to address anticipated Impacts from the now proposed actions. These improvements include: 1) a contribution of$92,798.00 which will be utilized to implement LID#329 (a portion of this contribution may be directed by the City to fund traffic analyses for all intersections listed In the EIS for prel rpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TG .CIE HEARING EXAMINER Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II PUBLIC HEARING March 19, 1991 Page 8 MOB II as operating at LOS E or LOS F, including recommendations and/or specific plans for Improvements); and 2) the development of an extensive Transportation Management Plan (reduction of SOV rates, preferential parking for HOV vehicles, public transit subsidy) which is to be directed by an on-site coordinator and monitored by the City. Further, staff recommendations for assigning 75% of office space to secondary/tertiary practitioners, and limiting use of the auditorium and conference center to VMC service providers should also serve to contain traffic impacts generated by employee trips and consumer visits. The estimated three to five year period for full leasing will provide an opportunity for staff to monitor the "field adequacy" of access, circulation routes, and parking facilities to ensure that these improvements are adequate to serve the MOB II. Additional improvements to circulation systems will be required for projects • approved in conjunction with the Master Plan;those improvements will be based, in part, upon findings from area-wide traffic analyses conducted by the City and will be designed to aid in abatement of poor service levels at those intersections. g. 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. (1) Construction: See Section G.4.k. below. (2) Operation: No substantial sound impacts are anticipated from the operation of MOB II. Vehicles bringing people/supplies to the MOB II are anticipated to some noise (and to impact air quality); those impacts which do occur will be mitigated, in part, by the fact that the parking garage which will serve MOB Ills a discrete, self-contained unit which is away from the center of the campus and from uses on abutting properties. Because the MOB II is proposed to be 57 feet tall, it will be visible from abutting roadways and nearby on-site and off-site structures. As a result, staff will recommend that the applicant prepare a solar glare diagram In order to ascertain whether reflected glare is likely to impact traffic on S.R. 167, S.W. 43rd Street or Talbot Road. In the event that such impacts are identified, windows will need to be designed (e.g., by recessing, angulation) to ensure that glare does not impact travelers on affected roadways. h. 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. The plantings depicted on the Landscaping Plan for MOB II generally meet Landscaping Ordinance standards. However, staff will call for revisions to the plan to upgrade landscaping on the north side of the Psychiatric Wing and the south side of the parking garage to ensure a pleasing vista from MOB II. New plantings will need to be thematically integrated with existing plantings; plantings at the garage periphery should be located so that no hazard is posed to fire-fighting equipment. Additionally, revisions to the plan may be necessary to ensure that landscaping remains coordinated with the site plan when revisions are made to the building axis. prelmrpt P-ELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Va ley Medical Center Medical Office Building II P BLIC HEARING M.rch19, 1991 Pa.e 9 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. j. Conversion: No existing building or structure shall be converted to a conditional use unless such building or structure compiles, or is brought into compliance,with the provisions of this Chapter. Not applicable. k. 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. (1) Construction: • Construction of the proposed MOB II is anticipated to generate standard impacts (noise, light, dust, debris, traffic)to the site and to abutting areas -- e.g., public roadways. Staff will recommend standard mitigation measures to address those impacts. Restrictions will be placed upon hauling hours/routes to address traffic impacts.. Restrictions will be placed upon hours of operation to control noise impacts to patients in the adjacent VMC hospital. (2) Operation: (a) Emergency Services Emergency services staff report sufficient resources to provide fire protection and police protection to the site with standard improvements such as security systems, lighting, building identification, access routes, and fire warning/suppression equipment. (b) Public Service/Utilities Public Works staff report that standard Code mandated improvements as well as special projects (e.g., L.I.D. #329) will serve to adequately address public service/utility Impacts from the proposed development. (c) Recreation Staff note that VMC employees have been provided some on-site recreational facilities -- e.g., the therapy pool -- and that trails developed under the City's Master Trail Plan will be available also. However, Parks and Recreation and Planning Division staff have expressed a concern as to whether these Improvements are adequate to mitigate on-site and off-site recreation impacts for employees. Staff will recommend that the applicant provide additional active/passive recreation opportunities on campus and expanded access to existing recreation facilities. (Currently on- site facilities are made available to the public through purchased "health club" memberships, which limits accessibility for employees and generates additional traffic). The applicant will also be encouraged to contribute to the improvement of the Master Trail on the Talbot Road corridor. prel rpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TL i rIE HEARING EXAMINER Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II PUBLIC HEARING March 19, 1991 Page 10 H. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommend that the Hearing Examiner take the following actions with respect to the application from Valley Medical Center for conditional use permits to allow an entrepreneurial medical office building (CU 063-89)with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions established by the Environmental Review Committee in the Mitigation Measures document Issued January 7, 1991 (amended February 21, 1991) and duly issued by the City. (See Exhibit A) 2. The applicant shall, in order to address visual/aesthetic Impacts, privacy/defensible space impacts, and light/air circulation impacts, provide a revised site plan for the MOB II which rotates the building +/-25 degrees on its axis in a southwesterly direction. The plan shall be approved by the Development Planning Section prior to issuance of site preparation/building permits for MOB II. (Note 2.1: The modifications to building design/location can be coordinated with the skybridges so that no major redesign is required for that Improvement. The skybridge linking MOB II to the Parking Garage must be a minimum of 13'6" above ground level to allow fire emergency equipment to travel beneath that access. Both skybridges must be sprinklered and should include security systems to preserve safety of persons and property.) 3. The applicant shall, in order to address light/glare impacts from MOB II, provide: a) a solar/glare analysis (diagram)for those hours of the day on the equinox,and on summer and winter solstices, when the angle of reflected sunlight is at 30 degrees or less with the horizon in order that staff can ascertain whether reflected glare is likely to impact S.R. 167, S.W. 43rd Street or Talbot Road. This diagram shall be submitted to the Development Services Section and Development Planning Section in conjunction with the Building Permit Application so that staff can ascertain whether windows in MOB II must be redesigned (e.g., recessed placement, angulation) so that glare from those glassed areas does not impair vision of persons driving vehicles along Talbot Road, S.R. 167 or S.W. 43rd Street. Study findings and a window treatment plan shall be approved by the Development Planning Section prior to issuance of site preparation/building permits for MOB II. 4. The applicant shall, in order to address aesthetic impacts, provide a revised landscaping plan which: a) ensures that landscaping remains coordinated with the site plan when revisions are made to the axis for MOB II; b) upgrades plantings at the northern boundary of the Psychiatric Wing and the southern boundary of the parking garage to ensure a pleasing vista from MOB II. Plans shall be approved by the Development Planning Section prior to issuance of site preparation/building permits for MOB II. (Note 4.1: Landscaping abutting the parking garage will also require approval by the Fire Department to ensure that planting materials and locations do not hamper access by fire fighting equipment.) 5. The applicant shall provide a landscaping surety device, equal to ten percent (10%) of the value of new landscaping, to be valid for a three (3) year period. The device must be approved by the City Attorney and provided in advance of the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. 6. The applicant shall, in order to address on-site recreation impacts: a) provide new active/passive recreation facilities for MOB II employees either within the proposed structure or at another convenient location on the campus; and b) provide a plan for increased accessibility to existing facilities for staff members (by eliminating the "health club" program except for members of the public who utilize facilities for therapeutic purposes). This plan is to be approved by the Development Planning Section (in consultation with Parks and Recreation) prior to Issuance of site preparation/building permits for MOB II; all improvements are to be installed/made available for employee utilization prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for MOB II. 7. The applicant is encouraged, in order to address off-site community recreation impacts, to make a voluntary contribution of $20,000 toward implementation of the Master Trail Plan improvements slated for Springbrook Avenue. 8. The applicant, in order to address construction-related Impacts, shall develop a construction management plan including the following components: a) an erosion control element; b) an element which restricts hauling operations, allowing those operation to occur only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. 8:30 p.m.; c) an element which establishes a hauling route which is acceptable to the City;d) a schedule which restricts on site construction operations, allowing those operations to occur only during the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. to control noise; e) an element which provides for wheel-washing of construction vehicles prior to prelmrpt P-ELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Va ley Medical Center Medical Office Building II P BLIC HEARING M.rch 19, 1991 Pa•e11 their departure from the site;f) an element which provides for periodic watering down of the site to contain dust and debris; g)a fee of$2,000.00 to be deposited for street clean-up; and h) a signage plan which defines appropriate travel routes and identifies construction areas to protect public safety and facilitate provision of emergency services. These plans shall be approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any site preparation/building permits for MOB II. N'TE: All on-site and off-site Improvements mandated by Code, Including, but not limited to, provision of utilities easements, updating of related utilities service agreements, undergrounding of power lines, and payment of utilities fees, shall be completed prior to Issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the subject developments. • prel rpt !I •. . •I '! -,.:. -' -' ___. .- .t , ,.„..:• „ 1. .,:-s: il.1:ct:: :;"!,!i.;!. .a Ica• '1".'r. f:51:‘',1111 5>�V 1 ..•i�5i 'r kl.j� !',;::,r �.W. 301N5T I - efsq b`4: ? X:\j • . . _ f•t: :•.t• 1 •1•Y:••;10„ t . t . •'... : t *:: t: "• •^f:� • C',,4>G'.\ti'•lt:• ', ' • '�: ' - " �i :1-.1.':.itt.: i',fcf5�id.7{•,t.+Lf;�ki.2▪,n{G.yc.tji: ',i,::, .. •.;• • :i.—W ,• 1I _ a • ; 7, i dh'' n.,• :j:•J ...._ - ate:M ,,,,:: I.;n,,-, ,. I,vt 4..40.4.• 3,. • e. ,i G' ::4;', � ":si': �c{ '. '` i�i+ ut:.:.�vu,0:fY r. r? .. S1: aFtiy �. '' , 1 ' . 1 . V . Nl, " . •2 ▪,1 J' . ,y` " T:l.,1.+ ' .0 •1.{.Tle. 1 .'iiteii,,ik?•- }`4:i t {,71'' , i• J•1 .I. .1 r . •{- '.p�, ,"� r,. Ir'�, 41S�tF..;':�:'.>.� a �.?1 "�` � . :e, • •s.,A,:�:\,9.!k :i p :s:,'I'• .:.�a',; )2C.aig,1�• • , n+ ; .,.`iI, • • S--•E--•-•— •,. . :•,.;,;, .. r, a•'• a.� , .., .��, �,vt;r:,y•�;:. mf�.ur :,�;i ;!,F3 4 TH �' _ R I , '7 ,>it3,Amr,•v}Sl-t, �:ii' •l ;'� ,'%▪.''<� ., (+l,,-As� ' ��Yr . F;�lia- . •.. - ,n':;; =`A?..rt"'NX ':;i'" �;.::nr;';14L,?p�`'z&k ..•: 4t',,x4S- • 1 a ,•l _r.•';,;7 IAA..:pr�, q: :,t ,;.i:c.�; r 3:'ilii- � evtr �r. .ly `J 'E e c.v� '.'.' ., iqpS' �''' ! +�'y • • • I8 .:9 I � ___ _ •i..1• N .- •1J` �®sY .d�hAtqn1S1 I��CrAj,�41:1 1113F • b .( �Yi" j �y • 11J • ',•' . ; ..k C.'I, ,1,• �A. ' rvNiftt'.•' "3'.'•.,▪ 'x'1 I r 'I:N..1M' ' ': ' h i �•ba I a:vr —F!;�I'.f. �+' r:.. `"•,�..;,1:F�;i .,S }u,'�M . .. • . . ,.i. ty, - . •• • t. '-- - '.'..4.,' L Q�om>Tnr ,''li.�.i.'i:" :e,:'•. � �▪ 'I{.ltf�a�•,i,''.r ,i1,:J, r.. Ai :i3, 1 � •. . . • .• ^: f _ ' , ?.,;,1: .:r( ! j ..y: , .,a;.�_ ;,y▪ •;am1 .. }Q•, 1y tt .A S • 0°:1 `}�:,' m m ; : `{a; 7 STREET. Y y{'` } . ,!;!▪ :'7;i.., 7, :t VALLEY -.GENERAL.'I', •• • .-% • .,' • `fi r',4'+.;{ • 'b 5' Y.• • HOSPITAL i3 '�4 `':1.•":° 't'' hi! r . • • (( -,•^"' - • • ,,�1 iI .•I t(: L n.'`� 'n.yaT. •-,'. 1,,:�}G°) '}.r:: {y +:':r: ."F, ti, ; • y� �•, 1A .0' �;f; ,1 f�,ft'1',.1,�il ', j'}.I,l,.. �:Q ,�'•4 II ... �ir I'F'..,•'..' rah" t •241 i'•�- —•,,,',',,. , s..., -.., B-I;.: .:j,. 'I .,,r,:1 .<I:',:: .. 'w>.xti1:,iu,, ,•c �y J \ �. • ) 1 • Y;, 4i. !!gas:,.::.' /; ,'. .,:. ;. • P ,y: .,.. a f Li.i •k• //L ' - •,...•••••••.....• .... ...to +�., .•Yip,; • • • • Valley Medical Center • Medical Office Building II • EC.F;CU-063-89 • • APPLICANT • Valley Medical Center TOTAL AREA .project site: 1 .4 acres • PRINCIPAL ACCESS Talbot Road South • ' EXISTING ZONING P-1 , Public Use • • EXISTING USE - Valley Medical Center PROPOSED USE five-level medical office building (with outside parking) i • COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Public/Quasi-P'bblic Use • COMMENTS Located at South 43rd Street ' �� • • :o,' 11 fa. .`` "''�\ • LAND L = ELEMENT 2- ■ f • ' Nro 4 • ~ f • - I sT •ogOogOogOo •O ' 1. Single Family Commercial , • �� V.c,::i; •, Low Density `�41 ,'" Multi-Family\ Office' / Office Park ,.D .r 'r, ••f,'!ii C •cptj • •0 0 00000 ' •::)• C , , ' 't • ' Medium Density0000000 i n :� n• "`� • M�1JE{!'n•• °°°°° P0000000. ubli /Quasi-Public : , Multi-Family 00000 °oo ___ I>' HihDensity - g w: °3 ______._ Li lt Industrial _•w �; Multi-Family' 9 ci,..„,7'^'• _ i-t�•,' •• cti,`, • • • ______ ___ ;, Recreation '.'.'. Heavy Industrial', r • • • r t• _____ .0000000t•.�;�.,. - - __ t _/� 0000°oo°oo .r»x'f•¢a - __- 00000000000.� '': _--- - - r `r d ____ �^`, fr. °°°°°°°°°°°• r Manufacturing Park :°°°°°°°°°°° ---- - s:x'. '°r; Greenbelt,,• t�'` ��. . �-•.00000000000000,•�• ___ r.••,vG,9,�r • ;c. •r�C"'�cCl00000000000000°• ___- ir„k . / Multiple Option \ °°°°°°°°°°°°°° 1 _ - • 00000. • •-s•• • `` .iimm emroom���=^�` iiiii s°°cten°'° a n.` ";u vii _______)\, . .• •oo•� • • • --"- di. of i.. ,,,, 000.1' ..,,,1 -�\\• ..rod _-__-_-_WE jr •' `` ) , �+•'•� r• .■II \ ..:: .. .....:... lit........, ?"•r''( . o0..1 \ / .. / y ::::•.:�:::•:::::•::•::.,• 0000. IL +. 11■ _____ - _— 9, '•0000 • `iIPP( • • 11■ • ■■■NII■II■O' _ _ fir,! )° '••�°r • • • III■I 11■17■■� )° .•)1,." ! I • • • f111■1 11■17■■■e',' - - -- --__P. ...�.a I. 0000 00 •••'•>: >:•.' ) 1 • • Iwo 1.?---_ _ '�OOOC=--1 :y •', oo •-\1:y}:•:?•:: i, 1�• ••• IIIIE1i - - -0000<_-= ,Poo r I Usual III■11 = - n ' \ -• ■II■■■■I -,,. 11t■11 11 1i _1i G:;,!v a ti;:::•i'• 111'■■■■ �111■P►V 1 -- ' Gc •::$:r fib.• • Ii O.7■GI •111■■I 1'7,� -- --' - - 1J•rC.° • �..•', C"T 111■■\, 1,o,n, a) , i.. .. rg f��.�.'° ooT oowf •:0000000 .-j.E .•\ I■ •■ 1•• Fr,111■■■ Yr� II _• •_ "" -- 4� r. 000o0-44. •: 1;1 000000• ■■,GUI 111 1.•:C- . [.. 00000.•:• :''0000000 �■■1'1■1 C>:' 111 •c• _ ------ _ 1.•. 0000q.r ,'3 .000000. ■■■1�■�, "Ill c'• — ---— .;,, °000:•C.:.. ,r •000000. �"' n• 1 ni - _-_- II • • — G .. N!•mI 1 ( c.,..c ;� --_-_-_ �- __ '`.fir I irZ4111111111111111 n '`�s ' �___�__�_�____ __ 'c`' 1 ., •('- ,.7.r.'i.'',`..:;..;" " --- ----- :_:_ .. a+°:rcC-�:. --- ° rc v;'• M. i.:3ii(..t „:237I, . • ''1C/.'.. J . a __- _____- __ , r. ?..3" -; ei. " •• . 0 -.:'''' ' ----------4 .-71;ily'l.3',12.1!"-• -_-_-__-_-_-_-=-7)- :-.-_-_ :',;; -.......-.- -.-.-. .; .-. i \i.mg • • ce + -� - -- - � c.• i• • � S1 I�• it _____, ir jr. 1 t=__ __-_ .•17■■■1( .00O 1j • '..! I M.11.1 fd • k • I- • _--_—_ ---_----- --- ■■II■■I roo°o°O°o °''^3.Y..'. / p:;c;:[:};Ti , f - f; -I. _ iomie f 0000 °• .° r.ct- I+•t 46444284.0:/\ `\■11■�' 1 ilj., , .....I:,' •000.O 00. • •t• CF ,Am:" • 1� s s i• - s� _ Pi —_ = w��■■■�■11. •°o o°o°o°o°o°o j� r �'�:'`• _ /fir, =� J 1 = ��wu■I o000000 :2,i,4, . . �'� -� '. 1 - --= wi�m•am 000000 �/ �� r,F.. --)-- •00000• ^ w En iii / \ O• • .: 0000 yy11 ;[ > •.0000.000000• -'''.Ij.•Ajy 1 L r > 00000• 00000• -.:$ , •0000••Oo0000 .'"r:r'V.,'�+ ` J�00000 00000• l ,',I _�_�. _.\ •O °00000•0000,. }:;: �/•....:' •;•7• =- °, • • °°°°°°°°°° •.• ra o0000 Voc6W 0000000000 1 L. A �� • ,e 0000. 'a • I °o°o°o°o°0°0°6 v� c. •1 I .c �0°0°0°0°°°0°0°0°08 °' ' o°o°o°ogo°o°o°o°o , ` °O°O O°O°O°O°OS 2 '"� r 0°00b000°O°O°O ~ 1, / °o°o°o°o°o°o°o to DI i 1 ' • \ O., .. )9 l n oo� ��. P :6:y \ -:i I 1 S Boa�� ST . , • ( -� - CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION FOR AMENDMENT TO A MITIGATION DOCUMENT ENVIRONM; NTAL DOCUMENT APPLICATI•N NO(S): ECF-063-89/ECF-113-89 PROPONE T: Valley Medical Center PROJECT N.ME: Medical Office Building II and relocation of the Ambulatory Care Center DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Approval of Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and Building Permit to allow constructio of a 110,970 sf medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center Campus. Building permit is ne-ded for the relocation of the Ambulatory Care Center to another building on campus and use of the vacated space for m•dical services. LOCATION SF PROPOSAL: 400 South 43rd Street, Renton,WA LEAD AGE CY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of •enton Environmental Review Committee, under WAC 197-11-660, has amended a mitigation document which addresses t e environmental impacts expected from the potential development of Valley Medical Center's Medical Office Building II a d Ambulatory Care Center. An environ ental impact statement was required for this project under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and other documents cited in the ordinan e. The impacts described in that statement are the basis for the mitigating measures In the mitigation document. his decision was made by the Environmental Review Committee after review of the completed environmental impact stat:ment and other information on file with the lead agency. Any interest-d party may appeal these conditions in writing by 5:00 p.m., March 15, 1991. See City Code Section 4-8-11, 4- 6-23, 4-6-6, AC 197-11-680 for further details and RCW 43.21 C.075. Responsibl: Official: Environmental Review Committee c/o Don Erickson, Secretary Development Planning Section Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 You may a peal the conditions in this document in writing to Renton Hearing Examiner no later than 5:00 p.m., March 15, 1991. To appeal ti is Declaration, you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen (14) days of the date the de 4 ision was made. See City Code Section 4-8-11,4-6-23,4-6-6, RCW 43.21 C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact City of Renton, Community Development Department to read or a.k about the procedures for SEPA appeals. PUBLICATI ON DATE: . March 1, 1991 DATE OF D CISION: February 25, 1991 SIGNATUR; S: °Z125t ql Lynn . Gui manr,A ministrator DA E Depart en' of Planning/Building/Public Works • �1ohr� E. We•ley,Administrator j ✓ DATE munityGorfiService De artmeht • p '/ C6=_ lam i' --' �-� e z Lee V.V. -e -r, Fire Chief DATE Rent.n Fire Department • \ feisslg - • VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND AMBULATORY CARE CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REVISED MITIGATION DOCUMENT The EIS for this project has identified a number.of possible mitigation measures for impacts that were considered to be significant or potentially significant (as defined by quantitative measures whenever such measures were found to exist). These measures and others which the responsible official may determine are warranted to,protect the environment are the subject of this mitigation document. WAC 197-11-660 Substantive Authority and Mitigation requires that mitigation measures be based on policies, plans, rules or regulations formally designated by the agency.. It also requires that mitigation measures shall be related to specific adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental document on the proposal: "After its decision each agency shall make available to the public a document that states the decisions. The document shall state the mitigation measures, if any, that will be implemented as part of the decisions, Including any monitoring of environmental impacts." (WAC 197-11- 660(1)(b)) This document is intended to meet this requirement. WAC 197-11-440 EIS Contents states that an EIS shall contain the following: fact sheet, table of contents, summary, alternatives including the proposed action, affected environment, significant impacts and mitigation measures. The parts of the affected environment to be discussed can be determined through the scoping process which shall narrow the scope of every EIS to the probable significant adverse impacts and reasonable alternatives, including mitigation measures. The Environmental Review Committee for the City of Renton discussed the FEIS on December 21,1990. It was officially sent to the Department of Ecology on December 27, 1990,thereby starting the 20 day appeal period. WAC 197-11-060 Content of Environmental Review states that agencies shall "carefully.consider the range of probable impacts, including short-term and long-term effects. Impacts shall include "those that are likely to arise or exist over the lifetime of a proposal", or, in some cases even longer. WAC 197-11-330 Threshold Determination Process requires the responsible official to take into account the following when determining whether a proposal has significant adverse impacts: 'The same proposal may have significant adverse impact In one location but not in another location;" "the absolute quantitative effects of a proposal are also important, and may result in a significant adverse impact regardless of the nature of the existing environment"; and "Several marginal impacts when considered together may result in a significant adverse impact"; In reaching'such a decision SEPA states that the responsible official shall not balance whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather, shall consider whether a proposal has any probable significant adverse environmental impacts under the rules stated above. THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action is the construction of a five-story, 110,970 square foot, medical office building (net leasable area: 103,270 sq. ft.) on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center campus. Also included in the Proposed Action is the relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC space for existing, crowded medical services. As a result of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) scoping process, comments were received from governmental agencies and Interested citizens regarding the major issues that needed to be analyzed in this EiS. Those issues included the following: o Land Use: relationship of the propose action and alternatives to land use patterns in the area, existing plans and policies, and westerly views; o Traffic and Parking: effect of the Proposed Action and alternatives on traffic, parking and circulation;and o Public Services-Fire: Impact on existing City of Renton fire protective services. A noted in the SEPA rules, the content of the EIS is determined by the Lead Agency(in this case,the City o Renton) based, in part,on key sections of the SEPA Rules (197-11-402,408, 430 and 440)together with r:suits of the EIS scoping process. T e Draft EIS Included an analysis of the Proposed Action and each of the alternatives' Impacts on land u•e,traffic and parking, and public services-fire. In response to citizen and agency Input on the DEIS,the F nal EIS addressed questions on Air Quality, Energy, Environmental Health, Noise, Land Use, Aesthetics, T ansportation,Transit, Public Services-Fire, and Revenue generated by the proposed action on the VMC c:mpus. LAND USE Zoning The zoning for the area is P-1. The Ambulatory Care Center meets the requirements of the zoning. However, the EIS acknowledges the need for a conditional use permit in order for the medical office building to address several zoning requirements. 1. The hospital is a principal use under the zone and private medical office buildings are allowed under a conditional use permit as an accessary use in a separate building from the main hospital. (RMC 4-31-9(3)(h)) The medical office building will be owned by the hospital, but four of the five proposed floors will be leased to private providers. Since four- fifths of the building will be leased by private physicians, the building could be considered a private medical office building. 2. The medical office building proposes an auditorium, meeting rooms, and kitchen facilities on the first floor. If this facility is to be used for activities unrelated to the principal use,the hospital, such as social, music and sport events, it would be subject to a conditional use permit as an accessory use for the hospital. (RMC 4-31-36 4 9) The EIS analyzes impacts from hospital related uses of this facility. Other uses such as convention, dramatic or musical productions were not researched as to their Impacts or mitigating measures. 3. The medical office building will need a conditional use permit to meet the zoning requirements for height. The proposed height of 70' exceeds the P-1 zone 50' requirements. (RMC 4-31-9(D)(3)). in order for a conditional use to be granted the proposal will have to meet the conditional use criteria listed In RMC 4-31-36: compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan; Community Need; Effect on Adjacent Properties; Compatibility; Parking; Traffic; Noise, Glare; Landscaping; Accessory Uses. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the conditional use permit for Valley Medical Center restrict the auditorium, meeting rooms and kitchen facilities to hospital related uses only. -2- No additional measures suggested. Other impacts will be addressed during the Conditional Use permit process. Policy Nexus: Environmental.Review Ordinance 4-6-22;WAC 197-11-660(1)(e), RMC 4-31- . 36(4) & (9), RMC 4-31-9(D)(3) Off Campus The Comprehensive Plan designates the VMC campus and area surrounding as Public/Quasi- Public. The proposed MOB and ACC relocation Is compatible with this designation. The area surrounding the VMC campus has residential, office and open space land uses. The relocation of the ambulatory care center will have no additional land use impacts over those already in existence. The proposed medical building is compatible with adjacent medical office buildings in the area. Because it is located within the 'campus and separated from the residential uses by streets and open space areas, it will not impact the adjacent residential areas with light, glare, noise, shadow, view interruption, or noxious odors. However, use of the first floor facilities, auditoriums, meeting rooms, kitchen, for non-hospital related uses could Impact the surrounding land uses. Impacts could come from evening or weekend use with additional traffic, reduced parking supply, possible light and glare from traffic and noise during hours not normally associated with traffic impacts from the. hospital. These potential impacts are not analyzed in the EiS. Arguments have been made that this building will increase the supply of medical office space and will cause nearby private buildings to experience vacancies. Public comments received on the DEIS requested an economic analysis of the impact of this building on the adjacent privately owned medical office buildings (existing Valley Gardens Building). Economic analysis are not a required part of the environmental impact statement (see WAC 197-11-448(1), WAG 197-11-440(8) and RMC 4-6-16). However, Impacts on adjacent properties are considered in the conditional use permit analysis under the criteria of community need. Therefore,while an impact may be expected from completion of the building, it was determined that it would,be discussed in the context of the conditional use application. However,the EiS recognizes that the tenant mix of the MOB II could affect the occupancy rates of nearby privately owned medical office buildings. Historically, Class A space (this proposal) has been occupied by larger/expanding speciality medical practices, where wood-frame space has been occupied by smaller or newer practices. Vacancy rates for Class A space in the area are 11.7% presently and the vacancy rate for wood-frame space is 16.2%. It Is expected that some physicians would move their practices from other nearby locations to become part of the development. The EIS states that VMC projects an absorption rate of 30,000 to 40,000 sq. ft. per •year. Under these rates, it would take 3-5 years to fill the buildings. Theoretically, this building would compete with only other Class A type buildings, (existing Valley Gardens Building, Chinn Hills and Talbot Professional Center Buildings, the latter two owned by VMC). However, it should not Interfere with the market need for wood-frame office space. . One of the EiS alternatives is a reduced scale building. This four story building, would be filled within 2-5 years, using the above mentioned absorption rate. This would allow some of the market demand to be met off-campus and could address some of the conditional use issues. However, there Is no Indication that specialty type medical offices that are hospital related are now over concentrated in the area. • -3- Alternatively, an argument could be made that primarily specialized medical practitioners should be leaseholders in the proposal, as long as it can be shown that there is a strong symbiotic relationship between the hospital and the practitioners housed here. Typically, secondary and tertiary medical practitioners rely on diagnostic equipment and laboratories that are associated with a major hospital and because of proximity and convenience, will refer patients there for treatment. Since these specialists are generally the ones providing the treatment services within the hospital, a strong working relationship can generally be shown that would support the notion that the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. Both doctor and patient auto trips could arguably be fewer with these types of practices located close to the hospital. Were the proposed medical office building to be used for primary medical care, It might be argued that neighborhood convenience could be better served by locating such facilities closer to residential areas. Also, since primary care physicians have a much lower:hospital referral rate for their patients than do.specialists, it would make little sense to draw additional unrelated traffic Into an already congested area such as this. This recommendation is based on a similar recommendation for Medical Office Building I, a sister building to the proposed MOB II. This first building, permitted in spring of 1989, had a covenant which restricted the physician usage to 75 percent secondary and tertiary practices and 25 percent to primary care practices. This covenant addressed the minimization of traffic impacts generated by the tenants in the building. Traffic impacts are a concern for MOB II as well. However, there is no indication in the EIS for MOB II that the traffic impacts from this building will be more substantial than those from MOB I. With the mitigation of additional traffic fees, a revised Transportation Management Plan, and increased emphasis on HOV promotion, it Is not necessary to restrict MOB II beyond MOB I. Therefore,the same 25 percent covenant for the maximum amount of primary care space on MOB I would reasonably apply to both buildings. RECOMMENDATION: 2. That the VMC covenant the building to restrict 75%of its leasable area to secondary and tertiary practices to lessen land use and traffic impacts. The remaining 25% could be leased to non-hospital dependent primary care physicians. No additional mitigation measures specified. The conditional use process will further address this impact. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6-22, WAC 197-11-448(1, 3) and WAC 197-11-660. On Campus The EIS notes that implementation of the Proposed Action would slightly change the use and character of the campus in the immediate vicinity of the site. Existing surface parking would be replaced with a five-story building, driveways and surface parking. Overall pattern of land use on campus would change slightly: health-related land uses would Increase from an existing 5.93% building lot coverage to 7.09%. Amount of land area devoted to parking and driveways would decrease from 26.35% to 25.85% and landscaping/undeveloped areas would decrease from 62.87%to 62.22%. No impact is expected from the relocation and consolidation of the Ambulatory Care Center and infilling of the space vacated by existing ACC programs. -4- N The medical office building is compatible with surrounding office uses on campus. The proposed architecture is compatible with surrounding buildings as is its size. Existing medical office buildings are 57' high with 18,400 square feet in the Talbot Professional Center and 14,000 square feet in the Chin Hills Building. However,this proposal is one of many received from the Valley Medical Center. In the past two years, over$18,800,000 of building permits have been issued to VMC. From this standpoint, the building will have a cumulative Impact as part of the overall development of the campus. Overall campus development concerns revolve around amount of open space, view impacts, landscaping, building envelopes, traffic generation, utility Impacts, fire and police calls, park and recreation- needs, storm water provision, and economic effects. Because the proposals are scattered throughout time, the city is unable to review the overall campus development as an integrated whole and fully ascertain the probable Impacts on the community. Continued development on the VMC campus could have a significant cumulative impact. The applicant has voluntarily agreed to undertake a Master Plan Update for the entire campus. This plan would cover the above listed concerns as well as others currently under negotiation with the City of Renton. A programmatic environmental impact statement will be done on the master plan. RECOMMENDATiON: 3. That Valley Medical Center voluntarily complete a long range Master Campus Plan to be filed with the City within 18 months of the issuance of this permit. The City and VMC shall agree upon the content, scope of work, and review process of the plan prior to its initiation. NOTE TO APPLICANT: The City of Renton, as lead agency, expects Valley Medical Center to complete a programmatic EiS on a Master Plan for the campus, before any subsequent development-related actions.,are taken that will substantially increase the number of employees,visitors, and/or vehicular parking spaces on the VMC Campus. (Remodeling, which will not result in any of the above impacts, is exempt.) This note addresses the overall impacts of hospital-related development and other development on campus. State law (SEPA WAC 197-11-704, 774, and 442) would require that an EIS, addressing all elements of the environment including cumulative.impacts; be prepared on the Master Plan if a threshold determination of significance is given by the lead agency. Since the Master Plan has not yet been received by the Lead 'Agency, a threshold determination cannot yet be issued. To label this Note as a Recommendation could be considered as speculative and therefore,would be premature. However, the City of Renton wishes Valley Medical Center to know that continued cooperation is necessary on the formulation and timely completion of the Master Plan. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660(1)(d), RMC 4-6-22. VIEWS: The five story MOB will affect territorial views looking west from Talbot Road S.into the Green River Valley. The present view corridor extends roughly 230 feet along Talbot Road S. and is framed by the Chin Hills Building and Talbot Professional Center. The addition of the proposal will impair the view somewhat. A reduction in height of one story would diminish, but not eliminate, the view corridor impact. Only a change in siting of the building would mitigate this impact. -5- Alternative 3, the siting of the building in the south campus would alleviate the view Impact along Talbot Road but would impact views from S.W.43rd Street. Other views along the Talbot corridor would still be available If the project were completed. The view Impact Is not considered significant. The VMC could rotate the building on Its axis, shifting it to the southwest. While additional parking spaces would most probably be lost, the campus provides an oversupply of parking presently. This shifting would alleviate the view Impact. RECOMMENDATION: No mitigating measures suggested. TRAFFIC It is general knowledge that the area around Valley Medical Center is very congested. Of the eleven intersections In the Immediate vicinity, four are presently functioning at LOS E and F, as reported In the EIS. Generally,growth In the area is expected to continue. Without the project,five Intersections will function at LOS F by 1995. With the project, two additional Intersections will fall from LOC B and C to LOS D. This would have seven of the eleven Intersections at LOS D or F. The LOS at several of VMC's driveways are also reduced as a direct result of the Proposed Action. However, LID 329 will improve these levels. Presently, yearly accident averages on East Valley Road S.W. 43rd Street and S.W. 43rd and Talbot Road S. indicates these areas are high accident locations. The proposed MOB II would generate an additional 4,040 vehicular trips on an average weekday, with 169 of those trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 397 trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed relocation of the ACC will generate little if any additional traffic. As mentioned above,the overall background growth in the area will reduce the LOS, contribute to probable higher accident rates, and generally Increase congestion for the road network with or without the project. The Increase in traffic from VMC facilities represents an approximate 3% to 10% Impact at various intersections. For the overall impacts, VMC should pay their fair share of needed improvements. The EIS identifies that amount as $22.97 per trip for the additional trips directly generated from the proposal. The $92,798.80 trip fee is in addition to the VMC contributions to LID #329, a sum totalling approximately$2 million. LID#329's major purpose is to address traffic Impacts In this congested corridor from previous development, and it is perhaps the major hope for traffic mitigation for the hospital and surrounding properties. However, it has become increasingly apparent that in addition to VMC's and the City's contributions to the LID, which were based on work programs updated from the 1982 original scope of work, additional costs may arise. In order to assure that LID #329 is completed expeditiously, the $92,798.80 will be prioritized towards this project. First priority will be to address new work items specifically related to improved traffic flow. If monies are left after the LID is completed, they will be utilized on other road projects as specified In the recommendation. RECOMMENDATIONS: 4. That VMC shall pay $92,798.80 in fees for the additional 4040 trips at $22.97 per trip to be used to Improve the roadway network off-site within a one mile radius of the campus. The City will endeavor to use the money as specified below: -6- Priority expenditures of this fund should be directed to new or unanticipated costs for LID #329, including but not limited to: impacts on private properties from road construction work, impacts on utilities not funded through the engineering contingency budget of the LID. It shall not be used for bikeways. 5. That VMC will review and revise the TMP to increase its effectiveness. These revisions will include: o evaluation of the goals identified In the TMP (a reduction of 10% in SOV trips) within six months of the Issuance of this permit. The SOV evaluation shall: a) use 1987 employee trips as a base figure; determine if a 10 percent reduction has been made on these trips; b) calculate 1990 employee trips and determine_10 percent reduction for differential growth between 1987 and 1990; c) calculate employee trips for MOB II/ACC-determine 10 percent reduction; d) total a, b and c to determine total trips and the 10 percent reduction for all as a check; and e) determine methods for reaching the reduction. • A report shall be submitted to the City showing results of the evaluation. If targeted goals are not met, additional Incentive for HOV participation shall be installed Including, as necessary: o Increased staff effort by the Building Transportation Coordinator and more promotion of HOV incentives. o Further discounts for carpool parking and Increased rates for private vehicle trips, excluding clients and visitors. o Implementation of the transit discount pass program to increase the subsidy by a :.least 10%each year if the annual goal of 10% of eligible participating employees is not met(not to exceed the price of the transit pass). o Participation in the annual cost of vanpool operation (in addition to providing free parking located In proximity to buildings and allowing employees to apply the transit discount to the participant's vanpool fare) in an amount not to exceed $5000 per year if the evaluation show the SOV reduction goal has not been met. The subsidy shall begin upon completion of the TMP evaluation report if that report shows the SOV goals are not achieved. The subsidy shall continue until the goal is met. o . Investigation of use of off-hours HOV vehicles owned by the Hospital for employee vanpool use. o Provide measures to ensure that HOV users can get home in case of irregular events such as personal emergencies and unexpected overtime. o Promote alternatives to SOV by a variety of programs and services including, but not limited to: - providing a Transportation Information Center In the building; - semi-annual promotion of HOV program; -7- - appointment, staffing and training in conjunction with existing Metro programs of a Building Transportation Coordinator's (BTC) office; - instituting a program to promote commuting by bus (including the transit subsidy for employees) - offering flexible working hours five days per week to certain employee groups to reduce employee trips during peak hours of congestion. - working with Metro to develop a work program and time frame to modify transit routes and times to improve the service for VMC employees. o The VMC Transportation Coordinator will submit a biannual report to the Development Services Division, showing how goals are being met, or adjustments made in order to meet goals. If the 10% reduction In SOV is not accomplished within one year, the City will reassess further development on campus. Subsequent development under the Master Plan update that would increase the number of staff employed on campus and/or the number of visitors and/or the number of parking stalls shall be evaluated in light of the TMP goals and the EIS for the Master Plan, and mitigating measures will be imposed. Mitigation could include, but Is not limited to: Increased traffic fees; transportation and traffic Improvements;and restricted or phased developments. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6-22; WAC 197-11-660; City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Goal VII.A; Green River Valley Policy Plan, Transportation Goal, Policies. AIR QUALITY: Additional analysis was performed for the FEIS on the air quality Impact of the proposal. It was found that air quality will Improve with any of the alternatives, primarily as a function of improved emission devices on cars. The proposed action would increase air emissions by 6%, however, emissions would still be 18% lower than today. The proposal is, therefore, not expected to have any significant impacts. RECOMMENDATIONS: No additional mitigating measures. See traffic measures. PUBLIC SERVICES--FIRE Currently, Valley Medical Center's hospital complex is not fully sprinkled, and therefore, does not meet City of Renton fire code. Public safety is an Issue for this facility and without remedy, could pose a significant Impact for future services. Additional building on campus could complicate the amount of time and space available for fire response. However, the City and the Center have agreed upon a schedule for fully complying with the code. The new building and relocated ACC area will be fully sprinklered. No significant Impacts are, therefore, expected from the proposal or the alternatives. -8- RECOMMENDATIONS: 6. That Valley Medical Center shall abide by their voluntary agreement with the City to fully sprinkler the hospital according to schedule agreed upon. REVENUE: Arguments were made during the DEIS. comment period that the medical office building would generate more revenue for the City if it were privately owned rather than hospital owned and leased. After reviewing both scenarios, the FEIS found that a leased medical building would generate approximately$500 more revenue.to the City that a privately owned building. Therefore, no significant impact Is expected. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660(1)(d) RECOMMENDATIONS: No additional mitigating measures. . OTHER ELEMENTS: In response to citizen comments on the DEIS, the following impacts were investigated in the FEIS: energy, environmental health,aesthetics, and noise. They were found to be insignificant. • -9- , TABLE t } LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY ' EXISTING 1995 WITHOUT 2005 WITHOUT 1995 WITH 2005 WITH 1• EXPANSION EXPANSION EXPANSION EXPANSION IN ERSECTION AN PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PH ,It.l . • o , ; ;' 1. DRIVE AY I1/ : A A : A A : A A : A B : A D : , TALBO RD : : 1 : : : u;,': 2. DRIVE AY 12/ A A A A : A A : A A : A C : •A. TALBO RD . : : • t 3. DRIVE AY 13/ A A : A A : B B : A A : A D . TALBO1 RD : : • . ^ : : 4. DRIVE AY 14/ : A A : A A : A A : A A A A : ' TALBO RD : : : : : 4 4 : 4 4 : 5. DRIVE AY 15/® : E B E C : E D : A A : A A : °�. S 43R 1 ST : : `k. • " : 6. DAVIS VE/® A A A A : A A : A A : A A : ' S 43RD ST 7. S 43RD ST/ : E E : C D : E E : D D : E(C) F(D) TALBOT RD : 41 SEC 43 SEC : 24 SEC 33 SEC : 52 SEC 43 SEC : 33 SEC 34 SEC : 47 SEC >60 SEC 0 0 8. S 43RD ST/ : D C C B D C : C B i E(C) D(C) SR 167 RAMPS : 32 SEC 22 SEC : 20 SEC 12 SEC : 39 SEC 16 SEC : 21 SEC 13 SEC : 48 SEC 28 SEC 9. DAVIS VE/ : N/A N/A : N/A N/A : N/A N/A : A A A A : "_ t TUNNEL ACCESS RD : : : : , 10. DAVIS VE/ A A : A A : A A : A A : A A : ,: S 45TH PL ; : ' 11. TALBOT RD/ A B B B : C C : B C C D S 45TH PL : : 12. MAIN C MPUS LOOP RD: N/A N/A : N/A N/A : N/A N/A : A A A A : TUNNEL ACCESS RD : : ' 13. DAVIS 'VE/ : N/A N/A : N/A N/A : N/A N/A : A A : A A : c S CAMP DRIVEWAY : : : ; • NOTES: — AVERAGE DELAY IN SECONDS PER VEHICLE IS SHOWN FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - LOS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IS FOR SHARED LANES ON MINOR APPROACH Q ASSUMES LID PROJECT WITHOUT TUNNEL OR DAVIS AVE SIGNAL ®ASSUMES LID PROJECT WITH TUNNEL BUT WITHOUT DAVIS AVE SIGNAL QLOS FOR THIS INTERSECTION REFLECTS EB LEFT TURN FROM S 43RD ST ©RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT ONLY TURNING MOVEMENTS ALLOWED OLDS IN () ASSUMES OTHER CROSS VALLEY ROUTE IS BUILT BEFORE 2005 34 'f : err. ;' ;yf' fs r.,. PLANNING &TECHNICP' ��RVICES ' PARKS AND RECREATIC DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 24, 1991. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: CS APPROVED V APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED reeevi-e- . 2 Zj • G. • fj!-r4 tJHA Ai ,I..c.. 1/ 4c , s . • DATE: O iZ* 1 l SIGNATURE OF DIR CTOR 0 AUTHORIZ REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 JAN 24 1991 TO: Lenora Blauman, Senior Planner FROM: Christopher Peragine, AIA, Facilities Designer Ge SUBJECT: Valley Medical Center, Final E.I.S. DATE: January 23, 1991 As we discussed today on the telephone, the Department is concerned that our comments have not yet been recognized. These were iterated in an .intra-departmental memo between myself and Sam Chastain dated 7/20/90 that was forwarded to your department 7/21/90 (copy attached) . The Trails Master Plan emerges as a primary concern. John Webley remembers that the ERC in its Final Determination for the nearby South 43rd St. L.I.D. directed Public Works to accommodate bicycle/pedestrian trails as per the Master Plan in its improvements to South 43rd Street. That should take ` care of the southern boundary of the proposed project. However, the eastern boundary, along Springbrook Road (Talbot Road South) , is also a designated trail corridor. The proposed site plan improvements and impact assessment as presented do not yet recognize this potential. • Attachment / C: John. Webley V . Sam Chastain :.kid 1641+ oh, 4 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS 1-0 Doti/ s/ DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ? O . opt' tly 9 APPLICATION NO(S).: CU-063-89; SA-113-89 � , ECF �63-89, ECF-113-89 �� PRO.ONENT: Valley Medical Center(Work Order#79063) PRO ECT TITLE: 1) Medical Office Bldg;2)Ambulatory Care Center BRIE' DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This project consists of two distinct improvements within the Valle Medical Center Campus: 1) a conditional use permit for the development of a new five-level, 110,966 sf medic al office building (with outside parking) in a portion of the campus now utilized as a parking lot -- the parki g lot will not be replaced as the Medical Center has parking in excess of that permitted under the Parking and oading Ordinance; and 2) site plan approval for the construction of an Ambulatory Care Center into the now vacant lower level of an existing Psychiatric Services building. Environmental review for these devel•pments has been accomplished through an Environmental Impact Statement which you have previously revie ed; environmental mitigation measures have been established for these developments and are Included In the review file for your Information. LOC^TION: South 43rd Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 02/01/91 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG.SECTION UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: CO MENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PL:'SE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 24, 1991. t � RE IEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: v)) APPROVED /APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED I, /1,'li,l AG eel x-l/a ei.as (f (Jo' Ate 'Uc,r l'r'a/a'lie — Uv e")/14P`/ / 'cam i#ff&e-e w� /ylT & r,✓�tsly �me-ascu/`- V-deav r`U s:s -v4— 1,,Secr✓ /mod//�GGLj/i'i�241 L11�ui"Pi GPNC l/LY I"-CiGC27 /97d G 'e- ! �GlG/�//`€ eme-/� /r10 U 4'/' /-77-,4-( ✓ el.-I i(Gal GO/�/'�/'�C�CG U/��� TLJif aG�li Gy �'�l�'g on4P� �s�GG/Gfv e P%s G/'ti#! ���.�f `i �crr�f. Gl��'c�l 04oreii, G e- ll r ooYeiolGrsdt"{Lt syri` �,rye liiv�t .r Euyu%''Gy s`iO'H bP� //?e-a�o,res Gc �'/'j Grp �GiPi �G! � feel/e`l /`�Fiul�//'�j -��..3%O Gr/c'u e, ((v e, Soile--• /49 s4o-re_, -gym rem Glve-ic_e", l /evre-ls, DATE: SI e.NATURE OF DIRE TOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 de hl • • • . -/a''oj-, S�Zr/ /m 7 G,/j ,,., -v a, ✓✓l/ �y/�.,v�rr� Lip �� G TRAFFIC ENG.SECTION X UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FI•E PREVENTION BUREAU P•LICE DEPARTMENT D VELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING P 'NNING&TECHNICAL SERVICES P•RKS AND RECREATION DIVISION •THERS: COMM:NTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIDIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 24, 1991S APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN RITING. PLEAS: PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING REVIE ING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: fr-e, ckr2ut-r1 •PPROVED u APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED 10 - a ii nuia, ,,,ic.4.-e_. ;:11' 4 Ce-ke fite4/1 al X:11-C... ri / L 4i7 / 4e. s tii/C e,i R Fees c f 0;1i ..a.-(.4...9... I i6 7I ' DATE: I / SIGN.TURE OF DIREC OR •l' •UT ORIZ RE SENTATIVE REV.5/90 devtveh! REVI:WING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 1‘-‘1 APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS IX NOT APPROVED 1. Urn/1--re- SFrc/'7L OT7e-rr7 A6-1/f alax/ Air W I Tli 7h/E Crr`/' & ,1 /Y1 /V. yv ctii(T wtrbe fr WL//NG "Aileir A"Kr C47/dN 4 fri p �i/fvw,//F ALL Ffo'7nr"`L MoPP/rY 4-Np inc rc-/77 s', O774 //7r'S 5 e.-<)N o MP/° Witt- i3r 5()/ -Cr 1° 7? tire. ,srr /1- 7/-0 / a . A L N,w w'97/ ,vl i4/N W 17YrN lc/mi/17e-A i-s ,/y7% 1 MA J. r ekre' Love r* e'uNP mot, 0,f3. 01 2 r3 0/'e p// 6. �•�� 4 5_ 3 4 quitsip:_DI ppf,A1D/NG or/ f1/u Plc {R�=Oci!/q rFn1TT A 11 F•Tr,1/1 /11W— 0 Y2Y /://q, Nrlittegte.lz4L /AN A tlyoN'ANTT GOC ?/oil 1, t G'L'/, iF/Y 7• iiYG , y, o ypr^c,�� . urtt r r r Ff s ovr4r/fi) .5, p_v6ty /114 7'O, //(cF' CpoM6.477c) ad,r, Navy(NI A4NT` FIS b5 7a F77=ork ro i°GgcwiD/? UJY INTF_IWPrFA ovgc'F' s°"y:. " 5FRinea tv 6; ei.,foxy (paw C/T'Y o F NE-WM 5 T1►0tVU'5, 1 / I3 i-DGI i _ • DATE: 1 f/ (9:?,'7/ SI i •TUR.1• ' DIREC *R OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Fv ilak e:_ty GvIG ' AO-- /061,1F0 teA 44T 77/17 a 0' REV.5/90 • demo 1 &10)(tier f _ =VC/lT— ,dc<c47r06/• COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENT )THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M I JANUARY 24, 1991. • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 1aI v srxkt - 1 UY\ APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED DATE: f SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHOR ED REPRESENTATIVE • REV.5/90 JAB ? 8199 VALLEY MEDICAL OFFICE BLDG.II VO AMBULATORY CARE CENTER South 43rd Street January 25, 1991 1) TMP (Transportation Management Program) to be implemented as outlined in the 'EIS statement mitigation document. 2) The transportation mitigation fee of $92,798.80 is recommend as outlined in the EIS statement mitigation document. ($22.97 X 004x(tn�su $90'7 1°5/599 80) 13I8.70.00.(05 3) Talbot Rd. S. westside - S.43rd St. to north property line of hospital: The overhead electrical primary conductors and telephone conductors should be undergrounded in coordination with the LID 329 project construction which will widen Talbot Rd. S. at the approach to S. 43rd Street for a added right turn lane. 4) Specific improvement should be specified or recommended for all intersection listed in the EIS as operating at LOS E or F. L e {}-� • o f ,,,e. 7 �r .c fp v /fl Az..),-.5 r; _2 az/ 5 /- ac S , rat "e et, 910EM012 . TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION lC UTILITIES ENG. SECTION . FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU . POLICE DEPARTMENT /` DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED. IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M.ON JANUARY 24, 1991. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: *b1\-vY\ LL € E APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED d-. DSIGN 7-b6di (.(if1-TeA ,DiQ4/Nh` -(- IN "1!co0/ /(cF cv(rf 1710 fiiNG cOu c/r-r r-'/= 6047'' . J'E 5/O ,A/ Mit Nv4c Rio• uutm./fltr ve/L//TT 4-L Fa( boitp/N P -M i(r Aleiruc/17o/ j S/ oLv rly c t.uao g7afI O/f4/NAG6 r^,Cb p%,41< /j&',/o f Ames pvwNsf 4'4 4 /' Lys - *5, O ' (G N F4cIL l�(T7s f�F-q uagED 13r MY.° /11/ ' zItL ND 9 teci ( A// , xv/4'6, i N6i_ 1NGFT �nNr� ro bl/Ali - ' � tiI/N/�!C�� f O C C.1 -/R I�IYCF �°1 p�s s h`dvG n ,13� r a l,I 6r1quc,Tv0e351 AND NOT v l\l b 31 g 1-q o TUA43s- . 4. c ti c r Aiss N// 't • of CAS T'//d� :I,1 , y F c?valirprC.G y Nv/fil9/,i< 03 /i, nmepi-�j"' - DATE: / "1/ • SIG TU 0 DIE OR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE S. /11-r (5 31/ poWv to/196 N MI< u r/ it 7 6115/11° REV. %90 Leh i4rv/rcv w/c.t /3f?' P// r-V�.I5D 61 -I�I� of �3LP6, P lq Mir 4PVC1C4TGIV Fv REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 'Pu)-eX APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS (NOT APPROVED • VIPD4--M 5pg.c.i/v. cimtry 46e-4 MFNT- w/ ` ge/Y?oiy, 506fr/(T tv j, r u/L.O /NC- 14�N/!/7- tit/ifif-la 5(7/o4 -//yG- /¢G� /yO Pf Pc 1- ND /I L.L, Or%. /TPES, V T/. (Tw:Fs Sry ' /'/ ON til4p ev/G.0 13i� , cc_ N Eao CozzecP-/? e/NHS w/r/q// /S' ar4-56MF/Y%�. 3, v : C1.,1 s Pr //1 ono'/4 A4-films 6.G9„- 77 k S` , • 4 • No s PF04-1- VT/L.(rY ol,T,r,fNDtiYF 5, 4 4/Nr4/N •tvq[.. !v Gu gG,L, Cc.ce146NCE 9To6Pm A Nb A>4N/ramr Sry FAS, /7' ` /rY Or '>yTaN 5f%�N� Os, Sf{ocv u Ro a tiJ y Ds Try c, Co/`ll'LY w 7, PuRpor2a aJ= Svtil ' c47 f /MS'N rNSpitt,L 645 7 4P _/- 5 r1Ql 111 OF O(L/W47/Z SF_!° 4TO(Q "e U�4 C, 41/ Q WOE? t/�/Y(3',, � / DATE: 1-- 2 3^ c SI NAT F DIrOrR�HO IZ D RZP;I ESENTATIVE • . • • REV.5/90 \ dimshl TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION - - • UTILITIES ENG. SE_:.3N FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING&TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M.ON JANUARY 24, 1991. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: \DO IG- N APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED SI( 1 t_6(Cy. SkLOIALL .I ecq u i(' l� �?�-I�� LocV DATE: 01 [s..4 SIGNATURE OF DIRECT OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 devrvehl REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: C OVrS •- cY1 S with APPROVED P APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED 11-10p ro ue,0 g-o &/St.0 • ���✓� DATE: ( SIGNATU OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 devrveht • ROCTION DOCUMENTS FOR: 1 : _:: - :3�_ - :.. �,r. .. -;<;r: `= .:".••..:.- CONST g • • MEDICAL. CENTER F VALLEY g MEDICAL OFFICE --=-1 .1 . . BUILDING II RENTON, WASHINGTON _ • VOLUME 2:PROJECT DRAWINGS • HOSPITAL SITE PLAN PROJECT DATA LEGEND . VICINITY MAP _ , -• .•- • %,.__j/4C-a.'; .....0.. ...um . T...pre Y`c`r..C.r ..1 , )t mum CC2410.210 ...al 4S'47-V.V.V., • 8-e w .�.w I.I M M.rO r.ro 1 i 1 wr . a rr i i Ir• a omr U l` J�� Sr-7/4 r�...MM.err � � , �'� t r. .m to n,��;,� '� I _ I�ou ,'. ¢r' w r.- r........w.orw.. •..... ....E.l .....�. <� — �..r w ' ` c'l' "r1'-J i \�f I L .. % Y u.... "r .,...,.,., 'v" • - - __ POOR �J3 [.._ • . Ors.....••••• 1� :ic--_�'�Li•�: .;` ,^,•MOM. SrOM Fir ilaram imels:..o...M . .�..Eo.r.•wwCD . • • I �' e J ` �.=rt?�.yr �� 9 r+.a......w Ur..ay. wort..�.r•. .0.raMO fo� —.—__sr...... V - _ .. - • R ti Sri ' d ,�ca.��` -W o I1 A - _.. a..`">d d.,.*: rr•s:_., �..� I..e - Z I11 tub i 1R' - r .-- �- P MU ���.i ..�....Pram,w.,......-5 a....•l....•..d. ....r uamcmm r .....•........-....... Q ®< .. - .. • 5 It �, III''• .ane.re.: sa,om la...►raET mez e.w��...rs • - - '.."{, '' ,i `I I. •- - \ "'..•. ,.u, r Ma.ro........�. .�..�.r... �� �� �„we uy.u.�Yw. /�ei- Q - -_. .. , PG SCALE 1 oomrnveme.®.r.ua oma® .I • OIG°A� � �rF'�..N.V IWt .. • I— i .•.. .,r. • DRAWING INDEX P• CODE INFORMATION rvi ::l ::Z7 Z= ::° z:a '-:'•_ ,- 01,,. ....r.000 r0 Y...._ • L ,._.,we ...r .4 m.�a eri.T+ .�i�a.6w® ..v 'woo.ma.•r'•,•1 rw.•r Y..ser.IQ: ..... . • I. ...I_.•..m...•Or .... Yr•Or • Nsr.Y.Y.O•r.Ir ,•.ee •- f..... Can • !r. tU•...•.A...me Yoe swan 142.tNI00.4./.: 0..000 MUMSn V•r Fee Cs..-.r. a.1 hr.. I..,.Fs..cm,w.rs... . .. r • y.r�rwOr.r - .d •-.. Ow..lr.r ./..0.r..C•..1120 Y. . 2.0................... E .ML.r .r..r_r re. r•. w. O r MOW 0.0.wY/r..s..r.Mr: .� 0. .. n..e.—. iii::oeb� +•rr Y.Y .. - 1 r.r.r..x 1.01....0.Nve:C.L.-, .y r. • r • 0i 0ar.rr l..r.4 • L Or��nar..wr�C.r•..r ft... ti L —..- r�• t_ .r .rau _ _ Y ML MY Pre Ma.-Orr.IV Me w O.rsi..R w� - .. ..ly.0R0.,Sr.. w0.r . L .0•0r M.C..xmy I.1M.rrrwsere r.•.rr•• I. . ` • • • WI . Y ..•.r.r.r.OY.V2..4E.Y.u. . 1�. `°0...00tl .M . . . 0 r N N. ..rw bow.•.r.rY•.r.r....x....• ..m .. .. wiEsoa�.00 - - . • 4rr•.Y...01.rd. .••Nr..l , f.. In 1 11. - 0. rM O.,,M IO.LO® N..r..—. ' OM.OW 11.. .... VAL POI • w rr.r.r.•r Leh n,lE • icv M... Y.•y ' : .............•,r...... Mom. r.w.rrr..wY nnc w... ..err •• .r. O..... q .r...w.rrrrm.r�rw.—.•a ^ w•.r w �s •.rwr.rrwn•r•wrr�.. • 8 c rrrw,� • .s•rwi�s rrM - `. • s.....rrr.rrr..r••wr- 0 Yror 4HW .- - C = -- A-0 w • . i 0.-7-<i:?;+. .r-i ';^" �I - :-.. - k3':i.g.4,-;. ..:.'. .1.1....... ::... . : . .- :.• ..... . . . -FASTING CARAT, - 0 i \.......... i 1 1• . . 1 ie.,.iiik ..-z,....an1:2:7.,:,.,,, 11 . . . . Yam^ • 1\140\10,.....416............w2s • - Lill '"I .: 0 ,...01.• el": C.) - j -� --1-- --- ,-i--i----�-+-- 1 • O --I--—I- �- --1- -1- -� Fr 11-4 ®W $u�+ r'k • .. O 1 I l r..Mo.� WI P-1--)-,---: (I . . _ , W • 1 ' A - .,...:.. - .a �� _ c e �—i i i m �tea& e u000uuuuo= �� . - .... • ^ '� o ^ uuuuuuouo'�:... P . m O= • a�SR�''p+=M�..,},iy!!teJ7'+�-?:::::..•,....i.: :..,sS,3i - �fiY�i"gv'K1q�ewT•�;.+pY, \\\III C. . . " .1kitirclz.L oaouuouuo- L • _ _ E. 0 '���j DOTING PSYCH.IIING .T . . .. . ...... _..............:.....• ...,.. .. . . . . . ) ( . I „1 . ___,___, I . . z� . .....::_•.............. •. . .... ..-:.....:.'1.,..:,.... ....... .... ,.. . . . . . r.... ..:: . .. • \ • . . - :u.M.4 DRAM aco® . .. -_ . - ... .. DATE SITE PLANE!) w/a.,"." A • • .. NORTH .. . mi sre PUN lir;:{,,, w =r-.:..-: ,r<a`>,-,_. o- ;:i 'c.3 :+" ';'=`- - . A-1 IS 1! i r.:7:-..;,*-1,'",-::-A.:.-4'."--',;A:.:F;;:t,;:•,-,',ii17-T4".;-,. ..:. •i':.in"-:..44-:. ---).-_-ii".:Z.S-...i-9::;-1., it _ i a ifi .• . l'Si �� (� to n - p Z 497 /1 IT'-ni �� n 7 0 7 I - - I31 1. t 1 ; ` Q----- . ,,,tip M1 -i- --- . - 4 _ I ; r I >ri -w ,,.--r I - 0 co 1 I I I I , T -- I RI t� .ram j . , -. r. CA,..._M. x li i I .-��� � c 'ice ;{; .a.r-...__-----1---- — --+- i. i ..o • L_ :me'-µ •....._, i i I ---- _- --- - PM 49 1 I I 1 I I I. i I iT Imo, i 4 pl 1 1 I ; ; I 1,„..,, i I .11 12. I N'- .. t I i i I "` ,:.. ;:yywti i ti--:T�°-..>;r-.R :^E ti 5:M..i�77 ,:_: 11 i I I i + Y. ( I I I I Q-_-_-_L_ -_--- - - - I i I ; I 1 1 I I .,, j i � I I • T-T al-an lEitE=_ IIII I71 ;i _I 1 i . _I —*-- ' I I _--_^^�-_ 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 - _.. I ; I I1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1_1 1 1 1- _ - -----^----------- ---- i 1- - --� --- I I I i I i j p I I • I 1 • �_ I I i j I I i i j I I I ..1 a.omm _ ouw I oaa® _ .. FIRST FLOOR PLAN (I_P...n, ... • >ut MIST Raj!RAN -•--. - . .- -- __ .fen I • A-2 - - x . 0 • . - v • _ '.. - . • • • . • . - . • • . .•-.. :.• . •. . . . . .... H , ... ,-;;.„,,-„,,,,..-....„ ,,,,,,,,„,,.4-..„:„....,•,:, . . .. _ , ! . . • .. . . •.• . . . .• _ • _ i • .- . .. • . . k . . . . . . - i , .. . . .. . • -- . . .. o; a . . .. .,.. . . , • _. . .. • •• (,-T;) (17 P (;) (;) (;) cT) (2 (? (2 (2 ,.., 1 : . . . .. _. _ . - ,., . . . . • . . • : . . -- • , , , -.___tc.___L , ; , ..i! 1 § 1 , I , , , , I , ._ , , ,,,, _ I . • . - . . . . I , ....1. , i t 1 . . •. .. ... ._.. • • . .. . , • , , I -----,L !I is. _. . • • :- •. _ I : . - . .. • • , .. . • , , 1 i i • Id: i Hi. i; _ , • . . , „,„:_.,:_:,..,;;.17.,.....71:::::•:-:••••.,-..,-17.k.:. .,...•.:,:-:1:,s....;-•:.•,•?:-'14.1-'''--1:-..:7:-...7--. .17"4-:-:1:::::--t:-..r'''::":'•1;::".: • , I 1 j , I I, I . , ., , ...., i i I • : i I ! . . : I ,I 1 I ! •,i .. 1 ,..--. "• lc; - 11 .„. • . . • - • - -. i I I I'.• Cti P.: • . I •-• il 111 • • I I I ---r \,:orr-N,i lx—....,...cr-,...• 1 .-I 0 . . . • • .- - . - • - -• / I \ sa g ;..B.,—---,--—41- -.T --1-- i e--7='- ,'3- 1- -4-i - -i- _.,,.___ 1- 1 Pa 9.3 - - • : • •.•- ._ .. . . .... . . - is zz. -..- ; I LI 41 • 1,..7-..47... .r.ft.7.- • —--,-. 1 . ; -',-.7_c . 4- ;— ,:..-- : 1—• tii i Pas a : . " . !--=.•i•-i t••—. I •i•-•••• .41'1 . ; I 24211 -4..4...., '-A, •'W : ;, 1\ i I 17-7:1=6...•••••••• . I i P.I • _• ... . _.•• - •• - • ---;-------I-- ,.....,....... , -.1 . 1 . L., • . . . -.. • —,. 7 ', - i • 1. . ..... • . _ . - . . -IIII . -. - * cap . ,.. • - C:1 0 i - , ., ,..,. ., . Pil 9:a lilt, , ! I ,. \ +-,4-4-',1- L. , ___-1]-_. tog . • . . , 1 . r L 1 i ,, ra 14 . , , • - . . . . . . . .. . - . - .• , • • -1 I ' ,1 N-ur3F. ' . I !I - • .. - : ' r'..11...:':::• 4.".. • . . _ • -11—,s,......,....,..... '.'——— ——‘, Po 1 . 1: 1• I ,••••••-: . - . . . , i •;‘,..,,,v ,_ ;___ - - ;.,,..1 .$.-9,,: - • 1 p, ;I! _ ,.i.5:14-....;;.<-5-..,;:,74:::-.-17;;;;;;;.!7:i1--;*-'._:1-..=.!.i.,;-....-"r:fri.t.7;7'.4if;.. --,. .•,:_:z:::-41•1:4-4-7.-;:ti.-;;;;;.;-' . ! %. -9 i ; !,:"..r.:-.: ;•••••••;. • l.....:....-=._---t___ .:.: 1 i'7)ji Ili ..„ .g ; ,..-7`9,"--.;_,.. .....i.....! . c' ' ii-4,-*-P -Y2F1 - I :I . . - - . - . •• . • • - .9' ; .• 1 I :1 . . , , ;. :-..p.?.:,-7-- ; ;g_;‘---:•.; '--d-g ; 7:-.-.."--;"."..''..2- ! 'i-.- . _ : -----.,t,-; ---- . ,, ._ . . . .. 1 -pi•., :t' g I ;I 1 a--. : ; : ! :' ' \ ;•7:7-` .,••, 1..41 1 i-— • I 7.1:-.1:-• ,•-:-.:..--z-.. i --.zzf.....,......._ i i . • • . , . - . . _• - . • - . : : - --- -,'-!--:;•• -i -'1;,,,"- I,i---.%---; 77 3(73-,_4.,6_,_._.______:f i ._.__.:='-__.?-:-...._.. ._1 L._.______._i T_ -:: .• • . •: • • • _ . . . 2 . --..--'- -- -,•.".*` 4: ' . - - .: -_• . . ril-- .; --,-— i_ __ __ ___ _ — —— 4— ='*--.-. "--... _.._. tz . _ __ _ _ • •-• •• . , • --,,-- I . , I • • •I 1' .-Pi '-' ..'' ..17.-- . . X i 1/..., , — ,--.1 I. ',Mr.": . - ... .. . . • • - ------ i I i I 4 i : . 411.1 : f . 1! . ... . _ . • . ,... . . mei p 09007.00 . I _ . . . - .. ,.. • DPP•Pi OHO= SECOND FLOOR PLAN ('1 ‘ . - . (I.E OP.5,-0* NOIRIN Okli . • ' . . . I - MIL - SECOM MIX* C • 9.-T ' 1 . . . . A-3 . . . . • - . • • • . . ���www No wrN To r �. . rlwv®Iwwl®wrrEwalwlD�1 • .1E160wTw>tNAtEEMMF6J•MvIO E70S11NC CMLCE - t6TNL IHDMIrJ1L wOR N46 lO YIItE ., -w3JO®Imt•+1E�was■CDOETE• .. w•yNEEDEIEIENE OMMIRM O.O EMEIN.EIICO EILLEENmNE M GM , _ .. fasnww191m®m®awOww.L -E1EiinEN6t1�®c -L tt•L1w1wt:E11Y1�1TRYiL _ _L MIL It�t10LTEREALt0RMwJ� • • t>w140C OO•EENOGRON. I I .. EIDE01011IITEMGEOVEE06 .07F @� t. EDEEt1AroINE0EE01a • /'/S'Q v4. IuTo I -�^�� L EXYfE10E KLC 1 • • ' ._ S. I o"4T T. tTOSELM .wowomlolwmwwlc. ' .. / V {� / �� �M11�� w I� E. MWALES AM EGATON RESTOREw k . - • _ d-1511i ° Ln>6MMYtl Yw.L W. ILMAKI MACEO wwW0lO COMM/ F I. s.- lwroalsaLrllEslrn�rowvr� l "� '�� yn, I I� °w°�ro..+raMr�ur.+Dl V. mmmcwEtE . 5-7. - �n ... -1 �11V�■■■■■�■�1\�7�Q//■�f�E..f L,E,*,c.c/.esb - " yam}] > r Dws• 0 �- � �P �' �' lD. tauwnruemnElErtvEo - F z-_+ is>y ■ O!/; r. 7 N'i , • i ,_•W L" I c`v �/ 11. ODIOfOY91F]Gv.TE weiTl@Ot16T6E • ,. ® _ CC// • Ii o1 • GRAVEL BEM AT W6DMD.EgYETE0. ..-.. - -i -~r • � - p � Y�•e' 7 YNMINM @tEC1106 tET11ED1 E¢,IEt> . 10/00010WBYOLTES E RER • _ ��i Y'tib lie ' _ I R i W�reA Avoiwnnno4 - 14. IMMO Ew16SEOwNNE EffiO4 �!q'•:--- = \ w,� ~ � Mr am REMOVED OR OtECuwFD IM I �" `.: " T- ;fr_t^!�'f-�;:i + .- w.i.• "••S. b1 V \V Ail COEIItClplrol•Cwfl6M1 I Y> 4.4 MAT e - wi%' ^``,11 .• ss. Iw•I.w.rcrnV MD r...uT 1� $ ^ = its A.A.M-". - i, i.1•"�tr. IMir N 1*.E 3 ' �+ ■ I • • / M'-r: unuTT TKO MA.. r��.j Ys G yy Y.O.B.11 t -e.,� •l� _ 8 is I C+ `•"�"....�r • �! g 1 Q j �,// W •D r w�e.A. w�T • I 1 1 Kto�� CJ 3I_11 •• - : .. '-- i I1��'1 f� •�•t, Nnn�'w�i r nv�GTLL. �/ / •Iq Q p{• W _ 161,011.1* ^ I iVlFfr..L[a[a.Mo SMt.r ME° y I,I•'Mw_IO - _ - T. ■ .o•n.••••,T.w.+...Owila L HR w».n.., iae I/ .Y_- , t—�e.r ,w.wN q y E _ nl.- -O r..`L,....... F► — Q g r `.'® "b I •J1■-1"1■i�)ImmI INIe / milmi Is- ,1 I = Tr.^.L rr..a..cs g W _ _ ::... voLT�MNL % i•' I� EXISTING M.O.D. t3 �� au000uodo a 14 •*. ' I . 7-.-°>ae�/a> >;< s @� C 9 ;_ ' am ':: ... coos-ramomm..s. 'T --I.- • /% ,I w i �'�- SIEMPALLUDZS --rs: ��try•5'!>•1S/11.1'! ..Pr .,• • 5lQT'i-m°,.xi'.74%;�� �� _ � b� o OU6010U�OI�i ,. EswaxswonN>uaraTvrrwEaaonosLr®mwETEDues �' ■ ry :7, sa-d + =E••o i +1•Td .e' wovEEmN®lartswowmlawrnEroNv.ertw1®ENETaE� ..`NIOIE)GTI6H£t®DERAIL `EnvIzI 1 :. EEFE•AMli FOE TYRJLLMO OOCETEEN1t06TRUCTOK w1D10W4DE' bl-1-� NOwVi�FAN®1a(f w16EMEM NCESI>UwN1BN]IDELFF16TT1Qb b000100601,` >u v� wowEau�swowwsTNumE.lEnu�vsa�Eau6.asENo�Eu � • .e rw VroiLymnw..ToawooEETa+DaansElaava•N�wvaawwoEawmlp �/ M r C• ��yZ i OOEw6END1E0.>$18BDBa. _ i \ STD ACF / M. 'a� � E. MOYIMNEA KtA1FD 011Mg IUNQfEli 1MLDLSTEDT TEIOI I .. +� I ll . �f - - WfE/M 6161WIIFM.,Ot ODOLEMTEMST11LL11TW 6NLwOnlw Mlg. .. . • 1G 9TDVV. .SPACES I\'.P.9.�P REP 451D.Y.LES°TD•.5.'-P M PT`P.Y'•P �E L•IM tiL•TV'• 1V.1•111EINJONRE CETE NO SMELL GALS.A@GRA.T MTC CRETACMEPAYNS.OUT 6NDT . .1.4. 'O///�'�aa ut1EDro.COrGilTEwNRBNofil1L9.1191ut1CC01diE1E Mvw6 qNl • ." r • ' w .�I — I fit.. I41. -�� �� • LEGEND REVISIONS . _ C."- 1 STYE \ -I p0571N0 P$YCl7.NiNC Lio. •! ' �7 • U (I III? �,` > -- - - Y31D4.Iy1O 1 I MAROL Jp.R BE/11/tVE.RAW I CX�r.1�D - - . RAN 1RUE I 110E1N MDPD1 FVK-rtkV;F>VI r15Fh PFDn51 JAl.J I I/lV• I .. cowraera D T Lc,MD. - SITE PLAN o e —� . • r °„°D',VAT TITLE wl.l -I-2o-C N N SHEET A-3 r - . -b-' - .,. ,- ` `1: L � i Q ci, T T ;j T 1 j j • �/ j — - I I I I I I j i j II — 1 I 1I I I 1 I I I 1 j I I I ;.i•r:i':' 1."_- .:. * C1` �{'a�:>x�:�` } ems.. '':.`' -�•f-.1 :L,�• -ti:;✓ram, _ is�T^. i i z I 1 j I I ! I 1 sin I E Y ---- ---- ——--— ————— ——— — a I I I �-^ ,,. I fv. T!!:: j CI j I i r i e ;1 ' I I I, i i I nz: ,.�Q 1 7i jo 1 i �� r • 1 — +. - i j �i ,l_—_ j i a • r r I—__ — -- • ------------- x�. 'I?.1�j ------ I • - - I IMBEDS ij I r-- --- ------------�---�-------------"-1.'r- - - _ • - _- _ - - i j 1 ;!: '!I I: a I I I i ! • • wan 0 moue• - - • • : DV.. OECDM THIRD FLOOR PLAN fT' Y• \� WILL : - - j•-.--`l: - --t—__ -to"':_..: .•. ;, • MOOR t RAM 514.7 P. q_4 v `M6:'•mT!j ..trc' ='E;?.. •'ra_. _ _ .—:t -:i -. ems:.,"-`e li i i 7 I _ " Q Q Q T I „ Q Q Q Q • . i j i 1 i i i i i. i I 1 ----- .i a---------I------- i -- -------- -------- ---- I i i ai i el I I. - .i:y_ _- _" ?. v-i'-%= str•.� :i`:9�= Y - �-.-y:I I iI i I - I I -- _— i 15 i i I 1 1 I i i p 1 I 1 - . 1 I I I ----- �� — I P3 ill L tI i. pP, ' ! / ►.�.Ijiri NN j I ---- i t t--- j ! 1�.""" Mier I iIfiriiii ie i i i II 1 j 1 j I 1 I. I i i j j i � •- I 1 i I:.,�i:i'�•:ti.=^r�'�y=i.tjL.�.�4-Y'y::'..l:L..t+ ` i'H-Y",'-Sti..-. i I 1 i ! i i i ; j j i j i i - i j ; ; . • i i j i ' 1 `1 I 1 1 — .�. I i j ; i ii---- i !———— 1 — • j ; i - li i i 1 1 I I i i i I i i � i i FOURTH AND FIFTH FLOOR PLAN a< ,/E•.V-c r1EV.,1 MD SO-a . — 3 FOM R MO I7711 4:- _ ., - .;5� i A 5 - - 9 g - Manx. IMMEI -���I-�IMW-NINE= dill - ■■■■■■■ t;■■■i■■■■�■■■■ III IMMUNE Ili .. - - - ■■■II■�■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ram 1 _ .. . •_ ._ . ._ . . . --:.----i-- .... ii■II■■■r■■■I■■■■ mill' illugli■■■■■r! C■■■■■■■■ II■■■I■■■■h.... , ___ _._._._._ , . • • _. • ■■■ ■■�■■� 1`mmilim .. " .- .- - . - m■■lu■■■■■■■ .= .1..M—— Ii■■■ ■■■■■r A■■■■■■r,�, %pill r! i loam TT- • WA■1 IO■■■■i' �■■■■■ �,1 J1 1 1■■■1 I■■g I■AI_____ wool . . . . ::i . '' O I 'I O O _A _i _____ ■--_s.-i...., ...,. - -- --- Q ::.ifs. {• .... _ I .......... i a 6,--sct•...=,a,."3i_�. s,`,,.. xr ._ "',..— =�'J",:: ;'rye,, i ill El i . Mow*ow.,0'.....m!....1 =to.......1. ---------- a: — Q $ sour# -'- - - o 0 ;. O O O O O O O _ . Firil 5A i III 1� d1 I ■■■ j l l l l l l l 1 1 1 I I I li I I I 111_ , ...... , t_ .. ::3., �: ,, „. . ..,, 1 l biI1IV Al iei11117 • A r - - . _ i .1 11-E. 2,1"rr ir .1 1 1 117 I A 'I i r:d .�__ .. - . :- - -.- . 4 .__- -- -__- _1_ i - _ .. _. -. wrz - _ BAST — - .a, - r — -_--- -.._.— -x e .... -__----- -:-- A-13 ... - • .... - . - ,...1•00s -- — -- - . - - . .- '- -- ,-.-- -• :.-,.-4-.,-. '....-'1'',...2-..,•-:-:g......r...,......,i TIM.INTIITS „:::,,r,"...,:.:-.F.,,,,a.z._;-t.--,..?.':..-•-•.:-...-----3:7,-....t,,,--,''.-.:-':"..;'''''.'".."'.----- 1...1161.• ,--I. tl . • 4-t ,- ... - .. . ..........••••.'...... C.--.__ --.i - - ,_----- I --- — • =cool 1.... t -=7-7 -I i 1 111 ._ _ _ _ 07 IAA I 0 pang .. . ._. .. . . -----P '—';j:E s I_ - - - 111•••••• > -- 0 -. _ - AMINE A rrrnr _ _.._ __ . . ' .. ,..,, • 7.41.4- __ ___ • • - - . - _ .___ _._____ ..... ,......,... _ : - - . •. liEBINSul LI/ A i 1 [11 , E - - iimi I _,,...........1_ •_ . • • . ., . • ymng --..-- -- --- II . - - - * O.... ..::'.....:::'....'::i. .',.:.:%::-:.-....:.1:....'.1....:;.f.....-.-';:';'. :•.:.::.--:..-::-.1.,,:::i: I - -F . HIn FT7r - _A 1 i1 11 - ...'•• ..-,;-.--. ::-,...-:: ---..:--- ::-'„-----.---;,-•--":":-"".:"-:.--;-;--:..:.-----:-: filtal ' 1 . O I II 15 0 ,--N v._,) P ....c2 - - -. . -.. •- ... . . .• ... .. • . , . P R .. ...-.__,:-._-:- ,--..._„..:-..,,,.._ _.:_.-:-:.:....,_,:....,,,--.-::_._.::....„-_-,-,-........,;...., .11.▪ a . "•,-=4 •;:-.?.•••-_,-"...:::::': -...,".. _.-- :,_..-- 7-...,::-.,;.:::-.-7:7:: "::,7_.-'":::.-...":-:;-..-: 1-1, i ,-, . 1 I O e __ - . ..„....... -.sal,.--7---'• •- ..•.,L..e."'•-g-AZI...-`,54 'f.1"--.;.:4-4-T-4:1",,s4:, -,...";,-;:f:".••-..,-....g,..o.,,,--.:----..•'-':.74147;•iw.•••••-. :,..-.4.),, Eg M — — • ._ __ 1 sommmmigiimmimmmilms .--:. '............., -.. ,,......._,,:- ---:"--'-'-:!-4,•7' ""--"" 1".- "-."- -- 0 _ 1:1 D A1111111 1111111.....i / - . - -, _ 1, r 1= Amoi ____ ...... i i 1 ri 1 II liiiiiii t. 1 Imiti, —_ --- ici. I 111 1 1 in Nor!! Illicisiossi . . . . .•• _ ..• - .. • • sum MEI. __ .ti 1 1 1 it r • ilia ...,..i 111- • .- - . - . _ . . . ... I HMV' it !!! I ; Re 1 i 1 1 • II - '• • • . . . . . - • . _ -.- - I Fr I iI 1 I ." • ....--,••• _-.:....,......:„,d-,-. .,.--.....-..;•.,,,.....•:;,...:.e%•-.."....0.....t".:t.:}•-4. .2e,ii, ::"."7.:-....:-.•'...$",71-‘2.--. ---'--''s..7--S'se..... --.--7...,•:.."-.. . '..... -1 ----e -- -- - e --- ---- -G- et _ _ ® . . • _ . . . . .. . . _ . . • . . ~Q 1d+ cd 10 I 8 --."ems:: - „.j;;,:• .:::.�, ..F^:•':.,_—_-, ^;•- "�'�^ %i' . : _: - : -.•. ... -. • ..- -. . 11 ii-I r II I _ i. B (Ii all, i , . _ 11 ............ . n . % , , 1 a - - . . . .. •• 1 1 � — — t-I i llkl 17--- ' 41 I 1.„-, iI / r= i o--_Q 7 .c_ - _-i�au•w•n _ _� �} EA6T sFY2{=7oE E `L/VJ _ .- 0 �J"-r-(�z' `I•Pd^I Over-1''� I ~ - .. - -' - I tie.f- ti [r--- H :' Ofam La'm rY a-o' -.07-- mm - ..- .._. -ram ' -:•��. _ ---: : pq =:-i'"". r_i_?srw_ - ;i: .=�_ .iw%` �_;;r. 1rt.:Mi _c=�'i�', 17.4‘,1‘,.c. (t) tit u II 'r I . ' 1'% i o.> � �x -- V.;�) Pa_� l ',---; u ;; W _ r I 53-o, t t CI a:�� LG 1 ,,.''''K a �_� v.-.) ---- --I_. I .- . __ Or- {L�iO TIGIJ O E�"feSztw-,= �EL+TO�I `- = ..-_"`• _ - .:..:-d i. .{:� '�^-%^ =ate' 's•".`..-`-•"r'�:`.•.'7.L�'il-'_.:"`a:. p � LMMEM.I 111111 I JLI; IIJ - 111.1 � I I, I� i' T u.O.f ...� ; . _ .. . _ . 1 r I I �-/ 1 L•.LI I I ww I eaml.00 .. - - - ^I�II I 'S I L_J DAMN WCOID ... - - .. L I I i - DATE��111p ra1 1 r_1,-r — ri 'rF_ I:es O� TeR7C - KS-GT WATICI.! .. -. • ��... A-17 • • \-2 COSTING GARAGE t+�; • S _t ...„smi.. . . : .1., i Amiton, 1.14,1 I , % ._.Le.7...„,,,_ .2,.)Le. \e/:::;:„...;/ il I aik , , 1 ..•.-- .:-.. ... . \ ..., will1Pr----1--1-------------....__17m."'"'"Ira'' . S%t '---"' '' 1 at •� \\ �AM� L7 C:_. ��.-'_�'.•frc: 4`'.a+t-�.J.a• .�; r4Lsfiy•SKy-4K;��+_ GG\\\\\\�� ILIA , trig 1 - i II 0 gip I id,WILY' _I•\ LIA W.NE a2E II I I id, ' 1/;'.. •-U.0...N R......Y\ SL.L � Y.O.D.II l /i;%:: _ >�e /i ("/ - L6'o•"NA. aK.cur tuL. _ _ /A An� , •nrc..N Sun O tl/ ) ����� KeL FA[Url'Vt'�sWSR•' L-4L - $ + I.ffip tOii 11. `.y/"'i ` [L S-..•ST M.IL ,I ii 3 .. - __ - • • CC li �,�0!l 1��� T. © W r-: _' 0�� tra 6_ "l ifi ,I \ I jr' , .. / e MrK m • W !!`i.�d•�� Bt d� ta; IL; —- _ i N. .f N.I Ir e.nm".Du r.Naa unw C7 1 �: -_• I—�� I I_jL'1'.y6• I._:% EXISTING M.O.B. • "�' CCCCCC 5i� //.•; CnN.,�aSEv L MT I 33 .1310C011121 ,CCDlam/ 1 cT ,a Q - S 1 I• ,/, "•' •' .•.T K•L1TY5 a..011,,,E �1R. 9 I\ - '/•i H+tI- • oou0000io ��.✓as� 0,1 I j=maIt /_��'\L' ' I // = IG �� j(%//� �•)CCCCCGOCG / VVV Y C. LQU CG�../. / i i ':7•i /_ cwn:cLcr s+xmON :: I I I" o CI ,./ /.z% /i- "c•�:S;.NrzT_•u�Y`e`�.E•"'' . _ .. `�/y j• ATJ.-FJA Pmeat� PMa.• 2lAI.. :_ .IKT LL.Lrn REVISONS• _.. _.' i I J il[Y L !tREN CLN 2JL I F-LCN LiNCYN'LLYQ ( p 1111/11 ' / Jf I a 2•S EASING PSYCH.WING }/ cou EJ4. KMNLLfrM . • • --L _6 , -LLWP. ` . D � w� � DRAWN�l • - ^��1 meZso I 'MIN MORN i.tfn'W 1 I `Xt�+Tl/i ESCI_ D PFDF'.TR .-! 11C DATE �,� 1 I PLANTING PLAN � I I _ n1LE - _ I SCALE: 1•-20'-O• CD e 11.4.111.1(..Pwl - .. _ _ - •_ T sNEEr L-1 t r \"-s•.•i;_�_-:sr'.r-1.k:--4� - +:�i L • • - _ _ ...- -_ 1• 133F6 NQ1�Hfddl O-,OZ�_l 37VOS ` i - _ - - 3lLu NVId NOLLV•Jikl111 1 ' o1.6%'11 741 Q aNl I iVvra.L.L=aid t13SU 1.813 VNILSIX4 I . Juno. �uwn 7Nu NY, 1. -" - .. Q3XJ3N�OI NM`Itl0 If n —_ LIlliIJ 1� 1.TiLxi_ .. -. - =` J ONW'HSISd ONLLSIX3 - 1 \ vnuaxa • I au �A° / I U H ieyo,,gfi09 c - ..ram - - ;}. ▪ �=3"-' j - 1 LiHH I ' ■ • 21. r� QP -- . __ __ } P '8'O'll'JNLLSIX3 D O c. a __ _ "' �— - -` _ F Gugi — -:—a— M� • l Te 1 . . _ _ _ «�f. —I y ,o — I I$ s m� im' ya w.ew� Fti ■ -- - • - ' o .1 • la • ` I 11 p It \ Rcva - ,. 1 = Y• : ? �-`'" -"�� tinT \ `^ . 2 ' ! Syr. �'; �Y:s� .z-�.'� •� • c- ^ . I I� � op O N• -----moo-- . —---— -_- _. - . --� _ •- n \71L,__ '-Ta • � iv ISM arimirirambi • I I -- C-"--\ . .. ' y�r � 3Y81O ONSIX. 1. �j1lC • :iA�f'I [r.vxrlsua b l�= -E�R1b WRAP ee..D - . � 1� T E. • e+ GRACE X , Idles l.beGVAPJtob III t�, hs i4_I� .' IPA _ .eD..PPM . . . .-_ •. jc _Y • M-Ll[- `S •• L•Refi iuYAN zra• n v 3 cc) 11• 1=. ...nu. -PVC.l/.T1rPJ1. i I reniu %Um.,.d ntrfH IvA O DOUBLE JOINT SHRUB RISER _ - TO Oaf,y�•S • •�w CLAW wx scan r w+4 uaw�.Mc Rvw- Rrnl. MO[To buLc- 4 •- .' - . - .- - .. . TREE STAKING •"A .."`�""°M' ��`.Mavz ��` O HafID.W.i O REMOTE CONTROL VALVE ASSEMBLY -- 4 .PT m Si FDP ur HEAD rzC'Pull, :... -- --_•- - - - dW =wvrsPv.w _ �wSTnLJ.TOP TO rwiOH ..: ,-'.: .cwnscw FWI5MC 4a0De P4 _ _.a' .S4iz. '�.�.s.. -- yam - '- iiff�w e••Rc+,RR.cR pw.uALs I ..P.-•. ".- "� t.r.:-_:-i:f .uw..r►ne G'1�t. ., � —I i we aivw aPAO g I.1 IIII—i:=-74 tk =/ -�1�u•r••....�EaLL a 1 • .Nlrn_E op.MIJ...IIII lift. . �e w loan Ater b f— ,i1f=Nl1 III � ALK�T2•Hip.w re ITT .. - - _ _ _. PC TEE CC Mu RE CLOD shrub Planting CAP Q VI <> - -" ++.rc. O TRIPLE JOINT RISER ASSEMBLY c 1¢ _ _ :. 71... salll..es., _ i= .•mc Q 18 ..- .::•.. . us -�F..+snc+vw+r.IC. _ = - _ =AI OR C... - �WmW 1Z RG a e.as+s+� p - • - . _• - w•..va•r.R.am W. b 6sr ]-a owns Ti '. Btw/ �L�.,m Td.Rs..ctyR�e1 : _yp,q• _ I r3+I _ .... a cr-'a'' • �1��I� a I amr. ,+tit•- ='`TDS'' wcH nr ewr(>� run) Q .._. v�-,y[asL (Gr,'+ 'w'.r 'sic•nrrLc(lied 3 y 9 _.. • ......r•l. au.7[ '1 •� °4'M61.YJ+•L pW4 VP18E S •CS+O iuxef Cu: 'h•lr•Sa+Ve• - - - . werrr.•eso•�l • .ram_,'::ice.:. i=i- .i`�i.a '' '.�� asC�LFV.aRlP4b I`:� c:rT•?c a"'.`.•-, � }'.:J• ..var /j7ryr3•y,\/ 1•140.1141- DRdJ4i VALVGAY�D•I1aL7 WALLED pg. .. .. - - • ,.,•t•,�. Yi•�TFLGT GLOP,/(MMiea • _ b[ «co' • €m r w...,.+.Rc 'ia tO µ✓#J[r-FyL-ve In R Ne B. l a _.a . • • On HIGH-POP HEAD INSTALLATIONRoam` • t.r•6•T` r...•••r•ee. war ID p _ OQuick Couolino V.Ive 1 Hose Swivel - .. • ". _ - - HOf no erAce. - Orden Checked - • Dee _ SFJ'T IL I ITTO ... - • • .. . The , V PLANING AND IRHIGATION DETAILS FETPIIS -V._ 61se[/+l i_S L-3 :. - ,:_ .. R=;.;,.�.--.: _. : .. - •:.:: • • P••• _s:. 44,<7:..?:.rf'� .^t tti 1`,tia6a�'v-iy-'G: =t>. :ti:`". _- • j .. . ..:,.. % E)CSTING GARAGE j •• . , u :._......_-___. W�_....�.. ,� �•. Ec€ ice;vY , �`: --- ...Y _...._... _ •ram •. •.. ' ' 1 , l !� in . — r . _ g • • _ j I ._r_ � ' 4 !i'..• r \ / I+•a,�.A�L\ ,,.-..-,-� 'ti-:!sic.Y l-isy:.rv"i_y=J-.v_'-i?/+-�y-.••--i':-s..:--_...`.�. ,p i - •\ rtY..l irMesa _ y � it;. I rc no+r LITE _ . j. S Q - MN,LT STOW MC ST'-,TF]�ir GRAINS w STOW . I `ANAMMMAD"'" - - 1 f.• t 1 .�mw�iTi • e_ I ! w M.O.B./2 /� - _ .- 6 I !is r%'_ive• I:,i'Z aan•I...m..£ - ;:fir.'....- } 6a : CDifFn - - - _. • I ran '°• I ill 11-j i I — . I GENERAL NOTES • _-- '.R ..,., �' = L. :!;!::7!;;;!!!!!!!!!!!!!Iii31:::if,,,:iiiii:1 ;IiiIKED ioP WD NRTMiaLr aaL SO LSNroRK TO - . • I - 4k-v'-_• --� __ �u-�I iv 1 -� I I I£00100UTI0Y8 IO{TNL CZTT 01 RLNTOY - r.1 Q: •�,, a f�� I M 1 I I r--.. W T AptR0Vi:0 LOZTZON 01 WYA STWDWOf -. _ - - - - - -. i ilitil ' - • IDtli LS[OTN[lVlfi NOT[D. _ ...-„"--„. ,:'•• r K•^••�• i SW°LOCATION 01 WS VNO[RGROYYO YSILTTS1 t .a - ' - RYRif[MOVY ON SNLSL DRAYf NGS YLRL OfTAlY[D Y '':'•'-; c , ••. :; pre i�aol°r1iYo ': MT A SMACK OF AVAILABLE RECORDi• SO TNL c..r D.TNL .- i"'e 1 t I�tiY�M MCENCM'if", RYOYLIDGC.TIRNL aRt YO[LISTIYG IJTILZTZLL iI - 1; ; CV AB BNOVN OY TNLfC DRAYZNGS. TNL MCIN[rR ABSIDD:f RO 1: u,.uD aye f� w - _ {LSpOYiitiLTSW TO TNC ACCVYACT 01 TME[t°V ZLTLD _ - • !' - LOUSIOP ON SYtii DRAYZYGS. TNt CONTACTOR TS R[pYZRtO TD ..,,. E ...0.................... - 6•/1 - L SABE TxL ptiCAYTIOYWT IOA[YRQ zo tROTCCt YTZLZTS LZYLf ?�brOi -' 7.4!jti-i^-...4L4:it''. �7iiC:.�:y^:sf.��l,:,.:�:1':7'''1• ?4',C'': ..................• 5! I I• -, I I I i 'I I i! O ypi.l+ '"*"W D ALL°TNL'LZRiz ROT•OW RECORD IDO OR OROTO ON - r.,_.,. - y._..• I ' '' TQ[MANIOCS OMITTING TNEZR LOCATION PRIOR TO T1¢START �___ .. I: :I !1 T"`• •. '' I = ,' 1; - I OS YDW. tOt fifiLlSi LOUTION SY[IYG COYNST,CALL 1-r0D- ry - - i I I o i� OONLOONu . . • i ' I I ' I' I i•. ' . ! .•'i it t....._V o t _ .RAr •• .- . �D._AF. e - ..' - -•. -. .....1 .. .1 ' -: • • --- --- a. \ .• • r_---------- r T , I, AGENCY REVEW \ I - D.c ` ;' �U ., E%I$71N0 PSYCH.WINO `` OEPMTYENT ( PUBLIC WORKS - - • • - i" • 1 1 L4 �,i CITY OF RENTON T v. v , yam` . ,. u ~p• GRADING AND STORM PLAN s VALLEY w �x ' Doom u TRIO Ur, RIO Mr---'^• _• - fvr \ I I a Mum M rot bur ..� wax 0I PA i - : _. - : ;- • III / 1 1IX• / �`l'�. 1 III A-- i..1, i 1 ..... 1 ..,,,,,, f s'.. --.... .4 i,-..„i IIp i 1 I 1 • I /A/: 4.•- ,.......••.......1 q .1r_ . .. 1 �`f:gyp:.. -- ::::::::•. . `f` 1 Ir .J 1 • a tom.. �;'- 1 — :IR c: :E I j..."- --fe • gl II b 5 :, 1 — I to , Ri---1--7..1...._r....5 .4 , .,.,] I,i iPc 4.1 if` — n In E (.., yn sg —--* —i—pill 1,4 1 : I I - C----- ‘3----------1,1.-_-=— * tit----1-i:" ill.! .17,1 ,_,Ap.,•iztio Iii.-..--1:11 iiit,...:.:...,:.:,..;:t:t..,.:::::•:.......2.:'.........,.,• it L "'• ,/7 f—+_Zf !! - rh o 1::. a 1 I is )..........1 111 b V 1 I.' i Bi'NIi�f 4 il 1.1.1111111.11.111. '...c.. 3R iiy \• 1---P.15-,.-7 i :: a:............. ..... — _ '€ I 1 y I. I I 11 (jj 1•t. EATING M.G.B. •5 I( I t;r I I 's••C 11.....I-lr{#t 4 4 % I31 E 1 11 •4-4 '. e'IP ° i';''- \ us,.. \ww, ' °„ii I •• ,,, , . i _ QI �.000. S;5 ,,,---a°i : oo. ,1 024 s' 2 g jl i \. "% t I 7 $ R a BR 1' ra' _ Y xi f Q n .1 -cm ilC — H leal. ' Z w - • .,1 S.• �°y! �• fit' '�I,��''n ,Ir 4• I• •1 JJ��� i • • Y • I', i. • ,r�{4..�. .." •,j��, !,r. 'r.�y It i:•. ,�...,.•jj' ..':r '�1:,;'•' • • •,,k, ••• •• • 1* x,. ,E•,:i. � r 4 }}kk 't�(((�� ,7F':1 • • N..Nwrna�y F.e�''...l*V= •:. 'Se-.?_:^ r477 '' - r;;r:::s:k-..�.-.: ._"1::i i ...I.'. • GENERAL NOTES :. : ..._. .. L NSW A.rm.r RNMI Mr I.OPAWn AL ON MIMSA OR [V®ROL IN Y®If®OM Me Ia AI IO.,w�ww One.Nome* • • .rye.....AWNS NW Or NW mK Orr Cr CAL. INN=OWL mar POWAY WINar/L[LTO NMI.IV MON MINN RAN m/mlaomt aaw.nLAL: 1141L�rWggy,_.r Jlulglurm :. ' .. { at NAN RI.AImO-S INN K1f1 a. c.e AWL MIL NNW.Iti•I me LK • -i�'0�� {• !1 M CROMsa nr,e•n sR•w-rvt u{>AN NON N.M.OA%a L MTN.Ne - • - CaNINCItar A.Owm Pr SLOW.AN K aOR IP>AN OwIC MOIL •��JJ��pA, _ _ NCO.tOmCON CINN.NOMa0®nKO1II Syr. - .. _ A•ar[N)>wai•a0. g,lY MINI WM AMMO1YA6 MOM IIIaLr1{TO{AIIQ/ir _ - _ - •. i K1.Ov iYNNW IWa LCOLSN<Am,OpSNiOWK 4 A.0O d1O1�CT flwa/afl+wa<Nrlear �A.r.� I I - - Oct an 111901M NM KAN.Nw..1ArtaAMON MOO SCOrtar ANYO.m•rKOn I r . =<ON NNO.N NM K CM Cr NNW.MMM.Or iaiw AMMO MOO wage mAna Orm • • .. • IMM CarrO OLON Cr AMA.0 If ww1�Lr KAI Mt a rrN-m Am la. IW�6 SPNRS W•R• �I NOON _ ..- -wrl�-Ip:",.Nor-rNw+arTa1'"'AA."ato w.r r'..'ii:.r i.•...:.;y+:.:''`.'�.: .I Jr. -' a r1N.MO Mr MOT OP>AQNAIPP WI or Mac 1p'..I. .I,I' - On MM•W. Or wa<.AN OP1R QOnea - _ •w a>ernw Ml.nrmr KwAe a as LONOINIfl w{rAur �: I r - - .. I. �a.vN lOAar MOANS NOT r I L.C-Aar • PMM re •le Pr 1.11.1 Mims@ - W N•vONCHna w L.r IOr Pr V ACO OTirI AOmfp awn,. Of , `L-'"-r'!-- �•• - • - - . L•Al-I[T Stoma .O6 ILL _ - R A9COaC1P>COI{C® .. • • ACK .RP 0.1C OWN AM MSS. w K OR P IN.ISM OPLONt I Q•I • - - T. ALL oat.A Nr0CP MYR SYNC LOT Ir0Y a LCrRoam 1[MMCAN rIMr MO1.•Mr CIrK OIT - _ ar IN..PW.N IN AALLOO Cra {m M A NAC K r..I K N A LNACMINOC.e,lMall SIDEWALK DETA/L 'wn+rl ANLa epNrs..NPmn KNawALOAr MOONS YoM nmaersn.n,•e.,w.Ar - ' - ..- wa<LP63/i MITA mei no. KC K Orr Cr AC..SON Or _ r NW PA<.w.Mr tor Pm",fucps<rp • { ,O NAIL NAL.n/WWIIPC K Im RV AMONINr>NC NON MOONCu{'COOp►OQ 11 4 1'-A•I Y_.. _ - ... . MOM piN.r Orr CI Alf.A.M.AO.cum I$ R ie Aaw.Oer MILL R ALlpNaT PM AA.p.NW AoterS Ft L•b. I _ .. • •• _ L.YIf{r1OpnAurS:aCMa[CIwYNwAPn - ''. .MMOPT>AUX MPS SAM NIP MIR Nal �.NOT POWS V.Przm[t0/RVS IYOPS NO L.MROm•CANS W C.O.NS 1R NANO NO =•1 :. -.• ,.... -_•_:a ''.: { AY AC wIwlrpY.m M.N.MO r A OA>ar er K PM.w W AAWOCr MOM.Y AnN,eIY L-"�' I �.rNy '. - --.- •---:;'..r _ • AWN..IN arras NpLiN)Cr ............r..........I.O..Mr • Am N�/•.�i'n iM �:ti- - •„'i.�-q i��,A-.. na C.a.Par e:an•Oian wa[PW.n.ICA Sir MOON vw.rr Pau our NON. T`''_•_ i,T .rstA- L�Y.�w=. •�•� , `I,_ _>:r:ryi _ :. PON ND NOR COOOLLa ON MN D OW ASQIIMI Rm.name rtpI.11 aNK M A..Npl,1rr; - - >K Mow rr•r C.K I»K IN.Nnr ma'..'cN.d)wa<ON Tor c NC MOON s Cr KKN{nli - - ▪pa a"_,.M p<wAoaY JO NO°'LCON orTX MIK ROMP COMP, AALL CATCH BASIN SUMP •ONO W ALL •u/Pu Pr A A..Kart IMO Ma.ie aYM • >Kl.rt�fswOW wA-roar R.'I.IRO.0 C Oarno.Cr Pr SELL ALL nMCC inn Proco for cuss MO K Mawr MUM.NY f fN•O r we Mazer all ...Olt MO SOC'faAAT as/I SaAL.a.Da K AOra InoRCID.,r Oar/CNm a Yt,JS PC a •a OVNNir PCP Ma'O.WI-A R/SEAM=CPC{AYt .- '_ •. _ . f ruw NO PP I..AAAO -. •. • N. .:suss.•:rv..•':vrl. � C 4Y•fR". :s1''®' ':ti:;'Nils}IrI ... _ _ .- .. - •+.;;t_ /"�rlflpYLTIC CtlG[T[YM/ • •ri:t:. • . r / Lt. ...... - CIE I - - . - - _ . • 11?-YM CO✓AC![O OO/M G•fli€ L - IRlAC1iC NAY COME -. pp • _ - ••-• •- - _ f Ut•I C aOa-ACTIOWIN CROWD - - •..- ��.A,.rt surllCNO oastCOWS( A7irk''�-51> ..7, f.i74.-• GAL r u s' CLAM T r OCI MCI N EO PPCpONI SEC 1. - TYPICAL PAVEMENT 1 EXTRUDED CURB DETAIL (< r TMI.C00.017.0•0 N • • r6+� �I dr; s • • • f • ' T®tea M.N.mammon r fN�� •-f __ J. _• • • _ 40w* LOOM FL - • - OIL/WATER SEPARATOR DETAIL ooR:. - . _. ° '�t{j AGENCY RENEW _ :- : . (( • �.f fj1j CITY f OF RENTON • ' \� '^' O[I TY T 0I rYLLIC MOI[• .- V. _ - - 1 SANITARY 1 STORM DETAILS VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER - • 1 I aN . wT�O _ • • • i_ '-.:'_,1'.fi.:,--t"+?,r1;.1-tt eh:: ;-�; -^'�t;,,, r:K:. -.. ter„.... • _ .. -__ �� � '.\ '•4 E7aS11NG GARAGE DIMS o �� - --�a \ a // • I `:1 w mar rP`E S vr .4 � i • 4 • • run vt.c � -r � \� e, • • ••.... - �,• I. Ai............... .-... ...� tip' • •P rrrw.urr :i roar _ 174r T.- • • • • . • . • / P� r . _ .... • ' .ti L-.•^-•.s.i: , �i- -'`>vs' __._. +3.q _ i= , a " :..,=:i. -i cap _ :.I mg... / ' I - H /¢..wCd Ru[i r rY. 111.011.Las.Mr amok, - .. PROrreler.Yll\ , aRN_ '� r ;.. :„: waew ) I �.AF 1 . _ B. FL. = 36 00 : 11 I1 6T �' ram, !- : .. .. •.. 1 6, _ ` — - - 6 i . ....:. ..:..:. . _.: •..,.._ - .... ........ • . I . 7 ,rF TiTr / L', , : • , " 5 :,Ii 11 AIIr:I1 lI.i.,. [ :.. -.,• 1Ii' '. 1,1I,il I• I �:�-wood i1 - -. . . - ' 2 .fir _ •!- i. i• - - yl .. -r:y_�.; ';+. �i•:-tSay:'=.,c., ... ..•„,...ri/ ..:.: ,'E,g,•o;r.1.•,,i,:sz..q.,ii, ,,,,1r.,.•.iii s i: I--z.--'0li .i tra t. - -r, `�-'''_'t: '"s gin: ,s.•�•�u =ri -iivl aru.mi r�ui : w . ,i` e o • — —tea:— --T---- �- r-----,: \\\ ,, I 3 .. • . .. _ T— • \b mau¢a rod/ ` ....I. -.� .e _ _ _- \ •` '•--ova Paw*: I - -.—,, , _Sc. /•�•\ _ - �r •. \ _ -- AGENCY REVIEW T- IK. MC trtoK mweor __-• '� ._.... JNa M.IL�ft; F i-\ i i - - .stay Pp '1 .J- •',i _.... �O .�-` \ i - I I / ...�.. -r clentt4 'T ®< `� EXISTING PSYCH.RING 56 oev.twiun+r TER'PLe WORKS - - CITY OF RENTON - ip �I \' u • • ...e M A' rn�IBWR./ 1 s _ \ •'K r^ ——• I_I— U'{YCN •• VIVIFY MEDICAL CiEN7ER .-.. . • . .,,..., - `6 I = I q Il,m, t, YrR WR MfO� `J �L - • .. - _ ��.�W?''^'- .. • . - .i'=•.%r`.i,:j.'2eT7.iw"";..w..-..--C-:' 'iia.;r =.ri-- • 0 tF P. WATER UTILITY GENERAL NOTES _ - - ar.rre...rrr .__.. w[[r rr �CT'n'.�S.r�2i.a'��° trre......31 I ...AA =.=:2, `=-:ter,:._ _r....,,� 1443 Pil •PUN.US.ly,l ..�^ wN.w ow a: • Yu..•r��....."'":.....L. � • :. : -.. - • •, * -... . I�,I--, , ... LL .f.PK.TxJI t/ptr.ViN ...t1 ..r .rr WW� www ..-S�rrr Mr�i • •_ I-it rt1t! ... P4IIftK.Ir . _- _� r _ TEST CONVECT/ON.I :Pa..trwr..t rar.m %.' l-Pum.M.' �• 1 -Pm�.. a.i.tsar I or urrror 'I.+ r r..... _ _ P•P.T/I.. rotl.II4 il. _ - _ •w1--•...r�ryr_r+r •- -1: r _Pat IIK.. O�Q♦ -6 i.irmncno.. _ �= - ir..rrr>wQ.r�r .mu•�++�rrr..mHr P a.atrrw ts. r. VI ..- - ___- _. -- -^�1+ .•'� 'F.sTLW.ECTfON.2 .Prlmr .. _ - ��M.�.�is�MT_ - _ _ �..1.ta.. . I / PI troa u .��=r..So �L:- _- _ I ."".:�w - =_ .PaMIItroa II rrwlr . r +S--r� i��i���Y' r.� I �• KQ oat Sar ..Z i i .. r. - - T—.., M �= -.ter►r QY..�:..rTrr(..r.QY .. - ._ _ _ ,I l FINAL CONNECTION.I >. •-• ^`^`rr�T.r^r.r r:�w�r FINAL CONNECT/ON.2 [u WV w°•w F/RE PROTECT/ON VAULT DETAIL _ --_ - - - ru..•-D•�7 sr.rt.n._atw rm � �_ L, ?. '4`�:.. ccwc�E7t JAY/ %,,,. • ' dl �,1 . L-P u..Qt.tY I I I tl - - .. - PAVEMENT PATCHING DETAIL 12•'GATE VALVE SaaxL�•awS�rY� .. -- rr.t /ASTALLATIGW DETAIL PLAN V/ I4' ELEVAT/ON . - - - - _ no, 'c'-' _ �—� —�� CONCRETE DEADMAN ANCHOR DETAIL - -- IIMINiiiM MIIIIPPIE _r ;%N g.- _ — .. Y o,p�S 111-1.46 AGENCY REVEW 'I - Ir.a.s ?-4fir,1�`] CITY OF RENTON _- •_ oa.awrr s.r o. .uuw wawa. �o[ ` - ., .. ��✓✓✓�rp' WATER PLAN DETAILS I �_�^_:I ^- -y TIE BOLT, TIE ROD AAD SH4O LE SIZING QI (VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER [ `. LL[WTpw'):-.` �•[lomer-• ....��..� 1 I -.....,. .. 1r••�r 0..�+e r,..w. _ - - ..........tl....................... ....,...,.,,. . ,.,..... x F ti I / t 11.7_ 61 }/ Ix i'A I ;b r • *4 Lr% • j..•.s., _ .El 1/ (Yr • ---) ''' _______--- • / % '. "- l'.--,.- irr. 1.,;,-''::i 1 1 • :j ,1 1:‘ wI I �— t D p = I„ iit± if li • p•• la ,/ C- -..s.- I ( it 1 /I ,_. 1I o..... 000doaoouoo _ _��ll p "^"^'q.,,, _ I k i I i' 'G i N,..,...!__1.111;r1:11:1111, �. o E ,a2. • `1k' • i 1[IMIr.:: i A 3 3 7,}1t� \ EXISTING M.O.B. I , W,: ' is 1�ier a g + . , r" R$ 1 6 rid: � l` a il tel. j7q sa lei l �_I,7� _ A ;El 1p.it 11;111111111sot RI gi 411111i 111141�111 r ,t lil � � $� eaa VI `a III!! �. ---14:- 14 Ai leill�i6 is S 0;0111 41Q1; 4 Z '1RS 111 1i B 9 c=L. .1":.• S 9-_ �d R' d��7a4 1a Z.� tI �a o 2 El I,3t�i ga IR .r. • ; a �1 g1p� #yb 01 pFa g4t y ! 1 O g 4 D - _4�11i11i1• J , 4t, r3411 „4 ., a "'�4 1 91 el �,4 GJ . / I��,�` ''` �I 44 ? ilk>< gl! 3r411 III 1111III • 1g1 ;aiq� l .1 3 ft m 17 11pL 19 .J t ' I;� 1 t 1a 4 s oA •11 Ili 44 1 PjIh e� a4e iii ag, aea1 41 aIi11a Egae � .11 • -. • ' • f,,, .,f ,ILK 4Q r. .IF • '. S.�' t. j': ,'ti , ,.•fit. ire. ,. • •..• • CITY OF RCNTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISIo1. AFFI ... . . .. .. .. .............................. On the 12:k day of flaydelL , 1991 ,deposited in the mails of he Upi etted t es sealed envelope containing 441E-- OWTt h4 documents . This information was sent to: Name Representing • VMC- fuel • • • • • • • • • • • • (Signature of Sender) ,04.1,0,_ r Se cp 11 L'Ll C:jv Suhilsribed g ' awto Rkto me this 42 day 19 7/ e s 4 SO 1=1; 3 i° NOTARy SO3 E • . • : Nota Publi in and for the Plauc % .41. Sta of Washington residing rt.f • at therein. • Project 0,• a:711Z%, ; . • •.: Project Number . „. • • • :::;<:s :: ::'':::::.iii::3:':::i'::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::>:::CURB i-'F.I •D . On the IZ_ dayof N ` deposited in the mails of the Uni ed Stat s9a �sealed envelope containing 4 . e. - a _ k, documents. This information was .sent to: Name Representing Susarme. +Z '( ) OOt Q" (b • • • (Signature of Sender) lc • .e.r J Sub ribed and sworn to me this -- day of;72240(>e5k , 4 col' FtET J, .*ie• c PP I A°e� A ▪. NOTggy�N;p Notar Public and for the i 0 i PU"QL�—Cit. .s o Stat f Washington residing • �. at o71%▪•• eos 1990 ,`,`.< therein. : P.r:o. ..eC:—;::;N.umber:::: :. :: .• . .. .................:.............. • °from the desk of EUGENE BRAIN,D.D.S,M.S.,P.S. 3901 Talbot Road South&Smile Street Renton,Washington 98055 226-2450 7-44,4 /"<deZ--=-4-/), 14- 7' - ' ,_. .• - . ___.: „ . .•... • '.,, •:,....,';!'.-!,,1:1 ';:.'''.', 1,,;'.:.ii'.4,47i -,,;•':,v:,, . „ . . - • : • . . , • . ., ''1, " .•,,,1•,,',40(0%:!,, ,i,;:!., i';, J'i.,,:'.,,' • ' , .• . :. .,• . •, ;,:..,., ,i$.•,,,, ,:".,„1 a,•;!,I1,:',':4,::;"-:,;,,••• •.: • ' ' • ' • '• l•'' 1', •••!,:'4,,,"(!,fq,PV1,, ,,,.:!,.:,t;,,, •,;:: , ' '" .', ". ,),.,,,,J,,:. .,,:", ' ..; .' : ; •':- . . ' , . •, , , • • . .' ' '. : , '•',:, ' - , ".'.. : . • ,;,, ..' ,:' . ',,i.'•:• :•...'•,;!".5:J.1','IvAC1,1'..:, ;k.O.inift,= ':•';..',1'':!.::.:1'`;EUGENE BRAIN,D.D.S.,KS,P,S. ' • ':.:! t''','!.."'W: • .. . ,''•••'''.:,'.'':.,'' -- Practice Limited to Orthodontics . . • , • • •• 3901 Talbot Road South&Smile Street . Renton,Washington 98055 ,','. •s.t,',.:, • • . . •i,:.;'.1:: :V;?•,',,,i,:',.1.••, : • , •• '.•' . • • •' •:. - • ' • • • " " ' •• . ' •• .' , (206)226-2450,•ti:;',';:•• . • . , • •. . . • • • • . . . . , ' ••• -,' • •/ •I ,:',• ' ' •:. ... , :,,; • g. •':, :': ''': 11' .1,::,•1,q,4i,r'1!;A::! •;.:. .9 -: ,V,.1:1.,;: •.• ,-•i •• .';I /. I't•:,.• :•• i . „ ,, V ,::: „ ..• . ',, :.! .',.i.i.:;••,:,: !'.; ,:t, Maltch ,. 77 ,1• .•1991 ..••• ' ; • . • .. •• ,...:.;',...,K. ::?•,,:,..ii,:,..•,. „,T,::•?:;.,:;.,•: .:. !. .:,;,...,;... .':?;.;;: - ..:,;,..- ,•• - . ::•:;:,;.:. ., . .. . , . . . AR - -,,,i2.).....,,, ,. o.., .,%..,,i : ". ";.,,,, ...:,;:•,,....;,,,,,,,,,9191„,„,0.,,,,,,, ,,;:,:.•,:,.. . •;.:.:', :t.t.i.,;--. .r: MAKeithDotaitboltn- .-.. .• .: -. :..,. . ,. ,,,.:.., ., , ‘,. ... . ....;,.. .,:,,,,. .,. s,;.; 0.,,,,;,:.i,:,4•;;,..q.,g04.1JJAIm 'i'/•' ':'.• ..: , .,:;':. i.,•.,•':: FetgAzon and• Zukdett - . . ..• . ,.....„..:,,;.,••.: ., ..::',..., •••, , .. •, 1:• .:‘, . . ..,.;,,,,'..?!§4R1,46 '. .`,,,,1 70.44':'...Z4i',',''',),...'. .:::'...:6;i1.!:,t,;•;;,;...,,A,? rae. e,4.64 . r4..t4t Center • ' :..•. . , • . , ,, . :,:.!, .:. ,; „ .. • ••.,•. ,...,:,.,::i:::,,, ....;f.•„,',•,;-:.,0;m0,V$4..;$4:,..,:',ITA,°,', :;.:: 1420 :-•; 5th; Avenue , ••#3400 : ':'•: ::-,,:;:,;.:.%,, ,,,,,. ., .. ,.. ,. • .. • •.:- •.;„;,,,,-,•,...•,,,:,,,z,„-:::.,,,,,I; •,,i.,,. :?„:,,,,,,,,,i,,,. .:;,,,,,,,,,;:,• .... , ,,,,,:.:..,. , ;. . . ,,•,,,• ••, •,....,.i:;,;•,,,,,,,.," :„ ...,,,:,;.:4•,,,, ,,,,,,A.,., ,.,,,, ,, ,,,,,,,,,.,.,•,-- ,,p,„,.,:;,,;,,:•4,.,,; .',Seattte ,. Wazhington 98.101 "72339 ',., ',:,..,;„,,.•::-,... ..,:‘,::, : .: .,-, :. .:,:,,,,,1,,,,,..;,., •.,..:,••r,,,.4:) .:. .10,:.,,...Y.4,,-;.. ,,..,4.: -• . , .. . ,;.,, ,,.!, r.k Ds' ..;. . - ;:' :; , , ' .I. ''.'!'' ''i',.:•,r;,::,.'3, i,,,'.:.;:.'; ea/ • Mt ,-, Dealt b,,,,,,',::.,„: - • • ' ., . . •; :••., ,•,„. .•:,,, •: . .;:...„ :, .,; •:..,,,.:.;. ,,,..„:.•. ,- ;::::.;,, i,?-:,.:.q.,,,,i:m,„,:pi.:.;4,,,,;;,,:,,,,,..t::•.,,.k:5,,N,s.-,:,::‘,.;,.• : : ,:: : : ,. - • ....• . -; :: ;••,:.,,,: .,.:..:. :: ).,-F, 1:y,,,,.:?;.4,,i70,,,,Aq:"4,,,!?, g,,;,,:,••,• :,,:-,,,,,,,,,,, •;„4.1:;:,,;,,,, : ., ,•,, ., ,4.,, - .• -:. .; , . . .. . •, ,• .; •: . ::. :.:: •:. • -: - • : . •. •::. ,;.::•:::,-.•:",,,,m,..-4.,,,,,,,,,,,,:of.,, ,,,c:F.,,,,,,,!,:,..,4:,,,,,,,,, - ;,,:,,,•,,f,-,-;,:i ;'F'i l'.1. . • • ;'.• f;''-t .• ,;. .'•• . .•' ''"' ' ' ' • ... •. • ' '. ' • '. ''. ":''''''': "':•'I't',"1 :•V,', :;.'T,I.T.17:: f ',tn.;a 'conveit4aton. wttly. MA A.: Caitta . Vendetana-4,....!j J:wa442:wi:-'4::::J.,:a.;,7;.'0 ,..t,:.:',.: ::;,..-,:::,..,.;',.,-..'::.$,,,..i.,•,. • • • '' ' • ; zhatkng .withhet• convetzationz I . had •Ineviou4ty • had with )100mgmv,', ,,....:,. ..,.. ....,;..,-. :444. Rich . Rliodman Aetating .to ptopetty I :own adjacent to';' ,.:,R046.1=X4M:: . ,...:,•,;.•;!,J3.q, i14:v:,-..Vcaif;',A..:•f, .' Valley Medica rentet . _ MA4 ..4endetand -neque4ted that 1 convey'thi..6- anecd'otat.4n6olt.mationl .to 1 .witt be 'CL4 '.'P' ::YO• nN';'''':.• '''''.* )..i. -;i•:,';k:':,!N.,",,,:;,. ...--::- ..;::.,-.,:;,:....,:,;.... .-.%,...--.....:.!.. . b.aie'15: azioozzibte: ) • : . : - ., ;-:::.,,-,.!„t„,,,v,,,,,::, :,:,4 ,:: :.,:?:•'„.;•,:,,',;;•; : • , • .... .;:, ,I,,,ii,,:lioy;,,,fv.,.:,.y:•!,,y-::,;,. ; • :.. ,:•:•:,;::•,:w,,,,,;:ligy,,,?,,,,: ':':.'•`i •'•t..1'.;,'''*,1 A 4 0 a n d:Au g u4t, .- 19.85,, t on4titactio n :,waz '4ta4...ted on .an: .o.,66-ice ,..?1v,,,,.,•,,..*.i.;i1, .;.1.e.,y ;.?;:i,,-,..,.. .,.,,:'•... •,,.i...,,..i... , buttding tocated.:at .3901: Tatbot Road. South . .. The. day the ';'-:::,.14;0,v,..q.i,,,qi,..:•..i;;,:,ii,.' ,•:.,:.,,,N,:4,,,,,;•,,L:.0,if.,,,,,•,ii,,,,, ,:,,,,i,,-.:. buttdozelt,-IdAnivtd •and began the :g4Ading , 1 iteceived .A ttt (aIle:; :*. -.11',','.4. • AI .J.W:':'!' 12,: j.0.:04'41,d,AAOM MA:.•::Roodman ., . He -Antitoduced h4.m4etti ,yand indicated . -•:.,,,, ,.2,,,,-1.,,,), .;14!,,e,!..1,•,g.,....f.-,i:,.... "the . HO4I'ditat" had An- intetezt in .the ptopenty Owned by me ,:,.:;:.....:;.,.!,iki!:.,;,,:.•; . .:.,..-;;:li.g,.. ..,.; .,,1?.•:.1 :;.'.,. .. adjacent to the hO4pitat, and Atquezted.that 1 .meet with. h4m4;,,, ,i,,..;•::':::,,,','...:.%'.. .,•:.••-•,..••.',:... ..,.. • .• . •,..,,.. .;:.: ,,,,:f"A::.4.n ..11.14 o66icg., :at:A4z convenience . , • jn Conven4ation, he exptezzed,-;,,,A.,:::v,,.-, -. ';*:'h.';,7•'•6,•,;O::.-•'il,.4'',',1'.f:'..L.'4ii:.'i-,•intete4t- in metitingJaz soon az.. pozzi.bte . We arranged a .metti, ..ng,,;,:,' 60A the next ' ateAnoon naAound 5 : 00: p .m. " :',,,,),, ,,,.;:•.,p,i.1,.-', ' At that meeting , M11,.; Roodman advi4ed me.. .that the ho4pitat -",needed my ptopetty41,,Qwi,m .v4:, ( 390JTatbot. Rd, South ) , that it wa4* inctuded in 6utute 0, ....::f.,' ., ,• :iN'3.',4 .i., :''':. is expan .., -.:1ft..,,,..,.,.. ;,.:.,:.,;; Y:...Y. ! '. !. . .,..y.i.,. ,, ion pLan4, and he zuggezted that we istant a ".0iencfy 6 ,41: *4,. *7,-. . ' II ...,.i..... . „..;,,,cAi;condemnat4on . 1 Advized MA . poodman that my o6icice Conztati. k.4;ow ,w,:,;,, ,,. ,cp • : • , . o..,;•,.!•;m:;;,,.,.;'••. 1 .:: w (oaz now unde4way, and that I had no intetezt 4,:n a "64LiendLy . .:.,.. , ,:::,!@,.....,,,,, ,L,,v• ..r;.:::;•;.,,A./,..z...-condemnationnuhatevelt that waz„ andAuttheA 1 Aeminded him. ., !..,ig.:.:Avg.:...e .,2 - $that-( 1 ) .j had been thneatened .by eviction , and ioAceabte WJ.:144W,-A!.:!:W.:.-: ;.; • •-,,q,g5,.:1,,,,1tl. P: tockciut OIS. the °Wee buitding I .04metay owned, 6y. the .-, 4,Up,0MMg4 :::::-, ,•, :.,... --,,,.... ..,.6.,,,,,,:,•q% WYA4ziztant BoZpitat:AdminiztAatot yti, DenzPopp, and ( 2 ) thentWo ;„......'431-. ..,;: . • . .:;,„..,...,;(n.:,:.=;.',:,(,•Iv.,:.•.r.:11 f i ; Owaz a'ne4otution riazzed by the. hozpitat board (duxing eant4eti. ;:...,,, -.. ,.. .:•:,i.,: i.,:.i:,.i.,-,:,,,..!,... • , . , . . II tie. oven the • thteatened tondemnatcon in 1978 ) ,-whick4E0WO.A.W . .,,,,,,„::.?.:•,1..,;:,;:; .,...,,.,,.!. 4.tatea, ,,tn e66ect, that az tonga4 .1 pAactictd on the paopettyNgw,m, adjacent to the ho4pitat, the hozpttat woutd •flOt initiate act4.o.&.V, V.2:.',....:.- ,...,m,..W1.,-1,,.;..„-,... ; tocondemri: and .acqui,te that pAo0zAty .. -''' • ,,:'!''' 'O'S',•:;•, . •. . . • •. • . . . . . ; •"i.• •: ,.,' (..!,-,;'•:;, e;.,_;,..,..•,,; MIL-.,, Robdman-Aeptiedsthat . he wa4 not..awalt.e ,o6 the: Avsotuttoni,........butvv;.,&. : woutd Aeview the action -and 6ecoMeAznowtedgeabte . Several dayz -;"..,. .....:,..,...:,.2,-tatelt.,'• Mn. Roodman called me and acknowtedged that he .; , ,.-•,,1,1!,;,11,,.,•,(,,,, • ,,,,,:;.,,,,:,,:.;,,,,.,, ,,,,,,,,...,„., the • Ae4otution , and that. I wa4. toutect. .. HoweveA, ..he adviistd me. ' 1 --;,i..:,...:,. ..,,,,.;t•,. . • , . '. • a t,s .r.:9,:;:.'''','.:''.'. :.. .':,.. i'.;.*.4--wthat',.... on.e....ZoaAd. cannot bind anothen, and that it wais the ho4p,ctai. .. .;,.,,,,, ,..,. de4iliC..to aCquat the, ptopetty . I tezponded that, having zetvedvonvi, , ,,, ,,,,;•!;: ,;,,,,:,,,,,,:, „ . . . . ,q,,,•,,,,,„•:..i',,-.,.. a • publo.:' BoaltdP 1 wa4 aWate: 06. the aeti0n4 o:6 Boaubs, h.owe vet,:. when .,,;• '',',;.•,:::.(;i:•'',,,,!':,:::•.„ ., ... . ... .,.. ..,. -. ' ::.. ., , , • ' • ,',"Q'','?':*.',:..:,'i'' i: Diploma Se of(he American Board of Orthodontics ..'.::,:::',•'.:,-: .• •. ,• " , •- ,. ' • ..: • iott CIT. . OF RENTON .tea. -,. Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator March 7, 1991 Dan Jardine c/o Mahlum&Nordfors 2505 Third Ave, Suite 219 Seattle,WA 98121 SUBJECT: Valley Medical Center MOB II CU;ECF-063-89 Dear Mr.Jardine: The date of Tuesday, March 19, at 9:00 a.m., has been set for the appeal of the adequacy of the FEIS (refer to letter to Fred Kaufmann, Hearing Examiner from Eric Thoman, March 4, 1991) and the conditional use permit public hearing to review the above-referenced matter. The hearing, before Mr. Fred Kaufman, • Renton Hearing Examiner, will be held in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington. 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 you prefer to make other arrangements to receive the staff report, please contact Kathleen Childers,277-5582, or Sandi Seeger,277- 5581. If you have any questions, please call 235-2550. Sincerely, Donald K. Erickson,AICP Zoning Administrator cc: Valley Medical Center 400 S 43rd St Renton,WA 98055 hexltr/DIE/kac 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on March 19, 1991 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the following petitions: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB II CU;ECF-063-89 The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to construct a five-level medical office building on now vacant property within the medical complex. The project is located at 400 S 43rd St. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing on March 19, 1991 at 9:00 a.m.to express their opinions. Publication Date: March 8, 1991 Account No.51067 hexpub cu-cto 3--(n CITY ®N Lie<< JAN 1 51991 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 51067 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 109. 'I's- K a t h l e e n Hoover ,being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the NOTICE OF MITIGATION VALLEY DAILY NEWS DOCUMENT Notice is given under SEPA, RCW • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-660, that the City of Renton has issued a mitigation docu- ment for Valley Medical Center's proposed Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week. That said newspapers Medical Office Building II and Ambulatory are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six Care Center. Copies of the document are available at the public information counter months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published (SEPA Information Center) in the Develop- in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King ment Services Division, Third Floor, Renton County, Washington. The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal Municipal ing la at 200 M9l Ave - County, South,, R Rentonn,, W Washington 98055. . newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Reading copies are available in the Renton King County. Municipal Library at the above address. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Valley Medical center proposes to build a The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Kent Edition 110,970 sf medical office building on the XX , Renton Edition XX , Auburn Edition XX (and not in northwest portion of the Valley Medical Cen- tersu supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers Campus. Also includedP in the proposed PP g Y action is a Building Permit for relocation of during the below stated period. The annexed notice a Public Notice the existing Ambulatory Care Center(ACC) to another building on campus and use of (Notice of Mitigation) 5169 the vacated ACC space for medical servic- es. Any interested party may appeal these was published on January 7 , 1991 conditions in writing by 5:00 p.m., January P 18, 1991. See City Code Section 4-8-11, WAC 197-11-680 for further details and RCW 43.21 C.075. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the To appeal this Declaration, you must file 4995 your appeal document with the Hearing . Sum Of$ Examiner within fourteen (14) days of the date the decision was made. See City Code Section 4-8-11, RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. 71((alh,A,0 You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact City of Renton, Community Development Department to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA Subscribed and sworn before me this 1 O t h dayof Jan. 19 91 appeals. Published in the Valley Daily News Janu- ary 7, 1991. 5169. Account No. 51067 No ary Public for the State of Washington residing at Auburn, King County, Washington VDN#87 Revised 4/89 7 F O RE� • , c Ci �, p o z NCTTICE ' �4TED SEP-O�C5 City of Renton Laird U pe Hearing Examiner W,ill hog a PUBLIC . A. EARINO. : in CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL ON MARCH 19,.1991 BEGINNING AT 9:00 A.M. • P.M. CONCERNING: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB II . CU;ECF-063-89 THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO . CONSTRUCT A FIVE-LEVEL MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ON NOW • VACANT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEDICAL COMPLEX. T'i . ' '•, i I11 . I I ' I to ir„.1 (‘ • all Lil ::v...: 1 O • y t .. .% , . Y, .3 ifl . . .\,....„4 .� i O�� i • Vorr7.I .Alp ii ./ c .. . V).41 ,i c ). I 1 • GENERAL §CiATIb . r Ctp.1 •ADDRESS: . 400 SOUTH 43RD STREET f FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL •THE CITY OF RENTON • BUILDING&ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 THISI„„P,NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION • CERTIFICATION I , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 3 COPIES OF M.cur c� Sow e a� THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN 3 CONSPICUOUS • ofithIMIEAS® ON OR. NEARBY THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY ON 3- 8 - 9 I • . • ° Gp.RETj A.o`Q terlisio4k&x...1:::,'IVprgRv c�`a _• ;v Si ° Y A'&TEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a . • � ►�� : Na ary Public, in and for the State of Washin ton �l a:• PUBLIC • r.g'sidi n , on the , SIGNED•: 'Yl sf %Tj�:`G� 9b:' '�Ay of %i F . �°; .s.e, oiooup...f ,S' "G oe OF R4,� , • U 0 © z 9 NciTicE . � s o — m 9A v 0 P • 94TRO SEPSE�5 City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner will hold a PUBLIC HEARING . , in CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL ON MARCH 19,. 1991 BEGINNING AT 9:00 A.M. P.M. CONCERNING: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB II CU;ECF-063-89 . THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO . CONSTRUCT A FIVE-LEVEL MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ON NOW VACANT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEDICAL COMPLEX. 1]. .1j .. . : .. . . .. - ° • rol- . -Th- — ' J . / . . .-__&' . - j ... • / i�\�`T fie. vri I I ®E IT/TF11 ! • i . \ ;elk I • ti ! ..a . \fj \ Q dm y q Vy / 110' It* / 41 • i ri-t: / ' i . t , .V._ LI* I • 81-‘° <1 riTi 1-,e- > --- n. GENERALT1b e a r .ADDRESS: .: H A, pile -7- 1 . i gr-5 1 400 SOUTH 43RD STREET J FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 THISI.VOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION FOR AMENDMENT TO A MITIGATION DOCUMENT Notice is given under SEPA, RCW 43.21 C.075 and WAC 197-11-660,that the City of Renton has amended a mitigation document which addresses the environmental impacts expected from the potential development of Valley Medical Center's Medical Office Building II and Ambulatory Care Center. Copies of the document are available at the public information counter (SEPA Information Center) in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Renton Municipal Building located at 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055. Reading copies are available in the Renton Municipal Library at the above address. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Valley Medical Center proposes to build a 110,970 sf medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center Campus. Also included in the proposed action is a Building Permit for relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC space for medical services. • Any interested party may appeal these conditions in writing by 5:00 p.m., March 15, 1991. See City Code Section 4-8-11, 4-6-23, 4-6-6, WAC 197-11-680 for further details and RCW 43.21 C.075. To appeal this Declaration, you must file your appeal document with the Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14) days of the date the decision was made. See City Code Section 4-8-11, 4-6-23. 4-6-6, RCW 43.21 C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact City of Renton, Development Planning Section to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. Publication Date: March 1, 1991 Account No. 51067 CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION FOR AMENDMENT TO A MITIGATION DOCUMENT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT APPLICATION NO(S):. ECF-063-89/ECF-113-89 PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT NAME: Medical Office Building II and relocation of the Ambulatory Care Center DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Approval of Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and Building Permit to allow construction of a 110,970 sf medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center Campus. Building permit is needed for the relocation of the Ambulatory Care Center to another building on campus and use of the vacated space for medical services.' LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: " 400 South 43rd Street, Renton,WA LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee, under WAC 197-11-660, has amended a mitigation document which addresses the environmental impacts expected from the potential development of Valley Medical Center's Medical Office Building II and Ambulatory Care Center. An environmental impact statement was required for this project under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c) and other documents cited in the ordinance. The impacts described in that statement are the basis for the mitigating measures in the mitigation document. This decision was made by the Environmental Review Committee after review of the completed environmental impact statement and other information on file with the lead agency. Any interested party may appeal these conditions in writing by 5:00 p.m., March 15, 1991. See City Code Section 4-8-11, 4- 6-23, 4-6-6,WAC 197-11-680 for further details and RCW 43.21 C.075. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee c/o,Don Erickson,Secretary Development Planning Section Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 You may appeal the conditions in this document in writing to Renton Hearing Examiner no later than 5:00 p.m., March 15, 1991. To appeal this Declaration, you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen (14) days of the date the decision was made. See City Code Section 4-8-11, 4-6-23,4-6-6, RCW 43.21 C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact City of Renton, Community Development Department to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. PUBLICATION DATE: March 1, 1991 DATE OF DECISION: February 25, 1991 SIGNATURES: ®2-f 2,54 q� Lynn . Guttman ,Administrator DA E Depart ent of PI nning/Building/Public Works .to\ _ oh E.webiey,Administrator— ✓ DATE / munity Service Department' Xee V)/ ejerr, F�Chief DATE Rent n Fire Department . feissIg 'R{.:.t. •February 8, 1991 To: Gregg Zimmerman Kay Shoudy Gary Gotti Sam Chastain Penny Bryant ' / Im Hanson From: l Don Erickson, Chairman <:M a#m :D t :::: >::::::::::::::1Felirlia.; ;8>::19.9.......,.,.........,,:.::::::::::::::::•....:::::,:.......,,...........�:..::.:::::.•::.::..::,.::::::•:,�:..::.::.:::.:::•:;;>;: Agenda is listed below. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA February 8, 1991 Third Floor Conference Room Commencing at 8:30 AM TIME/KEY PARTICIPANTS NEW PROJECTS CALVARY CHURCH ECF-159-90 Applicant seeks Environmental Impact Review approval for a change of use for 4,000 square feet of the 10,000 square feet of the building from Light Industrial use to a church with a maximum capacity of 85 seats. VMC MOB II/ACC (LAND USE) CU;ECF-063-89&ECF;SA-113-89 This project consists of two distinct Improvements within the Valley Medical Center Campus: 1) a conditional use permit for the development of a new five-level, 110,966 sf medical office building (with outside parking) in a portion of the campus now utilized as a parking lot--the parking lot will not be replaced as the Medical Center has parking in excess of that permitted under the Parking and Loading Ordinance; and 2) site plan approval for the construction of an Ambulatory Care Center Into the now vacant lower level of an existing Psychiatric Services building. The project is located at South 43rd Street. :>:::>:::::>:::>: :: DEPARINI ENT....0..F.:P LAN N I N 016.0 I LO I NOd P U ESLIONVORKSm.::.1'i'i':.:m°::;:g.:.:: ;::: .................................................... ..•.•..•...•....•......•..•.•.... .•......•. .•..• .•.•..•....... FFE: E Q. Fi Q:�;ST p 1 �A `6': :::: ? >:::'>:>:;'•:::: '> :':' >V`II en :`�P..1- ..N.................................................:::.....a .e. ..M.ecli�al::C. t r.:::: :::;: : : ;: : : ;:::: : :: <::::�:: �:: :::::: :� :i< :Y• H. . f <: :: ;:`:`:::: :::?: ::: ::':::::: ....a.. ..Medical.. e.. r..M. I� I...A. .Y. • :::::.ENV. Q...MI*..T..IC...It�CKk:151 >:::: : d...CU-Qt.3-a ..•„ . .FSA. .13.. ........................................... f 11i111 1!1 flllll! 1 7 11 111 7 11 1iI I11117111111111:1 1 li#if1111i7111:•M FI 111!!I1'•1!✓•H:lt'�N'IM! fi-I.i1M 111 FF1:171 I I I :OSA ::::':::> :�> :: >;:: :'<:<plI::::<nt >:<: .:.>;:�::.:. :..: . F�,:��••����p0 T a e ova o ::::� :::::l��.SCFiPT�QN ..P.RQ5 .. ;....:..:.:::::::.�:•:. hp...:..pp.can�.::fs. ae...►?g�.:��.:::s.:.:::..a :::Epp....:,..... :.... .: tr' A x u u �:.:..���:Ca e . a .a.Is. ....•. :.�.:.:.:;..�:::•::•: :::•::•:.:�.:•.::•.:::.:.:•.•....:.g.:�:.::•..:., .•. :i::.:.::.::.::.;:.:;:..: a� s c art mb a.o. ... .are... . b .r..n . . ... t n g. o sa. .erm t..G cca.e..iac '�=:an....b..a.c .n n. 0 s b a. l II :.:w:: <::: :#�:c:Qns..uc .a.. .. .Ieve...medl..al:affiG. ..bu diri•. .. .�<:b„o. ... 9 ih e ::. ::ua .an... ra e.. �>�r.. . nsAle:medical;GorriP:.:�..:.:.. .::.. ..::::.�: <:}a.}:; �"II ffl f tll":ill tf ll�7��{I���. i Lf�I.�1� :i::::::j:i:::r::ii:i::Ji :::::ry:!:i:ti:i:i::ti::i::i::;:::::C: i:i:l��.��� ':•�1��•���!•}:.} {.:?!'II;:;{:I:::I II 11.71. I 1 . ........... ................::. :1'1i1:111 1.1lll ill: ',... lll.141111111:i:.1.74 t.i {il:i;:l i:•I:Il:::.:t-'::llllll:if•+i;i Fi{i.l .If FF;H.il it It F+FFI F'F;4 :I.. .Gl�..l .. .4 .P .. .17C�.S•Al > i : `: < :S. u*:: .. rd:5 r k:•osm: :>:< • 7ti t 7 ) r C--yam . / ;II • �,r:'r A . I 1f- '' . .. ,: - N IP 1 . it - a 8 I • Alt % ).!, GCS;tpitciiii='O.. N 9 g 3 4IV 7 ...v.,A,,.„.....,,,:,,,,„,,,,,:h . = , /. .. ., m . . \ --, /.,iis), / • \ T 1/ o i ., 7 ,i: . 1 o � :. • . ,.. ..,,_,tii 0 . ,. n : _l___ Vob.,/, ,pillp . i • I !. 13nDL,...., • OTREEI.' 'i ' •- Iocrp - 1 Te hnical Advisory Committee Staff Report Va ley Medical Center MOB II/ACC Fe ruary 8, 1991 Page 2 • • BACKGROUND 1. The applicant Is seeking approval to develop two distinct projects within the 32 acre Valley Medical Center Campus.A conditional use permit Is sought to provide a five-level, 110,966 square foot • (103,270 square feet of net leasable area) medical office building (MOB II), In the northwest quadrant of the complex, on a portion of property which Is now utilized for surface parking. Site • plan approval is sought for an ambulatory care center,utilizing the subterranean level of an existing 18,000 square foot,three level psychiatric facility,located in the southwest quadrant of the ' site. The existing, usable space which is vacated elsewhere on campus, as a result of the newly provided space In the ACC,will be utilized to Improve existing VMC services. 2. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21), a review of environmental Impacts was mandated for the above-referenced projects. A Determination of Significance was Issued and ' an Environmental Impact Statement was prepared including an analysis of the following potentially significant Issues: a) land use; b)transportation (circulation, parking);and c) public services. 3. Representatives from all City departments have reviewed and commented upon the EIS and land use applications (site plan and conditional use). Comments provided for the EIS have been Integrated by ERC Into a Mitigation Measures document (Attachment #1) and duly issued by the • City. Comments provided for the land use application are attached and discussion is Integrated Into this report. LAND USE ANALYSIS 1. • Conditional Use: As noted above, the applicant Is seeking a conditional use permit to construct a five-level office building,'with approximately 103,270 square feet of leasable space, ' Including medical offices, an auditorium, conference rooms and kitchen facilities. The conditional use permit Is required because the facility, while service related to VMC, is separate from, the . primary hospital/health care complex, and because the planned structure, at 70 feet, exceeds the 50'height limited allowed for principally permitted uses in the P-1 zone: , Section 4-31-36 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance lists criteria that the City Is asked to consider in reviewing a Conditional Use application. These include the following: a. The proposed use shall be compatible with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standard of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates the VMC campus and surrounding area as Public/Quasi- Public. The proposed office building Is allowed under the existing designation and, also, is I potentially compatible with Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies. For example, under the Valley Plan, locational policies permit health care facilities In public/quasi public designated areas. Land Development policies call for development to occur in a "logical, . systematic manner" and for growth to occur on vacant lands zoned for (particular) uses, rather than directing growth to undeveloped areas. Community facilities policies call for.health services to be coordinated in the Valley. Commercial Goals, Objectives and Policies call for development to • be attractive, convenient and viable. Clustered development is encouraged to Improve-access, • minimize travel and congestion, and promote safety. New developments are recommended to be compatible with adjacent land uses, and development design should provide for efficient and functional use of land. • • • • • • • Iscrpi • • Technical Advisory Committee Staff Report Valley Medical Center MOB II/ACC February 8, 1991 Page 3 b. There shall be a community need for the proposed use at the proposed location. i. 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. Both within the VMC campus and in the vicinity of the site, a considerable amount of medical office space exists. This clustering Is seen to be generally desirable because it offers a "service node" for persons seeking both primary and specialized medical care, providing both convenience to the consumer and minimizing such related Impacts as vehicle travel. Staff do note, however, that these benefits need to be evaluated, as well, in a context which includes an analysis of service/occupancy characteristics of on-site and , neighborhood medical offices. For example, MOB II Is defined as Class A space --that Is space which has been historically utilized for larger and/or expanding medical services by virtue of Its design, location and operating fees. (Class B space has historically been designed/located to be utilized by smaller or newer practices.) The vacancy rate for Class A space In this area of the Valley is 11.7% presently — medical office buildings on the campus are fully (or close to fully) subscribed. The vacancy rate for Class B space is 16.2%. The EIS states that VMC projects an absorption rate of 30,000 to 40,000 square feet per year; at those rates, the building would be fully occupied within three to five years. It Is expected that some medical practitioners would move to MOB II from other nearby off- campus locations (e.g. Valley Gardens), and, perhaps, from on-campus locations as well (e.g. Chin Hills, Talbot Professional Center). Staff note that VMC rents space in some off- site facilities -- if those tenants move onto campus, occupancy rates of off-site facilities could be reduced resulting In potential impacts to land use and transportation as well as economic Impacts. (if lease fees are more expensive In MOB II than in the surrounding MOB II office buildings, it Is possible that VMC might retain off-campus space for Its physicians/services and lease more costly on-campus space to private physicians.) It is reasonable to assume that a number of potential MOB II tenants might utilize other Class A area facilities if the proposed office building were not.available, however, it Is unlikely that occupancy rates of Class B structures would be affected. Staff do consider that it would be desirable to provide a facility to house special medical services that are hospital related, because these improvements can be accomplished under the Zoning Ordinance, in a way which could enhance the quality of medical care for consumers and minimize off-site Impacts as well. There is no indication that there is an over-concentration of such special services in the area at this time. Further, research indicates that medical practitioners prefer to locate specialty offices on a medical campus In order to better meet their professional needs (e.g. educational facilities, availability of staff/equipment resources -- such as other special medical practitioners, technicians, laboratories) and to more effectively serve clients. in order to provide adequate space for specialty (hospital related) practitioners and to ensure that off-campus complexes can appropriately compete for general practitioners (or specialty practitioners who prefer this alternative), a mitigation measure was established by ERC calling for a covenant restricting 80% of leasable space to specialty (secondary and tertiary) practices. Staff will suggest that, In addition, one level of the office building be reserved (shelled off) until the Master Campus Plan'► Is approved and it can be determined by the City that this space Is both necessary and can be utilized without undue Impact to the site and surrounding properties. 11 This assumes that the Master Campus Plan includes an Independent analysis of on-campus and off-campus Impacts related to development of private medical office facilities at VMC. II. That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. As noted previously in this report, the VMC campus is generally considered to be a suitable location for the addition of space for hospital-related medical services. The specifically selected location on the northwest quadrant Is considered desirable because it Is now developed primarily with surface parking which can be relocated as necessary to meet Code requirements. Open/landscaped areas also exist on the site; open area will, of necessity, be reduced by this development (62.87% to 62.22%) -- this change is not considered to be notable. Recommendations will be made for improvements to existing/planned landscaping to compensate for loss of currently planted areas. leapt • Te hnical Advisory Committee Staff Report Va ley Medical Center MOB II/ACC Fe•ruary 8, 1991 Pal c. The proposed use at the proposed location shall comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements for development in the underlying zone and not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The proposed office development generally meets or exceeds P-1 development standards (e.g. set backs, parking and loading facilities). The proposed 70 foot height of the building does not conform to regulations which prescribe a 50 foot height limit for principally permitted uses. The planned building would be allowed under a conditional use permit, and, In part, is the subject of this conditional use permit application. The Conditional Use Ordinance allows a structure to exceed the height requirement provided that the building height is related to surrounding uses In a manner which allows optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures. As designed, the structure would be generally compatible in height with the nearby on-site office buildings (at 57 feet in height). Staff do note that the proposed structure would be visible from off-site properties. There Is some potential for view disruption from adjacent structures on the site and from nearby developments. Staff will recommend re-orientation of the building to the southwest, to Improve view corridors, to ensure adequate privacy/defensible space, and to promote Improved air and light circulation on the site. While this modification to the site plan may result In the loss of some surface parking, sufficient surface parking will be retained to adequately serve the building; reorientation should be designed to retain the skybridge at Its present location, so that access to the abutting parking garage would not be disrupted. Additionally, staff will recommend: 1)window treatment which minimizes glare to adjacent structures and roadways; and 2) modifications to landscaping to address development characteristics. d. The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and character of the site and the surrounding community. The subject proposal (for office space) Is generally compatible with the design of surrounding on-campus professional office uses. The proposed architecture is consistent with surrounding buildings. The size is generally compatible as well: existing medical office buildings are 57 feet high and the proposed building would be 70 feet in height. MOB would have a footprint of 21,600 square feet. The Talbot Professional Center has a footprint of 18,000 square feet;the Chin Hills Building has a footprint of 14,000 square feet. The proposed office building would house approximately 300 -500 employees when fully occupied (with approximately 90 - 110 of those persons being employed on the level/levels of the structure which exceed the height limit). The planned facility will, when combined with the medical services/facilities already available on the site, help anchor the campus as a specialty health center, by enhancing service availability in this area. Increasing the height of the proposed structure--as opposed to constructing an additional structure on the site—generally ensures the availability of a greater amount of open space and enables the installation of more amenities (e.g.landscaping, recreation facilities). Staff recommendations for reservation of leasable space should serve to reduce/phase the Introduction of new persons onto the site, so that quality/quantity of service provided Is preserved, adequate amenities can be introduced/protected, and corollary impacts (such as vehicular and pedestrian traffic)can be appropriately addressed. ERC recommendations that utilization of non-office space (e.g. auditorium,conference room, kitchen facilities) be allowed only for hospital related uses (e.g. staff training, professional conferences) should serve to appropriately contain land use Impacts, limit traffic Impacts, and protect public safety on the site Similarly this requirement should reduce traffic/trespass Impacts on nearby sites. (In the event that VMC elects to invite medical professionals from nearby medical office facilities to professional meetings sponsored and conducted by VMC on this site,these facilities may serve as an amenity for that selected professional community). Services, such as parking areas, cafeteria, recreation areas, are available (or can be introduced)to adequately address staff requirements. a. Traffic and circulation patterns (including access and parking/loading) of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the potential effects on proposed use and to ensure safe movement in the surrounding area. le rpl ' Technical Advisory Committe aff Report Valley Medical Center MOB II/ACC February 8, 1991 Page 5 Approximately 4040 trip ends are anticipated to be generated In conjunction with utilization of the MOB II. Levels of service/volumes on roadways abutting the VMC and in the general area are average (Level C)to poor(Level F). Growth on the campus from the proposed projects and from future development and In the vicinity of the site is anticipated to further impact vehicular/pedestrian circulation. On-campus and regional Improvements have been proposed by the applicant (and/or recommended by ERC) to address anticipated Impacts from the now proposed actions. These Improvements Include: 1) a contribution of $92,798.00 (a portion of which will be utilized by the City to provide traffic analyses for all Intersections listed In the EIS for MOB II as operating at LOS E or LOS F, Including recommendations and/or specific plans for Improvements); and 2) the development of an extensive TMP (reduction of SOV rates, preferential parking for HOV vehicles, public transit subsidy) which is to be directed by an on-site coordinator and monitored by the City. Access and parking/loading are generally consistent with Code requirements. A staff recommendation for phased occupancy of the proposed MOB II and for use limitations on the auditorium and conference center should also serve to address traffic Impacts generated by employee trips and consumer visits. Phased occupancy of the MOB II will provide an opportunity for staff to monitor the "field adequacy" of these Improvements to serve the MOB II. Additional improvements will be required In conjunction with projects approved in conjunction with the Master Plan;those improvements will be based, in part, upon findings from area-wide traffic analyses conducted by the City and will.be designed to aid in abatement of poor service levels at those intersections. f. Potential environmental health impacts (noise, glare, light, dust, debris) 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. 1.Construction: • Construction of the proposed MOB II is anticipated to generate standard Impacts (noise, light, dust, debris, traffic). Staff will recommend standard mitigation measures to address those Impacts. Restrictions will be placed upon hauling hours/routes to address traffic impacts. Restrictions will be placed upon hours of operation to control noise Impacts to patients In the adjacent VMC hospital. 2.Operation: Vehicles bringing people/supplies to the MOB II are anticipated to generate both noise and potential air pollution. However, no significant change In sound type or Increase in noise levels/air quality on the campus or neighboring properties is anticipated from utilization of the proposed MOB II. Those Impacts which do occur will be mitigated, in part, by the fact that the parking garage which will serve MOB Ills a discrete, self- contained unit which is away from the center of the campus and from uses on abutting properties. Air quality control devices and fire prevention/suppression devices are required to be placed in the structure according to Code requirements. Because the MOB Ills proposed to be 70 feet tall, it will be visible from abutting roadways and nearby structures. As a result, staff will recommend that the applicant prepare a solar glare diagram In order that staff can ascertain whether reflected glare is likely to impact traffic on S.R. 167, S.W. 43rd Street or Springbrook/Talbot Road. In the event that such Impacts are identified,windows will need to be designed (e.g. by recessing, anguiation) to ensure that glare does not Impact travelers on affected roadways. g. Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by building or paving. The proposed planting plan generally meets Landscaping Ordinance standards. Staff will call for revisions to the plan to ensure that landscaping remains coordinated with the site plan when revisions are made to the building axis. Staff will also call for landscaping to be upgraded on the north side of the Psychiatric Wing and the south side of the parking garage to ensure a pleasing vista from MOB II. Plantings will need to be thematically Integrated with existing plantings on the site; plantings at the garage periphery should be selected and located In a manner which does not pose a hazard to fire-fighting equipment. taorpt Technical Advisory Committee Staff Report Vali:y Medical Center MOB II/ACC Fe.ruary8, 1991 Pa.e 6 h. 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. (1) Emergency Services Emergency services staff report sufficient resources to provide fire protection and police protection to the site with standard Improvements such as security systems, lighting, building Identification,access routes,and fire warning/suppression equipment. (2) Public service/Utilities Public Works staff, similarly, believe that standard Code mandated Improvements as well as special projects (e.g. L.I.D. 329) will serve to adequately address impacts from the proposed development. (3) Recreation Staff note that VMC employees have been provided some on-site recreational facilities — e.g.the therapy pool --and that trails developed under the City's Master Trail Plan will be available also. However, Parks and Recreation and Planning Division staff have expressed a concern as to whether these improvements are adequate to mitigate on-site and off-site recreation impacts for employees. Staff will recommend that the applicant provide additional active/passive recreation opportunities on campus. The applicant will also be encouraged to contribute to the improvement of the Master Trail on the Springbrook Road ' corridor. 2. Site Plan: As noted above, the applicant is also seeking site plan approval to remodel an existing structure (Psychiatric Wing) to provide an Ambulatory Care Center. The subject area -- the subterranean level -- now Is essentially vacant, and Is being utilized for storage, which will be accommodated elsewhere on the site. The ACC is a principally permitted use under City regulation. Section 4-31-33 of the Zoning Ordinance lists criteria that the City is asked to consider in reviewing a Site Plan application. These include the following: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements and policies, with the Zoning Ordinance,and with other existing land use regulations; The proposed development Is permitted under the existing Public/Quasi Public Use designation established in the Comprehensive Plan and Is consistent with relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies. b. Mitigation of impact to surrounding properties and uses; The proposed ACC Is not anticipated to generate any direct impacts to neighboring properties since the center will be created through Interior Improvements to an existing structure and since the new center will replace existing ambulatory care services located elsewhere on the campus. Storage facilities in this structure will be relocated within the campus. Indirect impacts may occur, however, if new services and/or employees are placed in the now I . existing ACC areas upon vacation. The applicant reports that, at present, no new or expanded services are slated to be placed in the areas vacated when the Center becomes available, but rather now overcrowded service facilities will be reorganized to provide more effective, efficient working spaces. Staff will recommend that the applicant be enjoined from applying for/undertaking new or expanded existing services in that vacated area until the Master Campus Plan Is approved by the City, In order to ensure that short-term and long-range Impacts (land use, traffic, public service and public safety) are addressed. c. Mitigation of impacts to the subject property As the proposed ACC is essentially an interior remodel of an existing building to more efficiently accommodate existing services on the site, no significant Impacts are anticipated to the subject property. On-site services and amenities are sufficient to address Code requirements and operating requirements of ACC. lac.1 Technical Advisory Committee staff Report Valley Medical Center MOB II/ACC February 8, 1991 Page 7 On-site impacts (e.g. land use, traffic, public services and public safety) could occur, however, In the event that areas vacated when the ACC Is completed are utilized for new or expanded services. Staff recommendations that changes to vacated areas be permitted only in conjunction with a Master Campus Plan should minimize potential Impacts to VMC. d. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; As noted previously,ambulatory care facilities exist at various locations on the campus now. Consolidation of these facilities into a single center should reduce circulation Impacts. Existing and planned vehicular/pedestrian travel Improvements are sufficient to address Code requirements as well as operating requirements for the ACC. e. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; Emergency services, public services, utilities and recreation areas (those now existing and those proposed by staff) are anticipated to be adequate to serve employees and patients at the ACC. C. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1: The applicant shall, in order to address visual/aesthetic impacts, privacy/defensible space Impacts, and light/air circulation Impacts, provide a revised site plan for the MOB II which rotates the building on its axis In a southwesterly direction. The plan shall be approved by the Development Planning Section prior to issuance of site preparation/building permits for MOB II. (Note 1.1: The modifications to building design/location can be coordinated with the skybridges so that no major redesign is required for that improvement. The skybridge linking MOB II to the Parking Garage must be a minimum of 13'6" above ground level to allow fire emergency equipment to travel beneath that access. Both skybridges must be sprinklered and should Include security systems to preserve safety of persons and property.) 2. The applicant shall, in order to address land use impacts and transportation Impacts, provide plans and an agreement to place one level of the office building In reserve (shelled off) until the Master Campus Plan has been completed and approved by the City, so that City officials can determine how this area may best be utilized and may determine a utilization schedule, which is coordinated with other development/uses on this site. The plan/agreement• shall be approved by the • Development Planning Section and the City Attorney prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits for MOB II. (Note 2.1: In the event that the reserved space is permitted by the City to be utilized for office space, tenancy ratios for that area shall be subject to the covenants established by the Environmental Review Committee for the MOB II). 3. The applicant shall, In order to address light/glare Impacts from MOB II, provide: a) a solar/glare analysis (diagram)for those hours of the day on the equinox, and on summer and winter solstices, when the angle of reflected sunlight is at 30 degrees or less with the horizon in order that staff can ascertain whether reflected glare is likely to impact S.R. 167, S.W. 43rd Street or Talbot/Springbrook Road. This diagram shall be submitted to the Development Services Section and Development Planning Section in conjunction with the Building Permit Application so that staff can ascertain whether windows in MOB II must be redesigned ((e.g. recessed placement, angulation) so that glare from those glassed areas does not impair vision of persons driving vehicles along Springbrook Road, S.R. 167 or S.W. 43rd Street. Study findings and a window treatment plan shall be approved by the Development Planning Section prior to Issuance of site preparation/building permits for MOB II. 4. The applicant shall, in order to address land use Impacts, traffic impacts, and public service Impacts, provide an agreement stipulating that no application will be made to undertake new or expanded existing services In areas vacated by the relocation of the ACC, until the Master Campus Plan is approved by the City. The agreement Is to be approved by the Development Planning Section and the City Attorney prior to the Issuance of building permits for the ACC. 5. The applicant shall, In order to address aesthetic Impacts, provide a revised landscaping plan which: a) ensures that landscaping remains coordinated with the site plan when revisions are made to the axis for MOB II; b) upgrades plantings at the northern boundary of the Psychiatric Wing and the southern boundary of the parking garage to ensure a pleasing vista from MOB II. Plans shall be approved by the Development Planning Section prior to Issuance of site preparation/building permits for MOB li.• taarpt - Technical Advisory Committee Staff Report Vail Medical Center MOB II/ACC Feb uary 8, 1991 Pag: 8 • (Note 5.1: Landscaping abutting the parking garage will also require approval by the Fire Department to ensure that planting materials and locations do not hamper access by fire fighting equipment.) • (Note 5.2: in the event that the existing landscaping maintenance surety device does not Include the proposed development, an expanded surety device will be required). • 6. The applicant shall, In order to address on-site recreation Impacts: a) provide new active/passive recreation facilities for MOB II employees either within the proposed structure or at another convenient location on the campus; and b) provide a plan for Increased accessibility to existing facilities (e.g. reducing hours that the therapy pool Is available for public use so that It can be more easily utilized by employees). This plan Is to be approved by the Development Planning Section (in consultation with Parks and Recreation) prior to Issuance of site preparation/building permits , for MOB II; all Improvements are to be Installed/made available for employee utilization prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for MOB II. 7. The applicant Is encouraged, In order to address community recreation Impacts, to make a contribution of up to$20,000 toward Implementation of the Master Trail Plan Improvements slated for Springbrook Avenue. ! I 8. The applicant, in order to address construction-related Impacts, shall develop a construction management plan including the following component: a) an erosion control element; b) an element which restricts hauling operations, allowing those operation to occur only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. 8:30 p.m.; c) an element which establishes a hauling • route which is acceptable to the City;d) a schedule which restricts on site construction operations, I allowing those operations to occur only during the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. to control noise; e) an element which provides for wheel-washing of construction vehicles prior to their departure from the site;f) an element which provides for periodic watering down of the site to contain dust and debris; g) a street cleaning surety device; and h) a signage plan which defines appropriate travel routes and Identifies construction areas to protect public safety and facilitate provision of emergency services. These plans shall be approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any site preparation/building permits for MOB II or ACC. • NO E: All on-site and off-site Improvements mandated by Code, Including, but not limited to, provision of ' utilities easements, updating of related utilities service agreements, undergrounding of power lines, payment of fees) shall be completed prior to Issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the subject developments. Ew IN T S : : ::: ::<: :V r a••s:' ents:have:teviewed<:and:::commented:::upon;:the;;:pro ect:: These:;com ments;:: • • • • • • .. ..!.!a. . !. .:I(:!.I.:ICI!:..I..i...,...:i I.:.:!:,....:.!I.: :. ..,.r,,..I.I.:...I.:. ...:.....:.:::!!::•:!al.I.!....I...................i... .......,....!.:....I,:I...�;,�!!. :::::!,, !. ... I:....: .:. .!r:!:•! .,!!!!:: :h:,: a!ar�a..a achede,:!I•. ....a..L......,........la,.:L..!... ,;!.:;!L!;,L,;.I..:!_:•::•::-:!!:::_:,..:.,........13.. .:......1.:..7.I I I !I•,•Id•.:•:11•r6,•,•,,,:,,�,I.:::Ii•:•:•h•:!,•:l :l,�h.liu::l: ..la=,•1 ad•I,!,•.:•:,•,,,•.:�:,:.:.:,,.::•:,•l:,l:a.11a•:•I,•!•!„•!•,,•,•,.,•i•�.�,,,,:�I,.:•I,!„!,. ,i !„!„:„i,i,.:,:„I,,,,!„I:�:;,!,.i:t!!:I,.i I,.,.,.:!..,.:: .... teal T11AFFIC ENG. SECTI(w'. UTILITIES ENG. SEC • FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 24, 1991. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: V)c..) N APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED S last b( • -• SkUnAL.GU 1 OCj Lu pp«L ,w at1& (-06V- • a/tt-frtirAKIVOKA-Atk DATE: bt SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR"OR AUTP ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 devrvehl • • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: CC)rs 1A-GA-101(1 5VUtC APPROVED 1� APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED pro ue-,0 �//�- s2q-y�-� D EAt-Ptc� 11/.4,0 1, 4-p z 466-met,- e /(( DATE: [ SIGNATU OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE • REV.5/90 devrvehl TRAFFIC ENG. SEC' UTILITIES ENG. SECTION F RE PREVENTION BUREAU P*LICE DEPARTMENT EVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING 'LANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES *ARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION •THERS: COMM; NTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEAS; PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 24, 1991. REVIE ING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 1 4-. t�l ed PPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ,cf IOT APPROVED UM* 5p€ct'L or76/r-,1v 464'&EMg-Nr c/Tl/ 74/2 C/rt ©,c '/YTdiy. 50e (7 U'(fl 4 0(4o /// /% v1(7 4t/4l4/d 56/04 c- tee. heo 77-1t Z t4- N.t /ALL U rye. r77ES, UT!C ON eY/fia /GC 6 t, 71 C7 7a c/774. 2, C. HER) S(.5:wFA2 CoLC eirC 2 C./IVI;S Gei/TW,V (s ' U776./T� • 3, U 4 C -16 so PC "ter FOP- 064C/44 ibk-Writs 66f'�,47< r- . 1 rs / . 4 • NO s PF_CI 4-1- U ru iry F>= —$ OCJ>-5TfND/.tYF 5. Nt4'NT4/N ' 44/N//17ci47 GL/4 L 7 u.'4L.1, ccri4/4'I NCE �I;Tw&&N yrog/pi 6Nb .,4N/T441r Sr�vFl�S, Or- �i IYTaN 5 h I74 qD.�, 4, 5 'au, b Ro to tit,y ��7/Il� �o/%lecY w'/7+►` C/TY 7, Pc/17190,7a of- c4-rc/f N5711,L 045 71Q4P 19104-011- Of o rt/rv-4-7F vt 5F-11,84r17'Ol ' 0,14 c, /e�=Q v y� IO I DATE: /—' 2.�— I N ciF DIOR 0�1 AUTHZeD REAESENTATIVE REV. 5/90 devmhl REVIE ING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: I o1Lvv� APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED �-• D E 5/G h► S Tb o'41 uii71% ,DG��/,yr9G/- 5 VSl-7-At I tvtrlf 1c7c'c) i/'YG CCus/r-7 P'5' " ' 4 NO44 X..e? v I6tfr. �.lYl , y v#5, f/rT fiat &,/tp/N om r ,9 pP /C 7ion snfootp /N c UO D,4rQG6- /bfJ- fNa1uou is t'I etc 4t/tvoFf s 610 4N441-V5/5, DrS(GN F4(16-(77/a5 /04ti/6(fED 6r f (o /fi 1/&' c . cA'a /tea v/ NT3_. A 2 , U l3A T41V A'Oc)P L Pl S' ND ' (eft ' vNS � ar/'/ VG, S! G t/ /NLF 7 /l//y//r?firvr4 S/ z c-' /S / 2 , 3 , eP p 5 s ffdvi-b /3 tit//v/*c r 10 c ti-r-/R UNcf !_ 041 5rifeiav055 j A N D NOT tm baA C v clr imes .P/f/ t- • of c T fop° 1z , y5.quot/n4e.,c y 81//ftgg- ��.•� t. _ DATE: / •1/ SIG ''TURIO' DI '•R OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 5, Cv .. �9-7- (5 " lop P 4/'v 10/P4 N-�d2 v 77 '�r" 7 I/5N° F��REV 5/99 0 devtvihl ,ice„ ,,, w/cJ. l P// 'r-o«xie:D A T1 frt r or 606, PlY M'r 4 py/Crc,tim, U1•ILIIIES ENG. c'^TION FIRE PREVENTION BURI POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 24, 1991. