Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit 85-18-CUP - KING COUNTY METRO - PARK AND RIDE CONDITIONAL USE
85-18-cup 13447 interurban avenue south KING COUNTY METRO PARK AND RIDE CONDITIONAL USE KING COUNTY METRO PARK AND RIDE CONDITIONAL USE 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433.1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor October 28, 1985 ETS 4 -A TRAFFIC CONTROL REVIEW COMMITS 1. The permanant construction signing plan is to be incorporated into the contract documents with exceptions taken. (See Additional Comments). This plan is general in nature and does not relieve the contractor of his respon- sibility to provide additional traffic control equipment and flagmen as needed for specific construction operations. 2. The contractor may want construction access across Phase I of the Tukwila Park & Ride facility after it becomes operational. In this case, parking stalls adjacent to the access road shall be closed to Park & Ride patrons. (See Attached Plan). 3. Construction equipment access across the operational Phase I of Tukwila Park & ride shall be limited to off -peak hours as designated by Metro's transportation services. 4. Provide concrete barrier Type 2 at the North portal with placement similar to the South portal. 5. If Interurban Avenue is to be used as an excavation haul route, or similar constant construction traffic, it shall be the most direct and practical route available. Interurban Avenue shall not be used as a turnaround route. 6. The City of Tukwila shall take particular interest in the review and evaluation of construction haul routes and other traffic related operations. Please advise prospective contractors of this. 23-.- ••• • •• 24 • FNASE I CONS1RUCTICN- ROUGH GRADE SHADED AREA TO 10 BELOW FINISHED GRADES SHOWN. • .• •' - it • • ' \ \ \ / \ ‘ / \ \ / \ , \ - 1 - ,. • * I I.." ', Avt. ‘ -- I _ arm-ling:1am NOTE IN15 ORARRIG MOCRIED Of ACM AsSOGATES TO .OPT TRE ET: -•A CONTRACT. 05 OS. 32 wAl Accgss A /JP Oit.grg- wA A ccEO PA9 if I Alfa-I/WIN' A*01.6 GENERAL NOTES. 1. ITISTIK SIN WA RITI-Itol. Z. STOTtOot 1 WTI% 2-34. 2-15. ToR 2,4 Tat nolloonetnoo • TO lottounts Wool 0111 SAWN INIMINLY AytniL MIK& STATIONING. 1. 1.11A1IONS LON LK TOP • 1 PAAININT. —0 METRO Muddrallo unit, Fri 1KWILA PARK & RIDE FACILITY "".“..v mats September 20, 1985 Larry Ellington Property Management METRO Exchange Building 821 2nd Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. in gton: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor Per your request, this letter describes the fees and process associated. with METRO's annexing a portion of its Park and Ride facility to Tukwila. Fees METRO can avoid Tukwila's environmental review fee by acting as "lead agen- cy" and preparing its own environmental review as it did for other phases of the project. Tukwila will pay for all other annexation - related activi- ties, including staff review, processing and filing with the King County Boundary Review Board. As we discussed, there will be no additional fees for fire or police protection. In sum, there will be no added cost to METRO for annexing to Tukwila. Annexation Process: Rather than using the petition method for annexation, the annexation can occur under the jurisdiction of RCW 35.13.180 ( "Annexation for Municipal Purposes. ") We believe that this will expedite the annexation process. Under this statute, the Tukwila City Council can vote to annex the King County portion of the Park and Ride lot with the consent of the owner, METRO. In order to begin this process, we will need a letter of consent from METRO stating that METRO agrees to the annexation. .._........-...«. Larry Ellington September 20, 1985 Page 2 Upon receipt of this letter, the Tukwila City Council will pass a resolu- tion authorizing staff to proceed with the annexation. Staff will prepare and. ,submit to the Boundary Review - Board. the . "Notice : of Intent to Annex". : Tukwila will request that the BRB waive its . jurisdiction over the annexa- tion. At this point, the City Council will pass an ordinance finalizing the annexation. I hope this provides you the information you need to proceed with the annexation. If I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, X ,Rebecca Fox /ks (METRO.RF) (4C.2) fo p He(w GGteF— pw 3ph, 35.13.177 Comprehensive land use plan for area to be annexed — Contents— Purpose. The legislative body of any city or town acting through a planning commis- sion created pursuant to chapter 35.63 RCW, or pursu- ant to its granted powers, may prepare a comprehensive land use plan to become effective upon the annexation of any area which might reasonably be expected to be an- nexed by the city or town at any future time. Such com- prehensive plan, to the extent deemed reasonably necessary by the legislative body to be in the interest of health, safety, morals and the general welfare may pro- vide, among other things, for: (1) The regulation and restriction within the area to be annexed of the location and the use of buildings, structures and land for residence, trade, industrial and other purposes; the height, number of stories, size, con- struction and design of buildings and other structures; the size of yards, courts and other open spaces on the lot or tract; the density of population; the set –back of buildings along highways, parks or public water front- ages; and the subdivision and development of land; (2) The division of the area to be annexed into dis- tricts or zones of any size or shape, and within such dis- tricts or zones regulate and restrict the erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair or use of buildings, structures or land; (3) The appointment of a board of adjustment, to make, in appropriate cases and subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards established by ordinance, spe- cial exceptions in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the comprehensive plan; and (4) The time interval following an annexation during which the ordinance or resolution adopting any such plan or regulations, or any part thereof must remain in effect before it may be amended, supplemented or modi- fied by subsequent ordinance or resolution adopted by the annexing city or town. All such regulations and restrictions shall be designed, among other things, to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the area to be annexed; to lessen traffic congestion and accidents; to secure safety from fire; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent over- crowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of popu- lation; to promote a coordinated development of the unbuilt areas; to encourage the formation of neighbor- hood or community units; to secure an appropriate allot- ment of land area in new developments for all the requirements of community life; to conserve and restore natural beauty and other natural resources; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer- age and other public uses and requirements. [1965 ex.s. c 88 § 1.] 35.13.178 Comprehensive land use plan for area to be annexed Hearings on proposed plan— Notice -- Filing. The legislative body of the city or town shall hold two or more public hearings, to be held at least thirty days apart, upon the proposed comprehensive plan, giv- ing notice of the time and place thereof by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the annexing city 0983 Ed.) Annexation of Unincorporated Areas 35.13.200 or town and the area to be annexed. A copy of the ordi- nance or resolution adopting or embodying such pro- posed plan or any part thereof or any amendment thereto, duly certified as a true copy by the clerk of the . i annexing city or town, shall be filed with the county au- ditor. A like certified copy of any map or plat refcrred to or adopted by the ordinance or resolution shall likewise be filed with the county auditor. The auditor shall record the ordinance or resolution and keep on file the map or plat. [1965 ex.s. c 88 § 2.] 35.13.180 Annexation for municipal purposes. City and town councils of second and third class cities and towns may by a majority vote annex new territory out- side the city or town limits, whether contiguous or non- contiguous for park, cemetery, or other municipal purposes when such territory is owned by the city or town or all of the owners of the real property in the ter- ritory give their written consent to the annexation. [1983 1st ex.s. c 68 § 1; 1981 c 332 § 4; 1965 c 7 § 35.13.180. Prior: 1907 c 228 § 4; RRS § 9202.] % Severability - 19$1 c 332: See note following RCW 35.13.025. 35.13.185 Annexation of federal areas by first class city. Any unincorporated area contiguous to a first class city may be annexed thereto by an ordinance accepting a gift, grant, lease or cession of jurisdiction from the gov- ernment of the United States of the right to occupy or control it. [ 1965 c 7 § 35.13.185. Prior: 1957 c 239 § 7.] 35.13.190 Annexation of federal areas by second and third class cities and towns. Any unincorporated area contiguous to a second or third class city or town may be annexed thereto by an ordinance accepting a gift, grant, or lease from the government of the United States of the right to occupy, control, improve it or sublet it for com- mercial, manufacturing, or industrial purposes: Provided, That this shall not apply to any territory more than four miles from the corporate limits existing before such an- nexation. [ 1965 c 7 § 35.13.190. Prior: 1915 c 13 § 1, part; RRS § 8906, part.] VaUdatift --1915 c 13: 'All ordinances heretofore passed by the legislative authority of any such incorporated city for the purpose of accepting any gift, grant or lease of or annexing any territory as here - inabove provided are hereby validated.• (1915 c 13 li 3.3 35.13.200 Annexation of federal areas by second and third class cities and towns Annexation ordi- nance— Provisions. In the ordinance annexing terri- tory pursuant to a gift, grant, or lease from the government of the United States, a second or third class city or town may include such tide and shore lands as may be necessary or convenient for the use thereof, may include in the ordinance an acceptance of the terms and conditions attached to the gift, grant, or lease and may provide in the ordinance for the annexed territory to be- come a separate ward of the city or town or part or parts of adjacent wards. [ 1965 c 7 § 35.13.200. Prior: (i) 1915 c 13 § 1, part; RRS § 8906, part. (ii) 1915 c 13 § 2, part; RRS § 8907, part.] [Title 3S RCW- -p 331 160 • July 24, 1985 Larry Ellington METRO 821 2nd Avenue, MS /63 Seattle, WA 98104 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor Dear Larry: Per our telephone conversation of last week, the following letter describes the reasons supporting annexation. As you know, the City of Tukwila con- siders the annexation.of the Park - and -Ride to Tukwila'very important. The City of Tukwila encourages Metro to initiate annexation of the King County portion at the earliest moment. Ensuring the provision of consistently high quality public safety services is the primary incentive for annexation of the Tukwila Park- and -Ride to the City of Tukwila.' At present, the Tukwila Park - and -Ride includes territory in both King County and Tukwila. The resulting uneven boundary will create problems in servicing the site. As you know, the lot will be signed "Tukwila Park -and- Ride," and access will be from Interurban Avenue South in Tukwila. With this strong indentification with Tukwila, residents and commuters will most likely call Tukwila fire and police when assistance is required at the site. Tukwila fire and police will be able to provide quick response time. Their facilities are much closer to the Park - and -Ride than the King County facilities. Tukwila staff would, however, only be able to serve the Tukwila portion of the lot. If an incident occurs in the King County portion of the lot, King County personnel will need to be summoned resulting in additional delays in providing assistance. Potentially, aid from Tukwila or King County could arrive on the scene, yet be unable to assist if the incident occurred on the other jurisdiction's territory. Most likely, the Tukwila fire or police would be summoned first, but help would be delayed pending a call to King County. Response would be additionally delayed due to the distance of the King County police and fire facilities. If a crime occurred at the Tukwila Park - and -Ride lot, evidence could easily be scattered in both the Tukwila and King County por- tions. The.investigation would encounter jurisdictional problems. Having the entire Tukwila Park - and -Ride in Tukwila will prevent these problems. From the Tukwila Police department's viewpoint, annexation to Tukwila will ensure: 1) consistently speedy response time; 2) no juris- ivoa.ua.uiu��aarYnOn�. �'„+Y.f r .d.S.'Ar�f L4AXaµnYna.n.+.a. + -u� Larry Ellington July 24, 1985 Page 2 dictional problems in investigating and prosecuting crime; 3) a consistent programmatic approach, especially regarding crime prevention. From Tukwila Fire department's point of view, annexation to Tukwila will facilitate: 1) quick response, and 2) high quality professional assistance. Tukwila will service the site with its paid, professional staff, while King County would serve the site only with volunteer fire fighters. Tukwila Fire department can provide better service from its nearby station. Water and sewer service are not affected by annexation. There will be not sewer hookup as there is no toilet on the site. Water will be used only for landscaping irrigation. The site lies in Water District #125's juris- diction, but until the Foster Bridge pipeline is completed, Tukwila will provide water service. Please contact me (433 -1849) if we can be of assistance in initiating and expediting METRO's petition for annexation. Yours truly, Rebecca Fox /ks (MET.ANNEX) (Disk 1) fsruinw:rv�nnwx;n <:�rrf:,t:r� :a: .. .:u: »u.04{2x: t 41,0 :ut.iArtM.47.4"..M.V./.. � 17,11V "s19g7.i' i7: o kkJYl� " u Gtr L Y$E- `i.V!E T..:... • rise iii: ii �' ci;. a` ';rX- "i!.'';e'•r =ak�:i; «'.ii7�ti �Y.:a.;"�3:.'�Ss1 "3�t;, "::.:kfq City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433-1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor July 23, 1985 Linda S. Rankin Permit Coordinator Shorelands Division Department of Ecology PV -11 Olympia, WA 98504 r:�: L`utaty ¢vsrcnenr.wpc.vca�: ]YEI AtfT !lYSd•S7m,'1Mtl'. SSA% tFs�' 337f•}. i_- 1."7 PKP� 'fFr%8FVk23}\9W{YJVB Re: Shoreline Management Permit 85 -13 -SMP Dear Ms. Rankin: Enclosed is the Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit 85 -17 -SMP, Please orward the enclosed application to the Attorney General's Office. Sincerely, Rebecca Fox NOTE - THIS PAGE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT USE ONLY Type of Action Fl Substantial Development Permit SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 . P FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT Conditional Use Variance Pursuant to RCW 90.58,.a permit is hereby granted to: Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle METRO) (name of applicant) to undertake the following development: construction of a.268 stall park and ride (be specific) facility township, range) within Duwamish (name of water area) The project will ha Application. No. 85 -17 -86 • Administering Agency City of Tukwila Approved X. Denied Date July 24, 1985 .upon the following property: NW 4 of Section 14, Township 23, Range 4E (legal description, i.e., section, (be /not be) (RCW 90.58.030). The project will be located within a urhan and /or its associated wetlands. within shorelines of statewide significance (environment) designation. The following master program provisions are applicable to this development pp. 4.1 - 4.4 and 4.6 and Sections 18.44.110_- 115 Inning Code. (state the master program sections or page numbers) Development pursuant to this permit shall be undertaken pursuant to the follow- ing terms and conditions attached letter of May 24, 1985 . This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and nothing in this permit shall excuse the application from compliance with any other federal, state or local statutes, ordinances• or regulations applicable to this project, but not inconsistent with the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW). This permit may be rescinded pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(8) in the event the per - mittee fails to comply with the terms or conditions hereof. July 24, 1985 CONSTUCTION PURSUANT TO THIS PERMIT WILL NOT BEGIN OR IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING AS DEFINED IN RCW 90.58.140(6) AND WAC 173 -14 -090, OR UNTIL ALL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH FILING HAVE TERMINATED; EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN RCW 90.58.140(5)(a)(b)(c). (date) Director, Pia epartment THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WITH A CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE PERMIT. Date received by the department Approved Denied This conditional use /variance permit is approved /denied by the department pur- suant to chapter 90.58 RCW. Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the following additional terms and conditions: (date) (Signature of Authorized Department Official) ...... • ... - ......; ......... ; ... ............. .. K BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION May 24, 1985 Page 2 Respectfully, Brad Collins Planning Director • /ks cc: Mayor Planning Director Public Works Director (METRO.PNR2) •• DATE: 24 Jul 1985 DATE RECEIVED: 13 Mar 1985 APPLICATION NO(S): 012 -85 -SH APPLICANT NAME(S): METRO upon the following described property: South side of Interurban Avenue South and I -5. STR: NW 14 -23 -4 Waterbody: Duwamish River Shoreline Environment Designation: Urban Shoreline of Statewide Significance: Yes Applicable Shoreline Management Code Section:,: 25.16.010, .030, .070, .160, .170, .190 SIGNATURE: RALPH C. COLBY Supervisor King County Executive Randy Revelle Department of Planning and Community Development Holly Miller, Director SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 «< DECISION »> ON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION(S) Pursuant to RCW 90.58, the following decision(s) on the subject application(:;) in the name of the above -named applicant(s) is (are) hereby rendered: Substantial Development Permit 012 -85 -SH approved 23 Jul 1985 to undertake the following development: Construction of a park - and -ride facility at I -5, and Interurban Ave.S. consisting of: 260 parking stalls, landscaping, passenger shelters, transit information parking, lighting and telephone booth(s) on 4.3 acres of land. Six homes, a tavern and carpet - drying business would be removed from the site. Conditions of approval for development authorized by this permit are as stated in Permit Attachment I. Development authorized by this permit shall conform to the approved plans on file with the Building and Land Development Division. DATE: iJ(91. ,r,EM JUL 2 C 1985 CITY. G1- TUKVVI PLANNING DEPT. Building & Land Develo ment Division 450 King County Admi sV t10 Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (2061344.7900 �.3 Reference No.: 012- 85 -5H, I U . . . . ' KING COUNTY SHO ELINE MANAGEMENT '' —DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS PERMIT ATTACHMENT I FILE NO(S): 012-85-SH, METRO 1. Nothing in this permit shall be construed as excusing the applicant from compliance with any federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations applicable to this project other than the permit requirements of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14<7> of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the per- mittee fails to comply with any condition hereof. 3. Construction pursuant to this permit will not begin or be authorized until thirty days from the date of filing the final order of King County with the Department of Ecology or Attorney General; or until all review proceedings initiated within thirty days from the date of such filing have been 4. The following time requirements shall apply to this permit: a. Construction or substantial progress toward the con- struction of this project must be undertaken within two years from this date or the permit shall terminate. If such progress has not been made, a new permit will be necessary. b. If this project has not been completed within five years from this date, the permit will be reviewed at the expiration of the five-year period and, upon a showing of good cause shall be either extended for one year or shall be terminated; PROVIDED that such review shall be requested by the parnittme prior to the ex- piration date. S. Conditions as cited in the attached Hearing Examiner's report dated June 28, 1985. 012-84-SH, METRO Page 1 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL AND DECISION OF THE SHORELINES HEARINGS OFFICER SUBJECT: Building and Land Development File Nos. 218 -85 -U and 012 -85 -SH Proposed Ordinance No. 85 -258 MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE (Unclassified Use Permit) 3.54 acres lying on the southwesterly side of Interurban Avenue South (SR 181) between Interstate 5 and 52nd Avenue South at South 134th Street (if extended). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: Examiner: PRELIMINARY REPORT: The Building and Land Development Division's Preliminary Report on Item Nos. 218 -85 -U and 012 -85 -SH was received by the Examiner on June 12, 1985. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Land Development Division's Report, examining available information on file with the application and visiting the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing on Item Nos. 218 -85 -U and 012 -85 -SH was opened by the Examiner at 10:40 a.m., June 27, 1985, in Room No. 402, King County Courthouse, Third Avenue and James Street, Seattle, Washington and closed at 11:07 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutes. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: OFFICE OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Division's Division's Preliminary: Final: 1. General Information: STR: Location: June 28, 1985 Approve, subject to conditions Approve, subject to conditions (modified) Approve, subject to conditions (modified) NW 14 -23 -4 and NE 15 -23 -4 lying on the southwesterly side of Interurban Avenue South (SR 181) between Interstate 5 and 52nd Avenue South at South 134th Street (if extended) Zoning: Size: 2 18- 85 -U 012 -83H Page 2 BC, RM 2400 3.54 acres 2. The findings and conclusions contained in the King County Building and Land Development Division Preliminary Report to the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner for the June 27, 1985, public hearing are found to be correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 3. The applicant proposes to construct the park and ride lot in two phases, beginning with the easterly portion which will have access solely to 52nd Avenue S. 4. The King County Building and Land Development Division has recommended approval of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and of the Unclassified Use Permit for construction and operation of a park and ride lot, subject to conditions. The conditions recommended by the Building and Land Development Division are satisfactory to the applicant, and there was no opposition expressed at the public hearing. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed development and use of the subject property, if made subject to the conditions set forth below, will be consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan -1985, King County Shoreline Master Program, Highline Community Plan and the King County Zoning Code. 2. With the dedication of right -of -way and traffic improvements required by the following conditions, this proposal can meet the requirements of King County Ordinance No. 6677, as amended, governing arterial road capacity. 3. The proposed development and operation will require approval by the King County Surface Water Management Division for drainage control plans, approval by the City of Tukwila for development upon those portions of the subject property which are within the boundaries of the city, and may require a hydraulic project permit from the Washington State Department of Fisheries. DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: The Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The King County Building and Land Development Division shall approve a site plan which meets the requirements for development within the shoreline urban environment. In addition: 2. A detailed landscape plan meeting the requirements of KCC 25.165.030(E), and 21.46, or other applicable code shall be submitted to the Building and Land Development Division for review and approval prior to beginning of construction. A landscape performance bond assuring survival of all plantings for one year shall be submitted to the Building and Land Development Division. 3. A Temporary Sedimentation and Erosion Control plan shall be prepared and submitted for approval to King County Surface Water Management Division (SWM) prior to beginning of construction. The plan shall include: c 218 -85 -U and U2 -85 -SH 7 Page 3 1. Filter fabric fence location and installation procedures, 2. ' A rock tire wash for vehicles exiting the site, 3. Provisions to cover exposed embankments and soil stock piles, 4. An on -site temporary sedimentation control pond, 5. Soil revegetation schedule and practices, 6. Other provisions required by SWM. 4. Oil /water separator as shown on the proposed site plan shall be installed and approved by SWM. Grass -lined swales are recommended as a component part of the storm water management system, and shall be required if feasible as determined by SWM. 5. Construction materials or debris shall not be permitted to remain on -site following construction RECOMMENDATION FOR UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT: APPROVE the Unclassified Use Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. The Building and Land Development Division shall approve a site plan in conformance with KCC 21.46.150- 21.46.200, and KCC 25.16.010. The site plan shall reflect the following conditions of approval: a. Widening of 52nd Avenue South adjacent to site and construction of left turn lanes. b. Realigning 52nd Avenue South adjacent to site to align with the new Foster Bridge Improvement on the north side of Interurban Avenue South. c. Provide curb, gutters, and sidewalks along Interurban Avenue and 52nd Avenue South adjacent to the site. d. A fully actuated, multiphase traffic signal to be installed at the newly aligned 52nd Avenue South /Interurban Avenue South intersection as part of the Foster Bridge reconstruction project. e. Rechannelization of the newly aligned 52nd Avenue South /Interurban Avenue South intersection. 2. A landscape performance bond assuring survival of all plantings for one year shall be submitted to the Building and Land Development Division pursuant to KCC 21.46.160. 3. Obtain approval of water retention /detention system design from King County Surface Water Managment Division as per Ordinance No. 2281 (KCC 20.50). 4. A Temporary sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared and submitted for review by King County Surface Water Management Division prior to the beginning of construction. The Plan shall include: a. Filter fabric fence location and installation procedures, b. A rock tire wash for vehicles existing the site, c. Provisions to cover exposed embankments and soil stockpiles, d. An on -site temporary sedimentaion control pond, e. Soil revegetation schedule and practices. 218 -85 -U and 012 -85 -SH Page 4 5. An oil /water separator shall be installed and approved by the Surface Water Management Division. Grass lined swales shall be required if determined to be feasible by the Surface Water Management Division. 6. A hydraulic project approval permit shall be obtained from the Washington State Department of Fisheries for any work required on the bank of the Duwammish River. 7. The applicant shall meet the conditions for the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit set forth above. 8. No grading permit shall be issued for this project until such time as the City of Tukwila approves a grading permit insofar as it affects the portion of the proposed park and ride lot which is situated within the City of Tukwila. 9. The proposed phasing of the project shall be reviewed by the King County Department of Public Works, Division of Traffic and Planning. The phased development shall be permitted only if the Division of Traffic and Planning determines that the single access available on 52nd Avenue South will be adequate for the proposed use, without adversely impacting traffic or pedestrian or vehicle safety on 52nd Avenue South and its intersections with Interurban Avenue South and 53rd Avenue South. 10. Additional right -of -way shall be dedicated as shown on the site plan submitted as Exhibit No. 9. ORDERED this 28th day of June, 1985. i James N. O'Connor Zoning and Subdivision Examiner TRANSMITTED this 28th day of June, 1985, by certified mail, to the following parties of record: Larry Ellington, METRO Lloyd Capps Peter Thomson Wallace Shaff TRANSMITTED this 28th day of June, 1985, 1984, to the following: Mark Mitchell, Building and Land Development Division Rick Bautista, Building and Land Development Division King County Department of Public Works King County Health Department Washington State Department of Transportation NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL In order to appeal the recommendation of the Examiner, written notice of appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King County Council with a fee of $50.00 (check payable to Kino County Office of Finance) on or before JULY 12, 1985. If a notice of appeal is filed, the original and 6 copies of a written appeal statement specifying the basis for the appeal and argument in support of the appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King County Council on or before JULY 19, 1985. r If a written notice of appeal and filing fee are not filed within 14 calendar days of the date of this report, or if a written appeal statement and argument are not filed within 21 calendar days of the date of this report, the Clerk of the Council shall place a proposed ordinance which implements the Examiner's recommended action on the agenda of the next available Council meeting. Filing requires actual delivery to the Office of the Clerk of the Council, Room 403, King County Courthouse, prior to the close of business (4:30 p.m.) on the date due. Prior mailing is not sufficient if actual receipt by the Clerk does not occur within the applicable time period. The Examiner does not have authority to extend the time period unless the Office of the Clerk is not open on the specified closing date, in which event delivery prior to the close of business on the next business day is sufficient to meet the filing requirement. Action of the Council Final. The action of the Council approving or adopting a recommendation of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive unless within twenty (20) days from the date of the action an agrieved party or person applies for a writ of certiorari from the Superior Court in and for the County of King, State of Washington, for the purpose of review of the action taken. The decision of the Shoreline Hearing Examiner may be appealed to the State Shoreline Hearings Board. Information on appeal procedures may be obtained from Washington State Department of Ecology, Redmond Office - telephone 885 -1900. Requests for review by the Hearings Board must be received by the State Department of Ecology and State Attorney General's Office within thirty (30) days of receipt by the Department of Ecology of the permit or letter of denial. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 27, 1985 PUBLIC HEARING ON BALD FILE NOS. 218 -85 -U and 012 -85 -SH - MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE James N. O'Connor was the hearing examiner in this matter. Participating n the hearing were Mark Mitchell, Rick Bautista, representing the Building and Land Development Division, Larry Ellington, representing METRO, Lloyd Capps, Peter Thomson, and Wallace Shaff The following Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit JNO'C:hlm 0638D 218 -85 -U and 012- 85 -SHF'. Page 5 exhibits were offered and entered into the record: No. 1 Staff report dated 6/27/85 No. 2 Application dated 3/8/85 No. 3 Environmental Checklist dated 3/8/85 No. 4 Declaration of Non - significance dated No. 5 Affidavit of Positing dated 5/16/85 No. 6 -1 Affidavit of Publication, Seattle Times 6/5/85 No. 6 -2 Affidavit of Publication, Renton Daily News No. 7 -1 Assessor's map NW 14 -23 -4 No. 7 -2 Assessor's map SW 14 -23 -4 No. 7 -3 Assessor's map NE 15 -23 -4 No. 7 -4 Assessor's map SE 15 -23 -4 No. 8 Letter from Seattle City Light dated No. 9 Site plans 9/27/83 5/21/85 APPLICANT: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER JUNE 27, 1985 - PUBLIC HEARING I. GENERAL INFORMATION Owner: 218 -85 -U Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle FILE: 012 -85 -SH Proposed Ordinance Number: 85-258 Locati n: IBNIPOWED STR: Size: Zone: JUN 2 4 1985 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 821 Second Avenue MS /63 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 447 -4844 Southwesterly side of Interurban Avenue South (SR 181) between Interstate 5 and 52nd Avenue South at South 134th Street (if extended). NW 14 -23 -4 and NE 15 -23 -4 3.54 acres BC, RM 2400 Agencies Contacted: Washington State Department of Fisheries: No response. Washington State Department of Game: No response. Washington State Department of Ecology: No response. Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: No response. Washington State Department of Transportation: No response. City of Tukwila Sewer: See Attachment 3 Water District No. 124: See Attachment 4 South Central School District No. 406: No response. City of Tukwila Fire Department: No response. Ring County Fire Disrict No. 18: No response. Ring County Traffic: See Attachment 7 King County Surface Water Management: See Attachment 9 Ring County Planning: See Attachment 6 King County Health: No response. Ring County Parks: No response. Ring County Soil Conservation: See Attachment 9 City of Tukwila Planning: See Attachment 10 Burien Chamber of Commerce: No response. Duwamish Community Commission: No response. Seattle Audubon Society: No response. Rainier Audubon Society: No response. A. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The request is for an Unclassified Use Permit and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit in order to construct a 260 stall park and ride lot within King County and City of Tukwila jurisdic- tions. The request was reviewed in relation to Comprehensive Plan 1985 and Chapter 21.44.020 of the Ring County Code. Interurban Avenue South and 52nd Avenue South serve the site. No additional right -of -way will be required for dedication. The applicant has submitted plans that have been reviewed by Ring County Traffic, Surface Water Management and Planning Division. B. PURPOSE OF THE UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT OF THE KING COUNTY CODE: KCC 21.44.010 Purpose: "All of the following uses described in this chapter, and all matter directly related thereto, are declared to be uses possessing characteristics of such unique and special form as to make impractical their being included automatically in any classes of use as set forth in the -1- FILES 218 -85 -U and 012 -85 -SH various classifictions herein defined, and the authority for the location and operation thereof shall be subject to review and the issuance of a use permit. The purpose of a review shall be to determine that the charac- teristics of any such use shall not be unreasonably incompatible with the type of uses permitted in surrounding areas and for the further purpose of stipulating such conditions as may reasonably assure that the basic purpose of this title shall be served. Factors to be considered are as set forth in Section 21.46.050." Permitted Uses: Transit park and ride lot, when operated by a public transit authority. Proposed Use: The proposed park and ride lot is anticipated to be developed in one phase. See the.site,plan in the file for details. C. HISTORY /BACKGROUND: 1. State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA): Acting as the lead agency for this proposal, METRO issued a declaration of nonsignificance (Attachment 1) for this project on September 27, 1983. No appeals were filed within the specified appeal period. On October 14, 1983, METRO issued a final declaration of non - significance (see Attachment 2). 2. The subject property was zoned BC and RM 2400 with the adoption of the Highline Area Zoning Study (Resolution No. 34529) on December 11, 1967. 3. Prior to No. 2 above, the property was zoned B -1, R -2, R -2A and R -8.4. II. ISSUE ANALYSIS This analysis is based upon the responses of the agencies of jurisdiction and other reviewing public agencies; citizens and community organizations; a field inspection of the project site; information submitted by the applicant; and is outlined in Section A of this report. A. UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Sewer: The City of Tukwila provides service to the site through an 8 -inch line located 5 feet from the site. The need for sewer service is not required as a part of this proposal. (See Attachment 3). 2. Water: Service to the site is provided by two purveyors (City of Tukwila and King County Water District No. 125). Referencing Attachment 4, Water District 125 provides service via a 6 -inch main located 10 feet from the site. The District has a County approved water comprehensive plan. The rate of flow is rated at 500 to 999 gallons per minute (gpm) to be available after the completion of the Foster Point Bridge in late 1985. Referencing Attachment 5, the City of Tukwila indicates water ser- vice is available via a 12 -inch main located 50 feet from the site. The main provides a rate of flow of 1,000 gpm or more for two or more hours. The City of Tukwila does not have a County approved Water Comprehensive Plan. 3. Fire Protection: The King County Fire Marshal has indi- cated that despite the low fire flow capability referenced above, they do not anticipate adverse fire protection impacts due to the proposed use. FILES 218 -85 -U and 012 -85 -SH 4. Police Protection: The King County Police Department has indicated in conversation that providing patrols onto the subject property will not significantly alter their ability to respond to emergencies at other locations. 5. Transit: The subject property is serviced by METRO tran- sit routes along Interurban Avenue. It is expected that this pro- posal would enhance the quality of service along this route, according to METRO. B. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION: The subject property is served by 52nd Avenue South and Interurban Avenue. According to the King County Interim Transportation Plan, 52nd Avenue South is a neighborhood collector street and Interurban Avenue is a major arterial. Referencing the King County Planning Division response (Attachment 6), the intersection of 52nd Avenue south and Interurban Avenue South currently operates at level -of- service E. The Planning Division states that the installation of a full - actuated, multiphase traffic signal and left turn lanes at this intersection would reduce traffic delays and upgrade the level-of- service to D or better. The King County Traffic Division has reviewed and accepted the applicant's suggested off -site mitigation measures (see Attachment 7). The anticipated off -site traffic impact will be mitigated if the improvements, outlined on Attachments 5 and 6, are made conditions of approval. C. ENVIRONMENT: 1. Topography: The central portion fo the site primarily is level. The south, west and east portions of the site have steeper terrain ranging from 15 to 20 percent slope. The southernmost portion of the property has slopes to 25 or 30 percent. 2. Soils: The 1973 Soil Survey of King Couty identifies soils of the Urban land (Ur) series on the proposed plat. Urban land (Ur) is soil that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick to accommodate large industrial /commercial or housing develop- ments. The erosion hazard is slight to moderate, dependent upon slope. Degree of limitations for low building foundations, shallow excavations, and septic tank filter fields are variable depending on nature, characteristics, depth and compaction of fill material. In reference to Attachment 8, which states that the proposed site is located in a Class II Seismic Area, the site is not in a Seismic Area according to the more recent 1980 Sensitive Areas Map Folio. 3. Hydrography: There were no significant wetlands iden- tified by County staff in the review of the Sensitive Wetlands Maps and in field inspection of the site. There is a small, low - lying depression on the northwest portion of the site which may have standing water during periods of rainfall. The Duwamish River No. 1 Wetland is not located on this site as mentioned on Attachment 8 by the King County Conservation District. 4. Vegetation: The site is primarily cleared and graded. Vegetation is mostly grasses and shrubs located on the west, south and east perimeters of the site. Some deciduous trees are located randomly along the south and east boundaries. 5. Wildlife: Small animals and birds may inhabit the site. No rare or endangered species are known to occur on the site. -3- D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1985 POLICIES: H -29: H -30: H -31: F -211: F -232: F -230: -4- FILES 218 -85 -U and 012 -85 -SH 1. The site is located within the Highline Community Planning Area but is not addressed by the Highline Community Plan land use map. Policies H -29, H -30 and H -31 of the Highline Plan apply to this application: "Improve local transit or paratransit service, espe- cially east - west." "Provide good transit connections to major employment areas." "Integrte bicycle, pedestrian, bus and street systems to emphasize easy transfer between different modes of transportation (e.g., bicycle and bus)." COMMENT: This request is consistent in the application of the above policies. 2. Comprehensive Plan 1985 Policies F -211, F -232 and F -230: "Access points to principal and minor arterials should be consolidated and limited to minimize congestion whe- never possible. This concept should be applied to all types of residential, commercial and industrial develop- ment. Parcels with limited arterial frontage should have only one access point. Parcels with extensive frontage should have only a few controlled access points spaced well apart." "Park and ride lots should include adequate screening, buffering and measures to mitigate other off -site impacts such as increased vehicle traffic and surface water runoff. COMMENT: The applicant has submitted a site plan (see plans in file) that indicate one access point each onto 52nd Avenue South and Interurban Avenue South. The site plan shows proposed landscaping. The request is in conformance with the above poli- cies. "Park and ride lots should be located in Urban and Transitional Areas on sites with convenient arterial access, close to the residential areas they serve." COMMENT:' The site is located in an Urban Area designated by the plan. It is convenient to Interurban Avenue South, a major arterial. III. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 1. The RM 2400 zone provides for unclassified uses as found in KCC 21.44.020(N), below, and the BC zone alows public off -stret parking facilities pursuant to KCC 21.28.020(J). KCC 21.44.020(N): "N. Transit park and ride lot, when operated by a public transit authority and when located in any R, S or G zone, provided: FILES 218 -85 -U and 012 -85 -SH "1. The site has direct vehicular access to a designated arterial improved to King County standards. "2. Additional landscaping, screening, noise mitiga- tion, access controls, signing restrictions, or con- ditions may be required to adequately accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists and ensure the compatibility of the transit park and ride lot with surrounding development." KCC 21.28.020(J): "Public off - street parking facilities, whether publicly or privately operated, provided any area so used shall not be used for a vehicle, trailer or boat sales area..." COMMENT: King County Traffic Division an Planning Division indicates that they have reviewed the proposed site plan and find it to be in compliance with KCC 21.44.020(N) and KCC 21.28.020(J). 2. The applicant will require approval of a Substantial Development Permit from King County. The following is a review of the Shoreline Master Program Code and Policy: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM CODE AND POLICY "KCC 25.16.010 Purpose: "The purpose of designating the urban environment is to ensure optimum utilization of the shorelines of the state within urbanized areas by permitting intensive use and by managing development so that it enhances and maintains the shorelines of the state for a multiplicity of urban uses. The urban environment is designed to reflect a policy of increasing utilization and effi- ciency of urban areas, to promote a more intense level of use through redevelopment of areas now under - utilized and to encourage multiple use of the shorelines of the state if the major use is water dependent or water related while at the same time safeguarding the quality of the environment." KCC 25.16.030 General Requirements: "A. Nonwater related development and residential deve- lopment shall not be permitted waterward of the ord- dinary high water mark. "B. Except in those cases when the height requirements of the underlying zones are more restrictive, no struc- ture shall exceed a height of thirty -five feet above average grade level. "C. All development shall be required to provide ade- quate surface water retention and sedimentation facili- ties during the construction period. "...E. Parking facilities except parking facilities associated with detached single - family and agricultural development shall conform to the following minimum con- ditions: -5- FILES 218 -85 -U and 012 -85 -SH 1. Parking areas serving a water related or non - water related use must be located beneath or upland of the development which the parking area serves. 2. Any outdoor parking area perimeter, excluding entrances and exits, must be maintained as a planting area with a minimum width of five feet. 3. One live tree with a minimum height of four feet shall be required for each thirty linear feet of planting area. 4. One live shrub of one - gallon container size or larger for each sixty linear inches of planting area shall be required. 5. Additional perimeter and interior landscaping of parking areas may be required, at the discretion of the director, when it is necessary to screen parking areas or when large parking areas are proposed. "F. Collection facilities to control and separate con- taminants shall be required where stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces would degrade or add to the pollu- tion of recipient waters or adjacent properties." KING COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (KCSMP) SHORELINE USE ACTIVITIES - Transportation Facilities, General Policy 14: "14. All transportation facilities in shoreline areas should be constructed and maintained to cause the least possible adverse impacts on the land and water environ- ments, should respect the natural character of the shoreline, and should make every effort to preserve wildlife, aquatic life and their habitats." COMMENT: The proposal is analyzed against KCSMP codes and policy presented above. Recommendations outlined for the issuance of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit are found below and will be incorporated into the final condtions found at the end of this report. The urban shoreline designation recognizes and allows inten- sive land uses such as park and ride lots. The parking lot which is separated from the "actual shoreline" by Interurban Avenue South is consistent with urban shoreline uses. All nonwater related development associated with the project will not exceed 35 feet in height and is set back from the river (northbound pedestrian shelters are approximately 30 feet from teh river) so as not to violate Title 25 provisions. Landscaping specifications as set out in KCC 25.16.030(E) must be met or exceeded per code requirement. Site plans show landscaping in a general sense. Specific conformance to the landscaping requirements must be establshed through a landscape plan. Of critical interest to shorelines is the increased runoff from impervious surfaces, and runoff during construction. These impacts have been addressed in the September 1983 Tukwila Park and Ride Environmental Assessment, and in Tukwila Park and Ride Facility Storm Drainage Analysis. To conform to the Shoreline Master Program the stormwater must be managed in such a way as to prevent degradation of recipient water bodies. The above referenced plans have identified several methods to assure confor- mance to Title 25 during construciton and operation of the parking lot. Fabric fencing would be installed around the perimeter of the site, a rock tire wash will control soil being carried from -6- the site during construction, temporary fabric would cover exposed soils on embankments, a pond would be constructed to remove sedi- ment before discharge into the drainage system, soil stock piles would be covered, landscaped areas would be revegetated as soon as possible, and an oil /water separator would be installed to remove contaminants during operation. These erosion and pollution control measures will allow the project to conform to Shoreline Master Program. Filling and grading associated with project is permitted under Title 25. The above referenced erosion control methods will permit the filling and grading to conform to Title 25. All filling and grading must conform to KCC 16.82.100. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: L FILES 218 -85 -U and 012-85-SH Approve Substantial Development permit 012 -85 -SH subject to the following conditions. a. A detailed landscape plan meeting the requirements of KCC 25.16.030(E), and 21.46, or other applicable code shall be sub- mitted to BALD for review and approval prior to beginning of construction. A landscape performance bond assuring survival of all plantings for one year shall be submitted to Building and Land Development. b. A Temporary Sedimentation and Erosion Control plan shall be prepared and submitted for approval to King County Surface Water Management (SWM) prior to beginning of construction. The plan shall include: 1) Filter fabric fence location and installation procedures, 2) A rock tire wash for vehicles exiting the site, 3) Provisions to cover exposed embankments and soil stock piles, 4) An on -site temporary sedimentation control pond, 5) Soil revegetation schedule and practices, 6) Other provisions required by SWM. c. Oil /water separator as shown on the proposed site plan shall be installed and approved by SWM. Grass -lined swales are recommended as a component part of the storm water management system, and shall be required if feasible as determined by SWM. d. Construction materials or debris shall not be permitted to remain on -site following construction." Comment: The recommendations for approval of Substantial Development Permit File Number 012 -85 -SH will be implemented as a condition of the unclassified use permit application. 3. Project Plans and a State Flood Control Zone Application submitted to King County Surface Water Management (SWM) Division have been forwarded to the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Attachment 9). SWM has reviewed the applicant's plans and has incorporated comments and recommendations for development of this site. COMMENT: Development of the site will require compliance with KCC 20.50 (surface water retention /detention). This com- piance should include provision for oil /water separation prior to discharge into the Duwamish River and an erosion control plan con- sistent with recommendations 2 and 3, above. 4. The City of Tukwila has responded to this project with several recommendations that the request be included in the site plan (see Attachment 10). Recommendation 1 is basically con- sistent with KCC 21.51.040.0 (landscape ordinance) which will be -7- IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS: RECOMMENDATIONS -8- FILES 218 -85 -U and 012 -85 -SH implemented as a condition of approval. Recommendation 2 is not applicable to because the proposed transit shelter is with City of Tukwila jurisdiction. The applicant states that they intend to ask for a variance from the Tukwila Board of Adjustment. Recommendation 3 has already been proposed by the applicant. Recommendations 4 and 6 are consistent with Ring County require- ments and will be conditions of approval. In regard to Recommendation 5, METRO will support a condition that METRO must apply for annexation into the City of Tukwila. METRO will support a condition that annexation will occur prior to the final appro- val of this request. Such a condition cannot be legally enforced by Ring County. The METRO Council must give its permission before any annexation application is forwarded for review by the Ring County Boundary Review Board and the City of Tukwila. Recommendation 8 will be a condition approval. Recommendation 9 is applicable only to areas with City of Tukwila jurisdiction. Recommendation 10 asks for measures beyond what is legally required by KCC 21.51 (Ring County landscape ordinance. The County does not have legal powers to enforce conditions requested by other jurisdictions unless the County has identical require- ments enforceable by an ordinance passed by the Ring County Council. 1. The request is consistent with Comprehensive Plan 1985 Policies F -211, F -232, and F -230; and with Highline Plan Policies H -29, H -30, and H -31. 2. Park and ride lots are permitted in the RM 2400 zone and the BC zone under KCC 21.44.020N and KCC 21.28.020J, respectively. This proposal can meet the requirements of these sections of the Code. 3. Since all required off -site traffic improvements can be accomplished within the existing right -of -way no additional right - of -way should be required for dedication along Interurban Avenue South and 52nd Avenue. This request can meet the requirements of Ordinance No. 6677 with implementation of Ring County Traffic and Ring County Transportation's conditions. 4. The applicant has proposed a site plan that has incor- porated comments from the King Count Surface Water Management Division. The comments received from SWM and Traffic should be conditions of approval. This proposal will require a Ring County Substantial Development Permit. 5. The requirements for approval of the Shoreline Substantial Development permit can be met, if the recommended con- ditions are implemented through KCC 21.41 and KCC 20.50. 6. The City of Tukwila has forwarded recommendations for conditions of approval. Many requested conditions can be imple- mented by existing King County Ordinance. Condition 1 cannot be enforced by Ring County because the shelter is located within the City of Tukwila. Condition 10 cannot be enforced by King County due to the fact that the request goes beyond the requirements of the Ring County Landscape Ordinance (KCC 21.41). 7. Appropriate permits will be needed from the City of Tukwila, Washington State Department of Transportation, and Ring County, as all three jurisdictions would be involved in some aspect of the off -site improvements. FILES 218 -85 -U and 012-85-SH APPROVE, subject to the following: 1. Building and Land Development Division shall approve a site plan in conformance with KCC 21.46.150- 21.46.200. The site plan shall reflect the following conditions of approval: a. Widening of 52nd Avenue South adjacent to site and construction of left turn lanes. b. Realigning 52nd Avenue South adjacent to site to align with the new Foster Bridge Improvement on the north side of Interurban Avenue South. c. Provide curb, gutters, and sidewalks along Interurban Avenue and 52nd Avenue South adjacent to the site. d. A fully actuated, multiphase traffic signal to be installed at the newly aligned 52nd Avenue South /Interurban Avenue South intersection as part of the Foster Bridge reconstruction project. e. Rechannelization of the newly aligned 52nd Avenue South /Interurban Avenue South intersection. 2. A landscape performance bond assuring survival of all plantings for one year shall be submitted to BALD prusuant to KCC 21.46.160. 3. Obtain approval of water retention /detention system design from King County Surface Water Management as per Ordinance No. 2281 (KCC 20.50). 4. A Temporary Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared and submitted for review by King County Surface Water Management prior to the beginning of construction. The Plan shall include: a. Filter fabric fence location and installation proce- dures, b. A rock tire wash for vehicles exiting the site, c. Provisions to cover exposed embankments and soil stockpiles, d. An on -site temporary sedimentaton control pond, e. Soil revegetation schedule and practices. 5. An oil /water separator shall be installed and approved by SWM. Grass lined swales shall be required if determined to be feasible by SWM. 6. A fisheries permit shall be required from Surface Water Management. 