Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-11-88 - SPIEKER PARTNERS - TUKWILA POND CENTERTUKWILA POND CENTER (SPIEKER PARTNERS) DEVELOP RETAIL/ COMMERCIAL USE STRANDER BLVD. & ANDOVER PARK WEST EPIC 11 -88 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX C -3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124 -2255 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Planning, Branch Mr. Rick Beeler, Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: NOV 2 3 1988 We have reviewed the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for Tukwila Pond Center. With respect to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers area of special expertise and jurisdiction by law as designated by the President's Council on Environmental Quality on December 21, 1984, we have no comment. The following are offered as general observations: a. There is a discrepancy with respect to the acreage figures. Is it possible the parcel size is 38.9 acres rather than 33.9? b. The information provided for the project description does not seem sufficient to support a DNS even with the mitigation plan. Suggest more detail for all activities within 200 feet of the shore be included. Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement. Sincerely, Frederick C. Weinmann Chief, Environmental Resources Section GLENN J. AMSTER JOEL N. BODANSKY LAURIE LOOTENS CHYZ MARK S. CLARK SALLY H. CLARKE T. RYAN DURKAN GARY M. FALLON ROBERT B. FIKSO RICHARD E. GIFFORD JEROME L. HILLIS GREGORY E. KELLER GEORGE A. KRESOVICH SARAH E. MACK LAW OFFICES OF HILLIS, CLARK, MARTIN &PETERSON_ ;_ - - -, - --- - ` A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 500 GALLAND BUILDING 1221 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 -2925 (206) 623 -1745 TELECOPIER (206) 623 -7789 TELEX 4947650 November 10, 1988 Mr. Rick Beeler Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 DEBORAH S. MALANE GEORGE W. MARTIN, JR. MARK C. McPHERSON AjN�N'E E NILES NOV1.4L 19$ M. PETERSON THOMAS E. PETERSON STEVEN R. ROVIG MICHAEL F. SCHUMACHER MICHAEL R. SCOTT MATTHEW.R,SMITH THERESA R. WAGNER RICHARD R. WILSON Re: Tukwila Pond Center /Determination of Non - significance (No. EPIC- 23 -88) Dear Mr. Beeler: On behalf of our client, Spieker Partners, we are writing to clarify the proponent's position regarding the mitigating measures described in your memorandum of November 8, 1988, and incorporated into the above - referenced determination. The memorandum correctly states that Spieker Partners has agreed to those measures stated therein which are designed to mitigate the potential impacts of the proposal. However, as we indicated in our letter to Jack Pace dated November 4, our client does not agree that the project's impacts provide a reasonable basis for requiring the construction of right -turn lanes at the site entrance and, in particular, at Andover Park West, nor the elimination of the driveway at the Target store frontage. We understand that you have determined that these conditions are appropriate. This clarification is simply to ensure that the owner's position is understood and is not deemed a waiver of its right to object to those conditions. Thank you for your consideration. GJA:blw cc: Spieker Partners 1)AA gu-k 1L4,11- Id D ) -dh "Al`Q YA)/ ( )10 • (e0 77/7/2_, _.(J _ivegie, -ems -e��� • SEP 121988 3eOY __ co -t7.4 �'�a tq�� gs9((6 J. MARSH 3808 E. BLAINE SEATTLE, WA. 9811 is Ufa )‘A e 1.t e c is/ C6-- 1A (.<l1._ uT IVVO s 16N: h ce,n`ler (.7 Q " A ✓tiJ Ill CC' S ka e i Unq�ea r 1 6-_ - c�►� or.�LV�Q c_t' • I ,A- V tm Parte? ke e. I t Q `� - t° ssJ� e..�, c.- `V A-- e. 1 e -( VIA i u.C� J� v L de.) -- (3‘ r `}AS s ren P_-?ro � c.l ) a� qtw; 'ah/hv!4 � 1 A f s 1.E.ni" is I1+, a�c�. �t ct„N anro'e� .l. --� S n���(c�! vti_er on ��- �L��U` �a Pao) a rLm . of �d Ti— V -11;4 ra s )e n tiovt,e_1- 0 L+, a a.(w► i Is fss Via L to -o' t3� 1 .3.; \SSA 1e5oI 41' ,plc{ b Iv��Cvt1 (A_ W& 1k1121- r • STATEMENT -0 SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY 619 Joshua Green Building Seatt -le, WA 98101 Attn: Joe Miles CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD TUKWILA , WASHINGTON 98188 1 August 25, 1988 000.341.600 INVOICE # M8K -1 $39.00 Detach and mail with your check. Your cancelled check is your receipt. August 25, 1988 INVOICE #M8K Statement of charges for copies made of the Tukwila Pond file: Total Amount Due $39.00 DUE UPON RECEIPT. PAST DUE AFTER 3O DAYS. PAID BY CHECK # • (AUG 17 1988 August 15, 1988 Mr. Rick Beeler Department of Planning City of Tukwila 620 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: As a citizen who is concerned about our environment, and especially wetlands, I would like to express my concern about the proposed construction on or over Tukwila Pond. I feel the pond should be left in its natural state, as it is an environment used by migratory birds. With the increasing rate of development, it's important to protect the wetlands we still have. I'd like to urge your department to issue a Determination of Significance for the proposed project, so that its impact on the environment can be more fully scrutinized. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Bea Frederickson 2323 58th Ave. E. #9 Tacoma WA 98424 King County Department of Public Works Donald J. LaBelle, Director 900 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344 -2517 August 8, 1988 Mr. Rick Beeler Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Li .! (UG — 9 1988 1 RE: Determination of Significance. "Tukwila Pond" Dear Mr. Beeler: Thank you for your notification regarding Tukwila's Determination of Significance. This letter will confirm the phone conversation which Bernie Thompson of the Roads Division had with Jack Pace of your staff on August 5, 1988. Members of King County's Surface Water Management (SWM) Division would like to review the Environmental Checklist and supportive materials associated with this proposal. I am enclosing written comments from SWM and Transportation Planning Section so that you may send the requested materials and have our written comments as well. Thank you for the opportunity to review this determination of significance. 'ncerely, 03 Paul Tanaka Acting Director PT:BT:sr Enclosures • • CLA-u0 + 29 ec7 • ut0A-4 i1/49 r;cz-ii,e CIL.2_ Me awAi_e49.. • P •0,,(A.01 , i i ' c(Aill+LC4.9..Lk, , 4 o1)wJ(n 'dja:--L / / ' W(L■k.AS thC_I_____A' .... ?lam /ir • 17-7 '--- arIAVP$ \\\\ VALI CsOk"--A:\ " • Vkti:t • 5 1199a /342 a 2ner Sealile, lvii 98115- (Zetyusf-- /988 tvolz Id Like_ reffeziosi- co.J7 45saemee JZt/-€rin in all irn of 597y1.Acat7ce- l'er the proposed 71,k a.: /a_ ?e,77 -S'I;te. Vie/Mil-Ars a/lith c1, noi mi,oach -7latala. ?and tzlith A45 been died a,ez&S-- of-Ma al used &g z 1 11. htivls 12e-Pai-s-tzecif- J.nce. yor-e-rs, • • King County Surface Water Management Division Department of Public Works 701 Dexter - Horton Building 710 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344 -2585 July 29, 1988 MIMPO AUG - 9 1988 a ,. TO: Sandy Adams, Intergovernmental Relations Coordinator, Roads and Engineering Division FM: Jim Kramer, Manager, Surface Water Management (SWM) Division /.0 /' RE: Tukwila Pond Determination of Significance Thank you for your notification regarding Tukwila's Determination of Significance for this project. To provide timely review of this proposal, the SWM Division should be provided with a copy of the Environmental Checklist and supportive materials which the Determination of Significance indicates are on file with the City of Tukwila. Please forward this request to Tukwila as part of any formal Departmental response you provide them. Please call me at 296 -6585, or Andy Levesque, Senior Engineer of the River and Water Resource Section at 296 -6519, if you have any questions about this request. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. JK:AL:js(LE7262) cc: Ken Guy, Assistant Manager, Surface Water Management Division Dave Clark, Manager, River and Water Resource Section ATTN: Andy Levesque, Senior Engineer • • King County Division of Roads and Engineering Department of Public Works 956 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344 -7490 July 29, 1988 (UG - 9 1988 F'LfgN =►. TO: Bernie Thompson, Administrative Services Officer FM: Bill Hoffman, Manager, Transportation Planning Section RE: Determination of Significance for Tukwila Shopping Center Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this determination. This project, immediately south of the Southcenter Mall, is remote from any County facilities. If there are impacts to County facilities, the inclusion of a transportation analysis and identification of mitigation for significant transportation impacts in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this proposal should be sufficient to disclose any traffic impacts associated with the project. Transportation Planning therefore has no specific comments in response to this determination. If you have any questions, please call Ann Martin, Transportation Planner, at extension 6 -6509. BH:AM:lh /R5712 cc: Karleen Sakumoto, Manager, Program Development /Administration Unit Ann Martin, Transportation Planner • • Washington State Department of Transportation District 1 15325 S.E. 30th Place Bellevue, Washington 98007 -6568 (206) 562 -4000 Rick Beeler Planning Director 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: Duane Berentson Secretary of Transportation RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA 2 BUILDINO DEPT, July 28, 1988 DS for Shopping Center - Vic. Southcenter This letter is in response to the Determination Significance we received from the city of Tukwila. The Transportation Section of the DEIS should include traffic impacts at access points to I -5, I -405, and SR 181. Any mitigating measures deemed necessary should also be discussed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Chuck Gleich of my staff at 562 -4105. JBS:na Sincerely, JERRY B. SCHUTZ Development Planning Engr. Wi Washington State Department of Transportation District 1 15325 S.E. 30th Place Bellevue, Washington 98007 -6568 (206) 562 -4000 July 27, 1988 City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Rick Beeler Duane Berentson Secretary of Transportation SR 5 MP 153.90 Vic. CS 176700 Determination of Significance for Spieker Partnership File No. EPIC -11 -88 Dear Mr. Beeler: 1 This letter is in response to the Determination of Significance that we received from the City of Tukwila on July 25, 1988. The proposed development is located in the vicinity of the Strander Blvd. /Andover Park West intersection, south of the Southcenter Mall. The proposal is for a retail shipping center of approximately 238,000 sq. ft. that will front Strander Blvd. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required and will be prepared. Upon completion of the EIS, the Department of Transportation would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the development. A copy of the EIS should be sent to the following address: Washington State Department of Transportation Attention: Development Planning Engineer 15325 Southeast 30th Place Bellevue, WA 98007 -6538 Telephone: 562 -4104 (Development Planning) Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Donald Hurter (562 -4274) or Robert Eichelsdoerfer (562 -4297) of my Developer Section. RE:jjk tu8.wk5 cc: State Aid erely ES L. LUTE, P.E. istrict Utilities Engineer • jeehi t,z j7 7 1 Of P/cwfro,41..) 6200 k-WI 10 Gt/fi beit. K 77t 4 6.6a2 ift ; The Tukwila Pm,7d7 • 1-/Le isSuein cf6 -be-f rv) na h Si 5ho 1)4 o .propo 66-126e_e_ As Hug ruk_wIle<_ /s vh;rafrik (Jakcai bc a S'ila/W--e- 711) IALP 1-0 p 1r613 /1--e4/4a Capplif) CM/LS-frac-17 )/1 pill 1)1 5(vnaA,del 2,4A/pLe 1/1/1rWii9vaci-) ok A-ve S'141 Sea,tae 3 C '' r��rl� 1..1 [... J JUL 251988 1 Nola Jean Pamberry 2312 NE 85th, Apt. D Seattle, WA 98115 July 22, 1988 Mr. Rick Beeler Dept. of Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: I recently read about the plans of Spieker Partners for a shopping center constructed on pilings in Tukwila Pond. This is one of the more ingenious ways of adhering to the letter of the law that I have heard of in a while. The ruling against filling the pond is based on the need to preserve the pond for migratory birds; placing a mall on pilings in the pond will hardly serve this purpose. I write to urge the planning department to request the issuance of a Determination of Significance for the project. Thank you for your attention to another small step in preserving our land and wildlife. Sincerely, AF IDAVIT OF DISTIBUTION I, JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that: El Notice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting [I Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet El Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet [� Determination of Nonsignificance EJ Mitigated Determination of Non - significance Q Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action Q Official Notice [T Notice of Application for [I Other Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit [] Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on FRIDAY, JULY 22, 1988 , 19 (SEE ATTACHED) DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Name of Project TUKWILA POND File Number EPIC -11 -99 (PUBLIC HEARING) Signatur DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal: 238,000 square foot, shopping center partially built on piling over 1.8 acres of "Tukwila Pond ". Proponent: SPIEKER PARTNERSHIP Location of Proposal, including street address, if any: Southwest corner of Strander Blvd. and Andover Park West Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -11 -88 EIS REQUIRED: This lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have an significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. An environmental checklist or other materials indicating likely environmental impacts can be reviewed at our offices. The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: Soils, flora, fauna, traffic, water. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: RICK BEELER Position /Title: Planning Director Phone: 433 -1846 Address: 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Date: July 22, 1988 Signature You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. Y3u may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning Department. M E M O R A N D U M To: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: EPIC -11 -99 Rick Beeler, Responsible Offici July 22, 1988 Determination of Significance This determination is based upon review of the environmental checklist and testimony submitted in connection with the public hearing held on July 14, 1988. Pursuant to WAC 197.11 the following, in brief, was found: 1. The proposal will have probable significant adverse environmental impacts which require preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) (WAC 197.11.360). Impacts on wetlands, wildlife and traffic are significant and should be disclosed, evaluated and discussed in an EIS. 2. Information submitted to date does not clearly demonstrate that the potential proposed mitigation measures will totally eliminate all probability of significant adverse impacts from the proposal. Therefore a mitigated determination of nonsignificance cannot be issued (WAC 197.11.350.2). The proposed mitigation measures themselves are significant adverse environmental impacts which should be disclosed, evaluated and discussed in an EIS. John Edison 5834 NE 75th, #6204 Seattle, WA 98115 Jean Sundborg 121 SW 171st St. Seattle, WA 98166 T. Makey 15639 16th Ave. SW Seattle, WA 98166 Peggy Dunlap 15639 16th AVe. SW Seattle, WA 98166 Sandra J. Stowell 2225 Jones Ave. NE Renton, WA 98056 Koreyne K. Simpson 815 S. 216th St. #27 Des Moines, WA 98198 -6396 Christopher Brown PE 9688 Rainier Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98118 Elizabeth Jovanovich -Miles 22431 10th Ave. S. Des Moines, WA 98198 Scott Salzer 233 SW 184th Seattle, WA 98166 Dharlen- pest, P Tukw' a McMic 5 S. 16 ukwila A 981 Michael & Carley Roedell P. 0. Box 953 Seahurst, WA 98062 Pat Jo to 2201 K Agnes Wilder 815 S. 216th Des Moines, WA 98198 Richard A. Carothers 814 E. Pike St. Seattle, WA 98122 Mary Auryansen 4233 S. 182d St. Seattle, WA 98188 Robert A. Swoffer 1048 Industry Dr. Seattle, WA 98188 Joel B 1140 B- e, 98004 . James L. Lutz PE 15325 SE 30th P1. Bellevue, WA 98007 -6568 omm. Alice C. Yvanovich 11513 Stone Ave. No. #334D Seattle, WA 98133 Charles R. Dowd 3200 W. Concord Way #446 Mercer Island, WA 98040 John M. Wolf 14893 Interurban AVe. S. #15 Tukwila, WA 98168 Deborah Dowd 3200 W. Concord Way #446 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Richard L. Hutchins 2908 13th Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98144 Paul Bosman 22301 Foothill Blvd. Hayward, CA 94541 Mike Riggs 9688 Raineir Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98118 ScottSchlosser 22301 Foothill Blvd. Hayward, CA 94541 R. L. Van Wormer 1514 Muirhead Olympia, WA 98502 rd Uf. Chapin 1,08th Ave. 'te 2100 levue, WA ;98004 / / / Glenn J. Amster 500 Galland Bldg. 1221 2nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98101 -2925 • • Jan Roen 13023 SE 237th Ct. Kent, WA 98031 Paul Mer 2 401 ooth' Blvd. y rd, C 94541 Vincent Ferrese Scott S Mithun Partners Mery 2000 112th Ave. NE 22 it othil vd. Bellevue, WA 98104 ywar/d, C 4541 Theodore A. Muller Dept. of Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. Mill Creek, WA 98012 Andy McMillan Dept. of Ecology Mail Stop PV11 Olympia, WA 98504 -8711 Edward M. Schaffnit Inc. 1111 3rd Ave. #700 Seattle, WA 98101 Nancy L. Purcell, MD 401 S. 43rd St., #230 Renton, WA 98055 Lynn T Suit 30' 121 Ave E e, W 98005 Michael Daley 3725 SW Rose St. Seattle, WA 98126 (-? pi ec . 6t 14/1 CG ✓mot 5 Q'Zk Cf L PF ta_ Oat ocia p i —z cG Sin cry Self- scouring steel plow, 1837 cis Bi2o-CQr 4)./cc_voii. t,2_ ® USPS 1987 July 19, 1988 Mr. Rich Beeler Department of Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: • s 1 j,uL211988 This letter is in regard to the purchase of the Tukwila Pond property .by Spieker Partners of Bellevue. I strongly oppose the development of this area as it is an important migratory bird site and a much needed green belt area. I live in the area and myself and many others use this area as a park and recreation site. Our choices are limited in this area and our popula- tion increasing. There are many other areas that are not significant environment sanctuaries that the developer can utilize. A move of a short distance will not impact their business. I am requesting that the issuance of a "Determination of Significance" for this proposed project take place. Your thoughtful and thorough attention to this matter is greatly appreciated and will be monitored. Sincerely Pe Dunlap 15639 16th Ave. S.W. Seattle, WA 98166 Mr.,Rich Beeler Department of Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: June 19, 1988 This is in regards to the piircras of the Tukwila Pond property by Spieker Partners of Bellevue. I understand that they propose to develop this land. I strongly oppose the development of this area due to its importance to both migrating birds and citizens general recreational use as a green belt. I live in the area and have often used this site to watch the migrating birds and to just relax in a much needed peaceful setting. I have also observed many other people also enjoy the recreational aspect of this area. There are very few spots in the south -end left for the general recreational use of area residents. And areas supportive.of migratory birds are rarer still. There appear to be many other sites that are not significant environmental sanctuaries that the developer can utilize. A review of the risk - benfit of the developer moving a short distance away would seem to indicate that they would not be impacted adversely.. I am requesting that the issuance of a "Determination of Significance" for this proposed project be considered and adopted. Thank you for your time and consideration to this matter. Since the issue is important to me I plan to follow -up on whatever actions are undertaken. Siycerely, ailir %.0 Thomas Makey T. Makey 15639 16th Ave. SW Seattle, Wa 98166 Christine 0. Gregoire X 6ttaAx9fXklbcE AIOR Director STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Jack Pace Planning Department City of Tukwila Tukwila City Hall Tukwila, WA Dear Jack, I i ( JUL 2 21988 1 Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459; 6000 . July 19,1988 Our study of Tukwila Pond has taken some time. Our hydrolo- gist, Al Wald, has investigated the available information on that area. We have evidence to indicate that the pond has been over 20 acres at some times in the years since the passage of the Shoreline Management Act (1971), but recent data is lacking to fully substantiate its current size as being over 20 acres. Therefore, we are choosing at this time not to invoke jurisdiction on Tukwila Pond. We look forward to continuing to work with the applicant in designing a workable proposal that affords both public access and protection of the resource, and in the long run, will satisfy everyone's concerns. If future changes should occur to make the pond over 20 acres, we may need to reexamine the shoreline issue. Sincerely, 714/1/01,6074---- Terra Prodan Andf McMillan Management Section Wetlands Section Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program TP:mjp -- —7-77 - UUL181988b • christopher Brown pe� 9688 rainier avenue 8. si attle washin-•;1111. ton Lei:7234567 July 18, 1988 Mr. Lynn Takeuchi MacKenzie /Saito Associates, P.S. Suite 233, Building 3, 300 - 120th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 Re: SPIEKER - SOUTHCENTER PROJECT A Proposed Shopping Center in Tukwila Traffic Study Seattle Audobon Society Review Response Dear Mr. Takeuchi: We are in receipt of the Seattle Audobon Society's July 14th letter to Mr. Jack Pace of the City of Tukwila. In particular, we are addressing the supplemental section, "Traffic Study" and feel the following response should address and /or clear up questions contained therein. First, from the time we were initially engaged and the project was in a conceptual configuration the project has increased in size. In most projects we work on, there are invariably modifications in scale. At the time of our first study, a total leasable area of 160,145 gross square feet was planned. Due to design changes it is now proposed that a total of 238,000 g.s.f. will be provided. Using the 4th Edition of the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual and assuming that 50 percent of the project traffic is "pass -by" as defined in the original study, the following table summarizes the trip generation for the project as now proposed. Mr. Lynn TakeucIll July 18, 1988 Page 2 TABLE A Net Trip Generation, Spieker - Southcenter Project 238,000 Gross Square Feet (50 percent Pass -By) Volume Time Interval A.W.D.T.* A.M. Inbound A.M. Outbound P.M. Inbound P.M. Outbound Noon Inbound Noon Outbound 6407 vehicles per day 103 vehicles per hour 44 vehicles per hour 244 vehicles per hour 254 vehicles per hour 262 vehicles per hour 256 vehicles per hour * Average Weekday Daily Traffic We are appending calculations of Levels of Service for the new configuration and noting the attendant Levels of Service below. TABLE B Levels. of Service Intersection Strander Boulevard/ Southcenter Parkway Strander Boulevard/ Andover Park West Strander Boulevard/ Site Entrance Andover Parkway/ Site Entrance Strander Boulevard/ Southcenter Entrance (West) 1988 Horizon Year w/o site w /site B C NA NA E * A one step lowering of the LOS is expected from the 3/18 study. ** While this is a low LOS, diversion to the signal is anticipated. Mr. Lynn Takeuce July 18, 1988 Page 3 Second, the Audobon review comments on the Entranco study "...used 1985 volumes as existing traffic and analyzed 1990 traffic volumes, both with and without the project... ". This is not correct according to our files. Entranco used 1986 forecast for the horizon year. In the subject study, these forecast volumes were used for "current" year traffic volumes. Any errors from these assumptions would be insignificant since the rate of growth is about 2.7 percent per year (Strander /Southcenter Boulevard) . Third, the Audobon Society comments that "...1989 would be a more suitable horizon year... ". While this may be the case, we assumed an early start since, overall, we feel that this sector of the Southcenter area is at a point of low growth due to the lack of buildable land and the limitations of subsequently providing significant amounts of new consumer oriented services. Regardless, any overall growth to the background traffic would be insignificant in comparison to the traffic generated by this proposal. Continuing, it may be realistic to assume that 1989 would be the year in which full occupancy of the project may be enjoyed. As you may recall, in our meetings with the City Staff no mention was made of projects which would be contributing traffic to the arterial system prior to full project occupancy. Since, we have assumed that the background traffic growth will be insignificant, the exact year of occupancy is not relevant in our judgement. Of course, other new developments which are proposed to be occupied after this project should be cognizant of the traffic generated by the subject project. Fourth, the Audobon Society, at the bottom of the first page of their commentary, discusses the interpolation of trip generation data for shopping centers of 100 to 200 k.s.f. Please note that the generation rates given in the original report in Table I and II are based upon rates identified in the 4th Edition of the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual. This new report summarizes expected trip generation rates based upon the gross square feet of floor area of a shopping center. Total numbers of trips generated are given by formulae which in turn are based upon regression analysis of reported rates for a number of projects. The formulae for calculating the total two way Mr. Lynn Takeu July 18, 1988 Page 4 traffic volumes for the various time periods are as follows; A.W.D. T. A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Ln(T) = 0.65 Ln(X) + 5.92 Ln(T) = 0.60 Ln(X) + 2.40 Ln(T) = 0.425 Ln(X) + 4.43 Where T = Two way volume of traffic and X = Area in 1,000 gross square feet of leasable floor area. Based upon these formulae, the rates shown for these time periods in Table I of the March 16 report are correct. However, we concur that the rates given for the noon hour peak are incorrect. Interpolating between Table 2 and 3 of the Trip Generation Manual, Land Use Code 820, shows that the correct values for the noon peak hour shown in Table I should be 413 vehicles per hour entering and 409 vehicles per hour exiting. Of course with the recent change in the project scope this point can be considered irrelevant, disregarding the minor difference in volumes. Fifth, comment is mode on the use of the 50 percent pass -by traffic. In our judgement, the 50 percent pass -by figure is appropriate for the noon peak hour. The article quoted in the March 18 study report specifies simply the "afternoon peak hour ". Since it has been shown that the noon hour, which occurs after 12:00 and is therefore afternoon, is the highest hourly volume of the day it can therefore be classified as the afternoon peak. Regardless, the Trip Generation Manual, page 11, Table V -1, lists a summary of weekday pass -by trip rates. In this table it can be seen that a project of similar size, entry 31, Chestnut Hill Mall, 275,000 g.s.f., has a traffic demand in the afternoon hours, neglecting the p.m. peak, which is comprised of only 43 percent new traffic. Of important note is the fact that the March 18 study combined pass -by trips with link diverted trips. In the above mentioned project, the link diverted trips accounted for 20 percent of the total trips. Simply stated, we have conservatively over - estimated the percentage of new trips generated by the subject project. Indeed, it seems logical to assume that in the noon hour a high percentage of trips to the project would be pass -by since workers in the area on the way to and from lunch would be pulled into the site for shopping before returning to work. Mr. Lynn Takeuchi" July 18, 1988 Page 5 Sixth, comment is made on the eastbound left turns at Strander /Southcenter Entrance (West) . The level of service given for the western most Southcenter Mall Driveway's intersection with Strander Boulevard is given as 'E' in Table III of March 18 report for both the current year and the horizon year with the project. It is general practice to characterize the LOS for unsignalized intersections by the LOS for the movement which has the lowest reserve capacity. In the case of this intersection, the southbound left turn movement has the lowest reserve capacity. Calculations for the horizon year with the project do indeed indicate that the left turn movement will be at LOS 'F' however, due to the proximity of the entrance to the site of the future traffic signal, we feel that the LOS will remain at or actually improve because Mall traffic will divert to the signal and platooning created by the signal system on Strander Boulevard will introduce more gaps into the traffic stream. The signal, described in the study, is a mitigation measure for this driveway as well. Sixth, comment is made on the use of traffic signal warrants per the M.U.T.C.D. While this is accurate for enumerating volumes for Warrants 1, and 2, respectively minimum volume and interruption of traffic, reliance on the proposed signal can be based on Warrant 5, progressive movement and Warrant 7, system warrant. These do not require additional data. The new M.U.T.C.D. has a Warrant 11, Peak Hour Volume. Review of the study data shows that this is met. We would suggest that no additional comment in this area is required. Seventh and eighth are concerns with both accident analysis and pedestrian or bicycle impacts. While these were not specifically addressed, it should be noted that a mitigation measure is the expansion of Strander Boulevard to six lanes and the installation of a signal at the main driveway. Further, the provision of sidewalks along the site frontage together with the change in the underlying geometry and control device strategy would make a true comparison impossible. Ninth, the Audobon Society commentary notes in section 9 that "...calculations used 60 second traffic signal cycles." It continues with additional issues with short Mr. Lynn Takeuc July 18, 1988 Page 6 cycle lengths. At this juncture, we should point out that the use of a 60 second cycle length was exploratory and could serve the project well if the driveway intersection could run at, say, 60 seconds and main intersection more distant to the site ran at 120 seconds. The supplemental data uses 100 seconds. It is not the intent of this study to define precise operating times for the signal system; it is to show merely that it or they will function. Detailed signal timing plans can be derived should the project be given a "go ahead ". Tenth, the final comment is on parking supply and notes that the ITE Transportation and Land Development publication suggest some 640 parking stalls be supplied. These are for average Saturday demands and do not take into account peak demand days. To provide surplus parking is certainly unusual. It would doubtless preclude vehicular circulation on city streets on crowded shopping days when parking was scarce. Surplus parking should be treated as a mitigation measure. In summary, we believe the revised trip generation data for the new site, the new LOS calculations attached hereto and the above comments all show that the traffic impacts from the site can be mitigated. No additional data nor new analysis would be forthcoming from an E.I.S. and such a document would not produce new information upon which to make an informed decision. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Yours truly, C. V. Brown, P.E. cvb /s e ncl. cc. City of Tukwila 493 0 a 0 4 �� CU g 0U u 0 U) 235 539) N� b f; Andover Park W 9' 3 .3et,8 r- /6,4 6 90 55 Site 36 Strander Boulevard 8/8 62/ Southcenter Parkway Weekday Noon Peak Hour Horizon Year Traffic Volumes 238,000 g.s.f Site christopher brown p� 9688 rainier avenue a. wattle washin • ton Le i:7234567 7234567 •:118 .7/18/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN • INTERSECTION TARGTO4 W - +- E SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. N/S STREET 2 2 SB TOTAL 1396 I I I I V .> 818 578 STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET \/ A *> I I I I I 1 1 2 1 621 A SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. N/S STREET NB TOTAL 1259 638 .> A 539 V WB TOTAL 612 1151 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. CHRISTOPHER BROWN . 7/18/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT04 WEEKDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD ?N ACTUATED SIGNAL APP WB NB SB T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE 2 4 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 2 4 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 18.0 3 -2 4 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 18.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS' WD WB 612 0. 539 L 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 NB 0 621 638 T 2 24.0 R 1 12.0 SB 578 818 0 L 2 24.0 T 2 24.0 S I G N A L PHA S I N G APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R WB 3 L R LR 43 57 WB 1 R R 32 68 NB 2 T R R 25 75 NB 3 R R 43 57 SB 1 L T L 32 68 SB 2 T 25 75 ..,PAGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN • 7/18/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGTO4 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. WEEKDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T APPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT WB NB SB L 612 680 1.00 680 1.00 0.00 539 599 1.00 599 0.00 1.00 T 621 690 1.00 690 0.00 0.00 R 638 709 1.00 709 0.00 1.00 L 578 642 1.00 642 1.00 0.00 T 818 909 1.00 909 0.00 0.00 S A T U R A T I O N . F L O W IDEAL # OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW WB L 1800 1 R 1800 1 NB T R SB L T 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1484 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1484 1800 2 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3493 1800 1 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.00 1449 1800 2 1.00 0.98 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 3278 1800 2 1.00 0.98 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3563 PAGE 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 7/18/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT04 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. WEEKDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL CAPACITY ANAL Y S I S LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C APP MVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO WB L 680 0 1484 0.458 Y 0.430 638 1.066 R 599 0 1484 0.404 Y 0.750 1113 0.538 NB T 690 0 3493 0.198 N 0.250 873 0.790 R 709 0 1449 0.489 Y 0.680 985 0.720 SB L 642 0 3278 0.196 Y 0.320 1049 0.612 T 909 0 3563 0.255 N 0.570 2031 0.448 CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 1.547 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 1.700 L E V E L O F S E R V I C E LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY .CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS WB L 1.066 0.430 100 22.8 638 47.6 1.00 70.4 F R 0.538 0.750 100 4.0 1113 0.4 0.85 3.7 A 39.1 D NB T 0.790 0.250 100 26.6 873 3.5 0.85 25.6 D R 0.720 0.680 100 7.6 985 1.8 0.85 8.0 B 16.7 C SB L 0.612 0.320 100 21.9 1049 0.8 1.00 22.7 C T 0.448 0.570 100 9.4 2031 0.1 0.85 8.1 B 14.1 B INTERSECTION DELAY : 22.5 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : C 7/18/1988 <, 125 SB TOTAL 888 V 493 .> 270 • CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TARGT05 W - +- E ANDOVER PARK WAY N/S STREET A 190 WB TOTAL 546 829 93 V STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET A /\ V 1 1 - - -> 1 - - *> V A A <* *> STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET 115 A EB TOTAL 725 446 ANDOVER PARK WAY N/S STREET 164 V 368 A 204 83 <. .> NB TOTAL 655 • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 7/18/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT05 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ ANDOVER PARK WAY WEEKDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD ?N ACTUATED SIGNAL T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE EB 0 4 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 15.0 3 WB 0 4 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 15.0 3 NB 0 4 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 18.0 3 SB 0 4 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 18.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 115 446 164 L 1 12.0 T 1 12.0 TR 1 12.0 WB 93 546 190 L 1 12.0 T 1 12.0 TR 1 12.0 NB 204 368 83 LT 1 12.0 TR 1 12.0 SB 270 493 125 LT 1 12.0 TR 1 12.0 S I G N A L . PHA S I N G APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R EB 1 L L 12 88 EB 2 T TR R 28 72 WB 1 L L 12 88 WB 2 T TR R 28 72 NB, 3 LT TR LR 27 73 SB 4 LT TR LR 33 67 .PAGE 1 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @' ANDOVER PARK WAY CHRISTOPHER BROWN 7/18/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT05 WEEKDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T APPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT EB L 115 128 1.00 128 1.00 0.00 T 305 339 1.00 339 0.00 0.00 TR 305 339 1.00 339 0.00 0.54 WB L 93 103 1.00 103 1.00 0.00 T 368 409 1.00 409 0.00 0.00 TR 368 409 1.00 409 0.00 0.52 NB LT 328 364 1.00 364 0.62 0.00 TR 327 363 1.00 363 0.00 0.25 SB LT 444 493 1.00 493 0.61 0.00 TR 444 493 1.00 493 0.00 0.28 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W IDEAL # OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW EB L 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1676 T 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1764 TR 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1605 WB L 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1676 T 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1764 TR 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1605 NB LT 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1711 TR 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1697 SB LT 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1711 TR 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1690 PAGE 2 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ ANDOVER PARK WAY WEEKDAY NOON ACTUATED SIGNAL • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 7/18/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA POSTDEV. CBD ? N TARGT05 C A P A C I T Y A N A L Y S I S LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV APP MVM RATE LT FLOW IMO EB L T TR WB L T TR NB LT TR SB LT TR ADJ SAT FLW RT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO 128 0 1676 0.076 Y 0.120 339 0 1764 0.192 N 0.280 339 0 1605 0.211 N 0.280 103 0 1676 0.061 N 0.120 409 0 1764 0.232 N 0.280 409 0 1605 0.255 Y 0.280 364 0 1711 0.213 N 0.270 363 0 1697 0.214 V 0.270 493 0 1711 0.288 493 0 1690 0.292 CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 12 N 0.330 Y 0.330 201 0.637 494 0.686 449. 0.755 201 0.512 494 0.828 449 0.911 462 0.788 458 0.793 565 0.873 558 0.884 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 0.837 INTERSECTION V/C : 0.951 L E V E L O . F S E R V I C E LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP EB L 0.637 0.120 100 31.9 201 T 0.686 0.280 100 24.4 494 TR 0.755 0.280 100 25.0 449 WB L 0.512 0.120 100 31.4 201 T 0.828 0.280 100 25.6 494 TR 0.911 0.280 100 26.4 449 NB LT 0.788 0.270 100 25.7 462 TR 0.793 0.270 100 25.8 458 SB LT TR 0.873 0.330 100 0.884 0.330 100 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS 4.5 2.7 4.9 1.8 7.8 16.1 6.1 6.4 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 36.4 23.0 25.4 33.2 28.4 36.1 27.0 27.4 D C D 26.1 D D D D D D 27.2 32.4 D 24.0 565 9.9 0.85 28.8 D 24.1 558 10.9 0.85 29.7 D 29.2 D INTERSECTION DELAY : 28.9 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : D •,7/18/1988 • CHRISTOPHER BROWN • <1 135 SB TOTAL 251 V 36 •> 80 INTERSECTION TARGT06 W - +- E SOUTHCENTER ENTR. N/S STREET A 65 WB TOTAL 582 707 60 V STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET A /\ V 1 1 - - -> 1 - - *> V STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET 190 A EB TOTAL 1029 532 307 V SITE ENTRANCE N/S STREET 36 A 313 <. 50 .> NB TOTAL 399 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SITE ENTRANCE @ SOUTHCENTER ENTR. CHRISTOPHER BROWN • 7/18/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGTO( WEEKDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD ?N ACTUATED SIGNAL APP EB WB NB SB T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE 0 4 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 15.0 3 0 4 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 15.0 3 0 0 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 18.0 3 0 0 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 18.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 190 532 307 L 1 12.0 T 1 12.0 TR 1 12.0 WB 60 582 65 L 1 12.0 T 1 12.0 TR 1 12.0 NB 313 36 50 L 1 12.0 TR 1 12.0 SB 80 36 135 L 1 12.0 TR 1 12.0 S I G N A L P H A S I N G APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R EB 1 L L 15 85 EB 2 L T TR LR 50 50 WB 1 L L 50 50 WB. 2 L T TR LR 50 50 NB 3 L TR LR 35 65 SB 3 L TR LR 35 65 • ' . PAGE 1 . • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 7/18/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGTO6 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SITE ENTRANCE @ SOUTHCENTER ENTR. WEEKDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T APPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT EB WB NB SB L 190 211 1.00 211 1.00 0.00 T 420 467 1.00 467 0.00 0.00 TR 419 466 1.00 466 0.00 0.73 L 60 67 1.00 67 1.00 0.00 T 324 360 1.00 360 0.00 0.00 TR 323 359 1.00 359 0.00 0.20 L 313 348 1.00 348 1.00 0.00 TR 86 96 1.00 96 0.00 0.58 L 80 89 1.00 89 1.00 0.00 TR 171 190 1.00 190 0.00 0.79 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W IDEAL # OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW EB L 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1676 T 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1764 TR 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 1535 WB L 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1676 T 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1764 TR 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1711 NB L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 1152 TR 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1620 SB L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 1368 TR 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1548 . PAGE 2 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SITE ENTRANCE @ SOUTHCENTER ENTR. WEEKDAY NOON ACTUATED SIGNAL • CHRISTOPHER BROWN • 7/18/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA POSTDEV. CBD ? N TARGTO E C A P A C I T Y A N A L Y S I S LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV APP MVM RATE LT FLOW EB L T TR WB L T TR NB L TR ADJ SAT FLW RT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO 49 162 1676 0.029 Y 0.150 467 0 1764 0.265 N 0.500 466 0 1535 0.304 Y 0.500 49 18 1676 0.029 N 0.150 360 0 1764 0.204 N 0-.500 359 0 1711 0.210 N 0.500 348 0 1152 0.302 Y 0.350 96 0 1620 0.059 N 0.350 SB L 89 TR 190 0 1368 0.065 N 0.350 0 1548 0.123 N 0.350 CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 9 251 0.195 882 0.529 767 0.608 251 0.195 882 0.408 855 0.420 403 0.864 567 0.169 479 0.186 542 0.351 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 0.635 INTERSECTION V/C : 0.698 L E V E L O F S E R V I C E LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS ONI■ .110 EB L 0.195 0.150 100 28.3 251 0.1 1.00 28.4 D T 0.529 0.500 100 12.9 882 0.5 0.85 11.4 B TR 0.608 0.500 100 13.6 767 1.0 0.85 12.4 B 14.9 B WB L 0.195 0.150 100 28.3 251 0.1 1.00 28.4 D T 0.408 0.500 100 11.9 882 0.2 0.85 10.3 B TR 0.420 0.500 100 12.0 855 0.2 0.85 10.4 B 11.9 B NB L 0.864 0.350 100 23.0 403 12.1 0.85 29.8 D TR 0.169 0.350 100 17.1 567 0.0 0.85 14.5 B 26.4 D SB L 0.186 0.350 100 17.2 479 0.0 0.85 14.6 B TR 0.351 0.350 100 18.3 542 0.2 0.85 15.7 C 15.3 C INTERSECTION DELAY : 16.0 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : C 7/18/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN• INTERSECTION TARGT07 235 A EB TOTAL 1241 1006 W - +- E SB TOTAL 230 <I �> 190 i 40 V 0 SOUTHCENTER ENTRANC N/S STREET A \/ 1 - - -* 2 - - -> A 60 WB TOTAL 956 1016 STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET A < * -- 2 STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET CHRISTOPHER BROWN • 7/18/198t TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGTt INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SOUTHCENTER ENTRANC WEEKDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST T R A F F I C & ROADWAY C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARI APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPI MID EB 0 4 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 WB 0 4 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 SB 0 4 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 235 1006 0 L 1 12.0 T 2 24.0 WB 0 956 60 TR 2 24.0 SB 40 0 190 L 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SOUTHCENTER ENTRANC CHRISTOPHER BROWN 7/18/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGTOi WEEKDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I CAL GAPS APP EB WB SB CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN 5.00 V O L U M E MP MEN 6.00 - -- 5.00 A L L O C A T I O N T O LAN E S LANE 1 LANE 2 APP L T R L T LANE 3 L T R EB 235 0 0 0 503 0 0 503 0 WB 0 508 0 0 448 60 0 0 0 SB 40 0 0 0 0 190 0 0 0 APP U N S I G N A L I Z E D LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 EB RESERVE CAPACITY 148 LEVEL OF SERVICE D WB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE SB RESERVE CAPACITY -16 533 LEVEL OF SERVICE FAILURE A MAJOR STREET - EB /WB 7/18/1988 • CHRISTOPHER BROWN • INTERSECTION TARGT08 W - +- E SB TOTAL 753 <1 v 63 690 ANDOVER PARK WAY N/S STREET 2 <* v 63 ^ EB TOTAL , /\ 118 55 A 1 - - -* V 1 - - -* v SITE ENTRANCE E/W STREET 62 626 < . A NB TOTAL 688 1 2 ANDOVER PARK WAY N/S STREET . INTERSECTION : SITE ENTRANCE @ ANDOVER PARK WAY • • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 7/18/19E TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGn1 WEEKDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH APP EB NB SB T R A F F I C _ & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON AI ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYYI 0 4 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 0 4 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 0 4 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WE EB 63 0 55 L 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 NB 62 626 0 L 1 12.0 T 2 24.0 SB 0 690 63 TR 2 24.0 INTERSECTION : SITE ENTRANCE @ ANDOVER PARK WAY CHRISTOPHER BROWN • 7/18/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGTO8 WEEKDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I CAL GAPS APP EB NB SB LEFT TURN 6.00 5.00 CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) THROUGH RIGHT TURN 5.00 APP EB NB SB V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O LAN E S LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 L T R L T R L T R 63 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 313 0 0 313 0 0 376 0 0 314 63 0 0 0 APP EB NB SB U N S I G N A L I Z E D RESERVE CAPACITY LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 70 785 LEVEL OF SERVICE E A RESERVE CAPACITY 469 - -- LEVEL OF SERVICE A RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE MAJOR STREET - NB /SB In (�?(J1 \'7[x(111 (AYE ��O�IVI� s i 121 . W. 171st Street . Seattle, Wa. 98166 A Force For Families 1 J44? /f,/9 f r/i P'i 2. 8 ,/ Dili alp "l 67771.5 X 11 /11/F 11 tA"17P o Lf%/47 //1/ Qd ire vev 7I-- wg.47 1S it' t,/ / ('/(rrzoV /1-S 56c-f KC -i1 /74 d /v�i7 - qj Lt/ 1ii D/$/17,9 y +/erv6c -2 4-.1 4-S/ //4-LT pL„4eev ca t/E- L Fb7C rue-- j- 4240 ac il/F v 4 c ma y. S 1Oj y3 ��v -461r Gv %14 h c c il- 41 77 'nt" GtG 0twfi1 Ail tfPr Of oOtePt5 J 6d-A41 166 /.vg/-y .2 eA/S1196)t /114rPflcrQQ,¢, . 44 \ s Cv 7 - 4 ).6 kid or/ so (' fe- 7 f s /(/,.4- %.6Gv/--- Pto6k,q -m 6% TGd)* VI LE lV l�,(.61c/ E7-A /1-f BY- Th 7- ti t Iv 1414 606ND 1)6/%6fks. C4 lv,4S S7 iap t IF-(1C /11tr POivj J�.d S P. /& Wi17 s Go Pte" tin/ ors. eccr /d)v oN to/ t/ s, /76bCcc-sr 77,e€'-. 