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: —TY& tnsr Zt_t tiVA APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED tfr" �-- DATE: 011 / l SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHOR ED REPRESENTATIVE f �' 'N/ o 4qN 2 NpoN N dy� g199j ‘` VALLEY MEDICAL OFFICE BLDG.II �4.1 AMBULATORY CARE CENTER South 43rd Street January 25, 1991 1) TMP (Transportation Management Program) to be implemented as outlined in the EIS statement mitigation document. 2) The transportation mitigation fee of $92,798.80 is recommend as outlined in the EIS statement mitigation document. ($22.97 X 4040(trips)=$92,798.80) 3) Talbot Rd. S. westside - S.43rd St. to north property line of hospital: ' The overhead electrical primary conductors and telephone conductors should be undergrounded in coordination with the LID 329 project construction which will widen Talbot Rd. S. at the approach to S. 43rd Street for a added right turn lane. 4) Specific improvement should be specified or recommended for all intersection listed in the EIS as operating at LOS E or F. e {{-e_Ar of <o� �,f Ay fV V /yl7122YSe Cl'7/O ar $r78f7'2.1/ 5 azac/ acf 910EM012 I TRAFFIC ENG. SECT . XUTILITIES ENG. SECTION F RE PREVENTION BUREAU P LICE DEPARTMENT c ,EVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES ' DEVELOPMENT PLANNING LANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES 'ARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION j OTHERS: COMM NTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING INNING DIVISION BY APPLICATION 00 P.M.ON JANUARY 24� 1991.RITING. j • PLEAS; PROVIDE COMMENTS TO TH REVIE ING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: . .i Ai PPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ,X NOT APPROVED 1, UPD /q 1- vfc-frr 146-►femill,:Air w,Tlf 7//5 C17`yDF / vvroq 406 (7 W/7' D3c/xnwc- fi ,i7 APP61(47/a v 4 i IP 5 wwc. A(- Flo4f17' L lmor11/1'7 4 N11 4L.c v 7/t/77e7s-, 0774 /7-7 5 )/ f 6 1 M Wt1-L i3t 5u/ 6,cr TO Th'`I um -Y /9-G � Y7: �i� 47/Q IS, ,/Y7T a . A.� , New w/4Tr� NI n/�1N ry r rn'r I C'w4 ,. 3, uu Moti r No' (.®vla 14GQovp7,d mil, 0,g, rQr-N u r xi n Fici Ai b 1 Al G ()Iv/ r/g!� F L ci rA yQ F-C�v!l? /,5nl 73 oh1� P /1 P , ,�� 0 Yy Y /�IIRF_ "44)15r5ri�4 G , 44 t�i I IyOIrI Air �,o c 7/I q, 1\1 hpF c rot- uric- r 7 K FP�-s ov7-ST4`rl/J/AYG , (G•N tV A-r ok S cI/c - C po,f4 7'c) (RAM N v uh►A4NT- FFF b 7i �, S ex/ror V ili 1 N1-MMeCYrFA �q TEA sC/pidt y S wN 5F VIC 0 TV M meek To �� 6.. CoN ky wrTTf C'l`V of IV 4'PbN 5T NO4 U'3. P,�pG�DATE: : VIR.5/7/ SI N TUR DIRE R OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FULL /QEv(6:ty &t' . c A et- f 5 folevi620 7 77/I16- ig REV. 5/90 ' devmht &iik')// er- M:1414//T /4/91'L 1 c47'l061 • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: lrark� APPROVED • 1/APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED \ reeen'e--- 4---I22---- AA-Q.41/1.0 Affe-c7( , ' 0 ( • Z ` / ) Z • G. . ` /3C..4UP4Ah/ AI— • , . DATE: .0148 N 11. • SIGNATURE OF DIR CTOR OR AUTHORIZ REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 devrvmhl DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS , :4/fen DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET d-( . � , 9 ECF-063-89; ECF-113-89 APPLICATION NO(S).: CU-063-89; SA-113-89• �` �� PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center(Work Order#79063) PROJECT TITLE: 1) Medical Office Bldg;2)Ambulatory Care Center BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This project consists of two distinct Improvements within the Valley Medical Center Campus: 1) a conditional use permit for the development of a new five-level, 110,966 sf medical office building (with outside parking) in a portion of the campus now utilized as a parking lot -- the parking lot will not be replaced as the Medical Center has parking In excess of that permitted under the Parking and Loading Ordinance; and 2) site plan approval for the construction of an Ambulatory Care Center Into the now vacant lower level of an existing Psychiatric Services building. Environmental review for these developments has been accomplished through an Environmental Impact State a which you have previously reviewed; environmental:mitigation measures have been established for these ieOtp:,�nil)E�9fincluded In the review file for your information." 1 HE PREVENTION 8UNEj LOCATION: South 43rd Street JAN 'I V 1091 TO: II1EC 1VEr) PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 02/01/91 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION UTILITIES ENG. SECTION XFIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 24, 1991. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Fre, P(e - APPROVED u APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED - a 7/ nu.,1444 c J Cep)-e ined edl 7;44.- 4e. { Fecs�X,s/`ti 146 i� / yfriifccecI �-► - 4 it DATE: I / /6 � ! .-_.SIGNATURE OF DIREC OR S . UT ORIZ I RE"P ESENTATIVE REV.5/90 aowslit VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND AMBULATORY CARE CENTER MITIGATION DOCUMENT 1. That the conditional use permit for Valley Medical Center restrict the auditorium, meeting rooms and kitchen facilities to hospital related uses only. No additional measures suggested. Other impacts will be addressed during the Conditional Use permit process. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6-22;WAC 197-11-660(1)(e), RMC 4-31- 36(4) & (9), RMC 4-31-9(D)(3) 2. That the VMC covenant the building to restrict 80% of its leasable area to secondary and tertiary practices to lessen land use and traffic Impacts. The remaining 20% could be leased to primary care physicians. No additional mitigation measures specified. The conditional use process will further address this Impact. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6-22,WAC 197-11-448(1) & (3) 3. That Valley Medical Center voluntarily complete a long range Master Campus Plan to be filed with the City within 18 months of the Issuance of this permit. The City and VMC shall agree upon the content, scope of work, and review process of the plan prior to its Initiation. 4. That Valley Medical Center, In cooperation with the City of Renton as lead agency, shall complete a programmatic EIS on this plan before any subsequent development related actions are taken that will substantially increase the number of employees, visitors, and/or vehicular parking spaces on the VMC campus. Remodeling which will not result in any of the above impacts Is exempt. 5. That VMC shall pay $92,798.80 in fees for the additional 4040 trips at $22.97 per trip to be used to improve the roadway network off-site within one mile radius of the campus. The City will endeavor to use the money as soon as possible for improvements. 6. That VMC will review and revise the TMP to increase its effectiveness. These revisions will include: o evaluation of the goals identified in the TMP (a reduction of 10% in SOV trips) within six months of the issuance of this permit. The SOV evaluation shall: a) use 1987 employee trips as a base figure; determine if a 10 percent reduction has been made on these trips; b) calculate 1990 employee trips and determine 10 percent reduction for differential growth between 1987 and 1990; c) calculate employee trips for MOB II/ACC-determine 10 percent reduction;d) total a, b and c to determine total trips and the 10 percent reduction for all as a check; and e) determine methods for reaching the reduction. A report shall be submitted to the City showing results of the evaluation. If targeted goals are not met, additional Incentive for HOV participation shall be Installed including: o Increased staff effort by the Building Transportation Coordinator and more promotion of HOV Incentives. o Further'discounts for carpool parking and Increased rates for private vehicle trips, excluding clients and visitors. o Implementation of the transit discount pass program to increase the subsidy by a least 1-% each year if the annual goal of 10% of eligible participating employees is not met (not to exceed the price of the transit pass). o Participation In the annual cost of vanpool operation (in addition to providing free parking located In proximity to buildings and allowing employees to apply the transit discount to the participant's vanpool fare) In an amount not to exceed $5000 per year if the evaluation show the SOV reduction goal has not been met. The subsidy shall begin upon completion of the TMP evaluation report if that report shows the SOV goals are not achieved. The subsidy shall continue until the goal is met. • • • • o investigation of use of off-hours HOV vehicles owned by the Hospital for employee vanpool use. • o Provide measures to ensure that HOV users can get home in case of irregular events such as personal emergencies and unexpected overtime. o Promote alternatives to SOV by a variety of programs and services Including, but not limited to: - providing a Transportation Information Center In the building; -• semi-annual promotion of HOV program; • - appointment, staffing and training In conjunction with existing Metro programs of a Building Transportation Coordinator's(BTC) office; - Instituting a program to promote commuting by bus (including the • i transit subsidy for employees) • • - offering flexible working hours five. days per week to certain • employee groups to reduce employee trips during peak hours of •• ' congestion. • - working with Metro to develop a work program 'and time frame to modify transit routes and times to improve the service for VMC • employees. • • . o The VMC Transportation Coordinator will submit a biannual report to the Development Services Division, showing how goals are being met, or adjustments made in order to meet goals. If the 10% reduction in SOV is not accomplished within one year, the City will reassess further development on campus. Subsequent development under the Master Plan update that would increase the number of staff employed on campus and/or the number of visitors and/or the number of parking stalls shall not be approved. • Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6-22;WAC 197-11-660. • • • 7. That Valley Medical Center shall abide by their voluntary agreement with the City to • fully sprinkler the hospital according to schedule agreed upon. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: February 26, 1991 TO: ERC members FROM: Donald K. Erickson,Zoning Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Mary Lynne Myer, Sr. Environmental Planner SUBJECT: Amendments to the mitigation document for VMC MOBII/ACC Attached is a revised letter showing ERC changes from your February 25 meeting.These changes are highlighted in yellow. It also has two small wording changes requested by VMC and LID 329 staff. These are highlighted in pink. Staff recommends pink and yellow changes be approved. If this meets with your approval, please sign the ERC signature sheet. (We are attempting to meet some very close deadlines.) Staff will get Larry Warren's signature on the letter before the notice is published. If you have any questions, please call Mary Lynne at 5586. CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman,Administrator February 27, 1991 Eric J.Thoman General Counsel Valley Medical Center 400 South 43rd Street Renton,WA 98055 SUBJECT: Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building and Ambulatory Care Center Environmental Impact Statement Mitigation Document—File ECF-063-90 Appeal No: AAD-009-91 Dear Mr.Thoman: Based on our meeting of February 8, 1991, we understand that Valley Medical Center is interested in withdrawing its appeal, No. AAD-009-91, if several points are clarified and changed within the Mitigation Document. The Mitigation Document addresses environmental impacts from the potential construction of the Medical Office Building II and the Ambulatory Care Center, as discussed in the Environmental Impact Statement for these projects (ECF-063-89 and ECF-113-89), and gives mitigating measures for the impacts. The document was issued January 7, 1991. The mitigation document will be amended, pursuant to this letter, and a separate letter will give notice of the changes to all parties of record and to the publication of record. This letter addresses these points of clarification and changes to the mitigation document as decided by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee, February 25, 1991. MITIGATION DOCUMENT: "RECOMMENDATION 2: That the VMC covenant the building to restrict 80 percent of its leasable area to secondary and tertiary practices to lessen land use and traffic impacts. The remaining 20 percent could be leased to primary care physicians." This recommendation is based on a similar recommendation for Medical Office Building I, a sister building to the proposed MOB II. This first building, permitted in spring of 1989, had a covenant which restricted the physician usage to 75 percent secondary and tertiary practices and 25 percent to primary care practices. This covenant addressed the minimization of traffic impacts generated by the tenants in the building. Traffic impacts are a concern for MOB II as well. However, there is no indication in the EIS for MOB II that the traffic impacts from this building will be more substantial than those from MOB I. With the mitigation of additional traffic fees, a revised Transportation Management Plan, and increased emphasis on HOV promotion, it is not necessary to restrict MOB II beyond MOB I. Therefore, the same 25 percent covenant for the maximum amount of primary care space on MOB I would reasonably apply to both buildings. AMENDED RECOMMENDATION 2: That the VMC covenant the building to restrict 75 percent of its leasable area to secondary and tertiary practices to lessen land use and traffic impacts. (NOTE: The remaining 25 percent could be leased to non-hospital dependant primary care physicians. No additional mitigation measures specified. The conditional use process will further address this impact.) 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Eric J.Thoman AAD-009-91 February 27, 1991 Page 2 MITIGATION DOCUMENT: "RECOMMENDATION 4: That Valley Medical Center, in cooperation with the City of Renton, as lead agency, will need to complete a programmatic EIS on this (Master Plan) plan before any subsequent development related actions are taken that will substantially increase the number of employees, visitors, 'and/or vehicular parking spaces on the VMC campus. Remodeling which will not result in any of the above impacts is exempt." (NOTE: At the time of this letter, the City and Valley Medical Center have been meeting and will continue to meet regarding the refinement and updating of VMC's Master Plan. Contents and format of the plan are 'under discussion at the present time. A good working relationship is present, enabling all parties to 'discuss concerns and address differences.) This recommendation addresses the overall cumulative impacts of hospital-related development and othe development on campus. State law (SEPA WAC 197-11-704, 774, and 442) would require that an EIS, addressing all elements of the environment including cumulative impacts, be prepared on the Master Plan' a threshold determination of significance is given by the lead agency. Since the revised master plan ha- not yet been received by the Lead Agency, a threshold determination cannot yet be issued. Thi- recommendation could be considered as speculative and therefore,would be premature. A "Note to Applicant," will show that cumulative environmental impacts must still be addressed in th: subsequent environmental submittals for the Master Plan. This mitigation document would, therefore, no be weakened or substantially changed. REVISED RECOMMENDATION 4: To be changed to a"Note to Applicant" reading: The City of Renton, a lead agency, expects Valley Medical Center to complete a programmatic EIS on a Master Plan for th- campus, before any subsequent development-related actions are taken that will substantially increase th- number of employees,visitors, and/or vehicular parking spaces on the VMC Campus. (Remodeling,whic will not result in any of the above impacts, is exempt.) The City of Renton wishes Valley Medical Center t" know that continued cooperation is necessary on the formulation and timely completion of the Master Pla . Cumulative impacts must be addressed. MITIGATION DOCUMENT: I , ' "RECOMMENDATION 5: That VMC shall pay$92,798.80 in fees for the additional 4040 trips at$22.97 p r trip to be used to improve the roadway network off-site within one mile radius of the campus. The City wi I endeavor to use the money as soon as possible for improvements." The$92,798.80 trip fee is in addition to the VMC contributions to LID #329, a sum totalling approximatel $2 million. LID #329's major purpose is to address traffic impacts in this congested corridor from previou development, and it Is perhaps the major hope for traffic mitigation for the hospital and surroundin properties. However, it has become increasingly apparent that in addition to VMC's and the City' contributions to the LID, which were based on work programs updated from the 1982 original scope f work, additional costs may arise. In order to assure that UD #329 is completed expeditiously, th $92,798.80 will be prioritized towards this project. First priority will be to address new work item specifically related to improved traffic flow. If monies are left after the UD is completed,they will be utiliz on other road projects as specified In the recommendation. . . Eric J.Thoman MD-009-91 February 27, 1991 Page 3 REVISED RECOMMENDATION 5: That VMC shall pay $92,798.80 in fees for the additional 4040 trips at $22.97 per trip to be used to improve the roadway network off-site within a one mile radius of the campus. The City will endeavor to use the money as specified below: Priority expenditures of this fund should be directed to new or unanticipated costs for LID #329, including but not limited to: impacts on private properties from road construction work, impacts on utilities not funded through the engineering contingency budget of the LID. It shall not be used for bikeways. MITIGATION DOCUMENT: RECOMMENDATION 6: That VMC will review and revise the TMP to increase its effectiveness. These revisions will include: o evaluation of the goals identified in the TMP (a reduction of 10% in SOV trips) within six months of the issuance of this permit. The SOV evaluation shall: a) use 1987 employee trips as a base figure;determine if a 10 percent reduction has been made on these trips; b) calculate 1990 employee trips and determine 10 percent reduction for differential growth between 1987 and 1990; c) calculate employee trips for MOB II/ACC - determine 10 percent reduction; d)total a, b and c to determine total trips and the 10 percent reduction for all as a check; and e) determine methods for reaching the reduction. A report shall be submitted to the City showing results of the evaluation. If targeted goals are not met,additional incentive for HOV participation shall be installed including,as necessary: o Increased staff effort by the Building Transportation Coordinator and more promotion of HOV incentives. o Further discounts for carpool parking and increased rates for private vehicle trips, excluding clients and visitors. o Implementation of the transit discount pass program to increase the subsidy by a least 1- %each year if the annual goal of 10% of eligible participating employees is not met (not to exceed the price of the transit pass). o Participation in the annual cost of vanpool operation (in addition to providing free parking located in proximity to buildings and allowing employees to apply the transit discount to the participant's vanpool fare) in an amount not to exceed $5000 per year if the evaluation show the SOV reduction goal has not been met. The subsidy shall begin upon completion of the TMP evaluation report if that report shows the SOV goals are not achieved. The subsidy shall continue until the goal is met. o The VMC Transportation Coordinator....(see complete text). o 'Subsequent development under the Master Plan Update that would increase the number of staff employed on campus and/or the number of visitors and/or the number of parking stalls shall be evaluated in light of the TMP goals and the EIS for the Master Plan, and mitigating measures will be imposed. Mitigation could include, but is not limited to: increased traffic fees; transportation and traffic improvements and restricted or phased developments.' Eric J.Thoman AAD-009-91 February 27, 1991 Page 4 The Master Plan Update and the environmental documents for this update will address the TMP program. The EIS should also give additional mitigation measures for reducing SOV travel to the campus, i.e., restrict development, phase development,temporarily stop development, increase traffic mitigation fees. It would be appropriate to provide for reassessment of the situation in the upcoming documents and not to restrict development and options through this document. REVISED RECOMMENDATION 6: Subsequent development under the Master Plan Update that would increase the number of staff employed on campus and/or the number of visitors and/or the number of parking stalls will be evaluated in light of the TMP goals and the EIS for that project, and mitigating measures will be imposed. Mitigation could include, but is not limited to: increased traffic fees; transportation and traffic improvements and restricted or phased developments. I believe the above revisions reflect our discussions on February 8, 1991 with you and Larry Warren, the City Attorney. If these revisions are different from your understanding, please let me know immediately. This administrative determination will be published In the newspaper of record, and notices will be sent to all parties of record. The appeal period is 14 days. This administrative determination is subject to appeal to the City of Renton Hearing Examiner. ely, Donald K. Erickson,AICP Zoni dministrator Larry Warren City Attorney CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY MITIGATION DOCUMENT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT APPLICATION NO(S): ECF-063-89 PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT NAME: Medical Office Building II and relocation of the Ambulatory Care Center DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Approval of Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and Building Permit to allow construction of a 110,970 sf medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center Campus. Building permit is needed for the relocation of the Ambulatory Care Center to another building on campus and use of the vacated space for medical services. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 400 South 43rd Street, Renton,WA LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee, under WAC 197-11-660, has issued a mitigation document to address the environmental impacts expected from the potential development of Valley Medical Center's Medical Office Building II and Ambulatory Care Center. An environmental impact statement was required for this project under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c) and other documents cited in the ordinance. The impacts described in that statement are the basis for the mitigating measures in the mitigation document. This decision was made by the Environmental Review Committee after review of the completed environmental impact statement and other information on file with the lead agency. Any interested party may appeal these conditions in writing by 5:00 p.m., January 18, 1991. See City Code Section 4-8-11, WAC 197-11-680 for further details and RCW 43.21 C.075. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee c/o Don Erickson, Secretary Development Planning Section Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 You may appeal the conditions in this document in writing to Renton Hearing Examiner no later than 5:00 p.m., January 18, 1991. To appeal this Declaration, you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen (14) days of the • date the decision was made. See City Code Section 4-8-11, RCW 43.21 C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact City of Renton, Community Development Department to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. PUBLICATION DATE: 3 .nl tarc, 7 i 11 I DATE OF DECISION: _jGUn LAD,ry 4, IgG I SIGNATURES: w y141IDE Lynn ' uttmarn,Administrator - Depa nt of Panning/Building/Public Works tr J n E.Webley, ministrator D TE C m unity Service Department ram/ 'Lee eler F C iee / 0 /// DATE . Ren n Fire Department • mitsig VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND AMBULATORY CARE CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REVISED MITIGATION DOCUMENT The EiS for this project has identified a number of possible mitigation measures for impacts that were considered to be significant or potentially significant (as defined by quantitative measures whenever such measures were found to exist). These measures and others which the responsible official may determine are warranted to protect the environment are the subject of this mitigation document. WAC 197-11-660 Substantive Authority and Mitigation requires that mitigation measures be based on policies, plans, rules or regulations formally designated by the agency. It also requires that mitigation measures shall be related to specific adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental document on the proposal: "After its decision each agency shall make available to the public a document that states the decisions. The document shall state the mitigation measures, if any, that will be implemented as part of the decisions, including any monitoring of environmental impacts." (WAC 197-11- 660(1)(b)) This document is intended to meet this requirement. WAC 197-11-440 EIS Contents states that an EIS shall contain the following: fact sheet, table of contents, summary, alternatives including the proposed action, affected environment, significant impacts and mitigation measures. The parts of the affected environment to be discussed can be determined through the scoping process which shall narrow the scope of every EIS to the probable significant adverse impacts and reasonable alternatives, including mitigation measures. The Environmental Review Committee for the City of Renton discussed the FEIS on December 21,1990. It was officially sent to the Department of Ecology on December 27, 1990,thereby starting the 20 day appeal period. WAC 197-11-060 Content of Environmental Review states that agencies shall 'carefully consider the range of probable impacts, including short-term and long-term effects. Impacts shall include "those that are likely to arise or exist over the lifetime of a proposal',or, in some cases even longer. WAC 197-11-330 Threshold Determination Process requires the responsible official to take into account the following when determining whether a proposal has significant adverse impacts: 'The same proposal may have significant adverse impact in one location but not in another location;' 'the absolute quantitative effects of a proposal are also important, and may result in a significant adverse impact regardless of the nature of the existing environment";and "Several marginal impacts when considered together may result in a significant adverse impact"; In reaching such a decision SEPA states that the responsible official shall not balance whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather, shall consider whether a proposal has any probable significant adverse environmental impacts under the rules stated above. THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action is the construction of a five-story, 110,970 square foot, medical office building (net leasable area: 103,270 sq. ft.) on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center campus. Also included in the Proposed Action is the relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC space for existing, crowded medical services. As a result of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) scoping process, comments were received from governmental agencies and interested citizens regarding the major issues that needed to be analyzed in this EIS. Those issues Included the following: o Land Use: relationship of the propose action and alternatives to land use patterns in the area, existing plans and policies,and westerly views; o Traffic and Parking: effect of the Proposed Action and alternatives on traffic, parking and circulation;and o Public Services-Fire: impact on existing City of Renton fire protective services. As noted in the SEPA rules, the content of the EiS is determined by the Lead Agency(in this case,the ity of Renton) based, in part,on key sections of the SEPA Rules (197-11-402,408, 430 and 440)together ith results of the EIS scoping process. The Draft EIS included an analysis of the Proposed Action and each of the alternatives' impacts on land use,traffic and parking, and public services-fire. In response to citizen and agency input on the DEIS,the Final EiS addressed questions on Air Quality, Energy, Environmental Health, Noise, Land Use, Aesthetics, Transportation, Transit,Public Services-Fire, and Revenue generated by the proposed action on the VMC campus. A. . LAND USE Zoning The zoning for the area is P-1. The Ambulatory Care Center meets the requirements of the zoning. However, the EIS acknowledges the need for a conditional use permit in order for the medil office building to address several zoning requirements. 1. The hospital is a principal use under the zone and private medical office buildings re allowed under a conditional use permit as an accessary use in a separate building from he main hospital. (RMC 4-31-9(3)(h)) The medical office building will be owned by he hospital, but four of the five proposed floors will be leased to private providers. Since four- fifths of the building will be leased by private physicians, the building could be consider`ed a private medical office building. 2. The medical office building proposes an auditorium, meeting rooms, and kitchen facilities on the first floor. If this facility is to be used for activities unrelated to the principal use, he hospital, such as social, music and sport events, it would be subject to a conditional se permit as an accessory use for the hospital. (RMC 4-31-36 4 9) The EIS analyzes impa is from hospital related uses of this facility. Other uses such as convention, dramatic or musical productions were not researched as to their impacts or mitigating measures. 3. The medical office building will need a conditional use permit to meet the zon ng requirements for height. - The proposed height of 70' exceeds the P-1 zone 0' requirements. (RMC 4-31-9(D)(3)). In order for a conditional use to be granted the proposal will have to meet the conditional se criteria listed in RMC 4-31-36: compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan; Community Ne-•; Effect on Adjacent Properties; Compatibility; Parking; Traffic; Noise, Glare; Landscapi g; Accessory Uses. RECOMMENDATION: 1. - That the conditional use permit for Valley Medical Center restrict the auditori m, meeting rooms and kitchen facilities to hospital related uses only. -2- No additional measures suggested. Other impacts will be addressed during the Conditional Use permit process. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6-22;WAC 197-11-660(1)(e), RMC 4-31- 36(4) & (9), RMC 4-31-9(D)(3) Off Campus The Comprehensive Plan designates the VMC campus and area surrounding as Public/Quasi- Public. The proposed MOB and ACC relocation is compatible with this designation. The area surrounding the VMC campus has residential, office and open space land uses. The relocation of the ambulatory care center will have no additional land use impacts over those already in existence. The proposed medical building is compatible with adjacent medical office buildings in the area. Because it is located within the campus and separated from the residential uses by streets and open space areas, it will not impact the adjacent residential areas with light, glare, noise, shadow, view interruption, or noxious odors. However, use of the first floor facilities, auditoriums, meeting rooms, kitchen, for non-hospital related uses could impact the surrounding land uses. Impacts could come from evening or weekend use with additional traffic, reduced parking supply, possible light and glare from traffic and noise during hours not normally associated with traffic impacts from the hospital. These potential impacts are not analyzed in the EIS. Arguments have been made that this building will increase the supply of medical office space and will cause nearby private buildings to experience vacancies. Public comments received on the DEIS requested an economic analysis of the impact of this building on the adjacent privately owned medical office buildings (existing Valley Gardens Building). Economic analysis are not a required part of the environmental impact statement (see WAC 197-11-448(1), WAC 197-11-440(8) and RMC 4-6-16). However, impacts on adjacent properties are considered in the conditional use permit analysis under the criteria of community need. Therefore,while an impact may be expected from completion of the building, it was determined that it would be discussed in the context of the conditional use application. However,the EIS recognizes that the tenant mix of the MOB II could affect the occupancy rates of nearby privately owned medical office buildings. Historically, Class A space (this proposal) has been occupied by larger/expanding speciality medical practices, where wood-frame space has been occupied by smaller or newer practices. Vacancy rates for Class A space in the area are 11.7% presently and the vacancy rate for wood-frame space is 16.2%. It is expected that some physicians would move their practices from other nearby locations to become part of the development. The EIS states that VMC projects an absorption rate of 30,000 to 40,000 sq. ft. per year. Under these rates, it would take 3-5 years to fill the buildings. Theoretically, this building would compete with only other Class A type buildings, (existing Valley Gardens Building, Chinn Hills and Talbot Professional Center Buildings, the latter two owned by VMC). However, it should not interfere with the market need for wood-frame office space. One of the EIS alternatives Is a reduced scale building. This four story building, would be filled within 2-5 years, using the above mentioned absorption rate. This would allow some of the market demand to be met off-campus and could address some of the conditional use issues. However, there is no indication that specialty type medical offices that are hospital related are now over • concentrated in the area. -3- Alternatively, an argument could be made that primarily specialized medical practitioners should be leaseholders in the proposal, as long as it can be shown that there is a strong symbioti relationship between the hospital and the practitioners housed here. Typically, secondary and tertiary medical practitioners rely on diagnostic equipment and laboratories that are associat with a major hospital and because of proximity and convenience, will refer patients there fo treatment. Since these specialists are generally the ones providing the treatment services withi the hospital, a strong working relationship can generally be shown that would support the notio that the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. Both doctor and patient auto trips coul arguably be fewer with these types of practices located close to the hospital. Were the proposed medical office building to be used for primary medical care, it might be argu that neighborhood convenience could be better served by locating such facilities closer t residential areas. Also, since primary care physicians have a much lower hospital referral rate for their patients than do specialists, it would make little sense to draw additional unrelated traffic into an already congested area such as this. This recommendation is based on a similar recommendation for Medical Office Building I, a siste building to the proposed MOB II. This first building, permitted in spring of 1989, had a covenan which restricted the physician usage to 75 percent secondary and tertiary practices and 25 percen to primary care practices. This covenant addressed the minimization of traffic impacts generat by the tenants in the building. Traffic impacts are a concern for MOB II as well. However, there is no indication in the EIS fo MOB II that the traffic impacts from this building will be more substantial than those from MOB With the mitigation of additional traffic fees, a revised Transportation Management Plan, an6i increased emphasis on HOV promotion, it is not necessary to restrict MOB II beyond MOB . Therefore,the same 25 percent covenant for the maximum amount of primary care space on MO I would reasonably apply to both buildings. RECOMMENDATION: 2. That the VMC covenant the building to restrict 75% of its leasable area to seconda and tertiary practices to lessen land use and traffic impacts. The remaining 25 could be leased to non-hospital dependent primary care physicians. No additional mitigation measures specified. The conditional use process will furth r address this impact. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6-22, WAC 197-11-448(1, 3) and WA 197-11-660. On Campus The EIS notes that implementation of the Proposed Action would slightly change the use a d character of the campus in the immediate vicinity of the site. Existing surface parking would e replaced with a five-story building, driveways and surface parking. Overall pattern of land use n campus would change slightly: health-related land uses would increase from an existing 5.93 A) building lot coverage to 7.09%. Amount of land area devoted to parking and driveways would decrease from 26.35% to 25.85% and landscaping/undeveloped areas would decrease from 62.87%to 62.22%. No impact Is expected from the relocation and consolidation of the Ambulatoy Care Center and infilling of the space vacated by existing ACC programs. -4- The medical office building is compatible with surrounding office uses on campus. The proposed architecture is compatible with surrounding buildings as is its size. Existing medical office buildings are 57' high with 18,400 square feet in the Talbot Professional Center and 14,000 square feet in the Chin Hills Building. However, this proposal is one of many received from the Valley Medical Center. In the past two years, over$18,800,000 of building permits have been Issued to VMC. From this standpoint, the building will have a cumulative impact as part of the overall development of the campus. Overall campus development concerns revolve around amount of open space,view impacts, landscaping, building envelopes, traffic generation, utility impacts, fire and police calls, park and recreation needs, storm water provision, and economic effects. Because the proposals are scattered throughout time, the city is unable to review the overall campus development as an integrated whole and fully ascertain the probable impacts on the community. Continued development on the VMC campus could have a significant cumulative impact. The applicant has voluntarily agreed to undertake a Master Plan Update for the entire campus. This plan would cover the above listed concerns as well as others currently under negotiation with the City of Renton. A programmatic environmental impact statement will be done on the master plan. RECOMMENDATION: 3. That Valley Medical Center voluntarily complete a long range Master Campus Plan to be filed with the City within 18 months of the issuance of this permit. The City and VMC shall agree upon the content, scope of work, and review process of the plan prior to its initiation. NOTE TO APPLICANT: The City of Renton, as lead agency, expects Valley Medical Center to complete a programmatic EIS on a Master Plan for the campus, before any subsequent development-related actions are taken that will substantially increase the number of employees,visitors, and/or vehicular parking spaces on the VMC Campus. (Remodeling, which will not result In any of the above impacts, is exempt.) This note addresses the overall impacts of hospital-related development and other development on campus. State law (SEPA WAC 197-11-704, 774, and 442) would require that an EIS, addressing all elements of the environment including cumulative impacts, be prepared on the Master Plan if a threshold determination of significance is given by the lead agency. Since the Master Plan has not yet been received by the Lead Agency, a threshold determination cannot yet be issued. To label this Note as a Recommendation could be considered as speculative and therefore,would be premature. However, the City of Renton wishes Valley Medical Center to know that continued cooperation is necessary on the formulation and timely completion of the Master Plan. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660(1)(d), RMC 4-6-22. VIEWS: The five story MOB will affect territorial views looking west from Talbot Road S. Into the Green River Valley. The present view corridor extends roughly 230 feet along Talbot Road S. and is framed by the Chin Hills Building and Talbot Professional Center. The addition of the proposal will impair the view somewhat. A reduction in height of one story would diminish, but not eliminate, the view corridor impact. Only a change in siting of the building would mitigate this impact. -5- Alternative 3, the siting of the building in the south campus would alleviate the view impact along Talbot Road but would impact views from S.W. 43rd Street. Other views along the Talbot corridor would still be available if the project were completed. The view impact is not considered significant. The VMC could rotate the building on its axis, shifting it to the southwest. While additional parking spaces would most probably be lost, the campus provides an oversupply of parking presently. This shifting would alleviate the view impact. RECOMMENDATION: No mitigating measures suggested. TRAFFIC It is general knowledge that the area around Valley Medical Center is very congested. Of the eleven intersections in the immediate vicinity, four are presently functioning at LOS E and F, as reported in the EIS. Generally, growth in.the area is expected to continue. Without the project,five intersections will function at LOS F by 1995. With the project, two additional intersections will fall from LOC B and C to LOS D. This would have seven of the eleven intersections at LOS D or F. The LOS at several of VMC's driveways are also reduced as a direct result of the Proposed Action. However, UD 329 will improve these levels. Presently, yearly accident averages on East Valley Road S.W. 43rd Street and S.W. 43rd and Talbot Road S. Indicates these areas are high accident locations. The proposed MOB II would generate an additional 4,040 vehicular trips on an average weekday, with 169 of those trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 397 trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed relocation of the ACC will generate little if any additional traffic. As mentioned above,the overall background growth In the area will reduce the LOS, contribute to probable higher accident rates, and generally increase congestion for the road network with or without the project. The increase in traffic from VMC facilities represents an approximate 3% to 10% impact at various intersections. For the overall impacts, VMC should pay their fair share of needed improvements. The EIS identifies that amount as $22.97 per trip for the additional trips directly generated from the proposal. The $92,798.80 trip fee is in addition to the VMC contributions to UD #329, a sum totalling approximately$2 million. UD#329's major purpose is to address traffic impacts in this congested corridor from previous development, and it is perhaps the major hope for traffic mitigation for the hospital and surrounding properties. However, it has become increasingly apparent that in addition to VMC's and the City's contributions to the UD, which were based on work programs updated from the 1982 original scope of work, additional costs may arise. In order to assure that UD #329 is completed expeditiously, the $92,798.80 will be prioritized towards this project. First priority will be to address new work items specifically related to improved traffic flow. If monies are left after the UD is completed, they will be utilized on other road projects as specified in th- recommendation. RECOMMENDATIONS: 4. That VMC shall pay $92,798.80 in fees for the additional 4040 trips at $22.97 per trip to be used to improve the roadway network off-site within a one mile radius of the campus. The City will endeavor to use the money as specified below: -6- Priority expenditures of this fund should be directed to new or unanticipated costs for LID #329, including but not limited to: impacts on private properties from road construction work, impacts on utilities not funded through the engineering contingency budget of the LID. It shall not be used for bikeways. 5. That VMC will review and revise the TMP to increase its effectiveness. These revisions will include: o evaluation of the goals identified in the TMP (a reduction of 10% in SOV trips) within six months of the issuance of this permit. The SOV evaluation shall: a) use 1987 employee trips as a base figure; determine if a 10 percent reduction has been made on these trips; b) calculate 1990 employee trips and determine 10 percent reduction for differential growth between 1987 and 1990; c) calculate employee trips for MOB II/ACC-determine 10 percent reduction;d) total a, b and c to determine total trips and the 10 percent reduction for all as a check; and e) determine methods for reaching the reduction. A report shall be submitted to the City showing results of the evaluation. If targeted goals are not met, additional incentive for HOV participation shall be installed including, as necessary: o Increased staff effort by the Building Transportation Coordinator and more promotion of HOV incentives. o Further discounts for carpool parking and increased rates for private vehicle trips, excluding clients and visitors. o Implementation of the transit discount pass program to increase the subsidy by a least 10%each year if the annual goal of 10%of eligible participating employees is not met(not to exceed the price of the transit pass). o Participation in the annual cost of vanpool operation (in addition to providing free parking located in proximity to buildings and allowing employees to apply the transit discount to the participant's vanpool fare) in an amount not to exceed $5000 per year if the evaluation show the SOV reduction goal has not been met. The subsidy shall begin upon completion of the TMP evaluation report if that report shows the SOV goals are not achieved. The subsidy shall continue until the goal is met. o Investigation of use of off-hours HOV vehicles owned by the Hospital for employee vanpool use. o Provide measures to ensure that HOV users can get home in case of irregular events such as personal emergencies and unexpected overtime. o Promote alternatives to SOV by a variety of programs and services including, but not limited to: - providing a Transportation Information Center in the building; - semi-annual promotion of HOV program; -7- - appointment, staffing and training in conjunction with existing Metre programs of a Building Transportation Coordinator's (BTC) office; - instituting a program to promote commuting by bus (including th- transit subsidy for employees) - offering flexible working hours five days per week to certai employee groups to reduce employee trips during peak hours o congestion. - working with Metro to develop a work program and time frame to modify transit routes and times to improve the service for VM I employees. o The VMC Transportation Coordinator will submit a biannual report to th- Development Services Division, showing how goals are being met, or adjustment made in order to meet goals. If the 10% reduction in SOV is not accomplish-4 within one year, the City will reassess further development on campu . Subsequent development under the Master Plan update that would increase th- number of staff employed on campus and/or the number of visitors and/or th- number of parking stalls shall be evaluated in light of the TMP goals and the El• for the Master Plan, and mitigating measures will be imposed. Mitigation coul• include, but is not limited to: increased traffic fees; transportation and traffi improvements;and restricted or phased developments. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6-22; WAC 197-11-660; City of Rento Comprehensive Plan Goal VII.A; Green River Valley Policy Plan, Transportation G I, Policies. AIR QUALITY: Additional analysis was performed for the FEIS on the air quality impact of the proposal. It w s found that air quality will improve with any of the alternatives, primarily as a function of improv emission devices on cars. The proposed action would increase air emissions by 6%, howeve , emissions would still be 18% lower than today. The proposal is, therefore, not expected to ha any significant impacts. RECOMMENDATIONS: No additional mitigating measures. See traffic measures. PUBLIC SERVICES—FIRE Currently, Valley Medical Center's hospital complex is not fully sprinkled, and therefore, does n t meet City of Renton fire code. Public safety Is an issue for this facility and without remedy, cou d pose a significant impact for future services. Additional building on campus could complicate t e amount of time and space available for fire response. However, the City and the Center ha ie agreed upon a schedule for fully complying with the code. The new building and relocated AC area will be fully sprinklered. No significant Impacts are,therefore, expected from the proposal r the alternatives. -8- RECOMMENDATIONS: 6. That Valley Medical Center shall abide by their voluntary agreement with the City to fully sprinkler the hospital according to schedule agreed upon. REVENUE: Arguments were made during the DEIS comment period that the medical office building would generate more revenue for the City if it were privately owned rather than hospital owned and leased. After reviewing both scenarios, the FEIS found that a leased medical building would generate approximately$500 more revenue to the City that a privately owned building. Therefore, no significant impact is expected. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660(1)(d) RECOMMENDATIONS: No additional mitigating measures. OTHER ELEMENTS: In response to citizen comments on the DEIS, the following impacts were investigated in the FEIS: energy, environmental health, aesthetics, and noise. They were found to be insignificant. -9- February 25, 1991 Eric J.Thoman General Counsel Valley Medical Center 400 South 43rd Street Renton,WA 98055 SUBJECT: Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building and Ambulatory Care Center Environmental Impact Statement Mitigation Document--File ECF-063-90 Appeal No: AAD-009-91 Dear Mr.Thoman: Based on our meeting of February 8, 1991, we understand that Valley Medical Center is interested in withdrawing its appeal, No. AAD-009-91, if several points are clarified and changed within the Mitigation Document. The Mitigation Document addresses environmental impacts from the potential construction of the Medical Office Building II and the Ambulatory Care Center, as discussed in the Environmental Impact Statement for these projects (ECF-063-89 and ECF-113-89),and gives mitigating measures for the impacts. The document was issued January 7, 1991. This letter addresses these points of clarification and changes to the mitigation document. MITIGATION DOCUMENT: "RECOMMENDATION 2: That the VMC covenant the building to restrict 80 percent of its leasable area to secondary and tertiary practices to lessen land use and traffic impacts. The remaining 20 percent could be leased to primary care physicians." This recommendation is based on a similar recommendation for Medical Office Building I, a sister building to the proposed MOB II. This first building, permitted in spring of 1989, had a covenant which restricted the physician usage to 75 percent secondary and tertiary practices and 25 percent to primary care practices. This covenant addressed the minimization of traffic impacts generated by the tenants in the building. Traffic impacts are a concern for MOB II as well. However, there is no indication in the EIS for MOB II that the traffic impacts from this building will be more substantial than those from MOB I. With the mitigation of additional traffic fees, a revised Transportation Management Plan, and increased emphasis on HOV promotion, it is not necessary to restrict MOB II beyond MOB I. Therefore, the same 25 percent covenant for the maximum amount of primary care space on MOB I would reasonably apply to both buildings. AMENDED RECOMMENDATION 2: That the VMC covenant the building to restrict 75 percent of its leasable area to secondary and tertiary practices to lessen land use and traffic impacts. (NOTE: The remaining 25 percent could be leased to non-hospital dependant primary care physicians. No additional mitigation measures specified. The conditional use process will further address this impact.) Eric J.Thoman AAD-009-91 February 25, 1991 Page 2 MITIGATION DOCUMENT: "RECOMMENDATION 4: That Valley Medical Center, in cooperation with the City of Renton, as lead agency, will need to complete a programmatic EIS on this (Master Plan) plan before any subsequent development related actions are taken that will substantially increase the number of employees, visitors, and/or vehicular parking spaces on the VMC campus. Remodeling which will not result in any of the above impacts is exempt." (NOTE: At the time of this letter, the City and Valley Medical Center have been meeting and will continue to meet regarding the refinement and updating of VMC's Master Plan. Contents and format of the plan are under discussion at the present time. A good working relationship is present, enabling all parties to discuss concerns and address differences.) This recommendation addresses the overall cumulative impacts of hospital-related development and other development on campus. State law (SEPA WAC 197-11-704, 774, and 442) would require that an EIS, addressing all elements of the environment including cumulative impacts, be prepared on the Master Plan if a threshold determination of significance is given by the lead agency. Since the revised master plan has not yet been received by the Lead Agency, a threshold determination cannot yet be issued. This recommendation could be considered as speculative and therefore,would be premature. If the recommendation is changed to a"Note to Applicant,"cumulative environmental impacts would still be addressed in the subsequent environmental submittals for the Master Plan. This mitigation document would,therefore, not be weakened or substantially changed. However,the City of Renton wishes Valley Medical Center to know that continued cooperation is necessary on the formulation and timely completion of the Master Plan. And finally, when the Master Plan is completed, Valley Medical Center should submit it to the City with a completed SEPA document for the City to review as lead agency. REVISED RECOMMENDATION 4: To be changed to a"Note to Applicant." MITIGATION DOCUMENT: "RECOMMENDATION 5: That VMC shall pay$92,798.80 in fees for the additional 4040 trips at$22.97 per trip to be used to improve the roadway network off-site within one mile radius of the campus. The City will endeavor to use the money as soon as possible for improvements." The$92,798.80 trip fee is in addition to the VMC contributions to LID #329, a sum totalling approximately $2 million. LID #329's major purpose is to address traffic impacts in this congested corridor from previous development, and it is perhaps the major hope for traffic mitigation for the hospital and surrounding properties. However, it has become increasingly apparent that in addition to VMC's and the City's contributions to the LID, which were based on work programs updated from the 1982 original scope of work, additional costs may arise. In order to assure that LID #329 is completed expeditiously, the $92,798.80 will be prioritized towards this project. First priority will be to address new work items specifically related to improved traffic flow such as new HOV lanes, coordination with Washington State DOT for new on-ramp projects, impacts on private properties from road construction work such as replacement of rockeries. If monies are left after the LID is completed, they will be utilized on other road projects as specified in the recommendation. Eric J.Thoman AAD-009-91 February 25, 1991 Page 3 REVISED RECOMMENDATION 5: That VMC shall pay $92,798.80 in fees for the additional 4040 trips at $22.97 per trip to be used to improve the roadway network off-site within a one mile radius of the campus. The City will endeavor to use the money as specified below: Priority expenditures of this fund should be directed to new or unanticipated costs for LID #329, including but not limited to: new HOV lanes, coordination with WSDOT for new on-ramp projects, impacts on private properties from road construction work, impacts on utilities not funded through the engineering contingency budget of the LID. It shall not be used for bikeways. MITIGATION DOCUMENT: RECOMMENDATION 6: Final• "Subsequent development under the Master Plan Update that would increase the number of staff employed on campus and/or the number of visitors and/or the number of parking stalls shall not be approved." The Master Plan Update and the environmental documents for this update will address the TMP program. The EIS should also give additional mitigation measures for reducing SOV travel to the campus, i.e., restrict development, phase development, temporarily stop development, increase traffic mitigation fees. It would be appropriate to provide for reassessment of the situation in the upcoming documents and not to restrict •development and options through this document. REVISED RECOMMENDATION 6: Subsequent development under the Master Plan Update that would increase the number of staff employed on campus and/or the number of visitors and/or the number of parking stalls will be evaluated in light of the TMP goals and the EIS for that project, and mitigating measures will be imposed. Mitigation could include, but is not limited to: increased traffic fees; transportation and traffic improvements and restricted or phased developments. I believe the above revisions reflect our discussions on February 8, 1991 with you and Larry Warren, the City Attorney. If these revisions are different from your understanding, please let me know immediately. This administrative determination will be published in the newspaper of record, and notices will be sent to all parties of record. The appeal period is 14 days. This administrative determination is appealable to the City of Renton Hearing Examiner for reconsideration. Sincerely, Donald K.•Erickson,AICP Zoning Administrator s fi , y TABLE f LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -- EXISTING 1995 WITHOUT 2005 WITHOUT 1995 WITH 2005 WITH EXPANSION. EXPANSION EXPANSION EXPANSION = INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM jX 1. DRIVEWAY 11/ A A A ' A A A A B A D ' TALBOT RD • :2• DRIVEWAY 12/ A A A A A A A A : A C • M TALBOT RD 3. DRIVEWAY 13/ :� A A A A B B A A : A D TALBOT RD 4. DRIVEWAY.14/ • A A A A A A A A A A • --- TALBOT RD . . • 4 4 4 4 T. 5. DRIVEWAY 15/® • . E B E C E D A A A A : S 43RD ST ' 6. DAVIS AVE/® A A A A : A A A A A A : . S 43RD ST : : O O 7. S 43RD ST/ : E E C D E E D D E(C) F(D) : = TALBOT RD : 41 SEC 43 SEC : 24 SEC 33 SEC : 52 SEC 43 SEC : 33 SEC 34 SEC : 47 SEC MO SEC : < ®�. 8. S 43RD ST/ D C C B D C C B : E(C) D(C) • ry SR 167 RAMPS : 32 SEC 22 SEC : 20 SEC 12 SEC : 39 SEC 16 SEC : 21 SEC 13 SEC : 48 SEC 28 SEC : ' 9• .DAVIS AVE/ N/A N/A : N/A N/A : N/A N/A : A A A A TUNNEL ACCESS RD : 10. DAVIS AVE/ A A A A 2' S 45TH PL A A A A A A • 11. TALBOT RD/ : A B B B C C B C C D • ,+ S45THPL C12. •MAIN CAMPUS LOOP RD: N/A N/A : N/A N/A N/A N/A : A A • : A A • TUNNEL ACCESS RD : ' 13. DAVIS AVE/ : . N/A N/A : N/A N/A : N/A N/A : A A • S CAMPUS DRIVEWAY A A ., ,` NOTES: - AVERAGE DELAY IN SECONDS PER VEHICLE IS SHOWN FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - LOS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IS FOR SHARED LANES ON MINOR APPROACH 1 ASSUMES LID PROJECT WITHOUT TUNNEL OR DAVIS AVE SIGNAL ASSUMES LID PROJECT WITH TUNNEL BUT WITHOUT DAVIS AVE SIGNAL . ©LOS FOR THIS INTERSECTION REFLECTS EB LEFT TURN FROM S 43RD ST . °RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT ONLY TURNING MOVEMENTS ALLOWED ©LOS IN () ASSUMES OTHER CROSS VALLEY ROUTE IS BUILT BEFORE 2005 j 1 34 "t A { \. ' •TABLE _ ;. LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY ' y O O O 0 EXISTING' 1995 WITHOUT 2005 WITHOUT 1995 WITH 2005 WITH (;` EXPANSION EXPANSION EXPANSION EXPANSION `;,,,'.-' INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ° 1. DRIVEWAY 11/ A A A A A A ,,. TALBOT RD A B : A D : 2. DRIVEWAY 12/ A A A A A A A A. A C TALBOT RD : f • 4 3. DRIVEWAY 13/ : A A A A B B A A A D . TALBOT RD ; a • • 4. DRIVEWAY 14/ A A A A A • ,4: TALBOT RD A A A A A 5. DRIVEWAY 15/ 30 E B E C E D A A 4 4 : S 43RD ST A A A A • 6. DAVIS . `r AVIS AVE/(i) A A A A A A : A AA A • S 43RD ST $` ® O : ' 7. S 43RD ST/ E E C D • TALBOT RD : 41 SEC 43 SEC : 24 SEC 33 SEC : 52'SEC 43 SEC : 33 SEC 34 SEC : 471SEC >60 C) DSEC : `r`. 8. S 43RD ST/ D C C B D C OC) O • SR 167 RAMPS : 32 SEC 22 SEC : 20 SEC 12 SEC : 39 SEC 16 SEC : 21 SEC 13 SEC : 48`SEC 281SEC : 9. DAVIS AVE/ N/A N/A : N/A N/A : N/A N/A A A A A 4. TUNNEL ACCESS RD : • sr . '' .1` 10. DAVIS AVE/ A A A A A A A A A A • S 45TH PL 11. TALBOT RD/ . ,.z A B B B C C C D • `'' • S 45TH PL B C , 12. MAIN CAMPUS LOOP RD: N/A N/A : N/A N/A N/A N/A : A A • TUNNEL ACCESS RD : A A 13. DAVIS AVE/ ; , N/A N/A : N/A N/A : N/A N/A : A A A A • S CAMPUS DRIVEWAY : i NOTES: - AVERAGE DELAY IN SECONDS PER VEHICLE IS SHOWN FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - LOS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IS FOR SHARED LANES ON MINOR APPROACH SASSUMES ASSUMES LID PROJECT WITHOUT TUNNEL OR DAVIS AVE SIGNAL �,'Yj LID PROJECT WITH TUNNEL BUT WITHOUT DAVIS AVE SIGNAL i•' OLDS FOR THIS INTERSECTION REFLECTS EB LEFT TURN FROM S 43RD ST . . °RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT ONLY TURNING MOVEMENTS ALLOWED ©LOS IN () ASSUMES OTHER CROSS VALLEY ROUTE IS BUILT BEFORE 2005 34 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: February 22, 1991 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Donald K. Erickson,AICP Zoning Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Lenora Blauman Project Manager SUBJECT: Valley Medical Center MOB II/Ambulatory Care Center As you are aware, the Environmental Review Committee has completed its review of the EIS and has issued mitigation measures to address environmental impacts. Following that review, the Technical Advisory Committee met to consider measures which might be recommended as land use conditions for the conditional use/site plan permits. A copy of the TAC report, including the analysis and conditions is attached for your review. We will set aside some time for discussion of the report at the February 27th meeting of ERC. Recommendations may be revised at that meeting, however, no official action will be required of ERC. stafinemo I/O CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 1991 TO: All ERC members FROM: Donald K. Erickson,Zoning Administrator STAFF: Mary Lynne Myer, Sr. Environmental Planner SUBJECT: VMC Appeal on Mitigtion Document, MOB II and ACC At a recent meeting with Valley Medical Center staff, Larry Warren, Mary Lynne Myer and I worked to provide a solution to VMC's appeal on the mitigation document. It became apparent that clarifications and/or minor changes in the mitigation document would be sufficient for VMC to drop their appeal. Enclosed is a draft letter with the changes as discussed with VMC for your reconsideration, as an alteration to the mitigation document itself. This action would constitute an administrative determination and has a 14 day appeal period. The changes are on your agenda for discussion, Monday, February 26, 1991,a special ERC meeting. Please call Mary Lynne Myer at 277-5586 if you have any questions. r 1 , .. i . CITY OF RENTON ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ✓ G-,,1`-"` °'S N°c'` E =� .. 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 ry =:. i( JAN11 '91 \--;.-ig:Ki7"i �f.� i`� L PAUL N. JOOS VALLEY EYE CLINIC 17824 SPRINGI3ROOK ROAD SOUTH I RENTON, WA 98055 • NOT D+LiVERASLE`•—'— 1 f ��` _� AS ADDRESSED' ' ,. - 1 lj LE TO FCRNIARD �_.4, + vi ,i, itj ilL{LII:�� 10 Stir¢ULR @i [ r a t �`•� -•—�— .? 1'' llt l lt�Ithirttttltlttltltlllili NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE & SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION RENTON, WASHINGTON A Conditional Use & Site Plan Approval Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: 1) Medical Office Building; 2)Ambulatory Care Center CU;ECF-063-89; ECF;SA-113-89 DESCRIPTION: This project consists of two distinct improvements within the Valley Medical Center Campus: 1) a conditional use permit for the development of a new five-level, 110,966 sf medical office building (with outside parking) in a portion of the campus now utilized as a parking lot -- the parking lot will not be replaced as the Medical Center has parking in excess of that permitted under the Parking and Loading Ordinance; and 2) site plan approval for the construction of an Ambulatory Care Center into the now vacant lower level of an existing Psychiatric Services building. Environmental review for these developments has been accomplished through an Environmental Impact Statement which you have previously reviewed; environmental mitigation measures have been established for these developments and are included In the review file for your information. GENERAL LOCATION: South 43rd St PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review Site Plan Approval Building Permit The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton - City Hall. Comments will be accepted anytime prior to Public Hearings, during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative site plan approval. For further information on the application, or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications, by mail, of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550. Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. 1 i ifit r°'/4js it . T. .. .......,„ iii, , I. ., .‘r-ii;g n ;/4i 1 M m X • / '..,i .214v. 914 — I 1:.. 8- : rn co • b O r I,m �l ' o A m \ r V 00/gill cz, ., ) J., O � Q ZZ /i-..-. 0 a O r / . \k''‘..:. 41W: qcsp 6,t6: ,V:;C 0/441:01._*Allp Ili . 0 eV o : Li6 —— , __- - 'g. 49RD STREET d TIT 7--------- --Th r-7,1 rF1.-51. - genmalot .. ..... ............. ..... . .:.::.:::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::.:........................ ..... .................:::::: .................. .. ....... .:.... .............. ...... . . 1N:. . TI February 25, 1991 To: Lynn Guttmann, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator John Webiey, Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief From: Don Erickson, Secretary ..Mel:l..:9:...................:..:::.:.:�.�:.................:.::::::::::::.............................; ................... .... :4! M ;:;1.ocation,.::::.;.:.::•>::.:::.::.;:.:::::::;;::::�.;:.::•::�:.:;<.:;.::�:::..�:..::.•.:.;:.::.:::.>;:.:.::.>:.::::::::•.:.::.:�::;.>:.::;.;;:•:::::.�:::.:::::•>:::;..: :•:::::::::::::::::::::......................... Agenda attached below. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA February 25, 1991 • Third Floor Conference Room Commencing at 9:00 AM TIME/KEY PARTICIPANTS NEW CALVARY.CHURCH ECF-159-90 (Rubin Yu-#6186) Applicant seeks Environmental Impact Review approval for a change of use for 4,000 square feet of the 10,000 . square feet of the building from Light Industrial use to a church with a maximum capacity of 85 seats. THE BLUFFS ECF;R;SA-044-89 (Mary Lynne Myer-#5586) Applicant seeks to rezone approximately 22.6 acres of property from R-1, Residential Single-Family, to R-3, Residential Multi-Family, to allow the development of a 165 unit multiple-family complex with approximately 11.4 acres of the site remaining in undisturbed open space. . RECONSIDERATION • VMC MOB II/ACC MITIGATION DOCUMENT AMENDMENTS (Mary Lynne Myer-#5586) Valley Medical Center has appealed the mitigation document for the MOB II/ACC. However, if the document can be amended and clarified, they are willing • to drop their appeal. The amendments are presented for ERC reconsideration. DISCUSSION ONLY RIVERTECH CORPORATE CENTER, PHASE II ECF;SA;SM-129-89 (Lenora Blauman-#6168) Applicant seeks site plan approval for a 47,528 sf/three (3) story office building. The structure will include a combination of common space and parking on the first level, with offices on the second and third floors. The project is located in the 600 block of Naches Avenue SW, due north of SW 7th Street. cc: J. Covington, Executive Assistant to the Mayor L.Warren, City Attorney F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner G. Gotti, Fire Marshal J. Hanson, Development Services • City of Renton Environmental Review Committee MEETING NOTICE February 20, 1991 To: Lynn Guttmann, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator John Webley, Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief From: Don Erickson, Secretary Meeting Date: February 20, 1991 Time: 10:00 AM Location: Third Floor Conference Room Agenda attached below. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA February 20, 1991 Third Floor Conference Room Commencing at 10:00 AM TIME/KEY PARTICIPANTS NEW CALVARY CHURCH ECF-159-90 Applicant seeks Environmental Impact Review approval for a change of use for 4,000 square feet of the 10,000 square feet of the building from Light Industrial use to a church with a maximum capacity of 85 seats. THE BLUFFS ECF;R;SA-044-89 Applicant seeks to rezone approximately 22.6 acres of property from R-1, Residential Single-Family, to R-3, Residential Multi-Family, to allow the development of a 165 unit multiple-family complex with approximately 11.4 acres of the site remaining in undisturbed open space. RECONSIDERATION VMC MOB II/ACC MITIGATION DOCUMENT AMENDMENTS Valley Medical Center has appealed the mitigation document for the MOB II/ACC. However, if the document can be amended and clarified, they are willing to drop their appeal. The amendments are presented for ERC reconsideration. DISCUSSION ONLY RIVERTECH CORPORATE CENTER, PHASE II ECF;SA;SM-129-89 Applicant seeks site plan approval for a 47,528 sf/three (3) story office building. The structure will include a combination of common space and parking on the first level, with offices on the second and third floors. The project is located in the 600 block of Naches Avenue SW, due north of SW 7th Street. cc: J. Covington, Executive Assistant to the Mayor L. Warren, City Attorney F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner G. Gotti, Fire Marshal J. Hanson, Development Services ,, cad' tJ, <: > D::::::> 7(�F• .LANNIN. ILdIN :P•: �• : . : : mim >': :: :: :E ,H ;:::L:. V f • ` • gE. y�:ary 8. ::<:::::9: f > > •• + `:'`< >' >> `> ' r ? `: > :>:::AOKOROUN : <> < < > >< ' < � > > >> ><> : > :<�•:. :.PPLICA t' ' > '< >ValleV..::::e d<:: `` 'nte ? `` i >'<•<•` <•>. :�P.:::::�!�!V: . :::: ::•:� ey Medical Vie....er :::::::: : ;;PRO J:::. T : n:•:••ME: :: :::> : : :V lley:<: e::::> :;: ::e t:r :::;:::: . :::RQJA�T, :::::: :::::: : :::. :. ::::::::. :eev: .edcalC.e.:..er. 911::AC0.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ;NV:IRO:NMEN:•:A•`:���H.e0:..:::>•.:: �><` < <>::F,-. :::: ::0,3..4 9.,.:&e:;::::$A_1:$,B:: `iwig < `:. < ::::: ENV ..O..:M�.: 7. ��;: �CKL15T�.:.'.::: :. .I*G,:,CU-�!5�-��:&:::.CF,SA.•X13�o. .;. :.:.. .:: :............. !":I . .I .':'':ti'1}I: 1::1:�:::I:'fF,:.'fl::':�:. ... 4;:':::":•tN'.':. .M . F•:M::I''{fi:i:.•!'.:'•M7 i !i .. ::I it . III:.... t....l.•I :I •. 1 P SCI1IPTIO(�Op PROPOSAL ::::::::::::. The a Iicant Is seekin. a $I a Ian ap .oal::..a•:. r A :`::•xi t :»:::>::::::;::>::>:: ::>::; ::::�::;;>:::>::: ::>>:::::<:<;;::::::<::::i::> : ;;;>::>::>;:::::cons...uct..an......mbuaJo•. .•..Ca..a..Ce....er....n..a.. .e...s..n .. �` ci : ::: ::::::::<:::>:::�:�::::::::<:: ::::: ::::::;: ::>::>:<: :::;:::: <>: :>: : : ::»»:::::: ::: a c e ac.. a. . .b .a.•cond....Q. ....us... .e m C.. tr e Q G:::::::<::»:::;:::: :::::;::>:::<::::: :::::::; ::::<:::>::::><>::>:::: ::>:>:::: :: >::::::::: . co UGt a ent a .re . u..a 1nedic.... .lf.. e.bulld.... .. :v.: re:•::•:.:'s)::o:n:::•:;w.:.v:<.•::.n•::pr:per ty<ivithin::t:e,me.:I•::.I:: ::` ve vl e a ;:•::....:::.:e.::e:sa.on.:nQ.::::::acan.>........P: ?v::::...::::.:....a.:................ mplex ::::::::::�:::t: :::: ' <::::::::::::::�::::::::::::�:::: ::::�:: 1... 11:`::a;: ;>: ::�;::::;: .:.:.�: 2^:*:•:: <+•:,•::• ar>`• i.•:<•:i;, i'i.t 1 . > :::: :::: :: ::NTipN:;F psop.O .ick _ ' : : ' > � �< : ' ' > ' O R..I!D:.•:...„.I= C�PUSA......;:.:.; :m..; •::.:.; .auth4 rd:Street::.: p......:• :..:...... ... .::..::::::............ • L. j ( , II/ . II . •,` ', .- _,: , 1 [—_—_) i . ,__ c _e. . IIIIP r Z / 1, •» k / 4?t..4%kliip..1b.. \ t, ii %I/441a 41:;, **4j11 . . ... H °o b .4) I 9 A m y. b ,, . :' . . \ T 411P' ..,„ 4.,./ ..- ..,-., . .Ci ,ft tr.t i 1117.1). If i 1 . \ rrIkl,„, ,,..,1 viainb,..)r...7----,-iillip ri : 0. 1 . (..±.1._________r 1 ii 1 * . vi------_,. . . ,T77/1/77 .\ --r-,......... . .____:_.. ;1 _r----_,_--1 , . tacrpt Technical Advisory Committee Staff Report Vail•y Medical Center MOB II/ACC Febr ary 8, 1991 • Peg: 3 provide for efficient and functional use of land. the project,with conditions established in conjunction with environmental and land use review, could be considered to generally achieve these Plan policies and objectives. b. There shall be a community need for the proposed use at the proposed location. (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 Both within the VMC campus and In the vicinity of the site, a considerable amount of medical office space (entrepreneurial and governmental) already exists. This clustering is seen to be generally desirable because it offers a "service node" for persons seeking both primary and .specialized medical care, .providing convenience of service to the consumer and minimizing such related impacts as vehicle travel (by virtue of the fact that applicants may obtain physician care, laboratory work, testing, and other related services on the campus In a limited number of visits). Staff do note, however,'that these benefits need to be evaluated, as well, In a context which Includes an analysis of service/occupancy characteristics of on-site and neighborhood medical 'offices. For example, MOB II is defined as Class A , medical office space —that is space which has been historically utilized for larger and/or expanding medical services by virtue of Its design, location and operating fees. (Class B medical office space has historically been designed/located to be utilized by smaller or newer practices.) The vacancy rate for Class A medical office space in this area of the Valley Is 11.7% presently, however, medical office buildings on the campus are fully (or close to fully) subscribed. The vacancy rate for Class B medical office space in this area of the Valley is 16.2%. Medical office space in other areas of the City is generally less sought than similar space In the vicinity of the VMC; for example, a market analysis conducted for a potential medical office building in the northeast quadrant of the City (Anacortes and Sunset) indicated that potential lessors would select space nearer to VMC if It were available, based upon proximity to other medical practitioners and other patient services. The EIS states that VMC projects an absorption rate of 30,000 to 40,000 square feet of the proposed medical office space per year; at those rates, the building would be fully occupied within three to five years. (There is no Independent confirmation of this assessment, nor is there Independently confirmed lease rate Information available concerning other nearby entrepreneurial office buildings, however a survey informally conducted by staff Indicates that office buildings which are older than five years and which are well-maintained generally have less available space than do newer buildings in the area.) It is expected that some medical practitioners would move to MOB II from other nearby off-campus locations (e.g., Valley Gardens), and, perhaps, from on- campus locations as well (e.g., Chin Hills,Talbot Professional Center). Staff note that VMC rents space in some off-site facilities -- If those tenants move onto campus, occupancy rates of off-site facilities could be reduced resulting In potential Impacts to land use and transportation as well as economic Impacts. (If lease fees are more expensive in MOB II than in the surrounding office buildings, it is possible that VMC might retain off-campus space for its physicians/services and lease more costly on-campus space to private physicians.) It Is reasonable to assume that a number of potential MOB II tenants might utilize other nearby Class A medical office facilities If the proposed office building were not available, however, it is unlikely that occupancy rates of Class B medical office complexes would be affected. Also of concern to staff Is the desirability of introducing entrepreneurial developments Into a government facility. Staff do consider that it could be desirable to provide a facility to house special (secondary and tertiary) medical services that are hospital related, because these Improvements can be accomplished under the Zoning Ordinance, In a way which could enhance the quality of medical care for consumers and minimize off-site Impacts as well. There Is no indication that there is an over-concentration of such special (secondary and tertiary) services in the area at this time. Further, as noted previously, staff research and independent market research indicates that medical practitioners taer•% Fs i Technical Advisory Committee Staff Report Valley Medical Center MOB II/ACC February 8, 1991 Page 4 prefer to locate specialty (secondary and tertiary) offices on a medical campus in order to better meet their professional needs (e.g., educational facilities, availability of staff/equipment resources — such as other special medical practitioners,technicians,laboratories) and to more effectively serve clients. In order to provide adequate space for secondary and tertiary practitioners (who provide hospital related specialty care), a mitigation measure was established by ERC calling for a covenant restricting 75% of leasable space to specialty (secondary and tertiary) practices. This mitigation measure will also serve to limit the availability of space for general practitioners who provide services which are not particularly related to hospital programs. Staff will suggest that, in addition, one level of the office building be reserved (shelled off) until the Master Campus Plan( is approved and it can be determined by the City that this space is both necessary to accommodate secondary and tertiary care providers and can be utilized without undue impact to the site (either in terms of its primary role as a government health care facility or In terms of Impacts such as traffic and public services). These measures will also help to ensure that the surrounding community Is not unduly Impacted by this development (e.g., transportation Impacts) and will enable off-campus complexes to appropriately compete to provide space for general practitioners (or specialty practitioners who prefer this alternative). Since the applicant predicts that the building will not be fully occupied for three to five years, and since the Master Campus Plan is scheduled for completion within 18 months, this condition should not cause undue hardship to the applicant. If, in fact, the building Is likely to be fully occupied Immediately, considerable impacts (e.g., traffic, service levels) may be anticipated that could be better managed if coordinated with the MCP. e) This assumes that the Master Campus Plan and/or its EIS includes an Independent analysis of on-campus and off-campus Impacts related to development of private medical office facilities at VMC. (2) That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. As noted previously in this report, the VMC campus is generally considered to be a suitable location for the addition of a limited amount of space for privately provided secondary and tertiary hospital-related medical services. The specifically selected location on the northwest quadrant of the campus Is considered desirable because it is now developed primarily with surface parking which can be relocated as necessary to meet Code requirements. Open/landscaped areas also. exist on the site; these combined areas will, of necessity, be reduced by this development (by approximately two percent) -- this change is not considered to be substantial. Recommendations will be made for Improvements to existing/planned landscaping to compensate for loss of currently planted areas. c. The proposed use at the proposed location shall comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements for development in the underlying zone and not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The proposed office development generally meets P-1 development standards (e.g., set backs). It would also meet the special standards for noise control established for the P-1 zone (e.g., noise controls from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Specific discussion about compliance with Parking and Loading Ordinance standards is reported in Section 1.e below. Specific discussion about compliance with Landscaping Ordinance standards is reported In Section 1.g. below. A medical building with the proposed purpose of providing office space for private physicians Is likely to have land use, economic, and traffic impacts upon adjacent property; these impacts have been discussed in Section 1.b. above. With limitations on types of users (e.g., secondary and tertiary practitioners) and with, at least temporary limitations on the amount of Immediately usable space within the structure, the. substance/level of those Impacts can be controlled. Staff note that the 70 foot height of the building does not conform to regulations which prescribe a 50 foot height limit for principally permitted uses.. The planned building, with the additional height, could be allowed under a conditional use permit —If it were to meet conditional use criteria -- and, in part, this additional height request Is the subject of this conditional use permit application. • tacrpt Tech ical Advisory Committee Staff Report Valle Medical Center MOB II/ACC Febr ary 8, 1991 Page 5 The Conditional Use Ordinance allows a structure to exceed the height requirement provided that the building height is related to surrounding uses in a manner which allows optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures. As designed, the structure would exceed the height of nearby on-site office buildings (at 57 feet In height). It would be one of the tallest buildings in the community; based upon location of the building, surrounding uses, and sloped terrain,this structure is likely to create some modest view disruption, light/glare Impacts, and Impacts to air circulation for adjacent structures on the site. It may be visible from residential and commercial structures in the hilly area east of the site, causing some potential for view disruption and glare Impacts to those nearby off-site developments. In order to address those Impacts, staff will make a recommendation to reorient the building to the southwest (approximately 25 degrees),to improve view corridors,to ensure adequate privacy/defensible space, and to promote Improved air and light circulation on the site. While this modification to the site plan may result In the loss of some surface parking, sufficient surface parking will be retained to adequately serve the building; reorientation should be designed to retain the skybridges at or near their present location, so that access to the abutting structures (e.g., parking garage) would not be disrupted. The location of the building on the campus Is such that it Is not likely that It will be perceived.as being out of scale by those persons viewing it from nearby off-site developments. Additionally, staff will recommend conditions such as window treatment which minimizes glare to adjacent (on-site and off-site) land uses such as residences, commercial developments, offices and roadways and modifications to landscaping to address development characteristics. d. The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and character of the site and the surrounding,community. The proposed use — an entrepreneurial medical office building — is related to the governmental medical services provided on the campus. With limitations established by ERC to confine approximately 75% of the building to use secondary and tertiary practitioners,and with additional recommendations to reserve one level.of the MOB II until the MCP is completed, so that use of this building may be coordinated with other development on the campus, the use would not be incompatible with the government health care services provided at this time at VMC. Services, such as parking areas, cafeteria, recreation areas,are available (or can be Introduced)to adequately address staff requirements. The planned facility will, when combined with the medical services/facilities already available on the site, help anchor the campus as a specialty health center, by enhancing service availability in this area. At the proposed 70 feet In height, the MOB II would be taller than other buildings on campus. Because of Its location among other tall buildings within the campus, and its similarity in scale/design to those existing structures, MOB II would appear to be generally compatible with those surrounding on-campus professional office uses. For example, MOB would have a footprint of 21,600 square feet. The Talbot Professional Center has a footprint of 18,000 square feet and Is 57 feet in height; the Chin Hills Building has a footprint of 14,000 square feet and is 57 feet in height. The proposed office building would house approximately 300 -500 employees when fully occupied;the other office buildings can accommodate approximately 300 employees. Increasing the height of the proposed structure to 70 feet--as opposed to constructing an additional structure on the site -- generally ensures the availability of a greater amount of open space and enables the Installation of more amenities(e.g., landscaping, recreation facilities). Staff recommendations for reservation of leasable space should serve to reduce/phase the Introduction of new persons onto the site, so that quality/quantity of service provided is preserved, adequate amenities can be introduced/protected, and corollary Impacts '(such as vehicular and pedestrian traffic) can be appropriately addressed. ERC recommendations that utilization of non-office space (e.g., auditorium, conference room, kitchen facilities) be allowed only for hospital related uses (e.g., staff training, professional conferences) should serve to appropriately contain land use impacts, limit traffic Impacts, and protect public safety on the site. Similarly this requirement should reduce traffic/trespass Impacts on nearby sites. • Incr.! • Technical Advisory CommittE aff Report Valley Medical Center MOB II/ACC February 8, 1991 Page 6 e. Traffic and circulation patterns (including access and parking/loading) of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the potential effects on proposed use and to ensure safe movement in the surrounding area. Approximately 4040 ADWVTE are anticipated to be generated in conjunction with utilization of the MOB II. Levels of service/volumes on roadways abutting the VMC and in the general area are average (Level C) to poor (Level F) — See Table I for specific data. Growth on the campus from the proposed projects as well as from future development on- campus and in the vicinity of the site Is anticipated to further Impact vehicular/pedestrian circulation. On-campus and regional Improvements have been proposed by the applicant (and/or recommended by ERC) to address anticipated impacts from the now proposed actions. These Improvements include: 1) a contribution of $92,798.00 which will be utilized to Implement LID #329 (a portion of this contribution may be directed by the City to fund traffic analyses for all Intersections listed In the EIS for MOB II as operating at LOS E or LOS F, Including recommendations and/or specific plans for improvements); and 2) the development of an extensive TMP (reduction of SOV rates, preferential parking for HOV vehicles, public transit subsidy) which is to be directed by an on-site coordinator and monitored by the City. Currently available access routes and parking/loading areas (existing and under construction) are anticipated to be generally sufficient to serve present development on this site as well the proposed MOB II. (See Table II). However, staff recommendation for phased occupancy of the proposed MOB ii and for use limitations on the auditorium and conference center should also serve to address traffic impacts generated by employee trips and consumer visits will provide an opportunity for staff to monitor the "field adequacy of access, circulation routes, and parking facilities to ensure that these Improvements are adequate to serve the MOB II. Additional Improvements will be required in conjunction with projects approved in conjunction with the Master Plan;those Improvements will be based, in part, upon findings from area-wide traffic analyses conducted by the City and will be designed to aid in abatement of poor service levels at those Intersections. f. Potential environmental health impacts (noise, glare, light, dust, debris) 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. (1) Construction: Construction of the proposed MOB II is anticipated to generate standard impacts (noise, light, dust, debris, traffic). Staff will recommend standard mitigation measures to address those Impacts. Restrictions will be placed upon hauling hours/routes to address traffic Impacts. Restrictions will be placed upon hours of operation to control noise Impacts to patients in the adjacent VMC hospital. (2) Operation: Vehicles bringing people/supplies to the MOB II are anticipated to generate both noise and potential air pollution. However, no significant change In sound type or Increase In noise levels/air quality on the campus or neighboring properties is anticipated from utilization of the proposed MOB li. Those Impacts which do occur will be mitigated, in part, by the fact that the parking garage which will serve MOB II is a discrete, self-contained unit which is away from the center of the campus and from uses on abutting properties. Air quality control devices and fire prevention/suppression devices are required to be placed in the structure according to Code requirements. Because the MOB II Is proposed to be 70 feet tall, It will be visible from abutting roadways and nearby structures. As a result, staff will recommend that the applicant prepare a solar glare diagram in order that staff can ascertain whether reflected glare Is likely to Impact traffic on S.R. 167, S.W. 43rd Street or Springbrook/Talbot Road. In the event that such Impacts are identified, windows will need to be designed (e.g., by recessing, anguiation)to ensure that glare does not impact travelers on affected roadways. tacrpt Tec nical Advisory Committee Staff Report Vail•y Medical Center MOB II/ACC Feb uary 8, 1991 Pag• 7 g. Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by building or paving. The proposed planting plan generally meets Landscaping Ordinance standards. Staff will call for revisions to the landscaping plan to ensure that landscaping remains coordinated with the site plan when revisions are made to the building axis. Staff will also call for landscaping to be upgraded on the north side of the Psychiatric Wing and the south side of the parking garage to ensure a pleasing vista from MOB II. Plantings will need.to be thematically integrated with existing plantings on the site; plantings at the garage periphery should be selected and located in a manner which does not pose a hazard to fire-fighting equipment. h. 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. (1) Emergency Services Emergency services staff report sufficient resources to provide fire protection and police protection to the site with standard Improvements such as security systems, lighting, building identification, access routes, and . fire warning/suppression equipment. (2) Public Service/Utilities Public Works staff report that standard Code mandated Improvements as well as special projects (e.g., L.I.D. #329) will serve to adequately address public service/utility impacts from the proposed development. (3) Recreation Staff note that VMC employees have been provided some on-site recreational facilities -- e.g., the therapy pool -- and that trails developed under the City's Master Trail Plan will be available also. However, Parks and Recreation and Planning Division staff have expressed a concern as to whether these improvements (which are also available to the public) are adequate to mitigate on- site and off-site recreation impacts for employees. Staff will recommend that the applicant provide additional active/passive recreation opportunities on campus and expanded access to existing recreation facilities. The applicant will also be encouraged to contribute to the Improvement of the Master Trail on the ' Talbot/Springbrook Road corridor. 2. Site Plan: As noted above, the applicant is also seeking site plan approval to remodel an existing structure (Psychiatric Wing) to provide an Ambulatory Care Center. The subject area -- the subterranean level -- now is essentially vacant, and is being utilized for storage. (These storage areas will be located elsewhere on the site following development of the ACC). The ACC is a principally permitted use under City regulation. Section 4-31-33 of the Zoning Ordinance lists criteria that the City is asked to consider In reviewing a Site Plan application. These include the following: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements and policies, with the Zoning Ordinance,and with other existing land use regulations; The proposed development is permitted under the existing Public/Quasi Public Use designation established in the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies. b. Mitigation of impact to surrounding properties.and uses; The proposed ACC is not anticipated to generate any direct impacts to neighboring properties since the center will be created through interior improvements to an existing structure and since the new center will replace existing ambulatory care services located elsewhere on the campus. Storage facilities in this structure will be relocated within the campus. lecr.t • Technical Advisory Committee Staff Report Valley Medical Center MOB•II/ACC February 8, 1991 Page 8 Indirect impacts may occur, however, if new services and/or employees are placed in the now existing ACC areas upon vacation. The applicant reports that, at present, no new or expanded services are slated to be placed in the areas vacated when the Center becomes • available, but rather now overcrowded service facilities will be reorganized to provide more effective, efficient working spaces. Staff will recommend that the applicant be enjoined •from applying for/undertaking new or expanded existing services in that vacated area until • • the Master Campus Plan is approved by the City, in order to ensure that short-term and • long-range impacts(land use,traffic, public service and public safety) are addressed. c. Mitigation of impacts to the subject property As the proposed ACC is essentially an Interior remodel of an existing building to more efficiently accommodate existing services on the site, no significant Impacts are anticipated to the subject property. On-site services and amenities are sufficient•to address Code requirements and operating requirements of ACC. On-site impacts (e.g., land use, traffic, public services and public safety) could occur, however, in the event that areas vacated when the ACC is completed are utilized for new or expanded services. Staff recommendations that changes to vacated areas be permitted .only in conjunction with a Master Campus Plan should minimize potential Impacts to VMC. d. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; 'As noted previously, ambulatory care facilities exist at various locations on the campus now. Consolidation of these facilities Into a single center should reduce circulation • Impacts. Existing and planned vehicular/pedestrian travel improvements are sufficient to address Code requirements as well as operating requirements for the ACC. e. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; Emergency services, public services, utilities and recreation areas (those now existing and those proposed by staff) are anticipated to be adequate to serve employees and patients at the ACC. 1. The applicant shall, in order to address visual/aesthetic impacts, privacy/defensible space impacts, and light/air circulation Impacts, provide a revised site plan for the MOB II which rotates the building +/-25 degrees on its axis in a southwesterly direction. The plan shall be approved by the Development Planning Section prior to issuance of site preparation/building permits for MOB ii. (Note 1.1: The modifications to building design/location can be coordinated with the skybridges so that no major redesign is required for that improvement. The skybridge linking MOB II to the Parking Garage must 'be a minimum of 13'6" above ground level to allow fire emergency equipment to travel beneath that access. Bothskybridges must be sprinkiered and should Include security systems to preserve safety of persons and property.) 2. The applicant shall, in order to address land use Impacts and transportation impacts, provide plans and an agreement to place one level of the office building In reserve (shelled off) until the Master Campus Plan has been completed and approved by the City, so that City officials can determine how this area may best be utilized and.may determine a utilization schedule, which is coordinated with other development/uses on this site. The plan/agreement shall be approved by the • Development Planning Section and the City Attorney prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits for MOB II. (Note 2.1: In'the event that at a future date the reserved space is permitted by the City to be utilized for entrepreneurial medical office space, tenancy ratios for that area shall be subject to the covenants established by the Environmental Review Committee for the MOB II.) • • 3. The applicant shall, in order to address light/glare impacts from MOB II, provide: a) a solar/glare analysis (diagram)for those hours of the day on the equinox,and on summer and winter solstices, when the angle of reflected sunlight is at 30 degrees or less with the horizon in order that staff can ascertain whether reflected glare is likely to impact S.R. 167, S.W. 43rd Street or Talbot/Springbrook Road. This diagram shall be submitted to the Development Services Section and Development Planning Section in conjunction with the Building Permit Application so that staff tecrpt Technical Advisory Committee Staff Report Vail t.y Medical Center MOB II/ACC Febr ary 8, 1991 Pag: 9 can ascertain whether windows in MOB II must be redesigned (e.g., recessed placement, angulation) so that glare from those glassed areas does not impair vision of persons driving vehicles along Talbot/Springbrook Road, S.R. 167 or S.W. 43rd Street. Study findings and a window treatment plan shall be approved by the Development Planning Section prior to Issuance of site preparation/building permits for MOB II. 4. The applicant shall, in order to address land use impacts, traffic Impacts, and public service Impacts, provide an agreement stipulating that no application will be made to undertake new or expanded existing services in areas vacated by the relocation of the ACC, until the Master Campus Plan is approved by the City. The agreement is to be approved by the Development Planning Section and the City Attorney prior to the Issuance of building permits for the ACC. 5. The applicant shall, in order to address aesthetic impacts, provide a revised landscaping plan which: a) ensures that landscaping remains coordinated with the site plan when revisions are made to the axis for MOB II; b) upgrades plantings at the northern boundary of the Psychiatric . Wing and the southern boundary of the parking garage to ensure a pleasing vista from MOB II. Plans shall be approved by the Development Planning Section prior to Issuance of site preparation/building permits for MOB II. (Note 5.1: Landscaping abutting the parking garage will also require approval by.the Fire Department to ensure that planting materials and locations do not hamper access by fire fighting equipment.) (Note 5.2: In the event that the existing landscaping maintenance surety device does not include the proposed development,an expanded surety device will be required.) 6. The applicant shall, in order to address on-site recreation Impacts: a) provide new active/passive recreation facilities for MOB II employees either within the proposed structure or at another convenient location on the campus; and b) provide a plan for increased accessibility to existing facilities (e.g., reducing hours that the therapy pool is available for public use so that It can be more easily utilized by employees). This plan is to be approved by the Development Planning Section (in consultation with Parks and Recreation) prior to issuance of site preparation/building permits for MOB II; all improvements are to be installed/made available for employee utilization prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for MOB II. 7. The applicant is encouraged, In order to address off-site community recreation Impacts,to make a voluntary contribution of up to $20,000 toward implementation of the Master Trail Plan Improvements slated for Springbrook Avenue. 8. The applicant, in order to address construction-related Impacts, shall develop a construction management plan including the following component: a) an erosion control element; b) an element which restricts hauling operations, allowing those operation to occur only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.and 6:00 p.m. 8:30 p.m.; c) an element which establishes a hauling route which is acceptable to the City;d) a schedule which restricts on site construction operations, allowing those operations to occur only during the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. to control noise; e) an element which provides for wheel-washing of construction vehicles prior to their departure from the site;f) an element which provides for periodic watering down of the site to contain dust and debris; g) a street cleaning surety device; and h) a signage plan which defines appropriate travel routes and identifies construction areas to protect public safety and facilitate provision of emergency services. These plans shall be approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any site preparation/building permits for MOB II or ACC. NO E: All on-site and off-site improvements mandated by Code, Including, but not limited to, provision of utilities easements, updating of related utilities service agreements, undergrounding of power lines, payment of fees, shall be completed prior to Issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the subject developments. leap VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND AMBULATORY CARE CENTER MITIGATION DOCUMENT 1. That the conditional use permit for Valley Medical Center restrict the auditorium, meeting rooms and kitchen facilities to hospital related uses only. No additional measures suggested. Other impacts will be addressed during the Conditional Use permit process. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6-22;WAC 197-11-660(1)(e),RMC 4-31- 36(4) &(9), RMC 4-31-9(D)(3) 2. That the VMC covenant the building to restrict 80% of its leasable area to secondary and tertiary practices to lessen land use and traffic Impacts. The remaining 20% could be leased to primary care physicians. No additional mitigation measures specified. The conditional use process will further address this impact. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6-22,WAC 197-11-448(1) &(3) 3. That Valley Medical Center voluntarily complete a long range Master Campus Plan to be filed with the City within 18 months of the issuance of this permit. The City and VMC shall agree upon the content, scope of work, and review process of the plan prior to its initiation. 4. That Valley Medical Center, in cooperation with the City of Renton as lead agency, shall complete a programmatic EIS on this plan before any subsequent development related actions are taken that will substantially Increase the number of employees, visitors, and/or vehicular parking spaces on the VMC campus. Remodeling which will not result in any of the above impacts is exempt. 5. That VMC shall pay $92,798.80 in fees for the additional 4040 trips at $22.97 per trip to be used to improve the roadway network off-site within one mile radius of the campus. The City will endeavor to use the money as soon as possible for Improvements. 6. That VMC will review and revise the TMP to increase its effectiveness. These revisions will include: o evaluation of the goals Identified In the TMP (a reduction of 10% in SOV trips) within six months of the Issuance of this permit. The SOV evaluation shall: a) use 1987 employee trips as a base figure; determine If a 10 percent reduction has been made on these trips; b) calculate 1990 employee trips and determine 10 percent reduction for differential growth between 1987 and 1990; c) calculate employee trips for MOB II/ACC-determine 10 percent reduction;d) total a, b and c to determine total trips and the 10 percent reduction for all as a check; and e) determine methods for reaching the reduction. A report shall be submitted to the City showing results of the evaluation. If targeted goals are not met,additional incentive for HOV participation shall be installed including: o Increased staff effort by the Building Transportation Coordinator and more promotion of HOV incentives. o Further discounts for carpool parking and increased rates for private vehicle trips, excluding clients and visitors. o Implementation of the transit discount pass program to increase the subsidy by a least 1-%each year if the annual goal of 10% of eligible participating employees is not met(not to exceed the price of the transit pass). o Participation in the annual cost of vanpool operation (in addition to providing free parking located In proximity to buildings and allowing employees to apply the transit discount to the participant's vanpool fare) in an amount not to exceed $5000 per year if the evaluation show the SOV reduction goal has not been met. The subsidy shall begin upon completion of the TMP evaluation report if that report shows the SOV goals are not achieved. The subsidy shall continue until the goal is met. o Investigation of use of off-hours HOV vehicles owned by the Hospital for employee vanpool use. o Provide measures to ensure that HOV users can get home In case of Irregular events such as personal emergencies and unexpected overtime. o Promote alternatives to SOV by a variety of programs and services including, but not limited to: - providing a Transportation Information Center in the building; - semi-annual promotion of HOV program; - appointment, staffing and training In conjunction with existing Metro programs of a Building Transportation Coordinator's(BTC) office; - instituting a program to promote commuting by bus (including the transit subsidy for employees) - offering flexible working hours five days per week to certain employee groups to reduce employee trips during peak hours of congestion. - working with Metro to develop a work program and time frame to modify transit routes and times to improve the service for VMC employees. o The VMC Transportation Coordinator will submit a biannual report to the Development Services Division, showing how goals are being met, or adjustments made in order to meet goals. If the 10% reduction in SOV is not accomplished within one year, the .City will reassess further development on campus. Subsequent development under the Master Plan update that would Increase the number of staff employed on campus and/or the number of visitors and/or the number of parking stalls shall not be approved. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6-22;WAC 197-11-660 7. That Valley Medical Center shall abide by their voluntary agreement with the City to fully sprinkler the hospital according to schedule agreed upon. OFFICE SPACE IN VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER VICINITY Address Building Name Vacancies? 17620 Talbot Rd. S. Valley Urology Clinic No 17722 Talbot Rd. S. Springbrook Medical Center No 17800 Talbot Rd. S. Pacific Medical Center, . Richard Lomas, M.D. , E.A.R. Services, International Op- tical, Robert Thompson, M.D. No 17828 Talbot Rd. S. Western Optical Valley Eye and Laser Center Yes 17900 Talbot Rd. S. Several doctors'/dentists' offices No 17910 Talbot Rd. S. Several offices No 17930 Talbot Rd. S. . Plastic Reconstructive Surgeons, Inc. P.S. Cosmetic Surgery Center Hand Center Northwest No, ,. King County Land Use Action proposed for above-referenced site, #C9003111, SEPA Threshold Determination for a 37 space parking lot. County Planner for project is Brian Shea. 401 S. 43 St. Valley Professional Plaza Yes 305 S. 43 St. Good Neighbor Center ,No 4300 Talbot Rd. S. Valley Medical Dental Center Yes 4361 Talbot Rd. S. Several doctors' offices No 4430 Talbot Rd. S. Valley Health Care Center No 4445 Talbot Rd. S. Valley Diabetes and Endocrine Center No 4509 Talbot Rd. S. Doctors' offices No 4512 Talbot Rd. S. Arthur Swanson & Associates No Address Building Name Vacancies? 601 S. Carr Rd. Valley Gardens Health Center No This building has no visible vacancies, but is four stories in height. across from above Valley View Professional address Center Yes This building appears to be new and empty. A sign outside says 7,000 square feet of office space is available for leasing. 0 .‘"' CIT'. OF RENTON 44 Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator January 9, 1991 Dan Jardine Project Architect Mahium and Nordfors 2505 Third Avenue, Suite#219 Seattle,Washington 98121 RE: Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II -Conditional Use Application; Valley Medical Center Ambulatory Care Center-Site Approval Application Dear Mr. Jardine: I am in receipt of the materials which you submitted for the Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building on January 8, 1991 together with your letter concerning the schedule of events(historical and future)for this project. • With these submittals, I will be able to establish an initial file for the conditional use application and to implement the formal review process for that application. (The environmental,checklist/review fee which you submitted for this project is being returned to you under separate cover;an environmental checklist is not necessary for this project as an environmental impact statement has been prepared for the City). We will also begin concurrent formal review of the site plan for the Ambulatory Care Center. As we have not yet received the duplicate materials for this application which we requested of you,we have arranged to duplicate materials in our offices to allow immediate implementation of project analysis by City staff members. (A determination as to whether administrative site plan review or public hearing is required for the site plan will be made in the course of the review process. If administrative site plan review is undertaken,a staff report will be issued simultaneously with the issuance of the report to the Hearing Examiner for the conditional use permit; if public hearing is required for the ACC,that hearing will occur at the same time that the conditional use permit is heard). As you are aware,the review schedule initially provided to you by Mary Lynne Myer cannot be maintained, because it was based upon a complete submittal (rather than preapplication materials) by the applicant to the City on December 20, 1990 (see copies of correspondence to Eric Thomen'in the Valley Medical Center File). However, based upon the conditional use application materials which were submitted to the City on January 8, 1991 (and the additional site plan materials which will be prepared by City staff),we will make every effort to expedite the evaluation of this application. The planned review schedule is attached and reiterates the information which I provided to you in our discussion of January 4th. This schedule reflects review/publication periods required by City policy/regulations and by State law. If you have questions or would like additional information, please contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely; p.s.......x..„betA.A., Lenora Blauman Project Manager cc: Ome Almeda John Scott 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Review Schedule Date Activity 1/8/91 Conditional Use Application Materials Submitted by Applicant. 1/9/91 Conditional Use Application Materials Reviewed (Preliminary) by Planning Division staff. Site Plan Application Materials Duplicated by Planning Division Staff 1/10/91 Conditional Use/Site Plan Application materials circulated to City departments for review(2 week period). 1/25/91 City department comments received and collated into project file. 1/28-30/91 Staff report prepared to Technical Advisory Committee 2/1/91 Technical Advisory Committee reviews and approves mitigation measures. Then, if public hearing can be scheduled for February 19, 1991,the following schedule will prevail: 2/5/91 Notice of Public Hearing published (conditional use permit and —if necessary-- site plan review). This notice must be published a minimum of ten days in advance of the hearing date. 2/12/91 Staff report is submitted to the Hearing Examiner for the Conditional Use Permit and for the Site Plan (for administrative review or for public hearing). If site plan review is administrative,the report will be issued on this date and the two week appeal period will begin,to end on 2/24/91. 2/19/91 Public Hearing. 3/5/91 • Hearing Examiner Report is issued. Two week appeal period begins. 3/19/91 Appeal period ends. ar If public hearing is conducted on February 26, 1991,the following schedule will prevail: 2/12/91 Notice of Public Hearing published (conditional use permit and—if necessary— site plan review). This notice must be published a minimum of ten days in advance of the hearing date. 2/19/91 Staff report is submitted to the Hearing Examiner for the Conditional Use Permit and for the Site Plan (for administrative review or for public hearing). If site plan review is administrative,the report will be issued on this date and the two week appeal period will begin,to end on 3/5/91. 2/26/91 Public Hearing. 3/12/91 Hearing Examiner issues report.Two week appeal period begins. 3/26/91 Two week appeal period ends. 1991-1992 VMC CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS EXCLUDED FROM MASTER PLAN • SITE PREPARATION MOB-II CONFERENCE CENTER MOB-II SPRINKLER SYSTEM UPGRADE • 1) 2A/2B 2) McD/1 North/Dietary/Admin/lA/1B : 3) 2C • :. 4) 2D/Delivery/Atrium • AMBULATORY CARE "ROC" EXPANSION CATH LAB EXPANSION FAMILY CENTER/NURSERY REMODEL 1) • Mother/Baby (2C and Swing) • • 2) Delivery (2D, Waiting, Delivery) 0 • 3) Nursery Remodel LABORATORY EXPANSION 0 2A/2B PATIENT ROOM REMODELING , LITHOTRIPSY • OFFICE ADDITION • TRANSITIONAL CARE UNIT McDONALDS • • • • • 1/7/91 • OF RED O �� © Z NOTIcE o��rf0 SEPZ E���P OF PENDING APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : 1 MEDICAL OFFICE BLDG;2)AMBULATORY CARE CENTER 1)CU;ECF-063-89;2)ECF;SA-113-89 THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF TWO DISTINCT IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER CAMPUS: 1)A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW FIVE-LEVEL, 110,966 SF MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING (WITH OUTSIDE PARKING) IN A PORTION OF THE CAMPUS NOW UTILIZED AS A PARKING LOT--THE PARKING LOT WILL NOT BE REPLACED AS THE MEDICAL • CENTER HAS PARKING IN EXCESS OF THAT PERMITTED UNDER THE PARKING AND LOADING ORDINANCE;AND 2) SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN AMBULATORY CARE CENTER INTO THE NOW VACANT LOWER LEVEL OF AN EXISTING PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES BUILDING. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR THESE DEVELOPMENTS HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHICH YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED; ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THESE DEVELOPMENTS AND ARE INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW FILE FOR YOUR INFORMATION. GENERAL- LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS: SOUTH 43RD STREET PUBLIC APPROVALS REQUIRED : • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW • SITE PLAN APPROVAL BUILDING PERMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE RECEIVED BY THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT • .ANYTIME PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS. • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT ' PROPER AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATION I , 1 �'�� /wPi/, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT • COPIES I OF • THE ABOVE DOC ENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN • CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON OR NEARBY THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY ON � /� 7� • Gp'A .. .A•VEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a G 4:42-. 4,�SSION •,,C �ary Public, in end for the State of Washin ton • • l ° to su: stdi in 2-7 , on the lj day2f /g9/ SIGNED PUsuc • a :1.7A�O,1,_9,.j9t�� '°•e,8111 SHIN O°°, ,( � OF RFC U CL © z NoTicE o o4 7- eD SEPle°- OF PENDING APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : 1) MEDICAL OFFICE BLDG; 2) AMBULATORY CARE CENTER 1) CU;ECF-063-89; 2) ECF;SA-113-89 THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF TWO DISTINCT IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER CAMPUS: 1) A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW FIVE-LEVEL, 110,966 SF MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING (WITH OUTSIDE PARKING) IN A PORTION OF THE CAMPUS NOW UTILIZED AS A PARKING LOT --THE PARKING LOT WILL NOT BE REPLACED AS THE MEDICAL CENTER HAS PARKING IN EXCESS OF THAT PERMITTED UNDER THE PARKING AND LOADING ORDINANCE; AND 2) SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN AMBULATORY CARE CENTER INTO THE NOW VACANT LOWER LEVEL OF AN EXISTING PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES BUILDING. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR THESE DEVELOPMENTS HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHICH YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED; ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THESE DEVELOPMENTS AND ARE INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW FILE FOR YOUR INFORMATION. GENERAL . LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS: SOUTH 43RD STREET PUBLIC APPROVALS REQUIRE ® • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SITE PLAN APPROVAL BUILDING PERMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE RECEIVED BY THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ,ANYTIME PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE & SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION RENTON, WASHINGTON A Conditional Use & Site Plan Approval Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: 1) Medical Office Building;2)Ambulatory Care Center CU;ECF-063-89; ECF;SA-113-89 DESCRIPTION: This project consists of two distinct improvements within the Valley Medical Center Campus: 1) a conditional use permit for the development of a new five-level, 110,966 sf medical office building (with outside parking) in a portion of the campus now utilized as a parking lot -- the parking lot will not be replaced as the Medical Center has parking in excess of that permitted under the Parking and Loading Ordinance; and 2) site plan approval for the construction of an Ambulatory Care Center into the now vacant lower level of an existing Psychiatric Services building. Environmental review for these developments has been accomplished through an Environmental Impact Statement which you have previously reviewed; environmental mitigation measures have been established for these developments and are included in the review file for your information. GENERAL LOCATION: South 43rd St PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review Site Plan Approval Building Permit The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted anytime prior to Public Hearings, during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative site plan approval. For further information on the application, or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications, by mail, of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550. Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. iLlig I'IU :�, ____, __1 0 ")14ilr I* ,,t, - 34 • 0 . N ppjj 1 nt.,j::,., E)tè . ' ...04%00*/;.:r-;./fill/ . 1Nco oat Ali C o / • • \ 1/ Otit „9, , /�111411110 ,A g. it e_______cc,_.___ _ .�_ 'S. /SRo 7. . .. . . �'7�j� STREET r-T,_____rr i. . ) f ri-. genmalot— - — DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-063-89; ECF-113-89 APPLICATION NO(S).: CU-063-89; SA-113-89 PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center (Work Order#79063) PROJECT TITLE: 1) Medical Office Bldg; 2) Ambulatory Care Center BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This project consists of two distinct improvements within the Valley Medical Center Campus: 1) a conditional use permit for the development of a new five-level, 110,966 sf medical office building (with outside parking) in a portion of the campus now utilized as a parking lot -- the parking lot will not be replaced as the Medical Center has parking in excess of that permitted under the Parking and Loading Ordinance; and 2) site plan approval for the construction of an Ambulatory Care Center into the now vacant lower level of an existing Psychiatric Services building. Environmental review for these developments has been accomplished through an Environmental Impact Statement which you have previously reviewed; environmental mitigation measures have been established for these developments and are included in the review file for your information. LOCATION: South 43rd Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 02/01/91 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 24, 1991. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: APPROVED ✓APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED 1/4 -tetn•-e--- e' t • 4:7 1 • >3L4 vfrIAAl MG T.14^ / . s . DATE: F '*' s' 1 SIGNATURE OF DIR CTOR OR AUTHORIZ REPRESENTATIVE REV. 5/90 devrvshl amity of Renton Parks and Recron PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM ORYOPRENTON JAN241991 TO: Lenora Blauman, Senior Planner FROM: Christopher Peragine, AIA, Facilities Designer SUBJECT: Valley Medical Center, Final E.I.S. DATE: January 23, 1991 As we discussed today on the telephone, the Department is concerned that our comments have not yet been recognized. These were iterated in an intra-departmental memo between myself and Sam Chastain dated 7/20/90 that was forwarded to your department 7/21/90 (copy attached) . The Trails Master Plan emerges as a primary concern. John Webley remembers that the ERC in its Final Determination for the nearby South 43rd St. L.I.D. directed Public Works to accommodate bicycle/pedestrian trails as per the Master Plan in its improvements to South 43rd Street. That should take care of the southern boundary of the proposed project. However, the eastern boundary, along Springbrook Road (Talbot Road South) , is also a designated trail corridor. The proposed site plan improvements and impact assessment as presented do not yet recognize this potential. Attachment C: John Webley / Sam Chastain M • Cicy of Renton Parks and Recreation MEMORANDUM TO: Sam Chastain, Director Parks and Recreation FROM: Christopher Peragine, AIA, Facilities Designer ej� RE: Valley Medical Center Pre-draft EIS DATE: July 20, 1990 The major Parks Department concern, it seems1would be site plan development - not yet presented in detail. Specifi- cally, the Panther Creek Wetland running north-south along the east edge of SR167 is presently interrupted by the Valley Medical Center. If this proposed further development of the property could address its western edge condition by providing a strip of "green space" of indeterminate and per- haps varying width coordinated with parking and other land- scape requirements benefits would accrue to the: 1) Possible future pedestrian/bicycle path per Pedes- trian Trails Master Plan. 2) Open Space habitat continuity and wetlands preser- vation 3) Vistas to and from SR167. Furthermore, the Valley Medical Center's site plan develop- ment plan should enhance their own employees recreational opportunities. Perhaps they might also be interested in contributing to the Master Trails-Plan and other Department projects that are located nearby, or that are planned for this area. valley WORKS c�o�'� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC ��� ,,'0o216>0 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ".�;� 0 1 4,N 9 9 ECF-063-89; ECF-113-89 APPLICATION NO(S).: CU-063-89; SA-113-89T PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center(Work Order#79063) PROJECT TITLE: 1) Medical Office Bldg;2)Ambulatory Care Center BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This project consists of two distinct Improvements within the Valley Medical Center Campus: 1) a conditional use permit for the development of a new five-level, 110,966 sf medical office building (with outside parking) in a portion of the campus now utilized as a parking lot -- the parking lot will not be replaced as the Medical Center has parking In excess of that permitted under the Parking and Loading Ordinance; and 2) site plan approval for the construction of an Ambulatory Care Center into the now vacant lower level of an existing Psychiatric Services building. Environmental review for these developments has been accomplished through an Environmental Impact Statement which you have previously reviewed; environmental mitigation measures have been established for these developments and are Included in the review file for your information. LOCATION: South 43rd Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 02/01/91 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG.SECTION UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 24, 1991. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ex-wr-e-v* \&-a'li APPROVED /APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED �, l G;jaI.`o1 Pa Gu✓�e��'1%fl�2f T4 7 ����i>i '�GG ,SLie�t‹, l'1li'G Ua he U/fa'%', l./oCe moo 1 eeT;-2t ,�Li�U u✓'Pi GPNc�U� UGr,`s ,-rle�' � ��e'Yi'li u�roP n' mod' "77, 7�1 ✓�c�`G�l G�<7 .�'a�ces 27.74,G Gi��e�. yo tee— vZ Pe%,G/ems pee yaric.`r • .3, , // d/'/ 'l//-',L•C - ( 4 /40 /`t Gr ctc, "�� v yo«2� o,� �y� s�?e�Gsccreey Riore�/ • GUUciO� DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRE TOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 7 ;,/. REV.5/90 devrvsht /�� s'/ ��) a����•�r�// �j�� "�6�� S''� ��� `"./ �✓J� dy.i - �7 �i�� 7��� ��i��A/Y�/'off! DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS ✓ � 4, DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET vt.: /� o29y ECF-063-89; ECF-113-89 APPLICATION NO(S).: CU-063-89; SA-113-89 PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center(Work Order#79063) PROJECT TITLE: 1) Medical Office Bldg;2)Ambulatory Care Center BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This project consists of two distinct improvements within the Valley Medical Center Campus: 1) a conditional use permit for the development of a new five-level, 110,966 sf medical office building (with outside parking) in a portion of the campus now utilized as a parking lot -- the parking lot will not be replaced as the Medical Center has parking in excess of that permitted under the Parking and Loading Ordinance; and 2) site plan approval for the construction of an Ambulatory Care Center Into the now vacant lower level of an existing Psychiatric Services building. Environmental review for these developments has been accomplished through an Environmental Impact State+,,•. t which you have previously reviewed; environmental mitigation measures have been established for these :vt: ' tniM ipcluded in the review file for your information. RE PREVENTION BUREA6 LOCATION: South 43rd Street JAN 'j U 7991 TO: /IEC 'V PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 02/01/91 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION X UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING&TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 24, 1991. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ece_r\-rteV\ APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED - a 7/ ,6) AI 4 a.+-c fru,/ j/,-.1-z- . 4i / 4 S tii�CrcJ a Fees`'.e K ; �t1 i5 / DATE: / / SIGNATURE OF DIREC OR el' UT ORIZ RE SENTATIVE REV.5/90 devnrsht 1/4 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS r�� 0r + DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-063-89; ECF-113-89 APPLICATION NO(S).: CU-063-89; SA-113-89 ,0 PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center(Work Order#79063) PROJECT TITLE: 1) Medical Office Bldg;2) Ambulatory Care Center BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This project consists of two distinct improvements within the Valley Medical Center Campus: 1) a conditional use permit for the development of a new five-level, 110,966 sf medical office building (with outside parking) in a portion of the campus now utilized as a parking lot -- the parking lot will not be replaced as the Medical Center has parking In excess of that permitted under the Parking and Loading Ordinance; and 2) site plan approval for the construction of an Ambulatory Care Center Into the now vacant lower level of an existing Psychiatric Services building. Environmental review for these developments has been accomplished through an Environmental Impact Statement which you have previously reviewed; environmental mitigation measures have been established for these developments and are Included in the review file for your information. LOCATION: South 43rd Street • TO: X PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 02/01/91 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION }(UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING&TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 24, 1991. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Way U P APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS - NOT APPROVED L1 DfrT& Se%e/41/- UTILl7?' 116-4� /7,NIr W Mt 7//a' C./1'1'6F /P NTdrv. 4CO/0/7- wprff 601L/)//YC- ii.-411'11fr Ain/C47/a?V 4 /4,90 ri r.�liyG /I LL Fto'1'r1 `L f Ra1°, ry n NI) 4-1-C U!/�/77 , el774 //7/-7s 5 wN ON /, ,O Got 1 $(5- 5 u/ F.c r Tb Tip ��`lc /r`Y 4-G-WW 7: . 1L N&w w47/ /44/N tV 177//N lc" " t2 47,A4 3, t<i '1 1-rP t /rile' £oOP tlGf vP M) /Ul, 0, g 2 6 e,/ep/n/G 45 A' (3.1Q/9/t/, 0 1!3Y /44145 (4'c- ,4-NP yDrr4'V GOC472 R 41/fRe:m 5// . 1l0 PrC i n- ur,t l 7 K F/u-S CBOT- P/0//YG , 1)F_W-tv aUA'T �Z SF ►'///cam C oM67-rc) #2rOvn►D4117' FFFbs Ya Nl.F77 A TO I'/r, Mo/ re.p Svll'cy wM 5F/Zinc f'. Compt y &bow c try o VON y Np S. 6L176-, Va5/7/ ?�j1 DATE: ' SI N TUR:/.,' DIR C R OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Pi LL /l aVCe'ty fiF Fo�1e0 /1'T 7741E �'l� REV.5/90 devrvsht ' '(7�/t' 6- / 2 'f7 ,Tffi /C47 c / A DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS ' +iy 4,40 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET 4" F �s, ECF-063-89; ECF-113-89 APPLICATION NO(S).: CU-063-89; SA-11‘ 9, PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center(Work Order#79063) "� PROJECT TITLE: 1) Medical Office Bldg;2)Ambulatory Care Center BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This project consists of two distinct improvements within the Valley Medical Center Campus: 1) a conditional use permit for the development of a new five-level, 110,966 sf medical office building (with outside parking) In a portion of the campus now utilized as a parking lot — the parking lot will not be replaced as the Medical Center has parking In excess of that permitted under the Parking and Loading Ordinance; and 2) site plan approval for the construction of an Ambulatory Care Center into the now vacant lower level of an existing Psychiatric Services building.. Environmental review for these developments has been accomplished through an Environmental Impact Statement which you have previously reviewed; environmental mitigation measures have been established for these developments and are.included in the review file for your information. LOCATION: South 43rd Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 02/01/91 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG..SECTION UTILITIES.ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING&TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 24, 1991. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 1Y71. anspY\ZL*1OV\ APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED A- 71--/---2-z-1( DATE: ,) al 7,7/ SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHOR ED REPRESENTATIVE • 1 REV.5/90 dev,vsht VALLEY MEDICAL OFFICE BLDG.II AMBULATORY CARE CENTER South 43rd Street January 25, 1991 1) TMP (Transportation Management Program) to be implemented as outlined in the EIS statement mitigation document. 2) The transportation mitigation fee of $92,798.80 is recommend as outlined in the EIS statement mitigation document. ($22.97 X 4040(trips)=$92,798.80) Deposit to account No. 105/599/318.70.00.65 3) Talbot Rd. S. westside - S.43rd St. to north property line of hospital: The overhead electrical primary conductors and telephone conductors should be undergrounded in coordination with the LID 329 project construction which will widen Talbot Rd. S. at the approach to S. 43rd Street for a added right turn lane. 4) Specific improvement should be specified or recommended for all intersections-listed in the EIS as operating at LOS E or F. 910EM012 '1111 c OPRSIOA/ 7991 VALLEY MEDICAL OFFICE BLDG.II AMBULATORY CARE CENTER South 43rd Street January 25, 1991 1) TMP (Transportation Management Program) to be implemented as outlined in the EIS statement mitigation document. 2) The transportation mitigation fee of $92,798.80 is recommend as outlined in the EIS statement mitigation document. • ($22.97 X 4040(trips)_$92,798.80) 3) Talbot Rd. S. westside- S.43rd St. to north property line of hospital: The overhead electrical primary conductors and telephone conductors should be undergrounded in coordination with the LID 329 project construction which will widen Talbot Rd. S. at the approach to S. 43rd Street for a added right turn lane. 4) Specific improvement should be specified or recommended for all intersection listed in the EIS as operating at LOS E or F. L e ff-ey V // 112.Y5ecfio y t�+�airsi5 t`-0 . r-wov - i �� Ge, d/ �io'.a� ap,p-w7:32-2a..,', 910EM012 r i d� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS c a/4c@ DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET � ' °04' ECF-063-89; ECF-113-89 APPLICATION NO(S).: CU-063-89; SA-113-84h at911/kb PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center(Work Order#79063) PROJECT TITLE: 1) Medical Office Bldg; 2) Ambulatory Care Center BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This project consists of two distinct Improvements within the Valley Medical Center Campus: 1) a conditional use permit for the development of a new five-level, 110,966 sf medical office building (with outside parking) in a portion of the campus now utilized as a parking lot -- the parking lot will not be replaced as the Medical Center has parking In excess of that permitted under the Parking and Loading Ordinance; and 2) site plan approval for the construction of an Ambulatory Care Center Into the now vacant lower level of an existing Psychiatric Services building. Environmental review for these developments has been accomplished through an Environmental Impact Statement which you have previously reviewed; environmental mitigation measures have been established for these developments and are included in the review file for your information. LOCATION: South 43rd Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 02/01/91 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION 7< UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 24, 1991. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: StibkArn e-r— APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED DE516 57-b6141 6v1I-7 ,Dg4/N = 5!( tit liy (co/2D�/���� Ili rhl77°(c) 1/6Y6 Cocx/T-�� r-tip w T�,/< fr74 NO4L ve 1/7-T-A-- Fo1 &//t /t/ G F ANt r perz./c,f 7%tY Sffevo( j rpl C L v0,E. 67aV tit 0,r(1//V M1 1q' 1Nc[.uOltt6- PP-41c /fr yat5 410 -iU!/Lh ,�ouiJyS �4(y / 49-N'TLl/ 75, Dr�i(6N F�cIC,t77es 6QF i v(GRE'230 187 f (o /tI4- ,'c _ cca't _ 0/, A (NGt r l/NGF 7, till/k//fin r�i9 ,_ 5/ zr /5 / 2 ': ffae/i._)) Apieghtialp t� g �� �/G/w//1 v� to c r-,•�G�/��c ro"ld�'1 67-- v c7-110551 AND NOT l hl b(-7, ��4`//\ (JGIvIJ��S.— . chi c( Maim oF- C T%f°, .- , l5,'Qvl-5NT7/.1C.G y nle' 7G9/ail (;/3 /,5, 11 � -e/I/✓j n - DATE: / 2 3 17 SIG TUR 0 DIR OR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Cv 6117 <5 " pGwN IR v 14/P ' N 4 7/77 7 X./a.N°11 TR V. /90 dewvsht 9c./ FL �'r UIvl�cv ( C, ��.-itT 1-0PW-'D 61 TItir E. OP 606, Peg PUT- MILiC71IM- A DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS j °froiyN 4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ' , '997 ECF-063-89; ECF-113-89 APPLICATION NO(S).: CU-063-89; SA-113-89 PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center(Work Order#79063) PROJECT TITLE: 1) Medical Office Bldg;2)Ambulatory Care Center BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This project consists of two distinct improvements within the Valley Medical Center Campus: 1) a conditional use permit for the development of a new five-level, 110,966 sf medical office building (with outside parking) In a portion of the campus now utilized as a parking lot -- the parking lot will not be replaced as the Medical Center has parking in excess of that permitted under the Parking and Loading Ordinance; and 2) site plan approval for the construction of an Ambulatory Care Center Into the now vacant lower level of an existing Psychiatric Services building. Environmental review for these developments has been accomplished through an Environmental Impact Statement which you have previously reviewed; environmental mitigation measures have been established for these developments and are Included in the review file for your information. LOCATION: South 43rd Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 02/01/91 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION )( UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT X DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 24, 1991. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: W U-11i1els APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ,>(l4OT APPROVED V iPDirr 5pg c!4L °77G/r7 46'6E4 n M r- 14'(ice c,r, /04YT-0i7. %6M(7 a,IT7f 4 c-' O //VG- l'/=)/g/7 tit/LlW O 561o4€',/y6- r¢Gz_ hyavi7--iZ it- ND LL, UT'/C 77ES, U r/c. 7-7/''S t-eN 4/" e/Z.c 6 ciP -7 c% 7a U776 1-Y 2, t LL. IV EA, i NHS G '/77V"/V /S ' 3, U C s s 5-0 Pc /o/P, l 6 ' /4 piMs 6-G��„4T�de . No S PFc( Li 77L.(7ry OFFS O vT-spfNo/Arc 5, e(44(/Yr4/1)+ S"' m/Niri7tr41 Gvgcc. re) Ctc4N6NCC �FTw5'-N 57z'M1 Sh(oLv Role 44 y Ds-r4a, comfacY 7, PL' po',F OF 5(//1fO c47 ,y eiNGL 1�, JN57cz,C. GAS 77rQ4P 1906e y- 5rTQi^-4 It4 OP- O( -/G '47FMZ S5-16l-1 �Frf'O!R ll O 4 C, s e - .S 5 (44rl/f/l��Q�/1� DATE: l Z.-j— cr( I NAT�'�/4 F DI E OR OK AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 devrvsht PIA c V/ cis s 0 ONN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS JAN 2 z19 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET elk , 91 ECF-063-89; ECF-113-89 APPLICATION NO(S).: CU-063-89; SA-113-89 PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center(Work Order#79063) PROJECT TITLE: 1) Medical Office Bldg;2)Ambulatory Care Center BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This project consists of two distinct Improvements within the Valley Medical Center Campus: 1) a conditional use permit for the development of a new five-level, 110,966 sf medical office building (with outside parking) in a portion of the campus now utilized as a parking lot -- the parking lot will not be replaced as the Medical Center has parking in excess of that permitted under the Parking and Loading Ordinance; and 2) site plan approval for the construction of an Ambulatory Care Center Into the now vacant lower level of an existing Psychiatric Services building. Environmental review for these developments has been accomplished through an Environmental Impact Statement which you have previously reviewed; environmental mitigation measures have been established for these developments and are included In the review file for your.information. LOCATION: South 43rd Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 02/01/91 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING&TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS:. COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 24, 1991. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: U f'IC ip APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED C Sl LOu.,r 66- LOCIL/V, ILL r J DATE: �1 ZLq I SIGNATURE OF DIREC�OR AUT ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 devivsht pLAN om'oNi DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS p��°��s M,oNv DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET 16 199 ECF-063-89; ECF-113-89 APPLICATION NO(S).: CU-063-89; SA-113-89 PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center(Work Order#79063) PROJECT TITLE: 1) Medical Office Bldg;2)Ambulatory Care Center BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 'This project consists of two distinct improvements within the Valley Medical Center Campus: 1) a conditional use permit for the development of a new five-level, 110,966 sf medical office building (with outside parking) in a portion of the campus now utilized as a parking lot -- the parking lot will not be replaced as the Medical Center has parking In excess of that permitted under the Parking and Loading Ordinance; and 2) site plan approval for the construction of an Ambulatory Care Center into the now vacant lower level of an existing Psychiatric Services building. Environmental review for these developments has been accomplished through an Environmental Impact Statement which you have previously reviewed; environmental mitigation measures have been established for these developments and are included in the review file for your information. LOCATION: South 43rd Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 02/01/91 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT cm'OF FEivrrP DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION `1 CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES �lldLC�l�y.,. 4 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING gaai u..4,8%.41‘1 PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 24, 1991. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: C--0 v-IS c-*1(W\ Sex u APPROVED // APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED 1. Mop roeze-O + � `' et—sC.A-7A s DATE: l SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 /A devwsht 400 Sy;th 41`rd Street Renton, WA 98055 206.228°3450 FAX 206.57502593 cY) Valley Medical Center PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF FISATON JAN 0 4 1991 January 3 , 1991 VED Ms. Mary Lynne Myer Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Project: Valley Medical Center MOB-II, Conditional Use Permit (89008.00) Dear Ms. Myer, The following is to supplement the justification required for a Conditional Use Application to construct a 57-foot high medical office building on the existing Valley Medical Center campus. As a result of comments received from the public in connection with the preparation of an EIS for the above-indicated project, it was felt that some additional information should be provided as part of the Conditional Use Application. The following shall address two of the eleven factors to be considered in evaluating the criteria for granting a Conditional Use Permit under RMC 4-748 (c) . Community Need (RMC 4-748 (c) (2) ) In the determination of community need, the Hearing Examiner is to consider the following factors, among all other relevant information: 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. Valley Medical Center is an acute care facility owned and operated by Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County. A hospital, by its nature, tends to attract physicians who use the hospital and other health care professionals to its vicinity. As the surrounding community has grown in population, Valley Medical Center has attempted to grow in order to meet the demands of the community. The hospital has been fortunate in that it has had the land on which to expand its services. As the delivery of health care has resulted in increased specialization of health care professionals, the demand for such health care professionals to be Ms. Mary Lynne Myer January 3 , 1991 Page 2 located near the hospital has increased significantly. Thus, the growth of Valley Medical Center and the changes in health care delivery have, indeed, resulted in increased concentration of medical office space and related facilities around the hospital. Valley Medical Center is not unique in its development, but merely is emulating all other major hospital and medical center facilities in the country. The result is a benefit to the patients and community, as it results in easier access to health care facilities and a greater utilization of high technology medical resources. A concern has been raised that Valley Medical Center is over- building medical office space in the vicinity of the hospital. The demand for on-campus medical office space connected to the hospital has been great. In early 1989, the Talbot Professional Center was opened on the Valley Medical Center campus and was 100% leased prior to breaking ground. Because of this demand, Valley Medical Center has proceeded with the development of MOB-II. This project is expected to be 100% subscribed upon completion. Physicians, particularly those who are specialists and who utilize the hospital facilities in their practice, desire to be close to the hospital facilities. The result is greater convenience for the physician, a "one-stop shopping" concept for the patient, and less driving between healthcare facilities which impacts other members of the community. As the community of Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County has grown in population, additional physicians have joined the staff of Valley Medical Center. This is largely the result of physicians recognizing that the growth in the area is creating a demand for their services. The reputation of Valley Medical Center has attracted physicians as well. In addition, the community is becoming recognized for its high standards of livability. Hospital data indicate that the Valley Medical Center medical staff has grown by approximately three physicians per month over the last four years. A physician in private practice typically will occupy between 1000-1500 square feet of medical office space for a private practice. Thus, it is anticipated that the vacancies created by MOB-II will be absorbed in less than twenty-four months. In addition, as Valley Medical Center grows and provides new out- patient services, the hospital continues to absorb medical office space itself. In the last twenty-four months the hospital has leased approximately 13,500 square feet of what was previously private medical office space. Examples of the hospital ' s off-site outpatient services include the Wellness Center, an outpatient hand therapy clinic, the HMR Weight Loss Program, and an occupational • medicine program expected to commence in mid-1991. The hospital anticipates that each of these programs will expand in the near future and other new services will be added as well. In general, the absorption rates for medical office space in the Valley Medical Center community are directly related to the age of the facility and the proximity of the facility to the hospital campus. In conclusion, the concentration of health care services around Valley Medical Center is not a detriment -to the community but is, in fact, a benefit to the patients, the physicians and the community. B. That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. As indicated above, Valley Medical Center is fortunate that it has land for expansion for the provision of health care services. By locating physicians on the hospital campus, the hospital makes the provision of health care services more con- venient for the physician and the patient. By connecting MOB-II to the hospital by a corridor, patients are encouraged to walk or be transported internally from MOB-II to the hospital as opposed to driving. The Valley Medical Center Long Range Plan submitted to the City of Renton in 1987 indicates that the north campus, on which the Talbot Professional Center is located and MOB-II is proposed to be located, is an ideal site for medical office space because of the close proximity to other outpatient services and to the parking garage currently under construction. Demand for medical office space, as evidenced by the 100% occupancy level of the Talbot Professional Center and the interest in MOB-II by physician tenants, indicates that the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. C. Other relevant information which may be considered by the Hearing Examiner. Valley Medical Center is owned and operated by Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County. In accordance with Washington state law, "public hospital districts are authorized to own and operate hospitals and other health care facilities and to provide hospital services and other health care services. " The Board of Commis- sioners of Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County are elected by the members of the district. As elected officials, the Board members are authorized to determine what health care facilities and other health care services best fit the needs of district residents and other persons. Thus, the community need for the proposed project has been determined by individuals who are directly accountable to the electors of the community. Community Need (RMC 4-748 (c) (3) ) Effect on adjacent properties. It has been suggested by members of the public, through the public comment process with regard to the Environmental Impact [, y e Ms. Mary Lynne Myer January 3, 1991 Page 4 Statement for MOB-II, that an analysis of local medical office markets should be performed because of the criteria for Conditional Use that requires the Hearing Examiner to consider the effect on adjacent properties. However, RMC 4-748 (C) 3 clearly indicates that the effect on adjacent properties is to be analyzed in terms of physical effects. The criteria to be analyzed includes lot coverage, yards, and height. No mention of economic effect on adjacent properties is made in the Ordinance. Thus, any such comments by members of the public clearly are attempts to lessen competition for tenants. As indicated above, the unique charac- teristics and location of MOB-II create a distinct demand for physicians who would not otherwise choose to be located off the hospital campus. Valley Medical Center would be happy to respond to any questions concerning the above criteria by the Hearing Examiner at the public hearing scheduled for February 5, 1991. Very my yours, Eric J. Th an General C sel cc: Valley Medical Center: John Scott, Assistant Administrator Romulo Almeda, Director of Engineering Mahlum & Nordfors: Dan Jardine JS:psd ..:::::.--.',.. jiiiiiiiigl$II:likii•iii:Iiiiiiniiiii•geiNiE F. .!.t.,RNItO0Hiii•ii::::::11iiiiii 'ii.:••ii:•::!!.:::•:::•••:.iiii:•:Iiii:•:iiiigiiig:•:•:gisi..:.:::::!::•:Iiiiiiiii!iii:•gii.!!igiiilliiigi.... ::::::isi.i.....iii::::i RT .:' :< : ::>::<:.•,:•>::.>,:•..•.:':•:,::.:::.:• ,•:••:•.'.:,:.:. .............. MUD. IVT4F:�:i:•*: ..;: ....G .. .U1 DIN.G. .P.4IBLIC,WORK$.::::::..::.'::.:•::::.'::.':.':::::.'.,.:....'.•.':'::::..:.•:.'.: :•::•::•:•:::'::::'::::.::•:::«•::::•::•:>:.>::'::.::::•»:::::>::: :: ii::::::::::::::;»>:::::::::::::;:::>:.::>:.:.>::.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.>:...::..::..:.:.:.:.::..::....:.:.: : .. . : :. :::: ::::. . : ............-1�YP.. ..0........ . ..... ..CA....I.O.N..:& .FEES.. . ....... NAME: ;.,,,,;;,,,V.ALLEY MEDICAL CENTER _REZONE $ l ''; _SPECIAL PERMIT $ ., .. TEMPORARY PERMIT $ 'e,P-o ADDRESS: '` 4QA'Y:SOUTH 43RD STREET X CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ 1 O 66- _SITE PLAN APPROVAL. $ • CITY: RENTOIJ.; WA _SPECIAL PERMIT $ ZIP: 98055 _GRADE& FILL PERMIT $ ., .. o - (NO. CU.YDS: ) • —VARIANCE $ TELEPHONE NUMBER: (206) 228-3450 (FROM SECTION: ) _WAIVER $ ROUTINE VEGETATION G.'::.:.1NI::ACT:.:PER:S0.0.:A.P.PLIGA.NT. .>:':.::•:: — MANAGEMENT PERMIT ::>:;:::::;;::::< .::.....,:•: .:.:.::: . .::::..'' .:.:.:.::.::.::::::. :.:::.: :...»: ::.:: ::.::> :.:;::>:::::: BINDING SITE PLAN $ NAME: DAN JARDINE _ c/o MAHLUM & NORDFORS SHORELINE PERMIT: ADDRESS: 2505 THIRD AVENUE _SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ SUITE 219 _CONDITIONAL USE $ VARIANCE . $ CITY: SEATTLE, WA ZIP: 98121 _EXEMPTION • . , REVISION — TELEPHONE NUMBER: •(206) 441-4151 SUBDIVISION: :.: ....:: :::..E..........:.. .......... ......... ............:........ ....... .:...... LOT LINE ADJU STMENT NT ROJGTINFQRMATIQf :.>; : :.: SHORT.PLAr :.::• :.:•> :.>:;<.:.:< :..: ::: . : : _ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: _PRELIMINARY PLAT $ VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER _FINAL PLAT $ MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING II NO. OF LOTS: PLAT NAME: PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: 400 SOUTH 43RD STREET PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ RENTON, WA 98055 _PRELIMINARY KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): FINAL 312 305-9002 MOBILE HOME PARKS: • $ • EXISTING LAND USE(S): _TENTATIVE PRELIMINARY HOSPITAL FINAL EXISTING ZONING: • _(ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ 5'0 • P-1 PROJECT VALUE: $ 5,Z M 1 c-U ttn! SENSITIVE AREA: NO PROPOSED LAND USE(S): APA: _1 _2 _OTHER _CFI%� SEWER MORATORIUM AREA: YES NO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING: — PROPOSED ZONING: TOTAL FEES: $ 1,204.00 POSTAGE PROVIDED: X YES NO P-1 SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): • 60,000 SF (1.4 ACRES) PLANNING DIVISION S S t �ca�' It n...a.ba. :: :• 4rrl .e.ed:..b`�:�.C.. . sXaff�;::;: ::{:: :: :::: ::::::: �;: ; :�: :�;;;::>;;:i� : :::;;; : ::;�:; ::�: �::;is�:;<::::::::::•:::>::is::::::::::::::: :::�:� ::;:;::;: ;;:::::;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:: I L A .. . . . . .q.p4§e at ach:.<• separ tp::•:.: ::.:•:.:: > > > > : �> < �If'�nor s ce s e :.;•:;<•:;•>:.:.:•:;•:::: ::;::: :::::: :::::::: : .....(....... ..::::..P......:.. :.::requ K.e ,.p.ea..c..: tac....a. e . .a..e. ..e. .. ........ ... . ............... . ...:.: .:•::..:..::::::.: • SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION • • • >FFI Qf:.! I<A •A. I, 1 p l� i� , being'duly'sworn, declare'that I'am check one; X the authorized ¶E ? , Y (please ) _ representativle to act for the property owner, the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements a d answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my k owledge and belief. SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS g69DAY O 977..-/-4,-.., , 19 V/ . NOTARY PU LIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGT N, RESIDING AT:.-, > -640 ,- 2---2-- . 9 tuts .r of _ L., -rd.fF it, / �, . (Name of N 1 ary P-ublic): (Sig :ture of Owner) lD 6 E ,LIi.=;,7-t°!004d Dr, `(i(J 400 SOUTH 43RD STREET , (Address) c, (Address) d,_4 L/ �' /f3� RENTON, WA 98055 (City/State/ ip) (City/State/Zip) (Ji6J EL/— sa 3 . (206) 251-5141 (Telephone) (Telephone) • Acceptanc of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other material required to onstitute a complete app"---ion are listed in the"Application Procedui RtnMastr 11/90 Owner Valley Medical Center Address 400 South 43rd Street Renton,Washington 98055 King County Tax Assessor's Account Number (312) 305-9002 Legal Description All that portion of the north half of the northeast quarter of Section 31, Township 213 north, Range 5 east, W.M. lying northerly on the north margin of south 180th Street, westerly of the west margin pf Springbrook Road (Talbot Hill Road) (96th Avenue South); easterly of Primary State Highway No. 5 (East valley Freeway). Located on south 180th Street between Valley Freeway on the west 96th Avenue South on the east. } `,F R4, 11? � >, ECF: ;In] a Z City of Renton LU: o NMI ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST co SEPTEM� Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43,21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for allproposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency Identify.Impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and.to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your - proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise Information known, or give the best description you can. You 'must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do'not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.' Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer, these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. \ . . Use of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals: (Please Type or Print.Legibly) Complete this ,checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION. complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Valley Medical Center Additions, 5 story medical office building. 2. Name of applicant: Valley Medical Center, Public Hospital..District #1 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Ms. Monica Brennan Chief Operations Officer Valley Medical Center 400 South 43rd Street, Renton, WA . (206) 228-3450 4. Date checklist prepared: May, 1989 S. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Buildiong and Zoning Department 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): • Start Construction February, 1990 Completion March, 1991 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON JAM 0 8 1991 tEGOV D 7. Do you' have any plan it future additions, expansions, or' ther activity related to or connected with this proposal? if yes, explain. No 6. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. • None 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If,yes, explain. None 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Conditional use permit and building permit fromthe City of Renton. 1. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The•proposed project consists of the following: - A five (5) story medical off ice building (approximately 100,000 GSF) containing an auditorium on the first floor.(of approximately 2,000 GSF) serving the hospital staff and the community. The approximate site area directly impacted by. construction is 60,000 SF. • 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for .a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide. the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topography 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. 400 South 43rd Street, Renton, Washington Proposed improvements would be made at the north end of the Valley Medical Center site, which is located at the NW .corner of the intersection of South 43rd Street and Talbot Road, just east of SR167. 'NE 1/4 section 31, T23N, ., R5E, W.M. ' a. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS ' 1. EARTH • ' a. General description .-of...the Site (circle one); flat, rolling;, hilly. steep slopes, mountainous(othed Moderately shaping hillside. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 40-50% on side slope of ditches and embankments, steepest slope in project C. What is general types of soils are found on the site (for example, caly, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classieication of agricultural soils. specify them and note any prime farmland. From soil survey, King Count y__area, Washington, by SCS, November, 1973, onsite soils are A.iderwood g'aveil:y. sandyloam (unified soil classification "SM") . The architectural tepabiitty classification is IV E-2. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate . vicinity? If so, describe. None • - 2 • - , a.' Describe the rpose, type, and approximate qu ties of any filling or ' • grading propC___J. Indicate source of fill. Constru -Dn will be substantially at existing grades. Grading will be required for access areas, plus some excavation and regrading around building. Material quantities will • be balanced on site, however some. structural fill will be imported. f. Could erosion occur as a result of: clearing, construction, or use? If so. generally describe. Erosion could occur during construction as impervious cover is removed and excavation performed, exposing bare soil. • g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? . Total hospital property equals 32 acres. Before construction of project- approximately 70% impervious/after construction of project - approximately 71% impervious. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth. if any: A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan will be prepared and implemented to control erosion during the construction process. Proper grading and revegatation of the finished project will prevent erosion upon completion of the construction process. _ 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. Exhaust emissions 'from construction equipment and vehicles would occur during construction. Some increase in automobile exhaust would result from increased traffic generated by the completed project. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission? ' No, except vehicle exhaust from, traffic on adjacent street. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air. if any: Proper maintenence and operation of construction equipment to control exhaust 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. ,A small stream flows' through a ravine north :of the site, thence north and west through the Valley drainage system and into the Black river. There is also a local wetland area in the low area northeast of the site. 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.. None 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 • - 3 - 4) Will the pro,^^ril require surface water withdra%, ' or diversions? Give general desci on. purpose. and approximately qu !ties if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so. note location on the site plan.. No 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 appaoximately quantities if known. No 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): "''4.; 00, 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. I i t; One site stormwater runoff from the proposed improvements will be -:' collected in an underground drainage system and routed to an outlet Ct. at the NW corner of the site, ultimately reaching the Valley drainage - '��.�•'';, system. 4 J1r`7 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. • Parking lot runoff may contain oily waste from vehicles usipg the lots. 0,; I,eikiJly�i�'i •.j,M1ArF 4�,;, • 7 4ptp�. �Ys'�•1:,�5 - 4 d. Proposed m© 'es to reduce or control surface, Jnd, and runoff water impacts, if a7. Parking lots will be graded to`arain away from the ravine and wetlands area, preventing direct developed runoff from reaching these areas. The on site drainage system will incorporate oil-water seperators to improve water quality. On site detention will be provided as required byiRenton Public Works Department. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: KK deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ]i( evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other o Shrubs F grass o crop or grain lax Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other o water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other O other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Existing Flowering Crabtrees and Junipers planted in the parking islands will be removed or relocated. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. , Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Wetland area vegetation will be protected from construction operations. Buildings and parking areas will be landscaped to match existing development' on the site: 5. Animals • a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawk, heron, eagle u s•. d-, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, o er small Rodents Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, s e lsh, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be,on or near the site. None C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No - 5 - , • d. Proposed me_ as to preserve or enhance wildlife, ny: Landscaping and garden areas will provide some. habitat for Songbirds currently on site. • 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.. Natural Gas-fired boiler (existing on site) will provide heat for proposed new buildings, fuel oil provides a back-up source. Electricity will be used for lighting, and electrical power needs. • 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: • Meet or exceed all energy code requirements. 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. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None . • 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise from adjacent streets and roadways. - 6 - 2) What types a... .ovals of noise would be created t,._.-`r 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. Short-term noise due to construction (limited to daylight hours). Long-term noise impacts - traffic noise generated by arrival and departure of doctors, patients, and staff. These impacts would be spread throughout the day. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Proposed building placement takes advantate of site topography to protect building from offsite traffic noise. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? - Site contains existing hospital facilities. Proposed project will be to the west of an existing medical office building and:.parking areas. - NE, East, and South of site are medical offices and associated uses, with a few residence. . - North and NW of site is vacant land-greenbelt area along drainage ravine. - West of site is freeway ramp and SR 167. West of freeway is mixed commercial. • b. • Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. None in construction area. • d. Will any structures be demolished? If so. what? No • e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? P-1 (Public Zone) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? • Public/Quasi-public . g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A • h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? At times of maximum usage, approximately 300-400 people would be occupying the compled project. j. , Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None . k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None - - 7 - 1. Proposed mei,, _,es to ensure the proposal is comj,. :.ble with existing, and projected land uses and plans, if any: Project will comply with requirements for existing P-1 zone. • 9. Housing • a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None • i b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle. or low-income housing. . None 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. The project is a five (5) story office building. The building will be 57 feet tall, its .roofline will be 27 feet lower than adjacent Medicalpi office building.ss�gd Buildinggi exterior will be��ccp�rre-cast in appearance b. What views in the immediate vicinitywoula be alterea or obstrsucted?tructures. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts. if any: The proposed buildings will be visually consistant .with the existing campus development.. The location of the building on the existing sloping topography will minimize the impact on existing. views from • adjacent roads and buildings. • 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The building will not to externally lighted, and the only light from this source will come from within the building through the windows. Vehicle loading zones and pedestrian areas will be provided with luminaires for light-time illumination. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be .a. safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. Site is screened from vehicle headlights on SR167 by roadside embankments and vegetation. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare Impacts, if any'_ Lighting for vehicle loading and pedestrian areas will be designed and oriented to provide necessary onsite illumination, without directing glare to offsite areas. - 8 - 12. Recreation a. What designated and Informal recreational opportunities are in the • immediate vicinity? . None b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project, or applicant, if 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 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. ' Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. Transportation See attached Transporation Impact Anaylsis by Transporatation Planning & Engineering, inc. dated March 29, 1989 for discussion of items a,b,d,f,& a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans. if any. Access will be by existing site curb cuts on Talbot Road and South 43rd Stree b. ' Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximately distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many. would the project eliminate? Existing Parking Stalls = 1677 Spaces lost due to construction = 91 Total Stalls Available = 1586 Project will require approximately 360 stalls A arking Utili tion S udd byJacobson and Ass is currently inder°way and ill by submitte to he city in Mid-June. 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). - 9 - e. Will the pro use (or occur in the immediate city of) water. rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. • The hospital is served by an existing helicopter landing pad near the southeast corner of the site. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, If any: 1 S. 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. The proposed improvements should not require a significant increase in the level of public services already provided for the existing hospital. The project will enhance and provide additional health care services to the community.Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.. None 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: (electricity natural ga Ovate reuse serviblyCelephon� sanitary sewe septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Utility services will generally be provided by extension of services lines from the existing hospital facility. Necessary connections will be made as part of the proposed building construction. C. SIGNATURE I. the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be y willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: M . ROMULO ALMEDA D RECTOR OF ENGINEERING Valley Medical Center • - 10 - #176 11-8-84 • City of Renton Community Development Department Municipal building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Conditional Use Permit,Valley Medical Center-Medical Office Building II Dear Sirs: The following is the project narrative required for conditional use application to construct a fifty-seven (57) foot high medical office building on the existing Valley Medical Center campus PROJECT SCOPE The project consists of construction of a 5-story medical office building of approximately 110,970 square feet in an existing paved parking area in the northwest portion of the Valley medical Center campus, north of the Hospital and the Psychiatry Wing and west of Talbot Professional Center. The building will be linked to the existing parking garage and.Talbot Professional Center via enclosed pedestrian bridges. The site around the building will be enhanced with landscaping and the parking areas reconfigured to accomodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic and to maintain fire access. PROPOSED USES The first floor of the 5-story medical office building will be devoted to hospital related uses including a conference center consisting of a 200 seat auditorium, meeting rooms, classrooms, and kitchen. Additional space would serve as offices for the education department, human resources, and the hospital's credit union. Upper floors of the building will contain leasable space for physicians and is expected to be used as offices, clinics, and laboratories, similar to that at Talbot Professional Center. PROJECT SCHEDULE The construction of the medical office building will occur in a single phase. Sitework is scheduled to begin in December of 1990 with construction of the building to follow in February of 1991. Completion of the building is scheduled for January 1992 with the first tenant spaces completed in June of 1992. PLANNING DIVISION DCJ/tre CITY OF RENTON 89008.00 JAN - 81991 ECEIVED October 8, 1990 City of Renton Community Development Department Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,Washington 98055 Project: Valley Medical Center MOB II, Conditional Use Permit(89008.00) Dear Sirs: The following is the item-by-item justification required for conditional use application to construct a 57-foot-high medical office building on the existing Valley Medical Center campus (Section 4-710(B)3.f and 4-710(B)3.h). Comprehensive Plan The city of Renton's zoning ordinance designates the existing Public Hospital's land as P-1 "...to provide and protect suitable environments for social and physical services and facilities." The owner's intention is to provide the public with medical services and, by location on the existing campus, access to the diagnostic and therapeutic facilities of Valley Medical Center, Public Hospital District No. 1. The City of Renton's comprehensive plan designates the area for "public or quasi-public use." The proposed medical office building will provide the public with access to various medical specialists and will allow the patients convenient access to the facilities of Valley Medical Center. In addition, the proposed conference center on the first floor will provide space to meet the increasing and continuing educational needs of doctors, nurses, support staff, and community health care for the public. Community Need The demand for medical services and the subsequent need for additional medical space has been and is expected to continue to increase. Valley Medical Center, Public Hospital District No. 1, is a leader in providing quality medical services to the surrounding community. This well-deserved reputation will continue to attract physicians to the area. The existing medical office space available within a mile of Valley Medical Center is at 95-percent occupancy, and the need for additional space will continue to increase. By locating this medical office building within the existing hospital's boundaries, the impact on the adjacent residential community is minimized, the proximity of services is enhanced, and the physical boundaries of the present medical office area has not been increased. PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON • - JAN - 81991 _. City of Renton Conditional Use Permit VMC MOB II October 8, 1990 Page 2 Effect on Adjacent Properties The proposed medical office building will be located on an interior portion of Valley Medical Center's existing site. All required lot setbacks will conform with the requirements of the City of Renton zoning code. Lot coverage shall conform to the requirements for a P-1 zoning. (See below [Section 4- 710(D)3] for building height discussion.) Compatibility Size The proposed medical office building II has a footprint of 21,600 square feet and is similar in scale to the Talbot Professional Center, with a footprint of 18,400 square feet. Valley Medical Center, the dominant structure in the area,has a footprint of 110,400 square feet. The large site and Valley Medical Center's expansive footprint have created a scale in which the proposed building will appear appropriate. Height The proposed medical office building II is 57 feet high. The attached sections and elevations show that the lower level is predominantly earth-sheltered. The datum point for the building is 10 feet above the lowest grade, i.e., elevation 46.00'. The top of the roof deck is at elevation 103.00'. For comparison, the Talbot Professional Center has a roof deck at approximate elevation 130.00' and the existing hospital's roof deck is at elevation 103.00'. To accommodate the mechanical and electrical requirements of the first floor conference center, the floor-to-floor height for the first floor is 15 feet. The less stringent requirements of the four medical office floors above allow a floor-to-floor height of 13 feet. Floor-to-floor heights less than the above compromise the functions and uses that can be accommodated in the building. The proposed building will have less visual impact than the Talbot Professional Center. The proposed building is west and down slope from Talbot Road. Seen from Talbot Road, or State Route 167, the proposed building roof deck is below the roof deck of the adjacent Talbot Professional Center. This lower roof elevation combined with a location near the center of the site (630 feet from Talbot Road) minimizes the overall building height. Being located north of the existing hospital and south of the parking garage minimizes view blockage or adverse shadowing. City of Renton Conditional Use Permit VMC MOB II October 8, 1990 Page 3 Style The homogeneity of the existing campus is an asset that should be preserved. The proposed building-will respect the existing hospital's architecture through the use of similar colors, materials, and design motifs. The above three items elaborate the ways in which the proposed building will be compatible with the scale and appearance of the Valley Medical Center campus and surrounding development. Parking Onsite, structured parking will be provided for the medical office building II. Stalls lost by demolition of existing parking will be replaced in the parking garage expansion scheduled to bid on October 4, 1990, and be completed prior to occupancy of the proposed medical office building II. Parking areas, created between the medical office building II and the Psychiatry Wing,will be landscaped. Traffic By the year 1995, the proposed building would generate an additional 4,040 vehicular trips per week. The approved tunnel L.I.D. project, expected to begin construction in 1991, will help relieve the increased traffic congestion expected with the development. Noise/Glare The proposed medical office building II will not be externally lighted. The existing green belt to the north will provide a buffer between the site and the residential zoning beyond the green belt. Directional lighting will be placed in dropoff areas and pedestrian walkways adjacent to the building. There should be no noticeable increase to the noise and glare created by State Route 167. Landscaping Landscaping will be provided compatible with the existing campus development. Landscaping between pedestrian paths and exterior courts and vehicular circulation will be used to create visual and auditory buffers. To maintain a uniform appearance within the campus, similar trees, shrubs, and groundcover will comprise the landscaping palette. Accessory Use Not applicable. City of Renton Conditional Use Permit VMC MOB II October 8, 1990 • Page 4 Conversion Not applicable. Public Improvements Please refer to L.I.D. improvements referenced in the "Draft Transportation Impact Analysis" prepared by Transportation Planning and Engineering,Incorporated. 89008.00 L002.DCJ 400 South 43rd Street Renton, WA 98055 / :�,`:.206._.28.3450 f+< FAX 2593 .%. Valley A Z Medical Center January 3 , 1991 :. .411v NG®IvISION j - 8 In 91 Ms. Mary Lynne Myer ECIv Senior Planner �` � Community Development Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Project: Valley Medical Center MOB-II, Conditional Use Permit (89008.00) Dear Ms. Myer, The following is to supplement the justification required for a Conditional Use Application to construct a 57-foot high medical office building on the existing Valley Medical Center campus. As a result of comments received from the public in connection with the preparation of an EIS for the above-indicated project, it was felt that some additional information should be provided as part of the Conditional Use Application. The following shall address two of the eleven factors to be considered in evaluating the criteria for granting a Conditional Use Permit under RMC 4-748 (c) . Community Need (RMC 4-748 (c) (2) ) In the determination of community need, the Hearing Examiner is to consider the following factors, among' all other relevant information: 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. Valley Medical Center is an acute care facility owned and operated by Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County. A hospital, by its nature, tends to attract physicians who use the hospital and other health care professionals to its vicinity. As the surrounding community has grown in population, Valley Medical Center has attempted to grow in .order to meet the demands of the community. The hospital has been fortunate in th4tA �h the land on which to expand its services. As the deAye Rii ealth care has resulted in increased specialization ofealt care professionals, the demand for such health care prof9Mlio04191to be • ECEWWED Ms. Mary Lynne Myer January 3 , 1991 Page 2 located near the hospital has increased significantly. Thus, the growth of Valley Medical Center and the changes in health care delivery have, indeed, resulted in increased concentration of medical office space and related facilities around the hospital. Valley Medical Center is not unique in its development, but merely is emulating all other major hospital and medical center facilities in the country. The result is a benefit to the patients and community, as it results in easier access to health care facilities and a greater utilization of high technology medical resources. A concern has been raised that Valley Medical Center is over- building medical office space in the vicinity of the hospital. The demand for on-campus medical office space connected to the hospital has been great. In early 1989, the Talbot Professional Center was opened on the Valley Medical Center campus and was 100% leased prior to breaking ground. Because of this demand, Valley Medical Center has proceeded with the development of MOB-II. This project is expected to be 100% subscribed upon completion. Physicians, particularly those who are specialists and who utilize the hospital facilities in their practice, desire to be close to the hospital facilities. The result is greater convenience for the physician, a "one-stop shopping" concept for the patient, and less driving between healthcare facilities which impacts other members of the community. As the community of Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County has grown in population, additional physicians have joined the staff of Valley Medical Center. This is largely the result of physicians recognizing that the growth in the area is creating a demand for their services. The reputation of Valley Medical Center has attracted physicians as well. In addition, the community is becoming recognized for its high standards of livability. Hospital data indicate that the Valley Medical Center medical staff has grown by approximately three physicians per month over the last four years. A physician in private practice typically will occupy between 1000-1500 square feet of medical office space for a private practice. Thus, it is anticipated that the vacancies created by MOB-II will be absorbed in less than twenty-four months. In addition, as Valley Medical Center grows and provides new out- patient services, the hospital continues to absorb medical office space itself. In the last twenty-four months the hospital has leased approximately 13 , 500 square feet of what was previously private medical office space. Examples of the hospital 's off-site outpatient services include the Wellness Center, an outpatient hand therapy clinic, the HMR Weight Loss Program, and an occupational medicine program expected to commence in mid-1991. The hospital anticipates that each of these programs will expand in the near future and other new services will be added as well. In general, the absorption rates for medical office space in the Valley Medical Center community are directly related to the age of the facility and the proximity of the facility to the hospital campus. In conclusion, the concentration of health care services around Valley Medical Center is not a detriment to the community but is, in fact, a benefit to the patients, the physicians and the community. B. That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. As indicated above, Valley Medical Center is fortunate that it has land for expansion for the provision of health care services. By locating physicians on the hospital campus, the hospital makes the provision of health care services more con- venient for the physician and the patient. By connecting MOB-II to the hospital by a corridor, patients are encouraged to walk or be transported internally from MOB-II to the hospital as opposed to driving. The Valley Medical Center Long Range Plan submitted to the City of Renton in 1987 indicates that the north campus, on which the Talbot Professional Center is located and MOB-II is proposed to be located, is an ideal site for medical office space because of the close proximity to other outpatient services and to the parking garage currently under construction. Demand for medical office space, as evidenced by the 100% occupancy level of the Talbot Professional Center and the interest in MOB-II by physician tenants, indicates that the proposed location is suited for the proposed. use. C. Other relevant information which may be considered by the Hearing Examiner. Valley Medical Center is owned and operated by Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County. In accordance with Washington state law, "public hospital districts are authorized to own and operate hospitals and other health care facilities and to provide hospital services and other health care services. " The Board of Commis- , sioners of Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County are elected by the members of the district. As elected officials, the Board members are authorized to determine what health care facilities and other health care services best fit the needs of district residents and other persons. Thus, the community need for the proposed project has been determined by individuals who are directly accountable to the electors of the community. Community Need (RMC 4-748 (c) (3) ) Effect on adjacent properties. It has been suggested by members of the public, through the public comment process with regard to the Environmental Impact Ms. Mary Lynne Myer January 3, 1991 Page 4 Statement for MOB-II, that an analysis of local medical office markets should be performed because of the criteria for Conditional Use that requires the Hearing Examiner to consider the effect on adjacent properties. However, RMC 4-748 (C) 3 clearly indicates that the effect on adjacent properties is to be analyzed in terms of physical effects. The criteria to be analyzed includes lot coverage, yards, and height. No mention of economic effect on adjacent properties is made in the Ordinance. Thus, any such comments by members of the public clearly are attempts to lessen competition for tenants. As indicated above, the unique charac- teristics and location of MOB-II create a distinct demand for physicians who would not otherwise choose to be located off the hospital campus. Valley Medical Center would be happy to respond to any questions concerning the above criteria by the Hearing Examiner at the public hearing scheduled for February 5, 1991. Very,:truly)yours, / Eric J Thoman General Counsel J cc: Valley Medical Center: John Scott, Assistant Administrator Romulo Almeda, Director of Engineering Mahlum & Nordfors: JS:psd A MAHLUM & NORDr-1 Lin °n3 OF TAQOSED1 flJ Architecture, Facility Planning eriors �� 2505 Third Avenue Suite 219 Seattle, Washington 98121 DATE / JOB O. • (206) 441-4151 ATTEN ION Fax (206) 441-0478 �e�(/�,E��� A//ce/j/{ , / RE. TO en O i"C9.6(/7/ r A.J 'AIOii//�,t.0.64 .4e/i/96jt/T 0�i' '`� �: i > WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached ElUnder separate cover via iii,A/c0 the following items: El Shop drawings ❑ Prints El-Plans El Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION /(.44 ) 4#76fa* /Di(/4,i/aiir cF . w / /,1 3 elc/1///g4 c%fd Glle,aKe/ XIAJUAA / s . u,<i V,v6 /020,.6 YY .v✓iv/,e4 p /I 0 ,0 Aeov,s , icy W 1 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval XFor your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution > El As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints El For review and comment El El FOR BIDS DUE 19 _ ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS PLANNING DIVISION OTdy or rdElsyy oN JAN 0 9 1991 • COPY TO SIGNED:� i�D/.�/_� PRODUCT240-3 /n B J Inc,Croton,Mass 01471. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. MAHLUM & NORDFC®" ILEUM R OF U.ALpRS ITTAI. Architecture, Facility Planning, priors 2505 Third Avenue Suite 219 P Seattle, Washington 98121 — DATE / NO 602 00 (206) 441-4151 Fax (206) 441-0478 11111 _f TO C/7"X G/ / a , > WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached CIUnder separate cover via the following items: ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION "fr.- uvr c7cs c 1e 2 1/sue y /t,t,(1s THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval or your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS —my:yG,,DIVIS/ON CPS �� ON JAN081997 COPY TO SIGNED: PRODUCT 2403 /A a/Inc,Groton,Mass 01471. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify u t o cn e. .. ...................... ....... .. . ....... CITYzO ' R T V- MEN`I':���� > zz �`= �>���`.� :::': :::::: z::::::::::::>: >:: <; ::::::::::. RTMEN:7's :OF<>:C.OI"INIi7N:ZT:�C:zDE. FLOP .................................... .. • IIIIIIIIIIIIIIMEnliegitaibktraliiinglag,11111111WN ..: : - :::::::: :::::::::::: ::::: :::::O.TI:F:ICAT:I O�N�:O:F:P:RO.P:E:RTY.O•i.......................................... -4).D:•:.f.e.et:::- f :tb.:0a:sub::;; :t :s t :::::::<=::::>::::: ::::=::::;:::::::..:..withn:................................... ••7 • ***FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY*** 'PROJECT TITLE: MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING II APPLICANT: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER - APPLICATION NUMBER: A_ j 0(03_gc .LB) � S gq • The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Community Development Department will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER• Plastic 17930 Talbot Road South 312305-9135 & Reconstructive Renton, WA 98055 Surgeons Renton Valley 17900 Talbot Road South 312305-9134 79 Associates" Renton, '-WA 98.055 Valley Eye Clinic 17824 Springbrook Road South 761680-0010 - ' Paul N. Joos Renton, WA 98055 Pacific Medical 17800 Talbot Road South 761680-0030' Center Renton, WA 98055 , _ • The Doctor Place •• - Glenn A. Patchen c/o Executive House, Inc. 761680-0050 ' .. Springbrook • 7517 Greenwood Avenue North Medical Center Seattle, WA 98103 (17722 Springbrook Road South) • Valley Urology 3764 SW 171st 761680-0290 . . (17620 Springbrook Seattle, WA 98166 Road South) Lynn R. Frary • . Springbrook 17600 Talbot Road South - 312305-9QMj Professional Park Renton, WA 98055 . CfTYp Alan F. Wilson JAN081991 M C I VED - --, , NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Orthodontics 5454 Lake Washington 312305-9065 (3901 Talbot Road South) Boulevard SE W.E. Brain Bellevue, WA 98006 , Certification • I, febmulb )4. 44,6Diet , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property owners and their addresses were taken from the records of the King County Assessor as prescribed by law. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary .. . . - Public, in and for the State of Washington residing at - ac,..t., on the Fe.. ) day of ' • LC- -lc I/ - 4.1toti)14/1FA'144' / ' Signed: .„ . . .. . ... ... . ............., - • ---.....--....---..........-- .............- -:-.....-.......-......--........--........—....---..........-.... - • K: ...r.:6:ii::ioto :40i :::pos,? :r?,,!.F..!-:::.::::::. . ..-..g ..-•i-:::.:T,::::im.:.::• ••......i.::::]:::::.,:•-•::::::.,-.. ,.:: :. :Ii ......:.::::::::,::!:1 ••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.....„•••••••••••••••••••:.„......... •••••••••••••••:•••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••• •••• •••••••• •• ••••....••••••••••••... .. .. .. •••• •••••............... ••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.................... . •••.• ••• • •. ...••••••••••••..••.........•••• • .... ... ..... ...... ...... ........ . .. ........................ ---------------------- ----• - -------------___. ,________........_. „...__...._w.....,_ .:::::."-•::"....*:;":;"..:::::::::::,-,:••••:.zr::::::::.:: :::•':::;:*::""'''-'-:-...:...'""...--?'-'0ERTIFICATION•FORi:MAI LI N Q:,.,,-**,...,::.:-,-..,,....:,.::::::.,..:::::::::::::.::::::::::::::: ••••••••••••"------••••••••........•••_••••-•-............................................................................ . es 55.--,.-A. teiiiiiii::E.:i:i...::af:.:fiefeb....:::; ertifst.i:::thAr notices of i..tbe.....::Pq0.11.9::. pggtmg...ripcli...:.....:.g :;.A.;:::::::.:.::: -.-.. ii.dwit:W.: .::::::::::.... - :. ... .- ../..:-:-......:.:-......:.:-:-...:.:.Y.:.....-..:.. . -....i.....%:.::::::. -.. -:---:,-.----...s...:.:.:..:,:::-.::'::::,:::: .::: ffirgied::.4dgCefit K 1 .1:iii4eoti-• •ite.:-:.0ii::::*-416)5.1•0"T.::,,s--de6ii:::.iii4iiki.::::.40:i.::::]:::::i.:.:::i..:i.V.4:-.V.A::..'itiiiisliiriltie--....::::::.::::.:-:-:,::::::,:::.49:gg.-...,: -:..:„.......::.:.:- -f:.:!:-.... •-..-..:....-...:....,..,,-.--.....ii........K.,.f...-.......:::.:i:.::,...-............:. ........... •:..:)..:.::::-....-:....::...:.:.::::.:::::.:-....::::::...,:::...i:...1..,--,ftei:j.......44,i,if:::::::::::::.:::::::. .:::: *:.:::Z::::::: :: : :::: : :z::: : : : : ::: ::ii 10T.PR .r...L.Y.:9W0.0r:A ::•:Pr.9§0404!*Ipmrft..:...::. :.::::.:: ::: :.,..: ,,...., .::6!,..:!......,... .,:::. e.,.:::...,;,:,:.,.,...„,....,...,....::..,:::::.:.„0„.:::,,,,,„....,„:::::::::::::::,,,,,,,:.::::::.:::„.:::„...„,,,,....„,,,:::::::,!, ::: :::: ::::::::::::..s. :..:::::::::::::::.:,i,:.,:.0::.::.:::::,:z,.:,-..x..,,:,. ..0.0.N.,z,... „...v::::::::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,::::,...:::,.::::::,:„..„:„.:,,,,,,,,,:::::::::::.:,:,,,„.„:.„:,..::.:.::,., ATTEST:::.:-:e6Zeiffig:fiiid, Wiiiildf:ibeftjed:::::.-..:.:.::::::.. ft..::. .:::ko..::::::::-::::::::.:,........--1-: 11::.*:.::.....::::.:::::::::::::.::•::::::::::-..::::::,.-....:...:::::::: ::::::::.::.,:::::::.:::::.:47, Wgi.i.i46igi,:g68i046.4::8:46i:iiih4.; it :...0: :::::R::.. .::: ::.f.: ::::q::.....i.;i!):::: :::::-..-,..4..::;:-..-.OTAJRY `.'.)::.:.::::::':-.1.:!::::::: :.:....i::.;::.:::::::.::::: : : : ::.::•:;::i...;; :-:::: ::ia::.E.:,:::: ... .:i?iN.4$tiingtpn:irp§109g:4.. • .. -......:-. :::.:: :••••. ....,....::.-::-. .:-.::•:: ::•:01.:!,:::::-:!...4C.. .z.:.,:.:.:-:::::.....::::::::::.:::.:.:.::::•:::::. ........••••::::::::::::::-::-:.:::::::::::,....-.., • :::•::.::....8.:6:::i64410*i.:4sit.i.*:::.:::. ••••••:::-....-:•::;.....›:.:.*:.:: ::::::::::::.;.::i.:....1...f..,...::•:,•::::::::•:...:::•4,...v..:ne,i •••,•:•:•41.• .1/40 •••••:-::.• •••••• •••::........:::-:::::.::::::::::::::i:-::: :.:::::.:::,:••:::. •:::./.......: •..--.:•-•:•:•:::'..:-:-:-:.:.:-...---.:...:.. :- .:.- :::':::'-'...----.-: • -..,- -• ..---- :::•••::- -...-:::•::.:-.4'*4-.•:: . •Riti - A .I.,.:4,40._••: ......, - •- • --.- .:-......t.::::::::.1'........ :::.::::::::. ...../rii.,.:::::,..i•...?::ti.:::- ::- :::::::.,. ..:...:„..,..::•...:::.....::......• .......:•.::::•:,.,,,:::•-•-:::::::::::::•:::•:::-:.: 4.4 ,...,.,. ..00: . • .. . ••.• •••••••........... ...... . • . . ....• ... . . .......... . . Rev 5/90 CERTIFIC.doc , f PLANNING & ZONING FEES NAME: V 1 PROJECT: 06 11 C tT?o"-)11/4 P pt(1 • : :::::De.s cr t Lon:::::>::;:•:;::>::»:><:::>::::>:>::;::>:: >:::»•;:.;:.;;:.;:.> ....................... ..... ra:.:::::. . ....... Annex ....... ............. ......::.::::.:.::. ::::..::.:::..:.:.::.;:.;.;:;•.;:.;.:.;:.;;:..•::::<:<:::.>::>::><::>::><:.:<::<:<::<:::>::>:::<:>:::>::<;::<:::»;::><::;:>::::>s »<i:?;::>::> ation Fees 000/000/345.81.00.02 Appeals & Waivers 000/000/345.81.00.03 Binding Site Plan/Short Plat 000/000/345.81.00.04 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 000/000/345.81.00.05 Conditional Use Fees 000/000/345.81.00.06 2-0 Environmental Review Fees 000/000/345.81.00.07 • Preliminary Plat 000/000/345.81.00.08 50% Final Plat (General Fund) 000/000/345.81.00.09 50% Final Plat (Park Fund) 101/000/345.81.00.00 Final/Preliminary PUD 000/000/345.81.00.10 Grading & Filling Fees 000/000/345.81.00.11 Lot Line Adjustment 000/000/345.81.00.12 Mobile Home Parks 000/000/345.81.00.13 Rezone 000/000/345.81.00.14 Routine Vegetation Mgmt Fees 000/000/345.81.00. 15 Shoreline Substantial Dev Fees 000/000/345.81.00.16 Site Plan Approval 000/000/345.81.00.17 Special/Temporary Review Fees 000/000/345.81.00.18 Variance Fees a 000/000/345.81.00.19 Other Misc Planning/Zoning Fees 000/000/345.81.00.20 Maps 000/000/341.50.00.00 ' 7041 Photo Copies 000/000/341.60.00.24 Publications 000/000/341.60.00.24 Postage 000/000/05/519/90.42.01 00 7055 Sales Tax 000/000/231.70.00.00 9998 >:>TO BY: kJ) DATE: IRO) CITY OF RENTON CITY TREASURER REG/RCPT : 02-13650 01-08-1991 CASHIER ID : I 5:13 PM 8000 MISCELLANEOUS RE $620.00 CONDITIONAL USE FEES 000.000.00.345.81.00.000006 8000 MISCELLANEOUS RE $580.00 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FEES 000.000.00,345,31.00.000007 8000 MISCELLANEOUS RE $4.00 POSTAGE 000.000.05.519.90.42.000001 TOTAL DUE $1,204.00 RECEIVED FROM: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER $1,204.00 TOTAL TENDERED $1,204.00 • CHANGE DUE $0.00 lD'iaa,4'-. 1._ reVERSIE VAUPEL1-314-894-3895'2856 Telegraph Road P.O. Box 16367 Lemay, MO 63125�p... p si -93 Jit a .__ Dn n.,,,,„-y,,,_-...i_ .2 •if— 9S4-) • Project Planning and Development Consultants • REHN+ SKORHEIM R.Dean Skorheim Rehn+Skorheim Inc 401 Kirkland Parkplace Suite 220 Kirkland,Washington 98033 206 822-9018 FAX 206 822-9606 .44 ViUPEL,'Warren & Versie, 1402 N 2nd & 1210 N 2nd, PO Box' 755, Renton WA 98057, 255-3684; vacation home: 2856 Telegraph Rd, PO Box 16367, Lemay MO 63125, 1-314-894-3895. SISTERS: Violet Becker, 9971 Brook, Lemay MO 63125, 1-314-544-0671; Jewel Dennis, 149 W Etta, Lemay MO 63125, 1-314-544-5360. BOOKKEEPER (pays bills, handles mail, etc) : Diane Billet, ?I-Sic3 „v , mail c/o Vaupel, PO Box 755, .Renton WA-98057. GARDENER: WASSCO (Tom Wassman) 246-8673 ATTORNEY: Robert Anderson, 228-1881; emergency only: 772-1504 (PO Box 454, Renton WA 98057) INSURANCE: Glen Blanchard, 824-4110 for everything except 1210 N 2nd-Jim Sullivan-226-3322. STOCK BROKERS: Frank Moline 622-4451; Peter Wick- strom, 447-2514 CPA: Alan Berg, 232-2860 NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS: Mary Wolfgram 226-6480; to SE, Betty Herigon 271-7672 or 575-0800 (work) • BURGLAR ALARM INFO: 1210 N 2nd, ADT 624-3106, 1-800- 238-4636; 1402 N 2nd, Sears 282-1379. 1-800-426-5338. OTHERS: Blanche Karinen (answers phone) 226-8232; Liz Bentler 255-1915, has access to 1402 N 2nd; Marge Richter 255-3915, has access to both houses; Ann Grinolds 255-7070; Mary Ellen Hamblin 255-6675 & 277-7160. • •'/ • • PiVi PROPERTY MANAGEMENT N.W.INC./COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES GARY R. LEWIS (206) 883-4955 ' I P.O. Box 3579 17371 N.E. 67th Court #200 Redmond, WA 98073-3579 Redmond, WA 98052 1 if II ii 1't 11 11 ii 11 1I II ti it 11 1i 11 it il i� 1 I1 II iii If 1i 1Anfmzpi4wriat j-,2 _ .i--)0 II i aogt-►- It-ryi 0"?-114f. S20-7130(171 17±--yr- _l_7 • a Gaa a9_\4 0,1 A9 b161�Vr"�� W-T,-a__. __.._... .q ._.__... __.._. — ;C z 5_ ifL[ 88l6 - / _{ c�•�` ,� �' �6 .., ,qi,4 t�-j_..1i. L..._._.._.. . vAru o k j (1-)D. +,,;,,,f-�a9-f- 1 _ _—_..._.__ i ii l 1 00_4 i -t'ill 1 \i 1)/S-/S-me "1 ESQ ,., , � ._._.. ., _ ���-v�a �. _ i - � -------- ..ii_.. \ 2yd 11 II _,51- 1(C-421„. it 1 li . .htAAAH F 'I ---ro ___._ 17i.E. ___ - i! ' !x __c$. a��U II - --W--------ar - __ /, M-I,a) 6 s' y 9 lfl' U _._._.. __�y'Z-1...7 f'__-_.. 3, cgo(6 i1 . 311. ___.e Ng x _._ 6 op _. ____.___..747 940 g..._______ i 1, !f E. ' &k e Fe Irsrn�s-s V-, . sJ IIA ° ij : f! _ ___ _)„..____________ ___:__. ________ e 11 ...____.4ii--.-- 4r6o_Y- /01 7 SE frosr Tr,r-L 411 , i E 13,, . ii„ , ij II (j I� (j /1 , f _ Lir,..,_. . I (4, , .. , . Id _ _ /, __ _______ _____ 11 — • FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING and AMBULATORY CARE CENTER - December 1990 CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department The intent and purpose of this environmental impact statement is to satisfy the procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act(RCW 43.21C)and Renton's Rules interpreting and implementing SEPA(Ord.No.3891). This document is not an authorization for action,nor does it constitute a decision or a recommendation for action. In its final form,it will accompany the proposed action and will be considered in making the final decision on the proposal. I, - 1 ti FINAL (--' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING II and { AMBULATORY CARE CENTER City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department Prepared in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (Chapter 43.21C, Revised Code of Washington) ; the SEPA Rules, effective April 4, 1984, as revised (Chapter Y 197-11 , Washington Administrative Code; and Renton's Rules Interpreting and Implementing SEPA (Ordinance No. 3891 ) . II >L4fr Date of Issue: December , 1990 • This document, together with the Draft EIS for the proposed action issued August 31 , 1990, constitutes the Final EIS for this project. I� '1 FACT SHEET Project Title: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING II and AMBULATORY CARE CENTER Proposed Action: The Proposed Action involves approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, and a Building Permit to allow construction of a 110,970 sq.ft. medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center campus. Also included in the Proposed Action is a Building Permit for relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC space for medical services. The other three alternatives analyzed in this EIS include: Modified-Full development; Medical it Office Building South; and No- Action. Location: Renton, Washington 400 S. 43rd St. Proponent: Valley Medical Center (King County Public Hospital District Number 1 ) Lead Agency: City of Renton Tentative Date For Implementation: Spring 1991 i ' Responsible Official: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Contact Person: Mary Lynne Myer Senior Planner Planning/Building/Public Works Department Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, WA 98055 j (206) 235-2550 Licenses, Permits & Approvals: o City of Renton - Conditional Use Permit - Site Plan Review - Building Permits - Clearing & Grading Permit - Mechanical Permits o State of Washington - Labor & Industries - Electrical Permits Authors & Principal Contributors to this DEIS: This environmental impact statement has been prepared L: for the City of Renton. Research and analysis were provided by: o Huckell/Weinman Assoc. , Inc. ( Terry McCann, EIS project manager ) o CENTRAC & David Evans Assoc. ( Don Carr, Coord. traffic analysis ) Date of Issue of DEIS: August 31 , 1990 Public Hearing: A public hearing to discuss impacts noted in this DEIS was held September 18, 1990 at the City Council Chambers, Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton. Notice of the public hearing was contained in the DEIS and was published in Valley Daily News, the newspaper of .general circulation in the Greater Renton area. Comments presented at the public hearing have been incorporated in this FEIS. • ii • L . Location of r- Background Data: o City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department • Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. South • Renton, WA 98055 o Huckell/Weinman Assoc. , Inc. i 205 Lake St. S. #202 Kirkland, WA 98033 o CENTRAC 18804 North Creek Parkway Bothell, WA 98011 FEIS Availability: Copies of this FEIS have been distributed to agencies, . organizations and individuals noted on the Distribution List (Appendix A to this document) . A limited number of copies are available for purchase at the Planning/Building/Public Works Department (Municipal Building, 3rd Floor) . Cost: $10.00 I_ • • 1 , iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page FACT SHEET i I . PREFACE 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION and ALTERNATIVES A. Proponent/Project Location 6 B. Background Information 6 C. Need for Project & Proponents Objectives 14 D. Description of Proposed Action 17 E. Alternatives 28 Alternative 1 - No Action 28 Alternative 2 - Reduced Scale Development 28 Alternative 3 - Relocated Medical Office Building (South) 29 II . AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT EIS A. Text Amendments 33 B. Additional Analyses 36 1 . Revenue 2. Air Quality III. WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES/INDIVIDUALS AND RESPONSES TO THOSE COMMENTS 45 IV. COMMENTS PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND RESPONSES TO THOSE COMMENTS 90 REFERENCES 99 ii APPENDICES A. Distribution List 101 B. Letter from Owen Hall Associates 108 1 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Hospital Operational Statistics 11 2 Estimated Construction Period Revenues 37 3 Revenue Comparison - Building Owned vs. Building Leased 39 4 Summary of PM Peak-Hour Carbon Monoxide Emissions 43 LISTOF S FIGURES Figure Page 1 Vicinity Map 7 2 Campus Plan • 8 3 King County Public Hospital District #1 9 4 Site Plan 18 5 Proposed Medical Office Building as Viewed from the Southwest 21 6 South and West Elevations 22 7 North and East Elevations 23 8 Cross-section of Proposed Medical Office Building as Viewed Looking East 24 9 Possible Building Location South Campus 30 10 Mobile4 Carbon Monoxide Emission Rates .41 II e 2 r-- PREFACE The intent of any environmental impact statement (EIS) is not to identify the probable environmental impacts that could result from the proposed action and its key alternatives, and to identify appropriate mitigation measures. As such, the EIS is an informational document -- to be used by the general public, agencies and elected officials during the decision-making process associated with the proposed action. As indicated in the Fact Sheet to this FEIS and also that of the DEIS, the licenses, permits and approvals required from the City of Renton which this EIS accompanies include: o Conditional Use Permit; o Site Plan Review; o Building Permits; o Clearing & Grading Permits; and o Mechanincal Permits. The purpose of the Draft EIS is to identify and evaluate probable environmental impacts that may result from the proposed action; identify key alternatives which accomplish the project's objectives at a lesser environmental cost; to identify appropriate measures to mitigate adverse environmental impacts; and to identify any impacts which cannot be mitigated. The scope of issues to be discussed in the Draft EIS was determined as a result of the Scoping process which preceeded preparation of the document. Key issues identified include: land use, traffic and parking, and public services-fire. The Draft EIS for this project was issued August 31 , 1990 . It was circulated to agencies, organizations and individuals with jurisdiction, expertise or interest in the project and constructive comments regarding the draft document were solicited. The purpose of this Final EIS is to clarify and revise the . Draft EIS based on the written comments and testimony received; incorporate any new information that may have become available after the Draft EIS was issued; and respond to specific comments regarding the Draft EIS. This Final EIS together with the Draft EIS will comprise the environmental impact data to be used by Renton' s Hearing Examiner in the decision-making process associated with this project. This Final EIS is organized into four sections. Section I describes the proposed action, location, need and objectives of the proponent and the alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS. Section II of this Final EIS includes text amendments to the Draft EIS and additional analyses as a result of the comments received. Section III contains responses to written comments received regarding the Draft EIS and 3 Section IV contains responses to comments presented at the public hearing associated with the Draft EIS. A complete list of the environmental elements discussed in the Draft EIS is included in Appendix B of that document. The following summarizes this information and cites the location in this Final EIS for additional information regarding the element. Element DEIS FEIS Air Quality -- 39 Energy -- 67 Environmental Health -- 67 Noise -- 68 Land Use 41 , 55 33, 69 Aesthetics 45 71 Transportation 64 34, 72 Transit 72 34 Public Services - fire 93 74 Revenue Generated -- 36 4 • • SECTION I PROJECT DESCRIPTION and ALTERNATIVES • • • 1 SECTION I PROJECT DESCRIPTION and ALTERNATIVES A. PROPONENT / PROJECT LOCATION 1 . Proponent The proposed Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building (MOB) and Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) is sponsored by King County Public Hospital District No. 1 . 2. Proiect Location The site of the Proposed Action (MOB and ACC) is approximately a one-half acre area in the northwest pp y portion of the Valley Medical Center campus, north of the Hospital and the Psychiatry Wing and west of Talbot Professional Center (Figures 1 & 2) . The Ambulatory Care Center will be relocated from the Hospital to the lower level of the Psychiatry Wing (existing building) . The address of the property is 400 South 43rd Street Renton, Washington 98056. B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1 . King County Public Hospital District Number 1 Valley Medical Center (VMC) is a part of King County Public Hospital District Number 1 . The District was established through election by residents of the Renton, Kent and Tukwila area in 1947 and incorporated as a municipal corporation in 1948. The Hospital District is owned by residents of Public Hospital District Number 1 and is governed by a publicly-elected board of commissioners. The District encompasses an area of approximately 100 square miles and, as depicted in Figure 3, extends from SE 48th St. to SE 336th St. and from Interstate 5 to 228th Ave. SE. The primary service area for the Hospital includes Renton, Kent, Tukwila and unincorporated Southeast King County. • 6 t y 1 " ,1 ,A \ w i . I,Ye tea_® . L,, 1 ,, ,; ... 1 , , , : . yr ,..:,, IIMMilli -:::•,.. aim ... • ST umu sYWR{lsi WAi1Lrc �`freiNtarl 1., .fiepm .:y1�n sn + 1;y''•x: f Or.11Q-.Q 1 �i�1�IEL '' �al. E 1� :3'• 'PP: I8��� i m....7" ^ .w 1e1 a•, a Highlands" . h ' `c' ...trail 1© urla.Q �.�,. • :© >• 4111111:01111F Kali. M 01,7.1711.07, Duero, ". , i • a mwmctt. aide a�ulanler 1. ��l �].�`ti , !"_A,ti 'S� Ns.OLIV[l am morn MVWs ` V fr// � i r y- r:gaf.,, ,.....{w,1ana, � ; yl�� .,w�1lfalilrlYi.�l� ' 164 + I:',`. - *M�aENL� 1 ,� w1d00 1 ' i I s t• limp' • hgN•. r . ooc.mla __ i' , q. .ola sU.-{LlsO Maplew•• rSlss9t1r YIARS 1��— �� sICI'110 CY6{ f i•,1 ,� rr ' �,�• •, I S !! ! •u ,. • oa 4ti, t• 4 • �� Al '�• I , J : lira • 4 tS• y i `y+. • 1 t' 'slob�.{b T S' ill A� witr�j� • ..�s I•---� • i.:slow {I o y �aC 7) S. • Ir\'y - v .,�u 'a lkr l,1. w10 !� e„�j 1 1I� ., rti_ pis-' [ik 1 v v+.w I l. , • . _-- .-.11:77?1"1. "%i MIN"as ri . ,.:••1;.2, ..• . 9 I } a:ami e i ,./ i ) V for Hills ti .II • 1 ®, 11 t . , 4'1)1.0 ' , ' :' .I ! i% ; I j 1 v+B son Hill ' ...... ..),,itt-- , „pink ..,,,,..,, . .......\; i 1 ,. . ,,.V , - ..- • • ihishigli . ram' . __.. ØJT ,... i rrraaa U11111. • _ R r- i �L ' A ' I { ,l.r Y t In s{Yl�l 1 N tea' _ �t+�a v1.;T � r' a I • • J•, „N.1 .\a».a1 S M R a Y, 1 L _• '• I Mill BPAI i AOOX 7` nr• .,►, x a _ • . I! t S\Fores . 4 :cu.,. v v '� e: ___.—• e�f Traits ,• Ow of, y •--\, • ��[enwn !�,� •.lw�. J. •' I T�1•«., `� .. \J Watershed 41 19 r I \(.4taks • i FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP NgI18iIW8iflM8flAMt8$, I I 7 i Proposed Garage Expansion n (----- -1 -1 1.z** :i:::::Iiii::::::/V"V'"''' ,.„:„. 1 1 :.:„., ...„.. ii L % fil ?1:,;::. \4,,, ,,,:,„:, 4 •a t - lf ' N,, '-- -1 \ -North Campus *::'~' `r\ ;' C I .,.::i. :,'•: Alb„.0:1bei bi :"411111111117. 1,40.),..i ' -7/ :,:' ' ",,IP: V Z2 SW 43rd St'::::::' ,-.) ;:1:7. '''' ,::::i;Lt• ..0 Of '1 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER South Campus CO LEGEND _ _1 / J: °P A Hospital j-, B Talbot Professional Center C Chin Hills Building E Warehouse D Psychiatry Wing F Parking Garage G Radiation Oncology Center MI ----- H Medic Services \\\ Proposed Site MAHLL�A&NORDFORS 11 Existing Loop Road N "IMAM•NO!"KAMM'"'7B - Mod km*1M INA•CM YH1S1 I FIGURE 2 CAMPUS PLAN • kill ill II til INI 1 8 / mow.. iieriql t I (=--7 • s ..�ii ini In MA 1 IMAM. WY. ,....:..._.„ ,f44,. wic:1 it. .7.. 1 :: ••••••• .7.1-r: . ...... 1 i ......... I.110 IT ', „pp .. . �, I' L c' '= i � ci, x ,.tom . -I .\•c%coil -'`y'= -L M Il fic, iiitk 1 _1I, -%:rm"Vli site r .... ,an rm - r . .1 i -- `.\ 1 r • an 11!..I. . i w•• I • • I IF II,...I I `! —6:3 o V31' �...r rr 11 NI IT -� wr a r a:-�•M r..M ,I . I ,11 r17 . „ y.� r... rr. rr I rit:ISL4•X16136 , , L.0+ vilikr • I — r_ 4 - ik/.!N II L M r.. Y.r 1 `. r i 11 I . IIE/LIM .. MTN 'iv ._... , . .. : ...... , 7 1 204 11 fill . Lt..." - 111 til % I w = I f, • ; �, I It/ . II iii• I. FIGURE 3 _. _.RING COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL It&',keiIWeiflmsnAfihitis, 1 I 9 The estimated population in this service area is approximately 374, 000 (Valley Medical Center, 1989) . The projected population in the service area, based on VMC' s Master Plan, was 540, 000 (Mahlum & Nordfors. 1987 . Valley Medical Center Master Site Plan and Functional Program) . The difference between these two service area population estimates is because: o the Master Plan service area covers a slightly larger area; o the Master Plan was prepared in 1987, as compared with the Facts Pamphlet in 1989; and o the Master Plan estimated the 1985 population o ulation of the service area to be approximately 500, 000 and projected the 1990 service area population increase based upon growth characteristics which had occurred to that time. It is expected that the City of Renton will require a master plan update for future development associated with Valley Medical Center. Future environmental analysis will be conducted in conjunction with this master plan update. The overall mission of the Hospital District (and Valley Medical Center) is to: "assure the health care needs of people living and working in its principal service area are met, and are met in a manner which promotes: o High quality care o Appropriate use of resources o Cost-effective delivery of services" (Valley Medical Center, 1989) King County Public Hospital District Number 1 provides a broad range of health care services and programs, all of which are located on the 42-acre campus of Valley Medical Center.. Key programs include: o Acute Care Needs o Ambulatory Care Center o Cardiopulmonary Services o Coronary Care Unit o Emergency Services o Endoscopy Department o Intensive Care Unit o Laboratory (clinical and pathology) o Nuclear Medicine o Obstetrics o Psychiatric Services • 10 o Radiation Oncology o Radiology/ultrasound o Surgicenter The Hospital District (VMC) employs a total of approximately 1 , 700 people on a 3-shift/day operating schedule. Of these, approximately 359 are staff physicians representing 22 medical specialties and subspecialities. Table 1 provides a comparison between 1989 and 1984 statistics (most current five-year data) . As shown, the Hospital's outpatient surgeries have increased by 83%, births by 73% and emergency visits by 59%. Total patient days and admissions have increased by 7% and 20% respectively. The average length of hospital stays has declined, indicating that Valley Medical Center is servicing more people in shorter patient stays than in 1984 . Table 1 HOSPITAL OPERATIONAL STATISTICS - 1989 & 1984 Parameter 1989 1984 % Change o total patient days 69,901 65, 077 +7 o admissions 16, 143 13, 411 +20 o emergency visits 50, 000 31 , 409 +59 O outpatients referred (visits) 55, 500 37, 124 +49 o live births + equivalent deliveries 3, 360 1 , 947 +73 o average length of stay (days) 4 33 4.85 -11 o outpatient surgeries 8, 022 4, 393 +83 Source: Valley Medical Center 2. Valley Medical Center Campus As shown in Figure 2, eight buildings are located on the campus of Valley Medical Center, with a total building area of approximately 930, 650 sq. ft. Data (actual counts) for each building is provided below. a. Hospital o 3-story, 651 , 000 sq. ft. of gross floor area o licensed for 303 beds; 296 existing o staff: day shift - 580 to 600/day swing shift - 190 to 200/day night shift - 85 to 110/day 11 b. Talbot Professional Center o principal use: medical offices o 5-story, 100, 000 sq. ft. of gross floor area o staff: 180 to 200/day (including doctors) c. Chin Hills Building II, o principal use: medical offices o 4-story, 48, 000 sq. ft. of gross floor area o staff: 180 to 200/day (including doctors) d. Psychiatry Wing o 2-story, 52, 000 sq. ft. of gross floor area ( 18, 000 sq.ft. shelled but unoccupied at this time) o staff: included in Hospital total e. Warehouse o principal use: warehouse, purchasing & processing o 1 -story, 8, 900 sq. ft. of gross floor area o staff: day shift - 14/day t -- night shift - 1 /day f. Parking Structure o 3 1 /2 level, 62, 000 sq. ft. , 298-car capacity o Conditional Use Permit #00689 has recently been approved to allow expansion of this parking structure by 800 spaces (total - approximately 1 , 100 spaces) . Construction will start in 1991 and be completed prior to occupancy of the proposed Medical Office Building II. g. Radiation Oncology Center o principal use: examination and treatment o 1-story, 4, 800 sq. ft. of gross floor area o staff: 7 - 8/day h. Medic Services o principal use: emergency medical dispatch o 1-story, 3,950 sq. ft. o staff: 4 each for the day/swing/night shifts Several master planningdocuments have been prepared by Valley Medical Center to guide future campus development. The two most recent plans include: the Master Site Plan and i Functional Program (Mahlum & Nordfors, 1987) a 15-year long range plan arid the 5-year Strategic Plan (Valley Medical Center, 1988) . The Proposed Action is a functional ' element that was planned for in both of these documents. The purpose of the Master Site Plan and Functional Program is to provide a physical development scheme to meet anticipated growth requirements of VMC to the year 2005. The i ' 12 1 study examines population characteristics and projected growth within King County Public Hospital District Number 1 ; evaluates historic service demands for key departments based on one or more parameters (e.g. , patient days, number of beds, length of stay, visits) ; projects future space needs by department; identifies development zones within the north and south campus areas; and identifies renovation and new on-campus space needs to 2005. The 5-year Strategic Plan examines the programmatic and facility changes necessary within the short term ( 1989 - 1993) at Valley Medical Center. Seven key operational concerns are considered, including: o potential new programs; o campus development; + o marketing; o human resources; o data processing and computer services; o medical staff relations; and o finance. Recent developments which have occurred on campus, as well as the Proposed Action presented in this draft EIS, are intended to implement the planning direction provided by , these two documents. The medical office building and the ( Ambulatory Care Center are both elements of the Master Plan and the Strategic Plan. i 13 { C. NEED FOR PROJECT AND PROPONENT'S OBJECTIVES King County Public Hospital District Number 1 proposes to build a new medical office building and to relocate and consolidate functions of the existing Ambulatory Care Center. This proposal is in response to a growing demand for certain services on the Valley Medical Center campus. Table 1 (page 16) presents statistical information relative to recent growth in services at VMC. The needs that this proposal is responding to are described below: Office Space The existing medical office buildings (Talbot Professional Center and Chin Hills Building) on campus are fully occupied; these office buildings contain a total of approximately 148, 000 sq. ft. Valley Medical Center indicates that there is a shortage of high quality professional medical office space, comparable to that of Talbot Professional Center and the Chin Hills Building, located in close proximity to the Hospital (Scott, 1990) . This is based on conversations between representatives of the Hospital and physicians (specialists and sub- specialists) trying to find office space in the area. A new medical office building connected to the Hospital would provide professional office space for specialists and sub- ) specialists who need to be near their patients, other specialists and the technical medical facilities provided by the Hospital. Education , An expanded educational facility is needed for continuing medical education of doctors, nurses and technical support staff. For example, during February and March, 1990, 52 professional educational programs were offered as part of ;. medical staff continuing education. This number of educational programs is typical. Valley Medical Center also offers 50 on-going educational/support programs (such as the Alzheimer' s Support Group, CPR classes and the Head Injury Foundation) and provides free, on-the-job training services for 30 schools across the country. This latter program provides hands-on technical training (several students at a time) from such facilities as Renton Voc.-Tech. Ambulatory Care The Hospital's existing ambulatory care program provides comprehensive acute rehabilitation including: physical and occupational therapy, children' s therapy, speech/language and neuroevaluation (EEG) . Increases in existing ambulatory care services and changes in standards of treatment have created increased demand for space. Physical , therapy and occupational therapy services alone have grown 14 i ' by 40% over the past four years. Ambulatory Care Center facilities were established in 1969 . Relocation and consolidation would allow more efficient delivery of services. , In response to growth in demand for medical services, VMC has identified a need to provide additional office space on campus and to relocate and consolidate some existing functions. The applicant's objectives for the major components of the project are described below. II Medical Office Building General Goals 1 ) serve the health care needs of a growing population; 2) meet community needs by providing a convenient location for patients to see their physicians proximate to the hospital -- in order to minimize travel time and distance for patients and reduce ,, the number of medical/hospital-related vehicular 1 '- trips in the area; 3) remain competitive with other hospital facilities ' in the Puget Sound region, and emulate the model established by major U.S. health care facilities, by encouraging physician specialists to locate proximate to major health care centers -- in order to provide greater efficiency in the delivery of services, help keep medical-related costs down and reduce traffic and parking impacts; Services/Facilities Goals 4) improve accessibility to the emergency room (one of the largest in the Northwest) for physician specialists, who establish their practices in the vicinity of Valley Medical Center and require 1 ' expedient access to the emergency room -- to be accomplished by providing rentable medical office space in a new medical office building on the campus of Valley Medical Center, adjacent to the Hospital; 5) meet the expanding educational needs of the '1 medical 'staff at the hospital, and the increasing needs for community continuing health-care education (health education, wellness classes, and birth classes) by providing additional space which includes an auditorium, classrooms and kitchen facilities (in support of the auditorium and 15 classrooms) in a new medical office building on the campus of Valley Medical Center; Locational Goals 6) situate the medical office building so that it relates functionally with Talbot Professional Center, Valley Medical Center Hospital and the Valley Medical Center parking garage and provides convenient and unincumbered (handicap accessible) pedestrian connections between the facilities; 7) site the medical office building in a location on the Hospital campus which does not impede future development consistent with the Master Plan, the Strategic Plan or a future Master Plan update; Circulation/Parking Goals 8) facilitate pedestrian traffic flow between the Valley Medical Center parking garage, Talbot Professional Center and the Hospital through elevated, covered and level walkways for the benefit of infirm individuals and to minimize on- campus pedestrian/vehicular traffic conflicts; rr 9) maximize the use of existing covered parking facilities and allow for the development of future parking facilities on the campus to meet the future needs of Valley Medical Center; Design Goals , 10) maximize the use of the Hospital' s property and minimize lot coverage by developing a high-rise office structure; 11 ) orient the medical office building on the site so that views from Talbot Professional Center are not substantially impaired and vehicular traffic p_ ' - circulation on the Valley Medical Center campus is not adversely affected; 12) design the medical office building to complement the architectural character of existing buildings on the campus and enhance the campus-like setting; Operational Goals 13) permit hospital expansion through a lease arrangement which does not draw on the capital needs of the Hospital -- for example, a possible ground lease to a partnership of physicians with 16 ly ' -I the physicians building, owning and operating the building; and 14) provide expansion space for existing services on campus including: Cardiac Rehab Services, Cardiopulmonary Services, Social Services, Human Services and Admitting Satellite Services. Ambulatory Care Center 15) locate the ambulatory care facility in a central location on the Hospital campus and in a larger space in order to consolidate related functions ; i and provide more efficient delivery of services; The Proposed Action has been framed with these objectives in mind. D. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action involves two major elements: 1 ) construction of a medical office building and 2) relocation and consolidation of the ambulatory care center. Each component is described below. 1 . Medical Office Building II: i --r Building Siting and Uses The proposed medical office building with connecting skybridges (connecting to Talbot Professional Center and Valley Medical Center parking garage) would be constructed in the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center campus (Figure 2) . The building would be located on approximately a one-half acre site north of the Psychiatry Wing, west of Talbot Professional Center and south of the parking structure (Figure 4) . The building would be oriented in an east-west direction and separated by approximately 50 feet J !' from Talbot Professional Center. s ' 1 i 17 , \---.) 1„1,,,,,,,,, , . Y':: s: g.." " s. i skybridge i i _k`':::%•‘%s-:::„;,:„,i„:::%:„1„„„"1i:,,- — .k, ::: s ,s, l <:><::>:f ;:> Talbot .�skybridge z <::<:<: -<. Professional :>:;�< ., ,. ., Center IC s.,A________ I Iri :vs ' :. , , .-‘. ' ' ' ''. • . ° : '1 ."::: ' Z, gim 1,- r �r l 2 j rad apt % <t it:'+" `i�ti:�`.c:b.:... ...... . " fir. Psychiatry Wing Hospital ,'' (new location for Ambulatory � Care Center is in the lower level) I 0 40- 80- _ Existing Buildings Proposed Buildings MAHUJM&NORDFORS 2SOS Third Menus.Slide,WA 98121•(206)441.4151 ! I FIGURE 4 j li HeiIWeinm8flA ,oi* N , 18 I The total gross square footage in the proposed medical office building would be approximately 110,970 sq. ft. and the net leaseable area would be approximately 103, 270 sq. ft. The 7, 700 sq. ft. difference between gross and net areas is based on the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) area calculation methodology. Following this methodology, gross floor area includes the area of the entire building shell, measured to the exterior of all exterior walls. Net leasable or rentable area, based on BOMA, excludes such areas as the exterior walls, stairways, elevator and mechanical shafts, and permanent mechanical and electrical rooms which serve the entire building. The following are ij proposed building areas based on the gross floor area and " net leaseable area by floor: Floor Gross Floor Area Net Leasable 1 21 , 594 sq.ft. 19, 404 sq. ft. 2 20, 988 19, 844 3 22, 846* 21 , 963 —' 4 22, 326 21 , 165 5 22, 326 21 , 165 roof 886 0 TOTAL 110, 966 sq.ft. 103, 271 sq. ft. } * includes both skybridges totaling 1 , 296 sq.ft. It is proposed that the first floor of the 5-story medical t- office building be devoted to hospital-related uses and the upper four floors of leasable space for physicians. While the design of actual Hospital-related space on the first floor has not been finalized, it is expected that uses and leasable areas would include the following: o a 200-seat auditorium (1 , 820 sq.ft. ) ; o auditorium support storage (780 sq.ft. ) ; o offices (education and learning center - 4, 250 sq.ft. ) ; o meeting rooms (5, 520 sq.ft. ) ; o kitchen in support of the meeting rooms 3 � (660 sq.ft. ) ; o storage (1 , 850 sq.ft. ) ; o corridor, lobby, coat room (3, 050 sq. ft. ) ; and - .. o restrooms, mechanical space & stairwell ( 1 ,874 sq.ft. ) . • It is anticipated that the leased space on the upper floors of the medical office building (approximately 83, 867 sq.ft. ) would be used as offices, clinics or laboratories -- similar to that at Talbot Professional Center. i 19 r , • Access and Parking The proposed medical office building would be accessible from several locations. Two pedestrian entrances are proposed for the south facade of the building -- the westerly entry would provide access to the first floor and the easterly entry would access the second floor (Figure 5) . In addition, two enclosed pedestrian bridges are proposed (Figure 4) . One bridge would link the third level of the existing parking structure to the third floor of the new medical office. building. The other would connect the third floor of the proposed medical office building to the first floor of Talbot Professional Center. Since Talbot Professional Center is already connected to the Hospital by a tunnel, the proposed skybridge would provide direct pedestrian access (covered) from the proposed medical office building to the Hospital. Parking for 38 vehicles (32 standard and 6 handicap) is planned for the area immediately south of the proposed medical office building and north of the existing Psychiatry Wing (Figure 4) . Since this area currently provides parking j ! for approximately 50 vehicles, the net change would be a loss of approximately 12 spaces from this portion of the campus. VMC provides more parking than is required by zoning and the loss of 12 spaces will have no impact on parking supply. The new parking area would be accessible from VMC' s other parking lots in the area and from the internal ring roadway (Figure 2) . Service vehicle access to the building would be from the north side of the building. One loading dock is proposed, accessible from the existing internal circulation road. This loading access lane is not expected to interfere with existing traffic circulation in the area. Building Design The medical office building would continue existing design themes found in other buildings on the VMC campus. This includes the use of similar facade material, similar facade color and the use of stepped setbacks at key corners of the building. Figures 6 and 7 present elevations of each facade. Specifically, the ;exterior of the building is expected to be a synthetic stucco-like material off-white in color with light gray accents. Glazing would be blue-green tinted and insulated glass (same as Talbot Professional Center) to reduce energy consumption. The glass would not be highly reflective (in the range of 8 to 20 percent) . As shown by Figure '8, the top of the parapet would be approximately 70 feet above the finish elevation of the first floor. A 20 • , • I • . I ��' I •• ,, • I Talbot Professional Center i , -.—...11111011111101N111610 . _ \ _ : t :� .rIIrr .. ... : Iniro Oral. �.: .s�� . 3 :,r!lt";:.:t4 'isI14 !` . � miti I t.,�J;' , 'NE. ,i1i �gyl�!.iE� • lYtti ', 456 ''''":;•, :� i1alit?_�! %: i1`: 'i1lI;:i7: 1t :3-n:TJ ' ,„rJC�.)'1��..� .1,4.r1'� `` .SII�L, � rti%� \ 6 4 , o'�n.t: •,ems --_--- _ Imo •it .... =--_.�wr..:- Jf. :: k4�945,S�aS��r;�a�.,—,,, o��,g..1.4 _ _, _ rl �(���(��I�• ,11 •f{p -.r .; w.i:T„T7,.11_4 ^iT,ly I''•��.�:z:i\ - .� - • .7 ' '• 52 i if'! .1: .� . j %��- :.;r ,1i%-'. 11•+I. )'' \:�o"\, ..' 1.�(i'- _ ._\t ��;1; 1!t� •..,' 1:r i.3•:i�i 1:. I' �a •'' �� 21 UI'!,I'1._Ila I...Y:_ L ,, _... :7�LLD�_ _ ,., • —• 1 �l' ��•-1 t 1 ,., I _ ... 4.74g:111.24E.,. 1 oral i i: 4767-- '3!2a. �!iii I I • I r-- I 4 ' 1_. -I • M, HLUM&NORDFORS maoyrt[um-many wNa+c•eM,o,a it ISM f W Awww.Swain MN WM•MY..4ns, 1 • I FIGURE 5 ' . PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING # iIWEAi ill 21 r r-y Talbot Professional Center C 1 III lit tlllln(iv n( litiii I illffil n A i'jiu IV I«IlIiIJs, nUiiiii III w ii••' Cr ili: .7---.I, l i i. i u _--n i)l I I4}.l 4y ,TTT — e-►.n•ii! —iniou .ull a S�' ./..: — 0 .- :01: iii r- SOUTH ELEVATION Talbot Professional Center / Psychiatry Wing r— POW nil - •4`y'. - F• / _ 0Il1lV All -37_./:. Fa `tom .EIa-��® / _ --- iM i iiv Ailiniti llil '�I° "+'I �.l;•' J E - WEST ELEVATION L_ _I • (—I ,--I MAFIIUM&NORDFORS Nonerna[•aanrnc•raeaou_ r'-- yam Tw*me..f.r..VA UM•OM 41141441111 j FIGURE 6 1 . SOUTH & WEST ELEVATIONS /be 111 Alio Ii r_ 22 • • Talbot Professional Center • P • l 11R I AL-1 . —�� r- au(JIUIii u[ n+ 111 a I[. �Yi1® 7TTlr ; enj ` ' - n • NORTH ELEVATION f i �W■■■�WII ■■■ ■■��■■■■I■■■■I■■■■I■■■■II■� 11.11_=I li■■■r41I■ ■■■ ■■11��1��■I!■I o■s 111M11P11m a' aa h I• !�I■F I�t■II■l� EAST ELEVATION MAHLUM &NORDFORS NaISME•WWI wNwti•MEMO - nm Tided Omega sr..Mwvn•011164111148s1 FIGURE 7 NORTH & EAST ELEVATIONS HIiI A�111�� IllJi►1 23 . ti L • . 70 ft. II1. H I !I i I' I I . ti i f I tl rI il I II 1 I T 1-. I-- trACtill. 17. _Au.4RuRIW 000600N s.naY'_ I VC=-it. (.. '' ' 1 1 i . rI- E.UILbIt.1G.1 SE CTiot+l `I brillinel • f r _I I MAHWM&NORDFORS NOITECI{IE•MOLITY FLAWING•WIMPS mf Tad Iowa.Swift w^IMO.OMwwot I FIGURE 8 1 CROSS—SECTION OF PROPOSED MEDICAL ma I OFFICE LOOKINGSEASTING AS VIEWED illtitillma�kin/la g �CI n iniM 24 -I rooftop mechanical penthouse ( 32 ft. x 110 ft. - including the elevator penthouse) could extend above the parapet approximately 9 feet. Landscaping While a detailed landscape plan has not been prepared at this time, VMC indicates that landscaping is proposed for planting areas along the south, west and north facades of the building. The area of the north facade is already landscaped with lawn, dwarf spiraea, compact Oregon grape and English ivy. The largest concentration of landscaping would likely occur along the building' s south facade, because of the greater expanse of area. Figure 5 shows an artist conception of this landscape area. A sidewalk around the loop of the access drive would provide access to the existing stairway which leads to the fountain. The stairway is flanked by English ivy, boxwood and rhododendrons. The fountain is located between Talbot Professional Center and the Psychiatry Wing. Existing Uses The site of the Proposed Action is currently surface parking (approximately 50 spaces) with landscaped planting strips. All existing parking would be removed for construction and staging; 38 spaces would be replaced. The project will result in a net loss of 12 parking spaces. As noted previously, VMC currently provides more parking than is ,_' required by zoning. Construction • Construction of the medical office building require uire a q limited amount of demolition (surface parking) and grading. It is estimated that approximately 6, 350 cubic yards of material would have to be excavated for the first floor of the building. The medical office building would be connected to existing utilities in this portion of the north campus area. All existing surface parking on the site (approximately 50 spaces) would be temporarily affected by construction, construction equipment and the stockpiling of materials. It is planned that loss of parking at this location during construction would be accommodated at other parking areas on the north or south campus, since this parking area is normally fully utilized. I 25 2. Ambulatory Care Center: Siting and Design The other major element of the Proposed Action involves relocation and consolidation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center. As previously noted, ACC provides comprehensive acute rehabilitation including physical and occupational therapy, children' s therapy, speech/language and neuroevaluation (EEG) . Increases in existing ACC services and changes in standards of treatment have created demand for additional space. L_ The Proposed Action would involve the relocation of ACC from the first and second floors of the Hospital (approx. 7, 300 sq. ft. ) to the lower level of the existing Psychiatry Wing. The lower level consists of approximately 18, 000 sq. ft. of undeveloped (shell) space, of which approximately 85% to 90% would be usable space for ACC. The existing facade of the lower level of the Psychiatry Wing would be altered to include glazing. Glass and spandrel panels would be the same grey tint currently used on the first floor of this building. Relocation of the Ambulatory Care Center from the first and second floors of the Hospital would make approximately 7, 350 sq. ft. available for expansion of other existing Hospital services presently located near the ACC space. According to VMC, no new services are anticipated. The number of staff and patients is expected to remain approximately the same; existing overcrowding would be eliminated. Planned changes include: o Cardiac Rehab Services and Cardiopulmonary. Services would expand into the space currently occupied by the Physical Therapy Department; o Cardiopulmonary Services would also occupy the former EMG space and the existing office of the director of Rehab Services; o Social Services would expand into the former r- Speech and Hearing Office; o Human Services would expand into the space formerly occupied by Occupational Therapy; o Admitting Satellite Services would occupy the former Rehab Services Office; and o The existing shared therapy office would be utilized as expansion space for other existing hospital-related services. 26 Access Primary access to the Ambulatory Care Center would be from a new entry located at ground level in the northeast corner of the building (accessible from the proposed parking area) . An elevator and stairway would connect the ACC to the first floor of the Psychiatry Wing, which has direct pedestrian connections to the Hospital and Talbot Professional Center. The first floor of the Psychiatry Wing is used for voluntarily committed psychiatric patients. On occasion, Valley Medical Center will temporarily hold involuntarily committed psychiatric patients awaiting transfer to a more secure facility. VMC indicates that there will be no contact between patients and staff of the new Ambulatory Care Center on the lower level and psychiatry patients on the first floor. To ensure this separation, VMC would implement the following security measures as an element of the Proposed Action: o design the facility so that part of the Psychiatric Unit can be locked-down to retain patients until transfer to a more secure facility; o the elevator and adjacent stairs which would lead to the proposed ACC on the lower level are located in an existing public area on the first floor which is outside of the Psychiatric Unit; o the public area would be constantly monitored (by nursing personnel) and access to the Psychiatric Unit controlled by keypad entry or a remote door release signal from the nurse stations; o the two stairways located in the Psychiatric Unit (not the stairway located in the public area) would be armed to sound an alarm whenever the doors are opened; and o the two stairways located in the Psychiatric Unit would exit to the exterior of the Psychiatry Wing with no direct connection to the proposed ACC. � ^ 27 E. ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 - No Action This alternative would involve no immediate changes to either the north or south campus areas. The site of the Proposed Action would remain as surface parking. No development involving office space, auditorium, classrooms or other elements associated with the Proposed Action would occur in this area of the campus. Demand for this type and magnitude of development would, however, remain. This could intensify pressure for development and/or redevelopment of other areas on campus or off-site property adjacent to the campus. This alternative would not satisfy any of Valley Medical Center' s objectives for the project. Alternative 2 - Reduced Scale Development This alternative, while similar in concept to the Proposed Action, would reduce the scale of the medical office building. The smaller medical office building would be four stories high and contain approximately 87, 750 sq. ft. of gross floor area, of which it is estimated 82, 100 sq. ft. would be net rentable. The amount of net leasable area for physicians (floors 2 through 4) would be 62, 700 sq. ft. and the first floor hospital-related use would likely remain the same as the Proposed Action (approximately 19, 404 sq. ft. net rentable) . Most other elements of this alternative -- including location on the campus, access, building orientation, design concept, landscaping and hospital-related use of the first floor -- would remain the same as the Proposed Action. Like the preferred alternative, construction of this alternative would require reconfiguration of the existing parking area with provision for a total of 37 spaces. The Ambulatory Care Center, however, would still relocate and consolidate its operations in the lower level of the existing Psychiatry Wing. While this alternative would satisfy many of Valley Medical Center's objectives for this project, it would not "maximize the use of the Hospital's property and minimize lot coverage by developing a high-rise office structure. " A reduction in the amount of square footage of office space for this alternative could result in the need for additional medical office development elsewhere on-site or off-site in order to meet estimated market demand. This alternative 28 could accelerate the need for development and/or redevelopment in other areas of the campus or adjacent off- site property, in order to meet the demand for office space adjacent to the Hospital. Alternative 3 - Relocated Medical Office Building (South) This alternative, depicted in Figure 9, would involve siting the proposed medical office building on a portion of the 10- acre segment of the Valley Medical Center campus located south of S. 43rd St. As with the Proposed Action, the Ambulatory Care Center would relocate and consolidate its operations in the lower level of the existing Psychiatry Wing. The bulk and scale of the medical office building would likely be the same as that of the Proposed Action -- approximately five stories in. height with 110, 970 sq. ft. of gross floor area and approximately 103, 270 sq. ft. net rentable area. Of the total rentable area, it is estimated that approximately 83, 170 sq. ft. would be leasable space on the upper floors (2 through 5) for medical offices. Uses contained within a medical office building at this location would probably be the same as those included in the Proposed Action. The first floor would likely be dedicated to Hospital-related uses (such as an auditorium, classrooms and education offices) with the upper four floors used as leasable space for physicians. Because of the northeast-southwest alignment of Davis Avenue South and the north-south configuration of the property in this portion of the campus, the medical office building could be oriented in almost any direction (depending upon which lots are utilized) . Figure 9 depicts one possibility. Architectural design and associated design elements would likely be the same as that of the Proposed Action. Access to the building would be from Davis Street South. Davis Street S. is currently accessible from S. 43rd Street. By 1991 this south portion of the campus will be connected to the north campus via a tunnel beneath S. 43rd St. (Figures 2 & 9 ) . The tunnel is an improvement proposed by Valley Medical Center and funded through an L. I.D. Design is complete and construction is scheduled to begin in 1991 . The tunnel will provide an alternative point of access to the north campus, thereby eliminating the need for a left turn from S. 43rd St. at the existing driveways. The L.I.D. also includes the widening of S. 43rd St. from Talbot Road S. to SR 167, the addition of an HOV lane, and revisions to the traffic i I signals at S. 43rd St. and SR 167. 29 j I 43rd St / CO 1 411111 • ( • I I I N . O ---I ' I- 100 I FIGURE 9 1 POSSIBLE BUILDING LOCATION - llii1'dIIY/ii,rnn� rUS ALNATIVEu Y IIIM lig* IIYI 30 Most of the south campus is presently undeveloped. An area south of S.W. 43rd Street and west of Davis Street S. is currently used as surface parking for day-shift employees. A medical office building at this location, depending upon actual siting, could displace the 220 existing surface parking spaces and generate demand for an additional 250- 300 employee and patient spaces in this area of the campus. These effects are not expected to be significant, however, because the south campus is presently undeveloped and existing employee parking and new employee/patient parking generated by a building at this location could probably be accommodated elsewhere on the south campus. This alternative would not affect the existing 50 surface parking spaces at the north campus location. While meeting most of Valley Medical Center' s objectives, this alternative would not satisfy any of VMC' s specific objectives regarding location or circulation, i.e. it would not be connected to Talbot Professional Center or the parking garage; it would not provide the required pedestrian linkages; and it would not maximize use of the existing parking structure. • 31 • SECTION II AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT EIS 32 SECTION II AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT EIS A. Text Amendments 1 . Transit Service The existing conditions noted on page 72 of the DEIS are revised to incorporate the following local service improvements. A new METRO transit route (#169) is planned for implementation in June 1991 . This route will provide service between Renton and the Kent park-and-ride via Talbot Road, S.W. 43rd St. , and the Benson highway. The frequency of service will be seven days/week with 3D minute service on weekdays and Saturdays and 60 minute service at night and on Sundays. 2 . Land Use The following mitigation measure is included with regard to the discussion of land use impacts. It is expected that the City of Renton will require a master plan update for future development associated with Valley Medical Center. This new master plan would likely include the following: o delineation of operational objectives and projected facility needs o existing and future campus boundaries; o future building locations on campus and approximate year of development implementation; o proposed development phases/priorities; o the extent of future development proposed (hospital/hospital-related and approximate lot coverage/gross floor area) ; o building heights and setbacks; o landscaping; o on-campus vehicular and pedestrian circulation; o future parking needs and parking area locations; and o proposed changes in applicable development regulations and development approval processes. 33 • Future environmental analysis will be conducted in conjunction with this master plan update. 3 . Transportation Management Plan Pages 75 through 89 of the DEIS describe significant impacts of the, proposed action relative to the following: o the amount of vehicular traffic generated by the project; o the distribution of this expected traffic on local streets; o projections of the level of service at nearby 7 intersections as a result of the proposed action; o the affect on traffic safety, transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, parking; and o traffic-related construction impacts. Mitigation measures were noted in the DEIS (pages 89 through 92) . The key measure noted was continuing implementation of Valley Medical Center' s existing Transportation Management Plan (TMP) . It is expected that this TMP will be reviewed and revised as part of the mitigation process associated with this proposed action. Such added revisions may include, but not be limited to, the following: o The goals identified in the TMP are intended to measure the effectiveness of the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) program at the time of the annual HOV program evaluation. If targeted goals for the year have not been achieved, then additional incentives for HOV participation will be provided by VMC. These can include: 1 ) Increased staff effort by the Building Transportation Coordinator and more promotion of HOV incentives. 2) Further discounts for carpool parking (and/or) increased rates for private vehicle trips (excluding clients and visitors) , if '- deemed appropriate. 3) Implementation of the transit discount pass program to increase the subsidy by at least 10% each year if the annual goal of 10% of eligible employees is not met (not to exceed price of a transit pass) . The program is 34 it designed for employees commuting during the morning or evening peak periods. 4) Participation in the annual cost of vanpool operation (in addition to providing free parking and allowing employees to apply the transit discount to the participant's vanpool fare) in an amount not to exceed $5000 . 5) The annual survey of all employees at VMC, which is conducted by VMC' s Building Transportation Coordinator in cooperation with the City of Renton and METRO, will serve as the data base for evaluation of the TMP. o In order to reduce peak hour congestion, improve mobility and reduce energy consumption, VMC will encourage tenants and employees to make every reasonable effort to reduce vehicle trips to and from the building as outlined in this TMP. The existing TMP goal (noted on p. 90 of the DEIS) is a 10% reduction of total vehicle trips within five years of implementation of the TMP. Evaluation of this goal should be done annually and submitted to the Planning Services section of Renton's Planning/Public Works/Building Department. o Alternatives to Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) travel to VMC will be promoted by a variety of programs and services including, but not limited to: providing a Transportation Information Center (TIC) in the building; semi-annual promotion of HOV Program; appointment, staffing and training in conjunction with existing METRO programs of a Building Transportation Coordinator' s (BTC) office; instituting a program to promote commuting by bus (including a transit subsidy for employees) ; and offering flexible working hours five days per week to certain employee groups to reduce employee trips during peak hours of congestion, as set forth in the METRO Flexible Hours Manual. o Flexibility in achieving the purpose of this TMP will be permitted. If the annual survey by the BTC demonstrates that overall objectives for components of the TMP are achieved for daily passenger trip ends, then incentives for employee participation at VMC may be adjusted by VMC. This adjustment would be aimed at reducing costs of the HOV incentives -- provided the annual goals for each HOV component continue to be maintained. If survey results indicate daily commute trips by SOV are exceeding projected levels while the HOV { 35 components remain below the annual objective, then alternative HOV incentives oriented specifically towards increasing the annual level of HOV use, • will be instituted. B. Additional Analyses 1 . Revenue (fees and taxes n qe erated byValley ev Medical Center) King County Public Hospital District #1 (Valley Medical Center) is a municipal corporation and, as noted on page 94 of the DEIS, does not pay property taxes. As indicated in the DEIS, VMC does provide revenue in the form of fees, assessments and taxes which accrue to the City of Renton. • The following analysis provides additional information regarding the nature and approximate amount of revenue that may be generated by the proposed project. • Valley Medical Center would provide added revenues to the City of Renton as a result of construction and long-term operation of the proposed MOB II building. It is assumed that the property for the buildingwould be owned byValley Medical and leased to a partnership which would own and operate the building. Under these circumstances, leasehold excise tax would be paid on the amount of the lease and property tax would be paid (by the partnership) on the assessed value of the building. This is similar to the arrangements that currently exist for the Talbot Professional Center. In addition, Valley Medical would pay special assessments for traffic mitigation that would benefit not only VMC, but all businesses affected by traffic along SW 43rd Street. Construction Revenues During the construction phase of the project, the City of Renton would receive revenues from payment of a number of fees, permits, and assessments including: o Building Permit Fees (based on the value of the building) o Drainage Plan Check o Mechanical and Electrical Permits (based on construction value) o Plumbing Permit (based on the number of fixtures) o Conditional Use Permit Fees o Environmental Impact Statement Fees o Site Plan Review Fees o Sales Taxes on Construction • 36 Because the precise value of the proposed medical building is unknown, it is not possible to determine the exact amount of revenue generated by these fees and permits. However, if we assume that the building would have an estimated value of ten million dollars, an approximate estimate of some fees can be derived. These estimated revenues are presented in Table 2. It should be noted that these estimates are conservative and represent a lower bound on revenues received by the City. Table 2 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION PERIOD REVENUES PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING Source Approximate Revenue Building Permit Fees $ 35, 540 Drainage Plan Review Fee 70 Plumbing Permit Fee 100 Electrical Permit Fee NA Mechanical Permit Fee NA Conditional Use Permit Fees 1 , 240 EIS Fee 100 Site Plan Review Fee 820 Total Estimated Revenues $38, 490 The total amount of revenue generated from these fees would actually be greater. This is because no estimate is available for mechanical and electrical permit fees at this time because the construction value of the building is unknown. Sales tax revenues would also be collected during construction on materials and labor. Operation Revenues The proposed MOB II building would also generate revenues for the City of Renton during its long-term operation. As mentioned previously, it is anticipated that the land for the building will be owned by Valley Medical Center and leased to a partnership that owns the building. Leasehold excise tax would be paid on the amount of the lease and property tax would be paid on the assessed value of the building. This is similar to the arrangements that currently exist for the Talbot Professional Center. I ' Leasehold excise tax is assessed on any private use of public property. The tax is imposed on the lessee but collection is mandated by the lessor. The State of Washington collects the tax and redistributes it back to the state, county, and city. In this case, the State would collect the tax and redistribute it back to King County and the City of Renton. 37 FT The leasehold excise tax rate is currently 12.84 percent of the amount of the lease (or contracted rent) . Of the total amount of tax collected, approximately 32 percent is redistributed back to the City (Washington State Department of Revenue, November 7, 1990) . For example, an annual lease of $100, 000 that is subject to the leasehold excise tax would generate $12, 840 in revenues for the State. Of the total amount generated, 32 percent or $4, 123 .93 would be redistributed back to the City. This is similar to the amount that the City would receive from the collection of private property taxes. In 1989 for example, the City received 29. 4 percent of the total amount of property tax collected on a single property. The amount of tax collected from each source (leasehold excise tax and property tax) will depend on the rate of each tax. For example, if the levy rate or leasehold excise tax rate change, the amount of revenues that the City receives will also change. In addition to leasehold excise tax, the City would also receive property tax on the assessed value of the building. In 1990 for example, the levy rate applicable to property in the City of Renton was 13 . 568 39 (per $1 , 000 dollars of assessed value) . If we assume that the assessed value of the building (excluding land value) is $10 million, the total amount of property tax due to the state would be approximately $135, 684. Of the total amount of tax , collected, approximately $40, 700 would go the City. The City would receive a similar amount each year. However, the amount collected would . change with changes in the levy rate. In comparison, if Valley Medical Center owned the property and building outright, the City would only receive revenues from the leasehold excise tax levied on the amount of rent collected from private uses. For example, if the amount of rent is assumed to be $14 per square foot per year, and the amount of net rentable area is assumed to be 78, 867 square feet, approximately $1 , 104, 138 would be subject to the ' leasehold excise tax. Assuming a leasehold excise tax rate of 12.84 percent, $141 , 771 would be collected in taxes. Of 11 the amount collected, the City would receive approximately $45, 367. A comparison of the two scenarios is presented in Table 3 . 38 Y Table 3 REVENUE COMPARISON - BUILDING OWNED vs. BUILDING LEASED Leasehold Total ir ;, Property Tax Excise Tax Revenues Scenario 1 o Land owned by VMC NA Yes o Building owned by Partnership Yes NA jl o Amount of Revenues to City $40, 700. 00 $4, 123 . 93 $44, 823 . 93 Scenario 2 l o Land owned by VMC NA NA o Building space leased to Partnership NA Yes o Amount of Revenues to City NA $45, 367 . 00 $45, 367 . 00 During the long-term operation of the proposed medical office building, the City would also receive revenues from a number of utility fees including water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer taxes, Metro, and garbage collection fees. i , Special Assessments In addition to construction and operation fees and taxes, the City of Renton would also receive revenues from special assessments on Valley Medical Center. For example, an additional $86, 344. 23 has also been scheduled for traffic mitigation. This mitigation will not only benefit Valley Medical, it will benefit all businesses and others affected by traffic congestion along SW 43rd Street. 2. Air Ouality Introduction _ TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc. (TRC) was retained by Huckell/Weinman Associates to address the air quality implications of additional traffic generated by the proposed expansion of Valley Medical Center. • Approach TRC's analysis focused on carbon monoxide emissions due to traffic in the project area during the evening peak commute hour. The evening peak hour was selected because it has the I� 39 highest traffic volumes of the day. Carbon monoxide was selected for analysis because it is the pollutant emitted in the greatest quantity, and because it is the pollutant commonly used as an indicator of traffic-related air pollution levels. Monitoring data are not available in the immediate vicinity of the project, but the area is considered attainment for carbon monoxide by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . An attainment area is a geographical area in which the air quality meets the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards. EPA' s Mobile4 model (USEPA, 1989) was used to calculate the 7 , amount of carbon monoxide (in grams per mile of travel) that traffic emits now and will emit in the future. Mobile4 is the latest in a series of improved models for predicting vehicle emissions based on the specific traffic situation of � ,. interest. Mobile4 accounts for the gradual replacement of older ' technology vehicles. Due to federal legislation passed in the 1970s, newer vehicles have had to meet more stringent tailpipe emission standards. Figure 10 displays the reduction in emissions . that Mobile3 predicts will occur between 1990 and the 1995. It is important to note that the reduction in carbon monoxide emissions is expected to be much larger at slow travel speeds than at higher speeds, and , that the benefits from an inspection and maintenance (I&M) program are also greater at lower speeds. In Renton, vehicles are tested to determine if their emissions meet specific limits. Vehicles that do not meet the emission limits are required to obtain service from a mechanic and are reinspected. Emission factors used in the modeling were based on the recent re-authorized I&M program. Directional traffic volumes were evaluated for S. 43rd Street from Lind Avenue S.W. to Talbot Road S. ; for the SR- 167 northbound on- and off-ramps at S. 43rd Street; for Driveway #5 and Davis Avenue S. ; and for Talbot Road S. and E. Valley Road (for 1 /4 mile north and south of S. 43rd Street for each road) . The traffic volumes identified in figures 18, 20, 22 and 24 of the Draft EIS for the project (issued August 31 , 1990) were used to estimate PM peak-hour traffic volumes for existing (1990) and future (1995) scenarios. The 1995 scenarios included a no action alternative, the proposed action, and a reduced scale ) , development. It was assumed that average traffic speeds were about 5 mph less than the posted speed limit on each of the roadways included in the analysis. 40 Mobile4 CO Emissions Emissions versus Speed 260 240 — 220 200 — " 180 160 — a 140 — E 120 — 100 — 80 — 00 60 — 0., 40 — • 20 — --========= =-----.................................. „-- 0 1 1 1 2:5 I 6 I 10 I 14 I 18 I 22 I 216 I 310 I 34 I 38 I 42 I 46 50 54 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 Miles per Hour 0 1990 + 1995 • • T?C FIGURE 10 MOBILE4 CARBON MONOXIDE idn II inn -, EMISSION RATES Mg • A 1 a To determine the total peak hour emissions for each alternative, the emission factor from Mobile4 was multiplied by the peak hour traffic volume and the length of each road link. Calculating the total emissions provides an overall indication of the relative air quality implications of proposed alternatives. Results 4 Calculated PM peak hour carbon monoxide emissions are summarized in Table 4. Table 4 indicates that 1995 carbon monoxide emissions from nearby roads would be lower than today, regardless of which future scenario occurs. This is due to a greater number of newer technology vehicles which meet the more stringent emission standards. In 1995, traffic volumes and emissions would be lowest with the No Action alternative. Because decreases in average emission rates would more than offset increases in traffic, carbon monoxide emissions would decrease by about 23 percent compared with existing emissions. Traffic volumes would be slightly higher with the proposed action, and emissions would increase by 6 percent compared with No Action. Emissions would still be 18 percent lower than existing emissions because lower emission rates would continue to offset higher traffic volumes. Traffic increases would be slightly lower than with the proposed action if the lower development alternative (Alternative 3) is selected. Table 4 indicates that traffic associated with Alternative 3 would generate 5 percent more carbon monoxide emissions than No Action. Emissions would 1_-- be 19 percent lower than 1990 emissions. Conclusion Based on EPA' s Mobile4 emission factor program and traffic projections in the Draft EIS, TRC concludes that there would be a substantial decrease in traffic emissions regardless of which alternative is selected. The proposed action would generate approximately 6 percent more carbon monoxide than the no action alternative, but emissions would still be 18 percent lower than today. Therefore, the proposed action would not have a significant adverse air quality impact ti ' 42 • • Table 4 • SUMMARY OF PM PEAK-HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS EMISSIONS PERCENT CHANGE PERCENT CHANGE (pounds) COMPARED W/EXISTING COMPARED W/NO ACTION EXISTING CONDITIONS (1990) 166 (0)% 29% NO ACTION (1995) 129 -23% (0)% _ PROPOSED ACTION (1995) 136 -18% 6% ALTERNATIVE 3 (1995) 135 -19% 5% TIC h r 43 SECTION III WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES/INDIVIDUALS AND RESPONSES TO THOSE COMMENTS 71 j 44 SECTION III WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES/INDIVIDUALS AND RESPONSES TO THOSE COMMENTS Written comment letters were received from the following five agencies and five individuals: Agencies o Washington State Department of Transportation o Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Seattle - King County Department of Public Health o King County Public Hospital District #1 (Valley Medical Center t o Renton Police Department fY Individuals o The Ferris Company o " M-V Properties 1 o Versie and Warren Vaupel o Stuart A. Vendeland ; ' o Jacob C. Wagner, M.D. The letters are included in their entirety in this section of the FEIS, together with responses to the comments that they raise. 45 Washington State Duane 9erentson • Department o1i Transportation SerrolAry of Transportation District 3 PLJ ?11!IFU(. f)IVISI!)N 1!;:tJf;r 5(.. 30111 PlaceC I) 13ollevuc�, W i&uii411cm OR(1U7•(SfiafS } �S�' rif.J.f��)r.1 (20(3)662.40(X) (IL? I 13 7990 j October 25, 1990 ! Ms. Mary Lynne Myer, Senior Planner Planning/Building/Public Works Department Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. South L . Renton, WA 98055 SR 167 DEIS Review _i Valley Medical Center Expansion Dear Ms. Myer: • This letter is in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement review we received from the city of Renton. This project proposes to construct a 110, 970 square foot medical office building on the northwest corner of the hospital campus and relocate the ambulatory care center to an existing structure. This ro ect is expected to erate 4, 040 daily trips, 169 AM peak trips and 379 PM peak strips at build out. in 1995. L , The. northbound SR 167 ramp junction with SW 43rd Street will be significantly impacted by this project. Fifty-two percent of project trips during PM peak will travel through the intersection. Local Improvement District #329 proposes several improvements for SW 43rd Street. Inprovements include, but • are not limited to, an 1IOV lane and turn lane channelization 1 on SW 43rd Street between the SR 167 interchange and Davis Avenue South and two new lanes on SW 43rd Street between Davis Avenue South and Talbot Road. The department concurs with the City in regards to these improvements and the tunnel pedestrian crossing under SW 43rd Street near Davis Avenue South. • • • - • • Ms. Mary Lynne Myer, Senior Planner State Route 167 October 25, 1990 Page 2 The department has an improvement project on SR 167 between 15th Street SW in Algona to south Grady Way. This project will construct HoV lanes on the SR 167 mainlines, install surveillance, control and driver information equipment and possibly construct HOV bypass lanes on selected on ramps. 2 Stage l (84th Street to South Grady Way) is scheduled to be • advertised November 2, 1992 . we recommend that the City condition the proponent of this project to contribute a pro rata share to this project. i Continued implementation of Valley Medical Center's Trans- 3I portation Management Plan is recommended. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this ,; office. Sincerely, BERRY B. SCHUTZ Development Planning Engineer CG:cmi • 1/CG-SR167 • i_ { iJ • f • • Responses to Comments by the Washington State Department of Transportation Comment 1 The comment is noted. Comment 2 The comment is noted. The intersection of the north-bound ramps of SR-167 with S.W. 43rd St. will be used by 52% of the PM peak trips generated by the proposed project. This would amount to 197 PM peak hour vehicle trips. Comment 3 j ', Valley Medical Center is committed to approximately $2 . 5 million dollars of traffic mitigation relative to LID #329, a project previously required by earlier building permits. However, additional traffic mitigation may be required in ! J; terms of vehicular trip fees associated with the proposed action and implementation of an expanded or more agressive Transportation Management Plan. Page 89 of the DEIS notes that "continued implementation of Valley Medical Center's Transportation Management Plan. . . (TMP) . . . is recommended" . Elements of that TMP are described on pages 89 through 92 of the DEIS. The TMP will be revised and updated in conjunction with the proposed project (please refer to the Text Amendments contained in Section II of this FEIS) . 48 _-`` jmETRD Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104-1598 September 19, 1990 1 ` Environmental Review Committee c/o Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Development Planning Section Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South . Renton, Washington 98055 Determination of Nonsignificance File No. : ECF-06, 89 Valley Medical Canter Dear Environmental Review .Committee: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to water quality or to Metro's wastewater facilities. However, we have the following comments regarding public transportation services. Public Transportation Services Valley Medical Center's existing Transportation Management 4 Program should be revised and updated in connection with the: ( !, proposed expansion. The EIS indicates that Metro has no planned expansions or r , revisions of service in the area. Actually, Metro plans a substantial service improvement to Valley Medical Center in June 1991 when a new route 169 will begin operating. Route 5 169 will provide bus service seven days a week with 30 minute service on weekdays and Saturdays, 60 minute service `_' at night and on Sundays between Renton and the Kent Park- and-Ride lot via Talbot Road, S. W. 43rd Street and Benson Highway. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Compliance Division GMB:p1g5639 F. - J Responses to Comments by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Comment 4 Key elements of VMC's Transportation Management Plan are noted in the DEIS (pages 89 through 93) . In addition, several revisions to the TMP are described in Section II of this FEIS. Comment 5 1_. The comment is noted. Transit service described on page 72 of the DEIS has been revised to .reflect these changes (refer to Section II of this FEIS) . I r 50 • (10 • (;1().nl Senl l(, King L•otmly 1rr'rrr•rr,1f.Rice,hlrryor 'Pint 11111.6,.Iu:fl i,c Senitle.King Comity Department ul Publle:!Health Bull,Nirola.Ai.l).,AL11.E,r1.,Uirerior October 1 , 1990 Donald K. Erickson , A/CP Zoning Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department E s. i Attn: Mary Lynn Myer. 200 Mill Ave. S. : :s Y !;•• r ' Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr . Erickson : 1 We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing us to review and comment on the Draft Environmental impact Statement (DEIS) for the Valley Medical Center project. At this time , we have no concerns regarding this proposed 6 project, provided that the public health concerns , such as surface water, noise and traffic control are properly mitigated. Again , thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on this proposed project. We look forward to working with you in the future. • Should you have questions regarding this correspondence , please contact Gary Irvine or Tim Hardin at 296-4666 . Sincerely, • 1.A.A.Arft huck Kleeberg , Director Environmental Health Services TH:baw � I cc: Paul Murakami , District Administrator Southeast District Office Gary Irvine , Supervisor Alder Square Tim Hardin , Senior Environmental Health Specialist Alder Square ote Myr Square I uiro mnn!nlal!leash h Nrri'irrrr I•I1I I I1.101:;I r• S. S,rllr 1111 kr.' Mi.101101n 11811 :: WW1 29;.(7ItRru•2ff(1..1(Ifi(; Responses to Comments by the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health Comment 6 • The comment is noted. The only significant noise associated with this project is expected to be short-term construction noise. The amount of impervious surfaces will increase by approximately 0 . 4% and all surface water will be channeled to on-site storm drains, consistent with the City' s and King County' s surface water regulations. The City is required to review and authorize installation of all final storm drainage plans associated with the proposed action. r- i . rT • • • r- 52 411Lr death 4'rd titicct R<'itt•n, 11'!i (WIC014 - 206.575.25`l3 VI1Icy N'lcd icii 1 (.enter September 27, 1990 Donald K. Erickson Zoning Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department Attn: Mary Lynne Myer 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Comments op the Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement for the Valley Medical Witter Medical Office Building II and the Ambulatory Cape Center - ECF-063-89 Dear Mr. Erickson: This letter is to provide you with comments from Valley Medical center concerning the above indicated Draft Environmental Impact statement. First, we would like to state that we believe the draft is a very accurate and comprehensive document and clearly complies with the requirements of SEPA. Second, we would like to thank Mary Lynne Myer for her assistance and for monitoring the timeliness of the DEIS writer. The hospital has three comments that it would like to make concerning the mitigation measures. • 1 . On Page 92 of the DEIS, there is a discussion concerning the realignment of driveway No. 3 into the hospital premises. It is noted that the driveway is not aligned directly with South 177th Street across Talbot Road South which could result in a potential accident problem. However, it is also noted that historical accident data does not indicate a problem. Further, it is stated that realignment may impact the existing residential area due 7 to an increase in traffic on South 177th street because of the possibility of using South 177th Street to avoid the intersection at S.W. 43rd Street and Talbot Road South. While the hospital recognizes that in the future realignment may be adviseable, we agree with the analysis in the DEIS that there is not a present problem and that in fact realignment may create an additional problem. We would propose to realign the driveway if and when the accident data indicates that it is warranted. Donald K. Erickson ri Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. September 27, 1990 Page 2 2. On Page 93 of the DEIS, the City has proposed a traffic mitigation fee based on an increase in traffic generated by the medical office building. The fee is calculated to be $86, 344 . 23 based on a $22 .97 cost participation per trip generated. The DEIS does not address the basis for 8I the $22 .97 nor does it indicate the use for the $86, 344 . 23 or how it will be used to mitigate traffic 9I related to this project. On Page 73 of the DEIS, there is an explanation of Valley Medical Center's participation in LID 329 . It is pointed out that in order to assist the City with its design problems in the original LID and to improve east/west 10 traffic flow on S.W. 43rd Street in general, the hospital voluntarily agreed to increase the cost of LID 329 by an additional $1. 5 million dollars. Valley Medical Center is the sole contributor to LID 329. The DEIS points out that additional traffic mitigation may be required for the medical office building because the LID was not originally contemplated as mitigation for • the building. While the hospital admits that this is true, we feel that to rot acknowledge the hospital 's 11 voluntary payment has a "chilling effect" on voluntary contributions in general. In addition, the City's delay in constructing LID 329 has greatly increased the cost of the project. The original proposed cost. in 1982 was approximately $500,000. The current cost is approximately $2. 5 million dollars. 3 . Valley Medical Center is concerned that the City of Renton views the hospital more as a private developer that consumes city resources than a provider of public services. On Page 94 of the DEIS, it is stated that a concern of the City of Renton is whether its costs of providing public services to VMC are adequately offset by the revenue received. Valley Medical Center is, in fact, an assumed business name for Public Hospital 12 District No. 1 of King County. It is a Washington municipal corporation the same' as the city of Renton. The Washington state legislature has declared that the purpose of public hospital districts such as Valley Medical Center is to "own and operate hospitals and other health care facilities and to provide hospital services and other health care services for the residents of such districts and other persons". RCW 70. 44 .003 . Thus to the OCT-01-'90 14:53 I D: CITY OF RENTCON TEL 110:205-235-2513 4172 PO4 • Donald K. Erickson Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. September 27, 1990 Page 3 • extent that public resources are utilized to support the hospital it is merely to provide additional public services. However, as stated out in the DEIS, Valley 12 Medical Center provides revenue to the City through several means such as water and sewer utility fees, construction permit fees, special assessments and leasehold excise taxes. It is worth pointing out that the total mitigation package for this project proposed by the City of Renton is estimated to be $1, 736, 000 for permanent and off-site improvements. This includes ,$1. 5 million dollars spent to retrofit the areas of the hospital that are not currently sprinklered as required by the Renton Fire 13 Prevention Bureau. If the costs of the LID are included, the amount jumps to a staggering $4,236, 000! The total construction costs of the medical office building and the ambulatory care center are expected to be $13 million dollars. Thus, as proposed, the amount paid to the City of Renton in mitigation will be approximately 33 percent of the project cost. • If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. very ruly urs, 1 Eric J. Th pah • General C uhsel EJT/ldj cc: R. Roodman J. Scott ; jl • Responses to Comments byKingCountyPublic Hospital P District #1 (Valley Medical Center) Comment 7 The comment is noted. Driveway realignment may be a mitigation measure imposed for safety reasons before accidents occur. Comment 8 The basis of the $22 .97 cost participation per trip amount is the total cost for the South 43rd St. LID ($590, 000 ) divided by the number of vehicle trips projected for VMC, One Valley Place and other key projects identified by the City of Renton. This amount is documented in a June 11 , 1984 letter to the City from Owen Hall & Associates (contained in Appendix B of this FEIS) . Comment 9 LID #329 traffic improvement conditions have been adopted by the City of Renton and the $22.97 cost participation per trip amount was based on this resolution. The proportional share will be used to provide the following traffic improvements, which are part of the LID program: 1 ) Channelization modifications to provide two left turn lanes, one through lane in each direction and one right turn lane. 2) Signal modifications to provide property phasing and indication for revised movements. 3) Channelization modifications to provide two left turn lanes and one through lane in each direction. 4) Widening to allow additional lane on the west side. Requires additional right-of-way. 5) Widening to provide an additional westbound lane to be used for right turning vehicles. 6) Widening to provide an additional eastbound lane to be used for right turning vehicles . 7) Realignment of hospital entrance to match Davis Ave. S. 8) Signalization of Davis Ave. S. and S.W. 43rd St. To be paid for exclusively by One Valley Place. 56 9) Widening of northbound on-ramp to SR-167 . 10 ) Widening of northbound off-ramp from SR-167 . 11 ) Signalization of SR-167 northbound ramps and S.W. 43rd St. St ate to pay for signal improvements except for $17, 200 for special City equipment. City funds to be contributed from adjacent development. 12) Widening to allow a through and a right turn lane. Requires additional right-of-way and seriously impacts existing building. Comment 10 The comment is noted and by inclusion in this FEIS will be considered by the City' s Hearing Examiner in deciding the requested action. Comment 11 VMC's voluntary contribution and active participation in the LID process is acknowledged. Comment 12 Although VMC is a municipal corporation as referenced on page 94 of the DEIS, VMC does pay certain fees and taxes which accrue revenue to the City of Renton. Refer to Section II of this FEIS for additional analyses regarding tax revenue generated by VMC in conjunction with the proposed action. Comment 13 The comment is noted. The amount noted to retrofit areas of the hospital which are not currently sprinklered should not be included in the total amount of mitigation because such retrofitting is a fire code requirement. 57 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: September 18, 1990 TO: Mary Lynne Myer FROM: Penny Bryant 1 'tAA- SUBJECT: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER - DEIS I have reviewed the DEIS for Valley Medical Center and cannot find any additional areas of concern for the police department. As previously mentioned, the police concerns will surround the traffic congestion that will be associated with the construction of a new medical office building. 14 The police department is expecting that the office building will have only a minor impact on police services because medical offices do not have a major impact on police services. Further, VMC averages only 22 calls for service per month. This level of calls for service represents less than one percent of all police department calls for service monthly. • • • I I Response to Comments by the Renton Police Department Comment 14 The comment is noted. 59 U'v I-LII_- 7, 1J.JCJ 1 L. -1 I 1 Lli r'.CI'i I L11 1 I CL lu•c!'J CI-,=,._J �J1J ,.,.-�� rL'J I�• •1!' • PLIPPIS COMPANY ' S • lL: October 3 , 1990 Donald K. Erickson Zoning Administration . ri ANINU L M City of Renton ; 11). O1- ;;r-Nfor•: 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Mary Lynne Myer Re: DEIS Valley Medical Center MOB II Dear Mr. Erickson: I am writing on behalf of M-V Properties, owners of Valley Gardens Health Center, a private medical office building housing various medical and dental uses, located at 601 South Carr Road in Renton. We sincerely hope you will recognize our comments both now, while the EIS is circulating, and when the Department makes its recommendations on the project. I have a large number of concerns about the DEIS. 1. The first group of concerns deals with the Scope of the EIS and the omission of some important elements. Based on our understanding of the proposal, it appears that several important elements of the en vironment which have been overlooked are likely to experience adverse impacts of probable significance and should be addressed in this EIS: these include air quality, energy, environmental health and socioeconomic impacts. A. Air - The fairly significant traffic increase (4, 040 additional vehicles per day) will significantly increase air 15 pollution, especially in light of the resulting congestion and poor level of service at the studied intersections and other nearby locations. B. Energy Hospitals and hospital-related facilities are tremendous consumers of energy. The project's effect on 14 public energy supplies, both in isolation and in a cumulative sense, as well as measures VMC would take to conserve energy, should be addressed. C. Environmental Health - Medical facilities of all sorts involve the use of chemicals, some of which are hazardous. 17 The EIS should disclose what chemicals are to be used in the new facility, in what quantities they will be stored, how they will be stored, and how they will be disposed of. An additional environmental health issue is the effect of I 18 key Bank Build rg,Sulte 506 10655 NE 4111 Strout Bellevue.WA 56004 FAx 206:646.7675 206/462.7650 Donald K. Erickson October 3 , 1990 Page 2 construction noise on hospital patients and other nearby 18 receptors and what measures will be taken to mitigate that significant impact. D. Soclo-Economic - Agencies can elect to include an element of the social environmental covering fiscal issues or other economic matters; such an element is necessary here, for the reasons discussed below. This should be particularly important to the City of Renton which will be losing property tax dollars due to this 19 project being on public land and not private property. The City has increased demands for services by the hospital without the revenue sources to pay for them. Without disclosure of impacts and mitigation measures in the above elements of the environment, the EIS fails to meet its purpose to fully inform the public and agency decision- makers. 2 . The second major area of concern about the DEIS is in the Description of Proiect and the Selection of Alternatives. As discussed in the Draft EIS, the proposal entails a Conditional Use application (or applications) to establish use of a medical office building over 50 feet in height on the VMC campus, and to relocate the Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) , currently located in the hospital, to the existing structure housing the Psychiatry Wing. The alternatives discussed in the EIS are No-Action, build a smaller office building, and build the proposed office building on the southern sector of the campus. Our primary concern is that each of the alternatives to the proposed project set forth in the EIS are concluded to be inconsistent with the sponsor's objectives. SEPA requires that an EIS include reasonable alternatives that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives at a lower environmental 20 cost. simply dispensing with alternatives because they would not be the proponent's best option doesn't uphold the intent of the alternatives requirement and doesn't afford the public and City decisionmakers an objective basis for evaluating impacts and tradeoffs. The EIS should more fully address the option of meeting demand 21 for medical office space off-campus either in existing office facilities or new, private construction. Both the No-Action and _ r✓_�'-f Donald K. Erickson October 3, 1990 Page 3 I the Reduced Scope Alternatives should also reflect a more _ 2-2 efficient utilization of existing office space near the institution. 3. A third area of concern relates to the inadequate discussion of Market Demand for office space in the area. As you know, the VMC is a public agency, part of King County Public Hospital District Number 1, governed by a publicly-elected Board of Commissioners. Capital expenditures for new construction such as the proposed action involve the use of considerable sums of public monies which must be tied to the principal mission of the facility which, in VMc's case, is a hospital. Our concern with the proposal is that it involves such a public investment in a speculative, risky development venture. It is debatable whether the upper four-fifths of the proposed building, which is proposed to be leased to doctors and specialists for non-hospital related purposes (i.e. , conducting their everyday practice) , is related at all to the institution's primary hospital function or would even be leasable in today's market. 23 There is discussion of a supposed shortage of high quality professional medical office space; great reliance is placed on the assumption that there is, in fact, a shortage. We feel that it is erroneous to conclude that there is a shortage of quality office space on the basis of the information provided in the document for two reasons. First, one cannot conclude supply is inadequate if there is no quantification of demand. There is no information in the EIS to describe existing demand, in terms of the number of doctors seeking space, the amount of space they require, or whether the VMC is artificially stimulating demand for office space by encouraging or in other ways influencing physicians with privileges at the hospital to lease space in the project or in other VMC office facilities (e.g. , Chin Hills and Talbot . Buildin s g ) Second, a more objective and scientific survey of existing facilities is necessary to determine actual vacancy. The EIS concludes, on the basis of the opinion of one real estate appraiser, that actual vacancy is 11.7 percent, or approximately 19, 350 square feet of the Class A space, and 16. 2 percent, or approximately 22 , 000 square feet of the existing woodframe office 1-.:D-, 1 L: 1 I I ur i i I UIY 4.1.1.1 P05 • • Donald K. Erickson October 3, 1990 Page 4 space. Construction of a five-story medical office building of which four stories, or nearly 85, 000 square feet of Class "A" office space would need to be leased, in a market with similar `2 3 quality space available nearby, would be somewhat questionable for a private developer to undertake and would entail unacceptable risk for a public agency such as the Valley Medical Center. 4 . Another element of the environment which is inadequately treated is sand Use. This is related to the issue of the market place for office space previously discussed. In the EIS Land Use section (p. 47) , it is concluded that no significant impacts on land use are expected as a result of the proposal . Given the uncertainty over demand, the VMC's affect on demand, and doubts about the accuracy of the supply figures, we must conclude that the proposal will adversely affect existing office uses near the 24 VMC campus. The adverse effect will be loss of tenants (if existing tenants must relocate when leases expire in order to __ maintain privileges at the hospital) and greater difficulty securing new tenants with the publicly-subsidized medical office building located on the VMC campus. These impacts are adverse and will be significant. , I 5. Another area of serious omission is in the section dealing with Conditional Use. Several significant omissions to the document are found in the Relationship to Plans and Policies section. Although this section mentions that a Conditional Use approval is required to permit the office building to exceed 50 _25 feet, it doesn't disclose that Conditional Use approval is are ill required for the office building itself and for accessory facilities such as the Ambulatory Care Center; it does not disclose or evaluate the Conditional Use criteria that apply; and it does not evaluate any alternative actions that do not require special approvals from the City of Renton. with reference to the Renton Zoning Code, Section 4-748C, the following criteria apply to the requested conditional uses: 1. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use shall be { 126 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 of Renton. �•..i—VG— _� iJ•JJ i a . a I I LA- rsal V I VI v I CL I i • +-rcac ruG I i i Donald K. Erickson October 3, 1990 Page 5 2. 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: a. The proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area - 26 of the proposed use. I_ b. That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. 3 . Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. It is arguable that these criteria would not be fully satisfied by the proposal to construct a medical office building within the VMC Campus. Specifically, there is an insufficient basis for concluding that there is an unmet need in the community for 27 Class A medical office space and that it could not be met via an alternative such as the No-Action. Without a quantification of demand, one cannot conclude that existing office supply in the vicinity of VMC is inadequate, thereby necessitating the proposed }; action. Although view impacts to uphill properties are discussed, the option of constructing a medical office building within the ' 28 height limit is not discussed anywhere in the document. The EIS mentions that the City could impose conditions to mitigate impacts identified in the EIS as part of the conditional use ; process, but makes no mention of what those conditions might be or what impacts they would mitigate. In fact, there are 29 absolutely no measures identified to mitigate land use impacts which, as we've stated, will be significant. Also, there is no discussion or evaluation of building an alternative structure that contains no speculative office space, 30 just legitimate hospital uses such as those proposed for the first floor of the proposed new structure. I UL.