7. The applicant shall be required to obtain a King County Substantial Development Permit. TRANSMITTED to parties listed hereafter: Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 821 Second Avenue MS /63, Seattle, WA 98104 * * ** GWM:RB 06/13/85 Attachments APPLICANT: MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE REQUEST: UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT FOR PARK -AND -RIDE LOT. STR: NW- 14 -23 -4 & NE 15 -23 -4 Proposed Reclassification A\ F 218 -85 -U APPENDIX B 4 00' r e' Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Bldg. • '821 Second Ave., Seattle, Washington 98104 PROPOSEDAOONNL DECLARATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE Action: Constructing and operating a park- and -ride lot. Description of Proposal: Developing a park - and -ride lot at Tukwila, consisting of 260 -300 automobile parking spaces, landscaping, passenger, shelters, driver comfort stations, transit information display and signing, irrigation system, motorcycle and bicycle parking, lighting and telephones booth(s) on 4.3 acres of land. Proponent: Municipality of Metropolitan, Seattle Location of Proposal: King County/ Tukwila, Washington at the Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Interurban Ave. South and 52nd Ave. South. Lead Agency: Municipality of Metropolitan, Seattle This proposal has been determined to (hovel/not have) a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS (,.e/is not) required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c) . This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official: Rodney G. Proctor Position /Tit e: Manager, Environmental Planning Division Date: ? r3 Environmental Planning Division men-1- 1 2JmETRD Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Bldg. • 821 Second Ave., Seattle, Washington 98104 FINAL DECLARATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE Action: Construnti rig a nri npprati net a parlr - ate -ride ' lot _ Description of Proposal: Developing si r pa and - ride lot wil at ,k consisting of 260 -300 automobile parking sparPS, lamer- aping, • passenger, shelters, driver comfort stations, transit infnrmat-inn display and signing, irrigation system. motorcycle and bicyn1e parking, lighting and telephones booth(s) on 4.3 acres of land_ Proponent: Municipality of Metropolitan. Seattle Location of Proposal: King County /Tukwila. Washington at the Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Internrban Avp_ Smith and 52nd Ave. South. Lead Agency: Municipality of Metropolitan. Seattle This proposal has been determined to not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental check- list and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official: Rodney G. Proctor Position /Title: Manager, Environmental Planning Division Date: 10/14/83 Signature: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIVISION 0-1-t 2 2 1-85 U I Z 'his certificate provide the Department of Health and Building & Land Development with information necessary to evaluate development proposals. o no Ira ja . :ag u n umber name APPLICANT'S NAME `f{vrc/ /c /P.4c /Ty 6F em6,tre4- ass PROPOSED USE Z,/e`✓ /c-A Plleige 4 l.L.d 1LtP0r tx:r — LOCAT ION e.•ede/ ov>E , Sa GvLe ./ ) (Attach map & legal description if necessary) 9 SEWER AGENCY INFORMATION 1. a.E1 Sewer service will be provided by side sewer connection only to an existing size sewer 3 feet from the site and the sewer system has the capacity to serve the proposed use. OR • b. Sewer service will require an improvement to the sewer system of: ❑ (1) feet of sewer trunk or latteral to reach the site; 2 F279 Please return to: BUILDING & LAND DEVELOPMENT 450 Administration Building Seattle, Washington 98104 206-344.7900 KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF SEWER AVAILABILITY ❑ Building Permit ❑ Preliminary Plat or PUD ❑ Rezone or other ❑ Short Subdivision and /or ❑ (2) the construction of a collection system on the site; and /or ❑ (3) other (describe) a. U The sewer system improvement is in conformance with a County approved sewer comprehensive plan. OR b. The sewer system improvement will require a sewer comprehensive plan amendment. 3. a. ® The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the district or has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of service outside the district or city. OR b. Annexation or BRB approval will be necessary to provide service. 4. Service is subject to the following: // a. Connection charge: " e ∎ Z O /.ucrra,J 9 NOalcup (;:ka,.rAt7 b. Easement(s): c. Other: • _ .. y E,xisr • I hereby certify that the above sewer agency information is true. This certification shall be valid for one year from date of signature. City of Tukwila Ross Earnst Agency Name am e City Engineer 7 nato. 4 - X4 ' /�r-- Title Signature Date il Oa ji r r9 This certificate provides the Department of Health and Building & Land Development with information necessary to evaluate development proposals. Do noZ S tMSST 5 r number iff Building Permit Short Subdivision APPLICANT'S NAME ?inni ri ps 1 i t-y of Metropolitan Seattle PROPOSED USE Tiik,yi 1 A P,rk and Ride lot LOCATION (Attach map & legal description -if necessary) # # M 1F # # 'Ik $ # WATER PURVEYOR INFORMATION II N 1. a. Water will be // I! provided by service connection only to an existing 6D water main 10 feet from the site. size OR b. OR b. o Water service will require an improvement to the water system.of: ❑ (1) feet of water main to reach the site; and /or ❑ (2) the construction of a distribution system on the site; and /or ❑ (3) other (describe) 2. a. OR b. The water system improvement will require a water comprehensive plan amendment. 3. a. The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the district, or has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of service outside the distric or city, or is within the County approved service area of a private water purveyor. OR b. ❑ Annexation or BRB approval will be necessary to provide service. 4. a. Water is /or will be available at the rate of flow and duration indicated below at (1 no less than 20 psi measured at the nearest fire hydrant 10 feet from the building /property (or as marked on the attached map): clieet than 500 gpm (approx. gpm), Oless than 1 hour 500 to 999 gpm ❑ 1 hour to 2 hours ❑ 1000 gpm or more FOR ❑ 2 hours or more ❑ flow test of gpm ❑ other ❑ calculation of gpm (Commercial Building Permits require flow test or calculation) ❑ Water system is not capable of providing fire flow. COMMENTS /COND IT IONS Co rt ,/e i/ 1c, f The water system is in conformance with a County approved water comprehensive plan. I hereby certify that the above water purveyor information is true. certification shall be valid for one year from date of signature. 4tn } c. CO . lA < Agency Name F 278 Title Rate of Flow 7 r; re, D F FiJ l er -- i KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF WATER AVAILABI V WR name Please return to: BUILDING & LAND DEVELOPMENT 450 Administration Budding Seattle, Washington 96104 206344.7900 ❑ Preliminary Plat or PUD ($..Rasene or other i JCt A.55%. V T - 4 Ana_ Tntprnrhand 1wp. South (see attached legal descriptions) Duration Flo w;// be Ava /4/�/� gF�er PO tom, f 13red y s✓.. .sp ivte fi !n hark Signatory Name �'fTT GC.CJ� 1 Signa.itu r� This Date CP us's "certificate proviaL. the Department of Health and Building & Land Development with information necessary to evaluate development proposals. Please return to: BUILDING & LAND DEVELOPMENT 450 Administration Building Seattle, Washington 98104 206.344.7900 KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF WATER AVAILABILITY Do: not write in this box .1e( n name ❑ Building Permit Q Preliminary Plat or PUD ❑ Rezone or other ❑ Short Subdivision APPLICANT'S NAME // oil /C/ # 4 -i 77r DF m dW401)4., 7s1..v se94T7LE PROPOSED USE 1j, > , m,/ L.4 4gx, -' ae,,., j 2 pF z. C T LOCATION S S .4- 4 /47attecweito Ats. . .Spvrrs , ( E G •) (Attach map & legal description if necessary) #M #1 #k #1 #1 * #1 #1 #1 M #k #1 WATER PURVEYOR INFORMATION L. a. Water will be provided by service connection only to an existing /2" G` water main feet from the site. size OR b. 0 Water service will require an improvement to the water system of: ❑ (1) feet of water main to reach the site; and /or ❑ (2) the construction of a distribution system on the site; and /or ❑ (3) other (describe) 2'.. a. 0 The water system is in conformance with a County approved water comprehensive plan. OR b. 0 The water system improvement will require a water comprehensive plan amendment. 3:. a. 0 The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the district, or has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of service outside the distric or city, or is within the County approved service area of a private water purveyor. OR b. 0 Annexation or BRB approval will be necessary to provide service. OR b. D �. a. vF� or will be available at the rate of flow and duration indicated below at I G]J no less than 20 psi measured at the nearest fire hydrant .2SO feet from the building /property (or as marked on the attached map): COMMENTS/CONDITIONS Rate of Flow Duration ❑ less than 500 gpm (approx. gpm) ❑ less than 1 hour ❑ 500 to 999 gpm ❑ 1 hour to 2 hours (a 1000 gpm or more FOR ® 2 hours or more ❑ flow test of gpm ❑ other ❑ calculation of gpm (Commercial Building Permits require flow test or calculation) Water system is not capable of providing fire flow. I hereby certify that the above water purveyor information is true. This certification shall be valid for one year from date of signature. City of Tukwila Agency Name City Engineer Title F 278 Ross Earnst Signature ni 5 HR:VN:am 034 /CP /BM fr ! j 5 King. County Executive J J ` A 5 Randy Revelle Department of Planning and Community Development Holly Miller, Director • May 31, 1985 TO: Bryan Glynn, Manager, Building and Land Development Division FM: Harold Robertson, Manager, Planning Division RE: BALD File No. 218 -85 -U, Unclassified Use Permit to allow . a Park and Ride lot, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle The subject site is located within the Highline Planning area, however, the Highline Community Plan land use map did not address this area. The existing zoning for the subject site is RM -2400 and B -C. The request for a park and ride lot is consistent with King County Comprehensive Plan policy F -230: "Park and ride lots should be located in Urban and Transitional Areas on sites with convenient arterial access, close to the residential areas . they serve." The intersection of 52nd Avenue South and Interurban Avenue South currently operates at level -of- service E. The installation of a fully- actuated, multiphase traffic signal and left -turn lanes at the intersection of Interurban Avenue and 52nd Avenue would reduce traffic delays and bring this intersection to an acceptable level -of- service. cc: Lois Schwennesen, Chief, Community Planning Section ATTN: Vaughan Norris, Community Planner Bill Hoffman, Acting Chief, Transportation Planning Section ATTN: Dave Gualtieri, Transportation Planner Planning Division 700 Alaska Building 618 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344.7610 PCH /GS:nc King County Executive Randy Revelle Department of Public Works Donald J. LaBelle, Director June 3, 1985 Mr. Bryan Glynn, Manager Building and Land Development Division Administration Building RE: Proposal Nos. 111 -85 -R and 218 -85 -U Dear Mr. Glynn: Our comments are as follows.in regard to the above - mentioned proposals which will be. considered at a public hearing. 111 -85 -R: We have no comments on this request. 218 -85 -U: The suggested off -site mitigations for traffic impacts for the pro - posedpark and ride have been previously reviewed by this office and are deter- mined acceptable. These include: 1. Widening of 52nd Ave. S. adjacent to site. 2. Realigning 52nd Ave. S. adjacent to site to align with the Bridge Improvement on the north side of Interurban Ave. S. 3. Provide curb, gutters, and sidewalks along Interurban Ave. Ave. S. adjacent to the site. 4. A fully actuated traffic signal to be installed at the newly aligned 52nd Ave. S. /Interurban Ave. S. intersection as part of the Foster Bridge reconstruction project. 5. Rechannelization of the newly aligned 52nd Ave. S. /Interurban Ave. S. intersection. Appropriate permits will be needed from the City of Tukwila, Washington State Department of Transportation, and King County, as all three jurisdictions would be involved in some aspect of the off -site improvements. Sincerely, Pau�ooper, P.E. County Road Engineer 900 King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 12061 344.2517 new Foster and 52nd Building .$ Land Development Attn: Development Controls 431 King County Administration Bldg. Seattle, WA. 98104 Re: Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Tukwila Park & Ride Facility, File #218 -85 -U Mr. Marbett: • • The 1973 Soil Survey of King County identifies soils of the Urban land (Ur) series on the proposed plat. G) Urban land (Ur) is soil that has been modified by distur- bance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick to accommodate large industrial /commercial or housing developments. The erosion hazard is slight to moderate, dependent upon slope. Degree of limitations for low building foundations, shallow excavations, and septic tank filter fields are variable depending on nature, characteristics, depth and compaction of fill material. The proposed site is located in a Class II Seizmic Area. according to the 1978 Sensitive Areas Map Folio and the Duwamish River No.1 Wetland according to the 1981 Sensitive Areas Wetland Supplement. Therefore all guidelines set forth in Ordinance 4365 should be followed. Adequate on -site drainage is required. To prevent any pollutants from entering the Duwamish River, particular attention should be paid to any on -site pollutants (i.e., solid wastes, construction chemicals, and petroleum products) to ensure that they remain on the site and will in no way further deteriorate the quality of the Duwamish River. We have no further comments at this time. Please contact our office if we can be of further assistance. cc: Dyanne Sheldon, BALD KING COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT ilmor 140 Rainier Avenue South • Renton, WA 98055 Phone (206) 226 -4867 CONSERVATION • DEVELOPMENT • SELF - GOVERNMENT Sincerely, May 29, 1985 J Martha L. Burnham Water Quality Planner C Mr. Herman Huggins Northwest Regional Office Department of Ecology 4350 150th Avenue NE Redmond, WA 98052 King County Executive Randy Revefe Department of Public Works Donald J. LaBelle, Director May 24, 1985 RE: SFCZA #KC -222 -2 (Our File #2 -1590) Dear Mr. Huggins: We are enclosing a State Flood Control Zone Application and plans submitted to this office by Metro in Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. for the construction of the Tukwila Park and Ride lot. We have reviewed the application and are submitting the following comments: 1. Nothing in this permit shall be construed as excusing the permittee from compliance with any applicable federal, state or local statutes, ordinances or regulations including those administered by local agencies under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. 2. The Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps have established the 100 year floodplain at 15.2 feet, USGS Datum. The proposed construction site is located outside this floodplain based on existing topography. 3. The water surface elevation for the Green River, with a controlled discharge from the Howard Hanson Dam of 12,000 cfs as measured at Auburn (Porter Gage), is 15.0 feet (Mean Sea Level Datum) at the subject site. 4. Any work or improvements to the river bank shall require approval of King County Public Works - Surface Water Management Division. These improve- ments would require a fisheries permit. 5. Storm water from this site should provide for oil -water separation prior to discharge into the Duwamish River. If you have any questions, please contact Steve Kohn at 344 -3874. Sincerely, SCT:SPK:js cc: City of Tukwila Steven C. Townsend, P.E. Manager, Development Review Section Surface Water Management Division 900 King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 12061 344.2517 May 24, 1985 City of Tukwila. 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433-1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor Bryan Glynn Building and Land Development Division Room 450, King County Administration Building Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Substantial Development Permit 012 -85 -SH Unclassified Use Permit 318 -85 -0 Dear Bryan: The City of Tukwila is concerned about METRO's park- and -ride facility which crosses our mutual jurisdictions. Most of these concerns are contained in the enclosed staff report to Tukwila's Planning Commission, which heard the matter on May 23, 1985. On that date the Commission approved the application subject to: 1. Revision of the landscaping plan to include low profile shrubs and 2" caliper deciduous trees per review and approval of the Planning and Police Departments. 2. Placement of the transit shelter stations to 8i feet from the property . lines or approval of a variance from the Board of Adjustment. 3. Addition of a 6 -foot high security fence along the perimeter of the site adjacent to private property. 4. Addition of lighting to illuminate all transit shelter stations, walk- way areas /sidewalks, and parking areas. 5. Annexation of the King County portion of the property to the City of Tukwila. 6. Spill -over illumination will not occur on adjacent properties. 7. Forwarding to King County a recommendation of compliance of the King County portions of the site with these conditions and any other City of Tukwila regulations to insure a unified development in anticipation of annexation to Tukwila. 8. Construction of intersection improvements at 52nd Avenue South and Interurban Avenue South per review and approval of the Public Works Department. acAmmen-1- 10 -.3 BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION May 24, 1985 Paget 9. Compliance with applicable City ordinances and regulations. 10. Noxious materials shall be removed from the site, and kept free of noxious growth such as blackberries and weeds. Please include the Commission's decision in your staff report to the Zoning Adjustor and Shoreline Hearing Officer. We also plan on attending the public hearing on June 27, 1985. The City is very interested in providing as much input into the decision - making process as possible. If you have any questions, call Rick Beeler at 433 -1847. It would be greatly appreciated if we could discuss your staff report and recommen- dation prior to this being finalized for forwarding to the Adjustor and Officer. Respectfully, Brad Collins Planning Director /ks cc: Mayor Planning Director Public Works Director (METRO.PNR2) 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, FILE No. 111 -85 -R OWNER: STR: LOCATION: PROPOSAL IS: TO PERMIT: 10:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, FILE N . 218 -85 -U E oWR: S LOCATION: JUNE 27, 19 85 - PUBLIC HEARING MAWCNIMUDEPt AGENDA FOR AMENDMENTS TO OFFICIAL CONTROLS ROOM 402, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KING COUNTY COURTHOUSE EXISTING ZONE: PROPOSAL IS: STR: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONE: PROPOSAL IS: RAMAC, INC. - REZONE PROP. ORD. #83 -282 RAMAC, Inc., P.O. Box 653, Renton, WA 98055, Phone No. 271 -4705 Williams Drysdale, Barghausen Engineers, 6625 S 190th St., #102, Kent WA 98031 Phone No. 872 -5522 E 29 -22 -6 Between 204th & 209th Ave SE & between SE 256th & 259th Sts. (if all roads were extended) Rezoning of the property described, from S -R -P SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL "P "- SUFFIX SITE SITE PLAN APPROVAL & G GENERAL to S -R (7200) SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL TO PERMIT: Use of property for single - family residential subdivision. NOTE: THIS APPLICATION INCLUDES A BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT TO THE LOCAL SERVICE AREA OF THE KING COUNTY SEWERAGE GENERAL PLAN TO PERMIT THE EXTENSION OF SEWERS TO THE SITE. FILE No. 226 -83 -R OWNER: AGENT: STR: LOCATION: PROPOSAL IS: 012 -85 -SH REZONE AGENDA ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER FOR THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA MAY 16 1985 SLATER TRUE VALUE HARDWARE - REZONE John 0. Slater, 177739 -15th Ave. NE., Seattle, WA 98155, Phone No. 362 -9038 NE 8 -26 -4 West side of 15th Ave. N.E., 200 feet south of N.E. 180th St. Rezoning of the property described from, B -C COMMUNITY BUSINESS to C -G GENERAL COMMERCIAL. Use of property for mini - storage rental space within existing building. MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE Muni.cipa ity o Metropo itan Seatt e, Larry Ellington, 821 Second Ave., MS /63 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone No. 447 -4844 NW 14 -23 -4 & NE 15 -23 -4 Southwesterly side of Interurban Ave S. (S.R. 181) between S.R. 5 & 52nd Ave S. at S. 124th St (if extended). B -C COMMUNITY BUSINESS & RM -2400 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE - DWELLING & RS- 15,000 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY An Unclassified Use for a park -and -ride lot. A N D MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE Municipality o Metropo itan Seatt e, Larry Ellington, 821 Second Ave., MS /63 Seattle, WA Phone No. 447 -4844 NW 14 -23 -4 & NE 15 -23 -4 South side of Interurban Avenue South & 1 -5. B -C COMMUNITY BUSINESS, RM -2400 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE - DWELLING & RS- 15,000 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY A substantial development permit for a park -and -ride lot. 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, DATE: King County Executive Randy Revelk Department of Planning and Community Development Holly Miller, Director May 14, 1985 TO: AGENCIES /OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES RE: REVIEW COMMENTS POSITION /TITLE: SIGNATURE: JH:rjh Attachments cc: Applicant /Authorized Agent FILE NO. 218 -85 -U Description of Proposal: B -c & RM -2400 & RS- 15,000 AN UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT FOR A PARK -AND -RIDE LOT Proponent: MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE MUNICIPALITY of METRnpnT.TTAN SF.ATTT.F Location of Proposal: Southwesterly side of Interurban Ave S (.SR 181) between SR 5 & 52nd Ave S at S 134th St (if extended) Please submit any written comments on the merits of the above referenced proposal no later than June 3 1985 Please reference the above file(s) number when corresponding. Comments should be addressed to: Building and Land Development Division Attn: DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS 431 King County Administration Building Seattle, WA 98104 Phone No. 344 -7970. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: GERALD w. MARBETT, SUPERVISOR DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS Building & Land Development Division 450 King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Q061344.7900 • APPLICANT: MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE REQUEST: STR: S 136th ST WILA S 136th. ST 42nd ST ORD. No.1282 12 2 4 y ER . Vel f S -R UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT FOR PARK -AND -RIDE LOT. NW- 14 -23 -4 & NE 15 -23 -4 Proposed Reclassification 1') 0 Z } 3 s tir s G RS N. , N. d '� S9 9 4 Pe 15 S -R 1U I S-R ..\ 218 -85 -U APPENDIX B RM -2,400 0 0 cn cc .»n..w....�+w�. traaRRGRMl.2N�ti75 :1.to`_1C z.lat n:Yt":arevon J'[ mut..war1'kSxtlYr. ;MTV:•7;11+v: �n'` SLY: sZtt iay'Oitrgi: 27V0AftdaS BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Department of Planning and Community Development 450 King County Administration Building Seattle, Washington 98104 Thursday, June 27, 1985, 10 :30 a.m., or as. soon thereafter as possible in Room 402, King County Courthouse AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING FILE NO(S).: Substantial Development Permit 012 -e5 -SH Unclassified Use Permit 219 -85r. APPLICANT(S): METRO LOCATION: South side of Interurban Avenue South and 1 -5. STR: NW 14 -23 -4 ZONING: B -C, RM 2400 WATERBODY: Duwamish River SHORELINE DESIGNATION: Urban PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a park -and -ride facility at I -5 and Interurban Ave. S. consisting of:' 260 parking stalls, landscaping, passenger shelters, transit information parking, lighting and telephone booth(s).. 4.3 acres of land. Six homes, a tavern and carpet- drying business would be removed from the site. APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS: 25. 16.010, .030, .070, .160, .170, .190 } tit; i:. la; c.....;: 1!:... uv .:.............._.-._._._..._........ w.. aa. a... a. aa. ew. �a.... v.... w,+.n xr�r. w-. mn... ..+csa3�nxS�vA..JSVS:•�..ns!�_� +w. m.r.+.r., ' "¢F3+pi+i�i(I�i4®iF` /:6da01Yl Governor Gentlemen: JJ:jw Enclosi5res STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 4350 -150th Ave. N.E. • Redmond, Washington 98052 • (206)885- 1900 Municipality of•Metropolitan Seattle • 821 Second Avenue, MS /63 Seattle, Washington 98104 cc: King County Surface Water Management • City�of Tukwila June 10, 1985 Sincerely, Janet Jorg Resource Management .... ...,w..,..,.,,.,vo,. awn: wn :u�.r,Frnra<.w_xr,;roer.�nH�r+ Enclosed are the original and one copy of Flood Control Zone Permit. No. 1-5575-2 for the purpose of construction of a Park - and -Ride lot. JUN 14 1985 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. As part of the review and evaluation on the project, King County has submitted comments which are indicated below for your reference. Any work or improvements to the river bank shall require approval of King County Public Works - Surface Water Management Division. These improvements would require a fisheries permit. Storm water from this site should provide for oil -water separation prior to discharge into the Duwamish River. Please sign both copies on the reverse side as permittee, retain the original, and return the copy to this department. The permit does not become effective until said copy is received. l�yM�l�lti�� Director State of V4c13llfl Atoll D e p artment of urol ECY 050.6 Rev. 11/79 FLOOD CONThOL ZONE PERMIT Permission is granted •under provisions of Chapter 86.16 RCW, this 10t lay of June 19 85 to MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE (Name of applicant) 821 Second Avenue, MS /63, Seattle, Washin ton 98104 to construct and maintain incorporated by reference as terms of this permit. specified by any extensions granted. cc: King County Surface Water Management City of Tukwila (Address Park -and -Ride Lot (Description of works) The work herein authorized shall commence on or after the 10 thday of and shall be completed on or before the 10th day of June 19 86 in perpetuity . PERMIT NO. 1- 5575 -2 for the period 19 to 19 or in Section 14 Township 23 4E N., Range W.M. and /or in Section Township N., Range _ W.M. on Green River Green located within the (Name of stream or flood plain affected) (Flood Zone) Flood Control Zone No 2 Said works, structures, or improvements must be in accordance with the Application No 1-5575-2 and lans attached thereto on file with the Department of Ecology, p gy, which are June 19 85 or before such dates as may be This permit is subject to the conditions printed on the reverse hereof and the acceptance by the permittee. C9L Re Von I Manager DOR TMENT OF ECOLOGY THIS PERMIT IS SUBJECT TO Tk 3LL8YVNG CONDITIONS: 1. This permit is granted under authority of Chapter 159 Session Laws of 1935 (Chapter 86.16 RCW) ' 2. No property rights are granted heron, nor does this permit absolve permittee from liability which may be suffered to life or to property, public or private, by reason of works, otructums•ond improvements authorized hereunder. This permit does not obviate the necessity of obtaining other permits required by federal, state, or local law.. 4. The permittee shall remove, at his own expense, all of the work herein authorized. Works and structures erected under permit covering a specific period of time be removed by the permittee at his own expense upon the expiration of said period or at the expiration of any ex- tension of time which may be granted. . .' 5. Should permittee fail to removo, at the proper time, materials, works and structures referred to under paragraph 4, the director rsarxao the right to have it done at the expense of the permittee. 6. Any alteration of plans for works and structures a . subsequent to the filing of an application or the issuance of permit shall be subject to approval by the director. 7. The director shall be notified by the permittee of the completion of works under this permit in order that he may make finr| inspection and give final approval. O. RCW 86.16.100 provides that the exercise by the regulatory shall not imply or create any liability any damages against the state, and the action taken by the department herein shall not imply or create any liability for any damages against the state. Q. When necessary to provide for the proper maintenance or operation of the works, structures, or improvements as authorized herein, the department may issue supplementary orders providing for such. 10. This permit is subject to further special conditions as follows : The Housing and Urban Development ORD), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FFMA) floodplain maps have established the 100-year at 15.2 feet, USGS Datum. The proposed construction site is located outside this floodplain based on existing topography. The later surface elevation for the Green River, with a controlled discharge from the Howard Hanson D�of 12,000 cfc as measured ���n (Porter Gage), is 15.0 feet (Mean Sea Level Datum) at the subject site. ' '' 11. This permit is accepted subject to provisions of law and regulations and conditions herein prescribed. (Permittee) BY June 5, 1985 Larry Ellington METRO 821 Second Avenue, MS /63 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: METRO Park and Ride lot - 85- 17 -SMP Dear Larry: This letter is to follow up our telephone conversation of June 4, 1985 wherein 1 confirmed that the May 23, 1985 decision of the Tukwila Planning Commission did not require annexation of the King County portions of the Park and Ride facility to the City of Tukwila. The Commission requires only that METRO support the annexation in order to minimize disruption of City services to the Park and Ride facility. A copy of this letter is being forwarded to Brian.Glynn,King County Building and Land Development Division, to correct my letter of May 24 1985 sent to King County regarding your concurrent application through the County. Respectfully, L. Rick Beeler Associate Planner .13/1.3.1 Ant Os a 5[s ,KhVY�r+rRxea7A' cc: Mayor Planning Director Public Works Director Brian Glynn, King County Building and Land Development Division /ks (METRO.PR) May 24, 1985 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433-1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor Bryan Glynn Building and Land Development Division Room 450, King County Administration Building Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Substantial Development Permit 012 -85 -SH Unclassified Use Permit 318 -85 -0 Dear Bryan: The City of Tukwila is concerned about METRO's park- and -ride facility which crosses our mutual jurisdictions. Most of these concerns are contained in the enclosed staff report to Tukwila's Planning Commission, which heard the matter on May 23, 1985. On that date the Commission approved the application subject to: 1. Revision of the landscaping plan to include low profile shrubs and 2" caliper deciduous trees per review and approval of the Planning and Police Departments. 2. Placement of the transit shelter stations to 8i feet from the property lines or approval of a variance from the Board of Adjustment. 3. Addition of a 6 -foot high security fence along the perimeter of the site adjacent to private property. 4. Addition of lighting to illuminate all transit shelter stations, walk- way areas /sidewalks, and parking areas. 5. Annexation of the King County portion of the property to the City of Tukwila. 6. Spill -over illumination will not occur on adjacent properties. 7. Forwarding to King County a recommendation of compliance of the King County portions of the site with these conditions and any other City of Tukwila regulations to insure a unified development in anticipation of annexation to Tukwila. 8. Construction of intersection improvements at 52nd Avenue South and Interurban Avenue South per review and approval of the Public Works Department. Respectfully, Brad Collins Planning Director /ks cc: Mayor Planning Director Public Works Director (METRO.PNR2) BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION May 24, 1985 Page 2 9. Compliance with applicable City ordinances and regulations. 10. Noxious materials shall be removed from the site, and kept free of noxious growth such as blackberries and weeds. Please include the Commission's decision in your staff report to the Zoning Adjustor and Shoreline Hearing Officer. We also plan on attending the .public hearing on June 27, 1985. The City is very interested in providing as much input into the decision-making process as possible. If you have any questions, call Rick Beeler at 433-1847. It would be greatly appreciated if we could discuss your staff report and recommen- dation prior to this being finalized for forwarding to the Adjustor and Officer. Page -2- Planning Commission M,,1utes May 23, 1985 2. FOUR INCH CALIPER TREES ALONG SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD AS CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AS POSSIBLE. 3. REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED SUN SCREENS. 4. INCLUDE AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. 5. LIMIT REFLECTIVITY OF THE GLASS TO 20% AS DEMONSTRATED IN THE SAMPLES. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. B. DR -09 -85 and'85 -18 -CUP: Metro, requesting approval of a park -and- ride lot for 260 to 300 automobiles north of the intersection of Interurban Ave. So. and 52nd Ave. So. Chairman Knudson stepped down for this item. Mr. Beeler summarized the staff report. Don Pierce, Police Chief for the City of Tukwila, was concerned with juris- dicational problems and suggested annexation to the City of Tukwila. He recommended low growing plants for the landscaping to promote better visa - bility and security on the site. Larry Ellington, METRO, described the project and responded to staff's recommendations in the staff report. Chairman Kirsop opened the public hearing for application 85 -18 -CUP, incor- porating testimony heard on application DR- 09 -85. Chairman Kirsop closed the public hearing. The Commission reviewed the preliminary recommendations. MR. ORRICO MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION DR- 09 -85, METRO, FOR APPROVAL OF A PARK AND RIDE LOT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. REVISION OF THE LANDSCAPING PLAN TO INCLUDE LOW PROFILE SHRUBS AND 2" CALIPER DECIDUOUS TREES PER REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS. 2. PLACEMENT OF THE TRANSIT SHELTER STATIONS TO 8i FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINES OR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 3. ADDITION OF A 6 -FOOT HIGH SECURITY FENCE ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE ADJACENT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY. 4. ADDITION OF LIGHTING TO ILLUMINATE ALL TRANSIT SHELTER STATIONS, WALKWAY AREAS /SIDEWALKS, AND PARKING AREAS. Page -3- ••Planning Commission M..,utes May 23, 1985 5. SUPPORT ANNEXATION OF THE KING COUNTY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA. 6. SPILL -OVER ILLUMINATION WILL NOT OCCUR ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. 7. FORWARDING TO KING COUNTY A RECOMMENDATION OF COMPLIANCE OF THE KING COUNTY PORTIONS OF THE SITE WITH THESE CONDITIONS AND ANY OTHER CITY OF TUKWILA REGULATIONS TO INSURE A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT IN ANTICIPATION OF ANNEXATION TO TUKWILA. 8. CONSTRUCTION OF INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT 52ND AVENUE SOUTH AND INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH PER REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT. 9. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS. 10. NOXIOUS MATERIALS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE, AND KEPT FREE OF NOXIOUS GROWTH SUCH AS BLACKBERRIES AND WEEDS. MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. ORRICO MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 85 -18 -CUP, METRO, FOR APPROVAL OF A PARK AND RIDE LOT, WITH THE SAME TEN CONDITIONS AS APPROVED FOR DR- 09 -85. MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. C. DR -10 -85 and 85 -20 -CUP: Southcenter Daycare, requesting deviation from landscape requirements of TMC 18.52.020 per TMC 18.70.090, and a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility located at 345 Andover Park East. Chairman Knudson opened the public hearing. Mr. Beeler summarized the staff report. Kelly Grose, Southcenter Daycare, described the proposed project. Chairman Knudson closed the public hearing. The Commission discussed screening of the play area, parking, fencing, and landscaping. MR. LARSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATIONS DR -10 -85 AND 85 -20 -CUP WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A DUMPSTER, OPAQUELY SCREENED, BE INDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN THAT WILL BE SUBJECT TO STAFF'S APPROVAL. 2. LANDSCAPING BE IMPLEMENTED PER CODE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BORDER, AND THAT THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH OPEN CYCLONE FENCE OF THE PLAY AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 15' FEET BE LANDSCAPED, INCLUDING THE 5' IN FRONT THE THE TWO PARKING STALLS THAT WILL BE MOVED BACK, AND A COUPLE DECIDUOUS TREES BE PLACED NEXT TO THE FENCED PLAY AREA. • Page -4- •' Planning Commission Ml,iutes May 23, 1985 5. COMPLIANCE WITH CITY ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS. MR. ORRICO SECONDED THE MOTION. TUKWILA NING COMMISSION Beeler Secretary 3. A HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY PLAN APPROVED BY THE TUKWILA FIRE DEPARTMENT. 4. LOADING ZONE FOR PASSENGER DROP OFF AND PICK UP ON NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS WARRANTED. MR. COPLEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. CITIZEN COMMENT Lynn Takeuchi, representing Kaiser Development, requesting a special meeting date of June 13, 1985, to discuss Application DR- 07 -85. OTHER A. DR- O1 -84: Windmark Homes, adoption of findings and conclusions from May 9, 1985, Board of Architectural Review meeting. MR. LARSON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF APPLICATION DR- O1 -84, WINDMARK HOMES. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT MR. COPLEN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 85 -18 -CUP AND DR- 09 -85: METRO PARK AND RIDE LOT AGENDA ITEM INTRODUCTION METRO has purchased the property surrounding the existing Gull service station at 13435 Interurban Avenue South for a park - and -ride lot. Some houses have been removed from the property, and METRO is ready to begin construction of the first phase of the facility. During previous reviews of the Gull station remodel METRO's intentions were discussed. FINDINGS 1. On April 9, 1985, METRO applied for Board of Archietecture Review, a Conditional Use Permit and a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for a park and ride lot at approximately 13447 Interurban Avenue South. 2. On October 14, 1983, METRO issued a Final Declaration of Non - Significance for the proposal. The City Tukwila did not take lead agency status per the State Envrionmental Policy Act in the matter. 3. The subject 4.3 acre site is zoned Tukwila C -2 (Regional Retail Business) and King County RM -2400 (Multiple Family), and surrounds the Gull service station at 13435 Interurban Avenue South, and a small portion lies directly across this street. Seven existing single family homes and a commercial building have been or will be removed from the property to accommodate the proposed development. TMC 18.30.040 and 18.64.020 (9) stipulate park and ride lots require a conditional use permit. 4. The property is irregularly shaped and lies mostly in King County. Two small parcels are within the City (Exhibit 1). Both jurisdictions are processing Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permits. King County is also requiring an unclassified use permit. Both permits will be heard by the County on June 27, 1985. 5. The property lies within the area of the Shoreline Master Plan, thereby requiring a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit per WAC 173 -14. Therefore, Board of Architecture Review approval is required per TMC 18.60.030(2)(A). 6. Being located along Interurban Avenue South, the property lies within the Interurban Special Review District of TMC 18.60.060. Page -2 -_ Planning Commission 85 -18 -CUP and DR- 09 -85: METRO PARK AND RIDE LOT May 23, 1985 CONCLUSIONS 1. Conditional Use Permit 7. TMC 18.60.050 and 18.60.060 contain design review guidelines for the Board of Architecture Review to utilize in reaching its decision. The Board may approve, modify or deny the application based upon findings and conclusions. 8. METRO's proposed park and ride consists of approximately 260 parking stalls, landscaping, passenger shelters, transit information displays and signing, irrigation system, lighting and telephone booths, and motorcycle and bicycle parking (Exhibit 3). A single access point is proposed at the northwest corner and the southeast corner of the site. Sidewalks are indicated along Interurban Avenue South, 52nd Avenue South, and around the Gull station pro- perty. (The property abuts Interurban Avenue South and 52nd Avenue South). 9. Signage on the property is an administrative decision per the City's Sign Code (TMC 19). A. Criteria TMC 18.64.050(1): The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or impro- vements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which the subject property is situated. Material detriment or injury to other properties do not appear to be caused by the proposal. Traffic engineering considerations have been appropriately addressed. Single family residences in close proximity have been protected by landscaping and a 5 - 6 foot accoustical wall. Intersection improvements at 52nd Avenue South and Interurban Avenue South will be constructed per Public Works Department requirements. B. Criteria TMC 18.64.050(2): The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the district it will occupy. Landscaping standards of TMC 18.52.020 and TMC 18.52.030(2) are met except along the south side of one of the transit shelter stations. The building setback requirements of TMC 18.50 are not met for the proposed transit shelter stations. A 10 foot building setback must be maintained from the property line unless a variance is granted by the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Architecture Review may grant a deviation of up to 5 feet of setback areas per TMC 18.60.060(5)(B) and a landscaping deviation of up to 20% or relocation per TMC 18.60.060(5)(C). In a separate section of this report other criteria for the Board of Architecture Review to grant the deviations will be addressed. It is staff's conclusion that the proposal complies with the criteria and that the deviations should be granted for all but the westerly corner of Interurban Avenue South and 52n Avenue South. Page -3- f_. Planning Commission`" 85 -18 -CUP and DR- 09 -85: METRO PARK AND RIDE LOT May 23, 1985 ..t .. . . r,...v +....r ,.. «._._ .._..,...__«........,,..,.,.,. o.- w. ."....,....,..�e.w,.a,ax..riy:t ..:4i?e:(:•a..,•J: :4i .1 �; C. Criteria TMC 18.64.050(3): The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design. Submitted plans indicate the proposal will be generally compatible with the adjacent land uses. D. Criteria TMC 18.64.050(4): The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan. Access to the property conforms to the desired access design of Policy 9, p. 74, Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. An accoustical wall separates the closest single family residence (Policy 11, p. 74, Plan). The park and ride facility is part of METRO's service to the community (Objective 3, p. 76; Policies 1 and 2, p. 77, Plan). Adequate pedestrian circulation is provided on the site (Objective 6, p. 79 and Policy 2, p. 80, Plan). The site plan is aesthetically acceptable (Policies 3 and 4, p. 61, Plan). Adequate parking appears to be provided (Policy 7, p. 62, Plan). Therefore, the proposal con- forms to the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. Equally important to consider is the relationship of the proposal to the City's Shoreline Master Plan goals and policies. Conformance exists in the proposal. E. Criteria TMC 18.64.050(5): All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. In the interest of public safety, health and welfare the proposal should: 1. Fence (8 feet high) the portions of the site adjoining other privately owned properties 2. Landscape to maximize vision of passing motorists and police vehicles. 3. Illuminate all shelter stations and walkway areas /sidewalks, and parking areas. 4. Annex King County property (approximately 75 % of the site) to the City of Tukwila. Park and ride facilities attract criminal and mischievous activity unless adequate security, lighting and visibility is provided. Therefore, the City Police Department recommends the aforementioned measures to ade- quately minimize these problems. Fencing will prevent access from the facility to adjacent properties. Low growth landscaping with 4" caliper deciduous trees will maximize public and police patrol visual access into the facility, thereby increasing the ability to discover criminal or suspicious activity. Increasing the number of lighting fixtures to illu- Page -4- (w Planning Commission 85 -18 -CUP and DR- 09 -85: METRO PARK AND RIDE LOT May 23, 1985 minate all of the parking, walking and shelter areas will also increase visibility of human activity at the facility, particularly the shelter stations and deck area on the north side of Interurban Avenue South. These measures will increase the safety and confidence of METRO riders. Annexation to Tukwila is recommended because the City will be providing police and emergency services to the facility. When any difficulties arise, City services will be called and dispatched. However, problems of jurisdiction will arise for criminal prosecution in King County or Tukwila courts and jails, which drastically increase the City's cost of serving the facility. Arrests made on County property (75% of the site) must be tried in Seattle, while Tukwila's jail and court is located in City Hall. Furthermore, it will beneficially straighten the City's boun- dary line in the area. 2. Board of Architecutre Review Deviation of Building Setbacks A. Criteria TMC 18.60.060(5)(13)(i): The proposed development is pedestrian- oriented either in its intended use or design. The transit shelter stations are for the use of METRO patrons waiting for buses. At that point the patrons have either walked to the shelters from the surrounding community or the proposed park and ride lot. Therefore, the shelters are "pedestrian- oriented." B. Criteria TMC 18.60.060(5)(13)(ii): The proposed development is of such a scale, configuration, or design so as to provide a more desirable and compatible relationship with the street and pedestrian circulation system than the standard setback requirements. The required 10 foot building setback of TMC 18.18.50 would place the shelter stations an inappropriate distance from sidewalks and bus loading areas. A 5 -foot setback is better, although maybe not optimal. Therefore, the 5 -foot setback deviation should be approved. 3. Board of Architecture Reveiw Deviation of the Landscaping Requirements A. Criteria TMC 18.60.060(5)(C)(i): Existing and /or proposed landscape areas are effectively used so as to provide more desirable tran- sitions from the street and neighboring properties than the standard landscaping requirements. A 20% reduction of the required 10 feet of landscaping would yield 8 feet of landscaping. The site plan indicates no landscaping between the property line and any shelter stations and /or automobiles at the intersection of Interurban Avenue South and 52nd Avenue South. Therefore, relocation of the landscaping is actually requested. Page -5- C Planning Commission 85 -18 -CUP and DR- 09 -85: METRO PARK AND RIDE LOT May 23, 1985 Appropriate use of landscaping to accomplish transition /buffering of adjacent private properties has been provided. However, transition from the proposed parking lot and Interurban Avenue Sout is not adequately accomplished. Only a sidewalk and shelter station is used for transition, which does not meet this criteria. On the opposite corner of Interurban Avenue South the landscaping behind the shelter stations and sidewalk adequately transitions the site from the street and adjacent properties. The relocation deviation should be approved in this area B. Criteria TMC 18.60.060(5)(C)(ii): Sufficient natural, mature vege- tation is maintained in the proposed development. Maintenance of landscaping on the property should be assured via the proposed irrigation system. The proposal contains sifficient "natural mature vegeta- tion" if 4" caliper deciduous trees and substituted for the proposed trees. 4. Board of Architecture Review and Interurban Special Review Guidelines A. Criteria TMC 18.60.050(1): Relationship of Structure to Site The only structures proposed are the three transit shelter stations which are the typical design used by METRO. Each shelter is 9i feet in height and is to be placed adjacent to the sidewalk. Landscaping will be behind only the two shelters on the northerly side of Interurban Avenue South. Adequate transition is accomplished with the streetscape, however, landscaping should be provided behind the shelter station adjacent to the park and ride lot. This landscaping will "moderate the visual impact" of the parking lot. (TMC 18.60.060(4)(D)). B. Criteria TMC 18.60.050(2): Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area Landscaping should be provided around the shelter station at the facility to appropriately supply transition of the parking lot from the area and northerly Duwamish River environment. The shelter stations design is acceptable rela- tive to the character of the neighborhood. Access to the site is compatible with the circulation of Interurban Avenue South and 52nd Avenue South. (TMC 18.60.060(4)(A) and (D)). C. Criteria TMC 18.60.050(3): Landscape and Site Treatment Proposed sidewalks safely distribute people to the edges of the parking lot. Otherwise, pedestrians must walk between cars and across vehicular aisleways, which is not an optimal safety situation. (TMC 18.60.060(4)(C)). Screening of the shelter station next to the parking facility is not provided. Some landscaping should be installed in this area (TMC 18.60.O60(4)(D)). { Page -6- (,. Planning Commission 85 -18 -CUP and DR- 09 -85: METRO PARK AND RIDE LOT May 23, 1985 Illumination of the area is to be by cut -off square luminaries mounted on square concrete poles. The lights will give off the typical orange tint of sodium vapor. While the fixtures and lighting is acceptable, staff finds that additional fixtures are necessary to provide adequate illumination of all of the parking lot and shelter station areas. (TMC 18.60.060(4)(C) and (D)). D. Criteria TMC 18.60.050(4): Building Design The three brown transit shelter stations are of the same typical design used by METRO. Glass and metal comprise the structures. Wood benches are provided for patrons. These structures are appropriate for the neighborhood. The pro- posed metal and concrete lighting fixtures are compatible with the structures. (TMC 18.60.060(4)(D)). E. Criteria TMC 18.60.050(5): Miscellaneous Structures and Street Fur- niture Bicycle racks, cedar bollards and bus information signs will be provided on the site. These fit the design concept of the proposal. In addition, the complementary lighting fixtures meet the criteria of TMC 18.60.050. 5. Shoreline Zone Regulations of TMC 18.44 All of the proposed structures and parking lie beyond 40 feet from the line of ordinary high water of the Duwamish River. The "low- impact environment" regu- lations of TMC 18.44.140 apply to the transit shelter stations on the northerly side of Interurban Avenue South. These regulations are met provided "large hardy shade trees" are provided by the shelter stations. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above, staff preliminarily recommends approval of the applications subject to: 1. Revision of the landscaping plan to include low profile shrubs and 4 -inch caliper deciduous trees per review and approval of the Planning and Police Departments. 2. Addition of 10 feet of landscaping behind the southerly transit shelter sta- tion per review and approval of the Planning Department or approval of a variance from the Board of Adjustment. 3. Relocation of the transit shelter stations to 5 feet from the property lines or approval of a variance from the Board of Adjustment. 4. Addition of an 8 -foot high security fence along the perimeter of the site adjacent to private property. 5. Addition of lighting to illuminate all transit shelter stations, walkway areas /sidewalks, and parking areas. Page -7- Planning Commission r ° 85 -18 -CUP. and DR- 09 -85: METRO PARK AND RIDE LOT May 23, 1985 6. Annexation of the King County portion of the property to the City of Tukwila. 7. Spill -over of illumination will not occur on adjacent properties. 8. Substitution of 4" caliper shade trees in the area of the northerly intersec- tion of Interurban Avenue South and 52nd Avenue South. 9. Compliance of the King County portions of the site with these conditions and any other City of Tukwila regulations. 10. Construction of intersection improvements at 52nd Avenue South and Interurban Avenue South per review and approval of the Public Works Department. 11. Compliance with applicable City ordinances and regulations. EXHIBITS 1. Site Plan showing City /King County boundaries 2. Cross Sections of the Property 3. Plans and specifications 4. Master Land Development application form 5. Schedule A - Shoreline Management Application form 6. Schedule D - Conditional Use Permit Application form 7. METRO Conditional Use Permit Application supplement (PC.PRKNRD - PC.PRKNRD2) 1111:1"1:1?. Lsp. CriSr VIS CL1. 1.0 \ .1231‘1.$ • '1 swaVaNrAti1 sotialeisItc‘e rl NI N.C449. 14 'WAS `inintvAN. ao )44-7 • or. i ghiq 14441011116011 MEI IH .L'S TAM 'not C141120381 1111111 i.....r - rs : ..1G7 Nvma Yd ,B , pb= 3■ Thsd 1002 1309' MN IP J 0..7 1 IF I aftWerIrlf g, mos limn f 1 :.. : : gp.oti'p4 A oc r -CITY OF TUK , ILA Central Permit System MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED INFORMA ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING. SECTION 1: GENERAL DATA TYPE OF APPLICATION: D BSIP O HOT SUBDIVISION EICONDITIONAL QUNCLASS. USE USE 1) APPLICANT: NAME Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle TELEPHONE ADDRESS 2) PROP. OWNER: NAME Same ADDRESS 821 Second Avenue, MS/63, SHORELINE 0 PRO OPMUD : BAR PERMIT INTERURBAN VARIANCE Q CH+G. or ri COMP. PLAN ZONING AMENDMENT Seattle, WA. TELEPHONE (206 ) 447 -4844 ZIP 98104 Avenue South between 1 -5 and 52nd Avenue South (13447 Interurban Avenue South). ) ZIP 3) PROJECT LOCATION: (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPHIC, LOT /BLOCK) South side of Interurban SECTION 11: PROJECT INFORMATION 4) DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT. YOU. PROPOSE. 268 stall park -and -ride lot 5) ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM June 1 05 6 ) W1LL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED.1N PHASES? OYES ONO IF YES, DESCRIBE: '56)1344 w i'TVA tAtTIZ-OS V K1 r FT.S TH'E i €cr W1 Lt_ B ccn=-a1 eJorTio PROJECT STATISTICS: A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: NET B) FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: TOTAL1 /FLOORS N/A TOTAL GROSS N/A FLOOR AREA SITE UTILIZATION: ZONING DESIGNATION COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA LANDSCAPE AREA "PAVING AREA TOTAL PARKING STALLS - STANDARD S I Z E - COMPACT SIZE - HANDICAPPED SIZE TOTAL LOADING SPACES AVER. SLOPE OF PARKING AREA AVER. SLOPE OF SITE 3.4 EXISTING C -2 Same C -2 • Same 16,400 A 256 ,A (existing blqs.removed; ❑ 30,000 ,d except one 'J 12b9S.F. ) 20,000 0 04,000 , 50 09 - 4-6 8) IS THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION MAP? 0 YES ® NO GROSS 230 33 5 „ 0.05°0-3":. To June '86 4.3 EASEMENTS N/A 1NCLUDES; 0 BASEMENT OMEZZAN INE INCLUDES: D BASEMENT 0MEZZANINE PROPOSED NOTES 0.65u -3 : (area to be uevelopeci onl ON THE C 1 TY • S EMI I ROPMENTAL BASE SECTION III: APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT 1. 5 M. So / CONTRACT PURCHASER-OR OWNER THE PROPERTY INVOLVED 1N THIS APPLICATION AND THAT THE FORE- GOING STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS HEREIN CONTAINED AND THE INFORMATION HEREWITH SUBMITTED ARE ALL RESPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS f3 ' DAY OF �iei e DATE 9 x . 13,5'57 �t�,liJlb�L ARY PUSLIC IN AND RESIDING AT .. 077Ger THE STATE OF WASHINGTON T1ON-- INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE , BEING DULY SWORN. DECLARE THAT I AM. THE (SIGNATURE OF CONTRACT @NENE APR 9 1985 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. • Right-of-Way & Property Supervisor '5-Y44-1154M 4. I HASER OR OWNER i I CITY OF TU::JVILA Central Permit System MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM GENERAL LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: between 1-5 and 52nd Avenue South WITHIN SA NV1a (1/4 SEC.) OF SECTION 14 OF TOWNSHIP 23 N., RANGE 4 E W.M., IN TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 2) NAME OF WATER AREA AND /OR WETLANDS WITHIN WHICH DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED: Duwamish River 3) CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS: Vacant land except for two vacant structures and a temporarily occupied house.. 4) PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY: park -and -ride lot APR 9 1985 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. on South side of Interurban Avenue South • 5) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST AND FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS CONTEMPLATED BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION: Construction Costs: On-7Site - $607,000 Total Construction Costs: $740,000 6) CONSTRUCTION DATES (MONTH AND YEAR) FOR WHICH THIS PERMIT 1S REQUESTED: BEGIN June '85 COMPLETE June'86 TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL OFFICIAL: 7) DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING SHORELINE: 8) APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND NUMBER OF EXISTING AND POTENTIAL DWELLING UNITS THAT WILL HAVE A VIEW OBSTRUCTED BY ANY PROPOSED STRUCTURE EXCEEDING 35 FEET IN HEIGHT. . xi,,1✓tr 5. c 2 3 ) ) CITY OF TUB JVILA Central Permit System MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM %EMU APR 9 1985 CITY NNING DEPT PLANNING 1) PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: The site is vacant. except for two commercial buildings and a residence which are "Scheduled for demolition. 2) PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED (FROM LIST IN TMC 18.64.020): 18.64.020 (9) Park - and -Ride lots 3) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE (FOR EXAMPLE, DESCRIBE THE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES USED, WHOLESALE /RETAIL /WAREHOUSE FUNCTIONS, OUTSIDE STORAGE OF GOODS OR EQUIPMENT OR OTHER INFORMATION WHICH WILL FACILITATE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ACTIVITIES YOU PROPOSE TO DEVELOP ON THIS SITE) : A park and ride facility at I -5 and Interurban Ave. South consisting of approximately 260 automobile parking stallp, landscaping, passenger shelters, transit information display and signing, irrigation system, motorcycle and bicycle parking, lighting and telephone booth(s) on 4.3 acres of land. . DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR REQUEST FOR A COND1T1Ot1AL USE eERMIT.. WILL SATISFY EACH OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN TMC 18.64.030 (ATTACH ADDITION- AL SHEETS LF NECESSARY). 1) THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR 1MPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED USE OR IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SITUATED. RESPONSE: See Attached Sheets THE PROPOSED USE SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THAT ARE REQUIRED IN THE DISTRICT IT WILL OCCUPY. RESPONSE• See Attached Sheets THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE COMPATIBLE GENERALLY WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION, BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN. RESPONSE: See Attached Sheets 4) THE PROPOSED USE SHALL BE IN KEEPING WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN. RESPONSE: See Attached Sheets EAM NT 4. 5) ALL MEASURES HAVE BEEN • POSED USE MAY HAVE QN RESPONSE;• ..4 • :ft e Pal VW N TO "M 1 W I1M 1 ZE J H E POSSIBLE ADVERSE 1 MPACTS WHICH THE PRO • PAREX11 N c 1 � 1 � C H 1 T 1 S LOCATED. ttached S heet s 1 TUKWILA PARK & RIDE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF TUKWILA MIERB APR 9 1985 • CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. 1. The Tukwila Park - and -Ride facility is a public facility designed to serve Tukwila residents and other commuters. Metro's facility design includes drainage detention facili- ties, landscaping, lighting, noise barriers, roadway, and sidewalk improvements. Metro has also committed to addi- tional offsite traffic improvements to provide for public welfare and safety. No significant environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposal. Traffic and noise analysis are included in the environmental checklist provided. 2. The park- and -ride lot would be located in the "high impact" shoreline environment which allows all uses permitted by the underlying zoning district (18.44.150). The underlying zoning district is C -2. C -2 district uses provide for diversified commercial /retail activities which serve a regional clientele. The Tukwila Park - and -Ride project meets the district requirements. Metro environmentally assessed the project site and coordinated an environmental review with the City of Tukwila and King County. See Final Declaration of Non - Significance Tukwila Park -and -Ride Lot October 14, 1983. 3. The Tukwila Park and Ride facility would be located on Interurban Avenue South. Interurban Avenue is the only continuous north -south surface arterial through the Green River Valley. Interurban Avenue, Southcenter Boulevard, I -5, and the I- 405 /Grady Way junction with the West Valley Road (SR -181), are the important roadway facilities in this area. These roadways provide "maximum exposure" for the proposed park- and -ride site. I -5 on and off -ramps intersect with Interurban Avenue immediately north of the park - and -ride site. The on and off ramps would carry nearly 10% less peak -hour volume with the park- and -ride facility. Land uses at Interurban Avenue South and I -5 are in transi- tion to more intensive uses. The site is located just north and east of a residential neighborhood with a number of multiple- family units. Adjacent residential housing would be buffered from the park- and -ride facility by construction of an acoustical barrier and landscaping. The parking lot access and internal circulation layout for the site is designed to minimize on -site conflicts and V-Y.4-Nt3r' 7. 2 :r:a:..w „,.. , ^:l`C4C1,',...7.:f.;`....v .<.�.. e.,.�Y';t..t'4••�:, potential hazards between auto and bus traffic and between pedestrian and vehicular movements. Park - and -ride autos could enter or leave the site via a driveway onto 52nd Avenue located 200 feet southwest of the Interurban inter- section. A second driveway would be available on Interurban Avenue just north of the Gull Industries property. The second driveway would be restricted to a right turn into the park - and -ride from southbound Interurban Avenue and a right turn out of the park- and -ride lot onto southbound Interurban Avenue. Appropriate channelization improvements and signing would be provided to implement these turning movements. Pedestrian and vehicular conflicts would be minimal. Com- muters would walk toward Interurban where on- street bus stops are provided, while park-and-ride autos would be routed to and from the entry points along a collector road at the site's far west boundary. Bus passengers loading or unloading to and from northbound buses would have to cross Interurban Avenue using the existing flashing signal crossing south of 52nd Avenue. 4. Metro reviewed the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. The proposed project supports the following plan goal and objectives. Transportation /Utilities Goal 2 - Provide for a transportation system which includes all transportation modes. Transit - Objective 2 Promote an effective and viable mass transit system which ties the Tukwila area to the region. Policy 2 - Support efforts to increase transit use. Policy 4 - Promote freeway transit stops in conjunction with local park-and-ride lots. 5. The project design provides for on -site drainage detention, acoustical barriers, landscaping, retaining walls, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and a series of off -site improvements including: o Widening 52nd Avenue adjacent to the park- and -ride site to provide two approach lanes and one exit lane at Interurban Avenue. o Providing fully- actuated traffic signal is planned for the intersection of Interurban Avenue and 52 Avenue. The signal is needed to permit safe egress at this intersection by autos. o Providing a pedestrian signal and crosswalk for all four legs of the 52nd Avenue and Interurban Avenue intersection to safely accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Converting the existing two -way left -turn lane (14 feet wide) along Interurban Avenue on both sides of the 52nd Avenue intersection into left -turn lanes to accommodate projected turning volumes onto 52nd Avenue (toward park- and -ride lot) and the new Foster Bridge. TS /PC2 /4 3 imILA 1909 • s City of Tukwila z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433-1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Notice is hereby given that Municipality of Metro who is owner of the below described property has filed an application for a substantial development permit for the development of a 268 stall park- and -ride lot located at 13447 Interurban Ave. South within NW* of section 14 of township 23 N., Range 4 W.M., in Tukwila, Washington. Said development is proposed to be within Green River and /or its associated wetlands. Any person desiring to express his views or to be notified of the action taken on this application should notify Rick Beeler, Associate Planner, in writing of his interest within thirty days of the final date of publication of this notice which is April 25, 1985. Written comments must be received by May 25, 1985. Published: Record Chronicle, April 25, 1985 Distribution: City Clerk Mayor Adjacent Property Owners Department of Ecology Property Owner File _......,«*. —,,, mt"CXRD; ctr4 -. 'c°.. nr.,,4 i' AMT: t • **ILA 1908 NOTICE IS•HEREBY GIVEN 23rd day of May, 1985, Hall, 6200 Southcenter Distribution: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433-1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor OF THE TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Published: Record Chronicle, May 13, 1985 Mayor City Clerk Property Owner Applicant Adjacent Property Owners File CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETING .:,:: that the Tukwila Planning Commission has fixed the at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Tukwila City Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, as the time and place for City Attorney briefing. 85- 17 -SMP, 85 -18 -CUP, DR- 09 -85: Metro, requesting approval of a park -and -ride lot for 260 to 300 automobiles north of the intersection of Interurban Ave. So. and 52nd Ave. So. 85 -20 -CUP: Southcenter Daycare, requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility located at 345 Andover Park East. Any and all interested persons are invited to attend. • 4 Date: 3 May 1985 KING COUNTY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT UNDER THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT FILE NO(S).: Substantial Development Permit 012 -85 -SH Unclassified Use Permit 218 -85V MIENINE MAY G 1985 CITY Of TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Notice is hereby given that the applicant(s) below has (have) filed an application for the above - referenced permit(s) for the construc- tion or development of the project described as follows: Applicant(s): METRO Relationship to property or project: owner Project description: Construction of a park -and -ride facility at I -5 and Interurban Ave. 8. consisting of: 260 parking stalls, landscaping, passenger shelters, transit information parking, lighting and telephone booth(s) on 4.3 acres of land. Six homes, a tavern and carpet- drying business would be removed from the site. Said development is located within King County as follows within the waterbody shown and/or its associated wetlands: Section - Township -Range EWM: NW 14 -2.3 -4 Waterbody: Duwamish River General location of the property: South side of Interurban Avenue South and 1 -5. This application will be considered at a PUBLIC HEARING before the King Co. Zoning Adjustor and Shoreline Hearing Officer on Thursday, June 27, 1985, 10 :30 a.m. in Room 402, King County Courthouse. Anyone wishing to express their views or to be notified of the action taken on the application must be present at the hearing or submit their comments in writing to the Manager, Building and Land Development Division, Room 450 King County Administration Building, Seattle, Washington, 98104 (Telephone 344 -5286) within thirty (30) days of the last publication of this notice. Publication dates of this notice are and Idng County Department of Planning and Community Development 4�� ration Building Intik wa ne:wan MIN *mETRcJ Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle_ pa ty ropo le_ Exdhange Bldg. • 821 Second Ave„ Seattle,Washington 98104 September 27, 1983 TO,: Whom It May Concern RE: Proposed Declaration of Non - Significance for Tukwila Park - and -Ride Lot Enclosed is a copy of the Proposed Declaration of Non- Signifi- cance for the subject project as required by the Washington State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (RCW 43.21C). Comments are invited and will be received until Written comments should be addressed to: If you have any question please call Additional copies of this document may be obtained by visiting Metro at the above address or by calling 447 -5863 The comment period for this proposal will expire on October 13, 1983. Very truly yours, Mr. Rodney G. Proctor, Manager Environmental Planning Division METRO 821 Second Avenue; MS -92 Seattle, WA 98104 Rodney . Proctor, Manager Environmental-Planning Division RGP:ela Enclosure r ATTIC-4 Ili. 4mErRo „ Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchan sla • s2i second Ave., seatde,washtin 98104 FINAL DECLARATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE Action: Constructi ng and npPtjFij g a park -ard -ride lot_ Description of Proposal: Developing a park -and -ride lot at Tukwila, consisting of 260 -300 automobile parking spaces, landscaping, passenger, shelters, driver comfort stations. transit information display and signing, irrigation system, motorcycle and bicycle parking, lighting and telephones booth(s) on 4.3 acres of land_ Proponent: Municipality of Metropolitan, Seattle Location of Proposal: King County /Tukwila. Washington at the Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Interurban AvP_ South and 52nd Ave. South. Lead Agency: Municipality of Metropolitan. Seattle This proposal has been determined to not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental check- list and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official: Position /Title: Date: 10/14/83 Rodney G. Proctor Signature: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIVISION Manager, Environmental Planning Division INNOTE CITY � APR 9 1985 err of tuKwiu PLANNING D APR 9 1985 ITY OF TUKWIt.A PLANNING DEPT. ( 2jrnETRD Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Bldg. • 821 Second Ave., Seattle, Washington 98104 September 27, 1983 TO: Whom It May Concern t RE: Proposed Declaration of Non- Significance for Tukwila Park-and-Ride Lot Enclosed is a copy of the Proposed Declaration of Non- Signifi- cance for the subject project as required by the Washington State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (RCW 43.21C). Comments are invited and will be received until Written comments should be addressed to: Mr. Rodney G. Proctor, Manager Environmental Planning Division METRO 821 Second Avenue; MS -92 Seattle, WA 98104 If you have any question please call Additional copies of this document may be obtained by visiting Metro at the above address or by calling 447 -5863 The comment period for this proposal will expire on October 13, 1983. Very truly yours, 41:4105 1 Rodney . Proctor, Manager Environmental Planning Division RGP:ela Enclosure • ComETRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Bldg. • Second Ave., Seattle,Washington 98104 PROPOSEDANONUL DECLARATION OF MORWOOONNOEYNON-SIGNIFICANCE Action: Constructing and operating a park - and -ride lot. Description of Proposal: Developing a park -and -ride lot at Tukwila, consisting of 260 -300 automobile parking spaces, landscaping, passenger, shelters, driver comfort stations, transit information display and signing, irrigation system, motorcycle and bicycle parking, lighting and telephones booth(s) on 4.3 acres of land. Proponent: Municipality of Metropolitan, Seattle Location of Proposal: King County/ Tukwila, Washington at the Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Interurban Ave. South and 52nd Ave. South. Lead Agency: Municipality of Metropolitan, Seattle This proposal has been determined to (aeJnot have) a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS (4e,/is not) required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c) . This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official: Rodney G. Proctor Position /Tit e: Date: Manager, Environmental Planning Division Environmental Planning Division d '' P 14 o..! try;. 1414 '• r 4'1101 .;.■ ••,•;•••••••.” 0, Mun a c ipility of Metropolitan Seattk •1,4, :/, • ' belie .• . Rolla.' la, P.n... lawalvint: f./...;H a ..: w 1 Y.S • 1 y .. a..1./...; . • .... •.... Maga., 1 •'- ..:, • ••■ — '• ........ , •••••.• M., • tr • 1 • • •••••••••• Cr..a, (.' • • aeta.... ... ".; 1,11 Illaaer 1. .• • • \ 11 c) - ••4. .i4• • t 4 4 li• ..• t . 1111 a , f i r Py Whoa ' •: • . .:n.:- , •• attic ., cAt ... . N.C. 410.... CO ..... ..... , . F.. .... I 4h NS,. V irStii • ....... .' .....,. P . '4 . ...... •ft ... ...• ..... . •••.; ....'., -g : • . , , Ijr i snaaa. N. , ...Ise, ' '• 1 , eZ . .7.1": P OA- " P•et I:' .e., I L... hIlit I ..., x .... i .1 1 -'ta"!,VT-'0 3:411. ...• -... ;:. • .. z... 1 (- 1 . i . • , .!•::•.,.• / :. r ... rr; . j • .I ' -.7 .- , ;-.r4, . : • e , -, •, ..: 1 5 0 ; • , • ...=*-/ '4.-o' .,-, Ile:rim 1•1 ... I 1.4 ,••• CO' * • " ' . •-i Se ...:' Hltiettli 1- ,iSgt.?•°••/ vir.' 7 --. 7..,.• .•,- e ._,,,,,,. 4- • 1...: - •• / •:.,1;1, ...: , ...‘,„..,,,,,.,„,.._ • ,....• ,.• 4 t ... 1 • 1... 1-'4i.. • -err-- --- nt..r.---• - , e..r..... , . . i : . -,■ 7. • . 1......4 1.... - • • ....,...1 ' 4 .. . . • f .... v _:. • , • . , i ,. . :,,,, ......§.■ 4::- ' K.., ... %, E.:"...,..!„.,..iW ••••••'/ ' !k... 2' "" ", . ' 11than ‘ ;:' • ' ? ( ' . 11.1•M t t: N Pam ‘ ,... e ..4 . • :: •:- , . .e ' • Cioaavail '1 H.' ' c: • ', ., • ,.‘ 1 ^1 • - • • ,a . : • 1 • • • • •ISLANelgit Pt "`". .. '.! .;,'s , . ' ..6-- - • • ... I" e _I__ •"..:::- ii .P9,z)... M , . zi ......„ ,7 . • .• •4. .... '1 • •• ••..... Pludyzi . :•'••••• A ■ •••‘...5• .... r . t7.4 , •2i. r . ;? . .R.,,,,,,,,,,,, -6.,.....• ,,;),./... 4 ..0„ , . o - '`'..sr, 1 a. • / 1 111.q ''. f, r . c : . ..1, ri:-.' ' ;?"..!.. ._`.4 .- - ''''-'' zemfti ii.j.4.,,, CY.Y.P...i COV•gf • a Ir ijI so.....4.4 Ai i: ,- , / .2 .,,/,:tIl !...4,..‘,-4„1...t..Ann ..-. • ' " • "7* . ir —1 Allan . IP , • . CI. 1 8 •'''' Por.I •••'.• i Pl., ■ 11 .. .4.,. • .. .1. . i 0 Gli Flarec.P N.°. '... „.. COM .."... DOA .., • . y ..-,.... ,..fr:q. • .., Z:: .• •, 4:---..4 An....• ...taw, - . ••• • --- • • Na••••••••,• ••••••• NA.% -; 4.... , • . -. (........4 •,...-• •:,,„::-.... ......., . b lc,',';',' 7- • 4... ilea • .: I., .. i :., ...,_11_,, ., ...•1 ... 1: , \ .. ;‘);/- - • Jr"" • 1:1•••■41 Penr Tonql . • •• ..?2 Z. / ••' 47 r i acom4 x. Pierin••• ' "' • :: t ;II .. 1 ...row P.Doi• l' 'r_.- \.,• ..., 1 roomm 1 f•■■•••,•■ /014 li• iftdreil ••• ••• •-•1! • - .1........ • :?! ----.... • • . • • -7.•.....,:.: , .,,, . 4.., ej;, •• ••t • Sq tfam • e ;, r.• 7... . ..., .5, tki. .. .,.--7,1 • :.1••.....i. ': .. 1•• 4 Nit .. ' '•• 151.118E• •• "..'• Proi• i i V •‘• Mt:-. . • •.!•"'. .. .. •Ei• • • ....S . ' it. * Proposed Tukwila --... . ...,.... , 12..._:. •2_1'... -- Park and R . ide .,• .: . t • "'"`",.. t' '1.,K, ... 'F , . • Existing Park and Ride •:. • , (•;'!",/ . .11 ••••• ' ' ÷ NORTH 1 1 1 Wee Scale: - • ataoada t FIGURE 1 Regional location 11 .• 1 0 0 • 5i_ Pt (NT 014: a r Medina* • • .1. • METRO PARK AND RIDE • TUKWILA ••• •..•....\ 1, lir iloo•• • oi■••• • a• talleala 1,..1 • Nadi at -. 'Renton i •4•64 TLJKW1LArt • 4 2 • / •A;, ,..• • „ . • 1=1 • ••• g . • ! • 'P. z• ; 5 , ;• • • • ,... • ......411 11.1•••••••• it ••••••• • el- " t. Alien' -- I s-o•S • • AKIN •'■ ••■•• \ .• RIK a.... • • •.• MIK( •••/•• • • •ti ..! i • • •••••• -1. mETRo Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Bldg. • 821 Second Ave., Seattle,Washington 98104 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM PROPOSED ACTION: Constructing and operating a park- and -ride lot. I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent Municipality of Metropolitan, Seattle 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 821 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 447 -6619 3. Date Checklist Submitted September 27, 1983 .�...«...r +n.v+r!�nY�.W N�s01Y.�N ?f.: .. e�•s2;`.\��NSYTY,T":4". . 4. Agency Requiring Checklist King County /City of Tukwila 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Tukwila Park - and -Ride Lot 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (in- cluding but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): Metro proposes to design, develop and operate a park- and -ride lot on 4.3 acres of land in King County /Tukwila, Washington. It will consist of 260 -300 automobile stalls, landscaping, lighting, passenger shelters, driver comfort station, space for motorcycle and bicycle parking, telephone booth(s) and transit information display and signs. Attachment #9 Agency Permit Tukwila o Conditional land use o Substantial development 7 ` o Building o Drainage /Grading o Street use King County State DOE o Flood dontrol zone -F- i-sher es7'Games o - Hyd atri cs WSDOT o Air space lease - use and development in the 1 -5 limited access area Federal o Substantial development (f o Building o Drainage /Grading o Street use O I.J rJ C. LAS -:,r 'r - v .3C - 117 - 5 1- . - -Corps - of -E ee -s- o -Cor a En . - n.. : t The project also requires Metro Council and Federal approval (UMTA /DOT). ■O VITAL !TAILS TICS MASNIII FULLS re MIA. IOTA& • 1410•M• ACItt•III• • Z MALL PUll AM WO I Za..es maymovetv. Imo CP.O.T• all 10.04 C INTEINC0 INCO• max 4101■31 .E.GTr None 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ- mental setting of the proposal): The site is located on the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Interurban Avenue South and 52nd Ave. So. in Tukwila_ mhe majority of the site is in unincorporated King County and abuts the Tukwila city limits. The Duwamish River is within 1S0 fPpt east of the site. Interurban Avenue is between the river and the proposed park- and -ride lot along with a conviPnpp Rtnri /gas station. The site is occupied by nine residential rental units, one owner - occupied residential unit and two businesses sni- Prgt -atA -4 ; c on the north and a portion of the site would be within the limited access area. The southern boundary is 57nr1 Avmmni,F+ �Q Uth 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: 1985 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local -- including rezones): See attachment- 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: Yes. Metro proposes to initially develop about 260 parking spaces. An 4 additional 40 spaces could be provided in 0.9 acres of land not presently planned for development. 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: See attachment 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the proposal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: Attachment 11 Design studies have commenced for the joint City of Tukwila/King County project to construct a new Foster Bridge. The previous bridge was aligned on 56th Avenue S. approximately 100 feet north of the 52nd Avenue S. intersection-and was removed after it collapsed several years ago. The current proposal aligns the new bridge to junction with Interurban Avenue opposit6552nd Avenue S. The intersection would be signalized, which would serve bridge traffic, auto traffic to and from the park -and -ride lot, passenger movement between the northbound bus pullout and the park- and -ride lot, and nonsite traffic from 52nd Avenue S. The opening date for the new bridge would be late 1984 or 1985. The City of Tukwila proposes to improve Interurban Avenue South from Southcenter Boulevard to Interstate 5. Improvements would include curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, transit turn- outs, additional landscaping, pedestrian and traffic signalization. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required.) 1) Earth. Will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean of any bay, inlet or lake? Explanation: See Attachment 2) Air. Will the proposal result in: a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b) The creation of objectionable odors? c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Yes Maybe No X _.X___ X X Explanation: The emission from buses and automobiles will result in a slight deterioration of air quality on site. The proiect, however, w• - • •• 0 quality overall. c 1) Earth a,b, c The site straddles the change in slope at the foot of a hill. The highest point of the site isin the southwest corner at about a 50 -foot elevation. The ground descends toward Interurban Ave. to about 20 feet, about a 25 percent slope. At the 20 -foot elevation, the ground flattens and continues across the central and northeastern site to Interurban Avenue. The topography remains relatively level across Interurban Avenue to the banks of the Duwamish River. The level portion of the site is partially paved or developed, covering portions of the site. Some modification to the original topography may have occurred because it appears the toe of the slope has been excavated, extending the level portion of the site to the southwest. No unique geologic formations are evident on any alternative sites. The site soils are composed of glacial till and recent alluvial soils which probably underlies the northeastern portion of the site adjacent to Interurban Avenue. Fill may be present on portions of the site which has past development. Glacial till, a dense unsorted silt, sand and gravel mixture, is exposed in small, old cuts on the southwest edges of the existing parking lots. Previous geologic mapping indicates that till underlies most of the site's southwest portion. Sandstone is visible in a 20 -foot bluff at the .southern corner of the Interurban Avenue and 52nd Avenue South intersection across the the street from the site. The sandstone is com- pletely weathered at the surface and can be easily gouged. Sandstone may also underlie the glacial till. Recessional outwash is mapped in a narrow northward - trending deposit in the southwest corner of the site. This deposit generally consist of well- sorted sand with gravel. The proposed action requires grading and filling to develop a uniform slope. The majority of the site would be paved. Erosion is possible during construction but measures will be used to channel surface water away from slopes. Temporary fabric would also cover exposed soils on embankments. A pond would also be constructed to remove sediment before discharge in to the drainage system. 3) Water. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground water? i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Explanation: Yes Maybe No X X X X X Drams Condition Area „ (acres Pre - Development 4.27 Post* Development 4.27 *Post - development mitigation. II Environmental Impacts No. 3 Water b,d,e,f & g The site is located in the Green River watershed in the range of river mile 9 to 10. Site runoff would be conveyed to the Interurban Avenue drainage system and ultimately discharged into the Green River about river mile 10. (See figure 11.) The following table displays the•increases in runoff rate as a result of paving the existing permeable surface areas. Discharge Ra Lox. Tukwila park- and -Ride Design Storm PDT Discharge Ram, (cubic feet per second) 5 -year 10 -year 25 -year 2.7 3.3 4.2 5.7 7.0 9.1 discharge rates are without Water quality could be affected during construction grading because site soils would be exposed to potential water erosion. Without mitigating measures, there may be significant soil loss and significant soil loss and subsequent increases in suspended and settled solids in site runoff. Downstream sedimentation and turbidity may result. The risk of flooding could also increase if sedimentation clogs storm sewers. Long -term operation of a park- and -ride lot would result intensified site use and increased concentrations of various pollitants in site runoff. An increase in- pol1tant concentrations reaching the Green River is anticipated. Adjacent land uses are producing similar or worse runoff quality. Significant impacts on groundwater quality is not anticipated. Runoff detention would be provided in conventional surface detention facilities. Runoff detention storage capacity for a 10 -year storm would be 4,900 cubic feet. On -site flood storage would be provided for the 100 -year, 7 day storm or the equivalent of 10 inches of rainfall. The detention storage for the above condition would be accommodated within the parking area. The 100 -year, 7 -day flood storage requirement would be about 155,000 cubic feet. During construction the following measures would be implemented to reduce impacts on water quality: o Scheduling construction activities during the summer months of June through September. Special conditions would be instituted for work during other months with the appropriate agencies. o Using temporary erosion control proceduressuchas strawbales, fabric and plastic sheeting to cover soil stockpiles. o Minimizing slopes of earth fill banks. o Revegetating landscaped areas as soon as possible following construction. o Providing erosion control performance criteria in construction specifications and adequate construction inspection. Metro would provide detention facilities to also promote sedimentation preliminary site schematics indicate about 3600 square feet of developable space for sedimentation facilities. The amount of surface area provided would remove 40 micron size particles and larger with about a 50 percent pollutant removal efficiency. Additional sedimentation space could be provided which would reduce the number of parking stalls. Insoluble materials such as oil and grease would be additionally mitigated by using elbow and tee pipes in storm sewer manholes or coalescing plate oil /water separators. An artificial wetland could be created in the buffer strip between parking areas. Also, detention time could be extended to promote sedimentation. I 4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? X b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? X c) Introduction of new species of flora into an :,area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d) Reduction in acreage of any agri- cultural crop? X Explanation: The project would remove:existing grass, shrubs and trees. The proposal would provide landscaping for aesthetic purposes. 5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? Explanation: See Attachment c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? Yes Maybe No d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X X II Environmental Impacts No. 5 Fauna d The Duwamish -Green River system has a variety of fish using the river - estuary for breeding, rearing, forage and .transport. Chinook, coho and chum salmon as well as trout and perch use the Duwamish -Green River system. Increased turbidity during construction would affect water quality in less than desirable conditions for migrating salmon. Construction activities of grading and fill would take place in the summer to reduce water quality impacts on salmon. (See II 3 water.) Upstream migration Summer - Fal l Spawning chinook Intragravel develop. Juvenile rearing Juv. out migration I -i --- Upstream migration Coho Spawning Intragravel develop. Juvenile rearing Juv. out migration -- Upstream migration Chum Spawning Intragravel develop. Juvenile rearing Juv. out migration - I Upstream migration Summer steelhead spawning - -• Intragravel develop. Juvenile rearing 1 � Juv. out migration .. • Upstream migration Winter steelhead Spawning Intragravel develop. Juvenile rearing 1 � Juv.. out migration _ ! I I I 1 j Species TABLE 12 TIMING OF SALMON AND STEELHEAD FRESHWATER LIFE PHASES IN GREEN BASIN ?/ Fresh -water Life Phase Month J F M A A J J A S O N D ! extends over a two -year period. ?Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. Comprehensive Study of Water and Related Land Resources. Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters. Appendix XI, Fish and Wildlife, March 1970. 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? Explanation: Sep Attarhmchnt 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Explanation: mhch far•i 1 i ty wniilt prnvi r1P 1 i ghti ng_ SpPrial fixtures to ripimj,zch cr+i l J age* nntai rich the fani l i fy wnnl ci be used_ 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: The site is presently zoned Regional Retail and Multi- family Residential. The proposed use would change the site to a public use. 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? Explanation: 10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve the risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Explanation: Yes Maybe No X X X ___X___ Location II Environmental Impacts No 6 Noise .,.,,.. w., Y,,. c< w.. w ...�as.m...,..a....._. »..V.._ -. _. �Y. ?::tdwi f :'; = . Y:1 2Z:c,: -`.'! 7,,r $':7'^r�� Noise resulting from park -and -ride lot operations would exceed King County ordinance levels by only 1 dBA and only at receivers bordering the entrance and exit adjoining 52nd Avenue South. For receivers abutting this entrance and exit automobile noise could be mitigated by constructing a barrier along the length of the driveway on the property line. According to EPA guidelines, receivers very close to the entrance off of 52nd Avenue South would experience insignificant increases, in Leq during morning rush hour due to automobile traffic on the site. The accumulated noise exposure over 24 -hour period (Ldn) would be unaffected for all receivers. These receivers presently experience noise levels that exceed the federal government's recommendation for maximum 24 -hour total residential noise levels (Ldn), and that level would not change due to noise from the park- and -ride lot. EXISTING AND PREDICTED SOUND LEVELS IN dBA TUKWILA SITE D Predicted Levels Criteria Existing Off On King Federal Time Level Site Site Total County Consensus D -1 Commercial Midday 70 70 55 70 60 70 (northeast) D -2 Residential 7 -8 AM 63 63 58 64 57 (south) Daily 67 6 65 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?. Explanation: See number 12 attachment 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Explanation: See Attachment 13) Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? b) Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Explanation: See Attachment X _X_ ..ft....x..... • Yes Maybe No _L_ _X_ .•.'He vx�ny.xTr'A ^i ar �KKrw.+:r•�� �mn.�v�y rcw II. Environmental Impacts No. 12 Housing The proposed park - and -ride lot would remove .seven residences including five single- family units, one duplex and one triplex displacing about ten persons. Two "businesses would also be removed. Metro would provide sufficient relocation personnel,'experienced . in both residential and business relocations to this project. These relocation agents will explain and identify all relocation alternatives to the people being displaced from both residences and "businesses. :This will be done under the guidelines as set forth in Public Law 91 -646, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Property Acquisition Policies'Act of 1970r. as amended, and the.regulations : of the Urban Mass Transit Administration as defined in the circular, UMTA CA4530.1," dated .March 21, 1978. Duties may also include assisting displacees to fill out forms required by lending institutions, .the Small Business Administration and others on leasing and purchasing new premises. Assistance will also be rendered: in preparing and filing claims for reimbursement after relocation has been completed. II Environmental Impacts No. 13 Transportation a & d The operation of a park -and -ride lot would attract about 260 vehicles for all day commuter parking. Commuters would ride the bus or carpool to complete their respective trips. An estimated 670 auto trips would maximize use of the 260 stall facility. About 35% of the total auto movements at the site would occur during the 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. period. About 80% of the peak -hour trips would exit from the park- and -ride facility while 20% would enter during the afternoon peak hour. Park -and -ride lot commuters are either Tukwila residents (coming down from hill via 52nd and 58th Avenues), other commuters along Interurban, or rerouted commuters from I -5 and I -405 corridors. In addition to the auto mode trips, a number of bus trips would be routed to the park- and -ride facility. Approximately 200 bus trips would service the lot each weekday, with a total of 200 daily and 20 peak -hour bus trips stopping along Interurban adjacent to the park- and -ride lot. The projected 870 daily auto and bus trips and 260 p.m. peak -hour trips will primarily . distribute along Interurban Avenue with approximately 20% of the trips using 52nd Avenue to and from the Tukwila residential hill area. Exiting park- and -ride autos and existing 52nd Avenue traffic stopped at the Interurban intersection could experience very long delays (LOS E) at times during the afternoon peak -hour. With completion of the new Foster Bridge and proposed realignment of 56th Avenue to meet the 52nd Avenue and Interurban Avenue intersection, traffic from the bridge or the existing driveway opposite 52nd Avenue would also experience considerable delays (LOS E) in attempting to cross or turn left onto Interurban Avenue. The existing two -way left -turn lane would accommodate "inbound" left -turn site traffic from Interurban onto 52nd Avenue and left turns to 56th Avenue. With or without the park- and -ride facility, Interurban Avenue would handle over 20,000 vehicles per day (vpd) by 1985 near the site but at tolerable service levels, because the capacity of the five -lane roadway is approximately 30,000 vpd. I -5 on and off -ramp intersections with Interurban Avenue immediately north of the site would carry nearly 10% less peak -hour volume and continue to operate at levels -of- service (LOS A). All buses serving the park- and -ride facility would load and unload commuters at on- street bus zones along special pullout areas on both sides of Interurban Avenue. Potential conflicts Avocage Wookday Traffic Volumo Annual Avg. AccIdent (With Injuries) Traffic Signal METRO \ funk 11411(V nl \ '..v111e II : I�) I1; 11,1111 .Bill It 1 Il ll'111`, (185 'Weekday Deily Volume P.M. Peak Hour Volume Noto: Includee Elueue [120] dot. . ETR 0 ,„ irtflq.111t.111 I. .1I■ I 1:1(;t1IZI.: 27 1 (LIR l'N1 ',II(' 11,11th H • Volume With Park [12.0] and Rld© (In 1000'0 � tp 8 Volume Vfthout Park 1 - - and Rlde (In t000'a) ■ 4 lb - .METRO \ tun.tlulttr ut \ i r tn . 7 itm `..vtir edi T (Vnr (II •1 ( (I 1.1(;( 1Rf•; 2 t I \ \ ( '�'1���,1\ II,011t \tl�lllllt'\ \ \'1111 ,tlll� 111111111 HUI\ ho with auto traffic would occur during routine merging along Interurban at the bus pullout zones. All park - and - ride ' autos would enter leave the site via a single driveway onto 52nd Avenue located 200 feet southwest of the Interurban intersection. The only hazard generated by this proposed access is potential right -angle or rear -end collisons between exiting park- and -ride autos and existing 52nd and 53rd Avenues vehicles coming down the hill. During the p.m. peak period, backups from the stop sign at Interurban could extend as far as the entry driveway and at times block both park- and -ride and non -site traffic destined to Interurban Avenue. Pedestrian and vehicular conflicts would be minimal since commuters, would walk toward Interurban where on- street bus stops would be provided, while park- and -ride autos would be routed to and from the single entry point along a collector road at the far west boundary of the site. Bus passengers loading or unloading to and from northbound buses would have to cross Interurban Avenue by using the existing flashing signal crossing south of 52nd Avenue. In order to mitigate the off -site impacts of the proposed park - and -ride, the following street and signal improvements would be negotiated with the local jurisdiction: o Widening of 52nd Avenue adjacent to the park- and -ride site to provide two approach lanes and one exit lane at Interuban Avenue. A left /through and a right- turn -only lane would be included and extend from Interurban Avenue to the park -and- ride auto driveway. Provide striped island just east of the entry to delineate the left -turn egress movement from the park- and -ride lot and the reverse -curve transition from one to two eastbound lanes. o A fully- actuated traffic signal is recommended for the intersection of Interurban Avenue and 52nd and 56th Avenues. The signal will be required to permit safe egress at this intersection by autos. The traffic controller should have capabilities to accomodate a left -turn pahse for Interurban Avenue and multiphase capability for 52nd and 56th Avenues. Signals at this location would substantially reduce the projected average delay and potential hazard for the site traffic as well as for the existing 52nd Avenue and future traffic on the new Foster Bridge. This improvement is part of the Foster Bridge reconstruction project. o Provide pedestrian signal and crosswalk for all four legs of the 52nd Avenue and Interurban Avenue intersection to safely accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic. ,....h mir t re o,*..Omnx. .rttre%'7R!cUiM'.1;;�C<' Convert the existing two -way left -turn lane (14 feet wide) along Interurban Avenue on both sides of the 52nd /56th Avenues intersection into left -turn lanes -to accommodate projected turning volumes onto 52nd Avenue (toward park -and- ride lot) and the new Foster Bridge. o Prior to design Metro in conjunction with Tukwila and King County Officials would discuss realignment of 52nd Avenue with the Foster Bridge improvement. o Provide curb, gutters and sidewalks along Interurban and 52nd Avenues adjacent to the park- and -ride lot to separate pedestrians and bicyclists from vehicular traffic. o Install "Stop" and "Do not Block Intersection" signs along the park- and -ride entrance driveway at its intersection with 52nd Avenue in order to discourage blocking 52nd and 53rd Avenues traffic during peak periods when queues from the Interurban Avenue intersection may on occasion extend back to the park -and -ride auto driveway. A second driveway for the park- and -ride lot is under considertion. This driveway would be on Interurban Avenue just north of the Gas n' Go property and would be restricted through appropriate channelization and signing to a right turn into the park - and -ride from southbound Interurban Avenue and a right turn out of the park - and -ride lot to southbound Interurban Avenue. This access would benefit most p.m. peak -hour destinations, which are from the park- and -ride lot to southbound Interurban Avenue. This movement would thus be divided between the 52nd Avenue park - and -ride driveway and the subject exit. Convenience and travel time benefits would accrue to those motorist, and the park -and- ride's circulation would be reduced, although overall level of service at the 52nd Avenue intersection (under the recommended signalization) is calculated to remain at a LOS A. 14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks and other recreational facilities? e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f) Other governmental services? Explanation: The site could require additional police patrols. The site would require maintenance by Metro personnel. (See utilities for additional service.) The park- and -ride lot would be availible evenings and weekends for parking by golfers using the Foster Golf course. 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Explanation: 16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Water? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? Explanation: See Attachment Yes Maybe No __ X_ X X X X 16. Utilities The proposal will require electrical power for li htin for irrigation, sewer facilities for a driver: comfort station, drainage facilities for storm water, and provide telephone booths and waste receptacles for bus patrons. • 17) Human (Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health) ? Explanation: 18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Explanation: 19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Explanation: The park- and- rideaot could be used on evenings and weekends by people visiting or using the Foster Golf course, thus increasing golf course use. 20) Archaeological /Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archaeological or historical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: III. SIGNATURE Date: Proponent: Yes Maybe No X X X 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 misrepresentation or lack of full disclosure on my part. Plat Map 20 Subject RECEIVED APR 9 1985 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. • • . *METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle NORTH Scale: 9 1 2 1 4 1 mil" FIGURE 1 Regional location METRO PARK AND RIDE • TUKWILA 3 God .6/ A CP 'got Ileoe_o_i LJ L • ele • 7 • SEE) AN 13,;L. I SLOG C.,/ • • RS. I N.) 7' .114 C.P si • 1 1- If • •sst 1 ; 2 1 ••• - 4,2 Ns N- 1 .1" 17 41 :t sto'Cd 5 [(•.g.' 2 '1 7, 1l 1 3. • on "ks 6 Pacific Ili- „I ('• N • I 2 CD RIK) ST •••• •• l) 1 1 Kent4 F • • r • Sumner .. 2 1.0 3.4 • I /.....rnp kIPC NOM( t - . 'r" • ! , • ,, • L. L. Redt ft oJemoll. CeOr ..... .te ."`,/ 1 - • • b typort K I t22 ,'l .. 6k11:14•1l, - A...f • Al, Y.. .... 'A- .-mai! iA ‘ - 7' Winslow -7;1 -• . 1•,, , • Pow ' ' ' 'A:1 • ...., . ' . I.Anwood, . • • , -•-• :I 1 .,. //,'-',‘ Al • .r. , --2. • .... . NP•s,..s.,,.„: - .• . .- ?Oft Blakely . ....' 1 ., 4 ... .. - ',?ru " rd r %R.morenoo ..-' • ii.. A •- 0, r. ... ti7. , ,/,` Polnl , •A' , ,.i ''/C . C1 6 ) 'i IZes s,.., 1 ptt r' L /,.' 4. • :F. ... -i- ;F., . . t v ., a,-. Manchester 1 9 ---, ...„„n—, \ E • .Ar Chuhed Ps r-- • , Fn -.., „,s!' ■••.,..,. ,:.•• .., , •11 .i• .• , . . • % , rt ' • 41', ._,........r w .1.1;1••■,:-...,, ‘ Orchar I . .. 2 .1'`, "" klos• / ' • ' • , • I i 'fr ‘i i i l - 8 7 '7•• • •••: • -,-: (10 Pt Whitir'' • WM AO ST * Proposed Tukwila Fi- Alt 'AA. A r• , ay S ; 'A • Calk 1 / '.; vu A Park and Ride (.1M■ Y . I • Existing Park and Ride 96 ea Mtn: Wil:ksmy r.1 1 , 1 ....• , ., ....,. -- • ,.,..„ .,.., ,.• . t ''' ' v F”:„.z. b • i' • ) ' Y:. ". 1..:32...... i';? - F .,t _ .... :-..sou Oh - ytyashon Heiehli - ' g ••-:' : \ • ‘ _ 11 -11-1 m..1 ---- - 7 . - 1: 7------ 1 - r -- .,,,Y 6- zi" -- / / •=3 , iv,...,,„ p, \'.7.-1:"..:ty' .--=•• , ''. -' / ...;..." 1 ---- A-Ar j • Irq -- r - r, *T :-,/ 7 • • i .1 --Bonet:I ty .-,,,_, 0' . '- 1 t.': , 1, / : . . • _ j,____/, II s • Potnl,,,,, Soolurst ' ...--.2 ', ...... ir H2SC■1 i . t : ,....■% . , it ......---.. —.ill .,,. Fetol 1 ,. MC I li .. 1,_ ._:Rts,- Point 6.... ,.P9rIe ' ' '' .-3 ' H1 N •' / -, ---' ! ■ViS110, '"7- 0 1-- ; ,-. ••••/ -_•,. . .....-----v— ,7 t ? ! ;)•61__L_,,_11.,•,-y „ i . _.!,,,,,?..,,, ,.,,. Ti rr: F' '' ;t:; ; '-. 1(''f: _,.2 7i:::'- .1.14114 II ' • -. ' ' . '• -.s -.,,,', r. ; ":; 1- 1 Notmandy .- ,.., . •[i •r • Park —F 5t .,,,,,,, — 1"( • cs."„013 5---- -.' , ' ,f""/ .:'• ''' d ,'...'..; oriwo —.• _ .• sw,),219114 ;i----:;fOrtile • I li ILI Z1 ''''' !In .:'..`j.-.4—j.c".'4....— :- . Z.: 3 M ' i, Purdy,. i / :4;,^,:•:' \ t --L ''',...7. 11 -' L9 paobu•on \ ' '' ' : - '''''7.- - i... - -- , •■ . v ., t •-: Pout, co !n w it n If . i l, 1'....• `••• r ,, CD ; fr..1 •;-_-_=-1::-. , ,___F —. 1 ' :•1 \••• oc.o.t.:'.4. rilmAy.irr "n--1 4 ''• ' ) -) ___]. ,i1 , 1, •••—_. :-. s •--.J1 ii., • ,'"/ ,...- -:-.,..- , , 1s!,A 0 Alien $?' ,..-11...01 1 , 1 / .„. Redond H . ',.! • NNF) II k • N . : .... Pc-int o _ Curls ,.... Gi g Ha 1",,„ \ ...1MICII/In • .^. • CknA ' • • 1 • r‘ l , ______:„• \ -• i 41) "k"-.. !A\ Daloo"- Pt ' • :■1 .1,4, P■114r v. / s,? Ian A ' \'' \ ' C , - ./ tIl•••/*/ ....„ • D. Pu,nr 10 1 • 6 , .,i,-. `..: ... . ..4 : OZ ' ,..i. *1 _ y •., , A„ \\\ F.., ' . or,,,,,,,,_-: _ fiderel • Way 1( ..Ar \,(‘‘,, 1 kiy . \' \ :• •• .*** K00•0.0 ‘vk-- 1, -,-- - ...„,,,_,_,e, , , i , , 1 ,,„„,,,;-. „ cu.. , , u , ton _ .. „_. . if" :,..„ ..‘,..;...-, -, i! \ -..:. a so ›•." "'PT.! , 0 I i • 4 J• • Aboe Pow./ . 4. knell Pew.. , • ‘„! .:. I _LI!..:1: ... ..?.....,..vr, ;,•. ..: ... , .. ..,, ,: F...,, i..... i aco ', ,.-;-..— --tt. •1 u ,L• 1 .1.. ' •\ -', ' . , .r. 1 ‘,---, , ;,- , il / -,-•!: ..- ..,,, '-i• . FOX■ri PI Fokkus •'' , — 21‘7(- \ „For 1:17 171i•Ccr...1.11.511 , . ' . ".Fiti 2,■- ,,,,i:"CSET,EM.ARG ' • '.: D 1,' ' ISI...N ,,,, !,) Unover Sily C.worudt ' Ishusd Giby'an ./,' ... '.., .1 '' •''' -• ISLAND POIrl, • f: ' Ic• . • :N. \!'s '1 • . • • . by,o. .• , - • • • • • i• t .'• • -.1 Puyallup 1,1 ' Tr,1 •:tt. . . , • 111 . 7 ' .1 1111(111i Kirkland • r Yo,,ew "iO32 c Ev Hunts d . Pt. A 6 ' ENT - • mtdinao.. C . 13 , s e L 0 W!' 1, ' kt r3 •I 5 'l (.; ra 10 • . 1 ' k lc:74.11. N • ■••, (1 4 ,- I iTh ,r , -. . esuil`.. . atkrtscx • /1111174 1 t4-A. , 1 6 : 1 r` ( T.,(• Bellevue 7'7 .4 '. ^, '••E • rol \ • • • Mar Creek ' it 7' • -=.; 'Renton KVVILA• - — ..... _..,...—).--,,, ....m .. . ..,, --.....,„„....,_,.,....4-- ..„ :. 19260 ZI 22 „. , • s ......,.---:.-- , FA-A, . - , e .. ). i ,m•':. ... ...-s ),. ' - •*-- --7. , ■ ;".; •• ' '•xi'• .1 t ...: . .2.0;43) . .i . L '—.;**f • ': : •*- •'. 1 I 2 1,I1N ,,,,-- ‘ ri c''' ' ' i , I.; ; . 4 . •-...: " 2if"--- .A...r.. .A/ I g''' . l it 4.. . .. , L f%'6-4■.° 4'd °) .' t.r errydali` • 1-'' I c v ! il'N )1/4 i •,) ) A L : b ( ; ' • , I '-'1 712f., 3 • : I:. b •7,1, IA ‘A 't Luttl-r TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE INTRODUCTION I. PROPOSED ACTION 1 Project Description I- 1 Statement of Need I- 1 Project History 1-.1 Alternative Sites I- 1 Costs I- 2 Transit Operations I- 2 II. RELATIONSHIP TO LAWS, PLANS AND POLICIES II Federal II- 1 State of Washington II- 1 Regional. Policy 11- 2 Community Plans II- 5 Transportation Improvements II- 7 III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS III APPENDIX Geology III- 1 Water Quality /Quantity III- 3 Air Quality III- 8 Flora and Fauna III -11 Land Use III -12 Population /Housing III -13 Transportation III -15 Noise I11 -29 Utilities III -36 Energy III -36 Economics I1I -37 Visual I1I -38 Archaeological /Historical III -39 IV. NO BUILD IV -1 Relocation Plan A Wildlife B References C Contacts C Contributing Staff C i PREFACE This environmental assessment has been prepared according to Urban Mass Transportation Administration requirements (Circular 5620.1) to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is also support document for a state Environmental Policy Act environmental checklist that Metro will prepare once a preferred site is selected. The assessment analyzes three sites under worst case conditions in dveloping and operating a park-and-ride lot. In all likelihood, the facility will generage fewer trips than stated in the analysis. The assessment identifies existing conditions, and 1985 and 1990 projections on operational impact. The analysis discusses projected .1985 air quality and transportation conditions with and without the proposal. Engineering, noise, and transportation draft consultant reports were used to prepare this environmental assessment. The . consultant reports are available for details on these three environmental areas. f ACTION SPONSOR: NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL: PROJECT LOCATION: RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ADDRESS COMMENTS TO: CONTACT PERSON: AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS: LICENSES, PERMITS AND OTHER REQUIRED APPROVALS: LOCATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND BACKGROUND DATA: AVAILABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: DATE OF ISSUE: INTRODUCTION Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) The project involves the siting and construction of the Tukwila park- and -ride One of three sites in the Tukwila near Interurban Avenue between I -405 and I -5 community Neil Peterson, Executive Director Rodney G. Proctor, Manager Environmental Planning Division, MS -92 Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 821 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Larry E. Jones (206) 447 -5863 Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Entranco . Engineers, Inc. -- Engineering, Design, Water Quality Centrac Associates, Inc.—Transportation Michael R. Yantis Associates -- Acoustic and Vibration Hart Crowser and Associates -- Geology Kyle Salsberg -- Graphics Edward M. Watanabe -- Landscape Design o See page II -6 for Permits o Metro Council o Urban Mass Transportation Administration o Tukwila Board of Architectural Reveiw o Tukwila City Council o King County Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 821 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Copies are available at Metro's Environmental Plan- ning Division, Ninth Floor, Exchange Building, in downtown Seattle. Copies for public review will be available at various library branches and the Metro Library, Sixth Floor, Exchange Building. September 15, 1983 Federal Agencies Federal Highway Administration Environmental Protection Agency, Region X Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Region X Corp of Engineers State Agencies Office of the Governor Department of Commerce and Economic Development Department of Ecology Department of Transportation Planning and Community Affairs Agency Utilities and Transportation Commission Department of Fisheries Department of Game Regional Agencies King County Department of Budget and Program Development Seattle-King County Commuter Pool Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Puget Sound Council of Governments Metro Council Tukwila Libraries Tukwila City Hall Tukwila City Council Tukwila Public Work Department Tukwila Planning Department Seattle Public Library Metro Library Others Tukwila Chamber of Commerce CTAC 07/EPb-19/19e DISTRIBUTION LIST iv ,i ;i aJ14, ., J 1r --- . ..- ,, . •.1 . 1 I. ' ii i /j ! • V ,, ' f e :, lb :•-•.a....e.J.-.- . l A ..;4.--.. . ..... : . ...'N• - rrl. - - 7 ` 1- ..... f Y frn .'s 1 :,...... .... il ■• , ...:_ L.,........4. J 'II .. ,„. - l I + : hri11 A..r,„ 111'r „ 1 r. L - , 4 4 - .3.4• .• . • . a, • • t J L . 0 If it 1...._.. ..,_, -!!---,! - - • .• • — --- II , it (1 i 1 • -4.1 . .. ....4L._...i.st.s,,.......... , I - i .......„,,.... r..4 1 H I 1110. • • SITE C'" L. I MIMOSA 5 INS ANI• 110WIDARY geNMETRD seams 4 Nam ty MetroPolitan a SOILS IN MILS ■ FIGURE 2 Alternative sites METRO PARK AND RIDE • TUKVAA Project Description As lead agency, the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro), in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Transportation, intends to site, design, develop and operate a 250 to 350 stall park -and -ride lot in the Tukwila area (see Figure 1). The proposed park -and -ride lot would include parking spaces for automobiles, bicycles and motorcycles, a driver comfort - station, lighting, landscaping, bus - loading zones and other amenities as appropriate. The park -and -ride lot will serve the Tukwila and Green River Valley areas, relieving congestion on principal travel routes including Interstate 5. Statement of Need Studies conducted for Metro on the demand for park- and -ride lots show a significant need for park -and -rides in the area during the 1980s and an immediate need for around 300 spaces. A Tukwila park -and -ride lot is identified in Metro's 1990 Plan and Capital Facilities Plan which was produced as a part of Metro's Mid -Range Program. As demand increases, additional park -and -ride lots may be needed in the area. Project History July 1982 - initiated planning. Several sites were identified and a preliminary analysis was conducted for each site. o December 1982 - held open house in Tukwila to receive public comments on the proposed project. The identified sites, as well as project schedule and the site selection criteria, were discussed. o January 1983 - initiated preliminary design studies and analysis on the existing conditions, impacts and mitigation of transportation, noise, water quality and geology for two sites. o January 1983 - briefed the Tukwila City Council on the project followed by two informational meetings in January and March with city officials, staff, community and business representatives. o March 1983 - a public meeting was held in Tukwila to further discuss the issue. o April 1983 - briefed the Tukwila City Council again. As a result of this session, it was determined that a third site should be analyzed. o May 1983 - held two additional information meetings to reach a consensus on the additional site. o June 1983 - added a third site to the preliminary design studies and analysis. Metro's Citizens' Transit Advisory Committee was briefed on the project. Alternative Sites Three alternative sites were studied for the proposed Tukwila park- and -ride lot. All sites shown in Figure 2 are located in the Interurban Avenue corridor between Interstate 405 and Interstate 5. Proposed parking stall and bus -load capacities are in Table 1. I -1 Costs * Northbound * Southbound (Acres) Table 1 Principal Site Layout Features Bus Loading Features Property Area Parking Stalls Articulated Coach Per Coach On- Street To Be Developed Loading or Site Total Developed Total Acre Positions Off- Street A 5.3 4.3 300 70 4) On-Street (NB)* 5 ) - 9 Off - Street (SB)* C 5.1 5.1 390 76 4 Off - Street D 4.3 3.4 260 68 2 ) On- Street (NB) 2 ) ' 4 On- Street (SB) Each alternative site's location, size and physical configuration resulted in schematic drawings displaying different bus loading, landscaping and site circulation features. Each site design further resulted in different parking capacities per acre and acreage utilization opportunities. Site A could be developed for 300 parking stalls resulting in one acre of land for future use or disposal. Site C can also be developed for 300 parking stalls but has a capacity for 390 cars. The_ Site for 260. parking stalls: and 0 9'acres: :for. future expansion or>disposal: , The Site A bus - loading zone would accommodate nine articulated coaches (four north- bound positions in an on- street pullout and five southbound positions off - street) (see Figures 3 and 4). The Site C off - street loading zone would accommodate four articulated coaches (see Figures 5 and 6). A separate staging area would accommodate two articula- ted coaches, with the potential for additional staging area capacity. Site D features northbound and southbound on- street loading zones, each accommodating two articulated coaches (see Figures 7 and 8). Sites A and C offer potential joint -use opportunities to provide public access to the Green River. The riverside edges of Sites A and C are about 40 feet from the river's mean high - water line. Site A and lots would be available for automobile parking on evenings and weekends. Sites A, C 'a d D could incorporate the walkway /bikeway proposed in the Interurban Design District Plan. Total estimated costs to acquire and develop Sites A, C and D are $1,936,466, $2,470,610 and $1,940,419, respectively. I -2 4. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 4% North Scale: 1"- 400' FIGURE 3 Site A METRO PARK AND RIDE • TUKWILA „ „ in 1 e MOOS 311N3?V HAS 3 gig 14! *METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle X M US foo XX•Ow FIGURE 4 Site A -- Layout \ } • k O / /7 / *� � Q9. K •� METRO PUN STATOR *METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle /* North Scale: 1" 0 400' 1— PHASE DEVELOPMENT ULTIMATE I OEVELOPIMM NMI TAR!R LK \ %Wt 1/41 1\T ItIM VITAL STATISTICS TOTAL PMNINO STALLS. PHASE 14IN TIAL DEVELOPMENT • 310 M AE L ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT • MO PROPERTY ACREAGE. SO/ STALL. PER ACRE RATIO. 