Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEPA EPIC-19-89 - SPIEKER PARTNERS - SOUTHCENTER PLAZA PHASE II (TUKWILA POND)
This record contains information which is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to the Washington State Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW as identified on the Digital Records Exemption Log shown below. EPIC -19 -89 Southcenter Plaza Phase II — Tukwila Pond Strander Boulevard & Andover Park West RECORDS DIGITAL D- ) EXEMPTION LOG THE ABOVE MENTIONED PERMIT FILE INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING REDACTED INFORMATION F,age # Code Exemption � � �� Brief Explsnatoty Description, Statute /Rule The Privacy Act of 1974 evinces Congress' intent that social security numbers are a private concern. As such, individuals' social security Personal Information — numbers are redacted to protect those Social Security Numbers individuals' privacy pursuant to 5 U.S.C. sec. 5 U.S.C. sec. DR1 Generally — 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(a), and are also exempt from disclosure 552(a); RCW 552(a); RCW under section 42.56.070(1) of the Washington 42.56.070(1) 42.56.070(1) State Public Records Act, which exempts under the PRA records or information exempt or prohibited from disclosure under any other statute. Redactions contain Credit card numbers, debit card numbers, electronic check numbers, credit Personal Information — expiration dates, or bank or other financial RCW 174 DR2 Financial Information — account numbers, which are exempt from 42.56.230(5) RCW 42.56.230(4 5) disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56.230(5), except when disclosure is expressly required by or governed by other law. CONTAINS FILES THAT REQUIRE REDACTION SOUTHCENTER PLAZA PHASE II - HOTEL & RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT TUKWILA POND STANDER BLVD. & ANDOVER PARK WEST EPIC 19 -89 To: City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director Don Williams MEMORANDUM' From: Vernon Umetsu Department of Community Development Date: November 17, 1992 RE: Tukwila Pond Development Information. I met with Paul Zemtseff for 1 -1/2 hrs. and reviewed development constraints, options and provided development maps. Ron Cameron also met with us for 1/2 hr. and provided access input. Mr. Zemtseff does not need anything further at this time and specifically doesn't anticipate the need for a further wetland or development potential memo. Please call me on Friday if I can be of further help. c• P• 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100'•© Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax: (206) 431 -3665 ,02ty of Tukwila MEMORANDUM from the desk of Don Williams, Parks and Recreation Director To: Dane: Vj 3% Subject: � d MATURE VEGETAT'l o ISTURBED VEGETATION W ETLAN D E 7e4-; 2._ • P .1 1 3. . . . ••■ . I • • • • • . '7 ' A•• - • '.... ..` N." .."."•,. y' a‘...... ''... ' '.A.... . , '‘‘••• 'al., ...... ..".. ...," ',,, \•••••• .-- "... ..... . f...• ... I . , , !t ....'..s .. . ,..'.„. ." ..' .. .. ......„a..". .I . e.. ... d' .. . ... . -,: „ %1• , .'".,.„. '. ., ''... .. y . • _ • •!;',A.••.".4- . ., .: . , . . . • f ...,: .."., • '.„ '."„.' ".. .. " . l * , ../„•_..'1.... . . . .. .."..".' , ,'f.. .... . ' . . . ° - , ';, ' ' ` 1 . ... T r. ' . .. " _,.• .. . a ... '.:d... .A,..0., •-4.'.4_.s , '. . ;• . A .,‘-. ,,• 1a.:. 1LL. .7•: t.jS. • .," :_" .. ..7._..- -., . . .; .... ..;... .. . . ' ,. .•.- • '' ■. • • a „a.`l, ,f .. ' =„ . ,.r ', 5..... 0 „. ' •,• .„ • .„ Y,. •' , . • •• , — 4•• •' : . .; . .. ‘. . ..... ... .. , ... . „.- ..... ‘ .,• ,. . "....' . ... .... r,..„ :.. s .”. -... . ,y. . ..,"......' . ,„7 , .., 7 . .•... .. • ..... a •;. ..,•,.. .:• .',.7. . ;..„... . ,... .,. \ .. ,. • „„ , .‘ 0 .” A....— I,.1., . .,.....sa. ... : .A ."....,.• . ..• .. ,;.„ ".... .." . •.. . ...; ...• - ..:., .k;., .. „ ......•... .. .A. - .. .. .010 . 1... .,"., ,.. ,. y " .\ .. '.. „•"•. •..'. i'•.. .• t .. , .. .. ‘ : ..... . .• , . •- ,.„...o.. .^ . . ..." ... „..,-. ,„. •;.". „ , .. .. . .-, .• .. .......• .. .. .A 0..0 .. .-L',, • . ...4' .. ... „ „.',.N',, . ., ; I . . k . , ....4. ".A..... .,,, , .. .._ . 4. ;. .k., . . . .;' ..y . ... . ".' .. . . . .a '. . 40.• .• . . . .. I• .. .” '... u. .4' 4o.I . ,l. . ..a•' .A• .' plP. .p ." "u...0J'... ,‘.m‘ . ' ;- • . ...1•‘.•„,■", .1•. ,. • 2.. . .2..A4,, .S .. t . .•:.•.• .:, .,..4. s ,),,. , ., ' .. . ..0.• _, • A• ,• .;,•• • , 4/,, e • z 7: .! . , . "A... , •.. • • ' , 0;, , , • .: .Av. ..... I... '6.• .. . „.......„ .A .a. .. .. .. . ". . ,. . . .• .........' ..., ....... • _ . . . ...-. . . A. .„, .t • ,.• . .. ..".1.......^",... , .. . .. ,....„I 4..,.,..-.. ., ; , •-•. .•. .: .: .. .v . ..I...•, I- , t..-. o.•• .. .' ....• — A ... .. .. ...."."-.1:"‘."-.-•,.• .; ...., b.... ...". ....—' ... ..". .... ".. ....:. .. 7. "'„a ..X. .•.'.. -. .. . • ' '. ' ... .. .',‘1'.•.j•.. .. .k. ..s., .: ...... ...s'' .'.i.' ..-.‘ ..4.' . .. ::".." - ,,' ,., . ,, ,.A.. .. ... . ,, „ ,, ,, . .,, .a . .‘ ..:.:.:.•• ...'..;.... I7 "..; . .1.'.'...•' •..1'•..'.•.'.' .• . • 4' „.: .--:T: . 1. . .A ',.:.. '. .:'. .'..:.,'.',.'.4.''. ." • .-..""-7: .. . . ..... d4 d1 .. .. ' ... '.. " . . ..... ..;.. .".. ‘.. .•w ”. ,...-4...."...• ' ."..• . ....s • : . ..,.., .4.'-% •• A, .4. . ;4'., .. 4 : „„.. . ....1a... s.....'.. . ...•: . . 1. '” 3. ."y, y . _ ..... , ". A., ..,d .. ,A4 1/4 . . ".. . .. . a, •,• *... .m•-. " .• .. .." -.. .... .'-. .-., ...• ... -• 3. - ,' .a..• '. .0:• a: . ' .1 . , ..j ?, ,. . .e,, 6e 3. 3.' ,,,..W..... ,.. ."s: . 4 1. :,. .7T 4.. .4 7;...`. .. , 2., .k. A •• AU . '" i,!.. 44 .3 .,, ,. ,. „ „ .: . . .., 0,. ..,., . 33. »13- . ... . ” : '‘ , . % ....... .. . .... .‘,. :1'• .d • : a. ;..../ J./ -r / ••••• v... •••••.. „ y 3-.-' ••• . ";' ••••• , • •••••• ■••• • L -.----.‚. Cdt. • al, AA' 4 , . Z• • „t.. ""*.. ••-• . • 1 .....f..'-' -- -- .'.-',, • -....-"-- -"::".....••••, .......,. `X::..r.-' ..:-. .....-..,- ..... -•::: II 1 Tukwila Pond Wetland.A: 62v .B.C.E.. ilf164. (REF. #2885) 32/4 EXHIBIT B: Existing Condition; Spieker Partners Job #91-136 Note: 1. Base maps per Bargha dated 8-3-89, 11-5-90, 11- 2. Wetlands flagged by L Barghausen Survey 6-264 3 Wetland Area A: By c Wetland Area B: Wetland Area C: 3,211 Wetland Area D: Part Wetland Area E: 4,641 NORTH NOT TO SCA L ,Clly4,1 Tukwila To: MEMORANDUM from the desk of Don Williams, Parks and Recreation Director • . Dote: Sublect: 6 7 4. •■•• dam.- / 410P _.4-44•4•Er -44 _444111:-.44-4r 44, JUN 1 9 1992 CT 't OIL iuKWiLA PLANNING DEPT. • — MEMORANDUM, To: Don Williams Department of Parks and Recreation From: Jack Pace Department of Community Development Date: June 16, 1992 RE: Tukwila Pond Development Potential The following is in response to your 6/16 memo. 1. All wetlands and their buffers in the western site area are shown on the T -Pond map submitted to you earlier. The isolated wetlands in the upland area are all Class III. They can be filled with on -site, replacement at the rate of 1.5 s.f for each 1.0 s.f. of wetland filled. Specific code citation§ are referenced in Vern's memo to you of 4/30 ?2 • 2. I checked over Vern's memo before it was sent to you and found it to be accurate. 3. The site is zoned "C -P" which allows the full range of commercial uses including, but not limited to hotel, retail, office, and park uses. The full range of uses is shown in TMC 18.34. The uses in buffers and the primary wetland are limited by the SAO, the wetland's Class I status, and the habitat's value for "shy" duck species. Use of this wetland area is discussed in Vern's memo. 1 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor MEMORANDUM To: Don Williams, Director Department of Parks and Recreation From: Vernon Umetsu Department of Community Development Date: April 30, 1992 RE: Tukwila Pond Development Considerations. Background 114 The property is zoned "C -P" (Planned Business Center) which is the same as the Southcenter Shopping Mall site. The conditions for developing this site would be the same for the City as they are for the current owners (Spieker Partners). There are no pre - S.A.O. "grandfathered" projects on this site. The site is shown in the attached map. Primary access is via a 60 ft. wide easement to Strander Blvd. on the north. The Target store owners have developed 37 parking spaces and landscaping in this area, but could be required to vacate. There is a possibility of secondary access via a 16 ft. wide road easement on along the south property line to Southcenter Parkway. However, the existence of this easement is in question based on the terms of its establishment. The Public Works Dept. and City Attorney would need to meet and resolve this issue. Development Recxulations 1. Tukwila's sensitive area wetland regulations have the greatest impact on site development potential. The main wetland is classified as high value "Type 1" (TMC 18.45.020(c)(1)). There are also three isolated wetlands greater than 400 s.f., but less than one acre which are classified as "Type 3" (TMC 18.45.020(c)(3). The minimum required buffer areas for site wetlands have been shown on the attached map. These buffer areas are based on a determination by the D.C.D. Director per authority granted in TMC 18.45.040(c)(3) (waiving of construction setback areas) and TMC 18.45.040(c)(4) (variation /reduction of wetland buffer areas). This determination was based on: Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 • • Tukwila Pond Development Considerations Page 2 April 30, 1992 a. A special wetland study by consultants approved by the Director and Urban Environmentalist and paid for by the applicant, b. A finding by the Urban Environmentalist that the existing grassed buffer area's habitat value could be greatly improved with vegetative enhancement, c. An evaluation of the non - nuisance character of currently proposed uses on the main wetland's habitat value (i.e. no significant noise, light /glare, or human intrusion into the buffer area). Standard and reduced widths for buffer and construction setback areas are shown below: Construction Buffer Setback Total Type 1 Wetland Standard 100 ft. Reduced 50 ft.' Type 3 Wetland Standard 25 ft. Reduced 15 ft.' 15 ft. 115 ft. 0 ft.2 50 ft. 15 ft. 40 ft. 0 ft.2 15 ft. 1Buffer reduction approved due to greatly improved buffer function and habitat value from planting of shrubs and trees. 2No significant impacts on buffer since it would be extensively replanted. A similar buffer reduction for the City would also require extensive vegetative enhancement. 2. Comparatively minor building setback and landscaping regulations would also apply. 3. All storm runoff must be biofiltered and detained to predevelopment rates prior to discharge to any wetland. Detention is not required if the wetland is part of a regional detention facility. Site Specific Development Options Development would be limited to all users as follows: 1. Use and filling of the main pond and its buffer is limited to the following purposes: Tukwila Pond Development Considerations Page 3 April 30, 1992 A. Essential roads or utilities (TMC 18.45.080(c)). B. Passive recreation and trails on the northern 2 /3rds of the east and west pond buffer; with no human intrusion closer than 35 ft. from the pond. Trails include a filled path or a low intensity boardwalk. Either would require a barrier to further human intrusion toward the pond such as a 4 ft. high bermed wall or fence. Due to sensitive perching, resting and feeding sites, no trails would be allowed within 15 ft. of the eastern and western wetland edges or anywhere along the southern one -third of the wetland area (TMC 18.45.080(c)(5)(G)). A trail could be established along developed northern areas, but no further encroachment into the buffer area would be possible. C. A regional storm water detention facility which satisfies clean water standards and does not diminish habitat value. D. As needed to resolve a public emergency per (No reasonable use exception would apply. Explanatory Note: Permitted uses in Type 1 wetland areas and buffers are limited in TMC 18.45.080(c). Public access is further specified in subsection (5) as being: "...located in areas which ave the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration," (A) and "...designed so that sensitive plant and critical wildlife species are protected. "(G). There are no rare, endangered or threatened species at this site. However, the City in the past has negotiated or facilitated severe development limitations to protect one of the few remaining sites in this area usable by "shy" migratory ducks. 2. Filling of the isolated wetlands is permitted with no specific use restrictions other than replacement of 1.5 s.f. of similar wetland habitat for every one s.f. of wetland area filled. No reasonable use exception to avoid replacement would apply (TMC 18.45.115). 3. Further limitations on development would vary with each proposal. SEPA and Board of Architectural Review approval would be required. Please feel free to contact me at x -1684 if you have any questions. (tpcnc14.30) City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor February 3, 1992 David Behar Spieker Partners 915 - 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 RE: Southcenter Plaza Phase II E.I.S. Dear David, This is to confirm our earlier conversation and inform you of Tukwila staff availability to complete this project. My understanding of project status is that the E.I.S. is now on hold pending discussions with the City, all City consultant bills have been satisfied, the contract has not been canceled, and little work remains to complete the D.E.I.S. Don Williams does not anticipate City review of this property's acquisition until March at the earliest. From two earlier telephone conversations, I also understand that you agree that Tukwila staff need not schedule time for E.I.S. review before March. Your short plat application is not subject to this limitation. Processing will resume upon submittal of the required easements. Please feel free to contact me at 431 -3684 if you have any questions or I can be of further help. Sincerely, Vernon Umetsu cc: Pace /Fraser /file Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 MEMORANDUM To: Alan Doerschel, Director Finance Department From: Rick Beeler, Director Department of Communit •evelopment Date: November 13, 1991 RE: Spieker Partners E.I.S. for Southcenter South Phase II. Please issue a warrant for $8,981.49 to the Ferris Company for their work on the subject E.I.S.,-per Tukwila AC file No. 90 -043 and Ferris Co. invoice No. 1106 (attached). This amount has been deposited by Spieker Partners per Tukwila receipt No. 4008 (11/13/91). Payment should be from 08.558.600.41.06. Upon issuance: 1. Call Vernon Umetsu (x -1684) with the warrant number and issue date, and 2. Mail check to The Ferris Company Seattle Trust Building, Suite 300 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 Atten. Leslie Lloyd Thanks for your help. t. , CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 November 5, 1991 Joel Benol'iel Spieker Partners 915 - 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 FAX 455 -4105 PHONE it (206) 433.1800 Gary L. i'anDusen, Mayor RE: Southcenter Plaza Phase II E.I.S. Consultant Bill. Dear Joel, It is my understanding from various discussions with City staff that you and the City have been in negotiations since mid - September regarding Tukwila Pond development and not expected to reach a decision stage until mid - January at the earliest, or more likely February. Ferris Company has been owed $8,981.49 of retained billings since August, which is due upon E.I.S. publication or project abandonment pursuant to contract provisions. This has been documented in their letter of August 29, 1991 to Jack Pace and copied to you (Attachment A). It was also summarized in Vernon Umetsu's memorandum of September 5th to Walter Kaczynski. It is not reasonable for Ferris to carry this bill amounting to 20% (= $8,981.49/$45,297.00) of the D.E.I.S. budget for a project hold period of five to six months. This would seem to violate our "due diligence" and contract Section 9 (Additional Responsibilities) provisions. This is especially the case since the original contract period was only three months (April 13th to June 22nd). Payment of the $8,981.49 to Ferris at this time would leave the following project budget status: Previously Paid DEIS Costs (Total payout to date ($36,707.26) less extra -EIS Contract Costs ($4,015.51)) $32,691.75 Retained Balance Owed 8,981.49 Subtotal of DEIS Costs to Date $41,673.24 • • Previously Paid Extra -EIS Contract Work Authorized by Speiker 4,015.51 Total Costs Owed /Paid Through Tukwila $45,688.75 Remaining Contract Amount to Complete Work ($45,297.00 - 41,673.24) $ 3,623.76. I roughly estimate an additional $5,000 of contract work remains to be done on the D.E.I.S. Based on the above understandings and conclusions, and an invoice from Ferris Co. received today (Attachment B), I have determined that within two weeks: a. the project must either be restarted in two weeks with a good faith effort to complete it or b. the contract be terminated and all bills settled. Please contact me by November 19th with your decision, or immediately if I have misunderstood anything or can answer any questions. Sincerel Ric Beeler, Director Dept. of Community Development Attachments A. Ferris Letter of August 21, 1991. B. Ferris Invoice of November 5, 1991. cc: Mayor /Pace /Umetsu%Williams /file ,A -Lull h.THE FERRIS COMPANY INVOICE To: Vernon Umetsu City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Wa 98188 Invoice No.: 1106 Job No.: 3910 Date: October 30, 1991 This invoice covers the third and final billing for professional services on the Tukwila Pond Phase II Draft EIS. Costs cover labor and expenses incurred in development of the Preliminary Draft EIS. Due to suspension of the proposal, the third payment is now due. With reference to our letter of August 29, 1991, the third payment amount, adjusted for degree of document completion, (see enclosed copy of August 29, 1991 letter) is $8,981.49. AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE AMOUNT PAST DUE L AMOUNT DUE 4/7.4 1‘ tVch.el J. Senior Vice P"esident Enclosure $8,981.49 -0- $8,981.49 OCT 31 1991 Ct i Y Us. Tut,.VVILA PLAIT,!lNG DAP 1Key Bank Building, Suite 506 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 FAX 206/646 -7875 206/462 -7650 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 October 21, 1991 PHONE N (206) 433.1800 CONFIDENTIAL NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD Walter Kaczynski Spieker Partners 915 - 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 RE: Tukwila Pond E.I.S. Project Status (EPIC- 19 -89). Dear Walter, Cary L. VanDusen, Mayor This letter is confirm my understanding that Joel Benoliel and the City of Tukwila have been in negotiations on City purchase of the pond property and the subject upland development site, that further work on the E.I.S. has been temporarily halted pending the outcome of these negotiations, but that the project has not been abandoned. Please contact me immediately at 431 -3684 if I have misunderstood anything or you have any questions. Sincerely, Vernon Umetsu, cc: Pace, file Assoc. Planner c'o&S".\• S2-e_acitd-0 0.0 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 MEMORANDUM To: Kim Hart, Finance Department PHONE N (206) 433 -1800 From: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner (A Department of Community Development f" Date: September 18, 1991 Cary L. VanDusen, Mayor RE: Deposit and Payment for Southcenter Plaza Phase II E.I.S. The attached check for $13,297.51 was deposited today (Rec. No. 2357). Please issue a warrant to The Ferris Company for $13,297.51 pursuant to the attached invoice and Tukwila contract 90 -043. L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development Attachments gip CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 MEMORANDUM PHONE k (206) 4331800 Gan. L. YanDusen, Mayor To: Walter Kaczynski, Spieker Partners From: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner Department of Community Development Date: September 5, 1991 RE: Southcenter Plaza Phase II E.I.S. Consultant Bill Status. I am attaching a summary of all bills invoiced to the City of Tukwila by Ferris Company to date (Attachment A) and the Ferris Company letter to Jack Pace of August 29th (Attachment B). These documents reflect the City's best information on total project costs incurred by the Ferris Company and their subcontractors. The summary of all invoices (Attachment A) includes $1,162.62 of costs not associated with the City's E.I.S. contract scope of work, but which has been approved by Spieker Partners. It is my understanding that Spieker and the City have agreed to route this payment through the City for administrative convenience. The August 29th Ferris letter (Attachment B) includes $8,981.49 of costs which have not been billed but are owing to Ferris for work already done, pursuant to the terms of the original contract. This amount is not due until the FEIS is published or the project is abandoned. The sum total of all Ferris costs are thus as follows: DUE IMMEDIATELY $-3--2915r b Due upon FEIS publication /abandonment 8,981.49 Total Balance $2- 2;2-79 -00 14_ lc q��1�� It is my understanding that you were sent a coordinating copy of the August 29th Ferris letter, have discussed this matter with Jack Pace, and have agreed to pay the $13,297.51 which is now due. The check should be sent to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development; 6300 Southcenter Blvd.; Suite 100; Tukwila, WA 98188; Atten. Jack Pace /Vernon Umetsu. Please immediately contact me at 431 -3684 if I have misunderstood anything or can be of further help. Cc F oz -P--(_C Co . /p/ L 4 • • Y Nv -»j a. ;.5 SL 1 W ori Ps S� "Tr,1 L 'O T 0S'LOQ `9i '1' 0 ,I7-iVn — -- �— LN V • ►a�Yyltid �>�1 �%1 11v.3t. ,Va 514aai 0► 6C IC 9E SE ►E CC 2E IE OE 62 92 2Z 92 SZ ►2 CZ ZZ IZ 00 61 9I 61 91 SI ►l CI • r 01 — 2.14,/ e v.o i2. ln0 NjµJ M NSYJ 0.6-/L yt, 5/ lir 5 y�3J J uL OI ,[21 I 21Vd. oI 6 6 9 9 --- Z --- CI 0.40 1N3WN�VLly %7/1/ .kvn s Oba' -z T; o V Q —� August 29, 1991 Jack Pace City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Tukwila Pond Phase II EIS Budget; Payment Dear Jack: HE FERRIS COMPANY ( SEP 031991 You asked us to prepare a summary of billing and payments for EIS services to date on the Tukwila Pond Phase II EIS project, in order to help the proponent and the City understand the billing situation and the future costs of continuing with the project. Background To -date, we have prepared two preliminary Draft EIS documents which have been reviewed by the City. Two progress payments have been paid by the City to The Ferris Company per our Contract, Schedule and Payments; the last payment was made in September, 1990. The Draft EIS budget is summarized as follows: Original budget November, 1990 Amendment Subtotal Plus Extra Services (since May, 1991) TOTAL DRAFT EIS BUDGET $36,015.00 9,282.00 $45,297.00 4,015.51 $49.312.51 Overall payment history for the Draft EIS is summarized below: Payments made to date: Payment #1 (15% of contract amount, or 15% of $36,015): $ 5,402.25 (Paid 5/90) Payment #2 (50% of $36,015): $18,007.50 (Paid 9/90) TOTAL PAYMENTS TO DATE: $23,409.75 Key Bank Building, Suite 506 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 FAX 206/646 -7875 206/462-7650 Jack Pace August 29, 1991 Page 2 5 ) Q 1991 Additional billing to date: Invoice #1021 (Nov. 1990 Amendment amount plus extra services for May and June): $12,134.89 Invoice #1044 (extra services for July): $ 1,162.62 TOTAL ADDITIONAL BI LLNG: $13,297.51 Payment Due At this point, the total billing amounts to $36,707.26. The final payment toward costs of the Draft EIS is, by Contract, 35 percent of the Contract Amount; based upon the original Contract budget of $36,015, this amount would be $12,605.25. However, because the Draft EIS has not been published, an adjustment to this amount is necessary if the proponent decides to stop the project at this point. According to our records, 92 percent of the total Draft EIS budget, including the November Contract Amendment, has been expended. The following calculation is used to determine the exact amount of the third progress payment: Total Actual Costs (92 %) Less 11/90 Amendment (billed on Inv. #1021) Less Payments #1 and #2 THIRD PAYMENT AMOUNT OWING: $41,673.24 (9,282.00) (23,409.75) $ 8,981.49 Due to the length of time since our last progress payment on this project (September 1990), we will be seeking the 3rd payment, even if the proponent continues with the project. As we have discussed, it would be best to settle up old amounts and to open a new contract if the project continues. Therefore, a bill in the .amount of $8,981.49 will be sent to the City of Tukwila once a decision is made by the proponent to proceed or cancel the project. If the proponent decides to continue with the project, the revisions identified in May, when Vernon .transmitted his comments to us, will need to be made. As we discussed, the proposed action, all EIS alternatives, and the wetlands analysis will need to be revised; also, changes in the project and alternatives will require changes in other elements of the environment. Essentially, this means that a new EIS will need to be prepared. We would develop a new budget for this work once the proponent indicated a decision to proceed with these revisions. Jack Pace August 29, 1991 Page 3 In conclusion, here is an overall summary of costs for this project: Payments made to date Additional billing to date Contract Amendment Extra Services Third payment amount TOTAL DRAFT EIS COSTS: $23,409.75 9,282.00 4,015.51 8,981.49 $45,688.75 2E? 03 1991 C1 to Compared to the Draft EIS Budget Total shown on page 1 of this letter ($49,312.51), actual costs are within budget. I hope this information is helpful; please call me if you have any questions. We would appreciate your assistance in seeing that billing to Spieker and City payment occur promptly. Sincerely, Leslie Lloyd Director Environmental Services LL:hd cc: Joel Benoliel tw ernon Umetsu HUG ' 51 10: 431 Date: To: T- 1 ..,. n T r" r. T/n -/ r.,1 1 c f, .1" c r\ EKK I 5 C.0111-'1=11,1Y TELECOPIER MESSAGE 0)/7./.1/ r hITTf -41 V 7h FD1 w �.p Company; � LG�,��•f' -�' //� FAX Number: 3 / r 1 (o Office Number: From: r�- Company: The Ferris Company Our FAX Number: (206) 646 -7875 Number of Pages (including cover page) If you have any problem receiving this transmission, please call us at (206) 462 -7650. Message: i - (4\.ks'. 7V 4")'4 , J Owc.. 40.4 .1- • 144re"i -Ge ( 1044 d '.11eS 1'. 4) . •-* 42eAiL 8,fee-Aie cuaL AR/Y: %l AA Lf r A i 1 in .L4 cm_ triuL-Dx.4:ctai. Key Bank Building, Suite 506 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 FAX 200/646.7875 206/462 -7650 Tukwila Pond D.E.I.S. August 19, 1991 Meeting Agenda I. Project Budget 1. Current Status. 62(6yA 4.5:€7° 2. Ferris billing of July 11, 3. Resolve payment schedule. on an amended contract and zero balance. II. Project Alternatives 1. Review 2. Review 3. Future B -12 work. Spieker Proposal. Project Process 1991. c J Future work to be done based assuming a new budget with a. Review Tukwila impact /mitigation concerns based on the impact analysis of previous alternatives. Generally review alternative design options to be finalized at a later meeting. b. Tukwila /Spieker /architects develop a set of acceptable alternatives including at least one which Planning staff can recommend approval to the B.A.R. c. Ferris brought in to propose D.E.I.S. scope and budget for revised project; taking into consideration work already done. d. Tukwila /Spieker /Ferris resolve contract schedule and payment (estimate 60 - 90 days for a D.E.I.S.). e. Spieker to deposit full contract amount with Tukwila prior to authorizing Ferris to proceed. • Tukwila Pond D.E.I.S. August 19, 1991 Meeting Agenda I. Project Budget 1. Current Status. 2. Ferris billing of July 11, 1991. 3. Resolve payment schedule. Future work to be done based on an amended contract and assuming a new budget with zero balance. II. Project Alternatives 1. Review B -12 work. 2. Review Spieker Proposal. 3. Future Project Process a. Review Tukwila impact /mitigation concerns based on the impact analysis of previous alternatives. Generally review alternative design options to be finalized at a later meeting. b. Tukwila /Spieker /architects develop a set of acceptable alternatives including at least one which Planning staff can recommend approval to the B.A.R. c. Ferris brought in to propose D.E.I.S. scope and budget for revised project; taking into consideration work already done. d. Tukwila /Spieker /Ferris resolve contract schedule and payment (estimate 60 - 90 days for a D.E.I.S.). e. Spieker to deposit full contract amount with Tukwila prior to authorizing Ferris to proceed. K' / :T e- eiv OC. r@Z,/ C.-&- P p c G . r - / V a 2 A c o ^ ( U 7 2 6 ?Oo gAaj, y?. w. -. (('f22 r c I- _r.r! 1 _ _ _ii'it- INVOICE City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 • 1S;CCMP, Invoice No.: 1044 Job No.: 3920 Date: Aug. 14, 1991. This invoice covers Extra Services performed on the Tukwila Pond Phase II, Ell through July 31, 1991. These services included: coordination with City staff regarding comments; coordination with wetland consultant; review of wetland consultant report; coordination with application, city staff and wetland consultant regarding report findings; coordination and attendance at meeting with wetland condsultant, project architect and applicant on July 18, 1991; coordination with applicant and architect regarding project feasibility; and overall project management. Personnel Hours Hourly Rate T t L. Lloyd 8.5 J. Parker 13.0 expenses Word Processing Copy /Printing Postage/Delivery/FAX $62.50 $45.00 Subtotal $ 531.25 585.00 $ 1,116.25 $ 18.75 12.82 14.80 Subtotal $ 46.37 EXTRA SERVICES (July 1991) $ 1,162.62 to /1 AMOUNT PAST DUE - Invoice No. 9.4.4 dated 7/11/91 $12,134.89 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE t $13,297.51 ft7 Vic 4,4447,a6I) r' A-D-D lnlo�Ac (5) Pet Vetz-0A c -yd- im r7 - 81zC t.coT s74 %ars fJ 'j W -rte, 13, Sfro� A f AUG 23 il^�c 44 , sP /c O2. ACnr?rt6 77K,..- 91 Q r es v 7- "q i L Ato coS-r c erte rccv4Zket AtF%G 7`f e- v 1 ' O e: �i r✓L:� ex) `7'S�A C eihkG eS r `e6rEr /2 ccrr- 4P-41`(Y. X Key Bank Building, Suite 506 10655 NE 41h Street Bellevue, WA 68004 FAX 2061646 -7875 2061482.7850 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 August 14, 1991 Walter Kaczynski Spieker Partners 915 - 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 PHONE # (206) 433.1800 RE: Tukwila Pond E.I.S. Revised Contract Cost Submitted by Ferris Co. on July 15, 1991.0>A-rel. 7/W 1N) ) Dear Walter, Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Part of our August 19th meeting is to review the contract amendment proposed by Ferris. I am attaching their letter as a basis for discussion at that meeting. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerel Vernon Umetsu, Assoc. anner OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX NUMBER: (206) 431 -3665 TO: (..)a/w DATE: /01/ TITLE: 0 FROM: COMP'S �� , jaL4L4111 TITLE: -i DEP a • MENT: ' - DEPAR D ENT: — JellvYkA-4(-0) FAX NO. 53- l(000 NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCL. THIS COVER SHEET: UA.,Liviv:/iGGiiie:wee: :w., ii.wieiv4 i..v., iiii:...., : iiieeiiiiie%∎Mwii:Nw 4i,..vivi: viii:viNi.v.•iiiiiiNrilMiww4v.i . vriviw4ii:44i vH+ emeNH .4.vNmew ",∎iiiivriv.v.4'Ave SENT BY (INITIALS): Niviveenevov v»Niii.kii.wren vi.% .:.,X» IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: '531 (07D DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Office: (206) 431 -3670 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 06/15/90 • .■.-.4.- ,....%17 5. 67,ZA/C-1{ - /6-e 4C, o ITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX NUMBER: (206) 431 -3665 TO: ..• - LiAra ,DATE: k TITLE: FROM: J /\loAl 2,-r-3-c) COMPANY: -SP/(Xlig_ PherA(0-5 TITLE: DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT: 7C),'wCC4 '.,C��, /A+%wMi:..vwi.�v •Nwi /wwSww4(/i w" w'ww(wv:.NWei< a �Q•.�� i•:.» • r FAx No4 SS - 414 S NUMBER OF PAGES SENT BY TRANSMITTED, INCL. (INITIALS): THIS COVER SHEET: /.w:..•.ww 5:v.... w:w:...::w:w::..- - ..:...:c::::.«...tw.:c.. :. ..•.:.:::rr •.. wa.: •....:.:.::...wct..y.;.:•:H. -.: a:i:.lr .r c.w: <:;w...i w: .>3c::r..wwa w >,Hra�i i... ;.::Taaa�.::i7 ::a:.ew:cw.orecw3o:«.oi w�G: • 6.)A CretrL, SelCiY Fat c•AreKesS) gut = wAKreb To '6e svxa we A cc s rAte -rte WI rKC same um) ExST/IND LNG aF rife fAGTS> (f6eArooti w >:•wvi it r:W:vv:in:rvi✓.v.v4v: :4..w.Wr::.:.::n .ni::i.: i n44,.::: Wv: vi i.. J4ii:44 4. 44: 4/i 4:: 4ni v:.. .: »v.Wi..i.....:Ww.•6i4v....A.v mnnwi/: ii. irm 'inw✓a.ve.i/..1 ”...fnmrv»fnti✓i /ivrm..Ji wsG• • IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT 43' CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: ?a . �..:. iiw. ccG..; c. c: � .:�iww:...M:w::::::,,..�.::.:w� :.,,.N.. �.. c.„, w::. w.... w,.: ui: w.: i. i::. u•,.. �,,; M.; r..[:.. �..::: �.: wiii/. cwa:. ..i.::c:.:vi:c.....�:...vc«2.iv iir.:ww�. «:iiu4vcGwG.:::r6iai cw�:w:•::i[6:[.CG:u DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Office: (206) 431-3670 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 G ? 06/15/90 • • August 5, 1991 Leslie Lloyd, Project Mgr. The Ferris Company Key Bank Building 10655 NE 4th Street Suite 506 Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: Follow -up to June 4, 1991 Meeting. Dear Leslie, This letter is confirm a series of earlier conversations between myself, you, and Jennifer Parker regarding your June 7th letter and other matters. 1. Puget Power Conduit: I visited the Bon Marche warehouse immediately south of the project site on June llth and determined that their trucks regularly drive over the Puget Power vault. It is therefore reasonable to accept the proposed driveway at the south end of 58th P1. So. which would move Bon trucks over this vault with a mitigating condition that any necessary permission from Puget Power be granted prior to issuing any building permit. (and grading permit ? ? ? ? ? ? ?) It is the applicant's responsibility to either secure such permission or demonstrate that it is not necessary. 2. Public Works Issues: a. Surface Water Mgt.: During the construction period, temporary sediment ponds and silt fences will be required. Other measures may be required as necessary to fully mitigate construction impacts on the pond and storm drainage system. Any such additional measures will depend on the proposed construction and seasonal timing. Permanent surface water management facilities will include no net change in the existing drainage patterns on or off -site (based on the project and its mitigating actions), detention on the development site prior to release into the pond or storm system and biofiltration swales per the King County Storm Water Manual prior to release into the pond. One foot of storage across all open water area (13.3 acre ft.) must be maintained to retain predevelopment flood storage/ detention capacity. The Public Works Director is confident that he has never identified the pond as a regional detention facility to the applicant, nor has it been so designated by City action. Since it is not a regional detention facility, the Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires that predevelopment flows be maintained and detention will be required prior to discharge as discussed above. b. In general, biofiltration swales require certain flow characteristics such as a maximum water depth between 2 - 4 inches and a maximum flow rate of fps. The depth requirement alone would seem to preclude the use of biofiltration swales for detention. c. The City Engineer accepted a 25 ft. roadway easement for 58th Place So. under the conditions specified in the meeting notes of 4/17/91: i. an adjacent 15 ft. sidewalk and utility easement would also be established between Strander Blvd. and So 168th St. (this may be modified based on moving the public sidewalk to the pond side of the building), ii. providing three lanes at the Strander outlet sufficient to allow for some queuing, iii. the entire road easement could be claimed by the City for public right of way at the time when it acquires land for a third lane between Strander Blvd. and So. 168th St., iv. The Strander outlet will allow only right in -- right out movements until 58th P1. is dedicated to the City for public right of way, the road is built to City ultimate design requirements and full signalization is installed at that intersection, and v. Upon acquisition of the third lane, Spieker would, at no cost to the City, shift the right of way and utility easement adjacent to the western property line. COST OF CONSTRUCTION TOO ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? i-di b_r,__THE FERRIS COMPANY July 22, 1991 Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Southcenter Phase II EIS Status Report Dear Jack: This is to update you on the status of the Southcenter Phase II EIS. As you know B- twelve Associates was retained to delineate and classify the wetlands in accordance with the new Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The Wetlands Report was sent to the City (with a copy to us) on July 17, 1991. Following issuance of the report, we met with Sue Bergemeister, president of B- twelve Associates, and the applicant to discuss the affect of the Ordinance on the applicant's plans for the site. Given the restraints on the site, Spieker Partners must now decide whether a viable project exists under the new SAO requirements. We have had no response from them on this issue, though we anticipate a decision from them soon. We will inform you of the applicant's decision regarding the project as soon as a determination is made. If you have questions or concerns, please give myself or Leslie a call. Sincerely, Je nifer Pr•ject As arker tant Key Bank Building, Suite 506 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 FAX 206/646 -7875 206/462 -7650 I 11111111111111111111 yr- rtl =o 1 _= 111111 - 11111Ie HIP _ i11V1�11111= 1111 July 17, 1991 City of Tukwila Vernon Umetsu 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Tukwila Pond Dear Vernon, B- twelve Associates, Inc. Transmitted herewith is a copy of our City of Tukwila Wetland Analysis Report for the Spieker Partners property west of Tukwila Pond. If you have any questions please call me or Susan Burgemeister at 859- 0515. Sincerely, s 1 ; r - * * ( . Esther S. Howard Senior Wetland Biologist Encl: Wetland Report cc: Jennifer Parker, Ferris Company w /enclosure \\IM JUL 171991 1 UM /VILA s. r:, +:::.: DEPT. 521 South Washington Ave. • Kent, WA 98032 • 206/859 -0515 • Fax: 206/852 -4732 / I .411Illllllllpau, _I•` � I l =u ni '�= alulllulhuiu° B- twelve Associates, Inc. TUKWILA POND CITY OF TUKWILA WETLAND ANALYSIS PREPARED FOR SPIEKER PARTNERS FERRIS COMPANY 10655 NE 4TH SUITE 506 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 BY B- TWELVE ASSOCIATES INC. 521 SOUTH WASHINGTON AVE. KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 JULY 17, 1991 JOB #91-136 521 South Washington Ave. • Kent, WA 98032 206/859-0515 •, Fax: 206/852 -4732 B- twelve Associates, Inc. TUKWILA POND CITY OF TUKWILA WETLAND ANALYSIS REPORT 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.1 Introduction B- twelve Associates, Inc. was contacted to complete the delineation of Tukwila Pond and do delineations of several small wetlands on the site. It was not part of our scope of work to determine the functions and values of the pond. The existing conditions of Tukwila Pond have been identified and reviewed in a separate report prepared by another consultant. B- twelve's responsibility was limited to the delineation of the western boundary of Tukwila Pond. The Wetland Analysis for the small wetlands include delineation as well as a determination of functions and values. Ratings have been proposed in accordance with the new Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance. 1.2 Site Description Tukwila Pond site is a 4.5 acre property located south of Southcenter in the City of Tukwila. See Exhibit A: Vicinity Map. It is proposed for commercial and retail use. The site is fairly flat, and has recently been fill graded. There is very little mature vegetation on the site. We marked a grove of trees at the south end of the site as "Mature Vegetation". See Exhibit B: Existing Conditions. The dominant species in this area are Madrona (Arbutus menziesii) and Black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa). There is also a narrow band of Red Alder (Alnus rubra) growing on the berm along the western shore of Tukwila Pond. See Data Form #2. The remainder of the site has recently been filled graded and is characterized by fast - growing weedy species tolerant of disturbed conditions. The elevation is fairly consistent throughout the site (between 19 and 20 feet). The high elevation on site is 26 feet at the west property line. Topography supplied for the base map is shown on Exhibit B: Existing Conditions. It does not appear to be consistent with the site conditions observed at the time we were on site, in that the swale area at the extreme southwest corner no longer is present. 1.3 Legal Description "LOT 4 That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, of the Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington. Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 26; 521 South Washington Ave. • Kent, WA 98032 •206/859 -0515 • Fax: 206/852 -4732 • SPIEKER PARTNERS /TUKWILA POND /OUR JOB #91 -136 B- TWELVE ASSOCIATES INC. JULY 17, 1991 PAGE 2 THENCE North 01°10' 24" East, along said West line of said Southwest quarter, 687.83 feet to a point on the line common to Lots 1 and 2 of City of Tukwila Boundary Line Adjustment No. 88 -6 -BLA as filed under King County Recording No. 8901240241; THENCE along said common line south 88° 15' 33" East, 84.69 feet; THENCE North 01° 44' 27" East, 80.00 feet; THENCE South 88° 15' 33" East, 120.00 feet; THENCE leaving said common line, South 00° 37' 46" West, 563.42 feet; THENCE South 42° 31' 00" East, 92.10 feet; THENCE South 74° 29' 23" East, 137.19 feet; THENCE South 60° 43' 09" East, 137.15 feet; THENCE South 01° 53' 17" West, 43.81 feet to the South line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 26; THENCE North 88° 06' 43" West, along said line, 527.84 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and TERMINUS of this description. TOGETHER WITH and SUBJECT TO any easements and reservations of record." Legal description per Barghausen Engineers, Inc. 1.4 Land Use The site is currently vacant, and has recently been filled and graded. Tukwila Pond lies to the east of the property. Properties to the south, north, and west include retail stores, light industry and office space. 2.0 FIELD METHODS Esther Howard and Irita Fitch marked the wetland boundaries on June 19, and 24, 1991. A combination of field indicators (including vegetation, soils, topography, and hydrology) were used to determine wetland edges, according to criteria outlined in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation 1989). Each point on the edge was marked with lime glow and blue flagging or surveyor's stakes and numbered sequentially. The points were subsequently surveyed by Barghausen Engineers. See Exhibit B: Existing Conditions. Please note that professional interpretation of the wetland edge may vary depending on seasonal differences and long -term climatic conditions (i.e. drought). 3.0 OBSERVATIONS Wetland A The west edge of Tukwila Pond was delineated as Wetland A. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service system of wetland classification, this is a Palustrine Excavated and Impounded Open Water wetland (POWHx). There is a narrow band of Swamp Smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides), Pacific Willow ( Salix lasiandra) and Sitka Willow (Salix sitchensis) along the water's edge. Scrub -shrub and Emergent plant communities occur at the southwest corner of the pond. The dominant species in this area are Willow ( Salix spp.) and Cattail (7ypha latifolia). These plant communities are classified as Palustrine Broad -leaf Deciduous Scrub -shrub (PSS1) and Palustrine Persistent Emergent (PEM1), respectively. SPIEKER PARTNERS /TUKWILA POND /OUR JOB #91 -136 B- TWELVE ASSOCIATES INC. JULY 17, 1991 PAGE 3 Wetland A has been inventoried by the City of Tukwila and National Wetlands Inventory. See Exhibit D: National Wetlands Inventory. The area delineated as Line D is part of Wetland A. It is a narrow watercourse located at the extreme south end of the property which appears to have been an inlet to Tukwila Pond. Our observation is that the inlet may have been partially filled. Flag D -1 was placed at the west end of the existing swale. See Exhibit B: Existing Conditions., There was up to 6 inches of standing water present in this area at the time of the delineation. It is characterized by a - Scrub-shrub plant community dominated by Willow ( Salix spp.) and Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus procerus). Wetland B Wetland B is a small (2,142 square feet) emergent wetland located near the western edge of Tukwila Pond. See Exhibit B: Existing Conditions. It lies in a trough created by fill to the west and a berm to the east. The dominant species is Tapered Rush (Juncus acuminatus), with subordinate species being Soft Rush (Juncus efusus) and Creeping Spike Rush (Eleocharis palustris). Also present are Velvetgrass (Holcus sp.), Water Plantain (Alisma plantago- aquatica), and several saplings of Oregon Ash (Fraxinus latifolia). The soil is a silty clay loam. Inundation was shallow (1/4 to 1/2 inch deep) and patchy at the time of the delineation. Wetland C Wetland C is a 3,211 square foot emergent wetland south of Wetland B near western edge of Tukwila Pond. It is characterized by Foxtail Grass (Alopecurus sp.), Soft Rush (Juncus efj`usus), and Creeping Buttercup (Ranunculus repens). The soil in Wetland C is a dark greenish gray (5GY4 /1) clay. Signs of hydrology include matted vegetation and gleyed soils:. There was no saturated soil or inundation at the time the fieldwork was conducted in mid - June;:..:. of 1991. See Data Form #5. Wetland E Wetland E is a disturbed scrub -shrub and emergent wetland near the south property line. The dominant species are Hardback (Spirea douglasii) and Silica Willow (Salix sitchensis) in the scrub -shrub zone in the southern part of the wetland. The northwest portion of the wetland is characterized by an emergent plant community dominated by Soft Rush (Juncus effusus), Creeping Spikerush ( Eleocharis palustris), and Curly Dock. (Rumex crispus). Also present were Meadow Foxtail (Alopecurus geniculatus) and Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea). The soil in this area was the same as that found throughout the site: a dark greenish -gray (5GY4 /1) clay. We observed indicators that the wetland is unundated earlier in the growing season such as matted and water - stained leaves. 3.2 Soils Soils on the site area mapped as Urban Land (Ur). See Exhibit C: Soils. Soil" pits dug throughout the site revealed a dark greenish gray (5GY4 /1) silty clay. 3.3 Hydrology Wetland A (Tukwila Pond) is an artificially created (excavated and impounded) pond controlled by pumping and outlet control to maintain flood storage. According to Barghausen.:: Engineers, the pond surface was at 14.84 feet on June 26, 1991. The other wetlands on site have no inlets or outlets and appear to receive water from precipitation. The clay soil prevents percolation into the ground water. • SPIEKER PARTNERS /TUKWILA POND /OUR JOB #91 -136 B- TWELVE ASSOCIATES INC. JULY 17, 1991 PAGE 4 4.0 PROPOSED IMPACTS TO WETLAND AND BUFFER AREA Tukwila Pond (Wetland A) has been inventoried by the City of Tukwila and National Wetlands Inventory. According to the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance, Wetland A is a Type 1 wetland requiring a 100 foot Sensitive Area Buffer. Exhibit B: Existing Conditions shows a 50 foot buffer for Wetland A. Our understanding is that the buffer reduction from 100 feet has been approved with the provision that the buffer will be enhanced. Wetlands B, C, and E do not appear on National Wetlands Inventory maps. Because each is under an acre, they would be considered' Type 3 wetlands under the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Type 3 wetlands require a 25 foot Sensitive Area Buffer as is shown on Exhibit B: Existing Conditions. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call us at 859 -0515. Sincerely, ,/T S. Apv-0-60( . Esther S. Howard Senior Wetlands Biologist Susan L Preside t urgem - ister EXHIBIT A : Vicinity Map B- twelve Associates, Inc. Ecological Systems Design & Management Note: 1. Base maps per Barghausen Surveys dated 8-3-89, 11-5-90, 11-5-89 2. Wetlands flagged by B-twelve, Barghausen Survey 6-26-91 3. Wetland Area A: By others Wetland Area B: 2,142 sq. ft. Wetland Area C: 3,211 sq. ft. • Wetland Area D: Part of A Wetland Area E: 4,641 sq. ft. Ecological Systems Design & Management Ecological Systems Design & Management EXHIBIT D : National Wetlands Inventory Map Ecological Systems Design & Management SPIEKER PARTNERS /TUKWILA POND /Job #91 -136 B- TWELVE ASSOCIATES INC. JULY 17, 1991 PAGE 5 - REFERENCES REFERENCES Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS /OBS- 79 -31, Washington, D. C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y -87 -1. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. (Cooperative technical publication). Hitchcock, C. and A. Cronquist. 1976. "Flora of the Pacific Northwest." University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. ,Munsell Color. 1988. "Munsell Soil Color Charts." Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. National Geographic Books. 1983. "Field Guide to the Birds of North America." National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. Reed, P., Jr. 1988. "National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1988. Washington." U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Inland. Freshwater Ecology Section, St. Petersburg, Florida. Snyder, D.,P. Gale, and R. Pringle. 1973. "Soil Survey King County Area Washington." U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Steward, A. , L. Dennis, and H. Gilkey. 1963. "Aquatic Plants of the Pacific Northwest." Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. SPIEKER PARTNERS /TUKWILA POND /Job #91 -136 B- TWELVE ASSOCIATES INC. JULY 17, 1991 PAGE 6 - PLANTS Trees PLANTS OBSERVED AT TUKWILA POND Acer inacrophyllum Alnus rubra Fraxinus latifolia Populus balsamifera Shrubs Herbs Berberis nervosa Corpus stolonifera Cytisus spp. Gaultheria shallon Ilex aquifolium Oemleria cerasiformis Rubus discolor = procerus Rubus laciniatus Salix sitchensis Salix lasiandra Sambucus racemosa Spiraea douglasii Symphoricarpos albus Alisma plantago - aquatica Galium spp. Polygonum hydropiperoides Ranunculus repens Rumex crispus Solanum dulcamara, Tolmiea menziesii Trifolium spp. 7ypha latifolia Urtica dioica Sedges /Rushes /Grasses /Ferns Alopecurus spp. Eleocharis palustris Equisetum arvense Juncus acuminatus Juncus bufonius Juncus effusus Phalaris arundinacea Polystichum munitum Pteridium aquilinum Big Leaf Maple Red Alder Oregon Ash Black Cottonwood Cascade Oregongrape Red Osier Dogwood Broom Salal European Holly Indian Plum Himalayan Blackberry Evergreen Blackberry Sitka Willow Pacific Willow Red Elderberry Hardhack Snowberry Water Plantain Bedstraw Marsh Smartweed Creeping Buttercup Curly Dock Bittersweet Nightshade Piggy -back Plant Clover Cattail Stinging Nettle Foxtail Grass Creeping Spikerush Field Horsetail Tapered Rush Toad Rush Soft Rush Reed Canary Grass Sword Fern Bracken Fern DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Investigator(s): r /4i/A. .1 Date: Project/Site. Twk v741 State: WA County: Applicant/Owner: S ; tom- Plant Community #/Name• d Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a 244 i-urra /99/ /4H,, lG Tiro /�> ' f0 U field notebo k. Do norm9! environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes / No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, ;soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No ✓ (If yes, explain on back) Dominant Plant Species Indicator Status 1. .Sa ix Sill lAto,i,n FAr�) 2. 9 -y� kM h++drI ;re, roides IT131- 3. So (a 0/ VA AAA r A/W m t A 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. VEGETATION Stratum Dominant Plant Species —..L_ 11. A 12. V/.i— 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18 19 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC /la Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes VNo Rationale: /D D °%a rc Series/phase: Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Matrix Color: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes _ Rationale: SOILS Indicator Status Stratum o2/ o(G7444'Kftli✓ Subgroup•2 No Undetermined l� Histic epipedon present? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No Mottle Colors- No 7;7 luur/k HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes t/ No Surface water depth. Is the soil saturated? Yes . / No Depth to free- standing water in pit/soil probe hole. • fr //i List other flail ev�' en�c�e of sIrfac8 inundation or soil saturation. -lyre 4P75 bv7VAPi -Vff a/1CW oo(�L 13 the wetland hydrology criterion mi't? Yes !/ No Rationale. . D vv a t:,c _ fr• r 7��.+ti�C (Pe GO if x) JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No Rationale fOr'jurisdictional decision. 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' B -2 Gj DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 • Field Investigators) e5 / �l�rGf Project/Site: v�w�'lo+ i Dt Date. /%.T�1/- /i // APP State: v!�� County /; hi r Applicant/Owner: -So% te a^ Plant Community 0/Name. 2 Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field noteboo Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes ✓ No (tf yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 2. 4/4144 4 —roc, •f%AC, 4. °i 54: c.eol 1%4GV' 5. 8. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Percent of dominant spedes that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC la the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes ✓ No Rationale: %v Se ries/phase • + Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? Yes Is the soil: Mottled? Yes Matrix Color: Shy /I/- Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Rationale* SOILS Subgroup•2 Yes No ✓ Undetermined No ✓ Histic eplpedon present? Yes No /....---. No ✓ Gleyed? Yes r/ No Mottle Colors: Yes 1✓ No HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No V-Surface water depth. Is the soil saturated? Yes No ✓ Depth to free - standing water in pit/soil probe hole. /yrY list other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No ,/ Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No Rationale for'jurisdictional decision. t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' B -2 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Investigator(s): Est h ''AI( 66- Ava' Date: Project/Slte: State: AM County• Applicant/Owner: 3p-l'e . rO1^- Plant Community #blame• Note: tf a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a /f .Tung. /99/ field notebook. Do normal environme tai conditions exist at the plant community? Yes No V (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes ✓ No (If yes, explain on back) Dominant Plant Species i ,*i u4 ,t%t ,444,iaMA . , T� u�N. s et4A -ur. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Indicator Status Stratum 034 --` 44. VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species 11. 12. 13 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/oyFAC Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes V No Rationale: /o- Indicator Status Stratum l qo / �ACtRJ o1 01- SOILS Series/phase• %, 6ai Subgroup.2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes - No V Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No •/ Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Y s No ✓Gleyed? Yes No �- MaVa Color: s-6"Y `/r Mottle Colors. Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes ✓ No Rationale' Uiit.r4r-+ -...— v�( / HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes ✓ No Surface water depth. Is the sod saturated? Yes No Depth to free - standing water in pit/soil probe hole. List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. N Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes ✓ No Rationale• l i' G�� hr ,�r p s JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes ✓ No Rationale for jurisdictional decision. 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' B -2 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Feld Investigator(s)• Es /f' -/t / Date* Project/Site• v���I`� "rte ' State: %'hf County: /c T . ,7 Applicant/Owner: S reA', /a-41-71.« Plant Community ii/Name Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. •?/ Do normal environm ntal conditions exist at the plant community? Yes No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes .( /No (if yes, explain on back) 4reA It/c..1 L - -- VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. 1 v4ntriL$ Ptc24 aarr caws - 0 L 4, 11 2. 111 ,.AAA,c5- s'etti;ra)a.fn5 4 tik 12. 3 ,jaitrtal4 ekm.y.,,A)e A CI,Jr .. 13. 4. ffPh1T/GtOt ar:a`pofv417:n OBL 14. 5. 15 8. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18 9. 19 10. 20 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/oj FAC Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes ,/ No Rationale: /U D % 0 ,n QBL SOILS Series/phase: Subgroup•2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No ✓ Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No / /Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes Ng Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: sb' ��/ rct . , Mottle colors. Other hydric soil indicators: (V- —No the hydric soil criterion met? Yes r/ No Rationale* / HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No it . Depth to free - standing water in pit/soil probe hole. r431 -- Llst other field evideoce of surface inundation or soil saturation. v^nott'fCA v,'rC Gt irn . 5t? (vamr lYttpeti f5 Is the wetland hydrology crrterion mej? yes / No Rationale* 11 G )ti¢Q < istrdr 5413 DD p JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes / No Rationale for jurisdictional decision. 31R P 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classiflcatlon according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' B -2 Field Investigators Project/Slte• Applicant/Owner: Note: If a more data DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHODI l ct;t�� ✓ F"•,,41 Date. State: War County:. ". " �^^ �"�`'L° Plant Community #/Name• 4f3 4 ed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environm ntal conditions exist at the plant community? Yes No ti (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes V No (tf yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum RAu id ri f,t, 11 2. % 12 3 _ 13. 4. 14. 5. 15. 6 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No ✓ �A �y�- Rationale: )d l -ta'.P vWI r 4 G O L U�e/ Indicator �� SOILS Series/phase• Subgroup• 2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No ✓ Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No +/liistic epipedon present? Yes No _� Is the soil:. Mottled? ?'e..JT N o Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: .5- 4 Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes ,/-- No Rationale: HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Viurface water depth. Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free - standing water In pit/soil probe hole List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No r/ Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No Rationale for jurisdictional decision. ► P " . f a h A41 4 4 , ( 7 8 1 0 - r r " ( 4 . / Q ' k a - I f 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' B -2 1 • DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Investigator(s): / r'-(G< ( ' ' %'QJ Data 2`/- 714A^.,e /f l/ Project/Slte• T% W7 i/ State: County K ha (6 07 To/Aar/4., ) Applicant/Owner: <,*' Plant Community #/Name• 4-ti :nt/r4,►D o 4 crz9N E J Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes No 1/ (if no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes /No (if yes, explain on back) fwd 1/ VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum f,�cW 1��,44v6 tt. 2. ; AAs ofu .)50 12. 3. a aiL"narCo E4 (AA /t44 ti 13. 4. 14. 5. 15. 8. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19 10. 20 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC /01) Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No Rationale: /o o °A, 1. c5a �X htlit(.aGo Series/phase• d Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No Is the soil: Mottle? Yes No Matrix Color r a, s-G. Y r Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes Rationale* SOILS Subgroup•2 No ✓ Undetermined /,Histic epipedon present? Yes No / ✓ Gleyed? Yes No 77" Mottle Colors: ✓ No HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No ;----Surface water depth: NP. 13 the soil saturated? Yes No —. Depth to free - standing water in pit/soil probe hole. /d /4 List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. at,a.ttird 14,-01/51.T -- Rl- l'.rfi( A2.ais'.' Is the wetland hydro y� criterion met? Yes. t/ No y, Rationale: �Yri s or.,, .1i n, r,, •v�l� rr -Q x.,.41`— "P.444:e -V IA, Ai- '2vt's- o Gr O JURISDICTIONAL/DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes 1 No Rationale for jurisdictional decision. S•eGLao' -+. • 1.This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' B -2 • DATA FORM � ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Investigator(s): s/ i ' 0( 0- /'e Date' Z L7-10+ -E /tf/ if- Project/Slte• -•r • allot Stater_. County f1 ( Chi of Tukw0`t't) Applicant/Owner: -- '' ,k 74446,--1-1-0 Plant Community it/Name- .*7 onegrt ap of 1„1E72 -/ ND Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? '°`-- 40t, Yes No V (if no, explain on back) 1 age vegetation, Has the getation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly ? G� Yes ✓ No (11 yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. .7Gt"4'r..4 t'S e/i r4,°-U`° mCrn1 6t'4) 11. 2 E/P OTA a u.4 ,4,41 -S OBc .L 12. 3. Ivwi ei, Cr4 ! -3 F4Cx-J 4 . /' 13. 4. / 14. 5. 15. 6. 16 7. 17. 8 18. 9. 19. 10. 20 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/orzFAC / Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes / No _ Rationale; /a-7) (j�4Gt�Jer)OBL SOILS Series/phase: Subgroup-2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No t/ Undetermined . . Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No ,/ Histic epipedon present? Yes / No Is the soil: Mottle¢? Yes No -V- Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: c " 5.-777— Mottle Colors: N/A Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes ,/ No Rationale' o% / -HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes V No Surface water depth: / / k Is the soil saturated? Yes No . Depth to free - standing water in pit/soil probe hole- List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes ✓ No Rationale: 5 /�� ti. a .� p .�.t 1� 1444-11 C/i e- -G... Sea-4-0>s_ U JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND TIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No Rationale for jurisdictional decision. 3 Gt�L6'�yrtOGt}a lNt.` 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' B -2 July 11, 1991 Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Tukwila Pond Phase II Contract Budget Dear Jack: It' d V6t\:-J1 \iuLi-1 ,,? � ,. v: - UrowNwLA T. This is to follow -up on our telephone conversation last week about the budget and status of payment on the Tukwila Pond Phase II EIS. As you will recall, we are still in the Preliminary Draft EIS Phase of the Contract, with a Budget (including November, 1990 amendment of $9,282.00) of $45,297.00. According to the Contract, payment is by milestones; the next milestone will be publication of the Draft EIS. The last milestone and payment we received on this project occurred on September 19, 1990; payment was for submittal of the PDEIS (see payment summary in Attachment). In the intervening nine and one -half months, we have not been compensated for any work done on this phase of the Contract. Also, we have been unable to pay suppliers for work completed in support of the Draft EIS, causing hardships for these suppliers. The purpose of this letter is to summarize project accounting, update the budget and costs, and request payment for services rendered. Summary We submitted the second version of the Preliminary Draft EIS on March 12, 1991, in response to your comments of October 9, 1990. At the time we submitted the second PDEIS, we assumed that fully responding to your October comments would lead to publication of the document, the next milestone in the Contract. However, on May 7, 1991, when the March 12 version of the document was returned, we learned that significant new amounts of work, including revising alternatives, revising graphics, and other items which were not previously identified, would be required. On May 24, 1991, we learned that adoption of the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance was imminent and that the entire project and all alternatives would need to be revised to comply. We met in your offices on June 4, 1991, to discuss the effect of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance on the project site. At that meeting it was concluded that a new wetlands specialist would be retained to delineate and classify the wetlands as directed by Key Bank Building, Suite 506 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 FAX 206/646 -7875 206/462 -7650 the new Ordinance. In retrospect, applying the SAO to this project, together with the City's other changes identified in early May, essentially means that an entirely new Preliminary Draft EIS is now required. Accounting During the month of May, we spent $1,208.01 of the budget attempting to organize the City's comments, identifying team responsibilities for handling responses, coordinating with City staff regarding clarifications, coordinating with the applicant and architect regarding feasibility of project revisions, and initiating revisions to the document as requested in the City's May 7, 1991, transmittal and notes. The resulting percentage of completion of the Contract budget for this phase of work at the end of May was 92.8 percent. During the month of June, we spent $2,328.63 of the budget coordinating the work of B- twelve Associates, the new wetland specialist (contacting the specialist, obtaining qualifications, coordinating with applicant and City staff about retaining consultant, defining scope of work, scheduling and monitoring field work, following up with consultant regarding schedule for completing report); coordinating with the survey crew (scheduling field work, obtaining completed ,. survey); as well as coordinating with City staff (including staff wetlands specialist in working with B- twelve Associates); the project architect, regarding site planning issues; and the applicant, regarding directly hiring wetlands specialist, and site planning issues (see Attachment for breakdown). The resulting percentage of completion of the Contract budget as of the end of June is 97.98 percent, with 2.02 percent remaining. Although revisions to the Draft EIS have been essentially on hold since mid -May, we have continued to incur professional labor time and expense costs on the project. These costs have been incurred in responding to the City's comments on the March 12, 1991 PDEIS, as well as reviewing and applying the SAO to the site. Due to uncertainty over the full scope of work now required and whether the proponent will continue with the project once the new limitations are identified, these costs have been applied against our original budget amount plus the amendment ($45,297). However, we believe that the majority of these costs are in fact extra services under our Contract. It is our belief that approximately 80 percent of the charges incurred in May and June (or $2,852.89) are in fact beyond the scope of services identified in the Contract as they are not of the nature of revisions or clarifications of completed work or prior comments. Therefore, we are submitting herewith an invoice for Extra Services to cover the extra costs incurred since early May, 1991. • • Also shown in this invoice is the Amendment authorized in November, 1990, for work which has been completed but for which we have recived no payment; the amount of the Amendment is $9,282.00, for a total amount due of $12,134.89. The report of the new wetlands specialist (B- twelve Associates) is due July 16, 1991. When that report is complete, we will meet with the applicant to identify the effect of the Ordinance on the plans, then await their response. We would anticipate that Spieker Partners could decide soon if they wish to proceed with the project under the new Ordinance. If they decide to pursue the project by revising it to comply with the new Ordinance and all other constraints, then we will be able to prepare a complete scope and budget amendment for revising and resubmitting another Preliminary Draft EIS. If the sponsor decides not to pursue the project, then the remainder of the contract budget actually spent will be due. As we discussed on the telephone, The Ferris Company is concerned about being fully compensated for the costs expended to -date if the project sponsor decides not to pursue the project. We also are concerned about maintaining solid working relationships beyond this project with our suppliers, most of whom have gone six months or more without compensation. Given the delays and uncertainty involved in this project, we feel it is entirely appropriate to seek payment at this time. Please call me if you have any questions. I look forward to your answer. Leslie Lloyd Director, Environmental Services Program LAL:slw Attachment ATTACHMENT Original Contract Amount Amendment Payment Summary Payment #1 (Contract Authorization) 15 percent of Original Contract Amount Invoiced May 4, 1990 Paid in Full June 6, 1990 Payment #2 (Preliminary Draft Acceptance) 50 percent of Original Contract Amount Invoiced August 21, 1990 Paid in Full September 19, 1990 Summary of Activity (May through June): Mayl Professional Labor Blumen Lloyd Parker Word Processing 0 1,093.75 90.00 0 Subtotal $1,183.75 Expenses Subconsultant Labor Copy /Printing /Delivery Graphics Other Reimbursables Subtotal 0 24.26 0 0 • Total June 0 906.25 1,361.25 0 $2,267.50 0 34.20 0 26.93 24.26 61.13, Total $1,208.01 $2,328.63 GRAND TOTAL $3,536.64 $36,015.00 9,282.00 $45,297.00 $ 5,402.25 $18,007.50 Includes costs typically attributable to organizing City comments and therefore within usual costs; 56.6 percent of May costs (first two weeks of month, or $683.75) con- sidered typically attributable and within Contract Budget; therefore, remaining amount of May and June are considered extra services, or $2,852.89. INVOICE City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Invoice No.: 1021 Job No.: 3910 Date: July 11, 1991 This invoice covers services for the November 1990 Contract Amendment and for Extra Services on Tukwila Pond Phase II EIS through June 30, 1991. These services included: coordinating with City staff regarding clarification of comments; coordinating with applicant and architect regarding project feasibility; contacting new wetland specialist; obtaining specialist's qualifications; working with City staff and applicant about retaining consultant; defining scope of wetlands work; scheduling and monitoring field work; schedule survey field work and mapping; and overall project management. Contract Amendment (November, 1990) $ 9,282.00 Extra Services (May and June, 1991) 2,852.89 TOTAL DUE $12,134.89 chael J. B en Vice President Key Bank Building, Suite 506 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 FAX 206/646 -7875 206/462 -7650 OieN 4)4c4--s- F�K To-rroak etico4. OA*A..et.e Trt-e (A:KJ-R.-N-4-0e C...4---001-■-- cew4tof ette_e.4,t9e C. 7 • AA44.7- g- ce€A(A. Ca±-eav-aepa LAf,(„A4,) eetv-e40-e Jf-t AL4t,eee fP-t, de-Lt. 440.42a.4-- _,,C41‘ (—*_e;—.1-ta?) 1 v �� • !TI 1 ,4\ I c:t 1 • (4 C) • C oar r'l 6-1v DA 7 i O nl ,)2_08,01 e..ad-a.-e-Pew , • • T; .ja_/4-P4 MEMORANDUM TO: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner - DCD FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist - DCD DATE: July 1, 1991 SUBJECT: Additional wetland review for Tukwila Pond EIS On June 19, 1991, I met with representatives from The Ferris Company and B -12 Associates on the Tukwila Pond site. The purpose of the meeting was to coordinate additional wetland delineation and analysis requested by the City of Tukwila. The initial task to be completed will be an accurate wetland boundary for the pond, isolated wetland areas, and the associated drainage corridor. Based on the map generated from this delineation, potential impacts can be determined for compensatory mitigation and enhancement. Several important comments and ideas were discussed and are listed below. 1) A suggestion was made that the lowland area directly west of the Pond may have been constructed for a biofiltration swale at the time the most recent fill was added across the site. Documentation of that fill was requested by B -12 Associates. 2 3 The drainage corridor along the site's south boundary is connected to the Tukwila pond /wetland may be assessed as a regulated watercourse area. This area does have a well - defined and deep channel which conveys surface water. Another significant question is whether the small wetlands, existing directly west of the Pond, are actually associated and influenced by a groundwater connection. We observed fairly wet conditions in these wetlands during this site visit. In summary, even if the recent fill was a permitted activity, I doubt the area separating the Pond from the fill is a constructed swale. If it is a designed swale then those wetlands formed within it could be defined as "constructed" and, therefore, non - regulated. Recent rainfall, subsurface hydrology, or both may be influencing the small wetlands that are assumed to be isolated. I anticipate some research results or comments from B -12 on this matter. C11Y TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF C�MUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX NUMBER: (206) 431 -3665 TO: • I-St(' L DATE: /`8 7.,,,?, . �� TITLE: FROM: -�7U -c/\C O/ut'e 7-3- C2 K COMPANY: Ff el-5 Ca - TITLE: - DEPARTMENT: , m... u.._.... ........, ..,.. .... ...7•,....fr.� T .. .. , ..,,..,.,......_ .._.. DEPARTMENT: 7vKwtc..4 C (� ��....m. FAX NO. ;I-CI-C- 787S " NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCL. THIS COVER SHEET: SENT BY (INITIALS): »t_ ii51i(ri3:v rmfSi4Whv:iW.riK4wti n• w:.. Ar•. :n /.ii nLa 6mx +isi6iAiirWeASZVAIi tfii6141,:i6i*A4,i .nMit➢DVW >:r./i/6v- . vYi41ivri: i` iiir•'iAp.•iLFiW'•.viie%:rw.x:. •'.I4,44i944 IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED. PLEASE CALL: �ri2A(o, ()Ate- cro 4-1 I-3c 8� DEPARTMENT OF COM1 MUN17 Y1Vl DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 Office: (206) 431 -3670 08/15/90 ,A Ln1�,__THE FERRIS COMPANY DATE: June 12, 1991 TO: Vernon Umetsu City of Tukwila FROM: Jennifer M. Parke The Ferris Compa MEMORANDUM RE: Southcenter Plaza Ph. e II Wetland Delineation As discussed in our meeting of June 4, 1991, the current wetland delineation is insufficient for design purposes. It was proposed that a new wetlands consultant be contracted to delineate the wetlands on the site. The scope of work that would be necessary per the City of Tukwila is as follows: DELINEATION Delineation and flagging of the wetland edge on the western boundary of Tukwila pond; Delineation and flagging of the wetland area in the southwest corner of the site (which is associated with and considered part of the pond); - Delineation and flagging of several small, isolated wetlands between the edge of the pond and the edge of the fill. WRITE -UP Date of field survey and methodology used for delineating wetlands; Classification of the wetlands per the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance; Number and size of isolated wetlands; Map indicating the location and relative size of the isolated wetlands and the edge of the wetland associated with the pond (including the area in the southwest corner); - Field data sheets to substantiate findings. - Ac,c. WAFTS ►NAC. j 4P R,TV SOAKK,C, re- Sere? 7- okci.)c -LA � -.b. kr. -r Information regarding the vegetation and habitat value was�aeeeme�K�ce ss ary i y the City of Tukwila as it has been adequately covered in the report submitted by IES Associates (previous wetlands consultant). B- twelve Associates has been chosen to delineate the wetlands on the project site. Resumes for those individuals involved with the field survey /report writing for the project are attached. In an effort to expedite the delineation process, B- twelve Associates will be contracting directly with Spieker Partners. We would appreciate your signature confirming approval by the City of Tukwila. Vernon Umetsu City of Tukwila Planning Department cc: Walter Kaczynski Glenn Amster Susan Bergemeister .6 48/9( Date JUN 13 1991 C!TY ufCI uKVViLA Pi.A rtmu , G DFPT. Key ank Building, Suite 506 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 FAX 206/646 -7875 206/462 -7650 ESTHER SARAH HOWARD Senior Wetlands Biologist Ms. Howard is the Senior Wetlands Biologist at B- twelve Associates, Inc. She has primary responsibility for wetland delineation and determination, and preparation of reports for regulatory review. She also assists in the design of wetland mitigation and enhancement projects. She has five years of experience in the determination, delineation and inventory of freshwater wetlands in the Puget Trough. As a team member, Ms. Howard has inventoried wetlands in Thurston,. Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. She was the lead biologist for the Hood Canal Coordinating Council in 1989, and was responsible for training and supervising volunteers in a wetlands inventory of selected watersheds in Jefferson, Mason, and Kitsap Counties. She has expertise in plant identification, vegetation mapping, and aerial photo interpretation. Ms. Howard is a graduate of the Evergreen State College with a concentration in Environmental Studies. She has completed the training course in "Jurisdictional Delineation of Wetlands in the Pacific Northwest" conducted by the National Wetlands Science Training Cooperative. In addition to her knowledge and experience with palustrine wetland systems, Ms. Howard has studied marine and estuarine ecology on the east and west coasts and in the Hawaiian Islands. She is familiar with the ecology of rocky intertidal areas, salt marsh, coral reef, plankton, and eelgrass beds. ESTHER SARAH HOWARD Senior Wetlands Biologist EXPERIENCE Current WETLANDS BIOLOGIST, B- twelve Associates,Inc., Kent, WA. Identify and delineate wetlands, using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers criteria. Assist in design of wetland restoration and enhancement projects. 1989 WETLANDS BIOLOGIST, Hood Canal Coordinating Council, Port Orchard, WA. Inventoried wetlands in three watersheds along Hood Canal. Trained and supervised volunteers. 1988 WETLANDS FIELD TECHNICIAN, Snohomish County Water Resources, Everett, WA. Conducted inventory of palustrine wetlands. Assessed and measured wetland boundaries. Identified wetland plants, soils, and hydrology. 1988 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICIAN, Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. Analyzed intertidal ecosystems for distribution, species, composition and biomass of vegetation. Participated in developing protocol for monitoring nearshore habitats of Puget Sound. Trained and supervised volunteers. 1987 -88 WETLANDS FIELD TECHNICIAN, Pierce County Planning and Development, Tacoma, WA. Conducted inventory of palustrine wetlands. Analyzed aerial photographs for wetland boundaries. Visited field sites and wrote descriptive reports. 1986 FIELD TECHNICIAN, Thurston Regional Planning and Development, Olympia, WA. Inventoried selected wetlands in Thurston County. Visited field sites, assessed and measured boundaries. Transferred measurements onto aerial photos and assessor's maps. 1982 TEACHING ASSISTANT, Oatland Island Education Center, Savannah, GA. Assisted with and taught classes in Salt Marsh Ecology, Marine Biology, and Endangered Species to school children. Conducted an in- service workshop on marine invertebrates. Participated in the care of captive wild animals. EDUCATION 1990 Training course in "Jurisdictional Delineation of Wetlands in the Pacific Northwest ", National Wetlands Science Training Cooperative, Bellevue, WA. 1987 Bachelor of Science with a concentration in Environmental Studies, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA. AWARDS 1987 The Evergreen State College Student Humanitarian Service Award SUSAN L. BURGEMEISTER Land Use Planner Mrs. Burgemeister is President of B- twelve Associates, Inc. and is a senior land use consultant. Her experience includes land use planning, land use permit processing and construction coordination. She has extensive experience with the preparation and implementation of land use policies, ordinances, and community plans. She has been the primary author for a subdivision code. She routinely coordinates citizen involvement in development projects. Activities include meeting in citizens homes, coordinating community meetings, and maintaining correspondence contact with neighbors and neighborhood associations. She was a technical advisor to King County for the review of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance as a member of the Design Professionals committee of the Seattle Master Builders. Mrs. Burgemeister serves as a citizen advisor to the King County Soos Creek Community Plan Update. She was also a member of the Technical Advisory Committee to Snohomish County for review of the Road Standards Ordinance. She reviewed and provided in -put to proposed Washington State Wetlands Legislation. Mrs. Burgemeister also manages wetland and wildlife studies for proposed developments including identification, protection, mitigation, and restoration plans. She is experienced in coordinating applications with environmental, zoning, and engineering requirements for development adjacent to wetlands and streams. Her expertise also includes the conceptual design of storm water, sanitary sewer, water and road systems for land development projects. 