�I-l'IC 'LJ 1J:J•-F 1 L L 1 I 'I Ur MCIY I UI Y I CL I'YU 1-6 Donald K. Erickson October 3, 1990 Page 6 Further, there is a discussion of a Conditional Use Permit already issued by the City of Renton that authorizes an increase to theparkingfacilities on the VMC campus. The EIS states P as fact that this permit was issued to meet projected future parking needs, including parking required for the proposed medical office building (see p. 11) . It is logical to assume, therefore, that , 31 the City of Renton intends to issue the Conditional Use Permits required to authorize the proposed development. We would add that the City is doing so without an adequate evaluation of legitimate alternatives in the EIS, on the basis of risky speculation in a soft office market, and without complete disclosure of environmental impacts and mitigating measures. 6. Perhaps our greatest area of concern is the lack of full disclosure of traffic impacts in the Transportation element. The EIS discloses that there will be increased traffic and reduced am level of service as a result of the project but it characterizes the increase as a "small portion" of some future problem (a grievous degree of editorializing for an EIS) and fails to disclose that much of the traffic increase would be caused by 1c office-related trips rather than hospital-related trips. It seems obvious that in the presence of level of service "F" at several intersections near the campus, allowing additional non- ,' hospital related trips to attempt to turn into the campus is ?_> injustifiable and should be grounds for denying the project. Also, it is unclear whether VMC will be required to conduct any r mitigation above what they have committed to on previous projects for the new impacts created by the office building. Are the per- 3 2 trip fees ($86, 344 . 23) and other measures identified in the EIS new costs or are they buried somewhere in existing agreements? This is particularly disturbing since the hospital was allowed to build the new 70, 000 sf Talbot Professional Office without making any new improvements to the existing heavily congested road system. Presumably an L. I.D. was to be created to fund the widening of 43rd Avenue and improvement of the Talbot Road intersection, including new signalization at the SR 167 interchange, at the hospital entrance drive and Talbot road. Years later, however, nothing has been done. How can the City approve more on-campus development when improvements to correct previous impacts have not yet been made? I When the Valley Gardens Health Center was constructed, it was required to provide over $400, 000 in public street improvements as a condition of approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Yet it is less than half the size of the proposed deviopment. Why h , ! 'a -uo- __ �J:J._ 1L'. v• ur 44:Lc ruo ti Donald K. Erickson October 3 , 1990 Page 7 should apublicly-sponsored project be required to do anything less than a privately-proposed project in the same area? 7 . The final subject is the element dealing with Public. Services. Fire protection is identified as a significant impact that cannot be mitigated. Are not the steps listed on pp. 95-96 involving sprinklering of the hospital and existing office _133 building actually mitigating measures? Will VMC be required to perform these steps as part of the approval process? If so, then they should be recognized as mitigation measures and required of the VMC prior to development of this new project. In conclusion, we believe that there are several significant ) omissions from the EIS and that a Supplemental EIS is necessary to address the issues raised in this letter. Also, there is clearly no need to exercise the City's discretionary decision- making process for such a speculative development venture by a public entity where no community need has been justified or public benefits clearly documented. We request that you keep us informed of your response to these issues and of the conditional use process. Sincerely, E. Michael Ferris 1 President EMF:hd i ' • ; 'E Responses to Comments by The Ferris Company Comment 15 Air quality analysis has been included in this FEIS (refer to Section II) . Comment 16 The City of Renton has adopted the Washington State Energy Code, therefore, all new structures must comply. VMC' s Director of Engineering indicates that the new building has been designed for energy efficiency and the structure will meet or exceed all Federal, State or City energy requirements by 10 - 15%. L Specific measures that have been incorporated into design of the building' s mechanical systems include: o maximum use of efficient lighting (new BL fixtures as compared with incandescent for accent lighting) ; o increase the thermal efficiency of the building envelope with increased insulation in the walls of the building and the roof; and o incorporation of an energy management system that will continually monitor performance of the building' s electrical and mechanical systems to ensure that these systems continue to operate within established design parameters. Comment 17 The exact nature of potentially toxic or hazardous wastes that may be used in a new medical office building are not known at this time. It is expected, however, that like most medical facilities toxic or hazardous compounds would be present -- including: acids, bases and solvents; mercury; and possibly nuclear isotopes. Acids, bases and solvents are typically used in laboratory, engineering and environmental sections of a hospital, and possibly could be used in the proposed medical office building. Each is physically isolated from the other and conspicuously identified. Spill containment kits are located in close proximity to the storage location and personnel are trained in proper disposal. Mercury, a potentially hazardous compound, is used in thermometers and blood pressure cuffs. Containment kits and 67 training are provided. Disposal is provided at an approved off-site facility by an EPA approved disposal company. ?_h If the proposed medical office building contains any radiological imaging, nuclear isotopes are used. As with the other toxic and hazardous compounds, spill procedures and training is in effect. Blood and/or blood products could also be found in the proposed medical office building. These items are considered hazardous because of the possibility of contamination by infectious agents. Disposal procedures and it training is in effect for these hazardous materials, consistent with the hospital' s Infectious Control Policy which exceeds the requirements of all regulatory agencies. Comment 18 Construction of the Proposed Action, Alternative 2 - the Reduced Scale Development, or Alternative 3 - Medical Office Building South would result in construction noise. The level of such noise would be dependent upon the nature of the construction activity, as well as the location of the receptor hearing the noise. The range of sound levels associated with most office building construction phases typically varies from 76 to 98 dBA, as measured at 50 feet. These levels are reduced by such factors as distance from the noise source, terrain, the use of acoustic equipment enclosures and indoor propagation loss. The duration of this level of construction noise would be periodic L throughout the six to eight month heavy construction period. Construction noise is exempt from the State' s Maximum Environmental Noise Level requirements (WAC 173-60) between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Since the hospital and Talbot Professional Center would be the land uses most affected by on-site construction noise, the City and/or Hospital could impose construction conditions upon the contractor. Such measures could include: requiring the contractor to circulate notices of upcoming, particularly noisy construction periods; periodic use of acoustic enclosures; and/or, whenever possible, specify equipments which generate the least amount of noise. Comment 19 Information relative to revenue which may accrue to the City as a result of taxes, fees and assessments to be paid by VMC as a result of the proposed project is included in Section II of this FEIS. 68 Comment 20 SEPA requires that an EIS address reasonable alternatives which "could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal' s objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation. " The DEIS on pages 24 through 26 described the proponent's 15 objectives for this project. For the proposed medical office building, they included goals relative to: general overview, service and facility requirements, location, circulation and parking, design, and operation. A locational goal was also included for relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center. The Proposed Action was formulated with these goals in mind. Alternative 2 - Reduced Scale Development and Alternative 3 - Relocated Medical Office Building (South) were identified as reasonable measures which could approximate the L proposal' s objectives -- but at a reduced environmental cost. While an off-site alternative could provide the medical office space needed, such an alternative would not satisfy 4 of the 15 objectives sought (#2, 6, 8 & 9) . An off-campus alternative would not result in lower environmental costs. It is estimated that an off-site location would include approximately 200 staff and doctors, similar to the proposed action. The employees of an off- campus alternative, together with patients, medical vendors, and service vehicles, could generate at least 50% more traffic than the Proposed Action -- or an additional 2000 vehicular trips. This is assuming that the vehicle trips are hospital-related and no efficient, localized bus or van service is provided by the off-campus facility to transport physicians and patients from the off-campus location to the hospital --at 15 minute intervals or less. Even with the van or bus service, vehicle trips associated with an off- - campus site are expected to be 10 to 15% greater than the Proposed Action. If the patient vehicular trips have no hospital-related component, then fewer area-wide trips would be generated. The number of employee, medical vendor and service vehicle trips, however, would remain the same. A major factor that King County Hospital District #1 must also consider is the convenience for its patients. VMC indicates that an off-campus location would not provide the convenience desireable and particularily would not promote handicap accessibility between the offices and the hospital. Comment 21 An analysis of the local medical office market is beyond the scope of this FEIS. Local medical office demand, however, will be considered by the City' s Hearing Examiner as part of ' the Conditional Use permit process. 69 Comment 22 As noted in the DEIS (p. 25) , a key design goal of the ' Proposed Action is to "maximize the use of the Hospital' s property and minimize lot coverage by developing a high-rise structure. " While the Reduced Scale alternative would satisfy many of proponent's objectives, it would not maximize property use or minimize lot coverage. As indicated in the DEIS (p. 37) , because development would not be maximized at this location, "this alternative could result in the need for additional medical office space elsewhere on-site (or off-site) in order to meet estimated market demand. " While siting of this alternative is only conceptual, it does reflect the other -essential locational objectives of the • proponent -- while continuing to provide fire service access to the new medical office building, Talbot Professional Center, the Psychiatry Wing and the hospital. Comment 23 It is anticipated that the proposed medical office building would lease office space to physicians and specialists with patients that may have a need to see the doctor and possibly also return to the hospital for further tests. An analysis of the local medical office market is beyond the scope of this FEIS. Local medical office demand, however, will be considered by the City' s Hearing Examiner as part of the Conditional Use permit process. The question of the acceptability or unacceptability of development risk is decision that the proponent must weigh. Such is not an issue of this FEIS. Comment 24 An analysis of the local medical office market is beyond the ?_ scope of this FEIS. Local medical office demand, however, will be considered by the City's Hearing Examiner as part of the Conditional Use permit process. A spokesman for Valley Medical Center indicates that the hospital offers no privileges in conjunction with practicing at VMC (E. Thoman,, General Counsel, Nov. 27, 1990) . In } order for a physician to practice at VMC, they must be a member of the hospital's staff. To become a member involves a formal "credentialing" process that includes review and approval by peers. Once a member of the staff, the physician has the right to a defined scope of practice at the hospital and can bring patients to the hospital. The 70 "credentialing" process is not affected by location of a physician' s practice (on- or off-campus) . ?_ Comment 25 In the Fact Sheet of this FEIS (and also that of the DEIS p. ii) , it was noted that the project would require a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review as well as the other more detailed construction permits. Analysis on page 62 of the DEIS indicated that "medical offices, accessory uses in separate buildings (possibly the Ambulatory Care Center) and/or buildings over 50 feet in height but less than 95 feet are considered conditional uses in the P-1 zone. " Conditional Use permits will be required both for the medical office use proposed and building height. Previous decisions by the City' s Hearing Examiner support this requirement. tJ Comment 26 The comment is noted and, as indicated, those criteria will serve as a basis for the City Hearing Examiner' s evaluation of the Conditional Use Permit. Comment 27 An analysis of the local medical office market is beyond the scope of this FEIS. Local medical office demand, however, will be considered by the City's Hearing Examiner as part of the Conditional Use permit process. L_ Comment 28 As indicated in the DEIS (p. 52) , "view corridor impact associated with this project . . . (Reduced Scale Development) . . .is influenced primarily by building siting and less by building height. A reduction in height of one story would diminish but not eliminate the view corridor impact. " i As noted previously, building siting is an essential locational objective of the proponent. If the proposed medical office building was located at another site on campus, the view impact associated with this particular view corridor would be eliminated. It is possible, however, that many of the key project objectives could not be achieved at a new site and a medical office building at a new site may also cause additional view impacts. Shifting the location of the building at the proposed site to lessen view corridor impacts could also cause additional problems. For example, if the building was moved south, fire service access to the west side of Talbot Professional Center and the north side of the Psychiatry Wing would be r 71 restricted. Because of the orientation of the view corridor (DEIS Figure 12, p. 50) , moving the building west would position a greater amount of the building within the view corridor and affect the existing internal loop road (FEIS Figure 2, p. 9) . Moving the building north would position a ' greater amount of the building within the view corridor and affect the existing internal loop road. The building cannot be further east because of its proximity to Talbot Professional Center. The estimated parapet height of the Reduced Scale Development would be 57 feet or seven feet above the 50-foot limit. As indicated previously, buildings in the P-1 zone which exceed this height are required to obtain a Conditional Use permit from the City. The DEIS identified no unavoidable adverse impacts with regard to view impacts. Comment 29 i An analysis of land use impacts or mitigation as it relates to the local medical office market is beyond the scope of ._; this FEIS. Local medical office demand, however, will be considered by the City' s Hearing Examiner as part of the Conditional Use permit process. Comment 30 Construction of only hospital space instead of the proposed -- medical office building and relocation of the Ambulatory Care Center is not one of the proponent' s objectives. Refer to the DEIS (p. 23 through 26) . As previously indicated in the Preface to this FEIS, a key purpose of this environmental impact statement (DEIS & FEIS) is to provide information for the City' s Hearing Examiner relative to the Conditional Use permits for this proposed project. Comment 31 The comment is noted and by inclusion in this FEIS will be considered by the City' s Hearing Examiner in deciding the requested action. Comment 32 The comment is noted. Please refer to Responses to Comments #8, 9 and 20 contained in this FEIS, as well as Text Amendments noted in Section II of this FEIS. Specifics regarding VMC's participation in the approved LID #329 are described on 92 and 93 of the DEIS. page S. 72 L_ A significant portion of the traffic increase would result from non-hospital trips, ie. trips to the MOB only. However, many area-wide vehicle trips may be avoided as a result of the Proposed Action. It is estimated that an off- site location would include approximately 200 staff and doctors, similar to the proposed action. The employees of L an off-campus alternative, together with patients, medical vendors, and service vehicles, would generate at least 50% more traffic than the Proposed Action -- or an additional 2000 vehicular trips. This is without an efficient, localized bus or van service provided by the off-campus facility to transport physicians and patients from the off- campus location to the hospital --at 15 minute intervals or less. Even with the van or bus service, vehicle trips associated with an off-campus site are expected to be 10 to 15% greater than the Proposed Action. 1 VMC would pay its fair share of needed improvements for intersections which currently operate at LOS F and for those which will become LOS F in the future. Traffic mitigation measures are noted on page 89 through 93 of the DEIS. In addition, VMC would provide mitigation beyond that which they have committed to on previous projects -- as required ti by the impacts generated by the Proposed Action and as noted relative to changes in the existing TMP (FEIS Section II f - Text Amendments) . i The per trip fees to be paid by VMC are not buried in the existing agreement, but rather, are costs not originally accounted for. Refer to the DEIS pages 72, 73, 92 and 93 for a complete explanation. �' The concern regarding previous on-campus projects without added traffic improvements is discussed in the DEIS (pages 72 and 83 ) . LID #329 is mitigation for past on-campus building projects. Implementation was delayed because of the City's concern that a new traffic light at the intersection of S.W. 43rd St. and Davis Ave. S. (as originally proposed in LID #329) could further impact traffic flow in this area. Valley Medical Center voluntarily offered to pay an additional $1 .5 million for construction of a tunnel beneath S.W. 43rd St. to alleviate the problem. Delay associated with implementing LID #329 increased the cost of VMC's participation from $1 . 5 million to $2.5 million. Construction associated with LID #329 is scheduled to begin Summer 1991 . The City of Renton is giving careful attention to the traffic which will accompany the development and the ways in which its impacts can be mitigated. This is evident by the City's thorough analysis of: 1 ) LID #329; 2) additional suggested improvements, as indicated in King County's t_- Transportation Plan (page 74 of VMC's DEIS) include widening r-' 73 • • Carr Road between 108th Ave. S.E. and the Talbot Road intersection by six lanes with HOV provisions, the proposal of a new signal along Carr Road at 105th P1. S.E. , and the installation of a new signal at 98th Ave. S.E. ; and 3 ) as a result of the City' s trip fees. . Comment 33 The measures listed in the DEIS (p. 95 - 96) are, as noted, mitigation measures associated with potential fire service impacts for the proposed action. The new building will be fully sprinklered and will comply fully with the City' s Fire Code. Retrofitting of those unsprinklered sections of the existing hospital is a fire code requirement unrelated to this Li proposed action. A schedule has been developed and agreed upon jointly between the City and VMC regarding VMC' s retrofit of those unsprinklered sections . l 1_ i • • • 74 • • PLANNING DIVISION • • CITY OF RENTON iV r rlon g K. Enck.son OCT 1 1990 ot.inn A. ,✓list ar n __ .., .: . .gym. ��ru,.io�: of Renton. • RECEIVED t_ '1)00 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Attn: Mary Lynne Myer the opportunity to write to you about the completeness and . easc-.ai,: ief.eLs of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Valley .:) .•ocsed Medical Office Building I I. • ri my opinion, this draft EIS is very limited in several ways that need to • be corrected. i will address these under the following titles: AND USE IMPACTS, ITEM i --Need for better use of available facts. Page 44 of the D EI ^ states t t e VMC area contains some 165,000 sq. ft. of 5 �na>. _h., Class A space which has a vacancy rate of about 12%. In reality, 148,000 sc. ft. of this space is owned by the hospital which is 100% occupied (page whereas, the 0,00O so. ft. of non-VMC owned Class A property is less IV' than :05 occupied. Showing a 12% vacancy rate is highly misleading. 34 A� r, ,,5.` !!..1PAFTe,, iTEM 2 Following up on this, none of the alternative , t_ctJ3s ir.= neither �1. the no action alternative, 2. the reduced building alternative, or the south campus.alternative, address the cevast.ating land use impacts in the area from building an additional 1 10,000 sq. ft. of private medical office space on public hospital lands. - fl addition: ._ the above limited statistics, the current summary • statements are overly limited. For example, the final paragraph on page 8 :f the rDEIS states "Overall, development of the proposed action is not anticipated to generate significant land use impacts or conflicts. The proposed action is not likely to significantly affect the character or rate of . _ .`Ji.%ment occurring in adjacent areas in this position of the city." In my vpt��?or., that's similar to Martin Selig saying to a next door property owner Chat the 70 story 1 Columbia Center won't affect office rentals in the area. • • }'"en zoninc patterns were developed for this area, they were set up to ... or a P- 1 zoning, as noted on the comprehensive plan. The public good to zone a fairly big area to favor medically related growth around the }al !n effect, surrounding properties are generally held hostage to 36 `' =,' 'y related purposes through the comprehensive plan. ;'m sure this zoning pattern was made under the assumption that certain ;•,'ate land uses would be built to compliment the "public" hospital, and it assumed this hospital would serve public acute care needs. 'nstead, the hospital has built, helped build, or has purchased a huge amount of nor-emergency office space that competes with the surrounding T.-ea. The hospital already has 148,000 sq. ft. of medical office space. If 's al lowed to build another 110,000 sq. ft. of office space, it will continue to over dominate the medical office space market--as it has done . r , }_: date. Therefore, the city of Renton should either deny additional private medical office development on the public hospital land or be prepared to allow other uses in the surrounding privately owned medical buildings. The devastating land use impacts of allowing the hospital to own huge amounts of private office space can be seen in the fact that the land the L__' 37 hospital now owns to the south of 43rd St, was forced into bankruptcy. rn'l,arly, another parcel to the east went bankrupt and the hospital tried to buy it. I believe this was caused either directly or partially by a cmbinaticn of required P-1 zoning and hospital over-building of medical As previously noted, facts related to this serious matter are not covered A realistic no action analysis should show that the surrounding privately owned land could reasonably absorb much of the hospital projected private medical office needs and this would be a more reasonable land alternative than hospital domination 9nd devastation of the private medical office market. In contrast to the VMC approach, Swedish Hospital has encouraged the development of surrounding private office space for medical specialists prior to using land they own for this purpose. II AND L1SE IMPACTS, ITEM 3 The DEIS does not pr��vide.an adequate analysis of the no action H-li 38 alternative. On p. 9, it indicates that if this medical office building were not built, the hospital space would remain undeveloped. l noted a July 6 article in the Valley Daily News that stated that WIC eyes a $38 million expansion for a 4 story tower. This article talks about an emergency room, intensive care unit, lab and operating rooms. It says this tower will include the full spectrum of emergency and operating room related departments including intensive and coronary care units. The whole emphasis in this is emergency public health care. T h'_ information indicates to me that the hospital needs all its available space for "public hospital" acute care needs rather than private patient doctor visits. When l or anyone else drives onto that hospital complex with its already 39 tremendous congestion, it had better be for a critical medical emergency--not just a regular visit to a family specialist. f this building land use is approved, up to one quarter million sq. ft. of • valuable medical space intended for public health care will be for typically non-critical medical visits. Think of these hundreds or thousands of non-critical medical visits to this already overcongested superblock. �- in short, let's save this land use area for public health t needs and spread the private doctor non-critical visits around to surrounding land areas and the DEIS should discuss this land use alternative. TL FF!C IMPACTS ITEM I . - There is no explanation in the DEIS that under the no action alternative, 40 traffic use would be dispersed around the area rather than concentrated on the hospital campus. This more dispersed pattern would help attenuate traffic and congestion problems caused by the additional hospital growth. _r .,xarnc e. 'ith more medical space slightly to the east on Carr Road, it 1 -- would k[.., r many any trips :,rJ•i i i 1- fromo m the up la s ho J ina areas from having - _ co into the (`✓ncC rea hospital area. I -^.�r•�=ri the rv+e^ijn�;i specialists may -� time medial specia. .sts may save a small amount of time when far , tv of their time is, pe nt -ii �ihn ^lt �}} 1 �tt_rs n t rect t r:au nina r}osoitai equipment. ^),•;erburden the limited hospital space, which as they admit, is .-•'ter- -'nc at the seams with growth, with private practitioner visits that ':.t�I... with..1 could e-aci- and more appropriately be disbursed over a larger area? An example of this reasonable dispersal approach can be seen in Bellevue Hosoit -l} Rather than force patients to be inconvenienced L 140 '•f Try; r„ .:'-byre to a 'congested high-rise tower--patients can go to more -';'•.�Ir^Ci Ci'! user-friendly buildings ryi C away from 1' This =,'�bJ; JseI f ief dl; b iil Ings away fl m the hospital. ; his spreads f f;r nor.Melt on out. no gip;to l scare to be used for hospital to l services,,•_ _.,_ .✓p not private doctor and patient offices and non-critical regular patient visits. ask you if '^'i cc to see your medical specialist on a non-critical visit cc you want to have to ao to a huge hospital complex or to a smaller 'iser-friendly building? Currently, this EIS has not addressed this issue at all. Instead, it focuses on the relatively infrequent specialist use of hospital facilities compared to the very frequent consumer need for _ • t easier to drive to specialist visits and consultation. Several statements in the EIS to be related seemto serving the internal -•_I.� i4':M' ^.�w�ni,,� C ,•yj nr`r businesses,- �Ir.: _nnl busi patients, and citizens are more :oncerned with getting to, from, and around the hospital rather than mowinmowing around, oncewithin n thehuge 'JMC complex. Not enough effort has g ! �i,:�l tl4r I hi �+, been ;ace to attenuate tide problem on Talbot Road. If the new building were built, a fifth lane should be built on Talbot Road to provide for a left turn lane. Also, ! find it unbelievable that the key traffic mitigation 41 measure proposedcom letion of a 198�� p is p �., 2 requirement for traffic mitigation. ! ask you, so what new mitigation efforts are being provided { for the people and businesses in Renton who are heavily impacted by the new traffic impacts. Please note that the small traffic mitigation .fee proposed for the hospital is a drop in the bucket compared to the problems I they will cause. 1 On page 94, ± note that one of the fire mitigation efforts is to prepare a plan to put a sprinkler system in the hospital and this retrofit would be _ 42 required before any "further" building on site. Why not require the hospital to meet reasonable fire requirements on campus "before" this project is built--rather than if, and when, the hospital builds a new project? CID • IMPACTS, ITEM EM 7 L! { Also, on page 94 is a reference to City of Renton property taxes to offset . ,e public costs of serving the Valley Medical Center. After trying to go nrough the slippery verbage presented about supposed offsetting fees, I have to come to the conclusion that the building will not pay all the taxes and fees we private landowners do. 43 larlf„ the tax impacts of the development alternatives, the EiS should show both the L^., benefits of specific tax benefits to the city the no action alternative ie. which v, ol_1ld result in greater use of taxpaying private lands) and the specific tax loss if more office space is put on the hospital grounds. have not covered all the shortages in the draft EIS but I believe I have cited the major items that need to be addressed to show the real public and environmental impact_ from the proposed hospital medical office • Sincerely, M-V PROPERTIES Oitakauj )14441,14/ General Partner 1 Response to Comments by M-V Properties Comment 34 The comment is noted. An analysis of the local medical office market is beyond the scope of this FEIS. Local medical office demand, however, will be considered by the City' s Hearing Examiner as part of the Conditional Use permit process. Comment 35 The summary statement contained in the DEIS (p. 8) is correct. The Proposed Action is not expected "to generate significant land use impacts or conflicts. . . (nor is it expected) . . . to significantly affect the character or rate of development occurring in adjacent areas in this portion of the City. " Regardless of the Proposed Action, development within this area will continue -- because the area is located at an east-west crossroad between two more intensely developed areas. • Comment 36 The comment is noted. Comment 37 An analysis of the local medical office market is beyond the scope of this FEIS. Local medical office demand, however, will be considered by the City' s Hearing Examiner as part of the Conditional Use permit process. Comment 38 This summary statement is correct. More detailed information is contained on p. 36 of the DEIS. Comment 39 Refer also to Response to Comment #20 in this FEIS. Comment 40 It is estimated that an off-campus alternative with strong ties to the Hospital would not result in fewer vehicular trips. In fact, it is estimated that an off-site location couldgenerate at leastmore 50% o e traffic than the Proposed Action -- or an additional 2000 vehicular trips. This is without an efficient, localized bus or van service provided by the off-campus facility to transport physicians and patients from the off-campus location to the hospital --at 15 minute intervals or less. Even with the van or bus 80 service, vehicle trips associated with an off-campus site are expected to be 10 to 15% greater than the Proposed Action. The comment regarding the situation around Overlake Hospital in Bellevue is noted. Dispersal would "spread traffic congestion out. " The Proposed Action, which would focus development activity on-campus, enables the VMC's Transportation Management Plan to be effective. Comment 41 The comment is noted. Traffic mitigation measures include, but are not limited to LID #329 which was originally approved in 1982 . LID #329 has been expanded and additional improvements suggested. Refer also to the DEIS pages 72, 73, 89, 92 and 93 . Comment 42 The measures listed in the DEIS (p. 95 - 96) are, as noted, mitigation measures associated wit h o p tential fire service impacts for the proposed action. The new building will be fully sprinklered and will comply fully with the City's Fire Code. Retrofitting of those unsprinklered sections of the existing hospital is a fire code requirement unrelated to this proposed action. A schedule has been developed and agreed upon jointly between the City and VMC regarding VMC's retrofit of those unsprinklered sections. Comment 43 Information relative to revenue which may accrue to the City as a result of taxes, fees and assessments to be paid by VMC as a result of the proposed project is included in Section II of this FEIS. 81 . .c. _p/- /& , 09C 50 September 18, 1990 Warren P. Vaup6i -1,-) • .4 L"mac Versio V aLpei • „l P.O. Box 755 ) 2� c t/ Benton, 08O57 J (206) 255-3684 Policy Development Department or its successor City of Renton Renton WA 98055 Re: Valley Medical Center expansion To whom it may concern: The continuing expansion of Valley Medical Center is of concern to many of us, because it doesn't seem to have as much relevance now to a Public Hospital Distict, as well as other reasons. I feel it is time that the Valley Medical Center come out from under the umbrella of a Public Hospital District. Public Hospital Districts were originally intended to help out areas, usually semi-rural areas, that needed tax-exempt benefits and public monies. This latest building, as well as the acquisition of the Chin Hills Building and the other building VMC built on taxpayers' grounds, will evidently be off the 44 tax rolls forever. Yet they are occupied by well-paid, economically-healthy . medical entrepreneurs who will pay no real estate taxes for the upkeep and mainte- nance of the city of Renton. If VMC is granted what it wants, the least the medical center could do would be to pay to the city an amount in lieu of taxes to help pay for the many city services provided to the medical center. I believe this kind of expansion with a business enterprise bent on public grounds is not in the interest of Renton or any other jurisdiction. 45 I also believe the medical center is involved in unfair practice in close prox- imity to other office buildings that do not have the privilege of being on tax- exempt land. I believe that VMC no doubt offers a "better deal" to doctors who will, in turn, need to refer their patients to Valley Medical Center. . .a sort of growth incentive for the hospital, like an insurance policy to fill any vacant beds. Has the State Auditor looked at the continuing expansions on public grounds? If 46 not, that should be called to his attention. Perhaps there is nothing legally wrong with this set-up, but it makes a lot of us uncomfortable. _' Other areas of concern to us are the atrocious traffic tie-ups on SW 43rd and 4 7I on the freeway, the wetlands nearby and the non-economic returns to the taxpayers. ____Vesy truly yours, Versie Vaupel Warren F. Vaupel Response to Comments by Versie and Warren Vaupel Comment 44 Information relative to revenue which may accrue to the City , I as a result of taxes, fees and assessments to be paid by VMC as a result of the proposed project is included in Section II of this FEIS. Comment 45 An analysis of the local medical office market is beyond the scope of this FEIS. Local medical office demand, however, will be considered by the City' s Hearing Examiner as part of the Conditional Use process. rocess. permit Comment 46 The comment is noted. Expansion, such as that proposed, is authorized by Washington State law. The purpose of public hospital districts is "to own and operate hospitals and other health care facilities and to provide hospital services and other health care services for the residents of such districts and other persons" (RCW 70 .44. 003) . Comment 47 Traffic impacts of the Proposed Action are discussed in the DEIS on pages 64 through 93 . As indicated, VMC traffic amounts to roughly 5 - 10% of the total volume of traffic in the area. It is believed that the nearby wetlands referred to in the comment letter is that associated with Panther Creek. The Proposed Action, as presently designed, will have no significant affect on this wetland. Refer to Section II of this FEIS regarding tax revenue analysis. 83 September 18 , 1990 Donald K. Erickson Zoning Adminstration City of Renton .. . 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA. 98055 Attn : Mary Lynne Myer Dear Mr. Erickson: I have several concerns�-, and questions about the DEIS for Valley Medical Center' s MOB II . 1. Is the MOB project on this site providing any addition to the cities tax base? Is the project helping to keep the tax rates low, an objective of the Mayor as stated in his State of the City Address on March 21, 1990? Would it not be better to use public monies to fund public services rather than subsidize private enterprize where the public pays twice--once to make up for taxes not received through private enterprize hospital office buildings the other through taxes paid to subsidize the 148 existence of private enterprize , on the hospital campus . Sounds like savings and loan medicine. The DEIS statement skirts the tax issue. The impact on the City' s tax base with PACCAR not building in Renton and possible cut backs in Boeing ' s plans should create some concern for the city. Thus the idea of erosion of the tax base by the hospital through purchase of buildings under the hospital 's veil adjacent to the hospital campus (The Chinn Hills Building ) as well as construction of this new office building and previous office buildings should be of concern to the city. 2. Is this MOB an appropriate use of land in a hospital district? Should the .DEIS be as vigilant in looking at this 49 project as the city was when King County was looking at Renton as a possible jail site. The long term land use impacts around the hospital campus is strongly apparent but not addressed in this DEIS. 3. Are there not other viable alternatives such as long term care facilities for non ambulatory or critically ill geriatric 150 patients. The hospitals goals are inadequately addressed in this DEIS. What are hospital ' s short and long term goals and operational objectives? 4. This DEIS statement has not addressed the traffic issue adequately. Should not the resolution of the traffic situation - 51 be considered for the whole of South Renton as it was for North Renton? Why the myopic approach? Traffic in this area has long been an issue. The MOB project complicates the issue even more along with the new FAA headquarters ( 1200 jobs) and the possibility of the Soos Creek Annexation as well as future plans for the 167 and 43rd Street corridors . Please keep me informed of your response to the above issues and of the conditional use process . Si erely, • Stuart A. Vendeland 6428 129 Avenue SE Bellevue, WA. 98006 Response to Comments by Stuart Vendeland Comment 48 Information relative to revenue which may accrue to the City as a result of taxes, fees and assessments to be paid by VMC as a result of the proposed project is included in Section II of this FEIS. Comment 49 King County Public. Hospital District #1 is a municipal corporation. The decision of whether the proposed medical office building is an appropriate use within the Hospital I- District #1 is a decision that they must make. It is the City' s responsibility to evaluate that decision based on the comprehensive plan, zoning and Conditional Use Permit criteria. The land use character of the area as well as the possible impacts resulting from the Proposed Action or various alternatives were discussed in the DEIS on pages 41 through 63 . Comment 50 The proponent' s need and objectives for this project are discussed in the DEIS on pages 23 through 26. A discussion of the campus-wide short and long-range operational goals and objectives of King County Public Hospital District #1 will more appropriately be a key consideration of the rI proposed master plan update of VMC, as described on page 7 li of this FEIS. Comment 51 Traffic volumes and patterns in pertinent areas have been considered. Developers such as the FAA headquarters are accounted for in the 3% annual growth factor used to evaluate future conditions. - I 86 I • . P .O . Box 6490 Kent, WA . 980E4 September 13, 1990 i ' PLANNING DIVISION Mr . Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner CUP?OFRENTON 200 Mill Ave . S . Renton, WA . 9SOSS vEP 1 7 1990 1 Dear Mr . Kaufman: RECEIVED As a citizen of the Valley Medical Center district and a former practicing physician of the district, I would like t.o support your position of reticense t.o agree to the expansion planned . 11 It has always been known that the population of the area would grow and that eventually more hospital facilities would be needed . The problem is the addition of doctors' offices on the grounds . . { Traffic due to patients seeing doctors severely aggravates the already overburdened traffic flow to the hospital grounds and to the area . It is unlikely that over 1 in 20 people seeing doctors 52 on the huospital grounds would need to be there for or any further hospital services . Would not common sense suggest that it would •be best to provide physician visit facilities anywhere other than the congested hospital area? i 1 b= eve there is no choice but to approve additions of essen- '. iaJ _;spital services . This does not include .doctors' off ices whic : re abundantly available off hospital property or can be bu i :. as needed away from the hospital , thus providing room for I 4 needed hospital expansion Ion existing hospital owned property-- I 3 which was purchased with public bond funds to be utilized for i_ . hospital facilities and not private physician facilities . Perhaps if the hospital needs more space, the existing doctors' off ices on the hospital grounds could be .converted to hospital services relieving the burdensome traffic problems somewhat . i • In any event, it seems inappropriate for a public service to corn- 54 pet•e with private enterprise that promoted and supported with tax dollars the new hospital in 1969. The Zoning and Planning Commission of Renton could provide a valu- 55 able service to the people who have to drive through that area, to hospital patients and their visitors and teethe citizens of the .- hospital district if they refused any hospital expansion involving ! private practice facilities . Sincerely, ' cc : Mark Pywell Jacob C . Wagner , M .D. Senior Examiner if I . Response to Comments by Jacob C. Wagner, M.D. I Comment 52 An off-campus medical office building with close ties to the Hospital would not result in fewer vehicular trips . In fact, it is estimated that an off-site location could generate at least 50% more traffic than the Proposed Action , -- or an additional 2000 vehicular trips. Comment 53 The comment is noted and by inclusion in this FEIS will be considered by the City' s Hearing Examiner in deciding the requested action. L . Comment 54 i King County Public Hospital District #1 is a municipal corporation. The decision of whether the proposed medical office building is an appropriate use within the Hospital FT District #1 is a decision that they must make. It is the City' s responsibility to evaluate that decision based on the comprehensive plan, zoning and Conditional Use Permit criteria. ' Comment 55 jl The comment is noted and by inclusion in this FEIS will be considered by the City's Hearing Examiner in deciding the requested action. -71 i !- 88 1 SECTION IV. COMMENTS PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND RESPONSES TO THOSE COMMENTS • t _ ) 7I • 89 • VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER CHARLES MOSIER 4730- 154TH PL SE BELLEVUE,WA 98006 Appreciate the opportunity to speak to the completeness and reasonableness of the draft environmental impact statement for Valley Medical Center's Office Building No. 2. In my opinion, the DEIS is very limited in several ways that need to be corrected. I'll support this statement under many ideas which follow. Land Use Impacts 1. There's a need for better use of available facts. On page 44 of the statement, it states that Valley Medical Center area contains some 165,000 sf of Class A space and has a vacancy rate of 12 percent. In reality, 148,000 sf of this space is owned by the hospital which is 100 percent occupied, as noted on page 23. Whereas, the 40,000 sf of non-Valley Medical Center owned Class (-; 56 A property is less than 50 percent occupied, showing a 12 percent vacancy rate is highly misleading. 2. Following up on this, none of the alternative discussions, neither the #1 No Action Alternative or the other two, address the devastating land use Impacts In the area from building an additional 110,000 sf of private medical office space on public hospital lands. In addition to the statistics I mentioned, the current summary statements are overly limited. For example, the final paragraph 4 57 on page 8 of this statement states "Overall, development of the proposed action is not anticipated to generate significant land use impacts or conflicts. The proposed action is not likely to significantly affect the character or rate of development occurring in adjacent areas in this position of the City." In my opinion, that's similar to Martin Selig saying to the next door property owner that the 70-story One Columbia Center won't affect office rentals in the area. When zoning patterns were developed for the area, they were set up to favor P-1 zoning as noted in the Comprehensive Plan. The public good was to zone a fairly big area to favor medically-related 58 growth around the hospital. In effect, surrounding properties are generally held hostage to medically-related purposes through the Comprehensive Plan. I'm sure that this zoning pattern was made under the assumption that certain private land uses would be built to compliment the public hospital and it would assumed the hospital would serve public acute care needs. Instead, the hospital has built, helped build or has purchased a hugh amount of nonemergency office space that competes with the surrounding area. Hospital has about 150,000 sf of medical office space. If it's allowed to build another 110,000 sf of office space, it will continue to overdorninate the medical office market. Therefore, the City of Renton should either deny additional private medical space office development on the public hospital land or be prepared to allow other uses in the surrounding privately-owned medical buildings. The devastating land use impacts of allowing the hospital to own hugh amounts of private office space, can be seen in the fact that the land the 59 hospital now owns to the south of 43rd Street was forced into bankruptcy. Similarly, another parcel to the east went bankrupt and the hospital tried to buy it. I believe this was caused either directly or partially by a combination of the required P-1 zoning and hospital overbuilding of medical office space. As previously noted,facts related to the serious matter are not clearly cover in the DEIS. A realistic no action analysis should show that the surrounding privately-owned land could reasonably absorb much of the hospital projected private medical office needs and this would be a more reasonable land use alternative than hospital domination and devastation of the private medical office market. In contrast to the Valley Medical Center approach In this case, Swedish Hospital has encouraged the development of surrounding private office space for medical specialists prior to using land they own for this purpose, so there is an alternative comparison. �_` 90 r-� 7 ' 3. The DEIS does not provide an adequate analysis of the no action alternative. For example, on 60 page 9, it indicates that if this medical office were not built, the hospital space would remain undeveloped. I noted in a July 6 article in the Valley Daily News, that the Center eyes a$38 million expansion for a four-story tower and the article talked about an emergency room, Intensive care unit, lab and operating rooms. It says the tower would include a full spectra of emergency and operating room-related departments including intensive and coronary care units. The whole emphasis is on emergency health care. This information indicates to me that the hospital needs all 61 its available space for public hospital acute care needs rather than private patient/doctor visits. If the land use is approved, up to approx. 1/4 million sf of valuable medical space intended for public health care will be for typically noncritical medical visits. Think of these hundreds or thousands of noncritical medical visits to this already over congested super block. In short, let's save the lands for public health needs and spread the private doctor noncritical visits to surrounding land areas. I think the DEIS could better discuss this alternative. Traffic Impacts 4. There is no explanation in the DEIS under the no action alternative. Traffic use would be disbursed around the area rather than concentrated on the hospital campus. This more disbursed pattern would help attenuate traffic and congestion problems from additional growth. For example, with more medical space slightly to the east or south, it would keep many trips coming from the upland areas or the areas to the south, from having to go to the congested hospital area. Granted, the medical specialist may save a small amount of time when they use the surgery space, but by far, the majority of their time is spent on office visits and matters not directly requiring hospital 62 equipment. Why overburden the limited hospital space with private practitioner visits which could easily, more appropriately, be disbursed over a larger area? An example of this reasonable dispersal approach can be seen In Bellevue around Overlake Hospital. Rather than force patients to be inconvenience by having to drive to a congested high-rise tower, patients can go to more disbursed, user-friendly buildings from a block or two away to up to a mile to a mile and a half away from the hospital. This spreads hospital congestion out. Again, this also allows hospital space to be used for hospital services, not private doctor and patient offices and noncritical regular patient visits. And I ask you,do you go to see your medical specialist on a noncritical visit, would you rather go to a hugh hospital complex or a smaller, user-friendly building? Currently, the DEIS does not address this issue and I think it could include some discussion of this. So, in short; I haven't covered all the things that could be changed or added to this, but I will Include those in some written comments and I believe I sited some of the major items that could be addressed to expand the EIS and the considerations of the various alternatives. STEWART VENDALMAN 6428- 129TH AVE SE BELLEVUE,WA I have a couple of questions that I feel should be addressed by.the DEIS statement. First of all, Is the MOB project on this site providing any addition to the City's tax base, is the project helping keep the tax rates low,an objective of the Mayor's as he stated in his State of the City Address on March 21, 1990? Would it - - not be better to use public monies to fund public services rather than subsidize private enterprise where the public pays twice. Once to make up taxes not received through private enterprise, hospital office 63 buildings, the other through subsidizes paid to provide for the existence of private enterprise on hospital campus? Sounds to me like a savings and loan medicine. The DEIS statement skirts the tax issue. The impact on the City's tax base with PACCAR not building in Renton, the possibility of cutbacks in Boeing's plans, create some concerns for the City. Thus, the idea of the erosion of the tax base by the hospital through purchase of buildings under the hospital veil adjacent to the campus, as well as construction of this new office building, should be a concern of the City. Is the MOB an appropriate land use? Should the 64r -Valley Medical Center DEIS/Citizen Comments-2 r I " ' I DEIS be as vigilant in looking at this project as the City was when King County was looking at Renton as a 64 possible jail site? The long-term land use impact around the hospital campus is strongly apparent, but not addressed, at least not addressed adequately. Are there no other viable alternatives for the hospital's than were presented in the EIS, such as long-term care facilities for nonambulatory or critical ill geriatric r-r 65 I patients. The hospital's goals are not adequately addressed in this DEIS statement. The DEIS statement has not addressed the traffic Issue adequately. Should not the resolution of the traffic solution be considered for the whole of south Renton as it was for north Renton? Why the myopic approach? Traffic 66 in this area has long been an issue. The MOB project complicates the Issue even more, along with the FAA headquarters,which Is a new construction, and the possibility of the Soos Creek Annexation. MICHAEL FERRIS FERRIS COMPANY 10655 NE 4TH ST BELLEVUE,WA 98004 I am speaking tonight on behalf of MB Properties which is a group that are owners of the Valley Gardens Health Center, a medical office building housing various medical and dental uses located at 601 South Carr Road. We sincerely hope you will recognize these comments, both now when the EIS Is being circulated, and when the department makes its recommendations on the project.• I have a large number of concerns about the draft EIS. The first group of concerns deals with the scope of the EIS and the omission of some important elements. Based on our understanding of the proposal, it appears that several important elements of the environment have been overlooked. Many of these are likely to experience adverse impacts of probable significance and should be addressed in the DEIS. These include air quality, energy, environmental health and social economic impacts. First, dealing with air. The fairly significant traffic increase, 4,040 additional vehicles per day, will significantly increase air pollution especially in light of the 67 resulting congestion and poor level of service at the studied Intersections and other nearby locations. Second, energy. Hospitals and hospital related facilities are tremendous consumers of energy. The 68 I project's effect on public energy supplies both in Isolation and in a cumulative sense, as well as measures that Valley Medical Center would take to conserve energy, should be addressed. Thirdly, environmental health. Medical facilities of all sorts, involve the use of chemicals, some of which are hazardous. EIS should disclose what chemicals are to be used in the new facility, what quantities they will be stored, how - 69 they will be stored and how they will be disposed of. An additional environmental health issue is the effect of construction noise of hospital patients and other nearby receptors and what measures will be taken to 70 I mitigate that impact. Fourth is socioeconomic economic. Agencies can elect to include an element of the social economic environment covering fiscal Issues or other economic matters in an EIS. Such an element is necessary here for the reasons discussed. This should be particularly important to the City of Renton L 71 which will be losing property tax dollars due to this project being on public land and not private property. The City has increased demands for services as a result of this project without the revenues sources ( necessary to pay for them. Without disclosure of Impacts and mitigation measures in these above � elements,the EIS fails to meet its purpose to fully inform the public and agency decision makers. The second major area of concern about the DEIS is in the description of the project and the selection of alternatives. As discussed in the DEIS,the proposal entails a conditional use application to establish use of a medical office building over 50' In height on the Valley Medical Center campus and to relocate the ambulatory care center, currently located in the hospital, to the existing structure housing the psychiatric wing. The alternatives discussed in the EIS are: No Action, Build a Smaller Office Building and Build the Proposed Office Building on the'Southern Sector of the Campus. Our primary concern is that each of the alternatives to be proposed to this proposed project set forth in the EIS are concluded to be inconsistent with the sponsors objectives. SEPA requires that an EIS include reasonable alternatives that could feasibly 72 attain or approximate a proposal's objectives at a lower environmental cost. Simply dispensing with alternatives because they would not be the proponent's best option, doesn't uphold the intent of the alternative requirement and doesn't afford the public and City decisionmakers an objective basis for evaluating impacts and tradeoffs. The EIS should more fully address the options of meeting demands for 73 I -i -Valley Medical Center DEIS/Citizen Comments-3 - r- medical office space off-campus, either In existing office facilities or new private construction. Both the no 74 action and reduced scope alternatives, should also reflect a more efficient utilization of existing office near the institution. A third area of concern lays to the Inadequate discussion of market demand for office space in the area. As you know, the Valley Medical Center is a public agency, part of the King County Public Hospital District#1, governed by a publicly elected Board of Commissioners. Capital expenditures for new construction, such as the proposed action, involve the use of considerable sums of public monies which must be tied to the principal mission of the facility, which in Valley Medical Center's case Is a hospital. Our concern with the proposal is that it involves such a public investment In a speculative risky development venture. It Is debatable whether the upper four-fifths of the proposed building, which is proposed to be leased to doctors and specialists for nonhospital related purposes to conduct their every day practices, is not related at all to the institution's primary hospital function or would necessarily even be leasable in today's market. There is a discussion of a supposed shortage of high quality professional medical office space. Great reliance is placed on the assumption that there is in fact, a shortage. We feel that is erroneous to conclude that there is a shortage of quality office space on the basis of the information provided in that document for two reasons. First, one cannot simply conclude supply is inadequate if there is not quantification of 75 demand. There Is no information in the EIS to describe existing demand in terms of the number of doctors seeking space, the amount of space they require, or whether the Valley Medical Center is artificially stimulating demand for office space by encouraging or in other ways Influencing physicians with privileges at the hospital to lease space in the project or In other Valley Medical Center facilities, Hills or Talbot Professional Center. Second, a more objective and scientific survey of existing facilities is necessary to determine actual vacancy. EIS concludes on the basis of the opinion of one real estate appraiser that actual vacancy is 11.7 percent or approximately 19,000 sf of Class A space and 16.2 percent or approximately 22,000 sf of existing woodframe office space. Construction of a five- story medical office building, of which four-stories are nearly 85,000 sf of Class A office space would need to be leased In a market with similar quality space today would be a somewhat questionable for a private developer to undertake would be an unacceptable risk for both the private developer and a public agency such as the Valley Medical Center. J Another element of the environment which is inadequately treated is land use. This is related to the issue of the marketplace for office space previously discussed. In the EIS land use section, page 47,.it is concluded that no significant impacts on land use are expected as a result of the proposal. Given the uncertainty over demand, the Valley Medical Center's effect on demand, and doubts about the accuracy of the supply 76 figures,we must conclude that the proposal will adversely effect existing office uses near the campus. The adverse effect will be loss of tenants if,existing tenants must relocate when leases expire in order to maintain privileges at the hospital and greater difficulty securing new tenants with a publicly subsidized medical office building located In the VMC campus. These impacts are adverse and will be significant. { Another area of serious omission is the section dealing with conditional use. Several significant omissions to the document are found in the relationship to plans and policies section. Although this section mentions that a conditional use approval is required to permit the office building to exceed 50', it doesn't disclose 77 that the conditional use approval is required for the office building itself and for accessory facilities such as the ambulatory care center. It does not disclose or evaluate the conditional use criteria that apply and it does not evaluate any alternative actions that do not require special approvals from the City of Renton. With reference to the Renton Zoning Code, Section 4-748C, the following criteria apply to the requested conditional uses: 1) Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use shall 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 of Renton. 2) Community Need. There shall be a community - 78 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: (a) the proposed location shall not result In either the detrimental over concentration of a particular use within the City or within immediate area of proposed use; (b) that the proposed location is suited for the proposed use; and (c) effect on adjacent properties. The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result In substantial -Valley Medical Center DEIS/Citizen Comments-4- or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. It is arguable that these criteria would not be fully satisfied by the proposal to construct a medical office building within the VMC campus. Specifically, there is an insufficient basis for concluding that there is an unmet need in the community for Class A medical office • 79 space and that it could not be met by an alternative such as the no action. Without a quantification of demand, one cannot conclude that existing office supply within the vicinity of Valley Medical Center is inadequate, thereby, necessitating the proposed action. Although view Impacts to uphill properties are discussed, the option of constructing a medical office building within the height limit is not discussed 80 anywhere in the document. The EIS mentioned the City could impose conditions to mitigate impacts identified in the EIS as part of the conditional use process, but makes no mention of what those conditions might be or what impacts they would mitigate. In fact, there are absolutely no measures Identified to 811 mitigate land use impacts, which as we stated, will be significant. Also,there's no discussion or evaluation of building an alternative structure that contains no speculative office space, just legitimate hospital uses 821 such as those proposed for the first floor of the proposed new structure. Further,there is a discussion of a conditional use permit already Issued by the City of Renton that authorizes an Increase to the parking facilities on the VMC campus. The EIS states as a fact that this permit was issued to meet projected future parking needs including parking required for the proposed medical office building on page 11. It Is logical 83 from this statement then to assume, therefore, that the City of Renton intends to issue the conditional use permit required to authorize proposed development. WE would add that the City is doing so without an adequate evaluation of legitimate alternatives EIS and on the basis of risky speculation in a soft office market and without complete disclosure of environmental Impacts and mitigating measures. Perhaps our greatest area of concern is the lack of full disclosure of traffic impacts in the transportation element. The EIS discloses that there will be increased traffic and reduced level of service as a result of the project, but It characterizes the increase as "a small portion of some future problem" and this is a grievance degree of editorializing for an EIS. It falls to disclose that much of the traffic Increase would be nonhospital trips. It seems obvious that In the presence of level of service F at several intersections near the campus, that allowing additional nonhospital related trips to attempt to turn into the campus is unjustifiable. Also, it is unclear whether Valley Medical Center will be required to conduct any mitigation above what they have - 84 committed to on previous projects for the new impacts created by the office building. Are the per trip fees and other measures Identified in the EIS new costs or are they burled somewhere in the existing agreements? This is particularly disturbing since the hospital was allowed to build the new 70,000 sf Talbot Professional Office Center without making any new Improvements to the existing heavily congested road system. Presumably, an LID was to be created to fund the widening of 43rd Avenue and improvement of the Talbot Road Intersection including new signalization at the SR167 interchange at the hospital entrance drive and Talbot Road. Years later, however, nothing has been done. How could the City approve more on-campus development when improvements to correct previous impacts have not yet been made? The final subject tonight is the element dealing with public services. Fire protection is identified as a significant impact that cannot be mitigated. Are the steps listed on page 95 and 96 involving sprinklering of 85 the hospital and existing office building actually mitigating measures? Will Valley Medical Center be required to perform these steps as part of the approval process? If so, then they should be recognized as mitigation measures and required of Valley Medical Center prior to development of this new project. In conclusion, we believe that there are several significant omissions from the EIS and that a supplemental EIS is necessary to address the issues raised in this letter. Also, there is clearly no need to exercise the City's discretionary decision making process for such a speculative development venture by a public entity where no community need has been justified or public benefits clearly documented. We request that you keep us informed of your response to these issues and of the conditional use process. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and I would like to submit these comments in writing. 4 ' -Valley Medical Center DEIS/Citizen Comments-5- • BETTY COOPER 18604- 129TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98058 I am a resident of the hospital district and I Just wanted to speak briefly about my greatest concern and that Is the traffic congestion in the area of the hospital. The Petrovisky/43rd/180th Street corridor has a tremendous amount of traffic on It and with the growth in the Soos Creek Plateau east of the hospital just from residential traffic being generated, it seems like there's a terrific need for the congestion to be alleviated. The taxpayers of the district contribute approximately$2 million a year to the hospital and while 86 this may be an Insignificant amount as far as the total budget goes,to me, it's a lot of money. I feel that for the taxpayers to receive any type of value outside of medical care, which the facility Is a fine medical hospital, that the taxpayers do need to receive some attention to this concern. So I would urge the City of Renton to look very carefully at what the traffic patterns will be. The hospital, no doubt, will continue to grow in the future, continue to have more patients there, but what is going to be done about the congestion and the gridlock conditions that we go through, so I encourage the City of Renton to give that careful attention. • -Valley Medical Center DEIS/Citizen Comments-6- • SECTION IV COMMENTS PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC BARING AND RESPONSES TO THOSE COMMENTS Comment 56 Refer to response to written Comment #34. Comment 57 Refer to response to written Comment #35 . Comment 58 Refer to response to written Comment #36. Comment 59 Refer to response to written Comment #37 . Comment 60 Refer to response to written Comment #38 . Comment 61 Refer to response to written Comment #39 . Comment 62 Refer to response to written Comment #40. Comment 63 Refer to response to written Comment #48. Comment 64 Refer to response to written Comment #49 . Comment 65 • Refer to response to written Comment #50 . Comment 66 Refer to response to written Comment #51 . Comment 67 Refer to response to written Comment #15 . 95 Comment 68 Refer to response to written Comment #16. Comment 69 Refer to response to written Comment #17. Comment 70 Refer to response to written Comment #18. Comment 71 Refer to response to written Comment #19 . Comment 72 Refer to response to written Comment #20 . I _ Comment 73 Refer to response to written Comment #21 . Comment 74 it Refer to response to written Comment #22. Comment 75 Refer to response to written Comment #23 . Comment 76 Refer to response to written Comment #24. Comment 77 Refer to response to written Comment #25 . Comment 78 Refer to response to written Comment #26. Comment 79 Refer to response ,to written Comment #27 . Comment 80 Refer to response to written Comment #28. 96 Comment 81 Refer to response to written Comment #29 . Comment 82 Refer to response to written Comment #30 . Comment 83 Refer to response to written Comment #31 . Comment 84 Refer to response to written Comment #32 . Comment 85 Refer to response to written Comment #33 . , Comment 86 The comment is noted and by inclusion in this FEIS will be 1 considered by the City's Hearing Examiner in deciding the requested action. Traffic associated with the Proposed Action has been evaluated in the DEIS on pages 64 through 93. In addition, a thorough traffic analysis would be required by the City for any future development occurring at VMC's campus. fI 97 REFERENCES 98 REFERENCES Institute of Transportation Engineers. 1987 . Trip Generation Manual (4th edition, Sept. 1987) . Jacobson, N.G. & Assoc. , Inc. 1989. Valley Medical Center Parking Study. King County. 1979 . Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan (Ord. # 4572) . . 1987 . Sensitive Areas Map Folio. Mahlum & Nordfors. 1987 . Valley Medical Center Master Site Plan and Functional Program. Morgan, Clint. 1990 . Meeting with Don Carr regarding traffic planning issues. Renton, City of. 1986. Compendium of the Comprehensive Plan. . 1983 . Ord. # 3722 Amending the Zoning Ordinance. Scott, John. 1990 . Personal conversation with Terry McCann regarding the need for high quality medical office space near VMC. U.S. Dept. of Transportation; Federal Highway Administration. 1985. Highway Capacity Manual. Valley Medical Center. 1988. Facts Pamphlet 1988. . 1988. 5-year Strategic Plan 1989 - 1993 . . 1989. Facts Pamphlet 1989 . Werner, Greg. 1990 . Phone conversation with Terry McCann regarding the medical office building market in the vicinity of Valley Medical Center. 99 APPENDICES 100 APPENDIX A DISTRIBUTION LIST Copies of this Final EIS have been 'distributed to the following agencies and organizations. Federal Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District Office Engineering Dev. - Planning 1-1 PO Box C-2755 Seattle, WA 98124 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation' Service Renton Field Office 935 Powell St. S .W. Renton, WA 98055 U.S . Dept. of Housing and Urban Development Attn: Mr. Nishimura Arcade Plaza Building 1321 Second Ave. Seattle, WA 98101 U.S . Dept. of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Office 2625 Parkmont Lane Olympia, WA 98504 U.S. Dept of Transportation Department of Highways District #1 6431 Corson Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98108 U.S . Energy Office Washington State Dept. of Energy Attn: Richard Watson, Director 809 Legion Way S.E. , M/S SA-11 Olympia, WA 98504 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Evaluation Div. 1200 Sixth Ave, M/S MD-102 Seattle, WA 98101 101 Ii State Agencies Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 300 - 120th N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 Dept. of Ecology SEPA Register M/S PV-11 Olympia, WA 98504 Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section M/S PV-11 Olympia, WA 98504 Dept. of Ecology Attn: Terra Proden Wetlands Section " M/S PV-11 . Olympia, WA 98504 • Dept. of Fisheries Attn: Joe Roble Natural Production Division 115 General Administration Building, M/S AX-11 Olympia, WA 98504 Dept. of Social & Health Services P.O. Box 1788 Olympia, WA 98504 Dept.. of Social & Health Services Construction Review Section 1112 S . Quince, M/S ET-12 Dept. of Transportation Highway Administration Building M/S KF-01 Olympia, WA 98504 Dept. of Transportation Division 1 Attn: Dale Morimoto 15325 S.E. 30th Pl. Bellevue, WA 98007 Dept. of Wildlife 600 N. Capitol Way, M/S GJ-11 Olympia, WA 98504 102 Office of Program Planning & Fiscal Management Attn: EIS Review 101 House Office Building Olympia, WA 98504 1 Local Agencies Office of the Mayor City of Renton I ` Attn: Mayor' s Assistant Renton City Council Renton Planning Commission Renton Parks Board Renton City Attorney Renton Fire Dept. Renton Hearing Examiner' s Office Renton Parks & Recreation Dept. 0 Renton Planning & Community Development Dept. Renton Police Dept. Renton Public Works Dept. Renton SEPA Information Center King County Boundary Review Board Attn: Alda Wilkinson, Exec. Dir. 3600 - 136th Pl. S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006-1400 King County EIS Review Coordinator King County Courthouse, Room 400 516 Third Ave. Seattle, WA 98104 King County Building & Land Development Div. SEPA Information Center 3600 - 136th P1. S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006-1400 King County Planning Division 7th Floor, Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98104 103 J , King County Parks & Planning Div. Attn: Erik Stockdale 1108 Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98104 King County Public Works Dept. Hydraulics Div. King County Administration Building, Room 900 400 Fourth Ave. Seattle, WA 98104 King County Soil Conservation Attn: Jack Davis 935 Powell Ave. S.W. Renton, WA 98055 k Renton SEPA Information Center METRO Environmental Planning Div. 821 Second Ave. , M/S 63 Seattle, WA 98104 METRO ; ! Transit Div. 821 Second Ave. Seattle, WA 98104-1598 METRO Water Quality Div. 821 Second Ave. Seattle, WA 98104-1598 Muckleshoot Tribal Council 39015 - 172nd Ave. S.E. Auburn, WA 98002 Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98104 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency P.O. Box 9863 Seattle, WA 98109 Seattle-King County Dept. of Public Health 400 Yesler Building Seattle, WA 98104 City of Kent Planning Dept. 220 - 4th Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 104 ti i City of Tukwila Planning & Building Dept. • 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Other Organizations and Individuals Betty Cooper 18604-129th Pl. S.E. Renton, WA 98058 Daily Journal of Commerce P.O. Box 11050 Seattle, WA 98111 The Ferris Company Attn: E. Michael Ferris 10655 N.E. 4th St. Bellevue, WA 98004 Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce 300 Rainier Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Harriet Gruhn 7714 S . Mission Dr. Seattle, WA 98178 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers #46 Attn: Margot Heyne Journal American 1705 - 132nd Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 King County Public Library Attn: Susie Wheeler 300 - 8th Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98109 Mahlum & Nordfors 2505 Third Ave. , Suite 219 Seattle, WA 98121 • M-V Properties Attn: Charles Mosher 4730 - 154th P1. S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 Pacific Northwest Bell Attn: Harry Kluges 1600 - 7th Ave. Room 1513 Seattle, WA 98191 105 Puget Sound Power & Light Co. Attn: EIS Review South Central Div. Office 620 Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Renton Public Library Main Branch Renton Public Library Highlands Branch Renton School District #403 435 Main Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 Seattle Post Intelligencer Business News 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98111 Seattle Times - Eastside Edition Business News P.O. Box 70 Seattle, WA 98111 Valley Daily News Attn: City Editor P.O. Box 10 Kent, WA 98032 Valley Medical Center Attn: Eric Thoman John Scott 400 S. 43rd St. Renton, WA 98055 Versie & Warren Vaupel P.O. Box 755 Renton, WA 98057 Stuart Vendeland 6428 - 129th Ave. S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 Jacob Wagner, M.D. P.O. Box 5490 Kent, WA 98064 Washington Natural Gas Co. 815 Mercer St. Seattle, WA 98111 106 Wilsey & Ham Pacific Attn: Ron Deverman, Project Manager P.O. Box, C-97304 Bellevue, WA 98009 • 107 APPENDIX B �' . .SUN .13184 { Owen Hall'&Associates •( r;•.... �` IV , v June 11, 1984 p.+,,... • e l'P• • Mr. Richard C. Houghton Public Works Director City of .Renton �� 'LAG. - ilw,�.9 4 1 ga, ova Renton City Hall 4,9 • Renton, WA 98055 Re: One Valley Place Properties Public Hospital Dist. No. 1 - of King County •- File No. FP-018-83 Dear Mr. Houghton: In response to our meetings and your comments to our corre- spondence to you dated March 8, 1984, we have reviewed with Victor Bishop, P.E. of Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc. the former L.I.D. of August 1983 to determine if possibly a new L.I.D. could be better structured so as to accomplish the combined goals of the City of Renton, Valley General Hospital and One Valley Place. We have reviewed the preliminary cost estimate and have included the Davis/43rd traffic signal, omitted the Right of Way Acquisition, and made certain adjustments that are based on percentages such as Unanticipated Expenses and Engineering and Inspection. This revised preliminary cost estimate is attached as "Attachment A" (revised 6/6/84) . To best determine how the L.Z.D. assessments should be spread, we took two approaches. One is based on TRIP GENERATION and the other, COST PARTICIPATION, is based on what One Valley Place and The Valley General Hospital (the two participants in the new L.I.D. plus the City of Renton) had agreed to in the former L.I.D.• with certain adjustments reflecting usage. TRIP GENERATION Reference is made to Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division correspondence dated October 14, 1982 - Subject, L.I.D. for South 43rd Street. It is felt that the basis of the .projected trip generations in this correspondence are still accurate with 12507 Bellevue•Redmond Rd.,Suite 203•Bellevue,WA 98005•(206)453.9540 108 NOV 27 '90 16:49 DAVID EVANS ASSOCIATES EELLEVU r. Mr. Richard C. Houghton June 11., 1984 • Page Two respect to One Valley Place and The Valley General Hospital. Those projections are as follows: • Valley General Hospital = * , 60 (27.1%) (19.5%) One Valley Place �` 5,013013 (53.4%) Others (City of Renton). s 13 Total 25,689 (100.0%) When relating these percentages to the revised cost estimate we find the -following assessment spread: Valley General Hospital = $159,890.00 One Valley Place = 115,050.00 Others (City of Renton) = 315,060.00 Total $590,000.00 • In effect, this reflects a trip generation fee of $22.97� (590,000 i 25,687) . COST PARTICIPATION In the former $720,000.00 L.I.D. there were three different alternatives with respect to the assessment spread. We have reviewed these spreads and find them to be as follows: Alternate A Valley General Hospital $144,600 One Valley Place 222,000 $366,600 Alternate B Valley General Hospital $ 48,000 One Valley Place 312,000 . $360,000 . , Alternate C • Valley General Hospital • $144,000 One Valley Place 210,000 . $354,000 *Includes all existing plus expansion generated trips; NOV 27 '90 16:49 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES BELLEVU P.6%'S Mr. Richard C. Houghton June 11, 1984 Page Three If the L. I.D. cost is reduced fr $720,L0I.n0) `as Ber former adforted L.I.D.) to $590,000 .00 (as per proposed assessment spread for The Valley General Hospital and One Valley Place would be: Alternate A Valley General Hospital $118,600 18,600 One Valley Place Total $322,200 Alternate B Valley General Hospital $ 39,400 One Valley Place 277,400 Total $316,800 Alternate C Valley General Hospital . $118,600 One Valley Place 193,800 312 Total $312,400 � One fact is very apparent. 'In all three cases the total adjusted amount to be assumed by The Valley General Hospital and One Valley Place was approximately $317,000.00. The main difference is how this amount was spread between the two. When reviewing the spread per TRIP GENERATION, we find the total amount to be assumed by The Valley General Hospital and One Valley Place to be approximately $275,000.00. We would like to propose a middle ground to this spread as follows: (• •O, OG The Valley General Hospital $157,500 (26.7%) it it,L""' 1 r •)• S' ' One Valley Place 134,500 (22.8%), 17o,O Q ' ',--i City of Renton 298,000 (50.5%) ' Total $590,000 (100.0%) 67,NO, _` ,y- • pi) By making this spread we have placed The Valley General .Hospital and One Valley Place at an assessment of $292,000.00 which is slightly less than their total assessment under the former L.I.D. but their individual percentages of participation is greater than the percent- ages as set forth in the TRIP GENERATION calculations. r NOV 67 '90 16:49 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES BELLEVU P.7%8 • Mr . Richard C. Houghton June 11, 1984 Page Four It is also important to point out that based on an estimate of some 13,716 new trips to be generated from yet to be developed land, the per trip cost to reimburse the City of Renton for its participation in the new L.I.D. would be $21.73 ($298,000.00 T 13, 716) . As you well know, we are all very anxious to proceed with the improvement of South 43rd Street and Talbot Road South. There is no question that it cannot remain as it is with future aspects of it only getting worse as traffic increases. The L.I .A. design contemplated is basically the same as projected for the former L. I.D. which meets the requirements of all those affected. Both One Valley Place and Valley General Hospital would like to urge the approval of this L.I.D. by the City of Renton so that we may all proceed with our individual goals knowing that South 43rd Street is developed to good design standards for future volumes. Very truly yours, • Owen O. Hall Dennis Popp for One Valley Place for Valley. General Hospital cc: pr. Richard W. Lomas, One Valley Place Victor H. Bishop, Transportation Planning 6 Engineering �, (Revised 6/6/84) PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR SOUTH 43RD STREET 7-LANE STREET WIDENING L.S. $ 30,000.00 1. Traffic Signal Revisions � 40,000.00 2. Street Lighting & Undergrounding L.S. . 1,400 LF/$6.50 9,100.00 3. Curb & Gutter 11.,280.00 4. Sidewalk 940 SY/$12.00 d0 2,800.00 LF/$2. 5. Removal of Curb & Gutter 1,4003 180.00 6. Removal of Sidewalk 780 SY/$4.00 , 735 Tons/$30.00 22,050.00 7. Asphalt Class "B"8. Asphalt Treated Base 23,530.00 840 Tons/$28.00 960.00 9. Storm Drain 12" 0 60 LF/$16.00 6 EA/5750.00 4,500.00 10. Catch Basin Type I! 10,000.00, 11. Landscaping L.S. 12. Freeway Ramp Widening (On & Off Ramps) L.S. 25,000.00 13. Pavement Marking & Signing L.S. 15,000.00 14. Signal Modifications at SR-167 Ramps L.S. 17,200.00 15. Easterly Extension of Carr Road L.S. 65,000.00 80,000.00 16. Davis & 43rd St. Signal Subtotal $359,600.00 Unanticipated Expenses 25% 89 900.00 Subtotal $449,500.00 Engineering & Inspection 15% 67 425.00 Subtotal $516,925.00 Right-of-Way Acquisition -0- Subtotal $516,925.00 L.I.D. Processing, Bond Attorney, Clerks & Bond Expenses 65 000.00 TOTAL ' $581,925.00 Round to $590,000.00 for Estimate Purposes • DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ,' VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING II and AMBULATORY CARE CENTER 46 August 1990 CITY of RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT The intent and purpose of this environmental impact statement is to satisfy the procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act(RCW 43.21)and Renton's Rules Interpreting and Implementing SEPA(Ord.3891). This document is not an authorization for action,nor does it constitute a decision or a recommendation for action. In its final form,it will accompany the proposed action and will be considered in making the final decision on proposal. ....y, �.,., CITY OF RENTON mi 444, Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator August 30, 1990 To: Recipients of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II and the Ambulatory Care Center-ECF-063-89 The accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) identifies the environmental consequences associated with construction and occupancy of a 110,970 sq. ft. medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center Campus. Also Included In the proposed action is a building permit for relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center(ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC space for medical services. The project site is located at 400 South 43rd Street, Renton, Washington 98055. PROPOSAL: The Proposed Action involves approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, and a Building permit to allow construction of a 110,970 sq. ft. medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center Campus. Also included in the proposed action Is a Building Permit for relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC, space for medical services. Three other alternatives were analyzed in the document and include: 1) Modified Full Development; 2) Medical Office Building South; and 3) No action. IMPACTS: As a result of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Scoping process, comments were received from governmental agencies and interested citizens regarding the major issues that needed to be analyzed in the DEIS. Those issues included the following: Land Use and Aesthetics: Relationship of the proposed action and alternatives to land use patterns in the area, existing plans and policies, and westerly views; Traffic and Parking: Effect of the proposed action and alternatives on traffic, parking and circulation; and Public Services--Fire: Impact on existing City of Renton fire protective services. The DEIS identifies a variety of mtigation measures. The document is available at the Development Services Department, Third Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,Washington 98055. The copies cost$8.00. Information in the document will be used by the City of Renton to make informed decisions regarding this proposal, consistent with the intent of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Written public comment on the DEIS is encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days from this date. Following the 30 day review period, responses to comments will be prepared and incorporated in a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Written comments on the DEIS will be accepted through October 1, 1990 and should be addressed to: Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department Attn: Mary Lynne Myer 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 A public hearing to accept written and oral comments on the DEIS will be held in the Renton City Council Chambers on Tuesday, September 18, 1990, at 7:30 PM, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington. Please call Mary Lynne Myer at 235-2550 for additional information. Sincerely, onald K. Erickson::)1424) Zoning Administrator DRAFT 15 ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING II and AMBULATORY CARE CENTER i44 , City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department Prepared in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (Chapter 43 .21C, Revised Code of Washington) ; the SEPA Rules, effective April 4, 1984, as revised (Chapter 197-11 , Washington Administrative Code; and Renton's Rules Interpreting and Implementing SEPA (Ordinance No. 3891 ) . Date of Issue: August 31 , 1990 4 Date Comments Due: October 1 , 1990 0 FACT SHEET Project Title: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING II and AMBULATORY CARE CENTER Proposed Action: The Proposed Action involves approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, and a Building Permit to allow construction of a 110,970 sq. ft. medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center campus. Also included in the Proposed Action is a Building Permit for relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC space for medical services. The other three alternatives analyzed in this EIS include: Modified-Full development; Medical Office Building South; and No- Action. Location: Renton, Washington 400 S. 43rd St. Proponent: Valley Medical Center (King County Public Hospital District Number 1 ) Lead Agency: City of Renton Tentative Date For Implementation: Fall 1990 Responsible Official: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Contact Person: Mary Lynne Myer { Senior Planner Planning/Building/Public Works Department Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, WA 98055 (206) 235-2550 y i Licenses, Permits & Approvals: o City of Renton - Conditional Use Permit - Site Plan Review - Building Permits - Clearing & Grading Permit - Mechanical Permits o State of Washington - Labor & Industries - Electrical Permits Authors & Principal Contributors to this DEIS: This environmental impact statement has been prepared for the City of Renton. Research and analysis were provided by: o Huckell/Weinman Assoc. , Inc. 4 ( Terry McCann, EIS project manager ) o CENTRAC & David Evans Assoc. 1l. ( Don Carr, Coord. traffic analysis ) Date of Issue of DEIS: August 31 , 1990 Date All DEIS ! y Comments Due: Written comments on this document will be accepted from August 31st through close of business October 7i 1 , 1990. Please address all comments to Mary Lynne Myer at the address noted on page i of this EIS. Public Hearing: A public hearing to discuss impacts noted in this DEIS is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. , September 18, 1990 at the City Council Chambers, Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton. ii Location of Background Data: o City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, WA 98055 o Huckell/Weinman Assoc. , Inc. 205 Lake St. S. #202 Kirkland, WA 98033 o CENTRAC 18804 North Creek Parkway Bothell, WA 98011 DEIS Availability: Copies of this DEIS have been distributed to agencies, organizations and individuals noted on the Distribution List (Appendix A to this document) . A limited number of copies are available for purchase at the Planning/Building/Public Works Department (Municipal Building, 3rd Floor) . Cost: $8.00 r 1 i H 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page FACT SHEET i I. SUMMARY A. Proponent/Project Location 2 B. Background Information 2 C. Proposal Objectives/Alternatives Considered 3 C. Environmental Impacts 8 D. Mitigation Measures 12 E. Significant Impacts that Cannot be Mitigated 12 II. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION A. Proponent/Project Location 14 B. Background Information 14 C. Need for Project & Proponent's Objectives 23 D. Description of Proposed Action 26 E. Alternatives 36 Alternative 1 - No Action 36 Alternative 2 - Reduced Scale Development 37 Alternative 3 - Relocated Medical Office Building 37 III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS and MITIGATION MEASURES A. Land Use 41 B. Transportation and Parking 64 C. Public Services - Fire 93 IV. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED 98 REFERENCES 99 APPENDICES A. Distribution List ,. 102 B. List of Elements of the Environment ' 108 iv i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Hospital Operational Statistics • 20 2 Existing Pattern of Land Uses On-Site 41 3 Future Pattern of Land Uses On-Site 46 4 Key Development Standards 63 5 Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections 70 6 Level-of-Service Summary 71 7 Accident Data 72 8 Trip Generation Summary 78 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Vicinity Map 16 2 Campus Plan 17 3 King County Public Hospital District #1 18. 4 Site Plan 27 5 Proposed Medical Office Building as Viewed from the Southwest 30 6 South and West Elevations 31 7 North and East Elevations 32 8 Cross-section of Proposed Medical Office Building as Viewed Looking East 33 9 Possible Building Location South Campus 38 10 Land Use 43 Ir 11 Site Cross-section 49 12 Westerly View Corridor 50 13 Probable View Impact as Seen Looking West from Talbot Road S 51 r-, 14 Probable View Impact as Seen Looking Southwest from Talbot Road S 54 15 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning 56 16 Existing Street Network 65 17 1989 AM Peak Hour Turning Movements 67 18 1989 PM Peak Hour Turning Movements 68 19 1995 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Expansion of VMC 76 1 20 1995 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Expansion of VMC 77 ' vi 21 1995 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Preferred - Proposed Action 79 22 1995 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Preferred - Proposed Action 80 23 1995 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Alternative 2 81 24 1995 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Alternative 2 82 25 1995 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Proposed Action 84 26 1995 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Proposed Action 85 27 1995 AM Peak Hour Volumes with Hospital Expansion - Alternative 3 86 28 1995 PM Peak Hour Volumes with Hospital Expansion - Proposed Action 87 vii L x2wwNnS I NOISOHS I ' SECTION I SUMMARY r- A. PROJECT PROPONENT/PROJECT LOCATION L The proposed Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II and Ambulatory Care Center are sponsored by King County Public Hospital District No. 1 . The site of the Medical Office- Building II is approximately a j ; one-half acre area in the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center campus, north of the Hospital and the Psychiatry Wing and west of Talbot Professional Center. The Ambulatory Care Center would be relocated from the Hospital to the lower level of the Psychiatry Wing (existing building) . Refer to Figure 2, page 13 of this DEIS. The address of the property is 400 South 43rd Street Renton, Washington 98056. B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Valley Medical Center (VMC) is a part of King County Public Hospital District Number 1 . The District was established through election by residents of the Renton, Kent and Tukwila area in 1947 and incorporated as a municipal corporation in 1948. The Hospital District is governed by a publicly-elected board of commissioners. The District encompasses an area of approximately 100 square miles and includes Renton, Kent, Tukwila and unincorporated Southeast King County. The estimated population in this service area is approximately 374, 000 (Valley Medical Center. 1989. Facts Pamphlet 1989) . King County Public Hospital District Number 1 provides a broad range of health care services and programs, all of which are located on the 42-acre campus of Valley Medical Center. Key programs include: o Acute Care Needs o Ambulatory Care Center o Cardiopulmonary Services o Coronary Care Unit o Emergency Services o Endoscopy Department o Intensive Care Unit o Laboratory (clinical and pathology) o Nuclear Medicine o Obstetrics o Psychiatric Services o Radiation Oncology o Radiology/ultrasound o Surgicenter • The Hospital District (VMC) employs a total of approximately 1 , 700 people on a 3-shift/day operating schedule. C. PROPOSAL OBJECTIVES and ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Ob-lectives The need for this project evolves from a goal of the Hospital District which is to: "assure the health care needs of people living and working in its principal service area are met, and are met in a manner which promotes: o High quality care o Appropriate use of resources o Cost-effective delivery of services" (Ibid) . Three major factors contribute to the specific need for this project. Its purposes are to: o provide high quality, professional medical office space proximate to the Hospital to meet the existing demand by specialists and subspecialists for such space; o provide quality educational space to meet the increasing demand for: continuing medical education of doctors, nurses and support staff; and additional educational space to meet the needs of an increasing number of support programs (such as Alzheimer's, Head Injury, CPR, etc. ) ; and o relocate and consolidate the existing Ambulatory Care Center to provide more efficient delivery of services. The applicant's objectives for the major components of the project are described below. Medical Office Building General Goals o serve the health care needs of a growing population; o meet community needs by providing a convenient location for patients to see their physicians proximate to the hospital; o emulate the model established by major U.S. health care facilities, by encouraging physician specialists to 3 locate proximate to major health care centers -- in order to provide greater efficiency in the delivery of services, help keep medical-related costs down and reduce traffic and parking impacts; Services/Facilities Goals o improve accessibility to the emergency room for physician specialists, who establish their practices in the vicinity of Valley Medical Center and require expedient access to the emergency room, by providing rentable medical office space in a new medical office building on the campus of Valley Medical Center, adjacent to the Hospital; o meet the expanding educational needs of the medical staff at the hospital, and the increasing needs for community continuing health-care education (health education, wellness classes, and birth classes) by providing additional space in a new medical office building on the campus of Valley Medical Center; Locational Goals o situate the medical office building so that it relates functionally with Talbot Professional Center, Valley Medical Center Hospital and the Valley Medical Center parking garage and provides convenient and unincumbered (handicap accessible) pedestrian connections between the facilities; o site the medical office building in a location on the Hospital campus which does not inhibit future Hospital expansion; Circulation/Parking Goals o facilitate pedestrian traffic flow between the Valley Medical Center parking garage, Talbot Professional Center and the Hospital through elevated, covered and level walkways for the benefit of infirm individuals and to minimize on-campus pedestrian/vehicular traffic conflicts; o maximize the use of existing covered parking facilities and create and plan for the development of future parking facilities on the campus to meet the future needs of Valley Medical Center; I---' Design Goals o maximize the use of the Hospital's property and minimize lot coverage by developing a high-rise office structure; 4 o orient the medical office building on the site so that views from Talbot Professional Center are not substantially impaired and vehicular traffic circulation on the Valley Medical Center campus is not adversely affected; o design the medical office building to complement the architectural character of existing buildings on the campus and enhance the campus-like setting; Operational Goals o permit hospital expansion through a lease arrangement which does not draw on the capital needs of' the Hospital -- for example, a possible ground lease to a partnership of physicians with the physicians building, owning and operating the building; and o provide expansion space for existing services on campus including: Cardiac Rehab Services, Cardiopulmonary Services, Social Services, Human Services and Admitting Satellite Services. Ambulatory Care Center o locate the ambulatory care facility in a central location on the Hospital campus and in a larger space in order to consolidate related functions and provide more efficient delivery of services; The Proposed Action has been framed with these objectives in mind. Four alternatives are discussed in this DEIS: the Proposed Action, a No Action alternative, a Reduced Scale Development, and a Medical Office Building. (South) alternative. The following briefly describes- each of these alternatives. Proposed Action The Proposed Action involves construction of a 5-story medical office building of approximately 110,970 sq. ft. (net leasable area would be approximately 103, 270 sq.ft. ) . The building would be oriented in an east-west direction and separated by approximately 50 feet from Talbot Professional Center. 5 It is proposed that the first floor of the 5-story medical office building be devoted to hospital-related uses and the upper four floors leasable space for physicians. The building would contain approximately 19, 404 sq.ft. of net leasable area on the first floor and, while the design of actual Hospital-related space on the first floor has not been finalized, it is expected that uses and leasable areas would include the following: o a 200-seat auditorium (1 ,820 sq.ft. ) ; o auditorium support storage (780 sq.ft. ) ; o offices (education and learning center - 4, 250 sq.ft. ) ; o meeting rooms (5, 520 sq.ft. ) ; o kitchen in support of the meeting rooms (660 sq.ft. ) ; o storage (1 ,850 sq.ft. ) ; o corridor, lobby, coat room (3,050 sq.ft. ) ; and o restrooms, mechanical space & stairwell (1 ,874 sq.ft. ) . It is anticipated that the leased space on the upper floors of the medical office building (approximately 83,867 sq.ft. ) would be used as offices, clinics or laboratories -- similar to that at Talbot Professional Center. The other major element of the Proposed Action involves relocation and consolidation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center. The ACC provides comprehensive acute rehabilitation. Increases in existing ACC services and changes in standards of treatment have created increased demand for additional space. The Proposed Action. would involve the relocation of ACC from the first and second floors of the Hospital (approx. 7, 300 sq. ft. ) to the lower level of the existing Psychiatry Wing. The lower level is presently shell space (approx. 18, 000 sq.ft. of gross floor area) which includes exterior wall, columns and core mechanical space. All of the usable area (roughly 85% - 90% of the shell area) would be used for ACC. The proposed medical office building would be accessible from the south facade of the building and from two enclosed pedestrian bridges. One bridge would link the third level of. the existing parking structure (immediately north) to the third floor of the new medical office building. The other would connect the third floor of the proposed medical office building to the first floor of Talbot Professional Center. Since Talbot Professional Center is already connected to the Hospital by a tunnel, the proposed skybridge would provide direct pedestrian access (covered) from the proposed medical office building to the Hospital. 6 Parking for 38 vehicles (32 standard and 6 handicap) is planned for the area immediately south of the proposed medical office building and north of the existing Psychiatry Wing. Since this area currently provides parking for approximately 50 vehicles, the net change would be a loss of roughly 12 spaces in this portion of the VMC campus. The new parking area would be accessible from VMC's other parking lots in the area and from the internal ring roadway. Alternative 1 - No Action This alternative would involve no immediate changes to either the north or south campus areas. The site of the Proposed Action would remain as surface parking. This alternative would not satisfy any of Valley Medical Center's objectives for the project (objectives are identified in Section II C of this DEIS) . Alternative 2 - Reduced Scale Development This alternative is similar in concept to the Proposed Action, but would result in a medical office building of reduced scale. The smaller medical office building would be four stories high and contain approximately 87, 574 sq. ft. of gross floor area, of which a total of 62, 376 sq. ft. would be net leasable. Of the total amount of net leasable area, approximately 62,972 sq.ft. would be allocated for physicians (floors 2 through 4) and approximately 19, 404 would be first floor Hospital-related use, similar in use and area to the Proposed Action. While this alternative would satisfy many of Valley Medical Center's objectives for this project, it would not "maximize the use of the Hospital's property and minimize lot coverage by developing a high-rise office structure. " Alternative 3 - Relocated Medical Office Building (South) This alternative would involve siting the proposed medical office building on part of the 10-acre portion of the Valley Medical Center campus located south of S. 43rd St. As with the Proposed Action, the Ambulatory Care Center would relocate and consolidate its operations in the lower level of the existing Psychiatry Wing. The bulk and scale of the medical office building would likely be the same as that of the Proposed Action. While meeting most of Valley Medical Center's objectives, this alternative would not satisfy any of VMC's specific objectives regarding location or circulation, i.e. it would not be connected to Talbot Professional Center or the parking garage; it would not provide the required pedestrian linkages; and it would not maximize use of the existing parking structure. 7 I-- C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Major Issues to be Resolved As a result of the State Environmental Policy. Act (SEPA) Scoping- process, comments were received from governmental agencies. and interested citizens_ regarding the major issues that needed to be analyzed in this DEIS. Those issues included the following: o Land Use: relationship of the Proposed Action and alternatives to land use patterns in the area, existing plans and policies, and westerly views; o Traffic & Parking: effect of the Proposed Action and alternatives on traffic, parking and circulation; and o Public Services - Fire: impact on existing City of Renton fire protective services. As noted in the SEPA Rules (197-11 WAC) , the content of the DEIS is determined by the Lead Agency (in this case the City of Renton) based, in part, on key sections of the SEPA Rules (402, 408, 430 and 440) together with results of the EIS Scoping process. This DEIS includes an analysis of the Proposed Action and each alternative's impact on land use, traffic and parking, and fire service. The following is an overview of the environmental analysis associated with each of these major issues. Land Use Patterns Implementation of the Proposed Action would change the use and character of the area in the immediate vicinity of the site. Existing surface parking would be replaced with a 5-story building, driveways and surface parking. As indicated by Table 3, the overall pattern of land use on the entire campus would change only slightly. Locating professional office uses on the VMC campus would capture a portion of the demand for office space in the vicinity of the Hospital and would tend to internalize associated land use impacts, such as parking, traffic and noise. Overall, development of the Proposed Action is not anticipated to generate significant land use impacts or conflicts. The Proposed Action is not likely to significantly affect the character or rate of development occurring in adjacent areas in this portion of the City. Land use changes already occurring are the result of overall growth in the area and the region. The Proposed Action could incrementally contribute to these changes. At the same time, however, the Proposed Action would tend to capture some portion of future growth and focus it onto the VMC campus. The proposed office building is generally compatible with other uses on the VMC campus. I -� 8 The medical office building would restrict some westerly views from viewpoints along Talbot Road S. in the vicinity of the entrance to the Chin Hills Building; some westerly views from ' offices in Talbot Professional Center and the Chin Hills Building; and some north or northwesterly views from the Psychiatry Wing and the Hospital. Alternative 1 - No Action: In the short-term, because the site would remain undeveloped, this alternative could impact land use either directly or indirectly. Demand for additional medical office. space will likely continue, however, resulting either in future development of this north campus site', a possible south campus location or an off- campus site. Alternative 2 - Reduced Scale Development: Alternative 2 (reduced scale) would result in the same type of development but at' a reduced scale. Impacts, at least in the short-term, would be generally the same as the Proposed Action, but at a lesser magnitude. Reduction in height of one story would result in a subsequent reduction in view corridor impact. Alternative 3 - Medical Office Building Relocated (South) : Impacts of Alternative 3 would generally be the same as the Proposed Action. The effect on the local medical office space market would likely be the same as that of the proposal. Because of separation from the other major medical functions on the north campus, this alternative could increase the demand for developing. the south campus and other adjacent properties. Such. development could include additional medical office space or, in some cases, satellite operations of the major functions provided on the north campus. The north campus would likely be developed at sone future date with additional hospital-related uses. This alternative would not affect the westerly view corridor as viewed from Talbot Road S. Depending upon siting, however, it could result in a southwesterly view impact from S.W. 43rd St. Land Use - Relationship to Plans & Policies Renton's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map delineates the general area of the site as Public/Quasi-public. Public facilities are typically those which are owned, operated or franchised by a general or special purpose type of government. Quasi-public uses are those "owned or operated by a nonprofit, religious or eleemosynary institution, and providing educational, recreational religious or similar type of public program" (Renton, City of. 1983. Ord. No. 3722 Amending the Zoning Code) . The Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with this public/quasi- public designation. I1 9 The Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 are generally consistent with Renton's comprehensive plan' s goals and policies relating to utilities, community facilities, commercial facilities and transportation. King County's Soos Creek subarea plan (covers unincorporated area which borders the project site) is presently being revised and is expected to be adopted Fall 1991 . The existing Plan was adopted in 1979. The Proposed Action and Alternative 2 are consistent with King County's existing Soos Creek subarea plan designation for the site. Alternative 3 would be inconsistent, because the proposed use is medical offices, whereas the Soos Creek Plan recommended single family. The Proposed Action is consistent with Valley Medical Center's Master Plan. The Master Plan projects probable future demand for services through the year 2005 and outlines a program of renovation and new construction to meet these increased needs. The Proposed Action is an element of the planned expansion. Design of the proposed project would be generally consistent with existing land use regulations. Because the proposed height of the medical office building would exceed the allowed 50-foot height, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would. be required. Traffic & Parking By 1995, the Proposed Action would generate an additional 4, 040 vehicular trips on an average weekday with 169 of those trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 397 trips during the PM peak hour. The 1995 Level-of-service analysis shows degradation of LOS at several VMC driveways along Talbot Road S. Driveway #5 at S.W. 43rd St. currently operates at LOS "F" in the AM peak hour for eastbound left turn movements. This intersection is planned for right turn in, right turn out only operation with the approved tunnel L.I.D. Emergency vehicles will be allowed to turn left either to or from S.W. 43rd St. With completion of the tunnel in 1995, the driveway will improve to LOS C or better. Additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic associated with the project may increase the number of accidents in the immediate vicinity of the site. It is not expected that the overall accident rate or pattern of accidents would be altered significantly, because historically pedestrian and vehicular traffic accidents in this area have been minimal. L.I.D. construction, which is expected to begin in 1991 , will enhance the safety of travel between north and south campus. Valley Medical Center is presently well served by Metro transit service; no expansion or service revisions are expected. 10 Valley Medical Center's existing Transportation Management Plan is being re-evaluated in light of this project. The Proposed Action would increase overall campus parking demand by approximately 385 stalls to a total of 1 ,899 parking spaces. The Ambulatory Care Center relocation and consolidation is not expected to change existing parking demand associated with this facility. Future parking demand generated by the Proposed Action can be accommodated by existing facilities on the VMC campus. In addition, Conditional Use approval has recently been granted by the City of Renton to Valley Medical Center for expansion of the existing parking garage by 800 spaces (total 1 , 100 spaces) - in order to meet existing and future demand on campus. Construction of this parking garage expansion is scheduled to begin in 1991 with completion prior to occupancy of the proposed Medical Office Building II. Public Services - Fire During construction, the proposed project could temporarily increase the potential for fire and obstruction to fire fighting equipment, as a result of construction materials and debris, on site movement of constructiion equipment and on-site construction- : related traffic congestion. The long term impact of the project on the Renton Fire Prevention Bureau would be an increased demand for fire protective services (life and property protection) . In an effort to lessen the overall demand for fire services at the campus, VMC and the Renton Fire Protection Bureau are developing a plan and schedule for retrofitting those areas of the existing hospital which are not sprinklered. The plan will be completed prior to any further major construction on campus. Because the site would remain undeveloped with the No Action alternative, no direct or indirect fire service impacts would be expected. Alternatives 2 & 3 are not expected to result in fire service impacts which are substantially different from those noted for the Proposed Action. jl I „I 11 D. MITIGATION MEASURES o It is expected that for those intersections that are already at LOS F, VMC together with other developers in the area would pay their fair share of needed improvements. o Continuation and re-evaluation of Valley Medical Center's Transportation Management Plan. o Contribution of a Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee, based on the increase in traffic generated by the Proposed Action. o Project deign in compliance with the requirements of the Renton Fire Prevention Bureau. o Development of a plan and schedule by VMC and the Renton Fire Prevention Bureau to retrofit those areas of the hospital which are not sprinklered. The plan will be . completed prior to any further major construction on campus. E. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED o Reduction in LOS for certain intersections in the vicinity of the VMC. A small portion of this LOS reduction would be attributable to the Proposed Action. o Increased demand on the Renton Fire Protection Bureau for fire protective services. 12 SECTION II PROJECT DESCRIPTION and ALTERNATIVES 13 SECTION II PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ALTERNATIVES A. PROPONENT / PROJECT LOCATION 1 . Proponent The proposed Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building and Ambulatory Care Center is sponsored by King County Public Hospital District No. 1 . 2. Proiect Location The site of the Proposed Action is approximately a one-half acre area in the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center campus, north of the Hospital and the Psychiatry Wing and west of Talbot Professional Center (Figures 1 & 2) . The Ambulatory Care Center will be relocated from the Hospital to the lower level of the Psychiatry Wing (existing building) . The address of the property is 400 South 43rd Street Renton, Washington 98056. B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1 . King County Public Hospital District Number 1 Valley Medical Center. (VMC) is a part of King County Public Hospital District Number 1 . The District was established through election by residents of the Renton, Kent and Tukwila area in 1947 and incorporated as a municipal corporation_ in 1948. The Hospital District is owned by residents of Public Hospital District Number 1 and is governed by a publicly-elected board of commissioners. The District encompasses an area of approximately 100 square miles and, as depicted in Figure 3, extends from. SE 48th St. to SE 336th St. and from Interstate 5 to 228th Ave. SE. The primary service area for the Hospital includes Renton, Kent, Tukwila and unincorporated Southeast King County. The estimated population in this service area is approximately 374, 000 (Valley Medical Center, 1989) . The projected population -in the service area, based on VMC's Master Plan, was 540, 000 (Mahlum & Nordfors. 1987. Valley Medical Center Master Site Plan and Functional Program) . The difference between these two service area population estimates is because: o the Master Plan service area covers a slightly larger area; o the Master Plan was prepared in 1987, as compared with the Facts Pamphlet in 1989; and 14 o the Master Plan estimated the 1985 population of the service area to be approximately 500, 000 and projected the 1990 service area population increase based upon growth characteristics which had occurred to that time. 15 I . .1\LIP/7,32%Ni :. t t nano: Ma t."M'N ,.. r011wr, 1i4S PietlilFo el: • i ‘• Mrit: All 7 • ,T ‘ i titEM , ... ,>. ° Renton i •. Ir..2 „� �� 1 ' k i .a PA 1 L{•: ~" # " ,a MAIL mmiaa_ ,tvimJ f MIS - r• E "m •g'•', • °Nanonr,an f �l�l�a r ®® 1• • i, r`:+r 4r w••Iml MI •v 'i...f.a r o- j �ip oDr f ,i Hlghlandtt ..-. .1 . / ,,Milil N QI Y r'• �, EICIrW ' INFIF N Dam,® • ' 1 CIAMIC '', +_ .w �I f,�� WIDOLi�yjl17,. rrrItleili") ' \ 11�11'v. L9.lf■i a1YaLYa 1L2I0'rlla .� . VIIpI _`l Jl*, SBikL[IIp ��' , mrDur.ulta.. �• • 1......Torgoiiivq-41- Ir—r.m � a. oa .v/ 1Flip"' ~rlt ~ V w { rsaoa f ark roei a 4 u � .an aw-aw,a -- Maplew..•� . I. \ fuaalvr FLAIR r_ ;ary -T.I C• ! j @ .� ` U." Y4. 1 j }j jA 1-1 ' isII u `t 4 i 1 Iii. ar !WA 1 �• illto +r r ` C ."., . : i . . . : . .. „ , . • L ,:.g "It WI �, i .wren 3r0 ,sr.. c,� .m• 'or !� AI LL ' .,s1 t No @ I 1 s kiii ,kill ,?14i ,,,,,*' aua+,.earn?, Z •„. MI D ,V for Hills ?� . je ..." ' • QUIZ . SnII I SII.I .a • S .) ./ •• if SI I ie Sln li Benson HII 1 w... . ....+ • : • rV a � .. jD �✓-- o} 1uniiiir i .I (il ,r'• ' 1 h a ` a w L: •�-' �+ .A.,k •t p\ 1 t rill• rl rr11 SI .I 1 j 1 Lane V. MI tI n j ( ee'Nfr slra. e NW e e 1 I .♦ N .. a a � NI it a • I enrj . .w J., > . -- tm.I > r m l i F NI r 1'srrz i:ROOR 7T.I:r ►1 a a �ForeaM I • N N.• p V,`�• Tralla • 1 a• ICY oB R -- 1 as y (�f;er,ton II_ \ u••:w • .. .I t • j�s.... , `'� .�.1 \1Watenhed41'I �' M �i(''lake � . FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP IIr pJ� �c � pc r NYp Y YIIIIM� WOYI YY �YI' 16 , Proposed Garage Expansion 1 .::::::‘::!::::!:'/\4''1::::.‘1;'''''''':::::,, II 7 'Fel 111(( ).j :.:,F.... .._____,.._,„3 'i, % 7f:a:::::::::: V' N,4,7)V::„:„. 2,__ 0- ,; , ... . . :::::::! .' ,/%/"\ '.4 •:;.ir--i.i .Q �::::::... \\,\v_ p "., L 1),:r ''' :k.4,'--/ „:" .:17, t North Campus • r, ... Ni., fir:: ; ' . C :i:.: ,;,-,.,;. W•::::::'''' ''. f 16,,,, ,.. ',/,„,:„,.,..:2., itp„,,:, _is, 0 , ,,,„ :;-,zri ;.„ o SW 43rd St VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER South Campus y • P40 LEGEND v. ° A Hospital B Talbot Professional Center C Chin Hills Building D Psychiatry Wing E Warehouse F Parking Garage G Radiation Oncology Center - H Medic Services II/ \\ Proposed Site 11111 MAHWM&NORDFORS el Existing Loop Road N _,�„ • NTBOOLItT 25117 Mini ben,..S .4W 96111•Q0 M 01-4151 FIGURE 2 CAMPUS PLAN HgkeIIIW8jnmgnAjjes, k 17 / i • • . riiall 7._ , (4(' i dilli AI/VON aliA • • Vi'••111.411... 1 MAY 17 / MO N..... •:, 1 iiIIILM Mqj ma I- • IIIIMITA.ISO - ..••••... ...5.1 I ' ? .1 woo laixon• ' . i mom % •••••• e".2.........1 ... '- on•o owl. •••• ...., , wow 1 '• ."' / ""4411111/ ". 1 "". m L".' •• ,,, , -•••-I 4-4 iii•iiia ) - ....- . . ... . ---. I- • 1 1-".... .7\•') , ••.. _ I r-L',, -..... .....____,„ • - • .... 03... - ' 4....-- '....... •••••• •CY '• .1" t - CIA ' . ••••••14 OW * I 11.••• .L.........t......"" ... .......: •-... ... 1 .5....._ .... , g • J• .... .1.00 LO ,- • g . I ' lain •. . . Ye .., Y•rye • of see it II III ST . t . . ..I A . , 1. C FIF.51 1 :—. NI=3 ont..1 mum• ........ 1 ( -i . • II ISO IT .............../T." . I 1 • loVw I •• •••. . I .."..r. .... • .11 • ' IN.A. I 'L 1171 112%16 I I 111107 ..• 11:Zbib. Illiall dY. . • . I ___. . , - : 1 • sr IN If 5111hril.... ..11111 NI il il ._ .4.47 t lhal , ... •••... 11011111k. ' '. ..... 4 1 lb 14 _) _in i• yr\ ......... 1 ....., — mx.,..„ E • , , ),4 ....._ MG II 1 . ... I ' • . .. . I I a.IT g 00 '----' 41110/, (ill .0w , 7. • 4, 1111 . i 7 . fain / Ian 470111 ,--7 N E ' , . . ..._ . i:t . - I . • „ 1\ 414111111 ty .. ....,a„....._- • 1 . i „ (., \ / ( . ; ... --All ..._ .... . I,III IT • .. _ I FIGURE 3 ,- KING COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT #1 dills Ago 11 18 The overall mission of the Hospital District (and Valley Medical Center) is to: "assure the health care needs of people living and working in its principal service area are met, and are met in a manner which promotes: o High quality care o Appropriate use of resources o Cost-effective delivery of services" (Valley Medical Center, 1989) King County Public Hospital District Number 1 provides a broad range of health care services and programs, all of which are located on the 42-acre campus of Valley Medical Center. Key programs include: o Acute Care Needs o Ambulatory Care Center o Cardiopulmonary Services o Coronary Care Unit o Emergency Services o Endoscopy Department o Intensive Care Unit o Laboratory (clinical and pathology) o Nuclear Medicine o Obstetrics o Psychiatric Services o Radiation Oncology o Radiology/ultrasound o Surgicenter The Hospital District (VMC) employs a total of approximately 1 , 700 people on a 3-shift/day operating schedule. Of these, approximately 359 are staff physicians representing 22 medical specialties and subspecialities. Table 1 provides a comparison between 1989 and 1984 statistics (most current five-year data) . As shown, the Hospital's outpatient surgeries have increased by 83%, births by 73% and emergency visits by 59%. Total patient days and admissions have increased by 7% and 20% respectively. The average length of hospital stays has declined, indicating that Valley Medical Center is servicing more people in shorter patient stays than in 1984. l I ! 1 Table. 1 HOSPITAL OPERATIONAL STATISTICS - 1989 & 1984 Parameter 1989 1984 % Change o total patient days 69,901 65, 077 +7 o admissions 16, 143 13, 411 +20 o emergency visits 50, 000 31 ,409 +59' o outpatients referred 1_ (visits) 55, 500 37, 124 +49 o live births + equivalent deliveries 3, 360 1 ,947 +73 o average length of stay . (days) 4 33 4.85 -11 ' o outpatient surgeries 8, 022 4,393. +83 Source: Valley Medical Center 2. . Valley Medical Center Campus r As shown in Figure 2, eight buildings are located on the ; campus of Valley Medical Center, with a total building area of '- ' approximately 930, 650 sq. ft. Data (actual counts) for each building is provided below. a. Hospital o 3-story, 651 , 000 sq. ft. of gross floor area o licensed for 303 beds; 296 existing o staff: day shift - 580 to 600/day swing shift - 190 to 200/day night shift - 85 to 110/day jl b. Talbot Professional Center o principal use: medical offices o 5-story, 100, 000 sq. ft. of gross floor area o staff: 180 to 200/day (including doctors) c. Chin Hills Building o principal use: medical offices o 4-story, 48, 000. sq. ft. of gross floor area o' staff: 180 to 200/day (including doctors) d. Psychiatry Wing o 2-story, 52, 000 sq. ft. of gross floor area (18, 000 sq.ft. shelled but unoccupied at this time) o staff: included in Hospital total 20 e. Warehouse o principal use: warehouse, purchasing & data processing o 1-story, 8,900 sq. ft. of gross floor area o staff: day shift - 14/day night shift - 1 /day • f. Parking Structure o 3 1 /2 level, 62, 000 sq. ft. , 298-car capacity o Conditional Use Permit #00689 has recently been approved to allow expansion of this parking structure by 800 spaces (total - approximately 1 , 100 spaces) . Construction will start in 1991 and be completed prior to occupancy of the proposed Medical Office Building II. g. Radiation Oncology Center o principal use: examination and treatment o 1-story, 4,800 sq. ft. of gross floor area o staff: 7 - 8/day i ! h. Medic Services o principal use.: emergency medical dispatch o 1-story, 3,950 sq. ft. o staff: 4 each for the day/swing/night shifts Several master planning documents have been prepared by Valley Medical Center to guide future campus development. The two most recent plans include: the Master Site Plan and Functional Program (Mahlum & Nordfors, 1987) and the 5-year Strategic Plan (Valley Medical Center, . 1988) . The Proposed Action is a functional element that was planned for in both of these documents. The purpose of the Master Site Plan and Functional Program is to provide a physical development scheme to meet anticipated growth requirements of VMC to the year 2005. The study examines population characteristics and projected growth within King County Public Hospital District Number 1 ; evaluates historic service demands for key departments based on one or more parameters (e.g. , patient days, #beds, length of stay, visits) ; projects future space needs • by department; identifies development zones within the north and I south campus areas; and identifies renovation and new on-campus space needs to 2005. 21 The 5-year Strategic Plan examines the programmatic and facility changes necessary within the short term ( 1989 - 1993) at Valley Medical Center. Seven key operational concerns are considered, including: o potential new programs; o campus development; o marketing; o human resources; o data processing and computer services; o medical staff relations; and o finance. Recent development which has occurred on campus, as well as the Proposed Action presented in this draft EIS, are intended to implement the planning direction provided by these two documents. 22 C. NEED FOR PROJECT AND PROPONENT'S OBJECTIVES King County Public Hospital District Number 1 proposes to build a new medical office building and to relocate and consolidate functions of the existing Ambulatory Care Center. This proposal is in response to a growing demand for certain services on the Valley Medical Center campus. Table 1 (page 16) presents statistical information relative to recent growth in services at VMC. The needs that this proposal is responding to are described below: Office Space The existing Talbot Professional Center and Chin Hills Building on campus are fully occupied; both are medical office buildings containing a total of approximately 148, 000 sq. ft. Valley Medical Center indicates that there is a shortage of high quality professional medical office space, comparable to that of Talbot Professional Center and the Chin Hills Building, located in close proximity to the Hospital (Scott, 1990) . This is based on conversations between representatives of the Hospital and physicians (specialists and sub-specialists) trying to find office space in the area. A new medical office building connected to the Hospital would provide professional office space for specialists and sub-specialists who need to be near their patients, other specialists and the specialized facilities provided by the Hospital. Education An expanded educational facility is needed for continuing medical education of doctors, nurses and technical support staff. During February and March, 1990, 52 professional educational programs were offered as part of medical staff continuing education. Valley Medical Center also offers 50 on-going educational/support programs (such as the Alzheimer's Support Group, CPR classes and the Head Injury Foundation) and provides free, on-the-job training services for 30 schools across the country. This latter program provides hands-on technical training (several students at a time) from such facilities as Renton Voc.- Tech. Ambulatory Care The Hospital's existing ambulatory care program provides comprehensive acute rehabilitation including: physical and occupational therapy, children's therapy, speech/language and neuroevaluation (EEG) . Increases in existing ambulatory care services and changes in standards of treatment have created increased demand for additional space. Physical therapy and occupational therapy services alone have grown by 40% over the past four years. Existing Ambulatory Care Center facilities were established in 1969. Relocation and consolidation would allow more efficient delivery of services. 23 In response to growth in demand for medical services, .VMC has identified a need to provide additional office space on campus and to relocate and consolidate some existing functions. The applicant's objectives for the major components of the project are described below. Medical Office Building General Goals • o serve the health care needs of a growing population; o meet community needs by providing a convenient location for patients to see their physicians proximate to the hospital -- 'in order to minimize travel time and distance for patients and reduce the number of medical/hospital-related vehicular trips in the area; o remain competitive with other hospital facilities in the Puget Sound region, and emulate the model established by major U.S. health care facilities, by encouraging physician specialists to locate proximate to major health care centers -- in order to provide greater efficiency in the delivery of services, help keep medical-related costs down and reduce traffic and parking impacts; Services/Facilities Goals o improve accessibility to the emergency room (one of the largest in the Northwest) for physician specialists, who establish their practices in the vicinity of Valley Medical Center and require expedient access to the emergency room, by providing rentable medical office space in a new medical office building on the campus of Valley Medical Center, adjacent to the Hospital; o meet the expanding educational needs of the medical staff at the hospital, and the increasing needs for community continuing health-care education (health education, - wellness classes, and birth classes) by providing additional space which includes an auditorium, classrooms and kitchen facilities (in support of the auditorium and classrooms) in a new medical office building on the campus of Valley Medical Center; Locational Goals o situate the medical office building so that it relates functionally with Talbot Professional Center, Valley Medical Center Hospital and the Valley Medical Center parking garage and provides convenient and unincumbered (handicap accessible) pedestrian connections between the facilities; 24 o site the medical office building in a location on the Hospital campus which does not inhibit future Hospital expansion; Circulation/Parking Goals o facilitate pedestrian traffic flow between the Valley Medical Center parking garage, Talbot Professional Center and the Hospital through elevated, covered and level walkways for the benefit of infirm individuals and to minimize on-campus pedestrian/vehicular traffic conflicts; o maximize the use of existing covered parking facilities ' and create and plan for the development of future parking facilities on the campus to meet the future needs of Valley Medical Center; Design Goals o maximize the use of the Hospital's property and minimize lot coverage by developing a high-rise office structure; o orient the medical office building on the site so that views from Talbot Professional Center are not substantially impaired and vehicular traffic circulation on the Valley Medical Center campus is not adversely affected; o design the medical office building to complement the architectural character of existing buildings on the campus and enhance the campus-like setting; Operational Goals o x hospital ermit pexpansion through a lease arrangement which does not draw on the capital needs of the Hospital -- for example, a possible ground lease to a .partnership of physicians with the physicians building, owning and operating the building; and 25 o provide expansion space for existing services on campus including: Cardiac Rehab Services, Cardiopulmonary Services, Social Services, Human Services and Admitting Satellite Services. Ambulatory Care Center o locate the ambulatory care facility in a central location on the Hospital campus and in a larger space in order to consolidate related functions and provide more efficient delivery of services; The Proposed Action has been framed with these objectives in mind. D. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action involves two major elements: construction of a medical office building and relocation and consolidation of the ambulatory care center. Each component is described below. 1 . Medical Office Building II: Building Siting and Uses The proposed medical office building with connecting skybridges (connecting to Talbot Professional Center and Valley Medical Center parking garage) would be constructed in the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center campus (Figure 2) . The building would be located on approximately a one-half acre site north of the Psychiatry Wing, west of Talbot Professional Center and south of the parking structure (Figure 4) . The building would be oriented in an east-west direction and separated by approximately 50 feet from Talbot Professional Center. 26 . \...D , � .,.. ,. .tie ;�,a \,: ' `a 1si�i ! skybridge 1 , �; c 1 �♦xiik . VC,it ;..« :<lzu • Talbot :•aikybrid . r> .> Professional ,, ss„?:. Center • yak, •;:>'2 "a?"".BS�y :�:2'.;� *:y-,.;j:ti / • i:.;:�:?::`�� t:;o0'ti<22ysa�<"tii<�:�2 :•�`��QStiu�'1'J:?R?\„t ' a:2?.yg,:10641...\.':.s.%1':::± 0 • &ii>;. ni':2aL:2%,•S;:•,..•• ::•-.,2•..,F. ': % � • $�<2. arc: i•::ir• ,,,nt;2cz.;•;;<��.`,•\t<:`?;�<`�`�<?$Y•<£"•?'.'�'`�'^` '', IMI � •R�:<' \:°;��v}•4\P�1 <:`.'�oY:L;,S�'4�:``• �...;.2�''9'i. s,.;?iy.,l`."v,<Y:.2 .•R, ).y.., $2.i+m. I �2<;: ry.\:c;: �,,.�s;.:=;`�`:`:-\2.8?a;a':a�:��':`:>?<v::3;>:>• w;j��i\:� n)t+k�'cv�'k;.��:x: ;i,\• j ,.. ..J.�•• 'u• `to��•:uc��• .zz�Ya^n �.X vs`s>iY? ?<ti.�i3.;. `'3f`i:<i• ''''?:,42zc• ?>i2:yi<c;. . tia' wk' �` 2:t;;}., ;"> "o'.z?i"" <} V;::{•"F:2: / ": .he,,,,0.- < ‘‘, Psychiatry Wing Hospital •{fa•`' (newlocation for Ambulatory '``�.... >> .. O.„:., R Care Center is in the lower level) vti:,,.tr,. 3R:•3,�1. ;rCkp .� '`?;w,, .•.c.�' hx,,,,M1k;'. ..,.R.,. rr; Existing Buildings 40 80 r sZsu:. 1 I- t Proposed Buildings M&,r„ 2505 Tlird Avenue.Snide.WA 9E121•MG 441.4151 FIGURE 4 I SITE p Mgikei/WeinmsnAoiie:,Ini j 1 27 The total gross square footage in the proposed medical office building would be approximately 110,970 sq. ft. and the net leaseable area would be approximately 103, 270 sq.ft. The 7,700 sq.ft. difference between gross and net areas is based on the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) area calculation methodology. Based on this, gross floor area includes the area of the entire building shell, measured to the exterior of all exterior walls. Net leaseable or rentable area, based on BOMA, excludes such areas as the exterior walls, stairways, elevator and mechanical shafts, and permanent mechanical and electrical rooms which serve the entire building. The following are proposed building areas based on the gross floor area and net leaseable area by floor: floor gross floor area net leaseable 1 21 ,594 sq.ft. 19, 404 sq.ft. 2 20,988 19,844 3 22,846* 21 ,963 4 22,326 21 , 165 5 22,326 21 , 165 roof 886 0 TOTAL 110,966 sq.ft. 103,271 sq.ft. . * includes both skybridges totaling 1 , 296 sq.ft. It is proposed that the first floor of the 5-story medical office building be devoted to hospital-related uses and the upper four floors leasable space for physicians. While the design of actual Hospital-related space on the first floor has not been finalized, it is expected that uses and leaseable areas would include the following: o a 200-seat auditorium (1 ,820 sq.ft. ) ; o auditorium support storage (780 sq.ft. ) ; o offices (education and learning center - 4, 250 sq.ft. ) ; o meeting rooms (5, 520 sq.ft. ) ; o kitchen in support of the meeting rooms (660 sq.ft. ) ; o storage (1 ,850 sq.ft. ) ; o corridor, lobby, coat room (3, 050 sq. ft. ) ; and o restrooms, mechanical space & stairwell (1 , 874 sq.ft.. ) . It is anticipated that the leased space on the upper floors of the medical office building (approximately 83,867 sq.ft. ) would be used as offices, clinics or laboratories -- similar to that at Talbot Professional Center. 28 Access and Parking The proposed medical office building would be accessible from several locations. Two pedestrian entrances are proposed for the south facade of the building -- the westerly entry would provide access to the first floor and the easterly entry would access the second floor (Figure 5) . In addition, two enclosed pedestrian bridges are proposed (Figure 4) . One bridge would link the third level of the existing parking structure to the third floor of the new medical office building. The other would connect the third floor of the proposed medical office building to the first floor of Talbot Professional Center. Since Talbot Professional Center is already connected to the Hospital by a tunnel, the proposed skybridge would provide direct pedestrian access (covered) from the proposed medical office building to the Hospital. Parking for 38 vehicles (32 standard and 6 handicap) is planned for the area immediately south of the proposed medical office building and north of the existing Psychiatry Wing (Figure 4) . Since this area currently provides parking for approximately 50 vehicles, the net change would be a loss of approximately 12 spaces from this portion of the campus. The new parking area would be accessible from VMC's other parking lots in the area and from the internal ring roadway (Figure 2) . Service vehicle access to the building would be from the north side of the building. One loading dock is proposed, accessible from the existing internal circulation road. This loading access lane is not expected to interfere with existing traffic circulation in the area. Building Design The medical office building would continue existing design themes found in other buildings on the VMC campus. This includes the use of similar material for the facade, similar facade color and the use of stepped setbacks at key corners of the building. Figures 6 and 7 present elevations of each facade. Specifically, the exterior of the building is expected to be a synthetic stucco-like material off-white in color with light gray accents. Glazing would be blue-green tinted and insulated glass (same as Talbot Professional Center) to reduce energy consumption. The glass would not be highly reflective (in the range of 8 to 20 percent) . As shown by Figure 8, the top of the parapet would be approximately 70 feet above the finish elevation of the first floor. A rooftop mechanical penthouse ( 32 ft. x 110 ft. - including the elevator penthouse) could extend above the parapet approximately 9 feet. 29 • • Talbot Professional Center. •1'_ 'i1s.Rldr .V Ro ' ik - �E fS1411°6-11rrit4:1\ ----"*."--. qizt 45 � Ry.- C � �i02,, • la o,.� ..• K ai. 1 •,,,,,:.,,,::..1. ,7, �5r'4j.1 �ty�IjL'1 �� '•./. 5�� 1N �5�'i•kR��3vn na�oyr cam- , t1 • 1N. %r „' 5'1i_ / �. I:1r •t,11.i;;lt.csf l f (— J _ - - f fi• r*q; ! I 1 — _- - ,� -��,��111v—` \ •L �;'��"v';�'�': ��ti . �5 - .�A �:;�':).G; ,K1!'i i.7 G?�'1a•li . 'l .:.: r.: _.1i,,1{ �1 Iln�l:.,1;:\�\.'n".1. ... .:Jil•.{It.• 1.__ �, — rg! I{'I;j1 -. Li 6< i j.. 7, �` ffirik...,„ , mow:-<--- - � _-- - 11 .....„--_,- . MAHWM&NORDFORS {YO,I[CRiRE.noun PLANK•G•N5ERIOPS -' nos flail*swam%wee 5V5ISM•nail.mm51 FIGURE 5 1. fill! i PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AS VIEWED FROM THE SOUTHWEST MC O YI�IIIMII �SOCI It 30 • Talbot Professional Center • 1 70 ft.— -- I • IW[�l n v nutnnl�lll{I11{II)Ihtptr• A M I111111 1111111111111 rrr. !*IITITI i_IIIII A III1111 j I t t I w _ _ (• , �1 - N I Ff II •+ IHIt 1• --IO�I��■i�r� . � • i• u it , 0 • SOUTH ELEVATION Talbot Professional Center • / • _ I isti Psychiatry ., ,. Wing WtNNE ttw Ali _ �I �( '1 • c - 71 III �. I _ - I IS 1 .. • 'I _:—� R Itll II WEST ELEVATION � IV MAH{UJM&NORDFORS J.HIRCIL[•fJORYR/v.N1G•1101.1016 3Sm7W1►wa.lmia M.son•In.MIAMI II FIGURE 6 . • 1• SOUTH WEST ELEVATIONSIlltitibill1 enn�',LW' II 31 I ' i Talbot Professional Center • Illfn i I[, �'• I I111111� I--�u-�� - .� nrig lull our ���t.nin !=====1®110.=Zun— _ I1111.1I-11-e1"ii fi n • NORTH ELEVATION I , r-� I i 1111111111 ,• ° i• 1i■■■ii■ ■■■ ■1111■■■■1■■■■I■■■■I■11■■li■1 I--- _ 11■■■�11■ it; ■■11�=I 'M■11■I �-� -- I . .._._- �� -��I��I� !1■rI11■ ■■H�-I ■II■I'I I•i■r I-t■II■1� EAST ELEVATION I ' i I MAHWM&NORDFORS No�ua-rrainRM*G.rrreaaa am n+r w.�,s.r..vw hIIn•aoY.u+1s1 FIGURE 7 - NORTH & EAST ELEVATIONS Mvskell/WeinminA&si 32 • • 70 fte� I i • 1 1 I I I 1 I I f 11 I I 1 - ---- .. .[--�. . . • 11 1I I I� i i — pc.__... [ . —_ �� J..t.3-�j" I . ��W EaUll.blt.l ECl" I c., s o N • e«� eo W I • MAHLUM&NORDFORS IEL7111E•fAQ11YRAMING•1141 Om 1W Awuf.JAL W1}P21•O011 441-41S1 i FIGURE 8 CROSS-SECTION OF PROPOSED MEDICAL Alma OFFICE BUILDING AS VIEWED ii Nil � I{i� FOC YY �CI LOOKING EAST , i 33 { Landscaping While a detailed landscape plan has not been prepared at this time, VMC indicates, that landscaping is proposed for planting areas along the south, west and north facades of the building. The area of the north.• facade is already landscaped with lawn, dwarf spiraea, compact Oregon grape and English ivy. The largest concentration of landscaping would likely occur along the building's south facade, because of the greater expanse of area. Figure 5 shows an artist conception of this landscape area. A sidewalk around the loop of the access drive would provide access to the existing stairway which leads to the fountain. The stairway is flanked by English ivy, boxwood and rhododendrons. The fountain is located between Talbot, Professional Center and the Psychiatry. Wing. Existing Uses The site of the Proposed Action is currently surface parking (approximately 50 spaces) with landscaped planting strips. All existing parking would be removed for construction and staging; 38 spaces would be replaced. Construction Construction of the medical office building would require a- limited amount of demolition (surface parking) and grading. It is _ estimated that approximately 6, 350 cubic yards of material would have to be excavated for the first floor of the building. The medical office building would be connected to existing utilities in 1 this portion of the north campus area. All existing surface parking on the site (approximately 50 spaces) would be temporarily affected by construction, construction ' I equipment and the stockpiling of materials. It is expected that loss of parking at this location during construction would be accommodated at other parking areas on the north or south campus, since this parking area is normally fully utilized. 2. Ambulatory Care Center: Siting and Design The other major element of the Proposed Action involves relocation and consolidation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center. As previously noted, ACC provides comprehensive acute rehabilitation including physical and occupational therapy, lI children's therapy, speech/language and neuroevaluation (EEG) . Increases in existing ACC services and changes in standards of treatment have created increased demand for additional space. The Proposed Action would involve the relocation of ACC from the first and second floors of the Hospital (approx. 7, 300 sq. ft. ) to the lower level of the existing Psychiatry Wing. The lower ' 34 ICI ' level consists of approximately 18, 000 sq. ft. of undeveloped � '. (shell). space, of which approximately 85% to 90% would be usable space for. ACC. The existing facade of the lower level of the Psychiatry Wing would be altered to include glazing. Glass and spandrel panels would be the same grey tint currently used on the first floor of this building. . Relocation of the Ambulatory Care Center from the first and second floors of the Hospital would make approximately 7,3.50 sq. ft. available for expansion of other existing services. . According to VMC, no new services are anticipated. Planned changes include: o Cardiac Rehab Services and Cardiopulmonary Services would expand into the space currently occupied by the Physical Therapy Department; o Cardiopulmonary Services would also occupy the former EMG space and the existing office of the director of Rehab Services; o . Social Services would expand into the former Speech and Hearing Office; o Human Services would expand into the space formerly occupied by Occupational Therapy; o Admitting Satellite Services would occupy the former Rehab Services Office; and - o The existing shared therapy office would be utilized as expansion space for other existing services. Access Primary access to. the Ambulatory Care Center would be from a new entry located at ground level in the northeast corner of the building (accessible from the proposed parking area) . An elevator and stairway would connect the ACC to the first floor of the Psychiatry Wing, which has direct pedestrian connections to the Hospital and Talbot Professional Center. The first floor of the Psychiatry Wing is used for voluntarily committed psychiatric p y patients. On occasion, Valley Medical Center will temporarily hold involuntarily committed psychiatric patients - awaiting transfer to a more secure facility. VMC indicates that there will be no contact between patients and staff of the new Ambulatory Care Center on the lower level and psychiatry patients on the first floor. To ensure this separation, VMC would implement the following security measures as an element of the Proposed Action: r o design the facility so that part of the Psychiatric Unit can be locked-down to retain patients until transfer to a more secure facility; 35 H o the elevator and adjacent stairs which would lead to the proposed ACC on the lower level are located in an existing public area on the first floor which is outside. of the Psychiatric Unit; the public area would be constantly monitored (by nursing personnel) and access to the Psychiatric Unit controlled ' by keypad entry or a remote door release signal from_ the nurse stations; o . the two stairways located in the Psychiatric Unit (not { the stairway located in the public area). would be armed to sound an alarm whenever the doors are opened; and h ;, o the two stairways located in the Psychiatric Unit would exit to the exterior of the Psychiatry Wing with no direct connection to the proposed ACC. i , E. ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 - No Action` This alternative would involve no immediate changes to either 1j the north or south campus areas. The site of the Proposed Action would remain as surface parking. No development involving office space, auditorium, classrooms or other elements associated with the Proposed Action would occur in this area of the campus. Demand for this type and magnitude of development would, however, remain. This could intensify pressure for development and/or redevelopment of other areas on campus or off-site property adjacent to the campus. This alternative would not satisfy any of Valley Medical Center's objectives for the project. 7 � I , L 1 36 Alternative 2 - Reduced Scale Development This alternative, while similar in concept to the Proposed. . Action, would reduce the scale of the medical office building.. The smaller medical office building would be four stories high and contain approximately 87, 750 sq. ft. of gross` floor area,'.of which it is estimated 82, 100 sq. ft. would be net rentable. The amount of net leasable area for physicians (floors 2 through 4) would be 62, 700 sq. ft. and the first floor hospital-related use would likely remain the same as the Proposed Action (approximately 1.9,404 sq. ft. net rentable) . Most other elements of this alternative --' including location on the campus, access, building orientation, design concept, landscaping and hospital-related use of the first floor -- would _ remain the same as the Proposed Action. Like the preferred alternative, construction of this alternative would require reconfiguration of the existing parking area with provision for a total of 37 spaces. The Ambulatory Care. Center, however, would still relocate and consolidate' its operations in the lower level of the existing Psychiatry Wing. While this alternative would satisfy many of Valley Medical" Center's objectives for this project, it would not "maximize the use of the Hospital's property and minimize lot coverage by. developing a high-rise office structure. " A reduction in the amount of square, footage of office space for this alternative could result in the need for additional medical office development elsewhere on-site (or off-site) in order to meet estimated market demand. This alternative could accelerate the need for development and/or redevelopment in other areas of the campus or adjacent off-site property, in order to meet the demand for office space adjacent to the Hospital. Alternative - Relocated Medical Office Building (South) This alternative, depicted in Figure 9, would involve siting" the proposed medical office building on a portion of the 10-acre segment of the Valley Medical Center campus located south of S. 43rd St. As with the Proposed Action, the Ambulatory Care Center would relocate and consolidate its operations in the lower level of the existing Psychiatry Wing. ' ' The bulk and scale of the medical office building would likely be the same as that of the Proposed Action -- approximately five stories in height with 110,970 sq. ft. of gross. floor area and approximately 103,270 sq. ft. net rentable area. Of the total rentable area, it is estimated that approximately 83, 170 'sq. ft. would be leasable space on the upper floors (2 through 5) for medical offices. It . 37 SW 43rd St n /00 #0°) s - OP FIGURE 9 IIr p I p POSSIBLE BUILDING LOCATION - MY Y tilt*YS 1 SOUTH CAMPUS ALTERNATIVE 38 Uses contained within a medical office building at this location would probably be the same as those included in .the Proposed Action. The first floor would likely be dedicated. to Hospital-related uses (such as an auditorium, classrooms and education offices) with the upper four floors used as leasable space for physicians. Because of the northeast-southwest alignment of Davis Avenue South and the north-south configuration of the property in this portion of the campus, the medical office building could be' oriented in almost any. direction (depending upon which lotsare ` utilized) ' Figure, 9 depicts one possibility. Architectural design and associated design elements would ' likely be the same as that of the Proposed Action. Access to the building would be from Davis Street South. Davis Street S. is currently accessible from S. 43rd Street. By 1991 this south portion of the campus will be connected to the north campus via a tunnel beneath S. 43rd St. (Figures 2 & 9) . The tunnel is an improvement proposed by Valley Medical Center and funded throughan L.I.D. Design is complete; and construction is scheduled to beginlate-1990. The tunnel will provide an alternative point of access to the north campus, thereby eliminating the need for a left turn from S.' 43rd St. at the existing driveways. The L.I.D. also includes the widening of S. 43rd St. from Talbot Road S. to SR 167, the addition of an HOV lane, and revisions to the traffic signals at S. 43rd St. and SR 167. Most of the south campus is presently undeveloped. An area south of S.W. 43rd. Street and west of Davis Street S. is currently used as surface parking for day-shift 'employees. A medical office ' building at this location, depending upon actual siting, could displace the 220 existing surface parking spaces and generate demand for an additional 250-300 employee and patient spaces in this area of the campus.. These effects are not expected to be significant, however, because the south campus is presently undeveloped and existing employee parking and new employee/patient parking generated by a building at this location could probably be accommodated elsewhere on the south campus. This alternative would not affect the existing 50 surface parking spaces at the north campus location. ) 7 While meeting most of Valley Medical Center's objectives, this alternative would not satisfy any of VMC's specific objectives regarding location or circulation, i.e. it would not be connected Ir to Talbot Professional Center or the parking garage; it would not provide the required. pedestrian linkages; and it would not maximize use of the existing parking structure. 39 SECTION III AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS and MITIGATION MEASURES 40 SECTION III AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS and MITIGATION, MEASURES • A. LAND USE 1 . Land Use Patterns/Views - Affected Environment Land Use Valley Medical Center is located in Renton's Talbot Hill/Springbrook neighborhood. • This neighborhood covers an area of approximately 2. 1 sq. miles and extends from 1-405 to the southern boundary of the City (S. 55th St. ) , and from SR 167 to Benson Road S./108th Ave. S.E. The Talbot Hill/Springbrook neighborhood is bordered on the south and east by unincorporated King County. . The Valley Medical, Center campus encompasses approximately 42 acres. As indicated by Table 2, roughly 10% of the, site is devoted to buildings and 26% to parking and access driveways. Approximately 63% of the north and south, campus area is landscaped or undeveloped land. Although developable,' approximately 8 of the 10 acres comprising the south campus area remain undeveloped with the balance of roughly 2 acres in internal streets. Approximately 18 acres (principally located in the northwest and southeast corners of the north campus) are landscaped. TABLE 2 EXISTING PATTERN OF LAND USES ON-SITE Land Use Approx. Approx. % of Acreage Total Site Hospital 2. 05 4.84 Health Care- 2.51 5.93 Related Uses Parking/Internal 11 . 15 26.35 Streets Landscaped/Undev. Areas 26.61 62.87 TOTAL 42.32 acres 100.00% (rounded) 41 Areas noted in Table . 2 for hospital and health-care related uses represent lot coverage. They do not indicate total gross floor area devoted to each particular use. The site of the Proposed Action. (and Alternative 2) is presently utilized for surface parking. As shown in Figure 2, the pattern of on-site land uses immediately surrounding the site proposed for office building development on the north campus includes: structured parking north of the site; surface parking west, northwest, northeast and southwest of the site; professional office buildings east of the site and hospital/hospital-related medical buildings south and southeast of the site. Conditional Use Permit #00689 has recently been approved by the City of Renton to allow expansion of the existing parking structure by 800 spaces (total - approximately 1 , 100 spaces) . Construction will start. in 1991 and be completed prior to ! occupancy of the proposed Medical Office Building II. Currently, the northern 200 feet of the 10-acre south campus (location of Alternative 3) is developed for use as day-shift employee parking (220 spaces) . Approximately 80% of the remainder ' - of the south campus is undeveloped with the balance in public ' rights-of-way (Davis Ave. S. and S. 45th P1. ) . ' As depicted by Figure 10, the character of land uses surrounding the campus of Valley Medical Center includes a .mix' 'of' uses within three political jurisdictions ' -- Renton, King County and Kent. The general mix of land- uses includes residential development at varying densities, professional offices and retail . uses. ' Land uses north and northeast of the campus include undeveloped land, health care facilities and single family residential. Immediately north of Valley Medical .Center is a steep and densely vegetated ravine associated with Panther Creek and its wetlands. This area is in the City of Renton. Panther Creek is a Class I Habitat with lands immediately adjacent to the creek designated as Habitat Buffer (King County.' 1979. Soos. Creek Plateau Communities Plan) . The Class I designation means that the "habitat can be considered prime by almost any standard. It is extensive, largely undisturbed and generally well-buffered"(Ibid) . The Habitat. Buffer (considered a secondary habitat area) infers that the area is presently undeveloped and the buffer serves to protect the habitat from development. Panther Creek is also designated as a Type 3 Water based on its significance as habitat for anadromous fish spawning, rearing or migration (King County. 1987. Sensitive Areas Map Folio) . 42 I 1 , _... -,, , '- , - 1 • , _ 1 ', - ,--. '. ,. , ' I ,' ', J • ' i . . - ROT I"e7,M Ir -"rPlaWiliP411110:5:',41,C.,, k ' ,,7„,.., ,,!m p.,,' , . 7.1pr-f 15.,.1• ,,47.1„.y.,014%,0,, • 'u lillif'.;,,,.t ''' ' tt 'r-- .. 1 'i _ 1 t --' -.,. r.., .. ,. , r, .. -., • 7,,,L,,,,- ......' , ,,,'.','',,,y,;',,.'H'I''',4,17' ''4.14.0.,'„,1.,A,,, .,. .1,:.,, i, :...• 4 ..11,7 ,.,:„.,z,..,4rk.„. J.,kv''' ,.,,,t,„,,,t4,',,, 714c., ttii, ,,,,0'.1'-..,0,;,,,A,,Y ,,,- 1;1'6';' ..o '- '' ' ' .14' '' . 44'".•,,'''P'.0, !''"" '''',,,4 Fr " - ,,',1•111,,,,,., 1• - -'''''• 4i„, 1, ,,p,,;"!; ,.1'1,,, .,,1„,„;,0,1 . ,14,1 , .,„,,,,!,., tt, it, „ ,,IFP!liii(0441itt,[41N!110,0,,,,,,IJ•,2:.;„1,;1 1'c'.1-.,-,,;, IL':itr!, dil., 1,1,1,'liThil,: ,,i, .-07.,,,,,,...,:i.e,,.,1,..„4,.,,,,I .," , ' '', 1,1,1,..„,;„14,,11v:4'" ,."4 r,,k1 "x ktik,..,,,I?:',,4,'",,Jt,,t 1,711',;1,0,61f,74*,,,,,,X!,,,t,:,,-,k,,',t,,,,,,,0„,, ,10,„,,01,,,, i.,,.1 .'',,,.<,',„ "'",,.,- „.,„.04'; ,t liO' ,. ,'1 '1 i„'It ''''i,,,,,,,4k...•,,„ 9111115'111;11,;1;•„t; 1, ... ,11 : r.1.7;,..,r, , ' ,,'";'1;);1:.;;;,.,l',..1 1 :..„7-..-„,-,,..0,,s,q5,, - ),,,,1,01,14"110 110 ."".... .,',11',.,0 1"",iilig"1,,i. ,... .A : , .1''''.,:t.i!,,,,,,,,,i,,,,,,,r-.,„,,,i,..„,.:•-•.,r,.$4....4,...,e1,4.4„„)..„,4,,4,:•.,.. A„1,. ,„.r. ,,,.,.. ,,, ,• ;,,,,,p.,,,.., 1, -•: ,..., vi..71 •,,,,4 , ..r.,..,,.„.,„ „ .,^,i..,i •,.,11„, r, i,i,„,ii..i.,..1 , ,.•.I.,,•.',„i 1,1 41.%17„"ilfitoli-,.t','„, ,',10,,!-,,,„,,,,,il,.,or,,,o,,,,,.,f,„,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I!,,,,:,,7..,,..- 44:'"r'''''' .111,'.4',""it%•'..)4!t4.1.41..*.":'''',''Zr:',"+"'*•''Ir'1..,':1,;16.1hoti... ' . r!,,'N,..,.:',,,N:14:i - ; 1; ' •''.',n,,; .,' ..1,' 1';',4 '?,?,,,;.'; ;;'';. ..1;,,,.-tir,-.,.°1004 1 ', :' -.,','„', g''1;7;''i:1,ic. 1',1 1(7:411 1:1:j1;111"OJI:1'4,,,,"'1•41,,,T1.,'''''Ir.;i If, h'-,'..',„,e,:,,,,,,,J16,,,, .,: ,,,,,''' ,,,,,,Ajoere4,'',,,,,,,',;,,,i0,e'l,;;,',"ki,o,414,,,,,r,Ot 1' dlr."- :I' ::•,:,,,„iii,:,,Z"14,'',1,!„," t.' ,'„,„,'::,T'-,,,' 1."yi,-,,,.',,'r,'„,/ii a ',".. „,,,,,„j,,,t,'.1,-; . . 1:, 1110'1', ,,,. "...--",„,„.-%.„0/1:,r,. ..,,....'.7; ,. . ..0Io ,,"t, !,,,1; 0, ,e 11'f,1 1 '1,, 1111;1111 1 Jill!' 1 ,I, - 1't111,'' )11 1 li 1. „1 ir-"1'z,,,1•.,?4' -;' „„,„, r p'''',ff.'41.4,,,,,,114,,V,,,, a, ,TI:p.,1411 lip i,pi,, ,1,1 [0;1 1,111 1F41,14. ,,,lh1, ,,,,..,,L 1,,- ... .„„,,r„ ,,,,,,,,,-, J ,,.,, ,i, ,,-I' •,••••ir, ,1, (1111i. ; r it ,I, ,',,.,",j,,,,;',1"1 In'.1"* • r - „-•,,,,ji ,,•1:v••,,0,,,,,,,,,,;;;•,,,,,,,,,i 4piip,11! ,,,' ,, 01,. , „•7,,,,,..,,I.),'"It ',iv:I:.1:1'.1.,•11:01,11 4'1[1,1 h'411101,k,„ ' '''''''0/4,"4".'llt", ,!,, ' .' •, i , i*Iii4::,17, .!!1,4,.,."4:•',...r., ,. ,,,,I, .. /11 ,,L '..,•-V...'•;"•'t31.7.:.':''36';.?"':1•fi, 9;•''''44'. ''-'•''•'' 3r •.. ' .'4' mkt', :. 4-..,„ ,,,,, ,y',:, 4,,,„ ,,,q, J,,,,I,e, ,-!;*,.,',....k. • ' i''h,,,,,i•l'' :ii 4IF" "111414 4I44t'' 41.4'."'".4.'••''';,''I 'I;.1'le'T*.H,,,INI,',H4.1 t•••il ',' 'i ,‘,','„,,,,...!-!.,,o< .,-'; ,-, -',4 ..,q1uv l',,,,1 ., . ,,,,,,,,,,,,IA,„,f,,,,44,.•,,.„,,...,,. ,,L', ,,,, , ..,,,,, , • • , ,,,,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,„„..,,, ,..,, . . ,,,,,,,;, ,,,,,,„1„,,...,„..„,„,,,o,,,,,,,,. ,,„:, ., ...,, ,,.,,,,..,., :.,,„,,,,,,,,,.., .,,, • .k,' , „.;„ '; 'A''111'4' ' • • -4n-1, i L,,,,4...:,.: !....!,.., '.,-., ;,,,,,' ,1„,,d1 ,,,i,, i iq 1 ;..r 110 ,1,,;;,.. ,,,„„,„ 0.'7,',,11,,,,,,,.. ,-4."...,6....„, ,••,o,„,•':•,..„,., ..••, ,,,,,,,,,,„•,,,,, 1. Aar* 1,„, , ,,,,,„,,, .,,,,,,,,i,„ :,, ..,„ii, ,,,,,., , j•;r1.;',,, io''' '-,''.7„„-„,.• ., .•.,,'17, ,1,P.1 l'I'„,',,Ildl ,'q,..,q:,,,,,,!,, ,,,,,,........., .,.' ,,1 ',,"1,,41.1i,11 34'11'. ' ,r4, ..,.:„,.:-....,,,,„:::1,,,,,...,,.,,,,,,,,,,,;1„,,,,,,,,,,,,;.,,,,,,,,,,„,,,R,,„:4,::,1,,,,, ,;;,„,,, ,. ,„,..,.,,,, ,..,,,. ,„.,'yit,,,, , •,,.?„44:0.,1,titt,,,,.:L,,, :,„!,,,,,. , •,••• .,,,,,,,'-',,...4!;ir , ' ,,,(1;11,11 1,11,1i 11.11.1r) ;kit; ''',,or IL, ,,,,,,,„,,,,,,;,,,,,A,,rd.:4,.,,,,,„ry,0. ,1,1„,,,,„.'.. L.,.ii,',,LL,L4 • . famil ..,e',.,44,0,,,,',.,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,„4,,,,„„. ,‘..-':,...,,,,,',,,,,„,,,,,r,,',„,,,,,, 'tlt-.,.4[4', '" t '''P''''' 1-a,t;Itt J. ' '• . ')*, r'rt : li,,,,,« ' -',,,.-,,,i.,44.!,,,:::il if:i„,.;,1,1,,I I-...I.,.i?.0,- ; ],1,i1,1141 1,1,,tl.,,11 11,,'1,,J, i,4 k,ilbl,,:1,,[.',; .1!',, I"ttly,,priAlqiI,,,' J•, ,1 1 , [ 1.ii,F.41! .,,,'",,,v„;.1.1 Single „ y, ,.,,,,,.„,1,,,,,,t j,40!,::,,,,,,41,,,„,,,,,,„,.,,.,,,,,,,,,o,,,‹ '',;:,,'',,,,,,A,,,,,,,,,',,,,:,u,4!P NCJ...p , ,^,4. JN,;!';'Ziiir1J.,"*,',,,:'4,1.: ,01,',', ,,i..±,,q;;;. -,•, *.i,,,,,N li, ii'''''4'. '":11'.4-?'11 '''''il.r1 l'1'III'''11'1',•ri'',. 1.1h,1 11111';11 t''''414, 1 11".111.),I'd'1:1'''411P1 i ' "L.i.111,r,..„°11101',2:11. M.', ^-"i• ''1 Ir k 1. '1,I!.17.11 ,., ,„i''''„?,,q1",017!'',44,111,111k,,,,t4ir.„,411(1114,1,1.4",,,,,'•,,31,.,..7',',, ,,,,,,,, ,,,7F.4.1„- . ....,,.., 7,14,,,,,.,,.„4;,,,7:,',.4,.,..,,,,„,,,,„ ,, ,,. ,, • ..: ,.. ,,, , ..„,•,, . ,1,-,,,, ,i,, .,,.„.„.,,,,,„1,1,,„,;. 1:04,,i,,,,,,1:11.,,I,, , ,,,-, , ,, ,,, ii„ "'''''"lf:*"'.''''''''" 111."'",".!"27•'.1.1.14. ',tq.',' ''7...'., Irr:',r,":-1,:',"'-4,4,,-,,'"e4" '',,,.,1114,-.""t4.:"''''',,41,,,, .44,ri‘,'",,1,0''';4'"t. '"""- ' . , .",.,:,,,,.01,,,744,,,„" ')I1,1 1 1 A f 1.,,,,,, . l'''''''''' .- I - "( '' 41 ','"41 '' 'V 11'0 ril' 'f',,II" " •e i P.... -;11,, ,11,,,I:t.,?ti4+,4 .'15:',04,PV, .lit'''. 4,,,, 4'',".k,, multi-family,,c,,, It, ....:7..,„,,.. ,,,,,,,.4.41,,g. , ;4., #., . ,,,1,4,.. -,.....tp .....-',. li';;';0;',,,11', 0,'01;;Ii.'1;,;:,,1'.,;;• 1,, ,,,„.., ,. .,„ _,.,.., / . ,,,k.$ „„ ...,„,1111, „AI, 4 .1.1rk . ''"I',0 ,'''' Ilr''''''.'.'''':' "" •'I'il 0' ,t 4' ''''''''14 1 1' itii,•i'' ' ‘,.'t*41,1 sr g'.• ';1'in'ih,110 11111' i'l!''CI 1hr r•!, •r 1.°Jcigli'l,',il,',11;'Ito ii ig,•'1.4-;,;',',1;•; -•I.1•,, ,..,i4:,, ,t.•01,. • , ,.•.t„,„,,,•..„ „,,..-4, ...,• •;,..,,, ,,i,..;,,,,,,,ifo..!:4,;i,,,„,,„0,..;•.,A, ...4,. ,,,, ,„„-H.,:.,,,i, .,... ,41,,,„ g,:„, ,,,,,,,riiiii..,, „: ,,,,:-F '•••,...,7,.:',,, ;limp,el,,,,/,• ;1',, •--.-,':,:,,'..•,' v. ri- ••••,-,i'',..'',1,1 iT,'„ :i'11.,i'l:141,••,'1 '1"!1.,',,',A,11,,i'.['•,MI.'id.,:•,;.'1,,,,z P!.;,..'.'",,..;,,.. ';) ',I, .„$,!,..",t'01..:',.A14,,,,,4.' .4..',..9'.;,., „,... ' A -,v,,I,;:,.:1:',,,,i.i'r,,t,,'''.'4.0.:,J.,,,,A14,11;,,,r A.....,,.,', LL,j..1 . ,. ..gp44,14,...'t,,,,...,,- ,,,,trtr...:. ,,,,:7,,,,,,,,,,, •ugpt.f,"4=2,-",,' 1/ . ";t1".,"..,;,4i.,1 ,,,, .„4:11" ,",1,,,,I, ,iii!,,, ,..,,li,1,111,,,,,•,',',,,,,i'',11,)ii.,01r1".„•,,i, :",,,A"I.,,,,i),41,'",/, /''...1!, .,1,..40,4,';','''''','"-1` '',:i''',..',/4,11rc,,',,t„„.. ,,1,', ;;;, .k. ,,, ,.,11,.;;;,:,.,,...1, 49 ...'".„,e',tr„,*$0,,,v 1.1,17,14 4,10•,..1"4 4',,,...,et,,,,",";.„ um. "L.-,.,1",47.!•,,,..4..rivv...."..'itotr!,•,?,1 .0.1.1-!,,,, ',,,,. 177,49 J.4.J.4•4 ..., ,,..'•;•.,.,,I11.,irit,q,..,1'h,!•,,A.11 Ili.,Ic,;,.,,$,, .4,ii:.,,' .,•f. .41.1,1. ; , ,,,,,,,.„,..,,,,,,,,.......„•44,,4 44,,,,,..,;,-1,..,4.1(.„•.e•.4' ".'''..! 11,4.,:.1''' i,EI,IiII.M1.11•117.10.,„'.•'II'.1,11,,•,,m u,"1 .'llftil','I,';14'1'''11'611il'.'',I'tl'14°4 .'''It Z.ii.:. „.' ' •'1°11'"I•7.1,It' ''.' II ,:'",,,I'11II,16.;° I • Mel medical-related professional 1,,.''1711''':',,,;;I„'':;,„,,,..,-„,';,.;;;',f;,,.,,,.1,10.if.,1,.14to,,;., ,1),..0'-'::-r,02.:,•1•,'1•.'`r,,,,, '..)),'lir,;*1 ''''''''' - '" "- ' c"',' . - ..,1 .;,, ;. ,..p_ . ,,4/,,.4w0.0-'4". ,.'1,..,,11/11,,,,,,,,u„,,,,„,„;,,i,....,,,,,,,,,,..„.:..,..,,,..„„sqlr,..•,,,,,,4,,,,.„.ty;•: .,ri;;4,0,!,.. .1.',;4'......11:',,•,14.,,,!;.r.r.-...,; ...1 .ri- P!I i, I 4'411i1...'"iirl'Oe"-•:''(''1,' F1' . '..,,,,,,,/ ) L i-L'IL.I.,,,,,,•,--.. 1,".,, ., Loa',',..,,,,V.!,,..1‘,,,,,,,..,:,,,7,'',,',',-...,,,,,,,,,' .',.1,:,.,,,,,111,,'4!.'..,...p...J.,,,-;if,,,,A,,' ..'...,':..,' b' ,,';.;N.-'11,o,'"e6;, '. 1ii:';': 'I' '''111,,'1;i1,1''''''''.;;' ,,,,', ;;;;.-Y ...,..1; Ii; , .,.viii14411,011,10'I '-' :;,, .i'.,,''' . ,,,i••.' ";,',Ii(1 ...,4,7,;,,,.,,,,,,A,..._ ''. t,,' 4"'-',6:*'''''11.111'./!.'',!°,1°1.01:01:,,,,,d111:14'11 ,',1','''1'1i,'..';';:1•41'.1rItil-i ,P,,,'11. coe,'11,;41,1;11P1';"''4',.,.:1','d.' . ,r11..10.11'0 ' .1‘i'' . '11.1-11 - - g:i,,,,400,.,,,,,'„, ,'''11::::4.:..4.r...!-,'10',4„;.,,,,,,I,,..--,,,,-,:''' iLti-ttuu,,,-41'4a7.1 0- '• *-•4'.',„,,H,,,-,4„:.,:i*t ..i,..,.,, igt,,,,..^7,II "';':',. ',1'' . ' valley Medical,,',k A5"- ',,-..,..; '41 .'..!-qP':'',''''',' ,,1411',,i k',l,'Iniiiii',4A"jr1' tatS, ':::„"""4:triitli -- ' - 4;,/:11,* 't fi E 6 1 4;' ''".,t, _ • I v 777.-1116'- - • 0 > 111''''1'''ll'"l',j''' 1!)011,71111}tP4ieq2.41', 111. '*1''l •11i,"1 11 . . ' "— 111111111'r ' ..-.1'''''" ' single"famIlY .1:--7,');,,,,,'11,p;,,dt.,,54,:,'.4:0,.'1.04! o,„,,,,..„„,„;;,;1 ,,,,,r1.,,..: 3',,.,..„,.,,,..,„, - . . ••:', ;.0,,,,, , ,.,,,.i,Ili l'' "P',,, 1 II., ,1 ,p+4..,1 g , - „,,,,i,41 '0,'•'. • ) . 4'•'''14••light 1 ,;,;'P 11;,,,,-,t ,rm.;;;;'011;;;;17,„„4,4 ,i, 1,1, ,14,..:.11,I., ow.1,',' '11‘,;i17,7',.•,,,,;,;•;; •-•.:1-i,y: ia .it ' ::' ' ot,0111"..,- --.• -, 7 ,,,„, ,,,,--.., ...:.--- '11" t^:' ,'H. „'' '11,4..4'''''''''','''''l ' •'111,1itid':,,,,,rk *1-'-'11,1 .1-.``';''''''',14ittk* ''. -- I -,5;;Ir-1j11:;,,,I,11,.4, ,11.". ;k1,,,,_",.,,:•!', r.,7.!.,Airoc'A.,: ' a;i.7, ,,:,,,,, ,,, e, .,,...-„...,/iiiLb L,..,„.6 ,..„,,,,, ,. ,,,,,, !,.01'...„..-...., ,.''.,.. ,;.ri,0,*"-',,r,- ,,--r-:,.-, '',/•,pi,v i ",,,,,''''' ,;.t''',,,I'Lon,„,,,4.,. 1 ,0 ,,,i,:a 4ili"v,,,,, ..•,'..d al!'"' ,... ' 1 ,, ,,, .1 ' 4 ,4 - 4 4 :1,,,1,••ii 1,,111,,,:rih 4,I,L, ,..,g',,,•,4,,,, r-' (D Li.' ,:••'41{,•'•';* '14 " ''11 f••••:/r,'''131,':' LI:M2341 commercial,...!,`,,:t i :?'il;"I''1;:,, IV;'elhip.17H-...--.....,.,,',. '.1::.',.,lig:'' ''SV141.!-111.'; ,... 110'1A" ,...-: ,..)•,' :',13., A4:,,,,e '1 1 jtV4,,,, '', 1 .4,.)'. ,;)7,..i)'11„..!..'10' .1''.._.'1'. -:.-;4-„,-„+-•,..:Tr 0, .,:n„.„,„.„,„1...„,,,,,,„,,,,„, , . n . , , ,,, 1.,,,„ „.., , „, 1 '••rt",&477416:71.:1 , iii' ' ' -•. '* ''' ii, ,. .4 ., -„,;,,•,,,e,,.,,,,,-,,,, ,,,o. , ,,,„,,,,•, . ,,,. . , , . .„..,,,-er• ,,,,,,moi ka• I . 11 ,,i.,' ,.'..1i.j, ,, ,. 4,ifil-...',,...." ''.'''''"'". _. S.W.43rd St 1,,!.,',V4/i''.197 '''''.1'1" *11 .10'7' La ' ''''.1',7:r-r,7-#et•Z;40'1'''''t' ."11'1147-1. 2/171f.'117277110 "'''.:'''''7 .- . '''''''' ,',1'.11'. ,t,:' ',,„,:CIS flxj;II "''''..,WT:41•"" ,,,`'' '' ''' ""•'":74.J:'il:','"`,',"'r1 '"..1"',';'•',1" I ''''''"','' ''',;,' r4:10;/,'Ilho,'11 '1" 11' ''''''1' ."1.'''7";'''''''11' ." A:41''1°''' "''''1'.:1'111.' ' ' "— ''• ,l,'10,Fy1""1:."''''''''''-' 11,1'--t''C'11"-N‘/';'"r" • 1:::"'1''!°.i*:"""'"4,,k,,W "logic\ I ,,,„,_'(5 ,L •.. :g 114;6.4,- - medical-related-- professional '"'"" L4); ;''1 'i ' ;"cn',..„);- ,,,.*.',1, i ,.i,, ,,,o,L,,/ „.,,,„,,,,f 4, ,,, . . , i ,4,,o, . ,• •• 4i, • - :It :',•••',4,,,•'' ','Ir '',,, •',.'",?,„7.,:-..v •,'‘' • • ,,,4''"i'?t, . 1 (', , A•..,:•.,:, -k,.., ::,1.',. r'•'' ' ' ' '''141' 1 ,ir ;M.,!, '.11''. .. 4 ;;;,.., " ,.,,,,,.. ,; '', light indus' trlei ,!!;',•,,,,,•,,,•;,,!':'4,"/),,,,,'. ..' '''.'''. '''''',?,i'...-1,, ,, •,,, , •',•.,,,,,,,,,:,,, .17) „„,4,„.., .,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,.41,. 1. 164144.. _ ,;..,,,,,,,,,,;....1„ .,, .,,,,,,11,,,, ,,,,,,4,,.,., .,..,„.„.,,,,.,,,„,„,;; ,,,,,41 . .':'kI:V'1..'.'6,;'':".A.'tr,'1-r•J'Arr'.4.'1!'i1'',l','l•l,''..!'':i'41'i1i1P.,"'.,'l/-,7'—t•. I !l,,,',,'f•1''„',e'•'•r'b,,L‘,,,.44;v11'11N-0 sh,1 l4.'•n',1.,'1 121,.').:„ : ... • ..:;1I1„t11., 14,, 4. • , ••••,,„,,,,,:.0 6,,r4...,V••44- ,. *',,I,,I, -?4.0,4i,iir„it Ir.',k4'"'' 4.. - ''" ti',,,...*•"'" , :;!,...:.1,,41P'0:,ILV,,,'',',:c',•,'';..e/,•i11 ng',0,l e,r1.4,family .,, ; ,r112,,,, ) ,,,,,110, 1,,,L; lot ,;;,• ; ,,,L .,,L ;,..L. ;, ,,,,, ;,-.;, , ; ,;,;, .„;;,,'4.;;‘,,i ,i;":',i'l4: 1';1,';',;',;:';7; ';:tii' ' . ';';,;;, „;;.....1" ;.,1,1'.;,;;,:;..';';;;•,•1;;;11.'.•;1;:.';,.:,;,4;;;;'-'1%;1:'t.o.;•; • . ,,,•1,5,,,,;;I:,,•••,,,,,,,,,,:,,,,,ii ii!,;;,!di,,i; ":0,,s1,„„,,,,oily;.4• : , i ., ..., 7,,ir .,...iti_family„..„. ,i. 11,,,,,,„.„„:,„, 10.!C,,:, ,..,..,„! ,,,„, ,, , 'F„,.!:44•414--. ,...., ,,•,9 ,,11. ,'• .' ;,-..7.-:,..',...;-,4.--.'„, ' ...'',1', '..,,.••,''.z.-,",;:„.:,Y,,,,,-.17,,,,,.., ,,th,1,,,(1, 10 9.,„'''1•91x.;;,10,,,,", .' --,A. d ''.14t,,,C1.1,1,111.1111.1111,0,,,,,,%,,,,,1 .,0tIthir..", ,I, 4,4410,yl,r , ) ,,,,,, 4 ,i.?,,,,r,,, ;.,,,,,ii, 4..,,,,,A,.1,4 ,,,.4E4i.,r,,,,,, •,,- , , ..,,- .,- . *,••0,„ r ,•,,% „„.41•04,4,,,,,,•0 • ,,,,, „ ,,,, ,,. , 9 Ir. ,,44.,,....,.N.: , . • 1 • •„.',:i..r;..,;.:.4.' ) • ii4' , „, .r„ ,, , .4•,:.:1„,,,,,,,,.,,,,....„;,..„ .,0,, 4,,,,"4":",,,, . . "'4":,g:,, , 4. r",irq44. •—,ig ;; ;o .;;, I. ',., . 1,._a: r"11','' ,'.0:.r.4 ,, tre,,,le''',,,e''',:t,Ve.''.‘ '.. . ;..r':•.r Lri n, 1 1 —1'. ' I I/ , A, ., M''' 1,1 ... .',1.1 'II' ''''''''' '*.[ITI ' , "it I ' ' „ ' ," s ,,,, ,,„ , ,,,,,„,,,„c.i., ,, , ,, . .?,!, ,,,,r,.,,,..' , ,,,:r '', :.,".-,, , , .,,,,....„...%, ,-.P.••4F.'1' r ''''41''1*1 .1. 1 ' ''. " ),i :1''''''V ''' '1*,1 - * ' '1-'-•' 1f111d 14. :1.11,1:4?1 - i 1 . . ' . . 1 ''. • .. .,. 0. ' ' 1. ' " , 1: • -‘ . . • FIGURElo_i LAND USE , . .. I , • , . • .. . . iliiiiiimilisoliili lt:, , . . • , . . • . , , • , .• , - . . „ • . . . . II, IN iI N li . . • , .. . .. . ' • . . Immediately north of the ravine is a complex of medical and dental offices and a radiology facility. Single family residential is the predominant land use both north and northeast of the medical complex, with lot sizes varying from approximately 7,800 sq. ft. to several acres in area. The pattern of land use east of Valley Medical Center reflects a mix of land uses. Medical and dental professional offices, with several medically-related retail uses (i.e. , eyeglasses) , border Talbot Road from S.E. Carr Road to the Panther Creek drainage area (between S. 177th St. and S. 175th St. ) . Professional offices also extend from Talbot Road east to 98th Ave. S. , along both the north and south sides of S.E. Carr road. Immediately east and north of this commercial development is a small single family residential neighborhood with large homes on 9, 600 sq.ft. lots. Commercial and professional offices are located along both sides of Talbot Road, south of S.W. 43rd St./S.E. Carr Road. Development extends. approximately 1000 feet south of S.W. 43rd St. /S.E. Carr Road and includes 17 buildings with approximately 70 medical and dental practices. A large convalescent center borders this area to the south and east of Talbot Road S. Valley Medical Center's south campus adjoins this area. Immediately south of the south campus is . a 337-unit multifamily housing complex (Gatewood Apartments) . Single family residences on large lots (2-7 acres) are located south of the multifamily development, along both sides of Talbot Road S. Commercial uses (including retail and office space) , light industrial development and warehousing are located west of SR 167 along East Valley Highway -- both north and south of S.W. 43rd St. Recent development in the p general area is characterized by significant commercial and residential growth along Carr Road east of the site, in the vicinity of Benson Road S./108th Ave. S.E. , and further eastward; commercial and industrial growth west of the site, along S.W. 43rd St. , west of SR 167; as well as recent growth associated with Valley Medical Center (Talbot Professional Center, `-Psychiatry Wing, and internal renovation) . The existing inventory of medical office space surrounding Valley Medical Center totals 300, 536 sq.ft. This includes: 135, 161 sq.ft. of wood-frame medical office space (contained within 14 buildings) and 165, 375 sq.ft. of Class "A" medical office space (within 3 buildings -- Chin Hills Building, Talbot Professional Center and Valley Gardens Health Center (Greg Werner, property appraiser, Lyon, Shelte & Speirs, telephone conversation, Aug. 1990) . Class "A" space is typically newer construction, concrete or steel-frame, with ceiling heights of 8.5 to 9. 0 feet. The existing vacancy rate within the Class "A" space is 11 .7% and the vacancy rate within the wood-frame medical office space is 16.2%. There is presently one known application pending for a development proposed in Renton and no known applications pending in Kent or King County (in the general vicinity of Valley Medical 44 Center) that could affect or be impacted by the Proposed Action. The Renton application is for a rezone from P-1 and R-3 to 0-P to enable construction of a 30, 000 sq.ft. office building. Also, a privately initiated comprehensive plan amendment with zone reclassifications is being prepared for a 430-acre area south of the Hospital (City of Renton) , however, no formal submittal has yet been received by the City. The comprehensive plan and rezone would be for more intensive development than is now allowed (low density single family residential) . Views The only territorial views in the area are of portions of the Green River Valley west of the site. These views are seen several locations along Talbot Road S and S. 43rd St. A narrow, east-west view corridor presently exists across the north campus, in the vicinity of the entrance to the Chin Hills Building. This corridor extends roughly 230 feet along Talbot Road S. , and is framed by the Chin Hills Building on the north and Talbot Professional Center on the south (refer to the impact section for plan and photo montage of the area affected) . Significant Impacts of Proposed Action Land Use Implementation of the Proposed Action would change the use and character of the area in the immediate vicinity of site. Existing surface parking would be replaced with a 5-story building, driveways and surface parking. As indicated by. Table 3, the overall pattern of land use on the entire campus would change only slightly -- health-related land uses would increase from an existing 5.93% building lot coverage to approximately 7.09%. Similarly, the amount of land area devoted to parking and driveways would decrease from 26.35% to 25.85% and landscaping/undeveloped areas would decrease from 62.87% of the site to 62.22%. No change is expected with regard to the amount of site area devoted to the Hospital areas. 45 TABLE 3 FUTURE PATTERN OF LAND USES ON-SITE PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVES 3 & 4 Land Use Approx. Approx. % of % Change Acreage* Total Site from Existing Hospital 2.05 4.84 no change Health Care- 3.00 7.09 + 1 . 16 % Related Uses Parking/Internal 10.94 25.85 - 0.05 % Streets Landscaped/Undev. Areas 26.33 62.22 - 0.65 % TOTAL 42.32 100.00% * Areas noted with regard to hospital use and health care related uses represent lot coverage. They do not indicate total gross floor area devoted to each particular use. i Direct impacts on land uses at the VMC campus are not anticipated to be significant. Construction will involve excavation and removal of approximately 6,350 cubic yards of soil. Because the area immediately surrounding the project site is paved, no significant erosion control measures are necessary nor is any significant impact expected to occur with regard to the Panther Creek habitat. Although the Proposed Action would result in development of the site for more intensive uses, this level of development would be compatible with the character of existing land uses on-site. No f., significant land use impact is anticipated with regard to relocation and consolidation of the Ambulatory Care Center and in- filling of the space vacated by existing ACC programs. Indirectly, however, some impacts (notably traffic and parking) could occur as a result of the nature of uses proposed to be located within the project, including the addition of a 200-seat auditorium and the mix of tenants in the medical office building. Lj 46 The medical office building tenant mix could indirectly affect vehicular traffic and on-site parking demand. It is expected that the majority of physicians with practices that occupy office space in this building would be providers of specialized care, as compared with providers of primary care (i.e. , family practice) . As such, they would need to be located near their patients in the Hospital, near the Hospital's support facilities and near other professionals that provide specialized care. Once on-site, they would not generate additional vehicular trips or increased parking demand -- as compared with an off-site location. It is expected that the majority of travel on-site by these physicians and their support staff would be pedestrian traffic. The actual indirect land use impacts would depend on adjacent uses and their sensitivity to traffic. Development of the Proposed Action is not expected to ,generate significant land use impacts or conflicts. The proposed office building is generally compatible with other uses on the VMC campus. Similarly, the Proposed Action is not likely to have a significant effect on the character or rate of development occurring in adjacent areas in this portion of the City. Land use changes presently occurring are the result of overall growth in the area and throughout the region. The Soos Creek Subarea Plan is currently being revised by King County in an effort to re-evaluate the nature and intensity of future development patterns in this area of the County. It is expected- that the Proposed Action would incrementally contribute to localized changes occurring in the area. At the same time, however, the Proposed Action would tend to capture some portion of future growth and focus it onto the VMC campus. This could have the effect of reducing the pressure for land use changes (e.g. , for additional proximate office space) that might otherwise occur in areas adjacent. to the campus. The tenant mix of the proposed project could also affect the occupancy rates of nearby medical office buildings. As noted previously, the existing vacancy rate in Class "A" space is 11 .7% and the vacancy rate for wood-frame space is 16.2%. It is expected that some physicians would move their practices from other nearby locations to become a part of the development resulting from this Proposed Action. Based on market research, Valley Medical Center projects an absorption rate of 30,000 to 40,000 sq. ft. per year consisting of the following types of practices: • o cardiology o internal medicine o colon/rectal surgery o obstetrics/gynecology o ' ear/nose/throat o pediatrics o general surgery o vascular surgery The rate of absorption from these types of practices could temporarily increase vacancy rates in nearby medical office buildings. In the long term (6-12 months) , the net effect would depend on the future demand for medical office space in the area, 47 together with regional and local economic conditions. Historically, wood-frame space in the area has been occupied by smaller or newer practices, whereas the Class "A" space has been occupied by larger/expanding practices (Werner, 1990) . The decision to invest at a time when vacancy rates are 11 or 16% would be an economic decision by the entrepreneur -- influenced, in part, by such factors as: o that portion of the market segment which is targeted ,. (i.e. , Class "A" space or wood-frame) ; o land costs and market rental rates for the targeted market segment -- both existing and projected; o the window of opportunity (economically, the most advantageous time for the product to enter the market) ; o the projected vacancy rate of the market segment during the window of opportunity; and o the availability of other sites in the area. Views As noted previously, the only. .teritoriaI, vies in the. area ' ' are of portions of the Green River Valley west of the site. The proposed medical office building would be .'below' the height of Talbot Professional 'Center, as viewed from Talbot Road- S. ' (Figure 11 ) . As such, the building would not result in any further restriction of westerly views from viewpoints along Talbot Road S. located either east or southeast of Talbot Professional- Center. The proposed medical office building as aligned would, however, restrict some westerly. views from viewpoints along Talbot Road S. in the vicinity of the entrance to the Chin Hills Building; some westerly views from offices in Talbot Professional Center and the Chin Hills Building; and some north or northwesterly views from the Psychiatry Wing and the Hospital. The westerlyview corridor which presently exists along Talbot Road S. in the vicinity of the entrance to the Chin Hills Building is depicted in Figure 12. This corridor extends roughly 230 feet along Talbot Road S., and is framed by the Chin Hills Building and Talbot Professional Center. While the site slopes in a westerly direction', westerly view impairment is expected, as indicated by Figure 13. The Proposed Action would not affect other existing westerly view corridors across the site or other territorial views in the area. 1 48 • , west Proposed Building Talbot Professional Center 4 / rilkall11111111111111 NNIIIIIIII i.' = : --,e.^.#.t,,,,ve.•re ors.s,„. 1*4..4.1...44.44, ,, ..,.„<,,o,e,,,44:€4,tvoti' 4.4...,8..•',,, .44, .„.,,j.41., ,,..,4,,,t„ppl , ,I.--a - ..> •-.5.0... t.44.4,... tf:i4,,,< •,, . . "I I I . • s..**1P4.44,nr .(4§•''AU 4...4, < 4' '-',44, 4.4* '9, 'r,' ", .4** `411}4,* ,, E., . ,..,,,,,r444,, fite, .. v, .4fr t.rw,(1,4,40 .• ,- •,), ...,•, ,,.,„,4,...• , ...„z,,,..„,,,m,:y7,:;tr..-erlripid, .-<;.,-..4.,...•<. ` •z• tr:' .r...--,' .5.- '4-..: ,8,4‘.:'',., #4.4.,*..1444 4......‘5,:4,,,,. I<... ,3,4 -,,44.0.1c,......1%,......,,c*t...„..,.. .,,,,,...* 4, ::„4„, _ , ..,,,,,.. , ....;,.... ..% ‘..': '44‘,s4«,*:`‘k:'% ' ';:lta,•,2,' tf,'W,±kk •91,44,44411.4gis,..`tr/aftrelL,..,•':',.„,4,114 ' •.** ,."4 ,4%.41. :Tr.'' > ...-• ' •D'- 7.---,--0,.1.z.4,,,4**11Q44-4,'zA.,,f...„„,z,,,,x4N.4.......ep, :A., ;et, ...zt,,,,,,tr,,,,,,Trtet.,,, ›oms.„0...,.4 ,;.......,".".4743ta ,--. L.......,16-.... o too' 2001 1 , FIGURE 11 iilli A 141 1 SITE CROSS—SECTION 11/1/11111 61111113114 ill ,.--- 49 M • MI k J--z---I/ N ` 'Ur C SW 43rd St o ( (IJ ;,girl. - llik H }! y flb ,4I::& Xi ...00 :' gçj�, ,A:\,,:,,.?sk,\,�,•... roe ; : ���; • pFi yit.,: : , airy;.,. ta ft4e; ui CD •:.. / , 7.-p ."----- ,..;oi ''s'"‘.\41 ' 0d a ' • ' •% fo :if 111 Mi 4) '— isww-J. • ,-- H, , H. a hiiii / `,, - : .,,, ...„. ... 41, 46a1/1111›0 -.... 1.41.,. i �_ 1 * • pWZa 4.N4' . 1 ti �/ �7 C1+ iIJ 00 0 1••I1 IQ • 0 • 1 1 r T • Proposed - Building - ; , , ...„...'7,-,4,-t , •, .,,- .. z----.-7_..s. ,_ - '--" SI.. • ra Rom. :,4sY _ s em _ fir. > - " "4 - - vim "---.--� A Looking West (refer to Figure 12) • :: -4y.-r. ray. v. .., !C 1 �; ..4 . r --o,'`.,t-h,..,l s R► ' '_fi .� �•-04-. ,I 4-`R J� „ ,Q�i Proposed Building Al' 1i1111 s - , . � _._r maim -rolearlaWarefraMMEge-,,,W: 2„-am '—=ram— - , ,. .a0E `-- Li r - , lr \ a} \, sue, \ / _ 61. 1• a-. A i r-I •- - • 1 B Looking Northwest (refer to Figure 12) _ FIGURE 13 PROBABLE VIEW IMPACT AS SEEN UiinL'dI/1IIn!nnnAni'!b�I�I , liv, M LOOKING WEST FROM TALBOT ROAD S, 1fffflQ II1 MY j( G fl yy y YY YY 51 Mitigation Measures: None required. 1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Undeveloped land would be developed for an intensive use. No unavoidable adverse land use impacts are expected.. Impacts of Alternatives Alternative 1 - No Action The No Action alternative would result in the site remaining undeveloped. As such, no direct or indirect land use impacts are expected. Demand for additional medical office space will likely continue, however, resulting either in future development of this north campus site, a possible south campus location or an off- campus site. Development in the future would likely result in impacts comparable to, the Proposed Action. Alternative 2 - Reduced Scale Development Alternative 2 (reduced scale) would result in the same general type of development but at a reduced scale. Impacts, at least in the short-term, would be generally the same as the Proposed Action, but at a lesser magnitude. Demand for medical office space in the long term, however, is expected to continue. If that demand is met through the provision of new facilities on the VMC campus, and those facilities are not maximized, a greater percentage of lot area could be developed for medical-related offices. It is possible that a smaller office building on campus could lessen any adverse impacts on nearby private medical office buildings (in terms of higher vacancy rates/longer lease up) . If, however, the demand for professional medical office space continues and this demand is not met by an existing or proposed new facility on campus, development would likely occur off-campus with a similar impact on existing private medical office space in the area. The considerations for investment at a time when the medical office l vacancy rate is 11 to 16% would be an entrepreneurial decision, as noted with regard to the Proposed Action. View corridor impact associated with this project is influenced primarily by building siting and less by building height. A reduction in height of one g g story would diminish but not 1 eliminate the view corridor impact. The height of the parapet of a building resulting from this alternative would be at approximately the same level as the lowest level of glass in Talbot Professional Center, as depicted in Figure 13A. 52 ' Alternative 3 - Medical Office Building Relocated { (South) i Environmental impacts of Alternative 3 would generally be the same as those of the Proposed Action. The effect on the local medical office space market would also likely be the same as that of the proposal. Because of separation from the other major medical functions on the north campus, this alternative could hasten the need by VMC to develop the south campus. As indicated in Valley Medical Center's Master Site Plan (Mahlum & Nordfors, 1987) , such south campus development could include: additional medical office space, possible satellite operations of major functions provided on the north campus, relocation of certain north campus functions, or facilities to serve future health care needs. The north campus would likely be developed at some future date with additional hospital-related uses. The change in location of the office building under this alternative could also indirectly affect traffic and parking. Because of the separation from Talbot Professional Center and the Hospital, Alternative 3 could generate a significant amount of vehicular traffic between the north campus and south campus. As noted in the traffic analysis contained in this DEIS, traffic would utilize the proposed tunnel beneath S.W. 43rd St. and, therefore, result in no significant impact upon the surrounding street system or adverse effects on adjacent land uses. Also, this alternative would generate no additional traffic volumes -at driveways #1 through #4 (refer to the Traffic section for detailed discussion) . A medical office building at the south campus with significant operational ties to both Talbot Professional Center and the Hospital could also affect land use with regard to on-site parking. On-site parking (for physicians, employees, patients and visitors) would be provided at the south campus. However, additional parking would also be needed on the north campus to accommodate inter- facility requirements for staff, patients and visitors. An inter- campus shuttle could lessen this demand, but not eliminate it. This alternative would not affect the westerly view corridor as viewed from Talbot Road S. Depending upon siting, however, it could result in a southwesterly view impact from S.W. 43rd St. (Figure 14) . 53 • ...t 1 . • • r f r . M . IM MI 1 NIr • V !. • � ;C! .1 I r � .:: SERVICE w,n+�!Y" Re'r'°R`'�`_ _ ,, i;'iF.ir: tx,1{i ,_ ....�...:r.: =::y:::__:c• 3;;;u.C�:_ n -- _____ . _-'•, ' .vR1rtik - ,Yr;Ny . =xta:�. 't^�' .'I� .7..'4 �«�e,"„•'"a:11,srtil '. .. "".r.'•:t,�t ;!' "; .' t . ti,g t '..Iv ., .-!g.`,`zci('s,,, ._- P'd4i» C^.y: `;.tr ,�r_ 1 „, ry, c «.k34-+.u:,h F'',i`•+x P"» - T'"� �,' J. X` . r s^3,y., k$,1) V c--i ''4..- -�f`a's ylfy'v v t hr" *S "^ w f,.. ,,'Y ,1 .. A��"+�!`'��cyn'C r,?rna „ ��,°"r s yrY�}•tr�P�'�rit�y�.c � i�' �: y'^'�at�r "r{,t-.t'� �`'�' -v•vi - K i+1x F 1 j,Pyi'V, ir. r. i RAM �, r• . ' T xKy : 1. 1 ,,. _a. P-` J.tix F.',. t R ., v vY -�1.^'••,• it • • •FIGURE 14 PROBABLE VIEW IMPACT AS SEEN11 A AIM�Ap MA�I AA LOOKING WEST FROM TALBOT ROAD S. i G II {Aril {,�1►U GJ I 1I 54 • 2 . ' Relationship to Existing Plans, Policies & Zoning Comprehensive Plan City of Renton: Summary: The City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1986, consists of a land use map element and a policies element. The primary purpose of the plan is to: o define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole; o indicate the principals and objectives which shall guide the establishment, development and implementation of definite and precise plans, public and private; o provide for the coordination of the many separate plans which govern the development of this community; o officially adopt a program and guide which will enable the City of Renton to attain the principles and objectives set forth in R.C.W. 35.63 of the Revised Code of Washington in the manner provided. The, Comprehensive Plan Land. Use Map delineates the general area of the site as Public/Quasi-public (Figure 15) . Quasi-public uses are those "owned or operated by a nonprofit, religious or eleemosynary institution, and providing educational, recreational religious or similar type of public program" (Renton, 1983) . The Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with this designation. f ' 1 55 i . • .` > ' I I •}S ' LEGEND I ma �i.:$:•iti :* :<*x•r >:•::ii:•>:•:: :: Zoning Designations ::� `kyle'$ : $°:: ;>:i i i? : :;_;'�El .:::: ; t:Mi'M �?::::: ::::. ::... :. Renton: Sl�x y43::':>::: : :: : :: :: :r::`:t:i:' ':'� P-1 public use • I. Mini � •'?f '::: :::: `',+, :: ::::r: :::> : ::....ii ....' 11 % O-P office perk 11 �tl;::; :': :w5•,00•ii .:`:`•:;:;`:;: &1 business use ��I `n . i% i:y`'`:i:. s`> i`ii:5`i $>r�:::i �__ M-P manufacturing park , /Il 1�s .`;, ` .\`\ dt:: .. G-1 general I � R-1 single family j. ° R-2 two family 122 i/ \ Nti 1 1 �,�� .... ........... R-3 multifamily l>` -ti- ,:: King County `- �" ^0' _a i%f.,: . RM-900 niullifemily 1....k.�. :• RM-1800 multifamily i � '�_i��•�!�I ��i�O°i�.:; RM•2400 multifamily �i •�;•�fif' SR-7200 single family ('', - --' �*: SR 8800 single famil I • �:••f. SR-15000 - single family -_l ' ••• R-3 •.•• Comprehensive Plan Desfanations ❖.:: . ..:::... :: ::::: :::i, ♦•• • ; :::::: � i•::• • Renton: , .,_,,.,. R- .,,... .— ��.. public/quasi•public commercial I 1 medium densit y resid. single family Y 9 r I eenbet :•'.: :i:::T is i ii:: J �v I �I R O 9 County(Soos CreekI Plateau): I• z it . ;... �:r:. l+z • Office single am 9 family 2-3 units, I acre I I r I open s space l I 1 .iiiiiiii :: :::.:.:.::::...:-..:;:::-::::::*•tim.et, iti i twunda141:11%. City/County boundary °0 1'Q rOO'6� t✓♦ zoning designation boundary t (approximate) I F IA 114 I N I FIGURE 15 ICOMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING ffuikeilWei'nmin Ao 1Ies ' 56 The policies element of the City' s Comprehensive Plan contains general goals, objectives and policies. This element is intended to: o serve as a basis for revising the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and any new element adopted should be in conformance with the Policies Element; o interpret and clarify the other elements; and o address those areas that are not included in the other elements. The following Comprehensive Plan goals are applicable , ' based on the medical-related nature of the proposed project and alternatives, as well as the commercial/ professional nature of the facility. Utilities Goal: • "To ensure an adequate supply and equitable distribution of utility services. " B. Water Objective: An adequate water supply and distribution system should be assured. " Policy: "1 . An adequate supply of water with sufficient water pressure and flow for fire protection should be provided. " Comment While the Proposed Action and alternatives would place additional demands on water supply, they are not expected to have any effect on the availability of water to serve the area. The Proposed Action would be designed to comply fully with City of Renton requirements for building and life safety. "C. Storm Water Objective: An adequate storm drainage system which minimizes the impacts on the natural drainage features should be assured. " ° Policy: "3 . New developments should be designed to provide for safe collection and discharge of runoff. " ; • 57 Comment To ensure permittability and City acceptance, the Proposed Action and alternatives would be designed and constructed to comply fully with City of Renton requirements for storm water runoff, both during construction and long term operation of the development. Such measures could include: o development of temporary (construction period) and permanent stormwater drainage control plans; o minimize the amount of soil exposed duringconstruction; P o hydroseed slopes that would be exposed for extended periods of time; o provide permanent landscaping as soon as practicable; o provide for permanent on-site storm water detention and biofiltration which could include flat slope underground detention pipes, grass-lined swales and oil/water separators. Community Facilities Goal: "To. provide a broad range of community facilities and services. " "A. Facilities Objective: Community facilities should be located, designed, constructed, and maintained to provide adequate and equitable service to all . residents. " "G. Health Care Facilities Objective: Adequate health care and social services should be available. " Policies: "1 . Hospitals should be located and designed to serve the residents efficiently. " "3 . A viable emergency health service should be maintained. " L Comment The Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 are a response to a need for additional professional medical office space on the Valley Medical Center campus. VMC's objective is to provide both adequate and efficient medical services, including emergency health care. Because of the proposed proximity to the Hospital and Talbot Professional Center, as well as the pedestrian linkages possible between these facilities and the existing parking garage, the Proposed Action may best achieve the City's policy relative to 58 other alternatives. The Proposed Action, as well as the alternatives, are consistent with maintenance of a viable emergency health service for the community. The Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 are generally consistent with the comprehensive plan's community facilities goals and policies. • I 59 Commercial Goal: "To promote attractive, convenient, viable systems of commercial facilities. " "B. Commercial Structure and Sites Objective: Commercial structures and sites should be well-designed, constructed, and maintained. " Policies: "3. Structures should be adequately set back and buffered from other uses. " "4. Site plan design should provide for efficient and functional use of land. " "5 . Developments should be designed and maintained to avoid adverse impacts on adjacent properties. " Comment Design and siting of the Proposed Action would provide adequate setback and buffering from other uses. Facility siting associated with the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 is intended to provide for the efficient and functional use of the site. Because of its location, the Alternative 4 (south campus alternative) would be less consistent with the policy for efficient and functional use of the site. Because of the internal location for the project, impacts on adjacent property owners as a result of siting and design would be minimized, other than perhaps the effect on the localized office market. Transportation Goal: "To promote a safe, efficient and balanced multi-modal transportation system. " "A. Transportation Alternatives Objective: In order to reduce the impact of traffic congestion, alternatives to the single occupant automobile should be encouraged. " "C. Streets Objective: Streets should be well designed, constructed, and maintained. " Policy: "3. To maintain arterial streets for the primary purpose of traffic movement, access from abutting property should be minimized. " 60 Comment Valley Medical Center has implemented a Transportation Management Plan which establishes a program to reduce single occupancy vehicle use where possible (refer to Transportation Section of this DEIS) . Neither the Proposed Action nor any of the alternatives propose additional curb cuts from the VMC campus. Transportation Policies - Valley Plan: o "The number of access points on individual sites should be minimized. " o "All parking, servicing, loading and unloading of vehicles should be only on-site. " o "Alternatives to single-occupant vehicles should be encouraged -- especially in high employment areas of the Valley -- as development density increases. " o "Developers should be encouraged to develop HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) and transit usage incentives for large developments and for concentrations of high employment. " Comment Neither the Proposed Action nor the alternatives will change the number of access points to the Valley Medical Center campus. All parking, servicing, loading and unloading will occur on-site. Valley Medical Center has developed a Transportation Management Plan which promotes alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. This Plan is being re-evaluated as a result of the Proposed Action. King County: Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan Summary: The Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan, adopted in 1979, delineates the preferred pattern of growth both for unincorporated King County and for peripheral incorporated areas. While the County has no direct jurisdiction for properties in incorporated areas, land use consistency is usually sought through interlocal agreements between the County and the effected city. Based on Renton's land use designation in effect at the time the Soos Creek plan was enacted, the Soos Creek plan depicts the site of Valley Medical Center's north campus and a small area north of the ravine as "community facility"; and the south campus area as "single family: 3-4 units per acre" . Properties north of S.W. 43rd St. , east of VMC's north campus and immediately east of Talbot Road S. are within unincorporated King County and are designated office (business and professional offices, medical and dental clinics) . 61 King County has started a planning effort to update this subarea plan. It is expected that a preliminary draft of the policies (based on several possible development scenarios) will be available early Fall 1990, and possible zoning changes by late Fall. The Draft EIS associated with this new plan is scheduled to be issued in March 1991 . Enactment of a new subarea plan could occur Fall 1991 . Comment The Proposed Action and Alternative 2. are consistent with the County's existing plan designation for the site. Alternative 3 would be inconsistent in that medical office space would occur in an area designated by the Soos Creek Plan as single family. Zoning Summary: As indicated by Figure 15, the north campus portion of the project site is zoned P-1 (Public Use) and the south campus area is zoned 0-P (Office Park) . The intent of the P-1 classification is "to provide and protect suitable environments for social and physical services and facilities" (Renton, 1983) . Public or quasi-public hospitals are considered government buildings which are principal uses permitted outright in the P-1 zone. Medical offices, accessory uses in separate buildings (possibly the Ambulatory Care Center) and/or buildings over 50 feet in height but less than 95 feet are considered conditional uses in the P-1 zone. • The intent of the O-P zone is "to provide areas appropriate for professional, administrative, and business offices, certain manufacturing activities, and supportive services in a campus-like setting" (Ibid) . Administrative and professional offices, medical and dental clinics business and professional services and research and development are principal uses permitted outright in the 0-P zone. Table 4 outlines the development standards associated with each zoning classification. 62 TABLE 4 KEY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Regulation Zone P-1 0-P Height 50 ft no height 95 ft w/CUP limit Setbacks - front: 30 ft 30-60 ft - rear: 10 ft 20-30 ft - side: 5 ft 20-30 ft - special: 20 ft from 50 ft adj . north property to R-3 line Lot Coverage no limitations Comment Design of the proposed project would be generally consistent with existing land use regulations noted in Table 4. As noted in the Description of the Proposed Action (contained in this DEIS) and as shown in Figures 6 and 8, the height of the top of the parapet would be 70 feet above the finish elevation of the first floor of the proposed medical office building. Because this proposed height exceeds the allowed 50-foot height, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required. The proposed height of the parapet, as well as the height of the mechanical penthouse, would comply with the maximum height limit allowed in the P-1 zone with a CUP (95 feet) . The City could impose conditions to mitigate impacts identified by this DEIS. - r- I - r 63 B. TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING 1 . Affected Environment Street/Highway System The existing street/highway system in the vicinity of the Valley Medical Center is shown in Figure 16. Access to the site is provided from driveways on Talbot Road and South 180th, also known as S.W. 43rd Street. The following is a description of the arterials surrounding the study area. SR-167 (East Valley Freeway) : SR-167 is a north-south, 4-lane state route freeway, which is links Interstate 405 (two miles north of the site) with SR-515 and SR-18 south of the site. SR-167 has a posted speed limit of 55 m.p.h. A signalized intersection exists at the I-405 full diamond interchange. At this interchange, SR-167 serves an average daily traffic count (ADT) of 90, 500 vehicles north of S.W. 43rd Street and 71 , 100 vehicles south of S.W. 43rd Street. At S.W. 43rd Street, SR-167 northbound on-ramps serve 10, 100 ADT and south off- ramps serve 7,380 ADT. East Valley Road: East Valley Road is a north-south 5-lane, 60-foot wide arterial. It has a posted speed limit of 25 m.p.h. in the vicinity of S.W. 43rd Street. This arterial has an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 17, 902 south of S.W. 43rd Street and 22, 184 north of S.W. 43rd Street. The intersection of East Valley Road and S.W. 43rd Street is a fully signalized 4-legged intersection. Access to East Valley Road from SR-167 (East Valley Freeway) is made from directly connecting off/on ramps at the signalized intersection on S.W. 41st Avenue. Five foot-wide sidewalks exist along East Valley Road, north of S.W. 43rd Street. South of S.W. 43rd Street, the East Valley Road tapers to two lanes and then widens out to three lanes with a two-way left turn lane. S.W. 43rd Street (South 180th Street)/Carr Road: S.W. 43rd Street is an east-west 5-lane, 60-foot wide principal arterial. This street has a posted speed limit of 35 m.p.h. for cars and 25 m.p.h. for trucks traveling eastbound on the incline between Talbot Road and East Valley Road. Fully signalized intersections exist on Lind Avenue S.W. , East Valley Road, the northbound on-ramp/southbound off-ramp half diamond SR-167 interchange, the Talbot Road intersection and 98th Avenue South intersection (Figure 16) . The roadway crosses above SR-167 between the East Valley Road 64 i . . 1 tri Pr! ' 311111111.• IIIM WWI' I-I H 0 pl: :i.r,ftraN7,i'''' i.. :... . 1 i•p • cosi .2 '.-g ' VJ . 4%24 :4 •.. ..1' 4°1 is II-.o 'r. 4 i -. ..j..1 ' '" ',..... . :/ ' Ili i N 7 ' ;;4, •*v•z A's" • .i , 0 r • , • r• v Afr,, . ,L: ;,;,.411 .., n.. . . ..,:.....04 !sis, . , AV "F r ;;,,-,4 .1., *. , Iki: ga,70 4 1: ZI .• :',...0...-f,.., -:-.'%;.-....• 4 "^i .. ...‘ . .......,•,,,../......-i;.!....,•!..A\ bno i:• Ro 1/4'••--4 7'!'-' ••1400r.'' . 121 li."'--.••=.--t.'''' - -.-v.'"' ••' aN • .....,,,,:.-",,,,,,,„. .-___Ai .'.' 53 . ,. ,,, i ••;. .i''•„ ,,0•.*,....1,,,,,,N..... . smirk!,K'Xii.c.1"7", .I.71..'1.?2,;:,...1'j"'.. ''....:. -01sPosaWiiicA:------. • : . I 1 y.:L,....',,!.. ••,..11,7.7.I.'kli.....1,7. .„,.,.. ,i,AliegiY1-5'.IV,II:U s•;'.•=„ .,.:',.`-'.-••,f,'':.--, --...., "•,,,(x..,''''LT,;..--: '- 1-1— -".47.,•„-'1:.::•....i:;41'e,, ,.:Iii-'-',,,,,Tsl'Ir.3„•,--'7„vikte:ile'::V,Iteer-•;_y,X7rik!:;'"•„;!::.e."---•-...7:7,:•.7,7.'•:•••7---.-.7-.-...7- -• --"I -11116 iroiriz:e:.,11.2r:16PTH .7:A=Av'-71).1-, . 1 • ,.:‘,:1,III4'.-ZA,•i O."c&f1:ii-rlr."."4tiP.::...,:•-:•,If',,..-•,••' . i.„..., : r. . 3 in. Ce.••Xe.'•:•:-. . VI . • 1 • 1 -.,1,'..,..:,y).2,.,..,,..:,.,...4.t,7,g:'.1:•,-tf..,1,,," ..„..;-11A: 4-..':-..-,':c....,,,,,-,-.....7, . • .........xe404., :-,',..1:1SA 11/1'.:.P.1%,:i•r!C,•• .•?AV.•i. F ..,:;,,,2,,,q ,ri kf 1.,:., . -"',,,,Al.!!9!..1-.qi,,,,, ,,A. ,:.1"..i'-',.-....i.:... .'F:42:'','.•,.:; '.*::+:4.,*::::, -1'4:4•-•:',,.......,' ,..z.e,,'..---, _... c .,• Ii '.„:";,X,,i'V4.444.-"A•;',14...riki!,.="•';.ek.?1.3,".---..1' /g f re......': ' ...j, "..,-. t.;,1.k:'!' -,>'C...:W.:. ...:•:•:.:.: tYW!.Z..e&-,Ii-..- As':i - I ..;o1.',•2..'. 5.,z tg,&''..;:•‘'q*.X;l's.,..T..-;', 4':'`, ... '.....;.; ., •:..-.: ;. '.. *:•:•::.4: 4:•:):•:•• • .. ...g.o ';'.;=:''.....P.4 ' ".'' - - • '.,,Di:..';'...,'S:.C.a',-...LYT%;',',:-4-f '4.1 'Vtl..:::.. . l'....' ' ., ..r\' .• ' ::•::•:*:• •:•:+:•::: ,Wis''i 1 kit!ft...-:2;..'1131:11. ..7'rs.'i M ; I 1 91,-P;-JtVi-....,!, .,,,:•_•,-..:-., ,:ti. • ....-•:.... V ..o).:.. . 'p):•:•:-is.;•:‹:, : t,;}---4,". ,-•.. A •:.;:' .. • '''' " ' $• : '''4.T.'.:,.,',.7?..-‘411;r41,.44).?VA-,•3..4:- A',:---,,, ;1!...•1 .••:-:' •;:v,:- --:., ::::**:0::+:+:4 • !': : .1 ',-.'7,7 "' :".',i'.- '''..-":::• g,,,, - • I;..-,v,.‘'11::1:;,:,,':.:.:',..;? :•;' •0,-,•' C.:zr*f)k,1Stteeki-•••,-,..i., i 1. .S. .. S;•;...:1,.,.•..- • '- ;A- '. .....1.!..it.....`"..4'. .1.0...,00'.. in s _ I-,..!,,,,,,,f,,k,:,t,i, .-..I., rrtivir:i4 ,..1-giAT,f1:14-A1=!::-...,. : .;.::-.-.'"':• ".'L. - ..kJ .,..4..,.,.,,, . ;ty.....t:,...,;•,);,,,,:,..4(. .:et.P'.•;;•••••••:.....-:::::.:•I:• tsl. :••Il•• •' r, ni ,S' .:ti.1••• .. Ih 1 I..,,.;, .....p&t.ft4L,. ... . ...., 1-..2•',.•'- I ONE- . '.."A I'• 3 i-::3?:. ''';..t!j";:.:*,.4.74*,..' 3',..'7:1;,. ,,,,;;;;„!..,.., •,,,,,,-.....1,,.,'„n-;_ . ''. - -.I;:: t ' , •1 6 3. ...,..,3t3,33:S-...4:04-g.14W;ii',.. . •sr • vALL. --- :i•.:7F.',..t, L.',:,7-6,';!.1 •_171V7. '.4•7='-':),;7.;'•••';;;`:•,'.; •••;I':•-;;::.'::••••1-: ••!,':--....• '-t"-mR 1.1...... ...— •••% „•,,.••••l< -4•KA.'t,-...i•Xfg•••4:4g14..k,•70,7 0• --,'-----, • -Atir-i " - :1;`•* 1-7.,i. 4--:---...:---' `''''.. •.77-- 1,-.`'f% iiiwariiiisi-.•-r• ',•:....., --.4', 47.7.t4.1175Z.V.M>"' "' ??`"f' s) 1/14,W-4., •;.,..i.i.,e ,-, •.-01:,;-•:•ii-.,;',- . •'''' CHILSTINsEN ,.;.• vir-AZLIIII/ ',/,`;'..':,., ,4/tgiViV....71 . . N^ . -;- .1.ll-." ' -.II'','A.•' . '-'V ..-.0.1.-ir .'.3-liT.1 4'''''-'4,j11:E.4.tu..: ! ;::::.??::•:; :i'4‘4, -'.r'' -.'.Si. • l':.:',':;',4,1ra/ ...:;'.'' . V_V;3.f->"03is . (....... ,..A.7.! :••••.'''. :•1 ° .. 4..':;, I •.‘L'.•••',.N- 11.A- r''.-----""' -',V4-.A ,;f•,:,iij-,/.F,2:.. e.: ,:,..,'4);f ,. '''•,' -!..1-4-).•.-.0.4.',, 1 ,„_,. nND A ..••:-. ,,,,,-..:ii Mr Av S ''''".1-..N:‘,.,!,„.,:a.,./' le..ii.f:il 1 1-..;A-"%zsZotas-iv?•.:.: ''''''''''1-:* ::::'''''-''''''S.•.1: a 9L5/' - 1 rNr ' -1••':'?..-7 .1/4...."_______,:-.. . 1,311.0,i.I •,. %. ....P ',..... .::'•".„.•.:•:..1 :.: ,- ,,''.YfgV S lanar:f Ai.4111A11 —.,.. .':.:•'' . ,• . C Ae.stiei,i4k;., . :,:, .I 0:-••••...I , - ....\.:.,..-„,..,.. •..*..3; v-•;,:,.....3.,.i • • -. • ints211:112111MSEI • xt ''''''.:''''-'gMgP,‘ !.%.:',:"::1 . s. . :„;,--;4,,,:,-,.....,,:.,..-::I.,..?.--,•K;11I-•1 • - i ,r;-,,,:,..-..,•:i.,41,,,m,..,,"...V:::: -,- -.1:44,KK5Rmuir.i , .•;Z.22 . --.--33 91-:, ..a '.•i' . z ... ?).: :::'-'.',.." ".1•••••:-. 1..-v....7.r.o.: 1> 1 :..1,4p..?..6431,,L,•.1......1-.0.4.,.•:;. g,_ CINGACAES c=7,....•'•••err•-••...., - < ON ... 'ler' . / '.." I . . '.,,ri•.." ..P'i,I°.=,.:!•',...^I t -A S •_l',...'lli-1* N, ''..- -.:'.'"',Ii:'':*01.'•l•''N.i•'7R,'‘4.14 g I.1.f.Fsir''-W:'.4,'..4?•70.457A ''' . . -c-1-4--,1) --....2.:...• ..,.....e.,‘„..,..,,,,1 g. , _ . . . p--......*If......: ,-.. G:. f:ftw.I.•tri , -•• •::• a)• 1.,1•••••:1,.-1B-.- k,,,. ,,.!.-...t.,.);:-...1,1,...,,,::, liE•i', ' . ; M . roll') - . _•:1,-;:::. ....,.•:•,r,,,, • ,..N,,, ,.._Alf .,.7 .....;.c.n.i.4„..,......:,, .,.... 2.. . ft _, -AA— tp ti.....) •—, IT-.-'--—:.-—,T,'...-"7"..:41 ———— 11 r.',.1,7---2-.7,4777.7.•,-71—-iv'T:,.... r•• ..•:: : ,.. •...„ -,, ,,,,-„TaTiv----- •N , .:,:.,,..4„,;.„i;v,.,,,,z,..,.:::...-:-... • ,:::,.1,•:..,..,,...;.- . .:::::.„.::-.......•..,.1:::: r- -. . Z 1 E 4 ...1.':=' • .• :' ---;--,.:-.1... ,. ,F.-:-.2•,,i.. .•CV':."-:;...;-:.'i:;•.:I V.'.4:,....1...:1...n.. .1.1,e132...,.;.. .;...,: i..L. OA TOL& r OAXESDAL Av 5 1 ; I •• '.. '...'''''f,:'• •,,':',S..''. . .r:'.:. e: li I I 1 POWELL AV 5V . :-'....' 4* • •14 . .97."!-: 'i.i.;:',.",---.*-:::.--,k , •.,-!:'• `'.7 'v. V I 'i. .,... I a .....Y.89.4...Y.. AV: S ••'. •-• -•'• •-'',•;,,: • . .s.-'''‘'1,--':In7i M • g f In 4 E 1 . t 111 MAS AV SW "- 3,.•.. : . .. . in. ...,...-..,.77;77.7 .71-47.77--.; .--- —1ANY.Strol----'----------- •-1-----I-'•-• -- AA"°Ni A A .,.., ., ,. , 1.....- •-.'.'I - -• ' 2.4._ -.e:--...k,..;. ..--'1,-:;:-.:.;.,k:;..... -,4 1 I 1 13 E 1.. I : 0 ,_ 4A - 5 411 .41, PA • SENqr...A " 1 SENECA =11111Mmomw • . I II tz AV,sw IICIC:lb.___ .: ...'.;':,i .4Z4ear-71-1' . N[1,4; 1.,4D .! ' .1'41 I - :'''..:::...''''',•;.: i'.1-A.Ti.4- LI E -0 I . ,AV Z I LIN, in mi, 4 :'.."---"--•-.....----' ( ) . ... . . ... •;-:•,-,:f.....,:.-:.:.-.-,..,•, -4,;'.f.,,,. . 1 t it * • IIAP ';'AV n .. • ., -,:,-",.,,...:!•.2,,,•:•.i.::. --, LL ..,.. I- g EAST ALLEY R A t . . .. : 4'.....• - .V . 0 D 1. r. 1:1,04 filll 2 ----- _ 0 0 -_ 67 _AL .. •,v•: i I ,--• I amml Li s .' CA ;73 . . ••....447I .. _ - LAKE ST S .^ et ii LII AL ',.., ... 7. ---,I.?' - rli N-...... - ) N . : r r _.....• • irSCIE AV 3 NO.I. gilmilii oi Itr......LLs• .: T BOT ROAI I ----... - '-?... V ..,Ati.I,., ---• InlettM.. a ••... • . ••• v.3141R, 4. „• —. 0.11 _ •••;- -,...„„..,•;‘,),‘,T ::: I in io SE 4.',.:' x .•• i'+• ' NwiTvOitin .7 EiskirrRERs' AV S It., 0_ liT-,,r.a., 1 .1' .1 it . • v. "N70 _ I e. ,▪' •.......,1 ,,, __,•• • ..4 • oos• — W' —— — 2No AV —I I- -. -98-TH-AVE-SE--1 t . NO, a.111 CT NOSN38,,lksita... it ___,--Q, .. 1 ! • ---1 e.I___i c'y ..,.. 04 .. , AV SE !.,V 1011N.,11 I 'A 1. ....1as ..............4 ,..! IDSTH AV SE 6 CA 7.1 S 41 PENT•N Av: • I 105TH Av E KA ,35 AV 333° cl i• n 1 IOSTH PL SE I, • 2:. . ill 106TH AVM r WIN I, 8I.•ISE •..I 04 I . 107TH A r, r•SE I Fl 4 I- . / 1" r..". 2;4 ''' INGN• AN 108TH( 4 Ki AV g al- .46 ° A SE_ s_jr.1.1 mi - ,,'Oe, •0": :,•,•• )/9 I-.-.I- MON AV% : .•.• III 6 l'a ...' ..',.."..1 ..e_1._ ° • - ._;!1 AY,..,,,3,,, and the site and serves as a vital link in this continuous east- west corridor through the Green River Valley. The ADT for S.W. 43rd Street East of Lind Avenue S.W. is 22, 443 vehicles per day, and east of East Valley Road the ADT is 38, 333 vehicles per day. Between the SR-167 on/off ramps and Talbot Road, the ADT is 34, 611 . East of Talbot Road, the ADT is 31 , 123. S.W. 43rd Street provides a major east-west link between large commercial and light industrial uses west of site (including Southcenter) and convenience shopping and residential uses east of the site. Five foot concrete sidewalks exist on both sides of S.W. 43rd Street and a five foot-wide planting strip buffers the walk from the roadway, except on the SR-167 overpass. Talbot Road South: Talbot Road is a four lane, 48 foot wide north-south collector arterial which connects to Highway 515 north of the site. Talbot Road has a posted speed limit of 25 m.p.h. and adjacent to the site has 5 foot-wide concrete sidewalks. A fully signalized intersection exists at the intersection of Talbot Road and S.W. 43rd Street. Traffic Volumes Automatic and manual turning movement counts were collected from the City of Renton Department of Public Works (DPW) , Washington Department of Transportation, and King County. Figures 17 and 18 depict factored 1990 AM and PM peak hour turning movement traffic volumes at access driveways and the adjacent streets. The factoring process involved calibrating previous traffic counts to 1990 volumes, based on recent traffic counts on adjacent streets. A comparison of the total ADT and the PM peak hour counts shows that PM peak hour volumes represent between 9% and 12% of the daily volumes. Level of Service (LOS) A measure of the relative level of congestion can be made by calculating the Level of Service (LOS) at intersections. Traffic operations within the study area were analyzed with the use of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 1985 Highway Capacity Software. This program utilizes the techniques presented in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) , and produces an LOS rating for each intersection based upon a scale ranging from LOS A (free flow conditions) to LOS F (forced flow or jammed conditions) , with LOS E being capacity conditions. LOS D (tolerable delays at intersections) is usually considered adequate by the City of Renton for urban intersections (Clint Morgan, Renton Public Works-Traffic Div. , meeting, July 1990) . The 1985 HCM techniques account for such factors as poor signal • • 04 004 • DWY#4 1 d 0 _J1t IQ ct N co ct 7-N17 IQ— 21 Q J f ? WY#3 J/ L ' 66 T , S 1 7TH � 0 —ft. 1 r- 1 N h/G Nn0 �_62 CV-�380 SW 41ST ST J�` 541 DWY#2 -i` VALLEY 33 MEDICAL 13 - )/ 78 ���- CENTER 14h� '�N opIN N CO DWY#1 J ^ i �397 1- 10 �. Jd l +— 977 uoi co cry O 59 T ^o�/ �� L. Ir- 9 JJ 537 N Q� SW 43RD ST i` �� 1478 387 N co �.._27 G f~ 163 �_ l 4 �- 1271 188 }r 35_ 7 760 / +— 1754 J ` 10 162�� 88� f i1 � o^N 68� i 361 ') 702_, }r 442 122_i ) 1 07 N a Nill o N 45• h 291 38Th to . 'CC zCO 03 i 0) �- 0 �, SOUTH 1Al! CAMPUS o ___I _ Q i-O NN i` !— 1 i J i S 45TH PL 1 V • 1 r 58---, 1 1 - ,n11� 0� on —Co LAJ v . Q • j o CENTRAC FIGURE 17 1990 AM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS MukellIWeinmnAoiiiJes, ICI 67 / • . to n (OM • DWY#4 L 2 J 11 0 13� n N n M -cc . '0� 25 O IMI�, _ ? J DWY#3 J 1 ` a >�. S 177TH 33_I 1-y 84 T a„r, N cc 47 co NNfO ��229 h 10 * SW 41 ST ST J1` 363 / az DWY#2 1` • VALLEY 350_J MEDICAL 86 �i 44� �fr CENTER ^Nry CO co / h pN N,, DWY#1 1! M z /*/ Of*.N- Q 15 / O J�� �67 MN �, 561 �IN� 79� N SW 43RD ST ji` 56 325 i. / N N —88 GPI 147�l `� 13811 rL f— 686 819,— �1 1 1259 '� 762 J 1016 J rl 57 I 825_ 360 - } - 5 n n 112 rr 1438�� 1 Thi1 r 31—) r oho co1777 r 188 /r ^N,� nova 109� ^ 1378—� II Lt./ 217 ,n o r-ib n _ CO Q7 / (� Z. • o^CO Ce 0 �, SOUTH J/ ►� CAMPUS 3 _1 1/ 25 o v cO J oo ' I` (�n NI tr-- 21 1 S 45TH PL N ir- so--J 1 - 47Thvn oa • N M 4.1 _0 CENTRAC • - FIGURE 18 1990 PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTSMg:keiIW8inmgnADdgs, Ins, 68 progression, bus volumes, pedestrian conflicts, roadway geometries, parking maneuvers and other traffic-inhibiting factors. The LOS for signalized intersections is defined in the 1985 HCM in terms of delay, which indicates driver discomfort, frustration and lost travel time. For unsignalized intersections, LOS is based upon the concept of "reserve capacity", i.e. the physical capacity remaining. The reserve capacity concept is applied only to an individual traffic movement (or shared-lane movement) . Once the capacity of all the individual movements has been calculated and their LOS determined, an overall evaluation of the intersection can be made. Normally, the movement with the worst LOS defines the overall evaluation, but this may be tempered by engineering judgment. This is particularly true in cases where the most critical movement serves a very minor percentage of the total traffic entering the intersection. The LOS criteria used for this EIS analysis is shown in Table 5 . Past experience with unsignalized analysis procedures indicates. that this methodology is very conservative and tends to overestimate the magnitude of any potential problems. Therefore, the result of any unsignalized intersection analysis should be reviewed with this thought in mind. Existing PM peak-hour LOS at intersections analyzed in the vicinity of the proposed development are summarized in Table 6. Poor levels of service occur where high volume streets intersect, competing for the green phase of the signal by each movement or approach, and where there are heavy turning movements from minor streets onto high volume streets. Accident Experience Accident reports were gathered from the City of Renton Department of Public Works and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Traffic Data Bank for the period of January 1 , 1986 to December 31 , 1988. Accident data was converted to an accident rate to compare high and low volume locations on an equal basis. The typical rate measure for intersection-related accidents is accidents per million entering volume (ACC/MEV) . This rate is computed by taking the average annual number of intersection accidents, multiplying it by one million, and dividing by the product of the 24-hour intersection entering volume times 365 days per year. fI . 69 TABLE 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Signalized Unsignalized Level of Stopped Delay Per Reserve Expected Delay Service Vehicle (seconds) Capacity Minor Street Traffic A < = 5.0 > = 400 Little or no delay B 5.1 to 15.0 300 - 399 Short delays C 15.1 to 25.0 200 - 299 Average delays D 25.1 to 40.0 100 - 199 Long delays E 40.1 to 600 0 - 99 Very long delays F > 60.0 * When demand volumes exceed the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. Source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual 70 TABLE 6 ,LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY 1995 1995 Existing 1995 1995 With With No Action With Expansion Relocated (Alt. #1) Expansion Reduced Scale Medical Office Proposed Development Building (South) Action (Alt. #2) (Alt #3) Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Dwy #1/Talbot Rd. A A A B A D A C A B Dwy #2/Talbot Rd. A A A A A B A B A A Dwy #3/Talbot Rd.' B B C B C C C C B C Dwy #4/Talbot Rd. A A A A A A A A A A Dwy #5/S. 43rd St. F C F D F D F D F D Dwy #5/S. 43rd St.2 C3 B C B C B S. 45th Place/ Talbot Road B C C C C D C C C C SR-167/SW 41st/ E. Valley Road C F D F D F D F D F SW 43rd Street/ Lind Avenue SW B B B B B B B B B B SW 43rd Street/ E. Valley Road F F F F F F F F F F S. 43rd Street/ Talbot Road S. F E F F F F F F F F S. 43rd Street/ SR-167 ON/OFF F F F F F F F F F F This driveway was analyzed as a 4-leg intersection with South 177th Street being the WB leg. 2 Emergency use only. Right in/right out, EB light traffic would make a right turn onto Davis then access thru the proposed tunnel. 71 • Table 7 summarizes the total number of accidents for this period at four locations, the average number of accidents for the 3 year period, and the rate of accidents per MEV. The pattern of accidents does not appear to be unusual in that the highest number of accidents tend to occur on those streets and intersections that are most heavily traveled. Yearly averages of approximately 10 or more are usually considered to be high accident locations. • TABLE 7 ACCIDENT DATA (1/1/86 - 12/31/88) Intersectioq 12li 1ni 12$$ Total Ave/Yr Acc/Mev East Valley Rd./ S.W. 41st St. 5 8 8 21 7.00 East Valley Rd./ S.W.43rd St. 9 16 13 38 12.67 • S.W.43rd St./ Lind Ave. S.W. 7 3 7 17 5.67 S.W.43rd St./ Talbot Rd.S. 13 5 11 29 9.67 Transit Service Metro provides transit service throughout the study area. Route #155 runs all day (hourly) on S.W. 43rd Street with bus stops near the project site and at the intersection of Talbot Road and S.W. 43rd St. This route also connects with the Southcenter Park- , and-ride. Routes #149 (every half hour AM and PM peak hour only) and 909 (9AM to 4PM, hourly) serve Talbot Road S. and the South Renton Park-n-Ride. Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities • During an afternoon field observation by CENTRAC in Spring 1990, a moderate level of pedestrian traffic and no bicycle • activity was noted throughout the study area. The bulk of pedestrian activity is concentrated in and around VMC. Signalized crosswalks exist at most appropriate locations along all of the ' '' major roadways . There are no dedicated bicycle lanes in the vicinity of the project. Parking/Access Current access to VMC is via four driveways on Talbot Road S. , one driveway on S.W. 43rd St. , and via the outpatient drop-off . area. The existing, internal on-site loop road (depicted in Figure 2) provides access from each of the driveways to all buildings on the north campus . 72 • Authorized parking spaces are available at VMC for patient and employee use. The site currently has 1 , 688 parking stalls, with a calculated parking demand of 1 , 514 parking spaces (Jacobsen & Assoc. , 1989) . The parking study indicated that the parking garage and parking lots in the southwestern corner of the campus are currently underutilized by patients and visitors. As noted in the Description of the Project, the City of Renton recently authorized expansion of the existing parking garage in the northwest corner of the north campus. The expansion includes the addition of 800 parking spaces to the existing 298 spaces presently provided. Construction is expected to start in 1991 with completion prior to occupancy of the proposed Medical Office Building II . Planned Transportation Improvements VMC in conjunction with the City of Renton has committed to the construction of Local Improvement District (L. I.D. ) #329 . Construction is planned in late 1990 with completion scheduled in ti the Fall of 1991 . As background, L.I.D. #329 was originally approved in 1982 for the widening of S.W. 43rd St. between the SR-167 on- and off-ramps and the Talbot Road intersection. VMC committed to participate in the L. I.D. at that time, as a mitigation measure for the Hospital's construction of the Radiation Oncology Center. A planned unit development of 12 medical office buildings, proposed for the site which is now VMC's south campus, had also agreed to participate in the L.I.D. -- as a traffic mitigation measure associated with that project. In 1987, VMC purchased the property of the proposed planned unit development (site of the existing south campus) , thereby becoming the sole contributor to L.I.D. #329. Since that time, the Hospital has used the property for employee parking. It became apparent to VMC that increased pedestrian and vehicular traffic between the north and south campus could affect traffic flow on S.W. 43rd St. VMC recommended two proposals to the City for modification of the L.I.D. The first proposal involved construction of a pedestrian overpass above S.W. 43rd St. and the other proposal was for a tunnel beneath S.W. 43rd St. In subsequent meetings, the City indicated to VMC that one of the major reasons L. I.D. #329 had been delayed for several years was due to the City's concern that a new traffic light at the intersection of S.W. 43rd St. and Davis St. S. (as proposed in L. I.D. #329) could further impact traffic flow in this area. While a pedestrian overpass would improve pedestrian flow through this intersection, north and south campus-bound traffic would still be affected by traffic congestion at the intersection. 73 Representatives of VMC and the City selected the tunnel proposal because it was felt that a tunnel beneath S.W. 43rd St. : o would eliminate the proposed stop light at S.W. 43rd St. and Davis Ave. S. , thereby improving the flow of traffic on S.W. 43rd St. ; o provide excellent pedestrian access between the north and south campus, without the need to cross a major arterial street; and ' s, o a tunnel could more effectively incorporate the south campus into VMC's overall campus. As the sole contributor to L.I.D. #329, Valley Medical Center agreed to pay the additional $1 .5 million cost for a tunnel. In addition to the tunnel, several other major local traffic improvements are included in this L. I.D. Three new traffic lanes will be added between the freeway ramps and Davis Avenue S. (one HOV lane, one left- and one right-turn channel to SR-167 ramps) and two new lanes between Davis Avenue S. through the Talbot Road intersection (one left- and one right-turn channel to Talbot Road) . Another traffic lane will be constructed on Talbot Road South, north of S.W. 43rd St. to accommodate traffic from parking areas on the Hospital' s north campus. In general, improvements constructed as part of L.I.D. #329 will upgrade traffic capacity on S.W. 43rd St. and the LOS at SR- 167 on/off ramps and the Talbot Road S. intersection. The LOS for the entrance to the Hospital campus off of S.W. 43rd St. , which is currently utilized by emergency vehicles, will be significantly improved. In addition to planned L. I .D. #329 improvements, the 1989 King County Transportation Plan identified the need to widen Carr Road between 108th Avenue S.E. and the Talbot Road intersection by six ti lanes with HOV provisions. While these recommended improvements are identified as a high priority project for the County, they have not been included for funding in the County' s 1990-1995 Capital Improvement Program. Also, the County has proposed one new signal along Carr Road at 105th Place S.E. , in addition to the new signal being installed at 98th Ave. S.E. Both signals will be developer- funded (not VMC) . While installation of these two signals will improve traffic safety, they are not expected to significantly improve traffic congestion. Traffic Growth Future traffic growth in the study area is comprised of two components. The first component is background traffic, i .e. traffic traveling through the area on S.W. 43rd St. and Talbot Road S. which is not related to Valley Medical Center. The second component of growth is traffic generated by expansion of existing facilities and new construction occurring at VMC. This second 74 component will increase traffic volumes at access driveways, on internal circulation routes and contribute to increased volumes on adjacent streets. Between 1980 and 1989, King County regional population grew at approximately 3% per year (Renton population grew at a rate of approx. 24%) . Historic Traffic Counts by King County (1977-1987) indicate a 3.3% per year increase in the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Carr Road west of SR-515. Based on these data, a three percent regional annual rate was assumed for background traffic. Figures 19 and 20 show the AM and PM peak-hour volumes for 1995 assuming 3% annual growth but without any VMC expansion. In the 1982 Traffic Circulation Study of Valley Medical Center prepared by Transportation Planning & Engineering, the driveway volumes for the PM peak hour of 4: 00 - 5 :00 represented 7.8% of the total volume of 5,800 vehicles per day entering and exiting the main campus. Assuming that today's traffic is similarly distributed over the course of a day, as it was in 1982, the estimated total volume entering and exiting all driveways is now 7, 350 vehicles per day. Significant -Impacts of Proposed Action Trip Generation Daily and peak-hour trips generated by the proposed VMC expansion were estimated using trip generation statistics assembled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE, 1987) for medical office buildings (Section 720) . The medical office building rate was selected because the Average Weekday (PM peak- hour) trip generation rates are larger than those for Hospitals (Section 610) and Clinics (Section 630) per 1 , 000 sq. ft. of gross floor area; this results in a more conservative estimate of future traffic. Table 8 summarizes the daily and peak-hour vehicle trips generated by the proposed development by the year 1995. As shown, the Proposed Action would generate an additional 4, 040 vehicular trips on an average weekday, with 169 of those trips occurring during the AM peak-hour and 397 trips during the PM peak-hour. Trip Distribution and Assignment It is assumed that trips generated by the proposed facilities would follow the general distribution patterns of existing traffic arriving and departing from VMC, as shown in Figure 16. Several other factors were considered in the assignment of generated 9 traffic to specific access driveways and streets, including the campus each facility would be located on, the proximity of driveways to the specific building site and the assumption that a tunnel connecting the north and south campuses would be constructed. Figures 21 through 24 show 1995 AM and PM peak-hour trips generated by the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. Impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be essentially the same as the 75 in 001 • DWY#4 J I 1 o� 110 LaT on Q N ' Z ^N M 24 --II �� 18 DWY#3 JL. S 76 177TH 8 J N �� m.}h N w CO '4PN 71 SW 41 ST ST J j` r 6� DWY#2 ` VALLEY 3s� MEDICAL 15T �t 21 )g o// CENTER ry N 0 N N c m DWY#1 J 457 N a 9 / co �'— 1124 m w►qea q�o SW 10 r L.618 N `� GP� 43RD ST i� N Nam L31 17ao �� 17700 5 1 �-- 1462 150___,r 1 �— 2024 J �— 2017 J f` ( 12 216—� 186�� 1-1-- , r 1o1J 1 O w N 78 1 415 1 f 508--'i r 140 J N o o A 52 —� 335-- 1 f I N w co N 44 N co 03 00 / Co ^`�i Ct 0 Jj Q W t SOUTH F- CAMPUS o J 11 °1 CV.O CV CO i` ( 13 J i S 45TH PL JV t� 60� 1 f w 0 CENTRAL FIGURE 19 i 1 1995 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT EXPANSION OF VMCNUIk8llIWEiffl8flAOIi8$,/ ,IIy, 76 i { M nV • • DWY#4 1I i • U) Q 15- 1 1 R'w v Q ,' -rn L 29• -1J 1 O . DWY#3 J S 17 J 38.JJ 7TH W 1-� 97.Th N�0) co nM� 2.63 `Oh �417 DWY#2 / SW 41ST ST Jj F 48 J/ VALLEY ss MEDICAL 99 )/ 51 )ir CENTER ^co ,0 91 // "�,"�n DWY#1 1 coM � )- 17 —J I Q 11I �n co- / 1` F— 645 U)C O 91 - CO r— 10 509 N "1 SW 43RD ST Jr 754 374 m N N N L 101 GPI 159 �-- 13 1669 9429 __, ....) 876 J 1168 1� !r 148 t r 4,4 6 949�� ^co 129 1654—� r 36 r 1 n • 2044—� J 216 - •)4 N iy h M a 731 1585—� I L '� 250 co 0N'o Q n (O aD i 1 SOUTH, �/ CAMPUS 3 _J '11)1 29 o v �1 n_ m Nh Cr 1 L , 24 J i S 45TH PL 1 V fr 54� 1t 5 InoN • W ro Q 0) 0 CENTRAC • FIGURE 20 1995 PM PEAR HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HkeiIWeinmin �O�I i,WITHOUT EXPANSION OF VMC , 77 TABLE 8 - TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY 1995 TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTION AWDT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATOR VOLUME IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Proposed Action -Ambulatory Care Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 110,000 sq. ft. Medical Office 4,040 95 74 169 107 290 397 Reduced Scale Development - 86,100 sq. ft. Medical Office 3,095 75 59 134 84 228 312 78 N NI.I- DWY#4 J 1 1J ) I 2-----) NOD LI Q r; n-o L 0 O �1 ` __ 3 Z Q DWY#3 J S 77T _i } H 2 L�/ 3 —y 1 r 9 1 cocD0 cv as 000 V p / SW 41ST ST J j DWY#2 JVALLEYo_1 (4-14 MEDICAL 7Th )/p )�J• CENTER v-II w / 00co DWY#1 JI 10 000 12� hw '''- 26 iI �943 SW 43RD ST 1 i 06 9 N 14 �'p� 32 �_ 35 2 I �--3 0 � ' 26 / i 2 32 J }r 41� tr 14—.. , p� ll/l I i 37—) r 12 7g1 0 00 LSE pTCo Jj co co _I 1} tr 1QD "' O I CO TUNNEL j i' 1 4, SOUTH ` �- CAMPUS 6 J 11 51 wN o ' 0 6 coo !` I— p _j S 45TH PL 1 V tr 4T 1r C Q CO 0 CENTRAC FIGURE 21 1995 AM PEAK HOUR GENERATED TRAFFIC Mkei/Weimsn In: VOLUMES — PROPOSED ACTION 79 ,I NI—I DWY#4 J 1 0) 3� } I Q. s � } N cO 1. ? -W J j -rr'o 0 � �— GJ DWY#3J/ 23 S �77rH 9-1 rr 3s--- 03;O N n r 1 000 �0 /in SW 41ST ST JiL DWY#2 --I/VALLEY i a Jfill* MEDICAL 29- )/ o /r CENTER w m DWY#1 J( CV 41 gh. 12 ) QLC) O 46 h SW 43RD3 ST AC.. _-23 to 0 o n GP 36 03 122 J 2 11I2 36 J } O J } 82 1 0 / 47-- ') I 0--J r 26 J/ 1 � }r • v) 000 00 43 11 �II N 0 -Thi ;co r) 'I I Q N. n o CO Ico Jl j 03 0 0 _1 1 cr a - 17Th 1 Q PROPOSED o n N 0 CO WTUNNEL �J/l c SOUTHL. �- CAMPUS 23--1 li 17 0 0 P., 0 N J o PI* I N1 !— 0 1 S 45TH PL }r 12.E t - 00 0) o CENTRAC FIGURE 22 Illu 1 1 ` 1995 PM PEAK HOUR GENERATED TRAFFIC lit �I�m�� �Orl �CINI VOLUMES—PROPOSED ACTION 'f' u u, 80 I NI a) 1 DWY#4 T La c 2—' 1t N(p CI Z J J j M co 0 L. O 1— 2 ` W J�� DWY#3' S�77T 2� H 2-- rr 8-Th 000 N 4 O o O % SW 41 ST ST J j l $ DWY#2 4 VALLEY °� MEDICAL 66 T ,/4 o M ur CENTER ,/� .)o 0„o DWY#1 J g 3} 2 _I i ooco c 9 Nw ��O � frL v. ;No � 11 GP� SW 43RD ST 1 i o s r ..II. -2 2B-- °� I -° 1 — 20 / /� r- 2 2s—r NT r 3o 1 I ° r 1 IT°Th o00 Don 29Th 3� il � Cl) o ° _--) ^ N CO CO it CO 3 PROPOSED re,o m • W TUNNEL J 14 SOUTH j '- 4. CAMPUS 5 _J N)I 4 M 0,J ,__,, Q I` I-- 0 1 i S 45TH PL 1 V 0 Il 3 � I j Q 0) oQ. CENTRAC FIGURE 23 1995 AM PEAK HOUR GENERATED TRAFFIC #gk8llIWginmgnADdg!es, ifVOLUMES—ALTERNATIVE 2 81 N• DWY#4 / j 0 O LIJ Q 2 1 !} a • • Nry _Z J Q J , Mao � 0 LaJ1 1. __ 3 DWY#3 (�` 1 . S 177TH 8-1 I� 30\ co o 000 �O Nye• SW 41ST ST J�` s DWY#2 -)1 VALLEY o�/ MEDICAL 23- )/ o M ) r CENTER . ,00 ,, H DWY#1 10 t 1... 9 -__J 000 p 36 Mn 0 N SW 43RD ST J1L 22 — 076 22 h ��� �2 GPI 29 29 98 J 5 IIL -J+ 2 ,9__, 1fr , 0 -00 0O., 34�---.... .4.)11" 4--=•-j 1 ir 0 _I 8Th w O N Q ^ N 47 CO 00 Jj a 14� /. ( OPOSED m m TUNNEL °O 1/ J c SOUTH CAMPUS 18___I ...if - 14Th nao Q ON `� ) N0S 45TH PL ,r_ fr 17� 1f O 0 .„., L,„ 0, o a CENTRAC FIGURE 24 1995 PM PEAK HOUR GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES - ALTERNATIVE 2 &k8iIWEiflffl8flA$SOd8$, t 82 Proposed Action. The difference would be no additional traffic volumes at driveways #1 through #4 (same as No Action) . Traffic Protections and Level of Service Traffic volumes for 1995 were estimated by combining the background traffic growth with the additional traffic generated by the Proposed Action, considering also the proposed tunnel that would link the north and south campuses (and, thereby, eliminate left turning movements) . To conduct a "worst case" analysis, several assumptions were made, including no increase in the percentage of transit ridership, no increase in vehicle occupancy rate, no diversion of background traffic to other planned cross valley routes and provision of adequate on-site parking. For traffic studies, simulation of a worst case scenario is desirable so that potential problems are not overlooked. Figures 25 through 28 show the AM and PM peak-hour traffic for the alternatives. The relationship between project peak trips and background trips was examined for several key intersections. For the intersection of Talbot Road S. /S.W. 43rd St. , the project-related trips represent 5 . 1 % of the total trips for all movements. At the intersection of the Valley Freeway access ramps and S .W. 43rd St. , project trips account for 9 . 6% of the total number of vehicular trips. For the intersection at East Valley Road/S.W. 43rd St. , project related trips represent 2 . 9% of total trips. Table 6 summarizes LOS calculations for existing and 1995 both with and without VMC expansion (plus a 3% annual growth factor) . For 1995 conditions, future road geometry was assumed to calculate LOS. This includes the LID improved geometrics to the street network and a tunnel or signal at the S.W. 43rd St. /Davis Avenue S. intersection. In addition to L.I.D. #329, additional traffic mitigation may be required for the Proposed Action because it was not part of the original calculations for L. I .D. mitigation. For analysis of 1995 conditions with the project, as well as the alternatives, LOS was calculated with the anticipated expansion of VMC facilities. Background traffic projected to 1995 was added to the traffic that will be generated by the new and expanded facilities to arrive at the AM and PM peak-hour volumes. For all alternatives, LOS was calculated without any improvements to existing geometry and with the L. I.D. improved geometrics to S.W. 43rd St. , Talbot Road S. and SR-167 in addition to a vehicular/pedestrian tunnel connecting the north and south campuses. The four access driveways on Talbot Road S. are calculated to operate at an acceptable LOS for all conditions through 1995 with the existing roadway width and lane configuration. Consideration has been given to reducing the number of driveways. However, because all driveways are expected to operate at LOS C or better with the tunnel, no significant traffic access problem is expected that would warrant the closure of a driveway. 83 z n tL NI NI 0DWY#4 1 1 La ct> 1� � # Q 2� I (4 0,, a —I N • J > .C44) _� 24 w DWY 3J 1 L Y 7a # S 177TH 3__Ji rr 3—+ 171 0�>n N o)N SW 41ST ST J j` r 631 - DWY#2 JI VALLEY 5 MEDICAL 22- )1 )�� CENTER ,��,w �A ,y N N co MC DWY#i J )/ o^*L.Ji _457 ^aNN 12-Th—+ 'LC)!— 10 f�� N GP SW 43RD ST - 1726 454 "' N kb 1�45 187 2059 J L. 7 1465 150 �— 2043 J ` r- 14 40 } 248-._ o rr 458 I r 1� r 218 117 _j r " 78 ., 522, 152_JI I r C', N N^ 0 co0 89� 0 340, co M N 44 n .- 4. M aDN Q ^ Nap = co J oo co 5 Q PROPOSED N m TUNNEL /i --Ite SOUTH �J CAMPUS 6 11 5� �0 J ^2 0� 1( f13 Ji S 45TH PL AT 73_ 1 t tr 4 -1 �1- w Q 0 s CENTRAC FIGURE 25 1995 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES MgIk8llIWeiflmgnAois,I , WITH HOSPITAL EXPANSIONPROPOSED ACTION 84 0 0,.4. 3 DWY#4 j Q I Q 1.IJ it 24_� ! 0(Q _Z , M �r. a-a-co L 29 141 DWY# J IL. r 1 i 3 47� S 177TH 13—.... rr 135� moo, m a rM( 263 wy �j(, �4'7 SW 41 ST ST s9 DWY#2 4 VALLEY _1 MEDICAL 128- )/ 59 , )/r CENTER 41' a / :`,.' h DwY#1 J n* Jf 77 °°^ 29 --/ / O r f" 0 h1'i p 137 o o ) SW 43RD ST 1i( 9 - 403 N N � 118 GPO 169_/ 998 1 15 -.--792 9768—. /r 148, / -•- 1250 J j ( 66 / 985 } 414 + "^m 129 1701-- I r 36—j - r. C 1:1 SI^ 2059- . 242 1 f ry ry„� n o 174 0 1596- • I go 1LiJ ", 250 Th 2 co�0 Q ^ r3 w _ CO �1co co 0 0 —I1 ce 17 Th PROPOSED 0 43. =n 0 TUNNEL m ct- SOUTH J1 CAMPUS 26__1 Niir 6 46 - �� 1In �, �14 �i S 45TH PL N r-24 0 ,,,.._rr � 1 "' n Q C4 S. CENTRAC FIGURE 26 1995 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH HOSPITAL EXPANSION &ke//IWe/nffl8AoiiIJes /rn' I PROPOSED ACTION 85 4- NII N ( DWY#4 L. 0 ) t CV m o J N ? —I n J , - .,M 24 4.1 DWY 3 J I L S 7s 7 777_H 3 t�2 --- 16 n co go N co N I :tan7� / M ' DWY#2 1` SW 41ST ST Jj` r 630 VALLEY 5— MEDICAL 21 ,f 2� �N^ N lir CENTER ,,nN h CV N 4h^ DWY#1 th 11 _� 0 •^� �457 Nn ii Jif --- 1146 maM n� we SW 43RD ST /j 1 451 �m� �42 150 J/ t 2024 J 7 I I L ( 1464 242—� r 40 '� 2037 �/+ 14 1 o"N 278 �r91 J 1 1 117 9 49 }r 520 . r __1 I1 (n N(y^ 0 o0 81 ^ 338—� co M .. LU M co �N '‹C. N^ m CO _ coJI 0) __,, o tt 0 4 1 t Q PROPOSED N n N. m A . TUNNEL Jl —ISOUTH I- 4. CAMPUS 5 __1 1t 4 co m7 N.to J n� CV al, 18 ,,,--13 _s1 j S 45TH PL 1 V t(" 72 3� t 0 cv co IN. Q 0 CENTRAC FIGURE 27 • 1995 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH HOSPITAL EXPANSION11101111111111 Agen14IMYY �CI ALTERNATIVE 3 ' 86 N J M DWY# 4 0 } 1-04�J� I c7 Z -� * J 14 DWY 3 JIL o • # S 177TH 49- rr- 9—' I 127 T .'.3o°D w 'S.n m 26 5 co( Jl L 417 / SW 41ST ST ss Dom'#2 -I/ VALLEY • 5 MEDICAL 122Th )/4 51Th )ir CENTER 41,0 CO Nt• ",I h DWI J 0�� JL 77 0 26 �f �� 721 CO 127� co ��o r ` /�_ 70 L 531 n w GQ� SW 43RD ST ` o 630 396 Pat c 114 169�/ 748 �_ 159 �"974 1 1233 J r-791 - 971 111 6 m�� 29-- 1r 769i 1 f 36_„ T n v I 2055�� r 235 f ry A,g. M 165 a 1593--� CV 250M co LU (0^O Q co _ Jj00 00 0 0_1 �t a . 14 Q PROPOSED °DN m TUNNEL /� J it SOUTH 1 /` CAMPUS 21__J 43---) - 12_ k "n 9 1 i S 45TH P L JV - 24 0 Ir 75—J f I 65— w ro M N LU 1 Q 0) 0 CENTRAC FIGURE 28 1995 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH HOSPITAL EXPANSION NgkeII/f1gIrnInAso:igIesIflcALTERNATIVE 3• ' 87 Driveway #5 at S.W. 43rd St. currently operates at LO S F in the AM peak-hour for eastbound left-turn traffic. This intersection is planned for right turn in, right turn out only operation with the L.I.D. and tunnel construction; emergency vehicles will be allowed to turn left to or from S.W. 43rd St. , however. With completion of the L. I .D. in 1995, the driveway will improve to LOS C or better. Traffic Safety Additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic attributable to the project may increase the number of accidents at affected intersections. It is not anticipated, however, that the overall rate or pattern of accidents would be altered significantly. As noted previously, pedestrian/vehicular traffic accident involvement in this area historically has been minimal. The construction of the L. I.D. will enhance the safety of traffic circulation between the north and south campuses by eliminating traffic crossing S.W. 43rd St. Transit As noted previously, METRO Transit presently serves VMC throughout the day and provides additional service during the AM and PM peak-hours. Neither the Proposed Action nor the alternatives are expected to have any significant affect on existing transit service in the area. However, with an increased emphasis on minimizing the number of vehicular trips generated during peak-hour periods by employees, greater emphasis will be placed on transit ridership (refer to Mitigation Measures) . Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities The proposed S.W. 43rd St. L. I .D. includes construction of sidewalks with a landscaping buffer providing a visual barrier between pedestrians and vehicles. The L. I.D. does not include a separate bicycle lane, so bicyclists will share the road with vehicles or use the sidewalks that have curb ramps for easy road- to-sidewalk transition. The proposed S.W. 43rd St. tunnel will provide for safe movement of pedestrians and employees between the north and south campus. Parking For the existing conditions, the City of Renton requires that VMC provide a minimum of 1 , 030 parking spaces. The current number of stalls provided by VMC is 1 , 688; which is adequate to meet the demand of 1 , 514 parking spaces identified in the July 1989 parking study (Jacobson, N.G. 1989. Valley Medical Center Parking Study) . The Proposed Action will increase the overall campus parking demand by approximately 385 stalls to a total of 1 , 899 parking spaces. The Ambulatory Care Center will not increase the parking demand by its relocation. Similarly, expansion of the existing facilities into the space to be vacated by ACC will not increase 88 parking demand. This expansion will allow for more storage and open floor space. As previously noted in the Project Description, the City of Renton recently authorized VMC to expand the existing parking garage by 800 parking spaces (total of 1 , 100 spaces will be contained in the garage) . Construction for this project is to begin in 1991 and be completed prior to occupancy of the Medical Office Building II which is proposed as part of this Action. The parking study (Ibid) indicates that the increase in parking demand can be met by more complete utilization of existing parking facilities on the the north campus and use of the parking lot on the south campus. The location of the new facilities will lead to increased use of exisiting under utilized parking facilities. The sudy recommends the relocation of the hospital daytime employees to the south parking lot in order to provide closeby parking for the patients of the new facility. Construction Impacts During the construction period, there will be a short-term increase in traffic because of delivery of materials and commuting by construction workers. This increase is expected to have minimal impact on LOS and traffic congestion. During construction of the new facilities, existing parking spaces will be lost temporarily by use of construction equipment/material storage. An additional offsite parking facility may be required for construction employee parking and temporary hospital parking. Parking of vehicles at the south lot should accommodate any additional demand. Mitigation Measures The overall LOS for the road network will decline in response to growth in the area with or without the project. The increase in traffic from the VMC facilities represents only a small fraction of this total traffic volume (less than 10%) and, therefore, should not significantly contribute to declining LOS on the roads serving the facility. However, the LOS at several driveways is reduced as a result of the Proposed Action or alternatives. For those intersections that are already at LOS F, it is expected that VMC would pay their fair share of needed improvements, together with other developers in the area. Continued implementation of Valley Medical Center's Transportation Management Plan, is recommended -- to help improve present and future traffic congestion in the area. Transportation Management Plan The Valley Medical Center Transportation Plan (TMP) , adopted in October 1987, is a plan of action to mitigate traffic congestion and other traffic impacts in the vicinity of the medical center by 89 encouraging employees to commute by public transit or by participating various ridesharing programs. The goal of the TMP is to reduce total number of vehicle trips generated during the peak hour by all medical center employees (existing plus expansion) by 10 percent within 5 years of implementation of the TMP. It is anticipated that the Proposed Action will generate a need to re-evaluate elements and/or emphasis contained in the existing TMP. The major components of the existing TMP are the following: o HOV Oriented Site Planning: The purpose of HOV oriented site planning is to assure that building orientation, parking location, parking area amenities (lighting, surface) , driveways and turnarounds are designed to facilitate HOV use where appropriate. o HOV Facilities The purpose of HOV facilities is to provide visible, physical incentives for using HOV's in and around the site. o Parking Management The purpose of parking management (initiated in February 1988) is to improve access and mobility, to prevent spillover, and to influence employee choice of travel mode. High exposure, conveniently located carpooling spaces have been established. These spaces are being and will be promoted in the parking updates circulated to all employees by the Employee Transit Coordinator. For the majority of employees to receive north campus parking, they need to participate in carpools and improve the HOV ratio. A carpool is defined as two or more persons per vehicle riding together at least four days a week. Carpooling and other identified employees receive special passes to use VMC's lots. The amount of parking now provided by VMC exceeds current demand by 12% and the amount of parking required by the City of Renton by 39%. With planned expansion of the parking garage, adequate parking will be available on- site to prevent the possibility of future off-site parking spillover. 90 o Ridesharing and Transit Program The purpose of the ridesharing and transit program is to aggressively promote and support the use of transit and ridesharing among employees. To do this, the following are performed: - Post transit/ridesharing information in a commuter information center (CIC) located in a prominent place for both employees and clients; - Distribute transit/ridesharing information and ridematch applications to all employees twice per year and to new employees when they begin work; - Conduct transit/rideshare promotion twice per year; and - Set up shift changes wherever possible to minimize the number of VMC employees on the surrounding I! roadways during maximum congestion periods. o Monitoring, Evaluation, and Enforcement The Security Department will establish, monitor and maintain enforcement of the transportation management plan for VMC. Statistical comparisons will be completed as needed on the usage of HOVs. Daily monitoring of the entire site will be accomplished; selective enforcement of specific parking areas will be done on an as-needed basis. Current surveys conducted measuring the effectiveness of the TMP found about 8.5 percent participation in the program through carpooling only. In order to achieve the TMP goal, employees are encouraged to change their commuting pattern through the following actions: , Establish commuter information centers at several locations on campus; - Increase bus routes, including direct route to facility; - Periodic distribution of transit and rideshare program information to employees; - Coordination with Metro for improved transit service, based on employee comments (modified routes, improved schedules) ; - Cooperation with Metro for specialized bus service for employees during morning and evening work shift times; 91 Provision of information regarding the Metro computerized ridematch service; and Use of Metro Van Pool passenger vans by employee vanpools. Site Layout/Access As a part of the TMP, one possible site access consideration is the realignment of driveway No. 3. This driveway provides ingress and egress to Talbot Road S. and is actually located slightly north (30 - 50 feet) of South 177th St. While accident data does not specifically note an historical problem as a result of this driveway/street offset, realignment could minimize the I , potential for future turning movement conflicts, as a result of increased traffic associated with the Proposed Action. While realignment could reduce the potential for traffic ' conflicts in this area, it is also possible that realignment may impact the existing residential area, as a result of an increase in the amount of through-traffic using S. 177th St. As previously noted, this street serves a single family residential area of well- maintained homes on large lots and connects Talbot Road S. to S. Carr Road. As such, with realignment, motorists could find it faster to exit from driveway No. 3 onto S. 177th St. for travel to S. Carr Road, thereby, avoiding congestion associated with the intersection at S.W. 43rd St. and Talbot Road S. Participation in LID #329 In addition to the L.I.D. # 329, additional traffic mitigation may be required for this development as it was not part of the original calculations for L. I.D. mitigation. The City has preliminarily determined that VMC's mitigation fee, based on an increase in traffic generated by the Proposed Action (approximately L ' 3, 759 vehicle trips, could be as follows: +_. , s 92 34. 17 trips per 1 , 000 square feet of medical office space (based on ITE Trip Generation rates) x 110, 000 (approx. square feet of medical office space proposed) x $22 .97 cost participation per trip generated (based on original S.W. 43rd St. study) = 34. 17 x 110, 000* = 3, 759 trips 1f 1000 $22 .97 x 3, 759 = $86, 344. 23* * The final mitigation fee would be dependent upon additional vehicular trips and final building areas. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The additional development proposed with this project would generate new vehicle trips to and from the project site. C. PUBLIC SERVICES - FIRE Affected Environment Fire suppression and life support services at the project site are provided by the Renton Fire Department. The Department has three fire stations with the closest being Station #13 at 17040 Benson Road S. , approximately 3/4 mile east of the Valley Medical Center campus. The second closest station is #11 which is located in downtown Renton, approximately 2 1 /2 miles north. In addition, King County operates Fire Station #42 which is located on Petrovitsky Road, approximately three miles east of the site. A call-for-service at Valley Medical Center would be responded to by units from both Station #13 and #11 and, if units are available, Station #42. The estimated response time for units from Station #13 would be approximately five minutes; the response time for units from Station #11 would be roughly 5-6 minutes; and the response time for units from Station #42 would be approximately 5 minutes. A typical first alarm fire response would involve: two engine companies, a ladder company, a command vehicle and an aid car. The Renton Fire Prevention Bureau indicates that in 1989 they responded to 23 calls-for-service at Valley Medical Center. Of these, only two were actually fires; the majority were unintentionally set alarms (48%) or alarm malfunctions (35%) . 1-- 93 Significant Impacts of Proposed Action During construction, the proposed project could temporarily increase the potential for fire and obstruction to fire fighting equipment, as a result of construction materials and debris, on- site movement of construction equipment and on-site construction- related traffic congestion. The long term impact of the project on the Renton Fire Department would be an increased demand for fire protective services (life and property protection) . The Renton Fire Prevention Bureau estimates that the Proposed Action or Alternatives 2 or 3 could generate an additional 6-8 calls-for- _ service per year in response to fire alarms; no additional calls- for-service are anticipated with regard to the need for emergency medical services (phone conversation, Jim Mathews, Renton Fire Dept. , 5/30/90) . This increased demand for fire protective services would also include additional annual fire code compliance ' inspections. C- 1 Key Renton Fire Prevention Bureau concerns include ensuring that project design maintains the following: o both a primary and a secondary access to every building; o the Medical Office Building II is fully sprinklered; f o minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet for the skybridge connecting the Medical Office Building to the parking structure; and . o minimum aisle width and turning radius dimensions are maintained for all fire lanes; and o a plan must be submitted to the City of Renton Fire Prevention Bureau with dates of completion for a sprinkler retrofit of the hospital. This plan must be approved by the Renton Fire Prevention Bureau before any further construction can take place. While Valley Medical Center provides valuable medical service to the community, an additional concern of the City of Renton is whether as a public facility the public costs of serving VMC are�, adequately offset by the revenue received. Valley Medical Center, as a public entity, does not pay property taxes -- monies which serve as one source of revenue for the City. VMC does, however, provide revenue to the City through other means, specifically: water and sewer utility fees, construction permit fees, special assessments (L. I .D. ' s and impact mitigation fees) and leasehold excise taxes. The Proposed Action would provide added revenue to the City through each of these funding sources. A portion of this revenue would be allocated to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The leasehold ji 94 excise tax is a tax in-lieu of the property tax, assessed on any private use of public property. Two 'possible scenarios could occur. If VMC owns the proposed Medical Office Building II and leases floors 2 through 5 to physicians, the hospital is exempt r from property tax. The physicians would, however, pay a leasehold excise tax on each physician' s space. If, however, a partnership of physicians own Medical Office Building II, the partnership would pay a leasehold excise tax for the real estate leased from the hospital. In addition, the partnership would pay personal property taxes for the medical office building, which would be roughly equivalent to real property taxes. In any event, the only exempt portion of Medical Office Building II (from a tax revenue generating standpoint) would be that portion actually owned by the Hospital and devoted to Hospital-related uses. Impacts of Alternatives In the short-term, because the site would remain undeveloped, the No Action alternative would not result in any direct or indirect fire service impacts. Demand for additional medical office space will likely continue, however, resulting either in future development of this north campus site or a possible south campus location. Development at either location in the future would result in impacts comparable to the Proposed Action. Impacts associated with Alternatives 2 & 3 are not expected to result in fire service impacts which are substantially different from those noted for the Proposed Action. However, concern expressed by the Renton Fire Prevention Bureau for development at the south campus site included ensuring that both a primary and secondary access is available and an effective fire flow network exists . Development in the south campus would be accessible from Davis Avenue South and South 45th Pl. A 12-inch water line is located in both streets. Fire service impacts related to the costs-of-service would not differ significantly from that noted with regard to the Proposed Action. As with the Proposed Action, a portion of the revenue generated from construction and long-term operation of the building (through water and sewer utility fees, construction permit fees, special assessments and leasehold excise taxes) would be allocated to the Renton Fire Prevention Bureau. Mitigation Measures None are required if Renton Fire Prevention Bureau concerns are complied with, specifically: o both a primary and a secondary access to every building; o the Medical Office Building II is fully sprinklered; o minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet for the skybridge connecting the Medical Office Building to the parking structure; and 95 sprinkler retrofit of the hospital. This plan must be approved by the Renton Fire Prevention Bureau before any further construction can take place. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Increased demand on the Renton Fire Prevention Bureau for fire protective services. - 96 1 SECTION IV SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED I • _ 97 SECTION IV SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED Traffic A reduction in LOS for certain intersections in the vicinity of the Valley Medical Center campus. A small portion of this LOS reduction would be attributable to the Proposed Action. Valley Medical Center would provide added revenue to the City of Renton as a result of construction and long-term operation of the proposed building (through water and sewer utility fees, construction permit fees, special assessments and leasehold excise taxes) . While a portion of this increased revenue would be allocated for street improvements, the amount of revenue generated, may not fully compensate the City for the cost of services rendered. Fire Protection Increased demand on the Renton Fire Protection Bureau for fire protective services. Valley Medical Center would provide added revenue to the City of Renton as a result of construction and long-term operation of the proposed building (through water and sewer utility fees, construction permit fees, special assessments and leasehold excise taxes) . While a portion of this increased revenue would be allocated to the City' s Fire Prevention Bureau, the amount of revenue generated, may not fully compensate the City for the cost of services rendered. 98 REFERENCES 99 REFERENCES Institute of Transportation Engineers. 1987. Trip Generation Manual (4th edition, Sept. 1987) . Jacobson, N.G. & Assoc. , Inc. 1989 . Valley Medical Center Parking Study. King County. 1979 . Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan (Ord. # 4572) . . 1987. Sensitive Areas Map Folio. • Mahlum & Nordfors. 1987. Valley Medical Center Master Site Plan and Functional Program. Morgan, Clint. 1990. Meeting with Don Carr regarding traffic planning issues. Renton, City of. 1986. Compendium of the Comprehensive Plan. . 1983. Ord. # 3722 Amending the Zoning Ordinance. ,r-i Scott, John. 1990 . Personal conversation with Terry McCann regarding the need for high quality medical office space near VMC. U.S. Dept. of Transportation; Federal Highway Administration. 1985 . Highway Capacity Manual. Valley Medical Center. 1988. Facts Pamphlet 1988. • . 1988. 5-year Strategic Plan 1989 - 1993 . . 1989 . Facts Pamphlet . 1989 . Werner, Greg. 1990. Phone conversation with Terry McCann regarding the medical office building market in the vicinity of Valley Medical Center. 100 I ' APPENDICES . _ r 1 01 APPENDIX A DISTRIBUTION LIST Copies of this EIS have been distributed to the following agencies and organizations. Federal Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District Office Engineering Dev. - Planning PO Box C-2755 Seattle, WA 98124 `-- U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Renton Field Office 935 Powell St. S.W. Renton, WA 98055 U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development Attn: Mr. Nishimura Arcade Plaza Building 1321 Second Ave. Seattle, WA 98101 U.S. Dept. of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Office 2625 Parkmont Lane Olympia, WA 98504 U.S. Dept of Transportation Department of Highways District #1 6431 Corson Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98108 U.S. Energy Office Washington State Dept. of Energy Attn: Richard Watson, Director 809 Legion Way S.E. , M/S SA-11 Olympia, WA 98504 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Evaluation Div. 1200 Sixth Ave, M/S MD-102 Seattle, WA 98101 102 r , State Agencies Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 300 - 120th N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 Dept. of Ecology SEPA Register M/S PV-11 Olympia, WA 98504 Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section M/S PV-11 1 Olympia, WA 98504 Dept. of Ecology Attn: Terra Proden Wetlands Section M/S PV-11 Olympia, WA 98504 Dept. of Fisheries Attn: Joe Roble Natural Production Division 115 General Administration Building, M/S AX-11 j� Olympia, WA 98504 Dept. of Social & Health Services P.O. Box 1788 Olympia, WA 98504 Dept. of Social & Health Services Construction Review Section 1112 S. Quince, M/S ET-12 H Dept. of Transportation Highway Administration Building M/S KF-01 Olympia, WA 98504 -JI Dept. of Wildlife 600 N. Capitol Way, M/S GJ-11 Olympia, WA 98504 Office of Program Planning & Fiscal Management Attn: EIS Review 101 House Office Building Olympia, WA 98504 r , L 103 Local Agencies Office of the Mayor City of Renton Attn: Mayor's Assistant Renton City Council Renton Planning Commission Renton Parks Board Renton City Attorney Renton Fire Dept. Renton Hearing Examiner' s Office Renton Parks & Recreation Dept. Renton Planning & Community Development Dept. Renton Police Dept. Renton Public Works Dept. Renton SEPA Information Center King County Boundary Review Board Attn: Alda Wilkinson, Exec. Dir. 3600 - 136th P1. S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006-1400 King County EIS Review Coordinator King County Courthouse, Room 400 516 Third Ave. Seattle, WA 98104 King County Building & Land Development Div. SEPA Information Center 3600 - 136th P1. S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006-1400 King County Planning Division 7th Floor, Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98104 King County Parks & Planning Div. Attn: Erik Stockdale 1108 Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98104 104 King County Public Works Dept. Hydraulics Div. King County Administration Building, Room 900 400 Fourth Ave. Seattle, WA 98104 King County Soil Conservation Attn: Jack Davis 935 Powell Ave. S.W. Renton, WA 98055 Renton SEPA Information Center METRO Environmental Planning Div. 821 Second Ave. , M/S 63 Seattle, WA 98104 METRO Transit Div. 821 Second Ave. Seattle, WA 98104-1598 METRO Water Quality Div. 821 Second Ave. Seattle, WA 98104-1598 Muckleshoot Tribal Council 39015 - 172nd Ave. S.E. Auburn, WA 98002 Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98104 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency P.O. Box 9863 Seattle, WA 98109 Seattle-King County Dept. of Public Health 400 Yesler Building Seattle, WA 98104 City of Kent Planning Dept. 220 - 4th Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 City of Tukwila Planning & Building Dept. 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 105 i I Other Organizations and Individuals Daily Journal of Commerce P.O. Box 11050 Seattle, WA 98111 Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce 300 Rainier Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Journal American 1705 - 132nd Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 King County Public Library Attn: Susie Wheeler 300 - 8th Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98109 Mahlum & Nordfors 2505 Third Ave. , Suite 219 Seattle, WA 98121 Pacific Northwest Bell Attn: Harry Kluges 1600 - 7th Ave. Room 1513 Seattle, WA 98191 Puget Sound Power & Light Co. Attn: EIS Review South Central Div. Office 620 Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Renton Public Library Main Branch Renton Public Library Highlands Branch Renton School District #403 435 Main Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 Seattle Post Intelligencer Business News 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98111 Seattle Times - Eastside Edition Business News P.O. Box 70 Seattle, WA 98111 Valley Daily News 106 Attn: City Editor P.O. Box 10 Kent, WA 98032 Valley Medical Center 400 S. 43rd St. Renton, WA 98055 Washington Natural Gas Co. 815 Mercer St. Seattle, WA 98111 Wilsey & Ham Pacific Attn: Ron Deverman, Project Manager P.O. Box C-97304 Bellevue, WA 98009 107 APPENDIX B LIST OF ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT The following delineates those environmental elements which are discussed in this Draft EIS, beginning on the page indicted. The Table of Contents should also be consulted because these elements are also discussed in subsequent sections of this EIS. The list is based on the public scoping process associated with this project. 1 . Natural Environment Page a. Earth NA Geology NA Soils NA Topography NA Unique physical features NA Erosion/Enlargement of land area (accretion) NA b. Air NA Air quality NA Odor NA Climate NA c. Water NA Surface water movement/quantity/quality NA Runoff/absorption NA Floods NA Ground water movement/quantity/quality NA Public water supplies NA d. Plants and Animals NA Habitat for and number of diversity of species of plants, fish, or other wildlife NA Unique species NA Fish or wildlife migrating routes NA e. Energy and Natural Resources NA Amount required/rate of use/efficiency NA Source/availability NA Nonrenewable resources NA Conservation and renewable resources NA Scenic resources NA 108 2. Built Environment a. Environmental Health NA Noise NA Rise of Explosion NA Releases or potential releases to the environment affecting public health, such as toxic or hazardous materials NA b. Land and Shoreline Use 41 Relationship to existing use plan lan and to estimated population 55 Housing NA Light and glare NA Aesthetics 45 Recreation NA History and cultural preservation NA Agricultural crops NA c. Transportation 64 Transportation systems 64 Vehicular traffic 66 Waterborne, rail, and air traffic NA Parking 72 Movement/circulation of people or goods 72 Traffic hazards 69 d. Public Services and Utilities 93 Fire 93 Police NA Schools NA Parks or other recreation facilities NA Maintenance NA Communications NA Water/service NA Sewer/solid waste NA Other governmental services or utilities NA 109 cU-$9 -D(o 3 CCF — 47-06v3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - - ` - VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING II and AMBULATORY CARE CENTER _ August 1990 CITY of RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT The intent and purpose of this environmental impact statement is to satisfy the procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act(RCW 43.21)and Renton's Rules Interpreting and Implementing SEPA(Ord.3891). This document is not an authorization for action,nor does it constitute a decision or a recommendation for action. In its final form,it will accompany the proposed action and will be considered in making the final decision on the proposal. ``st '= CITY OF RENTON Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator August 30, 1990 To: Recipients of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II and the Ambulatory Care Center-ECF-063-89 The accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) identifies the environmental consequences associated with construction and occupancy of a 110,970 sq. ft. medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center Campus. Also Included in the proposed action is a building permit for relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center(ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC space for medical services. The project site Is located at 400 South 43rd Street, Renton, Washington 98055. PROPOSAL: The Proposed Action involves approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, and a Building permit to allow construction of a 110,970 sq. ft. medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center Campus. Also included in the proposed action is a Building Permit for relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC space for medical services. Three other alternatives were analyzed in the document and include: 1) Modified Full Development; 2) Medical Office Building South; and 3) No action. IMPACTS: As a result of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Scoping process, comments were received from governmental agencies and interested citizens regarding the major issues that,needed to be analyzed in the DEIS. Those issues included the following: Land Use and Aesthetics: Relationship of the proposed action and alternatives to land use patterns in the area, existing plans and policies, and westerly views; • Traffic and Parking: Effect of the proposed action and alternatives on traffic, parking and circulation; and Public Services--Fire: Impact on existing City of Renton fire protective services. The DEIS identifies a variety of mtigation measures. The document is available at the Development Services Department, Third Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,Washington 98055. The copies cost$8.00. Information in the document will be used by the City of Renton to make informed decisions regarding this proposal, consistent with the intent of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Written public comment on the DEIS is encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days from this date. Following the 30 day review period, responses to comments will be prepared and incorporated in a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). . ?(lfl Mill AventiP Crnith - R,ntnn Wochinertnn oQncc - MMnK\ i'c-izzt L V Written comments on the DEIS will be accepted through October 1, 1990 and should be addressed to: Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department Attn: Mary Lynne Myer 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 A public hearing to accept written and oral comments on the DEIS will be held in the Renton City Council Chambers on Tuesday, September 18, 1990, at 7:30 PM, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington. Please call Mary Lynne Myer at 235-2550 for additional Information. Sincerely, s :::)"414) onald K. Erickson Zoning Administrator i � H - 'DRAFT • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT hfor the i fl VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER � 4 • MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING II and AMBULATORY CARE CENTER • tiII ' • f , City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department Prepared in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (Chapter 43. 21C, Revised Code of Washington) ; the SEPA Rules, effective April 4, 1984, as revised (Chapter 197-11 , Washington Administrative Code; and Renton's Rules Interpreting and Implementing SEPA (Ordinance No. 3891 ) . - 1 Date of Issue: August 31 , 1990 Date Comments Due: October 1 , 1990 1 FACT SHEET Project Title: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING II and AMBULATORY CARE CENTER Proposed Action: The Proposed Action involves approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, and a Building Permit to allow construction of a 110, 970 sq.ft. medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center campus. Also included in the Proposed Action is a Building Permit for relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC space for medical services. The other three alternatives analyzed in this EIS include: Modified-Full development; Medical Office Building South; and No- Action. Location: Renton, Washington 400 S. 43rd St. Proponent: Valley Medical Center (King County Public Hospital District Number 1 ) Lead Agency: City of Renton Tentative Date For Implementation: Fall 1990 Responsible Official: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Contact Person: . Mary Lynne Myer Senior Planner Planning/Building/Public Works Department Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, WA 98055 (206) 235-2550 i y i I _F Licenses, Permits & Approvals: o City of Renton - Conditional Use Permit - Site Plan Review - Building Permits - Clearing & Grading Permit - Mechanical Permits 1 jl o State of Washington - Labor & Industries - Electrical Permits • Authors & Principal Contributors to this DEIS: This environmental impact statement has been prepared for the City of Renton. Research and analysis were provided by: o Huckell/Weinman Assoc. , Inc. 1 ( Terry McCann,' EIS 1 ( project manager ) o CENTRAC & David Evans. Assoc. ( Don Carr, Coord. traffic analysis ) L- Date of Issue of DEIS: August 31 , 1990 Date All, DEIS j ; Comments Due: Written comments on this document will be accepted from August 31st through close of business October 1 , 1990. Please address all comments to Mary Lynne Myer at the address noted on page i of this EIS. � I Public Hearing: A public hearing to discuss impacts noted in this DEIS is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. , September 18, 1990 at the City Council Chambers, Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton. L ' 1yj ii J_ r,y . , Location of Background Data: o City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department Municipal Building j 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, WA 98055 o Huckell/Weinman Assoc. , Inc. 205 Lake St. S. #202 Kirkland, WA 98033 o CENTRAC 18804 North Creek Parkway Bothell, WA 98011 DEIS Availability: Copies of this DEIS have been distributed to agencies, organizations and individuals noted on the Distribution List (Appendix A to this document) . A limited number of copies are available for purchase at the Planning/Building/Public Works Department (Municipal Building, 3rd Floor) . I ' -- Cost: $8.00 1 I r-, d iii rT f-, TABLE'OF CONTENTS Section Page FACT SHEET i I. SUMMARY A. Proponent/Project Location 2 B. Background Information 2 C. Proposal Objectives/Alternatives Considered 3 C. Environmental Impacts 8 D. Mitigation Measures 12 E. Significant Impacts that Cannot be Mitigated 12 II. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION • A. Proponent/Project Location 14 B. Background Information 14 C. Need for Project & Proponent's Objectives .23 D. Description of Proposed Action 26 E. Alternatives 36 Alternative 1 - No Action 36 Alternative 2 - Reduced Scale Development 37 Alternative 3 - Relocated Medical Office Building 37 i III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS and MITIGATION MEASURES A. Land Use 41 B. Transportation and Parking 64 C. Public Services - Fire 93 IV. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED 98 REFERENCES 99 APPENDICES A. Distribution List 102 B. List of Elements of the Environment 108 1-. iv • LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Hospital Operational Statistics 20 2 Existing Pattern of Land Uses On-Site 41 3 Future Pattern of Land Uses On-Site 46 4 Key Development Standards 63 5 Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections 70 6 Level-of-Service Summary 71 7 Accident Data 72 8 Trip Generation Summary 78 • r` LIST OF FIGURES 4 Figure Page 1 Vicinity Map 16 1 L 2 Campus Plan 17 3 King County Public Hospital ' District #1 18. 4 Site Plan 27 l 5 Proposed Medical Office Building as Viewed from the Southwest 30 11 6 South and West Elevations 31 7 North and East Elevations 32 '_ ' 8 Cross-section of Proposed Medical Office Building as Viewed Looking East 33 9 Possible Building Location South Campus 38 10 Land Use 43 11 Site Cross-section 49 12 Westerly View Corridor 50 13 Probable View Impact as Seen j Looking West from Talbot Road S 51 ( 14 Probable View Impact as Seen _ Looking Southwest from Talbot Road S 54 15 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning 56 I ; 16 Existing Street Network . 65 fl 17 1989 AM Peak Hour Turning Movements 67 18 1989 PM Peak Hour Turning Movements 68 iI 19 1995 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes _., Without Expansion of VMC 76 j 20 1995 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes L1 Without Expansion of VMC 77 r f' vi LJ 1 I 21 1995 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Preferred - Proposed Action 79 22 1995 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Preferred - Proposed Action 80 23 1995 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Alternative 2 81 24 1995 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Alternative 2 82 25 1995 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Proposed Action 84 26 1995 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Proposed Action 85 27 1995 AM Peak Hour Volumes with Hospital Expansion - Alternative 3 86 28 1995 PM Peak Hour Volumes with Hospital Expansion - Proposed Action 87 J 1`J 5r v i i -_ SECTION I SUMMARY • 1 SECTION I SUMMARY A. PROJECT PROPONENT/PROJECT LOCATION The proposed Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II and Ambulatory Care Center are sponsored by King County Public r- Hospital District No. 1 . The site of the Medical Office Building II is approximately a one-half acre area in the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center campus, north of the Hospital and the Psychiatry Wing and west of Talbot Professional Center. The Ambulatory Care Center _ would be relocated from the Hospital to the lower level of the Psychiatry Wing (existing building) . Refer to Figure 2, page 13 of this DEIS. The address ,of the property is 400 South 43rd Street Renton, Washington 98056. B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Valley Medical Center (VMC) is a part of King County Public Hospital District Number 1 . The District was established through { election by residents of the Renton, Kent and Tukwila area in 1947 and incorporated as a municipal corporation in 1948. The Hospital District is governed by a publicly-elected board of commissioners. The District encompasses an area of approximately 100 square miles and includes Renton, Kent, Tukwila and unincorporated Southeast King County. The estimated population in this service area is approximately 374, 000 (Valley Medical Center. 1989. Facts Pamphlet 1989) . King County Public Hospital District Number 1 provides a broad range of health care services and programs, all of which are located on the 42-acre campus of Valley Medical Center. Key programs include: ti o Acute Care Needs f o Ambulatory Care Center o Cardiopulmonary Services o Coronary Care Unit o Emergency Services o Endoscopy Department o Intensive Care Unit o Laboratory (clinical and pathology) o Nuclear Medicine o Obstetrics o Psychiatric Services o Radiation Oncology o Radiology/ultrasound o Surgicenter 2 The Hospital District (VMC) employs a total of approximately 1 , 700 people on a 3-shift/day operating schedule. C. PROPOSAL OBJECTIVES and ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Objectives The need for this project evolves from a goal of the Hospital District which is to: "assure the health care needs of people living and working in its principal service area are met, and are met in a manner which promotes: o High quality care o Appropriate use of resources o Cost-effective delivery of services" (Ibid) . Three major factors contribute to the specific need for this project. Its purposes are to: o provide high quality, professional medical office space proximate to the Hospital to meet the existing demand by specialists and subspecialists for such space; o provide quality educational space to meet the increasing demand for: continuing medical education of doctors, nurses and support staff; and additional educational space to meet the needs of an increasing number of support programs (such as Alzheimer's, Head Injury, CPR, etc. ) ; and o relocate and consolidate the existing Ambulatory Care Center to provide more. efficient delivery of services. The applicant's objectives for the major components of the project are described below. Medical Office Building General Goals o serve the health care needs of a growing population; o meet community needs by providing a convenient location for patients to see their physicians proximate to the hospital; o emulate the model established by major U.S. health care facilities, by encouraging physician specialists to 3 r locate proximate to major health care centers -- in order to provide greater efficiency in the delivery of services, help keep medical-related costs down and reduce traffic and. parking impacts; Services/Facilities Goals o improve accessibility to the emergency room for physician specialists, who establish their practices in the vicinity of Valley Medical Center and require expedient access to the emergency room, by providing rentable medical office space in a new medical office building on the campus of Valley Medical Center, adjacent to the Hospital; o meet the expanding educational needs of the medical staff at the hospital, and the increasing needs for community continuing health-care education (health education, wellness classes, and birth classes) by providing additional space in a new medical office building on the campus of Valley Medical Center; Locational Goals o situate the medical office building so that it relates - functionally with Talbot Professional Center, Valley Medical Center Hospital and the Valley Medical Center parking garage and provides convenient and unincumbered (handicap accessible) pedestrian connections between the facilities; o site the medical office building in a location on the Hospital campus which does not inhibit future Hospital expansion; Circulation/Parking Goals r , o facilitate pedestrian traffic flow between the Valley Medical Center parking garage, Talbot Professional Center and the Hospital through elevated, covered and level walkways for the benefit of infirm individuals and to '^I minimize on-campus pedestrian/vehicular traffic I ! conflicts; o maximize the use of existing covered parking facilities and create and plan for the development of future parking facilities on the campus to meet the future needs of Valley Medical Center; 1 Design Goals o maximize the use of the Hospital's property and minimize lot coverage by developing a high-rise office structure; F- 4 o orient the medical office building on the site so that views from Talbot Professional Center are not substantially impaired and vehicular traffic circulation ( on the Valley Medical Center campus is not adversely affected; o design the medical office building to complement the architectural character of existing buildings on the campus and enhance the campus-like setting; Operational Goals o permit hospital expansion through a lease arrangement which does not draw on the capital needs of the Hospital -- for example, a possible ground lease to a partnership of physicians with the physicians building, owning and operating the building; and o provide expansion space for existing services on campus including: Cardiac Rehab Services, Cardiopulmonary Services, Social Services, Human Services and Admitting Satellite Services. Ambulatory Care Center o locate the ambulatory care facility in a central location on the Hospital campus and in a larger space in order to consolidate related functions and provide more efficient delivery of services; The Proposed Action has been framed with these objectives in mind. Four alternatives are discussed in this DEIS: the Proposed Action, a No Action alternative, a Reduced Scale Development, and a Medical Office Building (South) alternative. The following briefly describes each of these alternatives. Proposed Action The Proposed Action involves construction of a 5-story medical office building of approximately 110,970 sq. ft. (net leasable area would be approximately 103, 270 sq.ft. ) . The building would be ; I oriented in an east-west direction and separated by approximately 50 feet from Talbot Professional Center. L 5 It is proposed that the first floor of the 5-story medical office building be devoted to hospital-related uses and the upper four floors leasable space for physicians. The building would contain approximately 19, 404 sq.ft. of net leasable area on the first floor and, while the design of actual Hospital-related space on the first floor has not been finalized, it is expected that uses and leasable areas would include the following: o a 200-seat auditorium (1 ,820 sq.ft. ) ; o auditorium support storage (780 sq.ft. ) ; o offices (education and learning center - 4, 250 sq.ft. ) ; o meeting rooms (5, 520 sq.ft. ) ; o kitchen in support of the meeting rooms (660 sq.ft. ) ; o storage (1 ,850 sq.ft. ) ; o corridor, lobby, coat room (3, 050 sq.ft. ) ; and o restrooms, mechanical space & stairwell (1 ,874 sq.ft. ) . It is anticipated that the leased space on the upper floors of the medical office building (approximately 83,867 sq.ft. ) would be used as offices, clinics or laboratories -- similar to that at Talbot Professional Center. The other major element of the Proposed Action involves relocation and consolidation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center. The ACC provides comprehensive acute rehabilitation. Increases in existing ACC services and changes in standards of treatment have created increased demand for additional space. The Proposed Action would involve the relocation of ACC from the first and second floors of the Hospital (approx. 7, 300 sq. ft. ) to the lower level of the existing Psychiatry Wing. The lower level is presently shell space (approx. 18, 000 sq. ft. of gross floor area) which includes exterior wall, columns and core mechanical space. All of the usable area (roughly 85% - 90% of the shell area) would be used for ACC.. The proposed medical office building would be accessible from the south facade of the building and from two enclosed pedestrian bridges. One bridge would link the third level of the existing parking structure (immediately north) to the third floor of the new medical office building. The other would connect the third floor of the proposed medical office building to the first floor of Talbot Professional Center. Since Talbot Professional Center is already connected to the Hospital by a tunnel, the proposed skybridge would provide direct pedestrian access (covered) from the proposed medical office building to the Hospital. 6 Parking for 38 vehicles (32 standard and 6 handicap) is planned for the area immediately south of the proposed medical office building and north of the existing Psychiatry Wing. Since this area currently provides parking for approximately 50 vehicles, the net change would be a loss of roughly 12 spaces in this portion of the VMC campus. The new parking area would be accessible from VMC's other parking lots in the area and from the internal ring roadway. Alternative 1 - No Action This alternative would involve, no immediate changes to either the north or south campus areas. The site of the Proposed Action would remain as surface parking. This alternative would not satisfy any of Valley Medical Center's objectives for the project (objectives are identified in Section II C of this DEIS) . Alternative 2 - Reduced Scale Development This, alternative is similar in concept to the Proposed Action, - but would result in a medical office building of reduced scale. The smaller medical office building would be four stories high and contain approximately 87,574 sq. ft. of gross floor area, 'of which a total of 62,376 sq. ft. would be. net leasable. Of the total amount of net leasable area, approximately 62,972 sq.ft. would be allocated for physicians (floors 2 through 4) and approximately 19, 404 would be first floor Hospital-related use, similar in use and area to the Proposed Action. While this alternative would satisfy many of Valley Medical Center's objectives for this project, it would not "maximize the use of the Hospital's property and minimize lot coverage by developing a high-rise office structure. " Alternative 3 - Relocated Medical Office Building (South) This alternative would involve siting the proposed medical office building on part of the 10-acre portion of the Valley Medical Center campus located south of S. 43rd St. As with the Proposed Action, the Ambulatory Care Center would relocate and consolidate its operations in the lower level of the existing Psychiatry Wing. The bulk and scale of the medical office building would likely be the same as that of the Proposed Action. While meeting most of Valley Medical Center's. objectives, this alternative would not satisfy any of VMC's specific objectives regarding location or circulation, i.e. it would not be connected to Talbot Professional Center or the parking garage; it would not provide the required pedestrian linkages; and it would not maximize use of the existing parking structure. i-� 7 C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Maior Issues to be Resolved As a result of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Scoping process, comments were received from governmental agencies and interested citizens regarding the major issues that needed to be analyzed in this DEIS. . Those issues included the following: o Land Use: relationship of the Proposed Action and. alternatives to land use patterns in the area, existing plans and policies, and westerly views; o Traffic & Parking: effect of the Proposed Action and alternatives on traffic, parking and circulation; and o Public Services - Fire: impact on existing City of Renton fire protective services. As noted in the SEPA Rules (197-11 WAC) , the content of the DEIS is determined by the Lead Agency (in this case the City of Renton) based, in part, on key sections of the SEPA Rules (402, 408, 430 and 440) together with results of the EIS Scoping process. +� This DEIS includes an analysis of the Proposed Action and each alternative's impact on land use, traffic and parking, and fire service. The following is an overview of the environmental analysis associated with each of these major issues. Land Use Patterns Implementation of the Proposed Action would change the use and character of the area in the immediate vicinity of the site. Existing surface parking would be replaced with a 5-story building, driveways and surface parking. As indicated by Table 3, the overall pattern of land use on the entire campus would change only( slightly. Locating professional office uses on the VMC campus would capture a portion of the demand for office space in the vicinity of the Hospital and would tend to internalize associated land use impacts, such as parking, traffic and noise. Overall, development of the Proposed Action is not anticipated to generate significant land use impacts or conflicts. The Proposed Action is not likely to significantly affect the character or rate of development occurring in adjacent areas in this portion of the City. Land use changes already occurring are the result of overall growth in the area and the region. The Proposed Action could incrementally contribute to these changes. At the same time, however, the Proposed Action would tend to capture some portion of future growth and focus it onto the VMC campus. The proposed office building is generally compatible with other uses on the VMC campus. 8 The medical office building would restrict some westerly views from viewpoints along Talbot Road S. in the vicinity of the entrance to the Chin Hills Building; some westerly views from offices in Talbot Professional Center and the Chin Hills Building; and some north or northwesterly views from the Psychiatry Wing and the Hospital. Alternative 1 - No Action: In the short-term, because the site would remain undeveloped, this alternative could impact land use either directly or indirectly. Demand for additional medical office space will likely continue, however, resulting either in future development of this north campus site, a possible south campus location or an off- campus site. Alternative 2 - Reduced Scale Development: Alternative 2 (reduced scale) would result in the same type of development but at a reduced scale. Impacts, at least in the short-term, would be generally the same as the Proposed Action, but at a lesser magnitude. Reduction in height of one story would result in a subsequent reduction in view corridor impact. Alternative 3 - Medical Office Building Relocated (South) : Impacts of Alternative 3 would generally be the same as the Proposed Action. The effect on the local medical office space market would likely be the same as that of the proposal. Because of separation from the other major medical functions on the north campus, this alternative could increase the demand for developing the south campus and other adjacent properties. Such development could include additional medical office space or, in some cases, satellite operations of the major functions provided on the north campus. The north campus would likely be developed at sone future date with additional hospital-related uses. This alternative would not affect the westerly view corridor as viewed from Talbot Road S. Depending upon siting, however, it could result in a southwesterly view impact from S.W. 43rd St. Land Use - Relationship to Plans & Policies Renton's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map delineates the general area of the site as Public/Quasi-public. Public facilities are typically those which are owned, operated or franchised by a general or special purpose type of government. Quasi-public uses are those "owned or operated by a nonprofit, religious or eleemosynary institution, and providing educational, recreational religious or similar type of public program" (Renton, City of. 1983. Ord. No. 3722 Amending the Zoning Code) . The Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with this public/quasi- public designation. 