7$1PHASE 2) ZONING AUTHORITY' TUKWILA SITE ZONING. M-I NITERIOR NOWT I MAX. GRAOE LENGTH J LEGEND Z M[LTER R..JICrcLE WRING IL_NOTwcxtE MIMS FIGURE 6 Site C — Layout ' P. at 1 1 8 aPamETR0 I1 � of Metropolitan meek AEI FIGURE 8 Site D — Layout • Site Costs: Construction Cost Design, Construction Engineering, and Administration Land Cost Subtotal Off -Site Costs: Construction Cost Design, Construction Engineering, and Administration Subtotal Total Project Cost 07 /EPb -19/19 TABLE 2 I -3 Site A Site C Site D $ 745,519 $ 877,392 $ 758,640 223,677 263,218 227,592 890,000 1,330,000 737,900 1,859,196 2,470,610 1,724,132 59,438 166,375 17,832 - - 49,912 77,270 216,287 $1,936,466 $2,470,610 $1,940,419 Transit Operations Six routes currently operate on Interurban Avenue between I -405 and I -S. Routes 150, 158 and 159 travel to the Seattle CBD, Routes 149 and 154 travel to the Duwamish Industrial District and Route 157 provides. service to Boeing in Auburn via Renton and Kent. Route 150 operates all day between Auburn and Seattle. All other routes providg peak -hour service only. During aheipeakFperiod, 25. ..tripsvoractrip minuteViare{ made along this. stretch of interurban Avenue. Routes 145, 146, 148, 240, 241 and 340 operate in an east /westerly direction between I4405-and I -5 on Southcenter Boulevard and serves Seattle, Sea -Tac, Southcenter and Burien. These routes add 27 trips to the area. The existing routes will be maintained when the Tukwila park- and -ride lot is built. Routes 149, 150, 154, 157, 158 and 159 will provide service to Site A or D. Levels of service will be adjusted to handle the additional park- and -ride users. Buses-from C. will • provide service= between :Bur ien . Sea-Tacand .,Bellevue.vrThis : route currently has available seating 'and would be `able'to carry extra , park- and -ride patrons. Federal If federal assistance is provided to develop the park - and -ride lots in Tukwila, the following federal laws and regulations would apply. There are, however, state, regional and local regulations, plans and policies which would comply with these laws: o National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91 -96) o Clean Water Act of 1972 (P.L. 92500) o Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et. seq.) o Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89 -670) o Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (U.S.C. 1601 et. seq.) o Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies for Federal And Federally Assisted Programs (P.L. 91 -646). o River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 404 of P.L. 92 -500 and Section 103 of P.L. 532. State of Washington Washington State Enviromental Policy Act of 1971 (Chapter 43.21 RCW) (SEPA) The act, specifically Chapter 197 -10 _ WAC, sets guidelines interpreting and implementing SEPA. SEPA requires the "Acting Agency to reasonably assess and document the potential impacts of a proposed action on the environment." Metro complies with SEPA with this environmental assessment and the environmental determination. State Implementation Plan The Washington State Department of Ecology, the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority and the Puget Sound Council of Governments have prepared a plan to improve air quality in the state. The plan identifies several programs and projects, when implemented by private and public agencies, which would bring air quality into compliance with federal standards. The programs and projects include: o stricter emission standards o inspection /maintenance of motor vehicles o paved streets and parking areas o improved transit. Developing a park- and -ride lot would improve regional transit and help reduce air pollution by intercepting 250 to 300 autos per day (see Air Quality Section). Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1971 (Washington State, RCW 8.26) The act sets guidelines for state and local governmental agencies to acquire properties within the state of Washington and to relocate owners, tenants and facilities. Metro plans to acquire real property to develop a park- and -ride lot in the Tukwila area. The project may require relocating facilities and tenants. The agency would comply with state and federal guidelines governing acquisition and relocation. RCW 35.58.240 - Metro is required to prepare, adopt and carry out a general comprehen- sive plan for public transportation that will best serve the Seattle -King County metropoli- tan area residents and amend the plan to meet changed conditions and requirements (see Metro Plans and Programs). Metro, in the 1990 Plan conducted a thorough study to expand public transportation facilities throughout the region. The plan examined the regional transit needs for the next 10 years, the energy and environmental, commercial and fiscal constraints associated with the expansion. The plan was updated in 1982. Metro Plans and Programs Metro resolutions enabling development of a park- and -ride and community transit center in Tukwila are: Resolution 3005 - The resolution enables Metro to comply with and implement RCW 43.21C (SEPA) and Chapter 197 -10 of the Washington Administrative Code (SEPA . guidelines). Resolution 3795 - This resolution approved the 1982 revised transit capital program mid- range plan. Resolution 3959, Amendment No. 3 - The amendment adopted the Metro /WSDOT coopera- tive memorandum for planning, developing and maintaining park -and -ride lots at Ken- more, Federal Way and Southcenter (Tukwila). Regional Policy King Subregional Plan, PSCOG, December 1978 The plan would provide a guide to countywide growth management decisions. The plan's policies cover several areas, including transportation and policies address the type, location, and priority of transportation improvements directly associated with land use decisions. The objective is to use transportation facilities and services to support land use decisions. Kin: Subregional Transportation Plan Pu:et Sound Council of Governments ( PSCOG) June 1981 The plan's purpose is "to establish the agreement of local elected officials with King County on the transportation policies, facilities and services that ought to be pursued and implemented over the next 20 years." The plan's goals and policies are from the Kin Subregional Plan and Metro's 1990 Transportation System Plan (More Mobility for the Eighties). II -2 Kin: Count Comprehensive 'lan 1964 The King County Comprehe to guide and coordinate ph policies guide transportatio select route design criteria system. The policies help County transportation syste Transportation Development Policies o A.1 all parts of t e transportation system would be coordinated with city, state, feder -1, and unincorporated areas within King County and adjoining cou ties o A.2 all parts of t they are to tion and its r o A.3 The transpor designed to the most ben o A.4 the transpo tation system should provide balanced and integrated facilities for all travel modes. Metro complies with polici citizens, special interest gr The project is designed to f Kin Count General Deve o•ment Guide (2nd Draft) sive Plan (Resolution 28742) was adopted October 13, 1964, sical development King County. The plan's transportation planning, route establishment, project programming, and o each project will be able to fulfill its role in the overall implement orderly development and expansion of the King e transportation system would be scaled to the function rform according to an area's density and total popula- lated land use requirements ation system's routes and facilities would be located and eet the demands of existing and proposed land uses with ficial effect on such uses s A.1 through A.4 by coordinating the project with local ups, and King County and Tukwila government officials. lfill growing demand and meet local land use goals. The King County General Development Guide, now in its second draft, will eventually replace the 1964 King Cou ty Comprehensive Plan. The guide would provide a framework for land use, public services and facilities decisions. The development guide contains the following transit policies: T -101 transporta ion facilities and services would support and be con- sistent wit land use policies T -102 new trans services communiti T -104 transporta noise poll tional fea T -105 transpor unless the adverse e ortation facilities, major improvements and increased ould be concentrated in designated urban and suburban s ion facilities and services would minimize air, water and tion and encourage the design, construction and opera - ures that reduce pollution emission levels ion facilities would not be located in sensitive areas design and construction of facilities adequately mitigate vironmental impacts in these areas. II -3 A Policy T -101 would guide Metro, the Seattle -King County Commuter Pool, the Port of Seattle, and other agencies and cities in making transportation decisions as they affect the entire county and as they relate to land -use plans. Along with other expensive public facilities and services, transportation in currently undeveloped areas must be phased to meet forecast growth, and the quality of service to existing communities must be preserved and improved. Policies T -104 and T -105 apply to all transportation facilities, most often to arterials built by public agencies and to privately -built smaller streets and parking areas. Since roads and parking areas often consume up to 20 percent of a residential subdivision and 60 to 70 percent of a shopping center, proper drainage is particularly important to protect nearby private property from erosion and to maintain the quality of fish - bearing streams. Transit facilities include transit stations, bus -stop passenger shelters, park- and -ride lots and exclusive bus or paratransit lanes in the highway and arterial system: T -301 transit routes and service levels would accommodate growth primar- ily within designated urban suburban communities T -302 New transit routes and facility investments would maintain and enhance service levels in designated urban and suburban communi- ties T -303 urban and suburban communities would have high enough average densities to support significant transit demand. Metro's proposal to develop and operate a park -and -ride lot meets the intent of policies T- 301 through T -303. Metro uses local plans to guide development and analyzes regional growth projections to provide public transportation alternatives to the automobile. Policies which specifically guide the development of park -and -ride lots are: T -312 park- and -ride lots would always have convenient access to an arterial T -313 joint use of parking areas as park -and -ride lots should be encouraged at shopping centers, major businesses and other regional or community -scale urban centers T -314 design and construction of park -and -ride lots should include adequate screening, buffering and measures to mitigate other off - site impacts such as increased vehicle traffic and surface -water runoff. The proposed park -and -ride lot sites all provide convenient access to major arterials. Furthermore, Metro will provide facilities and improvements to reduce off -site impacts. Metro is in the process of analyzing joint -use opportunities of park -and -ride facilities. Projects in Burien have been implemented on an experimental basis. 1I -4 Plans and Policies: City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan was adopted in 1977. The plan's goals, policies and objectives are to be used with the land use map. Policies applicable to the proposed Tukwila park -and -ride lot include: Transportation /Utilities Goal 2 - Provide for a transportation system which includes all transportation modes. Transit - Objective 2 Promote an effective and viable mass transit system which ties the Tukwila area to the region. Policy 2 - Support efforts to increase transit use. Polieys; , Promote,, freeway transit stops in conjunction -with local , park- and ridelots r ..— A park- and -ride lot in Tukwila would support these goals. The Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use map designations depict the three alternative sites as follows: o Site A - Commercial and Public Facility o Site C - Commercial o Site D - Commercial and Residential Tukwila Zoning Code (1982) The Tukwila zoning code includes zoning and land development requirements and standards: o Site A is zoned M -1 Light Industry. o Sites C and D* are zoned C -2 Regional Retail Business. The siting and operation of 'a 'park -and -ride :lot in Tukwila would require a: conditional use, permit '(Chapter, 18.64, General Conditional Uses): ` Monorails, people movers and others mass transit systems such as lots) Shoreline Master Program The Shoreline Master Program for the City of Tukwila has been incorporated into the zoning ordinance under Chapter 18.44. It contains overlay zones with development restrictions based on distance from the Green River. The River Environment zone reaches from Mean High Water (MHW) inland, a distance of 40 feet. The Low Impact * Portions of Site D are in unincorporated King County and are zoned RM -2400 (Multi- family Residential). II -5 Environment Zone extends from the 40 -foot boundary to a distance of 100 feet from MHW. The High Impact Environment extends 100 feet from MHW to 200 feet from MHW. The shoreline overlay zones supersede the underlying general zone. This precludes many uses within both the River Environment zone and the Low Impact zone that would otherwise be permitted. o Portions of Sites A and C are subject to the River Environment zone requirements. The proposed park- and -ride lot is designed so that restricted types of development would not be proposed within this zone. The only improvements proposed to be developed in association with the park- and -ride within the 40- foot -wide zone would include stormwater detention facilities and potentially part of a path or trail system. Both these uses are allowed within this zone. Permits o Portions of Sites A and C also fall within the Low Impact Environment. Permitted uses within this zone that may apply to the Tukwila park- and -ride lot include: (B) parking /loading and storage facilities adequately screened or land- scaped; (C) railroad lead and spur trackage or public or private roads. All allowable uses must conform to design standards. o Portions of Sites A and C as well as all of Site D are located in the High Impact Environment. All uses allowed in the underlying zoning district are permitted within this zone, subject to meeting design conditions. Board of Architectural Review The :Tukwila: park- and - ride.: lot" is also subject to review by the ,Board ; of , Architectura1 Review under Chapter 18.60 of the zoning code, regardless: of which .site is chosen:; = >: This chapter requires that developments meet siting and design criteria. ,. All three sites lie within the Interurban Special Review District and are subject toz' additional guidelines to ensure compatibility of land uses and the protection.; and promotion of certain amenities. The City . of Tukwila has recently approved the Geometric Study -:to implement the 1978 .F Interurban Corridor Study and Design Plan. Development within the Interurban design review area is subject to a general review process regarding appropriate use and the application of site specific design criteria, e.g. sidewalk location and specifications. Metro would coordinate the park- and -ride lot design with the Interurban improvement project. The project would require the following permits: Gaul. (49c Building Electrical Drainage Grading II -6 The project would also require a Shoreline: permit and a Corp of Engineers Permit. Possibly a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit from the State Department of Ecology; a Hydraulic Permit from the Washington State Departments of Fisheries and Game; a F1oodrZone C ontrol Permit from the Department of Ecology; a Utility Permit from Washington State Department of Transportation for improvements in the Limited Access area at Site D, aright-of-Way' construction: permit from the City of Tukwila for Site A would also be required. Transportation Improvements Programmed transportation improvements near the proposed Tukwila park- and -ride sites include: replacing'the Way:: Bridge .by- with` - four -lane facility. connecting. Interurban;, Avenue,; to, ;Renton; s realigning_;: and:: widening Southcenter' Boulevard'to: five lanes4- by 4984 . between >Interuitaii Avenue : 62nd Avenue:'. South; reconstructing Interurban Avenue by Southcenter Boulevard to include curb and gutter, sidewalks, bicycle lanes,., transit;; :turnouts. and a landscaped median; improving ` drainage : `and street LID to?- South �1 ; Streets from' Interurban `to" the' - Duwamish River; Sand ::replacing the .= Foster Bridge{overr the, Duwamish' River`':late:> 1984/1 985 via realignment at Interurban` Avenue': to >; :.connect r to -52nd Avenue. ' Proposed widenings of Southcenter Boulevard and Grady Way should improve overall traffic flow along this major east -west corridor (alternate to I -405), although :some;peak =hour :congestion-Aat :critical intersectionsty with Interurban Avenue (Fort Dent Park entrance and Grady Way) will continue with or without the proposed realignment of Southcenter Boulevard. Metro ;'is;;planning =;news transit center in the 'Tukwila ,.Commercial Industrial Districts The transit center would support coordinated transfers for off peak service throughout South King County and enhance Tukwila's designation as a regional transit center. The Tukwila Department of Parks and Recreation has a Green river trail system project currently underway. About 2.2 miles have already been constructed and there are plans to extend the trail. In areas near the river's edge, the 8 to 12 foot blacktop pathway has been constructed on top of the dike. In other areas, the trail system follows Interurban Avenue more closely. Specifications and design standards for the trail system along Interurban are included in the geometric study. The city has worked with developers to provide easements where necessary and landscaping to enhance this trail system. Development of the .: Tukwila park- and - ride.' lot at - Sites : A, C- or D. could incorporate-Green River :trail.segments into' :the facility - :design. 07 /EPb- 19/19a 11 -7 ! .: Geology Existing Conditions The topography of Sites A and C and the surrounding area is composed of clay, silt, sand and similar material along the Green River and adjacent floodplain. The bank is 10 to 15 feet above water level. The current topography in many areas within the floodplain is caused by previously placed fill. Fill hasbeen introduced 'to " provide :a more stable surface and a dry area above; the river floodplain: These fills are generally 3 to 12 feet deep. Site A is generally level and near the same elevation as the adjacent roads, except for a low area along the riverbank. The site's lower portion is 10 to 50 feet wide and about four to seven feet below the remainder of the site. The riverbank extends approximately eight feet above the water surface at moderate flow. Site C has an uneven surface because of mounds of fill material. Surface elevation range 15 to 25 feet. Site D straddles the change in slope at the foot of a hill. The highest point of the site is in the southwest corner at about a 50 -foot elevation. The ground descends toward Interurban Avenue to about 20 feet, about a 25 percent slope. At the 20 -foot elevation, the ground flattens and continues across the central and northeastern site to Interurban Avenue. The topography remains relatively level across Interurban Avenue to the banks of the Duwamish River. The level portion of the site is partially paved or developed, covering most of the site. Some modification to the original topography may have occurred because it appears the toe of the slope has been excavated, extending the level portion of the site to the southwest. No unique geologic formations are evident on any alternative sites. The natural, soil beneath ' Sites A and C and the surrounding area is alluvium, a deposit of stratified, relatively soft clay, silt and sand with some zones of organics. The actual composition of these deposits varies due to the position and depositional history of the river and other local factors. Recent fill overlays the natural soil. Fill can vary significantly depending on the type of soil placed, other material mixed with the soil and the means of placement. Sites A and C surface is fill with silty sand and gravel. This fill was not placed in a controlled manner, resulting in a soft surface. Generally, the surface soils are saturated or near saturation due to the irregular, relatively flat topography and low permeability of the fill. Infiltration may be significant due to irregular surface features and pools of water. Site D soils are composed . of glacial till and recent alluvial soils. The alluvium is similar to that described for Sites A and C and probably underlies the northeastern portion of the Site adjacent to Interurban Avenue. Fill may be present on portions of the site which had past development. Glacial till, a dense unsorted silt, sand and gravel mixture, is exposed in small, old cuts on the southwest edges of the existing parking lots. Previous geologic mapping indicates that till underlies most of the site's southwest portion. tod En MI Th US' of BI R ct A a4 P T. Ir r! a� N Pti P T Sandstone is visible in a 20 -foot bluff in the southern corner of the Interurban Av nue and 52nd Avenue South intersection across the street from the site. The sand tone is completely weathered at the surface and can be easily gouged. Sandstone ay also underlie the glacial till at Site D. Recessional outwash is mapped in a narrow no thward - trending deposit in the southwest corner of Site D. This deposit generally co sists of sand with gravel. For Sites A and C, the potential for erosion could be significant along the riverba k where steep slopes and relatively fine - grained soils are present. Bank erosion may al o occur due to the high velocity of river flow, particularly during flood stage. The area is mapped as seismically nonsensitive based on a soil type consisting • f well - drained alluvium. However, it is considered by many authorities in the seismic f eld that the presence of potentially loose, saturated sand deposits in the alluvial valley, of the Duwamish and Green rivers could be susceptible to liquefaction induced by strong motion earthquake. The result of liquefaction could be ground surface settlemen lateral spreading, or movement of blocks of soil toward the river, or ground cracking. ere are no indications, however, that this area would respond differently during a seism c event than most other sites in the Duwamish or Green river valleys. The overall slope of Sites A and C is relatively flat and stable except along the r verbank where relatively steep slopes are present. Ground motion during an earthqua e could cause slumps or slides along these steep slope areas. The slopes are composed of competent materials and reasonable existing slopes Land- slide potential on the southwestern slopes is considered to be minimal. Impacts The topography at Site A would not require significant alteration to accommodat: a park - and -ride lot. Some fill may be placed adjacent to the river where the current s rface is four to seven feet below the adjacent area. This fill would probably be brought n to the site. The existing grade at Site C would be raised with imported fill. Fill placed adj =cent to the riverbank could reduce the relatively stable condition and possibly result i erosion during construction. Construction at Site D could increase soil erosion due to the removal of existing pavements and vegetation. Development is not planned on the southwest slopes. Excavation at the toe of the slope could affect slope stability. The soils at all three sites would be covered with asphalt except in landscaped arras. The planned construction would not alter the seismic stability at any site. Mitigating Measures Erosion along the riverbank at Sites A and C would be controlled during and afte grading by limiting the slope angles, using fill with low erosion potential in slope areas, and protecting the surface with netting, sheeting, or riprap. Surface water could be directed away from the slopes and a pond constructed to remove sediment before d'scharge. Similar techniques could also be used at Site D. III -2 • { The risk of instability adjacent to the river would be kept to an acceptable level using properly engineered fills and appropriate slope angles. Similar engineered slopes at Site D would also minimize slope instability, along with the use of retaining walls in various locations. Water Quality /Quantity Existing Conditions The three alternative sites are located in the Green River watershed. Sites A and C are located along the west bank of the Green River. Drainage control requirements for sites discharging to the Green River have been developed jointly by King County, the City of Tukwila, and other local municipalities. On -site flood storage must be provided for the 100 -year, 7-day storm, or the equivalent of 10 inches of rainfall over the Site. Pump discharge to the river is not allowed because additional discharge during peak period could result in overtopping dikes, dike failure, and downstream flooding. Since a significant portion of Site A is currently located within the 100 -year flood zone limits, flood- proofing action would also be required. King County and the City of Tukwila require that flood -prone areas be filled one foot above the designated flood -zone elevation. Although flood- proofing may have been accomplished with recent filling and grading, an accurate topographic survey would be made to ensure that flood - proofing requirements have been met. A Flood Zone Control Permit would be required from the Washington State Department of Ecology in the range of river mile 11 to 13. Site D is found about river mile 9 to 10. Adjacent land use near all three sites is characterized by Light industrial and commercial activity. Green River flows at Tukwila are limited by the Howard Hanson Dam to 12,000 cfs during 99.5 percent of any year. Peak flows downstream near of the Sites have not exceeded 12,100 cfs since flood control was initiated. Average annual daily low flow averages 271 cfs at river mile 12 and is partially controlled by low flow augmentation practices at Howard Hanson Dam. Site A runoff is ultimately discharged into the Green River via two routes (see Figure 9). Runoff from the west side of the site drains into the underground storm sewer system along Interurban Avenue and flows northwest to the 58th Avenue South intersection. Runoff from 58th Avenue South intersects with this system and combined flows are conveyed by an 18 -inch storm sewer under the Riverside Inn parking lot to a submarine outfall at the Green River. The second runoff route for the eastern portion of the Site is served by a large drainage ditch along the east property line. Runoff is conveyed to the southeast corner of the lot into this drainage ditch and is ultimately discharged to the Green River. No natural drainages or wetlands occur on the site. Detention storage for runoff from the local drainage area has not been provided. Most runoff at Site C accumulates in a four -acre wetland area and drained away to seeps along the banks of the Green River (see Figure 10). Along the west edge of the site, there is an access road to Fort Dent Park and an accompanying storm drainage system. A wet well receives runoff from the access road and conveys it through a 24 -inch line to a discharge point at the Green River. *Local nomenclature indicates that the Green River becomes the Duwamish River at the point of confluence with the Black River north of Site C. In order to avoid confusion, all discussions refer to the Green River in this report. III -3 FIGURE 9 Site A — Existing storm drainage 0 -r 7. - Site D runoff is conveyed to the Interurban Avenue drainage system and ultimately discharges into the Green River via three separate outfalls (river mile 10) (see Figure 11). Site D runoff is collected by a natural drainage swale that enters the Site at the southwestern property line, flowing to a parking lot collection system. This drainage swale collects some runoff uphill of the Site from an adjacent residential area. Other runoff that flows across the northwest portion of the Site is generated by a drainage system associated with 1 -5, along the north property line. The majority of site runoff is collected by three parking lot drainage systems: two are adjacent to a convenience store and gas station and one is adjacent to a tavern to the southeast on Interurban Avenue. Local property owners have noted minor flooding in all three parking lots. Table 3 below shows existing predevelopment peak runoff flow rates for all three sites. Table 3 Existing Peak Runoff Flow Rates Design Storm Peak Runoff Rates Area (cfs) • Site (Acres) 5 -Year 10 -Year 25 -Year A 4.27* 0.61 0.71 0.88 C 5.09 .0.53 0.63 0.76 D 4.27 2.7 3.3 4.2 * Does not include surplus property. Site D has an impervious surface covering a portion of the site which accounts for a greater runoff rate than Sites A or C. The majority of Site A falls within the designated boundaries of the 100 -year floodplain as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Federal Insurance Administration. A high groundwater table is present near Sites A and C and is influenced by fluctuations in the Green River water level. Both Sites experience some flooding at various times. Runoff from the sites' surroundings is expected to exhibit relatively poor water quality (see Table 4) due to extensive urbanization of the watershed. Sites A and C runoff is expected to contribute to high turbidity and suspended solids loads to existing drainages, including the Green River. Site drain -off quality is assumed to be similar to other urban areas. Existing water quality in the Green River is shown in Tables 5 and 6. This data reflects the influence of the Renton Treatment Plant outfall at river mile ten and six. The data presented are the mean values of numerous water quality samples taken between 1974 and 1982. On the basis of this data, it appears that river water quality is generally in compliance with standards. However, during the worst conditions, river water quality standards and criteria are violated for dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus, nitrate nitrogen, turbidity and fecal coliform. III -4 Parameter URBAN RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS Seattle, Washington Temp.0 13:1 12.9 14.8 13.3 14.6 10.7 - Cond. umho /an 125 136 134 99 51 132 - Turbidity. JTU 30 37 47 18.7 15 22 - DO. mgA 8.6 8.9 8.5 9.5 9.6 9.4 - 800. mgA 30 30 19 15 8.5 8.0 25 CO0, mg/ 95 97 95 70 68 57 70 Hexane Ext.,, mg/i 12 16 14 11 7.3 8.5 - Chloride, mgA 7.7 12 12.2 6.6 5.3 7.5 45 Sulfate. mg/ 17 18 26.1 18 7 18 - Organic N, mg/1 2.6 35 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 7 Ammonia. N mgA 0.32 0.48 0.32 0.32 0.19 0.09 10 Nitrate N, mgA 0.11 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 - Nitrate N, mg/1 0.67 0.72 0.83 0.64 0.51 0.76 3 as NO NO Hydrolyzable P, mg/1 0.45 0.40 0.24 0.17 0.24 0.35 10 Ortho P, mg/ 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.12 0.10 - Copper, mgA 0.040 0.056 0.10 0.081 0.076 0.12 0.07.0.50 Lead. mgA 0.44 0.32 0.25 0.40 0.27 0.08 0.10 - 0.30 Iron, mg/ 2.4 2.0 2.1 0.75 0.39 0.44 0.10 - 0.40 Mercury, mg/ 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0008 0.0003 0.0008 0.01 Chromium, mg/I 0.025 0.009 0.010 0.074 0.010 0.010 0.02 - 0.15 Cadmium, mg/I 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.15 Zinc, mg/1 0.18 0.12 0.43 0.24 0.082 0.068 0.20 - 0.40 Sett. Solids. mgA 51 84 60 40 40 68 - Susp. Solids, mg/1 85 112 80 73 54 98 25 TOS, mg/ 134 125 170 89 72 101 - Total Coliform Org./100 mis 28000 26000 4200 1600 37000 1600 - Fecal Coliform OrgJ100 mis 3600 1200 30 370 1400 370 200 Lake Hills - Low Density Residential View Ridge 1 - Medium Density Residential View Ridge 2 - High Density Residential South Center - Commercial South Seattle - Industrial Highlands - Open Space Mean Concentrations in Urban Runoff Secondary Effluent front View View South South Like High. Municipal Ridge 1 Ridge 2 Seattle Center Hills Lands Sewage Treatment Source: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974 Note: Oil and grease concentrations in urban runoff may range from 10 -60 mg /1' with a typical concentration of 30 mg /1. 37. Pollutant sources include the Renton Treatment Plant outfall, urban and agricultural runoff and natural streambank erosion during high flows. TABLE 5 SELECTED WATER QUALITY DATA FOR THE GREEN RP/ER AT RIVER MILE 10 Source: Metro Data File No. 3106 Temperature ( Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) Total Phosphorus (mg/1) Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/1) Suspended Solids (mg/1) Turbidity (3TU) Lead (mg/1) Zinc (mg/1) Oil and Grease (mg/1) Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml) Mean values 1974-82. (a) Refer to Table A-3, Appendix A. (b) Refer to Table A-2, Appendix A. :44 Existing Conditions 11.3 9.8 0.348 0.407 17.17 10.3 0.025 0.010 81 0.0 111-5 Water Quality Criteria 21.0 (b) 6.5 (b) 0.10 (a) 0.30 (a) 80.0 (a) 10 NTU over natural (b) 0.03 (a) Bioassay required (a) No visible oil (a) Median 200 (b) * Mean values 1974 -82. (a) Refer to Table A -3, Appendix A. (b) Refer to Table A-2, Appendix A. TABLE 6 SELECTED WATER QUALITY DATA FOR THE GREEN RIVER AT RIVER MILE 6 Source: Metro Data File No. 0307 Existing Conditions Temperature ( 10.9 21.0 (b) Dissolved Oxygen (mg /1) 8.81 6.5 (b) Total Phosphorus (mg /1) 0.278 Nitrate Nitrogen (mg /1) 0.459 Suspended Solids (mg /1) 14.45 80.0 Turbidity (JTU) 8.3 10 NTU over natural Lead (mg /1) 0.0533 Zinc (mg /1) 0.0152 Bioassay required Oil and Grease (mg /1) 0.0 No visible oil Fecal Coliform (# /100 ml) 179 Median 200 III -6 Water Quality Criteria • Construction of a park- and -ride lot on Site A or C would have an impervious surface resulting in increased peak runoff rates. At Site D, there would also be an increase in impervious surface area. Estimated peak runoff rates for Sites A, C and D would increase from 0.61 - 0.88 to 5.0 -7.4 cubic feet per second (cfs); 0.53 -0.76 to 5.7 -8.4 cfs; and 2.7 -4.2 to 5.7 -9.1 cfs, respectively (see tables 3 and 7). Site A runoff could overload local stormwater collection systems resulting in possible erosion to open drainage ditches during the worst conditions. At Site C, 0.5 acres of wetland would be filled which would reduce existing natural on -site flood storage. Runoff from Site C would be discharged directly into the Green River. Area* Table 7 Peak Runoff Flow (without mitigation) Design Storm Peak Runoff Rates (cfs) Site Conditions Site (Acres) 5 -Year 10 -Year 25 -Year Post - Development A 4.27 5.00 5.80 7.40 Post - Development C 5.09 5.70 6.80 8.40 Post - Development D 4.27 5.7 7.0 9.1 *Only includes area for development. Water quality for all three sites could be affected during construction grading because site soils would be exposed to potential water erosion. Without mitigating measures, there may be significant soil loss and subsequent increases in suspended and settled solids in site runoff. Downstream sedimentation and turbidity may result. The risk of flooding could also increase if sedimentation clogs storm sewers. Long -term operation of a park- and -ride lot would result in new paving, intensified site use and increased concentrations of various pollutants in site runoff. Post - development runoff quality would exhibit pollutant concentrations similar to those shown in Table 4. Turbidity and suspended solids concentrations could significantly increase from eroding drainage ditches during high flows at Site A. An increase in pollutant concentrations reaching the Green River is anticipated. Adjacent land uses are producing similar or worse runoff quality. Significant impacts on groundwater quality is not anticipated. Mitigation Runoff detention would be provided in conventional surface detention facilities for all three sites. Runoff detention storage capacity for a 10 -year storm would be 6,300, 7,900 and 4,900 cubic feet for Sites A, C and D respectively. On -site flood storage would be provide for the 100 -year, 7 day storm, or the equivalent of 10 inches of rainfall. The III -7 Kjeldahl Nitrogen Nitrates Phosphates Total Heavy Metals Total Pesticides 0 U.S. EPA, 1972. 16.3 16.0 TABLE. 8 FRACTION OF POLLUTANT AbSOCIATED WITH . EACH PARTICLE SIZE RANGE (Percent by Weight) 9.9 11.6 20.0 8.6 6.5 7.9 0 0.9 6.9 17.5 14.9 20.2 16.7 6.4 26.5- 25.8 nael:4,4 PARTICLE SIZE (u) 2,000 840 -> 2,000 246 -> 840 104 -> 246 43 -> 104 <43 24.4 7.6 24.6 27.8 9.7 5.9 Total Solids Volatile Solids 11.0 17.4 12.0 16.1 17.9 25.6 8005 7.4 20.1 15.7 15.2 17.3 24.3 COD 24 4.5 13.0 12.4 45.0 22.7 19.6 - :18.7 29.6 56.2 23.5 27.8 31.7 Total Suspended Solids (mg /1) Reactive Ortho- Phosphorus (mg /1 as P) Total Phosphorus (mg /1 as P) Ammonia (mg /1 as N) Nitrate + Nitrite (mg /1 as N) Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg /1 as N) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg /1) Lead (mg /1) Cadmium (mg /1) • Zinc (mg/1) Mercury (mg /1 ) Copper (mg /1) Chromium (mg /1) Iron (mg /1) Oil and Grease (mg /1) Chlorophyll -a (mg /m Total Coliform (MPN /100 ml) Fecal Coliform (MPN /100 ml) pH Dissolved Oxygen (mg /1) Temperature (°C) Conductivity (umhos) Turbidity (NTU's) * ** • Parameter TABLE . •9 - SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974. U.S. EPA Quality Criteria for Water. DOE = State of Washington Department U.S. Army Engineers Fresh -Water Aquatic Life* 80 0.10 (0.25 lakes) 0.02 0.30 0.03 0.03 (Hard H20) 0.004 (Soft H20) Bioassay Required 0.0002 Bioassay Required. 0.03 No Visible Oil DOE' DOE DOE DOE DOE EPA-440/9-76-023. of Ecology. U.S EPA Fresh -Water Aquatic Life ** 0.02 0.012 (Hard H20) 0.004 (Soft H20) ale 0.0005 0.1 • 1.0 Bioassay Required DOE DOE DOE DOE DOE Turbidity Parameter Fecal Coliform (MPN /100 ml) Dissolved Oxygen >9.5 mg /1 Temperature pH (units) Source: SUMMARY OF STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS AA, A, 8, AND C STREAMS AND LAKE WATERS Class AA Streams Class A Streams median <50; less than 10% samples >230 <60 °F or 15.6° C 6.5 to 8.5 <0.1 induced variation <5 NTU over natural median <100; less than 20% samples >200 >8.0 mg /1 <65° F or 17.8° C 6.5 to 8.5 <0.25 induced variation <5 NTU over natural State of Washington Department of Ecology (1977) Class B Streams median <200; less than 10% samples >400 >6.5 mg /1 or 70% saturation <70° F or 21.0° C 6.5 to 8.5 <0.5 induced variation <10 NTU over natural Class C Streams median <200; less than 10% samples >400 >4.0 mg /1 or 50% saturation <75° F or 24.0° C 6.5 to 9.0 <0.5 induced variation <10 NTU. over natural Lake Class median <50; less than 10% samples >100 no decrease from natural conditions no change from natural conditions no change from natural conditions <5 NTU over natural detention storage for the above condition would be accommodated within the parking area. The 100 -year, 7 -day flood storage requirement would be 155,000, 185,000 and 155,000 cubic feet for Sites A, C and D respectively. At Sites A and C, no modification to off -site drainage would be required. For Site D, runoff from areas uphill of the site could be routed under the new facility, decreasing the risk of flooding in the parking areas. During construction the, following measures would be implemented for all three alterna- tive sites to reduce impacts on water quality: o scheduling construction activities during the summer months of June through September. Special conditions would be instituted for work during other months with the appropriate agencies. o using temporary erosion control procedures such as plastic sheeting to cover soil stockpiles o minimizing slopes of earth fill banks o revegetating landscaped areas as soon as possible following construction o providing erosion control performance criteria in construction specifications and adequate construction inspection. Water quality impacts at all three alternative sites could be mitigated long -term by designing the detention facility to promote sedimentation. Two thousand square feet of surface area per cfs of inflow are required to remove silt -sized (10 micron) particles and larger (APWA, 1974). This degree of sedimentation is expected to provide pollutant removal efficiencies of 75 percent or greater for most pollutant parameters (see Table 8). Sedimentation area required for a post - development five -year storm would be 10,000, 11,400, and 9,500 square feet for Sites A, C and D respectively. At Sites C and D, only 5,000 and 3,600 square feet of sedimentation area would be provided respectively. Preliminary site schematics indicate limited developable space for sedimentation facilities. The amount of surface area provided at either site would remove 40 micron size particles and larger with about a 50 percent pollutant removal efficiency. Additional sedimentation space could be provided reducing the number of parking stalls. Insoluble materials such as oil and grease would be additionally mitigated by using elbow and tee pipes in storm sewer manholes or coalescing plate oil /water separators. Wetland treatment at Site C would also be available. For all sites an artificial wetland could be created in the buffer strip between parking areas. Also, detention time could be extended to promote sedimentation. Air Quality Existing Conditions The Tukwila area has been identified as an attainment area for most pollutants because existing air quality is considered good. Concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), total suspended particulate matter (TSP), sulfur dioxide (SO2) carbon monoxide (CO) and lead (Pb) are believed to be below local, state and federal air quality standards. The closest monitoring stations are located at Southcenter and in Kent. The following synopsis from the Tukwila Bend Office Park Draft EIS (City of Tukwila, 1983) describes the concentra- tions and trends of the major air pollutants: o Suspended Particulate Matter Particulate matter levels have been monitored at Southcenter since 1974. The annual mean ranged from 36 -50 ug /m The annual standard of 60 ug /m has not been exceeded during the eight -year monitoring period. o Oxides of Sulfur Sulfur oxides were monitored at Southcenter from 1973 to 1979. The annual and 24 -hour standards were not exceeded at any time during the six -year monitoring period. The one -hour standard of 0.40 ppm was exceeded once in 1973 with a reading of 0.41 ppm. Impacts o Oxides of Nitrogen Nitrogen oxides have been monitored in Kent for the past few years. The annual averages were 0.01 ppm and 0.02 ppm in 1980 and 1981 respectively. This is below the 0.05 ppm annual standard. o Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide has not been monitored in the area since 1977. Measure- ments taken along Southcenter Boulevard in 1977 yielded a maximum eight - hour concentration of 9 ppm, the same as the standard. o Ozone Ozone has been monitored at Kent for the past few years. The maximum one - hour concentrations were 0.08 ppm and 0.11 ppm in 1980 and 1981 respective- ly, below the 0.12 ppm one -hour standard. Tukwila is part of a non attainment area, which extends from Lynnwood to Olympia for ozone (03). The size of the area reflects the regional nature of the ozone problem. Conversely, CO's harmful effects are very localized. High CO concentrations tend to be observed only very close to congested roadways and intersections. In the absence of any CO monitoring data in the project area, dispersion modeling was conducted to estimate both existing and future CO concentrations. For each potential site, the intersection of the main access road with Interurban Avenue was selected for modeling. For Site A, the receptor location is the northwest corner of Interurban and 58th Street. The Site C receptor location was the northwest corner of Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard. The receptor location for Site D is the southwest corner of Interurban Avenue and 52nd Street. Each receptor is about five feet from each street area. Construction Impacts - Construction will require heavy duty vehicles, including bulldozers and heavy trucks and smaller equipment, including compressors and generators. These III -9 internal combustion engines will emit air pollutants slightly lowering local air quality. The emissions from the existing traffic, however, will far exceed construction equipment emissions at any Site. Excavation and grading activities would probably have a proportionately larger impact than the engine emissions. Dust blowing from uncovered dump trucks and soil carried out of the construction area by vehicle frames and tires will be deposited on adjacent streets. This dust may then be repeatedly suspended in the air by subsequent traffic. Because both gaseous and particulate emissions from construction will be temporary and intermittent, no significant long -term adverse impact on local or regional air quality will occur. Operational Impacts - Air pollution agencies use CO data to indicate potential problems associated with vehicular air pollution. Since vehicles are the only source of air pollution associated with the Tukwila park- and -ride project, the potential CO impacts were evaluated using roadway dispersion modeling techniques. The Mobile 2 computer program developed by the EPA was used to determine the CO quantity generated by traffic. These pollutant emissions were used in the Caline 3 air pollution model to estimate CO concentrations. The meterological conditions used in the modeling were "E" stability (a stable atmosphere), 1 meter - per - second wind speed, and wind directions 5 from parallel to the roadway. These assumptions produce worst -case estimates of CO concentrations. Because the 8-hour average CO concentration is considered more stringent than the 1- hour CO standard, the modeling was structured to predict 8 -hour CO concentrations. The traffic volumes displayed in the transportation section were used in the analysis. Based on recent traffic counts by the City of Tukwila, 60 percent of the average weekday traffic (AWDT) occurs in the highest 8 -hour traffic period. Vehicle speed data were provided by Centrac Associates. The modeling results are in Table 11. The table shows that there is very little change in CO concentrations at Sites A and D for the three scenarios which were modeled. Increases in traffic over existing conditions are almost exactly offset by lower average CO emission rates in 1985. The small difference in local traffic due to the park- and -ride lot operation at either of these locations produces the small increase in ambient CO concentration. Concentrations at Site C would increase in 1985 whether or not the park- and -ride lot is developed. The increase results from the worst -case assumptions that the riverbend property road would be developed by 1985 and that the Southcenter Boulevard realignment Existing (1983) No -build (1985) Build (1985) Site A 4.3 4.5 4.5 Site C 7.2 8.8 8.7 Site D 6.3 6.2 6.3 1 2 TABLE 11. ESTIMATED 8 -HOUR AVERAGE CO CONCENTRATIONS', 2 (PARTS PER MILLION) Concentrations include a 1.5 ppm background concentration. The 8 -hour average CO standard is 9 ppm. III -10 would not have occurred. The small difference between no -build and build concentrations at Site C is due to the assumption that the property would be developed for other uses if it is not developed as a park- and -ride lot. Future CO concentrations in the project area will comply with the CO standards whether or not a park- and -ride lot is built. There will, however, be increases in local vehicle emissions with construction. Because this analysis shows a small increase over no -build concentrations, however, the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency does not consider the impact significant.* On a regional basis, Metro's park- and -ride lot program benefits air quality by reducing congestion and vehicle miles travelled. For this reason, the park - and -ride program is one of several transportation control measures included in PSAPCA's contribution to the state implementation plan to reduce CO and oxidant (03) concentra- tions. Due to the increased number of diesel - fueled cars and diesel buses expected in the project area in 1985, vehicle exhaust particulate matter will increase over existing levels. The increase in total suspended particle concentration will be insignificant, however, and will not exceed TSP standards. Although the impact cannot be quantified, the odor produced by diesel - fueled buses and automobiles using the park -and -ride lot may occasionally be perceptible off -site. This would likely occur during very stable atmospheric conditions with very light winds. Mitigating Measures During construction, air quality impacts could be minimized by not closing roadway lanes and not introducing numerous slow - moving trucks during peak traffic periods. Avoiding prolonged periods of vehicle idling and selecting electrical rather than engine - powered equipment will also reduce emissions. Dust emissions from construction would be reduced by spraying exposed soils on -site and construction roadways with water, oils, or chemical dust suppressants to reduce dust emissions, wheel washing and covering dusty truck loads to minimize soils carried out of the construction area and by cleaning the streets to reduce loose soils. Operating a park- and -ride lot is not expected to exceed any air quality standards, no mitigating measures are necessary. Regionally, the project itself can be considered a mitigating measure because of the benefit provided by the park- and -ride program air quality. Flora and Fauna Existing Conditions Site A ground is covered with grass, weeds and small shrubs. Along the riverbank there are some small alder, ash, cottonwood and willow trees with blackberry and morning glory intermixed. There are also three large deciduous trees along the southern edge of the site which are in poor condition. Two appear dead and are devoid of leaves. Habitat areas for small birds and rodents would be along the riverbank area. * Personal communication with Brent Carson of PSAPCA, 6/13/83. Summer - Fall chinook Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel develop. Juvenile rearing Juv. out migration • - Coho Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel develop. Juvenile rearing Juv. out migration -- { -- - I Chum Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel develop. Juvenile rearing Juv. out migration - Summer steelhead Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel develop. Juvenile rearing 1 � Juv. out migration Winter steelhead Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel develop. Juvenile rearing 1 � Juv. out migration - I , i - _ 1 Fresh -water TIMING OF SALMON AND STEELHEAD FRESHWATER LIFE PHASES IN GREEN BASIN .Y Month Species Life Phase J F M A M J J A S O N D 1 ' extends over a two -year period. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. Comprehensive Study of Water and Related Land Resources. Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters. Appendix XI, Fish and Wildlife, March 1970. Site C has predominantly annual grasses and weeds with small shrubs. There are small groves of young cottonwood trees. Vegetation is heaviest along the riverbank. The wildlife at the Site C is typical of what is expected in this early successional type of habitat. It is dominated by small birds, e.g., sparrows, robins, finches and small rodents. The seasonal pond is used by ducks such as mallards during the winter months. The species found on the site change seasonally and a greater diversity may be found than could be supported just by the site due to the adjacent river and habitats in the surrounding area. For example, insect - eating warblers, swallows, flycatchers and fish - eating birds (belted kingfishers) are found along the site perimeter near the river. Quail have also been sighted. The Duwamish -Green River system has a variety of fish using the river - estuary for breeding, rearing, forage and transport. Chinook, coho and chum salmon as well as trout and perch use the Green - Duwamish River system (see Appendix B). Table 12 identified timing of salmon and steelhead freshwater life phases in the river system. Increased turbidity during construction would affect water quality resulting in less than desirable conditions for migrating salmon. Site D has a variety of plant life including flowering plants, e.g. roses and rhododendrons; fruit trees, e.g. apple, pear; evergreens, e.g. spruce, pine, fir); deciduous trees, e.g. cottonwood, alder, maple and various grass, shrubs and vines. There are probably small rodents and birds located on the site. Impacts Construction of the project would remove vegetation and wildlife habitat within the site boundaries. Riverbank vegetation would not be affected. Landscaping would occur to buffer and beautify the parking areas and along the interior roads of the site. Habitat areas would exist for Sites A and C along the riverbank. The undeveloped area south of Site C would also provide habitat area. At Site D, no significant habitat areas exist. Mitigating Measures Landscaping would be introduced on site. Wetland areas could be created at Site A and C. Construction activities of grading, fill and shoreline improvements could take place in the summer to replace vegetation, provide for some habitat and reduce water quality impacts on salmon. Land Use Existing Conditions III -12 The three alternative sites are located along Interurban Avenue South in Tukwila between 1 -405 on the south and I -5 on the north. The Puget Sound Council of 'Governments ( PSCOG) has the following land use allocation summary and projections in acres for Tukwila as defined by the PSCOG Local Planning Area 3900: METRO Municipalit of Metropolitan Seattle r ❑ LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ® MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ▪ HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 0 OFFICE ® COMMERCIAL CI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL • HEAVY INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES PARKS AND OPEN SPACE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS 11 REFERS TO AREAS OF STEEP SLOPES. WATER SURFACE, AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS THIS DESIGNATION DOES NOT PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT. RATNER. IT DEPICTS AREAS WHERE UIiWI DEVELOPMtKT MUST RESPOND SENSITIVELY TO CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS. FIGURE 13 Comprehensive land use plan �maa PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY nMIMS CITY BOUNDARY - a j■ ETRD N4wua pality of Metropolitan Seattle FIGURE 14 Site A — Zoning FIGURE 15 S ot. — Z()IllfIL; •Is've ; y r . el 1 ETRO ot Metropolitan `ieattie • North Scaie: 1" - 400' . '"•kA..i : • t N. , ‘4..,. i-,.tr'' , . ‘ "1 "^minir‘ 4101 . ,.... ir" • ' . ... ,..4 r .... t,' ...r . ,....../e - --.7:41 r" .".;de .,...V.r.E.,•` . 4. ,.`.`”: riA • .• la ....,...‘A... •,..,... • . ...,.. . • , , ... 4 ..1. ; .,..,.. ........ ,- .A.„..,.. .. ...,.t....,..n.„:,, ; .1.,...,• „...1::.....,......,,,:r::;;:,.. ...„ Table 13 Land Use LPA 3900 Tukwila 1970 1980 1990 2000 Total Land 1828 1828 1828 1828 Residential Land 201 266 274 227 Employment Land 187 713 982 1029 Vacant Developable Land 566 277 0 0 Balance 874 572 572 572 Tukwila's vacant, developable land was calculated at 277 acres in 1980. The 1990 projection estimates developable land at zero acres, a 100 percent decrease. The proposed park -and -ride lot would require a minimum of four 'acres. All three alternatives sites are within the shoreline zone and are designated commercial in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Portions of Site D are outside the jurisdiction of the City of Tukwila. This area is in unincorporated King County and has a residential use. At Site A Mauie Avenue cannot be vacated and Puget Sound Power and Light Company retains a 60 -foot easement between Maule and Interurban avenues. Site A is light manufacturing. Sites C and D are zoned regional retail and are undeveloped (see Figures 15 and 16). Site D has existing residential and business and commercial uses. Site A is located southeast of the Riverside Inn and northwest of various trucking, storage, industrial and manufacturing uses. Site C is located south of King County's Fort Dent athletic facility and shares the same access road from Interurban Avenue. South and southwest of Site D is a residential area. The Site D borders a combination convenience store and gas station on three sides. The Green River and Grandtree Furniture Store are east and across Interurban Avenue from the site. Impacts The proposed park- and -ride lot at any of the alternative sites would not require a zoning change or comprehensive plan amendment. Use of a site for a park -and -ride lot would preempt industrial, commercial and residential uses allowed by the zoning ordinances. The site would be in the public domain for public transportation. The project would not likely change the development rate in the area, nor would it affect existing surrounding land uses. Metro would seek a street use permit from the city of Tukwila and aquire the utility right of way. A perimeter trail for hiking, jogging and biking is proposed along the Green River at Site C. The project would provide space to locate the trail. The park -and -ride lot could be used by trail users for parking their automobiles on weekends and evenings. Population /Housing, Existing Conditions The Puget Sound Council of Governments places Tukwila in Local Planning Area 3900, Tukwila. This LPA has a 1980 population of 3505 and a 1990 projected population of 3909; about a 0.90 percent increase in total population. III -13 Total Population Average Household Size Impacts Table 14 Tukwila Population /Households (1970 -2000) III -14 1970 1980 1990 2000 3177 3505 3909 3938 2.50 1.93 1.80 1.76 Total Households 1217 1803 2153 2225 Lower Income Household 291 459 571 648 Lower Middle Income Household 312 451 528 531 Upper Middle Income Household 389 562 650 629 Upper Income Household 225 331 404 417 Sites A and C are vacant. Site D has nine residential rental units, one owner - occupied residential unit and two businesses. There are about ten persons residing on the Site. Fifty percent of the residents are women. There is also one minor. The carpet cleaning shop has two employees and the tavern would have about eight employees. Areas west and southwest of the site consist of single - family residences. This area is separated from Site D by a grade change, except for one residence which abutts the site access road on 52nd Avenue South. The proposed park- and -ride lot would not displace any residents at Sites A and C. At Site D, seven residences would be removed including five single - family units, one duplex and one triplex displacing about ten persons. Two businesses would be removed and a partial taking of property from a third displacing ten jobs (see Appendix A for relocation program). Mitigating Measures Metro would provide sufficient relocation personnel, experienced in both residential and business relocations to this project. These relocation agents will explain and identify all relocation alternatives to the people being displaced from both residences and businesses. This will be done under the guidelines as set forth in Public Law 91 -646, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and the regulations of the Urban Mass Transit Administration as defined in the circular, UMTA CA4530.1, dated March 21, 1978. Duties may also include assisting displacees to fill out forms required by lending institutions, the Small Business Administration and others on leasing and purchasing new premises. Assistance will also be rendered in preparing and filing claims for reimbursement after relocation has been completed. Transportation /Circulation Park - and -ride lots are an element of the transportation circulation system. This section discusses the existing road system, traffic conditions, and traffic growth with and without the project. Each site is discussed separately identifing traffic access, generation, and of transit service. The resulting transportation /circulation impacts are identified for constructing and operating a park -and -ride lot. Mitigating measures are then identified for the site under discussion. The existing street and highway system serving the proposed Tukwila park- and -ride lot is shown in Figure 2. Important routes and junctions in the area are I -5 (I -5 with I- 405 /SR- 518), I- 405 /Grady Way with the West Valley Road (SR -181), and Interurban Avenue with Southcenter Boulevard. These -major roadway facilities provide "maximum .exposure'! to the proposed park-and-ride sites on Interurban Avenue north of 1-405: Interurban Avenue (extension of SR -181 north of 1 -405) is the only continuous: north -south surface arterial'' through, the Green River valley. Southcenter Boulevard, in conjunction with Grady Way, is the only .continuous east-west surface route :;through::- the greater . Tukwila/Southcenter area. I -405 and Grady Way provide access to Renton and Eastside communities. Northbound and southbound on and off -ramps to I -405 are located just south of Site C. SR -181 provides access to the Green River valley as well as Kent and Auburn. Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard provide local access to Tukwila residences and the Southcenter shopping mall /industrial areas, as well as freeway access to I -5 northbound and southbound. o Southcenter Boulevard is a two -lane winding roadway east of 62nd Avenue with unpaved shoulders and open drainage. Separate right- and left -turn lanes are provided at the intersection with Interurban Avenue which is controlled by a four - phase traffic signal with separate phases for eastbound and westbound movements. o Fort Dent Park access road (east leg of Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard intersection) is a two -lane facility, with left -turns and sidewalks (on the south side) and would provide exclusive access to the proposed park -and -ride Site C. o 58th Avenue is a secondary access route from "Tukwila residential hill" to Interurban Avenue. This steep two -lane collector route, with curb and gutters and sidewalk, winds down to Interurban Avenue at the Riverside Inn just north of the proposed park- and -ride Site A. A three -phase actuated signal controls traffic movements at this location, which would become the primary access and egress point for bus and auto traffic using the park -and -ride lot. o South 143rd Street, just south of Site A, is a narrow two -lane roadway without shoulders and would serve as a secondary access point to Site A. It presently provides access for trucking firms to Interurban Avenue, where traffic is stop -sign controlled. o Interurban Avenue is four lane principal arterial. Left -turn lanes is provided at major signalized intersections with secondary and collector arterials. Curbs, gutters and sidewalk are located on the west side and an extruded curb and transit stop is located on the east side of the 40 mph facility. Transit and carpool patrons presently park informally in the vacant Site A lot just south of the Riverside Inn. o 52nd Avenue is the only other route which, with 58th Avenue, provides access to Interurban Avenue from "Tukwila residential hill." This steep two -lane roadway, III -15 without curbs, gutters and sidewalks, intersects Interurban Avenue just south of park- and -ride Site D, two to three blocks south of the I -5 interchange and directly opposite 56th Avenue (to be realigned when the new Foster Bridge is constructed). This intersection is presently stop -sign controlled, although a flashing pedestrian signal has recently been installed on mast arms for the south leg to assist pedestrians in crossing Interurban Avenue. New Site D, Interurban has four travel lanes plus two -way left -turn lanes with paved shoulders and extruded curbing provided on both sides and a transit pullout and shelter provided on the east side. Transit and carpool patrons presently park informally in vacant lots south of 52nd Avenue on the west side and along the east side of Interurban Avenue near this intersection. Existing weekday traffic volumes (AWDT), accident history and signal locations for the arterial system the Tukwila park- and -ride sites are given in Figures 17, 18 and 19. Recent counts by the Washington State Department of Transportation and the city of Tukwila indicate that peak- hourly volumes occur between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on an average weekday. A lesser morning peak period of travel occurs between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. Interurban Avenue is the primary arterial used near Site A. It has a AWDT of over 16,500 vehicles per day just south of 143rd Street. It operates at level -of- service (LOS) A daily (see Table 15 for Level of Service definitions). Both 143rd Street and 58th Avenue carry low traffic volumes about 2,000 or less vehicles per day and operate at LOS A at all times. The Riverside Inn driveway at Site A is busy primarily during evening (off -peak) hours when the park -and -ride lot would be underutilized. Minor backups and delays occur during peak -hour periods on all approaches to the 58th /Interurban signaled intersection and at . the stop sign on the east approach of the 143rd /Interurban intersection. The former intersection has experienced an average of eight annual accidents, with four involving injuries, over the past two years. Interurban Avenue near Southcenter Boulevard and the I -405 Interchange, is more congested with moderate -to -heavy traffic on intersection approaches and excessive delays at times during peak periods. Exclusive access to Site C would be provided via Southcenter Boulevard or Interurban Avenue which presently operate at LOS D west and south, respectively, of their junction. The Interurban /Southcenter Boulevard intersection just west of Site C has tolerable congestion (LOS C) during the p.m. peak hour, while the Interurban /Grady Way (I -405) intersection operates at capacity (LOS E) presently. Both intersections have averaged seven to eight accidents per year. III -16 FIGURE 17 Site A — Existing traffic and accidents 1 4 4 ‘ . °1 'METRO Municipalitv ot Metropolitan Seattle ot North Scale: 1': 400' FIGURE 18 y,ite C — Exktilt; traffic and cidents t1;1 4117,600 Average Weekday Traffic Volume Annual Avg. Accidents (With Injurlee) Traffic Signal e`mETRo titunoctpality of Metropolitan Seattle 4 North Scale: 1" -400' FIGURE 19 Site D — Existing traffic and accidents i DEFINITIONS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service A - Free -Flow (Some Stops) TABLE 15 Light traffic on approaches; short,.stable lines during red. Level of Service B - Stable Flow (Slight Delays) Moderate traffic on approaches; stable lines, little extra delay. V/C = 0.6* V/C = 0.7 Level of Service C - Stable Flow (Acceptable Delays) V/C = 0.8 Moderately heavy traffic on approaches; moderately long but stable lines during red; moderate but acceptable delays. Usually used for urban design capacity. Level of Service D - Approaching Unstable Flow (Tolerable Delay) V/C = 0.8 Heavy traffic on approaches; long, unstable lines; delays sometimes are excessive; some vehicles will have to wait more than one cycle in order to proceed. Level of Service E - Unstable Flow (Intolerable Delays) V/C = 1.0 As many vehicles as possible at intersection; heavy traffic; long, unstable lines suffering excessive delays through several signal cycles. This is maximum capacity. Extreme delays, usually associated with back -up in traffic from adjacent intersections through the subject intersection; volumes handled range from less than E on down to zero at times. Note: The amount of traffic increases from A through a maximum at E (capacity, while the quality of traffic flow declines. *Upper limit of volume -to- capacity for given level of service. III -17 Level of Service F - Forced Flow (Total Jammed Conditions) V/C (N /A) Interurban Avenue and nearby ramps to I -5 would near Site D, serve as primary site access routes. Interurban Avenue carries nearly 20,000 vehicles per day (vpd) but still operates at LOS B or better during peak -hour periods. Northbound and southbound transit access for Site D would be provided via bus pullouts along Interurban Avenue just north of the 52nd Avenue intersection. 52nd Avenue carries little traffic presently about 1,800 vpd and would provide exclusive access for park- and -ride autos, via a driveway opposite 53rd Avenue. Interurban intersections at 52nd Avenue and the I -5 interchange have experienced an average of three or less annual accidents per year (1981 -83). Anticipated traffic growth without the project is based on the 1981 micro -model study results completed for the City of Tukwila. Traffic volumes are projected to increase at an average rate of 2.9 percent per year for the Tukwila /Southcenter area street system. The arterial /street system near Site A can accommodate the projected traffic growth to 1985—the opening date for the Tukwila park- and -ride lot. Near Site C, Interurban Avenue north of Southcenter Boulevard and the Fort Dent Park access road can handle projected traffic volumes, although Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue near the I -405 interchange would operate at or near capacity in 1985 without additional roadway improvements. The Interurban /Southcenter Boulevard intersection just west of Site C would experience excessive delays at times during peak hours (LOS D), primarily caused by the proposed Tukwila Bend Office Complex. Near Site D Interurban, I -5 ramps and 52nd and 56th avenues can handle projected 1985 traffic growth without congestion. Site A Most auto trips generated by any park- and -ride facility are not new trips, but rerouted trips attracted to the park -and -ride facility from nearby arterials. The park- and -ride lot merely intercepts of commuters and hence converts these auto trips to significantly fewer number of bus or carpool movements. Furthermore, a large number of the generated bus trips occur only as a result of routing existing transit service through or adjacent to the park -and -ride facility. Despite the fact that few new auto and bus trips would be generated, a park- and -ride facility still handles significant traffic volumes. Concentrating auto and bus traffic at a single point such as a park- and -ride lot may impact streets and arterials bordering the park -and -ride site while causing minimal impact on the periphery transportation network which feeds the park- and -ride facility. Interurban Avenue (north- south) and 58th Avenue South (east -west) provides access to Site A. Driveways for park- and -ride autos and buses would be constructed near the Interurban Avenue intersections of 58th Avenue and South 143rd Street. Southbound buses would enter Site A via the 58th Avenue driveway and leave the site via the 143rd Street driveway. Northbound buses would load and unload in bus zones provided on the east side of Interurban Avenue. The actuated signal at the 58th /Interurban intersection provides safe ingress and egress for autos and ingress for buses at the north (Riverside Inn) driveway. Presently there are no sidewalks or paved shoulders along Site A, consequently pedestrians and bicyclists must share the roadway with vehicular traffic along Interurban Avenue (on east side). The operation of a park- and -ride facility at Site A would attract approximately 300 vehicles for all -day commuter parking. Commuters would ride the bus or carpool to complete their respective trips. Although the Tukwila Park- and -Ride .facility does not provide specific stalls for passenger drop off it was assumed that five percent of the patrons are dropped off to catch a bus or carpool. Approximately 80 percent of the park- � III -18 vt' f,?+^...' 1�:..,....,. 1.!✓ iSt: Rns�m.++n?^nuvn......- ....�.».. .. METRO ' Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 4. North cale: 1"- 400' FIGURE 20 Site A — 1985 transit routes and -ride spaces would be used all -day (work and college) and up to 15 percent would be short -term parking (shopping). Metro's systemwide forecast of 11 percent was used to estimate the number of park- and -ride spaces for park- and -pool use. The maximum daily and peak -hour volumes of auto and bus traffic attracted to Site A is estimated in Table 16. All traffic projections and impact assessments are for 1985 traffic conditions. An estimated 760 auto trips per day to and from Site A would maximize use of the 300 parking spaces. Approximately 35 percent of the total auto movements at the site would occur during the 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. period. About 80 percent of the peak -hour trips would exit from the park -and -ride facility while 20 percent would enter during the p.m. peak hour. Park - and -ride lot commuters are either Tukwila residents (coming down the hill via 58th Avenue), other commuters along Interurban Avenue, or rerouted commuters along I -5 and I -405 corridors. The assumed origin and routing breakdown for park- and -ride auto traffic to Tukwila Site A is: In addition to the auto mode trips, a significant number of bus trips would be routed by the park -and -ride lot at Site A. Metro staff estimated that approximately 160 bus runs would serve the Tukwila lot each weekday, with 320 daily and 30 peak -hour bus trips arriving or leaving the park- and -ride lot. Figure 20 indicates the existing and proposed express and local bus routes and how they will access Site A. Existing routes with bus stops at the Interurban Avenue and 58th Avenue intersection would be revised slightly to include stops at the new Tukwila park -and -ride lot at Site A. Additional capacity would be provided for the peak direction between the park- and -ride lot and downtown Seattle by adding extra trips or making adjustments in the type of transit bus used. Impacts From 9!6 South 45% West 45% North 10% Routing to Site A Interurban Avenue from SR -181, I -405 and Southcenter Boulevard 58th Avenue Interurban Avenue from I -5 and 133rd Street The traffic distribution impacts of Site A are illustrated in Figure 23. The projected daily auto and bus trips and 305. p.m..1peak -hour .trips will .primarily, distribute- 'on' *' Interurban Avenue, with approximately one- third of :the trips using 58th.Avenue.. The projected daily (AWDT) site traffic shown in Figure 23 is notdirectlyu-additiveyto the 1985 AWDT forecasts without the park- and -ride lot as shown on Figure 24. Nearly 80 percent of the site - oriented traffic is included in the project 1985 AWDT volumes along Interurban Avenue if the Tukwila park- and -ride lot was not constructed. In fact, the.park- and - ride, lot would reduce peak -hour . volumes by. two . to . four _ percent along Interurban. Avenue at .L the 58th Avenue intersection. III -19 e Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 4. North Scale: 1" 400' 11.1r RT DE.N --• • • t; FIGURE 24 Site A — 1985 weekday traffic volumes with and without park & ride lot saavamextrzioffESSWOMMieffaaM for 1.1" 40* ssT?�v i9x i T :`ti F'_ ; Table 16 VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION* - Site A Number Total Daily Trips PM Peak Hour of Stalls 2 -Way 1 -Way 2 -Way Out In Park -and -Ride (and Park - and -Pool) 285 640 320 225 190 35 Passenger Drop Off 15 120 60 50 25 25 Total Autos 300 760 380 275 215 60 Buses -- 320 160 30 15 15 Total Vehicles 300 1,080 540 305 230 75 * Trip generation rates used are based on prior park- and -ride facility planning forecasts (Redmond, Kenmore I and South Bellevue). Locating the park - and -ride lot at Site A would increase peak -hour volume on 58th Avenue and 143rd Street at Interurban Avenue. All impacted arterials (Interurban, 58th and 143rd) would have sufficient capacity to handle projected daily traffic volumes, but park - and -ride traffic which exit from Site A driveways onto 58th Avenue and 143rd Street would concentrate significant traffic volumes during peak -hour periods on each approach to Interurban Avenue. The level of operation at the 58th Avenue and Interurban Avenue intersection would only change from LOS A to B during the p.m. peak and no additional safety hazards would be created since all four legs of this intersection are presently signal controlled. Bus and auto traffic stopped at the 143rd street and Interurban Avenue intersection could experience long delays (LOS E) and block existing 143rd Street traffic at times during peak -hour periods. Use of the two -way left -turn lane at this location by the heavy left -turn exiting traffic and the periodic gaps caused by the nearby signal at 58th Avenue should help minimize the total delay and safety hazard. The existing left - turn lanes along Interurban Avenue can easily accommodate inbound left -turn park -and- ride traffic at either access point. Site A is located just south of the Riverside Inn. The inn attracts considerable vehicular and pedestrian traffic especially during afternoon and evening hours. Interurban Avenue is programmed for reconstruction by 1985 and includes sidewalk, bicycle and landscaping improvements to help stimulate commercial and residential development along this primary arterial and to make this corridor safer for pedestrian and bicycle travel. The park- and -ride facility could generate a significant number of pedestrians and bicyclists to the park- and -ride lot and then commuting by bus. The existing signaled crosswalk for the south leg of the 58th Interurban intersection will allow safe crossing of Interurban Avenue to and from the transit loading area. The parking lot access and internal circulation layouts for Site A is intended to minimize on -site conflicts and potential hazards between auto and bus traffic and between pedestrian and vehicular movements. Southbound buses entering the park- and -ride site via the 58th Avenue and Interurban Avenue signal and the exclusive transit entry for loading and unloading would not conflict with auto traffic using the primary 58th Avenue access point. Exiting buses (southbound on Interurban) from the transit - loading area 111-20 would have to merge with park- and -ride and non -site auto traffic at the 143rd Street approach to Interurban Avenue. The short distance between the bus exit point and the stop bar at Interurban Avenue intersection will cause delay and turning friction for both auto and bus traffic during peak hours. Northbound buses would use a new turnout lane along Interurban and would conflict with street traffic during merging and diverging movements. The primary conflict between vehicles and pedestrians at Site A would occur when autos travel to and from the lower volume 143rd Street entry. This would affect pedestrians who want to get to the sidewalk provided east of the transit roadway. The proposed internal walkway between aisles and a striped crosswalk to the sidewalk organizes and concentrates pedestrian flows, minimizing potential hazards. The primary pedestrian and bus conflict is a result of the on site loading zone Layout. Bus patrons must cross the southbound bus drive to and from the transit loading island. Short -term traffic impacts of constructing a park- and -ride lot at Site A would include truck traffic generated by grading and hauling and asphalt paving operations as well as contractor, inspector and Metro employee vehicles at the construction site. At peak operation, it is estimated that grading and hauling activities for Site A would generate approximately 230 truck trips and 25 auto trips daily. During peak asphalt paving operations, approximately 165 truck trips and 40 auto trips would be generated daily. These construction impacts are much less significant than specific auto and bus impacts during operation of the park- and -ride lot and would only occur at intervals during operation of the park -and -ride lot and would only occur at intervals during the estimated six -month construction period. Immediate access to Site C would be provided by Fort Dent Access Road (which is the extension of Southcenter Boulevard) east of Interurban Avenue. Both auto and bus access and egress would be provided exclusively by this two -lane facility which also has painted left -turn lanes between Interurban Avenue and the raised median island just south of the proposed single driveway for Site C. The Fort Dent Access Road is in good condition and lightly travelled. It presently dead -ends at King County's Fort Dent park sports complex after crossing the Green River. Metro routes 145, 146, 149, 150, 154, 157, 158, 159, 240 and 340 currently pass through the Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard intersection approximately 700 feet southwest of Site C. Some local or express service routes could easily access the park - and -ride site via the Fort Dent Access Road. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities near Site C include a sidewalk on the west side of this access road which then crosses the roadway to the east side at the turn to the Green River bridge. Future sidewalks and bike lanes will provided along Interurban Avenue north of Southcenter Boulevard as part of the Interurban Avenue Design District project scheduled for completion in 1985. Site C III -21 ;',7•4 r 'AO At Site C maximum use of the 410 parking spaces would result in an estimated 1,040 auto . trips per day. Approximately 35 percent of the total auto movements at the Site would occur during the 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. period. About 80 percent of the peak -hour trips would exit from the park - and -ride lot while 20 percent would enter during the p.m. peak hour. The commuters are either Tukwila residents from the hill area via Southcenter Boulevard or 58th Avenue, other commuters along Interurban Avenue and SR -181, or rerouted commuters from the I -5 and I -405 corridors. The assumed origin and routing breakdown for park- and -ride traffic to Site C is: From % Routing to Site C South 45% Interurban from SR -181, I -405 and Southcenter Boulevard West 35% Southcenter Boulevard from 62nd Ave., Macadam and 154th Street North 20% Interurban from 58th Avenue and I -5 All auto and bus traffic would access and egress Site C via the single proposed driveway onto the Fort Dent Access Road at the right -angle turn near the Green River bridge and park entrance. In addition to the auto mode trips, a significant number of bus trips would be routed or rerouted to the proposed park- and -ride lot at Site C. Metro staff estimates that approximately 300 bus runs would serve the proposed lot daily, with 600 daily and 50 peak- hour bus trips arriving or leaving the park- and -ride facility. Figure 21 indicates the existing and proposed express and local service bus routes and how they will access Site C. Existing routes with bus stops at the Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard intersection would be rerouted to stop at the new park- and -ride lot 700 feet northeast of this intersection. New express service between the park- and -ride lot and downtown Seattle would be provided for the peak direction by adding extra trips or using a different size bus. Impacts The traffic distribution impacts of Site C are illustrated in Figure 25. The projected 1640 daily and 420 p.m. peak -hour auto and bus trips will primarily distribute on Interurban Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard with approximately one- fourth of the trips using Interurban north of Southcenter Boulevard. The projected daily (AWDT) site traffic shown on Figure 25 are not directly additive to 1985 AWDT forecasts without the park- and -ride lot as shown on Figure 26. Nearly 80 percent of the site traffic is included in the projected 1985 volumes along Interurban Avenue or Southcenter Boulevard if the park - and -ride lot was not constructed. In fact, the park- and -ride lot at Site C would beneficially reduce peak -hour volumes along Interurban Avenue by nearly four percent where it is presently congested between Southcenter Boulevard and the I -405 interchange. III -22 .r;'!".""• Vb. • 1' ,; — 4 0 404,:•%. ; • • , I" • ":',; •+•• • • 4,4t „ • ••." • . k I . —. ''':". i" .■ 'Iv . ■,, • - ■ . • .,,, , i • ; 1:•,.....:Y. " ,: ..3. , „ :. • • ' ,;,.:,•■• 1 . • • ..:• ■• . : • ., • • . •-• , K ‘ ..'"'"i;:,,..', , s ?,': , * ,,-. - 11.,,,,,,s 4 r . 1 , 0:: ,.., .. ..„.,.. ,,,,..... ...-• '' ' ;, '''' •••' ''''' ''..... * ' L ..... .: , .. ' :.;.„,..... -- • A Is i ../. `....,4 ''t ` :• i 4,`, *'• *' ' 4. -4'... -..- ',... ' - ,... 4,... 'Oka, ,- 4 - ..": ' it '' •- , .1V • '-.• « • --., ,,,,,, ,j .. 7... ‘ '• . ' ,-,&,:r .: :..*■,'..' , ‘‘. '...... ..-,......, ......„,..„.7 -"..',...-•:-'.,, ,,...„.„., .., ., , . N.,..:.,:. : , 't,,'%.. - ...?e'.. • ...'.:',':? •-.., i.v ; ,• 3 :', , iii, ,t... *e -. .A. ‘ '-'f.',',;; 1 - -,,,, -1 .5.4._,:•,;':: - ;'''. --- • - .. ' '.....;.;•:`,..., •:.':.',:'.' :,.....„...., ., - „,—.. . ., - ,. ,,......,:,• ..,".•:,.... , •, t ,, ' --:,.., ,•......-.-- .1, ‘....',.7, ,• \ •..:,,, , i ..., ''..: - "-...,%.-,i: , :• , 7 .- - -. , N- ! .=,... z ,t ? c„.., - ,,,y,...,:: = ,•.„,..-.....1 ". , t c ttg,tis-4,..„ .3 ' ',..- .; : .::..., ;,.;•, -:: , • ' % *: v. * ..*.,_, ' : ..F. -.':: 4..- ' t 4 4 alfrr DENT:PARK' .-' .. ' - C & IL 7 ji ,t4 .;. 1;4 \ • • E 1 • . ^7 , r...- :: r '''''.\ - I li • q : ' ,;', . 4; ) , ,,?4 , • :,Z1V 4, .-... "XL .;^ . 0 . oz. • . :, •:,, 7:: • . ''V.I • : ■ i ''.... r,, '' ' t \ " 1/4 4 .`•,..'." * .I.,:■ ••• - • ' ‘ ‘.q2..:..17:-..- . :, v . • • "‘„ \ ; ,,,-,:z. • :',;,• .t.. os,. . 4 16 C . 't. ' .-....o..`:.,'.. N. : '''. 4t-.% Wt . 44 . si, _ 45. . :,.A - ' '' ''' ...b. leitakkg .- • :3:: Ak t. 4:4:METRO Muructpality Nietropoiitan S e of• North Scale: I": 400' FIGURE 26 c — 1 \,v(.‘ek(lav traffic volumes with and without park ride lot 111-23 Table 17 VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION* - Site C Number Total Daily Trips PM Peak Hour of Stalls 2 -Way 1 -Way 2 -Way Out In Park - and -Ride (and Park -and -Pool) 390 880 440 310 265 45 Passenger Drop Off 20 160 80 60 30 30 Total Autos 410 1,040 520 370 295 75 Buses 600 300 50 25 25 Total Vehicles 410 1,640 820 420 320 100 * The final park -and -ride layout for Site C actually includes only 390 parking stalls - -with approximately 5 percent less auto traffic generated. However, the overall traffic im- pacts are essentially the same with the 410 -stall case being conservative. Trip generation rates used are based on prior park- and -ride facility planning forecasts (Redmond, Kenmore I and South Bellevue). Locating the park- and -ride lot at Site C would increased peak -hour congestion at the Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard intersection. Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue, west and south respectively of this critical intersection would still experience significant congestion during many hours of the day even though the park -and- ride facility would slightly decrease 1985 traffic volumes along these arterials. The combined impact of the proposed park -and -ride lot at Site C and the proposed Tukwila Bend office complex would substantially increase turning volumes during peak -hour periods, resulting in LOS E operation at the Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard signal. Projected heavy movements which cannot be accommodated with the existing approach lane configurations are southbound left -turns and eastbound movements for the a.m. inbound peak and westbound left -turns during the p.m. outbound peak. The Interurban Avenue and Grady Way intersection is also projected to operate at LOS E during peak hours in 1985, although traffic congestion at this location would lessen with the park- and -ride lot operating at Site C. The Fort Dent Access Road and Interurban Avenue north of the park - and -ride Site have adequate capacity to handle projected 1985 traffic volumes. Site C is located just south of King County's Fort Dent Park which attracts considerable vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The park peak hours generally occur after 6:00 p.m. and on weekends. Some use of the park- and -ride lot by Longacres patrons during weekday afternoons and on weekends is probable. Additional traffic would be generated, but the availability of parking spaces for bus and carpool commuters would not be jeopardized. The internal circulation layouts for Site C would tend to minimize on -site conflicts and potential hazard between auto and bus traffic, and between vehicular and pedestrian movements. The single - driveway lot access and egress layout would concentrate traffic friction and hazards at the site driveway during the p.m. (outbound) peak period. Inbound autos and buses would enter via the single driveway to the collector roadway running the full length of the park- and -ride site. Buses would turn left onto the exclusive transit roadway (which bisects the park- and -ride lot) and then proceed counterclockwise along .Ale ." ':_??. the perimeter of the west lot before exiting at the entry driveway. Exiting autos would circulate from all aisles south to the collector roadway and consequently would conflict with bus movements at two locations -- crossing inbound buses at entry to transit roadway (autos from east of loading zone), a merging with outbound buses at the driveway to the Fort Dent Access Road. The primary vehicular and pedestiran conflict would occur where bus patrons parking in the west lot component would have to cross the transit roadway to get to the transit loading island. The potential hazard of this conflict would be minimal since landscaping along the west side of bus roadway and pedestrian walkways near the mid point of the east and west lots will concentrate east -west pedestrian flow to and from the bus stop area. Over the six -month construction period, it is estimated that grading and hauling activities for Site C would generate about 270 truck trips and 30 auto trips daily, and during peak asphalt paving operations, approximately 180 truck trips and 45 auto trips would generated daily. Site D Access to Site D would be from 52nd Avenue 200 feet west of Interurban Avenue. Bus zones would be provided along Interurban Avenue. Northbound buses would load and unload on the eastside of Interurban and Southbound bus on the westside. The operation of a park -and -ride lot at Site D would attract about 260 vehicles for all day commuter parking. Commuters would ride the bus or carpool to complete their respective trips. An estimated 670 auto trips would maximize use of the 260 stall facility. About 35% of the total auto movements at the site would occur during the 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. period. About 80% of the peak -hour trips would exit from the park- and -ride facility while 20% would enter during the afternoon peak hour. Park -and -ride lot commuters are either Tukwila residents (coming down from hill via 52nd and 58th Avenues), other commuters along Interurban, or rerouted commuters from I -5 and I -405 corridors. The assumed origin and routing breakdown for park -and -ride auto traffic to Tukwila Site D is: From 9i6 Routing to Site A South 55% Interurban Avenue from 58th Avenue SR -181 and I -405 West 20% 52nd Avenue from hill North 20% Interurban from I -5 (South) and 133rd Street East 5% 56th Avenue via new Foster Bridge on view 52nd Avenue alignment In addition to the auto mode trips, a significant number of bus trips would be routed or rerouted to the park- and -ride facility at Site D. Metro staff estimates that approximately 200 bus trips would service the lot each weekday, with a total of 200 daily and 20 peak -hour bus trips stopping along Interurban adjacent to the park- and -ride 111-24 facility. Figure 22 indicates the existing and proposed express and local bus routes and how they would access Site D. All routes along Interurban Avenue would stop at proposed bus pullouts just north of the 52nd Avenue and Interurban intersection. Additional capacity would be provided for the peak direction between the park- and -ride lot and downtown Seattle by adding extra trips or using other types of transit vehicles. Impacts The traffic distribution impacts of Site D are illustrated in Figure 7. The projected 870 daily auto and bus trips and 260 p.m. peak -hour trips will primarily distribute along Interurban Avenue with approximately 20% of the trips using 52nd Avenue to and from the Tukwila residential hill area. The project daily (AWDT) site traffic shown in Figure 27 are not directly additive to 1985 AWDT forecasts without the park- and -ride lot shown in Figure 28. Nearly 80% of the site traffic is included in the projected 1985 volumes along Interurban Avenue if the park- and -ride faciity were not constructed. In fact, the park - and -ride lot at Site D would reduce peak -hour volumes along Interurban by two to three percent between 52nd Avenue and the I -5 interchange. Table 18 Vehicular Trip Generation* - Site D Number Total Daily Trips PM Peak Hour of Stalls 2 -Way 1 -Way 2 -Way Out In Park - and -Ride (and Park - and -Pool) 245 550 275 190 160 30 Passenger Drop Off 15 120 60 50 25 25 Total Autos 260 670 335 240 185 55 Buses 200 ** 100 ** 20 10 ** 10 ** Total Vehicles 260 870 435 260 195 65 * Trip generation rates used are based on prior park- and -ride facility planning forecasts (Redmond, Kenmore I and South Bellevue). ** On- street movements into and out of the bus turnouts along Interurban Avenue. Locating the park- and -ride lot at Site D would increase delay for park- and -ride users and non -site vehicles at the International 52nd Street Intersection. Exiting park -and -ride autos and existing 52nd Avenue traffic stopped at the Interurban intersection could experience very long delays (LOS E) at times during peak -hour. With completion of the new Foster Bridge and proposed realignment of 56th Avenue to meet the 52nd Avenue and Interurban Avenue intersection, traffic from the bridge or the existing driveway opposite 52nd Avenue would also experience considerable delays (LOS E) in attempting to cross or turn left onto Interurban Avenue. The existing two -way left - turn lane would accommodate "inbound" left -turn site traffic from Interurban onto 52nd Avenue and left turns to 56th Avenue. With or without the park- and -ride facility, III -25 [3851 [1201 Weekday Daily Volume P.M. Peak Hour Volume Note: Includes Buses � �� : mETFA O Municipality <tt Metropolitan Seattle T:Vorth Scale: 1" -400' FIGURE 27 D — 1 t1;111v .11111 1'\1 r.A,;.tk hour sit(! tr;lffic (11 Volume With Park 12.0 and Ride On 11000's) Volume Without Park and Ride On 1000's) 10.8 I ► .METRO ylunx,paiit of Metropolitan Seattk 1' North Scale: 1" -400' FIGURE 28 Site D -- 19S5 %veekdav traffic %olumes with and without perk & ride lot Interurban Avenue would hand e over 20,000 vehicles per day (vpd) by 1985 near Site D, but at tolerable service lev - Is, because the capacity of the five -lane roadway is approximately 30,000 vpd. I 5 on and off -ramp intersections with Interurban Avenue immediately north of Site D ould carry nearly 10% less peak -hour volume and continue to operate at levels -of- service (LOS A). Site D is located just north : nd east of a residential neighborhood, with a significant number of multiple-. family uni s. With Interurban Avenue programmed for reconstruction (by 1985) to include sidewalk bicycle and landscaping improvements, the new park -and- ride facility and increased tra sit service could generate a pedestrians and bicyclists who could walk or bike to the par - and -ride lot from their homes and then commute by bus. The existing pedestrian signal with flasher for the south leg of the Interurban Avenue at 52nd Avenue would permit - fe, but an indirect and therefore inconvenient, crossing of Interurban Avenue to and fro the proposed northbound bus stop. The parking lot access and i ternal circulation layout for Site D is intended to minimize on -site conflicts and poten fial hazards between auto and bus traffic and between pedestrian and vehicular mo ements. All buses serving the park - and -ride facility would load and unload commuters a ' on- street bus zones along special pullout areas on both sides of Interurban Avenue. Pote tial conflicts with auto traffic would occur during routine merging and diverging along terurban at the bus pullout zones. All park -and -ride autos would enter or leave Site via a single driveway onto 52nd Avenue located 200 feet southwest of the Interurban intersection. The only hazard generated by this proposed access is potential right -ang e or rear -end collisons between exiting park -and -ride autos and existing 52nd and 53rd venues vehicles coming down the steep grade. During the p.m. peak period, backups f om the stop sign at Interurban could extend as far as the entry driveway and at times "block" both park- and -ride and non -site traffic destined to Interurban Avenue. Pedestrian and vehicular co flicts would be minimal since commuter, would walk toward Interurban where on- street • us stops are provided, while park- and -ride autos would be routed to and from the sing e entry point along a collector road at far west boundary of Site D. Bus passengers load ng or unloading to and from northbound buses would have to cross Interurban Avenue b using the existing flashing signal crossing south of 52nd Avenue. Over the six -month constru•tion period, it is estimated that grading and hauling activities for Site D would generate 310 truck trips and 35 auto trips daily, and peak asphalt operations approximately 150 truck trips and 35 auto trips would be generated daily. Mitigating Measures Site A In order to mitigate the off-site traffic impacts of the proposed park- and -ride lot at Site A, the following stree and signal improvements would be negotiated with the local jurisdiction: o Installing left -t rn signal head and lengthen the left -turn storage lane to accommodate t ree articulated buses (200 feet) on the north approach (south- bound) of Interu ban Avenue at the 58th Avenue intersection. 111-26 In order to mitigate the vehicular and pedestrian circulation and safety impacts of Site A park -and -ride layout, the following on -site improvements would be provided: o Install "Yield to Bus" sign on 143rd Street just east of bus exit driveway to minimize delay time to southbound buses. Site C Revising the signal phasing at the 58th Avenue and Interurban Avenue to include a southbound left -turn phase (possible overlap with existing northbound left -turn phase). o Widening the east approach of 58th Avenue at Interurban Avenue to include three lanes -- through /right, left and inbound lane (wide enough to accom- modate inbound left -turn movement by buses). Striping for proposed lanes should be aligned with existing lane striping on west approach of 58th Avenue. o Widening 143rd Street from Interurban Avenue east to the proposed auto driveway to include three lanes -- right, left and inbound lane - -to minimize the overall delay time to park- and -ride autos and buses and non -site traffic. Lane widths should be sufficiently wide (15 -18 feet) in order to accommodate buses from transit roadway egressing into left -turn lane and inbound bus and truck movements onto 143rd Street (with sharp curvature presently). o Converting the two -way left -turn lane (12 -feet wide) along Interurban Avenue at 143rd Street into southbound left -turn ingress and egress lanes. The egress lane would serve as an acceleration lane for 143rd Street traffic (site and non- site) turning left onto Interurban Avenue southbound and help reduce overall delay time at the stop sign to park- and -ride autos, buses and non -site vehicles. This lane would be widened to 14 feet minimum to safely accommodate turning buses or trucks. o Curb, gutter and sidewalk on east side of Interurban (from 143rd to 58th) and south side of 58th Avenue (from Interurban Avenue to park -and -ride auto driveway) to separate pedestrians and bicyclists from vehicular traffic at Site A. o Provide pedestrian crosswalks across the transit entry driveway to facilitate safe crossing from the external and internal sidewalks (serving the north /east and central /south areas of the park- and -ride lot) to the transit - loading island. In order to mitigate the off -site traffic impacts of the proposed park- and -ride lot at Site C, the following street and signal improvements would be negotiated with the local jurisdiction: o Widening Fort Dent Access Road at the Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard intersection to provide an additional left -turn lane.* Also restriping the south leg (Interurban) of the intersection to accommodate the dual left -turn movement. Existing four -phase signal would need only timing adjustments and west leg would require channelization revisions to line up the through lanes. These improvements would improve LOS from E to C/D at this critical intersection. III -27 In order to mitigate the vehicular and pedestrian circulation /safety impacts of Site C the following on -site improvements would be provided: Install "Yield to Bus" signs along park- and -ride collector roadway at the entry to the transit roadway to minimize auto and bus conflicts and overall delay to inbound buses. Site D o Lengthening the southbound left -turn lane 150 to 200 feet on the north leg of the Interurban /Southcenter Boulevard intersection to accommodate two to three articulated buses during peak periods (would require some widening of Interurban Avenue). o Lengthening existing approach lanes (three) on west leg of Interurban /South- center Boulevard intersection to provide additional storage capacity for projected peak -hour traffic. NOTE: Southcenter Boulevard will be widened to five lanes from 62nd Avenue to Interurban Avenue and realigned from 68th to Interurban Avenue in 1984 by the City of Tukwila, which would sufficiently mitigate projected congestion on Southcenter Boulevard near the Interurban Avenue intersection. o Install a "Yield to Bus" sign for outbound park- and -ride auto traffic on the collector road junction with the bus exit roadway to assure safe egress, with minimal delays for buses leaving the park- and -ride lot. o Provide a pedestrian crosswalk across the transit - loading roadway where the striped walkway for the west parking area intersects same, to permit safe crossing by pedestrians to and from the transit - loading island. Standard pavement markings and signing should be installed for proposed crosswalk. In order to mitigate the off -site traffic impacts of the proposed park- and -ride lot at Site D, the following street and signal improvements would be negotiated with the local jurisdiction o Widen 52nd Avenue adjacent to the park- and -ride site to provide two approach lanes and one exit lane at Interurban Avenue. A left /through and a right -turn- only lane would be included and extend from Interurban Avenue to the park - and -ride auto driveway. Provide striped island just east of the entry to delineate the left -turn egress movement from the park- and -ride lot and the reverse -curve transition from one to two eastbound lanes. o A fully- actuated traffic signal is recommended for the intersection of Interurban Avenue and 52nd and 56th Avenues. This signal will be required to permit safe egress at this intersection by autos. The traffic controller should have capabilities to accommodate a left -turn phase for Interurban Avenue and multiphase capability for 52nd and 56th Avenues. Signals at this location would substantially reduce the projected average delay and potential hazard for Site D traffic as well as for existing 52nd Avenue and future traffic on the new Foster Bridge (improves from LOS E to A for critical left -turn and through movements). This improvement would be require of for the new Foster Bridge alignment and park- and -ride lot. 111-28 o Provide pedestrian signal and crosswalk for al and Interurban Avenue intersection to safely bicycle traffic. o Convert the existing two -way left -turn lane Avenue on both sides of the 52nd /56th Ave lanes to accommodate projected turning volu park -and -ride lot) and the new Foster Bridge. o During design Metro in conjunction with Tuk would discuss realignment of 52nd Avenue w ment. o Install "Stop" and "Do Not Block Intersection entrance driveway at its intersection with 52n blocking 52nd and 53rd avenues traffic during the Interurban Avenue intersection may on oc and -ride auto driveway. A second driveway for the Site D park- and -ride lot is and would be on Interurban Avenue just north of the Gas restricted through appropriate channelization and signin and -ride from southbound Interurban Avenue and a right t to southbound Interurban Avenue. This access would destinations, which is from the park -and -ride lot to south movement would thus be divided between the 52nd Avenu subject exit. Convenience and travel time benefits would the park- and - ride's circulation would be reduced, althoug 52nd Avenue intersection (under the recommended signal at a LOS A. Noise III -29 four legs of the 52nd Avenues accommodate pedestrian and 14 feet wide) along Interurban a es intersection into left -turn es onto 52nd Avenue (toward ila and King County Officials th the Foster bridge improve- In order to mitigate the vehicular and pedestrian circulation /safety impacts of Site D, the following on -site improvements would be provided: o Provide curb, gutters and sidewalks along adjacent to the park -and -ride lot to separate •edestrians and bicyclists from vehicular traffic at Site D. Interurban and 52nd Avenues signs along the park -and -ride Avenue in order to discourage peak periods when queues from asion extend back to the park- r consideration. This driveway n' Go property and would be to a right turn into the park - rn out of the park- and -ride lot benefit most p.m. peak -hour ound Interurban Avenue. This park - and -ride driveway and the accrue to those motorists, and overall level of service at the zation) is calculated to remain Environmental noise usually refers to the total acoustic e vironment as measured or heard by humans. This acoustic environment is background n•ise caused by distant traffic, airplane flyovers or construction. The human ear responds differently to sounds at different ' requencies or pitches. We hear higher - pitched sounds easier than lower ones of the same magnitude. To compensate for the different apparent loudness levels at different pitch =., a standard weighting curve is applied to measured levels. The weighting curve th t represents the human ear's sensitivity to different sound frequencies is labeled "A' weighting; the units of sound magnitude are written as dBA. Each increase of 10 d is subjectively judged as a doubling of the perceived loudness of the noise level. .. .. ... ........ �. ..� Annoyance caused by environmental noise is affected by the maximum (peak) levels and by the amount of noise fluctuation. The Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) is the dBA level of a constant sound which has the same acoustical energy as the time - varying noise. The EPA describes it as follows: "The Equivalent Sound Level is a single value of sound level for any desired duration, which includes all of the time - varying sound energy in the measurement period." Therefore, a sound that is 60 dBA for 10 minutes, and 70 dBA for 10 minutes would have an Leq for the total time period of 67 dBA (sound levels are added logarithmically). Higher level sounds are weighed heavier in the calculation because they have more energy. The day -night equivalent sound level (Ldn) logarithmically is the Leq measured over a 24- hour period, with a 10 dBA weighting applied to nighttime levels (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). This 10 dBA penalty is added to reflect the additional annoyance noise causes during normal sleeping hours. This descriptor is usually used to describe impacts in residential areas. The guidelines used to assess the impacts of the proposed Tukwila park- and -ride include EPA's Protective Noise Levels, EPA Region 10 Noise Guidelines, the federal consensus "Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control" and sleep interfer- ence criteria. These are guidelines in understanding noise impacts and should not be interpreted as standards or regulations. In addition to these guidelines, the King County code and the Tukwila Noise Control Ordinance are used to assess impacts. The Tukwila Noise Control Ordinance levels are based on the King County ordinance. Existing Conditions Traffic on public roads is the primary noise source at most locations around Site A. Substantial traffic noise exists from Interurban Avenue, with less noise from local streets such as South 143rd Street and 58th Avenue South. Local businesses also generate commercial truck traffic noise, traffic, but it is less significant than the traffic noise from public roads. Traffic on public roads, trains on the nearby Burlington Northern Railroad lines, open -pit mining to the north and air traffic are the major existing noise sources around Site C. Substantial traffic noise exists from I -405 and Interurban Avenue. It should be noted that the construction of a business park on the undeveloped property adjacent to Site C may change the sound levels due to sources other than the park -and- ride lot, at nearby receivers. However, because the business park is not presently on the site, existing levels do not account for noise from that source. Traffic on public roads and air traffic from Boeing Field are the major existing noise sources around Site D. Substantial traffic noise exists from I -5 and Interurban Avenue. Sound levels were monitored at four locations to quantify the existing environment near Site A at three locations near Site C and two locations near Site D. These monitoring locations were selected to include residential and commercial receivers. See Figure 29, 30 and 31 for monitoring Site 'locations. Existing noise levels for residents along Interurban Avenue near Site A and for residents overlooking Sites C and D exceed the maximum 24 -hour total sound level (Ldn = 65 dBA) recommended by the federal government for residential receivers. Residences farther from Interurban Avenue on the hillside above Site A, experience noise levels very close to III -30 ETRO Municipality of Metropolitan Settle + North Scale: 1"• 400' FIGURE 29 Site A — Noise measurement and prediction locations Early morning noise impact is a more important consideration t an early evening because some sleep interference is still possible arround the morning p-ak hour. Therefore noise impact is focused on the expected levels during the early morni g. Peak -hour noise levels are predicted from on -site and off -site peak traffic projections. Although traffic volumes between 6 and 7 a.m. are less than peak -hour volumes, noise levels in this period are discussed because of the impact to residences before 7 a.m. Sound levels expected from the park- and -ride lot were predicted using previous measure- ments of Metro bus noise levels. On -site generated noise levels were predicted by creating a model of bus and car usage on the site and matchin: the appropriate use with previously measured data for buses and Federal Highway Ad inistration data for cars. Tables 19, 20 and 21 present predicted noise levels at various receivers and compare the levels with existing levels and pertinent noise criteria for Sites , C and D. Construction noise impacts are expected at surrounding rec fivers for all sites due to grading, hauling, paving, and other on -site construction. Construction noise at a temporary construction site is presently exempted from t e King County ordinance between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekdays and between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekends. Although construction noise levels may exceed Federal Interag ncy Committee guidelines for residential receivers, the noise levels will be temporary. As shown in Table 19, 20 and 21, existing noise levels will not a significantly increased at the park -and -ride lot. Receivers immediately adjacent t Site A may experience increases of 1 dBA in the morning rush hour which will a an insignificant change according to EPA guidelines; but their accumulated noise exposure over a 24 -hour period will be unaffected. Residential receivers along Interurban Avenue (A -2, A -3) already experience noise levels that exceed the federal government's recommendation for maximum 24 -hour total noise levels (Ldn). Addition of the part- and -ride lot at Site A will III -31 maximum 24 -hour recommended levels. Existing peak noise levels in the early morning exceed criteria levels for sleep interference at all residential me = surement locations near Site A. The federal government consensus recommended le els for commercial and industrial receivers is a 24 -hour Leq of 70 dBA. This level s not exceeded at any measurement location around Site A, C or D. As explained in the Transportation /Circulation Section, operati g the park- and -ride will increase traffic volumes on some surrounding streets. In additio to the noise produced by additional traffic off -site, cars and buses travelling on the park and -ride lot will produce noise that travels to adjacent property. Buses will enter the site make their loop, pick up passengers, accelerate from their stop, travel to the exit, and a celerate onto the street. Cars will enter the site and proceed to the parking stalls in the a m. peak and will start up and exit in the p.m. peak. The greatest volume of park -and -ride use occurs in early morni g and early evening peak traffic hours. Before 7 a.m., noise criteria are stricter to limit interference with residents still asleep. The most significant noise from the site ill therefore be the peak hour traffic in the early morning and early evening and traffic before 7 a.m. Predicted Levels Criteria Existing Off On King Federal Location Time Level Site Site Total County Consensus A-1 Commercial Midday 62 62 50 62 60 70 (northeast) A-2 Commercial/ 7-8 AM 71 72 59 72 57 Residential Daily 71* 71* 65 (southwest) A-3 Residential 7-8 AM 71 71 50 71 57 (south) Daily 68* 68* 65 A-4 Residential 6-7 AM 63 (southwest) 7-8 AM 67 67 54 67 57 Daily 64 64 65 *indicates estimated value C-1 Location Commercial (south) C-2 Park (north) C-3 Residential (southwest) *indicates estimated value EXISTING AND PREDICTED SOUND LEVELS IN dBA TUKWILA SITE A EXISTING AND PREDICTED SOUND LEVELS IN dBA TUKWILA SITE C Predicted Levels Criteria Existing Off On King Federal Time Level Site Site Total County Consensus Midday TABLE 19 TABLE 20 63 65 50 65 60 Midday 62 63 51 63 57 7-8 AM 65 65 40 65 57 Daily 68* 68* , ."._ . • , .. .....„ ... .. ... .. .. .... . ... _. . ....._ ... .. .