1984 - Present 1971 -1983 1966 -1970 SUSAN L. BURGEMEISTER Land Use Planner EXPERIENCE PRESIDENT, B- twelve Associates, Inc., Kent, WA Consultant to land developers including project management, permit processing, feasibility studies, agency coordination, annexation petitions, and land use issues. Manage wetland studies for proposed developments including identification, protection, and restoration plans. Coordinate applicant, environmental, zoning, and engineering requirements for development adjacent to the wetlands. Coordinate citizen involvement; member of citizen advisory committee to County; review and comment on sensitive areas ordinances and legislation. PROJECT MANAGER Managed residential and commercial subdivision projects. Supervised planners, engineers, and surveyors through all aspects of project design, review, approval, and construction. Represented developer at public hearings, citizen's meetings, agency design reviews, and during construction. Processed Army Corps of Engineers permits; prepared and administered federal, municipal, and private construction contracts; was company liaison for industry- related local legislation. ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN Design and drafting of storm water, sanitary sewer, water, and road systems for subdivision projects. Computation of cut and fill quantities for highway projects. Responsible for computing and preparation of legal descriptions. EDUCATION 1976 B.A: Land Use Planning, emphasis on urban planning with minor in urban civil engineering; University of Maryland, 1976. 1974 -1978 Land Surveyors' licensing program, two years of three year program, State of Maryland, 1974 -1978. 1965 -1968 Geology, three years, emphasis on civil engineering and cartography; University of Idaho, 1965 -1968. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS 1989 Member: Society of Women Engineers, Soos Creek Community Plan Update (Citizens' Advisory Committee), Kent Chamber of Commerce. 1987 Design Professionals Expo '87: "Wetlands & Land Developers ". Presented workshop on protection of wetlands. 1982 Guest Instructor: Land Surveyors' Pre - license course "Subdivision Plat Approval Requirements and Processes in Washington ", 1982. 1981 Chair: Technical Seminar, Land Surveyors Association of Washington, 1981. "Management of Survey Contracts." • • TERRY D. SULLIVAN . Environmental Planner Mr. Sullivan is an Environmental Landscape Planner for B- twelve Associates, Inc. and manages the analysis, design, implementation, and monitoring of wetland mitigation, . restoration,-and enhancement projects. Mr. Sullivan is experienced in the design and management of environmentally sensitive areas, environmental inventory and analysis, wetland determination, park and subdivision master planning, recreational planning, mining reclamation, regulatory planning documents, and cost estimating. Mr. Sullivan has worked on a wide range of projects in both Oregon and Washington. Mr. Sullivan has developed the evaluation criteria for tree replacement mitigation due to development and determined historic construction impacts on wetland systems. Mr. Sullivans' experience with site development procedures, construction techniques, and jurisdictional requirements allow him to produce a product that both satisfies the needs of the development while responding to the concerns of environmentally sensitive areas. TERRY D. SULLIVAN Environmental Planner EXPERIENCE Current PROJECT MANAGER, B- twelve Associates, Inc., Kent, WA. Wetland determination restoration, and enhancement, design site planning. 1990 -91 PROJECT MANAGER, David Evans and Associates, Inc., Bellingham, WA. Environmental analysis, wetland restoration. 1989 -90 PROJECT MANAGER, David Evans and Associates, Inc., Bellevue, WA. Wetland and stream restoration and enhancement, design site planning, recreation design. 1984 -89 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNER/PLANNER, David Evans and Associates, Inc., Portland, OR. Wetland determination, restoration, and enhancement, master planning, site planning and design, planning reports, mining reclamation, engineering design and drafting. 1984 LANDSCAPE DESIGNER, James Walsh and Associates, Vancouver, WA. Planting and irrigation design and drafting. EDUCATION 1984 Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, CumLaude, University of Oregon PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS . American Society of Landscape Architects, Member Northwest Ecological Research Institute, Associate, past Board Member C., \(((&J M cfrs'T MEMORANDUM To: Ron Cameron From: Vernon Umetsu Department of Community Development Date: June 10, 1991 RE: T -Pond Hydrology. Pursuant to our conversation last week on the Pond's hydrology, I am sending you the latest data I have on this issue for your use. I understand that you will be contacting Barghausen to resolve hydrology issues. I have attached the following information: 1. P -17 Drainage Study 2. Planning's understanding of Pond existing conditions, and Spieker impacts and mitigating measures 3. Draft meeting notes from the June 4th meeting. Please note that Spieker speculates that discharge into the Tukwila storm system may be less costly than discharge to the Pond and therefore preferable. Both alternatives require the same level of storm runoff detention (SAO requires detention prior to discharge into a wetland). However, Spieker notes that discharge to the storm system would not require biofiltration since they have determined that there is no ordinance requirement. Planning also notes that further hydrology studies would not be required if the Tukwila storm system is used since no new storm runoff would be discharged to the Pond. The only exception might be if Public Works were requiring additional information on subsurface hydrology as a result of the project compressing soils and possibly altering subsurface flows. This might be covered under contract provision II (Water Quality /Quantity): "Barghausen will prepare a supplemental letter for the DEIS to explain recent fluctuations in the water level of the Tukwila Pond, and impacts of the proposal and mitigating measures, as appropriate. They will also analyze the drainage - related impacts of the alternatives." Please get back to me by June 24 with a status update. y. • • v944•16-0 _dlrnr-�� ,Arn— THE FERRIS COMPANY MEMORANDUM - June 7, 1991 To: Vernon Umetsu City of Tukwila From: Leslie Llo� Project Manger. MM[ [MEI, JUN 101991 CITY OF TUIKVviLA s PLANNING DEPT. Subject: Follow -up to our June 4, 1991 Meeting There are several issues that require clarification before we can proceed with work on the EIS. For your information, we are in the process of seeking a new wetlands biologist to take another look at the wetlands as they will be affected by the new Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance. However, before we can proceed on resolving the other issues you raised in your review of the 2nd Preliminary Draft EIS, we need clarification; these issues are identified below: 1. Puget Power Conduit We agreed at the Tuesday meeting that you will visit the site to determine if the Bon Marche trucks currently are driving over the Puget Power conduit; if so, then you agreed that we would not be required to contact Puget Power and obtain their approval for the Bon Marche trucks to cross the lines as a result of the improvement of S. 168th Street for access to the Tukwila Pond project. Please let me or Jennifer Parker of our office know of the result of your site visit and of your direction on this matter. 2. Public Works Issues There are three issues that need clarification from Public Works. First, what will Public Works require from the King County Surface Water Manual? You indicated that during construction, temporary sedimentation ponds and silt fences would be required; permanent improvements will be limited to biofiltration swales (no 3 -cell wet ponds or other sedimentation facilities will be required). Because the proponent will be redesigning the site plan for the proposed action, it is critical that they know exactly what facilities to design into the plan. Related to this first issue, does the City. consider Tukwila Pond to be a receiving body? Is it a regional detention facility? Second, regarding detention, please confirm that the project is in fact required by the SAO to maintain predevelopment runoff rates, meaning that on -site detention will be required. If the civil engineer's calculations show that a biofiltration swale alone will provide sufficient detention capacity, willKe B`aeikBl7R71 Suite 5o6 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 FAX 206/646 -7875 206/462 -7650 • accept this design? Again, as it affects the site plan, this issue has to be confirmed. Third, does the Public Works Department agree formally to the 25- foot right -of -way for 58th Place South? Jack Pace has indicated that he obtained their approval for this width; however, because it affects the site plan significantly, and because significant new costs will be involved in again revising the site plan for the proposed action and alternatives, it is necessary to find out conclusively that your suggested right -of -way width for this street will be acceptable throughout the EIS process. Please respond to these issues in writing or contact either me or Jennifer Parker of our office with your responses. We will be able to prepare a cost estimate for revising the Draft EIS when the wetlands consultant is selected. When the wetlands work is completed, the survey crew will re -map the wetlands. When that is completed, we will be able to meet with the architect in order to develop new site plans for the project and alternatives. cc: Joel Benoliel Glenn Amster Jack Pace June 6, 1991 Jack, I have again reviewed the draft SAO and am not comfortable representing to Spieker Partners that we are giving them all SAO requirements at our meeting today. After talking with Gary Schulz, I do not feel that he has sufficient understanding of the relationship between the SAO (esp. definitions), other regulatory documents, project design and construction practices to fulfil this role. However, I understand that you are confident of being able to do this. I will therefore be relying on you to provide all SAO requirements as it applies to this site. If I am in error about your knowledge of SAO, I recommend that we immediately cancel this meeting until we all feel confident about knowing the absolute requirements, administrative discretion, and development options specified in the SAO. ' ISSvc4 k_c1(_kic2-1 G ij(s R6v16-?AJ v vs- - /7 -Te,AWKci (//6,1 Tukwila Pond E.I.S. Summary Notes of the Meeting Held at the Tukwila Conference Room 2 June 4, 1991 June 5, 1991 This was a meeting between Tukwila Planning staff, the applicant, his attorney, and the E.I.S. consultants to review the implications of the immanent adoption of the Sensitive Area Ordinance provisions on project design. See Attachment for attendees. 1. Tukwila Staff reviewed the SAO status: the virtual completion of all revisions by the City Council, anticipated adoption on June 10th, and staff's only general familiarity with SAO provisions. Staff feels that this discussion will cover all significant SAO design constraints. The applicant, his attorney, and the E.I.S. consultants were 2 mailed a copy of the latest SAO draft ordinance on Tukwila staff clearly stated that these discussions are based on our best understanding to date of SAO provisions. These are not necessarily the full range of all provisions. Note: Tukwila staff anticipates having a working knowledge of SAO provisions and administrative guidelines in place as of the effective date of the ordinance. This is 10 days after adoption. Wetland Identification 2. All wetlands must be stake and area calculated. delineated by a survey, mapped 3. Wetlands over 400 sq. ft. must be evaluated (i.e. physical characteristics, plants, function (or lack of)). Wetlands over 400 sq. ft. which satisfy the SAO definition of "constructed wetlands" are not subject to regulation under SAO.�— Action Item: The applicant will have all his consultants provide Tukwila with the information described in items 2 and 3. A scope of work should be approved by Vernon Umetsu prior to authorizing actual consultant work to maximize efficiency. 4. Wetlands under 400 sq. ft. are not regulated under SAO and not subject to modification or buffer provisions. 5. Gary Schulz should be contacted if there are any technical questions. The above information will provide the basic data for SAO design constraints and should be done first. 6. Tukwila will accept another field biologist subject to review of credentials and references. 7. The Phase I biofiltration swale area would be considered a constructed wetland not subject to modification or buffer provisions. 8. The proposed 168th St. /58th P1. roadways would be allowed as proposed since it is an "essential road" and would fill only a minor area of the riparian border. Replacement of the filled area at 1.5 sq. ft. for each 1 sq. ft. fill will be required, as well as enhancement of the newly created area and design features to minimize road impacts on the wetland (i.e. a wall to stop human intrusion and headlights, and other measures as advised by a biologist). 9. Any filled Class III wetlands must be replaced at 1.5:1 per above. 10. Tukwila staff reviewed minimum and standard wetland buffers .as-kmm -•and the criteria for D.C.D. Director approval of less than standard buffers. Tukwila staff noted that the Director's use of his discretion in this case would be subject to considerable scrutiny since this is the application on one of the most important wetlands in Tukwila. Therefore, the justification for reduction of standard wetland buffers should be very persuasive and clearly written. The buffer reduction proposal must be done in conjunction with a proposed action. • • Storm Water Runoff into Wetlands 11. All runoff from developed areas to all wetlands (including Class III) must be detained so that it does not exceed predevelopment rates. 12. All runoff which is likely to have been contaminated such as by vehicular parking or travel shall be biofiltered per King County Storm Water Standards prior to discharge into any wetland. Clean water such as from rooftops need not be biofiltered, but must be detained to predevelopment levels. Action Item: Tukwila staff determination biofiltration required. 13. Since the SAO specifies that exceed predevelopment rates, all storm runoff to the City 14. The applicant asserts that: will get a written from Public Works that only of contaminated runoff will be discharges to wetlands must not SAO does not preclude moving storm system. a. the pond is used by the City as back water detention during heavy rains, when the City storm system would otherwise overflow. Such a use is without his permission, nor does the City have a right to this use. b. the City Council adopted an ordinance mandating that one foot of flood storage be maintained for City use as storm water detention over the open water area of the pond (approximately 13.3 acre feet). Action Item: Tukwila staff will determine the following: Did the City Council mandate maintaining flood detention capacity? Assuming this use was legal, would the pond then be considered to be a regional detention system? Could the project then discharge clean water into the pond for detention? Grading 15. The fill side slopes are determined to be constructed topography. Therefore regrading will be allowed even through it may be in the SAO buffer area, since the area was previously cleared and no significant plants currently exist there. Note: No cuts below the pre -fill ground level will be permitted in the buffer area nor will any work be allowed which negatively affects the wetland habitat. Prohibited work would include, but not be limited to, soil compaction over tree roots by • • machinery, burying the roots with fill unless approved by City staff on the grade and fill plan, grading without adequate sediment control to eliminate pond impacts. The Puget Power Vault 16. The applicant and Ferris Co. feel that it is appropriate to issue the D.E.I.S. without contacting Puget Power regarding Bon Marche trucks moving over their power vault. They assert that this is reasonable since the E.I.S. would require Puget Power approval be secured as needed prior to issuance of any development permits and Puget Power would have an opportunity to raise objections during the D.E.I.S. comment period. The applicant further asserts that Bon trucks currently move over this power vault. 17. Tukwila staff determined that if Bon trucks currently move over the power vault, then staff will review the existing requirement for Puget Power approval prior to issuance of the D.E.I.S. However, if Bon Marche trucks do not move over the power vault, then the existing required Puget Power approval prior to D.E.I.S. issuance will remain. Action Item: Tukwila staff will investigate Bon Marche truck movement over the Puget Power vault. 18.. Ferris Company anticipates one month before wetland mapping and evaluation can be completed. 19. The applicant anticipates at least another meeting to review existing conditions and regulations prior to submitting revised project drawings. LL s n-j 21-1 Jvcmi9A Vcb 1�7 _ ?/ S? Asti t '`'' -'277 3_29 v k-V kN od • • 99Q3 7 S Qr-'2 i - r .S5-1Cr) 10d Qfd Q.-2/4 4.1 j 1 g u • wo..t()j ) 4 'C'D H./ Jo �v6)1 SPCA --31)1/ 1_v p 01,L'M > -OLDS do -2169 d () . Q /V -W? L.� cz,WQ r -v1S 2_d 0 Q iv-IC LL r). vtiaWi I•1 YINI �1 .+ OS 0l 974 d7 /d oZ NI1 PR/1- S �l! g 02 111LR/G N - 01v?.� � �1 < �I 0L -Jo -Q ,7 r / - i 4/ ,$)42 �; _2, QII 0.2 ■Z7•1-4/No 9 4.5-tea-a0 J-�n A p2 1'1 WV) 0W "?,t51-11 V L •QN ?A/o ?/0.21Jdk, 1 -n-VA -20 A0 _2,49 .110,14 .)i» -'1 }?j6 510 .--- -- 17nVA _0,Q /r�-b j° i J 4.. J, 5-m tAtkiti, h y41)9 rdd -2° IV) Y, r■ 4/V*8 7 -jil--4 n °S -1, 1 S ,o5,/ 9_4 •1 yvoii.'J ) ?L S 1 -3>-, (7)a X1,-3 . r01 ._,I9,9_ J o ?/_2_91"/b9d "1 -YCVY A1,?1 ''19 I �'5n b/A (0 L9sty j'&2_-_ ')v9Ao --WV) PY S''' - ?L4 _V Y21 -!�/ rod -rs . o p/o 1- VJt151A 1 Q'2) J ( 0 5.,2.o»4 1 ! 1 05/24/1991 15 :45 FROM HILLIS CLARK TO 4 1 =1565 F.01 • H I L L I S C L A R K M A R T I N & P E '(' l: K S o N • (Pt: PS TO Jack Pace A 11t,4r + \IUn:r1 11•/4/1', IN ;u11 i i.ti;.ul,� I�;ul.�;ny . 1?� +1 '" , .nr11 1+.•n1;,. :11,1, 1 \1lalin,ltnnll�ifi�.�u +< FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Date: 2,4 `Mav 91 Time: IC' LI - FAX NO.: 431 -3665 PHONE NO.: 431 -3670 FROM: Glenn J. Amster RE: Spieker /Tukwila Pond Phase 11 NUMBER OF PAGER, including cover page: 5 If you do not receive the correct number of pages, please contact our Central Services Department (Peter Scribner or Michael Chaplin) at (206) 623 -1745. Our fax number is (206) 623 -7789. Thank you. MESSAGE: Other issues requiring resolution. iii) -' f,],r,l,\J7P 1 MAY 24 1991 C's T Y C,k T UKWIL A L_ PLANNING DEPT. CLIENT /MATTER NO.: 12223 -6 GJA 05/24/1991 15:46 FRnM HILLIS CLARK MEMORANDUM - May 22, 1991 TO • From: Leslie Lloyd Subject: SPEIKER TUKWILA POND PHASE II NOTES FROM CI'T'Y REVIEW OF 2ND PDEI$ 4313665 P.02 A. NEW ISSUES o Incorporate all mitigation measures in proposal show on graphics, discuss in text includes new mitigation o Comply with 1990 King County Stormwater Design Manual applies to proposal and all alternatives show on all graphics ^ discuss in applicable elements Agree to comply with all• SAO provisions, whatever is adopted o Level of detail on S. 168th and 58th P1. S. CCC,` c 1 L.J' hlt ofi 0 Jeor- .4 4 o o 'atj'(22.7dop- much greater level of detail about improvements more information required about neighboring businesses more detail about actual proposed street improvements It is not enough to reference S. 168th EIS, as we did • 'Site' is not Phase II portion; it is Phase I and Phase II change references throughout document revise graphioa to reflect Agreements /inputs requested from nearby properties • "' Target (vater line extension, street improvements on 58th Place S.; obtain Target approval for easement) ▪ Bon Home Store (truck access routesf a'` -a--f -issue of whether presence of Puget Power line cop licates ▪ Parkway Place (gat their agreement regarding loading aisle and potential restrictions on use of Kay sank BM rr. SA. SOG 10R56 NE 411 Stmt Wow& WA 96004 FAX 20d4r .m7S 206'4e2 -7660 :1l • r11piY 2 4 1991 I 05/24/1991 15:47 Illp HILLIS CLARK �- rict..c./to4,—Dor; 0 5 (L ; Tux- STAFF , c oc.O G (s7 • fAcc o-IZePS wry ib FICZP w/tUc 7(f ' TO • 4313665 P.03 loading aisle if they don't inform City now that they want to Ube it) Wetlands Doesn't agree with Rex's classification; relies on I p4, 168th EIS as proper source( Re`s KAT w Wetland fill ooc i D� fo - (ke mitigation, requiring compensation r !f 1 requires al4ermit k 2;1 rat o - characterise wetland fill as Impact o Water crsa (2500 square feat) of iiicant tJfavoi able Adverse )ti.e €s egS. T inrcc -u Dd-- ROc' "cc Ass ir 41 (Z.I Pf17tdi-nr 3 0 &P6'1Q? oTfFeics --) 7 S /.S MOST - L A F cT /Ke71,- ▪ Mitigation to "satisfy Federal Clean Water Act standards" - City has rights tol acre feet of flood storage capacity in Tukwila on Pd (he didn't provide figUr) 0 Other Questions construction method ("let's not talk about augarcast piles ") B. GRAPHICS REVISIONS 1. Vicinity MO - Re -label "Seattle" and "Bellevue" (type's too big in relation to Tukwila) 2. Location Map - Show entire parcel (including Phase I) - Re -label site - Re -label Southcenter, add "Shopping Mall" 3. Net_ Site Figure • Show antira parcel ▪ Show proparty boundaries and existing improvements on -site and in adjacent area ▪ Supsrimposs proposed action Screen adjacent uses to help the 'recede' but keep property lines at 100% • 05/24/1991 15 47 FP HILLIS CLARK 4. `�Crco� ScTo-- Pc ka.) TO • 4313665 P.04 '1,1X17 de both the With Plano route and the 168th Street route in detail, including sidewalks and required landscaping - Provide roadway cross - sections 5. 9i. Piaura 3 Site Plan • Add labeling Clarify looation of property line - Bake scale legible — ahr,e. APPre44-• 4larkrAtt ir,%Mr. wn.....,.. ti..i.1. 6. riaures 4. 5. 6 EigyationI - Dimension building height, length - Identify grade 7. ,Liguro 7 - Euil4jna Cross- Sections • Add key indicating location of cross - sections 8. !igures Showing Alter tines All must be at same scale; 111•200' is smallest acceptable scale - Redraw all alternatives graphic's to reflect changes to site designs (i.e., fire lane inclusion) 9. gigurt il - Aitgrt Live one Site Plan - Add adjacent buildings; screen back • Show Roadway - Show 15 -foot perimeter landscaping - Show typical road section - Clarify setback (measures as 5o +but is dimensioned at 251 - s could-WI-Milt-to image eduction top 8 1/2 X 11 format) Ko-y po S� 'Cd sir\rC Pte? cvPcS (.9 Cowl' r P - Me.0fo 10. jiyure 9 - Alt One Pest L�i•vation R vc-am) . - D./mansion building 11. rigUre 10 -Alt One East Elevates - Delete shadow (building doesn't show modulation in plan view, therefore there shouldn't be a shadow in the elev.) - Add Restaurant • Show bass elevation iniO lqr;i,) P MAY 2 4 1991 05/24/1991 15:48 if HILLIS CLARK TO 4313665 P.05 12. o Site Plan - Add 15' required landscaping - Add number of stories - all same edits from Alt One Site Plan 13. gigue la - kit - Correctly draw facade projections (check scale first - they may be accurately drawn but the imaged reduced) 14. - Show outline of below -grade garage Revise roadway, landscaping widths Add cross - section through building showing relationship of underground and above -grade parking Show sidewalk (note: City propooed re- routing Sidewalk to locution next to pond) 15. gait 17 - Touoaraohv Mai • Enlarge image • Superimpose Phase 1 development on Phase I portion of site 1 Kc .. UDia G 3(o Fa-TR1171°w rwieft.CZ - Clarify topo lines in the pond 1_act -may,. o K , SG" l G63 -7-1-`6 GAS 16. Figure 18 - Site Sectij Re -do (they aren't legible; also, Barghausen didn't really do ghat we asked - show pond bank - so, theme should be redone) Locate image consistent vith established site graphic orientation ▪ chow relationship of i11 /pond bank /vatsr surface i� , 17. Figure 19 - Grading, Drainace & Utilities Plan ▪ Add Scale ▪ Davelap two cross - sections (need new Figure ▪ Show finished grade And fill with structures for new cross- section 18. Figure 20 Plank �o�g nitiem Man (!!S Adjust figure to show pond boundaries relative to roperty lines Delete property lines around _Phaae_11 portion ) Add scale ▪ Add replacement of wetlands (8 2:1) `7 C ` Y MAY 2 4 1991 � � To: 4>.Al2 /4 ))291°A-e From: Date: RE: MEMORANDUM Leslie Lloyd, Project Manager The Ferris Company GA- Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner Department of Community Development May 17, 1991 Tukwila Pond PreDEIS. This memo is confirm our conversation of May 16, 1991. 1. City comments requiring project conformance with Sensitive Area Ordinance provisions should be deleted since it is not an adopted regulation at this time. 2. In place of SAO conformance, the City will require replacement of the biological functions of any displaced or degraded wetland areas or functions through the nation -wide permit process. This will be especially significant in the southwest corner of the development area where a significant portion of the most valuable, complex wetland (riparian border) area is proposed to be replaced with parking and a restaurant, and the valuable isolated characteristic of the remaining southwest area will be degraded. Replacement must be on -site. 3. The filling of minor isolated wetlands in the upland area r-1 't� .'! not require mitigation. However, this will be 0‘,1/ etermined on a case by case basis and cannot be done until all such areas are mapped and evaluated. Such a map and evaluation has been requested in the City's comments to the latest draft. 4. All mitigation which has significant impacts on the project site plan must be demonstrated to be feasible at this time in a site plan. The mitigation measures recognized to have a probable significant impact on the site plan at this time is the requirement for biofiltration and wetland mitigation. The applicant is not required to incorporate mitigating measure feasibility in his proposed action, but is required to demonstrate mitigation feasibility in an alternative. (5r The easiest way to accomplish this may be to amend the 100 ft. buffer alternative to set back from the riparian border area, with the City acknowledging that biofiltration could probably be accommodated in the buffer area. All actions which do not reflect the probable impacts of mitigating measures in the site plan as discussed above, would not be able to claim the mitigation and must acknowledge the appropriate "significant unavoidable adverse impacts ". The City determines: (1) that it is important to reflect mitigating measure impacts on the project site plan because of their potentially great affect on project design and feasibility, (2) that such significant issues should be dealt with as early as possible rather than be deferred to some future date, such as during the design review process and (3) that the applicant should have realistically resolved incorporation of the minimum required mitigating measures into some feasible project design. 5. Jack Pace will be the contact person for all budget issues. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions and to reschedule a group meeting as necessary. e c V4- r PAS, L7 PC5 P_Af(0-4-) or- coektft_teiv--4, MEMORANDUM To: Jack Pace VcA From: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner Department of Community Development Date: May 15, 1991 RE: Spieker Partners Design Review Application (90- 6 -DR). I have not been able to locate the subject design review file despite it having been logged and given a file number. After a review of the project history and records, I find the following: 1. A SEPA checklist was received on Southcenter Plaza Phase II from Spieker Partners on June 30, 1989. 2. The SAO moratorium was enacted by the City Council on November 20, 1989. 3. A binding agreement was executed between Spieker Partners and the City on December 20, 1989, regarding the processing of the Southcenter Plaza Phase II environmental review (EPIC- 19 -89). A design review application was logged in on March 16, 1990 and given the file number 90 -6 -DR. This was four months after the adoption of the moratorium. `~ A search of City Council agenda from November 20, 1989 through April, 1990 by the Deputy City Clerk failed to identify any Council discussion of an SAO moratorium waiver for a Spieker design review application. 5. A discussion with John Colgrove who drafted the Spieker /City SEPA agreement demonstrated that the City's only commitment was to: "...immediately proceed in good faith to make a threshold determination pursuant to WAC 197 -11- 310... ". This agreement does not mention any design review. Conclusion Based on the above, I conclude that this department is not authorized to accept a design review application regarding Southcenter Plaza Phase II pursuant to the SAO moratorium. The • • moratorium's specified remedy for an improperly accepted application is to return the application with a full refund. Recommendation Jack Pace should determine if the application was accepted. If such an application was accepted, then it should be returned with a full refund to the applicant, and the file number voided. cc: file v4: tpond.wvr Lii4L "P k./7-6eug.i 7)gEy VeA,%^-61"- Ce-AAA ) 7 C J K cW -1 C, t1 A S7co c, PLAIRJ CO 2,Q.G/M7' PfLa 37( 1(4 5/7 74 a F tiC -r'G, N a T� f ? `r-/ 17 A-Tea 5-17 , • Tukwila Pond E.I.S. Meeting Agenda Summary Notes of April 17, 1991 Meeting and Follow -up Staff Meetings Final Draft May 7, 1991 This is a summary of the April 17th meeting between the applicant and City staff, a subsequent staff meeting on April 25th, and various other meetings between City staff and consultants. The bold text is taken from the April 17th meeting agenda. Numbered non -bold text are action items to be completed. 1. 58th Avenue South a. Right of way with signal vs. easement. Public Works would accept a reduced right of way width of 25 ft. with a 15 ft. utilities and sidewalk easement. Spieker Partners proposes to provide a 25 ft. road easement with a 15 ft. wide sidewalk, and utility easement for a total 40 ft. wide width between Strander Blvd. and the So. 168th St. R /W. Spieker would agree to a legally binding commitment to the City allowing it to claim the 25 ft. easement as R /W, shift the entire 40 ft. of new R/W and sidewalk utility adjacent to the property line. he new R/W is to construct 58th Avenue South between Strander Blvd. and the So. 168th Street R /W, once the City acquires right of way for a third lane to the west. The Spieker R/W would not be claimed until the third lane R/W is acquired. Spieker has not ruled out dedicating the 25 ft. at this time, but wants to consider its implications. It was recognized that the proposal requires an additional 15 ft. sidewalk and utility easement from the Target property. Spieker anticipates being able to acquire this. The different site specific development standards resulting from an easement versus a right of way were discussed. Public Works will is initially positive about accepting the Spieker legally binding agreement, but wants some time to consider its implications for this and other projects. Follow -up: The City Engineer determined that the above Spieker proposal is acceptable at a 4/25 staff meeting. All agree that 58th Street will be a right -in right -out only at Strander Blvd. until the right of way is dedicated to the City, the road built to City ultimate design requirements and full signalization is installed at the intersection. Upon further review: Planning determined that the western sidewalk is proposed to be located on adjacent western properties. Public Works has determined that the western sidewalk is not necessary at this time. wK� a.e.,6444, 44-1,4c, 40' -for Cocae- -24612 Spieker will determine what form of property conveyance is proposed: R/W now or Easement with later R/W right to the City. A 15 access and utility easement will be included in each alternative. Spieker will acquire from Target: a. the right to convert the 25 ft. access easement across their property to a 25 ft. R /W, and b. an additional 15 ft. sidewalk and utility easement to join the 15 ft. access and utility easement on his property to the south. 3. The City Engineer will determine the off -site traffic system improvements necessary to accommodate future growth and the proportionate share of these costs assignable to the proposed project. GA C,. i(÷L' 6e61 I '6171 Ar4r am- - efez- Follow -up: At a 4/26 staff meeting, Public Works anticipates traffic improvements to include, but not be limited to, a southbound through lane and northbound right turn lane at the Strander /Southcenter Blvd. intersection, a westbound left turn lane at the Strander /Andover Park West intersection, and to be specified improvements at the Strander /Andover Park East intersection. The proportionate share of the project for system improvement costs are based on the proportion of future traffic volumes represented by this project, as established by the D.E.I.S. traffic consultant. Public Works will specify all off -site system improvements to accommodate future traffic and the project's proportionate share. The City will be hiring a traffic consultant, at its own expense, to assist Public Works to determine this information. No completion date could be estimated at a 5:30 p.m. meeting with the City Engineer, but it will be done before the end of May. The value of dedicated right of way will be credited against the project's traffic mitigation costs. Land value will be established at the time of dedication. Only a portion of road improvement costs shall be credited since the road will have to be moved westward to the property line in its final public R/W configuration (see Action Item No. 4 and 58th Avenue meeting agenda items "a" and "c "). 4. Two sets of easements need to be described by Spieker, approved by Public Works and recorded prior to issuance of any construction permit: a. a temporary current set of road and sidewalk /utility easements (total 40 ft. width) across both the Target and Spieker properties, showing the road alignment as discussed above and generally shown in the existing plans, and 2 K b. c. • • b. the final R/W and access /utility easements which reflect the R/W adjacent to the western property line to allow construction of the final 58th St. road in coordination with the Double Tree Office and Security Pacific Bank properties. 5. Spieker will have the western sidewalk deleted. Public Works will only require an extruded curb in recognition of its temporary nature. Demonstrate access across Target property. Spieker has the rights to an access easement across the Target property. This is not the same as a R/W agreement, but they are confident of acquiring this right and the additional 15 ft. sidewalk and utilities easement. Spieker will acquire property rights as specified in Item 2. Resolve conflicts with driveway to immediate west. The drawings presented at the meeting show the access driveway set away from the Security Pacific Bank eastern driveway. This setback and the right -in right - out only movements permitted, have convinced the City Engineer that there is no significant conflict. Upon further review of the drawings: Planning concludes that the drawings presented at the meeting -----------------------show the- -58th Street's western 50 ft.-curb return radius encroaching approx. 10 ft. onto the Security Pacific property. it:jee 5. °--eje--47-64e4- Spieker will need to redesign the northern 58th Ave. driveway entry to eliminate encroaching upon the Security Pacific property or acquire this right. The optimum solution would be to merge the Security Pacific driveway with the 58th Avenue. This would allow straightening of the built roadway and allow the City to credit Spieker with the cost of road construction (See Action Item No. 3 ) . 2. So. 168th Street a. b. L ! 1' ,W10,,,,,t /C8 -pas Submit Plans and Sections with respect to property lines and existing structures and accesses. Issue satisfied. Road plans and cross - sections were submitted at the meeting. These consisted of three sheets titled "Preliminary Channelization Plan S. 168th & 58th Place S." from Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc. and stamped by Robert Armstrong on 11/7/89. Identify impacts and mitigating measures. Impacts and mitigating measures have not yet been identified. All parties agree that So. 168th St. should be a right of way. A subsequent discussion with L. Lloyd of Ferris Co. revealed that she thought that the 168th was a separate action to be only generally dealt with in this E.I.S. Lloyd was not aware that actual road designs and econstruction was part of the proposed action. 3 • • ■ Extensive discussion between Spieker Partners and Parkway Square management have been held. Spieker asserts that they have come to an agreement on a road design which mitigates all road impacts as reflected in the Barghausen drawings (11/7/89). Upon further review of the drawings: Planning notes that: a. 168th is shown as a combined,30 ft. and 16 ft. road easement. Drawings should be revised to designate the area as a right of way as agreed to by all parties. b. A striped vehicular pull -out adjacent to the north sidewalk is dimensioned as being 10 ft. wide but scales out as approximately 6 -7 feet. The 6 -7 ft. width is the more correct given the other dimensions on the drawing and need for curbing. The striped area is too narrow for a loading area. Loading areas must be sized for the type of vehicle envisioned (i.e. truck or car) with at least one truck loading space per building. If this striped area is envisioned to satisfy truck loading requirements, then an easement should be so reserved by the property owner prior to R/W dedication to the City. Follow -up: At a 4/25 staff meeting, the City Engineer determined that each of the three travel lanes could transition to become narrower by one foot (to 11 ft. widths) beyond the intersection maneuvering area, thus allowing the loading lane to be increased to a 10 foot width. This is the minimum width for truck loading areas. Narrowing the travel lanes is the most feasible option since the three feet between the Parkway Square building and back of sidewalk is necessary for service door access. c. South 168th St. extends eastward only to the Tukwila Pond property line while no southern extent of the 58th Avenue easement /R /W has been identified. d. Tractor - trailer combinations back up to the Bon Marche truck loading docks facing the So. 168th St. R /W. They currently use approximately 100 ft. of paved width to maneuver and park based on aerial photographs and Daryl Meadows, Bon Marche Distribution Center (4/23/91). Some truck maneuvering on the R/W or Tukwila Pond property may be expected since the distance to the south R/W edge is approximately 95 feet. This will require an access easement from Spieker Partners or permission to maneuver on the public R/W from the Public Works Director and Planning Commission. Note: Meadows also stated that the latest plans for the Spieker proposed 168th construction were very acceptable to the Bon Marche. e. The new Bon Marche 250 ft. long driveway access to their north loading docks may create some conflicting turning movements unless trucks are directed St. east The City movement to enter the traffic stream from 168th of the 58th Avenue intersection. Engineer determined this potential conflict to be acceptable. The proposed truck access to the loading docks would involve movement over Puget Power 115 kVA and 15kVA power lines in a concrete lined, ground level trench. Puget Power has declined to allow use of their concrete trench lid as a pedestrian sidewalk link in the past, due to concerns over potential damage to the facility. should contact Puget Power regarding the acceptability of trucks crossing their power cable. h. The Bon may want increase security in this area. It should be determined if a security fence is anticipated along the back of sidewalk. The western most 20 ft. wide driveway to the Bon Marche parking area seems to be curved for right - in only traffic. However, the 20 ft. aisle width seems to provide an option for possibly dangerous left -out movements. Posting the driveway for right in traffic only would reduce the potential for hazardous movements. 6. Spieker Partners should: i. have drawings revised to show So. 168th Street as a 46 ft. wide right of way, ii. have Barghausen Engineers redraft the 168th road design in consultation with the City Engineer to reflect a larger loading lane width and narrower travel lanes, iii. extend the southern limit of the 58th Ave. easement /R /W to the property line, and have the Bon Marche extend their portion of the 168th St. R/W to the eastern edge of the 58th Ave. easement /right of way. Planning will brief the Ferris Co. on the specific impacts to be addressed. Ferris Co. will contact Parkway Square to confirm the range of impacts to be addressed. It is assumed that a letter from Parkway Square agreeing to the roadway provides adequate evidence that the road design reflects measures sufficient to mitigate all significant impacts to said property. ieker will determine if a Bon Marche security ence along So. 168th is proposed, and if the tern Bon access driveway off of 168th is right in only which will be signed as such. c. Demonstrate rights to property and agreement of impacted property owners to mitigation. Spieker proposes to condition the project upon receiving permission from impacted property owners. Spieker proposes that no approval for Spieker's use of the rights owned by other property owners would be required at this time. Planning asserted that this approach would be considered, but notes that all mitigation must be • • probable. If the property owners are not willing to provide some form of initial approval of the proposed action, then said mitigation has not been demonstrated to be probable and thus cannot be used. Vernon Umetsu also stated that he felt it is inappropriate for the City to support and defend an E.I.S. provision which relies upon another person's property for mitigation without getting some form of permission. 9. b•?•' Planning staff will check with on the SEPA Responsible Official on the acceptability of Spieker's proposal. Follow -up: The SEPA Responsible Official determines that at the minimum, a letter from the property owner representative giving preliminary approval of conceptual designs for building the 58th Ave. and 168th roadways will be necessary in order to demonstrate the access feasibility. 3. Traffic Impacts a. Ron Cameron to use Chris Brown trip generation numbers to calc. project responsibility for road improvements based on Tukwila methodology. 10. There was no explicit discussion of this issue except that there was agreement that the City G�� -3 Engineer would calculate impacts and mitigation '�•� required for the Strander /Southcenter Parkway intersection and compare it with mitigation payment credit to be recognized by the 58th Avenue improvements being provided by Spieker Partners. Upon further review: Public Works has not yet determined the off -site traffic mitigation costs which are reasonably attributable to the proposed action. At a minimum, the City Engineer will calculate the proportionate share of mitigation costs for the intersections of Strander Boulevard with Southcenter Parkway, Andover Park West, and Andover Park East. The project's proportionate share will be based on the data and methodology discussed in Action Item No. 3. b. Pedestrian system improvements. The City Engineer determines that no off -site sidewalk improvements will be necessary except those to be developed as shown along the proposed 168th roadway and the east side of 58th Avenue. 4. Storm Water Biofiltration a. King County storm water standards of 1/1/90 are required to satisfy Federal Clean Water Act. This is much more extensive biofiltration than in Phase I. 11. Spieker will check with Barghausen Engineers to ensure that proposed site plans have sufficient area for bio- filtration to satisfy King Co. standards. They will be responsible for getting the King County standards. 5. Storm Water Runoff Impacts on Pond Level. a. Hydrologic study required to show peak impacts for standard design storm and how average pre - development K • pond level will be maintained. This is essential for buffer location and impacts on existing riparian border areas which are a critical habitat element. 12. Planning will contact Barghausen Engineers to determine if their statement of no impact due to project storm flows includes impacts to riparian border trees and shrubs, what is the basis for any such a statement (i.e. projected water level change on a seasonal basis and credentials as wildlife biologists). Follow -up: The City Urban Environmentalist visited the project site to evaluate the impact of existing water levels on trees and shrubs in the riparian border on April 25, 1991. He determined that the plants were doing well. Planning staff thus concludes that there were no significant impacts from any water level change due to Phase I, on the riparian border and no detailed hydraulic study of pre - development and post Phase I development conditions is necessary. Dana Mower, Barghausen Engineers discussed their conclusion of no storm water impacts on April 29, 1991. Planning accepts a rationale which is summarized as follows: i. Barghausen asserts that the drainage basin for storm water is defined by the perimeter of the Target and Spieker properties. This will be unaffected by Phase I and Phase II construction. The Barghausen assertion assumes no significant impact on the predevelopment subsurface hydrology. Surveys of pond elevation do not support this assertion, but the significance of the subsurface change does not seem to be significant with the following condition which must still be approved by Public Works (no objections are anticipated): Spieker agrees to pump out the pond to a minimum 13.96 elevation during the dry season. This will address the Public Works Dept. concern about preserving one ft. of flood storage over the 13+ acre surface area of the pond (i.e. 13+ acre ft. storage per the P -17 Drainage Basin Study) and eliminate the need for further hydrologic study as requested at the 4/17 meeting. The following hydrologic information should be incorporated in the storm water section. Existing Conditions Average pond elevation over time was established at approximately 13 feet. This was confirmed in predevelopment water elevation surveys during the fall of 1987 (12.94 ft. on 10/22/87 and 13.02 ft. on 11/17/87). After the Phase I site preload in 2 and 3/91, but before construction, a summer survey of pond elevation showed a 14.95 ft. pond elevation (7/19/89). This is equivalent to the 14.96 elevation of the City's over flow outlet from the pond to the public storm drainage system. 7 • • Phase I construction of the multi - building project began in mid -1989 and was essentially in place by early 1990. Assuming average seasonal rainfall, the mid- summer pond elevation of 14.95 ft. could mean either a greater annual variation than previously suspected, greater than average rainfall, or Phase I impacts to underground hydrology. There is insufficient time based data on pond water level to arrive at a conclusion at this time. The continued health of the riparian border indicates no significant impacts due to increased water elevation. This would mean that plants in the riparian border have been able to tolerate the increased duration of root inundation after Phase I construction. The lack of flooding on -site and continued health of the riparian border supports a conclusion of no significant on -site Phase I impact on subsurface hydrology for the development. However, the higher water level has eliminated the 13+ acre ft. storm water storage pond capacity established in the P -17 Drainage Basin Study (Ferris - -cite this doc.) as necessary to be maintained. The potential area -wide flood impacts could be eliminated by pumping the pond during the dry season to preserve the 13+ acre feet of storm water storage. Phase II Impacts Phase II is approximately 25% of the building footprint and impervious surface area in Phase I. Existing water levels already reflect the bare fill used to preload the Phase II site. It is reasonable to conclude that the preload impact on subsurface hydrology reflects that expected due to the proposed construction (especially since the building will be on pilings) and that the proposed impervious surface coverage will concentrate the peak storm flows. Increased peak flood levels will be accommodated in the available flood storage capacity of the pond and the City's overflow drain. However, the impact on potential area -wide flooding will be increased unless the pond is pumped to preserve the 13+ acre ft. of flood storage as discussed in Existing Conditions. The duration of high water is not expected to significantly increase over what is currently tolerated by the riparian border. Mitigating Measures The water surface elevation of the pond shall be pumped down to a minimum of 13.96 ft. during the dry season to preserve the 13+ acre feet of flood storage. 8 • • 6. Potable Water System Improvements a. Water system is deficient. See Pat Brodin for required improvements from Andover Park W. to the west. 13. 44Ampleer will have Barghausen Engineers contact Pat Brodin and Phil Fraser to determine what water improvements are required. 7. All Descriptions of Proposed Action Must Reflect Mitigation. a. A 20 ft. fire lane on the east is required of all ,alternatives. P-45\--V6- , (Z `1`'t! The Senior Planner will review fire access Or Q,,xequirements with Assistant Fire Chief Olivas. Follow -up: The Assistant Fire Chief asserts that he has been very consistent in requiring full fire access for all alternatives. This is a position strongly supported by the Fire Department. P Revise project drawings to reflect full range of proposed actions including, but not limited to above. 8. Sensitive Area Ordinance Impacts on Project E.I.S. a. The proposed project must be consistent with whatever SAO provisions are adopted. There is no vesting with respect to this. 9. 15. Planning will review the past City position on SAO consistency. Planning agrees that the E.I.S. is not subject to the SAO provisions at this time since the checklist was submitted prior to the moratorium and that the document should be prepared according to the ordinances currently in place. However, they assert that upon adoption of an SAO ordinance: a. the project will be subject to the SAO provisions and a supplemental E.I.S. may be required to the extent that the new ordinance significantly increases potential project impacts and b. the project will be required to comply with all SAO provisions prior to issuance of any development permit pursuant to the moratorium waiver agreement. . Project alternatives are not consistent with current SAO draft and will have to be revised once the SAO is adopted. The degree of change will be reviewed for the need for a supplemental E.I.S. Other See discussion under subsection "a" above. Upon further review: The survey submitted on 4/17 at this meeting incorrectly shows the wetland boundary. It must be adjusted to reflect the area shown in the 168th St. D.E.I.S., pg. 43; unless more definitive information can be provided. Additional information to be incorporated would include the two new wetland areas identified in this pre -DEIS. (r( G(�d f' e: v4- tpond.min CC � f A - c 4 r / C o k o k t oto v l Egits- ' R / F6-e t S is PielK67Z_ l,4 rise, �- n TELEPHONE MEMO RE: / f S1--e • PERSON CONTACTED: , (Z A,4- "at-N- PERSON CALLING: KA_..v,owt,.... DATE: S-1 7 /7 f _ ei,„ee&, sl 6 INFORMATION ITEMS: �dr-x� 788- 9,20 c.■)-&-ce _,sit■-e41Q) • cg) c_57, c___r,Lze n frin,4 - � J - ogVae f,*J2, 4ta- 42dewvL(2 .Aip4J‘,6ugL,_ . T- P . ► c- ,� ,jve.I, .� ' • • fie oat 'art, ` °are,E.Q 601444mtk(Le ti)4A) c/72- yi e00(4114 4146-7 5 di 00 d ,- 4111r-is •Aa [MAY 0 2 1991 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. i.a" C>tf «s • • H I L L I S C L A R K M A R T I N S P E T E R S O N • :A Prokssional Service Corporation 5I1I1 Calland Fuildina, 1221 Second Avenue • Seattle. A l'ashineton 08101 -2925 (2116) 023-1745 Facsimile (206) 623-7789 April 24, 1991 Ms. Jane Cantu, City Clerk Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Proposed Sensitive Areas Legislation Dear Ms. Cantu: L _ �-ti L !,__;,_.,y A1-1'?, 2 4 1991 On behalf of our client, Spieker Partners, we are submitting comments regarding the proposed Sensitive Areas Ordinance. You will find enclosed an original comment letter which should go to the file, and seven copies, one for each City Council member. Please distribute the copies to each Council member for tonight's hearing on this issue. Thank you for your assistance. Enclosure cc: Spieker Partners 3 0 7 0 8 1 EIVR MAY 0 21991 TutoNtLA C4TY N DEPT. H I L L I S C L A R K M A R T I N & P E T E R S O N • Arse 2 4 ISG1 April 23, 1991 Tukwila City Council Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Proposed Sensitive Areas Legislation Honorable Councilmembers: On behalf of our client, Spieker Partners, we are writing to provide you with our comments on the proposed sensitive areas ordinance (draft dated March 15, 1991). Spieker Partners owns the Tukwila Pond property. Construction of the first phase of the development on the property, Southcenter Plaza, is completed, and an environmental impact statement (EIS) is currently being prepared for the City on the proposed development of a small, 150 -room hotel on the west side of the property. The remainder of the property, including the Pond and associated wetlands, would not be altered. The proposed sensitive areas legislation, if applied to the hotel project, would preclude its development by requiring an arbitrary pre- determined buffer and setback that would consume a substantial portion of the remaining upland portion of the property. In a community where the entire inventory of significant wetlands can be easily identified and comprehensively addressed on an individual basis, a generic assessment and standardized buffer system, like that recommended in the May 1990 report by Jones & Stokes Associates, entitled "Water Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendations" ( "Report" herein), does not serve the community interest. Unfortunately, the proposed legislation adopts this strategy for addressing sensitive area issues in the City of Tukwila, thereby failing to achieve the legislative goal of balancing existing private property rights with the public interest. The proposed legislation, therefore, should be modified to provide for individual impact assessments and flexible protection measures tailored to the unique characteristics of each site. (z,er i4E€ ?A FT Tukwila City Council April 23, 1991 Page 2 Background Tukwila Pond, deemed to be the most significant wetland in the City of Tukwila, also provides the most glaring example of the shortcomings of the City Council's draft ordinance. Before 1974, there was no Tukwila Pond. For most of the year the property essentially was dry and used for agricultural purposes. A stormwater drainage channel ran through a portion of the property and moved surface water from the higher elevations on the southwest portion to the northeast, across Andover Park West, and eventually into Gilliam Creek and the Green River by force of gravity. The drainage channel would periodically overflow during extraordinary rainfall and some localized flooding would occur. To prevent these occurrences, the City of Tukwila formed local improvement districts to reconstruct Andover Park West with appropriate stormwater facilities. The City's design for the Andover Park West improvements included an outlet to drain the Tukwila Pond property into the City's storm system because the proposed elevated roadway improvements would obstruct the existing drainage channel and eliminate the natural drainage of the site. Assuming that the site would be filled to an elevation equal to that of the surrounding properties, the City located the drainage outlet through the road at a relatively high elevation (approximately 1.5 feet higher than even the current elevation of Tukwila Pond). Because the site was not immediately graded and filled, and the outlet was designed to function only at a higher elevation, water began to accumulate and, together with the obstruction of the drainage channel, caused the creation of Tukwila Pond as we know it today. Tukwila Pond is a City -made phenomenon -- an artificial impoundment of surface water on an undeveloped site lying at an elevation below that of adjacent filled properties. In 1987, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluated the property to identify the wetlands on the site which would be subject to the Corps permit program if development were to occur. The Corps determined that two areas, on the northern and western sides of the Pond, could be developed without invoking the Corps' jurisdiction. Spieker Partners' decision to purchase the property in late 1987 was predicated on the Corps' determination. In 1988, after several development proposals by others proved unsuccessful, Spieker Partners announced plans to develop a retail shopping center on the northern portion of the site. Tukwila City Council April 23, 1991 Page 3 After working with the City on several alternatives for development of this portion of the property, Spieker chose to pursue an alternative that would provide a buffer between the Pond and shopping center and retain the western portion for development in the second phase. Following evaluation of the environmental checklist for the first 14 -acre phase, the City of Tukwila issued a mitigated Determination of Non- Significance ( "DNS "), concluding that the proposal as conditioned would not cause a significant impact on the Tukwila Pond or other elements of the environment. The DNS required conditions on water quality, replacement of natural vegetation, design modifications to limit human intrusion on the Pond and its habitat, and other things to ensure no significant impacts would occur. In June 1989, as construction of the retail center progressed, Spieker submitted an environmental checklist to the City and proposed the second phase of development, a small, oP�46 1 150 -room hotel on the four -acre western portion of the site. f'1( 10 center development, P ment, the proposal P osal included the same 25- foot setback v/4-1"' �Vr between the edge of the Pond and the hotel building. The Pond 5,(A I5 would be left in its natural condition. pvot During the next five months, the City made no decision on the request for a declaration of non - significance. Instead, in November of 1989, the City Council imposed a six -month moratorium e",�l on development adjacent to sensitive areas. That moratorium W''''D subsequently was extended indefinitely until the City Council drafted the present sensitive areas legislation. t,OR r tS¢xsve 516 myovvva. After putting the moratorium into effect, the City concluded that the hotel project would require the preparation of an N�k1oiFo, environmental impact statement (although an EIS was not required or the significantly larger first phase development). The EIS, hich will include an updated biological evaluation, is currently -TP ' eing prepared by the City's consultants. Preparation of the ',r6K, EIS has been continually delayed as the City's consultants are 'b-10 cR asked to analyze alternatives that could fit the increasingly stringent requirements of the sensitive areas legislation. caMM81•fr)� StAtP ? Tukwila City Council April 23, 1991 Page 4 Analysis and Recommendation The history of Tukwila Pond, the environmental assessments which have previously taken place, and the City's own official actions, all illustrate the inadequacies of the current, broad - based wetland evaluation and buffer requirements of the City Council's proposed sensitive areas ordinance. In a small community like Tukwila, where the entire inventory of wetlands can be easily identified, there is no reason to generalize, and every reason to regulate on the basis of site and project specific information. The City of Tukwila is not King. County; wetlands, and developments around wetlands, are not too numerous to evaluate on a case -by -case basis. The Jones & Stokes Report acknowledges that it is important to develop a regulatory system that is sensitive to the variability in the City's wetlands (p. 2). However, except for giving greater significance to smaller wetlands, the rating and buffer recommendations are those that are applied in a large, rural jurisdiction. Even in King County, a site - specific evaluation is part of the development approval process. The Planning Commission recognized the need for more flexibility in Tukwila's urban setting, and recommended an ordinance that would allow a case -by -case determination of buffer requirements. The City Council, however, has apparently rejected an approach that would permit the balancing of public and private interests, and adopted crude and arbitrary buffer requirements that may automatically deprive property owners of all reasonable use of the property. The City Council proposal apparently is based upon the Jones & Stokes Report. The Jones & Stokes Report, unfortunately, rejects the concept of a regulatory program which includes a variable buffer system. This position is somewhat inconsistent with other portions of the recommendation. The Report rejects variable buffers because "reducing or eliminating the buffer in one area cannot be compensated for by increasing its width in another area." (p. 14). On the same page, however, the Report urges the City to adopt an expanded buffer around Tukwila Pond "to compensate for buffer losses in other portions of the wetland." If the Tukwila Pond is a "relatively undisturbed system" (p. 2), there is no basis for seeking compensation for past disturbances, particularly when the "past disturbance" -- the first phase development of a project with a 25 -foot natural vegetative buffer -- was legally determined by the City to have no significant effect on the Pond. And if compensation for Tukwila City Council April 23, 1991 Page 5 the potential or actual wetland impacts is inappropriate, the previous suggestion that expanded buffers should be required around Tukwila Pond is not intended to compensate for past losses, but to penalize the second phase development proposal. Under the Report's recommendation, this penalty would accrue regardless of whether the current owner caused the "past disturbance," and despite the fact that the previous development allegedly causing the "disturbance" complied with all of the City's applicable regulations. This attempt to regulate development after the fact is certainly unwise and probably unlawful. The Report goes on to state that "[b]iologically, it does not make sense" to adopt a variable buffer system, that such a system is extremely difficult to enforce, and, again, citing previous activities, that allowing further encroachment "could" lead to severe wetland impacts. These generalizations are inconsistent with virtually every other wetland regulatory scheme and should not be incorporated into the City of Tukwila's wetland policies. If the objective of the City of Tukwila in developing a sensitive areas ordinance is to minimize impacts on natural resource areas with a view towards balancing private property rights, a fact- based, flexible buffer system should be substituted for the standardized approach suggested by the draft legislation. Applications for development proposals within or adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas could be required to include appropriate environmental assessments. The Planning Director should have the authority, based on a set of specific guidelines established by ordinance, to impose appropriate mitigation that considers the sensitivity of the site, the significance of the affected areas, the nature of the proposal, and other factors, including the effect and public benefit of proposed mitigation. Tukwila Pond offers a good example of the benefits of this kind of approach. It is clear that additional development could occur on the west side of the Pond with a buffer consistent with that imposed on the north side without significant effects on Pond or the existing habitat. In consideration for a reduced buffer width, the developer could be required to put permanent covenants in place to protect the remaining 22 -acres of the Pond nd associated wetlands. The Report and resulting draft ordinance leave no room for this kind of flexibility and thereby foreclose the potential long -term benefits to the City and its citizens. We note in particular that the Seattle Audubon Society, which has been the most diligent participant in the efforts to maintain • • Tukwila City Council April 23, 1991 Page 6 the Pond and its habitat, has also advocated a flexible approach because it could provide the opportunity for greater long -term protection. A copy of the Seattle Audubon letter to the Planning Commission is attached for your information. These are not new or unique concepts. Indeed, the draft ordinance proposal by the Planning Commission sought to establish such a system. However, in preferring a system of arbitrary buffers, the City Council will preclude all reasonable use or development of a site that may be consumed in its entirety by a wetland buffer, a setback, or other City- imposed requirements. In the case of Tukwila Pond, a man -made phenomenon created by the City of Tukwila, this restriction is unfair and unwarranted. We have referred to a number of studies•and documents in these comments which are in the City's files and we would ask that they be incorporated into the record of these proceedings. We hope that the City Council will consider the evidence that has been accumulated over many years regarding the Tukwila Pond site, and the findings and decisions pertaining to the development of the non - sensitive areas adjacent to the Pond. We are deeply concerned by the proposed legislation because the Report upon which it is based seemingly ignores this information and proceeds to recommend a wetland buffer system which would deprive Spieker Partners of any reasonable use of its property. We would'be happy to work with the City to revise the sensitive areas legislation to provide the flexibility necessary to accommodate Tukwila's unique resources, including Tukwila Pond. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Enclosure Ve . j ruly rs cc: Mike Kenyon, Tukwila City Attorney Spieker Partners 2 0 8 0 3 2 ster ccaitle Audubon csocict4 Washington Nonprofit Corporation • Seattle, WA 94401 • 206 /6S -664E So2g --S5 'AdCN•G, ggtt5 5'Z3 -44483 July 30, 1990 Planning Commission City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington RE: Proposed Sensitive Areas Regulations Dear Commissioners: Seattle Audubon Society has reviewed the proposed regulations developed to provide more stringent protection for sensitive areas within the City of Tukwila. We look at this proposal with high regard and we admire the City for finally attempting to institute some kind of defined regulatory control. As you know Seattle Audubon Society has and continues to be concerned with project proposals within the City. We wholeheartedly support the proposed Sensitive Areas Ordinance, in concept, and therefor request that you consider the comments contained in this letter before finalizing these regulations. We are concerned that the proposed regulations have precluded some level of flexibility that would offer equal or greater long term protection for sensitive areas within the City. For instance there is no provision for flexible wetland buffer standards. This type of flexibility may be justified if certain buffer enhancements were deemed appropriate. Such enhancement could entail restoration of wetland and buffer functions utilizing such measures as replacement or addition of vegetation. Strict maintenance of water quality and quantity, if this activity could be provided outside of any required buffer area, may also diminish the necessity for large buffer requirements. Although the concepts of buffer enhancement and water quantity /quality protection may not be appropriate in all situations the decision to allow such flexibility would require that the design be submitted by competent professionals. Further, any offer by a proponent that will offer permanent protection for a large portion of a sensitive area should be considered. Permanent protection could provide long term • protection that trancends the regulatory scheme whether or not additional regulation changes the use in the future. Ideally a combination of these, or similar, flexible standards should be required in order for a proponent to qualify. Such concepts as vegetative enhancement and strict controls of water quality and quantity must also require that performance standards be imposed so that corrective action can be taken if there are any problems with any accepted design. These comments are intended to be general in nature and we hope they are of some value to you. There is much to consider when developing this kind of land use regulation and Seattle Audubon Society desires to share our experience in participating in a variety of jurisdictional concepts similar to those of the City of Tukwila. Sincerely, Asge-t--„, Gerry Adams President AMSTC1/4c. /1- cZa.x/ Tukwila Pond E.I.S. Meeting Agenda bocci $ /C liv April 17, 1991 FR�02.(P4CZl "-te7T v 1. 58th Avenue South a. Right of way with signal vs. easement. b. Demonstrate access across Target property. c. Resolve conflicts with driveway to immediate west. 2. So. 168th Street a. Submit Plans and Sections with respect to property lines and existing structures and accesses. b. Identify impacts and mitigating measures. c. Demonstrate rights to property and agreement of impacted property owners to mitigation. 3. Traffic Impacts a. Ron Cameron to use Chris Brown trip generation numbers to calc. project responsibility for road improvements based on Tukwila methodology. b. Pedestrian system improvements. 4. Storm Water Biofiltration a. King County storm water standards of 1/1/90 are required to satisfy Federal Clean Water Act. This is ,.much more extensive biofiltration than in Phase I. �. torm Water Runoff Impacts on Pond Level. a. Hydrologic study required to show peak impacts for standard design storm and how average pre - development pond level will be maintained. This is essential for buffer location and impacts on existing riparian border areas which are a critical habitat element. 6. Potable Water System Improvements a. Water system is deficient. See Pat Brodin for required improvements from Andover Park W. to the west. 7. All Descriptions of Proposed Action Must Reflect Mitigation. a. A 20 ft. fire lane on the east is required of all alternatives. b. Revise project drawings to reflect full range of proposed actions including, but not limited to above. 8. Sensitive Area Ordinance Impacts on Project E.I.S. a. The proposed project must be consistent with whatever SAO provisions are adopted. There is no vesting with respect to this. b.. Project alternatives are not consistent with current SAO draft and will have to be revised once the SAO is adopted. The degree of change will be reviewed for the need for a supplemental E.I.S. 9. Other • MEMORANDUM To: Ron Cameron Jack Pace From: Vernon Matsu, Associate Planner Department of Community Development Date: 4/4/91 RE: T -POND Pre -DEIS Review. I'm trying to schedule a meeting for transmitting city comments on the Pre -DEIS (PDEIS) from the consultants on April 16th (Tue) or April 17th (Wed) This meeting would include a 1 hour staff only meeting to coordinate our comments, followed by a general meeting to run about 2 hours. A 3 hour meeting is anticipated due to the extensive, significant issues that remain to be acknowledged and resolved. These issues include, but are not limited to: reinforcing the extreme arms length relationship between applicant and consultant, a lack of 58th and 168th extension description and impact analysis, no demonstrated approval by owners of properties through which road and utilities will pass through (therefore cannot include these as infrastructure support of the development), proposed filling of a Class I wetland which is prohibited under the proposed SAO ord., and various other analysis gaps and poor quality presentation figures. Attending would be the consultants, developer and staff. Please get back to me n Friday; 478 _22) on when you will be ava Thanks. I .mr C)11 i(es H I L L I S C L A R K M A R T I N & P E T E R S O N A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 -2925 (206) 623 -1745 Facsimile (206) 623 -7789 March 27, 1991 Mr. Rick Beeler, Planning Director City of Tukwila Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Southcenter Plaza Phase II EIS Dear Rick: We are writing to confirm our telephone conversation this morning regarding the schedule of the City's review of the preliminary draft EIS for the above - referenced project. We understand that a member of your staff has commenced review of the document and that Jack Pace will complete the review upon his return to the office tomorrow. We understand further that all of the other City departments with an interest in this matter have received copies of the preliminary draft EIS and that a staff meeting will take place sometime next week so that your department can collect all of the comments for transmittal to The Ferris Company. In view of this schedule, we have advised The Ferris Company to expect a call from Jack Pace sometime next week and to be prepared to respond to the City's comments immediately so that the EIS may be published without further delay. We appreciate your attention to this matter. cc: The Ferris company Jack Pace Ferris/ Company Partners 3 0 6 5 2 7 20! ruly -nn J. Amster MIWPW06 MAR 28 1991 PANNING DEPT. I T er'ERRIS COMPANY Key Bank Bldg. • 10655 NE 4th St. • Ste.S0‘• Bellevue, WA 98604 • (206) 462 -7650 TO 1 rP CF CM OF u.> > 1 A- -P h-tv N i Dt\[. 1\1(W ∎\ f -1w-\ l (Q2fD TbL\LTA. (.et) 9 B i ag Attention WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter LATTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date Job No. : 1 DESCRIPTION . ,, rr ��\y1 \\ 199 ti1PR it ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Change order ❑ the following items: ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION (Pr 1, 1. t•-11.-Li . -Dpicter els Cgo,.. po z.) rine. S 7,53 -1!• C5' Ni X \ ?P \s (.evuap'l) . THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested AFor review and comment ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Retumed for corrections ❑ Rbsubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Retum corrected prints 0 ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS 2 ETf 14cTe : tNeNch ): A >}r 13 LiakA COPY TO SIGNED M endosures•are not as noted, klndly nottly us at once. HE FERRIS COMPANY January 30, 1991 Jack Pace Tukwila Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Southcenter Plaza Phase II -EIS Dear Jack: I thought I would update you on the status of this EIS. Since we met last October, we have been endeavoring to develop responses to the City's comments on the preliminary Draft EIS, including your request to develop new alternatives which would comply with the City's proposed Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Adding the fifty - foot buffer alternative required additional research by all consultants for a thorough presentation of impacts and mitigating measures including additional wetlands analysis, mapping, surveying, and site planning work. Also, recently the proponent has had to revise the project to incorporate the required 20 -foot fire lane; this also required additional site planning work and wetlands analysis. Comments from the Public Works Department necessitated a re -do of the traffic study. The Ferris Company has been working diligently to satisfactorily complete the requirements of this DEIS in a timely manner. The current status of the project is as follows: 1. TRAFFIC INFORMATION (CHRISTOPHER BROWN) The updated Traffic Study was received from Christopher Brown & Associates and was incorporated into the document during the first two weeks of January, 1991. 2. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION (MITHUN) Architectural drawings for the proposed action currently are being revised. The drawings for the 50 -foot buffer alternative are in progress. The completion of these drawings hinges on receiving cross - sections of the pond edge from Barghausen Engineers in order to locate the edge of the wetland from which the 50 -foot buffer will be measured. We expect to receive these drawings February 8, 1991. Key Bank Building, Suite 506 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 FAX 206/646 -7875 206/462 -7650 3. WETLANDS INFORMATION (IES) Information regarding the vegetation map and wetland impacts was received January 15, 1991 from IES but was not adequate. A properly scaled map and written information for both the proposal and 50 -foot buffer alternative are expected to be received no later than Friday, February 1, 1991. 4. ENGINEERING, INFORMATION (BARGHAUSEN) Cross sections of the wetland bank are expected from the Civil Engineer by Friday, February 1, 1991 in order to complete the architectural drawings for the 50 -foot buffer alternative. They are to provide an updated Grading,. Drainage and Utilities Map, information regarding stormwater runoff, percentage of disturbed soils, grading requirements, etc., for the proposed action. As soon as the site plan for the 50 -foot buffer alternative is complete (no later than February 8, 1991), it will be forwarded to Barghausen to calculate grading, stormwater runoff, etc., to be calculated for this alternative. We expect their work on the alternative to be completed by February 15. If all information is provided by the date indicated, we will deliver the second preliminary DEIS for your review by February 25, 1991. The remainder of the schedule will then be revised accordingly. I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, The Ferris Company (.a&L Leslie Lloyd Project Manager cc: Walter Kaczynski November 23, 1990 Jack Pace Tukwila Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Southcenter Plaza: Phase II EIS Contract Amendment Dear Jack: F R-�,15 COMPANY Nov 27 1990 CITY .6 o a a f = PLANNING DEPT. We are sending 2 originals of an amendment to our EIS contract. The amendment covers the costs associated with completing the following additions to our contracted scope of work: o Revise the project to reflect a lower building and the addition of a fire lane; o Add wetland buffer alternatives; and o Revise transportation analysis. The revisions will require an addition to our budget. The additional amount set forth in this Contract Amendment is $9,282.00; the total for the Draft EIS is therefore now $44,872.00 Please see that both of these originals are authorized and one is returned to us as quickly as possible. Then please call me and we can discuss schedules. - Sincerely, zzat.?,k_ Leslie Lloyd Project Manager LAL:slw Enclosures cc: Walter Kaczynski Key Bank Building, Suite 506 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 FAX 206/646 -7875 206/462 -7650 `to ifui171: 90 �3 AMENDMENT NO. 1 CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II EIS OUR AGREEMENT, made and entered into on the 7th day of May, 1990, by and between the City of Tukwila ( "City ") and The Ferris Company ( "Consultant ") is herewith amended. WHEREAS, the City issued their comments on the Southcenter Plaza: Phase II Preliminary Draft EIS on October 9, 1990; and WHEREAS, the City is requiring analysis of additional expanded wetland buffer alternatives; and WHEREAS, Spieker Partners has modified the proposal's fire access and overall height and bulk, the parties agree as follows: Scope of Work Consultant will prepare a Draft EIS for Southcenter Plaza: Phase II based on the scope of work from the original contract agree- ment (Exhibit A), as well as the 10 -9 -90 comments received from the City. Changes in the Consultant's Scope of Work, as compared to the scope anticipated in the original contract agreement are as follows: o One additional wetland buffer alternative and a variation thereof will be included for analysis in the Draft EIS: A 45 to 50 -foot wetland buffer alternative; a 100 -foot wetland buffer variation will be discussed in Chapter 2 only, since a development which reasonably achieves the proponent's objectives could not occur with this buffer unless public right -of -way understandings are amended. The 45 to 50 -foot wetland buffer alternative will be discussed for all environmental elements. o Revisions to the description and analysis of the proposal will be made throughout the document to reflect changes to the project's emergency access and overall height and bulk. o Further coordination and management of the project team will be necessary with the addition of one new alternative and modification of the proposal. o Additional /revised graphics (approximately 3 additional and 5 revised) will be required to depict the new alternatives and changes to the proposal. • • o Additional transportation analysis as requested by Public Works; to include obtaining new data from the City, developing alternative trip assignment, recomputation of capacities, evaluating signalization of 58th Street, deriving new mitigating measures and revising all transportation figures (22). COST OF SERVICES It is understood that the total cost of services and expenses related to completion of the Draft EIS shall not exceed $9,282.00. (See Exhibit D for a cost breakdown). Unless specifically changed by this Amendment, all terms and conditions contained in the basic agreement remain in effect. IN APPROVAL, the authorized representatives of the parties to this Agreement have signed below. Client: THE CITY OF TUKWILA Rec: Attest: Consultant: THE FERRIS COMPANY L L.