7o2 vePT;. /Sja -' D -7 of try Iv j/ 0.; S/ 64. f fAf,c6. bat P/da'05C /ic1"e -z7; 4-4) �' „� S Pl ii .S / N GE-1(.4 4/r-1. q/G� "The Betty Lamp was selected in 1926 as the symbol of the American Home Economics Association because it suggests the idea of the application of science to the improvement of the home." • • Mr. Jack Pace City of Tukwila Planning Department City Hall Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: chrig opher Brown 9688 rainier avenue a s�a2 washi • . to :723434 567 •:118 July 18, 1988 SPIEKER - SOUTHCENTER PROJECT A Proposed Shopping Center in Tukwila Traffic Study Seattle Audobon Society Review Response Dear Mr. Pace: We have been asked to review the subject comments and provide answers. The enclosed copy of our letter to the architects has been done for this purpose. I believe that you will find it complete and detailed. If you have any questions, please feel free to call at any time. Yours truly, C. V. Brown, P.E. cvb /s encl. • July 18, 1988 • IES ASSOCIATES TO : Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 SUBJECT : Tukwila Pond Center, file no. EPIC- 11 -88. Dear Mr. Pace: 1514 Muirhead Olympia, WA 98502 Ph: (206) 943.0127 8835 SW Canyon Lane Portland, OR 97225 Ph: (503) 297.6081 We appreciate the opportunity for open and frank discussion about the Tukwila Pond environmental studies. We feel that the comments and concerns of the Audubon Society were rightfully presented, but believe that, through the presentation of partial statements from the checklist and an emphasis on the need to conduct extended biological studies of every small element of the wildlife habitat on the area, they have distorted the intent of the data and the intent of SEPA. The intent of SEPA is to identify resources and their impacts. If Spieker Partners or IES Associates had attempted to present a no- impact scenario or a no- resource value presentation, we could have understood the Audubon Society's position. However, throughout the checklist and the attached documents we have identified resources and defined the probable impacts by the proposed development. In fact, we were the first people to raise the concern for the canvasback duck in the original Springridge studies conducted in 1983. We reiterated these concerns in the 168th Street studies con 1\ ucted in 1986. Mr. Jack Pace Tukwila Pond Center. EPIC- 11 -88. July 18, 1988 The point should be whether major groups of birds, mammals and plants, or species that are sensitive and of major concern, are identified, and whether the impacts from the development are analyzed. The additional studies requested by the Audubon Society would only function to add minute details as to total number of days use, activity patterns, etc., which would only expand on the data already presented in the reports. They would not offer new, significant information regarding a species or group of birds, mammals or plants that were ignored in the data presented in the original checklist. It should be noted that Mr. Miles was invited and present at two of the pre- hearing discussion forums held by yourself and the City of Tukwila. At both of these forums, Joe Miles stated flatly; "You can present your data; you can present your studies -- but we are going to ask for an environmental impact statement regardless." The position made is that, through attempts to discredit the level of study and data collection that went into the environmental checklist, they hope to place a question of doubt on the impacts analysis and the mitigation proposals presented. However, according to the Washington Department of Wildlife letter dated July 15, 1988, paragraph three, "The document is well done ... does a good job of laying out the expected impacts of this project." In paragraph five, the Wildlife Department goes on to state, "... however, the proponent has developed a mitigation plan which will reduce or compensates for those impacts to the extent that fish, wildlife, and water resources will not be lost." This is a report of a professional resource agency with a charge to protect fish, wildlife, and water resources in the State of. Washington. To expand on the general comments, I wish to review the letter signed by Jerry Adams and the attached notes of the conservation committee item by item: 2 • Mr. Jack Pace Tukwila Pond Center. EPIC- 11 -88. July 18, 1988 Item 1, page 1, Audubon letter : Water. The question of how much water will be diverted and where the surface waters will flow is an item that will be further evaluated at the next level of hearings. There is no reason for all runoff waters to be diverted from the pond. The initial discussion and emphasis to divert the water from the pond was based on a water quality assumption that the discharge of surface water to the pond would create adverse water quality problems and therefore should be avoided. Again, this is an item that can be further addressed in consultation with the City Engineers, Public Works, and at the next level of hearings. Paragraph 2. As documented in the project proposal, the fill will be a minimum of 75 feet from the top of the pond bank. With normal screening and silt protection devices as required by the City, it is highly improbable (if not to say impossible) that any of the soils placed on the upland would ever reach the pond. The driving of the piles in the pond will create initial turbidity with the breaking of the surface seal by the driving of the pile. There will be minor amounts of silt formed with the pile driving.. However, if you have an opportunity to examine pile driving in coastal waters, you will note that, once the pile is started, the amount of turbidity is almost negligible. There will be no auger cast piles placed into the pond. This would increase the amount of siltation by the auguring and increase the potential of concrete contamination of the water. This would also require a Section 404 Permit from the Corps of Army Engineers.' Again, placement and handling of the pile driving can be further scrutinized and discussed at the design hearings and during discussions between the developer and the City Engineers. Item 2 : Plants and Animals. The statement relative to ponds such as Tukwila Pond is accurate. There are at minimum five to six permanent ponds in the area that are utilized on a year- 3 Mr. Jack Pace Tukwila Pond Center. EPIC- 11 -88. July 18, 1988 round basis by waterfowl. However, the winter waterfowl which are a major concern to all of us concentrate in the ponded agricultural and pastured fields paralleling Highway 167 from 172nd Street in Kent to the Tacoma Federal Way Bypass. During the winter, there are 1500 -2000 acres of shallow, flooded pastured area that function as open water ponds with extremely high amounts of food, cover, and isolation for these birds. The birds that do use Tukwila pond are using it mostly as a loafing area. This has been determined by the lack of food organisms that are necessary staples for the birds that the Audubon Society addressed in their comments. Of particular interest are canvasbacks, which are clam /organic food users, the shovelers, which are bottom sediment feeders, ruddy ducks, which are divers, taking a variety of insect and fish life, and the green- winged teal, which is a dabbler that feeds on seeds and bottom sediments. The benthic study presented by Diane Robbins of Invert -Aid, demonstrated a number of things. The most significant things are that the bottom does not provide the deep, rich, organic detritus that is a staple for ruddy ducks and shovelers. Also, the pond does not support freshwater shrimp or other invertebrate macrophytes such as clams, mussels, etc. that are known staples for the canvasbacks. It demonstrates that these birds are using this area for loafing. This is a necessary component of their overall need, however, it is evident based on the lack of available food organisms, that these birds must fly out t� the Green River Valley to feed and loaf. Item 3. The comments relative to red - tailed hawks and Cooper's Hawks are correct. These birds use the upland area as a hunting ground. The prey, for both species, is small mammals such as mice and rabbits. At present these species are located on the . pond banks and on the upland habitat. With the development of 4 Mr. Jack Pace Tukwila Pond Center. EPIC- 11 -88. July 18, 1988 the uplands, the prey base will be reduced and the birds will be forced to go to a different hunting ground. I make note of the uplands for one specific reason: The Audubon Society stated that if the development was set back from the pond that they would probably have little problem and not request an environmental impact statement on the project. They, in this statement, are sanctioning the destruction of the upland habitat, which is the hunting ground for these raptors. Light, glare, noise and general disturbance : Item 4. Part of a discussion and recommendations for the general design of the project is to eliminate or reduce light, glare, noise and general disturbance to the maximum extent possible. With the proposed design, the backs of the buildings will form passive barriers. These passive barriers will block the traffic that is associated with the shoppers in the pond. One area, where service trucks will be coming behind the building, will be buffered by a vegetated mound with an added concrete wall on the development side of the mound. This combined height will be enough to block light, muffle sound, and keep trash or any other human impacts from expanding beyond the concrete pad. This type of a buffering was agreed to with the Washington Department of Ecology and the Washington Department of Wildlife at a working meeting two days prior to the hearing. This is a meeting that Joe Miles, of the Audubon Society, could not make. Item 5 : Land Use. Items under land use, again, bring in conflicting jurisdictions. A 50 foot native growth protective buffer beyond the wetland edge on this site would be 3.5 feet from the back edge of the trees. A 35 foot buffer with a 10 foot wide deciduous tree buffer would provide only limited protection to the resource. Under normal construction design, where service vehicles, employee parking, Dempsey dumpsters, trash, etc. are placed on the back sides of buildings, the amount of day -to -day activity within 30 -35 feet of the pond 5 • • Mr. Jack Pace Tukwila Pond Center. EPIC- 11 -88. July 18, 1988 would be significantly higher than the amount of disturbance that would occur behind the buildings with the proposed project. The argument could be made that these services could still be operated at the fronts and the ends of the buildings, however, as stated by the developer and as acknowledged by the Audubon Society and others, the movement of the buildings to the north would reduce the parking lots, which would require multi -story parking facilities. Multi -story parking facilities eliminate the capacity to access buildings with trucks, loading ramps, etc. Therefore, when multilevel parking is involved, it is almost universal that we find all of the service on the backs of the building, away from these types of stair -step structures. That completes the comments on the formal letter. The remainder of the comments relate to the field notes presented from the environmental committee. The Audubon Society has stressed a concern that studies and data identified in other studies were not presented. Two studies (Attachment 2 and Attachment 5), which were inadvertently omitted from the checklist, are attached to this report. We apologize for the oversight. The Bill Way fish report is a one page letter that says, basically, that there are brown bullhead catfish in the pond. The Springridge report is a preliminary report that was completed by IES Associates in 1983. The work is no more than the baseline data that was accumulated by IES Associates. This same data has been used in the 168th Street environmental impact statement, was presented as part of the CDA application, and was included within this checklist. In reality, the Springridge report is nothing other than a portion of the checklist, since it is part of a continuing series of surveys and internal reports that have been completed by IES. Page 7 , winter nesting survey, wrong time of year. H a d t h e Audubon Society taken the time to read the report on page 7, they would have found that we were conducting a survey of nests, 6 Mr. Jack Pace Tukwila Pond Center. EPIC- 11 -88. July 18, 1988 not nesting birds. The most opportune time to evaluate the number and types of birds nesting in the trees is during the winter, when the leaves are off the trees. At this time, the old nests are evident, and can be counted and positively identified using a bird nest field guide. Our intent was to determine the general level of nesting in the wooded area by counting total number of nests in relationship to the area of the tree cover. Because of the limited number of nests, no specific data was presented— A general comment that the number was generally low was based on simple field observations using binoculars, and the collection of an occasional nest to identify species using the area. Since the use was low, less than ten nests, we did not feel that there was a need to conduct a comprehensive survey of this small segment of nesting birds. Top of page 7 and 8, 1985 -1986 bird surveys detailed data. Reading the statement, it says; "Attempts were made to evaluate the impacts of human activity on waterfowl using the pond." No statement is made to determine the actual amount of use by different species of birds within'different periods of time. Our intent was only to determine if the pond was large enough to protect the birds from shoreline activity. As pond size diminishes, the stress created by shoreline activity intensifies. When it reaches a break point the birds will not move from one point of the pond to another to escape disturbance, but will immediately flush from the site. Our intent was only to determine if the area was large enough to allow the birds to move from point to point. The results indicate that this is a large enough area and that the birds, because of the size of the area, even though it is open water, were extremely difficult to flush. The Audubon Society attempted to make the point that our activity did not, in any way, reflect the level of disturbance that would occur with the development. The argument made in this point is that, unless people are deliberately coming to the pond to harass the birds, 7 Mr. Jack Pace Tukwila Pond Center. EPIC- 11 -88. July 18, 1988 the level of activity that we provided would be greater than the level of stress _that would be presented by normal viewing activity. Our intent was to harass, stress, and disturb the birds to the maximum extent possible to determine their response to harassment at the water's edge. Also, we should state that with the design of the project there will be no activity along the north edge of the pond. The only possible access would be along the west, south, and southeast corners of the site. This activity will be regulated by trails and paths, which will be designed at the next step of the design development process. This design will include the input from the Tukwila Parks Department, the Washington Department of Wildlife, the Washington Department of Ecology, and the Audubon Society. It is the intent of this project to reduce the impact to these resources. The next item is marked page 18, however in reality it relates to a comment on page 8. Raptors. They state; "Two years of surveys failed to indicate indicators of heavy use by any of the large raptor species? The sentence above this statement presents the procedure used, which is a common procedure used by raptor biologists throughout the United States. In areas where large raptors use hunting areas or trees in hunting areas for extended periods of time, they will defecate, creating whitewash in the trees. Also, all raptors (hawks and owls) regurgitate the hair and bone mass of their prey as a pellet or a cast. If, during an examination under of trees, large numbers of casts are found, we make the assumption that this area is a heavily used hunting and feeding area and that the tree is a permanent hunting perch. Our comment related to the fact that we were unable to locate any of these indicators on these large trees. This is only logical, however, since the hunting area provided for by the Tukwila Pond. 8 • • Mr. Jack Pace Tukwila Pond Center. EPIC- 11 -88. July 18, 1988 is much smaller than the necessary hunting rage for any large raptor. Hunting areas for red - tailed hawks are usually 100+ to 500 acres, depending on the wildness of the area and the presence of mammalian prey species, particularly larger species such as rabbits. Reptiles and Amphibians. As' stated in our introductory comments, we did not conduct detailed, extended studies of things such as snakes, frogs, etc. We did conduct preliminary studies which were of sufficient detail to give us an indication of the types of activity of indicator species such as red - legged frogs, bullfrogs, skinks and water salamanders which are obvious. The lack of the presence of these animals, which are easily identified by call and movement (ie. walking the bank will flush frogs readily into the water), indicated to us that the population at the water's edge of the pond itself was unreasonably low for, such a large body of water. We attribute this to the steepness of the artificial bank on three sides and the lack of a food base (ie. insect, particularly water bugs etc., and small fish) for the frogs in the pond. As stated, we did note the bullfrogs in the small pond in the upper corner. This area, because of its shallowness and the amount of emergent vegetation provides an excellent habitat for this species. Again, a complete survey of reptiles would only further identify those species that are found on the bank and the in the south half of the site, which will not be impacted by the development. Mammals. Comments relative to page 10, the mammal survey. The mammal surveys were based on observation of sign looking for runs and trails in the grass which would indicate the presence or absence of reasonable populations of different species of mammals. Persons who have experience in identifying sign can readily identify a variety of groups of mammals by sign. We 9 • Mr. Jack Pace Tukwila Pond Center. EPIC- 11 -88. July 18, 1988 also spent sufficient time on the site to flush cottontail rabbit, to see mice, etc. on the site. We did not do trapping studies, as this is a means of determining population densities, and would not supply additional information on groups of species. Audubon's argument is that population densities would reflect the level of use and therefore would reflect on the level of impact. Our statements that these species are present and are going to be impacted is recognition as required by SEPA. Koll - Creekside references. The Koll - Creekside was edited down to reduce the overall size of the document. In the editing, comments relative to the source of the data were inadvertently omitted. The Koll - Creekside Beaverton data is a compilation of observations by Rex Van Wormer of IES, who conducted the surveys. Gene Herb, Oregon Department of Wildlife, a regional biologist, has also been involved in observing the activities of birds in relationship to an overwater building. Our comments were based on personal communication and open discussion between Gene Herb and Rex Van Wormer. We normally do not include bibliographies in general biological reports unless they are incorporated in a document such as an environmental impact statement. We recognize, after this hearing, that this is a procedure that needs to be changed in the future. We are including a bibliography and /or copies of the databases that we referenced in our comments. Mr. Mills expressed a concern over the placement of islands in the pond. His point, that large islands would only take up open space that is required by the canvasbacks, was well- taken. However, construction of islands does not necessarily mean that five or ten acres of the pond needs to be turned into a nesting island. The most logical and the most productive islands would be finger islands that are narrow and long. Placing one of the islands near the east end, in front of the proposed restaurant area, and the second island along the north end in front of the 10 • • Mr. Jack Pace Tukwila Pond Center. EPIC- 11 -88. July 18, 1988 exposed promenade, would create a physical and visual barrier that would provide a hiding area to the southwest of these islands for waterfowl. The presence of linear islands with grass and shrubs would provide additional riparian edge, protected, isolated nesting and loafing areas which are not present on the site under existing conditions, and additional overwater shaded areas for insect production and fish use. In the discussions, Mr. Mills commented on the fish surveys, noting that, in certain areas the water was to deep and turbid for the shocker to work, therefore the collection of fish was taken in other areas. In no place did the study or the report indicate that we presumed that there were no fish in those other portions of the pond. The shocking was done for one specific purpose; to identify the presence or absence of fish as a means of determining the Hydraulics Permit jurisdictional authority by the Washington Department of Wildlife. It also gave us preliminary data on the types of fish that are present on the pond. The letter from the Washington Department of Wildlife and the letter from the Watershed Company indicate that they feel that the sampling gave an accurate reflection of the species composition throughout the pond. Required level of detail. The comment following the statement relative to bibliographies, again, argues the point that you cannot have accurate data or accurately assess the impacts to a general resource unless you know every bird and every mammal that uses the site, how many there are, and where they live. This data is a luxury that is lacking in most environmental studies related to environmental impact statements, checklists, etc. Unless a research study by a University or some other group has been conducted on the site or is being conducted at the time of the checklist survey, this data is normally not present. However, again, we argue that SEPA does not require this level of biological evaluation or identification if it can 11 • • Mr. Jack Pace Tukwila Pond Center. EPIC- 11 -88. July 18, 1988 be demonstrated that the general resource values are identified and the impacts are noted. We feel that the significant birds and mammals were noted as identified by the comments of the Audubon Society which reiterated their concerns for the same species. Invert -Aid study. In Attachment 1, they question the Invert -Aid study. Bottom samples were the only samples collected for a number of reasons. The most significant reason is that the species or waterfowl that were of concern commonly rely on bottom sediments, organisms that live in the bottom sediments, and /or invertebrate species that live in the water column. The data collected was collected for the single purpose to determine if there is a large, diverse benthic community or a dense, highly productive detrital layer on the bottom of the pond. The preliminary data from the plugs demonstrated the extremely low productivity of the area and the lack of an organic or detrital layer on the bottom of the pond. A statistical analysis would only have stated that there was a probability of X percent that the data presented was accurate. Even a 15 or a 20 percent increase in the number of organisms would not have indicated a productive bottom strata. The data presented in the Department of Wildlife July 15, 1988 letter relative to electroshocking further confirms our conclusion that the bottom is sterile and that the organisms, ie. fish, frogs, etc. that depend on an insect community or a detrital community in the pond, are foraging at the edge of the water. Timing of surveys. Surveys were conducted during the normal periods of highest brood production in western Washington. The surveys were keyed to the species that were the most commonly observed on the site, ie. teal, mallard, gadwall, and shoveler. At the time of the last survey, adult ruddy ducks, coots, and shovelers were still present, which would indicate that there was still a potential for breeding. However, the point is that 12 Mr. Jack Pace Tukwila Pond Center. EPIC- 11 -88. July 18, 1988 the area is not a highly productive breeding and brood rearing area. The presence of two sets of young on a 40 acre natural area is not reflective of a highly productive breeding or brood rearing habitat. Prior to and during the periods of our surveys, we received reports of broods on the site. These were usually reports of one brood of birds. We recognize that there is some nesting on the site. However, to consider the area a highly valuable breeding and brood - rearing area would require large numbers of birds produced throughout the breeding season. There is no evidence by any other people that this occurs. This comment was made only to reflect on a limitation of the site, not to downplay the value of the potential value of the area as a breeding and brood - rearing area within the Pacific flyway. It is our assumption that, with proper modification and protection, portions of the pond could be enhanced to provide better habitat. Nesting habitat. In statements not in their notes both members of the Audubon stated that waterfowl, ie. mallards, pintail, etc. go away from the water to nest on the uplands. For this reason, we spent a considerable amount of time walking through the upland areas in an attempt to locate nests or nesting birds. The lack of presence of these nests was attributed to the high amount of human activity that takes place on the upland portion of this site. Mr. Salser, in his letter, indicated that his dogs, which he runs on the site, flushed lots of mammals. He forgot to mention that these same dogs, running this same site, also provide stress and harassment that keep waterfowl from nesting on these extremely short grass, sparsely vegetated upland areas. He is only one of a number of people who run their dogs there. This includes one person who runs' a brace of six hounds on the site on occasion. An examination of the site also revealed a considerable amount of off -road vehicle tracks on the site. These levels of disturbance prevent the 13 S • Mr. Jack Pace Tukwila Pond Center. EPIC- 11 -88. July 18, 1988 utilization of even the best habitats by waterfowl. Their next page goes back to the same comments made earlier of pages 6, 7 and 8, arguing for the levels of study to provide every bird and mammal known on the site. Impacts of buildings. The next item, 18, again their comments are an attempt to push the statement out of context. The specific impacts that we are addressing and concerned with here are the impacts of buildings and the activities of buildings, once they are constructed, on wildlife. The other data, relative to human activity, relates to great blue herons and logging, to nesting activity and boating, to nesting activity and the running of dogs, to waterfowl use of an area and the presence of power boats, etc. None of the studies, other than a one - sentence statement in a Massachusetts Department of Parks Policy Report and data from surveys of the Koll - Creekside by Rex Van Wormer, discuss the effects of buildings, once they are constructed, on wildlife. Canvasback flushing study. The next item talks about the canvasback flushing study. Again, we argue that surveyors, maximizing their efforts to deliberately harass the birds, provides a level of impact that would be greater than the impacts of the project once it is constructed. We do not argue that construction activity will be greater and more intense than any level of activity that we have been able to concentrate on the site. However,- it is for this reason that the recommendations for the construction period are designed to stop construction at the period when it is demonstrated that the wintering migration is in and that the construction activities are impacting the birds. This has been refined by the Department of Wildlife and agreed to during our pre- hearing meeting with Ted Muller, that the end -of- construction date be set at November 1, with a restart time of April 15. This is an 14 • • Mr. Jack Pace Tukwila Pond Center. EPIC- 11 -88. July 18, 1988 understanding based on average winter migrations into western Washington. In our discussions with Ted Muller, he stated that if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service flyway data and the bird inventories in the Green River Valley indicate that the migration is late, that the construction window could be extended on a day -to -day or week -to -week basis. Nesting bird sensitivity. The next item is concerned with the data on page 13 relative to the Koll - Creekside study. The major two species of interest in the Koll - Creekside were mallards and red - winged blackbirds, along with green- winged teal, shovelers, and a variety of other wildlife species. The argument is that these birds are very tolerant of human activity. However wild mallards and wild red - winged blackbirds nesting are sensitive to human activity and will abandon nests. Our surveys demonstrated that, once the building was completed, the birds utilized an open water component adjacent to the building and utilized the area directly in front of the building. This is compared to an avoidance of 100 to 200 feet wide stretch of habitat abutting the parking lot, Dempsey dumpsters, flood lights, tennis court, and badminton court which abut the open space at the backs of the buildings on the other half of this same project. Page 24, question relative the mitigation plan and 168th Street. This is a legitimate question; a question which was raised by Ted Muller of the Washington of Wildlife, and a question which was considered in our mitigation design plan. As you note, a portion of the 168th Street right -of -way or projected alignment is private property of Spieker Associates. At present, it is the intent of this project to possibly utilize that area as a parking site for passive recreational users who wish to come on the south half of the site. The mitigation study makes the assumption that all of the riparian stream bank vegetation under the buildings will be destroyed. With this assumption, the mitigation area is 15 • • Mr. Jack Pace Tukwila Pond Center. EPIC- 11 -88. July 18, 1988 designed to provide 100 percent replacement of riparian edge. However, the design of the riparian edge will include a variety of known high wildlife use plants, with a level of diversity to provide additional types of habitats that do not occur under existing conditions. Under existing conditions, the banks that will be covered are predominantly invader, non - native Himalayan blackberry. Had the Audubon Society read the description and looked at the drawings, they would have realized that the emergent marsh is going to provide an open water /pond component where shovelers, teal, and a majority of the birds that use the area can escape during periods of stress. Under present conditions, a majority of the bird use, with the exception of the canvasback, exists in the southwest corner. When large populations of birds fly in for short stays, however they do spread over and utilize the entire pond. During these periods, the mitigation /open pond components will provide additional resting habitat for birds such as cinnamon teal and blue - winged teal, that like protected, isolated areas for loafing and feeding. Trees. On page 20, they have a concern for the planting of fruit trees, ie. for the loss of black cottonwoods. Page 26 of the mitigation plan, paragraph three, states specifically; "The boundary will be planted with a mix of black cottonwood [which is the species they are most concerned with], bigleaf maple, chokecherry, bitter cherry, and American plum." It does not preclude black cottonwood; it adds bigleaf maple, which is an even larger tree providing better perch habitat for •raptors than the black cottonwood, along with three berry- bearing trees with growth from 25 -50 foot tall. The intent was to provide values equal to those that are present plus a diversity that is not present. It should be noted that the level of detail provided in the pond is conceptual. Again, the final design of the 16 • • Mr. Jack Pace Tukwila Pond Center. EPIC- 11 -88. July 18, 1988 mitigation plan, including the plantings and the shrubs will be a discussion item at the design plan hearings and in discussions with the resource and regulatory agencies, Audubon Society, and the Tukwila City Parks Department. In conclusion, we go back to the major argument that the Audubon Society has presented. Their position is that an environmental impact statement would require additional studies. This is not totally true. An environmental statement could be written with an upgraded bird list, if that was required, an assumed or expected mammal list based on other studies in the general area, and an expected reptile and amphibian list based on literature studies. This would all legally satisfy the conditions of SEPA if the data identified major groups of species that could be impacted and the levels or types of impacts that would occur. It is our argument that this level of study would only be necessary if the Audubon Society had identified a general group of plants or animals that were significant but were not addressed in the document. The Audubon Society continually expressed concerns for waterfowl, mammals, raptors, small birds, and fish, all of which were identified. At no time did they identify a unique or critical group of species that was not specifically addressed in the text or identified in the partial bird list, but that was present and would be severely or significantly impacted. The letters from the Washington Department of Wildlife and Washington Department of Ecology's professional staffs do not agree with this assumption. Their letters express a feeling that the mitigation satisfactorily offsets the level of impact, therefore the level of impact is not significant. 17 • Mr. Jack Pace Tukwila Pond Center. EPIC- 11 -88. July 18, 1988 My objective as a consultant is to attempt to accurately address resource values and assist in the modifications of developments to provide maximum protection to the resource from the development, without eliminating the development. I concur with the Washington Department of Wildlife that, if the construction period of the development is properly monitored, the completed project will not have a significant impact on the existing waterfowl utilization of the pond. This constitutes my response to the Audubon Society's letter and comments. Sincerely, 18 R.L. Van Wormer Senior Biologist IES Associates ;I (JUL 18 1988 Mr. Jack Pace Planning Department Tukwila City Hall July 16, 1988 Mr. Michael Daley 3725 S.W. Rose St. Seattle, Wa. 98126 Dear Mr. Pace; It was with great interest that I attended the meeting Thursday night on the proposed Tukwila Pond development. .I can appreciate the developer wishing to begin construction, but we need time to coordinate all possible IES studies and fully understand what this means to the wildlife, since they don't have a say in the matter. As a jewelry designer I understand the challenges of working with space and size restrictions and deadlines. As a Seattle resident for 45 years I have witnessed the explosion of growth in the area and the resulting loss in farmland and open space. For three years I worked off Andover East and drove past the pond (out of my way, just for the view) every morning around 6:30 am. I often watched flocks of geese taking off to the East or Northeast, directly over the proposal area, flying low in a V formation, honking to each other as they gained altitude. The pond is also beautiful from many other viewpoints; the cattails and the red - winged blackbirds, the times when the mist is hanging over the water veiling birds perched on the posts. I am most concerned about the impact tall buildings will have on the flight path of the geese - and the difficulty they may have taking off on a shorter runway. Have your plans considered the angle of the sun and how it would affect plant growth under the building where it is on pilings? I an also concerned about increasing the traffic congestion on Strander - already near gridlock at certain times. I have noted there are many vacant buildings available in the area, including the one diagonally across the street and so must question the need for new construction when remodeling existing buildings seems more logical. We have depleted so much natural habitat in the Tukwila and Green River valley area. We must save what is left! Tukwila Pond should be set aside as a wildlife sanctuary. "All things are bound together. All things connect. What happens to the Earth happens to the children of the Earth. Man has not woven the web of life. He is but one thread. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself." -Chief Seattle, Duwamish Peoples, 1855. We are supposedly the most intelligent form of life on the planet, yet we live like rats, fighting and polluting ourselves out of existence. The looser through all of this is the wildlife - unless we tak ?ction now, the ultimate looser will be ourselves. ''' Sincerely Michael Daley Designers & Craftsmen to the Trade JC23 E, .9377-4LCY`, -Q,124".dg.fi:165/ 461 • JERRY NEAL Interim Director VI STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE Region Four Office -- 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard, Mill Creek, WA 98012 -- (206) 775 -1311 July 15, 1988 Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: FILE #EPI C- 11 -88; TUKWILA POND CENTER Dear J K JUL 18 1988 r Thank you for the invitation to the meeting on July 13, to review the status of this project. It was a good session and I believe we were able to exchange a lot of good information. I have reviewed the Environmental Assessment and Expanded Checklist which you sent and comments follow. The document Is well done and does a good Job of laying out the expected impacts of this project. As you are aware, a project of this magnitude -with the complicated (and unique) construction techniques mecessary to complete it, and in extremely close proximity to a sensitive fish /wildlife area -has the potential to produce significant impacts to that sensitive environment. However, the proponent has developed a mitigation plan which will reduce and /or compensate for these impacts to the extent that fish, wildlife, and water resources will not be lost. This assumes that the mitigation Is totally successful, that it is maintained in perpetuity, and that additional development and /or disturbance does not occur on the property -which would negate the mitigation improvements. For example, the City still has an open proposal "floating around" to construct South 168th Street. Incidentally, If the Tukwila Pond Center Is constucted, the City's draft E.I.S. for the street project would be obsolescent. Another factor which will contribute directly to the success or failure of the mitigation will be how the water quality /quantity of the pond is managed in the future. • • Jace Pace July 15, 1988 Page 2 The final factor effecting the success /failure of the mitigation will be people management. The mitigation is planned to minimize human encroachment into the nesting /loafing area of the site. The effectiveness of the mitigation depends on permitting only passive human use of that area. This restriction should be secured, either by encumbrance of the deed, or by ordinance -If possilbe. If ownership of the property should change hands In the future, it should be readily apparent to the new owner that part of the site has been permanently dedicated to a single use. The rest of this discussion will focus on specific impacts and on measures to mitigate or compensate for those Impacts. Fish : Approximately one thousand feet, or more, of shoreline will be partially shaded out by having buildings placed above it. The invertebrate sampling done by Diane Robbins revealed that the bottom sediments of the pond are fairly unproductive- compared with other waters. Yet, the pond supports a substantial population of brown bullheads (catfish). During our electro - shocking foray on the pond, I noted that a large number of these fish were concentrated near, or In, the emergent vegetation along the shoreline. This seems to indicate that the area Is providing the primary food supply (algae grazers, etc.). The fact that light penetration In the pond is poor, tends to strengthen this theory. Lacking data to prove, or disprove this theory, or to calculate the degree of food losses caused by shading- W.D.W. must assume that 100% loss will occur over all of the area - shaded out. We will, therefore, insist that the mitigation replace shaded -out shoreline at a 1 to 1 ratio. (This will become a condition of the required Hydraulic Project Approval.) This can be accomplished either by enlarging the mitigation area, or constructing Islands In the pond, or both. We would prefer to see some Islands Included, because this could facilitate better screening. Wildlife : Impacts upon wildlife will be most severe to avian species, and most pronounced during the construction phase. The • • Jack Page July 15, 1988 Page 3 proponent tells us that they must drive over nine hundred pilings, and that it will require three, or (perhaps) more, months. This will cause severe and prolonged noise impacts within the site. Once the fall migration of waterfowl has taken place, this degree of disturbance will be unacceptable. In our opoinion, it would make the pond essentially unusable by waterfowl during daylight hours. During the cold winter months, the degree of stress imposed by traditional pile driving (pneumatic hammering) would be Intolerable to wintering birds. If alternative methods for setting piling are available, they should be used. For example, sometimes pilings are placed by drilling holes and pouring cement. Obviously, this would not work in the water, but it might be a possibility in the upland area. We have also seen sheet piling (not cylindrical piling) set by vibrator. In either of the above methods, the only noise associated with the driving Is engine noise. Lacking the capability to use some alternative method of pile driving, we would ask the City to condition approval of the construction with a cutoff date for pile driving of November 1, and a restart date of April 15. Post - construction Impacts from noise, light, glare, and other human disturbances will be minimal because of the plan to adequately screen the human activity from the pond. The only exception is the restaurant deck. The proponent should prohibit use of the promenades built into the back sides of the larger buildings (except as fire escapes). They might also use some creative plantings along these areas, as well as around the restaurant deck and parking lot. Coupled with that, they should use non - reflective materials and a color scheme that will make the buildings blend into their natural environment. Water Resources : As stated earlier, control of the water surface elevation In the pond will be crucial to the success of the mitigation. There also must be a significant effort put forth to control the water quality. We recommend that roof runoff and parking lot runoff be separated. Roof runoff can be routed directly into the pond. However, parking lot runoff must be routed via grass -lined swale(s) In order to cleanse . • • Jack Pace July 15, 1988 Page 4 it of gas, oil, heavy metals, and other contaminants. The final step in mitigating impacts on this site involves an aggressive monitoring program, to assure the mitigation is performing as designed. This must be coupled with contingency management, so that corrective actions are taken as required. Thank you for sending your documents for revue, we appreciate the opportunity to comment. We hope these comments wil be helpful In reaching a decision on this project. TAM:kh cc: Habitat - Olympia Rex Van Wormer Joel Benoliel Sincerely, Theodore A. Muller Regional Habitat Program Manager ANDREA BEATTY RINIKER Director STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 4 July 15, 1988 Jack Pace City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Pace: JUL 18 1988 I am writing in response to your request for comments on the Environmental Assessment and Expanded Checklist for the Tukwila Pond Center project. As you know, I have made several visits to the project site and have attended two meetings with the applicant to discuss project design, impacts and appropriate mitigation. Based on my evaluation of this project I think it will have significant adverse impacts on the environment of Tukwila Pond. These impacts are summarized below. I also think it is possible to mitigate for many of these impacts. However, the current mitigation proposal does not adequately mitigate the impacts. In addition, I am not sure that we know enough to be certain that some of the impacts can be mitigated for. Following are my thoughts on the potential impacts from this project, the inadequacy of the proposed mitigation, and the need for additional information. IMPACTS - The proposed buildings would cover over 800 feet of shoreline along the north side of the pond. This will result in the loss of some significant trees and shrubs and vegetation along the bank and the associated habitat. - The shading out of 12% of the pond surface and bottom will impact the biological productivity of the pond. However, based on studies conducted by Invert -Aid, these impacts should be minimal. - The intrusion of the proposed buildings out over the water would have an impact on waterfowl use of the pond. The degree of impact is unknown but will be more significant for the sensitive species such as canvasback, teal, pintail, and gadwall. Mr. Jack Pace July 15, 1988 Page Two - The location of the buildings out over the water will have impacts on the visual /aesthetic values of the pond. - The construction of the overwater buildings, including driving piles, would have impacts on pond water quality and wildlife use. - Noise and activity from use and operation of the stores and restaurant would have an impact on wildlife (particularly waterfowl and wading bird) use of the pond. The presence of humans on walkways and observation decks along the back of the buildings will likely have the greatest impact. MITIGATION As I stated above, I think it is possible to mitigate for most of the impacts associated with this project. The proposed mitigation plan addresses some of these impacts adequately but fails to address others. The first step in determining adequate mitigation is to try to avoid impacts. In this case the best way to avoid impacts would be to limit construction to the upland portion of the site with appropriate setbacks. This alternative has not been proposed but the environmental document addresses it in the impact review. As I have stated from the beginning, I believe that this alternative would be the most preferable in order to protect the resource values of the pond. The second step in mitigation is to try to minimize the impacts. Some efforts to minimize impacts have been made with this project but others should be added. - The visual /aesthetic impacts of the buildings could be lessened by the use of a painting scheme that allowed the buildings to blend in with the surroundings. (Some type of appropriate "camouflage ".) - The impacts from the construction of the overwater buildings could be lessened by the use of equipment that minimized noise and the use of appropriate erosion control features. In addition, the timing of construction should be such that it does not conflict with the highest wildlife use of the pond. After consultation with recognized experts on Mr. Jack Pace July 15, 1988 Page Three waterfowl sensitivity and use of the pond, a date should be set for termination of overwater construction. - The impacts from human activity associated with the project could be minimized by limiting access along the rear of the buildings, locating dumpsters and loading areas away from the pond, and the use of. interpretive signing to inform people about the sensitive nature of the ponds inhabitants. The third step in providing mitigation is to rectify the impacts by restoring the affected environment. I don't see any potential for this with the proposed project. The last step in providing mitigation is to attempt to compensate for those impacts that are unavoidable by providing substitute resources or environments. The critical impacts that could be addressed through this option are those to wildlife and wildlife habitat. Following are parameters that would need to be included in an appropriate compensation plan. - foot - for -foot replacement of shoreline that would be essentially lost by construction of overwater buildings. - creation of isolated habitat areas for the more sensitive wildlife species. - enhancement of food sources for fish and wildlife species. The proposed wetland /shoreline creation plan addresses these parameters to a large extent. However, there would need to be additional shoreline created to provide for equal replacement of lost shoreline. The primary problem I have with the proposed creation plan is that there is not enough information to convince me that it would, in fact, be successful. There is a significant amount of information that must be presented before I would be convinced that the proposed creation plan would succeed. This includes the following. - The plan requires that water levels in the pond be at a certain elevation and remain there with little seasonal fluctuation. As our previous hydrologic investigation has determined, the water level in the pond has fluctuated greatly in recent years due to increasing development in the area and manipulation of the outlet control structure on the east side of the site. More research needs to be conducted to determine what the water level would be after • • Mr. Jack Pace July 15, 1988 Page Four construction of the buildings and excavation of the creation site and how this level would be maintained in the future. - A complicating factor is the handling of stormwater runoff from the site. At present, the plan is to divert this runoff to a storm drain system offsite. This water may be needed to ensure an adequate water supply to the pond. If this water is to be released into the pond it needs to be sufficiently filtered to prevent water quality degradation. If an adequate water filtration system could be designed it may be feasible to construct a system that would allow this water to be either released to the pond or diverted off -site as a way of maintaining an appropriate water level in the pond. This needs to be investigated further. - More information is needed on the type of soils found in the creation area. After excavation, will the remaining soils be adequate for supporting the hydrophytic vegetation proposed? - The use of the pond by a diverse number of bird species, particularly waterfowl, is one of its greatest values. One of my primary concerns about project impacts is how it would affect the more sensitive species. The studies cited in the environmental document address impacts from similar projects elsewhere. However, the studies assessed impacts on very human - tolerant species such as mallards and blackbirds. I have yet to see any documentation that asserts that more sensitive species would not be adversely impacted by a project such as this. I am not convinced that construction of a small, shallow habitat area in the Southwest corner would adequately mitigate these impacts. - Before final plans for the creation project could be finalized, more information is needed on what types of wildlife currently use that area. The environmental document is not specific on this - what species currently rest, breed, and feed there? In addition, I am not satisfied with the information on raptor use of the pond. More detailed information on current raptor use should be presented and steps should be taken to ensure that this use is not eliminated. Waiting 20 -30 years for adequate trees to grow is not sufficient. - With the presence of an abundance of reed canary grass and cattail in the vicinity of the creation area, how will these species be prevented from taking over the site? Mr. Jack Pace July 15,1988 Page Five - The creation site planting plan needs more detail but this could be worked out at a future point in the design process. - The proposed monitoring and contingency plans are not adequate. There should be specific criteria for evaluating whether the creation project has succeeded. This could include specific plant communities that must be established within a given time frame. The contingency plan should spell out what steps would be taken if the criteria for success are not achieved. In addition, a bond should be deposited which guarantees that the project is successfully completed. - Other issues would need to worked out regarding the future development of the south end of the property including plans for human access. At the least, any permits for this project should spell out that the goal for this part of the property is to provide for wildlife habitat and open space and that any human access would have to compatible with these uses. In summary, I believe that there would be significant adverse impacts to the Tukwila Pond environment from the proposed project. I believe that most of these impacts could be mitigated for. However, current mitigation plans are incomplete and additional information is needed before I would be convinced that adequate mitigation is being provided. Typically, this type of information should be provided in an Environmental Impact Statement. However, I think this information could be provided as an addendum to the expanded checklist. The key is that the information is provided and an adequate mitigation plan is designed. If you have any questions regarding my comments please give me a call. I will also be glad to review and comment on any additional documentation on this project. Sincerely, t Andy % cMillan Wetlands Section 206/438 -7428 cc: Joel Benoliel, Spieker Partners Ted Muller, Dept. of Wildlife Joe Miles, Audubon Society T. f JUL 1 5 1988 Y OF- 1.‘..f.vViLA PLANqn DEPT. a14 64Ai a7tr,-a,d 7 2 a% a dke, ' G„_ ,y& A:6 4J Ac64 3 C /-4- GrA09-1 44-0/% greh 1frr,-0 j1g 1&49-1,,, [90S 4- Xz,f,v a0/ a Alje, dypr, (4144_, Ati-xd d ./L,- 5, X/4 14=y- Cp-rAo Pvc7--g A;A- /11.1.17-. 2-h,/w k4 irk (71.)1,02 Acak_. 014,,/ IA,t,11.4-11,t44,2i A., kA,t(L &6/Lei A4,vit4 yL/ kyre4 tL 74 6tt>etr kkjf(p, 4 /A°4 5-2. ,SD-, /4 CV( ,/rx_tat yt p_61 hr x itzeit /at, tA91t■e/ f (--t Z ,L4/ a'14f t41+/L 4/4-6/ 47 /t/ /r,/ • /(de-c r P Wt_4 /444.1 ,c;z€ ;64 A49-0 Z4/-ve 1/-7 av6-0 ck7-4 eii„,4 t t. 6 00 LA> t , ttois Val czz 924 t'e, V -ES A.* kii 1:,■.') ( JUL 14 1988.1 9'168 I ccaitic Audubon OSothctp Washington Nonprofit Corporation 619 Joshua Green Building • Seattle, WA 98101 • 206/622 -6695 July 14,:11988 Mr. JackPace, Senior Planner Cityof Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Tukwila Pond Center File Number: EPIC -11 -88 Dear Mr. Pace, The Seattle Audubon Society is comprised of over 4,500 members and is incorporated as a non- profit organization under the laws of the State of Washington. The Society is dedicated to the protection, preservation and enjoyment of wildlife, plants and their supporting habitats, and to the conservation and wise use of energy, water and natural resources. We are concerned about environmental issues throughout King County, including the Green River Valley and the City of Tukwila. Our Conservation Committee has reviewed the proposed retail shopping center and has identified the following list of probable significant adverse environmental impacts: 1. Water; movement /quantity /quality. The proposed project will divert surface water flows . currently entering the pond to the street storm sewer'_ system. The project proposed to increase the size -of the pond by dredging out the upland area located along the western shoreline. Tukwila Pond is a shallow body of water. The diversion of water away from the pond and dredging the western upland will lower the surface elevation and poses a probable and significant impact to the ecosystem which currently exist. The project proposed to place fill on the upland area surrounding the pond and to drive or augercast piles into the pond. The placement of fill and pilings presents a probable and significant impact by increasing turbidity and decreasing the water quality of the pond and the down- stream system including the Green River. Mr. Jack Pace July 14, 1988 Page Two 2. Plants and animals; habitat /unique species /wildlife migration route. Few ponds such as Tulwila Pond remain in the entire Green River Valley. The-proposed construction of the project will eliminate or alter significant portions of the existing upland, shoreline and open-water habitat. The pond is used by a variety of unique wildlife species including birds of prey such as Red - Tailed Hawks and Cooper's Hawks and migratory waterfowl such as Canvasback, Shovelers, Green - winged Teal and Ruddy Ducks. The alteration of habitat included in this project proposes a probable significant adverse impact to the unique and migratory species of wildlife which currently use Tukwila Pond. 3. Transportation The project includes a retail shopping center and rest- aurant, both of which will increase the volume of traffic and provide a significant impact on the existing trans- portation system in Tukwila. 