9 The Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 are generally consistent with Renton's comprehensive plan's goals and policies relating to utilities, community facilities, commercial facilities and transportation. King County's Soos Creek subarea plan (covers unincorporated area which borders the project site) is presently being revised and is expected to be adopted Fall 1991 . The existing Plan was adopted in 1979. The Proposed Action and Alternative 2 are consistent with King County's existing Soos Creek subarea plan designation for the site. Alternative 3 would be inconsistent, because the proposed use is medical offices, whereas the Soos Creek Plan recommended single family. The Proposed Action is consistent with Valley Medical Center's Master Plan. The Master Plan projects probable future demand for services through the year 2005 and outlines a program of renovation and new construction to meet these increased needs. The Proposed Action is an element of the planned expansion. Design of the proposed project would be generally consistent with existing land, use regulations. Because the proposed height of the medical office building would exceed the allowed 50-foot height, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required. Traffic & Parking By 1995, the Proposed Action would generate an additional 4, 040 vehicular trips on an average weekday with 169 of those trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 397- trips during the PM peak hour. The 1995 Level-of-service analysis shows degradation of LOS at several VMC driveways along Talbot Road S. Driveway #5 at S.W. 43rd St. currently operates at LOS "F" in the AM peak hour for eastbound left turn movements. This intersection is planned for right turn in, right turn out only operation with the approved tunnel L.I.D. Emergency vehicles will be allowed to turn left either to or from S.W. 43rd St. With completion of the tunnel in 1995, the driveway will improve to LOS C or better. Additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic associated with the project may increase the number of accidents in the immediate vicinity of the site. It is not expected that the overall accident rate or pattern of accidents would be altered significantly, because historically pedestrian and vehicular traffic accidents in this area have been minimal. L.I.D. construction, which is expected to begin in 1991 , will enhance the safety of travel between north and south campus. Valley Medical Center is presently well served by Metro transit service; no expansion or service revisions are expected. 10 Valley Medical Center's existing Transportation Management Plan is being re-evaluated in light of this project. The Proposed Action would increase overall campus parking demand by approximately 385 stalls to a total of. 1 ,899 parking spaces. The Ambulatory Care Center relocation and consolidation is not expected to change existing parking demand associated with this facility. Future parking demand generated by the Proposed Action can be accommodated by. existing facilities on the VMC campus. In addition, Conditional Use approval has recently been granted by the City of Renton to Valley Medical Center for expansion of the existing parking garage by 800 spaces (total 1 , 100 spaces) - in order to meet existing and future demand on campus. Construction of. this parking garage expansion is scheduled to begin in 1991 with completion prior to occupancy of the proposed Medical Office Building II. Public Services - Fire . During construction, the proposed project could temporarily increase the potential. for fire and obstruction to fire fighting equipment, as a result of construction materials and debris, on- _ site movement of constructiion equipment and on-site construction- related traffic congestion. The long term impact of the project on the Renton Fire Prevention Bureau would be an increased demand for fire protective services (life and property protection) . In an effort to lessen the overall demand for fire services at the campus, VMC and the Renton Fire Protection Bureau are developing a plan and schedule for retrofitting those areas of the existing hospital which are not sprinklered. The plan will be completed prior to any further major construction on campus. Because the site would remain undeveloped with the No Action alternative, no direct or indirect fire service impacts would be expected. Alternatives 2 & 3 are not expected to result in fire service impacts which are substantially different from those noted for the Proposed Action. I i 11 D. MITIGATION MEASURES o It is expected that for those intersections that are already at LOS F, VMC together with other developers in the area would pay their fair share of needed improvements. o Continuation and re-evaluation of Valley Medical Center's Transportation Management Plan. o Contribution of a Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee, based on the increase in traffic generated by the Proposed Action. o Project design in compliance with the requirements of the Renton Fire Prevention Bureau. o Development of a plan and schedule by VMC and the Renton Fire Prevention Bureau to retrofit those areas of the hospital which are not sprinklered. The plan will be completed prior to any further major construction on campus. E. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED o Reduction in LOS for certain intersections in the vicinity of the VMC. A small portion of this LOS reduction would be attributable to the Proposed Action. o Increased demand on the Renton Fire Protection Bureau for fire protective services. 12 SECTION II PROJECT DESCRIPTION and ALTERNATIVES 13 SECTION II PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ALTERNATIVES A. PROPONENT / PROJECT LOCATION 1 . Proponent The proposed Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building and Ambulatory Care Center is sponsored by King County Public Hospital District No. 1 . 2. Pro-ect Location The site of the Proposed Action is approximately a one-half acre area in the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center campus, north of the Hospital and the Psychiatry Wing and west of Talbot Professional Center (Figures 1 & 2) . The Ambulatory Care Center will be relocated from the Hospital to the lower level of the Psychiatry Wing (existing building) . The address of the property is 400 South 43rd Street Renton, Washington 98056. B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1 . King County Public Hospital District Number 1 Valley Medical Center (VMC) is a part of King County Public Hospital District Number 1 . The District was established through election by residents of the Renton, Kent and Tukwila area in 1947 and incorporated as a municipal corporation in 1948. The Hospital District is owned by residents of Public Hospital District Number 1 and is governed by a publicly-elected board of commissioners. The District encompasses an_ area of approximately 100 square miles and, as depicted in Figure 3, extends from SE 48th St. to SE 336th St. and from Interstate 5 to 228th Ave. SE. The primary service area for the Hospital includes Renton, Kent, Tukwila and unincorporated Southeast King County. The estimated population in this service area is--approximately 374, 000 (Valley Medical Center, 1989) . The projected population in the service area, based on VMC's Master Plan, was 540, 000 (Mahlum & ' Nordfors. 1987. Valley Medical Center Master Site Plan and Functional Program) . The difference between these two service area population estimates is because: o the Master Plan service area covers a slightly larger area.; o the Master Plan was prepared in 1987, as compared with the Facts Pamphlet in 1989; and ;� 14 III o the Master Plan estimated the 1985 population of the service area to be approximately 500, 000 and projected . the 1990 service area population increase based upon growth characteristics which had occurred to that time. 7 15 . 11 ` f V-'‘h..N.. . ' • `• .. \ " SrI pa _ � � a.ta .j 1 i •7 �,•-J S '3I1 : , N YOE= l yy OS S 1 ✓ � 1/13.!7‘ rttSY lanes a)YR > • . ____, . mitioiri5 If newortimma: ::,..4. a :ri,. st N'a ri: hl"isimal,K4,131- • _ < ° Renton y--""' , Icswlt IA2 ; iii.tl•:b rOyyl4 ..; �:j� II • • Ol,w f IR Asa } `o-,':'t,'• ' Nil or-m-uv I �IdJ� '' WSW. w/`'••.. ' . .1S. sn ::PIT / „a�� 1'1���I d7iHighlands"y��.� ."4 4 �' `r . w ': ��ff tYMityl SCC`is�itiaa . s,_s'R .' = o < $ a4: 'JERI MIN. I i B . �l,: 'E'. ziw. rIF \' ; .nw•, • OF CONCyY., 'lit 1 ����� raum matlm tT , NT et :) ; OM \l/,Si , ..1 . fILiYR y1WO)IOTA/t Sal,Y o,aayar ,nsyaru 1Lr1al� _vim�BO�[Il�i� Ate' ' � samu,s Y,.IL ."LIIM7• t', ; _ • i ° PP: Erg . w.. r ". rend no,o. riFic[o m SI',;;,,s,� raa w-.rAsa htaplew. <t.. moan SLUT // /_'I_ [airy c y . Q \ ti �Rlr,�� `W� - ye ` 4 s 4'' / 1 `•i'� e1tir fi �� �'t ir r• I t !; ! •22 u� r .. o . , „j NM Ta.All �Y ? xr.,2 �1 ke �� ,. • . ■ay.y y Clr♦ 3 „ Y ± IA ;f 1. 6 imam �. :R ,.nu ytr3 } ■fools , fete. me !!�, 'Ys1 ill hriMgoi tk \ I LL _ .. __ ..1�T) I[S. 1111"11.411111175141ffr Y r„ y_ Ila„ / I. 1 . V for Hells =e'» ��� � I , ' • yr•s - 'n st . • 2 S Sty ),,:.. n Z !� i Y• r ;, y�; s ion rim ��_ ...e6 -� t� ��/ � x y y • \- or 1 ,.. ,....' G.�.r•.,� s n , 3 ,. i • �' 4y.�' Boulevard •Y,r a t' a I , Si ; , - -g IJtle• ' 1 R . 1 Yu YMlrl ! [ 1 1.� • .'• Yr j!Pill, \\, y Yy,. Y w s. Y w c, s J /• • • ...1st .\Slut)I , Y A .ar 9 Y. , k. B. " .. srlu/:eoox' -\\ 'Ma '►, ya [ Fares �j�� q v • • "I.. .S\T[alls _ • i 1 _ + `' . �St uos•MA tw Y.__..___.—. y• s 1 Y ., a' thy of: j R I • I�,.... ' f `� .ems \IW.tenhedRenton �I!I r. I rMr YvaP-^• ., - , FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP Nu,kellIWeinminA #iiiIes, Ini 16 • Proposed Garage Expansion �\ / -0 -1 I rJ b4) j:::::1:::\rVV•%,. I ; {T 17:7C77% r ,, etti 7..:::.g'::f \.4,4,' \.;...',..,...„,. .0 :.::.: a\\\,,,,, . ' ''.^*._::LNorth Campus • , .1.::.::.,:!:::.::::: „\.\\.‘zoi ,,,4.1 .........., :/!.. i 7- ... ii ,;::::: ,,,,::'.1..: 4:'i.:::.::... e ty. :::'7 ,:i.": i::.•...2( z?. r l SW 43rd St VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER South Campus y P,® y LEGEND / PJ` ° AB Hospital B Talbot Professional Center C Chin Hills Building D Psychiatry Wing E Warehouse • F G RadiationParkingGaragelogy Onco Center H Medic Services \\ Proposed Site alik MAHwM&NORDFORS ,...,.,. Existing Loop Road 2503 hid MIv.San4.WA Will•IIDY WI.051 FIGURE 2 CAMPUS PLAN • t 1101111111/1113ASI �C, 17 . . . - •••••fit . moo ..1 • i • i i "." 1 _ 7 . . • se IT . . ,:- , 4 : _, ..I 1 : 4441/wee liklil . ' Lase. ..;".. Ill* • I . • • • IVAN 1. 0 MS • I.US 11 hi, 16 ,.---*'1.'cpul5/1 g Num. ., • gun ... •• • . . . . ‘71.1.ii, . ,,/II) %wave L-1 ll_. :: -.10 A ' I ....., lioliii c„., . ,..,.,„ • ,.____.„. 1 . 5....... ...... , . • . 110 ....., g , . ...1 .4- ; . . • ,...1 . . , i •ro .... . •,,- \=:.. ..... I nem 11 . . . MN. a .i• . I I il;11113 II 19.IT I ' %,-, ' • II I..if ...ii ...... , . . . ..... ..., . ,s..... rue m NNNAG . , a ik,„,41 : • I . II WI Si MY --1 •••••,.. MINN • L_ , IN 7,011 . ... — • .__ • , clip • 1...„,...,,, ii ,. ,• ..... , , Til, . llFinlfir l_liliro ,...... ... 1 41,- , • .8111, • '.1.1?....i i . I•ii. LW 1 mope. 1 . i I 1 . • : 1 : • : ) ..: _. , , . •- ...... . WI L. IMMO 1 . ,_: . . ......, i iii IV _ A.$MIR • 1 L IC --... . . • .1 / .11114411 • , . II. 11 I 11 1 . mo, 'o • 1-I 1*... m N t ; r.i .... . , II 111 IT • •• FIGURE 3 . - ...., , KING COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT #11 11 ill I 111 kit 114 till H --' i ! 1 8 j-, U The overall. mission of the Hospital District (and Valley Medical Center) is to: "assure the health care needs of people living and working in its principal service area are met, and are met in a manner which promotes: o High quality care o Appropriate use of resources o Cost-effective delivery of services" (Valley Medical Center, 1989) , King County Public Hospital District Number 1 provides a broad range of health care services and programs, all of which are located on the 42-acre campus of Valley Medical Center. Key programs include: o Acute Care Needs o Ambulatory Care Center o Cardiopulmonary Services o Coronary Care Unit o Emergency Services o Endoscopy Department o Intensive Care Unit o Laboratory (clinical and pathology) o Nuclear Medicine o Obstetrics o Psychiatric Services o Radiation Oncology o Radiology/ultrasound o Surgicenter The Hospital District (VMC) employs a total of approximately 1 , 700 people on a 3-shift/day operating schedule. Of these, approximately 359 are staff physicians representing 22 medical specialties and subspecialities. Table 1 provides a comparison between 1989 and 1984 statistics (most current five-year data) . As shown, the Hospital's outpatient surgeries have increased by 83%, births by 73% and emergency visits by 59%. Total patient days and admissions have increased by 7% and 20% respectively. The average length of hospital stays has declined, indicating that Valley Medical Center is servicing more people in shorter patient stays than in 1984. 1 , 19 rr Table 1 HOSPITAL OPERATIONAL STATISTICS - 1989 & 1984 Parameter 1989 1984 % Change o total patient days 69, 901 65, 077 +7 o admissions 16, 143 13, 411 +20 o emergency visits 50, 000 31 , 409 +59 o outpatients referred (visits) 55,500 37, 124 +49 o live births + �1 . equivalent deliveries 3, 360 1 ,947 +73 o average length of stay (days) 4 33 4.85 -11 o outpatient surgeries 8, 022 4, 393 +83 4-_I Source: Valley Medical Center 2. Valley Medical Center Campus As shown ,in Figure 2, eight buildings are located on the campus of Valley Medical Center, with a. total building area of approximately 930, 650 sq. ft. Data (actual counts) for each building is provided below. 4 i a. Hospital o 3-story, 651 , 000 sq. ft. of gross floor area o licensed for. 303 beds; 296 existing o staff: day shift - 580 to 600/day swing shift - 190 to 200/day night shift - 85 to 110/day 1 b. Talbot Professional Center o principal use: medical offices ri o 5-story, 100, 000 sq. ft. of gross floor area o staff: 180 to 200/day (including doctors) c. Chin Hills Building o principal use: medical offices o 4-story, 48, 000 sq. ft. of gross floor area o staff: 180 to 200/day (including doctors) d. Psychiatry Wing o 2-story, 52, 000 sq. ft. of gross floor area ( 18, 000 sq.ft. shelled but unoccupied at this time) o staff: included in Hospital total 20 fl e. Warehouse o principal use: warehouse, purchasing & data processing o 1-story, 8,900 sq. ft. of gross floor area o staff: day shift - 14/day night shift - 1 /day f. Parking Structure o 3 1 /2 level, 62, 000 sq. ft. , 298-car capacity o Conditional Use Permit #00689 has recently been approved to allow expansion of this parking structure by 800 spaces (total - approximately 1 , 100 spaces) . Construction will start in 1991 and be completed prior to occupancy of the proposed Medical Office Building II. g. Radiation Oncology Center o principal use: examination and treatment o 1-story, 4,800 sq. ft. of gross floor area o staff: 7 - 8/day h. Medic Services o principal use: emergency medical dispatch o 1-story, 3, 950 sq. ft. o staff: 4 each for the day/swing/night shifts Several master planning documents have been prepared by Valley [ Medical Center to guide future campus development. The two most recent plans include: the Master Site Plan and Functional Program (Mahlum & Nordfors, 1987) and the 5-year Strategic Plan (Valley Medical Center, 1988) . The Proposed Action is a functional element that was planned for in both of these documents. 1 The purpose of the Master Site Plan and Functional Program is to provide a physical development scheme to meet anticipated growth requirements of VMC to the year 2005 . The study examines population characteristics and projected growth within King County Public Hospital District Number 1 ; evaluates historic service demands for key departments based on one or more parameters (e.g. , patient days, #beds, length of stay, visits) ; projects future space needs i by department; identifies development zones within the north and south campus areas; and identifies renovation and new on-campus space needs to 2005. ? I ! ' 21 The 5-year Strategic Plan examines the programmatic and facility changes necessary within the short term (1989 - 1993) at Valley Medical . Center. Seven key operational concerns are considered, including: o potential new programs; o campus development; o marketing; o human resources; o data processing and computer services; J'; o medical staff relations; and • o finance. Recent development which has occurred on campus, as well as the Proposed Action presented in this draft EIS, are intended to implement the planning direction provided by these two documents. • • • jr. rt f , i1 22 I ' 1 u C, j, C. NEED FOR PROJECT AND PROPONENT'S OBJECTIVES King County Public Hospital ,District Number 1. proposes to build a new medical office building and to relocate and consolidate functions of the existing Ambulatory Care Center. This proposal. is in response to a- growing demand for certain services on the Valley T-; Medical Center campus. Table 1 (page 16) presents statistical information relative to recent growth in services at VMC. The needs that this proposal is responding to are described below: Office Space The existing Talbot Professional Center and Chin Hills Building on campus are fully occupied; ,both are medical office buildings containing a total of approximately 148,000 sq. ft. Valley Medical Center indicates that there is a shortage of high quality professional medical office space, comparable to that of Talbot Professional Center and the Chin Hills Building, located in close proximity to the Hospital (Scott, 1990) . This is based on conversations between representatives of the Hospital and physicians (specialists and sub-specialists') trying to find office space in the area. A new medical office building connected to the Hospital would provide professional office space for. specialists and sub-specialists who need to be near their patients, other I specialists and the specialized facilities provided by the Hospital. ; Education ' An expanded educational facility is needed for continuing I medical education of doctors, nurses and technical support staff. 11 During February and March, 1990, 52 professional educational programs were offered as part of medical staff continuing education. Valley Medical Center also offers 50 on-going f educational/support programs (such as the Alzheimer's Support Group, CPR classes and the Head Injury Foundation) and provides free, on-the-job training services for 30 'schools across the country. This latter program provides hands-on technical training (several students at a time) from such facilities as Renton Voc.- Tech. -' Ambulatory Care , The Hospital's existing ambulatory care program provides comprehensive acute rehabilitation including: physical and 1M` occupational therapy, children's therapy, speech/language and neuroevaluation (EEG) . Increases in existing ambulatory care services and changes in standards of treatment have created increased demand for additional space. Physical therapy and occupational therapy services alone have grown by 40% over the past four years. Existing Ambulatory Care Center facilities were ate, established in 1969. Relocation and consolidation would allow more efficient delivery of services. `I 23 � I _ 1 - In response to growth in demand for medical services, VMC has identified a need to provide additional office space on campus and to relocate and consolidate some existing functions. The f applicant's objectives for the major components of the project are described below. Medical Office Building General Goals J ', o serve the health care needs of a growing population; o meet community needs by providing a convenient location for patients to see their physicians proximate to the hospital, -- in order to minimize travel time and distance for patients and reduce the number of medical/hospital-related vehicular , _{ trips in the area; o remain competitive with other hospital facilities in the Puget Sound region, and emulate the model established by major U.S. health care. facilities, by encouraging physician specialists to locate proximate to major health care centers -- in order to provide greater efficiency in the delivery of services, help keep medical-related costs down and reduce traffic and parking impacts; IJ li Services/Facilities Goals o improve accessibility to the emergency room (one of the rJ` largest in the Northwest) for physician specialists, who. establish their practices in the vicinity of Valley Medical Center and require ,expedient access to the emergency room, by providing rentable medical office space in a new medical office building on the campus of Valley Medical Center, adjacent to the Hospital; �ri o meet the expanding educational needs of the medical staff at the hospital, and the increasing needs for community continuing health-care education (health education, Iy" wellness classes, and birth classes) by providing additional space which includes an auditorium, classrooms and kitchen facilities (in support of the auditorium and classrooms) in a new medical office building on the campus of Valley Medical Center; Locational 'Goals 6- ? situate the medical office building so that it relates functionally with Talbot Professional Center, Valley Medical Center Hospital and the Valley Medical Center '; parking garage and provides convenient and unincumbered (handicap accessible) pedestrian connections between the facilities; ~j 24 o site the medical office building in a location on the Hospital campus which does not inhibit. future Hospital expansion; Circulation/Parking' Goals ti o facilitate pedestrian traffic flow between the Valley . Medical Center parking garage, Talbot Professional Center and the Hospital through elevated, covered and level walkways for the benefit of infirm individuals and to minimize on-campus p pedestrian/vehicular traffic conflicts; r Y: o maximize the use of existing covered parking facilities and create and plan for the development of future parking facilities on the, campus to meet the future needs of 1-7 Valley Medical Center; Design Goals C • o maximize the use of the Hospital's property and minimize lot coverage by developing a high-rise office structure; o orient the medical office building on the site so that views from Talbot Professional Center are not substantially impaired and vehicular traffic circulation on the Valley Medical Center campus is not adversely affected; design the medical office building to complement the architectural character of existing buildings on the campus and enhance the campus-like setting; Operational Goals o permit hospital expansion through a lease arrangement which does not draw on the capital needs of the Hospital -- for example, a possible ground lease to a partnership of physicians with the physicians building, owning and operating the building; and Li 4_, I ' 25 f o provide expansion space for existing services on campus '- ` including: Cardiac Rehab Services, Cardiopulmonary Services, Social Services, Human Services and Admitting Satellite Services. Ambulatory Care Center o locate the ambulatory care facility in a central L location on the Hospital campus and in ,a larger space in order to consolidate related functions and provide more Yi efficient delivery of services; 7�. The Proposed Action has been framed with these objectives in mind. D. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action involves two major elements: construction of a medical office building and relocation and consolidation of the ambulatory care center. Each component is described below. 1 . Medical Office Building II: Building Siting and Uses The proposed medical office building with ,connecting skybridges (connecting to Talbot Professional Center and Valley Medical Center parking garage) would be constructed in the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center campus (Figure 2) . " The building would be located on approximately a one-half acre site L.2 north of the Psychiatry Wing, west of Talbot Professional Center and south of the parking structure (Figure 4) . The building would be oriented in an east-west direction and separated by approximately 50 feet from Talbot Professional Center. Li 1 IZ 6 L 26 ,I ' f 1 4 —a n \.....) ...>„,...,• ..,•.\,,,\.,,,,Z:r.,?.:,..,•0„.1., 14;„ ,� O /1 skybridge Al i I +*,�z�� S�Ca: i.. ,.A,,m,.2'k,k, 141, . ������a.„• .‘.,• ,,'s:A:,,'.'-,„•,i• ,,,.1,V C ,,ate.;:„;,''¢,.,7c;Y: . AC Y Talbot ,.)..,• •,,-,,• .s.,,,.i,i,.„,',a, �•.�s kybridge :,- ::k,,y Professional • 1 .. ,. —t-0 ::,, Center. 1 > .--/ is •� +,hi� LLaan,k.•t ti:G3 \ ,. \22,, ,i °a' ;4. : <'?i`z.,eY ti ` 1,,.a.,% „j�;';: ,, •fx"3 tC, • � `';i•.F3`.`,�,+•'j O `�.?j €:•.,kG;c?;,, '\•r Y�c:'{aWF:a3,�,�,»:a?;a .�;. ,,,, yw , .,< a.ai am,• „,,,v„„•'F`A ,,s„.y tizi aFr. y.L> ,-i y^'ati •!a ' $S:aaz,:xLi..ts.;:a�{$fi:>$:!,:z:;��v!�it.k`4R .q?<\i`t���„:...,��Ka;:cz\a� i\.•°YS.Y\T �I „, " ,.... ,...b •,„,�`.•`.'.;.\i^�• ?ti,,,, ,i.:s32�q , Z,,•?3. ia&\ t`'\'�,4�e�?s�"3:5:;�3r\f��+.yz :;L^.s�\5��:?���w}(e ^`��,Cz2;.`n&�ym. € i�r'?• `3 �yti; J : ,,,; k•••,.. •• „L.,y � ,ash" ze!... ate`•;, :??„.•, Psychiatry Wing Hospital <;, ° ,J —} (new location for Ambulatory � `11 ulatory ::3, " ' Care Center is in the lower level) . „,i•,•,. F d Q ,43 h Sty\z'S! o I llek L._ a�'<:'• G 40, so' Existing Buildings % Proposed Buildings AROCECTURE.FiCU1,NORD l INTERIORS C."', 2S0S Third Ampule.Spank.WA 981Z1•(2061 441-4151 )` FIGURE 4 SITE P H6IIIW8inm3nAD:it8s,In , ;� 2 7 I The total gross square footage in the proposed medical office - „ building would be approximately 110,970 sq. ft. and the net leaseable area would be approximately 103,270 sq.ft. The 7, 700 }- i sq.ft. difference between gross and net areas is based on the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) area calculation methodology. Based on this, gross floor area includes the area of r.-', the entire building shell, measured to the exterior of all exterior , walls. Net leaseable or rentable area, based on BOMA, excludes - such areas as the exterior walls, stairways, elevator and mechanical shafts, and permanent mechanical and electrical rooms i- which serve the entire building. The following are proposed building areas based on the gross floor area and net leaseable area by floor: floor gross floor area net leaseable 1 21 ,594 sq.ft. 19, 404 sq.ft. I ! 2 20,988 - 19,844 -' 3 22,846* 21 ,963 4 22, 326 21 , 165 7 5 22,326 21 , 165 1,, roof 886 0 TOTAL 110,966 sq.ft. 103, 271 sq.ft. 1i * includes both skybridges totaling 1 , 296 sq.ft. J ', It is proposed that the first floor of the 5-story medical office building be devoted to hospital-related uses and the upper ,:- four floors leasable space for physicians. While the design of actual Hospital-related space on the first floor has not been `___ finalized, it is expected that uses and leaseable areas would include the following: o a 200-seat auditorium (1 ,820 sq.ft. ) ;• o auditorium support storage (780 sq.ft. ) ; -- o offices (education and learning center - 4, 250 sq.ft. ) ; o meeting rooms (5, 520 sq.ft. ) ; _1 o kitchen in support of the meeting rooms (660 sq.ft. ) ; _ o storage (1 , 850 sq.ft. ) ; o corridor, lobby, coat room (3, 050 sq.ft. ) ; and 1 o restrooms, mechanical space & stairwell t (1 , 874 sq.ft. ) . It is anticipated that the leased space on the upper floors of 1 the medical office building (approximately 83,867 sq.ft. ) would be used as offices, clinics or laboratories -- similar to that at Talbot Professional Center. �y ` 1 J� I LJ � 1 28 ,I fl- ' I Access and Parking ay' The proposed medical office building would be accessible from several locations. Two pedestrian entrances are proposed for the south facade of the building -- the westerly entry would provide access to the first floor and the easterly entry would access the ti second floor (Figure 5) . In addition, two enclosed pedestrian bridges are proposed (Figure 4) . One bridge would link the third level of the existing parking structure to the third floor of the new medical office JI building. The other would connect the third floor of the proposed medical office building to the first floor of Talbot Professional ! Center. Since Talbot Professional Center is already connected to the Hospital by a tunnel, the proposed skybridge would provide direct pedestrian access (covered) from the proposed medical office building to the Hospital. Parking for 38 vehicles (32 standard and 6 handicap) is planned for the area immediately south of the proposed medical office building and north of the existing Psychiatry Wing (Figure 4) . Since this area currently provides parking for approximately 50 vehicles, the net change would be a loss of approximately 12 spaces from this portion of the campus. The new parking area would be accessible from VMC's other parking lots in the area and from the internal ring roadway (Figure 2) . jfr Service 'vehicle access to the building would be from the north side of the building. One loading dock is proposed, accessible from the existing internal circulation road. This loading access lane is not expected to interfere with existing traffic circulation in the area. Building Design The medical office building would continue existing design themes found in other buildings on the VMC campus. This includes the use of similar material for the facade, similar facade color and the use of stepped setbacks at key corners of the building. Figures .6 and 7 present elevations of each facade. r- Specifically, the exterior of the building is expected to be a C_' synthetic stucco-like material off-white in color with light gray accents. Glazing would be blue-green tinted and insulated glass (same as Talbot Professional Center) to reduce energy consumption. I ! The glass would not be highly reflective (in the range of 8 to 20 percent) .Li As shown byFigure8, the top p of the parapet would be approximately 70 feet above the finish elevation of the first ' I floor. A rooftop mechanical penthouse ( 32 ft. x 110 ft. - L2 including the elevator penthouse) could extend above the parapet approximately 9 feet. f L_' 29 r-- • r I-- Talbot Professional Center. `t oy 01111110_ Ili.. 11101111011r. , F 7;R c sr ♦w 5 nl 1 •m�+ tuugg , Y li • 1 iy b lP°3 50�71111 ll!i il E.� J.i�tl1A� r �ta7 r�t`+i�"f @��SC�,3,7.SaSS�'qq�-.flp - Rutitl,'?``4LrL.ti' L sf�Ll V hts.g.k,kg i'j��','taS �a9•�c�r c��- _,� 7.71 r 'i I`. .1lr --_ •-��� • ''li � �7��I::rg:?I:�:1.:.r.rsfiif II III ''. • �I r - 1 \\ '� 7 1,0 yLI'l ��• 7L l 1 �.� \� — • }• I ! !1 rI e 1 le�l r9 1! .,c••-E�. :. tn1i!r 1 i IIItI fir. \Ln I\ > NIA �_ �11a1 "M -->t. - '_ � ,•. ►-:,..:,.r- Illy — r �_ mil _ _ I h I MAHLUM&NORDFORS raoaTECILRE•►ram FLAMING•MRWGas LSO Thad Amnia..Std.WA%III• YI.•ISI 1- FIGURE 5 PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING kill/ �I111 kilt Gl It AS VIEWED FROM THE SOUTHWEST 30 • • Talbot Professional Center • • 1 - [ • 1 70 Cl.. .- i i . . . - --- j • WWI III If nnlnnl Till uI)v n n !"' ■11 I r r • • VI I_ M — — ...- —— irosm 1117112111-1-111-01 • 0 I :�. •b :! • IIBs -- SOUTH ELEVATION Talbot Professional Center • i I _. Psychiatry Wing IIIIv 1'l I V d I l Iyyl1W1 177 ' �a •`~ '~,'' A I r N.. I • • • 1 �r TT 1 it WEST ELEVATION • MAF•II111V1&NORDFORS wunana e•F anrn�waG•raeaoes mI ear wamm.Sic rw fmn•Mil..L.IIS • FIGURE 6 • SOUTH & WEST ELEVATIONS 1 I II� e el M Ati41 1p 1►vGJ� 31 . rJ' Talbot Professional Center • • • III K. wn0IIII I, II/ 0111I1. riiii® - . 'i r . • unn • 1 • In 11 i Iv Iv ,■ • • *NAL t • NORTH ELEVATION ' • • • • IILLI1 • �OI��I■ II■■■�11■ ■■■ ■■II■■■■I■■■■I■■■■I■■■■II■I MEI ��■■■�11■ ■■■ ■■11��1 •Nrc1■l r 1 '} o■ i mealaa�I. MUM 11111111 • I�I■����1= ■II■I� EAST ELEVATION 7 1-1 • • MAHLUM&NORDFORS NOfIECR1R•SML51NNON G•SVI90 SS ECG Third ha .She W11Y51•OM 4614151 FIGURE 7 • NORTH & EAST ELEVATIONS ffVIk8iIjflffl3flA $j /flfI UJ • 32 • 70 ft..... a iI I I I i 1 I I.. 11 • f-- r- I 1,,_ . il i 1 _- — _. . _ _._� �� - s iI 1 ', I I , I i I I- .! �..I --- .. �r I1C I i I T ., l li r • + .�1i,®Ilreli,W trAWATOM s'vsaY'_ ML-I ' 1 Auerxofkr1 E'aUII_bI14C.q SECTION MAHUJM&NORDFORS _,�. . •I., — NM IlMd Assn"5.ol..Nw fun•CAI 441.1,E1 FIGURE 8 1 1 CROSS-SECTION OF PROPOSED MEDICAL 11 Ifoil/ As A�1OFFICE BUILDING AS VIEWED � � GJiix LOOKING EAST M , 33 Landscaping While a detailed landscape plan has not been prepared at this ' time, VMC indicates that landscaping in p' g is proposed for planting. areas along the south, west and north facades of the building. The area of the north facade is already landscaped with lawn, dwarf spiraea, compact Oregon grape and English ivy. The largest concentration of landscaping would likely occur along the building's south facade,, because of the greater expanse of area. Figure 5 shows an artist conception of this landscape are a. P P A sidewalk around the loop of the access drive would provide access to the existing stairway which leads to the fountain. The stairway is flanked by, English ivy, boxwood and rhododendrons. The fountain is located between Talbot Professional Center and the Psychiatry Wing. } Existing Uses The site of the Proposed Action is currently surface parking (approximately 50 spaces) with landscaped planting strips. All existing parking would be removed for construction and staging; 38. spaces would be replaced. Construction Construction of the medical office building would require a limited amount of demolition (surface parking) and grading. It is estimated that approximately 6, 350 cubic yards of material would have to be excavated for the first floor of the building. The medical office building would be connected to existing utilities in this portion of the north campus area. All existing surface parking on the site (approximately 50 spaces) would be temporarily affected by construction, construction equipment and the stockpiling of materials. It is expected that loss of parking at this location during construction would be ri accommodated at other parking areas on the north or south campus, since this parking area is normally fully utilized. 2. Ambulatory Care Center: Siting and Design The other major element_ of the Proposed Action involves relocation and consolidation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center. As previously noted, ACC provides comprehensive acute rehabilitation including physical and occupational therapy, children's therapy, speech/language and neuroevaluation (EEG) . Increases in existing ACC services and changes in standards of treatment have created increased demand for additional space. The Proposed Action would involve the relocation of ACC from the first and second floors of the Hospital (approx. 7, 300 sq. ft. ) to the lower level of the existing Psychiatry Wing. The lower �` 34 level consists of approximately 18, 000 sq. ft. of undeveloped (shell) space, of which approximately 85% to 90% would be usable space for ACC. The existing facade of the lower level of the Psychiatry Wing would be altered to include glazing. Glass and spandrel panels would be the same grey tint currently used on the first floor of this building. Relocation of the Ambulatory Care Center from the first and second floors of the Hospital would make approximately 7, 350 sq. ' ft. available for expansion of other existing services. According to VMC, no new services are anticipated., Planned changes include: o Cardiac Rehab Services and Cardiopulmonary Services would expand into the space currently occupied by the Physical Therapy Department; o Cardiopulmonary Services would also occupy the former EMG space and the existing office of the director of Rehab Services; {i o Social Services would expand into the former Speech and Hearing Office; o Human Services would expand into the space formerly occupied by Occupational Therapy; o Admitting Satellite Services would occupy the former Rehab Services Office; and o The existing shared therapy office would be utilized as r-- expansion space for other existing services. Access Primary access to the Ambulatory Care Center would be from a new entry located at ground level in the northeast corner of the building (accessible from the proposed parking area) . An elevator and stairway would connect the ACC to the first floor of the ; Psychiatry Wing, which has direct pedestrian connections to the Hospital and Talbot Professional Center. The first floor of the Psychiatry Wing is used for voluntarily L, committed psychiatric patients. On occasion, Valley Medical Center • will temporarily hold involuntarily committed psychiatric patients awaiting transfer to a more secure facility. VMC indicates that there will be no contact between patients and staff of the new Ambulatory Care Center on the lower level and psychiatry patients { on the first floor. To ensure this separation, VMC would implement the following security measures as an element of the Proposed �._ Action: o design the facility so that part of the Psychiatric Unit ! can be locked-down to retain patients until transfer to a more secure facility; jr ' 35 , • the elevator and adjacent stairs which would lead to the proposed ACC on the lower level are located in an existing public area on the first floor which is outside r ' of the Psychiatric Unit; o the public area would be constantly. monitored (by nursing ' personnel) . and access to the Psychiatric Unit controlled by keypad. entry or 'a remote door release signal from the L nurse stations; o the two stairways located in the Psychiatric Unit (not the stairway located in the public area) would be armed to sound an alarm whenever the doors are opened; and o the two stairways located in the Psychiatric Unit would exit to the exterior of the Psychiatry Wing with no direct connection to the proposed ACC. j1 E. ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 - No Action This alternative would involve no immediate changes to either the north or south campus areas. The site of the Proposed Action would remain as surface parking. No development involving office space, auditorium, classrooms 'or other elements associated with the Proposed Action would occur in this area of the campus. Demand for this type and magnitude of development would, however, remain. This could intensify pressure for development and/or redevelopment of other areas on campus or off-site property adjacent to the campus. This alternative would not satisfy any of Valley Medical Center's objectives for the project. ' i ti r L 36 Alternative 2 - Reduced Scale Development This alternative, while similar in concept to the Proposed Action, would reduce the scale of the medical office building. The smaller medical office building would be four stories high and contain approximately 87, 750 sq. ft. of gross floor area, of which it is estimated 82, 100 sq. ft. would be net rentable. The amount of net leasable area for physicians (floors 2 through 4) would be 62, 700 sq. ft. and the first floor hospital-related use would likely remain the same as the Proposed Action (approximately 19, 404 sq. ft. net rentable) . Most other elements of this alternative -- including location on the campus, access, building orientation, design concept, landscaping and hospital-related use of the first floor -- would remain the same as the Proposed Action. Like the preferred alternative, construction of this alternative would require reconfiguration of the existing parking area with provision for a total of 37 spaces. The Ambulatory Care Center, however, would still relocate and consolidate its operations in the lower level of the existing Psychiatry Wing. While this alternative would satisfy many of Valley Medical Center's objectives for this project, it would not "maximize the use of the Hospital's property and minimize lot coverage by developing a high-rise office structure. " A reduction in the amount of square footage of office space for this alternative could result in the need for additional medical office development elsewhere on-site (or off-site) in order to meet estimated market demand. This alternative could accelerate the need for development and/or redevelopment in other areas of the campus or adjacent off-site property, in order to meet the demand for office space adjacent to the Hospital. Alternative 3 - Relocated Medical Office Building (South) This alternative, depicted in Figure 9, would involve siting the proposed medical office building on a portion of the 10-acre segment of the Valley Medical Center campus located south of S. 43rd St. As with the Proposed Action, the Ambulatory Care Center would relocate and consolidate its operations in the lower level of the existing Psychiatry Wing. The bulk and scale of the medical office building would likely be the same as that of the Proposed Action -- approximately five stories in height with 110, 970 sq. ft. of gross floor area and approximately 103, 270 sq. ft. net rentable area. Of the total rentable area, it is estimated that approximately 83, 170 sq. ft. would be leasable space on the upper floors (2 through 5) for medical offices. rJ 37 —� SW 43rd St 1 n dipip „4" J.• - O .. - N o ioo FIGURE 9 POSSIBLE BUILDING LOCATION - MC O OI�IIIN� FOCI pS ICI SOUTH CAMPUS ALTERNATIVE 38 Uses contained' within a medical office building at this location would probably be the same as those included in the Proposed Action. The first 'floor would likely be dedicated to Hospital-related uses (such as an auditorium, classrooms and education offices) with the upper four floors used as leasable space for physicians. Because of the northeast-southwest alignment of. Davis Avenue South and the north-south configuration of the property in this portion of the campus, the medical office building could be oriented in almost any direction (depending upon which lots are utilized) . Figure 9 depicts one possibility. Architectural design and associated design elements would , likely be the same as that of the Proposed Action. . Access to the building would be from Davis Street South. Davis Street S. is currently accessible from S. 43rd Street. By 1991 this south portion of the campus will be connected to the north campus via a .tunnel beneath S. 43rd St. (Figures 2 & 9) . improvement The tunnel is an im f p proposed by Valley Medical Center and funded through an L.I.D. Design is complete; and construction is scheduled to begin late-1990. The tunnel will provide an alternative point of access to the north campus, thereby eliminating the need for a left turn from S. 43rd St. at the existing driveways. The L.I.D. also includes the widening of S. 43rd St. from Talbot Road S. to SR 167, the addition of an HOV lane, and revisions to the traffic signals at S. 43rd St. and SR 167. Most of the south campus is presently undeveloped. An area south of S.W. 43rd Street and west of Davis Street S. is currently used as surface parking for day-shift employees. ,A medical office building at this location, depending upon actual siting, could displace the 220 existing surface parking spaces and generate demand for an additional 250-300 employee and patient spaces in this area of the campus. These effects are not expected to. be significant, however, because the south campus is presently undeveloped and existing employee parking and new employee/patient parking generated by a building at this location could probably be accommodated elsewhere on the south campus. This alternative would not affect the existing 50 . surface parking spaces at the north campus location. While meeting most of Valley Medical Center's objectives, this alternative would not satisfy any of VMC's specific objectives regarding location or circulation, i.e. it would not be connected to Talbot Professional Center or the parking garage; it would not provide the required pedestrian linkages; and it would not maximize use of the existing parking structure. r '! 1 I 39 • • • • • SECTION III AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS and MITIGATION MEASURES • • 40 SECTION. III' AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS and ' MITIGATION MEASURES ' A. LAND USE 1 . Land Use Patterns/Views. Affected Environment Land Use Valley Medical Center is located in Renton's Talbot Hill/Springbrook neighborhood. This neighborhood covers an area of approximately 2. 1 'sq. miles and extends from I-405 ,to. the. southern , boundary of the 'City ' (S. 55th St. ) , and from SR 167 to Benson Road S./108th Ave.' S.E. The Talbot Hill/Springbrook neighborhood is bordered on the south and east by unincorporated 'King" County. The Valley Medical Center campus encompasses approximately 42 acres. As indicated by Table 2, ' roughly 1.0% of the site is devoted to buildings and 26% to parking and access driveways. Approximately 63.E of the north and south campus area is landscaped or undeveloped land. Although. developable, approximately of the 10 acres comprising the south campus area remain undeveloped with the balance of roughly 2 'acres in internal streets. Approximately 1.8 acres (principally located in the northwest and southeast: corners of the north campus) are landscaped. ' TABLE EXISTING PATTERN OF LAND USES ON-SITE Land Use Approx. Approx. % of Acreage Total Site li Hospital 2.05 4.84 Health Care- 2.51 5.93 Related Uses Parking/Internal 11 . 15 26.35 . Streets Landscaped/Undev.. Areas 26. 61 62.87 L TOTAL 42.32 acres 100.00% (rounded) L_! 41 Areas noted in Table 2 for hospital and health-care related uses represent lot coverage.. They do not indicate total gross floor area devoted 'to ' each particular use. The site of the Proposed Action (and Alternative 2) is presently utilized for surface parking. As shown in Figure 2, the pattern of on-site land uses immediately surrounding the site proposed for office building development on the north campus includes: structured parking north of the site; . surface parking west, northwest, northeast and southwest of the site; professional office buildings east of the site and hospital/hospital-related medical buildings south and southeast of the site. Conditional Use Permit #00689 .has recently been approved by the City of Renton to allow expansionof the existing parking structure by 800 spaces (total - approximately 1 , 100- spaces) . Construction will start in 1991 and be completed prior to occupancy of the proposed Medical Office Building II. ' Currently, the northern 200 feet of the 10-acre south campus (location of Alternative 3) is developed- for use as day-shift employee parking (220 spaces) . Approximately 80% of the remainder of the south campus, is undeveloped with the balance in public rights-of-way (Davis Ave. S. and S. 45th P1. ) . As depicted by Figure 10, the character of land uses ' , surrounding ,the campus of Valley Medical Center includes' a,'mix of uses within three political jurisdictions -- Renton, King County and Kent. The general mix of land uses includes residential development at varying densities, professional offices and retail uses. Land uses north and northeast of the campus include undeveloped land, health care facilities and single family residential. ' Immediately north of Valley Medical Center is a steep and densely vegetated ravine associated with Panther Creek and its wetlands. This area is in the City of Renton. Panther Creek is a Class I' Habitat with lands immediately adjacent to the creek designated as Habitat Buffer (King County. 1979. Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan) . The Class I designation means that the "habitat can be considered prime by almost any standard. It is extensive, largely undisturbed and generally well-buffered",(Ibid) .. . The Habitat Buffer (considered a secondary habitat area) infers that the area is presently undeveloped and the buffer serves to protect the habitat from development. Panther Creek is also designated as a Type 3 Water based on its significance as habitat for anadromous fish spawning, rearing or migration (King County. 1987. Sensitive Areas Map Folio) . r-- 42 1,1 y-, _to -;-..f-., '''..vert',I7,, .(1'.- '• 114 jill;'f7..,' -,-,,,,., —...— , ,:t .,,.. ,. ,,„A.ifik,,,I.t .t,' • .1-t----.ri -, io5„, L.,.,w,,/,'Wk 4',4 4 1,1 , ki ,• , Lc. t 1,J' l'' „, 6'.% 1 ,A,,,7, 1.K.,„4 -,- .-- 41 Ill :',e„,i',,, ':,:ll!,*.,44111,411 0'e. ..0,,i /1' 1-i , .44',.7.,..,- ;f4te-,-1,''''', ..i'''' 7-4 , '1:-. ''''''' ''; 41' " '''''."'•=4":- . ',:i„,",,,-. ;.=:14• , .,1,1.:p ..q...,t.i.,;,,,, : ,.,T'''','I it,;;$, ', i „.: „.„?4 ',, i,,,116,;:t„,4,, .„4,.. 113,,,....„,, ,,,, , ,,,x,,.. : - , , .•..,,,t,f, _±.- „!:,:i,,,,01:144'q 111;r:,0154,., :.•,,i, t.ii, i..,, ,, , .: 14:: ,,::.0 ; - ...,-..1..tga..., ,,,r6.4,01„,.,,F 6 ,-, r1 Nr... i-i, • z.v.t-...,,,;,;,,,--,Ii.•2Qt1,,..),,f,-.1,,,, .y.,,,,, .•• . , ,."r. .,. .1...-45.,..,-..,•••,-4i ,-; - '',. ,. - 11 v k':','''",..,'' '.1','•4'.;.4.L.A._'..,, •°:"....,,,,. ild.,. ,4",ft';$' I. "•'_i HP'..4".44 ):.--'-1 •''iSio2 ,4,;.1.;;I:,,, .';'.'„ -:i..t.' .,,.--t -'7e,31.4*,,-,F,,t,i,c0,„41;•,54,.,,-,;•,•*• -•,,6,',,,,,t•-:•,r,'..- . .,4.-.:,., 0-1,,, -.4, . ,...0.. ,...,..„.. „ ,,4". p, %z490,.,-, -Li, ,, -,,,,fl fr , I l il ' ,.7. - t. . ,..f.,^ /II ,A91..,4 1,,,,,,,4,,,,,, •'? „r.,,,,. ;.14.,it, •„,1 ,ir 91.-,v,,,,,,,,,4„,1 4,0„„,,,,Liv.4,4,lel„till.,,‘,..0.1,e,, ,,I.4,,,,,.„„,, lii •, 1,i,,......-..„,,,, .,,t, I, .,.,,r+ , • , ,a., 1 . 1 I - - ... ,., '.1t,„ ce',,,,, . ,1. ,,,,,,. ,„., 1,1 ,,„. , ,H, '..9...N. .#v v .1. . mop , 1 i ,.',,V,!,j.1'1•, rt. ._A I oik',1 P,....kh-4, -•,.,4' I•lih,i„J,,, •., ,,,,1 . • , .4.4,,,..,, ,„it,.., •,,„,4,, „ ..., ,...„.,,,, i :,„4,,,'..r:J ,.:.•,,, , ! 411',ly,,1 151,41'.01j 1 ') 1.„ „ „4.,„ i44 , .,..1%-, 4 .r.r..... 4...„1-_-44"„_Artr.$4 err, 1:7:1",‘,...r • ' (9,9 4 ''.., , . , iliTo* ,-itj ,,,,,/,,,H,1,,,,,„,„, , ,I...,,,,,,,: ,1,11;.,1,;11,,7.,1 . . ,11.....—../-11,1,!s • ..„/,/,13 lc, v,1,..../ 0 .... ,,ii•I''ik'4„'., . '4fr'''' la r r/ 1..,`,', '• -•"4-.1.11"9'O','4, 1.1.'o.„7,Piit'04 , ''''' ,III`k r.„..., ...,...,,, , /1 14j•i'l ' l1"......1* . 1:6% 5' V I•4.-‘1" 7:1;14 Yr5r.t' 1.,r :,' '/14,1'01* 4P11 .,,4 l'' • I 444,-141,-, ' ----, --.1•--' .'.. .'' 1' I'riMIFI q ''' I ',.-.1:'' :.' ,i '11,..r,4 a,i,„ -• 'ie,,,,,(`'',( ,,orr' ,'"-' •-" dr ,,,,, .41 •, f ,4,,A,,,,;,' , " /-• , :, i,,4, " "1'' ,i'"' -„---,--7-,..,,,,111•,..,"•- , 1),"4-'• - ,,,,, Iii,,,•`;414..4,-',-*-4.-'''7 .0 '•' ,--$,,4',"0 r:i..71.te, "„'"", '9414N..,,,, IVIVI17..14.?.;' 101',',`'011111,11r1194.$11:* :',. ' ;11rOW..j'1'1"4152": .e)$1 '.04i, ,hrir,,,I i•-. :„' IL,..___..,killira-'1'„$7';''''',;.:,. 1.31):$,,,,,,t 1/4i4k,..7,.*ti' '':1:;:,,, "". '., .;,"'•,'' ^r,i'''': ". _ tr, " ''''•s.., " . ')W •'''''....t' .1':'1114"111?. N.;77171.*r,''' ' 11'7"t•f?,r4j,' %,I' 4 ingie family 1.-2%-g,'„:... „.",_ .,:"., ,'''''' 4'.,., ,'''',,"•',4 ...-.. •K. ' 1-41- --.-- ' .. X, 1 16 '*,.;'' .,,,/t•%•,..0!',,,,ir,". ' ' " .'"1.•-• _ 1 l'.°S.,t„.;,7••,..,...w ..,,...,-;;.--,-... , '''...Aci.r.V.A' ,. it .t. .,' *.1,1..7 1.!r4rr 5 ' 4r'.. 111'',11,1* *"*414'; 4',.:‘'.'t'"'1'1'r''''' "'''''' '"'I''''P''''' rOVP14."'' ,,";1:1,•: ":`,''' '', •,,,,6'. q, ' „!,.-,," ''....',;; ir • I.''r• .• '''''' I”lei ‘-,,;4111-4';.f,;..*„.1i" 1,' 1' ''' 11', ,,,4.?•r-i...,,•;,.- f ,P '',$, - ", .1 ',,,i'.1 , -, :re, ' ' c 1.4,030,1,,•,,r4,4 ,,1.,.,,tz,..•,,,t' t,14t,,, ,.',03E" - I ,,,.,' ,, ,, ,,t..,.;,:...0,- 4_ 4 . ),.,,,A, . -,,,, ,,,,,,1„,,,,, f k... multi-familyN--':'•:: ,q 11,#,,,ki.A1644:, $3,, 71'ofe.:::, ':::i :'` ,. :1 -, " '''"-' r;,,,,-,:,,.,.-- . ,r '.. .4.44 I- .-...,...-,.r.,:t....'-..-1:Altv.4'',-, .•,,; ' ,tz. - iFtPo ,I,. . „ ' ....v.,-,,,,' ,,.. -.-,,A,L,.4,. i ii):tx,* - (''' 1'-', --"z.,"e,,,..--;'..1.,,,,r;%40::'4, -1*-- ' ' , _.,..,`• :370c„,,:1117 ,.,. i'.,*".* 4f.4 tatir-2 j-i ,, ' ; '- : '1,,i,'4' ,,". tA" . ..,'.- ai11-..`''n. ' * ' ' ' OW'oi lits- ''' Ih1".;'.. !WNW , ''''' 44f04..'t•r114,:: mori.,,,r %7 ',! ils,,,r-.1'.. ","1" '1: ,.'.. ..:.,.',.-'::': '11 ; -".".‘ ...1-. ' .Er'' '''',' .4 medical-related professional ,,,1:,,L A , T,",",..oist,,,,t,. . .r1,,,,,,:.,',",-,,,•-.-,,;„ s ,,: ,,,bi. „,.., A .,•Alt, , ' '''' i' ., - mmercial 'Li :-,, liii 011 i,':',to)1 "1•%,,,N911'.',,,q.,,,,,, .1-.1r ... , 4 0.,:'•:bRekt•z:',.'p., , . .4 ig-'-'::x.t4e-r- --...."":1 -, ''',-;'t--.4,4::'-0;kigo-f Z:-.;:4 - ''''''.-": " ' •-•';'11 t' - ---- v . '''? .Mtri..,1111,1',,,::4 14 r r_ ,i,,,41:1,110,,,, 74:f T,,,1 ,.I,y,',...'",2,": ' ,,,,,k„I ,,,f, . ••" ) ,i: ,i4,,,,oii,,,, .:. , .• -=ir:::-.10". : 4.1,A, .,,,,*'>_le":4,s.,,"C'140,....Y.'4,,•:,-, , „„.4.,lo.rl'.,*, .:,-.., ,. ::„.- --.- •,...,,,,.,,,:,;,••f, •,i,,r,,,••;•. - .)•11. .r,.,,,.., :, • ,_,'...'.• /,/ ,,,,,„ ., ,,ii,ii,,,Alit,1 ,,,I,,T.:1,4101 "1't-ilii---'"'"' `r-'F 7-1. t' 7:''' '' Valley Medical I' ,I, St" '41,',.`"''',' ,111,-vi,',"*-- ,''-'-'1ili'l 11 ".. ,'''''- ''.- " 1L '''. 13'1'. ''"'''1I!'7,t `: -' • - il, '"'f'', '.1-?-' r.1-1 Pi= • .: '11 r il:`: 7-1,1'91,: ,,i,,i,-(14,..;:i': .. .:, : - - --, - •o - i ''.'''' . -' • ...; 11...i....' , ,,.,;',.::14, 4 • ,,,,..., i (II " L lig (111:.09) : 1xxilg.,,Or'. 17 ,K.4 ' , \ ,, i, r!,,,$,Lti:7,1._, ,.?1,,, cp„,+., ,....,,, ;.„,, r „Ilf ,........i, , ,r, 3(13,'I' ' -I,ILC;CenLe L; ., D. $1.7.-44 •4°1 '' „,..*:,,,. OA),'i,,,,...:'',4„,."...i ,`iltli:,', . "C''..., erl'Z'''*« industria,i ,1:.<• 1 .. r,.,,,,.,.,,,1 f ,,,,i , ,,,I1+:3' 041,, 1 , ,,"..'W,, ./.,..,.:ft.j.--;,..... 4: di!, ,:' .,,,::;. ',.'.4!:40;..-1,- ;If!.'''!.'.•-:--.,:c:: -,,-.,...,7„L,.._- .,,,,,,,..2.,,-..,•,,,:..,,,..,,:l'ih):r':41''.:'"'•'" ,,,'',011'".'::1,' : ., ....,.1S r:',,,1,;,0,.'i:.L4 1',vr„:,,,,4,-i ft tit:41., . 1, I', i' -1 ,..''.'1,,, •••4 r y - -444 wry ' .03 '•:,' '''' • !'.-..---**.t, : , '.„-: e-Ntr r-ir.,.'r 1. ...•' ' ,- '''',.-41' ' ' .' i..;,4 '.`,"7.*% .' ..: , ."' 9.' .- l ' n )''''.11il l'151.°111”'1 .7"11 li ---m-erciat ai:b , ,.. ,.... -::' di 1.4•11'•-,...i';:kg;.,,.i.: 11,,,14...,,,;, 7071,,t1;;;;"•1 1 L',..4,,, ... ,:' '' -,..',":0'_.......1, ;i;.'° • ,'6,, , '"'1,14 ' .C,;'"'' ,,, ' , •L' ir 1 N, ,„„4,,— ,x."4"15. = , 1,, ",,,,,, ‘43 '-''',..,C7P-r,-A,; .,1,it -V,"''''''..Atkiiest&A.1---!„,4- .•4---,,,, S.W.43rd St. ,-...-4: .- -71. ''''•.;,-!' 1,t',7% ''''" ;?' „," '0,..'' , ''. .. ,... .." 0 ...n -....„....—,.4.;' 7...' ,, , 4,;•;i/,!,, ,, ., :1,4. :II: -'' ''''.. 7 ...... q , F.N(4L ' ' '-'',.., ''. - ..... '?i 4 't„, ,44t.',.:,:144-4144,4 4,* ;' 1 4,41J . 04 ,-.4,141c. ,.:y , * p..,....:, 'it -, ,,,,,' L ,, -'-'1i,/,/,, , ;f ) . , .. , .;//• "1,4.i, r'11`'..,:5:- ,.,,,,....,...1.1. ' - 'r.- ' :'•,.:-" ck 4.:, ..\. i . {r ,. i14 ,"," ,. jr(;, I:, , 'ti.• '(k,•Li' _-,I-'.,1' , •. Ia. ,• -",t,.(',--.1 • - ',... ,,,,,141*74,,,,,,,, i._,(olrii.,ex,, . ///...wr . rii, , ,,, 1,,,,""' 0,440.44_4,,4.. ,,,,i ,. tail 0 medical related pLdf,eissidnal,, .i ;1„:„i,c„^„,t',. '',,,, r..,( '`'''', "ii;.....,,I, Fiti 4-I,;11;,h,1, a-.44,,,ivie • f^, l,,,,,,, ' !-,r 2gil/.....1 4 ,. • - ,)IP ,,, ' ,., ,,,4,,,,,.•,,, CO „s0,,,, ,,,, ', 111, 4,10,0,'. :'4,',01, " ''' ' ;. * ^' 1 ''''114::Y.:,'i. l' ir, LI \',.I." .f* " ''' ''" • --1,' •••• ' 0?' ?"177::''''' ' rl''''' 11 i-4',...:•")1 •; , ' , ''',,, , ...r .. ', '1 ! " LO,,--,7,' light industrial • A '- filial- A.':, — —, • `‘ ; - .-. .. - - : 1 . k ,,l,r ' ,e--"---".;4" 1 'Al ,i i' '1 ;'''' .. •-'''' -,,^1 _l_ ',.,6Y,,,,', ...7,'„ 7,. ?' r ";1',"-%Co ' i., I ., •0:/41- ..•:-,,' ` ''' - • ',.„ '''-`.-- .;-.4 ' ' , - - •,114.,v 0,'`i 1.. I .-,ii.'..4.•1.• '.' ..ciarlin famil • ,,,..,-..,:t`, .,,-,--,.'-,,,,A ' ''''''q,N-s•."--.•:"..4 . '.; r / 1 - ,.''''0`.. ' ,r1,- H: 1 'q if /4%v `C4+''Ali.1-,,,:-._;,,,'9--10' ' / , itt,-, t'',, '4't, • c 4V ,. -1.1 .0,,,i,,,.,,'''' 1--',....,-:',".'% ' - i,, ' 4 -, f' 'iu:'',x',2,--,11 '1,'" ;';'4;,". n ,,,,",,1',':.:,'_71:.._ •,- , — :•••...,- 4- 1.----.,-. i r. -, • $i .4 ..." $., ,•-,r..1 i .,,,« • ,, - • ...,„., " . if f - , -,-,, . ,r .t.i,..- . . gc.„,` ..:.":rt`''''' ' ' . ''-'. -z." ,:-'-'0:,---r.------"'' ' " - r- multi-family J. --.-'',.-14--,...,-1.„ -. -- •- . . , . -. - -' , , 'r .'''. $ 4.,...... . ‘• .., t'7..7" ..,_.'..4.'' ;.1,1'11, ?4,4 ki", '' '. 't ' . .1.,"-...--.,-,-, 4,0....,„% "I't ',,,, .",,,C. .$:,..„;I ....‘," " Kell 01 -'Ar'ip.1 ''''r 't. . -' '„. • ,,,,,-,,,,- ,' 7.1.,,,,,`N i: .y. ,.,,„,„______4,. '2 L!'' s ,.•,',,s11'!‘r/ii , , ,21",' ,...P.e 1! 11,a,1,.,,.,,,i;ittilt,, il t,4..,4jp k.1,9,ki'40;01. '', ,: ' ," ",. ., • 4,,,,.r''' -,t 04*1'''".?..-TRalk'y.,4, ' i , ,ri: 1 6i,,,,,,,,X,...., '',,,;111,,,,,,,,,,:,.,tru.„1,1 1;11. 7,... 1: ,..rii.,,,,.411,,. ,, „,,...,,,,,,i,, ...:, . L'''"i*P:14 '''i, '‘' ' •te,V:',r-, , _, ,1' — ''— • ' ., „ r'• . : - --',, ,.'ii\I „h" , T i Ai;.71't'irr; '1',„4, 1$1.,',- - ' • -':;:r - 1 -,-.."= , 1...., - N r",'. ', 14'' '. . - r.*:•..,' : ''''' ,,,,, , . k.14 ' ''''''kc, 7 * r - ..' ' ;r1"*. 1 , 4i,j4'4t-' •'4,...14. ,.. , ••t 117r1 .. i 1 . . •''.° . 'i'' ,.1. ,q' 1 ..',), . 1 . ,,,,,t:.. . ,,,'.k.,..,1, .'. ., '.' '.. ' '' .1 0. 11(I - ,, , ,.,,:., , . - . . . . .- - ---1. . ,• • FIGURE 1 0 "1 . . '' . I . I , N . . 1 . .. . , . .. LAND USE 1 IR MI! .11111i1/111111111111111, IlWnifin Inn ,01•• - . 1000 ft. .. . . . . • Immediately north of the ravine is a complex of medical and dental offices and a radiology facility. Single family residential is the predominant land use both north and northeast of the medical complex, with lot sizes varying from approximately 7,800 sq. ft. to several acres in area. The pattern of land use east of Valley Medical Center reflects a mix of land uses. Medical and dental professional offices, with several medically-related retail uses (i.e. , eyeglasses) , border. Talbot Road from S.E. Carr Road to the Panther Creek drainage area (between S. 177th St. and S. 175th St. ) . Professional offices also extend from Talbot Road east to 98th Ave. S. , along both the north and south sides of S.E. Carr road. Immediately east and north of this commercial development is a small single family residential neighborhood with large homes on 9, 600 sq.ft. lots. Commercial and professional offices are located along both sides of Talbot Road, south of S.W. 43rd St. /S.E. Carr Road. Development extends approximately 1000 feet south of S.W. 43rd St. /S.E. Carr Road and includes 17 buildings with approximately 70 medical and dental practices. A large convalescent center borders this area to the south and east of Talbot Road S. Valley Medical Center's south campus adjoins this area. Immediately south of the south campus is a 337-unit multifamily housing complex (Gatewood. Apartments) . Single family residences on large lots (2-7 acres) are located south of the multifamily development, along both sides of Talbot Road S. Commercial uses (including retail and office space) , light industrial development and warehousing are located west of SR 167 along East Valley Highway -- both north and south of S.W. 43rd St. Recent development in the general area is characterized by significant commercial and residential growth along Carr Road east of the site, in the vicinity of Benson Road S. /108th Ave. S.E. , and further eastward; commercial and industrial growth west of the site, along S.W. 43rd St. , west of SR 167; as well as recent growth associated with Valley Medical Center (Talbot Professional Center, Psychiatry Wing, and internal renovation) . The existing inventory of medical office space surrounding Valley Medical Center totals 300,536 sq.ft. This includes: 135, 161 sq. ft. of: wood-frame medical office space (contained within 14 buildings) and 165, 375 sq.ft. of Class "A" medical office space (within 3 buildings -- Chin Hills Building, Talbot Professional Center and Valley Gardens Health Center (Greg Werner, property appraiser, Lyon, Shelte & Speirs, telephone conversation, Aug. 1990) . Class "A" space is typically newer construction, concrete or steel-frame, with ceiling heights of 8.5 to 9.0 feet. The existing vacancy rate within the Class "A" space is 11 .7% and the vacancy rate within the wood-frame medical office space is 16.2%. There is presently one known application pending for a development proposed in Renton and no known applications pending in Kent or King County (in the general vicinity of Valley Medical 44 Center) that could affect or be. impacted by the Proposed Action. The Renton application is for a rezone from P-1 and R-3 to 0-P to enable construction of a 30, 000 sq.ft. office building. Also, a fI privately initiated comprehensive plan amendment with zone reclassifications is being prepared for a 430-acre area south of the Hospital (City of Renton) , however, no formal submittal has yet been received by the City. The comprehensive plan and rezone would be for more intensive development than is now allowed (low density single family residential) . Views The only territorial views in the area are of portions of the Green River Valley west of the site. These views are seen several locations along Talbot Road S and S. 43rd St. A narrow, east-west view corridor presently exists across the north campus, in the vicinity of the entrance to the Chin Hills Building. . This corridor extends roughly 230, feet along Talbot Road S. , and is framed by the Chin Hills Building on the north and Talbot Professional Center on the south (refer to the impact section for plan and photo montage of the area affected) . Significant Impacts of Proposed Action it1 Land Use Implementation of the Proposed Action would change the use and . character of the area in the immediate vicinity of site. Existing surface parking would be replaced with a 5-story 'building, driveways and surface parking. As indicated byTable- 3,. the overall pattern of land use on the entire campus would change only slightly -- health-related land uses would increase from an existing 5.93% building lot coverage to approximately 7.09%. Similarly, the amount of land area devoted to parking and driveways would decrease from 26.35% to 25.85% and landscaping/undeveloped areas would decrease from 62.87% of the site to 62.22%. No change is expected with regard to the amount of site area devoted to the Hospital areas. I i I % 45 1 . ii I ! TABLE 3 FUTURE PATTERN OF LAND USES ON-SITE PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVES- 3 & 4 Land Use Approx. Approx. % of % Change Acreage* Total Site from Existing 1 Hospital 2.05 4.84 no change Health Care- 3.00 7.09 + 1 .16 % Related Uses Parking/Internal 10.94 25.85 - 0.05 % Streets Landscaped/Undev. Areas 26.33 62.22 - 0.65 % TOTAL 42.32 100.00% * Areas noted with regard to hospital use and health care - related uses represent lot coverage. They do not indicate total gross floor area devoted to each particular use. Direct impacts on land uses at the VMC campus are not j- anticipated to be significant. Construction will involve excavation and removal of approximately 6, 350 cubic yards of soil. Because the area immediately surrounding the project site is paved, no significant erosion control measures are necessary nor is any significant impact expected to occur with regard to the Panther Creek habitat. Although the Proposed Action would result in development of the site for more intensive uses, this level of development would be compatible with the character of existing land uses on-site. No jI significant land use impact is anticipated with regard to relocation and consolidation of the Ambulatory Care Center and in- filling of the space vacated by existing ACC programs. Indirectly, however, some impacts (notably traffic and parking) could occur as a result of the nature of uses proposed to be located within the project, including the addition of a 200-seat auditorium and the mix of tenants in the medical office building. 46 The medical office building tenant mix could indirectly affect vehicular traffic and on-site parking demand. It is expected that the majority of physicians with practices that occupy office space in this building would be providers of specialized care, as compared with providers of primary care (i.e. , family practice) . As -such,. they would need to be located near their patients in the Hospital, near the Hospital's support facilities and near other professionals that provide specialized care. Once on-site, they would not generate additional vehicular trips or increased parking demand -- as compared with an off-site location. It is expected that the majority of travel on-site by these physicians and their support staff would be pedestrian traffic. The actual indirect land use impacts would depend on adjacent uses and their sensitivity to traffic. Development of the Proposed Action is not expected to generate significant land use impacts or conflicts. The proposed office building is generally compatible with other uses on the VMC campus. Similarly, the Proposed Action is not likely to have a significant effect on the character or rate of development occurring in adjacent areas in this portion of the City. Land use changes presently occurring are the result of overall growth in the area and throughout the region. The Soos Creek Subarea Plan is currently being revised by King County in an effort to re-evaluate the nature and intensity of ,future development patterns in this area of the County. It" is expected that the Proposed Action would incrementally contribute to localized changes = occurring in the area. At the same time, however, the Proposed Action would tend to capture some portion of future growth and focus it onto the VMC campus. This could have the effect of reducing the pressure for land use changes (e.g. , for additional proximate office space) that might otherwise occur in areas adjacent to the campus. The tenant mix of the proposed project could also affect the occupancy rates of nearby medical office buildings. As noted previously, the existing vacancy rate in Class "A" space is 11 .7% and the vacancy rate for wood-frame space is 16.2%. It is expected that some physicians would move their practices from other nearby locations to become a part of the development resulting from this Proposed Action. .Based on market research, Valley Medical Center projects an absorption rate of 30,000 to 40, 000 sq. ft. per year consisting of the following types of practices: � o cardiology o internal medicine o colon/rectal surgery o obstetrics/gynecology o ear/nose/throat o pediatrics o general surgery o vascular surgery �- The rate of absorption from these types of practices could temporarily increase vacancy rates in nearby medical office buildings. In the long term (6-12 months) , the net effect would depend on the future demand for medical office space in the area, 47 • together with regional and local economic conditions. Historically, wood-frame space in the area has .been occupied by smaller or newer practices, whereas the Class "A" space has been occupied by larger/expanding practices (Werner, 1990) . The decision to invest at a time when vacancy rates are 11 or 16% would' be an economic decision by the entrepreneur -- influenced, ' in part, by such factors as: • o that portion of the market segment which is targeted (i.e. , Class "A" space or wood-frame) ; o land costs and market rental rates for the targeted market segment -- both existing and projected; L: o the window of opportunity (economically, the most , advantageous time for the product to enter 'the market) ; o the projected vacancy rate of the market segment during the window of opportunity; and o the availability of other sites in the area. Views . , As noted previously; the only territorial views 'in' the. "area ' • ' are of portions' of' the Green.River Valley west-Of the. site. The" proposed medical office building would be. below" the height``of Talbot Professional Center, as "viewed from Talbot 'Road''S. " (Figure• 11 ) . As such, the building would not result in any further restriction of westerly views from viewpoints along Talbot Road -S. "located either east or southeast of Talbot "Professional Center. • The proposed medical office building as aligned would, however, restrict some westerly views from viewpoints along. Talbot Road S. in the vicinity of .the entrance to the Chin Hii1s .Building; . some westerly views from offices in Talbot Professional Center and the Chin Hills Building; and some north or northwesterly views from the Psychiatry Wing and the Hospital. The westerly view corridor which presently exists along Talbot Road S. in the vicinity of the entrance to the Chin Hills Building is depicted. in Figure 12. This corridor extends roughly 230 feet along Talbot Road S. , and is framed by the Chin Hills Building and Talbot Professional Center. While the site' slopes in a westerly direction, westerly view impairment is expected, as indicated by Figure 13. The Proposed Action would not affect other existing westerly view corridors across the site or other territorial views I in the area. -I 48 • . I • west Proposed Building Talbot Professional Center 4. ,A r t4.r* 41"taIRSOMIN'I'' FILNX rmii1111111111111116sumus . . ,,..,*.,„,....::..,..::: .:,::%..0:,ousquarvt:::,..,......0,vgi MINIMS .roi,e.,..-1:414=1%.:7441, 6IMI9I]:' or 'Ifftr•..:•':--11.g.*V4g.••%•:".1.41,1"......• .Wk, ..„...:m. ..:. .. .....,.,.One:I-,.....-...,.....:‘,...: .......,..0 2 • . • • &••',t"•Ir''I::"'I:IrT.P"itlt'e*;'"::::.di :;•I•.I!:::.;t*.::::'.:..:,:;:;:!:<*t*cW2:.:::.;i:aLs;•..:::;:.•::r:'t:i41.:.....::::jWi• • . ... ...‘...•...IitiA4•••4:i:‘,.I.••§A.40 4-:••,-.1:•:!....'.<•.-.. I.:1"....C4Iike<IIIPIkt:'I.'•-• ..::RigroikM......,.-.....I. ..:::•,20:00:Wir:..v.:..•::.:I.;'•II. .I,•:•.Mtt.':>,::.:'.:?.: .. 7,04,,,!.:,,,,,I,;.•.ti€:.0::•:...:N••::...44....:Y,..,..:0III.,..ii•bgIi>:iIIIiI..;:ge.**H-.:..W.Iigis`a•.4.4 m ca,:::..:la.:I/Wr:I...M.it:,0**Wirir.at...A.‘:•::‘.:I‘)Z."::'.;:::*...:::;I:.'4:I:I:I.I:II",:I:32*....:;;I:::::::i - 410.';',Xffilp .....:,,„,i:,..,,.:::,....:....,..:.:. ,,,,,„.g,,,,,;:-.1.:.::....4.,-.,,..,,o,4),,,ft: ::..i?...&,,,,,,:....,e,;*twow:::::::,,,,v00,:z4.4...,:::"'v.-......IIk.,4:-.I:kIIVOMI:.I6:"Ni:,:...:i:::,...:Ii:E:4::xigiI:IiI:og"::g,&II••I::,,II:,<II:::: :•::I••::::=,::.°-:::•:4IIIII• • ' ' ::&!.. ..,:l.t.Vg:t*C"'"W'Is.E..;:;.,..,ttort.:r.!::!:r..:V.;.:.,.2H1t0;:;:g:i.4...,.**;III.WI..411g..#7•41 -I.01.*IIIIIII:lelp.41irmgrie.:.:,*.tr;1:::..§.:. ,.,...,.........,.:..:::g,....I.:,`..:$,...%....:...10..0...**OPA.,:im,'*w*.•$:. ••••,-,•,. ••• ;:'''•"•*10107A4*aiteatefteek<I.:ti:5:•::.::,;.:7:..:A...-k. ..:......:.. .... .. .. . , .. • ,---' I ' . i. . immollimmionim 0 /00° 200 i FIGURE 11 SITE CROSS—SECTION kill Itlifill Ascilulk .._ 4 9 I ' H En 0 M i •j__z______--1/ C SW 43rd St o ta rl H Z NW ) :‘,0 0}.1Zili,' 011 '4r 1 23 7,:m40,,,o, - JO ,P.;2" -7-• 'IN*:''',Ii 4.;:0,qk. . 14..s.--.....1 e. :A4,1\\A,,N P.'1:411:, \ . . PO ti }.13',%.) *ANN,;Sii4,\k' , Efi CItri rIZ i Mt litia. ) „.,,,,...! - 4.0, **Ixt,,.,, 0. a y E . F-• ••:f .; .L., 1 ,y' NM 4111 0 tFli....m......r.. / is ii ,Ii Vii 9 i ‘ jiiiist;i i I.. IA- ' D 11 I I _ __E elij oihtYj ! ' 14 ''•••.. �'7� p n N ct N. O Proposed • Building - -" ,- : .. -� • -. E r A Looking West (refer to Figure 12) *fi t ' w ` ,'Cj I -,fi -ems g ,,cl . • • .i;.i.e„ A•r.„'. i r • Proposed Building • s I E. .§ . -� � . r = . F. B Looking Northwest (refer to Figure 12) _ FIGURE 13 PROBABLE VIEW IMPACT AS SEEN I'A e e n 1�n �1�1A A nA LOOKING WEST FROM TALBOT ROAD S. '[I' G GIII�j�ll `�VVI ,� III,' - MMY MM YY Y Y 51 Mitigation Measures: None required. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: ii Undeveloped land would be developed for an intensive use. No unavoidable adverse land use impacts are expected. Impacts of Alternatives Alternative 1 - No Action The No Action alternative would result in the site remaining undeveloped. As such, no direct or indirect land use impacts are expected. Demand for additional medical office space will likely continue, however, resulting either in future development of this north campus site, a possible south campus location or an off- campus site. Development in the future would likely result in impacts comparable to the Proposed Action. Alternative 2 - Reduced Scale Development Alternative 2 (reduced scale) would result in the same general type of development but at a reducedtscale. Impacts, at least in the short-term, would be generally the same as the Proposed Action, but at a lesser magnitude. Demand for medical office space in the long term, however, is expected to continue. If that demand is met through the provision of new facilities on the VMC campus, and those facilities are not maximized, a greater percentage of lot area could be developed for medical-related offices. It is possible that a smaller office building on campus could lessen any adverse impacts on nearby private medical office buildings (in terms of higher vacancy rates/longer lease up) . If, however, the demand for professional medical office space continues and this demand is not met by an existing or proposed new facility on campus, development would likely occur off-campus with a similar impact on existing private medical office space in the area. The considerations for investment at a time when the medical office vacancy rate is 11 to 16% would be an entrepreneurial decision, as noted with regard to the Proposed Action. View corridor impact associated with this project is influenced primarily by building siting and less by building height. A reduction in height of one story would diminish but not eliminate the view corridor impact. The height of the parapet of a building resulting from this alternative would be at approximately the same level as the lowest level of glass in Talbot Professional Center, as depicted in Figure 13A. 52 Alternative 3 - Medical Office Building Relocated (South) Environmental impacts of Alternative 3 would generally be the same as those of the Proposed Action. The effect on the local medical office space market would also likely be the same as that of the proposal. Because of separation from the other major medical functions on the north campus, this alternative could hasten the need by VMC to develop the south campus. As indicated in Valley Medical Center's Master Site Plan (Mahlum & Nordfors, 1987) , such south campus development could include: additional medical office space, possible satellite operations of major functions provided on the north campus, relocation of certain north campus functions, or facilities to serve future health care needs. The north campus would likely be developed at some future date with additional hospital-related uses. h The change in location of the office building under this alternative could also indirectly affect traffic and parking. Because of the separation from Talbot Professional Center and the Hospital, Alternative 3 could generate a significant amount of vehicular traffic between the north campus and south campus. As noted in the traffic analysis contained in this DEIS, traffic would utilize the proposed tunnel beneath S.W. 43rd St. and, therefore, result in no significant impact upon the surrounding street system or adverse effects on adjacent land uses. Also, this alternative would generate no additional traffic volumes at driveways #T through #4 (refer to the Traffic section for detailed discussion) . A medical office building at the south campus with significant operational ties to both Talbot Professional Center and the Hospital could also affect land use with regard to on-site parking. On-site parking (for physicians, employees, patients and visitors) would be provided at the south campus. However, additional parking would also be needed on the north campus to accommodate inter- facility requirements for staff, patients and visitors. An inter- campus shuttle could lessen this demand, but not eliminate it. This alternative would not affect the westerly view corridor as viewed from Talbot Road S. Depending upon siting, however, it could result in a southwesterly view impact from S.W. 43rd St. (Figure 14) . 53 • • • •• • MI 1.1 MI NM Mi MO <'3 - ` -- • 7'�.:' • .:. TASTFST LTC r T -~ - 'J - f ig SERVICE : er " .,.. .•,,,,r,a. ..-r r i. "+'' • - - / tv ' • IMF ... NM����',:�i'�s• -- y:�.f+Y.:�v:H^ �.r J'. - __ �}�j,�n�:;i:a?_•��r `wv.--;d;',G2: L*+v .1 "::jvr,;>ci1,!i, _ .;,p.,r' ' Ii:P'r 'y'::"...•=3�+�'�.t`•" � a,. r,,,".�.Iin""e .•: T,y,,. •F",''_ �.• c'•l'st..::,, ,�;,,te..• t2 •.:=Yr_�r; ,�t¢„e� a.i:;�vi: • j«� c i.:�' r..,'^; t... y` -asi'�• e^..:;(�^�.c. —'S'r�-+ a#.,k {r -r",'." s .ter 1• • -s '_�:� �jT,x• F r i • #7 .�°�Z re �v L * a ��1, ` 'o•• -42 s Yt�{ x• olv the y Frk d td s 1t q1t { • a ?�:. t �'+: £1 ,r�r Y+.7 4 {r� T'i a_„"�aa s.t' .•• ��'� �. Zr"yi},�' c 1,xti F c. 'I Lyyv per(jy}, ac*Y' y+,LK^ f �' rr!+XiW„w.'u,[ t l_t'R.. • ° { •f- yf • CFur• r r } 7-,ir'! "yhJ'aF•M33r� r3 �'+'#Z c+.,i �L S n„4 jLt' +�i,1w L��l•' L •yr • • • FIGURE 14 • PROBABLE VIEW IMPACT AS SEEN &keiIWeinmin•Aodes, ill A' LOOKING WEST FROM TALBOT ROAD S. i yyInIV, 54 2. Relationship to Existing Plans, Policies & Zoning Comprehensive Plan City of Renton: Summary: The City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1986, consists of a land use map element and a policies element. The primary purpose of the plan is to: o define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole; o indicate the principals and objectives which shall guide the establishment, development and implementation of ; definite and precise plans, public and private; o provide for the coordination of the many separate plans which govern the development of this community; o officially adopt a program and guide which will enable the City of Renton to attain the principles and objectives set forth in R.C.W. 35 .63 of the Revised Code of Washington in the manner provided. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map delineates the general area of the site as Public/Quasi-public (Figure 15) . Quasi-public uses are those "owned or operated by a nonprofit, religious or eleemosynary institution, and providing educational, recreational religious or similar type of public program" (Renton, 1983) . The Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with this designation. 55 _— . . . . . y c2 isI __ I } '`'• _— I R:::: . I :r:i: \ LEGEND i p �. *:•:•}:v� TRW•iiCi::::::j$;?}::;: ' •�::•:•:. C:: ::::: :::.:::»•:: i � EXR�33E9.::r::: �:����c::•::•::•>:•::•::•:::<•::•: Zoning Designations i:::::.*::::::..i..i:...:.:.:.: :::iilkl:.':':`•:::i:: i :::::d:i5::::: : :•::.:* •:::::::. ;.:;:: era ��t� :., &s:::fir::.• :::: ::,"� +� m i iiiiii,:.::3`::: ..:i Renton: ,vr cs rr r: ::i r:::>ir:::>::r:iiiii iii is ' � P-1 public use 3CC•>f:<t:;:::::: r,:: :: : ::i?:::r: .';:•: ::::( O-P office park I 6? 'qf : 50.... •.:`!: :::: ::5 M- business use ............. 11 III \ 'w,:':i:::>i>:: $Sta., .;' — M-P manufacturing park :':.::: ' ' general MillE___ i .! I mo R•I single family l� fi P R2!� j it : > o-/ ::Coun multifamily ��, 1 ' Ni 4 i \=1—W:or& _.✓i:o" = ty: Ill ' vom - �;Ji•f'�f�.�1 LW_"�__r!,-,; r•-.: RM-t300 multifamily 6 'A II - �—77 I: 1`i:: - RM-1800 multifamily j' Ill --_ %��ii°• :.,' RM-2400 multifamily '•♦��i, i �� — ••;••%� SR-7200 single family •;•:F4• "'--' ��i�•�•;• SR-9600 single family __ ems I �,'1/ •;•..;, SR=15000 single family ',' ^i WA .! i i r ••i :.i�.•� Comprehensive Plan Designations •..•..• R • ' ..••. . : ' y : Renton: 1 public/quasi-public i r— commercial '''ri<''. '::'':' medium densil resid. l ��tt........ Y I single family greenbelt ...- . ,. :'- ::�:::.:.:: SR 70 0 f Fang County(Soos Creek Plateau I' • office P .:.: .... sin le famil 2-3 units acre - . MI 9 Y units/acre 0p. ns ce .. .. ...... ...•• .. •• ••.. . . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. ..... .. .. .. ...... Pa m1 ,, , • . riP;!III Ci Count bounda m 0 - tY/ Y n: ry aer�carseooeoo�a•amwl.a";..�yirr,ccow •- ! zoning designation boundary `�� (approximate) I 1I u l lib. N FIGURE 15 NUIk8iIWEiflfflIflASDi/8!8S, PLAN � ZONING IC 56 1 The policies element of the City' s Comprehensive Plan contains general goals, objectives and policies. This element is intended to: serve as a basis for revising the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and any new element adopted should be in conformance with the Policies Element; o interpret and clarify the other elements; and o address those areas that are not included in the other elements. The following Comprehensive Plan goals are applicable based on the medical-related nature of the proposed project and alternatives, as well as the commercial/ professional nature of the facility. Utilities Goal: "To ensure an adequate supply and equitable distribution of utility services. " "B. Water Objective: An adequate water supply and distribution system should be assured. " Policy: "1 . An adequate supply of water with sufficient water pressure and flow for fire protection should be provided. " • Comment While the Proposed Action and alternatives would place additional demands on water supply, they are not expected to have any effect on the availability of water to serve the area. The Proposed Action would be designed to comply fully with City of Renton requirements for building and life safety. "C. Storm Water Objective: An adequate storm drainage system which minimizes the impacts on the natural drainage features should be assured. " Policy: "3 . New developments should be designed to provide for safe collection and discharge of runoff. " • 57 I Comment I To ensure permittability and City acceptance, the Proposed Action and alternatives would be designed and constructed to comply fully with City of Renton requirements for storm water runoff, both during construction and long term operation of the development. Such measures could include: 1 rt o development of temporary (construction period) and permanent stormwater drainage control plans; minimize the amount of soil exposed during construction; o hydroseed slopes that would be exposed for extended periods of time; o provide permanent landscaping as soon as practicable; � '! o provide for permanent on-site storm water detention and biofiltration which could include flat slope underground ' detention pipes, grass-lined swales and oil/water separators. r Community Facilities Goal: "To provide a broad range of community facilities and services. " "A. Facilities Objective: Community facilities should be located, designed, constructed, and maintained to provide adequate and equitable service to all residents. " "G. Health Care Facilities Objective: Adequate health care and social services should be available. " , Policies: ii "1 . Hospitals should be located and designed to serve the residents efficiently. " "3 . A viable emergency health service should be maintained. " Comment The Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 are a response to a need for additional professional medical 'office space on the Valley Medical Center campus. VMC's objective is to provide both adequate and efficient medical services, including emergency health care. Because of the proposed proximity to the Hospital and Talbot Professional Center, as well as the pedestrian linkages possible between these facilities and the existing parking garage, the Proposed Action may best achieve the City' s policy relative to 58 r-, other alternatives. The Proposed Action, as well as the alternatives, are consistent with maintenance of a viable emergency health service for the community. The Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 are generally consistent with the comprehensive plan' s community facilities goals and policies. 1 { 59 Commercial Goal: "To promote attractive, convenient, viable systems of commercial facilities. " "B. Commercial Structure and Sites Objective: Commercial structures and sites should be well-designed, constructed, and maintained. " _J Policies: "3. Structures should be adequately set back and buffered from other uses. " "4. Site plan design should provide for efficient and functional use of land. " "5 . Developments should be designed and maintained to avoid adverse impacts on adjacent properties. ". ti l - Comment Design and siting of the Proposed Action would provide adequate setback and buffering from other uses. Facility siting associated with the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 is intended to provide for the efficient and functional use of the site. Because -of its location, the Alternative 4 (south campus alternative) would be less consistent with the policy for efficient and functional use of the site. Because of the internal location for the project, impacts on adjacent property owners as a result of siting and design would be minimized, other than perhaps the effect on the localized office market. '._ Transportation Goal: i , "To promote a safe, efficient and balanced multi-modal transportation system. " "A. Transportation Alternatives Objective: In order to reduce the impact of traffic congestion, alternatives to the single occupant automobile should be encouraged. " "C. Streets Objective: Streets should be well designed, � constructed, and maintained. " Policy: _J "3. To maintain arterial streets for the primary purpose of traffic movement, access from abutting property should be minimized. " r 60 Comment Valley Medical Center has implemented a Transportation � Management Plan which establishes a program to reduce single r ; occupancy vehicle use where possible (refer to Transportation - z_ Section of this DEIS) . Neither the Proposed Action nor any of the alternatives propose additional curb cuts from the VMC campus. L Transportation Policies - Valley Plan: ,- o . "The number of access points on individual sites should be minimized. " o "All parking, servicing, loading and unloading of vehicles should be only on-site. " o "Alternatives to single-occupant vehicles should be encouraged -- especially in high employment tf areas of the Valley -- as development density increases. " o "Developers should be encouraged to develop HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) and transit usage incentives for large developments and for concentrations of high employment. " Comment Neither the Proposed Action nor the alternatives will change the number of access points to the Valley Medical Center campus. {_ All parking, servicing, loading and unloading will occur on-site. Valley Medical Center has developed a Transportation Management Plan which promotes alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. This Plan is being re-evaluated as a result of the Proposed Action. King County: Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan Summary: The Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan, adopted in 1979, delineates the preferred pattern of growth both for unincorporated King County and for peripheral incorporated areas. While the County has no direct jurisdiction for properties in incorporated areas, land use consistency is usually sought through interlocal agreements between the County and the effected city. 4-i Based on Renton' s land use designation in effect at the time the Soos Creek plan was enacted, the Soos Creek plan depicts the site of Valley Medical Center's north campus and a small area north of the ravine as "community facility"; and the south campus area as "single family: 3-4 units per acre" . Properties north of S.W. 43rd St. , east of VMC's north campus and immediately east of Talbot Road S. are within unincorporated King County and are designated "office" (business and professional offices, medical and dental clinics) . r- 61 King County has started a planning effort to update this subarea plan. It is expected that a preliminary draft of the policies (based on several possible development scenarios) will be available early Fall 1990 and possible zoning changes by late Fall. The Draft EIS associated with this new plan is scheduled to be issued in March 1991 . Enactment of a new subarea plan could occur Fall 1991 . L_! Comment The Proposed Action and Alternative 2 are consistent with the , County's existing plan designation for the site. Alternative 3 would be inconsistent in that medical office space would occur in an area designated by the Soos Creek Plan as single family. Zoning Summary: As indicated by Figure 15, the north campus portion of the project site is zoned P-1 (Public Use) and the south campus area is zoned O-P (Office Park) . The intent of the P-1 classification is "to provide and protect suitable environments for social and physical services and facilities" (Renton, 1983) . Public or quasi-public hospitals are considered government buildings which are principal uses permitted outright in the P-1 zone. Medical offices, accessory uses in separate buildings (possibly the Ambulatory Care Center) and/or buildings over 50 feet in height but less than 95 feet are considered conditional uses in the P-1 zone. The intent of the O-P zone is "to provide areas appropriate for professional, administrative, and business offices, certain LJ manufacturing activities, and supportive services in a campus-like setting" (Ibid) . Administrative and professional offices, medical and dental clinics business and. professional services and research L` and development are principal uses permitted outright in the 0-P zone. r Table 4 outlines the development standards associated with each zoning classification. 62 TABLE 4 { REY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Regulation Zone P-1 0-P Height 50 ft no height 95 ft w/CUP limit Setbacks - front: 30 ft 30-60 ft - rear: 10 ft 20-30 ft - side: 5 ft 20-30 ft - special: 20 ft from 50 ft adj . north property to R-3 line Lot Coverage no limitations Comment Design of the proposed project would be generally consistent with existing land use regulations noted in Table 4. As noted in the Description of the Proposed Action (contained in this DEIS) and as shown in Figures 6 and 8, the height of the top of the parapet would be 70 feet above the finish elevation of the first floor of the proposed medical office building. Because this proposed height exceeds the allowed 50-foot height, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required. The proposed height of the parapet, as well as the height of the mechanical penthouse, would comply with the maximum height limit allowed in the P-1 zone with a CUP (95 feet) . The City could impose conditions to mitigate impacts identified by this DEIS. 63 B. TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING 1 . -Affected Environment Street/Highway System The existing street/highway system in the vicinity of the Valley Medical Center is shown in Figure 16. Access to the site is provided from driveways on Talbot Road and South 180th, also known as S.W. 43rd Street. The following is a description of the arterials surrounding the study area. SR-167 (East Valley Freeway) : SR-167 is a north-south, 4-lane state route freeway, which is links Interstate 405 (two miles north of the site) with SR-515 and SR-18 south of the site. SR-167 has a posted speed limit of 55 m.p.h. A signalized intersection exists at the I-405 full diamond L_J interchange. At this interchange, SR-167 serves an average daily traffic count (ADT) of 90, 500 vehicles north of S.W. 43rd Street and 71 , 100 vehicles south of S.W. 43rd Street. At S.W. 43rd Street, SR-167 northbound on-ramps serve 10, 100 ADT and south off- ramps serve 7, 380 ADT. East Valley Road: East Valley Road is a north-south 5-lane, 60-foot wide arterial. It has a posted speed limit of 25 m.p.h. in the vicinity of S.W. 43rd Street. This arterial has an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 17, 902 south of S.W. 43rd Street and 22, 184 north of S.W. 43rd Street. The intersection of East Valley Road and S.W. 43rd Street is a fully signalized 4-legged intersection. Access to East Valley Road from SR-167 (East Valley Freeway) is made from directly connecting off/on ramps at the signalized intersection on S.W. 41st Avenue. Five foot-wide sidewalks exist along East Valley Road, north of S.W. 43rd Street. South of S.W. 43rd Street, the East Valley Road tapers to two ' lanes and then widens out to three lanes with a two-way left turn lane. S.W. 43rd Street (South 180th Street)/Carr Road: S.W. 43rd Street is an east-west 5-lane, 60-foot wide principal arterial. This street has a posted speed limit of 35 m.p.h. for cars and 25 m.p.h. for trucks traveling eastbound on the incline between Talbot Road and East Valley Road. Fully signalized intersections exist on Lind Avenue S.W. , East Valley Road, the northbound on-ramp/southbound off-ramp half diamond SR-167 interchange, the Talbot Road intersection and 98th Avenue South F- intersection (Figure 16) . The roadway crosses above SR-167 between the East Valley Road 64 • , , i 1 r , ,_ 1 I ., , . , - , ,, f-----1 rn ii 11 , 1r 'tri Pil N,......e4 :•41" fes...,..412•1';:*t.-'p ' ' 311111111111 ...,0.1_ : 1 1..! .4 pi.vS : H G) ,. . Ci] . No.4.1k. .' _...,.;‘,... ::.6:.6::. 17-... 1: ' ., , .„.. ..,..... H i so„,4 1 • , v /4 ,sisr . AV H , -....z..... . 1 nswilimISNNA,...-------: • Z I .......-;:..::;X..., 1 r , . 2 Ai, Av IF,. i, ..„........40 or ss•d;. 11F.• '• /f..5.,511)1111G j;Al,..?' -, • -. _.4. 4 N . ., . - -- :. .,8-i--..t,... . :AGM , .•.-!'%1'..••;.-. -,1',.1,,r; i'''•••;g• RD . . , s.,, . .• .-,,,....--....,,,T.......----•N., _"... . En • ___ _ ....-,,,r,....4,T,,,,,,,,,.„._ •i •••• -,,,,I,,:x:-,•,:,N.., . ...Lt. ,:ii7=';:;"'•—•41A,..;..42"...,7",..-.-.4.J.,-,.,....-„..,.53....."•:„.. ''''''':•:::••:-•'' '..."‘ '.."IPIIIP_Ap --s---41:,-t,------ ...i.,,,:', 8;.*":"•-•'.' '1111'• ILI H 4,-.,.:,...'. ,-;',.../.?..Fr- „:,•'SETH AV Ss,2 'L '•- i_f_E:.:-_ -..-.• _.:•_. .'-',?,'..,,-,:gai..„.,-7:4-7-,.:a,,,..,,,,.2.41.1,:f..,IY:'4,1444-,..2-S--,14,--g"....47. - .(7--„,,. ..-..,..,•.-,4 — . ,,,, -.4:::q'',.''.':f.,''....0-0.D71.90#.1:VItei,';:;".P.:IrPiijUla....'".`i.'7,';'"•:-. ..•,...,.:' 1 . \.,!.,. ..),..,:•.,,,-;:,,,, .., I.,,..,;„AO' .„1,,44,,,,,..,.4 n, . ti,.. , ..U I 3 H .- Vo%•••••••••••••• ,..,..;.;,-.i:a".!;',fil,^4'..0"1:...a'''''" ' • - A'''?"..t.'••''14.''''•W4;0°''--••=-,.:;''' il •'*V.' ;';','!-•.'-!..,i.Vi.:.:,:',,,..1..r.-.''-'4•:+:04:••40;` , •EATH'-Z:AV'' .• q . •' . ! %.1:..:' ,4.:t;';'.11',i,03e,,,,,' .,..,,,:0710,14W,:ing. '!":::.,-,-'"'..:..,:t"'ZiSe,.....`:`::.•.: ........AV:.4.:.:.:.'01 :::ii'•:;!"'"'.....,;:}i,,l.:, •-, 4 g ., .. . . '' I . .E*K:i.730::::::::::::, M . • ' --- -g• -- (4'.. -,I.1', 1•Zc)1 .,nt'4V4..r..`ii'lig.ViAt1`1,6::"'tti.7---TE:;,,,1 i'''.. • o.'' .,.'iv!... .: -• t*:•:,•*1::: ::*:*:.:*:: ,,I.'''';'iC0:AE.25'..-;911ttrig•:.-•-',-.:- I I . • It,;•4,.. ...‘.:•7:4-.4.,?,:,..;7 ,,,-r's..110,•',,...-,,,,',...,`--ik,-:`! '‘''''.5",t•-•.r..•:- •I...'. ' V.:• .:En.., . •0.........e.S-4....:Cs.....•••••••......1 "• . ... .. s 1 g • 62" " 3• : ... •;,- . . ,-; -.:.- ::--::::;.•-if...-,,,--:!..-,--'..,,. , x$A.,.$0:ix4i:tx - --.:..- ..1.,..--it..,, ..!-,-,:•-•-,;i'.---.r.- ---,-„.:-',...,. . .- 1;-_?T -4,-..i,,,,.t.---•,,,- -,-,,,,,---,•c.g.Wo',.--",t4,-,!,,-;,-,?,.....,51 i : -.:i,,,,. --•-,..:-...,.,..„,..-,_.: t::..:.+....:•:+:•:•.•? . •::.;•, . ,...,.... --:-o--.- .--v• . _4,0 , - -.• lg. 1.,-,--,.,..-•,-.:„.. ..,,,7.,.•:.:„..;.,._;,,„.-, ..„..., ,...,.....,4,-..-, .,,,.....-:- .- -.' ... .-, ......_. .---•!•••••-•-!--,-•-•-•-•-• ,R. .-'V....IV• -•,.-•s1.14 <41.. 0 . I 6(.ni Ake 10 s :...f,i,,e&i.,.......,...1.., ir ill'..;,....:4.:,0.., tk.71,2:-.i::1.',-...7231.:.:t.:,..•::',..-.1.-. .:i.:,'..Y..,•-.I :: :i:.';I-•.. r...3 ... S.y,,.',.., :,..: ... ...,..... ,.. .i....:sicx. •,s.A I • s.;4- •,•5":.:Aks;;,..V.",;.,1r,•,41- -,..,--'''._ .....,..-7,-'.". •.' ''1:'" ""-"' ..:AR. Allii I 11.1 r'''' .• ."4. ...e..---.1:•vii1:;,110,A;y. I. t'l,'•`._.1.4Pi--12.4.6e14'?; .71',.r ill:Y}4%`414.;,,,kiliat,.2.,e,1 G,..*.7.;;;:....:,.::::•,::;',.-...,.„ ICI; : ..1:.:". .'''..",„:-... =2, r....,,...P.!1 .',.,.„....,,-;..(..IVIt' .ST :-.;',...,1;',t7:1Vi-t'?-,..e,g_'±,V •kg, :4:-4-?-,-- c,"4.-:-:,1. -,..,7-.--',.....:;,.-. .','.,.--.,„ ..1!-,-.....'.N.,-,-...,-. • - --;.:7-,e,',..7-r_. -4.0.7.1,14;ik.e.;,.•,:i0V. . 1 (6gril' 'A; I.CS —41-vv.s;-?'-it4,-7_•- .--.::.-t-c7ir,-1--,...4-....---- --.-•-• .: .. .:t.,7.!`-7..8-;W•SUMUMWIPP. ,',IN'I- ...,,,—..,,,,,', .. rit!..,VrE,MTI: - • t,A,,-tir....---,*—T-'----- '".tp•. : 3.3313T/33L3 .'.••• Viss-/ •.'N,r47.-. ...".....,..tSI:3;c.,%0 .• s:- '.S, .•.!•-r.'1,••111".'.; 3')':•'./:•:'.•:. ' . ...1',•:;_sr .T1).Ti:4$74°14ffilOr`i...P;6S*-'''ir''.''‘..,.,°. •.'PI' ri- .....?'..'-',;:ii.0'w 4 '....'„''..„?.,. VIJ.1,4JP/ `4's ' ".:.7v,.: :l'::,'.:`-:'.•.I...° : ",..5:-';,:`:,]::::•',1.';:'‘...',!....., `14w,r.":- .V..,;-1 ,N•cl'i.:`:.,:l.:.;TV.. i., '•:: ':'-.A")..49..-• :"?`‘-'`'il0. ... -1'°° •--- .',,' -' - '''' --.A.-. •'-...,•••• -:-.4.tii 713T AV S N'4•til •4'''a 1 ...., -'44?'I ::''.'''''.'• v A Ts-P. ' if '''t..‘°. .4f:A:,0 §''. '''''', -;,01 .:'.'4"". .. •N i A.:1S. --'!., A-. ,„...- R. 'N,,,, • • •.:. I ...,:..... ;'1.: .• '.- •'•:''./ i',,,.. 11.3^gv s —Nimesumr---........airoriiia. 13v)-,-. ,NE S.;. Niftiappi sre a e-Alt-, ' • Z•.. 0:'.'..-I ?i'.7.•.5.%.:, :..._.i.j.1..'•'''•I 111111741-1•ir'-•:.-141 FURUNGT" . -:..,:zi.„(R• 4 r.,.•'::„. „'4t 11„...„„8,N:',1" ''a,„1,41.4.W. •.--.f NEWasMagt; 14 `'..';'...:'• • • •'- -..- .*.'7-.. it':21Lrf'': .'.'.!,::::..!?!!:.4V-":-.1'I'..,`,.';?..1 • — I '1';':-:.:4,-1:1,!z 4'4:.'..71,0.1.4:::..-.::,z. .-.•. ..GACRE. am,•':'•,...• •Dar•-,...., ,...-::::.2. :...:'-'• &7-.712!-..y.'.•.?;'.2..... '' ---- . f--.- •'-‘',,,r.i;:.--.:V!.;;;:g-1,1.re..,:',i-g.:.;. 1.1*3> ..1E,...3,410.1.4/4-i,' .e-t--I A • ...-:' ..:=011---1----. ,---. .--,s-z:; :,::-• -,e,,i,'-'1.,*A*;::'.-47.1-1 CO I 1.-:_:::::-.1,1*m1171*0.4el ----Jo.Mi. • Ul -- - --,- - . a). ,4,7,-78....B....S ..r.e....t.;,:%nitik'il•P!,,..M -. GI ii':• •,.:07...... . ... ' - • _.L'I..i: .-...;-.,;.;1.....„--;--2:.Ii-T "r"9Y6Y.%;-:;;;':',:..;.c.iicag .: -- .• 1137 • :-..- L_ 7r.;' ,.'.. .' ———— I, ;..-;.„tt.--:-•.,,,...1— ... .•• • 1 -•:, ,,.„.,„ . .:.•:3-„,....:.•-..•..•:....;.:.,5,....,..,......:, ZI 0 4_ 'X. '.--:'''' . ••......:•• .:'.,;'-r-•. h. Er11:2.:' 0;1'..`1"7;-5::;!::.',:, •:.'-:,, f-t.-:"'I'L'--1--Aq)2;: i.-,.:;i:.g. °A 7,1„, t AV S y ; 1 .. _. ,,,,....c, .:.f,...•-• !,.,. ,.:, ..... a • I A E.... I M PACIFIC 1 Sw .....- ....- ,.., : I 2. I .... cc,„., 71:Z•24'.........--. ..,-.001.,::'1,..1-.: e 1 '. ti • I 1 'POWELL AV SW .. Z .....7.tR*1...AN. AV. •-•..• ,:: •-'-' -:'..,::•:;:,c•, ' •-`:•,-.7'q'r-Pi•--:;;itr.: M • r I I . I li klAS AV SW Pi 4. =I= f. • I .•-...; ', .,.. .. . ..As ..l••'.••••..!,..-N7.7.7;t7-17.t77,. •-•-•- . ,1 ui AF i= m..,... . - ••.• •• g .' -...;•..: •• /;,,.---1'..,'..,-•-Zz. 15E I 0 0 I .=-11=1._ ." 1 ' r. h....-...„1-:'-....,.. 4c4.Egr.71k-L • -. ... AV Z .............______. .... r A. . . I 4 r i ---,— c) - ,.• •,,.... ..:-..,,,•„:„. :- „..... 4,6,......,,,,„,,,, 1.. , . ..-,...!:-..:,::...,-,,,. ,•',.,,,.r.,.:;-,,,gAve -• -- -... - ,•.• ,••.•, ....... ' I 4 ,__. . e :I+. ;AVIIIIiIr . tIALL6•;"•' L......--..,;-',1.--.: -.:.: EASTVA EY ROAD1 II _ „_____ .., .. ,•,...44 . 1 2 .._.____... . sFi-----16-7-- :_, 11 A sw-.' LA" I• 's''-ii.i.j. .•r. 1.....-.01416 I I „. 1 I X . FRIA)....... ...............Y . I . * : 71 LAKE ST S= 4 1 TALBOT ROA i•16 1:1 .1:.. ., _ N.sv 4...--• t: .1111 .. ,s-att wlif, ' - i SHA UCK il ____.• > r: .1 _-J r---1 i . I —IN ..4 •rucg ....-s..-'1° 11,__...:.."... AV , W.3;17:t4=1111%,. s 'irr , WHITWORTH AV 3 ThersITH grifig s.. n *A • n k>„ •.,,,,..,_..... 1,,,......„,, , _ .„„ --411.-2, rr... ., , .:e', 99TH PL , onl . I .. 1.:11-- tl\''\:„Hmo...........• - 1 .."—..'-- ' a) . I gll--- i '1 ‘4 A _•••••• M il _Cial _ ZA, ,0-1.if...117:!. ——-1—--——.H HT5TAI /7'i " -—1—— -9-•-- ..TH-AVE SE— - % i•• ' mArmOi. s swot a — P' —— .N NOSN38 . • • r, ' 0 . M `Ars E ' . 103RD AV SE I I ___I 0. 0 • ..-5 .. , AV SE AV S NEIN- - i .‘s rn s--- _ •Pp . . - cEDAR AV S 1 CAI I; loArii v Al ?, 105TH AV SE 07 I S MTH Av maim.t,Av sOSO 4-. m 1 = IOSTIIPL SE Po 40 , jir 105TH A - -, N •''' 11 r.- G'. PENTON Av i -.;El• • HA N ESE I ip Ps • 7 1"r N., ,, - ' 6b I I08TH I, P. 81 ian AV' 1 - - • Ill, Mr' ' 4P. 2 o",, 4• ry gi• ... us m 4 - ;;.• ),9emmal- .: . . , . • 11° .- ..,J•11..T t.F._____ . • and the site and serves as a vital link in this continuous east- west corridor through the Green River Valley. The ADT for S.W. 43rd Street East of Lind Avenue S.W. is 22, 443 vehicles per day, and east of East Valley Road the ADT is 38, 333 vehicles per day. + Between the SR-167 on/off ramps and Talbot Road, the ADT is 34, 611 . East of Talbot Road, the ADT is 31 , 123 . S.W. 43rd Street provides a major east-west link between large commercial and light industrial uses west of site (including Southcenter) and convenience shopping and residential uses east of the site. Five foot concrete sidewalks exist on both sides of S.W. 43rd Street and a five foot-wide planting strip buffers the walk from the roadway, except on the SR-167 overpass. Talbot Road South: Talbot Road is a four lane, 48 foot wide north-south collector arterial which connects to Highway 515 north of the site. Talbot Road has a posted speed limit of 25 m.p.h. and adjacent to the site has 5 foot-wide concrete sidewalks. A fully signalized intersection exists at the intersection of Talbot Road and S.W. 43rd Street. Traffic Volumes Automatic and manual turning movement counts were collected from the City of Renton Department of Public Works (DPW) , Washington Department of Transportation, and King County. Figures 17 and 18 depict factored 1990 AM and PM peak hour turning movement traffic volumes at access driveways and the adjacent streets. The factoring process involved calibrating previous traffic counts to 1990 volumes, based on recent traffic counts on adjacent streets. A comparison of the total ADT and the PM peak hour counts shows that PM peak hour volumes represent between 9% and 12% of the daily volumes. Level of Service (LOS) A measure of the relative level of congestion can be made by calculating the Level of Service (LOS) at intersections. Traffic operations within the study area were analyzed with the use of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 1985 Highway Capacity Software. This program utilizes the techniques presented in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) , and produces an LOS rating for each intersection based upon a scale ranging from LOS A (free flow conditions) to LOS F (forced flow or jammed conditions) , with LOS E being capacity conditions. LOS D (tolerable delays at intersections) is usually considered adequate by the City of Renton for urban intersections (Clint Morgan, Renton Public Works-Traffic Div. , meeting, July 1990) . The 1985 HCM techniques account for such factors as poor signal 66 N O N • DWY#4 _..)1 co °—' 1t °� N co Q �-Nr7 21 ZDWY3 �1L S 166 77TH � ,— 0 -- LI 7 —� �or � N - hID n N �.6'Z ^/N" leg, -' DWl'#2 / SW 41ST ST ,.1`` (� 541 VALLEY 4 JI MEDICAL 13 ))11 � 338 ��r CENTER h // N N a a^p DWY#1 J ' rn l- k__397 N.1.... 8 1 �I ""_ 977 In to N /Ct 59 ^off ISW /� 9 537 47 N N Cs 43RD ST1 ! 1478 387 j N"co ii7, 130 } 35 1760 -0--- 1754 J i L 10 188� 'Ir. ' f r 1 o N 168-�` tf 368 y I I 102 _� r 442 r 122 II co N�N Lil oN 45 ? 38Th - N CO — CO CO I ~ W j1 SOUTHAl!ll CAMPUS o ___1 J O NIM. Q � 1 �- 11 II S 45TH P L 1 Y]�j (� Pr-- 11 1` Jr of � t Cf) in co o„ 11.1 ^� a Q 0 CENTRAC FIGURE 17 1 ii i e ilnAinn bin 1990 AM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS Hvik8///W8/nm3nAD:i8Ies,/ne1 1 67 / N in n DWY#4 J 2 13� 1 1 Q • ^ Nk P 25 J DWY#3 J�� 8 J ...... S 177T 33.._J) r H 4l 84� .r 1{ N�yN 9 N N o IL-- h`2 SW 41ST ST J�J �363 ` 42 DWY#2 �` VALLEY 350_J MEDICAL 18 f 44 m )rrao CENTER ^ry / h vN,,, DWY#1 4 �a� �67 o0h in 15 561 LoNd, 15 )1 �� f-- 9 L 443 Th �� SW 43RD ST ji` 656 325 / N N 88 GP `_ 138 11 .f— 686 762 8 5, !Tr 825 /4 360 �— �� 1016 J1` 57 .-r. 112 ! 1438-- 1 f 31 Jl ��� 1777 188 1f1" ^cy 1,N 109Th ^ 1378 (V 217Th ono co n _ CO CO / • Ct CO CO /19 CZ, • st JPw �� o.. CO0 �, IQ SOUTH j 1 1Q CAMPUS 3 _1 N.)t 25-•--) o.r a o :O) t0 N N 7 !- 21 1 i S 45TH PL N l r- 50--3 1 47 10 *Noa L N M 0) c• •CENTRAC • FIGURE 18 1990 PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS Ng1IellIW8inmgnA #ies,In , 68 progression, bus volumes, pedestrian conflicts, roadway geometries, parking maneuvers and other traffic-inhibiting factors. The LOS for signalized intersections is defined in the 1985 HCM in terms of delay, which indicates driver discomfort, frustration and lost travel time. For unsignalized intersections, LOS is based upon the concept of "reserve capacity", i .e. the physical capacity remaining. The reserve capacity concept is applied only to an individual traffic movement (or shared-lane movement) . Once the capacity of all the individual movements has been calculated and their LOS determined, an overall evaluation of the intersection can be made. Normally, the movement with the worst LOS defines the overall evaluation, but this may be tempered by engineering judgment. This is particularly true in cases where the most critical movement serves a very minor percentage of the total traffic entering the intersection. The LOS criteria used for this EIS analysis is shown in Table 5 . Past experience with unsignalized analysis procedures indicates that this methodology is very conservative and tends to overestimate the magnitude of any potential problems. Therefore, the result of any unsignalized intersection analysis should be reviewed with this thought in mind. Existing PM peak-hour LOS at intersections analyzed in the vicinity of the proposed development are summarized in Table 6. Poor levels of service occur where high volume streets intersect, competing for the green phase of the signal by each movement or approach, and where there are heavy turning movements from minor streets onto high volume streets. Accident Experience Accident reports were gathered from the City of Renton Department of Public Works and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Traffic Data Bank for the period of January 1 , 1986 to December 31 , 1988. Accident data was converted to an accident rate to compare high and low volume locations on an equal basis. The typical rate measure for intersection-related accidents is accidents per million entering volume (ACC/MEV) . This rate is computed by taking the average annual number of intersection accidents, multiplying it by one million, and dividing by the product of the 24-hour intersection entering volume times 365 days per year. � V ' 69 TABLE 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Signalized Unsignalized Level of Stopped Delay Per Reserve Expected Delay Service Vehicle (seconds) Capacity Minor Street Traffic A < = 5.0 > = 400 Little or no delay B 5.1 to 15.0 300 - 399 Short delays C 15.1 to 25.0 200 - 299 Average delays D 25.1 to 40.0 100 - 199 Long delays E 40.1 to 600 0 - 99 Very long delays F > 60.0 * When demand volumes exceed the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. Source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual 70 TABLE 6 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY 1995 1995 Existing 1995 1995 With With No Action With Expansion Relocated (Alt. #1) Expansion Reduced Scale Medical Office Proposed Development Building (South) Action (Alt. #2) (Alt #3) • Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM - AM PM AM PM Dwy #1/Talbot Rd. A A A B A D A C A B Dwy #2/Talbot Rd. A A A A A B A B A A Dwy #3/Talbot Rd.' B B C B C C C C B C Dwy #4/Talbot Rd. A A A A A A A A A A Dwy #5/S. 43rd St. F C F D F D F D F D Dwy #5/S. 43rd St! C3 B C B C B S. 45th Place/ Talbot Road B C C C C D C C C C SR-167/SW 41st/ E. Valley Road C F D F D . F D F D F SW 43rd Street/ Lind Avenue SW B B B B B B B B B B SW 43rd Street/ E. Valley Road F F F F F F F F F F S. 43rd Street/ Talbot Road S. F E F F F F F F F F S. 43rd Street/ SR-167 ON/OFF F F F F F F F F F F 1 This driveway was analyzed as a 4-leg intersection with South 177th Street being the WB leg. 2 Emergency use only. 3 Right in/right out, EB light traffic would make a right turn onto Davis then access thru the proposed tunnel. 71 Table 7 summarizes the total number of accidents for this period at four locations, the average number of accidents for the 3 year period, and the rate of accidents per MEV. The pattern of accidents does not appear to be unusual in that the highest number of accidents tend to occur on those streets and intersections that are most heavily traveled. Yearly averages of approximately 10 or more are usually considered to be high accident locations. TABLE 7 ACCIDENT DATA (1/1/86 - 12/31/88) Intersection 126 J2 Z 1 M3 Total Avg/Yr Acc/Mev East Valley Rd./ S.W.41st St. 5 8 8 21 7.00 East Valley Rd./ S.W.43rd St. 9 16 13 38 12.67 S.W.43rd St./ Lind Ave.S.W. 7 3 7 17 5.67 S.W.43rd St./ Talbot Rd.S. 13 5 11 29 9.67 Transit Service Metro provides transit service throughout the study area. Route #155 runs all day (hourly) on S.W. 43rd Street with bus stops near the project site and at the intersection of Talbot Road and S.W. 43rd St. This route also connects with the Southcenter Park- and-ride. Routes #149 (every half hour AM and PM peak hour only) and 909 (9AM to 4PM, hourly) serve Talbot Road S. and the South Renton Park-n-Ride. Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities During an afternoon field observation by CENTRAC in Spring 1990, a moderate level of pedestrian traffic and no bicycle activity was noted throughout the study area. The bulk of pedestrian activity is concentrated in and around VMC. Signalized crosswalks exist at most appropriate locations along all of the major roadways. . There are no dedicated bicycle lanes in the vicinity of the project. Parking/Access Current access to VMC is via four driveways on Talbot Road S . , one driveway on S.W. 43rd St. , and via the outpatient drop-off area. The existing, internal on-site loop road (depicted in Figure 2) provides access from each of the driveways to all buildings on the north campus. 72 ' Authorized parking spaces are available at VMC for patient and j employee use. The site currently has 1 , 688 parking stalls, with a calculated parking demand of 1 , 514 parking spaces (Jacobsen & Assoc. , 1989) . The parking study indicated that the parking garage and parking lots in the southwestern corner of the campus are currently underutilized by patients and visitors. As noted in the Description of the Project, the City of Renton recently authorized expansion of the existing parking garage in the northwest corner of the north campus. The expansion includes the addition of 800 parking spaces to the existing 298 spaces presently provided. Construction is expected to start in 1991 with completion prior to occupancy of the proposed Medical Office Building II . Planned Transportation Improvements VMC in conjunction with the City of Renton has committed to the construction of Local Improvement District (L.I.D. ) #329 . Construction is planned in late 1990 with completion scheduled in the Fall of 1991 . As background, L.I.D. #329 was originally approved in 1982 for the widening of S.W. 43rd St. between the SR-167 on- and off-ramps and the Talbot Road intersection. VMC committed to participate in the L.I.D. at that time, as a mitigation measure for the Hospital's construction of the Radiation Oncology Center. A planned unit development of 12 medical office buildings, proposed for the site which is now VMC' s south campus, had also agreed to participate in the L. I.D. -- as a traffic mitigation measure associated with that project. In 1987, VMC purchased the property of the proposed planned unit development (site of the existing south campus) , thereby becoming the sole contributor to L. I.D. #329. Since that time, the Hospital has used the property for employee parking. It became apparent to VMC that increased pedestrian and vehicular traffic between the north and south campus could affect traffic flow on S.W. 43rd St. VMC recommended two proposals to the City for modification of the L.I.D. The first proposal involved construction of a pedestrian overpass above S.W. 43rd St. and the other proposal was for a tunnel beneath S.W. 43rd St. In subsequent meetings, the City indicated to VMC that one of the major reasons L. I.D. #329 had been delayed for several years was due to the City' s concern that a new traffic light at the intersection of S.W. 43rd St. and Davis St. S. (as proposed in L.I .D. #329) could further impact traffic flow in this area. While a pedestrian overpass would improve pedestrian flow through this intersection, north and south campus-bound traffic would still be affected by traffic congestion at the intersection. I , 73 Representatives of VMC and the City selected the tunnel proposal because it was felt that a tunnel beneath S.W. 43rd St. : o would eliminate the proposed stop light at S.W. 43rd St. and Davis Ave. S. , thereby improving the flow of traffic on S.W. 43rd St. ; o provide excellent pedestrian access between the north and south campus, without the need to cross a major arterial street; and o a tunnel could more effectively incorporate the south campus into VMC's overall campus. As the sole contributor to L.I.D. #329, Valley Medical Center agreed to pay the additional $1 . 5 million cost for a tunnel. In addition to the tunnel, several other major local traffic improvements are included in this L. I.D. Three new traffic lanes will be added between the freeway ramps and Davis Avenue S. (one HOV lane, one left- and one right-turn channel to SR-167 ramps) and two new lanes between Davis Avenue S. through the Talbot Road intersection (one left- and one right-turn channel to Talbot Road) . Another traffic lane will be constructed on Talbot Road South, north of S.W. 43rd St. to accommodate traffic from parking areas on the Hospital's north campus. In general, improvements constructed as part of L.I.D. #329 will upgrade traffic capacity on S.W. 43rd St. and the LOS at SR- 167 on/off ramps and the Talbot Road S. intersection. The LOS for the entrance to the Hospital campus off of S.W. 43rd St. , which is currently utilized by emergency vehicles, will be significantly improved. In addition to planned L.I.D. #329 improvements, the 1989 King County Transportation Plan identified the need to widen Carr Road between 108th Avenue S.E. and the Talbot Road intersection by six lanes with HOV provisions. While these recommended improvements are identified as a high priority project for the. County, they have not been included for funding in the County's 1990-1995 Capital Improvement Program. Also, the County has proposed one new signal along Carr Road at 105..th Place S.E. , in addition to the new signal being installed at 98th Ave. S.E. Both signals will be developer- -_ funded (not VMC) . While installation of these two signals will improve traffic safety, they are not expected to significantly improve traffic congestion. Traffic Growth Future traffic growth in the study area is comprised of two components. The first component is background traffic, i .e. traffic traveling through the area on S.W. 43rd St. and Talbot Road S. which is not related to Valley Medical Center. The second component of growth is traffic generated by expansion of existing facilities and new construction occurring at VMC. This second 74 component will increase traffic volumes at access driveways, on internal circulation routes and contribute to increased volumes on adjacent streets. Between 1980 and 1989, King County regional population grew at approximately 3% per year (Renton population grew at a rate of approx. 24%) . Historic Traffic Counts by King County (1977-1987) indicate a 3. 3% per year increase in the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Carr Road west of SR-515. Based on these data, a three percent regional annual rate was assumed for background traffic. Figures 19 and 20 show the AM and PM peak-hour volumes for 1995 assuming 3% annual growth but without any VMC expansion. In the 1982 Traffic Circulation Study of Valley Medical Center prepared by Transportation Planning & Engineering, the driveway volumes for the PM peak hour of 4:00 - 5: 00 represented 7 .8% of the total volume of 5, 800 vehicles per day entering and exiting the main campus. Assuming that today's traffic is similarly distributed over the course of a day, as it was in 1982, the estimated total volume entering and exiting all driveways is now 7, 350 vehicles per day. Significant Impacts of Proposed Action Trip Generation Daily and peak-hour trips generated by the proposed VMC expansion were estimated using trip generation statistics assembled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE, 1987) for medical office buildings (Section 720) . The medical office building rate was selected because the Average Weekday (PM peak- hour) trip generation rates are larger than those for Hospitals (Section 610) and Clinics (Section 630) per 1 ,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area; this results in a more conservative estimate of future traffic. Table 8 summarizes the daily and peak-hour vehicle trips generated by the proposed development by the year 1995 . As shown, the Proposed Action would generate an additional 4, 040 vehicular trips on an average weekday, with 169 of those trips occurring during the AM peak-hour and 397 trips during the PM peak-hour. Trip Distribution and Assignment It is assumed that trips generated by the proposed facilities would follow the general distribution patterns of existing traffic arriving and departing from VMC, as shown in Figure 16. Several other factors were considered in the assignment of generated traffic to specific access driveways and streets, including the campus each facility would be located on, the proximity of driveways to the specific building site and the assumption that a tunnel connecting the north and south campuses would be constructed. Figures 21 through 24 show 1995 AM and PM peak-hour trips generated by the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 . Impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be essentially the same as the 75 • in i ONI DWY#4 L1 00-1 11 j O, Q N (1, Z � ^NM 24 I DWY#3 J S 76 1 / I �77TH 8 _� N � . T coy La N w co ,, J^2 Jj/M O N ] / SW 41 ST ST i` 6� DWY#2 VALLEY • MEDICAL 15 �/ 21 ��� CENTER ry ^N • /� N in m DWY#1 1 10 ^* h457 N0, 8 o __ 1124 co.r,:� p 68 �O l ��r- 10 L 618 N N P SW 43RD ST i L � - 1700 fN N• 8 m 1462 G 150 1 I fir. ,8 �� ,87 �_ 2024 / 2017 J ` 12 218—� !/� 101 � � 1 � o-N 78 �// 415 f 117- 508-.. r 140- J 1f U) N iy °ca N 52 I...` 335-_� I-. 44 T Mt' pil 1 I . . ��CO r,N Q CO 1 CO rt Q -. m - 14- � _I SOUTH �� �- CAMPUS 0 ; '1 0 T --I -O N� 1` r- 13 J l S 45TH PL 1 V tou, 0 � 60� 1t 03 ,.. LU 5 'Cr CENTRAC Li FIGURE 19 1' 1995 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES IIA e A���l�nAgio n�'WITHOUT EXPANSION OF VMCIMIIY, IY! G fAlll II 76 , 1 / J IC i 7 DWY#4 —i 15 • co co v .N-rn 1 4/ v co29 ff �' 0 - ---/ DWY#3 J t ` S 17 38_J 7TH Li ~ r- 1 97---.1( R rn M 0) MM 2.63 `O/40 411 • DWY#2 —.I/SW 41 ST ST J j VALLEY 3 ,J MEDICAL ss � )r 59 51 ��/— CENTER to /� (0 to II yMN., DWY#1 1 h "'. 17 ._J )1 O 77 co,o J 1 I 'F— 645 co N trt 91 1 `� 10 �509 N a" '11 GY� SW 43RD ST J j m N N N ,01�� 754 374 _ � 159 � 13 j � 669 169 J } �— 876 1168 942-� 1 1 148. }/� }r 6 ^w 29 �1/ 1654 � ll 36� r 216 n n 2044—+ I I I U7 N iy M to 131 03 1585—� 250M coor.^o Q n _ CO �O Ct Q >- F- � W o- m J _ c SOUTH. CAMPUS 3 _J t 29---Thi 0u.,3 Q. co n coNILO I ` Ir— 24 J i S 45TH PL 1 V t r- 54_, 1I In M n. Li 0 o CENTRAL __ FIGURE 20 I pp-- 1995 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES II� a of II���Asio11�1- WITHOUT EXPANSION OF VMCu G GI�I 'I 77 TABLE 8 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY 1995 TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTION AWDT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATOR VOLUME IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Proposed Action - Ambulatory Care Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 110,000 sq. ft. Medical Office 4,040 95 74 169 107 290 397 Reduced Scale Development - 86,100 sq. ft. • Medical Office 3,095 75 59 134 84 228 312 7 8 • NN DWY#4 J i Q 2T 11 . I - NOS 0 o J�� �� 3 Q DWY#3 S 17: 77 H 2 J it(U 3 --� 9 ----) moo N cb Lj 00 `0 ,..---(3 SW 41 ST ST JR e DWY#2 —J` VALLEY 1 J u MEDICAL 7 ,f o — �!J— CENTER w , , o o°, DWY#1 J` 10 3 J 000 i. 12 h O '— 26 ` 9 SW 43RD ST `— 06 3 N P ►�.14 32—+ �_ 35 ( 2 3 o ,s J 1 �— 26 2 32`� I 0 }r 14-- }(� 0 41 —� II 37Th r 12_, .)II 0 (/) o 0 op ... 5 _y 0 —, w.r ,-- , L.,_, Q S-.‘ N0 Z. J1 0) • 437 CI co Q PROPOSED T03 ""' O JPw TUNNEL j i' 1 (v SOUTH �— 4. CAMPUS 6 J Aill 5 - aN Q. 0- 6 goo 1. Y— o Ji S 45TH PL N It 4� 1t 0 CENTRAC FIGURE 21 1995 AM PEAK HOUR GENERATED TRAFFIC IiillimmilsibIls__ VOLUMES— PROPOSED ACTION 79 { i NI—T DWY#4 ` 1 4A cc 3� I � ti- Q. • N a J Z J j .*IL 0 Li DWY#3 J rj 2 s 177TH 9- Ir—12 � 38-Thp;O n i 000 ``Lio N/� SW 41ST ST _Ill., °, DWY#2 -1/ VALLEY o—I MEDICAL 29 �/ o )/r7 CENTER v.�� • p p o DWY#1 Jr N in NI i. 12 , 0)oo: O 46--) 4.•,� P�� SW 43RD3ST 1�I 29 _ 93 , 29 co a �o� � 17 G r` `�— 0 ~122 J -82 11 2 36—� 36 i 0� J/ oT15, 261 1f� (/J _oil p O O: 43 11 —� N 0 co r) LIJ Q ^ PI ii o CO 0) 17 T I I F- z PROPOSED o N ^P, �O TUNNEL /j SOUTH J F- CAMPUS 23_1 11 171 imp J v- oII N 0S 45TH PL 0 }r 222 t 00 0) CENTRAC 0 FIGURE 22 III III I 1995 PM PEAK HOUR GENERATED TRAFFIC kik a(�ma�AllIdel ��'--, VOLUMES—PROPOSED ACTION Vl I'lu , 80 NOl 3 II DWY#4 J 1 cr 2—.-J 1 f • Z .1 J `, jM(OO O Li ` __ DWY#3 �j / - 22 S �77TH 2__I 2--- 1 r 8 ) `n co 0 iv 42 0 0 0 0 SW 41ST ST J j` s DWY#2 J` VALLEY o MEDICAL 66 - )f o- t f— CENTER /� 00to DWY#9 1 ` 2 —J )/ SO oor 0 9 N^ P�� SW 43RD ST ! 22 o �s f_o � 2 2 26--- 26 J -- 20 ....4 2 0-_, 1r 34� 1fr �� ,2 9 1 f 0 00 0 ZSE 29� 0 3 Ltl U Th ,M.- Q ^ Nao (0 Ct co 3 D ►�o m W TUNNEL �//i SOUTH �— 4. CAMPUS 5 1l a/ 4 \ M N J J O CO M i r-- 0 1 1 S 45TH PL 1 V fr 3 1 f 00 Q. 0 CENTRAC FIGURE 23 1995 AM PEAK HOUR GENERATED TRAFFIC NgkellIWeiflffl8nAoies, �' VOLUMES—ALTERNATIVE 2 81 NI: u) o DWY#4 ..1. i 2� ItQ 7� O Nf� • J M J MVo _� 0 DWY 3 JIL r— 1 # S 177TH 8 t r —_ 30m OM O 000 �° J� SW 41ST ST J1` a DWY#2 i VALLEY u---13- MEDICAL 2 '/ a T r CENTER e) CO o / �N DW9 i Z 9 J 7 oo� 36� �Q SW 43RD ST J j` L.22 �, 13 Gp� ""-76 r- 06 � 2 ��M r 29 2 0 98 Ir� 2 } }r 65 —/ o� �/� 0� I I —J' } o r 11 19 I I 0 �0 o op. 34Th co 8 —� i L a ---) O N Q ^ co co CO co J1 co co 0 0 ___1 1r tr 14Th PROPOSED �co— m TUNNEL co —1SOUTH 1 CAMPUS 18_J ...)t 1__ 14—Thi nro -- ON \ f�17 1(. !---. g J i S 45TH PL N V I ;;� 1 i N., 0) co LeJ CENTRAC FIGURE 24 1995 PM PEAK HOUR GENERATED TRAFFIC 1 VOLUMES — ALTERNATIVE 2 IIr pVWp m r p r MY YI�111�� �oYl Y� �YI 82 I - Proposed Action. The difference would be no additional traffic volumes at driveways #1 through #4 (same as No Action) . Traffic Projections and Level of Service Traffic volumes for 1995 were estimated by combining the background traffic growth with the additional traffic generated by the Proposed Action, considering also the proposed tunnel that would link the north and south campuses (and, thereby, eliminate left turning movements) . To conduct a "worst case" analysis, r several assumptions were made, including no increase in the percentage of transit ridership, no increase in vehicle occupancy rate, no diversion of background traffic to other planned cross valley routes and provision of adequate on-site parking. For traffic studies, simulation of a worst case scenario is desirable so that potential problems are not overlooked. Figures 25 through 28 show the AM and PM peak-hour traffic for the alternatives. The relationship between project peak trips and background trips was examined for several key intersections. For the fl- intersection of Talbot Road S. /S.W. 43rd St. , the project-related trips represent 5 . 1 % of the total trips for all movements. At the intersection of the Valley Freeway access ramps and S.W. 43rd St. , project trips account for 9 . 6% of the, total number of vehicular trips. For the intersection at East Valley Road/S.W. 43rd St. , project related trips represent 2.9% of total trips. Table 6 summarizes LOS calculations for existing and 1995 both with and without VMC expansion (plus a 3% annual growth factor) . For 1995 conditions, future road geometry was assumed to calculate LOS. This includes the LID improved geometrics to the street network and a tunnel or signal at the S.W. 43rd St. /Davis Avenue S. intersection. In addition to L.I.D. #329, additional traffic mitigation may be required for the Proposed Action because it was not part of the original calculations for L.I .D. mitigation. For analysis of 1995 conditions with the project, as well as rr the alternatives, LOS was calculated with the anticipated expansion of VMC facilities. Background traffic projected to 1995 was added to the traffic that will be generated by the new and expanded facilities to arrive at the AM and PM peak-hour volumes. For all alternatives, LOS was calculated without any improvements to existing geometry and with the L.I.D. improved geometrics to S.W. ,r- 43rd St. , Talbot Road S. and SR-167 in addition to a vehicular/pedestrian tunnel connecting the north and south campuses. The four access driveways on Talbot Road S. are calculated to operate at an acceptable LOS for all conditions through 1995 with the existing roadway width and lane configuration. Consideration has been given to reducing the number of driveways. However, 1 because all driveways are expected to operate at LOS C or better with the tunnel, no significant traffic access problem is expected that would warrant the closure of a driveway. 83 E •a N 01 NINI (� DWY#4 J f Li cr 1—J 1 t .cc2� N iy Z _J N ``Q W l m NIr') L 24 3 J 11� ! is DWY # S 177TH, 3__J /r 3—+ 1 17-Th �h to N • O,h w 1N o-(O N _7 DWY#2 J SW 41ST ST JIL �, VALLEY 4 J 5 J MEDICAL 21:--� CENTER 2��� 3 V. / ft N w y DWY#1 J/ o�* L457 ^NNth 12 ._J )/ .LQ J1 1150 co v r) 0 80 - N ro /r_ 10 _�627 ce r) N GPI SW 43RD ST• J1' r 172687 454 Al gla g �45 �'2059 7 �--- 1465 2 J 40 2043 J ` ( 14 1Th O^+r 218�y }/� J 117J N 1 fr). ^ r 522-� r 152 JI -)i r 0) cy cy w p o 0 89 o 340—i cp M N 44 \ n r j 0�N Q /N N to Jl 1 cn co ca 5 1t cr • TUNNELED N m 14 Jl e SOUTH 1-- CAMPUS s_I1 1 5 n c, J ^0 0Ico l� 19 p 13 J/ S 45TH PL 1 V ir 4 ___ 1 LI 1 el co 0) s VC CENTRAC FIGURE 25 1995 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH HOSPITAL EXPANSION #ukellIWeinmin AgirAifin �'PROPOSED ACTION •84 10 v J O DWY#4 1 Q � 24 0 0(0 * J ^n -1 > n NlJ�c L29 141 DWY#3 ` / L Y 11 S 177TH 47.—J4 t r 13—� 135� aj°oa • 19)n j63 coh J/L �4,7 SW 41ST ST 59 DWY#2 J` VALLEY 27_J MEDICAL 128- )/ 59� )/r CENTER m 74, ��� — ... .„,,,(0 // y. DWY#, �) • o 10 L. b. J�� n n 29 )/ Q �� 738 n N, p 137 o /ram 10 r 538 '�v. P� SW 43RD S7 r` N N N 118 G ��847 �403 169�J( `` 759 ��998 J ,$ r 792 978 148�/ 1250 J l 68 1( 98$ ! 414�6� co^m 129� r 170,� �tr 36 N v.m n 2059—r r 242 t r 'bcy� M o� 174� 0 1596—� "1 250 ao ao.r o^o Q. row _ Co / ji I CO 0) PO 03 17-5 PROPOSED o ^n O Ltd TUNNEL m t SOUTH Ji CAMPUS 26_J 'sir 46--) h.0 J co V N Q n� r)l[) ir�24 15 1I I S 45TH PL N t r66 -' 11 0 v)^ ',. Li 0 CENTRAC FIGURE 26 - 1995 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH HOSPITAL EXPANSION kit ko IIIM� g11PROPOSED ACTION I"u 85 4. [O ('IC" II 0) O DWY#4 / t --' 1 t �cJ 2. N of O N J `ONn � 24 LLJ DWr 3J1� r7s # S 177TH 3 Ir2 —� T 16 10�43 N , 03 :taR ` N SW 41ST ST JI` 63O DwY#2 -4 VALLEY 4 __I 5 J MEDICAL zl � 1 —� �tr CENTER � �^N N 40 / h DWY# /L 10 10 th 11 0 co ^e �457 46 mvrN, O n� �^ /r' 10 f sz4 �, co N Gp� SW 43RD ST J j 451 N m 42 �� 1722 /� ��. 187 4—2024 �- 7 J 1 I 7— 1464 242� �II 240� J — 2037 / f` 14 T �1r 101J t1 _ }r 1Th ....N 78� ,�,^I 9 � I I 520—� r 149� �I 1 0) N N w Z 81Th 4TkJ N CO `DJjW 41 SED N^ m �u TUNNEL �� _► cit SOUTH CAMPUS s —1 11 4 coo) J n In - nc° NI CO 13 j 1 i S 45TH PL 1 V 04 co 0, It 72 3T 1t La >— 'Cr CENTRAC FIGURE 27 1995 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH HOSPITAL EXPANSION Ngjkeil Weir& Aoi/ es, 1 - ALTERNATIVE 3 86 N W Vim• 3 DWY#4 J i Lo a �� oCo o'ZJ j N�o) 29 DWY#3 J 1I` So 177TH 45- 19-y , 127-Thi no°' "h m ��63 �'03 417 SW 41 ST ST Jj( (f ss DWY#2 JI VALLEY s MEDICAL 122- )/ 51T )ir • CENTER m i� 03 v DWY#1 i h 0h* ` }th 77 m v 3 26 --� / O 1� � 721 10N� p 127� co� #� l� 10 O SW 43RD ST Ji` 831 ^ G _� 830 396 P N N 114 169�/ I `_ 159 �_974J 15 1I r 791 971 1 r 148 J `_" 1233 1\ 68 1 978 414 6 129 1691-� 36—i n 1 r 2055, ( 235 fn N N co 165 tl 1593—. r LU c° N 250 U)co O / LJT CO�CI a it co c„ 14-J 11 Q PROPOSED °ON m TUNNEL co t SOUTH 1 CAMPUS 21_ 1 li 111 43 Th M 1. o p,qJQ n 21` r- 4 1j S 45TH PL N t� 75T 1Nt 0 to_ N 65 La N Q 0) CENTRAC FIGURE 28 1995 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES1 WITH HOSPITAL EXPANSION MgkeiIW8ign C /� pCALTERNATIVE 3 '11 W YV, 87 Driveway #5 at S.W. 43rd St. currently operates at LOS F in the AM peak-hour for eastbound left-turn traffic. This intersection is planned for right turn in, right turn out only operation with the L. I.D. and tunnel construction; emergency vehicles will be allowed to turn left to or from S.W. 43rd St. , however. With completion of the L. I .D. in 1995, the driveway will improve to LOS C or better. Traffic Safety Additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic attributable to the project may increase the number of accidents at affected intersections . It is not anticipated, however, that the overall rate or pattern of accidents would be altered significantly. As noted previously, pedestrian/vehicular traffic accident involvement in this area historically has been minimal. The construction of the L.I.D. will enhance the safety of traffic circulation between the north and south campuses by eliminating traffic crossing S.W. 43rd St. Transit As noted previously, METRO Transit presently serves VMC throughout the day and provides additional service during the AM and PM peak-hours. Neither the Proposed Action nor the alternatives are expected to have any significant affect on existing transit service in the area. However, with an increased emphasis on minimizing the number of vehicular trips generated during peak-hour periods by employees, greater emphasis will be placed on transit ridership (refer to Mitigation Measures) . Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities The proposed S.W. 43rd St. L.I .D. includes construction of sidewalks with a landscaping buffer providing a visual barrier between pedestrians and vehicles. The L. I .D. does not include a separate bicycle lane, so bicyclists will share the road with vehicles or use the sidewalks that have curb ramps for easy road- to-sidewalk transition. The proposed S.W. 43rd St. tunnel will provide for safe movement of pedestrians and employees between the north and south campus. Parking For the existing conditions, the City of Renton requires that VMC provide a minimum of 1 , 030 parking spaces. The current number of stalls provided by VMC is 1 , 688; which is adequate to meet the demand of 1 , 514 parking spaces identified in the July 1989 parking study (Jacobson, N.G. 1989 . Valley Medical Center Parking Study) . The Proposed Action will increase the overall campus parking demand by approximately 385 stalls to a total of 1 , 899 parking spaces. The Ambulatory Care Center will not increase the parking demand by its relocation. Similarly, expansion of the existing facilities into the space to be vacated by ACC will not increase 88 r- parking demand. This expansion will allow for more storage and open floor space. As previously noted in the Project Description, the City of Renton recently authorized VMC to expand the existing parking garage by 800 parking spaces (total of 1 , 100 spaces will be contained in the garage) . Construction for this project is to begin in 1991 and be completed prior to occupancy of the Medical Office Building II which is proposed as part of this Action. The parking study (Ibid) indicates that the increase in parking demand can be met by more complete utilization of existing parking facilities on the the north campus and use of the parking r lot on the south campus. The location of the new facilities will lead to increased use of exisiting under utilized parking facilities. The sudy recommends the relocation of the hospital daytime employees to the south parking lot in order to provide FT closeby parking for the patients of the new facility. Construction Impacts During the construction period, there will be a short-term increase in traffic because of delivery of materials and commuting by construction workers. This increase is expected to have minimal impact on LOS and traffic congestion. During construction of the new facilities, existing parking spaces will be lost temporarily by use of construction equipment/material storage. An additional offsite parking facility may be required for construction employee parking and temporary hospital parking. Parking of vehicles at the south lot should accommodate any additional demand. Mitigation Measures The overall LOS for the road network will decline in response to growth in the area with or without the project. The increase in traffic from the VMC facilities represents only a small fraction of this total traffic volume (less than 10%) and, therefore, should not significantly contribute to declining LOS on the roads serving the facility. However, the LOS at several driveways is reduced as a result of the Proposed Action or alternatives. For those intersections that are already at LOS F, it is expected that VMC would pay their fair share of needed improvements, together with other developers in the area. Continued implementation of Valley Medical Center' s Transportation Management Plan is recommended -- to help improve present and future traffic congestion in the area. Transportation Management Plan The Valley Medical Center Transportation Plan (TMP) , adopted in October 1987, is a plan of action to mitigate traffic congestion and other traffic impacts in the vicinity of the medical center by 89 encouraging employees' to commute by public transit or by participating various ridesharing programs. The goal of the TMP is to reduce total number of vehicle trips generated during the peak hour by all medical center employees (existing plus expansion) by 10 percent within 5 years of implementation of the TMP. It is anticipated that the Proposed Action will generate a need to re-evaluate elements and/or emphasis contained in the existing TMP. The major components of .the existing TMP are the following: o HOV Oriented Site Planning: The purpose of HOV oriented site planning is to assure that building orientation, parking location, parking area amenities (lighting, surface) , driveways and turnarounds are designed to facilitate HOV use where appropriate. o HOV Facilities The purpose of HOV facilities is to provide visible, physical incentives for using HOV's in and around the site. o Parking Management The purpose of parking management (initiated in February 1988) is to improve access and mobility, to prevent spillover, and to influence employee choice of travel mode. High exposure, conveniently located carpooling spaces have been established. These spaces are being and will be promoted in the parking updates circulated to all employees by the Employee Transit Coordinator. For the majority of employees to receive north campus parking, they need to participate in carpools and improve the HOV ratio.. A carpool is defined as two or more persons per vehicle riding together at least four days a week. Carpooling and other identified employees receive special passes to use VMC' s lots. The amount of parking now provided by VMC exceeds current demand by 12% and the amount of parking required by the City of Renton by 39%. With planned expansion of the parking garage, adequate parking will be available on- site to prevent the possibility of future off-site parking spillover. 90 1 o Ridesharing and Transit Program The purpose of the ridesharing and transit program is to aggressively promote and support the use of transit and ridesharing among employees. To do this, the following are performed: - Post transit/ridesharing information in a commuter information center (CIC) located in a prominent place for both employees and clients; - Distribute transit/ridesharing information and ridematch applications to all employees twice per year and to new employees when they begin work; - Conduct transit/rideshare promotion twice per year; and - Set up shift changes wherever possible to minimize the number of VMC employees on the surrounding roadways during maximum congestion periods. o Monitoring, Evaluation, and Enforcement The Security Department will establish, monitor and maintain enforcement of the transportation management plan for VMC. Statistical comparisons will be completed as needed on the usage of HOVs. Daily monitoring of the entire site will be accomplished; selective enforcement of specific parking areas will be done on an as-needed basis. Current surveys conducted measuring the effectiveness of the TMP found about 8.5 percent participation in the program through carpooling only. In order to achieve the TMP goal, employees are encouraged to change their commuting pattern through the following actions: - Establish commuter information centers at several locations on campus; - Increase bus routes, including direct route to facility; - Periodic distribution of transit and rideshare program information to employees; - Coordination with Metro for improved transit service, based on employee comments (modified routes, improved schedules) ; Cooperation with Metro for specialized bus service for employees during morning and evening work shift times; 91 - Provision of information regarding the Metro computerized ridematch service; and Use of Metro Van Pool passenger vans by employee vanpools. Site Layout/Access As a part of the TMP, one possible site access consideration is the realignment of driveway No. 3. This driveway provides ingress and egress to Talbot Road S. and is actually located slightly north (30 - 50 feet) of South 177th St. While accident data does not specifically note an historical problem as a result of this driveway/street offset, realignment could minimize the potential for future turning movement conflicts, as a result of increased traffic associated with the Proposed Action. While realignment could reduce the potential for traffic conflicts in this area, it is also possible that realignment may impact the existing residential area, as a result of an increase in the amount of through-traffic using S. 177th St. As previously noted, this street serves a single family residential area of well- maintained homes on large lots and connects Talbot Road S. to S. Carr Road. As such, with realignment, motorists could find it faster to exit from driveway No. 3 onto S. 177th St. for travel to S. Carr Road, thereby, avoiding congestion associated with the intersection at S.W. 43rd St. and Talbot Road S. Participation in LID #329 In addition to the L.I.D. # 329, additional traffic mitigation may be required for this development as it was not part of the original calculations for L. I.D. mitigation. The City has preliminarily determined that VMC' s mitigation fee, based on an increase in traffic generated by the Proposed Action (approximately 3, 759 vehicle trips, could be as follows: ! I 92 34. 17 trips per 1 , 000 square feet of medical office space (based on ITE Trip Generation rates) x 110, 000 (approx. square feet of medical office space proposed) x $22.97 cost participation per trip generated (based on original S.W. 43rd St. study) = 34. 17 x 110, 000* = 3, 759 trips 1000 $22.97 x 3, 759 = $86, 344. 23* * The final mitigation fee would be dependent upon additional vehicular trips and final building areas. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The additional development proposed with this project would generate new vehicle trips to and from the project site. C. PUBLIC SERVICES - FIRE Affected Environment Fire suppression and life support services at the project site are provided by the Renton Fire Department. The Department has three fire stations with the closest being Station #13 at 17040 Benson Road S. , approximately 3/4 mile east of the Valley Medical Center campus. The second closest station is #11 which is located in downtown Renton, approximately 2 1 /2 miles north. In addition, King County operates Fire Station #42 which is located on Petrovitsky Road, approximately three miles east of the site. A call-for-service at Valley Medical Center would be responded to by units from both Station #13 and #11 and, if units are available, Station #42 . The estimated response time for units from Station #13 would be approximately five minutes; the response time for units from Station #11 would be roughly 5-6 minutes; and the response time for units from Station #42 would be approximately 5 minutes. A typical first alarm fire response would involve: two engine companies, a ladder company, a command vehicle and an aid car. The Renton Fire Prevention Bureau indicates that in 1989 they responded to 23 calls-for-service at Valley Medical Center. Of these, only two were actually fires; the majority were unintentionally set alarms (48%) or alarm malfunctions (35%) . 93 i Y Significant Impacts of Proposed Action During construction, the proposed project could temporarily increase the potential for fire and obstruction to fire fighting equipment, as a result of construction materials and debris, on- ' ' site movement of construction equipment and on-site construction- related traffic congestion. The long term impact of the project on the Renton Fire Department would be an increased demand for fire protective services (life and property protection) . The Renton Fire Prevention Bureau estimates that the Proposed Action or Alternatives 2 or 3 could generate an additional 6-8 calls-for- service per year in response to fire alarms; no additional calls- for-service are anticipated with regard to the need for emergency medical services (phone conversation, Jim Mathews, Renton Fire Dept. , 5/30/90) . This increased demand for fire protective services would also include additional annual fire code compliance inspections. Key Renton Fire Prevention Bureau concerns include ensuring that project design maintains the following: o both a primary and a secondary access to every building; o the Medical Office Building II is fully sprinklered; o minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet for the skybridge connecting the Medical Office Building to the parking 1 ++ structure; and o minimum aisle width and turning radius dimensions are maintained for all fire lanes; and o a plan must be submitted to the City of Renton Fire Prevention Bureau with dates of completion for a sprinkler retrofit of the hospital. This plan must be approved by the Renton Fire Prevention Bureau before any further construction can +take place. While Valley Medical Center provides valuable medical service to the community, an additional concern of the City of Renton is whether as a public facility the public costs of serving VMC are adequately offset by the revenue received. Valley Medical Center, as a public entity, does not pay property taxes -- monies which serve as one source of revenue for. the City. VMC does, however, provide revenue to the , City through other means, specifically: I , water and sewer utility fees, construction permit fees, special assessments (L.I .D. ' s and impact mitigation fees) and leasehold excise taxes. The Proposed Action would provide added revenue to the City through each of these funding sources. A portion of this revenue would be allocated to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The leasehold 94 excise tax is a tax in-lieu of the property tax, assessed on any private use of public property. Two possible scenarios could occur. If VMC owns the proposed Medical Office Building II and leases floors 2 through 5 to physicians, the hospital is exempt from property tax. The physicians would, however, pay a leasehold excise tax on each physician' s space. If, however, a partnership of physicians own Medical Office Building II, the partnership would { pay a leasehold excise tax for the real estate leased from the hospital. In addition, the partnership would pay personal property taxes for the medical office building, which would be roughly equivalent to real property taxes. In any event, the only exempt portion of Medical Office Building II (from a tax revenue generating standpoint) would be that portion actually owned by the Hospital and devoted to Hospital-related uses. Impacts of Alternatives In the short-term, because the site would remain undeveloped, the No Action alternative would not result in any direct or indirect fire service impacts. Demand for additional medical office space will likely continue, however, resulting either in future development of this north campus site or a possible south campus location. Development at either location in the future would result in impacts comparable to the Proposed Action. Impacts associated with Alternatives 2 & 3 are not expected to result in fire service impacts which are substantially different from those noted for the Proposed Action. However, concern expressed by the Renton Fire Prevention Bureau for development at the south campus site included ensuring that both a primary and secondary access is available and an effective fire flow network exists. Development in the south campus would be accessible from Davis Avenue South and South 45th Pl. A 12-inch water line is located in both streets. Fire service impacts related to the costs-of-service would not differ significantly from that noted with regard to the Proposed Action. As with the Proposed Action, a portion of the revenue generated from construction and long-term operation of the building (through water and sewer utility fees, construction permit fees, special assessments and leasehold excise taxes) would be allocated to the Renton Fire Prevention Bureau. Mitigation Measures None are required if Renton Fire Prevention Bureau concerns are complied with, specifically: o both a primary and a secondary access to every building; o the Medical Office Building II is fully sprinklered; o minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet for the skybridge connecting the Medical Office Building to the parking structure; and r 95 sprinkler retrofit of the hospital. This plan must be approved by the Renton Fire Prevention Bureau before any further construction can take place. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Increased demand on the Renton Fire Prevention Bureau for fire protective services. 96 I � h, SECTION IV SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED l 97 SECTION IV SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED Traffic A reduction in LOS for certain intersections in the vicinity of the Valley Medical Center campus. A small portion of this LOS reduction would be attributable to the Proposed Action. Valley Medical Center would provide added revenue to the City of Renton as a result of construction and long-term operation of the proposed building (through water and sewer utility fees, construction permit fees, special assessments and leasehold excise taxes) . While a portion of this increased revenue would be I ' allocated for street improvements, the amount of revenue generated, may not fully compensate the City for the cost of services rendered. Fire Protection Increased demand on the Renton Fire Protection Bureau for fire protective services. Valley Medical Center would provide added revenue to the City of Renton as a result of construction and long-term operation of the proposed building (through water and sewer utility fees, construction permit fees, special assessments and leasehold excise taxes) . While a portion of this increased revenue would be allocated to the City' s Fire Prevention Bureau, the amount of revenue generated, may not fully compensate the City for the cost of services rendered. 98 • REFERENCES 99 REFERENCES Institute of Transportation Engineers. 1987. Trip Generation Manual (4th edition, Sept. 1987) . Jacobson, N.G. & Assoc. , Inc. 1989 . Valley Medical Center Parking Study. King County. 1979. Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan (Ord. # 4572) . . 1987. Sensitive Areas Map Folio. Mahlum & Nordfors. 