� lichael J. u en, Vice President Date: L6 -fa Approved as to Legal Form 71/tiaa / Pz(1f 11 ,►City Attorney • EXHIBIT D ADDITIONAL PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II DRAFT EIS The following outlines the additional proposed budget to prepare the Draft EIS for issuance by the City of Tukwila. This budget represents our best estimate of the labor and costs associated with completing the tasks identified in the previous section. This budget assumes that the Draft EIS will address the scope of work from the original May 7, 1990 agreement, the requirements of the City's October 9, 1990 comments on the Preliminary Draft EIS, and the changes to the proposal by Spieker Partners. As indicated in the original contract, the estimated scopes and budget for FEIS completion (an additional $8,000) will be reviewed, and as necessary, revised upon receipt of the public and agency's comments on the issued DEIS. DEIS - Additional Budget Professional Labor Project Director $ 432.00 Project Manager 3,640.00 Project Research 2,300.00 Secretarial 375.00 Subtotal $ 6,747.00 Subconsultant Labor Christopher Brown & Associates Subtotal $ 1,985.00 Expenses Graphics (approximately 8 revised/ additional) Copying, printing (additional costs for printing up to 40 copies of the Draft EIS) Mileage, parking Miscellaneous (telephone, delivery, FAX) PREVIOUS TOTAL DEIS BUDGET REVISED TOTAL DEIS BUDGET $ 350.00 100.00 50.00 50.00 Subtotal $ 550.00 TOTAL $ 9,282.00 $36,015.00 $45,297.00 • • Mr. Walter S. Kaczynski, Project Manager Spieker Partners P. 0. Box 97022 Bellevue, WA 98009 -9722 Re: Southcenter Plaza Phase II Amended Traffic Study Elements Dear Mr. Kaczynski: Christopher Brown 0 Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 Fax 772 -4321 November 1, 1990 As you know, by memorandum dated September 12th to Mr. Ron Cameron from staff, we have been asked to prepare a more extensive analysis which departs somewhat from the original scope of work defined by the city in their (Mr. Cameron's) memorandum dated March 30, 1990. Regardless, and on the off - chance that more information is really needed beyond that which is in the city files (e.g. Schofield), we have done that and are enclosing a copy of the current and future, normal and pre- Christmas noon and p.m. peak hour levels of service. This table essentially covers all the intersections of interest with.one exception, 61st Place at Strander (the new signalized intersection serving Target and the Southcenter Mall.) We are unfortunately still stuck at top- dead - center since the September 12th memorandum asks that we include a number of items that are all in the CH2M -Hill study, which study we can not get a copy of since it is not available to the public. I believe it is not yet approved. We are also required to assume signalization at 58th Avenue/ Strander, a concept that I am not sure a wise and prudent engineer would suggest. Again, this is due to its being mentioned in the CH2M -Hill study, which study we can not get. Similarly, a full right and left in and out design at this intersection is to be analyzed. Again, this is without any review /coordination of /with said study. In view of the unavailability of the CH2M -Hill study, I would like to ask that the city allow us to "fold into" our prior study the additional data, noted on the enclosed, and delete any and all reference to the CH2M -Hill study since its divine guidance has not yet been sent down from the mountain. Traffic Engineers 4 Transportation Planners Mr. Walter S. Kacz• ki, Project Manager • November 1, 1990 page 2 In summary, we are not really able to comply with all the requirements requested by the latest city memorandum and, further, see no likelihood of a timely compliance. However, we have now expanded the study data files to include a large array of intersections, as requested by that memo, and have also covered the pre- Christmas shopping season, a time period that would not normally be covered in any traffic study . In my judgement, then, the additional analysis suggested in the latest memorandum and with the CH2M -Hill report would not really be meaningful as a decision making tool in the context of this D.E.I.S. This traffic study does not pretend to be an areawide traffic study (despite its large number of intersections). Also, since the trip generation we have used is indeed a worst case in that it has higher trip rate than anticipated with the proposed facility, a margin of safety on the high side does exist. Thus, we ask that the additional requirements be deleted and we conclude the traffic study with the data from the enclosed. Yours trul C. V. Brown, P.E. cvb /s encl. cc DPW 410Current Levels of Servic411 Intersection Southcenter Parkway/ Southcenter Access Road Southcenter Parkway/ Klickitat Drive Southcenter Parkway/ Northbound I -5 Off Ramp Southcenter Parkway/ Strander Boulevard Southcenter Parkway/ S. 180th Street Strander Boulevard/ Andover Park West Southcenter Parkway/ S. 168th Street Strander Boulevard/ 58th Place S. Average Christmas Weekday Season Noon PM Peak Noon PM Peak B C E B D D C F F E F F MEN D D D D E F E F N /A N/A N/A N/A Design Hour Levels of Service Southcenter Parkway/ Southcenter Access Road Southcenter Parkway/ Klickitat Drive Southcenter Parkway/ Northbound I -5 Off Ramp Southcenter Parkway / Strander Boulevard Southcenter Parkway/ S. 180th Street Strander Boulevard/ Andover Park West Southcenter Parkway/ S. 168th Street Strander Boulevard/ 58th Place S. • Noon PM Peak Noon PM Peak B B C C C C C C F E F E C D D F r F F F F D D D D E F E F A A A A CITY OF TUKWILA CUSTOMER CHARGE TRANSMITTAL DATE' ot,-- r0 » , vA Lz - EMPLOYEE'S NAME' CUSTOMER• SPA €r z 'Pi11 TrJchs CHARGES: DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER AMOUNT SePA S<L 3 Q-1 coo. 54,k.,1-.0.6 $ 15 1oS..S Stiu•,e Pet TOTAL $ -LS -RIEN,..M1 OCT 191990 1 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 rrrrn 1 ILI°JLU l: PHONE # (206)433 1800 S E P 1219 ry VonDusen, Mayor PlIANNEE'E.G DEP �'. MEMORANDUM TO: Ron Cameron, City Engineer FROM: Phil Fraser /Ross Heller DATE: September 12, 1990 SUBJECT: Tukwila Pond Phase II - Project No. 90 -DV25 Public Works staff has reviewed the Southcenter Plaza, Phase II draft environmental impacts statement and provides the following input: 1. Sanitary Sewer System - Per 1984 -85 sanitary sewer comprehensive plan sewage system is adequate - agreement with report findings. 2. On the subject of domestic water supply, the draft EIS states: "The City of Tukwila has indicated that mains would need to be extended through the project and loop from Andover Park West to Strander Boulevard ". The source of this comment is unknown; it was more appropriate for Southcenter Plaza, Phase I. The 1984 -85 Comprehensive Water Plan adopted by the Tukwila City Council indicates that an upgrading of the main network system in the region service this development is necessary. Per the July 5, 1989 circulation of the Southcenter Plaza, Phase II Tukwila Pond draft impact statement, the Developer's engineer was requested to provide an updated water analysis to determine the adequacy of the City's system to serve the proposed development. This analysis needs to be provided (refer to Pat Brodin, Senior Water and Sewer Engineer - 433 -0179 for City's latest Comprehensive Plan information). 3. Appendix C, No. 1, C3 - Change to "reviewed" (Per paragraph flooding on Page 3 -8) 4. On Page 3 -7, second paragraph it states "Tukwila approximately 15 acre fresh water pond /wetland, maintains water surface elevation of approximate 13' (City of Tukwila determined by field service during October and November of From more current surveys done by Public Works, the pond has increased closer to 15' (contact Pat Brodin). Pond, an a static datum) as 1987..." elevation 5. Page 3 -8, remove paragraph 3. "The operation of the valve does not affect pond levels as discussed, the paragraph is not germain to the report. Page 3 -9, Paragraph 4 - Question: Where in Uniform( Building Code is the requirement for storm drainage in public parking . areas to be transmitted to sewer system? 6. Page 3 -5, under flooding, next to the last paragraph - indicated 25.0 foot flood elevation (where is this information derived ?). Also 30' for occupied space is identified as elevation. However, elevation of the underground parking structures have not been indicated and the type of flood proofing that will be necessary needs to be expanded upon in detail in terms of impacts and mitigations under this section. The Development will have to address the unique issue of putting a 2 -story pump station to pump ground water of a submerged building out and back into the pond and not pump directly into sanitary sewage. Picking up a sealed 2 -story submerged building will have to be a separate pumping and discharge operation from the sanitary sewerage and separated with the building through some engineered design which meets the approval of FEMA, the City of Tukwila and Metro. Discussion of mitigating measures of submerged construction building needs further discussion in text. TRAFFIC: In review of the Southcenter Plaza: Phase II Traffic Study of June 9, 1990 by Christopher Brown & Associates recommends the following mitigations for this development: a. Primary access: S. 168th to Southcenter Parkway b. Secondary Access: Right in /out on S. 58th Street to Strander Blvd. c. Signalization at S. 168th /Southcenter Parkway Only LOS's for 58th Avenue S. /Strander Blvd. and Andover Park West /Strander Blvd. are discussed in terms of impacts /mitigations in this report. The April, 1990 Roadway Capacity and Deficiency Study appears not to have been referenced in the 6/9/90 Chris Brown Traffic Study. In order to assure that appropriate alternatives have been explored and applied, and the affected portions of the CBD roadway system impacts and mitigations are identified, the following additional information is requested: Develop the alternative identified in the recommended alternative of the April, 1990 Roadway Capacity and Deficiency Study by CH2M -Hill, and include the following elements in that alternative: a. A full right & left /in /out access at 58th Avenue /Strander Blvd. This will be a signalized intersection. b. Street widenings in Strander Blvd. and Southcenter Parkway per the CH2M -Hill Study recommended alternative. c. Signalization at S. 168th Street /Southcenter Parkway Provide existing and future condition analysis, including LOS's and safety (vehicular and pedestrian) for the following intersections (with and without S. 168 /Southcenter Parkway & 58th Ave. S. /Strander connections): - Southcenter Parkway /S. 168th Street - Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd. - Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive - Southcenter Parkway /I -5 Off -ramp (Signalized) - 58th Ave. S. /Strander Blvd. - Andover Park West /Strander Blvd. - 61st Place South /Strander Blvd. This additional analysis is needed in order to complete our review and input of the traffic portion of impacts /mitigations resulting from this development. Development File: Tukwila Pond August 24, 1990 Mr. Jack Pace City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Southcenter Plaza: Phase II Dear Jack: As we discussed, enclosed please find one copy of the Southcenter Plaza: Phase II biological analysis prepared by IES Associates. There are a couple of items in this report which will need to be corrected /expanded prior to publication of the Draft EIS. Firstly, on page 7, paragraph 2, IES incorrectly indicates that additional plantings could occur between the proposed buildings and the 25 -foot buffer adjacent to Tukwila Pond. There is actually no available area in which to do this planting, since the proposed buildings abut the 25 -foot buffer. Secondly, the vegetation map does not graphically depict the wetland adjacent to the Toys -R -Us parking lot. The southeastern site area which extends toward Tukwila is also not shown. Please call if you have any questions on this report. I understand that the City's comments on the preliminary Draft EIS should be available after Labor Day. Sincerely, Gr-t hen Brunner Pro ect Manager GB:hd Enclosure cc: Rex Van Wormer Joel Benoliel Glenn Amster Key Bank Building, Suite 506 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 FAX 206/646 -7875 206/462 -7650 -. • TUKWILA POND (CLASS I WETLAND) 1111.04.1"".2arotivr.,.-Amkow_Aa"7. • • •• • • • .7.1 1?V—Argr • 41 "",��''°" a+:e ...ate'"'• .. - CLASS III WETLAND MIXED GRASS RIPARIAN BORDER SHRUB SCRUB WETLAND Fl PROPERTY BOUNDAR � -N 1 •. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • f • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • f • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • . • • CLASS Jfl. WETLAND SCALE: 1"=50' 1ES ASSOCIATES OLYMPIA, WA TUKWILA POND PHASE 11 SPIEKER PARTNERS VEGETATION MAP VENNI • • TUKWILA POND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATEMENT PLANTS AND ANIMALS Plants: The plant communities on the proposed site have been significantly modified with the filling and stock - piling activity that took place on the site as authorized by the original permit issued by the City of Tukwila for the development of the proposed project. This fill was placed on top of an original fill that extended from the Double Tree Inn /Toys "R" Us parking lot on the west, to the edge of the pond on the east. The original fill created the pond and the steep vertical bank at the edge of the pond. The new fill created a bench that sets back from the pond edge. With the newly placed fill, the original fill, and the pond bank, there are three distinct areas (Figure ). Vegetation on that portion of the old fill not covered by new material (i.e., a narrow 15 to 30 foot linear strip between the new fill and the top of the pond bank) is varied depending on the location. The northern end is dominated by a grass mix consisting of quackgrass (Agropyron spicatum) , orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), and red clover (Trifolium pratense) with intrusions of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor). In the low depressions at the toe of the fill, there is a mix of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), softrush (Juncus effusus), sierra rush (Juncus nevadensis), velvet - grass (Holcus lanatus), curly dock (Rumex crispus), cats -ear (Hypochaeris glabra), meadow foxtail (Alopecurus geniculatus), common velvet -grass (Holcus mollis) , and white clover (Trifolium repens) with the dominant plant being sierra rush. In the standing water areas where the drainage has been blocked by the fill and the filter- fabric fence, there is an increase in sierra rush and small patches of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). There are three small Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) trees approximately 1 to 3 feet tall starting to grow in this low area. The depression is approximately 10 feet wide and 120 feet long lying against the toe of the existing fill. There is evidence from the vegetation, for a distance of about 60 feet near the center of this depression, that the depression extends to the west under the existing fill. South of the depression, the vegetation was more typical of the level area in the north. It supports quackgrass, velvet - grass, cats -ear, dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and red clover with individual clumps of orchard grass. To the south where the fill extends to the curtain in one area, there is a mix of velvet-grass, red fescue (Festuca rubra), and smooth brome (Bromus enermis) with scattered patches of orchard grass, meadow foxtail, bearded wheatgrass (Agropyron caninum), and rat -tail fescue (Festuca myuros). Throughout this area, there is a fairly substantial, but scattered mix of cats -ear and dandelion. Further to the south, the area becomes wet again and stands water. The dominant vegetation is sierra rush, soft rush, velvet - grass, curly dock, and alsike clover (Trifolium dubium). This area was standing water on June 12, 1990. At the south end where the fill is shallower, there is evidence of standing water with softrush, sierra rush, and reed canarygrass growing through the shallow edge of the fill. The bank of Tukwila Pond along the face of the original fill is vegetated with a mixed forested canopy dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra) with clusters or individual black cottonwood trees scattered throughout. Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra) and Scouler's willow are growing along the edge of the water and form prostrate overhanging stands. Oregon ash (F. latifolia) , big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) , sour cherry (Prunus cerasus), and domestic apple (Pyrus spp.) are scattered along the edge at the top of the bank. The dominant understory is Himalayan blackberry up to the open area where various grass mixes on the old fill become dominant. Additional plants growing in the understory are nootka rose, salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) , bank -side horsetail • • (Equisetum arvense), and reed canarygrass with scattered snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) and black hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii) growing along the outer edge. The water edge varies throughout the length of the proposed development site. At the north end, there is little vegetation in the water or overhanging the water. The dominant species is mostly upright alder and black cottonwood. To the south, there is an extension of the willow edge out into the southwest corner of the pond. Water smartweed (Polygonum aquifolium) and nightshade (Solanum dulcemara) form floating mats along the edge of the water at this point. The plant communities and values of this area that extended. waterward of the toe of the fill bank were covered in the Environmental Impacts Statement of Phase I of this development and the (unpublished) Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed South 168th Street right -of -way along the south edge of the pond. The riparian tree /shrub buffer along the edge of the water has been isolated from the fill_ by a filter- fabric fence that has reduced siltation to a minimum. The 100 foot setbacks recommended by Jones & Stokes (Wetlands Inventory and City of Tukwila - Tukwila Water Resource and Buffer Recommendations, 1989) includes: (1) an area, approximately 10 to 15 feet wide, that encompasses the bank of Tukwila Pond, (2) that portion of the original fill that was not covered by the new fill and grading activities, and (3) approximately 75 feet of an area involved with the new grade and fill activities. The Jones & Stokes recommendations were based on the results of their wetland study for the City of Tukwila which included a literature survey. Buffer recommendations were based on the Washington Department of Wildlife, King County, and other jurisdiction recommendations. The proposed buffers vary depending on the classification of the specific wetland. Tukwila Pond is classified as a "high value" wetland. Under normal circumstances, 100 foot buffers are recommended for high value wetlands. The specific recommendation for wetlands that have been disturbed or have had portions of the buffers reduced for past developments, is that "no additional buffer encroachment be allowed ". Tukwila Pond (Wetland #9) was specifically addressed. Without a revegetation plan for the Jones & Stokes additional buffer, the area between the pond edge and any development would revert to a mixed invader forbe /grass community with the dominant plants being typical species found on abandoned areas in the vicinity. These normally include Canadian and bull thistle (Cirsium arvense and vulgare) , Scots's broom (Cystisus scoparius) , dandelion, cats-ear,. velvet - grass, orchard grass, and quackgrass. Himalayan blackberry and red alder frequently join these other invaders. Vegetation in the area to the south, which was not filled, consists of a mixed tree /shrub component with a grass understory. The trees are madrone (Arbutus menziesii), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), Scouler's willow (Salix scoulerana), and a mixed understory of hardhack (Spirea douglasii), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), pea -fruit rose (Rosa pisocarpa), and nootka rose (Rosa nutkana). The edges adjacent to the Bon Marche truck yard and other open space areas are dominated by dense stands of Himalayan blackberry. Ground cover varies depending on the elevation.. The higher elevations have swordfern (Polystichum munitum) as the dominant ground cover with patches of rat -tail fescue, smooth brome, and orchard grass. In the low swaled area that leads down from the _Toys "R" Us parking lot to the pond, the dominant ground cover is softrush and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) with patches of reed canarygrass. Wetlands There are two areas on the proposed development site plus the pond that are technically classified as wetlands under the "Unified Federal Agency Multi - parameter Procedure ". Under this procedure, the site would require hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology (either ground water or surface water) to be classified as a wetland. These include the pond, a drainage in the southwest corner of the site and portions of the old fill between the top of the pond slope and the new fill. Other areas between the top of the pond and the new fill meet one or more of these wetland criteria, but not all three. The pond up to the edge of the bank is a wetland. It has extended standing or surface water year- around and hydric vegetation. No soil samples were taken, however, it is assumed that the water has influenced the soils to the point where it would display hydric conditions if sampled. The pond is technically outside of the development area, but is impacted by the size and type of development and the proposed setbacks from the top of the pond bank to the proposed development site. The second wetland is a small drainage slough in the southwest corner of the site. The slough varies from 3 to 10 feet wide and extends from the Toys "R" Us parking lot to the pond. The total distance is approximately 200 feet. The true wetland in this area is approximately 0.02 acres in size. The third, a small depression on the old fill area, between the top of the pond slope and the recent fill, is an emergent marsh wetland dominated by sierra rush and softrush. The total area which meets the wetland classification and is approximately 1200 square feet or 0.03 acres. The only wetland to be classified by Jones & Stokes (1989) is Tukwila Pond. The two other areas were not considered to be wetlands in the delineation of wetlands within the City of Tukwila. Under the Army Corps of Engineers, these wetlands would be considered isolated since they are both supported by surface water runoff or collected rainwater and are not directly influenced by Tukwila Pond. The total combined area is 0.05 acres, which is significantly less than the 1 acre allowed to be filled the Army Corps of Engineers under the Nationwide Permit. Classification: Under the US Fish and Wildlife Service classification procedures (Cowardin, 1971), the pond would be classified as a Palustrine Permenantly Flooded Unconsolidated Bottom wetland. The border along the pond's edge is classified as a Palustrine Forested Shrub /Scrub wetland. A small isolated depression between the top of the bank and the toe of the east fill would be classified as a Palustrine Emergent Marsh. The drainage in the southwest corner would also be classified as a Palustrine Emergent Marsh wetland. Under the City of Tukwila's proposed wetland classification (i.e., Jones & Stokes, 1990), Tukwila Pond would classified as a Class I wetland, the two isolated area wetlands would be Class III wetlands. Impacts: Proposed Project: The proposed development would be built on the existing new fill. The toe of this fill extends to within 25 to 35 feet of the edge of the water. The fill would be extended east in those areas where the separation between the existing fill and the pond edge is greater than 25 feet. This would create a continuous 25 foot buffer between the, edge of the water and the toe of the existing fill. The proposed development would not encroach or fill any of the existing riparian vegetation along the pond edge or the majority of the undisturbed vegetation between the riparian vegetation and the toe of the existing fill. Wetlands that would be impacted are in the depression at the toe of the existing slope and the southwest corner (0.07 acre) near the north end of the project site. The proposed parking lot in the southwest corner would eliminate the mixed tree /shrub community, including a narrow drainage ditch that has been identified as a wetland in previous Environmental Impact Statements. Trees to be impacted are madrone, willow, and red alder. The proposed 25 foot buffer would not impact the existing riparian border along the west side of the pond. With the proposal to revegetate that portion of the pond between the . existing riparian edge and the proposed buildings, the total shrub /tree buffer would be increased by an average of 18 to 20 feet along the west side of the pond. A mixed tree /shrub community consisting of larger trees of the same type found on the site; shrubs, including seed and fruit bearing species to increase the diversity of habitats for small birds and mammals; and ground cover would be planted. Impacts to the wetlands would be the loss of both of the small isolated wetlands units through filling. The southern most fill would provide the southern parking lot while the fill at the northern end would straighten the fill -grade line to be a consistent 25 foot setback from the top of the pond bank. Major impacts to the northern wetland area would be the loss of a wading area and a small shorebird feeding area. A • • loss of the wetland at the south end would be the loss of a drainage corridor that provides no biological value and whose only functional value is as a conduit to move water from one point to another. There would be no significant loss to wetland or water dependent wildlife species with the loss of these two areas. The proposed drainage system would maintain water quality in the pond. The reduction in the amounts of sediments reaching the pond with the removal of the untreated runoff that now reaches the pond by sheet flow (from areas to the west into across the undeveloped area), would decrease the long term in- filling of the pond and reduce the levels of contaminants that are contained in these sediments. The system would continue to place water in the pond, this duplicates existing conditions. Loss of water to the pond could significantly modify the water levels over time thus impacting the shoreline community and increasing warming of the pond during summer months. These activities could modify shoreline wildlife activity, particularly in the southwest corner. Lowering of the water level or increasing the bottom elevation in this area would stimulate the vegetative encroachment which is slowly taking place under existing conditions. With the construction of buildings along the edge of the buffer and the proper placement of parking lots, the car noise and light glare can be reduced. The impacts from lights and noise is also reduced by the difference in elevation between the proposed development, and the water level. Once the additional buffer plants are grown, the light from cars would be filtered by the tree canopies. This increases filtering of both light and noise to a greater degree than would occur if the parking activity were at ground level. The filtering would be greater in summer than winter because of leaves on the deciduous trees. A pond side trail has been suggested as a public access amenity within the 25 foot buffer. Because of the steepness of the slope and the amount of the buffer that is encompassed by this area, a proposed trail would significantly reduce the amounts, as well as modify the types, of vegetation that could be transplanted into this area. This change and loss of vegetation would impact the types and numbers of passerine birds and ground dwelling small mammals that could use the area. To adequately provide view points from the trail, one or more vantage points would have to be constructed to the waters edge. For safety purposes, these would require some type of structure which would require the removal of existing vegetation. The impacts would defeat the purposes of the buffer. An alternative suggestion would be to provide a raised setback trail system along the south side of the pond in the open meadow area. This could be accomplished without impacting existing vegetation and would allow view access over the lake through existing openings in the shrub tree canopy surrounding the pond. Alternative 1: Alternative I would eliminate the parking lot in the southwest corner of the site. This would eliminate the loss of the tree /shrub community that now exists in the southwest corner of the site which provides an increased buffer separation between the development and the southwest corner of the pond. This area has been demonstrated to have the highest waterfowl habitat values of the pond. Office Development Alternative: Impacts to the plant community with the proposed office building would be basically the same as the impacts created by the proposed alternative. By the nature of the office building which would extend the full length of the site with a 25 foot setback and utilize the southwest corner for parking, there would be a loss of a tree /shrub community in the southwest corner of the site as well as a small portion of the emergent marsh grass mix in the small depression at the toe of the new grade and fill material at the north end of the site. • • The wetland impacts would be the same as those identified in the proposed alternative. No Action Alternative: The no action alternative would leave the site in it's existing condition with the unstable erodable fill that was recently placed on the site left intact. This alternative supposes that the silt curtain would be left in place until this fill material stabilized itself. A requirement that planting grass or some other action be taken to stabilize the bank would not be a no action alternative, but would be a modification which would consist of no development action but • a restoration action. Left alone, the existing new fill area would revegetate itself with a mix of grasses, which are addressed in the last paragraph of the proposed project alternatives in the discussion of the affects of the Jones & Stokes buffer, if imposed without a revegetation requirement. The area would revert to a mixed invader forbes /grass community with the dominant plants, normally considered weeds by the public sector, being thistles, Scotch broom, dandelion, cats -ear, and Himalayan blackberry with a mix of other common grass found in these areas such as velvet grass, orchard grass, quackgrass. In the lower areas in the south end, it would be expected that the revegetation would include softrush, Nevada rush, and reed canarygrass with an increase in velvet grass and possibly some other wet - tolerant grass species. If the vegetative activity that occurred on the old fill was duplicated, the area would stay mostly a grass /forbe mix low pasture with a reed canarygrass dominated area in the south end. Adverse Impacts that Cannot be Mitigated: Proposed Project: The loss of the tree /shrub community at the south end of the proposed project site and two small (0.05 acre combined) isolated, perched wetland areas. Alternative 1: The loss of a 0.03 acre perched, emergent marsh wetland area. Mitigation: A form of mitigation is included within the design parameters of the proposed project. This includes increasing the width of the existing tree buffer by planting the area between the riparian vegetation edge and the toe of the slope with a tree /shrub mix consistent with the species of plants that are growing on the area. The species mix.that would be selected includes: black cottonwood (P. trichocarpa) and Oregon ash (F. latifolia) with A. macrophyllum on the drier areas. The shrub community would include Piper's willow (Salix piperi), Scouler's willow (S. scoulerana), red -osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera), black hawthorn (C. douglasii), and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis). At the toe of the slope, there would be a windrow hedge of snowberry (S. albus) and nootka rose (R. nutkana), which would provide a physical, as well as a visual, separation between the proposed development and the riparian border. The slope would be planted with additional species including larger fruiting trees such as sour cherry (Prunus cerasus) , chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), wild crabapple (Pyrus fusca) and a mixed shrub component. Additional mitigation, which is included as a project design, includes the placement of buildings as close to the outer edge of the revegetated buffer as possible. This eliminates roads, parking lots, and service vehicle impacts to the edge of the natural area. All buildings would include low glare glass, passive colors, and other features that have been demonstrated to be low impacting to wildlife. The final appearance would be consistent with the buildings in Phase 1 of the development. Animals: .The animal survey is based on data provided during the Environmental Impacts Statement for Phase I of the proposed project, the Draft Environmental Impacts Statement (unpublished) for South 168th Street extension, letter responses from Seattle Audubon and individual environmentalists to these documents, and IES surveys during April, May, and June 1990. Five site evaluations were conducted in 1990 to monitor wildlife use of the pond adjacent to the previous developed area during and after the construction phases of development. This evaluation was designed as an attempt to evaluate the impacts of construction, cars, lights, etc., from the developed portion of the site on waterfowl and other bird use in the riparian border and the waters immediately adjacent to the riparian border and on mammal use on the pond bank immediately adjacent'to the development. Surveys were made of the west and north portions of the pond to determine species composition and distribution in these areas. This information was compared to data collected during the field studies for the initial Draft Environmental Impacts Statement and initial studies that were conducted as early as 1985 on other proposed developments. The studies were initiated too late to monitor wintering bird activity on the site. However, some bird use, particularly Canada goose, mallard, pintail, widgeon, and gadwall, were observed on the site within a 50 to 100 feet from the toe of the north bank. Teal, mallard, and gadwall were observed at the bank around and under the overhanging vegetation within 25 feet of the existing development. These observations were made after the bulk of the initial construction was completed, but at a time when construction equipment and vehicular noise were present on the site. The exposed or bare ground areas along the north side were examined for animal tracks. Because of the density of vegetation, no signs were readable. Droppings and other sign of rabbits and ring- necked pheasants were observed in the underbrush along the north edge. Red - tailed hawks continue to use the large black cottonwoods along the north and west sides for perching. These birds appear to be hunting away from the site since there are no short grass areas available within the immediate vicinity of the site. During May and June, wintering and migration bird activities ceased. The remaining birds are considered to be nesters. The pond was still supporting a 10+ mallard pair population, as well as a small flock of transient Canada geese in late May. Small bird use did not appear to have changed as robins, swallows, towhees, winter wrens, and downy woodpeckers were observed in trees along the north bank. Robins, towhees, and wrens were nesting. The west bank of the pond was supporting the same species of birds as the north with the exception of ring- necked pheasants which appear to concentrate on the north bank and in the south reed canarygrass meadow. Waterfowl activity was greatest in the southwest corner near the willow and snag islands. This continues to be consistent with past years activity. It should be noted that no examination was made of the shrub edge or trees along the south or east banks of the pond. The activity in these two areas were not considered as pertinent to the project since they have not and will not be modified. The pond supports one species of fish, common brown bullhead (Ictalurus melas) and two species of frogs: bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) and red - legged frog (Rana aurora). It appears from the amount of activity that the bullfrog population has increased significantly over the past 5 years since the original site evaluations in 1985. Common garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis) were identified along the west and north pond banks where studies were conducted in 1990. • • Impacts: Proposed Project: Direct impacts to wildlife would be minimal since the area where the development is to occur has been filled, graded, and refilled and graded during and since the construction of Phase I of the development. Loss of potential habitat that would become reestablished on the new fill would include loss of ground bird and mammal habitats and some possible shorebird and pond edge waterfowl nesting habitat. These losses would be dependent on the type of revegetation that would occur. Based on wildlife sitings during the months of April, May and June 1990, it appears that the development within 25 feet of the pond has not significantly or noticeably modified or reduced waterfowl, shorebird, or small passerine bird use in the buffer zone that was maintained and enhanced with the construction of Phase I of the development. The north boundary is still receiving the same types of uses from the same species that were present prior to construction of Phase I of the development. The vegetative cover that exists along much of the west boundary, particularly the area in the southwest corner, plus the proposed increased buffering to provide a layers of trees with a dense shrub understory, the size of the pond, and the south open space buffer provide the same level of separation and conditions that were incorporated into Phase I. There is no evidence to demonstrate that impacts expected to occur with this stage of the proposed development would be greater or different than the impacts that have occurred along the north boundary. This is an assumption based on preliminary data. Encircling approximately half of the site with developments may create a pressure that modifies the behavior of the birds in the northwest corner of the site, however, the preliminary evidence, based on impacts from the Target Store which extends around the corner and down the west side for a • • short distance, does not support this assumption. With the completion of the construction in this area, bird and mammal use has returned to pre- construction conditions. The loss of the small wood lot in the southwest corner of the site would eliminate a nesting and loafing area for robins, towhees, and starlings. There is no evidence of upland game bird use in this area, so the impacts to these species would be minimal or non - existent. Some cottontail rabbit habitat would also be eliminated. Setbacks beyond the proposed 25 feet would be on an area that has been recently filled and is now bare dirt with no vegetation or habitat. Over a period of time, this area would regrow to a grass /forbes habitat. Unless the area were seeded or vegetated with shrubs and trees, the length of time that it would take for a viable wildlife habitat to establish itself would be between 15 and 25 years. Building setbacks would provide space for the long -term potential regrowth which cannot occur if the area is developed. It would not, however, provide physical separation and visual buffering between the development and the edge of the existing riparian zone unless there was a requirement for revegetation of the existing fill area. Alternative I: Alternative I would reduce potential impacts to a small population of passerine birds and small mammals that are currently using the south tree /shrub stand site. Office Development Alternative: With the construction of a building that runs the full length of the site creating a passive physical buffer between parking lots, road noise, car lights, and human activity, there would be a reduced potential for secondary impacts from these activities on the pond. There would be no physical removal or replacement of existing vegetation along the pond bank, thereby retaining the existing overhanging shrub characteristics that are providing habitat for a variety of bird and mammals species as well as shading and protection of the fish and habitat for salamanders and other amphibians. There would be a loss of small bird and mammal habitat in the southwest corner with the removal of the trees and shrubs. These impacts would be the same as those associated with the proposed development, as both anticipate the same type and level of activity in the southwest corner. No Action Alternative: Under the no action alternative, the wildlife values that are existing on the site would continue with possible increase in potential on -site feeding, loafing, and nesting habitat as the existing new fill revegetates itself with a grass /forbe community or, if revegetation through stabilization is required, more rapid replacement of a mixed grass loafing and possible nesting area for waterfowl, shorebirds, and small ground -using birds and mammals. There would be no increase in tree or shrub buffering surrounding the pond for small bird nesting and feeding habitat or for perching areas for raptors or aquatic predators, such as kingfishers. Un- avoidable Adverse Impacts that Cannot be Mitigated: o The pond would be bordered on two sides by development. o Possible human impacts to wildlife utilization of the pond would occur and can only be addressed after the construction is completed. Mitigation: The mitigation, which would reduce impacts to wildlife along the west side of the pond, which is a part of the proposed project design, consists of: o Increasing the riparian buffer edge to a 25 foot depth by planting a dense stand of trees and shrubs between the existing riparian border and the toe of the existing slope. The buffer would provide additional ground cover, low shrub • • cover, and a second layer of trees that would create nesting and roosting habitat for a variety of small bird species as well as increase physical separation between the proposed development site and the pond. o Buildings would be constructed as close to the edge of the 25 foot buffer as possible to use the eastern side of the buildings as a passive buffer to protect the riparian edge from day -to -day human activity such as cars, lights, noise, etc. o Uncontrolled human activity (i.e., fishing) would be restricted from this side of the pond. A vantage view point• in the form of a walkway at the edge of the waterway would be considered for bird watching and other regulated pond interests, if desired by the City of Tukwila, the Washington Department of Wildlife, and local conservation groups such as the Seattle Audubon. This area should, however, be restricted to the south side of the pond where view access is available without destruction of existing tree or shrub areas. o Fencing along the top of the fill area between parking lots and the pond would increase the level of buffering of car lights and noise from the pond. The fence would not need to be any higher than three feet to be effective. Higher fences would not improve protection and would become an invitation to dump garbage in the form of drive -in sacks, etc. over the fence. Fences also create a modified environment for plants, usually resulting in invasive plants such as blackberry, bindweed or other similar types of plants becoming established. A nylon mesh or wire fence planted with a vine or trailing shrub, such as wild honeysuckle (Lonicera ciliosa) or climbing roses, would accomplish the same effect over time and provide some level of wildlife habitat. o Educational signs along any proposed trail or vantage points would increase the awareness of the types of animals using such areas. The signs could also discuss how Tukwila Pond was formed, etc. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. City of Tukwila. 1990. Sensitive Areas Ordinance. 2. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golat and E.T. LeRow. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication FWS /OBS- 79/31. 3. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1 9 8 9 . Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service, Washington D.C. .Co-operative technical publication. 4. Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1969. Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. 5. Greeson, P.E., J.R. Clark and J.E. Clark, eds. 1978. Wetland Functions and Values : The State of Our Understanding. Proceedings of the National Symposium on Wetlands, American Water Resources Association. Technical Publication Series TPS 79 -2. 6. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 7. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. Wetlands Inventory. City of Tukwila, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 1989. 8. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. City of Tukwila Water Resource and Buffer Recommendations. City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development and Planning Division, 1990. 9. Soil Survey Staff. 1988. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. Cornell University. 10. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1986. Wetland Plants of the State of • Washington. 1986 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication. WELUT- 86/W12.47. 11. Reed., P.B., Jr.. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands : Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication. WELUT -88 (26.9). 12. Robbins, C.S., B. Brunn and H.S. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America. Golden Press, New York. 13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech. Rep. Y-87-1. 14. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil Survey : King County Area, Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1S. Washington Natural Heritage Program. 1987. Endangered,, Threatened and Sensitive Vascular Plants of Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. • 16. Washington Natural Heritage Program. 1989. Natural Heritage Plan. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. To: Jack Pace City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Development 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Invoice No.: 738 Job No: 3910 Date: Aug. 21, 1990 Pursuant to Exhibit C - Southcenter Plaza: Phase II EIS, Contract for Services, Schedule of Payments, the second payment for services rendered on the Draft EIS is currently due. This represents 50 percent of the contract amount and is due upon City of Tukwila acceptance of the Preliminary Draft EIS submitted August 7, 1990. Contract Amount Total Amount Due This Invoice 50% of Contract Amount Amount Past Due TOTAL AMOUNT DUE Michael J. Vice President men 08 555 bo 000 4, • 0(0 0 s A D AU G 2 21990 GIP( U j;..: -s $36,015.00 18,007.50 -0- $18,007.50 Key Bank Building, Suite 506 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 FAX 206/646 -7875 206/462 -7650 I 0 PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS h tTTORNEYS AT LAW l• %;\ i( . ;r ), l9LIL 1ac_r1�).r,.•f'l1.Q.' y' urt.14(NM 1't-, pYv aaoy'fr I • 1L Ls July 18, 1990 Mr. Phil Fraser.:; Department of.Public Works City of +Yukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Bon Marohe Distribution Center Dear Phil: 1700 SECURITY PACIFIC PLAZA 777 - 108TH AVENUE N.E. BELLEVUE, WA 98004 -5196 TELEPHONE: (206) 453-0300 FACSIMILE: (206) 646 -3081 kiECTNED JUL 1 9 1990 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS Enclosed please find the revised Developer's Agreement with regard to the proposed addition to The Bon Marche Distribution Center in Tukwila. We have incorporated the changes that you had requested and believe the Agreement now to be in a final form acceptable to both the City and The Bon Marche. Please note that we have inserted the proper name of the Lessee, which is the Tukwila Warehouse Service Corporation. This Corporation is owned by Allied Stores, the owner of The Bon Marche. Doug Chantry will ensure that the Agreement is signed by Kathleen Peterson, the President of the Corporation this week. He will then provide you with the signed original so that it may also be executed by the City of Tukwila. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in achieving a mutually agreeable agreement regarding the expansion of the Distribution Center. Sincerely yours, John L. Hendrickson Enclosure cc: Doug Chantry, The Bon Marche Thomas P. Harville, The Bon Marche Peter J. Lucas 1l1h0005 1b07-18-90 12085 -00014 SEATTLE!, WA (206) 621 -7580 Columbia Qr. Fu: (206) 6237022 1.1 fineulne Fu: (206) 6225110 SPOKANE, WA (509) 624.2100 Fu: (509) 4560146 TACOMA, WA (206)272.1500 Fu: (206)272.2913 ANCHORAGE. AK (907) 276.1969 Fu: (907)276.1365 .4 P.1x'rnrecrrrr r.:r r nr crr.1 PrMr, VSION4, (.1,n1- ,,t rrn ;: PORTLAND, OR (503) 228 -3203 Fu: (503)2489085 WASHINGTON, DC (202) 628.1703 Fu: (202)331.1024 .. Gcl.a/1„._14,442<.'' A C FILE # 90..0 7z DATE 'W / g YYo Co. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this �� day of July, 1990 by and betwoen the CITY OF TUKWILA, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City") and TUKWILA WAREHOUSING SERVICES CORPORATION ( "Applicant "). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Applicant is the lessee with respect to certain real property ("Property") located generally east of Southcenter Parkway and south of Tukwila Pond, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for approval of a building permit for the expansion to an existing warehouse /distribution center located on the Property, and WHEREAS, the proposed expansion will produce additional traffic thereby resulting in the need for additional rights - of -way for certain roadways, sidewalk, and roadway improvements, and NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual benefits and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Responsibilities of Applicant: A. The Applicant shall provide Southcenter Parkway frontal sidewalk improvements per Sidewalk Ordinance- Sidewalks /drainage /lightpoles /hydrants. Upon completion of the new sidewalk improvements and associated street improvements, utility relocations, etc. and approval of the same by the City (design and construction), the Applicant shall dedicate, assign and convey to the City, free from any lien or encumbrance, the improvements to be made. Also, at, such time, the Applicant shall furnish to the City a bond or other suitable security in an amount approved by the Public Works Department of the City in a form approved by the City Attorney, guaranteeing the new sidewalks, etc. against any defects in workmanship and materials for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval and acceptance of the same by the City. • B. The Applicant shall ensure that there will be a dedication from the north side of the Property for a 16 -foot wide strip of land for roadway and utility purposes from Southcenter Parkway to the radius of 58 Avenue South and the triangle at the southeast corner of Southcenter Parkway /South 168th Street pursuant to the Barghausen November 8, 1989 design which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". C. 'The Applicant shall provide a defined pedestrian walkway between the west face of building and South 168th /Southcenter Parkway intersection when South 168th Street is constructed. D. The Applicant will make a good faith and diligent effort to obtain an agreement with the J.C. Penney Company to provide for a consolidated single driveway serving the Property and the adjacent J.C. Penney property, which agreement if obtainable should include the following: (1) The design and construction of a consolidated driveway serving both the Applicant's property and the J.C. Penney property at a location such that it is aligned with the driveway to the west. (2) The costs attributable to the consolidated driveway between the Applicant and J.C. Penney shall be shared equally between the two companies. (3) In the event that the Applicant and J.C. Penney shall reach such an agreement, the City shall construct the driveway radius returns at Southcenter Parkway and the City shall design and construct a signal for the intersection of the consolidated driveway and Southcenter Parkway in order to reduce left turn conflicts, provide pedestrian crossing and reduce Southcenter Parkway driveway collisions. (4) The Applicant agrees to a consolidation of the driveways if and when J.C. Penney shall have this same requirement imposed upon it. E. No traffic analysis for increase of 30,000 foot building expansion and conclusion as needs and safety has been calculated: (1) (CH2M, Entranco, Chris Brown) traffic studies have identified needs. (2) 30,000 square feet of additional warehouse space generates less than 10 vehicles per day. F. The Applicant's 16 -foot dedication as set forth in ;.paragraph 1.B exceeds its °fair share° of contribution to South 168th Street from 58th Avenue to Southcenter Parkway. 2. Non- Waiver Extensions. Failure of either party to insist on the strict performance of any of the terms of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of that party's right thereafter to strictly enforce any such term, but the same shall continue in full force and effect. 3. Binding Effect. This agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their respective heirs, legal representatives, assignees, transferees and successors. 4. Attorneys' Fees. In the event that either party shall commence litigation against the other in order to enforce any term or condition of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to recover its cost, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 5. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties hereto, and no other agreement, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto or to have any other force or effect. CITY OF TUKWILA TUKWILA WAREHOUSING SERVICES CORPORATION Kath een Peterson President • ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: OFFIC$ OF THE CITY ATTORNEY zl / B ' ►i/1 (, y: �-i: 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF King ) ) ) ss. On this 21st day of AUGUST , 1990, before me personally appeared GARY L. VAN DUSEN , to me known to be the MAYOR of THE CITY OF TUKWILA, the municipal corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged 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 HE was authorized to execute the said . instrument and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal .of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and ,ear first above written. ,ss,„„uuu..,I,, 9p •. t• ••......,•�• ' • Signature = Notary Pubs • NOTARY d'' 4`c Vrae OF WP '• STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF On this ? day of , 1990, before me personally appeared KATHLEE ET bN, to me known to be the President of TUKWILA W ING S RVICES CORPORATION, the ) ) ) Title My appointment expires: 8/9/1994 ss. 4 corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged 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 she was authorized to execute the said instrument and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. 4j1h0003 1b07 -12 -90 12085 -00014 f Notary Public %kr My appointment expires: dj-/-93 5 CTY F :UKWILA• Claims Fund Voucher Warrant Number Vendor Number F E/2 (, Oct -- N ELF Date — i9 9 0 Vendor Address Fe r r, S en rr..p a 10155 NE yM S4-r t Stk. i-e /1��,� Account Number P. O. No. Inv. No. Description lecov Amount Signed STATE OF WASHINGTON , County of King CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and unpaid obligation against the City tcwila. I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. • Pei C FILE # 9)0--.0513 DATE 5-- 7 9 v CITY OF TUKWILA 01 AND THE FERRIS COMPANY CONTRACT FOR SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this ; day of , 1990, by and between the City of Tukwila, a Washington mun ipal corporation, (hereinafter called "City "), and The Ferris Company, a Washington corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "). In consideration of the following promises, warranties, and covenants, it is agreed between the parties as follows: 1. Employment of Consultant: The City hereby agrees to employ the Consultant and the Consultant hereby agrees to perform the services hereinafter set forth. The Consultant is employed to produce the described SEPA documents as set forth in Paragraph 2 and Exhibit A, Scope of Work. The Consultant is authorized to use Geoengineers, Inc., Barghausen Engineers, Inc., IES Associates, and Christopher Brown & Associates, as subconsultants. No other subconsultants shall be employed unless authorized in writing by the City. Nothing in this Contract shall be construed to create an employee - employer relationship between the Consultant, its employees and the City. 2. Scope of Work: The Consultant shall furnish the necessary equipment, materials and professionally trained and experienced personnel to facilitate completion of the work described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, which is attached hereto, and is incorporated into this agreement as though fully set forth herein. The Consultant hereby warrants that it has the necessary experience, qualified and trained personnel, equipment and materials to complete the work detailed in Exhibit A, Scope of Work. 3. Time of Performance: The work detailed in the Scope of Work will be performed according to Exhibit B, Time Schedule of Completion, attached hereto, and incorporated herein as though fully set forth. It is agreed that all the Consultant's services shall be completed and all products shall be delivered by July 11, 1990, notwithstanding delays due to factors that are beyond the control of the Consultant. If, after receiving Notice to Proceed, Consultant is delayed in the performance of its services by factors that are beyond its control, Consultant shall notify the City of the delay and shall prepare a revised estimate of time and cost needed to complete the Project and submit the revision to the City for its approval. Time schedules • • are subject to mutual agreement for any revision unless specifically described as otherwise herein. 4. Payment for Services: The Consultant agrees to perform work specified in the Scope of Work for preparation and issuance of the DEIS. The City agrees to pay the Consultant an amount, subject to the conditions set forth in this Contract, not to exceed $36,015.00 for services rendered in fulfillment of the DEIS Scope of Work (see Exhibit A -1 for a breakdown of costs). Payment of said sum will include payment for all necessary labor, materials, and facilities used in the completion of the DEIS Scope of Work. Attached as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference is the Schedule of Payments for the completion of specified work products. The Consultant has estimated the budget for the Final EIS as $8,000.00 including all necessary input from the technical consultants (see Exhibit A -1). The Consultant will prepare a final scope of work and budget for the FEIS when all comment letters on the DEIS have been received. The Final EIS scope and budget will be submitted to the City for review and approval. In the event City desires services exceeding the Scope of Work, Consultant shall promptly provide a written estimated completion schedule and detailed scope of work for such Additional Services. Additional Services shall be paid upon a time and expense basis utilizing the Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit D. 5. Project Management: The Project Manager for the Consultant shall be Gretchen Brunner. The Project Manager for the City shall be Jack Pace. All correspondence, work orders, and payment requests concerning this project shall be directed to these individuals. 6. Warranty of Authority: The Consultant hereby warrants and represents that the person who has executed this contract has full authority from the Consultant to do so. The City hereby warrants that the Mayor and City Clerk of City have full power to execute this Contract. 7. Indemnification: The parties further agree that neither party shall be liable for the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of the other party with respect to development, management, operation of the property or Project with respect to the performance of each party's respective duties and obligations under this agreement. To that end, each party shall indemnify, hold the other harmless and defend the other party against any damages, including costs of litigation and attorney's fees, incurred with respect to any claims or legal actions resulting from the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the indemnifying party. • • 8. Products of Services: All final documents, working documents, notes, maps, drawings, photos, etc. produced by or for the Consultant, in furtherance of this Contract, shall be the property of the City and shall be delivered to the City prior to full payment for services under this Contract. 9. Additional Responsibilities: The City shall endeavor to provide the Consultant in a timely manner with all necessary criteria and full information pertinent to the services to be rendered by the Consultant. Further, the City shall endeavor to make available to the Consultant all information, drawings, maps, specifications in City's possession which City and the Consultant consider pertinent to the Consultant's Scope of Work. The Consultant agrees to perform the work specified in a timely manner and to complete the work in a form acceptable to the City within the specified budget and time authorized by this Contract notwithstanding delays due to factors that are beyond the control of the Consultant. 10. Assignment of Rights: Neither party may assign its rights and obligations under this Contract without the express written consent of the other party. 11. Entire Contract: This agreement, consisting of 4 pages and Exhibits A, B, C and D, constitutes the entire agreement or Contract between the parties. The agreements set forth in this Contract supersede all prior written or oral understandings. This agreement may not be amended except in writing signed by the parties hereto. 12. Professional Responsibility: Consultant represents that the services shall be performed, within the limits prescribed by this Contract as amended, in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other professional consultants performing similar services in the State of Washington or of the type used in the Project under similar circumstances. No other representations to City, express or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this Contract or in any report, opinion, document or otherwise. 13. Opportunity to Remedy: The parties agree that in the event of alleged error or omission by Consultant in performance of the Project, City shall notify Consultant promptly in writing of the fact and allow Consultant a reasonable time to remedy the problem. Upon notice, Consultant shall promptly review and remedy the problem at the cost of Consultant, if Consultant accepts responsibility for it. City agrees not to remedy the problem at the cost of Consultant without first giving Consultant a reasonable opportunity to remedy the problem. It shall be the • • Consultant's responsibility to remedy any problem that arises out of their performance under this Contract whenever this is possible and where the Consultant cannot remedy the problem by itself, it shall use its best effort to work with others to remedy the problem. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY and THE FERRIS COMPANY have executed this Contract as of the date first set forth above: THE FE "IS COMPANY CITY OF TU by Mi " ael J. B1 Vice Presiden ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM -14agcl City Attorney Rec: P1.nning Director • • EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope outlined below is for preparation of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS and FEIS) for the Southcenter Plaza Phase II project in Tukwila, Washington. The Ferris Company (the Consultant) will prepare the DEIS and FEIS consistent with the State Environmental Policy Act and the City of Tukwila Environmental Ordinance. The Consultant has reviewed the City's scoping notice and comments received during the scoping period and determined that technical analysis will be required to provide the information and detail necessary to complete the DEIS. Based upon previous technical work performed on the project, it has been decided that Geoengineers, Inc. (geotechnical), Barghausen Engineers, Inc. (surface water quality and quantity, and utilities), IES Associates (plants and animals), and Christopher Brown & Associates (transportation) will prepare analytical reports for the DEIS. The Consultant will coordinate with the subconsultants, review their reports for adequacy and completeness, and incorporate the information into the DEIS. The Consultant will provide a description and comparative evaluation of the alternatives, including the proposal in the DEIS. A discussion of the affected environment, environmental impacts, proposed mitigating measures and other possible mitigating measures and significant unavoidable adverse impacts for the alternatives, including the proposal will also be prepared for the following elements of the environment identified in the scoping process: I. Earth - The earth section of the DEIS will address existing soils, geological and topographical conditions; soil stability issues (including residual settlement impacts on the adjacent pond, structures and utilities); any existing erosion; groundwater conditions; recommendations for drainage and erosion control; issues related to clearing, filling and grading; and measures to ensure foundation support. This section will be based upon geotechnical analysis prepared for the June, 1989 Expanded Environmental Checklist for the project by Geoengineers, Inc. Geoengineers will also provide a supplemental letter for the DEIS to discuss potential impacts on surrounding natural and man -made features from development of the proposal (i.e., due to ground settlement following construction). This letter will also analyze the earth - related impacts of the alternatives. • • II. Water Quality /Quantity - The water quality and quantity section of the DEIS will be largely based upon drainage information prepared for the June, 1989 Expanded Checklist by Barghausen Engineers, Inc. This informa- tion includes an analysis of pre and post- development drainage characteristics; detention requirements; off- site /downstream conditions and water quality condi- tions. Barghausen will prepare a supplemental letter for the DEIS to explain recent fluctuations in the water level of the Tukwila Pond, and impacts of the proposal and mitigating measures, as appropriate. They will also analyze the drainage- related impacts of the alternatives. III. Wildlife /Wetlands - IES Associates' biological assessment of the site summarized in the June 1989 Expanded Expanded Checklist will be included in the plants and animals section of the DEIS. This assessment discusses the pre- development plant communities on and adjacent to the site (i.e., associated with Tukwila Pond); observed and expected wildlife; and recommendations for water quality control, building setbacks and buffers and overall provisions to preserve and enhance the pond. IES will provide a supplemental letter for the DEIS to re- evaluate the effectiveness of the recommended setbacks and buffers, and the storm drainage system (specifi- cally water quality features such as the proposed swales). They will also discuss the impacts of traffic noise and a possible pond -side trail system on the plant and animal communities. Impacts of the alternatives on plants and animals will be analyzed as well. IV. Traffic - Christopher Brown & Associates will be the transportation subconsultant for the DEIS. Christopher Brown & Associates will review and summarize their previous transportation studies for the project. These previous studies address trip generation; level of service impacts at key intersections; circulation, parking and access issues; and recommendations for mitigation. Christopher Brown & Associates will prepare a supplemental analysis addressing the additional transportation issues identified in Ron Cameron's 3 -30 -90 letter (Exhibit E) as well as provide an analysis of the development alternatives. The Consultant will review the above - referenced technical reports and supplemental letters, analyze them for adequacy and completeness and integrate this information into the DEIS. • • V. Aesthetics - Design, scale, views and aesthetic compatibility, as related to surrounding land uses from the proposal and alternatives will be addressed by the Consultant through a written description and evaluation. Open space, buffering and setbacks will be analyzed. Site plans, elevations and cross - sections of the proposal and development alternatives will be provided by Spieker Partners (the Proponent) for incorporation into the DEIS. Up to two before and after photographs will also be provided by Spieker Partners as illustrative graphics to indicate the project's aesthetic impacts from key viewpoints in the area. VI. Proposed Action and Alternatives - The proposed action is the development of a restaurant and hotel complex on a 4 -acre parcel. The Consultant will address up to three (3) alternatives to the proposed action in the DEIS. The alternatives will include the No- Action Alternative, or retention of the site in its current, undeveloped state; a design alternative and a land use alternative. VII. Meetings - The Consultant will attend up to six (6) meetings on the DEIS, and up to three (3) meetings on the FEIS with City of Tukwila officials. VIII. Printing - The Consultant assumes printing of up to fifteen (15) copies of the preliminary DEIS. IX. DEIS - Upon submittal of the preliminary DEIS and receipt of comments from the City and Proponent, the Consultant shall revise, complete and issue the DEIS. The fee for completion of the DEIS includes printing of up to forty (40) copies of the document for public and agency review. X. Final EIS - The Consultant's estimated budget and scope for the FEIS assumes revising the DEIS, printing up to forty (40) copies and responding to a typical number of comment letters (10 to 12) dealing with the DEIS. The Consultant will prepare a final scope and budget for the FEIS when all comment letters on the DEIS have been reviewed. The final FEIS scope and budget will be submitted to the City for review and approval. ASSUMPTIONS A) Specific project description information, including reproducible site plans, elevations, and cross - sections will be provided to the Consultant by the Proponent at the outset of the EIS effort. In addition, the Proponent will provide all necessary written and • • graphic material for the alternatives, including illustrative site plans, elevations, cross - sections, number and layout of parking, access /circulation, number of floors, street orientation, etc. Such information will provide for a complete description of the proposal and alternatives and their relevant design features. B) The majority of the information in the DEIS will be based upon previous technical analysis prepared for the project. Any additional analysis will be as described in this Scope of Work. C) Cumulative impact analysis of the Southcenter Plaza Phase I and Phase II projects will be provided for those elements identified in the previous section. • • EXHIBIT A -1 SOUTHCENTER PLAZA PHASE II EIS PROJECT BUDGET SUMMARY The following outlines the proposed budget to prepare the Draft and Final EIS for Southcenter Plaza Phase II. The Draft and Final EIS budget represents our best estimate of the labor and costs associated with completing the tasks identified in the previous section. A final scope and budget for the Final EIS will be determined with the City following review of the comment letters on the Draft EIS. Draft EIS Labor (preparation of the document, management and coordination) $15,025.00 Subconsultants* GeoEngineers 3,300.00 Barghausen 5,500.00 IES Associates 4,260.00 Christopher Brown & Associates 4,480.00 Subtotal $32,565.00 Word Processing $ 1,250.00 Graphics (preparation of up to twenty (20) exhibits) 900.00 Reimbursable Expenses* (mileage, parking, xerox copying, printing of up to fifteen (15) copies of the preliminary DEIS and up to 40 copies of the DEIS, and miscellaneous costs) Final EIS ** 1,300.00 Subtotal $ 3,450.00 TOTAL $36,015.00 TOTAL $ 8,000.00 * Subconsultants and expenses = cost plus 10 percent fee. ** Includes subconsultants' budgets. • • EXHIBIT B SOUTHCENTER PLAZA PHASE II TIME SCHEDULE OF COMPLETION Contract Signature /Authorization to Proceed Complete Information on the Proposal and Alternatives to Consultant Technical reports to Consultant Submit Preliminary Draft EIS to City City delivers unified (one set) comments to Consultant Submit revised Preliminary DEIS to City City approves revisions Print DEIS and deliver to City DEIS issuance /public notice Comment period ends City delivers Draft EIS comment letters to Consultant Submit Preliminary Final EIS to City City delivers unified (one set) comments to Consultant Submit revised Preliminary FEIS to City City approves revisions Print Final EIS and deliver to City FEIS issuance May 4 May 11 May 25 June 8 June 22 June 29 July 6 July 11 July 13 Aug. 13 Aug. 15 Aug. 30 Sept. 13 Sept. 20 Sept. 27 Oct. 2 Oct. 5 • • EXHIBIT C SOUTHCENTER PLAZA PHASE II EIS CONTRACT FOR SERVICES SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS First Payment: 15% of contract amount upon City of Tukwila Notice of Authorization to proceed (May 4, 1990 on Project Schedule). Second Payment: 50% of Contract Amount upon acceptance of Preliminary Draft EIS by City of Tukwila (June 8, 1990 on Project Schedule). Third Payment: 35% of Contract Amount upon receipt of Draft EIS by City of Tukwila (July 11, 1990 on Project Schedule). Fourth Payment: 100% of Contract Amount upon acceptance of Final EIS by City of Tukwila (August 30, 1990 on Project Schedule). • * EXHIBIT D FEE SCHEDULE The following billing rates for The Ferris Company personnel include salary, fringe benefits, overhead and fee. Staff Burdened Hourly Rate M. Ferris $80.00 M. Blumen 72.00 L. Lloyd 62.50 S. Amsbaugh 62.50 G. Brunner 57.50 D. Munkberg 50.00 S. McGuire 50.00 R. Schipanski 45.00 Word Processing 25.00 1 MAY 0 7 I9913 I1 To: Jack Pace a __ J City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Deve opment '_.,. 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Invoice No.: 626 Job No: 3910 Date: May 4, 1990 Pursuant to Exhibit C - Southcenter Plaza: Phase II EIS, Contract for Services, Schedule of Payments, the first payment for services rendered on the Draft EIS is currently due. This represents 15 percent of the contract amount and is due upon City of Tukwila notice of authoriztion to proceed (May 4, 1990 on Exhibit B - Time Schedule of Completion). Contract Amount Total Amount Due This Invoice 15% of Contract Amount Amount Past Due TOTAL AMOUNT DUE Michael J. Vice Presid-nt men 000 o% SSA (000 HI . t 40 2 cY14 ted 1 /CPI $36,015.00 5,402.25 -0- $ 5,402.25 Key Bank Building, Suite 506 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 FAX 206/646 -7875 206/462 -7650 915 118th Avenue S.E. • Bellevue, WA 98005 -3855 P.O. Box 97022 Bellevue, WA 98009 -9722 206 453 -1600 • FAX: 206 455 -4105 April 27, 1990 Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 SPIEKER APR 3 0 1990 C6TY C' "R r,JKVv LA PLANNING DEPT. Reference: Southcenter Plaza Phase II EIS Dear Jack: We have reviewed and hereby approve Contract for Services between the City of Tukwila and The Ferris Company, a copy of which is attached. Enclosed please find our check for $6,602.25, which represents the first payment due. Please deposit this amount with the City Treasurer and provide us with a receipt at your convenience. Please call me should you have any questions on the above. Cordially, SPIEKER PARTNERS Walter S. Kaczynski Project Director WSK:dt Enclosures SPIEKER PARTNERS. Bellevue, WA Disbursement Account INVOICE NO. 04 -26 -90 13019 DESCRIPTION Pe-docof-00.4) cy INVOICE AMOUNT DEDUCTION BALANCE SOUTHCENTER PHSII -EIS PYMT $6,602.25 $6,602.25 APRIL 27, 1990 24291 TOTALS PLEASE DETACH THIS PORTION BEFORE DEPOSITING W"` ( i (ll ``<' "� 11. ,n. THE FERRIS COMPANY April 13, 1990 Mr. Jack Pace City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Southcenter Plaza Phase II EIS Dear Jack: NM [APR 16 1990 CITY OF TUKVVILA PLANNING DEPT. As we discussed, attached please find the most current version of the contract for services between the City of Tukwila and The Ferris Company on the Southcenter Plaza Phase II EIS. We are hoping to receive approval from Spieker Partners on this contract early next week so that we can proceed with preparation of the EIS. In terms of our insurance coverage, The Ferris Company does not carry professional liability insurance, since this type of insurance does not apply to the services we provide. Typically, professional liability insurance is carried by firms who's work could result in bodily injury (i.e., architectural and engineering firms). The Ferris Company does carry $500,000 in general liability insurance. Included for your information is a paragraph from another contract of ours describing the application of this insurance: Consultant (The Ferris Company) shall maintain in effect at all times during performance of the Services such insurance as will protect the Indemnitees from all claims, losses, harm, costs, liabilities, damages and expenses arising out of property damage or bodily injury (including death) that may result form performance of the Services, whether such performance is by Consultant or any of its suppliers or subcontractors of any tier. Also, please refer to item 7 Indemnification in the attached contract for services for a "hold harmless" clause. Key Bank Building, Suite 506 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 FAX 206/646 -7875 206/462 -7650 • • Jack Pace April 13, 1990 Page 2 If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Gret.Q n Brunner Proj e • Manager GB:hd Enclosure cc: Joel Benoliel Glenn Amster 915 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue. 1\'A 980(6.3855 P.O. Box 97022 Bellevue. WA 9800 -9-22 206 453 -1600 • FAX: 200 +55x105 April 6, 1990 Mr. Ted W. Freemire Public Works Superintendent City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 SPIEKER /APR 91990 C.- OF TUKW LA PLANNING DEPT. Reference: Slide Catch Basin Located at Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West Adjacent to Southcenter Plaza Shopping Center Dear Ted: I have received copies of Rob Armstrong's letter to you dated March 26 and your response dated March 30. I ask that you double -check the assertions of your March 30 letter with Ross Earnst, in light of the following: 1. In 1988, I was told by Ross Earnst that when the south connection to the P -17 channel was constructed, it contained a "crown" in the line to avoid excavation below Puget Power's high voltage crossing of Andover near the railroad tracks. This raised the elevation of the P -17 connection to Elevation 17.56', a level significantly above the pond outflow (15.39'). The result is that when the slide gate remains closed (as it apparently did this year), the water level in the P -17 connection must rise to Elevation 18' or above before it actually would flow south to P -17. Thus, the pond is the low point when the slide gate remains closed. 