MultiCare boiler plant seeks fewer windows

Architects building the boiler plant along Wright Park for MultiCare says they want less windows. They've applied for a variance with the City of Tacoma that might get them just that. The proposal reads:

MultiCare boiler plant variance proposal

Looking at the map of the area in the proposal PDF it seems the "northern" side of the building would be that facing 3rd Street. Nevertheless, that neighborhood's grid is on a bit of a skew from straight north-south, east-west streets so the side facing "I" Street and Wright Park does technically partially face north as well. This, in my mind, needs to be clarified before proceeding.

MultiCare boiler plant rendering If it is indeed the side of the building adjacent to 3rd I'd be inclined not to have a problem with it so long as there truly will be artwork there (I wonder: would an architectural firm based in Portland use local artists for such a task?) instead of the windows. Otherwise, if they're trying to get by on a technicality using the word "northern" to make the building uglier on the Wright Park facing side, no dice.

Whatever your thoughts, there's a comment period until June 19. You can email Lisa Spadoni in the City's Public Works Department at lisa.spadoni@cityoftacoma.org. I'll also forward any comments dropped below on to her.

Previously on KFnet

Thanks Erik!

Did You Know...?

This building with the 90 foot smokestacks along Wright Park is exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)? The proposal above has a portion that reads, "...the Environmental Official has reviewed this project and determined that the project is exempt from SEPA provisions."

Comments (6) | To Top

6/8/2007 @ 11:38am

The city issued a Determination of Nonsignificance? Is there a link to this document?

by morgan

6/8/2007 @ 11:41am

Here's an interesting Citizen's Guide to the SEPA process:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/citizensguide/citizensguide.htm

Public comments in the following areas are particularly valuable:

Any inaccuracies in the environmental checklist, EIS, or other documentation;

Areas of potential environmental impact that have not been identified;

Adverse environmental impacts that have not been adequately addressed;

Possible mitigation measures that could or should be added to the proposal;

Reasonable alternatives to the proposal;

The need for additional study(ies);

The merits of the alternatives and mitigation measures considered in the document; and

Reasons that a determination of nonsignificance is not appropriate and that an environmental impact statement (EIS) should be prepared.

6/8/2007 @ 11:53am

Hard to believe that they are seeking to get a variance from an already too lenient buidling code to erect a huge cement wall next to the park.

Metro Parks has the duty to defend Wright Park. Hopefully, they will weigh in the issue as well.

Once the wall is built, it will not doubt stay there for decades. Yet, Metro Parks is seeking to spend millions on park enhancements.

Perhaps the variance would be appropriate on Port property or an industrial zone. But not here.

by Erik B.

6/8/2007 @ 1:53pm

On "which north side" question: I just found out that it is the side that faces 3rd, not "I" street.

6/8/2007 @ 2:02pm

I have to say, that is a plus morgan, and good to know. I just don't like to see that kind of slippery language in docs like this.

by KevinFreitas

6/8/2007 @ 2:36pm

Also, I would sure like to see how a new facility designed to burn huge amounts of gas and diesel (on occassion) escaped even having to file a SEPA report.

NEPA and SEPA are designed to flush out the environmental impact on an area.

Usually, an initial determination of non-significance occurs for smaller inconsequential projects.

Latest Entries

Fri. June 8, 2007, 06:55am PDT