4. Light, Glare, Noise. and General Distrubance The wildlife which currently uses Tukwila Pond is pro- tected from light, glare, noise and general disturbance by the existing vegetative buffer and the lack of human, vehicular or structural intrusion. The project proposes to extend buildings out into the pond over the northern and western shorelines, a restaurant deck over the eastern shoreline, and a viewing deck over the southeastern shore- line. Also, the City of Tukwila is proposing to construct a roadway (S. 168th Street) across the southern wetland shoreline of Tukwila Pond. this poses a significant and probable adverse impact to the wildlife currently utilizing Tukwila Pond. 5. Land Use In the "Tukwila Pond Report" prepared in 1973 for METRO, under the "Draft Guideline for King County Wetlands" Tukwila Pond was given a rating of "Significant ". Wetlands rated "Significant" within unincorporated King County received a 50 -foot native growth protection buffer beyond the wetland edge with an additional 15 -foot building setback from the buffer. While the pond: and it's associated wet- lands are under the jurisdic,tiOtm ofithe City:of'Tukwila which apparently has no wetland ordinance, this project appears to be inconsistant with surrounding land use policy. Mr. Jack Pace July 14, 1988 Page Three • • Therefore, we find that there is at a minimum a reasonable probability that this project will present more than a moder- ate effect on the quali.ty.of;,.the environment.. Our Conservation Committee has reviewed the "Environmental Assessment and Expanded Checklist" for the proposed project, dated June 30, 1988. The review found that the document has many shortcomings. The document draws environmental conclusions . from no or very limited data. Portions of the document are missing, and the limited data that is presented frequently contradicts itself. A detailed critique of the document is attached to this letter. In summary, the Seattle Audubon Society feels that Tukwila Pond is a unique and sensitive area important to wildlife as well as to the citizens of Tukwila. While we are not opposed to a development which provides a suitable buffer and an appropriate building setback from the wetlands which surround Tukwila Pond, we maintain that this project presents several probable significant adverse impacts to the environemnt. The City of Tukwila should not act on this proposal with the current environmental information submitted by the developer. The only reasonable course of action is for the City to require an En- vironmental Impact Statement which will present alternative designs which will not significantly impact the environment of Tukwila Pond and the surrounding community. Gerry Adams Vice President • City of Tukwila 6200 Sbuthcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor City of Tukwila PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Tukwila SEPA Official will hold a public hearing: July 14. 1988 7:00 p.m. City Counc'l Chambers at Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188 The purpose of the hearing is to obtain public corments on the following project: File Number: EPIC- 11 -88: Tukwila Pond Center Location: The intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West, south of the Southcenter Mall. Applicant: Spieker Partners Request: A retail shopping center of approximately 238,000 square feet along Strander Blvd., on a site of approximately 39 acres; the retail development will cover 13 acres of the site, including approximately 1.8 acres of Tukwila Pond; the remaining 26 acres are to be set aside for open space. Additional information can be obtained at the City of Tukwila, Planning Depart- ment. Written comments need to be postdated no later than July 14, 1988, and mailed to:' Planning Department Attn: Jack Pace, Senior Planner 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Published: Valley Daily News - Sunday July 3, 1988 *METRO • • Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 July 14, 1988 Rick Beeler, Planning Director 6200 Southcenter Blvd. City of Tukwila Tukwila, WA. 98188 Determination of Non- Significance File No.: EPIC -15 -88 City of Tukwila Dear Mr. Beeler: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to its wastewater facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, Gregory M.Bush, Manager Environmental Planning Division GMB:plg • • As a local citizens group we are opposed to the development of Tukwila Pond as presently proposed. We feel any project at the Pond should be required to prepare an EIS. The Pond becomes more important every year. Although this SEPA checklist is thick, it does not take the place of an found nothing relating to the effect on the depth or size of the pond because of the_clpvering of open ground by the structures and pavements. 33% of the surface will be covered. Water that would normally soak into the open ground will now be directed elsewhere: How much will go3 into newly constructed drainage and how much will go into the pond? Will the new drainage take part of the water that now goes into the Pond? What vegetation will continue to grow under the proposed buildings that will project over the Pond? Will what is presently there, rot? What effect will this have on the Pond? What percent of edging vegetation will be lost by the projecting buildings? These and many other questions must be thoroughly studied and mitigations acknowledged in a formal Environmental Impact Statement. May I go through the Checklist, briefly? First Spieker purchased the property in March of 1988. They obviously already knew the history of the site at that time; and made the purchase anyway. So, they knew the Pond was considered any environmentally sensitive area. They knew that others before them had attempted to "mess with the Pond" so to speak...and failed to come up with an acceptable plan. They knew the City of Tukwila felt very strongly about this property and its protection. • SECTION 2, conclusion #3... "sets the stage for creation of a publicly owned and maintained "arboretum- like" passive recreation system, including the Pond in an undisturbed state" FIRST...explain "publicly owned "? does the applicant intended to donate the Pond area to the City? SECOND... If the applicants design is used in its present form... that is..buildings over the Pond... How can the Pond be in an undisturbed state? SECTION 3 Listed are Shops, Dept. Store, Restaurant and Anchor I regret to say I am not familar with the term "anchor" as used here. What is it? SECTION 5 page 3 #13...Here ittis stated that the proposal contains "environmentally sensitive" yet in SECTION 5 page 12 #H.. the applicant states that no part of the site has been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area. Are we discussing two different sites ?.,a:Does the applicant understand which parcel is being dealt with here? SECTION 5, page 4 #E...75000 cubic yards of gravel fill to bring building areas and parking areas to grade. Nowhere could I find a reference to the effect the noise and vibration this will cause will have on the Pond and its inhabitats and users. SECTION 5, page 6, #2...Applicant says to see Section 2 for attached plan and design intent...No plan there. Also refers to letter from Dept. of Army which says only that no permit is required to drive piling into pond. Section 6 contains a very general map which shows the position on the site of the proposed buildings. Is this the applicants Plan for the work over the Pond? SECTION 5, page 13, #10 a...The tallest height of any building is listed as 42 feet. Is this the limit allowed under present zoning? or could the buildings be higher, with more stories, thus eliminating the need to build over or near the Pond? SECTION 5, page 15, #C...Applicant expects to furnish 1210 parking spaces, plus 14 for the handicapped. Expected employees is listed as 220 to 230, which leaves approximately 1000 spaces for the customers. the buildings will generate a total of 11,000 car trips per day 0 Arethe correct logistics being used to allow for parking for ,may only 10% of the daily customers at any one time? 4.54 SECTION 5, page 14 #11 A...Since lights in the parking areas will be on in the evenings...would that not produce light or glare rather than none as listed here. What mitigation? 3 SECTION:8, page 3, Fish...The shocking method of determining how many and what kind of fish are present... The deeper depth of the NORTH EDGE OF THE Pond prevented analysis. Therefore, it appears, it was assumed there were no fish there. Is this a valid conclusion? Certainly doesn't seem so to me. If you don't see them...they aren't there... is not particularly scientific or accurate. SECTION 8, page 13...The intrusion of the buildings on the Pond wildlife would seem to be a direct impact not an indirect impact as stated here. SECTION 8, page 13..states wildlife are expected to readily adjust to the buildings as proposed. Will they really? Perhaps the disturbences caused by building, driving piling, filling with gravel tt7.!11; will drive the wildlife away permanently ama, and there will be none /et to adjust. SECTION 10, letter from GEO ENGINEERS...second page...states... depending on building loads and construction schedules, a portion of the planned buildings may require pile foundations. May require? One assumes GEO ENGINEERS have been informed of the general building plans by the applicant. Yet GEO ENGINEERS thinks pile foundations may be required. Is there an alternative to the piling. Perhaps a flotation device? or a sky hook? If the Engineers have been so poorly informed as to not consider the present plans to definitly• require piling. then how seriously should we take the rest of their comments? On the other hand, if they have been properly informed and have chosen to ignore this necessity, again, How seriously should we take the rest of their comments? On the same page, GEO ENGINEERS „?does talk about pile foundations.. and that they will extend into the intermediate or deep sand layers. These sand layers according to GEO ENGINEERS,begin approximately 40 feet below the surface. That's.a lot of piling. It must cause problems for wildlife.:. There is-no mention of.the piling being in the water or the buildings being over the water....o.... I have not discussed the birds because the Audobon Society can do it so much better... But we are still very concerned with their welfare. These are only some of the problems found in this SEPA assessment and checklist and they only serve to point out the need for a full ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT before this project goes any further. s �4 • ir771: From To 50 (4,0 • The Counseling 4trJUL 14 1988 Darrell W. JohnsOn . • Pe /7-0-sV ?lax) -LQ-0-. Athn Ja_ ,Pa_cJi_?soAtu:th -pLaAuvLor (oa op ..ou coAda Bo L eoc or ctL - -bL L .56noc l DL .a �= i-pct -Q- -la w Jr\ccioaca c4- Y\(\,Lue otirv\cdL J4e, '1 s ave` -0.- 66 o-, -fin sQ}nvw T± \2- • r a. ..& - . Tt J ' • .p bra.. c.0vti c L --1JA,L,e) auna Usk. aay n - Auta) ggiqg_ Otet-c._)20 GAG r 4c Lj(-0L-4-4 J�� To: Rick Beeler Dept. of Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Tukwila Pond • %--% r3� - 79 -8.8 (JUL151988 I am concerned about the purchase of the Tukwila Pond by The Spieker Partners of Bellevue, and the proposed shopping center for this area. This is one of the few open and natural areas left in this part of Tukwila, and it is a very important stop for migratory birds. Please take the time and care to evaluate this proposed land use for its long term impact on our environment, as well as the effect of yet another shopping center in this area. I understand that the Planning Department can issue a DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE for this project, which would require an Environmental Impact Statement from the developers. Please do this so that the full impact of this proposed development is explored, along with alternatives! This area is also critical to the drainage of the Southcenter and Parkway Plaza areas, and is an oasis of green in a heavily paved and developed portion of Tukwila. I would hope that a better use for this land can be found. It is surely possible to preserve this small area in its natural state, yet use the edges of this land to provide quiet, non - destructive recreational access for the residents and daytime workers in this area. This pond could be a beautiful park with major portions maintained in a (somewhat) natural state to support the migratory birds. I hope this option will be considered by the city of Tukwila. Sandra J. Stowell 2225 Jones Ave. NE, Renton, WA 98056 Member, Seattle Audubon Society cc: Tukwila City council Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner Department of Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 815 S 216th Street #27 Des Moines, WA 98198 -6396 July 13, 1988 C 91�rn r \A;; ,fry JUL 15 1988 Dear Mr. Pace: We were disturbed to hear that a developer is hoping to build a structure over a portion of Tukwila Pond but pleased that the Department of Planning is considering the proposal and is seeking public reaction. We would not want to stand in the way of any project that would provide a long -term worthy addition to the community. We do object to any project that sacrifices the beauty and the long- term value of the environment for the sake of economic gain. Therefore we urge the issuance of a Determination of Significance to determine whether the proposal is the best way to achieve a worthy goal or whether it threatens to reduce our already dwindling environmental resources. Sincerely y our A-? / Kore K. Simp Clarence -imps July 13, 1988 Mr. Rick Beeler Department of Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler, I j�! JUL 141988 I have recently learned of the possibility that the Tukwila Pond may be used to develop a shopping center. I strongly support the need to issue a Determination of Significance for this project. It is important to do everything reasonable to protect remaining natural water sites used by migratory birds. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Alice C. Yvanovich 11513 Stone Ave. N #334D Seattle, WA 98133 July 13, 1988 Mr. Rick Beeler Department of Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 -Dear Mr. Beeler:- Ric , uaroihers ciate JUL 141986 Having only recently become aware that there is another attempt afoot to develop the Tukwila Pond site, I wish to express my opinion that the City should issue a 'Determination of Significance' on the proposed action, thus requiring that a full EIS be required. Very truly yours, ICHARD CAROTHERS ASSOCIATES ichard Caro resident RAC /lu Land & Site Planning /Civil & Utilities Design /Landscape Architecture Eight Fourteen East Pike Street, Seattle, Washington 98122 Telephone (206) 324 -5500 June 13, 1988 CITY OF • TUKWILA • RECD /F0 JUN 1 3 1988 JUL 13 1988 RICK BEELER, PLANNING DIRECTOi "'�`` -` 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD! 1:1- 7 TUKWILA, WASH. 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler; The Tukwila McMicken Action Committee is very disturbed with the plans for the Tukwila Pond area. We feel we must object to the present plans to drive pilings into the Pond to support buildings. We agree that diving piling won't have the same effect as dumping fill into the Pond. However, the effect will still be extremely serious. Driving piling and the subsequent building activity will definitely disturb the life in and around the Pond. The Pond surface and floor will suffer with the movement of mud and dirt. The vibration from sinking the piling has a potential for killing what fish are now in the Pond and disturbing any nests around the edges, plus the wildlife. As a concerned group of Tukwila Citizens we feel our City must require a complete Environmental Impact Statement before any further consideration is given to the development of this property. We cannot express concern strongly enough. We would like to be notified when the Environ- ment? Impact_ Statement is ready for viewing We would also like to be informed of any public meetings or contemplated action involving the Tukwila Pond property. Thank you. TUKWILA McMICKEN ACTION COMMITTEE Dharlene West, President 5212 So. L64th Tukwila, Wa. 98188 cc; MAYOR Gary Van Dusen Tukwila City Councilmembers i July 13, 1988 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Attention: Mr. Rick Beeler JUL 13 1988 CiTY 01- PL.ANNIffs,r ; "..; gip; Re: Spieker Partners, Project Developer Environmental Assessment & Expanded Checklist Tukwila Pond Center Dear Mr. Beeler: As a private party, I have enjoyed visits to "Tukwila Pond" since 1974. My main interest in these visits is to observe the bird life which can be found there throughout the year. I have commented in the past on various proposals concerning the developemnt of the pond site. This includes the pending EIS for South 168th Street. I would now again like to offer my comments on the Spieker Partners proposed development for the pond site. I will make my comments in the same order as presented in the Environmental Assessment and Expanded Checklist as submitted by MacKenzie /Saito & Assocs, P.C., dated June 30, 1988. Refer to the Design Intent, Section 2, page 2, 4th para.. There is no question that the pond is a man -made phenomenon, but the flora and fauna that currently exist at and use the site are not. They are there because a unique environment was created in a heavily developed area. This flora and fauna provide a pleasant break from the buildings and asphalt that are all to common to the area. It is very apparent that the pond is the focus as the sensitive area for this site, but there is also considerable upland area involved. This land area is also important to the envirnoment that has been created. The upland areas provide cover for nesting passerines and waterfowl, area for feeding and excellent habitat for small mammals. The site must be considered as a whole, pond- riparian shore - upland area. All of these combine to make this site unique and complete. Refer Section 2, page 3, para. 3, Concept and Approach. Even the developer recognizes the uniqueness of the pond as a significant area for waterfowl and that development of the site "must be compatible with the continued existence of the pond ". The proposed development does allow for continued existence of the pond, but this development certainly cannot enhance nor be J compatible with the existence of the birds, mammals and plants that are currently found at the site. Reference is made in regards to "legal public access ". This type of statement is certainly negative, in my interpretation, and grossly out of place. I do believe it sets the tone of the report and attitudes. Refer Section 2, page 4, para. 1. I would like to take issue with the statement that "...there is a tremendous unmet demand for additional shopping center facilities in the vicinity of Southcenter Mall ". This is the opinion of the developer. The Southcenter area has been already been overdeveloped with inadequate planning for public services and traffic flow. (Refer to the Draft EIS for South 168th Street, dated June 1987.) I am not aware of anyone that has designated Tukwila the "Shopping Capital of the Northwest ". People are currently avoiding downtown Seattle because of the congestion and inconvenience. Additional congestion will certainly not encourage people to seek out Southcenter. Refer Section 2, para. 2, Conclusions, comment 3. "Aboretum- like" areas are conducive to overuse resulting in deplacement of "shy" species, over population by such birds as Canada geese (see recent problems with this all around greater Seattle), and wild species displaced by aggressive "cross- breeds" of ducks and geese. There are many examples of this in the area. It is refreshing to have a truly "wild" population. Refer comment 4. "Beautiful Downtown Lake Bellevue" is currently surrounded by restaurants and office buildings. It is an excellent example of the type of diversity. that is sacrificed for restaurant and office uses. It is a stagnant pond with aggressive geese and ducks (including cross - breeds and domestics) with limited use by migratory birds. The pond should not be considered as an "amentity" for restaurant users and shoppers, it should be considered and appreciated for what it is (in conjunction with the "non- pond" areas). Refer section 5, page 3, question 13. This project will indeed have "negative environmental impacts ". To believe that this project won't, shows a very naive understanding of the interactions of various habitats in relatively small areas. The "non- pond" area is important to the pond for various reasons including nesting, feeding and as a buffer from the exisitng heavy development that exists. Refer page 8, item 4b. The amount removal is not specified. The amount will be significant to to the site. It should be addressed. Refer section 5, page 9, item 9a. Bald eagle observed April 1988. Refer section 5, page 9 item 5d. The current site has not required "visual screening" to develop to its current state. No enchancement is needed currently, but no amount of enhancement can make up for the loss of habitat this project will require. Refer section 5, page 14, item 12a. The pond is already available for passive uses, no further action is required. Refer section 7, Tukwila Pond Center map. Simply viewing the map shows the extensive development proposed for the site. The entire north and north east pond border will be destroyed. There is "mitigation" noted in the southwest corner. This is a poor substitute for the lost habitat. Refer section 8, page 1, Introduction. As stated in the introduction, information was based on past studies and "studies completed during April -June 1988 ". This is a extremely limited time period. During this short observation period, you certainly cannot observe the total bird use of the pond. This period does not even include one of the two major migrations or the wintering period. It would appear that limited observations were made to "fast track" the developemnt. More extensive, year round observations are required to appreciate and document the full use of the pond site, including "uplands ". Page 3. No mention was made of the snail population which inhabits the pond. Unless I misunderstood invertebrate zoology, snails are a mollusc. Further evidence that the study and observations may have been rushed. Page 4 -5. Because of my observations of feeding birds, with binoculars, I do feel that other species besides brown bullhead do inhabit the pond. A simple beach seine could establish this, further study and comments are needed. Page 5 -6. I find it unacceptable that this report includes the statement that no waterfowl broods were seen during the 1986 or 1988. The pond has contained broods of pied - billed grebes, mallards, coot and gadwall every year since at least 1980. There has been occasional success by Canada geese. Again, this indicates incomplete surveys or observations by the responsible parties. I have located nest of waterfowl every year since 1978. This includes the area on the north, northwest and northeast boundaries. The steepness of the bank is not a limiting factor to success of the mallard broods. With the available cover, they nest very successfully there. Any natural nesting habitat is subject to predation, this is not significant to this report. Page 7. The "palustrine emergent wetland in the southeast corner of the site" does provide excellent habitat and is an extensively used nesting area for the mallards and other dabbling ducks. This area has also been utilized by Canada geese. Page 7 -8. Raptors do hunt extensively on this site. I have made trips to this area at least once a month since 1976 and it was rare not to see at least one buteo or accipiter perched in a tree or actively hunting. The amount of rabbit "kills" is further • • evidence of this. Page 8. Canvasback are used as the example of the birds that were difficult to flush. It should be noted that this species tends to congregate in the middle of the pond and are difficult to flush. The teal, shovelers and mallards tend to utilize the pond perimeter and and willow thickets, and consequently, are more sensitive to disturbance. Page 9. Even though the southwest corner was defoliated during the survey, this area is used extensively by migrating waterfowl. The defoliated vegatation still provide valuable cover and security for many of the waterfowl. "Amphibians and Reptiles" Again I find it totally unacceptable that there were no bullfrogs were located in the main pond. On any sunny day in the spring or summer, numerous bullfrogs can be found "sunning" on the pond perimeter. This is yet another indication of the lack of detailed observations. This report evens states "Other reptiles may be present in the understory, but were not identified because of the limited nature of the study ". It should be apparent that futher studies are needed for all areas of biological evaluation before this development is even considered. These species tend to use the uplands and shoreline extensively, but certainly did not receive the attention deserved. Page 10. My observations of the mudflat do indicate heavy use by raccoons, based on tracks in the mud at low water. Muskrats have also utilized the pond, but I have not seen any this year. I have run my dog on this site, and I assure you that there is more than adequate cover for the escape and concealment of any mammal. This is particularly true of the northern border with the heavy cover of black berries. Page 12 -13, Impact Analysis of Proposed Alternative. The proposed development, even with mitigation, cannot make up for the lost habitat. The mitigation only addresses the lost pond area, but this site also contains upland, which is significant and important to the pond as a whole. This upland already provides the necessary "buffer" from the exisiting developments. Page 14. Even this report mentions that extended studies are required to determine the exact effects on different species of birds. This statement admits that the scope of this report is limited and further study is required to adequately determine the effects of this development. The statement pertaining to the upland properties is a nice attempt to down -play the effect on the uplands. It is mentioned that "...wildlife use of this area is limited to small mammals and birds..." This is an interesting statement, to say the least, what else is there!!! (Special Note: The northern upland was seeing considerable use prior to the unauthorized draining of the area.) Page 14 -16. While the "slow down" in construction during peak migration or waterfowl utilization of the site sounds appealing, I have never seen it on a project of this scope. I would challenge the developers acutal intent with this proposal. It • • sounds good, but I doubt that it will ever be a reality. It is mentioned that blackbirds and mallards moved during construction, but these species are not that sensitive to human intrusion and represent a poor example. This is not the Koll- Creekside in Beaverton, it. is Tukwila Pond. Page 18. This report states that "...the presence of buildings should not effect exisiting winter waterfowl activity. ", but clearly states this is based on "limited data ". The report goes on to state that "...human activity does effect nesting birds" with no substaniation of how buildings as buffers impact wildlife. Page 18 -20. The pond already provides the needs of the waterfowl utilizing the site. By proposing mitigation, the report is indicating that this project will have a negative impact on the waterfowl that are currently using the pond. There is also a cattail stand in the northeast corner of the pond, did the observers miss this too? While the mitigation sounds good, how does the developer intend to mitigate for the uplands. These uplands are mentioned occasionally, but are a significant part of the pond site. They are important to the environment that has been created and allowed to exist on this site. Page 20 -23. Impact Conclusions. There is a limited number of trees already exisiting on the site. The loss of the trees on the north, northwest, and northest, will mean a substantial amount of the trees will be removed, not a "limited amount ". The proposed mitigation does not allow for this tree loss. The current pond /border provides an adequate hunting buffer and protection for prey. Page 24 -27. Mitigation and Enhancement. The proposed mitigation design would sacrifice additional upland areas. Again, what mitigation is proposed to "replace" the upland which will be converted to parking lots and buildings? The comment is made that the building located in the southwest corner "will be windowless and designed to provide a physical buffer between the mitigation area in the lake and the parking lots and traffic access points designed for the north half of the development ". Again, this sounds good, but in refering to the site development map in section 7, it should be noted that the area immediately south of this "buffer" is intended to be used for truck loading /unloading and as the site for a compactor. This type of activity is very noisy and certainly does not follow the intention of a "buffer" area. Page 28. Biological Values. The intent of the mitigation, as stated, is to extend the habitat type created in the southeast corner. This southeast corner is utilized sparingly by the migrating waterfowl. In fact, the small pond found there is seasonal. The waterfowl are mainly found in the open pond water and willow stand located in the southwest corner. This willow stand already provides the cover required by young ducks and migrating species. Page 29 -30. Computer analysis shows a "considerable increase in overall biological value to most waterfowl species ". The key word here is "most ", specifically, what species will be harmed by this development. Detailed observations, would show heavy open water use by more species than just canvasbacks. This report acknowledges that limited data exists as to the effect of "building buffering" for active or passive waterfowl use. Impacts are expected to be limited, the key here is expected. Review of similiar developments could certainly provide information on the effects of this project. Page 30 -31. Monitoring. Again this sounds like an excellent idea, but what are the results and corrective measures to be taken if the impact to waterfowl is substantial? Little of the site would remain to further mitigate for the lost upland and shoreline habitat. Attachment 1 - Invert -Aid Letter Report. I will agree that the site may have limited benthic organisms due to the low oxygen levels in the pond. I do not think that it is appropriate to compare this site with such areas as Lake Sammamish and Lake Union. They are certainly not similar to Tukwila Pond. Again, I note the lack of reference to snails, they are molluscs. Attachment 4 - 168th Street Biological Report. I have provided previous comments on this report and have attached a copy to cover the comments contained in this section. It is important to note that thie 168th Street-Report is still pending and should be used for reference only. I would like to stress that the list covering the birds identified on the Pond is limited, based on my personal observations. The numbers of each specie are also questionable. I have many times observed thousands of waterfowl utilizing the pond at one time. The 168th Street Report is also limited in covering the nesting species that are found at the site, both waterfowl and upland birds. It is apparent from review of the Environmental Assessment presented by Spieker Partners, that the biological studies and inventory of the site are limited. This is mentioned in the report and further substantiated by my personal observations. Noting the time frame involved; property purchase in March 1988, published document in June 1988; there is no way that proper environmental inventory or year -round use can be documented. This project does merit a detailed Environmental Impact Statement, not an Environmental Assessment and Expanded Checklist. There are many comments, contained in other reports that refer to the Tukwila pond site as "a valuable stopover for migrating waterfowl "; the site is "already stable and providing excellent and rare habitat "; "Any development within the Tukwila Pond area would adversely affect widlife and result in a reduction in both • • the numbers of individuals and diversity of wildlife species. ". I would like to take the following statement from a report dated December 1979, Tukwila Pond Center, Chartwell Development Corp.: "The variety and productivity of the site are unmatched on any comparably sized site in the Green River Valley or greater Seattle area ". This is a strong statement and does reflect the unique nature of the site. Tukwila has experienced extensive growth at the expense of open area. This growth has also created major traffic problems, which are still not resolved. Tukwila pond provides a truly unique environment and it should be retained in its present state. This site has evolved without mitigation or other intrusions and development, as proposed by Spieker Partners, certainly will not enhance the area. I feel that the Spieker Partners development will have substantial effects on the entire site and certainly warrants further studies. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the preceding comments. Regards, Scott Salzer 233 S.W. 184th Seattle, WA 98166 cc: Lynn Takeuchi, MacKenzie /Saito & Assocs., P.C. Attachments 11400 S.E. 8th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 206 45 :3 -1600 July 13, 1988 Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Jack: JUL 141988 FLANN i' r i C P T . SPIEKER Pursuant to our Expanded Checklist, and pursuant to further discussions with the Department of Ecology and Department of Wildlife, I am summarizing the proposed mitigation and enhancement components in connection with Tukwila Pond Center: 1. Expand the pond area into existing upland areas at the southwest corner of the site by approximately three acres, including a new "lagoon," small open - water ponds, and meandered channel fingers extending to the west property line, which will create emergent marsh sloughs and two finger sloughs connecting the existing pond to the mitigation area. 2. Plant a new shrub mix at the upper border of the slope above the mitigation areas to provide a low- shrub, berry and seed - bearing component which does not now exist at the Pond, including, for example, rose, ground cherry, red - osier dogwood, mock orange, serviceberry, and red - flowering currant. Grade the south edge of the mitigation area to blend into the edge of the existing alder /shrub component in the southwest corner of the site. 3. Plant the western boundary of the site abutting the mitigation area with .a mix of black cottonwood, bigleaf maple, chokecherry, bitter cherry and American plum in order to buffer between the existing developments to the west and the new mitigation area. 4. If necessary, in order to insure at least a one for one replacement of the covered pond edge, create "floating" islands within the existing pond which would be planted to provide nesting and resting areas for waterfowl and other birds. 5. Buffers and screens will be included in the final design as necessary to mitigate impacts of noise and light emanating from the parking and loading activities in the rear of the now - proposed structures. Sincerely, SPIEKER PARTNERS oel Benoliel Partner JB:md Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Pace: frI 14893 Interurban Avenue South Apartment 15 Tukwila, WashinEton 98168 13 July 1988 I think that the environmental impacts of a retail shopping center at Tukwila Pond would be significant and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared for this project. Tukwila Pond is an important ecosystem and any project that haA impacts on it should be evaluated carefully. It is especially important because of the loss of wetlands in other parts of the Green River Valley. This project would have reater impacts on the Pond than the proposed South 168th Street for which an EIS was prepared. In section 2 of the Environmental Assessment and Expanded Checklist (EEC) it is stated that there is "tremendous unmet demand for additional shopping facilities in the vicinty of Southcenter Mall." In the Seattle Times (South Edition) for 13 June 1988 on page B3 there was an article quoting an attorney for the Southcenter owner that a shopping center at SW 41st Street and East Valley Road would have negative impacts on existing shopping centers. Since the project at Tukwila Pond is much closer to an existing shopping center then that project tne impacts on existing, shopping centers should be carefully studied. In section 2 of the EiEC it is stated that the plan for this project n plans for the future of the entire property". Why is the proposed South 168th Street not included on the map of the project? It would appear that the proposed mitigation for loss of some of the Pond would be very close to the proposed street. Section 2 also states that the project will set "the stage for creation of a publicly owned and maintained 'arboretum-like' passive recreation system, including the Pond in an undisturbed state'. The EAEC does not explain how driving pilings into the Pond and building facilities over the Pond will leave the Pond in an undisturbed state. Tukwila Pond EAEC comments Page 2 The traffic study included in section 10 indicates that the size of the project is 160,145 square feet and doses not mention that a restaurant is part of the project. Elsewhere in the EAEC the project is described as having 238,000 square feet. Would this difference in project size cause any changes in the traffic analysis? Since the traffic study states that the noon hour is a peak traffic time in the area how would the addition of a restaurant affect the traffic analysis? On page 6 of the traffic study it is stated that "No background growth was assumed given the near buildout of the Tukwila business zone in the project's vicinity." Was the traffic that will be generated by the hotel that is currently under construction across Andover Park West from the Pond considered in the traffic study? A letter dated 26 April 1988 was included in the traffic study refers to a 31 March 1988 meeting which indicates that the Department of Public Works questioned the results of the traffic study. Why was the information used by the Department of Public Works to analyze the traffic study not included in the EAEC? Due to the short period of time available to the public to study and respond to the EAEC I was unable to prepare comments on the biological evaluation portion of the EAEC. Sincerely yours, op1-44,777.td/d John M. Wolf Nancy L. Purcell, M.D. JNTERNAL MEDICINE & ENDOCRINOLOGY Valley Professional Plaza 401 S 93rd St., Suite 230 Renton, Washington 98055 Phone: (206) 228 -6431 12 July 1988 Rick Beeler Department of Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 9.0188 JUL 18 1988 II Re: Spieker Partners of Bellevue and the Tukwila Pond property Dear Mr. Beeler: u�a� .v +r . ��eler: Please consider the issuance of a determination of significance for the proposed project by the Spieker Partners on Tukwila Pond. Since this area is considered an area of the United States used by migratory birds, it would seem important that all the project alternatives which do not encroach upon the pond should be considered. Sincerely, gA-C,Let Nancy Purcell, M.D. NP:tm arrized �2 • UL 141988 r; �Jv• 6/L4 C9 0,19/ -c61,- -°tt ;,, 7 `� Ae-ca1 ' (r-ueA, ru fiZev OTU-- c arj ard9 7-c) cA- C#/taviildiftz Charles R. Dowd 3200 West Concord Way #446 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Mr. Rick Beeler Department of Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler, JUL 141988 • July 12, 1988 I think that any developer intruding on Tukwila Pond owes the public a detailed Environmental Impact Statement. Furthermore, enough time should be granted for public discussion and amendment of the EIS before it is adopted. I worked next door to Tukwila Pond twice in the last ten years, and each autumn I was delighted in the number of different ducks I could spot during lunch. From pintails to canvasbacks, from mergansers to scaups, they would come through in flocks of bewildering variety. It took some time to realize that all these birds visited this tiny pond because it was one of the last scraps left of an important stopover in their ages - old migratory pattern. Now on my way home from work, I can watch the destruction of the Black River Slough. Loss of that marshy little waterway will make Tukwila Pond even more important. It is rapidly going from one of several endangered habitats to the last one left. I'm not opposed to development; to jobs and a thriving economy. But people must have a chance to see and understand what is being offered at what cost. An Environmental Impact Statement should be a minimum requirement for a development as significant as the Speiker Partners's proposal. Thank you, Charles R. Dowd • P /an n ,yam% 7Tk,,k-w Ca C'.Y a 6f 6 -o o Sock - i3lvI _ 7 161A)1LI , w a s' ' 4-Ne 4h`(h , Sa.dc �QcE JUL 141988 • l �Z33 5. /82nd c. ea,4f 1&, wu . Data- Mr. Pace_ Gm- - �o yK l 2t l/ i1 1 AA P- - p/a.rvd 6 �x� orrx -rest -C- "d e vel or rn aALd l6a o T,,, ��v,(a, Paced . This mo od- "va.. 4/rit u.vt aced "lid ! 1 - to vim JQC l k)1ldf��e, /o , birds -d nti ttt -, std v 11 cdreLs (71 ' 4/17)r'at/3r7 "1" 141( AI) Aga ci&pe eI'614 Na avlw;dte we_ di.a-0.6 d red' ed sad k' //J Stu €5 e ScUlt hie 14 9& 4- c o 50 v c4.c-Q. - F U r rte- -CV CeY15 a l J ei441)'re_ AocL c, ,o . 7ere io so lii//e u9po, /ed 14-)e-1-1 /! tit) oea+ rieial £oho came- a4 ow- et, Amu b445 s ? Rim b `n i,4ers e� ►� Ca ary s 2 Nutt c.Y S£V Ut1 l/s ,aa l & Le ,q - AP pe of "szrAte ' era k- p(.1 _ga /lease 1 lei saw— whds ,5'i li / P/aets e, too a�ev�oPr► -te.�' anti cl os.ed --4-6 Pone . sl1 oJol fie. presery ec( uhd 5 1- A$0,e p rklan we, rvtucsti- fn res ev er - ouwr,uo �rP�►ro u 5 re- a u.rce) .:o q - 40S-e4- plan '77(44,7 c'AAA1'' • weN INSTRUMENTS, INC. July 12, 1988 Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Sir, I regret I will be unable to personally attend the public hearing scheduled for July 14th, 1988 at 7:00 P.M. concerning the "Tukwila Pond" located to the east of the Doubletree Inn Hotel but I would like to express my concerns for the future of that little body of water at this time. Having grown up in the Seattle area I have a deep appreciation for the natural surroundings which make this area so appealing. The last ten years have brought unprecedented growth to the region and this has unfortunately had a detrimental impact on the natural surroundings which serve to make the area so "livable ". Because my business has been in Tukwila since 1979 I have had many occasions to pass the "Pond" on the way to and from work. It has always represented one of those places left untouched by industry and allowed to remain in the possession of the animals and birds... One of the few places left in the Kent Valley without tilt -up buildings, asphalt parking lots or a For Sale sign on it. On a few occasions, when I have had time, I have even taken my camera and 300mm lens through the Doubletree parking lot to the west bank of the pond to sneak a photograph of ducks, cranes and other fauna which frequent the waters there. It truly is a prolific place for animals. And one of the last in the area. 1048 INDUSTRY. DRIVE • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98188 • U.S.A. • (206) 575 -0160 • • I find it difficult to describe how disturbed I was last year when I drove by the pond and saw a boat full of surveyors planting stakes and stringing twine through the middle of it. This vision coupled with the "Available" sign at the corner of Strander & Andover West, signaled the end of another natural delight. With the new Marriott Hotel across the street to the east and the Doubletree Hotel on the west; wouldn't it be nice to show visitors to Tukwila that we don't have to pave over, build over, or otherwise encroach on every serene natural/ setting we find? One need only look to the laughable "Lake Bellevue ", its surrounding restaurants, car dealership and pavement to see what the Tukwila pond is destined to become without very careful consideration and planning. Is it possible we can just say NO this time? Sincerely, Robert A. Swoffer Vice President VI Washington State Department of Transportation District 1 15325 S.E. 30th Place Bellevue, Washington 98007 -6568 (206) 562 -4000 City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Jack Pace July 12, 1988 Duane Berentson Secretary of Transportation SR 5 MP 153.90 Vic. CS 176700 Comments on Public Hearing Notice for Tukwila Pond Center File No. EPIC -11 -88 Dear Mr. Pace: This letter is in response to the Public Hearings Notice that we received from the City of Tukwila on July 8, 1988. The proposed development is located in the vicinity of the Strander Blvd. /Andover Park West intersection, south of the Southcenter Mall. The proposal is for a retail shopping center of approximately 238,000 square feet that will front Strander Blvd. The Department of Transportation is concerned with the possible traffic impacts this development will have on the SR 5 /SR 405 interchange and the appropriate on /off :-ramps that serve the Southcenter vicinity. We recommend that the developer commission a traffic study, or update an existing one, to accurately reflect this development's expected traffic impacts to the above referenced interchange, including ramps, and any mitigation measures, as appropriate, to mitigate the traffic impacts from said development. We would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the study. Since the proposed development site is located within the city limits, it is the City of Tukwila's responsibility as lead agency to ensure that access to and from the site is designed properly and that the traffic generated by this development will not have an adverse impact upon any state highways in the vicinity. City of Tukwila July 11, 1988 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Donald Hurter (562 -4274) or Robert Eichelsdoerfer (562 -4297) of my Developer Section. Sincerely, JAMES L. LUTZ, P.E. AWs71- District Utilities Engineer RE:jjk m5.wk3 cc: State Aid • JUL 131988 r: . ■ Mr. Rick Beeler Department of Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Wa. 98188 RE: Tukwila Pond Dear Mr. Beeler: • 3200 West Concord Way Apt. #446 Mercer Island, Wa. 98040 July 11, 1988 I am writing to request the issuance of a Determination of Significance for the proposed development of Tukwila Pond. Because of the diverse and rich habitat Tukwila Pond provides, I think it is critically important that the developer be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and to evaluate the alternatives to developing the pond. I am a birdwatcher. On one winter's day at Tukwila Pond, I have observed, among other birds, pintails, common mergansers, red - breasted mergansers, bufflehead, northern shovelers, goldeneye, and teal. There are fewer and fewer places in King County where I can observe an unsullied natural environment. Therefore, the Determination of Significance should be a prerequisite to any proposal to develop the pond site. Thank you. Sincerely, £tJ %iJ04 Deborah Dowd cc: Seattle Audubon Society UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98195 KObcri- (orh Department of Zoology, NJ -15 0&611- 1/ Evic /osed iS 4 (coif led 7-rornc� l0 . P o -1 or -a e !ri s ,� ohe or a#le 4uLtbun Socieiy birders mace 1 tdziod.. �ood lwPen a // /' h (o and c /14e orese i %//� /Ct / . -f / e /T/*/) would s'IerI cat Tikkyl ct 61,,J /lieu proceed Soul/ Friore Kura( Qcrits VG //e , ae /�e#ero 6vh,'c-4 allows Ohe -/o ovo,c� die l�l-er °raf{ic caries -//o0 time nd So�,� /l,cemder. /15 cam, exavhfle) lm eix{c avid ,, rvladr 6 -/1-,( -"broil!! 7 iere ?c s4 wee_heod (pi fal-A Sfiwl u /ctl-ed Y ?hone call � . 7-At birds �oc^cf a GrfZw/l(,�ond were cs 7 /evs: G /rlebc l CreeGt-backed /Jetfoil - 2 Fed- failed Hawk - / /Mallard - 20 Shoveler - /9 4-chic /Ls Cool- - 5+ chtclz s I30napar4e's Gull - / Glaucous'.- 11w;rllyd (3'uli- l DoL ) tJoodpe4)ze.r -2 F /Ycafcher - / Barn Swallow -.20 %-ree Swallow - 10 Voleo- fJreeW sula Ito-w - 30-f Cliff' Swallow -6s+ Cro Go -- 6 Black-capped Ch ;ckadee - z 815h-9-if - z �e w i c)z's C4Jre Ii - 2 (1/16-41-511 Ores - 3 Robin -2 Ced ci r i,JaXwi n q - q S- t- a.reinc9 - 3 Yellow +l,roa+ - 2 La�ull. 8�nt;n - l cP - Savatincib Sp rrow - (?)hife- crowned Sparrow - c2 (l juve,iile) SohS Sparrow -.21 l edw,' c l3lctdzbirc( - 5 Bro�vv�- JJbeaded awb;rd — 3 House Finch — 6 �a�cQ �1 ncl t — to lgss Ti1kkJ/LA PoND ROE3 1 Ho2Ni71ANA f owLE 31 Species ) 222 iticiivicttct Overcas-r trio wivicl �Ihe. 3ree.1i- baclzed Aerorl and 0h03u11 burlIivrj are rare iri King Cowry and rie uncommon 'Awes -kern Gt)a. I ?,,119 doh. Subseueelif 5-tops ;,t en-lyielded -Far -fewer birds oiicJ i was no.1- k1'1ri A(ibkrr1 .-/& fJQ -rc�uhd i1ecr -//115 dems4r Of birds. Siticere yr r<64 r ftt.r4t W t. ~L( tA.).CCh. .{:\)Z \II I JUL 13 1988 Roedell P.O. Box 953 Seahurst, WA 98062 (7 (/,/�$'�' a ow+ a. nOa- ?o4'5 4,4 —foreA = i , \P td, � � c.�.n� '� 1 - c,..„ IC_ ; owe( 0,°4 -J c' `' L&f 5"C )6 1'4' 1 kJ; (l. l° 2., reams c SoL._-f~ a 4O4 ?c, rs,.b4 �� � r 1.4 LL ev0 i —po 1.1 c( r v e-c r W e Q/`c. ��J .p -110 h JUL 13 1988 Roedell P.O. SeahurstBox , W953 A 98062 J. r L J 0 7/14' _ ed Mr. Rick Beeler Dept. of Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, Wa. 98188 RE: TUKWILA POND 2908 13th Avenue South Seattle 98144 July 10, 1988 W N 11:11.W11.1_i..1") JUL 121988 Cm' 01- I :iii' :liLA 1 PLANNIIhir pm- Dear Sir: According to the Seattle Audubon Society you are now consderiag the issuance of a permit to SPIEKER PARTNERS of Billevue to permit the company to erect a mall over the pond aged. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers previously refused the permit to Cafaro Co. of Ohio because of the impact on wildlife. Now a devious plan is being concocted to build the mall on stilts to avoid the necessity of going to the Corps again. My question is what is different? The building of the mall on stilts will preclude wildlifd such as ducks and gees from using the pond as a flyway. Please require an environmental impact statement and contact with the Army Corps of Engineers. Sin. e y rd COPY TO SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY 619 JOSHUA GREEN BLDG., SEATTLE 98101• July 6, 196 City Of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 96188 Attention: Mr. L. Rick Beeler Re: South 168th Street Draft Environmental Impact Statement . Supplemental Comments Dear Mr. Beeler: The following are additional comments relating to the DEIS for the S. 168th St. proJect. I do feel that it is necessary to respond to statements contained or overlooked in the DEIS. My comments will follow in the order that they appear in the DEIS. Re: Summary, Page 1. 1 do concur that a problem exists in the area designated as the "superblock", but 1 do .not feel that the 168th street extension will provide any relief for the traffic flow. It is stated that "The interstate freeway system and the Green River provide physical barriers which elso concentrate traffic." I would like to point out that these "barriers" existed long before this area was subjected to extensive development. A little foresight Cn the part of the city planners could have prevented the situation that now exists. Page 3. I do not see how the proposed extention will provide any relief to the congestion. True it may relieve congestion on Strender Boulevard, but that congestion will Just be moved to other intersections. All that this extension will accomplish is to make two additional points for congestion. The additon of traffic lights to these proposed new intersections will further impede the flow of traffic. Page 3 & 4, Alternatives. All of the alternatives except Alternative E, are unacceptable due to the direct impact on the pond and wetlands. Page 9, Purpose and Need for Action. The purpose and need as stated would not exist if proper planning had occurred for this area. This "superblock" exlsts due to the lack of thought and foresight by the City. I would also question if the South 168th St. will fullfill the needs as presented: a) From my observations and use of Strender Blvd, Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West the majority of the traffic movement is associated with the freeway access points. The South 168th St. does nothing to improve traffic flow to these point. b) While .the'S. 168th St. will likely reduce volumes on Strander Blvd., traffic must still move thru the intersections at Strander/Southcenter Pky. and Strander/Andover Park W. to 'reach the (reeway. Now instead of two congested intersections, you will have four!! c) I see no improvement in excess travel times. d) There would be alternative access to commercial properties, but these properties are very limited and additional access is not required. e) I do not feel that emergency response time will be greatly affected by the addition of this roadway. f) The addition of S. 168th St.. will add two new area!) ,to contribute to the congestion that already exists. Page 12. Alternatives. A$ previously mentioned, all the alternatives except E. should be considered unacceptable due to the adverse impact on the pond and wetlands, Page 30. Mitgating Measures, 1 do not feel that there is any mitgation that can make up to the loss of habitat and intrusion into this area of the pond. Page 33. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. Under Alternatives A., B, C, & D filling of a portion of the pond is required. Thia "unavoidable" impact is crucial to the habitat that is now being utilized by the pond wildlife. ' This lost habitat cannot be "mitigated" at the existing site. Page 40 & 41. -Plant And Animals. I would like to know the frequency of the observations, i. e. , once/day, once/week; etc., time of day that the observation //ere made. Waterfowl will tend to move throughout the day from feeding to resting areas. 1 would question whether the waterfowl are. integrated with the Green River. The Green River itself does not provide a feeding or roosting area. The are more closely associated with Longacren and the Kent lagoons. Although the pond has not been designated a significant wetland by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and King County, there should be no queetion as to its value. As I recall, the designation for wetlands in King County was for the unincorporated areas and not in incorporated cites, so reference to their classification is meaningless. How, exactly, will the City mitgate for the wetland habitat. I do not see that border plants and sloped banks will mitigate for loot nenting and feeding areas. Page 41 & 42. Existing Conditions. This site is truly unusual considering the surrounding area. Extensive development almost to the shores of the pond have not prevented the high wee by wildlife. It is also in this section that a very strong statement is made for preservation of Tukwila Pond in its present state: "The variety and productivity of the proposed 168th Street project site is the highest per unit area of the pond property since it encompasses the wetlands, pond. edge, tree canopy and the shallow islands in the southwest corner." If the City of Tukwila is willing to alter this portion of the pond site, how long will it be before another slice is taken? A precedent will be set and a message sent out that sensitive environmental areas are of no concern to the City. I will argue with the statement the .."limited summer value to waterfowl and marsh birds." Waterfowl use this heavy cover for nesting as do marsh bird such es wrens and yellowthroats. Page 42. First paragraph. Mammal activity is not limited along the south shore. The are muskrat, racoon and other small rodents that depend on this habitat. I have seen muskrat numerous times .in this area and racoon tracks and scat are a common site. would question how much observation tire it took to determine this "limited" mammal activity. Page 47, "Open water fish. habitat...", it would seem that time would be taken to identify the fish species that are present in the pond. These "unidentified" fish are important to the birds mentioned in the same paragragh. Certainly this pond is not too large to take the time to -collect and identify the species present. Page 49 & 50, Direct. Impacts. Any filling of the Pond property as proposed in alternatives A, B, C, & D should be unacceptable. The DEIS even states "The proposed fill slope planned at the edge of Tukwila Pond would also eliminate the natural buffer between the existing rail and truck traffic patterns at the pond edge." In view of this, how does the City propose to mitigate by the planting of trees and shrubs along the roadway? Page 50 & 51. Wildlife Impacts From Wetland Loss. As stated, loss of wetlands, pond and large riparian trees under Aternatives A, B, C, & 1) would have significant impact on the wildlife. Page 51. Secondary impacts. Construction - It is important to point out that construction impacts, as noted, would be very significant during"the fall and winter months. This activity would greatly influence the migrating waterfowl. Road Operation - As the DEIS points out, there is a great potential to further development to the Tukwila Pond proPerty due to what would appear to be improved property access. This stresses the point that the City of Tukwila should make a long term evaluation of what is to be done on this site. This should include a rezone from the current C-P designation. Page 51. It is mentioned that species, such as canvasback; that are less tolerant of human activity would likey cease to utilize the pond. This is Just one specie, there are others that less likely to be found if this proposed street is approved. These would include.rails, soras and herons. While. it is true that most migratory birds would likely return after construction, there would be a loss of very important habitat that may lessen their numbers and decrease the nesting activity and success. . ':' - • • . There are many unusal species that utilize the pond and the potential loss of these species should be strongly considered. Page 53. Refer to first section dealing with semi-tame ducks and crosses. There are all to many areas that have "tame" duck. The presence of these tame ducks is unfortunate as they become aggressive to other ducks and cross breed to produce permanent residents. There are many areas for the feeding of such "crosses. One excellent example is Bellfield Industrial Park in Bellevue. While it may be fun to "feed the ducks", the presence of these crosses (including geese) is the result of too much intrusion into a natural environment. In addition to the aggressiveness of the semi-tame ducks, they also present problems with pollution. By making Tukwila Pond a permanent year round home, they will greatly increase the potential for high coliform levels in the pond. This situation has been documented and it is realized as a threat: to small bodies of relatively stagnant waters. Page 53. Impacts Conclusion. While Aternative D would be the least impacting to the environment, its impact are still unacceptable. Again, it is mentioned that the potential for increased development is a possibility. I still feel that no degree of mitigation can compensate for the loss of habitat resulting from Alternatives A, 8, C, 8 D. Mitigating Measures - While it is easy to replace the riparian and deciduous trees, what about the mudflat and pond areas. How will these be mitigated??. Page 54. The wetland lost is not replaceable at the present site without extensive modifications to the remaining pond. It is suggested that it could be but there is no description of how this would be accomplished. As far as off-site replacement, where would this be?? This should be addressed! I am not aware of another site in Tukwila that could be modified for such a habitat. How will the effects if increased traffic be mitigated? The buffer of trees and shrubs will help but that will not be enough to protect the nesting and feeding areas currently .used on the south edge of the pond and wetland. Page 54. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. I don't believe that any mitigation can make up for the lost habitat that would destroyed by the S. 168th St. project. Most likely, the displaced species would re-locate but that would be a loss to the unique environment that exists at the Pond. This type of wetland in the Green River Valley is at a premium and is slowly - being eliminated. Take for example the developments in Renton Just south of 1-405 and east of Longacres. While habitat such as the Tukwila pond do not provide revenue, they are important as green belts end do provide enjoyment for many people. While they not be used by a great inaiority of individuals, it is pleasing to know that such areas still exists in extensively developed areas. • • Page 67. Natural Environment. The natural environment that currently exists serves its function very well. It does not currntly need "mitigation" to continue to provide critical habitat for wildlife. If the City of Tukwila is serious concerning its long range goals for a natural environment, proJects such as this should not be considered. Page 89. Transportation Circulation in the CBD. While S. 168th St. may reduce traffic volumes on St.ronder Blvd., how will they help in the area of the "superblock" and with access to the • freeways?? To suggest that the S. 168th St. would make a shorter route to "one" resturant is an absurd reason to destroy critical and unique habitat. How important can five minutes of a lunch hour be???? Does this take into consideration the poseibility of traffic lights at Andover Park West/168th St. and Southcenter Parkway/168th??? My guess is that it would not save much time! Page 95. Mitigating Measures. While the plan to "buffer" the remaining pond from S. 168th St may sound good, •what is being done for the destroyed habitat? No amount of trees could "augment" what currently exists on the southern pond/wetland boundary. Unavoidable Adverse impacts. With Alternative E there are no unavoidable advers impacts. Appendix A - Sapping Comments. It is important to note specific comments from past groups interested in Tukwila Pond and their might concern for the environmetal impacts. It mi also be appropriate to include the ChartWell Development DEIS Appendix B - Biological Evaluation of Tukwila Pond. Much of this information is redundant to the contents contained in the body of the DEIS, but certain points need to be raised. B-2. Again we see the following statrnent, "The variety and productivity....atc.". Obviously the authors felt this was a unique site and the proposed project would have a significant impact on the pond site. B-5. Large raptors, in addition to smaller raptors, do utilize this site as a regular hunting area. The absence of casts is a poor evaluation criteria. Birds. If adequate studies have been done, it would be hard to miss broods of mallard, gadwall and coot on the pond. Canada geese have been observed on a nest without success. Pheasants, in additon to quail, have successfully raised young on the site. Page B-6 & 7. While the list is relatively complete, the number of waterfowl are extremely low. There are many days during the winter that 1,000 - 2,000 duck can be observed at one time. Many species of warblere are found at the site, in addition to Canada goose, savannah sparrow, horned larks, water pipits and meadowlarks. Page B-8. Mammals. Muskrat are common and should added to the list. Page B-9. Fish, Reptiles & Amphibians. I do feel that it is important to identify "—two small unidentified species of fish.." mentioned. I am riot sure about the trout, but 1 do know that the pond does support brown bullhead. Fish sampling on a pond this size would be very easy and should be done due to the potential for pond loss under Alternatives A--D. I am amazed at the ommision of bull frogs. The pond supports a large population of them and they are easily observed Iorij the pond edre. 13-10 & 11. Biological. While the :3out1tern bordc,r doef.: not support large numbers of waterfowl or mal' birds durinr the summer, it does provide important hahit.it for nestin,. addition, it is notd that the southwest corner is impnrtant 'ti d heavily used by migrating shorebirds. This mudflat habitat is limitied on the pond and without it th;. :Thorebirdf; would nut return. Please take special note of. the last two paragraphs on this pruy'. It is the third time that the statmentts) oppear. 1 would apologize for the length of my comments, but 1 d() that it is necessary. This DEIS.suppor113 mony (AiNdw•nt contained in previous studie7,, which also cuncludt?d thdl this a unique fragile habitat. 1 m surprised that this proJer:t Ii still under consideration based upon the data presented in this document. I don't see that a trade off of potential benefits ior the S. 168th St. project and destr.nction of habitat exist:i. strongly urge that this project be stopped before it proceeds any further. 1 would like to apologize for the length of these comments, but I do feel that they are important. Regards, Scott Salzer 233 S.W. 184th Seattle, WA 98166 July • 8, '19t1§ City of Tukwila • 6200 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Attention: Mr. L. Rick Beeler Re: South 168th Street Draft Environmental Impact Statemenit 4 Dear Mr. Beeler: 1 would like to make the following general comments relative to the DEIS for the proposed South 168th St. project. Due to the length of my comments, I have elected to present them in 2 parts. The first part will provide a summary of my comments. Detailed comments pertaining to sections of the DEIS will be addressed in the second part. As I read through the DEIS there was one key statement which appeared at least three times: "The variety and productivity of the proposed 168th St. project site is highest per unit area of the pond property since it encompasses the wetlands, pond edge, tree canopy, and the shallow islands in the southwest corner of the pond." As the. DEIS points out, the construction of the proposed extension will drastically affect this area. We are dealing with a very fragile environment that seems out of place when you consider its location so close to major shopping/office complexes and freeways. It is important to put this project in its proper perspective. The "superblock" was formed by poor planning and lack of foresight by the City of Tukwila. The Green River and Interstate Freeway "barriers" existed before extensive development took over the area. Now because of inadequate planning, the City of Tukwila is proposing to destroy part of a very unique and fragile environment. I do agree that a traffic problem exists on the "superblock", but fail to see how the proposed extension will provide any relief for the erea. Traffic is extremely heavy at the intersections of Southcenter Parkway/Strander and Andover Park West/Strander but I cannot understand how the addition of two more intersections (with stop lights??) will improve .traffic flow. It is important to note that the major traffic problems (with the exception of Christmas) occur with the office workers and/or store employees commuting to and from work. Shoppers, for the most part, have • • learned to avoid the area during this peak flow. Regardless of the cause, this traffic is destined to the freeways that service the area 1-5, 1-405 and Hgy. 518. Access to these points is very limited and the proposed extension will not provide improved flows to these malor points. It would also appear that traffic lights would be required for access to Andover Park west and Southcenter Parkway from S. 168th St.. Now instead of two intersections for congestion, there will be four. Traffic in this particular area tends to move north and south not east and west. 1 cannot envision cars moving north on Southcenter Parkway. then turning right on S.168th St. to gain access to the freeways and Southcenter, likewise, I cannot see traffic moving south on Southcenter Parkway then turning left on S. 168th st to gain access to the Pavillion complex. The S. 168th St. location is nn extremely poor choice for east/west trafic movement or improved access to the freeways. While the biological data per appendix B was only gathered over a nine month period, it should include the periods of highest use by migrating species. • (I.have visited the Tukwila Pond site from 1-4 times per month since 1973.). it is important to note that the use by migrating species also varies as to the time of the day the observations were taken. Although it is not indicated, 1 would hope that these observations were made at different time periods. The introduction states "Biological data suggest that the Tukwila Pond site is a highly used waterfowl area which is integrated with the Green River to the east. While this may be true, there are also other areas such as Longacres Race Track, which along with the pond, provide areas necessary for the needs of migrating species. Ducks and geese find,the necessary forage at such areas and then move to open water areas to roost, rest and feed. Although the site has not been designated as significant wetland, understand that it has not fallen under the scope of the classifications listed. For the area in which it is located, it certainly is a significant wetland, and as such, should be allowed to remain undisturbed. I would also like to stress some of the comments contained in Appendix A - Scoping Comments. King County - Dept. of Planing and •Community Development: "Tukwila Pond is noted as a valuable stopover for migrating waterfowl. The pond is used throughout the year by a large number.of diverse waterfowl species. It provides critical habitat for resident and migratory waterfowl." Further, "We believe the potential for "enhancement" on the rest of the site is not Justification for eliminating.an area that is already stable and providing excellent and rare habitat. If possible, Tukwila Pond should remain undisturbed." , . ,,... • ' - • . . • . • • Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle: "After an in-depth analysis of the site which included a wetlands inventory report by a consulting wildlife biologist, - Metro eliminated the site from further consideration. In addition, "Any development within the Tukwila Pond area would adversely affect wildlife and result in a reduction in both the numbers of individual and diversity of wildlife species. Seattle Audobon Society: "The southern margin of the pond contains the highest diversity of wetland vegetation and it is the area least impacted by human intruaions; for this reason it .receives the highest use by wildlife, especially more reclusive waterfowl species. The placement ofthe road alignment in thia area would destroy the most intricate aspect of this wetland system. As 1 read the DEIS for the S. 168th St. , I was amazed that this proJect.was still under consideration. The comments relating to the biological impacts alone should make it apparent that this project is not in the best interest to.the City. If .the comments contained in the DEIS have truly been-Considered, it is obvious that this project cannot be done without tremendous damage.to an already rare environment, This site is quickly becoming the most studied site in King County and all of the studies have reached the same conclusion: rare, unique, highly diverse, fragile, etc.. It is time for the City planners to take responsiblity for the "super-block". It was created by poor planning and additional poor decisions like the proposed S. 168th St. will not and cannot alleviate the situation that has been created, Tukwila Pond is a fragile unique environment that needs to be left alone and protected not "mitigated" and altered. I am strongly Opposed to all alternatives proposed, except alternative E. I would also suggest that the City establish a long term plan for Tukwila Pond. The City of Tuwila has already lost much of its open and green belt areas. It is time for the City to look at the Tukwila Pond site for what it truly is, a unique area not to be found in other rnaior cites in Washington and which cannot be improved upon by improved access or mitigation. ' Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Scott Selzer 233 S.W. 184th Seattle, WA 93166 AF•IDAVIT O F D I S T O B U T I O N 1, JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that: Q Notice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting E] Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet (J Planning Commission Agenda Packet [J Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit O Shoreline Management Permit 0 Determination of Nonsignificance Q Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action O Official Notice Other El Other sFPA Nf1TTf F OF PURI TC MEETING SPIEKER PARTNERS TUKWILA POND was mailed to each of the following addresses on RTDAY. JULY 1. 1988 (SEE ATTACHED) Name of Project TUKWILA POND File Number , 19 . TUKWILA POND • SP I EKER • PARTNERS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DISTRAION SEPA (NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING) STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY MAIL STOP PV -11 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 ATTN: ANDY MCMILLAN STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT - REGION 4 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD MILL CREEK WA 98012 ATTN: TED FILLER, PROG MANAGER JOE MILES AUDUBON SOCIETY 22431 - 10TH AVENUE S. DES MOINES WA 98198 MRS. JOHN J. WAGNER 16047 47TH AVENUE S. SEATTLE, WA 98188 CHEVRON USA 220 STRANDER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WA 98188 DOUBLETREE PLAZA 1600 SOUTHCENTER PK TUKWILA, WA 98188 ATTN: GEORGE J. NEUMANN FIRESTONE 215 ANDOVER PK W. TUKWILA, WA 98188 ATTN: DENNIS MCGRIFF LARRY HANSON J.C. PENNY CO. REGIONAL TAX OFFICE #4015 BUENA PARK, CA 90624 KING CO SURFACE WTR MGMT DIV ATTN -JIM CRAMER 701- D.EXTER.'HORTON -BLDG 710 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WA ' 98104 DHARLENE WEST KING CO. TRAFFIC & PLANNING TUKWILA MCMICKEN ACT'N COMMITTEE KING CO. ADMIN BLDG 9TH FL 5212 S. 164TH TUKWILA, WA 98188 KEITH MASTERS 633 SOUTHCENTER MALL TUKWILA, WA 98188 ANDOVER & ASS 854 EAST MERCER ATTN. R /THOMA 98040 YEDOR AUDUBON SOCIETY ROOM 619 JOSHUA GREEN BUILDING SEATTLE, WA 98101 ATTN: DYANE SHELDON CHAMBE F COM ERCE 950 DOVER E'. T ILA 9 88 SEATTLE, WA 98104 ATTN: JOHN LOGAN, MANAGER 1 EA ATT : RO UE 4 ICK SANDAAS 7/1/88 M.A. SEGALE P.O. BOX 88050 TUKWILA, WA 98188 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE SECTION P.O. BOX Cqq- 37g5g5124 ATTN TFRED WWE I NINKNN -22s5- U.S. DEPARTMENT HUD VALUATION DEPARTMENT 1321 SECP.DD AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98101 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT EAST 4217 MAIN STREET SPOKANE, WA 98202 WASHINGTON ST DEPT OF GAME PROGRAM MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS TEAM 600 NORTH CAPITOL WAY OLYMPIA, WA 98504 WA HI '.TON TAT. D PT OF ECOLOGY MA OLY 1- A, A •:504 W.S.D.O.T. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 15325 -S.E. 30TH PL BELLEVUE, . WA : 98007 ATTN: R F JOHNSON PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION W.S.D.O.T. CONTROL AGENCY `°` 6431 CORSON AVENUE S. 200 14,--MERCER--;#205 SEATTLE, WA 98104 SEATTLE, WA .98-119-39581-3e/6--, ATTN: J. SCHUTZ ATTN: ARTHUR DAMMKOEHLER PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVMTS 216 FIRST AVENUE S. SEATTLE, WA 98104 ATTN: BARBARA _HASTINGS RAINIER. NATIONAL BANK CONTROU_ERS DEPARTMENT 086 P.O. BOX 3966 T14 -1 SEATTLE, WA 98124 OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL• ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS. 4224 6TH - AVENUE S.E. . ROWE 6. BLDG 2 M.S. PY -21 LACEY, WA 98504 CITY OF TUKWILA MAYOR CITY CLERK METED ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIVISION 821 SECOND AVENUE S. SEATTLE, WA 98104 OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 111 WEST 21ST AVENUE KL -11 OLYMPA, WA 98405 ATTN: ROBERT F. WHITLAM KING CO PARKS, PLANNING & RES. 1108 SMITH TOWER 506 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98104 AlTN: ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR Soutn 168th Street - EIS Allied Stores 633 Southcenter Mali ukwila, Washington 98188 And 8 Me Att 9 ver & East erce' Way cer slan•, Washin n r. homas Y soci. es u dubon Society Room 619 Joshua Green Building Seattle, Washington 98101 tn: Dyanne Sheldon Bon Marche Distribution Center 17000 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attn: Mr. William Hicks Buck & Gordon 1011 Western Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Attn: Mr. Jay P. Derr hamber o Comm- ce 950 And. er P k Eas Tukwi .,'W ingto' 98188 'tt � n City of 6200 Sou Tukwila, Attn: Ms Ch ukwi,la ter Boulevard hington 98188 . JMabel Harris, it oman City of Tukw'la •'�0 So th nter Boulevard Tu ila, W shington 98188 Mr. Bud Bohrer n City of 6200 Sou Tukwila, Attn: Ms u i l a l a enter Boulevard hington 98188 • Wady Morgan Commercial Design Associates 4230 - 198th Street S.W. Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Attn: Mr. Scott Shanks ubletree Plaza 1600 Southcenter Parkway • Tukwila, Washington 98188 f � • r. George J. Neuma 1. Do e r nc A 2 "o 2 h tre ho i Ar o . 8 r.Jares S ith 00 Chevron USA, Inc. Emerson G D'esel, Inc. P.O. Box 7611 6851 East rginal Way South San Francisco, California 94120 Seattle, as ngton 98108 C evron USA 2 0 Strander Boulevard Tu ila, Washington 98188 City of Kent P.O. Box 310 Kent, Washington 98031 Attn: Don Wickstrom, Public Wks. Director City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Dick Houghton, Director Public Works • Firestone 215 Andover Park West Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attn: Dennis McGriff Larry. Hanson Firestone P.O. Box 68907 Seattle, Washington 98168 Attn: Mr. Russ Paris Zone Marking Office First Western Development 4230 - 198th Street Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Attn: Mr. Mike Hess Hayden Island Corporation 909 North Tomahawk Island Drive Portland, Oregon 97217 . 'enney Company Regional Tax Office #4015 ena Park, California 90624 King County Sur. Water Mgmt. King Co Sea-zt-i -e , h ens -98D 4-- r . Joe S i mm-1 -er-, King County Traffic & Planning King County Admin. Bldg. 9th F' Seattle, Washington 98104 ttn: Mr. John Logan, Manager etro 821 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Attn: Mr. Dick Sandaas Of ice 111 West Olympia, Attn: r. 1st R OS enue, KL -11 ington 98504 II ert G. Whittam lb Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency aoo UJ, 1 Seattle, Washington '98t09- Attn: Mr. Arthur Dammkoehle Puget Sound Council of Govts. 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 tn: Mr. Jim Williams R • National Bank Controllers Department 086 P.O. Box 3966 T14 -1 eattle, Washington 981 Real Prop 44 Mo' emery reet, S. Franc' o, Cali W n 6 11 ia 9410, Rosse Inc. /o 'Samuel & Hazel Rosse ' , 8.08 Howell Street Seattle, Washington 98010 M.A.r- Segale, Inc. .0. Box 88050 ukwila, Washington 98188 Spring Ridge Investment, Inc. c/o Jones &.Grey & Bayley, P.S. One Union Square 36th Floor Seattle, Washington 98101 • Springridge Investment Ltd. 1021 Island Road Victoria, British Columbia Canada V8S 2VS Attn: Mr. Bruce Smith Trammell Crow Company P.O. Box 80326 Seattle, Washington 98108 Attn: Don Jefferson, Proj. Mg T.C.W. Realty Holding Compan 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, California 9 Union Pacific Corporation Tax Office P.O. Box 2500 Broomfield, Colorado 80020 Union Pacific Railroad 1515 Building S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201 Attn: A. L. Shoener, Gnl. Mgr. Upland Drive Business Park 8815 - 38th Avenue N.E. Seattle, Washington 98115 071 U.S. Army Corps of Engineer /Environmental Resource Section P.O. Box C -3755 Seattle, Washington 98124 U . Department o aluation Department 1321 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 -.0 Dennis J. McLerran Alk Shidler, McBroom, Gates & Luca Suite 505 Honeywell Center 600 108th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Willia Hic The Bon 17000 hcenter Parkway Tukw a, 98188 U.S. Department of Inter' Bureau of Land Management East 4217 Main Street Spokane, Washington 99202 U.S. Po Nin Federal W a 1 ervice Avenue South Y, :Washington 98103 U.S. Postal Service Tukwila Branch 225 Andover Park West Tukwila, Washington 98188 'ngton State Departm of Game, Program Mgr. Environmental Affairs Team 600 North Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504 as Washing a e Depar cology Mail Stop PV -11 Olympia, Washington 98504 W.S.D.O..T. Dist. Design Engineer /Env. Revie 9611 S.E. 36th Street Mercer Island, Washington 98040 1 6431 Corson Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Attn: Mr. Jerry Schutz \ Planning &•Research Coord. Washington the Attorney General Dexter Horton Building -•ttle, Washington 98104 Linda Davis Wm 110 110th Bellevue Ha de 90DN. Portlan Y Ts odd Riese & Jones . N.E. WA \ 98004 ration hawk Island Drive 97217 Wayne Harris ' Puget Power 620 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Frank J. Agostino MacAulay Nicolls Maitland Int. SeaFirst 5th Ave. Plaza Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98124 Union Pacific System 1015 Andover Park West Seattle, WA 98188 Attn: Mr. Craig Schuler Matt Mikami 16813 Southcenter Parkway Seattle, WA 98188 Meredit etches/ King Co. D . of Planning 11 Alask u' ding 618 2nd ve. Seattl , WA 98104 C.V. L Union P 1515 S.W Portlan Michae J. First We 4230 19: Lyrmw• •d c System h Ave. Suite 400 Or 97201 ss rn Development t. , WA 98036 Peter Orser Delco 2219 2nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98121 Jack 1111 Seat cCull..gh Avenue, =3400 e, 98101 South 168th Street - EIS Bon Marche C/0 L. V. Miller 3rd & Pine Seattle, WA 98111 ity of Tukwila Mayor 6200 Southcenter Boulevard ukwila, WA 98188 Mr. Gary L. Van Dus AC C 6 T A y of Tukwila ty Clerk 00 Southcenter Boulevard kwila, WA 98188 : Ms. Maxine Anderson City of Tukwila City Council 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Ms. Wendy A. Morgan,Chair City of Tukwila City Council 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Mr. Edgar D. Bauch City of Tukwila City Council 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Mr. Joe H. Duffie City of Tukwila City Council 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Ms. Mabel J. Harris • Collins & Associates Suite 600, Merrill Place 411 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Attn: Mr. Brad Collins Davis Wright Todd Riese & Jones 110 -110th Ave. N.E., #700 Bellevue, WA 98004 Attn: Ms. Linda M. Youngs F 1111 1`hi.rd Avenue Seattl Attn: er & Riviera Mr. John C. McCullough, Foster, Pepper & Riviera 1111 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Attn:Mr.John C. McCullough,Jr. etro ironmental Planning Division 821 Second Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Special Products Company P. 0. Box 66314 Seattle, WA 98166 Attn: Mr. Scott A. Salzer Spring " dg- Investment, Inc. c/o Jone & Grey & Bayley, P.S. 36th F1 One U ion quare Seat le, WA 98101 Stepan & Associated, Inc. 33505 - 13th P1. South Federal Way, WA 98335 Attn: Mr. Kent Stepan City of Tukwila City Council 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn.: Ms. Marilyn G. Stoknes City of Tukwila City Council 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Mr. James J. McKenna Office of Archaeolog9 & Historic Preservation 111 West 21st Ave., KL -11 pia, WA 98504 rt F. Whitlam • • 5c\_ v��q\N Soc∎e i(5 4ev(Q.w �Yorv),enis \Is% 0\0 \ cc�.�. E.)0 \.\\0\1. 0...A .QvR uJ `r.e *tip 5 k 1 ) �r�v\O S s dies OAS e-C\ (Di-ti•-&s IAA ■v\c <ck\s �s c-:\.\eA \I AV-Q- u aU 0, s1(\ N 0\ � 0\--� ft (0 `\) -,∎\ 7k---Cs \IN 1-.m • co,, 4-t-:\A0A- (c. ,A,-\--Qd — C 7 cI/ v — go -71 %or'- ,25,20 .c GC.. ),,r77.e,r' - //-Q 571 -7/7 /Ji t--. CI 5UIG'(i -Q.,/ Co i`()( 1 )'1-e... 0 G.• r'f 4 -- k`M . s * \G 8 (0 c; Sv' \lac) • A.R. Ne c\ c a.. \'-)--Qz. \J\ A _._ vYn v,V...eS + . 57144- e,f. -e d °two .Ts o. Surv,e.7. 5 \A Q, ic...\-eve. A. LA, c�.a�s oo Q- x%. ,Act�c1 1' � U \-42c5,v u 5-2 6 v�sj 05' `i- k-- r.c, p 5r2G /ems Q A ‘1\ \ CANS C °(\ 0 CL\-rN LA-Se_ C�1. %\'") oc, • • v\o aN,\AA lvv co . C (Y) \c e c\sC&a_. \Nc)-\ Sc \\\A\N s v� v Su -GQ s 109,kk \sb 4c- c .4c \. \ comvv\ULU\kcA[oN ).)\1\0 `s 1 mob , Chu\ w 0,S c-__QwNc-szs- L.)-3\-\--\\rOd ®A-" 5e c f ; cvM � l TC\ 5 \Q -6■C \ J Q \\w: N-Q ■\N ma r c\NfN ��r.�vsL Cv�c�v,S1 Su\ 1 Or. Ca\r`c LOr(ov`S csnc\v . we t'Q_ cy.i kk\ \Nd S-VcAsQlmk.v\VS \NN.4 — I - tt ►c\ 7.cc�. — i 0 n 4 s- , 6.7-en /5 CA._) Sri 10( -#d , n a Scf 4.6 we-t 2 — k-Q� VNA . w a CO/C1 AI or f _14,,ye h o doei e C.t 5716//3:x' G /,L 56.•-).9/Q5 05 Cores avert ua. tech k RAK'v Vo «ot So /4l +kc'-f \\( 2`-`1,1FR1Q- sue, v r ok pc)ss • D(e_ c /r u - • t rc, \1 f \.Q Ca.r W -k.`C BSc s \ &,e.A\�'• .R.. � � \ \k\-k s t- �,,,��� -�,�& ()- \ D , I C(N 1 ��.\ k-a 0- �- NN SY\OV \Qk\- us-) t \ 0. W cDCA o..i\ \V� cX�S w\-\-\N C \\(V-Q5ee ('; u.AC -64'0 VJ \ n� Sty 0o \O ,"2_ k \ •'J2 + c11eS wQM Vna . y v\-esk-s Si ■c mot. / n I- S oil I( A4 A2v.vo it f4J Q.1 oo -c_-1Ttsi (542_ CA" - wooCL Cc3 /D a r7-e !' oT DkVQ,c NV),■( \D.e_ rTh_QA I . OU 3 \)@,c w\'- ' \NOc,C -42A W \& S- v.& Or Is vv\ Oss o \3\ e.. $ G\-R.,12,\ \ a-)C GAG CNN c �� .� c � �� o� 6 rk , ∎ s C sQX 04\ \ o& O(�r -t6 b.S C Ckv■ ''QTAr- \� U�rvc�s�ac� vksv\-V\ sc\ 311 Tw o v ,c>. \N\10.S\j c L S l S nb� 0 LAN\ U\;)\\ WI\ e`.3-eJZA \NVC,VII■ \I-4- 40 1 C.(ACS\k‘Z- 'P3-eckv-k7NznN■ &\i 0..-Lck.V"Q,- 6'. • 'it) V■v \��e.. moo, \ \O-& m� _ \\).).h S w ■NN. c\N o V .\\''-/ ■ \ S Lt. COw\'7 0,7:t . ‘PZ (Kr\& 6 G \V ° V \oN .( c\ \ \�:� \�c \�\U� 0C_C_Q<S- .1b°o -\\� S`tr��� \C- 52\ ecamh " \Aik 0.&10,: \0 \:0-.. r- c.s "■.r.. C h"o. 1,0, \ \ \I\& - C '2.._ a.c--iz__ -\\sa_ -12,\r---, 6 -CeS" .\\ t �� ? , --\'\--s,- . Wes\ c. l u.pc.)-4\--3\ \ Q' \ -1\-r•Q•4.S VN61 d'`K\-\ ■ .2,0\N- \'‘\ c c \e C.:3\ v4 Uc3N`� T ■ t)e k 77— a M, 574,6, analy Fes a f C'er, ler one 4,-f e {�v�l/14, of /07 r / 000 5 f,4/12 4.e7L o T-o sr »a / /er /0,, 14, 01 re/ /`5- / 5„6,re 4-e 74 ./ o/ /6 o /VC 4 r 4.e. (P6e Z) , 77,2. pie _ a/40 A. a 7c, / € s f/u f // lnGv"e 740 / koioy e of •1338000 on 1/e 45,L C /0or a.1 G/ 3 /Fr se %.J C/a / g. t4. stLdy shot /I Gea /y 7e t/.p P%FPC( nt 7C// clly ,/o /pr�P,1 of 7'L S,/e, it 0rcie'r ;/o %%rete., Gel i (( ro /e i'c fiirt, a tia c /5. 2.) 04 /)o`/e 10 x'14 gIA t /lief 1 /-.10 ‘fro el Ira 1-4-'c /vas p'PrrvP/ 6,n //e Gnlypnro /e r/ • /t4 cGy el) vnp - C,•rowf� r^-G5 pssuvnrGi, , • ,I 47140 r7c0 1' re/ur 74 Vf PC! /785 Vo /rues Qs ex Isnnj PG 7x, ,.moo 0,10 /y i.ec //ro ^'770 �ht. Vo(i.Mef , S0th (r,,.t4 Gnt% ("".40v tL � /eC1' Gs /!e GI,r,yn yrtr. 1 7 ad Rol` eylear 7, yP G VG /I Gffcr, Open /yc, f /x€ re tvGf 40 frb,✓t4 /n f7Gr4c . vo4,,,er rJe4een /gds G " c/ /98-0 /r Az juycf .So.•nJ afro, 2; a id, nnn r� a /2 &Gr 7/H c. 7' /989 (N0V la' G /More 51,,/c6le r'Aorl�on yersr s /nte f-. per oil' POASivcli�n/ GS 40141 v'' . 744 /J/F- c /.a 7( ., </nlm a ry / /4; // /9 ?) Tf wou/J ap,PUr / /Gf - ffire /rruy ie sorme e/rv/t i/1 . 71/A-. , 7r/fi 9e4ere. Iron (cit.-7a '0,3 /%,t''se, 'd in 74h /P f 0, /la ye, 6 , 1:46710/ ,4, j 6e-6, e..evl . ' the fr'j • yener4 T,O.h T jvrr 5 .?'�Pr7/t. 1 r 5- .4,9 %Jrns (en s o /Je 0.00 ?7,.are / ,n I/e Ire 7,.'p Ce, erOi+" rrlonva7 / 1;',.271 a.• J ?oo� o s, G re 14 e >< res u Or Ah � l p. , pegG 10 790 o7' 7'e- , " &iv/4) A,J PX, A, y 7/r-1. S 1/5 14, f /.e 1-77- 6r�tiGo%wr ' bT- I l % 0 r ✓ 67 79 / /L° ?c.c. Ave /y 7•o r f'%c (n N , '4,44 re sv // s 3e'G ,„d yoz ovfbovnc/ Ver5v5 35.6 Gnd 370 540k,vr 576dy. (off".) ¢za ZTt 6,-es ¢/,o q„s F. YZ >< - z naJ /147- 113 o n /)Pt /x o v'- J ?Z Gr 7- 6 % /r-Ps /n 4 oaf V/ 7 G / iry sse, clvrr;. /'G• fr1OO + /IP46 A.- ver 74,7 c,f /lrQSe G+'ISe/yencrnf $L0J/tt' he ex/O /a :op/. �1 4 S ✓l' of .'J~O % :s used 14r 4-,acs /i-> s O. /%O ;e C Ve ITr a ✓rna/ Grti'c/e 6/eol Gs G /L' -'n(e 4r Ike /47o>'fro4/0 ,y // S>t'G 4,5 ,! SO o (15,/re J'e P/w >Pn4'/ 4 0t14' i7 . IC, f- en . re4 AJ �t wad SGest Ulc! he eyrik 4 4r G /poor /Pali hover n G ,./". //& t L,.-. 5) 720re /S rlo /h 6,40h /h 0/14, 14, (J /srvss•oi of /ever a( Sor e eri /3 or 7 /e p,e /G' I a / fit. /eve/ 5 rvr /P 4, e6514.-1 /e / /v,n ci4-a, /e I /co WA <Pnlei L�ir7Yusrr�(�r/) de 4-10 r045 40,,, .8 / 17 Gv//L, /re /)/o /'t c r. 722 I-% /f 0,. 7 O / t i e en 1 a n r e (/ h u G(a 4/0 (c /'es 7fr'1 G F Ty /v c 4, // . )4f.L /eve e o! fh , overrea/3 /f co 5'1' . // FC'J /i, leP/'VPc 7) o. r Cv'f I9/rsenkt, 074 an Overcl( 4 e ( of Serv%/e �r 14 /r1/4 /SPcnon, ') 774 /S /u3Slo,i 0 7` are hosed /Ay4/7, (pea cvre e /! • /`e Ors. A i U/ f/e. 5,/e em e .84 /s' To fI1I /i'5 A/f 4 on a 70l47Sonj Pre/ • of service . ,,p(a/ /y/ Sly* a( 1r+51NJ 4 ,'o/4 /hee741) ffe (NGrronls Sf7ac P0 )Cr ff° /it S/ri //a7 .1 ir4A 513hc. /$ p„Gls/ao 6y F ,, 1n >� � l, 1,4.1 01 61,116."'" 7;,,;( (col 41 bev,COs , 4v0 /y5,3 1,-, e r GS er� of frl•s 5,411 y. 7 . /n5 �� // AI* o vyG"u,ran;�d 74 744 S,�n4 /5 (oh (0,6 e irpqc vnCn �'o�c gn„ . 44 eta 61e, /1,5 Gn0 1.v45K INN a+ ri5-15 +rn2 a,,,( res., 14- i'� 1'r‘c.rP6Se. d ooilsd h'401 �) 7,�. 5i/dy L0»7/4,:75 by a/ /s.ti ss /o o7( (74 ?) 77D 5-Ard Lon74s /i s i7O 11S /vS511:7n 0 547e% lon s, or 6 ley c /e i;r/%G c% 9) /ire (apc//y i%��Cvlw, Aotr!S ("St. Go see on 7'4ui1X pp-747 Cy On h( Svpp /P/Y/P l II I ` /9 6€r ✓1 Qp4 ,-e 1 b Cyc/eS loser.71 /y ohceens // hour f/sp kvovl ,e, /r, use 4y f% are conCv //0,, 7 u / /2e`r /o S , /5)4"SPd 7/G f /A Over /00 sec ." CP 4' 5/ Dr!". cycle /ety/ /s pfbdvr e .+o're /as?' i ,'e Gs f/.L ',v.•, 4,, o r°' L /e4rom rC /nr�'G Is I e- ace ereAreC/ ( D(/ en T/Py arse no/ /yloK e7 '((/BH7 . (in 4,55 i11_ • �L'4 65 71.4 '/ ilk C?n '7 /'s 24;r7,;,f J7 a'7 ov 477/P /79PnlPd / 1-10 Px�s�'�9 s,h� A6s,n5 einy'fl,in5 e /se it /toT h°4 /'5 75'c - /Dl 4Jfho' ,,o/ dig 1.1 7z10 7''b/- ( 5.-7<vY 7e,!a /9re ?PI' 14 ' Ce /e c. /47<orf 5X0-// 40 e%7n e 1,s4n 5 G,rl G /ea ra4 /P /PI 4 /vq /S i/$7n5t St/ ,n/r7 el ^y i�Ni'l4htS f A7L /22y G,L,;,S spaces ti-p f.6 ;'ke lr/ am me c/4 X10 s (iiroWiiet/ /%I / J;T /J ,6/ 'cG7S'o 7/Gr1s7Jor7‘ /*a G,C/ (zinc/ )ev® /o/9/71en7 ( , kir) re:4, /1�3• ,i1 •6V0 Sa(NS Pcit Itat/ ✓ it° G/ T° r a 51,y/9 A) (8M/ -✓ D( /60/ /'>'5 S5,,,e f • (Yo S/Ja ce S / ' /oo0 Sfvo,-f + %r (elders Ze/✓ea,, 2s o,.7-0 yoo 0,00 15 ✓tee 4 '-), lis ;•') /4 dec' rio.5en4J /^ / /J�° - fvvnr• 4'\•l �r /14 S(tili/e /`etaT�%.� 0 Ws(/ rilk yrI P n `i 4 e/ ,4 ..71-87: /loco ,7t /'%en p/a h ' r°Sv H / r, ct ii.ze d IC, /06D 54.0s a �a,,i�fs o7L /'/ 5,1,// , • City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 June 20, 1988 Vincent Ferrese Mithun Partners 2000 112th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98104 Re: PRE - APP - 019 -88: Tukwila Pond Dear Mr. Ferrese: Enclosed is the attendance record for the pre - application meeting held on June 16, 1988. There are several general issues that need to be resolved between the developer and various City departments. Because the proposal is preliminary in nature, another pre - application meeting is suggested where detailed checklists of requirements will be prepared by staff. An appropriate time would be during the design review process, where more specific issues can be addressed. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 433 -1851. Sincerely, �Q ee-e-i2A+ Becky L. Davis Permit Coordinator cc: Rick Beeler, Planning Director Jack Pace, Senior Planner Nick Olivas, Fire Marshal Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer Don Williams, Parks and Recreation Director Joel Benoliel, Spieber Partners Paul Bosman, Mervyn's Mike Riggs Scott Schlosser, Mervyn's Lynn Takeuchi, Mackenzie Saito JUN 281988 \ • ts t /i. City of" .kwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 PRE - APPLICATION MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD FOR STAFF USE ONLY Pre -app File # PRE- APP - 019 -88 Project Name: Tukwila Pond Meeting Date 6 -16 -88 Time 2:30 pm Site Address: Strander B1 /Andover Pk W Checklist mailed to contact person (date): N/A Initials: N/A CHECKLIST STAFF PRESENT NAMES /TITLES PROVIDED E Building (433 -1851) •Duane Griffin, Building Official; Becky Davis, Permits❑ E Fire (575 -4404) `Nick Olivas, Fire Marshal ❑ E Planning (433 -1849) - Jack Pace, Senior Planner ❑ E Public Works (433 -1850) ' Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer ❑ E Parks & Rec. (433 -1847) - Don Williams, Director ❑ ['Police (433 -1806) ❑ ❑ Other ( - ) ❑ DOther ( - ) ❑ APPLICANT /REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT Contact Person: Name Vincent Ferrese Company /Title Mithun Partners Address 2000 122th Ave. N.E., Bellevue, WA Zip 98004 Phone 454 -3344 Others Present: )''Name Joel Benoliel Company /Title Spieher Partners Address 11400 S.E. 8th, Bellevue, WA. Zip 98004 Phone 453 -1600 Name Paul Bosman Company /Title Mervyn .'s Address 22301 Foothill Blvd., Hayward, CA Zip 94541 Phone 4'15. 727. -5925 -Name Mike Riggs Company /Title Address 9688 Rainier Ave. So., Seattle, WA Zip 98118 Phone 723 -4567 ,Name Scott Schlosser Company /Title Mervyn:'s Address 22301 Foothill Boulevard, Hayward, CA Zip 94541 Phone 415 - 727 -5929 Name Lynn Takeuchi Company /Title Mackenzie Saito Address 300 120th N.E., Suite 233, Bldg. #3 Zip 98004 Phone 451 -1005 Bellevue, WA , MITHUN • JUN 8- 198.8 8 June 198.8 : - Mr. .Jack Pace Senior Planner CITY OF .TUKWI -LA 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 l RE: "TUKWILA POND SITE- MBE JOB NO.. 88066.00 Dear Jack: The. following dates are adjustments -to my letter of May 31st. Again thankyou. for taking all of the time with us. June 1:00 pm meeting at Tukwila . City Hall -with. the Department of Ecology; City of Tukwila and Spieker.Partners,etc. al. ,. 1988 ,2:30 pm meeting -with City of Tukwila Spieker Partners (etc.. al) to discuss soils and wildlife impacts, etc. June, 16 1988 June 13 -17th 1988 dune '29,. 1988 • June 30, 1988 July 8, 1988: July, 14,. • 1988 ' July 20, 1988 Aug. 10, ..1988' Aug. -25, 1988 September'l988_, ARCHITECTURE PLANNING & INTERIOR DESIGN ~_ 2000 112TH AVE NE BELLEVUE WA 98004 (206) 454 3344 FAX (206) 646 4776 Site Plan review at City, 3:30 pin Spieker- Partners) submit for fill permit. Grade and , fill permit issued. S. E. P. A.,checklist application. Application for Design Review to City._ Pre - Design Review hearing with'City; staff.. S.E.P.A...determination. S.E.P.A. appeal.- period over. 7:00 pm Design Review Hearing at City Hall. Building ,Permit applications (piles and building separate). • Mr. Jack, Pace Senior Planner CITY OF TUKWILA Page Two Oct. /Nov.'1988' "Issuance Of Building ,Permits.. We would appreciate your review of these milestones dates. Should 'you wish to 'adjust any dates please phone me. .Sincerely, Vincent Ferrese AIA Vice President 'cc: Joel Benoliel Lynn Takeuchi Rex Van Wormer ,VF /twp BARHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. "Lanc[Planning, Survey, and Design Specialists" Mr. Joel Benoliel Spieker Partners 1.1.400 Southeast 8th Street Suite 310 Bellevue, WA 98004 Re: Dear Joel: June 3, 1988 (JUN3 1988 • Proposed,Andover Park Plaza, A 30 -Acre Commercial Development Located at the Southwest Corner of Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington. Our Job No. 2885 As requested, we have reviewed the topographic survey information recently forwarded to our office as prepared by Stepan & Associates. The topographic survey base sheet is dated October 1986 and stamped by Paul S. Anderson, Registered Surveyor in the State of Washington. I am enclosing one (1) half -size (1" = 1.00') reproducible copy with two (2) blueprints of the survey for your use. Based upon the extensive topographic survey information which is indicated on the plan, we estimate the total water surface area at the 15.0 elevation contour at approximately 16.99 acres. We have determined this arca via a digital planimeter analysis, and would estimate the accuracy to within approximately 2 percent. The static water elevation at the time the survey was completed is indicated as approximately 13.5. However, it is apparent that the maximum mean water surface for the pond could only be as high as elevation 15.1. The maximum mean water elevation on the project clearly is controlled by the existing 30 -inch CMP culvert located approximately 435 feet north of the southeast property corner and immediately adjacent to Andover Park West. The 30 -inch storm drainage line incorporates a flap gate which prevents discharge into this system at periods when the Green River flood elevation exceeds an elevation higher than 15.1. According to the City of Tukwila this occurs only a few times each year for relatively short periods of time (a few hours). The mean high water mark elevation is generally defined by municipal, county, and federal agencies as the line of vegetation for a given water or stream channel area. In this particular case, it is apparent that the mean high water mark could not in any case exceed thc 15.1 elevation which is the invert elevation of the flap gate and outlet drainage pipe. If thc pond were to arise above this level for any period of time, the water would drain off to this elevation quickly. Therefore, the static water elevation of the water body will almost always be at elevation 15.1 or lower. Overflow storm drainage from the pond enters the 30 -inch CMP at Andover Park West and is conveyed to the east side of Andover Park West via another 30 -inch CMP. It is then conveyed directly north through another 30 -inch CMP for a Home Office: 18215 72nd Avenue South • Kent, Washington 98032 • (206) 251 -6222 Sacramento Office: 3134 -A Auburn Blvd., • Sacramento, California 95821 • (916) 484 -1212 Mr: Joel Benoliel Spiekcr Partners -2- June 3, 1988 distance of approximately 500 feet. At this point the pipe enlarges to a 42 -inch CMP and enters a large storm drainage conveyance system which eventually drains into the Green River. Our Company has recently completed the design of the grading, storm drainage, and utility plans for the Courtyard Hotel, being constructed by the Marriott Corporation, and located immediately cast of your property. In order to secure a building permit, our firm was required to complete a storm drainage study of the arca and verify to the City, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the flood elevations and drainage characteristics in the area were conducive to the type of proposed development. Therefore, we are very familiar with this storm drainage system and are confident that the flows and flow routes indicated herein are accurate and in accordance with the best available as -built survey data as prepared by our Company, as well as City records. Again, we believe that the total water body surface of 16.99 acres represents a maximum surface area under worst case conditions. Based on the review of our Marriott development calculations, the topographic survey, as forwarded by Stepan & Associates, as well as our site inspections, the annual mean high water mark is probably significantly less than the 15.1 elevation. The half -size copy of the Stepan survey indicates the approximate location of the 15.0 contours around the existing water body. We have overlaid this document with the aerial photo on record at the City of Tukwila, which was recently submitted by a previous developer under a different proposal. The 15.0 contour appears to be substantially higher than the pond boundaries shown on the aerial photograph. This further Leads us to believe that the Stepan survey is accurate relative to existing field conditions and that the maximum mean high water mark would not in any case be higher than the 15.1 elevation. If you have any further questions concerning this information, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Respectfully, Dana B. Mower, P.E. Vice President DBM /sg C339.48 enc: (1) Reproducible Survey (1) Blueprints cc: Mr. Bruce Hosford, Spiekcr Partners Mr. Don Jefferson, Spicker Partners Mr. Richard Romney, Spieker Partners Mr. Andy McMillan, Department of Ecology `Nlr:_ Jack`Pace; City- of- Tukwila--(w /4-enc:)_ June 2, 1988 • The Watershed Company ...specializing in streams Mr. Rex Van Wormer Independent Ecological Services 1514 Muirhead Olympia, WA 98502 Dear Rex: IUN 3.1988 1 E S ASSOCIATES As you requested, we performed a qualitative electrofishing survey at "Tukwa Pond" on May 25, 1988. Present were myself, my assistant, Greg Johnston, land Ted Muller of the Washington Department of Wildlife. The pond is located southwest of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West (just south of the Southcenter shopping mall and just east of the Doubletree Inn) in Tukwila, Washington. The purpose of our electrofishing survey wasto -determine whether any fish were living in the pond, and, if so, what species. Fishing was conducted from asmall boat, mostly in shallow water around the vegetated pond margins. By this method, we were able to capture 52 brown bullhead catfish (Ictalurus nebulosus) of fairly uniform length ranging from 7.5 to 9 inches. No other fish species were found. For every-fish we were able to capture, perhaps 10 others were spooked by our electrofishing equipment. We concluded that catfish . in the pond are fairly common, but that other fish species are probably absent. We trust that this information will serve your needs., If you have any questions, please give us a call. Sincerely, A. William Way President 1029 Market Street, Suite C, Kirkland, WA 98033 (206) 822 -5242 MITHUN PART N E R S 31 May 1988 Mr. Jack Pace • .Senior Planner _ .CITY OF TUKWILA .- 6200 Southcenter Blvd. - Tukwila, WA '98188 RE: TUKWILA POND'SITEE' MBE JOB NO. 88066.00: Dear Jack: On.behalf -of the Spieker Partners I would like to thank you for assisting our design -team during the past. month. At my meeting yesterday with you and Joel Berb1iel'of Spieker Partners, the following schedule' was established as our milestone dates: June .7,- 1988 - 'June 7, - 1988 - 62194W ' June 13 -17th 198.8, 1L June W; 1988 June 29,-. 1988 June. 30, .1988 July 8, 1988 July 14, 1988 -', 1988 Aug. 2'5, 1988- .;September 1988 -ARCHITECTURE PLANNING & ,. '.INTERIOR DESIGN, ' 2000 1 12TH AVE NE BELLEVUE WA 98004 ' (206) 454 3 3.4.4 FAX (206) 646 4776 1 :00 ,pm: meeting at Tukwila City Hall with the-,Departmerit of Ecology; City of Tukwila and, Spieker Partners etc,.. .al -. 2:30 pm meeting with City of Tukwila Spieker Partners (etc. al) to discuss -. soils and wildlife' impacts,, etc. Spieker Partners, 'submit for fill permit. Site, Plan Review with City Planners.. - Grade.and fill ermit.issued. )r, /= E.F.A. determl 'iaioissued by City Tukwila ' >%;6 Application for Design Review to City. P're- Design Review hearing with,City staff. S.E.P.A. appeal 'period over. 7:00_pmDesign Review Hearing at City Hall. Building Permit; applications (piles and building- separate). City • Tukwila FIRE DEPARTMENT 444 Andover Park East Tukwila, Washington 98188 -7661 (206) 575 -4404 rmY 1988 4 Gail/ L.£VanDusen, _Mayor., 6 � f .14' :,A1S TO: Jack Pace FROM: Asst.Chief Nick Olivas SUBJECT: Tukwila Pond Project DATE: May 25, 1988 The Tukwila Pond Project, as .currently proposed, would not receive Fire Department approval for the following reasons: 1) Regardless of hydrant placement, the S.E. corner of The Target Store will be further than three hundred feet from a hydrant, violating UFC 10.301 and City Ordinance #729. 2) UFC 10.207 (amended) states, " Fire apparatus roads shall be required when any portion of the exterior wall of the first story is located more than 150 feet from Fire Department vehicle access. ". The drawing clearly shows that portions of the buildings exceed the 150 feet limit. UFC 10.207 (amended) states under exceptions, " 1. When conditions prevent the installation of an approved fire apparatus road, The Chief may permit the installation of a fire protection system or systems in lieu of a road. ". A fire in portions of this complex would present additional risk to the fire fighters due to it's limited access and it's location over the pond. If the complex is to be constructed as proposed in this plan, The Fire Department will require the installation of a fire alarm system per NFPA standards, sprinkler protection under the floors supported by the pilings, a wet standpipe system, a smoke removal system, an emergency evacuation notification system, and emergency back up generators If there are any questions on The Fire Department's requirements, I will be available to address them. • INVERT •AID Diane E. Robbins BIOLOGICAL CONSULTANT 9912 BARNES LANE SO. TACOMA, WA 98444 (206)537 -7494 Mr. Rex Van Wormer 1514 Mui•rhead Olympia, WA 98502 Dear Rex; • 177, JUN 6 1988 may 22, 1988 Here are the results of the sediment sampling done on May 20, 1988 at Tukwila Pond, King Co. Washington. The samples were 2" diameter cores approximately 10 cm in depth. They were screened at .5mm and observed live. I have not done a statistical analysis of the samples as the cores varied in length and the sed- iment varied so in consistancy that truly quantative samples were not possible to obtain. It can be said, however, that the samples contained few specimens. Station 1: sandy sediment, detritus, seeds, insect elytra. 15 Ceriodaphnia sp ;t.3 oligochaetes, 2- copepods *.. Station 2: sand and silt, detritus, seeds, elytra. 3 chironomidae, 1 Ostracoda Station 3: clay, silt, detritus. 3 oligochaetes, 6 copepods; 1 nematode Station 4: clay, silt, detritus. 2 copepods* Station 5: grey clay and detritus, seeds, elytra. 