Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEPA E08-021 - WESTFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - WESTFIELD SOUTHCENTER MALL
WESTFIELD EIS ADDENDUM SOUThCENTER MAIL E08 -021 • Stacy MacGregor - RE: Regarding SEPA for BofA Page 1 of 1 From: "Nicholas Lee" To: "Stacy MacGregor" Date: 12/10/2009 5:45 PM Subject: RE: Regarding SEPA for BofA Stacy, Please withdraw the SEPA addendum (E08-024.‘ a a t Regards, Nick Nicholas Lee / Development Manager / Pacific Northwest Westfield Southcenter / 633 Southcenter / Seattle, WA 98188 T 206.802.6066 / C 206.406.2685 / nlee @westfield.com Wadi From: Stacy MacGregor [mailto:smacgregor @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 3:05 PM To: Nicholas Lee Subject: Regarding SEPA for BofA 5tac9 Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner 206.433.7166 City of Tukwila, 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Tukwila, WA 98188 Monday- Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm Please consider the environment before printing this e -mail file: / /C:\ Temp\ XPgrpwise\ 4B21339Ftuk- mail6300- po10017833311546E1 \GW; 00001.1 -1... 12/18/2009 City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE ASSESSMENT OF FIRE IMPACT FEES ON NEW RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Growth Management Act of the State of Washington and RCW 36.70A, the City of Tukwila has an adopted Comprehensive Plan, which includes provisions for fire protection facilities as part of its Capital Facilities Element; and WHEREAS, RCW 82.02.050 authorizes cities to impose impact fees on development activity as part of the financing for public facilities, including fire protection facilities; and WHEREAS, the Tukwila City Council desires to provide funding for fire protection facilities, as referenced in the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan, through the imposition of residential and non - residential development impact fees beginning January 1, 2009; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds and determines that new growth and development in the City creates additional demand and need for public fire protection facilities in the City, and the City Council finds that new growth and development should pay its proportionate share of the costs for new fire service facilities to serve new growth and development in the City. The City Council believes that this can be accomplished by the assessment of fire impact fees on new residential, commercial, and industrial development in the City. It is the Council's intent that the provisions of this ordinance be liberally construed in establishing the fire impact fee program. Section 2. Definitions. Terms or words not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to RCW 82.02.090 when given their usual and customary meaning. For the purposes of this ordinance, unless the context or subject matter clearly requires otherwise, the words or phrases defined in this section shall have the following meanings: 1. The "Act" means the Growth Management Act, Chapter 17, Laws of 1990, First Extraordinary Session, Chapter 36.70A RCW et seq., and Chapter 32, Laws of 1991, First Special Session, as now in existence or hereinafter amended. 2. "Building permit" means an official document or certification of the City of Tukwila issued by the City's building official which authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction. remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, placement, demolition, moving, or repair of a building or structure. 3. "City" means the City of Tukwila, Washington, County of King. C: \Documents and Settings \All Users \ Desktop \ Kelly \MSDATA \ Ordinances \Fire Impact Fees.doc LV:ksn 12/10/2008 Page 1 of 6 • • 4. "Development activity" means any construction of a building or structure that creates additional demand and need for fire safety facilities. 5. "Development approval" means any written authorization from the City, which authorizes the commencement of the "development activity." 6. "Encumber" means to reserve, set aside, or earmark the fire impact fees in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations, or other liabilities incurred for the provision of fire protective services. 7. "Fee payer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated association or governmental agency, municipality, or similar entity commencing a land development activity that requires a building permit and creates a demand for additional fire capital facilities. 8. "Impact fee" means the payment of money imposed by the City on development activity pursuant to this ordinance as a condition of granting development approval in order to pay for the fire facilities needed to serve new growth and development that is a proportionate share of the cost of fire capital facilities that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit new development. Impact fees do not include a reasonable permit fee, an application fee, and the administrative fee for collecting and handling fire impact fees or cost of reviewing independent fee calculations. 9. "Owner" means the owner of record of real property, as found in the records of King County, Washington, or a person with an unrestricted written option to purchase property; provided, that if the real property is being purchased under a recorded real estate contract, the purchaser shall be considered the owner of the property. 10. "Proportionate share" means that portion of the cost for fire facility improvements that are reasonably related to the service demands and needs of new development. 11. "Public facilities" means the following capital facilities owned or operated by governmental entities: (1) public streets and roads; (2) publicly owned parks and open spaces and recreational facilities; (3) school facilities; (4) fire protection facilities not part of a fire district; and (5) police facilities and essential public facilities as defined by Chapter 36.70A RCW. Section 3. Fire Impact Fee Assessment. A. The City shall collect fire impact fees from applicants seeking development approvals from the City for any development activity in the City for which building permits are required, effective January 1, 2009. This will include the expansion of existing uses, which create the demand for fire protection services. B. Fire impact fees shall be assessed at the time of a technically- complete building permit application that complies with the City's zoning ordinances and building and development codes. Fire impact fees shall be collected from the fee payer at the time the building permit is issued. C. Except if otherwise exempt, the City shall not issue the required building permit unless or until the fire impact fees are paid. Section 4. Use of Fire Impact Fees. A. Pursuant to this ordinance, fire impact fees shall be used for fire facilities that will reasonably benefit the City and its residents. B. Fees shall not be used to make up deficiencies in City facilities serving an existing development. C: \Documents and Settings \All Users \ Desktop \ Kelly \MSDATA \ Ordinances \Fire Impact Fees.doc Page 2 of 6 LV:ksn 12/10/2008 • • C. Fees shall not be used for maintenance and operations, including personnel. D. Fire impact fees shall be used for but not limited to land acquisition, site improvements, engineering and architectural services, permitting, financing, administrative expenses and applicable mitigation costs, and capital equipment pertaining to fire protection facilities. E. Fire impact fees may also be used to recoup public improvement costs incurred by the City to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvement. F. In the event bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been issued for fire facility improvements, impact fees may be used to pay the principal on such bonds. Section 5. Fire Impact Fee Capital Facilities Plan. In order to collect fire impact fees, the City must first adopt a Fire Capital Facilities Plan as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's Capital Facilities Plan for fire protection services shall consist of the following elements: 1. The City's capacity over the next six years, based on an inventory of the City's fire facilities both existing and under construction; 2. The forecast of future needs for fire facilities based upon the City's population projections; 3. A six -year financial plan component, updated as necessary, to maintain at least a six-year forecast for financing needed within projected funding levels; 4. Application of the formula set forth in this ordinance based upon the information in the Capital Facilities Plan; and 5. City Council Action. No new or revised impact fee shall be effective until adopted by the City Council following a duly advertised public hearing to consider the City's Capital Facilities Plan or plan update. Section 6. Fire Impact Fee Formula. The impact fee formula is based on the assumptions found in Tukwila Fire Impact Fees, 2008, Exhibit A, and Tukwila Fire Department Capital Facilities List, Exhibit B, attached hereto and by this reference fully incorporated herein. FIRE IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Section 7. Fire Impact Fee Adjustments. A. The City may adjust a fire impact fee at the time the fee is imposed to consider unusual circumstances in specific cases to ensure that impact fees are imposed fairly. B. In calculating the fee imposed on a, particular development, the City shall permit consideration of studies and data submitted by a developer to adjust the amount of the fee. The developer shall submit an independent fee calculation study to the Fire Chief who shall review the study to determine that the study: 1. is based on accepted impact fee assessment practices and methodologies; C: \Documents and Settings \All Users \ Desktop \ Kelly \MSDATA \ Ordinances \Fire Impact Fees.doc LV:ksn 12/10/2008 Page 3 of 6 Impact Fee Land Use Per Residential Unit Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA Single family $922 Multi - family $1,200 Office $1,624 Retail $580 Industrial $127 Section 7. Fire Impact Fee Adjustments. A. The City may adjust a fire impact fee at the time the fee is imposed to consider unusual circumstances in specific cases to ensure that impact fees are imposed fairly. B. In calculating the fee imposed on a, particular development, the City shall permit consideration of studies and data submitted by a developer to adjust the amount of the fee. The developer shall submit an independent fee calculation study to the Fire Chief who shall review the study to determine that the study: 1. is based on accepted impact fee assessment practices and methodologies; C: \Documents and Settings \All Users \ Desktop \ Kelly \MSDATA \ Ordinances \Fire Impact Fees.doc LV:ksn 12/10/2008 Page 3 of 6 • • 2. uses acceptable data sources and the data used is comparable with the uses and intensities planned for the proposed development activity; 3. complies with the applicable state laws governing impact fees; 4. is prepared and documented by professionals who are mutually agreeable to the City and the developer and are qualified in their respective fields; and 5. shows the basis upon which the independent fee calculation was made. C. In reviewing the study, the Fire Chief may require the developer to submit additional or different documentation. If an acceptable study is presented, the Fire Chief may adjust the fee to that appropriate for the particular development activity. If an acceptable study is not presented, the developer shall pay the impact fees required prior to submitting the study. D. A developer requesting an adjustment or independent fee calculation may pay the impact fees imposed by this ordinance to obtain a building permit while the City determines whether to partially reimburse the developer by making an adjustment or accepting the independent fee calculation. Section 8. Credits. A fee payer can request that a credit, or credits, be awarded to the fee payer for the value of dedicated land, improvements to, or new construction of any system improvements provided by the developer to facilities that are identified in the Capital Facilities Plan and that are required by the City as a condition of approving the development activity. Section 9. Appeals. A. Any fee payer may pay the impact fees imposed by this ordinance under protest in order to obtain a building permit. B. Appeals regarding fire impact fees imposed on any development activity may only be taken by the fee payer of the property where such development activity will occur. No appeal shall be permitted unless and until the impact fee at issue has been paid. C. Determinations of the City staff with respect to the applicability of fire impact fees to a given development activity, or the availability of a credit, can be appealed to the City's Hearing Examiner pursuant to this section. D. An appeal shall be taken within 10 working days of payment of the impact fees under protest or within 10 working days of the City's issuance of a written determination of a credit or exemption decision by filing with the City Clerk a notice of appeal giving the reasons for the appeal with an accompanying appeal fee as set forth in the existing fee schedule for land use decisions. Section 10. Refunds. A. If the City fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within six years from the date the fees were paid, unless extraordinary circumstances or reasons exist, the current owner of the property on which the impact fees were paid may receive a refund of such fees. B. The City shall notify potential claimants by first class mail that they are entitled to a refund. In determining whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on a first -in, first out basis. C. Owners seeking a refund must submit a written request for a refund of the fees to the City within one year of the date the right to claim a refund arises or notice is given, whichever comes later. C: \Documents and Settings \All Users \ Desktop \ Kelly \MSDATA \ Ordinances \Fire Impact Fees.doc LV:ksn 12/10/2008 Page 4 of 6 • • D. Any impact fees for which no application has been made within the one -year period shall be retained by the City and expended on appropriate fire facilities. E. Refunds of impact fees shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by the City. Section 11. Exemptions. The fire impact fees are generated from the formula for calculating the fees as set forth in this ordinance. The amount of the impact fees is determined by the information contained in the adopted fire department master plan and related documents, as appended to the City's Comprehensive Plan. All new development located in the City will be charged a fire impact fee, provided that the following exemptions shall apply. Any development activity or project which has submitted a technically complete building permit application prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be exempt from the payment of fire impact fees. The following shall be exempt from fire impact fees: 1. Replacement of a structure with a new structure having the same use, at the same site, and when such replacement is within 12 months of demolition or destruction of the previous structure; 2. Alteration or expansion of or remodeling of an existing dwelling or structure where no new units are created and the use is not changed; 3. Construction of an accessory residential structure; 4. Miscellaneous improvements including, but not limited to, fences, walls, swimming pools, and signs; 5. Demolition of or moving an existing structure within the City from one site to another; 6. Low - income housing developed by individuals, nonprofit corporations, or a housing authority may be exempted from impact fees at the discretion of City staff subject to: a. Fiscal impact analysis of the effect of impact fees upon low - income housing and how exempting housing from impact fees would forward the goals for low- income housing in the City and King County; b. That adequate documentation be provided that the housing will remain available for low- income persons for a 10 -year period of time at affordable rents; and c. In the case of owner- occupied dwellings, that such housing will be sold or leased at affordable rates to low- income households for a period of 10 years; and d. The impact fee for exempt development shall be calculated as provided by this ordinance and paid with public funds. Such payments may be made by including such amounts in the public share of the system improvements undertaken within the City for fire protection services and facilities. 7. The alteration; reconstruction, remodeling, or replacement of existing buildings or structures that meet the requirements of this subpart shall be exempt from the requirement to pay all impact fees. To qualify for this exemption, all of the following applicable requirements shall be met: a. For non - residential structures, or the non - residential part of mixed -use structures, no additional gross floor area may be added. b. For residential structures, or the residential part of mixed -use structures, no additional housing units may be added. C: \Documents and Settings \All Users \ Desktop \ Kelly \MSDATA \ Ordinances \Fire Impact Fees.doc LV:ksn 12/10/2008 Page 5 of 6 c. For replacement structures, the structure being replaced shall have been demolished or moved outside the City of Tukwila. Section 12. Authority Unimpaired. Nothing in this ordinance shall preclude the City from requiring the fee payer to mitigate adverse and environmental affects of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapters 43.21C RCW and /or Chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions, provided that the exercise of this authority is consistent with Chapters 43.21C and 82.02 RCW. Section 13. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 14. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL at a Regular Meeting thereof this ) �i71t ATTEST/ jUTHENTICATED: .►ac s a -1 l/ Christy O'Flaher , City Clerk APPROVED TO,ORM BY: Office • the Cit,% orney Attachments: THE CITKOF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, day of OC Opt, '/ , 2008. J yrh j�iaggert.� >:'or Filed with the City Clerk: -OF Passed by the City Council: Published: - eV- 4F Effective Date: ) -�c n? Ordinance Number: a % Exhibit A - Tukwila Fire Impact Fees, 2008 Exhibit B - Fire Department Capital Facilities List C: \Documents and Settings \All Users \ Desktop \ Kelly \MSDATA \ Ordinances \Fire Impact Fees.doc LV:ksn 12/10/2008 Page 6 of 6 • EXHIBIT A • Tukwila Fire Impact Fees, 2008 (90% impact fees; I0% city contribution) TABLE 1. Tukwila Fire Impact Fee Calculation, 2008 (90 % -10 %split Land Use Housing Employme Units -1 rat•2 Net Grow 6, 2008-2020 Impact Fee Housing Building Employme Units•7 Area • 4 rat•5. Per Res deotial Per CFA Per 1,000 Unit i Sq. Ft. CFA Single family 1822 227 516 117 8% 5922 Multi -family 866 MuIti•famib• 4,107 349 2,384 26% 296 51,200 705 49% Office Office 6,243 10% 370.500 1,482 625 51.62 51,624 Retail 148 20,384 5601,536 2.418,000 4,836 22% 50.58 5580 Industrial 31% 20,343 71.5 3,860,800 4,826 51,403,649 50.13 5127 TOTALS 11% 46,972 508 6.649,300 11,144 23.0 120 8% I. 0031 numbers 2. PSRC 2001 Co.ered Empb.menl Emma, a 3. 43 SF du5r, r a is MF from 2007 Buildable Lands Report 4. Retail: 300pfper emp,ORio: 2108tfpercm% Industrial: I00pfpee trap; X lnppomsh 5. 90% of Boildabls Lards Report MIMICS. ., same %as 2007 empblment TABLE 2. Tukwila Fire Service Demand Calculation, 2008 Land Use 2007 Responses Incident Respoosn Revised 2007 Responses Proportion % Based al Incident % on Net Reallocatio Total o of Responses "Other" 5L Increase to Annual 1ocideol Responses due to Growth Incident loddeat Capital Costs Responses Respoosn Incident per 1,000 per 1,000 Responses Units Emptoyeo5 Allocated by % Incident Responses due Single family 619 13% 19% 249 868 19% 227 117 8% 5475,668 Multi -family 866 19% 26% 349 1,215 26% 296 705 49% S2,861.894 Office 445 10% 13% 179 625 13% 100.0 148 10% 5601,536 Retail 1,039 22% 31% 418 1,458 31% Apartments 71.5 346 24% 51,403,649 Industrial 362 8% 11% 146 508 11% 2 23.0 120 8% 5488,804 NET TOTAL 3.332 71% 100% 1,341 4,673 100% 1,437 100% 55,831,550 Business•• 441 590 1,031 351 680 Industrial Other 1,341 2956 14 Maouf cturlog 57 47 TOTAL 4,673 100% 100% 1,341 4,673 100% Storage 81 163 100% 55.831.550 ote: The 55,831,550 capita l cost n 90% of 56,479,500 (16 growth related fire capital cost). TABLE 3. 2007 Incident Responses by Property Type & Allocation to Impact Fee Categories Fire Dept. Land Use Categories fire Aid Total E%IPACT FEE CATEGORIES Single- Multi- -, family family Omce Retail Industrial TOTAL Public Assembly 12 42 54 54 Educational 18 30 48 48 Health Care• 27 90 117 70 47 Singh - family 159 460 619 619 Apartments 224 570 794 794 Boarding House 0 2 2 2 Hotels 102 203 305 305 Business•• 441 590 1,031 351 680 Industrial 12 2 14 14 Maouf cturlog 57 47 104 104 Storage 81 163 244 244 SUBTOTAL 1,133 2,199 3,332 619 866 445 1,039 362 3 ,332 PERCENT OF SUBTOTAL 19% 26% 13% 31% 11% 100% Special Property 275 855 1,13D Unclassified 148 63 211 SUBTOTAL 423 918 1,341 Reallocation of Special Property & Unclassified 249 349 179 418 146 1.341 TOTAL INCIDENT RESPONSES BY IMPACT FEE CATEGORY 868 1,215 625 1,458 508 4,673 split 603. Multifamily, 4 c (Redmond) •' split 34% Office, 66% Retail 2007 Tukwil ) • • EXHIBIT B Fire Department Capital Facilities List Capital Facility Cost 1. Construct/build relocated Station 51— 5,000 gsf $2,000,0001 addition due to new growth in TUC 2. Purchase aid car for Station 51 (new) $185,000 3. Purchase engine for Station 54 to replace aerial $750,000 ladder truck 4. Purchase land for relocated Station 52, if Station 51 $544,5002 is relocated 5. Construct/build relocated Station 52, if Station 51 is $3,000,000' relocated TOTAL $6,479,500 I 5,000 gsf building addition x $400 /psf building construction cost 2 'f. acre site (21,780 sf) x $25 /psf land cost t 7,500 gsf building x $400 /psf building construction cost C:\Documents and Settings \All Users \ Desktop \Kelly\MSDATA \Ordinances\Fire Impact Fees Exhibit B Capital Facilities List.doc LV:ksn 12/4/2008 Page 1 of 1 DISTRIBUTION LIST Federal Agencies Federal Highway Administration National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X State Agencies Washington State Department of Community Development Washington State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division (2) Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Washington State Department of Transportation (Ramin Pasooki, Phil Segami, Stacey Trussler, Mark Bandy) Regional and Local Agencies Duwamish Indian Tribe Kent Planning Department King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, SEPA Info. Center King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Wastewater Treatment Division (Meredith Redmon) King County Department of Transportation, Transit Division (Gary Kriedt) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural Resources Program Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Program Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Wildlife Program Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (Paul Carr) Puget Sound Regional Council SeaTac Planning Department.. , Renton Planning Department (Greg Zimmerman) Seattle Department of Planning and Development Utilities and Services Highline Water District King County Metro Wastewater Treatment Division King County Water District #125 Puget Sound Energy (Susan Hempstead) QWest Rabanco Seattle Public Utilities Department Libraries Foster Library Tukwila Library Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Dist -1 Distribution List Newspapers Highline Times Seattle Post Intelligencer Seattle Times (Jake Batsell) South County Journal Other Interested Parties Parties of Record: Alice Neiffer Brad Decker Denise Evans Gloria Ramirez Jonathan Pool Mike Hemphill Mon Wig Paul. Lenoue Sue Carlson Tracy Harms Tonni Best Laura Whitaker (Perkins Coie LLP) Dist -2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Distribution List • City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE ASSESSMENT OF PARKS IMPACT FEES ON NEW RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Growth Management Act of the State of Washington and RCW 36.70A, the City of Tukwila has an adopted Comprehensive Plan, which includes provisions for parks facilities as part of its Capital Facilities Element; and WHEREAS, RCW 82.02.050 authorizes cities to impose impact fees on development activity as part of the financing for public facilities, including parks facilities; and WHEREAS, the Tukwila City Council desires to provide funding for parks facilities, as referenced in the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan, through the imposition of residential and non - residential development impact fees beginning January 1, 2009; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds and determines that new growth and development in the City creates additional demand and need for public parks facilities in the City, and the City Council finds that new growth and development should pay its proportionate share of the costs for new parks facilities to serve new growth and development in the City. The City Council believes that this can be accomplished by the assessment of parks impact fees on new residential, commercial, and industrial development in the City. It is the Council's intent that the provisions of this ordinance be liberally construed in establishing the parks impact fee program. Section 2. Definitions. Terms or words not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to RCW 82.02.090 when given their usual and customary meaning. For the purposes of this ordinance, unless the context or subject matter clearly requires otherwise, the words or phrases defined in this section shall have the following meanings: 1. The "Act" means the Growth Management Act, Chapter 17, Laws of 1990, First Extraordinary Session, Chapter 36.70A RCW et seq., and Chapter 32, Laws of 1991, First Special Session, as now in existence or hereinafter amended. 2. "Building permit" means an official document or certification of the City of Tukwila issued by the City's building official which authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, placement, demolition, moving, or repair of a building or structure. 3. "City" means the City of Tukwila, Washington, County of King. 4. "Development activity" means any construction of a building or structure that creates additional demand and need for parks facilities. C: \Documents and Settings \All Users \ Desktop \ Kelly \ivISDATA \Ordinances \Parks Impact Fees.doc LV:ksn 12/10/2008 Page 1 of 6 • • 5. "Development approval" means any written authorization from the City, which authorizes the commencement of the "development activity." 6. "Encumber" means to reserve, set aside, or earmark the parks impact fees in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations, or other liabilities incurred for the provision of parks services. 7. "Fee payer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated association or governmental agency, municipality, or similar entity commencing a land development activity that requires a building permit and creates a demand for additional parks capital facilities. 8. "Impact fee" means the payment of money imposed by the City on development activity pursuant to this ordinance as a condition of granting development approval in order to pay for the parks facilities needed to serve new growth and development that is a proportionate share of the cost of parks capital facilities that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit new development. Impact fees do not include a reasonable permit fee, an application fee, and the administrative fee for collecting and handling parks impact fees or cost of reviewing independent fee calculations. 9. "Owner" means the owner of record of real property, as found in the records of King County, Washington, or a person with an unrestricted written option to purchase property; provided, that if the real property is being purchased under a recorded real estate contract, the purchaser shall be considered the owner of the property. 10. "Proportionate share" means that portion of the cost for parks facility improvements that are reasonably related to the service demands and needs of new development. 11. "Public facilities" means the following capital facilities owned or operated by governmental entities: (1) public streets and roads; (2) publicly owned parks and open spaces and recreational facilities; (3) school facilities; (4) fire protection facilities not part of a fire district; and (5) police facilities and essential public facilities as defined by Chapter 36.70A RCW. Section 3. Parks Impact Fee Assessment. A. The City shall collect parks impact fees from applicants seeking development approvals from the City for any development activity in the City for which building permits are required, effective January 1, 2009. This will include the expansion of existing uses, which create the demand for parks services. B. Parks impact fees shall be assessed at the time of a technically- complete building permit application that complies with the City's zoning ordinances and building and development codes. Parks impact fees shall be collected from the fee payer at the time the building permit is issued. C. Except if otherwise exempt, the City shall not issue the required building permit unless or until the parks impact fees are paid. Section 4. Use of Parks Impact Fees. A. Pursuant to this ordinance, parks impact fees shall be used for parks facilities that will reasonably benefit the City and its residents. B. Fees shall not be used to make up deficiencies in City facilities serving an existing development. C. Fees shall not be used for maintenance and operations, including personnel. C: \Documents and Settings \All Users \ Desktop \ Kelly \MSDATA \ Ordinances \Parks Impact Fees.doc LV:ksn 12/10/2008 Page 2 of 6 D. Parks impact fees shall be used for but not limited to land acquisition, site improvements, dm ov administrative xengineering esed applicable architectural mitigation services, osts, and recap capital equipment administrative exp pertaining to parks facilities. E. Parks impact fees extent that new growth and development will be served by incurred by the City to the e improvement. the previously constructed imp for F. In the event bonds ��a{ees debt may be sedstoare pay the principal pal onsuch parks facility improvements, impact bonds. to collect parks Section 5. Parks Impact Fee c Capital Facilities In s impact fees, the City must first adopt p a c pa facilities plan as element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's Capital Facilities Plan for parks services shall consist of the following elements: 1. The City's capacity over the next six years, based on an inventory of the City's parks facilities both existing and under construction; 2. The forecast of future needs for parks facilities based upon the City's population projections; 3. A six -year financial plan component, updated as necessary, to maintain at least a six -year forecast for financing needed within projected funding levels; 4. Application of the formula set forth in this ordinance based upon the information in the Capital Facilities Plan; and 5. City Council c lfoowin new a duly advertised public hearing to effective consider the adopted by the City Council following City's Capital Facilities Plan or plan update. Section 6. Parks Impact Fee Formula. The impact fee formula is based on the assumptions found in Tukwila Parks tied hereto Fees, and by this reference fullyun incorporated Capital Facilities List, Exhibit B, herein. PARKS IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Section 7. Parks Impact Fee Adjustments. A. The City may adjust es in specific r casesfto ensuhe that impactefees a re posed consider unusual circumstanc fairly. B. In calculating the fee imposed on a submitted by particular developer City shall amount permit consideration studies and of the fee. The developer ecreation, independent fee iewdthe calculation study to the determine that the Director of Parks and R study: C: \Documents and Settings \All Users \ Desktop \ Kelly \MSDATA \ Ordinances \Parks Impact Fees. oc LV:ksn 12/10/2008 Page 3 of 6 • • 1. is based on accepted impact fee assessment practices and methodologies; 2. uses acceptable data sources and the data used is comparable with the uses and intensities planned for the proposed development activity; 3. complies with the applicable state laws governing impact fees; 4. is prepared and documented by professionals who are mutually agreeable to the City and the developer and are qualified in their respective fields; and 5. shows the basis upon which the independent fee calculation was made. C. In reviewing the study, the Director of Parks and Recreation may require the developer to submit additional or different documentation. If an acceptable study is presented, the Director of Parks and Recreation may adjust the fee to that appropriate for the particular development activity. If an acceptable study is not presented, the developer shall pay the impact fees required prior to submitting the study. D. A developer requesting an adjustment or independent fee calculation may pay the impact fees imposed by this Ordinance to obtain a building permit while the City determines whether to partially reimburse the developer by making an adjustment or accepting the independent fee calculation. Section 8. Credits. A fee payer can request that a credit, or credits, be awarded to the fee payer for the value of dedicated land, improvements to, or new construction of any system improvements provided by the developer to facilities that are identified in the Capital Facilities Plan and that are required by the City as a condition of approving the development activity. Section 9. Appeals. A. Any fee payer may pay the impact fees imposed by this ordinance under protest in order to obtain a building permit. B. Appeals regarding parks impact fees imposed on any development activity may only. be taken by the fee payer of the property where such development activity will occur. No appeal shall be permitted unless and until the impact fee at issue has been paid. C. Determinations of the City staff with respect to the applicability of parks impact fees to a given development activity, or the availability of a credit, can be appealed to the City's Hearing Examiner pursuant to this section. D. An appeal shall be taken within 10 working days of payment of the impact fees under protest or within 10 working days of the City's issuance of a written determination of a credit or exemption decision by filing with the City Clerk a not-ice of appeal giving the reasons for the appeal with an accompanying appeal fee as set forth in the existing fee schedule for land use decisions. Section 10. Refunds. A. If the City fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within six years from the date the fees were paid, unless extraordinary circumstances or reasons exist, the current owner of the property on which the impact fees were paid may receive a refund of such fees. B. The City shall notify potential claimants by first class mail that they are entitled to a refund. In determining whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on a first -in, first out basis. C: \Documents and Settings \All Users \ Desktop \ Kelly \ MSDATA \ Ordinances \ Parks Impact Fees.doc LV:ksn 12/10/2008 Page 4 of 6 • • C. Owners seeking a refund must submit a written request for a refund of the fees to the City within one year of the date the right to claim a refund arises or notice is given, whichever comes later. D. Any impact fees for which no application has been made within the one -year period shall be retained by the City and expended on appropriate parks facilities. E. Refunds of impact fees shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by the City. Section 11. Exemptions. The parks impact fees are generated from the formula for calculating the fees as set forth in this ordinance. The amount of the impact fees is determined by the information contained in the adopted parks master plan and related documents, as appended to the City's Comprehensive Plan. All new development located in the City will be charged a parks impact fee, provided that the following exemptions shall apply. Any development activity or project which has submitted a technically complete building permit application prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be exempt from the payment of parks impact fees. The following shall be exempt from parks impact fees: 1. Replacement of a structure with a new structure having the same use, at the same site, and when such replacement is within 12 months of demolition or destruction of the previous structure; 2. Alteration or expansion of or remodeling of an existing dwelling or structure where no new units are created and the use is not changed; 3. Construction of an accessory residential structure; 4. Miscellaneous improvements including, but not limited to, fences, walls, swimming pools, and signs; 5. Demolition of or moving an existing structure within the City from one site to another; 6. Low - income housing developed by individuals, nonprofit corporations, or a housing authority may be exempted from impact fees at the discretion of City staff subject to: a. Fiscal impact analysis of the effect of impact fees upon low- income housing and how exempting housing from impact fees would forward the goals for low- income housing in the City and King County; b. That adequate documentation be provided that the housing will remain available for low- income persons for a 10 -year period of time at affordable rents; and c. In the case of owner- occupied dwellings, that such housing will be sold or leased at affordable rates to low - income households for a period of 10 years; and d. The impact fee for exempt development shall be calculated as provided by this ordinance and paid with public funds. Such payments may be made by including such amounts in the public share of the system improvements undertaken within the City for parks services and facilities. 7. The alteration, reconstruction, remodeling, or replacement of existing buildings or structures that meet the requirements of this subpart shall be exempt from the requirement to pay all impact fees. To qualify for this exemption, all of the following applicable requirements shall be met: C: \Documents and Settings \All Users \ Desktop \ Kelly \ MSDATA \ Ordinances \ Parks Impact Fees.doc LV:ksn 12/10/2008 Page 5 of 6 • • a. For non - residential structures, or the non - residential part of mixed -use structures, no additional gross floor area may be added. b. For residential structures, or the residential part of mixed -use structures, no additional housing units may be added. c. For replacement structures, the structure being replaced shall have been demolished or moved outside the City of Tukwila. Section 12. Authority Unimpaired. Nothing in this Ordinance shall preclude the City from requiring the fee payer to mitigate adverse and environmental affects of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapters 43.21C RCW and /or Chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions, provided that the exercise of this authority is consistent with Chapters 43.21C and 82.02 RCW. Section 13. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 14. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL_QF THE CIT OF TUKWI,LA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this ) 5 day of JQ C Q, /Mr , 2008. ATTEST / UTHENTICATED• I I A _ �,`t Christy O'Fla erty, City Clerk ORM BY: APPROVE Of ' of the Ci /A .rney Attachment: Tukwila Parks Impact Fees, 2008, Exhibit A Tukwila Parks Capital Facilities List, Exhibit B aggertt yor Filed with the City Clerk: 1 -- M-6 a7 Passed by the City Council: Lo)-1' dP Published: Effective Date: n p Ordinance Number: (� C: \Documents and Settings \All Users\ Desktop \Kelly \MSDATA \Ordinances \Parks Impact Fees.doc LV:ksn 12/10/2008 Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT A Tukwila Parks Impact Fees, 2008 (80% impact fees; 20% city contribution) TABLE 1: 2008 Park Impact Fee Calculations (80% - 20% split) Land Use 2007 2007 2007 Building 2020 Housing 2020 2020 Building Housing Employment • Area -3 Units Employme Area Units -1 2 nt Sing le-familv 3,822 2.44 3,198 4,338 S735,607 Multi-family Multi - family 4,107 Multi- famih 2.49 6,491 Office 52.06% Office 370,500 6,245 1,561.250 Retail 7,727 1,931,750 Retail 435 20,384 10,192,000 S837 25,220 12,610,000 20,135,200 Industrial 4,392 20,343 16,274,400 11,144 25,169 TOTALS 7,929 46.972 28,027,650 10,829 58,116 34,676,950 1. OFM 2. PSRC 2007 Covered Emplooyment Estimates 3. Retail: 500gsf per emp; Office: 250gsf per emp; Industrial: 800gsf per emp; X emp growth 4. 43 SF du/yr; rest is MF from 2007 Buildable Lands Report 5. 90% of Buildable Lands Report estimates, at same % as 2007 employment 6. Tukwila Resident/Non- Tukwila resident breakdown based on 2000 census data In 2000, the number of residents who live and work in Tukwila is 1,502, out of a population of 17,181, or 9% Land Use Net Growth, 2008 - 2020 Housing Employment • Building Area Employment: Units -4 5 -3 Tukwila Residents - 9% -6 Employme nt: Non- Tukwila Residents - 91% -6 Single - famih• 516 2.44 3,198 11.49% S735,607 Multi-family 2,384 S1,426 S1,398 " Multi- famih 2.49 2.44 Office 52.06% 1,482 370,500 133 1,349 Retail 1.00 4,836 2,418,000 435 4,401 Industrial S837 4,826 3,860,800 434 4,392 TOTALS 2,900 11,144 6,649,300 1,003 10,141 Land Use Im . act Fee Persons Use Ratio Total Use by % Use by Cost Per Housing Per 1,000 Rounded per Between Land Use Land Use Allocation Unit GFA•' Housing Residents/ Category, Category Unit Employees Single - famih• 2.54 2.44 3,198 11.49% S735,607 S1,425.59 S1,426 S1,398 " Multi- famih 2.49 2.44 14,484 52.06% S3,331,715 51,397.53 Office 1.00 1,349 4.85% S310,214 S837.29 S837 Retail 1.00 4,401 15.82% 51,012,279 5418.64 S419 Industrial 1.00 4,392 15.78% 51,010,185 S261.65 S262 TOTALS 27.823 100.00% 56,400,000 ote: 56,400,000 is 80% of 58,000, EXHIBIT B Tukwila Parks Capital Facilities List Project List - Impact Fees 2009 to 2015 Project Cost Duwamish Riverbend Hill Develop Phase H $ 2,000,000 Trail Connections Green River Trail to Renton Black/Cedar River Trail $ 500,000 Tukwila Pond Development - Phase IV $ 3,000,000 City of Tukwila Pool [Extend land lease]; expand features and services $ 500,000 TOD Pedestrian Bridge Sounder Connection $ 2,000,000 Total $8,000,000 1 DISTRIBUTION LIST Federal Agencies Federal Highway Administration National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X State Agencies Washington State Department of Community Development Washington State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division (2) Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Washington State Department of Transportation (Ramin Pasooki, Phil Segami, Stacey Trussler, Mark Bandy) Regional and Local Agencies Duwamish Indian Tribe Kent Planning Department King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, SEPA Info. Center King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Wastewater Treatment Division (Meredith Redmon) King County Department of Transportation, Transit Division (Gary Kriedt) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural Resources Program Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Program Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Wildlife Program Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (Paul Carr) Puget Sound Regional Council SeaTac Planning Department: Renton Planning Department (Greg Zimmerman) Seattle Department of Planning and Development Utilities and Services Highline Water District King County Metro Wastewater Treatment Division King County Water District #125 Puget Sound Energy (Susan Hempstead) QWest Rabanco Seattle Public Utilities Department Libraries Foster Library Tukwila Library Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Dist -1 Distribution List Newspapers Highline Times Seattle Post Intelligencer Seattle Times (Jake Batsell) South County Journal Other Interested Parties Parties of Record: Alice Neiffer Brad Decker Denise Evans Gloria Ramirez Jonathan Pool Mike Hemphill Mon Wig Paul. Lenoue Sue Carlson Tracy Harms Tonni Best Laura Whitaker (Perkins Coie LLP) Dist -2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Distribution List • • Interdepartmental Memo To: Public Works, Fire, Police, Parks and Recreation Departments From: Moira Carr Bradshaw, DCD Planning Division Date: 9 December 2009 Subject: Westfield Southcenter Phase 2 Background: WEA proposes amending their expansion plans for Westfield Southcenter. The . proposal is to shift a percentage of the building area that was analyzed under the EIS to the north side of the 85 acre site and include the reconfiguration of the existing vacant Mervyn's building. The first decision by the City will be whether the environmental analysis done previously and with the attached additional analysis is adequate in evaluating any significant environmental impacts. The second anticipated City decision will be a demolition permit for the Bank of America (BOA) building and then a Public Works permit for a parking lot. (mid — late 2009) The third anticipated decision is design review approval by the Board of Architectural Review for the remainder of the Phase 2 construction. (no dates announced) The fourth anticipated decision will be public works permits to relocate utilities outside of the expansion area. (no dates announced) SEPA Issues The 2004 EIS analyzed 535,347 square feet of new retail, anchor stores, expanded food court and a theater, up to three freestanding restaurants of 21,101 sq. ft. and a 70,355 square foot hotel. That equals 626,803 sq. ft of gross leasable floor area for the total planned increase. The gross buildable area of 787903 included 161,100 square feet of common area. Page 1 of 4 2004 EIS Phase 1 Phase 2 Square footage Type of Use Square footage Type of Use Square footage Type of Use 535,347 leasable retail main mall 398,247 Leaseable retail main mall 64,442 leasable retail main mall 7,200 Fidelity Financial Services building 18,576 outparcel retail 70,355 hotel 7,541 Bank of America with drive through 21,101 restaurants 12,000 Cheesecake restaurant 626,803 gross leasable 424,988 Gross Leasable building area 83,018 gross leasable 161,100 241,687 Common Area 787,903 Total gross building area 666,675 Total Gross Building area '(/ s What SEPA analysis is required? A number of changes to the original project are proposed. New retail square footage is projected for the north side of the site as opposed to the south, a new parcel (The BOA lot located in the northeast corner of the block) will be added to the Westfield mall property, the programming of two of the three pads has changed from restaurant to financial services, and a hotel is no longer being considered. Using the existing environmental information (Draft and Final EIS) reduces duplication and delays caused by conducting duplicate studies and analysis. Using an addendum process for the revised proposal utilizes the existing document (EIS) and should address all significant adverse impacts. The addendum should explain the differences between the original and the current proposal, and other minor new information. Addendum Process The addendum must identify the proposal for which it is written and the environmental document it adds to and modifies. The major questions are : 1. Are the changes and impacts within the realm of the original scope of or minor changes to the original? 2. Does the information, provided by the applicant, adequately address the impacts from the revised project, which was originally reviewed in the EIS? Tukwila can chose to circulate the addenda to interested persons. Depending on the extent of the information, analysis and change, Tukwila may or may not require a draft addendum with a comment period. The addendum will be circulated to recipients of the draft and final EIS and parties of record to the initial proposal Page 2 of 4 The decision on a comment period will be made after there is a review of the information submitted for the addendum. The standard comment period is 30 days. Agencies and the public must request any extension before the end of the comment period. The date of issue is the date the addendum is publicly available and sent to the department of ecology and other agencies with jurisdiction Notice that the addendum is available shall be given by posting the site and mailing to all property owners within 500 feet. Design /Construction Issues: Bank of America Site The BOA lot is currently developed with a 13,000 square foot single story building and a bank drive thru. The site is approximately 3 acres. WEA is encouraged to proceed with deconstruction as opposed to demolition of any portions of the existing structures. WEA is encouraged to retain as much of the mature trees as possible and modifications of the landscaping standards will be considered in order to achieve this end. Pedestrian circulation into and around the area of expansion will also be encouraged. Phase 2 Design /Construction Issues Please provide DCD with concerns that you have regarding the proposed layout and concept for Phase 2. (See the attached site plan.) We will schedule a preliminary discussion with Westfield regarding Phase 2 when a comprehensive list is compiled. Preliminary Issues • Site Plan Pedestrian circulation into and around the site will be a major factor. All building fronts will be expected to have a 12 foot sidewalk, which is a good standard for pedestrian oriented streetscapes. Perpendicular access to building entrances from surrounding streets and through the parking Tots will be encouraged. There are several key locations — the pedestrian path from the 61 street bridge from the north; from Andover Park West; east west along the circulation drive; and generally every 300 — 400 feet. These pedestrian walkways should resemble the improvements on the south side and include pedestrian scaled lighting landscaping and a minimum of 10 feet in hard surface walkway width. Page 3 of 4 • • Access into the Westfield parking lot from the 61 Av S. Bridge has been discussed and will be raised. Part of the north side expansion will occur on the Macy's property; therefore Macy's will be a partner and the new access point from 61 Av S, which would occur on the Macy's property, could be introduced. Other issues • Buidling Design • Utility Distribution Capacity • Emergency Access • Development Agreement The existing development agreement encompasses the total area described in the EIS which means that phase 2 is covered. However, Westfield may be considering amending that agreement. Are there issues that the City thinks should be amended given the changed plan and time frame? If you would like a copy let me know and I'll email the electronic file to you. H: \WEA phase 2■Addendum \SEPA Routing Form.doc Page 4of4 (11/17/2009) Moira Bradshaw - RE: WS ^?: Westfield Southcenter SEPA adoption a :ndum Pag( From: To: Date: Subject: CC: "Nicholas Lee" <NLEE @us.westfield.com> "Moira Bradshaw" <Moira @ci.tukwila.wa.us> 11/17/2009 12:16 PM RE: WSCR: Westfield Southcenter SEPA adoption addendum <BiIlFortunato @pacland.com >, "Minnie Dhaliwal" <Minnie @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Yes, subsequent to Richard's e-mail, Westfield asked that the City put that document on hold since we discovered some language in the SEPA addendum from Public Works that Westfield objected to. Please do not issue or execute that SEPA addendum. We would like to instead proceed with the SEPA Checklist we submitted 11/6/09 solely for the former Bank of America parcel at the NE corner of the mall. i.e.•# E09 -017 and # D09 -237. Please let me know if you need any further clarification. Please also let me know the proposed rough timeline for review, public comment and permit issue of the above. Regards, Nicholas Lee / Development Manager / Pacific Northwest _ Westfield Southcenter_L633- Southcenter / Seattle, WA.98188 T 206.802.6066 / C 206.406.2685 / nlee @westfield.com Original Message From: Moira Bradshaw [mailto:Moira @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:05 PM To: Nicholas Lee Cc: BiIlFortunato @pacland.com; Minnie Dhaliwal Subject: Fwd: WSCR: Westfield Southcenter SEPA adoption addendum Nick - Attached is an email that I received from Richard in March of 2009. We are honestly wondering what happened to the issuance of the addendum as we do not have a signed copy of it. We were thinking that Westfield may have requested that the City hold off on issuing it. Can you help us reconstruct the sequence of events? We want to get this resolved before we take any action on the SEPA checklist as it would be redundant. Thanks. • Kind regards, Moira Carr Bradshaw, AICP Senior Planner, DCD City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 Tukwila WA 98188 (11/17/2009) Moira Bradshaw - RE: WSJ'': Westfield Southcenter SEPA adoption ar'-'"ndum Pagc Phone: (206) 431 3651 www.ci.tukwila.wa.us Moira Carr Bradshaw, AICP Senior Planner, DCD City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 Tukwila WA 98188 Phone: (206) 431 3651 www.ci.tukwila.wa.us - - - »> On 03/17/2009 at 5:24 AM, < "Richard- Chung " & It;RChung @us.westfield.com >> wrote: Moira; We have reviewed the DRAFT "Adoption of Existing Environmental Document & Addendum for Westfield Southcenter Phase 2 ", attached, and we are in agreement with the draft. You mentioned that Jack will be on vacation shortly and I was wondering if the City could proceed with the signing and notice prior to his vacation. I am not sure when his vacation starts. Please let me know,_if we_can have it signed prior to, it.would be great, but if we must wait for his return, it would also be acceptable. Thanks Richard L. Chung / Director of Development / Pacific Northwest Westfield Southcenter / 633 Southcenter Mall, Trailer #2 / Seattle, WA 98188 T 206.802.6010 / C 310.919.8007 / F 206.246.7043 / rchung @westfield.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail transmission is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files, previous e-mail transmissions or other information attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, or the employee or agent - responsible for delivering it to -the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this transmission or any of the information contained in or attached to it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail transmission or by telephone, and destroy the original e -mail transmission and its attachments without reading, saving, or utilizing it in any manner. We're committed to sustainable business practices. Please print only when necessary, and recycle. From: Moira Bradshaw [ mailto :mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 4:54 PM (11/17/2009) Moira Bradshaw - RE: WS'"': Westfield Southcenter SEPA adoption a' Pagi To: Richard Chung Subject: adoption addendum Richard - per our conversation, here is a draft copy of the document that the City will sign and distribute. Moira Page 1-of 1 Nicholas Lee From: Nicholas Lee Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:17 AM To: Moira Bradshaw Subject: Southcenter: Area Calculations Attachments: SCR Traffic Calc 2009 08 09.xls; Copy of knightonWestfield Impact Feesmatrix.xls; GLA sheet bldg permit 2007.pdf; Southcenter_L Level 1 (1).pdf Moira, Thanks for your note. Unfortunately the spreadsheet you attached did not give details for how the Shopping Center GLA went from 1,252,317 SF (EIS, existing) to 1,590,357 SF (permitted, post -phase 1). •A Prior to us meeting with Cyndy Knighton regarding the SEPA Addendum we (you, Stacy and I ?) should confirm the GLA for Trip Generation purposes that was built as part of the Phase 1 Expansion of Westfield Southcenter. I'm attaching a spreadsheet that uses figures from sheets GLA 1.0 -1 and GLA 1.0 -2 of the building permit set as well as the lost GLA from the demolished Food Court wing. According to this tabulation, the permitted, post -phase 1 GLA should instead be 1,527,218 SF. I am happy to discuss. Please let me know the earliest time that works for you to review this together. Thanks & regards, Nicholas Lee / Development Manager 1 Pacific Northwest Westfield Southcenter 1633 Southcenter / Seattle, WA 98188 T 206.802.6066 / C 206.406.2685 / nlee @westfield.com From: Moira Bradshaw [mailto:mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 1:16 PM To: Nicholas Lee Subject: Emailing: knightonWestfield Impact FeesmatriX Nick - Going through my records - this is what I remember as being the latest from Cyndy. The message is ready to be sent with the following . file or link attachments: knightonWestfield Impact Feesmatrix Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. Moira Carr Bradshaw, AICP Senior Planner, DCD City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 Tukwila WA 98188 Phone: (206) 431 3651 9/16/2009 2 March 2009 • City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director Richard Chung 633 Southcenter Mall Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: File: E08 -021 Westfield SEPA Addendum Phase 2 Dear Richard: The City has completed its review of the SEPA materials submitted for Phase 2 of the Southcenter Expansion. Its review confirms that the impacts associated with Phase 2 project do not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the DEIS and FEIS completed in 2004. The EIS, along with the additional information in the above file, is adequate for the proposed Phase 2 of the proposal. Substantively the City asks for the following clarifications and makes the following comments regarding assumptions. To reduce confusion, please rectify the 666,675 square footage figure from the SEPA Compliance Document with square footage figure you provided in the electronic excel spreadsheet that is attached Although from a SEPA perspective the City agrees that there will not be significant new impacts associated with Phase 2 and that the additional information and analyses is adequate, the City does not agree with all the assumptions made regarding utilities and transportation associated with Phase 2. The following clarifications have been made regarding the information submitted for the Addendum. 1. Any permits on the subject site will be subject to the Storm and Surface Water manual in effect on the submittal of a complete application. 2. There is not sufficient capacity in Sanitary Sewer Pump station #12, which is adjacent to the U.S. Post Office. Alternatives for sewerage collection will need to be made. A list of City priorities is attached. 3. A memo from the City's Public Works Department itemizes the differences between the TSI analysis and the City's, which is attached. Please contact Cyndy Knighton if you have any questions regarding the memo that she prepared for the Addendum. 4. The City cannot confirm the number of parking stalls that will be provided until a site plan has been through design review and any proposal is compliant with the City landscaping standards, including internal parking lot standards. Due to the amount of solid waste proposed for Phase 2, a salvage and deconstruction plan should be considered prior to awarding any contracts for demolition. Approximately 100,000 square feet of building is proposed for demolition. Identification of salvage of valuable or useful materials, such as the brick on Initials Page 1 of 3 03/02/2009 H: \WEA phase 2\Addendum \09summary Itr302.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila. Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206 -431 -3665 Mervyn's, for reuse opportunities should be done prior to any contract for demolition. Using salvage and deconstruction, the systematic disassembly of a building, techniques on a demolition project-can be an effective way to cut costs and come in with a lower bid, gain a higher profit margin and reduce the amount of space needed at the landfill. The key to effective salvage and deconstruction is knowing which techniques are most cost effective and when to apply them on a particular project. We hope that you will consider incorporating this measure into your proposal and can assist you in putting together a successful program. Procedurally, the City is encouraged by SEPA administrative procedures to circulate addenda to interested persons. The City will therefore send the Notice of Addendum to those parties who received the FEIS. A A. of that distribution list is attached. I've also included the impact fee ordinances that were adopted in December 2008 by the City. Any new development in Phase 2 that meets the "development activity," which is a building that creates additional demand, will be subject to fire and parks impact fees. When you have clarified the number used in Westfield's SEPA Compliance Document versus the number in the enclosed table, the City will issue and distribute the addendum. I_ ll be happy to clarify or answer any additional questions that you may have. Sincerely, Moira Carr Bradshaw.' Enclosures - Mike Cusick Sewerage 'priorities for Westfield Cyndy Knighton Memo FEIS Distribution list .. Fire Impact Fee Ordinance 2219 Parks Impact Fee Ordinance 2220 mcb Page 2 of 3 03/02/2009 Addendum Square Footage Summary Table 2004 EIS Phase 1 Phase 2 Square . footage Type of Use Square footage Type of Use Square footage Type of Use Gross Leasible Area (47,883) Demo (old food court) (86,115) Demo (Mervyn's GLA) 535,347 Main Mall 385,923 Main Mali 150,557 Main Mall 7,200 Outparcel (Fidelity) (4,433) Demo (US Post Office) 7,541 Outparcel (BOA) 18,576 Outparcel (Garage A) Movie Theater 70,355 Hotel 0 Hotel 0 Hotel 21,101 restaurants 10,209 Restaurant (Cheesecake) 0 Restaurant 626,803 Gross Leasible Area 362,990 Gross Leasible Area 78,585 Gross Leasible Area Gross Building Area 161,100 Common & Service Area 118,928 Common & Service Area 27,159 Common & Service Area 787,903 Gross Building Area 481,918 Gross Building Area 105,744 Gross Building Area Combined PH 1 & PH2 587,662 • Remaining GBA under Dev.A. ree. 200,241 Pre - expansion GBA 1,438,371 Pre - expansion + Phase 1 GBA 1,920,289 Pre - expansion ± Phase 1 + Phase 2 GBA 2,026,033 Addendum staff report H: \WEA phase 2\Addendum \09summary Itr302.doc mcb Page 3 of 3 03/02/2009 Westfield Addendum Sanitary Sewer Findings The existing private lift station serving Macy's is 40+ years old and is likely in need of upgrading. cJ The existing lift station just north of Strander Blvd. on the west side of Andover Park W by Key Bank is at capacity and cannot accept any additional flow. The diversions implemented by the Mall as part of the south side expansion (2007 -2009) did not create any additional capacity. The distance from the north side of the Mall to Strander Blvd. is likely too great in length for a sewer line to flow into the Metro line. The City's preference for the sanitary sewer system as a whole for this section of the Mall is in the following order: 1. Build a new public lift station at the southwest corner of Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park West. This lift station would funnel flow from the North - Tukwila Hill under I- 405 and to the main Metro ETS in Strander Blvd. It would also be built to accommodate the flows from the north side of the Mall. Required actions: • Update of the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan (budgeted and planned for 2010) and • Coordinate approval and construction impacts with WDOT and Mall. Negotiation for easement and construction (earliest estimated date 2012) 2. Increase capacity of the existing lift station (No. 12) to accommodate additional flow from the north side of the Mall, or Create a new private lift station on the north side in order to achieve the flow needed to get the sewage to the Metro line in Strander Blvd. yroti., IkAact -ft) acusw�kzu6e_ � ZD (P:Laurie Admin /Mike /Westfield Addendum) 018' Aiw liozA*110,, • • Public Works Department, Engineering Memorandum TO: - Moira Bradshaw FROM: Cyndy Knighton DATE: February 5, 2009 RE: Westfield Southcenter Phase 2 SEPA Addendum This memorandum constitutes my comments on the Westfield proposal to amend their expansion plans for the Southcenter Mall which was originally analyzed through a limited scope EIS. I am only focusing on the traffic element of the analysis.. Because this proposed SEPA Addendum draws from the original EIS, the approved Development Agreement, and several supplemental letters from the applicant's traffic engineer, my analysis isn't necessarily as straight forward as my conclusion may lead you to believe. In short, I do agree that the proposed new expansion . plans were adequately addressed in the original EIS and that no further study is-required.. However, that does not mean that there aren't some points within the applicant's analysis which bear some scrutiny and commentary. • Phase 1 In a memorandum from me to you and Dave McPherson, dated March 6, 2007 and updated November 9, 2007, I outlined information= on the maximum build -out allowable for the- Southcenter Mall expansion in accordance with the EIS and the subsequent Development" Agreement. In short, tapproyed expansionhad a variety of uses proposed but werelultimately5 gestricted to 1 332= et new m peak hour t'ri'ps. As the redevelopment happened, a different mix of uses and sizes were built. Through discussions with Westfield and the city, it was agreed that Westfield would submit a final accounting of the type and size of uses actual built after the expansion was completed. This would allow me to track trip generation and the associated traffic impact fees due. Although the memorandum stated that the Certificate of Completion should be restricted until a full accounting had been submitted, it was not done. I am taking this opportunity to rectify that oversight. The following -table summarizes the trip generation by land use for both the EIS approved development size and what was ultimately constructed as part of the Phase 1 expansion. This information was compiled from data presented by Westfield and follows the same trip generation methodology used in the original EIS. Two letters prepared by Westfield's traffic engineer, David Markley, Transportation Solutions, Inc., were also referenced to compile this data. The first letter was dated April 7, 2008 and the second letter was dated November 5, 2008. In \\tuk2\vol1 \pubworks \cyndy\development review\westfield expansion sepa addendum comments phase 2.doc general, I have accepted the information presented by Mr. Markley with a few notable exceptions, which I will document in this memorandum. 1 QUiC -i 1 a 1 l ■1J V \.L Vl Ni1V Type u V vaaar »a av v. -. Maximum Size -+�� -- — - - -- - — Maximum Trips Phase 1 Size Net New Trips Shopping Center 1,712,464 GLA 787 1,590,357 GLA 661 Restaurant 21,101 GSF 73 10,209 GSF 36 Financial Center - - 7,207 SF 20 Bank (with window) - - 7,451 SF 111 Movie Theater 4,000 seats 420 2,968 seats 312 Hotel 140 rooms 51 - - Total 1,332 Total 1,140 From the above table, it can be concluded that the Westfield Mall can accommodate additional expansion up to an additional 192 net new p.m. peak hour trips. The attached matrix to this table provides the details behind the trip generation. Of note are three differences between what Mr. Markley's two letters proposed and what will be allowed. The April 7, 2008 letter discusses trip generation for the Bank of America relocation as well as the Fidelity financial center site. Mr. Markley proposed using a trip generation rate for the Bank of America pad based on the trip generation of the bank in its current location. _ In normal , circumstances I might agree, but given the volatile nature of the banking industry at this current time, the trip generation rate in the ITE Trip Generation Manual is more appropriate to use. It is not much different from the rate presented by Mr. Markley_ but is infinitely more defensible should a different banking institution end up in this site. The Fidelity pad should be considered as an integral use of the overall shopping center, as described in the April 7th letter. However, Mr. Markley ascribed a trip generation rate of 2.98 per 1000 square feet. That is too high, and the matrix has been adjusted to reflect the 2.79 trips per 1000 square feet as has been applied to the rest of the shopping center. - The third difference is the trip generation rate associated with the shopping center.. Previously, the rate for the current size of the shopping center has been 2.79 trips per 1000 square feet. This is what was used for my 2007 Memorandum and has apparently been accepted by Westfield. In Mr. Markley's November 5, 2008 letter he references a trip rate of 2.73 per 1000 square feet. I do not have any documentation to support that rate at this time and therefore have kept the previously used and accepted trip rate. Should Westfield provide acceptable documentation for the 2.73 rate, I will happily consider its use. This then gets me to the impact fees. In 2007, Westfield made a payment of $816,301.00 toward impact fees due. As documented in my 2007 Memorandum, there was an overpayment at that time leaving a credit balance of $96,757 Now that a final accounting of the expansion is available, an update to Table 3 in that Memorandum is shown below. \\ tuk2\ voll \pubworks \cyndy\development review\westfield expansion sepa addendum comments phase 2.doc Table 2: Impact Fee Comparisons Project # Intersection or Link • EIS Identified Fee Phase 1 • Fee Westfield Paid Fee 96 -RW18 Southcenter Pkwy /168th Street signal ' $15,200 $13,007 $11,489.32. 93 -RW11 W Valley /Strander: NB dual left turn_ lanes $43,120 $36,900 $32,593.38 89-RW13 Interurban Bridge: widen for dual lefts $19,920 $17,047 $15,057.05 88 -RW04 Andover Pk W (T Pkwy - Strander): widen to 5 lanes $271,150 $232,037 $204,955.85 03 -RWO5 Andover Pk E @ Minkler: widen to 5 lanes @ ints. $25,960. $22,215 $19,622.55 84 -RW03 - Southcenter Pkwy (180 - S city limits): - construct 3 and 5 lane street $16,470 ` $14,094 ' $12,449.28 02 -RW04 Southcenter Blvd (51 S — TIB): widen . to 3 lanes $184,000 $157,458 $139,081.23 84 -RW19 Tukwila Urban Access Improvement Project $504,1201 $431,402 $381,052.34 Total Transportation Impact Fees $1,079,940 $924,161 $816,301.00 ' This reflects a $1,350,360 fee due for this project less a credit of $846,240 for the dedication of right -of -way for the project This accounting shows that Westfield owes the City a payment in the amount of $107,860, due immediately, for the completion of the Phase 1 expansion.' . Proposed Phase 2 With Phase 1 completed and the tracking of trip generation documented, I can now move on to . . review of the proposed Phase 2 expansion. This expansion will add new leasable space on the north side of the mall, reconfigure the vacant area which formerly housed Mervyn's, add new retail space on the ground floor of the Olympic Garage building, change the Bank of America parcel into surface parking, relocate the Post Office, and add a new floor of parking onto of the Olympic Garage. From the SEPA Addendum perspective, the net new trip generation for this proposal falls under the allowable trips from the EIS. The attached matrix shows this under the last column. The net new peak hour trips for this proposal is 1,322 trips which is 10 less than was studied in the EIS. Therefore, no additional study is required from a traffic impact point of view. But as before, some of the proposed calculations presented by Mr. Markley will not be accepted by the city. Bank of America: In both of Mr. Markley's letters he erroneously states that the trip generation from the existing Bank of America site will be credited against the overall site's trip generation. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Vesting of trips is done on a parcel basis — the underlying property, not on an ownership basis (or planned ownership basis). When the EIS was originally done and the \\ tuk2\ voll\pubworks \cyndy\development review\westfield expansion sepa addendum comments phase 2.doc 1 • Development Agreement signed, the Bank of America site was acknowledged, but it was not considered part of the Westfield site. At this time, the parcel remains an individual parcel owned. by Bank of America. The trip generation that currently exists today may be credited against any redevelopment of that parcel but it cannot be transferred to other parcels, even if a common ownership exists (or will exist). Therefore, from a trip generation standpoint, this site is being proposed to convert from a bank to a parking lot, with no net new trip generation associated with the change of use. The new Bank of America building is being accounted for under Phase 1 as discussed above. Trip generation is calculated as an outlying pad on the overall site and is an exchange of the originally proposed restaurant pads. Post Office: This was not discussed in the TSI letters but was provided to me directly by Westfield. Phase 2. will include a demolition of the existing Post Office and a replacement of it as part of the retail space being added on the ground floor of the existing Olympic Garage. In Westfield's accounting, they took credit for 4,433sf for the existing building: This is correct to do as this site is part of the area originally included in the EIS and is being transferred to a different area of an existing parcel. Mervyn's: The Phase 2-Expansion proposal includes a "re- occupancy ", of the Mervyn's building which has been vacant since 2006. In order to consider first the SEPA impacts, I included the demolition of 86,115sf of retail area as was given to me by Westfield. I then added in the 150,557sf of main mall area (and the other retail areas) to get to the 1,668,932sf of Gross Leasable Area shown on the attached matrix of trip generation. Adding up the total trip generation for the site yields a trip generation of 1,322 p.m. peak hour trips, which is 10 less than that studied in the EIS. The conclusion is therefore that all impacts have been adequately studied in the EIS. According to Tukwila Municipal Code 9.48.040.B (Calculation of Impact Fees):. If the proposed development activity concerns an existing use, the fee shall be based on net new trips generated by the redevelopment. If an existing building has not - been used for its intended purpose or has been vacant for twelve months or more preceding application, no credit for existing trips shall be given.' While the overall impact of the proposed Phase 2 has been adequately studied, the city will not allow a credit of trips from the old Mervyn's site when calculating impact fees that will be assessed. A total traffic impact fee will be assessed for the new additional space but it will also include a collection for the trips associated with the vacant space. However, since there is a Development Agreement that governs this site, the assessment will not be based on the current traffic impact fee schedule but will be distributed in the same manner as the rest of the traffic impacts. Table 3 shows the calculations for the new traffic impact fee that will be assessed for the proposed Phase 2 expansion, in the amount of $551,476 \ \tuk2 \vol1 \pubworks \cyndy \development review \westfield expansion sepa addendum comments phase 2.doc Table 3: Impact Fee for Phase 2 Phase 2 Trip Phase 2 Project # Intersection or Link Cost/Trip Generation Fee 96 -RW 18 Southcenter Pkwy /168th Street signal $190 23 $4,352 93-RW11 W Valley /Strander: NB dual left turn lanes $280 44 $12,345 89 -RW 13 Interurban Bridge: widen for dual lefts $240. 24 $5,703 88 -RWO4 Andover Pk W (T Pkwy _ Strander): widen to 5 lanes $550 141 - $77,632 03 -RWO5 Andover Pk E @ Minkler: widen to 5 lanes @ ints. $220 34 $7,432 84 -RWO3 Southcenter Pkwy (180 - S city limits): construct 3 and 5 lane street $610 8 $4,715 02 -RW04 Southcenter Blvd (51 S — TIB): widen to 3 lanes $2,300 23 $52,680 84 -RW19 Tukwila Urban Access . Improvement Project $2,420 160 $386,616 Phase 2 Total $551,476 \ \tuk2 \vol1 \pubworks \cyndy \development review \westfield expansion sepa addendum comments phase 2.doc Page 1 of 3 RCW 43.21C.075 Appeals. (1) Because a major purpose of this chapter is to combine environmental considerations with public decisions, any appeal brought under this chapter shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act provides a basis for challenging whether governmental action is in compliance with the substantive and procedural provisions of this chapter. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. (2) Unless otherwise provided by this section: (a) Appeals under this chapter shall be of the governmental action together with its. accompanying environmental determinations. (b) Appeals of environmental determinations made (or lacking) under this chapter shall be commenced within the time required to appeal the governmental action which is subject to environmental review. (3) I-f- -an agency has a procedure for appeals -of- agency environmental- determinations made under this chapter, such procedure: (a) Shall allow no more than one agency appeal proceeding on each procedural determination (the adequacy of a determination of significance /nonsignificance or of a final environmental impact statement); (b) Shall consolidate an appeal of procedural issues and of substantive determinations made under this chapter (such as a decision to require particular mitigation measures or to deny a proposal) with a hearing or appeal on the underlying governmental action by providing for a single simultaneous hearing before one hearing officer or body to consider the agency decision or recommendation on a proposal and any environmental determinations made under this chapter, with the exception of: (i) An appeal of a determination of significance; (ii) An appeal of a procedural determination made by an agency when the agency is a project proponent, or is funding a project, and chooses to conduct its review under this chapter, including any appeals of its procedural determinations, prior to submitting an application for a project permit; (iii) An appeal of a procedural determination made by an agency on a nonproject action; or (iv) An appeal to the local legislative authority under RCW 43.21C.060 or other http : / /www. mrsc. org/mc /rcw/RC W %20 %2043 %20 %20TITLE/RC W %20 %2043 %20. %2 ... 02/17/2009 Page 2 of 3 applicable state statutes; (c) Shall provide for the preparation of a record for use in any subsequent appeal proceedings, and shall provide for any subsequent appeal proceedings to be conducted on the record, consistent with other applicable law. An adequate record consists of findings and conclusions, testimony under oath, and taped or written transcript. An electronically recorded transcript will suffice for purposes of review under this subsection; and (d) Shall provide that procedural determinations made by the responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. (4) If a person aggrieved by an agency action has the right to judicial appeal and if an agency_has_an administrative appeal procedure, such.person_shall, prior_to- seeking. -any judicial review, use such agency procedure if any such procedure is available, unless expressly provided otherwise by state statute. (5) Some statutes and ordinances contain time periods for challenging governmental actions which are subject to review under this chapter, such as various local land use approvals-(the "underlying governmental action "). RCW 43.21C.080 establishes an optional - notice of action" procedure which, if used, - imposes a time period -for appealing decisions under this chapter. This subsection does not modify any such time periods. In this subsection, the term "appeal" refers to a judicial appeal only. (a) If there is a time period for appealing the underlying governmental action, appeals under this chapter shall be commenced within such time period. The agency shall give official notice stating the date and place for commencing an appeal. (b) If there is no time period for appealing the underlying governmental action, and a notice of action under RCW 43.21 C.080 is used, appeals shall be commenced within the time period specified by RCW 43.21C.080. (6)(a) Judicial review under subsection (5) of this section of an appeal decision made by an agency under subsection (3) of this section shall be on the record, consistent with other applicable law. (b) A taped or written transcript may be used. If a taped transcript is to be reviewed, a record shall identify the location on the taped transcript of testimony and evidence to be reviewed. Parties are encouraged to designate only those portions of the testimony necessary to present the issues raised on review, but if a party alleges that a finding of fact is not supported by evidence, the party should include in the record all evidence relevant to the disputed finding. Any other party may designate additional portions of the taped transcript relating to issues raised on review. A party may provide a written transcript of portions of the testimony at the party's own expense or apply to that court for an order requiring the party seeking review to pay for additional portions of the written http: / /www.mrsc.org/mc /rcw/ RCW %20% 2043 %20 %20TITLE/RCW %20 %2043 %20.°/x2... 02/17/2009 Page 3 of 3 transcript. (c) Judicial review under this chapter shall without exception be of the governmental action together with its accompanying environmental determinations. (7) Jurisdiction over the review of determinations under this chapter in an appeal before an agency or superior court shall upon consent of the parties be transferred in whole or part to the shorelines hearings board. The shorelines hearings board shall hear the matter and sign the final order expeditiously. The superior court shall certify the final order of the shorelines hearings board and the certified final order may only be appealed to an appellate court. In the case of an appeal under this chapter regarding a project or other matter that is also the subject of an appeal to the shorelines hearings board under chapter 90.58 RCW, the shorelines hearings board shall have sole jurisdiction over both the appeal under this section and the appeal under chapter 90.58 RCW, shall consider them together, and shall issue a final order within one hundred eighty days as provided in RCW 90.58.180. (8) For purposes of this section and RCW 43.21C.080, the words "action ", "decision ", and "determination" mean substantive agency action including any accompanying procedural determinations under this chapter (except where the word "action" means "appeal" in RCW 43.21C.080(2)). The word "action" in this section and RCW 43.21 C.080 does not mean a procedural determination by itself made under this chapter. The word "determination" includes any environmental document required by this chapter and state or local implementing rules. The word "agency" refers to any state or local unit of government. Except as provided in subsection (5) of this section, the word "appeal" refers to administrative, legislative, or judicial appeals. (9) The court in its discretion may award reasonable attorneys' fees of up to one thousand dollars in the aggregate to the prevailing party, including a governmental agency, on issues arising out of this chapter if the court makes specific findings that the legal position of a party is frivolous and without reasonable basis. [1997 c 429 § 49; 1995 c 347 § 204; 1994 c 253 § 4; 1983 c 117 § 4.] NOTES: Severability -- 1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201. Finding -- Severability -- Part headings and table of contents not law -- 1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470. http: / /www.mrsc. org/mc /rcw/RC W %20 %2043 %20 %20TITLE/RC W %20 %2043 %20. %2... 02/17/2009 Page 1 of 2 RCW 43.21C.080 Notice of action by governmental agency -- How publicized -- Time limitation for commencing challenge to action. (1) Notice of any action taken by a governmental agency may be publicized by the acting governmental agency, the applicant for, or the proponent of such action, in substantially the form as set forth in rules adopted under RCW 43.21C 110: (a) By publishing notice on the same day of each week for two consecutive weeks in a legal newspaper of general circulation in the area where the property which is the subject of the action is located; (b) By filing notice of such action with the department of ecology at its main office in Olympia prior to the date of the last newspaper publication; and (c) Except for those actions which are of a nonproject nature, by one of the following methods which shall be accomplished prior to the date of first newspaper publication; (i) Mailing to the latest recorded real property owners, as shown by the records of the county treasurer, who share a common boundary line with the property upon which the project is proposed through United States mail, first class, postage prepaid. (ii) Posting of the notice in a conspicuous manner on the property upon which the project is to be constructed. (2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in RCW 43.21C.075(5)(a), any action to set aside, enjoin, review, or otherwise challenge any such governmental action or subsequent governmental action for which notice is given as provided in subsection (1) of this section on grounds of noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter shall be commenced within twenty -one days from the date of last newspaper publication of the notice pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, or be barred. (b) Any subsequent governmental action on the proposal for which notice has been given as provided in subsection (1) of this section shall not be set aside, enjoined, reviewed, or otherwise challenged on grounds of noncompliance with the provisions of RCW 43.21C.030(2)(a) through (h) unless there has been a substantial change in the proposal between the time of the first governmental action and the subsequent governmental action that is likely to have adverse environmental impacts beyond the range of impacts previously analyzed, or unless the action now being considered was identified in an earlier detailed statement or declaration of nonsignificance as being one which would require further environmental evaluation. [1995 c 347 § 205; 1977 ex.s. c 278 § 1; 1974 ex.s. c 179 § 2; 1973 1st ex.s. c 179 § 2.] http: / /www. mrsc. org/mc /rcw/RC W %20 %2043 %2 0 %20TI TLE/RC W %20 %2043 %2 0. %2... 02/17/2009 Page 2 of 2 NOTES: Finding -- Severability -- Part headings and table of contents not law -- 1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470. Purpose -- 1974 ex.s. c 179: "The purpose of this 1974 amendatory act is to establish methods and means of providing for full implementation of chapter 43.21 C RCW (the state environmental policy act of 1971) in a manner which reduces duplicative and wasteful practices, establishes effective and uniform procedures, encourages public involvement, and promotes certainty with respect to the requirements of the act." [ 1974 ex.s. c 179 § 1.] Effective date -- 1973 1st ex.s. c 179: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the support of the state government and its existing public institutions and shall take effect on July 1, 1973: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That prior thereto, the department of ecology may take such actions, including the issuing of notices and the conduct of public hearing, as are necessary to insure the implementation of section 1 of this act." [1973 1st ex.s. c 179 § 4.] http : / /www. mrsc. org/mc /rcw/RC W %20 %2043 %20 %20TITLE/RC W %20 %2043 %20. %2... 