„ 70 70 65 Loc D -1 Commercial (nor east) D -2 Resi • ential (sou h) not notice receivers o very close ride traffic For reside generated other recei rush hour ( major nois Receivers according over a 24- receivers mendation not change If a busine hour noise and C-2. developme interferen At Site D, insignifica to automo (Ldn) will levels that residential and -ride to The park -a any of the the lot ar TABLE 21 EXISTING AND PREDICTED SOUND LEVELS IN dBA TUK W ILA SITE D Predicted Levels Existing Off On tion Time Level • Site Site Total Midday 70 70 55 70 7 -8 AM 63 63 58 64 57 Daily 67 67 bly affect the 24 -hour total noise level for those residents. For residential the hillside overlooking Site A (A -4), the existing 24 -hour noise level (Ldn) is o the recommended maximum and is not expected to increase due to park -and- tial receivers directly across Interurban Avenue from Site A (A -2), noise levels n -site will exceed King County criteria by 2 dBA, a slight excess. For all ers (A -1, A -3, A -4), on -site noise will fall within King County criteria during -8 a.m.). Noise generated by traffic on public roads, which accounts for the impact on all receivers, is not governed by the Ordinance. djacent to Site C (C -1, C -2) will experience insignificant Leq increases, o EPA guidelines, during morning rush hour. The accumulated noise exposure our period (Ldn) will be unaffected for residential receivers (C -3). These resently experience noise levels that exceed the federal government's recom- for maximum 24 -hour total residential noise levels (Ldn), and that level will due to noise from the park- and -ride lot. s development is constructed in the river bend area adjacent to Site C, rush - generated from the park- and -ride lot will decrease slightly for receivers C -1 is relative decrease will occur because noise associated with the business t will mask park- and -ride traffic during commercial traffic hours. Sleep e considerations for the park- and -ride will remain the same. receivers very close to the entrance off of 52nd Avenue South will experience t increases, according to EPA guidelines, in Leq during morning rush hour due Ile traffic on the site. The accumulated noise exposure over a 24 -hour period e unaffected for all receivers. These receivers presently experience noise exceed the federal government's recommendation for maximum 24 -hour total noise levels (Ldn), and that level will not change due to noise from the park- d -ride lot will not interfere significantly with sleep at residences surrounding sites. As displayed in Table 22, predicted peak -noise levels due to buses using less than existing measured peak levels between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. Although III -34 Criteria King Federal County Consensus 60 70 65 bus noises on the site may slightly exceed King County ordinance levels in the early morning, they are not expected to exceed existing peak levels experienced at the receptor locations. Location A -1 A -2 A -3 A -4 C -1 C-2 C -3 D -1 D-2 Existing Maximum Peak Not applicable 79 79 66 Not applicable Not applicable 69 Not applicable 68 Table 22 Early Morning Peak Sound Levels in dBA Predicted Maximum Sleep Interference Peak Criteria Not applicable 69 55 70 55 58 55 Not applicable 60 63 61 III -35 55 Not applicable 55 Vibration due to bus traffic is not expected on streets surrounding any Site. Many streets which will carry park -and -ride traffic presently have bus and truck traffic. Future bus traffic is expected to create a vibration in the barely perceptible range for people at homes and businesses near streets where buses travel based on measurements of existing vibration levels at the Metro South Operating Base. Mitigating Measures Park - and -ride construction noise can be mitigated by the following methods: o limiting construction activity to normal working hours o where possible, placing small, portable acoustical screens around particularly noisy equipment o if pneumatic tools are used, using those prefitted by the manufacturer with mufflers or add mufflers equal to those manufactured by Hushpower or Nicholson o using mufflers on all other internal combustion engine- driven equipment o keeping noisy equipment as far away as possible from the Site boundaries o turning off idling equipment. Noise from the park- and -ride at any of the sites will not exceed existing levels. However, to comply with the criteria given within the King County Noise Ordinance, noise from the park- and -ride can be mitigated by constructing barriers, the amount of mitigation depending on the size and location of the barriers. Because noise from the park- and -ride at Site A will not exceed existing noise levels, . therefore mitigating only the park- and -ride noise will have a negligible effect. For receivers directly across Interurban Avenue from the loading zone, barriers between { • Interurban Avenue and the loading zone would attenuate noise from buses and cars on the lot. Predicted levels exceed pertinent criteria at Site C. For residential 2 4 -hour Ldn and sleep interference, no noticeable impact is expected on existing levels from park- and -ride traffic. Therefore, no mitigation is recommended for noise Site C. At Site D park- and -ride noise exceeds King County ordinance levels by only 1 dBA and only at receivers bordering the entrance and exit adjoining 52nd Avenue South. For receivers south of this entrance and exit automobile noise could be mitigated by constructing a barrier along the length of the driveway on the peoperty line. Noise levels at the nearest homes will not exceed the King County ordinance. Utilities Existing Conditions Water and sanitary sewer service is currently available throughout Site D. Service is available alongside Site A. When Fort Dent Park was developed, water and sewer service through the Tukwila Bend property was sized and developed to accommodate anticipated development. Thus, adequate source is available to Site C. Electrical - Seattle City Light and Puget Sound Power and Light provide electrical service to the sites along Interurban Avenue South. Adequate service would be are available for park -and -ride use. The utilities at Site C are located underground. Telephone - Pacific Northwest Bell serves the Tukwila area with aboveground facilities available to serve Sites A and B. Underground facilities serve Site C. Gas - Washington Natural Gas serves the Tukwila area along Interurban Avenue. Impacts Metro would require sewer services and water to irrigate landscaped areas and for the driver comfort station. This would not affect existing sewer or water services to adjacent users. Pay telephone service could be provided at the site. Development of a park- and -ride, however, would not affect existing or future telephone service. Natural gas would not be required. Electrical service would be required to light the park -and -ride lot. Mitigating Measures None required. Energy Existing Conditions Currently, Sites A and C are unoccupied and do not consume energy. III -36 � Site D includes single- family residences and a business establishment which consume energy related to residential and business uses. Many types of energy are consumed in Metro's transit system. In the 2,128 mile King County service area, buses run on diesel fuel and electricity. Non- revenue maintenance vehicles such as automobiles, trucks and service vehicles for the park- and -ride lots would use gasoline. These buses currently serve the 23 existing park- and -ride lots which provide parking for over 7,000 vehicles. Diesel buses serve all these lots. The diesel fleet consumes 95 percent of the total BTUs (British thermal units) used by the Metro fleet. Impacts Constructing a park -and -ride lot at Site A, C or D will consume energy in grading operations. At all of the sites, energy will be used to construct the passenger shelters, transit information displays, signs, bicycle racks and the transit driver comfort station. Also, Site A requires approximately 5.3 acres of asphaltic concrete for paving, Site C requires approximately 5.1 acres for paving, and Site D requires approximately 3.4 acres for paving. As a result, 1.6 billion BTUs will be used in paving Site A, 2.4 billion BTUs will be used at Site C and 1.6 BTUs will be used at Site D (Estimating Energy Impacts of Residential and Commercial Building Development, U.S. Department of Energy, February 1979). Electricity will be needed for 24 -hour lighting at the site. In addition, fuel will be used to run the buses and private vehicles travelling to and from the park -and -ride. Because the park- and -ride lot, would provide a convenient connection to express transit service, there may be an increase of people riding the bus to their destinations. Assuming automobiles travelling from Tukwila to downtown Seattle would only carry one occupant per car, these automobiles will average 6,985 BTUs per passenger mile (U.S. DOE Study) in 1985 compared to Metro's articulated fleet which averages 576 BTUs per passenger mile (Downtown Seattle Transit Project study). Many of the park -and -ride lot users will use transit instead of private vehicle to conserve fuel. Mitigating Measures Adverse energy impacts are not anticipated during construction or long -term use of the park -and -ride lot. Energy consumption on the site will be minimized through imple- menting energy efficient design and construction features. Economics Existing Conditions Sites A and C are located within the city limits of Tukwila and Site D is located partially within Tukwila and unincorporated King County Sites A and C are undeveloped and the land value is estimated at $4.00 and $6.00 per square feet, respectively. Site D is developed with residential and business /commercial establishments. Total estimated average value for the Site is $4.00 per square foot. Individual properties maybe less or more the average. This is a result of zoning, land value and the value of improvements. The 1983 assessed value for Sites A, C and D are $304,200, $544,100 and $634,600 respectively. All three Sites provide tax revenue to state and local governments. III -37 .. ^' State and local governments, with the development of either Site A, C, or D would lose estimated $3,034.00, $9,225.00 or $6,518.00 respectively in 1983 tax dollars annually. The loss in tax revenue would be perpetual. Site D would result in loss of employment opportunities for about 10 persons and additional sales and B and 0 tax revenues. Sites A and C could be developed within the same time period as the proposed park -and -ride lot. The result would be the loss of employment opportunities resulting from construction and business operation. Also other tax revenues. Development of Sites A, C or D would also increase Metro's facility maintenance costs. Estimated average maintenance cost for Metro's park -and -ride facilities average $50.00 per stall in 1982 dollars. Facilities cost more or less to maintain depending on the number of acres, the extent of landscaping and lot configuration. Estimated annual maintenance costs for Sites A, C and D $15,000, $19,500 and $13,000 respectively. Development of the facility would also create temporary construction jobs. Mitigating Measures Metro could sell, at fair market value portions of Sites A and C not required for park -and- ride use. Portions of Site C could also be sold resulting in less then 390 spaces. This would place about 1 acre at any site back on the tax rolls. Visual and Aesthetics Existing Conditions Sites A and C are relatively flat, undeveloped sites with vegetation cover. Site A can be viewed from vehicles and by pedestrians using Interurban Avenue. The site is in full view of surrounding land uses. Site C can be viewed by park visitors using the access road off Interurban Avenue. Site C is visually secluded from Interurban; however, it can be viewed from the I -405 westbound lanes. Both sites offer views and access to the Green River. Sites A and C would be exposed sunlight until late afternoon. The hill west of the sites would create shadows over the areas in late afternoon, especially during the winter. Site D is developed with residential and commercial structures. There are open space areas along the hillside with various forms of vegetation. The open space, along Interurban Avenue are paved with asphalt. There is a two -story structure on the corner of Interurban Avenue and 52nd Avenue. The remaining commercial structures are one story. Several old wooden sheds are located west of the commercial area in the residential portions of the site. The residential areas of the site could be described as rural /suburban. The Site D can be viewed from the hillside looking down and east. The site can also be viewed from Interurban Avenue. Views from 52nd Avenue into the site are presently screened by development. Views from within the site are to the east. The Green River, GranTree Furniture Store and the on -ramp to I -5 can be seen from various Site vantage points. III -38 Impacts Impacts Development of Site A would result in a landscaped parking area. Development of Site C would change the topography, remove existing vegetation fill portions of an existing wetland, and urbanize a recovering natural appearing area. Lighting and bus shelters would be placed at the site and landscaping introduced. Views into and from Sites A and C would not be affected. Development at Site D would remove all existing development, change the topography, and remove vegetation. The Gas and Go filling station /grocery store would remain. Retaining walls, lighting, landscaping, parking stall and bus shelters would replace residential and commercial structures. The site would become visible from 52nd Avenue and would appear as a open space from Interurban Avenue. Historical /Archaeological Existing Conditions The sites are located in the Green River valley. The Green River valley was one of the earliest areas in the northwest to be settled by Euro- Americans. All three sites are located adjacent to the former Interurban right -of -way of the Interurban Railway, once an important transportation link between Seattle and Tacoma. Site A is located across Interurban from Tukwila's first City Hall, Post Office and Grocery store, all historic sites. There appears to be little or no historical and /or archaeological significance or value for the alternative park -and -ride Sites. Archaeological or historical resources could be uncovered during construction of the park- and-ride. Mitigating Measures If archaeological or historical resources are uncovered during construction, work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation would be contacted. 07 /EPa- 19/19b III -39 : . + 1. 2 -7. 8 . 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14-16. ,17-24. 25. 26. 27-30. 3L• APPENDICES Table of Contents King County Housing Authority: King County Housing Authority: Seattle' Housing Authority: Seattle Housing Authority's,. Federal. Home Loan Banks ,Federal Hems „Loan Banks Federal Home,Loan Bank: Federal Home Loan Banks Federal Home Loan Bank: Federal Home Loan Bank: Federal Home Loan Bank: Real Estate Multiple Inc.: Real Estate Multiple Inc.s South Central School District:. Map Showing Units List of Units Map Showing Units :List of :Units Vacancy Housing Survey Map of Zip Codes Survey: Methodology Survey Highlights Vacancy. History Vacancy By Area and Unit Survey Definitions Locator Map Vacancy and Sales Listings School Location Map Area Map F. Replacement Sites H. Grievance Procedures IV. Summary & Projection TA3LE OF CONTENTS Page I. Displacing agency I II. Project Description I A. Physical Site I B. Residential Relocations II C. Owner- Occupied Business II D. Business Relocations , II E. Summation II III III. Relocation Program 1 A. Relocation Assistance, 1 B. Relocation Payments & Eligibilities .. 2 1. Moving Expense - Families & Individuals 2 2. Replacement Housing - Tenants & Certain Others 5 3. Claimants Who Rent 7 4. Inspection of Replacement Housing Unit .. 7 5. Replacement Housing Payment for Home Owners 9 6. Payment to Businesses, Farms and Non - Profit 12 7. Searching for Replacement Locations 25 8. Payment In Lieu -of Moving & Related Expenses 25 C. Physical Standards 28 D. Environmental Standards 28 E. Equal Opportunity Standards 28 G. Referral Procedure and Assistance 1. Referral Procedure 2. Resident Assistance 3. As ai g a iziattoonsiasssConcerns, Non - Profit 4. Assistance to Persons in Area Adjacent to Project 32 5. Minority Group Policy 32 6. The Elderly 33 7. Low- Income Residents 33 8. Standards For Displacees' Ability to Pay 34 9. Housing Sources Contacted 34 10. Inspection of Relocation Housing 35 11. Tracing of Self- Relocated Families 36 12. Social Services To Be Provided 36 13. Agencies Contacted 36 29 30 30 31 31 37 38 I. DISPLACING AGENCY R E L O C A T I O N P L A N FOR TUKWILA PARK AND RILE PROJECT A. The Vunicipality of Metropolitan Seattle 89. Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 B. Relocation Agency. METRO will choose a qualified relocation consultant firm or agency by competitive bid process. Sufficient relocation personnel, experienced in both residential and business relocations will be assigned to this project by the successful • bidder as the need arises, and as directed by the METRO project supervisor. These relocation agents will explain and identify all relocation' alternatives to the people being displaced from both residences and businesses. This will be done under the guidelines'as set forth in'Public Law 91 -646, The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and the regulations of The Urban Mass Transit Administration as defined in the Circular OMTA CA4S30.1, dated March a., 1978. These duties may also include assisting displacees in filling out forms required by lend- ing institutions, The Small Business Administration and others in connection with the lease and purchase of new premises. Assistance will also be rendered in preparing and filing claims for reimbursement after relocation has been completed. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION' A. Physical Site The site is located adjacent to Interurban Avenue So. (West Valley Highway, SR 181), between 52nd Avenue South on one side and 51st Avenue South and Interstate 5 on the other. This location is in King County, Census Tract 262, in what is known as the Foster District. I B. Residential Rental Units 1. Peter Thomson of Bellevue owns two single family rental units (one two-bedroom and one four-bedroom) and a duplex. The duplex has a two- bedroom unit and a three-bedroom unit. 2.. Puzzo Land Development Co. of Woodinville owns a single- family unit and a triplex. The single-family unit is two-bedroom and the triplex has one two-bedroom and two one-bedroom units., 3: Dorothy Ford of Seattle owns °a. single-family unit of two bedrooms. C. Owner Occupied Units . - - 1. Ms. Maureen Gebaroff owns and occupies a three-bedroom single family unit At 13405 Interurban Avenue South. 14 Business Locations •• 1; Kenneth and Elaine Bergsma own a carpet:cleaning.shop on the corner of 5End Avenue South and Interurban Avenue Sout _ 2. • Puzzo-Land Development Co. mins a tavern fronting on Interurban . AvenuiSouth: . :At present this business is undergointextensive_renovation and remodelling and is due to re-open by September 1, 1983. - .3; Gas N Go Inc. owns a gas station andconvsnienct store on the 'project site. This property will be subject to a with the business remaining intact and surrounded by the proposed park and. ride lot. E. Summation . 1. The total relocation caseload for this site would consist of nine rental residential units, one owner-occupied residential unit and two businesses subject to relocation. , 3. • • ;,,,f il09 Ie.— ���It` • 0 r . 0 2} • • • n ,- �----- \ ____-- 22---- ' 3 it 0 0 O Q 0 c 3 • 0 r ... 1 a.4 sad (ki rc d •• C 1{ ` ti \ ';; �d�. ` .t i es J . / „.. .a • ti r 3 /n� :sit �. r // 4-1;f1 ” • r .� ' Y / 1 Cribb 1 1 b 1 • 17 tr / . 11 ? I /y • 1 ■ r. • 1• • CITY. OF' SEATTLE • LIGHTING ' DEPT. • AVE (WEST VAL . JACK S. GRA' � 4 , `r ? J4 ti JACK S. G 'THE TERRACE • ' .5.3 7 AL._ —e/01 ,, gi �s 1 �1, • 711://:1 1-1 H RELOCATION PROGRAM A. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE Relocation will: 1. Fully inform eligible persons at the earliest possible date as to the availability of relocation payments and assistance and the eligibility requirements therefor, as well as the procedures for obtaining such payments and assistance; 2. Through direct personal interview, determine the extent of the need of each eligible person for relocation assistance; 3. Provide current and continuing information on the availability, prices, and rentals of comparable sales and rental housing'and of commercial properties and locations; 4. Assure that, within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement, there will be available comparable decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing, meeting approved standards, and equal in number to the number of, and available to, eligible persons who will be displaced; 5. Assist any eligible person displaced from his business or farm operation in obtaining and becoming established in a•suitable replacement location; 6. Supply to eligible displaced persons information concerning Federal and State housing programs, disaster loans, and other programs administered by the Small Business Administration and other Federal or State programs offering assistance to displaced persons; 7. Provide other advisory services' to eligible persons, such as counseling and referrals with regard to housing, financing, employment training, health, welfare, and other assistance in order to minimize hardships; 8. Assist each eligible person in completing any required application and forms; -1- -2- 9. Inform all persons who are expected to be displaced by acquisition about the eviction policies to be pursued in carrying out the project; 10. Insure adequate inspection of all relocation housing resources utilized by displaced persons prior to and subsequent to occupancy by such persons; 11. Provide any services required to ensure that the relocation process does not result in different or separate treatment on account of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or source of income; 12. Establish and maintain a formal grievance procedure for use by displaced persons seeking administrative review of agency determinations in connection with relocation payments and /or the adequacy of replacement housing. B. RELOCATION PAYMENTS AND ELIGIBILITIES 1. Moving Expense Payment for Families and Individuals: Introduction Payments for actual reasonable moving and related expenses are . intended to cover expenditures which families and individuals incur in moving themselves and /or their personal property. Unlike business concerns and farm operations, families and individuals are not entitled to payments for actual direct loss of property. However, it should be noted that a payment for actual moving expenses includes insurance premiums covering loss and damage of personal property while in storage or transit, and property lost or damaged in the process of a move. No person lawfully occupying property within the Project boundary will be required to move without at least ninety (90) days written notice, nor will families or individuals be required to move before they have been given an opportunity to obtain decent, safe and sanitary housing within their financial means or for causes not set forth within the approved eviction policy. a. Basic Eligibility Requirements are as Follows: In order to be eligible for relocation payments, all site occupants must: move from real property within the Project boundaries or move his personal property from such real property after a firm written offer or written notice of intent to acquire is made by METRO which has not been superseded by a written notice of intent of the acquisition of the property, not to acquire. b. Fixed Payment and Dislocation Allowance A family or individual who elects to receive a fixed payment in lieu of actual reasonable moving expenses shall be paid the total of: An amount not to exceed $300, determined in accord- ance with Federal Highway Administration approved schedules for the State in which the displacement occurs, and a $300 dislocation allowance. On the basis of the approved State Highway Fixed Relocation Payment Schedule displaced persons shall be compensated according to the number of rooms of furniture to be moved. An allowance may be made for moving articles stored in attics, cellars, or garages. The Relocation Staff may add one additional room to the number of rooms occupied by the claimant when calculating the amount of the fixed payment to be made. The local agency shall determine by inspection that the articles so stored may warrant the addition of a room in computing the amount of the fixed payment. Abandoned articles, or articles to be abandoned, may be taken into consideration in making this determination. An advance dislocation allowance may be made to a claimant who elects to receive a fixed relocation payment and dislocation allowance at the time of the temporary move, only actual moving expenses may be paid for the permanent move. Only one dislocation allowance may be made to a displaced person. -3- c. Limitations for Joint Occupants of Single - Family Dwellings: If individuals (not a family) are joint occupants of a single - family dwelling, each eligible claimant is entitled to actual moving expenses, as set forth. If the individuals elect to receive a fixed payment, and more than one claim is submitted, the amount of the fixed payment and the dislocation allowance must be prorated among the claimants. The total of fixed payments and the dislocation allowance made to all such claimants moving from a single - family dwelling shall not exceed the total applicable to a single individual. d. Eligible Moving Expenditures A relocation payment for moving expenses of individuals or families may include expenditures for the following: The cost of transporting persons or personal property from the acquired site to a replacement site (including to storage). Transportation costs beyond the first 50 miles from the boundary of the jurisdiction in which the displacement occurred are not eligible except when the METRO determines that a move of a longer distance is justified and reasonable (e.g., because of greater proximity to employment, business, or educational opportunities, or other economic factors; for reasons of health; or that such a move fosters the reduction of economic and /or racial concentration and contributes to the elimination of racial and economic barriers). All provisions concerning eligible moving expenses are applicable. The records must be documented to explain the basis for making or rejecting an exception to the moving distance limitation. Packing and crating personal property; storage of personal property for a period generally not to exceed six months, when the local agency determines that storage is necessary; and insurance premiums covering loss and damage of personal property while i.n storage or transit; and the disconnection and reconnection of household appliances, in the case of families and individuals. -4- -5- Property lost, stolen, or damaged (not caused by fault or negligence of the displaced person, his agent, or employees) in the 'process of moving where insurance to cover such loss or damage is not available. e. Ineligible Moving Expenditures A relocation payment for moving expenses may not include expenditures for the following: Additional expenses incurred because of living in a new location; Cost of moving structures, improvements, or other real property in which the displaced person reserved ownership; interest on loans to cover moving expenses; loss of goodwill; personal injury; cost of preparing the claim for moving and related expenses; and modification of personal property to adapt it to replacement site, except when required by law. f. Self -Moves The amount of a relocation payment for a self -move shall not exceed the estimated cost of accomplishing the move if it were performed by a commercial mover or contractor. However, a claimant may present documentation justifying the need for a greater amount. Upon review of the documentation and inspection of the personal property involved, Relocation Staff shall determine whether or not a greater amount is authorized and explain the basis for the determination in writing on the claimant's relocation record. 2. REPLACEMENT HOUSING PAYMENTS FOR TENANTS AND CERTAIN OTHERS The purpose of the Replacement Housing Payment for Tenants and Certain Others is to provide assistance to displace families and individuals in renting or purchasing comparable suitable standard replacement dwellings. Where appropriate, eligible families and individuals whould be encouraged to become home owners. a. Eligibility Requirements A family or individual who meets the basic eligibility requirements set forth may be eligible for a Replacement Housing Payment for Tenants and Certain Others if the following requirements are met: 1 The family or individual is displaced from a dwelling acquired for the Project. If tenants; the family, or individual lawfully occupied the rental dwelling from which he is displaced for a period of not less than ninety ' (90) days prior to the initiation of negotiations for acquisition of the dwelling. b. Amount and Use of Payment A Replacement Housing Payment for Tenants and Certain Others may be in an amount not to exceed $4,000 and may be either a payment to assist a displaced person in making a downpayment toward the purchase of a replacement housing unit, or a payment to assist a displaced person in the rental of replacement housing unit for a period not to exceed four years. The amount of the payment shall be computed as set forth in this Section. If a displaced person elects to purchase instead of rent, he may receive a payment of up to $4,000 for a downpayment and incidental expenses toward the purchase of a replacement dwelling unit. Incidental expenses, limited to reasonable costs but not prepaid expenses are: Legal, closing, and related costs including title search, preparing conveyance contracts, notary fees, surveys, preparing drawings on plats, and charges paid incident to recordation. Lender, FHA or VA appraisal fees; FHA or VA application fee; certification of structural soundness; credit report; owners and mortgagee's evidence or assurance of title; sales or transfer taxes; escrow agent's fees; and, such other expenses as may be determined eligible by the appropriate METRO agent. If the claim is more than $2,000, the claimant must match dollar for dollar the amount in excess of $2,000 up co the maximum payment of $4,000. The full amount of the payment must be applied to purchase price, and such payment, including incidental expenses, must be shown on the closing statement. The amount of any rental assistance payment previously received by the claimant must be deducted from the amount of the downpayment assistance for which he may be eligible. -6- Applicable Criteria: The payment shall be an amount which is necessary to make a downpayment on the comparable replacement dwelling, subject to the following: The amount of the payment may not exceed the amount that would be required for a conventional loan. However, if that amount is less than the amount required of the claimant for a downpayment on a dwelling financed by other than a conventional loan, the amount of the payment will be subject to prior METRO approval. To obtain METRO approval, the Relocation office shall submit a copy of the claim and supporting documentation to METRO, together with any other pertinent data. 3. CLAIMANT WHO RENTS A displaced tenant who elects to rent is eligible for rental assistance payment. The amount of the rental as payment shall be computed by determining the difference between the base monthly rental previously paid by the displaced person and the monthly rental for a comparable replacement dwelling. The difference is multiplied by 48 to determine the total amount of the payment. If the amount exceeds $4,000, it must be reduced to $4,000. 4. INSPECTION OF REPLACEMENT HOUSING UNIT Initial Inspection: For the purpose of determining eligibility for a rental assistance payment, the local agency shall inspect the dwelling unit to which the claimant moves to determine that it meets applicable standards. Base Monthly Rental: The base monthly rental shall be the average monthly rent, including utilities, paid by the displaced person for the three - month period prior to initiation of negotiations. The base monthly rental shall be the economic rent for similar dwellings in an area not generally less desirable if: The displaced person was not required to pay rent for the dwelling from which he was displaced; or the Relocation Office finds that the rent, if any, -7- previously paid by the displaced person (including rent paid for acquired property) was substantially higher or lower than the economic rent for a comparable dwelling. The base monthly rental may not exceed 25% of one - twelfth of the person;s adjusted annual income. The monthly rental for a comparable unit may be computed by any of the methods described below. The displaced person shall have the right to elect to use either the schedule method or the comparative method. The Relocation Office shall fully inform the displaced person about the two methods, from which he may choose, Schedule: The schedule shall be based on average rentals for various types of replacement dwellings available on the private market. It should reflect the monthly rental for comparable, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings in areas not generally less desirable than the dwelling units acquired for the Project. It should be based on a current analysis of the market to determine an appropriate average rental for each type of dwelling required. Comparative Method: The cost of a comparable unit may be determined on a case -by -case basis, by using the average month;s rent for one or more dwellings determined to be most representative of the acquired dwelling and conforming to the definition of "comparable replacement housing:. The comparable dwellings may be selected by the Relocation Office, or by the displaced person with the approval of the Relocation Office. The cost of the comparable replacement dwellings) 'selected by a claimant should be reasonable in light of the. range of costs on the Schedule of Average Prices of Comparable Rental Housing in Locality. The comparative method shall be used at the sole option of the displaced person. Alternative Method: Where the Relocation Office determines that neither the schedule nor the comparative method is feasible in a given situation, another method may be developed and used, with prior METRO approval. -8 -9- 5. REPLACEMENT HOUSING PAYMENT FOR HOMEOWNERS The purpose of the Replacement Housing Payment for Homeowners is to provide assistance to displaced owner /occupants to purchase and occupy comparable suitable standard replacement dwellings, in an amount not to exceed a total of $15,000, which may include a differential, interest, and incidental expense payments. The differential payment is the amount, if any, which when added to the acquisition payment for the dwelling acquired for the Project, equals the reasonable cost of a comparable replacement dwelling. The interest payment is an amount to compensate the displaced homeowner for the present worth of any loss of favorable financing. A displaced homeowner is entitled to an interest payment only if the dwelling acquired for the Project was encumbered by a bona fide mortgage which was a valid lien on the dwelling for not less than 180 days prior to the initiation of negotiation. Incidental expenses are limited to 'reasonable costs, but not prepaid expenses, and may include the following: a. Incidental Expenses - Legal, closing, and related costs, including title search, preparing conveyance contracts, notary fees, surveys, preparing drawings on plats, and charges paid incident to recordation; lender, FHA, or VA- appraised fees; reports; owners and mortgagee's evidence or assurance of title; sales or transfer taxes; escrow agent's fees; and, such other expenses as may be determined eligible by the appropriate METRO agent. No 'reimbursement may be made for any fee, cost, charge, or expense which is determined to be a part of the debt service or finance charge under Title I of the Truth in Lending Act (Public Law 90 -321) and Regulations issued pursuant thereto by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. b. Eligibility Criteria & Limitations on Payments Received - The family or individual displaced owned and occupied the dwelling for not less than 180 days prior to the initiation of negotiations for acquisition. The term "initiation of negotiations' means the date of the first written offer by METRO to the owner. z -10- The family or individual purchases and occupies a standard replacement dwelling within one year after the date on which he received the final payment of all costs of the acquired dwelling or the date on which he moves from the acquired dwelling, whichever is later. When an eligible claimant who has received all or a portion of a rental assistance payment (because he elected to rent), subsequently files a claim for a Replacement Housing Payment for Homeowners, the total amount of the rental assistance payment he has received must be deducted from the amount of the payment to which he may be entitled. c. A person "owned a dwelling" if he - Held fee title, a life estate, a 90 -year lease, or a lease with not less than fifty (50).years to run from date of acquisition of the property for the Project; held an interest in a cooperative housing project which included the,rights of occupancy of a dwelling unit therein; is the contract purchaser; has a lease -hold interest with an option to purchase; owned'a mobile unit which under State Law is determined to be real property, not personal property. The cost of the comparable replacement dwelling(s) selected by a claimant should be reasonable in light of the range of costs on the Schedule of Average Prices of Comparable Sales Housing in Locality. The comparative method shall be used at the sole option of the displaced person unless the claimant's dwelling is not typical of those in the area on which the schedule is based, or the claimant's present or potential place of employment is not reasonably accessible to other comparable replacement dwelling units, or an alternative method is determined that neither the schedule nor the comparative method is feasible in a given situation, another method may be developed and used, with prior METRO approval. d. The following limitations apply in computing the differential payment: The dwelling unit occupied by the claimant was part of a structure owned by the claimant which also included space used for non- residential purposes (mixed -use property), the amount of the differential payment shall be determined by using as the acquisition payment of the dwelling unit only that part of the total payment. The displaced person purchases and occupies a decent, safe and sanitary dwelling at a price less than the reasonable cost of a comparable replacement dwelling, the amount of the differential payment will be reduced to that amount required to pay the difference between the acquisition price of the acquired dwelling and the actual purchase price of the replacement dwelling. e. A person "purchases" a dwelling if he- acquires, constructs, or rehabilitates a dwelling; and, enters into a contract to purchase, or for construction of, a dwelling to be constructed on a site to be provided by a builder or developer or on a site which the displaced person owns or acquires for that purpose. If construction, rehabilitation, or relocation of a re- placement dwelling is delayed, the date of occupancy shall be the date the displaced person enters into a contract for such construction, rehabilitation, or relocation, or for the purchase, upon completion, of a dwelling to be constructed or rehabilitated. If reasons of hardship beyond the control of a displaced person prevent his occupying the replacement dwelling by the date that occupancy is required, the Relocation Staff shall determine the date of occupancy to be the date on which the displaced person became entitled to possession of the dwelling. In either instance, the Relocation Staff must assure that the displaced person in fact will occupy the replacement dwelling. If a displaced person voluntarily moves to housing that does not meet the environmental or equal opportunity standards for housing listings and referrals, his eligibility for a payment shall not be affected. If individuals (not a family) are joint owner /occupants of a single- family dwelling unit acquired for a project, each eligible claimant shall be paid a pro -rated share of the total payment applicable to a single individual. The total payment made to all such claimants shall not exceed the total applicable to a single individual. If the displaced person purchases and occupies a decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling at a price less than the acquisition price of the acquired dwelling, no differential payment shall be made. f. Inspection of Replacement Housing Unit and Distance - For purposes of determining eligibility for a Replacement Housing Payment, the Relocation Staff shall inspect the dwelling unit of any claimant who moves within a 50 -mile radius of the locality in which the agency normally inspects relocation housing. To the maximum extent feasible, the Relocation Staff shall attempt to secure inspection of a claimant's dwelling unit by a responsible agency in the new locality when a claimant moves outside the 50 -mile radius. Only upon the written request of a claimant shall the . Relocation Staff transmit a check to anyone other than the claimant or the claimant's authorized representative. Whenever possible and if requested by the claimant, the payment should be made on the date and at the place of settlement on the re- placement housing or entering into a contract to purchase, in order to provide the payment on a timely basis to facilitate the purchase of the replacement unit. 6. PAYMENT TO BUSINESS CONCERNS, NON - PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, AND FARM OPERATIONS The requirements for relocation payments to business concerns, non- profit organizations, and farm operations: The term "business" or "business concerns" includes non - profit organizations and farm operation as well as non- farm, for profit business concerns, unless otherwise noted. In addition, the owner of an outdoor advertising display may also be considered t// be a business, but solely for the purpose of eligibility for a payment for moving and related expenses. a. Relocation Payments for Moving Expenses - A business that meets the basic eligibility requirements set forth may be eligible to receive a payment to cover actual reasonable moving and related expenses and relocation assistance in connection with a related move from his place of business, actual direct loss of tangible personal property, and actual reasonable expenses in searching for a replacement business.. Instead of receiving actual moving and related expenses, a business in some cases may be eligible for a Payment in Lieu of Actual Moving and Related Expenses. A Payment in Lieu of Moving and Related Expenses (except for owner of an outdoor advertising display) shall be equal to the average annual net earnings of the business concern or farm operation but not less than $2,500 nor more than $10,000. For the ,purposes of this payment, a profitmaking business owned by a non - profit organization shall be treated as a business, not as a non - profit organization. Payment to a non- profit organi- zation which does not operate for profit shall be in the amount of $2,500. b. Basic Eligibility Requirements - For the purpose of establishing eligibility for business concerns, non - profit organizations, or farm operations which move from real property within boundaries of a federally - assisted project and move their personal property from such real property on or after the date of the first written offer or notice of intent to acquire are eligible. c. Maximum Moving Distance - A relocation payment for moving expenses of a business concern is limited to the actual necessary expenditures for moving the tangible personal property, generally for a distance of not more then fifty (50) miles from the boundary of the political jurisdiction in which the displacement occurrs. Transportation expenses for moving a longer distance may be compensable if the METRO finds them justifiable. If the Relocation Staff -13- finds that moving such longer distance is not justified and reasonable, the agency shall disallow only the cost of gas, oil, toll charges or additional manhours, or the costs set forth on a mileage chart which includes only carting factors, allocable to the portion of the move in excess of 50 miles. d. Actual Reasonable Moving Expenses (1). Moving expenses ineligible for Relocation payments include the following: a. Additional expenses incurred because of renting a new location; b. Cost of moving structures, improvements, or other real property in which the displaced person reserved ownership; c. Interest on loans covering moving expenses; d. Loss of good will; e. Loss of trained employees; f. Personal injuries; g. Cost of preparing the claim for moving and related expenses; h. Modification of personal property to adapt it to replacement site, except when required by law; i. Self -moves exceeding the estimated cost of commercial moving bids, unless justified and approved in writing from the METRO j.. Loss of business during down -time. (2). Eligible Expenses and Requirements A business that receives a relocation payment for actual reasonable moving expenses shall be paid the full amount of eligible expenditures incurred as set forth: Packing, crating, obtaining and including advertising for bids or estimates for transportation, insurance premiums covering loss and damage while in storage or transit, disconnecting, dis- mantling, removing, re- assembling, reconnecting, and re- installing machinery, equipment or personal property including goods and inventory kept for sale. (3). Submission of Bids or Estimates - The original and one copy of the completed sealed bid or estimate form must be mailed or otherwise presented by the bidder to the Relocation Office not less than 15 . days prior to commencement cf the move. Each for must specify the precise scope of work covered by the bid or estimate. Each bid or estimate must be received in the Relocation Office prior to the bid opening time set, in -14- agreement with the business, taking into consideration the afore - mentioned 15 -day minimum period. (a). Bid Opening The Relocation Office shall open the sealed bids or estimates at the established time and place. A duly - authorized repre- sentative of the business concern must be present at the bid opening unless the business has notified the Relocation Office of its inability to be represented and has requested that the bid opening proceed without its representation. Those who have submitted sealed bids or estimates may also be present. The business concern shall be promptly provided with a copy of each bid submitted. The Relocation Staff will provide each business concern with supply of bid or estimate forms at the same time that the Relocation Staff interviews the business concern or inspects the premises and inventory and furnishes the business concern with informational material. (b) Required Bid Submission Time and Intent The business concern shall submit written intention to move to the Relocation Office at least 30 days prior to the moving date, but not earlier than 90 days prior to the move. The written notice from the business concern should state its intention to begin the move and /or dispose of personal property, and the date the intended move will begin; METRO shall prepare a list identifying the real property, including fixtures to be purchased by.the METRO acquisition staff; identifying each item of property for which fixture damage or removal cost has been, or is to be paid as an acquisition expense; and a list identifying those items of property that either the owner of the real property or the tenant is lawfully entitled to remove, and for which compensation is not otherwise to be provided. (c). Number of Bids Required When moving expenses of a business concern are estimated to exceed $1,000, the'business concern must obtain a bid from -15- three reputable movers and /or other contractors. If the total cost of a move by a general contractor, or any separately identified category of service involved in a move where there is no general contractor, is estimated to cost $3,000 or more, the sealed -bid procedure below must be followed. (d) Required Number of Bids The scope of work covered by each bid or estimate obtained by a business concern must be the same. To achieve this uniformity, all contractors must be provided with the same work specifications on each individual move. Where appropriate, the specifications should be sub- divided to reflect the specific responsibilities or each trade or craft that will perform a separate category of services in the move. The Relocation Staff may assist in the preparation of bid or estimate- specifications if the business concern wishes, but selection of movers and other, contractors who will be requested to bid shall be the sole prerogative of the business concern. The Relocation Staff shall review the bid or estimate specifictions prepared by the business concern to determine con - • formance with METRO requirements, and in conformance with local ordinances or requirements. Any questions regarding the eligibility of the cost of moving an item of personal property that may have been or should be included as an acquisition cost will be resolved through consultation between the Relocation and Acquisition Staffs. Bids are to be obtained from at least three contractors for each trade or craft where there is no general contractor. If the business concern is unable to obtain three bids for any category of work, a lesser number shall be submitted, together with a written justification from the business concern. If bids for any portion of the work to be performed are prohibited by State law or by regulation, the business concern may submit estimates for that portion of the move, but only to the extant that such portion is subject to State law or regulation. If advertising for bids or estimates is necessary to enable the business concern to comply with the METRO bid requirements, the reasonable costs so incurred may be considered as a moving expense. -16- (e) Payment for Bids or Estimates Where compensation will be made for bids or estimates, the business concern shall fully document the amount paid or to be paid. Except when the business concern requests the Relocation Office to pay the bidder directly, the Relocation Office has the obligation to assure that the bidder is fully compensated by the business concern. (f) Use of Business Employees and Self -Moves If the Relocation Office concurs in a business concern's proposal to use working foremen or group leaders, regularly employed by the business, to provide supervisory services in connection with a move, the amount of their wages covering the time spent in actual supervision of the move may be included as a moving expense at the hourly rate paid by commercial movers or contractors in the locality for similar services, or the employee's normal wage rate, whichever is the lesser. 'If, in order to avoid or minimize disruption of normal business activities, business concern conducts its move at times re- quiring the payment of overtime rates, these costs may be compensable. A business concern that conducts a self -move is subject to the three -bid requirements if the cost of the move is estimated to exceed $1,000. (g) Use of Business Equipment Allowable expenses paid for truck and /or equipment hire, or if vehicles or equipment owned by the business concern are used, a reason- able amount to cover gas and oil, and the cost of insurance and depreciation directly allocable to hours and /or days the equipment is used for the move, and wages paid for the labor of persons who physically participate in the move. Labor costs are to be computed on the basis of actual hours worked at the hourly rate paid, but the hourly pay rate may not exceed that paid by commercial movers or contractors in the locality for each profession or craft involved. (h) Eligible Related Expenses A relocation payment for moving expenses may include the cost of disconnecting and reinstalling leased equipment, such as telephones, burglar and fire alarm systems, and similar items of personal property. (4). Physical Changes at New Location - The cost of making physical changes in or to a building to which a business concern re- locates may be eligible as a moving expense under the following provisions and limitations: The physical changes must be necessary to permit the reinstallation of specific items relocated or substitute machinery or equipment necessary to the continued operation of the business, or be required to meet local codes or ordinances related to the installation and use of machinery or equipment. The cost of foundations, concrete pads, or other similar construction required for the reinstallation of relocated or substitute *machinery or equipment may be eligible provided that the construction is necessary to the proper operations of the equipment, and compensation for a similar installation was not made to the business concern as a part of the price paid to acquire the former property. Changes in or to a building or structure may not increase the value of the building or structure for general purpose uses, may not increase the structural or mechanical capacity of the building or of its components beyond the requirements of specific types of equipment moved from the old location or replaced with a substitute, nor include building or structural alterations required by local building codes and ordinances, except if required for the installation of specific types of equipment moved from the old location or necessary for the continuation of the business. No relocation payment in -18- • connection with a change in or to a building or structure shall be made for any items for which compensation was made as an acquisition cost at the old location. Documentations must show a detailed description or drawing, or both, of the installation in the former location, and a detailed description or drawing, or both, of the installation as proposed or actually installed, and a copy of all instructional materials or drawings to be provided to contractors or workmen with a statement describing the basis for the estimated or actual cost related to the physical changes, and explaining why the changes are necessary to reinstallation of the equipment. made. The business concern shall discuss its plan with the Relocation Staff before the move so that determination of acceptability can be (a) Eligible Conversion Expenses A relocation payment for moving expenses may include expenditures made by a business concern to adapt or convert relocated equipment to the use of a different type of power supply. Expenditures for the following are examples: conversion from direct electric to alternating current; changes in voltage; purchases and installation of motors, transformers, rectifiers, and similar equipment necessary to accomplish the required conversion; and other • changes required by local codes or ordinances. Conversion of machines from power shaft and pulley drive to electric motor drive is considered to be a physical change and is therefore subject to prior concurrence. If a claimant elects to adapt his equipment beyond that necessary to comply with local law or to resumption of his business operation, the excess cost is not compensable. The claimant shall document the fact that the proposed method of adaption or conversion is the least expensive, or is required by local code or ordinance. A relocation payment for moving expenses may include the amount of inspection fees required by local law or ordinance and licenses and permits required to permit the operation of the business at a new location. convert or insure the -19- The amount may not exceed the amount that the business concern would be required to pay annually. (b) Additional Eligible Expenses Expenditures for re- lettering trucks, signs, and similar items used by a displaced business concern in the operations of its business, and the amount paid (less salvage value, where appropriate) for printing a reasonable supply of printed matter to replace that made obsolete as a result of the move may be compensable as a moving expense. The duplication of a tenant's sign painted on a door or window may also be compensable as a moving expense.. If a business elects to overprint or overstamp stationery or other printed matter, expenditures for a reasonable supply thereof may be compensable as a moving expense reimbursable through a relocation payment. No payment for property loss may be • made on the items for which a relocation payment for moving expenses has been made. (c) Utility and Service Lines A relocation payment for moving expenses may include the necessary expenditures for re- connecting utility services to relocated or substitute equipment, machinery, or trade fixtures to the extent that these services were required in the old location. Utility services may include electrical, water, gas, compressed air, vacuum, vent, sewer, oil, and similar internal service lines. The amount of a relocation payment for moving expenses may not include any expenditures for changes in or to a utility service entrance main panel or main valve system unless required by local code or ordinance, nor any amounts for which compensation was made at the old location. (d) Actual Direct Loss of Property General: A business may receive a payment for any actual direct loss for any of its tangible personal property, including inventory or goods held for sale, which it chooses not to relocate. An effort to achieve a bona fide sale to dispose of the personal property is required, and the payment may not exceed the estimated reasonable expense of moving such property. A -20- -21- relocation payment may be made only for items of personal property meeting the definition of tangible personal property (including inventory). A relocation payment for direct loss of property may not be made for an item traded in which compensation through a payment has been made. Amount of Property Loss Payment: Except as provided below, the net proceeds from the bona fide sale of the property shall be deducted from the fair market value for any item of personal property for which a claim is made for payment for direct loss of property. The remaining amount, if any, shall represent the value not recovered,by the sale. The amount of the payment for actual direct loss of property is the lower of: (a) the value not recovered by the sale or (b) the estimated moving expenses which would have been incurred had the personal property been moved. If no offer is received for the property after reasonable efforts have been made over a reasonable period of time to accomplish a sale, then the amount of the actual direct loss of property is the'lesser of: (a) the fair market value for continued use or, (b) the estimated moving expenses. If a bona fide sale cannot be effected, the payment for the personal property shall be the fair market value for continued use (less the proceeds from any sale or exchange of the property), or estimated moving ex- penses, whichever is the lesser. A bona fide sale is a sale at the highest price offered, after reasonable efforts have been made over a reasonable period of time to interest prospective buyers, including secondhand dealers, and,if appropriate, junkmen who customarily deal in similar property. An auction held after reasonable public notice is a bona fide sale. A private sale to one's relatives or associates is not a bona fide sale. A trade -in may be considered a bona fide sale, but it the item so traded has been compensated through a payment, no property loss payment shall be made. shall be made: Net Proceeds: The ordinary and reasonable expenses related to the sale of the personal property may be deducted from the amount realized from the sale, to determine the net proceeds made. Examples of allowable expenses that may be deducted to determine net proceeds are auctioneer fees, sales commissions, and advertising costs. In addition, the actual cost incurred in delivering the property to either (but not both) of the following destinations may be included: (1) an auction house or other place of sale or (2) the purchaser's place of business. The fair market value of the property for continued use of its location prior to displacement shall be ascertained by an appraisal secured by either the claimant or the Relocation Staff and concurred in by the other. It shall be made by either a qualified appraiser or valuation consultant. If the value of the property to be disposed of is so small'that the expense of the appraisal is not warranted the fair market value of the property'for continued use should be ascertained by either of the following methods: Through consultation with an equipment dealer, determine a value which reflects current used market value of the item or its nearest functional fair market value by multiplying the original cost of the item to the claumant (exclusive of installation) by the figure obtained by dividing (a) the period of the remaining useful life of the property at the date of removal by (b) the period of normal useful life of the property an the date of its acqui- sition by the'claimant. LIMITATIONS: No payment for direct loss of property For an item of personal property, or on any item of personal property for which compensation has otherwise been made, or written evidence of the loss which shall include appraisals, certified prices, copies of bills of sale, receipts, cancelled checks, copies of advertisements, offers to sell, auction documents, and other appropriate records, or a list of the items of machinery, equipment, trade fixtures, inventory, stock -in- trade, or other tangible personal property excluded from the appraisals of the real property. All personal property remaining on site for which a direct loss payment has been made becomes the property of, and the responsibility of the Relocation Property Manager. (e) Substitute Equipment A business concern or owner of outdoor advertising displays or signs may elect to replace with a comparable item, any item of personal property currently utilized in its operation but which is not to be moved. The amount of a relocation payment for Loving expenses in this case shall be the lesser of: The actual cost of the substitute equipment delivered and installed at the new location, less any proceeds received from the sale or trade -in of the old equipment, or, if a bona fide sale cannot be made, less the market value of the old equipment determined by an independent appraisal. The estimated cost to relocate the old equipment, and no payment for direct loss of property may be made for the equipment for which a substitute is allowed. (f) Outdoor Advertising Displays The owner of outdoor advertising displays or signs is subject to the provisions prescribed under Title III Uniform Real Property Acquisition Policy, Section 302(a) and (b); or other such provisions as may be prescribed by the head of the Federal agency who is authorized to establish such regulations and procedures as he may determine to be necessary to assure that the payments and assistance authorized by this Act shall be administered in a manner which is fair and reasonable, and as uniform as practicable. Owners of outdoor advertising displays or signs are not eligible for an In -Lieu of Moving and Related Expense Payment and such owners are advised to consult the METRO Relocation Office to determine.current eligibility requirements. -23- (g) Storage Costs and Temporary Moves General: A relocation payment for moving expenses may include actual reasonable storage costs incurred by a business concern that either (1) does not immediately re- establish at a new location, or (2) although re- establishing at a new location, cannot cnmp it- move until the total required space becomes available. Limitations: Time Limits: If METRO determines that storage costs, including insurance while in storage, are necessary in connection with relocation, such costs shall generally be limited to a period of six (6) months. The 6 -month period may be extended if the local agency determines that a longer period is necessary. A payment for storage may not include any item(s) stored in or upon property owned or occupied by the claimant unless it is determined that such storage is justified; or any item(s) removed from storage, even if re- placed by other items. Storage costs compensable as a moving expense must be reduced accordingly for any item(s) removed and by any items subsequently re- • ;; • placed by substitute equipment. Loss of Property: No payment for direct loss of property may be made for any item(s) placed in storage, except when the move to storage is made because of an emergency and (a) the claimant is not permitted time to determine the items that he wishes to dispose of, and (b) it is determined that the claimant has moved expeditiously to remove from storage those items on which he intends to file a claim for direct loss of property. (h) Temporary Move A business concern that makes a temporary move • shall be compensated for both the temporary move and the subsequent move to a permanent location. -24- Business Concerns and Nonprofit Organizations The move is necessitated (1) by the case of an emergency (2) the business concern or nonprofit organization is subject to economic hardship, or its employees to conditions hazardous to health and safety, or (3) in extra- ordinary situation where in the absence of such a temporary move, the progress of the project or program would be substantially delayed. 