1 chironomid, 2 oligochaetes, 2 ostracods, 1 copepod *. Cladocerans of the genus Ceriodaphnia waters of low Oxygen concentrations. These in the water column, as were the copepods, are known to withstand were probably captured rather than in the sediment cores. Invertebrates that are known to exist in the water column are marked above with an * • If we eliminate those individuals from the benthic counts, Station 1, for example, would contain 3 oligochaetes, or. approximately 1404 individuals per meter2- A total of 4 chironomid larvae were taken in all 5 samples. The mean of these samples approximated to numbers per m2 is 374 individuals. To make the point even stronger: ALL benthic species combined provide a mean of 1592 individuals per m2. One must consider the source of the insects being fed upon by the 5 species of swallow encountered on May 20. Possibly these were from more inshore sediments, ie those at the waters' edge. There were suprisingly few oligochaetes at the site, and a notable lack of molluscs. Studies completed by Yake et al in 1986 in eenjunction with studies of the Triad Approach to Freshwater sediment assessment compare taxa diversities and densities at three localities: Morse Lake (12'depth) , Lake Sammamish and Lake Union (25'). The number of specimens gathered in the present sampling are dramatically lower than those from the other three sites. Lake Sammamish, for instance,provided 4,247 Oligochaetes and 9,157 Chironomids per m2. At Gasworks Park stations 2,200 Oligochaetes, 75 Chironomids / were found. Studies completed by INVERT *AID on the benthic invertebrates of. Lake Union contained from 140,490 to 0 Oligochaetes (mean 18,1176) from1404 to 0 Chironomids (mean 405) per m2. In conclusion, the sediments of Tukwila Pond are of very low productivity. Diane E Robbins REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Regulatory Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX C -3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-2255 Mr. Rex Van Wormer IES Associates 1514 Muirhead Olympia, Washington 98502 Dear Mr. Van Wormer: MAY 1 6 1988 !Iv 9 1988 D 1 E S ASSOCIATES A Department of the Army permit is not required for driving piling in Tukwila Pond at Tukwila, Washington. The Corps of Engineers jurisdiction in waters of the United States such as Tukwila Pond is limited to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Under Section 404, a Department of the Army permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jim Green, telephone (206) 764 -3495. Sincerely, 74).4.,,ie*Oalv Thomas F. Mueller Chief, Processing Section Geok�Engineers MacKenzie /Saito Associates Inc. Building 3, Suite 233 300 - 120th Avenue Northeast Bellevue, Washington 98005 Attention: Mr. Lynn Takeuchi Gentlemen: April 6, 1988 'NAY AY 27 )988 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists Assessment of Geotechnical Construction Impacts on Adjacent Facilities Proposed Commercial Development Andover Park West & Strander Blvd. Tukwila, Washington File No. 1192 -12 -1 This letter presents our assessment of geotechnical construction impacts on adjacent facilities resulting from construction of the planned commercial development adjacent to the "Tukwila Pond" in Tukwila, Washington. The project site is located on the south side of Strander Boulevard, west of Andover Park West. The site is presently vacant, has an area of approximately 12 acres, and is covered with grasses, brambles, and small trees. A seven story office building located well off site to the west and two smaller structures near the northwest corner of the site are the only significant structures in the immediate vicinity. An Olympic Pipeline Company line, as well as other utilities, is present along the south side of Strander Boulevard. Other utilities also exist along Andover Park West. We understand that present plans for site development are to construct one or two large (60,000 to 100,000 square foot) retail store APR 7 GeoEngineers, Inc. 2405 140th Ave. NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone (206) 746 -5200 Fax. (206) 746 -5068 •Engineers MacKenzie /Saito Associates, Inc. April 6, 1988 Page 2 buildings together with some smaller, single -story retail shop buildings. This will require the placement of fill to raise at least a portion of the site. Depending on building loads and construction schedules, a portion of the planned buildings may require pile foundations. The site soils generally consist of surficial fill overlying compressible organic silt and peat extending to depths of about 40 feet below the average surface grade. These soils are underlain by medium dense sand to about 70 feet. This sand stratum is, in turn, underlain by soft to medium stiff silt to about 100 feet deep. Medium dense to dense sand underlies the silt. The fill required to establish yard grades and floor grades for soil- supported slabs will induce considerable consolidation in the underlying compressible strata. While this will result in substantial settlements in the central portion of the site, it is our experience, from extensive project experience in the Southcenter and Andover Industrial Park areas, that any settlements along the street embankments will be small (probably on the order of 1 to 3 inches). Differential settlements of utility lines will not be abrupt and are not expected to be detrimental to the utilities. Pile foundations will extend into the intermediate or deep sand layers underlying the site. Piles founded in the intermediate sand layer may be driven piles or augercast piles. In the latter case, these will be no .ground vibrations generated in drilling the piles. In the case of driven piles, we conclude that the level of any driving- induced ground vibrations will be too small to have any effects on existing structures or adjacent utilities due to their distance from anticipated building locations. - 0 0 0 ♦ Geo�Engineers • MacKenzie /Saito Associates, Inc. April 6, 1988 Page 3 call. If you have any questions or need additional information, please Yours very truly, Ge gineers, Inc. J'ck:K. uttle Pjzicipal JEB:JKT: Three copies submitted cc: Mr. Joel Benoliel Spieker Partners 11400 SE 8th ST., Bellevue, WA 98004 11400 S.E. 8th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 206 453 -1600 January 25, 1988 Mr. Jack Pace Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Easement rights Dear Jack: MD.F 1 ! k!I 27 1988 CITY OFTTUK vtLA PLANNING DEPT. SPIEKER Pursuant to our telephone conversation, I am enclosing a copy of the Parkway Square Binding Site Improvement Plan (recorded December 5, 1979) showing a 30 -foot easement in favor of The City over the south 30 -feet of The Parkway Square development. I've also enclosed a copy of the deed affecting The Bon's adjacent site south of Parkway Square. The deed reflects the 16 -foot easement in my favor, running over the north 16- feet of The Bon warehouse property, to the west line of my property. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Sincerely, •PIEKER PARTNERS 4"/ oel Benoliel Partner JB:db PARKWAY SQUARE BINDING SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Lf .3I T tPIrT:M ▪ eel• I11 arj IV of Cnundiry in 600500n' No. 131.6.3-79 recorded wrier Re•:ordin; No. •9341/0 3f1. being a revision of Short Plat No. OeSr,recor•:r•.1 under u,- cnrdinl 7210130634, Records of King County. ; a snort clot of that nnrtion of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1'4 of Section 26, 7ownanip ?3 North, Range 4 East, Y.M., In ring County,. e asntnaton,,.tescrineo as follows: • Be:•inntng9 at tne - onunented tntersectinr. Of the centerlines of Southcenter earkway (57th avenue 5 and Stranger Foulerard,(5. 164th Street);.thence South 8946S3 ' East along the nonumented centerline of said 50,8048, Boulevard. a distance of 375.05 feet; thence South 0 "25'58" East parallel with the ronunented Cast line of said subdivision, a distance of 30.00:. feet to an intersection with the South margin of said Strawder Boulevard, and the true point. of beginning of the herein described tract; thence con- tinuing South 0 "25'58" East, a distance of 200.00 feet; thence South 89"45'5P-. ...: East parallel with said centerline of Strander Boulevard, a distance of.... 350.00 feet to the monimented East line of said subdivision :'ttlence South .• 0"25'58" Cast along said East line, a distance of 1093.20 feet't0 the moon- merited Southeast . corner of said subdivision; thence 'North 69043719" Veit along the monumented south line of said subdivision, -a distance of 626.81 feet to the Cast amrgln of said Southcenter Partway; essence Yorth.11n57 48''. .•. West along said East margin,•8 distance of 1241.1..5 feet t0 a point ;of curye4.. thence Northerly and Easterly along the art of a:turve to tike- right. sal; ' tune having a radius of 50.00 feet through a central angie.of•91 "11'60";.. ` 8- dlltance .of 79.58 feet to the South margin of said strand8r Boule+ardt:: ' thence Scuth -8° "45'.58" .East along. said South margin. -4 4ltgne�yol. 37.12 feet_ to the true point Of Deginnl n9; . • • .. The foramentioned.,poeume tation estatiltihed by t11kCltei 8? ,luk /I 00er, 1.1.0...40. 13, ContrecS -No. 2- 68,•Sht. l of 39.-Strmet Pl1n. end.f491114,. ;- INSCRIPTIONS Ondergrnund utility easement and the terms an/ condi (inns t'n -nof, Ir. favor of Puget Sound Power 5 Light (mipany as rocordet '.n -lee 'iecon111-3 No. 6370873, am modified under gecordiny Nn. f :75109, 2) Casement and the tends and conditions' thereof - 1n far,r, of Inc City •,f Tukwila for utility halos and lines as recorded under Returning Nn. 6355525. 3) underground utility easement and the terns and :grditions thereuf. i n favor of Bon Servtcenter corporation es recorder under Recording No. 6640297, r 1) Easements and other conditions contained in Boundary line Adjasunent NO: 818.3 -79 recorded under Recording No. 790413,07161 being a revision Of Short Plat No..77 -51 recorded under Recording ho. 7710130634. Restrict tens Imposed by Instrument recorded on February 23, 1979, under Retording'71o.• 7902231098. DECLARRTION ; • _y.� . - Know all men by these presents that we. the undersigned, Owners ie Jae mOgle of the land herein described do hereby estaOl tin a Blodsnn99 SIte•teRfovts7ieatt 618n for the Por0ese of lease of portions thenvf'. pursuant tx'theeter 38. V ;, r. • -:' 4.C,Y, and Title 37: 70w11. Municipal Code and that sell oleo does not yam. afni teatstttete a aubeivlslop of therJend hereto described for ,the eiusiype-o! "'!' "`�• sale or other tracfler of portions thereof and. further, that .the, Yndersigned declares that development of the property herein described shall . ceexfene to all inscriptions contained hereon. s ' 6) Sdbject Wan..easement ocarina south 30 feet of Parce IV of Boundary. • . Line Adjustlnyrtt Ne. BLA -3 -79, recorded under Recording No. 7904180861, being a rtristen of Short Plat No. 77.51 recorded under Recording No. . 7710130634, to favor Of the City of Tukwila for access, utilities and the rtoht to. construct related improvements by the City. If Inc City 40e1.0ot oYke.use of this easement within 10 years of the effective date of the Binding Site Improvement 'Plan accompanying this Certificate of Segregation. tke'easement will be void and all rights will revert to :.,,the owner of Parcel C. • ' . 7). Feceppt the West 'I feet of Parcels 111 8 19 of Boundary Line Adjustment NO: BLA -] 79 .recorded- under Recording No. 7904180861, being a revision ... ot.'S8oet 01St 710.; 77.51 recorded under Recording No. 7710130634, deli- toted 0. the Ctty of Tukwila. - • . DEDICATTON t11ND -SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE.: •I'Iige orn.rtlfy that this Binding Site 1mpr0veNrnt Plan for Partway Square, `the heretofore described tract of. lend, Is based upon -an actual survey and thaGa11 ,the causes end dlstancef shown thereon are correct: and that I `:.tun folty,:comolled With the prorlstons of the statutes and platting • 600w'1111_men by.t ese presents. tltat'we the Undersigned., doers. In fee. simple,• 3,f the hind: herein described 00 -40reby-dedI600e to the City•af.24.1.1. for - ' - ever 011681rt seven feet "of Parcels 111 and IV of Boundary .Line Adjuitoent No. B1A -3 -79 recorded-under Retarding No. 7904180861, being a. eV. fain" 00 Short Plat No. 77 -51 recorded under Recording No.. 7710130634iRetords ef. - • King County, situated in ter City or Tukwlla,`Kiag' County, Wash(rgton, . being a portion of, the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 264 Township •23 North. Range 4 East, Y.M.: ,. "_• • - • Robert W-- Meelmen•..: • Prdfessionel Lead Surveyor - - .,.Certlficate No...: 7100 - 14amined and. tmpreved this .- - tl day O1 1/e7/4{, ' 70rswnt'to R.CC.Y. 54,17 ina Title T/ Tuk011oMunl pa e. • • State of Calif... -, County of Sewfw «a:. ss . Thli 15 to certify t8a1 on 0811- 14.4 - day of 0Gfn 1979..0610o me, the undersigned, a Notary PubI1c, personally. 877*0ree W,wilnr r PeM,:•,ps ac/tted Dovnio is.Ju�o. ". 'respectively. et the''+Sen .q (J w. ' l'64,0ae'I' Reim /Ma Ihw,CMer405 j eyfatas- TRaAS.i9e'wt a, Rl AG. ,wamaer, to ne Soomi to be. the individuals who executed 00?..thin detlaretloh, an4 acknowledged. t0 me . that, they sipped and sealed.150 Ada ailthe1v nplunta6 1 '. act and deed for the uses and purposes therein' mentioned ape orw'eath ateted o Shat they were authorized to execute said instwnnent,end 100'94 Seal affixed is the cerperate seal of saga corporation. _ Wtnees * TVIRI and 911111,) seal :the dee end year Mnt above written. - RING (017817.006!. OF ASSESSMENTS Y,9 ` u r - No Pry Public and • for the ate of ` �? . , : - {inccrow1444 ' $e4101mi it. -,,:: ray Calliplsston.expir.0 ' ..t0 :4,p a,a'.••d.,- 7_Y:- -s•'a�r1:10 ''9' • Clap tam. yes 6 Deputy K1ilo'Coolly As .. _ 4056601$ y 11b106'1'� 77y7Zi2507B3 ;: ;. oEPAgr1RV37E'01 RE4ORD3 AND IIFalt14 ' : 7 • '•? • f11iAT SV e i f b 4 i f 6t`'the'roquist 'dr tt a Ci ty of twwtl e'tAty' — J pr 1 p1 Y :.:. -�[t `., ' ;. 98 f. at , :=s •Iwles pelt • - � - f1 'cur - •a;,an1 tmcorded In Vgl4aee • �` .l 01 5,NSflaai' .heel . . , 74091 ".."1Q_ 13 :' . iteCtiedi dlf liteCeunty.- Yeseln9to 1.°0 • .Supt. of *804640. 'Iv CO t1ArAgwaletdi01iwDwwI0ie:'. :: .:•:.• 9C7 790 - Je r041:7,1 Itty2, • • 1281 :::!■4. PARKWAY SQUARE BINDING SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W. M. CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Fou.o CASED MOM/A.& fouNo (w,.° STAINDIR 8(49 (S Me* N89.4558-W 67505' Mo. N 19! 41' So' it4 37 Tear. L.., e•S.o.• ■•• /ft 77 5, /5-1/NorkoRov.vo UT /Orr EASevrn, Jo FAVOIP 0, PArtin{ L7 lir, Swowr Pl•T No 77-St Recomnma No. 79013 (098 t Zio 00. PARCEL 157:41. ' .11 89• 41' Sa- W • • • .1l4 37' /5 Dip..w.4, AND Ewsrms.vr. ReCORDIN6 No 77/0130634\ • • : • • -..-PAAYEI • 8.-- - ...-• 32 5' 0...7.3 EAS,141,V7., RIC.ORDINC 4, 6320873 376/89 • • • • • -.4•N 9 45 .58 • . 1 *• 45 „SO` P,- • ':" PA/PtE1 C -: • . • .• • - • • • `• ch. • : gr'10404.orr,iiiimo 74, tArr ' • . . • PIVititik.441(11/1/ 44 /1qiii.d. olegOvirnr4OriV,01,161'11.461•S*1"64666",•04.6s,.;• /4.,../ — . C • • . • • . • - • --, -. 41' N 4/3 s.6•■ . . •••• ". . Conger re./, /RD. An, \f.--06wo Coo.;to •••• •. . . . star r pettiphit Eng' neenl NCO new. S E . Ixonews. Mowers an. Illoweds Tampftwe MOINV:Ir '7,0 • 34 S ET '• ?Z /. 5 7 9 45 514 - ; 0 O� P h .3O LE- /fl MINT /N FA tine Or Tee C /7 • Or T1igw /zA FDR.Aeret;, (/rr6•rlr ANo Zit Xttrr,. ty IfUItO /ttirevtMiVrt. Ar Tie !'isr. Is- . dirr.Ar[S.i(r 444if.8,,I wfuwr Nirsv) v Yeas 4, TAi Aver/if' 'Ldtrr Or bet 11.vaw "Slit 1,44.«, Wm 4e l*;., Add Arl'"riots Anil' .Prmm.ri. N.`B9. 41'' /9 // I/7.8/'. .(-.SO,rs1T4 SMORr ACA' /Yo, FOUND COPPER Pi v IN CRE re Iry 4 /Roy P' OA Pangolin NW Engineering . Err.wra Pio anent and Sweep: ra P O. Bo. '3387 :. lama 4146 N E CON Blvd Portland Of err V 213 T, P oos 15011 262 -060' OPP esdonat Pled. on GOOD? TOHpnw, 12061 iM3110 790 - si co 'V 2 ci 6430287 STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED THE GRANTOR, BON SERVICENTER CORPORATION, a Washington m --- CV Cel'pel'at1011, for and in consideration of Ten and `!0 /100 Dollars - Fi (S10.00), in hand paid, coneys and warrants to CHATILLON REALTY CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, the following described real estate, situated in the County of King, State of Washington: That portion of the Northwest } of the Southeast } AND the Northeast } of the Southwest } of Section 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.:.1, in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast coiner of the Southea:.,, I of said Section 26; thence North 88 °05'42" West along the `forth line of said Southeast } a .:atance .,: 1998,50" feet to the West line of the East 659.34 feet of saic Northwest .1 of the Southeast } and the true point of beginning: thence South 01'47'29" West along said West line a distance of 658.25 feet; thence North 88 °00'36" West a distance of 1305.23 feet to the Easterly margin of the Mess Brothers C:. -.:ty Road No, 972: Thence North 01 °08'35' East along said Easterly margin a distance of 647,97 feet; thence continuing along said Easterly margin North 01 °05' 14" East a distance of 8.39 feet to the North line of sa+^ Northeast } of th" Southwest }; thence South 88 °05'42" Ea_: .._.,ng said North line a distancE of 632.65 feet to the center of said Section 26; thence South 88 °05'42" East along the North line of the Northwest } of the Southeast } of said Sa "tior. 26 a distance of 680.00 feet tc the true point of beginning; AND EXCEPT the West 6 feet of said portion of the Northeast } of the Southwest } as conveyed to the City of Tukwila by deed ....:ded under Auditor's File No. 6343850, records of King County: Situate in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington. SUBJECT TO: (a) Easement recorded July 22, 1929 under Auditor's File No. 2554742, at Volume 1445 of Deeds, page 219 for telephone poles. (b) Easements as granted by inst.uments recorded November 9, 1932 under Auditor's File No. 2740675 at Volume 1535 of Deeds, page 579 and February 2S, 1958 under Auditor's File no. 4877985 at Volume 3763 of Deeds, page 477 for ingress and egress over the North 20 feet of the West 20 feet of the Northwest } of the Southeast } of said Section 26 and over the North 16 feet of that portion of the Northeast } of the Southwest } of said Section 26 lying cast cf Mess Brothers County Road (57th Avenue South). (c) Easement recorded July 12, 1968 under Auditor's File No. 6376188, Volume'5114 of Deeds, page 555 for underground electric system and appurtenances over the east 5 feet of the West 56 feet of the above - described property. (.. Easement recorded May 29, 1968 under Auditor's File No. 6355532 for utility :rains and lines with appurtenances over the East 15 feet of the West 21 feet of the above - described property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has Cat!Pad this.in meat to be executed by its proper officers this ,.,- day of v -- , 1968. BON SERVICENTER CORPORATION By By ';cf - President .3,4t -,,-r- Secretary STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )SS. COUNTY OF KING ) On this vttl day of October 1968, before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared JAMES A; WALSH and W. J. FIX , to me ,:nown to be the Vice President and Ass't.Secretary, respectively of BON SERVICENTER i,..nrtiRATION, a Washington corporation, the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute the said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOV 6 -1968 4 Pt.ar, 'u. is in a nd for the State of Wa- hington, residing at Seattle. -2- J IN TICOR URANCE Commitment for Title Insurance SPIEKER PARTNERS 11400 S.E. 8TH STREET BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON ATTN: MR. JOEL BENOLIEL TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, (a stock company), a California corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Sched- ule A, in favor of the proposed insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate one hundred eighty (180) days after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. COPYRIGHT. 1968—AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA By President Attest Secretary TO 2299 WA (145) American Land Title Association Comstment — 1966 SCHEDULE A Commitment No. : A- 372450 UNIT 10 Effective date of commitment: NOVEMBER 13, 1987 at 8:00 A.M. Your No. : (TORONTO DOMINION BANK) Prepared for: SPIEKER PARTNERS 11400 S.E. 8TH STREET BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON ATTN: MR. JOEL BENOLIEL Inquiries should be directed to: Ticor Title Insurance Company 1008 Western Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98104 1. Policy or policies to be issued: American Land Title Association Owners /purchasers policy - Form B - 1970 Coverage: STANDARD Amount : $5,675,000.00 Premium : $8,585.00 Tax : $678.22 Proposed insured: SPIEKER, HOSFORD, BENOLIEL 1179, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 2. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this commitment and covered herein is: Fee Simple Estate 3. Title to said estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: CITY OF SEATTLE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION A- 372450 PAGE 1 4. The land referred to in this commitment is located in the county of King, State of Washington, and described as follows: THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE NORTH 30 FEET AND THE EAST 30 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBERS 5747814 AND 7402080363. A- 372450 PAGE 2 SCHEDULE B I. The following are the requirements to be complied with: A. Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be insured must be properly executed, delivered and duly filed for record. B. Satisfactory showing must be made that the proposed insured is an entity capable of holding title to real estate under the laws of the State of Washington. A copy of the agreement and any amendments thereto should be submitted for our examination and file. II. Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfac- tion of the company: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 1. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this commitment. 2. Lien of real estate excise sales tax upon any sale of said premises, if unpaid. Present rate of real estate excise tax as of the date herein is 1.59 %. 3. CONTRACT OF SALE terms, conditions and covenants, and the effect of any failure to comply therewith: Seller : CITY OF SEATTLE, DEPARTMENT OF LIGHTING, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Purchaser SPRING RIDGE INVESTMENTS, INC., AND CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENTS, INC., A JOINT VENTURE DOING BUSINESS AS TUKWILA POND CENTER Dated . MAY 16, 1974 Recorded : JULY 9, 79 Auditor's File No.: 7907090804 Receipt No. • • NOT REQUIRED Sales Price • • $ 4,700,000.00 A- 372450 PAGE 3 The purchaser's interest under said contract of sale assigned by instrument: Dated : JULY 10, 1986 Recorded : AUGUST 25, 1986 Auditor's File No.: 8608251252 Receipt No. : E- 894409 Assigned to : TORONTO - DOMINION BANK, A CANADIAN CHARTERED BANK 4. PENDENCY OF AN ACTION in Superior Court. Date action commenced: MARCH 10, 1978 Cause No. : 842141 Entitled : CITY OF SEATTLE, PLAINTIFF, VS. CITY OF TUKWILA, DEFENDANT An action : TO OBTAIN MONEY JUDGMENT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION; AND FOR ORDERS DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO GRANT PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION TO LANDFILL. THE CITY LIGHT SITE, AND FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO CEASE AND DESIST IN ITS ACTIONS, INTERFERING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY LIGHT SITE. Attorney : GORDON F. CRANDALL AFFECTS SAID PREMISES AND OTHER LANDS 5. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For : TELEPHONE LINES In favor of . PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Reflected of record by instrument Recorded : AUGUST 19, 1924 Auditor's File No.: 2554741 Affects : PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; AND OTHER LANDS TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO KEEP SAID LINES FREE FROM FOLIAGE. 6. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For TELEPHONE SYSTEM In favor of : PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION Reflected of record by instrument Recorded : AUGUST 26, 1968 Auditor's File No.: 6397207 Affects : THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF THE NORTH 40 FEET OF THE EAST 70 FEET, EXCEPT THE SOUTH 5 FEET OF THE EAST 42 FEET THEREOF, OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26., TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. A- 372450 PAGE 4 7. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For • PIPE LINE In favor of : OLYMPIC PIPE LINE COMPANY Reflected of record by instrument Recorded : AUGUST 18, 1970 Auditor's File No.: 6683975 Affects NORTH 5 FEET OF WEST 1257 FEET MORE OR LESS; NORTH 10 FEET OF WEST 10 FEET OF EAST 50 FEET; AND SOUTH 5 FEET OF NORTH 15 FEET OF EAST 50 FEET OF SAID PREMISES; AND OTHER LANDS. TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS TO AND EGRESS FROM SAID RIGHT OF WAY OVER GRANTOR'S LANDS FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF SAID PIPE LINE. 8. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For : UTILITIES In favor of : CITY OF TUKWILA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Reflected of record by instrument Recorded FEBRUARY 8, 1974 Auditor's File No.: 7402080363 Affects : EAST 10 FEET OF SAID PREMISES NOTE: A record of survey and matters relating thereto. Recorded : DECEMBER 26, 1984 Book : 43 Page : 48 Auditor's File No.: 8412269001 NOTE: The legal description submitted with the application has been revised to conform with record title. NOTE: GENERAL TAXES, as follows, plus interest after delinquency: For�year Amount billed Amount paid 1987 $30,985.81 $30,985.81 Being County Treasurer's parcel No. 262304 - 9005 -05. Said taxes affect SW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 LESS SE 1/4 THOF LESS STS. NOTE: GENERAL TAXES, as follows, plus interest after delinquency: For,year Amount billed Amount paid 1987 $12,648.27 $12,648.27 Being County Treasurer's parcel No. 262304 - 9064 -03. Said taxes affect SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 LESS CO RD. A- 372450 PAGE 5 + + + + + + ALTA MATTERS: The OWNER'S POLICY applied for will not insure against those matters listed as additional exceptions on the inside back cover hereof. + + NOTE: Investigation should be made to determine if there are any service, installation, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. NOTE: A consolidated statement of all charges and advances in connection with this order will be provided at closing. NOTE: In event the transaction fails to close and this commitment is cancelled, a fee will be charged to comply with the state insurance code and the filed schedule of this company. HCH /LSC B -269 A- 372450 PAGE 6 3. Title Risks: • that are created, allowed or agreed to by you • that are known to you, but not to us, on the Policy Date — unless they appeared in the public records • that result in no loss to you • that first affect your title after the Policy Date —this does not limit the labor and material lien coverage in Item 8 of Covered Title Risks. 4. Failure to pay value for your title. 5. Lack of a right: • to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in Item 3 of Schedule A, or • in streets, alleys or waterways that touch your land. This exclusion does not limit the access coverage in Item 5 of Covered Title Risks. NOTE: THE POLICY COMMITTED FOR MAY BE EXAMINED BY INQUIRY AT THE OFFICE WHICH ISSUED THE COMMITMENT, AND A SPECIMEN COPY OF THE POLICY FORM (OR FORMS) REFERRED O I TLH THIS ON REQUEST. WILL BE FURNISHED ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS WHICH MAY, ACCORDING TO SCHEDULE B OF THIS COMMITMENT BE SET FORTH AS EXCEPTIONS IN SCHEDULE B OF THE POLICY APPLIED FOR: A. Encroachments or questions of location, boundary and area, which an accurate survey may disclose. B. Public or private easements, streets, roads, alleys or highways, unless disclosed of record by recorded plat or conveyance, or decree of a court of record. C. Rights or claims of persons in possession, or claiming to be in possession, not disclosed by the public records. D. Material or labor liens, or liens under the Workmen's Compensation Act not disclosed by the public records. E. Water rights or matters relating thereto. F. Any service, installation or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity, or garbage removal. G. Exceptions and reservations in United States Patents. H. General taxes not now payable; matters relating to special assessments and special levies, if any, preced- ing the same becoming a lien. I. Right of use, control or regulation by the United States of America, in the exercise of powers over navigation. J. Any prohibition or limitation on the use, occupancy or improvement of the land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land. .BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION of TUKWILA POND for Spring Ridge Investments Inc. Edward M. Schaffnit Inc. 1111 Third Ave. Suite 700 Seattle Washington 98101 by Independent Ecological Services 1514 Muirhead Avenue Olympia, Washington 98502 November 29, 1983 INTRODUCTION : Tukwila pond is an approximately 19.5 acre pond situated in a 38.9 acre undeveloped tract in Tukwila (Figure 1). It is bordered by Stander Blvd. on the north, Andover Park East on the east, a railroad spur on the south, and the Doubletree Inn on the west. It is the only large block of undev- eloped land in the immediate area. HISTORY : The proposed project site and pond were, at one time, a part of a larger lowland that was the west bank Green River flood plain. It was probably intermittently wet from high winter waters and was flooded during large, 10 -100 year flood events. It probably appeared much like lands along the Valley Highway near Auburn. As development increased between the toe of the hill on the west and Green River,the water table and surface water flow patterns changed. Areas, such as Tukwila Pond became the low settling areas for surface flows. Each development that required filling further tilted the flood elevation causing areas that had historically flooded only at high flows to become the ponding area for water from even the smallest rains. The filling reduced storage capability around Tukwila pond and it began to form its present appearance. Filling of the project site formed the straight north and west bank and further confined water forming a deeper pond. With the Corps of Army Engineers flood dike along the Green River it is impossible for surface runoff to enter the River except at pumping stations. When the river is high,no water can be put into the river causing backup in runoff systems. This has contributed to the pond and wetlands on the site. With the increased size and duration of wetness,a riparian border was formed around the pond. The border,plus the shape of the pond was altered by the filling on the existing site. It has also created a new riparian border along the north and west banks of younger and different trees than had become established.. Increased winter water depths have caused a die off of a stand of willow in the southwest corner of the pond creating a series of small grassy islands. DESCRIPTION: The pond comprises 46 percent of the project site (Figure 1). It is straight sided along the north and west banks . Both sides have nearly 1:1 slopes. The south side angles northeast coming to a rounded point caused by a culvert at the east end of the pond. During low water periods,small mudflats form along this portion of the lake. The southwest corner of the site(Figure 1) is lower than the surrounding roads and the - filled area on the north and west sides of the pond. Because of its surface elevation,it floods during the winter forming an? emergent grass wetland. During the summer it is a reed canarygrass meadows There is a small cres- cent shaped pond in the extreme southeast corner of the site. It is on a perched or raised area in the corner (Figure 1;) -. This small pond is bordered by productive duck food plants along one side and trees on the other. The south boundary .ofthe project site abutts a railroad spur that is on a fill. It creates a 6 -15 foot bank between the lower wet meadow and the rail bed. The bank and edge of the track support stands of small trees and blackberry, The narrow south border between the pond and Andover Park East has been filled but still contains depressions that hold seasonal water and support wetland plants. As the roadside extends north,the elevation raises to pro- duce the only area of the site above the 100 year flood plain. The west and north sides of the pond are of fill material. They are flat, with three surface water drainage ditches carrying water from the north to the pond. The filled area holds standing water during the winter and is turning into a wetland. The riparian border along these sides is narrow and except for an occasional old black willow :that was not killed during the filling, consists of young trees,shrubs and blackberry. Vegetation ( zones ): The site is divided into five habitat zones, four are vegetatively based and the fifth is open water. They are (1) upland vegetation, (2) transitional vegetation - changing from uplands to wetlands, (3) true wetlands (4) riparian borders and (5) open water. Upland Vegetation: Because of the disturbances to natural systems by filling and the in- creased water regime, the only uplands are in the northeast corner of the site (Figure 1). It comprises less than 6 percent of the total site. Major species include scot's broom, blackberry, and some black cottonwood and alder along the street. Grasses were unidentifiable because of the time of year. Transition (uplands to wetlands): Most of the filled area along the north and west side of the pond are in a stage of transition from invader species and upland species such as dock,quackgrass, Johnsongrass, and clover to wetland species such as reed canarygrass,softrush,beggartick and other semi - aquatic forbs, willow and black cottonwood trees, . This area com- prises approximately 35 percent of the total site. There are three north -south drainage ditches that are lined with aquatic plants and small trees. They supply a water source that keeps the easterly portionoafthis area wet. True wetlands: True wetlands are those areas that have water depths or ground water tables high enough to support aquatic or water loving plants and kill plants that are wet intolerant. The area between the south bank of the pond and railroad track is a near monoculture of reed canarygrass, - At the lakes edge there are stands of smartweed and beggartick (photo.1) and occassional clumps of cattail. - - The higher areas near the tracks have deadly nightshade and blackberry encroaching into the reed canary grasss area. In the southwest corner is a small crescent shaped pond that has smartweed,beggartick,and willow along its banks. This area comprises 12 percent of the total site. Riparian border: Riparian refers to the wooded or shrub type habitats that surround or abutt but interact directly with the pond or stream. It usually refers to any continuous stand of shrubs or trees regardless of the width, as long as one side_ interacts with water. On Tukwila Pond that border is narrow along the west and north sides of the pond, wider along the south and southeast corners) The remainder of the south bank has clumps of riparian with intermittent open spaces. The northwest corner has a narrow band of trees extending from the pond along a narrow run- off ditch to the property boundary. Species of trees vary by the age of the stand. Alder is an invader species that is wet soil tolerant as long as the area can dry out. Alder is the dominant plant along the runoff ditch in the northwest corner and along the west bank of the pond. The bank and the west half of the north side also support small black cottonwood trees, willow and blackberry The east half of the north bank is mostly smaller willow,both tree and shrub species, blackberry with a few black cottonwood. The understory along this area is dense with blackberry and nightshade. A narrow band of cattail extends along the northeast corner of the pond. The east and southeast corners have older stands of black willow with occasional black cottonwood. Willow stands along the south bank are lower in surface elevation than other trees on the site. The stand is denser,the trees older and the understory void of vegetation. There are snags, crevices,and broken limbs that supply good small bird habitat. An extension of the riparian border extends from the large pond bank along the southeast border of the site along Andover Park East and encompasses the small pond in the corner and the southeast corner of the canarygrass wetland (Figure 1). `.The trees are alder and black cottonwood with an understory of willow shrub and blackberry. Open Water: There are two open water areas on the site, the larger 22 acre main pond and a small crescent shaped pond in the southeast corner. The main ponds depth precludes most emergent vegetation, however there is unidentified vegetation in the southwest portion of the pond. Since a ll surveys were conducted in October- November it was impossible to identify all submergent vegetation that could occur. There is a group of small islands in the southwest corner that were originally welands, but increased water has flooded the land around them. The islands are covered with reed canarygrass and nightshade. The dead willow are small and offer little habitat for perching or crevice nesting birds. Habitat values: The uplands, transitional wetlands,wetlands and riparian borders function as uplands during the spring,summer and early fall. The low grass /rush areas in the transition and upland areas supply seed and green vegetation to a variety of small birds and mammals, pheasants and quail.The riparian zone supplies cover food an nesting for most of the same species. The tangle of blackberry /nightshade provides protection from predation for juveniles. Trees are nesting habitat for a variety of small birds as well as perching and hunting stations for small raptors and kingfishers. Trees adajacent to or overhanging the water provide shade and protection from aerial hunters for juvenile ducks. Grassy edges provide nesting for mallards. During the summer wetlands provide cover and some seed for a variety of small birds/ Its dense growth limits the amount of use by small mammals or as a nesting site for ground nesting birds. It does provide cover from aerial hunters. In winter the upland,transitional and parts of the riparian border still act as uplands. The wetland: has standing water or is wet to the ground. There is some use of the upper mat but small bird use is limited. As the water receeds organic material is carried back into the pond. This provides food for small organisms that are the basic food source for insects and small fish which in turn supply food for birds and some mammals. The open water is basically a resting and feeding area for waterfowl and marsh birds. The edges on two sides of the pond are shallow and support vegetation that is a prime food source for many ducks as well as being cover for frogs and other invertebrates. These supply food for herons and other predatory birds. The presence of herons, mergansers and kingfishers are indications that there are some forms of fish in the pond. During summer the nesting and brood rearing values of the site are limited to a few species such as mallard. In winter the area supplies the size, configuration and depths of water in a protected setting to attract a number of wintering or migrating waterfowl species. The closeness of development appears to have eliminated most predators such as coyotes, skunks and raccoons thereby offering a safe resting area even• though it is surrounded by development. WILDLIFE: Wildlife studies were limited to October— November site visits therefore the actual species list does not reflect the total use of the site. Because of its isolation from other open space by roads and other devel- opments the wildlife . use on the site is much less than would be expected for a similarir site that was integrated with a larger open space. The major .area .of reduced use is by mammals yhay normally hunt lake or stream shores and large raptors that hunt open spaces adjacent to streams, lakes or woodlots. A close examination of all mudflats and unvegetated areas failed to reveal any large predatory mammal tracks. There is no white- washing in the larger trees or casts at the bases of trees under over- hanging limbs, both indicators of large raptor use. Birds: M74nr ,.;nrn.- „cn r•F rh" c;ro is by ..oarnrfn..tl Thn cizo anrj c}l•ne of the pond lends itself to loafing and resting by flocks of wintering or migrating waterfowl. Ducks currently using the pond include canvasback, shovelers, green — winged teal, pintail, mallard, ruddy duck and redhead. Shoveler,pintail and,canvasback flocks ranged from 75 -100 birds each. All birds except canvasbacks concentrate in the southwest corner with a majority of the use of pintail and green — winged teal occurring in the dead tree area between the small islands and the pond bank. Data collected from other censuses shows a high use of the pond by early migrating pintail and teal. There are also reports of mallard nesting, however none have been confirmed. Widgeon were seen landing on the transitional wetlands but flushed off the site instead of to the pond. Great blue heron and common bittern are seen along the shoreline in summer. Blue heron were still present in November. Three pair of adult pheasant were sited using the reparian edge. Tracks and droppings of quail were located but the birds were not seen or heard. Small birds observed on one or all of the visits included wren, sparrows, chickadees and bushtits. A list of bird observations is included as Table 2. Mammals: Mammal use is limited in its species diversity because of the isolation from other habitats. Meadowmouse and vole tracks and sign were seen along the west —north and northeast parts of the trasition and upland zones. Other small mam- mals may use the area but the standing water on these areas made it diffi- cult to identify sign. Eastern cottontail were seen in the transition zone along the north side of the pond. There are numerous well used trails in this zone, indi- cating fairly heavy use. The area appears to be good brush rabbit habitat but none were observed. The area does not appear to be used as a dog walking area as trails of this size were not present nor was there any sign of random dog use. This plus the isolation from predators makes this a safe habitat for grazers such as mice and rabbits. Mammals are listed in Table 3. Reptiles and Amphibians: Red — legged frogs use the vegetated border of the pond. Bullfrogs are reported-to use. the .pond but we have no confirmation of the reports. Tree frogs were still calling, indicating they use the area both for breeding and rearing of young. A snake skin, probably terrestrial garter snake, was located along the south bank of the pond. WILDLIFE HABITAT VALUES "Habitat Assessment using Habitat Units ", a portion of the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) (appendix 3). This procedure was devel- oped by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for use in impact assess- ment and project planning. It is a means of assigning quantitative values to different Habitat Units (HU) depending on their use by selected fish or wildlife species. A complete HEP using Habitat Suitability Indices models was not conducted because of the small size of the project site and limited habitat types and wildlife species. Once values (HSI) are identified for a site for one point in time baseline, then the impacts caused by a given project over a period of time can be evaluated and compared quantitatively. A formula that requires only target year HSI and an area estimate was used for these calculations. Verbal models based on known habitat needs and maximum use for the selected species were developed and given a value of 1.0. This is the maximum HSI a Habitat Unit can receive. Total destruction of the habitat created a value of 0. The baseline values of the existing habitats and their comparison to the verbal models were assigned by Rex Van Wormer after consultation with staff biologists. No baseline values of similar habitats in the general area have been conducted so there was no background data for comparison. Major habitats used were: (1) open water; (2) riparian; (3) trans- itional, ie. changing to wetlands; (4) wetlands, ie. reed canary grass; and, (5) uplands. Wildlife species selected are (1) waterfowl, general; (2) canvasback.; (3) marsh birds; (4) passerine birds; (5) raptors; (6) small mammals; (7) predatory mammals. Raptors and predatory mammals are included to demonstrate limited values because of the isolation of the site from other habitats. Canvasbacks were isolated because of the concern placed on their management and survival by the US Fish and Wildlife. Although redheads are in the same category, there were not separated as only two birds were seen on the pond. Build out of the fill was assumed to be complete in one year and the remaining pond was considered to be 5.0 acreas since this was the most favorable for the project. It also gave a worst case scenario which is beneficial when estimating needed mitigation. The area has a high value for wintering-waterfowl general and canvasback, moderate value for small birds and marsh birds and low values for other species. Figure 1: Partial List of Plants Trees: Red Alder Alnus rubra Black Cottonwood Populus tricocarpa Black Willow Salix nigra Madrona Arbutus menziesii Shrubs: Willow Salix spp. Scot's broom Cystisus.scoparius Snowberry Symphoricarpos spp Dogwood Cormes stoloniferia Vine maple Acer circinatum Oregon grape Berberis aquifolium Vines: Blackberry Rubus discolor Deadly nightshade Atropa belladonna Grasses, rushes and others: Soft rush Juncus effusus Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundenacea Beggartick Bidens amplissima Smartweed Palogonum coccineum Pond lily Nuphar luteum Bentgrass Agrostors aequivalvis Thistle Circium arvense Tansy Tanacetum vulgare Wild carrot Daucus carota Teasel Dipsacus sylvestris Buttercup Ranunculus repens Fennel Foeniculum vulgare Figure 2: Winter Birds Identified on Tukwila Pond in October — November 1983 Common Name Mallard Pintail Wigeon Shoveler Green winged Teal Redhead Canvasback Ruddy duck C. Merganser Kestral Valley Quail R. N. Pheasant Great Blue Heron: Bittern Coot Herring gull Belted kingfisher Flicker Common crow B.C. Chickadee Common bushtit R.B.nuthatch Winter wren Bewick's wren Robin Kinglet Rufus sided towhee Oregon junco G.C. Sparrow Song sparrow Scientific Name Anas platyrhynchos Anas acuta Mareca americana Spatula clypeata Anas carolenensis Aythya americana Aythya valisineria Oxyura janaicensis Mergus merganser Falco sparverus Laphortyx californicus Phasianus colchicus Andea herodias Botaurus lentiginosus Fulica americana Larus argentatus Megaceryle alcyon Calaptes cafer Corvus brachyrhynchos parus atricapillus Psaltriparus minimus Sitta canadensis Troglodytes troglodytes Thyromanes bewickii Turdus migratorius Regulus spp. Pipilo erythrophalmus Junco oreganus Zonotrichia atricapalla Melospiza melodia Season SSFW FW FW FW F FW FW FW SFW 50 50 25 100 25 2 50 5 15 1 sigr. 6 3 1 3 3 1 2 20 25 50 4 4 2 20 10 3 25 2 10 Figure 3: Mammals or Sign Sited around Tukwila Pond in Ocotber- November 1983 Shrew Sorex spp. common Mole Scapanus spp. uncommon Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus common Cottontail Sylvalogus floridensis 10 -15 APPENDIX 1 Habitat Evaluation Procedures Formula J Formula for calculating Habitat units (HU) Total number -T -T (AiH1+ A2H2 of habitat years 1 2� 3 Where + (A2H1 + A1H2 6 T1= first year of time interval T2= last year of time interval A1= Habitat area of first target year A2= Habitat area of second target year H1= HSI at the first target year H2= HSI at second target year APPENDIX 2 Excerpts Habitat Evaluation Procedures Manual ESM 102 HABITAT EVALUATION PROCEDURES 102 ESM 5 5. Habitat Assessments Using Habitat Units Habitat assessments involve measurement and description of habitat conditions for baseline (present) assessments and impact (future with and without action) assess- ments. For baseline assessments, different areas can be compared in terms of HU's as a guide to further land use planning. Baseline assessments are point - in-time comparisons. For impact assessments, alternative future land use actions can be compared based on predicted future availability of HU's. The net impact . of a proposed land use action is the difference in predicted HU's between the future with the action and the future without the action. 5.1 Jiiabitat'Unit analysis for one point in time - Baseline assessments. Base- line assessments are used to describe existing ecological conditions. The results of baseline assessments . provide a reference point from which resource planners can: 1)..compare existing..conditions _ in two or,more areas in order aldef{i ne =management. capabi l i t.egs . o.r, as.. a . gui de, to ..futur.ej and use .planning„ pr- edict .and- compare,.changes:tjiat may.occur.:without the .. proposed action, E i.th.the•propo,ed action, or with compensation measures; and 3) design moni ;'toring studies. Baseline assessments play a critical role in wildlife planning by identifying wildlife resource capabilities at one point in time so that proposed future actions can be directed toward or away from specific areas. A baseline assessment involves: 1) definition of the study limits, including definition of the study area, delineation of cover types, and selec- tion of evaluation species (Chapter 3); and 2) characterization of the study area in terms of HU's (Chapter 4). The objective in performing a baseline assessment is to calculate the number of HU's at one point in time for each evaluation species. The•area of available habitat (Section 4.1) is multiplied by the mean HSI (Section 4.2) for each evaluation species to determine the total HU's for that species in the study area. The baseline HU's are evaluated and compared directly if the baseline assessment is designed to compare existing conditions in two or more areas. Additional calculations are required (Section 5.2) if the baseline data are to be used as a reference point for impact assessments. 5.2iabitat Unit analysis for multiple points in time - Impact assessments. Impact assessments are performed by quantifying habitat conditions at several points in time throughout some defined period of analysis. Points in time (target years) can be selected at fixed intervals such as every year, or according to some other schedule. The assessment of land use impacts is facilitated by dividing the study area into impact segments. An impact segment is defined as an area in which the nature and intensity of the future land use can be considered homogeneous, such as the flood pool area in a reservoir project, a recreational area, or the area of a particular agricultural practice. The advantage of dividing • the study area into impact segments is that only one condition need be considered for each cover type within each impact segment. The effects of a Release 2 -80 March 31, 1980 HABITAT EVALUATION PROCEDURES 102 ESM 5.2 5. Habitat Assessments Using Habitat Units particular action may be analyzed over a large area by assuming that the same condition exists throughout each impact- segment- cover -type zone. Habitat Units must be calculated for the evaluation species at each of the future points in time for future -with and future - without project conditions; this process includes predicting total available habitat and HSI for each evaluation species, using the same HSI models that were used for the base- line year. A. Use of target years for future predictions. The impact assessment can be.simplified by selecting target years (TY's) for which habitat condi- tions can be reasonably defined. At a minimum, target years should be selected for points in time when the rates of loss or gain in HSI or area are predicted to change. Rates of loss or gain in HSI or area are assumed to occur linearly between target years. There are several requirements for the selection of target years. The HU -time analysis must begin at a baseline year (TY -0). A baseline year is defined as a point in time before proposed changes in land and water use result in habitat alterations in the study area. In most cases, the baseline year will be existing or current year conditions. However, in some cases, current habitat conditions may reflect proposed action influences. For example, landowners or managers may begin clearing bottomland timber from flood prone sites located downstream from an anticipated flood control project before baseline studies can be initi- ated. In such cases, baseline year conditions will be those that existed in some previous year. Judgment is required in defining base- line year habitat conditions when present conditions reflect proposed action influences. In addition to a baseline year, there must always be a target year 1 and an ending target year which defines the future period of analysis. Target year 1 is the first year land and water use conditions are ex- pected to deviate from baseline conditions. The habitat conditions (HSI and area) described for each target year are the expected conditions at the end of that year. B. Predicting future area of available habitat. For each proposed action, the area of available habitat must be estimated for future years. Some cover types will increase in total area, others will decrease, and in some cases new cover types will be created or existing ones totally lost —under pr..ojected.future conditions. Release 2 -80 March 31, 1980 HABITAT EVALUATION PROCEDURES 102 ESM 5.2B 5. Habitat Assessments Using Habitat Units The user must constantly check to ascertain that the total area of the study does not vary from the baseline area. The recommended method for determining the future area of cover types is the use of cover type maps. The method of developing a cover type map for a future year is to overlay impart segment boundaries on the baseline cover map previously developed (Section 3.2). Baseline cover types will either be unaltered, altered (i.e., variables such as % vegetation cover may change), or converted to new cover types depending on such factors as land use within the impact segment, vegetation successional trends, and manage- ment. Areas converted to new cover types through succession or impacts are given a new cover type designation. Altered cover types are desig- nated a subtype (e.g., deciduous forest altered by flooding). An over- lay of impact segment boundaries may be required for each target year. Each proposed action requires its own series of overlays in order to determine changes in area of available habitat between selected target years. Figure 5 -1 illustrates how a baseline cover type map could be . used'in conjunction with impact segments to produce cover type maps for future conditions. C. Predicting future HSI. The same models that were used to determine baseline HSI values must be used to determine future HSI values. If, for example, a mathematical model was used to calculate baseline HSI, a related word model cannot be used to predict future HSI values, or vice versa. Estimating HSI values for future years requires predictions of changes in the physical, vegetative, and chemical variables of each cover type. Impact segment overlays can be used as an aid in estimating these vari- ables. For example, seasonal flooding could alter a forest understory but not the canopy closure. Changes in interspersion relationships due to creation of new cover types or conversion of existing cover types also can affect HSI model output and can be easily measured on . future cover type maps (impact segment overlays). D. Annualization of impacts. Most Federal agencies use annualization as a • means to display benefits and costs, and the habitat analysis should provide data that can be directly compared to the benefit /cost analysis. The annualization process will be described in - detail, although it is not the only mechanism with which to display future habitat changes. Federal projects are evaluated over a period of time that is referred to as the "life of the project" and is defined as that period between the time that the project becomes operational and the end of the project life as determined by the construction, or lead, agency. However, in many cases gains or losses in wildlife habitat may occur before the project becomes operational, and these changes should be considered in Release 2 -80 March 31, 1980 CeIrr•lfY- Mar •1r. try • ,f m Ire • /344 e s• ran C4l•77✓ • .,s4 TE• 4a .4•Irel tu.. 7771 0-- T_ Strander e's•1.DO ru•7e•. 