02/17/2009 • • Public Works Department, Engineering Memorandum TO: Moira Bradshaw FROM: Cyndy Knighton DATE: February 5, 2009 RE: Westfield Southcenter Phase 2 SEPA Addendum This memorandum constitutes my comments on the Westfield proposal to amend their expansion plans for the Southcenter Mall which was originally analyzed through a limited scope EIS. I am only focusing on the traffic element of the analysis. Because this proposed SEPA Addendum draws from the original EIS, the approved Development Agreement, and several supplemental letters from the applicant's traffic engineer, my analysis isn't necessarily as straight forward as my conclusion may lead you to believe. In short, I do agree that the proposed new-expansion-4 plans were adequately,-addressed -in- the - original EIS and that no further study is required. However, that does not mean that there aren't some points within the applicant's analysis which bear some scrutiny and commentary. Phase 1 In a memorandum from me to you and Dave McPherson, dated March 6, 2007 and updated November 9, 2007, I outlined information on the maximum build -out allowable for the Southcenter Mall expansion in accordance with the EIS and the subsequent Development Agreement. In short, the approved expansion had a variety of uses proposed but were ultimately restricted to 1,332 net new p.m. peak hour trips. As the redevelopment happened, a different mix of uses and sizes were built. Through discussions with Westfield and the city, it was agreed that Westfield would submit a final accounting of the type and size of uses actual built after the expansion was completed. This would allow me to track trip generation and the associated traffic impact fees due. Although the memorandum stated that the Certificate of Completion should be restricted until a full accounting had been submitted, it was not done. I am taking this opportunity to rectify that oversight. The following table summarizes the trip generation by land use for both the EIS approved development size and what was ultimately constructed as part of the Phase 1 expansion. This information was compiled from data presented by Westfield and follows the same trip generation methodology used in the original EIS. Two letters prepared by Westfield's traffic engineer, David Markley, Transportation Solutions, Inc., were also referenced to compile this data. The first letter was dated April 7, 2008 and the second letter was dated November 5, 2008. In gait5 c: \temp\xpgrpwise \westfield expansion sepa addendum comments phase 2_1.doc general, I have accepted the information presented by Mr. Markley with a few notable exceptions, which I will document in this memorandum. Table 1: Trin Generation Comparison: EIS to Phase 1 Type Maximum Size Maximum Trips Phase 1 Size Net New Trips Shopping Center 1,712,464 GLA 787 1,590,357 GLA 661 Restaurant 21,101 GSF 73 10,209 GSF 36 Financial Center - - 7,207 SF 20 Bank (with window) - - 7,451 SF 111 Movie Theater 4,000 seats 420 2,968 seats 312 Hotel 140 rooms 51 - - Total 1,332 Total 1,140 From the above table, it can be concluded that the Westfield Mall can accommodate additional expansion up to an additional 192 net new p.m. peak hour trips. The attached matrix to this table provides the details behind the trip generation. Of note are three differences between what Mr. Markley's two letters proposed and what will be allowed. The April 7, 2008 letter discusses trip generation for the Bank of America relocation as well as the Fidelity financial center site. Mr. Markley proposed using a trip generation rate for the Bank of America pad based on the trip generation of the bank in its current location. In normal circumstances I might agree, but given the volatile nature of the banking industry at this current time, the trip generation rate in the ITE Trip Generation Manual is more appropriate to use. It is not much different from the rate presented by Mr. Markley but is infinitely more defensible should a different banking institution end up,in this site. The Fidelity pad should be considered as an integral use of the overall shopping center, as described in the April 7th letter. However, Mr. Markley ascribed a trip generation rate of 2.98 per 1000 square feet. That is too high, and the matrix has been adjusted to reflect the 2.79 trips per 1000 square feet as has been applied to the rest of the shopping center. The third difference is the trip generation rate associated with the shopping center. Previously, the rate for the current size of the shopping center has been 2.79 trips per 1000 square feet. This is what was used for my 2007 Memorandum and has apparently been accepted by Westfield. In Mr. Markley's November 5, 2008 letter he references a trip rate of 2.73 per 1000 square feet. I do not have any documentation to support that rate at this time and therefore have kept the previously used and accepted trip rate. Should Westfield provide acceptable documentation for the 2.73 rate, I will happily consider its use. This then gets me to the impact fees. In 2007, Westfield made a payment of $816,301.00 toward impact fees due. As documented in my 2007 Memorandum, there was an overpayment at that time leaving a credit balance of $96,757 Now that a final accounting of the expansion is available, an update to Table 3 in that Memorandum is shown below. -pay z°`s c: \temp\xpgrpwise \westfield expansion sepa addendum comments phase 2_1.doc Table 2: Impact Fee Comparisons Project # Intersection or Link EIS Identified Fee Phase 1 Fee Westfield Paid Fee 96-RW18 Southcenter Pkwy /168th Street signal $15,200 $13,007 $11,489.32 93 -RW11 W Valley /Strander: NB dual left turn lanes $43,120 $36,900 $32,593.38 89-RW13 Interurban Bridge: widen for dual lefts $19,920 $17,047 $15,057.05 88 -RW04 Andover Pk W (T Pkwy - Strander): widen to 5 lanes $271,150 $232,037 $204,955.85 03-RWO5 Andover Pk E @ Minkler: widen to 5 lanes @ ints. $25,960 $22,215 $19,622.55 84 -RW03 Southcenter Pkwy (180 - S city limits): construct 3 and 5 lane street $16,470 $14,094 $12,449.28 02-RWO4 Southcenter Blvd (51 S — TIB): widen to 3 lanes $184,000 $157,458 $139,081.23 84 -RW19 Tukwila Urban Access Improvement Project $504,1201 $431,402 $381,052.34 Total Transportation Impact Fees $1,079,940 $924,161 $816,301.00 1 This reflects a $1,350,360 fee due for this project less a credit of $846,240 for the dedication of right -of -way for the project This accounting shows that Westfield owes the City a payment in the amount of $107,860, due immediately, for the completion of the Phase 1 expansion. Proposed Phase 2 With Phase 1 completed and the tracking of trip generation documented, I can now move on to review of the proposed Phase 2 expansion. This expansion will add new leasable space on the north side of the mall, reconfigure the vacant area which formerly housed Mervyn's, add new retail space on the ground floor of the Olympic Garage building, change the Bank of America parcel into surface parking, relocate the Post Office, and add a new floor of parking onto of the Olympic Garage. From the SEPA Addendum perspective, the net new trip generation for this proposal falls under the allowable trips from the EIS. The attached matrix shows this under the last column. The net new peak hour trips for this proposal is 1,322 trips which is 10 less than was studied in the EIS. Therefore, no additional study is required from a traffic impact point of view. But as before, some of the proposed calculations presented by Mr. Markley will not be accepted by the city. Bank of America: In both of Mr. Markley's letters he erroneously states that the trip generation from the existing Bank of America site will be credited against the overall site's trip generation. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Vesting of trips is done on a parcel basis — the underlying property, not on an ownership basis (or planned ownership basis). When the EIS was originally done and the fuje 3 c: \temp\xpgrpwise \westfield expansion sepa addendum comments phase 2_1.doc • • Development Agreement signed, the Bank of America site was acknowledged, but it was not considered part of the Westfield site. At this time, the parcel remains an individual parcel owned by Bank of America. The trip generation that currently exists today may be credited against any redevelopment of that parcel but it cannot be transferred to other parcels, even if a common ownership exists (or will exist). Therefore, . from a trip generation standpoint, this site is being proposed to convert from a bank to a parking lot, with no net new trip generation associated with the change of use. The new Bank of America building is being accounted for under Phase 1 as discussed above. Trip generation is calculated as an outlying pad on the overall site and is an exchange of the originally proposed restaurant pads. Post Office: This was not discussed in the TSI letters but was provided to me directly by Westfield. Phase 2 will include a demolition of the existing Post Office and a replacement of it as part of the retail space being added on the ground floor of the existing Olympic Garage. In Westfield's accounting, they took credit for 4,433sf for the existing building. This is correct to do as this site is part of the area originally included in the EIS and is being transferred to a different area of an existing parcel. Mervyn' s: The Phase 2 Expansion proposal includes a "re- occupancy" of the Mervyn's building which has been vacant since 2006. In order to consider first the SEPA impacts, I included the demolition of 86,115sf of retail area as was given to me by Westfield. I then added in the 150,557sf of main mall area (and the other retail areas) to get to the 1,668,932sf of Gross Leasable Area shown on the attached matrix of trip generation. Adding up the total trip generation for the site yields a trip generation of 1,322 p.m. peak hour trips, which is 10 less than that studied in the EIS. The conclusion is therefore that all impacts have been adequately studied in the EIS. According to Tukwila Municipal Code 9.48.040.B (Calculation of Impact Fees): If the proposed development activity concerns an existing use, the fee shall be based on net new trips generated by the redevelopment. If an existing building has not been used for its intended purpose or has been vacant for twelve months or more preceding application, no credit for existing trips shall be given. While the overall impact of the proposed Phase 2 has been adequately studied, the city will not allow a credit of trips from the old Mervyn's site when calculating impact fees that will be assessed. A total traffic impact fee will be assessed for the new additional space but it will also include a collection for the trips associated with the vacant space. However, since there is a Development Agreement that governs this site, the assessment will not be based on the current traffic impact fee schedule but will be distributed in the same manner as the rest of the traffic impacts. Table 3 shows the calculations for the new traffic impact fee that will be assessed for the proposed Phase 2 expansion, in the amount of $551,476 ?ay,4o6s c: \temp\xpgrpwise \westfield expansion sepa addendum comments phase 2_1.doc Table 3: Impact Fee for Phase 2 Phase 2 Trip Phase 2 Project # Intersection or Link Cost/Trip Generation Fee 96 -RW18 Southcenter Pk /168th Street signal $190 23 $4,352 93 -RW11 W Valley /Strander: NB dual left turn lanes $280 44 $12,345 89 -RW 13 Interurban Bridge: widen for dual lefts $240 24 $5,703 88 -RW04 Andover Pk W (T Pkwy - Strander): widen to 5 lanes $550 141 $77,632 03-RWO5 Andover Pk E @ Minkler: widen to 5 lanes @ ints. $220 34 $7,432 84 -RWO3 Southcenter Pkwy (180 - S city limits): construct 3 and 5 lane street $610 8 $4,715 02-RWO4 Southcenter Blvd (51 S — TIB): widen to 3 lanes $2,300 23 $52,680 84 -RW19 Tukwila Urban Access Improvement Project $2,420 160 $386,616 Phase 2 Total $551,476 pctr 515 c: \temp\xpgrpwise \westfield expansion sepa addendum comments phase 2_1.doc Moira Bradshaw - Re: Westfield southcenter From: Ryan Larson To: Moira Bradshaw Date: 01/13/2009 3:5: Page 1 of 1 Subject: Re: Westfield southcenter Moira, It was my understanding that the Developers Agreement did not specify which manual to use and only stated that the development would not have a significant impact on down stream storm systems. My suggestion was to require the entire development to meet the requirements of the storm manual in affect at the time of permitting. Currently this is the 1998 King County manual. This will be changed by August because of the new requirements of the NPDES regulations that require us to adopt either the 2005 Ecology or 2005 King County Manual. Since this is a result of a Federal mandate, I believe this we can require.- The important thing to note is that even if we require the use of the new manual, not much will change since the detention requirements exempt areas that were developed prior to I believe 1979. In this case, they can treat the existing imperious surfaces as the existing condition rather than a forested condition. The water quality requirements are about the same in either manual. So the - bottom line is that we are - requiring -the manual in affect-at the time of development be -used. Hopefully this makes sense - Ryan »> Moira Bradshaw 01/12/2009 6:18 PM »> Ryan - I'm looking for my notes from our meeting with Shelley - until I find them I'd like to summarize our meeting: because the BOA site was not in the original dev. agreement the redevelopment (parking lot) will be subject to the new manual. Substantively it's not a big hit for Westfield because the site was originally developed pre 1977 ( ?date) and the water quality requirements and detention will therefore not be different from the 98 manual? Thanks for any additional recap you can provide. Moira file: / /C:\ temp\ XPGrpWise \496CB888tuk- mail6300 -po 1001647036119C3D 1 \GW } 00001.... 02/18/2009 Moira Bradshaw - Westfield Phase II From: Donald Lincoln To: Moira Bradshaw Date: 01/02/2009 10:23 AM Subject: Westfield Phase II CC: Bruce Linton; David Haynes; Dennis McOmber; Lori Sutter; Mike Villa Page 1 of 1 Hello Moira, I've been asked to provide information on projected impact on the police department for the phase II build out of Westfield. I'd like to first note that without having reviewed the plans and without having any knowledge of the types of-business, the information I'm providing is based on calls-for service -and square footage and by examining like facilities. Westfield's press release dated July 25th shows their total square footage at 1.7 million. Phase 2 build out appears to add 83,000 square feet giving us 1,783,000 square feet. The closest we have found to-Westfield in terms of city size /mall size is the Mall ofAnierica-in Bloomington, MN. This example mall staffs law enforcement with one sergeant and 5 officers. Given the threat to this mall one of the officers has a k -9 bomb dog. Additional challenges include getting from one end of the mall to the other in an emergency situation. These mall officers patrol and respond on Segway's. Therefore, if we followed this plan we would need additional space for storage. We have already seen a measurable increase in calls for service at Westfield with no reason to-believe they will decline in the future. Given the size and complexity of our mall, we believe a sergeant and five officers to be too few. Additionally, what we don't know is what percentage of the increased calls for service results in a felony case being taken. In that instance, the impact would trickle over to Major Crimes for investigations. With the limited information available we believe adequate service levels to this facility will require: 1 sergeant and 6 officers Increased storage for equipment and transportation (Segway's perhaps) 1 additional major crimes detective 2 additional patrol vehicles Individual transportation for inside the mall I hope this information is helpful and as always please feel free to call me if you have questions. Don Lincoln Commander Investigations Division Tukwila Police Dept. 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA. 98188 206 - 431 -3667 file://C:\temp\XPGrpWise\495DEB2Ctuk-mail6300-po 1001647036119A 1 F 1 \GW } 00001... 01/06/2009 Moira Bradshaw - WSCR: Phase 2 Numbers From: "Richard Chung" To: "Moira Bradshaw" Date: 12/15/2008 5:51 PM Subject: WSCR: Phase 2 Numbers CC: "Nicholas Lee" Attachments: "Nicholas Lee" Moira, Page 1 of 3 I have reviewed your numbers and have updated them according to the numbers I have based on the plans and what was actually built. Please note that I have added comments in the cells that have a ed - triangle at-the upper right corners. If you hold-the curser over the cell, you would be able to view my notes. 1. All the EIS numbers are agreed to. 2. Phase 1 a) Main mall GLA built was 385,923, the difference between what was permitted was added as common. - — b) Cheesecake Factory GBA is 10,209 according to what was built & permits. c) Not sure where the 241,687 common area number is from, according to permit set 106,604 sf 3. Phase 2 a) I use the total GLA being built on the North and deducted the entire Mervyn's since that was original GLA b) Likewise US Post office was deducted from Garage A GLA c) Common Area was determined based on Plan C -7 Variance between Garage GLA & GBA ii. Common Area listed Variance between Mall expansion GLA & GBA Please review my calculations since the C -7 Plan is not correct. The wrong initial GBA was used. I would like to get agreement on the calculation before I have them redo the plan. Thanks file: / /C:\ temp\ XPGrpWise \4946992Atuk- mail6300 -po 10016470361198151 \G W } 00001.... 12/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Moira Bradshaw - E08 -021 Westfield Phase 2 Environmental From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Attachments: Moira Bradshaw Bruce Fletcher; David Haynes; Jim Morrow; Nick Olivas 12/09/2008 2:50 PM E08 -021 Westfield Phase 2 Environmental Bob Giberson; Cyndy Knighton; Donald Tomaso Bob Giberson; Cyndy Knighton; Donald Tomaso Attached are documents that have been prepared to analyze Phase 2 of the Westfield expansion. Originally, in 2004, Westfield (WEA) proposed building everything on the south side. The south side expansion was scaled back in terms of square footage and the buildings along Strander BL were changed in terms of use. Now Westfield would like to build some of the square footage originally envisioned for the south side, on the north. The following attachments have been prepared to comply with the required SEPA review for the proposal. 1. SEPA Routing form is a summary by me of the steps that the City will be taking. 2. November SEPA Compliance Document prepared by WEA to analyze the differences between the EIS and the project with Phase 2. 3. TSI addendum - the transportation specific analysis prepared by WEA consultant 4. PacLand addendum - the utility specific summary prepared by WEA consultant 5. Phase 2 site plan and Parking Counts - WEA proposed site plan and summary of parking numbers. We are asking that departments have their SEPA comments back to me by January 2, 2009. We are also asking that you consider the site plan implications of their proposal and prepare separate comments on that. Call me at 1651 with any questions or if you'd like to discuss the changes. Thanks. Moira file: / /C:\ temp\ XPGrpWise\ 493E85C3tuk- mai16300 -po 10016470361197191 \GW } 00001.... 12/09/2008 F.'Ct'ar i ± .: i'iur / Director of Development / Pacific Northwest West`:eld Southcenier / 633 Souincenter !Usti, Trailer 42 / Seattle. WA 98188 4Gu.o0G_uu r0 I ,1'_,.., 19.3007 / / iuittrriy, westireid_uu;tr Page 2 of 3 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e -mail transmission is emended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. This e -mail transmission. and any documents, files, previous e -mail transmissions or other information attached to it; may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e -mail message, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any- disclosure, dissemination. distribution,-copying or other use of this transmission or any or the information contained in or attached to it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error. please immediately notify us by return e -mail transmission or by telephone, and destroy the original e -mail transmission and its attachments without reading, saving, or utilizing it in any manner. - -- We're committed to.sustainable business practices. Please print only when- necessary, and recycle. - From: Moira Bradshaw [mailto:mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 3:00 PM To: Richard Chung Subject: Phase 2 Numbers Richard - I'm attaching a spread sheet that summarizes the numbers that you have provided on the Addendum summary. One of the numbers that appears to be missing is "common mall area" that would be used to provide a total gross building area. You'll note that the common mall area was larger than what had originally been analyzed /anticipated. Is that something that you can confirm? Is this something that you can provide? Regards, Moira Carr Bradshaw, AICP Senior Planner, DCD file: / /C:\ temp\ XPGrpWise \4946992Atuk- mail6300 -po 10016470361198151 \GW } 00001.... 12/16/2008 i Transportati6n!Solutions, Inc. 8250 - 165th Avenue NE Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052.6628 T 425 - 883.4134 .F 425 - 867 -0898 — www:tsinw :com Richard L. Chung, Development Director Westfield LLC 633 Southcenter Mall, Trailer 2, Seattle, WA 98188 RECEIVED NOV 2 5 2008 COMMUNa Y DEVELOPMENT November 5, 2008 Subject: Mervyn's Expansion and Bank of America relocation — Traffic and Parking Impact Update Dear Mr. Chung; Thank you for asking Transportation Solutions, Inc. (TSI) to assist you in evaluating the traffic and parking impacts associated with the following: • Reoccupancy of the existing Mervyn's building; • Construction of 64,442 SF GLA of retail on the north side of the Mall which will displace 150 parking stalls; • Construction of 18,576 SF GLA of retail in the Garage A on the south side of the Mall which will displace 83 parking stalls; • Replacement of the existing Bank of America parcel with 344 parking stalls; • Construction of 200 parking stalls by adding a top floor to Garage A on the south side of the Mall; and • Construction of a net 45 parking stalls on the Post Office parcel. This letter summarizes our understanding of this phase of the planned Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter expansion, computes the incremental weekday PM peak hour trip generation, evaluates the travel distribution and any associated traffic - related environmental impacts, makes a comparison of the parking supply and City parking requirements, and estimates the incremental Traffic Impact Fees. PROJECT DESCRIPTION To date, Westfield has only built a portion of the planned floor area that was originally evaluated in the EIS and contemplated in its 2005 Development Agreement with the City of Tukwila. Westfield is now proposing reoccupancy of the existing Mervyn's building and construction of new retail on both the north and south sides of the Southcenter Mall to fill -out more of the originally planned expansion. This phase of development will result in a net addition of 83,018 SF GLA of retail floor area (a net 64,442 SF GLA on the north side of the mall and TSI; ,,....,...,,t, Transportation,Solutions, Inc. • Richard L. Chung November 5, 2008 Page 2 of 7 18,576 SF GLA on the south side of the mall). In total, this phase of the Mall expansion will result in a development area of 1,730,890 SF GLA — a net increase of 478,573 SF GLA over the Southcenter Mall pre- expansion. (This is still less than the total-project evaluated in-the EIS and-approved in the Development Agreement, which contemplated a total net increase of 626,803 SF GLA or 787,903 SF in gross building area (GBA). To support this expansion, 344 parking stalls will be developed on the existing Bank of America parcel located at northeast corner of the Mall, 200 parking stalls will be added to Garage A on the south side of the Mall and net 45 parking stalls on the Post Office site. The total parking supply after this phase of the Southcenter Mall expansion will be 7,159 parking stalls. The existing Bank of America parcel was not part of the original Mall development but will be an integrated portion of the Southcenter Mall when the Bank of America building is demolished. Bank of America operations will be relocated to a New Parcel E on the south side of the Mall along Strander Boulevard. The traffic and parking impacts related to the new Bank of America building on the south side of the Mall were addressed previously in a letter prepared by TSI dated April 7, 2008. The proposed Mervyn's reoccupancy and retail expansion plan is shown on Attachment 1 (Plan C6 -2). APPROACH The approach to this traffic analysis is consistent with the method used in the EIS and all subsequent traffic analysis to ensure consistency and includes the following: • Estimate of the net new trips generated by reoccupancy of the existing Mervyn's building and additional retail area development to determine if volumes are within the totals evaluated in the EIS and considered in the Development Agreement. • Review of the trip distribution to determine if there is any noticeable change in trip patterns due the Mervyn's reoccupancy and expansion of retail and parking on both the north and south of the site that would change the traffic impacts as trips travel to and from the Mall site. • Calculate the Traffic Impact Fees based on reoccupancy of the existing Mervyn's building and the retail expansion. • Assess the adequacy of the parking supply with the existing Mervyn's building reoccupancy, the added retail mall area, conversion of the existing Bank of America parcel to parking, the addition of a floor to Parking Garage A, and additional parking on the Post Office site. TSI. • TransportationSolutions, Inc. • Richard L. Chung November 5, 2008 ■ Page 3 of 7 TRIP GENERATION This section outlines the trip generation analyses for the combination of the additional retail area. The approach to estimating the trip generation for the new Mall space is identical to the approach used in the EIS except that the trip generation rate applied to the Mall portion of the development was increased from 2.68 PM Peak Hour trips per 1,000 SF GLA to 2.73 PM Peak Hour trips per 1,000 SF GLA. This upward trip generation rate adjustment is consistent with the methodology applied in the EIS, in which TRANSPO concluded that the trip generation "rate" increases as the gross floor are of mall tenant spaces decreases. Using the EIS method for estimating trip generation, after this phase of expansion, the Southcenter Mall will generate a total of 1,113 net new PM peak hour trips. Trip generation calculations for this phase of the Southcenter Mall expansion are included in Attachment 2. These 1,113 trips represents a net increase of 225 net new PM peak hour trips over the 888 net new PM peak hour trips estimated in the Southcenter Mall, Phase I expansion building permit applications. However, included within this 225 net new PM peak hour trips are the 114 new trips for the new Bank of America and Fidelity Investments pad sites on the south side of the Mall (see TSI letter dated April 7, 2008), thus reoccupancy of the existing Mervyn's building and minor retail area expansion would result in addition of 111 net new PM peak hour trips (225 — .114). As part of this phase of the Southcenter Mall expansion, the existing Bank of America building will be vacated, demolished, and replaced by 344 parking stalls for Southcenter Mall customers. Based on our previous letter dated April 7, 2008, the existing Bank of America was surveyed and was found to generate 148 net PM Peak Hour trips. Therefore, the demolition of the existing Bank of America building can be considered a net decrease to the area -wide trip generation because its associated trips were considered in the Westfield EIS a part of the background traffic volume already traveling on the streets. Combining the net new trips generated by the reoccupancy of the existing Mervyn's building and minor retail area expansion (111 PM Peak hour trips) with the net reduction associated with the existing Bank of America building demolition (148.PM Peak hour trips), the net change to trip generation will be a decrease of 37 PM Peak Hour trips. When added to prior phases of the Southcenter Mall expansion, including the new Bank of America and Fidelity. Investments pads on the south side of the Mall, this phase will generate a total of 1,113 net new PM Peak Hour trips without accounting for demolition of the existing Bank of America. When the trips currently generated by the existing Bank of America are accounted for (148 net new PM Peak Hour Transportation.Solutions, Inc. • Richard L. Chung November 5, 2008 Page 4 of 7 trips) the total trip generation will drop to 965 net new PM Peak hour trips (1113 — 148). In either case, the total trip generation associated with this phase of development is less than the 1,332 net new PM Peak Hour trips analyzed in the EIS. Therefore, there will not be any new trip generation impacts associated with this phase of the Southcenter Mall expansion. TRIP DISTRIBUTION In addition to evaluating whether this phase of Southcenter Mall expansion will create new trips beyond those already evaluated, we considered whether this phase could create new impacts due to a change in trip distribution. Impacts described in the EIS were based on a trip distribution and assignment that routed cars along specific streets and intersections. This trip assignment was based on an external trip distribution depicted in "Figure 3 -5: Inbound and Outbound Trip Distribution" of the DEIS. This distribution will not change as a result of this phase of the Southcenter Mall expansion because regional origins and destinations of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter trips do not change. Under the EIS, at the edge of the Southcenter Mall site, trips were assigned to correspond to the various driveways at the perimeter of the site with weighting to the south since that was the location where the majority of the new parking and new floor area was initially targeted. With this expansion phase, the travel patterns on the Mall site edge may change slightly but any change is expected to be so small that it would not noticeably change the level of service at any intersection. This minimal . change is due to several factors including the following: • The trip generation associated with the reoccupancy of the existing Mervyn's building and additional retail is very small — a 3% increase. Thus, any shift in trip patterns will be even less. Moreover, when the reduction associated with the existing Bank of America building demolition is taken into account, the net change in trip generation associated with this phase of Mall expansion is negative. • The majority of trips will continue to be observed on the south side of the Mall because the trips generated on the north by the reoccupancy of the existing Mervyn's building and new retail on the north is more than offset by the trips eliminated on the north by replacement of the existing Bank of America with surface parking. • The new parking associated with this phase of Southcenter's expansion will be added to both the north and south sides of the Mall with the largest concentration of parking supply with the shortest walking distance to the Mall remaining on the south side, providing shoppers with the highest probability of finding available parking quickly. TSI.. Transportation =;Solutions, Inc. Richard L. Chung November 5, 2008 Page 5 of 7 • Observation of travel patterns show that drivers use the driveway nearest to their external origin or destination as depicted in the EIS (Figure 3 -5) and circulate to their preferred Mall building entrance along internal drive aisles - rather than- driving -on -the public- streets -and- being delayed by -other traffic and traffic signals. For example, a customer traveling northbound on 1 -5 to access the Mall would exit at one of the two northbound I -5 exits. If their destination was on the south side of the Mall, they would enter the west driveway (Nordstrom) or one of the driveways off Strander Boulevard — either way they would travel through and impact the planned Klickitat Drive improvement. If the same customer were destined for the north side of the Mall, they would likely exit at the northernmost I -5 northbound exit and either enter at the western driveway (Nordstrom) or at one of the driveways on the north side of the Mall — again they would pass through the Klickitat improvement. Similar consistencyy in travel patterns were found for other approaches and the road improvements they impacted: For these reasons, TSI concludes that traffic impacts associated with this phase of the Southcenter Mall expansion will be well below the impact levels identified in the EIS. Therefore, no significant adverse environmental impacts are generated as a result of the reoccupancy of the existing Mervyn's building and the additional retail space. PARKING The proposed expansion will result in 7,159 parking stalls on the Southcenter Mall site. This includes creation of 344 parking stalls on the existing Bank of America parcel, 200 stalls on the added top floor of Garage A, and a net 45 parking stalls on the Post Office site, as well as the demolition of 150 stalls on the north side of the Mall and 83 stalls on the south side of the Mall. Pursuant to the City's parking requirements as described in. the Development Agreement, 5 stalls per 1,000 SF of useable floor area (UFA) are required for the Southcenter Mall. This requirement was reduced by two City parking decisions authorizing a 115,995 SF UFA deduction for complementary uses and a 4.5% reduction (File No. L04 -055). In this phase, Westfield expansion plans include an additional 50,716 SF (UFA) of complementary uses that should be added to the previous approved complementary uses for a total of 166,711 sq of complementary uses for which parking is not required. These complementary uses include two internal restaurants on the north side of the Mall and several small service uses in the ground floor of Garage A. This results in a 1,477,635 SF of UFA for the calculation of required parking stalls as shown below in Table 1. TS! Transportation Solutions, Inc. TABLE 1: FLOOR AREA SUMMARY Richard L. Chung November 5, 2008 Page 6 of 7 Total Existing + Proposed GLA 1,728,081 SF Kiosks 2809 SF Tenant Restrooms /Equipment Rooms ( -5 %) (86,545 SF) Subtotal 1,644,346 SF Total Existing ± Proposed Complementary Use (166,711 SF) Revised UFA 1,477,635 SF Therefore, under the City of Tukwila parking, this phase of the Southcenter Mall expansion requires 7,056 parking stalls (1,477,635 x 5 stalls /1,000 SF UFA x 4.5% deduction). The proposed parking for this phase (7,159 stalls) exceeds City parking requirements (7,056 stalls) by 103 parking stalls. Based on this comparison, this phase of the Southcenter Mall expansion — reoccupancy of the existing Mervyn's building and the additional retail — will satisfy City of Tukwila parking requirements. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES Traffic Impact Fees are used in Tukwila to mitigate traffic impacts from new development like the Southcenter Mall expansion. The Traffic Impact Fees for build - out of the entire planned Southcenter Mall expansion under the EIS and the Development Agreement was determined to be $1,079,940. This corresponded to generation of 1,332 net new PM Peak hour trips. On February 28, 2007, based on its building permits applications submitted by that date, showing a total of 1,575,034 SF GLA and 888 net new PM Peak hour trips, Westfield paid $816,301 in traffic impact fees to the City. This amount, however, was in excess of the traffic impact fees in fact due ($719,544) resulting in a credit against future development for Westfield of $96,757. See Memorandum to Moira Bradshaw from Cyndy Knighton updated November 9, 2007. Since the determination of this traffic impact fee credit, Westfield proceeded with the development of two pad sites on the south side of the Mall — Bank of America and Fidelity Investments. The traffic - related impacts of the development of these two pads were addressed as part of a prior application in the letter prepared by TSI dated April 7, 2008. Per TSI's analysis, these two new pad sites result in a net new trip generation of 114 new PM Peak Hour trips and a traffic impact fee of $92,427.30. Traffic impact fee calculations are included in Attachment 3. The traffic impact fees associated with the Bank of America and Fidelity Investments pad sites have not yet been officially accounted for by the City. When this fee is Transportation ,. Solutions, Inc. Richard L. Chung November 5, 2008 Page 7 of 7 subtracted from Westfield's outstanding credit, Westfield has a remaining traffic impact fee credit of $4,329 and 331 remaining net new PM peak hour . trips analyzed under the EIS (445 remaining trips — 114 Bank of America/Fidelity trips). As summarized above, the current phase of the Southcenter Mall expansion reoccupancy of the existing Mervyn's building and the additional retail space — will create 111 net new PM Peak hour trips. However, the demolishment of the existing Bank of America building results in a reduction of 148 PM Peak hour trips. Because this creates a net reduction of 37 trips, no impact fees as a result of this Southcenter Mall expansion phase are due. Thus, after the conclusion of this Southcenter Mall expansion phase, Westfield will have a remaining traffic impact fee credit against future development of $4,329 and 367 remaining PM peak hour trips analyzed under the, EIS (1332 EIS trips — 965 net new PM Peak hour trips): ' SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: Based on the analysis presented above, we find the following: •, the net trip generation as a result of this phase of Southcenter Mall expansion results in a net reduction in trips; • this phase will not substantially change the travel distribution -or impact to . nearby intersections; and • the parking demands associated with the reoccupancy of the existing Mervyn's and the added retail space are satisfied,by Westfield's creation of addition parking stalls in its' expansion plans. We look forward to reviewing this letter and'our development of these figures should you or City staff have any questions. Sincerely, Transportation Solutions, Inc. David D. Markley Principal Attachments F:\Project\2001203005 South Center\2008 Expansion \103008 Merym' sExpansiontrafiicimpactanalysis ddm.doc _ . C„ PROPO EO SUN4AR Y OF GARAGE NmG COOKE / / /.2 ti /-'� ' V J �1 1 > `� �ipA S C[S \ • • I� �C= 'f! �' \/.>, • •,� - 'r-j•:— _— J' - -_.) If it J � ` 75 •:' PAC = •i / . __ _ —.__ _ _ •-- _5. !I - - - -.. + COSTING NORM PARA1G I 3451 SPACES COSTING SOWN vARKmG I 2359 SPACES COSTING STRUCTURED PARKING . ROOF 952 SPACES JOT. EWSONO PARKING I 9E01 SPACES I' ''I • _ — — I PROPOSED ROAM PARKING i 1150 SPACES) PROPOSED 50413 PARRm6 (E3 SPACES) • PROPOSED 0634106 SmUC1DRE A (W»45 R I00 SPAUS PROPOSED PARIU0G O Pest ONk PAD ■5 SPACES TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING 7159 SPACES 1 .I aEj SP ] SAP s p L) L= °giros ss. T1 } E , , SP S" ccE r MO 0 / I _ I`J ` `!ir 1 a _ ®D b.ab4 1 .�` ■ 5555._ • , t 1 './ I J Q J III II = J . GPOIP,DSFhI 0000 IIw� — I, I.'R — = ld `y.?!�� y / rLY I /i ti 602 SPACES a 046 —/ +Yl _ .. I — - — NORDSIROM — ,rrmacys �� �L ,' 7 h ", "� �I LEVEL 2 PLAN I I _. —.. —.. .•1.2 PALES . lo o n r• 1 N. me I D I I j r �A Attachment 1: Mervyn's Reoccupancy and I� Retail Expansion Plan '4' '' —� g 1' .....!° - 1 1" — Al ' r V a�was _. I I ICI ':6 . I .� -� 40 I I I v i , / 1 t Il G .. a .. l._' s..I:«.., Pans, ,R.� ,,W ea ,16•!60 CAA OLO i• ;: ' I IE Ii'�mn'�. __ ®� • - 4 �''1 =`I .,, ` �;� A /—/ 1A �I1,7,2 .– . _A- " – - -. -:'! U I^ `C�'I \�� \��\ - Emma; __ - - ifFP.4.� -..-. _ _ y.J - \�� \ V A r -Kn is pansies, AA1pn ai i • -CS 11 Oars, HssOstrood a Sen... Os, 1- -vmw..e . . 11°0 m . 0 10 SIG G0. GLA /.��f/�i7;,ii� I' II ��I..III ■; T =ilk -CS'- L]-57ei •� 11 \ N : ' ' R i li , r_ CV/ I I I I I I I I I: I I I =r.` :a.IP.'` �` 1eI- E..I.o. P,�.e Gt. •.-e• ..-7E r«... R� IEa:Pnn. Rmmld\I 0 e. EARN w'Se I + X22\2 , _ - ..1 _f Q'Li %RA .. �.�� �LI. i� .-- Ii ' I} ^� =IV"' t AV �► ' V V �► V �► Lie����i . Vt wEmo'O•tnaa.•w..PVA r em-L..e.1tA' J R.... sA ..Hess (n�i�J •• ^ A ^ f� II��:t.�= _ . R... r . R._. R �. R. ., L I C�� c�> I ♦ �.. i L. �s em°�•�.e. Papaw � a °. e spaces . Lo00.I UFA •50405 �� I!J1! L� -� e _�'e - N I•ac— 4I< y ,•aAP.R --° ---A��' T.4tsR.- 16016- ....RP n Q GQ C L 10. SRACES 1 .e . .�'� E - —__:_ r SITE PLAN WITH LEVEL 1 PLAN Fez es 14 >C z om -I 0 0 Sad 146w SOUTHCELVTER Parking Structures WESTFIELD DESIGN • CONSTRUCTION Isom wan,. I I in Fool 310 osbil Passe* St• •7111 osOS 5.5451305 Re Consultants APP,ebR: Res PIGS: R.Ntlm Dot. aroma 10/20/60 Q A6D■N 'wpm 00o 11/26/2005 Q 000we may. Q A0m1■N 0/65/0005 6.m:04___ ma Q .60.0mama 03,66/060 Q 0000.5 • 00/23/063 Q =nom 0/2:/260 6 /216/00• Q 4064 10/20/060 Q -- Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 531..0 nu. PROPOSED PARKING COUNT PLAN .100 Ma Scale C 6 -2 Attachment 2 ,Trip:Generation - :Mervyn's 'Expansion@ North; -East (Plan'.C:6 1) - Trip yGeneration = Mervyn s Expansion {Plan C:6 1) r ;�: ` )••`i', t;= - :- - ,-1,14,-1-.;,, ;:: :,i , '< • ■ ':Table 1 ." > . Y Uses ITE Quantity Unit LUC Weekday PM Peak Hour Rate Total In Out Existing Southcenter Trip Generation 132 132 . II Internal Shared Trips 25% 66 t 1,252;317 GLA - -820 — 2.98 3,732-.— 1,829— — 1;903 —Shopping-Center a Total Driveway Trips 19% 50 3,732 1,829 1,903 b Shopping Center Pass -By Trips 19% • 74 710 355 355 3,022 1,474 1,548 c Net New Trips (c = a - b) Expanded Southcenter Trip Generation Shopping Center 1 (including Fidelity) 1,572,241 GLA 820 2.73 4,291 2,103 2,188 Mervyn's Expansion @ North 2 64,442 GLA 820 2.73 / 176 86 90 Restaurant' (Cheesecake Factory) , 11,556 GSF 832 10.86 125 75 50 Theater ° (75,200 SF) 2,800_. Seats 444 0.14 392 208 184 Bank of America 5 7,451 GFA 22.40 167 84 83 5,151 2,556 • 2,595 d Total Trips • e Less Restaurant/Theater /Bank Capture Trips 25% 171 92 79 4,980 2,464 2,516 f Total Driveway Trips (f = d - e) Pass by Trips __ Shopping Center 820 17% 729 365 365 Mervyn's Expansion @ North 820 17% 30 - 15 15 Restaurant 832 43% 54 27 27 Bank of America 19% 32 16 16 845 422 422 g Total Pass -By Trips h Net New Trips (h = f - g) 4,135 2,042 2,094 Net Trip Generation (Proposed Action) i Total Trips (I = d - a) 1,419 727 692 • Driveway Trips (j = f - a) 1,248 635 613 k Net New Trips (k = h - c) 1,113 568 546 m Pass -By Trips (m = j - k) 135 67 67 1 In /Out %age splits based.on Southcenter Mall Counts, April 2003. Weekday PM =49 In/ 51 Out 2 PM Peak hour trip rate Mervyn's expansion same as Shopping center of Westfield 3 PM Peak hour trip rate for Restaurant (Cheesecake Factory) as stand alone use 4 Theater trip rate based on # of seats 5 PM Peak hour trip rate for relocated Bank of America based on Trip Generation Study conducted by TSI, letter to Richard Chung date April 7, 2008 sa � .ss;„_ q " ;, Trips; ciedit. fonDemolishedBaof iAl @INo'rth'ueast orne�`� r ;�: ` )••`i', t;= - :- - ,-1,14,-1-.;,, ExlidnMBank,of AmerlcauTnpsw I Total Trips 11,800. GFA •" 22.4 264 132 132 . II Internal Shared Trips 25% 66 33 33 III Driveway Trips (III = I - II) 198 99 • 99 IV Pass -By Trips 19% 50 25 25 V Net New Trips (V = III - IV) 148 • 74 74 Date: 09/30/2008 RECEIVED NOV 2 5 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT %in %out 49 %--51 % -- 50% 50% 60% 40% 53% 47% 50% 50% 50% 50% • 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Attachment 3: TIF By Development Phase Project # Link or Intersection Improvement Cost/Trip Trips Passing thru Project EIS Identified Fee 1 Actual Permit Mile Fee Mile e (1) lAddition 13 of A & (2) Net New Trips as compared to EIS . 1332 I 888 114 96-RW18 • Southcenter Parkway & 168th Street Signal $ 190.00 80 $ . 15,200 $ 10,127.00 $ .1,300.90 93 -RW 11 West Valley & Strander Blvd NB Dual Left Turn Lanes $ 280.00 154. $ 43,120 $ 27,730.00 $ 3,690.45 89 -RW 13 Interurban Bridge widen for Dual Lefts $ 240.00 83 $ 19;920 $ 13,272.00 $ 1,704.86 84 -RWO7 Minkler Blvd (Adover Park West to Southcenter Parkway) construct 3 lane street $ 420.00 0 $ - ,$ 1 - $ - 88-RWO4 Andover Park West (Tukwila Parkway to Strander Boulevard) widen to 5 lanes $ 550.00 493 $ 271,150 $ 180,662.00 $ 23,206.53 03 -RWO5 Andover Park East & Minkler widen to 5 lanes @ Intersection $ 220.00 118 $ 25,960 $ 17,297.00 $ 2,221.80 84 -RWO3 Southcenter Parkway (180th to South City Limits) construct 3 & 5 lane street $ 610.00 27 . $ 16,470 $ 10,974.00 $ 1,409.59 02 -RWO4 Southcenter Boulevard (51st to Tukwila International Boulevard) widen to 3 lanes $ 2,300.00 80 $ 184,000 $ 122,596.00 $ .15,747.75 89 -RWO5 East Marginal (BAR to 112th) widen to 3 lanes • $ 880.00 0 $ - $ 1 - $ - 84-RW 19 Klickitat (Southcenter Parkway to 1 -5) Construct flyover $ 2,420.00 558 $ 504,120 $ 335,886.00 $ 43,145.41 Total Current Fee Due Fee Paid (3) Credit Available For Future Development Notes: (1) Cyndy Knighton Memo to Moira Bradshaw Dated March 6, 2007 and Updated November 9, 2007 (2) Fees Proportional to change in Net New Trip generation (3) Westfield paid $816,301 on February 28, 2007 and has a credit of $ 97,757 for this phase of expansion Date: 9/30/2008 $ 1,079,940 $ 719,544.00 $ $ 719,544.00 $ 92,427.30 $ 816,301:00 $ (96,757.00) $ (96,757.00) $ (4,329.70) Z V' 0 nt r� Og -tic Grt z r— ry z-c .o -4 o OD 111 0 m ;ii 1505 WESTLAKE AVE. N, SL:TE 305 SEATTLE. WA 98109 November-5;'2008 Mr. Richard Chung Westfield 633 Southcenter Mall Tukwila, WA 98188.-2816 ' Subject: Tukwila, WA - Southcenter North Expansion Preliminary Utility Modification Quantities Dear Mr. Chung, • r 206.522 9510 r 206.522.8344 W W W.PACLAND.COM RECEIVED NOV 2 5 2008 DEVELOPMENT The proposed Phase II Expansion of Southcenter Mall, consisting primarily of the re- development of the north side of the site, proposes 169,133 square feet of new /remodeled retail (net gain of 83,018 square feet of retail), and 589 new parking stalls-(net gain of 356 parking stalls). This re- development will extend the outside face of the mall north and convert a portion of the ground floor of Parking Garage A to retail uses, and as a result, will require that existing utilities be modified to serve the new buildings. The locations and sizes of the proposed buildings and additional retail are based on a Proposed Development Plan created by Westfield Design, October 2008. The site utilities that require modifications include Stormwater, Sanitary Sewer, Water, Power and Telephone. The quantities and discussions below are based on North Expansion Exhibits A through E created. by PACLAND dated October 14, 2008. Stormwater This portion of the site drains through a 24" pipe to Andover Park West on the east side of the property. The current storm system collects the runoff in the parking field north of Johnny,Rockets and the Mervyn's Building as well as roof drains from the existing buildings. There is a 12" line that parallels the shop buildings near the Johnny Rockets which channels the runoff through a 15" into the parking field. This 15" line combines with two 12" lines originating from catch basins in the parking lot, to supply an 18" line running north. The 18" line collects stormwater from a vault in the parking area before turning east as a 21" line. This 21" line collects more stormwater from electrical vaults as well as roof runoff from the Mervyn's building where the line becomes a 24 ". The 24" line angles northeast then turns east to run under the driveway before joining with the stormwater system located , in Andover Park West. The proposed storm line will utilize the 12" lines located in the parking field north of Johnny Rockets to collect roof runoff from the old and new shop buildings. The existing 18" line will flow north from this 12" line to an existing structure in the parking rot. From this existing structure the line turns east and flows as a 21" pipe. A new structure will be placed in the drive aisle and turn the line north towards another new structure. The structure will Page 2 Mr. Chung October 14, 2008 be placed in the existing east -west driveway then the storm line will travel east in this . driveway towards Andover Park West. The exact connection points of the roof runoff lines are unknown at this time. An underground water quality vault will be required for treatment, and the proposed location is in the driveway northeast of the two story building. —The- preliminary estimates- for- stormwater-- utility -modifications-are -as- follows. Pipe removal or abandonment (4" to 24 ") - Storm structure removal - New storm pipe (RDL and Main) - New structures- 1300 LF 8 structures 700 LF 4 structures See Exhibit A for the proposed Storm Line. As a part of the overall development plan, expansion to the Olympic Garage maybe included as well. The expansion would require relocation of the existing storm water detention and storm water treatment vault located just south of the existing parking structure. San itary Sewer A lift station is currently located on the west side of this project area north of Macy's. From this lift station an 8" sanitary line runs south towards the shop buildings before turning east to run parallel with the building face. This east-west line collects the sanitary lines from the shop buildings. Near the Mervyn's building the line turns north - northeast and runs into a manhole located at the northwest corner of Mervyn's. An 8" sanitary line ties into this manhole from the northwest. Presumably this is the sanitary sewer line that serves the existing bank in the northeast corner of the site. From this manhole the 8" line travels east while collecting the sanitary from the Mervyn's building.. This 8" line ties into a manhole at the northeast corner of Mervyn's then travels south while paralleling the eastern face of the mall before turning east and tying into a line in Andover Park West. The proposed sanitary sewer line will tie into the 8" line running south from the lift station and travel immediately east across the proposed front drive aisle and collect the side sewers from the shop buildings. The line will run into a new manhole placed in the southeast corner of the proposed front drive aisle. The 8" line will travel north to a new manhole located northwest of the proposed two story structure. Depending on the phasing of this redevelopment and the relocation of the bank, it may be necessary to reconnect the manhole serving the bank. From the new manhole the 8" line travels east to a new manhole then south to tie in with the existing sanitary line. The preliminary estimates for sanitary sewer utility modifications are below. It should be noted that a private lift station may be required because the proposed sanitary main is --130 LF longer than the previous main. A survey is required to confirm the length and slope of the existing sanitary line. Another important aspect of the proposed sanitary sewer system is it utilizes the public lift station located north of the Key Bank on Andover Park West. Under the original review of Page 3 Mr. Chung October 14, 2008 the Environmental Impact Statement for the expansion, the City of Tukwila stated that the public lift station was at capacity, and required that the expansion area bypass this lift station by tying directly into the sewer line in Strander Blvd. Once designed, it was determined that the south expansion area, Sears, the southern portion of the existing mall, and the food court would- bypass- the- public—Iift- station. - -- Because -a larger- than - required - volume -of- wastewater was rerouted, the public lift station may have capacity for this proposed expansion. The City of Tukwila will have to be consulted about the available capacity of the public lift station. Pipe removal (6 to 8 ") — Existing sanitary manhole removal — New sanitary pipe (Side and Main) New sanitary manholes — 1200 LF 5 Manholes 1200 LF 5 Manholes See Exhibit B for the proposed Sanitary Sewer Line. As a part of the overall development plan, expansion to the Olympic Garage maybe included as well. Sanitary sewer is located just east ofthe existing parking structure. A side sewer connection would need to be extended to the new expansion area. Water The existing 10" water line runs parallel to the existing face of the mall in the front drive aisle. From this line 8" fire lines, 2" domestic lines, and 6" fire hydrant lines tee off. Excluding the fire hydrant lines; it is unclear which lines are fire lines and which lines are , domestic. There is a water meter set on the north side of the Mervyn's building. Within the area to be redeveloped there are,4 fire hydrants. The proposed water line follows the same general path, but has been moved north to accommodate the expansion. The 10" line will travel east from the existing line, parallel to the face of the shop buildings. Near the southeast corner of the drive aisle the 10" line turns north. Where the drive aisle intersects with the main east -west driveway the 10" line turns east to parallel the north side of proposed two story building. In the main driveway, northeast of the proposed two story building, the 10" line turns south and ties into the existing water line. Along this path four fire hydrants are proposed. The preliminary estimates.for water utility modifications are as follows: Pipe removal (2" to 10 ") — Existing fire hydrant removal Existing water meter removal — New water pipe (Lateral and Main) — New fire hydrants — See Exhibit C for the proposed Water Line. 1600 LF 4 Fire Hydrants 1 Water Meter 1300 LF 4 Fire Hydrants Page 4 Mr. Chung October 14, 2008 As a part of the overall development plan, expansion to the Olympic Garage maybe included as well. Water mains are on the north, east, and south portions of the parking structure. No extensions are anticipated except for minor domestic water and fire taps. Power Several transformers and junction boxes will need to be relocated to serve the proposed buildings..Two structures located directly north of the Johnny Rockets are assumed to be an underground transformer and junction box. These structures are to be relocated north in the proposed parking field. The existing underground power line travels east from a junction box in the center of the parking lot along the north side of the Mervyn's to a junction box north of the Mervyn's. This junction box has a line heading east and a southern line originating from a transformer next to the Mervyn's. The proposed power line will originate in the same junction box in the center of the parking lot. The line will travel east - northeast then east under the parking a ong the north side of the proposed two story building.. The line will cross the north -south drive aisle then head south to a new transformer. The modifications to the power lines and structures near the eastern most pad are unknown at this time. The preliminary estimates for power utility modifications are as follows: Power conduit removal (unknown sizes) — Existing transformer relocation /removal — Existing junction box relocation /removal — New power conduit — New transformer — New junction box — See Exhibit D for the proposed Power Line. 700 LF 2 Transformers 2 Junction Boxes 800 LF 2 Transformers 2 Junction Boxes As a part of the overall development plan, expansion to the Olympic Garage maybe included as well. It 'is assumed the existing electrical system will be utilized to service the expansion of the parking structure. Telephone The only information available regarding telephone location is an existing line within the mall. This line extends from the "center" of the mall to the existing Mervyn's building. It is unknown whether service will- need to be provided from the site, or this existing telephone Iine is able to serve the proposed development. See Exhibit E for the location of the existing Telephone. As a part of the overall development plan, expansion to the Olympic Garage maybe included as well. Telephone will, be extended from Strander Boulevard to service the expansion proposed. No relocations are anticipated. Gas Page 5 Mr. Chung October 14, 2008 There appears to be no gas lines in this area of the site, as a result, there is no relocation or removal necessary for expansion. The service for the existing buildings is from the roof of the mall. Should underground gas be required for the proposed buildings, it would be extended from the south along the east side of the mall. The information above was gathered from various sources over several years, and not solely from a comprehensive survey. The information is meant to be a preliminary estimate of the required utility work necessary to serve the proposed redevelopment. As a part of the overall development plan, expansion to the Olympic Garage maybe included as well. Gas service is available directly to the east of the existing parking structure. No relocations are anticipated for gas mains. Service connections from the gas main are anticipated. Please contact me with any questions about this letter or the attached exhibits. Sincerely, Bill Fortunato, P.E. Principal Enclosures: Exhibits A through E WF:dp 10018001 — tkwfscNorthUtilitiesltr02.doc SEPA ADDENDUM RECEIVED ADDENDUM FOR WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN SOUTHCENTER PHASE II NOV 2 5 2009 EXPANSION COMMUNfTY DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT PROPOSAL: The Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Phase II Expansion is a component of the total expansion proposed by Westfield in 2004 and evaluated by the City of Tukwila in its October 6, 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement ( "FEIS ") for the expansion and renovation of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter ( "Southcenter ")_(SEPA File No.. E03 -010). This Phase II Expansion consists of: (1) redevelopment of the Mervyn's building space and surrounding gross leasable area (64,442 SF GLA net); (2) demolition of the existing Bank of America building at the northwest corner of the Mall site and constructing 344 parking stalls; (3) converting a portion of the ground floor of Parking Garage A on the south side of the Mall site to retail uses (18,576 SF GLA); and (4) constructing a fourth floor of parking in Parking Garage A (200 stalls). PROPONENT: Westfield Corporation Inc. LOCATION OF CURRENT PROPOSAL: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter is located on the existing Southcenter site in the block bounded by Tukwila Parkway to the north, Southcenter Parkway to the west, Stander Boulevard to the south, and Andover Park West to the east. This Phase II Expansion would primarily occur within the northern portion of the site. 1 -5 and I -405 intersect near the northwest corner of the shopping center. LEAD AGENCY: City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development. TITLE OF DOCUMENTS BEING ADDED TO: Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued by City of Tukwila on June 21, 2004 and Final Environmental Impact Statement issued by City of. Tukwila on October 6, 2004. ,- 6-0_010 Agency that prepared documents being added to: City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development. Date documents being added to were prepared: DEIS- -June 21, 2004; FEIS -- October-6, 2004. Description of documents (or portion) being added to: Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements for the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion. IF DOCUMENTS BEING ADDED TO WERE CHALLENGED, (WAC 197 -11 -630) PLEASE DESCRIBE: The DEIS and FEIS were not challenged. ' THE DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE TO BE READ AT: City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA 98188, Monday thru Friday, 8:30 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. The lead agency has determined that the documents being adopted are appropriate for this Phase II Expansion after independent review. The DEIS and the FEIS evaluated a total project build -out at the Southcenter Mall site by 787,903 square feet of gross building area (GBA), summarized potential environmental impacts, and identified possible mitigating measures for those impacts. To date, Westfield has built or is in the permitting stage to build 6'6'6675 square feet of space. With the Phase II Expansion, total square footage will remain under the tot" I square.footage evaluated in the FEIS. -There are no changes to the project that are likely to have significant adverse impacts that were not adequately addressed in those environmental documents. 7 The p J ro'ect evaluated in the FEIS showed most of the expansion on the southern half of the Westfield Southcenter site. The Phase II Expansion redirects a portion of the total build -out to the north side of the Mall site. It also now includes the existing Bank of America site as part of the Mall, whereas the FEIS considered that property as an out - parcel. The northerly shift of development and other changes contemplated in the Phase II Expansion will not have any probable adverse impacts not already evaluated and mitigated in the environmental documents being adopted. There is no new information regarding the proposal's probable significant adverse impacts. The documents being adopted meet the environmental review needs for this Phase II Expansion and will accompany the project to the decision maker. Name of Agency Adding to the Documents: City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development Contact Person: Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner Responsible Official: Jack Pace, Director Address: 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 Date: Signature: Phone: 206 - 431 -3651 Phone: 206- 431 -3665 Westfield Southcenter Phase II Expansion SEPA COMPLIANCE DOCUMENT November 24, 2008 RECEIVED NOV 25 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT This document is intended to provide information to the City of Tukwila regarding the environmental impacts associated with Westfield Southcenter's proposed Phase II Expansion. The Phase II Expansion consists of (1) redevelopment of the Mervyn's building space and surrounding gross leasable area (64,442 SF GLA net); (2) demolition of the existing Bank of America building at the northwest corner of the Mall site and constructing 344 parking stalls; (3) converting a portion of the ground floor of Parking Garage A on the south side of the Mall site to retail uses (18,576 SF,GLA); and (4) constructing a fourth floor of parking in Parking Garage A (200 stalls). The Phase II Expansion is a component of the total expansion proposed by Westfield in 2004 and evaluated by the City of Tukwila in its October 6, 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement ( "FEIS ") for the expansion and renovation of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter ( "Southcenter ") (SEPA File No. E03 -010). The FEIS evaluated a total project build -out at the Southcenter site by 787,903 square feet of gross building area (GBA), summarized potential environmental impacts, and identified possible mitigating measures for those impacts. Following completion of the FEIS, the City of Tukwila: (1) approved a Complementary Parking and Administrative Parking Variance for the project (File No. L04 -055) (the "Parking Variance "); (2) granted design review approval for a site plan of a portion of the projectand two minor design review modifications (File No. L04 -049) (collectively the "BAR Decision "); and (3) entered into a development agreement with Westfield governing the addition of 787,903 gba to the Southcenter Mall and vesting the entire project to the Tukwila Municipal code then in effect dated December 2005 and two amendments to the development agreement dated September 2007 and August 2008 (collectively the "Development Agreement "). The Parking Variance, BAR Decision, and Development Agreement (including their subsequent amendments and modifications)-outlined and applied the mitigation measures deemed applicable and necessary to the project. To date, Westfield has built or is in the permitting stage to build 666,675 square feet of space. With the Phase II Expansion, total square footage will remain under the total square footage evaluated in the FEIS. The project evaluated in the FEIS showed most of the expansion on the southern half of the Westfield Southcenter site. The Phase II Expansion redirects a portion of the total build -out to the north side of the Mall site. It also now includes the existing Bank of America site as part of the Mall, whereas the FEIS considered that property as an out - parcel. The northerly shift of development and other changes contemplated in the Phase II Expansion are discussed in the information presented below. Environmental analysis of this Phase II Expansion is proposed to be conducted in the form of an SEPA Addendum. Pursuant to WAC 197- 11- 600(4)(c), an addendum is appropriate where it "adds analyses or information about a proposal but does not substantially change the analysis of 1 • • significant impacts and alternatives in the existing environmental document." The following information is presented as a comparison table. For each element of the environment, there is a comparison between the impacts from the project as evaluated in the FEIS and the changes in impacts, if any from the currently proposed Phase II Expansion. The information presented below shows that the Phase II Expansion does not substantially change the impacts or alternatives discussed in the 2004 FEIS. No new significant adverse impacts are- identified.— Most - mitigation- measures'outlined- below are-those- measures- that-were identified in the Parking Variance, the BAR Decision, and the Development Agreement (including their subsequent amendments and modifications ) and that are still applicable to the proposed modified site plan. Any new mitigation measures applicable to this Phase II Expansion are identified in bold print. No further environmental analysis or compliance is needed. 1. AIR QUALITY Previous Proposal Construction Impacts • Dust from excavating and grading would contribute to ambient concentrations of suspended particulate. matter • Construction equipment engines would emit air pollutants that would temporarily slightly degrade local air quality, particularly chemical constituents in diesel exhaust • Odors emitted during paving operations would cause odors•detectible to some people off site • Renovations to the existing structure might require the removal of asbestos - containing building materials • Impacts to air quality would occur if construction activities result in traffic delays and reduced travel speeds Operation Impacts • The expected increases in peak -hour volumes and intersection delays would Modified Proposal • Increased somewhat due to expanded grading and demolition activities, but not significant impact. • No change • Increased somewhat in additional paving as a result of the conversion of the existing Bank of America parcel to parking. • No change. Given the age of the existing Mervyn's and Bank of America buildings, the Mervyn's demolition will not require the removal of asbestos, whereas the Bank of America demolition may require the removal of asbestos containing building materials. • No change • No change. 2 • worsen traffic conditions and have the potential to cause significant adverse air quality impacts, particularly higher CO concentrations in the areas with traffic delays Violations of the 8 -hour CO standard near the locations of the intersections operating at LOSE or worse would -be .ossible • No change. Comments: An increase in vehicular traffic (and associated traffic' delays) is not anticipated as a result of this Phase II Expansion. To the contrary, a net reduction of 37 PM Peak Hour trips is anticipated given the demolition of the existing Bank of America building and conversion to parking area. See Traffic and Parking Impact Update dated November 5, 2008 from Transportation Solutions, Inc. (TSI). Mitigating Measures: • Westfield shall control fugitive dust during construction of the Project using reasonable precautions as provided by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (Development Agreement, 7.3).• • In addition, mitigation measures will be required in conjunction with City of Tukwila permits; specifically the applicant would be required to develop a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan and an Erosion Prevention and Sedimentation Control Plan. These plans include a number of additional mitigating measures' relevant to reducing air quality impacts. 2. WATER RESOURCES Previous Proposal Water Quantity • Impervious surface area would remain the same; no impacts to water quantity are anticipated • . Continued absence of flow control; flooding and channel erosion would persist • Cumulative impacts are not anticipated due to the existing developed and impervious surface condition of the area Water Quality • Potential for water quality improvement • Increased traffic could impact water quality, but impact could be partially r- Modified Proposal. Conversion of the existing Bank of America site to parking area will add 30,063 square feet of impervious surface area to the Southcenter Mall site Flow control will be utilized for the existing Bank of America site. With flow control at the Bank of America site, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. No change. No change. 3 • offset by a reduction (10 percent) in parking spaces exposed to precipitation; covered parking structures could reduce impact to stormwater runoff from otherwise exposed pollutants • Use of stormwater treatment vaults would likely result in improved water quality leaving the sub basin, relative to existing conditions • No significant risks to water quality are anticipated from the proposed type of commercial activities • Cumulative impacts to water quality are not anticipated due to the existing, developed nature of the sub -basin • No change. • No ,change. • No change. Comments: The existing site is developed and .largely impervious. The redevelopment of the north side will not exacerbate downstream conditions. The existing Bank of America site, relative to the rest of the Southcenter Mall, has some highly pervious areas. To meet flow control requirements for the existing Bank of America site, the site will utilize underground detention and match pre - developed conditions per the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Currently there is no water quality treatment on the north portion of the property. The proposed expansion would utilize underground vaults to treat stormwater run -off as required. This . treatment should improve the run -off water quality relative to existing conditions. The stormwater collection system will be relocated as necessary to accommodate the expanded buildings. The runoff will be conveyed offsite via the existing pipes to Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park West. Mitigating Measures: • Phase I of the Southcenter Mall expansion required removal of\a substantial amount of the utilities infrastructure on the south side of the site, but had only minimal effect upon the north side utilities. Prior to the Phase I, the site's utilities were in fair shape, except for a bow in the sewer line north of the existing Mervyn's building, which was corrected by the City in 2007. All of the fire and irrigation cross- connection controls on the north side of the development are in place and up to date. So' long as the below requirements are met, sufficient sewer and water capacity exists for the Phase II Expansion. The. City shall not withhold any permit approvals for the project on account of insufficient water or sanitary sewer capacity to accommodate this phase of the project. The City shall not require any additional off -site water, sewer or surface water infrastructure improvements to support the Phase II Expansion (Development Agreement, 6.1). 4 o There are approximately nineteen existing external connections to the looped, 10- inch mains._ Some of these connections are water supply to the building and some of these connections are for irrigation. Westfield shall meet current City standards for all new connections as follows (Development Agreement, 6.2(b)). • On lines that Westfield replaces, upgrade the cross connection control (backflow prevention) on the irrigation meters as needed (Development Agreement, 6.2(b)(3)). • Underground-water quality vaults will be used to -treat run =off as- required. • The redevelopment of the existing Bank of America site will utilize underground stormwater detention to meet flow control requirements. • A new lift station may be required north of the existing Macy's building. 3. PLANTS AND ANIMALS Previous Proposal • No s_ ignificant impacts to plants, animals, fish or aquatic life are anticipated, relative to existing conditions • Cumulative impacts are not anticipated due to the highly developed nature of the area Modified Proposal • Some loss of existing landscaped area at existing Bank of America site. • No change. Mitigating Measures: • Landscaping shall be completed pursuant to the Tukwila Street Tree Program for the CBD Sidewalk Project; however, tree placement is preferred between traffic and sidewalk whenever practicable (Development Agreement, 5.6(a)(1)). • Where sidewalks are upgraded on Andover Park West, provision of a cross section with 7 feet of parking lot landscape, a 10 foot sidewalk and 4 feet of curb side landscaping where parking stalls will not be eliminated (Westfield Southcenter Design Review: L04 -049, Minor Modification Decision, March 1, 2006, Condition #2). • Increase in plant groundcover by decreasing separation distance from two feet to a maximum of 18 inches (Westfield Southcenter Design Review: L04 -049, Minor Modification Decision, March 1, 2006, Condition #4). • Use Marshall Ash along Andover Park West reflecting recommendations from the City of Tukwila CBD Street Trees (Tukwila City Council Resolution 1276) (Westfield Southcenter Design Review: L04 -049, Minor Modification Decision, March 1, 2006, Condition #5). 4. TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING: TRIP GENERATION Previous Proposal • New trips, or trips made in order to visit the shopping center, would increased under the Proposed Action, resulting in Modified Proposal • No change. With this Phase II Expansion, the net new PM Peak Hour trips to date for the 5 1,335 new weekday PM peak -hour trips (44 percent increase), 1,170. weekday midday trips (36 percent increase), 1,910 new Saturday peak -hour trips (46 percent increase), and 12,380 new daily trips (36 percent increase) The number of total trips generated by the - expansion-would be - 1-,720-during the weekday PM peak hour, 1,440 for the weekday midday peak hour, 2,420 for the Saturday peak hour, and 15,250 for the weekday dail • eriod Comments: Southcenter Mall project is 965 trips. This is still less than the 1,335 new weekday PM Peak Hour trips analyzed in the FEIS.. • No change. See above. Using the•FEIS method for estimating trip generation, after this Phase II Expansion, the Southcenter Mall will generate a total of 1,113 net new PM peak hour trips. See Traffic and Parking Impact Update dated November 5, 2008 from Transportation Solutions, Inc. (TSI). As part of this phase of the Southcenter Mall expansion, the existing Bank of America building will be vacated, demolished, and replaced by 344 parking stalls for Southcenter Mall customers. The existing Bank of America was surveyed and was found to generate 148 net PM Peak Hour trips. Therefore, the demolition of the existing Bank of America building can be considered a net decrease to the areawide trip generation because its associated trips were considered in the FEIS a part of the background traffic volume already, traveling on the streets. Combining the net new trips generated by this Phase II Expansion with the net reduction associated with the existing Bank of America building demolition (148 PM Peak hour trips), the net change to trip generation will be a decrease of 37 PM Peak Hour trips. Therefore, there will not be any new trip generation impacts associated with this phase of the Southcenter Mall expansion. Mitigating Measures: • The project was evaluated for transportation concurrency as part of the EIS. It was concluded that the project meets City level of service standards and therefore is compliant. Westfield shall not be required to construct or fund any transportation improvements to establish transportation concurrency or to provide any additional transportation analysis as part of any future City permitting for the project (Development Agreement, 5.1). • The following transportation impact fee schedule has been determined for the Project (Development Agreement, 5.2): Project # Link or Intersection Impact Fee Due 96 -RW 18 Southcenter Parkway & 168th $15,200 93 -RW11 West Valley & Strander $43,120 89-RW13 Interurban Bridge $19,920 6 84 -RWO7 Minkler (Andover Park West to Southcenter Parkway) $0 , 88 -RW04 Andover Park West (Tukwila Parkway to Strander Blvd) $271,150 03 -RWO5 Andover Park East & Minkler $25,960 84 -RWO3 Southcenter Parkway (180th to South City Limits) $16,470 - 02 -RWO4 Southcenter Blvd. (51st-to Tukwila . International Blvd.) $184,000 89 -RWO5 East Marginal (BAR to 112th) $0 84 -RW 19 Tukwila Urban Access /Klickitat Improvements (Southcenter Parkway to I -5) $504,1201 Total Transportation Impact Fees for the Project $1,079,940 Note 1: This reflects $1,350,360 fee due for this transportation project less a credit of $846,240 for the Owner's dedication of right -of -way for this transportation project. • The above Transportation Impact Fees are based upon the trips generated from development of 787,903 square feet of gba, which is full buildout of the project. Westfield shall only pay the proportion of Transportation Impact Fees owing prior to issuance of building permits for the project based upon the proportional trips generated from the square footage of development proposed in such building permits as compared to the trips generated from full buildout (Development Agreement, 5.2(b)). • Transportation Improvement Project Credit. Westfield shall dedicate the right -of -way necessary for the Klickitat Project. Westfield shall also dedicate the right -of -way necessary for the Slip Ramp and related pedestrian access, if Westfield agrees to fund these additional improvements. Westfield has received a credit in the amount of $846,240 against the Traffic Impact Fees for the dedication of right of way necessary for the Klickitat Project. The dedicated right of way shall not include any parking lot or circulation driveways in the Project (Development Agreement, 5.4). 5. TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING: TRAFFIC VOLUME Previous Proposal • Percent impact of project trips during the weekday PM peak hour would range from less than one percent at the outlying study intersections, to approximately 22 percent at study intersections adjacent to the site • Percent impact during the Saturday peak hour would range from approximately 3 percent to 28 percent • Largest percent increases during the weekday PM peak hour (approx. 22 percent) and the Saturday peak hour Modified Proposal • Very minor change. • No change. • No change 7 (approx. 28 percent) would both occur at two study intersections /site driveways: Andover Park West/Baker Boulevard and Mall- Target Driveway/ Strander Boulevard. Comments: This Phase II Expansion will create no impacts due to a change in trip distribution. See Traffic and Parking Impact Update dated'November 5, 2008 from Transportation Solutions, Inc. (TSI). Impacts described in the FEIS were based on a trip distribution and assignment that routed cars along specific streets and intersections. This trip assignment was based on an external trip distribution depicted in "Figure 3 -5: Inbound and Outbound Trip Distribution" of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This distribution will not change as a result of this phase of yes the Southcenter Mall expansion because regional origins and destinations of Westfield pJa Shoppingtown Southcenter trips do not change. Under the FEIS, at the edge of the Southcenter Mall site, trips wereassigned to correspond to the various driveways at the perimeter of the site with weighting to the south since that was the location where the majority of the new parking and new floor area was initially targeted. With this expansion phase,'the travel patterns on the Mall site edge may change slightly but any change is expected to be so small that it would not noticeably change the level of service at any intersection. Mitigating Measures: See mitigation measures listed in "Trip Generation" above. 6. TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING: TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Previous Proposal • During weekday PM peak hour, five of the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS F (as under No Action conditions), the intersection of 61s1 Ave S /Tukwila Parkway would fall from LOS E to LOS F, and six study intersections would fall from LOS C or D to LOS E. • During Saturday peak hour, four study intersections fall from LOS E or better to LOS F; in all, seven intersections would operate at LOS F. • Overall, the TUC average LOS would remain at LOS D, meeting the City of Tukwila's concurrency requirements; slight decreases in average travel speed are anticipated to occur on each arterial as Modified Proposal • No change. • No change. • No change. a result of the Proposed Action Comments: See comments in "Traffic Volume" above. Mitigating Measures: See mitigation measures listed in "Trip Generation" above. 7. AND PARKING: DRIVEWAY LEVELS: OF SERVICE -. Previous Proposal • During the weekend PM peak hour, all site driveways would operate at LOS D or better, or remain at'the same LOS as in 2010 No Action conditions • During the Saturday peak hour, four driveways are expected to fall from operating conditions of LOS E or better to LOS, F, Andover Park W /South Driveway and West Driveway /Strander Boulevard would operate at 0 and would' experience vehicle delays Comments: See comments in "Traffic Volume" above. Mitigating Measures: See mitigation measures listed in "Trip Generation" above. 8.. TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING: TRANSIT AND RAIL Previous Proposal • Additional trips would not create a significant adverse - impact to transit and rail operations in the area Modified Proposal • No change. Mitigating Measures: See mitigation measures listed in "Trip Generation" above. 9. TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING: NON - MOTORIZED Previous Proposal • No significant adverse impacts to non - motorized_facilities or operations are expected to occur under the Proposed Action Modified Proposal • No change. • Mitigating Measures: See mitigation measures listed in "Trip Generation" above. 10. TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING: TRAFFIC SAFETY Previous Proposal • There would be potential increase in traffic accidents at-study intersections, due to the increase in traffic • With an increase in traffic volumes at site driveways, traffic safety conditions could decline proportionally Modified Proposal • No change. • No change. Mitigating Measures: See mitigation measures listed in "Trip Generation" above. 11. TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING: PARKING Previous Proposal • Parking supply would increase from 6,679 parking stalls to approximately 7,900 parking stalls (both surface and structured parking) • Peak parking demand associated with the. 29th highest hour of the year during a Christmas holiday season weekend afternoon is estimated to be 8,355 parking stalls, excluding the hotel, and 8,428 with the hotel • Provision of 7,900 parking stalls would not be adequate in order to meet the peak parking demand and would not meet City code requirements, without successful implementation of peak season traffic and parking management strategies Comments: Modified Proposal No change. This Phase II Expansion will result in 7,159 parking stalls on the Southcenter Mall site. • No change. • No change. ■ The Phase II Expansion will result in 7,159 parking stalls on the Southcenter Mall site. See Traffic and Parking Impact Update dated November 5, 2008 from Transportation Solutions, Inc. (TSI). This includes creation of 344 parking stalls on the existing Bank of America parcel, 45 additional stalls where the post office used to exist, and 200 stalls on the added top floor of Garage A and the demolition of 150 stalls on the north side of the Mall and 83 stalls on the south side of the Mall. 10 • 'i • Pursuant to the City's parking requirements as described in the Development Agreement, 5 stalls per 1,000 SF of useable floor area (UFA) are required for the Southcenter Mall. This requirement was reduced by two City parking decisions (the Parking Variance described supra) authorizing a deduction for complementary uses and a 4.5% parking stall reduction (File No. L04 -055). Mitigation for Southcenter Mall's reduced in parking was established in the Parking Variance pursuant to the imposition of four conditions: implementation of a transportation demand management program; financial participation in the Metro transit center located adjacent to the Mall; the- provision -of weather -protection- along- internal - sidewalks-leading-to-the -Metro- transit- - center; and the provision of footing and related components for an internally lit Metro transit shelter and for a trash receptacle at the existing Stranger Blvd and 61 Ave. S. westbound bus stop. These •mrtigation-conditions were satisfied -by Westfield'during the first phase of the Southcenter Mall expansion. In this phase, Westfield expansion plans include an additional 50,716 SF (UFA) of complementary uses that should be added to the previous approved complementary uses for a total of 166,711 sq of complementary uses for which parking is not required. These complementary uses include two internal restaurants on the north side of the Mall and several small service uses in the ground floor of Garage A. This results in a 1,477,635 SF of UFA for the calculation of required parking stalls: Total Existing ± Proposed GLA 1.728.081 SF Kiosks 2809 SF Tenant Restrooms /Equipment Rooms ( -5%) (86,545 SF) Subtotal 1,644,346 SF Total Existing ± Proposed Complementary Use (166,711 SF) Revised UFA 1,477,635 SF Therefore, under the City of Tukwila parking, this phase of the Southcenter Mall expansion requires 7,056 parking stalls-(1,477,635 x 5 stalls /1,000 SF UFA x 4.5% deduction). The proposed parking for this phase (7,159 stalls) exceeds City parking requirements (7,056 stalls) by 103 parking stalls. Based on this comparison, the Phase II Expansion will satisfy City of Tukwila parking requirements. Mitigating Measures: See mitigation measures listed in "Trip Generation" above. • Westfield shall be allowed to maintain its existing parking stall striping for buildout of the, project and may replace such striping in its existing configuration where surface parking and circulation areas are reconstructed for the project (Development Agreement, 7.7). 12. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES I Previous Proposal Modified Proposal 11 Construction Impacts • Calls for service would increase, leading to a need for one additional firefighter FTE • Calls for review and inspections would increase, as could the need for training pertaining to the smoke control system; potential demand would affect review times for inspections for permit applications by the Fire Marshall's office • Overall, impacts to fire and emergency service during construction would be moderate Operation Impacts • Expansion would increase demand for fire and emergency medical services • Using an estimate based on the existing ratios of fire and aid calls 'per 1,000 sf per year, the Proposed Action could result in an increase of approximately 28 fire and 101 aid calls per year, resulting in the need to add approximately 1 FTE , firefighter and up to 1 shift lieutenant in order to maintain response times • Impacts to the Department's ability to provide timely response to fires within the parking structures are possible, depending on the layout of the structure and available equipment • Overall, impacts during operation would likely be moderate Mitigating Measures: • No change. • No change. • No change. • No change. • No change. • No change. • No change. • Westfield shall maintain accessibility to the Southcenter Mall site during construction in order to retain current emergency response times. Westfield shall coordinate displacement of parking and /or disruption to vehicular or pedestrian traffic patterns with Southcenter management and Tukwila Police and Fire prior to construction (Development Agreement, 7.4). 13. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: POLICE SERVICES Previous Proposal Construction Impacts • Vandalism, theft, and /or trespassing could Modified Proposal • No change. 12 occur during construction • Construction traffic could require police presence and could reduce the Department's ability to respond to incidents elsewhere Operation Impacts • Based on Police Department estimates, calls -for service could- increase from-9.4 calls currently to 13 per 24 -hour day (28 percent increase) • Number of cases could increase from 3.5 to 5 per 24 -hour day (30 percent increase) • Using an estimate based on the number of calls per 1,000 sf, the Proposed Action could result in an increase of 5 calls per day, or 1.4 more calls per 24 -hour day than Department estimates • Additional demands equate to the need for one additional FTE position. Without increases in staffing, indirect impacts to service levels and response times citywide could occur • Additional personnel may result in the need for expanded departmental facilities, but not additional vehicles or equipment would be necessary • Absence of a Community Resource Center could adversely impact service at Southcenter and would reduce police presence, potentially contributing to an increase in criminal activity • Overall, impacts to police services during operation would likely be moderate Mitigating Measures: No change. • No change. • No change.' • No change. • No change. • No change. • No change. • No change. • Westfield shall take the following actions in order to improve existing police service to Southcenter and to meet additional service demands created by the project: o Short-term Construction. Westfield shall provide site security measures during Project construction, such as security patrols,, fencing, lighting, and provision of secure areas for equipment, in order to discourage theft, vandalism, trespassing, and other unauthorized activities. Westfield shall work with the Tukwila Police Department, where possible, to implement these security measures (Development Agreement, 7.5(a)). 13 • • o Radio Communications. During Phase I, Westfield coordinated with Tukwila Police Department to create and complete an emergency repeater system (Development Agreement, 7.5(b)). However, as GLA is added to the north side of the Mall, Westfield may need to add additional repeater nods to retain proper EMS reception. o Property Lighting and Security Cameras. Westfield shall provide adequate exterior and /or interior security cameras and adequate exterior and garage lighting that-comply- with -City standards (Development- Agreement, 7.5(d)). 14. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: WATER SUPPLY Previous Proposal • Existing water pipes could be impacted and may need to be relocated in order to accommodate new construction • Water usage could increase by 41,177 gpd, or to 116,347 gpd for all of Southcenter • Impacts to water capacity and supply would be minimal relative to the level at which the City meets area water supply demand through the existing wholesale purchase contract with the City of Seattle PUD • Impacts to fire flow are not anticipated Comments: Modified Proposal • No change. During the Phase II Expansion, water pipes, hydrants, and meters will be removed and relocated. • No change. • No change. • No change. During Phase II Expansion, as buildings are moved north into existing drive aisles, water pipes will have to be relocated. Mitigating Measures: • See mitigations measures listed in "Water Resources" above. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: SEWER Previous Proposal • New sewer lines would be connected to existing lines or would be connected to sewer lines that would be relocated or replaced in order to conform to building codes Modified Proposal • No change. 14 • Adverse impacts to system capacity could occur, depending on the extent to which sewage flow is gravity fed to the line at Strander Blvd versus being pumped to the Lift Station 12; Lift Station 12 is currently at capacity and in need of upgrade • Sewage flow could increase by 39,827 gpd to a total of 112,534 gpd • Overall, impacts to the City's capacity to treat sewage from Southcenter would be minimal Comments: • No change. • No change. • No change. This Phase II Expansion will require the existing sanitary service lines to be relocated. The most efficient alignment will be chosen where possible, but all utilities share the same space. Existing and proposed restaurants will utilize a properly sized grease interceptors to limit maintenance problems on the sewer line. During the first phase of the Southcenter Mall expansion, an on -site, private lift station was added to re -route all of the southern expansion and much of the existing Mall away from Lift Station 12. Assuming few new sources of sewage have been routed to Lift Station 12, it is possible that much, if not all of this Phase II Expansion can be conveyed by Lift Station 12. If Lift Station 12 is at capacity once again, then alternatives will need to b explored. An upgrade to the lift station (additional storage, larger pumps, revised propellers, etc.) may be required. Mitigating Measures: • See mitigation measures listed in "Water Resources" above. • In 2007, the City repaired the sewer line north of the existing Mervyn's building to remove the, bow in the pipe (Development Agreement, 6.3(a)) and Westfield accepted ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the sewer system throughout the property (Development Agreement, 6.3(b)). • Grease interceptors would be installed outside all new food establishments and sized based on the meals served. • The overload on Lift Station 12 was alleviated by re- routing much of the sewage from the Southcenter Mall to the gravity line in Strander Blvd. This Phase II Expansion proposes to utilize the vacated capacity of Lift Station 12. • If Lift Station 12 is not able to handle the additional sewage flow from the Phase II Expansion, then the lift station will likely need an upgrade. Westfield will work with the City of Tukwila to find a sewer - related solution if necessary. 16. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: SOLID WASTE Previous Proposal Modified Proposal 15 • Solid waste generation would increase during construction and operation, although impacts would be minimal • Impacts to the existing recycling area would be positive, as it does not meet current City requirements, but would be expanded to meet City standards ---Minor impacts to the capacity of transport and disposal facilities are anticipated Mitigating Measures:. No change. No change. No change. • Westfield shall provide recyclable collection points and haul routes designed to minimize impacts to pedestrian and vehicle routes. Westfield shall designate recycling space that is equal to . or greater than space allotted for garbage bins and compactors and work with the City to maintain an effective recycling program, including recycling of plastic film, apparel bags, paper, cardboard bottles and can (Development Agreement, 7.6). 17. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: ELECTRICITY Previous Proposal • Electricity use would increase; total peak demand could increase by 50 percent, or 12 Mva • Impacts to the distribution system and capacity are anticipated • Temporary service interruptions during removal or replacement of electrical lines at Southcenter are anticipated Comments: Modified Proposal • No change. No change. • No change. Southcenter Mall's electrical demand would increase with this Phase II Expansion, but still remain under the 12 Mva analyzed in the FEIS. The Mall is served by two electrical circuits — one for the north side and one for the south side. The system is loopable and either circuit is designed to carry the entire load if necessary. The south side circuits were upgraded per Puget Sound Energy standards during the first phase of the Southcenter Mall expansion. Westfield will coordinate and work with Puget Sound Energy if such improvements are required for the north side expansion. Mitigating Measures: • Ground mounted utilities shall be located and /or screened so that they are unobtrusive (Westfield Southcenter Design Review, LO4 -09 dated December 13, 2004, Condition #1). 16 • Upgrade the electrical circuits and service lines on the north side of the Southcenter Mall as required by Puget Sound Energy for the Phase II Expansion. 18. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: NATURAL GAS Previous Proposal -•- Replacement,- removal,- or-realignment of portions of the existing natural gas system would be necessary • Since all natural gas facilities reside on the roof, impacts to the existing system could be significant if improvements occur to the roof of the existing structure • If demand for natural gas were to increase proportional to the size of the expansion, use could increase by 445, 758 therms (Westfield, 2004), although demand may be more related to type of use than to square footage increases Comments: Modified Proposal • No- change- • No change. • No change. A new gas line may be required to serve this Phase II Expansion. While the existing -4 -inch service line may be sufficient, if new load requirements demand it, the line will be upgraded to a 6 -inch line. Mitigating Measures: No mitigating measures would be necessary. 19. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: COMMUNICATIONS Previous Proposal • Demand for communications services would increase and would require expansion or relocation of the existing termination space • Overall, impacts to communications are all site targeted and would be significant, but the upgrades would significantly, benefit Southcenter Mitigating Measures: Modified Proposal • . No change. • No change. • Westfield shall upgrade the existing Qwest Communications main point of presence ( "MPOP ") space located inside. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter to meet the anticipated 17 • • increased voice and data services demand generated by the project. If the existing space is maintained and expansion occurs in another area in order to meet the increase in demand, Westfield shall protect and provide maintenance access to the existing communications path while digging during construction. If the extent of digging precludes Westfield from protecting the existing communications path, Westfield shall relocate all communications components (preferably in one location). If so, Westfield shall provide new conduit and updated service equipment. Westfield is responsible for any and all upgrades that would enable Qwest- to .serve Southcenter- (Development - Agreement ; -7.2). 20. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES:. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. Previous Proposal • Demand for public services and utilities would increase in conjunction with other potential development projects, but is anticipated to be minimal due to the high level of existing development in the area and provided that public service agencies have anticipated and accommodated the increased demand • Development of the annexation area to the south of the TUC in conjunction with the Proposed Action, would result in cumulative impacts Modified Proposal No change. • No change. Mitigating Measures: See mitigation measures listed in "Water Resources" above. 21.' - FISCAL ANALYSIS: REVENUE IMPACTS Previous Proposal • Total additional revenue to the City of Tukwila: $982,000 in 2006 (estimated build -out) to $2,953,000 by 2012 (revenues from sales taxes, property taxes, and admissions taxes comprise the majority of the estimated total additional revenue) • During construction, revenues would range from nothing in 2004 (due to time lags for collection) to nearly $1 million • During operation (by 2012), revenues would generally stabilize at $2.9 million, with the exception of property tax revenues, which could continue to Modified Proposal • No change. • No change. • No change. 18 increase each year Mitigating Measures: No mitigating measures would be necessary. 22. FISCAL ANALYSIS: COSTS Previous Proposal • Total costs incurred by the City of Tukwila: $33,000 in 2004 to $678,000 by 2012 (point at which project costs generally stabilize) •_ During construction, the City would incur costs primarily from the need for additional fire and EMS services • During operation, the City, would incur costs for police services (20 percent of total), general government costs (55 percent), fire services (17 percent), and road /street maintenance (8 percent) -Modified Proposal - • No change. • No change. • No change. Mitigating Measures: No mitigating measures would be necessary. 23. FISCAL ANALYSIS: NET FISCAL SURPLUS Previous Proposal • Net fiscal surplus to the City of Tukwila: $371,000 in 2005 to $2,262,000 in 2023 • Positive impact to pre- existing revenue sources, as the City could fund project - related improvements. with revenues generated by the Proposed Action Modified Proposal • No change. • No change. Mitigating Measures: No mitigating measures would be necessary. 19 • Wstfie[( Westfield LLC 633 Southcenter Mall Trailer #2 Seattle. WA 98188 April 7, 2008 Stacy MacGregor Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Westfield Southcenter Bank ofAmerica & Fidelity Investment relocation Traffic & Parking Analysis Dear Stacy: Although a traffic and parking analysis has not been requested by the City of Tukwila for the relocation of the Bank of America building from the northeast portion of the site to the southern portion of the site and the shifting of the approved pad location from the east Strander Blvd. entry to the western Strander Blvd. entry, we felt it was prudent to complete a study since a drive - through bank teller component was not contemplated in the initial E.I.S. study. Westfield has contracted with Transportation Solutions, Inc. (TSI) to provide a analysis to determine impacts, if any, with the relocation of Bank of America along with its drive- through teller component and the shifting of the Fidelity Investment pad to the west. The completed analysis is attached for your review and record. TS1's analysis concludes that the environmental impacts for Investment uses has been evaluated in the E.I.S., parking supply design and configuration of the Bank of America drive- through queues that will inhibit traffic flow to or around the site. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may ha, Parking Analysis. Sincerely, Richard L. Chung Director of Development Copy Nicholas Lee — Westfield LLC David Markley — Transportation Solutions Inc. Brent Carson — Gordon Derr Megan Nelson — Gordon Derr Moira Bradshaw — Dept of Community Planning, City of Tukwila both Bank of America and Fidelity is sufficient on the project site and the teller aisles will not create delays or rLCjardin j the attached Traffic and • • TSI. Transportation,Solutions, Inc. LJ 8250. 165th Avenue NE Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052-6628 T 425-883-4134 F 425.867.0898 www.tsinw.cam Richard L. Chung, Development Director Westfield LLC 633 Southcenter Mall, Trailer 2. Seattle, WA 98188 April 7, 2008 Subject: Southcenter -Bank of America Relocation and Fidelity Pad - Traffic and Parking Analysis Dear Mr. Chung, Thank you for asking Transportation Solutions, Inc. (TSI) to assist you in evaluating the traffic and parking impacts associated with the proposed Bank of America relocation and the Fidelity Pad as part of the Southcenter Mall expansion. This letter summarizes our understanding of these proposals, an outline of our approach, an analysis of our findings, and a summary of conclusions associated with this analysis. Project Understanding Westfield is planning reoccupancy and expansion of the Mervyn's store on the north side of the Southcenter Mall. Implementation of this plan requires a phased redevelopment plan. A critical first phase is the relocation of the existing Bank of America from the northeast corner of the Mall to the south edge of the Mall adjacent to the easterly entrance off Strander Boulevard. This relocation is required so the existing Bank of America property can be redesigned to provide proximate parking for the Mervyn's redevelopment. The existing Bank of America site includes an 11,800 square foot building with 83 parking stalls. The new building bank will be 7451 square foot and will, like the existing site, operate with six drive - through teller lanes. Access to the new site will be directly through the parking area off an internal east -west access aisle. The new site will be served by surrounding parking intended for primary use of the bank with, like other pads within Southcenter, cross access and parking easements among other Mall users. In order to accommodate the Bank of America relocation, Westfield had to shift the retail pad site originally contemplated for this location and shown on the 2004 EIS Site Plan, to the westerly entrance off Strander Boulevard. This retail pad will be occupied by Fidelity Investments (the "Fidelity Pad ") and, like the TS1.. Transportation;Salutions, Inc. • Richard Chung April 2, 2008 Page 2 of 6 Bank of America site, will be served by surrounding parking with cross access and parking easements among other Mall users. Approach The approach to this analysis involves assessment of three transportation related topics to address the potential effects of the Bank of America relocation and the Fidelity Pad including: • Trip generation to evaluate the number of trips anticipated from the two proposed uses. • Parking supply and requirements to understand parking conditions with development of the two pad sites. • On -site vehicle circulation and queuing to ensure that access to and from the Bank of America site, as well as queuing from the drive - through teller aisles can occur smoothly and efficiently without interrupting or blocking other Southcenter Mall users. Trip Generation The following section outlines trip generation analyses for both the Bank of America and Fidelity sites. As outlined below, two approaches were taken to estimate trip generation; one approach was to treat the uses as part of an integrated retail center; and a second approach was to look at the trip generating characteristics as if they were stand -alone uses. A. Bank of America Relocation Integral Use - A bank is an integral part of a retail center like other personal services. As such, the trip generation for the Bank of America can be considered a part of the floor area of the entire Southcenter Mall. The Mall has approved development permits for a total of 1,555,172 square feet of retail floor area including restaurants and a 2800 seat cinema. Of this total floor area, 1,543,235 square feet is associated with the integrated retail Mall including service uses like banks, beauty salons, automobile /tire service facilities and the library. The PM peak hour trip generation rate for these integrated retail uses is 2.98 PM peak hour trips per 1000 square feet gross leasable floor area. Applying this trip generation rate to the new 7451 square foot Bank of America building results in 22 PM new peak hour trips. Stand Alone Use - A separate trip generation study was made at the existing Bank of America building and the weekday PM peak hour trip generation rate was found to be 22.4 PM peak hour trips per 1000 square feet including the trips associated with the drive - through teller windows (a total of 264 PM peak hour TSI; Transportation Solutions, Inc. • • Richard Chung April 2, 2008 Page 3 of 6 trips). If this trip generation rate is applied to the new Bank of America building on the south side of the site, the trip generation is estimated to be 167 pm peak hour trips per hour at the site edge. Since this site is located within an integrated retail center, it is recognized that abo 25% of th se e trips arg S another on -site use. Further, an estimate 19° o the trips are passing by he site on their way to another primary destination. ese shared anrd pa -. ip percentages are consistent with the values developed and applied by The TRANSPO Group and the City in the Southcenter Expansion EIS. When these reduction values are applied to the gross trip generation, the net new PM peak hour trip generation is 93 net new PM peak hour trips. In order to be conservative in our traffic analysis, and due to the convenience of the drive - through teller windows, we will apply the higher trip generation in this case. If the Bank of America did not have the drive - through teller windows, then trip generation could be considered on an integrated use basis. The Bank of • America's 93 additional trips are within the firarte " aitl'fig t�rrip capacity ' evaluated in the 2004 EIS for the Southcenter Mall expansion. See Letter from gielaaiRcli litA = to ,y,A+ o reiton dated Jairi�uany iii, 2.0'0'8 c nfirming City's calculated remaining trip capacity. B. Fidelity Pad Integral Use - An investment services company provides personal services that should be considered an integral component of a retail center. As noted above, the PM peak hour trip generation rate for these integrated retail uses is 2.98 PM peak hour trips per 1000 square feet gross leasable floor area. Applying this trip generation rate to the 7207 square foot Fidelity Pad building results in 21 new PM peak hour trips. Stand Alone Use - There is no trip generation rate available for an investment services facility such as this. The closest comparable stand -alone use would be an office use, expected to produce 1.49 PM peak hour trips per 1000 square feet gross leasable floor area. To be conservative, the trip generation for the Fidelity Pad should be considered a part of the floor area of the entire Southcenter Mall, i.e. on an integrated use basis. C. Combined Trips from Bank of America and Fidelity Pad The 114 new PM peak hour trips that are added as a result of the Bank of America relocation (93 trips) and the Fidelity Pad (21 trips) are again within the 445 remaining trip capacity evaluated in the Mall's 2004 EIS. Therefore, we conclude that all environmental impacts associated with the Bank of America relocation and the Fidelity Pad have been disclosed, evaluated, and appropriate mitigation identified. Traffic Impact Fees associated with the added trips will be subtracted TS1 Transportation$olutions, Inc. • • Richard Chung April 2, 2008 Page 4 of 6 from any credit due Westfield as a result of their over - payment of initial Traffic Impact Fees. The reduction in site - generated trips associated with vacating the existing Bank of America building will be credited toward the new trip generation associated with the Mervyn's redevelopment as part of a subsequent phase of development. Parking Supply The presently approved Southcenter Mall building plan includes 6957 parking stalls. This parking inventory anticipated development on a pad in the same location as the proposed relocated Bank of America. As noted above, that pad has now been shifted to the westerly Strander Boulevard driveway and will be occupied by Fidelity. By the relocation of the Bank of America with drive - through teller lanes and shift of the Fidelity Pad to the westerly driveway, netfa37 par,, kirngstlls htave'been d�i�splacedt +o a o aor 4' g s ISM with the new Bank of America location, including the addition area associated with the drive - through teller aisles, and the relocated Fidelity Pad 4l110 6.820 stals. Since the existing Bank of America building will not be re- occupied, there will be 83 parking stalls on the existing Bank of America site that can be used for Mall parking for a total of 6903 parking stalls. Once the Bank of America is relocated, there will be a need for 6919 parking stalls according to City of Tukwila parking requirements. This suggests a parking shortfall of 16 parking stalls. However, as the City knows, the Mervyn's space (86,115 square feet) is currently unoccupied and, therefore, overall Mall parking demand is currently overstated. Westfield will keep 3351 square feet of the Mervyn's building space unoccupied. This square footage fully compensates for these 16 stalls until more parking is constructed on the Mall site. Once Bank of America has completed its construction of the new facility and is fully operational, it is anticipated that Westfield will make an application for demolition of the existing Bank of America building and conversion of that property for parking. An initial plan shows 344 parking stalls can be designed on this site resulting in a net increase for the existing Bank of America site of 261 parking stalls (344 - 83 = 261 parking stalls). With this incremental addition, the total Southcenter parking supply will be 7164 parking stalls. When this additional parking is provided, there will be a surplus of 245 parking stalls. T _ .„4„ ,, ttr Transportatii n Solutions, Inc. Richard Chung April 2, 2008 Page 5 of 6 Circulation and Queuing for the Relocated Bank of America The new Bank of America site is located near the easterly entrance off Strander Boulevard but is not directly accessible to the street. The site is accessible via the on -site circulation drives such that a customer entering off Strander Boulevard will enter the Southcenter Mall site traveling northbound, drive about 175 feet, and make a right turn eastbound on an intermediate drive aisle. Then customers can park directly off this aisle or circulate further east and enter where the drive - thru teller aisles begin and park along a walkway leading to the building. Because the entry aisle is two lanes wide, delays to entering traffic due to vehicles making a right turn off the entry road toward the Bank of America will be minimal. When TSI performed trip generation studies at the existing Bank of America site, observations of queues were made. These studies found that the typical maximum queue was three cars. On a Friday evening corresponding to the mid month pay period when the Bank operates with extended walk -in office hours, a maximum queue of six (6) cars was observed. The new location will have queue space for six to seven cars in each aisle. Thus, we believe queues can be accommodated at the new locations during peak times. Therefore, we believe there is a negligible chance that queues will extend into the internal access aisle and no chance that queues will extend into the main entry aisle. Summary Based on this analysis, we find and conclude the relocation of the Bank of America from the north side of the Southcenter Mall and the Fidelity Pad will generate 114 vehicle trips, which is a volume that is less than the 445 remaining trip capacity evaluated in the EIS. Therefore, we conclude that all environmental impacts associated with these two uses — Bank of America and Fidelity Investments - have been disclosed, evaluated and appropriate mitigation identified. The trips generated by the existing Bank of America building will be considered and credited as part of the next phase of redevelopment on the north side of the Mall. There will be a parking supply of 6903 parking stalls including the existing stalls on the existing Bank of America site. Current Southcenter Mall build -out indicates a demand for 6919 parking stalls. However, Westfield will keep unoccupied 3351 square feet of the currently vacant Mervyn's space to compensate for the 16 parking stalls thereby ensuring parking code is met until more parking is constructed. This solution is only temporary as Westfield anticipates the construction of a net addition of 261 parking stalls when the existing Bank of America building is demolished to make room for parking that will serve the next phase of development resulting in a surplus of 245 parking stalls. TSI Transportadon:$olutions, Inc. Richard Chung April 2, 2008 Page 6 of 6 Access to both the new Bank of America site and the Fidelity Pad is direct with driveways set back from intersections to minimize delay as customers access the site off the public road network or within the Southcenter Mall parking field. The number of drive - through teller aisles and the aisle storage length proposed for the relocated Bank America will not result in delays or queues that will inhibit traffic flow to or around the site. I trust this provides you with a clear understanding of the potential impacts associated with the proposed Bank of America relocation and the Fidelity Pad. I invite you to call me if you or the City have any questions or desire clarification relating to this analysis. Sincerely, Transportation Solutions, Inc. David D. Markley Principal C:1Documents and SettingsldavidnITSINW\My Documents \Project\20031Westfled South Center12008 Development ABoA relocation transp analysis 08-04.02.doc Public Works Department, Engineering Memorandum TO: Moira Bradshaw, Dave McPherson FROM: Cyndy Knighton DATE: March 6, 2007 Updated November 9, 2007 RE: Westfield Mall Request for Impact Fee Reduction, D06 -147 This memorandum is to document the Public Works Department's response to the February 5, 2007 letter, and follow up March 8, 2007 letter, from the Westfield Corporation requesting a reduction in impact fees for the mall expansion, Phase I. Westfield picked up building permits for the Phase I construction, which is less than the maximum building size covered in their EIS and subsequent Developer's Agreement with the City. A reduction of the impact fee is authorized in the Developer's Agreement and can be done administratively. It should -be noted that this request reflects building permits that were issued in March 2007 only and does not include any subsequent permits that have seen been issued. The EIS and Developer's Agreement assumed the following would be the maximum build -out: Table 1: Maximum Buildout Type Size Net New PM Peak Hour Trips Shopping Center (main mall building) 1,712,464 GLA 787 Restaurant (outlying pads) 21,101 GSF 73 Movie Theater 4,000 seats 420 Hotel 140 rooms 51 Total 1,332 The Development Agreement identified Traffic Impact Fees due that were calculated using a previously used methodology than is currently codified. Specific projects were identified and the actual number of trips impacting the individual projects were identified, and the impact fee assessed on a per trip basis. Westfield is requesting a reduction in these fees due to a smaller expansion for Phase I. The Developer's Agreement included provisions for payment of a proportionate amount, based on actual trips generated from the project. 1 of 3 c: \temp\xpgrpwise \westfield impact fee payment 3- 6- 07.doc Table 2: Phase I Type Size Net New PM Peak Hour Trips Shopping Center (main mall building) 1,575,034 GLA 539 Restaurant (outlying pads) 11,937 GSF 55 Movie Theater 2,800 seats 294 Total 888 One item of note is the trip generation rate for the Shopping Center classification is different than that used in the EIS/Development Agreement. This change was presented in the February 5th letter from Westfield. Because trip generation is inversely proportional to the size of the shopping mall, a higher trip generation rate was applied to this smaller footprint. It is my understanding, after talking with Moira, that it is very unlikely that further expansion to the main mall building, as studied in the EIS, will occur within the Developer's Agreement timeline. Therefore using the higher rate is appropriate. The EIS rate is 2.68 trips per 1,000sf of GLA, the new trip rate used here is 2.79 trips per 1,000sf of GLA. No other modifications to trip generation rates, capture rates, or pass -by rates were proposed by Westfield. Applying a direct percentage reduction across the individual project fees is appropriate because the overall size of the mall expansion was reduced, but the general layout and make up was not modified, therefore the trip distribution is assumed to be equivalent. Applying the percentage of 66.7% (888 trips divided by 1,332 trips) would yield an impact fee of $719,544 due at building permit issuance. According to the February 5th letter, Westfield was prepared to make a payment of $816,301. This amount was based on a reduction of trips, and a proportionate adjustment of the fee based on 888 net new trips. The calculated trip generation using the building permit drawings is different from that shown in the Westfield letter. Since the $816,301 payment was made, there is a credit balance of $96,757 available for future building permit applications, tenant improvement permits, or could be refunded to Westfield. The details are shown in Table 3. At this time, Westfield has remaining traffic capacity that is vested to them from the EIS and Developer's Agreement. They have until December 7, 2011 to submit complete building permit application(s) for the square footages shown in Table 4, or a modification of size and uses with new trip generation not to exceed 445 net new p.m. peak hour trips. This applies for additional expansion on the south side of the mall as studied in the EIS. Any additional expansion above and beyond this amount, or in an area not on the south side of the mall property, will be subject to the relevant codes in effect at the time of application. Traffic Impact Fees meeting the vesting requirement will be prorated in a manner similar to that above. 2 of 3 c: \temp\xpgrpwise \westfield impact fee payment 3- 6- 07.doc Table 3: Impact Fee Comparisons Project # Intersection or Link EIS Identified Fee Actual Permit Fee Due Westfield Paid Fee 96-RW18 Southcenter Pkwy/ 168th $15,200 $10,127 $11,489.32 Street signal 93 -RW 11 W Valley /Strander: NB dual left turn lanes $43,120 $27,730 $32,593.38 89-RW13 Interurban Bridge: widen for dual lefts $19,920 $13,272 $15,057.05 88 -RWO4 Andover Pk W (T Pkwy - Strander): widen to 5 lanes $271,150 $180,662 $204,955.85 03 -RWO5 Andover Pk E @ Minkler:_ widen to 5 lanes @ ints. . _ __ $25,960 _ _ _. __ _$17,297 $19,622.55 84 -RWO3 Southcenter Pkwy (180 - S city limits): construct 3 and 5 lane street $16,470 $10,974 $12,449.28 02 -RWO4 Southcenter Blvd (51 S — TIB): widen to 3 lanes $184,000 $122,596 $139,081.23 84 -RW19 - -- Tukwila Urban Access $504,1201. $335,886 - - $381,052.34 Improvement Project Total Transportation Impact Fees $1,079,940 $719,544 $816,301.00 1 This reflects a $1,350,360 fee due for this project less a credit of $846,240 for the dedication of right -of -way for the project Table 4: Remaining Building Capacil Type Size Shopping Center (main mall building) 137,430sf GLA Restaurant (outlying pads) 6,101 sf GSF Movie Theater 1,200 seats Hotel 140 rooms Finally, the Certificate of Completion needs to be conditioned against the inevitable changes to the final building sizes and uses. Prior to issuance of the C of C, Westfield must submit to the City an accounting of the square footages actually built for final resolution of the impact fee payment. The movie theater is also to be conditioned to have no more than 2,800 seats. Since Westfield is simply building the shell, and the final construction will be done at the direction of the tenant, the assumption was made by Westfield on the size of the theater. Additional seats can use the impact fee credit, if available, or additional fees will be required at permit issuance if adequate credit is not available. 3 of 3 c:\temp\xpgrpwise \westfield impact fee payment 3- 6- 07.doc STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tuknlan r.ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY RECEIVED NOV 2 5 2008 COMMUNI 1 Y DEVELOPMENT ss COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly swom and upon oath states as follows: 1. 1 am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real properly, Located at for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any Toss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. Non - responsiveness to a City infomration request for.ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. EXECUTED at 'NICOJILk (city), Oh- (state), on iloamBER 141* Print Name RIp1A1';D CHUM Address 6115 rPJ$teurcit NAIt• t lUtU111114t WA' 481g& Phone Number tb6� ta - 200& Signature On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that keishe signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS 1111* DAY OF ibi albeR 200& NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at Rank) ( WiC> ∎016 My Commission expires on Tow a cm • • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Souihcemer Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: lukplan@ci.tukwilama.us SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: We,st('e. d San/on-6r PV1as6E EYpaf Si oV) LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, ifvacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. (033 sounanfor a, 1414 qv88. 1LLsi 1 s cuttw it J- IN,2.lhifisec/1jja of 1-5 an d :-�v 5 and is be hdecib 8h n bra /tics., Sc llieni Paduia j / ttalG_ Paettval , dnd tindoveY Payer We t . LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). (03(1142 D-ao)O- t-o020 2i,�23t�4q`OSU�0610-�ob5 +b231 631C2.00 2'1O t241•i -330, 11572op-2g1 +29Qr35170DO- 24'i-k-Z'4() ar\ri 5C1-10002.-7 DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner /applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: RICMARn 04U1u Address: 413 MIxt4rEilMt NA4&. , TUKWIIA 1 WA 48188 Phone: E -mail: ;06 ex bolo ktitumw WefRap . CON Signature: FAX: tAX At N43 Date: III 14 l 802 RECEIVED NOV 2 5 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus TYPE P-SEPA Planner: File Number. Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: We,st('e. d San/on-6r PV1as6E EYpaf Si oV) LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, ifvacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. (033 sounanfor a, 1414 qv88. 1LLsi 1 s cuttw it J- IN,2.lhifisec/1jja of 1-5 an d :-�v 5 and is be hdecib 8h n bra /tics., Sc llieni Paduia j / ttalG_ Paettval , dnd tindoveY Payer We t . LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). (03(1142 D-ao)O- t-o020 2i,�23t�4q`OSU�0610-�ob5 +b231 631C2.00 2'1O t241•i -330, 11572op-2g1 +29Qr35170DO- 24'i-k-Z'4() ar\ri 5C1-10002.-7 DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner /applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: RICMARn 04U1u Address: 413 MIxt4rEilMt NA4&. , TUKWIIA 1 WA 48188 Phone: E -mail: ;06 ex bolo ktitumw WefRap . CON Signature: FAX: tAX At N43 Date: III 14 l 802 RECEIVED NOV 2 5 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must'be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development. Please contact each Department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until it is ' determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED. The initial application materials allow project review to begin and vest the applicant's rights. However, the City may require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. City staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206 -431 -3670 (Department of Community Development) and 206 -433 -0179 (Department of Public Works). Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases; upon approval of both Public Works and Planning' APPLICATION MATERIALS: ✓ 1. Application Checklist (1 copy) indicating items submitted with application. 2. Completed ESA Screening Checklist, ixera ntal Cheek ' . • • • ... •.• • • - • 3. One set of all plans reduced to 8 1/2" by 11" or.1.1'', by 17 ". :% '4. Application Fee $e.l•5. -1 21 J permit application ti r-i 5. t t P FPA review- nderlying- g� PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS: 6. Payment of a $365 notice board fee to FastSigns Tukwila or Provide a 4' x 4' public notice board on site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received (see Public Notice Sign Specifications Handout). 7. Payment of a $1 10 mailing label fee to the City of Tukwila or Provide two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents or businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. Note: Each unit in multiple- family buildings - -e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks - -must be included (see Public Notice Mailing Label Handout). 8. If providing own labels King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 ft.. of the subject lot. ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: 9. Vicinity Map with site location. 10. Provide four (4) copies of any sensitive area studies such as wetland or geotechnical reports if needed per Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45). See the Geotechnical Report Guidelines and Sensitive Area Special Study Guidelines (online at www.ci .tukwila.wa.us /dcd /dcdplan.htm) for additional information. 11. Any drawings needed to describe the proposal other than those submitted with the underlying permit: Maximum size 24" x 36 ". RECEIVED NOV 2 5 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist Date: 1 OV OM Y 1 e i ) L'CD 0 RECEIVED NOV 2 5 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Applicant Name: t.1VS k h e ;k Czl ta. cc'' Street Address: (l) 33 a\A:m(.(j,ifvTc,( pi1Uiu City, State, Zip: - Uk.\M 1 () k Telephone: (0 J XD2 CO M D Directions This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential. "take" of Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, or Cutthroat trout as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The checklist includes a series of "Yes" or "No" questions about your project, organized into four parts. Starting with•Part A on Page 1, read each question carefully, circle "Yes" or "No," and proceed to the next question as directed by the checklist. To answer these questions, you may need to refer to site plans, grading and drainage plans, critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City will evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. Part A: Please review and answer each question carefully. Consider all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1 -0 Will the project require any form of grading? Grading is defined as any excavating, filling, clearing, or creation of impervious surface, or any combination thereof, which alters the existing ground surface of the earth (TMC 18.06.370). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 kilp- Continue to Question 1 -1 (Page 3) 2 -0 7 i11 the project require any form of clearing? Clearing means the removal or causing to be removed, through either direct or indirect actions, any vegetation from a site (18.06.145). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 QE - Continue to Question 2 -1 (Page 4) 3 -0 1 I the project require work, during any time of the project, below the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers or in wetlands? Ordinary high water mark is the mark that is found by examining the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual as to distinctly mark the soil from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation (see TMC Chapter 18.06, P e 18 -15). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 4 -0 YES - Continue to Question-3-1 (Page 5) 4 -0 Will the project result in the processing or handling, storage, or treatment of hazardous substances ?. This does not include the proper use of fuel stored in a vehicle's fuel tank. Hazardous substances are any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits the characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173 -303 (TMC 18.06.385). This includes fuel or other chemicals stored on -site during construction. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 5 -0 (YE - Continue to Question 5 -0 - 5 -0 Win the project result in the withdrawal, injection, or interception of groundwater ?. Examples of projects that may affect groundwater include, but are not limited to: construction of a new well, change in water withdrawals from an existing well, projects involving prolonged construction dewatering, projects installing French drains or interceptor trenches, and sewer lines. For the purpose of this - analysis, projects that require a geotechnical report pursuant to . the requirements of TMC 18.45.060 or would require a geotechnical report if not exempt should answer Yes. Please circle appropriate response. N - Continue to Question 6 -0 - Continue to Question 6 -0 1 City of Tukwila ElScreening Checklist Part A (continued) 6 -0 Will the project involve landscaping or re- occurring outdoor maintenance that includes the regular use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides? This does not include the one -time use of transplant fertilizers. Landscaping means natural vegetation such as trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other landscape materials arranged in a manner to produce an aesthetic effect appropriate for the use of the land (TMC 18.06.490). For the purpose of this analysis, this includes the establishment of new lawn or grass. Please circle appropriate response. NO — Checklist Complete YES} Checklist Complete Part B: Please answer each question below for projects that include grading. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1 -1 Will the project involve the modification of a watercourse bank or bank of the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers between the ordinary high water mark and top of bank? This includes any projects that will require grading on any slope leading to a river or stream, but will not require work below the ordinary high water mark. Work below . the ordinary high water mark is covered in Part C. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 1 -2 YES - Continue to Question 1 =2 1 -2 Could the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project result in sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion and /or sedimentation in watercourses, the Green /Duwamish rivers, or the Black River? Most projects that involve grading have the potential to result in increased erosion and /or sedimentation as a result of disturbances to the soil or earth. If your project involves grading and you have not prepared a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan specifically designed to retain 100 percent of the runoff (including during construction) from impervious surface or disturbed soils, answer Yes to this question. if your project is normally exempt under the Tukwila Municipal Code and would not require the preparation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, BUT may still result in erosion or sediment transport off site or beyond the work area, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 1 -3 (YES- Continue to Question 1 -3 1-3 ill the project result in the construction of new impervious surfaces? Impervious surfaces include those hard surfaces which prevent or restrict the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soils under natural conditions prior to development;. or a hard surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantity or at an increased rate of flow from the flow presented under natural conditions prior to development. Such areas include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces that similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development (TMC 18.06.445). Please circle appropriate response. NQ-Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) YES Continue to Question 1 -4 City of Tukwila Ecreening Checklist Part B (continued) 1 -4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by allowing it to seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface and does not include the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) YES Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) Part C: Please review each question below for projects that include clearing. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 2 -1 Will the project involve-clearing within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a w t rcourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2 -2 2 -2 Will the project involve clearing of any trees within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? A tree is defined by TMC 18.06.845 as any self - supporting woody plant, characterized by one main trunk, with a potential diameter- breast- height of 2 inches or more and potential minimum height of 10 feet. Please circle a ! i ropriate response. 1 Continue to Question 2 -3 S - Continue to Question 2 -3 2 -3 Will the project involve clearing of any evergreen trees from within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green /Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis evergreen means any tree that does not regularly.lose all its leaves or needles in the i,all. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -4 S - Continue to Question 2 -4 2 -4 Will the project involve clearing within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a tercourse or the Green /Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. ( "O )Continue to Question,3 -0 (Page 1) YES - Continue to Question 2 -5 2 -5 Will the project involve clearing within 40 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green /Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO I Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) City of Tukwila E•creening Checklist Part D: Please review each question below for projects that include work below the ordinary high water mark of watercourses or the Duwamish /Green or Black Rivers or inmetlands. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or. Yes answer. 3 -1 Will the project involve the direct alteration of the channel or bed of a watercourse, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or Black River? For the purpose of this analysis, channel means the area between the ordinary high water mark of both banks of a stream, and bed means the stream bottom substrates, typically within the normal wetted -width of a stream. This includes both rary and permanent modifications. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3 -2 YES - Continue to Question 3 -2 3 -2 Will the project involve any physical alteration to a watercourse or wetland connected to the Green /Duwamish River? For the purpose of this analysis, "connected to the river means" flowing into via a surface connection or culvert, or having other physical characteristics that allow for access by salmonids. This includes impacts to areas such as sloughs, side channels, remnant oxbows, ditches formed from channelized portions of natural watercourses or any area that may provide off channel rearing habitat for juvenile fish from the Duwamish River. This includes both temporary construction alterations and permanent modifications. Watercourses or wetlands draining to the Green /Duwamish River that have a hanging culvert, culvert with a flap gate, diversion, or any entirely man -made or artificial structure that precludes fish access uld answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3 -3 YES - Continue to Question 3 -3 3 -3 Will the project result in the construction of a new structure or hydraulic condition that could be a barrier to salmonid passage within the watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, a barrier means any artificial or human modified structure or hydraulic condition that inhibits the natural upstream or downstream movement of salmonids, i eluding both juveniles and'adults. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question.3 -4 YES - Continue to Question 3 -4 3 -4 Will the project involve a temporary or permanent change in the cross - sectional area of a watercourse or the Green /Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, the cross - sectional area is defined as a profile taken from the ordinary high water mark on the right be to the ordinary high water mark on the left bank. Please circle appropriate response. ontnue to Question 3 -5 O} Conti YES - Continue to Question 3 -5 3 -5 Will the project require the removal of debris from within the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green /Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, debris includes, but is not limited to fallen trees, logs, shrubs, rocks, piles, rip -rap, submerged metal, and broken concrete or other building materials. Projects that would require debris removal from a watercourse or the Green /Duwamish or Black Rivers as part of a maintenance activity 'should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. City of Tukwila AScreening Checklist Continue to Question 3 -6 S Continue to Question 3 -6 3 -6 Will the project result in impacts to watercourses or wetlands that have a surface connection to another watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers but do not contain habitat conditions that support salmonid use? Such areas may include, but not be limited to hillside seeps and wetlands isolated from the watercourse or river that have.a surface water connection to the watercourse or river but are not assessable, nor would be assessable to salmonids under natural conditions. Wetlands with a "functions and values" rating for baseflow /groundwater support of 9 and above (or moderate) as described in Cooke (1996) should besincluded. Please c le appropriate response. Continue to Question 3 -7 YES - Continue to Question 3 -7 3 -7 Will the project include the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands connected to a watercourse containing salmonids? For the purpose of this analysis, the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands includes wetlands, channels, sloughs, or other habitat feature created to enhance wildlife use, particularly waterfowl use, or may be attractive to wildlife, articularly waterfowl. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 3 -8 YES - Continue to Question 3 -8 3 -8 Will the project include bank stabilization? For the purpose of this analysis, bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, rip -rap, rock, log, soil, or vegetated revetments, concrete ructures, or similar structures. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) i Ilnlnlnmlmrrrmnlniniliunn(I1nl1 75 PAC • n __fit n n 1 L - 7Y r J IJ 46 SPerc ■ 11.070 SF 15.449 5F I J GROUND LEVEL r' RESTAURANT 10.000 5F LEVEL 2. 11.704 SF 16.458 SF 2. 4,-111 59 4:08859 bsl SF• 7 :705 SF 0 607 SPACES 3 NORDSTROM 3 t£KLS macys c.880 11; •- 533 SF r rzcoarr j.r, ,ftIM 41_1 .11 ?7181 z III 1.1111111 Q ra 5 %CJ 111111111 } I ,1.11111111► lc 2 N T M I `' �11 11 I c i � � m l." Ill 114 PROPOSED SUMMARY OF GARAGE PARKING COUNT; EXIS1I140 NORTH PARKING EXISTING SOUTH PARKING EXISTING STRUCTURED PARKING + ROOF TOTAL EXISTING PARKING • PROPOSED NORTH PARKING PROPOSED SOUTH PARKING PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE. A EXPANSION PROPOSED PARKING 0 B OF A LOTS PROPOSED PARKING 0 Post Office PAD TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING 3457 SPACES 2389 SPACES 957 SPACES 6803 SPANS (150. SPACES) (83 SPACES) 200 SPACES 344 SPACES 45 SPACES 7159 SPACES 1 I' 106 SPACES SITE PLAN WITH LEVEL 1 PLAN RESWRLWI 11,070 SF 16.185 5F 30.056 5F A LEVEL 2 PLAN Soulhcenter GLA 000 Parking counts Existing Mall- Proposed South Expansion Demolished Post office Garage Retail(Food 8 Seruce Usel Total Proposed ... _ 21-Now-08 GBA GLA 1,999,302 _ .. 1.645,272 GBA GLA ..___... _._.. _ (4433)_.___..__....(4,433) 20.191 18.576 . _ _ __15,758 _ 14.143 :Proposed North Expansion G8A GLA Demolished Mervyn's GLA (86,115) (88,115)• Common Mall - 12,430 Mall Expansion I 163.671 150.557 -Total Proposed 89.986 64,442 (Total Existing. Proposed 2,105.046 1.723.857 kiosk/ )2209 Exisiting • 800 New) 2809 Tenant Rest,00rns I Equipment Rooms ( -5%) (86.333) Net Existing • Proposed UFA 1,640,333 • Complementary Use 'Rewsed UFA 1,473.622 Parking Parking Required CO 5 spaces /1,000 sf UFA, - Albwod Deduct of 4.5Y.- -- ! Required perking • Existing Parking 'New Pencing(Parkrng Garage A -Add Lewd) ,New Pinking of Post Office Parcel New Parking 02 B of A Parcel 'Total Propo®d Parking __ —_ 7.388 __- _ _ 332 7,037 6,80°3 _... -(233) • 200 344 7,159 SOUTHCENTER Parkiiig}Striuctures PrOaanm WESTFIELD DESIGN S CONSTRUCTION 11801 M74cldns Roan/aid, 1118 600. Los Ant.lsc, Cs1MoMs 90025 -1748 Tao /mom 310 478 4456 Fscs6N. 310 478 4488 KAMM 40 o 1410 747f00aZ;,ml°V{o"`c1".Z."aac�4 Re9istt E IVE NOV 2 5 200 COMMUNITY n CS/Cl OPUr_ssr Consultants Approvals: Key Plan: &M IN 211111!' -'ll II�i = =11i1� u jai: IT/� No. Revision A ADDENDA._ A ADDENDUM A 0000688 Q ADDENDUM Q ADDENDUM A ADDENDUM A ADDENDUM A 800EMDUM A AODDADUM A ADDEAOt1M 400EAOUM ADDEAWM 9 A 0 0 A A A A A Date 10/20/2005 II/03/2005 11/15/2005 03/29/2007 02/05/2008 02/26/2008 03/05/2008 04/16/2008 09/12/2008 09/16/2008 10/24/2008 11/19/2008 11/21/2008 Sheet Title PROPOSED PARKING COUNT PLAN • Job No. Date Scale 11/51/1508 C 7 41 10)11D �InnnnnInn innlninilTlunnililniu InL ;. ri -9 -----n n 1- L i 1 NL l T / V L) I, I r PROPOSED SUMMARY OF GARAGE PARKING COUNT: EXISTING NORTH PARKING EXISTING SOUTH PARKING EXISTING STRUCTURED PARKING + ROOF TOTAL EXISTING PARKING PROPOSED NORTH PARKING PROPOSED SOUTH PARKING PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE A EXPANSION PROPOSED PARKING 0 8 OF A LOTS PROPOSED PARKING 0 Post Office PAD 3457 SPACES 2389 SPACES 957 SPACES 6803 SPACES (150 SPACES) (83 SPACES) 200 SPACES 344 SPACES 45 SPACES TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING 7159 SPACES SPA6,L, 11.0705E 15,449 SF RESTAURANT 11,070 SF 16,185 SF d ) 4.088.5F NORDSTROM 3 LEVELS macy§ GROUND LEVEL. r RESTAURANT 1 0.000 5F LEVEL 2. 11.704 SF 6.6800 1\ 12.661 SF 7.705 SF 3,533 SF �cECUrlrr, ■ ' 607 SPACES 4, 4 - 30,056 SF- ,y 4 •PI 8!U (r 11 111 11 11 SFACES SITE PLAN WITH LEVEL 1 PLAN LEVEL 2 PLAN -ISouthcemer GLA end Parking counts. I 21- Nov.08, GBA J GLA 'Existing Mall 1,999,302 I 1.645,272 , (Proposed South Expansion - GBA , GLA IDemolished Post office (4.433)1 (4.433) (Garage Retail(Food 8 Sence Use) - 20,191 1 18,576' ;Total Proposed 15,758 i 14.143 1 1 Prop0a0d North Expansion GBA 1 GLA ,Demolished Mervyn's GLA - (86,115)1 (86.115) Common Mall 12,430 1 (Mall Expansion 163,671 1 150,557 ! tTotal Proposed 89,986 1 84,442 : 1 1 i Total Existing +Proposed 2,105.0461 1.723,857: !Total ExisiSng • 800 New) 1 2,809 1 Tenant Restrooms / Equipment Rooms (-5%) 1 (86,333): ;Net Existing s Proposed UFA - 1.840,333 : CComplementay Use IRevlsed UFA 188,711, 1,473,822 IParking P4rkin9 Required @ 5 690001 7 1,000 of UFA Allowed deduct d 4.5% Required parking Existing Perking Displaced Parking New Perking(Parking Garage A- Add Lewe1) - New Perking of Post 011100 Poiret I New Parking of B &A Parcel . ITot.I Proposed Paring 7,388 332! 7,037 6,803 ! (233)- 200 45 344 7,1591 `EA SODU HCENTER Parking Structures WESTFIELD DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION 11601 Ndshira Boulevard, 11th Roor Loa Angeles, California 90025 -1748 Telephone 310 478 4458 FacskW. 310 478 4468 ODOM NOM' St M13441.101 CAVES ME MCKIM, KAMM aa:a1>, a RyaE Registration No. RECEIVE ConolltanNOV 2 5 20 COM UN∎it DEVELOPAb::t/ Approvals: Key Plan: 8 .011111 ri No. Revision Date Q ADDENDUM 10/20/2005 Q ADDENDUM 11/03/2005 A ADDENDUM 11/15/2005 Q ADDENDUM 03/29/2007 A ADDENDUM 02 /05/2008 A ADDENDUM 02/26/2008 A ADDENDUM 03/05/2008 .Q 000E11009 04/16/2008 A A00EM0UM 09 /12/2008 A A00EM00M 09 /16/2008 A ADDENDUM 10/24/2008 A A00EMDUM 11/19/2008 Q 600(60619 11/21/2008 9 0 0 A A 0 A 0 0 Sheet Title PROPOSED PARKING COUNT PLAN Job No. Dote Scale n/21/2036 AS NOM C 7 J PROPOSED SUMMARY OF GARAGE PARKING COUNT; SPACES IIIIInIIIIUUIL \ 1 EXISTING NORTH PARKING EXISTING SOUTH PARKING EXISTING STRUCTURED PARKING + ROOF TOTAL EXISTING PARKING PROPOSED NORTH PARKING PROPOSED SOUTH PARKING PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE A EXPANSION PROPOSED PARKING 0 B OF A LOTS PROPOSED PARKING 0 Post Office PAD 3457 SPACES 2389 SPACES 957 SPACES 5803 SPACES (150 SPACES) (83 SPACES) 200 SPACES 344 SPACES 45 SPACES TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING 7159 SPACES 11,070 SF 15.449 5F RESTAURANT 11,070 5F 16,185 5F . • . 4,.111'57 4.088.5F GROUND LEVEL - RESTAURANT 10,000 5F LEVEL 2- 11.704 5F 30,056 5F 16,458 SF 12.661 5F 7.705 5F NORDSTROM 3 LEVELS macy 6 an s. - 5F IIF� .ems r SOUTHCENTER Parking Structures WESTFIELD DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION 11601 Wilshire Boulevard. 11th Floor Loa Angeles, California 90025 -1748 Telephone 310 478 4456 Faeserdle • 310 478 4488 s axes* ae PROEM 7mr 61211.1 MO WY 407 161610:067 M: RMS.. ■06.135 111:616.701 C.611113 Registration No. Consultants Approvals: P ii..CEI ED ( NOV 2 1 2008 COMMU iTY DEVELOP ENT LEVEL 2 PLAN _L ll E71 111101111 Key Plan: 5_' —" +111!11' 'll Ivini = —111e� -111..1 • 111 �1 '# I \I 1 ;\ t t,. 1 I' IJ L I fi=b I f— C \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ :\ \ \ [IIl ill / / / / / / • St 1111111111111 ,Southcanter GLA and Parking course-- _ -. 21 Nov'08'. • : GBA CIA Existing Mall 1,999.302 1 645 272 . Proposed South Expansion GBA " GLA [Demolished Post office _ (4,433) _ -_ - -.. (4.433) Geraga Refaii(Food S Service Use) - 20,191- -_- 76,576 Total Proposed 15,758 i 14,143 Proposed North Expansion GBA - GLA .Oemdished Menem's GIA (86,115) (88,115)- Gammon Mall 12,430 ;Mall Expansion 163,671 150,557 • Total Proposed 89,986 64.442 Total Existing. Proposed 2,105.048 1.723.857 .kiosks(2209 Exisiting * 800 New) 2,809.: - Tenant Rsetrooma /Equipment Rooms (596) ' (86,333) .Net Existing * Proposed UFA 1,640,333 : 1. 06 SPACES :Complementary Use .Reused UFA 166,711': 1,473,622 Parking .Parking Required @ 5 spaces / 1.000 of UFA Allowed deduct of 4.5% Required parking ,EoISeng Perking Displaced Parking New Parking(Parking Garage A- Add Lewd) r Parking of Post Office Parcel i New Perking 08 B of A Parcel ITond Proposed Parking 1 I _._.._._.._.7.388 332 7.037 6.803 (233) 200 45 344 7,159 No. Revision Date A ADDENDUM 10/20/2005 A ADDENDUM / 11/03/2005 A ADDENDUM 11/15/2005 A ADDENDUM 03/29/2007 A ADDENDUM 02/05/2008 A ADDENDUM 02 /26/2008 A AODEMDUM 03/05/2008 A ADDENDUM 04/16/2008 A 60019 UM 09/12/2008 A 60011A0U9 09 /16/2008 0 ADDEMOl1M 10/24/2008 A 40O1901M 11/19/2008 A AD0EMDUM 11/21/2000 A A A A 0 A A A A A Sheet Title PROPOSED PARKING COUNT PLAN ' Job No. ' Date Scale 11/21/2008 AS NOR9 SITE PLAN WITH LEVEL 1 PLAN C 7 r$s- "r=rl J i' ...............-,---• l tiZ \ Ilnlinnlimilialillllniniiiiti nliiluL \ 75 3PAC D c L v_ • (WU LLuJJ_LLJJLLllwF A r SPA \ES 465! SP RESTAURANT 11.070 SF 15.449 SF PROPOSED SUMMARY OF GARAGE PARKING COUNT:" EXISTING NORTH PARKING EXISTING SOUTH PARKING EXISTING STRUCTURED PARKING ++ ROOF TOTAL EXISTING PARKING PROPOSED NORTH PARKING PROPOSED SOUTH PARKING PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE A EXPANSION PROPOSED PARKING 0 8 OF A LOTS PROPOSED PARKING 0 Post Office PAD TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING RESTAURANT 11,070 SF 16.185 SF 3457 SPACES 2389 SPACES 957 SPACES 8803 SPACES (150 SPACES) (83 SPACES) 200 SPACES 344 SPACES 45 SPACES 7159 SPACES SOUTHCENTER Parking Structures WESTFIELD DESIGN 8 CONSTRUCTION 11801 Washes Boulevard. 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 -1748 Telephone 310 476 4456 Facsimile 310 478 4468 :11.,:alIC7 I.: WV MOW RIMMED .711OUT a« WWI. ALL EILIINMe .01114... OW It MANG AR mxwesi ir,an rwmi iw'ISO1sxixai TMi r'ax-s era Registration No. Consultants 4.111 SF 4,088 SF 7 i E V E 1 NOV 2 5 GROUND LEVEL - RESTAURANT 10.000 SF LEVEL _- 11,704 SF 16,458 SF 12.661 SF 30.056 SF 4 7,705 SF ED 2008 COMMU TY DEVELOP ENT • 3 NORDSTROM 3 LEVELS macy's 3 3. !F ROOF Approvals: LEVEL 2 PLAN .t 742—SPACES I ,rl 1 '1 husk's L U I I i' I' (J Ile_- i '` I 71111111 11111116 L 'S0,0hceeter GLA and Parking counts Existing Mall .__ .._ ........... ... I._-__ 21- NOV081 GBA J GLA 1,999,302 )- 1,645.272 Proposed South Expansion GBA ,Demolished Post office (4,433)!___ (4,433). Garage RetaiKFood 8 Seruce Use) 20.191 - 18,576 Toted Proposed . 15.758 t • 14.143 111.1 111111 106 SPACES Proposed North Expansion , - G8A ' GLA .Demolished Mervyn's GLA - (86.115) (86,115): Common Mail 12,430 ; Mall Expansion 163,671 i 150,557 . Total Proposed 89,986: 64,442 Toted Existing+ Proposed 2,105,046 1 1.723,857 kiosks(2209 Exis)Ung + 600 New) I 2,809 I - Tenant Restrooms 7' Equipment Rooms (-5 %) - - l (86,333)'. Net Existing + Proposed UFA _ f 1,840,333 • :Complementary Use r 166,711-i Reused UFA 1.473,622 1 4Perk1ng .,, I - ces71,00 0-- - — - _7.366 ; AI eking deduct o 5 spaces 7 1,000 sf UFA 7,332 : Allowetl deduct of 4.5% 332 !Regrurod perking _ - 7,037 .Existing Parking . 6,803 i :Displaced Parking 1 (233)' ;. ' New Parkdng(Parkdng Garage A- Add Ural) - ) 200 New Parking of Post Office Parcel ) - 45 New Parking of B 03 A Parcel 344 1 .Total Proposed Parking 7,159 i 1 Key Pion: ONO: _I,oi1! �fI IIIlf' 11111!•I� llli - No. Revision Date A ADDENDUM 10/20/2005 A ADDENDUM 11/03/2005 A ADDENDUM 11/15/2005 A ADDENDUM 03/29/2007 A ADDENDUM 02/05/2008 A ADDENDUM 02 /26/2008 A ADDENDUM 03/05/2008 A ADDENDUM 04/16/2006 A AODEA10U41 09 /12/2008 A ADDENDUM 09 /16/2008 ® ADDENDUM 10/24/2008 A 500054009 11/19/2008 A ADDENDUM 11/21/2008 A A A 0 A 0 A Sheet Title PROPOSED PARKING COUNT PLAN 1 Job No . Date Scale 11/21 /nee AS NO1FD 1 SITE PLAN WITH LEVEL 1 PLAN C 7 %� I _ — - / . // j SPACES --=-�. -- n I , a� E -yam a,_ II••■• ------------------------- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII0 fIIIIIII(nll_\ .4- V 31 SPA c'ES r /h 1 ¢ 7) r RESTAURANT 11,0705E 15,449 SF 465 SP rr I L~ J L NORDSTROM 3 LEVELS • J 4.111 SF 4088S7 GROUND LEVEL- RESTAURANT 10.000 SF LEVEL 2- 11,704 SF 16,458 SF 12.661 5F 7,705 SF 1 1�. 0/ L v i• 607 SPACES r/ macy+s 6.530 SF v .37 SF • PROPOSED SUMMARY OF GARAGE_PARKING COUNT: EXISTING NORTH PARKING EXISTING SOUTH PARKING EXISTING STRUCTURED PARKING + ROOF TOTAL EXISTING PARKING PROPOSED NORTH PARKING PROPOSED SOUTH PARKING PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE A EXPANSION PROPOSED PARKING 0 B OF A LOTS PROPOSED PARKING 0 Post Office PAD 3457 SPACES 2389 SPACES 957 SPACES 6803 SPACE$ (150 SPACES) (83 SPACES) 200 SPACES 344 SPACES 45 SPACES TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING 7159 SPACES fit 46666`0 r",' SOUTHCENTTER Parking Structures WESTFIELD DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION 11601 Washer. Ootdeva.d, 11th Floor Loa Angeles. California 90025 -1748 TaMOhone 310 478 4456 FaccknOe 310 478 4468 RESTAURANT 11.070 5F 16,185 SF 30,056 5F -1 I I .. • -1--• - - _F -.: ' 742 SPACES „k! T Li -JnI L LEVEL 2 PLAN f 1 II I, I I Ij .11 rw s1U IL f '4 1 z r �I 8.101111 111111 F, 1r , LL 106 SFrACES SouOwenter GLA end Parking courts 21- NOVUe1 Existing Mall Proposed South Expansion Demolished Post office Garage Retari(Food 8 Service use) Total Proposed GBA GLA 1,999,302 t� .272 GB G ( 4 433)1. (4,433); 20191 i 19,5761 15.758 I 14,143 1 ; Proposed North Expansion I - GSA I GLA 000,01 shed Mervyn's GLA (86,115); (86,115)1 'Common Mall 12.430' Mall Expansion - 163.671 I 150,557 Total Proposed 89.986 ! 64,442 i I Tolei Existing +Proposed 2,105,048 1 1,723857 kiosks(2209 Exisiting + 800 New) I 2,809 Tenant Restrooms / Equipment Rooms (-5%) 1 (88,333) Net Existing + Proposed UFA I 1,640,333 Y i -------- - - - - -- -- ----- -- --- - 'Comwlxnentary Us � - -- ,811.7„ • - !Revised UFA I 1,473,822 • Perking . 'Parking Require� d @ 5 epecen % 5,000 sf UFA ,Allowed deduct of 4.5% Required parking 'Existing Parking I . •Displaced Parking New Parking(Parkirg Garage A- Add Le0eq I New Parking of Post Office Parcel 1 ' New Parking of B of A Parcel !Total Proposed Parking .-.. 7,388'. 332! 7,037 6,803 (233)! 2001 45 344 7,159 I Registration No. RECEIV a Consultants Nov 2 5 106 COMMUNi DEVELOP Approvals: Key Plan: 7-llle� is= ■fir = L_i �F1'�rFjl' mlllli °ri No. Revision A AD0EN01U14 A ADDENDUM A ADDENDUM A ADDENDUM [A ADDENDUM A AD0ENOUN A ADDENDUM A ADDENDUM A ADODADUM A ADDENUM A ADDENDUM A ADDENDUM p ADDENDUM A A A A A A Date 10/20/2005 11/03/2005 11/15/2005 03/29/2007 02/05/2008 02/26/2008 03/05/2008 04/16/2008 09/12/2008 09/16/2008 10/24/2008 11/19/2008 11/21/2008 Sheet Title PROPOSED PARKING COUNT PLAN - 1 Job No. • Date Scale ( 11/91/2009 AS 001FD SITE PLAN WITH LEVEL 1 PLAN C 7 • SHEET INDEX - 1TTLE /SITE SHEET INDEX - AMC VENDOR W S1 e 1. CODE / GOAL CRITERIA RIA DATA A PROJECT DESCRIPTION O CONS e �� OF CONSULTANTS TULLE INFORMAVON mielMf lLAIB 6406 mew x}118 now PLN6 7396 otos RNB 14 tame pA8 H647 OUA7 9-7-41 BMX OFACE. a3(1E$r BERVICEB WINE R1JEB 6406 �ID91D PLAIB 6-7-06 WINO RNB M WNW ftI1BPLA1� Btl96 WIWI M MUM SET 9110 A TAUNT IMPROVEMENT THEATRE WIN N FISTING NEW 9¢11 AND CORE COISIRIICTON. REFEENCE BASE BIONIC WRINGS BY WES171120 FOR SCUDIOI11ER(TIE PEE) TINDER SEPARATE Ott OF TUKWIA PERMIT POY2E O PROJECT CODE APPLICATIONS FOR THEATER_TENANT IMPROVEMENT EQECUTIVE AND LN773i0A (+ App PLANE 8111 CONCESSION EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE & NOTES 8112 CONCESSION EQUIPMENT PLAN 8113 ELECTRICAL ROUGH -IN PLANS 114 PLUMBING ROUGH-IN PLANS 8115 CONCESSION ELEVATIONS AND RACEWAY CONN. INFO 8116 CASEWORK PLAN NEW 8117 CASEWORK SECTIONS 8130 GENERAL THEATRE SHELVING - RIGHT 8131 GENERAL THEATRE SHELVING - LEFT 8135 MANAGEMENT OFFICES AND SCHEDULE OF ELECTRICAL / DATA REQUIREMENTS 8150 BOX OFFICE / GUEST SERVICES PLANS AND ELEVATIONS B151 BOX OFFICE GUEST SERVICES DETAILS e � L� � 7701 7171E SHEET. SHEET INDEX PROJECT DATA T7O2 GENERAL CODE AND A.D.A. COMPEANCE NOTES 7103 GENERAL NOTES AD FIRE STOP DETAILS n04 SCOPE OF WORK MATRIX 1105 SCOPE OF MOIL MATRIX SCREEN & LENSE CHART. SPEAKER CHART TOB GENERAL ACCE5981UTY NOTES CHARTS SCHEDULES SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • J I ( I { { , , NI C -1 -1/ INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE WIN WASHINGTON STATE H1 NWW It AI INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE M1M WASHINGTON STATE AIBNOI/EN75 ' ' INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING OME WITH WASHIHG70N STATE AMENDMENTS 0213 INTERNATIONAL ELECTRICAL CEDE WITH STATE AMENDMENTS 2002 : .�r , 4.1T-4.4111444 ;, "T'" N9 S d G1 STATE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE PATH WASHINGTON STATE MENDMENTS 2481 ADM 1667 O CONSTRUCTION TYPES and REQUIREMENTS CINEMA TENANT MALL SHELL BUADMC UNDER SEPARATE IMPROMENT PERMIT Y LLC � � " = ow .0001 OVERALL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - PARKING LEVEL 1 A002 91E PLAN - PARKING LEVEL 2 A003 91E PLAN - PARKING LEVEL 3 A004 ENLARGED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - PARKING LEVEL 1 O0 QCCUPANCY GROUP(S) ODAA OCCUPANCY A2/A3 EGRES AND EXITS O STAR DTI1 M INOEES 415 X OCCUPANT WAD S AC EN�� H E N D E R S E N G I N E E I N C O R P O R A 6370 yA arm 9.037E 400 Mem NS 0014- 05 lEt 013 -707 -5300 FAY: 013-]01 -64pp M@ �� P _ // ((( 176p1yWyd.mm,ey LRAM Mw.. �17A1I 644 4.4 OMR ReNmase // mom. IT pity 771111 vGLUL+L A Ni0w. berms ATM ww.earl.s M• Mph. CA 000261746 a►e -y 0•01 ••ate O N R S T E D SLAW NIDnI M MANES 9-2 X OC7PMT WAD SEE EGRESS DRAWINGS SHEETS AI71 & M12 FOR OCCUPANT LOAD CALCULATIONS Map EIT W'011H5 0 FIRE RESISTIVE REQUIREMENTS �/� SHEET INDEX - ARCHITECTURAL GVTURAL • 8211 LEGEND, NOTES, USHER DETAIL. AISLE UCMTING PLANS AUDITORIUMS 1& 2 8212 J 1 UGHTING PUNS - AUDITORIUMS J, 4, 5 & 6 8213 AISLE UGHRNG PLANS - AUDITORIUMS 7, 8, 9 & 10 8214 ARE UCH7INC PAWS - AUDITORUMS 1/, 12, 13 & 14 B215 AISLE LIGHTING PLANS - AUDITORIA 15 � A NW 'STRUCTURAL MAIN BUILDING 0, TABLE eq 81816 . DENS 6406 % e-7•S 7 3 ID M G ®®WB MAT PIAIB ►20A ffi19161 OBA1 9 }Q! FRAME •STRUCTURAL FRAME SUPPORTING FLOOR OF THEATRE AND MEZZANINES 0, 01.27.04 �- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 'STRUCTURAL FRAME SUPPORTING THEATRE ROOF 0, 121204 A011 FLOOR AREA PLAN - LEVEL 3 A012 FLOOR AREA PLAN - LEVEL 4 .0711 EGRESS FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 3 .0112 EGRESS FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 A211 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 A212 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 A221 DIMENSION FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 (WEST A222 DIMENSION BOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 (EAST HALF) A223 DIMENSION FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 ((WEST A224 DIMENSION FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 EAST HALF A231 REFERENCE FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL NEST NEST A232 REFERENCE FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 EAST U A233 REFERENCE FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 WEST A234 REFERENCE FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 4 EAST A241 ENLARGED PLANS A242 ENLARGED PLAN$ A243 ENLARGED PLANS A251 WATERPROOFING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 A252 WATERPROOFING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 A281 WALL TPE REFERENCE FL00R PUN - LEVEL 3 (EaAST A262 WALL TYPE REFERENCE Flo PLAN -LEVEL 3 (((EAST A283 WALL TWO REFERENCE FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 A264 WALL TYPE REFERENCE FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 HALF) HALF H HALF H H HALF H WEST H EAST H • • • SWUCTURAL FRAME SUPPORTING THEATRE 0. 121207 8311 SEATING PLANS - AUDITORIUMS /1 & /2 8312 SUING PLANS - AUDITORIUMS /3 & /4 8313 SEATING PLANS - AUDITORIUMS /5 & /6 8314 SEATING PLANS - AUDITORIUMS #(77 & //88 8315 SEATING PLANS - AUDITORIUMS 19 & /70 8318 SEATING PLANS - AUDITORIUMS //l1 & (12 8317 SEATING PLANS - AUDITORIUMS #13 & /t4 8318 SEATING PLANS - AUDITORIUMS /15 & /16 BCFIEBJ DETAU *THEATRE R ROOF WAIXS / ROOF SEPARATION O. 0204.04 IIIETdOR BEARING WALLS O. TABLE 801 O. TABLE 807. NOT LESS TIRM THE FIE RESISTANCE RATING 'E%IEiIOR BEARING WALLS BASED OI F11E SEPARATION DISTANCE PER TAWS 802 NOT BEARING WAILS INTERIOR EXR TABLE 80'{ $EC710N 602 & NAKI •FLOOR CONSTRUCTION O. TABLE 801 B401 PRQEC7)ON &SCREEN SYSTEM ISOMETRICS B402 SCREEN SYSTEM PLANS & ELEVATIONS 8403 SCREEN SYSTEM DETAILS SPECIFICATIONS / - 0. TABLE 6 NOT OVER WOOD ONES SODOM M ROOF RUBS S AND N IN GIRDERSS NOT OVBR 2 STORES TRUCTN (TOSSES AND semi CONSTRUCTION (TREES AS PMT OF ROOF CONSTRUCTION STABLE 601 W) 91MT ENCID97RES 1 HOUR 707.4. • • DESIGNED AND PERMITTED BY LANDLORD. RE 941E BURDNG DRAWINGS OG BUILDING AREA SUMMARY SHEET INDEX - STRUCTURAL ANF & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING STRUCTURAL EONEERS @I(1� 9420 Toler Avenue, Suit* 118 E Mente, Ca. 91731 Telephone 628 -44B -8182 G INC. 50.0 GENERAL STRUCTURAL INFORMATION SO.1 GENERAL FRAMING INFORMATION AND NOTES 51.0 BASE LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A S1.1 BASE LEVEL FLOOR PUN B 520 STADIUM SEATING FRAMING PUN A 521 STADIUM SEATING FRAMING PLAN B S3.0 FRAMING DETAILS 54.10 STADIUM SEATING SECTIONS 54.2 STADIUM SEATING SECTIONS $. ""° 64-00 iF; • Odt ®7BW9 PLAN }347 CUR 9-7-67 I LEVEL 3 THEATRE LEVEL MLA.). 70.825 RFFI F["iF F1 �Q/ii � LEVI 4 MEZZANINE LEW. . .15,852 • • • • I _ A311 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN - LEVEL 3 NEST H A312 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN - LEVEL 3 EAST H A313 REFLECTED CEIUNC PUN -LEVEL 4 WEST H A314 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN -LEVEL 4 EAST H - ELFYATIONB - SECTIgNB TOTAL SQUARE FEET . 86,677 720 qiw Way, 01- 1400 720 08 Seattle. Wa 98101 -1853 Telephone 206 - 667 -0555 Focslm0e 208- 867 -0554 19203 3369. Avenue Weal Suite 108 O _ - -. «7.1r• "e "- ;EALING "SUMMARY J SEAT TABUAIIIN VIED ACM:39M MTN. AUDI OBU1- 7 W 16 2888 7.968 A411 ROOF PLA3OR A411 ROO- PLAN A421 BOLDING ELEVATIONS A422 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A431 BUILDING SECTIONS A432 BUILDING SECTIONS A441 AUDITORIUM SECTIONS .0442 AUDITORIUM SECTIONS 6443 AUDITORIUM SECTIONS liafflOgi 6511 FINISH SCHEDULE A512 FINISH MATERIALS SCHEDULE 6521 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS - LOBBY & CORRIDORS P521A INTERIOR ELEVATIONS -ENTRY LOBBY A522 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS - RESTROOMS A531 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS - AUDITORIUMS A532 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS - AUDITORIUMS As 2 FINISH FLOOR PLANS - LEVEL 3 EAST H A543 FINISH FLOOR PLANS - LEVEL 4 (((WEST HALF A544 FINISH FLOOR PLANS - LEVEL 4 (EAST H A545 FINISH FLOOR PLANS L LEVEL 3 TERRAZZO LAYOUT) A551 WALL FINISH FLOOR PLANS - LE 3 WEST H A552 WALL FINISH FLOOR PLANS - LEVEL 4 EAST HA A554 WALL FINISH FLOOR PLANS - LEVEL 4 EAST H EA BEVEL-3 CEA DIVIDED BY SEATING) 24.55 N/A / N/A O • O K 0 O QIIfE$ N O GENERAL THFATRE DATA. Lynnwood, Wa 98036 -5773 e Telethon 425 -672 -1071 Face0n0e 125 -778 -8769 TEARY 5TA11EY KERRY STA ING �,��, ' CONTACT /m MAIN SUED, RIME MO 4eI 2501 FAX fI6) 480 469-6 1 ROW SPACING DATA u.. ..i., ... _ % : i1 0e N.31 F 2 Sur EAT" SHEET INDEX - MECHANICAL OFARMO OLEEAL 1 SEATING EFTXENCY RATIO ER FLOOD ARE11s RID SEATING) 24.55 14 WSW 9- BIT,W., SENA WNW r EDAH 9-741 I 5 FEELING STATIONS: 5780 3) 7 N. BUT TRICE 751136 PROJECT r/�V J EO�R� a�o C'- E,Wp9. e THEATRES �` -_ 1634 -9 T ..II QTR N , SHOPPENCTOwN �I..�� _' 4. �W O1� .. WN IKUNTES AUTOMATED TILLER YACIIE (ENTRY LOBBY) 1 AN. WA1L MONIED 608 MEP100 MECHANICAL. ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING MEP201 MECHANICAL ¢EELECTRIC ELECTRICAL / / 6101 HVAC FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 14102 HVAC FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 3 M103 HVAC FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 M201 HVAC ELARGED PLANS CE� 4 M301 MECHANICAL SCHEDULES U302 MECHANICAL SCHEDULES 6401 MECHANICAL DETAILS LEGEND ROOF PLAN WEST HALF) EAST H NEST H EAST HALF • • • • 1 j ALIENATED TOMS (E%iDWI) 4 AID 110ET 57.0710$ 1•1E MOWED 8851 SERVICES 2 EOa0 SIATIIINS Il CQlO59M 3) 14 SELLING STA7IMS CONCERN PUBLIC PAY PITIES (ENTRY LOBBY) I UNIT P14018 F ENS VAL 1. THEATRE IMPROVEMENT f1RE SFIIOQFR 5YS1EM INPROVENNT FIRE NAM SYSTDA 3 MPROVEME+r Ex,Ew� SKINACE NOTE OFF- -RED SUBMITTALS SHALL 9E APPROVED BY TIE AMC MUM' e1R018E T PROJECT MCHITE0T/FNfI118R AND TEN SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO ME Ott FOR RENEW AND APPROVAL A LETTER SHAM A M SUBMITTED TU BAD( BUILDING THE AMC TENANT REVIEW AND APPROVAL O ETTER FROM A CM Cr 1 BM T OTHE MCT TEN STA�n� T THE PLANS AND CAILUA.VTIOb AIE FCUNO ro BE AOCEPTABIE Wrnl No UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT • SHEET INDEX - PLUMBING P001 PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 P101 PLUMBING FLOOR PUN - LEVEL J WEST M P102 PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 EAST HALF P103 PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 WEST H P104 PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL. 4 EAST HALF P201 PLUMBING ENLARGED PLANS P202 PLUMBING ENLARGED PLANS P301 PLUMBING SCHEDULES AND NOTES P401 PLUMBING DETAILS P501 PLUMBING WASTE AND VENT RISER DIAGRAMS P502 PLUMBING NATURAL GAS RISER DIAGRAM >mHVA WWII RA)e 6-716 WOVE RA18 7306 MEW RA18 6G-00 QiBW6 RIM 1347 fflTk1 9- I L THEATRE BUIDIG CORE AND SIFT KUM BUT NOT LIMITED TR PERIMETER RIMING 501111, ALL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STEM MUMS FRAMES. AND SUPPOR75 ALL MEZZANINE STRUCTURAL SYSIDIS ALL STADIUM WED. APR/ DECKING SISTEIS AU. FLOOR AND ROOF DECK ASSEMB145, ONMA STAR ASSEMBLIES CINEMA ELEVATORS/ESCALATORS STSIFNS, S O U T H C E N T E R ,� 633 !•uNe•nOw 6-11 Haas WA. -mm -9000 234 -0111 4611 DOOR SCHEDULE A821 DOOR DETAILS WALL TYPE >3 EB • • • • • 011&A DOT STARS AND BALCONY ASSEMBLIES ARE UNDER SEPARATE OTT OF TUKWBA BURRING PERMIT. 2 SEPARATE APPLICATION AND PERNT IS MOUSED FOR THE FOLON N0 A. THEATRE TENANT IMPROVEMENT BUILD CUT, B THEATRE TENANT IMPROVEMENT TIRE SPRINTER MEN G THEATRE TENMT IMPROVEMENT ELECTRICAL NW a THEATRE TENANT IMPROVEMENT YEQIIMGL MIRK E THEATRE TENANT IMPROVEMENT PLWBING WOK F. THEATRE TEIUNT IMPROVEMENT FIRE ALARM SYB1EL6 a THEATRE TENANT MPROVflERT MERTON BUILDING SOLACE FIRE PROTECTION ' • g, 6701 STUD TABLES AND TOP TRACK A702 WALL FRAMING DETAILS AND CONDITIONS A703 WALL FRAMING DETAILS AND CONDITIONS A721 WALL TYPE SCHEDULE A722 WALL TYPE SCHEDULE A723 WALL TYPE SCHEDULE A724 WALL TYPE SCHEDULE A725 WALL TYPE SCHEDULE HANDRAIL PLANS LOCATION MAP PROJECT LOCATION - p v - t SHEET INDEX - ELECTRICAL • k ry saTO v� Y^? '€'fie i '�'� :-.7".• NOT USER t. APPROVAL BY g7UNtt HEAL7M DEPARTMENT FOR FOCI ESTABLISHMENT 6 REQUIRED • PRIOR 70 08FANCE OF PERMIT. 2 NO ALCHCUC BEVERAGES ARE PERMITTED W1HCUT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 3. REFERENCE SHEET 1108, MEN. a FOR PWMBING FOnIRE SOEDUE DCCUPANT I DAD 6811 LEVEL 3 - Ai1OTORIUM 8 STAIR HANDRAIL PLANS .0812 LEVEL 3 - AUDITORIUM &STAIR HANDRAIL PLANS LEVEL 4 - AUDITORIUM &STAIR HANDRAIL PLANS .0814 LEVEL 4 - AUDITORIUM & STAR HAREEM PLANS A821 ELEVATOR DETAILS LSE BEE H HAf HEST H H WSW 9891 H.VS in 6496 9- MEW ROW NZ p/IS 7•A00 R2F06 ffi10iRI fBA1 pL/IS 47 tE0/ 9-741 I ....a.4.... {7}• • Q ',? �;. 146600"ATI'R9 Y"� E101 E101 POWER FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 NEST E702 POWER FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 ((EAST 0104 POWER FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 (EAST - EAST 0104 UQITING FLOOR PLAN - LSE EL 3( E202 LIGHTING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 E203 LIGHTING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 E211 LIGHTING FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 4 E211 9GNACE & WAYFMDNG FLOOR PLAN - E212 9GNAGE & WAYRNDING FLOOR PLAN - E301 SPECIAL SYSTEMS FLOOR PUN - LEVEL E302 SPECIAL SYSTEMS FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL E303 SPECIAL SYSTEMS FLOOR PUN - LEVEL E401 SPECIAL AL ENLARGED GED PEAR - LEVEL E401 ELECTRICAL ENLARGED POKER PLANS E402 ELECTRICAL ENLARGED POWER PLANS E502 ELECTRICAL DETAILS E601 AUDIO AND AUTOMATION DIAGRAM E702 PANELBOAD SCHEDULES E703 PANELBOAD SCHEDULES E/9- PANF180AD SCHEDULES E705 ELECTRICAL ONE UNE DIAGRAMS FP101 FIRS SITE UTIUTY PLAN FP201 FIRST FLOOR PLAN AREA 'A' FIRE FP202 FIRST FLOOR PLAN AREA 'B' IRE FP203 SECOND FLOOR PLAN AREA '91 FIRE FP204 SECOND FLOOR PUN AREA 'B FIRE FP300 FIRE PROTECTION DETAILS H HALF H H WIEST (EAST HALF WEST EAST H LEVEL LEVEL 3 3 4 4 PROTECTION PROTECTION PROTECTION PROTECTION H H J T H 3 EAST H ( T HALF EAST H NEST H EAST H • • • • • • • ' j j i I ( tin 4 �' '�' 11 L y _ \ C \MN" s V ` -Y �� J -7^'r• r } j �. 111 • - • 1J • �r i 'vea' <' d yyyy yy• �_ �, 4 �,MTY ?� j� L�+ 1I. „ ti +R 7 p <" a .:-. AS �-'_, R+'x,„ -.. • •. 1s A911 SIGHT UNE DIAGRAMS DIAGRAMS .0912 SIGHT UNE DIAGRAMS j�e �e A1002 STANDARD DETAILS A1001 STANDARD DETAILS A1003 STANDARD DETAILS A1005 STANDARD DETAILS A1005 STANDARD DETAILS 61006 STANDARD DETAILS A1007 STANDARD DETAILS .01008 STANDARD DETAILS;: A1009 STANDARD DETAILS A1011 STANDARD DETAILS A101 STANDARD DETAILS .01012 STANDAD DETAILS .07013 STANDARD DETAILS • REFERENCE DRANNGS Y712 01 3 VEL 1. LEVF1 3 - THEATRE LEVEL/LOBBY/QUEUING Y NC ADS /0118.0 3.521 LEVEL TEVEL I - PANT 30 LOAD TOTAL OCCUPANT LOA) 3,560 ol_....2,s--B Q `` • �P 077 pECE -. 7 s...1 '/ a - 1 • r ,5 • s3' •. ^ �+o� •P+. �!' ' 9„ _ I ., to ,rtc� 1 bf°'" u: '•"'kl Peres EY ��o& ! h 1' ie 9-'i p 1 ^ . a f N 1 � g '+N 74,.... +-- r �"b @Jiu �vy.WT111 7 .rR S aiR •}T p r OVERALL WAYTINONG PLAN - THEATRE LEVEL 3 WF112 OVERALL WAYFlNDING PLAN - MEZZANINE LEVEL 4 WF200 WAVTMDING DETAILS WF201 WAIFWDWG DETAILS WF202 WAYFINDING DETAILS WF203 WATTINONG DETAILS WF204 MATRONS DETAILS WF205 PAWNING DETAILS WF208 WAYFWONG DETAILS WAYRNDING DETAILS V / 4.T T%+t .RC +� f �- ice/ •�.. +L�'t; .•rte , - .... 1•+ �i,.. .. Mp _' `� _ - . "E�. W STATE OF WASHINGTON TITLE SHEET, SHEET INDEX, '101 PROJECT DATA �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlO iIlI IIIlIIIIIIIIIII L LL 0 i n _1l ) t_ _ l it jy r a SPAN 465 S IIL Lu i Gant e,tii9 i Page 1 of 1 15720 -0292 59700 -0257 59700 -0'4 Cr at 0 62304 -9086 62301 -9023 62304 -908 37'20 -0330 37'20 - 0'40_ 636420-00 0 it NI 262304 -908 4 I . • gipyr C 'mQ , 0,pstomer Ditajssoltaufaiser. TeleAtlas; Digital Map Products 262304!9090 L ]� a.. ay 4 I Q 345 ft N CityGIS Copyright 02006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary properly of the contributor supplied under license and may not be approved except as licensed by Digital Map Products. http : / /maps.digitalmapcentral.com/ production /CityGIS /v07_01_059 /index.html 02/17/2009 Westfield Southcenter Trip Generation Matrix EIS Permitted Proposed Use Quantity Weekday PM Peak Hour Rate Total Quantity Weekday PM Peak Hour Rate Total Quantity Weekday PM Peak Hour Rate Total Existing Southcenter Trip Generation Shopping Center a Total Driveway Trips b Shopping Center Pass -By Trips c Net New Trips 1,252,317 GLA 2.98 3732 1,252,317 GLA 2.98 3732 1,252,317 GLA 2.98 3732 3732 19% 710 3022 3732 19% 710 3022 Expanded Southcenter Trip Generation Shopping Center Financial Restaurant Bank Theater Hotel 1,712,464 GLA 2.68 4589 21,101 GSF 10.86 229 4,000 Seats 0.14 560 140 Rooms 0.49 68 1,590,357 GLA 2.79 4437 7,207 SF 2.79 20 10,209 GSF 10.86 111 7,451 SF 25.82 192 2,968 Seats 0.14 416 3732 19% 710 3022 1,668,942 GLA 2.79 4656 7,207 SF 2.79 20 10,209 GSF 10.86 111 7,451 SF 25.82 192 2,968 Seats 0.14 416 d Total Trips e Less Restaurant/Theater /Bank/Hotel Capture Trips f Total Driveway Trips (f =d -e) Pass -by Shopping Center Bank Restaurant 5446 25% 214 5232 17% 780 43% 98 5176 25% 180 4996 17% 754 17% 33 43% 47 5395 25% 180 5216 17% 792 17% 33 43% 47 g Total Pass -By Trips h Net New Trips (h =f -g) 878 4354 834 4162 872 4344 Net Trip Generation i Total Trips (i =d -a) j Driveway Trips (j =f -a) k Net New Trips (k =h -c) m Pass -by Trips (m =j -k) 1715 1500 1332 168 1444 1264 1140 124 1663 1484 1322 162 Remaining Trips Available 192 Remaining Trips Available 10 Non - Credited Trips n Mervyn's 86,115 GLA 2.79 240 Pass -by o Mervyn's 17% 41 p Net Non - Credited Trips for Impact Fee Purposes (p =n -o) 199 P: \Cyndy\Development Review\Westfield Impact FeesWestfield Impact Fees Trip Generation 2004 EIS Square footage Gross Leasible Area Type of Use 535,347 Main Mall 70,355 21,101 626,803 Hotel restaurants Gross Leasible Area Gross Building Area 161,100 Common & Service Area 787,903 Gross Building Area Pre - expansion GBA Post - expansion GBA Proposed N- expansion GBA Westfield Southcenter Square footage Phase 1 Type of Use (47,883) Demo (old food court) 385,923 Main Mall 7,200 Outparcel (Fidelity) 7,541 Outparcel (BOA) 0 Hotel 10,209 Restaurant (Cheesecake) 362,990 Gross Leasible Area 118,928 Common & Service Area 481,918 Gross Building Area 1,438,371 1,920,289 2,026,033 LIS 10,1414. !$ tout* Combined PH 1 & PH 2 Remaining GBA under D.A. Square footage (86,115) 150,557 (4,433) 18,576 I 0 0 78,585 Phase 2 Type of Use Demo (Mervyn's GLA) Main Mall Demo (US Post Office) Outparcel (Garage A) Hotel Restaurant Gross Leasible Area 27,159 Common & Service Area 105,744 Gross Building 587,662 200,241 Area • • Westfield Southcenter 2004 EIS Phase 1 Phase 2 Square footage Type of Use Square footage Type of Use Square footage Type of Use 535,347 leaseable retail 398,247 Leaseable retail main mall 64,442 leasable retail main mall 7,200 Fidelity Financial Services building 18,576 outparcel retail 70,355 hotel 7,541 Bank of America with drive through 21,101 restaurants 7 12,000 Cheesecake restaurant 626,803 gross leasable 424,988 Gross Leasable building area 83,018 gross leasable 161,100 241,687 Common Area 787,903 Total gross building area 666,675 Total Gross Building area !o, i2 vesfr tvaj,, 12-q� -ot stt atta* 5t: `II/Ltu`t w� tin trAmisi/tio- 1p/ -Wp-wwwfri Pfrw"k • OS (EXISTING) IDS (NEW) )NS • :CTIONS (TERIOR ,TIONS O CONSTRUCTION TYPES and REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM CONSTRUCTION TYPE FOR NEW EXPANSION, TYPE II -B UNPROTECTED NONCOMBUSTIBLE (CHAPTER 6 IBC) UNPROTECTED NONCOMBUSTIBLE EXISTING MALL BUILDING TO BE DEDICATED: "UNPROTECTED NONCOMBUSTIBLE" O OCCUPANCY GROUPS PRIMARY OCCUPANCY INCIDENTAL OCCUPANCY O EGRESS AND EXITS DOOR WIDTH IN INCHES (PER IBC CHAPTER 10) STAIR WIDTH IN INCHES (PER IBC CHAPTER 10) SEE EGRESS DRAWINGS FOR OCCUPANT LOAD GROUP M GROUP A3 & GROUP B 0.15 X OCCUPANT LOAD 0.20 X OCCUPANT LOAD ALCULATIONS AND EXIT WIDTHS OCCUPANT LOADS SEE EGRESS DRAWINGS FOR OCCUPANT LOAD CALCULATIONS AND EXIT WIDTHS PARKING REQUIREMENTS PARKING PROVIDED (TOTAL W/ H.C.) PARKING, RATIO (PER 1,000 S.F. OF GLA) ACCESSIBLE PARKING: 20 + 1 FOR EVERY 100 OVER 1,000 SPACES ACCESSIBLE PARKING PROVIDED (INCLUDING VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACES) O FIRE RESISTIVE REQUIREMENTS EXTERIOR WALLS LOAD BEARING NON LOAD BEARING INTERIOR PERMANENT PARTITIONS DEMISING PARTITIONS STRUCTURAL FRAMES COLUMNS AND PRIMARY BEAMS SECONDARY BEAMS FLOORS, CEILING /FLOOR ROOF SHAFTS AND STAIR ENCLOSURES • (TABLE 601 IBC) AREA TABULATIONS 6975 4.1 80 94 0 HR 0 HR 0 HR 1 HR 0 HR 0 HR 0 HR 0 HR 1 HR 1i�lisiic No. Revision C ® PLAN CHECK REVISIONS 200, A REVISION 'I' 200, A ADDENDUM J 20C n ,L A REVIEWED E COLMPIANCE CODE A a11a11 nueo City Of Tukwila I! S DEMOLISHED GLA < 47,883 SQ FT < 47,883 SQ FT MALL EXPANSION 398,247 SQ FT COMMON MALL 106,604 SQ FT - QUTPARCFI S 25,000 SQ FT 25,000 SO FT TOTAL PROPOSED 83,721 SQ FT 375,364 SQ FT TOTAL EXISTING + PROPOSED GLA KIOSKS TFNANT RFSTROOMS / FOUIPMFNT ROOMS ( -5 %) NET EXISTING + PROPOSED UFA COMPLIMENTARY USE REVISED UFA PARKING REQUIRED @ 5 SPACES / 1,000 SG FT UFA ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF 4.5% REQUIRED PARKING EXISTING PARKING DISPLACED PARKING NFW PARKIN(; TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING 1,656,173 SQ FT 3,201 SQ FT (R2 ..969) SO FT 1,576,405 .SQ FT,I 115,9.95 ; SQ.�:FT 1,460;410 :.S0' FT Sheet Title 329 SPACES (1,559) SPACES 152Q SPACES 6,975 SQ FT FEB 7� %' PERIVin COMPARISON OF SF CALCULATIONS BEWIEEN OCTOBER 20 2006 MD JANUARY 19 2006 GLA LEVEL 1 ADJACENT TO SEARS (;I A I FVFI 2 An.IACFNT TO SFARS TOTAL GLA GLA LEVEL 1 ADJACENT TO SEARS I.1 A I FVFI 2 AD,IACFNT TO SFARS TOTAL GLA VARIATION 48,574 SQ FT 33,7RA SQ FT 82,360 SQ FT 5-r ob. ,No. Date 1129' 46,574 SQ FT 35,469 SQ FT A0.0 Calls for Service (CFS) and Case Reports on Mall Property 2000 -April 2003 Calls for Service (CFS) and Case Reports Citywide 2000 -April 2003 2000 2001 2002 2003 Jan -Apr 2003 Projected CFS 3069 3404 3277 1076 3499 Cases 1246 1284 1267 419 1363 Percent 41% 38% 39% 39% 39% Calls for Service (CFS) and Case Reports Citywide 2000 -April 2003 2000 2001 2002 2003 Jan -AK 12043 2003 Projected 36494 CFS 37728 36362 36283 Cases 9527 8900 8611 3178 9630 Percent 25% 24% 24% 26% 26% • October 2004 City of Tukwila Steven M Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director October 1, 2004 Dear Reader, Attached to this letter is the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed 787,903 square foot expansion of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter, which is located in the southeast corner of the I -5 and I -405 intersection in Tukwila. A draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued on June 21, 2004 with comments due back to the City on July 21, 2004. Nine comment letters were received by the deadline and are contained in Chapter 3 along with responses to each letter. We encourage your review of both the draft, which contains the majority of the analysis, and the final, which contains additional concerns, comments and quantitative air quality analysis. After seven days the City will be able to approve any land use requests or construction permits associated with the project outlined in this environmental analysis. Review of any requests for construction of the project will take into consideration the impacts associated with the project and measures that could be used to mitigate those impacts. Several applications are currently pending a decision — an administrative variance from the City's parking standards and Board of Architectural Review. Questions on the above two applications or about this project may be directed to me or to Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development, City of Tukwila; 206 431 -3651 . or at mbradshaw@ci.tukwila.wa.us. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster, Director SEPA Responsible Official 16300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN SOUTHCENTER EXPANSION CITY OF TUKWILA SEPA File No. E03 -010 Prepared in compliance with The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Re- vised Code of Washington Ch.4321 C, and City of Tukwila SEPA Policies and Procedures Date of Issue: October 6, 2004 1 PREFACE This Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion has been prepared in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (Chapter 43.21C, Revised Code of Washington); the SEPA Rules, effective April 4, 1984, as amended (Chapter 197 -11, Washington Administrative Code); and rules adopted by the City of Tukwila (Title 21: Environmental Regulations, Tukwila Municipal Code), the lead agency for the environmental review of the project under SEPA. Preparation of this Final EIS is the responsibility of the City of Tukwila Depart- ment of Community Development. This Final EIS includes a Fact Sheet, Chapter 1 (Summary), and Chapter 2 (Description of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative) from the Draft EIS, and Chapter 3 — comments on the Draft EIS and their accompanying responses. The Draft EIS for this proposal was issued on June 21, 2004. A 30 -day comment period followed issuance of the Draft EIS in accordance with WAC 197 -11- 455(6). The com- ment period on the Draft EIS concluded on July 21, 2004. A total of 10 comment letters on the Draft EIS were received from state and regional agencies, tribes, organizations, and businesses. Responses to these letters are provided in Chapter 3 of this Final EIS. FACT SHEET Name of Proposal Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion. Proponent Westfield Corporation, Inc. Location The Proposed Action is located on the existing 85 -acre Southcenter site in the block bounded by Tukwila Parkway to the north, Southcenter Parkway to the west, Strander Boulevard to the south, and Andover Park West to the east. The expansion would primarily occur within the southern portion of the site. I -5 and I -405 intersect near the northwest corner of the shopping cen- ter. Proposed Action The Proposed Action consists of development approvals that would allow expansion and renovation of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter (Southcenter). The maxi- mum expansion would increase the size of Southcenter to a total of 2,226,274 square feet (sf) of gross building area (gba), and would consist of additional retail com- mercial uses, restaurants, a movie theater complex, a hotel, and parking structures. The proposed expansion and renovation of the mall would add up to 535,347 sf of retail shops, anchor stores, expanded food court space, and a theater. In ad- dition, up to three freestanding restaurants (21,101 sf) and a 70,355- square -foot hotel would be developed on outparcels peripheral to the mall. Altogether, the shop- ping center would increase by 626,803 sf of gross leas- able floor area (glfa). An additional 161,100 sf of space would be developed for mall common area and service area, bringing the increase in gross building area to 787,903 square feet. The expansion would extend the footprint of the mall generally to the south, establish a second level of retail shops, and provide two parking structures. All development would occur within the ex- isting shopping center site. Construction of the expanded shopping center is sched- uled to begin in 2004 and be complete in 2006. De- pending on market conditions, part of the expansion could be eliminated or deferred until a later time. How- ever, for the purposes of this EIS, all uses are assumed to be open in 2006. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Fact Sheet No Action Alterna- tive SEPA Lead Agency SEPA Responsible Official EIS Contact Person Required Permits & Approvals Expansion of the shopping center would not occur in the foreseeable future for any uses under the No Action Al- ternative. Existing trends in levels of patronage would prevail, and any changes in land use and transportation in the vicinity would be those that would occur under existing conditions. The No Action Alternative repre- sents a baseline against which the Proposed Action can be evaluated. City of Tukwila, Department of Community Develop- ment. Steve Lancaster, Director City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Moira Can Bradshaw, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: 206.431.3670 Fax: 206.431.3665 E -mail: mbradshaw(aci.tukwila.wa.us Preliminary investigation indicates that the following approvals and/or actions would be required for devel- opment of the proposed Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion. Additional permits and/or ap- provals may be identified as project design is finalized. City of Tukwila - Complementary and Parking Variance Approvals - Design Review and Approval - Boundary Adjustment/Lot Consolidation Approval - Building Permit - Demolition Permit - Mechanical Permit - Hauling Permit - Type C— Construction, Right -of -Way, and Grading Permits - Fire Protection System Permits ii Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Fact Sheet Authors /Principal Contributors to this EIS Type/Timing of Subsequent Envi- ronmental Review Location of Back- ground Data Seattle /King County Health Department - Plumbing Permit State Agencies - Department of Ecology - Coverage under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (for general construction activities) - Department of Labor & Industries - Elevator Permits - Electrical Permits Regional Agencies - Puget Sound Clean Air Agency - Notice of Asbestos Removal The Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion EIS has been prepared under the direction of the City of Tukwila. Research and analysis for this EIS have been provided by the following consulting firms: • Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. — lead EIS consultant, document preparation, public services and utilities, fiscal analysis; • MFG, Inc. — air quality; • Pentec Environmental, Inc. — water (stormwater quality and quantity), plants and animals (fisher- ies effects of stormwater); and • The Transpo Group — transportation. No subsequent environmental review would be required for the development addressed in the EIS. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Fact Sheet iii Supporting SEPA Documents Date of Issuance of the Draft EIS Date of Issuance of this Final EIS Availability /Cost of Final EIS Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. 270 -3"d Avenue, Suite 200 Kirkland, Washington 98033 The following existing environmental documents are incorporated by reference for purposes of SEPA com- pliance (WAC 197 -11 -635): • Tukwila Municipal Code • Tukwila Comprehensive Plan EIS, 1995 • Transportation Element Background Report, 1993 • Gilliam Creek Basin Stormwater Management Plan, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., 2001 June 21, 2004 October 6, 2004 Copies of this Final EIS have been distributed to agen- cies, organizations and individuals noted on the Distribu- tion List. Copies are also available for review at the fol- lowing locations: • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 • Foster Library 4060 S. 144th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Paper copies may be purchased at the City for the cost of reproduction. iv Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Fact Sheet TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Fact Sheet i 1. Summary Proponent/Project Location S -1 Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative S -1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigating Measures, and Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts S -2 2. Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative Name of the Proposal 2 -1 Proponent 2 -1 Description of Proposed Action 2 -1 Nature and Location of the Proposed Action 2 -1 Background 2 -1 Objectives of the Proposed Action 2 -4 Proposed Project 2 -4 No Action Alternative 2 -11 3. Comment Letters and Response to Comments Introduction 3 -1 Distribution List Appendix A: Air Quality Report Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS V Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 -1 Summary of Impacts S -3 1 -2 Summary of Mitigating Measures S -10 2 -1 Proposed Action Development Assumptions 2 -6 3 -1 2010 Proposed Action Traffic Volume Impact — Weekday PM Peak Hour Without and With Strander Boulevard Extension 3 -19 3 -2 2010 Proposed Action LOS Summary -- Weekday PM Peak Hour Without and With Strander Boulevard Extension 3 -20 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2 -1 Regional Map 2 -2 2 -2 Vicinity Map 2 -3 2 -3 Existing Site Development 2 -5 2 -4a Site Plan — Level 1 2 -7 2 -4b Site Plan — Level 2 2 -8 2 -4c Site Plan — Level 3 2 -9 3 -1 Project Trip Distribution — Effect of Strander Boulevard Extension 3 -21 vi Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 Summary The following information, which is reprinted from the Draft EIS, provides a general overview of the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion project. It briefly de- scribes the proposed expansion and renovation of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter ( Southcenter)', compares the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative, and sum- marizes the expected environmental impacts, mitigating measures that would address the impacts, and the significant unavoidable adverse impacts. Proponent/Project Location Westfield Corporation, Inc. proposes to expand and renovate the existing Southcenter shopping center, located in the City of Tukwila, Washington. The proposed project would be located within the existing 85 -acre Southcenter site. The site is bounded by Tukwila Parkway to the north, Southcenter Parkway to the west, Strander Boulevard to the south, and Andover Park West to the east. I -5 and I -405 intersect near the northwest corner of the shopping center. The site is within the City of Tukwila's Urban Center (TUC), which is bounded by I -405, I -5, South 180`'' Street, and West Valley High- way /eastern city limits. Please see Chapter 2 for figures depicting the geographical loca- tion of the proposed project. Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative Proposed Action In accordance with objectives of the proponent to improve the market position of South - center as a regional, commercial shopping complex that offers a wide variety of mer- chandise options and retail opportunities to consumers, the Proposed Action seeks to ex- pand and renovate the existing shopping center by 787,903 square feet of gross building area (gba) [626,803 square feet of gross leasable floor area (glfa)] to a total of 2,226,274 square feet gba (1,926,947 square feet glfa). The development would include additional retail uses, restaurants, a movie theater complex, a hotel, and parking structures. All de- velopment would occur within the existing shopping center site, generally within the southern portion of the site. Please see Chapter 2 for figures depicting the proposed site plan. Construction of the proposed improvements is scheduled to begin in 2004 for completion in 2006. Depending on market conditions, construction of some of the square footage, including the freestanding restaurant space and the hotel, could be deferred until a later Use of the words "Southcenter" and "shopping center" refers to the entire site and its uses (shopping mall and outparcels), whereas "mall" or "shopping mall" refers to the self - contained retail facility with anchor stores, food court, and specialty retail uses all connected by promenades. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS S -1 Summary time. For the purpose of environmental review, however, the Proposed Action presented in this EIS represents the maximum development potential of the proposal. Access to the shopping center would continue to be provided from Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard, and Andover Park West. No additional access to the site would be provided under the Proposed Action. Access to the parking structures would be provided from the internal circulation roads. The number of parking stalls, in- cluding surface and structured parking, would increase by approximately 15.5 percent to 7,900 spaces total. In general, existing drainage patterns at the site would remain — surface water would be conveyed through underground pipes toward Gilliam Creek to the north and ultimately into the Green River near I -405. In accordance with the City of Tukwila's stormwater management regulations, the Proposed Action would provide for the installation of me- chanical catch basins in order to treat surface water runoff (collected from on -site imper- vious surfaces and roof drains). The area of impervious surface would not increase under the Proposed Action. Therefore, flow control would not be incorporated into the storm - water strategy. Increases in existing utilities' services would be necessary under the Proposed Action. Water, sewer, stormwater, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications systems would be reconfigured, relocated, and/or upgraded to varying degrees in order to meet the requirements of the Proposed Action. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative represents a baseline against which the Proposed Action can be evaluated. Without future improvements at Southcenter, the existing trends in levels of consumer activity could prevail, and any changes to land use and transportation in the vicinity would occur as a result of existing conditions, independent from any improve- ments at Southcenter. Under No Action, untreated surface water runoff would continue to be discharged from Southcenter into Gilliam Creek and the Green River. In addition, on -site utilities — particularly those currently eligible for improvements and upgrades — may not receive the appropriate level of improvements. Finally, the City would not bene- fit from the increased tax revenues that would be generated by an improved Southcenter. Summary of Impacts, Mitigating Measures, and Significant Un- avoidable Adverse Impacts Table 1 -1 summarizes potential impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alterna- tive. Table 1 -2 summarizes the mitigating measures for addressing the impacts identified in this EIS. Please see Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS for more complete information. S -2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Summary N 0 co Q E Table 1 -1. Summary of M N I PLANTS AND ANIMALS • Gilliam Creek would continue to be highly degraded but could improve through a planned fish habitat improvement project and other efforts by the City of Tukwila TRANSPORTATION y E N O ►. E 'C 0 C Q m E N CO Z` > Y N o ct a) O p C Il0 5 C C 7 'E C p _ a) C a) > to E N C O> m N C a) c c U o o n '� a� a� w E O o cc_ E T E a> y"mN m E> a) N w > co O C L o ap co Y U w 0 �` o c OUN(nn wY E o= E= E c m a a� o `m Et >, >. Cl- c a> p m N p U w o O y CcD in E N 2 � n 3 v� 17'9 "Q c c9 x 2 o o N -p C O ,y C m E o `- -D p c Y d ` ,4; C "C (n O o> a) m 3" Q X o Lir a) m C C CD "O O E N O co C a) o N > 'o o oo c v co p ... to C— c - o in • No significant impacts to plants, animals, fish or aquatic life are anticipated, relative to existing conditions • Cumulative impacts are not anticipated due to the highly developed nature of the area • Percent impact of project trips during the weekday PM peak hour would range from less than one percent at the outlying study intersections, to approximately 22 percent at study intersections adjacent to the site • Percent impact during the Saturday peak hour would range from approximately 3 percent to 28 percent • Largest percent increases during the weekday PM peak hour (approx. 22 percent) and the Saturday peak hour (approx. 28 percent) would both occur at two study intersections /site driveways: Andover Park West/Baker Boulevard and Mall- Target Driveway /Strander Boulevard w 0 N 0. w 8 0 U) 0 cd C) p in E ) N E N 1 1 1 s 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 i 1 1 0 c z aO O — .0 N a) L O C ca a) , w a) Y a N C 3 o v > 3 0 = a) Y ) ,u 2 a) a) F- O N U 3 3 0) C a E O C a) 0 0 • 0 3 0 7 (p N CO N j E N ! m y = E O O p 0 v) O C Ca 0 3 0 -o o N m> E °' w w N C �, w x U V) cco d U N Cu) 0 2 C 'O a) C C co N ~ c o m U a c c > o 1- .01-vo) aw0ov) 2c0 ) 2 EQ ■ Transit and Rail 0 • • • • rovements Non - Motorized Im Sidewalks will be constructed at • Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes are estimated at • a growth rate of 1.5 percent/yr Traffic Operations • u) 11 o O a) to a)) cC a) 0. a) 0 T o C Y 0) _ .y c 3 O to 3 Traffic Operations a) w 'O C 3 C a) V) 3 2 cts (I) C m LL 0 > V N (1) J O C O O U) a) m ` 'C ww co cc aS co 0 0 a3 N 0 0 L (0 J LL U CO a) E (f) �' m 0• O 0 co C o .- J z o o = o . E a) 4-1 3 U 8 C , w 0 O 3 O .0 O .0 O >. U o 0 m v co w a) co o .3 w a 3 a) 00 a):5 u) 0- m m O Y E O E N 0 3OJ To CC "°0 if)L. ON coa C C 0 uJ 0 0 O J 7 Q O N a3 > u) 1_ 0 C c`o a) co 0 a) m E ca a) woo '- 122 O O E -O LL 13 N 4= > .0 `2 w () 3 0 a)'- X032 O O-09760y L j O J c0 Y a) O i.13 a) N N w 3 L N rn U N C CI- y C 0 0 a) _0 O a o 80- 0 _DE C u) c m a) U C w c a) C a O (q co 7-1 a) O v U -2a Q y •C O •7 L a) Cr w. 3 O X 3 +. > ,� 0 Z •7 G 0 0 0 2 • • • E o 3 2 uJ 3 ` C O O "0 T. O C o a) U O m m O _ 0 m Oco CD C oco J 76 o 12 w a) 0. O is 0 73 a) a) 3 a� co x • >. O C Ca T N co > >. a -0 a) > co a0.. C N 0 CIS N `L 7 a) N a U D C O o 7 (/) U U O �> O C w > L 0 Y > O ` N aa) <sa 0. 0 Y . N 2z m �•c a) a c) a0 0- U c) N C a) E U N'O Q o co N C w a o3` to0 0 CD CO CD 0 0 J -J 117. E•_ (o 00 u@)0 -0J > • • 0 -a C •• co U) c I- co a) co a) w 2 C N C O a) a O '0 C a) U) C c`6 O U co a E a) U) a) CD co C CO U CC C 0, 'w- as a) a) U O C 0 3 3 u) a co C O 0 Q • N O 0 c O z U co U C LO-. N IVa)D Ca a -Dm U c co a v w m co 7 2 a) L N l'USC `U C U a0.. V) 3 -0 N c6 W 0 a)v EN C w O C N a) O o m L 0 a U a) U a 0 C Y a) a 13 C a co - a a a) N C7) C1 a) 0.4- .2 ^ 3 .c -c O co C > 0 N N 0 N .L-. a) m co m o 2>. co a) 0) m0 E >.c m co x a)v$ E VI 0 -c 3 ` CL >. U a , U a) d o a o xa E a N O co j 0 0 ._ o o y c � a? U) @ui (4) LToa) ugi 3 t 3 co v a) a) rnGaai ua "0 U ,` C L Y -0 N co -0 `- = a@ O U a) O NlnLw o) a) •C ca p a) a C 3 c co co E 3 0 3 E O @ a) 2 _0 2 a) N 4- a) a co .- V) co 0 0 a) 0 O To 3 N U C V) 'V f6 g- CD co O E io N y 2 0- c6 U V1 .– 0) N 0 •_ C C N co C I v N O ct , 4C•co co UC N a C o Y cp C a >' a) D c CO 3 nm ooc) E C U .0 2 0. 0 a a) N- a) C E F- O C co U •0 C p E c N 3 c 0) 2 aC 0 C a) O a.. a) Ca C N O y U C cn CL a) a L Y Y O E c0 L co C a a) O 0 z a OH C1-(00- 3 Cl_ 3 a U C • E ■ • ■ Y • • • i ca it a Summary of e- CO C▪ O H a) o 2 2Z M to 00 - 0.O w 3 � 7 O O) O O >, co C U) N - C C >, Y Ti., 0 7 g.0 CD co =E-o .5 > n 2 a) 7 C) c,20 >,000 5 da -om n o 3 � c E ,-u) E-o v) c. >, m 0 , 0 O w 0 c o) a0) U) y 4) O U O` 0 O L a) a) 3 0 7 c.... E • • 0 c15 7�m -omE a) a) O0 O 0 0> 7> 7 a) >, N D J n C U L 0 0 0« N D 0 CO 0 N O 0) -o -0 Co N 7 o N N w co 2, d co To uj co u) O d as i0 J a) Y C p c6 8 0 0 E Q o 0. >,v ?� ym-o 0 u'v �•� L o"0 > E co a) - Cc7maa))7ooa`)''3700 0 :I=4 P, • c 3N��3 _oioc�o>,aT>,>,o a)co a7 0 -,÷-,., U D w O a3 c0 Z a3 O a7 a3 a�j 0 U rn _ a) 3 0 3 3•c ui c° 0 co >,• O �� mo m m a) 7 a) 'C E O Z 0 > 13 > a) low o o nc co'c0 c c o c @ON O V) Z O 0 OONO..Jv o L.0 =a aJ ca ■ ■ • • H • ■ r. w m C i� 0 Cl) . co 0. w U 0 O O O) C 0 d 0 co • tv E • E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 t 1 t 1 f r 1 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES C na Q CD to U .c U 3 a) a) D E c= >. O U `2 a) (7) L a) 3 a) — my c m N N 0 c U- 7 y f6 m d.V N dO 0 a) a) O N U O C X c d N a) a = a) a3 6- _ -p 15 23.:f1:1 1) ° � ` U 7 -- 3'U a) s 2 a) a) O V) U OO° m N m m m T c v� N 0 m 0 o m .- XN � acc a) rna '= acc w�0E- . U vU O Z = 0 H c. 2 Construction Impacts is Vandalism, theft and /or trespassing could occur during construction • Construction traffic could require police presence and could reduce the Department's ability to respond to incidents elsewhere Operation Impacts • Based on Police Department estimates, calls for service could increase from 9.4 calls currently to 13 per 24- hour day (28 percent increase) • Number of cases could increase from 3.5 to 5 per 24 -hour day (30 percent increase) • Using an estimate based on the number of calls per 1,000 sf, the Proposed Action could result in an increase of 5 calls per day, or 1.4 more calls per 24 -hour day than Department estimates • Additional demands equate to the need for one additional FTE position. Without increases in staffing, indirect impacts to service levels and response times citywide could occur • Additional personnel may result in the need for expanded departmental facilities, but no additional vehicles or equipment would be necessary • Absence of a Community Resource Center could adversely impact service at Southcenter and would reduce police presence, potentially contributing to an increase in criminal activity • Overall, impacts to police services during operation would likely be moderate Table 1 -1. Summary of Impacts as a) 0 N D c a)d a) a) co E o >. N E U CO w O O U L .�'. m a? 0 o o aa) a) U _c a) L co O 0> N O C O � U a) CL co co o r` _a) C7 a) °. a) cO E a) — C a) >' E N N O E _o .c O 0 — 3 C o. O O1 ° aI O C o X 3 1_0 co d N 0 ' 0a)0. L 'U U L D L C L N N O) a7 D o > O 0 o a) -C N C °. C c0 n -0 Ua)3 O O N a) U N -0 a) C N 3 T _ (6 O d O U N 7 CO ? C) 2 U L V U)w3�3� ■ • • • U, r)� U a) 0. E a) E `o L a) U) • -0 w m 7 � U 0) 3 0ca m o a) ` _ C N 0 a) a) N E C 3 NN L N U C a) O s o .0 3 m v N o U) O C._ 3 C d� C X ("\ j o a), O C U a) C d U a) _c o 0)L a a) CO O 7 O,U) 0 U) o 3 N C 4 s E N 'p J N U 0. N C 0 -0O N co a) a 3 c, vLE m C j V O O N L U O_ O .. .N O 0 0) a) X - p_... of - 1:20 o 0 -O LO U N N w ILL.)) p o) ) U c 0 a > a) C ` a) U U N U > a) N E tr, O -0 C >+ C •OO U a) o N a7 a7 C w 3 0. 00)0 0 a) N N > N. 0 N 0 O D U O 0. OE =6oE N a) C a) — N a) .0 N a3 O C a3 f`6 a) o gyp o Z mQ ° asc)O ■ L d ) m • N • • 0°�6 'o Z`"0 in a) o w.. mo c. - U L C 'cj N a3 U C 0. 0 C V d E .0 TD a) (i) E 32 • ,1 w EF- a) 7. • • • N • ■ • W 5 N _o C a) 13- E m o 3 '7 C 0 Q U o U N > w a) A 2 O n E U CN1 CO L C Ira O) N O N c w a) 0 U y C C a) _ U as n a) C E .0 0. O 0 (D O CO to N C N N N L O_ a) CO O O -� N OS N iP N c N 7.-.) c co m o @ co - .0 U f) a c6 a7 j C 0. 2 ; O U CO N C o a N -o f`6 O c) a) •0 as �•. U o ai C E -c aN0 ooE 0 Z 'O .c N ate) 3o O Of U CO N a) N N C O U C N 0 N N �p a) c a) oE° O w N hi N =„ C LS 3 Uw, N. O U N'U m N 0 N 0 a) C 7 12 E°- ioc CO C) 0 U 'C 0 C (�6 O.L.+ �.Q ° Cl.) X -O o O N cc :.D) a) C 3 U E a a)a)N NG)a) co L... Q. V N .c co N r X m • .)a) N C a) 1E cu C 'y O a) 3.0 4) O N U N E N co T rnN N p) a) U) C 'X O) C a) 17)w o a) N L U RI 7 d N .E 0 N O) 0 ` OC o_a)y 0 - 'X O c C O Ev" o C 'V) O O N O U N w O 0 N 7 E rnU — O N aa)a) m c m E C E U a) N (0 0 0 T-.1 a) C U) • • U) W t6 C I C O N C as a W d) C c w O U) C 0 0) C .Q cp d O U) E E � to 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 i Summary of Impacts rn U) w m c iL 1 c 0 U) c Cu Q X w c U O to c 0 0) Q d 0 U) 75 as E N N E U) FISCAL ANALYSIS 0 c ED_ co U) U f0 .0 CL (0 n f0 -U N.- C is_ as • • Demand for communications services would increase and would require expansion or relocation of the existing termination space • Overall, impacts to communications are all site targeted and would be significant, but the upgrades would significantly benefit Southcenter Cumulative Impacts • Total costs incurred by the City of Tukwila: $33,000 in 2004 to $678,000 by 2012 (point at which project costs generally stabilize) • During construction, the City would incur costs primarily from the need for additional fire and EMS services • During operation, the City would incur costs for police services (20 percent of total), general government costs (55 percent), fire services (17 percent), and road /street maintenance (8 percent) Net Fiscal Surplus rn U) w m c iL 1 c 0 U) c Cu Q X w c U O to c 0 0) Q d 0 U) 75 as E N N E U) Table 1 -2. Summary of Mitigating Measures No Action Alternative I AIR QUALITY O co a) U) u) N a) E C co ... N rna`)) +• U E a) C 0 co Z • WATER RESOURCES e No mitigating measures would be necessary Proposed Action Construction Per the Washington Associated General Contractors brochure, Guide to Handling Fugitive Dust from Construction Projects, the following mitigating measures are recommended: • Use only equipment and trucks that are maintained in optimal operational condition • Require all off -road equipment to be retrofitted with emission reduction equipment • Use bio- diesel or other lower emission fuels for vehicles and equipment • Use carpooling or other trip reduction strategies for construction workers • Stage construction to minimize overall transportation system congestion and delays to reduce regional emissions of pollutants during construction • Implement construction curbs on hot days to reduce ozone emissions • Implement restrictions on construction truck idling (i.e., 5 minutes) • Locate construction equipment away from sensitive receptors, such as fresh air intakes for buildings, air conditioners, and sensitive populations • Locate construction staging zones in areas of least impact • Route and schedule construction trucks around high traffic periods to reduce emissions In addition, mitigating measures would be required in conjunction with City of Tukwila permits; specifically the applicant would be required to develop a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan and an Erosion Prevention and Sedimentation Control Plan. These plans include a number of additional mitigating measures relevant to reducing air quality impacts. Operation • In order to reduce vehicle volumes and /or improve operation of poor -LOS intersections during peak weekday and Saturday periods, transportation demand measures to improve mobility and measures that target shopping center employees could be implemented • No additional mitigating measures are proposed other than those listed in "Potential Transportation Mitigation Options" (Table 3 -19) • No mitigating measures would be necessary w co c L C 0 .N C x w C U -C 7 0 U) C 0 O Q) C Q d 0 L a) Cri a) N U) 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 r i 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 Summary of Mitigating Measures N w 1- cis w a U- 0 .y Cu a w a) U 7 0 N O Q) Q c- o t N a" E Table 1 -2. Summary of Mitigating Measures co V a. E L a) Ct▪ i ▪ O CD C Ri C a) No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be expected. N N U) W Co ii 0 N ca Q w a`) c L O N 0 0 rn .0 0 0 TD- N E CO a E 1 1 e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CHAPTER 2 Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative Name of the Proposal Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion. Proponent Westfield Corporation, Inc. Description of Proposed Action Nature and Location of the Proposed Action The Proposed Action consists of development approvals that would allow expansion and renovation of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter' (Southcenter) (Figure 2 -1). The maximum expansion proposed would increase the size of Southcenter by 787,903 square feet of gross building area (gba) [626,803 square feet of gross leasable floor area (glfa)] to a total of 2,226,274 square feet (1,926,947 square feet glfa). It would provide for addi- tional retail commercial uses, restaurants, a movie theater complex, a hotel, and parking structures. The Proposed Action represents the maximum development potential under this proposal. Market forces could result in lesser development or deferring portions of this development. For review purposes, the maximum development is assumed to open in 2006. The Proposed Action is located on the existing 85 -acre Southcenter site in the block bounded by Tukwila Parkway to the north, Southcenter Parkway to the west, Strander Boulevard to the south, and Andover Park West to the east (Figure 2 -2). The expansion would occur within the southern portion of the site. I -5 and I-405 intersect near the northwest corner of the shopping center. Background When Southcenter shopping center was opened in 1968 with the first enclosed mall in the region it had 1,298,937 square feet of glfa, including 137,393 glfa of outparcel develop- ment including the former Doubletree Inn. In 1989, the Nordstrom store was expanded and a food court replaced an existing grocery. In 1992, an anchor store (Mervyn's) and I Use of the words "Southcenter" and "shopping center" refers to the entire site and its uses (shopping mall and outparcels), whereas "mall" or "shopping mall" refers to the self - contained retail facility with anchor stores, food court, and specialty retail uses all connected by promenades. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 2 -1 Description of the Proposed Action Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. Huckell /Weinman HWA Associates, Inc. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Figure 2 -1 Regional Map 2 -2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Description of the Proposed Action Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 0.5 0 05 I Miles Figure 2 -2 Vicinity Map Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 2 -3 Description of the Proposed Action retail shops were added and Frederick and Nelson's was closed, which was subsequently replaced by Sears. Today, Southcenter includes five anchor department stores (Bon Macy's, J.C. Penney, Mervyn's, Nordstrom, and Sears) and over 150 specialty retail stores and restaurants (Figure 2 -3). The mall encompasses an area of 1,252,317 square feet of glfa. Outparcels around the mall contain two restaurants (Bahama Breeze and Olive Garden at 17,930 square feet) and a post office, Key Bank, and Firestone Auto Center (29,897 square feet total). A Bank of America branch is located north of Mervyn's along Tukwila Parkway, but it is not on property under Westfield's control. The former Doubletree Inn, located in the southwest corner of the site, was closed in December 2002 and will be demolished in 2004. The majority of the shopping center site is leased by Westfield (actual leaseholder entity is WEA Southcenter LLC, which is part of the Westfield group) from Prudential Financial, Inc., which owns the land. Approximately 15 acres is owned by Federated (Bon Macy's) that includes the land under the Bon and the parking area to the north. Westfield Corporation is the developer and operator of the shopping center site; Nord- strom, Sears, J.C. Penney, and Mervyn's sublease the land beneath their respective build- ings from Westfield and, in some cases, control the parking adjacent to their stores. Objectives of the Proposed Action The objectives of the proponent are to improve Southcenter's market position in continu- ing to operate a commercial shopping complex that offers high quality merchandise and competitive retail opportunities to consumers in the region. Specific objectives are to: • Respond to market conditions; • Strengthen the center's position as a super - regional shopping center; • Broaden the merchandise mix available at the center and add complementary uses; • Increase the ratio of small retailers to anchors; • Increase the number of upscale retailers to complement other existing high quality retailers /products; and • Improve the lifestyle component of the mall, including entertainment and dining. Proposed Project Development Assumptions The proposed expansion and renovation of the shopping mall would add 289,517 square feet of retail shops, 162,650 square feet of anchor stores, 7,980 square feet of expanded food court space, and a 75,200- square -foot theater. In addition, three freestanding restau- rants (21,101 square feet) and a 70,355- square -foot hotel would be developed on outpar- cels peripheral to the mall. Altogether, the shopping center would increase by 626,803 square feet of glfa. An additional 161,100 square feet of space would be developed for new mall common area and service area, bringing the increase in gross building area to 787,903 square feet. The expansion would extend the footprint of the mall generally to 2-4 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Description of the Proposed Action iV......."--.itncsenter Pa rkwav„.: xistin • ite 'eve opmen L NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEM N w To U- 0 (7) 0 w Zr) a a 8 S„ < 0 -0 cn 0 02 C a) 0_ 0 4— -C 0 0 CD 0- CD a, the south, establish a second level of retail shops, and provide two multi -level parking structures (Figure 2 -4). All development would occur within the existing shopping center site. Existing uses and proposed development are shown in Table 2 -1. Table 2 -1. Proposed Action Development Assumptions (sq.ft.) The new anchor retail space would be comprised of up to five stores ranging in size from about 12,000 square feet to about 84,000 square feet, compared to the existing anchor department stores that range in size from about 86,000 square feet (Mervyn's) to 250,000 square feet (Bon Macy's). Potential anchor store uses could include stores specializing in home goods, clothing, sporting goods, books, entertainment and/or home electronics. 2 Olive Garden opened in October 2003 and Bahama Breeze opened in May 2003. 3 The former Doubletree Inn (104,232 square feet) closed in December 2002 and will be demolished and replaced with surface parking in 2004 under separate permit. 2 -6 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Final EIS Description of the Proposed Action 1 1 1 1 1 1 Existing Site Expanded Site Net Increase Gross Leasable Floor Area (glfa): Shopping Mall: Retail Shops 333,349 622,866 289,517 Food Court 5,530 13,510 7,980 Anchor Retail 913,438 1,076,088 162,650 Theater 75,200 75,200 (3,600 to 4,000 seats) (3,600 to 4,000 seats) Total Mall Retail 1,252,317 1,787,664 535,347 Outparcel Uses: Post Office, Key Bank, Firestone 29,897 29,897 0 Freestanding Restaurant 17,9302 39,031 21,101 Hotel3 70,355 70,355 (140 rooms) (140 rooms) Total Outparcel Uses 47,827 139,283 91,456 TOTAL GLFA 1,300,144 1,926,947 626,803 Mall Common Area and Service Area 138,227 299,327 161,100 TOTAL GROSS BUILDING AREA 1,438,371 2,226,274 787,903 The new anchor retail space would be comprised of up to five stores ranging in size from about 12,000 square feet to about 84,000 square feet, compared to the existing anchor department stores that range in size from about 86,000 square feet (Mervyn's) to 250,000 square feet (Bon Macy's). Potential anchor store uses could include stores specializing in home goods, clothing, sporting goods, books, entertainment and/or home electronics. 2 Olive Garden opened in October 2003 and Bahama Breeze opened in May 2003. 3 The former Doubletree Inn (104,232 square feet) closed in December 2002 and will be demolished and replaced with surface parking in 2004 under separate permit. 2 -6 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Final EIS Description of the Proposed Action 1 1 1 1 1 1 Source: HuckelllWeinman Associates, Inc. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Figure 2-4a Site Plan - Level 1 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcen er Expansion — Final EIS Description of the Proposed Action 2 -7 0. 0 0 0 a u. 0 0 a. V A ef 8 V ■■■•■ —1 11Y C3SOlaN3 a. 0 cc a. 0 0 ., ;.ir ,` 1. ., • ' z'e ..,' ' ,- C.:Vt°' '., , • ' . 'A' 'A -';‘,.=, 4.1 „,- [ I II II 1111174' • r ) o on k Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. a 0 2.11,10.1 • STRARDER BOULEVARD Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Figure 2-4b Site Plan — Level 2 2-8 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Description of the Proposed Action s 7 U: • • i u , I 1 T JNI4Vd 113n31 ci6o : J, 3M UAW 47 W • 0 0 ¢ 0 0 ¢ - -EE . D-' w a w 8 1 Li Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. 0 ¢ X1°1, `r� STRANDER BOULEVARD Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT • 1 • \. `7 • Taws Ism vat t Figure 2 -4c Site Plan — Level 3 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Description of the Proposed Action 2 -9 The remaining shopping center retail would consist primarily of specialty shops similar to those at the mall today, but catering to a broader range of customers and featuring a wider array of merchandise. The theater complex is expected to have 16 -18 screens, and seat- ing for 3,600 to 4,000 moviegoers. It would be developed on the second or third level of the mall. Development of the hotel would depend upon market demand but is planned to provide lodging for about 140 guests. Its location on the site has not yet been deter- mined. Construction of the expanded shopping center is scheduled to begin in 2004 and be com- plete in 2006. Depending on market conditions, part of the expansion could be elimi- nated or deferred until a later time. However, for the purposes of this EIS, all uses are assumed to be open in 2006. Construction phasing would occur as follows: September — December 2004 January — June 2005 July — December 2005 January — May 2006 Access and Parking Prepare site, relocate utilities, and start foundations Erect parking structures and structural steel for mall Complete mall shell, open parking structures, and begin construction of outparcel uses Finish mall expansion and construction of outparcel uses; open for business Access to the shopping center site is currently provided at two locations each from Tuk- wila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, and Strander Boulevard and at four locations from Andover Park West. These access points would be retained under the Proposed Action, and no additional access to the site would be provided under the Proposed Action. Ac- cess to the parking structures would be provided from the internal circulation roads. There are currently 6,679 surface parking stalls on the site, including spaces at the exist- ing outparcels. With the demolition of the former Doubletree Inn and resurfacing of that site, 704 surface parking stalls will be added for a total of 7,383 stalls. The proposed re- tail expansion would remove some surface parking but two proposed parking structures would provide additional stalls. A total of approximately 7,900 parking spaces are pro- posed, including surface and structured parking. Grading and Drainage In general, construction of the expanded shopping center would be accomplished at exist- ing grades. Excavations would be made for utilities and for structure foundations. The expanded mall area grades would be raised slightly to allow surface runoff to flow away from the building. Existing drainage patterns of the site would be maintained. 2 -10 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Description of the Proposed Action Nearly the entire site is covered with impervious surfaces (buildings and parking areas). Surface water drainage from the site is conveyed through underground pipes either north- erly or easterly and then northerly to Gilliam Creek, which lies north of the site along Tukwila Parkway. Gilliam Creek empties into the Green River near I -405. No treatment or control /detention of surface water runoff occurs at the present time. Under the Proposed Action, surface water runoff from new or redeveloped impervious surfaces on the project site would flow to mechanical catch basins to treat stormwater. The target treatment level would be set to meet existing City stormwater management regulations. No stormwater flow control (i.e., detention) is proposed because there would be no change in the amount of impervious surface on the site. Stormwater would be routed through the existing stormwater conveyance pipes that currently convey water from the site to Gilliam Creek. Roof drains would also connect to these conveyances. Utilities All utilities (water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications) are provided on or adjacent to the site. Under the Proposed Action, there will be increased require- ments for water, sewer and telecommunications as well as electricity and gas. Systems would need to be reconfigured/relocated and extended to serve the shopping center ex- pansion. Puget Sound Energy would need to expand capacity and service on site and possibly off site, and other utility system capacities may need to be increased as well. No Action Alternative Expansion of the shopping center would not occur in the foreseeable future for any uses under the No Action Alternative. Existing trends in levels of patronage would prevail, and any changes in land use and transportation in the vicinity would be those that would occur under existing conditions. The No Action Alternative represents a baseline against which the Proposed Action can be evaluated. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 2 -11 Description of the Proposed Action THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 -12 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Description of the Proposed Action CHAPTER 3 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Introduction This chapter of the Final EIS contains comments received on the Draft EIS and the re- sponses to those comments. A total of 10 comment letters were received during the comment period; each letter received is included in its entirety in this section. The com- ment numbers that appear in the margins of the letters are cross - referenced to the cone - sponding response provided after each letter. Expressions of opinions, subjective state- ments and positions for or against the proposed action are acknowledged without further response. Written comments were received from the following state and local agencies, tribes, organizations, and businesses: Letter Agency/Tribe/Organization/Business Number 1 Washington Department of Transportation 2 King County Department of Transportation — Metro Transit Division, Design, & Construction Section. Environmental Planning and Real Estate 3 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks -- Wastewater Treat- ment Division 4 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks -- Wastewater Treat- ment Division 5 City of Renton, Planning/Building /Public Works Department 6 City of Tukwila Fire Department 7 Highline Water District 8 QWEST Communications 9 Perkins Coie LLP on behalf of the Boeing Company Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -1 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments ViaWashington State Department of Transportation Douglas B. MacDonald Secretary of Transportation July 20, 2004 Moira Carr Bradshaw City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Moira: Letter 1 Page 1 Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 -9710 206 - 440 -4000 TTY: 1- 800 - 833 -6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov WSDOT has reviewed the submitted Draft Environmental Impact Statement and offer the following comments. WSDOT has identified some areas of concern below with respect to this projects impacts on the existing transportation facilities. Project Summary This project will add approximately 787, 903 square -feet (sf) of gross building area to the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Mall, bringing the total to 2,226,274 sf. New construction will include additional retail commercial uses, restaurants, a movie theater complex, a hotel, and parking structures. All development will occur within the existing shopping center site. The project is expected to add approximately 12,380 new daily trips to the surrounding roadway network. Construction is schedule to begin in 2004 and be complete in 2006. Comments 1. Intersection 4 — 51St Avenue South/SR 518 Eastbound Off -Ramp has been identified as operating at Level of Service (LOS) F in the design year. WSDOT 1 requests mitigation to address deficiencies at this location. This proposal will add additional trips to this location. 2. Intersection 10 — Interurban Avenue South/I -405 SB Ramps has been identified as operating at LOS F in the design year. WSDOT requests mitigation to address deficiencies at this location. This site has also been identified by WSDOT as High Accident Location (HAL), and as such WSDOT may also request mitigation to address this HAL. The proposal will add additional trips to this location. 2 3. Intersection 11 — Interurban Avenue South/Southcenter Boulevard has been 3 identified as operating at LOS F in the design year. WSDOT as a HAL. WSDOT 3 -3 Name: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement review Date: July 20, 2004 Page 2 Letter 1 Page 2 may request HAL mitigation at this site. This proposal will add additional trip to I 3 this location. 4. Intersection 21- Southcenter Parkway/I -5 Northbound Ramp (Mall Entry) has been identified as operating at LOS F in the design year. WSDOT requests mitigation to address deficiencies at this location. This site has also been identified by WSDOT as a HAL, and as such WSDOT may also request mitigation to address this HAL. This proposal will add additional trips to this location. 5. Intersection 23 — Southcenter Parkway/I -5 Northbound Off -Ramp has been identified as operating at LOS F in the design year. WSDOT requests mitigation to address deficiencies at this location. This site has also been identified by WSDOT as a HAL, and as such WSDOT may also request mitigation to address this HAL. This proposal will add additional trips to this location. 6. Intersection 40 — West Valley Highway /South 196th Street is listed by WSDOT as a HAL, although this is not noted in the report. Please note that High Accident Locations and High Accident Corridors listed by WSDOT that are impacted by a proposal are considered as probable significant adverse impacts. If you have any additional questions, or require additional information please contact John Lefotu of our Development Services section by phone at 206 - 440 -4713, or via e- mail at lefotuj@wsdot.wa.gov. Sincerely, Ramin Pa ooki SnoKing Area Planning Manager JL: ji cc: Don Sims/Rick Roberts, King Area Traffic MS 120 3-4 4 5 Responses to Letter #1 Washington Department of Transportation Comments 1 -5. The purpose of the EIS is to accurately disclose impacts and offer possi- ble mitigation to address those impacts. The City of Tukwila will consider possible miti- gation options when it issues a decision on the project. Comment 6. Comment is acknowledged and hereby incorporated in the Final EIS. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -5 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -6 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 King County Department of Transportation Metro Transit Division, Design & Construction Section Environmental Planning and Real Estate, MS KSC -TR -0431 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, Washington 98104 -3856 (206) 684 -1418 FAX: (206) 684 -1900 June 25, 2004 Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS Dear Mr. Lancaster: Letter 2 4-7C Page 1 zto ca 28 ?0 o�M pM� 0y FpT King County Metro Transit staff reviewed the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS and have the following comments. The EIS states that the project proponent, Westfield Corporation, could consider upgrading local transit bus stops to help improve connectivity and to encourage transit use to and from the site. Metro is ready to work with Westfield Corp. to determine specific improvements and the timing of those improvements. Listed below, in order of priority, are bus stops needing improvement in the project area. Please refer to the attached diagram for the location of these bus stops. Bus Stop #59310 & #59312 (southbound on Andover between Baker and Strander): Bus stop #59310 has two passenger shelters, but we need at least one at #59312. Overall, there is a great need to revise the paving and landscaping at both bus stops to provide more standing/waiting space for bus patrons and to reduce the amount of maintenance. Litter is a problem at bus stop 59312 where we do not provide cleaning maintenance. Metro has a strong interest in working with the proponent on improvements at this location. 1 Bus Stop #58109 (westbound on Strander at 61st): This bus stop needs a passenger shelter. Passengers leave a lot of litter and Metro does not provide any cleaning maintenance where we do not have a passenger 2 shelter. Metro has a strong interest in working with the proponent on improvements. Bus Stop #60430 (northbound on Andover Park just north of Strander): While we already have one passenger shelter at this stop, there is a need for more improvements. Additional standing/waiting space is 3 needed to reduce impact to landscaping and maintenance. An additional passenger shelter would be beneficial. It would be useful if improvements at this stop could be coordinated with the improvements that might be made at the three stops discussed above. Please contact Paul Alexander, Transit Planner (206.684.1599, paul.alexander(cilmetrokc.aov), to discuss bus stop improvements in that area. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, 12,:te Gary I iedt Senior Environmental Planner MOBILITY FOR THE REGION 3 -7 Letter 2 Page 2 Southcenter Bus Stops Needing Improvements Responses to Letter #2 King County Department of Transportation — Metro Transit Division, Design, & Construction Section. Environmental Planning and Real Estate Comments 1 -3. Comments are acknowledged. The purpose of the EIS is to accurately disclose impacts and offer possible mitigation to address those impacts. The City of Tukwila will consider possible mitigation options, including those identified by Metro, when it issues a decision on the project. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -9 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -10 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments King County Wastewater Treatment Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 June 24, 2004 Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion DEIS RECEj T ,`, 'JUN 2 8 2Ot`4 C01bIMU DZOPME Letter 3 Page 1 The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Project. King County requires that a capacity charge be applied to any project that constructs a new connection to the sewer system, any reconnection within five years of a disconnection, or any change in use or building remodel that includes an increase in plumbing fixtures. King County generally receives notice of new construction; however, some sewer districts and /or the cities that represent them have neglected to report changes in use and tenant improvements that involve an increase in plumbing fixtures. In an attempt to remedy this problem, we are sending this reminder to you in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We ask that you forward this reminder to the sewer district or city department responsible for Sewer Use Certification forms: Please be sure that a Non- Residential Sewer Use Certification form for the above project is completed and sent to the King County Capacity Charge Program in a timely manner. The form should be sent to Eunice Verstegen, Capacity Charge Program, KSC -NR -0501, at the address above. If you need additional forms or have questions about the program, please call Eunice at (206) 684 -1740. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Meredith Redmon Environmental Planner cc: Eunice Verstegen, Capacity Charge Program CLEAN WATER- A SOUND INVESTMENT 1 3 -11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -12 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Responses to Letter #3 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks -- Wastewater Treatment Division Comment 1. A reminder will be forwarded to the City of Tukwila Public Works Depart- ment and a Non - Residential Sewer Use Certification form will be obtained and submitted to the King County Water Treatment Division as required. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -13 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -14 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments 1 1 1 t� 1 1 1 1 1 King County Wastewater Treatment Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 June 23, 2004 Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RECEIVED 'JUN 2 81004 DAM DPMen7 Letter 4 Page 1 RE: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated June 2004. King County's Tukwila Interceptor is located within the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Project site. In order to protect this wastewater facility, King County is requesting that the City of Tukwila do the following: • Submit construction drawings for the project to Eric Davison in the Design, Construction and Asset Management Program, Civil /Architectural Section. Eric can be contacted at (206) 684 -1707. Drawings should be submitted for review during design development so that King County staff can assess the project's impacts. Drawings should be sent to: Eric Davison, DCAM, Civil/Architectural Section King County Wastewater Treatment Division 201 South Jackson Street, KSC -NR -0508 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 • Please contact Eric Davison at (206) 684 -1707 a minimum of 72 hours prior to commencing any construction in order to allow staff time to arrange for a King.County inspector to be on the site during construction. • King County has a permanent easement for a sewer line on the proposed development site, and we must be assured the right to maintain and repair the sewer line, and, in the event that the line must be relocated, a new permanent easement must be provided. • Please send the name, address, and telephone number of the property owner of the proposed development site to Eric Davison in the Civil /Architectural Section so that he can contact the property owner regarding the easement. Eric can be reached at (206) 684 -1707, at eric.davison(tr),metrokc.gov, or by mail at the address above. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have questions, I can. be reached at (206) 684 -1227. CLEAN WATER- A SOUND INVESTMENT 1 2 3 4 3 -15 Sincerely, 134 r ba vn. lu -e4ct. Barbara Questad Environmental Planner Enclosures cc:Eric Davison, DCAM, Civil/Architectural Section Pam Elardo, Supervisor, Right -of -Way Unit, Planning and System Development 3 -16 Letter 4 Page 2 1 1 1I 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 Responses to Letter #4 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks -- Wastewater Treatment Division Comment 1. Construction drawings will be submitted to the County by the City of Tuk- wila for review prior to permit issuance. Comment 2. The identified staff member will be contacted by the applicant's project manager 72 hours prior to starting construction. Comment 3. Your comments are acknowledged and hereby incorporated in the Final EIS. Comment 4. Property ownership information will be sent to the identified staff member. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -17 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -18 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments 1. 1 1 1 1 I r 1 I 1 1 t 1 1 f Kathy Keolker- Wheeler, Mayor CITY OF RENTON Planning /Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator 1 July 20, 2004 Steve Lancaster Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite •100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN SOUTHCENTER EXPANSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, JUNE 2004 Letter 5 Page 1: RECEIVED JL II; r ) DEVELOPri N.T . . Dear Mr. Lancaster, • Thank you for the opportunity to review:the above referenced document.. The City of Renton has. several comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS); most of which are related to transportation issues: These are described below. • Traffic Analysis. On May 13, 2003, the City sent a letter to the City of Tukwila requesting early coordination on this DEIS and specifically identified Renton streets that we felt may be impacted would like to have addressed. Unfortunately, the City did not receive early review. of the traffic analysis, and only two of several potentially impacted intersections were evaluated, and the requested arterial analysis of S.W. Grady Way, Oakesdale Avenue S.W. and S.W. 43`a is not provided at all. Lastly, the EIS traffic analysis indicates that the highest project volumes are expected for Saturday p.m. peak hour, but analysis of Renton streets and intersections is limited to weekday p.m. peak hour volumes. If it is appropriate to consider two different peak periods for traffic. • impacts, the reasoning and methodology behind this should be documented. It is possible that Saturday p.m. peak hour volumes in Renton are low enough to justify this, but to avoid any confusion or questioning, the actual numbers supporting this approach should be presented. Forecasting What was the forecasting tool used and how does it address issues like mode split and arterial speeds ?. . The EIS does not assume any changes in "transit- related travel patterns to reflect potential new service ". Does this mean that routing changes are not considered or that mode split assumptions Mode Split 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 ['Ir7 Thic n.nur mr.f ine V1c.G rnrvrlM mnlarinl '3f1cL, newt 'rims error 2 3 4 3 -19 RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE do not vary from today's levels? If mode split assumptions change, please provide information on the percentage and reason for the change. Air Quality Letter-.5 . Page -2 .corit'd Air quality impacts are described as likely as a result of the project, but no specific project mitigation for these impacts are identified in the Air Quality chapter. The EIS Air Quality . • chapter recommends improvements that reduce vehicle volumes and/or improve level of service; • but does not further define the mitigation. Presumably, all of the choices from the table of Potential Transportation Mitigation Options either reduce volumes or improve level of service, but it is not possible to discern this from the table (e.g., does installing c- curbing reduce quality impacts ?): Clarification of which improvements address this issue would be helpful.. Planned Improvements We request that the:StranderBoulevard Extension be included as 'a project that.would be completed by 2010, and that the study area, 2010 volumes and traffic operations analysis.(such .;,: as; SW Grady way /Oakesdale Avenue SW, SW 27th Street / Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 43rd_ Street / Oakesdale:Avenue SW) be revised to reflect completion of this- project by 2010. We disagree with the assumption; that no;portion of the, Strander Boulevard Extension project would be complete,by the 2010 horizon year:, The City of Renton ;Six -Year (2005 -2010) • .. Transportation Improvement Program (which, is scheduled for adoption on July 26,.2004),.. designates. the Strander Boulevard Extension Project for completion by 2010. Though this project is not fully funded, there have been funding commitments; by the City of Renton, City of Tukwila The Boeing Company and the. Freight Mobility; Strategy: Investment Board, and it is. the city of Renton's intent to aggressively pursue the needed additional funding so that the 2010 completion, date can be met. The City of Renton Transportation: Planning and Programming Section: is available to assist in resolving the resulting shifts in background traffic due to the new Strander Extension roadway:. Also, it is our understanding that certain improvements to I -405 in the vicinity of Southcenter • . .. Expansion site are planned by WSDOT for completion by, 2010 as part of the "Nickel Package":: The text in DEIS, 2010 volumes and traffic operations analysis should be amended to reflect the "Nickel Package" projects. Background Growth: and Pipeline Projects • We request that the DEIS include discussion 'of the future planned development for the Boeing Longacres site. The discussion of traffic volumes and traffic operations should reflect traffic . generated from future development on this site. • A Draft and Final EIS and Mitigation Document have been adopted for the development of the . _ Longacres site that will provide approximately 2,500,000 square feet of office space, with approximately 10,000 employees occupying the "site. Evert though there are no projects currently in the permitting process or approved (the Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters building. . - and Day -Care Center have been completed), Boeing has shown a commitment to future planned . . development by satisfying their mitigation requirements for full build -out of the Longacres site in . the form of right -of -way dedication for the Strander Boulevard Extension project. We view this . as a commitment by Boeing for further development on their site by 2010 and to completion of the extension of Strander Boulevard. II Q II Letter 5. Page 3 The City of Renton Transportation Planning and Programming Section is available to assist in revising the DEIS to reflect the planned Boeing Longacres development. Mitigation Measures Table 3 -19, 'Potential Transportation Mitigation Options describes various options for each impact and offers pros and cons for those options. However, by doing so, it is difficult to discern whicb is the final proposed mitigation measure. Consequently, it is not possible to determine what would be implemented, how it would resolve the impacts (in contrast to it's pluses and minuses) and how it could affect Renton. More specificity about the recommended mitigation measures would address this issue. ''lso, ue request tliTtrtthe DE�ISIin udTdisc"cir si iMith'elC:ity o IRernton's mitigation riguirements andithatithe propos lga thcenteres ansion project woulaibe"subject to Renton's traffic, mitigationmogramypursuant to City of Renton Resoltrtion 2100 and Coneu rency ManagementtS;ystem poli- T,hegityiofsRenton =also adopt Eifee t asedttr anspzireion�miti.atiomogr�am Tlii -afe7 represents land -use developments' fair-share cost of citywide transportation system future development and to maintain 641 established improvements Level to address traffic off Service lStandard generated Under Renton by s transportation mitigation: prsq'gram, site=speciffc inprovementsiareta 21mc Aired to mitigatejimpacts to on-site d faiRr mitigation fee is based on theiincrease m total4 yAehtc gr psaaenerate lay�atdeuelopmentp. We recognize that Renton and Tukwila'do not have an Interlocal agreement for addressing traffic . . mitigation for development projects inside our respective borders... So' for modest projects, we have exchanged environmental documentation and development proposals and addressed review. comments. However, for. the Boeing Longacres development project (a mega project), mitigation: of transportation impacts in Tukwila:: were addressed and traffic" mitigation negotiated between. Tukwila and Boeing was a component of-the Mitigation Document for that project.. We view the Southcenter Expansion as a project that would be in the category of. the Boeing Longacres development in terms of impacts on Renton's streets' and the need for mitigation to those. impacts. We appreciate this opportunity to review the DEIS . If you have any questions about our comments, please feel free to contact me at 425 -430 -7311. Si;cerely, .4 iiipmeeta/t---1 Gregg immerman Administrator . Planning, Building, and Public Works cc: Alex Pietsch Sandra Meyer 8 cont'd 3 -21 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -22 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Responses to Letter #5 City of Renton Planning/Building /Public Works Department Comment 1. The corridors of SW Grady Way, Oaksdale Avenue, and SW 43rd were not evaluated as part of the traffic analysis. T, hisI approachlisiconsistentiwithteitylofirRentong P c7yjGuidelines for�T,raff c�Imnact . alysisfforoUewlDevelopment twhichindicates' that thetistudy area should include all roadways and intersections that would expeiieneeiaa 5�percentiincrteaseiin peakahour traffic vou es as a result ofithe poedrduelop n* gaff :civ fumes on S1WLGradAW aylOaksda,,;1 Avenue„ andtS�W:'L4ti3,glAya eacljl a e talessithan 5 peidue reent itaproiectsgenerate AtRa w.o'lume ror example, the inter- section of Grady Way at Oaksdale Boulevard is forecasted to carry 4,225 PM peak -hour weekday vehicle trips in 2010 without the Southcenter addition. The proposed expansion is forecasted to add 134 vehicles per hour during the same period. This represents a 3.2- percent increase, which is below the 5- percent threshold level. TikeittaffickvolumeAinv cr ies for botli it+y of Renton intersect ons�and�for�arteriahroad�s_e, mentslarteshown :in: T b1Rall. Comment 2. As noted on Page 3 -21 of the Draft EIS (Transportation and Parking sec- tion of Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Impacts of the Alternatives, Mitigating Meas- ures, and Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts), analysis of Saturday traffic condi- tions was confined to the immediate vicinity of the site because this is an area dominated by other retail activity. This analysis was made to determine if the combination of exist- ing and new retail trips created any unusual traffic related impacts. The Saturday traffic volume analysis validated the weekday PM peak -hour traffic volume conditions. Traffic patterns in west Renton are typical of employment uses that peak on weekdays and not on Saturdays. As a result, cumulative Saturday peak -hour traffic would be less than the level of traffic described for weekday PM peak -hour conditions. For these reasons, a Saturday traffic volume analysis in this primarily non - retail area was not considered. Comment 3. Traffic was forecasted using a generally accepted transportation planning process that included the following steps: Trip Generation — Trip generation forecasts were based on a combination of data from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook and were calibrated using actual driveway traffic counts from the existing Westfield Shoppingtown at Southcenter. The trip generation forecast is discussed in detail in the Draft EIS on pages 3 -48 through 3 -51. Mode Split — No reduction or adjustment in trip generation was made for increased transit use or improvement of transit facilities, which results in a conservative analysis of future traffic impacts. Traffic volumes would have been lower than those forecasted if an ad- justment were included. This assumption helps to ensure that traffic volume impacts are not underestimated. Trip Distribution and Assignment — As indicated on Page 3 -51 of the Draft EIS, the dis- tribution was developed based on City of Tukwila transportation demand models reflect- Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -23 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments ing existing and 2020 traffic volume conditions and existing traffic counts. This ap- proach reflected the best attributes of subregional travel patterns reflected by regional growth;patterns, and :the local,intersection,traffic, volume :turn: ing movements .as calibrated with,actual traffic countsto.ensure a realistic:traffic volume forecast. Comment 4. As noted above, mode split assumptions were not changed to ensure that traffic volume impacts are not underestimated. Comment 5. A qualitative assessment of potential air quality impacts was carried out for the Draft EIS. As noted in your comment, the assessment concluded that the proposed project could possibly cause significant adverse air quality impacts without effective mitigation. Subsequently, a more detailed quantitative analysis of potential air quality impacts was completed by the applicant's consultant. The City's consultant conducted a peer review of the analysis, which concluded that the proposed action would not,likely:: exceed National:Ambient; Air Quality Standards. , Specifically, project - related traffic could result in 8 -hour carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations of about 8 ppm,;which:is,, less that the 9 -ppm ambient air quality standard for CO. The analysis is provided in Ap- pendix A of this Final EIS. Because impacts would not be significant, mitigation of air quality impacts would not be required. However, as noted on Page 3 -10 of the Draft EIS (Air Quality section of Chap- ter 3, Affected Environment, Impacts of the Alternatives, Mitigating Measures, and Sig- nificant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts), traffic mitigation measures that reduce vehicle volumes and/or improve level of service would reduce the potential for air quality im- pacts. The City of Tukwila will consider mitigating measures that could reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality when it issues a decision on the project. Comment 6. Completion of the extension of Strander Boulevard by the year 2010 is con- sidered speculative due to external funding restrictions and as such was excluded from direct consideration in the Draft EIS. um g preliryttraffrc analysis; anranallysi:,an eluding a txander extensjonAwasrprepared This,analys s shgwsethatia kiander,Boute varf13extensiowto. aksdale4Bouleuard°aw©u9d shift airestimatedr67pereent ofznemew-PM ep ak_°hour-weekdaytproj ct. generated trip`s_to_Strai de Boule av rd offrofsS,outh 1K8:0` Street. This shift in the traffic distribution is illustrated on Figure 3 -1. a ii ease °iii PMMpeak- hour -trafficvolume. on roads and streets .ini_Renton: WAI remam157e1Wth-75. Rer eshold-used bythe; City -of Renton -to- identify ,potentiallyimpactethtoads -ands i tersotiong. While not required by ordinance, level of service analysis was also prepared for intersec- tions where volumes are forecasted to shift with the Strander Boulevard extension and are summarized in Table 3 -2. These results indicate that construction of the Strander Boule- vard extension to Oaksdale Avenue SW would reduce the level of service from LOS C to LOS E at Oaksdale Avenue SW /S 180`h Street during the weekday PM peak -hour due primarily to shifts in background traffic resulting from the new roadway. The City of Renton requires that projects mitigate intersections back to the baseline LOS should the LOS degrade with the addition of project traffic. This analysis found that the Oaksdale 3 -24 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments 1 1 1 1 r Avenue SW /S 180`h Street intersection would operate at LOS E under No Action condi- tions, meaning the Proposed Action would not cause a LOS degradation at this location. Therieforteze�uen ■if �thelanailys siw.eneitogo malilay assume the extens on[of�S.trander Boule^- vard assd_escr bed! +repeal e ffi� , ,p ct would not require miti'ga'tion 1 ed on City offlRen- o gui oohs. t As noted in Table 3 -2, the West Valley Highway /Strander Boulevard intersection would improve from LOS E to LOS D with the Strander Boulevard extension. A number of in- tersection improvements at West Valley Highway /Strander Boulevard were appropriately assumed in the with - Strander Boulevard extension scenario, which results in the im- proved LOS at this location with the extension. These improvements were coordinated with City of Tukwila staff, and reflect improvements likely to occur to accommodate in- creased traffic volumes at the intersection commensurate with the roadway extension. the o.; o er tw,o study intersections impacted by the shift in the project trip distribution with the Strander extension re a ai�niati t , ejame L©:S3inIPM peakC-hourtconditions under+ ew _erfscena tj ? Comment 7. A review of WSDOT plans shows that none of the "Nickel Package" im- provements planned for the I -405 corridor will affect the traffic operations at inter- changes used to access Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter nor will they result in a re- gional shift of background or project - generated traffic distribution patterns. Accordingly, the regional improvements to I -405 will not affect level of service at any intersections on the arterial street network. Therefore no changes in the traffic analysis related to 1 -405 improvements prior to 2010 appear to be warranted. Comment 8. It is understood that potential future development on Boeing Longacres site has been evaluated by Renton in the context of a long -range master plan of Boeing Head- quarters. However, as noted in the City of Renton letter, no permits are pending for the Boeing master planned development. Accordingly, actual development numbers for 20111:are `unavailable .and it:would:be speculative to include some estimate in the 2010 projections. ' However; aspart of its, long-range:-planning; the City- of Tukwila,is evaluat- ing Boeing's' Longacres •Master.Plan em loymentegrowth'.inthe.T anspgrtation Element update of its = Comprehensive Plan. R,10,1%011,:K00:•:`. .: =' 1 •`:.. Comment 9:' The purpose of the HS is to accurately disclose :impacts and offer possible mitigation ttraddress those: impacts., The City of Tukwila will consider mitigating meas- ures when it issues a decision on the project. . Comment 10. As noted above, the proposed development will increase volumes along Renton streets by less than 5 percent, which is the City of Renton's threshold for evaluat- ing impacted streets. Regarding traffic impact fees, there is no interlocal agreement be- tween the City of Renton and the City of Tukwila that permits Tukwila to require such fees on behalf of Renton. Comment 11. Your comment is acknowledged and hereby incorporated in the Final EIS. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -25 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Table 3 -1. 2010 Proposed Action Traffic Volume Impact - Weekday PM Peak Hour Without and With Strander Boulevard Extension 1. TEV = Total Entering Vehicles (without Strander Boulevard extension). 2. Total Project Trips. Without Strander Boulevard Ex- tension Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips (TEV)1 2010 Base- line ; Project 2 Trips Proposed Action . Per- cent Impact XT°'," Percent Increase Int. # Study Intersections: 12 Oaksdale Ave SW /SW Grady Way 4,225 134 4,359 3.1% (3NV/0 39 Oaksdale Ave SW /S 180th Street 3,125 120 3,245 3.7% f3!8%0 Arterial Road Segments: - o SW Grady Way west of Oaksdale 3,355 134 3,489 3.8% t4 fi o SW Grady Way east of Oaksdale SW Grady Way east of Oaksdale 2,395 55 2,450 2.2% MIA Oaksdale north of SW Grady Way Oaksdale north of SW Grady Way 1,435 40 1,475 2.7% F289/0 Oaksdale south of SW Grady Way Oaksdale south of SW Grady Way 1,265 39 1,304 3.0% % 11%0 1. TEV = Total Entering Vehicles (without Strander Boulevard extension). 2. Total Project Trips. 1. TEV = Total Entering Vehicles (with Strander Boulevard extension). 2. Total Project Trips. 3 -26 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M With Strander Boulevard Exten- sion Weekday. PM Peak Hour Trips (TEV); -. 2010 Base- line Project 2 Trips= Proposed Action A Per- cent Impact `4' Percent Increase Int. # Study Intersections: 12 Oaksdale Ave SW /SW Grady Way 4,050 134 4,184 3.2% 3330/0 39 Oaksdale Ave SW /S 180th Street 3,475 120 3,595 3.3% :LS% Arterial Road Segments: - o SW Grady Way west of Oaksdale 2,930 134 3,064 4.4% SW Grady Way east of Oaksdale 2,370 55 2,425 2.3% fig W% Oaksdale north of SW Grady Way 1,435 40 1,475 2.7% 2% Oaksdale south of SW Grady Way 1,365 39 1,404 2.8% 21,070 1. TEV = Total Entering Vehicles (with Strander Boulevard extension). 2. Total Project Trips. 3 -26 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M Table 3 -2. 2010 Proposed Action LOS Summary- Weekday PM Peak Hour Without and With Strander Boulevard Extension Int. ' '- Study Intersections Without Strander Boule- ward Extension Boulevar With Stra d Exnderten =' sion LOS?.: Delay3 V /C4 : LOS Delay V /C; 28 West Valley Highway /Strander Blvd E 70.7 1.08 D5 50.4 0.95 37 West Valley Highway /S 180th Street D 47.9 0.93 D 49.2 0.94 38 72nd Avenue S/S 180th Street B 10.6 0.47 B 10.2 0.36 39 Oaksdale Ave SW /S 180th Street C 20.8 0.75 E 71.2 1.16 1. LOS,' delays, and v/c ratios at signalized intersections reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole. 2. LOS = Level of Service (A -F: A = least delay; F = worse delay). 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle. 4. V/C = Volume -to- capacity ratio. 5. Includes multiple improvements to the intersection to accommodate increased traffic due to the Strander extension, and the addition of the fourth approach of the intersection; these improvement assumptions were coordinated with City of Tukwila Staff. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -27 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments 3 -28 Without Strander Blvd Extension OAKSDALE AVE SW S 180TH ST Figure 3 -1 1 Project Trip Distribution- Effect of the Strander Blvd. Extension N NOT TO SCALE With Strander Blvd Extension (Extension) OAKSDALE AVE SW S 180TH ST Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion M:103103007 Southcenter Mall1GraphicstGraphic08.dwg, A, 8/26/2004 2:36:48 PM, lindak 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 The 1 Trarspo • P n Letter 6 Page 1 Tukwila Fire Department InterOffice Memo July 21, 2004 To: Moira Carr Bradshaw From: Capt. Don Tomaso Re: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Draft DIS Moira, Here are my comments on the draft EIS for the Mall, most are just minor. 1) Page S -7, One additional firefighter FTE per shift, change One shift Lieutenant to Fire Prevention Officer. ) Page S -11, Under fire service & utilities add: Relocate fire sprinkler riser rooms per Tukwila Fire Department requirements. 3) Page 3 -78, 4th paragraph, (King County — wide Medic One Program) 4) Page 3 -105, 1' paragraph 1st sentenance, should read: The additional demand for Fire and EMS services attributable to the Proposed Action equates to one additional shift firefighter FTE per shift and one Fire Prevention Officer FTE, during both construction and operation. If you have any questions please let me know. cc: jacquelyn stoner THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -30 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Responses to Letter #6 City of Tukwila Fire Department Comment 1. As stated on page 3 -87, this project's impact on call volumes equates to the demand for one firefighter FTE. However, as a result of the staffing requirements of the fire service, it is inefficient to add only one staff member as this will not fulfill the current 24 -hour shift schedule in place. That is, one 24 -hour position requires three FTEs. Therefore, although this specific project does not directly create the demand for three firefighter FTEs, it does contribute to the need for two additional FTEs to fill the single position, or as stated in the comment letter, one FTE per shift. Comment 2. Your comment is acknowledged; fire sprinkler riser rooms would need to be relocated. Comment 3. Your comment is acknowledged; text should read "King County-wide Medic One Program." Comment 4. As a result of the offset between development fees and inspection costs, the funds necessary to pay for an additional Fire Prevention Officer (a type of inspection cost) are not explicitly included as a Fire and EMS service cost. Although the demand would exist, the cost for this position is offset by the development fees collected by the City (see p. 3 -97 of the Draft EIS, "Introduction" for more on the relationship between development fees and inspection costs). Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -31 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -32 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments JUL ea ti. i •rJ. r19 IUKWILH ULJ),rW July 8, 2004 Ms. Moira Carr Bradshaw Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 P.9 /2z Letter 7 Page 1 aft- Serving the Southwest Metropolitan Area since 1946 Recoveb c� 09281 Re: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter — Environmental Impact Statement Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Environmental Impact Statement for the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter project. We have no comments at this time and wish you good luck with this project. Sincerely, Thomas D. Keown, P.E. Construction /Operations Manager TDK:maf 23828 - 30th Ave. S. • P.O. Box 3867 • Kent, WA 98032 • (206) 824 -0375 / FAX; (206) 824 -0806 3 -33 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -34 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments u 0 v 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 Responses to Letter #7 Highline Water District Comment 1. Your comment is acknowledged. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -35 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -36 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments V. 1 1 , 1 rw• Moira Bradshaw - Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Page 1 From: 'Bob Steen II" crsteenl©gwest.com> To: cmbradshaw@ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 7/21/04 5:35PM Subject Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Moira Carr Bradshaw: Sony about the late response, but) had to show an official response on information that t just received (just in case). I will also contact the owners to let them know about this as well, so we can work out the necessary details. I was just given the final concerns of others that have reviewed this within our company pate this afternoon). The main concern of all, is how to maintain the existing service, while the new additions are under construction. QWEST has the main feed to the existing equipment, which feeds from the South off of Strander Blvd, (which just happens to come right under the main portion of the proposed structures), This may or may not work the way this is designed, as there are some existing vaults that would require long term access for maintenance to the existing services. If there is a method to get truck access into these areas in the future (which it does not look possible with the sketch included in this statement), we could maintain the existing route to the existing terminal location. If the room did require relocation of the existing equipment, this room would still be required as a connect through location for all of the existing cables to customer suites (unless it is the plan to reconstruct conduits throughout the entire existing mall area, for new cables from a new terminal locaton). If the construction happens as sketched in this EIS, the possibility of a new underground route may be required to this location, coupled with a room expansion, in order to be able to maintain service and meet growth needs. At the existing terminal location, the walls to the West or South sides of the room would be the only possible directions to expand the. existing equipment room. QWEST has already (since the original inquiry) replaced some of the equipment in this location, condensing what could be condensed for space. This was needed in order to meet existing needs and allow for some future growth. However, the future growth that was accommodated for, would not handle the near the requirements for the proposed additions. There is not enough termination space on the , existing walls (and this is the only way to make the connections. as It is not totally antiquated (as mentioned in the EIS statements made), but the current method practiced within the industry. The room (as near as we can tell at this time, with only minimal details) would have to be pretty much at least doubled in size, to provide for the relocation of some equipment, making room for the additional mall terminations. All work for this relocation, is considered bill able. Once the equipment has been re- established and the wall space defined, additional growth would be handled on a'going forward basis (we will try to provide forecast assistance, so that the final equipment room will handle ultimate requirements and not require this billing for rearrangements again at a later date). in order to maintain the existing services, allow for ultimate growth and meet the overall needs for this site once and for all, it will require good communication up front in the design process as well as . i 1 2 Letter 8 Page 1 Moira Bradshaw - Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter constant monitoring throughout the project. QWEST Is concerned about the ultimate design and the cost/time associated to a total relocation of the facilities to another room, verses the possible expansion and reroute of facilities, to the existing terminal room. We will do our • best to minimize service impact to the existing customers, but will need information long before any final designs ere approved. We look forward to the project end working with the design team to seek a solution that all can work with, but we go into this project with some apprehension as to what might happen to the incoming services to the mall. If you have any additional questions, comments, or concerns, please call me at 206 - 345-4475. I will be the coordinator and engineer on this project, from the property line into the new (or expansion of the existing) equipment room(s). Others will be supporting the electronic design/re - design within the site, structure and/or cable rearrangements to the site, as well as the long term planning and actual site installation/rearrangements support on site during the construction process. 1 may be used as the focal point to get these items coordinated. Robert P. Steen 11, RCDD Building Industry Consultant Design Engineer QWEST Communications 2 cont'd CC: "Ken Stoner" <kstoner©qwest.com>, "Richard Clary" <rclary@gwest.com> Page 2 Letter 8 Page 2 Responses to Letter #8 Qwest Communications Comment I. Your comment is acknowledged and hereby incorporated in the Final EIS. Comment 2. Your comment is acknowledged. Information will be provided as soon as possible prior to construction to minimize impacts on existing service. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -39 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3-40 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Laura N. Whitaker PHONE 206.359.8584 Faun.: LWhitaker®perkinscoie.com July 20, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION AND U.S. MAIL Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Letter 9 Page 1 Re: DEIS/Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Perkins COIF not Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101 -3099 PHONE: 206.359.8000 FAX: 206.359.9000 www.perkinscoie.com We represent The Boeing Company ( "Boeing "), owner of the Longacres Office Park ( "LOP ") property located along the northeast/northwest boundary between the Cities of Tukwila and Renton. As you know, Boeing has conducted planning and environmental review supporting commercial development of the LOP property, with a horizon year for SEPA purposes of 2010. As documented in the 1994 LOP EIS and addressed in the Transportation Mitigation Agreement between Tukwila and Boeing dated December 20, 1995 ("Tukwila/Boeing Agreement "), LOP at full buildout is forecast to distribute 1,831 vehicle trips into the Tukwila transportation system., As a neighboring property owner and developer, therefore, Boeing has asked us and its traffic consultant, Transportation Engineering Northwest, to review the DEIS for 1 Additional SEPA review was conducted by the City of Renton in 2001 supporting an increment of additional LOP commercial development. The traffic study conducted as part of that SEPA review concluded that the additional LOP development area proposed would not generate vehicle trips in excess of those forecast by the 1994 LOP EIS. [03003 -0104 /SB041950.198] ANCHORAGE • BEIJING . BELLEVUE - BOISE CHICAGO • DENVER HONG KONG • LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK - OLYMPIA • PORTLAND • SAN FRANCISCO • SEATTLE WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Cole LLP (Perkins Coie tic in Illinois) 3-41 Letter 9 Page 2 Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner July 20, 2004 Page 2 the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ( "Westfield EIS "). Our comments on the DEIS are limited to the transportation element and are listed below: Boeing Comments on Chapter 3, Transportation and Parking 1. The transportation analysis does not account for any pipeline projects. See, Westfield EIS at 3 -40. But as noted above, the impacts of LOP development, which has begun and is anticipated to continue at least until 2010, have been analyzed and corresponding mitigation established by the City. LOP is clearly, therefore, a pipeline project that should have been included as background traffic for purposes of the Westfield transportation analysis.2 The Westfield transportation analysis should be revised to include the 1,831 LOP trips. 2. The transportation analysis also fails to account for the planned Strander Boulevard extension. That project will alter relevant trip distribution patterns and should be assumed for purposes of assessing impacts of the Westfield project on the site vicinity, including Boeing's LOP property. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you would like to discuss them, please do not hesitate to contact Shaunta Hyde, at 206 -544 -0182, or me. ery truly yours, tO Ai; f4 Laura N. Whitaker LNW:lnw cc: Colette M. Temmink Jeffrey R. Adelson Shaunta R. Hyde 2 Although the Tukwila Boeing Agreement establishes the LOP trips as a baseline traffic condition at least until 2010, it should also be noted that both the PSRC Regional Model and the City of Renton Model assume continued buildout at LOP as a future baseline condition. [03003- 0104 /SB041950.1981 07/20/04 3-42 Responses to Letter #9 Perkins Coie LLP on Behalf of the Boeing Company Comment 1. The City of Renton submitted a similar comment; please refer to the re- sponse to City of Renton Comment #8. Comment 2. The City of Renton submitted a similar comment; please refer to the re- sponse to City of Renton Comment #6. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3-43 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3-44 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments DISTRIBUTION LIST Federal Agencies Federal Highway Administration National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X State Agencies Washington State Department of Community Development Washington State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division (2) Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Washington State Department of Transportation (Ramin Pasooki, Phil Segami, Stacey Trussler, Mark Bandy) Regional and Local Agencies Duwamish Indian Tribe Kent Planning Department King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, SEPA Info. Center King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Wastewater Treatment Division (Meredith Redmon) King County Department of Transportation, Transit Division (Gary Kriedt) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural Resources Program Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Program Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Wildlife Program Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (Paul Carr) Puget Sound Regional Council SeaTac Planning Department: Renton Planning Department (Greg Zimmerman) Seattle Department of Planning and Development Utilities and Services Highline Water District King County Metro Wastewater Treatment Division King County Water District #125 Puget Sound Energy (Susan Hempstead) QWest Rabanco Seattle Public Utilities Department Libraries Foster Library Tukwila Library Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Dist -1 Distribution List Newspapers Highline Times Seattle Post Intelligencer Seattle Times (Jake Batsell) South County Journal Other Interested Parties Parties of Record: Alice Neiffer Brad Decker Denise Evans Gloria Ramirez Jonathan Pool Mike Hemphill Mon Wig Paul Lenoue Sue Carlson Tracy Harms Tonni Best Laura Whitaker (Perkins Coie LLP) Dist -2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Distribution List 1 1 1 1 1 1 r r A r t APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY REPORT ENVIROMETRICS INC. 4803 Fremont Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98103 -6527 (206) 633 -4456 FAX (206) 633 -4835 Air Quality Report Westfield Shopping Town Southcenter Southcenter Expansion Prepared for Westfield Corporation, Inc. 11601 Wilshire Blvd., 12th floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 Prepared by Michael Ruby J.D. McAlpine September 29, 2004 1 Air Quality Report Southcenter Expansion SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Concentrations of CO from vehicles using three intersections near Southcenter in 2010, after completion of the proposed expansion project, were estimated using air quality simulation models, following EPA guidelines. These intersections were selected as being representative of the greatest expected impact from the traffic associated with the expansion project. In none of the intersections did the estimated results, including a standard urban background concentration, exceed the federal air quality standards. OVERVIEW Three air pollutants are of primary concern from motor vehicle traffic: nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO). NOx and HC are both of concern at a regional level as they contribute to the formation of ozone several hours downwind. CO is of concern at the specific location where it is generated, generally within a few hundred feet of an intersection or a portion of a heavily - traveled road. CO is the pollutant modeled and reported here. If CO is above the concentration established as the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) it is a potential threat to health. The NAAQS for CO is 35 ppm averaged over one hour and 9 ppm averaged over eight hours. The federal Clean Air Act has required, since 1967, new motor vehicles to incorporate controls that reduce the amount of air pollutants released by vehicles during operation. These requirements have become more restrictive over the years. As new vehicles replace old ones, the air pollutant emissions from the vehicle fleet decrease. As a result, the air pollution impact at an intersection with increasing traffic may actually decrease in future years, as the reduction in emissions from each vehicle may exceed the increase from more vehicle travel. Thus when projecting the air pollution impact in future years it is important to include both the future change in the vehicle emissions as well as the future change in vehicle travel. The potential air pollution impact at an intersection is predicted using air quality simulation models developed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These models are based on years of research and testing. Because it is the duty of the EPA to protect the public health and the environment, they have deliberately tuned the models so they are conservative and will, in most cases, overstate the impacts that will be realized. 