2. The City installed the pond outflow with an invert elevation of 15.39', which should control the pond level, if your letter were correct, regardless of "whether the slide gate is open or closed. Yet, we observed a dramatic flooding condition around the pond in recent months, which led to Rob's inquiry. The pond rose to about 17', some 4' above its static level at our original survey. This was very alarming to us. 3. When the City opened the slide gate after our inquiry, the pond water level immediately began to fall, and has been running fast through the outflow for about two weeks. It is currently at elevation 15.5' and still falling. • • Mr. Ted W. Freemire April 6, 1990 Page two 4. It is unclear whether the flap gate in the pond outflow is permitting street storm water to flow into our property or whether the flooding was caused entirely by on -site flows. In either case, it is our observation that when the City closes the flood gate and fails to re- open it promptly as occurred this year, we do not have an effective outflow system from the pond. Please recognize that this is vital because our on -site storm system is designed to use the pond as a temporary detention facility when the slide gate is closed, but not to the extent which occurred this year. We are being assessed for the new storm water utility charges along with all other property owners, and it is not appropriate for the City to design or operate a system which depends upon flooding our property periodically. This is especially important now that improvements have been constructed and more are planned at the pond. Please let me know if you have any questions or if it will be necessary to schedule a meeting with Rob Armstrong to clarify the matter. In the future, when the slide gate is closed, it is critical that it be re- opened immediately when Green River flows permit. Alternatively, the P -17 connection should be lowered so that it functions as intended for our property as well as the other adjacent owners. Sincerely, ' IEKER PARTNERS f (2'! • el Benoliel Partner JB:dt cc: Ross Earnst - City of Tukwila Jack Pace - City of Tukwila Robert J. Armstrong - Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. • "' 4s� City of Tukwila 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -0179 Ross A. Earnst, P.E. Director M E M O R A N D U M To: Jack Pace From: Ron Cameron Date: March 30, 1990 Subject: Tukwila Pond EIS transporation scope of work The proposed Phase II development transportation safety and capacity analysis evaluating the impacts needs to include several items. The purpose of this memo is to identify them for evaluating the proposed development. Trip generation for: ADT noon peak PM peak Christmas shopping peaks (noon & PM) is requested to be calculated. Please show projected traffic volumes on Southcenter Park Way from north of Klickitat through the South 180 Street intersection and on Strander through Andover Park West. The Christmas high volume period occurs from mid November through Christmas. Volumes need to be shown are (1) existing, (2) the additional traffic of Phase I, (3) the Phase II traffic (4), the Mikami Development (5) the total . It would be preferred if the trip distribution (Strander, Southcenter Park Way, Klickitat, etc.) could be shown "graphically" on a map in the manner displayed in Figure 3 -16, page 62, 1988 ITE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT. It would be preferred that intersection turning movements could be shown as displayed in Figure 17.2, page 522, 1982 ITE TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING HANDBOOK or Figure 3 -23, page 30, 1976 ITE MANUAL OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDIES. Please show a tabulation of parking demand using the ITE Land Development reference and 1987 ITE PARKING GENERATION book - comparing ITE parking demand, proposed development supply, and Tukwila Municipal Code requirements. The volumes should be shown through the nearby street network including: Southcenter PkWy & I -5 NB off(signal), Klickitat, 1 -5 NB Off unsignalized, Strander, and S 180th Street; Strander and Doubletree /Security Bank access, 58th, 61st, and Andover Park West. It should show existing and future Phase I, Mikami, additional Phase II, and total traffic. The volumes for each need to be shown individually, not as summed for "existing" as a total. A total needs to be included. The intersections to be analyzed are as follows: Strander /Andover Park West Strander /58th Avenue (or driveway) Strander /Southcenter Parkway Southcenter Parkway /I -5 nothbound off (N) Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Southcenter Parkway /I -5 northbound off (S) Southcenter Parkway /Strander Southcenter Parkway /South 168th Southcenter Parkway /South 180th The intersection peak hour Level -of- service (LOS) is requested for: 1. Existing volumes (of count book data previously supplied to Spieker Partners) plus Tuwila Pond Phase I volumes plus Mikami /Scofield volumes as the "existing ". 2. Those of #1 plus Tukwila Pnd Phase II The intersections to be analyze include: Strander /Andover Park West Strander /58th Ave. S. Suggested capacity mitigations include the 58th & 168th connection that was identified in the Phase I evaluation, widening Strander approaching Southcenter Park Way, widening Southcenter Parkway from the northern intersection through Strander, and similar lane additions. Other suggestions will be openly considered and welcomed. Safety mitigations for pedestrian movements and local circulation need to be addressed in accord with evaluation findings. Evaluation of accident patterns for existing records and projections is requested. Left turn queue lengths will be calculated for the Strander and the Southcenter Parkway intersections. The particular interest is evaluation of storage and if there is enough. • • Safety evaluation work needs to tabulate hourly and peak hour signal warrants for the 58th /Strander intersection and 168th /Scter PkWy intersection, pedestrians, driveway circulation, and truck access including radius, loading movements, and parking. A book of tabulated traffic counts and accidents prepared to assist you has been provided to Walter Kaczynski. They show higher volumes than used in the Phase I analysis and should be used as existing volumes. An evaluation of Christmas traffic will be made similar to the Mikami evaluation. This work is a "factoring" process using the hourly Christmas data and existing 1989 counts. It is not to be a detailed LOS analysis but a professional judgement comparison and assessment. Products could include recommended additional Christmas, (Veteran's' Day to New Year's period, last week before Christmas and weekend), traffic control measures to maximize safety for the increased shopping traffic (vehicle and pedestrian). If there is not a significant difference (LOS order difference - F to E), then, the delay will be interpolated for the other versions. Noon and p.m. peaks will be evaluated. File: Tukwila Pond II Development RC /amc:pond329 '12/W 16:10 FAX 1206 x455 4105 915 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 9S005-3855 P.O. Box 97022 Bellevue, WA 98009 -9722 206 453.1600 • FAX 206 55.4105 March 12, 1990 Mr. Ron Cameron, City Engineer City of Ukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: Southcenter Plaza - Phase II EIS Dear. Rom SPIEKER PARTNERS EJone;002 SPIE.IiR Via FAX It is my understanding that you ' t pert Christopher Brown & Associates to act as the traffic engineering consultant for You are no doubt aware that this firm has already completed most of the work for the EIS. Transpo (your choice for the project) has quoted us $9,600 to do the report. This is out of the question in view of the fact that most of the field work and most of the analysis has already been done for us and for Schofield—both by Chris Brown. We are being asked to pay twice for the same work. I have personally been involved with projects over the past ten years utilizing Chris Brown as the traffic engineer. This includes several previous Tukwila projects, Seattle, Kent, Renton, Bellevue, etc_ Until the present time, no city or governmental agency has ever refused to use this firm. Since the work has already been done t meet your specificato and since you on several occasions expanded the scope of Chris Brown $ work on this p ect, which we complied with, and since the developers have already paid for this work, we insist that you state in writing that this firm is unacceptable and your reasons for refusing to allow Chris Brown to complete the report Your early r�pl,is requested since the consultant contract with the City is being delayed pending recd ution of this issue. Sincerely, IERER ' : • TNERS el Benoliel artner JB:md cc: Gretchen Eru .mcr - Ferris Company Glenn Amster - Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson Jack Pace - City of Tukwila . -`03/172/00 1€ 00 FAX 120€ 46E. 410E &PIEKER PARTNER 915 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 453-1600 FAX: (206) 455-4105 VI 001,1002 SPIELER PLEASE DF_TIVER THE FonowrNo PAGES ImmEDIATELy TO: FROM: RE: COMMENTS OR SPECIAL INSTRI IC:T[0M: TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS FAX COVER SHEET: 1I1 Vint! tart Herr itreirivr... ALL ?Ailr5, tr_14.5? 1_71Je_r: City of Tukwila PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard (MAR 0 3 1990 Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -0179 Ross A. Earnst, P.E. Director MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Pace FROM: Ron Cameron DATE: March 7, 1990 SUBJECT: Tukwila Pond II EIS (Traffic) The scope of work for the traffic EIS was reviewed with John Perlic of Transpo today, February 27. The same intersections that were analyzed for the Scofield project will be analyzed: Strander /APW Strander /58th Avenue (or driveway) Strander /Southcenter Parkway Southcenter Parkway /I -5 northbound off (N) Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Southcenter Parkway /I -5 northbound off (S) Southcenter Parkway /Strander Southcenter Parkway /South 168th Southcenter Parkway /South 180th There are three development versions - John will evaluate LOS for the highest trip generation version, selected intersections for lowest. The intersections will be analyzed for two volumes: 1. Existing.Tukwila Pond Phase I and Mikami. 2. Those of #1 plus Tukwila Pond Phase II (There are three Phase II alternatives. John will calculate trip generation for each, then, calculate LOS for the highest volume and selected intersections for the lowest). Left turn queue lengths will be calculated for the Strander and the Southcenter Parkway intersections. The particular interest is evaluation of storage and if there is enough. • Jack Pace MEMORANDUM March 7, 1990 Page 2 An evaluation of Christmas traffic will be made similar to the Mikami evaluation. This work is a "factoring" process using the hourly Christmas data and existing 1989 counts. It is not to be a detailed LOS analysis but a professional judgement comparison and assessment. Products could include recommended additional Christmas, (Veteran's Day to New Year's period, last week before Christmas and weekends), traffic control measures to maximize safety for the increased shopping taffic (vehicle and pedestrian). If there is not a significant difference (LOS order difference - F to E), then, the delay will be interpolated for the other versions. Noon and p.m. peaks will be evaluated. RC /kjr CC: John Perlic, Transpo Walter Kaczynski, Spieker Partners File: Tukwila Pond II Development File • Seattle Audubon 3Sxietp Washington Nonprofit Corporation 619 Joshua Green Building • Seattle, WA 98101 • 206/622 -6695 February 169 1990. Rick Beeler., Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 • 1 FEB 1G19901 RE: Southcenter Plaza: Phase II (Tukwila Pond) SCOPIN6 NOTICE FOR EIS. File No. EPIC- 19 -89. Dear Mr. Beeler, This letter is in response to the City's Determination of Significance (dated January 249 1990) and request for comments on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Since the project proposal is located immediately adjacent to Tukwila Pond our Society requests that the following concerned be addressed in the EIS: 1. ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SENSITIVE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TUKW I LA POND. The shallow southwestern corner of Tukwila Pond is one of the most sensitive habitat areas within the wetland complex. During the periods of high water the southwest corner provides an important brooding and resting area for waterfowl. During periods of low water the same corner provides a mudflat feeding area for ,migratory shorebirds. The utility of this area to wildlife is dependent upon the seclusion provided by the wooded buffer surrounding the southwest corner of the pond. This wooded area buffers the southwest corner from the surrounding urban disturbance. The habitat located at the southwest corner contributes significantly to the diversity of species which utilize Tukwila Pond. A dense stand of tall trees and vegetation are also located at the southwest corner of the property. This vegetation functions to buffer Tukwila Pond from the disturbance associated with the loading dock at the Bon Warehouse. To avoid a significant impact, the EIS must include project alternatives which preserve and protect the sensitive southwest corner of site. The EIS must thoroughly evaluate the utility and impact of any parking lot or structure proposed within the southwest corner. The EIS must thoroughly evaluate the width and alignment of any roadway access - proposed at the southwest corner. • • 2. THE IMPACT OF NOISE ON WILDLIFE. Hundreds of waterfowl annually utilize Tukwila Pond during migration and in the winter. The environmental checklist (dated June 1989, Page A -11) suggests the use of mechanically driven pilings to construct the parking garage and the buildings. The EIS must thoroughly evaluate alternatives to mechanically driven piles. The EIS must also provide a recommended period of seasonal construction which would minimize the impact of noise on wildlife. 3. WALKWAYS ADJACENT TO TUKWILA POND. Increased human activity along the shoreline buffer of Tukwila Pond will disturb and adversely impact the wildlife. The Seattle Audubon Society believes it is very important that the public be given the opportunity to observe wildlife on Tukwila Pond, but the observation must through hotel or restaurant windows or from a controlled observation point. \Walkways which parallel the shoreline buffer maximize disturbance to the pond environment. The EIS must include a through evaluation of any proposed walkway adjacent to the pond. The EIS must also include an project alternative which provides wildlife observation via windows or a controlled observation point. 4. LIGHT AND GLARE. J. To minimize disturbance to wildlife the EIS must evaluate mitigation in the form of exterior illumination of low intensity, which is shielded, and directed downward to prevent light spillage into the wetland area. The EIS must also evaluate the potential impact of automobile headlights from roadway or parking areas. The EIS must propose specific mitigation to block headlight glare directed towards Tukwila Pond. STORMWATER RUNOFF. The EIS must evaluate the impact of water quality to Tukwila Pond by providing a conceptual drainage plan. All stormwater generated by proposed roadways or parking lots should pass through an oil water separator and at least 200 -feet of biofiltration (or equivalent) prior to discharge into Tukwila Pond. The proposed construction of the access road "168th Street" should not divert current surface flows and contribute additional pollutants to Tukwila Pond. The EIS must include a storm water conveyance plan which directs the flow of water generated by the proposed "168th Street" roadway to Southcenter Parkway rather than to Tukwila Pond. • • In addition to the specific concerns listed, above we request that all past correspondence from our Society regarding Tukwila Pond be reviewed prior to the preparation of the EIS. At a minimum, the Southcenter Plaza Phase II proposal must be consistent with the mitigation currently required for Phase I. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of the EIS. The Seattle Audubon Society remains dedicated to the protection of Tukwila Pond, its associated wetlands, and wildlife. We look forward to reviewing the Draft EIS to verify that the items raised in this letter have all been specifically addressed. If you have any questions please call our office at 622 -8254. Sincerely, Gerry Adams Vice President cc: Joel Benoliel, Spieker Partners • February 14, 1990 FEB 141990 Rick Beeler Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Southcenter Plaza: Phase II File No. EPIC 19 -89 Dear Mr. Beeler: I have reviewed the Expanded Environmental Checklist for the Spieker Partners' Southcenter: Phase II, dated June 1989. As previous studies have noted, the southwest corner of Tukwila pond provides important wildlife habitat not found in other areas of the pond. It is a very sensitive area which will be greatly affected by the proposed development. During the migration period, the southwest corner is used as a cover and feeding area for a variety of waterfowl. During the spring and summer, it is an important nesting area for both waterfowl and passerines. The submerged willows also provide much needed cover for young waterfowl. At times of low water, the exposed mudflat is utilized by a variety of shorebirds as a feeding area. Tukwila Pond has been subjected to various studies in the past. It has been identified as one of the unique wildlife areas remaining in the Green River Valley. The current development has already taken much of the upland site. The Phase II proposal will use up most of the remaining uplands and will intrude into the pond itself. The intrusion into the pond area should not be allowed. Due to the potential impacts of this .project, a full EIS should be required. The Expanded Environmental Checklist is grossly inadequate to determine the impact of this project. The EIS should be based on long term observations, not Just a week or two. This will provide information on waterfowl nesting, feeding and roosting during the critical seasons and not just a selected, limited, period. Thank you for the opportunity to offer my comments. Sincerely, Scott Salzer 233 S.W. 184th Seattle, WA 98166 METRO • Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle • Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 February 14, 1990 Rick Beeler, Planning Director City of Tukwila 6299 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA. 98188 Irt i FEB 151990 CITY PLANK SC.3 DEPT. T. Determination of Significance /Scoping Notice File No.: EPIC -19 -89 Southcenter Plaza Phase II Dear Mr. Beeler: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to Metro's wastewater facilities or public transportation services. We anticipate no significant degradation of surface water quality provided that all proposed mitigation measures for erosion and stormwater control, temporary and permanent, are implemented in a timely manner. Stormwater facilities should be inspected on a regular basis and provisions made for their on -going maintenance. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Planning Division GMB:jmg3427 DOUBLETREE at Southcenter 16500 Southcenter Parkway Seattle, Washington 98188 (206) 575-8220 • FEB 151990 CIS TY 0—F Ti54 4k.l1LA PLANNING DEPT. February 14, 1990 RICHARD J. SERACKA General Manager City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Concerning Spieker Partners Project on Strander Boulevard, Phase II Ladies and Gentlemen: I have serious reservations concerning the negative impact this project presently has and may continue to have on the sensitive area of "Tukwila Pond." I see concerns in the following three areas: 1. Impact upon flora, fauna, and fowl located in the immediately adjacent area. Lack of effective treatment for runoff, waste, and noise pollution, as well as introducing a foreign structure into this habitat, I believe may upset the delicate economic balance, thus having significant adverse effects. 2. The impact upon the already congested traffic in the area will only increase. Bottlenecks that are indicative of the expanding prime drive time of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard will receive little, if any, relief, and may actually add to the already monumental problem by significant additional vehicular traffic to the proposed high - occupancy commercial project. 3. The economic impact upon the hospitality business sector, which has experienced recent occupancy declines, indicates over supply of hotel rooms for the foreseeable three- to five -year period. Therefore, adding additional hotel rooms does not increase the likelihood of tax revenues derived from new revenue sources. What is more likely is the present amount of anticipated revenue production being spread among more operators. These operators will also require more city services, which will in turn increase the burden upon the city's present service level. Another concern that is raised beyond the EIS, is that of the progressing construction work of Phase II in this sensitive area. Am I misunderstanding that the results of the EIS and public hearings would be reviewed prior to continuation of the project? I bring this to your attention, as it does not seem to be the • • City of Tukwila February 14, 1990 Page 2 case. I find it inconsistent if that's the premise, and that allowing the work to proceed may cause irreversible harm to the area before official consent has been granted. In regard to the sensitive areas ordinance, a second question has been brought to my attention. Was due process of an EIS for Phase I properly reviewed and officially sanctioned by the appropriate city government entities? I ask this, in all due respect, as I was not able to respond to the question myself. I ask that a reply be forwarded on these particular points, as well as the previous item. Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in the EIS request. I look forward to receiving the report on the findings and apprised of continued proposed action. trul ours, Richard Seracka General Manager cc: Mayor Gary Van Dusen Jack Pace John McFarland King County Surface Water Management Division Department of Public Works 701 Dexter - Horton Building 710 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344 -2585 February 13, 1990 Mr. Rick Beeler Planning Director 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98 RE: Southcenter Plaza, Phase II /Tukwila - File Number EPIC -19 -89 Dear Mr. Beeler: Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which Tukwila will require for development of a hotel and restaurant complex adjacent to Tukwila Pond near Southcenter in Tukwila. King County maintains and operated the P -17 flood control channel and pump station near Minkler Boulevard. Previous . environmental documents prepared by the City of Tukwila state that overflows, from the Tukwila pond are conveyed to the P -17 channel via storm drains constructed within the Andover Park West right -of -way (page 39, Draft EIS, South 168th Street, June 1987). This same document cites a 1984 basin study by Alpha Engineers which estimates that the present capacity of the P -17 channel will accommodate runoff from a 25 -year storm event. The P -17 channel was originally designed to convey 100 -year event storm runoff from the tributary basin. This reduction in capacity is an ongoing concern to King County, which has an ongoing contractual obligation to maintain the P -17 system to the original design specifications. For this reason, I respectfully request the EIS for the Southcenter Plaza Phase II project fully document response to the following concerns; 1. What is the present drainage basin tributary to the P -17 system, including overflows from the Tukwila pond? 2. What is the runoff hydrograph for the,.25 -year, 24 -hour storm event in the P -17 channel serving the Tukwila Pond? 3. What is the 100 -year, 24 -hour runoff hydrograph in the P -17. system? • • Mr. Rick Beeler February 13, 1990 Page 2 4. What are the impacts of runoff from the proposal, and from the overall Tukwila Pond overflow on the design capacity of the P -17 system for each of the storm events? 5. What mitigation will be incorporated into the project proposal to address these flood - related impacts? Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this Scoping Notice. If you have any questions about this letter, please call me at 296 -6519. Sincerely, cOe.u.tOgvatz, Dave Clark Manager River and Water Resource Section DC:AL:vs(M9:LT6) cc: Ross Ernst, Ron Cameron, Phil Fraser Jim Kramer, Manager, Surface Water Management Division ATTN: Ken Guy, Assistant Manager Debra Hendrickson, Program Manager, Flood Control Program ATTN: Andy Levesque, Senior Engineer REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Planning Branch • • DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX C -3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124 -2255 FEB 141990 Rick Beeler, Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: FEB 1 31990 We have reviewed the determination of significance (DS) and request for scoping comments for Southcenter Plaza Phase II with respect to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' areas of special expertise and jurisdiction by law as designated by the President's Council on Environmental Quality on December 21, 1984. Wetlands under jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may exist on the site. A wetlands determination and delinea- tion should be accomplished. The proponent should contact the Regulatory Branch at (206) 764 -3495 for information regarding permit requirements. Thank you for the opportunity to review this DS. Sincerely, Ffederick C. Weinmann Chief, Environmental Resources Section WimWashington State Department of Transportation District 1 15325 S.E. 30th Place Bellevue, Washington 98007 -6538 (206) 562 -4000 January 31, 1990 Mr. Rick Beeler Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Duane Berentson Secretary of Transportation FEB 21990 1 ry Scoping Notice for DEIS for Southcenter Plaza - Phase II #EPIC -19 -89 SR 181 Dear Mr. Beeler: This letter is in response to the scoping notice review we received from the city of Tukwila. This development is located in the southwest quadrant of the Strander Blvd. /Andover Park West intersection for the purpose of constructing a hotel and restaurant complex. The transportation section should include a traffic analysis stating impacts to I -5, I -405 and SR 181. We would appreciate the opportunity to review the DEIS when it is available. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, JERRY B. SCHUTZ Development Planning Engineer CG:ng 15 / CG -RB AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION • • 1. JOANNE JOHNSON . hereby declare that: Notice of Public Hearing El Notice of Public Meeting [] Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet 0 Planning Commission Agenda Packet (J Short Subdivision Agenda Packet [] Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit [l Determination of Nonsignificance ❑ Mitigated Determination of Non - significance x Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action O Official Notice O Other [j Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on FRIDAY, JANUARY 26, 1990 19 . (SEE ATTACHED) Name of Project File Number SOUTHCENTER PLAZA Signat John Edison. 5834 NE 75th, #B204 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- est, P Tukw' a McMic 5 S. 16 ukwila A 981 Michael & Carley Roedell P. 0. Box 953 Seahurst, WA 98062 Pat Jo ton 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: o i 1141! SE th S B- ev e, W 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 Rich rd U. Chapin/ 500!108th Ave. Suite 2100 Bellevue, WA 98004 Glenn J. Amster 500 Galland Bldg. 1221 2nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98101 -2925 Vincent Ferrese Mithun Partners 2000 112th Ave. NE Bellevue, WA 98104 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' 12Q.'Fi Ave E e, W 98005 Michael Daley 3725 SW Rose St. Seattle, WA 98126 Jan Roen 13023 SE 237th Ct. Kent, WA 98031 Paul : -• sm Mer ns 2 .01 ooth. Blvd. .yvf rd, C 94541 Scott S os r Mery ;s 22 1 F thil . vd. ywa d, C 4541 TUKWILA POND SPIEKER PARTNERS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DISTRI•ION 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 ATTN:CTEDKMILLER98PROG MANAGER JOE MILES AUDUBON SOCIETY 22431 - 10TH AVENUE S. DES MOINES WA 98198 MRS. JOHN J. WAGNER 16047 47TH AVENUE S. SEATTLE, WA 98188 DHARLENE WEST TUKWILA MCMICKEN ACT'N COMMITTEE 5212 S. 164TH TUKWILA, WA 98188 KEITH MASTERS 633 SOUTHCENTER MALL TUKWILA, WA 98188 ANDOVER & ASSQCI 854 EAST MERCER ATTN. 98040 YEDOR AUDUBON SOCIETY ROOM 619 JOSHUA GREEN BUILDING SEATTLE, WA 98101 ATTN: DYANE SHELDON CHAMBERAIF COMMERCE 950 TUKWILA,A 9' 88 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 CRAM ER •- 701 DEXTER'HORTON BLDG 710 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98104 KING CO. TRAFFIC & PLANNING KING CO. ADMIN BLDG 9TH FL SEATTLE, WA 98104 ATTN: JOHN LOGAN, MANAGER RO V \UE EA ATT : 4 ICK SANDAAS PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 200 W. MERCER #205 SEATTLE, WA 98119 -3958 ATTN: ARTHUR DAMMKOEHLER PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVMTS 216 FIRST AVENUE S. SEATTLE, WA 98104 ATTN: BARBARA HASTINGS RAINIER, NATIONAL BANK CONTROLLERS DEPARTMENT 086 P.O. BOX 3966 T14 -1 SEATTLE, WA 98124 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 C- 37g5g5124 ATTN TFRED WA_ I NMANN -22 SS U.S. DEPARTMENT HUD VALUATION DEPARTMENT 1321 SECtit1D 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 'T OF ECOLOGI MA OLY A, A ':504 W.S.D.O.T. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 15325 S.E. 30TH PL BELLEVUE, WA 98007 ATTN: R F JOHNSON W.S.D.O.T. 6431 CORSON AVENUE S. SEATTLE, WA 98104 ,ATTN: J. SCHUTZ 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 Ilill(► S.E. Kth Street Bellevue. u:4 98(1(N 4. 20( 4-33-1600 January 25, 1988 Mr. Jack Pace Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Easement rights Dear Jack: CI; I�I'II 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 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 L.LL&.1 •Irt: n ...rel. III Jr 19 N 5'001.04 in. a0vftP40r 90. 010.1.79 .4400448 .n lee D.. :o•dlr; Oo. •914;4041;. Ot4n,9 4 hello. of 0not 41st e0. •• �' rtcor. :'.1 .redo. '.4'.1'0; •. ' 1.'70634. 8.40089 of )too 00.0(7. 90t•. 4 snore r':• ni 7.49 .r' ;i0' ••` tee Sa: +raft 1/4 or the 1.rtn.eft 1'4 •• Sect'''. 70. '4••.•444; 73 nor• ^, ;Anse 4 Cast. Y.M., In ring Canty. .,snlns;o,..Ie.c.ton •s 111:x,: Or :inning at ;n. Yw.mented i tersectto. n• the centerlines of Soutncenter 0.ri.ay 11.74. Menu. S ! and St.-t•:•r lo.le.a'C. :S. 1641n Stn °ti. thence teat, 89 -45 51 Inc along t't. 0n.me *ten cente•11 nt of said Streeter Boulevard. . 1lstenc• Of 72!.3; feet. thence Sxtr 3-25.58- Fast parallel .stn thy - 10004,01.3 Cast line 1t said 9004 00, a dlstante of 30.00 • feet to an In11.sec tIon .1000 ;n. South 0409.44 of Sara Stranger Boulevard, and the true p01nt Of a9lnoins of ;4 10011.. 4,10•1040 tract; thence ton - rlwl,q Sat, 0- 25'58- Fast, a 4104000. 01400.00 feet. thence South e9' 65'119• Cast parallel with said center1 in. of StrandBoulevard, a distance of • 150.00 feet to the aonlm.nted Last lane of said suod10191an; thence Sat 7'25'58- Fast along said Cast line. a distance of 1093.70 feet to the mono- vented Satneett corner of said s.bdl•.slon. thence north 09°43`19• Nett °long the monuaeeted South line of sold suet. , a distance of 626,81 N feet t0 the felt 4M-91n of said Soutec•nter P.r1y; thence North 9457 48• NPit atom 1410 fast nergln. 1 011441ge of 1241.05 feet t0 a 001.0 of Me.e4 thence northerly and (01terly •lp^ the an of 4 tutee to rue right. 1.41 " tone having • radius Of 50.00 feet the049n a central angle of 11.11'50"", •:+ •_ • distance of 79.58 feet to the 501 margin of 4040 Steamier Ba3°9°rt;' thence Satre 8 °- 45'56' fast along said South 44.9/00. a O1.b19d.of .437.77 . • feet to the true point of 0eyinnlr9; 1 ' The •for4.e.ti0ned 40441141140 established by t4*C1t4. of T1ate11e metier " 1.1.0. No. 13, Cmv4Ct 90. 2.68. (ht. 1 of 19. Street Pied ,006. hpfile. OCCl/l71 ' ATION • • .. 9.s; all w by these presents that w, the undersigned, ew,ert is fee tiMple of tee land herein described 4. 44rt0y 191.071fn a 81441,, S1te'f ,..44pnt Isles foe the aurpese of last of 80.018.1 thereof.' pu1,I1t he C61pter,06.17. •• COW 6.7.4. 410 Title 17. 7110.11. Municipal Co 4004 Met 1414 81°0 does • net • • 4 • toestltete a .uad/vlslon er the Sand herein described for U.° puro�e of • ' ' sale or other tr401fer Of portions thereof and, 74.0104•. Net the 4iWe•.signed decloM *rut development of the poverty herein described 19411 conform to all lnao'lptlon9 1001110,8 here",.. ' • '�nders•^uM 4011104 041!••00 are :004 lyres 404 C"Id4t•nn. -ru' + • 1l4• of •4940 Sane Pore. 1 ;Opory as •••41.04. 9o. 6171177. 448' 0•111•••; .ra• 6e••7. 0a 91. ,i '0109. 7 ) Casw•.nt 400 tee tern.% ••ld •0404tlonl :scree. .r • .. •. '•t$ LAOIS 900 .({1111 4In1 0000 line. •s .K0.0. 1 -r• P.r.r•n.; 9. 6755525. 1/12 128 /33 3) "nOergreund 4141497 referent end the tee•+: anon '*'04''ont • • r 900Or Of Bon Servlcen;e• 40000.400^ es r.(0nef ae'OH Pr, bran•,n 6643497. 4) Caianentl 4000 Ot1.40 C0M1(10.1 100111000 1. 9c043•ry t' ^e :0)est•0,4 46. 911.3.79 10000040 under Recording 0e. 70041.3:61 ;tiny 4 rev:slow Of Snort Plat No. 77.51 retorter under 6erord•n9 So. 711[11•694. 0.) 9ettrittlon9• 1.00904 by Initr.oent '0400010 on lt_••••y 74, 19.•9..010' 9ecerdln9 ho. 7902231398. , 6) %abject t4 en - Il'I et over the tat 30 feet oy Pane 19 of iloonsery tine MJustor% 9o. 6111.3.79. recorded under 614000,009 9o. 7904!90664. brine a .0,6.4.. Of Short Plat 9o. 77 -51 recorded under 6, :000/009 Mo. 7110130634, 9. favor ef the City of 7...4l. for access. .tllltles and the right to 49n9t0VCt related 1.p.o.mnnts by the City. If ;he (fly do* not arse use of 1911 easement .l thin 10 years of the effective ate of the 6ta1n9 Stte IOprovoent Plan accp.o°nytn9 (0049 Certificate M Segregation. the «ttae0t 4011 be .010 •■ •7l 4190009 •111 revert to the arm? of Parcel C. . 2) I4°Vt the Nett 7 feel of Panels III I It of 64...n0ary tlnr'643.4uont 'she. 6[1.3 -79. •t00800 order Recording No. 79341408E'. being • revision . er 'Poet Plat No. 77.51 recorded 4044• Receiving 9o. 7710110491, 8.114• • eeted. 00 Me City •.f (.twits. • (Ago 1009[009'5 CP11111(071 • • 1 herebrcerttfy (Oat 1911 81.149 Site leorovwnt Plan 90' •s•ay 5340•*. the heretofore described tract of land. It Dated upon 40 etc.! 4.ne, 4.4 • th111 411 the 4•0140 and 04144.4.1 shoos Venom are (0000ct, 4440 that I hen fully complied alto the proolslons Of the statutes and 0'4144009 0001CAT10M . • . (non ell ma by these'0 . that re the o'denigoe4. em1rs th fee sta9ie. . 61 the lone heroin described do hereby dedicate to the City Of. 440.lI. for- ever the Nett seven feet of Panels 141 and IV of Boundary tlne•MJuttaont 9o. 61.8.7 -79 nc0rded .rea• Recording No. 7904180861, being revision or Recording Plat Mo. 77 -51 recorded under Recding no. 271013000. het0rds of ' Sire Canty situated in the City of 744.111. t:ie, Canty. matnlreston. brim a 00.1100 of the Southeast I/4 of the 0.0(19est 1/4 of Section A. Termini° 23 North, Range 4 Left. e.M. • • • Robert N. Meitner Pmestioe1 land Sarnia, Certificate So. 7100 890045,. • SNORT 501102715901 C09d17Rf3 8aer1.W and *proved this- /)l : ay of 1 /e.�ir.t 1st! . 1579 91/revan4 to 9.C.0. 50.17 pfd 71 It T7 7.4r11a w0n1 oa. Code. fit( • f9aT1 vision Cowin* Sus es, Cettforw4 • UK COMM MR, 09 63SCSSIt171 Gantt' of Sr 04,4......: 11 •.'4 .. '• ea11n EW Uhl 041 ebPlOred thit _ , ay Of ' tnt9 11 to certify that en this 2(t rid • dey of ()e -reYA • - - 1979, beam one. the 110ers/9004 *peered . a Notary Public• personally *peered nay' .4-• • •• tA- "04.on r P0y4..,pS • :.00 Do.l9se Cs.JJAO - 1•. • respectively. 96 the L.Temn•a 0/44. A9ea,n0er 4.m, see 4 baneena,q . y5• yr. 5Iosk, oe• TRt4••.ret' at RAIN. )&.•Was N-01r .7,e40- • ' ... , ✓. to no team to be the ledivtduais ono eaeCuted the 'Italia decler.14oh, and, acl.xled,ell to de that, they signed and sealed the same 119.0940. eolunt40' ' act 1M deed ter tee rtes 1141 mrpofes therein'mentlemed 1114 0n'eetn flitted •• Met they mere authorized t0 e.0Crt4 /lid IMtvrmarlt..nd teat the seal atilt: 91 the 00.00.44. 1.51 N gala corporation. Witnes11w heed end 0 /tkl.l feel /. tlq day and Moe Pint above ..10040. • '�,`t'r r4t� 1:• Sing' Car ps1/610►. at. .1•• • • 4.• rcammsS 4111,10 7,9/2050 78.1 -- .•.. -- Deputy sing Caret, Assessed • ., - 0[1�IQ1Yk2 01 RtS01t05 NiD QICr1 ;,tea • a , ' Fila� r. rat it`ene'nwat; OT the City of ?Neils th11 9 •' Or of '. ^lilt 'L. • '119/1.. at 11 • • 819•0.4 reel 1 Yo4.:icilaT,,r •: .. • �Ny Public • and for Rats •1v (/7_4iO4M1. tsJ1111 "at• C M7 Ca*1ts4on e071re1 .4 05 ti: ' . '//O& -.712 713 • '. •creMl er 114 0aurt7. 14es91mtonn r • cciit7'e..cii9r r wrcu ., 9474. of 60ser8t 9- far- C:O l: i par- . :�.M Heord!O In YeLa.e 1 M eealrarIs J. •4• • taan / r r 4mma.• r9••••■• w %wow . ti 790 - !e 15welpvi I . • • S .i at 1 L7 / 7• 45•Jft O- PARCEL ' • 1' 't 10. 09 • JC0 PO N 87 45. 58 • - 30•1-airAscor Iv "-Aver Or &se CIT.- 0' l'oeStvt44. 4...Itteri, lbws Km..r. • .;',46,Cticuer gcatio %....iemertsst 1r 14e Ass. & *.pir•Amt 440,17.0, kvil4tsassit kiniatv.&.; Ykwi:Or issmrsi a •fr lovisors kiterwir• ba at AS, All "WI Mir Awe "rot tA, k Avow:, Or Agora Os. • • • N-81• T• /9 /Y 6/98/ s4m4$o.r It. 77- 51/.177 0/ o. . 101,./0 Carve* corers 4:/rov P•r 1 : ! : • 790 - .54 ' • • PARKWAY SQUARE BINDING SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CASCO MOM4Mt. _! N O' 37.43 W 16 s7RJA "DII e/1'0 (s 44' s. N89'45 58 W 67S05_ O Mo.urtn\ f no Coos o � V /S'U ot.c,ou.o 1 [/n . Lwanr /n /:/.a. O. P...v. i L7 s17, s..,...4.+ �• a [, � No 77.S/ P(COwo,5G _ .tce.•- ■.....ir No 79011!/09@ N J1 Is SI w 6f1 37 j 160 00 PARCEL A 151. it. N e9' 45 3e" Pe 164 37 PARCE! B 32.5' L..•oo Ot'lh,u.• f /yt..tnr�. PIC.O,w M'i 6320873, 6376/89, 6355535,6640297. = w ti 7' Etw.,t0 4 IN. M h.Aat O'` , • •• • A. ,a Z 11 / DD - /S' Ow.,nnt1 4.0 Ur,u.. fgttrtsp RtCOwO,M4 No 77/0131204\ N I9' 4s. se- N "ti :.,ti • O t ti 0 MI CO.NII A. I. srlll'I, di �ng 770 • Si 6430287 STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED THE GRANTOR, HON SERCICE`rER CORPORATION, a ' Washington corporation, fur and in consideration of fen and `'v'100 'ollars - - -- (S10.00), in hand paid, coneys and warra::ts to CHATTL'_G.: REALTY CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, the following described real estate, situated in-the County of King, State of Washi. : ;:a :: That portion of the •.urthwest 1 of the Southeast 1 AND the Northeast 1 of the Southwest 1 of Rc•tiun 25, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, n..,,, it King County, �,.- l—: ' Washington, described as follows: - 1L' 1.. Beginning at the Nortneast corner ut the Southea:.. / ,1' .,f 1 of said Section 26; thence North R8 °03'42" West along r+"i the North line of said Southeast 1 a .; :atai,c,, 1.408.,_., :! feet to the west line of the East 659.34 feet ut sale II- ',.:' Northwest 1 of the Southeast „ and the true point of a,'-:-. beginning: thence Soutn 01'47'29•' West along said test Line a distance of 638.25 feet: a thence North 88 °00'3t3 west a distance of 1305.23 feet to the Easterly margin of the Mess Brothers ; Road No. .9,2: Thence North O1°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 like of ,. • Northeast 1 of the Southwest 1: thence South 83'03'42" E__. _.,ng.said North line a dis :an,.•. 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 sai' S.••tinr. 21: a distance of 600.00 feet tc the true point of beginning: AND EXCEPT the Nest 6 feet of said portio: :'of the ):ortnea -: 1 of the Southwest } as conveyed to the City ot'Tuk•.tla by deed . .....ded unuer Auditoe s File No, 6343850, records o: King County: • AMP MI/AS Situate in tae City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington. SUBJECT TO: (a) Easement recorded July 22, 1929 under Auditor's File ':u. 2554742, at Vol•ime 1445 of Deeds, page 219 for telephone poles. • 0) Easements as granted by inst.uments recorded November 9, 1932 under Auottor'e File No. 2740675 at Volume 1533 of Deeds, page 579 and February 28, 1958 under Auditor's File no. 4877985 at Volume 3783 of Deeds, pave 477 for ingress and egress over the North 20 feet NOV 6-1968. ... 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 cart cf Mess Brothers.County.Road (57th Avenue South). . (c) Easement recorded July 12, 1968 under Auditor's Ft1e No. 6376188, Volume 5114'of Deeds, page 555 for undergrounu electric system and appurtenances over the east 3,feet of the fi West 56 feet of the above - describe.] property. (.:i .Easement recorded May 29, 1968 under Auditor's File No. 6355532:for utility mains and lines. with appurtenances over East 15 feet of the. West 21 feet of • the above - described property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has evwed this in t.iuwent to be executed by its proper officers this y aday of 1968. BON SERVICENTER CORPORATION By � � 1,c. - President By Secretary • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 1SS.• COUNTY OF KING ) On this 29th day of October 1968, before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washineron, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared JAMES A. WALSH to me ::town and W. J. FIX to be the Vice President and Ass't.Sec.retary, respectively of BON SERVICENTER wnrvRATION, a Washin8ton corporation, the corporation that 'executed the foregoing,instf•ument, and acknowledged the said.fnstrur..ent 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 e:fecute 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 -2- an or C. �'o.ar' u is in iTe of Wa hington, residing at Seattle. l . n . • City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 FAX TRANSMISSION DATE /TIME: THURSDAY', JANUARY 25, 1990 11:00 TO: VALLEY DAILY NEWS (Name) (Company Name) (FAX #) FROM: JOANNE JOHNSON FAX #: 433 -1833 PHONE NO: 433 -1849 SUBJECT: ATTACHED PUBLIC NOTICE PAGE(s)•_ 1 (+ Cover Sheet) COMMENTS: PLEASE PUBLISH IN THE SUNDAY, JANUARY 28, 1990 EDITION OF THE VALLEY DAILY NEWS. WAC 197 -11 -970 410 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR/COMMENTS ON,SCOPE OF EIS Description of Proposal SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II DEVELOP A HOTEL AND RESTAURANT COMPLEX ADJACENT TO TUKWILA POND Proponent SPIEKER PARTNERS Location of Proposal, including street address, if any SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE STRANDER BLVD /ANDOVER PARK WEST INTERSECTION (SEE ATTACHMENT) Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -19 -89 EIS Required. The. lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a 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: 1) WILDLIFE /WETLAND IMPACTS 2) TRAFFIC IMPACTS 3) SOIL /WATER IMPACTS 4.), AESTHETIC IMPACTS Scoping. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, pro- bable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. The method and deadline for giving us your comments is: FEBRUARY 16; 1990 Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Planning Director Address Date 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tu Phone 433 -1845 88 Signature You may appeal thi 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. You 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. I ' Southcenter Plaza: Phase II Expanded Environmental Checklist Survey Plan Figure 3 City of Tukwila 2400 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 -7005 Office Of The City Attorney (206) 624 -1040 January 2, 1990 Glenn J. Amster Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 -2925 Re: Benoliel v. Tukwila Dear Glenn: Enclosed are fully executed copies of the Settlement Agreement and the Stipulation and Order of Dismissal. Thank you for your cooperation in resolving this matter without the necessity of trial. Very truly yours, OFF E OF THE CITY ATTORNEY n F. C lgrov JFC /rj Enclosure cc: Mayor Van Dusen w /encl. 3 • • RECFIVEE DEC2 '? 9 KING CO.Ur r: c.QURx CLE'■ S MICE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 5 THE CITY OF SEATTLE, a ) municipal corporation, ) NO. 84 -21 -41 Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND ORDER S- H- BENOLIEL - ROMNEY #179, a ' ) OF DISMISSAL California limited partnership, ) ) 9 Substituted ) Plaintiff, ) 10 ) v. ) 11 . ) THE CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal ) 12 corporation, ) ) 13 Defendant. ) ) 14 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, by 15 and through their counsel of record, that the above - entitled cause 16 having been fully settled and compromised, may be dismissed with 17 prejudice and without costs to any party. 18 DATED this A day of , 1989. 19 LESOU D & PATTEN, P.S. 20 21 By llai!2 22 ''= wrence E. Hard John F. Magnuson 23. Attorneys for Defendant City of Tukwila 24 25 Stipulation and Order of Dismissal - 1 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON P.S. By G Att S- nn J. ster eys f Plaintiff enoliel- Romney # 179 Law Offices • HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON • A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 -2925 (206) 623 -1745 Facsimile (206) 623 -7789 1 21 Judge of the above - entitled Court upon the stipulation of the 3 parties hereto, and it appearing to the Court that the matter has • ORDER OF DISMISSAL THIS MATTER having come on for hearing before the undersigned 4 5 6 7 8. 9 10 11 been fully settled and compromised, now, therefore, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiff's Complaint for Inverse Condemnation, Damages and Other Relief be and the same is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party. OEC 2 9198y DONE IN OPEN COURT this day of , 1989. 12 Presented by: 13 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 14 / 15 By • , - �' ster 16 A neys or Plaintiff S Benoli-1- Romney #179 17 Approved as to Form; Notice 18 of Presentation Waived: 19; LESO RD & PATTEN, P.S. 20 21 By114 ." 22' ? awrence E. ohn F. Magnuson 23i Attorneys for Defendan City of Tukwila 24 007804.M110 /IrI FI4' rlr .l ct . 25 Stipulation and Order of Dismissal - 2 STEPHEN M. GADDIS JUDGE /COURT COMMISSIONER Law Offices • HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON • A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 -2925 (206) 6234745 Facsimile (206) 623 -7789 • • SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is dated as of December 17, 1989, by and between S- H- BENOLIEL- ROMNEY #179, a California limited partnership ( "Benoliel ") and THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, a municipal corporation ( "Tukwila "). RECITALS A. Benoliel is the Plaintiff (by virtue of an Assignment dated April 20, 1988 by the City of Seattle, as Assignor) and Tukwila is the Defendant in a lawsuit currently pending in King County Superior Court, Cause No. 84 -21 -41 (the "Lawsuit "). B. The parties wish to enter into this Settlement Agreement in settlement of all claims Benoliel may have against Tukwila which were or could have been asserted in the Lawsuit, on the terms set forth herein. AGREEMENTS In consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and agreements contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Threshold Determination. Upon execution of this Agreement by the parties, Tukwila shall immediately proceed in good faith to make a threshold determination pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -310 on Benoliel's proposal entitled "Southcenter Plaza: Phase II ", a description of which is on file with the Tukwila Department of Community Development under Reference No. EPIC 19- 89. 1 2. Order of Dismissal. Upon execution of this Agreement by the parties, the parties shall cause their respective attorneys to execute a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. Benoliel and Tukwila hereby waive any right to appeal from the Order of Dismissal. 3. No Waiver of Rights.. The parties acknowledge and agree that nothing herein shall be construed to affect the rights of the parties with respect to any claim that has arisen or may arise in the future other than those which arose or could have arisen out of the facts asserted in the Lawsuit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Benoliel agrees that the threshold determination made by Tukwila pursuant to paragraph 1 above and any conditions attached thereto shall not be construed to preclude Tukwila from lawfully enacting legislation which may impose different conditions on the development of the "Southcenter Plaza: Phase II" project. 4. Governing Law; Entire Understanding. This Agreement is entered into under the laws of the State of Washington and shall be interpreted in accordance therewith. This Agreement 'sets forth the entire understanding of the parties and may be modified only by an instrument duly executed by each party. 5. Bindina Effect. This Agreement is binding upon and shall enure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legatees, representatives, successors, transferees, and assigns. - 2 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Settlement Agreement as of the date first written above. Attest and Authenticated: %By �1v cx __1 .. C ti )Maxine Anderson, City 1 erk- Approved as to Form: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY By S- H- BENOLIEL - ROMNEY #179, a California limited partnership el Benoliel, General artner CITY OF TUKWILA of LeSourd & Patten, P.S. 007805.M110 By y L. Van Dusen, Mayor - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXHIBIT A IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY THE CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff, S- H- BENOLIEL - ROMNEY #179, a California limited partnership, Substituted Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal corporation, Defendant. ) NO. 84 -21 -41 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, by and through their counsel of record, that the above - entitled cause having been fully settled and compromised, may be dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party. DATED this day of , 1989. LESOURD & PATTEN, P.S. By Lawrence E. Hard John F. Magnuson Attorneys for Defendant City of Tukwila Stipulation and Order of Dismissal - 1 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. By Glenn J. Amster Attorneys for Plaintiff S- H- Benoliel- Romney # 179 Law Offices • HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON • A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 -293= (3(161 671.1745 Faacimile (2O' F31 -" —Q0 ORDER OF DISMISAL THIS MATTER having come on for hearing before the undersigned Judge of the above - entitled Court upon the stipulation of the parties hereto, and it appearing to the Court that the matter has been fully settled and compromised, now, therefore, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiff's Complaint for Inverse Condemnation, Damages and Other Relief be and the same is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party. , DONE IN OPEN COURT this day of , 1989, Presented by: HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. By Glenn J. Amster Attorneys for Plaintiff S- H- Benoliel- Romney #179 Approved as to Form; Notice of Presentation Waived: LESOURD & PATTEN, P.S. By Lawrence E. Hard John F. Magnuson Attorneys for Defendant City of Tukwila 007804.M110 Stipulation and Order of Dismissal - 2 JUDGE /COURT COMMISSIONER Law Offices • HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON • A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 -2925 t 7_"/' SPO _ 4..4- - t,a12t.‘ a ma ? f - -S V( /90 - • pot- 7-Lit P /4(77 .G 7cOt iLas f� G r owS � PLFcs'cf7" • .17tz 7-=-P014D "bas scf.(-r4), TO "f4 czz, S TAPF k_gft a) off- S1 C. (SSusrS (lOr° —it es) C z P /v�- (.-J el) ±/ 7 '-17 G GO Conic c} c.,Tsi -nC < S .S) C f CJI/ ca- o pr72s ? 0 C 7Citouf eit cFV LEAD WECONCC(INCASED/ STRANDER BLVD. 68815'33 °E 1336.64' _ 5' _ I30C. 73 665.00' NEW LOT 1 tokc_, NE 1/4 Sec. 26 FNO. STD. METRO BRASS DISC IN 4'X4' CONC. POST (INCASED/ i L 30' LI 641.73' 5' ESM'T. AFN. CI 668397 S88.15'33'E 212.17' 1— L5 • ,1 0' �1 1 A.F.N. 6683975 II 1 ir' L3 Z ‘'SC.- 1 "'. {%L.D) L. '1' A ^-s 29.15 AC (0 J S88'I5'33'E • L9 L8 688.10'37'E 10' ESM'T. -y( AFN. 740208- 0363 1 1 . 1 1 01 00) 1 N= N01 '03'25'E F' ALE 1" =200' Southwest corner SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 26 -23 -4 E. 30' 10' Land LINE Lt 12 L3 L4 L5 L6 17 16 669.69' BEARING SO 1'44'27'1V SO1'44'27'W S881 5'33'E SO 1.44'27'W S88•15'33'E SO I'44'27'W N48'28'37'E SO1.44'271W 13c ?.3 South Line NE l( /4 Sec. 26 A.EN. 6397207 N88606'4311/ 1339.38' DIST. 63.00' 62.00' 9.00' 62.00' 133.00' 482.33' 113.9" 37.10' Surveyor's Certificate: LINE 19 L10 ul BEARING 688"15'33'E S0I'44'27'W S88•15'33'E 639.69' DIST. 120.00' 70.00' 84.68' CURVE ARC DELTA RADIUS CI 78.17' 34'27'01' 130.00' This Boundary Line Adjustment /Lot Consolida -. tion correctly represents a survey* made by me or under my dir ion in conformance with the requireme appropriate 'S e statute. Name: FND. BRASS DISC. IN 41X4' CONC. POST (INCASED/ 1• BCE #2885 Maplon File in Vault Direction: Nv v 1/ Scale: 1'1.2W Date: / —/9— 89 Certificate No. 22338 A lot consolidation does not require a sury y of the perimeter unless the lines are adjuste (29 /BLA.MAP) Page `Q! �j.. 7 /- 016ALA g k� ' •- �L 0 _1_0/'2M _ 2 e. _ C9)7 0 0 t /4 chN • CAJ--e_e5e_ CeJ0L,e, 4 c=k,eatt4 lO (24f-0,10/2-S , 'et) ce,414-'3ti (0(a8 IN& 0eZ-G;A-UL i!3o cecia i_ CJ14 — TP ?Atiff L;227 ter_ - ,e; -cz 2, LL a- . ` c93 ? r - -% .422,d_ _. ee. ?Zr7F/ s(itsigr le■$-C'W A&/ CZS 6? ■ C77- "> _S- caic 713 ,Af, .4—geoe 5_, • • • • S-1 S .0„,_ /a5 P,i_e„ w±-- ? C ,-E aoa-IlLes-4__ 16,_e dca.--- 612_7 r VL.Q.4-,-Cejt cvgst—z, / t.S ,IPZQQ,C r ecw1,4-3- 6eA- See- .e4C (170 ib rcp cLiet )3ze_Q, (7, 44- rz _ _ _6v5n--kA f? 74( .a7try-er-f,-c)V ov, -uf° xrd -*/5 dr-wQ-c. y )y, 172 CtL- • • • ( 2+. ,/.2.e-utiAttee ex.- 4- ) JQLj -A-A-4741411^-4--e-d- , S1/2 83 -g _ ,e z-17 c„ee / co_cjj k4 •Ty_ /4_ SA-0 0 • • • SA-.0 ..evL -LC .am,,fre412 .,ecirre„ _ . cor44 ercz -675 ,,„Le514_,LLAdatA,4____J ,4Z_ cc -5A-0 - - - • _4487A,A, et-ce71-4- A _ (f).„:,„ qr.Lkyf 5-6-p71 _ • 7 / ••••••■•. 77' -ez- 72 7 • &`-"'"")-`'' 4° '?-'15fral • v-6D d?"ThIfr jr"9$ 1:D c7:1 -OrW 77 "z9-eigrer"7"->- ° 173. 39x - s --(7; —7 7 '73^/Plenr-4, 72,7-1 • 627 51-PQd 1 ?!--7 0 V5 sy • • • • </7 54s- ___ApLej.,;:),PZ)05 ei23-714.- k_C .0L. r---rcuz_, /144 _ (a-ese J r c91._ e .,s_a2e42_ 0 2 6 2 ?-Pa-t s .(8/F0)_ Alcoe V=.4_ • 5-77 A(a („4 ce_el s17 M)675 (ea)) Ag_‹iurLecO ct 5 .4,1_e_fey_oe, a-esOsi2, LL Cs-4_7_3 J4;1:4.4444_ c c_04, Co„622s?e (L 4- L_ c_62_,ee v-C,C .4_ --J2(at4, ,e4st_Gg.,44L A • 7 ,* 1.; afr c-ez.t,c_e■geece j (2-) VOL- — tc fLc,it.e,L4e4et,stre v!evod■e"erc). ecrz■—t-6 ciet-e&- I C tat :7-&-ee ) 44-4 JO C,1‹.-tee 'eFA 7 Tip c 1--C ( /4414rs-, 4t-e ■Aet-i-- Cr.ree /4- s2 &(;- &re1/40,‘3e- sr‘ r-- - Cest,n1-er oCP ;7t aer2 3?-2? -°)Y 6 ( *rn 44, ( d-d"7") - -N,A 4=2014111,0 -Neerli3 4-4/ 2 •-:' ., v0 Y s ler"2-‘'2 n ,S0 SL L d 1 '_ • • 1 • cea _ a,ge -er4 cL4 4f/2_7, s- 1-42, c A_moo . _ ,_ -= 651,_6,40,__.t- f,z,_0_, cxtri„_7&e- J2-A,.,ex7.42. -7fer-- 4_ At_< /7D06- 4/-7ec,,47vps, fas-; r- -Pow). 4 .o 4e,,,,e 0,4„j l7 • • 0 C c„a_ A.„&„,/m6,777z0,/ „a_z—e-,42(2.„‘‘ - -- 8 thdie c■ecale zett- 67.,ee c 6.erf:ifEL,‹ „4- 6,1-7 ND') f.„_ /12 -<.„ cafi 63*. _ ,s,-Acariev cAeck&4- 41/44, cli.2 )))-61 ‘2.€ slAd „(402, J % /061-4 c'), V nom /rte � N )641- 114621, ice .kw) -�c� 4-9 /r S✓s l � 44v4c> - -r kl 1,102, . <,i W s kiQ- 4.19J6 (�n're 5,1A �a do i Orteik, orwse. - . Iran A if-PA4:__ v s J ne, I %wv 9 ,Wry cy "Ace, ,i6,1./k1 Speed Message® 44-9ooclitir /S/A- To • • Subject —pc_ flkwis2 From FV, .Sped Message • Date 4P4514 ig- fyLeoe: (1'3L4 L)6/1L )UTI N 4 Ciek..)LF1 cPtkir ITZArr---(C ria4k4 0 MI LC_ 1 Al 'AL- tim.ePsc ftasluvi , it val.. VW*. 46111,t.1 Li 71,- re, 10,40 - virL-1 — dos \WilsonJones 'RAYLINE FORM 44-900 2-PART '93 • PRINTED IN U S A • 483 City of Tukwila PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -0179 Ross A. Earnst, P.E. Director October 9, 1989 Mr. Joe Benoliel Spieker Partners 915 - 118th Avenue Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98005 Dear Mr. Benoliel: RE: Southcenter Plaza Phase II The proposed Phase II development transportation safety and capacity analysis evaluating the impacts needs to include several items. The purpose of this letter is to identify them for evaluating the proposed development construction. Trip generation for ADT, Noon Peak, PM, and Peak Christmas shopping peaks (noon & PM) is requested to be calculated. Please show the traffic volume distribution onto Southcenter Parkway from north of Klickitat through the South 180th Street intersection and on Strander through Andover Park West. The Christmas high volume period occurs from mid November through Christmas. The volumes need to show existing (1), the additional traffic of Phase I (2), the Phase II traffic (3), and the total (4). It would be preferred if the trip distribution (Strander, Southcenter Parkway, Klickitat, etc.) could be shown "graphically" on a map in the manner displayed in Figure 3 -16, page 62, 1988 ITE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT. It would be preferred if turning movements could be shown as displayed in Figure 17.2, page 522, 1982 ITE MANUAL OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDIES. Please show a tabulation of parking demand using the ITE Land Development reference and 1987 ITE PARKING GENERATION book - comparing ITE parking demand, proposed developmen supp y, an ukwila Municipal Code requirements. A trip distribution table and map for the Phase II traffic is requested. It should show the traffic assignment through the nearby street network including: Southcenter Parkway & I -5 northbound off (signal), Klickitat, I -5 northbound off unsignalized, Strander and South 180th Street; Strander and Doubletree /Security Bank access, 58th, 61st, and Andover Park West showing the existing Phase I, additional Phase II, and total traffic. • • Mr. Joe Benoliel October 9, 1989 Page 2 The Level Of Service (LOS) for the peak hours is requested to include analysis of existing volumes plus Phase I (1) and (1) plus Phase II traffic volumes - for the existing street network with mitigations. Suggested capacity mitigations include the 58th and 168th connection that was identified in the Phase I evaluation, widening Strander approaching Southcenter Parkway, widening Southcenter Parkway from the northern intersection through Strander, and similar lane additions. Other suggestions will be openly considered and welcomed. Safety mitigations for pedestrian movements and local circulation need to be addressed in accord with evaluation findings. Evaluation of accident patterns for existing records and projections is requested. Safety evaluation work needs to tabulate hourly and peak hour signal warrants for the 58th /Strander intersection and 168th /Southcenter Parkway intersection, pedestrians, driveway circulation, and truck access including radius, loading movements, and parking. The first proposal did not show the previously identified and requested 58th Avenue South connection; the analysis needs to be summarized with and without that connection. A book of tabulated traffic counts and accidents prepared to assist you has been provided to Walter Kaczynski. They show higher volumes than used in the Phase I analysis and should be used as existing volumes. We look forward to completing this work with you. Sincerely, Ron Cameron, P.E. City Eningeer RC /kjr CC: Walter Kaczynski, Spieker Partners Chris Brown, Chris Brown Associates Jack Pace, Planning 915 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98005-3855 P.O. Box 97022 Bellevue, WA 98009-9722 206 453-1600 • FAX: 206 455-4105 September 18, 1989 Mr. Jack Pace City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Southcenter Plaza, Phase II Dear Jack, SPIEKER This is in response to our meeting on September 15, with yourself and Ron Cameron, regarding the traffic issues on Southcenter Plaza, Phase II. I understand that we need to provide the City with further traffic study and analysis in order for you to continue your review. We are directing our traffic consultant to begin his work and will be submitting those results shortly. Please don't hesitate to call if I can be of further assistance. Cordially, SPIEKER PARTNERS Walter S. Kaczyn Project Director WSK:db cc: Joel Benoliel D R Ai F T Sept 14 Re: Southcenter Plaza a 1-'hase II Dear Joel The Transportation safbty and capacity analysis assessing the impacts of the proposed development needs to include several items. The purpose of!this letter is to identify them for evaluating the Phase It construction. Trip generation for jlus construction inspection) ADT noon peak PM peak Christmas shoppin peaks (noon & PM) The volumes need to show existing, the additional traffic of Phase I, the Phase II traffic, and the totals. It would be preferred if these could be shown "graphically" on a map in the Transpo or similar format (please not as shown on the Phase I) as well as tabulated. A Trip Distribution to le and map for the Phase II traffic is requested. It should how the traffic assignment through the nearby street network including Southcenter PkWy $f 15 NB off(signal), Klickitat, I5 NB Off unsignalized,Strander, and S 180th Street; Strander and Dodbletree /Security Bank. access, 58th, 61st, and Andover Park West. The Level -of- service (LOS) for the peak hours is requested to include analysis of existing volumes + Phase I (1) and (1) + • Phase II traffic volum s - for the existing with mitigations. treet network. Suggested capacity mitigations include the 58th & 168th connec ion that was identified in the Phase I evaluation, idening Strander_ approaching Southcenter Park Way, widening Southcenter Parkway from the northern intersection through Strander, and similar lane additions. Other suggest_ions'will be openly considered and welcomed. Safety mitigations for pedestrian movements and local circulation need to be addressed in accord with evaluation findings. Evaluation of accident patterns li II for existing records and projections is requested. Safety evaluation work needs to tabulate signal warrants for the 58th /Strander intersec_ion and 168th /Scter PkWy intersection, pedestrians, driveway irculation, and truck access including radius, loading moveme ts, and parking. The first proposal did not show the previously identified and requested 58th Avenue S connection; the analysis needs to summarrized with a d without that connection for recommendation and dec' :sion to be made on that aspect. New City Counts are be ng copied as are the accidents. Sincerely RMC ce XC ill 15:38 FAX 1206' 45- 4165 . . SP I EKER PARTNERS 200C /I104 AUG 4 !939 BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. "Land Planning, Survo; and Dosign Specilists" July 31, 1989 Mt. Walter Kaczyu.sici Spieker Partners P.O. Box 970'22 Bellevue, WA 98009 RE DE VE® MMUNI ELOPME4a. RE: Field Nure for Tokw:ila. Pond Water Sarface Elevatior, for Southcent:z Pia2a Shopping Center Our Job No, 2885 Dear Walter: enclosed is a copy of soirc: survq notes, gij uillistown., that took radings r,:f. the lukvriflt Pond water surface elevation Dn. October 27, 1937, Novinber 4, 19r,7, and Noverubc-r J7, i98. Tat notes indicate that the water surface ?,1twattor.1 of the 'Tukwila Paad was approxim.ate!? 3.i; thtLa period of drought in October - November of 198'7. These simiev notes were not urered Barcillausen. Consuiting., 'Epcers Itc.,A and I believe quit ralizt hav e. obtabod tilt= Lem .:Volz. during the early stages of this proje.ct. The Topographic Survey pteparc..d by Stepaa & Associates ill:4 November 4, 1;28,5, Indic-arl:s that the water surface elevation is 133. 1 understand that the contractor, Lumplin C.4-Arrrnction, r.Uy rewrded th wate.r elevation to be 14.7. The Geotechnical investigation Retort dated July 3, 1928, pmpared by CeoEngi:Leen, page 4, states: "The water surface elevation in the pond is ahoto: 1-13 feet. The pond surface elevation is ;,-tetterally rtpresenthave if round water Elevations in filled portions. of the site. Ground and surinc-e water levels are expected to Arm' seasonally.' Please let me know if you have any questions or iced ny dUitotiai inform:It:or Raspectfully, obert J. Armstrong, P.E. k . Project Engineer RjAibb C475.51 enc.: Survey Notes cc: Mr. Dana B. Mc.-,wtr, B::irghausen Cowriting Engineers, Inc. Horne Office: 18215 72rtO Avenue South * 1\cnt„lArashington ,9.6032 * (2i6 25i";222 I .. . A.A11, r ( I ..._.... I .41j if.14 / 77 • t ir ; 1 I II I, I i 1 -). ( ■ - r I . • • ; • i i 1 i 1 ; i 1 -i 1 1 i - e 4 Ir. 1 v 0,43 irletr4 4U. 1 • '''' " --/ \ ----1*--- *-- ---t--- -*/ *** — — \ ---- , *** -------j-------t .-- %./.._._..........____________-_---- - - - I -CET 740 sl• -IN/Cte-ki4451 A 379 V.4-1 N:40 9,6/ A (241 1 r' -__ • - v9-70 It - \ —4- r fi ig•G • — I .r2 H 1 -4-- t \ • Z <2 4,7 16.00 15 .80 15.60 1-- I 15.40 — 1520 — 15.00 f 14.80 --- 14.60 F- 14.40 L 1420 1- I4.00 1;33U 13.60 '- 13.40 h- 1320 113,00 SOU. HCEN TER PLAN POND ELEVATION 15.07 14.88 ,I4.69 ,.J nom: \1 k s. a\ *NA eaSu l o e.'A s a ce_ ho A. \\ pkVe,s ase.. ( 1 4 tje 4.50 vJ 1.32 3.50 x_`13.75 13.45 13.30 . v „pas q. ``'■,._ 13.00 7/9 1 7/1.33 } 8/6 1 8/20 1 9/3 1 9/17 i 10/1 7/16 7/30 8/13 8/27 9/10 9/24 WEEK BEGINNING CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PHONE # (206) 433 -1800 Jack Pace, Senior Planer Don Williams, Director Parks and Recreation July 20, 1989 Comments on Spieker Partner's Southcenter Plaza: Phase II Expanded Environmental checklist • f72 tiff, r' 1 JUL- 211989: I AIL. 1L9 19Da;en, Mayo; FEY LA PLANNING DEPT , I have reviewed the Expanded Checklist with mixed concerns. I'll focus in on several subjects. Foot Path: In Phase I, a foot path was included within a 25 foot buffer area between the pond's edge and the improvements. .There appears to be no path planned along the,western edge of the pond between the buildings and the edge of the pond. This is inconsi- stent with the phase and should be included. The Audubon Society should not be the sole decision makers on this path. The City's Parks and Open Space Plan and Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends paths connect "open spaces" to other areas. A few people along the path will have no more impact than large buildings with many users and the related traffic. On page 17 it also states there will be no displaced recreation use, 12.b. I disagree. Passive bird watching has always been an activity on the site. This activity should be allowed to continue, and a path is needed as the building surrounding 1/2 the site and will block views. Buffer Area: The 25 foot buffer area should be left in a natural state. Any additional plantings should be in addition to this area. DW/tr sp =��N 33ocetp 3,3eattle Audubon Washington Nonprofit Corporation 619 Joshua 206/622-669 July 14, 1989 Jack Pace, Senior Planner Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 93188 ��/�6)[�i���:"'d ../� . �����|!�.���/9 -~~'-. I. JUL �4 1989 v y� : _` • _ ') ' • ` ,, ) '~ RE: Southcenter Plaza: Phase II (Tukwila Pond) EPIC-19-89. Dear Mr. Pace: The Seattle Audubon Society's Conservation Committee has reviewed the "Expanded Environmental Checklist for Spieker Partners' Southcenter Plaza: Phase II", dated June 1989. The summary of our review includes the following list of concerns: 1. Encroachment into the sensitive southwest corner of Tukwila Pond, The shallow southwestern corner of Tukwila Pond is one of the most sensitive habitat areas within the wetland complex. During periods of high water the southwest corner provides an. important brooding and resting area for waterfowl. During periods of low water the same corner provides a mudflat feeding area for migratory shorebirds. The utility of this area to wildlife is dependent upon the seclusion provided by the wooded buffer surrounding the southwest corner of the pond. This wooded area buffers the southwest corner from the surrounding urban disturbance. Undoubtedly, the habitat located at the southwest corner contributes significantly to the diversity of species which utilize Tukwila Pond. Figures 2 and 4 of the Environmental Checklist show extensive encroachment of the project into the southwestern corner of the property by a proposed parking lot. Does the scope of this project warrant the additional parking lot in this area? Will hotel and restaurant patrons or employees utilize parking at this location? Or will the isolated parking lot become a police problem, while reducing the utility of the pond to wildlife? To avoid a significant environmental impact to wildlife, we strongly recommend that the parking lot proposed at the southwestern corner of the pond be deleted from the project and that the 25-foot buffer proposed along the western shoreline extend southerly to the southern boundary of the property. 2. Southern entrance to the parking garage. The proposed alignment of the southern driveway entrance to the parking garage will eliminate an existing drainage course and existing trees which buffer the southwest corner of the pond from the loading dock of the Bon Warehouse. The southern entrance of the parking garage should be realigned to minimize the disturbance to the existing drainage course and vegetation. A westerly approach to the parking garage should be evaluated as an alternative to the proposed southerly approach. In addition a fence should be constructed along the driveway and the proposed 168th Street to discourage human intrusion into the pond area 3. The impact of noise on wildlife. Hundreds of waterfowl annually utilize Tukwila Pond during the fall, winter, and spring months to rest during migration and to over-winter. Construction activity, especially driving piles, during the fall, winter and spring may provide a probable and significant adverse impact to the migratory birds which current utilize Tukwila Pond. Page A-11 of environmental checklist states, "If mechanically driven pilings are used animal communities could be temporarily impacted." We recommend that those construction activities which are likely to disturb wildlife, such as driving piles, be restricted to the summer months. 4. Walkways adjacent to Tukwila Pond. Figure 2 of the Environmental Checklist appears to propose a walkway between the hotel and the wetland buffer. Increased human activity along the shoreline buffer of Tukwila Pond will 'disturb and adversely impact the wildlife. The Seattle Audubon Society believes it is very important that the public be given the opportunity to observe wildlife on Tukwila Pond, but the observation must be from a controlled location, not from walkways which parallel the shoreline buffer and maximize disturbance to the pond. No other building currently proposed adjacent to Tukwila Pond has a walkway along the buffer. 5. ��� We recommen t the walkway be delet=���� from the proposal and a SEPA condition be added which restricts human access along the buffer to a controlled location. Headlights from parking area. Figure 2. of the Environmental Checklist shows a parking area north of the proposed restaurant. Headlights from vehicles parking along the eastern row of the parking lot should be blocked so that light is not cast across the pond. The area between the parking area and the pond buffer should be revised to provide screening of the parked cars. 6. Light and Glare. To ' minimize disturbance to wildlife the exterior illumination of the project should be of minimal intensity, shielded, and directed downward to prevent light spillage into the wetland area. 7. 168th Street Drainage. Figure 4. of the Environmental Checklist shows that roadway runoff from the proposed construction of 168th Street will be diverted to Tukwila Pond. To minimize the introduction of additional pollutants to Tukwila Pond the roadway runoff from The proposed construction of 168th Street should be directed to Southcenter Parkway. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. The Seattle Audubon Society continues to be sincerely concerned about the potential impact the proposed project may have on Tukwila Pond, its associated wetlands, and wildlife. We are hopeful that the items raised in this letter will be specifically addressed by revisions to the project and appropriate SEPA Mitigation. Please notify us immediately of the City's SEPA determination. If you have any questions please contact Joe Miles of our Conservation Committee at 622-8254. Sincerely, 6/4cat--i Gerry Adams Vice President cc: Joel Benoliel, Spieker Partners CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBER gyp/ -� CI- LCONTROL NUMBER CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - RAPING FO,M TO: Q BLDG. Q PLNG. ®, W. ( Q FIRE [] POLICE Q P. & R. PROJECT_ Sc cdit v ADDRESS li;tI(M:41. APG)11' DATE TRANSMITTED kiCc, %"v RESPONSE REQUESTED BY d C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH (Th THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: ,f[ RI ���� :1V\ +co ((1 Gl1N rS is � >' _� �t11 l J apprOLicti 0 1-_i gt ou k4 �t1 TZLN‘t+ /& L S t v per► k -�' �' t L 4k, . . g . — ,.` a" � 4. - - C", J F QV1 ►T - P, 3 Tarn+ Io cis, w mP. PLftr Po'\ �' K S`t c P( PoS 5.14,2,4=z 'LTA , ? ) UaDM L)4 ANA SjS -rc Dt -Mihit ,D lz• OU kaSi Q az t S `f S-F Ern -f O ,s 2V . PRO P C r lyz_.V PV41 k"NT* ?, 3I UVsT FP. L/\ ST L(N - T ZD' 1t/ }k , "TIME_ LIMIT \ NA I Q .1\I DT T3 A \P U A T L i r- ..c) 41 ENT oeCUVLS O - tp 114-. 13 Ac.Nt sTb n c As (0 Err1TR Q I N -cat ' 1)- I Nt5=os Tgit , , .., 0 0 0 0 0 0 O .0 -D . REVIEW REQUESTED 441 PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED Q PLAN APPROVED Q PLAN CHECK DATE 7//3/e4) COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBER -� �I,, CONTROL NUMBER CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - FORM TO: la BLDG. [[ PLNG. [I P.W. J FIRE [[ POLICE [J P. & R. PROJECT S A(6441!�V ('7� U�' /G�r ADDRESS -1,;40/14k a-)1 DATE TRANSMITTED JLt, 25 )*e‘') RESPONSE REQUESTED BAY_ j- )3j 1 r)1 C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR J01(.10..- RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: --R-: REVIEW REQUESTED IE PLAN CHECK DATE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED [I COMMENTS PREPARED BY PLAN APPROVED 0 C.P.S. FORM 2 CITY OF TUKWILA 7 PERMIT NUMBER CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTIAORM (CONTROL NUMBER TO: [[ BLDG. J PLNG. Q P.W. ., � FIRE EJ POLICE [[ P. & R. PROJECT Sid\cc► Ar / 7 ?IL L 17- ADDRESS 1;4 m42k A/ DATE TRANSMITTED JCc,� 25 ," "2 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY _ `3J /96 -q) C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR JaLJ2- RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: kg44 56 elie,AAdoui 4,6 [� &L a . /jury ideas') L4 L� ,,pp Oa- /14("1747 4f6C84-.1,')7 /Mt, , O -2 CZ LA Q L ‘4, /16-7-te/a04-ee44) ,/Le/ce /9,10 /9briele, PZ‘Veta6C J / Q 0 Q Q Q Q 0 LJ .. REVIEW REQUESTED kdi PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED o PLAN APPROVED J PLAN CHECK DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBER ��/ --f el,� CONTROL NUMBER CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTIN FORM TO:- D BLDG. [[ PLNG. [[ P.W. [] FIRE 0 POLICE [] P. & R. PROJECT 5. e& v V j ADDRESS �:413d . DATe'TRANSMITTED �..�Ct,� %-/ C.P':S:= STAFF COORDINATOR j()L� PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT. CONCERN IS NOTED: RESPONSE REQUESTED BYJ /,3� /96el RESPONSE RECEIVED D D < D D � D D D Df D D D D � REVIEW REQUESTED IN PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED El PLAN APPROVED [[ PLAN CHECK DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 July 5, 1989 City olgukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 • Andy McMillan Dept. of Ecology Baran Hall Mail Stop PV -11 Olympia, WA 98504 Subject: Southcenter Plaza: Phase II (Tukwila Pond) EPIC -19 -89 Dear Andy: Attached is the Expanded Environmental Checklist for Southcenter Plaza: Phase II. I would appreciate your review and comments on this project by July 14, 1989. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Jack Pace Senior Planner JP:jj City % Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 • July 5, 1989 Joe Miles Seattle Audubon Society 619 Joshua Green Bldg. Seattle, WA 98101 Subject: Southcenter Plaza: Phase II (Tukwila Pond) EPIC -19 -89 Dear Joe: Attached is the Expanded Environmental Checklist for Southcenter Plaza: Phase II. I would appreciate your review and comments on this project by July 14, 1989. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, ack Pace Senior Planner JP:jj July 5, 1989 City c Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Ted Muller Dept of Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. Mill Creek, WA 98012 Subject: Southcenter Plaza: Phase II (Tukwila Pond) EPIC -19 -89 Dear Mr. Muller: Attached is the Expanded Environmental Checklist for Southcenter Plaza: Phase II. I would appreciate your review and comments on this project by July 14, 1989. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Jack Pace Senior Planner JP:jj Expanded Environmental Checklist for Spieker Partners' Southcenter Plaza Phase II TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER SHEET i TABLE OF CONTENTS ii LIST OF FIGURES ii LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ii ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map 4 FIGURE 2 Site /Landscaping Plan 5 FIGURE 3 Site Survey 8 FIGURE 4 Drainage Plan A -7 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A Supplemental Environmental Assessment A -1 ATTACHMENT B Traffic Study B -1 ATTACHMENT C Summary of Mitigating Measures C -1 ii RCS 197 -11 -960 Environmental Checklist ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done). and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist . to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply ". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply ". IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the word "project ", "applicant ", and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer ", and "affected geographic area," respectively. 1 THE FERRIOMPANY June 30, 1989 Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Southcenter Plaza - Phase II Dear Jack: JUP1 v 0 1919 Enclosed are eight (8) copies of the Expanded Environmental Checklist for Spieker Partners' Southcenter Plaza Phase II for your review. The expanded report contains a completed checklist form, supplemental,assessment of various environmental elements, the full Transportation Study and a list of mitigating measures proposed by the applicant. The Ferris Company is available to meet with you to discuss your comments or respond to specific questions concerning The Expanded Checklist. Please call me if you need further information. Sincerely, Michael J. Blumen Vice President MJB:hd Enclosure cc: Joel Benoliel Glenn Amster Key Bank Building, Suite 300 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 206 / 462 -7650 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Southcenter Plaza: Phase II 2. Name of applicant: Spieker Partners 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Mr. Joel Benoliel, Spieker Partners 915 - 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 453 -1600 4. Date checklist prepared: June 8, 1989 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila, Washington 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction is scheduled to begin in late winter, 1989 to spring, 1990, and to be complete in fall, 1990. No phasing is proposed. 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. There have been previous public and private development proposals for the Southcenter Plaza Phase I and Phase II sites, including the Phase I project now under construction (City of Tukwila design review approval dated 1- 11 -89, file number 88- 12 -DR). Planning, environmental and construction documents for these proposals are on file with the City of Tukwila. 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. No. 2 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. SEPA Review Design Review Clearing and Grading Permit Building Permits Street Use Permit Hauling Permit Utility Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The proposal is to develop a hotel and restaurant complex adjacent to Tukwila Pond in the City of Tukwila (see Figures 1 & 2). The Phase II hotel /restaurant proposal would occupy an approximately 4.1 acre site. The applicant also owns the property to the north and east of the project site which includes the Phase I retail shopping center development and Tukwila Pond. Development of the project as proposed would result in approximately 80 percent coverage of the Phase II site, or approximately 3.2 acres, in impervious surfaces in the form of buildings or paved areas. The remainder of this site would be left undisturbed, including a 25 -foot buffer adjacent to the pond. The hotel /restaurant complex would consist of two buildings, a 75,500 - square foot hotel and an 8,000 - square foot restaurant. The hotel would be seven stories over underground parking and would contain 150 rooms. The restaurant would be one story over underground parking. Surface parking would also be provided. Building exteriors would be of high quality materials, subject to approval of the architectural review committee. The City of Tukwila code requires 1 parking space per 100 square feet of restaurant (80 spaces for the proposed 8,000 - square foot restaurant) and 1 space per room for hotels (or 150 spaces for the proposed 150 -room hotel). The proposal would meet the City's requirements. Parking for 230 vehicles is proposed to be located on the site; 98 surface parking stalls and 132 below -grade parking stalls. The primary access to the proposal would connect with Southcenter Parkway to the west, passing between Parkway Square and the Bon Home Improvement Clearance Center at S. 168th Street. This access would be constructed over a 46 -foot right -of -way resulting from dedication of the applicant's 16 -foot easement over the Bon Home Improvement Clearance Center property and the City's 30 -foot easement over the Parkway Square 3 Southcenter Plaza: Phase II Expanded Environmental Checklist Vicinity Map Figure 1 r 168TH STREET ACCESS T 80UT PKMT) RETAIL' PHASE 1I SITE TOYS -R -US r PARKWAY SQUARE TUKWILA POND DOUBLETREE. SUITES HOTEL (8 STORIES) P III I NO .OMICr ▪ , MINIM CT Of MINA MOM MOM DOS MM. • Y.L DAM -1M TARGET STORE • firt kF s c �Tr ATs,.��' �\ ;..� sir � q 'R STRANDER BOULEVARD �-- SECURITY PACIFIC BANK CHEVRON STATION 1 2 Scale 0 200 NORTH Southcenter Plaza: Phase II Expanded Environmental Checklist Site / Landscaping Plan Figure 2 property. A secondary access would be provided to connect with Strander Boulevard to the north. This secondary access would be right -in, right -out only. The majority of the stormwater runoff from the site would be directed to the pond after flowing through oil /water separators in parking lot catchbasins and a 200 -foot biofiltration swale. Pond outflow would be directed through a culvert next to Andover Park West into a tightlined system to connect to the City's underground system, which eventually discharges into the Green River. Stormwater runoff from the underground parking would drain to the sanitary sewer system, as required by the Uniform Building Code. 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 applications related to this checklist. The Phase II site is located in the southwest quadrant of the Strander Boulevard /Andover Park West intersection in the City of Tukwila (see Figure 1). The Phase I retail shopping center and Tukwila Pond are located to the north and east of the Phase II site, respectively. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Yes. Portions of the property may be designated as requiring special design considerations by the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map due to the proximity of surface water (the adjacent pond). 6 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 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 percent - 3 percent (see Figure 3 for site survey). 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 Attachment A, page A -1. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Based upon available information, there is no indication of unstable soils. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. See Attachment A, page A -1. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. During site preparation activities, the potential for erosion would be increased. With implementation of erosion control measures, no significant impacts are anticipated. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 80 percent of the Phase II site or approxi- mately 3.2 acres, would be covered in impervious surfaces following construction of the proposal. 7 ,/ ,-- ( 1 i 7.--Z--__---7-___=-=:-.-. 7====-__- ..===7._-_-__.. . .. --7.-_-7-Th -Tv �` ;�� ,' 1 j ,..:\sl.)' : // ti4i, _________=:7 , Irrir.:1\1-: 1 - 1:17--(5-1:1-1-1171,\I )7_1_7:: _k\.----1---L --- i 1 \ / ;:1\/:)./14 r"' �" �l i , _. j / / 1 • . 1:':-- ,_____. 1 1 r / /7._____.:___2,,f ,/,:__:_.,_// ; //,---1 ;.' \� % i � I /7 Southcenter Plaza: Phase II Expanded Environmental Checklist Survey Plan Figure 3 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 would 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. See Attachment A, page A -3. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Adjacent roadways, such as Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard, are sources of vehicular traffic with emissions which could affect the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: See Attachment A, page A -4. 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. Yes. See Attachment A, page A -4. 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 Site Plan, Figure 2. 9 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 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 quantities 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, Figure 2). No finish floor level of the occupied space would be constructed below the 100 -year floodplain eleva- tion of 23.00 feet (see Attachment A, page A -5). 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. Stormwater runoff from driveways and parking areas would contain some pollutants from motor vehicles and would be at a slightly elevated temperature. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage: industrial, containing the following chemicals....; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste materials will be discharged into the ground, since the site would be served by sanitary sewers. 10 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. See Attachment A, page A -6. 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: See Attachment A, page A -8. 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 wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation Also see Attachment A, page A -8. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The majority of the upland vegetation on. the Phase II site would be cleared in order to construct the proposal. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. 11 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 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: A 25 -foot buffer is proposed along the pond's edge. Additional landscaping is proposed on -site, including in surface parking areas (see Site Plan, Figure 2). 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: small mammals fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: brown bullhead catfish in Tukwila Pond Also see Attachment A, Page A -9. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. All of Washington is within the Pacific Flyway. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Buffering along the pond's edge and retention of several existing trees would provide additional visual screening of the developed area. Also, see Attachment A, Page A -11. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric and natural gas would be 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. There are other equally tall buildings in the project vicinity (i.e., the Doubletree Suites Hotel to the west). 12 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 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: All buildings would be constructed to meet or exceed 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. None. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: Does not apply. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise is presently generated on Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard, to the west and north of the site, respectively. Commercial uses in the area also generate noise. See Attachment A, page A -11. 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: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Normal construction and traffic noise generated by a project of this type. See Attachment A, page A -12. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Buildings would screen the pond and associated habitat from street and parking area noise (see Site Plan, Figure 2). For construction noise mitigation, see Attachment A, page A -12. 13 8. Land and Shoreline Use EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The Phase II site is currently vacant. Construction of the Phase I retail shopping center to the north is under- way (surcharging of the soil is taking place). Adjacent properties to the west and south are in commercial uses. Tukwila Pond is located directly east of the Phase II site. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. To the best of our knowledge, the site was used for agricultural purposes at previous times. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are currently no structures on the Phase II site; Construction of the Phase I retail shopping center to the north is underway. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? CP (Planned Business Center) 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? Does not apply. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes. Portions of the property may be designated as requiring special design considerations by the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Maps due to the proximity of surface water (the adjacent pond). 14 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 10 people would work in the proposed hotel and approximately 10 people would work in the proposed restaurant. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Does not apply. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposal is compatible with the existing commercial land uses in the area, as well as with the City's plans. Provision of a 25 -foot buffer around the pond and landscaping of the developed portions of the Phase II site are also proposed to ensure compatibiity. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. Does not apply. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply. 15 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 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 proposed hotel would be seven stories or a maximum of 70 feet in height (Note: The Doubletree Suites Hotel to the west of the site is an 8 -story building). Exteriors of the hotel and restaurant would be in high quality materials, subject to approval by the architectural review committee. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. The commercial uses to the west are generally oriented toward Southcenter Parkway. Views of Tukwila Pond from the Doubletree Suites Hotel would not be obstructed by the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: See response to 8(1) above. The applicant would work with City staff to develop buildings which are aesthetically pleasing. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Direct light in the evening hours from exterior lighting fixtures and automobile headlights, and reflected light from automobiles on sunny days would be generated. No glare is expected from the buildings because of the low reflectivity of the proposed building materials. 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? uses.. Similar sources on nearby commercial (shopping center) 16 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Building materials and landscaping would be used to minimize glare. Cut -out lighting and sensitively placed exterior light fixtures would also be included. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The pond to the east of the Phase II site may currently be used for passive recreation. Nearby recreation opportuni- ties include: Christensen Greenbelt Park, Bicentennial Park, Tukwila Park, Fort Dent Park and Longacres Race Track. Christensen Greenbelt and Bicentennial Parks are 1/2 mile east of the project site. Tukwila and Fort Dent Parks are within one mile to the north of the site. Fort Dent Park is a key regional recreation facility for the area. In addition to the public parks, Longacres Race Track offers recreational opportunities to the public. Longacres is located about one mile to the northeast of the project site in the City of Renton. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any? None provided. Public access to the adjacent pond for passive use is not provided given the potential conflict with wildlife habitat. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None to our knowledge. 17 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Any significant historical, archaeological, scientific or cultural discoveries made during construction would be reported to the proper authorities. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West are public streets which would serve the site. The primary access to the site would be from a driveway at Southcenter Parkway, linking the south end of the site at S. 168th Street. This access would be constructed over a 46 -foot right -of -way, resulting from dedication of the applicant's 16 -foot easement over the Bon Home Improvement Clearance Center property and the City's 30 -foot easement over the Parkway Square property. It is anticipated that S. 168th Street would be improved as a public street. A secondary access to the site would be from a driveway at Strander Boule- vard. This secondary driveway would operate as a right -in, right -out driveway only (see Attachment B). b. Is 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? The proposal would provide 230 parking spaces, 98 surface parking spaces and 132 below grade parking spaces. No spaces would be eliminated. 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). No. See Attachment B. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. 18 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The hotel would generate 1,190 vehicular trips per day and the restaurant 765 vehicular per day. The largest traffic volumes would occur at the noon hour (12:00 to 1:00 p.m.). See Attachment B. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: See Attachment B. 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. Yes, increased police and fire protection would be required, but not beyond 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 would have any negative impact on existing public services because it is located adjacent to a major regional shopping center and other existing support uses. On -site security measures would include construction safety measures (usual OSHA practices, safety inspections, site enclosure, etc.), and in the long- term, remote monitoring by an accredited guard protection service. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electrical (Puget Power); natural gas (Washington Natural Gas); sewer and water (City of Tukwila); phone (Pacific Northwest Bell); refuse service (SeaTac Disposal). See Attachment A, page A -13. 19 C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the le.d agency is relying on them to make its sion. Signature' Date Submitted:.. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 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 information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? Develop a hotel and restaurant complex on this C -P zoned property. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? The applicant has determined that there are no other suitable sites in the immediate vicinity with appropriate zoning and on -site ammenities to support the proposal. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: The preferred course of action is as illustrated on the attached site plan (see Figure 2). 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? No. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Does not apply. 21 ATTACHMENT A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1. EARTH The Phase II site is presently undeveloped. This site has been previously filled and ground surface elevations generally range between 19 and 20 feet. To the north of the Phase II site, the Phase I retail shopping center area has been cleared of vegetation and is being surcharged for construction. To the east of the Phase II site is Tukwila Pond. The pond depth ranges from 3 to 4 feet, based on a survey conducted in\November, 1986, when the surface elevation of the pond was 13.5 feet. Soils explorations by GeoEngineers in April, 1988, indicate that five predominant soil layers underlie the Phase II site. From the existing ground surface downward, these layers consist of silty sand and sandy silt fill, organic silt and peat, an intermediate layer of sand with silt, clayey silt, and a deep layer of sand with silt. The surficial fill soils extend to a depth of up to 17 feet below surface grades at boring locations. The surface water elevation in the pond to the east of the Phase II site is approximately +13 feet. The pond surface elevation is generally representative of groundwater elevations in filled portions of the Phase II site. Ground and surface water levels are expected to vary seasonally. The developed portion of the Phase II site would be graded and filled, requiring importation of structural fill materials. The proposal is for construction of a hotel and restaurant over an underground parking garage. The finish floor elevation of the underground parking is proposed to be a minimum of 20.0 feet, or approximately 1 foot above the existing ground elevation in the area. The minimum finish floor elevation of the hotel and restaurant would be a minimum of 10 feet above the underground parking. Based on the proposed site plan (see Figure 2), the grades for the surface parking would match closely with the grades of the developed properties to the west. The proposed buildings and parking garage would be supported on pile foundations (either mechanically driven or auger cast) extending to the intermediate or deep sand layers. Fill would be necessary to establish parking lot grades which conform to the required minimum flood elevation. The soil would be placed along the west boundary of the site. Based on the preliminary grading plan (see Figure 4), it is estimated that approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill would be required. The fill would consist of clean general' fill or structural fill material; a source has not yet been determined. Prior to construction, areas to be graded or built upon would be cleared of existing vegetation, top soil, and organic materials, and replaced with the inorganic fill material in parking lot areas. No fill material would be placed closer than 25 feet from the shoreline of the pond to the east of the Phase II site when the pond water level is at elevation 13.0 feet. Fill material would not be placed in the pond. Settlements resulting from the filling are expected to be quite variable across the Phase II site. The major portion (about two - thirds) of these settlements would result from consolidation in the soils above the intermediate stratum of sand. The remainder would result from consolidation of the deeper silt layer. Settlements due to the influence of the fill loads would extend beyond the actual limits of filling It is estimated that settlements of 1 to 2 inches could occur some 50 to 60 feet beyond the edge of the fill. Post construction settlement in the surface parking areas could be effectively reduced to acceptable limits by placing fill sufficiently far in advance of construction to allow the major part of the consolidation to occur. New fills would not extend close enough to the pond edge to cause bottom displacement, sedimentation or other impacts to the pond. The potential for erosion of soil from the Phase II site would be the greatest during the construction period. Due to the low slope gradient on this site (for both the existing and proposed grades), erosion should be minimal. MITIGATING MEASURES Mitigating measures which the applicant has included in the proposal are as follows: o Erosion would be controlled during construction by minimiz- ing the area of exposed soil at any given time through the use of temporary pavement or gravel, tarps, vegetation, as well as other temporary erosion - control devices such as mirafi filter fabric fences, siltation /sedimentation pond, hay bales, rock check dams, and temporary erosion control conveyance ditches. o Settlement of fill brought to the Phase II site for the parking areas would be addressed such that (1) fill would be placed as the first phase of construction, (2) fill would be placed to at least 6 inches above planned final grades, (3) final grading would take into account actual settlement patterns such that the planned surface drainage gradients would be maintained as subsequent settlements occur. Some subsequent maintenance and remedial grading should be anticipated if localized "bird baths ", or small depressions that collect water, develop. o City of Tukwila requirements for grading and excavation would be followed. o After construction has been completed, the potential for erosion would be sufficiently reduced because the majority of the storm drainage would flow through a 200 -foot long grass -lined swale and then into the pond to the east of the Phase II site where water would be biofiltered prior to discharge into the downstream storm drainage system tributary to the Green River. Also, the catch basins would incorporate a "T" design which would operate as an effective oil /water separator. Storm drainage from the underground parking would be directed to the sanitary sewer system, as required by the Uniform Building Code. Retention of a 25- foot buffer adjacent to the pond and other existing vegetation would also lessen the potential for soil erosion. 2. AIR QUALITY Construction activities could produce temporary, short -term air quality impacts. The largest impact from construction of the proposed action would be airborne particulates (dust). Excavation and grading work would break up the soil and generate dust which could be carried by winds out of the construction area. Other sources of dust include soil blowing from uncovered dump trucks and soil carried out of the construction area by vehicle frames and tires; this soil could be deposited on adjacent streets and could become airborne. Construction would require the use of heavy -duty vehicles, such as bulldozers, road graders and heavy trucks, and smaller equipment, such as generators and compressors. These engines would emit air pollutants which would contribute slightly to the degradation of local air quality on a temporary basis. Paving of roads and parking lots with hot asphalt would release hydrocarbons and associated odors to the air. Air quality in the immediate vicinity would be slightly degraded on a short -term basis by the addition of construction - generated traffic. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, hydrocarbons and other traffic - related air pollutant concentrations would increase slightly. After development, increased traffic can be expected to slightly decrease air quality. Major portions of the Seattle- Everett - Tacoma region are designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as non - attainment areas for carbon monoxide. The primary source of carbon monoxide in the project area is motor vehicle exhaust. The proposal's effect on this pollutant is not expected to be significant because the traffic increase will be relatively small. Further, carbon monoxide dispersion is fairly rapid under normal traffic and meteorological conditions. MITIGATING MEASURES The following are mitigating measures the applicant would incorporate into the proposal: Emissions from construction equipment and trucks would be reduced by using relatively new, well - maintained equipment. Avoiding prolonged periods of vehicle idling and selecting electrical rather than engine - powered equipment would also reduce emissions. o Dust produced by construction would be reduced by using a number of techniques. Areas of exposed soils, such as storage yards and construction roadways, would be sprayed with water as a dust suppressant. Areas which might be exposed for prolonged periods would be paved, planted with a vegetative groundcover or covered with gravel. Soils carried out of the construction area by exiting trucks could be minimized by wheel washing and covering dusty truck loads. Finally, that soil which does escape the construction area on exiting vehicles could be reduced with a periodic street - cleaning effort. o The parking lot areas would be designed with adequate ingress and egress points and driving lanes so that cars would not be idling for long periods of time. This would reduce the accumulations of carbon monoxide in the area. 3. WATER RESOURCES The Phase II site is located in the Green-River drainage basin. The Green River is located 2,000 feet west of the site running in a south to north direction. This site does not receive drainage from surrounding properties. The surrounding properties are fully developed and are drained via tightline storm drainage systems that convey drainage to the Green River through the City of Tukwila subsurface drainage systems in the adjacent public roadways. Drainage tributary to the Phase II site (and Tukwila Pond to the east of the site) is from direct precipitation (rainfall). Tukwila Pond maintains a static water surface elevation of approximately 13.0 feet (City of Tukwila datum) as determined by field surveys during October and November of 1987. The static water surface elevation - in the pond is believed to be indicative of the groundwater table elevation in the immediate area (i.e., on the Phase II site). The Tukwila Pond storm drainage outlet is connected to the City of Tukwila's storm drainage system along Andover Park West. The outlet incorporates a floodgate which allows water to only exit the Phase I and Phase II properties. The City of Tukwila's P -17 Drainage Basin Study, dated April, 1984 established that the maximum rate of release from the developed Phase I and Phase II properties would be 1.0 cfs with a storage requirement equal to the volume of precipi- tation received in a 100 - year -24 -hour storm. Once storm drainage is released from the Phase I and Phase II properties, it is conveyed to the Green River through the City of Tukwila's storm drainage system. (See the September, 1988 Expanded Environmental Checklist for the Phase I retail shopping center for details of how the City's storm drainage system reaches the Green River.) The Phase I and Phase II sites appear to have adequate capacity to contain all drainage from the developed sites during the 100 - year -7 -day storm without discharging to the City's system. The sites can discharge up to a maximum rate of 1.0 cfs to the City's system. (See the September, 1988 Expanded EIA for the Phase I retail shopping center for additional information on these capacity calculations.) The August, 1981 FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Tukwila, shows a 100 -year floodplain over the Phase II site at an elevation of 23.0. FEMA has prepared an updated flood study that reports the 100 -year floodplain on the site as 25.0 feet, based upon special conditions. The levee on the west bank of the Green River in the area of this site currently is in need of improvements before it can meet the levee require- ments of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. King County Surface Water Management Division has indicated that the levee improvements will be completed around March, 1990. At that time, the FEMA maps will revert back to the previously established flood elevation of 23.0 feet. Preliminary grading and storm drainage plans have established the minimum finish floor elevation of the occupied space for the Phase II development at 30.0 feet, which is 5.0 feet above the 25.0 foot flood elevation. Historical evidence indicates that the actual 100 -year flood elevation of the site is on the order of 16.0 feet (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers aerial photographs, 11/25/86). The Phase II site is currently undeveloped. Due to the flat topography of this site, it is estimated that the average on -site overland flow of velocity is approximately one -half foot per second. Drainage from this site flows directly into the pond located immediately to the east. The upland areas of the Phase II site have been previously filled to what appears to be a depth of approximately five to ten feet. There is approximately five to ten feet difference in grade between the western property line and adjacent properties. The soils investigations indicated that the fill contains a high percentage of silt, which is relatively impervious. The estimated pre - development runoff coeffi- cient for the filled uplands portion of the Phase II site where development would take place is estimated to be 0.6. This means that approximately 60 percent of the existing storm drainage on the site results in runoff. Approximately 3.2 acres (80 percent) of the Phase II site would be converted to impervious surfaces, either buildings or parking and vehicle circulation areas, with development of the proposal. The post - development runoff coefficient would be about 0.85, indicating that approximately 85 percent of storm drainage on the developed portion of the property would result in runoff; this represents an approximately 25 percent increase in stormwater runoff over the pre - developed condition. However, Tukwila Pond has sufficient capacity to absorb any increase in storm drainage runoff from this property. Phase I of the project incor- porated a free - draining storm drainage system outletting into the pond. The area represented by Phase II is signifi- cantly smaller than that of Phase I; therefore, the pond has sufficient capacity to absorb the additional storm drainage runoff from development of the proposal (Barghausen Engineers, 1989). The quantity of stormwater runoff from the proposed development would be restricted to a maximum outflow rate of 1.0 cubic foot per second, with pond storage equal to the precipitation received during the 100 -year storms. Under these conditions, the pond has adequate capacity to handle additional runoff from the Phase II project. Therefore, no significant surface water impacts are expected. Because the elevation of the storm drainage outlet provided by the City is 2.4 feet above the pond's normal level (13.0 feet), and 0.6 feet above the maximum pond level (14.8 feet), the project would rarely release any storm drainage to the City system. The proposal is to capture roof and surface asphalt drainage in catch basins, then tightline the drainage to an area adjacent to Tukwila Pond. The runoff from roof areas would be essentially clean water; therefore, this drainage would be conveyed directly into the pond. Prior to discharge into the pond, storm drainage would be conveyed through a 200 - foot long biofiltration ditch, which would act as a natural filter, removing oil and heavy metals from the storm water runoff. Runoff from vehicle areas would contain oils and other pollutants. Oil /water separators would be provided in "T" -type catch basins to filter oil and sediments from the runoff. Runoff would then be discharged into the pond (see Figure 4, Drainage Plan). Water quality in Tukwila Pond would not be adversely affected by the proposal. The Uniform Building Code requires that the storm drainage from covered parking areas (in this case the underground 11 -� _ J,r 1 TU(WLA POND STATIC W.S. ELEVATION = LLD* PHASE I1 SITE CROSS-HATCH INDICATES LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE F.F. • 20.0 AluiveLATIA PLAZA .wit I ply OP WAWA DIM. MAIO/ AMA.. DATEA AMA R — NAT4$ OP IYr OUTPALL 1 EJOBT. ma n PAVOOIT PROPOSED TARGET ILLOAG EC.___ l NORTH Scale O 200 i4\ 419 1n-�- 1 i — - 1. I Tr8• pL pTD is ROAD EAJ14 NT • 300 lc NOM 'B T.T. OCR Of EXIST. STORY PPE ■/ CATCH BASH PROPOSED STORY PPE V/ CATCH BAS& EXIST. GROUND SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EXIST. CONTOUR , PROPOSED DRAINAGE SWALE NOTE: Finished floor elevation would be a 30.0 feet minimum. u. wrn NRTW 1_ Ve TYPE 'A' B YTDD eei PRCPOSED Y if • r. =AIL "."104 NETT Ir so L-- J Of PANDER AAR P ROAD PAVED G. TTER SOEVALR ON OIL,. REIo4E EXIST. • Rp OE . 111IIi a+' f SOMME-ATE-ft PARKWAY— — Southcenter Plaza: Phase II Expanded Environmental Checklist Drainage Plan Figure 4 parking garage) must drain into the sanitary sewer system. The finish floor elevation of the parking garage would be too low for a gravity connection and a pump would be required. Drainage for the underground parking would be collected by a series of floor drains and must pass through a Metro - approved baffle -type oil /water separator before being pumped into the sanitary sewer system. MITIGATING MEASURES o During construction, temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures would be implemented, in accordance with City of Tukwila standards. Siltation fences and temporary ditches with rock check dams would be constructed at the base of the pond bank. Stormwater would be conveyed to a temporary settlement pond to settle sediments from the water before release into the pond. o On -site conveyance pipes would route storm drainage from the surface paved areas into a biofiltration swale and then into the adjacent pond. The storm drainage would be filtered through a series of "T" -type, Type I and II catch basins with oil /water separators prior to release into the pond. Significant biofiltration would also be provided in the form of a grass -lined swale and the pond itself. Storm drainage from the underground parking areas would be directed to the sanitary sewer system, as required by the Uniform Building Code. 4. PLANTS AND ANIMALS IES Associates prepared a biological study for the September, 1988 Expanded EIA for the Phase I retail shopping center development. The following discussion is based on that study. Plants Upland Communities This Phase II site consists primarily of upland habitats. This site supports a steep, narrow bank of willow and black cottonwood trees and shrub border of blackberry and limited grasses. Areas above the banks are dried uplands and support species such as dock, quackgrass, johnsongrass and clover. Impacts from the proposal would include loss of upland vegetation consisting of a mix of grasses, scotsbroom, and ragworts (including tansy ragwort), dandelion, and other invader -type forbs. There would be a 25 -foot setback between the buildings and the pond edge so that the adjacent riparian areas would not be impacted. The Phase I development currently under construction also includes a 25- foot buffer area. With the Phase II development, there may be some shading from the buildings on small portions of the pond, but the water habitat would not be displaced, and impacts are not anticipated to be significant. Wetland Communities Tukwila Pond and adjacent wetlands are located to the east of the Phase II site. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's classification of wetland and deep water habitats, this area contains palustrine emergent, palustrine, scrub -shrub and palustrine, unconsolidated bottom classes of wetlands. See the September, 1988 Expanded Environmental Checklist for the Phase I retail shopping center for a complete description of the adjacent wetland area. Because the proposed buildings for Phase II would be set back 25 feet from the pond's edge, there would be no impacts on the wetland areas. Also see discussion of Earth and Water Resources, pg. A -1, A -4. Animals The Phase II site, in conjunction with the Tukwila Pond and wetland areas to the east, is a well -used wildlife and waterfowl area which is integrated with the Green River to the east. The variety and productivity of animal life on the Phase II site are high for some species and marginal to low for others. Bird Communities The Phase II site is within the Pacific Flyway, and as such is used by birds that normally migrate through the western Washington area in spring and fall. The Tukwila Pond to the east of the site is heavily used by both waterfowl and shorebirds. The uplands and riparian border are used by goldfinches, siskins and other small birds. Short -term impacts would be created during the construction period for the Phase II project. Short -term impacts include the effects of noise from construction on waterfowl and other birds using the site and adjacent pond and wetland area. The level and effect of the impacts would be dependent on a number of factors, including: (1) timing of construction, (2) total length of the construction period, and (3) types of construction activities occurring during different time periods. Following construction, it would be anticipated that bird activity in the pond adjacent to the proposed buildings would be typical of the rest of the marsh. Based on limited observations of the Koll - Creekside project in Beaverton, Oregon where a small number of over -water buildings were part of the project, it is not anticipated that buildings at least 25 feet from the pond would affect the use of the area by wintering waterfowl. The distance from the back of the buildings to the pond bank would be greater than the distance that was required to flush canvasbacks during preliminary surveys in 1985 and 1986. The presence of the buildings as proposed would not affect existing winter waterfowl activity. Mammalian Communities Eastern cottontail, meadow mice, shrews and voles use the wooded edge that extends from the wetland areas to the east . to the upland areas on the Phase II site for nesting, feeding and cover. The edge of the pond is used by mammals for drinking and hunting. Along the adjacent riparian border, snags, crevices and broken limbs supply isolation needed by some wildlife from roads and traffic. Plant eaters, such as mice and rabbits, require water, and predators, such as hawks, exploit this need when hunting the water's edge. A variety of seed eaters and grazers, including meadow mice, voles and eastern cottontail rabbit, use the adjacent riparian border and the on -site uplands. Impacts of the proposal would include the loss of upland habitat between the west edge of the pond and the west property boundary. However, wildlife use of this area is limited to small mammal and birds because of the physical conditions of the site. The area is also used by people, particularly for running dogs. Effects on mammal communities are not expected to be significant because only a small amount of what is currently marginal mammal habitat would be affected. Reptiles and Amphibian Communities Several species of frogs were identified in studies for the Phase I reail shopping center project. Garter snakes have also been observed in the adjacent pond /wetland area. No significant impacts on reptiles and amphibians are expected with the Phase II development, since the pond would not be disturbed. Fisheries A 1988 study of the adjacent pond conducted by The Watershed Company indicates that the only species of fish found in the pond is the brown bullhead catfish. That study observed that the population is limited by poor breeding in the pond or predation by the adult population which prevents any juvenile survival. Because the additional stormwater runoff through the pond from the Phase II proposal would not represent a major increase and would be effectively filtered following development, no significant adverse impacts on fish are expected. Threatened and Endangered Species No threatened or endangered plant or animal species as defined by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the State Department of Wildlife are anticipated to use the Phase II site as a regular nesting and feeding habitat. MITIGATING MEASURES o The proposal includes provision of a 25 -foot buffer around the pond and new landscaping of the developed portions of the Phase II site. Native vegetation disturbed in the buffer area during construction would be replaced in -kind. 5. NOISE The proposed project is located in a light industrial, commercial and industrial park area with several noise - producing activities. Noticeable noise sources are heavy trucks and rail traffic serving Parkway Square, the Bon Home Improvement Clearance Center, the Boeing Company and other businesses. Noise from vehicular traffic also occurs on both Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West. Although no measurements were taken for this study, a 1987 report prepared for the City indicates that the most current noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the site were monitored at three locations in 1979. At that time, noise levels were 60, 62 and 59 (Ldn) for the west, north and east sides of the site, respectively. Ldn refers to the total noise exposure over 24 hours, or the day -night average. It should be noted that the Parkway Square Shopping Center to the west of the site was under construction at that time, and apparently this affected the reading to the west (Entranco, 1987). It is reasonable to assume that noise levels are essentially the same or slightly greater due to increased traffic volumes under current conditions. Short -term noise impacts typical of construction projects would occur with the operation of equipment during the project's approximately six -month construction period. Noise levels could vary from 70 to 95 decibels (dBA, a measure of a single noise event, as distinguished from Ldn, a daily average of noise) in the immediate vicinity of the project construction area. Some higher peaks could occur if impact equipment, such as jackhammers, are used. If mechanically driven pilings are used, animal communities could be temporarily impacted. Construction noise would cease when the project construction was completed. Long -term increases in traffic noise levels would occur in the immediate vicinity of the project site near Southcenter Parkway due to the additional traffic generated by the project. A noise analysis for a previously proposed development on the Phase I and Phase II sites (Entranco, 1987) predicted a 1 to 3 (Ldn) noise level increase in the project vicinity based on an increase in traffic of 28,000 vehicle trips per day and other associated activities. This is considerably greater than the anticipated traffic levels to be generated from the Phase I project currently under construction and the Phase II project; therefore, the noise levels could be expected to be significantly less than those previously projected. Increases of less than 5 Ldn are considered slight impacts according to the U.S. EPA. MITIGATING MEASURES The following mitigating measures would be included in the proposal: Construction Noise o Limit construction to normal working hours to avoid disturbance to nearby hotels during evening and weekend hours; o Limit truck traffic construction and activities to noise levels contained in the City of Tukwila noise ordinance; o Place acoustic screens around particularly noisy machinery; o Fit pneumatic equipment and internal combustion engines with mufflers; and o Turn off idling equipment. o If mechanical pilings are used, construction would be limited to periods when waterfowl are least sensitive. 16. Utilities With regard to the sanitary sewer design, the proposal would connect to the gravity sewer system that would be extended along the west property line from Strander Boulevard. City code requires that the drainage from the covered parking areas (in this case the underground parking garage) must drain into the sanitary sewer system. The finish floor elevation of the parking garage would be too low for a gravity connection and a pump would be required. Drainage for the underground parking would be collected by a series of floor drains and must pass through a METRO approved baffle -type oil /water separator before being pumped into the sanitary sewer system. The proposed water system would be extended via an 8 -inch water main along the west property line from Strander Boulevard. The proposal includes a "deadend" water main approximately 1,000 feet in length. Further calculations would be necessary to verify that the required fire flow could be provided to the restaurant and hotel without a "looped" system. ATTACHMENT B Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 SOUTHCENTER PLAZA (Tukwila Pond Center) PHASE II in the City of Tukwila by the Spieker Partners Traffic Study May 8, 1989 Traffic Engineers C4 Transportation Planners TUKWILA POND CENTER PHASE II in the City of Tukwila by the Speiker Partners Traffic Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1. Purpose 1. Location 2. Project Description 2. Access 2. Traffic Data 4. Data References and Sources 4. Background Traffic 4. Trip Generation 6. Traffic Assignment 7. Horizon Year Traffic 7. Levels of Service 7. LOS Discussion 10. Mitigating Measures 11. Conclusions 12. LIST OF FIGURES 1. Vicinity Map 3. 2. Current Traffic Volumes 5. 3. Trip Distribution As A % Of Total Trips 8. 4. Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With Project 9. LIST OF TABLES I. Trip Generation 6. II. Levels of Service 10. APPENDIX Capacity Calculations Input and Results TUKWILA POND CENTER PHASE II in the City of Tukwila by the Speiker Partners Traffic Study Introduction While major commercial institutions create significant peak hour traffic demands, often hotels and restaurants have peak hour demands that are not coincident with the peak hour of the adjacent arterial and collector street system. Nevertheless, for a worst case analysis, it is perhaps appropriate to define a peak hour that is coincident for both. With this scenario, then, the traffic carrying ability of the local, adjacent street and arterial systems may be determined. Accordingly, for a land use scenario consisting of a motel as one option and a destination, high quality restaurant, this study will review the traffic impacts for the site located alongside and sharing common boundaries with a previous commercial enterprise, the Tukwila Pond Center. From these, the analysis of both current and future traffic operations is made. As before, it is then possible to suggest the appropriate mitigating measures, if any, to ensure the continuation of adequate traffic operations. Purpose The purpose of this study was to gather a site specific data base of current traffic operations to use with prior data on the arterial routes serving the proposed project, which for the purposes of this traffic study is called "Tukwila Pond Center, Phase II ", to include traffic from the existing, adjacent developments, to define the probable trip generation for the site under the proposed development scenarios, to estimate the driveway and arterial street traffic demands for the horizon year, in this case the 1990 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, a secondary function of the study is to identify changes in access and traffic control systems to ensure the maintenance of adequate traffic operations on the impacted public street system when the project is completed and fully occupied. —1— Christopher Brown 64 Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., quite A -201 Rcnlon, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 Location The Tukwila Pond Center, Phase II project is to be located on a site lying to the east of Southcenter Parkway on the west bank of Tukwila Pond, to the south of Strander Boulevard in the the City of Tukwila, King County. The site location is sketched on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. Project Description Development of the site as proposed consists of a 150 room motel and an 8,000 square foot "quality" restaurant. Parking will be on site with a total of 230 spaces provided in a surface parking lot and an underground parking garage. Access Access to the site is to be from both Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway via driveways serving the north and south end of the site. Southcenter Parkway will provide primary access with a linkage from the south end of the site to Southcenter Parkway via S. 168th Street. This access will be shared with the Bon Home Improvement Clearance Center and will be constructed to public road standards on the proposed S. 168th Street alignment as identified in the D.E.I.S. by Entranco Engineers. Strander Boulevard, at the present time a five lane facility, will provide secondary access to the site via a single driveway. It is assumed that this driveway will be operated as a right -in, right -out only driveway due to it's close proximity to the east driveway of the Security Pacific Bank located on Strander Boulevard. In this way the congestion problems which otherwise might be expected from closely spaced, adjacent driveways will be minimized. Channelization for the driveway to Southcenter Parkway will consist of one left -turn only lane and one right -turn only lane. The existing two -way, left -turn lane on Southcenter Parkway will remain and will be used by left - turning traffic from the driveways as a refuge /merge lane allowing the left -turn movement to be completed in two steps, effectively removing main street through traffic approaching from the right from conflicting flow. Channelization and signing will be used to enhance the right -turn in, right -turn out limitations at the driveway to Strander Boulevard. -2- Christopher brown C4 Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., (Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 -3•- FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map Christopher Brown Cs Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. quite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 Geometric parameters, lane volumes and and other data for the key arterial 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 the traffic report for Phase I of the Tukwila Pond Center project and from field counts taken at the Security Pacific Bank driveways as well as at the S. 168th Street /Southcenter Parkway intersection on Tuesday, February 28th, 1989. From the Phase I study, the noon hour has been identified as having the largest traffic volumes and, as a consequence, the noon hour should be considered as the "design hour" for project impact analysis. The vehicular volume data is shown on Figure 2, Current Traffic Volumes. As noted before, 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 Phase I study by this firm, population forecasts by traffic analysis zones prepared by the Puget Sound Council Of Governments, average daily traffic volumes prepared by W.S.D.O.T., trip generation statistics published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the document, Trip Generation, 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 used under license for this study. 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 1990. Background growth was derived in the Phase I report and is again utilized in the preparation of this report. As a -4- Christopher Brown ((I Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. (Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 /2 782 Strander Blvd. Southcenter Pkwy. t 0�0 22 48 /N Security Pacific Bank S. 168th Street (78 FIGURE 2 Current Traffic Volumes reo Christopher brown Cis Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. (Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 consequence, a background growth rate of 0.25 percent per year as determined in prior studies is assumed at the Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard /Site Entrance and S. 168th Street /Southcenter Parkway intersections. Also included as background traffic in this report are those volumes which can be expected to be generated by Phase I of the project. Trip Generation The trip generation data for the project site is derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (I.T.E.) Trip Generation Manual, Land Use Code 831 which applies to "quality" restaurants and Land use Code 320 which applies to motels. For the purposes of this study it has been assumed that the motel will have an average occupancy of 80 percent or 120 occupied rooms. The trip generation for the project developed with a 150 room motel and a 8,000 gross square foot "quality" restaurant is shown in Table I, below. -6- TABLE I Trip Generation, Tukwila Pond Center, Phase II Motel, 150 Rooms, 80 % Occupancy Time Interval A.W.D.T.* A.M. Inbound A.M. Outbound P.M. Inbound P.M. Outbound Noon Inbound ** Noon Outbound ** Volume 1,190 vehicles per day 31 vehicles per hour 53 vehicles per hour 38 vehicles per hour 38 vehicles per hour 47 vehicles per hour 47 vehicles per hour "Quality" Restaurant, 8,000 g.s.f. Time Interval A.W.D.T.* A.M. Inbound A.M. Outbound P.M. Inbound P.M. Outbound Noon Inbound ** Noon Outbound ** Volume 765 vehicles per day 7 vehicles per hour 1 vehicles per hour 40 vehicles per hour 18 vehicles per hour 56 vehicles per hour 26 vehicles per hour * Average Weekday Daily Traffic ** Used to derive a "worst case" scenario Christopher brown Cis Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 It should be noted that the Trip Generation Manual does not list noon hour generation rates for the above land uses. It has been assumed that the rates listed for the "p.m. peak hour of the generator" can be used for the noon hour generation rates in lieu of specifically defined noon rates. In actual fact, the peak hour of the generator is usually later in the day, well after the peak hour of the adjacent street. Accordingly, this study presents a worst case analysis. Traffic Assignment Traffic assignment for the project assigns site generated traffic to the network on the basis of 1987 average daily traffic volumes found on the state highways (I -5, I -405, SR 181 and SR 518) surrounding the site. This trip distribution, shown as a percentage of all new site traffic, is shown in Figure 3. Horizon Year Traffic Since the noon hour traffic volumes include both the home based or primary 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. With the project built as a 150 room motel with an 8,000 g.s.f. restaurant and with the background traffic included, the horizon year, design hour traffic demands shown on Figure 4 should be achieved. 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 -7- Christopher Brown 44 Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., (Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 Strander Boluevard Southcenter -8- S. 168th Street 4.3% /r7 O cJ / FIGURE 3 Trip Distribution As A Percentage Of Total Trips 4 0 0 Christopher Brown Cis Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., (uitc A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 Southcenter Parkway 0 -9- 0 /Z 936 Strander Boulevard 94Z o. 0 493 989 48 z c S. 168th Street ro v 0 s FIGURE 4 Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With Project Site Access x (75 Chrislophcr Brown C-s Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., (Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 Report 209, the Highway Capacity Manual, using the computer program CAPCALC 85, Version 2.2 published by Roger Creighton and Associates. 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. and surrounding urban populations over 250,000. At signalized intersections, right turn movement volumes have been adjusted to account for right- turn -on -red in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual (page 9 -11) and a one hundred second cycle length have been assumed on the basis of expected future signal inter - coordination. At unsignalized tee - intersections the opposing through volume approaching from the right on the major street has been eliminated in those cases where a two -way left -turn lane exists since that lane is available to left turning vehicles from the minor approach as an acceleration/ merge lane. As noted earlier, all input data is listed in the appendix, along with computer output. 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 1989 traffic and Horizon Year traffic with the completed project are shown below in Table II. Intersection TABLE II Levels of Service 1989 w/o site Horizon Year w/ project Southcenter Pkwy. /S. 168th Street D D Strander Blvd. /Bank Exit Driveway E E Strander Blvd. /Southcenter Pkwy. C C Strander Blvd. /Site Access Driveway * A * - Right in /right out only operation LOS Discussion Currently, the "intersection" of the Security Pacific Bank exit driveway with Strander Boulevard operates as a four leg intersection with the driveway to the Double Tree Inn being the -10- Christopher Brown Cis Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. cSuite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 fourth leg. The level of service for the left -turn from the bank's driveway is currently 'E'. No change in the LOS is expected in the horizon year with the addition of the traffic from the subject proposal. It should be noted that the proposed signal to be constructed at the intersection of the main Phase I driveway and Strander Boulevard, positioned about midway between the Andover Park West and Southcenter Boulevard signals, will increase the degree of vehicular platooning of traffic on Strander Boulevard which should, as a result, create gaps which can be utilized by minor driveway, left- turning vehicles. For this reason, the level of service will likely be better than calculated (appendix) due to the introduction of gaps which now occur less frequently from the signals at the east and west ends at Andover Park West and Southcenter Boulevard. It may be further noted that the procedure for analysis of "unsignalized intersections" assumes random arrivals on the major street. In situations where platooning is predominate, better levels of service are often experienced. The intersection of S. 168th Street /Southcenter Parkway will continue to operate at a LOS 'D' in the horizon year with the project. The D.E.I.S. document for the S. 168th Street connection anticipates that a signal will be installed at this intersection eventually. However, at this time it does not appear that signal warrants will be met with the implementation of Phase II of the project. Regardless, the calculated LOS 'D' at this location for the left - turning movement from the S. 168th Street leg is adequate. The LOS at the new site access to Strander Boulevard will operate at 'A' in the horizon year of 1990. In the noon peak hour, only 15 vehicles are predicted to be exiting the driveway to the right into the eastbound Strander Boulevard traffic stream. This low volume should present no operational difficulties to traffic exiting the Security Pacific Bank driveway to the west of the site access. Mitigating Measures The single and key mitigation measure for addressing the project's traffic impacts is the limitation for right -in /right -out only access at the site access driveway to Strander Boulevard. In this way, potential interference between the Security Pacific Bank exit driveway and the site access driveway will be minimized. The prohibitation should be enforced through the construction of pavement markings to define channelization and signing at the driveway /Strander Boulevard Christopher brown Cs Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. quite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 intersection. Signing should also be provided internally to the project to alert motorists to the prohibitation and direct them to the south entrance should they wish to travel in a direction which involves a prohibited movement. The driveway to Southcenter Parkway 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, that driveway should be provided with a two lane entrance; one lane to collect the southbound left turn movement and the second lane exclusively for the northbound right- turning traffic. As previously stated, signalization of this intersection is not required as an integral part of this project at this time, although all design should be accomplished with the eventual signalization of this intersection in mind. Conclusions The following conclusions may be drawn: 1. With the site developed as a 150 room hotel and a "quality" restaurant with a floor area of 8,000 g.s.f., a total of 1,955 vehicles per day will be generated. In the design hour, taken as 12:00 to 1:00 p.m., a total of 173 vehicles will be generated. 2. Two accesses opportunities will be provided. The north entrance will access Strander Boulevard and will be limited to right -in /right -out only operation so as to minimize operational conflicts with the existing exit driveway for the Security Pacific Bank, located west of the site access. The south entrance will access Southcenter Parkway at S. 168th Street. It will be shared with the Bon Marche Home Improvement Clearance warehouse located to the south of the subject site. 3. The existing LOS for the Security Pacific Bank exit driveway /Strander Boulevard intersection is 'E'. No change in this LOS will occur as a result of the implementation of the subject project. 4. The LOS for the right turn movement from the north driveway to Strander Boulevard will be 'A' in the horizon year. Also, due to the prohibitation of left -turn movements and the low volume of traffic likely to exit the north driveway to the east, no operational difficulties will occur even with the close proximity of the Security Pacific Driveway to the west. -12- Chri8Iophcr Brown C's Amocialc 879 Rainier Avenue N.. (5ui(c A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 -13- 5. The LOS for the S. 168th Street /Southcenter Boulevard intersection is currently at, and will remain at 'D' in the horizon year with the project, regardless of the scenario as chosen. While the S. 168th Street D.E.I.S. anticipates the signalization of this intersection, clearly signal warrants will not be met following implementation of the subject project, and, in any case, the LOS will remain adequate with the project under the current control system. Christopher brown fs Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. (Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 J TUKWILA POND CENTER PHASE II APPENDIX Capacity Calculations Current Traffic Analysis TUK001 S. 168th Street /Southcenter Parkway TUK002 Strander Boulevard /Bank Exit TUK003 Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway Horizon Year Analysis, Project Built TUK021 S. 168th Street /Southcenter Parkway TUK022 Strander Boulevard /Bank Exit TUK023 Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway TUK024 Strander Boulevard /Site Access Driveway • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II INTERSECTION : 168TH STREET S.W. @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY WEEKDAY NOON 1989 UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH CBD ?N 5/7/1989 TUK001 T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II INTERSECTION : 168TH STREET S.W. @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY WEEKDAY NOON 1989 UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH CBD ?N 5/7/1989 TUK001 GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( % ) ( % ) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I C A L G A P S WB 0 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) NB 1 2 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 APP LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN SB -1 2 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 - -- WB 6.50 5.50 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S NB LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 SB 5.00 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD WB 8 0 30 L 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 NB 0 1066 18 TR 2 24.0 SB 22 0 0 L 1 12.0 V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O LANES LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 APP L T R L T R L T R WB 8 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 NB 0 542 0 0 524 18 0 0 0 SB 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 WB RESERVE CAPACITY 176 566 LEVEL OF SERVICE D A NB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE SB RESERVE CAPACITY 335 LEVEL OF SERVICE B MAJOR STREET - NB /SB CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ BANK EXIT @ HOTEL DRIVEWAY WEEKDAY NOON HOUR 1989 UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST CBD ?N 5/7/1989 TUK002 APP EB WB NB SB T R A F F I C & ROADWAY GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES (%) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) 0 0 0 -4 1 2 0 0 N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O N D I T I O N S CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0 N N N N 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ARR TYPE 3 3 3 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 18 782 0 L 1 12.0 T 2 24.0 WB 0 803 4 TR 2 24.0 NB 48 4 88 LT 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 SB 6 0 12 LTR 1 12.0 3 MVM LNS WD CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ BANK EXIT @ HOTEL DRIVEWAY WEEKDAY NOON HOUR 1989 UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST CBD ?N 5/7/1989 TUK002 U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I C A L G A P S APP EB WB NB SB CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN 5.00 5.00 6.50 6.50 6.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 APP EB WB NB SB V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O L A N E S LANE 1 L T R 18 0 0 403 48 4 6 0 0 0 0 12 LANE 2 L T R O 391 O 400 O 0 O 0 0 4 88 0 LANE 3 L T R O 391 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP EB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE WB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE NB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE SB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL'OF SERVICE LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 482 A 28 E 151 D 712 A — — — 5/7/1989 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TUK003 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY N/S STREET 2 2 V !> 2 1 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY N/S STREET N W - +- E i S SB TOTAL 1130 v .> 694 436 CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY WEEKDAY NOON 1989 CBD ?N ACTUATED SIGNAL 5/7/1989 TUK003 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 BURTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE WB 2 3 N 0 0 0.86 10 Y 18.0 3 NB 2 3 N 0 0 0.86 10 Y 18.0 3 SB -2 3 N 0 0 0.86 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 STRANDER BOULEVARD - -- E/W STREET WB 487 0 374 L 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 NB 0 780 436 T 2 24.0 R 1 12.0 SB 436 694 0 L 2 24.0 T 2 24.0 S I G N A L P H A S I N G • - -- 1 ^ 374 APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R - -- -- -- ---- -- - -- = WB TOTAL WB 3 L R LR 44 56 487 861 WB 1 R R 20 80 NB 2 T R R 36 64 V NB 3 R R 44 56 SB 1 L T L 20 80 SB 2 T 36 64 780 436 NB TOTAL 1216 PAGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/7/1989 PAGE 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/7/1989 TUKWILA POND PHASE II TUK003 TUKWILA POND PHASE II TUK003 INTERSECTION : INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ STRANDER BOULEVARD @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY WEEKDAY NOON 1989 CBD ? N WEEKDAY NOON 1989 CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL ACTUATED SIGNAL V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T C A P A C I T Y ANA L Y S I S APPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT 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 487 566 1.00 566 1.00 0.00 - -- - -- ---- R 374 435 1.00 435 0.00 1.00 WB L 566 0 1500 0.377 Y 0.440 660 0.858 R 435 0 1500 0.290 Y 0.640 960 0.453 NB T 780 907 1.00 907 0.00 0.00 R 436 507 1.00 507 0.00 1.00 NB T 907 0 3528 0.257 N 0.360 1270 0.714 R 507 0 1500 0.338 Y 0.800 1200 0.422 SB L 436 507 1.00 507 1.00 0.00 T 694 807 1.00 807 0.00 0.00 SB L 507 0 3312 0.153 Y 0.200 662 0.766 T 807 0 3600 0.224 N 0.560 2016 0.400 CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 SUN OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 1.158 S A T U R A T I O N FLOW LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 1.273 IDEAL / OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW L E V E L O F S E R V I C E WB L 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1500 LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP R 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1500 APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS NB T 1800 2 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3528 WB L 0.858 0.440 100 19.1 660 7.7 1.00 26.8 D R 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1500 R 0.453 0.640 100 6.9 960 0.2 0.85 6.0 B 17.7 C SB L 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 3312 NB T 0.714 0.360 100 20.9 1270 1.4 0.85 19.0 C T 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3600 R 0.422 0.800 100 2.3 1200 0.1 0.85 2.0 A 12.9 B SB L 0.766 0.200 100 28.7 662 3.7 1.00 32.4 D T 0.400 0.560 100 9.5 2016 0.1 0.85 8.2 B 17.5 C INTERSECTION DELAY : 15.8 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : C CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II INTERSECTION : 168TH STREET S.W. @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY WEEKDAY NOON 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH 5/7/1989 TUK021 T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II INTERSECTION : 168TH STREET S.W. @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY WEEKDAY NOON 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH -/ SOUTH 5/7/1989 TUK021 GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( % ) ( % ) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I C A L Z A P S WB 0 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) NB 1 2 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 APP LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN SB -1 2 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 - -- WB 6.50 5.50 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S NB LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 SB 5.00 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD WB 12 0 85 L 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 NB 0 1096 23 TR 2 24.0 SB 73 0 0 L 1 12.0 V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O LANES LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 APP L T R L T R L T R WB 12 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 NB 0 559 0 0 537 23 0 0 0 SB 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP W8 RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE NB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE SB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE MAJOR STREET - NB /SB LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 129 500 D A 268 C CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/7/1989 CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II TUK022 TUKWILA POND PHASE II INTERSECTION : INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ STRANDER BOULEVARD @ BANK EXIT @ BANK EXIT @ HOTEL DRIVEWAY HOTEL DRIVEWAY WEEKDAY NOON HOUR 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N WEEKDAY NOON HOUR 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST 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 ARE APP (t) (%) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE EB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 WB 0 2 N 0 0 0.90 .0 N 0.0 3 NB 0 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 SB -4 0 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 TB RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 18 989 0 L 1 12.0 T 2 24.0 WB 0 938 4 TR 2 24.0 NB 48 4 88 LT 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 SB 6 0 12 LTR 1 12.0 5/7/1989 TUK022 U N S I G N A L I Z E D CRITICAL GAP S APP EB WB NB SB LEFT TURN 5.00 5.00 6.50 6.50 CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) THROUGH RIGHT TURN 6.00 5.00 6.00 5.00 V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O L A N E S LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 APP L T R L T R L T R EB 18 0 0 0 494 0 0 495 0 WB 0 471 0 0 467 4 0 0 0 NB 48 4 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 SB 6 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 EB RESERVE CAPACITY 407 LEVEL OF SERVICE A WB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE NB RESERVE CAPACITY 1 626 LEVEL OF SERVICE E A SB RESERVE CAPACITY 104 LEVEL OF SERVICE D 5/7/1989 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TUK023 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY N/S STREET 2 2 2 1 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY N/S STREET SB TOTAL 1295 i v .> 699 596 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY WEEKDAY NOON ACTUATED SIGNAL CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N 5/7/1989 TUK023 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 WB 2 3 N 0 0 0.86 10 Y 18.0 3 NB 2 3 N 0 0 0.86 10 Y 18.0 3 SB -2 3 N 0 0 0.86 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 STRANDER BOULEVARD --- E/W STREET WB 562 0 489 L 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 NB 0 808 493 T 2 24.0 R 1 12.0 SB 596 699 0 L 2 24.0 T 2 24.0 S I G N A L P H A S I N G * - -- 1 ^ 489 APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R V` - -- ---- ---- -- -- _= WB TOTAL WB 3 L R LR 44 56 562 1051 WB 1 R R 23 77 NB 2 T R R 33 67 v NB 3 R R 44 56 SB 1 L T L 23 77 SB 2 T 33 67 808 493 .> NB TOTAL 1301 • • PAGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/7/1989 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY WEEKDAY NOON ACTUATED SIGNAL TUKWILA POND PHASE II TUK023 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ? N V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T PAGE 2 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY WEEKDAY NOON ACTUATED SIGNAL CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ? N 5/7/1989 TUK023 C A P A C I T Y A N A L Y S I S APPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT 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 562 653 1.00 653 1.00 0.00 --- --- - - -- R 489 569 1.00 569 0.00 1.00 WB L 653 0 1500 0.435 Y 0.440 660 0.989 R 569 0 1500 0.379 Y 0.670 1005 0.566 NB T 808 940 1.00 940 0.00 0.00 R 493 573 1.00 573 0.00 1.00 NB T 940 0 3528 0.266 N 0.330 1164 0.808 R 573 0 1500 0.382 Y 0.770 1155 0.496 SB L 596 693 1.00 693 1.00 0.00 T 699 813 1.00 813 0.00 0.00 SB L 693 0 3312 0.209 Y 0.230 762 0.909 T 813 0 3600 0.226 N 0.560 2016 0.403 CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 1.405 S A T U R A T I O N F L 0 W LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 1.544 IDEAL 0 OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW L E V E L OF S E R V I C E WB L 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1500 LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP R 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1500 APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS NB T 1800 2 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3528 WB L 0.989 0.440 100 21.1 660 24.4 1.00 45.5 E R 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1500 R 0.566 0.670 100 6.7 1005 0.6 0.85 6.2 B 27.2 D SB L 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 3312 NB T 0.808 0.330 100 23.3 1164 3.1 0.85 22.4 C T 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3600 R 0.496 0.770 100 3.3 1155 0.3 0.85 3.1 A 15.1 C SB L 0.909 0.230 100 28.5 762 10.6 1.00 39.1 D T 0.403 0.560 100 9.5 2016 0.1 0.85 8.2 B 22.4 C INTERSECTION DELAY : 21.2 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : C • • • • • CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ SITE ACCESS DRIVE WEEKDAY NOON 1990 W/ PROJECT CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST 5/7/1989 TUK024 T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ SITE ACCESS DRIVE WEEKDAY NOON 1990 W/ PROJECT CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST 5/7/1989 TUK024 GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( % ) ( % ) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I C A L G A P S EB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) WB 0 2 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 APP LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN NB 2 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 EB G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S WB 5.00 LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 NB 6.50 5.00 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 0 1036 47 TR 2 24.0 WB 0 0 0 NB 0 0 15 R 1 15.0 V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O L A N E S LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 APP L T R L T R L T R EB 0 541 0 0 495 47 0 0 0 WB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 EB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE WB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE NB RESERVE CAPACITY 679 LEVEL OF SERVICE A MAJOR STREET - EB/WB ATTACHMENT C MITIGATING MEASURES PROPOSED BY APPLICANT 1. Hydroseed site to minimize potential erosion; minimize soil exposure; comply with City of Tukwila grading and excavation requirements; and implement short and long -term erosion control. 2. Limit idling and use efficient equipment to reduce pollutant emissions; reduce dust by watering, laying gravel, or planting; clean wheel wells on -site; and design parking lot layout to reduce idling of customer vehicles. 3. Filter storm drainage through catch basins with oil /water separators; preserve downstream quality with biofiltration through a grass -lined swale and the adjacent pond; design drainage system so that no greater storm flows would result than those created under the predevelopment rate; minimize velocity design to prevent sediment buildup; and establish temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (silt fences, hay bales, other similar techniques where appropriate). 4. Retain a 25 -foot buffer between the adjacent pond and proposed buildings; and provide new landscaping in parking areas and along site borders to offset impact on plants and animals. 5. Limit construction to normal working hours; comply with City of Tukwila noise ordinance; substitute electric machinery wherever possible; incorporate landscaping in parking areas; and limit construction to periods when waterfowl are least sensitive if mechanical pilings are used. 6. Limit access at the Strander Boulevard driveway to right -in/ right -out only to minimize conflicts between the Security Pacific Bank exit driveway and the site secondary access driveway; and provide two lane exit capability at the Southcenter Parkway driveway. City of Tukwila PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -0179 1909 Ross A. Earnst, P.E. Director kiJ J AN 1_ 0 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Pace, Senior Planner FROM: Ron Cameron, City Engineer / " DATE: January 5, 1989 SUBJECT: Tukwila Pond Phase II Project No. 90 -DV25 The traffic mitigation for Phase II has been identified in the improvement agreement. It provides for the additional capacity and safety of vehicular and pedestrian,traffic with four improvements: A. 58th Avenue South (Strander - 168th) B. South 168th Street (58th Ave. S. - Southcenter Parkway) C. Signal @ Strander /58th Avenue South D. Signal @ Southcenter Parkway /South 168th Street) These have been addressed /evaluated in previous TIPs the traffic analysis submitted by Spieker Partners for Phase II, Scofield for Mikami and CH2M Hill in our Traffic Deficiencies Study. If there is failure in the right -of -way and construction of these improvements, then, alternative improvements are needed. They will include the widening and improvement of the Southcenter Parkway /Strander intersection with an additional westbound lane, n -s lane, signalizing, pedestrian and related capacity /safety items. Signalization of the development's access at Strander and at Southcenter Parkway would be a developer mitigation. Coordination design and construction of the Strander and the Southcenter Parkway signals would be a development requirement. The SEPA mitigations have been clearly identified through these studies and designs. There is a #1 mitigation and fallback #2. The #1 is the 58th and 168th improvements. The fallback #2 (if right -of -way fails and the connection from Strander to Southcenter Parkway cannot be constructed) improvements include widening, signalization and pedestrian improvements. RC /kjr PAGE.002 SY -Y2 -`f F17 DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY FOR THE TUKWILA POND VICINITY Submitted To 1 1994 UNITY PMENT Department of Public Works City of Tukwila April, 1984 zgat. ALPHA ENGINEERS .INC. This study was authorized by:,an" agreement dated' February 6, ',1984, between the .firm of Alpha Engineers,' `Inc.,' Seattle, Washington,. and the City of Tukwi 1 a This report is a continuation of a previous study - completed last year which examined the causes of flooding on Andover Park. West adjacent' to the Tukwila pond property. In that study, it was recommended that considera tion be given to draining pond property south. to the existing P -17 system. It was reasoned that since a(Portlon of the Tukwila pond property was .originally planned to drain into the P=17 drainage system that the -P- 17 system could still accomodate this additional runoff. It was, therefore, reconended in this 1983:study that the P -i7 drainage. basin ..be res- analyzed to determine the actual 'peak- flows- that could be expected with present day: development Once this was 'determined, aiterna Lives' could be: developed to reduce the continued. flood1ng;.recurrence.along _Andover Park West and' allow-:development of, the Tukwila pond property.; The P-17 drainage basin is located in commerical ly developed property south of the City -of Tukwila..' It is generally bordered by:Strander Boule . vard to, the • north, . I -S to. the west, South j88th . Street to the south, ' and theGreen River, to the :east. The -area;.is: zoned entirely. for .commercial. and industrial use ,.(see .Figure. 1). To reduce the - potential.for flooding from the. Green River, the Soil: Con -servation,Service designed and constructed ,a pumping station for this' area: :it lies been reasonably; successful in reducing flooding for the ,past The' P -17 drainage system was planned,by, the. U.S. . Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) inthe, mid- 1960'sas pert of an overall plan to provide flood protection in. the Green River;. Valley. ' At that time, the, land use in the area was primarily agricultural With-the beginnings of industrial' and'' commercial growth. In planning'for the system, it was recognized that the area would become more urbanized and the drainage system was sized to. accommodate some urban runoff. It ,was also assumed that a portion of the drainage, basin would remain. agricultural. „.FRO'M ;K'CM PAGE .'005 •I/IMIa>• 41WWW M..fa KTUNMOO .IjWr.IfI /IM..aII..I00a fiewawmftiOMM altraMMIE OS •0 GIOUMWU.SOWWWWXWMIPSOM ...nII/ Maaslw .a aI■ A W /II /...raaaMsM.Oa . R•I...*aaMPOww..ta MmMIOa Mn ..a.aMMMII.raIY 7I a aatZ::7T 71 aI• 4..N ...I. ik AC Cc V, ' !ACCESS `VICINITY- . MAP- .FIGURE ` 1 ALP A °t110111E1R& Mc. APR' '1 1 1.,:.09 ; -F ROM , KCM- F,AGE':.006, The,,overall; P47 - drainage system that .'was developed; consists, of a .100' cfs pumping station which discharges.tnto the Green, River,,.an equalizing J 4 . storage pond of: 60 acre- feet, and,, a system of open 'channels . and large, diameter underground 'pipes to Carry the peak runoff. (see Figure. E). The, ., system was ,designed. to aconmodate the peak runoff from a .100= year, 24 -hour rainstorm. Between the time the P- 17.drainage system plan was developed and the .completion, of construction in 1975, urbanization in the basin, was'very rapid, since seemingly there now was assurance, that properties would be .pratected'from 'flooding:' 1, Additionally, :,changes occurred .to';the - overall comprehensive - drainage plan . for the City of Tukwila. These changes: (1), some -open; channels, Were ''s • replaced with underground piping, and, (2) some of the areas which were, originally, assumed to remain agrlcultural were instead commercially Bevel oped. III. , RUNOFF ANALYSI5' Hydrologic 'Characteristic. Due. to extensive coninerc i a l deve l opment, a majority .of the surface area consists of,buiiding- roofs - and asphalt pavement .'constituting- essential lyV an .:inipervious surface.; This factor .:along with .an extensive storm-. sewer ftmcsm . ,. 1/4 , 1/2 Milis APR •1 7 -,' 91 • 11 FROM- ,K'CM, system,,. is capable of producing' heavy runoff in, a relatively short period-- of time. .The flow from the hillside to the west has been .rerouted to the Green River through pressure conduits and also through a -peals station. at • South 188th Street and .Southcenter Parkway. Hydrologic 'Conclusions Because of changes, in..land -use and drainage.. patterns slnce'the- P -17 rsys.tem was originally planned, 'a ,re- analysis of� the basin was made`, using •.the SCS runoff analysis method. As,.was previously mentioned, the ;system was originally. - designed to accommodate' Jimoff :,from a.100- year,,. 