1987 . Valley Medical Center Master Site Plan and Functional Program. Morgan, Clint. 1990. Meeting with Don Carr regarding traffic planning issues. Renton, City of. 1986. Compendium of the Comprehensive Plan. . 1983 . Ord. # 3722 Amending the Zoning Ordinance. Scott, John. 1990 . Personal conversation with Terry McCann regarding the need for high quality medical office space near VMC. U.S. Dept. of Transportation; Federal Highway Administration. 1985 . Highway Capacity Manual. Valley Medical Center. 1988. Facts Pamphlet 1988. . 1988. 5-year Strategic Plan 1989 - 1993 . . 1989 . Facts Pamphlet 1989. Werner, Greg. 1990 . Phone conversation with Terry McCann regarding the medical office building market in the vicinity of Valley Medical Center. it 100 APPENDICES • $ r I 1 0 1 r , APPENDIX A = DISTRIBUTION LIST r, Copies of this EIS have been distributed to the following agencies and organizations. Federal Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District Office Engineering Dev. - Planning PO Box C-2755 Seattle, WA 98124 [ U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Renton Field Office 935 Powell St. S.W. Renton, WA 98055 U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development Attn: Mr. Nishimura Arcade Plaza Building 1321 Second Ave. Seattle, WA 98101 U.S. Dept. of Interior �_. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Office 2625 Parkmont Lane Olympia, WA 98504 U.S. Dept of Transportation Department of Highways District #1 6431 Corson Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98108 U.S. Energy Office Washington State Dept. of Energy Attn: Richard Watson, Director 809 Legion Way S.E. , M/S SA-11 Olympia, WA 98504 i ' r= U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Evaluation Div. 1200 Sixth Ave, M/S MD-102 Seattle, WA 98101 102 r-, Local Agencies Office of the Mayor City of Renton Attn: Mayor's Assistant Renton City Council ` Renton Planning Commission Renton Parks Board Renton City Attorney Renton Fire Dept. Renton Hearing Examiner' s Office Renton Parks & Recreation Dept. Renton Planning & Community Development Dept. Renton Police Dept. Renton Public Works Dept. Renton SEPA Information Center King County Boundary Review Board Attn: Alda Wilkinson, Exec. Dir. 3600 - 136th P1. S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006-1400 King County EIS Review Coordinator King County Courthouse, Room 400 516 Third Ave. Seattle, WA 98104 King County Building & Land Development Div. SEPA Information Center 3600 - 136th P1. S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006-1400 King 'County Planning Division 7th Floor, Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98104 King County Parks & Planning Div. Attn: Erik Stockdale 1108 Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98104 I` -I 104 King County Public Works Dept. Hydraulics Div. King County Administration Building, Room 900 400 Fourth Ave. Seattle, WA 98104 King County Soil Conservation Attn: Jack Davis 935 Powell Ave. S.W. Renton, WA 98055 Renton SEPA Information Center. METRO Environmental Planning Div. 821 Second Ave. , M/S 63 Seattle, WA 98104 METRO Transit Div. 821 Second Ave. Seattle, WA 98104-1598 METRO Water Quality Div. 821 Second Ave. Seattle, WA 98104-1598 Muckleshoot Tribal Council 39015 - 172nd Ave. S.E. Auburn, WA 98002 Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98104 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency P.O. Box 9863 Seattle, WA 98109 Seattle-King County Dept. of Public Health 400 Yesler Building Seattle, WA 98104 City of Kent Planning Dept. 220 - 4th Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 City of Tukwila Planning & Building Dept. 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 105 Other Organizations and Individuals Daily Journal of Commerce P.O. Box 11050 Seattle, WA 98111 Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce 300 Rainier Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Journal American 1705 - 132nd Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 King County Public Library Attn: Susie Wheeler 300 - 8th Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98109 Mahlum & Nordfors 2505 Third Ave. , Suite 219 Seattle, WA 98121 Pacific Northwest Bell Attn: Harry Kluges 1600 - 7th Ave. Room 1513 Seattle, WA 98191 Puget Sound Power & Light Co. Attn: EIS Review South Central Div. Office 620 Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Renton Public Library Main Branch Renton Public Library Highlands Branch Renton School District #403 435 Main Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 Seattle Post Intelligencer Business News 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98111 Seattle Times - Eastside Edition Business News P.O. Box 70 Seattle, WA 98111 Valley Daily News , 106 Attn: City Editor ' P.O. Box 10 Kent, WA 98032 Valley Medical Center • 400 S. 43rd St. Renton, WA 98055 Washington Natural Gas Co. 815 Mercer St. Seattle, WA 98111 Wilsey & Ham Pacific Attn: Ron Deverman, Project Manager P.O. Box C-97304 Bellevue, WA 98009 I,--I 107 i I APPENDIX B LIST OF ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT The following delineates those environmental elements which are discussed in this Draft EIS, beginning on the page indicted. The Table of Contents should also be consulted because these elements are also discussed in subsequent sections of this EIS. The list is based on the public scoping process associated with this project. 1 . Natural Environment Page a. Earth NA Geology NA Soils NA Topography NA Unique physical features NA Erosion/Enlargement of land area (accretion) NA b. Air NA Air quality NA Odor NA Climate NA c. Water NA Surface water movement/quantity/quality NA Runoff/absorption NA Floods NA Ground water movement/quantity/quality NA Public water supplies NA d. Plants and Animals • NA Habitat for and number of diversity of species of plants, fish, or other wildlife NA Unique species NA Fish or wildlife migrating routes NA e. Energy and Natural Resources NA Amount required/rate of use/efficiency NA Source/availability NA Nonrenewable resources NA Conservation and renewable resources NA Scenic resources NA 108 2. Built Environment a. Environmental Health NA Noise NA Rise of Explosion NA Releases or potential releases to the environment affecting public health, such as toxic or hazardous materials NA b. Land and Shoreline Use 41 Relationship to existing land use plan and to estimated population 55 Housing NA Light and glare NA Aesthetics 45 Recreation NA History and cultural preservation NA Agricultural crops NA c. Transportation 64 Transportation systems 64 Vehicular traffic 66 Waterborne, rail, and air traffic NA Parking 72 Movement/circulation of people or goods 72 Traffic hazards 69 d. Public Services and Utilities 93 Fire 93 Police. NA Schools NA Parks or other recreation facilities NA Maintenance NA Communications NA Water/service NA Sewer/solid waste NA Other governmental services or utilities NA 109 400 South 43rd Street uu Renton, WA 98055 206.22893450 : FAX 206.575.2593 Valle y Medical Center PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON November 20, 1991 Ms. Lynn Guttmann NOV 2 1991 Mr. Jim Hanson RE t iV i O City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Master Plan and EIS Dear Lynn and Jim, This letter is to follow up your letters dated 11/08/91 and 11 /13/91 concerning Valley Medical Center's Master Plan and the subsequent EIS. We greatly appreciate your time and attention to these issues. We are also glad to hear that the Master Plan is considered "complete" and that the EIS is not a condition of occupancy of MOB-II. We remain confused by the City's position that "environmental review by the ETC normally would be necessary prior to any approval of the Master Plan by the City." We are not aware of any such approval process, nor are we aware of this procedure having ever been followed by the City of Renton. In addition, we remain perplexed by the fact that the Master Plan and EIS are viewed as separate and distinct procedures for MOB-II, but are deemed to be contingent upon one another for purposes of the Ambulatory Care Center. At this point, we do not feel that there is a pressing urgency to resolve these issues; therefore, I propose that we set up a meeting some time after the first of the year to discuss how we wish to proceed. Again, your time and attention to Valley Medical Center's projects are greatly appreciated. Very truly yours,- _ Eric J. Thoman General Counsel cc: City of Renton Don Erickson Paul Forsander Valley Medical Center John Scott Ome Almeda Mahlum & Nordfors John Mahlum Diane Shiner EJT:psd F---CITY ofRENTON • - RE C E I V E r "1 D= JUN 2 5 1991 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS k BUILDING DIVISION THIS DECLARATION is made this o20 day of , 19,/ , by Public Hospital District No. 1 of King C nty, a Washington municipal corporation (the "Declarant") . WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of that certain real property legally described in Exhibits A and Al, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "MOB-II Property") ; and WHEREAS, pursuant to that City of Renton (the "City") Report and Decision of the Office of the Hearing Examiner and the Environmental .Impact Statement Revised Mitigation Document, the City imposed certain restrictions on the use of the MOB-II Property. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby covenants and agrees as follows: 1. Declarant hereby declares that the auditorium shall be' used solely for internal programs and meetings of the Declarant, such as employee meetings. The auditorium shall not be used for general purpose meetings or conferences with more than Fifteen (15) or Twenty (20) outside conferees. The auditorium may be used for occasional community meetings of an area-wide nature, as long as such community meetings do not occur more than once a month. All such general purpose meetings shall occur no earlier than 7: 00 p.m. to avoid interfering with the p.m. rush hour traffic. The Declarant's board may use the auditorium for its open public meetings as necessary. 2 . Declarant further covenants and agrees that in order to lessen traffic and noise impacts, the occupancy of the medical office building located on the MOB-II Property shall be restricted Declaration of Covenants Page 1 so that no more than Twenty-Five Percent (25%) of the tenants at any one time shall be physicians who are family practitioners. 3 . This Declaration of Covenants shall terminate upon the discontinued use of the building on the MOB-II property as a medical office building/auditorium or upon the complete removal or destruction of said building. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersign . ant has executed this Declaration this 0,00 day of , 1951 . Public Hp • /: 1 District No. 1 of King C d(l By: b.`.1 R'c fa! d i. Roodman S perintendent STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this c. day of , 19Z/, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Richard D. Roodman, to me known to be the Superintendent of Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County, a Washington municipal corporation, the entity that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of the said entity, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the said instru- ment. Dated: o2O, /f F/ AuAealc&Notary My appointment expires: 6a2/i.,/y./- Declaration of Covenants Page 2 n n i ''£'//riirtiitttttat. EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST OF L T C OF VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL - DR. BRAIN SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NUMBER 7812149018 BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31 AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT POKIION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON FOR SOUTHEAST 43RD STREET BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8711020439. THENCE SOUTH 10 DEGREES 56'32" WEST 369.37 FI i'; THENCE SOUTH 79 DEGREES 03'28" EAST 246.44 ri i'; THENCE SOUTH 68 DEGREES 28'40" EAST 45.82E 1' TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 68 DEGREES 28'40" EAST 113.40 kEta'; THENCE SOUTH 31 DEGREES 36'29" EAST 44.17 YEE.e; THENCE SOUTH 68 DEGREES 28'40" 104.67 b'r:r;l'; THENCE NORTH 21 DEGREES 31'20" EAST 46.50 EMU' TO A DESIGNATED POINT "A"; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 21 DEGREES 31'20" EAST 30.90 r l'; THENCE NORTH 20 DEGREES 03'16" WEST 66.30 rrl'; THENCE NORTH 68 DEGREES 28'40" WEST 41.29 rEE1' TO A DESIGNATED POINT "B"; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 68 DEGREES 28'40" WEST 18.71 JEkJ ; THENCE SOUTH 21 DEGREES 31'20" WEST 5.50 r1'; THENCE NORTH 68 DEGREES 28'40" WEST 158.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 21 DEGREES 31'20" WEST 67.50 r l'; THENCE SOUTH 68 DEGREES 28'40" EAST 8.60 rl'; THENCE SOUTH 21 DEGREES 31'20" WEST 27.50 rE1a' TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO A STRIP OF LAND 12.00 tem2 IN WIDTH THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT A DESIGNATED POINT "A", THENCE SOUTH 68 DEGREES 28'40" EAST 40.21 1.1E2 AND TERMINUS OF SAID CENTERLINE, ALSO A STRIP OF LAND 13.58 MET IN WIDTH THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT A DESIGNATED POINT "B", THENCE NORTH 21 DEGREES 31'20" EAST 74.23 FEET AND TERMINUS OF SAID CENTERLINE. NORTHWEST L0R . LOT Y' T W( ? 1 Y Fa? Mi 11 00 sol w S PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF SEC 31, TWP 23 /\J, R 5 E, W.M. AND AN.7.1 N PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC 30,''TWP 2:5 N, R 5 E, W.M. SCALE 1-2DQ U 0 IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY WASHINGTON P, ' V Y B LEGAL DESCRIPTION c , W z N x COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST OF LOT C OF VALLEY GENERAL HQSPITAL-DR.BRAIN SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY -. ,� • RECORDING NUMBER 7812149018 BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31 AND A PORTION OF i?!£SOUTHEAST . ., QUARTER OF SECTION J0.ALL IN TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH,RANGE 5 EASE W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; D UNDER RECORDING l EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON FOR SOUTHEAST 43RD STREET BY DEED RECORDS NUMBER 8711020439. THENCE SOUTH 105632•NEST 369.37 FEET; - L THENCE SOUTH 799J28'EAST 246.44 FEET,• - '' SEE LEFT THENCE SOUTH 6878•40'EAST 45.82 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING A-S 1056:32'W J6937 DETAIL THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 6829'40'EAST 11J.40 FEET; B-S 790J7B"E 30.00• LOT C' THENCE SOUTH 31'3679"EAST 44.17 FEET; . _ GRAPIHIC SCALE c-s 10s6.r w rsa9B• 0-S 077r3r E 77210• 01 THENCE SOUTH 6878'40'104.67 FEET; z .o `m E-S n56'aT'E 246.Oe' THENCE NORTH 2/71'20"EAST 46.50 FEET TO A DESIGNATED POINT A;• .H -= F-S 87284J"E 54600' to THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 2131'20•EAST J0.90 FEET; D G-S 89V413 E 89.7eit THENCE NORTH 2O9376'WEST 66.30 FEET; N-A.5856'08' R-Ja00' ,0t Fan I-D.I2S0"15' R 830.00' �p THENCE NORTH 6828'40'WEST 41.29 FEET TO A DESIGNATED POINT"B''; _ L m I0.40 f1. % .4-A.0153.15' R-14B2Jr THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 6828'40'WEST 18.71 FEET I K-N 2170.50•E 5.ur K THENCE SOUTH 21.3120'WEST 5.50 FEET a, L-A rJIO'49' R 1426.4a• THENCE NORTH 6878.40'WEST 158.00 FEET; NI N-N 75001"w 10.2E N-N 0750 01'E 12.29' THENCE SOUTH 213120'WEST 67.50 FEET; o-N 0750'01'E 8x6s• THENCE SOUTH 6878'40.EAST 8.60 FEET•• . P-N 890508'w ia0r THENCE SOUTH 2137 20'WEST 27.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING 0-N 075001'E 64.48' ALSO A STRIP OF LAND 12.00 FEET IN WIDTH THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS,. R-N 72'49'04 W 355.20 S-N 72.49'04"W 47005 BEGINNING AT A DESIGNATEDPOINT A; THENCE SOUTH 6828.40•EAST 40.21 FEET AND TERMINUS- T-N B99J 08•W 476.16' - OF SAID CENTERLINE, ALSO U-N 0056'S2•£ 27e66' A STRIP OF LAND 1J.58 FEET IN WIDTH THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; V-S B95508 E 71.4e' J BEGINNING AT A DESIGNATED POINT VI THENCE NORTH 21:3120'EAST 7A23 FEET AND TERMINUS W-N 0056'sz"W 12240' OF SAID CENTERLINE. I I E Y-N B913308 W 2897' H I 2-N 8903'05"W 361.20• I Hf� co • I PARKING GARAGE I F G H xH I S 4.3RD SE �C ti - - FA 4 • c . e, , S2131'20' vlr w T 4oa .. 5.50 ��II � S 300p. O,c, / ` 'SB TOE;. co SKY BRIDGE 79b32. £ • _/ oo• ^,/,• l^ S7g�328'E /� /.1, \ 6�-i,''0 216.44' �S,eS T. J/ - fo, • S 6B�B g0� . .� �d'� Bg0 0y/ \T\ / ��_ POINT B• = 4S6? �L'F Cal / A C).B.�!` I / N / T aw m o ti s68�64 Crt /•. /.`� wo ry p 7POB 0 • F \ / �/ / \ rn� / o •7734o a / l l . • r T /� • =F?oo,.� . Aa+ ) T 8 POINT A'• \ �. '-� lC �/ M.O.B. 1 F .S 682 4p . `/ • F>or.6jti oV / . IFT SKY BRIDGE M.O.B. I SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE' --zx o`<<,, AUDITOR'S CER77FRCATE j�E Y \�o�tlAsn, f4'11 THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURIATY MADE BY i.t 14 fTLEO FOR RECORD THIS DAY OF • ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, IN CONFORMA NCE WITH .� / 19 A T_M IN VOLUME_OF_ • THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SURVEY RECORDING ACT. % ,`r. ;;� SURVE)'S ON PAGE_AT THE REQUEST OF KMO COUNTY W6s0NSTTH AT THE REQUEST OF VALLEY MEDICAL CENT TN *IT H 5524 z gl IN AUDITORS DRANK BY 0IEEK0 BY SCALE IN DEC 27,7990 I q e �� / FILE NUMBER. PIA A• TO I MT I 1'=40• , . _ TTr?. £01gT�p .o'i P and Use 205 Lake Street South,Suite`k12 Kirkland,Washington 98033 Environmental and 9 Regulatory Analysis Hu:t8lllWelnmln AAOii AA EconomicsW, W Iii1Legislativeesearch1 and Drafting FAX:828-3861 / PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON April 22, 1991 APR 251991 ECE VEJ Ms. Mary Lynne Myer Senior Planner City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 Dear Mary Lynne: With conclusion of the EIS appeal hearing and the Conditional Use hearing, our role with regard to Valley Medical Center's Medical Office Building and Ambulatory Care Center EIS is completed. It was a distinct pleasure to work with you on this project.You have shown that you are very focused,always available to answer my many questions and still able to maintain an excellent sense of humor. I truly appreciate it and I believe that it made the entire EIS process flow smoothly. We look forward to working with you and the City again in the future. Sincerely, Huckell/Weinman Assoc., Inc. Terry McCa n Senior Ass ciate cc: Don Erickson NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION FOR AMENDMENT TO A MITIGATION DOCUMENT Notice is given under SEPA, RCW 43.21 C.075 and WAC 197-11-660,that the City of Renton has amended a mitigation document which addresses the environmental Impacts expected from the potential development of Valley Medical Center's Medical Office Building II and Ambulatory Care Center. Copies of the document are available at the public information counter (SEPA Information Center) in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Renton Municipal Building located at 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055. Reading copies are available in the Renton Municipal Library at the above address. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Valley Medical Center proposes to build a 110,970 sf medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center Campus. Also included In the proposed action is a Building Permit for relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC space for medical services. Any interested party may appeal these conditions in writing by 5:00 p.m., March 15, 1991. See City Code Section 4-8-11, 4-6-23, 4-6-6, WAC 197-11-680 for further details and RCW 43.21 C.075. To appeal this Declaration, you must file your appeal document with the Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14) days of the date the decision was made. See City Code Section 4-8-11, 4-6-23. 4-6-6, RCW 43.21 C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact.City of Renton, Development Planning Section to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. Publication Date: March 1, 1991 • Account No. 51067 CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION FOR AMENDMENT TO A MITIGATION DOCUMENT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT APPLICATION NO(S): ECF-063-89/ECF-113-89 PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT NAME: Medical Office Building II and relocation of the Ambulatory Care Center DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Approval of Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and Building Permit to allow construction of a 110,970 sf medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center Campus. Building permit is needed for the relocation of the Ambulatory Care Center to another building on campus and use of the vacated space for medical services. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 400 South 43rd Street, Renton,WA LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee, under WAC 197-11-660, has amended a mitigation document which addresses the environmental impacts expected from the potential development of Valley Medical Center's Medical Office Building II and Ambulatory Care Center. An environmental impact statement was required for this project under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c) and other documents cited in the ordinance. The impacts described in that statement are the basis for the mitigating measures in the mitigation document. This decision was made by the Environmental Review Committee after review of the completed environmental impact statement and other information on file with the lead agency. Any interested party may appeal these conditions in writing by 5:00 p.m., March 15, 1991. See City Code Section 4-8-11, 4- 6-23, 4-6-6,WAC 197-11-680 for further details and RCW 43.21 C.075. • Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee c/o Don Erickson, Secretary Development Planning Section Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 You may appeal the conditions in this document in writing to Renton Hearing Examiner no later than 5:00 p.m., March 15, 1991. To appeal this Declaration, you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen(14) days of the date the decision was made. See City Code Section 4-8-11, 4-6-23, 4-6-6, RCW 43.21 C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact City of Renton, Community Development Department to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. PUBLICATION DATE: March 1, 1991 DATE OF DECISION: February 25, 1991 SIGNATURES: fl -�/ �, 2,51 9i Lynn . Guttman ,Administrator DAME Depart ent of PI nning/Building/Public Works cr l �.�1 1 bh E.V e ley,Administrator _ DATE munity Service Department • . a , - —77 /JLee Vy ear, Fire Chief DATE Rent n Fire Department feissig /A • i VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND AMBULATORY CARE CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REVISED MITIGATION DOCUMENT The EIS for this project has Identified a number of possible mitigation measures for impacts that were considered to be significant or potentially significant (as defined by quantitative measures whenever such measures were found to exist). These measures and others which the responsible official may determine are warranted to protect the environment are the subject of this mitigation document. WAC 197-11-660 Substantive Authority and Mitigation requires that mitigation measures be based on policies, plans, rules or regulations formally designated by the agency. It also requires that mitigation measures shall be related to specific adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental document on the proposal: "After its decision each agency shall make available to the public a document that states, the decisions. The document shall state the mitigation measures, if any, that will be implemented as part of the decisions, including any monitoring of environmental impacts." (WAC 197-11- ' 660(1)(b)) This document is intended to meet this requirement. WAC 197-11-440 EIS Contents states that an EIS shall contain the following: fact sheet, table of contents, summary, alternatives including the proposed action, affected environment, significant impacts and mitigation measures. The parts of the affected environment to be discussed can be determined through the scoping process which shall narrow the scope of every EIS to the probable significant adverse impacts and reasonable alternatives, including mitigation measures. The Environmental Review Committee for the City of Renton discussed the FEIS on December 21,1990. It was officially sent to,the Department of Ecology on December 27, 1990,thereby starting the 20 day appeal period. WAC 197-11-060 Content of Environmental Review states that agencies shall "carefully consider the range of probable impacts, including short-term and long-term effects. Impacts shall include"those that are likely to arise or exist over the lifetime of a proposal", or, in some cases even longer. WAC 197-11-330 Threshold Determination Process requires the responsible official to take into account the following when determining whether a proposal has significant adverse impacts: "The same proposal may have significant adverse impact in one location but not in another location;" "the absolute quantitative effects of a proposal are also important, and may result in a significant adverse impact regardless of the nature of the existing environment"; and "Several marginal impacts when considered together may result in a significant adverse impact"; In reaching such a decision SEPA states that the responsible official shall not balance whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather, shall consider whether a proposal has any probable significant adverse environmental impacts under the rules stated above. THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action is the construction of a five-story, 110,970 square foot, medical office building (net leasable area: 103,270 sq. ft.) on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center campus. Also included in the Proposed Action is the relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC space for existing, crowded medical services. As a result of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) scoping process, comments were received from governmental agencies and interested citizens regarding the major issues that needed to be analyzed in this EIS. Those issues included the following: o Land Use: relationship of the propose action and alternatives to land use patterns in the area, existing plans and policies,and westerly views; o Traffic and Parking: effect of the Proposed Action and alternatives on traffic, parking an• circulation;and o Public Services-Fire: impact on existing City of Renton fire protective services. As noted in the SEPA rules, the content of the EIS is determined by the Lead Agency(in this case,the C' of Renton) based, in part, on key sections of the SEPA Rules (197-11-402,408, 430 and 440)together wit results of the EIS scoping process. The Draft EIS Included an analysis of the Proposed Action and each of the alternatives' impacts on Ian• use,traffic and parking, and public services-fire. In response to citizen and agency input on the DEIS,th- Final EIS addressed questions on Air Quality, Energy, Environmental Health, Noise, Land Use, Aesthetic,, Transportation,Transit, Public Services-Fire, and Revenue generated by the proposed action on the VM campus. A. ::LAND USE Zoning The zoning for the area is P-1. The Ambulatory Care Center meets the requirements of the zoning. However, the EIS acknowledges the need for a conditional use permit in order for the medi•.l office building to address several zoning requirements. 1. The hospital is a principal use under the zone and private medical office buildings -re allowed under a conditional use permit as an accessary use in a separate building from t e main hospital. (RMC 4-31-9(3)(h)) The medical office building will be owned by t e hospital, but four of the five proposed floors will be leased to private providers. Since fo r- fifths of the building will be leased by private physicians, the building could be consider-d a private medical office building. 2. The medical office building proposes an auditorium, meeting rooms, and kitchen facilit es on the first floor. If this facility is to be used for activities unrelated to the principal use, he hospital, such as social, music and sport events, it would be subject to a conditional se permit as an accessory use for the hospital. (RMC 4-31-36 4 9) The EIS analyzes impa is from hospital related uses of this facility. Other uses such as convention, dramatic or musical productions were not researched as to their impacts or mitigating measures. 3. The medical office building will need a conditional use permit to meet the zo ing requirements for height. The proposed height of 70' exceeds the P-1 zone 50' requirements. (RMC 4-31-9(D)(3)). In order for a conditional use to be granted the proposal will have to meet the conditional se criteria listed in RMC 4-31-36: compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan; Community N:ed; Effect on Adjacent Properties; Compatibility; Parking; Traffic; Noise, Glare; Landscaping; Accessory Uses. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the conditional use permit for Valley Medical Center restrict the auditorium, meeting rooms and kitchen facilities to hospital related uses only. -2- • No additional measures suggested. Other impacts will be addressed during the Conditional Use permit process. • Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6-22;WAC 197-11-660(1)(e), RMC 4-31- 36(4) & (9), RMC4-31-9(D)(3) Off Campus The Comprehensive Plan designates the VMC campus and area surrounding as Public/Quasi- Public. The proposed MOB and ACC relocation is compatible with this designation. The area surrounding the VMC campus has residential, office and open space land uses. The relocation of the ambulatory care center will have no additional land use impacts over those already in existence. The proposed medical building is compatible with adjacent medical office buildings in the area. Because it is located within the campus and separated from the residential uses by streets and open space areas, it will not impact the adjacent residential areas with light, glare, noise, shadow, view interruption, or noxious odors. • However, use of the first floor facilities, auditoriums, meeting rooms, kitchen, for non-hospital related uses could impact the surrounding land uses. Impacts could come from evening or weekend use with additional traffic, reduced parking supply, possible light and glare from traffic and noise during hours not normally associated with traffic impacts from the hospital. These potential impacts are not analyzed in the EIS. Arguments have been made that this building will increase the supply of medical office space and will cause nearby private buildings to experience vacancies. Public comments received on the DEIS requested an economic analysis of the impact of this building on the adjacent privately owned medical office buildings (existing Valley Gardens Building). Economic analysis are not a required part of the environmental impact statement (see WAC 197-11-448(1), WAC 197=11-440(8) and RMC 4-6-16). However, impacts on adjacent properties are considered in the conditional use permit analysis under the criteria of community need. Therefore,while an impact may be expected from completion of the building, it was determined that it would be discussed in the context of the conditional use application. However,the EIS recognizes that the tenant mix of the MOB II could affect the occupancy rates of nearby privately owned medical office buildings. Historically, Class A space (this proposal) has been occupied by larger/expanding speciality medical practices, where wood-frame space has been occupied by smaller or newer practices. Vacancy rates for Class A space in the area are 11.7% presently and the vacancy rate for wood-frame space is 16.2%. It is expected that some physicians would move their practices from other nearby locations to become part of the development. The EIS states that VMC projects an absorption rate Of 30,000 to 40,000 sq. ft. per •year. Under these rates, it would take 3-5 years to fill the buildings. Theoretically, this building would compete with only other Class A type buildings, (existing Valley Gardens Building, Chinn Hills and Talbot Professional Center Buildings, the latter two owned by VMC). However, it should not interfere with the market need for wood-frame office space. One of the EIS alternatives is a reduced scale building. This four story building, would be filled within 2-5 years, using the above mentioned absorption rate. This would allow some of the market demand to be met off-campus and could address some of the conditional use issues. However, there is no indication that specialty type medical offices that are hospital related are now over concentrated in the area. -3- Alternatively, an argument could be made that primarily specialized medical practitioners sho Id be leaseholders in the proposal, as long as it can be shown that there is a strong symbiotic relationship between the hospital and the practitioners housed here. Typically, secondary -nd tertiary medical practitioners rely on diagnostic equipment and laboratories that are associa ed with a major hospital and because of proximity and convenience, will refer patients there for treatment. Since these specialists are generally the ones providing the treatment services wit in ' the hospital, a strong working relationship can generally be shown that would support the not on that the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. Both doctor and patient auto trips co Id arguably be fewer with these types of practices located close to the hospital. Were the proposed medical office building to be used for primary medical care, it might be arg ted that neighborhood convenience could be better served by locating such facilities closer to residential areas. Also, since primary care physicians have a much lower hospital referral rate for their patients than do specialists, it would make little sense to draw additional unrelated traffic i to an already congested area such as this. `This recommendation is based on a similar recommendation for Medical Office Building I, a si ter building to the proposed MOB II. This first building, permitted in spring of 1989, had a cove ant which restricted the physician usage to 75 percent secondary and tertiary practices and 25 per ent to primary care practices. This covenant addressed the minimization of traffic impacts gene ,ed by the tenants in the building. Traffic impacts are a concern for MOB II as well. However, there is no indication in the EIS for MOB II that the traffic impacts from this building will be more substantial than those from MO I. With the mitigation of additional traffic fees, a revised Transportation Management Plan, nd increased emphasis on HOV promotion, it is not necessary to restrict MOB II beyond MO I. Therefore,the same 25 percent covenant for the maximum amount of primary care space on MOB would reasonably apply to both buildings. 1, RECOMMENDATION: 2. That the VMC covenant the building to restrict 75%of its leasable area to second ry and tertiary practices to lessen land use and traffic impacts. The remaining 5% could be leased to non-hospital dependent primary care physicians. No additional mitigation measures specified. The conditional use process will fu er address this impact. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6-22, WAC 197-11-448(1, 3) and AC 197-11-660. On Campus The EIS notes that implementation of the Proposed Action would slightly change the use nd character of the campus in the immediate vicinity of the site. Existing surface parking woul be replaced with a five-story building, driveways and surface parking. Overall pattern of land us on campus would change slightly: health-related land uses would increase from an existing 5. 3% building lot coverage to 7.09%. Amount of land area devoted to parking and driveways w uld decrease from 26.35% to 25.85% and landscaping/undeveloped areas would decrease f om 62.87%to 62.22%. No impact Is expected from the relocation and consolidation of the Ambulatory Care Center and infilling of the space vacated by existing ACC programs. -4- The medical office building is compatible with surrounding office uses on campus. The proposed architecture is compatible with surrounding buildings as is its size. Existing medical office buildings are 57' high with 18,400 square feet in the Talbot Professional Center and 14,000 square feet in the Chin Hills Building. However, this proposal is one of many received from the Valley Medical Center. In the past two years, over$18,800,000 of building permits have been issued to VMC. From this standpoint, the building will have a cumulative impact as part of the overall development of the campus. Overall campus development concerns revolve around amount of open space, view impacts, landscaping, building envelopes, traffic generation, utility impacts, fire and police calls, park and recreation needs, storm water provision, and economic effects. Because the proposals are scattered throughout time, the city is unable to review the overall campus development as an integrated whole and fully ascertain the probable impacts on the community. Continued development on the VMC campus could have a significant cumulative impact. The applicant has voluntarily agreed to undertake a Master Plan Update for the entire campus. This plan would cover the above listed concerns as well as others currently under negotiation with the City of Renton. A programmatic environmental impact statement will be done on the master plan. RECOMMENDATION: 3. That Valley Medical Center voluntarily complete a long range Master Campus Plan to be filed with the City within 18 months of the issuance of this permit. The City and VMC shall agree upon the content, scope of work, and review process of the plan prior to its initiation. NOTE TO APPLICANT: The City of Renton, as lead agency, expects Valley Medical Center to complete a programmatic EIS on a Master Plan for the campus, before any subsequent development-related actions are taken that will substantially increase the number of employees,visitors, and/or vehicular parking spaces on the VMC Campus. (Remodeling, which will not result in any of the above impacts, is exempt.) This note addresses the overall Impacts of hospital-related development and other development on campus. State law(SEPA WAC 197-11-704, 774, and 442) would require that an EIS, addressing all elements of the environment including cumulative impacts, be prepared on the Master Plan if a threshold determination of significance is given by the lead agency. Since the Master Plan has not yet been received by the Lead Agency, a threshold determination cannot yet be issued. To label this Note as a Recommendation could be considered as speculative and therefore,would be premature. However, the City of Renton wishes Valley Medical Center to know that continued cooperation is necessary on the formulation and timely completion of the Master Plan. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660(1)(d), RMC 4-6-22. VIEWS: The five story MOB will affect territorial views looking west from Talbot Road S. into the Green River Valley. The present view corridor extends roughly 230 feet along Talbot Road S. and is framed by the Chin Hills Building and Talbot Professional Center. The addition of the proposal will impair the view somewhat. A reduction in height of one story would diminish, but not eliminate, the view corridor impact. Only a change in siting of the building would mitigate this impact. -5- Alternative 3, the siting of the building in the south campus would alleviate the view impact along Talbot Road but would impact views from S.W.43rd Street. Other views along the Talbot corridor would still be available if the project were completed. he view impact is not considered significant. The VMC could rotate the building on its axis, shifting it to the southwest. While additional park ng spaces would most probably be lost, the campus provides an oversupply of parking presen ly. This shifting would alleviate the view impact. RECOMMENDATION: No mitigating measures suggested. TRAFFIC It is general knowledge that the area around Valley Medical Center is very congested. Of he eleven intersections in the immediate vicinity, four are presently functioning at LOS E and F, as reported in the EIS. Generally, growth in.the area is expected to continue. Without the project, ive intersections will function at LOS F by 1995. With the project, two additional intersections will all from LOC B and C to LOS D. This would have seven of the eleven intersections at LOS D o F. The LOS at several of VMC's driveways are also reduced as a direct result of the Proposed Actin. However, LID 329 will improve these levels. Presently, yearly accident averages on East Valley Road S.W. 43rd Street and S.W. 43rd .nd Talbot Road S. indicates these areas are high accident locations. The proposed MOB II wo Id generate an additional 4,040 vehicular trips on an average weekday, with 169 of those t ips occurring during the AM peak hour and 397 trips during the PM peak hour. The propo ed relocation of the ACC will generate little if any additional traffic. As mentioned above,the overall background growth in the area will reduce the LOS, contribut- to probable higher accident rates, and generally Increase congestion for the road network with or without the project. The increase in traffic from'VMC facilities represents an approximate 3°/ to 10% impact at various intersections. For the overall impacts, VMC should pay their fair shar: of needed improvements. The EIS identifies that amount as $22.97 per trip for the additional t ips directly generated from the proposal. The $92,798.80 trip fee is in addition to the VMC contributions to LID #329, a sum totall ng approximately$2 million. LID#329's major purpose is to address traffic impacts in this conges ed corridor from previous development, and it is perhaps the major hope for traffic mitigation for he hospital and surrounding properties. However, it has become increasingly apparent the! in addition to VMC's and the City's contributions to the UD, which were based on work programs updated from the 1982 original scope of work, additional costs may arise. In order to assure t at UD #329 is completed expeditiously, the $92,798.80 will be prioritized towards this project. irst priority will be to address new work items specifically related to improved traffic flow. If monies :re left after the LID is completed, they will be utilized on other road projects as specified in he recommendation. RECOMMENDATIONS: 4. . That VMC shall pay $92,798.80 in fees for the additional 4040 trips at $22.97 per rip to be used to improve the roadway network off-site within a one mile radius of he campus. The City will endeavor to use the money as specified below: -6- • .1, Priority expenditures of this fund should be directed to new or unanticipated costs for LID #329, including but not limited to: impacts on private properties from road construction work, impacts on utilities not funded through the engineering contingency budget of the LID. It shall not be used for bikeways. • 5. That VIM will review and revise the TMP to increase its effectiveness. These revisions will include: o evaluation of the goals identified in the TMP (a reduction of 10% in SOV trips) within six months of the issuance of this permit. The SOV evaluation shall: a) use 1987 employee trips as a base figure; determine if a 10 percent reduction has been made on these trips; b) calculate 1990 employee trips and determine 10 percent reduction for differential growth between 1987 and 1990; c) calculate employee trips for MOB II/ACC-determine 10 percent reduction; d) total a, b and c to determine total trips and the 10 percent reduction for all as a check; and e) determine methods for reaching the reduction. A report shall be submitted to the City showing results of the evaluation. If targeted goals are not met, additional incentive for HOV participation shall be installed including, as necessary: o Increased staff effort by the Building Transportation Coordinator and more promotion of HOV incentives. o Further discounts for carpool parking and increased rates for private vehicle trips, excluding clients and visitors. o Implementation of the transit discount pass program to increase the subsidy by a least 10%each,year if the annual goal of 10%of eligible participating employees is not met(not to exceed the price of the transit pass). {, o Participation in the annual cost of vanpool operation (in addition to providing free parking located in proximity to buildings and allowing employees to apply the transit discount to the participant's vanpool fare) in an amount not to exceed $5000 per year if the evaluation show the SOV reduction goal has not been met. The subsidy shall begin upon completion of the TMP evaluation report if that report shows the SOV goals are not achieved. The subsidy shall continue until the goal is met. • o Investigation of use of off-hours HOV vehicles owned by the Hospital for employee vanpool use. o Provide measures to ensure that HOV users can get home in case of irregular events such as personal emergencies and unexpected overtime. o Promote alternatives to SOV by a variety of programs and services including, but not limited to: - providing a Transportation Information Center in the building; - semi-annual promotion of HOV program; ,<b -7- - appointment, staffing and training in conjunction with existing Metro programs of a Building Transportation Coordinator's (BTC) office; - instituting a program to promote commuting by bus (including the transit subsidy for employees) - offering flexible working hours five days per week to ce ain employee groups to reduce employee trips during peak hour. of congestion. - working with Metro to develop a work program and time fram- to modify transit routes and times to improve the service for MC employees. o The VMC Transportation Coordinator will submit a biannual report to the Development Services Division, showing how goals are being met, or adjustm-nts made in order to meet goals. If the 10% reduction in SOV is not accompli-hed within one year, the City will reassess further development on campus. Subsequent development under the Master Plan update that would increase the number of staff employed on campus and/or the number of visitors and/or the number of parking stalls shall be evaluated in light of the TMP goals and the EIS for the Master Plan, and mitigating measures will be imposed. Mitigation could include, but is not limited to: increased traffic fees; transportation and t :ffic improvements;and restricted or phased developments. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6-22; WAC 197-11-660; City of Re ton Comprehensive Plan Goal VII.A; Green River Valley Policy Plan, Transportation coal, Policies. AIR QUALITY: Additional analysis was performed for the FEIS on the air quality impact of the proposal. It was found that air quality will improve with any of the alternatives, primarily as a function of imprived emission devices on cars. The proposed action would increase air emissions by 6%, how-ver, emissions would still be 18% lower than today. The proposal is, therefore, not expected to ave any significant impacts. RECOMMENDATIONS: No additional mitigating measures. See traffic measures. PUBLIC SERVICES—FIRE Currently, Valley Medical Center's hospital complex is not fully sprinkled, and therefore, doe- not meet City of Renton fire code. Public safety Is an issue for this facility and without remedy, could pose a significant impact for future services. Additional building on campus could complicat: the amount of time and space available for fire response. However, the City and the Center ° ave agreed upon a schedule for fully complying with the code. The new building and relocated •CC area will be fully sprinklered. No significant Impacts are, therefore, expected from the propo .I or the alternatives. -8- RECOMMENDATIONS: 6. That Valley Medical Center shall abide by their voluntary agreement with the City to fully sprinkler the hospital according to schedule agreed upon. REVENUE: Arguments were made during the DEIS comment period that the medical office building would generate more revenue for the City if it were privately owned rather than hospital owned and leased. After reviewing both scenarios, the FEIS found that a leased medical building would generate approximately$500 more revenue to the City that a privately owned building. Therefore, no significant impact is expected. • Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660(1)(d) RECOMMENDATIONS: No additional mitigating measures. OTHER ELEMENTS: In response to citizen comments on the DEIS, the following impacts were investigated in the FEIS: energy, environmental health,aesthetics, and noise. They were found to be insignificant. • -9- 40, Ar CIT' OF RENTON "LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman,Administrator February 27, 1991 SUBJECT: Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building and Ambulatory Care Center Environmental Impact Statement Mitigation Document--ECF-063-89 Dear Party of Record: The Environmental Review Committee has amended the mitigation document for the Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II and the relocation of the Ambulatory Care Center. The amended document is available from the City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department,third floor, 200 Mill Avenue, Renton,Washington. The amended document is subject to appeal to the City of Renton Hearing Examiner by March 15, 1991, 5:00 p.m., under City of Renton Code 4-6-23, 4-8-11, 4-6-6; RCW 43.21C.075 and State Environmental Policy Act WAC 197-11-680. A public hearing to 'consider the conditional use for the VMC Medical Office Building II is currently scheduled for March 19, 1991. Any appeal of the amended mitigation document will be consolidated with the appeal of the EIS and heard at the same March 19, 1991 hearing,with the conditional use. Please call Mary Lynne Myer at 277-5586 if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Donald K. Erickson, Zoning Administrator • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 • .I J Mike Ferris The Ferris Co. 10655 NE 4th St Bellevue,WA 98004 Charles Mosher . Chuck Kleeberg, Director 4730-154th PI SE ' Seattle-King Cty Dept of Pub Health Bellevue,WA 98006 400 Yesler Bldg Seattle,WA 98104 Stuart Vendeland 6248-129th Ave SE Bellevue,WA 98b06 Versie Vaupel . PO•Box 755 , Renton,WA 98057 J • .a Betty Cooper 18604-129th PI SE Renton,WA 98058 Margot Heyne Intl Brotherhood #46 2700-1st Ave Seattle,WA 98121 Jacob C.Wagner, M.D. PO Box 5490 Kent,WA 98064 - Jerry B. Schutz t .•a • WA St DOT, Dist. #1 15326 SE 30th P14°. ° Bellevue,WA 98007-6538 [ t py9 ! Gregory M. Bush, Mgr y • METRO 821 Second Ave { Seattle,WA 98104-1598 9S • t 4 6'4gti CITY 3F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman,Administrator February 27, 1991 Eric J.Thoman General Counsel Valley Medical Center 400 South 43rd Street Renton,WA 98055 SUBJECT: Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building and Ambulatory Care Center Environmental Impact Statement Mitigation Document—File ECF-063-90 Appeal No: AAD-009-91 Dear Mr.Thoman: Based on our meeting of February 8, 1991, we understand that Valley Medical Center is interested in withdrawing its appeal, No. AAD-009-91, if several points are clarified and changed within the Mitigation Document. The Mitigation Document addresses environmental impacts from the potential construction of the Medical Office Building II and the Ambulatory Care Center, as discussed in the Environmental Impact Statement for these projects (ECF-063-89 and ECF-113-89), and gives mitigating measures for the impacts. The document was issued January 7, 1991. The mitigation document will be amended, pursuant to this letter, and a separate letter will give notice of the changes to all parties of record and to the publication of record. This letter addresses these points of clarification and changes to the mitigation document as decided by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee, February 25, 1991. MITIGATION DOCUMENT: 'RECOMMENDATION 2: That the VMC covenant the building to restrict 80 percent of its leasable area to secondary and tertiary practices to lessen land use and traffic impacts. The remaining 20 percent could be leased to primary care physicians.' This recommendation is based on a similar recommendation for Medical Office Building I, a sister building to the proposed MOB II. This first building, permitted in spring of 1989, had a covenant which restricted the physician usage to 75 percent secondary and tertiary practices and 25 percent to primary care practices. This covenant addressed the minimization of traffic impacts generated by the tenants in the building. • Traffic impacts are a concern for MOB II as well. However, there is no indication in the EIS for MOB II that the traffic impacts from this building will be more substantial than those from MOB I. With the mitigation of additional traffic fees, a revised Transportation Management Plan, and increased emphasis on HOV promotion, it Is not necessary to restrict MOB Il beyond MOB I. Therefore, the same 25 percent covenant for the maximum amount of primary care space on MOB I would reasonably apply to both buildings. AMENDED RECOMMENDATION 2: That the VMC covenant the building to restrict 75 percent of its leasable area to secondary and tertiary practices to lessen land use and traffic impacts. (NOTE: The remaining 25 percent could be leased to non-hospital dependant primary care physicians. No additional mitigation measures specified. The conditional use process will further address this impact.) 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Eric J.Thoman MD-009-91 February 27, 1991 Page 2 MITIGATION DOCUMENT: - "RECOMMENDATION 4: That Valley Medical Center, in cooperation with the City of Renton, as lead agency, will need to complete a programmatic EIS on this (Master Plan) plan before any subsequent development related actions are taken that will substantially increase the number of employees, visitors, and/or vehicular parking spaces on the VMC campus. Remodeling which will not result in any of the above impacts is exempt." (NOTE: At the time of this letter,the City and Valley Medical Center have been meeting and will continue to meet regarding the refinement and updating of VMC's Master Plan. Contents and format of the plan ar= under discussion at the present time. A good working relationship is present, enabling all parties t• discuss concerns and address differences.) This recommendation addresses the overall cumulative impacts of hospital-related development and othe development on campus. State law (SEPA WAC 197-1.1-704, 774, and 442) would require that an EIS, addressing all elements of the environment Including cumulative impacts, be prepared on the Master Plan a threshold determination of significance is given by the lead agency. Since the revised master plan ha. not yet been received by the Lead Agency, a threshold determination cannot yet be issued. Thi. recommendation could be considered as speculative and therefore,would be premature. A "Note to Applicant," will show that cumulative environmental impacts must still be addressed In t e subsequent environmental submittals for the Master Plan. This mitigation document would,therefore, not be weakened or substantially changed. REVISED RECOMMENDATION 4: To be changed to a'Note to Applicant' reading: The City of Renton, .s lead agency, expects Valley Medical Center to complete a programmatic EIS on a Master Plan for t e campus, before any subsequent development-related actions are taken that will substantially increase t e number of employees,visitors,and/or vehicular parking spaces on the VMC Campus. (Remodeling,whi h will not result in any of the above impacts,is exempt.) The City of Renton wishes Valley Medical Center to know that continued cooperation is necessary on the formulation and timely completion of the Master PI.n. Cumulative impacts must be addressed. MITIGATION DOCUMENT: "RECOMMENDATION 5: That VMC shall pay$92,798.80 in fees for the additional 4040 trips at$22.97 •er trip to be used to improve the roadway network off-site within one mile radius of the campus. The City ill endeavor to use the money as soon as possible for improvements.' - The$92,798.80 trip fee is in addition to the VMC contributions to UD #329, a sum totalling approxima ely $2 million. UD #329's major purpose is to address traffic Impacts in this congested corridor from previ•us development, and it Is perhaps the major hope for traffic mitigation for the hospital and surroun'ing properties. However, it has become increasingly apparent that in addition to VMC's and the C s contributions to the UD, which were based on work programs updated from the 1982 original P the of work, additional costs may arise. In order to assure that UD #329 is completed expeditiously, $92,798.80 related to imwill be proved traffic flow.ed towards Is If monies are left after the LID is completed,First priority will be to they will be new work it utilized specificallyP on other road projects as specified in the recommendation. -- - Eric J.Thoman K. MD-009-91 February 27, 1991 Page 3 REVISED RECOMMENDATION 5: That VMC shall pay $92,798.80 in fees for the additional 4040 trips at $22.97 per trip to be used to improve the roadway network off-site within a one mile radius of the campus. The City will endeavor to use the money as specified below: Priority expenditures of this fund should be directed to new or unanticipated costs for UD #329, including but not limited to: impacts on private properties from road construction work, impacts on utilities not funded through the engineering contingency budget of the UD. It shall not be used for bikeways. MITIGATION DOCUMENT: RECOMMENDATION 6: That VMC will review and revise the TMP to increase its effectiveness. These revisions will include: o evaluation of the goals identified in the TMP (a reduction of 10% in SOV trips) within six months of the issuance of this permit. The SOV evaluation shall: a) use 1987 employee trips as a base figure;determine if a 10 percent reduction has been made on these trips; b) calculate 1990 employee trips and determine 10 percent reduction for differential growth between 1987 and 1990; c) calculate employee trips for MOB II/ACC - determine 10 percent reduction; d)total a, b and c to determine total trips and the 10 percent reduction for all as a check;and e) determine methods for reaching the reduction. A report shall be submitted to the City showing results of the evaluation. If targeted goals are not met,additional incentive for HOV participation shall be installed including,as necessary: o Increased staff effort by the Building Transportation Coordinator and more promotion of HOV incentives. o Further discounts for carpool parking and increased rates for private vehicle trips, excluding clients and visitors. o Implementation of the transit discount pass program to increase the subsidy by a least 1- %each year if the annual goal of 10% of eligible participating employees is not met(not to exceed the price of the transit pass). o Participation in the annual cost of vanpool operation (in addition to providing free parking located in proximity to buildings and allowing employees to apply the transit discount to the participant's vanpool fare) in an amount not to exceed $5000 per year if the evaluation show the SOV reduction goal has not been met. The subsidy shall begin upon completion of the TMP evaluation report if that report shows the SOV goals are not achieved. The subsidy shall continue until the goal is met. o The VMC Transportation Coordinator....(see complete text). o 'Subsequent development under the Master Plan Update that would increase the number of staff employed on campus and/or the number of visitors and/or the number of parking stalls shall be evaluated in light of the TMP goals and the EiS for the Master Plan, and mitigating measures will be imposed. Mitigation could include, but is not limited to: increased traffic fees; transportation and traffic improvements and restricted or phased developments.' Eric J.Thoman AAD-009-91 February 27, 1991 Page 4 The Master Plan Update and the environmental documents for this update will address the TMP program. The EIS should also give additional mitigation measures for reducing SOV travel to the campus, i.e., restrict development, phase development,temporarily stop development, Increase traffic mitigation fees. It would be appropriate to provide for reassessment of the situation in the upcoming documents and not to restrict development and options through this document. REVISED RECOMMENDATION 6: Subsequent development under the Master Plan Update that would increase the number of staff employed on campus and/or the number of visitors and/or the number of parking stalls will be evaluated in light of the TMP goals and the EIS for that project, and mitigating measures will be imposed. Mitigation could include, but is not limited to: increased traffic fees; transportation and traffic improvements and restricted or phased developments. I believe the above revisions reflect our discussions on February 8, 1991 with you and Larry Warren, the City Attorney. If these revisions are different from your understanding, please let me know immediately.. This administrative determination will be published In the newspaper of record, and notices will be sent t• all parties of record. The appeal period Is 14 days. This administrative determination is subject to app-- to the City of Renton Hearing Examiner. ely, Donald K Erickson,AICP Zoni dministrator • Larry Warren City Attorney . at; CC403.d VALLEY MEDICAL OFFICE BLDG.II AMBULATORY CARE CENTER South 43rd Street January 25, 1991 1) TMP (Transportation Management Program) to be implemented as outlined in the EIS statement mitigation document. 2) The transportation mitigation fee of $92,798.80 is recommend as outlined in the EIS statement mitigation document. ($22.97 X 4040(trips)=$92,798.80) Deposit to account No. 105/599/318.70.00.65 3) Talbot Rd. S. westside - S.43rd St. to north property line of hospital: The overhead electrical primary conductors and telephone conductors should be undergrounded in coordination with the LID 329 project construction which will widen Talbot Rd. S. at the approach to S. 43rd Street for a added right turn lane. 4) Specific improvement should be specified or recommended for all intersectionslisted in the EIS as operating at LOS E or F. 910EM012 ` PO Box 5490 Kent' WA 98064 January 9' l99l PLANNING DIVISION Plarn�ing Division crrYCiPRENT-ON City of Renton 200 Mill Ave S � J����n ' . 1'- � � � �91 Renton' WA 98055 ���~/ ���������� mm�~���~mw �=�� Dear Sirs � In studyinig the final environmental impact statement for the Valley Medical Center ' December ' l990' several errors were ap- parent Relative to comments on my letter of September l3th omnment 52--thc additional ?00 trips' plucked from no where' does not fit my experience in practice � As a retired general surgeon, I wouId estimate that less than l in 5Qof my patients wcre referred to the hospital , and none on the same day as their office visit I checked with an internist group across the street from the hospi- tal and they refer 3 patients seen at the office out of a l00 to the hospital the same day--sparing the burdcn of 97 cars on the hospital gr�unds Comment 54..........the comment ignores the issuc that the public voted to build a hospital and not doctors ' offices' fast food fran- chises' used car lots' etc . Referencc in your report is made to CO pollution Perhaps CO2 and its greenhouse effcct is equally relevant as each gallon of gas burned produces 20 pounds of CO2 � Consider , then, the saving in production of 2 tons of CO2 for each l00 people who see their doctor locally' say in Covington or Maple Valley, rather than driving to the doctor at Valley Medical Center in l year l00 El atients per day would save about 250' 000 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere There are rumors that certain hospital officials are awaiting the bankruptsy of office buildings off campus to pick them up cheaply Springbrook Associates II at the moment is only 50% occupied' and Valley Garden Health Center is less than 50% occupied Research of other surrounding medical offices would probably reflect the same and indicate no urgency for added medical office facilities Accordingly' the Planning Division of the City of Renton can do the people of the hospital district a great service in re- stricting the hospital expansion for the purposes the people by vote approved in the original bond issue It did not approve inclusion of doctors' offices Sincerely' � /yJ�cob C ��'gner ' MD~ �, �: CITY " ►F RENT ON Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator January 14, 1991 • Jerry B. Schutz, Development Planning Engineering State of Washington Dept. of Transportation, Dist. 1 • 15325 SE 30th PI Bellevue,WA 98007-6538 SUBJECT: Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated UD #329 Review Comments Dear Mr. Schutz: On December 12, 1990, I called David Oberg of your staff, concerning your December 10, 1990 letter to us. At that time, I asked for clarification of your department's letter as it appeared there was some confusion. Your December 10, 1990 letter stated that the City had omitted the DOT's suggested conditions for LID #329 in the Valley Medical Center EIS for the Medical Office Building II and relocation of the Ambulatory Care Center. I believe the confusion comes in that your staff assumed these projects were the same. In truth, there are two projects under consideration. One project was a Determination of Non-Significance with conditions for the UD #329, the roadway widening next to Valley Medical Center. The second project is an Environmental Impact Statement for Valley Medical Center's Medical Office Building II (MOB II) and relocation of the Ambulatory Care Center(ACC). The City's Environmental Review Committee, Renton's responsible official, considered both of your suggested conditions for LID #329, a City road widening and tunnel project which is being undertaken to correct roadway deficiencies. Your first suggestion on LID #329 asked for the City to condition the Medical Center to contribute a pro rata share of the construction costs for a Stateinstall lld HOV lanes on SR 167 between 15th Street SW and South Grady Way. Unfortunately, the suggestion cnot be implemented for two reasons: the City was the applicant for the LID #329 and d the wcilonditionsnot ge in the e LID were placed on the City and not on the Valley Medical Center. In addition, l additional trips beyond its construction trips. Since, under SEPA,the mitigating conditions must be directly related to the project's impacts, your suggested condition would be considered unreasonable and unrelated to the expected impacts. However, I did consider your first condition as I reviewed the VMC's Medical Office Building II and Ambulatory Care Center EIS. VMC is the applicant for that project, and the project will definitely generate additional trips onto the SR 167 ramps. Under SEPA, reasonable mitigation measures may be imposed fora impacts related to a project. However, at this time, we cannot condition a City project to pay a p share of a WSDOT project cost unless we have a project cost to refer to. I understand the HOV lane project costs will not be available for approximately six to eight months, and that the project is still in the design stage. After project costs have been determined, I suggest your Department meet with the City to discuss the project, its schedule, and methods by which the two jurisdictions can cooperate. The Environmental Review Committee did include your second suggestion for the Valley Medical Center EIS: continued implementation of the Medical Center's Transportation Management Plan. In fact, in that 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton. Washington 98055 • Jerry B. Schutz -LID #329 January 14, 1991 Page 2 EIS for Valley Medical Center's office building, you will note that the Transportation Management Plan's requirements are more stringent than you requested. It is of importance to the City to reduce the number of SOV trips coming to and from the hospital. In summary, your staff commented on LID #329, a City project, apparently thinking the conditions would be applied to VMC's Medical Office Building II and the Ambulatory Care Center, a private applicant's project. The City of Renton honored your conditions for the first project to the extent they were legal under the State Environmental Protection Act. The City also applied your conditions to the second project to the extent that they were applicable. I have included a copy of the TMP conditions for your information from the Medical Office Building II and Ambulatory Care Center EIS. I hope this clears up any remaining confusion on the projects. I spoke with your staff this morning and I believe we are all in agreement at this point. We look forward to working with you on future projects and mitigation, as we share your interest in a fully functioning road network capable of handling the needs of the area. Sincerely, Mary Lynne Myer Senior Environmental Planner p.-rrn.c..m► e-r-r NOTICE OF MITIGATION DOCUMENT Notice is given under SEPA, RCW 43.21 C.075 and WAC 197-11-660, that the City of Renton has issued a mitigation document for Valley Medical Center's proposed Medical Office Building II and Ambulatory Care Center. Copies of the document are available at the public information counter (SEPA Information Center) in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Renton Municipal Building located at 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055. Reading copies are available in the Renton Municipal Library at the above address. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Valley Medical Center proposes to build a 110,970 sf medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center Campus. Also included in the proposed action is a Building Permit for relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC space for medical services. Any interested party may appeal these conditions in writing by 5:00 p.m., January 18, 1991. See City Code Section 4-8-11,WAC 197-11-680 for further details and RCW 43.21 C.075. To appeal this Declaration, you must file your appeal document with the Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14) days of the date the decision was made. See City Code Section 4-8-11, RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact City of Renton, Community Development Department to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. Publication Date: January 7, 1991 Account No. 51067 CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY MITIGATION DOCUMENT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT APPLICATION NO(S): ECF-063-89 PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT NAME: Medical Office Building II and relocation of the Ambulatory Care Center DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Approval of Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and Building Permit to allow construction of a 110,970 sf medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center Campus. Building permit is needed for the relocation of the Ambulatory Care Center to another building on campus and use of the vacated space for medical services. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 400 South 43rd Street, Renton,WA LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works • Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee, under WAC 197-11-660, has Issued a mitigation document to address the environmental Impacts expected from the potential development of Valley Medical Center's Medical Office Building II and Ambulatory Care Center. An environmental impact statement was required for this project under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c) and other documents cited in the ordinance. The impacts described in that statement are the basis for the mitigating measures in the mitigation document. This decision was made by the Environmental Review Committee after review of the completed environmental impact statement and other information on file with the lead agency. Any interested party may appeal these conditions in writing by 5:00 p.m., January 18, 1991. See City Code Section 4-8-11, WAC 197-11-680 for further details and RCW 43.21 C.075. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee c/o Don Erickson, Secretary Development Planning Section Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 You may appeal the conditions in this document in writing to Renton Hearing Examiner no later than 5:00 p.m., January 18, 1991. To appeal this Declaration, you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen (14) days of the date the decision was made. See City Code Section 4-8-11, RCW 43.21 C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact City of Renton, Community Development Department to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. PUBLICATION DATE: 3cLnt c,ry 7, I H I DATE OF DECISION: jGUnl lckry 4, I1G 1 .f SIGNATURES: (-N' YDliE91 Lynn '�uttmar�n,Administrator Depa nt of Flanning/Building/Public Works \. -L E ii - --- 7 J• . Webley,A ministrator DATE Co unity Service Department . • • _if___XV f 4/ 7/ -Lee a e;F to C ief DATE Ren n Fire Department mitsig p OpQQ11S'/ a./�� R��CM N 4�,� �3199' • skit, • _ STATE OF WASHINGTON - KING COUNTY - '199 It y c'f Re.ri t o ri No. 51067 E I St ;CITY;OF-RENTON`, ` -,1 •N iC is Fg en UndeBILITY: Affidavit of Publication Notice is,given under,iSEPA' RCW.43:216.080,that:the`'Cityy of Renton has issued'the Final E.:h S:forAhe Valley MedicalCenter- Mediae];Office;Building:1E and: Ambulatory CareZenter.,Copies�� The' undersigned, on oath states that he is an of the Final�E.`.I.::S:rare available authorized re r for pn urchase.,for;$10.00'per;cop p esentative of The Daily Journal of Commerce, a at the• ublic,inforination.coun 4 daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal ter (SEP.A"Inforrnatiori;Center). newspaper of general of the_Development;Services Di;, circulation and it.is now and has been for more than six months vision on�the,third floor.of.thee; prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in Renton Municipal'Building lo= .cated,at 200•MilltAvenue South; the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in Seattle, Renton,Washington 9805,5-;Read e ing:copies;are available in,thly! King County,Washington, and it is now and during all of said time :Renton Municipal Library,;at'the) - was printed in an ,office maintained at the aforesaid place of 'above,address.,',"•', ",•,:,:; • s. -,:,:DESCRIPTION'OF•PROPOS-'1 publication of this newspaper. The Daily Journal of Commerce AL:.(Relocation;of,Ambulator•*. was on the 12th dayofapprovedlegalnewspaper Care.Center from one.aree of thee, June 1941 as a news a er hospital to a.ppreviousiy'shelled-! by the Superior Court of King County. •in'area;of;18;000,sf;"and:;a media cal office:buildingg,'five-story;ai approximately;110'97,0:•sf,with Iapproximately,,84,0uu sf'leasabl,e The notice in the exact form annexed,was published in regular space on up r.per floo ,an'd:+20;0Oq issues of The DailyJournal of Commerce 'sf,of�,•hospitalrelate'dt�'ues` o'ii , which was regularly nist:fl'en!: i.'••!,:.';,;,*`°.:';',°',;!!':", distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The :LOCATION,OFPROPOSAI�, : annexed notice a 400`South Ord!Street;Reny I ton ,WA...r..,. ;..., ;;�.,i:', ;?!Appeals'As to;the adequacy 0.'1 this,;Final:asto head ntar.brit.1 B/C VLLY .MED cICITIC BLt'i II— ANB pact Statement and'the:draft ent;I vironmental impact:'statement• must be receivedpby.January'.1'6;. 1991,5:00p.m.and should be a$` was published on dressed. to the Hearing'•Exanv.. ,iner,_200..Mill Avenue;;Southh'I t'y 1/c 2/,�1 Renton sWashingt'on 98055'.,pr:4.' Date`ofiniiblica'tion in;the;Se attle;;Daily;:;Jouinal of•-"Comtl !mercer January,2,:,1992(33199)': The amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of$. , whi hamo has been aid in full , subscribed and sworn to before me on 6 ,,,, , , . + ' ' Notary Public for the State of Washington, • residing in Seattle • Affidavit of Publication - . CITY OF RENTON JAN 1 51991 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 4`1'4.% 51067 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Kathleen Hoover ,being first duly sworn on oath states -P. - that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the m g' o�o VALLEY DAILY NEWS • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition ' = o - -n cDc > Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week. That said newspapers o 0.' < are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six o cn S months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published m F in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King D 0 County, Washington. The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal = al newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for y g King County. _ ---_---- o m o mQro=033-cn0 — nO) D�a oo 3r" o= c The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Kent Edition o y o D o `�� a X X _, Renton Edition X X• , Auburn Edition XX , (and not in �� w pa) o —= o = o.�. _ • <S -.owoma- supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers o,z 0 m 3_ y 3 w go o c St- nw during the below stated period. The annexed notice a P u,hi i c Notice a w .cD , O o o 0 m i f i h i l t 5'1 tl'1 3 < m xi p' o w - m cr o o (Not ce c Ava to y) 'ao r-�? _ °Loa' 0mv o'er wom5, oc.o January., •l,. 199.1 oa, o (n .zo = o:=•o -, ?.i, = o was published on =m 3 7 o co o(n m -w w m < n _O K 0 _ st 3 .o o=w -9-C m m w•�o a0= 0=0_ The full anon gf the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the a- o g g g w.o• a$ o 0 sum of$ . o •9 v o o D, o = m � o w c o Fa P,X 2 C a m D W r y c o -^ B1 o m =� O -ov <' Va ��,�,, l / ?Qoa3mm =.'man�mo (ob 3 2O g 2-Q (n1p0o- , < ? O3w .. 0-'0 V CD O.n = N.,O.0_ = V ..Z»o O_ 0_ Subscribed and sworn before me this 10:th day of J.an. 1 l ! • o•-a 0 -' (7, 6 °o 0 0 D p<j0 <m °' 3o_Ft o 003 a E - = N�� �.. n-D y,o r, m am=m p, co o 2, °i�N cno 8a3.2 =.w — . 0> v c coo m o y (I-0 / o . . al st o ,T.,'N o ( 20= o - •o Vl O = N O 3 d-r-ri On N n - Not Public for the State of Washington P_(0-P-c. o- st -_o.°.s residing at Auburn, King County, Washington VDN#87 Revised 4/89 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY Notice is given under SEPA, RCW 43.216.080, that the City of Renton has issued the Final E.I.S. for the Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II and Ambulatory Care Center. Copies of the Final E.I.S. are available for purchase for$10.00 per copy at the public information counter (SEPA Information Center) of the Development Services Division on the third floor of the Renton Municipal Building located at 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,Washington 98055. Reading copies are available in the Renton Municipal Library at the above address. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Relocation of Ambulatory Care Center from one area of the hospital to a previously shelled-in area of 18,000 sf; and a medical office building, five-story, of approximately 110,970 sf with approximately 84,000 sf leasable space on upper floor and 20,000 sf of hospital-related uses on first floor. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 400 South 43rd Street, Renton,WA Appeals as to the adequacy of this Final Environmental Impact Statement and the draft environmental impact statement must be received by January 16, 1991, 5:00 p.m. and should be addressed to the Hearing Examiner,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,Washington 98055. Publication Date: January 1, 1991 Date of Decision: December 27, 1990 • Account No. 51067 xpavail CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF FEIS ISSUANCE Description of Agency Action: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued Final Environmental Impact Statement on December 28, 1990 on the Valley Medical Center proposed Medical Office Building II and Ambulatory Care Center. ERC will issue a mitigation measures document on the above projects based on information from the DEIS and FEIS. Description of Proposal: Relocation of Ambulatory Care Center from one area of the hospital to a previously shelled-in area of 18,000 sf; and a medical office building, five-story, of approximately 110,970 sf with approximately 84,000 sf leasable space on upper floor and 20,000 sf of hospital-related uses on first floor. Location of Proposal: 400 South 43rd Street, Renton,WA Type of SEPA Review: Declaration of Significance; draft EIS -August 31, 1990;final EIS- December 12, 1990. Documents may be examined during regular business hours at Development Services, Third Floor, Municipal Building,200 Mill Avenue South. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section PUBLICATION DATE: January 1, 1991 DATE OF DECISION: December 27, 1990 SIGNATURES: 416, - 4,71,9e----- /z-2-7, .) v/n A. Guttmann,Administrator DATE /Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Jo n E.Webley,Administrator` DATE C munity Service Department /a( - //,, z • / ..-(,. . , __.9----,9 -7- , Lee , ler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: December 27, 1990 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Don Erickson, Secretary STAFF CONTACT: Mary Lynne Myer, Sr. Environmental Planner SUBJECT: Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II and Ambulatory Care Center Environmental Impact Statement and Mitigation Measures (ECF 113-89, ECF 063- 89) REQUEST: That the ERC approve the following environmental mitigation measures as sufficient to mitigate the impacts identified in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement: Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II and the Ambulatory Care Center. Approval of these measures indicates that the identified environmental impacts of the proposal are mitigated sufficiently, thus allowing the proposal to proceed, if it is found to be in conformity with other applicable City of Renton requirements and codes. That the ERC issue a Notice of Issuance specifying that the FEIS and the mitigation document have been issued. The NOI will notify all agencies and parties of record of the availability of the FEIS and the mitigation document. The mitigation document should not be issued until January 4, 1991. Appeal periods for both documents would expire on January 18, 1991. 400 South 43rd Street Renton, WA 98055 Iiii , 206.22803450 FAX 206057502593 Valley Medical Center PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENT O. Ni November 1, 1990 NOV - 5 1990 Mary Lynne Myer Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Valley Medical Center Master Plan Dear Mary Lynne: This letter is to follow up our conversation of Wednesday, October 31, 1990 regarding Valley Medical Center's master plan. As we discussed, we are starting to talk to consultants about the master plan process. We are anxious to get the City' s input as to the direction that this project should take. You and I discussed looking at a master plan that you are familiar with from the City of Seattle that we could use as an example. This would be extremely helpful for us. We will set up a meeting for the first week of January, 1991 to finalize the direction that this project will take. This will allow you sufficient time to obtain a sample plan and for us to make arrangements with our consultants. In the meantime, if you are available for one or more of our bimonthly meetings with Don and Jim, we would like the opportunity to "brainstorm" with you on this. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Ve y ru y yours_,.. Eric J. T oman General o nsel EJT/ldj cc: Monica Brennan John Scott Ome Almeda 400 South 43rd Street Renton, WA 98055 .r A 206.228•3450 FAX 206.575.2593 Valley Medical Center PLANNING DIVISION November 1, 1990 CITY OF RENTQN NOV - 5 1990 Terry McCann RECEItir D Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. 205 Lake Street South Suite 202 Kirkland, WA 98033 RE: Valley Medical Center EIS Dear Terry: This letter is to let you know that I talked to Mary Lynne Myer at the City of Renton on Wednesday, October 31, 1990 regarding the timeliness of the completion of the EIS. We are very concerned about the delays in this project. We were informed two weeks ago that the EIS would be completed on November 2 , 1990. It is my understanding that the preliminary EIS will now be submitted to the City on November 9, 1990 with the final EIS to be submitted to the ERC on November 12, 1990. Given that we now have a date for the hearing examiner, we feel it is critical that these deadlines be met. If you feel that these deadlines will not be met or if you have any other questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. Ve tru yours, Eric J. oman General ounsel EJT/ldj cc: Mary Lynne Myer, Senior Planner, City of Renton Monica Brennan, Chief Operating Officer, VMC John Scott, Asst. Administrator, VMC Ome Almeda, Director/Engineering, VMC VitAc. as tvto a3 /A-c,c_ WAO Washington State Duane Berentson Department of Transportation Secretary of Transportation District 1 PLANNING DIVISION 15325 S.E. 30th Place DIP(OF RENTON Bellevue, Washington 98007-6538 (206)562-4000 OCT 2 6 too October 25, 1990 Of a L. Ms. Mary Lynne Myer, Senior Planner Planning/Building/Public Works Department Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, WA 98055 SR 167 DEIS Review Valley Medical Center Expansion Dear Ms. Myer: This letter is in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement review we received from the city of Renton. This project proposes to construct a 110,970 square foot medical office building on the northwest corner of the hospital campus and relocate the ambulatory care center to an existing structure. This project is expected to generate 4, 040 daily trips, 169 AM peak trips and 379 PM peak trips at build out in 1995. The northbound SR 167 ramp junction with SW 43rd Street will be significantly impacted by this project. Fifty-two percent of project trips during PM peak will travel through the intersection. Local Improvement District #329 proposes several improvements for SW 43rd Street. Improvements include, but are not limited to, an HOV lane and turn lane channelization on SW 43rd Street between the SR 167 interchange and Davis Avenue South and two new lanes on SW 43rd Street between Davis Avenue South and Talbot Road. The department concurs with the City in regards to these improvements and the tunnel pedestrian crossing under SW 43rd Street near Davis Avenue South. Ms. Mary Lynne Myer, Senior Planner State Route 167 October 25, 1990 Page 2 The department has an improvement project on SR 167 between 15th Street SW in Algona to South Grady Way. This project will construct HOV lanes on the SR 167 mainlines, install surveillance, control and driver information equipment and possibly construct HOV bypass lanes on selected on ramps. Stage I (84th Street to South Grady Way) is scheduled to be advertised November 2, 1992. We recommend that the City condition the proponent of this project to contribute a pro rata share to this project. Continued implementation of Valley Medical Center's Trans- portation Management Plan is recommended. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, JERRY B. SCHUTZ Development Planning Engineer CG:cmi 1/CG-SR167 :41m- CIT-.. ' OF RENTON 4 `` Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator October 22, 1990 Eric Thoman, General Counsel Valley Medical Center 400 S 43rd St Renton,WA 98055 Dear Mr.Thoman: We recently received the application for site improvements and building plans for Medical Office Building II. Since Medical Office Building II is under review through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement,the City cannot take any official action on these plans until seven days after the issuance of the final environmental impact statement as specified in WAC 197-11-070 and 197-11-460. Because the EIS may impose certain conditions on the building, it would be premature for the Development Planning Section to review the plans even on a preliminary basis until that document is finished. Application for building permits might proceed, however,this would have to be at the owner's risk since the building might not be approved or could possibly have to be modified in its designs. Other sections in the City may be able to review the plans on a preliminary basis (i.e., for utility hook-up compliance, etc.),with the knowledge that no action can be taken until the completion of the EIS. As you know, the final EIS is under preparation. Please call me or Mary Lynne Myer if you have any questions on this matter. yours, Dona K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator cc: Mahlum and Nordfors Architects City of Renton Reviewing Departments • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2569 L �,� F ere s .__ .. _ .. j'tf Lief l.;fj,_I?'i �' �`, .. . . H .. I ,., October 3, 1990 Donald K. Erickson Zoning Administration PLANNING DIVISION City of Renton CITY OF RFNTON 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 OCT — 5 1990 Attn: Mary Lynne MyerRECE "QED Re: DEIS Valley Medical Center MOB II Dear Mr. Erickson: I am writing on behalf of M-V Properties, owners of Valley Gardens Health Center, a private medical office building housing various medical and dental uses, located at 601 South Carr Road in Renton. We sincerely hope you will recognize our comments both now, while the EIS is circulating, and when the Department makes its recommendations on the project. I have a large number of concerns about the DEIS. 1. The first group of concerns deals with the Scope of the EIS and the omission of some important elements. Based on our understanding of the proposal, it appears that several important elements of the environment which have been overlooked are likely to experience adverse impacts of probable significance and should be addressed in this EIS: these include air quality, energy, environmental health and socioeconomic impacts. A. Air - The fairly significant traffic increase (4, 040 additional vehicles per day) will significantly increase air pollution, especially in light of the resulting congestion and poor level of service at the studied intersections and other nearby locations. B. Energy - Hospitals and hospital-related facilities are tremendous consumers of energy. The project's effect on public energy supplies, both in isolation and in a cumulative sense, as well as measures VMC would take to conserve energy, should be addressed. C. Environmental Health - Medical facilities of all sorts involve the use of chemicals, some of which are hazardous. The EIS should disclose what chemicals are to be used in the new facility, in what quantities they will be stored, how they will be stored, and how they will be disposed of. An additional environmental health issue is the effect of Key Bank Building,Suite 506 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue,WA 98004 FAX 206/646-7875 206/462-7650 Donald K. Erickson October 3, 1990 Page 2 construction noise on hospital patients and other nearby receptors and what measures will be taken to mitigate that significant impact. D. Socio-Economic - Agencies can elect to include an element of the social environmental covering fiscal issues or other economic matters; such an element is necessary here, for the reasons discussed below. This should be particularly important to the City of Renton which will be losing property tax dollars due to this project being on public land and not private property. The City has increased demands for services by the hospital without the revenue sources to pay for them. Without disclosure of impacts and mitigation measures in the above elements of the environment, the EIS fails to meet its purpose to fully inform the public and agency decision- makers. 2 . The second major area of concern about the DEIS is in the Description of Project and the Selection of Alternatives. As discussed in the Draft EIS, the proposal entails a Conditional Use application (or applications) to establish use of a medical office building over 50 feet in height on the VMC campus, and to relocate the Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) , currently located in the hospital, to the existing structure housing the Psychiatry Wing. The alternatives discussed in the EIS are No-Action, build a smaller office building, and build the proposed office building on the southern sector of the campus. Our primary concern is that each of the alternatives to the proposed project set forth in the EIS are concluded to be inconsistent with the sponsor's objectives. SEPA requires that an EIS include reasonable alternatives that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives at a lower environmental cost. Simply dispensing with alternatives because they would not be the proponent's best option doesn't uphold the intent of the alternatives requirement and doesn't afford the public and City decisionmakers an objective basis for evaluating impacts and tradeoffs. The EIS should more fully address the option of meeting demand for medical office space off-campus either in existing office facilities or new, private construction. Both the No-Action and Donald K. Erickson October 3, 1990 Page 3 the Reduced Scope Alternatives should also reflect a more efficient utilization of existing office space near the institution. 3 . A third area of concern relates to the inadequate discussion of Market Demand for office space in the area. As you know, the VMC is a public agency, part of King County Public Hospital District Number 1, governed by a publicly-elected Board of Commissioners. Capital expenditures for new construction such as the proposed action involve the use of considerable sums of public monies which must be tied to the principal mission of the facility which, in VMC's case, is a hospital. Our concern with the proposal is that it involves such a public investment in a speculative, risky development venture. It is debatable whether the upper four-fifths of the proposed building, which is proposed to be leased to doctors and specialists for non-hospital related purposes (i.e. , conducting their everyday practice) , is related at all to the institution's primary hospital function or would even be leasable in today's market. There is discussion of a supposed shortage of high quality professional medical office space; great reliance is placed on the assumption that there is, in fact, a shortage. We feel that it is erroneous to conclude that there is a shortage of quality. office space on the basis of the information provided in the document for two reasons. First, one cannot conclude supply is inadequate if there is no quantification of demand. There is no information in the EIS to describe existing demand, in terms of the number of doctors seeking space, the amount of space they require, or whether the .. VMC is artificially stimulating demand for office space by encouraging or in other ways influencing physicians with privileges at the hospital to lease space in the project or in other VMC office facilities (e.g. , Chin Hills and Talbot Buildings) . Second, a more objective and scientific survey of existing facilities is necessary to determine actual vacancy. The EIS concludes, on the basis of the opinion of one real estate appraiser, that actual vacancy is 11.7 percent, or approximately 19,350 square feet of the Class A space, and 16.2 percent, or approximately 22,000 square feet of the existing woodframe office Donald K. Erickson October 3, 1990 Page 4 space. Construction of a five-story medical office building of which four stories, or nearly 85, 000 square feet of Class "A" office space would need to be leased, in a market with similar quality space available nearby, would be somewhat questionable for a private developer to undertake and would entail unacceptable risk for a public agency such as the Valley Medical Center. 4. Another element of the environment which is inadequately treated is Land Use. This is related to the issue of the market place for office space previously discussed. In the EIS Land Use section (p. 47) , it is concluded that no significant impacts on land use are expected as a result of the proposal. Given the uncertainty over demand, the VMC's affect on demand, and doubts about the accuracy of the supply figures, we must conclude that the proposal will adversely affect existing office uses near the VMC campus. The adverse effect will be loss of tenants (if existing tenants must relocate when leases expire in order to maintain privileges at the hospital) and greater difficulty securing new tenants with the publicly-subsidized medical office building located on the VMC campus. These impacts are adverse and will be significant. 5. Another area of serious omission is in the section dealing with Conditional Use. Several significant omissions to the document are found in the Relationship to Plans and Policies section. Although this section mentions that a Conditional Use approval is required to permit the office building to exceed 50 feet, it doesn't disclose that Conditional Use approval is are required for the office building itself and for accessory facilities such as the Ambulatory Care Center; it does not disclose or evaluate the Conditional Use criteria that apply; and it does not evaluate any alternative actions that do not require special approvals from the City of Renton. With reference to the Renton Zoning Code, Section 4-748C, the following criteria apply to the requested conditional uses: 1. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use shall 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 of Renton. Donald K. Erickson October 3, 1990 Page 5 2 . 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: a. The proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental overconcentration 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. • 3 . Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. It is arguable that these criteria would not be fully satisfied by the proposal to construct a medical office building within the VMC Campus. Specifically, there is an insufficient basis for concluding that there is an unmet need in the community for Class A medical office space and that it could not be met via an alternative such as the No-Action. Without a quantification of demand, one cannot conclude that existing office supply in the vicinity of VMC is inadequate, thereby necessitating the proposed action. Although view impacts to uphill properties are discussed, the option of constructing a medical office building within the height limit is not discussed anywhere in the document. The EIS mentions that the City could impose conditions to mitigate impacts identified in the EIS as part of the conditional use process, but makes no mention of what those conditions might be or what impacts they would mitigate. In fact, there are absolutely no measures identified to mitigate land use impacts which, as we've stated, will be significant. Also, there is no discussion or evaluation of building an alternative structure that contains no speculative office space, just legitimate hospital uses such as those proposed for the first floor of the proposed new structure. Donald K. Erickson October 3, 1990 Page 6 Further, there is a discussion of a Conditional Use Permit already issued by the City of Renton that authorizes an increase to the parking facilities on the VMC Campus. The EIS states as fact that this permit was issued to meet projected future parking needs, including parking required for the proposed medical office building (see p. 11) . It is logical to assume, therefore, that the City of Renton intends to issue the Conditional Use Permits required to authorize the proposed development. We would add that the City is doing so without an adequate evaluation of legitimate alternatives in the EIS, on the basis of risky speculation in a soft office market, and without complete disclosure of environmental impacts and mitigating measures. 6. Perhaps our greatest area of concern is the lack of full disclosure of traffic impacts in the Transportation element. The EIS discloses that there will be increased traffic and reduced level of service as a result of the project but it characterizes the increase as a "small portion" of some future problem (a grievous degree of editorializing for an EIS) and fails to disclose that much of the traffic increase would be caused by office-related trips rather than hospital-related trips. It seems obvious that in the presence of level of service "F" at several intersections near the campus, allowing additional non- hospital related trips to attempt to turn into the campus is injustifiable and should be grounds for denying the project. Also, it is unclear whether VMC will be required to conduct any mitigation above what they have committed to on previous projects for the new impacts created by the office building. Are the per- trip fees ($86, 344.23) and other measures identified in the EIS new costs or are they buried somewhere in existing agreements? This is particularly disturbing since the hospital was allowed to build the new 70, 000 sf Talbot Professional Office without making any new improvements to the existing heavily congested road system. Presumably an L.I.D. was to be created to fund the widening of 43rd Avenue and improvement of the Talbot Road intersection, including new signalization at the SR 167 interchange, at the hospital entrance drive and Talbot road. Years later, however, nothing has been done. How can the City approve more on-campus development when improvements to correct previous impacts have not yet been made? When the Valley Gardens Health Center was constructed, it was required to provide over $400,000 in public street improvements as a condition of approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Yet it is less than half the size of the proposed devlopment. Why Donald K. Erickson October 3, 1990 Page 7 should a publicly-sponsored project be required to do anything less than a privately-proposed project in the same area? 7. The final subject is the element dealing with Public Services. Fire protection is identified as a significant impact that cannot be mitigated. Are not the steps listed on pp. 95-96 involving sprinklering of the hospital and existing office building actually mitigating measures? Will VMC be required to perform these steps as part of the approval process? If so, then they should be recognized as mitigation measures and required of the VMC prior to development of this new project. In conclusion, we believe that there are several significant omissions from the EIS and that a Supplemental EIS is necessary to address the issues raised in this letter. Also, there is clearly no need to exercise the City's discretionary decision- making process for such a speculative development venture by a public entity where no community need has been justified or public benefits clearly documented. We request that you keep us informed of your response to these issues and of the conditional use process. Sincerely, 1,;(4,0L; E. Michael Ferris President EMF:hd . t71h Q,. City of Seattle King County Norman B.Rice,Mayor Tim Hill,Executive Seattle-King County Department of Public Health Bud Nicola,M.D.,M.H.S.A.,Director October 1, 1990 PLANNING DIVISION • Donald K. Erickson, AICP CITY OF F ENTO1 Zoning Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department OCT - 81990 Attn: Mary Lynn Myer • 200 Mill Ave. S. C IEq � Renton, WA 98055 • ��� Fs Dear Mr. Erickson: We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing us to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact . Statement (DEIS) for the Valley Medical Center project. At this time, we have no concerns regarding this proposed project, provided that the public health concerns , such as • surface water, noise and traffic control are properly mitigated. Again, thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on this proposed project. We look forward to working with you in . the future. Should you have questions regarding-this correspondence, please contact Gary Irvine or Tim Hardin at 296-4666 . Sincerely,Si ' (./ 1 LAB huck Kleeberg, Director Environmental Health Services • TH:baw cc : Paul Murakami , District Administrator - Southeast District Office Gar-5,„Irvine, Supervisor Alder Square Tim Hardin, Senior Environmental Health Specialist Alder Square • Alder Square Environmental Health Services 1404 Central Ave.S.,Suite 101 Kent,Washington 98032 (206)296-4708 or 296-4666 September 24, 1990 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON Mr. Donald K. Erickson OCT - 1 1990 Zoning Administration ; .. City of Renton ; EIVE �' 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Attn: Mary Lynne Myer Dear Mr. Erickson: I appreciate the opportunity to write to you about the completeness and reasonableness of the Draft Environmental impact Statement for Valley Medical Center's proposed Medical Office Building II. In my opinion, this draft EIS is very limited in several ways that need to be corrected. I will address these under the following titles: LAND USE IMPACTS, ITEM 1 --Need for better use of available facts. Page 44 of the DEiS states that the VMC area contains some 165,000 sq. ft. of Class A space which has a vacancy rate of about 12%. In reality, 148,000 sq. ft, of this space is owned by the hospital which is 100% occupied (page 2.3) whereas, the 40,000 sq. ft. of non-VMC owned Class A property is less than 50% occupied. Showing a 12% vacancy rate is highly misleading. LAND USE IMPACTS, ITEM 2. Following up on this, none of the alternative discussions, neither - 1, the no action alternative, #2. the reduced building alternative, or 3, the south campus alternative, address the devastating land use impacts in the area from building an additional 110,000 sq. ft. of private medical office space on public hospital lands. In addition to the above limited statistics, the current summary statements are overly limited. For example, the final paragraph on page 8 of the DEIS states "Overall, development of the proposed action is not anticipated to generate significant land use impacts or conflicts. The proposed action is not likely to significantly affect the character or rate of development occurring in adjacent areas in this position of the city." In my opinion, that's similar to Martin Selig saying to a next door property owner that the 70 story 1 Columbia Center won't affect office rentals in the area. • When zoning patterns were developed for this area, they were set up to favor a P-1 zoning, as noted on the comprehensive plan. The public good was to zone a fairly big area to favor medically related growth around the hospital, In effect, surrounding properties are generally held hostage to medically related purposes through the comprehensive plan. I'm sure this zoning pattern was made under the assumption that certain private land uses would be built to compliment the "public" hospital, and it was assumed this hospital would serve public acute care needs. Instead, the hospital has built, helped build, or has purchased a huge amount of non-emergency office space that competes with the surrounding area. The hospital already has 148,000 sq. ft, of medical office space. If . it is allowed to build another 110,000 sq. ft. of office space, it will continue to over dominate the medical office space market--as it has done to date. Therefore, the city of Renton should either deny additional private medical office development on the public hospital land or be prepared to allow other uses in the surrounding privately owned medJcal buildings. The devastating land use impacts of allowing the hospital to own huge amounts of private office space can be seen in the fact that the land the hospital now owns to the south of 43rd St, was forced into bankruptcy. Similarly, another parcel to the east. went.T bankrupt and the hospital tried to buy it. I believe this was caused either directly or partially by a combination of required P-1 zoning and hospital over-building of medical off ice space. As previously noted, facts related to this serious matter are not covered in the DEIS. A realistic no action analysis should show that the surrounding privately owned land could reasonably absorb much of the hospital projected private medical office needs and this would be a more reasonable land alternative than hospital domination and devastation of the private medical office market, in contrast to the VMC approach, Swedish Hospital has encouraged the development of surrounding private office space for medical specialists prior to using land they own for this purpose. LAND USE IMPACTS, ITEM 3, The DEIS does not provide.an adequate analysis of the no action alternative. On p. 9, it indicates that if this medical office building were not built, the hospital space would remain undeveloped. I noted a July 6 article in the Valley Daily News that. stated that VMC eyes a $38 million expansion for a 4 story tower. This article talks about an emergency room, intensive care unit, lab and operating rooms, It says this tower will include the full spectrum of emergency and operating room related departments including intensive and coronary care units. The whole emphasis in this is emergency public health,care. This information indicates to me that the hospital needs all its available space for "public hospital" acute care needs rather than private patient doctor visits. When I or anyone else drives onto that hospital complex with its already tremendous congestion, it had better be for a critical medical emergency--not just a regular visit to a family specialist. if this building land use is approved, up to one quarter million sq. ft. of valuable medical space intended for public health care will be for typically non-critical medical visits. Think of these hundreds or thousands of non-critical medical visits to this already overcongested superblock. In short, let's save this land use area for public health needs and spread the private-doctor non-critical visits around to surrounding land areas and the DEiS should discuss this land use alternative. TRAFFIC IMPACTS, ITEM 1. There is no explanation in the DEIS that under the no action alternative, traffic use would be dispersed around the area rather than concentrated on the hospital campus. This more dispersed pattern would help attenuate traffic and congestion problems caused by the additional hospital growth. For example: With more medical space slightly to the east on Carr Road, it • would keep many trips coming from the upland housing areas from having to go into the congested hospital area. Granted, the medical specialists may save a small amount of time when they use the surgery space but by far the majority of their time is spent on office visits and matters not directly requiring hospital equipment. Why overburden the limited hospital space, which as they admit, is bursting at the seams with growth, with private practitioner visits that could easily and more appropriately be disbursed over a larger area? An example of this reasonable dispersal approach can be seen in Bellevue around Overlake Hospital, Rather than force patients to be inconvenienced by having to drive to a congested high-rise tower--patients can go to more disbursed user-friendly buildings away from the hospital. This spreads traffic.congestion out. This also allows hospital space to be used for hospital services, not • private doctor and patient offices and non-critical regular patient visits, . I ask you, if you go to see your medical specialist on a non-critical visit, do you want to have to go to a huge hospital complex or to a smaller user-friendly building? Currently, this EIS has not addressed this issue at all. Instead, it focuses on the relatively infrequent specialist use of hospital facilities compared to the very frequent consumer need for convenient easier to drive to specialist. visits and consultation, TRAFFIC IMPACTS, ITEM 2. Several statements in the EIS seem to be related to serving the internal hospital campus. Surrounding businesses, patients, and citizens are more concerned with getting to, from, and around the hospital rather than moving around, once within the huge VMC complex, Not enough effort has been made to attenuate this problem on Talbot Road. If the new building were built, a fifth lane should be built on Talbot Road to provide for a left turn lane. Also, I find it unbelievable that the key traffic mitigation measure proposed is completion of a 1982 requirement for traffic mitigation. I ask you, so what new mitigation efforts are being provided for the people and businesses in Renton who are heavily impacted by the new traffic impacts. Please note that the small traffic mitigation .fee proposed for the hospital is a drop in the bucket compared to the problems they will cause. FIRE IMPACTS, ITEM 1, On page 94, I note that one of the fire mitigation efforts is to prepare a plan to put a sprinkler system in the. hospital and this retrofit would be required before any "further" building on site. Why not require the hospital to meet reasonable fire requirements on campus "before" this project is built--rather than if, and when, the hospital builds a new project? FIRE IMPACTS, ITEM 2. Also, on page 94 is a reference to City of Renton property taxes to offset the public costs of serving the Valley Medical Center. After trying to go through the slippery verbage presented about supposed offsetting fees, 1 have to come to the conclusion that the building will not pay all the taxes and fees we private landowners do. To clarify the tax impacts of the development alternatives, the EIS should show both the specific tax benefits to the city of the no action alternative (ie. which would result in greater use of taxpaying private lands) and the • specific tax loss if more office space is put on the hospital grounds. I have not covered all the shortages in the draft EIS but I believe I have cited the major items that need to be addressed to show the real public and environmental impacts from the proposed hospital medical office building 2. Sincerely, M-V PROPERTIES a . Charles D. Mosher General Partner • "METR0Y Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle,WA 98104-1598 PLANNING DIVISION September 19, 1990 CITY OF RENTON SEP 2 1 1990 RECEIVED Environmental Review Committee c/o Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Development Planning Section Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Determination of Nonsignificance File No. : ECF-063-89 Valley Medical Center Dear Environmental Review Committee: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to water quality or to Metro's wastewater facilities. However, we have the following comments regarding public transportation services. Public Transportation Services Valley Medical Center's existing Transportation Management Program should be revised and updated in connection with the proposed expansion. The EIS indicates that Metro has no planned expansions or revisions of service in the area. Actually, Metro plans a substantial service improvement to Valley Medical Center in June 1991 when a new route 169 will begin operating. Route 169 will provide bus service seven days a week with 30 minute service on weekdays and Saturdays, 60 minute service at night and on Sundays between Renton and the Kent Park- and-Ride lot via Talbot Road, S. W. 43rd Street and Benson Highway. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Compliance Division GMB:p1g5639 /(1 CA-1/-(-4 /8 , /590 I- ! 5° - September 18, 1990 WIMein r. VaupOi T1,LAA.AA vie Ver©ie Vaupel Ll P.O. Box 755 Renton, WA 05057 (206) 256-3684 Policy Development Department or its successor City of Renton Renton WA 98055 Re: Valley Medical Center expansion To whom it may concern: The continuing expansion- of Valley Medical Center is of concern to many of us, because it doesn't seem to have as much relevance now to a Public Hospital Distict, as well as other reasons. I feel it is time that the Valley Medical Center come out from under the umbrella of a Public Hospital District. Public Hospital Districts were originally intended to help out areas, usually semi-rural areas, that needed tax-exempt benefits and public monies. This latest building, as well as the acquisition of the Chin Hills Building and the other building VMC built on taxpayers' grounds, will evidently be off the tax rolls forever. Yet they are occupied by well-paid, economically-healthy , medical entrepreneurs who will pay no real estate taxes for the upkeep and mainte- nance of the city of Renton. If VMC is granted what it wants, the least the medical center could do would be to pay to the city an amount in lieu of taxes to help pay for the many city services provided to the medical center. I believe this kind of expansion with a business enterprise bent on public grounds is not in the interest of Renton or any other jurisdiction. I also believe the medical center is involved in unfair practice in close prox- imity to other office buildings that do not have the privilege of being on tax- exempt land. I believe that VMC no doubt offers a "better deal" to doctors who will, in turn, need to refer their patients to Valley Medical Center. . .a sort of growth incentive for the hospital, like an insurance policy to fill any vacant beds. Has the State Auditor looked at the continuing expansions on public grounds? If not, that should be called to his attention. Perhaps there is nothing legally wrong with this set-up, but it makes a lot of us uncomfortable. Other areas of concern to us are the atrocious traffic tie-ups on SW 43rd and on the freeway, the wetlands nearby and the non-economic returns to the taxpayers. ry truly yours, Versie Vaupel Warren F. Vaupel PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON September 18, 1990 SEP 2 5 1990 Donald K. Erickson Zoning Adminstration RECEIVED �a' City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA. 98055 Attn: Mary Lynne Myer Dear Mr. Erickson: I have several concerns and questions about the DEIS for Valley Medical Center' s MOB II . 1. Is the MOB project on this site providing any addition to the cities tax base? Is the project helping to keep the tax rates low, an objective of the Mayor as stated in his State of the City Address on March 21, 1990? Would it not be better to use public monies to fund public services rather than subsidize private enterprize where the public pays twice--once to make up for taxes not received through private enterprize . e . . .hospital office buildings the other through taxes paid to subsidize the existence of private enterprize , on the hospital campus . Sounds like savings and loan medicine. The DEIS statement skirts the tax issue. The impact on the City' s tax base with PACCAR not building in Renton and possible cut backs in Boeing ' s plans should create some concern for the city. Thus the idea of erosion of the tax base by the hospital through purchase of buildings under the hospital ' s veil adjacent to the hospital campus (The Chinn Hills Building ) as well as construction of this new office building and previous office buildings should be of concern to the city. 2. Is this MOB an appropriate use of land in a hospital district? Should the DEIS be as vigilant in looking at this project as the city was when King County was looking at Renton as a possible jail site. The long term land use impacts around the hospital campus is strongly apparent but not addressed in this DEIS. 3. Are there not other viable alternatives such as long term care facilities for non ambulatory or critically ill geriatric patients. The hospitals goals are inadequately addressed in this DEIS. What are hospital ' s short and long term goals and operational objectives? • 4. This DEIS statement has not addressed the traffic issue adequately. Should not the resolution of the traffic situation be considered for the whole of South Renton as it was for North Renton? Why the myopic approach? Traffic in this area has long been an issue. The MOB project complicates the issue even more along with the new FAA headquarters ( 1200 jobs) and the possibility of the Soos Creek Annexation as well as future plans • • •••' :•••: " • • • . . • • :•'"' " • '1` •`('•' • , sc: • '':•' • . . . s "' s • . ;.;; j t`J ' ! ' . •. .1 • I . • • • • •f • . .. . • • . . re. c ; •-•'• •:•.• • r— ^ r- ••'4,-• r-• • for the 167 and 43rd Street corridors . Please keep me informed of your response to the above issues and of the conditional use process .rSi -erel , L (6/141 \----01 Stuart A. Vendeland 6428 129 Avenue SE Bellevue, WA. 98006 - ri- —.•.4..r. v,a..ry Lk U- .l.lU D6 U & ENGINEE G, INC. 2101 112th Aveni . Suite 110 - BELLEVUE WASHIN�TON 98004 ' DATE G`1T ..Z / 7 0 JOB &EP 2 6 1990 (206) 455-5320 ATTENTIO ! FAX (206) 453J180 v;� 41 $- sf ipts D TO -17/1Zi....,..‹.,- "c-3_,t..-0-A-,)-t-o-e1 ).� :T ti I ni `� � U� >� Gl � � �1 -IDQz . OD- mr✓ j `` O r- r=U: 4 0WE ARE SENDING YOU 'Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Shop drawings 0 Prints 0 Plans 0 Samples ❑ Specifications Copy of letter o9 Change order ❑ COPIES DATE k10: DESCRIPTION !lryIc -.4' �,�vG 'Kr14 Lv ! 1 J J1v- S � 'iv✓�, J q/1/�1 /-.z.„,,, , . � -l' r� ,�,� r a r — THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval 0 Approved as submitted " ❑ Resubmit copies for approval r. ❑ For your use.. _ 0 Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution > 0 As requested- 0 Returned for corrections 0 Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ F R BIDS DUE,: 19 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS v , P.. Pci a a ,-- .v' . C' 1/�1 . -Alt—LA ,t,,.Q s- tt 22 , 1 7 ty4-A--,-;!:14---, . F--)(-7.. / J"1-012, i12-A A YL1, „-7:?% b c Z, /1 1 c ` L .1-- I'Ll( Ck I ,A-..-k-- 1 ie:1= u-cri"N• p...4 i ,....5-0Le.-L-70 .--frv,67-LEL-6i COPY TO \ SIGNED: ,4, / - /Y ) -L-� \1 PRODUCT 240z ( �Inc,Groton,Min G14T1. It enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. • -y` oF �y ° PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT i TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2620 09 . MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o94,fD SEPT�a 4 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR October 14, 1982 TO : Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor City Council Members FROM: Richard C. Houghton, Public Works Director SUBJECT : Proposed L. I .D. for South 43rd Street The City of Renton Public Works Department is proposing the development of a local improvement district to increase the capacity of South 43rd Street between SR 167 (Valley Freeway) northbound on/off ramps and Talbot Road. The need for such improvements has resulted in intense development pressure adjacent ' to the Valley General Hospital complex. Preliminary estimates indicate that an additional 24,000 trips per day generated from development adjacent to the hospital could be added to South 43rd Street which is currently carrying approximately 30,000 vehicles per day. Approximately 16,000 of the 24,000 trips will occur in the next 3 - 4 years. Consequently, the staff proposes a positive action of making necessary improvements to South 43rd to accommodate additional demand. The alternative is to develop appropriate legislation to control the intensity of development until such time that necessary facilities are in place. The L. I .D. would be adopted by City Council resolution. The proposed L. I .D. will include the following roadway improvements: 1 . Widening of South 43rd Street to seven (7) lanes from SR 167 to approximately 400 feet east of Talbot Road South to include three lanes in each direction with left turn pockets at the • intersections. 2. Widening on the north leg of Talbot Road South at South 43rd to provide a southbound right turn pocket. 3. Channelization modifications on the north and south legs of Talbot Road South at South 43rd Street to provide dual left turn pockets. • 4. Traffic signal modifications at Talbot Road South and South 43rd Street to include new controller and pole relocation to be compatible with roadway widening. • Mayor and Council MemL_. 3 Page 2 October 14, 1982 5. Widening of the SR 167 northbound on/off ramps to provide an additional on/off lane. Additionally, traffic signals will be installed at the freeway on/off ramps and at Davis Avenue (hospital entrance) and South 43rd Street. These traffic signals are not included in the costs of the L. I .D. The signal at the on/off ramps will be paid for by the Washington State Department of Transportation (except for $17,200 for specific equipment requested by the City) . The signal at Davis Ave. will be paid for by the developers of One Valley Place. The proposed cost of the L. I .D. is approximately $600,000. This figure is different from .the figure presented in the memo of October 1 , 1982. The difference resulted from the need to widen Carr Road approximately 400 feet east of Talbot. Please note that these costfigures are simply estimates for discussion purposes. Detailed estimates will not be available until the preliminary engineering has been completed. A generalized breakdown of the project costs are shown in Attachment A. The Public Works Department has submitted a proposal for an appropriate L. I .D. assessment. The philosophy behind the original proposal of October 1 , 1982, was to assess all new and future development based upon anticipated trip generation from the anticipated development. However, there exists some confusion regarding the inclusion of Parcel 15 and the existing traffic from Valley General . Hospital . Other assessment alternatives evaluated include only properties which are currently developing or on the opposite side all commercial properties which access to South 43rd along the Talbot Road corridor. These alternatives are presented in Attachment B. The traffic report upon which the improvements for the proposed L. I .D. were based did not include all potential development adjacent to the hospital and particularly all parcels assessed in the original L. I .D. boundaries. The traffic report included existing hospital expansion, full occupancy of Chin Hills and 60,000 sq. ft. of the proposed 80,000 sq. ft. of the Sparks/Shegrud project, plus 3 percent per year background growth. The report did not include the development of all parcels listed in the original L. I .D. assessment not r did it include 5,200 trips which are being developed at this time. However, the report without including the additional development still identified the intersection of Talbot and South 43rd at a level of service unacceptable to the City. Furthermore, King County has recommended that all development adjacent to the Petrovitsky corridor be denied until Petrovitsky Road is widened to five lanes. At such time that widening occurs, we will unlikelytsee dramatic increases in traffic volumes along South 43rd. Therefore, the proposed L. I .D. is not the total answer. We need to pursue other major improvements. These improvements include the construction of a full interchange with SR 167 at South 212th Street, extension of SW 27th from the West Valley Highway to Talbot Road, and the extension of 192nd Street from Talbot Road to the West Valley Highway (see Attachment C) . The City has begun preliminary discussions with King County, Washington State Department of Transportation and the Puget Sound Council of Governments to evaluate mechanisms to make necessary improvements. .;i i •• • • • .. Y • ; r. , • • I• .. . . 1 i I • ' ._ . 1 { F Mayor and Council Me rs Page 3 October 14, 1982 The Public Works Department has taken a positive approach to address the current situation. The proposed L. I .D. will buy approximately 3 - 4 years of growth. Beyond that period of time we anticipate extreme congestion along this corridor unless other facility improvements are made of the intensity of development is constrained. If improvements are not made, serious evaluation shahl_ be given to placing a moratorium on developments. GAN:ad Attachments cc: City Clerk 1 MI i aC;HMENT A PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR SOUTH 43RD STREET 7-LANE STREET WIDENING 1 . Traffic Signal Revisions L.S. $ 30,000.00 2. Street Lighting & Undergrounding L.S. 40,000.00 3. Curb & Gutter 1 ,400 LF/$6.50 9,100.00 4. Sidewalk 940 SY/$12.00 11 ,280.00 5. Removal of Curb & Gutter 1,400 LF/$2.00 2,800.00 6. Removal of Sidewalk 780 SY/$4.00 3,180.00 7. Asphalt Class "B" 735 TONS/$30.00 22,050.00 8. Asphalt Treated Base 840 TONS/$28.00 23,530.00 9. Storm Drain 12" 0 60 LF/$16.00 960.00 10. Catch Basin Type I 6 EA/$750.00 4,500.00 11 . Landscaping L.S. 10,000.00 12. Freeway Ramp Widening (On & Off Ramps) L.S. 25,000.00 13. Pavement Marking & Signing L.S. 15,000.00 14. Signal Modifications at SR-167 Ramps L.S. 17,200.00 15. Easterly Extension of Carr Road L.S. 65,000.00 (Not Included - Davis & 43rd St. Signal by Developers of Parcel 6) (120,000.00) Subtotal $279,540.00 Unanticipated Expenses 25% 69,885.00 Subtotal $349,425.00 Engineering & Inspection 15% 52,514.00 Subtotal $401 ,839.00 Right-of-Way Acquisition 100,000.00 Subtotal $501 ,839.00 L. I .D. Processing, Bond, Attorney, Clerks &. Bond Expenses 65,D00.00 • TOTAL $566,839.00 Round to $600,000.00 for Estimate Purposes ATTACHMENT B P J __ 8 Q Q, APPROXIMATE ASSESSMENTS FOR PROPERTY PARTICIPANTS L L-50 • Existing or Existing or Proposed Square Estimated Parcel II Name Proposed Use Footage Trips/% Total LID Assessment 1 Medical Office 42,039 1680/5.7% $ 34,200 2 Valley General Expansion Medical Office 1160/4.0% 24,000 144,6o( 3 Valley General Existing Hospital 5800/20.1% - 120,600 4 r"` 1 H"' Medical Office 40,000 1600/5.5% ` 33,000 5 - ur. Brrim-( r .,.. .? Medical Office 5,000 200/0.7% 4,200 6 One Valley Place 4 Commercial 165,000 5013/17.0% 102,000 7 Gateway Apts. (gA9y . rti Multi-Family 325 units 1755/6.0% f 36,000 1 .- 8 J Fournier Medical Office 42,000 1680/5.7% 34,200 9 Morel ] Medical Office 34,000 1360/4.7% 28,200 10 I Puget Power Medical Office 24,000 960/3.3% 19,800 11 J Shegrud/Sparks Medical Office 80,000 3200/10.9% — 65,400 12 4 M. V. Properties Retirement Home 260 Units 858/2.9% 17,400 13 _-4 Springbrook Assoc. Medical Office 40,000 1600/5.5% 33,000 14 rRade'14-eh Medical Office 30,000 1200/4.0% 24,000 Medical Office 15,000 600/2.0% 12,000 �, Medical Office 15,000 600/2.0% 12,000 S 29266/100% $600,000 ALTERNATE A - ORIGINAL PROPERTY PARTICIPANTS APPROXIMATE ASSESSMENTS FOR PROPERTY PARTICIPANTS Existing or Existing or Proposed Square Estimated Parcel II Name Proposed Use Footage Trips/% Total LID Assessment 1 E Valley Medical Park Medical Office 42,039 1680/11 .0% $ 66,000 2 Valley General Expansion Medical Office 1160/8.0% 48,000 4 Chin Hills Medical Office 40,000 1600/10.0% 60,000 5 Dr. Brain Medical Office 5,000 200/1 .0% 6,000 6 One Valley Place Commercial 165,000 5013/32.0% 192,000 7 Gateway Apts. Multi-Family 325 units 1755/11 .0% 66,000 11 Shegrud/Sparks Medical Office 80,000 3200/21 .0% - 126,000 12 M. V. Properties Retirement Home 260 units 858/6.0% 36,000 15466/100% $600,000 • ALTERNATE B - NEW DEVELOPMENT r _ Mt et i v1�NI T Y } , .`. . XI MAP • r'til� ' L :jam s. ' r! • 4t ,, ....."....= cgmeir., !!!In. 11 Ill 1 ws...N ilia..... i ,. • •,'' d. Q rrr =r - flf %iALrA6 I II • .-'ii.� � 1 •. a'. Aped) ..r t ! 11S 17"11 ST2a. n� !� _ w.! I', • 1,ars fait w....+ ///yyy ®• fT ®� Pea l 1hMIK2 ® . . ii a s. ..` IrE 1 il 1IO..�tJ1 p1p� • .�• /__-_. .__.,s�R>t•— , :•. rl Irili.� -4Iff( 'SL �s;r_._.�.�•�2— irri 43 g I.%ate at, i tit ,141111 . ,.. , .ISW. a.. zit 1 C 1 '1. ' •1 177,N 11 . .. 0 ►l.Whe •rlrw c�•...r r 1 JI I1 � •�J M c I.c Mr.1h1 0 «..1 M.I �. f •f 4 Tv 71 y SON ji .s••. 1 .h `` ti .,1'"�` ;� ozottPi .....:.._ ,4t "NMI jFa. , ‘cm t " • N. • ? LI!: a \l, . agliNik. •, „,64.. ,. ... . • • ..,, •N 4 /YNK M.yd.IO�Nr�O 11.1 ea lI '' 1 r 1 I •® O: •poses.. ' ' .ie. 0• • .. Q • i t W / f M.rswi S h.v....A V r'rJ � � ! :.�.Tia - _ 'A �! � L/{'wit, •,),..... " : S o (. , I Mir. . ..•• 1NY ._ �� r'rt S so 43 - WIT. -1: _�•:- an so .C - c'�J33-VS 0ocQoo0 o ��77 s'N� .� 1• .. �'n0. • O , O / o or 1 . 0 1 laf. s....•r r. i f; / • �• �I �/ eft" !31�� /-I '® I 1•• i J.Ira a. 0 - �%/J�� O viuDIPY I al Iwo are wastsi•••• ii3T / Osso. • lietatel . 1 .. . 1: ..._. F....Tr'T. w. MIMI . -4 I .l SW.* / go •. • �: ® Jos / ,� . j 'Qr�'i 10` �J •ter- Q �r Eja o- �.uew�WINO f=o�Tv'L of r 1 I J i . B ii r- - Fir..:;,,JLA,..,.P, ,,, e ii. Chet.. l Mawr _ r 4.401 s . 1e4 sT_sL'1: m..• • r . . ., - • .. 9� 5 APPROXIMATE ASSESSMENTS FOR PROPERTY PARTICIPANTS Existing or Existing or Proposed Square Estimated • Parcel # Name Proposed Use Footage Trips/% Total LID Assessment 1 E Valley Medical Park Medical Office 42,039 ' 1680/5% $ 30,000 2 Valley General Expansion Medical Office ' 1160/3% 18,000 3 Valley General Existing Hospital '- 5800/16% 96,000 114,000 4 Chin Hills Medical Office 40,000 1600/5% 30,000 5 Dr. Brain Medical Office 5,000 '- 200/1% 6,000 6 One Valley Place Commercial 165,000 - 5013/15% 90,000 7 Gateway Apts. Multi-Family 325 units - 1755/5% aejgi 30,000 8 Fournier Medical Office 42,000 - 1680/5% 30,000 9 Morell Medical Office 34,000 ',-1360/4% 24,000 10 Puget Power Medical Office 24,000 .- 960/3% 18,000 11 Shegrud/Sparks Medical Office 80,000 '-3200/9% 54,000 12 M. V. Properties Retirement Home 260 units - 858/3% 18,000 13 Springbrook Assoc. Medical Office 40,000 - 1600/5% 30,000 14 Radovich Medical Office 30,000 1200/4% 24,000 15 Valley Pediatrics Medical Office 7,000 280/1% 6,000 16 Proposed Medical Office 15,000 - 600/2% 12,000 17 Springbrook Professional Park Medical Office 9,000 360/1% 6,000 18 Valley Urology Medical Office 2,000 80/0% -0- 19 Springbrook Medical Medical Office 6,700 268/1% 6,000 20 Doctor's Place Medical Office 16,500 660/2% 12,000 21 Valley Optical Medical Office 10,000 est. 400/1% 6,000 22 Valley Rehab. Ct. 6,200 248/1% 6,000 23 Plastic & Reconstructive Surgeons 4,700 188/1% 6,000 24 Valley Medical Dental Center 8,100 324/1% 6,000 25. Valley Villa Convalescent 163 440/1% 6,000 26. Valley Dermatology 8,000 320/1% 6,000 27. Valley Ortho & .Fracture 9,000 360/1% 6,000 28. Dr. Fred Reebs 10,000 400/1% 6,000 29. Valley Professional Plaza 20,000 est. 800/2% 12,000 30. UGN 2,000 est. +3 80/0% -0- 33874/100% $600,000 f ALTERNATE C - ALL EXISTING COMMERCIAL PLUS PROPOSED • w Wiwi ' IT ' .®4 4 Mlhw, i i .,r Ilk • Irea I 1, -fa ca . win I a �j IMII D` f *airfrllO�'�C MI AV� G PRda I Inv(W sr: i' ] 4111 ;.'yl •t��1�1i'i tI ; MI ~ ... l��ae��jjj S1 f1 ■ •�i u. "1 KI. �Mr. !1 Ir . . . i 'il 11 6 fin] !p 1<T�E . a' ft .. . . 1 vm•n r/• • Sons Vi:mime _ 1 ' Itl flu ST. 0. e Ma-.® __._ r. `/�sRstY 1 1 u o'1�11 •� r [... Vgg— Y ;, laws■Sy �� i/!:11Ivan Unpadacll, M. 't CI.,ri .b I. ,, .Jq 17 _ Cc• C ft rp•III 4 • 1 ` ' • i! O , 17TTN ST . N 'v /Yellc Mof0iral D}Hrel rY I ' ly; fm yaR33 •• A 01 f 1 I., 1I ,,. ,.c NOL/iYl D.,r..c1 fb I �b 1a S W Scsn • 16 }i as — '-- yl! li "... 'Aback 4. ,'�. .f ,:. I iil Z,. 4• F � •••u.Np y•rwy ly tl Y M x, -. _ _ • ` -t.rt .. ; . ;.1 * 1,1ffillt i,(72? e v • c e. • 14 di al ‘,. di • .:. . C. ....• e: ..&:,... $ c.i3 . . . .. . 'RI i ao 1.. O t} Nobs Hospital OIl1nR N.I ■T / a Q1 •Y al M 1- PI. 1 t •f' C 1 �.� j p' ar sofas' �' OP » �� ,: t , -ail. 'S !vv." M1ram s pa•rc•fon n c h 1 J J• 12 iyJ 1: 1 1 } J3 5' 4 �•J 1.. Mitch$ Pil/tr5on Tt'I' J r ■• a�f O' C-ldo.�7o oOCatOOD o• �11, pc _ ` IDC m i lof�� a.',. • w .•s p ❑ Si,.S .... a/1.1. Sra1• of Waf•.qre. :r 7.7 % 1.«.ro orlr© 5....�a• � 07 � .. oTie !3 i Tfer .`�• f /0.40. � Janlea G. J.r..o f•..11.r i ,...• ® �� • • °�' l/Non � ,W - o ,.. .�,•1. ND R Y POW, title ftlrc. lS/ac o I ® © © in 27 = �, ® $ A / ,.. .. ,I mac u•r I I11 , YI 1�• OM. Y 110.. n• r - !ljl / y y P� 1,•., r°„ Pei et Hra1...411en ' SaIY¢_ lot . Jatr S SDar fl Wu e� t' �'� I . 11 '�t. I 1 TTITT1!:1tO__I S�a »ac 'GQKI1�% a� rrYY .Ilan Man y f1 ow i Il tll►f L 1, .ly. Gr Douglas l Monti St' Its 7._NNf A '.-- refff^ 11 • ..J, • �i i lour-.... g ii -- 1r " C clnrtaf D..NM --! Sass -_-.. _ • • ATTA«4 M ekIT ( III ill .-•.%—el .. •- •i Ft , re • 'It K-4.1TZWItQl W • ..... mi. " ,. • - , ill . — \ \ ISLAND‘ . it! .a2r. • f4.10ftjaP1411%1171 . .... 1 1114 CA . kirCI 16‘1',.-..• . . ___ it ti i 4 W'.,I AIIIN? t ". . 1 ' 1, r..°. NYMMON J ;�\ � � •�`r ,O„ O�-�• • r�prr ° L'L i NfIITOP■ 't t ` lk.1,.‘.....,C4 NOLLr , , r, 7 ►ARKIf TOEI •■ ",;• $ .+.el may„ o�...�. '0+4 IF. If PACASTLE ���.�,. ;TitW ES if. ( J .1 �► ANO ''S0 0 Noll!' �u ••. _ • . �.. "AU/T° ; ,, J - i •` '‘ �jw '�" KENETr• I • EW ;l+ © `���1/4.8 � ! G41 WINOTR:E 114 � � Ir. JERRA � ~`tiI ; LANENRICE t. VALLEY 4; ‘..\\\ .., . • • ,... • -.. 4. • . Feb ala.m •• MAY 10. i. .. I . \ \A• , TJW I : ; ,R vat.,.. ■ ?® .r 4 COA ELOEYr, A l 'i PaRP _ • S RENT G/ llyw • , • • 1 v.. )1 ;J , 'r_ • , S. r ED • illi .11 ; illik7 f ' -+— 4ME.. . r•�- ‘+ ...t + , 0 ( • \ n~ S CD © ■.� /` OIIIIII EARLINGTO wrea,r• „�' r ■ r. Y 41 ■in.,r _ _AAP "III FITS r • I 11 r .w /—I� • I� _ Y9 _ ACC L R 9: TAI + . 'EU IEN fi - ® - • \i \��\ � ,-or �' ..; o WAIL,. MAPLE 1,00S.11■1/ Mid \\A ' —t[' • ,,.� N,. 1 3: Exr>,• . ' ASCAO •1:000 • sawn E.\ , ' era.: +• \ •r .•. ., ' nI s ,...• a ,�;ICEEf. I+l; II a I a TACOMA '•• -' LEA: 1(^T ~ is MTfRnv now u + !jju) '• ORTLIM :. • BOULEVAD • ®Plob r.� I • LANE ■ / �J C dr �AI . • 1' I �Of I, Ig I.M r r ,• •O11•.�S 11•+�I•I LINOA �' yr ■ ■:Y {; ` aJ -;: rr..Yb , . . i n • 1 ^ . >awRSIc�rtR., •Ig ____ '' BENS+ N.•tiR„®. BS. r I nr ONIIIEN .111 NIL S Gl RNI K•.■J A■r•:• ,r. OI •1 +••Iv ■t,M r r IMMO 1. •ligtilit11.110WAY KENT - Thif • _�` PARA wlLOw000 $ ` (�+ HMIO J _Ir - :.• • Illz ,� � ® REEKS ;19/ lk 10) I • _ I■. r / SNIT J r ...� ■ 1 " a • - ilik? -�- �, • �, • CRYSTAL• h ��' Irr NI EAST HILL a.YIEws,•��. ow 1 �, Qom' ti '].^ , J 10R. .. ■.•. i1M/d SURCR S J C a . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . ... . . . . . ,. . . . . , : •' . . . . .. ..-.. . . . .. i . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . _. • . . . . . . . . . , . . ... . . . .. . .. . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.. . . . . ._ '. .‘. • . . , . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .- . • . . .. . •-•- -. . ...- .. . ,. . . . . , . . . .. . . . . . . . . , .. . • . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . _ . , . . •. . . . .. .. . . .. , . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .. . . . :.. . . . . . . , .-.': — --• .. . . .. , . . . . . . . ... . I . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ,. .. . . . . . . . ... . -,. . . . .. . . .....,_ . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . ... , . .- . . . . . .- .. . . '' . . . .-• ,.. . ' ., . . - . . , . .. . . . . . . :'• -_ - . . . . - . i ..• . . . . . . . . . . , . .. . :- . .... . . . .. . . . . . . . _ .- . ... .. . ,.. . - . . . - :•-• .e . . . . . .. . . . . . . - . i .• . , .. . . .• . . ., . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . _ . . . e . .- . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . .. . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . _. .. . . . . . . . .. '. . .. . . . - . . . . .., . • . . . .. - . . . - . . . . . .. . , .•. . . . . . . .. ._. . . . . . . , . . . . t ... . :- . .. . . . , . . .. . . . . . . .. e . .. . . . . .. . I . . .. . . . . . .- -. . -. . - . . .. . . . . . . - .•. . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. ..- . . . . - . . . . ... . . ... .. . . . --• . . .; ; ... ; - . . . . . . . -. i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . ... . .. . . .. . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . •_ -. .. , , . . .., .. , . . . . . . . . . . . -• • .. .. . . . . . . :: - • ,. . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . , . . . - . .. .... . . . . . ,. . . .. . . . • _ ._ .. , . . .. .. . .. . . . . ., . . . . _ • .. , . . . . . , . . .. ... . . . .. . . . . .. . . . _ . • . . , . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ,. . . . . .. , , . . . . . . . , . . . . . _ .• .. . '.. •.. i‘... . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . .... ' .‘'.: --.;•- . . . .• . . , . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . ., . _ . . . - •... ", . . , . .. .. .. . . _ . . . .. . . _ . . . . .. , . . ....-.,. . . . , . . . .. . , . . . , . ._ .. . .• . . .. • ..... . . . . , . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . .. .. t".: .. .... .. ., . . •., . . _ . , . . . . . . . - . . _ . .. , ._ . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . •. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . _ . . . . , ... .... . . .. . . . .... . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . .. . . .. _ . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . ... . . ... . . .. . , • . • :. . . .. . . . . . . . , . . . . . . • . . . .. . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . _ .. . , . ._ .. . _ . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. , . , . . . .. .... .. . .. . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proposed South 43rd LID Roadway Improvements 1 . Channelization modifications to provide two (2) left turn lanes, one (1) thru lane in each direction and one (1) right turn lane. 2. Signal modifications to provide proper phasing and indication for revised movements. 3. Channelization modifications to provide two (2) left turn lanes and one (1) thru lane in each direction. 4. Widening to allow additional lane on west side. Requires additional right-of-way. 5. Widening to provide an additional westbound lane to be used for right turning vehicles. 6. Widening to provide an additional eastbound lane to be used for right turning vehicles. 7. Realignment of hospital entrance to match Davis Avenue. 8. Signalization of Davis Ave. and South 43rd Street. To be paid for exclusively by One Valley Place development. 9. Widening of northbound on-ramp to SR 167. 10. Widening of northbound off-ramp from SR 167. 11 . Signalization of SR 167 northbound ramps and South 43rd. State to pay for signal improvements except for $17,200 for special City equipment. City funds to be contributed from adjacent development. 12. Widening to allow a through and right turn lane. Requires additional right-of-way and seriously impacts existing building. JH 0 e4r • e LI era • • �••• *Ewa I I . 1 MEDICAI, OFFICES I I I EC I PI I V- U. G. 1N. I I h 0 h II II ` 8 . 11 Il III II II II - - ONE VA1...CV _-. PLACE ©IiI I II II ! I II II 1.211 0 a. gird « 0/Imer: tt... 0 I1T r I • PROPOSED SO. 4 3 RD ST. L I D . ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS • , • . . , • . . • • • , . : . . ••• . . r • . . .1 , • „... . • ,• ,• .. • .._ . _ • . „ , . • • • • , • • „ • - • • . - • .„..; . •., . , • I 406‘South 43rd Street Renton, WA 98855 • 206°225°3450 FAX 206°575°2593 Malley Medical Center September 27, 1990 Donald K. Erickson Zoning Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department Attn: Mary Lynne Myer 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II and the Ambulatory Care Center - ECF-063-89 Dear Mr. Erickson: This letter is to provide you with comments from Valley Medical Center concerning the above indicated Draft Environmental Impact Statement. First, we would like to state that we believe the draft is a very accurate and comprehensive document and clearly complies with the requirements of SEPA. Second, we would like to thank Mary Lynne Myer for her assistance and for monitoring the timeliness of the DEIS writer. The hospital has three comments that it would like to make concerning the mitigation measures. 1. On Page 92 of the DEIS, there is a discussion concerning the realignment of driveway No. 3 into the hospital premises. It is noted that the driveway is not aligned directly with South 177th Street across Talbot Road South which could result in a potential accident problem. However, it is also noted that historical accident data does not indicate a problem. Further, it is stated that realignment may impact the existing residential area due to an increase in traffic on South 177th Street because of the possibility of using South' 177th Street to avoid the intersection at S.W. 43rd Street: and Talbot Road South. While the hospital recognizes that in the future realignment may be adviseable, we agree with the analysis in the DEIS that there is not a present problem and that in fact realignment may create an additional problem. We would propose to realign the driveway if and when the accident data indicates that it is warranted. Donald K. Erickson Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. September 27, 1990 Page 2 2. On Page 93 of the DEIS, the City has proposed a traffic mitigation fee based on an increase in traffic generated by the medical office building. The fee is calculated to be $86,344.23 based on a $22.97 cost participation per trip generated. The DEIS does not address the basis for the $22 .97 nor does it indicate the use for the $86,344.23 or how it will be used to mitigate traffic related to this project. On Page 73 of the DEIS, there is an explanation of Valley Medical Center's participation in LID 329. It is pointed out that in order to assist the City with its design problems in the original LID and to improve east/west traffic flow on S.W. 43rd Street in general, the hospital voluntarily agreed to increase the cost of LID 329 by an additional $1.5 million dollars. Valley Medical Center is the sole contributor to LID 329. The DEIS points out that additional traffic mitigation may be required for the medical office building because the LID was not originally contemplated as mitigation for the building. While the hospital admits that this is true, we feel that to not acknowledge the hospital 's voluntary payment has a "chilling effect" on voluntary contributions in general. In addition, the City's delay in constructing LID 329 has greatly increased the cost of the project. The original proposed cost in 1982 was approximately $500, 000. The current cost is approximately $2.5 million dollars. 3 . Valley Medical Center is concerned that the City of Renton views the hospital more as a private developer that consumes city resources than a provider of public services. On Page 94 of the DEIS, it is stated that a concern of the City of Renton is whether its costs of providing public services to VMC are adequately offset by the revenue received. Valley Medical Center is, in fact, an assumed business name for Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County. It is a Washington municipal corporation the same as the City of Renton. The Washington state legislature has declared that the purpose of public hospital districts such as Valley Medical Center is to "own and operate hospitals and other health care facilities and to provide hospital services and other health care services for the residents of such districts and other persons". RCW 70.44. 003 . Thus to the Donald K. Erickson Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. September 27, 1990 Page 3 extent that public resources are utilized to support the hospital it is merely to provide additional public services. However, as stated out in the DEIS, Valley Medical Center provides revenue to the City through several means such as water and sewer utility fees, construction permit fees, special assessments and leasehold excise taxes. It is worth pointing out that the total mitigation package for this project proposed by the City of Renton is estimated to be $1,736, 000 for permanent and off-site improvements. This includes $1.5 million dollars spent to retrofit the areas of the hospital that are not currently sprinklered as required by the Renton Fire Prevention Bureau. If the costs of the LID are included, the amount jumps to a staggering $4,236, 000! The total construction costs of the medical office building and the ambulatory care center are expected to be $13 million dollars. Thus, as proposed, the amount paid to the City of Renton in mitigation will be approximately 33 percent of the project cost. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very ruly ours, Eric J. T an General C u sel EJT/ldj cc: R. Roodman J. Scott V 40METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle,WA 98104-1598 PLANNING � DIVISION e C; TY OE R,EN ON September 19, 1990 S P_r' ,._ 1990 Environmental Review Committee c/o Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Development Planning Section Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Determination of Nonsignificance File No. : ECF-063-89 Valley Medical Center Dear Environmental Review -Committee: ' Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to water quality or to Metro's wastewater facilities. However, we have the following comments regarding public transportation services. Public Transportation Services Valley Medical Center's existing Transportation Management s . Program should be revised and updated in connection with the proposed expansion. The EIS indicates that Metro has no planned expansions or revisions of service in the area. Actually, Metro plans a substantial service improvement to Valley Medical Center in June 1991 when a new route 169 will begin operating. Route 169 will provide bus service seven days a week with 30 minute service on weekdays 'and Saturdays, 60 minute service at night and on Sundays between Renton and the. Kent Park- and-Ride lot via Talbot Road, S. W. 43rd Street and Benson Highway. • Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, atAvaL- Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Compliance Division GMB:p1g5639 A CITY OF RENTON °''�O RF4,S%o MEMORANDUM 44_� 4990 DATE: September 18, 1990 v1) TO: Mary Lynne Myer n a FROM: Penny Bryant .`l�V,v/1A'b SUBJECT: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER-DEIS I have reviewed the DEIS for Valley Medical Center and cannot find any additional areas of concern for the police department. As previously mentioned,the police concerns will surround the traffic congestion that will be associated with the construction of a new medical office building. The police department is expecting that the office building will have only a miner impact on police services because medical offices do not have a major impact on police services. Further,VMC averages only 22 calls for service per month. This level of calls for service represents less than one percent of all police department calls for service monthly. ' ) P . O Bpx 5490 Ke 98064 September 13' 1990 PLANNING DIVISION Mr . Fred Kaufman' Hearing Examiner C[7yOFAENTON 200 Mill Ave . S . Renton, WA . 98055 .��� � 71��O __ Dear Mr . Kaufman: ���� u uu~����K������ As .a citizen of the Valley Medical Center district and a former practicing physician of the district' I would like to support your position of reticense to agree to the expansion planned . It has always been known that the population of the area would grow and that eventually more hospital facilities would be needed . The problem is the addition of doctors' offices on the grounds Traffic due to patients seeing doctors severely aggravates the already overburdened traffic flow to the hospital grounds and to the area . It is unlikely that over l in 20 people seeing doctors on the hospital grounds would need to be there for any further hospital services . Would not common sense suggest that it would be best to provide physician visit facilities anywhere other than the congested hospital area? � I believe there is no choice This to approve additions of essen tial hospital services . This does not include doctors' offices which are abundantly available off hospital property or can be built as needed away from the hospital ' thus providing room for needed hospital expansion on existing hospital owned property-- which was purchased with public bond funds to be utilized for hospital facilities and not private physician facilities . Perhaps if the hospital needs more space' the existing doctors' offices on the hospital grounds could be converted to hospital services relieving the burdensome traffic problems somewhat . In any event' it seems inappropriate for a public service to com- pete with private enterprise that promoted and supported with tax \ dollars the new hospital in 1969 . \ The Zoning and Planning Commission of Renton could provide a valu- able service to the people who have to drive through that area, to hospital patients and their visitors and to the citizens of the .hospital district if they refused any hospital expansion involving \\. private practice facilitie s . Sincerely, ' cc : Mark Pywell Jacob C . Wagner , M.D . Senior Examiner III PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON SEP 1 4 1990 ter..- b`n �' `� f Q i °'`'/ o id` L CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 PHONE 8(206)433-1800 Gary L. VanDnsen,Mayor September 11, 1990 Mary Lynne Myer, Senior Planner City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue So. Renton, WA 98055 RE: D.E.I.S. for Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II and Ambulatory Care Center. Dear Ms. Myer, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. The Tukwila City Engineer has reviewed this analysis and concludes that there are no significant impacts on the City. Please contact Vernon Umetsu at 431-3684 if there are any changes in the proposed project or analyses . Sincerely, \h,,JY. Jac P. Pa e Act g SEPA Responsible Official 400 South 43rd Street Renton, WA 98055 T 206 228.3450 FAX 206.575.2593 \ /a I ley V A Medical PLANNING DIVISION Center CITY OF RENTON September 7 , 1990 SEP 1 1 1990 RECEIVED Mr. Glen Gordon, Fire Marshall Fire Prevention Bureau 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Subject: SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER Dear Mr. Gordon: Responding to your letter of August 29 , 1990 , relating to the above subject, Valley Medical Center would like to acknowledge that we will implement the sprinkler installation in the Atrium and delivery rooms in 1992. Once again, thank you for your cooperation and the City ' s willingness to work with us to develop an implementation scheme that minimizes the impact on the hospital ' s operations . As before , we will proceed to implement the sprinkler installation plan as soon as we receive your written approval . Sincerely, Puri c�.� L2 rL✓l ctiv Monica Brennan Chief Operating Officer MB/11 cc: Mary Lynne Myer - Senior Planner A. Lee Wheeler - Fire Chief Don Erickson - Chief Planner Jim Hanson - Development Services Manager Rich Roodman - Valley Medical Center John Scott - Valley Medical Center Eric Thoman - Valley Medical Center Steve Kay - Valley Medical Center Ome Almeda - Valley Medical Center Greg Lewis - Mahlum and Nordfors 41111 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY Notice is given under SEPA, RCW 43.216.080, that the City of Renton has issued a Draft E.I.S. for Valley Medical Center's proposed Medical Office Building II and Ambulatory Care Center. Copies of the Draft E.I.S. are available for purchase for $8.00 per copy at the public information counter (SEPA Information Center) in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Renton Municipal Building located at 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055. Reading copies are available in the Renton Municipal Library at the above address. Comments are requested on the above document with the comment period closing on October 1, 1990. A public hearing will be held September 18, 1990, at 7:30 P.M. at the City Council Chambers at above address. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Valley Medical Center proposes to build a 110,970 sq.ft. medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center Campus. Also included in the proposed action is a Building Permit for relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC II space for medical services. Publication Date: August 31, 1990 Account No.51067 • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 51067 Kathleen Hoover ,being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the CVO TICS©AVAILABLITY Notice is given under SEPA, RCW VALLEY DAILY NEWS 43.216.080, that the City of Renton has i issued a Draft E.I.S,for Valley Medical Cen- • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition I ter's proposed Medical Office Building II 1 and Ambulatory Care Center. Copies of the Dailynewspapers six (6) times a week. That said newspapers Draft E.I.S. are available for purchase for published $8.00 per copy at the public information are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six = counter (SEPA Information Center) in the Development Services Division,Third Floor, months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published Renton Municipal Building located at 200 in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington County, Washington. The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal I 98055. Reading copies are available in the newspaper byorder of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for I Renton Municipal Library at the above P I address. Comments are requested on the King County. i above document with the comment period r closing on October 1, 1990. A public hear- inThe notice in the exact form attached, waspublished in Kent Edition ; P.M.willt thebe heldtSeptember Chambers 18, 19saat 7:30 � P .at City Council at above X X , Renton Edition X X , Auburn Edition , (and not in I address. supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: ValleCenter prooses to bild during the below stated period. The annexed notice a Public Notice a 110,970 sq.r ft Medcal medical office buildinguo n the northwest portion of the Valley Medical (Notice .o f Avail a b i l t y.1 4565 Center Campus. Also included in the pro- posed action is a Building Permit for relo- cation of the existing Ambulatory Care Cen- was published on August .31 , 1990 '. ter (ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC space for medical services. '1P,ublshedn,� the Valley, Daily News The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the L_August 3J �1,9so��TAccount'No.51067 4565 sum of$ 24 . 94 _� :- €,..�_ Lfr<atiafilar)-eVeA Subscribed and sworn before me this 5 t day of Sept. 19 q n • - (N-Yait.L6)110.4.7, Notary Public for the State of Washington residing at Aubur-a, �e � King County, Washington VDN 487 Revised 4/89 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON SEP 1 31990 REC VED •a •I CITX OF RENTON of Planning/Building/Public De artment Works P Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator August 30, 1990 • SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Valley Medical Center-MOB II/ACC ECF-063-89 Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II and the Ambulatory Care Unit. The project site is located at 400 South 43rd Street, Renton,Washington 98055. PROPOSAL: The Proposed Action involves approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, and a Building permit to allow construction of a 110,970 sq.ft. medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center Campus. Also included in the proposed action is a Building Permit for relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC space for medical services. Three other alternatives were analyzed in the document and include: 1) Modified Full Development; 2) Medical Office Building South; and 3) No action. IMPACTS: As a result of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Scoping process, comments were received from governmental agencies and interested citizens regarding the major issues that needed to be analyzed in the DEIS. Those issues included the following: Land Use and Aesthetics: Relationship of the proposed action and alternatives to land use patterns in the area, existing plans and policies, and westerly views; Traffic and Parking: Effect of the proposed action and alternatives on traffic, parking and circulation;and Public Services--Fire: Impact on existing City of Renton fire protective services. The DEIS identifies a variety of mtigation measures. The document is available at the Development Services Department, Third Floor, Renton Municipal Building,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,Washington 98055. The copies cost$8.00. Information in the document will be used by the City of Renton to make informed decisions regarding this proposal, consistent with the intent of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Written public comment 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2631 r• on the DEIS is encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days from this date. Following the 30 day review period, responses to comments will be prepared and incorporated in a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Written comments on the DEIS will be accepted through October 1, 1990 and should be addressed to: Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department Attn: Mary Lynne Myer 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 A public hearing to accept written and oral comments on the DEIS will be held in the Renton City Council Chambers on Tuesday, September 18, 1990, at 7:30 PM,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,Washington. If you have questions, please call Mary Lynne Myer at 235-2550 for additional information. Sincerely, (05--)A4rEeL__ Donald K. Erickson Zoning Administrator 41 t$ Lei CITE. OF RENTON "l Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator August 30, 1990 To: Recipients of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II and the Ambulatory Care Center-ECF-063-89 The accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) identifies the environmental consequences associated with construction and occupancy of a 110,970 sq. ft. medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center Campus. Also included in the proposed action is a building permit for relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center(ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC space for medical services. The project site is located at 400 South 43rd Street, Renton,Washington 98055. PROPOSAL: The Proposed Action involves approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, and a Building permit to allow construction of a 110,970 sq.ft. medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center Campus. Also included in the proposed action is a Building Permit for relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC space for medical services. Three other alternatives were analyzed in the document and include: 1) Modified Full Development; 2) Medical Office Building South; and 3) No action. IMPACTS: As a result of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Scoping process, comments were received from governmental agencies and interested citizens regarding the major issues that,needed to be analyzed in the DEIS. Those issues included the following: Land Use and Aesthetics: Relationship of the proposed action and alternatives to land use patterns in the area, existing plans and policies,and westerly views; Traffic and Parking: Effect of the proposed action and alternatives on traffic, parking and circulation;and Public Services--Fire: Impact on existing City of Renton fire protective services. The DEIS identifies a variety of mtigation measures. The document is available at the Development Services Department, Third Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,Washington 98055. The copies cost$8.00. Information in the document will be used by the City of Renton to make informed decisions regarding this proposal, consistent with the intent of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Written public comment on the DEIS is encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days from this date. Following the 30 day review period, responses to comments will be prepared and incorporated in a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2631 Written comments on the DEIS will be accepted through October 1, 1990 and should be addressed to: Donald K. Erickson,AICP Zoning Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department Attn: Mary Lynne Myer 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 A public hearing to accept written and oral comments on the DEIS will be held in the Renton City Council Chambers on Tuesday, September 18, 1990, at 7:30 PM, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington. Please call Mary Lynne Myer at 235-2550 for additional information. Sincerely, onaid K. Erickson Zoning Administrator v % � CIT'i OF RENTON Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator August 30, 1990 TO: All interested parties for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building II and the Ambulatory Care Center ECF-063-89 A draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared to describe the Valley Medical Center project and the environmental impacts of this project. The project site is located at 400 South 43rd Street, Renton,Washington 98055. PROPOSAL: The Proposed Action involves approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, and a Building permit to allow construction of a 110,970 sq.ft. medical office building on the northwest portion of the Valley Medical Center Campus. Also included in the proposed action is a Building Permit for relocation of the existing Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) to another building on campus and use of the vacated ACC space for medical services. Three other alternatives were analyzed in the document and include: 1) Modified Full Development; 2) Medical Office Building South;and 3) No action. IMPACTS: As a result of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Scoping process, comments were received from governmental agencies and interested citizens regarding the major issues that needed to be analyzed in the DEIS. Those issues included the following: Land Use and Aesthetics: Relationship of the proposed action and alternatives to land use patterns in the area, existing plans and policies, and westerly views; Traffic and Parking: Effect of the proposed action and alternatives on traffic, parking and circulation; and Public Services--Fire: Impact on existing City of Renton fire protective services. The DEIS identifies a variety of mtigation measures. The document is available at the Development Services Department, Third Floor, Renton Municipal Building,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,Washington 98055. The copies cost$8.00. Information in the document will be used by the City of Renton to make informed decisions regarding this .proposal consistent with the intent of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Written public comment on the DEIS is encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days from this date. Following the 30 day review period, responses to comments will be prepared and incorporated in a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2631 Written comments on the DEIS will be accepted through October 1, 1990, and should be addressed to: Donald K. Erickson,AICP Zoning Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department ATTN: Mary Lynne Myer, Sr. Planner 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 A public hearing to accept written and oral comments on the DEIS will be held in the Renton City Council Chambers on Tuesday, September 18, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington. Please call Mary Lynne Myer, at 235-2550,for additional information. Sincerely, (j14)t. 1 Donald K. Erickson,AICP Zoning Administrator 1110 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER Draft Environmental Impact Statement Medical Office Building II and the Ambulatory Care Center PUBLIC HEARING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1990 7 : 30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS RENTON CITY HALL agenda I. Welcome and introductions II. Purpose of the hearing III. Project Description IV. Overview of Environmental Impact Statement V. Public Comment VI. Close If you have questions on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, please call Mary Lynne Myer, project manager, 235-2550. A QUICK LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PROCESS SEPA ) DEIS , FEIS > PROJECT DECISION DECISION lore research public comment is needed on Yes -- no the project conditions and its impacts. Can the impacts be lessened to acceptable levels? August 24, 1990 To: ERC officials and Community Development Department Please know that I am interested in the expansion of the Valley Medical Center and the proposed office building or buildings. Therefore, please enter my name as a party of record in this matter and notify me of any meetings, decisions or availability of documents. Also, please add the name of one of our attorneys, Michael Hanis, to the list. Mr. Hanis' address is: Hanis & Olson Attorneys at Law 3900 East Valley Highway #203 Renton, Washington 98055 Thank you for your cooperation. Versie Vaupel CITY OFRENTON nDE C E I V ED P. 0. Box 755 Renton WA 98057 AUG 2 4 1990 BUILDING DIVISION 400 South 43rd Street f7 Fenton, WA 98055 ' 206.228.3450 ', FAX 206.575.2593 •✓, Valley • Medical PLANNING DIVISION Center CITY OF RENTON August 15, 1990 AUG 2 0 1990 RECEIVE) Mr. A. Lee Wheeler Fire Chief City of Renton Building Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Project: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER LAND USE/EIS Subject: SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER Dear Chief Wheeler: This letter proposes a schedule for the installation of the automatic fire sprinklers in the areas of the building that are still not equipped with sprinkler systems . As a result of our meeting with you, Mary Lynne Myer, Glen Gordon, Don Erickson, and Jim Hanson, we have revised our implementation scenario so that sprinklers will be installed in all areas of the existing hospital (excluding surgery) prior to occupancy of our proposed South Tower Addition. The revised sprinkler installation schedule reflects the suggestion made by you to install sprinklers in the Kitchen, Administration, and the Atrium as soon as possible . It has been, and continues to be, our intent to provide the community with quality health care in a safe and attractive environment. We propose to complete the process of the fire sprinkler upgrade as outlined in the enclosed schedule and detailed Phase Descriptions One through Four, also attached. Thank you for your understanding and the City' s willingness to work with us to develop an implementation scheme that minimizes the impact on the hospital ' s operations and capacity. We will proceed to implement this plan as soon as we receive your written approval . I hope this proposal meets your kind consideration. Sincerely, C rt,t.c (LP K Cc .\—/ Monica Brennan Chief Operating Officer MB/11 Enclosures : Schedule, Phase Descriptions cc: Mary Lynne Myer - Senior Planner Don Erickson - Chief Planner Jim Hanson - Development Services Manager Glen Gordon - Fire Marshal Rich Roodman - Administrator, VMC John Scott - Valley Medical Center Eric Thoman - Valley Medical Center Steve Kay - Valley Medical Center Ome Almeda - Valley Medical Center Greg Lewis - Mahlum and Nordfors O OF CA1S� 91 91. 93 94 95 P4,6sSE. AisKE.A4 SPRINKLE D* 1 2,' /25 1SIOO SOY v^ MOD's NOZTh ,350 ,oz .,�, 1VTCt ,N • frNts1IN ZG 7rCO °�4% �o 35, 2D DEL . iZMS 31,000 99 % �' f�1RNM 4 SUR�,EszY 98� 100% via" "a • aosii" Moal , Mo6A AkNo CftN ,+ILL5 souTh ToweR NOT INCLUDPA IN CgMFUS S.F. • PJr1o #NSE_ 1 . rp,• E 1 A IKIK Lt_b 15,500 Et _ flII a 11 =1 l!.9M...e STET SEPT 90 ' .ri F-INII-\- F 1I . . I l J �^� -r 1ST FLOOR . 1UIL.DIKI GI - "Pt•I 80 % aill4V26. �r 15,500 s1 '/ r%%% 0 `%� r4 11 . �,. . ' L. [ 1 . 11 ....,-,. .____ ___). Et L E1 , 2ND FLOOR 3 1 E 1 L ❑ � L L. eo_ 4-- 1 1 I L 3 Iji2S rrn MI n" "f7-- --1 -I, .... - r--1 ft .1111.1 - -=------- ----- 3RD FLOOR ' Pui6iNSE.. 2. .40, V7%. 1 eY i b .,1 oJ�J A &�INK Llrb 59,35O c C• - 1: II _ • T .T Mt\K 91 e I lei __; Flt• Ii , SrP`r '91 'e..):31S7 $6111300 / -----; 1 i L J ,$809,300 1ST FLOOR P� T OF •- gU1LnIl.16; -W-Ih11.E.D 90 7 1L • -1 a lwiari.-am._______6. .A till ■ r ,, mew r.liti..... 1.3 TotIA1,,I1 m.-Wra-- ii= pliromosjs 2ND FLOOR AspMIS S'iRP\117 C)N 3 = 3 E Z7,460 SF J 3 : 1 E -7 ■ id❑ _ .. ... ..r - :-,,,, . /.. r•N I N TbERIhinil iViroient4 , � r:-� in e9oo IF. 3RD FLOOR 5,200 " 13 -lit'iNSF..•.. 3/6N . • e r • � A �'�INK Lib 7 -b. ,,�..!_ Cis a�ti_ • STET erY 91 FINISNr --TI '9? ' , L i 4#1190°I'COO PE AT 1ST FLOOR o� 8,ULLDIN GI -WIt`Kt-E.0 941. 7n U 2 I __.1 ` 7,100 SF II Ve-- Le • • -tez1 ".„_:"Liwp. n 2ND FLOOR • 1 E 71- -4111 —, -- n. 111 I-EJ311.,( "T` rm rm • o ❑_ 11 u 3RD FLOOR - Pl-ONSE— 35 : . _r.. • iLii'iE . ... AWKLD 51,000 - .L I imip ti 11 HNI1-} 12-11_ '95 • 1 L J ---_-_• 11551)100 .__l . F l< OF- 1 ST FLOOR • i!JLJIL.C1 C=4 . .It•I t clet 7 i /171;4(Q1%e\ t . tip " A��� SCE� r`\\a�• ::!' i1gig� _ L u-.1 p V I [1 -3 B. 00 5F 0o , ti 2ND FLOOR OE�VCCr gC01*°\% • ligi rei 3 I.b,Roo SF' J iii L L_ /apt;. -I o"II -1-1 ii ... ... r 3RD FLOOR • • P4/6NSE. E A . . INK Lib 1,8bX) SF- ��.�._ �I■I` 1 sT .T min goi .�_ ZULY '`1 - ' L J J i 1ST(Itti ST FLOOR I SIT OF. gUlLnlr•!FaI�I�11��-E.I� 100 /C S DII SF` Mr • tandrakifi opir i�� 2ND FLOOR 3 L L ( 21_ 3RD FLOOR • 400 South 43rd Street Ronton, WA 98055 21'6.228.3450 ,sir FAX 206.575.2593 �" Valley Medical Center PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON JUL 1 9 1990 July 17, 1990 RECEVED Mr. Glen G. Gordon Fire Marshal Fire Prevention Bureau City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Valley Medical Center Sprinkler System Requirements - Main Building Dear Mr. Gordon, This letter is to respond to your letter dated 7/11/90 to Ome Almeda concerning the sprinkler requirements at Valley Medical Center. First of all, I would like to apologize that we have not communicated with your office regarding our efforts to comply with your requirements. After our meeting in December 1989, we retained our architects, Mahlum & Nordfors, to conduct a study regarding the time, effort and cost of this project. By our standards, this is a large project and will involve major disruption of the hospital opera- tions. Preliminary estimates exceed $1.5 Million for construction. Due to the perceived disruptions, our architects have studied numerous alternatives to phase in the sprinkler system. Obviously, no more than one patient wing can be impacted at one time due to our high census. Further, in such areas as surgery, where we are operating at full capacity, closure of a single room will impact schedules and patient care. One of the outcomes of the study demonstrates that the City of Renton Fire Department's requirement of retrofitting the entire hospital within eighteen months is not, in all likelihood, attainable. After six months of studying and approximately $30, 000 in architect and engineering fees, we still do not have a finalized plan with which to proceed. One difficulty is factoring in various areas of the hospital that are due for remodeling and determining whether this construction can be done sooner in order to perform the sprinkler project at the same time. We have a draft of the study which we are prepared to share with you in the next couple of weeks. Mr. Gary G. Gordon July 17 , 1990 Page 2 We hope that you recognize that this is a significant undertaking and also that we share your concerns in protecting the safety of life and property at the hospital . Again, I regret that we have not formally communicated to you that the study was underway. I hope that we can meet with you in the very near future to resolve this issue as it effects the EIS for our Medical Office Building II . If you have any questions, please call. Very/truly yours I Eric J. , homan General /Counsel cc: City of Renton Mary Lynn Meyer, Senior Planner Don Erickson, Chief, Current Planning Division Ron Nelson, Building Official Larry Springer, Planning Manager Valley Medical Center John Scott, Assistant Administrator Ome Almeda, Director of Engineering EJT:psd 44, rig CITY OF RENTON 414k Fire Prevention Bureau Earl Clymer, Mayor e'.‘r nre Marshal: Glen G.Gordon Chief': A.Lee Wheeler , • , 11) I I.144A11-. iildu)4' Tie t•L tLjt. July I 1, 1990 141.621"1.4,4_,44' AOISIL Ome Almeda Valley Medical Center: 400 South 41st Street , Renton, Washington 98055 ''- , Dear Mr. Almeda:._ Subject: Valley Medical Center Sprinkler System Requirements - Main Building This letter is in follovvup;to our meeting of December 4, 1989, and subsequent meeting on December 5; 1989, (see attached letter) to identify the sprinkler requirements associated with the expansion/remodel within your complex. • To date we have, received no correspondence to indicate when the fire sprinkler system in the main building will be setro-fitted.. Again, to reemphasize, no construction, i.e. remodel/expansion will be permitted until the required retro-fit is completed and tested by our office. I'm confident we share SiMila?.Concerns in protecting the safety of life and property within this complex. I-remain available to work with you on this project, don't hesitate to call me. Sincerely, GLEN G. GORDON Fire Marshal GGG:mbt Enclosure (1) pc: Rich Roodifian - Certified Mail almeda WW1 1\1:11 A von'''. Cr.tith - r ontrin Wrichinotelii oRncc - (Th 116-/64.11 400 Ipeth 43rd Street 2 p� Rentjn, WA 98055 f �1 �'1 J 206°228.3450 PLANNING DIVISION\`P`�' �-J' 'd;1 PAX 206.575.2593 Valley CITY OF RENTON Center JUN 2 0 1990 RECENED June 18, 1990 Ms. Mary Lynn Meyer Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: City Comments on Draft EIS for MOB-II/Ambulatory Care Dear Mary Lynn, This letter is to let you know that we are anxiously anticipating comments from the City regarding the draft EIS for MOB-II and Ambulatory Care. We had hoped that the City staff could turn these around within a couple of weeks. We would very much appreciate getting this project back on track. Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter. Very,,-tuly ours Eric J. T4,..man General sel cc: John Scott - Valley Medical Center Terry McCann - Huckell/Weinmann Associates, Inc. EJT:psd 100 South 413i_I St wet Renton, WA 98055 , 206,,225 FAX 2(16057502593 x ,d Valley Medical '�#'1r �_E'.I1�.E'I' I . PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON May 18, 1990 MAY 2 3 1990 Mr. Don Erickson RECEIVE D Chief, Current Planning Division Community Development Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Valley Medical Center Campus Parking Dear Don, d! Earlier today I "got killed by a group of doctors" at a meeting on parking. 'The physicians at the meeting were some of those who have office space in the Talbot Professional Center. One of the requests that came out of the meeting was that Valley pursue, with the City of Renton, the option of using the South Campus parking as soon as a permit is obtained prior to the initiation of construction of the additional parking spaces. The purpose of this letter is to request that the City consider this or that you give us directions on how we should proceed with such a request. The bottom line is that access for patients to parking is becoming more acute all the time. In addition, we have patients who have handicaps or have difficulty walking from a parking spot to the building in which the physician practices. Physicians are getting barraged with complaints, and the patients are very unhappy. Don, we really need your help at this time. I know you have the impression (or I thought you had the impression) at our meeting last week that we were "stirring the doctors up. " This has not been the case, nor will we do that because we simply would be "shooting ourselves in the foot. " The patients are unhappy""and the doctors are feeling the heat from the patients. This is a "trickle down effect" and we are getting a lot of pressure from the doctors to come up with a plan to do something now as opposed to waiting until the South Campus parking is finished and the garage is done. Thank you again for all your help. Sincerely, John Scott Assistant Administrator cc: City of Renton . Larry Springer Ken Nyberg JS:psd +tll South 43rd Street \ - Renton,"WA 98055 206,228.3450 • < Ps\X 206'575.2593 \;` i Valley �` Medical Center PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON May 11, 1990 MAY 1 5 1990 RECEIVED Mr. Don Erickson Chief, Current Planning Division Community Development Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: MOB-II/Ambulatory Care EIS Dear Don, This letter is to let you know that John Scott and I had a short conversation with Terry McCann regarding the timing for the completion of the EIS for MOB-II/Ambulatory Care. He indicated that the City now has a draft that is being passed around among the departments for comments. It is our hope and anticipation that the City will compile its comments within the next two weeks. As you know, we are already somewhat behind schedule. Optimistically, it looks like the EIS will not be completed until the first of August. We would appreciate all of the help that you can give us in not letting it slip behind any further. Thank you very much for your help in this matter. Veyl s tr ly yo r Eric- J. h l man General Counsel cc: City of Renton Ken Nyberg, Director, Community Development Mary Lynn Meyer, Senior Planner Valley Medical Center Rich Roodman, Administrator John Scott, Assistant Administrator EJT:psd ( . Washington State Duane Berentson 1#711 Department of Transportation Secretary of Transportation District 1 15325 S.E.30th Place Bellevue,Washington 98007 August 11, 1989 r" AUG i. 5 1989 lit Mr. Don Erickson, Zoning : .�1 Administrator; Planning Div. 1,, c Environmental Review Comm. s �, .L5 �u7 6 U Community Development Dept. 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 SR 167 & SR 515 Determinination of Significance , for Valley Medical Center Dear Mr. Erickson: This letter is in response to the Determinination of Significance and request for comments on scope of EIS review we received from the City of Renton. The proposed project is to construct a . five-story medical office building at the north end of the Valley Medical .Center, located at Talbot Road and South 43rd Street. The transportation section of the DEIS should include traffic . impacts to the SR 167/Southwest 43rd Street interchange and at the SR 515/Carr Road intersection. We would appreciate the opportunity to review the Transportation Impact Analysis by Transportation, Planning and Engineering, Inc. (March 1989) , . and the DEIS when it is available. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, JERRY B. SCHUT Development Planning Engineer JBS:ng 5/CGDEDOS . Ile Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 3 Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle,WA 98104-1598 August- 21, 1989 . 2 3 1989 IH ' a C �:, DU J Environmental Review-Committee c/o Donald K. Erickson Zoning Administrator Planning Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Determination of Significance File No. : ECF-063-89 Valley Medical Center Dear Environmental Review Committee: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to its wastewater facilities. Public Transportation The EIS should include a thorough evaluation and revision of the Transportation Management Plan (TMP) that was required of Valley Medical Center in 1987 as a condition of approval for an earlier expansion. In addition, the site plan should include hard• surfaced, lighted pedestrian walkway access to surrounding streets. Please contact Carol Thompson, Metro Market Development, at 684-1610 for additional information regarding these recommendations. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, I Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Planning Division GMB:wsg5059 cc: Carol Thompson. 400 South 43rd Street Renton, WA 98055 206.228.3450 FAX 206.575.2593 " ' Valley Center September 5, 19891 . f, a : j SEP ,7 1989 P, Ms. Jeanette Samek-McKague Senior Planner Current Planning/Zoning City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Medical Office Building-II/Environmental Impact Statement CX 3- 1 Dear Jeanette: I understand from Don Erickson that we will be working with you on the Environmental Impact Statement for Medical Office Building-II. We are anxious to get started on the scoping process and the hiring of a consultant. We are also anxious to find out if there was any public input to the scoping process in response to the published notice. I look forward to working with you and starting the process as soon as possible. Ver my yours, Eri man General iof,nse, cc: Monica Brennan John Scott Ome Almeda Greg Lewis - Mahlum & Nordfors EJT:psd t CITY OF RENTON hal POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor August 7, 1989 Monica Brennan Chief Operations Officer Valley Medical Center 400 South 43rd Street Renton, WA 98055 Re: Valley Medical Center, Office Building #2 North end of the Valley Medical Center site at northwest corner of the intersection of South 43rd Street and Talbot Road South File # ECF-063-89 Dear Ms. Brennan: After much consideration at its last meeting on August 2nd, the Environmental Review Committee decided to issue a Determination of Significance for Office Building #2 . This decision was based upon concerns about traffic (accumulative impacts) and the effect the office building will have on hospital related services and their expansion. Everyone seems to acknowledge that the office building will drive new and expanded services and, therefore, cannot be considered a stand-alone facility. We will want to begin the "scoping" process for this project as soon as possible as well as the selection of an EIS consultant. We will be getting in touch with you on this in the near future. Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Determination of Significance for the project. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2552 Monica Brennan August 7, 1989 Page 2 If you have any questions, please call me or Jeannette Samek-McKague at 235-2550. ely, Don K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:mjp cc: Todd Olson Mahlum & Nordfors 2505 Third Avenue, Suite 219 Seattle, WA 98121 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS FILE NUMBER(S) : ECF-063-89 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant seeks environmental review for construction of .a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2, 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: North end of Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43rd Street. EIS REQUIRED. The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43 . 21C. 030 (2) (c) and will be prepared. An environmental checklist or other materials indicating likely environmental impacts can be reviewed at our offices. LEAD AGENCY: Environmental Review Committee, City of Renton The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: Land Use, Traffic, and Public Services. SCOPING: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on ' alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses of other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before August 28, 1989 . Responsible Official; Environmental Review Committee c/o Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Planning Division Community Development Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance in writing pursuant to RMC 4-3016 accompanied by a $75. 00 appeal fee no later than 5: 00 p.m. August 21, 1989 to: Renton Hearing Examiner City Clerk 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA. 98055 You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the above office to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. PUBLICATION DATE: August 7, 1989 DATE OF DECISION: August 3 , 1989 SIGNATURES `Ken_Nyberg- " —.'__ /1 Lynn utt ann �2 rTimunity_ D -el- end Diirector , Publ . Wo s Director. 41 jat CITY OF RENTON z, POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor August 4, 1989 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia, WA 98504 Re: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith are copies of the Environmental Determinations and Environmental Checklists for those projects reviewed the the Environmental Review committee on August 2, 1989: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE BRIDGE ECF; SA; SM-086-89 Applications for a shoreline substantial development permit and site plan approval for the construction of a new bridge structure across the Cedar River. The property is located at the Maple Valley Golf Course, 4000 Maple Valley Road. • RENTON RIDGE PHASE II ECF-046-89 Applications.to rezone 2.67 acres from R-1, Single-Family Residential, to R-3, Multi- Family Residential, and for site plan review to allow the development of 66 unit apartment complex as a second phase to existing development to south together with a modification to the Phase I approved site plan. The modification to the Phase I site plan application includes: relocation of recreation building and pool, relocation of north driveway entrance, and relocation of the roadway adjacent to Phase II project. The property is located in the 1000 to 1050 blocks of Aberdeen Avenue N.E. The fifteen (15) day comment period and the fourteen (14) day appeal period for these. projects will run concurrently and will end on August 22, 1989. Following the end of the comment/appeal period, the City will finalize it's Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. . 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2552 I / • Environmental Determine:--_ns • August 4, 1989 Page 2 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING #2 ECF-063-89 Applicant seeks environmental review for construction of a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2,000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. The property is located at the north end of the Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43rd Street. Further information regarding this action is available in the Community Development Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Agencies, affected tribes and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. Comments must be submitted to the City of Renton by 5:00 p.m. on August 28, 1989. If you have questions, please call Jeanette Samek-McKague or me at 235-2550. • Sincerel , Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:mjp cc: Mr. Gerald W. Marbett, King County Bldg. & Land Division Mr. Gregory M. Bush, Metro Department of Wildlife Mr. Joe Robels,'Department of Fisheries Mr. James Lutz, Department of Transportation • ENVIRONMENTAL E L ARATIQN ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO. VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER APPLICANT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING #2 • CQNS imam QOI�O Ip IVEPSTORYTMEDICALEOFFICEMBUILDINGVCONTAIINING AN AUDITORIUM ON THE FIRST FLOOR (OF APPROXIMATELY 2,000 SQUARE FEET) SERVING THE HOSPITAL STAFF AND THE COMMUNITY. GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS NORTH END OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER SITE AT 400 SOUTH 43RD STREET. POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. • • THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (E.R.C.) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. , THE CITY OF RENTON WILL NOT ACT' ON THIS PROPOSAL FOR 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE BELOW. COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY AUGUST 28, 1989 AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY i' BE FILED WITHATullfrsfIVITQb18t1EARING EXAMINER • ! BY 5:00 P.M., .1 ; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION. • • CERTIFICATION Ul 1-.,IUD .. ; IIEREBY CERTIFY TIMAT' �'�-jj_m (3 CUP I ES OF . ABOVE DOCUMENT IIERE POSTED BY ME. II.1 • �' CONSPICUOUS � ICES ON UR NEARBY TIIE DESCRIBED. PROPERTY ON . • ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before no., a • I• h:. Notary Public, .in and for the State of Washington •residing in ..&11. 7 1s N da of on the �� y 101 --.g5 ;SIGNED 4ae4kZi.42___LX„-AL - .1 . . • • • • • , • •. ••. • A . - • • • • • • • V./ 51067 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION E l l e ti e Lavine ,being first duly sworn on oath states _ that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the NOTICELOF ENVIRONMENTLYS VALLEY DAILY NEWS OETERMINATIO ENV,IRO NMENTiAL REVIEW COMMITTEE • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition RENTOAWASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee] Dailynewspapers six (6) times a week. That said newspapers (ERCe or the followinged a project: of Sigrif-i published1 icance for the project: are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING#2 p63 89 in the English language continuallyas dailynewspapers in Kent, KingEC Applicant seek County, Washington. The Valley Daily News has beenapproved as a legal .construction of a environmental review five storymed medical office newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for i building containing an auditorium on the i first floor (of approximately 2,000 square King County. feet)serving the hospital staff and the com- munity.The property is located at the north in the Kent Edition end of the V Street. Medical Center site at The notice in the exact form attached, was published400 South 43rdSt , Renton Edition X , Auburn Edition , (and not in i Further information regarding this action supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers I is available in the Community Development Department, Current Planning Division, during the below stated period. The annexed notice a !Renton Municipal Building, Renton, Wash- (ington, 235-2550. Agencies, tribes, and Notice of Environmental Determination members of the public are invited to com- ment on the scope of the EIS. Comments must be submitted to the City of Renton by was published on A u g u s t 7 . 19 F3 9 R3654 . 5 p.m. on August 28, 1989, Any appeal of the ERC action must be filed with the Renton Hearing Examiner by 5 p.m. on August 21, 1989. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the ,Published,>,in the Valley Daily News sum of$ r Fr1 _ August? 1989 R3654 ' t '1t067 J. _ _ � .. Subscribed and sworn before me this 1 day of A 'q 19 F-', 0?: Notar blic for the State of Washington residing at Auburn, King County, Washington VDN#87 Revised 4/89 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION , ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Significance for the following project: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING #2 ECF-063-89 Applicant seeks environmental review for construction of a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2, 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. The property is located at the north end of the Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43rd Street. Further information regarding this action is available in the Community Development. Department, Current Planning Division, Renton Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550, Agencies, tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. Comments must be submitted to the City of Renton by, 5 p.m. on August 28, 1989 . Any appeal of the ERC action must be filed with the Renton Hearing Examiner by 5 p.m. on August 21, 1989. Published: August 7, 1989 My t RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT e , ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET �� �"oy 04, ,, REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: P o l. Ce 7 0,9 DATE CIRCULATED: June 22 , 1989 COMMENTS DUE: July 6, 19: 4 89 ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) : N/A 4% PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT TITLE: Medical Office Building #2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review to construct a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2 , 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of the Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Stree SITE AREA: Approximately 60, 000 SF BUILDING AREA: (gross) : 100, 000 SF IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth ° 2 . Air ° o ° ° 3 . Water ° o ° ° 4 . Plants ° o ° ° 5. Animals ° 6. Energy & Natural Resources ° o ° 7 . Environmental Health ° o ° ° 8 . Land & Shoreline Use ° o ° ° 9. Housing ° ° ° 10. Aesthetics ° ° o ° ° 11. Light & Glare ° o ° ° 12 .. Recreation ° o ° ° 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation ° o ° ° 14 . Transportation ° ° 15. Public Services V. ° o ° ° 16. Utilities ° COMMENTS: No uttfint 'is pkaitivtt4- tb bL uksstoaLek, ak_ ,.kkg, 42)• U fikft al fiu2a, ) wa-kb u Ii 10 IA ,L,vh? &out. AA • A' 1 OJIt W JALAML cAkUldV We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are whey additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. nual 1 . Ai 4 Signature iir- or or Authorized Representative Date Rev. 6/88 } RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) . : N/A PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT TITLE: Office Building #2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review for construction of a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2 , 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Street. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: July 12, 1989 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON July 6, 1989 . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED LA, ,ltth'wA. Ir4 w C.CYJV eAttt.ivib ?(.4.1 4INCAAL 44%- flt*O setiaviti4e 12u4406 tqutiot3a. LA4.44A. GU3-0(4r 01‘4%-, teitcok eitestA 4-kot-+ 40:41-2f aziki \ale) 4treaA/A, kfr /koirjtk hb V i o r ttit4144 DATE �5r SIGNATURE 0-F DIR C� OR AU HO IZ D T R E REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 'i r,!, • ., . • .'! Ill I --- ,' I. II I t ;i• • _...;;, i . ; , • . . . • 1,i ;• i . .. . ,• . • . 1! I .11 . . ,I ' • 'I.;•• . . ., . . • . .. . . • .• . . . . . ... . ; . . . , . , , ...,...., ,. . . . . , . . . .. . . . . — . . , . . . } . . c . . i 1 . . . . . .•,. . . . . . ... , . . , . . . . . , . 1 . . . .. . . . . . .. , .. .. . . . ... . ,. . . , .. . . ., . •. .. . . . . •... . . I _r RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REV1EVSHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: f`i C eil -_� - __ DATE CIRCULATED: June 22, 1989 COMMENTS DUE: July 6, 1989 ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) : N/A PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center , -v" . ^�n� PROJECT TITLE: Medical Office Building #2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review to construct a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2, 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of the Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Stree SITE AREA: Approximately 60, 000 SF BUILDING AREA: (gross) : 100, 000 SF IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth ° o ° 2. Air ° o ° ° 3 . Water ° - ° 4 . Plants ° ° 5. Animals ° ° ° 6. Energy & Natural Resources ° ° ° 7 . Environmental Health PorrYdi RerroNN ° ° QITY OF RENTOM ° ° 8. Land & Shoreline Use ° JUN 2 31989 ° ° 9. Housing o ° 9f RMOW ED 10. Aesthetics ° 11. Light & Glare ° ° 12 .. Recreation ° ° ° 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation ° 14 . Transportation ° V : 15. Public Services v ° o - ° ° 16. Utilities ° COMMENTS: /1-0-Wi'e- a 0 CC 5/4_Q 01 /5 r-e--°c11:ttl Q . .P6/4 / Gd Ael`L /ladirt L,Gu///� liIS c la:Vac/ I-e 5 e/ISe /i C S o /O � a, s,- e ,�eula/,'o� a��r,�, o- C access �Ex.'s`'7 Lore. Z a I5 a Cah cet-11 Z � ci7`e aft i /44/4rl dpet Va. cact iS0' /las 14(l i5 /Vet caiGG ` '1113 tIn A<er.a , We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are where additional informati-•n is eded to properly assess this proposal. 6 S� �'� Signature of Director • Author ze epresentative D to Rev. 6/88 RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) . : N/A PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT TITLE: Office Building #2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review for construction of a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2 , 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Street. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: July 12, 1989 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON July 6, 1989. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: f 1 � PVent 6n APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED Any development and/or construction shall comply with current Fire and Building Codes and Ordi. nances. A second means of approved access is required. Fire epartment access roads/lanes shall be paved minimum width 20'; minimum height 13' 6". Yes No Preliminary fire flow calculations show a fire flow of a60 VP is required hydrants with a minimum flow of //»J gpm each is required. Primary hydrant is required to be within /64 feet of the structure. Secondary hydrants are required to be within RD 0 feet of the structure. An approved automatic sprinkler system is required to protect the total structure. Yes V No._._, All fire department access roads are to be paved and installed prior to construction. Yes _.No All fire hydrants are required to be installed and approved prior to construction. Yes No "5 kelWeR1011 111DB_TE and 1°sycX wfrt, e_s , f / in i/7Z[a!'j'! /Gtf2u a /6 c6 IA)af'` htt-ni Pa- iGL$ 4I,.604 DATE j / v�3 7 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUT ZED P ENTATIVE ` REV. 6/88 RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEWSHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMEt 5DeS11,31() Erg i e i'rg DATE CIRCULATED: June 22 , 1989 COMMENTS DUE: July 6, 1989 ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) : N/A PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT TITLE: Medical Office Building. #2 . BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review to construct a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2,000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of the Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Stree. SITE AREA: Approximately 60, 000 SF BUILDING AREA: (gross) : 100, 000 SF IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth ,< ° 2 . Air X ° 3 . Water ° 4 . Plants ° 5. Animals ° o . 6. Energy & Natural Resources • ° 7. Environmental Health ° 8. Land & Shoreline Use " 0 0 O 0 ° 9. Housing , ° 10. Aesthetics ° 11. Light & Glare ° 12., Recreation 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation ° 14 . Transportation >G 0 ° ° 15. Public Services • 0 ° ° O 16. Utilities 0 , 0 ' COMMENTS: (Jc ) L �-�v�Vt411O� 15rzzi,4117e.27 We have reviewed this ppli ation with particular attention to those areas which we have experti e an have identified areas of probable impact or are ditional inf ma ' is needed to properly assess this proposal. Joi4 - Signa€üre of Director or Authorized Representative Date g Rev. 6/88 RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) . : N/A PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT TITLE: Office Building #2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review for construction of a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2, 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Street. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: July 12 , 1989 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT . OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON July 6, 1989. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: � t�c� APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS XANOT APPROVED r e q6 d��1-E ri.�( Li ryto ur act' . ; . • DA SIGNATU E OF DIRECTOR OR HORIZED REPRESENTATIVE `" y` REV. 6/88 , RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT i ¶ DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) . : N/A PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT TITLE: Office Building #2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review for construction of a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2 , 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Street. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: July 12, 1989 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON July 6, 1989 . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: (2rJ/_./71,ES 4-AL 6- . APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS D . NOT APPROVED SUBMIT 5 e PARAle WATER ?LAN Arta SAN NI?Y SEWER 'PLAti . UTILITY APPROVAL SUBJECT T3 1 _ LATE COMERS AGREEMENT-WATER `l_ r ._._N- D , INATERMA1N %MPRovEMEMt5 (PLANS ir ATE CO R$AGREEMENT-SEiSEER 1 A/p `')ANiTAQY SEwee IMPRovEMENTS 'PLArtiS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CIUiROE-vo7 ER t Jt -(� .- SYSTEM D '�� h�ust 1'1f�ET Gig of RErtiro+� CH�iRDi ED�vR D ll" SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CEi??wE-C'.. - AID I! STAM�AQ�S FOR. UTilRiES b1CIfH io�S !SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CI:.::: -SE.:: ' 1C 1 '' APPROVED WATER PLAN RE .UiR y APPROVED SEWER PLAJ _ RE4uiq D v4 r Pi GtOVED FIRE HYMN: �:' YE5 � � BY FIRE DEN. C-`" (�`:']arms MAY BE kx ciet lam- 23-6'7 G2- ,w lv-2 3-89 jrdliPZ / - /3 7-6-89' 1 DATE 69 - Z 8 - rg SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: L4 4-; I r 1LQ C S DATE CIRCULATED: June 22 , 1989 COMMENTS DUE: July 6, 1989 ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) : N/A PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT TITLE: Medical Office Building #2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review to construct a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2 , 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of the Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Stree SITE AREA: Approximately 60, 000 SF BUILDING AREA: (gross) : 100, 000 SF IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS. PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth ° 2 . Air ° 3 . Water ° 4 . Plants ° 5. Animals ° 6. Energy & Natural Resources ° 7 . Environmental Health ° 8 . Land & Shoreline Use ° 9. Housing ° 10. Aesthetics ° 11. Light & Glare ° 12 .. Recreation ° 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation ° 14 . Transportation ° 15. Public Services ° 16. Utilities ° COMMENTS: �F(�IdiRE SEPARATE ME12HAW 4 5AI TA a, Sew - ?b LANs porz fyereNSiorJ Argo 'Re 1DG eieri a%4 FxisTi cal UT;r.,3 Cospmeit fi SsWecr-> /o sEvE S4S3ter Vum,06.. ?I LAHS u5'C i-t CAIN 0r 12E►sroty S-r .iOWDS rz ek-re ►ari Lt iO1I Y t*'IELa4fz5 . We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. - 2 S —g� Signature of Director or Au ized Representative Date Rev. 6/8 8 RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) . : N/A PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT TITLE: Office Building #2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review for construction of a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2 , 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Street. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: July 12 , 1989 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON July 6, 1989 . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: LV EL11 Y APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS XANOT APPROVED 6644.0r/Ase-- 64-rg- rut-1.( JAL ( Alit._ _A.4..J/4/6- DA7E;4d-64LLO? SIGNATU E OF DIRECTOR OR HORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 v .s RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMEN19 DeS-1131(YE(VP)CelOAT DATE CIRCULATED: June 22 , 1989 COMMENTS DUE: July 6, 1989 ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) : N/A PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT TITLE: Medical Office Building #2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review to construct a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2, 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of the Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Stree SITE AREA: Approximately 60, 000 SF BUILDING AREA: (gross) : 100, 000 SF IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth ° )4( ° 2 . Air ° ° ° 3 . Water ° ° ° ° 4 . Plants ° 0 5. Animals ° 6. Energy & Natural Resources ° 7 . Environmental Health ° 8 . Land & Shoreline Use ° ° ° 9. Housing ° 10. Aesthetics ° 11. Light & Glare ° 12 .. Recreation ° ° 0 ° ° 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation ° ° 14 . Transportation XC ° ° 15. Public Services 0 ° 16. Utilities 'I COMMENTS: Id0 --'6•161 . Liill.A.r`-( 4.1. 004A11--ii01-/ 1WV-..0‘/1/7 ,2=i, We have reviewed this. ppli ation with particular attention to those areas which we have experti a an have identified areas of probable impact or are ._.. - 44 r.c dditional inf ma is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signa ure of Director or Authorized Representative Date Rev. 6/88 . r , RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: S r- (V) (ii f 01 -1-e r DATE CIRCULATED: June 22 , 1989 COMMENTS DUE: July 6, 1989 ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) : N/A PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT TITLE: Medical Office Building #2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review to construct a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2, 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of the Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Stree SITE AREA: Approximately 60, 000 SF BUILDING AREA: (gross) : 100, 000 SF IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth 0 0 0 ° ° 0 2 . Air ° 3 . Water 0 0 0 0 4 . Plants ° ° ° ° 5. Animals ° ° ° ° 6. Energy & Natural Resources ° o ° ° 7 . Environmental Health ° ° - ° 8 . Land & Shoreline Use ° o 0 ° 9 . Housing ° o ° ° 10. Aesthetics ° o ° ° 11. Light & Glare ° o O ° 12 .. Recreation 0 ° o ° ° 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation ° ° o 0 ° 14 . Transportation ° o ° ° 15. Public Services 0 ° o ° O 16. Utilities 0 ° 0 00MMENTS: 1 ���� �,/�(.L�v lam' cScr✓4,: mars Loll b 134J/(Z( o yw 5-7,4)/'c,,Dcr/ wh-efUQ/1 /, _ vle? tie tief I r! P '1"--c /r1 d v4 o na.. e_ . /7 76-ty"1 /Ca1+c9( e1Ain I,L„11 CcN! ►e, t� n!, . �DJ'ov) L,� o ) can 1 , sI �'l�+� �'C'" �YoS:vn y' ,`a r ) dish''[g� .(9Uv' 4; ,J l;n�!i---G f.E-, I.. "s,--r , PLANNING DIVISION CITY.OF RENTON JUL 0 6 1989 ' L ECEWEA We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 4��2 5 ) 7 5/8P Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Dat _ Rev. 6/88t, Ai w RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) . : N/A PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT TITLE: Office Building #2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review for construction of a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2, 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Street. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: July 12, 1989 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE __. LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON July 6,_ 1989. REVIEW NG DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED {J(/ 72` 7) DATE 7/ rn SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 t R] . - ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ?ARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: RA \s S 4 R QGIrec( f ion t-; DATE CIRCULATED: June 22 , 1989 COMMENTS DUE: ,..July 6;,; 1989. ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) : N/A �i�)` JUN 2 7 ;:', 1989 PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center " R7 I !Ii i ; a %f' PROJECT TITLE: Medical Office Building #2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review to construct a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2, 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. / LOCATION: North end of the Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Stree SITE AREA: Approximately 60, 000 SF BUILDING AREA: (gross) : 100, 000 SF IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth ° ° ° ° 2 . Air ° ° ° ° 3 . Water ° ° ° ° 4. Plants ° ° ° ° ° 5. Animals ° ° ° ° 6. Energy & Natural Resources ° o ° ° 7. Environmental Health ° o ° ° 8. Land & Shoreline Use ° o ° ° 9 . Housing ° o ° ° 10. Aesthetics ° o ° ° 11. Light & Glare ° ° ° 12 .. Recreation 0 V ° o O ° 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation ° o ° ° 14 . Transportation ° o ° ° 15. Public Services ° 16. Utilities ° COMMENTS: 51+ Lizio L.--d 1 e d---e scut— .,. ,,-e..1:'-e.1,il t 4,-S IAN.-e bc.) L vl czt_e v Q �,.0 w�N.. — of ' 2 �LI 1 \M.ea C c 0,1_ Cs LA".` +r Lc,,,_ s // , yc - es f[ �+)-\,. 0-1- ..41'C . s 14 4 \o e We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Cp:44,t, t— Signatu of Director or Aut orized Representative D 1/4--C./.0 Rev. 6/88 ,f REr'_L---IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT D ►RTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) . : N/A �t r. :; -;J' PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center ,r�.. "tJN 2 7 :.dI 1989 ; if PROJECT TITLE: Office Building #2 E r; J q BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review r construction of a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2, 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Street. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: July 12, 1989 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON July 6, 1989. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED DATE SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: @u i I p1;h 9 DATE CIRCULATED: June 22, 1989 COMMENTS DUE: July 6, 1989 ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) : N/A PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT TITLE: Medical Office Building #2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review to construct a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2 , 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of the Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Stree SITE AREA: Approximately 60, 000 SF BUILDING AREA: (gross) : 100, 000 SF IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth ° ° ° ° ° 2 . Air ° ° ° ° 3 . Water ° ° ° ° 4 . Plants ° ° ° 5. Animals ° o ° ° 6. Energy & Natural Resources ° ° 7 . Environmental Health ° o ° ° 8 . Land & Shoreline Use ° 1 O i° ° 9 . Housing ° ° ° 10. Aesthetics ° o ° ° 11. Light & Glare ° o ° ° 12 .. Recreation ° ° ° 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation ° o ° ° 14 . Transportation ° o ° ° 15. Public Services ° o ° ° 16. Utilities ° COMMENTS: PIAIJNING DIVISION MANMAYAnnfiqww CITY OF RENTOw CITY JUN 23 ," � JUN v, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are where add' ' nal inform t' on is needed to properly assess this proposal_._, Signa of Directoe or Authorized Representative Date Rev. 6/88 RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) . : N/A PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT TITLE: Office Building #2. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review for construction of a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2 , 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Street. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: July 12, 1989 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON July 6, 1989 . gZ-D REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: r� APPROVED LK APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED O L BCA r L /' - DATE � 4j37 SIGNATURE OF DIREC OR AUTHORIZE REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 1 ()1\3 rct el ye P (a n n;n q DATE CIRCULATED: June 22 , 1989 COMMENTS DUE: July 6, 1989 ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) : N/A FL1;i,1\,,' .:i mai :,,;; J CITY OF RENTON PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center pi `� 0 , JUN 2 2 1989 "� PROJECT TITLE: Medical Office Building #2 s � BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental revidw to construct a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2, 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of the Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Stree SITE AREA: Approximately 60, 000 SF BUILDING AREA: (gross) : 100, 000 SF IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth ° 2 . Air ° ° ° ° 3 . Water ° y o o 4 . Plants 5. Animals u 6. Energy & Natural Resources ° 7 . Environmental Health ° o ° ° 8 . Land & Shoreline Use ° 9 . Housing ° ° 10. Aesthetics ° ° 11. Light & Glare ° ° 12 .. Recreation ° 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation ° ° ° 14 . Transportation ° ° ° 15. Public Services ° ° ° ° 16. Utilities ° COMMENTS: �,?47 1„ cC ,Q 2_ ,e,_ `", �r 7 --- __c/� ,oe-67- z, -_r,,,--,_,___Y ..._,,-..._-- ig,-,_. 2,-- ..-z-c-- ‘, .--1.,, ,‘c_____ ,,,..- ---z--e- ..-------c-- ----7-- ---4--",- --•e- . .,e2---.42--,4— , 9/0-7.---A,-..--s2.—, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those---areas which w ertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are wher additional i ormation i / eded to properly assess th' s proposal. /-- "1"-J ____-- b ,..-,270-- Signature of Director or Aut orized Representative Date Rev. /88 RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) . : N/A s:��.,��.:.`i, ' r'r PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center p(�' JUN 2 2 1989 PROJECT TITLE: Office Building #2 cs LS 1� Q nn j Li BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review for construction of a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2, 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Street. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: July 12, 1989 ENGINEERING DIVISION. TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON July 6, 1989. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED r d DATE SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUT ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 .f `-- T 1 RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 14. Nt ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET //;°' !piss, REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:Tra FE i'C r DATE CIRCULATED: June 22 , 1989 COMMENTS DUE: July 6, y`= � ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO (S) : N/A PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT TITLE: Medical Office Building #2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review to construct a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2 , 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of the Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Stree SITE AREA: Approximate ly 60, 000 SF BUILDING AREA: (gross) : 100, 000 SF IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION • IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth ° u/ ° ° o 0 ° 2 . Air ° L/ ° ° o 0 ° 3 . Water ° ° ° ° 4 . Plants ° ° ° o O ° 5. Animals 0 L/ ° • ° ° 6. Energy & Natural Resources 0 ✓� 0 0 7 . Environmental Health • �/ ° 8 . Land & Shoreline Use • ✓ ° ° 9 . Housing �` ° ° 10. Aesthetics 0 ° o ° ° 11. Light & Glare 4f 0 ° O ° ° 12 .. Recreation ° ° 0 O ' ° 0 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation / ° 14 . Transportation r/ ° 15 . Public Services a ✓ ° ° 16. Utilities °• 1 v 0 ° COMMENTS: ,_5-ie,es 7Ya cf,i-i-e €-I.,_,.÷ ' We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are where addi, iTpnal nf rmati4on.._i_g_neede to properly assess this proposal . q, Si na u�� o r -- - ,1...4��/� �gna r f Director` or A horized Represen tive ate �/ Rev. 6/88 ` coo RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT dip 4/7 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET,12„:; �,,ya ®� 9 ECF-063-89 APPLICATION NO(S) . :. N/A PROPONENT: Valley Medical Center PROJECT TITLE: Office Building #2 . BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks environmental review for construction of a five story medical office building containing an auditorium on the first floor (of approximately 2, 000 square feet) serving the hospital staff and the community. LOCATION: North end of Valley Medical Center site at 400 South 43 Street. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: July 12, 1989 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT ' OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON July 6. 1989. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 3:4144 C 1. 47/4j ezLc.r/j APPROVED ,APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED WI/ad-14 1-1•L'60-40%-* DATE c 2,1AMM9 SIGNATURE OF__DIRECM OR AU HORIZEb REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 July 18, 1989 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW VALLEY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING #2 Immediate Requirements: 1. Driveway #3 to be realigned with South 177th Street. 2,. Assessment for LID 329 (SW 43rd Street widening, Talbot Road South to SR-167 on/off ramps) . Rate $22.97 per trip generated. Trip rate per update traffic analysis for master site plan is 2,860 trips (submittal date 3/31/89) . • $22.97 x 2,860 = $65,694.20 Delayed Evaluations After 1995: 3: To insure safe access to and from the various driveways and roadway intersecting with Talbot Road South between South 43rd Street and South 177th Street, an evaluation for the need of a centerlane two-way left-turn facilities needs to be provided after 1995 when the bulk of the Valley Medical site expansion is generated. 4. Valley Medical Center expansion to insure the intersection of Talbot Road South and South 43rd Street maintains a service level of "E" or better through the expansion period. Re-evaluation to be provided after 1995. 5. Valley Medical Center expansion to insure the intersection of SR-167 ramps with South 43rd Street be maintained at a "D" or better. Intersection capacity analysis to be provided after 1995 when the bulk of the site expansion traffic has been generated. 4% CITY .. F RENTON 4% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Planning Division June 22, 1989 Monica Brennan Chief Operations Officer Valley Medical Center 400 South 43rd Street Renton, WA 98055 Re: Valley Medical Center, Office Building #2 File # ECF-063-89 Location: North end of the Valley Medical Center site at northwest corner of the intersection of South 43rd Street and Talbot Road South Dear Ms Brennan: The Community Development Department has formally accepted the above referenced application. It has been routed for departmental review and is tentatively scheduled for review by the Technical Advisory Committee on July 12, 1989. If you have any questions regarding the scheduling of this project, please contact Jeanette Samek-McKague of our office at 235-2550. Sincerely, 4111, 2 Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE/MBS:mjp cc: Todd Olson Mahlum & Nordfors 2505 Third Avenue, Suite 219 Seattle, WA 98121 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 Facsimile (206) 235-2513 b J ti OWNER: Valley Medical Center ADDRESS: 400 South 43rd Street Renton, Washington 98055 KING COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT' NUMBER: (312) 305-9002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION tAll that portion of the North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. lying northerly of the northerly margin of South 180th Street; westerly of the westerly margin of Springbrook Road (Talbot Hill Road) (96th Avenue South); easterly of Primary State Highway No. 5 (East Valley Freeway). Located on South 180th Street between Valley Freeway on the west and 96th Avenue South on the East. C 8570.01 C001.GL PLANNDivis ING �ITpN MAY 311989' VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR MASTER SITE PLAN Prepared for Mr. Romulo M. Almeda Director of Engineering VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER 400 South 43rd Street Renton, Washington 98055 Prepared by TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2101 - 112th Ave. N.E. , Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98004 March 29, 1989 PLANNING DIVISION CITY of RENTON MAY 3 1 1989 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2101 -112th AVENUE N.E.SUITE 110—BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004 VICTOR H BISHOP P E. TELEPHONE 455-5320—AREA CODE 206 President March 29, 1989 Mr. Romulo M. Almeda, P.E. Director of Engineering VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER 400 S. 43rd St. Renton, WA 98055 Re: Valley Medical Center Master Site Plan Traffic Analysis Dear Ome: • We are pleased to present the enclosed revised traffic analysis for .the Valley Medical Center Master Site Plan. This analysis revises the projected gross square footage planned per Table 3 , and incorporates the City' s review comments. The purpose of this report was to identify the potential impact the anticipated growth in traffic due to the construction of new facilities in the Master Site Plan and recommendations to mitigate that impact. To do this, traffic operating conditions were analyzed for existing conditions, 1995 and finally 2005, the horizon year of the Master Site Plan. As our analysis shows, the planned L. I.D. project for S. 43rd St. including a tunnel connecting the main campus to the south campus effectively miti- gates the planned expansion of facilities. Ome, it has been a pleasure to work with you and your staff on this study. If you have any questions or we can provide you further service in any way, please feel free to call me. Very truly yours, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. VV4'C ictor H. Bishop, P.E. , President VJG:mb Enclosure LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING DRIVEWAY VOLUMES 6 TABLE 2 HOSPITAL INPATIENT UTILIZATION PROJECTIONS 17 TABLE 3 EXISTING AND PROJECTED GROSS SQUARE FOOT AREA OF ALL FACILITIES 19 TABLE 4 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY 20 TABLE 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY 34 TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF PAST, CURRENT AND PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 40 FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP 2 FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN 4 FIGURE 3 1988 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 8 FIGURE 4 1988 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 9 FIGURE 5 EXISTING VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND DRIVEWAY UTILIZATION 10 FIGURE 6 1995 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT EXPANSION 12 FIGURE 7 1995 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT EXPANSION 13 FIGURE 8 2005 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT EXPANSION 14 FIGURE 9 2005 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT EXPANSION 15 FIGURE 10 1995 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER AM PEAK HOUR • GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES 25 LIST OF FIGURES (continued) FIGURE 11 1995 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PM PEAK HOUR GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES 26 FIGURE 12 2005 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER AM PEAK HOUR GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES 27 FIGURE 13 2005 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PM PEAK HOUR GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES 28 FIGURE 14 1995 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH EXPANSION 29 FIGURE 15 1995 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH EXPANSION 30 FIGURE 16 2005 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH EXPANSION 31 FIGURE 17 2005 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH EXPANSION 32 INTRODUCTION The Valley Medical Center is in the process of updating its Master Site Plan which will provide a construction program of required facilities to meet anticipated growth. The new plan was deemed necessary due to changing trends in the health care in- dustry and population increases in the surrounding area. These new trends basically consist of little growth in required in- patient services and substantial growth in outpatient services. Expansion of existing facilities will be required for additional and upgraded inpatient beds while a number of new facilities will be needed for expanded outpatient and other activities. This study will analyze the transportation impacts the new plan will have on site access, circulation and the adjacent street network. EXISTING CONDITIONS The Valley Medical Center located in the City of Renton as shown in the Figure 1 Vicinity Map, has recently acquired pro- perty south of S. 43rd St. for expansion purposes. This parcel, which is called the South Campus, has no structures although a portion of it is being used as a temporary parking area. Access to the Main Campus is by three driveways on Talbot Rd. and one driveway on S. 43rd Street. A fourth driveway on Talbot Rd. pro- 1 1 I • •'a n IOI q .`il\\� ,�, •••.'�"� .,,41 s• .I/{(r r. Ir SIII __.af i _ st ' 5 149110 .. it ioerr\ ss MM SI S!Mu'MUM R Oa 3 R •..r� rMl irtor I co •,:::•...z....-:, \ • , • rie . 1:oo :4 i ,- _i. • \ AP- _ �� 20 . . .. ,. . , ad . . . _ ;.R.: .• s. \� ,ter •� . 4— i r i —c. ..., 1— r o NCp T :> rr 1/111 -, 11, , ei: j j • im. Sir ..: �� il i : I. 3 . =0:6 •• EvwS ..\,....;isg" ST 11 "� E N F 0 N fir..n. gratl .: f.44,1Wattl.M..AS 'tler '1 4' p:' . . ..-,..t,t! _ /61t-i• Ia - ►Ma.. u. IS Ls.:o; 'r --r::::E -_.. - • i:e?is3f+J' —__J p,,� 22 SE'� -STRINDER KVD �. 1 +•- � �- .1F _ 13 a 14TSL MIST a �R wMNR •• 1 y R • ii ATV Sr , 4 i ft iI , � :� 11331(-Q, .�- 26b 25' PROJECT , ... - ' b — . ' SITE ��' ;. i R I 3 S Imo ST __ kurLER 'IL ' •�- i 1: }C • ' COMA CC 1 .,g, i ,l• s I71n1 st I-— -:, 'Jn ti •ialatit• , , �.�. I i ''� .4 I =I SE Wu tr +r - i ` F • ." •T -1 =CAI ILIA r •. I ;.ry' 1%1 ROl d SI _ u. SW < I %/• •'�3��' • 11frM ST a SE Mr R. 1n�rllsr i 186TH 7 : .�+ '� st rSsT sr o .1- f I asw, " `'0.°`f., It / 36 �� 31 • r �� 32 R` _Lam . _ 1 , + 3!1wTN ry ST II\ � . sr Q �. S >. -. I za _ /l a W I Q a ft --J- I �l 1 0 ■' \ N sr �' a u_._._ t ,i3 �' RS I3 •1LlQ. I SE 190M $t a, 'nSE Ms ST i 19 no f ,rr„ R; • �f) , ., SE 1,434,....1.. y a sr N I w rs�anEp I r�. of IL_ Ea • rrr '2 r frrl,R SI `STf•. 11 I ' ' '= 0 sr NM Apo Pia MTN S IT...4 �. y S7 1 o_ ' I c F I e A F! rI I _F._.. a=YI usT R >#l' • FIGURE 'VICINITY MAP 111]) . VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 1 . FOR MASTER SITE PLAN 9 vides secondary access to the Chin Hills building. This building is not a part of the Valley Medical Center ownership, but is in- cluded in this analysis because it is located within the boundaries of the Master Site Plan and the traffic flow is inter- mingled. Access to the South Campus parking area is by Davis Ave. S. and S. 45th Place. Figure 2 is a site plan showing the access points in relation to the existing Medical Center and the South Campus. A medical office building, parking garage and psychiatry wing are currently under construction at the center. The sur- rounding area has been developed with health and medical related facilities, most notably along the east side of Talbot Rd. opposite the Valley Medical Center. The area south of S. 43rd St. and east of the South Campus is developed with medical offices and the Good Neighbor Center. The area south of the South Campus is occupied by a multi-family residential develop- ment. South 43rd St. is a major arterial serving the Soos Creek sub-regional planning area providing an east-west corridor through the Green River valley. Because of the limited number of cross valley routes, S. 43rd St. has an Average Weekday Daily traffic (AWDT) of over 34,000 vehicles per day. Carr Rd. and Petrovitsky Rd. , which are extensions of S. 43rd St. to the east, have recently undergone major reconstruction and now consist of four to five lane roadway cross sections. 3 • . * PARKING GARAGE CHIN HILLS BLDG. BUI�D NG OFFICE b , tit". 1 " Y T t��� - DRIVEWAY f 4 ( i , . / VW' MAIN . g� cr •,•,r'••' 103 • 3 i . ,, ://:: ,. • J , * P5YCH IATRY I�6 :::-:,, rmy 05 , • 4'Atif:',.:::,-,•• afil •-,r) _J._ . /Z. • VALLEY MEDICAL Dili) CENTER ` ':::: WA1Y # ) , - S. 43Rp ST. ) ___ SOUTH CAMPUS 9• DRIVEWAY #5 Q' ( . 1. - ri ,. i . i 5. 45TH PL. -E UNDER CONSTRUCTION i FIGURE SITE PLAN in -N VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSISiiii 2 FOR MASTER SITE PLAN 4 A new interchange of S. 212th St. at SR 167 has helped. relieve some of the congestion on S. 43rd St. by providing addi- tional access to SR 167 and another east-west route. However, S. 43rd St. continues to carry a large number of vehicles passing through the area. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Traffic volume counts were taken at seven locations for the purpose of establishing a current baseline to which existing and future patient load, clinic activity and hospital space could be correlated. The counts were manually collected so that in addi- tion to entering and exiting driveway volumes, the turning move- ment volumes were also collected, thereby making "Level of Service" calculations possible. The manual counts were taken July 21, 1988 from 6:30 to 8:30 AM and from 3:00 to 6:00 PM at all seven locations to insure the AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions on the adjacent streets would be captured. Table 1 is a summary of driveway volumes counted on July 21, 1988 for all vehicles entering and exiting the Valley Medical Center. As ex- pected, in the 7:00 to 8:00 AM time period about 75% of the total number of vehicles are entering the driveways and 25% exiting. Conversely, in the 4:00 to 5:00 PM peak hour about 70% of the vehicles are exiting the driveways and 30% entering. The City of Renton provided AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts at the S. 43rd St./Talbot Rd. intersection col- lected on July 11 and 25 , 1988. The City also provided 24-hour 5 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING DRIVEWAY VOLUMES DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY *DAVIS ST #1 #2 #3 #4 S. 43RD ST PARK LOT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT AM 6:30 to 6:45 15 9 9 0 55 5 0 0 38 0 11 0 6:45 to 7:00 25 10 10 2 36 6 0 0 45 4 11 0 7:00 tc 7:15 17 14 7 3 17 5 0 0 30 5 11 0 7:15 to 7:30 24 21 1 5 13 1 0 0 24 4 11 0 7:30 to 7:45 24 14 7 6 9 2 0 0 25 5 11 0 7:45 to 8:00 25 15 9 1 22 0 0 0 21 4 11 0 8:00 to 8:15 27 17 9 1 20 4 0 0 16 4 11 0 8:15 to 8:70 35 20 19 7 25 3 0 2 23 6 11 0 DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY *DAVIS ST #1 #2 #3 #4 S. 43RD ST PARK LOT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT PM 3:00 to 3:15 17 21 7 19 17 37 5 3 5 16 0 6 3:15 to 3:30 28 29 7 16 28 37 6 4 7 11 0 6 3:30 to :45 17 42 8 16 12 52 5 1 7 27 0 6 3:45 to 4:06 20 22 11 13 22 34 5 1 14 19 0 7 4:00 to 4:15 24 30 5 27 12 29 2 4 15 18 0 6 4:15 to 4:30 23 21 1 23 10 31 6 3 5 13 0 7 4:30 to 4:45 19 15 7 25 12 28 2 4 6 26 0 7 4:45 to 5:00 16 22 1 23 3 23 3 3 13 10 0 7 5:00 to 5:15 18 16 2 22 7 31 2 1 4 10 0 8 5:15 to 5:30 17 15 1 17 4 31 1 4 6 9 0 7 5:30 to 5:45 28 18 3 19 1 19 0 3 7 10 0 7 5:45 to 6:00 37 14 8 16 7 17 0 1 6 9 0 7 TOTAL ALL DRIVEWAYS IN OUT TOTAL AM PEAK. HOUR 7:00 to 8:00 319 105 424 PM PEAK HOUR 4:00 to 5:00 185 405 590 DAILY (ESTIMATED) 3780 3780 7560 * THE DRIVEWAY VOLUMES ESTIMATED FOR THE DAVIS ST PARKING LOT ARE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES IN THE LOT BEFORE AND AFTER THE COUNT PERIOD 6 meter counts on Talbot Rd. both north and south of S. 43rd St. and on Carr Rd. east of Talbot Rd. The AWDT on Talbot Rd. north of S. 43rd St. is 6750 vehicles per day while south of S. 43rd St. the AWDT is 5510 vehicles per day. Carr Rd. east of Talbot Rd. is 31, 000 vehicles per day while S. 43rd St. west of Talbot Rd. is 34,000 vehicles per day. Figures 3 and 4 show the 1988 AM and PM peak hour turning movement traffic volumes at the access driveways and the adjacent streets. The traffic volumes shown have been balanced so that the totals between intersections are equal. Figure 5 shows the distribution of Valley Medical Center generated traffic to the adjacent street network and the percentage of traffic utilizing each driveway. FUTURE CONDITIONS Future traffic growth in the study area will be comprised of two identifiable components. The first component of growth will be in traffic travelling through the area on S. 43rd St. and Talbot Road S. that is not related to the Valley Medical Center. This component is called background traffic. The second compo- nent of growth will be in traffic generated by expansion of existing facilities and construction of new facilities at the Valley Medical Center' s main campus and south campus. This com- ponent of growth will increase traffic volumes on the access driveways, the internal circulation routes, and the adjacent street network. 7 . v Driveway #4 ) i S-1 � oC, xr t-,I h'l Driveway #3 ) t I, ' _20 1-'1 fit S. 177th St. 0-+ VALLEY ?--ik )tr FTh MEDICAL 1_' •r CENTER Driveway #2 ) T 3-' 1t r 12"'� car) a= r N U7 a7 K7 i cJ ,1 V Driveway #1 \ 5 '� t �s 3 6 1 ` N O 03 ti rr �_4 rLr1� �23 '.-501 j L �1640 j 1 �1150 1169 /`-i S. 43rd St. 32 �r1 6- 417--- 264--- I 2c°4 42-4‘ 'r 26 ui � N-iCil CO +f( T dCI m ) i CA ict r T a al a oa i k i 1 D S. 45th PI. ) + tr 55-- ) t -� mod, 1986 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ifiLq: tFIOURE • VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 3 FOR MASTER SITE PLAN 8 7 ._ . .\ M • LC] cDrrl • Driveway #4 #1'i 1 - 2al ) I w41 N VI Driveway #3 ol i k '24 31_ 8 S. 177th St. 1— VALLEY 's--4' 'i t r • InMOQ MEDICAL " CENTER Driveway #2 ) i N 18171 � ! r ' in Driveway\ . 1 ) 1 , \ C` 14-w t 3 74—� y � a r ) c� c� _ W WO �10 T-i T' vi_...83 308 ♦--718 / k -7":?" S. 43rd St. / 1 k /`-547 339 1355—.-/r li r 1675-- )) r 1299--� I t r r~N 103- t0 rr ° Ul `��5� 0�0 N r ! Q)o 0 4) f I1 Z -id Ir 3 X f� 24'� c t- an a C] O wj R..iz 4 t— T l � 2D S. 45th PI. 11 1.74—°° � ) t ¢( �0 • to 1988 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES IFIGURE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 1 4 FOR MASTER SITE PLAN } 9 i r. a, b14_ V CO M's.• if/ a • c, .. ./ ..,:i., ik-------- 0: IN, \ CI.•!§. :.i!i.i: ::.07, 10% :; . r_ . 1-' .-r t. . .:,1:14..:::j74f .__1.;- ' (Iiilb . I I 1-r--....:„...,,.___:' ,.. .,____ .L.:1 7- - CD __-- 5. 43RD ST. 4a-► 34/ Zoe �--► PR OP05ED 1 16 • TUNNEL 22i . ' %. v11-9/4 ../ 00 ft 10% j : 1g J ri j S. 45T1-1 PL.,, .. i . /' .. H1 IIII ' / 1 (-EXISTING VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION FIGURE AND DRIVEWAY UTILIZATION ``ALLEY MEDICAL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 5 FOR MASTER SITE FLAN io Traffic volumes projected to 1995 and 2005 based on the Master Site Plan will be analyzed to provide a comprehensive view of future traffic operating conditions, identify problems and to recommend mitigating improvements. Background Traffic Growth The ADT on S. 43rd St. west of Talbot Rd. grew from 31,323 vehicles per day in 1982 to 33,650 vehicles per day in 1987 rep- resenting a 1.5 percent per year growth rate. It should be noted that both SR 515 and the 212th St. interchange at SR 167 opened between 1982 and 1987 which may account for the modest growth rate on S. 43rd St. during this time period. The PM Peak hour for the same road section increased from 2378 vehicles per hour in 1982 to 2653 vehicles per hour in 1988, an increase of 1.9 percent per year. The Soos Creek Community Plan Area 1986 Annual Growth Report by King County projects a 4.2 percent per year pop- ulation growth rate from 1990 to 2000. Historically, the popula- tion has grown at a 3% per year rate from 1980 to 1987. Also, the Historical Traffic Counts 1977-1987 by King County shows a 3 .3 percent per year increase in the ADT on Carr Road west of SR 515. For the purpose of this study, it seems reasonable to as- sume a 3 percent per year annual growth rate for background traf- fic travelling through the study area when considering the afore- mentioned various sources and differing rates. Figures 6 through 9 show the AM and PM peak hour volumes for 1995 and 2005 with a 3 percent per year background traffic growth but without any Valley Medical Center expansion. 11 I cA3 0 NI Drivewa, ;4 + °� It0� N N Drivewa - r 3 ) i lk 24 1-1 72 S. 177th St. 0--� . VALLEY 7--k )tr MEDICAL "'" -(N CENTER Driveway #2 ) i 3—e Ntt 4.0 12—r rco- in c N 4J N N \ a Drivewa #1 ti w 4—.4,tsari coin ti u N 7 rr �4 C'IcOTr '23 .4-1405 ;2 75 S. 43rd St. r T `' 1194 369— � I 490 c%cI cri319--• iIf (/rf aal 42— o" 31—r Q' Q' 7 T '^ T Cs 1J c V 7 N , • I i r Cli ) 1 2d � t O It T^ o O( O � IM tr h- T 10 S. 45th PI. 55—ofa-44 I I r12) CDN I 1995 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES -,ij t, \ FIGURE WITHOUT EXPANSION II V VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 6 FOR MASTER SITE PLAN } 12 ' N Driveway #4 '')(ii i2 i i i•. + II' Driveway #3 ) t L 29 0 31. 10 S. 177th St. VALLEY 79-68 ) tr rn�a . M EDI CAL u, "Mr C E N TER Driveway #2 to 17� � � r 81' al Ct CO cn rn \ ._ ,-T-cc a Driveway #1 ) i .. , \ °3 14 Nit • . I r) T ea'T ev , cc000 s_10 N�c' '94 \ N.—.380 ) k•—888 ,r—1520Q S. 43rd St. sir-651 , 623�. I 2010� I 1570 t r'' 1 B23-� 8� 125—* IN N 24$� ��a a Cn I car v . . / ) 1 CI 't (A 3� I + Ct f 24'�► CIc��n a ?01 F I �...Q N t L 20 S. 45th PI. t ( 67-r It 14N Q 01 r-- IN.) i 1995 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE WITHOUT EXPANSION VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 'ill 7 FOR MASTER SITE PLAN .J 13 1 0 cn c]NI 1 Driveway ;4 ' 0-1 I t 4+ co, N in cI IN' ' Drivewa. ;3 i I, 30 +-15 - 85 S. 177th St. VALLEY ?-"Nk ) t r MEDICAL Tr CO N C E N TE R Driveway #2 1 ; r. 31 t `'' 12 /�I^f' • Q U] - M . • d'� N N 'U. l g Driveway -1 \ :IN • 56 'i t s� >! c 1 IM , \ a 1I t- �4 c'i NIL-23 • t1 1 7 / 2455 S. 43rd St. f V 11 4 3 430---/ 1 1 594 I I 398--•- � t �+ 0 42� i `�� 39-'' cor•. , , / f��1 UI �QON O 0 • M? d / °—— ) t X • / % -j r' 0 0 5 r r • aI 1 N-10 cv� i r 10 S. 45th Pl. ) ; 5a.-' I I CV VI O • 7- 2005 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1. fij \ FIGURE WITHOUT EXPANSION VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 8 FOR MASTER SITE PLAN ` • - 14 . __ ..-\ r i CD iii Driveway #4 ) t 2-1 1t 12' r<r1 C in N ��� Driveway #3 ) 1 k 36 31_ A-1 2 S. 177th St. 1- VALLEY 79-* ) t r M M N ��� EC�! SAL "w� min CENTER Driveway #2 ) i N 17.1 ) t i° 81� a= ui co ca Driveway #1 ) 1 t NI t >. 14--/ _ t \ ° 74--r t 0 `t t e-p°.� coo _10 c h-c 40,_109 v-455 / 6459 V � 87^ +-1068 . S. 43rd St. r /`-501-4e / 4 29_0' 1, i 231_, 2006--• ) 2490---- I I 1957--- ' - I I / !ll 156-Nk o coa 310-ti sv h.,cv CA N (jj CV CO PI i o, v 4/'U ' 3-e � t 24�` a o LoZNI4 ,a _ o N In I-- 1 l 20 S. 45th PI. ' t t f 99- � I Tr - ;r I f 2005 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE WITHOUT EXPANSION VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 11 9 FOR MASTER SITE PLAN 15 In the 1982 Traffic Circulation Study of the Valley Medical Center prepared by Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc. the driveway volumes for the PM peak hour of 4:00 to 5 :00 PM rep- resented 7. 8 percent of the total volume of 5, 800 vehicles per day entering and exiting the main campus. Assuming that today' s traffic is similarly distributed over the course of a day as it was in 1982, the estimated total volume entering and exiting all driveways is now 7560 vehicles per day. Valley Medical Center Generated Traffic Growth The Valley Medical Center is currently undergoing an expan- sion with the construction of a 93,000 square foot Medical Office Building, a 303 stall parking garage and a psychiatry wing. All of these facilities are located on the main campus. The Medical Office Building and parking garage are estimated to be occupied by the spring of 1989 and the psychiatry wing by January 1990. The Master Site Plan has estimated the future utilization of existing services provided by the Valley Medical Center to 1995 and 2005 through a process of examining population projections in the service area and applying the latest trends in health care. Table 2 is a summary of utilization projections for existing in- patient services offered by the hospital. The number of patient days for all acute care or inpatient services is projected to increase 6.1 percent by 1995 and 15 percent by 2005. A patient day is defined as one patient hospitalized one day. 16 TABLE 2 HOSPITAL INPATIENT UTILIZATION PROJECTIONS CATAGORY UNITS 1986 1988 1995 2005 MEDICAL/SURGICAL PATIENT DAYS 50891 57287 55687 54884 4. 5% _ . 0% PEDIATRIC PATIENT DAYS 2276 7094 7911 6449 26. 4% 108. 57.. ICU/CCU PATIENT DAYS 7488 7686 7884 4859 5. 4% 71 . 8% PSYCHIATRIC PATIENT DAYS 8492 9284 10076 17576 8. 5% 46.2% TOTAL PATIENT DAYS 65147 69.=51 77554 79768 6. 1% 15. 0% NOTE: PERCENTAGES SHOWN REFLECT INCREASE FROM 1988 LEVELS 17 Historically, since 1980 the utilization rate for inpatient ser- vices has actually been declining while outpatient services have been increasing at Valley Medical Center. In addition to the anticipated expansion of existing facilities, several new facilities will be constructed on both the main campus and south campus. These facilities include addi- tional medical office buildings, a day care center, an education and conference center, a chemical dependency facility, an adult care facility and an outpatient surgery facility. Table 3 shows the gross square foot area of existing facilities, projected increases in these facilities and the area of additional facilities that will be required in accordance with the Master Site Plan. The total area of all existing and new facilities are projected to increase from 440,272 square feet to 875,542 square feet in 2005. Trip Generation Table 4 is a summary of all traffic volumes currently generated by existing facilities and future volumes that will be generated by the expansion of existing facilities and construc- tion of new facilities on both the main campus and south campus of the Valley Medical Center. The existing driveway volumes were separated into two categories, namely those trips generated by the Valley Medical Center and those trips generated by the Chin Hills Building. Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation 18 TABLE 3 EXISTING & PROJECTED GROSS SQUARE FOOT AREA OF ALL FACILITIES DESCRIPTION EXISTING 1995 2005 INPATIENT SERVICE 143823 170215 207919 ANCILLARYSERVICE 135381 155928 185280 ADMIN. & SUPPORT 121068 133328 150843 SUB-TOTAL 400272 4.59471 544042 II . CONSTUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES A. MAIN CAMPUS DESCRIPTION EXISTING 1995 2005 CHIN HILLS BLDG 40000 40000 40000 MEDICAL OFFICE BLDG #1 - 93000 93000 MEDICAL OFFICE BLDG #2 - 93000 93000 EDUCATION &: CONF. CTR - 8000 8000 CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY 40 BEDS - - 24000 OUTPATIENT SURGERY - - 10000 SUB-TOTAL 40000 234000 268000 B. SOUTH CAMPUS DESCRIPTION EXISTING 1995 2005 MEDICAL OFFICE BLDG - 30000 36000 DAYCARE CENTER/MEDIC ONE - 2500 2500 CREDIT UNION 1000 1000 ADULT CARE - 24000 24000 SUB-TOTAL 0 57500 63500 GRAND TOTAL 440272 750971 875542 19 i1 TABLE 4 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY I. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1988 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNITS : ADT : AM PEAK HOUR : PM PEAK HOUR : TOTAL ENTER EXIT : TOTAL -ENTER EXIT HOSPITAL 400272 SF : 6330 : 365 286 79 : 460 150 310 CHIN HILLS BLDG 40000 SF . 1230 : 59 33 26 : 130 35 95 TOTAL GENERATED TRIPS 1988 : 7560 : 424 319 105 : 590 185 405 II. PROJECTED CONDITIONS 1995 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNITS : AD! : AM PEAK HOUR : PM PEAK HOUR : TOTAL ENTER EXIT : TOTAL ENTER EXIT A. MAIN CAMPUS EXPANSION OF EXISTING 459471 SF : 6716 : 387 303 84 : 488 159 329 HOSPITAL CHIN HILLS BLDG 40000 SF : 1230 : 59 33 26 : 130- 35 95 NEW FACILITIES MED OFFICE BLDG #1 93000 SF : 2860 : 137 77 60 : 303 82 221 MED OFFICE BLDG 12 93000 SF : 2860 : 137 77 60 : 303 82 221 EDUCATION & CONF CTR 100 STUDENTS : 108 : 13 10 3 : 8 3 5 SUBTOTAL MAIN CAMPUS : 13774 : 733 500 233 : 1232 361 871 B. SOUTH CAMPUS MEDICAL OFFICE BLDG 30000 SF 922 : 44 25 19 : 98 26 72 DAYCARE CENTER 2500 SF 168 : 28 15 13 : 30 14 16 CREDIT UNION 1000 SF 31 : 1 1 0 : 5 3 2 ADULT CARE 24000 SF 738 : 35 20 15 : 78 21 57 SUBTOTAL SOUTH CAMPUS 1859 : 108 61 47 : 211 64 147 ESTIMATED TUNNEL VOL BETWEEN CAMPUSES : 188 : 22 5 17 : 35 22 13 SUBTOTAL SOUTH CAMPUS STREET VOL : 1671 : 86 56 30 : 176 42 134 TOTAL GENERATED TRIPS 1995 : 15445 : 819 556 263 : 1408 403 1005 20 TABLE 4 (continued) III. PROJECTED CONDITIONS 2005 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNITS : ADT : AM PEAK HOUR : PM PEAK HOUR : TOTAL ENTER EXIT : TOTAL ENTER- EXIT A. MAIN CAMPUS EXPANSION OF EXISTING 544042 SF : 7280 : 420 329 91 : 529 173 356 HOSPITAL CHIN HILLS BLDG 40000 SF : 1230 : 59 33 26 : 130 35 95 NEW FACILITIES • MED OFFICE BLDG 11 93000 SF : 2860 : 137 77 60 : 303 82 221 MED OFFICE BLDG 12 93000 SF : 2860 : 137 77 60 : 303 82 221 EDUCATION & CONF CTR . 100 STUDENTS : 108 : 13 10 3 : 8 3 5 CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY 24000 SF 400 : 29 21 8 : 38 14 24 OUTPATIENT SURGERY 10000 SF 238 : 11 6 5 : 25 10 15 SUBTOTAL MAIN CAMPUS : 14976 : 806 553 253 : 1336 399 937 B. SOUTH CAMPUS • MEDICAL OFFICE BLDG 36000 SF : 1107 : 53 30 23 : 117 32 85 DAYCARE CENTER 2500 SF 168 : 28 15 13 : 30 14 16 CREDIT UNION 1000 SF 31 : 1 1 0 : 5 3 2 ADULT CARE 24000 SF 738 : 35 20 15 : 76 21 57 SUBTOTAL SOUTH CAMPUS : 2044 : 117 66 51 : 230 70 160 ESTIMATED TUNNEL VOL BETWEEN CAMPUSES : 207 : 22 5 17 : 37 22 15 SUBTOTAL SOUTH CAMPUS STREET VOL : 1837 : 95 61 34 : 193 48 145 • TOTAL GENERATED TRIPS 2005 : 16813 : 901 614 287 : 1529 447 1082 21 Engineers, ITE yip Generation, 4th EditiL,.., 1987, for the Medical Office Building (land use code 720 ) were used to estimate the number of trips generated by the Chin Hills Building. These volumes were subtracted from the total driveway volumes that were manually counted to arrive at the volumes generated by the ex- isting Valley Medical Center. 1995 traffic generated volumes were calculated by adding the trips that will be generated by the expansion of the existing hospital plus the trips generated by the Chin Hills Building, plus the trips that will be generated by the construction of new facilities. The trips generated by the expansion of the hospital are estimated to increase by 6.1 percent by 1995 based on the projected increase in patient days from the Master Site Plan. The proposed psychiatry wing is included in this expansion. Two medical office buildings are scheduled for construction (the first scheduled for occupancy in the Spring of 1989) on the main campus before 1995. The south campus also has several new facil- ities scheduled for construction including a medical office building (30,000 square feet) , day care center, credit union and an adult care facility. ITE trip generation rates were used to estimate the additional amount of traffic the new facilities will generate on both the main campus and south campus. A 10% reduc- tion was applied to the ITE trip rates to account for the higher than normal proportion of pedestrian trips due to the proximity of the new facilities to each other and the existing hospital. 22 e By 1995 it-is estimated traffic generated by the Valley Medical Center' s main and south campus will increase from the existing 7560 vehicles per day to 15445 vehicles per day with an AM peak hour increasing from 424 to 819 vehicles per hour and a PM peak hour increasing from 590 to 1408 vehicles per hour. For 2005, the only additional trips generated by the main campus over and above those estimated for 1995 would be due to the additional expansion of the existing hospital, including the Chemical Dependency and the outpatient surgery facilities. From the Master Site Plan, a 15% growth in patient days and related trips is projected over current levels by 2005.. On the south campus, an additional 6000 square feet of medical office space is scheduled for construction by 2005. The Valley Medical Center is estimated to generate 16, 813 vehicles per day with an AM peak hour of 901 vehicles per hour and a PM peak hour of 1529 vehicles per hour. Trip Distribution and Assignment It is assumed that trips generated by new or expanded facil- ities will follow the general distribution patterns of existing traffic arriving and departing from the Valley Medical Center as previously shown in Figure 5. Several other factors were consid- ered in the assignment of generated traffic to specific access driveways and streets. These factors include the campus each facility will be located on, the proximity of driveways to the specific building site and the assumption that a tunnel connect- 23 ing the main and south campus will be constructed. (A detailed discussion of this tunnel and the on-going Local Improvement District (L. I.D. ) project for S. 43rd Street is included in a forthcoming section of this report. ) Figures 10 and 11 show how the 1995 AM and PM peak hour of Valley Medical Center generated traffic volumes are assigned to the adjacent streets and driveways. Figures 12 and 13 respec- tively show the same data for 2005. 1995 and 2005 Traffic Projections Traffic volumes for 1995 and 2005 were estimated by combin- ing the background traffic growth with the additional traffic generated by the expansion of facilities on both the main and south campus of the Valley Medical Center. To achieve a "worst case" condition several assumptions were made such as no increase in percentage of transit ridership, no increase in vehicle occupancy rates, no diversion of background traffic to other planned cross valley routes and adequate on-site parking. For traffic studies the simulation of a worst case scenario is desir- able so that potential problems are not overlooked. Figures 14, 15, 16 and 17 show the 1995 and 2005 AM and PM peak hour project- ed traffic volumes using these worst case assumptions. 24 . 1.., `4 •f_: _ :SF?. 1l-ir j rr • 1 Ti: 'Sig--� I I 41: - 1J ..- 1 -.. t • _ 1 r • 1 1 r..� C.1 •I - '_ �: J• •- Ill �_:- [Ti --1 r_j .1? - C_, :--- r�. . I_-ti 1.,-t r C..' r I1 ,,., FYI `--1 r— r JJ 4';ti I 1 �� - I-4 ___I T> -tl r�. I)-_-..,. if `h_.0 24-._..0 �.� 1r 1 ;:i LI f'1 1 '.- fT1 1 -+1/4 I 0— •" }- ... -J{,�1 { -T • . Il <'nn [)G vls F-Z-t. — {__j .� .Av..... S. Ca CI "#1 t J k 1 F -.1 -: � r•a _rr 3 c.,cD n.M 6 7 n:t Qr] _.J f G �.__1 t5 O Jil 5j t i 11 1 -t# i - -- �3 »--11 t) .,r--0l , k •'.--B 2 rya - - — - 3 0 -F- I I l 31)-- 9 0--•- 72--••.. 34--• I II I 1— toof al na�t I "fir r [7 rl ._.J rn "-' cl _1� di. • • . . . . . . . . . • - . . . . . . . . , 1---- --'\ (- .._. ,______....... --„-........_ --I . .,. --.....„. ...A(....) ... R 167 't :-•':::. -.----. ..---------- .:r, ------'--- k - ----.....------ _-- ::::; i•-• ......„ _.....__.. r..-- ,....ci -............._ .........- :---, ".? .:t•. rri .....ci .- ::-i•J --1 - (11 t) 4f t r ' :ii: ' 41--N 4:.•CV • -1, , ..... r--) :.:. Go t Ci ) i ..i:•-• (Di ,..::... .....-.....::-1... f,.. 2...r,6_, 5.., ...: ;Fr 1.--) tr ;-: rri 1 c:i •___;,. I-9 -0 • ---I ... ____---- ----r 1..;.8.--i ,,k t i.i.i. -T1 1:: •,-- __,.... (7_ is .„- 35--4., I . I 1.---.)7: i. :I .1...”. ill 1 , 7,.? __. C:J .:-.:'- <.... . ‹,i --, --. .._..4 0.11 •--. NJ (:) 7-"•=" rr I --I ;IT; 7 IT1 Fri :ir, r•-1 ;r.,•• -_ --.- rI if 1 Fri 1:,•• ex) '-1.111 -1 ...;t1 —I i--- a)co Cr. --F•-P. 4-%-4.7..> 1 i `96—2.53 / -i i•: .) -- •-i 3:-... ...-.1 -6-.0-?oil NI -•-•‘----.- --..---- -.." in fr,..,. Fri p..) 71.:1 --1-1 i'-ii Driveway #.9 I iT) r_ ---,..„ ,..; to :- Ti , I. Pi --I -ri 0 ----1 . 4 E _ 0--e- NI rf 19.__Te 9 JrTI -ri Fr j Ca—41/4 (I--lb- Ave. S. ...._ 03-'• --L C.ati rn Davis ID - .....1 ..:....: r-- - r_..0 13r -- --- ' 7;.:". • :..-,... e :_r> --1 .2_ ---, Il 1.___ .:.... . • " -_-- i--)) . 0 • 0 C.) CI -1 () bpi Fil -1 3:. 41. 4.. --. <:: 0 .:::: -• ,., CP÷ ..i(-.1 .- a ...., in ,a .,,....... .1 • Le.: l< ......,:: -r- V (.1) 0 - 5 zi-N4 h ...... .. ':-. . .. L 4,, f-- __. -.2. --e - '3 a) - A 4- 0 0 Ps 1 (4:::22 011 • or,' 2 44 : o.. 20 11 I - 65 (11 P1 -4---31 . ) '' 173 fr 11/4 -.-203 ) kA - 0 ) ,.3....Ar Talbot Rd. S. 21--.-- 31---1”.'7--.7 Ir 74._) .# 21._ BO-.- _Ar 101-.- 32_._, t i 1 7_.#I 96--.- III 1 22--..- • =.,, 9-41/4 4.3--A co —czni -h.) 0 N k7/•-...t)0 i1/4...... •.%---/---,'.,../ C) -7-i ---- •mil C.? .--1 ci ZIOINN. n.. P1 n _ illik 4.. 61 :4- a . . i -.0 •• • - • . . . . . . ._ . ...... . ._ . , . . .. . - ••.• - , . ,......„. ...... ., - .-, - - -, • . . - , • . . . ..• -------,, - .i .,....--------- 'r-f:..-;R in -___ •!c..(-) ..------- ------..., •,:::. ---.''.--.-.----- .___..._...,-. .. 1,..:. .1:.... ...E:, _................-- 111 I-- V-) ....„...........,...------ T.-I I --I ..- .CI! ...•.1 3. .._-.1 f-r1 e:•...) "'I..° t ie r•-.....o. I. .i_•:. 1..-.;1—41/4 1.0-I:- C-) -..-'t•-.1 ) i -II i,- --i .:..-.:: :.r• 11...9:•.,-- ._ I ) II 4-1) I-I-1 .5.*:,-• ..,-. () 1_._ c.....1 -I -. .7:1 — ___--- _. ._......._...._ -• . 7----1 1 (0 r 1.1I k: '..1 .....„ r-r-i 1:."..= i /1- 11--A. I i'll'-11:1 1:11-<:::_..T.:1 IF:.--ii---___:.117.--; --ri ...t.,- ;--,...; .....< t f) il r-,---, r.I Fr:. 03 ---1 1.,.....) I-- L...,...; i il -1 . 71:1 .__ :,-•••-• -....-,• / (..-.0 •---I ... ) .....› m .7.:-,• Ill --J rj-1 i --7, 17-) . __ - ---:•---- •:7. 1-- .r-- _..1 r7) .-.-) (. -..1 i_f) FT! '-c.,- —id r•-•-•-• ---.1.:_...1 Ni_._.7:-) ./. 1:y., r..-.11 rn ---1 7T1 --I l'-- ---.1(":) ,.. 1%),.::.. „ Fri 1_12: ____< - r_,1•1 -1 -,..—.0 I I Nk....,4...Z 1 1 1.—.t....-.; r TI :71j ----I :-_E-7, CI •4r- 0 ' k } k --6—....5...ti 1..:Ir rvewe._151 #.3 ' -- -. • r A -.71:1 -9 M •- - t ( i --_,-- 0—4- r 28___Ar 24...._.e 6--44 • ra r11 --I -11 I . —I 0..-‘. NI 0--..- ie.---11...- f 0'-.I •-• ;:t1 ".:1 to DO ViS (.0 .._i CO ) :.:::. A Ve. S. F--- --z. 1--- ...r.- :r' :;i-- 7 7 C: - .:i) . CI -1 -1 . .7:4 71> 01 .1) ,: ) (oi 1 TI -II- C./ ---1 .L--- Ui di --1 -,-_-_• r.1 CA CI e-ft- CIL '77... U.. C? .....: ..< ..,.:: 15,... -,,•• .--I-- It:: IQ 4"...4 •f, i-- '-' __.,___. •----1 4,-- %...... .._‘ -.. :I) (--,(.-..ir(.c.1 Nk.....71 41.11 Itil Kil.03 (A CI CD No.......20 <3 ro (ri •,_25 1 ,.._54 1 N..._1 .4 I •‘.__.4 <Li ) L --.--13 ) L - ---25 ,w--51 ) k -.4--!_)8 ) k --.----121 ) k ......:-_i-lii ) .,. -.---91 To 11x:A Rd. F..;.. 108_4, 7 9 4110. 4C1._...." k i i 12_._.#. ----._----- 34--- --•• 3413----#-.-- ) I ,.1,,,le 99—..- go._..- 39- --e- III 7-..,,,, ..-...__., d., Ci-...k ."---.C> .... ..=.s... =...".." • 1,.. 4"-T-7" / D. ".-. (..9 . (7) ...+. -1] --.. .....1 C.) -7'7.Billes"— ~11. 0 '•-•1 ro C . O r-1- -5" C 71 --11 \`,... ...•••• \`•- • r-•- I • ....1r) afti 1 ) if! ...I . 'tx I'1 ' 1- Iv.':1 _ -_._. --------..____---- , .a. 1.5._..0 p...1 ( r I :71 '� -''t I I at-I'.l ..., (. 1 - ii ' 'i 1{it # T ..' �'r' ;jl pi I a- {'' __ { i rl fi1 _I:ce) i` .E. .::x) Imo.. . 1 h•.1 -fi _.1 rI I -.+. I i;' - 1 j C.) .`-.1 [Tl S r, —. j. •:J Irl I.I __.I •:1 _ ir--11 OA L .----•4; .1 L �*--b Dri ,...stay #5 .1�1 _I> -�, il �, .I :rl - 1f�11 `i —1 -1 ,I 0_i Nt f 2�` 5 _sr 1 ( u i Ill frl �l I Tl r) _t ( 117 (.•aP 'til 3 '� Ic ......1. C. - r:. 11 P,1 cn 1. ..__. �.t1 1 :D IJ cl 1,_'• f 0 CAA C+1 ..�{j �-[T, ---24 ,1 t O` 1 *`3 } .187 i . -+--311 / b. 213 / 1 \ ;--7j1 1 t » 9 - Talbot Rd. S. 1_� 4 82_ 3_s --- S s ---- — ------------- 24-_." 34—.- I - r� k / �9--+-- 110--+- 193 1 1 131 1 O �r.)cA . 0—\ ui �:.. __..-- 0_ ' F • RI (a) [i ?1 r, } f _ "�—•-- r �� 61:1 ..-} (,. 2.94 I I [•::e (rl (11 - i i J`_t_`� -1 1 1., COr 0:1 _.. t �n Ai 1 :.•I _. ITl / M ril :1-_•,-,. , El -1 �;; 1,.......t.. _ f— ,: U.S[Tl I.. 't+7 x 1.1 CO ,�_ a.:� E`/ m (~� T _Tl .r1 r.r.l <71 r,_p rii (y..Va _� _-_- • .1-3 --1 -_ri '_u -26 .. � �--21 i i ..•--..._t}u Driveway #-5 \ 7J j - f,. t r ..:. _ • '1 —I 1 rT---+- •-41_r!-- -- 40_! —I -T1 (r .:77 (. 11--+- 6--.-•.. 0 LA Ill -11 Ff�\ p.� _ —• . t� Da tv I;,. Si . - I {17 Si") n .J-. j --I ( ;Jl (Al {D 01 J s ':: 1 1 � #� `# F _ <A-- _ _.� Ta It}«t Rd. S. �i 7 # # ;7__s ;3�i_� 45 10_._AI —- _.._..._ 487---F'- 164—+- III 297---•- 279—'- 236 U I '25?1—'- - �� h)—•01 5_`� Gi �p.s L.1��l al GA. . tl ,+ C 7.1 inamG. --1 (Al c, .I 4 (.._ 3 0 11. ?1 Qi I'1 IA ... . .. .. ..... .... .. . - .. ._. -• .... • . ... . . . . . . . . . • . , . • ._ • - - • - . • .. .. ....., . .• ---4 -I,- •.‘ ( ......_ -J. ..77.1 i ol ..........--- [.-P, .1 i--..i.:7 - ..... .... ,,._. ..... - • --•_............. .....-- -•:, ............... 14, . ... . .. • .__.----- :i.:.• ------ ------_,..............----- ......... I.• I - .3t3 0---1 i i (....5•;.1...i' ( Fri I I I i ...:.- • --. :..1•:.....1 i.I i 4::11 -, - - ... 1 ----- 0 -- ._.... • 1.:1 - __, ........... <.--.1 ..._.,... .... C.: :E 71 .../ . ..t.:- — (1.) / — 7.7•;:- . f ill :.:0 ._.... r-T 1 . 11:--.1-1 11-TH:-.--1 :-,-.-:• _ ,.... r1 ..:.!!:: ..1::- .., ---•-7 r---,1 ;____ __ ...___ rs..)4c) Iir I> ---1 :.r. __,... rs),::-.) 1 --1 Li) ril _I.. 0.11 03 a: I L-.25,1. 111 . I-T1 -t.•-r-,- (..c..‹.-.) 1 :1:-:.. -I 71-.1 r•ri ,-..-_-.) -,-63 1 1 '...._.44 1 1 N_1 44+ 4 ----------------------A----* rwivevay #...r; 1, --.1-J ::ati -6-...71 ..x—-i-rof N •*--1731 \ --s.--1 4F...1 - 1 ...•••0 •-r:-... , 1 ( • (...f.i -•:i.:, -.-_,,. . -i ,,-,:,, Nii ( 1 _Ar 50___dr :AA ..,,:,-,—,,, 1 r ,,....—•••• 3fi'l---4- FT1 -n --:-.-• •-c.,.. 4-........ , • t.i•-, Da Vif.i: r...1 -1 rt) (..-I • -T3 • - Z._ --ri Ave. S. ..--..! (.0 1—.1Z .-......• k:-1 "-,- ?-:. 0 0 .. i--') ---, ---. --- ...:.:::: -I .;-:.. < •-,-.: ...1:,••• (3 -0.- — ,.••• a 4ti. 41. r•:-) r-- -t- •:-.1 Cii . ':...!--, -•:.E.:-. ip ci --i .::-... al .-.- . ---. ci LL :-•-•:- ....:. 1-T1 -I) ..-I-- .:_.4 --4- ',4t-.: ..7:1 ...._ V) -- --, •.:1 .......t•••){.71-A ...... • • —. —I. f--" --t•• • •-r-..4)oci •••-•.1-V-- 0 r) -t-- t...i i..4.....,. , •--e., •. _.4..., 0', --.• cr.(A C13 Nik 37:5 (31 1%3 (..m•-•-•1 (..0 11.>r..1 N.....21 e...4___!. ‘c-- .b ) i i ----.171 ) L .—20 N........1 1 ) 1 I -.---.1-41f... I I '''' 678 ) k -.--51):3 11/4 iv--10 (171 fr 1tt •-.--.1-57 . ‘ #.-.509 • -z Talbot Rd. S. 1 94_0, 74_.: 21_•, 3'2'.__...., k / .......f ......__Ac N i 1 72----1'.. I 11 I 4-1 C..1--•-• 431--.-- 41 6---.- III 4-71 --.. ------•-- 1 OFt A -•-•1---1---' 'la', --'..--`,t•••:. • ....... •4••,-Co m ----='D :) I.,, •••;---T-7, , 1:-...1 •-•-•....________......../ r-1- fli F) r 1 m . C) • --1 .•-•- l.1 cl 011 Ill 7.1g in FT ik' • r-i- ..) N.,. .. . , . . . • - -- , - - .. , , . • . • , . . . . .. •. . , . , • . . . . . . 1 cil F.:A i ..11 _ 1,.:1-.--s• --------''..--- •.-.317.? 167 ----__._ ......4 Ivi .......-- ---- I ......-- --.. --_ - ......-::: _.----- ........... ...1.•:.' 1-r1 70di --# i e r...)13,J ; 34'.2 N1/4 I I 1 1,7, t I(1 •....:71 i•.•-) ) i 1 • 1..7:-.1 -•-` 4.- - :I -....... :-.4.> V- --I • 7.'1- (--- ` ZE 3 **4 I / (...) e ._.. --13 f (--) .!.:_-,. <--...• rn ".„......_...._ ___ ____'' ______, ______ 2....,3::.;_____;:i IT] .171 -> a j ..,..:- . -.' 111 -'-'ir; ::".:: —7 k N)(.ri 1 cr.,4.0 i ,. ---1 :I- ---i 4:13 --I (--) 1---- • Ili rri :.r _.... .1 P.Z., "'1...-95 / • M -1711 Pi CI .--.1 ID 7) •-. . M :r.„.. , --.— 0 i I -,..._.42 1 1 N._224) i .----,--..----------,-- --c-- 13 --1 ."I..i i 30 , N -•--23 / N -.*--43 tiriveymy git•-.J 1, r-- --<- .., :T1 :3,..r. if . I---12 ...-r' 2-- --1 22----s•- ( 28 .# 44____•, t r .--i - I I Gri 7.1 1-1 c r-`41/4 22--•-• 8--...- F.-1 in j .p.----1 —3 r..3 Do vis I:0 (w) ..-... n -,-. 0. .1 --, 4:3 co (...11 Ave. S, -(Ti in P ,1•9 0 A 0 -1 ci --.. •.-t...• Ci 41. et.'...- ..... S...: : di ir.:-;) - - ....t:i .4): r- GA :i.: —I (: •Ilit --.- -.1 la. 2i.... 0 n .....J. .....r* ...!:::.. 2: in -0 ti) -, - -4--': ---; pa 4,,..4 . r: .._ 4-- ,........i <AgoC4--.1 •;.•---, - (A 40•.-..1 Ca N4_.310 (o GI -,cr. cn o a.i N....._20 0 N1 e../1 ‘_35 II i .....—r_...)5 1 w__54 19 1 1 No.._ .,. -,...._,•,_ ., (ft N -"I--126) I ' ' .fr t N. ...s— /4 ) 11/4. '4—43 0 i k -I—453 ) ik ;-:34.34 ) L -.--358 • 3 Ar To 11-.KA Rd. S. 456_4, N t ( 108 A, 32_. 49......., .41 if 12......0 k:.'•11 F_t—••- 201--••- I 357-----...- 348---•-• 291—.- I 31 7—.-- 31—‘ r•-)---L r.D 6—411/4 0-1--'(A -,...j--I.1.1. E=0 4' -tx Tr-7 ....... , • -1 •••••--____.,______.-, (..) r4- '.‘ -T1 e.P 0 [ ...i.) . I:-- • Fri • _. --1 --I (1) 1111101....- ra 0 a ITC ...I ________ _____ . — • . . .. - . . . ..• . . • . .. . .... . . . . .. ....._ _ . . ... , . . . . . . . . —(... ____.. . .. _ ... ..., ___ r...3 ,, —cm s'll - 13 Ci ....--- R - -- 167 -- ------....... ••••.-_-.:. --,.----- i L - -•-..„...„.. -...... "--.............-- ..________________._.___. 1- 1 ri 116----* r...) ( ..,.. r....1 iiir3 Th, t ( ....7.6(..4 1 ,_ •.-1 1-1.1 <la --,- C'. ::..:.(5.1 k.....) t.__ -1-.1 -10 ,--------- *----1 - ---.-- 1-,Y 7--1 1 NI CT: -i 3F1--ir ii I ir....) py,- 1.--.-.... i- / 3 1 1 t-.. .11 7.t..I ... I, J — <7._ :L-.:.: ....E.• ....... t•.:, pi Fl )). (....,:t- -..7' C..) I— . . l'''. :----1 31. -r- /11 ..e..__. . , im p-i :I --,1 ._.:,..i11) --I C.) I 'IL._`,?_79 1,1 :33 fr........1 :::_....I eo 0-.1 r....1.c...:.) M -. I-ri r___:1- .-, ..-- :-.k) i 1 N.--45 1 1 -,..__1 to•i•a- -----,----- --„: -- 3"" 1, '20 .1 \ --..---1 8 2 DrIVO W a y gr. 7.1-1_ .- si.._.... Ni i 22___isr 56__•" 43Th if --i --11 Go / .- ....,t:.;—41/4 I i r.. ...- - C3 -• -1-1 rx1 t...3 Ci F...) [..).0 Vi S 0)10 ._- N., -I....1 ' ' ....f.f_ -I-, -t- --! Ave. S. • .-.. ... --.... . (.7) kJ 10 "..1) ...1) 4-3 - 73. --i • -1 Ci it:_j -. -. < _.... I- p ...‹ ....< : cl_:.J -;•.,-, rii -13 tf) :-..tk lk =It.: (f 1 .---1-- .....0 NI r-. c51 on .c.,,,40 t..) -"CO Is.) __.. • CA of:- ....... ....I. ‹ P-3 Ch 0 1%.1'A N__421 4:43(Y1 ---1.K.) ILA 11, 01 41.(_,1 - . , , (In 1 Stk...39 -}1.41.Cr) Nib._24} car... '‘.....21 2 CFI ) k --..—571 ) 4 L - --207 ) L ) k 4 1699 945 .J 1 ) I k .---:i, . Jr k. --a----..- ff%.4-5 d --:556 - --797 7. Talbot Rd. S. 237 # ,,, 4 if 82___...: 2.3_.i 36 Af ,k ii 8 Ar --- 501.--.4"- 209---a- .111 ..>00—a- 591--a- 502--a- Ill 566--a- -------•-- - . 141Th 12--%. ---%--`1.4 .-----C3 1., 1C-r"," ... • --1 0 I,- - r+- ...A l.;) •-...1 .- 1 CI ci ...;3.3 5 0 6-- r+. ....-11 • LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS A capacity analysis was performed to determine the level of service (LOS) at which the study intersections are currently operating and are projected to operate in the future. The methodology from the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual - Special Report 209, 1985 was used for all capa- city analyses. The LOS is comprised of six categories ranging from A, which reflects a condition with little or no delay, to level F, which reflects an oversaturated, congested condition with extreme delays. A LOS "E" is considered acceptable for urban areas. Table 5 is a summary of the LOS calculations for existing conditions and for 1995 and 2005 projected conditions. For ex- isting conditions, the current 1988 AM and PM peak hour volumes as shown in Figures 3 and 4 were analyzed using the existing road geometrics. An optimum cycle length and signal timing were used for the capacity analysis calculations of the signalized inter- sections although field observations indicate this is not the case. The LOS of existing signalized intersections in Table 5 is a theoretical value probably higher than what actually occur. For the 1995 and 2005 without expansion of the Valley Medical Center conditions, volumes from Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9 were used in conjunction with the LID improved geometrics to the street network but without a tunnel or signal at the S. 43rd St./Davis Ave. S. intersection. Under this scenario, the AM and 33 TABLE 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY 0 0 0 EXISTING 1995 WITHOUT 2005 WITHOUT 1995 WITH 2005 WITH EXPANSION EXPANSION EXPANSION EXPANSION INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1. DRIVEWAY 11/ A A A A A A A B A D TALBOT RD , 2. DRIVEWAY 12/ A A A A A A A A A C . TALBOT RD ' . , 3. DRIVEWAY 03/ A A A A B B A A A D . TALBOT RD . 4. DRIVEWAY 14/ A A A A A A A A A A . TALBOT RD : 4 4 4 4 ' 5. DRIVEWAY 15/ 30 E B E C E D A A A A . S 43RD ST : 6. DAVIS AVE/(i) A A A A A A A A A A . S 43RD ST , 7. S 43RD ST/ E E C D E E D D : E(C) F(D) . TALBOT RD : 41 SEC 43 SEC : 24 SEC 33 SEC : 52 SEC 43 SEC : 33 SEC 34 SEC : 47 SEC >60 SEC : 0 0 . 8. S 43RD ST/ D C C B D C C B : E(C) D(C) SR 167 RAMPS : 32 SEC 22 SEC : 20 SEC 12 SEC : 39 SEC 16 SEC : 21 SEC 13 SEC : 48 SEC 28 SEC : 9. DAVIS AVE/ N/A N/A : N/A N/A : N/A N/A : A A A A . TUNNEL ACCESS RD : . 10. DAVIS AVE/ A A A A A A A A A A . S 45TH PL . , 11. TALBOT RD/ A B B B C C B C C D S 45TH PL . 12. MAIN CAMPUS LOOP RD: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A A A A A . TUNNEL ACCESS RD : 13. DAVIS AVE/ N/A N/A : N/A N/A : N/A N/A : A A A A. S CAMPUS DRIVEWAY : . • NOTES: - AVERAGE DELAY IN SECONDS PER VEHICLE IS SHOWN FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - LOS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IS FOR SHARED LANES ON MINOR APPROACH 1 ASSUMES LID PROJECT WITHOUT TUNNEL OR DAVIS AVE SIGNAL ASSUMES LID PROJECT WITH TUNNEL BUT WITHOUT DAVIS AVE SIGNAL OLDS FOR THIS INTERSECTION REFLECTS ES LEFT TURN FROM S 43RD ST °RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT ONLY TURNING MOVEMENTS ALLOWED ©LOS IN () ASSUMES OTHER CROSS VALLEY ROUTE IS BUILT BEFORE 2005 34 PM peak volumes currently generated by the existing valley Medical Center facilities were added to the babkg>round traffic projected to 1995 and 2005. The final condition analyzed was 1995 and 2005 with the anticipated expansion of Valley Medical Center facilities. Background traffic projected to 1995 and 2005 was added to the traffic that will be generated by the new and expanded facilities on both the main campus and south campus as previously shown in Figures 10, 11, 12 and 13 to arrive at the total AM and PM peak hour volumes shown in Figures 14 through 18. For this scenario, L. I.D. improved geometrics to S. 43rd St. , Talbot Rd. S. and SR 167 were assumed in addition to a vehicular/pedestrian tunnel connecting the main campus and south campus. The LOS for the unsignalized intersections reflect the vehi- cular movement with the least amount of reserve capacity. In all but one of the study's unsignalized intersections the LOS of the shared lane of the minor approach is shown in Table 5 since its reserve capacity was lower then any other movement in the inter- section. For unsignalized intersections a reserve capacity greater than 400 vehicles per hour represents LOS A, 300 to 399 vehicles per hour LOS B, 200 to 299 vehicles per hour LOS C, 100 to 199 vehicles per hour LOS D and 0 to 99 vehicles per hour LOS E. Any intersection with no reserve capacity is considered LOS F and usually warrants improvements. 35 • For signalized intersections the LOS is dependent on the stopped average delay per vehicle entering the intersection. LOS A would be characterized by having 5 seconds or less per vehicle average delay, LOS B 5.1 to 15 seconds per vehicle, LOS C 15.1 to 25 seconds per vehicle, LOS D 25.1 to 40 seconds per vehicle, LOS E 40.1 to 60 seconds per vehicle and LOS F 60 or more seconds per vehicle. The four access driveways on Talbot Rd. S. are calculated to operate at an acceptable LOS for all conditions through 2005 with the existing roadway width and lane configuration. Driveways 1, 2 and 3 provide good peak hour access to the Center. Driveway 4 provides minor access to the Chin Hills building, which is not under the control of the Valley Medical Center. The consolidation of driveways has been suggested by the City of Renton. We recommend against this concept. The three driveways provide good access with no projected need for a traf- fic signal on Talbot Road. Consolidating the driveways to two locations could create level of service problems and create the need for a traffic signal at one of the driveways. This would be detrimental to the traffic operation .Talbot Rd. , would disrupt the internal site circulation system and would be costly. Driveway #5 at S. 43rd St. currently operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour. This intersection is planned for right in, right out only operation with the L. I.D. and tunnel construction except emergency vehicles will be allowed to turn left to or from 36 S. 43rd Street. The S. 43rd St./Talbot Rd. S. intersection will, operate at LOS D in the 1995 AM and PM peak hours. The AM peak hour LOS will drop to E and the PM peak hour to F by the year 2005 due to the substantial increase 'in background traffic on S. 43rd St. and Talbot Rd. South. If other cross valley routes are constructed by 2005, this intersection would improve to LOS C and D in the AM and PM peak hours. The Talbot Rd.S./S. 45th P1. intersection operates at an acceptable LOS with its existing geometry without signalization through 2005. All other on campus intersections are projected to operate at LOS A for all conditions. L. I.D. WITH PROPOSED TUNNEL PROJECT The Valley Medical Center in conjunction with the City of Renton has committed for the construction of an Local Improvement District (L. I.D. ) project which will basically widen S. 43rd St. from Talbot Rd. S. to SR 167, add an HOV lane and rebuild and coordinate the signals at Talbot Rd. S. and SR 167. The L. I.D. design originally included a new signal at the intersection of S. 43rd St. at Davis Ave. S. with the realignment of Driveway #5 making up the north leg of the intersection. Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc. designed the signal portion of the L. I.D. and submitted the design for approval in 37 the Spring of 1987. Since that time however, the concept of a tunnel connecting the main campus to the south campus has gained support from both the Hospital and City to the extent that the L. I.D. has been being modified to delete the S. 43rd St./Davis Ave. S. signal from the design and add the proposed tunnel. Touma Engineers is now under contract with the City of Renton to design the tunnel connecting the campuses. There are several major reasons for the support the proposed tunnel has gained as compared to the original L. I.D. design. It is estimated about 40% of vehicles entering the main campus would utilize the tunnel thereby eliminating an equivalent number of left turns from S. 43rd St. at either Driveway #5 or Talbot Rd. South. That means 224 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 159 vehicles in the PM peak hour (Fig. 12 & 13 ) are subtracted from the critical left turn movements of these intersections thereby increasing the capacity of the intersections for other vehicle movements. Intercampus trips such as a doctor traveling from the Hospital to a clinic on the south campus, or an employee visiting the credit union or an employee dropping off a child at day care would be able to use the tunnel instead of the adjacent streets thereby preserving street capacity for future growth. Pedestrians and cyclists will be able to pass freely under- neath S. 43rd St. with greater safety and no disturbance to the substantial east/west through traffic volumes on S. 43rd Street. - 38 Pedestrian access will become increasingly important as faciliti- es which will generate a great deal of pedestrian activity such as the credit union and day care facilities are constructed on the south campus. At the same time that the north/south pedestrian volumes will be increasing across S. 43rd St. , so will east/west vehicular traffic volumes on S. 43rd St. thereby increasing the number of possible vehicular/pedestrian conflicts. Utility connections required between the main campus and south campus can be run through a corridor in the tunnel thereby eliminating the need of a separate trench- across S. 43rd St. that otherwise would need to be constructed. COMPARISONS TO PREVIOUS STUDY Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc. (TP&E) prepared a "Valley General Hospital Traffic Circulation Study" in 1982. The major assumptions for that report were 20% growth of facilities on the main campus and construction of the "One Valley Place" development on the South Campus. Also, the Chin Hills building was not yet occupied. Table 6 compares the traffic data and projections of the 1982 report with the 1988 counts and pro- jections of this report. • The 1982 report estimated that the One Valley Place development would generate 6770 trips per day. This is a much greater volume than the 1837 trips now estimated at full develop- ment of the south campus according to the master site plan. 39 TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF PAST, CURRENT AND PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS GENERATED BY THE MAIN AND SOUTH CAMPUS Main South Campus Campus Total Actual Counts 19820 5800 0 5800 Projected 1986 Without® Chin Hills 7000 6770 13770 Projected 1988 With® • Chin Hills 8230 6770 14560 Actual Counts 1988 75600 - 7560 Projected 1995 0 13774 1671 15445 Projected 20050 14976 1837 16813 © Source: Valley General Hospital Traffic Circulation Study by TP&E, September 16, 1982 Includes vehicles using temporary employee parking area on south campus OProjections based on the assumptions for development of the Valley Medical Center Master Site Plan as used in this study. 40 On the other hand, the 1982 report estimated 8, 230 main cam- pus trips, taking into account the Chin Hills building generated trips, while this report now projects 14, 976 trips per day for the main campus by 2005 at full development. The proposed L. I.D. for S. 43rd St. was originally intended to mitigate the previously anticipated growth on the main campus and "One Valley Place" on the south campus. With the acquisition of the south campus, and the resulting changes in development on both the main and south campus as outlined in the master site plan, the overall number of trips for both campuses are now es- timated at 16, 813 vehicles per day as compared to 14,560 vehicles projected vehicles per day in 1988 from the 1982 report. This is a 15.5 percent increase in projected trips for year 2005 above the estimates made in 1982 for 1988 development. The addition of the tunnel to the S. 43rd St. L. I.D. project more than compensates for this 15.5 percent increase in generated traffic so that additional offsite road improvement mitigation is not required by the proposed facilities of the master site plan. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Master Site Plan has projected an expansion of existing facilities and construction of several new facilities on the main and south campus of the Valley Medical Center from the present up to its ultimate buildout in 2005. With this growth there will be 41 a corresponding increase in traffic volumes at all access points and also on the adjacent street network. This study has es- timated the resulting increases in traffic and analyzed its im- pact on traffic operating conditions for the present, 1995 and 2005. An L. I.D. project which will make major improvements to S. 43rd St. was taken into account in the analysis in addition to the anticipated increases in background traffic. The following conclusions and recommendations are based on this traffic analysis. 1. For the ultimate build-out of the Valley Medical Center by 2005, a fifth two way left turn lane on Talbot Rd. S. is not required to maintain acceptable levels of service at the four access driveways. 2. By including the tunnel in the L. I.D. project for S. 43rd St. , the majority of eastbound vehicles wishing to enter the main campus will turn right onto Davis Ave. S. and right again into the tunnel thereby eliminating an equivalent number of left turns from S. 43rd St. to Talbot Rd. S. and subsequently, left turns into the three driveways from Talbot Rd. South. By eliminating these left turns from the critical movements of these intersections, capacity is "preserved" for future growth on the surrounding street network. it is there- fore recommended the tunnel be included in the L.I.D. project. This will be a major step in preserving the capacity of adjacent arterial streets. 42 3 . The capacity analysis shows that the four way intersec- tion of Talbot Rd. S. with Driveway #3 and S. 177th St. will operate at an LOS A in the AM peak hour and B in the PM peak_ hour for 2005 including the additional traffic generated by the ultimate buildout of the Valley Medical Center. This indicates that the re- alignment of Driveway #3 is not essential. This is based on the premise that approximately the same per- centage of Valley Medical Center generated traffic pre- sently using S. 177th St. and Driveway #3 will continue in the future. If, in fact, a higher percentage of traffic does utilize S. 177th St. and Driveway #3 to access the main campus, alignment of Driveway #3 with S. 177th St. may then be required. At this time, how- ever, LOS calculations based on projected future traf- fic indicate realignment is not required. S. 177th St. is a local access residential street currently under King County jurisdiction. It connects to Carr Rd. via 98th Ave. Southeast. The realignment of Driveway #3 to S. 177th St. may make this residen- tial street an attractive access route to the Valley Medical Center from the east on Carr Road. This may be a local neighborhood concern. 4. It is recommended that a loop road system be maintained on the main campus. The current loop road uses the 43 Emergency Room access in the southeast corner of the main campus. The Master Site Plan shows a proposed site circulation concept drawing which would relocate the loop road system. 5 . The Medical Center should continue to work with the City and Metro to implement the Transportation Management Plan (TMP) . The existing TMP includes pre- ferential parking for carpools and van pools, informa- tion centers for bus and transit schedules and a trans- portation management coordinator. This traffic analysis shows the L. I.D. project with the pro- posed tunnel will provide good levels of service at all access driveways and also on the adjacent streets through 2005 except for the S. 43rd St./Talbot Rd. S. intersection. The calculated LOS for this intersection is projected to drop from D to E in the AM peak hour and D to F in the PM peak hour from 1995 to 2005 . S. 43rd St. is being built to its maximum practical width with the L.I.D. project. The addition of the tunnel to the L. I.D. will preserve capacity so that the intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS further into the future than otherwise pos- sible. In fact, the L. I.D. project in conjunction with the tun- nel will provide excess capacity beyond what is required for the ultimate buildout of the Valley Medical Center. The projected increases in background traffic volumes passing through the area is what eventually may deteriorate the 44 LOS beyond acceptable limits by 2005. As previously stated, this analysis has assumed no new cross valley routes will be built in the area to simulate a worst case condition. In reality, a new crossing at S. 192nd St. will probably be built within the next 5 to 10 years in addition to another crossing north of the Valley Medical Center which is being discussed to be built in the area of S.W. 27th Street. If 30 percent of the projected background traffic is diverted to new cross valley routes, the S. 43rd St./Talbot Rd. S. intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS in 2005 as shown in Table 5. 1 45 OF I .� �. ECF: 063-el 4i LU: %• ;p z , City of Renton e IMMO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 094T f0 sErcev""P Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43,21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for allproposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information' about your proposal. Governmental agencies . use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Use of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals: (Please Type or Print Legibly) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the• references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND • 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Valley Medical Center Additions, 5 story medical office building. 2. Name of applicant: Valley Medical Center, Public Hospital District #1 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Ms. Monica Brennan Chief Operations Officer Valley Medical Center 400 South 43rd Street, Renton, WA _ (206) 228-3450 4. Date checklist prepared: May,..1989 . 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Buildiong and Zoning Department 6. ' Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Start Construction February, 1990 Completion March, 1991 C#clDMsbN a1► 3 1 1989 AEcE! i ' 4 ,, 7. Do you have any plans% future additions, expansions, or f ier activity relatec to or connected with this=Nroposal? if yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been 'prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Conditional use permit and building permit from the City of Renton. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The proposed project consists of the following: - A five (5) story'iriedical office building (approximately 100,000 GSF) containing an auditorium on the first floor(of approximately 2,000 GSF) serving the hospital staff and the community. The approximate site area directly,impacted by construction is 60,000 S=. 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 know.). If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries; of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and 'topography 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. 400 South 43rd Street, Renton, Washington Proposed improvements would be made at the north end of the Valley Medical Center site, which is located at the NW corner of the intersection of South 43rd Street and Talbot Road, just east of SR167. NE 1/4 section' 31, T23N, R5E, W.M. • B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous(othera Moderately sloping hillside. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 40-50% on side slopes of ditches and embankments, steepest slope in project area is 115%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, caly, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classi?ication of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. From soil survey, King County area, Washington, by SCS, November, 1973, onsite soils are Alderwood gravelly sandyloam (unified soil classification "SM") . The architectural capability classification is IV E-2. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None - 2 - . e. Describe t purpose, type, and approximate c 4tities of any filling or grading propused. Indicate source of fill. Construction will be substantially at existing grades. Grading will be required for access areas, plus some excavation and regrading around building. Material quantities will be balanced,on site, however some structural fill will be imported. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur during construction as impervious cover is removed and excavation performed, exposing bare soil. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Total hospital property equals 32 acres. Before construction of project- approximately 70% impervious/after construction of project - approximately 71% impervious. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan will be prepared and implemented to control erosion during the construction process. Proper grading and revegatation of the finished project will prevent erosion upon completion of the construction process. 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. Exhaust emissions from construction equipment and vehicles would occur during construction. Some increase in automobile exhaust would result from increased traffic generated by the completed project. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission? No, except vehicle exhaust from traffic on adjacent street. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Proper maintenence and operation of construction equipment to control exhaust 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. A small stream flows through a ravine north of the site, thence north and west ,through the Valley drainage system and into the Black river. There is also a local wetland area in the low area northeast of the site. 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. None 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 - 3 - 4) Will the propc; require surface water Withdraw'�Thr diversions? Giv: general descri; ,fn, purpose, and approximately qua, ,les if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a. 100-year floodplain? If so, note location o the site plan. No • 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume o discharge. No b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and appaoximately quantities if known. No 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. One site stormwater runoff from the proposed improvements will be collected in an underground drainage system and routed to an outlet at the NW corner of the site, ultimately reaching the Valley drainage system. • 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Parking lot runoff may contain oily waste from vehicles using the lits. -- 4 - e d.• Proposed r ,$ures to reduce or control surfac( ^ound, and runoff water impacts, if . q g Parking lots will be graded drain away from the ravine and-wetlands area, preventing direct developed runoff from reaching these areas. The on site drainage system will incorporate oil-water seperators to improve water quality. On site detention will be provided as required by 'Renton Public Works. Department. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: IOC deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other 1a( evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other o Shrubs lac grass o crop or grain fox Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other o water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other o other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Existing Flowering,:Crabtrees .and_Junipers planted in the parking islands will be removed or relocated. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Wetland area vegetation will be protected from construction operations. Buildings and parking areas will be landscaped to match existing development on the site. 5. Animals • a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawk, heron, eagle,.'s•,•.'-d`, other Mammals: deer, bear; elk, beaver, of er small Rodents Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, she""ish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No • - 5 - * , d. Proposed measi_ to preserve or enhance wildlife, i1 y: Landscaping and garden areas will provide some habitat for Songbirds currently on site. 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. Natural Gas-fired boiler (existing on site) will provide heat for proposed new buildings, fuel oil provides a back-up source. Electricity will be used for lighting, 'and electrical power needs. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacen properties?. If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of thi- proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energ impacts, if any: Meet or exceed all energy code requirements. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxi. chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that coul. occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, i • any: None b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (fo example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise from adjacent streets and roadways. - 6 - 2) What type d levals of noise would be create r 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. Short-term noise due to construction (limited to daylight hours) . Long-term noise impacts - traffic noise generated by arrival and departure of doctors, patients, and staff. These impacts would be spread throughout the day. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Proposed building placement takes advantate of site topography to protect building from offsite traffic noise. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? - Site contains existing hospital facilities. Proposed project will be to the west of an existing medical office building and:_parking ar.eas".. - NE, East, and South of site are medical offices and associated uses, with a few residence. . - North and NW of site is vacant land-greenbelt area along drainage ravine. - West of site is freeway ramp and SR 167. West of freeway is mixed commercial. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. None in construction area. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? P-1 (Public Zone) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Public/Quasi-public g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? At times of maximum usage, approximately 300-400 people would be occupying the compled project. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None - 7 - , v , 1. Proposed measi ; to ensure the proposal is compy, a with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Project will comply with requirements for existing P-1 zone. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None • b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None 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 includin• antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. The project is a five (5) story office building. The building wi 1 be 57 feet tall, its roofline will be 27 feet lower than adjacent Medical office building. Building exterior will be pre-cast in appearance b. What views in the immediate vlclnity wouldtbe ered or Obstructed truct i res. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The proposed buildings will be visually consistant with the exist ng campus development. ., The location of the building on the existing sloping topography will minimize the impact on existing views frog adjacent roads and buildings. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of da would it mainly occur? The building will not to :.externally lighted, and the only light from this source will come from within the building through the windows. Vehicle loading zones and pedestrian areas ill be provided with luminaires for light-time illumination. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard of interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. Site is screened from vehicle headlights on SR167 by roadside embankments and vegetation. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Lighting for vehicle loading and:pedestrian areas will be design-d and oriented to provide necessary onsite illumination, without directing glare to offsite areas. • - 8 - • 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None b. Would the'.proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if 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 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. Transportation See attached Transporation Impact Anaylsis by Transporatation Planning & Engineering, inc. dated March 29, 1989 for discussion of items a,b,d,f,& g. a. • Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access will be by existing site curb cuts on Talbot Road and South 43rd Street b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximately distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Existing Parking Stalls = 1677 Spaces lost due to construction = 91 Total Stalls Available = 1586 Project will require approximately 360 stalls A Parking Utilization Study by Jacobson and Assoc. is currently underway and will be submitted to the city in Mid-June. 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). - 9 - e. Will the projei se (or occur in the immediate vi;: y of) water, rail, or air.transporta .? If so, generally describe. The hospital is served by an existing helicopter landing pad near he southeast corner of the site. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 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. The proposed_..improvements should not require a significant_.increase in;the. level of public services already provid-d for the existing hospital. The project will enhance and provide additional health care services to the community. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: (electricity Cn-atural gas wate?refuse servic�j, elephone0,(sanitary sewer septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Utility services will generally be provided by extension of services lines from the existing hospital facility. Necessary connections wi 1 be made as part of the proposed building construction. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: ‘422-4-c—r7 c � Name Printed: Ms. Monica Brennan Chief Operations Officer Valley Medical Center - 10 - • #176 11-8-84