2 LOCAL CLIMATOLOGY AND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY The proposed project (Southcenter expansion) is located on the east side of the Central Puget Sound basin. The climate is classified as Mid - Latitude West Coast Marine. During the Summer months, the winds are light and from the north and northwest. Skies are generally sunny and precipitation is light. The fall and winter months are dominated by stronger southwest and south winds and frequent precipitation. Between winter storms, moderate to strong temperature inversions can develop toward sunset and persist through to the following morning. A few times a year the inversions may persist for up to 24 hours, or more on rare occasions. The fall and winter temperature inversions can trap CO emitted from motor vehicles near the surface. The highest CO concentrations in this area tend to occur during these winter temperature inversions. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency maintains several air quality monitors that continuously record CO concentrations. There are no monitors in Tukwila but there are (or have been) CO monitors placed in several locations with large traffic volumes and congestion that may be comparable to the area of the proposed project. These include downtown Bellevue near the intersection of Bellevue Way and NE 8` , adjacent to Bellevue Square, in Lynnwood near the intersection of 44`h Avenue W and 196th St SW, near Alderwood Mall, and near the intersection of NE Northgate Way and 3rd Ave. NE, near I -5 and the Northgate Shopping Center. Carbon monoxide data from these stations in recent years shows that concentrations of this pollutant are well below the NAAQS. For example, the second highest measured concentration of carbon monoxide on an 8 -hour average, at the three stations noted above, has declined from values of approximately 5 to 6 ppm in 1999 to 3 to 4 ppm in 2002. Projections by the Puget Sound Regional Council show that regional carbon monoxide emissions are expected to decline overall by 2010, despite a projected increase in total vehicle miles of travel. The Puget Sound region was designated a CO nonattainment area in 1991. That designation required PSCAA and Ecology to develop strategies and plans to work toward complying with the ambient standards and affected transportation planning and emission control policies throughout the nonattainment area. As a result of the success of those strategies and the introduction of newer vehicles with lower emissions, no violations of the ambient standards have been recorded in the Puget Sound area since one in 1992 near the University of Washington and one in 1994 near Bellevue Square. In 1997, the EPA redesignated the Central Puget Sound region as attainment for CO, and approved the associated maintenance plan to ensure the area remains in attainment of the CO NAAQS. The latest available (quality- assured) ambient data are from 2002. The value corresponding to the NAAQS for CO for a one -hour average ranged from 5.4 to 9.5 ppm among the Northgate, Lynnwod and Bellevue monitors, those most similar in situation to Southcenter. The average of those values was 6.9 ppm. This compares to the one -hour NAAQS for CO of 35 ppm. The values for the 8 -hour average from those same monitors ranged from 3.4 to 4.2 ppm, with an average of 3.8 ppm. This compares to the 8 -hour NAAQS for CO of 9 ppm. After reviewing these data, the Washington Dept. of Ecology was consulted to establish a "background" value for use in this modeling. Based on the range and average for these Central 3 Puget Sound suburban intersections, a background value for air entering an intersection from other parts of the urban area of 4.0 to 4.5 ppm was agreed. The value of 4.5 ppm was used. It is possible to calculate an experience ratio of the recorded maximum one -hour average value for a given monitor and the recorded maximum eight -hour average value for the same day. For these same monitors for eight occurrences of maxima on the same day in 2002, we have a range of 0.59 to 0.84, with an average of 0.65. The EPA recommends using a factor of 0.7 to estimate the maximum 8 -hour value from a modeled one -hour average value. The EPA recommended value is conservative and appropriate for use in these circumstances. TRAFFIC DATA AND VEHICLE EMISSIONS The traffic data used in this study were developed by TSI from a transportation study conducted by Transpo for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for this project. It was necessary for TSI to obtain additional files and information from Transpo, beyond that presented in the EIS, to develop the needed data. The traffic data used were for the weekday pm peak hour. Air quality models were developed for three intersections from the DEIS using the traffic data for the year 2010 with the project implemented. The three intersections chosen were • #7, 61st Ave S and Southcenter Blvd, • #13, 61st Ave S and Tukwila Parkway, and • #15, Andover Park W and Tukwila Parkway. These intersections were selected taking into account intersections with high background traffic volumes, intersections where the project will contribute a higher percentage of new trips, level of service without the project and degradation of level of service by the project. It is expected that the chosen intersections will have as or greater projected ambient air quality impact than the intersections that were not modeled. For each of the intersections modeled it was necessary to identify the: • physical geometry of the intersection; • traffic volume for each lane in each direction and each turning motion; • average traffic speed over the cycle for each lane; • average signal cycle length (green to green) for each intersection; • average red time length for each approaching direction; • clearance time lost by drivers; • lane saturation flow rate; • signal automation level; and • upstream signal progression, if any. Emissions were calculated using the Mobile 6.2 emission model, which is the most up to date EPA model available. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) recently adopted Mobile6 and is currently using it for regional analyses. However, the PSRC Mobile6 modeling uses a national 4 default distribution of re- starts. This is appropriate, and necessary, for regional effects modeling but it is not appropriate for hot spot intersection modeling, especially where vehicles have been traveling for a significant period over high -speed roadways and thus does not include vehicles which are being started. Re -start emissions reflect the startup of vehicles after they have been turned off and have partially or completely cooled off. The "soak distribution" sets the percentage of vehicles on the roadway traveling under cold re -start and hot re -start conditions. The longer the vehicle has been parked, the greater the startup CO emission will be during startup. The high startup emission reduces as the choke is pulled off (or its equivalent in electronically controlled vehicles). These high emissions diminish rapidly and are really only a factor during the first minute or two of operation. Because of this, "EPA recommends that the calculation of idling emissions at intersections not include any effects from engine starts "(EPA, 2004). It follows that a running engine in the queue would not include an engine start as it moves out of the queue and through the intersection. The use of engine start effects in the running emissions at the modeled intersections is therefore not appropriate, unless the queue or link represents the direct exit of a parking lot or garage. For the modeling effort, Envirometrics applied the PSRC settings to Mobile6 for every variable except for soak distribution. To remain conservative in our approach, the national default re -start emission rates were used for some queues and links. However, hot emissions were used for those queues and links that are primarily used by traffic incoming from freeway offramps. The following table compares the settings and output emission rates for the modeling cases: MOBILE6 emissions PSRC modeling: Envirometrics remodel: PSRC w/ limited re -start Lane Speed 30 mph 30 mph Road type: Arterial/Collector Arterial/Collector Vehicle distribution: PSRC PSRC Month: January January Temps (min/max): 34 /50°F 34 /50°F Fuel RVP: 13.8 psi 13.8 psi Soak distribution: national default cold start soak distribution hot running emissions for lanes from freeways, others PSRC Emission rate: 18.06 g/mile 7.423 g /mile (hot lanes) Idle emission rate: 112.1 g/hr 85.49 g/hr (hot lanes) Winter conditions were assumed for emissions, which is a conservative approach. The average vehicle speed used by Transpo in developing their traffic models was used in calculating the 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 emissions for moving vehicles. Emissions from idling cars were calculated using EPA - recommended procedures. AIR QUALITY MODELING The procedures for estimating projected air quality from traffic using an air quality simulation model is described by EPA in the Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections (EPA- 454/R -92 -005). In this case the EPA air dispersion model CAL3QHC, the guideline model for intersections such as these, was used. In the models all the intersections were assumed to be at right angles although the 61 S` Ave and Southcenter Blvd. /Tukwila Parkway intersections are actually at about 80 degrees included angle. It is not clear what, if any, effect this would have on the results. The CAL3QHC model uses the traffic data described above to compute the length of the queue that develops behind each yellow and red light. The emissions from this queue of vehicles while stopped and the emissions from the vehicles operating through the intersection while the light is green were included and were used to predict the concentrations of CO at the receivers near the edge of the roadway. The emissions, calculated from Mobile 6 as described above, are released into a zone about the height of a vehicle and the width of a lane, are mixed with the air in the zone, and are then dispersed into the surrounding air using verified models of atmospheric dispersion. The result is a prediction of one -hour average CO concentrations at receptors placed along the roadway. Because of some of the constants assigned to the models by EPA, the estimates of CO concentration will generally be conservatively high. The dispersion model was set to seek the wind direction that would result in the greatest concentrations at a receptor for a low (1 m/s) wind speed and neutral stability conditions. The low wind speed and the search for the wind direction with the greatest impact results in a prediction of the expected highest annual concentration at that intersection with the new traffic patterns. EPA guidance requires the use of Class D, or neutral stability, for urban area modeling (EPA, 1992). In the past, PSCAA has recommended using Class E, or stable, to provide a conservative estimate of pollution concentrations. However, according to John Anderson of PSCAA, their approach is case -by -case and is not a universal constraint. They agree that there are cases where Class D would be more appropriate. Class E is a good meteorological condition to use in urban areas surrounding the Seattle metropolitan area that are located in valleys or a flat region and away from major freeways and the downtown core. This is because stable conditions will form when cold air pools in valleys and flat regions due to radiative cooling. Cool air formed on slope sides tends to sink into 6 adjacent lower lying areas. Also, cooling is not as severe in denser urban areas where a lot of paved surfaces, traffic, and cooling load- dominated buildings hamper it. Two of the modeled locations are located on a hillside slope above the valley. All three are near the intersection of two of the busiest freeways in the region and near large paved parking lots and large retail/industrial buildings. It is therefore too conservative to assume stability Class E as the worst -case condition during the evening rush hour at this location. If the intersections were located further down the valley or we were modeling much later in the evening, Class E stability could be a more reasonable assumption Receptors were placed along the existing sidewalks, and in the case of Andover Park W and Tukwila Parkway, at a bus stop. Receptors were not placed were there are no sidewalks or where physical barriers would discourage access. The model only predicts the CO concentrations due to the traffic using that intersection. To account for CO which is generated on I -405, at other nearby intersections or is generally present in the urban air during a worst case day, a background of 4.5 ppm of CO is added to the 8 -hour average results computed from the models. The 8 -hour background near I -405 is expected to be about the same as general urban background because the traffic on I -405 moves at average speeds in excess of 45 mph for most of the eight -hour period.. The 8 -hour average results are themselves obtained by multiplying the computed one -hour averages by the EPA - recommended persistence factor, which is 0.7. Though several of the intersections included roadways which are overpasses they were treated as "at- grade" rather than "bridge" links /queues. The effects that either alternative has on the concentration is not known. AIR QUALITY MODELING RESULTS Each of the modeled intersections, the locations of the receptors at the intersection and a graphical presentation of the resulting estimated ambient concentrations of CO is presented in Figures 1 through 3. Also included in an Appendix are the output files for each of the modeling runs. Two sets of modeling were conducted. The main set of modeling includes a mixture of queues /links using either total hot start emission rates or cold start default emission rates depending on the origin of incoming traffic. Traffic approaching 6.15` Ave. South and Southcenter Blvd from the east and west are assumed to be with no re -start emission rates. Following from this, southbound traffic approaching 61st Ave S and Tukwila will all be with no re- start emissions also considering that this link is fed only by the previous no -re -start links. For all three intersections the results were below the 8 hour NAAQS limit for CO. Using the Envirometrics calculated idle rate of 85.49 grams/hour and traveling rate of 7.423 grams /mile for 0 1 1 11 0 the hot - running lanes, and the PSRC rates for the remaining lanes results were computed, illustrated in the following table: These values include the calculated 1 -hour values multiplied by the 8 -hour persistance factor of 0.7. The accepted background value of 4.5 ppm is added (the values would be 0.5 ppm lower if the lower background values were used). Figures 1 -3 illustrate the impacts respectively. A much more conservative approach would be to consider the national default re -start emissions for all the queues and links except for the eastbound approaching lanes of 61St Ave. S and Southcenter Blvd. These lanes are directly coming from interstate offramps, ensuring that almost all the traffic is in hot run mode. Even with this conservative assumption, all intersections are below the NAAQS 8 -hour CO limit: Class D stability 61st Ave S and Southcenter Blvd 7.9 ppm Andover Park W and Tukwila Pkwy 7.9 ppm 61St Ave S and Tukwila Pkwy 7.3 ppm These values include the calculated 1 -hour values multiplied by the 8 -hour persistance factor of 0.7. The accepted background value of 4.5 ppm is added (the values would be 0.5 ppm lower if the lower background values were used). Figures 1 -3 illustrate the impacts respectively. A much more conservative approach would be to consider the national default re -start emissions for all the queues and links except for the eastbound approaching lanes of 61St Ave. S and Southcenter Blvd. These lanes are directly coming from interstate offramps, ensuring that almost all the traffic is in hot run mode. Even with this conservative assumption, all intersections are below the NAAQS 8 -hour CO limit: REFERENCES EPA, 1992. Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Interstections. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, November 1992 EPA- 454/R -92 -005 EPA, 2004. Technical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for Emission Inventory Preparation, USEPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, August 2004. EPA420 -R -04 -013 Class D stability 8.2 ppm 61st Ave S and Southcenter Blvd Andover Park W and Tukwila Pkwy 7.9 ppm 61st Ave S and Tukwila Pkwy 7.8 ppm REFERENCES EPA, 1992. Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Interstections. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, November 1992 EPA- 454/R -92 -005 EPA, 2004. Technical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for Emission Inventory Preparation, USEPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, August 2004. EPA420 -R -04 -013 0 0 0 0 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 PPm 9.00 8.50 8.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4 50 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 050 0.00 8 Figure 1. Modeled region of 61st Ave S and Southcenter Blvd.. showing maximum 1 -hour concentrations of 4.8 ppm (before accounting for background and persistance factor) at southeast corner of intersection. 9 8 0 8 -200 -100 0 100 200 t +' 9.00 8.50 8.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4 50 4.00 3 50 3 00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Figure 2. Modeled region of 6151 Ave S and Tukwila Blvd.. showing maximum 1 -hour concentrations of 4 ppm (before adding background, persistance factor) at southwest corner of intersection. 8 a 8 -300 -100 0 100 300 Ppn 9.00 6.50 6.00 7 50 700 650 600 550 500 050 000 350 300 750 703 150 700 050 0.00 10 Figure 3. Modeled region of Andover Park W and Tukwila Blvd.. showing maximum concentrations of 4.8 ppm (before adding background, persistance factor) at southeast corner of the intersection. 11 APPENDIX (Appendix tables are available upon request) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion SEPA Lead Agency: City of Tukwila June 2004 June 21, 2004 Dear Reader: City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Attached to this letter is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed expansion of the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter, which is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of I -5 and 1 -405 in Tukwila. The applicant's objectives are generally to improve the mall's market position by diversifying and expanding the number of retail, entertainment and hospitality businesses and providing a higher quality environment and gocds. Specifically, the DEIS examines the impacts of 787,903 square feet of additional retail, commercial services, entertainment and hotel space. In order for the existing 85- acre site to accommodate the increase in building square footage, the mall itself will have a multi- level addition, and the site will have several restaurants, a hotel and two multi -level garages for parking vehicles. The DEIS focuses primarily on the transportation impacts associated with the proposed expansion and compares a "no action" alternative with a "proposed action" alternative. The proposed action will not cause traffic in the City to fall below its adopted transportation standards; however, individual intersections have been identified that would fall to the lowest operating standard during the PM peak hour and the Saturday peak hour as a result of the expansion. In addition to elements of the natural, manmade and public service environment, an analysis of the fiscal costs and benefits of the proposed expansion was conducted. This analysis shows that the revenue generated by the redevelopment could result in a positive fiscal impact for the City. Your suggestions on improving the environmental analysis of the proposed project are welcome. Written comments on the DEIS are due in 30 days and must he postmarked no later than July 21 2004. Comments should be addressed to Steve Lancaster, Director, City of Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100, Tukwila, WA, 98188. Questions about this project may be directed to me or to Moira Carr Bradshaw at 206- 431 -3670, or mbradshaw Pci.tukwila.wa.us. Sincerely, WI— Steve Lancaster DCD Director and SEPA Responsible Official Q: \mall`.DI:1S -ct %c Iti dry 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 4100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 r.. Us' 11 ti DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTO SOUTHCENTER EXPANSION CITY OF TUKWILA The Draft Environmental Impact Statement re t (Draft with the StatelEnvi�onm ental town Southcenter Expansion has been prepared in omp Policy Act of 1971 (Chapter 43.21C, Revised Code of Washington); the SEPA Rules, ); effective April 4, 1984, as amended (Chapter Ti (Title 92111EnvironmentalARegulat ons, Tukwila and rules adopted by the City of Tukwila Municipal Code), the lead agency for the environmental review of the project under of SEPA. Preparation of this EIS is the responsibility the City of Tukwila has determined Community Development. The Department that this document has been prepared in analysis that were undertaken in prepara- tion and has directed the areas of resea rch and tion of this EIS. This document is not an authorization for an action, nor does it l accom- constitute a decision or a recommendation for er Expansion proposal and will belconsid- pany the Westfield Shoppingtown South P ered in making the final decisions on the proposal. Date of Draft EIS Issuance June 21, 2004 Date Comments are Due on this Draft EIS July 21, 2004 ' Final EIS PREFACE The purpose of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) is to identify and evaluate probable significant environmental impacts that could result from the proposed Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion (Proposed Action) and the No Action Alternative and to identify possible measures to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. An EIS is a disclosure document. It does not select a specific alternative or recommend for or against a particular course of action. Information contained in this Draft EIS — along with other technical and financial factors — will be considered by the City of Tuk- wila when they consider the Southcenter proposal. The Draft EIS evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposal and alternatives, as well as construction- related impacts. The City of Tukwila, following a public scoping period, determined the environmental elements that are analyzed in this Draft EIS. They include air quality, water (stormwater quality and quantity), plants and animals (fisheries effects of stormwater), transportation, public services and utilities, and fiscal impacts. A detailed table of contents is provided on page v of this document. This Draft EIS is organized into the following sections: • Fact Sheet (immediately following this Preface) provides an overview of the proposed project, its location, the approvals needed, the process for providing comments, and information concerning whom to contact for additional in- formation. • Chapter 1— Summary summarizes the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion proposal, including the Proposed Action and No Action Alterna- tive, environmental impacts, mitigating measures, and significant unavoid- able adverse impacts. • Chapter 2 — Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative presents relevant background information, the objectives of the proponent, and a detailed description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alterna- tives. • Chapter 3 — Affected Environment, Impacts, Mitigating Measures, and Sig- nificant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts contains information about current conditions on the site of the proposal and surrounding area with respect to the elements of the environment considered in the Draft EIS. This section also provides a detailed analysis of probable environmental impacts that could re- sult from implementation of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives and identifies possible mitigating measures and significant unavoidable ad- verse impacts. 1 1:1 1 1 1 1 Name of Proposal Proponent Westfield Corporation, Inc. Location The Proposed Action is located on the existing 85 -acre Southcenter site in the block bounded by Tukwila Parkway to the north, Southcenter Parkway to the west, Strander Boulevard to the south, and Andover Park West to the east. The expansion would primarily occur within the southern portion of the site. 1 -5 and I-405 intersect near the northwest corner of the shopping cen- ter. Proposed Action The Proposed Action consists of development approvals that would allow expansion and renovation of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter (Southcenter). The maxi- mum expansion would increase the size of Southcenter to a total of 2,226,274 square feet (sf) of gross building area (gba), and would consist of additional retail com- mercial uses, restaurants, a movie theater complex, a hotel, and parking structures. The proposed expansion and renovation of the mall would add up to 535,347 sf of retail shops, anchor stores, expanded food court space, and a theater. In ad- dition, up to three freestanding restaurants (21,101 sf) and a 70,355- square -foot hotel would be developed on outparcels peripheral to the mall. Altogether, the shop- ping center would increase by 626,803 sf of gross leas- able floor area (glfa). An additional 161,100 sf of space would be developed for mall common area and service area, bringing the increase in gross building area to 787,903 square feet. The expansion would extend the footprint of the mall generally to the south, establish a second level of retail shops, and provide two parking structures. All development would occur within the ex- isting shopping center site. Construction of the expanded shopping center is sched- uled to begin in 2004 and be complete in 2006. De- pending on market conditions, part of the expansion could be eliminated or deferred until a later time. How- ever, for the purposes of this EIS, all uses are assumed to be open in 2006. FACT SHEET Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fact Sheet SEPA Lead Agency SEPA Responsible Official EIS Contact Person Final Action Required Permits & Approvals City of Tukwila, Department of Community Develop- ment. Steve Lancaster, Director City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: 206.431.3670 Fax: 206.431.3665 E-mail: mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us Approval of the proposed Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion by the City of Tukwila. Preliminary investigation indicates that the following approvals and/or actions would be required for devel- opment of the proposed Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion. Additional permits and/or ap- provals may be identified as project design is finalized. City of Tukwila - Complementary and Parking Variance Approvals - Design Review and Approval - Boundary Adjustment/Lot Consolidation Approval - Building Permit — Demolition Permit - Mechanical Permit Hauling Permit - Type C— Construction, Right -of -Way, and Grading Permits - Fire Protection System Permits Seattle /King County Health Department - Plumbing Permit II Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fact Sheet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Authors /Principal Contributors to this Draft EIS Type/Timing of Subsequent Envi- ronmental Review Location of Back- ground Data State Agencies Department of Ecology - Coverage under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (for general construction activities) Department of Labor & Industries - Elevator Permits - Electrical Permits Regional Agencies Puget Sound Clean Air Agency - Notice of Asbestos Removal The Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS has been prepared under the direction of the City of Tukwila. Research and analysis for this Draft EIS have been provided by the following consulting firms: • Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. — lead EIS consultant, document preparation, public services and utilities, fiscal analysis; • MFG, Inc. air quality; • Pentec Environmental, Inc. — water ( stormwater quality and quantity), plants and animals (fisher- ies effects of stormwater); and • The Transpo Group — transportation. No subsequent environmental review would be required for the development addressed in the EIS. City of Tukwila City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. 270 -3rd Avenue, Suite 200 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fact Sheet iii Supporting SEPA Documents Date of Issuance of this DEIS Date Comments Due Regarding this Draft EIS Availability /Cost of Draft EIS The following existing environmental documents are incorporated by reference for purposes of SEPA com- pliance (WAC 197 -11 -635): • Tukwila Municipal Code • Tukwila Comprehensive Plan EIS, 1995 • Transportation Element Background Report, 1993 • Gilliam Creek Basin Stormwater Management Plan, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., 2001 June 21, 2004 In order for comments concerning this Draft EIS to be considered in the Final EIS, written comments must be received no later than 5 PM, July 21, 2004. Copies of this Draft EIS have been distributed to agen- cies, organizations and individuals noted on the Distri- bution List . Copies are also available for review at the following locations: • City of Tukwila City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 • Foster Library 4060 S. 144th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Free copies of the Draft EIS are available on compact disc. A limited number of complimentary paper copies of this Draft EIS are available at the City of Tukwila De- partment of Community. Development while the supply lasts. Additional paper copies may be purchased at the City for the cost of reproduction. iv Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fact Sheet A 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Fact Sheet i 1. Summary Proponent/Project Location S -1 Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative S -1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigating Measures, and Significant S -2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 2. Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative Name of the Proposal 2 -1 2 -1 Proponent 2 -1 Description of Proposed Action 2 -1 Nature and Location of the Proposed Action 2 -1 Background 2 -4 Objectives of the Proposed Action 2 -4 Proposed Project 2--1 No Action Alternative 3. Affected Environment, Impacts, Mitigating Measures, and Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Air Quality 3-1 Affected Environment 3 -1 Analysis Framework Existing Air Quality 3 -2 3 -2 Impacts of the Alternatives 3 -5 Impacts of the Proposed Action 3-8 Impacts of the No Action Alternative Mitigating Measures 3-8 3 - Construction Impact Mitigation 3-10 Operational Impact Mitigation 3 -10 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -11 Water Resources 3 -11 Affected Environment 3 -11 Water Quantity 3 -12 Water Quality 3-13 Impacts of the Alternatives Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Table of Contents Impacts of the Proposed Action 3 -13 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 3 -15 Mitigating Measures 3 -15 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -15 Plants and Animals 3 -17 Affected Environment 3 -17 Impacts of the Alternatives 3 -17 Impacts of the Proposed Action 3 -17 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 3 -18 Mitigating Measures 3 -18 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -18 Transportation and Parking 3 -19 Affected Environment 3 -19 Study Area 3 -19 Street System 3 -21 Traffic Volumes 3 -21 Traffic Operations 3 -23 Special Considerations 3 -27 Arterial Level of Service 3 -28 Driveway Operations 3 -29 Transit 3 -30 Non - motorized Facilities 3 -32 Traffic Safety 3 -33 Parking 3 -35 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 3 -36 Planned Improvements 3 -36 Traffic Volumes 3 -39 Traffic Operations 3 -40 Arterial Level of Service 3 -45 Driveway Operations 3 -46 Transit Service 3 -47 Non - Motorized Facilities 3 -47 Traffic Safety 3 -47 Parking 3 -48 Impacts of the Proposed Action 3 -48 Proposed Action Assumptions 3 -48 Trip Generation 3 -48 Distribution 3 -51 Assignment 3 -51 Traffic Volume Impacts 3 -56 Traffic Operations 3 -60 Arterial Levels of Service 3 -66 Driveway Levels of Service 3 -67 Transit Service 3 -70 Non - Motorized Facilities 3 -70 vi Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Table of Contents 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Traffic Safety 3 -70 Parking 3 -71 Cumulative Impacts 3 -73 Mitigating Measures 3 -73 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -74 Public Services and Utilities 3-77 Affected Environment 3 -77 Fire and Emergency Medical Services 3 -77 Police Services 3 -79 Southcenter Security 3 -81 Utilities 3 -81 Impacts of the Proposed Action 3 -85 Fire and Emergency Medical Services 3 -86 Police Services 3-88 Southcenter Security 3 -89 Utilities 3 -89 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 3 -93 Cumulative Impacts 3 -93 Mitigating Measures 3 -93 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -96 Fiscal Analysis 3 -97 Introduction 3 -97 Affected Environment 3 -97 Impacts of the Alternatives 3 -98 Impacts of the Proposed Action 3 -98 Development Assumptions 3 -98 Revenues 3 -99 Costs 3 -103 Net Fiscal Surplus 3 -105 Sensitivity Analysis 3 -106 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 3 -107 Cumulative Impacts 3 -107 Mitigating Measures 3 -107 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -107 References Ref -1 Distribution List Appendix A: Fiscal Analysis Calculations Appendix B: Transportation and Parking Calculations Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS VII Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2 -1 Regional Map 2 -2 2 -2 Vicinity Map 2 -3 2 -3 Existing Site Development 2 -5 2 -4a Site Plan — Level 1 2 -7 2 -4b Site Plan — Level 2 2 -8 2 -4c Site Plan — Level 3 2 -9 3 -1 Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak Hour Study Area 3 -20 3 -2 Roadway Characteristics 3 -22 3 -3A Existing (2004) Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 3 -24 3 -3B Existing (2004) Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 3 -25 3 -4A 2010 No Action Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 3 -41 3 -4B 2010 No Action Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 3 -42 3 -5 Inbound and Outbound Trip Distribution 3 -52 3 -6A Weekday PM Peak -Hour Project Trip Assignment 3 -53 3 -6B Weekday PM Peak -Hour Project Trip Assignment 3 -54 3 -7 Project. Traffic — Saturday Peak Hour 3 -55 3 -8A 2010 Proposed Action Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 3 -57 3 -8B 2010 Proposed Action Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 3 -58 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS iX Table of Contents 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 II 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK X Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 Summary Chapter 1 is a summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion proposed by Westfield Corporation, Inc. It briefly describes the proposed expansion and renovation of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter (Southcenter) t, compares the Proposed Action and the No Action Alterna- tive, and summarizes the expected environmental impacts, mitigating measures that would address the impacts, and the significant unavoidable adverse impacts. This sum- mary should not serve as a substitute for the more comprehensive analysis contained in this Draft EIS. Please consult the full EIS and technical appendices for complete infor- mation. Proponent/Project Location Westfield Corporation, Inc. proposes to expand and renovate the existing Southcenter shopping center, located in the City of Tukwila, Washington. The proposed project would be located within the existing 85 -acre Southcenter site. The site is bounded by Tukwila Parkway to the north, Southcenter Parkway to the west, Strander Boulevard to the south, and Andover Park West to the east. I -5 and 1-405 intersect near the northwest comer of the shopping. center. The site is within the City of Tukwila's Urban Center (TUC), which is bounded by I -405, I -5, South 180th Street, and West Valley High- way /eastern city limits. Please see Chapter 2 for figures depicting the geographical loca- tion of the proposed project. Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative Proposed Action In accordance with objectives of the proponent to improve the market position of South- center as a regional, commercial shopping complex that offers a wide variety of mer- chandise options and retail opportunities to consumers, the Proposed Action seeks to ex- pand and renovate the existing shopping center by 787,903 square feet of gross building area (gba) [626,803 square feet of gross leasable floor area (glfa)] to a total of 2,226,274 square feet gba (1,926,947 square feet glfa). The development would include additional retail uses, restaurants, a movie theater complex, a hotel, and parking structures. All de- velopment would occur within the existing shopping center site, generally within the southern portion of the site. Please see Chapter 2 for figures depicting the proposed site plan. I Use of the words "Southcenter" and "shopping center" refers to the entire site and its uses (shopping mall and outparcels), whereas "mall" or "shopping mall" refers to the self - contained retail facility with anchor stores, food court, and specialty retail uses all connected by promenades. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS S -1 Summary 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CHAPTER 1 Summary Chapter 1 is a summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion proposed by Westfield Corporation, Inc. It briefly describes the proposed expansion and renovation of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter (Southcenter) I, compares the Proposed Action and the No Action Alterna- tive, and summarizes the expected environmental impacts, mitigating measures that would address the impacts, and the significant unavoidable adverse impacts. This sum- mary should not serve as a substitute for the more comprehensive analysis contained in this Draft EIS. Please consult the full EIS and technical appendices for complete infor- mation. Proponent/Project Location Westfield Corporation, Inc. proposes to expand and renovate the existing Southcenter shopping center, located in the City of Tukwila, Washington.. The proposed project would be located within the existing 85 -acre Southcenter site. The site is bounded by Tukwila Parkway to the north, Southcenter Parkway to the west, Strander Boulevard to the south, and Andover Park West to the east. I -5 and I -405 intersect near the northwest corner of the shopping center. The site is within the City of Tukwila's Urban. Center (TUC), which is bounded by I -405, I -5, South 180`h Street, and West Valley High- way /eastern city limits. Please see Chapter 2 for figures depicting the geographical loca- tion of the proposed project. Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative Proposed Action In accordance with objectives of the proponent to improve the market position of South- center as a regional, commercial shopping complex that offers a wide variety of mer- chandise options and retail opportunities to consumers, the Proposed Action seeks to ex- pand and renovate the existing shopping center by 787,903 square feet of gross building area (gba) [626,803 square feet of gross leasable floor area (glfa)] to a total of 2,226,274 square feet gba (1,926,947 square feet glfa). The development would include additional retail uses, restaurants, a movie theater complex, a hotel, and parking structures. All de- velopment would occur within the existing shopping center site, generally within the southern portion of the site. Please see Chapter 2 for figures depicting the proposed site plan. Use of the words "Southcenter" and "shopping center" refers to the entire site and its uses (shopping mall and outparcels), whereas "mall" or "shopping mall" refers to the self - contained retail facility with anchor stores, food court, and specialty retail uses all connected by promenades. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS S -1 Summary Construction of the proposed improvements is scheduled to begin in 2004 for completion in 2006. Depending on market conditions, construction of some of the square footage, including the freestanding restaurant space and the hotel, could be deferred until a later time. For the purpose of environmental review, however, the Proposed Action presented in this EIS represents the maximum development potential of the proposal. Access to the shopping center would continue to be provided from Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard, and Andover Park West. No additional access to the site would be provided under the Proposed Action. Access to the parking structures would be provided from the internal circulation roads. The number of parking stalls, in- cluding surface and structured parking, would increase by approximately 15.5 percent to 7,900 spaces total. In general, existing drainage patterns at the site would remain — surface water would be conveyed through underground pipes toward Gilliam Creek to the north and ultimately into the Green River near I -405. In accordance with the City of Tukwila's stormwater management regulations, the Proposed Action would provide for the installation of me- chanical catch basins in order to treat surface water runoff (collected from on -site imper- vious surfaces and roof drains). The area of impervious surface would not increase under the Proposed Action. Therefore, flow control would not be incorporated into the storm - water strategy. Increases in existing utilities' services would be necessary under the Proposed Action. Water, sewer, stormwater, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications systems would be reconfigured, relocated, and/or upgraded to varying degrees in order to meet the requirements of the Proposed Action. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative represents a baseline against which the Proposed Action can be evaluated. Without future improvements at Southcenter, the existing trends in levels of consumer activity could prevail, and any changes to land use and transportation in the vicinity would occur as a result of existing conditions, independent from any improve- ments at Southcenter. Under No Action, untreated surface water runoff would continue to be discharged from Southcenter into Gilliam Creek and the Green River. In addition, on -site utilities — particularly those currently eligible for improvements and upgrades — may not receive the appropriate level of improvements. Finally, the City would not bene- fit from the increased tax revenues that would be generated by an improved Southcenter. Summary of Impacts, Mitigating Measures, and Significant Un- avoidable Adverse Impacts Table 1 -1 summarizes potential impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alterna- tive. Table 1 -2 summarizes the mitigating measures for addressing the impacts identified in this Draft EIS. Please see Chapter 3 of this Draft EIS for more complete information. S -2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Summary Table 1 -1. Summary.of Impacts W 2 0 f/) c d W C) rL.l 0 0 0 rn Q d 0 E a) H � in Summary of Impacts • co J 2 z 4 0 z Q u) 1- zz a 0 0 C 0 O X o > N `) 7 O. C •U 0 0. 0 0 CO > w U fa 0) L CO CO . L o " u'a) tC vim) To 13 C 0. a7 U mco ° a 0 h as 0 a .E U 0 C a3 _O) j U) E zo z 0 H H 0 a u) z rovements C 0 m E N a3 z' O Y 0 >aY coF o d •o 0 7 U C 1 C N hi a a). F- O O `. 0. L C E u o y c a) v v) B 0 O y w .. U` m w 0 0 C > U> > 0 coo m E_Y a)wo aE . Q m co $ o o c_ E E T > 0 0 v in " `m m 'a `T' 0 3 c a ac) 0 E a). CO o U v o E o c 0vN'u)a. -c E o= E_ aa, c� d o a E c 0 7 a U d 7o f4 c c' m >>> o ? o o TY m~ m `j a • °- m a N m a 0> O a t o m 3 3 to coti f- t_ s > aoi oo > •E > `m E ai m E v 13-0 N C i U c) 5 Ln (O u) N .x a) O Y 0 O C to o L_ O op o n a) 7 0 N (a CeiY o.3'v�Hin%Q cv)i . ... c EYY oa) 0 (4 N CI a Y T m C 0 O T 1. O v U a, C a 173 U 'D L ) 0 U T v E y a(a) 3 c° .61) a° as a) C a 0 �- r 0 eNj CO CO O a 0 N (" .c C a) -9 d 0 @ O y 0 C .L• C °' ) 8cQ r v a c c o o . 3 o c (,) a) U.0. 2. a) 0 D) ' cm a) 0� )n a N y C 7.0 X N U O` C N a) O(0 p T a 0 C o a 32ma.o> o � a �mEmUa o a) o 0...0z 3 U .�� 7 L C 7 0 CO Y a) O 0 a) y n 6� �ov)L5� a) 0. o a .-- - T c U v .-. C ) 2 a T. co 7 W C) N 0 O a N l a y (/) a L c O TN o. •C C� a3>`3a N 0 CO y o 0 xav mt0o`T°`a! a) L > N CL .0 L D) a a O L O) O i V) •o _C `° >' r 0 a) CO >.0 a 7«O -2 O)�H a) C .7• 'C 7 a1 OYO 'aa))'o ap���� C a) a) 0 "' U 0 N c o 3 a E y fn L+ (n c CO m 3 (0 o m rnaf0i uv E C N N a >, 7 C a ai >113 0 aM d d o m ov -o ' oo U U ?� U 7 V C N O _ C C O a) N 0 0 X m of c. a=ci L o E c Eat m c a m " E ? .. n m ++ ` .C-- N 0 7 0 a E C 7 N m C O W 03) (7A (O (O .c T 7 0 0 y a 7 >N cz �� .f- '-'o >awaJr5. V U a • • m • • • 1- I 1 y � 1 1 1 1 1 f Table 1 -1. Summary of Impacts . O T C Z 0 7 f0 f0 W 0) .0 O > 7 0= 0) Y N N 0) a) F- a) co « �? = 0) c 0) E co o 3 Z -0 a) O co N ° 3 E a) ° c 41-6 U fl,) N O ggo N j> O E V y N .O+ C `o N 0 N V (co �j c u0) 0L) N > v m° o° o co r LO, c a) a c ci -0 0 j E a) j. N 0 L N >, O m ° '> m 1 --aI-in aSO..(Ln2 El..) u) 2 EQ ■ Transit and Rail 0 • • • ■ rovements Non - Motorized Im -° c y c ° 7 .c w m N u- 0 CD T O O c C U _ 0 o N 2 E -.52, E.D. J w fo U r m ` C TO u) C c o g p° a) O O L - -5 0) N J LL 0) c 0 O — a 0 0 c L U O o� J 3o �m O — O Y O 0 w I- 0 v _c7 7 ° O U 0 o m m O o 0 o >, 0 U y . o : (o w a) a) = 3 7 3 « a lD --,r, N a ,._.,0) J c•c o °a CO m p!ow E a°iy v NCI) .N Stn° E60 7 0a' 7 O w O 0 3 0� .N.. _O N 0) a T a) (o (6 N T >, > J N y CO CO Q ° E) > > T cn N 7 V a) c v > ca r e � mN 0 D n 0) E a c y a w ° Q •C N A N 0 ` L" a O 61)00 2f-,o)8,0 - LL— > o C 70 N --u OU 70 (n U w a) " 0 3.E o c -� aL) 7 y "O" O J 0) N L O 7 Y > .54 L C 7� 0)OJ 0 NQsa C 7 N a 0 Y cu .C. 3ty�0 �Za°i >c a - C Y 0 N.0 0 c n.0 0. 0 a a 0 00-0„,>:8-8 U >.0 N C ax) 0)Q •j•0(N•2Q-0 >. 0)) >+0 V'y - 0-. C =� 7 CO o (0 3) 0 En N O Y 0 0) P y F N N w 0) N a) ow 3 0 3 to cn C N C C N O L N 0 y 0) U) 0) JJ C 0 3 0 ?;• u) U... E d -c Ow o 0 '(o a. —a) A � u .- c' 0 2 .- a) aa)i c) a) cQ7 6- d •C a N O y 7 -C J •C E •C = Cr) G 7 O X> > CT > 7 (0 7 y 0 C OOZ'NO5.0 o 000OaJ (o 0 3 a • • • >■ • c m o 1- (0 `) (o c (1) O a) a O v CO N N 0 U (o a E 0) a) 0 (o U DI .y (o 0)) (o 0) 0 0 c 0 7 3 N a c N N QM 0 • 2c 0 z >. a) C (o 0 t 0 N a7 0 co y (moo C 0) C a . > L N y 0 O (0 a) C U 7 CO a t E 2 0 U C U ( y 3 C N O CO °) O o CD '0 o) EN c m L'0 C �Y N O 3 Y •C 00 O N .O CO L 0.-V aa)) 7 11 V N N N Q. vo 0 (o�ya aa)) vi rn c'.. a O �-° �LwO (0 U o >` •0 0) N Q) 0 (0 a) ., a) C o �� a)rnEm a) co E yo o E N C co X 7 >. N a a) o c E 0 o 0 o E O' O N (` _O 70 tl) C 7 co N CO T CO -C N (NA (o _N rn N !o U .0 0) 3 N L CO O U CO -o U N 'p ` t CO 03 7 N O 0 o a O •� N 0. N (n L L o m 0 N- -C - c E '�-• .c (0 CO C N C (0 L O C 7 c to a) _ O` 0 _O O 0) N co U j 0) fo N •7 CO U C 'V fo N 0 O) 0 °> m of 12a) O- ti c N . O) E C 0 N aa))Y pin N o.` v c a._ m U c a CD v c Ea N 3 ay 00�° ° U E CO o .0 (0 >..ov Eo?0 rn C U a) a `) 0) 0 N. a) ca3 co a E U 7 C 7 Y O O o _v o . N --o c o E c y 3 c rn ac 0 c orn 0) O • m0 c a)'y .0c N Oa w N L Y •0 0) 0) 0 7 Y O 2 (0 L •- a) C N N ,_ O (o Za (OF-> ,a (va 3a 3 a 0 c (o 1— a. Table 1 -1. Summary of Impacts N C '~ N O f0 'O `y O La N -o L N vZ c')o N >>Vm v E Na) Ou v... O O ` a o« .c c 3 N >> O .F. T v N N J a N N O O O N f0 O N N .5* Er) Y y 3 u' c• w O O T N C - f0 y `p p) 9. �. (0 N ..co N N c0 m a c ) cf) N T Y Y C 7 a W co N U 7 .N. a) 3 N N O N �.0 O a) � r� > O O 0 2 N o N f0 N a 2 c >O .�> a-a)O ua NOfOJ NOYNc ocp =OE EaO a� a. v 3 aO mvv NH-0 c c om cu oo.O_ 0 o O o E=` c E co v NY c °3 3 aNf' 3 a� aka T T CO E 0 O N y a) w O O) 10 C• N< O` .� co co O a) vNi 7 co .0 LL• 3 3— a 3 a) c Y o c0 'O f0 O N c0 O) a) y hUL > o m y oT 5 t E J mo.1) > aa)) O o ac co �O >c °'o Co c•� a= F- C4 C N O•- 100N —O u) Z O O ODCVDJ•O '0 ILt =d N ,_ N a) co C • • Q • ■ 0 • • FCa • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CA W 1 V co C. E O E E co 1 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES y CIS 0O V 07 a a)) .0 co >, a) 3 CO w U 5 n1 N U E C 5 T a) 3 - " 0`)')' c a) (a N w c U'0 j y C~ CD U /4 O aci O ..- -' N 7 Q N c 3 U a) a) V c a U ch c 3 CO a) N av a� w — c- N c c co U `'C l9 N U `) •. 9O .. c - 9O O Q, c co cocn�cminmu)mm a) •X 1. E d o c ti. a) c N 03 (30 = d cp 2p Q� cp 2 E— Z .7 1•— U U d F— U D. '. N Construction Impacts • Vandalism, theft and /or trespassing could occur during construction a Construction traffic could require police presence and could reduce the Department's ability to respond to incidents elsewhere Operation Impacts • Based on Police Department estimates, calls for service could increase from 9.4 calls currently to 13 per 24- hour day (28 percent increase) • Number of cases could increase from 3.5 to 5 per 24 -hour day (30 percent increase) • Using an estimate based on the number of calls per 1,000 sf, the Proposed Action could result in an increase of 5 calls per day, or 1.4 more calls per 24 -hour day than Department estimates • Additional demands equate to the need for one additional FTE position. Without increases in staffing, indirect impacts to service levels and response times citywide could occur • Additional personnel may result in the need for expanded departmental facilities, but no additional vehicles or equipment would be necessary • Absence of a Community Resource Center could adversely impact service at Southcenter and would reduce police presence, potentially contributing to an increase in criminal activity • Overall, impacts to police services during operation would likely be moderate r-7- W 0 X W d c 0 O to C 3 0 rn c a 0 r vz` s E ti E a) � t nn co E Table 1 -1. Summary of Z' co '> a d v CO CO a' � m = U) y❑ 'o rn° _o 0Ci 2 a' a' D 3 y m — E c aoi m C U 0 E N O C ° `� d y �_ co p Z c0 a' a) 0 °• U _& co E O o co co U U > L m E a) — 3 .0 E a >� o o '° O « O a O N C E 0 U) 3 o y L . 3 t'- E r c E 5 00 C_c U N U p c j L ° CO y U lc a`' t 3� 3�a t °�' �' m N t N ° co 70 co y a e N N in ° �° > 3 C 3 c m u °a v' u>i C E - O y` C SyC i'i C 7) O c tto y C 0 O o 0 0 -c .2 QlL co co a' O C N o O 0 - •- 7 p y y 0' N -o > a' v p . O .0 •0 a' t9 V C C a' N a ::. H 7 U) N U) CO = .:3 r O - rnm_c o N - E c �' 5 c co aEi x o ti�E 3p'v� ro o m w . .�o my o M 7a ooacio o.: ; 0 m m m co E a' m rnm•° O 0) ,2. r. .o oo m m a� C «- C m C c-o O. 0 `° C .O °. U d y E ` v' — 3 a v_' c p o >, o f a' ' E a' O c C CO t- a' O C 'j 7 7 tO y U a' ° co « N p o N E o- . �n $ a ova E c o t 0 °c' Cll O pI '° to o cu O C - 7 O' •aa)i o... C 0. - 7 7 v Y am a •N o °'o c o f 721 °'o 0 a m p . co V ° c aX' v ^3•v'v o° a' va a' -VV°m co a' T.X a' o N� CO m e ac.` ° w m °' 7 tO. 0. U. a' .o > co a C a) .Z...- ° N coo y O co _ m C ° U v L C a C a> L° _0 U`-' y TO 2 v' O ymao E m1" Em 5'>' ° cTia°im apica m ) co Z., c j, o a).- ca ° a p2 o o: cu 0 c co � u� a' as v � >,cv � � o �o � cam m co o C CO 3 7 V to cO a3 C -c C y •° C > y t- o' v3Cm3 E 300 o'vo To 7' a' °O� a E o o c0 yu) a. -5 a' x- o o N U E cn a c��vy . ��'� °oc°'� a) a) a)ccoy y00 ` -aU)i C °' 3 >,� o ° 6- o-c60 3 a 0 -C Xt =.c �� C 3 o m o Qo , m° E= a'2 E p o °� a Yo Z.a' E° E ca °1 0 7 a' y w CO 0 a' gi-c C 0 - CO N ` y �O pa V O 0 T C •- N 0` 0 ` N O C° co 3 E O-0 U a. c y. > U m 0 co O U CO U a' d U a cn m a� a y > O > O 3> v' •o c alp C a' aC '° ca c) cjw c°��i E 3 E co IA z 2Qw co co0 60.-CO E E 3� •Estw _E i-° m �D 3 1 3 m ■ • • • € ■ ; • ■ • • =°- ■ ■ • U ■ ■ ■ r • ■ 3 (0 (nn (°n W co rn W 0 0. 4) 8 0 N 0 rn c a 0 0 t v Z' E N E in FISCAL ANALYSIS 0 c 12 as w ) to v a E — a u). _ c lens • • Demand for communications services would increase and would require expansion or relocation of the existing termination space • Overall, impacts to communications are all site targeted and would be significant, but the upgrades would significantly benefit Southcenter Cumulative Impacts • Total costs incurred by the City of Tukwila: $33,000 in 2004 to $678,000 by 2012 (point at which project costs generally stabilize) • During construction, the City would incur costs primarily from the need for additional fire and EMS services • During operation, the City would incur costs for police services (20 percent of total), general government costs (55 percent), fire services (17 percent), and road /street maintenance (8 percent) Net Fiscal Surplus rn W 0 0. 4) 8 0 N 0 rn c a 0 0 t v Z' E N E in No Action Alternative AIR QUALITY v 0 0 3 c ' d 5 N f0 N E C c N 0) N O E G) C o d Z • WATER RESOURCES • No mitigating measures would be necessary Proposed Action Construction Per the Washington Associated General Contractors brochure, Guide to Handling Fugitive Dust from Construction Projects, the following mitigating measures are recommended: • Use only equipment and trucks that are maintained in optimal operational condition • Require all off-road equipment to be retrofitted with emission reduction equipment • Use bio- diesel or other lower emission fuels for vehicles and equipment is Use carpooling or other trip reduction strategies for construction workers • Stage construction to minimize overall transportation system congestion and delays to reduce regional emissions of pollutants during construction • Implement construction curbs on hot days to reduce ozone emissions • Implement restrictions on construction truck idling (i.e., 5 minutes) • Locate construction equipment away from sensitive receptors, such as fresh air intakes for buildings, air conditioners, and sensitive populations • Locate construction staging zones in areas of least impact • Route and schedule construction trucks around high traffic periods to reduce emissions In addition, mitigating measures would be required in conjunction with City of Tukwila permits; specifically the applicant would be required to develop a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan and an Erosion Prevention and Sedimentation Control Plan. These plans include a number of additional mitigating measures relevant to reducing air quality impacts. Operation • In order to reduce vehicle volumes and /or improve operation of poor -LOS intersections during peak weekday and Saturday periods, transportation demand measures to improve mobility and measures that target shopping center employees could be implemented • No additional mitigating measures are proposed other than those listed in "Potential Transportation Mitigation Options" (Table 3 -19) • No mitigating measures would be necessary N w m 0 0 d) d W Q)) c O O C) Q CL O TD- co E: E v -w 1 1 1 Summary of Mitigating Measures N a) co H cn w E 0 i c 0 'm- a co a 0 ry� W 0) a) c g 0 0 0 0, c ._ 0. 0 r u) v z` co coca g cn co a E w N 0 .0 co .0 > co co 4- N No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be expected. N 1 ch 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CHAPTER 2 Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative Name of the Proposal Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion. Proponent Westfield Corporation, Inc. Description of Proposed Action Nature and Location of the Proposed Action The Proposed Action consists of development approvals that would allow expansion and renovation of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter' (Southcenter) (Figure 2 -1). The maximum expansion proposed would increase the size of Southcenter by 787,903 square feet of gross building area (gba) [626,803 square feet of gross leasable floor area (glfa)] to a total of 2,226,274 square feet (1,926,947 square feet glfa). It would provide for addi- tional retail commercial uses, restaurants, a movie theater complex, a hotel, and parking structures. The Proposed Action represents the maximum development potential under this proposal. Market forces could result in lesser development or deferring portions of this development. For review purposes, the maximum development is assumed to open in 2006. The Proposed Action is located on the existing 85 -acre Southcenter site in the block bounded by Tukwila Parkway to the north, Southcenter Parkway to the west, Strander Boulevard to the south, and Andover Park West to the east (Figure 2 -2). The expansion would occur within the southern portion of the site. I -5 and 1 -405 intersect near the northwest corner of the shopping center. Background When Southcenter shopping center was opened in 1968 with the first enclosed mall in the region it had 1,298,937 square feet of glfa, including 137,393 glfa of outparcel develop- ment including the former Doubletree Inn. In 1989, the Nordstrom store was expanded and a food court replaced an existing grocery. In 1992, an anchor store (Mervyn's) and I Use of the words "Southcenter" and "shopping center" refers to the entire site and its uses (shopping mall and outparcels), whereas "mall" or "shopping mall" refers to the self - contained retail facility with anchor stores, food court, and specialty retail uses all connected by promenades. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 2-1 Description of the Proposed Action Source: IiuckeillWeinman Associates, Inc. HuckeII /Weinman HWA' Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Figure 2 -1 Regional Map 2 -2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Description of the Proposed Action 1 1 1 '1 I 1 i 1 1 S Ltitth 1 i ; ,,,..\z, ,s, L.rda, \ \ ,....... I 1 , t t� -,\----r- ,..,7. -1.....S.Ww...S.k_t. , \ ,-,.- - -- I .1 j 1 -1 '---.- .........._ i u l ! i i II . ''. t...w. _4-4, - • -:',.....: '.......,., i Ei ‘ 1 rt i t \ ',:r. '• `.,f1 .. g , i --,1 1 L. 1,' -,.• 4 t- : • — ! A •.•• # #, ••• ##---,r, .. ,0 ''; `, • ..., - „ .7.. 77 ' 1 _,...,'''''-'-..' .• i .41 .,. „.,1....-"`.- 7.717-r-T ' ----`..---:- .......1, -1 —1 I I • 1 1111\1.1010°- sa60th_R ,---i i S 166 St i I: I ') 1 -1‘\• '. 1. r. s is4t?..r s. t ..i\ i , ,1. ,#) , #....1, .. ! !,; • S166thSt . .. 1 -r SOuthcenter $179t11.Sts. l• _s Mgt& r--- • ! St 11 ; -- # ,. ',... t` .. raiiiitai We r '',.. i .Bakei.sgral h , i 1 1 i • i q •., ,p,. • ',. °.' ' \ 1 i 27t1r. . . 7 Strandrrigvd 4 3 ,.. 4 .7; r fr I NI 1th ---- c1.1 • !SWA4141 I -/ \i 1 Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Figure 2-2 Vicinity Map Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS 2-3 Description of the Proposed Action retail shops were added and Frederick and Nelson's was closed, which was subsequently replaced by Sears. Today, Southcenter includes five anchor department stores (Bon Macy's, J.C. Penney, Mervyn's, Nordstrom, and Sears) and over 150 specialty retail stores and restaurants (Figure 2 -3). The mall encompasses an area of 1,252,317 square feet of glfa. Outparcels around the mall contain two restaurants (Bahama Breeze and Olive Garden at 17,930 square feet) and a post office, Key Bank, and Firestone Auto Center (29,897 square feet total). A Bank of America branch is located north of Mervyn's along Tukwila Parkway, but it is not on property under Westfield's control. The former Doubletree Inn, located in the southwest corner of the site, was closed in December 2002 and will be demolished in 2004. The majority of the shopping center site is leased by Westfield (actual leaseholder entity is WEA Southcenter LLC, which is part of the Westfield group) from Prudential Financial, Inc., which owns the land. Approximately 15 acres is owned by Federated (Bon Macy's) that includes the land under the Bon and the parking area to the north. Westfield Corporation is the developer and operator of the shopping center site; Nord- strom, Sears, J.C. Penney, and Mervyn's sublease the land beneath their respective build- ings from Westfield and, in some cases, control the parking adjacent to their stores. Objectives of the Proposed Action The objectives of the proponent are to improve Southcenter's market position in continu- ing to operate a commercial shopping complex that offers high quality merchandise and competitive retail opportunities to consumers in the region. Specific objectives are to: • Respond to market conditions; • Strengthen the center's position as a super - regional shopping center; • Broaden the merchandise mix available at the center and add complementary uses; • Increase the ratio of small retailers to anchors; • Increase the number of upscale retailers to complement other existing high quality retailers /products; and • Improve the lifestyle component of the mall, including entertainment and dining. Proposed Project Development Assumptions The proposed expansion and renovation of the shopping mall would add 289,517 square feet of retail shops, 162,650 square feet of anchor stores, 7,980 square feet of expanded food court space, and a 75,200- square -foot theater. In addition, three freestanding restau- rants (21,101 square feet) and a 70,355- square -foot hotel would be developed on outpar- cels peripheral to the mall. Altogether, the shopping center would increase by 626,803 square feet of glfa. An additional 161,100 square feet of space would be developed for new mall common area and service area, bringing the increase in gross building area to 787,903 square feet. The expansion would extend the footprint of the mall generally to 2 -4 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Description of the Proposed Action 1 w as E 0. 0 0 N 9- w !�;��i:tr�i�:uwi i����- yr��aria;�� w ca ca Q 0 N f0 a w • C • O U o N O 2 cn d C_ 0) CL O ▪ a N O -0 • 'C N N 0) 0 the south, establish a second level of retail shops, and provide two multi -level parking structures (Figure 2 -4). All development would occur within the existing shopping center site. Existing uses and proposed development are shown in Table 2 -1. Table 2 -1. Proposed Action Development Assumptions (sq.ft.) The new anchor retail space would be comprised of up to five stores ranging in size from about 12,000 square feet to about 84,000 square feet, compared to the existing anchor department stores that range in size from about 86,000 square feet (Mervyn's) to 250,000 square feet (Bon Macy's). Potential anchor store uses could include stores specializing in home goods, clothing, sporting goods, books, entertainment and/or home electronics. 2 Olive Garden opened in October 2003 and Bahama Breeze opened in May 2003. 3 The former Doubletree Inn (104,232 square feet) closed in December 2002 and will be demolished and replaced with surface parking in 2004 under separate permit. 2 -6 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Description of the Proposed Action 1 1 Existing Site Expanded Site Net Increase Gross Leasable Floor . Area (glfa): Shopping Mall: Retail Shops 333,349 622,866 289,517 Food Court 5,530 13,510 7,980 Anchor Retail 913,438 1,076,088 162,650 Theater 75,200 75,200 (3,600 to 4,000 seats) (3,600 to 4,000 seats) Total Mall Retail 1,252,317 1,787,664 535,347 Outparcel Uses: Post Office, Key Bank, Firestone 29,897 29,897 0 Freestanding Restaurant 17,9302 39,031 21,101 Hotel3 70,355 70,355 (140 rooms) (140 rooms) Total Outparcel Uses 47,827 139,283 91,456 TOTAL GLFA 1,300,144 1,926,947 626,803 Mall Common Area and Service Area 138,227 299,327 161,100 TOTAL GROSS BUILDING AREA 1,438,371 2,226,274 787,903 The new anchor retail space would be comprised of up to five stores ranging in size from about 12,000 square feet to about 84,000 square feet, compared to the existing anchor department stores that range in size from about 86,000 square feet (Mervyn's) to 250,000 square feet (Bon Macy's). Potential anchor store uses could include stores specializing in home goods, clothing, sporting goods, books, entertainment and/or home electronics. 2 Olive Garden opened in October 2003 and Bahama Breeze opened in May 2003. 3 The former Doubletree Inn (104,232 square feet) closed in December 2002 and will be demolished and replaced with surface parking in 2004 under separate permit. 2 -6 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Description of the Proposed Action 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 ..; ---------", '.....5, ' 1: Y- • - - — -- - --g :1- — • - "' • :•:1;:,- I it r'l \ i . -k1.- ' • • . . • ‘) • .- ' • •• 1 - . - igi.l.. ..------- " :":-.1, - - --- - -. •ip.z3.,i.; / (-, . : '... • ,. , . . T.';',/ s-J + ------ _...._ ---• /('—`\ It\ 1 ;%'' T :;.' "s,c•.; % .; ,,,. ., ., i" t • -...,. v ..., ...„, ! . t . • • : ; - ' - " — ..‹; : \ 4 X :.■. X Z.'L i e..7E41... .... i ' .4.0.13.0..... STRANDER BOtILEVARO / 'r ---- V /- 7-..---72) i fi CH---R C1.1,04ft ! r• ' Source: Huckell1Weinman Associates, Inc. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Description of the Proposed Action 2-7 / �� `: -``-` ° •TUKWILA PARKWAY �_.• �� j yrn' I,. I '4 , \' _ - -.. _ --- _ -- ..:.: I „..: . /i �y��al� } i =t \ Y - Y`.'`� �'y Spy! "...., 77 , i (:).=_.....,..,,...„_,.. - s: -;: r ' f; L. • 1, 31; v'd •■ 3 1.311.1.,1 1 - i- i" ) . t `\ 1 \ .y -..6 v2 `J. YV , ` rc" ' 111 N c. , _jl �. iiY.`, 01501 1 tiE;4; "_ /. / \ t� / 1 c, 0 Cr N-1-4311-11N, LK 11 i el L, • .f, to STRANGER BOULEVARD Source: HuckelWVeinman Associates, Inc. Huckell/Weinman HWA~- -- Associates, Inc. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Figure 2-4b Site Plan — Level 2 2 -8 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Description of the Proposed Action 1 ic 1 q 1 1 1 TUKWILA PARKWAY " • 'itiAVv.r eilVro •.. 1.c co 54- Lo ,IJ) . , . : • v Source: HuckelINVeinman Associates, Inc. Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. py:A' ARG STRANDER BOULEVARD Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Figure 2-4c -r 4 4 Site Plan — Level 3 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 2-9 Description of the Proposed Action The remaining shopping center retail would consist primarily of specialty shops similar to those at the mall today, but catering to a broader range of customers and featuring a wider array of merchandise. The theater complex is expected to have 16 -18 screens, and seat- ing for 3,600 to 4,000 moviegoers. It would be developed on the second or third level of the mall. Development of the hotel would depend upon market demand but is planned to provide lodging for about 140 guests. Its location on the site has not yet been deter- mined. Construction of the expanded shopping center is scheduled to begin in 2004 and be com- plete in 2006. Depending on market conditions, part of the expansion could be elimi- nated or deferred until a later time. However, for the purposes of this EIS, all uses are assumed to be open in 2006. Construction phasing would occur as follows: September — December 2004 January — June 2005 July — December 2005 January — May 2006 Access and Parking Prepare site, relocate utilities, and start foundations Erect parking structures and structural steel for mall Complete mall shell, open parking structures, and begin construction of outparcel uses Finish mall expansion and construction of outparcel uses; open for business Access to the shopping center site is currently provided at two locations each from Tuk- wila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, and Strander Boulevard and at four locations from Andover Park West. These access points would be retained under the Proposed Action, and no additional access to the site would be provided under the Proposed Action. Ac- cess to the parking structures would be provided from the internal circulation roads. There are currently 6,679 surface parking stalls on the site, including spaces at the exist- ing outparcels. With the demolition of the former Doubletree Inn and resurfacing of that site, 704 surface parking stalls will be added for a total of 7,383. stalls. The proposed re- tail expansion would remove some surface parking but two proposed parking structures would provide additional stalls. A total of approximately 7,900 parking spaces are pro- posed, including surface and structured parking. Grading and Drainage In general, construction of the expanded shopping center would be accomplished at exist- ing grades. Excavations would be made for utilities and for structure foundations. The expanded mall area grades would be raised slightly to allow surface runoff to flow away from the building. Existing drainage patterns of the site would be maintained. 2 -10 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Description of the Proposed Action Nearly the entire site is covered with impervious surfaces (buildings and parking areas). Surface water drainage from the site is conveyed through underground pipes either north- erly or easterly, and then northerly to Gilliam Creek, which lies north of the site along Tukwila Parkway. Gilliam Creek empties into the Green River near I -405. No treatment or control/detention of surface water runoff occurs at the present time. Under the Proposed Action, surface water runoff from new or redeveloped impervious surfaces on the project site would flow to mechanical catch basins to treat stormwater. The target treatment level would be set to meet existing City stormwater management regulations. No stormwater flow control (i.e., detention) is proposed because there would be no change in the amount of impervious surface on the site. Stormwater would be routed through the existing stormwater conveyance pipes that currently convey water from the site to Gilliam Creek. Roof drains would also connect to these conveyances. Utilities All utilities (water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications) are provided on or adjacent to the site. Under the Proposed Action, there will be increased require- ments for water, sewer and telecommunications as well as electricity and gas. Systems would need to be reconfigured/relocated and extended to serve the shopping center ex- pansion. Puget Sound Energy would need to expand capacity and service on site and possibly off site, and other utility system capacities may need to be increased as well. No Action Alternative Expansion of the shopping center would not occur in the foreseeable future for any uses under the No Action Alternative. Existing trends in levels of patronage would prevail, and any changes in land use and transportation in the vicinity would be those that would occur under existing conditions. The No Action Alternative represents a baseline against which the Proposed Action can be evaluated. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 2-11 Description of the Proposed Action THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 -12 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Description of the Proposed Action 1 1 1 1 L. CHAPTER 3 Affected Environment, Impacts of the Alternatives, Mitigating Measures, and Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Air Quality This section presents the air quality impact and mitigation analysis performed by MFG, Inc.. as part of the environmental review process. This analysis included review of existing air quality data for the project vicinity, and a qualitative review of existing and future traffic conditions to assess potential air quality impacts related to the proposed project. The Proposed Action would expand Southcenter's retail capacity, and result in increased traffic on nearby roads. Because the proposed construction air rquality a,or direct source of air pollutants, po tential onstruction and traffic-related impacts are the focus of this analysis. Affected Environment Analysis Framework Air quality is generally assessed in terms of whether concentrations of air pollutants are higher or lower than ambient air quality standards established to protect human health and welfare. Three agencies have jurisdiction over ambient air utility in Department of area: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), These agencies Ecology (Ecology), and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ( PSCAA). g establish regulations that govern both the concentrations of pollutants in the outdoor air and contaminant emissions from air pollution sources. Although their regulations are similar in stringency, each agency has established its own standards. Unless the state or local jurisdiction has adopted more stringent standards, the EPA standards pertain. Applicable federal, state, and local air quality standards are mentioned as appropriate in the sections, below. In order to measure existing air quality, Ecology and PSCAA maintain a network of monitoring stations throughout the Puget Sound region. Generally, these stations are placed where there may be air quality problems, so monitoring usually occurs in or near urban areas or close to specific large air pollution sources. Other stations in remote areas provide an indication of regional air pollution levels. Based on monitoring information collected over a period of years, the state (Ecology) and federal (EPA) agencies designate regions as being either "attainment" or "nonattainment" for particular air pollutants. Attainment status is therefore a measure of whether air quality in an area complies with Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS Air Quality 3 -1 the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These standards are intended to protect human health with a margin of safety. Typical sources of air pollution within the project area include vehicular traffic, manufacturing facilities, the Seattle- Tacoma International airport, a variety of commercial enterprises, and residential wood - burning devices. Each source type contributes to the pollutant concentrations measured at state and local air monitoring stations. For example, residential wood burning produces a variety of air contaminants, including large quantities of fine particulate matter (PMto and PM2.5) and carbon monoxide. Pollutant emissions resulting from manufacturing processes are source - specific and are regulated by state and local agencies limiting the source's impact on ambient pollutant concentrations. Because project - generated traffic would impact traffic volumes on area roads, and traffic is likely to be the only significant pollutant source related to operation of the completed project, the pollutants of greatest concern are those associated with vehicles. Vehicles along area roadways comprise a significant source of cumulative emissions in and around the project area and in the region. Vehicles emit large quantities of carbon monoxide (CO), which is often used as an indicator of traffic - related emissions. In addition to CO, vehicles also emit other pollutants, including small amounts of sulfur dioxide (S02), as well as both hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, which can transform to become ground - level ozone. Vehicles also emit fine particulate matter (PM to and PM2.5) directly in their exhaust and indirectly as a function of their tires raising dust on paved and unpaved roads, but the amounts of PMio and PM2.5 generated by individual vehicles are small compared with other sources (e.g., a wood- burning stove). Several of these pollutants are discussed in greater detail below. Existing Air Quality Ozone Ozone is a'highly reactive form of oxygen created by sunlight- activated chemical transformations of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (hydrocarbons) in the atmosphere. Unlike CO concentrations, which tend to occur very close to the emission . source(s), ozone problems tend to be regional in nature because the atmospheric chemical reactions that produce ozone occur over a period of time. During the lag time between emission and ozone formation, ozone precursors can be transported far from their sources. Transportation sources are one of a number of sources that produce the precursors to ozone. The Southcenter project study area is in an ozone air quality "maintenance" area (a formerly designated nonattainment area that has been found to be in attainment of the standard, but that is still subject to special air quality reviews until the standard has been maintained for at least 10 years). Under current air quality plans and policies, this status has no direct implications for the proposed project being considered. At this time, there 3 -2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS Air Quality L are no standard means to assess "project- level" impacts of ozone due to transportation sources. Although a new, more stringent ozone standard has been proposed by the EPA, the new standard has not yet been fully implemented. Consequently, the Puget Sound region currently applies the older 1 -hour average ozone standard of 0.12 ppm, which will likely be phased out after implementation of the new standard. PSCAA also is monitoring to assess compliance with the new 8 -hour, 0.08 -ppm standard. During the last three years, none of the Puget Sound region ozone monitoring stations have recorded any ozone concentrations that would comprise a violation of either the 1 -hour or the 8 -hour standards ( PSCAA 2004a and 2004b). Inhalable Particulate Matter (PMio) Federal, state, and local regulations set limits on the concentrations of particles less than or equal to about 10 micrometers in diameter. This fraction of particulate matter, called PM10, is important in terms of potential human health impacts because particles this size can be inhaled deeply into lungs. PM10 is generated by industrial activities and operations, fuel combustion sources like residential wood burning, motor vehicle engines and tires, and other sources. Such sources occasionally cause high PM 10 levels in the Puget Sound region, and three areas in Seattle, Tacoma, and Kent were at one time nonattainment because PM10 concentrations sometimes exceeded health standards. All three areas are now in attainment for PM10 and are designated as "maintenance" areas for PM lo. The Southcenter project area is not included in a PMI0 maintenance area, and given the lack of major sources, it is likely that PM 10 concentrations throughout the project area are below the limits set by the health standards most of the year. Monitored PM10 levels have not exceeded the health standards in recent years (PSCAA 2004a and 2004b), but during winter months (periods of prolonged cold and inversion conditions), it is possible that emissions from transportation and residential wood - burning sources in the area could raise PM10 concentrations to unhealthy levels for brief periods near clusters of such sources. Under current policies, this fact has no implications for the proposed project. Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) In 1997, the EPA adopted a new federal standard for particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (microns) in diameter. This fine fraction of particulate, called PM2.5, is a subset of PMio. Such small particles (e.g., a typical human hair is about 100 microns in diameter) can be breathed deeply into the lungs, and are believed to represent the greatest risk to human health from all the varieties of particulate matter. Although implementation of the new PM2.5 standard was delayed by court challenges, the EPA ultimately prevailed, and the standard is now in effect. Monitoring data indicate particulate matter concentrations at all measurement locations are complying with the short-term and the annual PM2.s standards (PSCAA 2004a and 2004b). The PM2.5 monitoring station nearest the Southcenter project area is in Kent, Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS 3 -3 Air Quality which is too far away to directly apply to the project area. Because most particulate matter emissions from residential wood burning and vehicle exhaust are in the PM2.5 size range, and because these source types likely predominate during the wintertime near the project site, it is reasonable to assume that particulate emissions in the project area are primarily comprised of PM2.5. The relative concentrations of PM2.5 in the project area are unknown. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Carbon monoxide is the product of incomplete combustion generated by transportation sources and other fuel- burning activities like residential space heating, and especially heating with solid fuels like coal or wood. Carbon monoxide (CO) is usually the pollutant of greatest concern related to transportation sources because it is the air contaminant emitted in the greatest quantity for which short -term health standards exist. Short-term standards (as opposed to annual- average standards) are often the controlling or most restrictive NAAQSs. There are two air quality standards for carbon monoxide: a 1 -hour average standard of 35 ppm and an 8 -hour average standard of 9 ppm. These levels may be exceeded once per year without violating the standard. CO impacts are usually localized near the emission source. The highest ambient CO concentrations usually occur near congested roadways and intersections during periods of cold temperatures (autumn and winterr months), light winds, and stable atmospheric conditions. Such weather conditions reduce the mechanisms that disperse the pollutants emitted into the air. The Southcenter Project study area is located in the center of the Puget Sound region CO maintenance area (a formerly designated nonattainment area that has been found to be in attainment of the standard but is still subject to special air quality review). The network of CO monitoring stations in the Puget Sound region have not measured CO levels that would comprise a violation of either the 1 -hour or the 8 -hour CO standards since 1995 (EPA 2004).' Additionally, regional emission trends are decreasing due to improvements in the vehicle fleet. Consequently, the potential for air quality impacts from CO related to traffic appears to be decreasing. The maintenance plan nonetheless requires that transportation projects be evaluated for potential CO "hot- spots" as described below to ensure continuing compliance with the health -based ambient air quality standards. The proposed project would increase and redistribute traffic in the vicinity and, thereby, affect CO emissions and concentrations in the CO maintenance area. In such areas, any major changes in the transportation system are subject to review under the federal and state "transportation conformity" rules. These rules are designed to prevent pollution Although not necessarily the most congested areas nor necessarily representative of the Southcenter area, some of these monitoring stations are located in downtown Seattle near Westlake Mall, in north Seattle near Northgate Mall, and in downtown Bellevue near Bellevue Square. 3 -4 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS Air Quality 1 1 hot -spots from creating new air quality problems, exacerbating existing problems, or prolonging the process of solving old problems. However, because the proposed project does not include a specific "transportation component" that would modify a major roadway, it is not subject to a complete air quality conformity review. Transportation projects are subject to conformity review if they involve activities that expend funds on or affect physical or operational changes to the regional transportation system. At present, the proposed project would not include any elements that would be considered a transportation project under these rules. Several of the potential traffic mitigating measures currently being considered could trigger a transportation conformity review by affecting the regional transportation system, if and when they are implemented. In the absence of any such changes to the transportation system, the guidelines for conformity review can nonetheless provide an indication of the potential for air quality impacts from traffic related to the project. Impacts of the Alternatives Impacts of the Proposed Action Potential Air Quality Impacts During Construction During construction of the Southcenter expansion, dust from excavation and grading would contribute to ambient concentrations of suspended .particulate matter. The construction contractor(s) would have to comply with the PSCAA's Regulation I, Section 9.15,.which requires reasonable precautions to avoid dust emissions. Construction would require the use of heavy trucks and smaller equipment such as generators and compressors. These engines would emit air pollutants that would slightly degrade local air quality, but these emissions and resulting concentrations would be far outweighed by emissions from traffic normally in and around those portions of the project area near busy roads. However, there is a growing awareness that the chemical constituents in diesel exhaust include a number of known and suspected human carcinogens, and many air pollution control agencies are beginning to take steps to minimize people's exposure to such air pollution. For example, the PSCAA- sponsored Diesel Solutions program encourages the use of ultra low sulfur diesel or other alternative fuels instead of traditional fuels to reduce diesel - related toxic and fine particulate emissions. Some phases of construction would cause odors detectible to some people off site. This would be particularly true during paving operations using tar and asphalt. The . construction contractor(s) would have to comply with the PSCAA regulations requiring measures to control the emissions of odor - bearing air contaminants so as to prevent any adverse effects on nearby people or properties (Regulation I, Section 9.11). Such odors would be short-term. Renovations to the existing structure might require the removal and disposal of asbestos- Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS 3 -5 Air Quality containing building materials. The demolition contractors would be required to comply with U.S. EPA regulations related to the safe removal and disposal of any asbestos - containing materials. Construction equipment, material hauling, and detours for excavation and grading could affect traffic flow within the Southcenter project area. If construction delays traffic enough to significantly reduce travel speeds in the area, general traffic- related emissions would increase. Potential Air Quality Impacts from Project Operation This review of the air quality implications of the proposed project was based on consideration of the traffic conditions expected to occur in the area with and without the project. Such a review provides an indication of the potential for CO hot -spots due to traffic congestion because CO emissions and concentrations are directly related to the length of times vehicles must queue and idle at congested intersections. (These data are presented in the Transportation section of this document.) By rank ordering the signalized intersections that would be affected by project - related traffic, it is possible to consider the potential for hot -spot air quality impacts. A summary of current and expected future traffic conditions at the six signalized intersections that would be most affected by the proposed project is presented in Table 3 -1. This list is rank ordered by the expected increase in the hours of peak -hour delay caused by project- related traffic. The intersection operation data considered in Table 3 -1 and related discussion include estimates of intersection delay that are not presented in the Transportation section of this document. At congested intersections where traffic volumes far exceed capacity, the Transportation section reports a maximum delay of 80 seconds per vehicle because of uncertainties about the accuracy of these estimates in very congested situations: The tabulation above applies longer delays, as they were calculated during the transportation modeling process. The use of intersection delays longer than 80 seconds is appropriate for the comparisons presented in this table because any error or uncertainties in these estimates are likely to be relatively similar across the transportation network. Thus, for screening level review and general comparisons, use of these more specific estimates of delay are considered applicable. The expected increases in peak -hour volumes and intersection delays due to the project would worsen traffic conditions and have the potential to cause air quality impacts. For example, EPA guidance for performing air quality modeling to assess air quality near signalized intersections suggests that intersections with levels of service (LOS) of "D" or worse should be considered for modeling (EPA 1992). A further screening method based 3 -6 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS Air Quality 1 1 1 1 I 0 0 0 cu 00 DA Iim w h�l IM OD ...I CA u I •l)0 _ w 04 CL) 0a w 1 000 o C o o A. U v A k w y ' 1.4 i, C' to%y ;1 11 4:4 A a H F i 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010 Proposed Action Delta Del= (Hrs) h 0000 M Q 00 N - N 0\ - R - On ON sO N M NOTES: LOS = level of service, which is a measure of intersection operation based on the weighted average per - vehicle delay; Del (sec) = Delay per vehicle in seconds; V/C = volume to capacity ratio; Vol = PM peak -hour volume (weekday); Tot Del (hrs) = total hours of delay (i.e., volume x per vehicle delay - converted to hrs); Delta Del' (sec /vehicle) = project - related increase in weekday PM peak -hour delay on a per vehicle basis; Delta Vol = project - related increase in PM peak -hour volume (weekday); Delta Dell (hrs) = project - related increase in the total hours of delay during the weekday PM peak hour. Source: Traffic data from Transpo, Inc. (2004) and tabulation by MFG, Inc. T. Iy,. " M 00 N O — O+ R h of 00 h VI OS so op b -% Tv' , o N M — ? 