24 -hour storm. The restricting element_ of the system has been .determined,to be the P -17 °drainage channel along Minkler Boulevard which has:a'maximum hydraulic capacity; .of ` 254, cubic feet . er second'l(cfs). Recent analysis Of the system indicates a peak 100 -year: discharge of approximately .390' cfs.that_,:aaa_now ki..; cpgcted fora 24 =hour storm... This - . is based on' the asstion:.that, the :present land use plan for the basin, is fo"i lowed- and .essentially no natural open space -remai'ns.. TheP -17- channel. .can now only accommodate• flows: for 25 -year recurrence storm level, Possible. reasons- for -.the . increase. in flows- result from -th'e increased amount. of impervious surface area In -the basin, and.''the' relatively quicker response time of the. storm sewer pipe ,system which noK exists versus a` partial open channel. system which, had been planned: Peak velocities .APR 17 '91 11:11 FROM KCM PAGE.O09 through an open channel system are usually about 1.5 feet per second. Replacing some of the channels with pipe has increased the peak velocity to 4 feet per second. The result is that all of the runoff which the drainage system collects reaches the P -17 channel along Minkler Boulevard nearer to the same time instead of being spread out over a longer period of time. This results in a higher peak flow than what was originally expected. IV. IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES P -17 System From the results of the hydrologic analysis, the P-17 system in its pre- sent condition is at its hydraulic capacity for a 25- year- storm. In order for the system to accept runoff from the Tukwila pond properly, modifica- tions must be made to the system either by increasing the hydraulic capa- city of the system (i.e., larger channels and pipes, larger pumps, etc.); or, decreasing the peak flows by detaining the runoff (i.e., stormwater detention system). Analysis of alternative improvement for the P -17 system is beyond the scope of this study. Tukwila Pond Property From the hydrologic analysis of the P -17 system and the Andover Park West drainage system from the previous study, both systems are presently at APR 17 '91 11:12 FROM KCM PAGE.O1O their peak capacities. Therefore, the solutions that are viable must significantly reduce the peak flow from the remaining undeveloped pro- perty. In addition, the properties and Andover Park West roadway must be designed so that their elevations are above the established 100- year -flood elevation. r Alternative No. 1 envisions draining the Tukwila pond property to the north (Figure 3). For this alternative, the road elevation would be raised to a minimum grade of 23 feet. In addition, a flapgate would be installed at Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard to prevent backflow of the peak runoff from Southcenter area and Gilliam Creek. The developer of the Tukwila pond should provide detention storage for a minimum volume �..JJ 494,3 e•. w► e ' 'So ea7� equivalent for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm (13.3 acre feet with a maximum release rate of the 10 -year peak of predevelopment runoff; or, provide a combination detention basin /pumping system if reduced storage requirements are desired. The approximate total construction cost is estimated at $229,000. Alternative No. 2 envisions draining the property to the P -17 system (see Figure 4). This scheme would still be permissible since the outflow from the property would be limited to 1 cfs *, which would not significantly increase the expected peak flow of the system. An 18 -inch overflow .line would be installed along with a flapgate in the same location as for Alternative No. 1. The flapgate would separate the Andover Park West *1 cfs is equivalent to a 10 -inch pipe flowing full at 2 feet per second. 4 ORAIMA/E PI.OR DIRECTION ANDOVER PROPOSED 'LAPORTE PARK wet - ge • STORM DRAIN RAISE NOAOWAY GRADE MIN. EV EL. 1111T .$ rTORM OM* RI$T. 1O'N10RN DRAM WEST UNION FOCI fie RO.LRO *O ST RAN DER PUMP 1 a POND ..••• • 0 u a z 0 100 0 IOC 300 300 400 FEET 1E' ti EXIST 3C' 5I(, '' EkIS1 36' DP A • STO11M 08•.4 ELEYAnCP1 :6'uO 192G (FRO, CCarI or Ly5 -•.FENS TOPUGRAP.. C WPPitI • DISC 1 P -IT OAAIIVAGE BASIN STUDY ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 DRAINAGE d ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE 3 1 g A1, ALMA INDINg1111, C. N3>i 141018 � UMION PACTPIC RAILROA• ANDOVER PROPOSED FLAPMATII xI3T.4 {$TORT{ MAIN xutT. 90 "l TOM DAMN WEST \ `M: ■ - -"I" "C`stPFM tot) 36- 16 OVERF OW PIPE ;per a 1170* owA.s TO P —IT *YETEIM EtF.A'I0' OAtuM NGYC 1929 TFKAP CCAPs or ENG,NECRS TOPAGRAPAIC YAP•.NG, MOO) ALTERNATIVE NO. It DRAINAGE A ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 10C 200 300 400 FEET . FIGURE 4 10 A MONA US IIU*$i MC. W0>1 W0e1J 'APR 17 '91 11:13 FROM KCM PAGE.013 drainage system to the north from the P -17 system. In addition, the roadway would be raised to 20.5 feet which, is the 100 - year -flood elevation for the P -17 drainage system. The approximate total construction cost is estimated at $121,000. The Tukwila pond developer will be required to provide a similar storm - water'detention system for the property, as in Alternative No. 1, capable of accommodating 13.3 acre -feet storage and releasing only a maximum flow of 1 cfs to the south system. The developer also would have the option of pumping to the north system to reduce storage requirements. Andover Park West /Southcenter It should be mentioned that neither of these solutions will reduce the risk of flooding in the Andover Park West area of Southcenter during a 10- year storm recurrence or greater. Localized ponding can occur in some street intersections and parking areas of the Southcenter shopping complex as discussed in the previous Andover Park West report (see Figure 5). Ponding will be temporary, occurring only during the peak flow. To mini- mize problems from the rare situation of water surcharging in the lower curb lines of Strander Boulevard, it is recommended that the developers of the property south of Strander provide for a small berm with an elevation of 26 feet (NGVD) along the northern periphery of the property. In most areas this elevation is 6 inches higher than the top of the street curb. This will ensure that water will remain in the low lying areas and drain 414 PUMP STATION P- I? I0 ' : (.7111;.I.T.111 i —...........\--.... ANDOVER PARE EAST S. . 24 PROPOSED FLAPOATE ERIS tIN4 44. S TORII DRAIN ANOWEIR PARK a 30ds INTERCEPTOR ---.. PROPOSED FLAPSATE 11. IS T1 Mi. SO" STORM INTERCEPTOR TUKWILA POND f*•57164 FLA/. OAT( EL . 17.5 ) 6' 0, CC • WI • — :4 / r Y o r % I-- ■ \\0 (0 w.S. EL. 2411 ... \ __-_-___ .. _ __ __39u TNCENT1_R _PA R K WAY ANCOVt. R PARK WEST N RT (4. 16) /- ORAINAO E SUBSYSTEM STUDY OWN OA RT -wmt---11E--111111111 200 0 200 400 400 400 PEET sr tJ • i EL EVAT ION DATUM: NOVO *211 CP R044 CORPS Of E NOOSE EIIIS T °POGO APH IC NAPPIRO,11110) P-11 DRAINASE SAWN STUD, ANDOVER likTRK EAST DRAINASE SYSTEM TV FLAPSATS 10 YEAR STORM PROJECTION FIGURE 5 12 Nom 41101MIERRIL 55C., APR 17 '91 11:20 FROM KCM PAGE.002 RECEIVE APR 1 71991 TUK PUBLIC WfLq into the Andover. Park West storm sewer system as soon as the peak flow has WORKS subsided. Discussion of Alternatives The . alternatives presented in this report are designed to alleviate the flooding that recurs along the Andover Park West roadway. Drainage guide- lines for the Tukwila Pond property are also considered. 'A summary of possible advantages and disadvantages are presented as follows: Alternative No 1 Advantages: o flows do not drain to the P -17 system o roadway elevation is higher,reducing flooding risk o flows do not have to be pumped through the P -17 system o less drain pipe to install Disadvantages: o additional roadway needs to be replaced, thus more expensive o no guarantee that flooding would be eliminated during a major storm event of 10 years Alternative No. 2 Advantages: o less roadway grade to raise -13- APR 17 '91 11:20 FROM KCM PAGE.003 o two systems available to drain property (when Green River is low, drainage is to the north; when river is high, drainage is to P -17 system) o less expensive Disadvantages: o longer pipeline to construct o would increase flows to P -17 system slightly* V. RECOMMENDATIONS General The findings of the hydrologic analyses for both the P -17 drainage basin and the Andover Park West basin (previous study) indicate that both sys- tems are presently at their hydraulic capacity. The two improvement alternatives discussed are designed to minimize the additional impact of storm runoff. Both have their own unique advantages and disadvantages; and, when comparing these particular features, the alternatives are fairly equal in providing flood protection for the Tukwila Pond property, the Andover Park West roadway, and the overall drainage areas. It 1s, therefore, recommended that on the basis of cost Alternative No. 2 should be selected. *Thlis now Increase could be compensated for by requiring stormwater detention for undeveloped property in the P -17 basin. APR 17 '91 11:21 FROM KCM PAGE.004 APPENDIX 'APR 17 '91 11:21 FROM KCM COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 DRAIN TO NORTH (ANDOVER PARK WEST SYSTEM) PAGE.005 Item Quantity Units Price Cost Pavement Removal and Excavation LS -- $ 22,000 Asphalt Concrete Pavement (0.15 feet) 4,270 SY $ 6.00 25,620 Crushed Surfacing Top Course 5,160 SY $ 3.75 19,350 (6 inch depth) Cement Concrete Curb and Gutter 1,600 LF $ 8.00 12,800 Cement Concrete Sidewalk 8,000 SF $ 2.25 18,000 Roadway Borrow (Compacted) - 6,520 CY $10.00 65,200 12" Drain Pipe 300 LF $20.00 6,000 Catch Basins 2 EA ..$900 1,800 Railroad Crossing LS -- 7,500 42" Flapgate Inside Existing Manhole LS TOTAL $208,270 CONTINGENCY (10%) 2.� 0,6 0 GRAND TOTAL $229,000 APR 17 '91 11:21 FROM KCM PAGE.006 COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE N0. 2 DRAIN TO SOUTH (P•17 SYSTEM) Item Quantity Units Price Cost Pavement Removal and Excavation LS -- $ 9,000 Asphalt Concrete Pavement (0.15 feet) 1,730 SY $ 6.00 10,380 Crushed Surfacing Top Course Rock 2,090 SY $ 3.75 7,840 (6" depth) Cement Concrete Curb and Gutter 650 LF $ 8.00 5,200 Cement Concrete Curb and Gutter 3,250 SF $ 2.25 7,320 Roadway Borrow (Compacted) 960 CY $10.00 9,600 18" Drain Pipe 700 LF $25.00 17,500. 12" Drain Pipe 100 LF $20.00 2,000 Catch Basins 4 EA $900 3,600 Railroad Crossing LS -- 7,500 42" Flapgate Inside Existing Manhole LS TOTAL $109,940 CONTINGENCY (10%) 11,060, GRAND TOTAL $121,000 168TH STREET, • P RKIN 10 LOW te 11 TUKWILA POND PARKING BELOW RESTAURANT POND OVERLOOK. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON SPIEKER 'PARTNERS 915 1110.h Avenue S. E. Bellevue. WA 9S01)i 1355 -.: ?06,53 -1000. - FAX 206 Ai; y105 MITHUN' :41,11.04 0114034 1000 AYR 14 AO WAWA WA WON IAA t.11 AlA 4171 •TARGET STORE'. 111.909 SP' . BUILDING C • STRANDER BOULEVARD SITE PLAN SCALE 1' - 50' -0' INK MUNE 11514E Pesigfilli • bens/MI& tit FAX ir ...61111A 0 4". tilviltv10/ • SOUTHCENTER PLAZA PHASE 11 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EPIC 19 -89 li '1(et F II tt)ti P-RQtc2CCb, 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II CITY OF TUKWILA In Compliance With The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 Revised Code of Washington Ch. 43.21C and City of Tukwila SEPA Policies and Procedures (Ordinance #1331 as amended by Ordinance #1344) CLV��� ��-rn 60(4,1_ INTRODUCTION TIVE- FACT SHEET This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Spieker Partners' Southcenter Plaza: Phase II has been prepared following provisions set forth in WAC Ch. 197 -11. The City of Tukwila, Washington requests review and comment from local, state and federal agencies, affected tribes and the general public. PROPOSED ACTION The proponent, Spieker Partners, proposes to develop a hotel and restaurant complex on an undeveloped 4.1 -acre site located in the southwest quadrant of the Strander Boulevard /Andover Park West intersection in the City of Tukwila. The proposed development would consist of two buildings: a 106,268 square -foot, four - story, 150 -room hotel and an 8,000- square -foot, one -story restaurant. Parking for 230 vehicles would be provided with 179 spaces in an underground garage and 51 spaces at ground level. The hotel would be set back 45 feet from the pond edge; a fire lane surfaced with grass -crete would be located in this setback. Wetlands in the southwest corner of the site (0.06 acres) would be filled. ALTERNATIVES Four alternatives to the proposal are considered in this Draft EIS: 1) a seven -story hotel and restaurant design alternative involving reconfiguration of the hotel /restaurant, with no development in the southeast corner of the site; 2) an office building alternative involving a 5 -story office building which would require more parking spaces and would use the southeast corner of the site for parking purposes; 3) an alternative incorporating a 50 -foot undisturbed buffer that does not include a fire lane within it; and 4) the no- action alternative retaining the site in its existing uninhabited, undeveloped state. PROPONENT Spieker Partners 915 - 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 Contact: Mr. Joel Benoliel, (206) 453 -1600 IMPLEMENTATION DATE Construction is scheduled to begin Spring 1991 with completion slated for Fall 1991. ii LEAD AGENCY -City of-Tukwila Community Developme nt partment Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL Mr. L. Rick Beeler, tter (206) 433 -1800 Contact person for questions, comments and information: M -daces ace Sen.lor lann ere Gam- Tukwila Department of Community Development Planning Division Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 431 -368(1- Permits and. Approvals identified to date include: City of Tukwila: SEPA Review =Bed- Review Approval Street Use Permit Hauling Permit Grading Permit Building Permits Water connection Sewer connection / Wojf-A flj€. (, rt °new / ?' Nye CfFC K o L C ? AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS DEIS The Southcenter Plaza: Phase II DEIS was authored by The Ferris Company, Bellevue, Washington, under the direction of the responsible official. Principal contributors to this document are identified below: Author /Contributor The Ferris Company Key Bank Building, Suite 506 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 GeoEngineers 2405 - 140th Ave., Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Christopher Brown, P.E. 9866 Rainier Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98118 (206) 723 -4567 Independent Ecological Services (IES) 1515 Muirhead Avenue Olympia, WA 98502 (206) 943 -0127 Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72nd Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032 (206) 251 -6222 Responsibility_ environmental analysis and document preparation soils and geotechnical analyses traffic analyses wetlands, plants and animals animals analyses grading, drainage and utilities analyses and design DATE OF ISSUE END OF COMMENT PERIOD DISTRIBUTION LIST A list of recipients of this DEIS is presented in Appendix A. iv Pursuant to RCW Ch. 43.21C and WAC 197 -11 -504, a limited number of copies of this DEIS and Appendices are available from City of Tukwila ..P.Laaawigsvg- Department at a cost of $ per copy. 2 1 r „4) cthl ?e/88 TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER SHEET FACT SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY Page 1 -1 CHAPTER 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2 -1 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATING MEASURES, SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS INTRODUCTION 3 -1 3 -1 EARTH 3 -1 Affected Environment 3 -1 Environmental Impacts 3 -4 Alternatives 3 -6 Mitigating Measures 3 -7. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -7 WATER 3 -8 Affected Environment 3 -8 Environmental Impacts 3 -9 Alternatives 3 -11 Mitigating Measures 3 -11 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -12 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 3 -13 Affected Environment 3 -13 Environmental Impacts 3 -17 Alternatives 3 -19 Mitigating Measures 3 -21 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -21 AESTHETICS 3 -22 Affected Environment 3 -22 Environmental Impacts 3 -23 Alternatives 3 -23 Mitigating Measures 3 -26 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -26 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page TRANSPORTATION 3 -27 Affected Environment 3 -27' Environmental Impacts 3 -33 Alternatives 3 -42 Mitigating Measures 3 -44 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -44' REFERENCES APPENDICES A. DISTRIBUTION LIST B. SEPA SCOPING PROCESS C. ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT D. SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS E. SUPPLEMENTAL BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS F. TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Vicinity Map 2 -2 2 Location Map 2 -3 3 Site Plan - Proposal 2 -5 4 West Elevation - Proposal 2 -6 5 East Elevation - Proposal 2 -7 6 North and South Elevations - Proposal 2 -8 7 Section - Proposal 2 -9 8 Site Plan - Alternative 1 2 -12 9 West Elevation - Alternative 1 2 -13 10 East Elevation - Alternative 1 2 -14 11 Section - Alternative 1 2 -15 12 Site Plan - Alternative 2 2 -16 13 West Elevation - Alternative 2 2 -17 14 East Elevation - Alternative 2 2 -18 15 Section - Alternative 2 2 -19 16 Site Plan - Alternative 3 2 -20 17 Topography Map 3 -2 18 Site Sections 3 -3 19 Grading, Drainage and Utilities Plan 3 -5 20 Plant Communities Map 3 -14 21 Post - Development View from Andover Park West - Proposal 3 -24 22 Post - development view from Andover Park West - Alternatives 3 -25 23 Current Traffic Volumes - Noon Peak Hour 3 -29 viii LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd) Page 24 Current Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour 25 Distribution of Traffic - Proposal 26 1991 Traffic Volumes - Proposal Noon Peak Hour 3 -30 3 -35 3 -36 27 1991 Traffic Volumes - Proposal PM Peak Hour 3 -37 ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Levels of Service 3 -31 2 Accident Data 3 -32 3 Trip Generation for Southcenter Plaza: Phase II 3 -34 4 Levels of Service With Project 3 -39 5 Mean Queue Length 3 -40 6 Vehicle Storage Capacity 3 -40 7 Trip Generation, Office Alternative 3 -43 CHAPTER 1 ••••••••••••••••••••• Summary • • SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: II • Draft Environmental Impact Statement • • • • �— - CHAPTER 1 - ' z'� SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This chapter provides a brief summarf the proposed action, its alternatives and potential impacts.; Ea h d- i- scuss±on -is -1 mated i - seop-e__.to._.an_y Chapter 2 contains a more detailed description of the proposed project and alternatives,--a w . fa.g r- ss...d.epieting -eaei� Chapter 3 discusses, in detail, potential impacts 'gat+qn-for the proposal. PROPONENT'S OBJECTIVES., o To develop an all- suites hotel and restaurant project consistent with the City of Tukwila's land use codes, which would provide a reasonable return on the proponent's investment. o To satisfy local demand for quality overnight accommodations and conference rooms, as well as offer convenient, quality eating and banquet facilities. o To complement the surrounding commercial centers with sensitive site design and augmented landscaping, and to enhance natural amenities. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Location Spieker Partners is proposing a hotel /restaurant complex on an approximately 4.1 -acre site in the City of Tukwila. The project site is located in the north half of Section 26, Township 23, Range 4. The site is situated in the southwest quadrant of the Strander Boulevard /Andover Park West intersection in the city's commercial- industrial district. Southcenter Plaza: Phase I, a retail shopping center and Tukwila Pond are located to the north and east of the site, respectively. Proposed Action -�Q The proposed development, Southcenter Plaza: Phase II (also referred to in this Draft EIS as the "proposal "), includes the (5 PK! construction of a 106,268- square -foot, four - story, 150 -room ht-r, STc hotel. A one - story, 8,000- square -foot restaurant in a separate c. c47, building is also proposed. Parking for 230 vehicles would be ft(Wit provided on site, 51 of which would be surface parking stalls and 179 of which would be below -grade spaces. The buildings would be set back 45 feet from the edge of Tukwila Pond. Within this setback a 25 -.foot riparian buffer adjacent to Tukwila Pond would remain undisturbed and a 20 -foot grass -crete fire lane adjacent to this buffer would be constructed. An increased buffer (larger 1 - 2 however, adjacent buildings should not be significantly impacted because they are located beyond that distance. o Pile driving would cause soil vibrations; piling would also undergo settlement. o Some construction - period soil erosion would occur. Alternatives Alternatives 1 and 2 - Design and Office Alternatives Because the required site - preparation procedures would be similar for these two construction alternatives, earth impacts would be virtually the same as under the proposal. Alternative 3 - 50 -Foot Buffer Alternative This alternative would have slightly greater excavation because more underground parking would be necessary in order to accommodate the 50 -foot buffer. Alternative 4 - No Action Alternative Under this alternative, the site would remain undeveloped. The new mound of fill placed on the site for preloading would either be removed and the disturbed area replanted, or the mound would be left in place, re- graded to soften the angle of its edges, then hydroseeded. Mitigating Measures Paving, tarps, vegetation and temporary devices such as siltation ponds, silt fences, and other erosion control measures would limit construction -phase erosion. o All disturbed areas would be hydroseeded to minimize erosion potential if construction does not begin in those areas for thirty days. o Settling of surface soils would be monitored; final grades would be established to account for actual settlement. o City of Tukwila requirements for grading and excavation would be followed. Any fill slopes along the easterly side of the site would be graded to slope toward the pond at no steeper than 3 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) or should be retained by subsurface walls. o Augercast piles would be used where feasible. Any driven piles would be placed at times least likely to disturb neighboring businesses or seasonal waterfowl nesting. 1 - 3 } During May and June when waterfowl and migration bird activity ceases, construction activity would likely have the least effect on the Tukwila Pond habitat. o A 25 -foot riparian buffer zone would retain shoreline soils and vegetation in their current condition to lessen potential for sedimentation of the pond. No fill would be placed in the 25 -foot riparian buffer zone. o The permanent storm drainage system would include natural and mechanical filtration mechanisms (see the WATER section for details). Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts o Soils would be disturbed on about 90 percent of the site during construction, increasing the potential for erosion. However, erosion should not be significant with implementation of the proposed mitigation. WATER Environmental Impacts o Approximately 2.6 acres (63 percent) of the site would be converted to impervious surfaces resulting in about a 25 percent increase in stormwater runoff over the pre - developed condition. o Overall drainage characteristics and pollutant loading of the Tukwila Pond would remain unchanged as a result of the construction of the proposal. Alternatives Alternatives 1 and 2 - Design and Office Alternatives The similarities in percentage of impervious surface coverage, as well as the preservation of a flat topography, would result in nearly identical drainage impacts for these two development alternatives. Alternative 3 - 50 -Foot Buffer Alternative Drainage, grading and water quality impacts of this alternative would be similar to or slightly less than those of the proposal due to the similarity of the percentage of impervious surface coverage. Alternative 4 - No- Action Alternative Under the No- Action Alternative, the site would remain undeveloped and the existing runoff and water quality conditions would continue. Mitigating Measures o A 25 -foot undisturbed riparian buffer zone would be maintained adjacent to Tukwila Pond. The 20 -foot fire lane adjacent to the buffer would be surfaced with a semi - pervious surface such as grass -crete in order to mitigate.. increased stormwater runoff. o During construction, temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures would be implemented, in accordance with City of Tukwila standards. •Siltation fences and temporary ditches with rock check dams would be constructed at the base of the pond bank. Stormwater would be conveyed to a temporary settlement pond to settle sediments from the water before release into the pond. (Also, see the EARTH section.) o On -site conveyance pipes would route storm drainage from the surface paved areas into a 200 - foot -long biofiltration swale and then into the adjacent pond. The storm drainage would be filtered through a series of "T" -type, Type I and II catch basins with oil /water separators prior to release into the pond. o Significant biofiltration would also be provided by the pond itself. o Storm drainage from the underground parking areas would be directed to the sanitary sewer system, as required by the Uniform Building Code (Chapter 7, Sec. 7 -2 [b.2]). o Storm drainage lines would be cleaned out and put in good working condition as soon as possible so that the oil /water separation collection areas work as effectively as possible. The proposed grass -lined swale would be constructed simultaneously or prior to the placement of final pavement on the project in order to maximize the effect of the biofiltration prior to discharging storm drainage water into Tukwila Pond. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts b None are anticipated. PLANTS AND ANIMALS Environmental Impacts o Most of the existing upland plant and animal habitat would be eliminated on site. o Approximately 0.06 acres of wetlands in the southwest end of the site would be filled to accommodate surface parking. This would include minor losses of tree /shrub habitat associated with the construction of a fire lane at the southern end of the site. o Some disturbance of Tukwila Pond's wildlife would result due to the noise and activity during the construction phase of the project. Alternatives Alternative 1 - Design Alternative The design alternative would result in no development in the southeast corner of the site. The existing tree /shrub community would be retained, and associated wildlife in this area would not be disturbed. An increased buffer slightly greater than that of the proposal would be provided between the southwest corner of the pond and the development. A 0.04 -acre wetland would be filled; a 0.02 -acre wetland in the southwest corner and a 0.006 - acre wetland at the north end of the site would be retained under this alternative. Impacts to the plant and animal communities over the remainder of the site would be slightly greater than those under the proposal, because the building would be placed 25' back from the edge of the pond rather than 45' as in the proposal. Alternative 2 - Office Building Alternative The office building alternative would result in greater impacts to plants and animals than under the proposal because the building would be located closer to the pond. A 25 -foot riparian buffer area would be retained adjacent to Tukwila Pond. An increased buffer equal in size to the proposal would be provided between the souhwest corner of the pond and the development. Approximately 0.06 acres in wetlands would be filled; associated plant and animal habitat in the southwest corner of the site also would be eliminated. The wetland at the north end of the site, 0.006 acres in size, would be retained. Alternative 3 - 50' Buffer Alternative The hotel /restaurant alternative with grass -crete fire lane and 50 -foot undisturbed buffer would create additional open space area for wildlife. The primary difference between the two buffer widths regarding habitat value would be the creation of a small additional open space that, depending on the type of plantings, would provide a small amount of additional nesting for small urban birds and small mammals. Alternative 4 - No Action The No- Action Alternative would create no new disturbances to the site, unless the new mound of fill is required to be removed. In that case, the disturbed area would be replanted to allow the former habitat to return, if possible. If the fill stockpile is retained, hydroseeding would occur. Mitigating Measures o A 25 -foot buffer plus 20 -foot grass- crete.grass fire lane area would be provided adjacent to Tukwila Pond. No construction would occur within 25 feet of the edge of Tukwila Pond, thereby protecting the riparian border area. o An increased buffer (larger than 45 feet) between the southwest corner of the pond and the proposed building would be provided. o Buildings would serve as a barrier between the riparian edge and day -to -day human activity such as cars, lights, noise, etc. o Uncontrolled human activity (i.e., fishing) would be restricted from the west side of the pond. o Buildings would be designed with natural blending colors and non -glare glass. Natural colors and non -glare glass provide.. a non - obtrusive or non - impacting facade facing the wetland. Birds are not as likely to fly directly into the windows when they are not reflective because they view the buildings as solid objects. o The existing pond would be interconnected to rooftop drainage from at least one building to provide sufficient surface water to sustain this wetland, thus maintaining existing hydrologic conditions. o Fencing no higher than four feet would be provided between parking lots and the pond to increase the level of buffering of car noise and light. o Enhanced planting of the wetland buffer area including trees, shrubs and open meadow grass would provide a diversified habitat, a mixed physical and visual separation between the edge of the development and edge of the water. o New, primarily ornamental, landscaping would be introduced on the developed portions of the site. o A walkway could be provided for bird watching and other regulated pond interests, if desired by the City of Tukwila, the Washington Department of Wildlife, and local conservation groups such as the Seattle Audubon Society. This area should, however, be restricted to the south side of the pond where view access is available without disturbing existing tree or shrub areas in the buffer. o Educational signs along any proposed trail or vantage points could be provided to increase the awareness of the types of animals using such areas. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts o A majority of the primarily upland plant communities on site would be eliminated under the proposal. AESTHETICS Environmental Impacts o The two proposed buildings would change the visual appearance of the undeveloped site to a developed commercial center. o The proposed development would blend with the existing retail /commercial development immediately adjacent to the site and in the general vicinity. o The new four -story hotel would be four stories lower than the neighboring eight -story Doubletree Suites Hotel; however, it would rise well above the other one -story buildings nearby. o The new hotel would be at least partially visible from Andover Park West, as well as from the hills to the north and west of the site. o The new hotel would partially block views from lower floors of the Doubletree Suites Hotel. o Views of the pond would be possible from the upper floors of the proposed hotel. Alternatives Alternative 1 - Design Alternative The seven -story hotel and one -story restaurant would be significantly taller than the proposed action but would not significantly alter the square footage because the building would have a narrower footprint. The two buildings would be attached. Overall, visual impacts would be greater than those under the proposal. Alternative 2 - Office Building Alternative The five -story office building would result in a slightly higher, longer building profile than the proposal. This would generally increase the impacts on views, particularly from Andover Park West. The building would appear as a continuous mass with no visual breaks, and would block views of the pond from the lower floors of the Doubletree Suites Hotel. Alternative 3 - 50 -Foot Buffer Alternative This alternative, though considered infeasible to build due to several design and operational constraints, would require construction of a building at least 7 stories in height, perhaps more to accommodate the minimum parking requirement. The building would be similar in length to the proposal. Because of the increased height, the view impacts from Andover Park West would be greater. This building would appear as a continuous mass with little visual relief. Alternative 4 - No Action The No- Action Alternative would not directly alter existing views to or from the site. Mitigating Measures o The proposal would use materials and colors compatible with existing commercial buildings in the area. o The proposed 25 -foot buffer adjacent to Tukwila Pond, which includes a number of existing trees, would provide a natural screen for much of the lower part of the structures when viewed from Andover Park West. o Landscaping of the developed portions of the site would enhance compatibility with the surrounding developed areas, as well as the riparian zone and Tukwila Pond to the east. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts o None are anticipated. TRANSPORTATION Environmental Impacts o The proposal would provide access to the site from Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway. o The proposed hotel would generate 1,261 average weekday trips and the proposed restaurant 719 average weekday trips. The noon inbound vehicles would have the highest hourly volumes for both the hotel and restaurant (55 vehicles and 46 vehicles, respectively). o Parking demand would increase. On -site parking for 230 vehicles, (179 in the underground garage and 51 as surface parking) would be provided. 1 - 9 o Level of Service at the Strander Boulevard /Andover Park West intersection for the average weekday PM peak would drop from LOS C to LOS D with construction of the proposal and other adjacent projects. Level of service at Southcenter Parkway at the northbound I -5 off -ramp would drop one level for all future conditions (except Christmas noon peak); and LOS at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard at both noon and p.m. peak hour during the Christmas season would drop one level. Alternatives Alternative 1 - Design Alternative The hotel- restaurant reconfiguration would not alter the traffic impacts described under the proposal significantly. Alternative 2 - Office Building Alternative The office building alternative would add approximately 200 more vehicle trips to the local road system. Because of traffic distribution under this alternative, current LOS on Strander Boulevard should not be degraded below level D. Under this alternative 350 parking spaces would be provided, 120 more than under the proposal. Alternative 3 - 50 -Foot Buffer Alternative The hotel /restaurant alternative with a 50 -foot undisturbed buffer would produce similar impacts to those described under the proposed action. Alternative 4 - No Action The No- Action Alternative would not alter existing traffic patterns. Mitigating Measures o The proposal would provide access to the site from Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway. o An actuated traffic signal would be installed at the intersection of the site's entrance on Southcenter Parkway (at South 168th Street). The proponent would contribute to the cost of the signal on a fair -share basis. o Adding a combined left -right lane at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard on the westbound approach (to combat the potential drop to LOS 'F' during the Christmas season p.m. hour peak) would raise the level of service to 'D' at this peak hour; this would require widening both streets. Truck traffic would be limited to the South 168th Street/ Southcenter Parkway driveway to prohibit pick -up and delivery via the 58th Place South /Strander Boulevard driveway which is inadequate for these purposes. o Sufficient roadway design for accommodating heavy vehicles would be ensured at the design phase of the South 168th Street extension project. o Sidewalks and crosswalks would be provided on site and at the access driveways to promote pedestrian safety. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts o The proposal would increase traffic volumes on the local roadway network. Implementation of recommended mitigating measures would provide acceptable levels of service at all of the studied intersections. Cxarrrm 2 ••••••••••••••••••... Proposed Action and Alternatives SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: II • Draft Environmental Impact Statement • • • • CHAPTER 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND THE ALTERNATIVE INTRODUCTION This chapter presents a description of the proposed action and three alternatives to the proposed action. A detailed description of the affected environment, impacts, mitigating measures and significant unavoidable adverse impacts can be found in Chapter 3. See Chapter 1 for a summary evaluation of alternatives, including the proposal. NAME OF PROPOSAL AND SPONSORS The project is called Southcenter Plaza: Phase II. The project proponent and property owner is Spieker Partners, 915 - 118th Avenue SE, Bellevue, Washington 98005 -3855. PROJECT LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS The project site is located in the north half o Section 26, Township 23, Range 4, in the City of Tukwila; i is situated in the southwest quadrant of the Strander Boulev rd /Andover Park West intersection in the City's commercial- ir,1ustrial district (see Figures 1 and 2). Tukwila's central business district lies within a rectangle bordered north /south by 1I -405 and South 180th Street, and bordered east /west by the Green River and I -5. It includes a dense mix of commercial and industrial uses including -pisri,x0c, Southcenter Mall, smaller shopping cent office buildings, ,q- hotels, and warehouses. Bordering the -acre site to the north I cr_c'0(. is the recently completed Southcenter laza: Phase I retail S,tiacr-of shopping center; to the south is South 168th Street (if extended) cdet7vt L and The Bon Marche warehouse store; and to the west is a second CcT of retail shopping center including a Toys -R -Us store, and the r.e-cc,tb; eight -story Doubletree Suites Hotel. Southcenter Plaza: Phase I "CTC..4041 contains three separate buildings housing a Target Department 'J� Store, several restaurants or food service establishments, and Ln�' —�' numerous small retail or personal service businesses. Surface e4A. parking and landscaping occupy the remainder of the Phase I site. This site, presently uninhabited and undeveloped, is typical ofj the generally level Green River Valley floodplain, with slopes 1 less than 3 percent inclined toward Tukwila Pond. Having recently received new fill, the northern two - thirds of the site GD is now at an elevation of about 20 to 29 feet, and the southern one -third remains at an elevation of about 19 or 20 feet. The edge of the new fill slopes down toward the edge of Tukwila Pon which has a water surface elevation of approximately 13 feet, The fill surface is relatively flat and is encircled by filter - fabric fences and comes no closer than 25 feet to the edge of the pond. 2 - 1 MOUNTLAKE TERRACE. N Source: The Ferris Company, 1990 SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Figure 1 Vicinity Map 4_ WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY Andover Park East CC AndTier Park Wes • t -3 - Southcenter Parkway V.L S 3 _L N 1 Z 0 0 N la. 4- 3 . .•■•■••••••■ r 6)-6e,4: (C7 0 ,Z /1—e—Q C67) ( (( / „fc-- 7/ 6.2 e 7,/ •\„.. (, Vegetation on site consists primarily of upland grasses and shrubs with scattered trees bordering Tukwila Pond. Three isolated wetlands are present on site, including a small portion of a drainage slough in the southwest corner, approximately 0.02 acres in size; a small depression located at the south end of the fill area, approximately 0.04 acres in size; and a small linear area at the north end of the fill between the top of the bank and the toe of the fill, approximately 0.006 acres in size. The total combined wetland area on site is 0.066 acres. PROPOSED ACTION Buildings and Uses The proposal includes construction of a four - story, 150 -room hotel and detached one -story restaurant adjacent to Tukwila Pond. The hotel would cover 106,268 square feet and the restaurant, 8,000 square feet (see Figures 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7). Development of the project as proposed would result in approximately 63 percent coverage of the 4.1 -acre site in impervious surfaces in the form of buildings or paved areas. The remainder of the site would be left undeveloped, including a 25- foot undisturbed riparian buffer and a 20 -foot grass -crete fire lane adjacent to Tukwila Pond. An increased buffer (larger than 45 feet) would be provided between the southwest corner of the pond and the proposed buildings. Parking and Access All parking for the hotel and restaurant would be provided on site through the construction of 230 parking stalls: 179 stalls in the underground parking garage (common to both buildings), and 51 surface parking stalls. The proposal would meet City of Tukwila parking requirements by providing 150 spaces for the hotel (code requires one space per room) and 80 spaces for the restaurant (code requires one space per 100 square feet). Primary access to the property would be from an extension of South 168th Street connecting westward to Southcenter Parkway. A secondary access would connect with Strander Boulevard via 58th Avenue South. A right -in, right -out only intersection would be developed at the 58th Avenue South /Strander Boulevard intersection. Utilities The majority of the stormwater runoff from the site would be directed eastward to Tukwila Pond after flowing through oil/ water separators in parking lot catchbasins and a 200 - foot -long biofiltration swale. Pond outflow would be directed through a-- culvert next to Andover Park West into a tightlined system to connect to the City's underground system, which eventually discharges into the Green River. Stormwater runoff from the / RESTAURANT sEcwee 1 5.:ok-1 YN' _.. TUKWILA POND( Source: Mithun Partners, 1991 •a u . we. HOTEL (CO t.JAs S ot't) 11 PAM** M. FIRE LANE it le J 6 31' F' 1' PAM TO STAAI OIVO. JUTM.&V Proposed Action SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Figure 3 Site Plan 1 FL.G POLE 2) TILE ROOF 3) BRICK 4) GLASS Source: Mithun Partners, 1991 HOTEL RESTAURANT 1 1 1 1 p to 70 30 Proposed Action Figure 4 SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II West Elevation I) FL4GPOLE 2) TILE ROOF 3) BRICK 4) GLASS 5) PARKING UNDER Source: Mithun Partners, 1991 3 Proposed Action Figure 5 SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II East Elevation • SOUTH ELEVATION Source: Mithun Partners, 1991 I) FL-G POLE 2 TILE ROOF 3) BRICK 4) GLASS NORTH ELEVATION 2. O ,V ae � Proposed Action SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Figure 6 North & South Elevations .� Source: Mithun Partners, 1991 Proposed Action SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Figure 7 Building Section underground parking would drain to the sanitary sewer system,, as required by the Uniform Building Code (Chapter 7 Sec. 702 [b.2]). The project site is served by both water and sanitary sewer which are provided by the City of Tukwila. Water is located within Strander Boulevard as well as Andover Park West. The calculated available fire flow at a residual pressure of 20 psi is in excess of 11,000 gallons per minute. The static pressure in the water lines is approximately 150 psi. Because this is primarily an industrial and commercial area, the City of Tukwila has substantially oversized the water lines. Therefore, water delivery to the site would greatly exceed the minimum fire flow and domestic water requirements for the project. The City of Tukwila has indicated that the water 1 ni would be extended from Strander Boulevard to Southcenter Parkwa through Phase I. egg A sanitary sewer main is available in Strander Boulevard. The City has constructed a mainline underground storm drainage system with stubouts which have already been extended to the property line. Side sewer extensions would service each of the buildings individually. According to the City, there is adequate capacity within the sanitary sewer system to provide sanitary sewer service for the project. Construction Activities and Schedule The proposed hotel and restaurant complex would be built over a single- story, underground parking garage. The buildings and garage would be supported on pile foundations. The finished floor elevation for the garage is proposed to be at a minimum of 20 feet. The minimum finish floor elevation for the hotel and restaurant would be 30 feet as required by The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA.), the agency responsible for controlling flooding impacts. Because of the required elevation of the finished ground level, the existing ground level may require additional structural fill material for grading. Based on the preliminary grading plan, approximately 80,000 cubic yards of fill would be required to establish parking lot grades. The fill would consist of clean general fill or structural fill material; the existing fill stockpile on site could be used for these purposes. The grades of the finished surface parking would closely match those of the developed properties to the west. Cuts of from 3 feet in the southern one -third of the site to as much as 12 feet in the northern portion of the site would be necessary to construct the underground parking. Construction is scheduled_ to begin iiSpring,-1 93aith completion slated for o 0 {2; 7 7C Xkll Two small emergent wetlands at the southwest end of the property would require filling in order to accommodate surface parking. A small portion of the wooded wetland area in the southwest corner thus, the building would be closer to the pond. As with the (', ` ick. A, proposal, an increased buffer between the southwest corner of the (5�-` `'A t,, . ,r - ;(K. pond and the proposed development would be provided. Q (3/:i I id C;.b-£.4 'c�',L`' Alternative 2 - Office Building Alternative - This alternative proposes a$-story office building with an area of 140,000 square feet, the office building would extend the length of the site. Under the four floors of office space would be 2 stories of parking: one floor at ground level, and one floor below -grade for a total parking garage area of 70,000 square feet. Regulations call for, and the project would \ provide, a total of 350 off - street parking stalls. A 25 -foot undisturbed buffer would be ed��ad''acent to. Tukwila Pond._`e As with the proposal, an ' ased�uffer would be provided XY ; between the south e ner of the pond and the proposed development. No fire lane .ould be provided (see Figures 12, 13, 14, and 15). Alternative 3 - 50 -Foot Buffer Alternative The building configuration under this alternative would be similar to the proposed action but a 50 -foot wetland buffer and a 20 -foot fire lane would be provided (see Figure 16). The wetland buffer would be measured from the edge of the wetland as described in the Draft City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The total building setback from the edge of (as defined 2 - 11 TARGET STORE - 58TH AVE. SOUTH __ 1 r»i TUKWILA POND 4`' • II L Source: Mithun Partners, 1990 PHASE 1 D 0 0 ol 0 m L•1 • r • , x • �. •,� D - • — Z — — — • HASE 11 -\\'' c, �' : n . -d _c-; c`,\ 133a1S H189 �— N IB 100' 200' Alternative One SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Figure 8 Site Plan WI=41:41 H 1.441. 4.• %7iisami imilummempoleorpir.. vtf:oiv�0i7 �I �iU BE � us umusum 1r ! c..Di :Humus - iUiL�O� OH!E!E!E! �ini_�_ ■ lu ®®1 m �■ i■ °EN ■UI ..OG�i U �ISTRIE SIE �iim iI• N Ir ' ■r■ 'ia �lw li .1u;, I a.1 :MN I : it Ii it a Source: Mithun Partners, 1990 0 20' 40' Alternative One Figure 9 SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II West Elevation of) r / � - ell 1110 'MS JI► VI 1. - I .. s ',�: ■ ■:: ■i __ ii.I �i g■■■■ a� �oon�v� o� ��� �� o - -- +■■■■■ �� �a�a� soti+�t ot:Fe 1E1 MI.�i i,ii • =11111■■ ■ ■ ■■■ >.i Isl Intl aa ; Ilf- I �a i�i siiiii....g.imliellswiiiiiiii=i1=01 1111 , union I.I E■u: I 11 '! t 14 � .41110A 41 a! al, Ni .8:111 1 !. r ,QIw`��� ' 4 w ' , ri „�Sf ' a,. Y- ��Mirm �. �ww.9w ,. G.� .� „�,,o. \.;:r: ^� �.r..�:.��. * _ 1111 ..�� _ . 1111. 1111_ _ _ -.� 1111 1111 1111 Source: Mithun Partners, 1990 0 20' 4a Alternative One Figure 10 SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II East Elevation Source: Mithun Partners, 1990 Alternative One Figure 11 SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Building Section TARGET STORE 58TH AVE. SOUTH 1/ 1 SOUTHCENTER PLAZA PHASE! Source: Mithun Partners, 1990 TUKWILA POND mo- rn+ ,f` omo Si' Ono mg SOUTHCENTER PLAZA PHASE II III!III!t , PER 0 100' 200' Alternative Two SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Figure 12 Site Plan • Oi P4N 144 / masoN rzY I pl0 9 ESE- :31 M 7. _ 111 1111 slm■om■os■i■IS>•I■■1■rm '■■■ 1■■■ 9MI:mm�11fg-M-11=a.9==.775.- a H1111 ■III■ �sl■■H■� ■■�■ , ■t■ 1 ■■1 DIM INN s" ■1■IrWre■ ®a+ • IOW .11!! ••s•■I••••s•n■•K , • IMMO 1$91111 111111111111111111111111111111111,11111111111111111111111111111111111111111116 ■M■ UM 11911ie .! !� 1111 Source: Mithun Partners, 1990 rcq= �= Crgame s� ice T o EI MlzSt■211i■i =arm$ °' $ mEME— —8 =' ■ sIMsssIIIs,Isss,■ssss,NIss,■sssst■t I MERMIEMES MU ESIDIMEMB sO111NOM /sue ■••••■=11111•MI sue■■ _"'�fsiiiliiii r - 01111111 /nteommm= ai ri s =ers3aa ■■■■ ■ ■H 1IM■IIIM■IMI■IM11■■>•11=■1•1111111■s>•■ 1191 I IIIMI MWM9MEBEEES■SNEEMEE?BESS ■11■ / ■h ■■I■i.'M■■s>•■11•■11•■■■>•■1>•0 '11■ ■1 ■5Q' 1l�3i ■!?"� ■!sue ■s51 ®f Bee WINO •.s•11•sts,■ss,sss•••ssl.■slss■•■ ' ■1s■ s■■■ !ommi■s>• ■mommis■mmi■m■ 111111iA i s'it I1!1 solon�?tatei95: MINN 1 a 0 20' 400 Alternative Two SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Figure 13 West Elevation minommimmommomemmunimmopignememamsmiwg sloop I. 111111 ; 00106 801.W *him imszrowi. ijoil ~- - __�_---^_-'_~~~ • ~�~~_ -_�-_'-_-----_' .-_~--- -~-_ �~--_-'` _~ .-__-_- _�_-- --- Source: Mithun Par oec , 1900 Cet-r-,125T51 r54,30' Alternative Two Figure 14 SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II East Elevation Pond Source: Mithun Partners, 1990 h7'H 4TM4 1 — 0 20' 40' Alternative Two Figure 15 SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Building Section TAURANT �s- teeTM ST ME lb - —'.y 4015 • i 6 i!r'( c 't Source: Mithun Partners, 1991 Alternative Three ME LANE TO BTRAND€R BLVD 6 C� SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Figure 16 Site Plan by the 13 -foot elevation) to the face of the building would be 70+ feet, as compared to 45 feet under the proposed action. As with all other development alternatives in the EIS, this one must be shown to approximate the sponsor's objectives at a lesser cost to the environment. The larger buffer would in theory provide greater protection for the wetland habitat. To accomodate the proponent's objectives (i.e., to construct an economically feasible, all- suites hotel), while providing the larger buffer and fire lane as well as respecting the required setbacks from 58th Place South for street, street landscaping and access drives, the building would need to be made narrower, longer, and taller, because of the site's long, narrow configuration. Under this alternative, the hotel would be 48 feet wide (as compared to 100 feet), and seven stories tall (as compared to four stories) . Reducing the building width from 100 n p-r �-c_� feet to 48 feet also would mean a switch from a double - loaded T,,''" room arrangement to an arrangement with a single row of hotel „itJ.` rooms fronting a very long hall. The sponsor has determined t at F°' this arrangement of rooms is not feasible to manage effectively,__ A total of 230 stalls is required for the hotel and restaurant. Surface parking would be reduced under this alternative by the larger buffer requirement, limiting the parking to 30 spaces, approximately 40 percent less than the 51 spaces provided under the proposed action. Below grade parking may also be difficult to accommodate because the narrow (48 feet) width of the hotel building may be insufficient to accommodate the necessary width for aisles, ramps and spaces. The project sponsor has determined that all of these site constraints (narrow building width, single - loaded design, parkin difficulties, much taller heights), as well as significantly greater costs to construct and operate a hotel of this design, make this alternative infeasible. However, it is included in this EIS in order to disclose the differences, both beneficial and adverse, between the proposed site design and a design with 50 -foot buffer. ' L' e,�� -�.<�i City staff also directed the "" sponsor -to "evaluate providing a 100- foot buffer alternative The sponsor has determined a 100 -foot buffer to be infeasible in terms of site development due to the . narrow site configuration and minimum floor plate requirements of the proposed hotel. The site is roughly a 190 - foot -wide by 770 - foot -long rectangle, with the longer side of the rectangle paralleling Tukwila Pond. If a 100 -foot buffer were maintained adjacent to the pond, the developable area would be further reduced with the 40 feet of right -of -way the Public Works Department is requiring be dedicated for construction of 58th Avenue South and the 20 -foot fire lane required by the Fire Department. Accommodating buildings, parking and driveways and a 100 -foot wetland buffer on this site would be virtually impossible. Alternative 4 - No- Action Alternative Under this alternative, no development of the site is proposed. The site would remain uninhabited and undeveloped, and the potential impacts of a commercial development would be eliminated, at least temporarily. Existing fill soil placed on the site would be either removed with disturbed areas replanted, or left in place, re- graded to soften the edges, and hydroseeded. If the proposed action is precluded at this time, pressure for development of the site would likely continue. CHAPTER 3 ••••••••••••••••••••• Affected Environment, Environmental Impacts, Mitigating Measures, and Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • • SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: II • Draft Environmental Impact Statement • • • • CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATING MEASURES, AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the affected environment and examines the expected impacts of this proposal and its alternatives for selected elements of the environment. It suggests mitigating measures and summarizes anticipated significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. EARTH AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT A number of subsurface soils explorations have been performed on . the property by Dames and Moore (1976 and 1986), Hart - Crowser (1981), and GeoEngineers (1988). The GeoEngineers' study is available for review in the City of Tukwila files. The following description is based on the exploration logs and analysis from those studies, as well as a June 1990 supplemental geotechnical analysis prepared by GeoEngineers (see Appendix D). Topography The undeveloped 4.1 -acre site lies entirely within the Green River 100 -year floodplain ers= s-outh- to= nort -h-- - -approx nate.1y 1-/2 --Rt - -te --the east-).. Generally very flat, the site slopes less than 3 percent toward Tukwila Pond to the east. As a result of previous fill additions to the site, current ground surface elevations generally range between 19 and 20 feet above sea level (see Figure 17). Additional fill from the Southcenter Plaza Phase I development was placed over the northern two - thirds of the site in July and August 1989 for pre - loading of site soils. Surface elevations of the new fill are about Elevation 28 or 29, while the southern one -third of the site remains at about Elevation 19 or 20. The edge of the fill slopes down to the edge of the Tukwila Pond, which has a water surface elevation of about 13 feet. Figure 18 shows the top of the bank in plan view; in addition, four cross - sections showing the contours of the site are provided. The new fill surface is relatively flat and is encircled by filter fabric fences no closer than 25 feet to the edge of the pond. Geology and Soils Following the creation of a relatively deep glacial valley during the last ice age, the Green River has slowly filled this valley with silt to its current level. The project site is now underlain by more than 150 feet of alluvial (water- deposited) sediment, which includes layers of silt, silty sand, sand, clay and peat. Under these layers is a base of sedimentary bedrock. ••••••••■•• j I , ;;;;::: Pow., I••• •••■ • • ;•••• ___ -; - - - -• ----- _ Siren*. • • •. __• &Yd. • 1— PI-IASE I 1 / .- SITE—) I1 11 aq i !:47 7 \ _ i ‹.1 r -) (—.) _ • _ ---• •- , - • 1 I- 7 -• ---- ----■ ii7 1 \ • ( _ PHASE II SITE- 7 It • \ WM., Surface filevalon -1315 1 „,, , iTi i i 11 1.:” l / / lifi: I- .-. \ \ 1 1 Iv 1 \ ( I .___..- , -":11*--- -2-1.-----,..,/./ 1, I!' / / -, --- ' ''. 14 IA 11 t'i41 \ r— ) ./ - . , ) '-'-----. \ \ --' ,./,/ / - 11- I \ / r,,, 1\-----..._ ._="-..7-1,,..:.---- -----„.7;r) V /,,--.-)). if- ! i i-j,./ i ---:-:.---- y ...-',/ ,,iii, i .y ., / ,., C 1 / jr i- Al I _._,-..-.1- - y/ /4 \ \jr /,/' ,1 ,/, • I ..,---- -.------ ,/ ..,.. ___ .c-----:---_—_____ •-z---. •:--e---'"(---',---=':'': ---------_--, • ----,7,-,-;....,===:—= , ) ).. I I \ v-, 13 Source: Barghausen Engineers, 1990 7 ,/ SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE 11 cf :.F...:.I.:,, `1,•\.r.„,. k___,',..-'' %,..--. , N i150' tA Figure 17 Topography Map I 0 . 5.65 0 5-5E: • 3-29 -$(C 43 ° 053 37 5-SEC 52 . 1 2 . . , 0.00 00 11-5EC 51 .0 • •MCIII 00 PAO Source: Barghausen Engineers, 1991 SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Pa gOL;PS --ro ce pm 7 \((czA) cl'tt Figure 18 Site Sections The fill soils at the surface averaged 16 feet in depth at boring sites prior to the addition of the newest fill mound. The fill was not placed within 25 feet of the pond. The site's geology would support development, but the underlying silts, clay and peat are moderately to highly compressible. Surface loading with additional filling and new buildings would result in compression and soils settling. The water table is almost at the level of the pond's surface (approximately 13 feet). Seasonal fluctuations can bring winter groundwater levels to within a few feet of existing surface grades. The fill material on site as well as the uppermost natural silts are fine - grained and not very permeable. Erosion Potential The site soils are somewhat_-silty__a-nd some erosion _ ex.isLs_.^[Generally, peak flow velocities of stormwater runoff at the 4- to 8- feet - per - second range4(or above) normally cause erosion of �-tream beds and /or drainage Itches; Because the site is relatively at, i is`no`t antic gated that existing or- future velocities would reach this level.L The site is self- contained in terms of stormwaf -e runoff; runoff from other sites does not generally enter the site. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The developed portion of the site would be graded and filled, requiring structural fill materials. The proposal is for construction of a hotel and restaurant over an underground parking garage. The finish floor elevation of the underground parking is proposed to be a minimum of 20.0 feet. The finish floor elevation of the hotel and restaurant would be 30 feet as required by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). Based on the proposed grading, drainage and utilities plan (see Figure 19), the grades for the surface parking would more closely match with the grades of the developed properties to the west. The proposed buildings and parking garage would be supported on pile foundations (either mechanically driven or auger cast) extending to the intermediate or deep sand layers. Fill would be necessary to establish parking lot grades which conform to the required minimum flood elevation. The soil would be placed along the west boundary of the site. It is estimated that approximately 80,000 cubic yards of fill would be required. The fill would consist of clean general fill or structural fill material; the existing pre -load stockpile on site could be used for these purposes. Cuts of from 3 feet in the southern one - third of the site to as much as 11 to 12 feet in the northern portion of the site would be required to construct the underground parking. (1- r� TIMWLA POND STATIC W.S. ELEVATION = 13.0± __CROSS-HATCH 20CATE3 LOCATION OF /MOPE-GROI20 HOTEL HATCH INDICATES LOCATION OF •- UNDERGROUND PARKNG GARAGE FF. • 20.0 20' FIRE ACCES SOUTHCENTER Pl•TA NNASE Lop EONSTRUCT MI apPROvAL PATIO J. fi.1.99 E •FEabM PROPOSED TARGET BUILDING F.F. = 26.00 /.4 L �y0 _ R i - d. . 10[.14' OLRIATER SEPARATOR C.D. -RP RIP OUTFALI I 1 RESTAURANT EDGE OF C E 0 1 03 SINGLE I I L - - -f Il [2. [AMT rArccu r1C1 r1 F.F.. 21.0 L N r 01'21•[ 12631.67. EMIST. ENE-_ I: DGE Of. • PAVEYE NE• 30' ORIVE.A1 (A V o 0 U d 5. 4- 7 c �-- N Source: Barghausen Engineers, 1991 I L_ 001.02' .2 25'R 1 I 1 E[. HOTEL DOO1LETE11 SPIES) 1 F.F. - 31.0 L_ Sce?ff2._ 1 I r -J L -____1 I I I I! 1. I I li I I I I I I 1 [2. R[TA1L 1 91 r- 1 (10 0 -R -u[I m1 I.F.. 26 0 I I I WI 1 I NOTE • THIS DOA.IIG DEPICTS 0I81 PRELYNARY AND CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE l GRACOO DESIGN l YAV NOT BE BULOABLE •5 510.11. • FINAL GRAONG t DRANAGE RAN 1/1-1 BE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE FEASIR4110 OF CONSTRUCTION ON TM5 SITE l TO PROVOS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE DET AL. E11ST. EDGE 00 C PAVEMENT TYPE 'A' tURB l GUTTER O J By DCRAR11IE LF 12 EI PROPOSED 26 O1NE.AY- -_ 1 1 [E. RETAIL BNOES .F.. 27.0 NCR 12. 5D -_ - -1_ 1 SIST. C.9.- I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I TIE. IY SD —1- r• CB._ -_- IST. CA. --.. .4 E_R 20'.20' ROAD E.a0ESENT Ell. 16' ROAD EASEMENT _14E1 310 If R' HIGH _- GABON •ALL CvfONE FENCE '1 I W W VAT --- EXIST. EDGE DE PAVEYEIIT —COST. SOc}ALA JgII 1 R5� EASPE11r ROAD — ES1T. IB' ROAD __ EA5EMEN1 : 'f :. 36' PAVED ROAD- ` v .l l OUTT(0 BOTH I SOEOALR dl I TR OILY. I REYOVE CWT. • DRNE.AY t r L. PROyOE NEW PARKING 2' it11I.' l•1I1; -1 SOUTHCENTER -PARKWAY;:_ — — SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Figure 19 Grading, Drainage & Utilities Plan Prior to construction, areas to be graded or built upon would be cleared of existing vegetation, top soil, and organic materials, and replaced with the inorganic fill material -aas. No fill material would be placed closer than 25 feet from the shoreline of the pond to the east of the site when the pond water level is at elevation 13.0 feet. Fill material would not be placed in the pond. Settlements resulting from the filling are expected to be variable across the site. The major portion (about two - thirds) of these settlements would result from consolidation in the soils above the intermediate stratum of sand. The remainder would result from consolidation of the deeper silt layer. Settlements due to the influence of the fill loads would extend beyond the actual limits of filling. It is estimated that settlements of 1 to 2 inches could occur some 50 to 60 feet beyond the edge of the fill; however, adjacent buildings should not be significantly impacted because they are located beyond that distance. Post - construction settlement in the surface parking areas would be effectively reduced to acceptable limits by placing fill sufficiently far in advance of construction to allow the major part of the consolidation to occur (a temporary mound of clean fill from the Southcenter Plaza: Phase I development was placed over the northern two - thirds of the site in July and August of 1989). New fills would not extend close enough to the pond edge to cause bottom displacement, sedimentation or other impacts to the pond. The potential for erosion of soil from the site would be the greatest during the construction period. Due to the low slope gradient on this site (for both the existing and proposed grades), as well as the proposed temporary erosion control measures, erosion should be minimal. ALTERNATIVES Alternatives 1 and 2 - Design and Office Alternatives The required site preparation procedures for these two construction alternatives would be similar to the proposed action; thus earth impacts would be similar to the proposed action. Alternative 3 - 50 -Foot Buffer Alternative Slightly greater excavation would be necessary under this alternative because the underground parking level would be extended under the restaurant to accommodate the fifty -foot buffer. 7 Soils would be disturbed on about 90 percent of the site during construction, increasing the potential for erosion. However, erosion should not be significant with implementation of the proposed mitigation. K 3 - 7 WATER AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The site is located in the Green River drainage basin. The Green River is located approximately 2,000 feet east of the site, running in a south to north direction. The site does not generally receive drainage from surrounding properties, which are fully developed and are drained via tightline storm drainage systems that convey drainage to the Green River through the City of Tukwila subsurface drainage systems in the adjacent public roadways. Drainage tributary to the Southcenter Plaza: Phase II site (and Tukwila Pond to the east of the site) is only from direct precipitation (rainfall) on the site. Tukwila Pond, an approximately › acre freshwater pond /wetland, maintains a static water surface elevation of approximately 13.0 feet (City of Tukwila datum) as determined by field surveys during October and November of 1987. The static water surface elevation in the pond is believed to be indicative of the groundwater table elevation a cdia c— area —¢ ,., on the site]. The Tukwila Pond storm drainage outlet is connected to the City of Tukwila's storm drainage system along Andover Park West. The outlet incorporates a floodgate which allows water to exit the project site and Southcenter Plaza: Phase I property only to the north. The City of Tukwila's P -17 Drainage Basin Study, dated April 1984, established that the maximum rate of release from the developed project site and Southcenter Plaza: Phase I property would be 1.0 cfs with a storage requirement equal to the volume of precipitation received in a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm. Once storm drainage is released from these properties, it is conveyed to the Green River through the City of Tukwila's storm drainage system. The project site and Southcenter Plaza: Phase I property appear to have adequate capacity to contain all drainage from the developed sites during the 100 -year 7 -day storm without discharging to the City's system. The sites can discharge up to a maximum rate of 1.0 cfs to the City's system. (See the September 1988 Expanded Environmental Impact Analysis for the Phase I retail shopping center on file at the City of Tukwila for additional information on these capacity calculations.) SCE The project site is currently undeveloped. Due to the flat topography of * .ite -, the average on -site overland flow of velocity would be approximately one -half foot per second. Drainage from this site flows directly into the pond located immediately to the east. The estimated pre - development runoff coefficient for the filled uplands portion of the site is estimated to be ?6' This means that approximately 60 percent of the existing stor drainage on the site results in runoff. Because all other urrounding properties drain into their own 3 �; 8 drainage basin quantity, no nd do not affect Tukwila Pond's water quality or tream storm drainage analysis was performed. Similarly, no downstream analysis was done because only during CffK 100 -year storm events would water be discharged from Tukwila Pond c4 to the City's drainage system - and then only for a short time.. pj. Throughout the winter of 1990 the average level of Tukwila Pond increased from elevation 13.0 feet to as high as elevation 16.0 feet. An updated survey conducted in November, 1990, disclosed the pond elevation to be no greater than 13.0 feet. Flooding The August, 1981 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Tukwila, shows a 100 -year floodplain over the site at an elevation of 23.0. FEMA has prepared an updated flood study that reports the 100 -year floodplain on the site as 25.0 feet, based upon special conditions. The levee on the west bank of the Green River in the area of this site currently is in need of improvements before it can meet the levee requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. King County Surface Water Management Division has indicated that the levee improvements will be completed in 1991. At that time, the FEMA maps will revert back to the previously established flood elevation of 23.0 feet. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Approximately 2.6 acres (ercent)r of the -gre- 3- eet'-s a would be converted to impervious surfaces, either buildings or parking and vehicle circulation areas, with development of the proposal. The post - development runoff coefficient would be about 0.85, indicating that approximately 85 percent of storm drainage of the developed portion of the property would result in runoff; this represents an approximately 25 percent increase in stormwater 7 runoff over the pre - developed condition. However, Tukwila Pond has sufficient capacity to absorb any increase in storm_drainage_ runoff from t his property. Southcenter P3aza: phase in.corpo ated a free - draining storm rainalg sstem ou ettin in o the pond. Th aie� repr, n h e by e\ y project sit is sig fica tly / al er /tha a that of S uthcenter% Pla`ia / Ph se heir forte, the and as suf f.cie t capacity tO absor)b the a�dit��o,nal torm dra.� age runoff, from de. elopement of�"the p. •p!sal� (Barghsusen Engineer's, 1989)x,.•_ �, The quantity of stormwater runoff from the proposed development would be restricted to a maximum outflow rate of 1.0 cubic foot per second, with pond storage equal to the precipitation received during the 100 -year storms. Under these conditions, the pond has adequate capacity to handle additional runoff from the proposal. Therefore, no significant surface water impacts are expected. Because the elevation of the storm drainage outlet provided by the City is 2.4 feet above the pond's normal level (13 feet), the 3 - 9 project would rarely release any storm drainage directly to the City system. The proposal would capture surface and roof drainage in catch basins, then tightline.the drainage to an area adjacent to Tukwila Pond. Prior to discharge into the pond, surface drainage would be conveyed through a 200 - foot -long biofiltration ditch, which would act as a natural filter to remove oil and heavy metals. Runoff from vehicle areas would contain oils and other pollutants. Oil /water separators would be provided in "T" -type catch basins to filter oil and sediments from the runoff. Runoff would then be discharged into the pond (refer to Figure 21). The runoff from roof areas would be essentially clean water; therefore, this drainage would be conveyed directly into the pond. Water quality in Tukwila Pond would not be adversely affected by the proposal. The Uniform Building Code (Chapter 7 Sec. 702 [b.2]) requires that the storm drainage from covered parking areas (in this case, the underground parking garage) drain into the sanitary sewer system. The finish floor elevation of the parking garage would be too low for a gravity connection to the sanitary sewer; a pump would be required. Drainage for the underground parking would be collected by a series of floor drains and would pass through a Metro - approved baffle -type oil /water separator before being pumped into the sanitary sewer system. : �; w'/ t %n,“,r' C Flooding 4 ` (yti'" ` It is necessary to provide storm drainage control or flood prevention for the covered underground parking area because it would be at an elevation below the 100 -year flood elevation. This would be accomplished by flood proofing the building walls so that during flood events, floodwaters would not enter the building. This would include providing watertight flexible seals i around the parking area foundations up to or above the 100 -year 3 - 10 flood elevations so that even under 100 percent saturated conditions, water would not infiltrate the parking areas. In addition, a French drain would be installed along the perimeter of the building to intercept and divert storm drainage. Also, the access areas would be located above the 100 -year flood elevation to ensure that floodwaters would not enter the parking area. ALTERNATIVES Alternatives 1 and 2 - Design and Office Alternatives The storm drainage, grading impacts, and water quality impacts to Tukwila Pond would be nearly identical for the preferred proposal and each of the development alternatives, due to the similarities in percentage of impervious surface coverage, landscaping, and existing site topography (Barghausen Engineers, 1990). Alternative 3 - 50 -Foot Buffer Alternative Drainage grading and water quality impacts of this alternative would be similar to, or slightly less than, the proposal because the percentage of impervious surfaces would be similar. Alternative 4 - No- Action Alternative Under this alternative existing drainage patterns would continue. If the new fill mound were left in place, it would be hydroseeded in order to improve runoff retention and reduce erosion. If the fill were removed, the disturbed area would be replanted. MITIGATING MEASURES A 25 -foot undisturbed riparian buffer zon', would be maintained adjacent to Tukwila Pond. a -20 -foot fire lane adjacent to the buffer would be surfaced with a semi - pervious surface such as grass -crete in ordert( mitigate increased stormwater runoff. o During construction, temporary erosion and sedimentation . control measures would be implemented, in accordance with City of Tukwila standards. Siltation fences and temporary ditches with rock check dams would be constructed at the ale-. Stormwater would be conveyed to a temporary settlement pond to settle sediments from the water before release into the pond. (Also, see the EARTH section.) v2ct," ,� o On -site conveyance pipes wou.ld_route storm drainage from the ,cz surface paved areas into(a 200 - foot -long biofiltration swale•„ and then into the adjacent pond. The stodrm raina -� ge would el be filtered through a series of "T" -type, Type I and II catch basins with oil /water separators prior to _release- into the .portd-. - - -- --- • - - - -- �j j (--- 3 - 11 , �" ,_ � :< --P- c = ^ e-- -`Cvti ;;Q,, o Significant biofiltration self-7 ) would also be provided the pond t/ o Storm drainage from the underground parking areas would be directed to the sanitary sewer system, as required by the Uniform Building Code. • Storm drainage lines would be cleaned out and put in good working condition as soon as possible so that the oil/water separation collection areas work as effectively as possible. The proposed grass-lined swale would be constructed simultaneously or prior to the placement of final pavement on the project in order to maximize the effect of the biofiltration prior to discharging storm drainage water into Tukwila Pond. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS o None are anticipated<i__ Co' .1;612-1/4_1-- • •-• /S."- (74- se: 4, 1/4-4,--• • PLANTS AND ANIMALS Information on the plant and animal communities on -site was obtained through a review and update of previous site studies including those for the Chartwell Development Corporation (December 1979), the Springridge Development (November 1983), the Commercial Design Associates (CDA) development proposal (1985), and the proposed 168th Street South project (June 1987). Studies completed during April and June 1988 by Independent Ecological Services (IES) Associates, The Watershed Company and Invert -Aid, as well as the October 1990 supplemental study by IES Associates, were used to re- evaluate and update the baseline data. The plant and animal community information is also based on several on -site field surveys conducted for these studies. All of these studies are available for review at the City of Tukwila; the October 1990 supplemental study by IES Associates is contained in Appendix E. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT / i Plants �) The plant communities on site have been significantly modified by the recent filling and stock - piling activities (see the EARTH section for details). This fill extends from the Doubletree Suites Hotel To s -R -Us parking lot to the west to within 15 0.30 / Y P g �� _.__.... feet of the top of the Tukwila Pond bank. Vegetation on those portions of the site not covered by fill are described below. Upland Communities The upland portion of the site to the west of the fill area is primarily in mixed grasses, and supports species such as quackgrass, orchard grass and red clover with scattered Himalayan � blackberry. Isolated .et area) created by the fill are also`-- - present and sustain other s• -cies of grasses and.forbs (see Figure 20). The bank of Tukwila Pond is vegetated with a mixed forest canopy dominated by red alder with clusters or individual cottonwood trees scattered throughout. Pacific willow and Scouler's willow overhang the water; willow trees also extend into the southwest corner of the pond. Water smartweed and nightshade form a floating mass at the water's edge. Oregon ash, big leaf maple, sour cherry and domestic apple are scattered along the top of the pond bank. The dominant understory is Himalayan blackberries. The riparian buffer along the edge of Tukwila Pond has been separated from the recent fill activity by a filter - fabric fence to reduce siltation impacts to the pond. LEGEND 000000000 {RTT BOUNDARY r i OPENWATER WF.TUND BDUNDEL EDGE OF RECENIEIILLISi UPLAND RIPARUTAEE/SNAUB FUND MIXERS AS5f f4BE1TSHRUB/SCRUILK1L lCIiu EMERGENT MARSH WETLAND (Cius W '7-1{(37 Ale cn Gas OFF 1 c O fi. emu' -s -r F t G. ° w €TX %" [,n- T7 #/G'' d f'x P c., Ise G'- /WARW. TflL /SUMU• UM[ weiricir tt o' 0000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000a0aaa00aa EDGE OF RECENT FILLING Source: IES Associates, 1991 • 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 —�9 —.- N •<___� SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Figure 20 Plant Communities Map The southern unfilled portion of the site is a mixture of trees and shrubs. The trees are madrone, black cottonwood and Scouler's willow. Understory consists of grasses with hardhack, red elderberry, pea -fruit rose and Nootka rose. Himalayan blackberry, sword fern and creeping buttercup are also present (refer to Figure 20). r _ ; 1 Wetland Communities 1 Y_ 1 ^,� areas on the project site were classified as wetlands by IES Associates, based on the Army Corps ojhngineers "Unified Federal Agency Multi- Parameter Procedure " This procedure requires positive identification of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and hydrology (either groundwater or surface water). 'e_,> Tukwila Pond to just above the 13 -foot contour is considered a wetland (refer to Figure 20). On site, a small drainage slough is present in the southwest corner of the site, portion of which IES has classified as a wetland. This slough varies from 3 to 10 feet wide and extends approximately 200 feet I from the Toys -R -Us parking lot to the pond. The wetland area is I approximately 0.02 acres in size. A second small wetland area on site exists as a small depression at the southern end of the site between the higher upland wooded area in the southwest corner of the site and the south end of the fill area; this wetland is approximately 0.04 acres in size (refer to Figure 20). A third wetland area, approximately 0.006 acres in size is located at the north end of the site between the top of the bank and the toe of the fill area. By the Corps of Engineers definition, these wetlands would be considered isolated, and since in total they are under one acre, they would not be subject to the Corps nationwide permit for filling. Jones & Stokes has prepared the Wetlands Inventory and City of Tukwila - Tukwila Water Resource and Buffer Recommendations (1989) to assist the City in the preparation of a sensitive areas ordinance (note: this ordinance is still in draft form). The only wetland on or near the site to be classified in the inventory by Jones & Stokes is Tukwila Pond. The two wetland areas identified on site by IES Associates were not included in the City -wide inventory. Jones & Stokes has recommended buffer widths for wetlands in Tukwila. These recommendations were based on their study as well as a literature review. Buffer recommendations from Washington Department of Wildlife, King County and other jurisdictions were also taken into account. Jones & Stokes have classified Tukwila Pond as a "high value" wetland and recommended a 100 -foot buffer adjacent to the pond's edge. They also have recommended that where disturbance of a wetland buffer has already occurred, no further disturbance should be allowed (note: approximately 75 feet of the recent fill area would be within their recommended buffer width). Animals Five site evaluations were conducted in 1990 by IES Associates. These evaluations were directed to the north and west portions of Tukwila Pond to determine species composition and distribution. This information was compared to earlier studies, for other proposed developments, dating back to 1985. Birds The 1990 studies were not initiated during winter months and thus did not allow for monitoring of wintering bird activity on the site. However, some bird use, particularly Canada goose, mallard, pintail, widgeon, and gadwall, was observed within 50 to 100 feet from the toe of the north bank of the pond. Teal, mallard, and gadwall were observed at the bank around and under the overhanging vegetation within 25 feet of the Southcenter Plaza: Phase I development. These observations were made after the bulk of the initial construction was completed, but at a time when construction equipment and vehicular noise were present on the site. Evidence of ring- necked pheasant was found to the north. Red - tailed hawks continue to use the large cottonwoods along the north and west sides of the pond for perching. These birds appear to be hunting away from the site since there are no short grass areas available within the immediate vicinity of the site. During May and June, wintering and migrating bird activities ceased. The remaining birds are considered to be nesters. The pond was still supporting a 10+ mallard pair population, as well as a small flock of transient Canada geese in late May. Small bird use . did not appear to have changed as robins, swallows, towhees, winter wrens, and downy woodpeckers were observed in trees along the north bank. Robins, towhees, and wrens were nesting. The west bank of the pond was supporting the same species of birds as the north with the exception of ring- necked pheasants which appear to concentrate on the north bank and in the reed canarygrass meadow to the south of the pond. Waterfowl activity was greatest in the southwest corner near the willow and snag islands. This continues to be consistent with past years' activity. It should be noted that no examination was made of the shrub edge or trees along the south or east banks of the pond. The activities in these two areas were not considered as pertinent to the project since they have not been and would not be modified under the proposal. Mammals A variety of seed - eaters and grazers, including meadow mice, moles and eastern cottontail rabbit, use the riparian border of Tukwila Pond and undisturbed upland areas. Evidence of continued use of the northern edge of the pond by cottontail rabbit was found in the 1990 visits. Reptiles and Amphibians Several species of frogs were identified in past studies for the Phase I retail shopping center project. Garter snakes have also been observed in the adjacent pond area. Fisheries A 1988 study of the adjacent pond conducted by The Watershed Company indicated that the only species of fish found in the pond is the brown bullhead catfish. That study observed that the population is limited by poor breeding in the pond or predation by the adult population which prevents any juvenile survival. Threatened and Endangered Species pisK oc�� No threatened or endangered plant or animal species as defined by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the State Department of Wildlife are anticipated to use the site as a regular nesting .