7. SEARCHING FOR A REPLACEMENT LOCATION A relocation payment for moving expenses may include actual reason- able expenses incurred by a business in searching for a replacement location and may include: Transportation expenses within a radius of fifty (50) miles from the boundaries of the jurisdiction•in which the displacement will occur, at a mileage rate not to exceed the amount normally paid by the Relocation Office for travel of its staff including meals and lodging while away from home; and, an amount to cover the reasonable time spent in searching, based on the hourly wage rate of the business concern's representative, but not to exceed $10 per hour, or reasonable fees paid to a real estate agent or broker to locate a replace- ment site or operation. The maximum total amount of compensation for the searching expenses, as identified above, is limited to $500 unless it is determined that a greater amount is justified. Expenses incurred by the business in searching for a replacement location must be supported by receipted invoices. 8. PAYMENT IN LIEU OF MOVING AND RELATED EXPENSES Amount of Payment: A Payment in Lieu of Moving and Related Expenses shall be equal to the average annual net earnings of the business concern or farm operation, but not less than $2,500 nor more than $10,000. For the purposes of this payment, a profitmaking business owned by a nonprofit organization shall be treated as a business, not as a nonprofit organization. Payment to a nonprofit -25- organization which does not operate for profit, shall be in the amount of $2,500 (except to the owner of an outdoor advertising display). a. Average Annual Net Earnings Average annual net earnings generally shall be computed on the basis of the net earnings of the business or farm operation, before Federal, State, and local income taxes, during the two taxable years immediately preceding displacement (or if the business or farm was not in operation that long, such other period as may be approved). Average annual net earnings include salaries, wages, or other compensation paid by the business or farm operation to the owner, his spouse, or his dependents. If it is determined that the 2 -year period immediately preceding displacement is not equitable for establishing earnings, the period used for determining average annual net earnings shall be a substitute period determined to be most representative. A "representative" substitute period must be one during which the business conducted its operation at the site in the project area from which it was displaced. Nonprofit organizations eligible for a. relocation payment for moving and related expenses may elect to receive a Payment in Lieu of Moving and Related Expenses in the amount of $2,500. For designation of organizations deemed to be nonprofit concerns, exempt from Federal income taxation, see 26 U.S. Code, Sections 501 et. seq. b. Eligibility Requirements A displaced business concern, nonprofit organization or farm operation may be eligible for a Payment in Lieu of Moving and RElated Expenses if it is determined that: It cannot be relocated without a substantial• loss of its existing patronage based on a consideration of all pertinent circumstances, including such factors as the type of business conducted, the nature of the clientele, and the relative importance to the displaced business of its present and proposed location, and the business contributes materially to the income of the displaced owner. -26- Also, the business is not part of a commercial enterprise having another establishment which is not being acquired for the Project, and . which is engaged in the same or similar business. c. Determination of Number of Businesses Separate legal entities will not each be entitled to a payment under this paragraph, if they actually constitute only one business. If the claimant cannot agree on the number of businesses involved, the. METRO office shall be consulted. In determining whether two or more legal entities constitute a business, the following factors, among others, are the extent to which the same premises and equipment are shared; and, to what extent substantially identical or intimately interrelated business functions are pursued and business and financial affairs are commingled. 'The extent to which the entities are held out to the public, and to those customarily dealing with such entities as one business, and the extent to•which the same person or closely related persons own, control, or manage the affairs of the entities. d. Inspection of Property The business concern must permit the inspection, at reasonable times, of the property at the site from which the move is anticipated. e. Exception to Requirements If the business concern does not provide the timely notice as described above, a relocation payment may not be made unless it is determined by the Relocation Staff that there was reasonable cause for failure of the business to give the required notice. In such a case, the Relocation Staff must verify the facts pertaining to the move or disposition of personal property and fully document the file to explain the basis for the action taken. -27- C. PHYSICAL STANDARDS The METRO will assure the availability of comparable, decent, safe and sanitary housing, adequate in size to meet the needs of each family and individual being displaced. Decent, safe, and sanitary housing is housing which is in sound, clean, and weathertight condition, in conformance with local housing codes, and which meets the following criteria: 1. HOUSEKEEPING UNIT: A housekeeping unit must include a kitchen with fully usable sink; a stove, or connection for same (according to local codes and customs); a separate and complete bathroom; hot and cold running water in both the bath and the kitchen; an adequate and safe wiring system for lighting and other electrical services; and heating as required by climatic conditions and local codes. For purposes of comparability, these are minimum requirements, not limitations. 2. NONHOUSEKEEPING UNIT: A nonhousekeeping unit must meet local housing code standards for boarding houses, hotels, or other congregate living. The standards must include requirements relating to space and sanitary facilities. D. ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS A replacement dwelling unit will be in a suitable location which is: 1. Not subject to unreasonable environmental conditions, natural or manmade. 2. Not generally less desirable than the location of the displaced person's former dwelling with respect to public utilities and services, schools, churches, recreation, transportation, and other public and commercial facilities. 3. Accessible to the displaced person's present or potential place of employment. - E. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY STANDARDS All replacement housing for local agency listings and referrals must be demonstrated to be open to all, regardless of race, color, religion, or national origin, in a manner consistent with-Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, -28- 1 and available without discrimination based on source of income (e.g. welfare). The acceptable criteria would include (a) housing development of neighborhoods with racially and /or ethnically mixed occupancy. F. REPLACEMENT SITES The displacement from the Project area will have negligible effect on the housing availability in the area, due to the total number of housing units in the overall replacement area in relation to the small number if displacements. There will be ten (10) residential units displaced. All but one of the resi- dential units are tenant - occupied. An in -depth survey of the Tukwila /Riverton Heights /Skyway area realtors indicates there are 20 to 30 residential units, apartments and single family, from one to three bedrooms, available for rent at most any given time. Experience has shown that a large percentage of displaced renters use the Relocation Down - Payment benefit to purchase a home. Listings for sale from Real Estate Multiples, Inc., and SW Multiples, Inc. indicate the organizations have 821 homes listed for sale in the adjacent areas. This is in addition to any homes for sale by owners. A large percentage of these homes have existing FHA or VA loans or commitments and therefore have been inspected for conformance to standards. Replacement housing for each family or individual will be located on a • confidential, individual basis using displacees' priority for low- income housing where it is appropriate. The dwelling units from which the families are being displaced are older, somewhat substandard units in a commercially - zoned area. With the application of the relocation benefits, the displacees should be housed in more desirable units. Due to the small number of units being displaced and the total units in the area, there will be no lead time required to carry out a timely, orderly, and humane relocation program. There are just two businesses being displaced. A survey has shown there is commercially -zoned space in the Tukwila /South Center/ • -29- Riverton Heights;Highline areas. See appendices for documentation of housing availibility. -30- G. REFERRAL PROCEDURES AND ASSISTANCE 1. Referral Procedures: The referral procedure will be essentially one of personal contact and assistance by the Relocation Staff. Individuals and families who are apparently eligible for low -rent public housing will be referred to the Housing Authority and the Housing Authority will be re- quested to keep the Relocation Office informed about the disposition of the referral. If necessary, the Relocation Staff will assist individuals and families in supplying the Housing Authority with the information which it requires in assessing the application. In addition, the Housing Authority will be requested to keep the Relocation Office informed of any current or pending vacancies so that the housing unit can be'utilized by a displaced individual or family. Those individuals and families who expect to relocate in the private housing market will be notified by the Relocation Staff of vacancy listings, and arrangements will be made for the inspection of the vacancy by the individual or family. If necessary, transportation will be provided for the inspection, and a member of the Relocation Staff will accompany the individual or the family, if requested, or if it is deemed avisable. Individuals and families will be referred only to vacancies which are decent, safe, and sanitary, in compliance with relocation standards, and in reasonable conformity with the family's needs and desires. The Relocation Staff will continue to provide further referrals when a family's rejection of a housing unit is reasonable or when they are unable to obtain the unit. Complete and accurate records of referrals of individuals and families, and the result thereof, will be maintained on the Site Occupant Relocation Records. Housing and financial counseling will be provided by agency or referral. -31- The Relocation Staff will not make referrals to housing units which are scheduled for clearance in planning or execution by other government activity. 2. Resident Assistance: The Relocation Staff will provide assistance to prospective homeowners in obtaining mortgage financing, including helping in the preparation and submission of purchase offers, obtaining credit reports and verifying employment where this is necessary to effect the purchase, and making any other arrangements with lending institutions to facilitate the obtaining of loans, particularly for minority -group and low- income families and individuals. Families and individuals who desire to become homeowners will be advised of their priority to purchase HUD- acquired properties. The Relocation Staff will provide counseling to prospective homeowners in accordance with HUD guidelines under Section 235 of of the National Housing Act. Referral will be made to HUD- approved local' counseling agencies. The Relocation Staff shall assist families and individuals in obtaining priority for admission to rental and sales housing, particularly HUD- assisted low and moderate - income housing developed under Sections 221(d)(2) BMIR, 235, 236 and Rent Supplement Housing. The HUD Area or Insuring Office will be contacted for information and listings. Families and individuals will be advised of FHA and VA- acquired properties that may be available. Referral will be made to FHA and the VA Regional Offices for information and listings. 3. Assistance to Business Concerns, Nonprofit Organizations and Farms: In addition,'material providing *special information to displaced businesses will be prepared and distributed by the Relocation Staff. The Staff will offer full assistance to businessmen in the preparation of the forms and documentation necessary to support relocation payment claims, and assist in the preparation with the Small Business Administration under provisions of special legislation favorable to businesses forced to move from urban renewal project areas. The local agency shall provide information relative to property values, growth potentials in various areas, zoning ordinances, and other general and -32- economic information which may assist in enabling the business to make informed decisions relative to relocation. The names and addresses of real estate agencies, brokers and boards in or near the Project area, to which business concerns may be referred for assistance in obtaining commercial space will be ,listed by the Relocation Staff. However, additional services are available since personnel of the Relocation Staff, experienced in business relocation problems, will review the needs of firms being displaced, and will assist in locating and referring them to facilities and sites, preferably, and if at all possible, within the same general area and adequate for present needs and future growth. In order to accomplish this, the proprietors of commercial establishments will be requested to prepare outlines of the time and size facility needed for their respective purposes. This - information will be circulated among real estate brokers in the community who may be of help in locating suitable accommodations for the business. 4. Assistance to Persons in Area Adjacent to Project: Relocation assistance shall be made available to any person occupying property adjacent to the Project who, in the determination of the local agency, is caused substantial economic injury or threat to his health or personal safety because of the Project. Such persons are not eligible for relocation payments. 5. Minority Group Policy: All housing in the Project area will be available without discrimination. The policies of the Local Housing Authorities include non - discrimination in granting admissions. The City of Seattle adopted a comprehensive open housing ordinance in May, 1968. King County had previously adopted an open housing law. Families and individuals shall be advised to refer to the local agency any problems experienced in obtaining housing or other accommodations. It is the obligation of the Relocation Staff to assist in resolving problems which arise in connection with availability or accessibility of accommodations whether or not the displaced person was referred to the accommodation by the Agency. During the relocation work, the following practices will be observed: Referrals to housing will be made on the basis of the individual's or family's interest and ability to pay without regard to race. Non -white individuals and families will be encouraged to seek the best housing they can reasonably afford and not to confine their efforts to traditional non -white neighborhoods. If prohibited discrimination is encountered, residents will be helped to secure the services of the Human Rights Comiission and Legal Services Center. 6. The Elderly: Any low- income elderlies would be eligible for public housing and other programs to house low- income persons. Because they have displacement priority in public housing, relocating any of the elderly does not appear to be a problem. Residents will be provided . services described below for low- income persons, as well as case work services by the appropriate agencies where health or emotional factors make relocation difficult. 7. Low - Income Residents: The Relocation Staff will give special attention to individuals and families who may be eligible for Public Assistance but who have not applied, as well' as those who have some .barrier to eligibility which may be overcome. Where establishing eligibility will require a lengthy and complex process, the family will be referred for case work services. Details in regard to the expected dates for availibility of Public Housing and Rent Supplement Housing will be supplied from the HUD and Housing Authorities. In cases where there is unemployment, . and /or lack of earning power, referrals will be made to the State Employment Service, Vocational Rehabilitation, the Seattle Opportunities Industrial Center (SOIC), and other agencies as may be appropriate. Every effort will be made to minimize hardships for residents -33- ._, <. ,. • -34- of the area. Services of health, welfare, and recreation organizations will be utilized, including Easter Seal aid program, which follows up on referral services and attempts to fill any gaps in the service area. 8. Standards for Displacees' Ability to Pay: The staff of the Re- location Office will make determinations with respect to ability to pay for housing, based primarily on family income. Families will not be expected to pay more than a gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) to gross income ratio of 1.4 or 30Z of their gross monthly income. For determinations relative to ability to purchase housing, family income, assets, and debts are evaluated in relation to monthly carrying costs and family ability to obtain mortgage financing. However, a family should not be expected to purchase a house which exceeds 2 -1/2 times the annual family income, and monthly carrying costs should not exceed 25% of the gross monthly income. The rent income ratio for. individuals may not exceed 33Z of the gross income for gross rent. 9. Housing Sources Contacted: Forman contact has been made with the various segments of the real estate industry (i.e. Seattle Real Estate Board, Apartment Operators' Association, Seattle Housing Authority, Brokers' Association, and other various indibidual real estate firms), and all have indicated their willingness to cooperate with the Relocation Staff in supplying assistance and information on housing, as it becomes available for displacees from the Project area. Listings of available rental and sale property will be obtained from realtors, owners, organizations, and newspaper advertisements. In addition, listings will include the names and addresses of real estate agencies, brokers, and boards in or near the Project area, which deal in property that may be appropriate as a relocation resource and which is available on a non - discriminatory basis. A system will be developed for maintaining listings of available properties on a current basis. Prior to listing housing, units will be in- spected to determine that they are standard. Information on the size, rental or sale price, and location of available units will be recorded and made available to families seeking referrals, as the need arises. The listings of the FHA and VA- repossessed housing will be made known to the Relocation Office by monthly publication, describing condition, sales price, location and the funds required to handle the purchase. Properties for sale or rent by private parties can be listed with the Relocation Office as an additional housing resource. Low -rent housing units of the Seattle Housing Authority and King County Housing Authority are public housing resources and. the Authorities' policies give preference to• eligible families displaced as a result of public action. Net income limits for eligibility for admission are as follows: 1 individual (elderly or disabled) $10,160 2- person families 11,620 3- person families 13,070 4- person families 14,520 5- person families 15,430 6- person families 16,340 7 or more 17,240 10. Inspection of Relocation Housing: Housing available for referral to site occupants will be inspected prior to referral to invididuals and families to assure that it is decent, safe, and sanitary. The Relocation Staff will inspect the dwellings of all self - relocating individuals and families as soon as . possible after the Relocation Office is aware than an individual or family plans to move. If the dwelling being considered is substandard, the Relocation Office wily so advise the individual or family, and offer the Staff's'assistance in -35- -36- finding a standard housing unit. However, if an individual or family does relocate in a substandard dwelling, the individual or family will be considered temporarily relocated and the name will be retained on the vacancy referral list. If the individual or family does not cooperate with the Relocation Staff and efforts to relocate the family in standard accommodations are to no avail, the Relocation Staff will make efforts toward bringing the housing unit into conformity with local codes. The results of all housing inspections will be recorded on a special for developed for this purpose. 11. Tracing of Self - Relocated Families: Families who move without notice or who do not leave a forwarding address will be traced by contacting the Post Office, utility companies, schools, employers, etc. After all reasonable efforts to find a family are exhausted and unsuccessful, the tracing of the family will be abandoned. The Site Occupant Relocation Record will be fully documented to indicate the contacts made in trying to locate the family. 12. Social Service to be Provided: All families and individuals shall be provided with ready, facilitated access to needed social services and counseling both prior to, and subsequent to relocation. Necessary services and counseling shall also be made available to those residents who do not move, whenever the need exists. The Relocation Office shall provide, or have provided, all necessary job, financial, educational, health, and other services and counseling needed and shall follow up to determine whether the services have been provided and adequately utilized. The Relocation Staff shall take whatever steps may be necessary to assure the provision and utilization of the services. 13. Agencies Contacted: Contact has been made with various public agencies who have given assurance that they will cooperate in a concerted effort to solve problems of individuals and families as they may occur. These agencies include, ........... . , ; ... .. ,c.:' � :._,r..r .�..:......_..... ...... . - _........ ., ...... ,. ,..r.. .. .� «».�. ._ ...... »....•..,.._..�...><,r.: ma- .w..+. <�.x. � Y:wii'tn:;.�`�Rti n.;ir, r,.. ,. ,`:; "� «. . but are not limited to: Housing Authority of King County Seattle Housing Authority Department of Housing & Community Development - County of King Department of Housing & Community Development - City of Seattle Other services as listed in the Health, Welfare and Recreation Services Directory will be utilized as needed. A family or individual requiring assistance of social or welfare agencies will be screened by the relocation specialists or community . services specialists and referred to the appropriate agency. It is planned that a combined group of representatives from these agencies will evaluate particular cases and suggest remedial action. A primary concern will be elderly persons who may be in need of financial as well as medical assistance. H. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES If a person believes he should be paid more than he receives, he may apply to the Director of METRO for a review of his case. A letter stating the facts in the case should be mailed to the Relocation Assistance Officer, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 821 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104. This letter should state all the facts, the reason why you believe this claim should be paid, and, or course, your name and correct address. This letter must be filed with the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle not later than thirty (30) days following the receipt by you of notification of rejection of a claim. IV. SIMARY AND FROJECTION A. Residential Displacement 1. Nine rental units and one owner - occupied house would be displaced by implementation of the proposed Tukwila Park and Ride Lot. Availability of comparable decent, safe and sanitary units for relocation is very good at this time. According to the various agency and real estate statistics, this situation should prevail for some time into the future. At time of acquisition, should there be any tenants in residence that are eligible for and interested in low income public housing, the Seattle Housing Authority, Renton Housing Authority and the King County Housing Authority all lave units in fairly close proximity to this area. Tenants on this site seem to be transitory in nature. There have been few elderly and few children in the immediate past and present. It is highly probable that the tenants in occupancy at this date will not be in residence when and if negotiations are initiated for the purchase of these properties. 2. Relocation of the lone owner /occupant should not present any great difficulty. There are many comparable houses available for sale in the immediate surrounding areas. Prices of houses seem to have decreased lately as have interest rates. Future trends are difficult to predict, but the consensus of opinion seems to point toward a fairly stable market. B. Business Displacement Three businesses will be affected by construction of the T Park and Ride Lot: 1. Ability Carpet Cleaners would be least affected by relocating their operation in -as -much as the building serves only as a location to clean and dry carpets. They are not dependent on drop -in trade. The -39- main attribute of this Tukwila site, besides the economic factor of minimum overhead, is that it is roughly centered in their trading area, which extends from Everett on the North to Auburn and Federal Way on the South. It also has the advantage of quick access to Interstate 5 and other main arterials. Availibility of other locations to continue this business would not seem to present a problem. It would probably mean that their overhead costs would increase, which could be offset by drop -in trade at ,a more advantageous locale. 2. Location is a vital factor for the tavern, which is owned. by Puzzo Land Development Co. of Woodinville. Their present site is situated in an unincorporated area of King County, which enables than to have card rooms and dancing. The tavern is presently closed for substantial renovation, cleaning and remodelling. This was a necessary move by Mr. Puzzo to recover and enhance the profitability of his business. The tavern is scheduled to be re- opened on or before September 1, 1983. As noted before, georgraphical location which will legally permit the present varied facets of operation will be paramount to a successful transition of this business. Quite a bit of search time will probably be expended in securing another site which will satisfy Mr. Puzzo's criteria. The actual physical relocation of this business would not present any particular problem. 3. Gas N Go, Inc., which owns the gas station and convenience store on the site will only suffer a partial take. The present operation would then be surrounded by the Park and Ride lot. The influx of many more potential customers parked in the immediate area should override any inconveniences which might be caused and substantially increase their volume of business. C. Nei,tnborhood Impact Conc'_usions which have been drawn by consultations with various . agencies and officials tend to reinforce the contention that the establish- ment of a Park and Ride lot on this site would have a fairly negligible neighborhood impact. Noise levels would not increase appreciably, given the site's proximity to the freeway. Increase of vehicle emissions would be minor. This would be offset by decreased traffic back -up at the freeway intersection. South Center School District's enrollment and bus routes should suffer little 'deleterious effect f om construction at this location. One of the parcels of the proposed site is in the City of Tukwila, but city officials expressed confidence that they could work with METRO Page I. 1 '• +i fyv ieN 1 ne lake huu:.P ballu4re Hume Echo Cove Haruour villa Bothell Northridge House tvorthlake house Northiroge 11 rat Paramount untHouse Cedarwood Briarwooa s / ON Park Lake Homes 1 Park Lake Homes 11 Boulevard Manor Normandy Park Brittany Park Casa Madrona Des Moines Federal Way Soulhridge House Campus Green Evergreen Court King's Court TACOMA PIERCE COUNTY Casa Juanita Juanita Terrace Juanita Creek Kirkland Slater Park Yardley Arms Riverton Terrace Munro Manor Renton Glenview Heights Kent • Cascade Apts. Valli•Kee Homes Valli-Kee Homes 11 Mardi Gras Springwood Apts. Appendix 1 SNOHOMISH COUNTY Bellevue Eastslde Terrace College Place Burndale Homes Auburn Gustaves Manor Wayland Arms Green River Homes I Green River Homes 11 Plaza Seventeen Firwood Circle Redmond Avondale Manor Forest Glen Forest Grove Eastridge House Issaquah Duvall Snoqualmie Pickering Court KING COUNTY Black Diamond Enumclaw Total Units Elderly Date of Units NORTHEND AREA OFFICE, BALLINGER HOMES 110 Units (10 Elderly) 1969 Ballinger Homes - N.E. Ballinger Way 70 Units (70 Elderly) 1969 Northridge House - North City 70 Units (70 Elderly) 1969 Paramount House - N.E. 145th, Lake City 70 Units (70 Elderly) 1970 Briarwood - Richmond Highlands 80 Units (60 Elderly) 1971 Hillsview - Sedro Woolley 70 Units (70 Elderly) 1972 The Lake House - Echo Lake 70 Units (70 Elderly) 1975 Northridge II - North City 4 Units ( 4 Elderly) 1981 Echo Cove - Echo Lake 5 Units ( 5 Elderly) 1981 Harbour Villa - Kenmore 38 Units (38 Elderly) 1981 Northlake House - Bothell EASTSIDE AREA OFFICE, EASTSIDE TERRACE 20 Units 1970 Avondale Manor - Redmond 80 Units (80 Elderly) 1970 Casa Juanita - Juanita 40 Units (40 Elderly) 1970 Forest Glen - Redmond 40 Units (40 Elderly) 1972 Eastridge House - Issaquah 50 Units ( 8 Elderly) 1980 Eastside Terrace - Bellevue 25 Units 1981 Cedarwood - Kingsgate 51 Units 1981 College Place - Bellevue 25 Units • 1981 Forest Grove - Redmond 5 Units ( 5 Elderly) 1981 Slater Park - Kirkland 30 Units 1982 Juanita Creek - Juanita 30 Units 1982 Juanita Terrace - Juanita SOUTHWEST AREA OFFICE, PARK LAKE HOMES 1 540 Units (142 Elderly) 1942 200'Units (97 Elderly) 1964 70 Units (70 Elderly) 1969 60 Units (30 Elderly) 1969 67 Units (67 Elderly) 1970 • 43 Units (43 Elderly) 1970 60 Units (60 Elderly) 1971 SOUTHEAST AREA OFFICE, SPRINGWOOD APARTMENTS 99 Units (30 Elderly) 1968 61 Units (61 Elderly) 1970 346 Units (57 Elderly) 1975 14 Units ( 9 Elderly) 1976 107 Units (14 Elderly) 1976 10 Units 1981 30 Units ( 4 Elderly) 1981 SOUTHEND AREA OFFICE, GREEN RIVER HOMES 1 60 Units (13 Elderly) 1952 60 Units (24 Elderly) 1958 67 Units (67 Elderly) 1968 (80 Elderly) 1970 ( 5 Elderly) 1971 ( 4 Elderly) 1971 (70 Elderly) 1971 (70 Elderly) 1973 (15 Elderly) 1981 1981 1981 (35 Elderly) 1982 80 Units 50 Units 50 Units 70 Units . 70 Units 15 Units 30 Units 30 Units 35 Units Construction Development Location 3,307 Units (1,707 Elderly) Park Lake Homes I - White Center Park Lake Homes II - White Center Boulevard Manor - Boulevard Park Riverton Terrace - Riverton Heights Yardley Arms - Hazel Valley Brittany Park - Normandy Park Munro Manor - Burien Valli -Kee Homes - Kent Mardi Gras - Kent Springwood Apts. - Kent Valli -Kee Homes II - Kent Cascade Apts. - Kent Glenview Heights - Renton Pickering Court - Snoquaimie Green River Homes I - Auburn Green River Homes II - Auburn Wayland Arms - Auburn Southridge House - Federal Way Burndale Homes - Auburn Firwood Circle - Auburn Plaza Seventeen - Auburn Casa Madrona - Olympia Campus Green - Federal Way Evergreen Court - Federal Way King's Court - Federal Way Gustaves Manor - Auburn Appendix 2 Section 8 Certificates King County Bellevue Low Income Housing Units Under Management of Housing Authority Public Housing F E T King County Bellevue Sedro Woolley 1,479 1,647 3,126 101 ' 0 101 20 60 80 1,600 1,707 3,307 1,020 547 1,567 63 53 116 1,083 600 1,683 Condominium Rentals King County 0 29 29 Total 2,683 2,336 5,019 Page 13 THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY CF KING NUMBER OF UNITS BY PROJECT AND BEDROOM SIZE WASH NO. PROJECT NAME 0 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL 2- 2 Green River Homes 0 8 28 16 8 0 60 2- 3 Green River Homes 0 8 30 18 4 0 60 2- 4 Park Lake Homes 0 48 343 133 12 0 536 2- 5 Park Lake Homes 0 50 50 75 23 0 198 2- 6 Wayland Arms 36 30 1 0 0 0 67 2- 7 Forest Glen 0 39 1 0 0 0 40 2- 8 Avondale Manor 0 0 4 10 6 0 20 2- 9 Valli Kee Homes 0 18 26 50 20 0 114 2 -10 Mardi Gras 0 60 1 0 0 0 61 2 -11 Plaza Seventeen 0 69 1 0 0 0 70 2 -12 Firwood Circle 0 •4 16 20 8 2 50 2 -13 Boulevard Manor. 0 '70 0 0 0 0 70 2 -15 Paramount House 42 27 1 0 0 0 , 70 2 -16 Northridge House I 42 27 1 0 0 0 70 2-17 Ballinger Homes 0 10 40 40 14 6 110 2 -18 Riverton Terrace 0 30 18 5 5 2 60 2 -19 Munro Manor 0 60 0 0 0 0 60 2 -20 Southridge House 0 80 0 0 0 0 80 2 -21 Casa Juanita 0 80 0 0 0 0 80 2 -22 Yardley Arms 0 67 0 0 0 0 67 2 -23 Briarwood • ,0'. 70 0 0 0 0 70 2 -24 Brittany Park 0 43 0 0 0 0 43 2 -25 Casa Madrona .0 69 1 0 0 0 70 2 -26 Burndale Homes 0 3 16 21 8 2 50 2 -28 Eastridge House 0 39 1 0 0 0 40 2 -29 Northridge House II 0 69 1 0 0 0 70 2 -31 The Lake House 0 69 1 0 0 0 70 2 -34 Springwood Apts. 0 0 126 166 54 0 346 2 -35 Cascade Apts. 0 8 52 48 0 0 108 2 -36 Eastside Terrace 0 8 32 10 0 0 50 2 -37 Glenview Heights 0 0 6 4 0 0 10 2 -38 Evergreen Court 0 0 22 8 0 0 30 , 2 -39 College Place 0 0 37 14 0 0 51 2 -41 Forest Grove 0 0 18 7 0 0 25 2 -42 Kings Court 0 0 21 9 0 0 30 2 -43 Pickering Court 0 4 17 9 0 0 30 2 -46 Cedarwood Apts. 0 0 22 3 0 0 25 2 -40 Gustaves Manor 0 35 0 0 0 0 35 2 -47 Juanita Court 0 0 25 5 0 0 .30 2-48 Juanita Terrace 0 0 25 5 0 0 30 2 -49 Wells Wood 0 0 25 5 0 0 30 Appendix 3 3/83 UNITS UNDER MANAGEMENT 0 High-rises for elderly • Town Houses for families In Garden Communities, families and elderly Leased Housing, families • and elderly ID High-rise for the handicapped • Morrison Hotel, transients cs Central Area Public Development Association Rehab Office Southeast Seattle Rehab Office 1 • • : • • • • • * . :• • • • • • • • • • Ba l l ; rd Hou : • • • ' • • Green Lake Plaz • • . . . 0 • ,• • . ••• •• • • . . : .. ; . • • • 0 • .• University House University Weat . ••• . :• • .• • . • • • . . • . • • . ,,, • . ';;•"• ^ 1 •;4'. ,...'. • ,,. .. .. . . • •• • . • • ,, V : , . ("P'•-•k. -Aa..; West Town Vieviay;. • ••• ..• f: 0 • • % ifr4 • • ■ e . e‘.... '... , . '. . Queen Anne Heigh? Viii:' • .. Center West • Capitol Park 0 Denny Terrace . 0 0 • • • • •• • ' • c•I ' 0 ••:, r-N••Bay View Tower . • • . • • %Her:8rd Court• .-.......,•'.1.1*.i. ...••, Bell Tower 5••• ••• • OZ ••2• • . r --- Olive Ridge ,kri.: • . . 1/4_,SunSet HOuse I •. • , Cf: • I?: • .• • ... Hotel • .„ • • i• i • ' • -. ., — Internationaki ' .- ' :' -.'.'... ' _. '•- Terrace 4 '17 , 7 17:"! .. •:••„1,I.--' :::: ... • „ N.. .2 p. . __L. • %.. A'.....? Oeacon Tower 4... .. : V . . ,. ,-- : • * . -4.It'. • .. Center • •• i.;..6 • iis . • . .r.. • • .'i. F. ' ' '' ' ' ' ' '''' .. " .. "1 . . • . • • • • *•;'..':. .'.'::''.' ' . kl..- • • ••'...• . • . . ii, ..• ,.. P i. , Rainier Vista ', ••• • • • • . • ..: • . :,•• ' ..., t •• r •• • • . . .,•,.• V. ■., N, N... .. •°: .:. •••• :. •• k; ". • ..• ...... . '.„,• • :r. I , • 3 ',.. 44 .' Cal-Mor Circle • t .1 :• Holly • :•• 131 •1 r • •• • tt • • .• o • • 1. ,.., •• • High Point • 'N ik. Park •• • • High Point Couir 11-,, ` . :.• " .• .. • • / • • (ThHolly ••.? •-•/Court • • • , • • 0 Lictonwood • • •••• • • • • • • . , • • :. - a • . • • It \ i a • • . . r A , -. ":" • • • • .1 .# • • • • ' ../1. l '' to ',■ e . ._, V.... .. ki_ • % • • ..1■ • • ; • • . . _ • .? 4., • • • • . " .. ',I • • • • • .• • .1 , • '. . • „ • • • • • .. • : ' “••••;:, •••• .• . -•-•;,.... . • . „ 0••• k :, • ••• • •• Appendix 8 • 0* • • • • 0 To•Courl • •• • • • • • • • •• Roxbury House Roxbury Village Jackson Park House . Jackson Park Village ............. t • • • .• Like City House0. • .. • Lake City Village t: ••• X . Cqdarvafs HOUSIP Cedarvale Village •• • Barton Place SE=PTEMBER 30, 1982 ame Ballard House Barton Place Bay View Tower Beacon Tower Bell Tower CaI -Mor Circle Capitol Park Cedarvale House Cedarvale Village Center Park Center West Denny Terrace Green Lake Plaza Harvard Court High Point High Point Court Holly Court Holly Park International Terrace Jackson Park House Jackson Park Village ?.fferson Terrace Lake City House Lake City Village Leased Housing Lictonwood Morrison Hotel Olive Ridge Olympic West Queen Anne Heights Rainier Vista Roxbury House Roxbury Village Scattered -Site Sunset House Tri -Court University House University West West Town View Yesler Terrace *Acquired 1974 Address 2445 N.W. 57th Street 9201 Rainier Avenue S. 2614 Fourth Avenue 1311 S. Massachusetts 2215 First Avenue 6420 California Ave. S.W. 525 14th Avenue E. 11050 8th Avenue N.E. 11050 8th Avenue N.E. 2121 26th Avenue S. 533 3rd Avenue W. 100 Melrose Avenue E. 505 N.E. 70th Street 610 Harvard Avenue E. 3000 S.W. Graham Street 6339 34th Avenue S.W. 3804 S. Myrtle 7001 32nd Avenue S. 202 6th Avenue S. 14396 30th Avenue N.E. 14396 30th Avenue N.E. 800 Jefferson Street 12546 33rd Avenue N.E. 12546 33rd Avenue N.E. 120 6th Avenue North 9009 Greenwood Avenue N. 509 Third Avenue 1700 17th Avenue 110 W. Olympic Place 1212 Queen Anne Avenue N. 4500 Empire Way S. 9455 27th Avenue S.W. 9455 27th Avenue S.W. 120 6th Avenue North 2521 1st Avenue 720 N. 143rd 4700 12th Avenue N.E. 4544 7th Avenue N.E. 1407 Second Avenue W. 903 E. Yesler Way Year Built 1969 1971 1978 1971 1970 1969 1971 1971 1971 '1969 1969 1969 1970 1969 1942 1969 1979 1942 1972 1970 1970 1967 1971 1971 1971 1910* 1969 1971 1971 1942 1971 1971 1980 1971 1972 1971 1978 1941 AppWndix 9 Type of Housing Elderly Elderly Elderly Elderly Elderly Elderly Elderly Elderly Family Handicapped Elderly Elderly Elderly Elderly Family & Elderly Elderly Elderly Family & Elderly Elderly Elderly Family Elderly Elderly Family Family & Elderly Elderly Single Elderly Elderly Elderly Family 15 Elderly Elderly Family Family Elderly Elderly Elderly Elderly Elderly Family & Elderly Number of Units 80 91 100 109 120 75 126 118 24 150 92 222 130 81 750 75 97 898 100 72 41 300 116 16 a098 81 250 107 76 53 496 151 60 530 82 87 102 114 59 607 8.936 5 600 STEWART STREET 1 SEATTLE WASHINGTON •1101 1 1206) 624.3980 SEATTLE /EVERETT /TACOMA, WASHINGTON Appendix 10 Vachon 9x070 Bothell 98011 Kirkland 98033 Renton 98053 98031 Redmond 98052 Issaquah 98027 Maple Vah.y 98038 • Federal Way 98003 ZIP CODE AREAS King County FE DER. ! K)\ !E I_(), \\ !i, \NK Auburn 98002 Woodinville 98072 KING COUNTY * PIERCE COUNTY .t Appendix 11 St OHOMISH COUNTY .— ._. ~.r._.`. KING COUNTY — — — • • Duvall 98019 Carnation Hobart 98025 Ray.nsdal. 98051 Black Diamond 98010 Enumclaw 98022 98014 Fall City 98024 Snoqualmie 98055 E.S.M. HOUSING VACANCY SURVEY The Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle sponsors Housing Vacancy Surveys for selected housing markets in the Twelfth Federal Home Iran Bank District.* Surveys are conducted under an interagency agreement between the U.S. Postal Service and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. SURVEY METHODOLOGY The Housing Vacancy Surveys are administered by U.S. mail carriers, under the supervision of the local postmaster, as they cover their residential delivery routes. The carrier reports, by type of housing unit, the following information: 1. The total number of units on the route; 2. The number of units which would normally receive delivery but are vacant as of the survey date; 3. The number of new units that could receive delivery but have never been occupied; and 4. The number of units under construction as of the date of the survey. The postmaster reports the number of housing units which are under construction in areas not receiving carrier service. The raw survey data for the Twelfth District are compiled, verified and analyzed at the direction of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle. The survey represents a complete canvass of an area rather than a sample survey, therefore, sampling error is not a factor in survey accuracy. Survey accuracy can be affected, however, by errors resulting from data collection or reporting. The survey relies on reports of postal carriers rather than specially trained enumerators. To minimize survey error, the reports are reviewed and edited for logical consistency. The following are important elements to be noted of the data reported: 1. The survey provides data on single - family and multi - family units including those under construction, and mobile home units. It does not include stores, offices, commercial or industrial facilities, hotels, motels, boarding houses, dormitories, institutional facilities, boarded -up units or those units receiving bulk delivery. 2. The data are reported only for city, rural and auxiliary routes. 3. The data are reported by housing type (detached housing, attached housing and mobile homes) rather than by tenure (owner - occupied or renter-occupied). Therefore, all detached housing is reported as single- family housing whether or not it is owner or renter- occupied; all attached housing is reported as multi-family housing whether or not it is a condominium or a rental unit. 4. Statistics reported for the total SMSA are most reliable because of potential individual survey errors. Thus, the less aggregate the level of geographic coverage, the greater the probability of error. 5. Housing Vacancy Surveys are not directly comparable to the Postal Vacancy Surveys previously published by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development due to different definitions for single - family and multi - family units. * Twelfth District: Alaska. Guam. Hawaii, Idaho. Montana. Oregon. l.'tan, uvashington.'%'yoming Appendix 12 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF SEATTLE Contact: Connie Gowan Research & Industry Development Department (206) 624 -3980 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE SEATTLE /EVERETT /TACOMA HOUSING VACANCY SURVEY The March 1983 Housing Vacancy Survey reported a slight decrease in total vacancies in the Seattle- Everett and Tacoma SMSAs (King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties, respectively). The overall vacancy rate of 3% was down just slightly from March 1982. This is the second highest rate in the survey's history but the first over- all decrease since January 1979. Snohomish County reported the highest rate of 3.8 %, followed by Pierce County at 3.2% and King County at 2.8 %. Major vacancy rate changes occurred in Redmond (a two percentage point increase to 5.2 %) and Federal Way (a 2.4 percentage point drop to 3.2 %); both cities are located in King County. The vacancy rate for single- family units increased,in all three counties to an average of 2 %, compared to 1.8% in 1982. This was the highest single - family vacancy rate yet recorded by this survey. Cities with large rate changes include the following: Mercer Island (King County) rose to 2.6% and Puyallup (Pierce County) to 2.9 %, up from 1.4% and 1.9 %, respectively in 1982; Federal Way (King County) dropped a full percentage point to 2% and Sumner (Pierce County) fell to 1.6 %, compared to 3% and 2.5 %, respectively, reported the previous year. • The only category to show a decrease was multi - family. The 1983 Survey reported an average rate of 5.6 %, a decrease from the 1982 rate of 6.2 %. Snohomish County recorded the highest multi - family vacancy rate at 8.7 %, followed by King County at 5.3% and Pierce County at 5.2% (9.1 %, 6.1% and 5.1 %, respectively, in 1982). The highest vacancy rates were in Redmond (13.9 %), Everett (11.5 %) and Kent (10 %). The overall vacancy rate for mobile homes increased to 2.4 %, up from 2.1% the pre- vious year. Snohomish County rose a full percentage point to 3.3% and Pierce County increased slightly to 2.3 %. King County remained unchanged at 2 %. Appendix 13 Survey Single- Multi- Mobile Delivery Area Date Total Family Family Home Seattle* Auburn Bellevue VACANCY HISTORY (Percent of Units Vacant) Mar. 1983 2.5 1.6 4.4 2.4 Mar, 1982 2.5 1.4 4.7 2.1 Feb. 1981 1.8 1.0 3.2 2.0 Feb. 1980 1.4 1.0 2.1 0.4 Jan. 1979 1.4 1.0 2.2 1.6 Apr. 1978 1.7 1.1 3.0 0.7 Feb. 1977 2.1 1.3 4.0 2.4 Feb. 1976 2.1 1.5 3.6 2.6 Mar. 1983 3.7 2.0 9.3 1.4 Mar. 1982 3.2 1.6 7:9 2:2 Feb. 1981 1.9 1.1 4.8 0.6 Feb. 1980 1.0 0.8 1.7 1.0 Jan. 1979 1.5 1.2 2.5 1.0 Feb. 1978 1.8 1.1 4.0 1.9 Feb. 1977 2.5 1.2 6.8 6.6 Feb. 1976 2.3 1.6 5.4 2.4 Federal Way Mar. 1983 3.2 2.0 5.8 2.8 Mar. 1982 5.6 3.0 11.3 1.8 Feb. 1981 2.2 1.0 4.8 1.5 Feb. 1980 1.4 1.1 2.0 1.1 Jan. 1979 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 Feb. 1978 2.2 0.9 8.3 .1.1 Feb. 1977 3.0 1.1 11.4 1.7 Feb. 1976 1.9 1.5 4.9 1.2 Mar. 1983 3.1 1.8 5.6 0.0 Mar. 1982 3.9 1.6 8.4 3.8 Feb. 1981 1.7 0.9 3.4 0.0 Feb. 1980 1.1 0.8 1.9 3.7 Jan. 1979 0.9 0.6 1.8 1.3 Feb. 1978 1.5 0.8 3.3 4.2 Feb. 1977 2.0 1.1 4.5 16.0 Feb. 1976 1.6 0.7 4.4 0.0 Bothell Mar. 1983 2.6 2.3 5.9 1.2 Mar. 1982 3.7 1.9 18.5 2.4 Feb. 1981 1.0 0.6 3.7 2.1 Feb. 1980 0.7 ! 0.5 2.5 1.0 Jan. 1979 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.8 Feb. 1978 0.6 0.5 2.3 0.5 Feb. 1977 0.8 0.6 3.3 1.4' Feb. 1976 0.9 0.7 3.6 1.8 * Data is compiled at zip code aggregates which are not necessarily coterminous with city boundaries, therefore, our estimates are comparable with census vacancy estimates. Appendix 14 Delivery Area Renton VACANCY HISTORY (Continued) (Percent of Units Vacant) Survey Single- Multi- Mobile Date Total Family Family Home Mar. 1983 3.1 1.7 7.3 3.2 Mar. 1982 3.3 1.3 9.2 0.6 Feb. 1981 1.4 0.6 4.1 1.4 Feb. 1980 0.8 0.6 1.6 0.5 Jan. 1979 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.1 Feb. 1978 - - - Feb. 1977 1.1 0.8 2.7 0.9 Feb. 1976 1.4 1.0 4.2 2.1 King County Total Mar. 1983 2.8 1.8 5.3 2.0 Mar. 1982 3:0 1.6 6.1 2.0 Feb. 1981 1.7 0.9 3.5 1.6 Feb. 1980 1.3 0.9 2.2 0.7 Jan. 1979 1.2 0.9 2.1 1.3 Apr. 1978 1.6 1.0 3.2 1.2 Feb. 1977 2.0 1.1 4.2 3.0 Feb. 1976 1.9 1.4 3.9 3.0 Gig Harbor Puyallup Steilacoom Tacoma Mar. 1983 3.3 2.5 5.3 3 1 Mar. 1982 3.0 2.2 5.2 3,3 Feb. 1981 2.4 1.5 4.9 2,3 Feb. 1980 2.1 1.3 4.2 2.9 Jan. 1979 2.2 1.4 4.4 2,9 Mar. 1978 2.2 1.4 4.5 1,6 Feb. 1977 2.6 1.4 6.0 3.4 Feb. 1976 2.5 1.6 5.3 2,6 Mar. 1983 2.4 2.4 3.1 1.6 Mar. 1982 3.3 3.0 5.6 2.0 Feb. 1981 2.2 1.8 5.7 1.3 Feb. 1980 2.8 2.0 8.9 2.5 Jan. 1979 2.3 1.6 6.3 4.1 Mar. 1983 3.4 2.9 6.8 2.8 Mar. 1982 2.7 1.9 7.3 2.2 Feb. 1981 1.6 0.9 5.0 1.3 Feb. 1980 1.8 1.0 5.6 2.1 Jan. 1979 1.4 1.0 4.0 0.7 Feb. 1978 1.3 0.7 4.7 0.9 Feb. 1977 1.3 0.8 4.9 1.7 Feb. 1976 1.4 0.9 7.7 1.6 Mar. 1983 4.6 1.8 9.8 - Mar. 1982 3.0 1.4 6.8 - Feb. 1981 3.8 0.4 10.4 - Feb. 1980 4.0 1.7 8.2 - Jan. 1979 1.5 0.6 3.3 - Feb. 1978 0.5 0.8 0.0 - Feb. 1977 0.1 0.1 0.0 - Feb. 1976 1.7 0.3 6.4 - Appendix 15 1 Delivery Area VACANCY HISTORY (Continued) (Percent of Units Vacant) Survey Single- Multi- Mobile Date Total Family Family Home Total Survey Area Mar. 1983 3.0 2.0 5.6 2.4 Mar. 1982 3.1 1.8 6.2 2.1 Feb. 1981 1.9 1.1 3.8 1.8 Feb. 1980 1.5 1.0 6.2 1.6 Jan. 1979, 1.4 1.0 2.6 1.4 Feb. 1978 1.7 1.1 3.4 1.2 Feb. 1977 2.0' 1.2 4.5 2.8 Feb. 1976 1.9 1.4 4.1 2.6 Note: New units were not included in the vacancy rate from 1976 through 1981. However, the vacancy rate calculations from 1982 on contain new units. Appendix 16 SURVEY DAVE: 02/25/83 IHRU 03/12/83 SURVEY AREA / ZIP CODE KING COUNTY AUBURN FEDERAL MAT SEAITLE • ZIP CODE 98101 ZIP CODE 98102 ZIP CODE 98103 ZIP CODE 98104 ZIP C00E 98105 ZIP CODE 98106 ZIP CODE 98107 ZIP CODE 98108 ZIP CODE 98109 ZIP CODE A8110 ZIP CODE 98112 ZIP CODE 98115 FE0E6AL HOME LOAN BANK 0.1 226 1.2 48 0.3 7 SURVEY DATE: 02/28/91 THBU 01/12/83 fEDE1AL HOME LOAN BIMK Of 5E11TLE SEATTLE - EVERETT- TACOMA, WA HOUSING VACANCY SURVEY SURVEY AREA / ZIP CODE KING COUNTY SEATTLE ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP 7IP ZIP 7IP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP TIP TOTAL SEATTLE TOTAL KING COUNTY SNOHOMISH COUNTY ARLINGTON EDMONDS CODE 98116 CODE 98117 COOS 98118 CODE 98119 CODE 98121 CODE 98122 CODE 98125 CODE 98126 CODE 98133 CODE 98134 CODE 98116 CODE 98144 CODE 98146 CODE 98148 CODE 98155 CODE 98166 CODE 98168 CODE 98177 CODE 98178 CODE 98188 CODE 98199 EVEREIT ZIP CODE 98201 ZIP CODE 98201 ZIP CODE 98204 ZIP CODE 98205 ZIP C00E 98275 TOTAL EVERETT LYNNN000 NARYSVILLE MONROE 98223 98020 98036 98270 98272 MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 98043 TOTAL UNITS (CONTINUED] (CONTINUED) 9.450 12.280 14.038 9.611 2.408 12.054 13.445 7.580 15.295 183 6.296 9.464 8.716 5.053 13.573 7.921 11.183 7.131 7.668 14.516 8.687 109.671 USED NUMBER PCT 196 207 454 194 226 328 164 270 210 0 147. 282 193 59 115 109 287 93 149 374 178 1.614 534.304 12.070 6.092 132 17.705 332 11.039 617 9.864 439 14.000 138 3.268 72 1.263 16 39.434 2.002 18.510 435 11.424 408 1.246 98 6.519 194 ALL HOUSING TYPES VACSNT NEV NUMBER PCT ■-• 101/11•••• UNOER CONSTRUCTION NUMBER PCI NUMBER PCI 2.1 25 0.3 221 2.3 15 0.2 1.7 4 0.1 211 1.7 21 0.2 3.2 27 0.2 481 3.4 15 0.1 2.0 49 0.5 243 2.5 10 0.1 9.4 0 0.0 226 9.4 0 0.0 2.1 13 0.1 341 2.e 36 0.3 1.2 16 0.1 18C 1.3 160 1.0 3.6 14 0.2 2(4 1.1 3 0.1 1.4 135 0.9 345. 2.3 193 1.3 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2.3 1 0.1 148 2.4 5 0.1 1.0 21 0.2 3C5 3.2 10 0.1 2.2 3 0.1 196 2.2 9 0.1 1.2 16 0.3 75 1.5 103 2.0 0.6 90 0.7 2C5 1.5 89 0.7 1.4 9 0.1 118 1.5 106 1.3 2.5 9 0.1 296 2.6 21 0.2 1.' 12 0.2 105 1.5 10 0.1. 1.9 115 1.5 264 3.4 4 0.1 2.6 195 1.3 5E9 3.9 34 0.2 2.0 ' 44 0.5 222 2.6 11 0.1 2.1 1.244 0.4 7.616 2.5 1.100 0.4 2.3 3.054 0.6 15.124 2.8 4.103 0.8 2.2 23 0.4 19 2.5 36 0.6 1.9 61 0.3 393 2.2 182 1.0 6.1 12 0.1 689 6.2 2 4.5 10 0.1 449 4.6' 59 5.3 121 0.9 865 6.2 131 2.2' 4 0.1 76 2.1. 12 6.0 0 0.0 16 6.0 107 5.1 153 0.4 2.155 5.5 311 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.4 8.5 0.8 2.4 124 0.7 559 3.0 91 0.5 3.6 25 0.2 , 433 3.8 49 0.4 5.0 6 0.2 104 3.2 14 0.4 3.0 44 0.7 218 3.7 51 0.8 SURVEY UAIE= 02/28/83 1HFU 03/12/81 SURVEY AREA / ZIP CODE MING COUNTY AUBURN FEDERAL MAT 807AL UNITS FEOEFA*. HOME LOAN BIAK OF SEAM( SEATTLE - EVERETT TACOMA, WA HOUSING VACANCY SURVEY SINGLE.'FAMILV UNITS VACANT USED - "' NEM "7'101AL "7' NUMBER PCT NUNEER PC1 NUMBER PCT 98002 14.190 253 1.0 25 0.2 278 2.0 28 0.2 98003 12.342 189 1.5 51 0.4 242 2.0 180 1.5 BELLEVUE ZIP COOE 98004 7.104 120 1.1 21 0.3 ZIP CODE 98005 3.301 24 0.7 8 0.2 ZIP COOE 98006 7.202 100 1.4 52 0.7 ZIP C00E 98001 2.819 16 1.3 2 0.2 ZIP CODE 98008 6.688 • 95 1.4 40 0.6 TOTAL BELLEVUE 27.114 175 1.4 123 0.5 BOTHELL 98011 16.016 195 ' 1.2 175 1.1 ENUMCLAW 98022 3.959 56 2.2 9 0.2 ISSAQUAN 98027 6.456 76 1.2 28 0.4 K ENT IIP CODE 91031 16.072 212 1.4 92 0.6 321 2.0 122 0.0 ZIP CODE 90032 6.492 57 0.9 11 0.2 68 1.0 19 0.3 TOTAL KEN, 22.564 289 1.1 103 0.5 392 1.1 141 0.6 N IRMLANO 98033 15.067 183 1.2 101 0.7 284 1.9 205 1.4 MERCER ISLAND 98040 6.194 102 1.6 67 1.0 169 2.6 15 0.2 REDMOND 98052 10.847 148 1.4 127 1.2 275 2.5 211 2.1 RENTON ZIP CODE 91055 ZIP CODE 98056 TOTAL RENTON SEATTLE ZIP CODE 98101 ZIP COOE 98102 ZIP CODE 98103 ZIP 000E 98104 ZIP CODE 98105 ZIP CODE 98106 ZIP CODE 98107 ZIP COOS 98108 ZIP CODE 98109 ZIP CODE 98110 ZIP COOE 98112 ZIP CODE 98115 12.490 10.385 22.883 4 2.240 11.187 27 7.122 5.626 6.135 5.041 2.571 4.005 5.960 14.9/7 200 1:7 92 0.9 300 1.3 0 0.0 • 34 1.5 103 0.9 3 11.1 70 1.0 168 3.0 100 1.6 128 2.5 40 1.6 41 1.1 77 1.3 110 0.9 69 0.6 30 0.3 99 0.4 0 0.0 1 0.1 3 0.1 0 0.0 -0 0:0 34' 0.6 1 0.1 6 0.1 1 0.1 14 0.3 1 0.1 15 . 0.1 141 32 152 38 115 2.0 1.0 2.1 1.3 2.0 498 1.8 110 2.3 95 2.4 104 1.6 211 2.2 122 1.2 399 1.7 0 0.0 35 1.6 106 0.9 3 11.1 70 1.0 202 3.6 101 1.6 134 2.7 41 1.6 57 1.4 8c 1.3 145 1.0 UNDER CONSTFUCIION NUMBER PC1 34 0.5 9 0.3 70 1.0 8 0.3 54 0.8 175 0.6 136 0.8 29 0.1 99 1.7 8o 0.6 52 0.5 132 0.6 0 0.0 1 0.1 6 0.1 0 0.0 5 0.1 16 0.3 4 0.1 6 0.1 1 0.1 40 1.0 7 0.1 10 0.1 SURVEY OATS: 02/Z8/53 THRU 03/12/83 SURVEY AREA / ZIP CODE KING COUNTY SEATTLE ZIP CODE 98116 ZIP CODE 98117 ZIP CODE 98118 ZIP CODE 98119 ZIP CODE 98121 ZIP CODE 98122 ZIP CODE 98125 ZIP CODE 98126 ZIP CODE 90133 ZIP CODE 98134 ZIP CODE 98136 ZIP CODE 98144 ZIP CODE 98146 2IP CODE 98148 ZIP CODE 98155 ZIP CODE 98166 ZIP CODE 98168 ZIP CODE 98177 ZIP CODE 98178 ZIP CODE 98188 ZIP CODE 98199 TOTAL SEATTLE TOTAL KING COUNTY SNOHOMISH COUNTY ARLINGTON 98221 EONONDS 90020 EVERETT ZIP CODE 90201 ZIP CODE 90203 ZIP CODE 98204 ZIP CODE 98205 ZIP CODE 98275 TOTAL EVEREIV LYN88000 MARYSVILLE MONROE 98036 98270 90272 MOUNILAKE TERRACE 90045 10(AL UNITS FEDERAL HOME LOAN BIPK OF SEI11LE SEATTLE - EVERETT TACOMA, WA HOUSING VACANCY SURVEY (CONTINUED) (CONTINUED) 6.594 104 11.171 141 10.148 253 4.095 56 21 0 4.934 132 8.739 74 5.933 164 10.456 128 14 0 5.151 105 6.444 157 6.003 89 3.595 33 11.344 83 6.120 44 8.096 02 6.375 63 6.590 90 6.388 38 6.246 ' 200.352 101 2.815 358.204 5.031 4.599 19 13.806 184 7.068 333 6.851 173 7.867 135 2.721 46 086 10 25.193 697 12.213 172 8.915 249 2.503 51 4.822 94 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS USED NUMBER PCT VACANT NE1 NUMBER PCT - ••- 101AL•••• NUMBER PCI UNDER CONSIPbCIION NUMBER PC1 1.6 6 0.1 110 1.1 3 0.1 1.3 4 0.1 145 1.3 12 0.1 2.5 15 0.1 2E8 2.6 15 0.1 1•4 0 0.0 56 1.4 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2.1 3 0.1 135 2.7 4 0.1 0.8 8 0.1 82 0.9 91 1.0 2.8 4 0.1 1E8 2.8 3 0.1 1.2 7 0.1 3.35 1.3 25 0.2 0.0 0 0.0 0 C.0 0 0.0 2.0 1 0.1 106 2.1 5 0.1 2.4 7 0.1 164 2.5 4 0.1 1.3 3 0.1 92 1.4 9 0.1 0.9 2 0.1 35 1.0 4 0.1 0.7 32 0.3 115 1.0 20 0.2 0.7 5 0.1 49 0.8 4 0.1 1.0 3 0.1 85 1.0 21 0.3 1.0 10 0.2 73 1.1 10 0.2 1.4 61 0.9 151 2.3 4 0.1 0.6 80 1.3 118 1.8 11 0.2 1.6 5 0.1 108 1.7 5 0.1 1.4 334 0.2 3.169 1.6 346 0.2 1.4 1.244 0.3 6.275 1.8 1.111 0.5 1.7 23 0.5 102 2.2 29 0.6 1.3 37 0.3 221 1.6 84 0.6 4.7 2 0.1 335 4.1 2 0.1 2.5 10 0.1 103 2.7 25 0.4 1.1 10 0.1 145 1.8 101 1.3 I./ 3 0.1 49 1.0 11 0.4 1.1 0 0.0 10 1.1 7 0.0 2.1 25 0.1 122 2.0 146 0.6 1.4 24 0.2 196 1.6 60 0.6 2.8' 21 0.2 270 3..0 39 0.4 •2.0 '5 0.2 56 2.2 14 0.6 1.9 5 0.1 99 2.1 17 0.4 kVE 11; 02/28/93 THOU 03/12/83 SURVEY AREA / ZIP CODE KING COUNTY AUBURN 10002 5.454 441 0.1 66 1.2 507 1.3 17.6 12 1.1 90 10.8 13 1.5 122 3.7 195 2.4 559 8.6 O 0.0 12 0.3 240 5.3 0 0.0 240 3.1 SURVEY DATE) 02/29/83 IHRU 03/12/83 SURVEY AREA I ZIP COOE TOTAL UNITS FEOE8A1 NOME LOAN BANK OF SEATTLE SEATTLE - EVERETT- TACOMA, WA HOUSING VACANCY SURVEY MULII'FAMIl1 UNITS VACANT UNDER USED ••" MEY '•••)DIAL•'•' CONSTRUCTION MEMBER PCI NUMBER PCI NUMBER PCI NUMBER PCI KING COUNTY (CONTINUED) SEATTLE (CONTINUED) 1117 CODE 98116 2.656 92 3.2 19 0.7 111 3.9 12 0.4 ZIP CODE 98111 1.109 66 6.0 0 0.0 66 6.0 9 0.6 ZIP COO( 98118 3.851 201 5.2 12 0.3 211 5.7. 