4••14ra IN 40041 e'•n 677,1 IN SOON Certbedton I Agfa.: uA.ly ha Dlrbn- Narita. G..s••I••• toe Ms w.ry ha Dan prtprr4 owls ay Sw.r• Sp.„! 50! w+f •• Mott Slates . Aprrd Meal, 7, 7980 • Mule ./ 0007 ..h. Gt. /l •77 77 N'.• 77 55 WC • 4 S7 L/A4. 7177 Ire • ION Srw•,078 7T S • 7/77 t•• 7775 1r. 441 er•lad • aZ • 10 47 Legend • f.• 4ydn.l • •Slrr One • row .wm h• /r Veto , Hw: •••14 wan.. re. :aka . UieS•9•••"4 �.ar 147 • y774an1 M 97../ •77114 • • /7,40. $7,8.1 /yw y. 114 0004• Wale, S.+ / e•• • N T47... s..7, f/7 le r ua.I Iau , Slaw /•I.1 7 7irfr.. 57.77..4 .0•3 p•• T.7.77.47.7 •■•••I. L Or • a..7:a 04ww 4..47 ..••• .•.. —re .— IM/r•.r.,ro /4110..4 /.. L477• 75 17.0.75 n 7t•• /7.7 pt 0004 ARIA CONTAINED 111114114 14164•1614TED 15'7- LIDIITO( e -15 AP •. r•UA rE(y 147 ACRES i. 047•70b „'•7047 6•••• Alf) rt• 11 75 44(ty. Cab) ro•ara C • If St 7.7.1494 • 7rl •50 • a! 1M 01• • 1.s7 40 504 v JUN 0 3 1988 a• iJ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND EXPANDED CHECKLIST SUBMITTED FOR SEPA APPROVAL TUKWILA POND CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON for SPIEKER PARTNERS, PROJECT DEVELOPER Prepared by MACKENZIE /SAITO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. June 30, 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. FACT SHEET 2. DESIGN INTENT 3. APPLICATION 4. BOUNDARY /PARCEL MAP 5. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 6. CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 7. SITE SURVEY 8. BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 9. FIGURES 10. APPENDICES Project Title Proposed Action Project Location Owner Construction Start Date Lead Agency Contact Person at Lead Agency Responsible Official Permits /Approvals Required Principal Contributors Submittal Date FACT SHEET Tukwila Pond Center State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Checklist The project is located at the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West Spieker Partners Fall 1988 City of Tukwila Jack Pace Rick Beeler -SEPA Approval •Design Review •Street Use Permit •Hauling Permit •Building Permit •Grading Permit •Washington State Department of Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval Mackenzie /Saito & Associates, P.C. - Architects, Structural /Civil Engineers Mithun Partners Architects GeoEngineers - Geotechnical Consultants Independent Ecological Services - Environmental Consultants Stepan - Surveyors Barghausen - Civil Engineers Christopher Brown, P.E. - Traffic Consultant June 30, 1988 DESIGN INTENT Historical Background: The subject site had been used for agricultural purposes for many years. Running through a portion of the property was a storm water drainage channel which accepted surface water from the higher elevations to the southwest, and directed them to the northeast, across Andover Park West, and eventually into Gilliam Creek and the Green River. In 1958, the City of Seattle acquired the subject site, as well as an additional 7+ acre triangular site at the southeast quadrant of Andover Park West and Strander Blvd. The City of Seattle originally intended to use both parcels for its municipal lighting department purposes, but later determined that the properties were not needed, and they were sold. While the City of Seattle was still the owner of the site, and historically during high water times, the drainage channel would periodically overflow, and some localized flooding would occur both on the subject site and over Andover Park West. Since` both the subject site and Andover Park West were filled to elevations well below those required for construction on all of the abutting lands, the City of Tukwila elected in the early 1970s to form LIDs (LID 21 and 22) for the construction of Andover Park West and its related utility systems, in order to prevent future flooding of that existing roadway during high water periods. In the design and construction of the Andover improvements in 1974, an outlet was provided to drain the subject site into the City's newly constructed storm system. (That outlet is at an elevation approximately 1.5 feet higher than the current elevation of Tukwila Pond.) Prior to 1974, no pond existed at this site. For most of the year, the property was dry enough to be used for agricultural purposes, and the drainage channel was adequate to prevent flooding. However, since the Andover Park West improvements provided no means by which the drainage channel could continue to function by force of gravity as it had historically, and since the City had also permitted the M.A. Segale Company to landfill its portion of the former City Light property to the east through which the old drainage channel had run, Tukwila Pond was created. It should be noted that the Pond is entirely a man -made phenomenon, an impoundment of surface water artificially captured on an undeveloped site lying at an elevation well below that of all adjacent properties. It is also clear from the biological evaluations that the Pond is not physically connected to any active streams or backing flood waters from the Green River System. Over the years, a number or prospective purchasers and developers of the site have submitted various proposals to the City contemplating retail, commercial, and hotel uses. Most recently, The Cafaro Company, which had optioned the property, proposed to fill the entire Pond and create a new regional shopping mall, six -story office building, and other related improvements. These plans were frustrated by changes in . federal law which gave the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over all filling and dredging in wetland areas. Spieker Partners' Concept and Approach: Spieker Partners purchased the site in March, 1988, and now owns the entire 38.9 acres in fee title. From the outset, the developer has recognized the significance of the historical developments outlined above and has recognized that any development of the site must be compatible with the continued existence of the Pond. The developer also recognized that during its 14 years of existence, the Pond has become a significant area for waterfowl and for people interested in observing the waterfowl (although there has never been any legal public access to the Pond for birdwatching to this point). At the same time, the developer is cognizant that Tukwila has become a focal point for all national and regional retail chains, and there is a tremendous unmet demand for additional shopping center facilities in the vicinity of Southcenter Mall. Having paid a large sum for the property, the developer was desirous of devising a plan which stuck an appropriate balance between the competing economic, public', and private interests. The developer did not believe that previous proposals had reflected such a balance. Thus, the challenge which led to the current plan, required careful planning, study, and consultation with many public and private groups over a period of many months. The City of Tukwila has hosted several informal planning sessions to which affected state, local, and private groups have been invited. These discussions proved to be a vital tool in the evolution of the developer's plans. What is before the City now for approval represents a rare opportunity for each of the competing interests, public and private, to actually enhance their positions. The proposal will result in an improved, well- maintained environment for the important wildlife species; an opportunity for the first time for controlled, safe, public access to passive recreation and birdwatching; a broadening of the City's economic and retail base; an opportunity for major national retailers who desire to create outlets in the City; and an opportunity for the developer to achieve an acceptable return on its investment. Conclusion: For the first time, a plan is before the City which: 1) plans for the future of the entire property, 2) balances the development for which the site is zoned with other public and private needs, 3) sets the stage for creation of a publicly owned and maintained "arboretum- like" passive recreation system, including the Pond in an undisturbed state, and 4) utilizes the Pond as an amenity by providing for restaurant uses which can benefit from the viewing opportunities. City of Tukwila PUNNING DEPARTMENT 0200 5outhcenlor 8oulevaid Tukwila, Washlnplon 98188 (204) 433.1649 PRE — APPLICATION PROJECT SUMMARY Pre - application File # Meeting Date FOR STAFF USE ONLY _ Time Date Received: Routing: [I BLDG [J FIRE [ PLNG [] PWD [j POLICE [] PKS & REC 1. PROJECT INFORMATION Strander Boulevard & Project Name Tukwila Pond Center Site Address Andover Park West Description of Proposa16,000 sq.ft. Restaurant; 102,000 sq.ft. Dept.Store; 29 000 sq.ft. Shops; 80,000 sq.ft. anchor: 21.000 sq.ft. anchor Acreage of Site (gross) 38.9 ±acres Anticipated Period of Construction: From Eall 1988 To Spring 1989 Will project be developed In phases? 0 Yes © No If yes, describe Identify existing easements on site: Co. of Title Re ort Attached. Llesotau an 1 "iii s - 2. BUILDING INFORMATION Anchtor ;iii s I V-N Total Building Square Footage 238,000 sq. ft. Type of Construction V -N (1985 U8C) Please indicate the square footage of each floor, broken down by building use(s): BUILDING USE AND OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SQUARE FOOTAGE 1st Floor — Restaurant / B2 6 00Q Deet. Store / 82 102,Q00 Shops / R2 19,QQ9 Anchor / 82 80,000_ Anchor B2 21,000 TOTAL 238,000 2nd Floor Restaurant . / 8.2 _N/A Dept. Store / 82 3,188 _Shops / .R2 ----M Anchor / 82 N/A Anchor / B2 N/A TOTAL 3rd Floor N/A i — TOTAL (For additional floors please fill out another sheet) Storage or use of flammable, combustible or hazardous materials on premise or area of constructioi? ❑ Y c 17!1: Tf yes; explain: Number of parking stalls proposed: Regular 726 Compact 484 Handicapped 14 3. APPLICANT Contact Person Lynn Takeuchi Company Mackenzie /Saito & Associates, P.C. Address 300 120th Ave. N.E. - Bldg. 3 Suite 233 Zip.98005 Phone# 451 -1005 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Prepared by: Lynn Takeuchi Date .6 /3DL811 • • MIVNflOE1 • ••• .1. • o• • •• tre••••• ••• •••■•••••• • •••••••••• •18. • INF 'V ••• • • Old .110.1 WPM, •••••• ••••••• • ...••••1 • •••••• • ••••••••••• V•1••••44',1.:1•VA I •••••••• • • •10 ••■■ • •••• • • •••••••I • •••••• V CVO •••••••• • aro .••• •••••■• • •••■ kw■•••• • • IVO ••■••••• ••••••• ••••• ••••••■ • • • • • ••• ••• 0%1,8 • ■•••••••• • • • .• MN • • /NM •••• • IV." • • • • .• .•••• 11.1 •:••■• • •••• • ••• •••••••••• •••••• AMY* IN•••• ••••••• • • • 0•1••••• • VP.. MON • •• MIND lb OMAN .•••• • • 1•1 ••••• •••••VI ....MD O••• ••••••• 1•6 ••••••• • t•••••• •••• • ■•• .11•••• ••• •••• •••• •••■• •• •••.. 4 Z.' ••■•• ■••••• AMP ••••• •!!! ••• • • MI." Nouvohauco MON — • •0111. 111•I•al .. := == 1.• • .. • 1101.01:2•130 •-•LiV•1 •••••••• •••••• ••• ••• mia741.27.7 w/o •••••, • , mi• •••••••• ••••••••••• ••••• • ••••!,••le il•••••■•••• — • • •••••• •• • 41, •••■••• •••••••• , • •••••• • •••••• .••■■•••••• •••• • .1•••• ••• ••••••••••••••• ••••••••••• ••• ••••••• •,.••••• .••••• • .r.01 wow., so •Vp.... ••7• ••• .70 ••••• Milaga#5. 11••• •• • roll .• . • 'At vv. (.1,73!,•;././ r ,1•• flNe. .1!/41,4•• •••••••• mow •••• saw, am, I i* r!. ',RUM 1 • !•1 A m i :4 'At rITI :131Mfb 1m.sworsomr •••••••■ ••• •••••••••• 11rAft.1 • •••• 111 II • • am ••••• ••• ••••••• lide c■ t's , .,-;:e ^)' 6V-4, . 4' ...( ./ Control No. Epic File No. Fee $100.00 Receipt No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Tukwila Pond Center 2. Name of applicant: Spieker Partners 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: P.O. Box 97022, Bellevue,W) 98009; Phone - 453 -1600 Contact' Person: Joel Benoliel 4. Date checklist prepared: June 30, 1988 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Start construction fall of 1988 or as soon as permit is available. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Report prepared for the City of Tukwila for the 168th Street extension. Report prepared for the proposed Springridge Development., 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. To the best of our knowledge no other governmental apprnvals are pending_ 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. SEPA Approval Design Review Grading Permit Street Use Permit Building Permit Hauling Permit _ Street Use Permit Washington State Dept. of Wjldifr_Hydraulic ProJect_ Approval 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed use and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in thi checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do no need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. See design intent- Section 2. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this checklist. The project is located at the intersection of Strander Boulevard and _Andnver Park West (see site plan attached ,. Section 6) 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? We are informed by the City of Tukwila that portions of the aroposal lie within an area designated as environmentally sensitive• however, we do not believe our proposal will have any negative environmental impacts. -3- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 1% - 2% • c. What general types of soils are 'found on the site (for example, clay, sand gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. See GeoEngineers letter dated 4/16/88 (in Appendices) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils An the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Tn the haft nf niir knnwledge, nn indiratinn nf unstable soil5L e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.Fill material will be natural gravels suitable for use as an engineered fill. We estimate needing approximately 75,000 cubic yards of fill to . bring the building and parking areas to grade. The source of fill has not been determined at this time. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. We do not believe erosion will occur as a result of the development. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 33% -4- Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Prior to any construction activity. a temporary erosion control plan will be submitted for approval to the City of Tukwila Public Works Department. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Normal minimal duct and autnmohila emissions associated with the construction and operation of this type of facility. b. Are .there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Not to our knowledge. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Standard dust control methods will be utilized during construction of the project. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year - round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. A large surface water body does exist at the southeast portion of the site. It is our understanding the____ current outlet js via Gillian Creek to the Green River. -5- Evaluation for Agency Use Only #387702 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, see attached plan and design intent - Section 2. Also for your records, please see Dept. of the Army letter dated 5/16/88 (in appendices). 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes (see site plan). No finish floor will be constructed below the 100 year flood plain of 23.00 (1981 study). 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. Evaluation for Agency Use Only #387702 Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No. This assumes that site storm drainage will be discharged into the city system. 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste materials discharged into the ground. c. Water Runoff (including storm .water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Site runoff will be collected into the storm sewer system and directed into the existing_City system. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No.' d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Implement nn:site detention facilities 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass — pasture crop or grain X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other X water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Grasses, scotch broom, small black snttnnwnnd and alder shoots. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. -8- #387702 Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: See Biological Evaluation. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: haw ero eagle, sonibird [thee) See attached Biological Evaluation and bird list. mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver,(aihe See attached mammal list. fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, th See Biological Evaluation. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. All of Washington isjoart of .the Pacify • .F1Y1rL�Y.• d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Buffering along the pond will provide additional visual screening of the off- site_area_ la_enhancement is needed for the Pvel d cite_ See attached Biological Fvaluation_ 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric and natural gas used for heating and air conditioning. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: In order to conserve energy the buildings will be designed in compliance with the Washington State Energy Code. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: N/A #387702 Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long -term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Normal minimal traffic noise generated by a project of this type. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Building orientation and site location. See site flan. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The_ site is currentl _vacant /undeveloped. Adlacent upperties are beiajjtilized for a number of cQmmercI Luses, b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. To the best of our knowl?dge it was used for agricultural purposes at previous_times__unknown_ to us. c. Describe any structures on the site. No structures on site. #387702 Evaluation for Agency Use Only Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is th'e current zoning classification of the site? CP f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Commercial g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? The current City Plan does not show this site as requiring Shoreline approval. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? ±220 -230 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Work with City staff to develop a project which is compatible with existing and proiected land uses. -12- Evaluation for Agency Use Only 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing? N/A b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest building height is 42 ft. However, the majority of the buildings' exterior walls will be no higher than 21.5 ft. Exterior building materials may include a combination of split -face block and brick subject to Design Review approval. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Work with City staff to deveop buildings which are aesthetically pleasing. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 11. light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None that we are aware of. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: We will use building materials in a manner to minimize glare and aalso control light glare impacts through the use of cut -out fixtures, as well as being sensitive to the placement /location of fixtures. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? Under consideration are means by which the public may obtain access to enhanced uplands and new lagoon . passive recreation only. We have had dicussions with the City about creating public access for passive uses. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing . recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, . including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: See Item 12a above. -14- Evaluation for Agency Use Only • 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:_ N/A 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West (see traffic study (in Appendices). b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 1210 ffiii / /UL Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets,-not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). See traffic study in Appendices. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. See traffic study in Appendices. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: ... .. Normal shopping center management controls. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No, except for what is normally required for this type of development. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.It is unlikely that this project will have any negative impact to the existing public services, since it is located adjacent to a major regional shopping center and other existing support uses. -16- #387702 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. Utilities 11iti s— currently avai abl e_iiitte: Cnatural gas,' ter, refuse service, septic system, otTier. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electrical (Puget Power); gas (Washington Natural Gas); sewer & water (City of Tukwila) L phone (Pacific N.W. Bell): Refuse service (SeaTac Disposal) C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency relying on themto a e its • cision. Signature: ► ti- ^4-4-4-1 Date Submitted: is PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIL .T Evaluation for Agency Use Only 0. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourses are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Evaluation for Agency Use Only Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Evaluation-for Agency Use Only 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: TO BE COMPLETED BY APPL. ,NT Evaluation for Agency Use Only E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? Develop compatible and permitted retail /commercial uses in this C -P zoned property. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? Alternative means are directly related to types of potential retail /commercial tenants. Once more definite tenants are identified for this project, minor modifications to the proposed plan may be submitted for review. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: The preferred course of action is as illustrated in our attached site plan. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? No. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: -23- -- f 1 HALYARD SONACiE PROPOSED TREQ( oR. EXTENSION ANDOVER PARK WEST ACCESS TO SOUTHCENTER BLVD. PATH BY CRY EXBTNO RIPARIAN EDGE —. 11 EXOTNG DEFT AS / RESTAIAANT DECK TUKWLA PQND '. LOADNG AND c0.IACTOR PROMENADE PROMENADE DIIIPSTEA • EXIS,TTIG - \ TREES . 102.000 SF. f • e2 72 29P 1 RETAL RETAL C- p' TO CRY TRILL SYSTEM LOADNG COMPACTOR ,SIGNAGE 72 ±n OZ r=s a 1=1 sad 1 0 v STRANDER BLVD. rSOUTHCENTER MALL e e I. • 1 lli• • HOTEL 1 TUKWILA POND CENTER MITHUN ■ BOWMAN • EMRICH GROUP-PS AYC..•Itctu Qe PLANNING Fo1O0 DESIGN 000 tfTh. Aim lee 1Fi •tvut WNSN PEON (20MASI331A DCE V 2A► m RECEIVES JUN 291988 • • 1 JH •••• • Al. /■••,,• ••nr.7•1 • • • •• • g000k.,o too • • , • •. JOY • • .•Ii•■ • Bird - -744--/ • • !!,.: •••••• •• • ,77 1/7 ■•• own. • . •• ...we '! I; I I 11 • ;1 tp 1 P. .::D • • • . I! i I • I 1 .1 1 1.. J • .11 . - - // • ;"•.,- jr) • ( , • —1— • ••• 4 is. ••• . \ . -- / "•-\ .1 •••••••••••• a.- • •• C••••••••••••• I •••••■ •••••••• Warm, •ai.“•••••••••• •■•• • ••••••••••■• •■••• • •••• • ••••••• %war. .•••• • ••••• 11•••.••••■ • •••• . . • • ' • ••• l•r•• •• •••• • •7•• -• • • / 6 " .• , / . / , . . / ./. ---- • • ,• z .1 !V' • • ' j ' - - - - : • I _ 111/•• ••••••• mu. • • • 1••••••• • •••••• :won. ••• • *go, ••••• am *AD. • .11 • • • A...1*e ••• a.. • • ••••• ••■••• 1. • ....a • ...wow. • rkt e or, i• uj- CC 0 0. 0 11- ••■ • • • Biological Evaluation and General Site Review Tukwila Pond Addendum for Spieker Partners 11400 S.E. Eighth, Suite 310 Bellevue, Washington 98004 by IES Associates 1514 Muirhead Avenue Olympia, Washington 98502 Introduction TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 Studies 1 Benthic.Analysis Fish Birds Waterfowl Amphibians and Reptiles Mammals Visual Survey Shading Study Impacts Analysis of Proposed Alternative 1 3 5 8. 9 10 11 11 12 Indirect Impacts 14 Short -term Impacts 15 Mitigation Impacts 18 Impacts Conclusions 20 Impacts of Setback Alternative 22 Mitigation and Enhancement 24 Description 24 Biological Values 28 Procedures 30 Monitoring 30 Contingency 31 Introduction : Additional studies and evaluations of studies conducted for Springridge Development in November, 1983, additional data collected for the CDA development proposal, and the information provided in the draft environmental impact statement for 168th Street South, have been updated and re- evaluated based on additional studies completed during April June, 1988 by IES Associates, The Watershed Company, and InvertAid.. Work included a benthic analysis, fish shocking and -data analysis, setback impacts evaluation, and shading and visual impact studies. It also reflects a re- evaluation of the wildlife potential based on new depth surveys and expected maximum depth surveys from data provided L?y Barghausen Engineers. Studies : Benthic Analysis : Benthic studies were conducted by InvertAid with the assistance of IES Associates, in an attempt to define the insect and benthic productivity of the overall site, with emphasis on the bottom strata colonization in the area to be impacted by the proposed development, particularly the overwater structures. The analysis included core samplings of 1 bottom muds and water column sampling (See Attachment 1). Bottom strata in the north one -half of the site was found to be dense clay, with a very shallow organic detrital deposit on the surface. Because of this limitation, cores were limited in depth before reaching the dense, dark clay layer. The results were indicative of the narrow organic layer. The productivity of the area, both in numbers and diversity of species, was limited. When compared to studies conducted in other freshwater systems, benthic productivity in the area has to be considered as limited to extremely poor. When highly sought food organisms are separated from other groups, which are indicators of low oxygen and poor environmental conditions, the productivity of the site is even more limited. Because of the sampling procedure, surface water or above water flying insects were not taken into account. A gross analysis was assumed based on the amount of swallow activity over the pond. Because of the numbers of swallows and the feeding flight patterns that were observed during all spring and early summer surveys, it is assumed that there is a reasonable insect colony over the water. However, a majority of these types of species breed in vegetative cover but not in the open water column. This was expected because of the dense 2 reed canarygrass stand and marsh areas to the south and the small pond in the southeast corner which has depth and water characteristics to be a good insect breeding and rearing site. The conclusion, based on this data, is that the main body of the pond, particularly the north edge, does not provide a significant food source for fish or other aquatic organisms in the water or for insectivorous birds. , The lack of mollusks in any of the benthic samples is an indication that the pond has never had a direct physical connection to a stream or is not influenced directly by backwater from other streams that are collected in the retention system behind the Green River Embankment. This lack of mollusks indicates that the backing floodwaters behind the Green River dikes do not influence the pond. Fish : A fish shocking study was conducted on May 25 by Bill Way of The Watershed Company.. Ted Muller, Washington Department of Wildlife, Mill Creek Office, accompanied The Watershed Company on the survey. The survey was conducted using a backpack shocker from a fiberglass flat- bottom boat. Shocking was attempted in the north edge of the area, however, because of the water depth, the shocking was unsuccessful. Shockings 3 conducted in the southwestern, shallower portions of the pond were successful. The only species identified by the shocking was the brown bullhead catfish (Attachment 2 - Bill Way letter report). The results indicate that the only species -of fish found is the bullhead. Also it was determined, because of the consistency of the size of the fish collected, that the majority of the fish were adults of a maximum stunted - size which was regulated by a limited food source. (Way, 1988, and Way 1988, Personal communication). The lack of presence of younger fish indicates that there is limited to poor breeding in the pond or that the predation by the adult population is preventing any significant juvenile survival. The fish had to have been planted sometime between 1976 and 1986. Prior to 1976, there was no water in the pond or the water in the pond was intermittent, with the pond drying up during the summers. A lack of other species indicates that there has been no direct connection or backflooding from the Green °River into this water body. Ponds in the in the Green River Valley that are impacted by stream connections or connections to the Green River have a diversity of fish that includes one or more salmonid species and sculpin. Particularly a lack of sculpin in the water is an indicator that the area has never had a direct connection to any natural stream source. 4 Previous data, as reported in the 168th Street Environmental Impact Statement and in the Springridge Biological Report, indicated that three species were seen being fed on by heron and cormorant in the pond. Those observations were made from the bank with binoculars and the assumed presence of more than one species was based on the coloration of fish being consumed by the birds. However, with the new knowledge that brown bullhead are present, that coloration could have reflected bellies of the catfish (which are white) or the backs (which are brown) which, at a distance, could have been construed to be two separate species of fish. In preliminary investigations there was no fish samplings or shockings conducted because it was assumed that the type of fish was not as important as documenting the presence or absence of fish in the pond. New data is based on approved scientific collecting methods and therefore supersedes any assumptive comments made in prior publications. Birds : Bird lists and data provided for in the 168th Street Environmental Impact Statement andrin Springridge and CDA unpublished documents were based on winter surveys and bird lists provided by Audubon members and other birdwatchers. 5 Information on nesting and brood rearing was based on reports by birdwatchers.. During the spring of 1986, when the CDA biological evaluation was being conducted for a proposed development and again during the spring of 1988, during the ongoing surveys, waterfowl counts and species lists were maintained. During neither of these years were any broods identified on the site. Mallards, gadwall, ruddy duck, and coot were observed on the area during the breeding season, however no juveniles were observed, nor were any nests located in a survey of the banks in 1986. This may be caused by the limited available habitat and the steepness of the narrow bank. With the blackberry and limited grasses that exist on the steep, narrow banks, nesting is limited to the top of the bank whwre it would be exposed to excessive disturbances and predation. Areas above the steep banks are dried uplands which do not provide an ideal nesting habitat for mallards or other dabbling ducks. The willow islands in the southwest corner give the outward appearances of providing habitat for water or floating island nesting birds, however an examination of these islands during two breeding seasons failed to indicate any breeding activity. This is probably due to the fact that the dominant two species on these islands are willow (which is a woody species.that does not provide any nesting materials) and 6 nightshade (which also does not provide a mat or floating island effect that is necessary for species such as . canvasbacks, grebes, etc. A winter survey was conducted in the willow, alder, and black cottonwood trees in an attempt to define the significance of the shrub area as nesting habitat for other birds. Although there is a fairly dense willow canopy in the southeast corner, abutting the open water portion of the pond, the total number of nests and diversity of species nesting (based on variations in nest types), was more limited than would be expected from the bird lists supplied by the Audubon society. However, no definitive studies were made to count or identify each of the nests since the intent was only . to determine level of total use of the woody components surrounding the pond by nesting birds. Reed canarygrass, is the dominant wetland plant on 80 to 90 percent of the palustrine emergent wetland in the southeast corner of the site. Because ofthis dominance, and the density of the reed canarygrass, nesting activity is limited if present. Song sparrows were observed flying in and out, but no nests were located during 1985 and 1986 surveys. Raptors that were identified by Audubon and by previous surveys are still using portions of the site for intermittent hunting 7 forays. Additional surveys were conducted in 1986 in an effort to confirm the assumptions made in the Springridge report that the use was limited and that birds did not use the trees for extended periods of time. These surveys were based on an examination of the trees for whitewash and the understory for whitewash and the presence of casts. Two years of surveys failed to identify indicators of extended or heavy use by any of the larger raptor species. Waterfowl : During 1985 -1986 winter surveys, attempts were made to evaluate the impacts of human activity on waterfowl using the pond. The water's edge and the riparian border were walked in an attempt to exert pressure on the birds to evaluate their flushing response. The only area on the site where we could effectively flush birds by simply walking to the edge of the pond was in the southwest corner, where the reed canarygrass comes down to the edge of the water and there is no riparian border. Attempts were made to flush the canvasbacks to determine the levels of impact and levels of disturbance that would be required to disperse these birds from the waters. Two people walking the area were unable to force the canvasbacks to flush from the pond. Use of noise, with one person standing next to the water in the southeast corner, 8 caused birds to flush and move about in the lake and finally leave the site. The birds returned to the site the next day, when the survey was continued. The first birds to leave the site, on each occasion, were the teal. However, it should be noted that at the time of the survey, the vegetation on the small floating islands in the southwest corner were defoliated and therefore there was limited protection for the birds. Amphibians and Reptiles : Preliminary work reports indicated that there was a presence of tree frogs, and possibly a presence of red - legged frogs. Additional surveys failed to confirm the use of the area by the red - legged frog. However, bullfrogs were identified in the small pond in the southeast corner of the site. Frogs are using this area because of the habitat, which includes water -lily and smartweed growth within the pond. The presence of bullfrogs indicates that there are other types of marine life in the pond, since bullfrogs are carnivorous predators. No bullfrogs were located in the main pond. Areas specifically checked were the water's edge under the willows in the southeast edge of the pond and under the overhanging trees along the north bank. Other reptiles may be present in the understory, but were not identified because of the limited nature of the survey. Mammals : Additional surveys of the riparian border, the shrub components of the uplands, and the reed canarygrass area were conducted to augment or confirm the assumptions based on sightings, sign, and assumed expectations, that were reported in the Springridge report, and reported in the 168th Street top of bank and the water's edge. Visual Survey : The north bank of the pond was photographed from a boat 400 -450 feet south of the north side of the pond. The photographs were placed in a mosaic to give a vegetative outline of the north bank. The trees were measured to give exact elevations to be used in developing perspective drawings of the buildings. Three sets of drawings (Figure 1) were created to demonstrate the visual effect of the buildings on the pond from the south side of the project. The first drawing is a to -scale duplication of the mosaic photograph. The second drawing is a to -scale showing the buildings extending over the water, and the third drawing is a to -scale showing the buildings set back from the water. With the elevation of the buildings above the water and their heights in relationship to the surrounding trees, the buildings do not create an obtrusive or obstructive view. Shading Study : A shading study was conducted by K. Frank Kirkbride and Associates, Landscape Architects, Olympia, Washington. They were given a scale drawing of the proposed project and asked to evaluate the shading effect on both the open water areas 11 • 1■■■■■••••• •C•••• •••■ SETBACK CONCEPT _ . SPIEKER PARTNERS BELLEVUE , WASHINGTON VISUAL CONCEPTS FROM PHOTOS TAKEN 400 FT. FROM THE NORTH BANK TUKWILA POND IES ASSOCIATES OLYMPIA WA 1 FIGURE 1 under the building and the shrub line vegetation on the lake banks beneath the buildings. The results, which are included as Attachment 3, show that because of the openness of the area and the tilt of the sun, portions, of the open water and the bank will receive extended sunlight during the winter but less during the summer due to the angle of the sun. The study indicates that only a small of the area to be shaded by the building will actually be negatively impacted by the overwater structures in the winter with a greater percent impacted in the summer. Because of this approximately 60 percent of the vegetation on each bank will be affected. Impacts Analysis 'of Proposed Alternative : Impacts of the site were evaluated using two development scenarios: (1) the proposed development with mitigation, and (2) an alternative development set back from the pond without mitigation. It should be noted that the set back alternative was devised by IES Associates strictly for evaluation, comparisons, and has not been proposed as a development alternative by Spieker Partners. The major direct impacts to overwater development will be the removal of four large black cottonwood trees from the north bank, the removal of a doghair stand of red alder along 200 feet of the west bank and the removal of clustered willow in the northeast corner of the 12 pond. There will also be some shading loss to bank species under the buildings. Indirect impacts will be the effect of the intrusion of the into the lake on wintering wildlife , and the short -term impacts created during the construction period. The buildings are designed so that the portion of the walls extending over the water are blank and contain no reflective surfaces. Monitoring data from an overwater buildings at Koll - Creekside, Beaverton and one report from Massachusetts demonstrate that when buildings are constructed with non - reflective surfaces, and human activity is restricted from those sides of the buildings abutting or extending over the water, wildlife readily adjusted to the building. The Beaverton data (Van Wormer, unpublished) indicates that buildings act as a buffers between the marsh or open space area and the vehicle and human activity that takes place in parking lots on the opposite side of the building. The overwater building area constitutes only 12 percent of the total pond area and the two buildings along the east side abutt Andover Road, the sidewalk, and the highest human activity area on the site. These factors combined with the proposed passive nature of the overwater walls and the flushing data collected in 1985 and 1986 indicate that the 13 overall impacts to waterfowl using the pond during the winter should be limited if existent. However, without extended winter studies it is impossible to determine the exact effect on different species of birds. The overshading will change the physical relationship of the water in the bottom under those portions of the pond that will be covered by buildings. However, based on sampling studies, the biological productivity is extremely poor, providing little food for fish or other marine organisms. The only fish identified in the pond, the brown bullhead, is a fish that prefers shade and cover, therefore the overwater buildings may in fact provide an enhanced habitat component for this fish species. Additional direct impacts will be the loss of the upland properties between the north edge of the pond and Strander Blvd. However, wildlife use of this area is limited to small mammal and birds use because of the physical conditions of the site and the use of the area by people, particularly as a place to allow dogs to run. Indirect Impacts : Indirect impacts include the short -term impacts caused by construction and impacts that may occur because of the 14 • indirect presence of the development or of human activity within the development. Short -term Impacts : Short -term impacts include the effects of noise from piledriving and other construction on waterfowl and other birds and mammals using the site. The level and effect of the impacts will be dependent on a number of factors. Some of those factors include: (1) timing of construction, (2) the total length of the construction period, and (3) the types of construction activities occurring during different time periods. Major expected impacts will occur during the overwater piledriving and other phases of the work over the water that require the use of heavy equipment and /or portable motors. The proposed construction period is in late early to late fall as soon as the permits are issued. Monitoring of wildlife activity will begin between the 10th to the 15th of November. Monitoring will be conducted to evaluate migratory bird activity on the site and the effects of the construction activity on these birds. Once the winter migration and the wintering birds become established and are utilizing the pond on a regular basis, the construction activity will be evaluated to determine if some level of intermittent 15 construction or reduced day length construction could be continued without having a long -range detrimental effect on bird use of the pond. This evaluation and the appraisal of this evaluation by the agencies should also take into consideration the fact that delayed or reduced time periods for construction, if allowed, would extend the construction window later into the fall. This could actually create greater negative impacts than would occur with accelerated construction in as short a time - period as possible to remove all construction activity and noise from the pond as early in the winter season as possible. The third alternative will be to stop all construction if the impacts appear to create unreasonable and possible long term impacts to wintering waterfowl. The staggered time period and intermittent days proposal is based on monitoring of construction of an overwater building at Koll - Creekside in Beaverton, Oregon. During this construction period, birds (mostly blackbirds and mallards) would move distances of 100 -200 feet from the construction during the construction period. During the evenings and on weekends, the birds moved back into the open water areas and cattails adjacent to, and, in some instances even partially inside of the construction zone (Herb, 1986 personal communications). Once construction was completed and the 16 building was finished, bird activity in the wetland adjacent to the building was typical of the rest of the marsh. In fact, since the construction of the building, a red - tailed hawk nest has been established in a black cottonwood tree within 500 feet of the wetland side of the building. Traffic activity and people activity are screened from the wetland by the building and do not appear to be creating any stress or pressure on nesting activity which is taking place on grass mounds on the banks by mallards and red- winged blackbirds in the cattail adjacent to the building. Other secondary impacts include the effect of .building displacement of the open water area that is used by waterfowl for loafing, possible distractions caused by vehicles loading and unloading at the back side of the building along the east side of the property and the human activity on possible walkways and trails at the backs of the buildings and in the center of the development between the two overwater structures. Based on observations at the Koll - Creekside, it is not expected that the small amount of overwater structure, ie. approximately 12 percent of the overall lake /pond area, will affect the utilization of the area by wintering waterfowl. The distance from the back of the buildings to the south pond 17 bank is still greater than the distance that was required to flush canvasbacks during our preliminary surveys in 1985 and 1986. As long as human activity is limited to select observations points, the presence of the buildings in a passive capacity should not affect existing winter waterfowl activity. This is based on limited data. There is other data which indicates that human activity does effect nesting birds, however, the studies we have been able to find do not address buildings as buffers and their impacts on wildlife. Mitigation Impacts : The creation of an approximately 3.0 acre isolated pond /emergent marsh area ( Figures 2,3 ), connected to the open water pond component by paralleling sloughs, will provide a secluded, secure habitat for teal, shovelers, mallard, gadwall, pintail, and other species that typically use the southwest corner of the site during the spring, fall and winter months. This area expands that habitat type and creates an emergent marsh component that is only represented by the one'small cattail stand in the southwest corner of the site. Additional habitat units which will be provided that are not present are low shrub, seed, and berry bearing habitat that will be on the periphery of the mitigation area. 18 • ����.. �•� ���EXISTING'• - ..... - RIPARIAN EDGE �\\ I ACCESS TO SOUTHCENTER BLVD. • PARK /NO N W cc LL 'l. RETAIL EXISTING U (LEFT AS I RETAIL EW RIPARIAN EDGE WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT IENADE NG Q H __J 102,000 S.F. I J HOTEL 1 . --p-71.--1 t__. -1 C - -.• 4 - -• WETLANDS MITIGATION MITHUN • BOWMAN • EMRICH GROUP•PS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND INTERIOR DESIGN 'UfiO 11;•111 AJL tit BEL1Lvilt WASH 5)8074 (: C.t• , 454 3344 The mitigation area will also include the establishment or the creation of an additional 650 feet of riparian border above the shrub -scrub habitat which will replace 81 percent of the riparian border that will be displaced by the construction of the overwater buildings. The creation of terraced ledges at varying water depths will provide diverse habitats for a variety of wetland plant species, which will create additional diversity for water edge nesters and hunters. The shrub border, adjacent to an emergent marsh component, will provide an optimum nesting habitat for yellowthroats, song sparrows, winter wren, and rufous -sided towhees. The cattail /sedge mixed border in an isolated component will provide nesting habitat for redwing blackbird, marsh wren, additional habitat for yellowthroats, and edge area that would provide habitat for rails. This additional habitat component does not exist on the site at the present time. The presence of varying seed - producing sedges will increase the food availability for dabbling ducks such as mallards, pintails, gadwalls, etc. The shrub and the stepped, shallow areas will provide a shallow working edge surrounding the marsh for great blue heron, raccoons, skunks, and other water edge hunting predatory species. Under existing conditions, a shallow edge exists only in a small area in the southwest corner when the water level drops during the summer. 19 The species selection for the riparian edge and tree buffer will include a variety of berry- bearing species such as cherries, chokecherries, and plums. These trees will provide short -term food for migratory species such as waxwings and robins. A negative impact of providing fruit - bearing species is the attraction of crows to the area for the short period of time that the trees are producing ripe fruit. Impacts Conclusions : The most significant negative impact will be the loss of a limited number of trees that are used by raptors as perch areas, for hunting, and that provide nesting area for a variety of passerine birds. Positive impacts are the replacement of these trees by a riparian area of seed and berry - producing trees that will, in a 15 -20 year period, replace a major portion of the lost raptor perching habitat. This impact will be a moderate -term, ie. less than 25 year, impact on the overall site. The loss of open water space will be replaced with the creation of 1.5 times as much acreage of mixed open water ponds with emergent marsh and shrub -scrub border components in an area that is protected from the development by the large building on the west side of the property and by restricted access. 