1.11 0 N o vi M 0. V M N en el ac; N ..r Delta Del' (Sec/Vehicle) of N N N — — In 1,1 n 11 11 x x U sO N rn a 0 v1 a M - - 4-,, 1- o^ T h cn O w w w w w w 2010 No Action 1 d� ❑ L o x E" _ 00 0 N O — c N O .o Q p m - _ v.-, r t}' h M tn r M 0 b N 0 v-, tf v-, q N N N - N - U vi — — 0' O T O C - oo O W O) T M r V N 0' M '0 r 7 00 .. .. cn O w w 0 U w 0 OD C x W U o0 N — '0 01 0 'O 00 O as 1-- O N 0' 0 N N O Totals for Worst Six Signalized Intersections Totals for ALL Signalized Intersections O 7 O h M - 0 1- M r- 'D OU CA w 0 U U 0 0 Intersection 61' Avenue S/ Southcenter Blvd 61° Avenue S /Tukwila Parkway Southcenter Parkway / Strander Blvd Andover Park W/Tukwila Parkway West Valley Highway /Strander Blvd Andover Park W/ Strander Blvd J Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS on EPA guidance is to consider those intersections with the highest volumes and the greatest delays that would be most affected by a project. Table 3 -1 summarizes the findings of such a screening review. As shown in Table 3 -1, compared with both existing conditions and No Action, the proposed project would increase weekday PM peak -hour volumes, and increase delays at the most - affected intersections. At the six most- affected intersections, the project would generate a combined total of about 2,200 more peak -hour vehicles, and cause about 209 additional hours of delay than No Action (Table 1). During the Saturday peak hour, the project would cause even larger increases in volumes and delays at most of these six intersections (Transpo 2004). Considering weekday conditions at all affected signalized intersections (last row of data in Table 3 -1), the proposed project would increase PM peak -hour volumes by a combined total of about 7,300 vehicles, and cause an increase of about 369 hours of vehicle delay. Based on these traffic data it appears that the proposed project has the potential to cause hot -spot air quality impacts at some of the most affected intersections in the project area. Because project - related traffic would worsen congestion compared with both existing conditions and No Action, without mitigation, the project would result in higher CO concentrations at the most affected intersections. Additionally, because the most - affected intersections would operate at LOS "E" or worse, there is also a potential that project - related traffic would cause violations of the 8 -hour CO standard near these locations. For these reasons, it appears that without effective mitigation, the proposed project could possibly cause significant adverse air quality impacts at one or more of the most affected signalized intersections in the vicinity. Impacts of the No Action Alternative Increases in traffic in the area as a result of ambient growth would likely lead to greater congestion, delay, and corresponding increases in air quality impacts. Such impacts would probably be less than under the Proposed Action. Mitigating Measures Construction Impact Mitigation Mitigating measures for reducing the potential for air quality impacts during construction include measures for reducing both exhaust emissions and fugitive dust. The Washington Associated General Contractors brochure Guide to Handling Fugitive Dust from Construction Projects and the PSCAA suggest a number of methods for controlling dust and reducing the potential exposure of people to emissions from diesel equipment. The following is a list of possible mitigating measures that could be implemented to reduce potential impacts during construction. • Use only equipment and trucks that are maintained in optimal operational condition. 3-8 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS Air Quality 1 1 1 • I 1 1 1 • Require all off -road equipment to be retrofitted with emission reduction equipment (i.e., require contractors to participate in the Puget Sound region Diesel Solutions program). • Use bio- diesel or other lower emission fuels for vehicles and equipment. • Use car - pooling or other trip reduction strategies for construction workers. • Stage construction to minimize overall transportation system congestion and delays to reduce regional emissions of pollutants during construction. • Implement construction curbs on hot days when the region is at risk for exceeding the NAAQS for ozone, and work at night instead. • Implement restrictions on construction truck idling (e.g., limit idling to a maximum of 5 minutes). • Locate construction equipment away from sensitive receptors, such as fresh air intakes for buildings, air conditioners, and sensitive populations. • Locate construction staging zones where diesel emissions will be unnoticeable to the public and away from sensitive populations, such as the elderly and the young. • Route and schedule construction trucks so that traffic delays are reduced during peak travel times to minimize air quality impacts caused by a reduction in traffic speeds. A Public Works permit will be required for construction of the proposed expansion. A requirement of the permit will be a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan and an Erosion Prevention and Sedimentation Control Plan. These plans will evaluate and include the following measures, which will lower impacts to air quality: • Spray exposed soil with water or other suppressant to reduce emissions of PM to and deposition of particulate matter. • Pave or use gravel on staging areas and roads that will be exposed for long periods. • Cover all trucks transporting materials, spray water on materials in trucks, or provide adequate freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck bed) to reduce PM to emissions and deposition during transport. • Provide wheel washers, for the removal of particulate matter that would otherwise be carried off the site by vehicles to decrease deposition of particulate matter on area roadways. • Remove particulate matter deposited on paved public roads, sidewalks, bicycle paths, and pedestrian paths to reduce mud and dust; sweep and wash streets continuously to reduce emissions. • Cover dirt, gravel, and debris piles as needed to reduce dust and wind -blown debris. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS 3 -9 Air Quality Operational Impact Mitigation Measures that would reduce vehicle volumes and/or improve the operation of poor -LOS intersections during peak weekday and Saturday periods would reduce the potential for air quality impacts. This could include transportation demand measures as appropriate to improve mobility and measures that target shopping center employees. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Without effective mitigation, the proposed project has some potential to cause significant adverse air quality impacts at signalized intersections that would be affected by project - related traffic. 3 -10 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS Air Quality 11 Water Resources Affected Environment Water Quantity Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter is located near Sea -Tac International Airport.; The climate records at the airport indicate the mean annual precipitation to be 38.2 inches with the bulk of the precipitation falling between October and April. The most intense precipitation tends to occur in November and December. The mean July maximum tem- perature is 75.0 degrees F while the mean January maximum is 44.8 degrees F (Western Regional Climate Center website, 2003). The project site is situated near the head of the Duwamish River valley, in the Gilliam Creek watershed. Most of the Gilliam Creek watershed is highly developed, including single- and multi - family residential areas, commercial and office areas, and roadway sur- faces. Thus, there are large areas of impervious surfaces. Impervious surfaces convey rainfall to receiving waters much more quickly than do pervious land areas such as unde- veloped forest and open space, causing increased peak flows and runoff volumes. Scour and erosion characterize the upper reaches of the stream, resulting in sediment deposition and frequent flooding in the lower reaches (Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2001). These problems of upstream erosion and downstream sedimentation are exacerbated by the topography of the basin, which has relatively steep stream channel slopes in the upper basin and a flat channel gradient in the lower basin, where it flows across the floodplain of the Green River. The project site occupies nearly one -half of the "Southcenter" sub -basin identified in the Gilliam Creek Stormwater Management Plan (Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2001). This 200 -acre sub -basin drains into lower Gilliam Creek, which drains into. the Green River near the Interstate 405 (1 -405) crossing of the Green River. The sub -basin is bounded by I -405 to the north, Interstate 5 (I -5) to the west, the Green River to the east, and Strander Boulevard to the south. Most runoff is conveyed by stormwater pipes. The project site, which is 85 acres in size, is in a highly developed area. Nearly 100 per- cent of the site is covered with impervious surfaces, such as streets, parking lots, and rooftops. While runoff is currently transmitted to the stormwater system, there are no flow control measures in the Southcenter sub - basin. The stormwater system (as well as water and sanitary sewer systems) on the site are maintained by the City of Tukwila under a 1969 agreement between mall owner at that time and the City. The City of Tukwila Draft Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan (DCSWP) (CH2MHil1, 2003) identifies capital improvement projects to be undertaken within city limits to repair and prevent exacerbation of existing problems and meet the conditions of the upcoming Phase II Municipal Stormwater Discharge permit, anticipated in 2004, and Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -11 Water Resources regulated by the Washington State Department of Ecology. DCSWP identifies nine pro- jects within the Gilliam Creek Basin. Eight of these are meant to address water quantity issues (flooding). One of these is directly linked to run -off from the project site, but is ranked 15 out of 19 in cost benefit for the entire City, and will likely be a low- priority project. This project would increase the size of stormwater pipe under Andover Parkway which is currently undersized relative to the potential amount of runoff coming from the Southcenter sub - basin. Another project, which is intended to improve fish habitat and is ranked 5 out of 10 habi- tat improvement projects, is located downstream from the Southcenter sub -basin outlet to Gilliam Creek. This project would include widening the stream channel, installing log structures, increasing channel sinuosity, and planting riparian vegetation. This project could potentially be affected by changes in run -off from the Southcenter site area. Water Quality The project site is located in an area heavily impacted by urban development. Gilliam Creek has not been given an official designation by the Department of Ecology, and therefore automatically retains the class of its receiving water, the Green River, which is designated as Class "A" (Herrera Environmental. Consultants, 2001). In 1999, two points were sampled immediately downstream from the outlet that drains the Southcenter sub - basin. The results of laboratory analysis consistently exceeded state water quality criteria for Class A waters for fecal coliform (mean < 100 /L, >90% samples <200 /L) and copper (varies with hardness). The turbidity of samples taken was consistently higher than other Seattle -area urban streams (Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2001). The sampling was not sufficient, however, to determine the nature of the water quality in the Southcen- ter sub - basin. Fecal coliform is usually associated with septic fields and stormwa- ter /sewer overflows. To date, no sampling has been conducted within this sub - basin, nor has the sampling on the mainstem of Gilliam Creek been sufficient to identify inputs from the sub - basin. A number of capital improvement projects were identified in the Gilliam Creek Stormwa- ter Management Plan to address water quality (Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2001). However, none of the capital improvement projects aimed at addressing water quality were located in the Southcenter sub - basin. In addition, the DCSWP list of capital improvement projects does not include any within the Southcenter sub - basin. There are no runoff water treatment facilities in the Southcenter sub - basin. Runoff from parking lots drains directly into the stormwater system. 3 -12 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Water Resources 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �M1 Impacts of the Alternatives Impacts of the Proposed Action Water Quantity There are several ways in which construction or reconstruction projects can affect water quantity. Construction of buildings and parking lots creates impervious surfaces. These surfaces do not allow precipitation to infiltrate into the soil. A drainage basin with im- pervious surfaces experiences large alterations in runoff patterns: peak flows are higher, while low flows are lower, and the duration of high flows is much less than under natural conditions (Dunne and Leopold, 1978). Changes in runoff regime can cause indirect ef- fects, including increased flooding severity, lateral and vertical channel erosion, and sedimentation. Under the proposed project, there would be virtually no difference in effects on water quantity from existing conditions. The proposed mall addition and parking structures would be built on existing parking lot and other hardened surfaces. The amount of im- pervious surface would not increase; therefore, there would be no additional effect on wa- ter quantity relative to the existing conditions. Because stormwater is not currently con- trolled at the site, nor are there plans to control stormwater, the hydrograph of the South - center sub -basin would continue to be flashy, contributing to flooding and channel ero- sion in Gilliam Creek. Cumulative effects to water runoff are not anticipated. Because there would be no change in impervious surface area, there would be no change in the Southcenter sub - basin runoff hydrograph. Notably, the sub -basin is mostly developed and, therefore, there are few potential projects that would create cumulative effects. Additionally, the DCSWP identifies future watershed improvement projects that would reduce the effects of past development on water quantity. Water Quality Effects to water quality from commercial developments occur due to parking lot runoff and from the commercial operations themselves, depending on the nature of the opera- tions. Water quality can be affected by the construction of such developments, as well. Under the Proposed Action, the number of vehicles entering and leaving the project site would increase over time (see Transportation section). Increased traffic and parked ve- hicles would tend to increase the risk of pollutants entering runoff. However, the poten- tial increase in traffic would be at least partially offset by the reduction in parking spaces exposed to runoff. Two parking garages would be constructed. Only the top story of the parking structures proposed would be exposed to precipitation and runoff. Additionally, the expansion of retail space in the mall would occur at the expense of parking lots (ga- rages would make up the difference). Approximately 14.4 acres of existing parking lot would be converted to mall space. Thus, there would be a 10 percent decrease in the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Water Resources 3 -13 amount of parking spaces and driveways exposed to precipitation. The result would be a potential improvement in water quality of runoff in the sub -basin because there would be substantially less surface water contact with surfaces (parking spaces and driveway) po- tentially containing pollutants. The proposed project would use in -line stormwater treatment vaults, like the Stormcep- tor, to decrease the amount of pollutants reaching surface waters from the redeveloped portion of the site. Stormceptor -type treatment vaults allow pollutants (especially petro- leum hydrocarbons and suspended solids) to settle out of the water before emptying into a receiving water body. The vaults would be installed on the main trunk of the stormwater drain leading out of the south end of the development. Therefore, it would at least par- tially treat the runoff from the south parking lots as well as the proposed parking garages. The use of these vaults would likely result in an improvement of overall water quality leaving the sub - basin, relative to existing conditions. The type of commercial operation under the Proposed Action would not be significantly different than under existing conditions. The project site would be devoted to retail sales and associated services. No significant risks to water quality would be expected from these activities; construction and operation of retail facilities would be regulated to com- ply with building codes. The proposed project would require a "targeted site review" according to the King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County, 1998). The targeted review re- quires that the project proponent demonstrate compliance with a limited set of "core re- quirements," and is less extensive than a full review. The proposed project falls under "Category 3" of the target review, which includes redevelopment projects that modify drainage pipes or ditches greater than 12 inches in diameter. The requirements under this review include 1) erosion and sediment control, 2) maintenance and operations, 3) finan- cial guarantees and liability, 4) source control, and 5) oil control. There is no require- ment for flow control for targeted site review category 3- projects. The use of stormwater treatment devices would meet the, intent of the requirements for water quality control, while a stormwater pollution prevention plan, discussed below, would meet the require- ment for erosion and sediment control. Other requirements would need to be addressed at the time of permitting. Because the amount of exposed parking lot would be substantially reduced, and because of the planned use of stormwater treatment vaults, the effects of the Proposed Action on water quality would be minor. The Clean Water Act requires that construction projects that disturb greater than one acre of land be covered under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (40 CFR 122). The proposed construction of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcen- ter would fall under this requirement. The project proponent would be required to de- velop a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). A SWPPP contains "best man- agement practices". The main potential pollutant would be sediment, although fuels and lubricants related to construction equipment would also need to be addressed in the 3 -14 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Water Resources SWPPP. The SWPPP, properly implemented, would minimize the amount of construc- tion- related pollutants entering stormwater. Cumulative effects to water quality are not anticipated. Because the sub -basin is almost entirely developed, there would be few new projects that would contribute to cumulative effects. Additionally, the installation of the water treatment vaults would likely result in an improvement to the sub - basin's water quality. Impacts of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, hydrograph patterns would remain the same as they are currently. There would likely remain a distinct "flashiness" to the runoff hydrograph from the Southcenter sub -basin and the Gilliam Creek watershed. The runoff from the sub -basin would likely increase flooding and erosion in the downstream section of Gil- liam Creek. Water quality would remain at the same level as it is currently. There are no data to as- sess the run -off from the Southcenter sub - basin, but it is possible that there is some con- tribution to Gilliam Creek's turbidity, and possibly to excess copper detected down- stream. Any pollutants on parking lot surfaces that become suspended in runoff would flow untreated to the Green River. Mitigating Measures As noted previously, the project proponent would be required to develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan. Significant Unavoidable Adverse. Impacts None. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -15 Water Resources THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -16 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Water Resources 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 I Plants and Animals Affected Environment The Southcenter sub -basin of the Gilliam Creek watershed drains through a floodgate di- rectly into the Green River at about River Mile 12.5. Gilliam Creek is a highly modified urban stream. The lower reach, into which the Southcenter stormwater is discharged, runs through several large culverts with intermittent reaches that remain open to daylight. The floodgate limits access of anadromous fish, but Herrera Environmental Consultants (2001) cite reports of chinook and coho salmon and cutthroat trout in the stream. Several non - salmonids may also be present. The Southcenter area is essentially fully developed with very limited natural habitat to support wildlife. Birds that are present are typical of those species that are adapted to intensive urbanization and include crows, gulls, English sparrows, and pigeons. Savan- nah and /or song sparrows may possibly use landscaped parking strips. In the greater Tukwila area, a broader diversity of birds has been reported including several species of songbirds, raptors, and waterfowl. The primary mammals in the greater Tukwila area include rats and other rodents, opos- sums, raccoons, gray squirrels rabbits, coyotes, bats and, in riparian areas, river otter and beaver. Use of the site by most species is likely limited to margins of the site near vege- tated areas. Impacts of the Alternatives Impacts of the Proposed Action The Proposed Action would have no significant effect on fish or aquatic life in the stream. Stormwater input from impervious surfaces would continue to impact stream benthos and fish life. Water quality may be slightly improved by covering a portion of the parking area that is currently directly exposed to runoff. However, this is unlikely to result in significant improvement in fish populations or health as long as the stream re- mains in its current configuration (channelized, with restricted access from the Green River, and surrounded by high percentages of impervious area). The Proposed Action would result in no change in vegetated area and, hence, no changes in wildlife use. No cumulative effects to plants or animals are expected due to this project. The project area is already highly developed, the Proposed Action does not alter or disturb existing habitat, and it is unlikely that future projects would occur that would alter the remaining habitat. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -17 Plants and Animals Impacts of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, Gilliam Creek would continue to be a highly degraded stream. However, conditions may improve with the fish habitat improvement project proposed in the Gilliam Creek Stormwater Management Plan and in the City's Compre- hensive Surface Water Plan. Also, the area would continue to be fully developed, with little habitat for wildlife other than human - adapted species. Mitigating Measures None required. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3 -18 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Plants and Animals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Transportation and Parking Affected Environment Study Area Selection of the study area and time periods was coordinated closely with City of Tuk- wila staff. The study area encompasses the project site and approximately 2 miles north, east, south, and west of the project site. Portions of the study area fall within five differ -. ent jurisdictions: the City of Tukwila, the City of Renton, City of SeaTac, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the City of Kent. Based on the an- ticipated circulation of project - generated traffic and the peak hour of adjacent street traf- fic, all study intersections were evaluated during weekday PM peak -hour traffic: Inter- sections closest to the project site were also evaluated during the Saturday peak hour.` In addition, all existing site driveways were evaluated during both periods. Study intersections include the following (see Figure 3 -1): 1) International Blvd /S 154th St 21) Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 NB Off -Ramp (Mall Entrance)* 2) 42nd Ave S/S 154th St 22) Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat . .. Drive* 3) Klickitat Drive /50 Ave S /SR 518 WB On -Ramp 23) Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Off - Ramp* 4) 51st Ave S /SR 518 EB Off -Ramp 24) Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd* 5) I -5 SB Ramp (53`d Ave S) /S 154th St 25) Mall- Target Entrance /Strander:Blvd* 6) Macadam Rd S /Southcenter Blvd 26) Andover Park W /Strander Blvd* ' 7) 61st Ave S /Southcenter Blvd* 27) Andover Park E /Strander Blvd 8) 65th Ave S /Southcenter Blvd 28) West Valley Highway /Strander Blvd 9) 66`h Ave S /Southcenter Blvd 29) Southcenter Parkway /S 168`h Street *., 10) Interurban Ave S/I -405 SB Ramps 30) Southcenter Parkway / Minkler Blvd - 11) Interurban Ave S /Southcenter Blvd 31) Andover Park W /Minkler Blvd • 12) Oaksdale Ave SW /SW Grady Way 32) Andover Park E /Minkler Blvd 13) 61st Ave S /Tukwila Parkway* 33) Southcenter Parkway /S 180`h Street 14) Mall Entrance (I -405 NB Ramp)/ Tukwila Pkwy* 34) Andover Park W/S 180`h Street, 15) Andover Park W /Tukwila Parkway* 35) Andover Park E/S 180`h Street 16) Andover Park E /Tukwila Parkway 36) Sperry Drive /S 180`h Street 17) West Valley Highway /I -405 NB Ramp 37) West Valley Highway /S 180`h Street 18) 53`d Ave S /Klickitat Drive 38) 72nd Ave S/S 180`h Street 19) Klickitat Drive /I -5 SB On -Ramp 39) Oaksdale Ave SW /S 180`h Street 20) Andover Park W /Baker Blvd (Mall Entrance)* 40) West Valley Highway /S 196th Street *Studied during both the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 3 -19 A N NOT TO SCALE 5 154TH ST S 160TH ST 0 5 TRANDE'. LVD 5 168TH 5 0 0 X MINKLER BLVD E c, e r l2 5 180TH ST S 196TH ST S 200111 ST Figure 3 -1 Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak Hour Study Area Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion 3 -20 STUDY INTERSECTIONS = WEEKDAY PM PEAK - SATURDAY PEAK & WEEKDAY PM PEAK Transpo �P 1 1 ; The Oaksdale Avenue SW /SW Grady Way and Oaksdale est Valley SW/S Street in- tersections are both within the City of Renton. intersection is within the City of Kent. The International study interactions aserwith n the inter- section is within the City of SeaTac. The remaining City of Tukwila. Street System The project site is located on the southeast corner of the Interstate 5 (I -5) and Interstate - 405 (I -405) interchange, two major t systems. Several of I 5 and 1 405. a roadways adjacent to the project site provide direct access The street system within the immediate project site vicinity consists of a combination of major roadways and local access streets. The roadways directly adjacent to the project site are classified as minor arterials by the City of Tukwila, including Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, Andover Park W,l Boulevard arBalllclassfiedtas principal arterials West Valley Highway, and International in the study area. Southcenter Boulevard is classified as a principal arterial between 1 -5 and the eastern city limits, and a collector arterial area are classified as either minor oral Boulevard. The remaining roadways in the study a e collector arterials or are private streets or small streets not classified. Most major intersections in the study area are controlled, fully actuated traffic signals. Individual characteristics of the adjacent study 3 2oadways, including classification and posted speed limits, are illustrated in Figure Traffic Volumes Analysis of traffic conditions within the study area focused on the weekday PM peak hour, which is anticipated to be the period during onethe PM weekday eak hour when s consistent with Proposed Action would generate the most traffic. In addition, the peak hour developed for the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) modeling conducted by Mirai Associates. For these reasons, the PM peak hour was selected for analysis over weekday midday peak -hour conditions. An abbreviated Saturday peak -hour analysis was to vicinity ofshopping enter. tions and impacts to the study intersections in the immediate These locations are expected to experience the most noticeable difference in traffic opera- tions because the combination of g the weekday PM peak hour within greater during the Saturday peak hour tha n during fied study area. Existing traffic volume data were compiled for the study area to characterize traffic con- ditions during the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. Traffic counts for the weekday PM peak hour were obtained from the � OZ or Tukwila, City �o Renton, for,the Saturday peak all of which were conducted in either Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 3 -21 COLLECTOR ARTERIAL 35 MPH 2 LANES PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 35 MPH 5 LANES 1.0TH T PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL MINOR ARTERIAL 30 MPH 2 LANES 40 MPH 4 LANES STRANDER BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL tom, s 168TH ST 35 MPH MINOR ARTERIAL 35 MPH MIN ER BLVD 4 -5 LANES MINOR ARTERIAL COLLECTOR ARTERIAL 30 MPH 2 LANES 35 MPH 4 -5 LANES 5180 .5T MINOR ARTERIAL 35 MPH 4 -5 LANES PRINCIPAL 5 196TH ST 5 000TH ST Figure 3 -2 Roadway Characteristics • Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion 3 -22 M Transpo Group v 1 hour were all conducted in 2003. All traffic counts were increased by a 1.5- percent an- nual growth rate to estimate 2004 existing traffic volumes. A 1.5- percent annual growth was approved by City of Tukwila staff as being consistent with historic annual growth• in the area. All of the existing traffic counts were conducted in April 2003, prior to the opening of the Bahama Breeze and Olive Garden restaurants, which are located on the project site. To account for these restaurants, which are now open and operating, trip generation assump- tions were made using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) average trip rates (ITE Land Use #832 —High Turnover Sit -Down Restaurant) and were assigned to the site driveways and study intersections using the same distribution as is noted later in the im- pacts section. These trip assignments were added to the 2004 existing traffic volumes for use in analyzing existing traffic operations. All intersections were evaluated using the peak -hour traffic volumes of each individual intersection, rather than a specific peak hour for the entire study area. This allows for a conservative worst -case analysis. Figures 3 -3A and 3 -3B summarize the existing weekday PM and Saturday peak -hour traffic volumes at the study intersections. Figure 3 -1 shows the location of each study intersection. Traffic Operations The operational characteristics of an intersection are determined by calculating the inter- section's level of service (LOS). The intersection as a whole and its individual turning movements can be described with a range of levels of service (LOS A to F), with LOS A indicating free - flowing traffic and LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. At signalized intersections, LOS is measured in terms of average total delay per vehicle and is typically reported for the intersection as a whole. At two -way, stop - controlled, unsignalized intersections, LOS is measured in terms of the average vehicle delay of an individual movement and typically reports for the worst movement. LOS methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual ([HCM], Transportation Research Board, 2000) was applied to the study intersections to estimate existing peak - hour levels of service. The 2000 methodology is the most up -to -date methodology avail- able for calculating intersection LOS. The Synchro 5.0 analysis software package was used in all analyses. Signal timing information was obtained from the municipal jurisdic- tions and WSDOT, and traffic signal splits were optimized under existing conditions to account for the actuated traffic signal adjustments that occur in response to specific traf- fic volume demands. Table 3 -2 illustrates existing study intersection levels of service, average vehicle delays, and each intersection's volume -to- capacity (v /c) ratio or worst movement for the PM peak hour, while Table 3 -3 illustrates the intersection LOS for those intersections studied during the Saturday peak hour. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -23 Transportation and Parking INTERNATIONAL BLVD S 154TH STREET 155 15 230JJ L4._125 125- -8. +245 180 (-110 1T • 2 1 335 6 42ND AVE S S 154TH STREET 55 35JJ L180 265 -► +430 45-) (-325 450 15 51ST AVE S SR 518 WB ON -RAMP 35 15 140 L 50 725 ▪ 1 10 O51ST AVE S SR 518 EB OFF -RAMP 25J 640-) 170 825 O53R0 AVE S (1-5 SB RAMP) I O MACADAM RD S. S 154TH STREET SOUTHCENTER BLVD 10 r i ` 2 ; J �' 70.) i 1 ` 130 480 -+ -..-.575 I 110 +1,470 30-) (-40 1,765' '1 r- 25 55 O66TH AVE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD INTERURBAN AVENUE S 1-405 SB RAMPS 50 65JJ L70 160J L625 605-► 720 35-► 55 755-■ 800 .95-) (-605 i 330, (-205 165, (-315 255 665 525 265 1851 500 55 5 61ST AVENUE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD (260) 680 765 (325) 2,005)1,485, r 205 (165) (1,100)1,010 75 (65) INTERURBAN AVENUE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD O65TH AVE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 50 85 60 L J L95 415y -760 OOAKSDALE AVE SW SW GRADY WAY 80 60 25 �L 'J7�- 365 L 255J L60 1,055 -■ 830 205-) (-40 61ST AVENUE S TUKWILA PARKWAY MALL ENTRANCE/I -405 NB TUKWILA PARKWAY (1,150) 710 0 (1,035) (560) 475 J L ▪ 615(580) (355) 280 J L 320 (260) (560) 445 --► ._ 175 (255) (600) 620 + 610 (500) (420) 235 1 (- 55 (80) (175)155 150 (50) 120 (170) 1 7 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY 1.405 NB RAMPS 9 315 50 320JJ LLis 10w .--5 390) (-10 51100 L.* t. 53RD AVE S KLICKITAT DR 645-. +780 80, (-120 20 85 ANDOVER PARK W TUKWILA PARKWAY -,13 330 65 20 ANDOVER PARK E TUKWILA PARKWAY (385)480 + 550 (425) 520 +275 (350) 375 , (- 255 (305) 200-1 (-225 (415) 540 2▪ 350 (285) 355 400 1 9 KLICKITAT DR 1-5 SB ON -RAMP N 7 }0 65 L 585 85 ANDOVER PARK W BAKER BLVD (510) 460 (110) J I 400 (55) (95) 70 J L 65 (35) (45) 35 + 45 (55) (120) 45, r 90 (60) (145) 8 1 0 60) 605 (430) LEGEND ▪ WEEKDAY PM PEAK X = PM PEAK HOUR SATURDAY PEAK & (X) • SATURDAY PEAK HOUR J WEEKDAY PM PEAK Figure 3 -3A Existing (2004) Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion 3 -24 The Transpo Group SOUTHCENTER PKWY . SOUTHCENTER PKWY 1.5 NB OFF-RAMPINORDSTROMS ; f' KLICKITAT DR (1,040) 1 (935) 855 685 1 35 (55) I (475) 395 (100) 140 J . 4 55 (115) (275) 200 JJ 1 (135) 60 -► (25) 40 , r 240 (310) (710) 585 1 i5 (260) 700 (930) MALL/TARGET DVWY STRANDER BLVD (70) 45 (195) 1 1 L 5 (195) (225) 140 J L 160 (210) (485) 415 . 590 (525) (250)125, r 80 (140) 090) 100 i 110 (130) 45 (70) SOUTHCENTER PKWY S 168TH ST (1,785) 1,270 (20)5 1 `30_(85) (30) 5 J L 35 (100) (5) 0 -► . 0 (0) (5) 5 'i r 15 (70) (S 1 O 401 155 1,135 ; 1, 25 (1,620) (1,055) 905 1 565 1,475 (855) (1,885) SOUTHCENTER PKWY 1 -5 NB OFF -RAMP (RIGHT ONL (285) 380 ', (1,650) 1,180 i • ANDOVER PARK W STRANDER BLVD (460) 375 (225) 1 1 `220 (240) (205) 125 J ks_ 165 (200) (545) 380 --0- ..- 505 (560) (205) 105 1 r 130 (155) (235)180 i 90 (.- (130) 470 (365) SOUTHCENTER PKWY MINKLER BLVD 1,180 1 95 `105 (-105 SOUTHCENTER PKWY S 180TH ST 35 280 405 175�J k_405 237p5 -..- .490 1 r145 230 L 3 7 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY S 180TH ST ANDOVER PARK W S 180TH ST 90 230 300 L 80 200 Sl (20 2)35 72ND AVE S S 180TH ST ANDOVER PARK E STRANDER BLVD 3 130 r150 100�J !,_95 425- .435 125, (125 245 8 185 ANDOVER PARK W MINKLER BLVD 5 90 r 40 70JJ ��140 100-► .90 35, (60 25 25 5 SOUTHCENTER PKWY STRANDER BLVD (1,355) 1,035 140 (630) 585 (715) r 355 (635) 5 (775) 820 (1,170) WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY STRANDER BLVD 1, 30 310 35 435_) ��10 30-► .20 440, (-20 275�r 1, 65 ANDOVER PARK E MINKLER BLVD 415 115 30 60.,) • L55 30-. .60 95-) (-80 100 45 45 • ANDOVER PARK E C SPERRY DR S 180TH ST V S 180TH ST 11125 245 125J ▪ �150 720 .840 0 3 n OAKSDALE AVE SW 7 S 180Th ST 9$� 15 80 x300 160 65 110�J L. =s) 115�J �As...55 580-► .570 i 920-► .755 1,045 , .900 565-) (75 65-) (-10 85, (75 4, 5 706 55 I 0 555 8800 i 8 ; 5 55 I 330 J L. 75_4250 910-.. ..-885 S,, 1 r(5 15 46 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY S 196TH ST 1,705 40 1 370 45 JJ k_300 315 -.455 240-) (245 ▪ }r 235 5 LEGEND = WEEKDAY PM PEAK X - PM PEAK HOUR SATURDAY PEAK & (X) - SATURDAY PEAK HOUR WEEKDAY PM PEAK Figure 3 -3B The Existing (2004) Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Transpo Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion Group 3 -25 Table 3 -2 Existing (2004) Weekday PM Peak -Hour Level of Service Summa • Int # Weekday PM- Peak 'Hour ;Signalized Intersections z LOW' , Delay s V/C .: .. 1 Tukwila International Blvd /S 154"' Street D 46.8 0.81 2 42nd Ave S/S 154'" Street D 42.9 0.76 5 1 -5 SB Ramp (53`d Ave S) /S 154`" Street C 26.4 0.82 6 Macadam Rd S /Southcenter Blvd. B 12.6 0.71 7 6151 Ave S /Southcenter Blvd F >80.0 1.28 9 66`" Ave S /Southcenter Bivd . D 48.3 0.92 10 Interurban Ave S/1 -405 Southbound Ramps E 65.4 1.04 11 Interurban Ave S /Southcenter Blvd F 81.9 1.14 12 Oaksdale Ave SW /SW Grady Way D 44.0 0.83 13 615t Ave S/Tukwila Parkway D 39.7 0.96 14 Mall Entrance (1-405 NB Ramp)/Tukwila Pkwy B 17.3 0.54 15 Andover Park W/Tukwila Parkway C 33.7 0.79 16 Andover Park E/Tukwila Parkway C 23.7 0.57 17 West Valley Highway /I -405 Northbound Ramp D 38.8 0.96 18 . 53W Ave S /Klickitat Drive B 12.4 0.71 20 Andover Park W /Baker Blvd (Mall Entrance) B 13.0 0.43 21 Southcenter Pkwy /l -5 NB Ramp (Mall Entrance) C 23.9 0.57 22 Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive D 41.2 0.85 24 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd C 30.1 0.86 25 Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd C 21.3 0.60 26 Andover Park W /Strander Blvd D 41.6 0.77 27 Andover Park E/Strander Blvd C 34.5 0.69 28 West Valley Highway / Strander Blvd D 44.7 0.92 29 Southcenter Parkway /S 168th Street A 9.5 0.48 30 Southcenter Parkway /Minkler Blvd . A 9.3 0.48 31 Andover Park W /Minkler Blvd C 34.5 0.66 32 Andover Park E /Minkler Blvd D 48.3 0.82 33 Southcenter Parkway /S 180th Street E 57.0 0.95 34 Andover Park W/S 180th Street D 36.5 0.75 35 Andover. Park E/S 180th Street B 14.2 0.63 36 Sperry Drive /S 180th Street B 20.0 0.76 37 West Valley Highway /S 180`" Street D 41.3 0.81 38 72 "d Ave S/S 180'" Street A 7.4 0.52 39 Oaksdale Ave SW /S 180`" Street B 18.9 0.62 40 West Valley Highway /S 196'" Street D 54.3 0.95 Int. # Unsignalized Intersections: Weekday PM Peak Hour - ;LOS. -:. Delay s _ e; .:. WM 3 5151 Ave S /SR 518 Westbound On -Ramp B 12.0 NB Left 4 515' Ave S /SR 518 Eastbound Off -Ramp E 35.7 EB Left 8 65`" Ave S /Southcenter Blvd E 38.5 SB Left 19 Klickitat Drive /I -5 SB On -Ramp C 15.1 SB Left 23 Southcenter Parkway /1 -5 NB Off -Ramp D 25.7 EB Right Notes: 1. LOS, delays, and v/c ratios reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole. 2. LOS = Level of Service (A -F). 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle. 4. V/C = Critical volume -to- capacity ratio. 5. Delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the delay for the worst movement. 6. WM = Worst Movement. App = Approach. 3 -26 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 3 -3 Existin • 2004 Saturda Peak -Hour Level of Sery Sic a Sa Pak Hour Saturday Study Intersections Mall Entrance 1 -405 NB Ram • (Tukwila Parkwa Southcenter Parkwa 11 -5 NB. Ram • Mali Entrance Southcenter Parkwa /Klickitat Drive Mall-Tar et EntrancelStrander Blvd 1. LOS, delays, and v/c ratios at signalized intersections reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole. Notes: 2. LOS = Level of Service (A -F). 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle. 4. WM = Worst Movement, V/C = Critical volume -to- capacity ratio. 5. Delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the delay for the worst movement. The results in Table 3 -2 for the weekday PM peak hour show that two of the 35 signal- ithe unsignalized study zed study intersections currently operate at LOS intersection of 615E Avenue S /Southcenter intersections currently operate at LOS F. The Boulevard operates at LOS F with a v/c ratio of v /28at`'.�'o of 1.14 The delay calculation South- center Boulevard also operates at LOS F with a urate beyond a v/c ratio of 1.20. for a signalized intersection becomes increasingly i ro criate to measure intersection op- Thus, when the v/c ratio exceeds 1.20 it is more pp P fi- erations and congestion by the v/c ratio rather ct� intersection delay of the delayf val- cult to predict the intersection delay. To reflect p otential inaccura ues in this circumstance, the intersection delay has been reported as greater than or equal to 80.0 seconds (the lower LOS F boundary) indicating the intersection is operating at LOS F. The remaining signalized study intersections are all operating at LOS E or above during the weekday PM peak hour. The Saturday peak -hour analysis results shown in S Table peak indicate hourthat and the remaining in- tersections currently operate at LOS F during tersections operating intersections operate at LOS D or better. All three st 615 inAvenue S/Tukw la Parkway LOS F are signalized (615` Avenue S /Southcenter Boulevard, Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard). Special Considerations Traffic operations in the vicinity of Klickitat delays, tt afficParkway, progression between the Boulevard are a function of individual intersection hat occurs when c closely spaced intersections, and the resulting e vehicle queuing lar mtovement through the iinter- signal green times are not adequate to fully c P r section. The results summarized in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3 account for individual intersection 3 -27 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking delays, which report corresponding intersection level of service. The analysis software does not account for close intersection spacing, short roadway segments (such as the Klickitat I -5. overpass), and vehicle queuing, thus these conditions were also assessed based on direct field observations. A similar situation exists due to the close proximity of the 61' Avenue S /Southcenter Boulevard and 6151 Avenue S/Tukwila Parkway intersec- tions, between which queuing sometimes occurs. Field observations demonstrate that actual traffic conditions in the Klickitat Drive, Southcenter • Parkway, and Strander Boulevard area are adversely affected by both the in- tersection spacing and the resultant queuing. Frequently, vehicles are forced to weave from one lane to the next in short distances or vehicle queues extend back to adjacent in- tersections, thus reducing the capacity of the affected intersection. As a result, actual traffic operations for the affected intersections 21, 22, 23, and 24 may be worse than sug- gested by the LOS calculations reported in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3. The City of Tukwila has identified the shortcomings in this subarea and is taking steps to identify short- and long- term solutions. Arterial Level of Service Per Tukwila Municipal Code 9.48.070, the City of Tukwila has established an average level of service standard of LOS E or better for the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC), whose borders are defined in the Municipal Code. The Code identifies 17 segment and cordon locations within the TUC; these locations were combined to form 12 arterial segments by which arterial LOS and concurrency could be determined. The level of service for the TUC is determined by calculating the average arterial level of service for each segment, then averaging the segments to arrive at an average LOS for the TUC. Consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual, arterial level of service is reported in a range from LOS A to LOS F (LOS A indicating free flow and LOS F indicating failing conditions) and is a function of average travel speed (miles per hour) along the arterial. Existing arterial traffic conditions were evaluated for the 12 arterial segments within the TUC to establish current operating conditions in comparison to the City's threshold of LOS E. Table 3 -4 summarizes the results based on PM peak -hour conditions. The arterials evaluated under existing conditions are currently operating at LOS E or bet- ter during the PM peak hour. The TUC on average is operating at LOS D during the PM peak hour with an average travel speed of approximately 15 miles per hour. The results indicate the TUC is operating within the City's adopted LOS standards. Levels of service reported in Tables 3 -2, 3 -3, and 3 -4 provide an observable frame of ref- erence for reviewing and understanding forecast conditions, and for identifying potential transportation impacts. 3 -28 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 3 -4 ice Summary- PM Peak Hour ...�. -- – Arterial Segment' PM Peak Hour Speed LOS Southcenter Pkwy: S 180'h St— Minkler Blvd 16.1 D Southcenter Pkwy: Minkler Blvd — Strander Blvd 23.1 C Southcenter Pkwy: Strander Blvd— Tukwila Pkwy 16.2. D Tukwila Pkwy: Southcenter Pkwy— Andover Park E 11.4 D Andover Park W: Tukwila Pkwy —S 180th St 16.3 D Andover Park E: Tukwila Pkwy —S 180'" St 16.2 D Strander Blvd: Southcenter Pkwy West Valley Hwy 11.6 E Minkler Blvd: Southcenter Pkwy— Andover Park E 12.2 E S 180th St: Southcenter Pkwy —West Valley Hwy 14.6 D 61S1 Ave S: Southcenter Blvd— Tukwila Pkwy 7.4 E 66`" Ave S: Southcenter Blvd— Tukwila Pkwy 12.7 D Klickitat Dr: SR 518 WB on- ramp — Southcenter Pkwy 21.2 C TUC Average 14.9 D Notes: 1. Per TMC 9.48.050 Driveway Operations Existing operating conditions at the project site driveways were analyzed using the same methodologies as the study intersections. Traffic counts were conducted at the site drive- ways in 2003 and used in this analysis, along with the through movement traffic volumes from their respective adjacent study intersections. The driveway traffic counts were con- ducted prior to Bahama Breeze and Olive Garden opening in May and October 2003, respectively. However, the driveway volumes were adjusted to account for the an- ticipated levels of traffic associated with these restaurants and accounted for in the exist- ing driveway operations analysis. Nine separate driveways serve the project site, four of which are signalized and were ana- lyzed as study intersections. Table 3 -5 shows the existing LOS operating conditions at all nine driveways during the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour. As Table 3 -5 shows, during the PM peak hour, all of the study driveways currently oper- ate at LOS C or better, with the exception of Andover Park W/North Driveway, which operates at LOS E. During the Saturday peak hour, the unsignalized driveway at Ando- ver Park. W/North Driveway also operates at LOS E. In both cases the LOS E reflects the delay experienced by the outbound left -turn movement. During the Saturday peak hour, two driveways currently operate at LOS F: Tukwila Parkway/ West Driveway and West Driveway /Strander Boulevard. These driveways are unsignalized and experience the highest vehicle delay on their respective left -turn move- ments exiting the shopping center. At this level of driveway congestion, calculated vehi- cle delay values become increasingly inaccurate. This is due to the sensitivity of the ve- hicle delay equation and, as a result, vehicle delay exponentially increases at a dispropor- Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3-29 Transportation and Parking tionate rate. Thus, LOS F best represents operations in this situation, and delay is trun- cated at greater than 50.0 seconds (the lower LOS F boundary) to indicate this condition. Table 3 -5 Existing (2004) Driveway Level of Service Summa Signalized Site Driveways Weekday PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour LOSZ ° Delay3 V /C°.. LOS; <:. Delay V/C ( #14) Mall Entry (1 -405 NB)/Tukwila Pkwy B 17.3 0.54 B 13.8 0.61 ( #20) Andover Park W /Baker Blvd (Mall Entry) B 13.0 0.43 B 13.1 0.53 ( #25) Mall- Target Entry/Strander Blvd C 21.3 0.60 C 30.4 0.75 ( #21) Southcenter Pkwy/I-5 NB (Mall Entry) C 23.9 0.57 C 30.8 0.78 Unsignalized Site Driveways .: LOS Delay WM6 LOS :. Delay .::: WM Tukwila Pkwy/West Driveway C 20.7 NB Left F >50.0 NB Left Andover Park W /South Driveway C 18.0 EB Left C 22.4 EB Left Andover Park W /North Driveway E 43.3 EB Left E 42.9 EB Left West Driveway / Strander Blvd C 18.5 SB Left F >50.0 SB Left Southcenter Pkwy /North Driveway C 20.1 WB App. D 33.6 WB App. Notes: 1. LOS, delays, and v/c "ratios at signalized intersections reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole. 2. LOS = Level of Service (A -F). 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle. 4. V/C = Critical volume -to- capacity ratio 5. LOS and delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the delay for the worst movement. 6. WM = Worst Movement: Transit .King County Metro is the primary transit service provider in the study area. Regional service is provided by Sound Transit in the form of Sounder, commuter rail service. Transit Coverage Transit routes in the study area provide connections between the Westfield Shoppingtown at Southcenter project site/Tukwila Urban Center and the neighboring communities, downtown Seattle, and regional destinations. Additional regional transit opportunities exist via the commuter rail Sounder station, which is located to the east of the site on S Longacres Way, approximately 1 mile walking distance from the site. Transit Service Levels Table 3 -6 summarizes the existing transit service in the site vicinity. This table includes information on the service routes, times, frequencies, and areas served.. As Table 3 -6 illustrates, the majority of existing routes operate during the weekday peaks, midday, and evening periods, and on weekends. During morning and afternoon peak periods, existing routes operate with headways ranging from 15 to 60 minutes. Ser- vice headways range from 30 to 60 minutes during the weekday off -peak (non- commute) periods and on weekends. In addition to the Metro bus routes shown in Table 3 -6, Sound Transit's Sounder commuter train operates on weekdays with three northbound and three 3 -30 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 il A A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 southbound trains in both the AM and PM peak hours with 15- minute headways between each train. Table 3 -6 Existing Transit Service Route . Approx Service Times: and Frequencies (minutes) Major Areas Served '.. Peak Hour_ Midday /Early Evening. Evening Weekend 39 30 30 — 30 Downtown Seattle /Rainier Valley/ Southcenter 124 60 — — — Allentown (North Tukwila) /Southcenter 128 30 30 30 30 to 60 West Seattle/Whitecenter /Southcenter 140 15 30 60 60 Burien /Renton /SeaTac /Southcenter 150 15 30 30 30 Downtown Seattle /Southcenter/ Kent/Auburn 155 60 60 — 60 Southcenter /Fairwood /Renton Source: Transpo Group, 2003 Transit Stops Currently, there are two transit zones that serve the project site. All of the transit routes listed in Table 3 -6 serve the transit zone located on Andover Park W adjacent to the site. The zone consists of a designated stop on the west side of the street, mid -block between Strander Boulevard and Baker Boulevard, with its partnering stop located on the eastern side of Andover Park W. Transit shelters and a bus pull -out exist on the west side of An- dover Park W. The second zone is located on Strander Boulevard, near the signalized shopping center driveway. The eastbound transit stop at this location is served by one route (Metro route 155) and the westbound stop is served by five of the six routes listed in Table 3 -6. Surveys and focus group interviews of transit riders completed on behalf of the City of Tukwila in 2003 (Perteet Engineering 2003 /Carolyn Browne Associates 2003) indicated that local transit riders seek improved seating at the primary Tukwila transit zone (located near Andover Park W /Baker Boulevard intersection), expanded service hours and fre- quency in the evening hours, and improved intra -city travel options. Riders most com- monly requested improved amenities at the primary Tukwila transit zone with improved maintenance and upkeep. In terms of specific route improvements, riders requested bet- ter transit connections between the shopping center area, commercial businesses along Southcenter Parkway, and the Sounder commuter rail station. Also, interest in a dedi- cated Tukwila -to- Seattle express route was noted in the survey and focus group inter- views. The general absence of late evening routes to serve retail employees in the area was also noted. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS 3 -31 Transportation and Parking Non - Motorized Facilities Walking and bicycling are important elements of the transportation system, especially as each relates to travel mode choice and the effort to reduce vehicular travel. The follow- ing sub - sections describe the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the site vi- cinity. Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks exist on most principal arterials, minor arterials, and local access streets within the immediate area. In a few intermittent locations, sidewalks may exist on only one side of the roadway. The sidewalks in the area range in width and condition. In addition, most signalized study intersections include crosswalks, pedestrian pushbuttons, and sig- nal- protected crossings to facilitate pedestrian circulation. Bicycle Facilities No designated (striped) on- street bicycle lanes exist within the study area. The current King County Bicycling Guide Map, a comprehensive guide of the region's bicycling net- work, is published by King County. The map illustrates Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila Parkway, Strander Boulevard, Andover Park W, Andover Park E, and portions of South - center Boulevard as roadways with heavy traffic volumes without a wide curb lane or paved shoulder. In addition, the King County Bicycling Guide Map illustrates S 180`h Street as a roadway for bicyclists to use with caution, as it has heavy traffic volumes without a wide curb lane or shoulder. In the project vicinity, Klickitat Drive and S 154t Street are noted as having moderate to heavy traffic with a wide curb lane or paved shoulders. West Valley Highway has three different designations in the study area on the King County Bicycling Guide Map, including designations as having either moderate or heavy traffic both with and without a wide curb lane or paved shoulder. Between I -405 and S 180th Street, the map suggests using West Valley Highway with caution due to the high traffic volumes. The King County Bicycling Guide Map also shows the paved Green River Trail located to the east of the project site, which provides a north -south bicycle route in the study area. Major trail access points to the Green River trail are located east of the Andover Park E/ Strander Boulevard intersection and on Southcenter Boulevard near 66th Avenue S. An -. other paved trail, the Interurban Trail, also exists east of the site, beginning near I -405 and continuing to the south. With study area streets lacking on- street bicycle lanes, any existing bicycle activity must use the street travel lanes, the paved trails, or paved shoul- ders where they exist. The City of Tukwila's Transportation Element: Background Report (City of Tukwila, 1993) identifies Southcenter Boulevard and Klickitat Drive as being "Bike/Ped Trails." A former railroad easement beginning near Tukwila Parkway, mid -block between Ando- ver Park W and Andover Park E and heading south, is categorized as a "Bike `Friendly' 3 -32 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking Street" by the Report, before heading east and connecting with the Green River and In- terurban Trails. Traffic Safety Records of reported vehicle collisions were reviewed within the study area to document existing traffic safety issues. In addition, collision data at those locations within the City of Kent and the City of Renton that are within the study area were obtained and summa- rized for the period January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2002, representing the most recent three years of complete collision data for each city. A historical review of the fre- quency of collisions was conducted at all study intersections. A summary of the average annual number of collisions is shown in Table 3 -7. In addition, the table shows the colli- sions per million entering vehicles (MEV) based on the average daily traffic (ADT) vol- umes at each study intersection. ADT was estimated to be 13 times the PM peak -hour traffic volumes entering each respective intersection. This factor was derived based on a comparison of weekday PM peak -hour volumes to average daily traffic volumes at vari- ous locations within the study area. The study intersection with the highest rate of collisions during the three -year period, as shown in Table 3 -7, is Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard (Intersection #24). The second highest rate of collisions occurred at Southcenter Parkway /Minkler Boulevard (In- tersection #30). Both of these locations have a collision rate exceeding 2.0 collisions per MEV. Six other study intersections were estimated to have a MEV rate greater than 1.0, but less than 2.0. Generally, any intersection that has an MEV rate higher than 1.0 is monitored for collision trends and potential improvements. The two intersections noted above (Southcenter Parkway /Minkler Boulevard and South - center Parkway /Strander Boulevard) were evaluated in further detail. In order to do this, collision records provided by the City of Tukwila were reviewed in an attempt to identify predominant collision types and possible collision patterns. Findings for each intersec- tion are given below. Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard Approximately 36 percent of the collisions at this intersection are believed to be related to private driveways adjacent to the intersection and not necessarily an intersection - related collision. Collision data provided by the City of Tukwila do not give the distance from the intersection that the collision occurred. However, based on the direction of each vehicle in each collision and the layout of the intersection, non - intersection - related colli- sions were ascertained. Of the remaining intersection - related collisions, the predominant collision type at Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard was rear -end collisions, ac- counting for approximately 30 percent of the collisions during the three -year period. Ap- proach turn, sideswipe, and right -angle collisions make up approximately 60 percent of the collisions at the intersection. The frequency of collisions at this location is likely at- tributable, in part, to the congestion that is created by weaving and vehicle queuing that Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS 3 -33 Transportation and Parking Table 3 -7 • Int` # Intersection Int. ." , Control . 2000 2001:` 2002 Total Avg/Yr MEV2 1 International Blvd /S 154th St Signal. 3 4 1 8 2.7 0.18 2 42hd Ave S/S 154th St Signal. 2 2 0 4 1.3 0.14 51St Ave S /SR 518 WB On -Ramp Unsignal. 0 2 0 2 0.7 0.13 4 51s` Ave S /SR 518 EB Off -Ramp Unsignal. 1 4 1 6 2.0 0.26 5 1 -5 SB Ramp /S 154'" St Signal. 3 2 7 12 4.0 0.36 6 Macadam Rd S /Southcenter Blvd Signal. 10 12 18 40 13.3 0.78 7 61St Ave S /Southcenter Blvd Signal. 22 17 20 59 19.7 1.02 8 65th Ave S /Southcenter Blvd Unsignal. 1 0 1 2 0.7 0.10 9 66'" Ave S /Southcenter Blvd Signal. 2 3 4 9 3.0 0.22 10 Interurban Ave S/I -405 SB Ramps Signal. 12 17 14 43 14.3 1.01 11 Interurban Ave S /Southcenter Blvd Signal. 9 15 19 43 14.3 0.61 12 Oaksdale Ave SW /SW Grady Way Signal. 6 5 2 13 4.3 0.24 13 61St Ave S/Tukwila Pkwy Signal. 11 10 9 20 10.0 0.64 14 1-405 NB Ramp/Tukwila Pkwy Signal. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 15 Andover Park W/Tukwila Pkwy Signal. 7 8 8 23 7.7 0.69 16 Andover Park E/Tukwila Pkwy Signal. 13 10 12 35 11.7 1.29 17 W Valley Hwy /I -405 NB Ramp Signal. 1 0 1 2 0.7 0.04 18 53ftl Ave S /Klickitat.Dr Signal. 1 6 4 11 3.7 0.46 19 •. Klickitat Dr /I -5 SB On -Ramp Unsignal. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 . 20 Andover Park W /Baker Blvd Signal. 1 4 5 10 .3.3 0.44 21 Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 NB Ramp/ Mall Entrance Signal. 1 1 0 2 0.7 0.05 22 Southcenter Pkwy /Klickitat Dr Signal. 20 13 11 44 14.7 0.97 23 Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 NB Ramp Unsignal. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 24 Southcenter Pkwy /Strander Blvd Signal. 31 46 38 115 38.3 2.39 25 Target -Mall Entrance /Strander Blvd Signal. 1 0 0 1 . 0.3 0.04 26 Andover Park W /Strander Blvd Signal. 12 20 14 46 15.3 1.18 27 Andover Park E/Strander Blvd Signal. 9 5 6 20 6.7 0.51 28 W Valley Hwy /Strander Blvd Signal. 18 18 12 48 16.0 0.88 29 Southcenter Pwky /S 168`" St Signal. 1 0 2 3 1.0 0.09 30 Southcenter Pkwy /Minkler Blvd Signal. 20 37 29 86 28.7 2.43 31 Andover Park W /Minkler Blvd Signal. 6 4 1 11 3.7 0.51 32 Andover Park E /Minkler Blvd Signal. 13 4 4 21 7.0 0.95 33 Southcenter Pkwy /S 180`" St Signal. 18 12 17 47 15.7 1.29 34 Andover Park W/S 180`" St Signal. 5 12 7 24 8.0 0.74 35 Andover Park E/S 180"' St Signal. 8 5 5 18 6.0 0.59 36 Sperry Dr /S 180th St Signal. 4 5 1 10 3.3 0.28 37 W Valley Hwy /S 180th St Signal. 21 29 25 75 25.0 1.13 38 72nd Ave S/S 180th St Signal. 10 14 1 25 8.3 0.95 39 Oaksdale Ave SW /S 180t" St Signal. 2 5 6 13 4.3 0.33 40 W Valley Hwy /S 196'" St Signal. 4 9 3 16 5.3 0.23 1. Intersection Control; Signal.= Signalized Intersection, Unsignal.- 2. MEV= Collisions per million entering vehicles 3 -34 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 occurs during the peak hours. Improving traffic conditions within the vicinity of this lo- cation would likely improve traffic safety. Southcenter Parkway /Minkler Boulevard The predominant collision types at the Southcenter Parkway /Minkler Boulevard intersec- tion during the three -year period were rear end and right -angle collisions, accounting for approximately 34 and 27 percent of the total collisions, respectively. Of the rear -end col- lisions, approximately 79 percent involved southbound vehicles at the intersection rear - ending other southbound vehicles. The rear -end collisions are likely attributable to high volumes on the Southcenter Parkway corridor. Of the right angle collisions, approxi- mately 61 percent involved vehicles making prohibited left turns from the right- out -only private driveway that forms the western leg of the intersection. These vehicles are not controlled by the traffic signal at this intersection, but instead are stop - controlled and ex- pected to turn right only. These right -angle collisions involve vehicles that complete an illegal left turn or through movement and collide with southbound vehicles on Southcen- ter Parkway. In addition to these two predominant collision types, approach turn and sideswipe collisions together account for approximately 35 percent of the collisions at the intersection. Traffic safety could potentially be improved by eliminating the opportunity for illegal movements at this location. Feedback from City staff and the Tukwila Police Department indicates the area immedi- ately surrounding the study site is characterized as having a high number of traffic acci- dents, particularly at the unsignalized driveways along the perimeter of the site. A review of historical data did not provide conclusive information regarding the type or location(s) of collision trends. With more detailed monitoring, the City may be able to determine . if and where collision trends are occurring in an effort to improve traffic safety. Parking Parking for the shopping center is provided in paved surface parking lots that surround the mall. There are currently 6,679 parking stalls on site that serve the shopping center and the out parcels. With the demolition of the former Doubletree Hotel and resurfacing that site, parking will increase to approximately 7,383 stalls. In comparison to the total gross leasable area of the existing mall, the existing parking supply equates to approxi- mately 5.1 stalls per 1,000 square feet. Parking demand for the existing shopping center was calculated using the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, Second Edition (1999). The methodology established by ULI indicates that restaurant, entertainment, and/or cinema uses can be included with the general retail uses found at typical shopping centers. The methodology identifies a recommended parking ratio of 4.5 stalls per` gross leasable area (GLA) of the shopping center. This parking ratio was found to provide the typical shop- ping center with sufficient parking to serve the needs of customers and employees at the 20th busiest hour of the year. This methodology implies that parking demand would ex- Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -35 Transportation and Parking ceed this parking ratio only 19 business hours of the year. For the remaining 3,000 busi- ness hours of the year, parking demand would be less than this ratio. Based on the existing gross leasable area of the shopping center, including outparcels and restaurants, the existing parking demand during the 20th busiest hour is anticipated to be approximately 5,850 stalls. In comparison to the parking supply, there is enough parking to accommodate average and peak parking conditions on -site. City code requires 5.0 stalls per 1,000 sf of useable floor area for the "shopping center, planned" land use category that is applicable to the site. This rate would apply to existing uses on -site. Useable floor area is defined as any part of the structure floor area that is used for sales, display, walkways or storage, but excludes common corridors designed for the circulation of people. Based on useable floor area information provided by Westfield and the parking code requirement, the existing site would be required to provide ap- proximately 5,764 stalls on -site. The existing supply exceeds this amount and therefore meets code requirements. Appendix B -1 provides a summary of the calculations used to estimate parking demand and code requirements. Impacts of the No Action Alternative This section of the Draft EIS describes expected transportation and parking conditions within the study area if no expansion were to occur at the existing shopping center. The No Action Alternative assumes that the existing land uses, on -site structures, parking, and driveways would remain unchanged. The transportation and parking analysis for the No Action Alternative was conducted for the weekday PM and Saturday peak -hour conditions in 2010. While the Proposed Action is scheduled to be complete in 2006, a 2010 horizon year was selected by City of Tukwila staff to provide a longer -range forecast to evaluate potential impacts of the. Proposed Ac- tion. The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for comparison to the Proposed Ac- tion by which transportation and parking impacts can be measured and possible mitiga- tion measures defined. Planned Improvements Planned transportation improvements within the study area are discussed below and are categorized into Roadway, Transit, and Non - Motorized Improvements. A review of planned improvements provides an overview of what the transportation system could look like by the 2010 horizon year. Roadway Improvements The City of Tukwila has identified several roadway and intersection improvement pro- jects in their Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program 2004 -2009 (TIP). Within the study area, those projects that are funded and were identified by City of Tukwila staff 3 -36 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,i as being likely to be constructed by the 2010 horizon year were assumed as part of the analysis. These projects include: • TUC Traffic Signal Interconnect. This project includes the installation of hard wire interconnect systems between traffic signals in the TUC, effectively coordi- nating the operations between adjacent traffic signals (the TUC encompasses much of the project study area). The City has received federal grant funding to support implementation of this planned improvement. • Southcenter Parkway Improvements. This project includes the widening of Southcenter Parkway to four lanes and providing a center left -turn lane from S 180`h Street south to the Tukwila city limits. Curb, gutter, sidewalks, drainage, landscaping and utility work would all occur simultaneously with the roadway widening. • Andover Park E /Minkler Boulevard Intersection Improvements. This project includes construction of left-turn lanes for both the north and south legs of Ando- ver Park E, allowing for signal phasing improvements to the intersection. • S 168`h Street Roadway Extension. This project includes construction of S 168th Street so that it connects between its eastern terminus to Andover Park W, provid- ing a full connection between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park W. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage, illumination, and landscaping improvements would all occur as part of the project. West Valley Highway /S 156th Street (I -405 NB). This project includes con- struction of an additional northbound left -turn lane from West Valley Highway to the 1 -405 northbound ramps exclusively for HOV traffic. This improvement was not incorporated into the operations analysis because the improvement would not be available for general traffic use. This approach results in a conservative analy- sis of operations at this particular intersection because some percentage of northbound left - turning traffic would use this new turn lane in the future. • West. Valley Highway Improvements. This project includes widening West Valley Highway to seven lanes between I -405 and Strander Boulevard. Curb, gutter, sidewalks, illumination, and drainage would also be constructed as part of the project. • Minkler Boulevard Improvements. This project includes widening Minkler Boulevard to three lanes from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park W. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage, and landscaping would all be constructed as part of the project. In addition to the projects listed above, the City of Renton is planning to construct a roadway extension that crosses through both jurisdictions. The first phase of the Strander Boulevard extension would extend from West Valley Highway to Oaksdale Avenue SW. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -37 Transportation and Parking In future phases of the project, Strander Boulevard would be extended further to the east to connect with SR 167. However, for this study, no portion of the Strander Boulevard extension was assumed complete, as the roadway extension is not anticipated to be con- structed by the time of the horizon year of 2010. Other roadway improvements in the area that may not be complete by the. 2010 horizon year include major revisions to the Southcenter Parkway /I -5 Ramps/ Strander Boulevard area that are intended to increase capacity and access for the Tukwila TUC. Because this large -scale project is still in the preliminary planning stages and unfunded, it has not been included in the 2010 analyses. Similarly, long -range plans to improve the 1 -405 corridor in the vicinity of the site have been identified by WSDOT. The I -405 improvements would add general - purpose lanes to I -405 and modify interchange locations and configu- ration within the study area. As a part of planned improvements to I -405, the 61st Avenue S bridge over I -405 is anticipated to be reconstructed with the expectation that additional . capacity would be added to the bridge. Such an improvement would improve operating conditions at the 61st Avenue S intersections with Southcenter Boulevard and Tukwila Parkway. WSDOT has secured partial funding for the I -405 improvements; however, the timing of full project completion is uncertain and unlikely to occur prior to the 2010 hori- zon year. Transit Improvements The Tukwila Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program 2004 -2009 includes the construction of a TUC transit center that will serve as a major hub for transit activity in the Tukwila TUC. However, the location and extent of the transit center are still in the planning stages at this time so no specific adjustments were made in the No Action Al- ternative, or in assumptions about background traffic growth to reflect this planned im- provement. Sound Transit is in the process of formalizing plans for a permanent commuter rail sta- tion in the area, replacing the temporary station currently located on the Longacres- Boeing site. The site would potentially include a transit center and a park and ride lot with up to 415 parking spaces. King County Metro (Metro) indicates in its Six -Year Transportation Development Plan 2002 -2007 that it will restructure transit service in the area once this station is complete. Also in its Six -Year Transportation Development Plan 2002 -2007, Metro identifies a `Tukwila Shuttle Circulator' service as a potential service area need, which may result in the shuttle's inclusion as a priority for new service or improvements to existing Metro transit service. There are no specific plans for such a service, but Metro has identified this as a potential new market area. No changes in transit- related travel patterns were made in the No Action Alternative to reflect this potential new service. In addition, Metro plans various revisions to current routes. Route 126 would be created between Southcenter and Rainier Beach, replacing route 39 which had previously been noted as needing an improvement as it does not extend to the project site during the AM peak hours or in the evening. In addition, routes 128, 140, 150, and 155 have been identi- 3 -38 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking fied for potential improvements in service hours and frequency, addressing many con- cerns noted in the draft Existing Transit Conditions memorandum prepared by Perteet Engineering. For instance, route 140 is projected to possibly operate between 4:30 a.m. and 12:20 a.m. seven days a week, an extension of current AM and PM operating hours. Increased service hours such as these would allow more employees on -site and within the study area to utilize transit service, which would potentially decrease traffic and parking demand within the study area. The planned improvements outlined in Metro's Six -Year Transportation Development Plan 2002 -2007 address a number of the concerns identified by existing transit riders within the study area, particularly with respect to increased bus frequency and extended service hours. The improvements do not address the transit community's desire to im- prove transit facilities on Andover Park W. To the extent that these transit investments result in improved transit accessibility to the TUC, the rate of vehicular traffic growth may be less than assumed herein. The resulting analysis could be considered to be based on a conservatively high traffic forecast. This approach provides a conservative estimate of vehicle - related trips in the No Action Alter- native, as it is likely that a share of vehicle trips will switch to transit or rail when these improvements are implemented. Non - Motorized Improvements The City of Tukwila's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program 2004 -2009 identi- fies several non - motorized improvements in the study area that will occur in conjunction with roadway improvements. Specifically, sidewalks and related infrastructure will be constructed at the following locations to connect portions of existing sidewalks already located in places along each roadway: ■ Southcenter Parkway: from S 180th Street to the Southern city limits • S 168`h Street: from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park W • West Valley Highway: from 1 -405 to Strander Boulevard • Minkler Boulevard: from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park W Traffic Volumes 2010 peak -hour traffic volumes for the No Action Alternative are comprised of three elements: existing traffic, background traffic growth that encompasses general traffic growth and future developments that may occur within the area by 2010, and background traffic shifts assumed due to roadway improvements constructed in the study area that will influence existing travel patterns. Existing Traffic Existing 2002 and 2003 traffic counts were collected as described previously in the Af- fected Environment section. These traffic counts, which were previously factored upward Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 3 -39 from the original count date to arrive at estimated 2004 existing volumes, were used as the basis from which all future 2010 traffic volumes were derived. Background Growth and Pipeline Projects For purposes of developing a reasonable estimate of future traffic volumes in the area, traffic volumes for the No Action Alternative were estimated by increasing existing vol- umes by an annual growth rate. Based on historic TUC traffic data from the past decade available from the City . of Tukwila, a single growth rate was found to be applicable to the entire study area. An annual growth rate of 1.5 percent was applied to all study area in- tersections, as is consistent with the historic counts for daily traffic growth. As noted in the prior section on planned transit/rail improvements, this approach does not assume re- duced growth rates due to increased transit use, and may thus be conservative. At the time of project scoping, no pipeline projects were identified by the City of Tukwila for inclusion in the analysis. Pipeline projects are development projects that are in the permitting process or have been approved and would have significant impacts on traffic conditions on the study area being evaluated, by the 2010 horizon year. Background Traffic Shifts due to Roadway Improvements The City of Tukwila TIP identifies a roadway extension project that will create a connec- tion on or near the S 168`h Street alignment between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park W. In order to account for resulting shifts in background traffic due to the new roadway, adjustments were made to the 2010 baseline traffic volumes based on existing travel patterns in the area and the projected future volumes of turning movements at adja- cent intersections that would likely take advantage of the new east -west connection. The traffic forecasts in the South 168th Street Draft EIS (June 1987, Entranco) were also used as a guideline to forecast volumes with the planned roadway extension. Existing traffic volumes inflated by 1.5 percent per year, in addition to the shifts in traffic noted above, result in the forecast 2010 traffic volumes for the No Action Alternative. Figures 3 -4A and 3 -4B illustrate future weekday PM and Saturday peak -hour traffic vol- umes at the respective study intersections for the No Action Alternative. Traffic Operations Weekday peak -hour intersection levels of service were calculated for each of the study intersections for the•NoAction Alternative. The planned intersection and roadway im- provements discussed previously were assumed complete and incorporated into the analysis. The signal timings (cycle length/phase splits) at the signalized study intersec- tions were optimized in the No Action Alternative analysis to reflect the 2010 horizon year, and the city's multiple TIP improvements related to signal coordination in the TUC. It is assumed that by 2010, some degree of modification would occur at all of the study intersection traffic signals. in addition, the City's planned signal improvements in the TUC would allow the signals to optimize and coordinate based on actual demand. Thus, 3 -40 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking I INTERNATIONAL BLVD 51ST AVE S 51ST AVE S 42ND AVE S S 154TH STREET j \- / S 154TH STREET O SR 518 WB ON -RAMP 1 SR 518 EB OFF -RAMP i I 17 30 I 250J L145 165-+ f355 195-) (-145 295 550 6 1, 75 J�L 35 70 155 sSJJ k.„„195 390— -.-550 70-1 (-355 65I 120 w J 795 1r 25J 700, S 154 AVE S TH STREET SB RAMP) 1 b I SOUTHCENTER BLVD SOUTHCENTER BLVD O SOUTHCENTER BLVD MACADAM RD S 61ST AVENUE S 65TH AVE S S 154 10 225 1,165 J L 525— f630 35, (-45 25 60 66TH AVE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 65 125 90 n L- L140 205-7 -1,650 1,930— (285) 805 — -.-- 865 (355) (2,190)1,650, (- 225 (180) (1,205) 1,120 80 (70) 60 95 70J L105 510-.- •-855 INTERURBAN AVENUE S 1405 SB RAMPS 9 55 r 100 70J 1►L75 715— f810 40— x--60 105'1 (-660 370, (-225 280 725 575 1 290 65 61ST AVENUE S MALL ENTRANCEII.405 NB TUKWILA PARKWAY i; TUKWILA PARKWAY (1,255) 795 1,100 (1,130) (610) 530 J L 675 (635) (610) 485 — -.- 190 (280) (390) 305 J L 350 (285) (655) 685 — f 670 (545) (420) 235 (-55 (80) (175) 155 150 (50) 120 (170) 1 7 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY 1.405 NB RAMPS 1, 375 55 k.- 350_) L15 10— f5 425-) (-10 � �0 1, 5 1 p 53RD AVE S O KLICKITAT DR 705— +855 85 - (-135 20 o INTERURBAN AVENUE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 745 160 1 275 0J 18 C-L685 2 OAKSDALE AVE SW SW GRADY WAY 20 400 125 280.) C-L65 840• r -885 1,170 -► +920 215'1 (-345 225, (-45 20x 5 • 51 45 360 1 70 0 25 ANDOVER PARK W TUKWILA PARKWAY (420) 530 ..- 600 (465) (385) 415 , (- 280 (335) (455) 590 275(310) KLICKITAT DR 1-5 SO ON -RAMP 810 80 ANDOVER PARK E TUKWILA PARKWAY 570 — -.--300 220', (-245 390 435 ANDOVER PARK W BAKER BLVD (560) 505 (110)50 45 1 (60) (95) 70 J L 70 (40) (45) 35 — + 45 (55) (120) 45 1 (- 100 (65) (145) 8800 I 5 (65) 665 (470) LEGEND WEEKDAY PM PEAK X • PM PEAK HOUR SATURDAY PEAK E; (X) • SATURDAY PEAK HOUR WEEKDAY PM PEAK Figure 3 -4A 2010 No Action Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion The Transpo Group 3 -41 SOUTHCENTER � SOUTHCENTER NR PKWY C? ) SOUTHCENTER �1.55 NB OFF- RAMPINOTROMS KKITATDR ,5 NB OFF-RAMP (RIGHT ONL (1,135) 955 35(55) (110) 160 J L 55 (115) (135)60 — (25) 50 ', r 240 (310) 5 (260) 765 (1,015) (1,020) 750 (520) 455 1 (300) 220 J (775) 640 -1 (1,155) 990 1 620 (935) ANDOVER PARK W STRANDER BLVD MALL./TARGET DVWY STRANDER BLVD (70) 45 (195) 1 1 105 (195) (225) 140 J L 160(210) (215) 280 390 (255) (275) 135'' r 85 (155) (210) 110 0 (140) 45 (70) (575) 465 (175) 75 I 240 (260) (15o) 115 J L 160 (220) (470) 350 . - 400 (435) (85) 30, r 290 (345) (180), 0 I 5 (265) 535 (445) SOUTHCENTER PKWY S 168TH ST (1,670) 1,170 (20)5 I (270) (35) 5 J + L 155 (255) (5) 0 f- 0 (0) (5) 5 1 r 215 (325) (5) 5 1 110 (250) 1,105 (1,525) SOUTHCENTER PKWY 5J S 180TH ST 3 -42 3 305 445 19 � 0J L445 300 -► _-535 35, tor r160 20 35 1 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY S 180TH ST 1, 5 85 330 120.1 L270 635y 620, r80 ,Ir 515 60 • 95 SOUTHCENTER PKWY MINKLER BLVD 1,290 85 • L60 (-115 40 1,40 ANDOVER PARK W S 180TH ST 250 330 esJJ L220 565 -► -a-865 � r2° 20 40 72ND AVE S S 180Th ST (1,805) 1,290 (310)415- 1,615 (2,060) 0 ANDOVER PARK E STRANDER BLVD SOUTHCENTER PKWY STRANDER BLVD (1,620) 1,225 (550) • 585 (705) r 190 (445) 5 (670) 950 (1,355) 4 140 10,65 11oj ▪ L- Ltos 465-► .-475 135- (-135 ,Ir 270 200 55 • ANDOVER PARK W MINKLER BLVD 65 100 45 55J - L200 110 x-55 20, r65 s 1025 3 ANDOVER PARK E S .180TH ST 2 8 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY STRANDER BLVD 340 140 40 J 475 L10 35--► x-.20 480'- (-20 300 5 1,185 1,005 70, r10 120 60 135 270 J L 135J L165 785 -► .-920 3 n OAKSDALE AVE SW 7 S 180TH ST 15 175 70 125JJ �L60 1,145 f985 95, r80 8855995 ANDOVER PARK E MINKLER BLVD 510 125 1 35 J 65J k... 1_60 35--■ r65 105, r85 � o 50 50 SPERRY DR S 180TH ST 60 i 360 80JJ � L275 995 X970 5, r5 1I(5.0- CI WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY S 196TH ST 1,65 45 405 SOJJ 1,165 �L330 345 y — .500 260--) (-270 "1� r 255 150 1, 55 LEGEND = WEEKDAY PM PEAK X - PM PEAK HOUR ▪ SATURDAY PEAK Et (X) - SATURDAY PEAK HOUR WEEKDAY PM PEAK Figure 3 -4B 2010 No Action Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion Th Trae nsp° Group optimization most closely represents forecast signal operating conditions in the future. Table 3 -8 summarizes weekday PM peak hour levels of service information at the study intersections for the No Action Alternative. Table 3 -9 illustrates Saturday peak -hour op- erations results. The results in Table 3 -8 for the weekday PM peak hour show that three of the 35 signal- ized study intersections and two of the five unsignalized study intersections are antici- pated to operate at LOS F. Two of the three signalized intersections operating at LOS F are along Interurban Avenue. The Interurban Avenue intersection at the I -405 south- bound ramps is forecast to fall from LOS E in existing conditions to LOS F in 2010 No Action conditions, whereas the intersection at Southcenter Boulevard is expected to con- tinue to operate at LOS F. The 61' Avenue S /Southcenter Boulevard intersection would continue to operate at LOS F under the No Action Alternative. Two study intersections are anticipated to have noticeably improved LOS by 2010 under the No Action Alternative. The Southcenter Parkway/Klickitat Drive intersection would improve from LOS D to LOS C as a result of optimizing the intersection cycle lengths and signal timing to forecast traffic volumes. Andover Park E /Minkler Blvd would im- prove from LOS D in existing conditions to LOS B under the No Action Alternative due to intersection improvements planned by the City. As discussed in the affected environment section, traffic operations in the vicinity of Klickitat Drive, Southcenter Parkway, and Strander Boulevard are a function of traffic congestion caused by weaving and vehicle queuing between the closely spaced intersec- tions, in addition to the intersection delay shown in Tables 3 -8 and 3 -9. As traffic vol- umes increase in this area, weaving and vehicle queues will have a greater effect on traf- fic operations in the area. As a result, actual traffic operations for the affected intersec- tions 21, 22, 23, and 24 would continue to be worse than level of service would indicate in Tables 3 -8 and 3 -9. Potential short -term solutions could include adjusting traffic sig- nal timing and coordination, whereas long -term solutions may require roadway widening or more substantial reconfiguration of the intersections. The analysis results shown in Table 3 -9 indicate that three Saturday study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS F during the Saturday peak hour. The intersections on 61S` Avenue S at Southcenter Boulevard and Tukwila Parkway would continue to operate at LOS F, while the unsignalized intersection at Southcenter Parkway /I -5 Northbound Off -Ramp would fall from LOS D in existing conditions to LOS F in 2010 No Action conditions. A noticeable improvement in Saturday operations is expected to occur at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard as a result of traffic diverting to S 168th Street with the planned extension between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park W. The remaining study intersections operate at LOS E or better during the Satur- day peak hour. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -43 Transportation and Parking Table 3 -8 2010 No Action Alternative- Weekday PM Peak -Hour Intersection LOS Summary Int. # Signalized Intersections .. Weekday PM Peak Hour LOSZ De lay' V /C° 1 Tukwila International Blvd /S 154th Street D 58.2 0.93 2 42n0 Ave S/S 154'" Street E 66.4 0.95 5 1 -5 SB Ramp (53r° Ave S) /S 154`" Street C 33.7 0.90 6 Macadam Rd S /Southcenter Bivd C 22.1 0.88 7 61m Ave S /Southcenter Blvd F >80.0 1.47 9 66'" Ave S /Southcenter Blvd D 37.8 1.05 10 Interurban Ave S/I -405 Southbound Ramps F >80.0 1.24 11 Interurban Ave S /Southcenter Blvd F >80.0 1.32 12 Oaksdale Ave SW /SW Grady Way D 51.7 0.96 13 61m Ave S/Tukwila Parkway E 57.1 1.04 14 Mall Entrance (1-405 NB Ramp)/Tukwila Pkwy B 10.7 0.62 15 Andover Park W/Tukwila Parkway C 33.9 0.88 16 Andover Park E/Tukwila Parkway C 20.7 0.65 17 West Valley Highway /I -405 Northbound Ramp D 44.5 1.03 18 53rd Ave S /Klickitat Drive B 14.1 0.75 20 Andover Park W /Baker Blvd (Mall Entrance) B 13.6 0.44 21 Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 NB Ramp (Mall Entrance) C 20.5 0.62 22 Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive C 28.6 0.91 24 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd D 42.4 0.93 25 . Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd C 23.8 0.45 26 Andover Park W /Strander Blvd D 48.4 0.84 27 Andover Park E /Strander Blvd D 43.7 0.71 28 West Valley Highway /Strander Blvd E 57.6 1.00 29 Southcenter Parkway /S 168'" Street C 21.2 0.71 30 Southcenter Parkway /Minkler Blvd A 6.2 0.59 31 Andover Park W /Minkler Blvd D 41.9 0.77 32 Andover Park E/Minkler Blvd B 14.3 0.45 33 Southcenter Parkway /S 180th Street E 66.1 1.06 34 Andover Park W/S 180`" Street D 40.1 0.81 35 Andover Park E/S 180th Street B 18.4 0.70 36 Sperry Drive /S 180`" Street B 15.9 0.77 37 West Valley Highway /S 180`" Street D 45.6 0.88 38 �72 "° Ave S/S 180th Street B 10.2 0.45 39 Oaksdale Ave SW /S 180th Street B 19.3 0.70 40 West Valley Highway /S 196`" Street E 68.7 1.03 Int. # Unsignalized Intersections Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS Delays WM 3 51m Ave S /SR 518 Westbound On -Ramp C 15.1 NB Left 4 51m Ave S /SR 518 Eastbound Off -Ramp F >50 • EB Left 8 65'" Ave S /Southcenter Blvd F >50 SB Left 19 Klickitat Drive /I -5 SB On -Ramp C 17.8 SB Left 23 Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Off -Ramp D 29.5 EB Right Notes: 1. LOS, delays, and v/c ratios reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole. 2. LOS = Level of Service (A -F). 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle. 4. V/C = Critical volume -to- capacity ratio. 5. Delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the delay for the worst movement. 3 -44 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 3 -9 2010 No Action Alternative Saturday Peak -Hour Intersection LOS Summa Int. # :Saturday Study Intersections Saturday Peak Hour z LOS. ;Delay 3 WM V/C4 7 615' Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd F >80.0 1.33 13 6151 Avenue S/Tukwila Parkway F >80.0 1.39 14 Mall Entrance (1 -405 NB Ramp)/Tukwila Parkway B 12.9 0.66 15 Andover Park W/Tukwila Parkway C 33.2 0.84 20 Andover Park W /Baker Blvd B 13.2 0.56 21 Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Ramp(Mall Entrance) C 27.3 0.83 22 Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive E 60.2 1.13 23 Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Off -ramp' F >50.0 EB Right 24 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd E 54.5 1.09 25 Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd C 23.0 0.65 26 Andover Park W /Strander Blvd E 56.5 0.88 29 Southcenter Parkway /S 168'n Street E 63.5 1.05 Notes: 1. LOS, delays, and v/c ratios at signalized intersections reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole. 2. LOS =Level of Service (A -F). 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle. 4. WM = Worst Movement, V/C = Critical volume -to- capacity ratio. 5. Delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the delay for the worst movement. Arterial Level of Service Arterial traffic conditions within the TUC were evaluated for 2010 No Action Alternative conditions for comparison to the City of Tukwila's threshold of LOS E. Table 3 -10 summarizes the results and provides a summary of existing conditions LOS for compari- son purposes. All of the studied arterials are anticipated to operate at LOS E or better during the week- day PM peak hour in 2010 under the No Action Alternative conditions. Several segments would experience improved travel times and, in one instance, improved LOS conditions, as a result of intersection and roadway improvements, shifts in travel patterns, and/or an- ticipated signal - timing improvements throughout the study area. On average, the TUC would operate at LOS D in 2010. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -45 Transportation and Parking Table 3 -10 2010 No Action Alternative Arterial Level of Service Summary- Weekday PM Peak -.; Artenal,Segment Existing. Conditions. 2010 No Action Alternative . . Conditions Speed LOS Speed LOS Southcenter Pkwy: S 180'" St— Minkler Blvd 16.1 D 15.6 D Southcenter Pkwy: Minkler Blvd — Strander Blvd 23.1 C 24.1 - C Southcenter Pkwy: Strander Blvd — Tukwila Pkwy 16.2 D 16.1 D Tukwila Pkwy: Southcenter Pkwy— Andover Park E 11.4 D 12.9 D Andover Park W: Tukwila Pkwy —S 180"' St 16.3 D 15.0 D Andover Park E: Tukwila Pkwy —S 180'" St 16.2 D 17.7 D Strander Blvd: Southcenter Pkwy —West Valley Hwy 11.6 12.2 E E 13.1 15.1 E D — Minkler Blvd: Southcenter Pkwy— Andover Park E S 180'" St: Southcenter Pkwy —West Valley Hwy 14.6 D 14.6 D 61g' Ave S: Southcenter Blvd — Tukwila Pkwy 7.4 E 8.0 E 66Th Ave S: Southcenter Blvd— Tukwila Pkwy 12.7 D 11.9 D Klickitat Dr: SR 518 WB on- ramp — Southcenter Pkwy 21.2 C 21.0 C TUC Average 14.9 D 15.4 D 1. Per TMC 9.48.070 Driveway Operations Anticipated 2010 operating conditions for the No Action Alternative at the site driveways were analyzed using the same methodologies as in the affected environment section. Un- der the No Action Alternative, 2010 traffic volumes on the streets adjacent to the site are anticipated to increase due to background growth and planned improvements; however, volumes and allocation of overall traffic to each of the driveways would not change since no change in the site uses would occur under this alternative. Table 3 -11 shows the 2010 No Action LOS operating conditions at all nine driveways during the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. All site driveways are anticipated to operate at LOS C or better during the PM peak hour in 2010 under the No Action Alternative with the exception of the Andover Park W/North Driveway (see Table 3 -11). This unsignalized driveway is expected to fall from an existing LOS E condition to LOS F as a result of background growth on Andover Park W. During the Saturday peak hour, the signalized study driveways are expected to operate at LOS C or better in 2010. The unsignalized driveways are anticipated to operate between LOS D and F on the exiting movements. Vehicles exiting the site at the west driveway on Tukwila Parkway and north driveway on Andover Park W would experience long ve- hicle delays due to high through volumes on the respective arterials. As delay increases at the unsignalized driveways by 2010, it is likely that traffic may shift and use signalized access points that are operating with available capacity. 3 -46 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 3 -11 2010 No Action Alternative Driveway Level of Service Summa Signalized ;Site `Driveways' , Weekday PM -Peak Hour Saturday 'Peak :Hour LOW Delay3 V /C° LOS.. Delay . V/C .. . ( #14) Mall Entry (1-405 NB)/Tukwila Pkwy B 10.7 0.62 B 12.9 0.66 ( #25) Mall-Target Entry/Strander Blvd C 23.8 0.45 C 23.0 0.65 ( #20) Andover Park W /Baker Blvd (Mall Entry) B 13.6 0.44 B 13.2 0.56 ( #21) Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 NB (Mall Entry) C 20.5 0.62 C 27.3 0.83 Unsignalized Site Driveways! , .. .: LOS : Delay WMb .. LOS. Delay . ,.WM Tukwila Parkway/West Driveway C 22.7 NB Left F >50.0 NB Left Andover Park W /South Driveway C 19.5 EB Left D 25.2 EB Left Andover Park W /North Driveway F >50.0 EB Left F >50.0 EB Left West Driveway /Strander Blvd C 15.8 SB Left E 36.7 SB Left Southcenter Parkway /North Driveway C 23.3 WB App. E 43.3 WB App Notes: 1. LOS, delays, and v/c ratios at signalized intersections reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole. 2. LOS = Level of Service (A -F) 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle 4. V/C = Critical volume - to-capacity ratio. 5. LOS delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the delay for the worst movement. 6. WM = Worst Movement In 2010, the West Driveway /Strander Boulevard driveway is expected to operate slightly better than existing conditions due to the anticipated shift in traffic volumes from Strander Boulevard to the new S 168`h Street corridor. Transit Service As discussed previously, several improvements to transit service are planned within the study area related to commuter rail service, with subsequent revisions to Metro bus ser- vice that would follow. A new TUC transit center is still in the planning stages by the City of Tukwila. These improvements should improve transit accessibility for the project site under the No Action Alternative. Non - Motorized Facilities As discussed previously, various improvements are planned for non - motorized facilities identified within the study area by 2010, specifically sidewalks. These improvements would improve non - motorized accessibility within the Tukwila TUC, including the pro- ject site. Traffic Safety By 2010, there would likely be an increased potential for traffic accidents at study inter- sections proportionate to increased traffic growth in the area. Traffic volumes under the No Action Alternative are anticipated to vary between negative growth to substantial positive growth over existing traffic volumes. At some study intersections, traffic vol- umes may actually decrease in the future due to a shift in travel patterns to new corridors. At other locations, traffic volumes may increase due to these shifts or background traffic Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS 3-47 Transportation and Parking growth. At the two intersections with the highest collision rates (Southcenter Park - way/Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway /Minkler Boulevard), traffic volumes are anticipated to increase by 1 and 6 percent, respectively. The frequency of collisions could increase proportionally unless congestion can be reduced or safety measures are implemented at these intersections. Parking Under the No Action Altemative, the future on -site parking supply and demand is ex- pected to remain consistent with existing conditions. Impacts of the Proposed Action This section documents transportation and parking impacts within the study area for the Proposed Action. It addresses project - generated impacts to the street system, traffic vol- umes, traffic operations, transit service and facilities, non - motorized facilities, traffic safety, and parking. The transportation and parking analysis for the Proposed Action were conducted for the weekday PM and Saturday peak -hour conditions in 2010. The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for comparison to the Proposed Action, by which transportation and parking impacts can be measured and possible mitigating measures defined. Proposed Action Assumptions The Proposed Action includes a combination of general retail, food court, restaurant, and anchor retail space, in addition to a movie theater and a hotel. Table 2 -1 (provided in the Description of the Proposed Action section) summarizes the Proposed Action develop- ment assumptions. Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the Proposed Action were developed using a combination of Trip Generation (ITE, 6th Edition, 1997) and existing rates observed at the project site. The following paragraphs describe the methodology used to arrive at Proposed Action trip generation estimates. The general retail components of the shopping center, including the general retail, the food court, and the anchor retail stores, are best represented by ITE land use category 820, Shopping Center. To calibrate the ITE rate to existing trip generation characteristics at Southcenter, weekday and weekend peak -hour counts were conducted at the existing shopping center. Counts were conducted during three time periods to capture conditions when the shopping center trip generation is highest, and when shopping center traffic combined with adjacent street traffic is highest. The time periods evaluated were the weekday midday peak hour (11:45 to 12:45 p.m.), the weekday PM peak hour (4:30 to 5:30 p.m.), and the Saturday peak hour (1:15 to 2:15 p.m.). Weekday daily conditions were also evaluated. 3 -48 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking The raw traffic counts were adjusted to normalize the April 2003 counts to average con- ditions with a seasonal factor. In addition, traffic attributable to the Bank of America, Key Bank, Post Office, and Firestone outparcels was excluded from the traffic counts to isolate mall - related traffic only.' The adjusted traffic counts were then compared to ITE trip generation estimates using the ITE Shopping Center land use category. During the peak hours, the counts were found to be approximately 12 percent higher than ITE esti- mates and, on a daily basis, approximately 22 percent higher. These factors were essen- tially applied to the ITE trip generation rates to derive a calibrated trip rate for general retail component of the Proposed Action. Trip generation for the remaining components of Proposed Action, including the restau- rant space, theater, and hotel, were calculated using rates directly from the ITE Trip Gen- eration Manual. The respective ITE land uses applied to these components were High - Turnover Sit -Down Restaurant (LU 832), Movie Theater with Matinee (LU 444), and Hotel (LU 310). The proposed theater is expected to provide between 3,600 and 4,000 seats. To be conservative, the upper limit of 4,000 seats was used to calculate theater trip generation. Table 3 -12 summarizes total trip generation for the existing mall, in comparison to ex- pansion under the Proposed Action. Appendix B -2 provides a more detailed summary of the calculations used to arrive at the results in Table 3 -12. Total trip generation for a shopping center is comprised of several trip types. The site generates captured (or internal) trips, pass -by trips, and new (primary trips). A brief de- scription of each type is provided below. • Captured Trips are trips made internally to the site between different land uses. They are considered "shared" trips. All captured trips occur within the bounda- ries of the site through walking or driving between destinations. With the Pro- posed Action, it is expected that a share of theater or restaurant customers would also visit retail components within the mall, or attract trips between each other. While these are considered new person trips, they would not result in added vehi- cle trips, impact the site driveways, or the adjacent street system. Approximately 25 percent of the theater and restaurant total trip generation is expected to be cap- tured trips. The general retail component of the shopping center also has a share of captured trips. However, the trip generation rates identified for the shopping center already account for the captured trips and no additional reduction is needed. • Pass -by trips are those made en -route to another destination. Based on data col- lected at shopping centers nationwide, the ITE pass -by rate for the site with the Proposed Action would be approximately 17 percent. The ITE pass -by rate for sit -down restaurants is approximately 25 percent of total trip generation. Pass -by ' Traffic associated with the outparcels was included in the driveway analyses. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -49 Transportation and Parking trips impact the site driveways and adjacent intersections on occasion, but typi- cally do not impact the broader street system since they are already en- route. Table 3 -12 Proposed Action Trip Generation Existing Southcenter, Internal:: ... Capture. Trips : (Shared); Pass-By :: Trips Primary . New, Trips Total Trips Weekday Daily 02 8,000 34,100 42,100 Weekday Midday Peak 01 760 3,270 4,030 Weekday PM Peak 02 710 3,020 3,730 Saturday Peak 02 960 4,120 5,080 Southcenter :the. Expansion Internal.:. Capture Trips . (Shared) Pass -By. Trips Primary New Trips_ Total Trips Weekday Daily 1,380 9,490 46,480 57,350 Weekday Midday Peak 120 910 4,440 5,470 Weekday PM Peak 215 880 4,355 5,450 Saturday Peak 310 1,160 6,030 7,500 Proposed Action (Expansion Only); Internal....: Capture Trips (Shared)" .' Pass -By Trips Primary New-, Trips Total Trips Weekday Daily 1,380 1,490. 12,380 15,250 Weekday Midday Peak 120 150 1,170 1,440 Weekday PM Peak 215 170 1,335 1,720 Saturday Peak 310 200 1,910 2,420 1. Rounded to the nearest 10 trips 2. Existing Southcenter captured trips occur internally to the site and were not counted in the April 2003 counts. Thus, no reduction to total trip generation is needed to account for captured trips. ■ New trips, or primary trips, are those made for the primary purpose of visiting the shopping center. New trips impact the site driveways and the adjacent street sys- tem, as they would be generated as a direct result of the Proposed Action. As shown in Table 3 -12, the Proposed Action would result in 1,335 new weekday PM peak -hour trips, 1,170 new weekday midday trips, 1,910 new Saturday peak -hour trips and 12,380 new daily trips. Thus, new trips would grow by about 44 and 46 percent, re- spectively, during the weekday PM peak -hour and Saturday peak -hour conditions. New trip growth during the weekday midday and overall weekday condition would each in- crease about 36 percent. This difference reflects the character of the proposed land uses. For example, the theater and hotel components generate less traffic during the weekday midday peak hour than during the weekday PM peak hour. In total, the existing mall with expansion under the Proposed Action is. expected to gener- ate approximately the same amount of traffic during the weekday midday peak hour as the weekday PM peak hour (5,470 trips and 5,450 trips, respectively). However, the amount of new traffic attributable to the Proposed Action would be higher during the weekday PM peak hour than during the weekday midday peak hour. The weekday PM peak hour was selected as the weekday peak hour for the impact analysis due to the 3 -50 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 1 1 1 greater amount of new project trips, and because the weekday PM peak hour coincides with the peak hour used by the City of Tukwila for TUC (Tukwila Urban Center) plan- ning purposes. The Saturday peak hour was also selected for analysis within the immedi- ate vicinity of the site to evaluate ultimate peak -hour conditions for design purposes. Not specifically accounted for in this estimate of Proposed Action trip generation is the effect of existing transportation management programs, or potential programs that could be implemented on -site to discourage Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) travel. A trans- portation demand management (TDM) program can be used to minimize employee - related traffic impacts, through carpooling, transit incentives, flexible work hours, or similar measures. With the Proposed Action, it is possible that TDM -type measures could be implemented for the holiday season specifically or year- round, thereby reducing the amount of new vehicular traffic. Nonspecific adjustments were made to the traffic generation estimates to account for TDM; therefore, the analysis could be considered a conservative estimate of vehicular traffic generation. Distribution The distribution of Proposed Action traffic was identified through a combination of the City of Tukwila's transportation demand models and existing travel patterns. The City has developed two transportation demand models, one that represents existing travel con- ditions and one that represents forecast 2020 conditions. The travel demand model was used to determine travel patterns for the project site under existing conditions and fore- cast 2020 conditions. The results of this analysis were summarized in terms of percent- age of total trips within the study area. The regional travel patterns found in the existing and 2020 model were very similar. The nearby freeways and highways are expected to carry approximately 60 percent of project traffic, while local roadways and neighborhoods would carry the remaining approxi- mately 40 percent. Based on a combination of both model results, the distribution pat- terns were identified. The distribution for the 2010 impact analysis is shown in Figure 3- 5. Assignment The Proposed Action trip generation (weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour) shown in Table 3 -12 was assigned to the study intersections based on the inbound and outbound trip distribution percentages. Pass -by trips were assigned to the project drive- ways and/or adjacent study intersections based on existing travel volumes and travel pat- terns in the area. Figures 3 -6A and 3 -6B show the project trip assignment for the week- day PM peak hour, while Figure 3 -7 shows the assignment for the Saturday peak hour. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -51 Transportation and Parking 4i) NOT TO SCALE Figure 3 -5 M r Inbound and Outbound Trip Distribution Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion 3 -52 '.t : .:,r,:.. , . r. , ,C. i.: 1 ., Transpo Group OINTERNATIONAL BLVD S 154TH STREET 14--► 14 L 1_13 +13 r (-6 42ND AVE S S 154TH STREET 6 4.-7 35+ +32 a 51ST AVE S SR 518 WB ON -RAMP 1 51STAVES SR 518 EB OFF -RAMP 55") 1 O53RD AVE S (1 -5 SB RAMP) S 154TH STREET 116 L 41� x-39 MACADAM RD S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 198 7 L Ls +148 OSOUTHCENTER BLVD 1.405 SB RAPS AVENUE S • +42 r70 50 0 61ST AVENUES TUKWILA PARKWAY 107 147 L- 76 37 -► 119 +19 O WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY 1-405 NB RAMPS L_ r 10 42� 21 d 7 61ST AVENUES SOUTHCENTER BLVD 205 , r 49 154 41 MALL ENTRANCEII -405 NB TUKWILA PARKWAY 24 J 33 120 118 40 , r 10 20 15 10 53RD AVE S KLICKITAT DR 55� +52 (-6 r 7 INTERURBAN AVENUE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 20 43 20J 65-► +69 8 65T1-I AVE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 7 6J 35-► +42 1 2 OAKSDALE AVE SW SW GRADY WAY ANDOVER PARK W TUKWILA PARKWAY ( -13) 28 -+ + 29 ( -7) (13) 107 r41(7) (7)132 22(13) KLICKITAT OR 1-5 SB ON -RAMP r 93 21 J 19J 27 . +28 19 ) 20 1 ` ANDOVERPARKE V TUKWILA PARKWAY 50-► +70 2 O ANDOVER PARK W BAKER BLVD ( -3) 73 (23)60 (26) 72 ..J j 6 +6 (3)76, f (6) 9 I 77 ( -6) Figure 3 -6A Project Traffic - Weekday PM Peak Hour Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion LEGEND X - NET NEW TRIPS (X) - PASS -BY TRIPS 1 The Transpo Group 3 -53 SOUTHCENTER PKWY SOUTHCENTER PKWY 1.5 NB OFF- RAMP/NORDSTROM'S 2 2 KLICKITAT DR ( -2) 5 J (2) 51 —.... 5 ( -9) 15 74(15) x t 59 (9) I 3 13) 14 ( -13) 17 J 45 31 J+ 9i 27 2 5 MALUTARGETDVWY STRANDER BLVD 7 (15)37 1 89(4) (5) 45 J 101 (11) 66 — 110 ( -9) fir 7 (3) ANDOVER PARK W STRANDER BLVD 12 101I43 (1) 71 J i k_3a 68 —► 87 (2) (2) 16 , I (-2) 23 15 (1) SOUTHCENTER PKWY 1-5 NB OFF -RAMP (RIGHT ONLY) 76 28 1 120 ANDOVER PARK E STRANDER BLVD 68� 43� 3▪ 5 .--86 2 9 SOUTHCENTER PKWY S 168TH ST SOUTHCENTER PKWY MINKLER BLVD 39 32 1 1 41 1. SOUTHCENTER PKWY S 180TH ST 3 4 DOVER PARK W S 180TH ST 13 6 4 11 ANDOVER PARK W MINKLER BLVD 15 ANDOVER PARK E S 180TH ST 4—► 60 �L58 f-7 SOUTHCENTER PKWY STRANDER BLVD ( -t2) 11 1 93(12) 109 r 28 (12) 0 11 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY STRANDER BLVD 20 1oJ 58—) 6▪ 6 ANDOVER PARK E MINKLER BLVD 43 17, 23 3 3 6 SPERRY DR S 180TH ST 64—o- 9 +-65 0 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY S 180TH ST 54, 54 10 1 48 • ( 51 i 0 3 p 72ND AVE S v S 180TH ST 58—. f62 Figure 3 -6B Project Traffic - Weekday PM Peak Hour OOAKSDALE AVE SW O WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY 3 S 180TH ST • 40 S 196TH ST 19, 21 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion .6-41 59 1 A LEGEND X = . NET NEW TRIPS (X) - PASS -BY TRIPS I The Transpo Group 1 1 1 1 II r..;$ 1 1 1 1 -1~ 61ST AVENUE S 61ST AVENUE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD L TUKWILA PARKWAY 319 r 76 206 54 ANDOVER PARK W BAKER BLVD (-4) 154 (27) 74 (30) 83 J 142 (-7) SOUTHCENTER PKWY STRANDER BLVD -.-- 9 (-14) 15 146 (14) 130 r 37 (14) (-46 17 155 240 92 J 4,_ 169 37 ...- 17 SOUTHCENTER PKWY 1-5 NB OFF-RAMP/NORDSTROMS MALL ENTRANCE/I-405 NB TUKWILA PARKWAY 33_) 183-.- ...- 159 61 -) (15 27 20 13 SOUTHCENTER PKWY KLICKITAT DR 26 r 78 (11) 68 -) I35(16) 123 (- 15 24 (-16) MALUTARGET DVWY ANDOVER PARK W STRANDER BLVD STRANDER BLVD 61 65 8 16 (18) 49 1 203 (4) -) c- 185 1 57(1) -) c- (6) 76 J k• 174 (13) , 140 J k..... 59 47. -.- ...- 169 (-11) : 89-.- -.- 122 (2) (2) 21 -) r (-2) M / r (-1) I (-2) 36 (-1) 10 23 (3) (1) Figure 3-7 Project Traffic - Saturday Peak Hour Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion C) ANDOVER PARK W TUKWILA PARKWAY (-15) 24 -.- ...- 32 (-8) (15) 179 -st r 73 (8) r- (8) 188 42(15) SOUTHCENTER PKWY 1-5 NB OFF-RAMP (RIGHT ONLY) 129 32 147 SOUTHCENTER PKWY S 168TH ST 52 63 A I LEGEND N x • NET NEW TRIPS L') PASSZY TRIPS The Transpo Group 3-55 Proposed Action trips were assigned to the project driveways based generally on the allo- cation of new parking spaces to be constructed as part of the expansion. All of the new parking and retail that comprises the Proposed Action would be constructed on the south side of the existing shopping center. The driveway assignment emphasizes this new growth on the south side of the shopping center; however, some of the Proposed Action trips were assigned to the northerly driveways to account for the intra -site travel patterns that would occur as customers use internal roadways to travel to new parking, or use ex- isting excess parking on the north side of the site. The driveway assignment is depicted in Appendix B -3. Traffic Volume Impacts The Proposed Action project trips (new and pass -by) were combined with the traffic vol- ume forecasts for 2010 No Action Alternative conditions, to arrive at 2010 Proposed Ac- tion traffic volumes. Figures 3 -8A and 3 -8B show the 2010 Proposed Action traffic vol- umes at the study intersections. The total entering traffic volurnes shown in Figures 3 -4A and 3 -4B for the No Action Al- ternative were compared to those in Figures 3 -8A and 3 -8B under the Proposed Action to identify the percent impact of project traffic at the study intersections. These percentages are illustrated in Table 3 -13 for the weekday PM peak hour and in Table 3 -14 for the Sat- urday peak hour. As Table 3 -13 shows, the percent impact of project trips during the weekday PM peak hour ranges from less than one - percent at the outlying study intersections to approxi- mately 22 percent at study intersections adjacent to the site. Table 3 -14 shows the per- cent impact during the Saturday peak hour, which ranges from approximately 3 percent to 28 percent. The largest percent impact during the weekday PM peak hour (approximately 22 percent) and the Saturday peak hour. (approximately 28 percent) would occur at two study inter- sections that also serve as site driveways: Andover Park W /Baker Boulevard and Mall - Target Driveway /Strander Boulevard. As expected, project traffic volume impacts de- crease as the distance between the site and study intersection increases. The following section evaluates the effect of Proposed Action traffic volumes on peak -hour traffic op- erations. 3 -56 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking v 1 INTERNATIONAL BLVD S 154TH STREET 1, 75 170 144 250j Lisa 179-•► 195, ('151 295 }57 6 42ND AVE S S 154TH STREET 35 1 70 161 • 55J �L202 425-. 582 70-) (-355 65 120 1 O53RD AVE S (1.5 SB RAMP) 8154TH STREET 10 225 1 1,281 J L 566-.- f669 35-) (-45 ,60 O66TH AVE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 750-► -852 105, (-730 280 r 61ST AVENUE S TUKWILA PARKWAY (1,410) 902 1,247 (1,370) (702) 606 J • L • 794 (804) (647) 522 --.- f 209 (297) 1 7 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY 1-4051413 RAMPS MACADAM RD S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 65 132 90n �L146 205-) 1,798 2,128 INTERURBAN AVENUES 1.405 SB RAMPS 91 J100 7oJ L75 40--► 412-1 x225 �� 90 65 51ST AVE S SR 518 WB ON -RAMP 1i0 80 84▪ 7 1 61ST AVENUE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD (285) 805 -+ 864 355) 2,509) (- (1,411)1,274 121 (124) MALL ENTRANCEII -405 NB TUKWILA PARKWAY (423) 329 J L 383 (331) (838) 805 78 (704) (481) 275 1 (' (202) 175 165 (70) 130 (183) 53RD AVE S KLICKITAT DR 1,110 375 55 350JJ �L15 760-► 907 425, (-10 85_ ) r (-141 20 112 570 0 1,095 0 INTERURBAN AVENUE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 75 203 275 200J L685 905- 215'" (-345 Mfr 66110 ANDOVER PARK W TUKWILA PARKWAY (429) 545 -r 622 (489) (579) 535 •, (' 328 (416) (651) 729 310 (367) KLICKITAT DR I.5 SB ON -RAMP 8j2 1 80 C- O4 51STAVES SR 518 EB OFF -RAMP 25J 755, r t O65TH AVE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 67 95 J L 76J L105 545-► +697 1 2 OAKSDALE AVE SW SW GRADY WAY 20 421 1 125 + La. Y99J L65 1,197• -.- -. --948 244-) (-45 83070 2�5 1 0 1 G ANDOVER PARK E V TUKWILA PARKWAY • 620-. -370 220-1 (-245 390 34 ANDOVER PARK W BAKER BLVD (710) 575 (211) 1 1 45(60) (208) 168 J + L 70 (40) (53) 41 51 (64) (225) 124 , ( 100 (65) (233) 135 5 (65) 736 (605) LEGEND WEEKDAY PM PEAK X PM PEAK HOUR SATURDAY PEAK Et WEEKDAY PM PEAK Figure 3 -8A 2010 Proposed Action Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion (X) • SATURDAY PEAK HOUR j The o Group 3 -57 SOUTHCENTER PKWY 1-5 NB OFF- RAMPINORDSTROM'S , (116) 163 J (215)113 -+ (43)55 (1,154) 961 1 `(168) L 144 (215) 308 (399) 11888 (311) 766 (1,014) SOUTHCENTER PKWY KLICKITAT DR (1,081) 781 (585) 503 1 (326) 237 J (843) 685 1 (1,278) 1,083 1 647 (959) MALLITARGET DVWY Y STRANDER BLVD (78) 52 (262) 1 1 1198 (402) (307) 190 J L 272 (397) (262) 346 .. 491 (413) (275) 135 1 ('85 (155) 109 118 (209) (138) 55 (83) ANDOVER PARK W STRANDER BLVD (591) 477 (360) 1 1 284 (318) (320) 186 J L 214 (279) (559) 418 --► .- 489 (559) (108) 48 1 (- 288 (343) (216)163 1 564 (264) 551 (469) . C SOUTHCENTER PKWY 1 -5 NB OFF -RAMP (RIGHT ONLY) (1,934) 1,366 (342) 443 1,735 (2,207) ANDOVER PARK E STRANDER BLVD 4 140 165 J � 110 � L105 533- -- ♦561 178- . (-135 305 1 2500 55 SOUTHCENTER PKWY S 168TH ST (1,722) 1,209 (20)5 1 `(270) (35) 5 J L 155 (255) (5) 0 .--.- .- 0 (0) (5) 5 , (- 215 (325) (5) 1 11110 (250) 1,146 (1,588) SOUTHCENTER PKWY S 180TH ST 348 311 1 445 c- 197-.) J L445 300 -� ♦-535 35-, 5,60 o }35 1114 0 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY S 180TH ST 3 -58 M: � 1, 55 85 378 120JJ �L321 645+ 636 674-) 580 569 160 9 SOUTHCENTER PKWY MINKLER BLVD 1,322 1 L 5 8 L60 (-115 1(- °1, 7a 3 1 ANDOVER PARK W MINKLER BLVD 66 100 62 55JJ L.-L223 110 55 20-) (-65 115Ir4 . 5' SOUTHCENTER PKWY STRANDER BLVD (1,621) 1,224 L(710) + L 694 (835) 230 (496) 1 0 (716) 961 (1,372) WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY STRANDER BLVD 11, 40 360 40 485J Lto 35-► .-20 538- (-20 306I5 1,85 ANDOVER PARK E MINKLER BLVD 53 125 35 65J �L60 35-+ .-65 122, (-85 133 50 5 ANDOVER PARK W S 180TH ST 1 250 t 85J L227 565.- ♦865 5-) (-20 20 0 72ND AVE S S 180TH ST 1,063~ .. -887 70-) (-10 ,060 3 5 ANDOVER PARK E S 180TH ST 135 330 J L 135J 789+ L223 -.-927 0 3 n OAKSDALE AVE SW 7 S 180TH ST 15 175 70 125J ▪ L60 1,184 --.- ♦1,026 114"') !'80 106 ▪ 91 95 SPERRY DR S 180TH ST 60 I 360 80J `L275 1,059 -► 1,035 5-)1 5�5 15 50 4 0 WEST VALLEY. HIGHWAY S 196TH ST 11, 24 45 405 J ` 50JL330 345-... ..--500 260, (-270 255 • 50 1,17 --- LEGEND. _.. -- WEEKDAY PM PEAK X - PM PEAK HOUR SATURDAY PEAK & (X) - SATURDAY PEAK HOUR WEEKDAY PM PEAK Figure 3 -8B 2010 Proposed Action Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion • 1 1 1 1 1 1 The Transpo Group ' It Table 3-13 t- Weekda PM Peak Hour Int. # - Weekday Hour Tr Study Intersections ` �� -'' � � ``��2m1m |,������������ ���.' �'^^��.� '`'�� ' �BmsmUmm Project Tri»s' Action Impact 1.8% 1 Tukwila lnternational Blvd/S 154th Street 3,630 67 3,697 2 42 " Avenue G/G154mStreet 2,550 80 2,630 3.0% 3 51m Avenue S/SR518VVBOn-Ramp 1.366 52 1,417 3.7% 4 61* Avenue EV8R518E8Off-Ramp 1.810 107 1,917 5.6% 5 1-5 SB Ramp (53rd Ave S)/S 154m Street 2.720 106 2.916 6.7% 6 Macadam Rd S/Southcenter Blvd 4.205 359 4.564 7.996 7 Gim Avenue EV8outhoen0yrBlvd 4,745 449 5.194 8.696 8 65th Avenue S/Southcenter Blvd 1.895 90 1.785 5.0% 9 66u Avenue S/Southcenter Blvd 3.295 197 3.492 6.6Y6 10 Interurban Avenue 8/|-405SBRamps 3.405 83 3,488 2.4% 11 Interurban Avenue GXGouthuenterBlvd 5.720 217 5.937 3.7% 12 Qmkmda|e Ave SW/SW Grady Way 4,225 134 4.359 3.1% 13 G1m Avenue S/Tukwi|aParkway 3.775 505 4.280 11.896 14 Mall Entry (|'4U5NBFlamp)/Tukwi|aPkwy 2.625 390 3,015 12.9Y6 15 Andover Park W/Tukwila Parkway 2.690 379 3.060 12.3% 16 Andover Park EITukwila Parkway 2.160 120 2.280 5.3% 17 West VaIley Highway/i-405 NB Ramp 4.000 30 4.030 0.796 18 53 Avenue S/KIickitat Drive 1.905 120 2.025 5.9Y6 19 Klickitat Drive/I-5 SB On-Ramp 2.510 203 2,713 7.5% 20 Andover Park W/Baker BIvd (Mali Entry) 1,755 468 2,223 21.1% 21 South�enter Pkwy/l-5 Ramp (Mali Entry) 2.465 358 2,823 12.7% 22 Southcenter Parkway/Klickitat Drive 3.675 261 3.936 6.696 23 Southcenter Parkway/I-5 NB Off-Ramp 3.320 224 3,544 6.3% 24 SouthcenhurParbvway/StranderBlvd 3.576 294 3,869 7.696 25 Mall-Target Entnmnue/StnondarBlvd 1,755 488 2,243 21.8% 26 Andover Park W/Strander Blvd 2,985 473 3,458 13.7% 27 Andover Park E/S1nonderBlvd 3,125 232 3,357 6.9% 28 West Valley Highwmy/StnonderBlvd 4.350 154 4.504 3.4% 29 SouthcanterParkwoy/81G8mStreet 2.030 80 3.010 2.7% 30 Southcenh*rParkwny/K4ink|erBlvd 2.730 66 2.796 2.4% 31 Andover Park NVyWink|arBlvd 1,715 66 1,781 3.7% 32 Andover Park E/yNinWerBlvd 1,755 118 1,873 6.396 33 Southcenter Parkway/S 180th Street 2.905 40 2,945 1.4% 34 AndoverParkW/S 180th Street 2.580 11 2,591 0.496 35 Andover Park EIS 180' Street 2.410 129 2.539 5.1% 36 Sperry Drive/S 180th Street 2.820 129 2.949 4.496 37 West Valley 8O* Street 5.300 253 5,553 4.6% 38 72nd Avenue S/S 180' Street 2.090 120 2.210 5.4% 39 Omhoda|e Ave SVWS18OmStreet 3,125 120 3,245 3.7% 40 West VaIley Highway/S 196t Street 5.530 121 5,651 2.1% 1. TEV = Total Entering Vehicles 2. Total Project Trips (new, and pass-by at some locations) Westfield Shoppingtow Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking Table 3 -14 2010 Proposed Action Percent Impact- Saturday Peak Hour Int. # Saturday Study Intersections Saturday Peak Hour Trips (TEV)1 Proposed Action .. Percent`... Impact 2010 ` `: ° Baseline:;. :Project . Trips2 7 61s` Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd 4,285 655 4,940 13.3% 13 61s` Avenue S/Tukwila Parkway 4,520 710 5,230 13.6% 14 . Mall Entrance (1-405 NB Ramp)/Tukwila Pkwy 2,770 557 3,327 16.7% 15 Andover Park W/Tukwila Parkway 2,370 561 2,931 19.1% 20 Andover Park W /Baker Blvd (Mall Entry) 1,830 709 2,539 27.9% 21 Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 NB Ramp(Mall Entry) 3,160 475 3,635 13.1% 22 Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive 4,705 367 5,072 7.2% 23 Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Off -Ramp 4,175 308 4,483 6.9% 24 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd 5,345 405 5,750 7.0% 25 Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd 2,215 766 2,981 25.7% 26 Andover Park W /Strander Blvd 3,635 751 4,386 17.1% 29 Southcenter Parkway /S 168th Street 4,365 115 4,480 2.6% 1. TEV = Total Entering Vehicles 2. Total Project Trips (new, and pass -by at some locations) Traffic Operations 2010 Proposed Action LOS operations were evaluated using the traffic volumes previ- ously detailed in this section. All roadway conditions, signal timing variables, and future _improvements identified in the No Action Alternative analysis were held constant for the Proposed Action analysis. This provides for an equal comparison between the two in or- der to identify the potential impacts of the Proposed Action. Table 3 -15 summarizes the Proposed Action weekday PM peak hour levels of service results at the study intersections, while Table 3 -16 summarizes Saturday peak hour opera- tions results. Both tables include the No Action Alternative results for comparison pur- poses. As Table 3 -15 shows, during the weekday PM peak hour five of the study intersections are expected to continue to operate at LOS F in Proposed Action conditions as they did in No Action conditions, while the intersection of 61St Avenue S /Tukwila Parkway would . fall from LOS E to LOS F with the Proposed Action. Six study intersections are ex- pected to fall from LOS C or D to LOS E with the Proposed Action. Table 3 -16 shows that during the Saturday peak hour, four study intersections fall from LOS E or better to LOS F with the Proposed Action. In total, seven study intersections would operate at LOS F with the Proposed Action during the Saturday peak hour. For those intersections that are anticipated to operate at LOS F in Proposed Action condi- tions during the PM peak hour and/or the Saturday peak hour, a detailed review of opera- tions was conducted for each in order to evaluate the degree of Proposed Action impacts, evaluate improvement options, and identify possible solutions where they exist. 3 -60 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 3 -15 dy Intersection LOS- Weekday PM Peak Hour Int. # , 2010 No Action 2010 Proposed Action Signalized. Intersections z LOS2 Delay's . 4 V/C LOS Delay V/C 1 Tukwila International Blvd /S 154th Street D 58.2 0.93 E 60.1 0.94 2 42 "d Avenue S/S 154"' Street E 66.4 0.95 E 75.5 0.97 5 1 -5 SB Ramp (53rd Ave S) /S 154t Street C 33.7 0.90 D 44.6 0.97 6 Macadam Rd S /Southcenter Blvd C 22.1 0.88 C 33.0 0.93 7 6151 Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd F >80.0 1.47 F >80.0. 1.60 9 66`" Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd D 37.8 1.05 D 50.7 1.11 10 Interurban Avenue S/I -405 SB Ramps F >80.0 1.24 F >80.0 1.28 11 Interurban Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd F >80.0 1.32 F >80.0 1.32 12 Oaksdale Ave SW /SW Grady Way D 51.7 0.96 E 58.5 1.00 13 61S1 Avenue S/Tukwila Parkway E 57.1 1.04 F 84.3 1.16 14 Mall Entry (1-405 NB Ramp)/Tukwila Pkwy B 10.7 0.62 B 12.7 0.70 15 Andover Park WTTukwila Parkway C 33.9 0.88 E 59.1 1.04 16 Andover Park E/Tukwila Parkway C 20.7 0.65 B 20.0 0.67 17 West Valley Highway /I-405 NB Ramp D 44.5 1.03 D 47.3 1.04 18 53`d Avenue S /Klickitat Drive B 14.1 0.75 B 15.7 0.79 20 Andover Park W /Baker Blvd (Mall Entry) B 13.6 0.44 B 16.4 0.58 21 Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 Ramp (Mall Entry) C 20.5 0.62 C 29.6 0.84 22 Southcenter Parkway / Klickitat Drive C 28.6 0.91 D 36.8 0.98 24 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd D 42.4 0.93 E 64.1 1.02 25 Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd C 23.8 0.45 C 29.2 0.60 26 Andover Park W /Strander Blvd D 48.4 0.84 E 59.9 0.93 27 Andover Park E /Strander Blvd D 43.7 0.71 D 43.6 0.75 28 West Valley Highway /Strander Blvd E 57.6 1.00 E 70.7 1.08 29 Southcenter Parkway /S 168th Street C 21.2 0.71 C 21.3 0.73 30 Southcenter Parkway /Minkler Blvd A 6.2 0.59 A 6.2 . 0.61 31 Andover Park W /Minkler Blvd D 41.9 0.77 D 47.7 0.80 32 Andover Park E /Minkler Blvd B 14.3 • 0.45 B 14.7 0.50 33 Southcenter Parkway /S 180`" Street E 66.1 1.06 E 71.8 1.09 34 Andover Park W/S 180th Street D 40.1 0.81 D 40.5 0.82 35 Andover Park E/S 180`" Street B 18.4 0.70 C 20.4 0.75 36 Sperry Drive /S 180`" Street B 15.9 0.77 B 17.4 0.79 37 West Valley Highway /S 180`" Street D 45.6 0.88 D 47.9 0.93 38 72 "d Avenue S/S 180" Street B 10.2 0.45 B 10.6 0.47 39 Oaksdale Ave SW /S 180`" Street B 19.3 0.70 C 20.8 0.75 40 West Valley Highway /S 196`" Street E 68.7 1.03 E 72.1 1.04 Int # Unsignalized Intersections 2010 No Action 2010 Pro osed Action P LOS .. Delay5 WM5 . LOS Delay . ' : • WM 3 515` Avenue S /SR 518 WB On -Ramp C 15.1 NB Left C 17.3 NB Left 4 515' Avenue S /SR 518 EB Off -Ramp F >50.0 EB Left F >50.0 EB Left 8 65'h Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd F >50.0 SB Left F >50.0 SB Left 19 Klickitat Drive /1 -5 SB On -Ramp C 17.8 SB Left • C 20.4 SB Left 23 Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Off -Ramp D 29.5 EB Right E 41.1 EB Right Notes: 1. LOS, delays, and v/c ratios at signalized intersections reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole. 2. LOS = Level of Service (A -F) 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle 4. V/C = Critical volume -to- capacity ratio 5. Delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the delay for the worst movement. 6. WM = Worst Movement. App = Approach Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 3 -61 Table 3 -16 2010 Proposed Action Study Intersection LOS- Saturday Peak Hour Int # Saturday Studylntersecttons 2010 No Action 2010 Proposed. Action. 2 ' LOS : 3 Delay V /C =or WM4 LOS Delay V /Csor WM 7 6151 Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd F >80.0 1.33 F >80.0 . 1.53 13 615` Avenue S/Tukwila Parkway F >80.0 1.39 F >80.0 1.54 14 Mall Entry (1-405 NB Ramp)/Tukwila Pkwy B 12.9 0.66 B 14.6 0.75 15 Andover Park WTTukwila Parkway C 33.2 0.84 E 63.7 1.04 20 Andover Park W /Baker Blvd B 13.2 0.56 C 22.5 0.82 21 Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 NB Ramp (Mall Entry) C 27.3 0.83 F >80.0 1.87 22 Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive E 60.2 1.13 F >80.0 1.23 23 Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Off-ramp F >50.0 EB Right F >50.0 EB Right 24 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd E 54.5 1.09 F >80.0 1.21 25 Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd C 23.0 0.65 D 43.8 1.00 26 Andover Park W /Strander Blvd E 56.5 0.88 F 99.4 1.10 29 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd E 63.5 1.05 E 70.3 1.07 Notes: 1. LOS, delays, and v/c ratios at signalized intersections reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole. 2. LOS = Level of Service (A -F) 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle 4. V/C = Critical volume -to- capacity ratio, WM = Worst Movement. 5. Delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the delay for the worst movement. • Intersection 7 -61st Avenue S /Southcenter Boulevard. This signalized inter- section is expected to operate at LOS F under both No Action and Proposed Ac- tion conditions during both the weekday PM peak and Saturday peak hours. The Proposed Action would increase the intersection v/c ratio by 9 percent and ac- count for approximately 9 percent of the total entering volume in the PM peak hour, while during the Saturday peak hour, the. Proposed Action would increase the intersection v/c ratio by 15 percent and account for approximately 13 percent of the total entering volume. Potential improvement options include the addition of a second westbound left - turn lane and/or a second eastbound through -lane. Either of these options would . require road widening on Southcenter Boulevard, which would likely impact I- 405, and the overpass on 6151 Avenue S. The improvement would reduce inter- section delay, but still maintain LOS F at the intersection. The associated high cost of this option greatly outweighs the benefit provided. An alternate, more fea- sible solution would be to modify the signal timing to operate the eastbound right - turn movements concurrently with the westbound through movements, allowing more green time to this critical turning movement. This simple signal timing modification could improve PM peak -hour conditions to LOS E with the Pro- posed Action, while Saturday peak -hour conditions would remain at LOS F but with significantly reduced delay and a v/c ratio below that of No Action condi- tions. WSDOT improvements are planned for the 61st Avenue S bridge in conjunction 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 -62 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 1 with proposed I -405 improvements previously mentioned in the Planned Im- provements section. The reconstruction and widening of the bridge and Southcenter Boulevard to increase capacity, as proposed, would further improve operations at this intersection. • Intersection 10— Interurban Avenue S/I -405 SB Ramps. This signalized inter- section, which currently operates at LOS F, is anticipated to also operate at LOS F under No Action and Proposed Action conditions during the PM peak hour. The Proposed Action would increase the intersection v/c ratio by approximately 4 per- cent and would account for about 2 percent of the total entering traffic volumes. A potential improvement option is to install an eastbound right -turn overlap phase with the northbound left -turn phase. Such an improvement would improve Pro- posed Action conditions to LOS E, a significant improvement from No Action conditions. • Intersection 11— Interurban Avenue S /Southcenter Boulevard. This signal- ized intersection is expected to operate at LOS F under both the No Action Alter- native and Proposed Action conditions during the PM peak hour. The Proposed Action would increase the intersection v/c ratio by less than one tenth of 1 percent and account for approximately 4 percent of total entering traffic volumes. A po- tential improvement option is to construct a northbound right -turn lane and oper- ate it in an overlap phase with the westbound left -turn phase. This improvement could improve operations to LOS E with the Proposed Action, an improvement from No Action operating conditions. However, the construction of a northbound right turn lane would be expensive to construct due to the abutments for the I -405 overpass over Interurban Avenue S. • Intersection 13 -61st Avenue S /Tukwila Parkway. This signalized intersection is expected to fall to LOS F with the Proposed. Action, from LOS E under No Ac- tion Alternative conditions during the PM peak hour, and would operate at LOS F during both No Action and Proposed Action conditions during the Saturday peak hour. The Proposed Action would increase intersection delay by approximately 27 seconds and account for 12 percent of total entering peak -hour volumes in the PM peak hour. During the Saturday peak hour, the Proposed Action would in- crease the v/c ratio by approximately 11 percent, and account for 14 percent of to- tal entering peak -hour volumes. Constructing a second eastbound through lane on Tukwila Parkway would improve operations to LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour. During the Saturday peak hour, this improvement would still result in LOS F conditions, but would improve operations from those in No Action condi- tions. This improvement would require widening on the south side of Tukwila Parkway, which could be difficult due to grade changes between the roadway and existing mall parking lot. As discussed in the subsequent Driveway Levels of Service section, another po- tential modification evaluated for this intersection is the addition of a fourth inter- section leg opposite the 615t Avenue S bridge. This leg would serve as a new Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -63 Transportation and Parking driveway to the site with ingress movements only: While this modification would improve circulation into the site and reduce traffic volumes on Tukwila Parkway and Southcenter Parkway, the intersection of 61S` Avenue S/Tukwila Parkway would continue to operate at LOS F during the weekday PM peak and Saturday peak hours. • Intersection 21— Southcenter Parkway /I -5 Northbound Ramp (Mall Entry). This signalized intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during the Saturday peak hour under the Proposed Action, in comparison to LOS C under the No Ac- tion Alternative. LOS D conditions could be attained by constructing a northbound right -turn lane, a westbound right -turn lane, and changing the phasing on the southbound left -turn movement to permitted/protected. These improve- ments would substantially reduce vehicle queues on the shopping center driveway approach as well. Alternately, traffic volumes at this location would be reduced if the 61S` Avenue S /Tukwila Parkway intersection was modified to provide ingress to the site. With a new point of ingress, the Southcenter Parkway /I -5 Northbound Ramp (shopping center entry) intersection would operate LOS D during the Saturday peak hour with the Proposed Action. While intersection delay would be significantly im- proved, the westbound traffic volumes and anticipated queue lengths (exiting the site) would still warrant constructing a westbound right -turn lane on this ap- proach. ■ Intersection 22— Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive. This signalized inter- section is expected to operate at LOS F under the Proposed Action during the Sat - urday peak hour, in comparison to LOS E under the No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action would increase the intersection v/c ratio by approximately 9 per- cent and account for approximately 7 percent of total entering Saturday peak -hour volumes. Constructing a second eastbound left -turn lane could restore LOS E conditions during the Saturday peak hour; however, this option would require bridge widening on Klickitat Drive. The City has identified more substantial im- provements for this location under a longer -range plan that could be supported through transportation impact fees. An option that may produce a more feasible short-term solution would be to evaluate and then implement improved signal co= ordination and timing. • Intersection 23— Southcenter Parkway /I -5 Northbound Off -Ramp. This un- signalized intersection is expected to operate at LOS F under the No Action Al- ternative and the Proposed Action during the Saturday peak hour. The Proposed Action would account for approximately 7 percent of total entering Saturday peak -hour traffic volumes. Due to the close spacing of adjacent signalized inter- sections, this intersection is not a good candidate for signalization. As mentioned previously, the City has identified long -range improvements that would improve operations in the vicinity of this intersection and contribution could be made in the form of transportation impact fees. A feasible short-term solution would in- 3-64 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 elude installing a c -curb to require all off -ramp turn movements to travel southbound on Southcenter Parkway, past Strander Boulevard. Currently, weav- ing patterns between this off -ramp and Strander Boulevard affect corridor pro- gression and increase vehicle delay. If c -curb were installed at this location, traf- fic currently turning right at this intersection and then left onto Strander Boule- vard would likely shift to the signalized mall entry/I -5 Ramp (Intersection #21) to the north. Such a shift may cause operation issues at that location. • Intersection 24— Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard. This signalized intersection is expected to fall to LOS F with the Proposed Action during the Sat- urday peak hour, from LOS E under No Action Alternative conditions. During the PM peak hour, the intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS E with the Pro- posed Action; however, the level of service calculations are not able to take into account the added congestion attributable to vehicle weaving and queuing. The Proposed Action would increase the intersection v/c ratio by approximately 11 percent and account for 7 percent of total entering Saturday peak -hour volumes. A second westbound right -turn lane could improve operations to LOS D during the Saturday peak hour; however, topographical constraints associated with this option would be cost prohibitive in the short-term. The City has identified a long - range solution to improve operations at this location and in the vicinity through roadway widening and a flyover ramp between northbound Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive. Contribution through the City's concurrency ordinance would support construction of this project. In the interim, traffic signal coordina- tion and timing could be reviewed and potentially modified to improve forecast Proposed Action conditions. This option would address the traffic issues docu- mented in existing conditions, as well as No Action and Proposed Action conditions, related to queuing and signal coordination. Should c- curbing be in- stalled at the unsignalized 1 -5 Northbound Off - Ramp /Southcenter Parkway inter- section (intersection #23), traffic formerly turning right at intersection #23 would likely use intersection #21 instead in order to have access to the southbound left turn lane at Strander Boulevard. Such an improvement may improve progression through this intersection in the southbound direction by eliminating upstream weaving, but may not influence traffic volumes at this intersection noticeably. • Intersection 26— Andover Park W /Strander Boulevard. This signalized inter- section is expected to fall to LOS F with the Proposed Action during the Saturday peak hour, from LOS E under No Action Alternative conditions. The Proposed Action would increase intersection delay by approximately 43 seconds and ac- count for approximately 17 percent of total entering Saturday peak -hour volumes. Improvements could include a second eastbound left -turn lane, a second west- bound left -turn lane, a southbound right -turn lane, and/or a westbound right -turn lane. Implementing two or more of these improvements would restore intersec- tion operations to LOS E with the Proposed Action during the Saturday peak hour. The feasibility of intersection widening would likely be driven by right -of- way constraints on one or more of the intersection corners. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -65 Transportation and Parking • Intersection 4 -515` Avenue S /SR 518 Eastbound Off -Ramp. This unsignal- ized intersection is expected to operate at LOS F on the eastbound left-turn movement under both the No Action Alternative and Proposed. Action conditions during the PM peak hour. The Proposed Action would noticeably increase vehi- cle delay on this movement and account for approximately 6 percent of total en- tering PM peak -hour volumes. Installing a traffic signal at this intersection would improve peak -hour operations to LOS B. To minimize vehicle queues, the signal would need to be operated so that sufficient green time is allocated to the off - ramp. An alternate option would be to widen the 51St Avenue bridge to provide a center refuge lane for vehicles turning left from the off -ramp while retaining un- signalized control at the intersection. The left-turn movement would still operate at LOS F, but with reduced delay. The costs associated with bridge widening would exceed the cost of installing a traffic signal, and the bridge widening would not provide the same level of improvement as a traffic signal. Therefore, traffic signalization would appear to be a more favorable alternative. • Intersection 8 -65th Avenue S /Southcenter Boulevard. This unsignalized in- tersection is expected to operate at LOS F on the southbound approach under both the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action conditions during the PM peak hour. The Proposed Action would account for approximately 5 percent of total entering PM peak -hour volumes. Operations could be restored to LOS D by for- malizing the channelization on Southcenter Boulevard to provide a center refuge area for vehicles completing a southbound left -turn movement. A refuge area in the center turn lane would allow vehicles to complete the turn in two movements and improve the opportunity to enter the traffic stream. The roadway width exists on Southcenter Boulevard; the improvement would only require upgraded road- way striping. Alternatively, a traffic signal could be installed to improve opera- tions. Arterial Levels of Service Table 3 -17 shows that under the Proposed Action, all of the arterial segments within the TUC are expected to operate at the same LOS as for the No Action Altemative. Only slight decreases in average travel speed are anticipated to occur on each arterial as a re- sult of the Proposed Action. Overall, the TUC average LOS would remain at LOS D, meeting the City of Tukwila's concurrency requirements. 3 -66 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 1 1 1 1 eg 1 1 1 1 Table 3 -17 Pro osed Action Arterial LOS- Weekda No Action Conditions.; PM Peak Hour 2010 Proposed Action; Conditions LOS. Arterial Segment' • Southcenter Pk : S 180 St— Minkler Blvd Southcenter Pk : Minkler Blvd — Strander Blvd Southcenter Pk : Strander Blvd — Tukwila Pk Tukwila Pk : Southcenter Pk — Andover Park E Andover Park W: Tukwila Pk —S 180 St Andover Park E: Tukwila Pk —S 180 St Strander Blvd: Southcenter Pk —West Valle H Minkler Blvd: Southcenter Pk — Andover Park E S 180 St: Southcenter Pk —West Valle H 61s Ave S: Southcenter Blvd — Tukwila Pk 66 Ave S: Southcenter Blvd—Tukwila Klickitat Dr: SR 518 WB on -ram Southcenter Pkw 1. Per TMC 9.48.070 Drivewa Levels of Service Anticipated 2010 Proposed Action operating conditions o Acti ontAlternat driveways e As was discussed 1? ana- lyzed using the same methodologies as for the previously, Proposed Action trips were assigned to the s based on the project e the ct drivewaexpanysion. All n n the allocation of new parking spaces to be constructed as p mall, drawing most of the new parking will be constructed to the south of the existing park- ing traffic. However, some of the Proposed Action rips s that will ervto the new existing northerly driveways (in addition to the southerly driveways capacity) to account for the likely intra -site travel patterns that will occur as visitors ing internal p Y) use i roadways to travel from the northerly dend oft etsite. e The existing driveway park- ing, or use existing excess parking on the northern intersection geometry, used in the Affected Environment and No Action Alternative analyses, was used for the Proposed Action driveway analyses. tall nine driveways Table 3 -18 shows the 2010 Proposed Action operating conditions at the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. No Action driveway LOS results are during also included in the table for comparison purposes. S•eed��` 15.6 24.1 16.1 12.9 15.0 MUM 14.6 8.0 11.9 21.0 LOS D D D D D D Seed 15.0 23.9 15.0 D 0 D D D MEM IMMO 14.3 6.6 11.9 D D v D MEM D 20.4 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 3 -67 Table 3 -18 Summa Weekday PM Peak Hour' 2010 No Action ` ". 2010 Proposed Action 2 LOS 3 Delay. VIC or WM4 LOS Delay . VIC or WM Tukwila Parkway/West Driveway C 22.7 NB Left D 28.2 NB Left Mall Entry (1 -405 NB Ramp)/Tukwila Pkwy* B 10.7 0.62 B 12.7 0.70 Andover Park W /North Driveway F >50.0 EB Left F >50.0 EB Left Andover Park W /Baker Blvd (Mall Entrance)* B 13.6 0.44 B 16.4 0.58. Andover Park W /South Driveway C 19.5 EB Left D 28.1 EB Left Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd*. C 23.8 0.45 C 29.2 0.60 West Driveway /Strander Blvd C 15.8 SB Left C 23.3 SB Left Southcenter Pkwy / /I -5 Ramp (Mall Entry)* C 20.5 0.62 C 29.6 0.84 Southcenter Parkway /North Driveway C 23.3 WB App. D 29.8 WB App. Saturday Peak Hour 2010 No Action 2010 Proposed Delay Action V/C or WM WM` 2 LOS " 3 Delay V/C or WM LOS, Tukwila Parkway/West Driveway F >50.0 NB Left F >50.0 NB Left Mall Entry (1-405 NB Ramp)/Tukwila Pkwy* B 12.9 0.66 B 14.6 0.75 Andover Park W /North Driveway F >50.0 EB Left F >50.0 EB Left Andover Park W /Baker Blvd (Mall Entrance)* B 13.2 0.56 C 22.5 0.82 Andover Park W /South Driveway D 25.2 EB Left F >50.0 EB Left Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd* C 23.0 0.65 D 43.8 1.00 West Driveway /Strander Blvd E 36.7 SB Left F >50.0 SB Left Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 NB Ramp (Mall Entry)* C 27.3 0.83 F >80.0 1.87 Southcenter Parkway /North Driveway E 43.3 WB App F >50.0 WB App Notes:.` Signalized Intersection 1. LOS, delays, and v/c ratios at signalized intersections reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole, while delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the delay for the worst movement. 2. LOS= Level of Service (A -F) 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle 4. V/C = Critical volume -to- capacity ratio, WM = Worst Movement. As Table 3 -18 shows, all of the site driveways would operate at LOS D or better, or re- main at the same LOS as in 2010 No Action conditions during the weekday PM peak hour. During the Saturday peak hour, four driveways (three of which are unsignalized) are ex- pected to fall from operating conditions of LOS E or better to LOS F with the Proposed Action. The unsignalized Andover Park W /South Driveway would operate just above the threshold for LOS F, indicating that vehicles would be delayed on the eastbound left -turn movement, but would find an opportunity to enter the traffic stream. All other move- ments at this intersection would operate at LOS B or better under the Proposed Action. The unsignalized West Driveway /Strander Boulevard would also operate at LOS F on the southbound left -turn movement. This movement would experience high vehicle delay and drivers would likely chose to use the signalized access points once learning that this movement is difficult to complete during the Saturday peak hour. All other movements would operate at LOS C or better during the Saturday peak hour. 3 -68 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 ;rd 1 1 1 1 1 1: As discussed in the operations analysis, the signalized Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Ramp at the Nordstrom's entry would operate westbound approaches, more and they final phasing on the constructed on the northbound and wes protected move - southbound left-turn movement peak- hour LOS permitted or better during the peak move- ments. This would improve pe in center driveway approach. hours, and significantly reduce queues on the shopping at the Another alternative that would improve u con Jude addi gointgresstto the site v /ia a new Northbound Ramp /Mall Entry signal wo h leg d be driveway at the 6151 Avenue S /Tukwila Parkway ovement only gressrtwou d not tlbe al- added to this intersection to allow entering rth lowed, in an effort to reduce signal- timing imp movements from Tukwila Parkway �nto approaches. Furthermore, westbound left -tum d the site would need to be restricted and directed kV la Parkway to signalized By p oviding d� ecteac- opposite the 1 -405 Northbound On -Ramp on Tukwila to the site from the 6151 Avenue S /Tuk elreduced and intersction operations would at , traffic volumes the Southcenter Parkway driveway would b oes improve to LOS D or better. Because this a lane lonthe s to driveway approachlwould pat- terns, the recommended westbound right-turn still be needed to accommodate anticipated queue lengths with the Proposed Action. The unsignalized Southcenter Parkway/North Dry in compars on to LOS E under un- der the Proposed Action during the Saturday peak hour, mall driveway) currently has one the No Action Alternative. The westbound approach widening the driveway to separate out- bound lane. Operations could be improved by g , even bound left- and right -turn movements. would operate just above the F with the recommended improvement, the driveway would threshold during the Saturday peak hour under the Proposed Action. The two unsignalized driveways operating Pro Proposed Action. The Tukwila Park- way/West would continue to operate at LOS F under the P way/West Driveway would experience incr ehic s a sswould likely Noose a signalized movement as a result of the Proposed Action. intersection over this driveway as drivers experience long vehicle support delays on additional this outbound movement. The adjacent signals have adequate capacity traffic, thus traffic volumes would nd the Proposed ActiontAndovertPark W/Norths Under the No Action Alternativ e and Driveway is also expected to operate at LOS F on the eastbound left-tum movement. If the previously mentioned option of adding ingress access via the 615` Avenue S/Tukwila Parkway intersection were implemented, the Saturday peak hour LOS at the western Tukwila Parkway unsignalized driveway would d improve errain from at LOS LOS F F to LOS C, while the remainder of the unsignalized driveways ral the outbound left -turn movements at the unsignalized driveways is to be expected for In general, the peak hours. This to operate with noticeable vehicle delay during p 3 -69 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking stop - controlled movements on arterials with high traffic volumes. The existing signal- ized access points could accommodate a shift in traffic volumes, should drivers seek al- ternate locations to exit the site. Transit Service It is assumed that existing and future transit service would continue to be used as a mode choice to access the project site. Overall, the existing services (and the potential for fu- ture improvements) are expected to accommodate any increase in ridership that could re- sult from the Proposed Action. Buses operating in the area would be subject to the same delays reported in the LOS tables for the Proposed Action, as they are accounted for in projected traffic volumes and they utilize the roadway network in conjunction with other motor vehicles. The delay for each individual bus rider would be consistent with the de- lay experienced by the bus and other motor vehicles following the same route. Thus, the overall delay to persons would be higher for buses versus standard automobiles. The potential improvements listed in Metro's Six -Year Transportation Development Plan 2002 -2007 would address most concerns raised in recent transit rider surveys. The key unaddressed transit rider issue revolved around potential capital improvements to the ex- isting transit shelter at the Andover Park W /Baker Boulevard intersection. While addi- tional trips would not create a significant adverse impact to bus and rail operations in the area, the proponent could consider upgrading the existing bus shelters, benches, and gen- erally improve connectivity between the Andover Park W bus stops and the mall entrance to further encourage transit use to /from the site by employees and customers. Non- Motorized Facilities Existing non - motorized facilities within the study area would accommodate the portion of Proposed Action trips that would access the site via non - motorized means. In addition, improvements to trail connections and the Tukwila TUC should only further strengthen this accessibility. Thus, no significant adverse impacts to non - motorized facilities or op- erations are expected to occur under the Proposed Action. Pedestrian travel could be im- proved by integrating dedicated walkways into the site plan that provide access between the adjacent streets, adjacent transit zones, and the shopping center. Traffic Safety There would be a potential increase in traffic accidents at study intersections due to the increase in traffic from the Proposed Action. As discussed previously, the Proposed Ac- tion is anticipated to increase peak -hour intersection traffic by a range of approximately 1 to 30- percent at the study intersections during the weekday PM and/or Saturday peak hours. Several planned transportation improvements and/or potential improvements iden- tified as a result of operational conditions could be implemented to reduce congestion and improve traffic safety within the study area. • 3 -70 . Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 1 1 1 1 Two study intersections were noted to have unusually high collision rates: SAt hcenter Park kwa way /Minkler Boulevard and Southcenter P Y Southcenter Parkway /Minkler Boulevard, the predominant controlled collisions occurred that forms as a result of illegal movements out of an unsignalize d stop co the western leg of the intersection. Intersection design om sues such as inr tegrating driveway the driveway into the signal operations, restricting egress ve safety at design modifications to reduce illegal movements a prox imat ly 2 per�ent of traffic this location. The Proposed Action would account for volumes at this location; however, project- related traffic ctis ex es the to travel l north and of southbound on the Parkway and not use the west leg existing collisions. Collisions at Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard seem e caused by a combina- tion of conditions, primarily due to driveways located within the vicinity improvements could the intersection or collisions due to overall rictions at adjacent ent driveways. The City's long- range turn movement and/or egress range planned improvements for this intersection s nd as a�esult Klickitat toeimprove improve- ments are expected to reduce traffic congestion, approximately 8 percent of traffic traffic safety. The Proposed Action would account for app volumes at this location, and could proportionally impact through impact oconditions. ht Fi- nancial contribution towards the planned rt ortior right-of- way share of way dedication could be a mitigating measure to offset the project's p p impacts to safety conditions. With an increase in traffic volumes at the site driveways s specific i h Proposed oo ps a patterns c ion traffic safety conditions could decline proportionally. nl s der. monitoring ollision patterns with occu- pancy identified to date, the City may anc of the proposed expansion. Should the unsig alit d driveways experience ricehigr p Y potential measures such as turn-movement refuge-lanes rates, p refu a -lanes on adjacent arterials, or signalizatioe results of the traffic analysis do not the g type . of safety condition identified. However, t improvements at this time. conclusively highlight the need for specific imp Potential traffic safety impacts of the Proposed Action could be reduced as a result of specific intersection improvements, if implemented. Parkin A r eview of parking supply in comparison to anticip td peak parking eman al and City of Tukwila parking code requirements was conducted of the Proposed Action. Parking Supply in center has a total of 6,679 parking stalls, all provided in surface The existing shopping supply parking lots on -site. Under the Proposed Action, parking pP Y would total approxi- Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 3 -71 mately 7,900 stalls in a combination of surface and structured parking. The increase in parking supply would occur primarily on the south side of the project site. The increased parking supply would support the existing parking demand and the anticipated demand under the Proposed Action. Proposed Action Parking Demand Peak parking needs for the shopping center component of the Proposed Action were cal- culated using the same methodology outlined in the existing conditions analysis of park- ing demand. This ULI methodology assumes the peak parking needs on the 20th busiest hour of the year are approximately 4.5 stalls per 1,000 sf of gross leasable area. As was discussed in the Affected Environment section, this methodology implies that parking demand would exceed this parking ratio only 19 business hours of the year. For the re- maining 3,000 business hours of the year, parking demand would be less than this ratio. This rate is applicable to all retail, restaurant, and cinema uses within the shopping center (including the outparcels). It is noted that the 20th busiest hour of parking demand for a shopping center has been found to occur between 1:00 and 3:00 p.m. on the second Sat- urday prior to Christmas. Practically speaking, consideration of demand levels in this range should be viewed as typically representative of holiday season weekend peak park- ing demands. Parking demand associated with the proposed hotel was calculated using ITE Parking Generation, Second Edition. While no overlap for shared parking has been included in the hotel parking demand, some shared parking is likely; thus, calculated de- mand may somewhat overestimate actual conditions. 1 It is also noted that, while traffic generation estimates were developed assuming a 12- percent increase in traffic over ITE trip generation estimates, parking rates were not simi- larly adjusted. Trip rates were adjusted based on actual driveway traffic counts con - !1 ducted during weekday PM peak -hour conditions. Parking accumulation is a function of both total demand and duration of shopping stay, while driveway traffic counts are sim- ply a measure of in and out activity. In fact, high parking turnover (which can result in lower accumulations) can be related to higher driveway traffic counts. Thus, no adjust- ment to the methodology described above was appropriate for the parking analysis. The 20 th highest hour peak parking demand for the shopping center, excluding the hotel, is estimated to be 8,355 parking stalls. With the hotel, assuming no shared parking, the peak demand would increase to 8,428 stalls. The detailed parking demand calculations are provided in Appendix B -1. This analysis indicates that on the peak parking days, the available supply of approximately 7,900 stalls would not be adequate to meet the peak parking demand. Unmitigated, this condition would result in a number of adverse im- pacts, including congestion in internal circulation aisles as a result of prolonged parking searches, congestion at site driveways related to parking search delays, increased circula- tion on surrounding streets, and possible parking off -site in adjacent retail centers — to the extent that these centers appear to have parking available. It should be noted, however, that during the period when Southcenter parking would be at a holiday peak, the same would be true for adjacent retail centers. As a result, it is important that such high de- mand conditions be anticipated, and programmatically mitigated. 3 -72 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a4 1 The ULI methodology includes employee parking demand in its total peak parking de- mand. Employee parking could be as high as 20 percent of the total parking require- ments. Twenty percent of the demand would equate to over 1,670 spaces. If employees were required to park in offsite locations during the predictable periods of highest de- mand, which typically occur during the Christmas holiday shopping season, on -site park- ing would be adequate to meet even these peak demand levels. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures such as transit incentives, car- pooling programs for employees, parking management programs with preferential park- ing for carpools or vanpools, and/or shuttle services could also be used to reduce peak parking needs during the holiday season or year round. Code Requirements Based on the City of Tukwila's parking code requirements, the Proposed Action would require a minimum of approximately 8,289 parking stalls. In comparison to the proposed supply of 7,900 stalls, the Proposed Action would not meet City code as currently pro- posed. The proponent would either increase parking supply on -site to meet the code re- quirements for parking by increasing the size of the parking structures, or would seek a parking variance to authorize the reduced parking supply. The detailed calculations used to arrive at code requirements are provided in Appendix B -1. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are accounted for in the analysis of the Proposed Action through the inclusion of background traffic growth reflecting future development, and through the inclusion of planned transportation improvements. Mitigating Measures Traffic volumes, traffic operations, transit and rail, non - motorized, traffic safety, and parking conditions under the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative were compared to identify near -term impacts and possible mitigating measures. Table 3 -19 summarizes the intersection mitigation options identified as a result of this impact analysis. Peak parking demand, which typically occurs during the holiday season, would generate more parking than the proposed supply. While the 20th busiest hour analysis is reflective of the second Saturday prior to Christmas, the conditions and impacts represented can be viewed as typical of weekend conditions during the holiday season. Parking impacts could be mitigated through .a Transportation Demand Management program for site em- ployees, and/or by requiring off -site parking for employees during the peak holiday sea- son. Such programs may require the employment of a parking shuttle system to transport employees from off -site parking locations to the site, depending on the location of off -site parking. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -73 Transportation and Parking Improvements to the transit facilities or services could also encourage transit use by em- ployees throughout the year, particularly during the holidays. To mitigate long -range transportation impacts, the Proposed Action would be subject to mitigation impact fees pursuant to the Traffic Concurrency Standards and Impact Fees chapter of Tukwila Municipal Code 9.48. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Traffic volumes, congestion, and collisions are expected to increase within the Tukwila Urban Center as a result of forecast population, employment growth, and transportation system improvements, without or with implementation of the Proposed Action. 3 -74 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II A 1 1 1 A O. 0- ' Option (a) provides more benefit for the associated cost Option (b) is most feasible and provides more benefit than option (a) Option (a) most effective. Option (b) would impact traffic progression on the Boulevard. Option (a) costly due to proximity of 1-405 overpass near the intersection. Option (a) would improve peak hour operations. Option (b) would improve circulation into the site and operations at other locations, but would not improve conditions at this location. Option (a) costly, temporary fix. Option (b) is feasible short-term solution Option (a) is feasible short-term solution Mitigation, Options a. Install traffic signal b. Construct center refuge lane on 51St Ave S a. Second WB left-turn lane and /or EB thru- lane b. Modify signal phasing /timing a. Channelize center refuge lane on Southcenter Blvd b. Install traffic signal a. Add overlap signal phase to EB right turn lane a. Construct NB right -tum lane with overlap signal phase a. Construct second EB through lane b. Construct new ingress driveway on south leg, restrict WB left -tum movements a. Construct NB right -turn lane, WB right -turn lane, and phasing modifications b. Construct new ingress driveway at 61St Ave S/Tukwila Pkwy and a WB right -tum lane at this location. a. Construct second EB left-turn lane b. Improve signal coordination /timing a. Install c -curb to eliminate vehicle weaving Mitigation Warranted' Proposed Action:: X X X X X X X X X No:... Action X X X X X X X X X X Intersection 51St Ave S/ SR 518 EB Off -Ramp 61st Ave S/ Southcenter Blvd 65th Ave S/ Southcenter Blvd Interurban Avenue S /I- 405 SB Ramp Interurban Ave S/ Southcenter Blvd 61st Ave S/ Tukwila Pkwy Southcenter Pkwy/ 1 -5 NB Off -Ramp/ Mall Entry Southcenter Pkwy/ Klickitat Dr Southcenter Pkwy/ 1 -5 NB Off-Ramp C r- 00 O r r r M r r N N N M N Option (a) is costly, temporary fix. Option (b) is feasible short-term solution. Option (d) could address existing safety conditions. Each option provides equal benefit; right -of -way constraints would determine feasibility and preferred solution Options to be considered to address existing safety conditions. a. Construct second WB right -tum lane b. Improve signal coordination/timing c. Restrict tum- movements at adjacent driveways a. Construct second EB left-tum lane b. Construct second WB left -turn lane c. Construct SB right -turn lane d. Construct WB right -turn lane a. Integrate existing unsignalized driveway into signal operations b. Physically restrict tum movements from unsignalized driveway X X X X X X X Southcenter Pkwy/ Strander Blvd Andover Park W/ Strander Blvd Southcenter Pkwy/ Minkler Blvd v N co N 0 c', 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Public Services and Utilities Affected Environment Fire and Emergency Medical Services The City of Tukwila Fire Department provides fire suppression and emergency medical services to the project site. The Department serves 17,270 residents and approximately 45,000 employees over an area of approximately 8.6 square miles. The Department is comprised of four stations — Stations 51, 52, 53, and 54. Table 3 -20 lists the physical location and types of equipment housed at each station. Table 3 -20. City of Tukwila Fire Stations Locations and Equipment Station Location Equipment Station 51 444 Andover Park East 1 main engine (1,500 GPM') 1 rescue truck 1 support engine (1,500 GPM) 1 shift commander vehicle (Battalion 51) Station 52 5900 South 147`'' Street 1 main engine (2,000 GPM) 1 hazardous materials response vehicle Station 53 4202 South 115th Street 1 main engine (2,000 GPM) 1 support engine (1,500 GPM) Station 54 4237 South 144`h Street 1 ladder truck (2,000 GPM) 1 rescue aid unit 1 support aid unit Source: City of Tukwila, 2003. 'Gallons Per Minute of water pumped per vehicle. Station 51, the Headquarters Station, is located within one -half mile of Southcenter and has primary responsibility for responding to incidents occurring on the shopping center property and in the general vicinity including the adjacent interestates. Station 52 and Station 54 provide back -up support to Station 51. Station 52 is located less than one mile from Southcenter. Station 54 is located just over a mile away and has convenient access to the surrounding highways (State Route 99 and SR 518) and other main arterials. Sta- tion 53 provides primary response to incidents in north Tukwila, the Boeing Military Air- plane Factory, the Museum of Flight, and the south end of Boeing Air Field. In addition, the Department participates in the King County-wide mutual aid agreement contract, which covers all fire departments in the County. Call type and available re- sources would ultimately determine the station response sequence at the time of an inci- dent. With all fire apparatus in quarters and available, apparatus would respond to an emergency medical alarm in the following order: Engine 51, Engine 52, Ladder 54, City Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS 3 -77 Public Service and Utilities of Renton Aid or Engine 14, City of Kent Engine 76, and City of SeaTac Engine 46 (Tomaso, 2004). On average, a 4- minute response time is typical from Station 51. Response times are variable, depending on the time of day or night, traffic conditions, and available stations. Outlying stations would respond within up to 13 to 15 minutes. In all, the four Tukwila stations are equipped with 3 main engines, 2 back -up engines, 1 ladder truck, 1 hazardous materials response unit, 1 Command unit, 1 main rescue aid unit, and 1 back -up aid unit. A total of 39 full -time equivalent (FTE) firefighters, 12 shift lieutenants, and 3 shift captains are assigned to the stations. All responding personnel are Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) and are defibrillator- certified. The "fire sup- pression crews" work three rotating 24 -hour shifts, with a minimum of 14 personnel staffed per shift among the four stations. Table 3 -21 shows the staffing allocation for each station. Table 3 -21. City of Tukwila Fire Stations Staff per Station Staff Per 24 -Hour Shift Station 511 Station 52 Station 53 Station 54 1 Captain 1 Lieutenant 3 Firefighters 1 Lieutenant 2 Firefighters 1 Lieutenant 3 Firefighters 1 Lieutenant 5 Firefighters 'The Department's Shift Commander, Fire Marshall, and Training Division all report from Station 51. The Special Operations Division of the Tukwila Fire Department consists of the Hazard- ous Materials Team and the Rescue Team. Each team is cross - trained and includes 12 officers and firefighters from the Department who have received specialized training in responding to incidents involving chemical releases, fuel spills, and rescues involving high angles, confined spaces, trenches, or water. American Medical Response and Tri-Med Ambulance company provide the ambulance service. Service is rotated between the two companies and calls are dispatched by Tuk- wila Fire Department's dispatch agency. Initial response to medical incidents is typically made by first responders who are. typically EMT firefighters, followed by advanced life support response by the Paramedic Unit, (country-wide medic one program) if necessary. Staffing levels are set by the City of Tukwila Mayor's Office, with input from the Fire Chief. The current budget requires that the Aid unit be out of service whenever the de- partment is at minimum staffing (14 personnel on duty). During the first quarter of 2004, the Aid unit was placed out of service for a total of 48 shifts (days). When this has oc- curred, private ambulance companies respond to provide service. This arrangement has resulted in a slight increase in incident response times. In 2002, the Department received a total of 1,446 fire calls and 2,620 aid calls in the City. Of these calls, the Department responded to roughly 52 fire- related calls (.036 calls per 3 -78 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities 1 'i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f~• 1 1 1 1 1 L e 1,000 sf) and 184 aid calls (.128 calls per 1,000 sf) at Southcenter (City of Tukwila, 2003). Police Services Information about police services was provided by the City of Tukwila Police Depart- ment (Haines, 2003). The City of Tukwila Police Department provides primary law enforcement services to the residents and businesses in the City, including the project site. The patrol division is headquartered at the City's administrative campus (6200 Southcenter Blvd.), just north of I -405, Tukwila Parkway, and Southcenter. The administration and investigation divi- sions operate out of 6300 Southcenter Blvd. The area served by the Department is di- vided into 5 patrol districts: T -1, T -3, T -5, T -7, and T -9. The proposed site is located in Patrol District T -3. Two off -site locations provide limited workspace for officers. The first location, the Tukwila Police Community Resource Center, is provided by Southcenter and located at the south end of the mall as an exterior storefront. One crime prevention officer and one civilian employee staff the office generally Monday through Friday from 9am to 5pm. These employees do not respond to police calls, but provide crime prevention services throughout the City from the Southcenter location. The other off-site location, referred to as the Neighborhood Resource Center, is located on Tukwila International Blvd. and pro- vides office space for one crime prevention officer and several volunteers. Both locations provide limited space for district vehicles. The Department is organized into two divisions — Patrol Services and Investigative Ser- vices. Within these divisions, the Department maintains units specializing in traffic en- forcement, major crimes, crime prevention, drug enforcement, special operations (i.e., Valley Special Response Team, civil disturbance), K -9, community and educational out- reach, and emergency disaster management. In the event of an incident at Southcenter, patrol units from District T -3 would provide first response, followed by back -up assistance from other patrol districts in the area. If T- 3 were not available to respond, the on -duty supervisor would coordinate response from another district or hold the call for response by T -3, depending on the level of emergency. In addition, mutual aid agreements have been established between the City and all sur- rounding jurisdictions for major emergencies, including the Seattle Police Department and the King County Sheriffs Office. The City has established mutual aid agreements with 97 agencies statewide. The Washington State Patrol (WSP) also serves the area by providing traffic law en- forcement, collision investigation, and motorist assistance along the state and interstate highways. The WSP's South Seattle Detachment office is located in Tukwila (15666 In- Current estimates indicate that Tukwila supports approximately 2,000 businesses and a workforce of 45,000 (City of Tukwila, 2003). Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -79 Public Service and Utilities ternational Boulevard); the headquarters office is located in Bellevue and provides ser- vice to north Pierce County and all of King County (referred to as District 2). In addition to highway patrol, the WSP provides drug enforcement, hazardous materials oversight, incident response, truck inspections, and aviation patrol (WSP, 2003). The Tukwila Police Department currently employs 68 commissioned full -time equivalent (FTE) officers and 16 non - commissioned officers. Approximately 28 volunteers donate time to various departmental functions (including special events, youth programs, com- munity services, traffic safety awareness, and administration). Police service extends be- yond Tukwila's resident population (17,270 in 2003) to include the non - resident work- force, shoppers, and other visitors. Due to the high level of police activity and relatively low population, the Department determines police personnel requirements based on num- ber of police calls, rather than the number of City residents. Two police shifts occur within a 24 -hour period. A minimum of 5 patrol officers and 1 supervisor staff each shift, although as many as 8 patrol officers and 1 Sergeant are scheduled for each shift. A traffic unit comprised of 2 officers and 1 Sergeant supple- ment the patrol staffing (Monday through Friday, daytime hours). Presently, the Department has adequate staffing, vehicle fleet, and facilities to meet de- mand. However, facilities space at 6200 and 6300 Southcenter Blvd is limited; an in- crease in staffing would result in the need for an expansion of these facilities. The City currently has no planned capital facilities allocation for expansion of facilities. During 2002, the Citywide response time for emergencies ranged from 3.0 minutes to 8.9 minutes, depending on the level of priority assigned to the incident. Non - emergency re- sponse times were an average of 12 minutes. Given the close proximity of the police headquarters, emergency response times to the site are generally less than 3 minutes. Over the 12 -month period from November 2002 to November 2003, the Department re- corded 35,869 calls for service Citywide, 3,302 (or 9.2 percent) of which originated at Southcenter. The Southcenter calls resulted in 1,234 cases, or 13.7 percent of all case reports in the City. 2 Southcenter generated an average of 9.4 calls for service and 3.5 cases per 24-hour day. The majority of calls for service at Southcenter occur during the hours of operation (generally from loam to lOpm). Officers (dispatched from the Re- source Center and/or the patrol districts) spent approximately 2,107 hours on calls at Southcenter during this time (1.46 hours per 1,000 sf), not including time required for follow -up, case completion, or investigation. Incidents at Southcenter typically involve shoplifting,' vandalism, minor crime calls, and minor vehicle accidents. Approximately 16 percent of calls from Southcenter are characterized as "9 -1 -1 hang -up calls." Mall se- curity is contacted by the Tukwila Police supervisor on duty to investigate these calls; the City does not typically provide response but is charged by the dispatch center for each call. 2 During this 12 -month period, Southcenter generated 2.29 calls for service per 1,000 sf and 0.86 cases per 1,000 sf. 3 -80 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities Southcenter Security Information about Southcenter security was provided by Southcenter management (Tufts, 2003). Certain security - related information was provided to the City but is not included in this public document. Security at Southcenter is provided through a contract between Westfield and Profes- sional Security Consultants. Depending on the demand for security, which is typically dictated by the peak shopping periods, management staffs a range of 25 to 35 security officers (.017 to .024 officers per 1,000 sf). Officers are on duty 24 hours per day, with 10 officers (.007 per 1,000 sf) typically on duty in the evenings and on weekends (Thurs- day through Sunday), fewer during mall hours Monday through Wednesday and at night. Staffing occurs over an area of 7 patrol zones. Security duties are carried out in vehicles, on bicycle, and via foot patrol. Additional se- curity and loss prevention personnel are employed by the major retailers and by some of the smaller stores. In the event of an emergency, Southcenter security notifies emergency dispatch (911). Southcenter security officers cannot interfere with criminal or emergency matters without initial response by the City. Southcenter also contracts with the Tukwila Police Department to provide additional in- ternal mall security service during heavy shopping periods (i.e., holidays). Service is provided by off -duty police officers. Utilities Water Supply Highline water district intertie Water district 75 intertie Water district #75 intertie The City of Tukwila receives water supply through a wholesale purchase contract be- tween the Cascade Water Alliance, of whom Tukwila is a party, and the City of Seattle Public Utilities Department. The Tukwila Water Utility manages distribution of water to paying customers within its service area, which includes the majority of the City. High - line Water District provides service to areas in the southwest end of the City and King County Water District 125 serves the area northwest of I -5. Nearly all of the water supplied to Tukwila comes from the Cedar River Watershed, a 90,000 -acre watershed located in the foothills of the Cascade Mountains. Water is trans- ported through supply lines consisting of a 60 -inch Cedar River Pipeline No. 4 to the south of the City and a 48 -inch West Seattle supply line to the north. Emergency interties are also maintained between the Tukwila Water District and nearby districts. The primary transmission main for Southcenter is the 60 -inch line that enters the site at the northwest corner, near the Bahama Breeze restaurant. The water main is reduced to smaller lines on site in order to provide service to the shopping center businesses. The City maintains all water lines on the site under a 1969 agreement between the then mall Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS 3 -81 Public Service and Utilities owner and the City. Within the Southcenter area, there is one 140 - pound -per square inch (psi) water pressure zone. In 2002, Southcenter used 27,437,049 gallons of water, or 75,170 gpd.. There are no current capacity constraints with the existing system. Stormwater See the Water Resources section in this chapter for the stormwater discussion. Sewer The City of Tukwila operates the existing sewer system, which serves approximately 1,500 customer accounts. The system consists of 8 sewage lift stations and a collection system comprised mainly of 10- to 12 -inch sanitary sewer lines. The system consists of roughly 30 miles of concrete pipe with some portions of PVC, asbestos cement, cast iron, and ductile iron mains (City of Tukwila, 2003). The City's system connects with King County Metro Wastewater Treatment Division's South Treatment Plant in Renton. The treatment plant treats millions of gallons of wastewater generated by homes, businesses, and industrial operations. The treatment plant has an average treatment capacity of 115 million gallons of waste daily (King County, 2003). According to the City, the current average daily flow from the City to the treatment facility is approximately 2 million gallons per day (mgpd) (Cusick, 2003). In `2002, Southcenter produced 26,537,890 gallons of effluent (72,707 gpd), or 3.6 percent of the City's total daily flow to King County's treatment plant. Lift Station 12 serves the project site and is located on an easement on the shopping cen- ter property, between the post office and Key Bank. This lift station is currently at capac- ity; additional sewage flows would require an upgrade to the lift station or redirection of some sewer flows to an existing line along Strander Blvd. (Cusick, 2003). The City currently has responsibility for maintenance of all sewer lines on the site under the 1969 agreement with the then mall owner and the City. The City has identified maintenance problems (i.e., blockage) on the existing system in- volving grease accumulation from existing restaurants and infiltration of groundwater or surface water,3 which have compromised the ability of the lift station to function properly (Cusick, 2003). Currently, the larger food establishments at Southcenter (Nordstrom Grill, Rainforest Cafe, and Bahama Breeze) are responsible for maintaining individual grease interceptors; the smaller restaurant operations are not currently required to manage grease waste. As a component of routine maintenance, the mall flushes its wastewater drainage system up to twice each year (Tufts, 2003). The mall was not designed with a central grease interceptor system that ties in with the City's sewer sys- tem. 3 -82 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities Solid Waste Rabanco is contracted to provide solid waste and recycling collection services to the pro- ject site. Rabanco's South King County Division —Kent Meridian/SeaTac Disposal and Recycling (22010 76th Ave. S, Kent) transports waste to the King County Solid Waste Division's Bow Lake Transfer Station, located at 18800 Orillia Road South in Tukwila. From this location, wastes are transferred to the Cedar Hills Landfill, located approxi- mately 20 miles southeast of Seattle. SeaDruMar picks up some of the mall's recyclables, including all cardboard. Construction, demolition, and landclearing debris (referred -to as CDL) are transported to the Black River Demolition Disposal and Recycling Station (501 Monster Rd. SW, Renton) and then onto Rabanco's Roosevelt Landfill located in Klicki- tat County, Washington. These facilities currently have capacity constraints for hauling and receiving wastes. The Bow Lake Transfer Station and Cedar Hills Landfill accept wastes from commercial haulers and self - haulers. Most wastes are accepted at these facilities, with the exception of tires (limited quantities), hazardous wastes, oil, and CDL waste. Contractors and/or haulers with pre- existing accounts may use the facilities; users may also pay cash to dis- pose of waste. Currently, King County contracts with Rabanco (its subsidiary, Regional Disposal Com- pany) and Waste Management to each provide a minimum handling capacity of 25,000 tons of CDL wastes and recyclables per month (300,000 tons per year). Each company maintains two CDL handling facilities in King County. From 1994 to 1999, the Rabanco facilities handled the disposal of approximately 118,000 to 165,000 tons per year (King County, 2001), resulting in a remaining capacity for approximately 182,000 to 135,000 tons per year. The King County Solid Waste Division has responsibility to provide for management of wastes generated within its jurisdiction, which includes providing disposal capacity. That capacity is currently available at the Cedar Hills Landfill, and that site has capacity through at least 2012. The County is currently re- evaluating solid waste generation rates and available capacity, and site life of Cedar Hills Landfill may be extended. When the landfill reaches capacity, the County will seek to ensure disposal capacity by contracting with another landfill outside the county to provide disposal service. This will be done through a competitive procurement process, the outcome of which has not been deter- mined (Kiernan, 2004). Space for an effective recycling program does not currently exist at Southcenter. City standards require 5 sq. ft. for every 1,000 sq. ft. in gross leasable area for retail develop- ments. Existing waste facilities at Southcenter consist of seven internal garbage storage rooms [two with recycling containers, six with Styrofoam peanuts recycling bags /racks, and six with verti -packs for cardboard (small, front - loading waste compactors designed to reduce bulky waste)], and three loading docks for recyclables and garbage collection. The mall recycles cardboard, paper products, Styrofoam peanuts and plastic bags /film. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS 3 -83 Public Service and Utilities There are three outdoor 30 -yard garbage compactors —one at each loading dock. There are additional compactors at each loading dock for cardboard. Kent Meridian/SeaTac Disposal and Recycling generally provides waste pick -up 6 to 7 days per week, depending on the volume of waste. Recyclable materials are retrieved 1 to 3 times per week, depending on container locations (indoor containers are picked up 3 times per week, while outdoor containers are picked up once per week). Current solid waste and recyclables generation from Southcenter is unknown. Billing is based on the pick -up schedule and does not reflect quantities of waste. In addition, Southcenter waste that is transported to Rabanco's facilities normally includes wastes from other Rabanco customers (Erath, 2003). Electricity Electricity information was provided by officials at Puget Sound Energy (2003). Puget Sound Energy provides electricity service to Southcenter. Two exclusive 12 -kv (kilovolt) distribution circuits serve the property from the Renton Junction Substation, which is located at West Valley Hwy and Strander Blvd. This station has two separated 25 -Mva (megavolt- amperes) transformers. The two distribution circuits that serve South- center are split -- one from each of the two substation transformers and directed west to- ward Southcenter. The system is loopable and at the current peak loads of around 8 Mva required by Southcenter, either circuit can carry the entire Southcenter load. The north half of Southcenter is on one circuit and the south half is on the other. Renton Junction Sub serves primarily commercial load in the surrounding area around Southcenter along Andover Park East and West and load along the West Valley Hwy. Southcenter is by far the largest customer served from this substation using approximately 20 percent of the station capacity during summer peaks. The Renton Junction substation has a total capacity of 50 Mva (between its two 25 -Mva transformers). The original station was built around the time Southcenter was con- structed. The second station transformer was added in the mid 70's. The station has been in the system for some time but is maintained on a regular basis. In the late 90s, the two 12 -kv circuits were replaced in their entirety with brand new cable from the station to Southcenter. The electrical distribution system is entirely underground, including an underground crossing of the Green River just west of the substation. The circuits continue from the river to Andover Park East and West. One circuit heads north on Andover Park East and loops around Tukwila Pkwy to Andover Park West. It continues south on Andover Park West and provides the service through several large switch cabinets for the north side of the Southcenter. The other circuit heads north from Strander Blvd. on Andover Park West and serves the south half of Southcenter via several switch cabinets. These circuits meet at a.manual loopable switching cabinet on Andover Park West that is normally in the open position. All of the system, including within the mall, is in conduit. The local 3 -84 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities system enters Southcenter from the switch cabinets on Andover Park West and connects via several lines to recently instcaledistribution cable w as replaced. spread throughout 999a11 of the South- center. In 1986, much of the local subsurface transformers were replaced with above - ground equipment. The anchor stores have spot network systems that are located on the roofs of the buildings. Natural Gas Puget Sound Energy provides natural gas service to the site from Andover Park West. Gas is used throughout the mall for food court operations, the HVAC system, and other uses. In the common areas and areas not occupied by tenants, 2003 gas usage totaled 48,335 therms. Extrapolating s was used throughout all of Southcenter during 2003. total of approximately 454,632 therms Communications QWest provides telecommunications to the project area, although Southcenter tenants have the option to select individual service providers.. Wireless interne service was es- tablished in early November 2003. Digital cable television is not currently provided to the site. Comcast provides cable service to the local area. Information regarding QWest's service was provided by a QWest communications repre- sentative (Steen, 2004). Qwest provides service to the site via a system of service conduits located within a termi- nation space (area that holds equipment and connections for patching service to mall cus- tomers). Westfield provides the space and conduits, which enables Qwest to provide the service. The termination space is currently located at the south end of the mall in an area approximately 6 feet wide by 12 feet long. Much of the existing equipment is outdated and technological advances in communications have exceeded what currently exists on the site. In late 2002, kiosk expansions within the mall resulted in the saturation of service capac- ity within the termination space. QWest has indicated that it is still possible to bring ser- vice into the property from off -site, but capacity does not exist to patch service to cus- tomers located within the mall. Impacts of the Proposed Action Note: the purpose of this analysis is to identify the potential adverse impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Proposed Action. Impacts attributable to in- creases in the number of calls for service and its influence on a department's level of ser- vice (i.e., staffing levels, type of equipment, facilities, and response times) are considered in this analysis. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Service and Utilities 3 -85 Specifically, impacts to staffing levels — strictly recognized as estimates of what could become actual impacts from the project — are provided based on several methods in order to identify a range or an average of the most probable scenario. This DEIS is not in- tended to resolve staffing issues, but rather to measure probable impact. Staffing esti- mates have been determined using estimates provided by the service provider based on historical experience, and by extrapolating past experience based on ratios of service de- mand per square feet of retail space. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Construction Development under the Proposed Action will increase the number of fire - related calls, fire inspections, and medical emergencies during construction. Demolition of paved ar- eas and buildings, site preparation, and construction of the proposed project could in- crease the risk of a medical emergency or accidental fire. In the event of emergencies involving confined space or trench rescue, emergency response by the Department's spe- cial operations teams may be necessary. The number of construction employees, pres- ence of heavy equipment, electrical installation, type and length of work schedules, and vandalism during the construction phase contribute to this potential. The extent of the impact on the Fire Department and emergency medical services would depend on the number of calls during the construction phase. The Department estimates that it could receive approximately 30 to 50 emergency calls for fire, aid and special team services during this construction phase. This equates to a demand for one additional fire- fighter FTE. It is also anticipated that the size of the construction project (including the construction of parking structures) will generate a significant number of calls for review and inspections — greater than the Fire Marshal's office currently can accommodate. The fire marshal estimates the need for one FTE to .accommodate this increased workload. Installation of smoke evacuation systems in the common mall areas could result in the need for training in the operation of the smoke control system following the acceptance and annual confidence testing of the system, which could impact the Department's ability to provide service. Any traffic delays that would result from construction activities will result in increased response times. As a result of additional call volume, the Department estimates the need for three addi- tional FTE Firefighters, which would raise the minimum manning to 15 personnel and ensure that the aid unit is staffed. In addition, the additional square footage in retail and common areas could require the addition of one FTE in the Fire Marshal's office in order to manage the additional inspection load. This position could be maintained through the operations phase in order to perform annual fire code compliance inspections and to pro- vide other services (Tomaso, 2004). Overall, impacts to fire and emergency medical service during the construction phase would be moderate. 3 -86 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities Operation Expanding the number and area of retail services will increase demand for fire and emer- gency medical services. The Proposed Action would contribute to an increase in the number of shoppers and employees at Southcenter. Using the existing ratios of fire and aid calls per 1,000 sf per year, the expanded site could experience an increase of ap- proximately 28 fire and 101 aid calls per year. This equates to demand for one additional firefighter FTE. Due to the unique staffing requirements of the fire service, it is difficult and inefficient to add a single firefighter. The proposed shopping center expansion will accelerate and account for a portion of the eventual need to increase the De'partment's minimum manning from 14 to 15, which would require the addition of three firefighter FTEs. The proposed expansion would also increase the ongoing plan review and inspection de- mands placed on the Fire Marshall's office. While the increased demand directly from the expansion would be less than one FTE, the Fire Marshall's office may by unable to provide adequate ongoing service to the mall and other customers without an increase in staffing. The Fire Marshal's office also estimates that the ability of its operations division to sup- press vehicle fires within the parking structures could be affected. At this point, how- ever, based on preliminary conceptual plans of the structures, it is difficult to determine the actual extent of impacts (i.e., need for additional equipment related to serving the structures). Generally speaking, due to the size of the proposed parking structures and because typical parking structures do not have sufficient clearances for fire apparatus to enter, there may be a time delay for firefighters to reach vehicle fires that may occur on the upper floors. A smaller vehicle or apparatus may be necessary in order to transport the firefighters to these areas in a timely manner. Given the close proximity of the fire station to Southcenter (just southeast of the mall), response times would not likely be adversely affected. Response times currently average four minutes to the mall, depending on the priority level of the incident and level of traf- fic on surface streets, and would likely remain at approximately four minutes following the proposed expansion (See Affected Environment). Site access could also influence response times. An Evacuation Assistance Plan is required by Tukwila's Building Code. The plan is re- viewed and approved by the City and is then posted on site and available to emergency personnel. Overall, impacts to fire and emergency medical services resulting from operation of the expanded Southcenter property would likely be moderate. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS 3 -87 Public Service and Utilities Police Services Construction Vandalism, theft and/or trespassing could occur during construction. The level of secu- rity measures utilized on -site during construction, such as fencing and security patrols, would directly influence the need for police. At times; construction traffic could contrib- ute to traffic congestion on the transportation routes around the mall. In these instances, police services may be required to facilitate traffic movement. Overall, construction traf- fic could result in an increased need for police services and could reduce the Depart- ment's ability to respond to incidents elsewhere. Impacts during this phase would likely be minor to moderate. Operation The Department estimates the Proposed Action could affect police services in the City by 2006. Specifically, calls for service at Southcenter are estimated by the Department to increase from 9.4 at present to 13 per 24 -hour day (28 percent) and the number of cases could increase from 3.5 to 5 per 24 -hour day (30 percent) (Haines, 2003). Using the De- partment's estimate for number of calls, the number of hours spent on calls (not including cases) over a 12 -month period could increase from 2,107 to roughly 2,900. By extrapolating the current experience of the shopping center in terms of calls per 1,000 square feet (3,302 calls or 2.3 calls per 1,000 sf), a similar estimate can be derived that indicates that calls could increase by 5 calls per day, or 1.4 more calls per 24 -hour day '=`than the Department's estimate. [Note: Westfield's experience at other malls reveals that police calls do not increase proportionately to the size of an expansion, and that certain calls for police service (i.e., for shoplifting) tend to originate more frequently from the department stores. Because the bulk of the growth planned for the mall is not designated for new department stores, calls may not increase in direct proportion to the increase in proposed square footage. However, it is important to note that this point does not ac- count for the potential increase in calls that could be generated by the proposed movie theater, which does not currently exist at the site.] Considering the anticipated increase in calls for service and cases, the Proposed Action will increase the Department's workload by approximately one FTE position (roughly 2/3 FTE patrol-officer and 1/3 FTE detective). Since it is not possible to add personnel in these increments, choices for meeting the increased demand are not obvious. In the event the City chooses to not increase Police Department staffing •with completion of the shop- ping center expansion, it would be necessary for the Department to alter its allocation of personnel resources, potentially affected service levels at the mall and elsewhere in the community. The Department believes that current demands for service, together with the proposed expansion, may justify initiation of regular foot patrols at Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter. This would require hiring three patrol officers in order to provide foot pa- 3 -88 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities 1 1 1 1 1 trol service daily from loam to lOpm, accounting for vacations, sick leave, training and other absences. The Proposed Action by itself would be responsible for only a portion (roughly 1/3) of this need. Adding regular foot patrols at the mall in this fashion would result in improved service at the mall and free up some Department resources to benefit other areas of the community. At this time, it is not clear if and where the Tukwila Police Community Resource Center would be relocated in the expanded mall. It is currently located at the south end of the mall, the area proposed for the majority of redevelopment. Southcenter management and the Tukwila Police Department have expressed strong support for relocating and main- taining the Community Resource Center and its services. Southcenter intends to continue its use of off -duty police officers following the expansion. The absence of the Resource Center could adversely impact the Department's ability to provide timely, comprehensive service to Southcenter. In addition, police presence could appear less visible, potentially increasing the level of criminal activity. Operation of an expanded Southcenter would result in greater impacts than during the construction phase. Additional police personnel would minimize these impacts, while ensuring current levels of service to other areas in the City. Overall, impacts to police services during this phase would likely be moderate. Southcenter Security It is anticipated that expansion of Southcenter could require additional private security personnel and equipment. The service increase has not been determined and could differ between the construction and operation phases. Construction security may also be pro- vided as a component of the agreement with the contractor(s). Based on current security staffing per 1,000 sf of building area, it is estimated that approximately 14 to 19 addi- tional security officers could be needed to accommodate the increase in building area and potential service demand. However, increased security coverage needs would not neces- sarily be tied to increases in square footage, but would be based on day of the week, peak time periods, zone layout, and other factors. Overall, with the addition of security personnel and support by the Tukwila Police De- partment, impacts to security at Southcenter would be minimal. Utilities The City wishes to transfer responsibility for ownership and maintenance of the on -site water, storm and sanitary facilities to the owner /mall. If this occurs, the City's mainte- nance costs would decline. Water Supply In those locations where new buildings or building additions encroach on existing water utilities, the pipes would be relocated around the new construction, as required. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS 3-89 Public Service and Utilities Water usage is estimated to increase on site as a result of the Proposed Action due to the increase in commercial use. Based on the increase in square footage of the Proposed Ac- tion, the total water demand for commercial uses at Southcenter would be approximately 116,347 gallons per day (gpd). The net increase in demand for this use would be ap- proximately 41,177 gpd. To the extent that the City meets area water supply demand through the existing whole- sale purchase contract with the City of Seattle Public Utilities Department, impacts to wa- ter capacity and supply would be minimal. Based on the Fire Department's review of the proposed expansion (as described in this DEIS), it is anticipated that the City's water system would provide sufficient fire flow for the project per the requirements of the International Fire Code. Stormwater See the Water section in this chapter for stormwater impacts. Sewer Sanitary sewer service would be provided to the new buildings and building additions associated with the Proposed Action. New services will be extended from the nearest adjacent sewer mains and piped to the building following the shortest possible alignment. New sewer lines would be connected to existing lines or would be connected to sewer lines that would be relocated or replaced in order to conform to the building codes. Im- proved grease traps would be installed in all new food establishments as part of the pro- posed relocation of the existing food court, which would provide better grease separation. The existing sewer system could be adversely affected. Because the new Southcenter development would occur primarily at the south end of the property, it may be feasible . for sewage flow to be gravity fed to the Metro sewage line at Strander Blvd.4 Otherwise, since the Lift Station 12 is at capacity, an upgrade to the lift station would be required in order to serve additional service needs created by growth at Southcenter (Cusick, 2003). Based on the increase in square footage for the Proposed Action, sewage flow could in- crease by 39,827 gpd to 112,534 gpd. Sewage flow from Southcenter would represent approximately 5.6 percent of the City's total 2 million gpd of sewage flow to the treat- ment plant. This additional increment of sewage flow can be accommodated by the exist- ing system. Therefore, impacts to capacity would be minimal. 4 Sewage waste from the former Double Tree Hotel, which was located at the southwest corner of the pro - ject site, was directed to the Metro gravity line. 3 -90 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities 1 1 1 1 1L 1 1 Solid Waste Solid waste generation could increase both during constructions and relative the e addi- tional materials and cial uses at debris. Demolitiontw waste would result from demolition of materials and demolition park- ing areas, buildings, and other man-made n Some of th sentems would be wood, masonry, composition roofing, steel, and other metals disposed of, while others would be recycled. Operationally, the area currently available for recycling (i.e., paper products, Styrofoam) does not meet City requirements and would not ace sufficient under 1 000 sq. ft. gross leasable Sion. The City requires 5 sq. ft. of P floor area (GLFA). The proposed expansion would require a total of 9,635 sq. ft. of re- cycling space to comply with City requirements. Impacts to recycling services could be perceived as positive, in that Southcenter's recycling the facilities for red belbro to occur into con- formance with City standards, thereby increasing potential among retail establishments and Westfield. Only minor impacts to the capacity of transport and disposal n result increase re nticip amount Although construction activities at Southcenter would in an of the ed. of CDL waste for disposal, Rabanco maintains suffi capacity he Southcenter spte al In addi- CDL waste and recyclables generated by redevelopment of tion, the Kent Meridian/SeaTac Disposal and Recycling estimates sufficient transport while the ca- pacity to meet the demand created ilable ba capacity Southcenter expansion through at least 2012. Once Cedar Hills Cedar Hills Landfill has available P Landfill has reached capacity, the County will seek to ensure ds p sal service (Kiernan, by con- tracting tracting with another landfill outside of the County provide 2004). Overall, impacts to the provision of solid waste services are anticipated to be minimal. Electricity ercial Electricity use at Southcenter would increase al expanded by 50 percent, space and site uses. PSE estimates that total p eak demand would or 12Mva; therefore, impacts to the distribution system and capacity are expected (see below). The current looped distribution circuit symum be designed esggned this either circuit can accommodate carry - the entire Southcenter load. The system tine switching and maintenance or in the event the enrire load for the proposed expansion fail- ure. A single circuit would not be able to carry and capacity would need to be increased. 5 Although the King County contracts are set to expire in 2004, Rabanco and Waste Management would continue to accept CDL waste and recyclables. Rabanco would handle CDL waste generated by the pro- posed Southcenter site. 3 -91 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Service and Utilities Some electrical lines would be removed or replaced during redevelopment, resulting in the potential for temporary service interruptions. In addition, the southerly expansion of the mall would impact the existing electrical facilities on the south side of the mall, as most of PSE's system that serves the south side of the mall lies within the 150 -foot ex- pansion limits. The ability to maintain service to the existing portions of the mall would be impacted. The applicant would be expected to share in the cost of constructing electrical system im- provements. The cost and 'percent of contribution required of the applicant would be de- termined by PSE's Schedule 85. Overall, with the provision of capacity upgrades and replacement of portions of the exist- ing electrical system, as identified by PSE, impacts to electricity service would be mini- mal. Natural Gas Construction of the Southcenter expansion may require replacement, removal, or re- alignment of portions of the existing system. The existing 4 -inch service line system could be sufficient as long as the existing and new load do not exceed system capacity [estimated at 38,000 cubic feet /hour (cfh)]. However, PSE estimates that portions of the existing distribution main would need to be replaced with 6 -inch service line and a new district regulator may also need to be installed. Upgrades to the main line along Andover Park East are not anticipated. Since all natural gas facilities reside on the roof, impacts to the existing natural gas sys- tem could be significant if improvements occur to the roof of the existing structure. PSE also estimates the existing 4 -inch service line may need to be moved away from the new parking area at JC Penney. Further analysis is required by PSE in order to determine the extent of these impacts. If demand for natural gas were to increase proportional to the size of the expansion, use could increase by an estimated 445,758 therms (Westfield, 2004). It is noted that in- creases in demand may be more related to type of use than to square footage increases. Communications Any new development would result in an increased demand for communications services. In order to accommodate the increased demand and since capacity does not exist for pro- viding additional service, the existing termination space would need to be expanded and upgraded. In addition, since the communications feed enters the property (and mall) from the south, which is also the location of the proposed construction and the termina- tion space, it is possible that the entire termination space would need to be relocated. This will depend on the depth of construction in relation to the existing service lines. Therefore, the level of upgrade and expansion could vary from a total relocation of the service space (including upgrades in equipment) to expansion of the existing space, in- 3 -92 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities and/or disruption of vehicular or pedestrian traffic patterns with Southcenter management and local emergency response agencies prior to construction. • In order to reduce capacity constraints on the sewer lift station, reroute sewer line at Southcenter to the Metro line along Strander Blvd. If feasible; other- wise, increase capacity of the lift station. • Utilize required space for bins and compactors and work with City to expand and enhance the recycling program. In addition, collection points and hauling routes of recyclables would be planned to minimize impacts to pedestrian and vehicle routes. • Dispose of construction- related debris in a proper solid waste disposal facility per jurisdictional requirements. King County offers free assistance to devel- opers and contractors in order to facilitate CDL recycling on construction sites; Westfield and its contractor will work with the City and King County to develop a Solid Waste Management Plan for recycling of CDL wastes. The City encourages the use of off -site recycling facilities; reuse of recyclable ma- terials by Westfield would not be a requirement of the Solid Waste Manage- ment Plan. • Contribute fair share toward, a third distribution circuit off set in accordance with Schedule 85. At this time, the best source for an additional circuit would come from the Southcenter substation located on Southcenter Parkway and approximately S. 168th St. Empty conduit exists from the substation to the south side of the Southcenter property. A vault and conduit system would need to be extended north from the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Blvd. — near the former Doubletree Inn — and tied into the existing spare conduits on the west side of Southcenter. The new circuit would then extend from the substation through the conduit system to tie into the existing circuits on the East side of Southcenter on Andover Park West. If needed, ad- ditional station transformer capacity could be added at both Southcenter and Renton Junction subs. Many new local lines and transformers would be needed on site for the new buildings. • Consult with PSE as early as possible in order to maintain service to the exist- ing portions of the mall during construction (to the best extent possible), and to ensure that customers' needs and expectations are sufficiently met. • Contribute to the cost of upgrading the electrical system, per the requirements of PSE's Schedule 85. • With planned system improvements identified above, no additional mitigating measures would be necessary for the water, sewer, electricity, and natural gas systems. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS 3 -95 Public Service and Utilities • Require the applicant to upgrade the existing communications space located in the mall to meet the proposed increase in demand. If the existing space is maintained and expansion occurs in another area in order to meet the increase in demand, the applicant would need to protect and provide maintenance ac- cess to the existing communications path while digging during construction. If the extent of digging precludes the applicant from protecting the existing communications path, relocation of all communications components would be necessary (preferably, in one location). New conduit and updated service equipment would be provided. The applicant would be responsible for any and all upgrades that would enable QWest to serve the site. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to public services and utilities would be ex- pected. 3 -96 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities 1!: Fiscal Analysis Introduction This section presents the results of a fiscal analysis performed for the proposed expan- sion of Southcenter. The purpose of the analysis is to estimate the fiscal impacts to the City of Tukwila that are likely attributable to the development, and to provide infor- mation that may be useful in evaluating the availability of funding for public service needs and infrastructure improvements in the area. The fiscal analysis estimates incremental revenues and costs that would accrue to the City over a 20 -year period. Estimates are provided in 2003 dollars. Revenue catego- ries included in the analysis are property taxes, sales taxes, hotel /motel taxes, admis- sions taxes, utility taxes, business license fees, and law enforcement services reim- bursement. Cost categories are road and storm drain maintenance, police services, fire suppression and emergency medical services (EMS), and general government. Devel- opment fees collected by the City, such as building permit fees, and development re- view and inspection costs incurred by the City, such as plan review and inspection services, are assumed to be offsetting and are not included in the analysis. Detailed results of the analysis are provided in Appendix A to this EIS. The cost of capital improvement needs attributable to the shopping center expansion that could be required, such as a new sewer lift station and electrical and communica- tion system upgrades, would be borne by the applicant and are not part of the analysis. Specific police and fire services equipment and facility needs have not yet been identi- fied and are, therefore, not included in the analysis. Affected Environment The revenues and costs accruing to Tukwila in 2003 are summarized in Table 3 -22. As indicated, the primary source of revenue is tax revenue, which comprised 69 per- cent of the revenue in 2003. Sales and use tax revenues account for 47 percent of total tax revenues. The largest expenditure category for the City is Administration', which accounts for about 30 percent of the budget in 2003. Includes City Council; Mayor, Boards, and Commissions; Municipal Court; Administrative Services/Personnel; Finance; City Attorney; Recreation; Park Maintenance; and Community Development. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -97 Fiscal Analysis Table 3 -22. 2003 Tukwila General Fund Budget Summary Revenues Taxes: Real and Personal Property Taxes Local Retail Sales and Use Tax Other Taxes Total Taxes Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Revenue Charges for Services Fines and Forfeits Miscellaneous Revenues Other Financing Sources Subtotal Beginning Fund Balance TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES Expenditures Administration Police Department Fire Department Public Works Contributions /Ending Fund Balance TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Source: (City of Tukwila, 2002). $ 9,800,000 12,265,000 4,054,000 $26,119,000 757,000 2,098,000 1,358,000 311,000 496,000 3,108,000 34,247,000 3,794,000 $38,041,000 $11,325,920 9,934,600 7,676,392 4,410,092 4,693,996 $38,041,000 Impacts of the Alternatives Impacts of the Proposed Action Development Assumptions The proposed expansion consists of the following uses: 3 -98 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fiscal Analysis 1 I i 1 Shopping Mall: Anchor retail 162,650 square feet Retail shops 289,517 square feet Food court 7,980 square feet Theater 75,200 square feet (3,600 to 4,000 seats) Freestanding Restaurants 21,101 square feet Hotel 70,355 square feet (140 rooms) Common and Service Areas 161,100 square feet Total 787,903 square feet For purposes of the analysis, construction is assumed to begin in 2004 and be com- plete.in 2006; some costs would begin to be incurred during the construction period. The proposed expansion would be open for business in 2006; the analysis assumes it would be open during the second half of 2006. At that time, revenues would begin to accrue: Possible exceptions would be part of the freestanding restaurant and the hotel, which may be constructed later in response to market conditions. The analysis as- sumes a 2006 opening for these as well, however. Revenues Property Tax Revenues. Property tax revenues will be derived from the additional value of improvements at Southcenter and business personal property; land value is assumed to remain constant. At full development, the estimated value of improve- ments would be $190 million. The construction value component of the expansion ($130 million) represents new assessed value, and does not figure in (or it is exempt from) the 1- percent ceiling on annual property tax increases. Therefore, its value can be captured at the time it is placed in service. However, for tax purposes, the portion of the value of improvements attributable to market value appreciation ($60 million) is subject to the 1 percent limitation. Therefore, this component of the improvement value is added incrementally in estimating the total value of improvements subject to the property tax; in 20 years this would amount to $157 million vs. the estimated $190 million figure. Business personal property values, estimated to be about 10 percent of the value of improvements, would be $19 million at full. development. Property values would increase corresponding to the amount of development during the construction period. At Tukwila's 2004 levy rate of $3.10. per $1000 of assessed value, it is estimated that property tax revenues would increase from $118,000 in 2006 to approximately $536,000 per year in 2023 (Table 3 -23). This latter figure represents about 5.5 percent Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3-99 Fiscal Analysis of total property tax revenues compared to Tukwila's 2003 General Fund budget (City of Tukwila, 2002). Table 3 -23. Summary of Estimated Revenues ($1000) It should be noted that the levy rate might vary from the rate used herein depending upon budgetary needs of the City. However, the increased property tax base attribut- able to the shopping center would result in an increase in "wealth" whether this is cap- tured by the City in terms of increased revenues or by its citizens in the form of re- _* duced tax levies. Property tax revenues are lagged two years to account for the inter- val between when development occurs, when the property is assessed, and when ac- tual collection occurs. Sales Tax Revenues. Sales taxes will be collected on the value of shopping center construction and on its retail sales after opening. Total construction cost is estimated to be $130 million; construction purchases would occur during the 2004 through 2006 construction period with most of those sales in 2005. Construction would be com- pleted approximately mid -2006. Sales taxes on construction accrue to the jurisdiction in which the construction site is located; it is assumed that there would be 10- percent leakage to other jurisdictions. Retail sales directly attributable to the expansion are estimated to be about $221 mil- lion at full development. These sales.estimates were based on sales per square foot estimates obtained from Westfield. In addition, empirical sales data in Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, 2002 (ULI, 2003) were compared with Westfield's esti- mates. In general, Westfield's estimates were within the range reported by ULI with the exception of the estimate for retail shops (which accounts for about 70 percent of total retail sales of the expansion), where Westfield's estimate exceeds ULI's upper decile figure by about 12 percent. This is the, same percentage that Westfield's actual traffic counts at Southcenter exceed the average nationally for their centers. 3 -100 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fiscal Analysis 1 i1 1 1 1 1 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2023 Property Tax Revenues $- $- $ 118 $ 362 $ 470 $ 474 $ 478 5 483 $ 487 $ 536 Sales Tax Revenues $ - $ 512 $ 652 $ 1,092 $ 1,513 $ 1,673 $ 1,763 $ 1,852 $ 1,897 $ 1,897 Admissions Tax Revenues 5 - $ - $ 117 $ 283 $ 332 $ 352 $ 371 $ 391 $ 391 $ 39! Utility Tax Revenues $ - $ 45 $ 69 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 Business License Fee Revenues $ - $ - $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 Total General Fund Revenues $ - . $557 $962 $1,817 $2,396 $2,580 $2,693 $2,806 $2,855. $2,905 Hotel /Motel Tax Revenues $ - $ - $ 19 $ 43 $ 48 $ 48 $ 48 $ 48 $ 48 $ 48 TOTAL REVENUES $ - $557 $982 $1,860 $2,444 $2,628 $2,741 $2,854 $2,903 $2,953 It should be noted that the levy rate might vary from the rate used herein depending upon budgetary needs of the City. However, the increased property tax base attribut- able to the shopping center would result in an increase in "wealth" whether this is cap- tured by the City in terms of increased revenues or by its citizens in the form of re- _* duced tax levies. Property tax revenues are lagged two years to account for the inter- val between when development occurs, when the property is assessed, and when ac- tual collection occurs. Sales Tax Revenues. Sales taxes will be collected on the value of shopping center construction and on its retail sales after opening. Total construction cost is estimated to be $130 million; construction purchases would occur during the 2004 through 2006 construction period with most of those sales in 2005. Construction would be com- pleted approximately mid -2006. Sales taxes on construction accrue to the jurisdiction in which the construction site is located; it is assumed that there would be 10- percent leakage to other jurisdictions. Retail sales directly attributable to the expansion are estimated to be about $221 mil- lion at full development. These sales.estimates were based on sales per square foot estimates obtained from Westfield. In addition, empirical sales data in Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, 2002 (ULI, 2003) were compared with Westfield's esti- mates. In general, Westfield's estimates were within the range reported by ULI with the exception of the estimate for retail shops (which accounts for about 70 percent of total retail sales of the expansion), where Westfield's estimate exceeds ULI's upper decile figure by about 12 percent. This is the, same percentage that Westfield's actual traffic counts at Southcenter exceed the average nationally for their centers. 3 -100 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fiscal Analysis 1 i1 1 1 1 1 Sales estimates reflect that stores would be open for only six months in 2006, that lower sales efficiency would occur in 2006 (80 percent) and 2007 (90 percent), and that retail sales are estimated to be 95- percent taxable. At full development, therefore, effective sales are estimated to be about $210 million. Two additional adjustments were made to retail sales. The first recognizes that retail sales at existing stores would increase as a result of greater customer traffic generated by the shopping center expansion. This is estimated to be about $12.8 million at full development. On the other hand, the expanded shopping center would likely cannibal- ize or divert sales from existing uses in Tukwila. To the extent this occurs, the City of Tukwila would receive lower sales tax revenues than would otherwise be the case. This diversion or substitution effect is estimated to be 25 percent in 2006 and to diminish to 5 percent in 2010 and no effect in 2011 as a result of population growth. At full development, the net effect of these adjustments is that retail sales are esti- mated to be $223 million per year. Using the City's sales tax rate of 0.85 percent, sales tax revenues are estimated to be nearly $1.9 million per year at full development (Table 3 -23). This compares with existing sales tax revenues from Southcenter of about $3.7 million, and represents about 15 percent of total sales tax revenues in Tuk- wila's 2003 General Fund budget (City of Tukwila, 2002). Sales tax revenue collec- tions are lagged by six months. Hotel/Motel Tax Revenues. Hotel /motel tax revenues would be received from sales at the proposed hotel, which are estimated to be about $4.8 million per year at full de- velopment. Sales efficiency is assumed to be 80 percent and 90 percent of full devel- opment levels' during the first two years, respectively. At a tax rate of 1 percent, the proposed action would generate about $48,000 in hotel /motel tax revenues per year (Table 3 -23). This represents about 13 percent of total budgeted hotel /motel tax reve- nues in Tukwila's 2003 budget (City of Tukwila, 2002), and the proposed hotel's room would represent 5 percent of the 2,700 hotel rooms in Tukwila. It is noted that hoteUmotel tax revenues do not go directly to the City's general fund but are earmarked for the City tourism fund. Also, the revenues from the proposed hotel could be considered to offset those from the former Doubletree Inn, which closed in December 2002, although that was a separate action. Admissions Tax Revenues. Admissions tax revenues would be collected on movie theater ticket sales, which are estimated to be about $7.8 million per year at full devel- opment. Sales efficiency is assumed to be 80 percent and 90 percent of full develop- ment levels during the first two years, respectively. Similar to retail sales, it is ex- pected that there will be diversion of sales from the existing cinema complex in Tuk- wila and admission tax revenues would be lower than would otherwise be the case. Like retail sales, this substitution effect is estimated to be 25 percent in 2006 and to I The full development level is equivalent to an average room price per day of $136 and an occupancy rate of 68 %; actual prices and occupancy may vary from this. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -101 Fiscal Analysis diminish to 5 percent in 2010 and no effect in 2011 as a result of population growth. At a tax rate of 5 percent, the proposed action would generate about $390,000 in ad- missions tax revenues per year (Table 3 -23). This estimate is about 50 percent higher than budgeted admissions tax revenues in Tukwila's 2003 General Fund budget (City of Tukwila, 2002), which are attributable to an existing 12- screen theater with 2,226 seats (about 35 to 40 percent smaller than the proposed action). Also, the proponent expects that ticket sales and admissions tax would be four times higher than for the existing theater because of its location closer to freeway access, greater visibility, and the synergy of being at the shopping Center. Utility Tax Revenues. The City of Tukwila collects a 4 percent tax on the sale of electricity, natural gas, cable, and telephone utility services. Electricity and natural gas consumption levels for the shopping center expansion were estimated by extrapo- lating 2003 consumption for the mall and applying these rates to the area of the expan- sion. Sales were then estimated by applying costs per kilowatt-hour and therms, re- spectively, to the consumption estimates for electricity and natural gas. Cable and telephone sales were estimated by applying sales per business of $1,200 and $2,400, respectively, to the estimated 80 new businesses that would occupy the shopping cen- ter. At full development, utility sales are estimated to be about $1.8 million per year, re- sulting in tax revenue of about $75,000 per year (Table 3 -23). This estimate repre- sents about 5 percent of budgeted utility tax revenues in Tukwila's.2003 General Fund budget (City of Tukwila, 2002). Business License Fee Revenues. Tukwila charges businesses located in the City an annual fee based on the number of employees. The fee is $50 per business for busi- nesses with 5 or less employees and $100 per business for businesses with 6 to 100 employees. The analysis assumes one -half of the 80 new businesses would have 5 or less employees and one -half would have 6 to 100 employees. On this basis, the Pro- posed Action would add $6,000 in business license fee revenues per year (Table 3 -23). Summary of Revenues. As indicated in Table 3 -23, the Proposed Action would con- tribute nearly $1 million in additional revenues to the City of Tukwila in 2006, rising to nearly'$3 million in 2023. Not counting Hotel /Motel tax revenues of about $50,000 per year (which are earmarked), this level of total revenues represents about 8 percent of Tukwila's total 2003 General Fund budget of about $38 million (City of Tukwila, 2002). Sales tax revenues account for the largest component of the total, amounting to about $1.9 million (64 percent), followed by property tax revenues reaching nearly $540,000 in 2023 (18 percent). During the construction period, revenue levels would range from nothing in 2004 (due to lags in collection) to nearly $1 million in 2006. Revenue levels would stabilize in 2012 at $2.9 million with the exception of property tax revenues, which would con- tinue to grow yearly. 3 -102 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fiscal Analysis Costs The City of Tukwila would incur costs resulting from development and operation of the proposed Southcenter expansion. These costs would i dude ngo ng costs osts. road and utility maintenance, p olice and fire services, In g eneral, costs were estimated based on the City of c ukWila'si2003 annual p budgeted d, projct information from the app licant, specific p ) Y by in the the Cit and prior fiscal studies performed forgsimilar m dercgn pro ece review Puget Sound region. As noted earlier, costs oeview and inspection fees paid by the and inspection would likely be offset by p lan applicant and, therefore, are not estimated for the analysis. maintenance Storm Drain and Utility Maintenance is draM, and utility operable. The costs would be incurred as the development potentially, off -site proponent would be financially responsible for all on-site storm water (Larson, 2003) and utility (Cusick, 2003) costs incurred by changes to ruction and operation of the Southcenter construction storm water or utility systems during possibly needed for sewer Lift Station 12, expansion. This would include upgrades p Y needs to be ex- panded is that sufficient pa de is at capacity. c mo Off-site costs ed expansion. The lassump existing lines. capacity Accord- ingly, to accommodate the p p sanitary and water capacity exists, subject to modification o s of the infrastructure. ingly, the City would not incur costs for these comp transfers responsibility for maintenance of on-site water, st r to ater, and If we City facilities p sewer facilities (see Public Services and Utilities section), existing would be reduced. percent of the City's road and street sys- tem Maintenance Costs. An estimated 40 p peak-hour be affected by the Southcenter expansion. According c weekday PM traffic analysis tern would 8-percent (on average) increase conducted for this EIS, an 8 -p trips would occur in this area that would be attributable on of the road system expansion. d tp The total costs of road maintenance fort is p Operation by estimating 40 percent of the General Fund Street Maintenance and t total cost perati652), 8 Y of Tukwila, 2003). budget in Tukwila's budget (City expansion. The resulting annual cost to the percent was attributed to the proposed for road maintenance attributable to the Southcenter 3-24). expansion was, therefore, City per year (Table estimated to be slightly over $50,000 p Y Police nt (Haines Costs. Based on information gathered from the tuffs Police assumes De- partment (Haines 2003) and the City of Tukwila Budget (2003), one FTE police officer (2/3 FTE patrol officers and 1/3 FTE detective) could be required as a result of the proposed development (please see Public Services and Utili- ties section) in order to maintain current response times and service levels. Based on Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Fiscal Analysis 3 -103 the City's budget, the cost for an additional patrol officer (all- inclusive rate2) would be approximately $123,041 per FTE per year and the cost for an additional investigator (all - inclusive rate3) would be $98,091 per FTE per year during the operations phase of the Southcenter expansion. The Tukwila 'Police Department does not anticipate that any additional police services would be needed during the construction phases of the expansion project. Therefore, beginning with the opening of the first phase of the ex- pansion additional police services would cost the City about $115,000 per year. In addition, the expanded shopping center would require the assignment of additional off -duty personnel by the Police Department for security patrols at the center on Fri- days and Saturdays. It is estimated that the additional service would amount to 24 hours per week. Officers are scheduled and paid by the City at their overtime rate of $50 per hour. Westfield reimburses the City for this service at a rate of $35 per hour, resulting in a net cost to the City of $15 per hour. On this basis, costs for additional security personnel would amount to nearly $19,000 per year at full development. The total cost to the City for police services would be about $133,000 (Table 3 -24). This represents about 1 percent of the Police Department's 2003 expenditure budget (City of Tukwila, 2002). Finally, Westfield provides a Police Community Resource Center at the mall on a rent -free basis. Although not included in the fiscal analysis, it represents a fiscal bene- fit to the City. Table 3 -24. Summary of Estimated Costs ($1000) Cost Category 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2023 Storm Drain and Util- ity Maintenance - - - - - - - - - - Road Maintenance $ - $ - $ 26 $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 Police Services $ - $ - $ 9 $134 $134 $134 $134 $134 $134 $134 Fire/EMS Services $33 $112 $112 $112 $112 $112 $112 $112 $112 $112 General Government $ - $74 $131 $248 $325 $350 $365 $380 $386 $393 TOTAL COSTS $33 $186 $278 $545 $623 $647 $663 $678 $684 $691 2The cost per patrol officer was calculated as total budget ($5,106,109) of the Police Department's pa- trol program divided by the number of staff (41.5) in that program. 3 The cost per investigator was calculated as total budget of the Police Department's Investigation (ma- jor crimes) ($980,905) divided by the number of staff (10) in that program. 3 -104 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fiscal Analysis 1 1 t Fire and EMS Service Costs. The additional demand for fire and EMS services at- tributable to the Proposed Action equates to on additional firefighter FTE during both construction and operation. Alternatively, extrapolating the experience of the existing center results in an estimate that two personnel could be needed during operation. Based of the City's 2003 budget (City of Tukwila, 2002), the cost for an additional fireman/EMS would be approximately $111,500 (all - inclusive rate') per year (Table 3- 24). This represents about 1 percent of the Fire Department's 2003 expenditure' budget'(City of Tukwila, 2002). General Government Costs. General government costs were estimated to increase in proportion to additional revenue attributable to the project. First, the existing ratio of staffing per $100,000 of budget was calculated based on the City's 2003 budget (City of Tukwila, 2002). General governmental staff for this analysis includes executive, legislative, municipal court, and administrative /finance staff. At present, there is 0.12 staff per $100,000 of budget for these staff categories. This ratio was then applied to the additional revenues attributable to the proposed expansion to estimate additional FTE staff requirements in these departments. It is estimated that at full development, between three and four additional staff would be required as a result of the proposed Southcenter expansion at a cost of approxi- mately $106,606 per staff member (all- inclusive rates). Therefore, annual general government costs could increase from $74,000 in 2005 to $393,000 in 2023 (Table 3- 24).. The latter figure represents about 3.5 percent of the 2003 Administration expen- diture budget (City of Tukwila, 2002). Summary of Costs. Costs incurred by the City as a result of the proposed shopping center expansion would increase from about $33,000 in 2004 to approximately $684,000 in 2012 when project costs generally stabilize. The principal cost to the City during construction (2004 to 2006) would be general government and fire and EMS services costs. During the operations phase, police services are expected to constitute about 30 percent of the total, general government costs are expected to constitute about 55 percent, and fire services are expected to constitute the approximately 17 percent of the costs (Table 3 -24). Road/street maintenance costs would comprise about 8 percent of the total. Net Fiscal Surplus The Proposed Action would have a positive fiscal impact on the City of Tukwila. The City would accrue a net fiscal surplus attributable to the proposed expansion project 4 The cost per fireman was calculated as the Fire Department's suppression program total budget ($6,021,011) divided by the number of staff (54) in that program. 5 The cost per staff member was estimated by dividing the General Fund budget of the executive, legis- lative, municipal court, and administrative /finance departments by the number of employees in these departments. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -105 Fiscal Analysis every year except the first year of construction (2004). The annual surplus would in- crease from $371,000 in 2005 to over $2.2 million in 2023 (Table 3 -25). An implica- tion of this benefit is that the City could fund project- necessitated improvements from revenues generated as a result of the project instead of from pre- existing revenue sources. Table 3 -25. Net Fiscal Surplus ($1000) Sensitivity Analysis Reasonable assumptions were used in estimating revenues and costs attributable to the project. Nevertheless, several assumptions or factors were varied to test their effect on the outcome. These sensitivity calculations are shown below for a typical full opera- tion year (2012). Assumption Effect Reduce sales for Retail Shops from $532 per sf to $475 per sf Reduce the level of expanded sales at existing uses by 50 percent Later hotel opening Higher /more sustained substitution effect for admissions tax (25 %) Reduce police services costs by 50% Reduce General Government staff increase by 50% $133,250 decrease in net revenue $54,400 decrease in net revenue $47,800 decrease in net revenue each year hotel is not developed $97,800 decrease in net revenue $66,760 increase in net revenue $193,200 increase in net revenue 3 -106 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fiscal Analysis 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2023 TOTAL REVENUES $ - $557 $982 $1,860 $2,444 $2,628 $2,741 $2,854 $2,903 $2,953 TOTAL COSTS $33 $186 $278 $545 $623 $647 $663 $678 $684 $691 NET FISCAL SURPLUS 1-33 $371 $704 $1,315 $1,821 $1,981 $2,079 $2,177 $2,219 $2,262 Sensitivity Analysis Reasonable assumptions were used in estimating revenues and costs attributable to the project. Nevertheless, several assumptions or factors were varied to test their effect on the outcome. These sensitivity calculations are shown below for a typical full opera- tion year (2012). Assumption Effect Reduce sales for Retail Shops from $532 per sf to $475 per sf Reduce the level of expanded sales at existing uses by 50 percent Later hotel opening Higher /more sustained substitution effect for admissions tax (25 %) Reduce police services costs by 50% Reduce General Government staff increase by 50% $133,250 decrease in net revenue $54,400 decrease in net revenue $47,800 decrease in net revenue each year hotel is not developed $97,800 decrease in net revenue $66,760 increase in net revenue $193,200 increase in net revenue 3 -106 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fiscal Analysis 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 F 1 Pry: • 1 1 1 The analysis illustrates that even if all of the revenue decreases were to occur, a net fiscal surplus of nearly $1.9 million per year would remain in 2012. Impacts of the No Action Alternative Under No Action, the fiscal surpluses attributable to expansion of the shopping center would be foregone; neither incremental costs nor revenues would accrue. Cumulative Impacts The extent to which future development activities in Tukwila would resuttin demand benefits depends on the type of use, the uses' infrastructure on public services and utilities, and other factors. The Proposed Action would make a positive contribution to the aggregate fiscal outcome. Mitigating Measures The proponent would be responsible for on-site astruCtuToim rovements ong_and could share proportionately in the cost of off -site improvements. transportation impacts, the Proposed Action would be subject to mitigation impact fees pursuant to the Traffic Concurrency Standards chapter of the Traffic Studies and Mitigation section of the Tukwila Municipal Code Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on the City's fiscal condition would be expected. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fiscal Analysis 3 -107 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -108 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fiscal Analysis 11 II 1 1I 11 1 t . 2001. Final King County Comprehensive olition, and Land Clearing Debris _ris Information from Chapter 8: Construction, De and Special Wastes. Seattle, Washington. 2002. King County Bicycling Guide Map. 2 "d ed. Seattle, WA. _. 2003. Website: htt.: / /dnr.metrokc. _ov /swd/SWDINFO /swdsys. .htm. Information on King County Metro Solid Waste Division. Accessed November 13, 2003. . 2003. Website: htt p' / /dnr metrok Plant. Accessed November 17nty Wastewater Treatment Division, South Treatment 2003. Kin County Metro. 2002. Looking to the Future: Six -Year Transit Development Plan g for 2002 -2007. Seattle, WA. Larson, Ryan. 2003. Storm Water Utility Project Manager, r, City of Tukwila. Personal communication with Alex Cohen, December 5, Mirai Associates. 2003. Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project. Bothell, WA. Perteet Engineering, Inc. 2004. Draft Tech Memo 1: Existing Transit Conditions. Everett, WA. . 2004. Draft Tech Memo 2: Rider Surveys.. Everett, WA. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). 2004a. 2002 Air Quality Summary. PSCAA, 110 Union Street, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98101. January 2004 2004b. Online Air Quality Reports. PSCAA echuary, 2004. Services. Seattle, WA. Web Page: httu' / /www PSCAA.or>;. Checked Steen, Bob. 2004. Senior Design Engineer /Building Industry Consultant, QWest. Personal communication with Jacquelyn Stoner. February 2, 2004. The Transpo Group. 2004. Southcenter Project Traffic Analysis Data. Tomaso, Don. 2003. Captain, City of Tukwila Fire Department. Personal communication with Jacquelyn Stoner, November 24, 2003. Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft Ref -2 Tufts, Tina. 2003. Assistant Manager, Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter. Personal communication with Jacquelyn Stoner. November 20, 2003; December 3, 2003. City of Tukwila. 1993. Tukwila Tomorrow, Background Report: Transportation Element. Tukwila, WA. . 2002. Adopted Annual Budget 2003. Adopted December 16, 2002, By Ordinance No. 2008. 2002. Tukwila Police Department 2002 Annual Report. Tukwila, Washington. . 2003. Website: http: / /www.ci.tukwila.wa.us /fire /fd.htm. Information on Tukwila Fire. Department and Tukwila Police Department. Accessed November 6, 2003. 2004. Transportation Improvement Plan: 2004 -2009. Tukwila, WA. Urban Land Institute. 1999. Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers. 2nd ed. Washington, DC. . 2003. Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide From Roadway Intersections. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Technical Support Research Triangle Park, NC. November, 1992. EPA- 454/R -92 -005 2004. Online Air Quality Reports. http: / /www.epa.gov /air /data/, Checked May, 2004. Washington State Patrol (WSP). 2003. Website: http: / /www.wsp.wa.gov /. Access November 12, 2003. Western Regional Climate Center website, 2003: http://www.wrcc.dri.edukgi- bin/cliMAIN.pl?waseat Westfield Corporation, Inc. 2004. Table depicting "Estimated Additional Natural Gas Requirements ". Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Ref -3 References 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref-4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS References DISTRIBUTION LIST Federal Agencies Federal Highway Administration National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X State Agencies Washington State Department of Community Development Washington State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division (2) Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Washington State Department of Transportation (Ramin Pasooki, Phil Segami, Stacey Trussler, Mark Bandy) Regional and. Local Agencies Duwamish Indian Tribe Kent Planning Department King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, SEPA Info. Center King County Department of Transportation, Transit Division (Gary Kriedt) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural Resources Program Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Program Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Wildlife Program Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (Paul Carr) Puget Sound Regional Council SeaTac Planning Department Renton Planning Department (Greg Zimmerman) Seattle Department of Planning and Development Utilities and Services Highline Water District King County Metro Wastewater Treatment Division King County Water District #125 Puget Sound Energy (Susan Hempstead) QWest Rabanco Seattle Public Utilities Department Libraries Foster Library Tukwila Library Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Dist -1 References I! Newspapers Highline Times Seattle Post Intelligencer Seattle Times (Jake Batsell) South County Journal Other Interested Parties Parties of Record: Alice Neiffer Denise Evans Gloria Ramirez Jonathan Pool Mike Hemphill Paul Lenoue Sue Carlson Tracy Harms Dist -2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Refes Dr renft EIS l: 111 1 APPENDIX A FISCAL ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS Southcenter Fiscal Analysis Calculations . oi u:2 a, o■ r, gi .4 .- a, n, 01 un rs 0 .- 1.- to 04 0, crws7 OA n• •-• o 0404 • U 0- 0 •- tO oa 1 1111 1 [ ill 11 ; ; lid 19"11111: M i"li I 111 ill Ill Milainit : AIM 11111 !! 111Elin IMEINUNith IMMIMMINUME Illaiii iso pi, 1 Uri Hi Mil I illidNEL WEBS INN N lia i 11 Virifill 1111111111 1 111 liii:MA 11 iallinial II li (DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS 1 NM lag " DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE IReail: t Anchor Retail _. Retail Shops Total retail Restaurants: Food Court Freestanding Restaurants Number of rooms 1 Square footage Common and Service Areas 1 Shopping Center Totall OPEN FOR SALES Retail: Anchor Retail 1 Retail Shops - -�� Total retail Restaurants: Food Court Freestanding Restaurants Total Restaurants Theater. _ Number of seats Square footage ISquare footage - Common and Service Areas Shopping Center Total 1 t 1 J' I 1 1 i 1 n= nM�IM e eN�tme m a"MN a IS $ ° . _ aN V.o�$ rv" .... �N vv8�, i N m ma m w N �° s o w ° N m - ...... • ^ w '7xxm�� r g o g . 8 »g» wN o N N NgwwN � »p1 N o w wNmC . ° . ON N 1•� N .,,t b mm w w w« N .p N n OpOp 01 rt�11 4'-. N N w CV 8Q S n M w AW m N MO 0 . NN �Gt^70� N » ..^- N wN -dg T m M bN E m roro m m N M �^O a N ° N N»N n N N . AS EE 22"A8 "R a 8»M N » M N g .o�s� .... m m m N N „.o N a N ... .- N a" N« He� N mO . p N E ili .N 1. i. °.^ " °m m m m o .- ° m ..e ..H m�mmvm%8 « «wwRF ssa v M N N " « w 1 - . Song. r1 ry -m r7 °m m m m o �o $ ° gM N o ° n O N n p� NN NNNMNm m^ pp F tG�° w N M W w N g »» ° now ici ", N N.rv- » N PAR dg NOO. w co R m mm ! m w N ao M s ♦ N ^ »fie ... ^ °a. O N »» " mmmma N »» s »x - ,. sod N R m m so .- m• ^^ o a N El N 4 M » t" A m m N N N NN m M » N w M »��111I iiiii �X 11" r 1 . . i 5R N " N N N • N N itN yy O I » m O ... » z^G ° ° ^ G ^ N N n » atymmmm »w NW"n H N »w w n M «pp N a w 8 pp M EON ^^ N . 1IlI ym Ax m m+ »N » 8 N o' ° N 3" ooMg N N "^ M1121111 ! m m m m m N N �o N O a N ° !L!° d w OtG ^ pm ^ A N22 » »^8 » xm » "R °m m e N KM 1. . ° ^oy= ry o ;;°0 l! ,! i w ao » N ^ao »w » » O N b S N II Ilirg''" Y��wN N 1111110111 1111; oOa ~ IllIII1! ry "' N n N OOO 25825 N N N C O ~E� N 204 E�� x' NN NN NN ' 0- m N N- m N n- »a §Cm N° P o n m«» N NI N Li G N N N p n»»» a G O » » N N nunw N »mNma, N MS � «N« IREVENUES (2003 Dollars) 'PROPERTY TAX REVENUES E 13 Q¢ t 6 c4m 8 S 4 Improvements subject to lax (S1000): Construction value • 1% of prior yeaes value 1% of oonaaucbon value • prior year's value Improvement Value Subjed to Tax Personal aroma., value: Ratio to value of improvements (10 %) Total Personal Property Value Total Properly Valuation for Taxes ($1000) City of Tukwila levy per $1000 A.V. TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES PROPERTY TAX REVENUE WI 2•YR LAG SALES TAX REVENUES A C�§im V 2 i • y I;I11 m" =5� N a N m 9 m y K m m�ga W .° $ ,1 Net retail sales attnbutable to expansion ($1000) Net Rale (O.S5 %1 I TOTAL SALES TAX REVENUES SALES TAX REVENUES WITH 6MONT4 LAG IN COLLECTION IHOTEIJMOTEL TAX REVENUES _Q� » _x a_ Z TOTAL NOTELIMOTEL TAX REVENUE W i W a p ii 5Q2 i t i $EE9 £$'°` o^mm N 2 H TOTAL ADMISSIONS TAX REVENUE 1 t 1 J' I 1 1 i 1 ' 1111112 ilk% ..... . .. iii 1111141 1011111 11 i IMIN 11111111 1111:1111111 ; g.13g3gMtg R- g o. 2'; 1:1 s ' g. i ts ii , ::: .1. : 2_ 1 8. 1 go§ 8' .'3° ' 1.' g !I III :llI 11 A g H . 1 „ .. _ 2 !! 1 g .. 22 111 1 I 11:11 iiiii 1111111 Number of businesses 80 80 80 License fee per business (12 @ 850. 12 Q 5100) S 75 S 75 S 75 TOTAL BUS. LICENSE FEE REVENUE S 6.000 S 8,000 S 6.000 TOTAL REVENUES S - 9 557,040 S 981.920 91.860.381 92,443,569 11 id 1 :II 11111111 III III 1REVENUES (continued) UTILITY TAX REVENUES 1 3. _ ..„ it E E . z. 1 ....„. tga = Consumption per s( (therms) _ T056 Consumption (therms) Cast per therm Total Natural Gas sales Tax rate on natural gas sates .. a 8 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 A .7 2g ... •- ei o ' ei 0g 1 ei 117 8 ea RI o co d 1 1.7" — OM VI VP VD be an v. v. - v. v. - VP 7 VP VP E K be E 404 E la .....6 44 . 44 . be 44 VI VD bs ay ao — ■••• go ea • . . ow X pi ow 8 se 04 . eei VD PO VD o be 4144 VI VP . VP ea VP fi4 VD VP ea 44 .. .• ao• VP be VP . VI VO VD 44 . • . . ni on v. ow = . • .■ 0* el be VI be VP VP be 44 44 be be . 444 04 VP VP VD ei 44 44 F4 ei 44 A 3 4; •7 ' 3 VP 7 VI — VP . VP 44 be VP VD . 44 ei 44 VI VP E P VI .. VI ..- 414 40 4. 14 404 VP VD be VP 04 ..., . § be :■1 111.1: Pe ' VP "3. CI be VP VP 44 14 4.41 .4, 44 be VP ea 44 be . a ei 114 VP ea 4.4 be MP 8 E-3 VD 0/ MP , VD VD o M I M. VP MI MP .-. V. •- — * 6 IV :: ?_i VI VD R VP VP - ,4 44 10 ea VP 0 72 ..., " . 6 ea " IV 10 VD VP VP IV VD VO VP VD VD M1 MO 40 VII ea ei Mt 8 VD . '" V. ::.• VP V 1 VP I A Pa VP VP 1.0 .. 2 § .... IV POP VP MP ",..;: V. R VW . VD VP VD VP I 0 ""i 1/1 VD o _ be ea be be IA ol VD •-. ei VD VP 5. ei IA 0, VD VP VD VD VP be be 4■4 VD 044 . be el 44 VO 44 VI ea 44 44 rs- 444 . •-• v. la a. IA VD VI be VD 44 44 . VII ei VS be VP 14 5 ei 04 g VP . ..: 44 r ow r r r 44% 44 44 VI 44 la 14 VP VD 404 VP i VP 44 74 VP in PP ... v. ... fa v. v. . v. to v. . g v. ., VI VP R be 01 VD VP ea 14 a . FAOf 6. Eg- . A . — g • ut ,, ..; .... ..., ... ,... . . . .... .... 1COSTS (2003 Dollars) E r ISTORM DRAIN & UTILITY MAINTENANCE COST' ROAD MAINTENANCE COST - i- 8 . Percent of Gills roads affected by project Corresponding budget affected by propct E TOTAL. ROAD MAINTENANCE COS IPOUCE SERVICES COST _ Number of Additional Officers Re uSed Cost Pelf Offcer (all Inclusive rate) i 1 S i Ix —. S 8 C§ i u 3 1 1 i 1 dtional police services (24 hours per week) Hourly cost to City 1 :I TOTAL POLICE SERVICES COST (FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EMS SERVICES 2 1 'Cost of Additional Services GENERAL GOVERNMENT COSTS 2003 General GovammeM Staff 2003 General Fund B • • 51000 S IDS per 5100.000 Revenue • Additional Revenue Attributable to P • • • Additional Staff Cost per Staff Member TOTAL COSTS INET FISCAL SURPLUS �_ _ _ NET FISCAL SURPLUS (DEFICIT)' • 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i IT 1 APPENDIX B TRANSPORTATION CALCULATIONS B -1. Southcenter Parking Demand Analysis B -2 Trip Generation B -3 Exhibits for Project Driveway. Assignments 111 t 1: eluding provision of new equipment and conduit. In either case, QWest has indicated that the applicant would be fully responsible for making those changes. Overall, impacts to communications as a result of the proposed expansion one awou d b�es sig- nificant. However, given the level of outdated equipment up- grades resulting from the expansion would be beneficial to communications service in the long run. Impacts of the No Action Alternative Under No Action, the need for public services and utilities on site and in the project vi- cinity would not likely change. No impacts to public services rovided by existing purveyorpated under this alternative. Services would continue be p uld The on -site lift station would continue to experience capacity capacity. exosting likely require a solution that would provide add sewer system would continue to create maintenance problems for the City resulting from grease discharges by restaurants. Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Action would contribute to an increase in me local for publicn rvices and utilities in conjunction with other development projects area is mostly developed. As a result, cumul activities in the vicinity tofties would not likely be substantial. However, redevelopment the JC Penney Distribution cen- ter/warehouse could contribute to cumulative impacts (e.g., Likewise, future annexation of areas ter /warehouse site, the Tukwila Urban Center Plain). to the City could result in cumulative impacts. as service, In order to plan for potential cumulative impacts esentativtes of other p oposed expansions PSE would continue coordination with the rep ncreas icity in the area. Some of these expansions would result es cal fac 1itieseS including sub - use. If these proposed projects become a reality, new elct stations and transmission facilities — would be needed. Similar impacts plans for accommodat- ing natural gas fa- cilities could also occur. PSE is currently working this growth, if and when it occurs. Coordination with the City would be required for provision of new major facilities. To the extent that public service and utility agencies and can accommodate the ncreas d growth and increased service demand in their planning mand, no long -term cumulative impacts would occur. Mitigating Measures • Require the contractor to develop and implement a safety plan, which would be approved by the Washington State uld be to comply with thus plan. 11 employees and City inspectors wo 3 -93 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Service and Utilities ■ Equip all structures with fire sprinkler systems in order to provide adequate fire flow to the proposed project. Available fire flow must meet the require- ments of the International Fire Code (to be adopted in June 2004). • The Tukwila Fire Department would provide recommendations regarding the following issues related to fire service access: placement of access points into the mall property, location of fire lane areas, and placement of access routes for aerial platform apparatus. In addition, when the fire loop water service is relocated, several of the fire sprinkler risers located in the existing mall would require relocation in order to provide access to the fire sprinlder control valves. Finally, per City requirements, the applicant would replace and up- grade the existing fire alarm system with a fully addressable fire alarm sys- tem. • Provide fire, emergency medical, and law enforcement service providers with emergency response information relating to the design of, the project, includ- ing building and site plans indicating ingress and egress routes, as well as other information that would assist responders in the event of an emergency. • Develop an Evacuation Assistance Plan in accordance with the requirements of the City's Building Code. The Plan would be reviewed and approved by the City; it would be posted on site and available emergency personnel. ■ Implement construction site security measures, such as security patrols, on- site security surveillance, fencing, lighting, and provision of secure areas for equipment, in order to discourage theft, vandalism, trespassing, and other un- authorized activities. Where possible, work with the Tukwila Police Depart- ment to implement these security measures. • Maintain accessibility to the site at current levels in order to retain current re- sponse times. • Incorporate the following features in order to improve existing service to Southcenter and to meet the additional service demands created by the Pro - posed Action: exterior and /or interior security cameras; adequate exterior and garage lighting; a bi- directional antenna that would ensure proper transmis- sion of communications between dispatch and inside the mall; designated parking areas for police vehicles; and a Police Community Resource Center within the mall. Ideally, the Center would have space for at least 2 crime pre- vention officers, 2 patrol officers, 1 volunteer, a conference room, and an in- terview room. • Provide advance notice to the surrounding community when utility service may be interrupted during construction. Coordinate displacement of parking 3 -94 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities C APPENDIX B -1 OUTHCENTER PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS APPENDIX B -1 OUTHCENTER PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS j 1 1 1 WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN AT SOUTHCENTER - Peak Parking Demand SHOPPING CENTER PARKING DEMAND Existing With Southcenter Expansion Retail (GLA) 1 1,252,317 1,712,464 Restaurants (GLA) 17,930 39,031 Other Outparcel Uses (GLA) 29,897 29,897 Cinema (GLA) 0 - 75,200 Total GLA 1,300,144 1,856,592 Percent Non - Retail Uses 3.7% 7.8% Shopping Center Parking. Generation Rate (stalls /1,000 GLA) 2 4.5 4.5 Shopping Center Parking Generation (stalls) 5,851 8,355 HOTEL PARKING DEMAND Hotel Parking Generation Rate (stalls /room) 3 0.52 0.52 Hotel rooms 0 140 Hotel Parking Generation (stalls) 0 73 TOTAL PEAK PARKING DEMAND 5,851 8,428 TOTAL PARKING SUPPLY 6,679 7,900 PARKING SUPLUS OR (OVERSPILL) 828 (528) EMPLOYEE PARKING DEMAND (APPROX. 20% OF DEMAND) 1,336 1,580 PARKING SURPLUS OR (OVERSPILL) WITH EMPLOYEE OFF -SITE PARKING 2,164 1,052 1 Includes mall retail, anchor retail, and food court 2 Based on ULI Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, 2nd Edition. 3 Based on ITE Parking Generation, 2nd Edition. WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN AT SOUTHCENTER - Parking Code Requirements EXISTING DEVELOPMENT USE Total Building Area USABLE FLOOR AREA (UFA) Anchors Nordstrom 170,795 165,900 Bon 263,795 250,407 JC Penny 251,753 240,597 Sears 174,630 170,800 Mervyn's 86,115 85,734 Total Anchors 947,088 913,438 Mall Retail Shops (1) 338,879 321,935 Mall Common Area 138,277 0 Total Mall Retail 1,424,244 1,235,373 Outparcel Uses: Post Office 4,650 4,418 Bank 4,258 4,045 JC Penny (Firestone) 20,989 19,940 Bahama Breeze /Olive Garden 17,930 17,034 Total Outparcels 47,827 45,436 SUBTOTAL, EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 1,472,071 1,280,809 PROPOSED EXPANDED USES Mall Retail Shops (1) 297,497 282,622 Mall Common Area 161,100 0 Anchor Retail 162,650 154,518 Theater 75,200 71,440 Total Mall Uses 696,447 508,580 Outparcel Uses: Freestanding Restaurant 21,101 20,046 Total Outparcel Uses 21,101 20,046 SUBTOTAL, EXPANSION 717,548 528,626 TOTAL PROJECT AREA - EXISTING MALL Credit for 10% Complementary Uses PROJECT AREA FOR PARKING CALCULATION Parking Required @ 5.0 / 1000 TOTAL PROJECT AREA - WITH EXPANSION Credit for 10% Complementary Uses PROJECT AREA FOR PARKING CALCULATION Parking Required @ 5.0 / 1000 Parking Required for Hotel Total Parking Required 1,472,071 2,189,619 (1) Includes kiosk UFA (2,860 sf existing and an additional 2,000 sf with expansion). (2) UFA includes 5% discount from GLA for restrooms and equipment rooms in Tenant spaces (3) Assumes 10% of uses are granted parking credit as complementary uses (4) Hotel GLA and parking for hotel not included (to be calculated separately at 1 /room plus 1/20 employees = 147 spaces) (2) 1,280,809 (128,081) (3) 1,152,728 5,764 1,809,434 (180,943) (3) 1,628,491 8,142 147 (4) 8,289 ;, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX B -2 TRIP GENERATION trip generation. xis \Trip Gen4 APPENDIX B-3 Exhibits FOR PROJECT DRIVEWAY ASSIGNMENTS 1. so I'ycFNT fR 841,0 o NOT TO SCALE PlOrl 159 (20) 74 (15) (26) 72 j 6-- (3) 76 r 59 (9) ( -2) 5 J (2) 51 -� 5 to 1 30 (13) C O14 2(13) n rn z m -o (7) 38 36 (3 STRANDER BLVD J L. 7 48 (15) 37 89 (4) 101 (11) 99 5 J -- 110 -9 (10) 48 j (5) 45 J 66 --► ( -1) Ij ( -2) 7 (3) 127 22 ! J (2) 26 J (1)29, (6) 49 77 ( -6) BAKER BLVD (2) 75 �- PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT SHOWN AT DRIVEWAYS ONLY. Exhibit C1 Proposed Action Weekday PM Peak Hour Project Driveway Assignment Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion I LEGEND XX = NEW PROJECT TRIPS (XX) = PASS -BY TRIPS The Transpo Group NOT TO SCALE 225 (23) ( -2) 8 (2) 78 18 )L 82 (18) f 78 (11) cn 5(16) OC 15 _(16) n m Z v (8) 44 5 (4) STRANDER BLVD J �► (12) 74 J (2) 118 8 (18) 49 1 203 (4) � 95 J k 174 (13) 123 6 f 169 -11 (6) 76 47�(-1)i 10 (3) PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT SHOWN AT DRIVEWAYS ONLY. Exhibit C2 Proposed Action Saturday Peak Hour Project Driveway Assignment Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion (30) 83 J 8 (4) 101 219 36 BAKER BLVD (7) 81 I 142 (-7) (2) 32 -"") (1) 34 )(3) 191 (-2) LEGENQ XX = NEW PROJECT TRIPS (XX) = PASS -8Y TRIPS 1 1 1 1 1 Tanspo 1