0 0.0 ZIP CODE 98119 5.576 136 2.5 49 0.9 167 3.4 10 0.2 ZIP CODE 96121 2.387 226 9.5 0 0.0 226 9.5 0 0.0 ZIP C00( 96122 7.120 196 2.6 10 0.1 2C6 2.9 32 0.4 ZIP CODE 98125 4.676 90 1.9 6 0.2 98 2.1 49 1.0 ZIP CODE 98126 1.647 106 6.4 10 0.6 116 7.0 0 0.0 ZIP COOE 98113 4.370 69 1.6 126 2.9 197 4.5 166 3.6 ZIP CODE 98134 168 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 ZIP CODE 98136 1.145 42 3.7 0 0.0 42 3.7 0 0.0 ZIP COOE 98144 3.020 125 "4.1 16 0.5 141 4.7 6 0.2 ZIP CODE 96146 1.854 104 5.6 0 0.0 104 5.6 0 0.0 ZIP CODE 96146 1.456 26 1.8 14 1.0 40 2.7 99 6.6 ZIP COOS 98155 2.215 12 1.4 56 2.6 SO 4.1 69 3.1 Zil TIP CODE 98166 1.797 65 3.6 4 0.2 E9 3.6 102 5.7 ZIP CODE 98166 3.052 189 6.2 6 0.2 155 6.4 2 0.1 TIP CODE 96177 755 29 3.8 2 0.3 31 4.1 0 0.0 ZIP CODE 98178 807 54 6.7 54 6.7 106 13.4 0 0.0 711 C00( 96186 7.012 326 4.1 115 1.6 441 6.3 21 0.3 N ZIP CODE 98199 2.441 75 3.1 39. 1.6 114 4.7 6 0.2 N TOTAL SEATTLE 106.788 3.136 1.5 910 0.9 4.646 4.4 754 0.1 TOTAL KING COUN9r 163.140 1.162 4.2 1.810 1.1 6.592 5.3 2.386 1.7 SNONOMISH COUNTY • ARLINGTON 96223 443 31 7.0 0 0.0 31 7.0 7 1.6 EDMONDS 96020 3.829 145 3.8 24 0.6 1E9 4.4 98 2.6 EVERETT ZIP COOL 98201 3.8F0 336 8.7 10 0.3 346 2.9 0 0.0 ZIP COOE 96201 2.890 258 8.9 0 0.0 256 6.9 34 1.2 ZIP CODE 96204 4.525 562 12.4 III 2.6 679 15.0 30 0.7 ZIP CODE 98205 284 21 7.4 1 0.4 22 7.7 1 0.4 ZIP C00E 98275 376 66 17.6 0 0.0 E6 17.6 100 26.6 TOTAL EVERETT 11.945 1.241 10.4 128 1.1 1.371 11.5 165 1.4 1.1888000 96036 5.074 229 4.5 1(0 2.0 .329. 6.5 21 0.5 NARTSVILLE 96270 1.296 71 5.5 4 0.7 75 5.8 10 0.6 MONROE 96272 371 33 6.9 1 0.3 34 9.2 0 0.0 MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 96043 1,589 97 6.1 39 2.5 156 8.6 34 2.1 SURVEY DAZE: 02/28/83 THRU 03/12/83 SURVEY AREA / ZIP CODE KING COUNTY AUBURN FEDERAL WAY MERCER ISLAND 98040 0 0 0.0 REDMOND 98052 614 6 0.9 RENION 71P CODE 98055 21P CODE 98056 TOTAL RENION SEATTLE • FEDERAL HOME LOAN EIhK ..._. .�- ...,_. ..t:��: _ _ z. � � . �i es"�< ?�iG:�'."' _ ter` - �..!- ....,+r' S. '� �� . .�:.;�:'- �.Fr•.ft � �:.r�':� • SURVEY DATE: 02/28/83 THFU 03/12/83 SURVEY AREA / ZIP CODE KING COUNTY (CONTINUED) SEATTLE (CONTINUED) ZIP CODE 98116 0 0 0.0 ZIP COOE 98117 0 0 0.0 ZIP CODE 98118 39 .0 0.0 ZIP CODE 98119 0 0 0.0 ZIP CODE 98121 0 0 0.0 ZIP CODE 98122 0 0 0.0 ZIP 000E 98125 30 0 0.0 ZIP CODE 98126 0 0 0.0 ZIP COOE 98133 469 13 2.6 ZIP CODE 98134 1 0 0.0 ZIP CODE 98136 0 0 0.0 ZIP CODE 98144 0 0 0.0 ZIP CODE 98146 59 0 0.0 ZIP CODE 98148 - 2 0 0.0 )0. ZIP CODE 90155 14 0 0.0 A ZIP CODE 98166 4 0 0.0 p ZIP CODE 98168 235 16 6.8 ZIP CODE 98171 1 1 100.0 ZIP COOE 98178 271 5 1.8 ZIP CODE 98188 1.116 10 0.9 IV ZIP CODE 98199 0 0 0.0 TOTAL SEATTLE 2.531 61 2.4 TOTAL KING COUNTY SN0N0NISH COUNT! ARLINGTON EDMONDS 95020 MOUNILAKE TERRACE 95013 TOTAL UNITS FEDEFAL HOME LOAN BANK OF SEATTLE SEATTLE - EVERETT- TACOMA, WA HOUSING VACANCY SURVEY MOBILE HOMES USED - NLMBER PCI 12.160 257 2.0 98223 1.050 22 2.1 150 3 2.0 EVEREYT ZIP CODE 90201 101 8 7.1 ZIP 000E 98203 123 8 6.5 ZIP CODE 98204 1.608 41 2.5 ZIP CODE 98205 263 5 1.9 ZIP CODE 98275 1 0 0.0 TOTAL EVERETT 2.096 62 3.0 LYNNN000 98036 1.223 14 2.8 MARYSVILLE 98270 1.213 86 7.3 MONROE 98272 372 14 '3.8 108 3 2.5 VACANT HEY NUMBER PCI •- •- 101AL - --- NUMBER PC1 UNDER CONSTFUCTION NUMBER PCI - - - - • • • SURVEY DEFINITIONS UNIT - a room or group of rooms intended for use as separate living quarters. SINGLE UNIT - detached housing unit with open space on all sides. MULTI UNIT - housing unit attached to another along side(s), floor and/or ceiling. MOBILE HOME - installed unit only; exludes vacant pads. TOTAL UNITS - occupied housing units plus vacant used and new units. VACANT USED UNIT - housing unit vacant, but previously occupied. VACANT NEW UNIT - housing unit that appears completed, but never occupied. UNIT UNDER CONSTRUCTION - excavation begun, but does not appear ready for occupancy. PERCENT VACANT - vacancy rates for each housing category are given as percentages of the total units surveyed. Additional copies of the Housing Vacancy Survey may be obtained 1 the • Research/Industry Develont .Departrient, Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle, . 600 Stewart •Street; Seattle, WA 98101. " • 'Appendix 25 • This Survey was funded'in'Part by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban • Development, Office of Policy Development and Research under an'interagency.' agreement with. the Federal Hone Loan Bank Board. • ' ' ' • LOCATOR MAP OPEN HOUSES ARE SCHEDULED FROM 12:00 3:00 P.M. BY AREAS AS FOLLOWS: Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Boeing access Ad Seattle City limits- AREA DESIGNATIONS REM!" 300- Enumclaw 310 • Auburn 320 • Black Diamond-Metals Valley 330 - Kent 340- Renton - Benson Hill 350- Renton Highlands- Kennydale 350 - Skyway Area 370 - Rainier Val* - Beacon Hill 453. Mirrormunt REMI/EBA Overlap 453. Renton Highland REMI/EBA Overlap 470 . S E Seattle • REMI/SOL Overlap OUT OF KING SNOHOMISH COUNTIES 780 • Camano Island = 800 - Vashon Island 0 900 • Skagit County 910 - )(hasp County 920 - Pierce County 930 - Lake Tapps 940 - Buckley 950 - All Other Western Washington Couhtles 960 - Eastern Washington SWML EBA 600 610 100 500 700 110 510 710 120 520 720 130 1 530 730 140 540 740 • 550 750 560 760 600 770 610 780 Area 320 Area 340 Area 330 Area 310, 360, 370, 470 & 930 Area 300, 350, 450, 460 & 940 Appendix 26 • — • 1 • s r 'Mirrormont (Legal Osscriptio Area 451, ' Only) • ing Pierce county Line I( EA 1. ES'1'A'I'E M(1I.'i'IPIJ, 1N('. THIS YEAR =JULY 1982 JUNE 1983 LAST YEAR =JULY 1951 - JUNE 1982 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ONLY 2 SEDROOMS 3 SEDIIOOMS 4 /10110054/ OVER 4 BEDROOM' THIS YEAR LAST YEAR THIS TEAR LAST YEAR THIS YEAR LAST YEAR THIS YEAR LAST YEAR AREA 340 ALL OFF MARKETS OUNITE 63 52 523 205 251 107 48 18 NOT CLOSED OR PENDING *IGNITE 25 34 254 55 137 57 33 12 . AVERAGE 1187 PRICE 557,130 $89,176 183,570 171,904 508,085 155,294 196,641 1101,731 PENDING I131417S 10 0 52 16 34 7 6 0 AVERAGE 1187 PRICE 514,545 10 180.572 115,454 813,500 152,750 1416,412 10 AVERAGE MARKET TIME 104 0 • 1 125 81 143 97 0 CLOSED fuIETE 21 11 177 91 71 33 5 6 DOLLAR VALUE 11,127,050 81,120,755 510.446,004 57,171.26 4,921,540 52,10,300 5707,000 5440,450 AVERAGE LIST PRICE $56,215 184,235 578,744 560,221 $52,027 151,236 895,100 171,405 AVERAGE SALE PRICE $17,062 562,431 176.080 171,115 188,640 115,100 148,373 874,901 AVERAGE SALE TIME 105 115 ' 114 122 77 SO 114 11 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE 11,137 11,800 12,854 11,436 83,1117 12,04 54,725 11,497 (UST TO SALE PIECE) % OP LIST PRICE 11.04 17.16 44.62 54.21 44.53 57.75 52.52 64,33 FINANCING: % OF TOTAL MARKET CONVENTIONAL 4.00 5.56 23.16 13,15 24.35 15.15 37,50. .00 FHA 40.00 38,18 16.77 17.58 14.10 .00 .00 .0 VA 4.00 16.68 11.21 12.01 8.41 .00 12.50 .00 CASH 4.00 .00 1.12 1.09 2.54 3.03 ,00 .00 ASSUME 18.00 18.11 22.03 27.47 24.35 42.42 12.50 16.18 OWNER C -FIRS 20.00 16.4 5.84 6.78 7.69 1.09 .00 33.33 OWNER C.8EC0 4.00 .00 2.25 1.09 .00 12.12 .00 .00 EXCHANGE .00 AO .00 '..00 .00 3.03 A0 .00 0711ER .00 .00 7 TS 4 36 S.I2 3 .03 12,30 .00 NO1 35/014510 1.00 5 SS 12 42 14 28 13.36 12 17 23 00 50 00 A111 A :ISO A!1 08/1 MA11111111 41041 In 11/ 44 1141 112 140 54 11 Y 0801 43 1111111 1111 1 N101411 1 /411010 /0 71 7 10 80 02 41 2/ 6 AVERAGE 1.155 PRICE 111,7711 113,011 1/1,185' 1/1,/S7 189,19/ 1101,062 311,200: 1100,174 PENDING 51RNTS 8 2 44 5 10 0 3 0 AVERAGE LIST PONCE 851,731 150, 475 573,899 144,804 104.649 10 14,015 50 AVERAGE MARKET TRAE 11 45 , 58 64 107 0 125 0 CLOSED • I4144138 39 14 124 41 39 . 33 8 1 19111 AN VA1 1N 17.222.8141 1/30,,041 19,340.490 1'1 44.1,094 13,771,84 11,888,4113 1431,44 SWAN* AVERAGE 1131 PRICE 151,511 134,50/ 118,020 1/1,511 198,388 143.434 181,100 553,510 AVERAGE 84IE PRICE 14,91. 162,130 111.130 1/5,204 111.522 112,016 1/4,441 592,550 AVERAGE 15A1 E IIME 89 88 05 9/ . 114 12 73 123 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE 81,523 12,351 711,190 12,12/ 52,811 13,415 14,959 10 (LIST TO BALE PRICE) % OF LIST PRICE 17.31 15.67 07.51 97.25 88.83 44.04 04,25 100.00 FINANCING: % OF TOTAL MARKET CONVENTIONAL 5.12 7.14 20.63 12.78 13.15 8.88 ,00 ,00 FHA 31.44 14.20 11.04 12.76 21.05 .00 10.88 .00 VA 12.92 7.14 47.44 2.12 10.52 13.04 33.33 .00 (:AM11 00 00 1 11 141 00 00 .00 00 ASSUME 7.59 78 5/ 1818 21 85 16.47 43.4/ 50.00 .00 OWNER C•F018 23.07 7.14 5.55 14.66 16.42 13,1 ',44 .00 OWNER C -8EC0 .00 .00 2,36 .00 2.63 4,34 ,00 .00 EXCHANGE .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 OTHER 2.58 7.14 3,17 0.36 7.81 .00 .00 100.00 N07 RFPORTED 15.38 28.57 12.19 23.40 7.89 17 31 .00 00 Appendix 27 REAL ESTATE MULTIPLE :, INC. THIS YEAR =JULY 1962 - JUNE 1943 LAST YEAR =JULY 1931 - JUNE 1982 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ONLY 2 MDIIOOMS 3 SEDROOMB 4 SEOROOMS OVER 4 BEDROOMS 71411 YEAR LAST YEAR THIS YEAR LAST YEAR THIS YEAR LAST YEAR THIS YEAR LAST YEAH ALL OFF MARKETS AREA 300 •UNITS 121 45 164 81 104 35 24 14 NOT CLOSED OR PENDING OMITS 87 34 101 49 72 24 18 12 AVERAGE UST PRICE 154,028 117,841 177,780 275,021 140,941 144,644 5127,459 1134,179 PENDING OMITS 14 0 24 2 9 • 3 0 AVERAGE UST PRICE 140,183 SO 170,571 145,750 189,153 10 589,950 SO AVERAGE MARKET TIME 65 0 82 • 85 106 0 03 0 CLOSED (PUNTS 34 11 67 11 25 11 5 2 DOLLAR VALUE 11,729,300 1424,110 $4,407,093 1756,350 12,113,640 1431,311 1447,500 1275,000 AVERAGE UST PRICE $53,830 110,408 164,151 372,372 148,641 178,315 145,280 1147,225 AVERAGE SALE PRICE 180,141 147,810 145,777 $08,804 11(,615 176,301 111,500 1137,500 AVERAGE SALE TIME Si 34 77 30 78 74 117 37 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE 12,999 $2,754 12,374 43,568 12,164 12,517 $5,730 14,725 (LIST TO SALE PRICE) 14 OF LIST PRICE 94.43 34.52 96.31 15.06 17.47 14.72 93.93 93.39 FINANCING: • OF TOTAL MARKET CONVENTIONAL 6.82 .00 13.43 $01 24.00 11.11 20.00 .00 FHA 17.6 .00 16.41 5.29 12.00 18.18 20.00 .00 VA 1.12 18.18 10.44 8.03 12.00 .00 .00 .00 CAEN 4.82 .00 4.47 3.04 4.00 .00 '.00 .00 AsNIME 11.76• 33.34 11.14 43.45 9.00 27.27 20.00 50.00 OWNER C•FIRS 20.18 34.34 14.92 .00 12.00 8.01 20.00 50.00 OWNER C•SECO 2.34 .00 1.49 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 EXCHANGE .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 OTHER 3.82 .00 10.44 9.09 8.00 .00 20.00 .00 NOT REPORTED 11.76 9.09 18.41 5.01 13.00 27.27 .00 .00 ALL OFF MARKETS AREA 370 •UNITS 211 83 210 98 116 40 $ NOT CLOSED OR PENDING NUNITS 143 42 138 17 73 24 22 .1 AVERAGE UST PRICE 113,514 • 142,148 147,437 148,141 140,503 177,911 164,885 1132,404 PENDING •UNITE 17 3 31 0 14 2 9 0 AVERAGE UST MICE 948.097 110,133 118,219 SO 144,335 114,510 164,184 14 AVERAGE MARKET TIME 78 73 39 0 83 40 87 0 CLOSED •UNITS 51• 13 53 22 24 10 9 2 DOLLAR VALUE 12,517,411 1464,100 43,333,640 11,239,200 11,771,200 1142.000 1487,100 143,000 AVERAGE LIST FRICE 141,760 141,413 197,094 141,025 173,830 141,385 141,716 $48,500 AVERAGE SALE PRICE 649,184 947,227 142.955 155,327 353,392 144,200 173,064 948,500 AVERAGE BALE TIME 42 43 75 95 71 51 33 60 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE 12.514 $,132 $4,133 34,498 55,238 15,195 19,350 43.000 (UST TO SALE PRICE) % OF L14T F110E 34.64 91.44 93.43 12.30 - 92.83 92.51 88.41 63.93 FINANCING: Y OF TOTAL MARKET CONVENTIONAL 9.30 22.22 24.32 13.43 11.53 .00 44.44 50.00 FHA 11.74 '11.11 13.20 13.63 30.78 .00 .00 .00 VA 9.80 .00 11.32 • .00 3.84 .00 11.11. .00 CASH 5.11 5.55 7.54 .00 3.84 .00 .00 .00 ASOUME 17.54 22.22 11.32 .00 3.34 30.00 .00 .00 OWNER C•FI411 17.64 21.77 13.20 31.81 11.23 40.00 11.11 50.00 OWNER C.IECO .00 .00 .00 4.34 3.44 .00 .00 .00 EXCHANGE .00 .00 • .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 OTHER 11.78 .00 3.77 11.14 7.89 10.00 .00 .00 NOT REPORTED 15.64 11.11 15,05 13.13 15.33 20.00 33.33 .00 Appendix 28 21 UNDER TOTAL 123,000 SALES was PI1En S KS ANA Ail/ UNDER 1 1 TOTAL I 525,0001 BALES Um PIMP 1 _1_140 ASIA Ylu 354 0 S40,000 . _ _554999 $51000 _S89 999 S70 __ S84 999 58 _ S99,999 5100 • S124999 1125 - 5149 999 5150 000 - S199,999 5200,000 - S249,999 5250,000 & OVER _ REAL ESTATE MIiLTIPLE, INC. SALES EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FOR JULY 1982 - JUNE 1983 125,000 - 140,000 - 139,919 454,999 WITS PIKER 09111 *2IEI INK W ALA 1111 AKA LAM 1,747 13 .1 11 3.0 215 15.7 UNDER j 425,000 - i 440, • TOTAL 1 125,0001 139,994 13 4,994 SALES 0m *CI= PI , urn *291111 1 Mn 99.5 ANA 111.11 1 S ASIA /LLI�Ul1 911 2 2 13 1.3 124 12.4 0 5 1.4 29 UNDER 525,000 - $40,000 - f TOTAL I 325,000 $39,991 454,999 SALES w11 *111111 Win PIKEKEW Ym PIK 1 1 SAS W Will AA A A IALAI INS MA EA11111 71 • 0 .0 0 .0 4 5.1 wimp 525 ,000 ALL PROPERTIES - FINAL SALES ONLY 99 m En 155,000 -941,11111 9 PIM SITS ASIA ALA 511 33.7 128,000 - 540,000 • T 185,000 - 939,9511 554,499 $4,04/ 0m PIER K u m 1911:11T 1911:11T 1? 9m Kinn1 19.9 ANA ALL 19.1 AM 001 1 Ml1 AMA MIA 170,000 145,000 • 1100,000 • 11125,000 - 4140,000 • 11200,000 - 184,1991 400,099 91 4124,9011 1145,999 4105,1 1249,919 WITS KIWI, 111 PIlart 01 n limn PI 111 main 9. um E17 MACAW IOBITS ER Ulf 1MA 201111 11 MA MIA MIA 1411 MI 23111 1111 All WS SRI MIA MIS MI MA MI5 429 24.5 172 9.4 112 4.4 37 2.1 34 2.0 1 .3 2 BEDROOMS OR LESS • FINAL SALES ONLY i 4, - UNDER 425,000 - + 140,000 - 455,000 - 470,000 - I 3/5,000 • l *100,000 • 1125,000 • 1150,000 - 1200,000 - TOTAL i 425,0 939,199 414,991 4911 444,991 411,919 1124,994 1144,911 1199,999 1249,919 I SALES we ISUM , um mart • m main main on mar 1m mar u MOUNT u near row um roar; AI LA 1420,14E MA ACA AKA Aln NU MA ACE/ WO ASIA CNp AKA IALEI m 99121 NI AKA 2011111/4/ AA INn 1411 ANA Alp INS MIA AUI 111 - 1_ t 331 11 3.2 51 15.0 127 37.5 102 34.1 32 0.4 5 1.4 7 2.0 1 .2 2 . 5 0 .0 3 BEDROOMS - FINAL SALES ONLY 000 - 1 155,000 PISa11 U9 - 170n PI ,000 KCI - rt 1 11 445,000 - 11100,000 *21111 • 1 1 TUs12s,o00 PIKan - 549,999 114,9991 999,990 9124,9191 1149,990 N NU 314 31.9 207 30.2 11 0.4 30 3.1 10 1.1 1 .1 3 .3 2 .2 4 BEDROOMS FINAL SALES ONLY 170,000 - 984,000 - T 1100,000 - 1125,000 - 434,999 . 191,911 4124,910 9149,109 win mart art on *2Atlrt u m mart 4111 *tour Ulf AMA ULU MS AMA UM ULS AMU MIA NUS AIM SANK 51 K 25.0 14 23.1 91 11.3 52 14.1 17 4.7 24 4.5 3 .1 OVER 4 BEDROOMS - FINAL SALES ONLY $53.0110 - 570,000 - 415,000 - 1100,000 - 1125,000 - 1150,000 - 1 1200,000 • 1 1250,000 - 1419,999 9,4 304,991 199,599 $124,999 $149,914 $199,/1M 9249,9191 OVER 9911 MUM! UNn MAUR 1m PIMa1T WIn KN=R NITS PI9aK1 9m *211111 . Ur11 PIKan Kum 'mart PI9a11 uu SALES EN LS ASIA 1411 MS AKA A*U :RI AKA W EI Ulf IKEA ALES tell MA WU I CN ll! I AIA U IOU MA AUEI I1 15.1 11 22.5 0 12.0 14 10.7 1 1.4 10 14.0 0 .0 I 4.4 Appendix 29 s1so,000 • 1200,000 • 11250,000 • 311 9,941 1249,909 OVER 0m PIKER 1 um KIWI I Um PIKER MI ANA MU IMO MA WI SRO ASEA AlL 1150,000 - 1200,000 - 8111,114 1249,114 09n RUM u9n PIKER. SKI AMA 1NU 141 AMA MIS PERCENTAGE OF ALL SOLD RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BY PRICE RANGE 1230,000 • OVER um MOM 11L1 AA ULU 9 .5 1250,000 - OVER VIM PE4111? 1411 oat* ALUI 0 .0 s2so,o - I OVER 9911 *191111 99.1 MA UM 1 .2 .7 % 325,000. 539,999 3.9 15.7 % 33.7 ' 24.5 % 9.8 •/. 8.4 % 2.1 % 2.0 % .3 33 32 JANUARY FEMUARY MARCH. . APRR:: MAY, JuNS JULY' AUGW SEPT[I OCTOBER. NOVEMUIW `" D ECEMBER-; REAL ESTATE MULTIPLE, INC. ALL PROPERTNEd AVENAGE % OF UST MICE: RECEIVEQ. POIE CLOSED DAYS ON MARKET PERCENT 01.3• 93.75 31.55 50.32 51 • 90 89.24 OVER 50 AVQIAMI MARKET TIME OR UNSOLD: PROPERTIES :132.82 DAYS MNITNLY CLOSED AS A % OF ANNUAL CLOSED FOR JANUARY 1952 - DECEMBER -1952 PIIjCENT. ' NUNITS JANUARY:. 5.12 , 112 ..,' FEBRUARY . 5.5$ 131 .. MARCH 10.x5 . 231 APRIL 5.23 150 MAY t95 177 JUNt 5.52 153 JIM Y... 5.52. 193 AUGUST' 1 202 SPT[MBEII :. 751 OCTOBER 5:95 NOVEMBER . 5.05 155 D ECEMBER 5.55 205 MONTHLY FUNDING AS. Ac % OP ANNUAL CLOUD i PENDING PON JANUARY 1552 - DECEMBER PERCENT BUNTS 5.57 . 153 5:33 s ;u 1$11 7.42. . 204 5:15 224 5.52 .245 5.55 . 235 5.92. 245 10.25 10.12 218 SEATTLE • N! • >1 +� a I ;I • Showalter Jr H1 Sch Ad Foster Sr Ht Schs • Bld raft /Me /:AOnye 7 y 4 -, Duw p X5 .. r•••tyl i� \•' t GI Allentown , 1 1 y 4 N t �. s . z• •RsT i T nl fl ST III I a tl• /4, 14, �{ .nl � v' a � •, 14� I44 ST '1 i 9 � ^ 7 CT 141 51 z._ .. o u1,WIl4 4 g Lx S E1emSch ■ ` TuKWI 122 Cascade RIVERTD T, South Central 46,f coL•,`. I STREET • SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 90168 Pho.♦ 264.11UU t i�e� st COPYRIGHT KROLL MAP COMPANY, INC \ r, f) ( t Appendix S . EAJE IN STATUTE MILES SCPVDOL DISTRK.T 40e KING COUNTY 0 Common Name Bay goby Buffalo sculpin Chinook Salmon Chum salmon Coho salmon Cutthroat trout Dolly Varden Dover sole English sole Eulachon Hybrid sole Largescale sucker Longfin smelt Longnose dace Mountain whitefish Northern squawfish Pacific cod Pacific herring Pacific lamprey Pacific sandlance Pacific tomcod Padded sculpin 07 /EPb- 19/19d APPENDIX B FISH OF THE LOWER GREEN - DUWAMISH SYSTEM Importance 0 0 S, F S, F S, F S S F 0 F 0 F O S 0 F F 0 0 0 0 Importance: F = food fish S = sport fish 0 = other 1 Common Name Pile Perch Prickly sculpin Pygmy poacher Ratfish Rainbow trout Rock sole Roughback sculpin Saddleback gunnel Sand sole Shiner perch Slender sole Snake prickleback Speckled dace Spiney. dogfish Staghorn sculpin Starry flounder Striped seaperch Sturgeon poacher Surf smelt Threespine stickleback Tubesnout Walleye Pollock ..,.._,_..........w, -�.. w+�n+c:n *an +u'ad,rsx�cr -� n: - cervn.- a,..,. «..,.•.... -.._ i Importance 0 0 S F 0 0 F 0 F 0 0 0 0 F F 0 F 0 0 0 References American Public Works Association. Practices in Detention of Urban Stormwater Runoff. Special Report No. 43. 1974. Hickock, E.A., M.C. Hannaman, and N.C. Wenck, 1977. Urban runoff treatment methods: Volume I - Nonstructural Wetland Treatment. State of Washington Department of Ecology. Washington State Water Quality Standards, 1977. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1981. Flood Insurance Study, City of Tukwila, Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Environmental Management for the Metropolitan Area Cedar /Green River Basins, Washington. Part II, Urban Drainage Technical Report, 1974. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Pollution Control Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants. EPA -R2 -72 -081. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Quality Criteria for Water. EPA - 440/9 -76 -023. 1976. Washington State Division of Water Resources, 1963. Water Supply Bulletin No. 20. Geology and Groundwater Resources of Northwestern King County, Washington. Washington State Department of Water Resources, 1969. Water Supply Bulletin No. 28. Geology and Groundwater Resources of Southwestern King County, Washington. United States Geological Survey, 1962. Preliminary Geologic Map of Seattle and Vicinity, Washington. Map I -354. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1938 Series. Soil Survey, King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1973. Soil Survey, King County Area, Washington. King County, 1980. Sensitive Area Map Folio. Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, September 1977. Tukwila Zoning Code, April 1980. "1980 Annual Traffic Report," Washington State Department of Transportation. 1981. "Six -Year Road Planning Program, 1981 -86," King County Department of Public Works. October 1980. "Interim Materials of Highway Capacity," Circular 212, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. January 1980. "Park- and -Ride Sizing and Prioritization Study," Metro - prepared by the Transpo Group October 1982. King County Ordinance #3139. EPA Region X Guidelines, June 1972. Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control, Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise, June 1980. "User's Manual: FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, SNAP 1.0," PB80- 162357, FHWA, January, 1979. Noise -con 77 Proceedings, "The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model - Manual MEthod," 1977 National Conference on Noise Control Engineering, George C. Mailing, Jr., editor, Noise Control Foundation 1977, pp. 181 -192. Environmental Noise Assessment Metro East Operating Base Report, Michael R. Yantis Associates, October, 1980. Environmental Noise Assessment Metro South Operating Base Report, Michael R. Yantis Associates, November 1980. Noise Analysis for the Metro North Operating Base, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., BBN Report #4956, June 1982. Miller, James D., Effects of Noise on People, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 56, No. 3, September 1974. City of Tukwila Noise Ordinance, Chart 8.36. "Kenmore Park -and -Ride, Technical Appendix," Metro Transit, November 1975. "Redmond Park - and -Ride, DEIS Technical Appendix," KCM et al., October 1975. "Transportation Improvement Plan," Entranco Engineers, October 1979. "Design Report for Southcenter Boulevard: 62nd Avenue South to Grady Way," Entranco Engineers, September 1982. W "Environmental Assessment for Southcenter Boulevard: 62nd Avenue South to Grady ay," preliminary draft. Entranco Engineers, Fall 1982. "Realignment Feasibility Study: 68th Avenue South /Christensen Road /T -Line Bridge," Entranco Engineers, 1982. 3 :.: "Interurban Corridor Study and Design Plan, Report No. 3, Draft Design Plan," Management and Planning Services, June 1978. "Traffic Impact Study for Tukwila Bend Office Complex," Entranco Engineers, July 1982. "Tukwila Hotel Draft EIS," R. W. Thorpe and Associates, June 1982. "Tukwila Bend Draft EIS," City of Tukwila, April 1983. South Area Park and Athletic Facility Final EIS.. April 1974. Technical Appendices "River of Green Report'! o Chuck Kirchner o Eric Hansen o Susan Killen o Susan Sanchez o Susan Solberg o Ron Endlich o Julie Honeycutt o Gary Gibson o Sue Chin Word Processing Staff Debbie Davis Nancy Owen Linda Balagot Karen Mallin Contacts Contributing Metro Staff 5 o Gary Samek, King County Public Works o B•Young Ahn, King County Transportation Planning o Don Williams, Tukwila Parks Department o H. L. Morgan, Public Transportation and Development Engineer, Department of Transportation, State of Washington o Brad Collins, Tukwila Planning Department Bob Sneva, Tukwila Public Works Department o Brent Carson, Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency o Caroline Berry, Tukwila Planning Department o , Mark Reeves, Tukwila Public Works Department o Richard Berg, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers o Phil Fraizer, Tukwila Public Works Department • �m..swq�.",M0?a.','iG'" -. '�J 85 -19 -SS 4/8/85 Segale S 180 St & Southcenter Py 85 -20 -CUP 4/26/85 Southcenter Day Care 345 Andover Park E CN -85 -020 85 -21 -V 5/22/85 Pitney Bowes 116 Andover Park E 85 22 - UUP 5/21/85 To los;TU. Rendering Works ^ 5795 S 130 P1 8P PsvC'fj �sJ c Rock+ 85 -23 -R 5/21/85 Annexation Rezone 5I Av S between S 161 & S 164 St. 85 -24 -V 6/3/85 Metro Park & Ride 13447 Interurban Av S 85- 25 -SMP J23/85 _Tukwila Mini Storage , 85 -26 -V 6/28/85 Tukwila II 16460 -16600 W Valley Hy CN -85 -184 85 -27 -OR 7/1/85 Rendering Works 5795 S 130 P1 85 -28 -A 7/2/8 Annexation 51 Av S b/w S 164 & 166 ,CN -84 -052 85- 29 -PRD 7/25/85 Group 5 Interurban Av S 85 -30 -V 7/24/86 Fatigue Technology 150 Andover Pk W MASTER FILE LIST Vo< *33 mFs 134W i N - 'ERuReAnl s rncrRo g IDE 1 DRSCRIPTIOR er Toe PROM? The proposed project is • Metro Pork-and -Ride lot designed to serve transit patrons in the Tukwila and Green River Valley areas. The project includes • posed IHS- stall' parking lot, *cokes driveways to 52nd Avenue Rout and Interurbaan Avenue, bus pull -outs and passenger shelters on Interurban Avenue, and roadway widening and e lot improvements e will ill ,, The pedesttrian walks, landscaping, and • storm drainage system incor- porating an oil/voter separator. Tt,e roadway improvements an the westerly side of Interurban Avenue adjacent to the site will include curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping. Roadway improvements and landec.pinn on the easterly side of Interurban Avenue it the Intersection with 56th Avenue South are to be constructed separately as port of the Poster Bridge project. Passenger shelters, sidewalk and an eatenslon of the pavement widemtg for to bus pull - cat will be added as part of this project. .. . • IQCAVATTD NATRRI&I. alnIOVID nom Tat BIT7: An outlasted 1,600 cubic yardi of excavated material unsuitable for sae ID the construction will be removed Eros the site. A disposal site for this material will • be provided by the cwatructioa contractor. 1,51' 3 o 10 200 oo Scale 1. Fah S-R OtN5LE FAMILY • B-C • COMMUNr1Y 4L41JME55 M -L WORT MANUFA07 .gp.J RM -2400 MULTI- FAMILY RM -1800 MULTI- FAMILY VICINITY MAP - LAND USE AND ZONING •INOLi'AMILY. Z0.000 01 SNOW p iwj6LG MAMILY. 7,20000 SAND 4 FAMILY OWSLLIN45 IMO RtdIONAL RSTAR. AbRIGIJLILIAS INDUSTRY LIOWT MANMJPAGruRIN6 • PROJECT LOCATION ■0. •I Vlal 0 1 Sy oa,l 0 ENTRANCO Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 01•0a10 5TV 1* 5TV eKOres010 ammon0 KL.K 4 METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Smith ac•'I AS SHOWN TUKWILA PARK a RIDE FACILITY VICINITY MAP MUM Punt Macaw arses awn M . t I111111111u11 1i 1u 1 11t1111111111111n11111111111II11111iti i111111111iii hf�1 , v 6 - - ......_ ..____..__. . � .._..... 9 • 10 11 MaoEINGERIUNV 12 IIIIIIIIIIII11; 11IIIIIJII1JIIIJIIIIIIIIIIIl1IIl1II�l1llll :Il- IIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111 11 I I I 0 IOTHIINCH 1 2 3 _ - .4 —. ---- - :; -, , ` I IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS ° CLEAR THAN THIS,NOTICE, IT IS "-DUE TO 0£ ez ez cz ez sz 1 7Z ez zz lz THE UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT; , a e L 9 s ii E z L Item 0 111111il IIII Intl (I} fill III�I 1(11 liilllit RIFlhlllfflll Ilff 1111 IIII IIIIINfI INI I NI IIablIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlilllulIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIn1nI111)1i ( 7ti?� ',1'V;}4'; 1 : .� ; y' y :• '411 , , W�,y, , 1 ' A�d�.tr- Q rd t :31.4 z'•� °fi��u �'� �t r :e�.'.. +�,. a, �,.�}.�__. . .. r,... !" tiY ... _E 7`�"`PSt �?. .t F r .1 4.:,.T ^?,•i'.�...... .,r�alt��; ..,s. � ... ".r_. •a. • ••••4..' ,••••: , r+ • s • ' IDO•TONO EAPETARY SWIM • -MP- inurraNh STORM DRAIN ,!--7.•11110.- PROMOS= !roam MAIN 7 • • • •- P11000•110 PORPOMATE0 MAIN • . 1100151104• CATCH •AINN TO RIMAIN . • .o1110 CATCN INACNIN ARM WONT. MO %MT HP1.140 0:1.7 MAHINAINF , . 0+-0 !SAKI AO ABOVE, III.XGOPT 11/1114 TAN0.0171 1.11MiNA1RIFS • Loren coprromon • (!) roma. MACK • , sou.outo C) mioocxcoompte, IN • : • INIMICIEL.CHAR KAMM • (19 TEXTURIO MARNINS) ORO eras') • tz,1 slow". Raiz C) R-1 •*TOP• IN • 0 11.1tR•RiowiANE mixer Tow Row sew 0 ,i-bormagyruem ONLY' LON MEAN SEA LEVEL O*110L.10 PACTS IAN/ COWLS 4 YOLL01.1 LINT • COOMINALIL 164L4WRMOPLAIITIC MP OAR If MP OAR • J11.0146 06H101.-1•HiA, & MK OLALOINO 112 OE REMOVED W ILL m11TERIN. 111.7 "' • 74700 02+ • +00.00 AL Ile STA. 04Mt An estimated 0,700 cubic yards of fl1 1 material Consisting . • of free draining pit run sand and gravel will be plactd on the lilts at the general locations indicated on the cross sections. This mete:1st 1.1 to bs furnished from • smarca to be &Ursine& by the construction oontracter. 0 oV . 'PERPOOLdI•0 • ROCK WALL (04 MI • • .,;; : , ; .:„, . l. • WWI P4 •• . ::,"... 1 ..‘ :•?1 : ' : • 4 P 4 .., 1.."1".6"."1...".."1".1.. .. 1 S 1. P A 6 L • . . ' DI/WAN/SM.. /VER 1 .• , . carol ' ' " \ _Pori( gnome • 7s: ; : • i.AND.c...prpq.' • • 089 (.{ 4 .7rAt 7 7 , 11-( WOWN :_-1 COW— • INIMMIL Mika oir.•: ) Wiralli 0 V r"irLagx IP 0 0 41.-_,, ii „ , , r. ....—. .e0:-,77-mmr, .,,,,:. ......„:=1.37.-.X.2;11711Millak,,i-• ='.. • ro w'o• — 0 7 . 3."r4 k ' c I P - A li ..' k i l l . 0 * I APPAOL 40. • IM / •LA1411 wd MilfT • 320• • cm!) - i• ! ■•• •."* • L. . • . • IrriarT've-Dir....now ;" To cm. el.,•ft,curadh, • 7 COPIRTNLCTICMd • so NO 111V11110• ••t1 ENTRANCO Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL MO TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS • ' snow 1 •■• alMovep 0 METRO Munktpallty al MoNapolitan &meth TUKWILA PARK & RIDE FACILITY SITE PLAN sa AIMS: 011■1011111 " "•'' 60' frt ' t, 1 •••fr.j."'• 1 7'.'`' .4 ; 1 7 ' '''. • r • , ??•., - ,„ • • ■Vo''. 1 11111111111111111111111111 1 1111111111111111111111.NIIIN11-1111111111111 111111111 I I I 1411,1_1111111111111111[11_1111111111111j[1111l11111111111111) 1111111111111111111111111111 1111111101 0 1117MSiNCH ._I*,_. - ,..,5_ . 6 .... .7 _ ._ $, 9 • 10 • 11 " IN °EPNINY 12 • \ IF THIS MICROFILMED. DOCUMENT IS LESS \ . IP ---• '' -• '' L • • , , .::::,": ,,, ,"'.i: , ," , ,s , ,.. ,, r:LL '.),:.,':',.,',;..,!,.,. , Im llaillinlini liiiihoilliaili linitiffi liiiirtaii im NH i in !w impt! iiiiiiiiininfi iiilfiq.iitiiiiiiFilrrit nq lin t iilinilliiii lintlittillinliffi in llhtillmIlinlittithilillinluilliniltioiniihml .. , , T ,,,, I , -1 „ : 7, :i 7 k ,„ 1"1/ , OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT i CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS—DUE TO -,,%.,.,;,;,.,,,,!::,,,,,:m...,,,:i,,!,:..,:,-,;:!:4-.,:p1,..:.,,.!...„., 8 8 I, 9 9 4 7 . . . . . .. . . ,. ... L... 777 3 -; 0 6Z 8L LZ 9Z SZ CZ ; ZZ • - : ! • y • br4. „ 701:41 • -- ENTRANCO Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS a4pro wemmom M.ovto M ETRO Municipality at Metropolitan Smith TUKWILA PARK a RIDE FACILITY IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS.NOTICE, IT IS TO O E 6z ee Lz 9z sz �Z ez; zz I a THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT . 69L 95 Ww e z 0 IIIIIIIIII Iilirlllfll ll'III 1111 WI fill 1III'III ifll�liiilnl► I ll�il►ili Ifii(nii�lili i iiiil►iii 1111 inll IIIIIIIIIIJIIIIIliiu lillIi ii 111111u111111ln111111111111llnlln111111111111l1III I1II1 ,f r _... .,,« *-; ;!cr¢, ., . , fir , es• :. ,,. T•°' r3.��. -. . 'm. .t✓ ,rF;^:^•y ?r',rc+ .mo .*rt <. •gip. �. I rr, .s^ . ' r ', •v Y }.�`�f,�> �- �.1f I.F rupi�4�P 'e.• �.rkt[ ,.3 .1 ." ,.,. .r � tir �- r . �' .r ,., . . .5 �. �' ... a Q �'� •t te ' "fi•X' '.'U'L} '" � , t ,.. �. .r.�.r :.. .. ;,,,. .. .., .. .. F.. _.. ,. YneS .,n:e .. '.. '- :...'. . _* ',1 ci 9fR zi., ... ,. '• .t ''t .. , . :_ter .� • �S ' f.N S•' .6 l .n k :, 1 . � x..:.... ,. EXISTING SITE DATA .1.,.,ow t' 1 \�V �. �- `___ ---• —` _ 1.� Jar _._...— . - —� : - by . ,, / ./ i ` � j ` \ �� oc.�'� —�\ �r \ .ice .._,.--- . . _.„,„ ., ,.„, \_, , ,.,,7--, -....--__- • \\ \ \I n`• ENTRANCO Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS X114.1: DEL ARMSTRONG DEL ARMSTRONG .1:4 • 4.14 " ./ , METRO Munklpsllty .31 Metropolitan Seattle TUKWILA PARK 8l RIDE FACILITY .t..1 r• 40 KEY VENUE op AREA LIGHT - 153 WATT ZIPS, 240 VoLT LUMINAIRE TYPE 11 tEDIUM CUTOFF BLACK FINISH ON 12,2 PETER SQUARE TAPERED CONCRETE STANDARD WITH GREY CEMENT AND EXPOSED FINISH 000 SAME AS ABOVE EXCEPT WITH TANDEM LUMINAIRES eza SWITCHGEAR IN IAIIVEN TOILET • CONCRE1E HANDHOLE WSDOT 3-11A TYPE 1. PROVIDE WHERE SHOWN AND AT EACH LUMINAIRE STANDARD O 2'C 3 ® ?' C 4 010, 3 C12, 1 C10 GRND 0 1' C 4 CIO, 1 C1O GRND ® 1' C 2 C10, 1 d10 GRND • 2' CONDUIT ONLY (FOR PHONE COMPANY) • 1' C 2 C12, 1 112 GRND JD• 21 ENGINEERS 31 1050 • 130th N.E. lulu 13 lallarw, wash. 01005 SOS. 31M LIGHTING /ELECTRICAL PLAN . I o••.,w. wuWI C 1 .wti 0' X tilt ' . '1 111 11 111 111 111 11l 111 111 III 111 11 11 0 1 1 111 I I I 111 I I l l l 1 1 1 1 1_ I a i-1 I!l i l 111 1 I I l I --- 0 teTNeINCN 1 2 0 E 6Z 8G LZ 9Z SZ bZ EZ ZZ l X1,1111 iii 111)1 liA 111111tt111111uttl1t1t11t1t1t1t1111 111111liiu1ltiil tit if - 11111i r .... ..Pi h� r. �3 %;,� 'is ....;..1. .krl.. �tr.S .� &� '�•_. ,,!`' I ., 1.. .t .J.�3'. _ 1 1 1 1.1 1 1- 1 1 1 1 1 Illilli lial !I!1!I! llil ii ill l lill 11 6..... ... 7 ... 8 9 • 10 • 11 MADEINoERMANY 12 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS•DUE TO THE 'UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT _ 6 8. L 9 G 1 E Z 1 1t iii iiii 111 li lt 1n1 iiii till 1111 13111tH iniiiililnit1111itidtittiiniiiii 1111 31111 tin 1111111tH111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111iui11iu1ui1111111ui1111111ni11 t�, r- "r?, ?{iFxt`T( ...... 4, V :Cti;. . s:' i t i` ..o :'.'' . rT�T''ZR.., I . m„ r.. ,.., .... ,. ..rs... . a.„re . •� ,....,_. ,,.. w...M ..•„ ; • e • ... {ilia ' ,t :; PANEL SCHEDULE NO P IL nON PEDESTAL PANEL SERMNO LIGHTS, ETC 120/240 vars 1 PRASE 3 N+ 10 AVP.1. VA1A BRE AVER N OT LOAD DESCR.TION •VA ` Q .( 111 (. 1 T - 30 - 20 20 20 rvA LOAO DESCNPTp. C.! NO -. 000 NUMBER LUMINAIRES S P A C E SPARE IRRIGATION CONTROL 2.7 0.1 2 0,1 0.2 0.2 EVEN NUMRERLUGMAMES S P A C E • • TELEPHONE BOOTH RECEPTACLE LIGHTING CONTROL .EVARAS [CONNECTED LOAD 3.8 Av. 2 4 AVPS DEVAIG LOAD 100% kVA AVPS wa � 0.l t7 1 d'r a5 x�'G!m , X' --- Alkr• it'"rNa. M1of}1t�1 .P'�. �tt.> ._. ax : q� 11 j 11111 1 111 1 111 1 111 1 111, I I I I 111' 11 11111 1 111 I I II I III I I I I;1p 1 -I I I j I I I I I I I I I III IIII I� I_ I I I I 41 1I 11111111111111Li I[ I I J I,J S u l 111 1 1 T H I111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 0 18THBINCH 1 2 3 I 0E 6Z . et T 9Z SZ bZ E { IIIII1111 II IIIIIIIIIIIII IIII <- : 5 - -.- 6._.... 8 9 • 10 • 11 MAOEINOERMANY 12 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS-DUE TO THE SUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 111111111111 1111 1111 11111111 illlfllllllfl 1111�11111i111 111111 I III IIIII 6 8 L. 9 S a C z 1 NW IIII •0 120/240 V. 1 0, 3 W LC ELECTRICALLY HELD LIGHTING CONTACTOR WITH 120 VOLT CVIL - 2P3OA. T.C. MICROPROCESSOR BASED 7 -DAY TIME CLOCK 4 CHANNEL. SOLIDYNE .2000 or equal PC PHO'T'O ELECTRIC CELL RATED 105 -285 VOLTS, 1800 VA. MOUNT OH LUMINAIRE NOTED. S BYPASS SWITCH to be SpST, 15A 120V KEY OPERATED SELECTOR SWITCH - CUTTER HAMMER 010250 T 15112 WITH •II -881 KEY NO EQUAL INSTALL ON SIDE OF PEDESTAL PANEL RECIPTACLE - 20A, 120V In PEDESTAL ONE LINE DIAGRAM a KEY • S V 1 I I O• OATS CONNECT TO CONTACTOR COIL MOUNT ON LUMINAIRE 4 1 4 2 ENGRAVED PHENOLIC NAMEPLATES I- AREA LIGHTS -ODD 2• AREA LIGHTS- EVEN 3-SPARE 4-SPARE ENTRANCO Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL ANO TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS WIIIC•LAES WINDOW a... DEL. ARMSTRONG MHTINM 6 GRADE c:z AREA LIGHT DETAIL F4-- 4 2 I IRRGATIO�II 11 TI • I 1 r e e • I I II..•'II. . d I . II III : I . •' II• . • .'II •.Ne.•. (� ! t INCOMING CON TIT OUTGOING COMMITS INCLUDE OWE 2 SPARE STU••EO OUT 24 • PEDESTAL PANEL D E TAI L NONE 3 0• SQUARE, TAPERED. PRECAST ANCHOR BASE CONCRETE STANDARD. PROVIDE BITE STANDARD AGGREGATE. GRIT CEMENT, EXPOSED FINISH A CLEAR ACRYLIC SEALCOAT. - 12.2 METERS CUTOFF TYPE LUMINAIRE 'ITN BLACK ALEYDMELAMINE BASED ENAMEL FINISH BALLAST: 150 Watt MPS, 240 Volt 555 LAMP: S558C -150 COAT ANCHOR PLATE A EXPOSED PORTION OF THE ANCHOR BOLTS A NUTS VITO ATCO CARBOSLASTIC COATING. PROVIDE 18" SQUARE SCREED JOINT AROUND BASE OF ALL POLES INSTALLED IN PC CONCRETE AREAS. FINISH TO MATCH GRADE ANONOLE 1 .4- 24 WAD IF NO SIDEWALK CONDUIT 6AEKCTCD AND SCREENED VENT. DEL ARMSTRONG 4P METRO IkMldciaftai Mettwoher See* TUKWILA PARK a RIDE FACILITY ELECTRICAL DETAILS •• TYPICAL ALL SIDES. . JD• 21 ENGINEERS 21 1540. 130th N.E. SMlt• 13 •411Nrw, Wash. 1111006 US•21Us YTS. MIST MM RamWIo •IAtlQ E2 SKIT CO p TtM•eM w I' v t�i ` •- , �h4I #� i 3r ry..ny, v- 5,4ryvq"ry CABLE 9 CONDUIT SCHEDULE Q toNurT 91 CONDUCTOR SIZE KAM ' M8 203 3CS 2C 5C A'6 *12 1 1• 1 2 11/4' 1 (DOP MM I 1/4" 1 LOOP MM 1 1/4" 1 LOOP PAM 3 2" 1 I 3 2" 2 ILLUNNATKIN 2 • I SIRE • 21/2" 3 I 1 3 2" 2 ILLIAN4TION 5 1 1/4" 1 LOOP PAM 1 2" 3 2" 2 ILLUMINATION t" I SPARE 7 3 "' • I 1 7 • 2 • 2 ILLUMINATION II 11 /z" 4 S 1" 1 10 E. 1 1 3 E" 2 ILLUMINATION 11 2 I I I • •• ' 2" 2 ILLUMINATION 2" 3 ELIM SERVICE 12 2 1 I 3 2" 2 ILLUMINATION N" 1 SPARE 13 3" • 1 I 7 3' 5 2 2 7 3" I SPARE 3" a ILLUMINATION I I/2" 3 ELEC. SERVICE I• 1 1/2" 1 3 ELEC. SERVICE i GFWFA 1IS I. TNNNEL VISORS AND SQUARE DOORS SHALL BE USED FOR ALL VEHICLES MEADS. . 1. ALL VEHICLE HEADS SHALL HAVE S' BACKPLAILS. S. EACM LOOP SHALL ENTER THE CURB IN SEPARATE SAWSLOT AND CONDUIT. 1. FOR BAST ARM MOUNTED STREET NAME SIGNS, USE 6' SERIES E 111611 INTENSITY LETTERS ON AN ENGINEERING 6RADE BACKGROUND. LUI TUKTlol NUTFt - O INSTALL TYPE III 6ALYAMIIED STEEL COMBINATION POLE WITH IVO YENICLL HEADS (TYPE N MOUNTING) ON A 21' MST ARM AT STATION 30.83. 56' LT. INSTALL ONE UNIDIRECTIONAL 'OPTIC3M' SENSOR AMU AMEN INDICATOR LIGHT ON THE SAME ARM. INSTALL ONE VEHICLL HEAD ON SHAFT (TYPE K MOUNTING/. INSTALL TNO PEDESTRIAN HEADS (TYPE E MOUNTING) WITH PPM AND PPS SIGN 11110 ON THE SHAFT. . O INSTALL TYPE III GALVANIZED STEEL COMBINATION POLE WITH TWO VEHICLE HEADS (TYPE N MOUNTING) UN A 41' MAST ARM AT STATION 31.02. 30' RT. INSTALL ONE BIDIRECTIONAL 'OPTICO)1' SENSOR AND AMBER INDICATOR LIGHT 0A THE SAM ARM. INSTALL ONE VEHICLE MAD ON SHAFT (TYPE K ROUNTIM6). INSTALL TWO PEDESTRIAN HEADS (TYPE E MOUNTING) WITN FPO AND PPS SIGN (A10-4A) 011 THE SHAFT. ® INSTALL TYPE 111 GALVANIZED STEEL COMBINATION POLE WITH TWO • VEHICLE HEADS (TYPE 1 MOUNTING) ON A 55' MAST ARA AT STATION ;• 3U•30, 411' RT. INSTALL ONE UNIDIRECTIONAL 'UPTICUM' SENSOR AND AMBER INDICATOR LIGHT ON SAE ARM. INSTALL ONE VEHICLE NLAD UN SHAFT (TYPE K MOUNTING/. INSTALL TWO PEDESTRIAN HEADS .', (TYPE E MOUNTING) WITH PPS APO PPR 51611 (110-(A2 ON THE SHAFT. ® INSTALL TYPE III GALVANIZED STEEL COMBINATION POLE WITH TWO VEHICLE HEADS (TYPE M MOUNTING) ON A 48' MAST ANN AT STATION •, 30.11. 511' L.T. INSTALL ONE VEHICLE HEAD ON SHAFT (TYPE K • AIJ. CONDUCTORS 014 GAUGE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. • • INSTALL ONE SPARE 5C CABLE FOR FUTURE LEFT TURN HEAD IF NEEDED. COIL 4 SLACK CABLE IN JUNCTION BOX. ROUNTI16). INSTALL TNO PEDESTRIAN HEMS (TYPE E MOUNTING) NITN PPS AND PPI SIGN IA10-16) ON THE SHAFT. • O STANDANI PLAN J-9A. INSTALL 6' X 6' INDUCTION LOOP NITN TBREE TURNS ACCORDIN6 TO , • :1 • INSTALL 6' X 30''QUADRAPOLE. IMDUCTIOI WITHIN() TURNS ACCORDIN6 i0 STANDARD PLAN J-9A. INSTALL 1' X 30' DUADRAPOLE 'INDUCTIOI LOOP KITH T110•TURNS "' ACCORDING TO STANDARD PLAN J-!A. - . ,. I1 b . 23 24 71 41 ,1 21 S1 120' TO STOPBAR 120' TO STOPBAR SIGNS D3 —I.o • 120' TO S VARIES 51 S 34 . OCT. 24 O INSTALL ELECTRICAL SERVICE ANV CABINET (SNISS TYPE TO ON OUTER SIRE OF CONTROLLER CAIIMET. PROVIDE A 60 MP MIN BREAKER, A , 40 MP SIGNAL SERVICE.NIEAKER, AND 15 MP LIGHTING BREAKER. O INSTALL TRAFFIC CONTROLLER, CABINET, CONCRETE BASE, DETECTOR AMPLIFIERS, 'OPTICOR' UNIT AND PHASE SELECTOR, AND ASSOCIATED • CONTROL EQUIPMENT., .. O INSTALL LUMINAIRE ON 12' MST AM C (SIN6LE MASER. 4 -10LT FLANGE MOUNTED) AT 40' MOUNTING HEIGHT. LUMINAIRE SHALL BE 100 WATT HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM VAPOR MEDIUM CUT -OFF TYPE III. CONNECT TO QUAD COUPLE• UPTICOM VIIT IN CABINET FOR fB • PREEMPTION. DETECTOR CONNECTION SCHEMATIC L�QP Q AMPLIFIER • —� a E3 ,N 6 1' ❑ ❑ m il :R TIMER 0 ❑ WITH DELAY 7111ER ❑ /NTH CLL.1Y 0 TIMER ❑ *ITN 021 AY TIMER PHASE N0. M AA M •2 M Y AA NA 56TH AVENUE S AS NU 1 I 52ND AVENUE S. INDICATOR PREEMPT LNNT SENSOR TO BASE__ J o E n COMMON TYPICAL WIRING AT MAST ARMS EXIST. EP AP STA. 1 + 84, 64 -E F• INTERURBAN AVE. R3 -8 34' !0' 32 A 33 ONLY 03 52ND AVE. S. ♦ 1 4- 56TH AVE. 9. 1ARRS 33 03 24" l 56TH AVE. S. 4 - 52ND AVE. S. VAN'S' �6 LEGEND; VEHICLE SIGNAL HEAD • PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL HEAD 00710021 SENS011 , CONDUIT (MC • RIGID MALI TYPE 1 JUNCTION BOX TYPE 11 JUNCTION BOX TYPE III JUNCTION BOX SIGNAL CONTROLLER CARNET INDUCTION LOOP s SAWCUT LEAD -IN SIGNAL STANDARD NUMBER CONSTRUCTION NOTE CONDUIT RUN NUMBER F SIGH e POWER POLE PPM PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON INTERURBAN AVENUE S. PHASING SEQUENCE •••-11. 4•- 4�► 1111 NB OA SIGNAL HEADS i2 • HEADS No, 21, 22, 23, 41, 42,43,61,62, 63, 81, 62,83 law HP-0.292, 28, 28, 4$,48, DI, 68,88,28, NO •P VI SI ON Nr NATP ENTRANCO Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL ANO TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS mows E. FINCH METRO Nhuu 1pAUIV of Metr6pdRW1e SEANT. TUKWILA PARK 8l RIDE FACILITY SIGNAL LAYOUT ANNO1 PILO( ONO.. NUNN, 5 —I ONE/ Or ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI I1�1 ICI- ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI I I I I � I � I I I I I I I I I _I - a _� _ -� � __- I-- •�-- -! 0 I6 THE INCH 1 / 3 4.. ..._ -:. 5 IZ 1 0 £ 6Z 8G LZ 9Z Sz 1 2Z CZI I ZZ 1111Iti1111I11111I11 1111( 1111II11I1I1111111I1111III1Ii11111111111111111111111111114111 -1 111.1.0 ipiii ting1- 111 - ICIpliiiimIIlIIIiIIIilililllilllilllilllilllilllilllilllill _.6 , . ... 7..1 8 9 10 11 1DEINOERMM 12 • IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT' µ IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. _ 6 8 � 9 S 17 C z 1 WW 0 IIII /III 111111111111I111�1111I111 111111111 I1f1�11> #1111161 fl IIII�Iflllfll11111�iiilllufinullnilfullllu�fuflllfi�llfllullifllfll�illullllflllllfllffl�flllllllf�ullllfii ), R'I� I Zrs - 71rv t 1 a i \K� r, a r• � -l- i• ner•.� � i.. , x "- .' L NO IIVIAION l H EL -RRR A SEGTIQN KALE 1 It*. I -O" BY SATI -J 0 r f1OG WRLK SCHEDULE RASSENO6R SHELTERS ITEM TYPE MATERIAL FRAME 2 - F14 MD 1 - Ell STEEL R00F 2 - RI2 NO I - 111 .(TAIL PANEL 1 7 - P23 NO 1 - P33 GL. A IIDOD PANEL 2 E - P22 ND E - P32 TL. E WOOD FOOTING 2 17' -0 A 18'.O S ' 1 1 1' -0 A S'-I' REINF. CONC. IENCM S - S12 HOOD • LITTER 2 KT& 4k "x 4" EXP ANSION JOINT (TYP.) 1 /4' 4 bacovil (lYR) HANotoAPPEO SHINS c t P) 101. o " v ROOF Q 4' CAN. CONC. RAO IvALK CMANOIGAPPED FLusA4 Mf l AfPNACT PARKINS CONCR7ft /AVINA pI�AN SGAL.i 1 It' • 1'. O' PoOTINS J of l,00 ANIIOAO A—ovIO � L44NofGA11 NO \ — FRAM; FI4 (TYR) 1 ROOF Loa I PoollNd LI1TER CONTAINER rTYR) r2=9'xM % 4" CONC. BLAB \ CADS ER CONTAIAI NER f TF115 LOUTiON ONLY ) 1f - C" B16YOt.1 RACKS 1CALI: NOTESI 1. MCNITECTURAL DAWINGS TIIAT F0.L0N ARE PETRO'S STANDARD DETAILS MO STSTEm4IDE PASSENGER SHELTERS AT PARR -AID -RIDE FACILITIES. ONLY THE DETAILS NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT THE SMELTERS AS DEPICTED ON THIS SHEET. ARE APPLICABLE. 2. F011 LOCATIONS. SEE SHEETS C-3 MD GI. 41 METRO Manlclpply o(Mltrapolfal Stank TUKWILA PARK 81 RIDE FACILITY PASSENGER SHELTER LAYOUT Or DOG ANNA: Pµ0 O.A.I., u1s•1I A -/ R.,IT 00 t a i t�MRtJ.i�. II�111�1, I�IIIJIII�III�IIIJIII�IIIJIII�III�III�lIIi�III�I�I�I 11111111111 1111141 1 I I I 1 11L1L11_1_ Ih!,1i 11111 11111 II1I1I_ 11. 11111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111 0 18TNsINCH 1 3 .._..._.._ r._.___5 _.__. _ 6 . _ 8 9 10 11 MADEINGCRMAIY 12 I IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS iiCLEAR THAN THIS.NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO OE 6Z 8G LZ 9Z SZ CZ; ZZ IZ THE •UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT I 8 8 L. 9 S i E z 1 " o j � 1141111 j111141111111111111III1111111111111I111111111111111I111IIIIII1111111 ililrlillll 111 Till III fill (III MI Ilia iiii l)�Ifll - IIII illilllll 1711(III1NNfi1111iIII1NIlI1111IIII IIIIIIIN1u11111il1lu1111111ulllllu111111ull1u111111111111lu111111illu111111lilu1n111111i1 _. . . yn ,T'C'.'. . n� . .,r, .. < <• ,,,t'Ta'4''':ti "..,,,.� a: ` e: , .i e.p, "wY., ,i r..; zPatT* - .,^".�,?" . r.,." v�A: ':h`t` +t "i ; 2 iii. ;i . k,T " j'.' . � � 7 ^'',''.,q.^�i•.. 7�s4t Fo . • ,',i "3 "� • yy : ._. 1 • • 44 PROPERTY LINE - NO / AP STA 213+00 BEGIN TYPE C PAV7 END CEMENT CONC. CURB 0 GUTTER TYPE A-I LANDSCAPED STRIP 0 SIDEWALK • PO STA. 23+00, R LANDSCAPING ■IVI/I D.•• END ISLAND TYPE E NSW 1 IT' 2748780 (69.00'RT.) AP STA 28+0? BEGIN EXTRUDED CURB BEGIN ASPHALT PVM7 - T '..- END EXTRUDED CURB BEGIN SIDEWALK CEM. CONC. CURBS GUTTER IT MATI 4 EQUAL SPA. BEGIN TRANSITIONAL CURB- 12.5' PL NTIN STRIP • N Ew 11 V4• 'V• 0050 E REIN ME EXIST ASPHALT n GROOVE (TYP) ispN CURB STA. 28+07 TO STA. 30+11 _ AP STA. 28+55 6 EQUAL S LANDSCAPING • 99' CURB TYPE E -I END ISLAND TYPE D 3 EQUAL SPA (TYP) 3 EQUAL SPA TRANSITION TYPE E -I C11RB {22) END TYPE E -I CURB NOTE BEGIN EXTRUDED CURS DELETE 5.5' SIDEWALK ON NW SIDE OF ACCESS ROAD. INTEGRAL CEM. CONC. CURB TYPE A W4'. 4• EXPANSION • JONT (TYP) END CURB WITH IA' TRANSITION •TO QO CURS HEIGHT . PASSENGER LOADING ZONE • END ISLAND TYPE C THICKENED E113 CONC. WALK • 9 • 4 EQUAL SPA. PAVEMENT PASSENGER SHELTER LANDSCAPINOT PASSENGERI SHELTER - LITTER•CONTAINER f INTERURBAN AVENUE 3 EQUAL SPA. ITYP.) • • • ( INFORMATION SIGN LITTER CONTAINER Xi' `ENTRANCO Engineers ENVIRONMENTM: MW TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 2.75' 325% BUS INFORMATION SIGN \PASSENGE •••w•IO • 2 EQUAL SPA 174 ''V' GROOVE (TYI'( 7 R HANDICAPPED SIGN BICYCLE RAMS AT 4' -0' OC --+i — 1 - 1 - I'' �" ` -4' CEM. CONC. PAD 9 WALK FLUSH I 2- ' HANDICAPPED PARKING WITH ASPH. CONC. PAVING Z -Z I- .4%.1,444 5' 17' BOLLARDS NYDMD A.COMMON /D 30 115 (VERIFY) SHELTER 2 EQUAL SPA IC•LE: 0 R.P. 17.9650 • 32.50 LT. . END ISLAND TYPE B \ � - \ • . I \ I 4'CEM. CONC. SLAB•FOR LITTER CONTAINER (THIS LOCATION ONLY \ PT STA.30 +11 P.T. 17 +9850 (12.5011) BEGIN TAPER - n, END SIDEWALK n MATCH EXIST . f LANDSCAPING PC, 3042292 END TYPE C PAV'T• BEGIN CEAL CONC. ' CURS 6 GUTTER TYPE A -I PASSENGER LOADING ZONE . & END ISLAND DETAILS f ACCESS ROAD - END ISLAND TYPE A END ISLAND TYPE F W RAMP ITYP. 5.5' TEXTURED ITYP,) WARNING GRID STA. 30+71.11 4/1 METRO NIrK111PAI1RY of MeNopoiltan SoaRIS TUKWILA PARK 8 RIDE FACILITY OATS AIrII PIM s.*. uY11NA C _8 • • MIT M p ? ,xx..* IJ1 J 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111111'!.!I11_I II IIIIIIIIIIIITIIIIIIlI I I I 0 I6TH6 INCH 1 2 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO o£ 6z 8t LZ 9z G T 1 7z Ez; ZZ i,' THE UALITY OF . THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 111I 1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIlllllillllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIllilllllllllll l� Ilfl IIII fill 1111 IIII Ills Ill 11�I11I11ffralfl11111111ffflfll fill ifiEI I' Ifbl .}...:f• .+••T } ; :` ?;r tP?'-•.l �a.�?:st H OT.IF' �V3'iNCil b ^i�i"T Vl ±r~.4'fY''aF(J � i'F- ��1 ' tNl ... ... (.. � . , t..l .ii .�'r.5.t•I '..`iY�y, iY ✓..�.. � � [. :. �S . Ill► �. �I�! �ih�_ i���i���1_ ��ih ��IlI�III�IIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 9 10 11 MADEINOERMANY 12 8 9 L. 9 9 +7 E z NW O II�IINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II -.- IIINIIIIIIIIINIINIIIIIIIIIIIIII1 111111 ..•... /x_�TtL ti,. 5!,•.� .... • ec PLANT BED - TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE MOUND BEDS AT 4:1 WITH ROUNDED TOP BARK MULCH PRE- EMERGENCE HERBICIDE' GAS . STATION ARCTOSTAPHLOS UVA COTONEASTER LOWFAST GROUND AREAS.•• SEED: CHEWNGS FESCUE 415a. PER 1,000 S.F. ON FINELY PULVERIZED SOIL KEEP MOIST. • EXISTING BLACKBERRY B MIXED TREES • • =PROP LINE (TYP.) • MENZESI 30 • RESIDENCES f SIDE VIEW USE I THRUOUT L O.C. (TYPJ . oC C..1:14 f � ,. , H y a . � f • 5c � � + • C•••urt - It ..v,6t.■ .• .•T. • TtSUE00TSUGA MENZtE81 3 TERURB/�N AVENUE SO. 1 ACER cIlOIATUM 2? PLANTING PLAN 1 • _I8" FOR AUU '.1, 24' POR CL • GROUNDCOVER PATtERN - NOT TO SCALE CURB OR BED EDGE RANT . PSUEDOTSUGA MENZESI 6 TOP VIEW • • HOSE I CONNECTION NOT TO SCALE ENTRANCO Engineers • ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS SIDE VIEW . , SECTION X -X NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE TREE PLANTING ON SLOPES - TYP•. DETAILS P L A N T L I S T SYMBOL Lx ELL ,2" NIPPLE. BOTANICAL 8 COMMON NAME • ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA -URSI / BEARBERRY (AUU) COTONEASTER'LOWFAST / COTONEASTERICU ACER:_CIRCINATUM / VINEMAPLE ACER RUBRUM 'RED SUNSET' / E. RED MAPLE CUPRESSOCYPARIS. LEVI ANDI / CUPRESSOCYPMRIS PSUEDOTSUGA MENZIES! / DOUGLASFIR CHECK 6 VERIFY LIST — COMPLETE WORK AS . SHOWN ON PLAN SEE DWG. L -2 .C...., E M W N.M. EMW •ICe••w. — 'GRAVEL. I:. • .C•u I 40 THESE PLANTING DETAILS APPLY TO ALL TREES. • STAKE B TIE BARK /HERBICIDE •FERTILIZER • REMOVE TOP HALF OF ROOT WRAP •TOPSOIL FILTER FABRIC PEA GRAVEL I0 40 SIZE' 15"- le" 18 "- 21 " 6 2" CAL. 5 6' 12• MIN (TYPJ * 1 METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle TUKWILA PARK a RIDE FACILITY 'LANDSCAPE LAN 4" DRAPIT1LE TO CLOSEST,' SWIM DRAIN w /LOWER LE. (DT FOR TREES WHERE GRAVEL CANNOT "AYLIGHT ) QUANTITY 30 "0. C. 29 12 46 73 :'. 150 an. •.Nn P1.51: •,; r.•MNI ..NMN 111 III III I J I III III III III I J I I I I I I I I I J -� I I I I ICI 1 111- I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ 1 1I1 1I111 1 1 1 .I_WIIH.I.I1lllil ilil�il�I�ltli- ICI+ I111 IIIIllllllllllllll111111II ;llllllllllllllllllllllll TH 0 ,eS INCH 1 7 3 _ !}._ _.._ _ -_ _- _ .._ 6 ... ..... 8 9 10 ' 11 tufEINGERM W 12 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS 0 CLEAR THAN THIS.NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE !UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUM IIII 1111 1111 1111 IIII IIII 1111 lll�llll III111111IIIIIIIIIII111 III1�1filENll II t fh 1111111111111111u111111111111ul1lu11111111111111111lllllln111111111111lullnll1llnlu111111111111l ♦tr°�f,Y°�'f: T'SL�iT1'O.. ... .�., ... . .., �o ,.... .. „'S?S�r"t^ pry.:°. ?' Fi4."• ,T,? ',". ° .R „a"•�l,'7$"9... 3. v: i�.` <. ,er ev+.:; •9xtc. .. _�. 't�'9 06 6Z 8G LZ 9Z SE ti CZ 1 ZZ LZ ti IIIIII1111IIIIIilI11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 '4k 1111111 ' 11ilrull111111i11 t"x,ro -^�•a ..``'Yr f.. >._. " "l ?:.• s.+' 4asit+ ? 21` i': t!' EES` YI. t," r)ti�'2.�erfJ"!�'i;�4�' I EMITTER ON 1.4LY " TUBING EMITTER *or4 uNE" PO TUBING AS REO. ROOTBALL PVC SUEIMAIN TUBING 8 EMITTERS SHRUBS TO BE LCH. UNDER BARK MU POLY. TUBING AS REQ. EMITTER ON ve TUBING • 'ON LINE" EMITTER. V PVC SUBMA1N em POLY TUBING AS .REI3 ROOTEALL DRIP SYSTEM EMITTER DETAIL (PLAN VIEWS) NOT TO SCALE AV. L44444 44.4MXT U.,../..‘,..1014....." 1.44.4) CunriCAll 116. 10 30 20 TREES 11■014104 • EM/TTERS 70 BE AT ROOTBALL TOP STAKED IF NEC. TO SECURE IN PLACE.. 100 OAT( e 6Z 1111111111 LATERAL • 6' VALVE BOX %%COVER FLUSHING CAP • 'ROJNBIRD SCF•5I I 3 C.F. GRAVEL DRAIN & FLUSHING END CAP NOT TO SCALE' 11 'RAININFIC/ PRES. GAUGE ,REIG•1.60 ADAPTER TO BE APPROT PETCOCK OR BRONZE LL UNION ITYR) • — 3/4 • e. .1;.; t• , I Ile DRAWEE TO STORM DRAIN 51.j ELECTRIC VALVE - NOT TO SCALE tc •-••• • I ts • -I `••• ••••■ ••••••.,„'Zz. • •-"-• • -I FEET \ 150 0 113TH! INCH 1 OR01P 1RR. I TUBNG - AS REQ.' , PVC OMR k FITTING INC RISER 1 SUBMILIN PVC TO POLY. CONN.1 DRIP SYS.- No Scale 1 Fire- TO BE IN THIS BED 0 • VALVE BOX W/COVER ELEC. VALVE 'RNNEIIRD' 125EFA•CPPRS 35P51 MAX. AT spArnas ' - .• PLAN VIEW .. "LEAKY PIPE" DETAI . . IIAINUNE 1111111111111111111111J111111111111111111111111111011[1 1 11111111 I I I 2 3T 5 • Be LZ 9Z SZ 1 7d EZ: ZZ 1 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111141Eili14111151111 " 1' SIDE VIEW• • . • • • CONTROLLER AS DIRECTED • R 007k LL ■ IC:# HOSE CONNECTION • (SEE DWG. L MU! DAYP SYSTEM TIM MAE OF SIZE TO ~ME 29 PS/ mhy 70 afirrEns-35.P.V__Mt_INSIALL. RAIP81110 RN4 PAY AS NEEDED \ WEST PLANT BED - EST. 1800 EMITTERS VERIFY •.. ^11 ''`•■ -; .........". , t-Pa" su • ..IL •, • ' ROUTE PIPE TO CONTACT 100TBALL OF ALL PLANTS NOT TO SCALE----- 1 A.- 1•1/2" LOCATE irate 8 LINES FLAPIT BED MHEREYER POSS 10- -4- ENTRANCO Engineers ENViRCNMENTAL AND 17IANSPORTATI0N CONSULTANTS. • MAIN OR LATERAL OR 3 SUMP WHERE DIRECTE .� ....1 MANUAL DRAIN VALVE NOT TO SCALE ' ' I (36' • - 1-1/4 suahum IRRIGATION SYSTEM PLAN • SO. PLANT BED ...ESTI TED 750 EMITTERS VERIFY 6" WE SOX VocovER FIN. GR. -- v,ox-sufx"' �$G40 E M W 0.144. EM W .40441114,10 ■440•44 11C•11: 3 6 PVC PIPE EXT. ANGLE VALVE OR BALL V.(GEE, KB/ OR EQUAL) MAIN • MAIN NOT T 0 LOCATE CONTROLLER AS DIRECTED • • L. 9 S E lv :11t ' r CONFORM TO CODES , CONTROLLER • • RAINBIRD • RC•7A . 8 PEO(RC-TA) PEDESTAL a MOUNTING MT OR EQUAL • • • 11,1__,.1 • • r ' CONTROLLER DETAILS., . NOT TO SCALE SYMBOLS V POINT OF CONNECTION CONTROLLER NOTE - SCHED 40 UNDER PAVING. • 1 ve swam IRRIGATION S. MNN CONNECTION r WATER METER 4FM ETRO MAttopoiltan %Nth TUKWILA PARK a RIDE FACILITY IRRIGATION PLAN 120V. PI CONDUIT comma'. WIRES fr I 1 • 841 ELEC. VALVE • NNW& 125EFA-CP-PRS MANUAL ORAN %SALVE , MAINUNE PVC CL 200 (SEE NOTE) SUBMAIN - PVC CL 200 (SEE NOTE), • •—•—• 1/2" 'LEAKY PIPE • ,:: • • furl. A111141 411,14 MU NN uNI L-2 OMIT • .-••• POLY MP IRRIGATION.TUBNG WITH ENITITRS • 2 PER SNUB, • 4 PER TREE. 'RAINBOW DA -IA 10 OR EQUAL-20 TO 40PSI. .444.4... I •1/2" METAL CONDUIT . ' - • 1 ..•- ••. '• -IA DRAM a FLAMM ea ea. 4 PRESSURE REGULATOR. 2•I6 GPM 16 PSI TOELEC. Im V r ALVE uNI ) FLTER 250 MEV / AO GPM PRES. GA. W/COCK 0.•• 160 PSI I-V2 PRES. REDUCING 1,o,Lve• • 14/2. GATE VALVE (Noma r QUICK-COUPLER VALVE 7' • Ha' oeLai. UNIT motatErin i i s. Q -u2"sToP ORAIN a TtE wA uNE TEv FRCO4 METER .*."•; • TO`'STORM DR. 4—.5911--44.•••H• 44 4■•-iirr OR • CONNECTION OAW. ICH 40 THRU •'' SCALE IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITV OF .THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT int , 4 r tirtr 1Li_u_qiu1ravi ply! p ii]iiiivi11111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 6_ 9 • 10 • 11 " UNGER/Urn 12 • '„ GRADING PLAN 411 METRO Niteiliapiliti d Meropdbui s..H k * TUKWILA PARK S RIDE FACILITY I ATTACH 24"X 3/8 • CHAIN TO '0' RING RING SHALL BE FREE g ' v&MX174. TO ROTATE ON EYE BCCT WASHED ROCK 100% PASSING 2' SIEVE WITH LESS THAN 2% PASSING THE #200 SIEVE ?EXISTING GROUND/ MIRIFI FILTER FABRIC 6 PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE 4' ASPHALT CONC. CLASS El (2- LEVELING COURSE. r WEARING COURSE ' • COMPACTED SUBGRADE 5 CRUSHED SURFACING 4 CRUSHED SURFACING (COMPACTED DEPTH ) (COMPACTED DEPTH) e CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 8 r CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE a • 3 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE 2 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE COURSE • . • , . TYPE B PAVEMENT • TYPE A PAVEMENT rS0 1 4 -1r- F -4 SIDES 3/4' ---- I-I/2 NOTCH ROUTED ALL SIDES BOLLARD DETAIL 3/4 EYE BOLT MTH 4 SOUD WELDED "0" RING RECESSED NUT (SPOT WELDED) CONCRETE SLAB rar ROUGH CEDAR '1.- STANDARD 5 BETTER 4 TREATED • li a MIN 4 COMPACTED EARTH Ali ALL SIDES 0 BOTTOM MIN. 2' COMPACTED GRAVEL ALL SIDES B BOTTOM ROCK WALL DETAIL CURB • (1-1/2" LEVELING COURSE, I-I/2" WEARING COURSE • " • • . . . . . COMPACTED SUBGRADE • . . FINISHED GRADE COURSE TEXTURED SURFACE LITTER CONTAINER • WHEELCHAIR RAMP DETAIL " Er CEMENT CONC. PAVEMENT • COMPACTED CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK SUBGRADE 4 CRUSHED SURFACING (COMPACTED DEPTH) 2 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE a 2 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE • TYPE C PAVEMENT • 30- ae 30 • SLOPE I:6 MAX 1 • IBOTTOM OF RAMP TO BE FLUSH WITH PAVEMENT LITTER RECEPTACLE TO SE PAINTED METRO DARK BROWN S.S. CONC. CINCH. ANCHOR BOLT, 3/8" 0IA. WITH NUT AND WASHER 4 'CONC. SL AB LEVELING SCREW WITH LOCKNUT Win d-s2 • CONC. GROUT ' PAD 6 .• CONC. SLAG --•:■■ CEMENT CONCRETE CURB a GUTTER TYPE A-I • 6' 0• 11“ ID ID BASE PLATE (TYP) 1 SAWCUT COSTING 'mow° SURFACING a I4/2" ASPHALT CONC. a- e BUS INFORMATION SIGN • . . . • -1/2' ASPHALT cow. a.. a OVERLAY. FULL want 52ND AVE NE. WIDENING ELEVATION FINISHED GRADE • " • 3/8 STAINLESS STL. BOLTS RAWL STUD (TEEPLE a TEEPLE OR EQUAL) CORSE SEND AVE. N.E. • SIDEWALK . , , . INTERURBAN AVE. WIDENING CM. CONC. CUNS 5 Gtn OR EXTRUDED CURB AS SHOWN ON PLANS TYPE a PA -1312 DEMI& THIS • ' •'• • • •. • , •0 MIXISIOM 1•••••Mall■ ST OATIE ENTRANCO Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 121114.110 111.11.■ 1I10oar1o0 to 43 1 METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 1C11..(1 N3NE TUKWILA PARK a RIDE FACILITY PAVEMENT SECTIONS, DETAILS . OAT. MINE P11.11 of1■111.16 NUOGILIN C • • ' & ' • • •.,, ' , .,•-•:„•.,••••••••• ••,.• •• , „.• • •••,, , • ,.0741.70 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111\1111[1:pl I I I 0 le THS INCH 1 3- -4 - 5_ IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO RTHE QULITY :;HE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Yrr oc sz 8l L sz sz 17Z ez zz I111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111fi 1 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111 _.6_. 9 10 • 11 IMAEINGERMANT 12 , :•„ •••• : • •••;:.• . , • 6 9 L 9 G C VIVI 0 7 .7 .• A SECTION : AT 125 26+00 233.5' 3+90 GROUND THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO ENTRANCO Engineers' ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS ECTION: AT 26+50 M ETRO Marticipaltrr of Metropolitan NM TUKWILA PARK & RIDE FACILITY CROSS SECTIONS 10 • 11 , nEINOERNANY 12 3t00 .•TI • 1111 . : .I, 20 • 40 - 20. I0 0 11.11.11S4 11.1114 C-13 I .I . ••,.13 A4 FINISHED GRADE -05% .. SECTION AT 27 1 M15$25:: ......... GRADE d I-00 123 0 : wsr..cNOU►ro .... .. ...... .......... .... ............................. . , �FINISNED.GMDE +3 %' SECTION 4T 28+e0 0 so t . -o5% -20 .. 2 0 ....... SECTION AT 28 +00 ..30 •43.2% ......... M . .,. . i. Oast GROUND W N 1 GROUND 211 J4 , N s 1 . 0 s:3 2}00.. SECTION E 27 +50' 40 30' . 20. 10' 4 • 20. . 30. • 0 .. .11. 111,0. 11 •.T. ' ENTRANCO Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 040 osaws 4 METRO maataINy NistrOvoitun Snob .CK.: TUKWILA PARK a RIDE FACILITY CROSS SECTIONS .• 11 41.5, . nw. 0111101141•1M114. C -l4 06 63 8 G L? 9Z SZ +7Z EZ I ZZ ' �1�(r111111111 , 1�� 110111111 'whin III1401l !whlll lllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllll ..,. t.. rt- I Z • 4 t` F .. ._ )l s. qraa ..41041.1100 pill ill ► lll► ll1► 1l1► llI► lll► IIi► llI► 1lI► lII►II1\►ll1MIII►IIIIIII ►1 I►IIIIIII I I 1 I. 1111111.I►lll_ 111111 111IIJII_ I_ lul 1.1i 1I1 11►I11II111II11IIIIII 1111111111 1111111I1111111I1I11111I 0 IOTHS INCH 1 2 3' _4 5 6 .- .. - - .. p _. 9 10 ' 11 MADEINGERNMPY 12 IF TH MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS.NOTICE, IT IS• -DUE TO THE OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, lihfuhiilhllihiiihlii nr(inl i m tfiil lliil iii 8 8 L 9 S +! C Z l ww 1111111111u11hu111 ►1111u11�11�11111 iu111111111111111111111111111i01 ,1i1 s A f's ENTRANCO Engineers ENVIFIONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS • . . DONNA 41 1 METRO Municipality al Mieropolitan Seattle TUKWILA PARK 81 RIDE FACILITY • CROSS SECTIONS ONTII MINS: /ILI: MAIMS NUMMI C 'UT N OP • • • ?..Vr• • , t;'>;L. 06 sz ee Lz sz sz ez: 1 zz 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 • 1111111111 11111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111fi 11111411111111 1111 1111 HUM 1111 Illi[111111111Wilflifili111 11) 11 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,111 3 1,z IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUM IS LESS ) CLEAR THAN THISiNOTICE, IT IS-DUE TO, ' THE SUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTI_. . 7 1111111114111.1 .1_4111i11111i111111111111111_1111111i1.11111111111111 111111111111W 11111111111111111111111100 . '^-••,• '7" 7 N 9 10 - eL s z z " 14%. 11 11 4 11 MADE IN GERMANY • 4. 0.7401•„;,"..tt. :1.0 (il rAtAZAVAY '141 • • 85 -19 -SS 4/8/85 . Segale S 180 St & Southcenter Py 85 -20 -CUP 4/26/85 Southcenter Day Care 345 Andover Park E CN -85 -020 85 -21 -V 5/22/85 Pitney Bowes 116 Andover Park E 85- 22 -UUP 5/21/85 TO '; i Rendering Works sys 57 95 S 130 P1 k c40. '� ' un" 85 -23 -R 5/21/85 Annexation Rezone 51 Av b between b !bi & S 164 St. 85 -24 -V 6/3/85 Metro Park & Ride • 13447 Interurban Av S 85- 25 -SMP J23/85 Tukwila Mini Storage 85 -26 -V 6/28/85 Tukwila II - 16460 -16600 W Valley Hy CN -85 -184 85 -27 -DR 7/1/85 Rendering Works 5795 S 130 P1 85 -28 -A 7/2/8 Annexation 51 Av S b/w S 164 & 166 ,CN -84 -052 85- 29 -PRD 7/25/85 Group 5 Interurban Av S 85 -30 -V 7/24/86 Fatigue Technology . 150 Andover Pk W MASTER FILE LIST