20 Additional positive impacts will be the creation of a public access point at the'southwest corner of the site, which will allow birdwatchers and others to have access to portions of the pond in a manner which will regulate the direct impacts of people on the pond. This access will include a protected public parking area in the southeast corner on the developers property. There will be offsetting impacts with the construction of the mitigation area along the west edge of the pond. These impacts will include loss of two small lengths of riparian border in areas where the connecting sloughs will be dug between the mitigation area and the existing pond. There will also be a loss of the upland vegetation that extends from the back of the riparian edge to the west property line. At present, this vegetation consists of a mix of grasses, Scots broom, ragworts including tansy ragwort, dandelion, and other invader -type forbs. The existing tree vegetation in the southwest corner will be retained as a part of the overall mitigation component. The development, with the mitigation area, will provide additional nesting and brood rearing components that are limited to nonexistent on the existing pond, provide an 21 additional predator hunting buffer and a shallow emergent marsh component at regulated water depths that are consistently present from year to year. Impacts of Setback Alternative : The hypothetical setback alternative would remove the buildings from the overwater area. This would remove buildings from the overwater area, eliminate one building along the east property line abutting Andover Road, eliminate the mitigation area in the southwest corner of the site, place an additional building along the west side of the pond and provide a traffic access along the west property boundary connecting the public easement /public access behind Toys'R Us parking lot with Strander Boulevard. The buildings would occupy all of . the northern portion of the site from the edge of the pond to Strander and Andover, creatinge the same level of impact to the upland portion of the habitat as was created by the proposed project. In addition, the upland habitat that could be converted to a wetland mitigation component would be lost to construction of a building along the west property line. With this alternative, the pond will be screened from the buildings by the existing black cottonwood/ shrub riparian border. However, impacts with the setback and the vegetative 22 riparian border may be greater than the proposed alternative if the service roads are placed at the backs of the buildings. This would place light truck traffic and human activity within 25 foot of the water's edge. In the-winter, the vegetative screen would be even less, since all of the trees on the north side of the pond are deciduous. The habitat values gained by setting the buildings back and maintaining the 12 percent additional open water will provide habitat for open water loafing birds. With this alternative, there would be no impacts to the pond, therefore there would be no mitigation offered as replacement for wetland or wildlife impacts. This could result in a loss of 3.0 acres of pond /emergent marsh habitat, which would result in a net loss in waterfowl habitat value for the entire site. With this alternative there would be additional traffic introduced into the southwest corner of the site for access to the building along the west side of the property and a possible through drive to Strander Boulevard. 23 Mitigation and Enhancement : The mitigation plan for the Spieker Partners Tukwila Pond involves the expansion of the pond to the west property line in the southwest corner of the site. Basic components of the plan will include small open water ponds, meandered channel fingers back to the property line to create small open water pond /emergent marsh sloughs and two finger sloughs that connect the existing pond to the mitigation area (Figure 3) . The mitigation will result in a net increase of approximately 3.0 acrea of wetlands habitat and riparian border in Tukwila Pond. This mitigation is designed to offset the impacts of constructing three buildings with portions of the backs of the buildings extending over the water. The physical separation, 13.5 feet between the bottom of the buildings and the top of the water, creates a shaded open area under the buildings which will replace open water pond with a narrow riparian border. This is addressed in the impacts analysis. Description : The mitigation area will be located in the southwest corner of the project in an areas that is now uplands (Figure 24 - -_ OPEN WATER 1 • TREE /SHRUB BORDER D-EFL_. - -- • E M E�G'E N1' -M A-R Sil EXISTING-TREES EXISTING POND • OPEN WATER N \'\ I '1 \\ EMERGENT MARSH ( I / �i f�� /1 / / / m 00 CO 0 0 23 STING TREES SPIEKER PARTNERS BELLEVUE,WA TUKWI.LA POND WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN 1 ES ASSOCIATES OLYMPIA,WA • • FIGURE 3 2). The design will include the breaching the existing bank with two channels excavated to the existing bottom depth of the pond in that area. The existing bank and riparian vegetation in the areas between and to the north and south of these two channels will be maintained in their existing condition to provide a riparian island between the existing pond and newly created wetlands mitigation area (Figure 3). The open water area behind these islands will be approximately fifty feet wide and sloped to the west at a 3:1 slope to create an emergent marsh establishment area and a transition between the deep water and the existing riparian vegetation area behind the island. The west of the islands will be excavated to provide a deep water component in the form of two small ponds, with a shallower water /emergent marsh component between them and shallower emergent marsh components surrounding them to the north, south and west to provide an optimum growing habitat for desirable emergent marsh species. The area will be dredged into stepped depth terraces from the deepest are, which will be equal to the bottom of the existing pond, up to the riparian edge. These steps will provide shallow platforms, one at a depth of 12 -18 inches for the establishment of bulrush and other rushes, one at a depth of 6 -12 inches (for the establishment of cattail) and one at 0 -6 inches (for the establishment of three - square and American 25 bulrush). The edge above the American bulrush will be planted to a mix of softrush and wet meadow grasses such as Oregon bentgrass and meadow foxtail. The upper border of the slope will be planted to a shrub mix to provide a low shrub, berry and seed - bearing component that does not exist in the Tukwila Pond area. This will include rose, ground cherry, red -osier dogwood, mock orange, serviceberry, and red - flowering currant. The south edge of the mitigation component will be graded to blend in to the edge of the existing alder /shrub •component located in the southwest corner of the site. The same will occur on the west side of the newly created islands, ie. the existing berm area along the west bank of the existing lake. The west property boundary will be planted with a mix of black cottonwood, bigleaf maple, chokecherry, bitter cherry, and American plum. These trees will be planted along the periphery of the property boundary to create a visual and physical buffer between the Toys -R -Us parking lots to the west and the wetlands component. This tree buffer will be continued across the north end of the mitigation area, however in this area the tree composition will change to a mix which will eliminate the bigleaf maple and black cottonwood and 26 concentrate on the creation of a flowering and seed and berry - bearing corridor of cherry, chokecherry and plum, and red alder. The back of the building that would be located in the southwest corner will be windowless and designed to provide a physical buffer between the mitigation area in the lake and the parking lots and traffic access points designed for the north half of the development. 27 Biological Values : The mitigation area is designed to provide a habitat component that does not presently exist on the site. By creating protected ponds and emergent marshes, the mitigation area will extend the habitat type created in the southeast corner by the willow islands and the cattail edge along the south property line. These habitat components provide hiding and feeding areas for a variety of waterfowl, including teal, shovelers, mallards, pintail, ruddy duck, gadwall, and common coot. It is expected that the mitigation area will extend this habitat for these species and also provide a protected loafing area for additional shorebirds and waterfowl such as shovelers, redheads, and canvasbacks, who only use the area during the winter months as a loafing site and marginal feeding area. The mitigation area will provide a level of additional food and an edge along the one side that could, if the short grasses compete effectively with the reed canarygrass, provide some nesting habitat for mallards. The low shrub cover and the increase in cattail /bulrush will provide additional habitat for shore nesters such as song sparrows, yellowthroats, long - billed marsh wrens, and winter wrens. Groundcover created by the shrubs will also provide additional 28 habitat for birds such as rufous -sided towhees, juncoes, and other ground - dwelling shrub species common to western Washington. The creation of a fruit - bearing edge will provide summer feeding area for a variety of species including robins and waxwings, which are commonly found in the cherry trees on the west slopes of the Cascades. During certain periods of the year, these trees will also act to attract crows, which is one negative factor of their presence in a planting mix. However, we believe evidence of these plantings on other sites shows sufficient positive benefits to include them in a planting mix. Based on HEP (Habitat Evaluation Procedure) analyses and a very brief WET computer run based on species only, there will be a considerable increase in overall biological value to the most waterfowl species. The total linear feet of pond bank and riparian edge to be created will replace most of the values lost by year 10 ( based on growth rates of species selected and existing conditions. There also will be an increase in habitat for all waterfowl species, with the exception of increased open water space for canvasbacks. However, evidence, as identified in the impacts analysis section of the biological evaluation, indicates that the 29 losses associated with the construction of the building will be short -term during the construction period and marginal once the buildings are established. There is a small body of evidence that shows that, once established, properly designed buildings provide physical buffering and do not have severe negative impacts on passive or active waterfowl use. Because of this, the impacts to waterfowl utilization of the site are expected to be limited and the benefits from the wetland mitigation area are expected to be substantially higher. Procedures : The wetland mitigation pond area will be excavated in the dry. Excavation, sloping, and revegetation for the upper areas, and the establishment of a primary grass erosion control cover will be established before the final breaching of the banks to allow the water from the pond into the newly created wetland area. Excavation work, as well as the revegetation work, will be monitored by qualified wetlands biologists approved by the developer and the regulatory agencies. Monitoring : The site will be monitored for a five year period to 30 ensure that the plant species composition remains consistent with the desired planting plan and that the plants that are planted survive. Monitoring will include seasonal evaluation of wildlife species utilization of the area to determine the effectiveness of the mitigation proposal to provide the expected habitat components for the species that were identified in the initial mitigation design proposal. Contingency : A contingency plan will be in place at the end of the fifth year of monitoring to provide additional mitigation, or replacement mitigation if the mitigation area fails to provide sufficient replacement values for the impacts that are identified in the impacts section of the biological evaluation. 31 ATTACHMENT 1 Invert -Aid Letter Report ii INVERT•AID Diane E. Robbins BIOLOGICAL CONSULTANT 9912 BARNES LANE SO. TACOMA, WA 98444 (206) 537-7494 Mr. Rex Van Wormer 1514 Muirhead Olympia, WA 98502 Dear Rex; may 22, 1988 Here are the results of the sediment sampling done on May 20, 1988 at Tukwila Pond, King Co. Washington. The samples were 2" diameter cores approximately 10 cm in depth. They were screened at .5mm and observed live. I have not done a statistical analysis of the samples as the cores varied in length and the sed- iment varied so in consistancy that truly quantative samples were not possible to obtain. It can be said, however, that the samples contained few specimens. Station 1: sandy sediment, detritus, seeds, insect elytra. 15 Ceriodaphnia oligochaetes, 2•= copepods * - Station 2: sand and silt, detritus, seeds, elytra. 3 chironomidae, 1 Ostracoda Station 3: clay, silt, detritus. 3 oligochaetes, 6 copepodsf 1 nematode Station 4: clay, silt, detritus. 2 copepods* Station 5: grey clay and detritus, seeds, elytra. 1 chironomid, 2 oligochaetes, 2 ostracods, 1 copepod* Cladocerans of the'genus Ceriodaphnia are known to withstand waters of low Oxygen concentrations. These were probably captured in the water column, as were the copepods, rather than in the sediment cores. Invertebrates that are known to exist in the water column are marked above with an * • If we eliminate those individuals from the benthic counts, Station 1, for example, would contain 3 oligochaetes, or approximately 1404 individuals per meter2- A total of 4 chironomid larvae were taken in all 5 samples. The mean of these samples approximated to numbers ' per m2 is 374 individuals. To make the point even stronger: ALL benthic species combined provide a mean of 1592 individuals per m2. One must consider the source of the insects being fed upon by the 5 species of swallow encountered on May 20. Possibly ' these were from more inshore sediments, ie those at the waters'. edge. There were suprisingly few oligochaetes at the site, and a notable lack of molluscs. Studies completed by Yake et al in 1986 in conjunction with studies of the Triad Approach to Freshwater sediment assessment compare taxa diversities and densities at three localities: Morse ' Lake (12'depth) , Lake Sammamish and Lake Union (25'). The number of specimens gathered in the present sampling are dramatically ' lower than those from the other three sites. Lake Sammamish, for instance,provided 4,247 Oligochaetes and 9,157 Chironomids per m2. At Gasworks Park stations 2,200 Oligochaetes, 75 Chironomids, were found. Studies completed by INVERT *AID on the benthic invertebrates of Lake Union contained from 140,490 to 0 Oligochaetes (mean 18,1176) ATTACHMENT 2 Bill Way Letter Report ATTACHMENT 3 Shading Study 4.ov Goo' *Da' • 11-41.1 -4 f- U P=C l..1 •� a-fa( • �oNf� - sHa.n� coo' r Icy yde • LA. ri �7- ^alit 'AUK \YI�R Fa,4r - sTvhY • E. E iLT! r-v-t 5k �r Svo' *Doi Mom -tl 6•41,A, M1,7124-1 r4 - >•• pat:-UF= TL)\VIL-A Fotr t3 r7ei /11 ///7///1////1» 11/ ♦ / / /1 / / // // / / / /l /l ///�1 JO-1E 2Z , 6c) °SoLA2 all M AC- .Zi /4.2' 27 , '7° 1 ' " ' tam . 22,22° SoLsIZ- a`� ii .Jtr )it Y i._ 1 42 L ICI .ice • �;,.a' T'cA Ex��:.csrte' — M vr>AT 4001 woo' r r -I hnr- ) Ges' T F ( e) a.r4 .' S p0. -`V \Y I LA‘ r- SHAb� S`N Imo'( ATTACHMENT 4 168th Street Biological Report BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF TUKWILA POND 168TH STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY CORRIDOR City of Tukwila Tukwila, Washington for Entranco Engineers 5808 Lake Washington Blvd. NE Kirkland, Washington by INDEPENDENT ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 1514 Muirhead Avenue Olympia, Washington 98502 INDEX INTRODUCTION 3 AREA DESCRIPTION 4 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION 5 • WILDLIFE HABITAT VALUES 15 IMPACTS 21 MITIGATION 26 PHOTOGRAPHS 27 APPENDIX 33 2 River except at pumping stations. When the river is high, no water can be put into the river, causing back -up in runoff south boundary of the project site abutts a railroad spur that is on a fill. It creates a six to fifteen foot bank between the lower wet meadow and the rail bed. The bank and edge of the track support stands of small trees and blackberry (Photo 5) . The narrow east border between the pond and Andover Park East has been filled but still contains depressions that hold seasonal water and support wetland plants. As the roadside extends north, the elevation raises to produce the only area of open space above the 100 year flood plain. The west and north sides of the pond are of fill material. They are flat, with three surface water drainage ditches carrying water from the north to the pond. The filled area holds standing water during the winter and supports wetland plants. The riparian border along these sides is narrow, and except for an occasional old black willow that was not killed during the filling, consists of young trees, shrubs and blackberry. PROJECT SITE: The proposed 168th Street connection between Andover Park East and South Center Parkway extends along the south border of the Tukwila Pond wetlands adjacent to and encompassing the existing railroad spur. Alternatives A, B, C and D all encompass all of the tree and shrub cover along the railroad, the willow /alder stand in the southwest corner, and a portion of the reed canarygrass meadow. A small portion of the pond including the shallow mudflat area along the south bank, and a portion of the small pond in the southeast corner of the 5 undeveloped area will also be eliminated by Alternatives A, B and C, but not D. Vegetation Zones: The overall lake and south wetland area is of concern to this project because of the direct and indirect impacts that will be created on both the habitat and the wildlife species utilizing the habitat. The area of impact consists of four habitat zones. Three are vegetative zones, the fourth is open water. They are: 1. Transitional vegetation, i.e., changing from uplands to wetlands. 2. True wetlands, (as described by King County). 3. Riparian borders, both wetlands and uplands in vegetative character. 4. The open water pond. Transition (uplands to wetland): Most of the filled area along the north and west side of the pond are in a stage of transition from invader species and upland species such as dock, quackgrass, johnsongrass and clover, to wetland species such as reed canarygrass, softrush, beggartick and other semi - aquatic forbs, willow and black cottonwood trees (Photo 9). This area comprises approximately 35 percent of the undeveloped area, but less than ten percent of the road right -of -way.. This portion of the right -of -way is in the southwest corner of the pond between the pond and the parking lots. The entire transition area is a feeding area for ducks and shorebirds that also use the pond for escape and loafing. Wetlands: Under the King County classification and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Corps of Army Engineers definition, wetlands are "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's classification of wetlands and deep water habitats, the wetland contains the following three classes: 1. Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom: includes all wetland and deep water habitats with at least 25 percent cover of particles smaller than stones and vegetative cover less than 30 percent.. This is the open water portion of the area. 2. Palustrine, emergent: characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes (water loving plants). This is the grass meadow along the south bank of the pond. 3. Palustrine, scrub-shrub: _ areas dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall. (This woody vegetation must be wetland in character, i..e., meeting those prerequisites of the hydric plants.) This is the riparian border along the south and north banks. The area between the south bank of the pond and railroad track is a near monoculture of reed canarygrass (Photo 3). At the lake's edge there are stands of smartweed and beggartick, and occasional clumps of cattail (Photo 2). The higher areas near the tracks have deadly nightshade and blackberry encroaching into the reed canarygrass area. The small crescent shaped pond in the southwest corner (Photo 6), has smartweed, beggartick and willow along its banks. This area comprises twelve percent of the undeveloped portion of the area and 70 percent of the wetlands in the project site. Riparian border: Riparian refers to the wooded or shrub type habitats that surround or abut , but interact directly with, a pond, wetland, ✓ or stream. It usually refers to any continuous stand of shrubs or trees, regardless of the width, as long as one side interacts with water or wetland. On Tukwila Pond that border is narrow along the west and north sides of the pond, and wider along the southeast and southwest corners (Photo 4), extending up to the railroad track in the southwest corner. Portions of the south bank have clumps of riparian with intermittent open spaces between the pond and a second tree /shrub border along the south edge of the canarygrass wetland. The northwest corner has a narrow band of trees extending from the pond along a narrow runoff ditch in the center of the road right -of -way. Portions of the riparian border on Tukwila Pond, particularly those areas along the south edge, are wetland in character and fall within the jurisdictional definition of King County. Species of trees vary by the age of the stand. Alder is an invader species that is wet soil tolerant as long as the area can dry out. Alder is the dominant plant along the runoff ditch in the northwest corner and along the west bank of the pond. The north end of the west side and the west half of the north side of the pond also support black cottonwood trees, willow and blackberry.. The east half of the north bank is mostly smaller willow, both tree and shrub species, and a few black cottonwood. The understory along the area is dense with blackberry and nightshade. A narrow band of cattail extends along the northeast corner of the pond. The east and southeast corners have older stands of black willow with occasional black cottonwood. The willow stand along the south bank is lower in surface elevation than other trees on the site: the stand is denser, the trees older, and the understory void of vegetation because of the dense canopy. Snags, crevices, and broken limbs supply good small bird habitat. This area also provides the isolation from roads or traffic needed by some wildlife. An extension of the riparian border extends from the large pond bank along the southeast border of the site along Andover Park East and encompasses the small pond in the corner and the southest corner of the canarygrass wetland (Figure 1; Photo 6). Trees are alder and black cottonwood with an understory of willow shrub and blackberry. Open Water: There are two open water areas on the site; the larger /5.2 acre main pond, and a small crescent shaped pond in the southwest corner. The main pond's depth precludes emergent vegetation throughout much of the lake except in the shallow areas along the banks and in the southwest corner. Along the north bank there are stands of cattail, intermingled with nightshade, and scattered reed canarygrass in the shallower areas. There is also an unidentified submergent plant growing in this area where the pond is shallow, and periodically dries up. In the southwest corner, in the midst of the dead willow stands, there is a stand of reed canarygrass and nightshade. In the deeper waters immediately surrounding the islands, there is some pond weed and an unidentified submergent plant. Along the south bank in this area the cattail is extending itself into the open water pond and there are patches of water hemlock /parsley scattered along the bank. The small crescent shaped pond in the southeast corner of the site is vegetated around the edge with reed canarygrass, with some patches of cattail starting to take hold. Aquatic smartweed, pond weed and duck weed are growing in the shallower portions. partial list of plants is included as Table 1. Habitat Values: The uplands, transitional wetlands, wetlands and riparian borders function as uplands during the late spring, summer and early fall. The low grass /rush areas in the transition and upland areas supply seed and green vegetation to a variety of small passerine birds, pheasants, quail and mammals. The riparian zone supplies cover, food and nesting for most of the same species. The tangle of blackberry /nightshade provides protection from predation for nesting and juvenile rearing. Trees are nesting habitat for a variety of small birds as well as perching and hunting stations for small raptors and kingfishers. Trees adjacent to or overhanging the water provide shade and protection from aerial hunters for juvenile ducks. Grassy edges provide nesting for mallards. During the summer, the canarygrass wetland provides cover -and some seed for a variety of small birds. Its dense growth limits the amount of use by small mammals other than mice, or as a nesting site for ground nesting birds. It does provide cover from aerial hunters for these species. In winter, the upland, transitional and parts of the A 10 riparian border still act as uplands. The wetland has standing water or the ground is saturated most of the time. There is some use of the upper crown and small birds and ducks feed on the seed heads that fall down into the standing water. As the water receeds, organic material is carried back into the pond. This provides food for small organisms that are the basic food source for insects and small fish which, in turn, supply food for birds and some mammals. WILDLIFE: Wildlife studies were conducted in October and November as part of another project identified for development within the property which includes Tukwila Pond and the 168th Street corridor. Data from Audobon notes, a wetlands evaluation conducted by Dyanne Sheldon of King County, and field studies completed for the 168th Street study in April, May and June, 1986 were combined in this report. Because of its isolation from other open space by roads and other developments, the overall wildlife use on the site is less than would be expected for a similar site, if that site were in a more open, natural setting, and not surrounded by development. However, bird species diversity and numbers are high. The major area where the species diversity and composition is low is by mammals which normally hunt open spaces adjacent to streams, lakes, and/or' wood lots and by larger predators that hunt wetlands and pond edges. There have been reports of mammal use, however, evaluation of shore banks, exposed mudflats, trails, and other open areas where sign would be evident, have failed to reveal any large predatory mammal tracks. Also, there is no white - washing in the larger trees, or owl or hawk casts at the bases of trees, which would be evident if large raptors were utilizing the area as a regular hunting site. Birds: Major winter use of Tukwila Pond open water area is by waterfowl. Other winter uses in the trees, shrubs, and tall grass, and the 168th Street right -of -way corridor are used by a variety of birds (Table 2). The size and shape of the pond lends itself to loafing and resting by flocks of wintering or migrating waterfowl. Ducks currently using the pond include canvasback, shovelers, green- winged teal, pintail, mallard, ruddy duck, redhead and common merganser. Shoveler, pintail and canvasback flocks ranged from 75 -100 birds each. All birds except canvasbacks concentrate in the southwest corner with a majority of the use of pintail and green- winged teal occurring in the dead tree area between the small islands and the pond bank. Data collected from other censuses shows a high use of the pond by early migrating pintail and teal. Spring and fall migration use includes a variety of migratory waterfowl and shorebirds using the water area, particularly if the mud bottom is exposed along the south bank of the pond. Summer use includes a variety of small birds, including shorebirds (see Table 2), that use the area either in early summer migration pass- through, or nest in the area. Mallards use the area for nesting and brood rearing. No broods were 12 observed in 1985, but at least two broods were known to have been brought off in 1986. Great blue heron and bittern hunt the shallow shoreline in the summer; blue heron remain year- round. Double breasted cormorants were also observed using the area for feeding during the winter. Adult pheasants were found in the south wetland area adjacent to the pond during both summer and fall. Although both adult roosters and hens were observed, there were not observations, and there have been no reports, of broods being successfully raised on the site. A listing of. birds observed by.Audobon Society members, King County biologist, and Independent Ecological Services are reported in Table 2. Mammals: Mammal use is limited in its diversity because of the isolation from other habitats. Mammal activity was even more limited along the southshore of the pond in the vicinity of the 168th Street right -of -way, because of the density of the canarygrass, small size of the site, its proximity to the railroad track and parking area, and isolation from a larger tract of upland habitat. Meadow mouse and vole tracks and sign were seen along the west, north, and northeast parts of the transition and upland zones. Other small mammals may use the area, but the density of the vegetation in the summer and standing water and wet conditions in the winter made it difficult to identify sign. Eastern cottontail were seen in the transition zone along 13 the north and west sides of the pond, including a dense alder thicket in the southwest corner of the 168th Street right -of- way. There are numerous well used trails in this zone, indicating fairly heavy use. The area appears to be good brush rabbit habitat but none were observed. The area does not appear to be used for dog walking, as trails of the size required for such use were not present and there was no sign of random dog use. This, plus the isolation from predators, makes this a safe habitat for grazers such as mice and rabbits. Mammals are listed in Table 3. Fish, Reptiles and Amphibians: The open water is fish habitat for at least two small unidentifed species of fish that appear to be food for waterfowl and marsh birds. The edges on two sides of the pond are shallow and support vegetation that is a prime feeding and hiding area for small fish as well as being cover for red - legged frogs and other invertebrates. Herons, mergansers, kingfishers and cormorants have been observed feeding on the fish species in the pond. (The identification of the two species of fish is based on observations of mergansers feeding on a small slender fish typical of trout, and a small rounder bodied fish more typical of sculpin.) Tree frogs use the area both for breeding and rearing of young. Garter snakes have been seen in the slope bank under the blackberry adjacent to the crescent shaped pond in the southeast corner of the site and in the alder thicket area in the southwest corner. Threatened or Endangered Species: No bird or mammal species in Tukwila Pond or the 168th Street right -of -way is considered rare or endangered. WILDLIFE HABITAT VALUES: Two different procedures were used to determine the biological and functional values of the wetland area effected by the project and the adjacent pond and riparian border. They were: 1. Best professional. judgement based on wetland systems and identified biological uses. 2. Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. PROCEDURES: 1. The area to be directly impacted was determined'using the "Design Report" to locate the different road alignments. The biological values identified were those on the area to be filled and those of the adjacent area that would be secondarily impacted by construction and road and people activity. Biological: Because of the density of vegetation and the lack of vegetative diversity, the south edge of the pond and wetlands up to the railroad fill have limited summer value to waterfowl and marsh birds, because of the density of vegetation and the lack of diversity. However, in winter months, when the grass area supports standing water, it does attract and supply food to waterfowl such as pintail, mallard and widgeon. 15 The tree /shrub area abutting the railroad track, particularly in the southwest corner provides a valuable visual screen for the pond and provides islands of taller vegetation in the grass marsh forming a diversity of habitats and an "edge effect" wherever there is a distinct change in elevation or type of vegetation. The trees are nesting and loafing areas for a variety of passerine birds that feed on insects or seeds. The lake -pond edge creates another "edge effect" with the plant - mudflat -open water interaction. The vegetation varies teal on the site. It is also the preferred perch site for juvenile swallow and kingfishers. This habitat is temporary in that it will change in five to ten years as the dead vegetation decays. The open pond appears to be changing, with a persistent vegetative intrusion of pondweeds and other submergent type plant species. This is an indication that the waters are getting shallower by the year. Throughout the seasons, the open pond site hosts a wide variety of wildlife species. The species occurring on the site change dramatically through the year due to changing site conditions and established migration patterns of shorebirds and ducks. In the fall the population increases and fluctuates as the migratory birds pass through. During winter, the site is dominated by permanent residents and ducks that winter in western Washington. Once again, in spring, migrating shorebirds, ducks and songbirds pass through, feeding heavily to support their continued flight south. Also in spring, nesting birds such as ducks, songbirds, pheasant and quail, that are established residents, construct nests and raise young. Some species, such as the song sparrow, pheasant, quail and several of the duck species, are year -round residents. Many species, such as the savannah sparrow and the swallows, spend the spring and summer at the site then migrate south for the winter. The variety and productivity of the overall site are high for some species and marginal to low for others. This factor, combined with the close proximity to intensively developed 17 adjacent land, make this site unusual. It interacts with the Green River wetlands and waterway, offering escape and loafing habitat for a number of species, particularly waterfowl that fly between the two areas. The variety and productivity of the 168th Street corridor area is the highest per unit area of the pond as it encompasses the wetlands, pond edge, tree canopy and the shallow islands in the southwest corner of the pond. Functional: The wetland area to be filled for the road supports the following non - biological values: 1. It is a storm water retention /detention area that expands during winter storms to encompass the entire south two - thirds of this portion of the undeveloped site. 2. Groundwater recharge: The wetlands in conjunction with the open water pond collect and hold surface water. Most or all of the water either percolates into the soil or is taken up by evaporation or evapotranspiration. 3. Sedimentation /pollution control: The grass wetland and vegetated edge of the pond traps soil particulates, oils, etc., from road runoff. Reed canarygrass and cattail are two of the most effective biofiltering plants that grow in western Washington. With the exception of one drainage point, all of the water that runs into Tukwila Pond is filtered through grass -lined ditches or flat expanses of grasses. This area is in the southwest corner where the water runs in a ditch from parking lots to the pond. 2. "Habitat Assessment using Habitat Units," a portion of the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP - Appendix 3), was used to create a numerical index for wildlife use only. This procedure was developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for use in impact assessment and project planning. It is a means of assigning quantitative values to different Habitat Units (HU) depending on their use by selected fish or wildlife species. A complete HEP using Habitat Suitability Indices models was not conducted because of the small size of the project site and limited habitat types and wildlife species. HEP values (HSI) are identified for a site in its undeveloped condition. Each selected species and habitat type are then assigned a numerical value based on professional judgement of one or more biologists. Impacts caused by a given project over a period of time are then evaluated and compared quantitatively. A formula that requires only target year values and an area estimate was used to calculate the values on this site. Verbal models, based on known habitat needs and maximum use by selected species, were then developed and given a maximum value of 10.0. Total destruction of the habitat created a value of 0. The baseline values of the existing habitats and their comparison to the verbal models were assigned by Rex Van Wormer. No baseline values of similar habitats in the general area have been conducted so there was no background data for comparison. 19 Major habitats used were: (1) open water; (2) riparian; (3) transitional, i.e., changing to wetlands, and; (4) wetlands, i.e., reed canarygrass. Wildlife species selected were (1) waterfowl, general; (2) canvasback; (3) marsh birds; (4) passerine birds; (5) raptors; (6) small mammals; (7) predatory mammals. Raptors and predatory mammals are included to demonstrate limited values because of the isolation of the site from other habitats. Canvasbacks were isolated because of the concern placed on their management and survival by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Although redheads are in the same category, they were not separated as only two birds were seen on the pond. Build -out of the road right -of -way was assumed to be complete in one year. The remaining pond was considered to be 19.0 acres. The model was also given a worst case scenario created by Alternative A, B and C. The calculations demonstrate the area has a high value for wintering waterfowl (general) and canvasback, moderate value for small birds and marsh birds and low values for other species. HEP does not evaluate non - biological values such as hydrology or water quality. (Tables 4 and 5.) 20 IMPACTS: Impacts were evaluated for Alternatives A, B and C, since their impacts on wetlands and pond are identical, and Alternative D. Impacts are divided into: direct (loss of habitat); secondary (noise, water quality, etc.); short term (one to five years or less); and long term (permanent). Alternatives A, B and C: Direct: The fill area for Alternatives A -C will eliminate 1.15 acres of reed canarygrass marsh, a stand of large young alder, mature large alder and willow trees, and a 1200 foot long vine /shrub bramble between the ege of the pond and the railroad track. The drainage ditch and dense alder stand extending east from the southwest corner will also be lost. At the pond edge it will eliminate the shallow mudflat and cattail area in the west end and a portion of one shallow snag filled island. The mudflat is only exposed during the summer. Its width and duration of exposure is dependent on rainfall. In 1975 the entire pond became de- watered, however, much of the mud surface remained wet. Long term impacts of filling are the total loss of 1.65 acres of wetland and the results of 1.65 acres of wetland and the related biological and functional values of the area. It also eliminates one of the more diverse areas on the site by breaking up the tree - wetland - grass -open pond edge habitat that only occurs in the southwest corner of the site. It takes away most of the values of the small crescent shaped pond by 21 reducing its size to a point where it will not be able to maintain water quality. The steep slope at the edge of Tukwila pond also eliminates the broad sloped natural buffer between existing traffic patterns and the pond edge. This will reduce natural distance requirements for species such as canvasback that require undisturbed space for winter loafing. This loss of gradual slope and shallow mudflats located away from traffic will also impact mudflat use by migrating shorebirds. Loss of mudflats will also reduce insect production which is necessary for juvenile ducks during their first seven to ten days of life. Certain birds now using the site will be forced to move elsewhere. The large lakes in the region such as Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, and Green Lake provide some resting places for birds but very little feed. The primary reason for the traditional use of the Green River Valley by large numbers of birds is the abundant feed provided by farm land and marsh. Therefore few, if any, displaced birds would take up residence at the large lakes. Other habitat areas in the Valley include the marsh south and east of Longacres racetrack, the wetland pasture north of the Boeing plant, the pond at the farm just east of South Center, and the farmlands and ponds just south and west of the Boeing plant. Som additional farms and small marshes on the west side of the valley in Kent and Auburn also provide feeding and resting areas for large numbers of waterfowl. However, most ponds are not as large as Tukwila, and therefore do not supply the same total values to the more reclusive species. 22 It is expected that most birds, especially the non - migratory species, displaced from the road site will relocate . in the valley. It is not certain, however, but it is possible that some of these birds may leave the Tukwila area and not return. Short term impacts include wildlife disturbance from noise and human activity, the potential for sediment increases at the toe of the fill where the road extends into the pond, and the temporary covering or crushing of pond edge vegetation. The bank slope will be 2:1, so the ground cover vegetation loss should recover in 5 -10 years. This will be a shrub /grasss system, limited to no trees. Secondary: Indirect short term impacts are those associated with construction noise, air quality from dust, and water quality from runoff into the wetland and pond. Indirect long term impacts will be auto noise, light glare on the water, human activity on the sidewalk and the general placement of activity at the edge of the pond in the vicinity of the highest wildlife use. It also encroaches on the large willow stand along the southeast edge of the lake, thus increasing pressure on species that now nest in these trees. Other indirect impacts are the increase in the probability of additional development on other parts of the open space adjacent to the pond and in the pond. Alternative A, B and C Impacts Summary: The reduction in size of the open area adjacent to the south end of the pond /wetland, encroachment into the large 23 willow stand in the southeast end of the pond and loss of 1.65 acres of habitat to fill will create unproportionally high impacts for the percent of pond, wetland and riparian edge that will be lost. This occurs because the area impacted has the highest habitat diversity and thus wildlife use of the entire site. Also, it will be accelerated by the species such as canvasback, which are less accepting of human encroachment, ceasing to use the pond. Alternative D: Although Alternative D is less than 0.5 acres smaller than Alternative A, B and C, the impacts to wildlife are much less. It misses most of the shallow mudflats along the south bank of the large pond, and the small pond in the southeast corner of the site. It also misses the small snag islands and some of the alder stand in the southwest corner. These habitats support the migrating shorebirds that pass through and much of the heron feeding acitivity. The additiona setback also will reduce the disturbance or pressure factor on less gregarious species such as canvasbacks. The additional distance will lessen noise and general disturbance to the willow stand in the east end of the pond, thus reducing impacts to nesting passerine birds. Long Term Direct: Alternative D will eliminate 1.22 acres of wetlands riparian border and pond. The biological losses will be limited to loss of nesting and buffer habitat with the removal of the trees along the railroad track. The types and numbers of landscape trees will never duplicate existing conditions. 24 It will also eliminate wetlands and a small edge of the pond in one area. Additional losses will occur with the existing wetlands re- vegetation plan. Failure to replace the riparian border will intensify the impacts to the open lake. However, with a 25+ foot wetland meadow buffer, the impacts will be significantly less than from Alternatives A, B or C. Short Term Direct: These impacts will be the same as with Alternatives A, B and C. Long Term Direct: Because of the additional distance from the pond edge, throughout most of the length of the project the disturbance factors to the pond and bird species that use the open water area will be less than would occur with the road abutting the pond as it does in Alternatives A, B and C. Noise will be as intense, but the ability of people on the sidewalks to influence activity on the pond will be less. Litter and harrassment will not lessen, but the limited contact with the water's edge will give the birds more escape area and reduce the floatable trash. CONCLUSION: From a biological perspective, •Alternative D is the least impacting, both in habitat lost and the indirect impacts from noise, light glare and human activity. It is also the least impacting to the functional wetlands values as it reduces less of the wetland detention /retention, groundwater recharge and biofiltering area. 25 MITIGATION: A series of minor changes in the project landscaping plan and the road design could reduce the long term secondary impacts of all four alternatives. They are: 1. Modify the wetlands and riparian landscaping plan to accent trees and tall shrubs to reduce the visual access to the pond to isolated pockets, leaving open spacing between the trees. Place a dense low grass cover mixed with shrubs as understory (Figure 2). 2. Place the sidewalk over the existing power trench. By using a floating slab -type sidewalk system, i.e., sitting slabs on a crushed rock base, the power trench could be accessed by lifting out the slabs where repairs were needed. This would reduce the fill by eight feet (Figure 2) . 3. Eliminate the north curb and gutter and allow road runoff to sheet flow from the north lanes of traffic through the grass slope into the wetlands. This will eliminate four more feet of non - biologically productive vegetation from the project (Figure 2). An additional measure which would mitigate the mudflat loss in Alternative A, B and C is the creation of a new shallow area along the toe of the road fill. By recreating the existing depths and slopes that will be covered, the shallow habitat that is important to migrating shorebirds, frogs, salamanders, and herons that feed on them, could be maintained (Figure 3). This constitutes the evaluation and impacts analysis on the Tukwila Pond, South 168th Street proposed project. R.L. Van Wormer Project Biologist Independent Ecological Services 26 cn 0 0 •• Photo 1: Southwest corner of pond - drainage ditch flows east through stand of willow and alder. Photo 2: Cattail stand along south bank - looking NE; note willow behind cattail, length of pond. 28 Photo 3: Reed canarygrass wetland along south side of pond. Area floods during winter. Good seed production for all birds. Pheasant habitat during summer. Photo 4: Willow stand along south bank near east end. Note how it shields buildings even during winter leaf drop. 29 Photo 5: Blackberry - willow stand along railroad. Photo 6: Small wetland at NE corner of project site. Smartweed and pond'lily present. Good frog producing site; evidence of blue heron feeding. 30 Photo 7: Northeast corner of pond. Good stands of cattail, smartweed. Vine is deadly nightshade which provides good nesting for numerous small birds and pheasant winter habitat. Photo 8: Overhanging willow in north end of pond provides cover for ducks, hunting habitat for predators and nesting for small birds. 31 Photo 9: Narrow riparian border along north side of pond. Combines blackberry, nightshade, willow, grass and occassional cottonwood trees. Denning and juvenile rearing habitat for rabbits, nesting for pheasants; buffer pond for waterfowl. Photo 10: Dead stand of alder /willow and small island in southwest corner of pond. Area heavily used by canvasback, pintail, green winged teal, shoveler and ruddy ducks, great blue heron and crows. 32 APPENDIX Appendix Table 1 Plants Table 2 Birds Table 3 Mammals Table 4 HEP - Baseline Assessments Table 5 Habitat Suitability Index Figure 1 Site Map Figure 2 Mitigation for Alternatives A, B, C and D Figure 3 Mitigation for mudflat loss 34 TABLE 1: Partial List of Plants TREES: Red alder Black cottonwood Black willow Paper birch SHRUBS: Willow Scott's broom Snowberry Dogwood Vine maple VINES: Blackberry Deadly nightshade GRASSES, RUSHES AND OTHERS: Soft rush Reed canarygrass Beggartick Smartweed Pond lily Bentgrass Thistle Tansy Teasel Buttercup Smooth hawksbeard Fireweed Water plantain Slough sedge Duckweed Pondweed Arrowhead 35 Alnus rubra Populus tricocarpa Salix nigra Betula papyrifera Salix spp. Cystisus scoparius Symphoricarpos spp Cornus stoloniferia Acer circinatum Rubus discolor Atropa belladonna Juncus effusus Phalaris arundenacea Bidens amplissima Pologonum amphibium .Nuphar luteum Agrostos palustris Circium arvense Tanacetum vulgare Dipsacus sylvestris Ranunculus repens Crepis capillaris Epilobium augustifolium Alisma plantago - aquatica Carex abnupta Lemma trisulca Potamogeton sp. Sagittaria cuneata TABLE 2: Birds Identified on Tukwila Pond COMMON NAME Horned grebe Double- crested cormorant Mallard Pintail American Widgeon Shoveler Green winged Teal Redhead Canvasback Ruddy duck C. Merganser Cinnamon teal Lesser Scaup Bufflehead Ring- necked duck Gadwall Common goldeneye Kestral Red - tailed hawk Valley Quail R.N. Pheasant Great Blue Heron Green Heron Bittern Coot Killdeer Spotted sandpiper Solitary sandpiper Lesser Yellow legs Long - billed dowitcher Common snipe Herring gull California gull Belted kingfisher Flicker Barn swallow Yellow -green swallow Common crow B.C. Chickadee Common bushtit R.B. nuthatch Winter wren Bewick's wren Robin Kinglet Starling Rufous -sided towhee Yellow throat R.W. Blackbird American goldfinch SCIENTIFIC NAME Podiceps auritus Phalacrocorax . auritus Anas platyrhynchos Anas acuta Mareca americana Spatula clypeata Anas carolinensis Aythya americana Aythya valisineria Oxyura janaicensis Mergus merganser Anas cyanoptera Aythya affinis Bucephala albeola Aythya collaris Anas stepera Bucephala clangula Falco sparverus Buteo jamaicensis Laphortyx californicus Phasianus colchicus Ardea herodias Butorides virescens Botaurus lentiginosus Fulica americana Charadrius vociferus Acitis macularia Tringo solidaria Totanus flauipes Limnodromus scolopaceus Capella gallinago Larus argentatus Larus californicus Megaceryle alcyon Calaptes cafer Hirundo rustica Tachycineta thalassinia Corvus brachyrhynchos Parus atricapillus Psaltriparus minimus Sitta canadensis Troglodytes troglodytes Thyromanes bewickii Turdus migratorius Regulus spp. Sturnus vulgaris Pipilo erythrophalmus Geothlypis trichas Agelaius phoneniceus Spinus tristis 36 SEASON # W W SSFW FW FW FW F FW FW FW SFW SS FW FW FW FW F 1 10 50 50 25 100 .25 2 50 5 15 2 -5 25 40 20 30 1 1 sign 6 3 1 3 3 1 2 20 25 50 4 4 2 20 10 25 3 5 4 20 Oregon junco House finch G.C. Sparrow Song sparrow 1 Junco oreganus 25 Carpodacus mexicanus 2 Zonotrichia atricapalla 2 Melospiza melodia 10 37 TABLE 3: Mammals or Sign Sighted around Tukwila Pond Shrew Sorex spp. common Mole Scapanus spp. uncommon Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus common Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus 10 -15 38 TABLE 4: Wildlife Baseline Assessments HABITAT EVALUATION PROCEDURES (HEP) Project Area Existing Conditions Cover Type Acres 1. Open Water 18.0 2. Riparian 1.9 3. Wetland 4.6 TOTAL 23.5 Project Site Existing Condtions Cover Type Acres 1. Riparian 0.15 2. Wetland 1.00 3. Open Water 0.50 TOTAL 1.65 39 TABLE 5: Habitat Suitability Index HABITAT TYPES Project Area Wildlife Species 1 2 3 4 Average Waterfowl 9 5 4 5 4.6 Canvasback 8 1.6 Marsh Birds 6 5 5 2.2 Pheasants 6 5 5 3.6 Passerines 8 6 5 4.6 Raptors 2 4 2.0 Small Mammals 7 7 3 4.8 Predatory Mammals 1 1 0.6 Habitat Suitability Index (Project Site) Wildlife Species 1 2 3 Average Waterfowl Canvasback Marsh Birds Pheasants Passerines Raptors Small Mammals Predatory Mammals 9 2 6 3 40 6 5 6.6 0.66 6 5 5.66 4 5 3.00 8 5 5.33 2 3 1.66 5 3 2.66 1 0.33 • Stepan SI'II:KI:R • • & Associates VICINITY MAP • Stepan • & Associates SPii:i;i:kr • • Stepan & Associates SI'II:KI:II • • Stepan • & Associates SPIEKER • • ;7,.. • • 1. • -"" • • • ;■•,:i'-o.1.•.hii • • 4.