- and- feeui-ng- habits& p�- 4--r -X _ 'Q :ti,- -e d- � - i C1 ENVIRONMENTAL IM ACTS a z : -- (537. -(- Plants t /(:----","---,-----, .fir - - ---- -- -- - e'«.: -C —>-6) i —_-/ Development of the proposal would require clearing of the majority of the vegetation on site. This clearing would affect primarily upland plant communities. Impacted trees would include madrone, willow and red alder. No encroachment or fill would occur in the riparian border within a 25 -foot buffer from the edge of Tukwila Pond. The two small emergent wetlands at the southwest end of the property would require filling in order to accommodate surface parking. The removal of these wetlands would reduce surface flow �c< and the limited biofiltration that would occur here. Also, AA((� limited ground water percolation from the collected surface water t`t.) would be lost. fr A small portion of the wooded wetland area in the southwest corner of the site would be displaced to accommodate the grass - crete fire lane. Losses associated with the construction of this fire lane would include the elimination of tree /shrub habitat, predominantly willow and alder. The secondary impacts to this area, however, would be minimal because the area would be grass - crete, used only as. a_firelane and_would exclude_ use baan_ o.ther_v_ehicles. /The total acres of replacement would not substitute for the total losses associated with creation of this fire lane. _ _ 3 - 17 fIr ^= /J f \� _ ,Z The total combined areas of all wetlands Yto be filled would be 0.06 acres. This falls below the 1.0 acre permitted to be filled under the Nationwide Permit by the Army Corps of Engineers. The wetland area at the north end of the site 0.006 acres�.:lies within the buffer zone and would remain undisturbed. The proposed drainage system would maintain water quality in the pond. The reduction in the amounts of sediments reaching the pond with the removal of any untreated runoff that now reaches the pond from any sheet flow would decrease the long -term in- filling of the pond and reduce the levels of contaminants that are contained in these sediments. The proposed system would continue to place water in the pond, thus duplicating existing conditions. 1) ) ' Animals _ ; - _ _C' �{ i• Direct impacts to wildlife over the majority /of the site would be minimal since the area where the development /is to occur has been filled, graded, and refilled and graded prior to and since the construction of Southcenter Plaza: Phase I v Loss of potential habitat that would become reestablished on the new fill would include loss of ground bird and mammal habitats and some possible shorebird and pond edge waterfowl nesting habitat. These losses would be dependent on the extent and type of revegetation. Based on wildlife sightings during the months of April, May and f- �` June 1990, it appears that the �' "� pp h Southcenter Plaza: Phase I development within 25 feet of the p pond has not significantly or •�: -= noticeably modified or reduced waterfowl, shorebird, or small I;; yv °� passerine bird use in the buffer zone that was maintained and I( enhanced with the construction of Southcenter Plaza: Phase I._.! The north boundary of the pond is still receiving the same types of uses from the same species that were present prior to construction of Phase I. The 25 -foot undisturbed buffer, plus 20 -foot grass -crete fire lane adjacent to Tukwila Pond proposed for Southcenter Plaza: Phase II would provide more buffering than was provided for Phase I. According to IES Associates, the difference between a 45 -foot buffer and a 25 -foot buffer is the creation of a small additional oe s : pace area Depending -- on -the - type - o plantings ; -this a on a- could- provide - addition `a1`neatng:- arealfor= smal� /. `trban birds_nd- ma'ma=1-s _A Due to the requirement to - suethe`� -f- � la-ne-- howev -er the additional 20 feet would �`�`_ - � probably not provide additional nesting,or brood- -rea -ring- habltat_for_water_ or wetland dependent wildlife bird- species: -"- �f,L,�.C_:,.�.: The location of the proposed buildings next to the 20 -foot fire lane, which is adjacent to the 25 -foot buffer, would provide a physical separation from the noise, lights and other human activity on site which could disturb wildlife. A fence no higher than four feet is proposed adjacent to parking areas which directly adjoin the buffer to further reduce these impacts. Construction of a trail was considered to provide public access to the pond. However, this trail currently is not part of the proposal. _I €A trail waza_to be constructed under the proposed site plans- tha-s-ait would need to occur within the 25 -foot buffer adjacent to the pond. Because of the steepness and limited size of this area, a trail would significantly impact the existing plant and animal communities. In particular, the types and numbers of passerine birds and small mammal use of the area would be reduced. To adequately view the pond, one or more viewpoints should also be constructed to the water's edge. Impacts of constructing these viewpoints would further reduce the effectiveness of the buffer area. A raised trail could be provided along the south side of the C/6-tCH 7pond, in the open meadow area. Construction of a trail would _ ' only minimally impact this area. Also, existing openings through),v:.0 %.�:- the vegetation in this area would provide better views of the 4 '4 - pond, and would not require the construction of viewpoints. _ '5c.) Encircling approximately half of Tukwila Pond with developments may create a pressure that modifies the behavior of the birds i the northwest corner of the site; however, preliminary evidence from the Phase I development does not support this assumption. With the completion of the construction in this area, bird and mammal use has returned to pre- construction conditions. ALTERNATIVES Alternative .1 - Design Alternative Construction of Alternative 1, the design alternative, would require clearing of approximately the same amount of upland area as under the proposal. The 0.04 -acre wetland would be eliminated; the 0.02 -acre wetland in the southwest corner and the 0.006 -acre wetland at the north end of the site would be retained. Under this alternative, development would be eliminated from the southeast corner of the site. The existing tree /shrub community would be retained, and the passerine birds and small mammals which inhabit this area would not be disturbed. The increased buffer area between the development and the southwest corner of the pond would be slightly greater than that of the proposal. This portion of the pond has been shown to have the highest value for waterfowl. As under the proposal, a 25- foot undisturbed buffer area would be retained along the remaining edge of Tukwila Pond. However, this would not include an additional setback of 20 feet for a fire lane. With proper planting and enhancement of the buffer area between the edge of the development and the top of the bank, the necessary requirements for nesting waterfowl, seed - gathering mice and other small animal habitat could readily be provided in a 25 -foot area (refer to Figure 8). Alternative 2 - Office Alternative Impacts on plant and animal communities under Alternative 2, the office development alternative, would be greater than impacts under the proposal because the office building would be located closer to the pond. The office building would extend the full length of the site with a 25 -foot undisturbed buffer area adjacent to Tukwila Pond as in Alternative 1. The increased buffer area between the southwest corner of the pond and the proposed development would be equal to that of the proposal. Parking proposed in the southeast corner of the site would eliminate the existing tree /shrub community and the passerine birds and mammals which inhabit this area. Approximately 0.06 - acres of wetland on site would be filled (refer to Figure 12). With construction of a building which runs the full length of the site, a physical barrier between parking lots, road noise, car lights, human activity and the pond would be provided, as provided under the proposal. Alternative 3 - 50 -Foot Buffer Alternative Construction of Alternative 3, though determined infeasible, would increase the undisturbed buffer from 25 feet to 50 feet. The increased buffer area between the southwest corner of the pond and the proposed development would be greater than that of the proposal. However, impacts on plant and animal communities would be similar to the proposal (refer to Figure 16). The primary difference between the two buffer widths regarding habitat value would be the creation of a small additional open space that, depending on the type of plantings, would provide a small amount of additional nesting for small urban birds and small mammals. Alternative 4 - No- Action Alternative Alternative 4, the No- Action Alternative, would retain the site in its existing, undeveloped condition. The recently placed fill would either be left intact, minimally regraded and hydroseeded or removed from the site. Revegetation would occur in the latter case as well. If hydroseeding occurred, the area would become primarily a grass /forb mix, low pasture dominated by reed canary grass to the south. Under this alternative, the existing value of the site for wildlife would continue. Some increases in on -site feeding, loafing and nesting would occur with revegetation of the fill area. MITIGATING MEASURES o A 25 -foot undisturbed buffer plus a 20 -foot grass -crete fire lane would be provided adjacent to Tukwila Pond. p No rj C� I�IJ.:.L�- �,.,� V4V'L ..j'�'G.�v ✓J�.�X �'.L ,4C�Y.�..:.,LJ�::.: -_1 e`�i � J 3 - 20 .4f,' �. , Ci /mot• , 7,1L-t.Cl 6 _ 04 , construction would occur within 25 feet of the edge of Tukwila Pond, thereby protecting the riparian border area. o An increased buffer (larger than 45 feet) between the southwest corner of the pond and the development would be provided. o Buildings would serve as a barrier between the riparian edge and day -to -day human activity, such as cars, lights, noise, etc. o Uncontrolled human activity (i.e., fishing) would be restricted from the west side of the pond. o Buildings would be designed with natural blending colors and non -glare glass. Natural colors and non -glare glass provide a non - obtrusive or non - impacting facade facing the wetland. Birds are not as likely to fly directly into the windows when they are not reflective because they view the buildings as solid objects. o The existing pond would be interconnected to rooftop drainage from at least one building, to provide sufficient surface water to sustain this wetland, thus duplicating existing conditions. o Fencing no higher than four feet, would be provided between parking lots and the pond to increase the level of buffering of car noise and light. o Enhanced planting of the wetland buffer area would include trees, shrubs and open meadow grass to provide a diversified habitat, and a mixed physical and visual separation between the edge of the development and edge of the water. o New, primarily ornamental, landscaping would be introduced on the developed portions of the site. o A walkway could be provided for bird watching and other regulated pond interests, if desired by the City of Tukwila, the Washington Department of Wildlife, and local conservation groups, such as the Seattle Audubon Society. This walkway should, however, be restricted to the south side of the pond where view access is available without disturbing existing trees or shrubs. o Educational signs along any proposed trail or vantage points could be provided to increase public awareness of the types of animals using such areas, etc. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS A majority of the primarily upland plant communities would be eliminated under the proposal. 0 6„we_eect...._ 3 - 21 A--�'4" �^�� -k e-- AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The project site lies within the City of Tukwila 's Central Business District, an urbanized area of predoininan ly one- to three -story buildings including shopping centers with surface parking lots, warehouses, and office parks. A- taller (i.e., up to eight- story) office buildings and hotels have c i<- The 4.1-acre is -urr_n"t'vacant. Much of its surface was covered with grasses and low shrubs. Additional clean fill from the Southcenter Plaza: Phase I development was placed over the northern two - thirds of the site in July and August of Surface elevations of the new fill - - - -- - =- 28 ® 29•, while the souern o e -third of the site remains' =� elevation 19 20, The edge of the new fill slopes dow oward the edge of Tukwila Pond which has a normal water surface elevation of about 13 feet. The new fill surface is relatively flat, and the mound is encircled by filter- fabric fences, coming no closer than 25 feet to the edge of the pond/ A row of trees, mos y co ^•••s an a s, - e eastern boundary of ukwila Pond adjacent to Andover Park West. To the northwest of the site is the eight -story Doubletree Suites Hotel; to the southwest are one - story, retail and commercial buildings, all of which are surrounded by parking lots extending west to Southcenter Parkway. Neither the project site nor Tukwila Pond are visible from properties along Southcenter Boulevard, except for views from the upper floors of the Doubletree Suites Hotel. Directly north of the site is the recently constructed one -story Southcenter Plaza: Phase I. This complex of retail shops, restaurants and a department store (Target) extends east to Andover Park West. Only partial views of Tukwila Pond are available between the buildings and across almost 300 feet of parking spaces from Strander Boulevard. South of the site is the one -story Bon Marche Warehouse Store, blocking all views from this direction. While the best automobile and pedestrian views of Tukwila Pond are from the east, along Andover Park West, the trees along the pond's east perimeter partially block views from this vantage point. Although visible from the more distant hillside to the east of the valley, and the much closer ones to the north and west, above Interstates 405 and 5, the site and pond appear as a low open area in the middle of almost two square miles of flat roofs and parking lots. Surrounded on three sides by development, views from the site are to the east across Tukwila Pond to the distant hills. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The project site would be altered from undeveloped land to the proposed hotel and restaurant complex (refer to Figure 3). The proposed hotel would be four stories, and the proposed restaurant would be one story high. The proposal's height, bulk and scale would be consistent with other existing development in the area. As mentioned previously, several up -to- eight -story office ands: hotel buildings exist in the area, including the adjacent Doubletree Suites Hotel. Landscaping would be provided which:. would soften the project's appearance. Exteriors of the hotel and restaurant would be finished in high quality materials compatible with existing commercial uses in the area, subject to approval by the city's architectural review committee. (Refer to Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7.) Views Since the commercial uses to the west are generally oriented toward Southcenter Boulevard, the proposal would not affect their views. The Doubletree Suites Hotel does have views toward Tukwila Pond from the upper floors; these views would be partially blocked on lower floors by the proposed hotel. Because of the distance across Tukwila Pond, the existing trees along the pond's eastern edge, and the proposed preservation of the trees in a 25 -foot buffer adjacent to the pond, portions of the upper floors of the hotel would be visible from vehicles and pedestrians traveling on Andover Park West (see Figure 21). When viewed from the hillsides to the north and west, the project would combine with the profiles of the existing major stores at Southcenter and the nearby hotels and office buildings, and-would appear as part of the major activity center in "downtown" Tukwila. Views from the site itself outward to the east (the only unobstructed direction) across Tukwila Pond to the valley's east hills should improve due to the elevated viewpoints, particularly from the upper floors of the proposed hotel. ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 - Design Alternative Alternative 1, with a reconfigured hotel and restaurant, would have three more stories and slightly lower the square footage. Aesthetic impacts would be greater than those from the proposal (see Figure 22). However, the building would have a smaller footprint than the proposal and thus would not impact the full length of the site. Alternative 2 - Office Alternative Alternative 2, the five - story office building, would result in a. longer, slightly taller building profile than the proposal. This would slightly increase view impacts particularly from Andover 3 - 23 +`• Proposed Underground Parking Proposed Restaurant Proposed Hotel Tukwila Pond Source: Mithun Partners, 1991 Proposed Action SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Figure 21 Post - Development View fi ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE, 2 • H iai a*fi : ro'm^sar.+o .»,'.� ^•°i Source: Mithun Partners, 1991 . °'e1,!.,1:r".. Alternatives SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Figure 22 Post - Development View Park West. As with the proposal, the building would appear as a continuous mass with no visual breaks (refer to Figure 22). Alternative 3 - 50 -Foot Buffer Alternative This alternative would require construction of a building at least 7 stories in height, perhaps more to accommodate the minimum parking requirements. The building would be similar in length to the proposal. Because of the increased height, the: view impacts from Andover Park West would be greater. As with the proposal, this building would appear as a continuous mass with little visual relief (refer to Figure 22). Alternative 4 - No- Action Alternative The No- Action Alternative would not directly alter current views to or from the site. As the existing trees grow and new ones spread and rise, views from the east and those from the site to the east over and beyond Tukwila Pond would diminish. MITIGATING MEASURES o The project would use materials and colors compatible with the existing commercial land uses in the area. o The proposed 25 -foot buffer adjacent to Tukwila Pond, which includes a number of existing trees, would provide a natural screen for the lower parts of the structure when viewed from Andover Park West. o Landscaping of the developed portions of the site would enhance compatibility with the surrounding developed areas, as well as the riparian zone and Tukwila Pond to the east. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS o None are anticipated. TRANSPORTATION INTRODUCTION (Pa-') The following section is a summary of the Traffic Analysis prepared for this proposal by Christopher Brown & Associates, December 1990. The complete report is included as Appendix F to this DEIS. A previous study of the site was conducted by Christopher Brown & Associates for the Southcenter Plaza: Phase II Expanded Environmental Checklist in May 1989, and subsequent supplemental studies were submitted to the City in December 1989 for the Mikami /Schofield project. These studies are available for review at the City. The study area for the current traffic analysis includes Southcenter Parkway from South 180th Street to the northernmost freeway off - ramp /signalized intersection on the Southcenter Shopping Center driveway close to the Nordstrom and Frederick & Nelson department stores; also reviewed in the study is the arterial network, particularly the intersections of Andover Park West at Strander Boulevard and Strander Boulevard at 58th Place South. Traffic data used for the analysis is from 1988 mechanical counts by the City of Tukwila's Department of Public Works. The data were updated with traffic counts from the 1989 Mikami /Schofield project study, also performed by Christopher Brown & Associates. Because properties in the central business district have almost all reached total buildout, no continued area -wide traffic growth was assumed in the 1990 Christopher Brown & Associates study for the design year (1991). AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Existing Road System The project site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of 58th Place South and South 168th Street, if these streets were extended. Southcenter Parkway runs 750 feet to the west of the site; Strander Boulevard runs 750 feet to the north. Southcenter Parkway serves as the primary north -south regional arterial for this area and is 5 lanes adjacent to the site. Strander Boulevard is a 4 -lane, major east -west arterial. Both serve the City of Tukwila's central business district, which includes a dense mix of commercial uses including Southcenter Mall (a major regional shopping mall), as well as smaller shopping and service centers, individual retail and service outlet stores, office buildings, and hotels. Andover Park West is a north - south, 4 -lane secondary arterial that lies east of Tukwila Pond and carries significantly lower traffic volumes than either Southcenter Parkway or Strander Boulevard (refer to Figure 2) . 3 - 27 Traffic Volumes Current traffic volumes are described in Figure 23 for average weekday noon peak hour, and Figure 24 for average weekday PM peak hour. These figures and all other traffic figures are schematic diagrams and reflect the hourly traffic volumes, by direction. Estimated increases in traffic volume resulting from the Christmas season peak shopping period (mid- November through Christmas) are based on 1988 count data measured at several locations on the arterial network by City of Tukwila engineers. The measured increase in Christmas season traffic over non - Christmas season traffic during the noon peak hour is expected to be about 14 percent, while the PM peak hour will increase by about 12 percent. (See Appendix F for details). Levels of Service 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 one's own speed or the ability to change lanes or overtake at will), down to the worst or lowest level of service F. This LOS is the lowest possible level and is one where traffic is severely constrained (traffic jams and long delays). Levels of service for current average weekday and Christmas shopping season, both noon and PM peak -hour traffic conditions . without the project are listed in Table 1. All signals are set with 120 second cycle lengths. 3 - 28 Q' _ S 7 -----•- z3S� f3zZ } i-28/0 4b/ I i 1 1 ..-., sM �N t Klickitat Drive M t 5'9 RAN z35 -.-- 360 s�1 tr SB rM Southcenter Parkway co 168th Street Source: Christopher Brown & Associates, 1991 113 +I. _L 209 ADZ — -•-- 4S2 119 tr� Strander Boulevard Andover Park West S 180th Street SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Figure 23 Current Traffic Volumes - Noon Peak Hour Klickitat Drive 248 58th Place C.) 168th Street Etli 14s _ I l i 14_ 434 274 —♦ •.-- 547 3-11 r ' Nre) Southcenter Parkway Source: Christopher Brown & Associates, 1991 Andover Park West ?Al) 380 —+ '•-- 544 57 I rf- 4° Q) Strander Boulevard 41 r S 180th Street SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Figure 24 Current Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour Intersection Table 1 LEVELS OF SERVICE Average Weekday Christmas Season Noon PM Peak Noon PM Peak Southcenter Parkway/ Southcenter Access Road B B C C Southcenter Parkway/ Klickitat Drive C C C C Southcenter Parkway/ Northbound I -5 Off Ramp E D F D Southcenter Parkway/ Strander Boulevard C D C E Southcenter Parkway/ S. 180th Street F F F F Strander Boulevard/ Andover Park West D D D D Southcenter Parkway/ S. 168th Street E F E F Strander Boulevard/ 58th Place South N/A N/A N/A N/A Source: Christopher Brown & Associates, 1990. No LOS values are indicated for the Strander Boulevard /58th Place South intersection because it currently is not a completed intersection (58th Place South has not yet been built). See Appendix F for LOS calculations. Accident Analysis Accident data provided by the Tukwila Department of Public Works have been analyzed to determine the frequency of accidents correctable by signalization or channelization. These types of accidents involve failure to yield right -of -way, the most common being right -angle collisions. The other types of accidents involved are generally rear -end collisions and single - vehicle accidents usually involving property damage. The accident data are shown in Table 2. The accident data combined with the estimated yearly traffic volumes at each intersection show that at the majority of intersections, the accidents appear to be random occurrences. This is confirmed by the types of accidents most commonly occurring. Rear - end -type accidents are common as are fixed - object collisions, neither of which is correctable with traffic signals. Right -angle accidents are also common; however, the frequency of right -angle accidents is very low. ) Intersection Southcenter Parkway/ Southcenter Access Southcenter Parkway/ Klickitat Drive Table 2 ACCIDENT DATA Year Number Description 1987 1 right angle 1 fixed object 1989 1 right angle 1987 1 right angle 5 rear end 1 other 1988 3 right angle 1 rear end 1 fixed object 1989 2 right angle 1 rear end Southcenter Parkway/ 1987 3 right angle Strander Boulevard 3 rear end 1 fixed object 1988 1 right angle 1 rear end 1989 3 rear end Southcenter Parkway/ none recorded S. 168th Street Southcenter Parkway/ S. 180th Street Strander Boulevard/ Andover Park West 1987 1 right angle 2 rear end 1 fixed object 1988 2 rear end 1 backing 1989 2 right angle 1 fixed object 1987 2 right angle 1 rear end 1988 1 backing 1989 1 right angle Strander Boulevard/ 1988 7 right angle S.W. Southcenter Access 1 pedestrian 1989 6 right angle 1 rear end Source: Christopher Brown & Associates, 1990. The exception to this assessment is the intersection of Strander Boulevard and the southwest Southcenter access (near 58th Place S). This intersection has had a significant number of right - angle accidents, enough to meet the accident requirements for signal warrants (warrant 6). However, the accident data is not entirely current, and the major source of and the major source of accide intersection, left- turning vehicles, can now utilize the recently installed traffic signal at 61st Street S. The new signal at 61st Street S. is expected to lower the left -turn volumes at the inter - section of Strander Boulevard and the southwest Southcenter access, thus lowering the likelihood of accidents. In general, the signalized intersections surrounding the project site have a very good safety record; the number of accidents is low and can generally be attributed to driver inattention rather than inherent danger due to the intersection design. This should also be the case at the intersection of S. 168th Street, provided a signal is installed. The intersection of 58th Place S. will either function as a right -in right -out driveway or as a signalized intersection and thus will not face the same hazardous conditions associated with signalized left - turning traffic. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Proposed Road System The proposal would provide access to the site directly from 58th Place S. and in association with Strander Boulevard and South - center Parkway from S. 168th Street. The primary access would be from the south end of the site to Southcenter Parkway via an extension of South 168th Street across the dedicated right -of -way shared with The Bon Marche Home Improvement Clearance Center. Secondary access would be from the north end of the site via an extension of 58th Place South to Strander Boulevard. The intersection at Southcenter Parkway and S. 168th Street has been recommended for signalization in the traffic study for the "Schofield project ". As that project is nearing full occupancy, the traffic signal should be forthcoming. Design of the driveway to Southcenter Parkway would consist of one left- turn -only lane and one right- turn -only lane. The existing two -way, left -turn lane on Southcenter Parkway would remain and would be used by left- turning traffic from the driveways as a refuge /merge lane allowing the left -turn movement to be completed in two steps, effectively preventing through traffic approaching from the right from interfering with merging traffic. A new traffic control light would also be installed. The secondary access /exit onto Strander Boulevard would be operated as a right -in, right -out only driveway due to its close proximity to the east driveway of the Security Pacific Bank on Strander. Channelization would be provided at the Strander Boulevard /58th Avenue South intersection to enhance the right -in, right -out condition. 3 - 33 Traffic Volumes Trip generation data for the proposal was derived from land use codes published in the ITE document Trip Generation, 4th Edition 1988. As Table 3 shows, the hotel would generate 1,261 vehicles on an average weekday, and the proposed restaurant would generate 719 vehicles. The noon inbound vehicles would be the highest . hourly volume for both the hotel and restaurant (55 vehicles hotel, 46 vehicles - restaurant); the PM outbound vehicles would be the lowest (36 vehicles - hotel, 17 vehicles - restaurant). Table 3 TRIP GENERATION FOR SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Hotel Time Interval Average Weekday Daily Traffic Noon Inbound Noon Outbound PM Inbound PM Outbound Restaurant Time Interval Average Weekday Daily Traffic Noon Inbound Noon Outbound PM Inbound PM Outbound Source: Volume 1,261 vehicles per day 55 vehicles per hour 46 vehicles per hour 42 vehicles per hour 36 vehicles per hour Volume 719 vehicles per day 46 vehicles per hour 22 vehicles per hour 36 vehicles per hour 17 vehicles per hour Christopher Brown & Associates, 1990. Traffic Distribution The site - generated traffic distribution, as a percent of all new site traffic, is described in Figure 25. As can be seen from this diagram, a full 50 percent of the site - generated traffic would head north on Southcenter Parkway. Considering only project - generated traffic, the assignments to the arterial system for the noon hour and PM peak hour of the average weekday are shown in Figures 26 and 27. Noon and PM peak hour project - generated traffic for the Christmas season are shown in Appendix F (Figures 9 and 10). 2S/ Klickitat Drive 11 50 ir S. 168th Stree Southcenter Parkway Andover Park West Strander Boulevard 20/ S. 180th Street 5/p } Source: Christopher Brown & Associates, 1991 N Figure 25 SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Distribution of Traffic Klickitat Drive 58th Place 1 N 168th Street center Parkway 0 V) Andover Park West /4 0 zl Strander Boulevard 4Si i �1 Q' Q' 0 t_ 31 Source: Christopher Brown & Associates, 1991 S 180th Street SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Figure 26 1991 Traffic Volumes - Noon Peak Hour 1 1 1 1 11 I r' m M Klickitat Drive 58th Place 1st Place 11 +— 16 tr ~� Strander Boulevard 168th Street 35" 41 r tl Source: Christopher Brown & Associates, 1991 S 180th Street N Lc- 24 '1tr 3 1 SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Figure 27 1991 Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour 1 s Traffic Assignment from Nearby Projects The assignment of traffic from the two adjacent projects which are nearing full occupancy (Southcenter Plaza: Phase I and the Mikami /Schofield development), were included in the 1991 study by Christopher Brown & Associates in order to assess their potential impacts on the arterial system for the noon hour and PM peak hour of the average weekday. The noon and PM peak hour of the Christmas season are also depicted. See Appendix F (Figures 11 through 18) for calculations and graphic depictions of the trip assignments for these two projects. With the project built, including traffic from the two adjacent projects, the average weekday traffic volumes and Christmas shopping season traffic volumes would have the traffic demands shown in Appendix F (Figures 19 through 22). Levels of Service (LOS) When the proposal is complete and the two adjacent projects finished, the arterial levels of service for the noon peak hour and the PM peak hour (in both average weekday and in the Christmas shopping season) would not change along Southcenter Parkway at the intersections of Southcenter access road; Klickitat Drive; S. 180th Street; and S. 168th Street. The level of service at Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West would also experience no increase, as can be seen by comparing Tables 1 and 4. The new intersection at Strander Boulevard and 58th Place South would be a secondary access point and thus would result in the highest LOS ratings LOS A for average weekday and Christmas . season peaks). A comparison of Tables 1 and 4 indicates that conditions at the intersection of S. 168th and Southcenter Parkway, which is currently operating at an inadequate level of service, would not change as a result of project implementation. Conditions at the intersection of S. 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway, currently operating at LOS F, would not worsen as a result of the project. The proposal would not, by itself, cause a shift in the LOS, but would contribute, along with congestion caused by adjacent new projects, to the following shifts: a one -step decrease (from LOS E and LOS D to LOS F and LOS E, for the average weekday noon and p.m. peak periods, and from LOS D to LOS E during the Christmas p.m. peak period) at Southcenter Parkway at the northbound I -5 off ramp; and a one -step decrease (from LOS C and LOS E to LOS D and LOS F) at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard at both the noon and p.m. peak hour during the Christmas season (Table 4). 3 - 38 Intersection Table 4 LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT Average Christmas Weekday Season Noon PM Peak Noon PM Peak Southcener Parkway/ Southcenter Access Road B B C C Southcenter Parkway/ Klickitat Drive C C C C Southcenter Parkway/ Northbound I -5 Off Ramp F(E) E(D) F E(D) Southcenter Parkway/ Strander Boulevard C D D(C) F(E) Southcenter Parkway/ S. 180th Street F F F F Strander Boulevard/ Andover Park West D D D D Southcenter Parkway/ S. 168th Street E F E F Strander Boulevard/ 58th Place South A A A A Source: Christopher Brown & Associates, 1990. Condition in parenthesis is existing level of service at intersection and time period indicated. Queue Length The mean queue length is the number of vehicles that wait at the intersection between signal green phases. The queue length of a signalized intersection is a function of arrival rate and signal cycle length. The lane groups examined by Christopher Brown & Associates are the left- turning movements at all the intersections in the study area. The mean queue lengths for the relevant approaches based on 1991 PM peak hour are listed in Table 5, as calculated according to methodology developed by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). Table 5 MEAN QUEUE LENGTH Intersection Number of Vehicles Southcenter Parkway /Southcenter Access WB* 10 Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive NB 40 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd. SB 20 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd. WB 27 Southcenter Parkway /South 168th Street SB 2 Southcenter Parkway /South 180th Street SB 9 Strander Blvd. /Andover Park West SB 18 Strander Blvd. /Andover Park West NB 15 * WB = Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound. Source: Christopher Brown & Associates, 1990. The storage capacity for these intersections, as measured by Christopher Brown & Associates, is listed in Table 6. Table 6 VEHICLE STORAGE CAPACITY Capacity in Intersection Vehicles Southcenter Parkway /Southcenter Access WB 18 Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive NB 22 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd. SB 20 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd. WB * 0 Southcenter Parkway /South 168th Street SB 6 Southcenter Parkway /South 180th Street SB 18 Strander Blvd. /Andover Park West SB * 0 Strander Blvd. /Andover Park West NB * 0 * No separate lane group. Source: Christopher Brown & Associates, 1990. As Tables 5 and 6 indicate, most intersections have sufficient storage capacity for normal conditions, in both noon and PM peak hours, with the exception of Southcenter Parkway at Klickitat Drive. However, the equation to determine the mean queue length is based on balanced signal cycle lengths for each approach, which is not the case at this intersection. The northbound left - turning movement is assigned 50 percent of the cycle time; normally, this movement would be assigned approximately 15 percent of the signal timing. In reality, the arrival rate for left- turning traffic is 20 vehicles per minute, translating to a 20- vehicle queue, with storage space for 22 vehicles. Storage i 1 1 i i capacity of 22 vehicles is adequate for 1991. During the Christmas season, the arrival rate increases to 23 vehicles per minute, which is above the available storage capacity; this amount of vehicles is likely to be sufficient to severely impact the function of the remainder of the intersection which is visually noticeable in peak shopping times. Additional study of signal operations at this intersection will be addressed by the City of Tukwila (ref. CH2M Hill study currently underway). Parking On -site parking would provide spaces for 230 vehicles, 179 in the underground garage, 51 as surface stalls. _ The proposal would meet City of Tukwila parking requirements by providing 150 spaces for the hotel (code requires one space per room) and 80 spaces for the restaurant (code requires one space per 100 square feet). Truck Access The driveway arrangements associated. with Southcenter Plaza: Phase II, including 58th Place South and South 168th Street, would primarily act to circulate patron traffic to and from the site. Secondarily, the interior street system would provide delivery access for the hotel and restaurant, as well as the Target store located on the adjacent property. Given the narrow right -of -way and the small curb radius at the intersection of 58th Place South and Strander Boulevard, truck traffic would be limited to the South 168th Street intersection. Although truck volumes would be relatively light, this would greatly benefit the 58th Place South intersection by not interfering with the traffic flow on Strander Boulevard as trucks enter and exit. The roadway geometrics suitable for heavy vehicles, including curb radius parameters, would be accounted for during the design phase of the South 168th Street extension. The intersection of South 168th Street and Southcenter Parkway is suitable for heavy vehicles, since it is currently handling this type of traffic from several warehouses on adjacent properties. Truck loading movements associated with the Target store and Southcenter Plaza: Phase II would probably have limited impact on traffic flow around the site. The loading docks for the Target store are recessed and are thus clear of the traffic stream, and the delivery schedule for Southcenter Plaza: Phase II is limited due to the lack of retail operations. Signal Warrants The two access intersections for Southcenter Plaza: Phase II were examined for the possibility of meeting signal warrants sometime after 1992. The intersection of 58th Place South and Strander Boulevard would not meet signal warrants due to extremely low side - street traffic 3 - 41 volumes. The intersection of South 168th Street and Southcenter Parkway has a much greater chance of meeting signal warrants. The peak -hour volume warrant is intended to be applied when traffic conditions are such that, for one hour of the day, minor street traffic suffers undue traffic delay in entering or crossing the major street. In the case of the South 168th Street /Southcenter Parkway intersection, South 168th Street is considered the minor street and Southcenter Parkway the major street. During the noon peak design hour, there would be 54 site - generated vehicles plus an additional 50 vehicles from adjacent property (including Toys -R -Us, Washington Mutual Bank and the Doubletree Suites Hotel) accessing South 168th Street, via the extension of that street, for a total of 104 vehicles in one direction on South 168th Street. There would be 2,234 vehicles traveling in the noon peak- design hour on Southcenter Parkway. These volumes meet the requirements for installing a signal at the intersection of South 168th Street and Southcenter Parkway, and a signal is proposed. Pedestrian Safety Southcenter Plaza: Phase II may generate a small amount of pedestrian traffic due to the hotel and restaurant on site; however, because of the nature of these facilities and their location, the volumes should be light. The pedestrian traffic that is generated would be protected from the vehicular traffic movements within the site and on the adjacent road system. A series of sidewalks and crosswalks would be provided within the site and at the access driveways to the adjacent properties. Pedestrian traffic wishing to cross Strander Boulevard would be directed to the 61st Street South intersection where a protected crosswalk is provided. Pedestrian traffic wishing to cross Southcenter Parkway would have access to the crosswalks provided with the proposed signal at South 168th Street. ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 - Design Alternative This alternative would reconfigure the proposed hotel and restaurant; the total number of parking spaces would remain the same. The building height would increase from 4 to 7 stories, the square footage would increase, but the building footprint would decrease. Access routes to the vicinity of the site would be identical. Four additional curb cuts would be provided, increasing the access to the site. Impacts from this alternative would be very similar to those described for the proposal. 1 i J Alternative 2 - Office Building Alternative The 5 -story office building alternative would provide 350 off - street parking stalls in compliance with City codes. The expected trip generations for a development of this type as derived using ITE methodology are shown in Table 7. Table 7 TRIP GENERATION, OFFICE ALTERNATIVE Time Interval Volume A.W.D.T.* Noon Inbound Noon Outbound PM Inbound PM Outbound 257 vehicles per hour * Average Weekday Daily Traffic 2,042 vehicles per day 218 vehicles per hour 178 vehicles per hour 48 vehicles per hour Source: Christopher Brown & Associates, 1990. Average weekday daily traffic volumes would be 62 vehicles higher than under the proposal; noon inbound, noon outbound, and PM outbound would also be higher (117 vehicles, 110 vehicles, and 204 vehicles more than under the proposal, respectively). However, the PM inbound traffic volume would be lower for Alternative Two (30 vehicles less; see Appendix F). Level of Service was studied for Strander Boulevard, both at the proposed intersection with 58th Place South and at the intersection with Andover Park West. The latest traffic study by Christopher Brown & Associates, in Appendix F, indicates that only about 20 percent of the daily traffic volumes coming or going from the project site would use Strander Boulevard. So even though Alternative Two could produce over 200 more vehicle trips (PM outbound) than the proposal, only about 52 would be added to the existing traffic on Strander Boulevard. According to the traffic study, this number of vehicles is not sufficient to degrade the intersection condition below LOS D. Alternative 3 - 50 -Foot Buffer Alternative The hotel /restaurant alternative with a fifty -foot buffer would produce identical impacts to those described for the proposal because the traffic generating characteristics of this alternative would be the same as the proposed action. 3 - 43 1 1 jJ Alternative 4 - No- Action Alternative Under this alternative, traffic patterns would continue as described for the existing condition, which also equates with the traffic expected for the design year, 1991. MITIGATING MEASURES o The proposal would provide access to the site from Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway. o An actuated traffic signal would be installed at the intersection of the site's entrance on Southcenter Parkway at South 168th Street as recommended in the Mikami /Schofield traffic study and verified by the signal warrant analysis described in this section. Because this traffic signal would benefit other commercial properties in the neighborhood, costs borne by the proponent would be calculated on a fair -share basis. o Adding a combined left -right lane at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard on the westbound approach (to combat the potential drop to LOS 'F' during the Christmas season p.m. hour peak) would raise the level of service to 'D' at this peak hour; this would require widening both streets. o Truck traffic would be limited to the South 168th Street /Southcenter Parkway driveway to prohibit pick -ups and deliveries via the 58th Place. South /Strander Boulevard driveway, which is inadequate for these purposes. o Sufficient roadway design for accommodating heavy vehicles would be ensured at the design phase of the South 168th Street extension project. o Sidewalks and crosswalks would be provided on -site and at the access driveways to promote pedestrian safety. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS o The proposal would increase traffic volumes on the local roadway network. Implementation of recommended mitigating measures would provide for acceptable levels of service at all of the studied intersections. 3 - 44 APPENDICES SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: II. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement • • • • i 1 APPENDIX A DISTRIBUTION LIST 1 a 1 J i APPENDIX B SEPA SCOPING PROCESS L -t APPENDIX C ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT �t APPENDIX C ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT In the following list, elements of the environment marked "reviewed" are discussed in this Draft EIS. The list is based . upon the City's Public Scoping Process. I. Natural Environment A. Earth 1. Geology Reviewed. 2. Soils Reviewed. 3. Topography Reviewed. 4. Unique physical features Reviewed. 5. Erosion /enlargement Reviewed. B. Air 1. Air Quality N/A 2. Odor N/A 3. Climate N/A C. Water 1. Surface water Reviewed. movement /quantity /quality 2. Runoff /absorption Reviewed. 3. Floods Reviewed. 4. Groundwater Reviewed. movement /quantity /quality 5. Public Water Supply N/A D. Plants and Animals 1. Habitat Reviewed. 2. Unique Species Reviewed. 3. Fish or wildlife migration routes N/A E. Energy and Natural Resources 1. Amount required /rate of use efficiency 2. Source /availability rate of use /efficiency 3. Nonrenewable resources 4. Conservation and renewable resources 5. Scenic Resources II. Built Environment A. Environmental Health 1. Noise 2. Risk of explosion N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Releases or potential releases N/A to the environment affecting public health, such as toxic or hazardous materials B. Land and Shoreline Use 1. Relationship to existing land use plans and to estimated population 2. Housing 3. Light and glare N/A 4. Aesthetics 5. Recreation 6. Historic and cultural preservation N/A N/A Reviewed. N/A N/A 7. Agricultural crops N/A 1 C. Transportation 1. Transportation systems Reviewed. 2. Vehicular traffic Reviewed. 3. Waterborne, rail, N/A and air traffic 4. Parking Reviewed. 5. Movement /circulation of Reviewed. people or goods 6. Traffic hazards Reviewed. D. Public Services and Utilities 1. Fire N/A 2. Police N/A 3. Schools N/A 4. Parks or other recreational N/A facilities 5. Maintenance N/A 6. Communications N/A 7. Water /Stormwater Reviewed. 8. Sewer /Solid Waste N/A 9. Other governmental services N/A or utilities APPENDIX D SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS Geo .„0 Engineers The Ferris Company 10655 Northeast Fourth Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Ms. Gretchen Brunner August 7, 1990 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists Report Supplemental Geotechnical Services EIS Preparation Proposed Southcenter Plaza Phase II Tukwila, Washington, for Spieker Partners File No. 1192 - 060 -BO1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our supplemental geotechnical consulting services in support of your preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Southcenter Plaza Phase II develop- ment. The project site is located behind an existing hotel and several retail stores located east of Southcenter Parkway in the area between Strander Boulevard and the South 168th Street right -of -way. Our understand- ing of the project has been developed on the basis of discussions with Ms. Gretchen Brunner of the Ferris Company and Mr. Ronald Van Der Veen of Mithun Partners. Development of the site will entail construction of 58th Place South from Strander Boulevard to provide site access. We understand that alternatives for site use include the design proposal and two alternative development plans. The design proposal consists of two separate structures; a 73,000 square foot, seven -story hotel and an 8,000 square foot, one -story restaurant. A partially buried, 36,000 square foot parking garage with dimensions 575 feet by 70 feet and a finish floor grade of about GeoEngineers, Inc. 2405 140th Ave. NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone (206) 746 -5200 Fax. (206) 746 -5068 7 1 1 1 1 1 I i Geoff Engineers The Ferris Company August 7, 1990 Page 2 Elevation 17 will be constructed which will extend beneath, between and beyond the hotel and restaurant structures. The easterly edge of the parking garage will parallel a 25 -foot buffer zone adjacent to the existing Tukwila Pond. Additional surface parking will be constructed over some of the remaining site area. The first design alternative would consolidate the restaurant, hotel, and parking garage into one large structure located adjacent to the southwest corner of the existing pond. The floor areas of each structure would be unchanged from the design proposal. The second design alternative consists of a four story, 140,000 square foot office building with plan dimensions of approximately 575 feet by 70 feet. The long axis would run parallel to a 25 -foot buffer zone adjacent to the existing Tukwila Pond. A two -story parking garage with a lower floor grade of about Elevation 17 would be constructed beneath the structure. The remaining site area will be used for surface parking. SCOPE We previously provided geotechnical engineering services for the Phase I development of this property and preliminary consultation for planning Phase II. Our Phase I reports described the geologic character of the site and provided geotechnical recommendations for site development. The purpose of these services is to address potential geotechnical impacts of the proposed alternatives. Our specific scope of services includes the following tasks: 1. General assessment and discussion of surface and subsurface conditions at the site. 2. Assessment of the potential impacts of the alternatives. Our assessment will include a discussion of potential settlement impacts affecting surrounding facilities resulting from site grading and construction activities if the property is developed. 3. Discussion of potential mitigating measures which could be implemented to reduce or eliminate the environmental impacts identified. Geo0 Engineers The Ferris Company August 7, 1990 . Page 3 4 Attendance at one meeting to discuss our findings. 5. Preparation of a letter report summarizing our activities and findings. SITE DESCRIPTION SURFACE CONDITIONS The site is presently vacant, has an area of approximately four acres, is covered with grasses, brambles, and small trees. The site was previously filled to about Elevation 19 or 20 a number of years ago. Additional fill derived from the Southcenter Plaza Phase I development was placed over the northern two- thirds of the site in July and August 1989. Surface elevations of the new fill are about Elevation 28 or 29, while the southern one -third of the site remains at about Elevation 19 or 20. The edge of the fill slopes down to the edge of the Tukwila pond, which has a water surface elevation of about 13 to 14 feet. The fill surfaces are relatively flat. Significant structures in the site vicinity include a one -story Target Store to the north, a seven -story hotel to the northwest, a one -story Toys R Us store to the west, a one -story strip of retail shops south of Toys R Us, and a warehouse to the south. The site is bounded on the east by Tukwila Pond. The pond depth ranges up to 3 to 4 feet, based on a survey conducted in November 1986 when the surface elevation of the pond was 13.5 feet. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS A number of explorations have previously been performed on the property by Dames & Moore (1976 & 1986), and Hart - Crowser (1981). The following description is based partially on the exploration logs from those studies. The explorations indicate that five predominant soil layers underlie the site. From the existing ground surface downward, these layers consist of sand, silty sand and sandy silt fill, organic silt and peat, an intermediate layer of sand with silt, clayey silt, and another stratum of sand with silt. The surficial fill soils extend to depths of about 15 feet below existing surface grades in the southern one -third of the site, and 25 feet below existing surface grades in the northern two- thirds of the site. The Geo Engineers The - Ferris Company August 7,.1990 Page 4 fill is absent in the ponded water area of the site. The fill is underlain by compressible organic silt and peat extending to depths of about 26 to 38 feet. These soils are underlain by medium dense sand to depths ranging from about 52 to 72 feet. This sand stratum is, in turn, underlain by soft to medium stiff silt to about 106 to 112 feet. Medium dense to dense sand underlies the silt. GROUND WATER CONDITIONS The surface water elevation in the pond is about +13 feet. The pond surface elevation is generally representative of ground water elevations in filled portions of the site. Ground and surface water levels are expected to vary seasonally. POTENTIAL IMPACTS - EARTH GENERAL Based on our review of available information, we conclude that development of the site is feasible for the design proposal or either of the alternatives. Conventional practices can be used in the construction of roads, utilities and structures. The information presented in this report represents our general evaluation of surface and subsurface conditions for assessment of environmental impacts. Additional explorations will likely be necessary for design of specific development features. SITE GRADING The design proposal and alternatives will require both cutting and filling to developed portion of the site. Prior to beginning earthwork, all areas to be either filled or cut to a lower grade should be stripped of existing vegetation, topsoil, and organic materials. These materials should be wasted off site. Cuts made in the below building parking area will vary from about 3 feet in the southern one -third of the site to as much as 11 to 12 feet in the northern two- thirds. Fill will be acquired to establish grades between - the west edge of the below building parking area and the west property line in the southerly portion of the site. Much of the recently placed fill on <1I,. Geo Engineers The Ferris Company August 7, 1990 Page 5 the site consists of relatively clean granular soil which is suitable for use as structural fill. Therefore, we expect that little or no imported fill would be required. Any fill slopes along the easterly side of the site adjacent to the buffer zone should be graded to slope downward toward the pond at no steeper than 3 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) or should be retained by subsurface walls. No fill would be placed within the 25 -foot buffer zone along the shoreline of the pond (as defined when the water level is at Elevation 13). The proposed grades of the fill for the parking areas would match the adjacent grades for developed properties to the west as much as practical. The design proposal and alternatives would require the developed grades to be relatively flat (sloping between 1 and 3 percent). The primary impacts of grading activities for any of the development alternatives being considered will be disturbance of the existing vegetative cover and increased potential for erosion of the exposed soils until the planned construction is finished. MITIGATING MEASURES - SITE GRADING The following mitigating measures are suggested to limit the impacts of grading activities for either the proposed development or the alternatives: 1. Erosion should be controlled during construction by minimizing the area of soil exposed at any given time with pavement, placing tarps or revegetating, and installing temporary erosion - control facilities, such as Mirafi filter fabric fences, siltation/ sedimentation pond, hay bales, rock check dams, and temporary erosion control conveyance ditches. 2. City of Tukwila requirements for grading and excavation should be followed. 3. A 25- buffer of undisturbed existing vegetation should be maintained along the edge of the pond to lessen the potential for sedimentation in the pond. Geo%kb. Engineers The Ferris Company August 7, 1990 Page 6 4. All disturbed areas on site should be hydroseeded to minimize the potential for erosion if construction activities in those areas do not begin within thirty days after disturbance. 5. Storm drainage from the site should be collected and diverted into the pond where the water will be biofiltered and discharge into the downstream storm drainage system leading to the Green River. Catch basins should incorporate a "T" design to operate as an effective oil /water separator. FOUNDATION SUPPORT The design proposal and alternatives will involve constructing the future buildings over a parking level with a finish floor grade of about Elevation 17. The hotel and office structures will likely require pile support. The restaurant is expected to be supported on medium- length piles or, possibly, on shallow foundations. Pile foundations will extend into the intermediate or deep sand layers underlying the site depending on structural loads and the settlement tolerance of the structures. The seven -story hotel building is expected to require deep foundation support. Three- to four -story structures can probably be supported on piles which terminate in the sand stratum which underlies the site between depths of about 30 and 60 feet. Piles founded in the intermediate sand layer can be either driven piles or cast -in -place (augercast) piles. In the latter case, there will be no significant ground vibrations generated by installation of the piles. For driven piles, "felt" vibrations due to pile driving would likely be noticeable within a distance of about 300 to 400 feet. This could be reduced by predrilling. However, our experience is that the ground movements generated by pile driving in these soils will be below the threshold level that would potentially cause even minor structural cracking at distances greater than 40 to 50 feet. All existing structures are located beyond this distance. Thus, we conclude that the level of driving - induced ground motions would not be sufficient to be detrimental to existing structures even though the vibrations may be felt. Geo 0 Engineers The Ferris Company :August 7, 1990 Page 7 Structures supported on shallow foundations would require surcharging of the building footprints to compress the subsurface soils prior to construction. This would entail temporary placement of excess fill to simulate the effective areal load of the structure and leaving this fill in place long enough to reduce postconstruction settlements to acceptable amounts. Surcharge fill may also be desirable in the parking areas located in the southern one -third of the site which are presently below planned grades. The surcharge fill should be placed sufficiently far in advance of construction to allow the major portion of consolidation to occur. A typical surcharge period of about six months is anticipated based on our experience with the surcharge programs for Phase I of this development. MITIGATING MEASURES - FOUNDATION SUPPORT The following mitigating measures are suggested to limit foundation impacts of the proposed development and alternatives: 1. Augercast piles should be used for buildings which can be satisfactorily supported on piles founded in the intermediate sand stratum. 2. The schedule for driven piles, if needed, should be set to minimize noise impacts on business activities in the immediate area. Pile driving at night may be an alternative providing it does not result in seasonal disruption to nesting waterfowl in the pond. SETTLEMENT Settlements resulting from site filling are expected to be quite variable across the site. The major portion (about two- thirds) of these settlements would result from consolidation in the soils above the intermediate stratum of sand. The remainder would result from consolidation of the deeper silt layer. Settlements due to the influence of the new fill loads would extend beyond the actual limits of filling. Settlement measurements made by the City of Tukwila during filling for the Southcenter Plaza Phase I development indicate that areal settlements beyond a distance of 50 to 60 feet from the op Geo En neers The Ferris Company August 7,•1990 Page 8 edge of the new fill are negligible. Measurements made after placement of additional fill in the northern two- thirds of the Phase II site seem to confirm this. The remaining area which requires filling to establish design yard grades is farther removed from the Toys R Us building than the fill which was stockpiled in the northern two- thirds of the site. Thus, we conclude that the settlement impact on structures adjacent to the site will be minimal and not significant. MITIGATING MEASURES - SETTLEMENT Mitigating measures to limit potential settlement impacts of the proposed development and alternatives should include the following sequence of construction and monitoring of settlements should include the following sequence of construction and monitoring procedures: 1. Settlement markers would be placed prior to filling to monitor the rate and magnitude of settlements and to provide a basis for determining when the excess fill can be removed. 2. Settlement monitoring of all structures located within 100 feet of the edge of new fill should be performed. 3. Additional fill should be placed as early in the construction schedule as possible. 4. Excess fill equal to at least 50 percent of the final new long- term loading should be placed in building areas where spread footing support will be used and where more than about 2 feet of new fill is required to establish final site grades. 5. Final grading should take into account observed settlement patterns so that the planned surface drainage gradients are maintained as much as possible when any postconstruction settlements are experienced. Some subsequent maintenance and remedial grading should be anticipated if localized "bird baths," or small depressions that collect water, develop. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by The Ferris Company, Spieker Partners, and their consultants in preparing an Environmental Impact GeoVi Engineers The Ferris Company August 7, 1990 Page 9 i Statement for this project. This report is not intended for use in project design. Additional explorations, analyses and consultation will be necessary to provide specific geotechnical design criteria for structural support and other elements of the project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices followed in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, express or implied, should be understood We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this continuation of the Southcenter Plaza project. If there are any questions concerning this report, please call. JEB:JKT:db Four copies submitted cc: ••• Yours very truly, gineers, James• -E. Brigham, P.E. ct Manager Tuttle, P.E. Pxnc ipal Spieker Partners P.O. Box 97022 Bellevue, WA 98009 Attn: Mr. Walter S.Kaczynski, Jr. APPENDIX E SUPPLEMENTAL BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS i ______ (------- ,...6‹...,,, - .K -' ,. cy 1/4„,..,..4., e— RODE PROP for TUKWILA POND SITE KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON for The Ferris Company 10655 NE 4th, Suite 406 Bellevue, Washington 98004 by IES Associates - 1514 Muirhead Olympia, Washington 98502 TUKWILA POND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATEMENT PLANTS AND ANIMALS Plants: The plant communities on the proposed site have been significantly modified with the filling and stock - piling activity that took place on the site as authorized by the original permit issued by the City of Tukwila for the development of the proposed project. This fill was placed on top of an original fill that extended from the Double Tree Inn /Toys "R" Us parking lot on the west, to the edge of the pond on the east. The original fill created the pond and the steep vertical bank at the edge of the pond. The new fill created a bench that sets back from the pond. edge. With the newly placed fill, the original fill, and the pond bank, there are three distinct areas (Figure • ).� Vegetation on that portion of the old fill not covered by new material (i.e., a narrow 15 to 30 foot linear strip between the new fill and the top of the pond bank) is varied depending on the location. The northern end is dominated by a grass mix consisting of quackgrass (Agropyron spicatum), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), and red clover (Trifolium pratense) with intrusions of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor). In the low depressions at the toe of the fill, there is a mix of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), softrush (Juncus effusus), sierra rush (Juncus nevadensis), velvet -grass (Holcus lanatus), curly dock (Rumex crispus), cats -ear (Hypochaeris glabra), meadow foxtail (Alopecurus geniculatus), common velvet -grass ( Holcus mollis), and white clover (Trifolium repens) with the dominant plant being sierra rush. In the standing water areas where the drainage has been blocked by the fill and the filter- fabric fence, there is an increase in sierra rush and small patches bf reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). There are three small Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia).trees approximately. 1 to 3 feet tall starting to grow in this low area. The depression is approximately 10 feet wide and 120 feet long lying against the toe of the existing fill. There is evidence from the vegetation, for a distance of about 60 feet near the center of this depression, that the depression extends to the west under the existing fill. South of the depression, the vegetation was more typical of the level area in the north. It supports quackgrass, velvet - grass, cats -ear, dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and red clover with individual clumps of orchard grass. To the south where the fill extends to the curtain in one area, there is a mix of velvet - grass, red fescue (Festuca rubra), and smooth brome (Bromus enermis) with scattered patches of orchard grass, meadow foxtail, bearded wheatgrass (Agropyron caninum), and rat -tail 1 fescue (Festuca myuros). Throughout this area, there is a fairly substantial, but scattered mix of cats -ear and dandelion. Further to the south, the area becomes wet again and stands water. The dominant vegetation is sierra rush, softrush, velvet - grass, curly dock, and alsike clover (Trifolium dubium). This area was standing water on June 12, 1990. At the south end 1ti,) where the fill is shallower, there is evidence of standing water with softrush, sierra rush, and reed canarygrass growing through l& the shallow edge of the fill. The bank of Tukwila Pond along the face of the original fill is vegetated with a mixed forested canopy dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra) with clusters or individual black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) trees scattered throughout. Pacific willow ( Salix lasiandra) and Scouler's willow (Salix scouleriana) are growing along the edge of the water and form prostrate overhanging stands. Oregon ash, big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), sour cherry (Prunus cerasus), and domestic apple (Pyrus spp.) are scattered along the edge at the top of the bank. The dominant understory is Himalayan blackberry up to the open area where various grass mixes on the old fill become dominant. Additional plants growing in the understory are nootka rose, salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), bank -side horsetail (Eguisetum arvense), and reed canarygrass with scattered snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) and black hawthorn (Crataegus doualasii) growing along the outer edge. The water edge varies throughout the length of the proposed development site. At the north end, there is little vegetation in the water or overhanging the water. The dominant species is mostly upright alder and black cottonwood. To the south, there . is an extension of the willow edge out into the southwest corner of the pond. Water smartweed (Polygonum aauifolium) and nightshade (Solanum_dulcemara) form floating mats along the edge of the water at this point. The plant communities and values of this area that extended waterward of the toe of the fill bank were covered in the Environmental Impacts Statement of Phase I of this development and the (unpublished) Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed South 168th Street right -of -way along the south edge of the pond. The riparian tree /shrub buffer along the edge of the water has been isolated from the fill by a filter- fabric fence that has reduced siltation to a minimum. The 100 foot setbacks recommended by Jones & Stokes (Wetlands Inventory and City of Tukwila - Tukwila Water Resource and Buffer Recommendations, 1989) includes: (1) an area, approximately 10 to 15 feet wide, that encompasses the bank of Tukwila Pond, (2) that portion of the original fill that was not covered by the new fill and grading activities, and (3) approximately 75 feet of an area involved with the new grade and fill activities. The Jones & Stokes recommendations were based on the results of their wetland study for the City of Tukwila which included a literature survey. Buffer recommendations were based on the Washington Department of Wildlife, King County, and other jurisdiction recommendations. The proposed buffers vary depending on the classification of the specific wetland. Tukwila Pond is classified as a "high value" wetland. Under normal circumstances, 100 foot buffers are recommended for high value wetlands. The specific recommendation for wetlands that have been disturbed or have had portions of the buffers reduced for past developments, is that "no additional buffer encroachment be allowed ". Tukwila Pond (Wetland #9) was specifically addressed. Without a revegetation plan for the Jones & Stokes additional buffer, the area between the pond edge and any development would revert to a mixed invader forbe /grass community with the dominant plants being typical species found on abandoned areas in the vicinity. These normally include Canadian and bull thistle (Cirsium arvense and vulgare), Scots's broom (Cystisus scoRari.us), dandelion, cats -ear, velvet - grass, orchard grass, and quackgrass. Himalayan blackberry and red alder frequently join these other invaders. Vegetation in the area to the south, which was not filled, consists of a mixed tree /shrub component with a grass understory. The trees are madrone (Arbutus menziesii), black cottonwood, Scouler's willow, and a mixed understory of hardhack (Spirea doug_1_as_ii), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), pea -fruit rose (Rosa pisocarpa), and nootka rose (Rosa nutkana). The edges adjacent to the Bon Marche truck yard and other open space areas are dominated by dense stands of Himalayan blackberry. Ground cover varies depending on the elevation. The higher elevations have swordfern (Polystichum munitum) as the dominant ground cover with patches of rat -tail fescue, smooth brome, and orchard grass. In the low swaled area that leads down from the Toys "R" Us parking lot to the pond, the dominant ground cover is softrush and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens)'with patches of reed canarygrass. Wetlands There are ,two areas on the proposed development site plus the pond that are technically classified as wetlands under the "Unified Federal Agency Multi- parameter Procedure ". Under this procedure, the site would require hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology (either ground water or surface water) to be classified as a wetland. These include the pond, a drainage in the southwest corner of the site and portions of the old fill between the top of the pond slope and the new fill. Other areas between the top of the pond and the new fill meet one or more of these wetland criteria, but not all three. The pond up to the toe of the bank is an open water wetland. It has extended standing or surface water year- around and hydric vegetation. No soil samples were taken. It is assumed that the . water has influenced the soils to the point where they would display hydric conditions if sampled. The pond is technically outside of the development area, but is impacted by the size and type of development and the width of the proposed setbacks from the wetland boundary to the proposed building. 7 The second wetlandis a small drainage slough in the southwest corner of the site. The slough varies from 3 to 10 feet wide and extends from the Toys "R" Us parking lot to the pond. The total distance is approximately 200 feet. The true wetland in this area is approximately 0.02 acres in size. The third, a small depression at the east end on the old fill area, is an emergent marsh wetland dominated by sierra rush and softrush. The total area which meets the wetland classification and is approximately 1200 square feet or 0.04 acres. The fourth wetland is a small linear area at the north end of the fill between the top of the pond bank and the toe of the most recent fill. It totals 0.006 acres in size. The only wetland to be classified by Jones & Stokes (1989) �� �4y is Tukwila Pond. The other areas were not considered to be wetlands in the delineation of wetlands within the City of ANr Tukwila. Under the Army Corps of Engineers, these wetlands would ! q (ha, {r be considered isolated since they are both supported by surface ,� water runoff or collected rainwater and are not directly influenced by Tukwila Pond. The total combined wetlands area on ° the site is 0.066 acres, which is significantly less than the 1 acre allowed to be filled the Army'Corps of Engineers under the Nationwide Permit. XL Cc Classification: Under the US Fish and Wildlife Service classification procedures (Cowardin, 19 79), the pond would be classified as a Palustrine Permanently Flooded Unconsolidated Bottom wetland. The border along the pond's edge is classified as a Palustrine Forested Shrub /Scrub wetland. A small isolated depression between the top of the bank and the toe of the east fill would be classified as a Palustrine Emergent Marsh. The drainage in the southwest corner would also be classified as a Palustrine Emergent Marsh wetland. Under the City of Tukwila's proposed wetland classification (i.e., Jones & Stokes, 1990), Tukwila Pond, S� would classified as a Class I wetland, the two isolated area ����2. wetlands would be Class III wetlands. Methodology: The wetlands on the site were originally delineated in September 1985 by IES Associates for the Smith application for the development of the entire land. The boundary of the delineation was checked and reaffirmed during the evaivations for the CDA application to the City of Tukwila for the development across the north end of the pond. The wetlands delineation was evaluated and approved by Mary Burg and Andy McMillan of the Washington Department of Ecology during the preliminary Environmental Impacts Statement for the "164th Street Extension" along the south property boundary, the south edge of Tukwila Pond, and the Tukwila Pond wetland. On the west side of the pond, the wetland was delineated as the toe of the original fill slope, including filling in the southwest corner of the pond. At this time, the toe of the bank, L • .� r, \i v.. or till, along the west property boundary was classified as the 4.0 ", edge of Tukwila Pond even though a portion of the property in the ., southwest corner has become overgrown with a tree /shrub community and was not open water. The open water line was defined from 1985 Department of Natural Resources (DNR) aerial photographs and ... j. � re- confirmed on the DNR aerial photographs of 1990. .e. •; "r � ,P ' Impac ±s : `;; 17 Proposed Project: Q AW - -. V a, ,` The proposed development would be built on the existing new ∎, . ‹�I fill. The toe of this fill extends to within 25 to 35 feet of �`` �� ' the edge of the water. The fill would be extended east in those . \r "'j areas where the separation between the existing fill and the pond 1 `' ,� L, edge is greater than 25 feet. This would create a continuous 25 1 r `�1r j-�PQl foot buffer between the edge of the water and the toe of the c'`",- i. K '�' existing fill. The proposed development would not encroach or �y•.!�j t fill any of the existing riparian vegetation along the.pond edge :�e,�r or the majority of the undisturbed vegetation between the ;! riparian vegetation and the toe of the existing fill. Wetlands is '(rrrs, I �V - that would be impacted are in the depressionthe to �. (Q(t /' �' _ /c22 �� � � existing slope in the southwest corner��(0.04��Cr -e-) and the �,� �'` 44,u drainage • depression (0 -02 acre the south end of the project' �� site. The proposed paw k ng —toe in the southwest corner would" also eliminate the upland tree /shrub community. Tree�s t—e • impacted are madrone, willow, and red, alder. ,The ffe lane would impact.a small segment, approximately�0._08` acre, of willow /alder forested wetland that is a portion of tie Torest /shrub wetland community in the southwest corner of the pond. The proposed 25 foot buffer would not impact the existing riparian border along the west side of the pond. With the proposal to revegetate that portion of the pond between the existing riparian edge and the proposed buildings, the total shrub /tree buffer would be increased by an average of 18 to 20 feet along the west siae of the pond. A mixed tree /shrub community consisting of larger trees of the same type found on the site; shrubs, including seed and fruit bearing species to increase the diversity of habitats for small birds and mammals; and ground cover would be planted. Impacts to the wetlands would be the loss of both of the small isolated wetlands units through filling. The southern most fill would provide the southern parking lot while the fill at the northern end would straighten the fill -grade line to be a consistent 25 foot setback from the top of the pond bank. Major impacts to the northern wetland area would be the loss of a wading area and a small shorebird feeding area. A loss of the wetland at the south end would be the ioss of a drainage corridor that provides no biological value and whose only functional value is as a conduit to move water from one point to another There would be no significant loss to wetland or water dependent -- wildlife species with the loss of these two areas. The proposed drainage system would maintain water quality in the pond. The reduction in the amounts of sediments reaching the pond with the removal of the untreated runoff that now reaches the pond by sheet flow (from areas to the west into across the undeveloped area), would decrease the long term in- filling of the pond and reduce the levels of contaminants that are contained in these sediments. The system would continue to place water in the pond, this duplicates existing conditions. Loss of water to the pond could significantly modify the water levels over time thus impacting the shoreline community and increasing warming of the pond during summer months. These activities could modify shoreline wildlife activity, particularly in the southwest corner. Lowering of the water level or increasing the bottom elevation in this area would stimulate the vegetative encroachment which is slowly taking place under existing conditions. • With the construction of buildings along the edge of the buffer and the proper placement of parking'lots, the car noise and light glare can be reduced. The impacts from lights and noise is also reduced by the difference in elevation between the proposed development and the water level. Once the additional buffer plants are grown, the light from cars would be filtered by the tree canopies. This z.ncreases filtering of both light and noise to a greater degree than would occur if the parking activity were at ground level. The filtering would be greater Ulu summer..than winter because of leaves on th otts— t-re•es.- �L A pond qtr has/been suggested as a public access amenity ithin the_2.5 too} uffer. Because of the steepness of the slope and the a mit of the buffer that is encompassed by this area, a proposed trail would significantly reduce the amounts, as well as modify the types, of vegetation that could be transplanted into this area. This change and loss of vegetation would impact the types and numbers of passerine birds and ground dwelling small mammals that could use the area. To adequately provide view points from the trail, one or more vantage points would have to be constructed to the waters edge. For safety purposes, these would require some type of structure which would require the removal of existing vegetation. The impacts would defeat tne purposes of the buffer. An alternative suggestion would be to provide a raised setback trail system along the south side of the pond in the open meadow area. This could be accomplished without impacting existing vegetation and would allow view access over the lake through existing openings in the shrub tree canopy surrounding the pond. Alternative 1: Alternative I would eliminate the parking lot in the southwest corner of the site. This would eliminate the loss of the tree /shrub community that now exists in the southwest corner of the site which provides an increased buffer separation between the development ana tne southwest corner of the pond. This area has been demonstrated to have the highest waterfowl habitat values of the pond. - - - -- Office Development Alternative: Impacts to. the plant community with the proposed office building would be basically the same as the impacts created by the proposed alternative. By the nature of the office building which would extend the full length o= the site with a 25 toot setbacx and utilize the southwest corner for parking, there would ne a loss of a tree /shrub community in the southwest come:: of the site as well as a small portion of the emergent marsh grass mix in the small depression at the toe of the new grace and till material-at the north end of the site. The wetland impact's would be the same as those identified in the proposed alternative. No Action Alternative: The no action alternative would leave the site in it's existing condition with the unstable erodable fill that was recently placed on the site left intact: This alternative supposes that the silt curtain would be left in place until this fill material stabilized itself. A requirement that planting grass or some other action be taken to stabilize the bank would not be a no action alternative, but would be a modification which would consist of no development action but a restoration action. Left alone, the existing new fill area would revegetate itself with a mix of grasses, which are addressed in the last paragraph of the proposed project alternatives in the discussion of the affects of the Jones & Stokes buffer, if imposed without a reveaetation requirement. The area would revert to a mixed -7 rt 1 1 1 1 1 invader forbes /grass community with the dominant plants, normally considered weeds by the public sector, being thistles, Scotch • broom, dandelion, cats -ear, and Himalayan blackberry with a mix of other common grass found in these areas such .as velvet grass, orchard grass, quackgrass. In the lower areas in the south end, it would be expected that the revegetation would include softrush, Nevada rush, and reed canarygrass with an increase in velvet crass and possibly some other wet - tolerant grass species. If the vegetative activity that occurred on the old fill was duplicated, the area would stay mostly a grass /forbe mix low pasture with a reed canarygrass dominated area in the south end. Adverse impacts that Cannot be Mitigated: Proposed Prolect: Tne loss of the tree /shrub community at the south end of the proposed project site and two small (0.06 acre combined) isolated, perched wetland areas. Alternative L• Tne loss of a 0.0$ acre perched, emergent marsh wetland area. Mitigation: A form of mitigation is included within the design parameters of the proposed project. This includes increasing the width of the existing tree buffer by planting the area between the riparian vegetation edge ana the toe of the slope with a tree /shrub mix consistent with the species of plants that are growing on the area. • The species mix that would be selected includes: black cottonwood and Oregon ash with big -leaf maple on the drier areas. The shrub community would include Piper's willow (Salix piperi), Scouler's willow, red -osier dogwood (Cornusstoionifera), black hawthorn, and salmonberry (F.ubus spectab lis). At the toe or the slope, there would be a windrow hedge of snowberry and nootka rose, which would provide a physical, as well as a visual, separation between the proposed development and the riparian border. The slope would be planted with additional species including larger fruiting trees such as sour cherry (Frunl4s ceras_u_s) , chokecherry (Prunus.,_..virainiana) , wild crabapple (rvrus fusca) and a mixes shrub component. Additional mitigation, which is included as a project desian, includes the placement of buildings as close to the outer edge of the revegetatea cutter as possible. This eliminates roads, parking lots, and service venicle impacts to the edge of the natural area. Ali bui ldings would include low glare glass, passive colors, and other features that have been demonstrated to be low impacting to wildlife. The final appearance woula be consistent with the buildings in Phase 1 of the development. P_rimai s : The animal survey is based on data provided during the Environmental Impacts Statement tor Phase I of the proposed project, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ) for South 168th Street extension, letter responses from Seattle Audubon and individual environmentalists to these documents, and IES surveys during April, May, and June 1990. Five site evaluations were conducted in 1990 to monitor wildlife use of the pond adjacent to the previous developed area during and after the construction phases of development. This evaluation was designed as an attempt to evaluate the impacts of construction, cars, lights, etc., from the developed portion of the site on waterfowl and other bird use in the riparian border and the waters.immediately adjacent to the riparian border and on mammal use on the pond bank immediately adjacent to the development. Surveys were made of the west and north port ions of the pond to determine species composition ana distribution in these areas. This information was compared to data collected during the field studies for the initial Draft Environmental Impacts Statement and initial studies that were conaucted as early as 1985 on other proposed developments. Tne studies were initiated too late. to monitor wintering bird activity on the site. However, some bird use, particularly Canada goose, mallard, pintail, widgeon, and gadwali, were observed on the site within a 50 to 100 feet from the toe of the north bank. Teal, mallard,-and gadwall were observed at the bank around and under the overhanging vegetation within 25 feet of the existingH development. These observations were made after the bulk of the initial construction was completed, but at a time when construction equipment and vehicular noise were present on the site. The exposed or bare ground areas along the north side were examined for animal tracks. Because of the density of . vegetation, no signs were readable. Droppings and other sign of rabbits and ring - necked pheasants were observed in the underbrush along the north edge. Red- tailed hawks continue to use the large black cottonwoods along the north and west sides tor perching. These birds appear to be hunting away from the site since there are no short grass areas available within the immediate vicinity of the site. Q/a- 1 1 1 1 1 During May and June, wintering and migration bird activities ceased. The remaining birds are considered to be nesters. The pond was -still supporting a 10+ mallard pair population, as well as a small flock of transient Canada geese in late May. Small bird use did not appear to have changed as robins, swallows, towhees, winter wrens, and downy woodpeckers were observed in trees along the north bank. Robins, towhees, and wrens were nesting. The west bank of the pond was supporting the same species of birds as the north with the exception of ring- necked pheasants which appear to concentrate on the north bank and in the south reed canarygrass meadow. Waterfowl activity was greatest in the southwest corner near the willow and snag islands. Tnis continues to be consistent with past years activity. It s!ir_uici be noted that no examination was made of the shrub edge or trees along the south or east banks of the pond. The activity In these two areas were not considered as pertinent to the project since they have not and will not be modified. The pond supports one species or fish, common h•rown bui ir_ead (Ictalurus._melas) and two species of frogs: bui. frogs (kana. cate_sbe =.ana) and red- legged frog (Rana aurora). It appears trom the amount of activity that the bullfrog population nas increased signirlcantly over the past 5 years since the original site evaluations In 1985. Common garter snakes (Thamnopnzs_sirtai.$) were identified along the west and north pond banks where studies were conducted in 1990. Impacts: Proposed Project: Direct impacts to wildlife would be ' minimal since the area where the development is to occur has been filled, graded, and refilled and graded during and since the construction or Phase I of the development. Loss of potential habitat that would become reestablished an the new fill would include loss of ground bird and mammal habitats and some possible shorebird and pond edge waterfowl nesting habitat. These losses would be dependent on e, the type of revegetation that would occur. Based on wildlife sightings during the months of April, May and June 1990, it appears that the development within 25 feet or the pone has not slgniticantly or noticeably modified or reduced`` waterrowl, shorebird, or small passerine bird use in tae butter ,y =Ar zone that was maintained and enhanced with the construction of -�,, Phase I of the development. The north boundary is still rece =vingi ti the same types of uses from the same species tnat were present prior to construction of t'hase I of the development. {� .i' 4' v V F•ne vegetative cover that exists along much of the west ✓lj� boundary, particularly the area in the southwest corner, plus tne proposed increased buttering to provide a layers of trees wit: a dense shrub understory, the size of tne pone, and the south open space nutter provide tne same level o: separation and co:a_tions that were incorporated into Phase I. There is no evidence to demon_trate that Impacts expected to occur with this stage of the proposed development would be greater or diiterent than tne Impact_ t :at have occurred along the north boundary. This is an ,, c4-'`` assumption based on preliminary data. �.��`° ,_ Encircling approximately halt of the site with developments l'i22 may create a pressure that modifies the behavior or the birds in the northwest corner of the site, however, tne preliminary i evidence, based on impacts from the Target Store which extends ..,( around the-corner and down the west side for a short distance, ,.,L_ , ,.,,,. does not support this assumption. With the completion of the 10.;': .i0'. construction in this area, bird and mammal use has returned to i .(7)0' pre-construction conditions. ,-4.c.; f The loss of the small wood lot in the southwest corner oi'---)10 the site would eliminate a nesting and loafing area for robins, (0 towhees, and starlings.. There is no evidence of upland game birdv," Iuse in this area, so the impacts to these species would be minimal or non-.existent. Some cottontail'rabbit habitat would I.. ./.,: Setbacks beyond the proposed 25 feet would be on an area that has been recently tilled ana is now bare dirt with no vegetation or habitat. Over a period of time, this area would regrow to a grass /forbes habitat. Unless tne area were seeded or vegetated with shrubs and trees, the length of time that it wou.d tare tor- a viable w .1c .te habitat to establish itseit Would :fie between _5 and 25 years. Building setbacks would provide space *or tri=long -term potential regrowth which .cannot occur it tne area is developed. It would not, however, provide physical separation and visual buffering between the development ana the edge oz the existing riparian zone unless there was a requirement for revegetation of the existing fill area. Alternative I: • Alternative I would reduce potential Impacts to a small population of passerine birds ana small mammals that are currently using the south tree /shrub stand site. Office Development Alternative: With the construction of a building that runs the full length of the site creating a passive physical buffer between parking lots, road noise, car lights, and human activity, there would be.a reduced potential for secondary impacts from these activities on the pond. 'There would be no phvslcai removal or .G� replacement of existing vegetation along the pond bank, thereny 2S retaining the existing overhanging shrub characteristics that are etainir. he e..i� providing nabitat for a variety of bird and mammals species as weli as shading and protection of -he fish_and nabi_tar =or salaanders aria other amphibians. There would oe a loss of small bird-Ina-mammal ha a southwest corner with the removal or the trees and shrubs. These impacts would be the same as those associated with the proposed development, as both anticipate the same type and level of activity in the southwest corner. No Action Alternative: Unger the no action alternative, the wildlife values that are existing on the site would continue with possible increase in potential o. -site reeding, loafing, and nesting habitat as the existing new fill revegetates itself with a grass /forne community or, 1.f revegetation througn stabilization is required, more rapid replacement of a mixed grass loafing and possible nesting area ror waterfowl, shorebirds, and small ground- using birds and mammals. There would be no increase in tree or shrub burr ring surrounding the pond for small bird nesting and feeding :.aLitat or for perching areas for raptors or. aquatic predators, sucn as kinc= ishers. On-avoidable Adverse Imzacts that Cannot be Mitigated: o The pond would be reordered on two sides by development. o 'Possible human impacts to wildlife utilization of the pond would occur and can only be addressed after the construction is completed. Mitiaation: The mitigation, which would reduce impacts to wildlife along the west side of the pond, which is a part of the proposed project design, consists of: o Increasing the riparian buffer edge to a 25 root depth by planting a dense stand of trees and shrubs between the existing riparian border and the•toe of the existing slope. The buffer would provide additional ground cover, low shrub cover, and a second layer of trees that would create nesting and roosting nab_tat for a variety or small bird species as weli as increase pt.ysic_1 separation between the proposed development site and the pond. 1 1 o Buildings would be constructed as close to the edge of the 25 toot buffer as poss-ible to use the eastern side of the buildings as a passive buffer.to protect the riparian edge from day -to -day human activity such as cars, lights, noise, etc. o Uncontrolled human activity (i.e., fishing) would be restricted from this side of the pond. A vantage view point in the rorrr of a walkway at the edge of the waterway would be considered for bird watching and other regulated pci:d interests, cJ/<", it desired by the City of Tukwila. the Washington Department of eCKc fib, �.i Wi ldlife, and local conservation groups such as the Seattle Audubon. This area should, however, be restricted to the o h uc side or the pond where view access is available w.tnout destruction of existing tree or shrub areas. o Fencing along the top of the fill area between parking lots and the pond would increase the level of buffering of car lights and noise from the pond. The fence would not need to be any higher than tnree feet to be effective. higher fences would not improve protection and would become an invitation to clump garbage in the form of drive -in saes, etc. over the fence. Fences also create a modified environment tor plants, usually resulting in invasive plants such as blackberry, bindweed or other similar types of plants becoming established. A nylon mesn or wire fence planted with a vine o•r trailing shrub, such as wild honeysuckle (Lonicera.__.ci_l.iosa) or climbing roses, would accomplish the same effect over time and provide some level of wildlife habitat. o Educational signs along any proposed trail or vantage points would increase the awareness of the types of animals using such areas. 2•:a signs could also discuss how Tukwila pond was formed, etc BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. City of Tukwila. 1990. Sensitive Areas Ordinance. 2. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golat and E.T. LeRow. 1979. Ciassi_iicat_on _of Wetlar_ ds_and_Deep Water Habitats or__tne Ui itea States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication FWS /OBS- 79/31. 3. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal hanual.__tor_Identitying_ and _Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fist and Wildlife Service, and U...L.A., Soil Conservation Service, Washington D.C. Co-operative technical rub-. cation. ^_. Franklin, J.F. ana C.T. Dyrness. 1969. Vegetation of Oregon and_Wasrington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Nortnwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Port_and, Oregon. 5. Greeson, P.E., J.R. Clark and J.E. Clark, eds. 1978. Wetland Functions and Values : The State of Our Understard.na. Proceedings of the National Symposium on Wetlands, American Water Resources s oc.atio:.. Technical .publication Series TPS 1 i_tcncoc: :, C.L. and A.- Cronguist. 1973. Flora of tne . rac tic._Nort;:west. University or Washington_ Press, Sat• . e 1 1 _I I 1 I 1 7. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. Wetlands Inventory. City of Tukwila, Community Development Depar-tmcnt, Planning Division, 1989. 8'. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.- City of Tukwila Water Resource and Buffer Recommendations. City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development and Planning Division, 1990. 9. Soil survey Staff. 1988. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. Cornell University: 10. need, P.B., Jr. 1986. Wetland Plants of the State of Washington. 1986 U.S. Fish ana Wildlife Service Publication. W LU'r-80 /Wi_.47. 11. heed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands : Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wild ite Service . un :.cation. W LUT-b8 (26.9) . 12. 'Robbins, C.S., B. Brunn and H.S. Zim. 1966. Birds or North America. Golden Press, New York. 13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 167. Colpsoi Engineers ne.l.anes. De; :_,.neatic_ Manuel . Tech. Rep. I `-- 14. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil Survey : Kina County Area, Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 15. Washington Natural heritage Program. 1987. Endangerea. 12t.lr171ealAci__4.e4==,0-Ve VaP.P1114r Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. 16. Washington Natural Heritage Program. 1989. Na.tu-::a4. Heritage Plan. Washington State Department ot r;aturai .1::esources, Olympia. 1 1 Revised Project Proposal (Addendum) of the Tukwila Pond Site King County, Washington for The Ferris Company 10655 N.E. 4th, Suite 506 Bellevue, Washington 98004 by IES Associates 1514 Muirhead Olympia, Washington 98502 October 18, 1990 Cr., 1 1 1. Introduction. The review comments enclosed are based on the construction of a four -story unit set 45 feet back from the top bank of the Tukwila Pond. This alternative does not include the utilization of the southern most portion of the site for parking or other development purposes. The area proposed to be buffered includes the pond bank, vegetation as described in the original documents, the top of bank including a minor wetland that was discussed in the original documents and approximately 20 feet of the recent fill that was placed during hte construction of Phase I. 2. Butter Values. Because of the location of Tukwila Pond and it's isolation from any other natural habitats by commercial development, roads, and heavy traffic, the wildlife utilization of the site is limited to (1) birds which have the ability to fly in and out of the site, (2) small mammals that are remnants of populations that existed when the area was more natural and extended to upland areas to the west, and (3) reptiles and amphibians which utilize the banks or the edge of the water. The mammals that use the site are limited to those mammals that require small home ranges, such as voles, meadow mice, shrews, and cottontail rabbits. Species that require a larger home range or the need to utilize hunting corridors, such as skunks, raccoons, weasels, etc., do not utilize the property. Because of the wildlife composition and the lack of a movement corridor from the wetlands or the pond to adjacent properties, the buffer, particularly along the northwest and south sides, provide little more than a narrow home range for the species discussed. The differences between a 45 toot and a 25 foot buffer is the creation of a small additional open space area that, depending on the type-of plantings, would provide a small amount of additional nesting for small urban birds that are . typically found in residential or light commercial development areas and the small mammals. Due to the proposed planting of the buffer area and the need for a grassed fire lane, the additional 20 feet would probably not provide additional. nesting .or brood- rearing habitat for water or wetland dependent wildlife bird species. Nesting waterfowl, particularly mallard and pintail, which are known to use the pond, use the grass edge immediately adjacent to the water, which provides them close easy access for escape during nesting and easy access to the water after the young hatch. The additional 20 feet could 1 i7 a potentially provide some additional space, however. with proper planting and enhancement of the buffer area between the edge or tne development and the top of the bank, the necessary requirements for nesting waterfowl, seed - gathering mice, and other small animal habitat could readily be provided in a 25 root area. The habitat that can be provided by the additional 20 or 25 feet, depending on the width of the buffer would provide values typical of those found in a narrow backyard. A 25 foot buffer with a 20 foot fire lane easement behind the buildings would provide the same overall habitat benefits as a 45 to 50 foot buffer, plus a short grass area in the fire lane. Short grasses are typically utilized by widgeon, mallard, voles, mice, cottontail rabbit, and ground dwelling passerine species. 3. Buffer Enhancements. The functions of the buffer are to provide (1) a physical separation between development activities, including on -going human uses of the site after construction is complete, (2) the creation of a biological niche for w= ldlite that are dependent the wetland or open water components and the areas surrounding them, and (3) treatment of surface waters that may be discharged directly from the development site into the buffer area before it reaches the wetland or open water component. Wetland enhancements which will be built into the project include: (1) the building structure itself, (2) increased revegetation, and (3) fencing. • Studies completed on projects in Oregon by IES Associates and projects on the east coast have demonstrated that buildings, When properly designed, create a passive, but effective, buffer between on- cjoing post - development activities such as car noises, people walking, headlights, parking lot glare, etc: This occurs by setting tree back of tne building against the edge of the buffer and restricting day- to day automobile activity, service activity, or any other types of on -going human activity from that side of the building. Exemptions built into these, which have not deterred from the buffering effect of the building, are grass treated or other grass surface fire lanes and limited footpaths. Buildings would be designed with passive or natural blending colors and glare- resistant glass. The colors and the Glass provide a non - obtrusive or non - impacting facade racing the wetland. 2 The enhanced planting of the wetland buffer area includes trees, shrubs, and open meadow or understory grass components. The trees will consist of a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees, including Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii_), black .cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), red alder (Alnus rubra), wild cherry (Prunus cerasus.), and big:: - leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum). The shrub mix will consist of tall, fruit - bearing species, including wild american plum (Prunus americana) and choke cherry (Prunus virginiana) with flowering- or seed - bearing species including red -osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) in the buffer areas closer to the water, red - flowering currant (tribes sanguineum), Lewis mockorange (Philadel,phus lewisii), with clustered patches of two species of wild rose; nootka rose (Rosa nut_kana) in the wetter areas and Wood's rose (Rosa woodsii) in the crier areas. Vine maple (Acer circinatum), Oregon grape (Berberis (_._ ) will be a.gui.�ol2um), and ocean spray Holodiscus discolor scattered through the site to provide habitat diversity, color, and additional food value. Open spaces under stands of black cottonwood will be seeded with short grasses to provide nesting and loafing areas for waterfowl, hunting areas for mice and rabbits, and biotiltration for any surface waters that run over tre area.. Planted properly, this combination will provide a mixed physical and visual separation between the edge of the development and the edge of the water. At the back of the building this border would be 25 feet shrub /tree zone with a 20 foot grassed fire lane area. The grass would provide a feeding area for grazing waterfowl, such as widgeon, mallard, and pintails, as well as an emergency fire access that would meet fire codes. The fire access area, when combined with the passive building facade, can provide a type of diversity that does not exist around the pond under current conditions (i.e., short maintained succulent grass food area). In the buffer areas abutting the parking lot, the tree /shrub component will extend from the edge of the parking lot to the edge of the existing riparian border. No existing tree or shrub vegetation, except Scots broom (Cytisus scoparius) would be 'removed. 4. Fencing. Fencing would consist of a 4. foot decorative wood or other type of solid fence extending from the edge of the . fire lane access the length ot the site, both north and south of the hotel building. This fence is to be designed at car hood elevation to provide protection from lights at night and from muffled wheel noise, which is the single 3 loudest sound given off by most automobiles. By maintaining the fence at a 3.5 to 4 toot maximum height, the probability of people throwing trash over the fence, thereby turning the buffer adjacent to the fence into a dumping area is reduced. Experience has demonstrated that 6 toot rences provide a v_suai out -of- sight /out -of -mind attitude which leads to excessive trashing of the natural areas adjacent to developments. 5. Wetlands Impacts. The proposed development plan consists of the single large hotel building and parking lot with a restaurant and parking lot at the south end of the area and will require the displacement of two intermittently flooded emergent marsh areas identified in the south end of the property, as identified on Figure 7t, and the extension of the road easterly into the edge of the forested wetland area that is a continuation of the forested upland area in the southwest corner of the site. The two small emergent marsh wetlands to be filled consist of a drainage swale that extends from the parking lot runoff culli fromF ys "R" Us to the west through a natural depression where it enters into the larger wetland, which is directly _associated with the southwest corner of Tukwila Pond. The second area, identified as Wetland #3, :.s a small depression located between the higher upland wooded area in the southwest corner of the site and the south end of the .fill area. This is a small depression which has become a wetland because of the trapped surface water that it retains during the winter and early spring. The total combined acres of both wetlands is 0.06 acres, which is significantly less than the 1.0 acres permitted under the Nationwide Permit by the Army Corps. o± Engineers. The removal of the drainage swale wetland will reduce the surface flow and the limited biofiitration that occurred in the scattered emergent marsh in this area. Impacts to the second wetland area would be a loss of limited ground water percolation that occurs from the collected surface water. The third wetland area to be impacted will be a small area of wooded wetland, i.e., willow /alder, in the southwest corner of the pond where the sediment buildup over the years from discharge from the pond through the drainage way in the southwest corner has built a small delta. Losses associated with the construction of a fire lane in this area include the loss of tree /shrub habitat, predominantly willow and alder, with a replacement of an impervious -type surface. 4 ,z� I 1 1 1 1 J 1 The secondary impacts to this area will be m= ::.mai since the area will be used only as a fire lane and will be excluded from many other traffic, including maintenance or work- related vehicles. The development of an expanded buffer /tree line between the restaurant and the existing tree boundary will help provide some off - setting qualities and reduce the direct impacts from the restaurant, or parking lot associated with the restaurant, from the water ward portion of the forest /shrub and from the open water components of the pond in this area. The total acres of replacement will not substitute for the total losses associated with creation of the fire lane. 5 1 , i APPENDIX F TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS i I Christopher Brown as Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 Fax 772 -4321 SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II A Proposed Hotel and Restaurant in Tukwila Traffic Study December 13, 1990 Traffic Engineers CS Transportation Planners 1 2 Southcenter Plaza: Phase II Traffic Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1. Location 1. Purpose 1. Scope of Study 3. Project Description 4. Alternate Project Description 5. Access 5. Traffic Data 5. Data References and Sources 8. Peak Hours 12. Trip Generation 12. Traffic Assignment 13. Traffic Assignment, Site Traffic 13. Traffic Assignment, Adjacent Traffic 15. Horizon Year Traffic 15. Office Alternative 28. Levels of Service 28. LOS Discussion 36. Queue Length 37. Parking 39. Truck Access 39. Signal Warrants 40. Accident Analysis 41. Pedestrian Safety 43. Mitigating Measures 43. Conclusions 45. LIST OF TABLES I. Expansion Factors 11. II. Trip Generation 12. III. Trip Generation, Office Alternative 28. IV. Levels of Service, Definitions 34. V. Levels of Service 35. VI. Design Hour Levels of Service 36. VII. Mean Queue Length 38. VIII. Storage Capacity 38. IX. Accidents 42. APPENDIX Capacity Calculations 11 1 W' LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II Traffic Study Vicinity Map Current Noon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Current P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Current Christmas Season Noon Peak Hour Current Christmas Season P.M. Peak Hour Trip Distribution Southcenter Plaza: Phase II Average Weekday Noon Peak Hour Assignment Average Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Assignment Christmas Season Noon Peak Hour Assignment Christmas Season P.M. Peak Hour Assignment Speiker - Southcenter Proiect Average Weekday Noon Peak Hour Assignment Average Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Assignment Christmas Season Noon Peak Hour Assignment Christmas Season P.M. Peak Hour Assignment Schofield - Southcenter Proiect Average Weekday Noon Peak Hour Assignment Average Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Assignment Christmas Season Noon Peak Hour Assignment Christmas Season P.M. Peak Hour Assignment Design Hour Traffic Volumes Average Weekday Noon Peak Hour Design Volumes Average Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Design Volumes Christmas Season Noon Peak. Hour Design Volumes Christmas Season P.M. Peak Hour Design Volumes 2. 6. 7. 9. 10. 14. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 29. 30. 31. 32. Figure 23 Office Alternative P.M. Peak Hour Assignment 33. a i 1 i 1 SOUTHCENTER PLAZA: PHASE II A Proposed Hotel and Restaurant in Tukwila Traffic Study Introduction The addition of a hotel and restaurant 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 new commercial development and, in concert with the existing and proposed commercial development, define the appropriate mitigating measures, if any, to ensure the continuation of adequate traffic operations. Location Generally, the Southcenter Plaza: Phase II is to be located on a site lying east of Southcenter Parkway and south of Strander Boulevard. The project will.be on the east side of 58th Place S., between S. 168th Street and Strander Boulevard in the City of Tukwila, King County. The site location is sketched on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. Purpose The purpose of this study is to gather a data base of current traffic operations on the adjacent collector and arterial routes serving a proposed hotel and restaurant which, for the purposes of this traffic study, is called the " Southcenter Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 L 15OT "ST 152ND Sf Fill 11 s lorM sr 3 t5OT" ST t� • .PARK ••. 1SIST ST a Race s ` 5 T 1 S 17T. ST 166 TN ST IN 1 17OT" ST VI 1 4S 172ND ST } 25 • COP •p•TE = S 172iDPL V ST t75TM 5T sw 7JAD n { s !-Aw =TM' �D1 QQ T« s 11.. • PARK • SST !T. ST 1 -2— S 16TH ST ST s • ru 4 t '1 {1 1S ST m1; [1S 142ND FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map STS ST /\ Christopher Brown Cis Associates 879 rainier Avenue N., Suwle A -201 rent on. WA 98055-1380 (206) 772 -1188 i 1 Plaza: Phase II" project. It is to include projected traffic from two adjacent developments the "Speiker - Southcenter Project" that incorporates a Target store and the "Schofield - Southcenter Project" that incorporates the expansion of an existing shopping center. Study elements, involving a range of transportation data, include the following. o Identify an expansion factor to derive the arterial traffic flow during the Pre - Christmas shopping season (sometimes called the Christmas shopping season); o Derive both noon peak and p.m. peak hour demands on the arterial system; o Define the probable trip generation for the site under the proposed development scenario for these two peak periods; o Estimate the driveway and arterial street traffic demands for the horizon year, in this case for Christmas and non - Christmas traffic at both noon and p.m. peak hours; o Quantify the existing and 1991 horizon year levels of service (LOS) at the key intersections and access driveways serving the site under these various nonseasonal and seasonal traffic loadings; o Contrast traffic levels of service against study data prepared by CH2M -Hill to validate potential arterial needs. 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 of adequate traffic operations on the impacted system in the future when the project is completed and occupied. Scope of Study The scope of the study was defined by the City of Tukwila city engineer to include: -3- 1. Trip generation for the new facility. 2. Noon peak hour traffic volumes on the existing network. Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 3. P.M. peak hour traffic volumes on the existing network. 4. Estimates of Christmas shopping season noon peak hour traffic volumes on the existing network. 5. Estimates of Christmas shopping season p.m. peak hour traffic volumes on the existing network. 6. The inclusion of traffic demands from two major projects close by: A. Tukwila Pond Center incorporating a new Target store, and B. The Schofield project lying on the west side of Southcenter Parkway. 7. Maps showing the trip distribution of site generated traffic on the serving arterial network. 8. Level of service analysis for the intersections in the study area, including the average noon and p.m. peak hour and the pre - christmas shopping season noon and p.m. peak hour. The scope of the traffic study and the attendant arterial network consists of Southcenter Parkway from S. 180th Street to the northernmost freeway off ramp/ signalized intersection on the Southcenter Shopping Center driveway close to Nordstrom and Frederick & Nelson's and also requested for review in the arterial network, are the intersections of Andover Park West at Strander Boulevard and Strander Boulevard at 58th Place S. Proiect Description The site as proposed is a hotel and restaurant lying east of and adjacent to an existing hotel and a retail center. The new facility, comprising some 73 k.s.f. of hotel space with an 8 k.s.f. restaurant will also have in common some 36 k.s.f. of underground parking. Both will compliment each other in terms of design, parking and access driveways. The proposed site has a series of driveways accessing 58th Place S. On -site parking will be provided for 230 vehicles, of which -4- Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. &wile A -201 Renton. WA 98055-1380 (206) 772 -1188 1 i 1 150 stalls will be provided in the underground parking structure noted above. The remaining 80 stalls will be for use of the restaurant clientele. The parking design utilizes right angle stalls to serve the longer duration customers associated with this type of enterprise. Alternative Project Description An alternative proposal is for an office building comprising some 140 k.s.f. of office space and 70 k.s.f. of parking space. Access to this potential site will remain the same as with the original proposal. Access Access to the site is to be directly from 58th Place S. and in association with Southcenter Parkway from S. 168th Street. The intersection of Southcenter Parkway and S. 168th Street has been recommended for signalization in the traffic study for the "Schofield Project." (As that project is nearing full occupancy the traffic signal should be forth coming.) Geometric parameters for the key intersections serving this site as well as the driveway are shown as a part of the data input to the capacity analysis appended to this study. Traffic Data For the most part, traffic data used in this analysis is from the count book supplied by the City of Tukwila, DPW. These also include some manual turning movement traffic counts taken at both noon and in the p.m. peak hour. Supplemental count data obtained for the Schofield project is also used since it is more recent. The current average weekday noon hour and the p.m. peak hour traffic data are shown on Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2, Average Weekday Noon Peak Hour and Figure 3, Average Weekday P.M. Peak Hour and all others, are schematic diagrams only and reflect the hourly traffic volumes, by direction. Intersection total approach volumes as well as turning movement volumes are also shown in the appendix as a part of the computer input data (intersection diagrams). -5- Christopher Brown g Associates\ 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 // (206) 772 -1188 2351 1 431 tr /06",_# L S8 !37 ---� 2.2.--i f--286 I r Rlickitat Drive 58th Place 1st Place 168th Street 113 _} + I. 2-o' 4o2 — - - 452. 1/9 —1 t f"- M� Strander Boulevard m oQ LI_ 388 t S'4 tr -6- FIGURE 2 A S 180th Street Average Weekday Traffic Volumes Noon Peak Hour Christopher Brown t Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 Klickitat Drive 58th Place 248 -- 1st Place 168th Street Strander Boulevard rr) -7- 14S__ +_4_434 274 —+- --- 547 3 {� 135 r FIGURE 3 S 180th Street Average Weekday Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Christopher brown a Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 1 I 1 For estimating the traffic demands that would be occasioned by the Christmas season peak shopping period, the city engineering staff provided copies of machine count data taken at several locations on the arterial network in 1988. The expected growth in traffic volume in this season, above normal or average conditions, was derived by comparing similar recent peak hour data at the identical locations. A tabular comparison of non - Christmas Season and Christmas season traffic, by direction and location, is shown on Table I. From the data, it may be seen that the mean increase in the noon peak hour is expected to be about fourteen percent while the p.m. peak hour will increase by about twelve percent. (These increased rates may not continue in the 1990 Christmas shopping season according to published retail reports.) The expected Christmas shopping season noon and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes on the arterial network are shown on Figure 4, Christmas Season, Noon Peak and Figure 5, Christmas Season, PM Peak Hour, respectively. These volumes are for the current system as it is presently configured with the current level of Tukwila's commercial development. No diversion due to congestion is assumed. The "Christmas data" of these figures is "unrestrained ". Next, expected traffic demands that would be carried on the network, generated by the two adjacent projects previously discussed on page four, were obtained from the prior traffic studies for those respective projects. It should be noted that these two projects are nearing full occupancy. (The larger project has been called Speiker - Southcenter Prolect in this study while the second shopping center, to differentiate it from others, is referred to as the "Schofield project", named after the sponsoring developer.) The trip assignment for these projects is discussed later. Data References and Sources Data resources used in this study include the aforementioned seasonal machine count traffic data prepared by the city of Tukwila, manual turning movement volumes also provided by the city of Tukwila, population and employment forecasts published by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) in the document Population and Employment Forecasts, 1988, trip generation statistics published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (I.T.E.) in the document, Trip Christopher brown e Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 N (--;10 r` �Q 74 /Iw_L� 1 57..62 f- 32b 526 I N r N r Klickitat Drive 58th Place 394 —� 1st Place 168th Street Strander Boulevard tL 4_ 443 trf 567 ztric -9- =7_1 L 764 249 —� �— M3 Southcenter Parkway Andover Park West S 180th Street FIGURE 4 Average Weekday Traffic Volumes Christmas Noon Peak Hour Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 i 4,43 —4 4 I N v� Rlickitat Drive 277 1L-4_6,z4 f r81° to z r M h ' -10- 0 !I 1PP° 5;N M2_111 + _L 48S 3c�6 ---•� -• -61/ 4 —1 i-- /57 I r Southcenter Parkway �t 58th Place 1st Place `O N � N 96� f 4_ /7o 424 —+ +— 6c �— i1 {ri-45 lP Strander Boulevard FIGURE 5 168th Street Andover Park West • NOD II 23 t !- ••■■•■•■■ S 180th Street Average Weekday Traffic Volumes Christmas P.M. Peak Hour Christopher brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. (Suite A-201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 TABLE I lExpansion Factors for Pre - Christmas Shopping Season J Location Dir. Nov. Dec. % Change INoon Peak Hour Southcenter /S. of Strander NB 1492 1542 + 3.4 Southcenter /S. of Strander SB 1534 1550 + 1.0 1 Strander /W. of Andover EB 634 726 + 14.5 Strander /W. of Andover WB 747 849 + 13.6 lSouthcenter /N. of 180th NB 1079 1124 + 4.2 Southcenter /S. of 180th SB 677 1036 + 53.0 Andover /N. of Strander Andover /N. of Strander NB 653 793 + 21.4 SB 779 711 - 8.7 180th /E. of Southcenter WB 1105 1125 + 1.8 180th /E. of Southcenter EB 726 994 + 36.9 180th /W. of Southcenter 180th /W. of Southcenter WB 518 585 + 12.9 EB 439 506 + 15.3 Mean Increase of Noon Traffic in Christmas Season + 14.1 % P.M. Peak Hour Southcenter /S. of Strander NB 1855 1381 -25.6 Southcenter /S. of Strander SB 1674 1333 -20.4 Strander /W. of Andover EB 525 600 +14.3 Strander /W. of Andover WB 784 915 +16.7 Southcenter /N. of 180th NB 712 953 +33.8 Southcenter /S. of 180th SB 760 910 +19.7 Andover /N. of Strander Andover /N. of Strander 180th /E. of Southcenter 180th /E. of Southcenter 180th /W. of Southcenter 180th /W. of Southcenter NB 622 858 +37.9 SB 625 708 +13.3 WB 1116 1105 -1.0 EB 560 749 +33.8 WB 941 903 -4.0 EB 422 511 +21.6 Mean Increase of P.M. Peak Traffic in Xmas Season + 11.7 % Christopher Brown CS Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 Generation, 4th edition, Parking Generation, 2nd edition, also published by I.T.E., queue length theory published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, Second 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 used under license for this study. Peak Hours The noon peak extends from 12 o'clock to 1 o'clock p.m. and is primarily 'driven, by observation of adjacent parking lot demands, by the high quality sit down restaurant located in the vicinity. The balance of the site is occupied by a 150 room hotel. The p.m. peak hour data was from continuous observations between 4 and 6 o'clock; the actual peak tends to be from four to five o'clock. Trip Generation Trip generation data was derived from land use codes published in the ITE document, Trip Generation, 4th Edition 1988. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' (I.T.E.) land use code for this type of hotel is Land Use Code 310 and the land use code for a quality sit down restaurant of this type is Land Use Code 831. The trip generation data is noted in Table II -12- TABLE II Trip Generation, Southcenter Plaza: Phase II Hotel Time Interval A.W.D.T.* Noon Inbound Noon Outbound P.M. Inbound P.M. Outbound Volume 1261 vehicles per day 55 vehicles per hour 46 vehicles per hour 42 vehicles per hour 36 vehicles per hour * Average Weekday Daily Traffic Christopher Brown Associates\ 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 1 Table II cont. Restaurant Time Interval A.W.D.T. Noon Inbound Noon Outbound P.M. Inbound P.M. Outbound Volume 719 vehicles per day 46 vehicles per hour 22 vehicles per hour 36 vehicles per hour 17 vehicles per hour * Average Weekday Daily Traffic Note that in terms of the "peak hour of the site," the noon hour is the descriptor. For the peak of the street, it can be taken at either noon or the p.m. peak which extends from 4 to 5 o'clock as noted earlier. (At some locations it ran from 4:15 to 5:15 to be more precise.) Essentially, the peak hour of the street system, in Tukwila, is the p.m. peak. The a.m. peak hour is of little consequence in this area. Traffic Assignment The distribution of site generated traffic for this project is based on current intersection movements including the driveway demand, while traffic for the adjacent projects 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 on Figure 6. Traffic Assignment, Site Traffic The assignment of the actual peak hour traffic volumes involves two distinct times -of -day. These are the noon hour and the p.m. peak hour of the arterial street. In addition, the Christmas shopping season is also of interest so the noon and p.m. peak hour assignments for this season were also defined. -13 Christopher brown 0 Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 1 i 1 1 -14- 25'/. SOX) Klickitat Drive . 168th Street Southcenter Parkway Andover Park West Strander Boulevard 20% S. 180th Street FIGURE 6 Trip Distribution 5 /o Christopher Brown e Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 Considering only site generated traffic, the assignments to the arterial system for the noon hour, p.m. peak hour of the average weekday and for noon and p.m. peak hour of the Christmas season are shown in the following figures. Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Average Weekday Noon Peak Hour Assignment Average Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Assignment Christmas Season Noon Peak Hour Assignment Christmas Season P.M. Peak Hour Assignment Traffic Assignment, Adjacent Traffic The assignment of traffic from the two adjacent projects of record are next described in the following figures. These allow opportunity for assessing their potential impacts. Again, considering only site generated traffic, the assignments of the "near projects" as they are called, onto the arterial system for the noon hour and p.m. peak hour of the average weekday and for noon and p.m. peak hour of the Christmas season are depicted in the following figures. Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Speiker - Southcenter Protect Average Weekday Noon Peak Hour Assignment Average Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Assignment Christmas Season Noon Peak Hour Assignment Christmas Season P.M. Peak Hour Assignment Schofield - Southcenter Protect Average Weekday Noon Peak Hour Assignment Average Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Assignment Christmas Season Noon Peak Hour Assignment Christmas Season P.M. Peak Hour Assignment Horizon Year Traffic With the project built, including traffic from the adjacent projects, the horizon year average weekday and Christmas shopping season will have the design hour traffic demands shown on the following figures. -15- Christopher Brown C4 Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 1 Rlickitat Drive 1 L 61st Place i Lc. Strander Boulevard I 168th Street 1 i And, -16- FIGURE 7 S 180th Street Trip Assignment Southcenter Plaza II Noon Peak Hour Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 a) M I 1 rf- M� Klickitat Drive U a —`l .c oor.w o u, L Strander Boulevard 168th Street 35" 8-- l b r t -17- S 180th Street FIGURE 8 Trip Assignment Southcenter Plaza II P.M. Peak Hour Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 1380 (206) 772 -1188 Strander Boulevard -18- FIGURE 9 S 180th Street Trip Assignment Southcenter Plaza II Christmas Noon Peak Hour Christopher brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. &uite A -201 Renton. WA 98055-1380 (206) 772 -1188 Klickitat Drive Strander Boulevard -19- r-11 I 1. _+ j t. --t1 1r FIGURE 10 S 180th Street Trip Assignment Southcenter Plaza II Christmas P.M. Peak Hour Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 Strander Boulevard i 1 1 -20- FIGURE 11 S 180th Street Trip Assignment Speiker Project Noon Peak Hour Christopher Brown es Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 1 s 1 Klickitat Drive 20 --t N tt ILi131 58th Place 168th Street Strander Boulevard tI 72 41 51 -21- Southcenter Parkway Andover Park West FIGURE 12 S 180th Street Trip Assignment Speiker Project P.M. Peak Hour Christopher brown Cs Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. (Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 1 1 1 1 1 1 tri NT Klickitat Drive 58th Place 1st Place Strander Boulevard -22- f 130 KH FIGURE 13 S 180th Street Trip Assignment Speiker Project Christmas Noon Peak Hour Christopher Brown C4 Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 1 iI 4 M4 Klickitat Drive 58th Place 61st Place 168th Street o 24 - -s- - -* 3, -4-1 + l Irf-to zN Strander Boulevard Southcenter Parkway -23- FIGURE 14 S 180th Street Trip Assignment Speiker Project Christmas P.M. Peak Hour Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., (Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 14 I Klickitat Drive 58th Place w u c0 y 168th Street Southcenter Parkway -24- FIGURE 15 Strander Boulevard ll r Andover Park West S 180th Street Trip Assignment Schofield Project Noon Peak Hour Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 1 Klickitat Drive 58th Place 168th Street Southcenter Park 1 1 1 1 -25- FIGURE 16 Strander Boulevard N P7 AL4— fir:) S 180th Street Trip Assignment Schofield Project P.M. Peak Hour Christopher Brown cis Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 i 1 Klickitat Drive Strander Boulevard 1 1 -26- FIGURE 17 S 180th Street Trip Assignment Schofield Project Christmas Noon Peak Hour Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 1 (206) 772 -1188. 1 Rlickitat Drive 58th Place M 61st Place 168th Street Strander Boulevard t1 And -27- FIGURE 18 S 180th Street Trip Assignment Schofield Project Christmas P.M. Peak Hour M Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Denton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 Rlickitat Drive 4 4.524 I r 576 -29- IV Southcenter Parkway 58th Place u 168th Street Andover Park West MN 114 +�L209 434 -- +-t 15 -+- So I 116 is. Strander Boulevard 1213 -r s— 1 078 t t 1 V1= M ZS� I _LSI 0 -1- 1- —__ 0 47 '-1.61 } rf- 4 Q5I" FIGURE 19 S 180th Street Design Year Traffic Volumes Noon Peak Hour Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 1 1 Klickitat Drive 291 58th Place H 1st Place 168th Street 88 ILL_ 418 —�- +— se? s4—+�_tr M�rO Strander Boulevard 1494 35" —i* r c-14, ln tr. 1 1 1 J 1 -30- + �'L 448 274 -- . -.4 547 3 t f--13s r Andover Park West N � p/1 Tr rN 40; +�L_ 24 0 • f- 0 39 1 } r $'1?- 3 l FIGURE 20 S 180th Street Design Year Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Christopher Brown a Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 1 0 Klickitat Drive ., - a a `i1 - ooro t -QC-2 130_1 + _4__ 238 447 —} •- 671 f3Z %tr 114 168th Street Strander Boulevard 1435 _{ . , 1241 4— SiZ tr -31- NI- vz-a 247 —a. T �'% 803 z�9 —� -•— 313 6--t11r 64. S FIGURE 21 L v a 1 a) 0 b c v, 4 - . .D r^ M r I L 27 X31 p ..� 0 61 —1.61 fi r 4 r k.n \ s' e S 180th Street Design Year Traffic Volumes Christmas Noon Peak Hour Christopher Brown fd Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 i 1 l Rlickitat Drive 320 —� 58th Place 1 61st Place 168th Street to + _4_ /7o 4ty5 —�. ••— bGS Strander Boulevard 4 M M pppp —N 17q •I 4.4.417 306 —� -.4 6l 4 r 157 r M`R Southcenter Parkway /476 161 f- I6 Andover Park West Q' OM • `Qgnl 43 I �4_ 24 0 - -.- 0 43 —+1 fi r 3 co S 180th Street FIGURE 22 Design Year Traffic Volumes Christmas P.M. Peak Hour Christopher Brown Cis Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 Klickitat Drive IZ-i 58th Place 168th Street Strander Boulevard �N N t— 0 d -33 2Z- - to Southcenter Parkway v N Andover Park West S 180th Street FIGURE 23 Trip Assignment Office Alternative P.M. Peak Hour r4 Christopher Brown Associate 879 Rainier Avenue N., (Suite A -201 Renlon, WA 98055-1380 (206) 772 -1188 traffic delays. As a measure of intersection delay, it is described in terms the stopped delay each vehicle is expected to encounter at signalized intersections and in terms of both reserve capacity as well as expected delay at non - signalized intersections. These are shown below on Table IV. TABLE IV Level of Service Definitions Signalized intersections Level of Service Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A B C D E F Under 5 seconds 5.1 - 15.0 seconds 15.1 - 25.0 seconds 25.1 - 40.0 seconds 40.1 - 60.0 seconds Greater than 60 sec. Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Reserve Capacity A B C D F 400 or more 300 to 399 200 to 299 100 to 199 0 to 99 none Expected Delay Little or none Short delays Average delays Long delays Very long delays failure, extreme congestion 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 licensed to this firm. The "Operations and Design" method, more rigorous than the "Planning" method, is used for signalized intersections. The only STOP sign controlled intersection is the northbound freeway off ramp. It 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. 1 -34- 1 Christopher Brown Associates\ 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 1 J l 1 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 all conditions, are appended. These include analyses of: Average Weekday Noon Peak Hour Average Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Christmas Season Noon Peak Hour Christmas Season P.M. Peak Hour for current traffic as well as future traffic with the subject project and adjacent projects. Levels of service (LOS) for current and Christmas (Xmas) shopping season noon and p.m. peak hour traffic conditions without the project are noted below. All signals are set with 120 second cycle lengths. Intersection TABLE V Levels of Service Average Christmas Weekday Season Noon PM Peak Noon PM Peak Southcenter Parkway/ Southcenter Access Road B B C C Southcenter Parkway/ Klickitat Drive C C C C Southcenter Parkway/ Northbound I -5 Off Ramp E D F D Southcenter Parkway/ Strander Boulevard C D C E Southcenter Parkway/ S. 180th Street F F F F Strander Boulevard/ Andover Park West D D D D Southcenter Parkway/ S. 168th Street E F E F Strander Boulevard/ 58th Place S. N/A N/A N/A N/A -35- Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 \\ Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 �l With the project complete, and assuming the adjacent projects also finished, the arterial levels of service (LOS) for the noon peak hour and the P.M. Peak Hour in both average weekday and in the Christmas shopping season are noted in Table VI. TABLE VI Design Hour Levels of Service Intersection Average Christmas Weekday Season Noon PM Peak Noon PM Peak Southcenter Parkway/ Southcenter Access Road B B C C Southcenter Parkway/ Klickitat Drive C C C C Southcenter Parkway/ Northbound I -5 Off Ramp F E F E Southcenter Parkway/ Strander Boulevard C D D F Southcenter Parkway/ S. 180th Street F F Strander Boulevard/ Andover Park West D D Southcenter Parkway/ S. 168th Street E F E F Strander Boulevard/ 58th Place S. A A A A F F D D LOS Discussion The Tukwila Pond project of and by itself does not cause a shift in the LOS but, in concert with the adjacent projects, there is: o A one step shift at Southcenter Parkway at the Northbound I -5 off ramp for all future conditions. However, this level of service is conservative due to the proximity of the signalized intersection at Klickitat Drive. The platooning effect of the traffic signal is not accounted for in the level of service analysis as proposed by the Highway Capacity Manual, which assumes random arrivals. As such, the LOS is probably much better than calculated. -36- Christopher Brown C. Associales� 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 o The level of service at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard drops one level in both the noon and p.m. peak hour during the Christmas season. o• The intersection of S. 168th Street and Southcenter Parkway is currently operating at an inadequate level of service and will not change given project implementation. The installation of a traffic signal at this intersection would raise the level of service during the time of heaviest traffic volume from LOS 'F' (here to for on the sidestreet) to LOS 'A', overall. o The intersection of S. 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway is currently operating at LOS 'F' and cannot get worse. o The intersection of 58th Place S. and Strander Boulevard has been assigned traffic to and from the project as a right -in right -out driveway. It is felt that restricting left turns at this intersection would help the overall level of service along Strander Boulevard. The study being conducted by CH2M -Hill has recommended a traffic signal at this location. If that is the case, the level of service will remain high (LOS 'B'), and the intersection will be able to function as a full service access assuming adequate intersection geometrics. o The office alternative adds a significantly higher amount of traffic volume during the noon and p.m. peak hours, compared to the hotel- restaurant alternative. However, this alternative is a secondary choice to the hotel - restaurant and should be considered as such from a development point of view at this time. Queue Length Queue length of a signalized intersection is a function of arrival rate and signal cycle length. The mean queue length is the number of vehicles that arrive at the intersection per lane group between green phases. The lane group to be examined in this study, as requested by Tukwila DPW, are the left turning movements at all the intersections in the study area. The mean queue lengths for the relevant approaches based on the design year p.m. peak hour are listed in the table below. These were calculated according to the information published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, Second Edition (page 754). -37- Christopher Brown i Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 i 1 1 I 1 1 Table VII Mean Queue Length Design hour, P.M. peak Intersection Southcenter Parkway /Southcenter Access Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd. Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd. Southcenter Parkway /S. 168th Street Southcenter Parkway /S. 180th Street Strander Blvd. /Andover Park West Strander Blvd. /Andover Park West WB NB SB WB SB SB SB NB Number of Vehicles 10 40 20 27 2 9 18 15 The storage capacity for these intersections, as measured by the consultant, is listed next in the following Table. Table VIII Storage Capacity Intersection Southcenter Parkway /Southcenter Access Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd. Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd. Southcenter Parkway /S. 168th Street Southcenter Parkway /S. 180th Street Strander Blvd. /Andover Park West Strander Blvd. /Andover Park West * No separate lane group WB NB SB WB SB SB SB NB Capacity in Vehicles 18 22 20 * 0 6 18 * 0 * 0 Most intersections appear to have sufficient storage capacity for normal conditions, in both the noon and p.m. peak hours, with the exception being Southcenter Parkway at Klickitat Drive. The storage capacity for northbound left turn movements from. Southcenter Parkway at Klickitat Drive is inadequate (as calculated using the prior reference material). However, the -38- Christopher Brown e Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 \` Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 equation to determine the mean queue length is based on balanced signal cycle lengths for each approach which is obviously not the case at this intersection.. The northbound left - turning movement is assigned 50 percent of the cycle time whereas normal signal timing would assign approximately 15 percent. The arrival rate for left- turning traffic is about 20 vehicles per minute during the p.m. peak hour. Given the cycle length of 120 seconds and the green time at 50 percent of the cycle length, the green time is thus 60 seconds with the remaining 60 seconds being available for a queue to form. With the arrival rate at 20 vehicles per minute which translates to a 20 vehicle queue, and with storage space available for 22 vehicles, queue storage is marginal. In other words, the storage capacity of 22 vehicles is about adequate (given the scope of this project during the design year). During the Christmas season the arrival rate increases to about 23 vehicles per minute, which is above the available storage capacity. It is likely sufficient to severely impact the function of the remainder of the intersection which is visually noticeable in peak shopping times. Doubtless, the CH2M -Hill study will be addressing signal operations thru the use of computer modeling (such as Transyt 7F or Passar II). Parking On completion of this project, there will be a total parking supply of 230 stalls. This is comprised of 80 stalls for the restaurant and an additional 150 stalls for the hotel. Based upon the I.T.E. publication, Parking Generation (2nd edition), for a quality restaurant of this type (Land Use Code 831), and for a hotel of this type (Land Use Code 312) the demand for parking will be: Restaurant Hotel Average Weekday Average Weekday 100 stalls 86 stalls The parking supply for the completed project appears to be adequate. Truck Access The driveway arrangements associated with Southcenter Plaza: Phase II including 58th Place S. and S. 168th Street, will act to circulate vehicular traffic to and from the site. A second -39- Christopher Brown Rs Associale Su � 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 function of the interior street system is to provide delivery access for the hotel and restaurant as well as the Target Store located on the adjacent property. The roadway geometrics suitable for these typically large commercial vehicles, including elements such as curb radius will need to be addressed during the design phase of the S. 168th Street extension and 58th Place S. The intersection of S. 168th Street and Southcenter Parkway is now suitable for this application; it is currently handling heavy vehicle traffic from several warehouses on adjacent property. Truck and commercial vehicle movements associated with the Target store and Southcenter Plaza: Phase II will probably have only a limited impact on traffic flow around the site. The loading docks for the Target Store are recessed and are thus clear of the traffic stream; the delivery schedule for Southcenter Plaza: Phase II is lessened due to the lack of retail operations. Signal Warrants The two access intersections for Southcenter Plaza: Phase II should be examined for potential signal warrants some time after 1992. Prior to an actual installation, the intersection of 58th Place S. and Strander Boulevard will most likely not meet signal warrants as it now stands. Once the signal is in place, however, the "diversion" caused by the availability of this alternate route to enhance access will most likely raise the traffic volumes on 58th Place S. to a level high enough to meet signal warrants. The intersection of S. 168th Street and Southcenter Parkway will meet signal warrants by 1992 regardless of "diverted traffic" as noted above. Warrant 11, (Peak Hour Volume) is intended for application when traffic conditions are such that for one hour of the day minor street traffic suffers undue traffic delay in entering or crossing the major street. During the noon peak design hour there will be 54 site generated vehicles on this system plus an additional 50 vehicles from adjacent properties (including, Toys -R -Us, Washington Mutual Bank and the Doubletree Suites Hotel). All will be given access to S. 168th Street, via the extension of said street. This will make a total of 104 vehicles in one direction on the minor street. There will be -40- Christopher brown e Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 1 2,234 vehicles travelling in the noon peak design hour on the major street (Southcenter Parkway). Essentially, these volumes meet the requirements for installing a signal at the intersection of S. 168th Street and Southcenter Parkway. Accident Analysis Accident data provided by the Tukwila DPW has been subjected to analysis to determine the frequency of accidents correctable by signalization or channelization. These types of accidents involve failure to yield right -of -way, the most common being right angle collisions. The other types of accidents involved are generally rear -end collisions and single vehicle accidents usually involving property damage. The accident data is shown on Table IX. The accident data, combined with the estimated yearly traffic volumes at each intersection, shows that at the majority of intersections the accidents appear to be random occurrences. This is confirmed by the types of accidents most commonly occurring. Rear end type accidents are common as are fixed object collisions; neither of them are correctable with traffic signals. Right angle accidents are also common, although the frequency of right angle accidents is very low. The exception to this assessment is the intersection of Strander 'Boulevard and the S.W. Southcenter Access (near 58th Place S.). This intersection has had a significant number of right angle accidents, indeed enough to meet the accident requirements for signal warrants (Warrant 6). However, the accident data is not entirely current and the major source of accidents at this intersection, left turning vehicles, can now utilize the recently installed traffic signal at 61st Place S. The new signal at 61st Place S. should lower the left turn volumes at the intersection of Strander Boulevard and the S.W. Southcenter Access, thus lowering the likelihood of accidents. In general, the signalized intersections surrounding the project site have a very good safety record; the number of accidents is low and usually these can be attributed to driver inattention rather than an inherent danger due to the intersection design. This should also be the case at the intersection of S. 168th Street, provided a signal is installed. The intersection of 58th Place S. will either function as a right -in right -out driveway or as a signalized intersection and will thus not face the same hazardous conditions associated with unsignalized left- turning traffic. -41- Christopher Brown Ccs Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A-201 Renton. WA 98055-1380 (206) 772 -1188 Table IX Accidents Intersection Year Num. Description Southcenter Parkway/ Southcenter Access Southcenter Parkway/ Klickitat Drive Southcenter Parkway/ Strander Boulevard Southcenter Parkway/ S. 168th Street 1987 1 right angle 1 fixed object 1989 1 right angle 1987 1 right angle 5 rear end 1 other 1988 3 right angle 1 rear end 1 fixed object 1989 2 right angle 1 rear end 1987 3 right angle 3 rear end 1 fixed object 1988 1 right angle 1 rear end 1989 3 rear end none recorded Southcenter Parkway/ 1987 1 right angle S. 180th Street 2 rear end 1 fixed object 1988 2 rear end 1 backing 1989 2 right angle 1 fixed object Strander Boulevard/ 1987 2 right angle Andover Park West 1 rear end 1988 1 backing 1989 1 right angle Strander Boulevard/ 1988 7 right angle S.W. Southcenter Access 1 pedestrian 1989 6 right angle 1 rear -end 42- Christopher Brown cs Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 Pedestrian Safety Southcenter Plaza: Phase II may generate a small amount of pedestrian traffic caused by or associated with the hotel on the site; however, due to the type of hotel and its location the pedestrian volumes should be light. However, the pedestrian traffic that is generated must be protected from the vehicular traffic movements within the site and on the adjacent road system. In order to do this, a series of sidewalks and crosswalks should be provided within the site and at the access driveways at adjacent properties. Pedestrian traffic wishing to cross Strander Boulevard should be directed to the 61st Place S. intersection where a protected crosswalk is provided. Pedestrian traffic wishing to cross Southcenter Parkway will have the opportunity to use the crosswalks provided with the proposed signal at S. 168th Street. Mitigating Measures CH2M -Hill has been commissioned to prepare a road "needs" study for the city of Tukwila. There are several intersections . in the vicinity of this site that have been identified as needing enhancement in the future. These include S. 168th Street at Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard at Southcenter Parkway and 58th Place S. at Strander Boulevard. The study being prepared by CH2M -Hill is for the design year 2010. Although this is not really within the scope of this project, the proposed additions to the road network recommended by CH2M -Hill should be mentioned as part of this study to make it complete. The first mitigation measure for addressing the project's traffic impacts is the installation of an actuated traffic signal at the intersection of the site's entrance on Southcenter Parkway, that is S. 168th Street. This was recommended in the Schofield traffic study. This is a project presently contemplated by city staff and is a benefit to other commercial properties close by, especially when consideration of pedestrian crossing movements is included. The level of service at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard will drop to LOS 'F' during the Christmas p.m. peak. The most effective method of mitigation would be the addition of a combined left /right lane on the westbound Strander Boulevard approach. This would raise the level of service at the intersection to LOS 'D' in the Christmas p.m. peak hour. There is currently 52 feet of roadway width on Strander Boulevard at -43- Christopher brown e Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 Southcenter Parkway. This is the same amount of roadway width on Strander Boulevard as at 58th Place S. where there exists a five lane section. From this information it seems possible to implement a five lane section at the intersection with Southcenter Parkway. The downside of this concept is the lane widths for the turning movements: (10 foot lanes may not provide enough maneuvering room for heavy vehicles.) There is presently no additional right -of -way on either the north or the south side of Strander Boulevard. Approximately six feet could be gained if a retaining wall were built on the south side and the landscape strip was removed. The north side may offer more space for expansion of the roadway; however, that would require a retaining wall for about a thirty foot embankment. This would also require the removal of several large trees which might not be in keeping with the overall desires of the city and adjacent property owners. The intersection of 58th Place S. at Strander Boulevard has been recommended for signalization in the CH2M -Hill study. For the purposes of this study the consultants have examined this intersection both "with" and "without" a signal. For the case "without" a traffic signal the intersection will operate as a right -in right -out driveway. For the case "with" a traffic signal the intersection will function as a full service intersection. In either case the intersection will function at level of service 'B'. The signalization of this intersection will cause some measure of diversion as traffic will now utilize 58th Place S. and S. 168th Street to avoid the congested intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard. This diverted traffic should provide the necessary traffic volumes to meet signal warrants. However, the question as to the appropriate functional classification of 58th Place S. is not really within the scope of this study since that element has area wide implications that should be addressed in the CH2M -Hill study. However, the decision to install a traffic signal at the intersection of 58th Place S. and Strander Boulevard should obviously be hinged on whether 58th Place is considered to be a connector arterial or a local access street. With the net "new" traffic produced by this project amounting to some 1,980 vehicle trips per day and with 169 of these in the noon hour and 131 vehicles in the p.m. peak hour, the percentage contribution to the arterial network is relatively small. The percentage increase is in the order of 4.7 percent in the noon peak and 3.6 percent in the p.m. peak. From a percentage view, these are minimal. Hence, this project of and by itself is not the driving force in decisions relative to functional classification. -44- Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 i 1 1 1 Conclusions The 'implementation of this new multi use project will produce the following impacts: 1. The construction and operation of Southcenter Plaza: Phase II will increase traffic demands on the adjacent collector and arterial road system by about 1980 new vehicular trips per day and the noon hour traffic volumes, in this case the heaviest peak traffic hour of the day, by about 169 (new) vehicle trips per hour. The p.m. peak hour will increase by about 131 vehicles per hour. 2. The intersection of Southcenter Parkway and S. 180th Street appears to be in a constant state of congestion. This is regardless of the proposed development. 3. The intersection of Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway will require the addition of a third westbound lane to raise the LOS, even during the Christmas p.m. peak hour, town acceptable level of service. 4. The site access at S. 168th Street and Southcenter Parkway requires signalization for enhancing access to both the newly built Schofield project on the west side of the intersection and for this project as well. This signal was recommended for the Schofield project that is now close to full occupancy. 1 5. The intersection of 58th Place S. and Strander Boulevard has been identified in a road needs study (conducted by CH2M -Hill) as a potential site for a traffic signal. The intersection will operate equally well with or without a traffic signal, although, without a traffic signal the intersection will function as a right -in right -out driveway. With a signal in place, traffic diversion from the congested Southcenter parkway /Strander Boulevard intersection can be expected. It will amount to about 3140 v.p.d and 314 v.p.h. The long range functional classification of 58th Place S. is the prime determinate as to the necessity of a traffic signal and that should be within the scope of the CH2M -Hill long range study. 6. The road system serving the project site which were subject to level of service analysis and given the mitigation of the intersections of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard and S. 168th Street, are capable of accommodating site generated traffic within acceptable LOS standards. 7. Parking on site will be adequate for this new development. -45- Christopher brown Cis Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 ) 1 r p c)075 00VS C23-- 1'1 - — • / 7 '\----- /... _ ..-::---C—Z-- ..., .. . 1 ; ,..- *-C-"--- ::::.(f5-<--":-G,--"`""- Ce-754;_.: I — I ; 1 /2..--.._!"r.-)--C-4". -...,- C_:". ------ • c? 7---,‘c cD,A--- ....„..,,....„......k,--r:_-_,::,.L.........,L1-. ,.--.....6.-- 7, ....., ...,„_. 7, „..-.2 ..., ...,....,._„_.......„(,-...,,...,.,,. c_ ....0 4 1 4.. • so c_) Lo-r Ot_ ,0 c4c2 '- 1 r •_ • • • 7i) - // /2 ) Pc --(_'-r- - - 1)---L-r--(--,-- ---' •,-- 34 _ -6 ca_4_._c_e___. c_-_-_.. ( ..-4,_e_z_ 7 8 7"-± -S.77 f C2) ,6 8 , • 2 : -7„-Z4 ,--," "S.-;: 4.-e•-•-•-...1":"1-4-::.... /2 77, 1 • ./1,t---f• -:_:•!;_,k.--v._ . .„-4,--'C- -C,-----'----t;.-c.--:. ,.- 7 f/__ I r / _ ./K---c-A-Q__ .,e, L-,___ () 7/ , •:-)&e: -1. 2.;,._ (/' rn 1 _) - cyz.,_ ....- 0-•- 0;-A--( ._ i ./(1-<_-4.-•>-e-e4-._ ___cr,1-i---<-4\_.c..._.2..-e---,. 41 d C-F) 4,) —es,e„C. • / r_ i _ , • • 6 :,-C.___ ( i•-•• 10`. 4 _) • 12” ( 1 ,• 2 ) f• ) -%N....4C- 30 1- • L.' . L._ • .••••••••■-' •••-•- L, (2 (7 •-• • 4. 1 Z-C C) tr. c ,,e„ /,'") • // ,:.:-.._z.--.....,_.X.2(...,e_ .,...-_...c.:----6.-4' .. _. .. , 4. 7 .. ---C-11,.--.%:_.-/ j• 1. . L-.- --'?-----7-- ..--- f - '-. L... ._,. VI( 21 • • - 0 L.* - (2O r ::;1\1•ZA) 77/' CNN 5 /2 2_4 (se?) • )cz•--c..- -',._ -4 -0._ /7 7% - - / • c.:.1)-!----4---%--...._C--(--e.,...--t--cv-•- ...%:,..D-- ,,, ... .- i. ,..--•:-_-2_._ 6-rt-..--e...e___ C • ,.• e-- .rt/ --L. IV <2 3) ri) i • - c. ' • c•-• .• (7) ?-64' E.- 2-1 ,( I, -••••■,....\ , ....1 ( r --.:7----:- ..... 1 ' .-C.' A./ 4-4 .„,..54-----t.-..-_,• ,_,...%_...e......4.4.--._ c - -)--e--•-e.-- c,...-4,-.— ----"...---- •••:„:" 7-1--e."-- •>./.. /,-- r- /;=---.42— - ." ,_......4 0.1/2 /,-") • 2,_ ‘/- r , .,/) -- C:--(:!',--C.,-C-,---(-2.1-16_-LtiN.n.,, c•-•-•{-,,,;----e....-- , 4 1_,-PL.A.: --/C.,'—(___ --'4,-.-- --0-t-e-r- • ic-YO ?C- 7.7 6,,c 2- 2- J .••••":7 • •4•'-'{Ser-"<•" ,••-, 1 • ,2" • }-- • -• ----f-/— ( ••• 1<' • ( f .A-1( 7"( G r • • / ; 72,42 (-71,--Z./•-••••••4- 0 1) i 7 -•2 ,, L_c.....,..„ ...,,..,„-(_,.:-- 2_.,...„._ _„- , / , ... 1 C.? ',..-. '.. ■.. k...4--,-:_. '.,' . -- •_!, /.., . /7 •':".:2-//' / •._ • C..." C..;,. •:.._. ....":. "....-. . - (..... ( / (: . 171::: ' ) 7-1- ,-, - ,„. 1 --. ..- ''`..... • I • ,-*1 I; ...' • ,-) J-. -7^,■.(4,.L. C_.-.7.71...•--'....-,-., --...`-`•-, ,../._...,._-:„_.:_„. ,.„....., _.c.,...•..__ ......::,..: k.... ---.;-- , , .Z.- 71 ;•;../ .„..,-.7. ' .., .- , C. ;17 :-..--„ . , • - 7- i 6r-5-A_4 „.; • • I 1 kre-cr- cry,r-rue_e-.) ro r,(D C.-) Pols./ r- ( PA-atAt-1,1 G • C' /7 - • S J • 7 pt..(or oct:rte cz-efe cT ic 2 rti 7" ire LC LJO--7—c_r4:,(D ) 7 S c C- 67 7 7- 4- (--;(1 • ■■•■;.■•■■ 1. - 4-) • 2 c -&-L.4-, /-- (7-- I ; I' c>"/DA-iz(ZS.. IV A (9)-k-+L..) //y 7r- cue-7-(A-Ao, ( 1 ' A ••.-.4:! ...- G...4....1"--t......e.-/.7. - ::-/t...A.-Z-1-"^:;2. ,„4----e,_ f-,-(,,..)--- ' I , .2 •,-- 7) 61 j .:•'/. 7-' i ..71,.."-zr,,A --elan- .A.-.04--• Vt- ,--7-.'7 ._./.,.,.._,--f_.-17..._. --"(-4--;--e ■_.a...Ze-.6: 1 ........-....19.- " Ce:_iet. (-? Z4/ ) /7 I'''' ‘....•;--7C-..--"L-1<::2"-- -‘,11e.g......., '._4_ 1 .0 1 , CH i&c 7 8 zr*-76) ? / 3 -(3 ' 23 ee 4 C) /66 Dcf7S aa(56,-) ( TC ( giS - 6. 772L ...(1_,-k-, .x...4-t4.__ ., --t-t-' ,--- ---C--•-•C_„ - /-/--(---•:";"---6," . ,-7-r2"-- - - 7,•,) ,72 1, ,,--> .. „,-t-,c.../..--.:1_, .........- " ' k"---4--%-C,T---•‘---(,_.S;L",_ ..A- ;:,_..e:,..-__ C—(--''t---, . -.• i -1.._ /^,_L-i-/-‘=-f--6.;?..-e' 2- -V .-•\ - 4:1=g_FV' Jc; \e' C's /.. t-6 ,..../ ' • .- / e -c: it 1 " • /%1 .12. t-4-. CZ t_•••••■•••••.'7 /.7 -4-'4- / c -4: • ( t, fs-or2G/Aabr Nc.ct4/1-/v) Dog- - i 41_ / L....---- '?-r----e. e- - _ z_z...ce 2,) C,.__,... x,___ .• .<-) ii - 7,; n t7.7.1. /-2 , (2 r-- c - • ,-- .- /■_1- ... .., 1 , "..--,--L-....e, (7---e-=‘,-.-Lr----.- ( --7; , ' 7 ......, t .., 1 4 --.)/ .;7 • _ T., •• . , .; /.; --I!-1-.--7-(-- ,- - ,(--L---,a,—..-(.: .- -„ _L,_,-7,., -4_ &t': ....e--,--e.--t-------, • . a. sr? K f; tIPP ------ / , C. / 2 c-e■-• r • -( (,) „s--0 • --,..e74..,..._ ,6,,, c2.::_,;-,v_.4- 2.--7) (4. ,STh( 2 06)747_4_ es-6,- T -Z - SO et-Ly p crs 4-t-- 1- 8