-,4,1'7 • Stepan • & Associates SPIEKER • Geo40Engineers MacKenzie /Saito Associates Inc. Building 3, Suite 233 300 — 120th Avenue Northeast Bellevue, Washington 98005 Attention: Mr. Lynn Takeuchi Gentlemen: April 6, 1988 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists Assessment of Geotechnical Construction Impacts on Adjacent Facilities Proposed Commercial Development Andover Park West & Strander Blvd. Tukwila, Washington File No. 1192 -12 -1 This letter presents our assessment of geotechnical construction impacts on adjacent facilities resulting from construction of the planned commercial development adjacent to the "Tukwila Pond" in Tukwila, Washington. The project site is located on the south side of Strander Boulevard, west of Andover Park West. The site is presently vacant, has an area of approximately 12 acres, and is covered with grasses, brambles, and small trees. A seven story office building located well off site to the west and two smaller structures near the northwest corner of the site are the only significant structures in the immediate vicinity. An Olympic Pipeline Company line, as well as other utilities, is present along the south side of Strander Boulevard. Other utilities also exist along Andover Park West. We understand that present plans for site development are to construct one or two large (60,000 to 100,000 square foot) retail store GeoEngineers, Inc. 2405 140th Ave. NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone (206) 746 -5200 Fax. (206) 746 -5068 U R., 41•,. _, RPR l 1998 MACKENZIE /SAIT(1 & r:SSOC. P. S. Geo Engineers MacKenzie /Saito Associates, Inc. April 6, 1988 Page 2 buildings together with some smaller, single -story retail shop buildings. This will require the placement of fill to raise at least a portion of the site. Depending on building loads and construction schedules, a portion of the planned buildings may require pile foundations. The site soils generally consist of surficial fill overlying compressible organic silt and peat extending to depths of about 40 feet below the average surface grade. These soils are underlain by medium dense sand to about 70 feet. This sand stratum is, in turn, underlain by soft to medium stiff silt to about 100 feet deep. Medium dense to dense sand underlies the silt. The fill required to establish yard grades and floor grades for soil - supported slabs will induce considerable consolidation in the underlying compressible strata. While this will result in substantial settlements in the central portion of the site, it is our experience, from extensive project experience in the Southcenter and Andover Industrial Park areas, that any settlements along the street embankments will be small (probably on the order of 1 to 3 inches). Differential settlements of utility lines will not be abrupt and are not expected to be detrimental to the utilities. Pile foundations will extend into the intermediate or deep sand layers underlying the site. Piles founded in the intermediate sand layer may be driven piles or augercast piles. In the latter case, these will be no ground vibrations generated in drilling the piles. In the case of driven piles, we conclude that the level of any driving- induced ground vibrations will be too small to have any effects on existing structures or adjacent utilities due to their distance from anticipated building locations. Geo kspEngineers MacKenzie /Saito Associates, Inc. April 6, 1988 Page 3 If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Yours very truly, Ge¢F,pgineers, Inc. J'ck:K. uttle Pjaicipal JEB :JKT: Three copies submitted cc: Mr. Joel Benoliel Spieker Partners 11400 SE 8th ST., Bellevue, WA 98004 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Regulatory Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX C -3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124 -2255 Mr. Rex Van Wormer IES Associates 1514 Muirhead Olympia, Washington 98502 Dear Mr. Van Wormer: MAY 1 6 1988 IRAN D I E 5 ASSOCIATES A Department of the Army permit is not required for driving piling in Tukwila Pond at Tukwila, Washington. The Corps of Engineers jurisdiction in waters of the United States such as Tukwila Pond is limited to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Under Section 404, a Department of the Army permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jim Green, telephone (206) 764 -3495. Sincerely, -ie‘kk;kalikv Thomas F. Mueller Chief, Processing Section REV". �. FA +f 19 1989 MACKrw' -#281%2 SPIEKER - SOUTHCENTER PROJECT A Proposed Shopping Center in Tukwila Traffic Study March 16, 1988 (No Sub14, 3 2S-gt SPIEKER - SOUTHCENTER PROJECT Traffic Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Purpose Location Project Description Access Traffic Data. Data References and Sources Background Traffic Trip Generation Traffic Assignment Horizon Year Traffic Levels of Service LOS Discussion Mitigating Measures Conclusions LIST OF FIGURES 1. Location Map 2. Current Traffic Volumes 3. Trip Distribution as a % of All New Trips 4. Trip Distribution as a % of All Pass -by trips 5. Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With Project LIST OF TABLES I. . Gross Trip Generation II. Net Trip Generation III. Levels of Service IV. Levels of Service, Arterial Street APPENDIX Capacity Calculations Input and Results 2. 2. 2. 4. 4. 6. 6. 7. 11. 11. 13.. 14. 14. 3. 5. 8. 9. 10. 6. 7. 12. 13. SPIEKER - SOUTHCENTER PROJECT A Proposed Shopping Center in Tukwila Traffic Study Introduction Creating a new shopping center on presently vacant property in a major suburban community will increase vehicular traffic demands on the adjacent collector and arterial road system. If the projected traffic volumes are large and /or if projected increases in traffic demands due to the change in land use associated with the proposed project are large, then the traffic carrying ability of the adjacent street and arterial systems may be impacted. • Accordingly, it is appropriate to review both current and future traffic conditions to determine what the possible traffic impacts might be from such a commercial development and, in concert with the proposed commercial development, define the appropriate mitigating measures, if any, to ensure the continuation of adequate traffic operations. Purpose The purpose of this study was to gather a data base of current traffic operations on the adjacent collector and arterial routes serving a proposed shopping center which for the purposes of this traffic study is called . the "Spieker- Southcenter Project ", to include traffic from existing, adjacent developments, to define the probable trip generation for the site under the proposed development scenario, to estimate the driveway and arterial street traffic demands for the horizon year, in this case the 1988 traffic demands, and to quantify the existing and horizon year levels of service (LOS) at the key intersections and access driveways serving the site. Further, given that the development may immediately proceed, a secondary function of the study is to also identify any possible changes in access and traffic control systems to ensure the maintenance -1- Christopher Grown lc 9688 rainier aenue a scattle washi ton Lei:7234567 6118 of adequate traffic operations on the impacted system in the future when the project is completed and occupied. Location The Spieker - Southcenter project is to be located on a site lying to the east of Southcenter Parkway and west of Andover Park West, on the south side of Strander Boulevard in the the City of Tukwila, King County. The site location is sketched on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. Project Description The site as proposed is a community shopping center with a Target department store as the major tenant. A building having a gross floor area of 102,000 square feet will be occupied by the Target store. Two smaller peripheral buildings will also be constructed for additional retail space. They will have a combined floor area of 58,145 gross square feet bringing the total floor area of the shopping center to 160,145 gross square feet. On site parking will be provided on the balance of the site sufficient for the projected retail facilities. Access Access to the site is to be from both Strander Boulevard with a secondary access on Andover Park West. Andover Park West, a four lane facility, will be accessed by a single driveway with full turning movements. Strander Boulevard, at the present time a five lane facility which carries significantly higher traffic volumes, will provide primary access to the site via a driveway to be constructed opposite the present most easterly access driveway to the Southcenter Shopping Mall. In this study it has been assumed that a traffic signal will be installed at this access point. Channelization for the driveway will consist of one left -turn only lane and one through -right turn lane on both the northbound and the southbound approaches. Furthermore, left -turn only lanes will be provided on the east and westbound Strander Boulevard approaches. This may be accomplished by -2- chriatopher Brown p22) 9688 rainier a nue Id:72 456washlil�,t0118 MEAL M UPLAND ON [MERQENCY CW1d FIGURE 1 Location Map utilizing the existing two -way left -turn lane on Strander Boulevard. Two other lanes will be provided on each approach of Strander Boulevard for through and through -right turning traffic as is presently provided. Geometric parameters for the key intersections as well as the driveways are shown as a part of the data input to the capacity analysis appended to this study. Traffic Data Traffic data used in this analysis is from a report prepared by Entranco Engineers of Bellevue entitled, Traffic Impact Study, Lot 1 Spring Ridge Short Plat, prepared as a part of the environmental impact analysis for a project which was to have been located on the same piece of property as the subject proposal. In this study, Entranco gives the ADT, a.m. peak, noon hour and p.m. peak hour turning movements for the intersections of Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard /Andover Park West and the Southcenter Mall driveways /Strander Boulevard for both 1984 and their horizon year of 1986. From this study the noon hour has the largest volumes and as a consequence the noon hour should be considered as the design hour for the project analysis. This data is shown on Figure 2, Current Traffic Volumes. As noted above with geometric data, the data is also replicated in the appended materials on capacity calculations as computer input. Data References and Sources Data resources used in this study include the aforementioned study by Entranco Engineers, population forecasts by traffic analysis zones prepared by the Puget Sound Council Of Governments, trip generation statistics published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the document, Trip Generation; an Informational Report, 4th edition, and the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, published by the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. For the latter item, reference is also made to the computer program CAPCALC 85, Version 2.2, published by Roger Creighton and Associates, New York, and the FHWA highway capacity software also used under license for this study. -4- 0 X90 480 115 Andover Park W. 80 355 (170 0. O 730 &40 o� r° 0 0 Site GO From Entranco Engineers'Report H For "Lot 1 Spring Ridge S.P. 236 v Rt H o FIGURE 2 W N Current Traffic Volumes O 0) b I. in t CO m m 3 55 ▪ 510 885 - --�—. 6455 Southcenter Parkway -5- christopher Brown lc 9688 rainier a enue a &Tattle washi ton Let: 7234567 118 Background Traffic Background traffic, that is the traffic demand for the case that does not include the project, is based on the horizon year of 1988. Background traffic was derived from the Entranco report. No background growth was assumed given the near buildout of the Tukwila business zone in the project's vicinity. Trip Generation The trip generation data for the rezone site is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (I.T.E.) Land Use Code 820 which applies to shopping centers of this size. The trip generation for the project developed as a 160,145 g.s.f. shopping center, not delimited for pass -by traffic, is shown in Table I, below. TABLE I Trip Generation, Spieker - Southcenter Project (Gross Traffic Demand, No Delimitation for Pass -By) Time Interval A.W.D.T.* A.M. Inbound A.M. Outbound P.M. Inbound P.M. Outbound Noon Inbound Noon Outbound Volume 10,090 vehicles 162 vehicles 70 vehicles 356 vehicles 370 vehicles 407 vehicles 338 vehicles * Average Weekday Daily Traffic per day per hour per hour per hour per hour per hour per hour According to the published traffic report, "A Methodology for Consideration of Pass -by Trips in Traffic Impact Analyses for Shopping Centers" by Steven A. Smith and published in the August, 1986, ITE Journal, a shopping center of the size of this proposal could be expected to have approximately 50 percent of its total generated trips served from the "pass -by" traffic stream. Stated another way, about 50 percent of its traffic will come from the existing traffic stream and 50 percent of -6- christopher lain pc 9688 rainier aenue a satt.le washingn 7234567 6118 its traffic will be attracted to the site and will therefore be "new" traffic. Accordingly, net traffic added to the external system will be as shown below in Table II. TABLE II Net Trip Generation, Spieker - Southcenter Project Time Interval A.W.D.T.* A.M. Inbound A.M. Outbound P.M. Inbound P.M. Outbound Noon Inbound Noon Outbound * Average Weekday 5046 81 35 178 185 204 169 Volume vehicles vehicles vehicles vehicles vehicles vehicles vehicles Daily Traffic per per per per per per per day hour hour hour hour hour hour Traffic Assignment Site generated traffic is assigned to the network on the basis of the 1990 . population distribution in the South King County region as supplied by PSCOG. The traffic distribution, as a percent of all new site traffic, is described in Figure 3. As noted above, the site will also attract pass -by trips. Figure 4. shows the pass -by trips as a percent of the site generated traffic. This distribution model is based upon the existing traffic volumes on the roads surrounding the site. A pass -by trip occurs when a vehicle traveling a certain route is diverted into the site and then exits, continuing in the same direction. Often, this is called the "impulse shopping trip ". Since the noon hour traffic volumes include both the home based shopping trip as well as work site based (lunch and shopping) trips, they tend to be higher than the customary p.m. peak hour of the average suburban arterial street. As a consequence, the noon hour is used for the design hour as described earlier. Thus, for the purposes of this study, the noon hour is the worst case and is therefore used for assessing impacts and attendant mitigating measures. -7- brOWII �e 9688 rainier avenue a �aWe washing 8n 723456I 118 5 /7 Andover Park .W• 5 5 Strander Boulevard Southcenter Parkway -8- Site Based Upon PSCOG Population Data For South King Co. FIGURE 3 Trip Distribution As A % Of All New Trips Christopher Brown pe 9688 rainier auenue a (:72 washing 8118 1.8 li b N 0 5 • 0 0 0 14 0 V 1.4 9 2.7 =.aa 23.7 FIGURE 4 Trip Distribution As A % Of All Pass -by Trips Southcenter Parkway bs a a 0 N) N ar H 4J 4) 4.1 41 0U u 0 U) Andover Park W 90 .334,3 r-1G& c0 0 M m m 6,6 48 /4 /2 / 90 250 m a 114 72 235 480 —) 637 N S8/ (039 Southcenter Parkway (00 G30 42 (35 V Sr Site FIGURE 5 Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With Project Pass -by trips are secondary trips in which the vehicle is traveling a route for some other purpose but is, because of the shopping center, diverted off the route and into the center. Pass -by trips routed into and out of the site are shown on Figure 4. The horizon year traffic movement volumes, without the site, were altered to account for the movements of these pass -by trips since a vehicle entering the site would be making a different movement than if he were merely passing by. New trips were then added to these to determine the design hour, horizon year traffic volumes with the project in place. Horizon Year Traffic With the project built, including the background traffic, the horizon year of 1988 will have the daily and design hour traffic demands shown on Figure 5. Levels of Service The Level of Service (LOS) describes the quality of traffic flow. This ranges from the best or highest level, 'A', usually denoted by an ability to select ones' own speed or the ability to change lanes or overtake at will, down to the lowest of worst level 'F'. This LOS is the lowest possible level and is one where traffic is severely constrained. It is usually denoted by "jam" conditions and attendant long traffic delays. Capacity computations were performed in accordance with Special Report 209, the Highway Capacity Manual, using the computer program CAPCALC 85, Version 2.2 published by Roger Creighton and Associates and the FHWA Highway Capacity software distributed by McTrans. Signalized intersection analysis was done with the "Operations and Design" methods which are more rigorous than the "Planning" method. STOP sign controlled intersections used parameters for arterial roads with speeds under 35 m.p.h. As noted earlier, all input data is listed in the appendix, along with computer output. The level of service for an arterial roadway is based not upon its linkage vehicular capacity, per se, but rather upon the average travel speed for all through vehicles on the arterial. The travel speeds are a function or aggregation of the level of service elements of the various intersections which are located along the arterial. For example, a traffic signal causes a vehicle approaching that signal to slow due to congestion and queuing on the roadway approach. Therefore if an approach to a signal is at a good LOS, the arterial congestion, as represented by queuing, will be minimal and the vehicle can proceed along the road close to the free flow speed. Deteriorating LOS is shown by longer queues and attendant slower travel times on the arterial systems. When reviewing the appended computer data, it may be noted that each set of data has its' own file reference number. This is located at the top right of each data sheet. The title and other descriptive material is on the upper left corner. Levels of service for both conditions, Current or 1988 traffic and Horizon Year traffic with project are shown in Table III, below. Intersection TABLE III Levels of Service 1988 Horizon Year w/o site w /site Strander Boulevard/ Southcenter Parkway B C Strander Boulevard/ Andover Park West C C Strander Boulevard/ Site Entrance NA B Andover Parkway/ Site Entrance NA D Strander Boulevard/ Southcenter Entrance (West) E E The arterial levels of service (LOS) for both conditions, Current or 1988 and Horizon Year traffic with the project are shown in Table IV. -12 -• Christopher Brown 9688 rainier a‘tnue a the washinkon tel: 7234567 d118 Arterial TABLE IV Levels of Service 1988 Horizon Year w/o site w /site Strander Boulevard Eastbound C C Westbound C D LOS Discussion There is a one step shift in the LOS at one intersection; Strander Boulevard at Southcenter Parkway. This is to be expected given the high distribution of site generated traffic through this intersection coupled with the large amount of pass -by trips from Southcenter Boulevard which are converted from through movements to turning movements as they proceed to and from the site prior to resuming their normal travel pattern. However, this reduction in LOS is not significant. The intersection will still operate with an acceptable level of service. Indeed, -all intersections, except for the intersection of Strander Boulevard at the most westerly Southcenter Mall entrance will have levels of service which are acceptable in the traffic environment of the area. The arterial level of service for westbound Strander Boulevard will drop from C to D following the addition of the project's site generated traffic. This is due to the worsening of the LOS at the Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway. However, the analysis shows that this is a borderline LOS D and travel speeds for the arterial still remain adequate in its present 5 lane configuration. Increasing the roadway to six lanes may not make a significant difference in the LOS. The Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Mall entrance (west) is presently at level of service E. No change of this LOS is anticipated with the addition of the subject proposal's traffic. Indeed, an improvement in the LOS at this location might be expected as left- turning traffic from this entrance diverts to the east to utilize the new (proposed) signal at the common site /Southcenter Mall entrances. Also, the addition -13- christopher Brown walerainier auenue a tel:723 567 ashin' 818 of the signal will increase the degree of vehicular platooning of traffic on Strander Boulevard which will as a result create gaps which can be utilized by the left- turners at this unsignalized intersection. Indeed, the level of service is probably better than calculated due to the gaps which presently occur on the street due to the signals at the east and west ends. It may be noted that the procedure for analysis of "unsignalized intersections" assumes random arrivals on the major street. In situations where platooning is predominate, lower than actual levels of service are often calculated. Mitigating Measures The sole mitigation measure for addressing the project's traffic impacts is the installation of a actuated signal at the intersection of the site's entrance on Strander Boulevard. This would also benefit the Southcenter Mall patrons by improving the level of service on that driveway, too. All driveways to the subject site should be provided with a two lane exit capability. One lane should be a dedicated left -turn exit lane while the other may be a through -and- right turn lane. Furthermore, the main entrance off Strander Boulevard should be provided with a two lane entrance; one lane to collect westbound left turn and southbound through movements and the second lane exclusively for eastbound right- turning traffic. Conclusions The construction and operation of the 160,145 g.s.f. Spieker - Southcenter project will increase traffic demands on the adjacent collector and arterial road system by about 5,050 new vehicular trips per day and the noon hour traffic volumes, in this case the heaviest peak traffic hour of the day, by about 363 (new) vehicle trips per hour. In addition a like amount of vehicles will enter the site on a pass -by or "impulse" shopping trip basis. The road system serving the project site, including the key signalized intersections along Strander Boulevard at Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway are capable of accommodating site generated traffic within acceptable LOS standards. There will be a one step shift in the LOS at Strander Boulevard/ Southcenter Parkway. -14- Christopher In pc 9688 rainier a enue a wattle washinn Le : 7234567 6118 The arterial LOS on Strander Boulevard will be shifted downward in the westbound direction. This is likely due to the aforementioned drop in LOS at Strander Boulevard/ Southcenter Parkway intersection. However, average travel speeds will still be in acceptable ranges in the present configuration. The . most westerly driveway entrance to the Southcenter Mall from Strander Boulevard will remain at LOS E. No change will result from the subject proposal. Indeed, the addition of a signal at the central or main driveway will probably result in some of the left turning traffic diverting to the new signal. This will act to improve the LOS at the west driveway. The driveways serving the site from Strander Boulevard and Andover Park Way should be constructed to allow for two -lane exiting movements. One lane should be dedicated for left- turning traffic while the other can accommodate the through and right -turn movements. Additionally, the driveway from Strander Boulevard should have a two lane entrance with one lane for the westbound left -turn and southbound through movements and the other for the eastbound right -turn movement. It may be concluded, then, that with all of the above considerations, safe and expeditious traffic movements will be ensured. The proposed project should not adversely impact traffic on the arterial system serving the site to a level less than now present, given the noted driveway design and signalization at the main driveway. -15- christopher brown pc 9688 rainier avenue a sattle washing $n Lei: 7234567 118 SPIEKER - SOUTHCENTER PROJECT APPENDIX Capacity Calculations TARGT01 TARGT02 TARGT03 SRANDEST SRANDWST TARGT04 TARGT05 TARGT06 TARGT07 TARGT08 TARGTEST TARGTEST Current Traffic Analysis Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway Strander Boulevard /Andover Park Way Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Entrance (west) Strander Boulevard Eastbound Arterial Strander Boulevard Westbound Arterial Horizon Year Analysis, Project Built Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway Strander Boulevard /Andover Park Way Strander Boulevard /Site Entrance Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Entrance (west) Andover Park Way /Site Entrance Strander Boulevard Eastbound Arterial Strander Boulevard Westbound Arterial COMPUTATION OF ARTERIAL LEVEL OF OERVICE WORKSHEET Page-2 SEGMENT FREE RUNNING TIME INT. APP~ OTHER SUM OF SEG. LEHGTH ART. FLOW (sec.) DELAY DELAY TIME SPA. SEO. SE8. (ft/m3) CLASS (mph) (TABLE 11 0) (qe!) (sec) (sec) (mph) LOS 1 0.36 0 35 40.3 15.9 0.0 56.3 23.0 C Grand Sum of Time = 56.25 qe#, Grand Sum of Length = 0.36 mi. Average Speed 23.0 Overall LOS = C �� _ 8 ��� �*�v�~� -�x����� � K «~~� ~~�' Eaekvd COMPUTATION OF ARTERIAL LEVEL OF GERVICE WORKSHEET Page-2 SEGMENT FREE RUNNING TIME INT. APP. TIMER SUM OF SEG. LENGTH ART. FLOW (sec.) DELAY DELAY TIME SPD. SEG. SEG. (ft|mi) CLASS (mph) (TABLE 11-0) (qe!) (sec) (sec) (mph) LOS ---- ------ ----- ----- -----------) --------- ----- ------ - --- --- 1 0.36 0 35 40.3 17.7 0.0 58.0 22.3 C Grand Sum of Time = 50.00 qe#. Grand Sum of Length = 0.36 mi. Average Speed 22.3 Overall LOS 9 C ~~ " v 8 .~- Es » b~~› -- in _-. 1985 HCH: URBAN AND SUBURBAN ARTERIALS Paqe-1 =�~�_ ������� Q��4����-v� ����� «����4�� � �-�� ~_ � ��°���� " 1995 NCH: UR8AN AND SUBURBAN AR|FRIALS Page-1 ********************************************************************** ARTERIAL DESCRIPTION ___ NAME OF THE ARTERIAL FACILITY........ STRANDARBLVD. ARTERIAL CLASS OF THE FACILITY..,.... 2 NUMBAROF SEGrENTS ON THE ARTERIAL... 2 ARTERIAL SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION nELAY ESTIMATES -�'� FOR LANE GROUP WITH INITIA{. PROGRESSION ADJ. EST. CYCLE THROUGH MOVEMENT: STOP FACTOR STOP lNT APP. SEQ. LEN. q/C v/c CAPACITY DELAY (TABLE 11-6) DELAY LOS DEHA 1 60'0 0 550 0.498 1853 6.5 0.81 5.6 B 7.2 2 60.0 0 283 0.704 878 16.4 0.85 14.0 B 18.2 COMPU|A7lUH OF ARTERIAL LEVEL OF SARVICE UORKSHEET Page-2 SEGUFHT FREE RUNNING TIME INT. APP. OTHER SOH OF SEG. LENGTH ART. FLOW (sec.) -DELAY DELAY TIME SPD. SEG. SEG. (ft|mi) CLASS (mph) (TABLE 11-0) (qe!) (sec) (sec) (mph) LOS '� •. ----- ----- -----------) --------- ---- ------ - '-- --- 1 1270 2 35 29.2 7.2 0.0 36.5 23.8 C 2 650 2 35 17.1 18.2 0.0 35.4 12.5 E G/'3od Sum of Time = 71'90 sec... Grand Sum of Length = 0.36 mi. Ateraye Speed 18.2 Overall LOS = C ������� Ce :›G:b • 1985 HCM: URBAN AND SUBURBAN ARTERIALS Page-1 44 **if *****4. ********************************************4 ******44 *44 ** ARTERIAL DESCRIPTION NAME OF THE ARTERIAL FACILITY........ STRANDER BLVD. ARTERIAL CLASS OF THEFAAIHIPY....... 2 NUMBER OF SEGMENTS ON THE ARTERIAL... 2 ARTERIAL SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION DELAY ESTIMATES FOR LANE GROUP WITH INITIAL PROGRESSION ADJ. EST. CYCLE FHROU8H MOVEMENT: STOP FACTOR STOP INT APP. SEQ. LEN, g/ v/c CAPACITY DGLAY (TABLE 11-6) DELAY L8S DEHA 1 60.0 0.550.0.382 1901 5.9 0.81 5.0 B 6.5 2 60.0 0.417 0.962 1236 25.7 0.85 21.9 C 28.4 k:~)erau..) °= Pos-8_ bey. COMPUTATION OF ARTERIAL LEVEL OF SARVICE WORKSHEET Page.72 __________ SEMEUT FREE RUNNING TIME INT. APP. OTHER SIJM OF SEG. LENGTH ART. FLOW (sec.) DELAY DELAY TIME SPD. SEG. SEG. (ft|wi) CLASS (mph) (TABLE 11-0) (qr.!) (sec) (sec) (mpph) LOS 1 6'fi0 35 17.3 6.5 0.0 23.8 18.6 C 2 1270 2 35 29.0 28.4 0.0 57.7 15.0 D Som of Time = 81.47 sec. Grand Sum of Length = 0.36 mi. Aterage Speed 16.1 Overall LOS = D PAGE 1 IMER5ECTION TRANDER BLVD. @ IPOUTHCENTER PRKWY. WEEKDAY NOON CHRISTOPHER BROW 3/1J/1988 TARGET STORE-TUKWILA TARGTO1 1988 CBD ? N VOLUME ADJUSTMENT Fi L 1800 1 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1484 ;8 T 1800 2 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3493 � R 1800 1 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 1.00 1467 S8 L 1800 2 1.00 0.98 1.01 1'{x} 1.00 1.00 1..00 0.92 3278 T 1800 2 1.00 0.98 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3563 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 3/11/1988 TARGET STORE-TUKWILA °TARE;T02 INIERSECTI0M BLVD. @ FRANDEP PRKWY. HEEKDAY HOm 1989 COD ? N CTUATED SIGMAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS L|! GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C IrIPP |NM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO _ - • -- ---- ------ ----- WD L 567 0 1484 0.382 Y 0.417 618 0.917 R 394 0 1484 0.265 N 0.417 618 0.638 NB T 761 0 3493 0.218 N 0.333 1164 0.654 R 594 0 1467 0.405 Y 0.750 1100 0.540 B L 428 0 3278 0.131 Y 0.250 819 0.523 r 983 0 3563 0.276 N 0.593 2079 0.473 "YOE LENGTH w 60.0 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 1.080 SUM OF rRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 0.918 UP '/M RATIO PATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS L 0.917 0.417 60 12.6 619 13.4 1.00 26.0 D 0.638 0.417 60 10.6 618 1.6 0.85 10.4 D 19.6 C LEVEL OF SERV['CE T 0.654 0.333 60 13.0 1164 0.9 0.85 11.8 B R 0.540 0.750 60 2.4 1100 0.4 0.05 2.4 A 7.7 B SR L 0.523 0.250 60 14.8 319 0.5 1.00 15.3 C IT 0.473 0.583 60 5.5 2078 0.1 0.85 4.8 A 8.0 B INTERSECTION DELAY : 10.9 secs/veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : B II8E IERSECTION : PANDER BLVD' :i) ANDOVER PARK NAY 1 EKDAY NOON �. 7UATED SIPNPL CHRISTOPHER BROWN 3/11/1988 TARGET STORE-TUKUILA TAR8T02 1988 CBD ? N ---' ' VOLUME ADJUSTMENT PROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL (41.0 FLOW PROP OF TURNS ��r MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT _RT_ __--_- _-______ ___'_ _-__ II �----- 1 00 128 1 00 0.00 FD L 115 128 . . 1 292 324 1.00 324 0.00 0.00 TR 293 326 1.00 326 0.00 0.58 N� L 80 89 1.00 89 1.00 0.00 �o . 0.00 0.00 392 1 00 392 T 353 392 0 00 0 54 391 1 00 391 ' . TR 352 ^ - '' I � 0 67 0 00 1 00 356 LT 320 356 . "..' ,,,, TR 320 356 1.00 356 0.00 0.22 487 1 00 487 0.62 0.00 ID LT 438 ^ N�~ ' 1 00 486 0 00 0 29 ~~ TR 437 486 ' . . 1 SATURATION FLOW ACTORS- ADJ. II 1DEA1 # OF - EP MVU SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA PT LT FLOW IN 1 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1676 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1764 'R 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0'90 1.00 1588 1800 1 1 00 0 98 1 00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1676 D i , , , , 1800 1 1 00 0 98 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1764 I T 1800 z z. . . ' . . TR 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1605 B LT 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1711 TR 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1706 I LT 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1711 ~ - - TR 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1688 /AGE 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 3/11/1988 TARGET STORE-TUKWILA TARGTO2 ERSECTION : TRANDER BLVD. @ NDOVER R PARK WAY WEEKDAY NOON 1988 CBD ? N CTUA7ED SIGNAL 1 , ' ------'------------------'----------------------------------- CAPACITY ANALYSIS LN GR ADJ HON PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN IN GR V/C LP E MVM RAT LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO _ _-- _ -- ------- ---- ------ ---- _ -_ ED L 128 0 1676 0.076 Y 0.117 196 0.653 I T 324 0 1764 0.184 N 0.283 500 0.648 TR 326 0 1588 0.205 N 0.283 450 0.724 WB |' 89 0 1676 0.053 N ` 0.117 196 0.454 T 392 0 1764 0.222 N 0.283 500 0.784 TR 391 0 1605 0.244 Y 0.283 455 0.859 11B LT 356 0 1711 0.208 N 0.267 456 0.781 TR 356 0 1706 0.209 Y 0.267 455 0.782 IID LT 487 0 1711 0.285 N 0.333 570 0.854 TR 486 0 1688 0.288 Y 0.333 563 0.863 I E LENGTH : 60'0 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES` FLOW RATIOS : 0.817 ZOSS IMF pER CYCLE : 12 INTERSECTION V/C : 1.021 1 LEVEL. OF SERVICE IN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st |N GR 2nd IN OR LN OR APP APP I P P UVM RA7IO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS _'- _ --- __- 0.63 0'117 60 19.3 196 5.1 1.00 24.4 C If T 0283 60 14.3 500 2. 1 0.85 13.9 B lR 0'724 0.283 60 14.7 450 3'9 0.85 15.8 C 16.4 C ND L 0.454 0.117 60 18.8 196 1.2 1.00 20.0 C I1 0.78� 0'283 60 15.1 500 5.5 0.85 17.5 C TR 0.859 0.283 60 15.5 455 10.6 0.85 22.2 C 19.9 C TNE( LT 0.781 0.267 60 15.5 456 5.9 0.85 18.2 C TR 0.782 0.267 60 15.5 455 5.9 0,85 18.2 C 18.2 C ..` ".'�� "'�"' "" ^�.� ��� �.� v'�u ��.c L. 11R |T 0.854 0.333 60 14.2 570 9.4 0,85 19.2 C 1R 0.863 0.333 60 14.2 563 9.2 0.85 19.9 C 19.5 C }EVEL OF SERVICE : C CHRISTOPHER BROWN 3/11/19B8 TARGET STORE-TUKWILA TARGT07 INTERSFCTTON : 8TRANDER BLVD' 5OUTHCENTER ENTRANC WEEKDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD?N IIUNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST UNSIGNALIZED CRITICAL GAPS -----------CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) - --------- AGE i CYCLE LENGTH : 60.0 GUM OF CRITICAL LANES" FLOW RATIQS : 1.079 LOBS TIME PER CYCLE : 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 1.269 LEVEL OF SERVICE LN OR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS WB |Q9 SB L 1.045 0.417 60 13.7 618 40.7 1.00 54.4 E R 0.862 0.417 60 12.1 618 8.4 0.85 17.4 C 37.6 D T 0.610 0.333 60 12.7 1164 0.7 0.85 11.4 B R 0.618 0.750 60 2.7 1100 0.8 0.85 3.0 A 7.3 B 0.720 0.250 60 15.6 819 2.2 1.00 17.8 C 0.448 0.583 60 5.4 2078 0.1 0.85 4.7 A 9.8 � INTERSECTION DELAY : 17.0 secs/veh } EVEL OF SFRVICE : C IrAGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 3/11/1988 TARGET BTORE-TUKWILA TARGTO5 INTERSECTION : It TRANDER BLVD. a) NDOVER PARK WAY WEEKDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD ? N CTUATED SIGNAL VOLUME ADJUSTMENT ILVOLUME ADJUSTMENT ;FROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE MIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT IL ___ _-_-__ L 115 128 1.00 128 1.00 0.04 T 300 333 1.00 333 0.00 0.00 TR 301 334 1.00 334 0.00 0.55 PP 11/M SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW _--_ L 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1676 tB 1 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1 00 1764 /n 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 z.oV 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1588 T 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1764 TR 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1605 NB LT 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1711 lR 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1700 1144 LT 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1711 TR 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1689 AGE 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 3/11/1988 NTERSECTION : TRANDER BLVD. @ �ANDOVER PARK WAY WEEKDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD ? N 111CDIATED SIGNAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C LEVEL OF SERVICE : C (*AGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 3/11/1988 TARGET STORE-TUKWILA TARGTO6 IO N RAHDER B1-VD. (TERSECT TEE ENTRANCE @ SOUTHCENTER ENTR. Y NOON POSTDEV. CBD ? N CTUATED SIGNAL VOLUME ADJUSTMENT APPPLWCH 1ANE npoup FLOW RATE LANE HTIL ADJ FLU! FROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT ______ ____ __ L 190 211 1.00 211 1.00 0.00 T 324 360 1.00 360 0.00 0.00 TR 466 518 1.00 518 0.00 0.54 L 48 53 1.00 53 1.00 ().00 T 352 391 1.00 391 0.00 0.00 TR 300 333 1.00 333 0.00 0.22 L 215 239 1.00 239 1.00 0.00 TR 45 50 1.00 50 0.00 0.73 B L 80 89 1.00 89 1.00 ().#0 = TR 149 166 1.00 166 0.00 0.90 EB SATURATION FLOW IDEAL # OF --------------ADJUSTMENT FACTOR8--------------- ADJ. APE MV|i SAT FLOW LAMES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK PUS AREA RT LT FLOW F - -- ----'--- ---`- ---- ----- ---' ---- ---- - ---- L 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1676 T 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1764 TR 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1605 L 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1676 Iit' T 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.o0 1.0o 1.00 1.00 1764 TR 1000 1 1,00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1693 illH L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 1332 �� TR 1800 1 1.00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 0.87 1 .00 1566 R L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1710 II7R 1800 1 1 .00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1 .00 0.84 1 .00 1512 L 0.478 0.200 60 16.1 335 0.8 1.00 16.9 C 1 0.371 0.550 60 5.8 970 0.1 0.85 5.0 A TR 0.587 0.550 60 6.8 883 0.8 0.85 6.5 8 8.0 B L 0.119 0.200 60 14.9 335 0.0 1.00 14.9 8 T 0.403 0.550 60 5.9 970 0.2 0.85 5.2 8 TR 0.358 0.550 60 5.7 931 0.1 0.05 4.9 A 5.7 B L 0.718 0.250 60 15.6 333 5.0 0.85 17.5 C TR 0.128 0.250 60 13.2 391 0.0 0.85 11.2 B 16.4 C L 0.208 0.250 60 13.5 427 0.0 0.85 11.5 B [R 0.439 0.250 60 14.4 378 0.5 0.35 12.7 B 12.2 D INTERSECTION DELAY : 8.7 secs/veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : B . 2'7 E LANE 2 LANE 3 656 A Mr. Lynn Takeuchi MacKenzie /Saito Associates, P.S. Suite 233, Building 3, 300 - 120th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 Re: Christopher brown 9688 rainier auenue a aegttle washi ton Id: 7234567 118 April 26, 1988 RECEIVED APR 2 8198.8 SPIEKER - SOUTHCENTER PROJECT MAGKEIMZIE /SAIi0 ASSOC. R.C. A Proposed Shopping Center in Tukwila BELLEVUE; WA Traffic Study Supplemental Analysis - Southcenter Parkway Signals Dear Mr. Takeuchi: At the March 31st meeting at the City of Tukwila you may recall that the Department of Public Works (DPW) commented on both the existing and projected levels of service (LOS) at the Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway intersection. Essentially, at this meeting, it was pointed out that the theoretical LOS of our calculations did not match what one could observe in the field, at least with respect to long standing queues. First, concerning this aspect of theoretical delay versus observed delay, you may wish to note that our analysis submitted as an appendix to the traffic study (FILE TARGT040) shows the westbound average delay per vehicles as 37.6 seconds per vehicle for the noted LOS of 'D'. In other words, our theoretical delay is probably not too far adrift from what one actually experiences. After all, it is about half a minute per vehicle, and that is not a small delay. Second, at that meeting we responded by noting that the good LOS values we computed were based on their own (Entranco Engineers) consultants published data, but used with our CAPCALC 85 computer program. Of course, here we are still using a theoretical approach that includes our assumed signal timing and phasing, traffic signal operational elements that may not be the same as now found in the field. However, as a planning study, I feel we can use a theoretical approach since we do have the liberty to make some judgement calls, especially with respect to both signal timing and signal phasing. Third, that our theoretical analysis may not be equal to Mr. Lynn Takeuchi April 26, 1988 page 2 that which is found in the real world may also be due to the lower traffic volumes moving through that intersection, which volumes were probably constrained by the Klickitat- Southcenter Parkway intersection. In other words, the Klickitat - Southcenter Parkway intersection may be the limiting factor in passing traffic through to the Southcenter Parkway - Strander Boulevard intersection. In this regard, I must apologize; we did not analyze the Klickitat intersection since I thought the Strander- Southcenter Parkway intersection would be the limiting node. With this in mind, we took the opportunity of counting the intersection of Klickitat - Southcenter Parkway during the noon peak hour, a peak hour which has been determined to be the heaviest in terms of total volume (as distinct from having the heaviest directional volume) . Next, we have derived both current and horizon year volumes for both the Klickitat - Southcenter Parkway and Southcenter Parkway - Strander Boulevard intersections, and with these we have derived a theoretical signal timing and phasing for both intersections so that they will, again in a theoretical sense, act in unison. We are attaching a signal phase diagram for these two intersections; it assumes a single 100 second cycle length and inside clearances via an overlapped phase. Again, it is not quite the same as now found in the field since to -day the cycle length is very long and that, in turn, is detrimental. Nevertheless, it shows what can be done. Next, we are enclosing copies of two new sets of computations for this phasing option. The two sets are for the current year and the horizon year (with project traffic) . The final LOS for the horizon year design hour at both intersections, with project traffic, will be 'C'. Note that the delay for Strander Boulevard at Southcenter Parkway, westbound, is 30.3 seconds per vehicle. Once more, this is not a small delay but it is acceptable. It is also a delay that will produce a standing queue; however, it is a queue that should clear at each signal cycle. In my judgment, the long queues we now experience are, in a Yours truly, C. V. Brown, P.E. cvb /mdr /s encl. cc. Mr. Joel Benoliel Phos/r9 Di'g9 m I-tro ndc r` Bou /e VC? r'd ou�hC'cnt�^ ? z b r+,�w� kr / / c /,Lc� -�- Dr. i ✓� 70 /00 3 60.s. CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TARGTO1 SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. N/S STREET 2 1 v *> N 1 W - +- E t S SB TOTAL 1270 1 1 1 1 1 1 v .> 885 385 STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET A 355 WB TOTAL /\ / 510 865 A *> 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 685 535 1 SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. N/S STREET NB TOTAL 1220 v CHRISTOPHER BROWN 4/26/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT01 INTERSECTION : IRANDER BLVD. @ UTHCENTER PRKWY. WEEKDAY NOON 1988 CBD ?N ISTUATED SIGNAL T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR IAPP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE WB 2 4 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 IGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 4/26/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGTO1 TERSECTION : DER BLVD. @ UTHCENTER PRKWY. WEEKDAY NOON 1988 CBD ? N ITUATED SIGNAL V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T IIPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT t • L 510 567 1.00 567 1.00 0.00 R 355 394 1.00 394 0.00 1.00 T 685 761 1.00 761 0.00 0.00 R 535 594 1.00 594 0.00 1.00 L 385 428 1.00 428 1.00 0.00 T 885 983 1.00 983 0.00 0.00 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W IDEAL # OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. P MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW 11 L 1800 1 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1484 R 1800 1 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1484 IfT 1800 2 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3493 R 1800 1 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00. 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.00 1449 SB L 1800 2 1.00 0.98 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 3278 IIT 1800 2 1.00 0.98 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3563 PAGE 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 4/26/1988 INTERSECTION : TRANDER BLVD. @ OUTHCENTER PRKWY. EEKDAY NOON 1988 CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGTO1 LN GR ADJ FLOW APP MVM RATE ti1B L 567 394 �1B T 761 594 IB L T C A P A C I T Y A N A L Y S I S PMSV ADJ SAT LT FLOW FLW RT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO O 1484 0.382 Y 0.430 O 1484 0.265 Y 0.750 O 3493 0.218 N 0.250 O 1449 0.410 Y 0.680 428 0 3278 0.131 Y 0.320 983 0 3563 0.276 N 0.570 YCLE LENGTH : 100.0 OSS TIME PER CYCLE : 9 638 0.889 1113 0.354 873 0.872 985 0.603 1049 0.408 2031 0.484 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 1.188 INTERSECTION V/C : 1.305 LN GR MVM L R V/C GREEN RATIO RATIO L E V E L O F S E R V I C E CYC 1st LN GR LEN DELAY CAP 0.889 0.430 100 20.0 638 0.354 0.750 100 3.2 1113 T 0.872 0.250 100 27.3 873 R 0.603 0.680 100 6.6 985 L 0.408 0.320 T 0.484 0.570 100 20.2 1049 100 9.7 2031 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS 10.3 1.00 30.3 D 0.1 0.85 2.8 A 6.8 0.85 0.8 0.85 0.2 1.00 0.1 0.85 29.0 D 6.3 B 20.4 C 8.3 B 19.0 C 19.0 C 12.0 B INTERSECTION DELAY : 16.3 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : C '4/26/1988 205 ^ EB TOTAL 650 445 v CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TARGT09 N W - +- E S SB TOTAL 1024 1 1 I <' v 342 682 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY N/S STREET KLICKITAT STREET E/W STREET 574 577 <. n 1 1 1 1 1 NB TOTAL 1151 A 2 2 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY • N/S STREET CHRISTOPHER BROWN 4/26/1988 TARGET TUKWILA TARGT09 TERSECTION : ICKITAT STREET @ UTHCENTER PARKWAY FRIDAY NOON 1988 CBD ?N ITUATED SIGNAL T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR IIPP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF_ (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE EB 0 2 N 0 0 0.92 0 N 0.0 3 IGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN I TERSECTION : ICKITAT STREET @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 1988 CBD ? N IFIDAY NOON TUATED SIGNAL TARGET TUKWILA 4/26/1988 TARGTO9 ' APPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS LT RT MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE • V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T B L 205 223 1.00 223 1.00 0.00 R R 445 484 1.00 484 0.00 1.00 574 652 1.00 652 1.00 0.00 B L 5 T 577 656 1.00 656 0.00 0.00 IB T 682 758 1.00 758 0.00 0.00 R R 342 380 1.00 380 0.00 1.00 1 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W UIDEAL # OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK _BUS AREA RT_ LT_ FLOW _ IBL 1800 1 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1515 R 1800 1 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1515 B L 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 3279 T 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3564 • . P E 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN •4/26/1988 TARGET TUKWILA TARGTO9 I ERSECTION K CKITAT STREET @ S THCENTER PARKWAY FRIDAY NOON 1988 CBD ? N A ATED SIGNAL C A P A C I T Y A N A L Y S I S LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C irMVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO EB L 223 0 1515 0.147 N 0.160 242 0.921 NI R 484 0 1515 0.319 Y 0.760 1151 0.421 L 652 0 3279 0.199 Y 0.600 1967 0.331 T 656 0 3564 0.184 N 0.840 2994 0.219 JIT 758 0 3564 0.213 N 0.240 855 0.887 R 380 0 1515 0.251 Y 0.400 606 0.627 1CLE LENGTH : 100.0 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 0.769 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 0.845 t L E V E L O F S E R V I C E ILN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP P MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS i NB L 0.921 0.160 100 31.4 242 26.4 1.00 57.8 E R 0.421 0.760 100 3.2 1151 0.2 0.85 2.9 A 20.2 C L 0.331 0.600 100 7.6 1967 0.0 1.00 7.6 B T 0.219 0.840 100 1.2 2994 0.0 0.85 1.0 A 4.3 A T 0.887 0.240 100 27.9 855 7.9 0.85 30.4 D R 0.627 0.400 100 18.3 606 1.5 0.85 16.8 C 25.8 D INTERSECTION DELAY : 15.6 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : C 4/26/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TARGT04 SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. N/S STREET 2 1 SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. N/S STREET W - +- E SB TOTAL 1368 v .> 837 531 STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET A * - -- 1 * - -- 1 A 480 v ` 639 612 A .> NB TOTAL 1251 v WB TOTAL 581 1061 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 4/26/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT04 INTERSECTION : S NDER BLVD. @ S THCENTER PRKWY. • KDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD ?N ACTUATED SIGNAL 111 T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR Ir ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE 2 4 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 NB 2 4 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 18.0 3 1[13 -2 4 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 18.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 lEpp LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD WB 581 0 480 L 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 INB 0 639 612 T 2 24.0 R 1 12.0 SB 531 837 0 L 2 24.0 T 2 24.0 P E 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 4/26/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT04 I ERSECTION : S DER BLVD. @ S HCENTER PRKWY. WEEKDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD ? N ArUATED SIGNAL C A P A C I T Y A N A L Y S I S LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C drMVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO WB L 646 0 1484 0.435 Y 0.430 638 1.013 IIR 533 0 1484 0.359 Y 0.750 1113 0.479 NB T 710 0 3493 0.203 N 0.250 873 0.813 R 680 0 1467 0.464 Y 0.680 998 0.681 ilL 590 0 3278 0.180 Y 0.320 1049 0.562 T 930 0 3563 0.261 N 0.570 2031 0.458 JCLE LENGTH : 100.0 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 1.438 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 1.580 i L E V E L O F S E R V I C E J LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP P MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS 1 L 1.013 0.430 100 21.9 638 30.7 1.00 52.6 E R 0.479 0.750 100 3.7 1113 0.3 0.85 3.4 A 30.3 D T 0.813 0.250 100 26.8 873 4.2 0.85 26.3 D R 0.681 0.680 100 7.2 998 1.3 0.85 7.2 B 16.9 C L 0.562 0.320 100 21.4 1049 0.5 1.00 21.9 C T 0.458 0.570 100 9.5 2031 0.1 0.85 8.2 B 13.5 B INTERSECTION DELAY : 19.5 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : C I GE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 4/26/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGTO4 TERSECTION : DER BLVD. @ 16;;HCENTER PRKWY. WEEKDAY NOON IfTUATED SIGNAL POSTDEV. CBD ? N 1PROACH LANE GROUP MVM VOLUME IB IB tB L 581 R 480 T 639 R 612 L 531 T 837 V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW IN GROUP FACTOR RATE FMNO 1M11 646 1.00 646 533 1.00 533 710 1.00 710 680 1.00 680 590 1.00 590 930 1.00 930 PROP OF TURNS LT RT 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W IDEAL ' # OF IIPP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW L 1800 R 1800 T 1800 R 1800 1 1.00 0.98 1 1.00 0.98 2 1.00 0.98 1 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1484 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1484 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3493 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 1.00 1467 L 1800 2 1.00 0.98 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 T 1800 2 1.00 0.98 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3278 3563 4/26/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TARGT10 205 ^ 1 EB TOTAL 689 484 v SB TOTAL 1083 I <1 v 342 741 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY N/S STREET KLICKITAT STREET E/W STREET 614 <. 1 t i A NB TOTAL 1191 577 <* A 2 2 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY N/S STREET CHRISTOPHER BROWN 4/26/1988 TARGET TUKWILA TARGT10 INTERSECTION : ICKITAT STREET @ UTHCENTER PARKWAY IDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD ?N ACTUATED SIGNAL ilT R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR PP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE EB 0 2 N 0 0 0.92 0 N 0.0 3 NB 0 2 N 0 0 0.88 0 N 0.0 3 IISB 0 2 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 IFG E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 IIAPP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 205 0 484 L 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 INB 614 577 0 L 2 24.0 T 2 24.0 SB 0 741 342 T 2 24.0 R 1 12.0 PAGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 4/26/1988 TARGET TUKWILA TARGT10 INTERSECTION : ICKITAT STREET @ THCENTER PARKWAY IDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL V O L U M E 1 A D J U S T M E N T AIPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT i 1 L 205 R 484 L 614 T 577 T 741 R 342 223 1.00 223 1.00 0.00 526 1.00 526 0.00 1.00 698 1.00 698 1.00 0.00 656 1.00 656 0.00 0.00 823 1.00 823 0.00 0.00 380 1.00 380 0.00 1.00 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W IDEAL # OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. #P MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW IL R NB L T SB T R 1800 1 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1515 1800 1 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1515 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 3279 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3564 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3564 1800 1 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1515 PAGE 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 4/26/1988 1 TARGET TUKWILA TARGT10 INTERSECTION : 1iICKITAT STREET @ UTHCENTER PARKWAY IDAY NOON POSTDEV. CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL C A P A C I T Y A N A L Y S I S LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR . V/C P MVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO b r L 223 0 1515 0.147 N 0.160 242 0.921 R 526 0 1515 0.347 Y 0.760 1151 0.457 L 698 0 3279 0.213 Y 0.600 1967 0.355 T 656 0 3564 0.184 N 0.840 2994 0.219 T 823 0 3564 0.231 N 0.240 855 0.963 R 380 0 1515 0.251 Y 0.400 606 0.627 CLE LENGTH : 100.0 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 0.811 SS TIME PER CYCLE : 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 0.891 L E V E L O F S E R V I C E LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP 1.1:_ P MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS EB L 0.921 0.160 100 31.4 242 26.4 1.00 57.8 E IIR 0.457 0.760 100 3.4 1151 0.2 0.85 3.1 A 19.4 C NB L 0.355 0.600 100 7.7 1967 0.0 1.00 7.7 B T 0.219 0.840 100 1.2 2994 0.0 0.85 1.0 A 4.5 A 11B T 0.963 0.240 100 28.5 855 16.4 0.85 38.2 D R 0.627 0.400 100 18.3 606 1.5 0.85 16.8 C 31.4 D INTERSECTION DELAY : 17.6 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : C