Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E96-0034 - MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CENTER (MIC) PLANNED ACTIONMANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CENTER (MIC) PLANNED ACTION AREA IMPROVEMENT DUWAMISH RIVER & E. MARGINAL WAY S / 124T" ST. S. TO S. KENYON ST. E96-0034 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 1998 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3684 City of Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implemtation Plan ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Plan is the work of many groups and individuals. Grateful thanks are expressed to all those who have worked to bring this Plan to .a successful conclusion. •\ i;IAttp \ 4b '^' Nor Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan Area \' 1 1 1 •_-- .� City of Tukwila Planning Commission Grant Neiss, Chair Bill Arthur, Vice -Chair David Livermore Henry Marvin George Malina Vernon Merryhew Kathryn Stetson City of Tukwila Mayor's Office John W. Rants, Mayor John McFarland, City Administrator City of Tukwila City Council Pamela Linder, President Pam Carter Joe Duffle David Fenton Jim Haggerton Joan Hernandez Steve Mullet Dept. of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Jack Pace, Planning Manager Vernon Umetsu, Project Planner Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 Table of Contents November 2, 1998 Introduction Page 1 I. Background 4 Existing Conditions 4 Plan Development Process 12 MIC Prototype Analysis 14 II. Comprehensive Plan Vision 19 III. Implementing Actions 20 Permit Streamlining 20 Capital Improvements 24 Regulatory Amendments 26 Appendices A. Selected Comprehensive Plan Policies for the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Tukwila Department of Community Development Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 Table of Contents November 2, 1998 Introduction I. Background Existing Conditions Plan Development Process MIC Prototype Analysis II. Comprehensive Plan Vision III. Implementing Actions Permit Streamlining Capital Improvements Regulatory Amendments Appendices A. Selected Comprehensive Plan Policies for the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 LIST OF FIGURES 1 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Location Map Page 1 2 MIC Physical Environment 4 3 Existing MIC Land Uses 7 4 MIC Comprehensive Plan and Zoning District Distribution 8 5 Functional Street Classification Map 9 6 Sewer Map 11 7 Water Map 11 8 MIC Implementation Plan Development Process 13 9 Location of Prototype Sites 14 10 Prototype Site 1 15 11 Prototype Site 2 16 12 Prototype Site 3 17 13 Review Process for Simple Permits 23 14 Access Point Spacing and Corner Clearances for Industrial Zones 29 LIST OF TABLES A Land Use Distribution in the Tukwila MIC. B Capital Improvement Plan Revisions Appendices A. Comprehensive Plan Policy Implementation. Page 6 25 Tukwila Department of Community Development it Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 Introduction Tukwila's Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) is an important regional center of industrial activity. It is one of only four such centers designated in King County, and is well -served by the regional transportation system and existing utility infrastructure. It has a long history of manufacturing use, and is nearly fully developed. The Tukwila MIC is located in Figure 1. Figure 1 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Location Map .BOEING - .•.-:: FIELD City of Tukwila Manufacturingllndustrial Center 0` tID •0002. Sun as 04G WIN .argatim. err, • 110000 moo \. • toe \;V \:. MIC Strategic Implementation Plan Boundary City Limits ...\,...._.4.;_,.....-____-=_—____—,....,....,:...., \ . \ V. 1, i;. o•.._% S126111E1 .1 ii' O Norm :M IF SEArnt The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan MIC Element reaffirms the area's role as a center of manufacturing and industrial activities. The City is proposing the MIC Implementation Plan at this time, with an emphasis on public sector actions to best achieve the vision of responsible industrial development identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Tukwila Department of Community Development 1 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 This plan builds upon three• previous City decisions: 1. the adopted policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan for industrial area development, 2. the capital improvement standards and facility improvements needed to support area development, and 3. the regulations and programs which have been recognized in the Comprehensive Plan as implementation actions. Building upon adopted policies and recognized implementation actions means that the basic decisions for MIC development, the alternatives analyses, and the impact evaluation associated with the 4 year Comprehensive Plan development process need not be repeated. Instead, the plan will focus on to how to best implement the direction provided by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Proposed implementation measures include providing for the capital improvements needed to support area build out and a package of regulatory revisions to streamline permit review. Considerable time and effort was focused on permit streamlining and associated capital improvement and regulatory changes.. The proposed regulatory structure does not increase or decrease the substantive development standards which developments must now satisfy. However, it does explicitly identify the requirements. This explicit identification of standards, makes possible a streamlined (shorter) permit review process by substituting an administrative "planned action" option in place of formal environmental (SEPA) review. This plan is being developed simultaneously with other related planning projects. These projects include updating the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan on a city-wide basis, coordinating annexation boundaries and associated capital facilities with adjacent jurisdictions, amendments to contaminated site clean-up standards which reflect the industrial nature of uses, and improved access to the railroad marshaling yard in Allentown. These actions will be 2 Tukwila Department of Community Development Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 addressed in subsequent actions. All City actions are being coordinated based on the policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. This implementation plan consists of the following three sections: I. BACKGROUND -- A review of MIC conditions and the plan development process, II. VISION -- A review of adopted Comprehensive Plan goals and policies which are significant in guiding area development, and III. IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS -- Recommended amendments which have resulted from this planning project. Implementing actions include streamlined permit review, and supporting revisions to the capital improvement plan and development standards. Tukwila Department of Community Development Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 I. I3ACKGROUND This section provides a summary of environmental, land use, transportation and utility systems in the MIC. More extensive descriptions and analyses are presented in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Background Reports and the "Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement." Existing Conditions Physical Environment. The MIC's existing physical environment is shown in Figure 2. It generally consists of the Duwamish River and associated shoreline areas, and filled, flat upland areas which have developed for industrial associated uses. TIM NWT, ^tel N =f- MIC Strategic Implementation Plan Figure 2 MIC Physical Environment Legend meow= City limits MIC Strategic Implementation Plan Boundary River Environment 0000 Natural Shoreline 000000 Rlprap Shoreline 0000 Sheet Piling �\ Mud Flats i UPLAND ENVIRONMENT- -areas are flat, filled ,y. to a 5tt to 10ft depth and 9096 impervious surface p, �irrn•r�nan ��nrunw�j ��\ i--' i � a BOEING ACCE - � I ;� 1` w o \ vcai]r. '!�= II== col; .\ 1\ /L 1: is '' \ 4 Tukwila Department of Community Development Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 The Duwamish River has been channelized and dredged for navigation between Elliott Bay and the turning basin, although extensive mudflats exists. Riverbanks along the navigable channel are almost all faced with riprap or vertical bulkheads. This reflects the heavy industrial nature of adjacent land uses. River banks upstream of the turning basin are very steep and naturally vegetated with grasses and shrubs. The River currently supports a salmon fishery and various water dependent industrial uses. All areas beyond the associated shorelines are generally flat. This reflects the original topography of the alluvial plan and the 5-10 feet of fill which was used to raise ground elevation. The impervious surface coverage of upland areas is over 90%. Land Use. The Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center comprises approximately 1,370 acres of land, as shown in the Existing Land Use Map (Fig. 3). The area is designated as one of four King County MIC's, in the County -wide Planning Policies. This designation reflects the corridor's long history of industrial uses and its current importance in the regional economy. It stands as one of the few remaining concentrations of manufacturing and industrial lands in urban Puget Sound. Tukwila Department of Community Development 5 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 The MIC is almost entirely developed with industrial/distribution uses. Land use is summarized in Table A. The Boeing Aircraft Company is the major business in this area, as it owns or controls 47% (650 acres) of all lands. King County International Airport is the second largest business with 24% (327 acres) of MIC land. About 6% (80 acres)of all lands are vacant. Table A Land Use Distribution in the Tukwila MIC Use Type Ares . Percept of MIC ,Area Developed Land 843 67 Airport 327 24 Vacant land 80 6 Rights-of-way 16 1 Water (Duwamish River) 34 2 TOTAL MIC AREA2 1,370 100 The Duwamish River is small in area, but important as a State- owned, navigable shipping route and fishery for the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Adjacent industrial upland uses and the river fishery seem to have reached a dynamic, co -existence where regulations keep uses from degrading each other. Corridor employment has varied greatly over time. Current employment levels are much less than have been historically accommodated in the existing building square footage. Significant employee densification potential could be supported by the existing and planned area infrastructure. King County International Airport land ownership has been adjusted downward from the 594 acres which they actually own, to reflect the 45% of land leased to the Boeing Aircraft Company (i.e., 594 ac. x 55% = 327 ac.). The Boeing leased lands had been previously counted as lands under their control, to better reflect actual use. 2 Total area includes the Planned Annexation Area of 140 acres. This is an area of unincorporated King County to the northwest of the City which was studied, but not included in the adopted plan. 6 Tukwila Department of Community Development 139766AO.EE • Cy ol Tukwila • Figure 3-1. 5-15-97 • LW MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CENTER IMPLEMENTATION PLAN City of Tukwila 1 Public Recreation EMI Public Services MN Quasi -Public Wholesale Distribution MEM Retail Distribution MEM Commercial Services Processing/Industrial 4-_.E Multi -Family Single Family Vacant Water Areas Miscellaneous %-cre 0 0' 400'200 1/10(ee Existing MIC Land Uses Tukwila Department of Community Development Page 7 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 Land use regulation is based on the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, as implemented by the Tukwila Zoning Code (Tukwila Municipal Code Title 18), and the King County Shoreline Master Plan. All lands in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code are identically designated as either Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center/Light (TMC 18.36) or Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy (TMC 18.38). Lands outside the existing city limits, in the Tukwila Potential Annexation Area, are designated MIC/H in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Zone boundaries are shown in Figure 4. The purpose of land use regulation in each zone is summarized below. Manufacturing/Industrial Center Light (MIC/L) -- "This district ...is intended to provide a major employment area containing distributive light manufacturing and industrial uses and other uses that support those industries. This district's uses and standards are intended to enhance the redevelopment of the Duwamish Corridor." (TMC 18.36.010) Manufacturing/Industrial Center Heavy (1VIIC/H) -- "This district ...is intended to provide a major employment area containing heavy or bulk manufacturing and industrial uses, distributive and light manufacturing and industrial uses, and other uses that support those industries. The district's uses and standards are intended to enhance the redevelopment of the Duwamish Corridor." (TMC 18.38.010) Figure 4 MIC Comprehensive Plan and Zoning District Distribution s trraimmtabort Plan ZOITIOCCRICOWISfehe w„ Mop Legend —MC Simscpc InMorrorMai Ron Bowslay O=.,,.,,.a.ra vy 8 Tukwila Department of Community Development Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 The State designated the Duwamish River as a "Shoreline of Statewide Significance." Uses within 200 ft. of the river are subject to the King County Shoreline Master Plan of 1987 (KCC Title 25). These provisions allow industrial uses, but permit fewer development options between the river and the building, than the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan. Revision of the MIC Shoreline Plan is scheduled in 1998, as part of the Citywide shoreline plan update. The MIC is well supported by existing and planned/budgeted infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure systems are summarized below. Transportation: Regional road access to the MIC is provided by I-5, SR -599, Pacific Hwy. South, and E. Marginal Way. The road system is shown in Figure 5. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan establishes an "Average Level of Service of E" (ALOS-E) as the minimum concurrency (operational) standard for MIC roads. Commuting alternatives to single occupant vehicles are being supported by the Tukwila Commuter Trip Reduction program could help to reduce peak traffic generation through the use of car and van pools. The bus alternative has become problematic as service to the MIC reflects a trend of service hour reduction. • ♦ r.. i♦ a y.. • 99 \ 1/ y \ 0/1 %`.r. • • 41 ♦ --ice`♦ ♦ i •♦ t,4� tt 3t ♦ 17 T ...,•*w �.. . • • • t Figure 5 LEGEND Functional Street Classification Map MN NM IMO Freeway Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Arterial Signalized Intersection Tukwila Department of Community Development 9 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 Road improvements in the Tukwila Capital Improvement Plan include replacement of the Pacific Hwy. S. bridge across the Duwamish River, expansion of the Pacific Hwy. S./SR-599 southbound on-ramp and associated intersection, and completion of signal improvements and frontal road improvements along various segments. Several transportation issues are currently in the process of being resolved: 1. Routing and facility location for the regional light rail system which would enter the MIC along the Boeing Access Road alignment. -- Tukwila and the Regional Transit Authority are currently conducting independent analyses of routing alternatives, 2. Continuation of annual funding for the 16th Avenue Bridge ($500,000), near-term needed repairs ($10 million in the next 8 years) and longer-term replacement ($20 million)3 -- Tukwila is currently in formal mediation with Seattle and King County, and 3. Finding an alternative safe access to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail yard, other than S. 124th Street -- Tukwila is currently conducting joint analyses with BNSF. Existing analyses show that the neither regional light rail facilities nor the 16th Avenue Bridge are necessary to support MIC buildout at adopted infrastructure levels of service. Resolution of these issues is not a precondition to continued area development. The BNSF use of S. 124th does result in exceeding the adopted LOS -D threshold for residential streets and the Comprehensive Plan policy to separate functionally different traffic. Resolution of this issue must precede any additional development of the rail yard. Utilities. The MIC is served by water, sewer, and storm drainage area -wide -systems which are sufficient to support buildout, except for a 1,500 ft. long water line along S. 112th St. which is needed for water quality purposes4. Maps of the sewer and water purveyors and their mains, are shown in figures 6 and 7, respectively. Existing concurrency regulations ensure adequate service and fair -share participation by properties which had not previously supported the area -wide system upon development. 3 Amounts are total costs. Tukwila and King County currently each pay half. The capital costs ($30 mill.) may receive 80% grant funding, in which case the local • share would be $3 mill.). ° Water quality is currently ensured by regular flushing of the affected, dead-end main on Pacific Hwy. S., south of S. 112th Street. 10 Tukwila Department of Community Development Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 MIC Strategic Implementation Plan Sewer Map Legend CIN Limes �..� PAC Seeeegic arpenrnatlon Pen aandery veiyue Sewer District oaneray maned by 17 tee wltn punnp nations et oenneetbre Me Melanin, Inn° Cony (1o11rerN METRO) tun res. RemaYW4 Mae are sawn by Oty of Admits sewer Wy. City of Tukwila IC Strategic Implementeaon Plan e0e /Leew! November 2, 1908 Ya MIC Strategic Implementation Plan Water Map Legend Cy Limas �••� MiC Strategic ncanentetton plan aoutoay Water Outrlet 125 Remaining Mea en sewed by Cy a TUtMa wear utility. The City of Ssatse provides ao0rn water tor LI ata cea46Yeen see 20' (Seattle 48' (Seattle) Dead End 10' WD 125 City of Tukwila MIC Strategic IMOternentatIon Plan 'me ter Zl Nwerrane Tukwila Department of Community Development 11 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 Area -wide storm drainage is provided by the City of Tukwila, the Washington State Dept. of Transportation, and King County Airport. Numerous private systems involving multiple properties also drain directly to the Duwamish River. All private property storm drainage is regulated by the City of Tukwila. Plan Development Process The MIC plan development process is shown in Figure 8. It incorporated specific notice to City property owners, businesses, residents and multi jurisdictional regulators. Follow-up workshops were held, including one with industrial development professionals. These meetings helped to identify the area's opportunities and constraints, as well as a preliminary list of regulatory gaps, overlaps, and potential barriers to redevelopment. Three hypothetical prototype developments were used to test and improve the existing regulatory system. The resulting proposals were reviewed in an environmental impact statement and further refined to eliminate probable significant adverse impacts. 12 Tukwila Department of Community Development Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 MIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Nov. 1996: Notice of Plan preparation and summary goals sent to all residents businesses and property owners in the City. 41- Feb.1997: Workshops with major property owners, State and Federal rgulators, Muckleshoot Tribe Fisheries, and industrial development experts on MIC issues and opportunities. Feb. 1997: Inventory existing policy direction, development regulations, development review process and other technical studies. Feb -Mar. 1997: Evaluate the interaction of identified issues, the land use regulatory system, and MIC policy direction to validate and/or reivise the basic purpose and products of the MIC Implementation Plan. Mar. 1997: Use professional expertise to develop a representative range of proto-typical, market driven developments, which are consistent with the MIC land use designations. Mar.1997: Test prototype developments based on existing regulations and identify issues. Mar. 1997: Draft revised regulations to delete unnecessary regulations and add regulations as needed to fill regulatory gaps created by early SEPA Planned Action review. May 1997: Issue Plan/DEIS. 411111. - June -Nov. 1997: Staff revises popose Plan. i Mar.1998: Planning Commission considers public hearing input, and endorses the proposed Plan with few changes. Oct. 1998: City Council considers public hearing input and adopts rcommended Plan with few changes. Tukwila Department of Community Development 13 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 MIC Prototype Analysis Three prototype developments have been used to identify potential gaps and overlaps in Tukwila's regulatory system, propose regulatory revisions, and further test the revised system to ensure that potential environmental impacts will be mitigated. The three prototype developments are all located in the MIC/H zone, although they incorporate uses also found in the MIC/L zone. The prototypes are hypothetical, but are intended to cover a range of permitted uses in the MIC, from warehouse and distribution, to research and development, to manufacturing and laboratory. From this review, recommendations were prepared to assure that environmental safeguards are in place within the city's codes and development review procedures to address future development proposal impacts. Figure 9 shows the location of each prototype development site. Figures 10, 11 and 12 present the three prototypes developed for this project. Each site is described below. Figure 9 Location of Prototype Sites -"'•• \k‘ r l ' N. rn+aSWu UMW" OKC:LOON Prototype SITE 3 4taKP K cam, _ ,. , T.: • 7 BOEING •. FIELO w4 ccutiry City of Tukwila ManufacturinglIndustrial Center MIC Strategic Implementation Plan Boundary ••—•--- City Limits 1300 a000a scar r:.w O \\ ... Prototype ';\ .\ . . • SITE 1 \\ • `. USW .\ � �,',;. .Prototype; \ ig p .. ; k: SITE 2 \ i, h. .\. j .. • nrsse __ ► - \ \ \. S 1261E St . .. , 14 Tukwila Department of Community Development Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 Prototype Site 1 Figure 10 illustrates Prototype Site 1, a site located at South 112th Street and Pacific Highway South. The site has river frontage and is assumed to be used for sale, distribution, and storage of industrial supplies. The redevelopment shown in Figure 10 is fora research and development facility with accessory office space. Issues that are explored include access to Pacific Highway, driveway number and location, and shoreline development issues. Figure 10 Prototype Site 1 Building Envelops OBLIQUE VIEW Site Data Zoning MIC/H Site Size 475,000 sf Bldg Footprint 175,000 sf Bldg Uses: Office 35,000 sf R & D 70,000 sf Lab 70,000 sf Bldg. Height 125 ft. Site Coverage 100% Driveways Number 4 Curb cut length 100 ft. Parking Proposed 525 spcs. Tukwila Department of Community Development 15 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 Site Data Zoning MIC/H Site Size 210,000 sf Bldg Footprint 73,000 sf Bldg Uses: Office 15,000 sf Warehse/Distribu. 58,500 sf Bldg. Height 45 ft. Site Coverage 100% Driveways Number 4 Curb cut length 240 ft. Parking Proposed 135 spcs. Prototype Site 2 Figure 11 shows Prototype Site 2. This site is located between Pacific Highway South and East Marginal Way South at South 112t Street. Current use is assumed to be auto sales and service. The redevelopment shown in the prototype is for a warehouse and distribution center. Issues that are explored are access to Pacific Highway and East Marginal Way South, requirements for road improvements, driveway standards, and roadway capacity. Figure 11 Prototype Site 2 South 112th Street O North Ape.oY. Scale in Feat PIAN VIEW Building zEnvelope South 11.2M Sims! OBLIQUE VIEW 16 Tukwila Department of Community Development Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 Prototype Site 3 Figure 12 presents Prototype Site 3. This site is at the northern end of the MIC, bounded by Sixteenth Avenue South, East Marginal Way South, and the Duwamish River. The site is actually Boeing's Plant 2 and is currently used for airplane manufacturing and assembly. While not an actual proposal, the hypothetical redevelopment shown in Figure 12 is a possible approach Boeing may consider for upgrading the site's facilities. It raises a number of issues regarding including large-scale demolition, driveway standards, scale of development, and redevelopment at the shoreline, including replacement of over - water structures. Figure 12 Prototype Site 3 Existing Corporate Headquarters _ I v New c' Nigh -Bay Building (Same Footprint as Existing Kr - High Building) 0 41, 9,y 'sy r -N \ 9, (c" 6, New Lab Building PLAN VIEW Building Footprint Fa 1- 200 New Parking Spaces and Driveway • 0 uvm APP0a. Scar ., FM i I i i t 0 10p 200 ]10 400 45' Increased Height within Existing Footprint ' Building Envelope Fs 80- 125' Replaced Pilings New Riprap • 4Q_ OBLIQUE VIEW Site Data Zoning MIC/H Site Size 50 Acres Bldg Footprint 1,450,000 sf Bldg Uses: Highbay Manu. 750,000 sf Lab 700,000 sf Bldg. Height 125 ft. Site Coverage 100%' Driveways Number 2 Curb cut 80 ft. length Parking Proposed On site 600 Off site 900+ Tukwila Departinent of Community Development 17 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 The following conclusions were drawn from the prototype analysis: 1. The higher intensity prototype developments were consistent with, or less than, the zoning buildout parameters used in the City transportation, sewer, water and storm drain plans, which identified the capital improvements needed to support area land use development, 2. the area -wide system of transportation and utilities is generally sufficient to support buildout, 3. a streamlined permit review system could be implemented in this industrial area, with the adoption of additional provisions for driveway design, adequate lighting, and protection of archaeological data. These provisions are now administratively administered through the SEPA process (which would be replaced) and 4. a streamlined permit review system could reduce development review time by 3-4 weeks, while continuing to implement the land use, infrastructure and environmental policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 18 Tukwila Department of Community Development Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 II. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VISION The City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan envisions the MIC as the focus of significant industrial activity. This is state in Goal 11.1 and its associated policies. Goal 11.1 (MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTER): Support for existing industrial activities in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center and development of new industrial activity in order to maximize the employment and economic benefits to the people of Tukwila and the region, while minimizing impacts on residential neighborhoods. More specifically than this general vision, Comprehensive Plan policies call for various implementing actions (see Appendix A for the implementation of Comprehensive Plan policies). This plan addresses the direction to remove the unnecessary regulatory barriers to development and ensuring that developments incorporate adequate environmental protection and infrastructure support into the project design. Tukwila Department of Community Development 19 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 111. IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS The primary implementation plan focus is on responsibly streamlining the development review process by eliminating unnecessary regulatory barriers and providing predictable review standards. This focus is directly achievable using a newly authorized "planned action" review process. The planned action option uses predictable standards instead of the individual impact analysis/mitigating actions used in the existing SEPA environmental review process. The planned action process and supporting capital improvement and regulatory revisions are presented below. Planned Action Permit Streamlining In general, the State has allowed cities and counties to adopt a "planned action" ordinance to streamline environmental review (State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA)), pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031. A planned action ordinance is required to: 1. identify specific types of developments called "planned actions", 2. evaluate the impacts of planned actions as part of a subarea plan environmental impact statement, 3. provide for full impact mitigation through adopted standards and a consistency check when individual development applications are made and 4. recognize the combined subarea plan EIS and impact mitigating mearsures (e.g., regulations) as satisfying the case-by-case formal SEPA provisions which would otherwise be required for each building permit, subject to an administrative consistency check to ensure full impact mitigation. The proposed Tukwila "planned action" review system is a voluntary program where case-by-case, formal SEPA review for specific types of development actions, is replaced by an integrated MIC subarea plan/environmental impact statement and the specific requirements of a planned action review process. The planned action review process to be embodied in a Tukwila "planned action ordinance" is discussed below. 20 Tukwila Department of Community Development Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 Adopt a new TMC 21.04.XXX (State Environmental Policy Act) This new TMC section establishes a new `planned action " option to normal SEPA review. The following four sections would be contained within this new TMC section. (b) identified Planned Actions, Planned actions are specifically identified as developments which satisfy all of the following characteristics: (1) is a "permitted use" located within the MIC/L (TMC 18.36.020) and MIC/I-1 (TMC 18.38.020) zones and/or is an accessory use (TMC 18.36.030 and 18.38.030 respectively) — "conditional" and "unclassified" uses are not planned actions and (2) satisfies the consistency checklist which demonstrates that all impacts have been mitigated and:.:. (3) is consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan per RCW 43.21C .031(2) and (4) is nta any of the following: (i) an "essential public facility" as defined in RCW 36.70.200, per RCW 43.2IC.031(2), (ii) an action which is not consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan as adopted per RCW 36.70A (consistency required per RCW 43.21.;031(2)).. (iii) a conditional or unclassified use, in the respective NIIC/L or MIC/H zones's: (iv) a development related to the Regional Transit Authority light rail or cotnmunter rail system, (v) any decisions about the 16th Avenue Bridge improvement or disposition which would normally require a SEPA threshold determination, (vi) a development any portion of which include• s shoreline modifications waterward ofthe 'ordinary high water mark, 5 Note to Reviewers: Such uses are more complex and require case by case review and approval by the City Planning Commission and City Council respectively. No time savings in permit review would result from designating them a planned action and their greater potential for significant adverse impacts make such a designation inappropriate at this time. Tukwila Department of Community Development 21 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 {c)... Gansistency Chia, • (1) Having identified the developments which are a.potential ."planned action"; the development must demonstrate that it has mitigated all.ef its impacts'pu%suant to the. etivlronmental:> mpact: statement and planned action ordinanceand is consistent with the comprehensive plan (RCW 43.21C.030(2). • (2) Aconsistency checklist. will be provided: lay: the Director of the Dept. of Community Development. The criteria for.. consistency are as presented in .the Integrated GIM Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Stateinen€::for the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center'' (d) Designating a Development as a Planned Action (1) The Director of the Dept of Oin n unity Development shall `beauthorized to designate a specific development proposal which was eligible to be a planned action, had mitigated all ofits signf cant adverse ixnpacts and was consistent*with the... comprehensive plan, as a planned action. • (2) This designation shall be final, with no administrative appeals. :;: The Planned Action DevelopmentReview Process (e) (1):. Designation .ofe planned action would .relieve the application from any SERA review including a threshold : determination, any final threshold determination;:public .notice of SEPA action, and any administrative appeals: A notice of complete application would NOT be sent for Type 1. applications which: choose the planned action option (2) An illustrative permitreview process:for a normal SEPA review and a planned action review: is shown in Figure 13: ti 22 Tukwila Department of Community Development Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Typical SEPA Process w/o Shoreline Permit Assume 500 + Yards of Excavation Complete Application Received Post Site and Mail notice of application. Assume 3 wks. SEPA review period Issue DNS Begin 15 day comment period Finalize DNS. Assume no MDNS so no 14 day appeal period Planning SEPA Review done. Time = 6 weeks r� recessgor bim Ie>Permits a Typical Planned Action Process w/o Shoreline Permit. Assume 500 Yards of Excavation Complete Application Received No posting or mailing. Assume 3 wks. for planned action "Consistently Checked" Planned action complete Time = 3 weeks Difference Pre & Final DNS * Reduce Posted & Mailed Notice from 1 to 0 * Administrative Decision * No review by other agencies with jurisdiction (they rely on regs. only, not SEPA) Potential 3 wk time saved. No practical time savings are anticipated as building permit review time now exceeds 6 wks. Tukwila Department of Community Development 23 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 Capital Improvements Capital improvements to support the level of development identified in the Comprehensive Plan were identified and incorporated into the Tukwila Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Further detailed analysis with updated data was done for this implementation plan to ensure adequate infrastructure support of the MIC buildout condition. The implementation plan analysis has identified four capital improvements to support MIC buildout. These improvements have been shown in Table B on the following page. Capital improvements which are not needed to support area buildout to adopted level of service standards (such as resolution of RTA facility location and the 16th Avenue Bridge's future status) have not been listed although they have been discussed in the "Background" section. 24 Tukwila Department of Community Development DRAFT Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan April 10, 1998 Table B Capital Improvement Plan Revisions S. 112th St. intersection with Pacific Hwy. S. will operate at LOS F at buildout based on updated traffic data. An upgraded signal controller at the Pacific Hwy. intersection will upgrade operation to LOS B or C and support the corridor ALOS-E. I)ev eInp ttenf 1 inpac ....................................................... ....................................................... ....................................................... ....................................................... ....................................................... ....................................................... ....................................................... Amend the Concurrency Ordinance to incorporate this improvement to provide for fair -share mitigation payments from applicable future developments. State funding support of the controller installation is anticipated. Installation is anticipated prior to the corridor ALOS-E threshold being exceeded. Pacific Hwy. S., south of Boeing Access Road resurfacing and frontal improvements. Not required to provide the minimum ALOS-E capacity . Resurface with some widening, and frontal improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalks, utilities, etc.). The City has already installed the conduit to allow coordinated phasing of signals with adjacent intersections. No private contribution for road improvements. (New projects and re- developments are responsible for frontal improvements per existing TMC 16.36.). The S. 124th St. access to the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad yard will exceed the LOS -D threshold for this residential arterial in the immediate future and does not provide for functional separation of traffic (pols. 13.3.1 & 13.2.1). Design options to resolve capacity and safety issues are being developed at this time. Major options include a new bridge to the southern rail yard areas and a new north access road. The City's goal at this time is to secure BNSF participation in identifying the best solution and its implementation. State and federal funding support will be crucial to any solution. Receiving such support must await the resolution of design issues. Applying proposed regulatory streamlining provisions and approving further facility expansion will be problematic until these traffic concurrency and Comprehensive Plan consistency issues are resolved. UTILITIES Build a new water line on S. 112th Street to loop the system for water quality purposes. Looping became needed when an intertie with the City of Seattle water system was closed off by Seattle, after water system deficiencies were identified in the Comprehensive Plan process. The 1,500 ft. long, 12" line would cost about $140,000 with all hydrants and connections. Fair share payments from benefiting properties (e.g., on Pacific. Hwy., south of S. 112th Street). Tukwila Department of Community Development 25 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 Regulatory Amendments Regulatory amendments are needed to replace the substantive review standards which are currently applied using SEPA. Since the SEPA process would be eliminated from project review, the regulations become necessary. These regulations do not increase the substantive standards which are currently applied. Other SEPA areas of concern are adequately addressed by existing regulations. Amend TMC 18.38.020(xx) (Zoning Code MIC/H Permitted Uses) Policy 11.1.5 provides for locating uses commonly associated with manufacturing and industrial uses in the MIC. "Manufacturing, processing and/or packaging pharmaceuticals and related products, such as cosmetics and drugs" would satisfy this intent. These uses are already allowed in the MIC/L zone as a permitted use (TMC 18.36.020(20). Allow "Manufacturing, processing and/or packaging pharmaceuticals and related, products, such as cosmetics anddrugs" in the:MI.H zone... Amend TMC 18.50.XXX (Zoning Code Supplemental Development Regulations) Policy 15.1.5 provides for incorporating design for crime prevention lighting while avoiding glare: The following provisions would incorporate State and federal crime prevention light levels and apply the standards normally supported by the Board of Architectural review to avoid glare. :Site, Lighting Standards (NEW) A. The following site lighting standards shall apply to portions of developments within 100 feet of the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center boundary as defined in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan 1. the minimum Iight levels in parking areas, paths between the building and street or parking areas shall be 1 fticandle, 2. the maximum ratio of average:minimum light level shall be 4:1 for illuminated grounds, 3. maximum illumination at the property line shall be 2 ft./candles, and 4. lights shall be shielded to eliminate direct off-site illumination. general grounds need not he lighted. B. Variation from this standard may be granted by the Director of the Department of Community Development' based on technical' unfeasibility or safety considerations. Tukwila Department of Community Development 26 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 Amend TMC 18.50.XXX (Zoning Code Supplemental Development Regulations) Per Policy 4.6.1 provides for preserving paleontological and archaeological information. This policy is similar to State statutes which establishes archaeological and historical buildings as valuable and subject to regulation by all jurisdictions, requires local jurisdictions to regulate activities which could damage such resources, and specifies measures to be take when such resources are encountered. 18.50.XXX Tukwila. Manufacturingllndustrial Center Archaeological/ Paleontological lnforn ation Preservation. (NEW) 'The'follovving provisions shall.apply in the Tukwila MIC. A. if there is reason to believe that archaeological resources will be disturbed, a' cultural resources assessment shall.be: conducted.and, if warranted, an archaeological response plan and provisions for excavation monitoring by a professional archaeologist shall be made prior to beginning''construction. The assessment should address the existence and significance of archaeological remains, buildings and structures on the. State or Federal historic registers, observable paleontological deposits and may. include review by the State Archaeologist. 13. It is recommended that the applicant coordinate a predetermination study by a professional archaeologist during the • geotechnical investigation phase, to determine site archaeological. potential arid the likelihood of disturbing archaeological resources C. Excavations into historically native soil, when in an area of archaeological potential, shall have a professional archaeologist on site to ensure that all State statutes regarding archaeological conservation/preservation are implemented. The applicant shall providea written commitment to stop work immediately upon discovery of archaeological remains and to consult with the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) to assess.the remains and develop appropriate treatment measures >: These may include refilling the excavation with nO further responsibility: D. An applicant who encounters Indian burials shall not disturb them and shall consult with OA IP and affected tribal Organizations pursuant to State statutes.:. E. The Director is authorized to: 1. conduct studies to generally identify areas of archaeologicallpaleontological potential, 2. require from the applicant such information as is necessary to make all determinations to implement these provisions and Tukwila Department of Community Development 27 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 3. waive any and all the above reqwrements, except for subsection D (reporting of discovered Indian burials), if the proposed action will have no probable significant impact on archaeological or historical resources that are eligible for listing in' the National Register of Historic Places, or on observable paleontological resources.Examples of such actions include excavation of fill: materials, disturbance of less than 10,000 s.f. of native soils to a depth :o€12 inches, penetration of native soils with pilings over a maximum 8% of the building footprint, and paving over native soils in a manner which does not damage cultural resources. . The above examples are illustrative and not determinative..A case-by-case evaluation of archaeological/ paleontological potential value and proposed disturbance must be made. Amend TMC 16.36.XXX (Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards) Policies 2.1.13, 13.3.2, and 13.3.4, ensure maintenance of area -wide roadway capacity and safety: The following road standards are needed to maintain corridor road capacity and safety. Adopt the following provisions ......................... Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial'Center driveway design and bus pullout requirements. The following provisions shall apply in the Tukwila Manufacturing/industrial Center: A. Driveway design and location standards shown in Figure 14 shall be satisfied. B. Bus pullouts willbe required on all principal arterials. C ': Variation from these standards :may be allowed by the City Engineer who shall base a decision on maintaining needed road capacity and safety...... Tukwila Department of Community Development 28 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 Figure 14 Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Access Spacing and Corner Clearances MINIMUM ACCESS POINT SPACING WHEN DIRECTLY OPPOSING DRIVEWAYS ARE NOT POSSIBLE Street Speed 2 (mph) DIMENSIONS A 3 B 4 C 4 25 105 105 105 30 125 125 125 35 150 150 150 40 185 185 185 45 230 230 230 ACCESS POINT 1-5.6-7 APPENDIX A MIC IMPLENTATION PLAN Comprehensive Plan Policy Implementation November 2, 1998 Introduction The City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan has articulated a vision for the Manufacturing Industrial Center in Goal 11.1: Goal 11.1(MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTER) Support for existing industrial activities in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center and development of new industrial activity in order to maximize the employment and economic benefits to the people of Tukwila and the region, while minimizing impacts on residential neighborhoods. Realization of this goal is supported by numerous policies. The most directly related policies, existing development standards and proposed capital and regulatory implementing revisions are summarized below. This network of development standards works toward assuring development consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and demonstrates the mitigation of environmental impacts. With this network of development standards, the proposed "planned action" approach to permit streamlining becomes valid. It must be emphasized that the proposed development standards are currently applied through the SEPA process. They do not increase the amount of regulation, but do provide increased predictability. Similarly, the permit streamlining which replaces project SEPA with a shorter administrative consistency check, does not reduce the substantive development requirements.. MIC Comprehensive Plan Policies and Implementing Actions Comprehensive Plan policies are too numerous to fully list and retain a readable document. A selection of MIC oriented policies have been presented below. The reviewer is referred to the City of Tukwila "Comprehensive Land Use Plan" (12/4/95) for a complete inventory of policies. Two types of Comprehensive Plan policies should be noted: policies which are adopted on a city- wide basis and those which are contained within the MIC Element. Implementation of both types of policies have been evaluated with respect to existing regulations/programs, integration of the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 proposed capital improvement program and regulatory amendments, and future work direction provided by adopted policies. Policies are presented in numerical order. Economic Development Element 2.1.3 Include standards in the development regulations for industrial uses which adequately mitigate potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties and public facilities and services. Development impacts are adequately mitigated based on existing and proposed regulations as more specifically discussed below. Existing and proposed development standards for mitigating environmental impacts are summarized in the project environmental impact statement by "Element of the Environment." 2.1.4 Budget for public infrastructure (for example, roads, sewers, curbs, lighting, parks, open space). Use some capital improvement funds to encourage in -fill, land assembly, redevelopment, and land conversion for family -wage jobs, but only if concurrent with substantial private actions. Infrastructure needed to support area buildout has been previously identified in the infrastructure comprehensive plans for transportation, sewers, water, and storm drainage. All facilities have either been: • built (e.g., E. Marginal Way reconstruction and utility improvements), • are fully funded and scheduled for construction within six years (e.g., Pacific. Hwy./SR-599 interchange expansion and Pacific. Hwy. Bridge reconstruction and widening) or • recommended herein for incorporationinto the Tukwila Capital Improvement Plan (e.g., S. 112th/Pacific. Hwy. intersection signal improvement) or otherwise resolve (e.g., access to the BNSF railroad yard) -- see Transportation and Utilities capital improvements.. 2.1.6 Consider nonfinancial ways (such as brokering and interlocal agreements) to assist industrial land owners with state and federal government environmental remediation actions. Tukwila is a financial participant and steering committee member, along with State and Federal representatives, to revise the standards for contaminated site cleanup to reflect future industrial uses instead of assumed agricultural or residential uses. Natural Environment Element 4.6.1 Inventory sites and adopt measures to ensure that paleontological and archaeological materials and site details are preserved for posterity. Regulations to identify and protect paleontological and archaeological information is proposed herein. This would not preclude development or require site investigations of historic resources which are not affected by development. A-2 Tukwila Department of Community Development Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 Shoreline Element 5.6.9 For MIC properties included in the King County Green River Trail Master Plan, require shoreline development to provide a trail for public access along the river. Board of Architectural Review approval is required for projects which require a shoreline permit (TMC 18.60). This process is use to ensure that project design provides for locating the trail over the site, design is harmonious with the shoreline environment and specific Comprehensive Plan design mandates are satisfied. 5.6.10 (For MIC properties ) Where shoreline public access is provided, ensure that it is designed to be safe and convenient and includes access amenities such as benches, drinking fountains, public parking areas, handicapped access and appropriate lighting, consistent with the river access guidelines. See implementation of Policy 5.6.9. 5.6.11 For MIC properties not included in the King County Green River Trail Plan, require shoreline development to provide public access or a private natural area in lieu of public access, or otherwise mitigate the loss of public access. See implementation of Policy 5.6.9. Manufacturing/Industrial Center Element 11.1.1 Support the efforts of existing industries to expand and new industrial businesses to develop in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center by providing them with economic data, information on available development sites, help in understanding and getting through the permit processes, and other appropriate assistance. An existing land use map is periodically updated for the entire City. Staff is always available to review development site options and City regulatory requirements. Assistance is provided informally or at a no cost predevelopment meeting with all regulatory department representatives. 11.1.2 Assist landowners in remediating site problems caused by' contaminated soil. See implementation of Policy 2.1.6. 11.1.3 Develop appropriate permit processes that minimize lengthy public review and simplify the development permit process, while providing meaningful opportunities for citizen input and protecting the environment. The proposed "planned action" permit streamlining option implements this policy. General SEPA review is replaced by a comprehensive network of regulations and a consistency check at the time of building permit application. This reduces the permit review time without reducing the level of substantive development standards. Tukwila Department of Community Development A-3 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 11.1.4 Tailor Manufacturing/Industrial Center shoreline requirements to achieve consistency between Shoreline and MIC element goals and policies. Draft shoreline revisions have been developed pursuant to this policy. They will be presented for review as part of a City-wide shoreline master plan revision. 11.1.5 Allow uses that are commonly associated with manufacturing and industry, including those directly supporting such activity, such as offices and laboratories, while prohibiting unrelated uses. . Uses within the MIC/L and MIC/H zones were identified pursuant to this policy during the overall Zoning Code revision to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Additional changes to the permitted uses are proposed to prohibit hotels and motels, and allow pharmaceutical manufacture in the MIC/H zone. 11.1.6 Develop and designate appropriate zoning, buffers, mitigation and access opportunities where manufacturing zoning directly abuts or impacts residential zoning so that MIC uses may operate without significant degradation of the residential environment. Allowed uses and development standards were established during the overall Zoning Code revision to implement the Comprehensive Plan (see Pol 2.1.3). This includes requiring uses within 300 ft. of a residential zone to receive Board of Architectural Review design approval. No changes are proposed. 11.1.7 Support the Duwamish River becoming a natural feature amenity in the MIC Existing shoreline regulations require a 50 ft. wide, vegetative corridor along the river. This regulation is largely moot as over 80% of MIC shoreline areas above the top of bank are paved. Existing regulations work to maintain remaining natural bank faces and vegetated areas within the 50 ft. corridor. This will be further addressed in later revisions to the shoreline plan. 11.1.8 Improve public access and use of the west side of the river, protecting owner's rights to reasonable use and enjoyment, improve employee access to the east side of the river, and emphasize restoration on both sides of the river. See implementation of Policy 5.6.9. 11.1.9 Reduce reliance on the single- occupancy -vehicle for transportation of employees in and out of the MIC. Commuter use of car and van pools are supported by the Tukwila Commuter Trip Reduction program. The bus alternative has become problematic as service to the MIC reflects a trend of service hour reduction. A-4 Tukwila Department of Community Development Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 Utilities Element 12.1.15 Approve development only if adequate utilities are available when a need is created for those facilities, or within a reasonable period as approved by the City. Existing regulations require adequate service with water (TMC 14.36.010), sewer (TMC 14.36.020) and storm water (Ord. 1755) systems. Each utility system has been comprehensively designed in individual functional plans to serve the buildout level of development. The area requires only a 1,500 ft. water line for water quality, to serve planned buildout. A fair share developer's agreement could be required per TMC 14.36 upon redevelopment. Transportation Element 13.3.1 Use the following LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: — The East Marginal industrial and manufacturing corridor LOS average is not to exceed E. — The Pacific Highway corridor LOS average is not to exceed E. These standards have been adopted in TMC 9.48 and are considered in preparing the City Capital Improvement Program. 13.3.2 Maintain adopted LOS standards in (transportation) planning, development, and improvement decisions. See implementation of Policy 13.3.1. Driveway location and design standards have also been proposed to maintain corridor capacity. 13.3.3 Provide capacity improvements or trip reduction measures so that the average LOS is not exceeded. See implementation of Policy 13.3.1. 13.3.4 When reviewing private development proposals, use an expanded LOS to determine SEPA mitigations that will provide capacity or traffic generation control. See implementation of Policy 13.3.1. 13.6.1 Include trucking design parameters in principal and minor arterial improvements as well as in commercial areas. This is adopted in TMC 16.34, which adopts the City of Tukwila "Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards." Tukwila Department of Community Development A-5 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan November 2, 1998 13.6.4 Participate with King County and the Port of Seattle in updating their airport master plan, to ensure that airport operations and development: — Enhances Tukwila goals and policies — Incorporates Tukwila land use plans and regulations _ Minimizes adverse impacts to Tukwila residents. The City is a participant on the King County International Airport master plan advisory committee. 13.7.2 Use an environmental mitigation system that identifies: — Safety and capacity improvements based on 2010 LOS deficiencies — Costs of improvements needed to mitigate increased traffic reflected in the annual Capital Improvement Plan update — Fair -share costs, determined from the capacity improvement cost and the 20 -year increase in traffic — Mitigation assessments, determined by the number of development trips and the capacity or safety improvement fair -share cost — Mitigation assessments that may be used for identified capacity or safety improvements. City of Tukwila functional plans for infrastructure identify the required improvements to support Comprehensive Plan buildout. The implementation or concurrency ordinances for transportation, sewer, water and storm drainage provide for the fair share participation of new developments in needed system improvements. See Table B for capital improvements needed to support MIC buildout. Roles and Responsibilities Element 15.1.5 Foster an environment of safety and security for those who live in, work in, and visit Tukwila, through Tong -term partnerships between residents, businesses, schools, Tukwila Police Department, and other City staff in crime intervention and safety enhancement programs. Proposed light and glare control standards would provide minimum 1 ft./candle lighting on developed grounds and prohibit direct off-site illumination or 2 ft./candles at the property line. 1 A-6 Tukwila Department of Community Development AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE TUKWILA MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTER STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN; ESTABLISHING A PLANNED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS; AMENDING VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF TITLES 16,18, AND 21; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center is one of four Manufacturing Industrial Centers designated in the King County Comprehensive Planning Policies, pursuant to the State Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS City staff developed a Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan and implementing regulations as directed in the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS extensive opportunities for public participation in developing the plan and its regulations were made available; and WHEREAS an environmental impact statement on the plan and regulations was circulated for public review and finalized after public comment; and WHEREAS the environmental impact statement on the plan and regulations evaluated the impacts of certain "planned actions" per WAC 194-11-164 and 168, and found no significant adverse impacts per WAC 197-11-172; and WHEREAS a copy of the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan was transmitted to the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development for review per State statute with the State's comments being presented at the City Council public hearing, and WHEREAS the Planning Commission and City Council held public hearings on the plan and regulations; and WHEREAS the City Council considered all comments and materials during its deliberations including the Environmental Impact Statement and the Planning Commission recommendation, and made revisions as a result of further staff analysis and public input; and WHEREAS the Plan area boundary and its associated provisions have been limited to areas within the City of Tukwila in order to address concerns raised by the City of Seattle and King County administrations; and WHEREAS the City will monitor MIC development and performance of this Plan through regional Growth Management Act Benchmarks Program currently administered by the Puget Sound Regional Council; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The analyses and conclusions in the "Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan," the associated environmental impact statement, and the staff responses to comments on the plan and draft environmental impact statement are supported. These documents are incorporated herein as if fully stated and are on file at the Tukwila Department of Community Development. Section 2. Adoption of Plan. The "Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan" is incorporated herein as if fully stated and adopted as a subarea plan of the "City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan" pursuant to the State Growth Management Act. Implementing regulations within the Plan are adopted by this ordinance. Section 3. Ordinance No. 1758 as codified in TMC 18.38.020. is amended to allow a new class of permitted use in the MIC/H zone as follows: "Manufacturing, processing and/or packaging pharmaceuticals and related products, such as cosmetics and drugs". Section 4. A new TMC section 18.50.100. MIC/L and MIC/H Site Lighting Standards. is hereby created as follows:. 1. The following site lighting standards shall apply to portions of developments within 100 feet of the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center boundary as defined in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan: a. the minimum light levels in parking areas, paths between the building and street or parking areas shall be 1 ft./candle, b. the maximum ratio of average:minimum light level shall be 4:1 for illuminated grounds, c. maximum illumination at the property line shall be 2 ft./candles, d. lights shall be shielded to eliminate direct off-site illumination, and e. general grounds need not be lighted. 2. Variation from these standards may be granted by the Director of the Department of Community Development based on technical unfeasibility or safety considerations. Section 5. A new TMC section 18.50.110. MIC/L and MIC/H Zone Archaeological/ paleontological Information Preservation Requirements, is hereby created as follows;. The following provisions shall apply in the MIC/L and MIC/H zones: 1. If there is reason to believe that archaeological resources will be disturbed, a cultural resources assessment shall be conducted and, if warranted, an archaeological response plan and provisions for excavation monitoring by a professional archaeologist shall be made prior to beginning construction. The assessment should address the existence and significance of archaeological remains, buildings and structures on the State or Federal historic registers, observable paleontological deposits and may include review by the State Archaeologist. 2. It is recommended that the applicant coordinate a predetermination study by a professional archaeologist during the geotechnical investigation phase, to determine site archaeological potential and the likelihood of disturbing archaeological resources 3. Excavations into historically native soil, when in an area of archaeological potential, shall have a professional archaeologist on site to ensure that all State statutes regarding archaeological conservation/preservation are implemented. The applicant shall provide a written commitment to stop work immediately upon discovery of archaeological remains and to consult with the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) to assess the remains and develop appropriate treatment measures. These may include refilling the excavation with no further responsibility. 4. An applicant who encounters Indian burials shall not disturb them and shall consult with OAHP and affected tribal organizations pursuant to State statutes. 5. The Director is authorized to: a. conduct studies to generally identify areas of archaeological/paleontological potential, b. determinations to implement these provisions and c. waive any and all the above requirements, except for subsection "4" (reporting of discovered Indian burials), if the proposed action will have no probable significant impact on archaeological or historical resources that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or on observable paleontological resources. Examples of such actions include excavation of fill materials, disturbance of less than 10,000 s.f. of native soils to a depth of 12 inches, penetration of native soils with pilings over a maximum 8% of the building footprint, and paving over native soils in a manner which does not damage cultural resources. The above examples are illustrative and not determinative. A case-by-case evaluation of archaeological/ paleontological potential value and proposed disturbance must be made. Section 6. A new TMC Section 21.04.152, Planned Actions Identified, is hereby created as follows: Planned actions are specifically identified as developments which satisfy all of the following characteristics: 1. is a "permitted use" located within the MIC/L (TMC 18.36.020) and MIC/H (TMC 18.38.020) zones and/or is an accessory use (TMC 18.36.030 and 18.38.030 respectively). "Conditional" and "unclassified" uses are not planned actions; and 2. satisfies the consistency checklist which demonstrates that all impacts have been mitigated; and 3. is consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan per RCW 43.21C.031(2); and 4. is not any of the following: a. an "essential public facility" as defined in RCW 36.70.200, per RCW 43.21C.031(2); b. an action which is not consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan as adopted per RCW 36.70A (consistency required per RCW 43.21.;031(2)); c. a conditional or unclassified use, in the respective MIC/L or MIC/H zones; d. a development related to the Regional Transit Authority light rail or commuter rail system; e. any decisions about the 16th Avenue Bridge improvement or disposition which would normally require a SEPA threshold determination; or f. a development any portion of which includes shoreline modifications waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Section 7. A new TMC section 21.04.154. Consistency Check. is hereby created as follows: 1. Having identified the developments which are a potential "planned action", the development must demonstrate that it has mitigated all of its impacts pursuant to the environmental impact statement and planned action ordinance, and is consistent with the comprehensive plan (RCW 43.21C.030(2). 2. A consistency checklist will be provided by the Director of the Department of Community Development. The criteria for Comprehensive Plan consistency are as presented in the "Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center." Section 8. A new TMC section 21.04.156, Designating a Development as a Planned Action, is hereby created as follows: 1. The Director of the Department of Community Development shall be authorized to designate a specific development proposal which is eligible to be a planned action, has mitigated all of its significant adverse impacts, and is consistent with the comprehensive plan, as a planned action. 2. This designation shall be final, with no administrative appeals. Section 9. A new TMC section 21.04.158. Planned Action Development Review Process, is hereby created as follows: Designation of a planned action would relieve the application from any SEPA review including a threshold determination, any final threshold determination, public notice of SEPA action, and any administrative appeals. A notice of complete application would NOT be sent for Type 1 applications which choose the planned action option. Section 10. Incorporation of MIC/L and MIC/H Zone Driveway Design and Bus Pullout Requirements. The Public Works Director shall incorporate the MIC/L and MIC/H Zone Driveway Design and Bus Pullout Requirements," as presented in the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan (pages 28 and 29), into the City of Tukwila Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards as adopted in Ordinance 1783 and codified as TMC 16.36. Section 11. Severability, Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this ordinance be pre-empted by state or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre-emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 12. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this day of 1991. John W. Rants, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Jane E. Cantu, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Resolution Number: ATTACHMENTS A. Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan, November 2, 1998 (File No. L96-0071). B. Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, March 12, 1998 (File No. E96-0034). file q:\micip\cncl\ord.doc (PHONE CALL) 5 . .')///tAii,d, C/4 ,7 g FO Vim- 3 3 TIME M ,SDA+T� 1412_ C`X�Cti. OF / PHONED ❑ FAX PHO E D MOBILE w�� / �� ?RETURNED `YOUR CALL ES AGE '� AREA 0 N R EXTENSION 1 V W� ..PLEASE CALL i /_ l�� 1 FJ\ el -u -e• ce WILL,„ CALL 1 . l• I .1 j (% OoQI B- /Q" 1,� O SCJ ��.� CAM E TO SEE YOU 'j^�. -1-)!TI-F, Cid or, E YDUO SIGNED _ .'VTOPS. _ FO M 4003, `Ndisi-k G (z(9, (�D rMgb Dewelato. (� EVAN LEWIS US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS 4735 E MARGINAL WAY S SEATTLE WA 98124-2255 .ANN KENNY, SHORELANDS DIV DEPT OF ECOLOGY 3190 160th AVE SE BELLEVUE WA 98008-5452 DEPT OF COMMUNITY TRADE & ECOI'TOMIC DEVELOPMENT NO BOX 48300 OLYMPIA WA 98504-8300 PHIL SCHNEIDER CI)SEPA ENVIRON REVIEW DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE DEPT OF ECOLOGY 22516 SE 64th PL STE 230 PO BOX 47703 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7703 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION REG. ENVIR. PROG. MGR. 15700 DAYTON AVE N MS -138 SEATTLE WA 98133 DEPT OF FISHERIES/WLDLIF 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD MILL CREEK WA 98012 n= DEPT OF DE,V/ENVIR SVCS OK C TRANSIT DIVISION SEPA INFORMATION CENTER SEPA OFFICIAL :?00 OAKSDALE AVE SW 821.SECOND AVE, MS -122 �.ENTON WA 98055-1219 SEATTLE WA 98104 PORT OF SEATTLE PO BOX 120,9 SEATTLE WA 98111 STEVE HAGEN SEATTLE CITY LIGHT 700 FIFTH AV - STE #2808 SEATTLE WA 98104-5031 CITY OF RENTON 'PLANNING DEPARTMENT 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 HFI) GEOY?GE LINA TUKW PLNG COMMISSION 1561 • 7th AVE S TUy I L A WA 98188 GRAN \N RISS TUICWIA PLNG COMMISSION :LG31 / 5th PL S '.CUKy I LA WA 98188 PAM TUKWI 4 115 TUR CITY COUNCIL 39th ST WA 98168 (I) TUKWILA LIBRARY 14475 59th AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 MARY BARRETT DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PO BOX 68 ENUMCLAW WA 98022-0068 CHUCK PETERSON SEATTLE CITY LIGHT 700 FIFTH AV - STE #2808 SEATTLE WA 98104-5031 CITY OF SEATAC PLANNING DEPARTMENT 17900 INTERNAT'L BL #401 SEATAC WA 98188-4236 VERN R W TUKWILA .'LNG COMMISSION 4431 S 8th ST TUKW A 98168 DAVID TUKWILA 13212 TUKW A e JOE ►"UFF. E TUKWIi•'CITY COUNCIL 5332 40th ST T LA A 98168 ORE LNG COMMISSION AVE S W . . 98168 CTED GROWTH MANAGEMENT, PERF PO BOX 48300 OLYMPIA WA 98504-8300 A -meal Pe:c. 12(C.i(. RUTH 'rEiY.,, KC WATER & LAND 700 5th AVE #2200 SEATTLE WA 98104 ()FOSTER LIBRARY 4205 S 142nd ST TUKWILA WA 98168 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 220 FOURTH AVE S KENT WA 98032 KAT TUKW 132 T HENR TUKWI 5327 TUK TETSON PLNG COMMISSION th AVE S ILA WA 98168 3.,saw IN LNG COMMISSION 40th ST WA 98188 go lc JIM • GGE : ' ON TUKWIh. ITY COUNCIL 15820 " rd AVE S T LA A 98188 Fox ALL • EK = RG TUKWIL: CITY COUNCIL 4920 .1st ST T ILA • 98188 AFFIDAVIT WPncla,l Bull ONotice of Public Hearing IlNotice of Public Meeting n Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet IlPlanning Commission Agenda Packet IlShort Subdivision Agenda Packet Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit n Shoreline Management Permit OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: ODetermination of Non- significance Mitigated Determination of. Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice fNotice of Action Official Notice Other FEIS Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on 6th(---cue,IALk: Name of Proj(0- VII C4'1 12)1 • Signature File Number L—`%Orn r Eck, —o03y JOAN E' FEZ TUKWIL: CITY COUNCIL 15224 S. OOD BLVD T LA A 98188 Nancy Ousley Seattle,Office of Mgmt/Plng 600 4th Avenue, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104-1826 STEVE KUZMA B.N.S.F. RAILWAY 999 THIRD AV SEATTLE WA 98104 (i)ELIZABETH WARMAN BOEING SUPPORT SERVICES PO BOX 3707, MS 14-49 SEATTLE WA 98124-2207 LEE LINNE JORGENSEN FORGE 8531 EAST MARGINAL WY S SEATTLE WA 98108 RUSS SEGNER KIDDER MATTHEWS & SEGNER 12886 INTERURBAN AV S TUKWILA WA 98168 )LAURA WHITAKER PERKINS COIE 1201 THIRD AVE - 40th FLR SEATTLE WA 98101-3099 U.S. E.P.A. 1200 6th AVE SEATTLE WA 98101 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR LEGISLATIVE BUILDING OLYMPIA WA 98504 SEPA OFFICIAL K C WATER POLL. CONTROL 821 SECOND AVE MS -120 SEATTLE WA 98104 PAM TUKW 1191 T ER' CITY COUNCIL NTERURBAN PL S WA 98168 CITY OF SEATTLE SEPA 'INFO CENTER 720 SECOND AVE STE 200 SEATTLE WA 98104 STEVE LAWRENCE FOSTER COMMUNITY CLUB 4251 S 139th ST TUKWILA WA 98168 )JOHN CRULL BOEING SUPPORT SERVICES PO BOX 3707, MS 2R-71 SEATTLE WA 98124-2207 RAY GOODING ASSOCIATED GROCERS PO BOX 3763 SEATTLE WA 98124 BOB HART SGA CORPORATION 6414 204th ST SW.STE 200 LYNNWOOD WA 98036 ERIC LASCHEVER PRESTON, GATES & ELLIS 701 5th AVE SEATTLE WA 98104 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIN. 711 S CAPITOL WY #501 OLYMPIA WA 98501' OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GEN PO BOX 40117 OLYMPIA WA 98504 K C HEALTH DEPT 506 2nd AVE #201 SEATTLE WA 98104 � 72�od 3 ;�-?8 cum City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM To: Nancy Ousley, Assistant Director City of Seattle Office of Management and Planning From: , Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner Date: March 30, 1998 RE: L96-0071 and E96-0034 -- Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement Please find three copies of the "Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement," attached for your use and information. Our records are unclear as to whether your office was sent three copies of the document, or inadvertently sent only the "Notice of Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Issuance and Availability". In any case, I am happy to provide these copies. I apologize for any error on our part. The FEIS was issued on March 12, 1998. On March 13th, a notice of availability was sent to you and the following City of Seattle representatives: • Steve Hagen, Seattle City Light • Chuck Peterson, Seattle City Light • City of Seattle SEPA Information Center The Planning Commission has completed its deliberations on the "Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan". City Council review is anticipated to begin in about 40 days. This review will include a public hearing to receive further public testimony. Please feel free to contact me at 206-431-3684, if you have any questions. cc: Elsie Crossman/Steve Lancaster 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 411C7c HA( c Pear 6(41c) ciis ao-e- g f‘ )?La_zi6 3-.13-- 6a5--. • Adolfson Associates 5309 Shilshole Ave. N.W. Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 Attn. Lloyd Skinner URSG 2401 4th Avenue Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98121 Attn. Gary Harshman CH2M Hill 777 108th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004-5114 Attn: Lorie Parker Citi of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188-2599 (206) 431-3670 Fax: (206) 431-3665 • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: /- o21 & k672 /L i BYeD SKf.MIDATE: < C (re ADDRESS: C C 2 M (-((C C- FS01,c REGARDING: M ( C - F65-(5 ATTENTION: WE ARE SENDING YOU THE FOLLOWING Attached ❑ Under separate cover COPIES DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED 2 F T? S . ❑ For approval ❑ For review and comment elEr For your use and information ❑ As requested ❑ Other COMMENTS: are, ` 0-e_ fie4414:ie 2e4 6u.ee SIGNED:j7e,u,d4,.( TITLE: A-0 C. /96. -AC/ cc: AFFIDAVIT 1, wevidl I I Notice Notice of Public Hearing of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet fl Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the -44zukut, tutD,124, l&GUL-11L) 71 Co-ty cirf 2.) a iI ,%:. OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: ODetermination of Non- significance Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action fl Official Notice Other FE/s (6eT-oo 3 ` ) Other following addresses on,3-43-18"*. .. I1J i4 4. ? Y 0_4otLeLatut,to- -7u-edluLia4et Name of ProjectlitRivilLL%li ; 2;4. Signature File Number 400- OW/ .16.96-6r ejk2b 7rwerc, No(GATe-, nr um Ven. Off F 1S coves Sou T (2-1,. C41 ) A7 D (LE S$ E"5 c„SI o P /r2E?J 7FW 6 Ko7cce OF k(Atc. Aa(4,11 ', /2.ec&t vEb 061 t.'( TcfeE' 10 City of Tukwila • John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS) ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY The City of Tukwila has issued an FEIS under the State Environmental Policy Act Rules (Chapter 197-11 WAC) for the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center, Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. The issue date is March 12, 1998. This implementation plan does not alter the land use designations and development policies in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Its focus is modifying the regulatory system to facilitate industrial area development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. This resulted in three plan elements: 1. An updated shoreline plan for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and more clearly stated development requirements for shoreline developments, 2. A "Planned Action" process to complete environmental review during this area -wide planning phase, for a wide range of uses which, subject to regulatory compliance, would have no significant adverse environmental impacts, and 3. Regulatory changes and mitigating measures which will ensure that developments approved under the planned action process will be consistent with the land use, environmental, and infrastructure policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Copies of the FEIS are available for review at the Tukwila Library (14475 59th Ave. S.) and Foster Library (4205 S. 142nd St.). The FEIS and all supporting materials are available for review at DCD offices at: Suite 100, 6300 Southcenter Blvd.; Tukwila, WA; 98188, on Monday through Friday, between 8:30 AM and 5 P.M. A limited supply of FEIS's are available at no cost, at DCD offices. This FEIS is issued by Mr. Steve Lancaster, SEPA Responsible Official, Tukwila Dept. of Community Development. Questions about the document may be directed to Jack Pace or Vernon Umetsu at 206-431-3684. Published Seattle Times file: q\ micip \ fe isn tc. doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 ( P.S.A.P.C. 110 UNION ST #500 SEATTLE WA 98101 c,) 2,' (F8 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY SHORELINE PERMIT REVIEW 3190 160TH AVE SE BELLEVUE, WA 98008-5452 A-r7c� Q°p rRIra cht KENT LIBRARY 212 2nd AVE N KENT WA 98032 SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY 1000 4th AV - 2nd FLR SEATTLE WA 98104-1193 WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS PO BOX 1869 SEATTLE WA 98111 OLYMPIC PIPELINE PO BOX 1800 RENTON WA 98057 WATER DISTRICT #20 12606 1st AVE S SEATTLE WA 98168 SEATTLE TIMES LEGAL NOTICES PO BOX 70 SEATTLE WA 98111 IVAR JONES DELTA MARINE 1608 S 96th ST SEATTLE WA 98108 Gary C. Taller Boeing Defense & Space Group P.O. ,Box 3707, MS 46-87 Seattle, WA,98124-2207 SW KC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE 16400 SOUTHCENTER PY #210 140 RAINIER AV S STE 7 TUKWILA WA 98188 RENTON WA 98055-2000 S CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST 4640 S 144th ST TUKWILA WA 98168 SEATTLE LIBRARY 1000 4th AVE SEATTLE WA 98104-1193 SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 815 4th N SEATTLE WA 98109 SEATTLE WATER DEPT 710 2nd AV - 10th FLR SEATTLE WA 98104 PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT 22828 68th AV S - #102 KENT WA 98032-1834 WATER DISTRICT #125 PO BOX 68147 SEATTLE WA 98168 ()IKE NWANKWO DCTED, GROWTH MGMNT DIV PO BOX 48300 OLYMPIA WA 98504-8300 CLARE IMPETT K.C. INT'L AIRPORT PO BOX 80245 SEATTLE WA 98108 Margaret Duncan P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392-0498 RENTON LIBRARY 1.00 MILL ST RENTON WA 98055 KING COUNTY LIBRARY 300 8th AVE SEATTLE WA 98109 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 7235 S 228th KENT WA 98032 TCI CABLEVISION 15241 PACIFIC HY S SEATTLE WA 98188 VAL-VUE SEWER DISTRICT PO BOX 68063 SEATTLE WA 98168 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 200 MILL AV S RENTON WA 98055 DUWAMISH COALITION c/o K.C. 0.B.S.P 516 3rd AVE - RM 420 SEATTLE WA 98104 RICHARD ANDERSON SEAFIRST R.E. INVESTMNT PO BOX 34029 SEATTLE WA 98124 N Ikuno Masterson Office of Budget & Strategic Planning 516 Third Av., Rm 420 Seattle, WA 98104 EVAN LEWIS US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS 4735 E MARGINAL WAY S SEATTLE WA 98124-2255 ANN KENNY, SHORELANDS DIV DEPT OF ECOLOGY 3190 160th AVE SE BELLEVUE WA 98008-5452 DEPT OF COMMUNITY TRADE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PO BOX 48300 OLYMPIA WA 98504-8300 C,1) KC DEPT OF DEV/ENVIR SVCS SEPA INFORMATION CENTER 900 OAKSDALE AVE SW RENTON WA 98055-1219 PORT OF SEATTLE PO BOX 1209 SEATTLE WA 98111 STEVE HAGEN SEATTLE CITY LIGHT 700 FIFTH AV - STE #2808 SEATTLE WA 98104-5031 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 F -T GEORGE MALINA TUKWILA PLNG COMMISSION 15617 47th AVE S TUKWILA WA 98188 GRANT NEISS TUKWILA PLNG COMMISSION 16318 45th PL S TUKWILA WA 98188 PAM CARTER TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL. 4115 S 139th ST TUKWILA WA 98168 PHIL SCHNEIDER DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE 22516 SE 64th PL STE 230 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION REG. ENVIR. PROG. MGR. 15700 DAYTON AVE N MS -138 SEATTLE WA 98133 DEPT OF FISHERIES/WLDLIFE 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD MILL CREEK WA 98012 )K C TRANSIT DIVISION SEPA OFFICIAL 821 SECOND AVE, MS -122 SEATTLE WA 98104 (0 TUKWILA LIBRARY 14475 59th AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 CHUCK PETERSON SEATTLE CITY LIGHT 700 FIFTH AV - STE #2808 SEATTLE WA 98104-5031 CITY OF SEATAC PLANNING DEPARTMENT 17900 INTERNAT'L BL #401 SEATAC WA 98188-4236 VERN MERYHEW TUKWILA PLNG COMMISSION 4431 S 148th ST TUKWILA WA 98168 DAVID LIVERMORE TUKWILA PLNG COMMISSION 13212 31st AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 Fo1c JOE DUFFIE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 5332 S 140th ST TUKWILA WA 98168 • (i)SEPA ENVIRON REVIEW DEPT OF ECOLOGY PO BOX 47703 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7703 MARY BARRETT DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PO BOX 68 ENUMCLAW WA 98022-0068 • 6)DCTED GROWTH MANAGEMENT, PERF PO BOX 48300 OLYMPIA WA 98504-8300 RUTH HARVEY KC WATER & LAND 700 5th AVE #2200 SEATTLE WA 98104 C) FOSTER LIBRARY 4205 S 142nd ST TUKWILA WA 98168 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 220 FOURTH AVE S KENT WA 98032 KATHRYNSTETSON TUKWILA PLNG COMMISSION 13258 40th AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 HENRARVIN TUKWILA PLNG 5327 S 140th TUKWILA WA COMMISSION ST 98188 JIM HAGGERTON TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 15820 43rd AVE S TUKWILA WA 98188 Rox ALLAN EKBERG TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 4920 S 161st ST TUKWILA WA 98188 JOAN HERNANDEZ TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 15224 SUNWOOD BLVD TUKWILA WA 98188 ``CIT OF EATTLE OMP - -EPA OFFICIAL 300 •CIPAL BLDG SE: TLE 98104-1826 STEVE KUZMA B.N.S.F. RAILWAY 999 THIRD AV SEATTLE WA 98104 )ELIZABETH WARMAN BOEING SUPPORT SERVICES PO BOX 3707, MS 14-49 SEATTLE WA 98124-2207 LEE LINNE JORGENSEN FORGE 8531 EAST MARGINAL WY S SEATTLE WA 98108 RUSS SEGNER KIDDER MATTHEWS & SEGNER 12886 INTERURBAN AV S TUKWILA WA 98168 (i)LAURA WHITAKER PERKINS COIE 1201 THIRD AVE - 40th FLR SEATTLE WA 98101-3099 U.S. E.P.A. 1200 6th AVE SEATTLE WA 98101 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR LEGISLATIVE BUILDING OLYMPIA WA 98504 SEPA OFFICIAL K C WATER POLL. CONTROL 821 SECOND AVE MS -120 SEATTLE WA 98104 • PAMELA LINDER TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 11918 INTERURBAN PL S TUKWILA WA 98168 CITY OF SEATTLE SEPA INFO CENTER 720 SECOND AVE STE 200 SEATTLE WA 98104 STEVE LAWRENCE FOSTER COMMUNITY CLUB 4251 S 139th ST TUKWILA WA 98168 )JOHN CRULL BOEING SUPPORT SERVICES PO BOX 3707, MS 2R-71 SEATTLE WA 98124-2207 RAY GOODING ASSOCIATED GROCERS• PO BOX 3763 SEATTLE WA 98124 BOB HART SGA CORPORATION 6414 204th ST SW STE 200 LYNNWOOD WA 98036 ERIC LASCHEVER PRESTON, GATES & ELLIS 701 5th AVE SEATTLE WA 98104 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIN. 711 S CAPITOL WY #501 OLYMPIA WA 98501 OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GEN PO BOX 40117 OLYMPIA WA 98504 K C EALTH DEPT 506 2 d AVE #201 SEATTL WA 98104 001- 410 To STEVE MULLET TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 3303 S 132nd ST TUKWILA WA 98168 (1 RODERICK MALCOM MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 39015 172nd AVE SE AUBURN WA 98002 DANIEL ARAGON DUWAMISH IMPROVEMENT CLUB 4504 S 124th ST TUKWILA WA 98178 PHIL GLADFELTER PACCAR PO BOX 1518 BELLEVUE WA 98009 DAVID McDONALD ASSOCIATED GROCERS PO BOX 3763 SEATTLE WA 98124 MATT WOOD CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD 700 5th AVE - STE 2700 SEATTLE WA 98104 (I)RICHARD McCANN PERKINS COIE 1201 THIRD AVE - 40th FLR SEATTLE WA 98101-3099 CI)OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY 111 W 21st AV MS KL -11 OLYMPIA WA 98504-5411 K C PLNG & COMM DEVEL 900 OAKSDALE AV SW RENTON WA 98055-1219 P.S. REGIONAL COUNCIL 1011 WESTERN AVE #500 SEATTLE WA 98104 (3) 3/31 (' ( s 004 11 Nancy Ousley .--.Q; FA'(vz en) Seattle Office of Mgmt./Plng. 600 4th Avenue, #300 Seattle, WA 98104-1826 2-17- oo9 / -171 -/> .5.5 0-Y ---...-...1..- 2-17- oo9 / -171 -/> .5.5 0-Y • City of Tukwila March 12, 1998 John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director RE: L96-0071 and E96-0034 -- City of Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Dear Recipient This is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) of the "Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement" The proposed action is being proposed pursuant to the State Growth Management Act and the State Environmental Policy Act, which encourage this integration processes. Comments on the integrated "MIC Implementation Plan/DEIS" included: appropriateness of the planning area, clarity of the proposed action, and consistency with other planning projects; adequacy of the prototype analysis; impacts to the 16th Avenue South Bridge; and shoreline impacts. The FEIS presents revisions and clarifications to the proposed action, summarizes further impact analyses, and responds to comments. This document completes the environmental impact review of proposed revisions to: the MIC component of the City-wide Shoreline Master Plan, the Capital Improvement Plan and development regulations. FEIS issuance has been coordinated to allow consideration during Planning Commission deliberations. The integrated document will continue to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and then by the City Council. The City Council will take final action on the substantive MIC Implementation Plan provisions. It is hoped that the FEIS will help to develop constructive suggestions for improving the plan. Please contact Vernon Umetsu (206-431-3684) or Jack Pace if we can be of further help. Sincerely, teve Lancaster SEPA Responsible official Director, Tukwila Department of Community Development file: q\micip\feis\trnsmtl.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement March 1998 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Jack Pace, Planning Manager Vernon Umetsu, Project Planner Project Title Proposed Action Proponent and Lead Agency Materials Incorporated by Reference Implementation SEPA Responsible Official Contact Person CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 Fact Sheet City of Tukwila, Manufacturing Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Adoption of an implementation plan, including an updated shoreline master plan, a planned action ordinance to streamline permit, and revised capital improvement elements and development regulations in support of the planned action approach and provide better predictability. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 • Background Elements and Other Supporting Information for the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan • Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and EIS, 1995 • Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Environmental Impact Statement, 1992 • Tukwila Comprehensive Sewer Plan, 1991 • Tukwila Comprehensive Water Plan, 1991 • Tukwila Surface Water Comprehensive Plan, 1993 • Tukwila Capital Improvement Plan, 1994 • Tukwila Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan, 1995 • Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance, 1991 et. seq. • Adopt a planned action ordinance with supporting capital improvements and regulations in mid-1998. • The MIC shoreline master plan update will be separately reviewed in conjunction with updating the City-wide shoreline master plan, in late 1998. Steve Lancaster, Director City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Telephone: 206/431-3670 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Jack Pace, Planning Manager Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner Telephone: 206/431-3684 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Fact Sheet Location of Documents City of Tukwila Department of Community Development offices, located in Suite 100 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EIS Timing This FEIS is issued beyond the sixty (60) day period for preparing responses to the Draft EIS due to the unusually complex nature of implementing the newly authorized "planned action" option for SEPA review and integrating this EIS with a subarea plan, pursuant to WAC 197-11-460. EIS Authors This document was prepared under the direction of the Tukwila Department of Community Development. Technical assistance was provided by: CH2M HILL, Inc. P.O. Box 91500 Bellevue, Washington 98009 Telephone: 206/453-5000 Adolfson Associates, Inc. 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW Seattle, Washington 98007 Telephone: 206/789-9658 Bruce Dees & Associates (MIC Shoreline Plan) 222 East 26th Street, Suite 202 Tacoma, Washington 98421 Telephone: 206/627-7947 Ryan Partee, Fisheries Biologist (Shoreline impact analysis) Under Contract to the City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Room 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Telephone: 206/433-0179 Licenses/Permits Required None Date of Issuance of Draft EIS May 20, 1997 Due Date for Written Comments June 19, 1997 Date of Issuance of Final EIS March 12, 1998 file: q\ micip \ feis\ pfeis6. doc II CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 Table of Contents Fact Sheet Table of Contents Page No. Chapter 1: Revisions to the Proposed Action 1-1 Chapter 2: Summary Introduction and Background 2-1 Project Description 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures 2-10 Chapter 3: Proposed Action Purpose 3-1 1. Proposed MIC Shoreline Master Plan Update 3-2 2. Planned Action Permit Streamlining 3-10 3. Capital Improvements 3-14 4. Regulatory Amendments 3-16 Chapter 4: Comments and Responses 4-1 Appendices Draft Environmental Impact Statement A. Distribution List B. Shoreline Analysis and Proposed Master Program B-1 Existing Conditions and Proposed Shoreline Master Program for the Manufacturing Industrial Center. B-2 MIC Shoreline Impact Analysis. C. Hazardous Materials Regulations. Final Environmental Impact Statement D. Illustrative Consistency Review Checklist. E. Implementation of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Policies. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 III List of Figures Fig. No. Figure Title Pg.No. 2-1 MIC Boundary and Location of Prototype Sites 2-3 2-2 Prototype Site 1 2-4 2-3 Prototype Site 2 2-5 2-4 Prototype Site 3 2-6 3-1 Revised Illustrative Guidelines for Integrated Habitat and Bank 3-5 Stabilization for Prototype Development Site No. 1 3-2 Revised Illustrative Guidelines for Integrated Habitat and Bank 3-6 Stabilization for Prototype Re -development Site No. 3-3 Revised Illustrative Guidelines for Integrated Habitat and Bank 3-7 Stabilization for a Revised Shoreline. 3-4 Revised Illustrative Guidelines for Integrated Habitat and Bank 3-8 Stabilization Using an Existing Shallow Sloped Bank. 3-5 Revised Illustrative Guidelines for Integrated Habitat and Bank 3-9 Stabilization With a Vertical Bank. 3-6 MIC Implemenation Plan Development Process 3-13 3-7 Commercial/ Industrial Access Spacing and Corner Clearances. 3-19 List of Tables Table Table Title Pg. No. No. 2-1 Proposed Changes to Codes and Regulations Implementing the 2-8 MIC Implementation Plan. 2-2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures 2-12 3-1 Summary of Proposed MIC Shoreline Regulations 3-1 3-2 Capital Improvement Plan Revisions 3-15 4-1 Estimated Traffic Impacts on the 16th Avenue South Bridge 4-10 IV CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 1 Revisions to the Proposed Action CHAPTER 1 Revisions to the Proposed Action The following changes to the proposed action have been made as a result of public . comments, comments from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and further interagency coordination. FEIS chapters 2 (Summary) and 3 (Project Description) have been modified to reflect these changes. 1. DEIS Table 2-1 (FEIS Table 3-1): Summary of Proposed MIC Shoreline Regulations. Water Dependent — Landscaping: Developments shall replace any vegetated areas which are paved over, when within 40 ft. of the river. Replacement may be on site at other locations within 40 ft. of the river, or off-site (see Shoreline Habitat). Off site replacement at a minimum 1:1 area, with equivalent functional values is allowed, subject to approval of the site location and the enhancement plan. Increased replacement are shall be required as the possibility of success is reduced (e.g., for complex habitat restorations). A maximum 2:1 replacement area may be required. Non -Water Related—River Setback: Reduce to 40 ft. from the previous 60 ft. width. Shoreline Public Access — Provision of restored habitat is recognized as a legitimate development standard which is equal in value to public/private access. It is not a substitute to be accepted only when access is not provided. An exception is the higher need to provide for the Green River trail. Shoreline Habitat — On and off-site habitat improvements in the river environment shall reflect: the Duwamish River's important role as fresh water/estuarine habitat for salmonids, the high benthic productivity of all mud flats, the apparent high value river segments where juvenile salmonid density is highest (e.g., mile 4.2 to 6.2 for chum and mile 6.2 to 6.9 for Chinook), the differing habitat values provided by sites along different river reaches and the need for habitat improvements to continue fulfilling similar functional roles. 2. DEIS Table 2.2 (FEIS Table 2-1): Proposed Changes to Codes and Regulations Implementing the MIC Implementation Plan. Land Use, Design Review — All references to proposed changes to the existing design review standards and public hearing process are deleted. Please note that the DEIS/Plan discussions were merely intended to indicate a direction for future design review based on clearer design review standards and an administrative process. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 1-1 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 1 Revisions to the Proposed Action 3. Figures 1C, 2C, 3B, 4B, and 5B in DEIS Appendix B-2 have been revised to better reflect expected engineering designs and consideration of input from implementing agencies. The revised figures are presented in Chapter 3. 4. More specific, codified language has been provided based on DEIS alternative regulations, public input and further analysis. This material is presented in Chapter 3. 5. Additional regulations to protect architectural and paleontological resources is proposed to implement Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.6.1 which mandates such protection. The regulation is proposed in lieu of using SEPA to provide this protection, as is now done. 1-2 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 2 Summary CHAPTER 2 Summary Introduction and Background Tukwila's Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC) is an important regional center of industrial activity. It is one of only four such centers designated in King County, and is well -served by the regional transportation system and an existing utility infrastructure. It has a long history of manufacturing use, and is nearly fully developed. The area has a pattern of large -lot ownership and a mixture of vigorous industrial activity and vacant or under-utilized facilities. This mixture of industrial activity largely reflects the stability of the Boeing Company and the decline of other'heavy industrial companies in the area. Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan includes an MIC Element that reaffirms the area's role as a focus for manufacturing and industrial activities. The City is proposing the MIC Implementation Plan, with an emphasis on how to better realize the vision of responsible industrial development identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Industrial development over most of the subarea was evaluated in a previous multi -site environmental review. In 1992, a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) was prepared for the Duwamish Corridor master plan, a proposal to redevelop Boeing properties in the MIC over a 10 year period. This current subarea plan/EIS updates and extends the previous analysis of the corridor's Boeing properties (about 650 acres) to the entire MIC subarea (about 1,370 acres). It also builds on the information developed for the City's Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan EIS efforts of 1994. The Proposed Action applies the "planned action" option for SEPA review as the center of a permit streamlining program of early, comprehensive environmental review, and supporting capital and regulatory revisions. Project Description The City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan incorporates Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) policies which call for facilitating area improvement (11.1.1), streamlining permit review while providing meaningful opportunities for citizen input and environmental protection (11.1.3), and updating MIC shoreline requirements for consistency with the City-wide shoreline management plan (11.1.4). These Comprehensive Plan policies would be implemented, not by increasing the amount of development regulation, but by clearly identifying and coordinating the development requirements which are now being satisfied. Alternative, innovative implementation options for shoreline developments have also been identified. The primary vehicle for this analysis is a set of three prototype developments. They have been used to test the adequacy of the existing and proposed regulatory system, CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 2-1 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 2 Summary and provide a basis for project level SEPA analysis. Figure 2-1 shows the MIC boundary and locations of the three prototype sites. Figures 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 present the three prototypes developed for the project. The prototypes are hypothetical, but are intended to be realistic and illustrate the types of development or redevelopment likely to be proposed for properties in the MIC. The analysis presented in Chapters 3 to 6 of the DEIS uses an assessment of the three prototypes to help identify environmental impacts and needed mitigation on a site specific and corridor -wide basis. Figure 2-2 illustrates Prototype Site 1, a site located at South 112th Street and Pacific Highway South. The site has river frontage and is now used for retail sales, distribution, and storage. The redevelopment shown in Figure 2-2 is for a research and development facility with accessory office space. Issues of concern in the DEIS included access to Pacific Highway, driveway number and location, and shoreline development. Figure 2-3 shows Prototype Site 2. This site is located between Pacific Highway South and East Marginal Way South at South 112th Street. The current use is truck/auto leasing, sales and service. The redevelopment shown in the prototype is for a warehouse and distribution center. Issues of concern in the DEIS included access to Pacific Highway and East Marginal Way South, requirements for road improvements, driveway standards, and roadway capacity. Figure 2-4 presents Prototype Site 3. This site is at the northern end of the MIC, bounded by Sixteenth Avenue South, East Marginal Way South, and the Duwamish River. The site is actually Boeing's Plant 2 and is currently used for airplane manufacturing and assembly. While not an actual proposal, the hypothetical redevelopment shown in Figure 2-4 is a possible approach Boeing may consider for upgrading the site's facilities. DEIS issues evaluated included large-scale demolition, driveway standards, scale of development, and redevelopment at the shoreline, including replacement of over -water structures. 2-2 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 139766.AO.EE • City of Tukwila • Fipwe 2 3.5 16 97 • lW • CITY OF SEATTLE Prototype ,\ -_�a CITY SITE 3 C • OF .< \�` V' \ t • �• , UNINCOR KING COUNTY \ •i •, 1 i t `, t_ -•t UNINCOR, KING COUNTY BOEING FIELD y CITY OF TUKWILA Manufacturing/Industrial Center MIC Boundary ------• City Limits o 500 1.000 Approx. Scale In Feet 0 North • `999 • CITY OF SEATTLE UNINCOR KING COUNTY • SEATTLE PROJECT• LOCATION ,7 ttl , r • .f) 'I TACOMA •� Ate- f•:` V OLYMPIA Prototype;•` SITE 2 \, Hwy 599 �_ ... ♦ `41. • • `' '4 • ‘ 1 • L.� Figure 2-1 Location of Prototype Sites 139766.A0.EE • City 01 Tukwila • Fipure 2-4.5-16-97 • LW North Approx Scale in Feet 0 100 200 Property Line South 112th Street PLAN VIEW Building Envelope Q 125' • allit South 1 12th Straot OBLIQUE VIEW rts Zoning: MIC/H Site Size: 475,000 SF Building Footprint: 175,000 SF Building Uses: Office 35,000 SF R&D 70,000 SF Lab 70,000 SF SITE DATA: Building Height: 125' Parking Required: 437 Spaces Site Coverage: 100% (© 2.5/1,000) Driveways: Number 4 Parking Proposed: 525 Spaces Lin. Ft. of (@ 3.0/1,000) Curb Cuts 100 Figure 2-2 Prototype Site 1 139766.AO.EE • City of Tukwila • Figure 2-5. 5 16-97• LW South 112th Street 0 North Approx. Scale in Feet 0 100 200 PLAN VIEW Building Envelope South 712th Street OBLIQUE VIEW Zoning: MIC/H Site Size: 210,000 SF Building Footprint: 73,000 SF Building Uses: Office 15,000 SF Warehouse/Distribution58,500 SF SITE DATA: Building Height: 45' Parking Required: Site Coverage: 100% (@ 2.5/office) 38 Spaces Driveways: Number 4 (® 1.5/warehouse) 88 Spaces Lin. Ft. of 126 Total Curb Cuts....240 Parking Proposed: 135 Spaces Figure 2-3 Prototype Site 2 Existing Corporate Headquarters New High -Bay Building (Same Footprint as Existing 80' - High Building) =.a New Lab Building ;e. PLAN VIEW Building Footprint SEAATTLE/TUKWILA BOUNDARY sf 44 200 New Parking Spaces and Driveway 0 North Approx. Scale in Feet 1 1 1 1 1 0 100 200 300 400 45' Increased Height within Existing Footprint s_ Building Envelope 80' 125' Replaced Pilings New Riprap OBLIQUE VIEW Zoning. MIC/H Site Size: 50 Acres Building Footprint: 1,450,000 SF Building Uses: Highbay Mfg • 750,000 SF Laboratory. 700,000 SF SITE DATA: Building Height: 125' Site Coverage. 100% Driveways: Existing and 1 for New Parking Area Parking Required: (@ 1/1,000) 1,450 Spaces On -Site: 600 Existing: 400 New: 200 Off -Site: 900+ Figure 2-4 Prototype Site 3 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 2 Summary 4. A package of recommended regulatory revisions to support the planned action approach by incorporating case by case analysis into prescriptive regulations to increase predictability. A summary of the proposed action elements is shown in the table below, with a more complete description presented in Chapter 3 of this EIS. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2-7 MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 2 Summary TABLE 2-1 Proposed Changes to Codes and Regulations Implementing the MIC Implementation Plan (Previously DEIS Table 2-2) Element of Environment Regulatory Gap/Overlap Proposed or Recommended New Regulation Land Use Zoned Permitted Use Lighting Landscaping Shoreline Tukwila Shoreline Overlay Transportation Thresholds; mitigation for traffic impacts Guidelines for site- specific studies Driveway standards 2-8 Propose use changes for consistency of MIC "permitted uses" with the goal of a manufacturing/ industrial center. Requirements are not specific. No special standards for landscaping. Old King County code is being applied to MIC; not consistent with shoreline goals of city comprehensive plan or the city's shoreline master program approved by DOE. Concurrency ordinance requires impact mitigation fees for projects generating more than 5 peak - hour trips to fund facilities in the Transportation Plan. All anticipated MIC facilities have been funded. No further fees are required. No authority outside of SEPA for driveway design and location. Guidelines now in the Zoning Code and Public Works Department development standards are inadequate to regulate driveway design and location. Delete "Hotels and Motels" in the MIC/H and MIC/L zones. Allow pharmaceutical processing in the MIC/H zone. Specify lighting standards of 2 foot- candles maximum at property line with light element shielded and recessed to eliminate direct off-site illumination. Require large stature trees at 35 feet on center along front yard landscape areas. DCD may modify this criterion at specific sites for safety purposes or to avoid significant adverse impacts. Revise shoreline master program to be consistent with city comprehensive plan, Shoreline Policies for MIC. See FEIS Table 3-1. Require SEPA review for proposed projects that will increase delays by more than 30 seconds at the intersections of S. 112th Street with Pacific Highway S. and East Marginal Way S. Mitigation standards are identified in DEIS Transportation (Fig. 5-2, pg. 5-4). Amend concurrency ordinance to specify that traffic study address driveway standards of number, width, distance from adjacent intersections and other driveways, and alignment with driveways across street. Proposed standards are shown in DEIS Fig. 5-12, (pg. 5-31) and FEIS Fig. 3-6.. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 2 Summary TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) Proposed Changes to Codes and Regulations Implementing the MIC Implementation Plan (Previously DEIS Table 2-2) Element of Environment Regulatory Gap/Overlap Proposed or Recommended New Regulation Hydrology and Water Quality Stormwater Water Quality Hazardous Materials The stormwater management ordinance covers commercial properties, but does not specify coverage of industrial properties (though that is clearly intended). Sewer Infrastructure design standards state that pretreatment, special flow metering or sampling may be required, but no standards are in place. Handling, storage, Federal and state standards apply. generation Air Point sources Historic and Cultural Resources SEPA Federal, state, and regional Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority (PSAPCA) regulations apply. Development on lands with a significant potential of having archaeological and paleontological resources regulated using SEPA on a case by case basis, with varying degrees of effectiveness and some overlooked situations. No process in place for handling development proposals within a subarea with a plan and an EIS adopted by an implementation plan ordinance. Mitigation or regulatory amendment clarifying that the stormwater regulations apply to industrial development. Mitigation or regulatory amendment clarifying that King County industrial wastewater control standards and authority apply. No change. No change. Adopt new Zoning regulations based on effective standards which staff now apply through the SEPA process. Further staff work will be done to administratively identify site of significant archaeological or paleontological potential. Adopt process for establishing that development proposal is consistent with subarea plan and environmental analysis. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 2-9 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 2 Summary Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures The impact analysis for this EIS was based on three hypothetical "prototypes," which were developed to illustrate the range of issues likely to be raised by development proposals in the MIC. The prototypes cover a range of permitted uses, from warehouse and distribution, to research and development, to manufacturing and laboratory. The analysis consisted of "testing" the prototypes to identify potential gaps and overlaps in Tukwila's codes and regulations that apply to review of development proposals. From this review, recommendations were prepared to ensure that environmental safeguards will be in place within the City's codes and development review procedures to address future development proposals. In general, the potential for environmental impacts resulting from the MIC implementation plan is relatively low. The plan's primary focus is a more integrated review process for projects which are consistent with the City's stated goals and policies for the MIC, as set forth in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Shoreline Master Program. Projects covered by this SEPA analysis will by definition be consistent with these plans and the City's zoning code and in compliance with all other applicable federal,. state, and local regulations. Development will be in keeping with the area's current and historical use for manufacturing and industrial activities, many aspects of which are strictly regulated under laws governing hazardous materials, air pollutant emissions, wastewater discharges, and the like. Finally, much of the area has been the subject of previous environmental review incorporated by reference into this document, including the 1992 Boeing Company Duwamish Corridor EIS and the EIS on the 1995 Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. The impacts of reducing the river environment width from 60 ft. to 40 ft. for non -water dependent uses (See Chapter 1, Revisions to the Proposed Action) were evaluated. Differing draft river setback widths for water -dependent (zero ft), water -related (40 ft) and non -water -related (60 ft) developments (DEIS, Table 2-1), were initially proposed to reflect the differing treatment accorded to these classes of uses in state law. However, City staff understand the Perkins Coie comment that developments which make higher use of the river and have greater impacts seem to be providing lower levels of impact mitigation There does not seem to be a significant difference in habitat value between 40 -ft and 60 - ft river setbacks, if only upland areas are regulated as specified in the State's limitation on City shoreline jurisdiction. There would be a significant increase in potential habitat quality between a 40 -ft and 60 -ft river setback, if habitat were to be improved by moving the bank back to create riparian and intertidal areas, and the OHWM were held to its original location. The likelihood of this occurring falls below the level of a probable impact or mitigating measure, without supplemental assistance (e.g., lower Duwamish River consent decree funds). Either a 40- or 60 -ft river setback could be best supported as a reasonable level of regulation if it were the same for water -related and non -water -dependent uses, and only if the single standard were applied throughout the City. 2-10 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 2 Summary The proposed action has been amended to require a 40 ft., not 60 ft. river setback for non -water dependent uses. Table 2-2 provides a summary of impacts and mitigation measures by element of the environment. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 2-11 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 2 Summary TABLE 2-2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Element of the Environment Impacts of MIC Implementation Plan Proposed Mitigation Land Use Consistency with plans and policies Direct land use impacts Shoreline Use Consistency with plans and policies Direct shoreline impacts 2-12 All projects would be consistent with Tukwila comprehensive plan and zoning code and King County countywide planning policies Conformance with FAA -imposed height restrictions for KCIA must continue to be observed. SEPA review would not be required for development included in the implementation plan. Potential for increased bulk and scale and more intensive uses at prototype sites. Similar changes could occur at vacant and redeveloping sites throughout MIC over time. Projects would be consistent with proposed SMP policies and regulations (not yet adopted). Potential bulk and scale would increase with a height increase from 35' under current shoreline regulations, to the 125 ft. Zoning Code height limit. Riparian vegetation could be removed as a result of development under proposed regulations. However, there would be replacement with other types of landscaping including trees about 35 ft. on center. The 40 ft. river environment must be landscaped, except for water dependent uses which must replace any lost vegetated areas within the river environment on-site or off-site. None required. Develop a process to notify airport and developers when proposals may have height impacts. Mitigation for projects covered under the plan will be incorporated into codes through this SEPA process; consistency determination will ensure that projects become subject to SEPA if thresholds are exceeded. None, as changes would be consistent with adopted policies and zoning for the area. None required. Continue to review developments requiring a shoreline substantial development permit using the current design review criteria and public hearing process. Formally designate sites identified as habitat protection/restoration areas and require planting with fisheries habitat enhancing, native species. Adopt habitat restoration policies and model ordinance from Lower Duwamish Habitat Restoration Plan. Replacement vegetation within the river environment shall emphasize fishery enhancement and using native species. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 2 Summary TABLE 2-2 (CONTINUED) Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Element of the Environment Impacts of MIC Implementation Plan Proposed Mitigation Transportation Level of Service Review of Proposals Other Elements of the Environment Public Services and Utilities Stormwater Levels of service at two intersections drop to LOS F by 2010, even though the corridor's average LOS (A -LOS) continues to satisfy the adopted standard of A - LOS E. Site-specific traffic studies formerly required through SEPA no longer required. Capacity to provide water, sewer, and power is adequate to serve MIC. Existing regulations require new commercial development to address on-site stormwater adequately. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 None. Staff recognizes that modifications to signal phasing at one intersection and new signal and intersection channelization at the second would improve the standard ITE level of service to B/C at buildout. Further work on this will be done as part of the Tukwila transportation modeling update (1998). Require SEPA review for projects that increase delay by more than 30 seconds at the two identified intersections as an interim measure. Site-specific traffic studies are now required by an existing concurrency ordinance. Better guidelines for study content should be administratively developed. None. Amend Ordinance 1755 to clarify that its requirements apply specifically to industrial development. 2-13 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 3 Proposed Action CHAPTER 3 Proposed Action Purpose This project seeks to maximize the vitality of industrial uses in the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center (hereafter referred to as the MIC). The MIC is a designated subarea within the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, which has been reserved for industrial uses in policy and regulations. It is designated as the "North Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center" by the King County Growth Management Planning Council (a multi -city and County body established to provide planning coordination within King County. It includes representatives of all cities within King County and the King County Council). The proposed action facilitates implementation of regional policies for this manufacturing/industrial center and the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. A discussion of the plan development process was presented in DEIS Chapter 2. The City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan envisions the MIC as the focus of significant industrial activity. This is stated in Goal 11.1 and its associated policies. Goal 11.1 (MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTER): Support for existing industrial activities in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center and development of new industrial activity in order to maximize the employment and economic benefits to the people of Tukwila and the region, while minimizing impacts on residential neighborhoods. More specifically than this general vision, Comprehensive Plan policies call for various implementing actions. This plan addresses the direction to remove the unnecessary regulatory barriers to development and ensure that developments incorporate adequate environmental protection and infrastructure support into the project design. Overall implementation of Tukwila's MIC Comprehensive Plan policies is presented in Appendix E. The Proposed Action includes four elements: 1. An updated MIC Shoreline Master Plan, as a component of the City-wide shoreline master plan which includes optional, innovative approaches to combine shoreline development with river resources conservation/ improvement and is consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, 2. Regulatory streamlining, which applies the "planned action" option of consolidated area -wide environmental review at the subarea plan stage; instead of on a project by project basis, 3. Capital improvement projects which would facilitate area redevelopment, and CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 3-1 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 3 Proposed Action 4. A package of recommended regulatory revisions to support the planned action approach by incorporating case by case impact mitigation into prescriptive regulations to increase predictability and reduce permit processing time. 1. Proposed MIC Shoreline Master Plan Update The proposed MIC Shoreline Master Plan is composed of: • environment designations, • development and use policies, and • implementation regulations and guidelines. Shoreline Environment Designations The shoreline zone extends 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) on both sides of the Duwamish River. The river is divided into two shoreline environments in the MIC, as presented below. The MIC shoreline zone is designated as "Manufacturing Industrial Center Environment" between the northern city limit and the upstream edge of the Highway 99 bridge, per Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.1.2. This is a distance of about 2.5 miles of river length. In this environment, priority shall be given to the following: • Redevelopment of under-utilized areas and development of intensive commercial and industrial activities, • Enhancement and restoration of access to the river, and • Protection and restoration of natural environment features and riverbank characteristics, where compatible with development. The remainder of the MIC is designated "Urban -Open Space Environment," from the upstream edge of the Highway 99 bridge southward for per Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.1.1. This is a distance of about 1/2 mile of river. In this environment, priority shall be given to: • Maintaining existing single family residential development patterns, • Redevelopment of existing commercial and industrial areas, with enhanced river access, and • Protection and restoration of natural environmental features and riverbank characteristics. Shoreline Development and Use Policies Numerous policies have been incorporated into the proposed Shoreline Master Plan. These are direct transfers from the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Direct incorporation of Comprehensive Plan policies reflect: • the State mandate that shoreline policies be consistent and subordinate to comprehensive plan policies, 3-2 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 3 Proposed Action • the choices made between various plan alternatives which were made during the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan development process, and • the implementation nature of this plan. The full set of proposed shoreline policies have been presented in DEIS Appendix B, pages 17-25. Shoreline Regulations and Guidelines Uses in the shoreline must be consistent with the shoreline master plan policies by State statute. The shoreline policies are not only a planning guideline, but prescriptive and performance standards which must be satisfied for a shoreline substantial development permit. Administrative implementation of the proposed shoreline policies regarding shoreline access, habitat restoration in lieu of access, and various site development standards would be provided by regulations in the Tukwila Zoning Code's shoreline overlay zone (TMC -18.44). The proposed shoreline regulations are summarized in Table 3-1. Additional guidelines are proposed to illustrate near shore development options to enhance predictability. These illustrative guidelines are presented in figures 3-1 through 3-5. Public notice for all hearings and permit decisions is subject to TMC 18.104. TMC 18.104, which is consistent with the latest provisions of ESHB 1724. All revisions to development standards and policies to be adopted by the City Council will be reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the State of Washington Growth Management Act. In general, this will include further wide -spread public outreach, public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council, and final action by the City Council. As stated earlier, Shoreline plan revisions will be reviewed separately, in conjunction with the overall City-wide update of the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan. The remaining MIC implementing plan provisions are estimated to begin Planning Commission review in September, 1997, with Council action in 1998. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3-3 MARCH 12, 1998 TABLE 3-1 Summary of Proposed MIC Shoreline Regulations (Previously DEIS Table 2-1) Use Type River Setback Other Setback Height Landscaping Impervious Surface Public Access Shoreline Stabilization Overwater Water Dependent None Zone District (uses that are dependent upon water location to exist) Water Related/Enjoyment 40 feet (uses that cannot occur economically without a shoreline location or provide substantial opportunity for water enjoyment) Zone District Non -Water Related 40 feet Zone District Redevelopment No setback if redevelop- ment does not expand horizontally within river environment. Zone District Zone District Zone District Zone Zone District District Zone District and replace all lost vegetated areas in river environment, on site or off site with equal values. Off-site habitat replacement varies from 1:1 to 2:1. Zone District & 10' *** along edge of 40' river environment. Zone District & 10'*** along edge of 40' river environment. Zone district & where possible 10'*** along edge of 40' river environment. No standard. See Landscaping. No net increase in the 40' river environment except mitigated shoreline stabilization.* No net increase in the 40' river environment except mitigated shoreline stabilization.* No net increase in 40' river environment except mitigated shoreline stabilization.* Not required. Generally required. Habitat restoration may be substituted.** Generally required. Habitat restoration may be substituted.** Generally required. Habitat restoration may be substituted.** Vertical bulkheads allowed upland of OHWM. Vertical bulkheads not allowed. Stabilization projects must improve habitat. Vertical bulkheads not allowed. Stabilization projects must improve habitat. No new vertical bulkhead. Recon- struction OK when it extends no farther into river. New stabilization projects must improve habitat. Allowed if not detrimental to navigation and habitat restored ata 1:1 ratio. No No OK if redevelop- ment remains within the existing overwater foot- print. *Some exceptions will apply such as public roads, utility facilities, and trails. **See general standards for situations in which access is and is not required. *** Half of the 10 feet of landscaping may be located in the river environment. Chapter 3 Proposed Action V LW El. 0.00 U Riprap Intertidal Vegetation © Existing Grade (Approximate) ORiparian Vegetation Existing Building Figure 3-1 Revised Illustrative Guidelines for Integrated Habitat and Bank Stabilization for Prototype Development Site No. 1 (Formerly DEIS Fig. 1C) All treatments shall be engineered, conform to King County Guidelines for Bank Stabilization, King County Flood Reduction Policies, and received specific approval for construction by all agencies with jurisdiction. MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS 3-5 Chapter 3 Proposed Action Before ® Water Level ® Existing Building After F® Building Foundation O Riprap © Concrete Rubble ® Security Netting * 0 Existing Building Skirting JO Pilings OE Redeveloped Building * Security netting should allow for passage of wildlife. Figure 3-2 Revised Illustrative Guidelines for Integrated Habitat and Bank Stabilization for Prototype Re -development Site No. 3 (Formerly DEIS Fig. 2C) All treatments shall be engineered, conform to King County Guidelines for Bank Stabilization, King County Flood Reduction Policies, and received specific approval for construction by all agencies with jurisdiction. MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS 3-6 Chapter 3 Proposed Action O Riprap ® Intertidal Vegetation © Riparian Vegetation OD Existing Grade (Approximate) ® Large Organic Debris Figure 3-3 Revised Illustrative Guidelines for Integrated Habitat and Bank Stabilization for a Revised Shoreline Bank (Formerly DEIS Fig. 3B) All treatments shall be engineered, conform to King County Guidelines for Bank Stabilization, King County Flood Reduction Policies, and received specific approval for construction by all agencies with jurisdiction. MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS 3-7 Chapter 3 Proposed Action 1% Tide El. 15.05 MHHW El. 11.30 jr1LLW El. 0.00 T� UA Riprap BO Intertidal Vegetation Bioswale OD Riparian Vegetation Figure 3-4 Revised Illustrative Guidelines for Integrated Habitat and Bank Stabilization Using an Existing Shallow Sloped Bank (Formerly DEIS Fig. 4B) All treatments shall be engineered, conform to King County Guidelines for Bank Stabilization, King County Flood Reduction Policies, and received specific approval for construction by all agencies with jurisdiction. MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS 3-8 Chapter 3 Proposed Action ® Riprap ® Intertidal Bench © Bulkhead ® Riparian Vegetation OE Bioswale OF Large Organic Debris Figure 3-5 Revised Illustrative Guidelines for Integrated Habitat and Bank Stabilization With a Vertical Bank (Formerly DEIS Fig. 5B) All treatments shall be engineered, conform to King County Guidelines for Bank Stabilization, King County Flood Reduction Policies, and received specific approval for construction by all agencies with jurisdiction. MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FE IS 3-9 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 3 Proposed Action 2. Planned Action Permit Streamlining The implementation plan focus is on responsibly streamlining the development review process, by eliminating unnecessary regulatory barriers and providing predictable review standards. This focus is achieved using a newly authorized "planned action" review process. The planned action option uses predictable standards instead of the individual impact analysis/mitigating actions used in the existing SEPA environmental review process. The planned action process and supporting capital improvement and regulatory revisions are presented below. In general, the State has allowed cities and counties to adopt a "planned action" ordinance to streamline environmental review (State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA)), pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031. A planned action ordinance is required to: • identify specific types of developments called "planned actions", • evaluate the impacts of planned actions as part of a subarea plan environmental impact statement, • provide for full impact mitigation through adopted standards and a consistency check when individual development applications are made and • recognize the combined subarea plan EIS and impact mitigating measures (e.g., regulations) as satisfying the case-by-case formal SEPA provisions which would otherwise be required for each building permit, subject to an administrative consistency check to ensure full impact mitigation. The proposed Tukwila "planned action" review system is a voluntary program where case-by-case, formal SEPA review for specific types of development actions, is replaced by an integrated MIC subarea plan/environmental impact statement and the specific requirements of a planned action review process. The proposed planned action regulation and an illustrative permit review process is presented below. 3-10 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 3 Proposed Action Adopt a new TMC 21.04.XXX (State Environmental Policy Act) This new TMC section establishes a new `planned action" option to normal SEPA review. The following four sections would be contained within this new TMC section. (b) identified Planned .Actions, Planned actions are specifically identified as developments >; '..:which satisfy all of the following characteristics: (1)" is a "permitted use" located within the MIC#I. (TMC 18.36.020) and MIC/.H (TMC 1$,38.020) zones and/or is an accessory use (TMC 18.36.030 and 18.38.030 respectively.). condttlonal" and "unclassified" uses are not planned actions and (2) satisfies the consistency checklist which demonstrates that all impacts have been mitigated and ' is consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan per RCW 43.21C.031(2) and. (4)> is folt any of the following (i) ..,an "essential public facility" as defined in RCW 36.70 200,; per RCW 43.21C.031(2)=.:. (ii) an actions which is not consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan as adopted per RCW 36.70A (consistency required per RCM/:43.21.,031(2)) . ; (iii) or MIC/I1zones a conditional or unclassified use, in the respective MIC (iv) a development related to the Regional Transit Authority light rail or comcnunter rail system?. ...... (v) : a development associated with the 16th Avenue Bridge, (vi) a development any portion;of which includes sboreine modifications waterward of the ordinary high water mark, (c) Consistency Check (1) Having identified the developments which are a potential "planned action", the development must demonstrate that it has mitigated all of its impacts pursuant to the environmental impact statement and planned action ordinance, and is consistent with the comprehensive plan (RCW 43.21C.030(2). (2) A consistency` checklist will be provided by the Director of the Dept. of Community Development. The criteria for consistency' are as presented in the "integrated CSMA Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Tukwila Manufacturing' Industrial Center.''... 1 Note to Reviewers: Such uses are more complex and require case by case review and approval by the City Planning Commission and City Council respectively. No time savings in permit review would result from designating them a planned action and their greater potential for significant adverse impacts make such a designation inappropriate at this time. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 3-11 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 3 Proposed Action (d) Designating a Development asa Planned Action (1) The Director of the Dept. of Community Development shall be authorized to designate a specific development proposal which was eligible to be a plannedaction,.. had mitigated all of its signf€cant adverse impacts and was consistent with the cornprehensive plan, as a planned action... (2) This designation shall be treated as a Type 1 admiziislcdtive decision, which is only appealable to superior court. Designation as a Type 1 decision :is consistent with the current appeal provisions for a SEPA determination of ton -significance with no impact mitigation crme 21,04280(a)). (e) The Planned Action Development Review' Process (1) 'Designation ofa planned action would' relieve the application �m anySEPA review including'' a threshold determination, any final threshold determination; pubtic notice of SEPA action, and any administrative appeals A notice of complete application would NOT be sent for Type 1 applications which choose the planned action option. (2) An illustrative permit review process for a normal SEPA review and a:planned action review is shown in Figure 3.6: 3-12 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 3 Proposed Action Figure 3-6 MIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Nov. 1996: Notice of Plan preparation and summary goals sent to all residents businesses and property owners in the (Sty Feb. 1997: Woriahopa w/ major land owners State and Federal rgulators, Mucldeshoot Tribe Fisheries, and industrial development experts on MIC issues and opportunities Feb.1997: Inventory policy direction, development regulations, development review process and other technical studies Feb -Mar. 1997: Evaluate the interaction of identified issues, the land use regulatory system, and MIC policy &rection to validate and/or reivise the basic purpose and products of the MIC Implementation Plan. Mar. 1997: Use professional expertise to develop a representative range of proto-typical, market driven developments, which are consistent with the MIC land use designations 41 - Mar., 1997: Test prototype developments based on existing regulations and identify issues. Mar.1997: Draft revised regulations to delete unnecessary regulations and add regulations as needed to fill regulatory gaps created by early SEPA Planned Action review. May 1997: Issue Plan/DEIS June-Nov. 1997: Staff Revises proposed Plan. SUBMIT STAFF RECOMMENDED MIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT, OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPLMENT MARCH 12, 1998 3.13 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 3 Proposed Action 3. Capital Improvements Capital improvements to support the level of development identified in the Comprehensive Plan were identified and incorporated into the Tukwila Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Further detailed analysis with updated data was done for this implementation plan to ensure adequate infrastructure support of the MIC buildout condition. The implementation plan analysis has identified four capital improvements to support MIC buildout. These improvements have been shown in Table 3-2 on the following page. Capital improvements which are not needed to support area buildout to adopted level of service standards (such as resolution of RTA facility location and the 16th Avenue Bridge's future status) have not been listed although they have been discussed on DEIS page 2-12 and FEIS page 3-21, as actions outside the scope of this proposal. 3-14 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 3 Proposed Action Table 3-2 Capital Improvement Plan Revisions eveo;z [itiatrt S. 112th St. intersection with Pacific Hwy. S. will operate at LOS F at buildout based on updated traffic data. An upgraded signal controller at the Pacific Hwy. intersection will upgrade operation to LOS B or C and support the corridor ALOS-E.. Amend the Concurrency Ordinance to incorporate this improvement to provide for fair -share mitigation payments from applicable future developments. State funding support of the controller installation is anticipated. Installation is anticipated prior to the corridor ALOS-E threshold being exceeded. Pacific Hwy. S., south of Boeing Access Road resurfacing and frontal improvements. Not required to provide the minimum ALOS-E capacity Resurface with some widening, and frontal improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalks, utilities, etc.). The City has already installed the conduit to allow coordinated phasing of signals with adjacent intersections. No private contribution for road improvements. (New projects and re -developments are responsible for frontal improvements per existing TMC 16.36.). The S. 124th St. access to the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad yard will exceed the LOS -D threshold for this residential arterial in the immediate future and does not provide for functional separation of traffic (pols. 13.3.1 & 13.2.1). Design options to resolve capacity and safety issues are being developed at this time. Major options include a new bridge to the southern rail yard areas, a new north access road, and improving the existing route to resolve safety and capacity issues.. The City's goal at this time is to secure BNSF participation in identifying the best solution and its implementation. State and federal funding support will be crucial to any solution. Receiving such support must await the resolution of design issues. Applying proposed regulatory streamlining provisions and approving further facility expansion will be problematic until these traffic concurrency and Comprehensive Plan consistency issues are resolved. UTILITIES Build a new water line on S. 112th Street to loop the system for water quality purposes. Looping became needed when an intertie with the City of Seattle water system was closed off by Seattle, after water system deficiencies were identified in the Comprehensive Plan process. The 1,500 ft. long, 12" line would cost about $140,000 with all hydrants and connections. Fair share payments from benefiting properties (e.g., on Pacific. Hwy., south of S. 112th Street). CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 3-15 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 3 Proposed Action 4. Regulatory Amendments Regulatory amendments are needed to replace the substantive review standards which are currently applied using SEPA. Since the SEPA process would be eliminated from project review, the regulations become necessary. These regulations do not increase the substantive standards which are being currently applied. Other SEPA areas of concern are adequately addressed by existing regulations. Amend TMC 18.36.020(13)&(23) ( and TMC 18.38.020(13)&(24) (Zoning Code Aug!, and MIC/H permitted uses respectively) Policy 11.1.5 provides for locating only uses commonly associated with manufacturing and industrial uses in the MIC. Hotels and motels are not such commonly associated uses, especially as there are hundreds of rooms within a 10 minute car ride. Delete Hotels and Motels as "permitted uses" in the MIC: Amend TMC 18.38.020(xx) (Zoning Code MIC/H Permitted Uses) Policy 11.1.5 provides for locating uses commonly associated with manufacturing and industrial uses in the MIC. "Manufacturing, processing and/or packaging pharmaceuticals and related products, such as cosmetics and drugs" would satisfy this intent. These uses are already allowed in the MIC/L zone as a permitted use (TMC 18.36.020(20). Allow "Manufacturing, processing and/or packaging pharmaceuticals andrelated products, such as cosmetics and drugs" in the MIC/H zone. Amend TMC 18.50.xxx (Zoning Code Supplemental Development Regulations) Policy 15.1.5 provides for incorporating design for crime prevention lighting while avoiding glare: The following provisions would incorporate State and federal crime prevention light levels and apply the standards normally supported by the Board of Architectural review to avoid glare. Site Lighting Standards (N 1. :that minimum light levels in parking areas,: paths between the building and street or parking areas shall be 1 ft./candle; 2. the maximum ratio of average:minimum light level shall be 4:1 for illuminated grounds, maximum illuminationat the property line shall be 2 ft./candles, and 4. lights shall be shielded to eliminate direct off-site illumination. general grounds need not be lighted. 5 Variation from this standard may be granted by the Director of the Department of Community Development based on technical unfeasibility or safety considerations. .................. 3-16 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 3 Proposed Action Amend TMC 18.50.xxx (Zoning Code Supplemental Development Regulations) Per Policy 4.6.1 provides for preserving paleontological and archaeological information. This policy is similar to State statutes which establishes archaeological and historical buildings as valuable and subject to regulation by all jurisdictions, requires local jurisdictions to regulate activities which could damage such resources, and specifies measures to be take when such resources are encountered. Archaeological/ Paleontological Information Preservation : (NE' 1. if there is a potential to disturb archaeological resources, a cultural resources assessment shall be conducted and, if warranted, an archaeological response plan and provisions for excavation monitoring bya professional archaeologist shall be made prior to beginning construction. The assessment should address the existence and significance of archaeological remains, buildings and structures over 50 years of age, observable paleontological deposits and may include review by the State Archaeologist. It is strongly recommended that the applicant coordinate a predetermination study by a professional archaeologist during the geotechnical investigation phase, to determine site archaeological potential and the likelihood of disturbing archaeological resources.. Excavations into historically native soil, when in an area of archaeological potential, shall have a professional archaeologist on site to ensure that all State atutes; regarding : archaeological conservation/preservation are implemented. The applicant shall provide a written commitment to stop work immediately upon discovery of archaeological remains and to consult with the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservations (OAHP) to casssess'the remains and. develop appropriate treatment measures. These may include refllingthe excavation with no further responsibility: An applicant who encounters Indian burials shall not disturb them and shall consult with OAHP and affected tribal organizations pursuant to State statutes. The Director is authorized to: a) conduct studies to generally identify areas of archaeological/ paleontological. b) require from the applicant such information as is necessary to make au determinations to implement these provisions and c) waive any and all the aboverequirements if the proposed action will have no probable significant impact on archaeological or historical resources that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or on observable paleontological resources. Examples of such actions include excavation of fill materials, disturbance of less than 10,000 s.f. of native soils to a' depth of 12 inches, penetration of native soils with pilings over a maximum 8% of the building footprint, and paving over native soils in a manner which does not damage cultural resources. The above examples are illustrative and not determinative. A case-by-case evaluation of CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 3-17 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 3 Proposed Action archaeological/ paleontological potential value and proposed disturbance must be made. Amend TMC 16.34.xxx (Road Bridge and Municipal Construction Specifications) Policies 2.1.13, 13.3.2, and 13.3.4, ensure maintenance of area -wide roadway capacity and safety: The following road standards are needed to maintain corridor road capacity and safety. Adopt the following provisions(NEW): 3.6 $4.xxx: Driveway: design and location standards shown in Figure:3.7 shall be satisfied. 16:34.xxx: Bus pullouts will be required at all bus stops unless (a) the speed limit is 35 mph or less and (b) stops are for no longer than the minimum needed to .. accommodate passenger movemeni. :. . 16.34.xxx. Variation from these standards may be allowed by the City Engineer who shall base a decision on maintai ing needed road capacity and safety. 3-18 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 3 Proposed Action Figure 3-7 Commercial/ Industrial Access Spacing and Corner Clearances MINIMUM ACCESS POINT SPACING WHEN DIRECTLY OPPOSING DRIVEWAYS ARE NOT POSSIBLE 1 -5-74 Street Speed 2 (mph) DIMENSIONS A 3 B 4 C 25 105 105 105 30 125 125 125 35 150 150 150 40 185 185 185 45 230 230 230 I B ACCESS POINT c `--wze Line (Trp.) i2 A • MINIMUM CORNER CLEARANCES FOR STOP SIGN INTERSECTION CONTROL (FEET) " DIM OPERATION SPEED 30 35 40 45 A 115 135 150 180 B 85 105 120 140 C 115 135 160 180 D 115 135 160 180 E 105/0 135/0 160/0 180/0 L_ ACCESS POINT Street c l� D MINIMUM CORNER CLEARANCES FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CONTROL (FEET) 7-8 DIM OPERATION SPEED 30 35 40 45 A 230 275 320 365 B 115 135 160 180 C 230 275 320 365 D 230 275 320 365 E 115/0 135/0 160/0 180/0 E A B 8N N y taeLine (TYO.) Street scnaiX UyS c x 0 g El N y! I NOTES 1. Access point spacing only for public streets. This shall be a guideline for private streets. 2. Refers to posted speed or operating speed, whichever is greatest. 3. Between the nearest edges of two-way access points. Distances between adjacent, one-way access points (with the inbound access upstream) can be one-half the distances 4. Access points directly opposite from each other when possible. Where it is not possible, these dimensions will apply. 5. Where access points are to be signalized, a minimum spacing of 600 feet to any other signalized intersection should be maintained. 6. Access points near stop or signal controlled intersections should be checked to determine whether stopping queues will block the access point. 7. In cases where access spacing is not attainable because existing frontages are narrow or have physical constraints, access points should be located as close to the tabulated values shown above as possible. The City Engineer may require investigations to determine what turning controls are appropriate at the access point. The City Engineer shall base all such decisions on maintaining needed corridor capacity and safety. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3-19 MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 3 Proposed Action Actions Outside the Scope of This MIC Implementation Plan and Planned Action Ordinances As has been previously noted, not all actions are covered by the proposed planned action approach for the MIC. Some potential development proposals present too high a level of impact variability at this subarea planning stage, or too high a level of uncertainty. A sum- mary of "excluded actions" is provided below. Excluded actions will be required to undergo additional project -level SEPA review at the time of permit application. A number of transportation issues affect redevelopment in the MIC. For example, studies for the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) have, on a preliminary basis, identified the MIC as a potential location for such RTA facilities as a rail maintenance yard and an intermodal station. The analysis in this EIS has not addressed these preliminary plans, which could have significant implications for the MIC, for Tukwila, and for the region. Tukwila fully ex- pects to be a participant in discussions with the RTA as the RTA plan is refined in the com- ing months. RTA projects are not included in the MIC implementation plan. A related issue is the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad facility located at the southeast corner of the MIC. Both railroad freight yards and regional transit facilities are unclassified uses in the Zoning Code. These uses are subject to City Council approval and will continue to require project -level SEPA review. The Sixteenth Avenue South Bridge is located at the northern boundary of the MIC. The current boundary between King County and the City of Tukwila is in the middle of the river at this location, so half of the bridge is in Tukwila and half in King County. Responsibilities and costs for operating and maintaining this facility are currently split by the two jurisdictions. Because the condition of the bridge is poor, replacement or closure will be necessary relatively soon. Appropriate shared responsibilities for potential replacement costs have not been determined. The city is now preparing an origin and destination study to evaluate its fair share responsibility for the bridge. This issue will be resolved later, once the origin and destination study is completed and other analyses have been considered. The MIC implementation plan EIS does not attempt to resolve this issue. The MIC implementation plan EIS uses the MIC boundaries adopted by the Tukwila City Council for its comprehensive plan. Small portions of the MIC lie outside the boundaries of the City of Tukwila. Annexations or boundary adjustments with adjacent jurisdictions are not proposed as part of the MIC implementation plan. It is assumed that those processes will continue independently. Additional excluded actions include all proposals requiring conditional use or unclassified use approval. Also, because of the need for individual, site -by -site review of habitat issues raised by proposals to modify the bank of the river, those portions of a proposal that in- clude modifications to the shoreline waterward of the ordinary high water line are excluded actions and will be required to undergo additional SEPA review. On the other hand, pro- posals for redevelopment along shorelines already developed with rip -rap, sheet piling, or bulkheads will be permitted under the proposed action without additional SEPA review. 3-20 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 3 Proposed Action New sheet piling or bulkheading where not currently in place will be permitted, however, only with further SEPA review and consistency with the Shoreline Master Plan. Some uncertainty exists as to the ultimate nature of full buildout of the MIC. In 1992, The Boeing Company proposed its Duwamish Corridor master plan. Tukwila prepared an area - wide EIS on the plan, and the city and Boeing negotiated a mitigation agreement to address impacts of redevelopment along the corridor. Recent corporate mergers and acquisitions have resulted in a degree of uncertainty about the applicability of the earlier master plan and the ultimate role of the Duwamish Corridor as an employment and manufacturing cen- ter for Boeing. The corridor has been cyclical in employment density throughout the 50 plus years of its industrial history, and the proposed implementation plan anticipates that that trend may well continue. The city's intent in pursuing the MIC implementation plan is less to provide a specific physical plan for the MIC than to help facilitate its vision of the corri- dor as a world-class industrial center, capitalizing on the availability of its infrastructure and incorporating environmental protection into development standards for the variety of uses that together make this subarea such an important regional resource. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 3-21 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses CHAPTER 4 Comments and Responses This section contains comments received on the DEIS and responses by the City of Tukwila. Each comment letter is marked along its right margin with numbers indicating individual topics that require a response; responses correspond to the comment numbers. The due date for written comments on the DEIS was June 19, 1997. Three letters were received during the comment period, as listed below. A fourth letter, from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, was received by the City on July 3,1997. Since the comment period had already closed, that letter is not responded to in this document. However, several of its comments related to the proposed Shoreline Master Program revisions have been incorporated into this document. The Muckleshoot letter will be considered in toto during the SMP adoption and SEPA review process, which will take place in early to mid-1998. Comments were received from: Regional Agencies • King County Metro Transit Division Local Agencies • City of Seattle Office of Management and Planning Other Groups and Individuals • Perkins Coie (representing the Boeing Company) Comments and Responses Index Pg. No. King County Metro Transit Division Comments 4-2 Responses to King County Metro Transit Division Comments 4-3 City of Seattle Comments on the Draft EIS 4- 4 Responses to Seattle DEIS Comments 4- 9 City of Seattle Public Hearing Comments on the MIC Strategic 4-19 Implementation Plan Responses to Seattle Public Hearing Comments 4-22 Perkins Coie Comments on the Draft EIS 4-25 - Responses to the Perkins Coie DEIS Comments 4-31 Perkins-Coie Public Hearing Comments on the MIC Strategic Implementation 4-35 Plan Responses to Perkins-Coie Hearing Comments 4-37 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4-1 MARCH 12,1998 King County Metro Transit Division Design and Construction Section, Environmental Planning and Real Estate Department of Transportation 821 Second Avenue M.S. 122 Seattle, WA 98104-1598 (206) 684-1418 (206) 684-1900 FAX June 18, 1997 JUN 2 3 1397 vv 00 i!!\' UN" `( 1r. 7N SEPA Responsible Official City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Room 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn.: Vernon Umetsu Draft EIS, Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan Dear SEPA Responsible Official: King County Transit Division and Transportation Planning Division staff have reviewed this proposal and have the following comments. References in the EIS to transit service characteristics of the area are correct. Please note that in September, 1997, Route 246 (Bellevue -East Marginal Way S.) will cease to operate due to low ridership. Recent reductions in ridership on many of the E. Marginal Way routes (primarily due to the Boeing employment reductions) have added capacity which will handle some future increases in ridership. Staff recommends adding transportation demand management actions as part of the topics to be included in traffic studies, as outlined at the bottom of pg. 5-22 and top of pg. 5-23. Staff suggests that capacity problems could be addressed, in part, through aggressive areawide TDM actions, and recommends actions be taken to encourage employers to devote less total area to parking, as mentioned on page 5-22, as a compliment to other TDM actions. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Sincerely, - Cf.\ Gary Kriedt, Environmental Planner Environmental Planning and Real Estate g:\uap338.doc MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses Responses to King County Metro Transit Division 1. Comment acknowledged. 2. We agree that a provision for transportation demand management measures is appropriate for the site-specific traffic review function. Potential relevant TDM measures will be included for selection by the applicant at the building permit stage and per the Tukwila Commuter Trip Reduction Ordinance. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4-3 MARCH 12,1998 Seattle Municipal Building, 600 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1826 Tel: (206) 684-8080, TDD (206) 684-8118, FAX: (206) 233-0085 An equal -employment opportunity, affirmative action employer. Accommodations for people with disabilities provided on request. Steve Lancaster June 19, 1997 Page 2 the bridge. If no analysis is provided on these facilities, future projects in the MIC should be subject to SEPA to review transportation impacts. This should be stated in the document. Our concern is that the document indicates that no further SEPA review will be necessary for projects "consistent with the plan", although the plan does not address the impacts of the proposed action on key facilities. We also question the effectiveness of this EIS in meeting the intend of HB 1724 for planned actions if no analysis is provided of alternatives dealing with the future development pattern envisioned by the plan or `full built out", or the applicability of the earlier master plan for the Duwamish Corridor. Pages 2-13, 3rd paragraph - redevelopment is assumed to have no new impacts, and as such will not be subject to SEPA review even though they can increase impacts and the EIS has not disclosed the impacts. The FEIS should disclose impacts of redevelopment as well as of new projects and at least in a general manner for the entire area, not only the prototype sites. Materials Incorporated by Reference. The materials referenced in the Fact Sheet are documents prepared to support the Comprehensive Plan from 1991 to 1995, and the Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS published in 1992. We question the applicability of these documents for disclosing the impacts of the proposed action given that 1) the proposal includes significant changes to the shoreline program from what was in place at the time those documents were prepared; 2) the statement on page 2-13 saying that "Recent corporate mergers and acquisitions have resulted in a degree of uncertainty about applicability of the earlier master plan and the ultimate role of the Duwamish Corridor as an employment and manufacturing center for Boeing."; and 3) uncertainty about the Boeing Duwamish Corridor and the corresponding mitigating measures previously approved, but not necessarily implemented. The Final EIS, if it continues to rely on those previous documents, should detail the portions of those documents that are still valid and those that are not. Alternatives. The DEIS discussion of the No Action Alternative under Direct Land Use Impacts (p 3-11 to 3-14) provides no clear comparison of the changes that the alternatives would produce throughout the MIC. In addition, no alternatives are presented for the policies and regulatory changes to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The changes to the SMP are not merely implementing measures, but are a part of the proposal. The FEIS should include alternatives that modify the SMP in different ways. Coordination of improvements and regulatory process in the two Duwamish Manufacturing Centers in Seattle and Tukwila could be a guiding principle that helps shape one such alternative. Prototype Analysis. Using prototypes to conduct analysis that would lead to the designation of "planned actions" seems like a good approach. In a complicated environment, such as the Tukwila MIC, however, it raises a number of questions about 1) the reasonableness of generalizing to other sites in the area from the conclusions about the prototype sites, 2) the adequacy of the description of impacts on the prototype sites. 1 1 1 CO N T. 1 1 Steve Lancaster June 19, 1997 Page 3 Decision makers should be cautious in generalizing from the prototype sites to other potential development sites in the area. Because sites in the area display a variety of characteristics, it may be difficult to capture all of the existing conditions and potential developments and their impacts by examining closely only three sites. For instance, no prototype on the west side of the river was examined. But it is obvious that projects on the west side would cause traffic impacts on different streets than those affected by the prototypes. It also seems likely that sites on the west side contain different shoreline and habitat conditions than those described for the prototype sites. Contaminated soils could also vary substantially from site to site, depending on previous uses. It would be helpful for the Final EIS to contain sufficient information about the prototype sites to enable reviewers to determine whether those sites are similar to, and representative of the remaining sites within the MIC area. For instance, the FEIS should compare sites within the MIC area relative to the following factors: size of site, developed/vacant, shoreline or not, current and past use, proposed use, location, applicable regulations. This could help demonstrate the validity of using the selected prototypes as surrogates for analyzing every site in the area individually. Regarding the adequacy of analysis on the prototype sites, it appears that significant impacts to at least three of the elements of the environment are not adequately described: Habitat. • References to the habitat impacts at Site 3 do not mention the fact that these impacts are avoidable, since "redevelopment" of the existing structure implies a possibility to locate the future building so that it no longer covers the water. This is of particular interest, since a portion of this structure lies within the City of Seattle. Given that the use is not water -dependent, there is no need to permit construction of a new building over the water, giving up an opportunity to improve habitat conditions along the site's shoreline. • The description of habitat impacts associated with a higher height on this site says that the shading of the river caused by a taller building would be less than the impact of an increased over -water building footprint. This is a non -sequitur. Is the implication that without a higher height limit, the owner of the proposed structure would require more water coverage? This section of the EIS needs to describe the impact of increased river shading on habitat; if there are trade-offs, they can also be described, but the impacts must be disclosed. • Related to the subject of habitat impacts, Appendix B-2 "cumulative impacts" section says that "...construction of new or redeveloped water dependent use facilities should have minimal impact under the new policies set forth in the revised SMP. These revised policies provide for riverine habitat restoration, mitigation, and/or enhancement to the extent that on-site habitat improvements are possible, and where off-site mitigation is necessary." Since the DEIS does not analyze a prototype that includes a water dependent use, it is difficult to see the basis for the conclusion about the impacts of such a use. Also, since (according to p. 4-20) habitat restoration is i i Co hi T. Steve Lancaster June 19, 1997 Page 4 voluntary under the proposed regulations, it is not logical to rely on that restoration to conclude that the proposal will result in minimal impacts. View Corridor. • There is no discussion in the EIS of the impacts to shoreline view corridors that would be caused by the proposed increase in building heights in this area, particularly at prototype Site 3. Nor is there any discussion of how the proposed height limit relates to the Shoreline Management Act. While the discussion of Land Use impacts suggests that design review will mitigate the visual impacts of buildings on the prototype sites, that conclusion does not seem justified in light of the fact that the design guidelines that would be used in the review have not been developed yet. For development of prototype Site 3, there is potential for significant view corridor impact that is not consistent with regulations within the City of Seattle, where a portion of that building would be located. Hazardous Materials. • While it is true that federal and state authorities have primary responsibility for regulating the use and disposal of hazardous materials, it is the lead agency's responsibility to ensure that impacts associated with these materials have been adequately disclosed through environmental review prior to issuance of development approvals. • The brief "hazardous waste" section in the DEIS does not describe the nature of contaminants known, or likely to be found, on the prototype sites. Nor does it explain the potential impacts of developing contaminated sites and ways to mitigate those impacts. By not addressing the potentially significant impacts of hazardous materials and contaminated soils on the prototype sites, the DEIS ignores a fundamental principle of the planned action concept — that waiving of future project -specific environmental review is contingent on adequately analyzing the planned action's impacts as part of the area -wide EIS. Power Load. • No data have been provided on Seattle City Light's portion of the MIC load, nor are any projections of new MIC load given. It would be useful to obtain estimates of new MIC load to be served so that the utility can determine the need for expanded substation capacity and new feeders. • There is an error in the last line on page 6-6. It says that industrial customers in the Duwamish consume 1,500,000 MW (megawatts) annually. This figure should be 1,500,000 Mwh (megawatt hours). Public Access Requirements. • Clarification: p.4-20: What is "employee public access"? Is it the same as "public/private" access" found on the last page of Appendix B? 1 1 Steve Lancaster June 19, 1997 Page 5 • Figure 2 is unclear as to how the public may access the deck of a "redeveloped building. Other Issues that should be addressed in the FEIS: • Analysis of cumulative impacts. • Proposal's consistency with comprehensive plans, shoreline programs and regulations of the State, King County, Seattle or other adjacent jurisdictions, as well as the Countywide Planning Policies,. • Fiscal and service impacts to surrounding unincorporated areas, particularly the isolated area north of the proposed annexation area between the City of Seattle and the Duwamish river. • Land use impacts on surrounding industrial areas and the Duwamish Manufacturing Industrial Center in Seattle, King County and other jurisdictions. • Housing demand due to increased employment activity, and provision of affordable housing by City of Tukwila, as defined in the Countywide Planning Policies for King County. • Specific impacts to the Seattle City Light property. • Duwamish Corridor negotiated mitigation agreement. I appreciate your attention and cooperation on this project. Please call me at 233-7809, or Elsie G. Crossman at 684-8364 if you have additional questions. Sincerely, Nancy Ousley Assistant Director, OMP cc: Judy Bunnell, OMP Director Elsie G. Crossman, OMP Stephen Hagen, Seattle City Light Rebecca Herzfeld, DCLU Rick Krochalis, DCLU Ethan Melone, OMP Sandy Watson, Law Department 1 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses Responses to City of Seattle Office of Management and Planning 1. Tukwila acknowledges that it has no direct land use jurisdiction beyond its corporate limits. The MIC boundaries shown in Figure 2-1 are those designated in the City's adopted 1995 Comprehensive Plan and contain small areas within unincorporated King County. These lands were included in the implementation planning area because they are within the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan's designated MIC subarea, are contiguous with the MIC, contain compatible uses, and are identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a "Potential Boundary Adjustment and Annexation Area" that may be considered for annexation by the City of Tukwila at some time in the future. The decision to plan for the area in a comprehensive manner with the remainder of the designated MIC, is both an accepted professional planning practice and encouraged by the Growth Management Act. As noted in the DEIS, page 2-13, annexations or boundary adjustments with adjacent jurisdictions are not proposed as part of the MIC implementation and are being pursued independently. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) was recently signed by Tukwila, Seattle, and King County to resolve potential annexation and other issues in this South Park area. Planning for the area does not conflict with the spirit or letter of this agreement. Using Boeing Plant 2 as Prototype Site 3, which lies partially within the City of Seattle, was intended to test certain provisions of the Tukwila MIC zoning code and is not intended to represent an actual development proposal. Tukwila recognizes that any development proposal by the Boeing Company to redevelop its properties within Seattle city limits would require obtaining Seattle permits, as appropriate. 2. The discussion of the 16th Avenue South bridge in Chapter 2 refers to future actions that might be taken to maintain, replace or close the bridge, to the extent that such actions are subject to SEPA review. Such actions involve uncertainties in design and timing that are beyond the scope of the MIC EIS to address. The City acknowledges that independent environmental documentation is likely to be required when bridge alternatives are evaluated in the future. Interjurisdictional issues regarding responsibility for 16th Avenue South bridge improvements are being addressed in the MOU described in the response to comment 1 above. Existing traffic volumes are shown in DEIS pages 5-2 and 5-3. Impacts of future development within the MIC on the 16th Avenue South Bridge have been evaluated. In general, the 5:00-6:00 p.m. peak, traffic growth from 1997-2010 is estimated at 14 percent; 85 percent is attributed to East Marginal Way northbound and 15 percent to East Marginal Way southbound. The 2:30-3:30 peak, traffic growth on the bridge from 1997-2010 is estimated at 13 percent; 81 percent is attributed to East Marginal Way northbound and 19 percent to East Marginal Way southbound. Overall, the prototypes would contribute 3 to 4 percent of total traffic volumes on the bridge in future peak hours. This increase must be considered in the context of the bridge's role in the regional transportation system and recognizing the majority of bridge traffic is not generated in Tukwila. The MOU reflects a King County/ Seattle/ CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 4-9 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses Tukwila cooperative approach to resolving this issue. A more detailed response is presented below. Additional analysis of impacts to the 16th Avenue South bridge has been conducted for this FEIS. These impacts are summarized in Table 4-1 for each peak period in 2010. Between 1997 and 2010, traffic volumes on the bridge will increase 14 percent for the 5 to 6 p.m. peak hour and 13 percent in the 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. peak hour. These increases reflect the cumulative growth associated with through traffic, background increases, and the impacts of the prototype projects. Most traffic using the 16th Avenue South bridge connects to the north along East Marginal Way. Existing intersection traffic counts indicate that less than 15 to 19 percent of bridge traffic connects to and from the south of East Marginal Way. For prototype site 3, about 10 percent of project traffic would use the 16th Avenue South bridge. No traffic from prototype sites 1 or 2 is projected to use the bridge. For the transportation analysis, the cumulative impacts of growth through traffic, increases in background traffic, and added project traffic were addressed. These analyses consider a buildout condition within the MIC. Other impacts of full buildout to levels allowed under the MIC zoning code are discussed qualitatively in the Land Use, Shoreline Use, and Other Elements of the Environment chapters, recognizing that a wide variety of actual development outcomes is possible within the limitations of the code. Table 4-1 Estimated Traffic Impacts on the 16th Avenue South Bridge Year 1997 Estimated Traffic Levels 16th Avenue Bridge Bridge Oriented Traffic from the south (which includes the MIC) = 15-19%.(Response to Comment 2, par. 5). Prototype Site 1 AWDT=804 trips. (All prototype site AWDT estimates per the "Trip Generation Manual") Prototype Site 2 AWDT=552 trips 26,3841 3,958 - 5013 Zero Prototype Site 3 AWDT=4,835 1,3252 Zero 1803 Zero 4834 Zero 1985 1 Traffic count from the City of Seattle Engineering Dept. 2 DEIS Fig. 5-2 3 ibid. Count of north and south bound traffic which used the bridge from the Seattle Engineering Dept. 4 Engineering estimate of 10% of project traffic. See response to Comment 2, par. 5. 5 41% of peak hour traffic. Based on the ratio of ITE estimated peak hour trips over total trips. 4-10 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses Table 4-1 Continued Year 2010 Traffic Levels 16th Avenue Bridge Bridge Oriented Traffic from the south (which includes the MIC) = 15-19%.8 29,9456 4,492 - 5690 1,497 207 - 214 3. Alternative full buildout scenarios were developed for the MIC subarea while developing the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Analyses at that time showed adequate infrastructure support for the full buildout scenarios. This analysis was updated in the DEIS, where adequate infrastructure support was determined to be available for full buildout. 4. Increased shoreline impacts are not foreseen when replacing existing rip -rap or other bank stabilizing structures in like kind, where work is located landward of the water line. This determination is supported by the more liberal exemption of actions which maintain or replace bank stabilizing structures in or out of the water, from the need for a shoreline substantial development permit. The impacts of shoreline redevelopment proposals are discussed in Chapter 4 of the DEIS, both on a site specific and corridor - wide basis. The foreseeable impacts of this and the more extensive shoreline development proposals represented in prototypes 1 and 3 have been identified and mitigated by the regulations proposed in the DEIS and further landscaping mitigation for water dependent developments in the river environment (FEIS Table 3-1, "Landscaping"). A planned action (SEPA) checklist would also be administratively reviewed to ensure no significant adverse impacts occur per RCW 43.21C.031, and specifically discussed in the Appendix D (MIC Plan, page 21(b)(2)). Redevelopment of shoreline areas continue to be subject to all applicable permit requirements. 5. Documents referenced in the fact sheet are incorporated by reference to the extent they are applicable. For instance, all findings of fact and conclusions in the 1992 "Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS," would be applicable (e.g., the need for road improvements along E. Marginal Way). However some conclusions and recommendations may have been superseded (e.g., the identified E. Marginal Way road improvements have been completed, more specific policies on levels of service were adopted in the 1995 Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, and road design specifications have been adopted in TMC 16.34 and 16.36). Alternatively, other provisions such as trail access which is mitigation for developments in King County and the City of Seattle, 6 Reflects an engineering estimate of a 13.5% increase per Response to Comment 2, par. 5. 7 Reflects an engineering estimate of a 13% increase. ibid. 8 Reflects an engineering estimate of a 13.5% increase per Response to Comment 2, par. 5. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • MARCH 12,1998 4-11 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses would still apply as part of a regional mitigation agreement. Collectively, these documents represent the initial planning data base for the MIC, which the planned action EIS updated as needed. As noted in Chapter 2 of this FEIS, impacts of proposed revisions to the City's shoreline master plan for the MIC area are evaluated in this document, and they will be subject to further environmental review during the shoreline master plan adoption process. The DEIS provided an update of infrastructure capacities and of relevant current conditions that have changed since previous analysis was incorporated by reference (for example, a new discussion of existing traffic volumes in the MIC was prepared). The DEIS statement concerning "uncertainties" related to activities by the Boeing Company in the Duwamish Corridor referred to potential reductions in Boeing's work force in the area. The employment levels analyzed in the 1992 EIS remain the worst-case scenario for the Boeing properties and are assumed as part of buildout conditions for this analysis. As mitigation for traffic impacts identified in the 1992 EIS, Boeing has provided $3.5 million for improvements along East Marginal Way, which meets all City of Tukwila concurrency requirements for Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Master Plan. These dollars, along with local, State and federal funds have provided sufficient overall infrastructure capacity to support the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan vision for MIC development. Uncertainty about the nature of the Boeing Company's full buildout quoted in the comment has been acknowledged. However it is important to continue the paragraph to its conclusion which reads: "The City's intent in pursuing the MIC implementation plan is less to provide a specific physical plan for the MIC than to help facilitate its vision of the corridor as a world-class industrial center, capitalizing on the availability of its infrastructure and incorporating environmental protection into development standards for the variety of uses that together make this subarea such an important regional resource." (DEIS, p. 2-13) Please also see response to Comment 3. 6. As noted on page 3-13, "...impacts of the No Action alternative would generally be as described for the implementation plan." 7. The alternatives analysis for a shoreline master plan was done within the Comprehensive Plan development process. The proposed shoreline master plan policies are those adopted in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan for shoreline regulation. Use of these policies reflects the subordinate nature of this subarea plan to the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and the State requirement that shoreline master plans be consistent with the comprehensive plan. FEIS Chapter 3 ("Recommended Regulatory Revisions") discusses the City's process for amending the shoreline master plan. 8. The prototype approach was used to: test the existing regulatory system's ability to mitigate all significant adverse impacts, identify possible permit streamlining opportunities, and test the viability of resulting regulatory proposals. The three prototype developments were created based on the criteria that they must reflect realistic future expectations of MIC development and be broadly applicable to future MIC development proposals. Broad applicability is achieved by having the prototypes 4-12 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 9 See Appendix A of the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan for a list of MIC goals and policies. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12,1998 4-13 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses side. This is especially the case of Prototype Site 2 which includes an undeveloped bank, a slough which is a potential habitat restoration site, and an undeveloped "river environment" area. Impact analyses of development on this type of site (DEIS Chapters 3-6) are determined to be applicable to the western areas. Responses to other comments on prototype sites are presented below: Site area is shown as "Site Data" below each prototype diagram (e.g., DEIS Pgs. 2-8 through 2-10). The shoreline status at each prototype site has been extensively discussed in DEIS Chapter 3 (Shoreline Impacts), pages 4-19 through 4-22. The existing land use on each site is identified in the DEIS Chapter 3: "Land Use At Prototype Sites" (DEIS, Pg. 3-3). The regulations regarding the prototype sites have been presented in DEIS Chapter 2. The impacts of development and the effectiveness of the existing regulatory structure to adequately mitigate all significant adverse impacts have been presented in the respective impact sections for each prototype site. The City of Tukwila shares the commentator's concern that prototype impact analysis be adequate, especially in light of the proposed "planned action" approach which eliminates a SEPA threshold determination at the project level. The City is confident that the proposed regulatory provisions, combined with State and federal statutes, will mitigate all significant adverse impacts. For example, contaminated sites proposed for development would be subject to the standards of the Washington State Model Toxics Control Act as described in DEIS page 6-12; proposals in the shoreline management area must satisfy the requirements for a shoreline substantial development permit, and Tukwila's concurrency ordinances require a demonstration of adequate road, sewer, water, and storm drainage system capacity. A further administrative verification would be provided by a "consistency checklist and review" in which a project is reviewed under the substantive aspects of SEPA and the City Comprehensive Plan, to determine that all significant adverse impact have been mitigated (MIC Plan, Pg. 22 (c) "Consistency Check"). Projects which could not demonstrate consistency would be denied planned action status and required to proceed through normal SEPA review (ibid.). 9. The habitat impacts of redevelopment at Prototype Site 3 are negligible since the building's over -water footprint would not be increased, and the north -south river orientation makes any shadow impacts insignificant. This determination has been confirmed by the Tukwila staff Urban Environmentalist, the independent fisheries biologist retained to evaluate the proposed shoreline plan, and during informal discussions with State and County, shoreline/habitat management staff. The decision to allow reconstruction within the existing building footprint is a policy decision to be evaluated by the Tukwila City Council. The policy orientation in this document emphasizes the responsible facilitation of industrial employment opportunities as outlined in the Countywide Planning Policies and the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. The Council has the policy option of pulling back the building approximately 100 feet, to eliminate building areas over the water and within the 4-14 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses existing river environment area (where no new construction is allowed) which would potentially enhance site habitat. The portion of Prototype Site 3 within the City of Seattle lies outside the 200 -foot -wide shoreline zone. 10. Tukwila staff concurs that the statement is a non -sequitur. It is herewith withdrawn. Please see the response to comment 9 for a discussion on over -water coverage and shadow impacts. 11. The analysis of water -dependent uses assumed full paving within the 40-60 foot area (where most habitat impacts would occur) immediately adjacent to the river. Additional river environment landscaping has been incorporated for water dependent uses to avoid loss of vegetated areas and habitat value (see FEIS, Table 3-1, "Landscaping"). Envisioning the physical characteristics of this situation was not difficult given the general experience of the fisheries biologist (Partee), his ongoing experience with fisheries enhancement projects in this immediate river area, and the numerous examples of paving to the top of bank as represented by shorelines with sheet piling, pier aprons, and many rip -rapped banks as shown in Figure 4-1 of the DEIS. Habitat areas next to the river are largely characterized by dense blackberry thickets (DEIS, page 4-4). These areas have marginal habitat value. Their loss, even on an extreme basis where the bank of the entire navigable channel is paved (such as along the Duwamish River mouth) is improbable, largely due to shoreline master plan provisions to maintain or replace vegetated areas adjacent to the river and severely limiting new development in the river environment. The probable scenario of mixed, water - dependent, water -related, and non -water -related uses would result in the following probable impacts: • The loss of some stretches of blackberry thickets and • Net improved habitat value due to replacement of blackberry thickets with dense trees (35 -ft on center) and shrubs Significant large trees provide usable habitat in other areas (DEIS, page 4-5). These areas are associated with non -water dependent uses and are expected to remain stable for the foreseeable future. The most important habitat is the river itself, as a corridor for salmonids (DEIS, page 4- 5). Please note that developments which involve construction waterward of the ordinary high water mark are excluded from being planned actions (DEIS page 2-13, paragraph 3). Maintenance, repair, and like replacement are identified as exempt from shoreline permits, but would be subject to normal environmental review, as applicable. 12. The City of Tukwila does not regulate for the preservation of view corridors across private property, nor are there residences in the immediate area, except a few along the river (DEIS, Fig. 3-1), where a 35 -ft building height limitation by the state Shoreline Management Program might be of concern. The state shoreline master plan allows using the underlying zone height standards in cases such as the Tukwila MIC. The City of Tukwila recognizes that: CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 4-15 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses • a portion of Prototype Site 3 (Boeing Corporate Offices), out side of the shoreline zone, is in the City of Seattle, • all improvements in Seattle are subject to Seattle development standards, including any view protection provisions and • splitting the site with portions in Tukwila and Seattle will make redevelopment more complex. Discussions with Seattle DCLU show that both cities allow office and industrial uses, and that the Seattle 85 -ft building height limit contrasts with the Tukwila 125 -ft height limit. Tukwila acknowledges that future design review guidelines specific to the shoreline area are not presented in this document. Any and all discussions of these future shoreline guidelines are herewith withdrawn. Such shoreline guidelines are currently being developed and will be evaluated in a separate environmental process. The visual impacts of all developments requiring a shoreline substantial development permit are currently addressed by the existing Board of Architectural Review process (Tukwila Municipal Code 18.60). This process has been used for all such developments in the City of Tukwila. The scope of Tukwila design review includes detailed site planning, building design, and landscape design. 13. The City's responsibility to disclose impacts adequately is most appropriately satisfied by ensuring compliance with state and federal standards, as administered by the agency staff with the technical expertise in this field. Tukwila will include a hazardous materials section in the consistency checklist submitted for each project to validate its status as a planned action. Please see response to comment 8. 14. Chapter 2 of the DEIS and the response to comment 8 above describe the nature of the prototype sites, which are not intended to represent actual development proposals. As described on page 6-12 of the DEIS, the Model Toxics Control Act would require the assessment of soil quality on sites proposed for development in the MIC, including the need for removal, treatment, or disposal of contaminated soils. The quality of groundwater on a site or the presence of subsurface objects, such as undocumented underground storage tanks or utility pipelines, must also be assessed. If contamination is found, Ecology must be notified and a cleanup plan developed. Compliance with these requirements would be ascertained as part of the planned action permit process to be adopted with the MIC implementation plan. Future project -specific environmental review is thus not waived and will be accomplished without duplication under regulations specifically designed to address the impacts of developing contaminated sites. Please note that the planned action approach does not require a project by project SEPA threshold determination. Substantive environmental review is still required through the planned action consistency checklist, which must be substantially equivalent to the substantive SEPA analysis done for a threshold determination. The "no significant impact" determination made in the planned action EIS must be administratively validated in this consistency check process. 4-16 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses FEIS Chapter 3.2 provides more detailed discussion and a flow charted comparison between the standard SEPA threshold determination and a planned action processes. This material is also presented in the associated MIC Strategic Implementation Plan (Nov. 1997) on pages 21-23. 15. Industrial development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code will be permitted in the MIC. The EIS assumes that Seattle City Light will continue to coordinate with Tukwila to phase in infrastructure improvements as needed to accommodate growth. Estimates were not prepared for growth in demand for electricity in the MIC based on the City Light assertions that they are a demand driven utility which, in general, will provide the electricity demanded; and the Comprehensive Plan EIS (1996) documented plans to double distribution capacity in this area (ibid., DEIS pg. 95-96). 16. Comment acknowledged. The figure should be changed to read "1,500,000 Mwh." 17. Employee access is the same as private access. The general public need not be allowed in such areas. Provision for public access is only required to accommodate the Duwamish/Green River Trail. 18. Figure 2B in Appendix B-2 of the DEIS is a cross-section of an over water building which presents redevelopment options, including: • Converting a portion of the building area to a public or private access walkway (as shown in the 1992 Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS) and • Not providing the walkway, but incorporating that area of the old building within the new building's envelope. Access to the potential walkway could be physically accommodated along the south perimeter and thence along the water to the walkway (see Figure 2A, Appendix B-2 for an orienting site plan) or directly from within the building if it was employee access. 19. Infrastructure capacities, nature resources and development review processes were reviewed in the EIS. Impacts related to these issues will occur individually and cumulatively over time. The EIS reviewed both types of impacts. 20. The MIC Implementation Plan is consistent with, and reaffirms, Tukwila Comprehensive Plan policies for the MIC subarea. No changes are proposed that would affect MIC policy consistency with other plans. The relationship between the proposed regulatory structure and adopted Comprehensive Plan policies is presented in FEIS Appendix E. It is also shown in the MIC Strategic Implementation Plan, Appendix A. 21. No annexation is proposed as part of the MIC implementation plan. No fiscal or service impacts are expected that differ from impacts related to the MIC's long-established industrial designation. 22. Adjacent areas (in King County and the City of Seattle) are part of the Duwamish Manufacturing Industrial Center designated in the Countywide Planning Policies. No change in the existing industrial land use designations of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code has been proposed. Therefore, no direct land use impacts are anticipated. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 4-17 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses Indirect land use impacts on surrounding industrial areas will be those related to the implementation plan's success in facilitating MIC development as a manufacturing and industrial center. Area improvement would tend to encourage industrial oriented development as envisioned by Seattle and the Countywide Planning Policies. 23. The housing demand generated by MIC development, is satisfied through the housing supply targets that each jurisdiction is required to reflect in its comprehensive plan per the Countywide Planning Policies. This countywide orientation reflects the reality that MIC employees come from all over the region. The City of Tukwila will fulfill its responsibility for housing in the Countywide Planning Policies, just as it is herewith fulfilling its policy mandate to streamline regulations and facilitate development in the MIC. 24. Specific impacts to the Seattle City Light property are the same as for other properties in the MIC. These impacts are discussed throughout the EIS. The proposal would not prohibit site use for habitat restoration or for power generation and distribution as discussed with City Light representatives, or for other light and heavy industrial uses as identified in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. 25. As a result of the 1992 "Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Plan EIS", Boeing King County, Seattle and Tukwila negotiated an agreement to mitigate development impacts. This document does not affect the Mitigation Agreement, as Tukwila is but one of four signatories. See response to comment 16 of the Perkins Coie letter. 4-18 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 ii` City of Seattle Norman B. Rice, Mayor Executive Department - Office of Management and Planning Judy Bunnell, Director December 11, 1997 Tukwila Planning Commission Members c/o City of Tukwila Planning Division Office 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Comments on the City of Tukwila's Draft Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan ATTN: Steve Lancaster Dear Planning Commission Members: The City of Seattle presents comments to the Planning Commission concerning the boundaries of the area proposed to be included in the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial (MIC) Strategic Implementation Plan, and the content of the Plan. We comment as a concerned neighboring jurisdiction and a partner in the mediation process over proposed potential annexation areas. Plan Boundaries. We request the Planning Commission to change the boundaries of the Strategic Plan so that it excludes the area outside of Tukwila which is subject to negotiation under a recent Memorandum of Understanding signed by the our respective Mayors and the King County Executive. The Strategic Plan should only include properties where the City of Tukwila has authority to enforce regulations and make capital investments. Both Seattle and Tukwila designated in our respective comprehensive plans the South Park area as a Potential Annexation Area. In July, Tukwila, Seattle and King County signed an agreement to negotiate a solution regarding the conflicting designation of the Potential Annexation Area and we jointly hired Mr. Gerald Cormick as a mediator to facilitate our discussions. By including the disputed area in the proposed Strategic Implementation Plan, the City of Tukwila is assuming a particular outcome of and disregarding the mediation process. We urge the Planning Commission to make this change to allow a productive negotiation process as envisioned in the Memorandum of Understanding. Plan Content. We applaud the intent of the Strategic Plan to streamline the permit process by pre -determining impacts of new development and including mitigating measures as part of the City's regulations and capital facilities planning. However, the A Seattle Municipal Building, 600 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1826 Tel: (206) 684-8080, TDD (206) 684-8118, FAX: (206) 233-0085 An equal -employment opportunity, affirmative action employer. Accommodations for people with disabilities provided on request. draft Plan does not provide adequate level of analysis for decision makers to reach conclusions that the Plan will in fact mitigate future development in the area. We raise the following issues: • Three prototypes are developed to identify potential impacts and mitigation measures. The prototypes only consider office, research and development, and laboratory uses. The allowable list of uses in a manufacturing zone is considerably broader. Under the identification of planned action (page 21), all "permitted uses" should be subject to the mitigating measures and exempt from further environmental analysis. Either the analysis should be broader to include a good sample of "permitted uses" or the proposed action should only apply to the three uses. Limiting the applicability of the proposed action to only these three uses, which do not even include manufacturing or industrial uses, would be inconsistent with the Countywide Planning Policies' emphasis on manufacturing, industrial and advanced technology uses as the preferred activities in Manufacturing Industrial Centers. • Under the same provision in page 21, item (b) (4) (v), a development associated with the 16th Avenue South Bridge is not subject to the planned action. This seems inconsistent with the statement that the existing analysis shows the bridge is adequate to support full buildout in the MIC. If the analysis clearly shows that any ' development in the MIC will not create significant impacts on the bridge, this provision should not apply. On the other hand, if the provision is in response to lack.of capacity or structural deficiencies of the bridge, no project should be exempt from a determination of impacts on the bridge. If this provision remains, the planned action would not apply to the Prototype III site since it is adjacent to the 16th Avenue South Bridge. • The City of Tukwila shares responsibility with the County for maintenance and operation of the 16th Avenue South Bridge. The bridge is a deficient facility in need of replacement according to King County. The Strategic Plan must include this facility and provide for its maintenance and improvement to serve the MIC. Again, we request to disclose the analysis demonstrating that the bridge is adequate to support MIC buildout before the Plan is adopted. • The Strategic Implementation Plan does not include the proposed changes to the Shoreline Master Program that were included in the earlier draft. We believe this is a great omission, as the planned action will affect a major portion of Tukwila's shorelines. In fact, 2 of the 3 prototypes involved development on the shoreline. Furthermore, the planned action is contingent on establishing standards as mitigating measures to exempt projects from further environmental analysis. That cannot be done adequately in this document without knowing and planning for the outcome of the proposed changes to the Shoreline program. The description of Prototype Site 3 (page 17) "raises a number of issues regarding including (sic) large-scale demolition, driveway standards, scale of development, and redevelopment of the shoreline, including replacement of over -water 2 structures" (emphasis added). It appears to propose actions that are in direct conflict with the State Shoreline Management Act such as development that builds over water. Again, we believe reconciling this action with the State Management Act is essential before the Plan can move forward. • The Existing MIC Land Uses Map (page 7) is inaccurate, it shows Seattle's utility's properties as quasi -public. Those properties should be classified as public services. Also, the legend shows the same color (blank) for agriculture, vacant and miscellaneous. Enclosed is a copy of the comment letter we sent to the Department of Community Development on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in June. We continue to have the same concerns, as the proposal you are reviewing does not include any significant new information regarding the issues raised in our letter. We urge the Planning Commission to wait until changes to the shoreline regulations are adopted and the Final Environmental Impact Statement is published before approving the Plan. These documents are needed for you to make an informed decision. I appreciate your attention to this matter. I am available to answer any questions of the Commission and to work with the planning staff on this project. My telephone number is 233-7809. You may also call Elsie G. Crossman at 684-8364. Sincerely, Nancy k. Ousley Assistant Director, OMP Enclosure. cc: The Honorable John W. Rants, Mayor, City of Tukwila The Honorable Ron Sims, King County Executive The Honorable Norm Rice, Mayor, City of Seattle Seattle City Councilmembers Paul Schell, Mayor -Elect Judy Bunnell, OMP Director Jack Johnson, Law Department Tom Tierney, OIR Director 3 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses RESPONSES TO CITY OF SEATTLE PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS A. See response to City of Seattle DEIS Comment 1. The City of Tukwila's planning activities predate the referenced Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Continuation and completion of these planning activities do not violate the terms or the spirit of the MOU. The City of Tukwila will continue its good faith efforts to successfully complete the mediation on interjurisdictional annexation and infrastructure issues. B. The "MIC Strategic Implementation Plan" contained an error in the "Site Data" associated with each prototype graphic. The data of Site 1 was used for all prototypes. Correct site data is presented for each prototype on DEIS pages 2-8, 2-9 and 2-10 and in FEIS Chapter 2. The Planning Division apologizes for any resulting confusion. A review of the correct prototypes in the DEIS and FEIS (pgs. 2-4, 2-5 and 2-6), shows that they represent the full range of uses permitted in the MIC. Prototype Site 3 is described on DEIS pages 2-6 and 2-10, with land use impacts being discussed on pages 3-12 to 3-13. The Site 3 description includes "housing 750,000 square feet of high -bay manufacturing space" (DEIS, pg. 3-12) in a new building whose height has been increased from 80 ft. to 125 feet. The Site 1 office use, Site 2 warehouse distribution use and the Site 3 manufacturing and research and development use reflect the full range of "permitted uses" and development intensities allowed in the MIC/L and MIC/H zoning districts. Please note that office uses are allowed only if they are "...associated with another permitted use, e.g., administrative offices for a manufacturing company present in the MIC) (TMC 18.36.020.24 in the MIC/L zone and TMC 18.38.020.25 in the MIC/H zone). The range of permitted uses in the MIC/L and MIC/H zones are consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies which emphasize manufacturing, industrial and advanced technology uses. These prototype analyses are at a level of detail to allow evaluating the foreseeable impacts and required mitigating measures. The prototype impact analyses are applicable to similar actions for the purposes of environmental impact evaluation and mitigation due to similar substantive aspects, geographic proximity, similar environment within which the actions occur, and impact similarity which varies in degree, but notrange(WAC 197-11-060). C. The intent of the referenced statement is that any decisions about the improvement or disposition of the 16th Avenue Bridge itself, which would normally require a SEPA threshold determination, would not be a planned action. The item on page 21 section (b)(4)(v) is recommended to be revised to read as follows to better reflect this intent: 4-22 " - - • : = ' any decisions about the 16th Avenue Bridge improvement or disposition which would normally require a SEPA threshold determination," The MIC Plan has provided for the transportation system needed to serve the Tukwila MIC at the levels of service established in the Comprehensive Plan and pursuant to City infrastructure improvement ordinances. The 16th Avenue Bridge is not required to support Tukwila MIC development pursuant to City standards. Analyses show that traffic volumes generated from the Tukwila MIC are very low and that alternative routes to the bridge provide more than sufficient capacity with no significant delay (DEIS Chapter 5 and response to comments 2 and 3). The regional role of the 16th Avenue Bridge is recognized. The City of Tukwila supports a regional approach to improving and maintaining the bridge's regional role. Discussions between CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses King County, the City of Seattle and the City of Tukwila are being held to provide further resolution to this matter. D. Response to this comment on the status of proposed shoreline plan revisions and associated impact analyses, requires recognizing three characteristics: • Proposed substantive shoreline plan update provisions • SEPA review status and • Public review status. Proposed substantive shoreline plan update provisions. Proposed shoreline plan update provisions have been developed and incorporated as part of the "Proposed Action". Initial proposals are presented in DEIS Chapter 2, revisions based on DEIS comments to require replacement of lost vegetated area and habitat value in the "river environment" are presented in FEIS Chapter 1, and the cumulative update provisions of the proposed action are presented in FEIS Chapter 3. The MIC shoreline master program update has been developed separately from the citywide shoreline master plan update, which is still being prepared. The two documents will be combined into one document for the public review process. The MIC provisions will be a component of the citywide shoreline master plan. This approach has been endorsed by the City Council. The separate preparation of the MIC shoreline master plan was done in recognition of the following elements: • Both the MIC shoreline master plan and the City-wide master plan will take overall policy direction from the Comprehensive Plan and should have a generally high level of coordination, • The Comprehensive Plan recognized the MIC as a regional industrial area, which has a different balance of habitat/recreation/aesthetic/economic development priorities from the City as a whole (see DEIS Appendix B-2) and is appropriately a separate, but subordinate, component of the citywide shoreline master plan, • Maximum integration with the implementing regulations of this subarea plan make it appropriate to develop the MIC shoreline master plan now, even though it is ahead of the overall citywide shoreline master plan, and • Conflicts between the MIC shoreline master plan and the citywide master plan are best resolved during that future planning project. The current proposed "MIC Strategic Implementation Plan" relies on the existing King County "Shoreline Master Plan." The impacts of this regulatory option have been reasonably disclosed in the DEIS. The FEIS has specifically evaluated the proposed regulations with respect to implementation with the existing shoreline master plan and found no significant adverse impacts. Any conflicts between the proposed GMA implementation plan regulations and the existing shoreline plan would be resolved in favor of the more restrictive regulation. No such conflicts have be identified. SEPA review status. SEPA review of the MIC portion of both the existing and the proposed shoreline master plan is presented in this document, as part of an integrated GMA subarea plan, shoreline master plan, and environmental review process. SEPA CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 4-23 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses review of the GMA subarea plan and the shoreline master plan will be completed with this FEIS.1° Further SEPA review of the MIC shoreline master plan will be done as needed when the City-wide shoreline master plan undergoes SEPA review (see below). This SEPA analysis is anticipated to be incorporated by reference into the environmental review for the City-wide shoreline plan. Public review status. Public review of the MIC shoreline plan will be postponed until it can be evaluated as a component of the citywide shoreline master plan. This review will include a future public participation program, and public hearings before the Tukwila Planning Commission and City Council. The "MIC Strategic Implementation Plan" now before the City Planning Commission incorporates proposed regulatory revisions, capital improvement revisions, and the existing King County Shoreline Master Plan. The specific regulatory concern of allowing shoreline redevelopment and reconstruction of overwater buildings have been evaluated (see response to Comment 4). Earlier discussions with State Department of Ecology, Shorelines Division staff provided the City with assurances that shoreline redevelopment proposals for sites and buildings were not in conflict with the State Shoreline Management regulations. 10 Integration of these planning documents is encouraged by the State. Grant funding was made available for Tukwila to facilitate a prototype application of this plan development process. The option to simplify the SEPA analysis by deleting the shoreline component is not possible due to grant contractual obligations. Separating the proposed MIC shoreline plan from the GMA subarea plan components for public review purposes is allowed and has been done after discussion with the City Council and Planning Commission. 4-24 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 .SENT SY:PERKINS COIE SEATTLE ; 6-19-97 ; 1:43PM ;PERKINS 45 RECEPTION-. 2064313665;# 2/ 8 PERKINS COIE A UW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING: PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 1201 THIRD AVENUE, 40T' FLOOR • SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101-3099 TELEPHONE: 206 583.8888 • FACSIMILE: 206 5834500 June 19, 1997 VIA FACSIMILE Steve Lancaster Director Tukwila Dept. of Community Dvt. 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Draft Environmental Statements Dear Mr. Lancaster: As you know, we represent the Boeing Company. Along with Boeing, we have reviewed the City's Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("Plan/DEIS"), dated May 20, 1997 and met with members of your staff (Jack Pace and Vernon Umetsu) on May 29, 1977 to discuss it. As we told Jack and Vernon at the May 29 meeting, we commend the City for its progressive role in developing a planned action subarea for the City's MIC and are generally supportive of the Plan/DEIS as proposed. In short, Boeing greatly appreciate the City's efforts to streamline the regulatory process in the MIC. We do, however, have the following comments: GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Clarify Function of Prototypes The function of the three MIC prototypes is confusing and should be clarified. Are the prototypes intended to represent a worst case scenario for all environmental impacts in the MIC or only for transportation impacts? The transportation chapter (page 5-12) suggests that the prototypes (in combination?) represent worst case, but the general prototype description on page 2-6 does not. If the prototypes represent worst case impacts, would projects that exceed the "umbrella" of impacts created by combination of the three prototypes require individual SEPA review? The role of the prototypes in the DEIS/Plan should be clarified and described in greater detail in Chapter 2. 1030034143/S139715503751 ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE DENVER HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES OLYMPIA PORTLAND SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASIIINc:TON, D.C. STRATEGIC ALLIANCE: RUSSELL & DuMOULIN, VANCOUVER, CANADA SENT BY:PERKINS COLE SEATTLE ; 6-19-97 ; 1:43PM ;PERKINS 45 RECEPTION-, 2064313665;# 3/ 8 June 19, 1997 Page 2 2. Plan Appendix As we understand it, the Plan and the DEIS were combined for purposes of drafting efficiency. However, combination of the two documents tends to obscure and confuse the Plan's components. It would be very helpful if an appendix were created setting forth the Plan independent of the DEIS analysis (especially the Plan's regulatory components), or if the Planned Action Ordinance adopting the Plan were to include the Plan as a stand alone document. Is public review of the Plan limited to review of the DE1S/Plan? 3. Final Plan The DEIS/Plan often describes the Plan component as "proposed." See, page 2-6; page 2-12; and Table 2-2 (title). For clarity, we assume that the term "proposed" will be dropped from the document after the DEIS is finalized and the Plan is approved. 4. Mitigation Credits The section describing assessment of concurrency on page 5-23 should clarify that prior SEPA transportation mitigation payments made by Boeing (and others, if applicable) will be credited against any GMA mitigation payments that may be required under the City's transportation concurrency ordinance. 5. Consistent Terminology The DEIS/Plan describes its Plan component variously as the "subarea plan" (e.g., page 3-6); the "MIC implementation plan" (e.g., page 3-6); and the "implementation plan" (e.g., page 3-7).. For clarity, the Plan should be consistently described. 6. Consistency With Seattle Neighborhood Plan As you probably know, the City of Seattle is beginning an effort to create a neighborhood plan for the Seattle portion of the Duwamish corridor. It would be helpful to property owners along the Tukwila/Seattle boundary if the MIC Plan and Seattle's neighborhood plan were coordinated and consistent. (03003-0143/SB991550.1731 6/19/97 1 I i 1 SENT BY:PERKINS COIE SEATTLE ; 6-19-97 ; 1:44PM ;PERKINS 45 RECEPTION 2064313665;# 4/ 8 June 19, 1997 Page 3 PLANNED ACTION/DEIS COMMENTS 1. Page 2-2 The second paragraph states that the MIC subarea "has few remaining undisturbed natural resources (with the exception of the Duwamish River)." This sentence implies that the Duwamish is an undisturbed natural resource and that the MIC subarea contains undisturbed natural resources other than the Duwamish. The sentence should probably be clarified to state that portions of the Duwarnish River represent the few remaining undisturbed natural resources in the MIC subarea. 2. Page 2-2 The last paragraph states that Boeing owns "about 650 acres" in the MIC subarea. Page 3-1, however, states that Boeing owns approximately 750 acres of land within the subarea. These estimates conflict and should be made consistent. As noted in the 1991-92 Boeing EIS, Boeing owns or leases approximately 650 acres in the MIC. 3. Page 2-4 The fourth paragraph of the section entitled "MIC Implementation Plan Development" mentions a "new planned action permit process." The P1an/DEIS should set forth the proposed permit process. 4. Table 2-2 Page 2-15 states that the MIC Implementation Plan would "allow administrative design review based on clear design guidelines, for projects within thc Shoreline Overlay District, when design review would not otherwise be required." The meaning of this sentence is confusing and should be clarified. Page 2-15 states that guidelines for site specific studies are proposed to be included in construction design standards for the MIC implementation plan. The construction design standards for the Plan should be set forth in the Plan/DEIS. 5. Figure 3-1 The legend for Figure 3-1 is difficult to read. "Wholesale distribution" and "retail distribution" are separate line items in the legend but cannot be distinguished 103003.0143/S13971550.175] 6/19/97 SENT BY:PERKINS COIE SEATTLE ; 6-19-97 ; 1:44PM ;PERKINS 45 RECEPTION-, 2064313665;# 5/ 8 June 19, 1997 Page 4 on the basis of color; similarly, "vacant areas," "water areas," "agriculture" and "miscellaneous" areas are separate line items but cannot be distinguished. 6. Page 3-14 Why is a "system to notify developers concerning height limitations" necessary? Won't zoning regulations establish height limitations within the MIC subarea? 7. Page 4-16 This page states that "habitat restoration may be provided in lieu of City - required public or employee access to mitigate increases in impervious surface area, or for projects not driven by City requirements." The meaning of "projects not driven by City requirements" is confusing and should be clarified. SMP/DEJS COMMENTS 1. SMP Status in the MIC Subarea The status of the Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") component of the Plan/DE1S for purposes of SEPA review and otherwise is unclear. An argument could probably be made that the City has effectively segmented environmental review of the SMP for the MIC from the comprehensive, City-wide SMP review scheduled to take place later this year. Does the City intend that review and appeal of the MIC portion of the SMP will be limited to appeal of the DEIS/Plan? 2. Shoreline Access There are multiple and somewhat confusing references to shoreline access requirements. Is "public" shoreline access only required along the Green River Trail? If so, is it only required where public shoreline access is part of the Green River Trail Plan? Is employee shoreline access the only type of shoreline access required along the east side of the river? If so, we assume that this would supersede prior access plans, such as the public access plan contained in the 1991-92 Boeing EIS. 3. Page 4-13 Can the MIC portion of the proposed SMP be meaningfully evaluated without the proposed guidelines which, according to page 4-13, have not yet been developed? [03003-0143/SB971330.173] 6/19/97 i i SENT BY:PERKINS COIE SEATTLE ; 6-19-97 ; 1:45PM ;PERKINS 45 RECEPTION 2064313665;# 6/ 8 June 19, 1997 Page 5 4. Appendix B, Table 2, Proposed Shoreline Setback for Non - Water Uses The proposed setback for non water related uses is 60 feet, while the proposed setback for water dependent and related uses is 40 feet. The additional 20 foot setback non water related uses docs not make sense from the standpoint of improving riparian habitat. The ability to restore the shoreline environment is much greater with a non water related use, than with a water dependent or related use, and offsets the need for additional setback. Further, non water related uses along the Tukwila shorelines outside the MIC are currently not required to set back farther than 40 feet. 5. Appendix B, Page 28, Table 2; Impervious Surface Other EIS sections indicate that an impervious shoreline trail/path would be allowed in the setback area, but it is not indicated in this section, which specifically deal with the issue. Would an impervious shoreline trail/employee pathway be permitted in the setback area? 6. Appendix B, Figure 3, Shoreline Profiles for Improved Habitat The range of potential shoreline profiles should allow for enough rock to ensure bank stability. Are the profiles intended to be prescriptive or merely guidelines for enhancing the shoreline bank environment? Shoreline bank structures are typically designed and warranted by structural engineers. Will the proposed profiles give engineers adequate flexibility to design systems they are willing to warrant against possible failure?' 1 At the urging of local government and the State Department of Fisheries, Boeing constructed a new shoreline bank of the Duwamish Office Tower site similar to that depicted in Figure 3. The system failed, was washed away and resulted in significant new bank erosion. The replacement shoreline structure had to be designed with a much greater amount of rock riprap. This agency experiment was costly for Boeing and illustrates that the desire for habitat restoration needs to be balanced with need to design a system strong enough to resist the potentially high erosion forces than can exist in the Duwamish Waterway. (03003-0143/513971550.175) 6/19/97 i 1 i SETT BY:PERKINS COIE SEATTLE ; 6-19-97 ; 1:45PM ;PERKINS 45 RECEPTION 2064313665;# 7/ 8 SENT 3y:PERKINS COIE SEATTLE ; 6-19-97 ; 1:46PM ;PERKINS 45 RECEPTION-, 2064313665;# 8/ 8 June 19, 1997 Page 7 Boeing appreciates and applauds the City's effort to create the Plan/DEIS and hope that these comments are useful to you in the revision process. Boeing looks forward to working with the City further on this effort and would be available to offer any appropriate assistance as the City works to finalize the Plan. Very truly yours, LaWIA N W �► ►tv Laura N. Whitaker LNW:ce cc: Elizabeth Warman John Crull Gerry Bresslour Jeff Zahir Allan Day Larry Allen Dick McCann [03003-0143/SB971550.315] 6119/97 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses Responses to Perkins Coie/The Boeing Company 1. Please see the response to comment 8 by the City of Seattle. 2. The MIC implementation plan is neither a physical plan nor a new comprehensive plan designation for the MIC. Rather, it is a plan to more effectively implement previous policy direction. The specific proposed regulatory changes have been more clearly identified and grouped in the MIC Strategic Implementation Plan and FEIS Chapter 3. Also, see response to City of Seattle Public Hearing Comment D. 3. The term "proposed" refers to the fact that the MIC implementation plan has not been adopted by the Tukwila City Council and will be dropped after plan adoption. 4. Prior mitigation payments were made by the Boeing Aircraft Company to mitigate the impacts of previous development. No additional SEPA payments would be required to the extent that no increase in the modeled level of development is exceeded. This would apply to new developments and redevelopments. Prior SEPA mitigation payments made by Boeing and others will be credited against any GMA mitigation payments that may be required under the City's transportation concurrency ordinance, to the extent that such payments would be duplicative of said impact mitigating measures. All developments would be subject to site specific mitigation, such as turning movement improvements needed to maintain corridor capacity and other access regulations. The nature of future site-specific traffic mitigation will be determined following City review of a proposal's traffic study. 5. Comment acknowledged. The correct term is "MIC Strategic Implementation Plan," sometimes referred to for brevity simply as the "implementation plan." 6. Comment acknowledged. Tukwila looks forward to coordinating with the City of Seattle during development of a neighborhood plan for the Seattle portion of the Duwamish Corridor. Coordination at this time is problematic as Seattle is in the process of selecting a consultant to begin assisting in neighborhood plan development, while the City of Tukwila adopted a detailed plan and implementing regulations for the MIC subarea during the GMA comprehensive planning process, and has begun public review of these further implementing regulations. Coordination with the Seattle planning process to date has included: • telephone discussions with the contact member of the advisory committee and an interim, consultant staff member, • a joint staff meeting with King County and the City of Seattle on coordinated Duwamish restoration policies, • ensuring compatible industrial/office land uses; water, sewer and road system development; and • initiating work on coordinated capital improvements and annexation boundaries between King County, Seattle and Tukwila. 7. The text in question is revised to read as follows: CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 4-31 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses "The Duwamish River, although confined within a channel, is a valuable habitat for the salmon fishery and other species. Its bottom is a relatively natural mud/silt, and water quality has been rated as "A" by the State of Washington. River banks in the MIC are highly altered, with most navigable channel banks being clad in a combination of riprap, pier, and vertical bulkheads (Fig. 4-1). There are few places where banks have the natural vegetation and gentle slopes conducive to fisheries habitat enhancement. Bank treatment and potential habitat restoration sites have been shown in Figure 4-1." 8. Comment acknowledged. Further analysis shows the area to be about 1,370 acres, of which the Boeing Aircraft Company owns or controls 650 acres or 47%. A corrected land use table is shown in the MIC Strategic Implementation Plan Table A (pg. 6). A textual discussion is presented in FEIS Chapter 2 (pg. 2-1). 9. The new planned action permit process is was summarized on page 2-4 of the DEIS. A more detailed description has been provided in the MIC Strategic Implementation Plan and FEIS Chapter 3. 10. Administrative design review is identified as a direction for future work, but is not presented here as a substantive regulation or product. The future design guidelines and administrative process are currently being prepared. They will be reviewed as a separate set of regulatory revisions with a separate SEPA process. 11. Guidelines for site-specific traffic studies will not be incorporated into this planned action process due to the wide variability of impacts and road situations within which those impacts may occur and the great latitude given the City Engineer in defining traffic study parameters in the traffic concurrency ordinance superseding any planned action provisions which might be adopted. Traffic studies now broadly include items described on DEIS page 5-22: a site plan, traffic counts at the closest arterial intersection(s), trip generation and distribution estimates, traffic assignments, intersection capacity analysis, and discussion of site access and frontage improvement needs. The planned action forms would assist the development community by identifying adopted Tukwila construction standards (TMC 16.34) and specifically identify driveway design standards (DEIS Fig. 5-12). Development standards are shown as part of the proposed action and as mitigating actions/ standards throughout the document. They are anticipated to be administratively collected in an information summary for future developers. 12. Comment acknowledged. For purposes of clarification, there are no "Agriculture" areas, over 99% of "Miscellaneous" areas are road right of ways, and the MIC "Water" area is the Duwamish River. Future maps will use shading to further distinguish between "Wholesale Distribution" and "Retail Distribution." 13. As described on pages 3-10 and 3-11 of the DEIS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) imposes height restrictions in height above sea level, on buildings within certain distances of airport takeoff and landing approach pathways. The Zoning Code measures height from finished grade, regardless of the site's elevation above sea level. 4-32 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses Sites nearer the runway ends will have dramatically lower allowed structure heights than the 125 ft. Zoning Code limit. The mitigation measure on page 3-14 refers to these FAA regulations, rather than the height restrictions established in the MIC zoning regulations. 14. This sentence in Paragraph 2 is merely intended to note a few of the situations where habitat restoration may be undertaken. The situation of: "... projects not driven by City requirements" would include philanthropic projects and restoration resulting from a regional legal consent decree, outside the City of Tukwila's purview. This sentence has been reworded to reflect new landscaping requirements in the "river environment" in Table 3-1 and more clearly implement Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.6.911. 15. See response to City of Seattle Public Hearing Comment D. This EIS is envisioned to be incorporated by reference into the SEPA review for the City- wide Shoreline Master Plan. SEPA review and appeal of the MIC portion of the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan for specific MIC impacts would be done in this process12. Reviewers should expect that incorporation of this document into the programmatic SEPA review for the City-wide Shoreline Master Plan would effectively complete site specific impact analyses, although cumulative impact analysis would be further evaluated. A similar process and set of considerations would be applied to the incorporation of the MIC shoreline master plan provisions into the City-wide shoreline master plan revisions. 16. The proposed MIC shoreline master plan provisions require public access only along the Green River Trail without exception. Required shoreline access along other areas (e.g., almost all of the east side of the river) is limited to private/employee access. Either river access and/or habitat restoration may be provided at the property owner's option if not on the Green River Trail. The Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS (1992) is an interjurisdictional document between the Boeing Aircraft Company and the City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle, and King County for previous construction in the three jurisdictions. Tukwila was given the role of /SEPA lead agency for the EIS. Mitigation Agreement access provisions which are solely a result of Tukwila requirements would be superseded. However, trail provisions also reflect the requirements resulting from the other jurisdictions, including but not limited to the City of Seattle and King County. Access on the east side of the river must be provided pursuant to the Mitigation Agreement. Superseding of the Mitigation Agreement shoreline access provisions with the Tukwila MIC shoreline provisions may only be done with all parties amending the Agreement. Such a revision may be proposed by Boeing to all parties. 17. See the response to Comment 10 above. 11 This policy requires providing for public access along the river where designated on the King County Green River Trail Master Plan. 12 Incorporating the public review of MIC shoreline provisions with the City-wide Shoreline Master Plan revision, to be done later in 1998, would not affect the validity of this SEPA impact analysis. Staff recognizes the added dimension of potential cumulative (City-wide) impacts. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 4-33 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses 18. Staff understands the comment that developments which make higher use of the river and having greater impacts, seem to be providing lower levels of impact mitigation in the DEIS. The proposed shoreline master plan has been revised to reflect 40 ft. setbacks for both water related and non -water related uses and greater landscape/habitat requirements for water dependent and water related uses in the river environment to avoid significant adverse impacts. This is shown in Table 3-1, "Landscaping". 19. Trails are specifically allowed as a footnote under the "Impervious Surface" column. 20. The bank treatments are guidelines. Revised bank treatment figures (FEIS figures 1C, 2C, 3B , 4B and 5B) , are based on bank treatments in the immediate area. They also note the need for engineering and consistency with various agency requirements. 21. See new landscaping requirements in the river environment in FEIS Table 3-1. The new provisions would require replacement habitat for bulkhead construction. The habitat restoration sites are not required uses or a use overlay zone. They are merely potential sites for habitat restoration which are part of a recognized restoration State program, making restoration actions generally exempt from a shoreline substantial development permit (specific restoration design is subject to administrative approval). Developers who are required to provide habitat replacement will be encouraged to participate in improving an identified restoration site. However, participation will be on a strictly voluntary basis. Restoration sites do not enjoy added regulation. They might be developed as part a water dependent use's pier apron (subject to normal replacement with an equivalent habitat value per Table 3-1), left as part of a water related use's undeveloped river environment, or developed as part of an off-site habitat mitigation program with the property owner's permission. The costs of habitat restoration would be borne by the impacting developer or other party, including the public, as appropriate. 22. Appendix B-1 of the DEIS is a draft shoreline master plan for the MIC. As such, most policies are oriented toward the need for responsible shoreline development. Policies about general MIC development are found in the "Manufacturing/ Industrial Center" Comprehensive Plan Element, policies 11.1.1 through 11.1.11. The proposed regulations for redeveloping properties in FEIS Table 3-1 allow a dramatic increase in building replacement, expansion and site improvements than now allowed. It also represents the permissive approach to redevelopment possible and still be consistent with Tukwila Comprehensive Plan environmental policies. 23. The model ordinance for habitat restoration (Appendix B-1 of the DEIS) provides criteria for developing a restoration plan. It does not specify plan goals or performance standards. A version of this model ordinance is envisioned to be adopted with the citywide and MIC shoreline master plan as it will likely be used by funding and permit issuing agencies in their evaluation of restoration projects. This and other shoreline master plan components would be reviewed in the consolidated, citywide shoreline master plan update. 4-34 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 PERKINS COIE A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 1201 THIRD AVENUE, 4OTH FLOOR • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3099 TELEPHONE: 206 583-8888 • FACSIMILE: 206 583-8500 December 10, 1997 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Steve Lancaster Director Tukwila Dept. of Community Dvt. 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Tukwila MIC/Strategic Implementation_ Plan, November, 1997 Dear Mr. Lancaster: We have reviewed the draft Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan, dated November, 1997. As we understand it, this draft is an executive summary of the Plan, which will be fully set forth in the FEIS. We look forward to reviewing and commenting on the FEIS when it is issued. At this stageof the process we continue to have many of the same comments that we expressed in our earlier comment letter to you on the DEIS and have a number of new comments as well. Accordingly, we list below our new comments, followed by a reiteration of those earlier comments on the DEIS that do not appear to be addressed by the November, 1997 draft. A. Comments on November, 1997 Draft Plan 1. It is not clear how the Plan relates to the Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Plan/EIS and Mitigation Agreement. Will the Plan and implementing regulations take precedence over the Boeing EIS documents and related agreements when the two are in conflict (i.e., shoreline access requirements; design standards)? 2. Page 21 (2): The consistency checklist is not included with this draft and must be reviewed before we can fully comment on the planned action criteria and review procedures. [03003-0143/SB973390.2591 ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE DENVER HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES OLYMPIA PORTLAND SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C. STRATEGIC ALLIANCE: RUSSELL & DuMOULIN, VANCOUVER. CANADA December 10, 1997 Page 2 3. Page 21 (4)(iii): The meaning of this provision is unclear. 4. Page 21 (iv): This provision states that " ... the following will not be considered planned actions ...: a development any portion of which includes shoreline modifications waterward or the ordinary high water mark." As written, this provision could be used to deny planned action status to any project that involves riprap replacement or any other shoreline bank work. We request the City to consider amending the planned action criteria to include these types of projects. 5. Page 22 (c) and (d): If a project is a planned action (i.e., consistent with applicable plans, policies and regulations), how will it have "significant adverse impacts" in need of mitigation under SEPA? This aspect of planned action status should be clarified. 6. Page 27(1.): This provision appears to require a "cultural resources assessment" to be performed when modifying buildings or structures over 50 years of age. Please inform us of the basis for this requirement, especially with respect to buildings and structures. 7. Page A-6 (13.7.2): The City proposes and "environmental mitigation system" that includes "fair -share" mitigation assessments to MIC applicants to fund traffic improvement costs. A similar funding mechanism will be used for a water line upgrade on S. 112th Street, which is adjacent to the Duwamish Office Site. There is no formula, however, to determine what one's fair share of traffic mitigation costs could be. If possible, the City needs to specify potential mitigation costs as part of the Plan. 8. Please clarify what the Plan will look like in final form. Will it be a stand alone document, a compilation of multiple documents, or fully embodied in the FEIS? B. Comments From Previous DEIS Comment Letter — scE ,ecs eof•isscr D6(S comMET!7Sr 1. Clarify Function of Prototypes The function of the three MIC prototypes is confusing and should be clarified. Are the prototypes intended to represent a worst case scenario for all environmental impacts in the MIC or only for transportation impacts? The transportation chapter (page 5-12) suggests that the prototypes (in combination?) represent worst case, but [03003-0 143/SB973390.259] 12/10/97 C E F G H MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses Responses to Perkins Coie Public Hearing Comments A. The Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Mitigation Agreement would remain as a set of additional requirements pursuant to the agreement between Boeing, King County, the City of Seattle, and the City of Tukwila. Please see response to Comment 16. In the case of overlapping standards, the more strict would apply. B. The consistency checklist was not included since application forms are typically an administrative decision and the substantive content of the form was identified (e.g., what developments are potentially a "planned action", need for consistency with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, and an environmental consistency checklist which is equivalent to the current SEPA checklist). An illustrative consistency checklist is now included as Appendix D. C. This is a typographical error. The correct text is shown below: "or MIC/H zones a conditional or unclassified use, in the respective MIC/Lor MIC/H zones," D. The greatly increased environmental complexity of work in the river would require a very greatly increased amount of EIS analysis to evaluate the appropriateness of a blanket planned action designation. The multiple permit review by other State and federal agencies for such work, virtually eliminates any time savings from being designated a planned action. The greatly increased effort to evaluate the planned action status for projects within the river does not seem to be justified by the insignificant degree to which a development would be facilitated. E. State law requires that each project which is determined to be a planned action shall have been found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and have no significant environmental impacts, based on a SEPA checklist or State approved equivalent. Embodying these requirements in the local ordinance is required to ensure consistency with the authorizing State statute. No regulatory gaps which are would allow significant adverse impacts are foreseen. However, the required consistency checklist is a safety net which could be used to fill a regulatory gap which is discovered in the future. The City of Everett, the only city which is now implementing a planned action ordinance, also envisioned a seamless regulatory net. They have found the consistency checklist to be a significant tool in project review. F. Besides Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.6.1, the following existing State statutes address the protection of archaeological and paleontological information. RCW 27.34.010 and 27.34.200 Establishes public policy to designate, preserve, protect, enhance and perpetuate structures, sites, districts, buildings and objects of high historic, archaeological, architectural and cultural significance. RCW 27.53.010 State declares its interest in the conservation, p[reservation, and protection of archaeological resources. RCW 27.53.040 State defines archaeological resources to include known and unrecognized resources anywhere in the State of Washington. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12,1998 4-37 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 4 Comments and Responses RCW 27.53.060 State declares is unlawful to knowingly remove, alter, dig into or deface any historic, prehistoric archaeological resource or site. A permit from the State Historic Preservation Officer is required for any such activity to ensure proper resource management. RCW 36.70A.020 GMA Planning Goal 13: Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures, that have historical or archaeological significance. WAC 197-11-960 SEPA includes Historic and Cultural Preservation as an Element of the Environment to be protected from significant adverse impacts, as defined in adopted public policy. Tukwila staff administratively identify sensitive sites/resources and work with the applicant and State Historic Preservation Officer to appropriately manage potential impacts. The cultural resource evaluation should apply to buildings on the State or Federal historic registers. G. Fair share potential mitigation for infrastructure costs would be based on the Tukwila concurrency ordinances. No estimated figures for a specific site is available, although the facility and estimated costs have been identified (FEIS Chapter 3). The developer retains the right to protest the fair share cost calculation. H. As an integrated GMA subarea plan and SEPA environmental impact statement, the "plan" consists of the DEIS, FEIS and associated appendices. However, the proposed permit streamlining, capital improvements and regulations which are proposed to facilitate redevelopment have been grouped in FEIS Chapter 3. 4-38 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 APPENDIX D Illustrative Planned Action Consistency Checklist March 1, 1998 This is an planned action consistency checklist. It can be used instead of a SEPA review process for projects within the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center. Three criteria must be satisfied in order to use this option per RCW 43.21C.030: • be an identified, possible planned action • be consistent with comprehensive plan policies and • demonstrate that it will not generate significant adverse environmental impacts, as established in the previously adopted planned action EIS. Inability to demonstrate consistency with all three criteria will mean that the project is not a planned action and must go through the normal SEPA threshold determination process. The following checklist will, in part assist staff in determining the appropriateness of the planned action option to your project. PROJECT DATA Project Name: Location Tax Lot Number Street Address Applicant Name and Address Contact Person Name and Address Lot area (square ft.) Bldg. footprint (Sq. ft.) Total Building Square Footage City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Development D-1 March 12, 1998 IDENTIFICATION AS A POTENTIAL PLANNED ACTION Planned actions are developments which satisfy all of the following characteristics (a "Yes answer is required for the project to potentially be a planned action): 1. is a "permitted use" located within the MIC/L (TMC 18.36.020) and MIC/H (TMC 18.38.020) zones and/or is an accessory use (TMC 18.36.030 and 18.38.030 respectively) -- "conditional" and "unclassified" uses are not planned actions and 2. is 11Qt any of the following: a) an "essential public facility" as defined in RCW 36.70.200, (per RCW 43.21 C.031(2)), b) an action which is not consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan as adopted per RCW 36.70A (consistency required per RCW 43.21.;031(2)). c) a conditional or unclassified use, in the respective MIC/L or MIC/H zones'. d) a development any portion of which includes shoreline modifications waterward of the ordinary high water mark, e) a development related to the Regional Transit Authority light rail or communter rail system, and f) a development associated with 16th Avenue Bridge construction activities, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY Project consistency with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan shall be treated as a broad evaluation of overall consistency. The City's evaluation shall be based, in part, on the following information. Comp re en sive sistell ey Criteria...: Is the project consistent with the MIC land use policies? 'es` Is the project consistent with Tukwila Shoreline policies? Has the project provided for service by all infrastructure (e.g., roads, sewer, water, storm drainage and power)? Is the project consistent with all environmental policies? I Such uses are more complex and require case by case review and approval by the City Planning Commission and City Council respectively. No time savings in permit review would result from designating them a planned action and their greater potential for significant adverse impacts make such a designation inappropriate at this time. City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Development D-2 March 12, 1998 The proposed development may be in conflict with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: (To be completed by staff.) The applicant is encouraged to review the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan for a full inventory of policies and provide an expanded evaluation of project consistency. Additional pages should be attached as necessary. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY REVIEW Please complete the following environmental checklist to establish that there will be no significant adverse environmental impacts generated by this project. Note to Reviewers: It is anticipated to use the standard SEPA checklist for this administrative review. The SEPA checklist has not been attached. City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Development D-3 March 12, 1998 Introduction MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Appendix E Comprehensive Plan Policy Implementation APPENDIX E MIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Comprehensive Plan Policy Implementation November 12, 1997 The City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan has articulated a vision for the Manufacturing Industrial Center in Goal 11.1: Goal 11.1(MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTER) Support for existing industrial activities in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center and development of new industrial activity in order to maximize the employment and economic benefits to the people of Tukwila and the region, while minimizing impacts on residential neighborhoods. Realisation of this goal is supported by numerous policies. The most directly related policies, existing development standards and proposed capital and regulatory implementing revisions are summarized below. This network of development standards works toward assuring development consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and demonstrates the mitigation of environmental impacts. With this network of development standards, the proposed "planned action" approach to permit streamlining becomes valid. It must be emphasized that the proposed development standards are currently applied through the SEPA process. They do not increase the amount of regulation, but do provide increased predictability. Similarly, the permit streamlining which replaces project SEPA with a shorter administrative consistency check, does not reduce the substantive development requirements.. MIC Comprehensive Plan Policies and Implementing Actions Comprehensive Plan policies are too numerous to fully list and retain a readable document. A selection of MIC oriented policies have been presented below. The CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 E-1 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Appendix E Comprehensive Plan Policy Implementation reviewer is referred to the City of Tukwila "Comprehensive Land Use Plan" (12/4/95) for a complete inventory of policies. Two types of Comprehensive Plan policies should be noted: policies which are adopted on a city-wide basis and those which are contained within the MIC Element. Implementation of both types of policies have been evaluated with respect to existing regulations/programs, integration of the proposed capital improvement program and regulatory amendments, and future work direction provided by adopted policies. Policies are presented in numerical order. Economic Development Element 2.1.3 Include standards in the development regulations for industrial uses which adequately mitigate potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties and public facilities and services. Development impacts are adequately mitigated based on existing and proposed regulations as more specifically discussed below. Existing and proposed development standards for mitigating environmental impacts are summarized in the project environmental impact statement by "Element of the Environment." 2.1.4 Budget for public infrastructure (for example, roads, sewers, curbs, lighting, parks, open space). Use some capital improvement funds to encourage in -fill, land assembly, redevelopment, and land conversion for family -wage jobs, but only if concurrent with substantial private actions. Infrastructure needed to support area buildout has been previously identified in the infrastructure comprehensive plans for transportation, sewers, water, and storm drainage. All facilities have either been: • built (e.g., E. Marginal Way reconstruction and utility improvements), • are fully funded and scheduled for construction within six years (e.g., Pacific. Hwy./SR-599 interchange expansion and Pacific. Hwy. Bridge reconstruction and widening) or • recommended herein for incorporation into the Tukwila Capital Improvement Plan (e.g., S. 112th/Pacific. Hwy. intersection signal improvement) or otherwise resolve (e.g., access to the BNSF railroad yard) -- see Transportation and Utilities capital improvements.. E-2 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Appendix E Comprehensive Plan Policy Implementation 2.1.6 Consider nonfinancial ways (such as brokering and interlocal agreements) to assist industrial land owners with state and federal government environmental remediation actions. Tukwila is a financial participant and steering committee member, along with State and Federal representatives, to revise the standards for contaminated site cleanup to reflect future industrial uses instead of assumed agricultural or residential uses. Natural Environment Element 4.6.1 Inventory sites and adopt measures to ensure that paleontological and archaeological materials and site details are preserved for posterity. Regulations to identify and protect paleontological and archaeological information is proposed herein. This would not preclude development or require site investigations of historic resources which are not affected by development. Shoreline Element 5.6.9 For MIC properties included in the King County Green River Trail Master Plan, require shoreline development to provide a trail for public access along the river. Board of Architectural Review approval is required for projects which require a shoreline permit (TMC 18.60). This process is use to ensure that project design provides for locating the trail over the site, design is harmonious with the shoreline environment and specific Comprehensive Plan design mandates are satisfied. 5.6.10 (For MIC properties) Where shoreline public access is provided, ensure that it is designed to be safe and convenient and includes access amenities such as benches, drinking fountains, public parking areas, handicapped access and appropriate lighting, consistent with the river access guidelines. See implementation of Policy 5.6.9. 5.6.11 For MIC properties not included in the King County Green River Trail Plan, require shoreline development to provide public access or a private natural area in lieu of public access, or otherwise mitigate the loss of public access. See implementation of Policy 5.6.9. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 E-3 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Appendix E Comprehensive Plan Policy Implementation Manufacturing/Industrial Center Element 11.1.1 Support the efforts of existing industries to expand and new industrial businesses to develop in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center by providing them with economic data, information on available development sites, help in understanding and getting through the permit processes, and other appropriate assistance. An existing land use map is periodically updated for the entire City. Staff is always available to review development site options and City regulatory requirements. Assistance is provided informally or at a no cost predevelopment meeting with all regulatory department representatives. 11.1.2 Assist landowners in remediating site problems caused by contaminated soil. See implementation of Policy 2.1.6. 11.1.3 Develop appropriate permit processes that minimize lengthy public review and simplify the development permit process, while providing meaningful opportunities for citizen input and protecting the environment. The proposed "planned action" permit streamlining option implements this policy. General SEPA review is replaced by a comprehensive network of regulations and a consistency check at the time of building permit application. This reduces the permit review time without reducing the level of substantive development standards. 11.1.4 Tailor Manufacturing/Industrial Center shoreline requirements to achieve consistency between Shoreline and MIC element goals and policies. Draft shoreline revisions have been developed pursuant to this policy. They will be presented for review as part of a City-wide shoreline master plan revision. 11.1.5 Allow uses that are commonly associated with manufacturing and industry, including those directly supporting such activity, such as offices and laboratories, while prohibiting unrelated uses. Uses within the MIC/L and MIC/H zones were identified pursuant to this policy during the overall Zoning Code revision to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Additional changes to the permitted uses are proposed to prohibit hotels and motels, and allow pharmaceutical manufacture in the MIC/H zone. 11.1.6 Develop and designate appropriate zoning, buffers, mitigation and access opportunities where manufacturing zoning directly abuts or impacts residential zoning so that MIC uses may operate without significant degradation of the residential environment. Allowed uses and development standards were established during the overall Zoning Code revision to implement the Comprehensive Plan (see Pol 2.1.3). This includes requiring uses within 300 ft. of a residential zone to receive Board of Architectural Review design approval. No changes are proposed. E-4 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Appendix E Comprehensive Plan Policy Implementation 11.1.7 Support the Duwamish River becoming a natural feature amenity in the MIC Existing shoreline regulations require a 50 ft. wide, vegetative corridor along the river. This regulation is largely moot as over 80% of MIC shoreline areas above the top of bank are paved. Existing regulations work to maintain remaining natural bank faces and vegetated areas within the 50 ft. corridor. This will be further addressed in later revisions to the shoreline plan. 11.1.8 Improve public access and use of the west side of the river, protecting owner's rights to reasonable use and enjoyment, improve employee access to the east side of the river, and emphasize restoration on both sides of the river. See implementation of Policy 5.6.9. 11.1.9 Reduce reliance on the single- occupancy -vehicle for transportation of employees in and out of the MIC. Commuter use of car and van pools are supported by the Tukwila Commuter Trip Reduction program. The bus alternative has become problematic as service to the MIC reflects a trend of service hour reduction. Utilities Element 12.1.15 Approve development only if adequate utilities are available when a need is created for those facilities, or within a reasonable period as approved by the City. Existing regulations require adequate service with water (TMC 14.36.010), sewer (TMC 14.36.020) and storm water (Ord. 1755) systems. Each utility system has been comprehensively designed in individual functional plans to serve the buildout level of development. The area requires only a 1,500 ft. water line for water quality, to serve planned buildout. A fair share developer's agreement could be required per TMC 14.36 upon redevelopment. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 E-5 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Appendix E Comprehensive Plan Policy Implementation Transportation Element 13.3.1 Use the following LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: — The East Marginal industrial and manufacturing corridor LOS average is not to exceed E. — The Pacific Highway corridor LOS average is not to exceed E. These standards have been adopted in TMC 9.48 and are considered in preparing the City Capital Improvement Program. 13.3.2 Maintain adopted LOS standards in (transportation) planning, development, and improvement decisions. See implementation of Policy 13.3.1. Driveway location and design standards have also been proposed to maintain corridor capacity. 13.3.3 Provide capacity improvements or trip reduction measures so that the average LOS is not exceeded. See implementation of Policy 13.3.1. 13.3.4 When reviewing private development proposals, use an expanded LOS to determine SEPA mitigation that will provide capacity or traffic generation control. See implementation of Policy 13.3.1. 13.6.1 Include trucking design parameters in principal and minor arterial improvements as well as in commercial areas. This is adopted in TMC 16.34, which adopts the City of Tukwila "Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards." 13.6.4 Participate with King County and the Port of Seattle in updating their airport master plan, to ensure that airport operations and development — Enhances Tukwila goals and policies — Incorporates Tukwila land use plans and regulations Minimizes adverse impacts to Tukwila residents. The City is a participant on the King County - International Airport master plan advisory committee. E-6 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Appendix E Comprehensive Plan Policy Implementation 13.7.2 Use an environmental mitigation system that identifies: —improvements Safety and capacity improvements based on 2010 LOS deficiencies City of Tukwila functional plans for infrastructure identify the required to support Comprehensive Plan buildout. The implementation or concurrency ordinances for transportation, sewer, water and storm drainage provide for the fair share — Costs of improvements needed participation of new developments in needed to mitigate increased traffic system improvements. See Table B for capital reflected in the annual Capital improvements needed to support MIC Improvement Plan update buildout. — Fair -share costs, determined from the capacity improvement cost and the 20 -year increase in traffic — Mitigation assessments, determined by the number of development trips and the capacity or safety improvement fair -share cost — Mitigation assessments that may be used for identified capacity or safety improvements. Roles and Responsibilities Element 15.1.5 Foster an environment of safety Proposed light and glare control standards and security for those who live in, work would provide minimum 1 ft./candle lighting in, and visit Tukwila, through long-term on developed grounds and prohibit direct off - partnerships between residents, businesses, schools, Tukwila Police site illumination or 2 ft./candles at the property line. Department, and other City staff in crime intervention and safety enhancement programs. file:Q:\ micip\feis\ pfeis6.doc CITY OF TUKWILA DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARCH 12, 1998 E-7 • 'HC -7? HTT-7 —0U Fel S' oric("rei-c_,.s IS re2). Foc-c-ow iAt commek-7 cj°pttz./Et) 66,--TresteS eftroCe• AtetelitCeP• ke-rdle- oPtititiktar peiu©D id•CDE52 V-- t-oe fic07- 141'6•6/1-des-eP, STATE OF WASHINGTON D S/e4,„A c_"CV6) F-7--(92 c ,,, (7-- 7),1711V it IC( DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 906 Columbia St. SW • PO Box 48300 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8300 • (360) 753-2200 October 23, 1997 Steve Lancaster, Director Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) Plan and Environmental Impact - Statement (EIS) Dear Mr. Lancaster: We recently reviewed Tukwila's Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) draft plan/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), draft final plan/EIS, and the MIC plan attachment. We appreciate the substantial investment of time, energy, and resources these documents represent. This letter contains our comments on these documents with particular emphasis on their use in supporting the designation of planned actions. We understand that you are continuing to refine the plan/EIS and that some of our comments may already have been addressed by the time you receive this.. Nevertheless, we hope you will find at least some of these thoughts useful as you work toward completion of the final plan/EIS. We especially like the following: • Testing your development regulations. This is an excellent mechanism to confirm their adequacy, particularly if you want to remove the uncertainty associated with SEPA substantive authority. • Summaries of the development regulations and permitting requirements already in place. Rather than merely stating that current standards address impacts, these summaries give the reader some measure of comfort by documenting and justifying the fact. This is particularly important if the public participation process under SEPA is to be removed for individual projects. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA OCT 271997 PERMIT CENTER 0 Mr. Steve Lancaster, Direr October 23, 1997 Page 2 • • The use of thresholds relative to transportation impacts beyond which SEPA analysis may be necessary. • Moving the transportation impact study from SEPA to the concurrency ordinance. This is consistent with the intent of ESHB 1724 to move the regulatory process from the 'uncertainty' of SEPA to development regulations to add predictability. We believe following areas lack clarity, precision or detail: • It would be helpful if the City clarifies what the proposed action is. Sometimes the narrative implies that the proposed action is the 'plan'. In other places the narrative suggests that the proposed action is amending development regulations and the development review process. Strictly speaking, the environmental analysis is on the three prototypes. This suggests the proposed action is the designation of the prototypes as planned actions. The three sites would be the 'subarea'. Alternatively, if this is a -SEPA analysis of the City's development regulations, the proposed action is amending them. However, this would notbe sufficient, according to the statute, to support the designation of planned actions since the EIS is not on one of the listed plan. types. • -It is not clear how an evaluation of the characteristics of the prototype sites can be extrapolated to the rest of the subarea. For example, the plan/EIS analyzes the transportation impacts of the prototypes, largely to determine how the development review process works. Even though the narrative states that this constitutes the SEPA analysis for the cumulative transportation impacts of future development in the zone, it does not extrapolate the results to the entire subarea to forecast the impacts on capacity at buildout. Discussions about energy and noise also seem to focus only on the prototypes. The land use and shoreline sections do contain brief sections on "corridor -wide issues". However, these appear to us to be too general to disclose impacts beyond the prototype sites to the degree necessary to support the designation of planned actions. • The documents do not specify what types of projects are to be designated as planned actions. Assuming that they are the permitted uses contained in the broader list of uses in the plan attachment, it is not clear how the impacts of the prototype projects relate to impacts of the permitted uses. The analysis is Mr. Steve Lancaster, Dire, October 23, 1997 Page 3 on specific development types on specific sites (each having fairly well defined physical characteristics). Development proposals for projects on those sites having those development characteristics would clearly qualify as planned actions. It is not readily apparent to the reader, however, how the analysis can be extended to a longer list of permitted uses on those or any other site. • The narrative indicates in a couple places that the purpose of the plan is not to provide a physical plan for the area but to create a development framework to achieve the city's vision for the area. We believe this to be an entirely appropriate and commendable effort. We are less certain however, that the development framework alone is sufficient to support the designation of planned actions (although it is a necessary part). If the purpose of an EIS is disclosure of impacts, we believe the physical characteristics of the subarea and the planned actions must be described and evaluated in the EIS. In addition, the development framework must be evaluated to ensure that it properly addresses the impacts. • There seems to be some confusion about what a planned action is. The documents often refer to a "planned action approach", imply that the document itself or the proposed action is the planned action, and state that a planned action is "consolidated area -wide environmental review". It is also stated that ESHB 1724 authorizes a consolidated review process for planned actions. This may be a semantic issue. However, for the sake of clarity we remind the City that planned actions are types of project actions whose significant impacts have been addressed in an EIS prepared for a plan. A planned action is not a plan or an area -wide environmental review. It is also important to point out that 1724 requires a consolidated permit process for all projects. Planned actions differ in thatenvironmental review under SEPA shifts from the project stage to the plan stage. • The description of how the planned action permitting system will work indicates that a project that "falls generally within the range of uses and impacts identified in the EIS" will receive a determination of consistency. We believe that falling generally within a range may be sufficient to trigger a consistency check but that that is not alone sufficient to qualify a project as a planned action. We believe that in order to satisfy SEPA's disclosure purpose; a project must in fact be a type of project whose impacts are specifically addressed in the. EIS. Mr. Steve Lancaster, DireLTor October 23, 1997 Page 4 • The list of actions excluded from designation as planned actions includes "those portions of a proposal that include modifications to the shoreline waterward of the OHWM". We remind the city that all significant impacts must be addressed for a project to qualify as a planned action. You can limit the SEPA review for a project subject to SEPA procedure but not for a planned action (except for non- significant impacts). • The City may intend that some of these planned action issues will be addressed in the ordinance designating the planned actions. If so (particularly if the ordinance is the proposed action), the ordinance should be included in the EIS or at least available for review prior to issuing the final EIS. • The authority to require a transportation study will move from SEPA to the concurrency ordinance. Does the concurrency ordinance also contain mitigation standards commensurate with whatthe city has traditionally imposed under SEPA? Since designation of planned actions shifts mitigation from project SEPA to the EIS and development regulations, the reader would benefit (for all other elements also) from an explanation of how typical conditions imposed under SEPA have been shifted to other authorities (a matrix perhaps?). Understanding that projects will receive a level of review. and mitigation at least equal to traditional project review under SEPA will ease the potential frustration the public might have in giving up public oversight under project SEPA. • The documents recommend either an impact fee program or discretionary review for transportation impacts that transcend stated thresholds. First, the narrative should be clear that the need for additional SEPA analysis will kick the project out of planned action status. Second, the decision should be made and the program developed before (or concurrent with) the designation of planned actions. • The draft analysis calls for, and much of the mitigation appears to depend on, design guidelines and a revised SMP. The (draft) final analysis appears to indicate that these will be. postponed. We recommend that the city also postpone the designation of planned actions until these mitigation measures are developed and adopted. • Some mitigation, e.g., for transportation, will be in the form of capital facilities investments. Who pays? If the City, will these improvements be programmed into the City's capital facilities plan amendments? • Mr. Steve Lancaster, Direcl'6r October 23, 1997 Page 5 The sewer and water sections address infrastructure but not sewer treatment capacity and water supply quantity and quality. Does the Renton Treatment Plant have unlimited capacity and are they obligated to provide it to Tukwila? Is there a limit to the water that Seattle can/will supply? What happens after 2012 when the city's contract with Seattle expires? • It is not clear how sites found to have contaminated soils will affect their possible planned action status. • The purpose of the plan attachment is not clear. Couldn't the description of the elements of the environment have been incorporated into the body of the plan/EIS? • A monitoring program is missing from the documents reviewed. Statutory' eligibility criteria require that plan/EISs prepared with Planning and Environmental Review Fund money include "mechanisms in the plan to monitor the consequences of growth...and provide ongoing data to update the plan and environmental analysis". Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this excellent effort. Tukwila is among only a handful of communities who are developing new strategies to improve the quality of planning and streamline the regulatory system through the integration of the Growth Management Act and the State Environmental Policy Act. Please feel free to contact me if you want more detail about these comments and/or would like to discuss future efforts to refine this work. PR:se CC: Vernon Umetsu Sincerely, Peter Riley Growth Management Senior Planner Growth Management Division June 20, 1997 • • City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor epartment of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Dear Participating Property Owner: Please accept my thanks and that of my project staff, for your help in preparing this regulatory streamlining document. With this project, we will have: 1. completed all SEPA environmental review in an early, comprehensive manner, for a wide range of development projects, 2. increased regulatory predictability. with regard to development and redevelopment in the Duwamish Corridor and 3. a more efficient and effective means to administer current environmental resource regulations. I feel that this will increase the speed and quality of development review and thus facilitate future area improvement. An informal meeting has been scheduled to answer your questions and explore other options. We also urge you to talk with your neighbors and invite them to this meeting. Property Owner Workshop on Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan Dept. of Community Development Conference Room 1 Minolta Building 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Thursday, May 29, 1997 8:00 AM to 10:00 AM I, Jack Pace and Vernon Umetsu (431-3684) are also available to answer questions which need an earlier response. C Steve Lancaster DCD Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevar4 Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 o (206) 431-3670 0 Far (206) 431-3665 De -IS * SEM T'. Sm' , FSR- Norte • DP A' *Vic,ssY Ns r. EVAN LEWIS US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS 4735 E MARGINAL WAY S SEATTLE WA 98124-2255 ANN KENNY, SHORELANDS DIV DEPT OF ECOLOGY 3190 160th AVE SE BELLEVUE WA 98008-5452 DEPT OF COMMUNITY TRADE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PO BOX 48300 OLYMPIA WA 98504-8300 KC DEPT OF DEV/ENVIR SVCS SEPA INFORMATION CENTER 900 OAKSDALE AVE SW RENTON WA 98055-1219 PORT OF SEATTLE PO BOX 1209 SEATTLE WA 98111 STEVE HAGEN SEATTLE CITY LIGHT 700 FIFTH AV - STE #2808 SEATTLE WA 98104-5031 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 GEORGE MALINA Ifb. S 7r9 TUKWILA PLNG COMMISSION 15617 47th AVE S TUKWILA WA 98188 GRANT NEISS TUKWILA PLNG COMMISSION 16318 45th PL S TUKWILA WA 98188 PAM CARTER FfD s71? TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 4115 S 139th ST TUKWILA WA 98168 PHIL SCHNEIDER DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE 22516 SE 64th PL STE 230 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION REG. ENVIR. PROG. MGR. 15700 DAYTON AVE N MS -138 SEATTLE WA 98133 DEPT OF FISHERIES/WLDLIFE 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD MILL CREEK WA 98012 K C TRANSIT DIVISION SEPA OFFICIAL 821 SECOND AVE, MS -122 SEATTLE WA 98104 TUKWILA LIBRARY 14475 59th AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 CHUCK PETERSON SEATTLE CITY LIGHT 700 FIFTH AV - STE #2808 SEATTLE WA 98104-5031 CITY OF SEATAC PLANNING DEPARTMENT 17900 INTERNAT'L BL #401 SEATAC WA 98188-4236 VERN MERYHEW 11h-si1? TUKWILA PLNG COMMISSION 4431 S 148th ST TUKWILA WA 98168 DAVID LIVERMORE 405117. TUKWILA PLNG COMMISSION 13212 31st AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 JOE DUFFIE 1{'jj si"? TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 5332 S 140th ST TUKWILA WA 98168 SEPA ENVIRON REVIEW DEPT OF ECOLOGY C2 coefels) PO BOX 47703 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7703 MARY BARRTT DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PO BOX 68 ENUMCLAW WA 98022-0068 DCTED GROWTH MANAGEMENT, PERF PO BOX 48300 OLYMPIA WA 98504-8300 RUTH HARVEY KC WATER & LAND 700 5th AVE #2200 SEATTLE WA 98104 FOSTER LIBRARY 4205 S 142nd ST TUKWILA WA 98168 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 220 FOURTH AVE S KENT WA 98032 KATHRYN STETSON TUKWILA PLNG COMMISSION 13258 40th AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 HENRY MARVIN TUKWILA PLNG COMMISSION 5327 S 140th ST TUKWILA WA 98188 JIM HAGGERTON 1-0 s ---/q TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 15820 43rd AVE S TUKWILA WA 9,8188 ALLAN EKBERG 141, S`6? TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 4920 S 161st ST TUKWILA WA 98188 JOAN HERNANDEZ Hl> cm TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 15224 SUNWOOD BLVD TUKWILA WA 98188 CITY OF SEATTLE (4cOP/ ) OMP - SEPA OFFICIAL 300 MUNICIPAL BLDG SEATTLE WA 98104-1826 STEVE KUZMA B.N.S.F. RAILWAY 999 THIRD AV SEATTLE WA 98104 ELIZABETH WARMAN/ BOEING SUPPORT SERVICES PO BOX 3707, MS 14-49 SEATTLE WA 98124-2207 LEE LINNE JORGENSEN FORGE 8531 EAST MARGINAL WY S SEATTLE WA 98108 RUSS SEGNER KIDDER MATTHEWS & SEGNER 12886 INTERURBAN AV S TUKWILA WA 98168 LAURA WHITAKER PERKINS COIE 1201 THIRD AVE - 40th FLR SEATTLE WA 98101-3099 • U.S. E.P.A. 1200 6th AVE SEATTLE WA 98101 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR LEGISLATIVE BUILDING OLYMPIA WA 98504 WA510 WA -reit T2EATMEN s SEPA OFFICIAL T> /L3 K C . E_PeLL :--CeNTRe 821 SECOND AVE MS -120 SEATTLE WA 98104 • PAMELA LINDER K65/6 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 11918 INTERURBAN PL S TUKWILA WA 98168 CITY OF SEATTLE (500-0m4) SEPA INFO CENTER 720 SECOND AVE STE 200 SEATTLE WA 98104 STEVE LAWRENCE FOSTER COMMUNITY CLUB 4251 S 139th ST TUKWILA WA 98168 111 STEVE MULLET fit.5-49 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 3303 S 132nd ST TUKWILA WA 98168 RODERICK MALCOM MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 39015 172nd AVE SE AUBURN WA 98002 DANIEL ARAGON DUWAMISH IMPROVEMENT CLUB 4504 S 124th ST TUKWILA WA 98178 JOHN CRULL *WO SA? (4c40)PHIL GLADFELTER BOEING SUPPORT SERVICES PACCAR PO BOX 3707, MS 2R-71 PO BOX 1518 SEATTLE WA 98124-2207 BELLEVUE WA 98009 RAY GOODING ASSOCIATED GROCERS PO BOX 3763 SEATTLE WA 98124 BOB HART SGA CORPORATION 6414 204th ST SW STE 200 LYNNWOOD WA 98036 ERIC LASCHEVER PRESTON, GATES & ELLIS 701 5th AVE SEATTLE WA 98104 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIN. 711 S CAPITOL WY #501 OLYMPIA WA 98501 OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GEN PO BOX 40117 OLYMPIA WA 98504 K C HEALTH DEPT 506 2nd AVE #201 SEATTLE WA 98104 DAVID McDONALD -4( ASSOCIATED GROCERS PO BOX 3763 SEATTLE WA 98124 MATT WOOD CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD 700 5th AVE - STE 2700 SEATTLE WA 98104 RICHARD McCANN PERKINS COIE 1201 THIRD AVE - 40th FLR SEATTLE WA 98101-3099 OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY 111 W 21st AV MS KL -11 OLYMPIA WA 98504-5411 K C PLNG & COMM DEVEL 900 OAKSDALE AV SW RENTON WA 98055-1219 P.S. REGIONAL COUNCIL 1011 WESTERN AVE #500 SEATTLE WA 98104 P.S.A.P.C. 110 UNION ST #500 SEATTLE WA 98101 METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLNG DEPT 821 2nd AVE SEATTLE WA 98104 KENT LIBRARY 212 2nd AVE N KENT WA 98032 SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY 1000 4th AV - 2nd FLR SEATTLE WA 98104-1193 WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS PO BOX 1869 SEATTLE WA 98111 OLYMPIC PIPELINE PO BOX 1800 RENTON WA 98057 WATER DISTRICT #20 12606 1st AVE S SEATTLE WA 98168 SEATTLE TIMES LEGAL NOTICES PO BOX 70 SEATTLE WA 98111 IVAR JONES 1:0 DELTA MARINE 1608 S 96th ST SEATTLE WA 98108 • -b EIS -5121 SW KC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 16400 SOUTHCENTER PY #210 TUKWILA WA 98188 S CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST 4640 S 144th ST TUKWILA WA 98168 SEATTLE LIBRARY 1000 4th AVE SEATTLE WA 98104-1193 SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 815 4th N SEATTLE WA 98109 SEATTLE WATER DEPT 710 2nd AV - 10th FLR SEATTLE WA 98104 DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE 140 RAINIER AV S STE 7 RENTON WA 98055-2000 RENTON LIBRARY 1.00 MILL ST RENTON WA 98055 KING COUNTY LIBRARY 300 8th AVE SEATTLE WA 98109 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 7235 S 228th KENT WA 98032 TCI CABLEVISION 15241 PACIFIC HY S SEATTLE WA 98188 PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT VAL-VUE SEWER DISTRICT 22828 68th AV S - #102 PO BOX 68063 KENT WA 98032-1834 SEATTLE WA 98168 WATER DISTRICT #125 PO BOX 68147 SEATTLE WA 98168 IKE NWANKWO DCTED, GROWTH MGMNT DIV PO BOX 48300 OLYMPIA WA 98504-8300 CLARE IMPETT INg7 K.C. INT'L AIRPORT PO BOX 80245 SEATTLE WA 98108 1 KC"c: v ie ( ( -rA-t 7 of 41> = HAdNtn -1>C24uagel) CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 200 MILL AV S RENTON WA 98055 DUWAMISH COALITIONbaS c/o K.C. O.B.S.P S/zt 516 3rd AVE - RM 420 SEATTLE WA 98104. RICHARD ANDERSON SEAFIRST R.E. INVESTMNT PO BOX 34029 SEATTLE WA 98124 P 015 70 M0 Pot -7y- o o "[W. CJ 0.SSP 41-1 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE' FISHERIES DEMNEVW ED JUL 0 2 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr..Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 19 June 1997 RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE INTEGRATED Gl: A,; IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Dear Mr. Lancaster: The Environmental Division of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) Implementation Plan. Though some of the elements proposed listed in the Environmental Impact Statement for the MIC will potentially increase protection afforded some of the Duwamish Estuary's functions, other sections.give_neither sufficient weight to the long standing cumulative impacts of existing development nor the value of the salmonid habitat in the area. It is understood that. new overwater or inwater development willnot be covered by this EIS; however, the assumption that the standard of review of redevelopment proposals should differ from ,proposals for new development fails to consider adverse impacts that were not mitigated in.the original construction or habitat functions that may have developed . To serve as the environmental: review for future projects, the DEIS requires considerable revision. Positive aspects of the proposal include the option of habitat restoration in place of public access and prohibition on new vertical bulkheads. However, the affected environment section of the DEIS ha:s.not clearly elucidated the basin wide role played the Duwamish Estuary. Hence, the range of impacts.of development covered by this proposal may have upon an area used by all but a few of the juvenile salmon produced in the Green/Duwamish River is not fully explored. Furthermore, though the DEIS states these polices recognize that economic development and environmental protection must be balanced to achieve the MIC 's regional purposes, other sections of the EIS are very clear that throughout most of the MIC area environmental protection will only occur where it is compatible with development. Such a policy fails to consider that the reach of the Duwamish River in the MIC area provides habitat for a critical stage of the salmonid life history: estuarine rearing. Muckleshoot comments upon the MIC DEIS 39015 172nd Avenue S.E. • Auburn, Washington 98092 • (253) 931-0652 • FAX (253) 931-0752 • . • Loss of estuarine habitat has been identified as a major reason for the decline in some salmon stocks.' Yet the bulk of remnant estuarine habitat in the MIC area will only be protected from new activities located landward of the OHWM or redevelopment of existing inwater or overwater facilities where that protection is compatible with development (page 2-11). Given the crucial importance of this reach of the estuary for Green/Duwamish basin juvenile salmon, especially chinook and chum, the EIS should contain a more detailed discussion of the salmonids using the area, limiting habitat factors, and impacts. Additional specific comments to the EIS are attached to this letter. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please call me at (253) 931-0652, extension 119. ncerely, ‘e...4.... Roderick Malcom Senior Habitat Biologist cc: US Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Resources Section / Patrick Cagney US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch WDFW / John Boettner Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory Report. 1994. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Treaty Indian Tribes. Muckleshoot comments upon the MIC DEIS 2 • • Specific Comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement The EIS contains a wealth of detailed information about the conditions of the Duwamish River in the MIC area. However, the presentation could be improved by citations, supporting analyses, and internal consistency. Portions of the EIS can be confusing as the word fish appears to be used interchangeably with salmon. To avoid this, the word salmon should be used when referring to salmon, the term salmonids when referring to salmonids, and the applicable collective, such as dermersal or bottom fish, or species name when refer to other fishes. Restoring inwater habitat at a ratio of 1:1 (Table 2-1) will result in long term loss of habitat area and functional value. Existing information and scientific consensus supports mitigation ratios greater than 1:1 because there are major losses in habitat function over the time it takes for mitigation to become fully functioning parts of the ecosystem and to compensate for lack of 100% success in mitigation sites. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe was invited to one workshop (Fig 2-2). At this workshop the Tribe expressed many concerns about the proposal, concerns which are again raised in the comments to specific sections of the EIS. The DEIS overlooks critical role of this reach of the Duwamish River in providing estuarine habitat for outmigrating juvenile salmon, especially chinook and chum. Prototype Site 1 (page 3-12) would result in increased human disturbance along the riverbank, foreclosure of the opportunity to enhance riparian buffers and foreclose certain restoration opportunities. The statement (page 4-1) that North of the Turning Basin, that the Duwamish River is referred to as the Duwamish Waterway should be supported by a reference to an authority that confers officially recognized names. Though the Tanner report is the most current and comprehensive of its type conducted in the Duwamish, the shoreline classification map contained in the report was caveated this data is preliminary as is for display purposes only. The EIS (page 4-2) should reflect this limitation. Furthermore, the data could be updated and made more current and accurate with a day or two of additional work. The EIS (page 4-4) refers to 98% loss of wetlands, the FEIS should clarify that this is for estuarine wetlands. The DEIS (page 4-5) states perhaps the most important ecological function of this reach of the river is its role as a migration corridor for downstream migrating anadromous salmonids overlooks the critical role of this portion of the River in providing feeding and salt -water transition habitat for juvenile habitat. The Duwamish River is indeed a migration corridor and as such is very important, but by stating its most important ecological function is one of transport belittles the truly important functions of an estuary. Yet, the importance of these functions is recognized by the DEIS in the following lines, ... estuarine conditions for juvenile salmonids, which is probably the most important biological function of this reach of the river or is known to be in an area that is important to salmonids for their transition from freshwater to saltwater. Some species of salmonids, such as chum and chinook, are particularly dependent upon estuaries for early rearing while others such as coho and steelhead are less dependent. The Terrestrial, Wetland, and Aquatic Habitats section could be improved by incorporating information from the Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory Report (SASSI) published in 1992. This report lists each of the salmon and steelhead stocks using the Green/Duwamish system and provides some information regarding potential habitat based limiting factors for salmonids. For example, it notes that almost of the estuarine habitats important to Green/Duwamish juvenile chum salmon have been lost or severely degraded due to construction of bulkheads, piers and docks. The native Green/Duwamish pink nm is extinct, the pink salmon found in the river are the results of straying from other systems. Muckleshoot comments upon the MIC DEIS 1 • • Extensive current information regarding the juvenile salmon use of the estuary in the Duwamish estuary can also be found in Warner and Fritz (1995) a study conducted by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department and cited in the DEIS (page 4-6). Juvenile chinook salmon densities were highest between miles 6.2 and 6.9 of the Duwamish River and juvenile chum between 4.2 and 6.2. The greatest densities were found over the finest grain size and corresponded to surface salinities of 5 to 100/00. Applicable sections of this report should be incorporated into the FEIS. The intent of the statement (page 4-5), it is well known that larger smolts are better able to survive the rigors of their early marine life history is unclear. The statement (page 4-5) that in areas where substantial amounts of silt have accumulated in interstices that epibenthic zooplankton densities may approach those on muddy shorelines should be supported by a citation. Additionally, the amount of hard surfaced substrate in the Duwamish River in the form of pilings, rip rap, bulkheads, etc. is in excess of the historical levels in a system dominated by marsh and mudflats. Loss of estuarine marsh and tidal flat habitats and the increase in hard surface substrate has changed the community structure in the Duwamish River. While this community may be productive in some situations, it is not the native community. The statement (page 4-5) that steeper shoreline may reduce the vulnerability of small fish or predators such as kingfishers and birds is not supported by citations or analysis and overlooks that the juvenile salmon will move to shallow water to avoid larger predatory fish. Indeed other sections of the EIS acknowledge the anti -predatory value of low gradient slopes (page 4-5; and Appendix B-1 page 4), .... offering both a good prey base and shallow water escape from predators such as fish and diving birds. Brackish and saltmarsh vegetation besides being a valuable source of organic detritus to downstream sources is also used intensively by juvenile coho and chum for feeding. Young chinook were feed along the edges of saltmarshes at the highest points reached by the tides. Juvenile chinook fry will often move downriver to the limits of freshwater in a system and then rear there prior to moving into the estuary. Perhaps through an oversight, the DEIS (page 4-5) could be construed to imply that the silty sand or mud habitats have high primary benthic productivity when the next to dredged bottoms or in then navigation channel. Shallow mud habitats typically have high primary benthic productivity even when not next to dredged areas or in navigation channels. Many areas of degraded sediment quality are known; therefore, the statement (page 4-6) that sediment quality has been degraded and that several ongoing investigations are aimed at identifying and remediating these areas should be supported by citations and the known areas shown on a map. The DEIS (page 4-6) states that there is little in -stream habitat structure for fish in this reach or limited instream habitat for small fish is found in this area or limited instream habitat for small fish is found in this area.. Though the amount of habitat in this area is considerably reduced due to development, the Allentown to North Wind Weir reach provides vital habitat for juvenile salmon. This habitat must be protect. Though in -stream structure is a requirement for fresh water rearing for juveniles of salmon species with a freshwater rearing requirement, the habitat functions provided by the Duwamish River in the estuary area are mainly feeding and salt -water transition with this reach of the river critically important for salt -water transition. Thus the key component of habitat is a salinity transition zone and sources of food, such as the mudflats noted. In the North Wind Weir to Turning Basin reach, also relatively lacking of physical in -stream habitat function as used on page 4-6, is described on page 4-7 has having significant terrestrial, wetland and shallow water habitat value for fish. The primary criteria for the selection of sites for protection is the presence of significant stands of native woody vegetation (page 4-8). However, large woody debris input into estuaries is primary a function of upstream sources not in situ recruitment. Water temperatures below Turning Basin Number 3 tend to be dominated by saltwater intrusion, not by shading of trees. Though riparian vegetation provides valuable Muckleshoot comments upon the MIC DEIS 2 • • functions beside reducing temperature, it should not be expected that riverside vegetation will reduce temperatures in the much of the MIC reach due to the width of the,riyer. The DEIS (page 4-11) has stated protection of the natural environment and riverbank characteristics, hence critical and irreplaceable estuarine rearing habitat for juvenile salmon will only be protected where it is compatible with development. There is no recognition in the DEIS (page 4-11) that commercial and recreational marinas have adverse impacts upon salmonid habitat through shading, water quality impacts, maintenance dredging in areas that currently are not dredged. The DEIS implies that the only environmental consideration is compatibility with existing and future navigability. The policy (page 4-13) to encourage maintenance of navigability up to the Turning Basin will continue ongoing cumulative disturbances to critical shallow water mudflats of crucial importance to outmigrating juvenile salmon. Public access along riverbanks can have adverse impacts upon upstream adult coho migration. These impacts include the halting upstream migration and downstream displacement (Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, unpub. data). Though, it is aesthetically pleasing to walk along a riverbank, the potential adverse impacts to upstream salmon migration need to be considered and measures proposed to reduce the impacts, such as vegetative plantings that screen the salmon from the trail users. The policy (pages 4-13, 4-14, 4-17) encouraging public access to most points of the shore without due consideration of impact to upstream migration will have adverse impacts upon salmon, despite the statements on page 3-12. In a similar vein, projects similar to Prototype Site 1 could result in increased human disturbance upon salmon. The trails should be setback from the river to reduce impacts upon upstream migrating salmon and vegetation screens provided. This suggestion is consistent with the view presented on page 7 of Appendix B-2 which states , the trail system should be set back from the edge of the riverbank. Viewpoints directly overlooking the river should be restricted, particularly upstream of the Turning Basin, where the narrow width of the river and decreasing depth increase the probability of upstream migrating adult salmon being disturbed by persons along the shore and top of bank. Only native vegetation should be used in the landscape strips rather than the proposed 30% (pages 4-16, 4-7). Furthermore, the landscaping should be of sufficient density to provide a visual screen between trail and upland users and the nearshore parts of the River, particularly above the Turning Basin due to impacts upon upstream migrating adult salmon. The statement (page 4-16) that public access need not be provided if fish habitat is restored at a ratio of 1 square foot of restoration to 1 square foot of required access area is most welcome. This could conceivably result in an increase of salmonid habitat. The City indicates (page 4-13) that it requested a review of the Comprehensive Plan shoreline policies with respect to their effectiveness in preserving and enhancing aquatic habitat. The EIS should state which agencies or individuals were contacted to perform the review. The policy (page 4-16) to encourage habitat restoration to mitigate increases in impervious surface area is progressive and will benefit habitat. Any local increase in estuarine habitat in the saltwater wedge will be of benefit to salmon. However, to avoid ambiguities the EIS should define the extent of the saltwater wedge which changes on a daily and seasonal basis. As previously noted this area corresponds with the peak densities and salmonids and their transition zone to saltwater. Though the Duwamish Estuary has value from the upper parts of the extent of saltwater intrusion near the Interstate 5 Highway down to the mouth of the Duwamish River, the functions provided by the estuary change progressively downstream. Near the upper part of the estuary, outmigrating juvenile salmon begin the transition to saltwater, further into the estuary the provided functions are weighted more heavily towards feeding and growth. Though one can move physical habitats of various sizes around in the estuary the functions provided will not be the same, and hence many impacts will go unmitigated. Muckleshoot comments upon the MIC DEIS 3 $ • • There is no evidence presented in the EIS that restoration of freshwater habitats will compensate for losses of estuarine habitats in function or process. Additionally, the EIS does not provide supporting documentation that impacts to early estuarine habitat in upper part of the estuary can be compensated by mitigation in the lower part of the estuary used for later rearing. The City of Tukwila could be embarking upon a concept of mitigation that will have long term adverse impacts upon the quantity and quality of habitat in the upper estuary, the critical saltwater transition zone. The DEIS has suggested a policy (page 4-16) to disallow bank modifications for some restoration proposals if such modifications change the location of the ordinary high water mark for regulatory purposes. Though this is intended to grant regulatory certainty to adjacent landowners, adoption of such a policy could be used to discourage or even prevent restoration efforts because of speculation of what the impacts of changing the location of the OHWM may have upon future permit requirements. Effectively, this limits the scope of habitat restoration work. There is a typographical error on page 4-17: no net increase in impervious surface area shall be allowed within the 40 -foot river environment unless it is a part of an approved shoreline stabilization project or the lost [im]pervious surface area is ... The requirement for redevelopment of stabilization structures to improve fish habitat is welcomed. However, given the tremendous cumulative loss of estuarine habitat and the important location of the Tukwila in the estuary, unconsidered blanket protection of the continued operation of pre-existing use could continue the high level of cumulative impacts to the estuary. It is understandable that buildings, pipelines, utilities and the like need due consideration. However, retaining a vertical bulkhead to protect grassed lawns or trails trades valuable habitat for aesthetics. The DEIS (page 4-21) states that the habitat next to prototype Site 3 is marginal. This should be supported by a citation. A considerable amount of shallow mud is found in this area providing habitat for juvenile salmons. Unless contaminated, shallow depth mudflats provides high habitat values, even in the absence of a riparian corridor. The person or persons who reviewed Appendix B-2 (MIC Shoreline Impact Analysis) should be listed. Page 1 of this Appendix notes that a significant percentage of the riverine habitat has been lost. The main text of the EIS has listed loss of wetlands to exceeding more than 90%, though not all of the wetlands were associated with the Duwamish River or estuary. Page 3, Appendix B-1, incorrectly spells the word Muckleshoot. The Tribal comments to the main narrative of the DEIS are also applicable to the Appendix B-1. Muckleshoot comments upon the MIC DEIS 4 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY P.O. Box 47600 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 (360) 407-6000 • TDD Only (Hearing Impaired) (360) 407-6006 June 12, 1997 Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director DCD City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Lancaster: FOS -7-04 Irit(6gb 771 /7 Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide you with ctwnntnts on the draft subarea plan for the Manufacturing/Industrial Center; Chapter 2, Project Description - This amendment states that the Shoreline Master Program will need revision to accommodate the goals of the Manufacturing Industrial Center redevelopment. On Page 2-4 it is stated that among the three elements of the Manufacturing/Industrial Center plan will be " a revised MIC Shoreline Master Plan, as a, component of the city-wide shoreline master plan." A revision of an area of�shoreline:use-would normally be accomplished through the SMP amendment process, not the development of a separate SMP for the project. The Department of Ecology must approve SMP revisions and amendments and would be glad to give assistance in the revision process. The Shoreline Master Program planner at the Northwest Regional Office for King County is Bob Fritzen (206) 649-7274. We look forward to receiving a copy of the subarea plan once adopted. Please cail me at (360) 407-6222, if we can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, • Hedia Adelsman, Special Assistant Growth Management r ,.AShane Hope, CT -ED - i Dave;Williams, DOE= : , Bob Fritzen, DOE;' E V E I V E 3, JUL 1 4 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT * • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY The City of Tukwila has issued a DEIS under the State Environmental Policy Act Rules (Chapter 197-11 WAC) for the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center, Integrated GMA' Implementation Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The issue date is May 20, 1997. - This implementation plan does not alter the land use designations and development policies in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Its focus is modifying the regulatory system to facilitate industrial area development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. This resulted in three plan elements: 1. An updated shoreline plan for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and more clearly stated development requirements for shoreline developments, 2. A "Planned Action" process to complete environmental review during this area -wide planning phase, for a wide range of uses which, subject to regulatory complicance, would have no significant adverse environmental impacts, and 3. Regulatory changes and mitigating measures which will ensure that developments approved under the planned action process will be consistent with the land use, environmental, and infrastructure policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Copies of the DEIS are available for review at the Tukwila Library (14475 59th Ave. S.) and Foster Library (4205 S. 142nd St.). The DEIS and all supporting materials are available for review at DCD offices at: Suite 100, 6300 Southcenter Blvd.; Tukwila, WA; 98188, on Monday through Friday, between 8:30 AM and 5 P.M. A limited supply of DEIS's are available at no cost, at DCD offices. The public is invited to comment on this DEIS by submitting written comments no later than June 19, 1997. Please send comments to Steve Lancaster, SEPA Responsible Official, at the DCD address above. Questions about the document may be directed to Jack Pace or Vernon Umetsu at 206-431-3684. Published Seattle Times 5/23/97 file: q\ micip\ deisntc. doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 SUQUAMISH TRIBAL FISHERIES DEPT. 'Vt. l,yti Margaret Duncan Environmental Specialist P.O. BOX 498 SUQUAMISH 360-598-3311 15838 SANDY HOOK RD. BREMERTON 360-478-4819 SUQUAMISH, WA 98392-0498 SEATTLE 206-464-5456 FAX 360-598-4666 AFFIDAVIT ONotice of Public Hearing fl Notice of Public Meeting 0 Board of Packet Board of Packet LI Planning Packet fl Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Adjustment Agenda Appeals Agenda Commission Agenda OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: flDetermination of Non- significance fl Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ODetermination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action 0 Official Notice Other 0 Other flShoreline Management Permit was MMHAQ4da to each of the following 91Aitilt/i/kYk0.=. Name of Project File Number addresses on -1-Z-1 /ei-i . Signature S -173M-7, I, AFFIDAVIT v. OF DISTRIBUTION tilkOlric) hereby declare that: O Notice of Public Hearing fl Notice of Public Meeting OBoard of Packet Board of Packet Planning Packet Adjustment Agenda Appeals Agenda Commission Agenda J Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit LIShoreline Management Permit Determination of Non- significance Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action ❑ Official Notice Xother I'r(re-&z14-764)- CMS S ul4e Pe.. (4 1> 7S Fat 7W2 fiti-itCPAC-ruitirtG 4Nib uS T2tq-c, C(?� n�t.cr was mailed to each of the following addresses on 1)ocuM <S ,A1/(L D one .7201'? 7 vo-ree- rtw (• re icdo lei , 140-r cog6% Baa c,v cTC 7' ttr'A-cc-A iS cc( r MA-(L4D S/ P20 P(672 -'r o w fiC.3° /1K S6`° 8 (/s[ jr( --e- ,1 T(G Is<5M R ( (47 f- S Name of Project/4(C it- P• GUMC File Number !6-o074 (1507.0 L26-007( Cs-Qufrken PcA-f,t) Signature • 4.7fr • DISTRIBUTION LIST DEIS RECIPIENTS FEDERAL AGENCIES U.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS, EVAN LEWIS DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE, PHIL SCHNEIDER STATE OF WASHINGTON AGENCIES DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIVISION, ANN KENNY DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, MARY BARRETT DEPT OF COMMUNITY TRADE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE DEPT OF COMMUNITY TRADE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/GROWTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, PERF OTHER PUBLIC BODIES KING COUNTY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRON. SERVICES- SEPA INFO CENTER KING COUNTY TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL KING COUNTY WATER & LAND, RUTH HARVEY PORT OF SEATTLE TUKWILA LIBRARY FOSTER LIBRARY SEATTLE CITY LIGHT, STEVE HAGEN SEATTLE CITY LIGHT, CHUCK PETERSON CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPT CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPT CITY OF SEATAC PLANNING DEPT TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFORMATION CENTER SEATTLE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT PLANNING MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE, RODERICK MALCOM PRIVATE PARTICIPANTS BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTAFE RAILROAD, STEVE KUZMA FOSTER COMMUNITY CLUB, STEVE LAWRENCE DUWAMISH IMPROVEMENT CLUB, DANIEL ARAGON BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY, ELIZABETH WARMAN BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY, JOHN CRULL PACCAR, PHIL GLADFELTER JORGENSEN FORGE, LEE LINNE ASSOCIATED GROCERS, RAY GOODING ASSOCIATED GROCERS, DAVID McDONALD KIDDER MATTHEWS & SEGNER, RUSS SEGNER SGA CORPORATION, BOB HART CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, MATT WOOD CENTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND REAL ESTATE, BOB FILLEY PERKINS COIE, LAURA WHITAKER .PRESTON, GATES & ELLIS, ERIC LASCHEVER RICHARD McCANN • • NOTICE OF DEIS AVAILABILITY FEDERAL AGENCIES U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION STATE OF WASHINGTON AGENCIES OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPT OF COMMUNITY TRADE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, GROWTH MANAGEMENT OTHER PUBLIC BODIES KING COUNTY PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KING COUNTY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL - SEPA OFFICIAL KING COUNTY HEALTH DEPT KENT PLANNING DEPT PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY SW KING COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIVISION SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT RENTON LIBRARY KENT LIBRARY CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY KING COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY SEATTLE MUNICIPAL REFERENCE LIBRARY SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT US WEST WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS SEATTLE WATER DEPT TCI CABLEVISION OLYMPIC PIPELINE PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT VAL-VUE SEWER DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT #20 WATER DISTRICT # 125 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS SEATTLE TIMES - LEGAL NOTICES P:DEISRECP.DOC City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director May 20, 1997 Dear Readers: Please find attached to this letter, a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan. The Tukwila "Manufacturing Industrial Center" (MIC) encompasses the industrial corridor north of the S. 126th St. road alignment, along both sides of the Duwamish River, to the north City Limits, excluding the Allentown residential area. This MIC Implementation Plan has been prepared pursuant to the policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan has designated the MIC for a mix of heavy and light industrial uses, directed the updating of the shoreline master plan, and directed the preparation of implementing regulations which facilitate area development in a comprehensive and environmentally sound manner. The Plan generally consists of three elements: 1. a revised shoreline plan for this area, which would be an element of the city-wide shoreline management plan, 2. a subarea plan consisting of a comprehensive infrastructure and areawide regulatory review, which has been structured to mirror the format of an EIS, for integrating SEPA with the subarea implementation plan and 3. proposed regulatory changes which include early SEPA Planned Action review (where project level environmental review is done during the subarea plan phase) and development standard revisions. We encourage your comments on this Draft EIS. Written comments on the DEIS must be submitted no later than June 19,1997. Comments should be addressed to Steve Lancaster, Director; City of Tukwila Department of Community Development; 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100; Tukwila, WA, 98188. Questions on this project may be directed to myself, Jack Pace, or Vernon Umetsu (431-3684). Sincerely, Steve Lancaster DCD Director and SEPA Responsible Official file:q\micip\deisltr 6300 Southcenter Boulevar4 Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Far (206) 4313665 Project Title Proposed Action Proponent and Lead Agency Materials Incorporated by Reference Implementation SEPA Responsible Official Contact Person Location of Documents sEA/1002E038.DOC 5/16/97 Fact Sheet City of Tukwila, Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan Adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance that revises the shoreline master plan for the MIC, revises development regulations to incorporate environmental protection and remove unneeded requirements, and adopts the Integrated GMA/MIC Implementation Plan City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 • Background Elements and Other Supporting Information for the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan • Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and EIS, 1995 • Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Environmental Impact Statement, 1992 • Tukwila Comprehensive Sewer Plan, 1991 • Tukwila Comprehensive Water Plan, 1991 • Tukwila Surface Water Comprehensive Plan, 1993 • Tukwila Capital Improvement Plan, 1994 • Tukwila Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan, 1995 • Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance, 1991 et. seq. Adopting a Planned Action Ordinance by the Tukwila City Council is anticipated in late 1997 Steve Lancaster, Director City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Telephone: 206/431-3670 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Jack Pace, Planning Manager Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner Telephone: 206/431-3684 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development offices, located in Suite 100 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Fact Sheet Comments on the Draft EIS All comments should be addressed to: SEPA Responsible Official City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attn: Vemon Umetsu EIS Authors Prepared under the direction of the Tukwila Department of Community Development CH2M HILL, Inc. P.O. Box 91500 Bellevue, Washington 98009 Telephone: 206/453-5000 Adolfson Associates, Inc. 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW Seattle, Washington 98007 Telephone: 206/789-9658 Licenses/Permits Required None Date of Issuance of Draft EIS May 20, 1997 Due Date for Written Comments June 19, 1997 sea1002E038.DOC SEN1002E038.DOC 5/16/97 iv Contents Fact Sheet 1 Summary 2 Project Description 3 Land Use 4 Shoreline Use 5 Transportation 6 Other Elements of the Environment Appendices A. Distribution List B. Shoreline Analysis and Proposed Master Program B-1 Existing Conditions and Proposed Shoreline Master Program for the Manufacturing Industrial Center B-2 MIC Shoreline Impact Analysis C. Hazardous Materials Regulations SEA/1002E026.DOC 5/15/97 Chapter 1 Summary Introduction and Project Background Tukwila's Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC) is an important regional center of industrial activity. It is one of only four such centers designated in King County, and is well -served by the regional transportation system and an existing utility infrastructure. It has a long history of manufacturing use, and is nearly fully developed. Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan includes an MIC Element that reaffirms the area's role as an appropriate location for manufacturing and industrial activities. The city is proposing the MIC Implementation Plan at this time, with an emphasis on how to better realize the vision of responsible industrial development identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The subarea has been the focus of a previous multi -site environmental review. In 1992, a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) was prepared for the Duwamish Corridor master plan, a proposal to redevelop Boeing properties in the MIC over a 10 -year period. This current subarea plan/EIS updates and extends the previous analysis of the corridor's Boeing properties (about 650 acres) to the entire MIC subarea (about 1,000 acres). It also builds on the information developed for the city's Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan EIS efforts of 1994, and applies the "planned action" approach identified in new state legislation intended to facilitate development consistent with a city's comprehensive planning efforts under the Growth Management Act. Project Description The Proposed Action includes three elements: 1. A revised MIC shoreline Master Plan, as a component of the city-wide shoreline master plan 2. An integrated subarea plan/SEPA review, which applies the "planned action" option of consolidated area -wide environmental review 3. A package of recommended regulatory revisions to remove redundant or unneeded requirements and add requirements and guidelines, as appropriate A more complete description of the Proposed Action is included in Chapter 2 of this EIS. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures The impact analysis for this EIS was based on three hypothetical "prototypes," which were developed to illustrate the range of issues likely to be raised by development proposals in the MIC. The prototypes cover a range of permitted uses, from warehouse and distribution, to research and development, to manufacturing and laboratory. The analysis consisted of SEAITUKSUM.DOC 1-1 "testing" the prototypes to identify potential gaps and overlaps in Tukwila's codes and regulations that apply to review of development proposals. From this review, recommendations were prepared to ensure that environmental safeguards will be in place within the City's codes and development review procedures to address future development proposals. In general, the potential for environmental impacts resulting from the MIC implementation plan is relatively low. The plan's primary focus is a more integrated review process for projects consistent with the City's stated goals and policies for the MIC, as set forth in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Shoreline Master Program. Projects covered by this SEPA analysis will by definition be consistent with these plans and the City's zoning code and in compliance with all other applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Development will be in keeping with the area's current and historical use for manufacturing and industrial activities, many aspects of which are strictly regulated under laws governing hazardous materials, air pollutant emissions, wastewater discharges, and the like. Finally, much of the area has been the subject of previous environmental review incorporated by reference into this document, including the 1992 Boeing Company Duwamish Corridor EIS and the EIS on the 1995 Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Table 1-1 provides a summary of impacts and mitigation measures by element of the environment. Fuller descriptions of these issues can be found in Chapters 3 through 6 of this document. SEA/TUKSUM.DOC 1-2 Table 1-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Element of the Environment Land Use Consistency with plans and policies Direct land use impacts Shoreline Use Consistency with plans and policies Direct shoreline impacts Impacts of MIC Implementation Proposed Mitigation Plan All projects would be consistent with Tukwila comprehensive plan and zoning code and King County countywide planning policies Conformance with FAA -imposed height restrictions for KCIA must continue to be observed. SEPA review would not be required for development included in implementation plan. Potential for increased bulk and scale and more intensive uses at prototype sites. Similar changes could occur at vacant and redeveloping sites throughout MIC over time. Projects would be consistent with proposed SMP policies and regulations (not yet adopted). Bulk and scale would increase with elimination of 35' height limit under current regulations; elimination of BAR design review could result in shoreline aesthetic impacts Riparian vegetation could be removed as a result of development under proposed regulations None required. Develop a process to notify airport and developers when proposals may have height impacts. Mitigation for projects covered under the plan will be incorporated into codes through this SEPA process; consistency determination will ensure that projects become subject to SEPA if thresholds are exceeded. None, as changes would be consistent with adopted policies and zoning for the area. None required. Develop design guidelines and administrative design review process for projects in shoreline overlay district not otherwise subject to design review Formally designate sites identified as habitat protection/restoration areas and protect from development. Adopt habitat restoration policies and model ordinance from Lower Duwamish Habitat Restoration Plan. SEA/TUKSUM.00c 1-3 Transportation Level of Service Review of Proposals Other Elements of the Environment Public Services and Utilities Stormwater Levels of service at two intersections drop to LOS F by 2010. Site-specific traffic studies formerly required through SEPA no longer required. Capacity to provide water, sewer, and power is adequate to serve MIC. Existing regulations require new commercial development to address on-site stormwater adequately. Modifications to signal phasing at one intersection; new signal and intersection channelization at the second. Require site-specific traffic studies by modifying existing concurrency ordinance. Include guidelines for study content. Require SEPA review for projects that increase delay by more than 30 seconds at two identified intersections. None. Amend Ordinance 1755 to clarify that its requirements apply specifically to industrial development. SEWTUKSUM.DOC 1-4 CHAPTER 2 Project Description Purpose This project seeks to maximize the vitality of industrial uses in the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center (hereafter referred to as the MIC). The MIC is a designated subarea within the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, which has been reserved for industrial uses in policy and regulations. It is also part of an Industrial Manufacturing Center designated by the King County Growth Management Planning Council (multi -city and County body established to provide planning coordination within King County. It includes representatives of all cities within King County and the King County Council). The MIC generally includes 1,000 acres as shown in the attached map, Figure 2-1. The area has a pattern of large -lot ownership and a mixture of vigorous heavy and light industrial activity and vacant or under-utilized facilities. This mixture of industrial activity largely re- flects the stability of the Boeing Company and the decline of other heavy industrial com- panies in the area. This planning project is to facilitate improvement of the MIC as a first-class industrial area. It will build upon previous studies to: • Implement existing Comprehensive Plan policies • Revise the shoreline master plan for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan • Review/modify development regulations, HB 1724 permit processes and infrastructure plans to facilitate environmentally sound area improvement Project Background In 1995, Washington's state legislature passed a regulatory reform measure officially known as Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1724. ESHB1724 has since become known for its re- quirement that local governments integrate environmental review with growth manage- ment planning. ESHB1724 authorizes a consolidated environmental review for what it terms "planned ac- tions." The legislation notes that the "planned action" approach to environmental review may be better suited to a smaller area than a full city or county; it identifies "subarea plans" as appropriate for the approach. Tukwila proposes to apply the "planned action" approach to its manufacturing/ industrial center (MIC) subarea. The MIC subarea has a history of more than 50 years of industrial de- velopment. Although the Duwamish River flows through the MIC, the industrial and manufacturing sites generally rely more heavily on surface transportation, with access from the freeway system provided by East Marginal Way South. The city has invested in the subarea's infrastructure, particularly with its current improvements to East Marginal Way SEA1002E007 5/15/97 2-1 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION South. The city's vision is that redevelopment maintain and enhance the MIC as a "world- class industrial center." The MIC subarea is shown in Figure 2-1. Tukwila proposes to use the planned action pro- visions of ESHB1724 to expedite the responsible redevelopment of the MIC subarea. The MIC subarea plan calls for modifications to the zoning code, shoreline master program, and other development review processes to clarify the city's rules for property owners, to streamline the project review and approval process, and to incorporate environmental pro- tection into development standards. Tukwila anticipates that the project would conclude with City Council adoption of a revised Shoreline Management Plan, a package of revisions to current regulations, and a Planned Action Ordinance. The area is substantially developed and, therefore, has few remaining undisturbed natural resources (with the exception of the Duwamish River), is relatively small in area, and has only two zoning designations (1VIIC/Light. and MIC/Heavy). The area is developed with a mix of industrial, manufacturing, and distribution uses. Some office uses also exist in the corridor, including The Boeing Company's corporate headquarters, located at the northern end of the MIC. In addition, King County Airport occupies a large area on the east side of East Marginal Way South. Refer to Chapter 3 for a discussion of existing land uses and land use impacts resulting from the proposal, and to Chapter 4 for a discussion of shoreline issues. Policy guidance for subarea development has been consistent. The MIC is recognized in King County's Comprehensive Plan as one of only four designated manufactur- ing/industrial centers in the county. The MIC element of the city's new Comprehensive Plan reaffirms the area's role and future as a manufacturing and industrial center. The proposed MIC implementation plan is consistent with the policy direction of the countywide planning policies and the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. A new preferred pat- tern of development is not proposed. Rather, the focus of the implementation plan is on how to better realize the vision of responsible industrial development identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The subarea has been the focus of a previous multi -site environmental review of Boeing Company facilities. In 1992, a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) was prepared for the Boeing Company Duwamish Corridor master plan, a proposal to rede- velop Boeing properties in the MIC over a 10 -year period. This current subarea plan/EIS updates and extends the previous analysis of the corridor's Boeing properties (about 650 acres) to the entire MIC subarea (about 1,000 acres). It also builds on the information devel- oped for the city's Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan EIS efforts of 1994, and applies the "planned action" approach identified in ESHB1724. 1002E007.DOC 5/15/97 2-2 139768.AO.EE • City of Tukwila • f *um 2.1 • 5.1617 • LW CITY OF SEATTLE ., ''N •••• v ;• ‘. \\..CITY UM ITS -se lai-iii-seir rb.-wr airt '',‘.:. -,• ',. . ' .•' >.. , .,,,‘,...........\,,, :„ `‘. \ ••••• , \ ' ... ... :. • ,i,,N. s:.. % . , ..,,,......„,.._ •• .. ... ,...,. \.-. vx ,—,.---:...... --„,,...,.... , ....,,,_.....,....../.........z..7,,...., N.,„ . ,. v. ,:. 5 ...,..; ........ . . ..:,:>%44:0.••••••1064..94.0%,•,i4....... "..."; \. ‘•kk, \ CITY OF SEATTLE :: 1 ri \ % - . ...,..............,s,D,-;‘,.. ,\,1 ' • . , ,m t V, . . j!.. -,:- •• •.4•••••00,00%.*.44.000 •••••••••,..% '. .1 4 % • ; `-17:-.-10= ,..-=...,:ismacii \. •% -:: ,,,....znopowe V...X.:k )0.10.....0.,,,,, • \‘ ‘ '.. V , ) Zs •>1o•..••l$4i-•'l.••. ••.••14.9N0.,9.\•0••.•••I.IL...........,,..'...,'....•.•.••\'v•.•:r. ‘o.' ',.'..4'*,•-5•'•I0••..••\i: 0s•.-V'..'t•k ,. ,.'''.k.'...',.-,•••'•',>' iN,;'"':,'.i\.A,•s*..."..., , ' ,.<.:i;1'.l'•'',.‘ .'-.-'::'4‘. '\V‘,p.tS,4.‘--t .,•.."'..i,.-,9*,X.,40k5 -.• 0 k ‘, -••f.\, • r-- ^- 5-\ \' , i‘',, ; ,A,,\\7•i* N> \ •\ •i% 4 .. --.V :, ,.- 1' t .:-:':-,.\- ,'. ‘\'• ... ',•... . .._'.k ' ' .•..•..•,...•.‘:i...'„•..r-1••.•,:.. .-•_ •'•V.•,,':\r,\' .•.•::•.:• \"... .-.-' --:,•:-• 7•••-•:.-••_'-••• . '.••.••••••,-:••.•.,• • ••.••.-•••:••• :-••••:•.:.-.'•:•.,.-:..,• :.:.•,. .::,•.< • . •- ..-•1,.•.', .• ..4.B..•".'•<s•'•OT•S . -,:•,••.•1•••G.- • .:p••.i „ p1.{•1,-, 4 --• :. -. 7.:\"7.....- ; •—. ../i. , . I,. • •' i i . f,i': :',. : :,'a.'•.•...'•..•.•.•...',•F•.• .^.!... •',..,- •\ .,. i•:i.•,•'. •.•..•:" .---./a,..-‘m...•,- .‘*,,i...\ ......^....V,''..•.'./;.,....'.V.'.•..•\%..'•. -.,,,-•a.*,•.•\,-l•••'..%i:V4t•:....-•`^. '•.."•.•,.',1.7I •n,•-::..\\.r..•„•. .',.—i .- .. 2 t; 1; FIELD 'i, UNNCOR \KINGCOUNTY :\s1 I\ ' \\‘--':....-:t\•• L— ...' - ‘,4. \1 ‘ \ - i : 4514 f 14 \'i .. , '. B'.'A%i.,‘• ;iOR' .t'•..•:N'." .- "i,e..a.,n.,,*'..S.•'d-..g ,.\'S ', •., .i..a .1, .‘.• ..:.,,-.•...1:.‘" i2%. • ..... .- . t 1 • .. ,......:: ,... ......I..,". ; ,5'. /.... ..15./i.. 'C..1T...',J'. , ..,1 i .. ; '". 1 \ / .V I' , \ *•, Ii; i,,CITY OF TUKWILA Manufacturing/Industria l 57.. 2c' , <',....i. E Center MIC Boundary City Limits o 500 1.000 Approx. Scale in Feet North UNINCOR. ';':••••••• KING COUNTY \ ; „ (-11 • )./ • . • • , SEATTLE PROJECT LOCATION 1,) TACOMA \I OLYMPIA ' •', • kt i: ,, --.....-;:, ,,,..-.7.--; -, ...... .... ,... , .. , es it T 1st .. ,.;• ,/::•• :. 7 •••• • •:- .. 1-5.- '.,:. ik :.,.,,i ;..1.....:ii...... .. ;117 ,,,...,. ........................ '.. .......... 1 ..... ............................ ...,, i , ( , • ...... .,...-10.6•"--.'........-:‘ ‘.. — * . .v.. % .; 42 -7: --::: ..4 I .......„ • . \ • \ \ s*"....4.., .V,. •-..... 4 ....- . ,..„...i......_;1................... ! 11; ‘ .•...‘ , .,., .', '.......<.<.• I P''"-% ,• , :3 .' .1. , \ii•* ' ', \frIviy 599 • i %.— .t\ —'1, ' G i. ‘ .*•::::'\''',. 1 i . • • % -:, :, .. N- • .".• i•,....... .... ',...4-,•:•".•,.....1 , 3 .,..4. ,....,„<„,.....„—,........:5--•*;::.. •;;;... „.......4,..". s".,,,,, „. ,I.,.....ii , . s ,,.. \., N, '',' ' ' • a ° .. ''....: CV \ 11' PIP ,if ,t. .:- , •:. :::>:.:...,:,,.' ' \ •• .% ' '..7•7 . .... ...,...,:... • : i'-‘ ...... ,.,\c:\s .N ,„ ',... .4.4 ks ,.,\ e1 \\ V ., ffir• :s\ V 1 \, :. ,, , • ‘ • N,, \\kk. i ,. i • ', f , .', / ; r - ‘, ••••••.‘ is ''',••, .....:- ' .......•,..,,,......., c. - V , S 126th , 1St ' •t : i :, --.• ', 1 ,1 i'.... : 4 v. .= •il l';< „- .----..--- -".---7-7.—.-"'N '' ''' k .” ...i- '• • .-.',,, : ss, ' i•,> k,__ '• '' . • ,",, . • ,. L--\ v: `,... ,---- •k•-",--1.....‘ , \ s'•',-...- N: ..............wanookev*.......,............,..momenw... \ ....'"*.''''' ,..„., ,,,.., .--:•,..,„ • , •... A '', ... 5 '',' t, • , : N,,,, . / . '' I 4 • CITY OF SEATTLE le••••••% • •• ."$,..5.••••••^•••, • >C. 4,70. Figure 2-1 Study Area Boundaries 2-3 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Proposed Action includes three elements: 1. A revised MIC Shoreline Master Plan, as a component of the city-wide shoreline master plan 2. An integrated subarea plan/SEPA review, which applies the "planned action" option of project -level SEPA review 3. A package of recommended regulatory revisions to remove redundant or unneeded re- quirements and add requirements and guidelines, as appropriate MIC Implementation Plan Development The city has used a systematic approach (Figure 2-2) to development of the MIC implemen- tation plan. An initial public outreach article was sent to all residents, businesses, and prop- erty owners in Tukwila; the article was followed by a series of stakeholder outreach meetings with area property owners, staff from state and local agencies with jurisdiction over development in the MIC, and industrial development experts. These meetings helped identify the area's opportunities and constraints, as well as a preliminary list of regulatory gaps, overlaps, and potential barriers to redevelopment. Following the public scoping period for the EIS and the stakeholder meetings, three hypo- thetical prototypes were developed to illustrate the range of issues likely to be raised by de- velopment proposals in the MIC. The prototypes, described in more detail in the next section of this chapter, cover a range of permitted uses in the MIC, from warehouse and distribution, to research and development, to manufacturing and laboratory. The prototypes were tested to further clarify potential gaps and overlaps in Tukwila's codes and regulations that apply to review of development proposals. From this review, recommendations were prepared to assure that environmental safeguards are in place within the city's codes and development review procedures to ad- dress future development proposals. Developments proposed for the MIC will be reviewed under a new planned action permit process following City Council consideration and approval of the MIC implementation plan. A pre -application review of a new proposal will evaluate its consistency with the MIC implementation plan and EIS. A project that is determined to be consistent with the subarea plan (including the MIC element, the zoning code, and the shoreline master program), and that falls generally within the range of uses and impacts identified in this EIS, will receive a consistency determination that incorporates mitigation and conditions as appropriate. A project receiving a consistency determination will be assumed to have satisfied the proce- dural and substantive requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The mitigation and conditions will be based on Tukwila's codes and regulations, rather than additional SEPA review. This EIS recommends modifications to the city's codes and regulations to fill gaps that may have otherwise existed in the absence of additional SEPA review. For projects that are not consistent with the subarea plan, additional environmental review at the project level will be required. Inconsistent projects will include those requiring 1002E007.DOC 5/15/97 2.4 1397681,012 • ay of Tukwila • awe 2.2.5.15.97 • LW Notice of Plan preparation and summary goals sent to all residents businesses and property owners in the City. Workshops with major property owenrs, State and Federal rgulators, Muckleshoot Tribe Fisheries, and industrial development experts on MIC issues and opportunities. i Inventory existing policy direction, development regulations, development review process and other technical studies. i Evaluate the interaction of identified issues, the land use regulatory system, and MIC policy direction to validate and/or reivise the basic purpose and products of the MIC Implementation Plan. Use professional expertise to develop a representative range of proto-typical, market driven developments, which are consistent with the MIC land use designations. Test prototype developments based on existing regulations and identify issues. Draft revised regulations to delete unnecessary regulations and add regulations as needed to fill regulatory gaps created by early SEPA Planned Action review. Prepare preliminary DEIS. Review and revise proposed regulations. FINALIZE INTGRATED MIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SEPA DEIS Figure 2-2 MIC Implementation Plan Development Process CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION conditional use or unclassified use approval, or those needing changes to the MIC bound- ary or the MIC element of the Comprehensive Plan in order to proceed. Projects that are consistent in most, but not all, respects will require preparation of a new environmental analysis for those aspects of the proposal not studied in the original implementation plan EIS. MIC Prototypes The plan development process is summarized in Figure 2-2. Figure 2-3 illustrates the locations of the three prototype sites. Figures 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6 present the three prototypes developed for the project. The proto- types are hypothetical, but are intended to be realistic and illustrate the types of develop- ment or redevelopment likely to be proposed for properties in the MIC. The analysis presented in Chapters 3 to 6 of this EIS is corridor -wide, but uses an assessment of the three prototypes to help identify environmental impacts and needed mitigation. Figure 2-4 illustrates Prototype Site 1, a site located at South 112th Street and Pacific High- way South. The site has river frontage and is assumed to be used for sale, distribution, and storage of industrial supplies. The redevelopment shown in Figure 2-4 is for a research and development facility with accessory office space. Issues that will be explored in Part 2 of this EIS include access to Pacific Highway, driveway number and location, and shoreline development issues. Figure 2-5 shows Prototype Site 2. This site is located between Pacific Highway South and East Marginal Way South at South 112th Street. Current use is assumed to be auto sales and service. The redevelopment shown in the prototype is for a warehouse and distribution cen- ter. Part 2 (Chapter 5, Transportation, in particular) will explore impacts and code provi- sions for dealing with access to Pacific Highway and East Marginal Way South, require- ments for road improvements, driveway standards, and roadway capacity. Figure 2-6 presents Prototype Site 3. This site is at the northern end of the MIC, bounded by Sixteenth Avenue South, East Marginal Way South, and the Duwamish River. The site is ac- tually Boeing's Plant 2 and is currently used for airplane manufacturing and assembly. While not an actual proposal, the hypothetical redevelopment shown in Figure 2-6 is a pos- sible approach Boeing may consider for upgrading the site's facilities. It raises a number of issues that are explored in later chapters of this EIS, including large-scale demolition, driveway standards, scale of development, and redevelopment at the shoreline, including replacement of over -water structures. Project Description The MIC implementation plan is proposed to incorporate a number of changes to develop- ment regulations in the MIC subarea. The changes are to the zoning code, shoreline master program, and other development regulations and procedures. The most significant changes proposed are to the shoreline master program. Appendix B includes the full text of the pro- posed shoreline master plan program amendments. An analysis of the impacts of these changes in the MIC is included in Chapter 4 of this EIS. 1002E007.DOC 5/15/97 2-6 139768418.EE • Oy of Tukwila • Fqura 21. 5.16 97 • LW S.. y ? CITY OF SEATTLE Prototype �Q' CITYUMITS SITE 3 CITY OF SEATTLE ;\ t ,,1 UNINCOR KING COUNTY L_ LL, \ • 1 \ '' ts9 `t t�aT�t• 9 0 UNINCOR. KING COUNTY BOEING FIELD CITY OF TUKWILA Manufacturing/Industrial Center MIC Boundary ------• City Limits 0® Approx. Scale in Feet 0 North UNINCOR , KING COUNTY 1•, / - SEATTLE PROJECT 'L• LOCATION if 7 ry • � . TACOMA I OLYMPIA T. BAccLeS // •r ... • Road 't. Prototype;. SITE 2 CITY OF SEATTLE •"2 I l, \ .• . ... Hwy 599 • S 126th St it H ` . ^- EL " • � . . aeY w.aw Figure 2-3 Location of Prototype Sites 2-7 139768A0.EE • City of Tukwila • Figura 2-4* 5-18-97* LW 0 North Approx. Scale in Feet 0 100 200 Property Lune South 112th Street PLAN VIEW / Building Envelope South 1 12th StrGGf OBLIQUE VIEW Zoning: MIC/H Site Size: 475,000 SF Building Footprint: 175,000 SF Building Uses: Office 35,000 SF R&D 70,000 SF Lab 70,000 SF SITE DATA: Building Height: 125Parking Required: 437 Spaces Site Coverage: 100% (@ 2.5/1,000) Driveways: Number 4 Parking Proposed: 525 Spaces Lin. Ft. of (@ 3.0/1,000) Curb Cuts 100 Figure 2-4 Prototype Site 1 2.8 South 112th Street 0 North Approx. Scale in Feet f 1 o 100 200 PLAN VIEW 179766.A8.EE • City al Tukwila • Figure 2.5.5-18-97 • LW Building / Envelope South 112th Street OBLIQUE VIEW Zoning: MIC/H Site Size: 210,000 SF Building Footprint: 73,000 SF Building Uses: Office 15,000 SF Warehouse/Distribution58,500 SF SITE DATA: Building Height: 45' Parking Required: Site Coverage: 100% (@ 2.5/office) 38 Spaces Driveways: Number 4 (CP 1.5/warehouse) 88 Spaces Lin. Ft. of 126 Total Curb Cuts...240 Parking Proposed: 135 Spaces Figure 2-5 Prototype Site 2 2.9 Existing Corporate Headquarters New High -Bay Building (Same Footprint as Existing 80' - High Building) i New Lab Building PLAN VIEW Building Footprint SEA17LE1TUKWIIA BOUNDARY �dSf Pk_y So 4:5 200 New Parking Spaces and Driveway 0 North Approx. Seale in Feet 1 1 1 1 1 0 100 200 300 400 139168A0.EE • City of Tukwila • Upon 2.6.5.16.97 • LW 45' Increased Height within Existing Footprint Building Envelope Replaced Pilings New Riprap OBLIQUE VIEW Zoning- MIC/H Site Size: 50 Acres Building Footprint: 1,450,000 SF Building Uses: Highbay Mfg • 750,000 SF Laboratory. 700,000 SF SITE DATA: Building Height: 125' Site Coverage: 100% Driveways: Existing and 1 for New Parking Area Parking Required: (@ 1/1,000) 1,450 Spaces On -Site: 600 Existing: 400 New: 200 Off -Site: 900+ Figure 2-6 r Prototype Site 3 2-10 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The provisions of the proposed Shoreline Master Plan for the MIC are summarized below. Proposed MIC Shoreline Master Plan Provisions The proposed Shoreline Master Plan is composed of an environment designation, develop- ment and use policies, and implementation regulations and guidelines. Environment Designation The shoreline zone extends 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) on both sides of the river. The MIC shoreline zone is designated as "Manufacturing Industrial Center Environment" between the northern city limit and the upstream edge of the Highway 99 bridge, per Com- prehensive Plan Policy 5.1.2. This is a distance of about 2.5 miles of river length. In this en- vironment, priority shall be given to the following: • Redevelopment of under-utilized areas and development of intensive commercial and industrial activities • Enhancement and restoration of access to the river • Protection and restoration of natural environment features and riverbank characteris- tics, where compatible with development The Duwamish River from the upstream edge of the Highway 99 bridge southward for the remainder of the MIC is designated "Urban -Open Space Environment," per Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.1.1. This is a distance of about 2 mile of river. In this environment, priority shall be given to: • Maintaining existing single family residential development patterns • Redevelopment of existing commercial and industrial areas, with enhanced river access • Protection and restoration of natural environmental features and riverbank characteristics Development and Use Policies Numerous policies have been incorporated into the Shoreline Master Plan. These policies are direct transfers of applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. These policies are individually listed in the plan and implemented in various regulations. Regulations and Guidelines Regulations regarding shoreline access, habitat restoration in lieu of access, and various site development standards provide for implementation of the above policies. The shoreline regulations are summarized in Table 2-1. The development of near shore areas has often been an area of private sector uncertainty. The shoreline plan provides illustrative, near shore development options to enhance pre- dictability. These illustrative guidelines are presented in Appendix B. 1002E007.DOC 5/15/97 2-11 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Policies also have innate substantive authority as they relate to a shoreline substantial de- velopment permit. The process for reviewing a shoreline substantial development permit is proposed to change. Rather than the current requirement that projects within the MIC that require a shoreline permit undergo design review by the Board of Architectural Review, the pro- posed action would substitute an administrative design review process. Design guidelines will be developed to provide clear direction for the administrative decision on design is- sues. The shoreline permit would remain appealable to the State Shorelines Hearing Board. The same process would apply to a shoreline conditional use permit. A shoreline variance would be heard by the Tukwila Board of Adjustment, with appeal to the State Shorelines Hearings Board. Public notice for all hearings and permit decisions is subject to TMC 18.104. TMC 18.104 is consistent with the latest provisions of ESHB 1724. Recommended Regulatory Revisions Other proposed changes to codes and regulations that are the substantive elements of the MIC implementation plan are summarized in Table 2-2 at the end of this chapter. These regulatory revisions have been proposed based on the analysis of prototypes, issues raised in outreach workshops, interdepartmental and interagency discussions, and other analyses and data sources. They are proposed to increase the predictability of case-by-case decision- making, fill any gaps resulting from the use of the planned action option of ESHB1724, and remove unnecessary regulatory barriers to development. While Table 2-2 summarizes the nature of substantial regulatory revisions, codified language will be prepared following public review as part of a final proposal for planned action ordinance to be referred to the Planning Commission and City Council Actions Outside the Scope of This MIC Implementation Plan and Planned Action Ordinances As has been previously noted, not all actions are covered by the proposed planned action approach for the MIC. Some potential development proposals present too high a level of impact variability at this subarea planning stage, or too high a level of uncertainty. A sum- mary of "excluded actions" is provided below. Excluded actions will be required to undergo additional project -level SEPA review at the time of permit application. A number of transportation issues affect redevelopment in the MIC. For example, studies for the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) have, on a preliminary basis, identified the MIC as a potential location for such RTA facilities as a rail maintenance yard and an intermodal station. The analysis in this EIS has not addressed these preliminary plans, which could have significant implications for the MIC, for Tukwila, and for the region. Tukwila fully ex- pects to be a participant in discussions with the RTA as the RTA plan is refined in the com- ing months. RTA projects are not included in the MIC implementation plan. A related issue is the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad facility located at the southeast corner of the MIC. Both railroad freight yards and regional transit facilities are undassified uses in the Zoning Code. These uses are subject to City Council approval and will continue to require project -level SEPA review. 1002E007.DOC 5/15/97 2-12 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Sixteenth Avenue South Bridge is located at the northern boundary of the MIC. The current boundary between King County and the City of Tukwila is in the middle of the river at this location, so half of the bridge is in Tukwila and half in King County. Responsibilities and costs for operating and maintaining this facility are currently split by the two jurisdictions. Because the condition of the bridge is poor, replacement or closure will be necessary relatively soon. Appropriate shared responsibilities for potential replacement costs have not been determined. The city is now preparing an origin and destination study to evaluate its fair share responsibility for the bridge. This issue will be resolved later, once the origin and destination study is completed and other analyses have been considered. The MIC implementation plan EIS does not attempt to resolve this issue. The MIC implementation plan EIS uses the MIC boundaries adopted by the Tukwila City Council for its comprehensive plan. Small portions of the MIC lie outside the boundaries of the City of Tukwila. Annexations or boundary adjustments with adjacent jurisdictions are not proposed as part of the MIC implementation plan. It is assumed that those processes will continue independently. Additional excluded actions include all proposals requiring conditional use or unclassified use approval. Also, because of the need for individual, site -by -site review of habitat issues raised by proposals to modify the bank of the river, those portions of a proposal that in- clude modifications to the shoreline waterward of the ordinary high water line are excluded actions and will be required to undergo additional SEPA review. On the other hand, pro- posals for redevelopment along shorelines already developed with rip -rap, sheet piling, or bulkheads will be permitted under the proposed action without additional SEPA review. New sheet piling or bulkheading where not currently in place will be permitted, however, only with further SEPA review and consistency with the Shoreline Master Plan. Some uncertainty exists as to the ultimate nature of full buildout of the MIC. In 1992, The Boeing Company proposed its Duwamish Corridor master plan. Tukwila prepared an area - wide EIS on the plan, and the city and Boeing negotiated a mitigation agreement to address impacts of redevelopment along the corridor. Recent corporate mergers and acquisitions have resulted in a degree of uncertainty about the applicability of the earlier master plan and the ultimate role of the Duwamish Corridor as an employment and manufacturing cen- ter for Boeing. The corridor has been cyclical in employment density throughout the 50 plus years of its industrial history, and the proposed implementation plan anticipates that that trend may well continue. The city's intent in pursuing the MIC implementation plan is less to provide a specific physical plan for the MIC than to help facilitate its vision of the corri- dor as a world-class industrial center, capitalizing on the availability of its infrastructure and incorporating environmental protection into development standards for the variety of uses that together make this subarea such an important regional resource. sea1002e007.doc 1002E007.DOC 5/15/97 2-13 0 0 0 TABLE 2.1 Summary of Proposed MIC Shoreline Regulations Use Type River Other Setback Setback Height Landscaping Impervious Surface Public Access Shoreline Stabilization Overwater Water Dependent (uses that are dependent upon water location to exist) None Water Related/Enjoyment 40 feet (uses that cannot occur economically without a shoreline location or provide substantial opportunity for water enjoyment) Non -Water Related Redevelopment 60 feet No setback if redevelop- ment does not expand horizontally within river environment. Zone Zone District District Zone Zone District District Zone Zone District District Zone Zone District District Zone District No standard. Zone District & 10' along edge of 40' river environment. Zone District & 10"" along edge of 40' river environment. Zone district & where possible 10' along edge of 40' river environment. No net increase in the 40' river environment except mitigated shoreline stabilization.* No net increase in the 40' river environment except mitigated shoreline stabilization.* No net increase in 40' river environment except mitigated shoreline stabilization.' Not required. Generally required. Habitat restoration may be substituted." Generally required. Habitat restoration may be substituted.** Generally required. Habitat restoration may be substituted.** Vertical bulkheads allowed upland of OHWM. Vertical bulkheads not allowed. Stabilization projects must improve habitat. Vertical bulkheads not allowed. Stabilization projects must improve habitat. No new vertical bulkhead. Recon- struction OK when it extends no farther into river. New stabilization projects must improve habitat. Allowed if not detrimental to navigation and habitat restored ata 1:1 ratio. No No OK if redevelop- ment remains within the existing overwater foot- print. *Some exceptions will apply such as public roads, utility facilities, and trails. "See general standards for situations in which access is and is not required. "' Half of the 10 feet of landscaping may be located in the river environment. SEA/1002E018.DOC/1 /9� TABLE 2-2 Proposed Changes to Codes and Regulations Implementing the MIC Implementation Plan Element of Environment Regulatory Gap/Overlap Proposed or Recommended New Regulation Land Use Lighting Landscaping Design Review Shoreline Tukwila Shoreline Overlay Transportation Thresholds; mitigation for traffic impacts Requirements are not specific. No special standards for landscaping. Design review for MIC is required within the shoreline overlay. Adds time and complexity to the permitting process, in an area that is basically an industrial zone. Old King County code is being applied to MIC; not consistent with shoreline goals of city comprehensive plan or the city's shoreline master program approved by DOE. Concurrency ordinance requires impact mitigation fees for projects generating more than 5 peak - hour trips to fund facilities in the Transportation Plan. All anticipated MIC facilities have been funded. No further fees are required. Guidelines for site- No authority outside of SEPA for driveway design specific studies Driveway standards and location. Guidelines now in the Zoning Code are inadequate to regulate driveway design and location. Specify lighting standards of 2 foot- candles maximum at property line with light element shielded and recessed to eliminate direct offsite illumination. Require large stature trees at 35 feet on center along front yard landscape areas. DCD may modify this criterion at specific sites for safety purposes or to avoid significant adverse impacts. Allow administrative design review based on clear design guidelines, for projects within the Shoreline Overlay District, when design review would not otherwise be required. Revise shoreline master program to be consistent with city comprehensive plan, Shoreline Policies, including specific regulations and design guidelines for MIC. See Table 2-1 and Appendix B. Require SEPA review for proposed projects that will increase delays by more than 30 seconds at the intersections of S. 112th Street with Pacific Highway S. and East Marginal Way S. Guidelines proposed to be included in construction design standards. Amend concurrency ordinance to specify that traffic study address driveway standards of number, width, distance from adjacent intersections and other driveways, and alignment with driveways across street. Prototype standards are shown in Figure 5-12. SEA/1002E018.DOC/2 2-15 5/15/97 TABLE 2-2 Proposed Changes to Codes and Regulations Implementing the MIC Implementation Plan Element of Environment Regulatory Gap/Overlap Proposed or Recommended New Regulation Hydrology and Water Quality Stormwater Water Quality Hazardous Materials Handling, storage, generation Air Point sources SEPA The stormwater management ordinance covers commercial properties, but does not specify coverage of industrial properties (though that is clearly intended). Sewer Infrastructure design standards state that pretreatment, special flow metering or sampling may be required, but no standards are in place. Federal and state standards apply. Federal, state, and regional Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority (PSAPCA) regulations apply. No process in place for handling development proposals within a subarea with a plan and an EIS adopted by an implementation plan ordinance. Clarify that the stormwater regulations apply to industrial development. Clarify that King County industrial wastewater control standards and authority apply. No change. No change. Adopt process for establishing that development proposal is consistent with subarea plan and environmental analysis. sea1002E018.DQC.doc SEA/1002E018.DOC/3 5/15/97 2-16 CHAPTER 3 Land Use Existing Conditions Project Area Land Uses The Tukwila MIC comprises approximately 1,000 acres of land in the northern portion of the city. Its general boundaries are the City of Seattle to the north, 125th Street to the south, the BNSF right-of-way to the east, and the Duwamish River to the west (see Figure 2-1). Designated as an MIC under the provisions of King County's countywide planning policies (CPPs), the corridor has a long history of these types of uses; the designation reflects the MIC's importance in the regional economy as one of the few remaining concentrations of manufacturing and industrial lands in urban Puget Sound. The general distribution of land uses in the MIC is shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1. The dominant landholder is the Boeing Company, which owns or controls approximately 75 percent (750 acres) of land within the corridor. Boeing's facilities indude a mix of manu- facturing, office, laboratory, research and development, and related uses, as well as the company's administrative headquarters. Other land uses in the MIC include light and heavy manufacturing, warehousing, processing services, public and quasi -public uses, and various commercial and service establishments oriented toward corridor employees and travelers on the major arterials. Less than 10 percent of the MIC (approximately 80 acres) is vacant land; approximately 70 percent is built out, with the balance of land area occupied by the river and by various rights-of-way (Table 3-1). This high level of development reflects the area's history as a center for industry and commerce. TABLE 3-1 Land Use Distribution in the Tukwila MIC Use Type Acres Percent of Total Developed land 693 70 Airport 175 17 Vacant land 80 8 Water 34 3 Rights-of-way 16 2 The other significant land use in the MIC is the King County Airport (Boeing Field), which serves Boeing Company and other aircraft. The southern third of the airport occupies about 175 acres in the northern portion of the MIC and includes a number of businesses on land leased from the airport. The facility's use and development are guided by a master plan, SEA/1002E019 5/15/97 3-1 v"y •1 MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CENTER IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ISI City of Tukwila Agriculture Public Recreation - Public Services ® Quasl•PublIc Wholesale Distribution 1 Retail Distribution ® Commercial Services Processing/Industrial ® Multl•Famlly Single Family Vacant Water Areas Miscellaneous 1 Fcao 0' 0' 400' 1.200' • —22 Ifjk m tl cn Figure 3-1 Existing MIC Land Uses CHAPTER 3 LAND USE which is being updated (see "Future Land Use" and "Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies" below). In addition to tenants of its leased lands, the airport also influences land uses in the surrounding area by imposing FAA -mandated height restrictions on buildings within the flight path. These restrictions are also discussed below. Land Use at Prototype Sites As described in Chapter 2, the three prototype sites used for analysis in this EIS were cho- sen because they represented the variety of development and redevelopment possibilities present in the MIC. All three sites are currently developed to some degree, reflecting the highly developed nature of the area. Figure 2-1 shows the sites and their relationship to the MIC as a whole. All of the sites are in the MIC/H zone, which is designed to accommodate the heavier manufacturing and industrial uses found in the corridor as well as the lighter industrial uses allowed in the MIC/L zone. Prototype Site 1 is located in the southern portion of the MIC along the Duwamish River, north of the Boeing Customer Service Center. It is bounded on the north by the northern edge of the Seattle City Light transmission right-of-way, on the south by South 112th Street, on the west by the river, and on the east by East Marginal Way South. Access is from South 112th Street (which in this area is on an easement from the Seattle Water Department to the City of Tukwila) and from East Marginal Way. Encompassing approximately 11 acres, the site includes several parcels and is occupied by a number of businesses, including a restaurant equipment distributor, an electrical equipment repair company, a brewery, and a commercial truck dealer; the City Light transmission line right-of-way occupies about 3 acres of the site's total area. Overall, the site can currently be characterized as somewhat underutilized; for example, an area along the shoreline north of South 112th Street is being used for pallet storage. The new Green River Trail pedestrian bridge crosses the river just south of the site, but no access to the shoreline (except visual access from the bridge) is available on the site itself. Prototype Site 2 is across East Marginal Way from Prototype Site 1. It is bounded by private property on the north, South 112th Street on the south, East Marginal Way on the east, and Pacific Highway South on the west. The site is approximately 5 acres in size and is currently occupied by a car and truck dealership. Access is from South 112th Street, East Marginal Way, and Pacific Highway South. Prototype Site 3 is the 50 -acre Boeing Plant 2 site, located at the northern city limits and including a small area within the City of Seattle. Its boundaries are 16th Avenue South on the north, Jorgenson Steel on the south, the Duwamish Waterway on the west, and East Marginal Way on the east; access is from East Marginal Way. A number of buildings hous- ing manufacturing, industrial, and other Boeing Company uses, including the company's administrative headquarters, are located on the site. A building at the north end of the site extends about 45 feet over the Duwamish Waterway on pilings. As with Prototype Site 1, there is no public access to the shoreline. Future Project Area Land Uses Future land use in the MIC is guided by its designation for continued manufacturing and industrial activities in the CPPs and the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. As described below under "Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies," current planning and zoning envision SEA/1002E019 5/15/97 3-3 CHAPTER 3 LAND USE uses and densities generally similar to those now in place, although underdeveloped sites may transition toward more intense uses allowed under applicable codes. As discussed in Chapter 2, proposals consistent with the codes and falling within the range of impacts ana- lyzed in this EIS will be allowed to develop under a streamlined approval process. Pro- posals outside these thresholds (in general, those requiring conditional or unclassified use approvals) may be subject to additional review requirements under SEPA, as well as to approval by the city's hearing examiner and, for unclassified use permits, the City Council. Within the framework described above, the primary determinant of future land use in the MIC will be the Boeing Company's activities in its Duwamish Corridor facilities. In 1992, Boeing published a plan for redevelopment of its facilities in the corridor from predomi- nantly manufacturing uses to an aerospace research and development engineering campus with office, laboratory, and assembly space for full-scale aircraft prototypes. The city pre- pared a programmatic EIS addressing impacts from such a redevelopment. To date, eco- nomic conditions in Boeing's markets have not supported this full-scale redevelopment (see "Employment" below), and the company's recent mergers and acquisitions pose further uncertainties regarding actions to be taken under the 1992 plan. Nevertheless, it is likely that future development of Boeing properties in the corridor would be consistent with the nature of the existing facilities and with overall MIC permitted uses. The potential also exists for redevelopment of leased properties at the King County Airport. Use of the airport property is guided by a master plan that is currently being updated. Redevelopment possibilities under the plan are discussed below under "Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies." Employment Employment levels over the history of the Tukwila MIC have historically been cyclical, influenced strongly by the fortunes of the Boeing Company and nearby supporting indus- tries. Boeing employment in the corridor was as high as 40,000 during the war effort of the 1940s, and dipped to well below existing levels during the "bust" of the 1970s. The 1992 Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS showed 1991 employment at 21,400, with a projected maximum of 25,000 employees by the planning horizon of 2002. However, actual levels since 1992 have been much lower as a result of changing economic conditions. Boeing has estimated 1993 Duwamish Corridor employment at 14,000 to 15,000, increasing to between 16,000 and 17,000 by 1997. Overall MIC employment was estimated in the 1995 Tukwila Comprehensive Plan at approximately 18,000. Recent business license data suggest that, with the increased Boeing activity in the corridor, the overall total has risen to approximately 21,000. Table 3-2 shows the general distribution of employment in the corridor in 1995. SEA/1002E019 5/15/97 3-4 CHAPTER 3 LAND USE TABLE 3-2 1995 Employment Distribution in the Tukwila MIC Employment Type Number of Employees Percent of Total Manufacturing/processing 13,845 76 Professional/office 1,887 10 Wholesale 1,644 9 Retail 362 2 Other 453 3 Current Plans, Policies, and Regulations This section provides a discussion of the applicable land use plans, policies, zoning regula- tions, and other regulatory constraints that apply to development in the MIC. Shoreline master program requirements and other regulations related to aquatic resources are dis- cussed in Chapter 4, Shoreline Use. Plans and policies related to transportation are addressed in Chapter 5. In general, both existing conditions and the MIC implementation plan are consistent with the applicable plans, policies, and codes. The overall intent of the MIC designation and the zoning that implements it is to facilitate the area's continued use for historical purposes by streamlining approvals for appropriate and consistent development, while maintaining desired levels of environmental and neighborhood protection and providing necessary urban services. The analysis presented in this EIS is designed to identify and fill any gaps in the existing regulatory framework for MIC project review, as well as to develop any needed linkages to the plans and regulations of other jurisdictions. City of Tukwila Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (1995) The MIC is designated as a subarea of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This document is the plan and EIS for that subarea. The subarea has two zoning designations. The MIC/L is to contain distributive and light manufacturing uses, with supportive com- mercial and offices uses. The MIC/H is to contain distributive, light manufacturing and heavy manufacturing uses, with supportive commercial and office uses. Most of the MIC is zoned MIC/H. The three prototype developments used as the basis for this EIS are all located in the MIC/H zone, although they represent some uses also found in the MIC/L zone. The Plan's MIC goal is as follows: Support for existing industrial activities in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center and development of new industrial activity in order to maximize the employment and economic benefits to the people of Tukwila and the region, while minimizing impacts on residential neighborhoods.(Goal 11.1) SEA/1002E019 5/15/97 3.5 CHAPTER 3 LAND USE The MIC policies are designed to help realize full revenue and employment potential. The goal of this subarea plan and EIS, to remove regulatory barriers to redevelopment in the MIC by providing predictable development standards and shortening permit review time, is the subject of one of the policies (11.1.3). In addition, Policy 11.1.4 calls for tailoring the MIC shoreline requirements for the zone. This, too, is accomplished through the shoreline proposals in this EIS. Finally, MIC Policy 11.1.10 calls for making appropriate adjustments to the boundaries between Tukwila, King County, and Seattle to eliminate confusion to industrial property owners whose properties are split between two jurisdictions. As dis- cussed in Chapter 2, revisions to city boundaries are not part of the MIC implementation plan. In addition to the plan element dedicated to the MIC, a number of other plan elements have goals, policies, and implementation strategies which affect the MIC. These include the eco- nomic development, shoreline, annexation, and transportation elements. The economic development element approach is as follows: • Sustain moderate growth. • Target high salary industries. • Ensure quality growth and land use by effective code enforcement and regulations. • Encourage growth into certain areas through the use of zoning and developmental regulations. • Encourage the retention and growth of existing local firms. • Provide efficient and .timely administration of City services (Plan, p.31). Economic Development Policy 2.1.13 is as follows: Include standards in the development regulations for industrial uses which adequately mitigate potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties and public facilities and services. The MIC implementation plan and EIS will propose such standards. The annexation element contains discussion of boundary anomalies which create a number of jurisdictional issues, including police response and complicated permit processes when one property or even one building lies in two jurisdictions. Properties in the MIC which are affected include Boeing's Plant 2, where the northernmost corner of the building is in Seattle, King County International Airport, which is in both Seattle and Tukwila, and the Associated Grocers property, which is also bisected by the Seattle -Tukwila boundary. Annexation Goal 6.1 calls for a logical and serviceable municipal boundary, and Policy 6.1.4 calls for working with the affected property owners and neighboring cities to develop interlocal agreements providing for processes to adjust the border anomalies. Policy 11.1.10 of the MIC element suggests a trade of territory so that 16th Avenue South becomes the city boundary between East Marginal Way and the river. The transportation element of the plan establishes level -of -service (LOS) requirements for the city's streets and arterials, as well as policies regarding transit use and rideshare SEA/1002E019 5/15/97 3-6 CHAPTER 3 LAND USE measures. The relationship of the implementation plan to Tukwila and regional transpor- tation plans and regulations is discussed in Chapter 5 of this EIS. Tukwila Zoning Code The MIC encompasses two zoning designations: the MIC/L and the MIC/H districts. These districts and their requirements are described in Chapters 18.36 and 18.38, respectively, of the Tukwila Zoning Code. The MIC/L zone is designed to provide "a major employment area containing distributive, light manufacturing, and industrial uses and other uses that support those industries." The MIC/H zone is similar in nature, but also allows for heavy or bulk manufacturing and industrial uses. Both districts' uses and standards are intended to enhance the redevelopment of the Duwamish Corridor. Table 3-3 summarizes performance standards for the two zoning districts; Figure 3-2 shows their distribution across the MIC. By definition, the implementation plan and the prototype sites conform to all requirements of the MIC zoning districts. TABLE 3-3 Development Standards for MIC Zoning Districts Standard MIC/L Requirement MIC/H Requirement Maximum height 45 feet 125 feet Minimum setbacks' Front 20 feet 20 feet Second front 10 feet 10 feet Sides None None Rear None None Landscape requirements' Fronts 5 feet 5 feet Sides None None Rear None None Minimum off-street parking° Office 2.5 2.5 Retail 2.5 2.5 Warehouse/Industrial 1 1 'For development not adjacent to residentially zoned properties; see zoning code for applicable standards. °Spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of building floor area. A wide variety of uses is permitted in the two zones. For the MIC/L district, these include service industries and retail service establishments; high-tech uses; warehouse storage; enclosed salvage and wrecking operations; and manufacturing, processing, and assembling or packaging of electrical or mechanical equipment, previously prepared metals, food and pharmaceutical products, and electronic, mechanical, or precision instruments. Office uses are permitted if associated with another permitted use. Other uses may be permitted if the Director of the Department of Community Development determines that they are SEA/1002E019 5/15/97 3-7 Ri l IMEER 8H IEEE 1® ManutacturinpAndustrIaa Center implementation Plan Plan Map Legend c Limas MIC Boundary Zonin a omarehaneive Plan • Deelonatlons MIG L-MonUTact r ng Industrial Center -Light iii nMIG Ft -Manufacturing Industrial Center MMC Ansa outside o? the O deed MICM in Comprehensive Figure 3-2 MIC Zoning District Distribution CHAPTER 3 LAND USE compatible with other permitted uses, the goals of the MIC/L district, and the policies of the comprehensive plan. Uses in the MIC/H district include all those permitted in the MIC/L district, as well as a number of more intensive manufacturing uses. Among the latter are heavy metal processes such as smelting, blast furnaces, and drop forging; the manufacture of chemicals, light metals, plastics, solvents, and other materials; iron and steel fabrication and similar metal processing operations; and rock crushing and batching or mixing of asphalt or concrete. As with the MIC/L district, offices must be associated with other permitted uses, and uses not listed may be permitted if deemed compatible with the purposes of the district and the intent of the comprehensive plan policies. Both zoning districts include provisions for conditional use and unclassified use permits, enabling additional levels of review for uses with unusually high levels of impact or those that may not be consistent with the intent of the zone. Conditional use permits require review through a hearing examiner process, while undassified use permits must be approved by both the hearing examiner and the City Council. Conditional uses in the MIC/L district include a number of heavier manufacturing uses permitted outright in the MIC/H district; both districts identify certain public facilities and utilities as conditional uses, as well as retail sales establishments intended to serve users from outside the MIC. Unclassified uses are similar for both zones and include such high-intensity development as airports, cement manufacturing, essential public facilities, electric generating plants, land- fills and transfer stations, mining, railroad freight yards, and regional transit centers. As described in Chapter 2, the process for development review under the implementation plan would generally identify proposals for such uses as being outside the threshold of this subarea SEPA review. Such proposals would require a separate or supplemental SEPA process in conjunction with the conditional or undassified use permit approval. Another level of review and environmental protection for projects in the shoreline area is the shoreline overlay zoning district (Chapter 18.44 of the Tukwila Municipal Code), which regulates development within those areas under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Manage- ment Act of 1971. Within the MIC, the regulations of this district apply to developments within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Duwamish River. Requirements of the shoreline overlay district, as well as other plans, policies, and regulations affecting development in and along the river, are discussed in Chapter 4 of this EIS. Other Jurisdictions King County Countywide Planning Policies The King County Countywide Planning Policies were developed under the requirements of the 1990 Washington State Growth Management Act that counties provide framework poli- cies to establish a regional context for planning by local jurisdictions. The 1995 Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and EIS provide a detailed description of the plan's consistency with these policies and the guiding requirements of the Growth Management Act. Several key policies of particular relevance for the MIC subarea are discussed in this section. Policy LU -51-62: This policy designates four manufacturing/industrial centers within King County, each of which is to accommodate a minimum of 10,000 jobs (15,000 if the center is served by high-capacity transit). The Tukwila MIC is one of the four designated centers. As noted above, the corridor is currently estimated to accommodate about 21,000 jobs, which is SEA/1002E019 5/15/97 3.9 CHAPTER 3 LAND USE fewer than the historical peak, but still well above the mandated level. Although the locations of high-capacity transit lines and stations included in the current RTA system plan have not been finalized, it appears likely that employment in the corridor will also continue to exceed the policy's minimum employment threshold for MICs served by high-capacity transit. Policy LU -28-30: This policy requires that municipalities direct growth first to centers and urbanized areas with existing infrastructure capacity, second to areas that can be serviced easily, and last to areas needing major improvements. The implementation plan is entirely consistent with this policy. By facilitating development within the MIC consistent with adopted plans and zoning, it ensures optimum use of an existing center with a history of similarly intense land uses and a highly developed urban infrastructure to support them. Policies FW -33-36 and ED -1-24: These policies direct local comprehensive plans to support retention and expansion of the regional economic base, including policies that promote local job retention and attraction and achievement of a balance between economic growth and environmental protection. The MIC's facilitation of consistent development, as described above, will have a positive impact on the regional economy by encouraging the retention of jobs—particularly at Boeing, which has a substantial indirect economic impact—and creating the potential for new jobs through infill or redevelopment along the corridor. Concentration of intensive land uses in a designated area, along with enforcement of existing environmental regulations and the mitigation proposed in this EIS, will ensure that economic development proceeds in harmony with the City's goals for stewardship of the natural and built environments. King County Airport Master Plan The adopted Master Development Plan for Boeing Field/King County International Airport was completed in 1987. The plan addresses the needs of the airport over a 20 -year planning period and recommends appropriate uses of the airport's property and facilities. It focuses on highest and best use of airport properties, valuation methodologies for establishing lease rates, and the environmental impacts of airport development on adjacent residential areas. Because of changes in the types of services provided at the airport, a master plan update process was recently initiated to guide airport development. Planning efforts to date have included a field inventory, a 20 -year forecast for the airport, and the development of five conceptual alternatives for use of the facility. None of the five alternatives would expand the airport footprint, and major redevelopment is unlikely; the existing mix of uses would remain essentially the same. No new infrastructure (e.g., drainage, tank farms, or utilities) is proposed. Although environmental review has not been completed, substantial increases in truck or airplane traffic, noise, or requirements for public utilities and services are not anticipated. The draft plan is proposed for issuance in summer 1997, with a preferred alternative to be selected by the King County Council in September. FAA Airport Height Restrictions Also associated with the King County Airport is a set of restrictions on nearby building heights mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensure safe and unob- structed takeoff and landing approach paths. The FAA regulations identify an allowable "slope" of building heights within a certain distance of the runway; the distance at which these restrictions end is determined by the area's location with respect to the takeoff and SEA/1002E019 5/15/97 3-10 CHAPTER 3 LAND USE landing pathway. For example, a slope of 50 horizontal to 1 vertical is mandated 200 feet from the runway end. Structures are permitted to exceed the established limits if the fol- lowing conditions are met: • The FAA determines that the height does not create a hazard to aviation. • The additional height is necessary for the successful physical function of the structure. • The exception does not require rerouting of aircraft. • The structure is designed to minimize adverse lighting impacts, while complying with FAA lighting requirements. Currently, airport height restrictions within Tukwila are negotiated individually for each development proposal. Some jurisdictions, however, have established formal mechanisms, such as airport height overlay districts, to provide consistency and predictability for airport operators and developers. As a mitigation measure, Tukwila may develop and adopt a system for advising developers of the height restrictions and notifying airport planners when a potential impact is identified. Direct Land Use Impacts This section describes changes in land use that would take place under the three prototype projects for the MIC implementation plan. These changes can generally be described as development or redevelopment that is consistent with existing planning and zoning for the area. After the prototype site discussion, the overall implications of the implementation plan for land use in the corridor are addressed. Issues raised by the prototype sites with respect to shoreline plans and regulations are discussed in Chapter 4 of this document. Prototype Site 1 As described in Chapter 2, this prototype site illustrates a 175,000 -square -foot development of mixed research/development, office, and laboratory space. Existing structures on the site would be demolished and replaced with a single building to house these uses. A total of 525 surface parking spaces (92 more than the code requirement) would be provided on the building site itself and on the Seattle City Light right-of-way, which would be leased by the developer for that purpose. Building height is assumed to be the 125 -foot maximum for the MIC -H zone; as shown in Figure 2-2, the building and other site development would ob- serve all applicable setbacks and landscaping requirements for the zone and the shoreline overlay. Frontage improvements would be required under the sidewalk ordinance of the Tukwila Municipal Code, which is separate from the requirements of the zoning code. Frontage improvements are discussed in Chapter 5, Transportation. The overall land use effect of the prototype project would be to intensify the use of the site as compared to the existing assortment of low-rise commercial and light industrial uses. Such intensification would be consistent with MIC plans and policies and could be accom- modated by the existing infrastructure. Employment would increase significantly, with associated increases in traffic generation (see Chapter 5, Transportation, for a discussion of impacts). Aesthetically, the site would likely improve through development of a single, unified use that conformed to setbacks and landscaping requirements and visually opened SEA/1002E019 5/15/97 3-11 CHAPTER 3 LAND USE up a currently obscured area of the riverfront; the project would also be required to comply with shoreline design guidelines, as described in Chapter 4. The development would be consistent with permitted uses under the zoning code and compatible with nearby devel- opment, particularly the Boeing Office Park across South 112th Street.• Prototype Site 2 Prototype Site 2 is assumed to be developed as a warehouse distribution center with a small amount of supporting office space. Existing buildings would be demolished and replaced with a single structure approximately 45 feet in height, which would accommodate about 73,000 square feet of gross floor area; 135 surface parking spaces (9 more than required by code) would be provided. As with Prototype Site 1, the applicable setbacks and landscaping requirements would be observed (Figure 2-5 and Table 3-3), and frontage improvements would be provided in accordance with code requirements. Although the site's use would change under this scenario, the change would be relatively minor from a land use standpoint. The primary effects would be higher trip generation (due to the site's function as a distribution center) and potential changes in site access, both of which are discussed in Chapter 5 of this document. Though the building would likely be larger than those existing on the site and would have smaller setbacks, its general character and aesthetics would be consistent with other development in the area. Prototype Site 3 This scenario would involve the redevelopment of the northern portion of Boeing's Plant 2 facilities. Approximately eight buildings on the site would be torn down and replaced with two new buildings housing 750,000 square feet of high -bay manufacturing space and 700,000 square feet of laboratory space. The manufacturing building would be constructed over the water on the same footprint as the existing building, which is allowed for under the proposed shoreline overlay district regulations (see Chapter 4). Parking would continue to be provided offsite across East Marginal Way, with 200 additional onsite spaces added; the existing parking supply is assumed adequate to accommodate the required 1,450 spaces. The current access point off East Marginal Way would be maintained and a new driveway added (Figure 2-4). The development is assumed to upgrade the facilities at the site and to result in an employment increase of about 3,265. In general, land use on this site would remain similar to existing conditions and would be consistent with the MIC subarea designation and the intent of the zoning code. However, the existing northern building is a nonconforming use in terms of its overwater construc- tion. The key issues raised would, thus, be replacement of the existing overwater structure and the general increase in building bulk. Overwater structure replacement considerations would include the need to protect water quality during demolition and construction activi- ties and the potential for effects on fish habitat and other aquatic resources during con- struction and operation; these considerations are discussed in Chapter 4, Shoreline Use. Building bulk and scale effects on the visual character of the project area would be addressed to some degree by the shoreline design guidelines discussed in Chapter 4; how- ever, much of the redevelopment would occur outside the shoreline area. In any case, the design guidelines do not impose setback requirements or building height restrictions (other than the underlying zoning) for redeveloping properties on the shoreline. Thus, the visual sEA/1002E019 5/15/97 3.12 CHAPTER 3 LAND USE character of the area as seen from across the river and, to a lesser degree, from East Mar- ginal Way would change from existing conditions. Corridor -Wide Issues As noted in Chapter 2, the prototype sites are not actual development proposals, but illus- trate the types of projects and resulting impacts likely to result under the MIC implementa- tion plan. Their analysis raises several overall land use issues for development of the MIC corridor. Under the implementation plan's expedited and predictable review system, land uses in the corridor are likely to intensify over time toward the limits allowed under current planning and zoning. All three of the prototype scenarios reflect this trend. Such intensification will depend highly on regional economic conditions; however, the ultimate effect of growth management planning will be to concentrate industrial growth into a finite designated land base, of which the Tukwila MIC is a part. As industrial lands become more scarce, devel- opment density will increase, and vacant or underutilized sites will tend to infill. As shown in Table 3-1, approximately 8 percent of land in the MIC is currently vacant. This land is likely to develop with uses allowed under the code, and—as exemplified by Prototype Scenario 1—land currently developed at lower densities will probably transition into higher ones. The intensification of land use will bring with it a number of related impacts, including increased traffic, greater building bulk and -scale, and the potential for more highly devel- oped areas along the Duwamish shoreline. Chapters 4 and 5 of this document specifically address some of these issues. However, these impacts occur in the context of an already highly developed urban environment, which contains ample infrastructure to support industrial uses and has a long history of such uses. MIC zoning district requirements, and other applicable regulations, reflect the city's policies for the corridor. These policies recog- nize that economic development and environmental protection must be balanced to achieve the MIC's regional purpose. No Action Alternative Because the policy, planning, and zoning basis for land use in the MIC has already been adopted and is currently administered under the existing comprehensive plan and zoning code, impacts of the No Action alternative would generally be as described for the implementation plan. However, the potential exists that, with each individual development subject to project -level SEPA review and conditioning, development consistent with adopted plans and policies could take place more slowly and with less consistent review than that afforded by the MIC implementation plan process. Mitigation Measures The MIC implementation plan and prototype site development are generally consistent with local and regional land use plans, policies, and regulations; no mitigation is proposed. The following measure is suggested to facilitate development approvals for projects con- sistent with the implementation plan: SEP/1002E019 5/15/97 3-13 CHAPTER 3 LAND USE • Develop a system to notify developers concerning height limitations and to advise air- port officials when a potential impact is identified. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No unavoidable adverse land use impacts are expected to result from the implementation plan. sea1002e019.doc SEA/1002E019 5/15/97 3-14 waterway to the Turning Basin, which is located just north of the Oxbow site. South of the Turning Basin, the channel begins to take a more natural course and is referred to as the Duwamish River. Existing Shoreline Land Use Shoreline areas in the MIC are dominated by manufacturing and office use sites. Figure 3-1 ' shows existing shoreline development. Boeing controls roughly 75 to 80 percent of the shoreline property located on the east shoreline from the north city limits south to Norfolk Street, and uses it for office, lab, and manufacturing functions. The remaining sites along this corridor consist of Rhone-Poulenc, a former food product manufacturing plant now used for storage of shipping containers, and manufacturing plants for Jorgensen Steel and Kenworth Trucks. Across the river and to the south is the 31 -plus -acre Oxbow site, which provides as much as 9 acres of parking, a mail processing plant and an office building. On these large sites in the northern portion of the MIC, the vast majority of the land area, buildings, and activities is located outside of the shoreline zone. For example, the sites SEA/1002E014 4-1 5/15/97 CHAPTER 4 SHOREUNE USE average a depth of about 1,300 feet between the river and East Marginal Way; only the westernmost 200 feet, or 15 percent, is within the river zone. The character of the sites south of the Boeing Access Road is significantly different from those farther north. These sites are much smaller, and many are fully contained within the shoreline zone. Several small industrial buildings are clustered on these sites in the narrow area between the road and the shoreline. Farther south, the area opens up to moderate-sized sites that are either underutilized or vacant. An exception is the Boeing customer service center, with 378,000 square feet of office space, which is located northwest of the inter- section of the river and Pacific Highway South. This 13 -acre site is fully developed with two office buildings surrounded by parking. In addition to the Oxbow, a variety of industrial sites are on the west bank of the Du- wamish, including the Gateway North Business Park, Sea King industrial park, and a small industrial/outdoor storage area south of the Turning Basin. At the southern edge of the MIC, the Green River Trail is located along the west bank of the river from East Marginal Way South to Pacific Highway South. Heading north, the trail crosses the river at Pacific Highway and follows the river on the east bank until the pedes- trian bridge near the Boeing customer service center, where once again it crosses. At this location, King County is developing the North Wind Weir Park on the river's west bank. North of the park, the trail departs from the shoreline zone and follows West Marginal Way. Roads and utilities, including the Seattle City Light substation, are developed along roughly 16 percent of the shoreline within the MIC. Project Area Shoreline Classifications A report prepared by Curtis D. Tanner for the Port of Seattle and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Potential Intertidal Habitat Restoration Sites in the Duwamish River Estuary," classified the shoreline areas along the Duwamish River and the waterway. Four classifications were identified: natural shorelines, riprap shorelines, pier aprons, and sheet piling. They are described below: -• Natural Shoreline. This classification does not indicate that the shoreline is in its origi- nal condition, but rather that the area generally exhibits a gently sloping shoreline with areas of fine-grained sediment. • Riprap Shoreline. This refers to shorelines stabilized with angular rock, generally larger than 12 inches in diameter and relatively steep slopes, ranging from 1:1 to 2:1. In some areas, fine-grained sediment may be present, as well as intertidal benches below the riprap area. • Pier Aprons. These are generally concrete or wood pier structures where the water is allowed to flow underneath the pier, in between the vertical structural members. • Sheet Piling. Sheet piles, also known as vertical bulkheads, divert the flow of water around the pier or landform. The classifications of the roughly 33,000 linear feet of shoreline in the MIC are shown on Figure 4-1. SEA/1002EO1A 5/15/97 4.2 139766.AO1E • Oty 01 Tukwila • Tqure 4-1.5-15.97 • LW M Censer Implementation Plan Shoreline edsting Conditions lagena adub MDeoday Menrrtypes 000 Omani ai,a.rr 00000 Rpm Sh oMp eeeoPkor Pomo 4:44+ sue mu Mud Nil P4 NNW MAN Plorabnaft Pe PastelMstle*Plaram►aer PunD4P) Plow wand oar sopmenj oapernwewrr nuaa ►w. 13immiDif1ai vlonrPrre City of Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center acus 1'-20oor March 18,1987 Figure 4-1 MIC Shoreline Classifications and Habitat Protection/Restoration Sites 43 CHAPTER 4 SHORELINE USE Terrestrial, Wetland, and Aquatic Habitats This section describes the existing terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic habitats along the Duwamish River as it passes through the Tukwila MIC. Much of the material in this section has been drawn from the report by Tanner (1991), who identified and mapped existing habitats and described potential restoration sites in the Duwamish River estuary. Other sources of information included wetland, stream, and habitat inventories by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, no date) and the City of Tukwila (City of Tukwila 1993; 1995; Jones and Stokes 1990). A search of agency databases for documented occurrences of rare, threatened, and endangered species, priority habitats, and high quality ecosystems was also conducted, with negative results (USFWS 1996; WDF&W 1996;WNHP 1996). In addition, surveys of the river environment were made by canoe in September 1996 and by car on January 29, 1997. The Duwamish River is the dominant biological, as well as physical, feature in the Tukwila MIC. Before settlement and development by Euro -Americans over the last 100 to 150 years, the area within the MIC was largely estuarine wetlands associated with the Duwamish River (Tanner 1991). This riverine-estuarine system was fed by drainage from Lake Wash- ington, Lake Sammamish, the Cedar River (via the Black River), the Green River, and the White River, a total drainage basin area of 1,642 square miles. Discharge in the Duwamish River ranged from 2,500 to 9,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). Wetland habitats within the Duwamish River estuary consisted of higher intertidal areas with forests and shrub lands and lower intertidal marsh areas dominated by sedges, rushes, and other herbaceous plants. The present conditions of the Duwamish River and its shoreline are drastically different from this pre -settlement ecosystem. As described above, the river has been channelized and much of the drainage basin rerouted through Lake Washington and the Hiram H. Chitten- den Locks, resulting in a decrease in mean annual flow to about 1,530 cfs. Ninety-eight per- cent of the wetlands has been lost through diking, filling, and changes in hydrology (Grette and Salo, 1986). By 1921, the river was dredged from its mouth to the Turning Basin, and is now maintained as a federal navigation channel through this reach by the Corps. The authorized navigation channel in the MIC is 150 feet wide and 15 feet deep upriver to the bend just south of the 16th Avenue South Bridge, and 12 feet deep south to the Tuning Basin (NOAA National Ocean Survey chart 18450). In addition to the channel, private dredging has increased depths to 12 to 15 feet at wharf approaches, and in marinas and slips in the MIC. Despite the extensive alterations that have taken place in the Duwamish River ecosystem, a variety of wildlife and fish use the remaining habitat. Tanner (1991) compiled lists from several sources that document observations of 84 bird, 20 fish, and 9 mammal species in the Duwamish River estuary in its present configuration and land use. Tanner also surveyed and described locations where restoration or enhancement of nearshore, saltmarsh, and riparian habitats could be accomplished. Several of these projects are underway or under consideration by organizations including the King County Department of Natural Resources, the City of Seattle, the Port of Seattle, and the Muckleshoot Tribe. The most important upland habitat features in the MIC are the limited areas of substantial riparian vegetation. Extensive portions of the riverbanks just above the ordinary high water line are dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) thickets, which provide only limited habitat for small mammals and birds; however, several locations retain large SEA/1002E01A 5/15/97 4.4 CHAPTER 4 SHOREUNE USE vegetation sufficient to serve as usable habitat. Primary species include large cottonwoods (Populus tricocarpa), big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder (Alnus rubra), box elder (Acer negundo), willows (Salix spp.), and some exotics such as Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra var. Italica) and locust (Robinia sp.). These vegetated areas provide habitat for a num- ber of small mammals and passerine birds that otherwise would be absent from the MIC. The larger trees along the river provide important perching and roosting habitat for birds such as crows, gulls, kingfishers, cormorants, and perhaps ospreys and great blue herons. Large trees also provide shading of adjacent waters and occasionally fall into the channel, where they provide instream habitat for small fish. Emergent limbs and roots provide perches closer to the water. Perhaps the most important ecological function of this reach of the river is its role as a cor- ridor for the downstream migration of juvenile anadromous salmonids (smolts). The Duwamish, and the Green River upstream, have runs of chinook, coho, chum, and pink salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, O. kisutch, O. keta, O. gorbuscha), as well as sea -run steel - head, cutthroat and Dolly Varden (0. gardneri, O. clarki, Salvelinus malma, respectively). The transition area from fresh to salt water is known to be very important both in allowing smolts to adjust their physiological processes for salt water living and as a feeding/rearing area; it is well known that larger smolts are better able to survive the rigors of their early marine life history. At and below the high tide line, the intertidal shorelines of the lower Duwamish River include a variety of natural and artificial habitats. The artificial habitats (vertical bulkheads, sloped riprap, and miscellaneous debris such as concrete slabs) are generally less produc- tive (e.g., support fewer prey organisms for smolts) than the more natural mud banks and the limited remaining mudflats. Lower in the estuary, however, these hard substrata become colonized with a productive assemblage of rockweed (Fucus gardneri), barnacles (Balanus glandula), and mussels (Mytilus trossulus). Also, in areas where substantial amounts of silt have accumulated in the interstices of riprap or rubble, the habitat may support populations of epibenthic zooplankton that approach the densities found on muddy shore- lines. Steeper slopes of bulkheads and most riprapped areas are perceived to have the potential to increase the vulnerability of juvenile salmonids to predation from fish or diving birds; however, such shorelines may reduce the vulnerability of small fish to other preda- tors such as kingfishers and herons. In areas where the slopes are relatively flat (e.g., 3 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter) and the substrate is unconsolidated sand or mud, a fringe of brackish or saltmarsh vegetation may be established. This habitat type is considered valuable because organic detritus from the marsh is transported downriver to become a productive habitat for crustacean and insect prey for fish and birds. A green saltmarsh edge is also an aesthetic amenity for the limited recreational users of the river. Most of the lower intertidal and subtidal river bed is silty sand or mud that is moved at various rates by tidal and river currents. This habitat, especially the shallower areas next to dredged bottoms where benthic primary productivity is high, is very productive and has good densities of epibenthic zooplankton, which are important prey for juvenile salmonids, other small fish, and shorebirds. Low -gradient mud bottoms are highly valued as migration corridors for juvenile salmonids, offering both a good prey base and shallow -water escape from predators such as fish and diving birds. Mud and sand bottoms in the navigation channel and connecting dredged areas provide habitat for brackish water tolerant species SEA/1002E01A 5/15/97 4-5 CHAPTER 4 SHOREUNE USE such as starry flounder (Platichthyes stellata) and Dungeness crab (Cancer magister); use by these species declines with distance upstream and is probably limited above the Turning Basin. Sediment quality in some areas has been degraded by historic discharges from urban and industrial sources; several ongoing investigations are aimed at identifying and remedi- ating these areas. The following sections detail the distribution of these habitat types along the Duwamish River within the MIC area. For purposes of discussion, the river and its shoreline are divided into three reaches: (1) Allentown to North Wind Weir, (2) North Wind Weir to Turning Basin, and (3) Turning Basin to Duwamish River Park. Allentown to North Wind Weir The Duwamish River is channelized at the south end of the MIC. The river is bordered on the west bank by houses in an area zoned for low-density residential use that borders the MIC. The east bank, which lies within the MIC, is well -wooded with bigleaf maple, red alder, willows, and cottonwoods. Larger trees have fallen into the river in several locations, providing in -water cover for fish and perches for cormorants and kingfishers. Except for shallow bars at Codiga Farm and downstream on the west bank, the riprapped or steep mud banks provide little shallow -water habitat for fish. From Interurban Avenue South to Pacific Highway South, the channel bank is lower and less steep on the west side of the river, where a bike trail is situated between a business park and the river. The river bank has been recently revegetated in this area, but plantings are not yet well established. The Riverton Creek outfall, consisting of a flap gate, is located on the west bank, next to Pacific Highway South. The east bank is dominated by non-native Himalayan blackberry, and the adjacent shoreline area is largely developed. A 1993 inven- tory of natural environmental features and habitat by the City of Tukwila noted the presence of great blue heron, beaver, and muskrat in this reach of the river. The less steep shoreline on the west side of the river provides some shallow -water habitat for juvenile fish and exposed mud slopes for shorebirds, but otherwise there is little instream habitat struc- ture for fish in this reach. From Pacific Highway South to South 112th Street (where the North Wind Weir is located), the left bank has riprap and is bordered by the State Route (SR) 599 freeway. Above the riprap, the shoreline is primarily vegetated with Himalayan blackberry and reed canary - grass (Phalaris arundinacea). The east bank is primarily blackberry, with a row of Lombardy poplars along the top of the bank. A portion of the bank has been stabilized and has some willow plantings. A bike trail follows the top of the bank, with the rest of the shoreline area occupied by the Boeing Customer Service Center. As in upstream reaches, limited instream habitat for small fish is found in this area. North Wind Weir to Turning Basin North Wind Weir is a rocky outcropping that crosses the channel, creating a small rapid at extremely low tides (Warner and Fritz 1995). It is reported to be a traditional Native Ameri- can fishing site (David Rice, personal communication, as cited in Tanner, 1991). A gill net set here on January 29,1997, was being raided by a young California sea lion, which was observed taking several steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) from the net. The west bank directly below the new Green River Trail bridge is riprapped with old tires, below which a large eddy is eroding into a vacant area planned for development by King County as the SEA/1002E01A 5/15/97 4.6 CHAPTER 4 SHORELINE USE North Wind Weir Park. Along with landscaped areas, the design for this park will also include a wetland slough area connected to the river (Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Program 1996). As the channel proceeds east from this point, the shoreline becomes unconsolidated ma- terial and has a more gentle slope. A small intertidal marsh area with patches of sedge (probably Carex lyngbyei) occurs along the west bank; above this is a stand of shrubs and trees, including some large cottonwoods. This area has significant terrestrial, wetland, and. shallow -water habitat value for fish and was identified as a potential restoration Site 2 by Tanner (1991). The adjacent upland area is now a major Postal Service facility. The east bank below North Wind Weir was also identified as a potential restoration site (Site 1) by Tanner (1991). The shoreline has a fairly low, unconsolidated bank, with vegeta- tion consisting of a patch of willows in the area of the weir and extensive areas of black- berries downstream. The edge of the channel has exposed mudflat areas with some emergent vegetation, including patches of Carex lyngbyei. The land above the channel bank is under commercial and light industrial land use and currently contains little vegetation. As the channel turns northeast, just south of the Boeing Access Road, the shoreline area above the left bank is landscaped for about 1,000 feet and then is bordered by parking lots. A short segment of steep, actively eroding bank is below the bike trail, which follows the shoreline in this portion of the river, but most of the channel bank downstream is less steep and well -vegetated with reed canarygrass. North of the Boeing Access Road, the east bank of the channel is located immediately adja- cent to Interurban Avenue South and is bordered by riprap. As the river veers away from Interurban Avenue South, the shoreline area is entirely industrial, occupied primarily by the Boeing Company. There is a small landscaped park between a Boeing parking lot and the river just north of the small bridge accessing the Boeing parking area. Downstream of this park, the Norfolk combined sewer outfall enters the river on the east bank. Downstream of this outfall, mudflats are exposed at low tide on both sides of the river. On the west side of the river, these flats extend downstream into the Turning Basin area. Turning Basin to Duwamish River Park The Turning Basin is a wider portion of the river that is used as a sedimentation basin and is the end of the federal navigation channel periodically dredged by the Corps (Tanner 1991). The west side of the basin has a small embayment, at the head of which is the mouth of a small tributary stream that enters through culverts under West Marginal Place. Signifi- cant intertidal mudflats occur along the sides of the embayment and are contiguous with mudflats upstream along the west bank. There has been a recent project to restore portions of the mudflat and adjacent shoreline with native species (the 'Coastal America' project, in potential restoration Site 3 in Tanner). A small (2.1 -acre) area of undeveloped fill deposits is located along the northwest side of Turning Basin and was identified as potential restora- tion Site 4 in Tanner (1991). The east bank of the Turning Basin area is steep riprap, with Boeing industrial facilities immediately above the bank. However, significant intertidal mud flats are mapped in this SEA/1002E014 5/15/97 4-7 CHAPTER 4 SHORELINE USE area by Tanner (1991), are apparent below the riprap at low tide, and offer shallow -water habitat next to the dredged channel. Downstream of the Turning Basin, the shoreline is highly developed, and the channel is mostly bordered by riprap and sheet piling on both sides. Below these hardened shorelines, low intertidal and shallow subtidal mudflats border the navigation channel on both sides, offering shallow -water habitat at lower water levels. An additional feature in this reach of the river is a 25 -acre parcel of land on the west bank, just north of the Seattle City Light sub- station. According to Tanner (1991), this site consists of fill accumulated from dredging the Turning Basin. It is currently open grassland that is regularly mowed and is bordered by blackberry. Ham Creek flows along the perimeter of this open area, and some riparian res- toration along the creek at the west side of the parcel has been undertaken by "I'm a Pal" (International Marine Association Protecting Aquatic Life). The entire parcel has been identified for restoration by several groups, including "I'm a Pal" and the Port of Seattle - EPA (Site 5 in Tanner 1991). Other patches of terrestrial and wetland wildlife habitat include a strip of shrubs and trees along the left shoreline, next to a Boeing research facility (just north of South Director Street) and some broader intertidal mudflat areas just north of Slip 6 off the Duwamish Waterway. Slip 6 and the area just north of the Duwamish Yacht Club (including a small drainage channel entering the river) were identified as potential restoration sites 6 and 7, respectively, in Tanner (1991). The west bank of the river both upstream and downstream of the 16th Avenue South Bridge is riprapped, with only limited areas of lower -gradient mud or debris banks and little riparian vegetation. At the lowest tides, a strip of mudflat is exposed downstream of the bridge. The east bank upstream (south) of the bridge is dominated by Boeing Plant 2 struc- tures, which extend over the shoreline on pilings. A wall of horizontal timbers on the outer line of pilings protects the underside of the building and partially isolates the riverbank under the building from the river. At low tide, mudflats are exposed in front of Plant 2 and offer shallow -water habitat to migrating fish. However, the continuity of this habitat is lim- ited by the timber wall at higher tides. North (downstream) of the 16th Avenue South Bridge, another Boeing structure similarly extends on pilings partially over the mudflats. Horizontal timbers are also placed on the outer line of pilings, with similar habitat implications, although the mudflat between the structure and the navigation channel is broader than that adjacent to Plant 2 south of the bridge. Identified Habitat Protection and Restoration Sites As part of the work done in support of Shoreline Master Program revisions, consultants to the City of Tukwila (Williams/Pentec,1997) recently completed an inventory of potential habitat protection or restoration sites. This inventory was conducted to identify sites that should be protected, in keeping with the city's shoreline planning policies, during future development along the Duwamish River, and to establish potential locations at which off- site habitat restoration mitigation activities could be focused. For the MIC portion of the river, one site was identified as important for protection and five sites as potential habitat restoration areas. Four of the latter were previously identified in a report prepared by Curtis Tanner for the EPA (1991). SE4I1002E014 5/15/97 4-8 CHAPTER 4 SHOREUNE USE The primary criterion used to identify sites for protection was the presence of significant stands of native woody vegetation. Given that the entire channel and banks of the Duwamish River within the city have undergone substantial alteration, there is virtually no undisturbed shoreline area present. Natural features have largely been modified by chan- nelization, diking, rerouting of streams, filling, and other means. In places, however, there are patches of native shrubs and trees that provide some habitat features characteristic of low -elevation, low -gradient rivers in the Puget Sound Basin. Shading of the stream, input of large woody debris, roosting sites and forage for wildlife, and bank stabilization are some of the important functions that native shrubs and trees provide. Criteria for potential restoration sites included wider places within the floodway, presence of some native trees and shrubs that could be further enhanced, presence of tributary streams with potential salmonid habitat, a low degree of development, and/or ownership by the city. It should be noted that almost any portion of the shoreline has potential for enhancement or restoration, since the area has been so extensively and severely altered from its natural condition. The sites identified here represent the best opportunities. The locations of the sites are shown on Figure 4-1; a brief description is provided below. Site numbers referred to are those established in the inventory document (Williams/Pentec, 1997). Typically, restoration plans for these areas would involve excavation of materials along the top of the banks, reductions in shoreline slopes, and replacement of hardened shorelines with native vegetation, gravel, sand, or mud. These actions are expected to create more extensive and natural intertidal habitat for juvenile salmonids and other fish, as well as for shorebirds and waterfowl. Important Areas for Protection Site P-9: Wooded Shoreline Area Next to U.S. Postal Service Facility. This site has recently been al- tered by construction of the U.S. Postal Service facility. Some of the shoreline has not been developed; it consists of relatively natural bank with emergent vegetation, shrubs, and a grove of trees. Potential Sites for Restoration/Enhancement Site R-17: Left Bank Adjacent to Boeing Parking Lot. This site could be enhanced with planting of native vegetation. In -channel restoration for fish habitat would be most beneficial, but enhancement of riparian vegetation would also be valuable for wildlife. Some limited opportunities, probably in conjunction with needed bank stabilization, exist here. Sites R-18 - R21: Port of Seattle/EPA Designated Sites. Seven sites identified in the study con- ducted by the Port of Seattle and EPA (Curtis, 1991) are within the City of Tukwila. These represent the primary opportunities for restoring or enhancing estuarine conditions for juvenile salmonids, probably the most important biological function of this reach of the river. A restoration project has already been conducted at one of these sites in the Turning Basin. Restoration projects at two other sites are planned as part of the Elliott Bay - Duwamish Natural Resources Damage Assessment settlement, which would preclude their use for mitigation of city -permitted projects (Tanner, 1996). These are the City Light South and City Light North sites identified by Tanner (1991). SEA/1002E01A 5/15/97 4-9 CHAPTER 4 SHORELINE USE Site R-18 is located across the street from the Boeing Customer Service Center on the east bank, in the shoreline area of Prototype Site 1. It is in an area known to be important to salmonids for their transition from freshwater to saltwater. Mudflats, partially vegetated with sedges and other emergent vegetation, occur along the shoreline. Shoreline and adja- cent upland areas afford good opportunity for creation of a diverse intertidal and related wetland habitat. The size, characteristics, location, and availability make this site the best opportunity for restoration. Site R-19 is located directly across the river from R-18. The shoreline consists of some riprap and relatively natural bank with emergent vegetation, shrubs, and trees. Much of the site has recently been redeveloped for a U.S. Postal Service facility, but some of the shoreline area has not been developed. A diverse array of intertidal and wetland habitats could be created here. Site R-20 is a shallow side -waterway off the main channel within the Boeing Company com- plex. It is no longer used for navigation and offers some opportunity for creating intertidal habitat and vegetated shoreline. Site R-21 is a 4.7 -acre parcel just north of the Duwamish Yacht Club. The shoreline is pri- marily riprap, but removal of riprap, regrading of the shoreline, and establishment of native riparian and emergent vegetation would create a significant patch of valuable fish and wildlife habitat. Current Plans, Policies, and Regulations The City of Tukwila currently administers two sets of shoreline master programs (SMPs) and regulations for development along the Green/Duwamish River. Properties located south of the 42nd Avenue bridge are subject to the City of Tukwila SMP. The properties north of the bridge were annexed from King County subsequent to the adoption of the Tukwila SMP; as a result, the City has been administering the King County SMP since the properties were annexed. The MIC lies within the area subject to King County SMP regulations. One of the city's goals for 1997 is replacing these two SMPs with a new SMP and develop- ment regulations, expected to be completed in the second half of the year. The policy basis of the new SMP is embodied in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, adopted in December 1995. The development regulations are planned for adoption as a shoreline overlay zoning district, which will replace the shoreline overlay district currently in the city's zoning code. Both the policies and the regulations include components specifically applicable to the MIC. Adoption of these MIC -specific policies and regulations are part of the planned action ana- lyzed in this EIS. Because of the transitional state of planning for the city's shorelines, both the proposed Tukwila shoreline policies and regulations and the existing King County SMP are discussed below. Also described briefly are a number of other state and federal permit processes that provide protection for aquatic resources within the Duwamish River and would apply to inwater development projects (e.g., construction of new piers or shoreline stabilization) in the MIC. SEA/1002E01A 5/15/97 4-10 CHAPTER 4 SHOREUNE USE City of Tukwila Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (1995) As discussed above, the shoreline element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan is the policy basis for the city's new SMP, currently under development. The policies identified below have already gone through substantial public process and have been adopted by the City Council. The only change proposed to the Comprehensive Plan policies is addition of the restoration goal and principles of the habitat restoration plan prepared by the Duwamish Coalition. A complete version of the current policies is included in Appendix B. The Plan's shoreline policies are intended to facilitate the redevelopment of the MIC, while simultaneously recognizing the value of the river as a natural resource and public amenity. The Washington State Shoreline Management Act designates the Green/Duwamish River as a shoreline of statewide significance. Tukwila's shoreline policies reflect the statutory requirements of the Act, but also give priority to the economic vitality of the MIC. The Plan's Shoreline Policies specifically applicable to the MIC are quoted below. • 5.1.2 Manufacturing/Industrial Center Environment: In the Manufacturing/Industrial Center Environment, priority shall be given to the following: - Redevelopment of under-utilized areas and development of intensive commercial and industrial activities; and - Enhancement and restoration of access to the river; and - Protection and restoration of natural environment features and riverbank character- istics, where compatible with development. The following area shall be designated as the Manufacturing/Industrial Center Environment: The entire shoreline zone (200 feet on either side of the Ordinary High Water mark) from the northern City limits upstream to the Highway 99 bridge. • 5.3.1 Develop and implement River Design Guidelines to Guide the design of multiple shoreline uses; Establish techniques for increasing multiple shoreline use; Prioritize locations for uses. • 5.3.9 Ensure that shoreline development in the MIC that is not water -dependent either provides for shoreline multiple uses to the extent that site security and the success of industrial operations are not jeopardized, or provides adequate mitigation for loss of shoreline multiple use opportunities. • 5.3.10 Allow opportunities for commercial and recreational marinas to locate in Tuk- wila downstream of the Turning Basin, where compatible with existing and future navigability. • 5.5.2 Require that shoreline development in the MIC: - Is designed to be consistent with Tukwila river design guidelines; and SEA/1002E01A 5/15/97 4-11 CHAPTER 4 SHORELINE USE Maintains or enhances the existing visual quality along the river; and Provides trees and other landscaping to buffer industrial uses that are incompatible with other river uses; and - Provides amenities that enhance enjoyment of the river by employees. • 5.6.9 For MIC properties induded in the King County Green River Trail Master Plan, require shoreline development to provide a trail for public access along the river. • 5.6.10 Where shoreline public access is provided, ensure that it is designed to be safe and convenient and includes access amenities such as benches, drinking fountains, public parking areas, handicapped access and appropriate lighting, consistent with the river access guidelines. • 5.6.11 For MIC properties not included in the King County Green River Trail Plan, require shoreline development to provide public access or a private natural area in lieu of public access, or otherwise mitigate the loss of public access. • 5.7.4 Encourage maintenance of the river's navigability up to the Turning Basin, where this achieves a greater public interest and a balance between costs and benefits to the broader community, in recognition of the historical significance of navigation and its importance to the economic vitality of water -dependent uses and the MIC. • 11.1.7 Support the Duwamish River becoming a natural feature amenity in the MIC. • 11.1.8 Improve public access and use of the west side of the river, protecting owners' rights to reasonable use and enjoyment, improve employee access to the east side of the river, and emphasize restoration on both sides of the river. In addition to these adopted goals and policies, the city is evaluating the possibility and appropriateness of adopting the restoration goal and principles of the Lower Duwamish Habitat Restoration Plan prepared by the Ad Hoc Duwamish Habitat Restoration Group. This group was composed of representatives and staff from local, state, regional, federal, and tribal governments; business, environmental, and community organizations; and inter- ested citizens. The goal and principles of the plan are as follows: Restoration Goal. The goal of this restoration plan is to provide a diversity of self-sustaining habitat types and abundance within the Lower Duwamish Watershed to enhance fish and wildlife while maintaining a healthy, working waterfront of port, industrial, fisheries, and recreational uses. Restoration Principles: 1. Provide a functioning and sustainable ecosystem. 2. Integrate a restoration strategies to increase the likelihood of success. 3. Coordinate restoration efforts with other planning and regulatory activities to maximize habitat restoration. 4. Involve the public in restoration planning and implementation. SEA/1002E01A 5/15/97 4-12 CHAPTER 4 SHORELINE USE 5. Maintain a working waterfront of Port and industrial uses that transitions through mixed industrial, commercial, residential recreational and open space uses, depending on the neighborhood. As part of its ongoing work on the SMP, the city also requested a review of the Comprehen- sive Plan shoreline policies with respect to their effectiveness in preserving and enhancing aquatic habitat. The results of this review are included in the "MIC Shoreline Impact Analy- sis" in Appendix B-2 and include suggestions for strengthening the policy language related to habitat protection. The city recognizes these suggested revisions as generally appropriate. In lieu of amending the adopted policies through a formal process, the city will implement regulations to address the intent of the recommended revisions as part of the new SMP. Tukwila Zoning Code Chapter 18.44 of the Tukwila Zoning Code creates a "shoreline overlay" district, designed to provide for the regulation of development affecting areas of the city under the jurisdic- tion of the Shoreline Management Act. While it allows the permitted uses and certain other provisions of the underlying zoning to prevail, it defines additional aesthetic and dimen- sional requirements for three "management environments" (river, low -impact, and high - impact) within the 200 -foot shoreline area. However, while there are no limitations that would prevent the requirements of Chapter 18.44 from being applied to the MIC, it is not currently enforced there, and the regulations of the King County SMP prevail. Also included in the city's zoning code (Chapter 18.60) are provisions for design review of certain projects within the city, including those within the shoreline area. This process is conducted by the city's Board of Architectural Review in conjunction with the shoreline permit process. Review guidelines include the relationship of the proposed structure to the site and to the adjoining area, landscaping and site treatment, and building design. As part of its SMP development, the city envisions replacing the BAR review with an administra- tive review based on adopted river design guidelines, as called for in shoreline policy 5.3.1. However, the proposed guidelines have not yet been developed. As noted above, a new set of shoreline development regulations is currently under devel- opment and is proposed for adoption as part of the new Tukwila SMP. These regulations would replace the requirements of the shoreline overlay district currently in the zoning code. While the shoreline policies in the Comprehensive Plan, as noted above, have gone through substantial review and public involvement, the new regulations have not yet been subject to such review. As part of the MIC implementation plan, the regulations specific to the MIC are analyzed under SEPA as part of this EIS. The full SMP, including all policies and regulations, will also be subject to separate SEPA review before its adoption by the city. Table 4-1 compares the new shoreline regulations for the MIC with those currently in effect under the 1977 King County SMP. Because little or no water -dependent or related devel- opment is anticipated in the corridor, only the regulations affecting non -water -related development and redevelopment of existing sites are covered here (see Table 2-1 for a full listing). The regulations are discussed briefly by category below. Proposed General Requirements Permitted Uses. Uses permitted in the underlying zone, MIC/H or MIC/L, of the adopted zoning code (TMC Chapter 18) will be allowed within the shoreline zone. Priority is given SEAI1002E01A 5/15/97 4-13 CHAPTER 4 SHORELINE USE to redevelopment of underutilized areas and investment in industrial facilities that provide family -supporting wages; implementation of the King County Green River Trail Plan for public access and alternative private access or intertidal habitat development otherwise; and protection and restoration of natural environment features and riverbank characteris- tics, where compatible with development. Height Restrictions. Height restrictions under the new regulations are the same as those of the underlying zoning, with exceptions based on King County Airport height restrictions and certain provisions of the Shoreline Management Act. The MIC/L zone limits height to four stories or 45 feet and the MIC/H zone limits height to 125 feet. The Shoreline Management Act limits height to 35 feet when a substantial number of adjacent residential views will be obstructed; however, there are limited or no residential uses within the MIC. Height limita- tions within the King County Airport approach zone area are discussed in Chapter 3. No additional restrictions are proposed for the SMP. Shoreline Access. Shoreline substantial development or conditional uses shall provide new public access, employee access and amenities, or connections from public areas to the river where any of the following conditions are present: • The development or use will create increased demand for public access to the shoreline. • The development or use will interfere with an existing public access way. • The use is not water -dependent. • The use or development will interfere with use of public lands or waters. • The river frontage on the site has been identified as a location for a trail in the Green River Trail Master Plan. An applicant need not provide public access where the site is not on the Green River Trail Master Plan and one or more of the following conditions are present: • Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist which cannot be prevented by any practical means. • The project constitutes redevelopment within the river environment and the existing site development does not provide reasonable opportunity for providing access. • The proposed use is water -dependent. • Inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied through the application of alternative design features or other solutions. • The cost of providing the access, easement, or an alternative amenity is unreasonably disproportionate to the total long-term cost of the proposed development. SEAI1002E01A 5/15/97 414 CHAPTER 4 SHOREUNE USE TABLE 4-1 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Shoreline Development Standards in Tukwila MIC Standard Existing Requirement' Proposed Requirements° Non -Water -Related Development Redevelopment Permitted uses Zone district River setback 50 feet from OHWM (may be reduced to 20 feet with public access) Maximum height within 35 feet` shoreline zone Landscaping 5 feet around perimeter of parking areas Impervious surface Not regulated. Public access Required where a County trail is proposed or where access has historically been provided; otherwise voluntary Shoreline stabilization' Permitted (including verti- cal bulkheads) subject to certain design restric- tions; must demonstrate need to protect existing structures or public improvements Overwater buildings Not allowed. Parking Not allowed between building and river. Zone district 60 feet Zone district° Zone district plus 10 feet along edge of 40 -foot river environment. No net increase in river environment except miti- gated shoreline stabilization'. Public access required along Green River Trail; employee access else- where (habitat restoration may be substituted). Vertical bulkheads not allowed; stabilization projects must improve habitat. Not allowed. Allowed between building and river, subject to limi- tations on impervious surfaces. Zone district None if no horizontal expansion within river environment. Zone district° Zone district plus 10 feet along edge of river envi- ronment where possible. Same as for non -water - related uses. Same as for non -water - related uses. Existing vertical bulk- heads may be recon- structed in their current location; otherwise, same as for non -water -related uses. May be redeveloped within the existing over - water footprint. Same as for non -water - related uses. 'As set forth in King County SMP. °Only selected requirements are shown here; see Table 2-1 for a complete list. `May be increased under certain circumstances for water -related or water -dependent uses. °45 feet in MIC/L district; 125 feet in MIC/H district. 'Some exceptions apply (e.g., public roads, utilities, and trails). 'As discussed in Chapter 2, shoreline stabilization projects (except redevelopment of existing facilities) are not included in the MIC implementation plan and remain subject to individual SEPA review, as well as other applicable agency approvals. SEA/1002E01A 5/15/97 4-15 CHAPTER 4 SHORELINE USE • Unacceptable environmental harm which cannot be mitigated will result from the pub- lic access. • Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between any access provisions and the pro - • Bank modifications are allowed if they do not change the location of the ordinary high water mark for regulatory purposes. Requirements for Non -Water -Related Uses Setbacks. Buildings serving non -water -related uses must be set back a minimum of 60 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Parking and other normal site improvements may be located between 50 and 60 feet of the OHWM. Overwater Construction. Overwater construction is prohibited. Landscaping. A 10 -foot -wide landscape strip must be provided between the river environ- ment and site improvements. Native vegetation shall comprise a minimum of 30 percent of the materials in that landscape strip. Shoreline Stabilization. New vertical bulkheads are not allowed. Shoreline stabilization is allowed, provided it improves fish and/or upland habitat by increasing areas that become inundated during high tide, planting native vegetation, or other techniques recommended by a qualified habitat specialist. The proposed SMP (Appendix B) provides some guidelines for shoreline stabilization incorporating habitat restoration. As noted in Chapter 2, however, new shoreline stabilization and other work waterward of the OHWM are not SE4/1002E01A 5/15/97 4-16 CHAPTER 4 SHORELINE USE included in the MIC implementation plan and will remain subject to separate SEPA review, as well as to other applicable permitting requirements. Impervious Surface Area. No net increase in impervious surface area shall be allowed within the 40 -foot river environment unless it is a part of an approved shoreline stabilization proj- ect or the lost impervious surface area is mitigated through habitat restoration. There will be certain exemptions from this standard, such as roads, bridges, pedestrian paths, and utilities. Requirements for Redeveloping Uses Setbacks. Existing buildings and facilities may be reconstructed in their present location. New buildings and site improvements shall be set back on the basis of their classification as water -dependent, water -related, or non -water -related. Overwater Construction. Overwater reconstruction is allowed, provided the construction is contained within the footprint of the existing building that is being redeveloped. Landscaping. Where possible, a 10 -foot -wide landscape strip shall be provided between the river environment and improvements upland from the river environment. Native vegeta- tion shall comprise a minimum of 30 percent of the materials in that landscape strip. Shoreline Stabilization. Existing bulkheads may be replaced, provided they do not encroach further into the water. Unless otherwise necessary for the continued operation of the pre- existing use, any redevelopment of stabilization structures shall be designed to improve fish and upland habitat (see Appendix B). Impervious Surface Area. Redevelopment within the 40 -foot river environment shall not result in increased impervious surface area unless mitigated through habitat enhancement. There will be certain exemptions from this standard, such as roads, bridges, pedestrian paths, and utilities. Other Jurisdictions King County Shoreline Master Program As discussed above, the City administers the 1977 King County shoreline regulations and will continue to do so until a new SMP is adopted. MIC shorelines are subject to King County's Urban Environment designation. The goals, policies, and objectives of the King County SMP include general directives for this designation, several of which are applicable to the study area: • Emphasis should be given to developing visual and physical access to the shoreline in the urban environment (Policy 3). • To enhance the waterfront and ensure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities should be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities consistent with public safety and security (Policy 5). • Redevelopment and renewal of substandard areas should be encouraged in order to accommodate future users and make maximum use of the shoreline resource (Policy 6). SEA/1002E01A.DOC 5/15/97 4-17 CHAPTER 4 SHORELINE USE The King County shoreline regulations, summarized above in Table 4-1, include develop- ment standards for height, setbacks, and public access. The height limitation in the Urban Environment designation, unless the underlying zones are more restrictive, is 35 feet above average grade level (K.C.C. 25.16.030(B)). Provisions allow increased height if a substantial number of residential views are not obstructed, the height is allowed by the underlying zoning standards, and the use is water -dependent or water -related. Commercial and industrial development is permitted provided that it is also permitted in the underlying zone. Non -water -related commercial and industrial uses must maintain a shoreline setback of either 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark or 20 feet from the floodway, whichever is greater. Non -water -related industrial uses may further reduce the setback if access to the shoreline is provided. According to the King County shoreline regulations, "public access" means unobstructed access for the general public from land to the shoreline. "Limited public access" means that access to the shoreline is limited to specific groups of people or specific times, or that visual access is provided to the general public. The regulations require public access in the fol- lowing circumstances: Development proposed in shorelines of the state shall maintain setbacks, provide easements, or otherwise develop the site to permit a trail to be constructed or public access to continue where: • There is a proposed trail in the King County Trail System; or • Part of the site is being used and has historically been used for public access (K.C.C. 25.16.030(H) (1)(2)). In addition to these limited requirements to provide new public access, the regulations also offer incentives for voluntary provision of public access. The setbacks identified above for commercial and industrial uses in the Urban Environment designation can be decreased if public access is provided. The setback can be reduced to 20 feet from the ordinary high water mark or 10 feet from the edge of the floodway, whichever is greater, if the develop- ment provides limited public access. The setback can be reduced to 10 feet or the edge of the floodway if full public access is provided. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 and Section 10 Permits The Corps regulates projects occurring within waters of the United States, including wet- lands, under the authority of the Clean Water Act. The Section 404 permit is required for the discharge or excavation of dredged or fill material waterward of the ordinary high water mark (or, in tidal waters, the mean higher high tide line). Mechanized land clearing in waters of the United States is also subject to regulation through the Section 404 process. The Section 10 permit is required for any work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States and would be required for projects in the MIC downstream of the Turning Basin. Typically, the Corps permits are issued with a set of conditions designed to minimize and mitigate impacts to water quality and habitat. Restoration of disturbed areas to a condition equal to or better than their existing condition is generally required, with a monitoring plan used to ensure that the restoration is successful. SEAI1002E01A.DOC 5/15/97 4-18 CHAPTER 4 SHOREUNE USE Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification, Temporary Exceedance of Water Quality Standards Approval, and NPDES Construction Stormwater Discharge Permit Like the Section 404 permit, the Section 401 Water Quality Certification is issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act. It is required for all projects with a Section 404 permit and is approved in conjunction with 404 permit approval. The Temporary Exceedance of Water Quality Standards approval and the NPDES Con- struction Stormwater Discharge Permit are both used to minimize the potential impacts of project construction on water quality, primarily erosion and sedimentation into nearby sur- face waters and wetlands. Approvals require that a plan be prepared to specify methods for minimizing erosion and sedimentation, typically through the application of "best man- agement practices" such as the use of silt fences, covering of stockpiled soils, and prompt revegetation of disturbed areas. Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval The Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), administered by WDF&W, is perhaps the most important permit for the protection of aquatic resources and habitat. It is required for any project that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any fresh or salt water of the state. This includes all construction or other work waterward and over the ordinary high water mark, including dry channels, and may include projects landward of the ordinary high water mark if they have the potential for direct impacts on fish life and habitat. In addition to requiring restoration of lost habitat resulting from development proj- ects, the HPA specifies time periods when in -water work may and may not occur, based on the life cycles of fish species present in the water body. Impacts This section describes changes in shoreline use that would take place under the three pro- totype projects for the MIC implementation plan, as described in Chapter 2. These changes can generally be described as development or redevelopment consistent with existing plan- ning and zoning for the area. After the prototype site discussion, the overall implications of the MIC implementation plan for shorelines in the corridor are addressed. Issues raised by the prototype sites with respect to other land use plans and regulations are discussed in Chapter 3 of this document. Prototype Site 1 As described in Chapter 2, Prototype Site 1 would involve the development of 175,000 square feet of research and development, lab, and office uses in a single building located across South 112th Street from the Boeing Customer Service Center. The site borders the Duwamish River just north of the Green River Trail pedestrian bridge, adjacent to the North Wind Weir. As shown in Figure 2-4, the proposed 125 -foot -high building would be set back 60 feet or more from the shoreline edge, consistent with proposed Tukwila SMP require- ments; no impervious surface (e.g., parking) is proposed within the 40 -foot river environ- ment. Landscaping would be provided consistent with the MIC development standards in Table 4-1. SEA/1002E01 A.DOC 5/15/97 4-19 CHAPTER 4 SHORELINE USE Under the proposed development standards, the project would have to include either onsite employee public access or habitat restoration in lieu of such access. As described above under "Existing Conditions," the shoreline area of the site contains significant woody riparian vegetation and adjacent mudflats and is designated as a potential habitat restoration area (Site R-18) in the city's shoreline inventory. However, since habitat restora- tion is voluntary under the proposed regulations, the developer would be under no obliga- tion to substitute it for the access requirements. Furthermore, the proposed shoreline landscaping requirements would allow for removal of all native vegetation, as long as replacement vegetation requirements of the code were met, and no provisions exist in the SMP for direct replacement of riparian habitat loss through development. Thus, buildout of the site under the shoreline regulations as proposed could result in the elimination of riparian habitat identified as having high potential for restoration. If no work took place below the ordinary high water mark, permits from state and federal agencies would not be required, and there would be no additional regulatory basis for mandating mitigation. As discussed elsewhere in this chapter and Chapter 2, new shoreline stabilization and other new development waterward of the OHWM are not included in the MIC implementation plan. Such projects require careful consideration of habitat issues specific to the site and invoke a number of permitting processes by state and federal agencies, as described above; in these cases, the additional discretionary authority provided by SEPA is an invaluable tool in administering the balance between natural and built environments. For this reason, no bank or in -water improvements are assumed at Prototype Site 1. However, to test the potential for such impacts under the new regulations, a separate MIC shoreline impact analysis (Partee, 1997) was prepared for the City of Tukwila and is included as Appen- dix B-2. The result of this analysis was a set of design guidelines for shoreline stabilization improvements, included as Figures 3 through 6 in the proposed SMP (Appendix B-1). The guidelines demonstrate how habitat enhancement features can be incorporated into shore- line stabilization projects. Figure 6 of the SMP illustrates a treatment designed specifically for Prototype Site 1. Another impact of development under the new regulations, as compared to the King County SMP, is the elimination of the 35 -foot height restriction, with allowed heights reverting to the underlying zoning. The 125 -foot maximum height in the site's MIC/H zone district is almost four times that permissible under the existing regulations. Although, as noted in Chapter 3, the unified nature of the development and adherence to setback and landscaping standards could make the developed site more aesthetically pleasing than under existing conditions, the bulk and scale of the larger building would change the visual character of the shoreline area. Policy 5.3.1 of the Comprehensive Plan shoreline element calls for the development of river design guidelines; however, these guidelines are not cur- rently part of the proposed code. With the elimination of BAR design review, this would leave the MIC without design standards for shoreline development and in conflict with shoreline policy 5.5.2, which requires that such development be consistent with shoreline design guidelines and maintain or enhance existing visual quality along the river. Construction of the proposed facilities under this scenario would have the potential to result in short-term (construction period) and long-term (operational) impacts to water quality in the river. Stormwater runoff over exposed soils during construction could result in those soils being carried into the river in runoff, with possible effects including siltation in the river channel that would adversely affect aquatic habitat. During operation, storm- SEA/1002E01a.DOC 5/15/97 4-20 CHAPTER 4 SHOREUNE USE water runoff quantities and velocities would increase through the addition of impervious surfaces for buildings and parking. However, these impacts are not expected to be signifi- cant. Stormwater pollution prevention plans, required by Ecology and by the City's Land Alteration Ordinance (discussed in Chapter 6), require the use of best management prac- tices to minimize erosion and sedimentation. As the site is already developed, any increase in impervious surface would be small and would not produce significant increases in peak stormwater flows or velocities in the City's storm drainage system, where runoff would be channeled. Prototype Site 2 Prototype Site 2 lies entirely outside the shoreline area, and thus would have no impacts. Prototype Site 3 Shoreline development issues for Prototype Site 3 are generally similar to those for Site 1. In most instances the impacts of Site 3 redevelopment would be somewhat lower, since it would take place on an already fully developed facility and would not involve the potential for impacts to an identified habitat restoration area. The primary difference between the issues for Sites 1 and 3 would be redevelopment of the large overwater structure that cur- rently exists on the latter site. As discussed above, the proposed revisions to Tukwila's shoreline development standards allow for redevelopment of overwater construction, though they do not allow new con- struction over the water. Because the MIC/H height limits are proposed to apply through- out the shoreline zone regardless of distance from the water, the structure could be rebuilt on its current footprint to a height of 125 feet; this is the condition assumed for the scenario. The existing vertical bulkhead would also require reconstruction, another activity allowed for redevelopment but not for new projects. This would necessitate in -water work in the channel of the Duwamish Waterway, triggering requirements for the state and federal per- mits described above. The building height increase to 125 feet would be primarily an issue of aesthetic concern, which would best be addressed through adoption of riverfront design guidelines, as rec- ommended in the shoreline policies and discussed under Prototype Site 1. Although the greater height could cause a slight additional amount of shading in the waterway—a potential impact on fish habitat—such shading would be much less than if the overwater footprint of the building were increased. Restrictions on bulkhead replacement in the pro- posed shoreline regulations would ensure that the new bulkhead did not impinge farther into the waterway than the existing one and would further require that habitat be improved in conjunction with the replacement. Figure 2 from the proposed SMP (Appendix B-1) shows a design for providing habitat improvements in the redevelopment of overwater structures. Because the habitat next to the site is marginal, it is possible that the required habitat improvements would take place at an offsite location. The proposed shoreline development regulations suggest that opportunities exist for such offsite replacement, but do not include restoration design standards or establish specific linkages between the type of impact and the appropriate restoration activity and location. The requirements of the HPA and Section 404 permits may address some of these issues, but the most effective way for the City to SEA/1002E01 A.DOC 5/15/97 421 CHAPTER 4 SHOREUNE USE effect the restoration of identified sites would be through the development of more specific habitat restoration and enhancement guidelines that could be administered in tandem with these permitting processes. In its 1992 redevelopment proposal, the Boeing Company included provisions for employee public access as part of Site 2 redevelopment. Under the proposed Tukwila regulations this type of access would still be required, but could be replaced at Boeing's discretion by an equivalent square footage of habitat restoration. If this option were chosen, the additional habitat value provided at an offsite restoration site could increase the potential positive impacts of the project on the Duwamish ecosystem. Construction in the Duwamish Waterway at Prototype Site 3 for replacement of the existing bulkhead could result in a number of temporary impacts, including localized turbidity and disturbance of intertidal or subtidal sediments. Because of the long history of industrial activity along the waterway—much of it before the adoption of current regulations gov- erning the discharge of waste :materials into surface waters—sediments in the area are known to be contaminated with a variety of constituents, including metals, polycyclic aro- matic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and other substances. The disturbance of these sediments during bulkhead replacement may result in the resuspension of contaminants in the water column, with potentially toxic effects for aquatic organisms. Such impacts would be mini- mized, however, through the Section 401 and 404 permitting processes, which would specify as permit conditions construction techniques to reduce sediment disturbance. If deemed necessary, for example, the area immediately surrounding the bulkhead could be isolated by a cofferdam while work was taking place to contain disturbed sediments within a limited area. Any impacts during construction would be short-term; turbidity and any resuspended contaminants would subside when the work was complete. Corridor -Wide Issues As noted in Chapter 2, the prototype sites exemplify the likelihood that, under the MIC implementation plan, land uses in the corridor will intensify over time toward the limits allowed under current planning, zoning, and shoreline regulations. Within the MIC shore- line area, this has a number of implications: • Because of the elimination of the 35 -foot height limitation under the King County SMP, overall bulk and scale along the shoreline will increase over time. These increases will be most significant in the areas within the MIC/H zoning district, where heights of up to 125 feet are allowed (see Figure 3-2). The river design guidelines called for in the shoreline element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan would provide an avenue for addressing the aesthetic impacts of these changes in the shoreline zone. • As areas along the shoreline develop or redevelop, opportunities for increased protec- tion and/or restoration of habitat will be afforded by the proposed shoreline develop- ment standards. However, without clear specifications and standards for offsite habitat enhancement and provisions for preservation of onsite habitat in areas of identified value, cohesive and effective use of these opportunities may not be realized. • Current state and federal regulations and permits will continue to govern in -water work, affording aquatic resource protection not otherwise mandated by the City. SEA/1002E01A.000 5/15/97 4-22 5/15/97 CHAPTER 4 SHORELINE USE will be predictable for developers and enforceable by the City and will concentrate restoration activities in appropriate areas. • Incorporate compliance with federal and state regulations governing aquatic resources into the performance standards for the shoreline overlay district. • Incorporate regulations into the new Tukwila SMP that implement the intent of the SMP policy changes recommended in Appendix B-2 to protect and enhance aquatic habitat. • Incorporate policies and regulations into the new SMP to formalize implementation of the Green River Trail Plan and identify construction, improvements, or connections to the designated trail as a public access requirement for adjacent properties. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Under the planned action, the intensity and scale of development along the Duwamish River shoreline are likely to increase over time in a manner consistent with regional and local land use plans and policies. sea1002e01a.doc SEA/1002E01A.DOC 5/15/97 4-24 CHAPTER 5 Transportation Introduction A transportation analysis has been prepared for the MIC to assess the impacts of future de- velopment on supporting transportation systems serving it. The impact analysis includes a survey of existing conditions, a review of future background conditions, a study of cumula- tive effects associated with the implementation plan, and an analysis of mitigation meas- ures recommended to serve future development. Because the implementation plan would affect the processes involved in the city's devel- opment review effort, existing ordinances, standards, and processes may require revisions. This section addresses potential approaches that could be considered in adapting these processes to the planned action framework. Existing Conditions Vehicular Circulation Street System The arterial roadway system serving the study area is illustrated in Figure 5-1, which also shows Cities of Seattle and Tukwila roadway functional classifications and locations of traf- fic signals on roadways in the vicinity. Access between the project area and I-5, SR 99, and SR 599 is currently provided by East Marginal Way South, Pacific Highway South, South Boeing Access Road, 16th Avenue South, Airport Way South, and Interurban Avenue South. The South Boeing Access Road interchanges provide access to I-5 both north- and southbound. A full cloverleaf inter- change at 14th/16th Avenue South provides direct access to SR 99. The Oxbow interchange connects South 102nd Street to SR 99. It currently operates as a partial interchange, with northbound on- and off -ramps from SR 99. Pacific Highway South connects to SR 99 and SR 599 with a full -access interchange. Major east -west corridors within the study area are the South Boeing Access Road, East Marginal Way, and Pacific Highway South. The main east -west corridor along the south side of the study area is the South Boeing Access Road. This six- to seven -lane principal arterial provides direct access to I-5 and Pacific Highway South/SR 99. Parking is prohib- ited on both sides of the roadway, and the speed limit is posted at 30 mph. The roadway pavement is in fair condition, and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway. The intersection of South Boeing Access Road at East Marginal Way South/ Pacific High- way South is controlled by signal. West of East Marginal Way South, South Boeing Access Road becomes Pacific Highway South. This five -lane principal arterial provides direct access to SR 599. SEA/1002E01E1.DOC 5/15/97 5-1 139/6E.1O.EE • a4 of mt • figure 5.1.5.1591 • LW 'ounnon0000000000000 LEGEND Freeway Principal Arterial Minor Arterial 'ire NO III Collector Arterial • Signalized Intersection Source: City of Tukwila, City of Seattle, and WSDOT. Figure 5-1 Existing Roadway System CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION North -south corridors are East Marginal Way South, 16th Avenue South, and Airport Way South. East Marginal Way South is six lanes in Seattle with three northbound travel lanes, two southbound lanes, and a center two-way, left -turn lane. South of South 96th Place, the newly constructed East Marginal Way becomes a seven -lane roadway with two-way, left - channelized, left -turn lanes. North of the South Boeing Access Road, nine travel lanes are provided, five southbound and four northbound. The pavement surface is in good condi- tion, and the speed limit is posted at 35 mph. South of the South Boeing Access, East Mar- ginal becomes a two-lane collector arterial with fair pavement conditions. The principal arterial providing access from East Marginal Way South to SR 99 is 16th Ave- nue South. This arterial is a four -lane roadway with two travel lanes in each direction crossing the Duwamish River. Major intersections along 16th Avenue South are controlled by signals. There is a pedestrian tunnel crossing under 16th Avenue South at a Boeing en- trance, approximately 400 feet west of East Marginal Way South. The pavement surface is in good to fair condition, and the speed limit is 30 mph. South 112th Street provides east -west travel between South Pacific Highway and East Mar- ginal Way. Classified as a local access road, South 112th Street has signal control at Pacific Highway South and stop sign control at East Marginal Way. This is a two-lane roadway with sidewalks on both sides and a speed limit of 25 mph. The pavement is in fair to good condition. No access is provided on the north side of the road. South 112th street is owned by the City of Seattle at this.location, as a major water supply transmission line is located below the pavement. Use of the road by vehicular traffic is allowed via easement. Traffic Volumes Existing daily and peak -hour traffic volumes were based on the April 1991 data assembled from the East Marginal Way South Design Report (Entranco) and 1994 City of Seattle data. Traffic volumes were expanded to 1997 by applying the City of Tukwila traffic count con- trol data. The control data are recorded monthly at the following locations: • East Marginal Way South, south of the Museum of Flight • South Boeing Access Road, east of East Marginal Way • Pacific Highway South, north of South 139th Street The control data indicated that daily traffic volumes in the MIC area have decreased by ap- proximately 9 percent from 1991 to 1996. Figures 5-2 and 5-3 summarize the 1997 p.m. esti- mated peak hour traffic volumes for 2:30 to 3:30 and 5:00 to 6:00. Two peak hours are represented: one for Boeing Manufacturing shift changes, and another to address the stan- dard commuter peak. The daily arterial volumes range from a high of 34,800 vehicles per day (vpd) on South Boeing Access Road and 22,900 vpd on East Marginal Way South at the Museum of Flight to a low of approximately 3,300 vpd on South 112th Street and 8,700 vpd on East Marginal Way South, south of the South Boeing Access Road. The 2:30 to 3:30 and 5:00 to 6:00 afternoon peak -hour volumes on East Marginal Way typically range from 13 percent to 9 percent of the daily volumes, respectively. On the regional roadway system, I-5 has the highest volume of traffic in the project vicinity, carrying approximately 195,800 vpd north of the South Boeing Access Road. Other major facilities carry an average 30,600 vpd on SR 99, 40,000 vpd on SR 509, and 27,500 vpd on SEA/1002E01 B.DOC 5/15/97 5,3 Figure 5-2 Existing 1997 Traffic Volumes 2:30 to 3:30 PM Peak Hour 139759J19.EE • Gy of Tukwila • Flpure 5-3.5.15-97 • LW Figure 5-3 Existing 1997 Traffic Volumes 5:00 to 6:00 PM Peak Hour CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION SR 599. Traffic growth on major facilities has ranged from a 2 percent increase to a 1 percent decease annually over the past 5 years. Traffic on these roads is predominantly northbound during morning peak periods and predominantly southbound during afternoon peak periods. Level of Service (LOS) LOS is a concept developed to quantify the degree of comfort afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. The degree of comfort includes such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impedances caused by other vehicles. Six grades are used to denote the various levels of service. They range from LOS A, which represents the best condition where little or no delay is experi- enced, to LOS F, where extreme congestion is experienced. LOS F describes forced -flow op- eration at low speeds where traffic volumes exceed roadway capacity. These conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction downstream of the in- tersection. Speeds are reduced substantially, and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time. LOS F is reached when the stop delay at signalized and stop sign -controlled intersections exceeds 60 and 45 seconds, respectively. Some agencies have established LOS standards for roadways within their jurisdictions. LOS standards can differ by area of a city or neighborhood in response to land use or other pol- icy objectives (for example, allowing LOS F in a downtown area but not in neighborhoods). The City of Tukwila has adopted a minimum LOS standard of E for East Marginal Way South and Pacific Highway South in the MIC. For this analysis, the existing 1997 LOS at signalized intersections was estimated using the 1994 update of the Highway Capacity Manual. Results are presented in Table 5-1. TABLE 5-1 1997 PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary Study Intersections 2:30 to 3:30 PM 5:00 to 6:00 PM Delay LOS Delay LOS E. Marginal Way & 16th Ave. S. 15 C 16 C E. Marginal Way & S. Norfolk St. 12 B 10 B E. Marginal Way & Boeing Access Rd. 23 C 28 D Pacific Hwy. S. & S. 112th St. >60 F 18 C Pacific Hwy. S. & S. 116th On Ramp 12 B 11 B E. Marginal Way & Interurban Av. S. 7 B 7 B E. Marginal Way & S. 112th St.' 14 C 25 D Delay in seconds * Intersection is unsignalized Accidents The most current accident data gathered from the City of Tukwila covered January 1,1993, through December 31,1995. For the 3 -year period, there were 127 accidents on the arterial SEA/1002E018.DOC 5/15/97 5.6 CHAPTER TRANSPORTATION roadway system within the study area, an average of approximately 0.7 accident per day, with 72 injuries and no fatalities. Most of the accidents were right-angle or rear -end, typical of accident patterns for urban areas. The street section with the highest accident experience was along East Marginal Way South between South Boeing Access Road and South Norfolk Street, where there were 66 acci- dents over 3 years. Most of these accidents involved angular and head-on collisions. A total of 37, with no fatalities, was reported. No pedestrian accidents were reported. East Marginal Way from 1992 to 1995 experienced an average accident rate of 2.29 accidents per million vehicles miles. Parking There is no on -street parking along the principal arterial roadways in the vicinity of the study area. Surrounding neighborhoods typically allow on -street parking. There are currently about 18,000 parking spaces available for employees and visitors of the Boeing Company. All parking spaces are provided free of charge, although some locations are assigned and require special permits. Estimates of existing peak parking demand were calculated by dividing actual first -shift employee population (estimated at 17,000) by the observed average vehicle occupancy (AVO) of 1.2 persons per vehide. This rate is based on surveys conducted by the Boeing Company and Entranco in June 1991. Existing peak parking demand for long- and short- term spaces is approximately 12,400 spaces. This indicates an existing surplus of 5,600 spaces. Peak parking demand is likely to occur at shift change, when first -shift workers are yet to leave and second -shift workers are just arriving. Transit Service Transit service in the study area is provided by Metro. There are 11 bus routes serving the MIC. The bus route numbers include: 34, 40, 60, 108, 124, 154, 170, 173, 174, 184, 246. Direct service is provided to the University District, Capitol Hill, downtown Seattle, Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Issaquah, Renton, Kent, Sea -Tac, Allentown, Tukwila, Des Moines, Federal Way, and Georgetown. Other routes require transfer via downtown Seattle. For the most part, service is provided from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily, including weekends. Evening and late-night service is provided on some routes. Peak -hour service is good, with buses traveling to many urban locations in King County at 15- to 30 -minute intervals. Routes 124 and 174 are regular routes; the remainder are rush-hour routes. Service to outly- ing urban areas of the county is generally commuter -oriented. Off-peak service to many outlying areas is less frequent or not available. Non -Motorized Travel Pedestrian signals and crosswalks operate in selected directions at some signalized inter- sections in the study area. Crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads are not present at every leg of every intersection. Sidewalks are intermittent along the length of the corridor. Cur- rently, continuous sidewalk is provided on South Pacific Highway from South 112th Street to the Duwamish River bridge. Covered walkways are occasionally provided from transit stops and parking lots. Pedestrian walking distances are typically long, up to 1,000 feet SEA11002E01B.DOC 5/15/97 5-7 CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION from parking lots to the work site, and longer from transit stops to work sites. There are two pedestrian tunnels across East Marginal Way South. In the MIC, East Marginal Way and South Pacific Highway are designated for future bike trails. Goods Movement Rail Transportation A major railroad line is located just east of Airport Way South. This line connects the major rail facilities in Renton and Tukwila with railyards in the Duwamish industrial area. Spur lines run north -south along the west side of East Marginal Way South, serving the indus- trial area between the Duwamish River and East Marginal Way South and the study area. Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad provides freight service to industrial sites on an as - needed basis one to two times per day, 7 days per week. No other railroad companies op- erate along this spur line, which extends south almost to the Museum of Flight. Truck Traffic There is convenient access for trucks from the study area to I-5 and SR 99. Truck traffic along East Marginal Way South constitutes approximately 1 to 9 percent of the total traffic; truck traffic volumes within the study area range from 1 to 20 percent of the total traffic. Air Transportation The proximity of the Sea -Tac and King County (Boeing Field) airports provides easy and direct access to air cargo facilities. Boeing Field is located within the study area. It serves as a base for many private aircraft and as a center for Boeing commercial and military test flights. The airport is occasionally used to accommodate commercial airliners diverted from Sea -Tac Airport due to unexpected weather conditions. Planned and Programmed Improvements A number of transportation system improvements in the study area are planned by King County, the City of Seattle, and the City of Tukwila. Descriptions of the planned improve- ments are provided below. BN/SF Rail Yard The BNSF rail yard is located in the southeast corner of the MIC. Access to the yard is cur- rently provided by South 124th Street, a two-lane road that requires trucks bound for the yard to travel through a single-family residential area and between the residences and the new Tukwila Community Center complex (48,000 -square -foot community center, softball field, tennis courts, trail access, play area, and soccer field). South 124th Street currently carries about 7,000 vehicle trips per day, with about 1,300 (19 percent) being heavy truck trips. The City of Tukwila projects a 3 percent compound annual growth rate for all vehicle trips. This would be about 12,000+ trips on South 124th Street in 2015. Level of service at the 42nd Avenue/South 124th Street intersection is currently LOS F. With signalization, the 2015 LOS is projected to be LOS B. Level of service at the 50th Place SEA/1002E018.000 5/15/97 5.8 CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION South/South 124th Street intersection is currently LOS C, and is anticipated to be LOS F in 2015. LOS F is an unacceptable level of operation. BN/SF currently estimates about 1,600 truck trips per day between 42nd Avenue South and the rail yard, with as much as an annual average 3 percent growth rate over the next 5 years (=15 percent) increase in truck traffic. This is an estimated 1,840 truck trips per day by 2003. If the City's compound annual growth rate is applied, the resulting estimate would be similar (i.e., 1,854 trips). BNSF and city traffic projections are consistent, at least over the next 5 years. A significant conflict exists between truck access to the rail yard and the residential recrea- tional, and pedestrian traffic generated by the single family housing and community center, by both current and projected traffic volumes. The level of conflict should be expected to significantly increase as a result of Allentown redevelopment to about twice its existing, single family density. What, if any, improvements can be implemented to mitigate these conflicts to an acceptable level should be explored further in conjunction with BNSF staff. No design solutions for South 124th Street are readily apparent at this time. Options to provide for adequate traffic flow and pedestrian safety include a new bridge across the river from the Gateway industrial area (identified in the City's 6 -year Capital Improvement Plan), or a north access to Airport Way or Boeing Access Road. A third option, suggested by BNSF, would be to improve the current S. 124th Street access route, to address existing negative impacts. In the interim, the City is pursuing a commitment from BNSF to cooperatively explore alternative solutions. Pacific Highway South Duwamish River Bridge The Pacific Highway South bridge will be replaced with a five -lane section bridge with trail and sidewalk. Pacific Highway South and South 116th Street Pacific Highway South will be widened to provide southbound dual left turn lanes onto the SR 599 on-ramp, as well as ramp revisions to better accommodate terms and meet design standards. The city anticipates a combination of funding from previous mitigation require- ments and grant funding for this project. 16th Avenue South Bridge The 16th Avenue South bridge over the Duwamish River has deteriorated and will have to be reconstructed or closed. This project is currently under study by King County and the City of Tukwila. The exact alignment for the new structure has not yet been determined. The Tukwila Transportation Plan update, currently underway, will provide additional in- formation on this issue, including an estimate of the origins and destinations of vehides using the bridge. This origin and destination study will be important in helping determine Tukwila's appropriate role in funding ongoing costs for the bridge's operation. Options in- clude significant participation by the city in the major renovation or reconstruction of the bridge; continued funding of the bridge's annual operation and maintenance costs (now split evenly with King County); or reduced funding compared to current levels. Insufficient funding for bridge operation and maintenance raises the real possibility of bridge closure for safety reasons. SEA 1002E01B.DOC 5/15/97 5-9 CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION The City Council will review the origin and destination study results and will determine which option or combination of options to pursue after further discussions with nearby jurisdictions, area businesses, and citizens. Interstate 5 HOV Improvements In the project vicinity, inside HOV lanes exist from Seattle through Tukwila to SR 516 in Des Moines. WSDOT currently is extending inside HOV lanes south to Pierce County. This proj- ect is currently under construction. Regional Transit System In November 1996, voters in the urbanized portions of King, Pierce and Snohomish Coun- ties approved creation of a Regional Transit Authority (RTA) to implement commuter rail service, construct light rail transit (LRT), and operate regional bus services. The RTA ex- pects to initiate commuter rail service between Seattle and Tacoma by the year 2000, using the Burlington Northern -Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad corridor that runs adjacent to Airport Way South. The RTA plan includes a commuter rail station location in the vicinity of the Boeing Access Road. Construction of the LRT facilities would begin after the year 2000. The line would extend from the University District to Capitol Hill and downtown Seattle, and then continue south along Rainier Avenue to the Boeing Access Road and to SeaTac Airport. At the Boeing Access Road location, a shared commuter rail/LRT station may be developed to facilitate intermodal transfers. As noted in Chapter 2 of this EIS, the siting of a rail maintenance yard, commuter rail sta- tion, or shared commuter rail/LRT station could have significant implications for the MIC, for Tukwila, and for the region. Specific concerns related to potential RTA facilities near the Boeing Access Road include possible loss of tax base and introduction of potentially signifi- cant congestion on a major access route to and from the MIC, an industrial area that relies heavily on truck access for movement of goods into and out of the Duwamish Corridor. To the south, two alternative routes are being considered. One would continue along SR 99 to SeaTac. The other would route the LRT along Interurban Avenue and Pacific Highway South. Issues related to LRT alignments and station locations will be determined in a series of engineering and environmental studies to be conducted over the next 4 years. Existing Plans and Regulations The City of Tukwila employs a variety of tools in processing development applications by landowners. Traditionally, these processes included the application of zoning standards, the issuance of building permits, and enforcement of health and safety criteria for infra- structure. With the adoption of SEPA in 1971, and its 1984 implementing rules, local gov- ernments were given the authority to review area -wide impacts to the natural and manmade environments and to establish mitigation requirements for individual develop- ment projects. SEPA, in its evolution over the last two decades, has become the cornerstone of development review functions in many communities, Tukwila included. Under SEPA, transportation issues are frequently analyzed through the checklist submittal which documents the site access, parking, and trip -making characteristics of a development proposal. Small projects are frequently exempt from further review under SEPA. Larger SEA/1002E01 B.DOC 5/15/97 5-10 CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION projects may require submitting an expanded checklist or a full EIS that addresses a wide range of transportation policy topics, project -related issues, and cumulative and secondary impacts. These concerns are generally identified during the public scoping process and form the basis for the subsequent transportation analysis. Typically, the SEPA transportation analysis encompasses vehicular traffic flow, including capacity and safety, transit modes, truck travel, bicycle and pedestrian travel, and parking supply and demand. For some projects, rail, air, and water transportation also are ad- dressed. Mitigation for adverse impacts often consists of frontage improvements, dedication of right-of-way for street widening, or street or signal improvements at some distance from the site. In its analysis of impacts and mitigation, SEPA has provided the basis for determining ex- actions related to individual development projects. These exactions represent the fair share contribution to mitigation established in the traffic analysis. As public funding for transpor- tation projects diminished during the 1980s, SEPA was increasingly used to secure private participation in street and roadway projects. Some communities further formalized these processes by establishing fee schedules for new development that would fund citywide or districtwide transportation improvements. With the passage of the Growth Management Act in 1990, cities were required to develop and adopt comprehensive plans, including land use and transportation elements. A capital improvement plan was required to assure that transportation improvements were finan- cially feasible. The act also established criteria for formal adoption of impact fees for public services. The GMA also introduced the concept of concurrency into planning for the transportation infrastructure. Broadly translated, this means that transportation improvements associated with development should be in place at roughly the time of occupancy of the project. In practice, the Act specified that improvements be implemented within 6 years of project completion, recognizing the complexities of public works programming and staged con- struction of many development projects. The 6 -year time frame also represents the typical planning cycle for an annual update of the transportation improvement plan for many communities. In Tukwila, the concurrency requirements are embodied in Ordinance No. 1769. It sets level of service standards to be maintained on major corridors within the city. These standards apply, in some cases, to average levels of service at the intersections and links along the cor- ridor. On East Marginal Way north of South 112th Street to the city limit, and on Pacific Highway South from South 152nd Street to Boeing Access Road, a minimum LOS E is set. Requirements for traffic studies are established in the concurrency ordinance. Projects with more than five peak -hour trips must include studies and are subject to the city's mitigation fees. The mitigation payment schedule is included in the transportation element of the city's Comprehensive Plan and is updated periodically. The schedule provides for fair share payments dedicated to street improvements in each of several districts or corridors within the city. No fee schedule currently exists in the MIC zone. Payment under the fee schedule satisfies obligations to contribute to area -wide improve- ments identified in the transportation plan. Other site access and frontage improvements serving the site are the responsibility of the property owner. These improvements must be SEAI1002E01 B.DOC 5/15/97 5-11 CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION in compliance with the provisions of the city's design standards for construction in the public right-of-way. The City of Tukwila's infrastructure design and construction standards address requirements for street width, curb radii, pavement thickness, and other construc- tion details. The city's zoning code regulates off-street parking and loading design. It specifies the num- ber of required parking and loading spaces, including handicapped parking, and standards for their layout. It also specifies standards for driveway location. Other aspects of driveway layout are subject to approval by the Public Works Director. A separate ordinance specifies the locations and widths of sidewalks.. In instances where an individual development creates adverse capacity or safety impacts, requiring improvements beyond those anticipated in the transportation plan, those im- provements become the full responsibility of the developer. Such improvements can be fi- nanced through a latecomer's agreement in which the developer can recover a share of the investment in infrastructure improvements from subsequent beneficiaries of the improve- ment. Alternatively, the developer can postpone the project until actions to fund the capac- ity or safety improvements are taken. Impacts Introduction The implementation plan for the Tukwila MIC will provide for expedited review of indi- vidual development projects without the requirement for specific project -level SEPA review for those projects that conform with this MIC subarea plan. This study constitutes the SEPA analysis for the cumulative transportation impacts of future development in the zone. Future activity in the MIC could consist of development of the few remaining vacant par- cels or redevelopment of existing uses. The allowable uses in the district include manufac- turing, warehousing, research and development, and offices. Office uses are generally constrained to less than 20 percent of the floor area. Many workers in the district are em- ployed in shifts. For the transportation analysis, future conditions are examined for 2010, with and without the proposed implementation plan. Future background conditions for vehicular traffic were developed using growth rate techniques and include a comparison with projections from area -wide traffic forecasting models. These projections consider future traffic operations during the afternoon peak and the evening commute hours. The project analysis makes use of three prototype scenarios intended to demonstrate the range of potential uses for typical sites in the district. Prototypes were selected to represent both development and redevelopment. The methodology was developed to produce a worst-case analysis of future traffic conditions. Trip generation rates were selected to pro- duce a conservative analysis, and no downward adjustments were made to reflect existing uses of the prototype sites. The analysis also examines the impacts of truck and goods movement and effects on transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Finally, the analysis considers revisions in the development review process that may be warranted to replace those functions that currently operate within the SEPA framework. SEAI1002E01B.DOC 5/15/97 5-12 CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION No Action Alternative Vehicular Circulation Employment Levels. The current 1997 employment level of The Boeing Company within the Duwamish study area is approximately 17,000. To estimate potential impacts on the MIC's transportation infrastructure, a conservative assumption was adopted that between 1997 and 2010 the work force at Boeing's Duwamish corridor facilities would increase by ap- proximately 8,000 employees, or 47 percent, over current employment. This growth of 8,000 employees was assumed to include 3,265 new employees at Prototype Site 3, and 4,735 new employees located elsewhere in the MIC. Of the total growth, approximately 60 percent of the new employment (4,800) was assumed to be manufacturing, which affects the 2:30 to 3:30 afternoon peak hour. Forty percent of the new employment (3,200) was assumed to be research and development, affecting the 5:00 to 6:00 evening peak. Under the No Action alternative, new Boeing employment of 4,735 employees was as- sumed, with 3,360 in the 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. peak hour and 1,375 employees in the 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. peak. All projections of future baseline traffic volumes are based on these assumptions. Other employment growth under the No Action alternative is assumed to be included in the estimate of growth of background traffic volumes in the corridor. Street System. The existing street system is currently being improved by widening East Marginal Way South. Traffic Volumes. Traffic volumes were developed for 2010 p.m. peak hours by using the growth projections for Boeing and adding them to 0.5 percent annual growth factored exist- ing 1997 traffic volumes. The growth factor accounts for unspecified growth in the corridor and is representative of historic growth on the surrounding state route system. The total 2010 "No Build" traffic volumes represent approximately 1 to 2 percent annual growth in the area. Trip generation for the No Action alternative was derived from the trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, Fifth Edition. The trip generation rates for each land use type are summarized in Table 5-2. TABLE 5-2 Trip Generation Rates Land Use Unit Daily PM Peak Total % IN % OUT Manufacturing Employees 3.85 0.39 53 47 Research & Development Employees 7.7 0.41 15 85 Trip distribution for the No Action alternative was developed from the City of Tukwila travel demand model for the North Duwamish Corridor access options. A select zone analysis was conducted to formulate a regional distribution of Boeing employment. The fu- ture No Build distribution and traffic volumes are illustrated in Figures 54 & 5-5 for both p.m. peak hours. SEA/1002E01 B.DOC 5/15/97 5-13 139766J19.EE • lay of Tukwila • Figure 5-4.5-15.97 • LW LEGEND )oc Traffic Volumes ® Boeing Percent Distribution Figure 5-4 2010 No Build Traffic Volumes 2:30 to 3:30 PM Peak Hour 5-14 139766.AO.EE • Cny of Ti*Wih • figure 5.5.5.15.97 • LW LEGEND roc Traffic Volumes ® Boeing Percent Distribution Figure 5-5 2010 No Build Traffic Volumes 5:00 to 6:00 PM Peak Hour 5-15 CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION Level of Service. Estimated LOS at selected roadway segments for the 2010 No Action alter- native are shown in Table 5-3. With the newly constructed improvements along East Mar- ginal Way South, the arterial would continue to operate at LOS C or better along segments north of the South Boeing Access Road. South of the South Boeing Access Road, East Mar- ginal Way South would drop to LOS D in the 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. peak. South Boeing Access Road, Airport Way South, 16th Avenue South, Pacific Highway South, and South Cloverdale Street would change from the current LOS D to LOS E or F. Inter- state 5, South Michigan Street, and the First Avenue South bridge would continue to oper- ate at LOS E or F. All other roadways within the study area would remain at LOS D or better. TABLE 5-3 Estimated No Action LOS for 2010 CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION Proposed Action Description of Prototypes The proposed action is investigated through the examples of the three prototypes, illustrat- ing representative development proposals at three sites in the MIC. Refer back to Figure 2-1 for the location of the three prototype sites; sample site layouts and driveway locations are described in Chapter 2. The following land uses and square footages are assumed: TABLE 5-4 Square Footage by Land Use Uses Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Office Warehouse Manufacturing Research&Development Laboratory Parking Required Parking Provided 35,000 SF 70,000 SF 70,000 SF 437 spaces 525 spaces 73,000 SF 58,500 SF 126 spaces 135 spaces 750,000 SF 700,000 SF 1,450 spaces 600 spaces onsite; 900+ offsite Vehicular Circulation Street System. The street system would be the same as for the No Action alternative, includ- ing widening East Marginal Way South. Trip Generation. Increased volumes of traffic with the proposed prototypes was determined using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication, Trip Generation 5th Edi- tion,1991. The trip rates and generation for each alternative are shown in the Tables 5-5 and 5-6. Except for trips generated for Site 3 manufacturing, all p.m. trips generated will affect the 5:00 to 6:00 peak. The manufacturing trips are part of Boeing redevelopment and affect the 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. peak. TABLE 5-5 Trip Generation Rates Land Use PM Peak Unit Daily Total % IN % OUT Office Warehouse Manufacturing Research & Development/Lab SF SF SF SF (1) 4.88 3.85 7.7 (2) 0.74 0.75 1.07 17 83 35 65 53 47 15 85 (1) Ln(T) = 0.756 Ln(x) + 3.756 (2) Ln(T) = 0.737 Ln(x) + 1.831 T=Trips,x=1000sf SEA/1002E01 B 5/15/97 5-17 CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION TABLE 5-6 Trip Generation Daily PM Peak In Out Land Use Size Unit (veh/day) Total (veh/hr) (veh/hr) Site 1 Office 35,000 SF 630 86 15 71 R&D 70,000 SF 540 75 11 64 LAB 70,000 SF 540 75 11 64 Site 2 Office 73,000 SF 1,100 147 25 122 Warehouse 58,500 SF 290 43 15 28 Site 3 Manufacturing 750,000 SF 2,890 565 299 266 Lab 700,000 SF 2,700 750 112 638 Trip Distribution. Trip distribution for the proposed action would follow the same patterns as in the No Action alternative. The trip generation figures were combined with the trip distri- bution patterns to produce the site trips in each of the p.m. peak hours. Total site trips are presented in Figures 5-6 for the 2:30 to 3:30 peak and Figure 5-7, 5-8 and 5-9 for the 5:00 to 6:00 peak. Cumulative Traffic Assignment. Each p.m. peak hour site trip generation was combined with the appropriate 'No Build" condition to summarize the cumulative 2010 Build condition, as illustrated in Figure 5-10 and 5-11. Typical traffic volume increases over existing volumes range from 2 to 3 percent annually. Level of Service. Projected LOS along selected roadway segments are presented in Table 5-7. Most roadway segments would remain unchanged as compared to the No Action alterna- tive. East Marginal Way South would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) north of South Boeing Access Road. The intersection of Pacific Highway South and South 116th Ave/SR 599 on-ramp would deteriorate from LOS C or better to LOS D. The intersection of Pacific Highway South and South 112th Street would continue to operate at LOS F from 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. ,but would drop from LOS C to LOS F from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. The =signalized intersection of East Marginal Way and South 112th Street would operate at LOS F in both p.m. peaks. All conditions in Table 5-7 that are bold are defined as un- acceptable; improvements at the following intersections will be necessary, unless the city determines that the corridors "average LOS" is at LOS E or better: • Pacific Highway South and South 112th Street • East Marginal Way and 112th Street SEA/1002E01B.DOC 5/15/97 5-18 CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION TABLE 5-7 PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary 2010 No Action 2010 Buildout 2:30 to 3:30 PM 5:00 to 6:00 PM 2:30 to 3:30 PM 5:00 to 6:00 PM Study Intersections Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS E. Marginal Way & 16th Ave. S. 24 C 18 C 25 C 21 C E. Marginal Way & S. Norfolk St. 16 C 11 C 18 C 12 B E. Marginal Way & Boeing Access Rd. 28 D 30 D 32 D 31 D Pacific Hwy. S. & S. 112th St. >60 F 24 F >60 F >60 F Pacific Hwy. S. & S. 116th On Ramp 15 B 13 B 20 C 16 16 E. Marginal Way & Interurban Av. S. 7 B 7 B 7 B 8 8 E. Marginal Way & S. 112th St.' 22 D >45 F >45 F >45 F Delay in Seconds Intersection is unsignalized Parking Sites 1 and 2 will provide adequate parking in excess of city code requirements. With the redevelopment of Site 3, total Boeing employment will reach 25,000, and the estimated parking demand will be 18,200 spaces. The Existing and No Build parking supply is esti- mated at 18,000; 2010 conditions thus produce a 200 -space shortfall. Site 3 will add 200 spaces to the parking supply to eliminate the short -fall., Transit As employment grows in the MIC, additional riders will be attracted to transit. If the mode share of transit remains at about 10 percent of day -shift employees, an increase in employ- ment of 8,000 jobs would generate about 800 additional riders, or 1,600 transit trips daily. These trips would be distributed among the 11 bus routes using E. Marginal Way in this area. Some routes provide excess capacity and could accommodate marginal increases in ridership. On other routes, larger buses or more frequent service may be required. In the short term, transit ridership is likely to rise gradually in response to employment in- creases. Implementation of commuter rail service between Seattle and Tacoma could draw riders both from private vehicles and from bus routes. The potential station location is re- mote from actual employment sites, and employees are unlikely to walk. Shuttle functions between the station and employment sites could be served by revising existing bus routes or adding new shuttle service. Initially, commuter rail will provide service only in peak commute hours and at intervals of about 30 minutes. Existing bus routes and schedules are expected to be unaffected by the commuter rail service, except as noted above. In the longer term, with implementation of LRT service, extensive revisions to bus routes and schedules could be expected. Bus routes operating in the LRT corridor may be revised SEA/1 002E01 B.DOC 5/15/97 5-19 CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION to feed riders to the LRT stations. Other bus routes serving the MIC could be eliminated or revised extensively. Because LRT will operate more frequently and over longer hours than commuter rail, MIC employees living near the LRT corridor may find it an attractive commute option. Transit mode split might increase beyond the 10 percent share observed today. In that case, fewer vehicular trips would be generated by uses within the MIC. Given the distance between the shared commuter rail/LRT station and the employment centers, shuttle service is likely to be required. Goods Movement Truck Traffic. The increase in employment is expected to generate an increase in truck traffic of approximately 3 percent over the No Action Alternative, assuming truck traffic increases in proportion to the general traffic volume increase. Rail Transportation. There would be no change from existing conditions. Air Transportation. There would be no change from existing conditions. Nonmotorized Transportation. Sidewalks are required for all private and public projects by the zoning code. Each site design would incorporate pedestrian -friendly features such as walkways to transit stops and parking lots. Studies have shown that the maximum distance a transit patron will walk to a transit station is 1,000 feet. Shortest -path pedestrian routes and convenient pedestrian access improve the accessibility and desirability of transit. Pedestrian routes should be direct, clean, safe, adequately lit, and covered, where appro- priate. Bicycle routes are designated along major facilities along the corridor. Sheltered bicycle parking and employee facilities should be provided with the proposed project. Mitigation Measures Intersection/Street Improvements By 2010 it is estimated that the Tukwila MIC will generate 25,000 new daily vehicle trips to the adjacent street network, with approximately 2,100 and 1,900 trips occurring during the 2:30 and 5:00 p.m. peaks. To accommodate the increases in traffic generated from new pro- posed projects, several mitigation measures are possible to improve traffic operations, safety, capacity, and levels of service at city intersections and access to new developments. These measures are described briefly below. Pacific Highway South and South 112th Street In the 2010 cumulative condition, this intersection operates at LOS F in both 2:30 and 5:00 p.m. peaks. The LOS can be improved to LOS D in both peaks by providing a pro- tected/permissive signal phase for east/west traffic. This would include installation of sig- nal head and system wiring. SEA11002E01B 5/15/97 5-20 CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION East Marginal Way and 112th Street In the 2010 cumulative condition, this unsignalized intersection operates at LOS F in both 2:30 and 5:00 p.m. peaks. The LOS can be improved to LOS B in both peaks with the instal- lation of a traffic signal and intersection channelization. Access Management Management of access along arterial routes provides a mechanism for protecting the capac- ity of the route and creating orderly access to adjacent properties. A formal program of ac- cess management minimizes disruption to through traffic by eliminating unnecessary driveways, creating shared driveways, adopting driveway spacing standards, prohibiting turns or dosing the median, and restricting signal locations. These and other related meas- ures can mitigate adverse impacts associated with increasing traffic volumes. Currently, permits are required for curb cuts onto city streets. Driveway spacing standards in the zoning code require only that the curb cut be at least 20 feet from the nearest inter- section. Other driveway design criteria are applied by the City Engineer in assessing curb cut locations, using engineering judgment to avoid offset opposing driveways, which can create queuing conflicts in center, left -turn lanes. Along East Marginal Way north of Boeing Access Road, development patterns are estab- lished, and many access locations are signalized. Additional signals are not desirable be- cause closer signal spacing would impair traffic operations. Boeing Access Road is provided with full access control, so no opportunity exists to develop local access. Along Pacific Highway South, the focus of local access will be the signalized intersection of 112th Street. Future driveways may be developed, but turning movements may need to be restricted. On East Marginal Way to the south, local access can be permitted by using a center, two- way, left -turn lane. This widening would allow through traffic to flow without interruption by left turns into driveways. Transportation Demand Management Transportation demand management (TDM) comprises a set of techniques that reduces demand for travel in single -occupant vehicles (SOVs). These measures indude rideshare matching, preferential carpool parking, vanpool formation, and transit incentives such as transit pass subsidies. Such programs can contribute to reduced congestion, less energy consumption, and improved air quality. The statewide commute trip reduction requirements for large employers to implement TDM programs have been somewhat effective in reducing SOV travel. The original targets have been rescinded, and parts of the program are voluntary. Boeing operates a transportation management plan to encourage alternative commute modes. Commute activity also can be managed through assignments of workers to shifts, and by flextime or alternative work schedules. These measures alter commute times without affect- ing overall demand. SEA/1002E01B.DOC 5/15/97 5-21 CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION TDM measures are typically most effective when applied in large employment centers where opportunities for ridesharing are available, and transit service is a viable alternative. Employers benefit by devoting less total area to parking. Processes Under Proposed Action The planned action process will change the development review procedures for projects within the MIC. Development applications that conform to the subarea plan will not be analyzed through additional SEPA review. In this section, the permitting needs of this re- vised process are examined as they relate to transportation impact mitigation. Thresholds The City's concurrency ordinance presently specifies that projects generating five or more peak -hour vehicle trips are subject to fair -share, impact mitigation fees. Most projects an- ticipated in the MIC would surpass this threshold and would, therefore, be eligible for payment of fees. However, a fee program is not currently in place for the MIC. The mitiga- tion analysis for the study area reveals two intersection projects that will be needed in the future to support growth in the MIC. A fee schedule could be developed for the MIC district based on the costs of the improvements and the tripmaking characteristics of new de- velopment projects. Alternatively, a discretionary review could be required for proposals that increase conges- tion at the two intersections (S. 112th Street at East Marginal Way S., and S. 112th Street at Pacific Highway S.) by more than a specified additional delay. The proposed action in- cludes a recommendation that projects that would increase the estimated delay at the two intersections by more than 30 seconds during the afternoon peak hour undergo SEPA re- view of impacts and mitigation. For projects that would increase the estimated delay by between 15 and 30 seconds at either of the two intersections, the proposed action's recom- mendation is that SEPA review of impacts and mitigation be required at the discretion of the city's SEPA official. SEPA review will allow the city to require mitigation. Guidelines for Site -Specific Studies Under the MIC implementation plan, the traffic analyses traditionally undertaken through SEPA would no longer be required for projects conforming to the MIC subarea plan. The systemwide aspects of future traffic growth are addressed in this EIS; however, site-specific layouts and design details for future development proposals are currently unknown. For this reason, future projects in the MIC should include preparation of a traffic study of limited scope to consider site-specific design details. The traffic study requirement should be formalized through the City's concurrency ordi- nance. Development projects in the MIC would have a requirement to prepare these studies at the time of application. Topics that should be included in the traffic study are outlined below: • Submit site plan showing building area, access points, and parking layout. • Obtain or conduct traffic count at the dosest arterial intersection(s). SEA/1002E018.DOC 5/15/97 5-22 CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION • Estimate trip generation, trip distribution, and traffic assignment for the year of opening. • Prepare intersection capacity analysis for the opening year at study intersections and at proposed driveway locations. • Determine site access and frontage improvement needs. City staff would review the site-specific traffic studies to assess the adequacy of the access plan and its conformance with design standards. Issues related to sight distance and safety also could be addressed through this mechanism. Driveway Standards Some communities have developed standards regulating the location and spacing of drive- ways. Typically, these standards address the number of driveways, their distances from adjacent intersections, driveway width, spacing between adjacent driveways, and align- ment with driveways across the street. The current zoning code and design standards ad- dress several of these issues. Additional standards are recommended for incorporation into the design standards, as indicated in Figure 5-12. Frontage Improvements Improvements along the site frontage are regulated by the design standards and sidewalk ordinance. These improvements can be identified through the site-specific traffic study. No other revisions are proposed. Assessment of Concurrency The level of development proposed for the MIC for 2010 can be accommodated by the street system, with the mitigation measures noted. Levels of service on the arterial and collector streets will comply with the applicable LOS standards. The City has adopted a mitigation payment system that can be expanded to recoup fair share contributions related to project impacts. Through the mechanism of the site-specific traffic study, any potential deterioration of in- tersection LOS can be identified at the permit application stage. The existing concurrency ordinance provides for actions to protect LOS, including expansion of street capacity through a latecomer's agreement, application of TDM measures, or deferral of the project. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • Traffic volumes will increase. • Total accidents may increase. • Transit ridership increases may require additional transit service. sea1002E01B.DOC SEA/1002E01B.DOC 5/15/97 5-23 199766AO.EE • Qty o1 Tukwila • Figur. 5.4.5-15.97 • LW Figure 5-6 Site 3 Project Traffic 2:30 to 3:30 PM Peak Hour 5-24 199759AOIE • Lib of Tukwila • Nun 5.7.5.15.97 • lW LEGEND roc Project Trips ® Project Distribution Figure 5-7 Site 1 Project Traffic 5:00 to 6:00 PM Peak Hour 5-25 139768.80.EE • OW al Tukwila • Fipun 5-9.5.15.97 • LW LEGEND xx Project Trips ® Project Distribution Figure 5-8 Site 2 Project Traffic 5:00 to 6:00 PM Peak Hour 5-26 139766A0.EE • Oty of Tukwila • Flours 5.9. 5-1517 • IN LEGEND roc Project Trips ® Project Distribution Figure 5-9 Site 3 Project Traffic 5:00 to 6:00 PM Peak Hour 5-27 Figure 5-10 2010 Total Traffic Volume 2:30 to 3:30 PM Peak Hour 5-28 139790.A9.EE • qry 01 Tukwila • Nun 5.11.5-15-97 • LW �w r1R NORTH S. NoRFou< 5T. �L..36S 'ter V , .- 0 to v. Alt • oJ'q�3oy 4147eiv.4'v, 23 � Ss -14 ri+ Figure 5-11 2010 Total Traffic Volume 5:00 to 6:00 PM Peak Hour 5-29 139766AO.EE • City of Tukwila • Figure 5-12.5.16-97 • LW MINIMUM ACCESS POINT SPACING — COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL (Feet)O© ROADWAY® SPEED (mph) DIMENSION A ARTERIALS® NON -ARTERIALS® DIMENSION B® ARTERIALS NON -ARTERIALS DIMENSION C ® ARTERIALS NON -ARTERIALS 25 30 35 40 45 105 125 150 185 230 35 40 45 50 50 105 125 150 185 230 75 75 75 75 75 105 125 150 185 230 35 40 45 50 50 a B ACCESS POINT ACCESS POINT C &• Curb Line (Typ.) A PLAN 1 NOTES: 1. Access point spacing only. For public street spacing, see text section 6-06. 2. Refers to posted speed or operating speed, whichever is greatest. 3. Between the nearest edges of two-way access points. Distances between adjacent, one-way access points (with the inbound access upstream) can be one-half the distances shown above. 4. Between the nearest edges of one or two-way access points. 5. Access points directly opposite from each other are most desirable. Where this is not possible, these dimensions will apply. 6. Where access points are to be signalized, a minimum spacing of 1200 feet to any other signalized intersection should be maintained. If the signalized access points form a' Te intersection with little possibility of any future access point across the street, a minimum spacing of 600 feet from the nearest signalized intersection may be acceptable. 7. In cases where access point spacing is not attainable because existing frontages are narrow, access points should be located as close to the tabulated values shown above as possible. When this occurs, the engineer may require investigations to substantiate whether or not left turns should be prohibited into or out of the access point. Commercial/Industrial Access Point Spacing ACCESS POINT ACCESS POINT F MINIMUM CORNER CLEARANCES FOR STOP SIGN INTERSECTION CONTROL (Feet) A Street C 6 CD CD 1- BCL .CA CA L U U a \ • Curb Line (Typ.) t D ) PLAN OMNI i MINIMUM CORNER CLEARANCES FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CONTROL (Feet) ARTERIALS NON -ARTERIALS Arterial Operating Speed DIM. 30 35 40 45 All Speeds A 115 135 150 180 50 B 85 105 120 140 50 C 115 135 160 180 50 D 115 135 160 180 50 E 115 or 0 135 or 0 160 or 0 180 or 0 0 A Street C 6 CD CD 1- BCL .CA CA L U U a \ • Curb Line (Typ.) t D ) PLAN OMNI i MINIMUM CORNER CLEARANCES FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CONTROL (Feet) J ACCESS POINT ACCESS POINT s A Street Signal* C 1,5 f— z B o .� Co CID LU \ a \ r Curb Line (Typ.) D PLAN NOTES: 1. In cases where corner clearances are not attainable because frontages are narrow, access points should be located as close as practicable to the property line most distant from the intersection. At such locations, the engineer may require investigations to substantiate whether left turns should be prohibited into or out of the access point. 2. Access points near stop or signal controlled intersections should be checked to determine whether stopping queues will block the access point. Commercial/Industrial Corner Clearances ACCESS POINT 11111111 • E Figure 5-12 Commercial/Industrial Access Point Spacing Commercial/Industrial Corner Clearances 5-31 ARTERIALS NON -ARTERIALS Arterial Operating Speed DIM. 30 35 40 45 All Speeds A 230 275 320 365 50 B 115 135 160 180 50 C 230 275 320 365 50 D' 230 275 320 365 50 E 115or0 135or0 1600r0 180or0 0 J ACCESS POINT ACCESS POINT s A Street Signal* C 1,5 f— z B o .� Co CID LU \ a \ r Curb Line (Typ.) D PLAN NOTES: 1. In cases where corner clearances are not attainable because frontages are narrow, access points should be located as close as practicable to the property line most distant from the intersection. At such locations, the engineer may require investigations to substantiate whether left turns should be prohibited into or out of the access point. 2. Access points near stop or signal controlled intersections should be checked to determine whether stopping queues will block the access point. Commercial/Industrial Corner Clearances ACCESS POINT 11111111 • E Figure 5-12 Commercial/Industrial Access Point Spacing Commercial/Industrial Corner Clearances 5-31 CHAPTER 6 Other, Elements of the Environment Introduction This chapter addresses the set of codes and other regulatory controls that apply to devel- opment proposals in the MIC as they relate to sewer, water supply, energy, environmental health (air, noise, and hazardous waste), and surface water. Because each of the prototype sites is currently supplied with urban services and utilities, the analysis in this chapter does not generally address issues raised by the individual prototypes, but rather provides a cor- ridor -wide discussion. The No Action alternative would result in continued application of existing codes and regulations to development proposals in the MIC. Since the issues addressed in this chapter are generally covered adequately by current codes and regulations, the impacts of the No Action alternative are similar to those of the proposed action for these issues. Sewer System Existing Conditions Sanitary sewer service is provided to the MIC by the City of Tukwila and the Val-Vue Sewer District, which serves a southern portion of the area (see Figure 6-1). On the east side of the Duwamish River, wastewater is collected from individual side sewers via city or dis- trict mains or through direct connections to King County's 42 -inch main located in East Marginal Way South. Most of the commercial/industrial customers along East Marginal Way South connect directly to King County's main. Sewer connections m the Val-Vue Sewer District are served by a network of 8 -inch lines that connect to King County's 42 -inch main via a pump station and pipeline across the Duwamish River. Neither the city nor the Val-Vue Sewer District provide wastewater treatment; King County provides this function. Wastewater from Tukwila is conveyed to the County's Renton Treatment Plant. The City of Tukwila completed a comprehensive sewer system plan in 1991 (Horton Dennis and Associates, 1991) that identifies a range of wastewater facility and collection needs throughout the city. When this plan was completed, most of the MIC had been only recently annexed to the city; as a result, there is little discussion in the plan about system conditions and deficiencies in the MIC area. However, Supplement A to this plan identifies annexation areas, including the MIC, and service area improvements that would be required to serve these areas. Since adoption of this plan, the city has completed an inflow and infiltration (I/I) reduction project that included cleaning and grouting of some pipes in the MIC and has monitored discharge from the Boeing sewer system (Brodin, personal communication, 1997). Sewer facilities are expected to provide adequate capacity to the MIC to support de- velopment and redevelopment consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. SEA/1002EO1C 5/15/97 6-1 139766.AO.EE • City of Tukwila • Figure 6-1.5.15-97 • LW igcrlon Figure 6-1 Tukwila Sewer Districts 6-2 CHAPTER 6 OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT Consistent with RCW 56, the Val-Vue Sewer District is updating its Sewer Comprehensive Plan, consistent with both state and county requirements. This plan will identify existing system conditions, recommend new facilities required to serve future development in the district, and address coordination with Rainier Vista Sewer District facilities, which recently merged with the Val-Vue District. The district also recently installed sewers in the Riverton area, bounded on the north and east by the Duwamish River and on the south and west by Interurban Avenue South. The district works closely with the City of Tukwila to ensure that sewer capacity and infrastructure is available for development that is projected in the city's Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the city has required the district to enter into a franchise agreement with the city consistent with RCW 34A.87.040, to provide sewer service within the city limits. Existing Plans and Regulations The city has adopted several regulations to ensure adequate sewer capacity is available for proposed development or redevelopment and that applicants pay their fair share for system improvements before development occurs. The city requires a Sewer Main Extension Permit to extend a sewer main to serve a pro- posed development. In general, the applicant is required to extend sewer to the extreme boundary of the property (Ordinance 1770). The city also requires a Sanitary Side Sewer Permit for connecting or reconnecting a building to a public or private sewer main. Specifi- cations for sewer improvements are provided in the city's Infrastructure Design and Con- struction Manual. The City of Tukwila adopted Ordinance 1769 to implement the concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), which require that cities and counties de- velop procedures to determine whether adequate utilities are available to serve proposed new development and to specify mitigating conditions if utilities are not adequate. This ordinance requires applicants to obtain a certificate of sewer availability from either the purveyor serving the area, if the site is served by a purveyor other than the City of Tukwila, or from the City Department of Public Works. Upon approval from the purveyor or the city, the applicant receives a certificate or approval verifying that adequate sewer capacity will be available to serve the proposed development at the time of occupancy. If utilities are in- adequate, the city requires applicants to provide mitigation payments equal to their fair share for sewer system improvements. King County also has a sewer surcharge program for discharge of high-strength industrial wastewater. High strength waste is defined as sewage stronger than domestic waste that contains more than 300 mg/1 of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and 400 mg/1 of sus- pended solids. The city's Building Code (TMC 16.04.150) requires that side sewers be plugged and capped at the property line if a building on a property is demolished, or capped at the main if the connection will not be reestablished. Impacts No impacts to sanitary sewer service are anticipated in the buildout of the MIC. Both the city and Val-Vue Sewer District have completed improvements to the MIC's sewer infra- structure to accommodate development and redevelopment consistent with the city's SEA/1002E01C 5/15/97 6-3 CHAPTER 6 OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT Comprehensive Plan. In addition, most of the MIC area has been developed, and it is anticipated that adequate sewer infrastructure is already in place on most of these sites. Application of existing City of Tukwila codes, ordinances, and policies to the prototypes demonstrates that the applicant would be required to demonstrate adequacy of sewer fa- cilities to serve the proposed development using the procedures spelled out in Ordinance 1769. If site investigations indicate that facilities are not adequate to serve the proposed level of development, the city would require mitigation payments to perform the necessary improvements. Mitigation Measures None identified. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None anticipated. Water Supply Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila provides water to most of the MIC. Exceptions include a portion of the "oxbow" area and areas west of the Duwamish River. Refer to Figure 6-2 for an illustration of the boundaries of nearby water districts. Tukwila purchases water from the City of Seat- tle and taps into Seattle's water conveyance system in six separate locations throughout the city. Tukwila is under a long-term contract with Seattle to purchase all of its water from Se- attle through 2012. Service to the MIC east of the Duwamish River is provided by an 18 -inch ductile iron water main, recently installed by the city, along East Marginal Way South, and by a 12 -inch branch of this main along Pacific Highway South. The new 18 -inch main was constructed to meet identified fire flow and maintenance deficiencies. Water is provided to the portion of the MIC located on the west side of the Duwamish River by the City of Seattle via a 20 -inch ductile iron pipe in West Marginal Place. An abandoned 21 -inch water line in the East Marginal Way right-of-way is available, enabling employing reused water in the MIC for irrigation or heat exchange. This could be accomplished by tapping the effluent line (known as the Effluent Transfer System [ETS] line) on the west side of the river for treated effluent from the Renton Treatment Plant. The plant is operated by King County. Reuse of treated wastewater effluent helps extend the region's potable water supply. Boeing is using treated wastewater effluent at its Longacres facility. The City of Tukwila completed a Comprehensive Water System Plan in 1991 (Horton Dennis and Associates, 1991) that identifies a range of water supply and distribution needs throughout the city. When this plan was completed, most of the MIC had been only recently annexed to the city; as a result, there is little discussion about system conditions and defi- ciencies that applied to the MIC area. However, Supplement A to this plan identifies an- nexation areas, induding the MIC, and service area improvements that would be required to serve these areas. Since adoption of this plan, the city has addressed storage deficiencies in the MIC by linking northern parts of the city to an existing 18 -inch main in the Allentown SEA/1002E01C 5/15/97 6-4 199769.A9.EE • City of Tukwila • Figure 8-2 • 5.15.97 • LW CrcfonWafcr Geo ibm 10 kis) 'cion a Figure 6-2 Tukwila Water Districts 6-5 CHAPTER 6 OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT area of the city. This linkage allows northern portions of the city to benefit from storage provided by the 2 -million -gallon North Hill reservoir (Brodin, personal communication, 1997). Additional storage and fireflow capacity are available through a two-way emergency intertie with Seattle at the north end of the MIC. As a result of these improvements, the city has determined that there is currently adequate water system capacity to serve projected development and redevelopment of the MIC consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. Existing Plans and Regulations Similar to sewer capacity, the city has adopted several regulations to ensure an adequate water supply to serve proposed development or redevelopment. The City of Tukwila adopted Ordinance 1769 to implement the concurrency requirements of the Growth Man- agement Act (RCW 36.70A). The requirements mandate that cities and counties adopt pro- cedures to verify that adequate utilities are available to serve proposed development and implement mitigating conditions if utilities are not adequate. Tukwila requires applicants to obtain a verification of water availability from the City Department of Public Works. If utilities are inadequate, applicants must provide mitigation payments to the city equal to their fair share to address system deficiencies. Specifications for water system improve- ments are provided in the city's Infrastructure Design and Construction Manual. Impacts No impacts to water service are anticipated during the development and redevelopment of the MIC. As is the case with sewer infrastructure, much of the MIC has been developed, and all previously developed sites are adequately served by existing infrastructure. Where larger system -wide deficiencies have been identified, the City has completed improvements to the MIC's water supply infrastructure to accommodate projected development and rede- velopment of the area. Application of existing City of Tukwila codes, ordinances, and policies to the proposed three prototypes indicates that the applicant would be required to demonstrate adequacy of water facilities to serve the proposed development using the procedures spelled out in Or- dinance 1769. If facilities are not adequate, the city would require mitigation payments. Mitigation Measures None identified. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None anticipated. Energy Existing Conditions Seattle City Light supplies electricity to the MIC from Seattle -owned generating facilities, power supply contracts with BPA, and utilities located in the mid -Columbia basin (City of Tukwila, 1992). Industrial customers in the Duwamish Corridor consume an estimated 1,500,000 MW of electricity annually. State law requires that energy utilities serve all SEA/1002E01C 5/15/97 6-6 CHAPTER 6 OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT customers requesting service. Seattle City Light coordinates with the City of Tukwila to phase in infrastructure improvements as needed as growth occurs. Plans for future distribution include additional feeder and substation capacity that will meet demand in the area through 2020. City Light intends to meet the actual growth in electrical loads through conservation acquisition (City of Tukwila, 1995). Puget Sound Energy (formerly Puget Sound Power & Light and Washington Natural Gas) provides natural gas to the MIC through purchases from producers in Canada and the southwestern Rocky Mountain states. Gas is transported to the MIC area through mains op- erated by the Northwest Pipeline Company. Puget Sound Energy distributes natural gas from these mains to customers in the MIC area. Existing Plans and Regulations Because energy providers are required by state law to provide adequate levels of service, the city has not adopted concurrency requirements or other regulations pertaining to en- ergy supply. The city has, however, adopted the State Energy Code for all new construction (Chapter 51.11 WAC; TMC 16.04.210). The city coordinates closely with energy providers to ensure that energy supply and infrastructure are adequate to serve development in the city as projected by the Comprehensive Plan (City of Tukwila, 1995). Impacts None identified. The City of Tukwila closely coordinates with energy providers to ensure that adequate capacity exists to serve growth throughout the city, induding the MIC, as projected in the city's Comprehensive Plan. Adequate energy supply would be available to serve all three prototype sites. All new construction would be required to comply with the Washington State Energy Code. Mitigation Measures None identified. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None anticipated. Environmental Health (Air, Noise, and Hazardous Waste) Air Existing Conditions The major sources of pollution in the MIC area are automobiles. Carbon monoxide (CO) is the pollutant of greatest concern in the area. Other pollutants of concern include particulate matter (PM,o); hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, both ozone precursors; sulfur oxides; and nitrogen dioxide. Manufacturing operations also may produce large amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from activities such as painting. The MIC has been included in a non -attainment area for PM,a since November 1990. The region is now in compliance with all other regional air quality standards. SEA/1002E01C 5/15/97 6-7 CHAPTER 6 OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT A variety of pollutants are monitored at the Duwamish station, located at 4752 East Marginal Way South approximately 1 mile north of the MIC. Other air quality parameters are discussed below in qualitative terms and by inference from other monitoring station data. Particulate Matter. In addition to being in a PM,„ nonattainment area, the project area is within a previously designated nonattainment area for total suspended particulates (TSP). Typical sources of PM. and TSP are slash burning, wood burning (both wood stoves and fireplaces), industrial sources, auto and truck traffic, and construction activities. The pri- mary sources in the study area are industrial. Ozone. Ozone is the principal oxidant found in photochemical smog. It is formed through a complex series of chemical reactions involving volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen, and sunlight. VOCs and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) are emitted by both industrial and area sources. Oxides of nitrogen are produced almost exdusively by fuel combustion; VOC emissions are produced both by combustion and by a variety of fugitive emission sources. Since ozone formation requires time for chemical reactions to be completed, ozone reaches its peak concentration several miles downwind from the source of its precursor components. Sources of both ozone precursors (VOCs and NOX) are found within the MIC. Currently the Puget Sound region is classified as attaining ambient air quality standards for ozone. Carbon Monoxide. CO is a highly localized pollutant. Collectively, motor vehicles emit more CO than any other source. The project area is currently in attainment for CO stan- dards; the 1992 EIS on Boeing Company redevelopment in the corridor indicated that, even with 25,000 Boeing employees in the MIC, air quality standards for CO would not be violated. Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is produced mainly by the combustion of fuels con- taining sulfur, such as oil and coal. Since the Duwamish corridor is a significant industrial area, ambient monitoring data are collected locally (at 4752 East Marginal Way South) to quantify the impacts in this area. The study area is classified as an attainment area for SO2 ambient air quality standards. Nitrogen Dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide is produced through combustion processes followed by further atmospheric reactions. Oxides of nitrogen (NO and NO2, also referred to as NO,) are produced in high-temperature combustion conditions with excess air. Further reactions in the atmosphere convert NO to NO2. While only NO2 has known adverse health effects, NO. emissions also contribute to the reactions that form ozone. NO. is controlled as a point source pollutant (e.g., from vents and stacks), but no ambient monitoring data are collected for NO2 in this region. Existing Plans and Regulations Air quality standards are established at the national level by EPA, at the state level by Ecol- ogy, and at the regional level by PSAPCA. Air quality standards established by Ecology and PSAPCA are essentially the same; PSAPCA standards prevail where differences arise. All point sources of air pollution in the MIC requiring air quality permits must be registered with PSAPCA. If registration is required, PSAPCA typically requires best available control technology (BACT) for new sources and evaluates each source's specific air quality impacts. SEA/1002EO1C 5/15/97 6-8 CHAPTER 6 OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT PSAPCA requires BACT on a case-by-case basis after consideration of available technology, environmental and energy impacts, and the cost of complying with emission limitations. PSAPCA also requires that reasonable precautions be taken to avoid dust emissions during construction (PSAPCA Regulation 9.15). Such precautions may include spraying water or chemical dust suppressants on bare soils during dry, windy weather. Impacts Regulatory control of air quality in the MIC is largely the responsibility of Ecology and PSAPCA. Any new point source of pollution would require PSAPCA review and approval. Identified regional air quality problems, such as automobile emissions, typically are ad- dressed on a more regional level and are not expected to impose any specific requirements on activities or uses in the MIC in general, or on development of any of the three prototype sites. Construction activities at any of the three prototype sites could have a temporary local im- pact on air quality through the generation of dust. PSAPCA Regulation 9.15 requires im- plementation of mitigation measures to minimize air resource impacts from construction. Compliance with PSAPCA requirements is specified in the performance standards of the MIC/L zone in the zoning code (TMC 18.36). A similar citation in the performance stan- dards for the MIC/H zone is not included in the zoning code. Although compliance with PSAPCA's requirements is required independent of the zoning code, it is recommended that a similar reference to compliance with PSAPCA requirements be added to TMC 18.38, the MIC/H zone, for clarification. Mitigation Measures Amend TMC 18.38 to specify compliance with PSAPCA requirements. Amend TMC 16.54 to specify compliance with PSAPCA Regulation 9.15. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Since projects under the MIC implementation plan will be in compliance with PSAPCA re- quirements and other applicable standards, no unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Noise Existing Conditions Human response to noise is subjective and can vary greatly from person to person. Factors that influence individual responses include the intensity, frequency, time, and pattern of the noise; the amount of background noise present before an intruding noise; and the nature of the work or activity that the noise affects. Environmental noise is measured in units called A -weighted decibels (dBA) . The A - weighted decibel scale was developed to approximate the sensitivity of the human ear to different frequencies by deemphasizing frequencies to which the ear is less sensitive. The scale is logarithmic; each 10-dBA increase is perceived by a listener as a doubling of loud- ness. For example, 80 dBA is judged by a typical listener to be about twice as loud as 70 dBA and four times as loud as 60 dBA. The smallest change in noise level that humans SEA/1002E01C 5/15/97 6-9 CHAPTER 6 OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT can hear is about 2 to 3 decibels; increases in average or cumulative noise levels of 5 dBA or more are noticeable under ordinary conditions. Normal conversation ranges between 55 and 65 dBA when the speakers are 3 to 6 feet apart. Quiet urban nighttime noise levels range in the low 40s dBA; noise levels during the day in a noisy urban area are frequently as high as 80 dBA. Noise levels above 110 dBA become intolerable and can result in hearing loss. There are several sources of noise in the MIC; they are generally associated with commer- cial, industrial, and airport -related activities. The principal sources of noise include truck and automobile traffic on Interstate 5 and arterial roads, passenger and freight train opera- tions, and air traffic to and from Boeing Field/King County International -Airport and Seat- tle -Tacoma International Airport. All of the various manufacturing and industrial activities in the MIC collectively contribute to relatively high ambient noise levels. Existing Plans and Regulations The Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC 8.22.040) establishes limits on the level and duration of noise crossing property boundaries. Allowable maximum noise levels depend on the land use of the noise source and of the receiving property. Generally, the highest levels of noise are permitted in industrial areas. Maximum permissible daytime noise levels are provided in Table 6-1. The maximum noise levels allowed in residential areas provided in Table 6-1 are reduced between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends. In- creases in permissible noise levels are allowed for short -duration noises. Daytime construc- tion activities are generally exempt from city noise regulations. TABLE S-1 City of Tukwila Maximum Permissible Daytime Sound Levels, dBA Receptor Land Use Sound Source Residential Commercial Industrial Residential 55 57 60 Commercial 57 60 65 Industrial 60 65 70 Source: Tukwila Municipal Code Sec. 8.22.040 Impacts City of Tukwila noise standards require construction noise to be limited to the "daytime hours." Within this time period, there are no restrictions on the magnitude of noise gener- ated, as construction noise is typically considered a temporary impact and, as a result, gen- erally not considered significant. There could be temporary noise impacts where construction activities occurred next to sensitive receptors, including schools, hospitals, senior homes, or public facilities. Construction noise regulations would apply at all three prototype sites. SEA/1002E01C 5/15/97 6-10 CHAPTER 6 OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT Operational noise would likely increase in the vicinity of Site 1 as this prototype would en- tail development of a partially vacant lot. However, noise levels on Sites 2 and 3, which presently include a car and truck dealership and manufacturing/industrial uses, respec- tively, are likely to be similar to existing conditions after redevelopment, as site uses would remain similar. Operational noise levels at all three prototype sites would be regulated by the city standards provided in Table 6-1. All three sites are zoned for industrial use and are situated next to industrial use zones; as a result, permitted noise levels would generally be the highest al- lowed by the city. Mitigation Measures The city could require the use of mufflers, sound walls, or other noise -reducing measures where construction occurs dose to sensitive noise receptors (e.g., schools, senior housing, hospitals). Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Noise levels would increase temporarily during the construction of projects under the MIC implementation plan. Hazardous Waste Existing Conditions The various laboratory activities and manufacturing processes taking place in the MIC re- quire materials and generate wastes classified as hazardous under federal and state law. Typical examples of hazardous materials used in the manufacturing process include paints, solvents, and petroleum products, while examples of dangerous wastes include caustics, acids, solvents, paints, metals, used petroleum products, wastewater, and other wastes. The Boeing Company's Plant 2 site is included in EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Re- sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) listing. The EPA has established this list based on industry spill notifications to the agency. Existing Plans and Regulations Dangerous wastes and hazardous materials are addressed by a number of regulations, and facilities that use such materials or generate such wastes must comply with a variety of spe- cific requirements. A number of federal, state, and local laws pertain to the storage, handling, use, and transport of hazardous waste in the MIC. These laws are discussed in Appendix D. Impacts The authority to regulate hazardous wastes is largely the responsibility of federal and state agencies. The city does not have any regulations that specifically address the handling of hazardous waste. However, onsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities are not permitted in the MIC/H or MIC/L zones unless clearly incidental or secondary to a permit- ted use on the site. Any onsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facility is subject to state siting criteria (RCW 70.105). SEA/1002E01C 5/15/97 6-11 CHAPTER 6 OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT Use and generation of hazardous substances on any of the three prototype sites would have to be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Increases in laboratory space at Prototype Sites 1 and 3 would likely involve storage and handling of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous wastes. A warehouse and distribution center, as illustrated by Site 2, could store hazardous substances. The manufacturing use at Site 3 would likely involve handling, storing, and generating hazardous substances. A variety of measures would be required for development or redevelopment on any of the prototype sites to prevent accidents or other incidents leading to the release of hazardous substances. These measures include emergency prevention and response equipment, proce- dures, and training; containment areas for stored substances; monitoring systems to identify leaks or spills; training of personnel handling substances; coordination with other respond- ing agencies; and promulgation of information about the substances. The Washington State Model Toxics Control Act (MICA) would require the assessment of soil quality on the prototype sites, including the need for soil removal, treatment, or dis- posal. The quality of groundwater on a site or the presence of subsurface buried objects such as unknown underground storage tanks or utility pipelines must also be assessed. If contamination is found, Ecology must be notified and a cleanup action plan developed. The plan must identify cleanup methods and standards, as well as procedures for remediation or offsite disposal. Existing PSAPCA regulations address the handling and removal of asbestos, such as might be encountered during demolition of existing structures (for example, as indicated for rede- velopment at Prototype Site 3). Asbestos must be removed and disposed of by a qualified asbestos removal team before or during demolition. Mitigation Measures None identified. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None anticipated. Surface Water (Drainage/Grading and Floodplains) Drainage and Grading Existing Conditions The MIC is located largely in the 2,900 -acre Fire District #1 basin as identified in the City of Tukwila Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan (1993). The basin stretches along the east side of the Duwamish River from approximately the Black River and S. 123rd Street north to Boeing Field. The basin is composed of several sub -areas that drain to the Du- wamish River. Areas along the west side of the Duwamish River are located in the Fostoria basin, as identified in this plan. Both the Fire District #1 Basin Drainage Plan and the Fostoria Basin Drainage Plan address water quantity issues. Updates to these basin plans are expected to incorporate water qual- ity issues, as well as quantity. A water quality management plan for the Fostoria basin is SEA11002E01c 5/15/97 6-12 CHAPTER 6 OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT currently being prepared, and it is anticipated that updates to the basin plan for the Fire District #1 Basin, covering the majority of the MIC on the east side of the river, will address water quality, as well. Due to previous development, much of the MIC is covered by impervious surface com- posed largely of parking lots, roadways, runways, buildings, and other paved areas. Com- mercial and industrial buildings in the MIC are characterized by large, impervious roof areas. Storm drainage from paved areas and roofs throughout the MIC is generally collected in, and flows through, a system of catch basins and storm drains, through stormwater trunk lines, via ditches, or directly overland to outfalls along the Duwamish River. All stormwater in the MIC discharges at one of several points along the Duwamish River (see Figure 6-3). Current stormwater discharges are largely untreated; however, The Boeing Company has installed oil/water separators on many of its sites. Most commercial/industrial businesses east of Marginal Way have their own private outfalls. There is also a well-developed drain- age system associated with Interstate 5. Existing Plans and Regulations Ordinance 1755 established a storm drainage utility and rate structure to regulate storm and surface water and use of drainage facilities in the city. Approved storm drainage is required for all construction creating more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface; when stormwater runoff is collected and concentrated from an area of more then 5,000 square feet; or when development abuts or contains a floodplain, stream, wetland, lake, closed de- pression, or sensitive area as determined by the Public Works Director. The city requires all point discharges of stormwater to be directed to either a public storm drainage system or an approved private system. Offsite improvements, such as construction of a public storm drain system, can be substituted for onsite detention and water quality requirements if such improvements are of equal function in the opinion of the City Engineer. The design of stormwater facilities must be consistent with the draft King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County, 1996) or Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (Ecology, 1992), whichever is more stringent in a particular situation. Ordinance 1755 also contains eight core requirements that regulate the quality and quantity of stormwater produced by a site. Among these requirements are the following: peak runoff rates must be limited to predevelopment peak rates; water pollution impacts must be miti- gated; and discharge must occur at the predevelopment location and/or produce no signifi- cant adverse impact. There are also 13 special requirements in the ordinance pertaining to issues such as developments creating over 50 acres of impervious surface; high levels of vehicular use; storage of chemicals onsite; and use of wetlands, lakes, or dosed depressions for runoff control. The satisfaction of both core and special requirements is determined by the Director of Public Works during drainage review. In accordance with the 1993 Surface Water Management Plan, the city has implemented a regular monitoring and maintenance program to ensure the proper functioning of catch ba- sins, swales, ditches, and stormwater pipelines. Manholes are also regularly cleaned, and the city is installing sediment traps in catch basins and working to identify illicit connec- tions. A number of capital improvement projects in the MIC have also been completed in the MIC in response to the 1993 plan. These include the East Marginal Way South Street improvement program, currently underway; the Norfolk Drainage Project, now completed, which reduced Martin Luther King junior Way flooding at Ryan Way; and the Washington SEA/1002E01C 5/15/97 6-13 139766M.E • Car of Me • Mum 6a • 6.16.97 • LW MILITARY FUGHT CENTER :^.!'.•EGfi•ATICINAI. A I!,)1.1. LEGEND • Points where Boeing storm sewers flow into Duwamish Waterway Q Metro CSO p City of Seattle stormwater outtall o City of Seattle CSO • Metro CSO with Seattle CSO and/or storm Source: The Boeing Company Tanner, C. D., 1991 Figure 6-3 Existing Storm Sewers CHAPTER 6 OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) program, which provided water quality detention ponds on the west side of Interstate 5, just north of the Boeing Access Road, improving water quality and reducing flood impacts. Further improvements are soon to be recommended as an outgrowth of the water quality manage- ment plan for the Fostoria basin. The Land Alteration Ordinance (Ordinance 1591, TMC Chapter 16.54) regulates all land dis- turbance during construction to control erosion and sedimentation, prevent damage to public or private property or public stormwater systems, prevent water quality degrada- tion, and supplement excavation and fill requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code. A permit is required for excavations more than 5 feet deep, or for fill of more than 3 feet in vertical depth, and involving more than 50 cubic yards of material, or for the crea- tion of impervious surface or clearing of a cumulative surface area of 6,000 square feet or greater. Application for a Land Alteration Permit requires a site map and grading plan, soils report, and other elements, as specified in the Land Alteration Ordinance. Approval is granted by the Public Works Director. Sedimentation and erosion control devices consistent with the King County Surface Water Design Manual are required for a land -altering activity involving more the 6,000 square feet. All sediment generated by the activity must be kept within the boundaries of the site during construction. All work must be performed in accordance with a land -altering plan approved by the City Public Works Director. For sites proposed for demolition, an ordinance requires that stormwater outfalls be con- solidated and that abandoned stormwater lines be removed or grouted. Impacts Grading and drainage impacts throughout the MIC would be minimized through compli- ance with existing city regulations. These regulations are intended to minimize both short- term erosion and sedimentation impacts during construction and long-term impacts from stormwater runoff. Development on all three prototype sites would be of sufficient size to trigger the need for a land altering permit during construction. Applicants at all three prototype sites would be required to submit a grading plan that included measures to limit the area of grading and identify sedimentation and erosion control devices that would be used consistent with the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Compliance with city requirements would minimize any potential significant impacts during construction. If existing storm drainage on the sites is inadequate, development on prototype Sites 1 and 3 would trigger the need for a storm drainage permit due to the size of proposed devel- opments.(475,000 square feet and 50 acres, respectively) and proximity to the Duwamish River. Development of Site 3 could also trigger the application of Special Requirement #3 of the city's drainage ordinance, which requires a master drainage plan for commercial or residential developments that would result in the creation of more than 50 acres of impervi- ous surface. However, it is unclear as to whether this special requirement would apply to industrial uses or to the redevelopment of a previously developed site. The applicability of Ordinance 1755 to Site 2 is also unclear for two reasons: the site is not adjacent to the Duwamish River and has been previously developed. Section 1.5(A) of the ordinance specifies that approved storm drainage is required when more than 5,000 feet of new impervious surface is created or when runoff is collected and concentrated from an SEA/1002EO1C 5/15/97 6-15 CHAPTER 6 OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT area of more than 5,000 square feet. However, Section 1.5(B) does not specify the applicabil- ity of the ordinance to industrial development, nor does it provic: specific guidance on re- development of previously developed areas. Other special requirements pertaining to vehicular use of impervious surfaces (#6), flood- plain delineation (#9), design of flood protection facilities (#10), soils analysis (#12), or source control (#13) could also apply to any of the prototype sites, or other properties in the MIC, based on site-specific conditions. Similar to other sections of the ordinance discussed above, the applicability of these requirements to industrial development or redevelopment projects is unclear. Mitigation Measures Amend Ordinance 1755 to clarify that the ordinance's requirements for drainage review, master drainage plans, and other core and special requirements apply to industrial sites and to the redevelopment of existing sites. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None anticipated. Floodplains Existing Conditions The Duwamish River flows through the MIC. All of the corridor of the MIC along the Du- wamish River is located just above the 500 -year floodplain as designated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Tukwila. Exten- sive Green-Duwamish River valley flooding has been limited to the river banks by the elimination of flow from the Black River, the partial channelization of the Green/Duwamish River, and the construction of the Howard Hanson Dam in 1962. Each of these measures reduced floodplain areas and made more land available for new, higher - intensity uses. Existing Plans and Regulations The City of Tukwila participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). To par- ticipate in this program, the NFIP requires cities and counties to adopt regulations for floodplain management and prevention of flood damage to buildings. Ordinance 1499 (amending Ordinance 1462) updated TMC Chapter 16.52 to include such policies. Construction activities in floodplains are regulated by the city through the issuance of a floodplain development permit. The city requires all new construction and "substantial im- provements" to existing structures in floodplains to be anchored to prevent flotation, col- lapse, or lateral movement. Critical facilities are to be located outside the limits of the base floodplain, or, if no such alternative exists, are to be floodproofed and elevated above the base flood level. Generally, no construction is allowed in designated floodways or areas of high water velocity and debris flow, unless a certified engineer or architect demonstrates that encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during base floods. Pro- posed developments are also evaluated for their cumulative effect on flood elevations; gen- erally no development, in combination with other existing or anticipated development, shall increase the elevation of the base flood more that 0.2 foot at any point along the river. SEA/1002E01C 5/15/97 6-16 CHAPTER 6 OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT Impacts Prototype Site 3, which would include redevelopment over the existing channel of the Du- wamish River, would likely be located in a designated floodway. Redevelopment of this site per existing city flood control regulations would require the applicant to demonstrate to the city that measures have been taken to anchor and otherwise floodproof the structure against high velocities of water and flood debris. Mitigation Measures None identified. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None anticipated. sea1002E01C.DOC SEA/1002E01C 5/15/97 6-17 • - Existing Conditions and Proposed Shoreline Master Program for the Manufacturing and Industrial Center • City of Tukwila May 8, 1997 This document was prepared to serve two purposes. The most immediate need was to identify the existing shoreline conditions and the proposed Shoreline Master Program (SMP) goals, policies and regulations for the purpose of completing a Planned Action EIS for the Manufacturing and Industrial Center. This preliminary work will provide the basis for development of a Citywide shoreline master program, a process which is expected to be completed later in 1997. Project Contacts Shoreline Master Program Update John Jimerson Tukwila DCD 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 MIC Planned Action Vernon Umetsu Tukwila DCD 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 431-3684 Primary Contributors to the Document Peter Hummel, Michael Williams, John Houghton, Gary Schulz, Ryan Partee, Sharron Dibble, Hans Korve, Bruce Dees and Associates Michael Williams and Associates Pentec City of Tukwila DCD City of Tukwila Public Works City of Tukwila City of Tukwila DCD Table of Contents Shoreline Zone Existing Conditions Study Area 1 Land Use .. 1 Terrestrial, Wetland and Aquatic Habitats 2 Project Area Shorelines 12 Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies 13 II Proposed Shoreline Goals, Policies and Regulations 17 Environment Designations 18 Goals and Policies . 19 Regulatory Approach 27 • III Appendix A: Duwamish Coalition Model Ordinance for Habitat Restoration IV Appendix B: Sources Cited ii List of Figures and Tables Figures Figure 1 MIC Shoreline Existing Conditions 11 Figure 2 Redevelopment of Overwater Buildings 30 Figure 3 Improved Habitat Areas: A 32 Figure 4 Improved Habitat Areas: B 33 Figure 5 Improved Habitat Areas: C 34 Figure 6 Prototype Site 1 35 Tables Table 1 Existing Zoning and Shoreline Regulations 13 Table 2 Proposed Shoreline Regulations 28 iii May 8, 1997 I Shoreline Zone Existing Conditions Study Area The discussion below pertains to the shoreline zone located within the City of Tukwila Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC). The shoreline zone includes the Duwamish River/Waterway within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the river. Land Use The shoreline areas are dominated by sites used for manufacturing and office functions. Boeing controls roughly 75-80% of the property located on the right (east) shoreline from the north city limits south to Norfolk Street and uses it for office, lab and manufacturing functions. The remaining major sites along this corridor consist of Rhone Poulanc, a site previously used for food product manufacturing that is now used for storage of shipping containers, and manufacturing plants for Jorgensen Steel and Kenworth Trucks. Across the river and to the south is the 31+ acre Oxbow site which provides as much as 9 acres of parking, a mail processing plant and an office building. On these large sites, the vast majority of the land area, buildings and activities are located outside of the shoreline zone. For example, between the river and East Marginal Way the sites average a depth of about 1300 feet. Only the westemmost 200 feet, or 15% is within the river zone. The character of the sites near the intersection of Highway 99 and the Boeing Access Road is significantly different as they are much smaller, many of which are fully contained within the shoreline. Several small industrial buildings are clustered on these sites, with relatively little room between Highway 99 and the shoreline. Further south the area opens up to moderate sized sites that are either underutilized or vacant. Boeing customer service center, with 378,000 square feet of office space is located northwest of the intersection of the river and Highway 99. This 13 acre site is fully developed with two office buildings surrounded by parking. In addition to the Oxbow, on the left bank (west) are a variety of industrial sites including the Gateway North Business Park, Sea King industrial park and a small industrial/outdoor storage area south of the tuming basin. Roads and utilities, including the Seattle City Light substation, are developed along roughly 16% of the shoreline within the MIC. c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 1 May 8, 1997 The Green River Trail is located along the left bank of the river from East Marginal Way south to Pacific Highway. The trail crosses the river at Pacific Highway and follows the river on the right bank until the pedestrian bridge near the North Wind Weir site, where once again it crosses. At this location King 1 County is developing the North Wind Weir Park at the river's edge. North of the park, the trail departs from the shoreline zone and follows West Marginal Way. Terrestrial, Wetland, and Aquatic Habitats General This section describes the existing terrestria. wetland and aquatic habitats along the Duwamish River as it passes through the Tukwila MIC. The area extends from the Allentown neighborhood just west of 42nd Avenue South downstream to the northern city limits just north of the 16th Avenue South bridge and includes the shoreline within 200 feet on either side of the channel. Much of the material in this section has been drawn from the document by Tanner (1991), who identified and mapped existing habitats and described potential restoration sites in the Duwamish River estuary. Other sources of information included wetland, stream, and habitat inventories by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, no date) and the City of Tukwila (City of Tukwila 1993; 1995; Jones and Stokes 1990). A search of agency databases for documented occurrences of rare, threatened, and endangered species, priority habitats, and high quality ecosystems was also conducted, which had negative results (USFWS 1996; WDFW 1996;WNHP 1996). In addition, surveys of the river environment were made by canoe in September 1996 and by car on January 29, 1997. Background The Duwamish River is the dominant biological, as well as physical, feature in the Tukwila MIC. Prior to settlement and development by Euro -Americans over the last 100 to 150 years, the area within the MIC was largely estuarine wetlands associated with the Duwamish River (Tanner 1991). This riverine-estuarine system was fed by drainage from Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, the Cedar River (via the Black River), the Green River, and the White River, a total drainage basin area of 1,642 square miles. Discharge in the Duwamish River ranged from 2,500 to 9,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). Wetland habitats within the Duwamish River estuary consisted of higher intertidal areas with forests and shrub lands and lower intertidal marsh areas dominated by sedges, rushes, and other herbaceous plants. The present conditions of the Duwamish River and its shoreline are drastically different from this pre -settlement ecosystem. The river was channelized and c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 2 May 8, 1997 much of the drainage basin was rerouted through Lake Washington and the . Hiram H. Chittenden Locks, resulting in a decrease in mean annual flow to about 1,530 cfs. Ninety-eight percent of the wetlands were lost through diking, filling, and changes in hydrology (Grette and Salo, 1986). By 1921, the river was dredged from its mouth to the Turning Basin, and the river is now maintained as a Federal navigation channel by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The authorized navigation channel in the MIC is 150 ft wide and 15 deep upriver to the bend just south of the 16th Avenue Bridge and 12 feet deep south to the tuming basin (NOAA National Ocean Survey chart 18450). In addition to the. channel, private dredging has increased depths to 12 or 15 ft at wharf approaches, and in marinas and slips in the MIC. Despite the extensive alterations that have taken place in the Duwamish River ecosystem, a variety of wildlife and fish use the remaining habitat. Tanner (1991) compiled lists from several sources that document observations of 84 bird, 20 fish, and 9 mammal species in the Duwamish River estuary in its present configuration and land use. Tanner also surveyed and described locations where restoration or enhancement of nearshore, saltmarsh and riparian habitats could be accomplished. Several of these projects are underway or under consideration by organifations including METRO, the City of Seattle, the Port of Seattle, and the Muckelshoot Tribe. The most important upland habitat features in the MIC are the limited areas of substantial riparian vegetation. Primary species include Targe cottonwoods (Populus tricocarpa), big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder (Alnus rubra), box elder (Acer negundo), willows (Salix spp.), and some exotics such as Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra var. Italica) and locust (Robinia sp.). These vegetated areas provide habitat for a number of small mammals and passerine birds that otherwise would be absent from the MIC. The larger trees along the river provide important perching and roosting habitat for birds such as crows (Corvus spp.), gulls (Larus spp.), kingfishers (Ceryle alcoyn), cormorants Phalacrocorax spp.), and perhaps ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) and great blue herons (Ardea herodius). Large trees also provide shading of adjacent waters and occasionally fall in and provide instream habitat for small fish. Emergent limbs and roots provide perches closer to the water. Extensive portions of the riverbanks just above the ordinary high water line are dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) thickets that provide limited habitat for small mammals and birds. Perhaps the most important ecological function of this reach of the river is its role as a migration corridor for downstream migrating anadromous salmonids (smolts) (Grette & Salo, 1986). The river and the Green River upstream have runs of Chinook, coho, chum, and pink salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, O. kisutch, O. keta, O. gorbuscha), as well as sea -run steelhead, cutthroat and Dolly Varden (0. mykiss, O. clarki, Salvelinus malma, respectively). The c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 3 May 8, 1997 transition area from fresh to salt water is important both in allowing smolts to adjust their physiological processes for salt water living and as a feeding/rearing area (Levy & Northcote, 1982); it is well known that larger smolts are better able to survive the rigors of their early marine life history. At and below the high tide line, the intertidal shorelines of the lower Duwamish The majority of the lower intertidal and the subtidal river bed is silty sand or mud that is moved at various rates by tidal and river currents. This habitat, especially the shallower areas adjacent to dredged bottoms where benthic primary productivity is high, are very productive and have good densities of epibenthic zooplankton which are important prey for juvenile salmonids, other small fish, and shorebirds. Low gradient mud bottoms are considered to be highly valued as migration corridors for juvenile salmonids offering both a good prey base and shallow water escape from predators such as fish and diving birds. Mud and sand bottoms in the navigation channel and connecting dredged areas provide habitat for brackish water tolerant species such as starry flounder (Platichthyes stellate) and Dungeness crab (Cancer magister); use by these species declines with distance upstream and is probably limited above the111 Tuming Basin. Sediment quality in some areas has been degraded by historic discharges from c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 4 May 8, 1997 urban and industrial sources; several ongoing investigations are aimed at identifying and remediating these areas. The following sections describe in detail the distribution of these habitat types along the Duwamish River within the MIC area. For purposes of discussion the river and its shoreline are divided into three reaches: (1) Allentown to North Wind Weir, (2) North Wind Weir to Tuming Basin, and (3) Turning Basin to Duwamish River Park. Allentown to North Wind Weir At the south end of the MIC, the Duwamish River is channelized and is bordered on the left bank (looking downstream) by houses in an area zoned for low density residential use, which borders the MIC. The right bank is within the MIC and is well -wooded with big -leaf maple, red alder, willows, and cottonwoods. Larger trees have fallen into the river in several locations, providing in -water cover for fish and perches for cormorants and kingfishers. Except for shallow bars at Codiga Farm and downstream on the left bank, the riprapped or steep mud banks provide little shallow water habitat for fish. f From East Marginal Way South to Pacific Highway South, the channel bank is lower and Tess steep on the left side of the river, where a bike trail is situated between a business park and the river. The river bank has been recently revegetated in this area, but plantings are not yet well established. The Riverton Creek outfall, consisting of a flap gate, is located on the left bank adjacent to Pacific Highway South. The right bank is dominated by non-native Himalayan blackberry and the adjacent shoreline area is largely developed. A 1993 inventory of natural environmental features and habitat by the City of Tukwila noted the presence of great blue heron, beaver (Castor canadensis), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethica) in this reach of the river. The Tess steep shoreline on the left side of the river provides some shallow water habitat for juvenile fish and exposed mud slopes for shorebirds but otherwise there is little in -stream habitat structure for fish in this reach. From Pacific Highway South to South 112th Street (where the North Wind Weir is located), the left bank has riprap and is bordered by the state Highway 599 freeway. Above the riprap the shoreline is primarily vegetated with Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). The right bank is primarily blackberry, with a row of Lombardy poplars along the top of the bank. A portion of the bank has been stabilized and has some willow plantings. A bike trail follows the top of the bank, with the rest of the shoreline area occupied by the Boeing Customer Service Center. As in upstream reaches, limited instream habitat for small fish is found in this area. c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 5 May 8, 1997 North Wind Weir to Tuming Basin North Wind Weir is a rocky outcropping that crosses the channel creating a small rapid at extremely low tides (Warner and Fritz 1995). It is reported to be a traditional Native American fishing site (David Rice, personal communication, as cited in Tanner, 1991). A gill net set here on January 29, 1997 was being raided by a young California sea lion (Zalophus Californian) which was observed taking several steelhead from the net. The left bank directly below the new Green River Trail bridge is riprapped with old tires, below which a Targe eddy is eroding into a vacant area planned for development by King County as the North Wind Weir Park. Along with landscaped areas, the design for this park will also include a wetland slough area connected to the river (Elliot Bay/Duwamish Restoration Program 1996). As the channel proceeds east from this point, the shoreline becomes unconsolidated material and has a more gentle slope. A small intertidal marsh area having patches of sedge (probably Carex lyngbyei) occurs along the left bank, above which is a stand of shrubs and trees, including some large cottonwoods. This ared has significant terrestrial, wetland and shallow water habitat value for fish and was identified as potential restoration Site 2 by Tanner (1991). The adjacent upland area is now a major Postal Service facility. The right bank below North Wind Weir was also identified as a potential restoration site (Site 1) by Tanner (1991). The shoreline has a fairly low, unconsolidated bank and has vegetation consisting of a patch of willow in the area of the weir and extensive areas with blackberry downstream. The edge of the channel has exposed mudflat areas with some emergent vegetation, including patches of Carex lyngbyei. The land above the channel bank is under commercial and light industrial land use and currently has little vegetation. As the channel tums northeast, just south of the Boeing Access Road, the shoreline area above the left bank is landscaped for about 1,000 feet and then is bordered by parking lots. There is a short segment of steep, actively eroding bank below the bike trail, which follows the shoreline in this portion of the river, but most of the channel bank is less steep and well -vegetated (with reed canarygrass) downstream. North of the Boeing Access Road, the right bank of the channel is situated immediately adjacent to East Marginal Way South and is bordered by riprap. As the river veers away from East Marginal Way South, the shoreline area is entirely industrial, primarily occupied by the Boeing Company. There is a small landscaped park between a Boeing parking lot and the river just north of the small bridge accessing the Boeing parking area. c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 6 May 8, 1997 Downstream of this park, the Norfolk combined sewer outfall enters the river on the right bank and downstream of this outfall, mudflats are exposed at low tide on both sides of the river. On the left side of the river, these flats extend downstream into the Tuming Basin area. Turning Basin to Duwamish River Park The Tuming Basin is a wider portion of the river that is utilized as a sedimentation basin and is the end of the federal navigation channel periodically dredged by the Corps of Engineers (Tanner 1991). The left side of the basin has a small embayment, at the head of which is the mouth of a small tributary stream which enters through culverts under West Marginal Place. Significant intertidal mudflats occur along the sides of the embayment and are contiguous with mudflats upstream along the left bank. There has been a recent project to restore portions of the mudflat and adjacent shoreline with native species (the 'Coastal America' project, in potential restoration Site 3 of Tanner). A small 2.1= acre area of undeveloped fill deposits is located along the northwest side of Tuming Basin, identified as potential restoration Site 4 in Tanner (1991). The right bank of the Tuming Basin area is steep riprap, with Boeing industrial facilities immediately above the bank. There are, however, significant intertidal mud flats mapped in this area by Tanner (1991), which are apparent below the riprap at low tide and offer shallow water habitat adjacent to the dredged channel. Downstream of the Tuming Basin, the shoreline is highly developed, and the channel is mostly bordered by riprap and sheet piling on both sides. Below these hardened shorelines, low intertidal and shallow subtidal mudflats border the navigation channel on both sides, offering shallow water habitat at lower water levels. An additional feature in this reach of the river is a 25 -acre parcel of land on the left bank just north of the Seattle City Light substation. According to Tanner (1991), this site consists of fill accumulated from the dredging of Turning Basin. It is currently open grassland that is regularly mowed and is bordered mostly by blackberry. Ham Creek flows along the perimeter of this open area, and there has been some riparian restoration along the creek at the west side of the parcel undertaken by "I'm a Pal" (International Marine Association Protecting Aquatic Life). The entire parcel has been identified for restoration by several groups, including "I'm a Pal" and the Port of Seattle -EPA (Site 5 in Tanner 1991). Other patches of terrestrial and wetland wildlife habitat include a strip of shrubs and trees along the left shoreline adjacent to a Boeing research facility (just north of South Director Street) and some broader intertidal mudflat areas just north of Slip 6 off the Duwamish Waterway. Slip 6 and the area just north of the Duwamish Yacht Club (including a small drainage channel entering the river) c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 7 May 8, 1997 were identified as potential restoration sites 6 and 7, respectively, in Tanner (1991). The left bank of the river both upstream and downstream of the 16th Avenue South Bridge is riprapped with only limited areas of lower gradient mud or debris banks and little riparian vegetation. At the lowest tides, a strip of mudflat is exposed downstream of the bridge. The right bank upstream (south) of the bridge is dominated by Boeing Plant 2 structures which extend over the shoreline on pilings. A wall of horizontal timbers on the outer line of pilings protects the underside of the building and partially isolates the river bank under the building from the river. At low tide, mudflats are exposed in front of Plant 2 and offer shallow water habitat to migrating fish. This continuity of habitat is limited, however, by the timber wall at higher tides. North (downstream) of the 16th Avenue South Bridge, another Boeing structure similarly extends on pilings partially over the mudflats; horizontal timbers are also placed on the outer line of pilings with similar habitat implications although the mudflat between the structure and the navigation channel is broader than that adjacent to Plant 2 south of the bridge. Habitat Protection and Restoration Sites An inventory of potential habitat protection or restoration sites was recently prepared by consultants to the City of Tukwila (WiIliams/Pentec). For the MIC portion there was one site identified as important for protection and five sites as potential habitat restoration sites. Four of the latter were previously identified in a report prepared by Curtis Tanner for the Environmental Protection Agency (1991). The primary criterion used by Williams/Pentec to identify sites for protection was the presence of significant stands of native woody vegetation. Given that the entire channel and banks of the Duwamish River within the city has undergone substantial alteration, there is virtually no undisturbed shoreline area present. Natural features have largely been modified by channelization, diking, rerouting of streams, filling, etc. In places there are patches of native shrubs and trees that provide some habitat features characteristic of low elevation, low gradient rivers in the Puget Sound Basin. Shading of the stream, input of large woody debris, roosting sites and forage for wildlife, and bank stabilization are some of the important functions that native shrubs and trees provide. Criteria for potential restoration sites include wider places within the floodway, presence of some native trees and shrubs that could be further enhanced, presence of tributary streams with potential salmonid habitat, a low degree of c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 8 May 8, 1997 development, and ownership by the City. It should be noted that almost any portion of the shoreline have potential for enhancement or restoration, since the area has been so extensively and severely altered from its natural condition. The sites identified here are merely those that present the best opportunities. The location of the sites have been mapped on Figure 1. A brief description is provided below. Important Areas for Protection: Site P-9: Wooded shoreline area next to Postal Service facility. This site has recently been altered by the U.S. Postal Service facility. There is some shoreline that has not been developed that consists of relatively natural bank with emergent vegetation, shrubs, and a grove of trees. Potential Sites for Restoration/Enhancement Site R-19: Left bank adjacent to Boeing parking lot This site could be enhanced with planting of native vegetation. In -channel restoration for fish habitat is most beneficial, but enhancement of riparian vegetation is also valuable for wildlife. Some limited opportunity, probably in conjunction with needed bank stabilization could be done here. Sites R-17 - R-24 (except R-19): Port of Seattle/EPA designated sites. Seven sites identified in the study conducted by the Port of Seattle and EPA (Curtis, 1991) occur within the City of Tukwila. These represent the primary opportunities for restoring or enhancing estuarine conditions for juvenile salmonids, which is probably the most important biological function of this reach of the river. A restoration project has already been conducted at one of these sites in the Tuming Basin. Restoration projects at two other sites are planned as part of the Elliott Bay - Duwamish natural Resources Damage Assessment settlement, which may preclude their use for mitigation of City permitted projects (Tanner, 1996). These are the City Light South and City,Light North sites identified by Tanner (1991). Site R-17 is located across the street from the Boeing Customer Service Center on the right bank. It is known to be in an area that is important to salmonids for their transition from freshwater to saltwater. Mudflats, partially vegetated with sedges and other emergent vegetation occur along the shoreline. Shoreline and adjacent upland areas have good opportunity for creation of a diverse intertidal and related wetland habitat. The size, characteristics, location, and availability of this site make it probably the best opportunity for restoration. c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 9 May 8, 1997 Site R-18 is located directly across the river from R-17. The shoreline consists of some riprap and relatively natural bank with emergent vegetation, shrubs, and trees. Much of the site has recently been redeveloped for a Postal Service facility, but there is some shoreline area that has not been developed. A diverse array of intertidal and wetland habitats could be created here. Site R-20 is adjacent to the tuming basin. It is 4.7 acres in size, about half of which is located upland. Sediments are deposited here, requiring periodic dredging by the Corps of Engineers. There is some intertidal vegetation present and a few trees grow at the top of the bank. The Port of Seattle is involved in restoration on this site as mitigation for a project located in Seattle. Site R-21 is a 2.1 acre site immediately south of the City Light Substation on marginal Place SW. The shoreline consists of a mix of natural vegetation and riprap. Historically the site was tidal swamp with a small stream. It was filled around 1940. Site R-22 is a 25 acre parcel north of the City Light Substation. The shoreline is riprap with a large intertidal bench located below the toe of the slope. Ham Creek flows to the river through a ditch adjacent to the roadway. Site R-23 is a shallow side waterway off the main channel within the Boeing Company complex. It is no longer used for navigation and offers some opportunity for creating intertidal habitat and vegetated shoreline. Site R-24 is a 4.7 acre parcel just north of the Duwamish Yacht Club. The shoreline is primarily riprap, but removal of riprap, regrading of the shoreline, and establishment of native riparian and emergent vegetation would create a significant patch of valuable fish and wildlife habitat. Summary Typical of an urbanized waterway, the Duwamish River within the Tukwila MIC has little natural terrestrial and wetland habitat. The river, its floodplain, and estuary have been highly altered since settlement by Euro -Americans, and most of the shoreline area along the river is under intensive industrial and commercial land use. This Toss of natural ecological functions provided by the pre - development estuary has significantly affected the populations of many native aquatic and terrestrial species including several of economic value (Grette & Salo, 1986). Much of the river bank is dominated by invasive species, such as Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass. However, there are portions of the bank dominated by native plant species such as alders, willows, and cottonwoods. Good examples of woody riparian vegetation are found in the southem end of c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 10 MIC area outside the City R-21 (rnnr R-2 #3) \\ A°'\\ te-iiiii \\\No \':, \I� \\& A Nil 11 \`\ \ J ;1 \ LiziblAw 6 City of Tukwila M dndfachuain9 Itr Center 50919 v-_ March 18, 1997 EDF\ Figure 1 May 8, 1997 the MIC near Allentown and adjacent to the Postal Service facility downstream of South 112th Street. There are also patches of intertidal marshland•on both sides of the river downstream of the North Wind Weir and in the Tuming Basin. There are several locations along the Duwamish River in the MIC that have been identified as potential restoration sites (e.g., Tanner 1991). Generally, these are areas that have some remaining undeveloped uevolve excavation oflands behind the materials typically, the restoration plans for these areas along the top of the banks, reductions in shoreline slopes, and replacement of hardened shorelines with native vegetation, gravel, sand, or mud. These actions are expected to create more extensive and natural intertidal habitat for juvenile salmonids and other fish as well as shorebirds and waterfowl. It is assumed that incremental increases in such habitats will incrementally improve changes for survival of these species in the area. Project Area Shorelines Before the turn of the century, the Duwamish River was fed by Lake Sammamish, Lake Washington, and the Cedar River was diverted toRiver by way of the lTac,omaen and White Rivers. In 1911, flow from the Other diversion projects eliminated flows from the Black and Cedar Rivers. Today, the Green River is the only significant tributary to the Duwamish. Dredging of the Duwamish River, completed in 14 921, resulted mi es of channel.n ThisThis channel, placement of approximately 9 miles of meandering river w now known as the Duwamish Waterway, is a marine -oriented waterway used primarily by the Port of Seattle to move waterborne a navigable watDuwamish is erway to the maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers as turning basin, which is located just north of the Oxbow site. South of the tuming basin, the river begins to take a more natural course and becomes the Duwamish River. The Duwamish Waterway remains one of the most industrialized water bodies in the Puget Sound area. A report prepared by Curtis D. Tanner for the Port of Seattle and the U.S. EPA, "Potential Intertidal Habitat Restoration Sites in .the Duwamish River Estuary," classified the shoreline areas along the Duwamish River and Waterway. Four classifications were identified: natural shorelines, riprap shorelines, pier aprons, and sheet piling. They are described below: • Natural Shoreline. This classification does not indicate that the shoreline is in its original condition, but rather that the area generally exhibits a gently sloping shoreline with areas of fine-grained sediment. • Riprap Shoreline. This refers to shorelines stabilized with angular rock, generally larger than 12 inches in diameter; slopes are relatively c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 12 May 8, 1997 steep, ranging from 1:1 to 2:1. In some areas, fine-grained sediment may be present, as well as intertidal benches below the riprap area. • Pier Aprons. These are generally concrete or wood pier structures where the water is allowed to flow underneath the pier, in between the vertical structural members. • Sheet Piling. Sheet piles, also known as vertical bulkheads, divert the flow of water around the pier or landform. The purpose of the Tanner Report was to identify potential habitat restoration opportunities in the Duwamish River estuary. There is roughly 33,000 linear feet of shoreline in the MIC. The shoreline classifications are shown on Figure 1. Relationship to Land Use Plans and Policies Table 1 - Summary of Basic Zoning and Shoreline Regulations City of Tukwila Zoning King Co. SMP MIC/H MIC/L 125 feet 4 stories or 45' Max. Building Height Setbacks -Front - 2nd Front - Sides/Rear - Shoreline Water Dependent Water Related Non -Water Related 20 feet 10 feet None Landscaping - Front 5 feet - Sides/Rear - Shoreline None 20 feet 10 feet None 5 feet None 35 feet'` 0 feet 20' from OHWM** 50' from OHWM*** 5' around perimeter of parking areas *May be increased if view of substantial # of residents is not obstructed, permitted by the underlying zone and if the use is water related or water dependent. May be reduced to 10 feet with public access. *** May be reduced to 20 feet with public access. This section provides a discussion of the applicable land use plans, policies; zoning regulations, shoreline management master program requirements, and other regulatory constraints that apply to development along the Duwamish corridor. c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 13 May 8, 1997 The comprehensive plan, zoning and shoreline plan are the primary planning tools used by the City of Tukwila to guide the use and development along the shoreline. • Table 1 summarizes the basic regulations from the zoning and shoreline master i program that apply to MIC sites along the river. Tukwila Comprehensive Plan: In the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan (1995), the area is designated Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC) with subdesignations of Heavy (H) and Light (L). Chapter Five of the Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies for land use along the river. Specific policies have been developed for the MIC. The policies emphasize the importance of the economic value of the development along the river, the need to protect and enhance natural areas, provide public access and related amenities and encourage through design guidelines maintenance or enhancement of visual qualities along the river. The shoreline policies of the plan will be incorporated into a new shoreline master program later in 1997. City of Tukwila Zoning: As with the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning designation of most of the study area is MIC/H (Heavy), with two parcels near the south end of the study area zoned MIC/L (Light). These zones are similar in terms of permitted uses and development standards. There are no standards or regulations specific for shoreline development. The setback, height and landscape standards are minimal and where the shoreline regulations are generally more restrictive, they would prevail. City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance: The Tukwila zoning code contains the City's sensitive areas ordinance (TMC Chapter 18.45) which regulates steep slopes, watercourses and wetlands. There are no mapped sensitive areas within the shoreline zone, however, the City maps are not a complete inventory, and development on any site is subject to confirmation of the presence of sensitive areas. King County Shoreline Regulations: The City has not adopted its own Shoreline Master Program (SMP) for shorelines located in the project area. Thus, the City administers the 1977 King County shoreline regulations and will continue to do so until such time a new SMP is adopted. The goals, policies and objectives of this SMP are applicable to the study area: • Emphasis should be given to developing visual and physical access to the shoreline in the Urban Environment (Policy 3). c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 15 May 8, 1997 • To enhance the waterfront and insure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities should be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities consistent with public safety and security (Policy 5). Redevelopment and renewal of substandard areas should be encouraged in order to accommodate future users and make maximum use of the shoreline resource (Policy 6). The King County shoreline regulations include development standards for height, setbacks, and public access. The height limitation in the Urban Environment, unless the underlying zones are more restrictive, is 35 feet above average grade level (K.C.C. 25.16.030(B)). Provisions allow increased height if a substantial number of residential views are not obstructed, the height is allowed in by the underlying zoning standards and the use is water dependent or water related. Commercial and industrial development are permitted provided that they are also permitted in the underlying zone. Non -water -related commercial and industrial uses must maintain a shoreline setback of either 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark or 20 feet from the floodway, whichever is greater. Non -water - related industrial uses may further reduce the setback if access to the shoreline is provided. According to the King County shoreline regulations, "public access" means unobstructed access to the general public from land to the shoreline. "Limited public access" means that access to the shoreline is limited to specific groups of people or to specific times or that visual access is provided to the general public. The regulations require public access in the following circumstances: Development proposed in shorelines of the state shall maintain setbacks provide easements or otherwise develop the site to permit a trail to be constructed or public access to continue where: • There is a proposed trail in the King County Trail System; or • Part of the site is being used and has historically been used for public access (K.C.C. 25.16.030(H)(1)(2)). In addition to these limited requirements to provide new public access, the regulations also offer incentives for voluntary provision of public access. The setbacks identified above for commercial and industrial uses in the Urban Environment designation can be decreased if public access is provided. The setback can be reduced to 20 feet from the ordinary high water mark or 10 feet from the edge of the floodway, whichever is greater, if the development provides limited public access. The setback can be reduced to 10 feet or the edge of the floodway if full public access is provided. c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 16 May 8, 1997 King County Recreation Plans Green River Trail Plan: This plan was developed and has largely been implemented through Tukwila. When completed the trail will provide access along the river from the south city limits north to the Oxbow site, where the trail leaves the river and follows West Marginal Way. The plan has played a significant role in the developing of the policies for shoreline access in the City as evidenced in the discussion of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan above. II Proposed Shoreline Goals, Polices and Regulations The City of Tukwila currently administers two sets of shoreline master programs (SMPs) and regulations for development along the Green/Duwamish River. Properties located south of the 42nd Avenue bridge are subject the City of Tukwila SMP. The properties north of the bridge were annexed subsequent to the adoption of the Tukwila SMP and as a result, the City has been administering the King County SMP since they were annexed. Included in the City's goals for 1997 is to replace these two SMP's with the adoption of a new Shoreline Master Program and development reguiations. The SMP is expected to be adopted in the second half of the year. Substantial work has occurred on the provision of a consolidated SMP over the past five years. The most significant result is the development of the policy basis of the SMP as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan adopted December, 1995. The completion of this work was in part financed through a Coastal Zone Management Act grant administered by the Department of Ecology. The discussion below is intended to describe the general approach the City is taking with the development of the SMP. The policies identified below have already gone through substantial public process and have been adopted by the City Council. The only change proposed habitat restoraicy basis is the tion on plan preparedtion of by the the restoration goal and principles of Duwamish Coalition. The regulatory approach presented here implements the general direction of the adopted policies for the purpose of evaluation in the MIC planned action. c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 17 May 8, 1997 Environment Designations Goal 5.1 Shoreline Environment designations that meet Washington State Shoreline Management Act requirements, and reflect local conditions and Tukwila's long-term vision for its shoreline. The shoreline zone generally extends for 200 feet on either side of the Ordinary High Water Mark, consistent with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act. May 8, 1997 Goals and Policies The following are adopted goals and polices of the shorelinecomprehensive element andl antended n that will apply to the MIC. Most were part of the Plan's to provide the policy basis for the 1997 update of the shoreline master program: GOALS 1.5 A riverfront that is accessible, developed, and appreciated as a major amenity of the community and region. 5.2 Expanded value of the river as a community and regional resource through regional coordination of shoreline management programs and through programs that foster river awareness, involving partnerships among businesses, schools, government and community organizations. 5.3 Development along the shoreline that fosters the economic vitality of Tukwila while preserving the long-term benefits of the river. 5.4 Protect rights of property owners to reasonable use and enjoyment of private property, through appropriate location, access to, and design of shoreline uses. 5.5 Enhanced identity of the river as a unique community asset through high quality development and public activities which reflect Tukwila's history and sense of community pride. 5.6 Varied opportunities for public access to and along the river, including visual and cultural access, access to the water's edge, opportunities for small boat navigation and access, and connections to other neighborhoods. 5.7 Safe corridors and amenities for pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transportation, allowing more citizens to access and enjoy the river. 5.8 Recognition of the river's contribution to Tukwila history and community identity through identification, enhancement, restoration, and protection of sites with historic and cultural value and through development of interpretive and educational programs. c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 19 May 8, 1997 5.9 Restored, enhanced, and protected natural environment resources along the river, including trees, wildlife habitat and features with value for long-term public, scientific and educational uses. 5.10 Improved water quality and quantity control programs affecting the Green/Duwamish River that improve the river's water quality, provide habitat for fish and wildlife, protect public health and safety, and enhance public enjoyment of the river. 5.11 Shoreline uses that do not endanger public health, safety, and welfare or the capacity of the river to provide Tong -term benefits and resources to the community. POLICIES 1.5.1 Continue to develop the riverfront trail system and create "nodes" of public space for civic function, art festivals, and seasdnal events. Include, in some places, hard - surfaced areas with a more formal appearance, such as textured paving, lighting, seating, and pavilions. 1.5.2 Install interpretive displays to inform the public of the river's environmental role in the community and the region. 1.5.3 Commission representative art reflecting local history, wildlife, vegetation, or climate for the pedestrian spaces along the river. 1.5.4 Provide more convenient public access and connections to the river so that it becomes more integral to City life. 1.5.5 Limit public access where there are issues of safety, security, or personal privacy or where there is a need to preserve wildlife habitat. Shoreline Planning and Management 5.2.1. Coordinate shoreline planning and management activities with other local jurisdictions to establish region -wide consistency in addressing river issues with regional implications, such as economic development, public access, wildlife habitat, water quality control and flood control. c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 20 May 8, 1997 5.2.2 Promote river stewardship andhoreline goalsincrease riverasuch as wareness through actions which further educational programs, community activities, government, ips with Tukwila residents, businesses, community organizations. Land Development Uses and Economic Vitality 5.3.1 Develop and implement River Design Guidelines to: • Guide the design of multiple shoreline uses; • Establish techniques for increasing multiple shoreline use; Prioritize locations for uses. 5.3.2 Design and locate all shoreline development uses, nimize impacts on areas identified as important or other such as wildlife and aquatic habitat, river vegetation, public access and recreation, historical resource and flood control. 5.3.3 Allow structures to be placed inthe whener, his provides a or structural reinforcement of the riverbank, Y significant, Tong -term public benefit, or are essential to a water -dependent use. 5.3.4 Allow flood control (e.g. levees) to be installed and maintained as necessary to protect the life, safety and welfare of the public and to protect the existing development patterns of the valley floor. 5.3.5 Recognize and promote the river's contribution to the economic vitality of Tukwila, as a valuable amenity forfroexistingt and future businesses which depend on or shoreline location. 5.3.6 Ensure that shoreline development does not diminish the commercial navigability of the River. MIC Development Policies 5.3.9 Ensure that shoreline development for shoreline multiple uses to IC that is not water -dependent either provide the extent that site security and the success of industrial c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 21 May 8, 1997 operations are not jeopardized; or provides adequate mitigation for the Toss of shoreline multiple use opportunities. 5.3.10 Allow opportunities for commercial and recreational marinas to locate in Tukwila downstream of the turning basin, where compatible with existing and future navigability. Private Property Rights 5.4.1 Design, locate and manage shoreline uses in a manner which maintains reasonable use and enjoyment of private property. 5.4.2 Design and locate public access in a way that is appropriate for the site, depending on site conditions and private property concems. 5.4.3 Special sensitivity is required for residential property; therefore, all single- family residential development of four or fewer single-family residential lots is excluded from requirements to provide private or public access. 5.4.4 Maintain flexibility in methods of obtaining access, to allow for different site conditions and private property concems that might conflict with access, such as privacy, safety, and security. River Design Quality 5.5.2 Require that shoreline development in the MIC: • Is designed to be consistent with Tukwila river design guidelines; • Maintains or enhances the existing visual quality along the river; • Provides trees and other landscaping to buffer industrial uses that are incompatible with other river uses; • Provides amenities that enhance enjoyment of the river by employees. Access and Recreational Use 5.6.1 Retain and improve areas identified as important in the network of public access to the river, including cross-town connections, former railroad right-of-ways and unimproved street right-of-ways, historic sites, unique natural features or other areas valuable for their interpretive potential. c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 22 May 8, 1997 5.6.2 Develop and implement comprehensive river access guidelines to guide the design, location and management of shoreline public access; to identify types of access appropriate for various site conditions and locations; and to establish strategies, funding sources and priorities for acquisition and enhancement of shoreline public access. 5.6.3 Design, locate and manage public access for diverse types and variable levels of intensity, in order to minimize impacts on vulnerable features of the natural environment and to minimize conflicts with private property uses. 5.6.4 Where shoreline development provides public access areas, reserve such areas for use by the public through the means most appropriate for the type, scale and impacts of the development, such as donation or sale of an easement or right-of-way to the City. 5.6.5 Support the implementation of the King County Green River Trail, perthe existing King County Green River Trail Master. Policy for Development in MIC 5.6.9 For MIC properties included in the King County Green River Trail Master Plan, require shoreline development to provide a trail for public access along the river. 5.6.10 Where shoreline public access is provided, ensure that it is designed to be safe and convenient and includes access amenities such as benches, drinking fountains, public parking areas, handicapped access and appropriate lighting, consistent with the river access guidelines. 5.6.11 For MIC properties not included in the King County Green River Trail Plan, require shoreline development to provide public access or a private natural area in lieu of public access, or otherwise mitigate the loss of public access. Transportation Within the Shoreline Zone 5.7.1 Design and locate transportation uses within the Shoreline Zone to provide for shoreline multiple uses, such as trees or other habitat features, tum -outs or parking areas for public access, biofiltration swales to protect water quality, public art or interpretive signs. • c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 23 May 8, 1997 5.7.2 Ensure the transportation uses within the Shoreline Zone and within those corridors identified as river cross -connections provide safe, convenient and attractive pedestrian, bicycle and boater access and facilities for public transportation. 5.7.3 Minimize impacts to the natural environment (such as air, noise, odor or water pollution). 5.7.4 Encourage maintenance of the river's navigability up to the turning basin, where this achieves a greater public interest and a balance between costs and benefits to the broader community, in recognition of the historical significance of navigation and its importance to the economic vitality of water -dependent uses and the MIC. Historical Resource Use 5.8.1 Ensure that shoreline development reflects the river's important role in Tukwilfi's history that long-term public use of the river as an historical resource is protected by providing for the identification, protection and interpretation of unique historic and archaeological features. 5.8.2 Ensure that public shoreline development reflects the river's natural features and community traditions. Natural Environment and Habitat Use 5.9.1 Ensure that shoreline development minimizes impacts on wildlife and that significant vegetation, sandbars, wetlands, watercourses, and other areas identified as important for habitat are maintained through the proper location, design, construction, and management of all shoreline uses and activities. 5.9.2 Ensure that shoreline development and activities protect riverbank vegetation and, where feasible, restore degraded riverbanks, in order to minimize and compensate for impacts to fish and wildlife habitat. 5.9.3 Mitigate unavoidable disturbances of significant vegetation or habitat through replacement of habitat and provision of interpretive features consistent with the River access guidelines. c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 24 May 8, 1997 Water Quality, Surface Water and Flood Control Use 5.10.1 Design, locate, and manage shoreline development including streets, flood control projects, surface water drainage and sewer systems, clearing and grading activities, and landscaping in a manner which minimizes opportunities for pollutants to enter the river, provides erosion control and otherwise protects water quality. 5.10.2 Design, manage, and mitigate flood control uses to minimize impacts to other shoreline trees and fish habitat; k vegetation, public access and recreation, set them back from the river, where feasible for the project, with land areas between the water and the levee set aside as open space for public recreation or wildlife habitat. 5.10.3 Consistent with project feasibility, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts on other shoreline uses owing to flood control uses through such measures as restoration of trees and native riverbank vegetation, provision of public access to the water's edge, interpretive features, or other mitigation of Toss of opportunities for shoreline multiple uses. Public Health, Safety and Welfare 5.11.1 Design, locate, and manage shoreline uses, such as capital improvement projects and private development, in a manner which does not endanger public health, safety and welfare, or the capacity of the river to provide long- term benefits and resources to the community. Manufacturing and Industrial Center - Protect the Land Resource 11.1.7 Support the Duwamish River becoming a natural feature amenity in the MIC. 11.1.8 Improve public access and use of the west side of the river, protecting owner's rights to reasonable use and enjoyment, improve employee access to the east side of the river, and emphasize restoration on both sides of the river. c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 25 May 8, 1997 Duwamish Coalition Habitat Restoration Plan In addition to the adopted goals and policies, the City is evaluating the possibility and appropriateness of adopting the restoration goal and principles of the Lower Duwamish habitat Restoration Plan prepared by the Ad Hoc Duwamish Habitat Restoration Group. This group was composed of representatives and staff from local, state, regional, federal, and tribal governments, business, environmental and community organizations and interested citizens. The goal and principles are as follows: Restoration Goal: The goal of this restoration plan is to provide a diversity of self-sustaining habitat types and abundance within the Lower Duwamish Watershed to enhance fish and wildlife while maintaining a healthy, working waterfront of port, industrial, fisheries, and recreational uses. Restoration Principles: 1. Provide a functioning and sustainable ecosystem. 2. Integrate a restoration strategies to increase the likelihood of success. 3. Coordinate restofation efforts with other planning and regulatory activities to maximize habitat restoration. 4. Involve the public in restoration planning and implementation. 5. Maintain a working waterfront of Port and industrial uses that transitions through mixed industrial, commercial, residential recreational and open space uses, depending on the neighborhood. c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 26 May 8, 1997 Regulatory Approach While the City has gone through substantial public review and citizen involvement in developing the policy basis for the SMP as contained in the comprehensive plan, specific regulations are only beginning to be identifies, let alone reviewed in a public forum. As such, the regulatory approach discussed below is preliminary and general and subject to change as development of the Shoreline Master Program proceeds through 1997. Permitted Uses Uses permitted in the underlying zone, MIC(H) or (L), of the adopted zoning code (TMC Chapter 18) will be allowed within the shoreline zone. Priority is given to redevelopment of under-utilized areas and the continuous investment in industrial facilities which provide family supporting wages, implementation of the King County Green River Trail Plan for public access and alternative private access or intertidal area development otherwise, and protection and restoration of the natural environment features and riverbank characteristics, where compatible with development. • General Height restrictions already exist in the zoning ordinance, the Boeing Field flight zone and the Shoreline Management Act. The MIC/L zone limits height to 4 stories or 45 feet and the MIC/H zone limits height to 125 feet. The Shoreline Management Act limits height to 35 feet when a substantial number of adjacent residential views will be obstructed. There are limited or no residential uses within the MIC. No additional restrictions are proposed for the Shoreline Master Program. Shoreline Access: Shoreline substantial development or conditional uses shall provide public access where any of the following conditions are present: • The development or use will create increased demand for public access to the shoreline. • The development or use will interfere with an existing public access way. • The use is not water dependent. • The use or development will interfere with use of public lands or waters. • The river frontage on the site has been identified as location for a trail in the Green River Trail Master Plan. c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 27 May 8, 1997 Table 2 -Summary of Proposed Shoreline Regulations for the MIC * Some exceptions will apply such as public roads, utility faciliues and trails. **See general standards for situations in which access is and is not required. *** Half of the 10 feet of landscaping may be located in the river environment. c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 28 May 8, 1997 An applicant need not provide public access where the site is not on the Green River Trail Master Plan and one or more of the following conditions are present: • Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist which cannot be prevented by any practical means. • The project constitutes redevelopment within the river environment and the existing site development does not provide reasonable opportunity for providing access. Figure 2 demonstrates a creative way for providing access with redevelopment. • The proposed use is water dependent. • Inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied through the application of altemative design features or other solutions. • The cost of providing the access, easement or an altemative amenity is unreasonably disproportionate to the total long-term cost of the proposed development. • Unacceptable environmental harm will result from the public access which cannot be mitigated. • Significant undue and unavoidabie conflict between any access provisions and the proposed use and/or adjacent uses would occur and cannot be mitigated. • Fish habitat is restored at a ratio of 1 s.f. of restoration to 1 s.f. of required access area. The basic area requirement for access is 16 feet times the length of the river frontage. if the site is not along the Green River trail, access may come in the form of new public access, employee access and amenities, or connections from public areas to the river. If the site is along the Green River trail, either connections to the trail or improved amenities (benches, interpretive signs, water fountains etc.) for public use shall be provided. Habitat Restoration Habitat restoration may occur for either for mitigating loss of required access or pervious surface areas or for projects not driven by City requirements. To accomplish this, the City will consider incorporating the concepts of the model ordinance for restoration as prepared by the Duwamish Coalition (Appendix A). Key elements of the model ordinance includes: • Habitat restoration is voluntary. Property owners may restore habitat either to mitigate loss of habitat or as an alternative to providing public access or for reasons beyond the scope and interest of the city. The quality of the habitat is subject to City approval. Restoration sites are to be located within the salt water wedge. c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 29 REDEVELOPMENT OF OVER WATER BUILDINGS Previous Building Line o , CD • -)1 ice.._ "BEFORE" Water Level Existing Building Concrete Rubble Existing Bldg. Skirting Redeveloped Bldg. "AFTER" Deck for Public/Private Trail Building Found. Rock Riprap Piling w/Security Net First row of old piles used to stabilize terrace FIGURE # 2 Replacement or enhancement of riprap bulkheads beneath existing over - water buildings. Replace wood skirting with wire fencing to allow more sunlight penetration. *Security skirting should allow passage of wildlife May 8, 1997 • Allows for off-site mitigation within the Lower Duwamish study area. The off- site mitigation may be located beyond the City limits and beyond the shoreline zone, as long as it is within the study area. Allows for restoration of streams feeding into the Green/Duwamish River. • Allows for bank modifications to occur without changing the location of the Ordinary High Water Mark for regulatory purposes (See Figure 3). Water Dependent Uses The determination on whether a use is water provided by dependent State Department ofd on a narrow construction of the guidelinesp Ecology. Setbacks - Water dependent uses may locate up to the OHWM to the extent necessary to allow the use to reasonably function. Over -water Construction - Over -water construction is permitted for water dependent uses provided that navigation will not be adversely affected. Landscaping - Required landscaping beyond the forty foot zone will be limited to those areas not used by the water dependent portion of the site. For those areas, required landscaping will be based on the classification of the use (water related or non -water dependent). Native vegetation shall comprise a minimum of 30% of the materials in that landscape strip. Shoreline Stabilization - New shoreline stabilization shall make use of design with least impact on habitat to properly wateserve the water ependent use. rward of the OHWM Vertical bulkheads are allowed provided they aen t located Impervious Surface Area - No new impervious surface area shall be allowed within the river environment unless it serves a water dependent use or results from an improved shoreline stabilization project. Water Related/ Water Enjoyment Uses Setbacks - Buildings must be setback 40 feet from the OHWM. Over -water Construction is prohibited. Landscaping - A ten foot wide landscaping area shall be provided between the river environment and any buildings and improved site area. Native vegetation shall comprise a minimum of 30% of the materials in that landscape strip. c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 31 IMPROVED HABITAT AREAS : A 1%TIDE EL 15.05 MHHW EL 11.30 / Riprap Wetland plants +8 to +11 Riparian Plants Existing Grade (approximate) LOD FIGURE # 3 Suitable design for creation of new wetlands/fisheries habitat areas, if desired. Although the location of the O.H.W.M. changes, provisions of the S.M.P. will allow this to occur without changing the location of the regulated shoreline zone. IMPROVED HABITAT AREAS : B 1% TIDE EL 15.05 MHHW EL 11.30 • Riprap Intertidal Vegitation Bioswale Riparian Vegitation (Trail Location Optional) LOD * Measured from Ordinary High Water Line FIGURE # 4 Steps to shoreline. Standard also shows how bio -filtration swales can be incorporated into setback area. IMPROVED HABITAT AREAS : C 1%TIDE EL 15.05 MHHW EL 11.30 Riprap Terrace • Intertidal Bench Bulkhead Riparian Plants Grass/Bioswale (Trail Location Optional) LOD Measured from Ordinary High Water Line FIGURE # 5 Riprap with vertical bulkhead, swale and landscaping behind. PROTOTYPE SITE #1 1%TIDE EL 15.05 MHHW EL 11.30 MLLW EL 0.0 0 D Building/ ildin i 12' Trail 4-- go' —� Riprap with intertidal bench & intertidal plants Riparian Plants Trail and Fire Lane, if needed Trees Building Measured from Ordinary Existing Grade High Water Line FIGURE # 6 Riprap with riparian vegetation, trail, and landscaping. The additional land needed to improve fisheries habitat and create a more gradual shoreline back slope, should consist of both: excavating the upper slope from dry land area; and filling the submerged area to create the perched beach. An Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit would be required for filling in the submerged areas. The shoreline setback should be measured from the pre-existng shoreline location prior to bank habitat improvements. May 8, 1997 Shoreline Stabilization. New vertical bulkheads are not allowed. Shoreline stabilization shall be allowed provided it improves fish and/or upland habitat through increased areas that become inundated during high water, planting of native vegetation or other techniques recommended by a qualified habitat specialist. Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 provide a range of alternatives that illustrate desirable characteristics for shoreline stabilization. Impervious Surface Area - No net Toss of impervious surface shall be allowed within the 40 foot river environment unless it is a part of an approved shoreline stabilization project or the lost impervious surface area is mitigated through habitat restoration. There will be certain exemptions from this standard such as roads, bridges, pedestrian paths and utilities. . Non -Water Related Uses Setbacks - Buildings serving non -water related or enjoyment uses must be set back a minimum of 60 feet from the OHWM. Parking and other normal site improvements may be located within 50' feet of the OHWM. Over -water construction is prohibited. Landscaping - A 10 foot wide landscape strip shall be provided between the river environment and site improvements. Native vegetation shall comprise a minimum of 30% of the materials in that landscape strip. Shoreline Stabilization. New vertical bulkheads are not allowed. Shoreline stabilization shall be allowed provided it improves fish and/or upland habitat through increased areas that become inundated during high tide, planting of native vegetation or other techniques recommended by a qualified habitat specialist. Impervious Surface Area - No net Toss of impervious surface shall be allowed within the 40 foot river environment unless it is a part of an approved shoreline stabilization project or the lost impervious surface area is mitigated through habitat restoration. There will be certain exemptions from this standard such as roads, bridges, pedestrian paths and utilities. Over -Water and Shoreline Zone Redevelopment Setbacks - Existing buildings and facilities may be reconstructed in their present location. New buildings and site improvements shall be setback based upon c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 36 May 8, 1997 their classification as either water -dependent, water -related, or non -water related. Over -water reconstruction is allowed provided the construction is contained within the footprint of the existing building that is being redeveloped. Landscaping - Where possible, a 10 foot wide landscape strip shall be provided between the river environment and improvements upland from the river environment. Native vegetation shall comprise a minimum of 30% of the materials in that landscape strip. Shoreline Stabilization - Existing bulkheads may be replaced provided they do not encroach further into the water. Unless necessary for the continued operation of the pre-existing use, any redevelopment of stabilization structures shall be designed to improve fish and upland habitat. Impervious Surface Area - Redevelopment within the. 40 foot river environment shall not result in increased impervious surface area unless mitigated through improved habitat enhancement. • There will be certain exemptions from this standard such as roads, bridges, pedestrian paths and utilities. c:\smp\mic\3micsmp.doc 37 Part 2 - Draft Model Development Regulations to Encourage Habitat Restoration Projects (Where a Habitat Restoration Plan has been Adopted by a City/County) Note: underlining is used only to highlight readibility of the draft and is not necessarily appropriate for a final ordinance; material in brackets is explanatory. Section . Definitions. [see last page for list of possible terms needing definition] Section 1. Restoration Projects (1) The term "restoration" refers to improving habitat and natural resources in the watershed as compared with existing conditions. The term is not limited to re-creating former historical conditions and is meant to embrace any terms and methods used to describe actions to improve existing habitat, such as creation, mitigation, and enhancement. (2) In order to encourage habitat restoration in the watershed, restoration projects may have diverse attributes, as described in this section, provided thai the projects are consistent with the applicable watershed restoration plan, provisions of this chapter, and other laws: (a) A restoration project may be its own proposed project, implemented at.the same time as another project, or part of another project. (b) A restoration project may: (i) preserve, maintain, create or improve fish or wildlife habitat; (ii) create or improve environmental conditions to support specific habitats or fish and wildlife species that use the watershed; or (iii) may introduce or increase the diversity or abundance of specific fish, wildlife or plant species. (c) A restoration project may be proposed for various purposes, such as: (i) solely to improve habitat; (ii) to restore a site after cleanup; (iii) to address natural resource damages; (iv) .to improve habitat values or stewardship in conjunction with other site uses or activities (where mitigation is not otherwise required); (iv) to mitigate the impacts of a project; or (v) to accomplish a combination of the above. (d) A restoration project may provide functional habitat values to the watershed that provides credit toward future projects as provided in section 5. (e) A restoration project may be proposed, designed, funded, implemented, or maintained by private, governmental, or community entities, non-profit organizations, or a combination of sponsors, whether for all or some elements of the project. 5-6 Section 2. Applicability. (1) Applications to the city/county for habitat restoration projects may be processed at the applicant's option under this chapter or through other applicable city/county permit processes, as provided in section 3. (2) If applications for habitat restoration projects are processed under a city/county permit process other than or in combination with the application procedure in this chapter, section 5 of this chapter shall nonetheless apply to the city/county review and decision on the permit application. The provisions relating to development standards in section 5 of this chapter shall be controlling in the event of any conflict between this chapter and other city/county development regulations. (3) State. federal. or tribal reviews or standards may apply to a habitat restoration project proposal in addition to the provisions of this chapter, including but not limited to: state hydraulic project permits (TPAs), federal Section 404/10 permits, state aquatic lands leases, federal or state sediment management or hazardous waste cleanup approvals, or other applicable laws or regulations. (4) This chapter shall apply to permit applications which propose; restoration projects that are determined to be complete after the effective date of this ordinance. This chapter shall apply to project permit applications that were determined to be complete prior to the effective date of this ordinance only if requested in writing by the applicant. Section 3. Permit Process Options for Restoration Projects. (1) The intent of this chapter is to simplify and provide for prompt permitting of habitat restoration projects that implement an adopted habitat restoration plan. Applicants shall have the option of obtaining city/county approval of restoration projects either by applying for a habitat restoration permit under this chapter, or by using other applicable city/county permit processes. (2) . Habitat restoration permits under this chapter shall be classified as follows: (a) a Type 1/1 land use decision if the restoration project qualifies as a watershed restoration project under RCW 89.08, is exempt from the permit requirements of the Shoreline Management Act, is categorically -exempt under SEPA, or is excluded from the project review process under RCW 36.70B.140(2) and section _ of the city/county code; or (b) a Type 11/2 land use, decision in all other cases (including habitat restoration projects that may be designated in city/county ordinances as planned actions under RCW 43.21C.031) [except for restoration projects proposed by the city of Seattle, which shall be classified as a Type P1 land, use decision?]. (6) The JARPA form shall serve as the application form, as provided in section 4 of this chapter. 5-7 [Note: Ideally, the JARPA application form would be revised to add a check -off box for a "local habitat restoration permit." Although this is not essential for the above provision to work; it could make the process more understandable to applicants and reviewers. Also, subsection (3) assumes that Ecology revises the shoreline permit WACs to recognize permits far non-exempt restoration projects where a watershed plan has been adopted by the locality, so that the habitat restoration application/permit serves as the shoreline application/permit. If not, the text can provide that shoreline permit applications be used if the project is located in a shoreline zone; under RCW 36.70B.090, the time period for administrative decisions on Type 11/2 permits is the same for shoreline and non shoreline permits.] Section 4. Planning and Applying for Approval of Restoration Projects (1) Restoration projects should be planned following the general steps identified on Figure 2 and the project planning section of the restoration plan. [list them to ease this cross-reference?] Where information is available, these steps can be combined into fewer steps. The.guidelines appended to the restoration plan may be helpful in planning a project, but are not mandatory. (2) An application for a habitat restoration permit consists of a JARPA application accompanied by a concise "project analysis." (3) The project analysis shall include the following information, which may be provided in an order and format determined by the applicant: - (a) the specific restoration objectives of the project; (b) description of tfie location, ownership, and existing environmental condition of the restoration project site with respect to those attributes that are relevant to the likelihood of the success of the project, including contamination (off site contamination that could adversely affect the project will be discussed in the analysis required by section 4(4) below); (c) project description, including if applicable to the project: maps [specify size?] showing before and after =foot contours; construction sequence and methods; structures to be demolished or constructed; quantities, quality, and locations of any dredging or filling (including any PSDDA sampling results);. erosion control and drainage; planting .plans; any mitigation measures; and other principal elements of the project; (d). description of monitoring and contingency plans, operation and maintenance (if applicable), and project ownership and management after construction or completion; and (e) studies required by other laws, if any, such as critical area delineations or reports or SEPA documents (see section 4(3) below). (3) Because plan -level environmental review has been combined or prepared in conjunction with a restoration plan, restoration projects shall be considered subsequent or implementing projects. Proposed restoration projects are not required to adopt the restoration plan/EIS, but should reference and rely upon the plan -level analysis and provide supplemental project -level information as needed. SEPA compliance for restoration projects that are not categorically - exempt under WAC 197-11-305 and 800 [cite city/county code reference] may be provided through any of several methods, including but not limited to an addendum, environmental 5-8 checklist, or other combined SEPA/project review document allowed under the SEPA procedures. (4) The project analysis shall concisely discuss how the project is consistent with the Restoration Plan by stating the following (in not more than a few total pages at most; cross- references may be made to other technical or environmental analyses that may have been prepared): (a) how the proposed project fits within or promotes the restoration plan concept (section _ of the Restoration Plan); (b) how the applicable site criteria relate to the proposed project (section _ of the Restoration Plan), including the functional habitat values that the proposed project provides to the watershed (and the comparison with the loss of any functional habitat values as a result of the restoration project or other combined project elements) (c) how the project includes adaptive management and stewardship, including how the habitat will be established or protected in perpeuity (see general guidelines in Appendix _ of the Restoration Plan). (5) If comments are received on the,project analysis through the project review process, the city/county may revise or request the applicant to revise the analysis prior to making the permit decision. The analysis in subsection 4(4) shall be considered to serve as the analysis of habitat (plants and animals) and the other elements of the natural environment and of environmental health and land and shoreline use that may be required for the local project review process, including SMA, GMA and SEPA. Although construction of restoration projects must comply with applicable codes and development standards, no further analysis of land use or shoreline consistency shall be required in order for the city/county to make a decision on a habitat restoration project. (6) Each habitat restoration permit shall specify the following: (a) the permittee, location, and description of the project (which may be incorporated by reference from other documents) including objectives by which to measure project success and provision for adaptive management and stewardship ; (b) the time period for implementing the project, if any; (c) mitigation measures, if any, other than compliance with existing codes and laws; and (d) particulars of project elements, if any, which have been deferred to subsequent permitting agencies. Section 5. Development Standards for Restoration Projects (1) Consistency with Restoration Plan. Restoration projects shall be consistent with the Restoration Plan, including the siting criteria, recognizing that some flexibility is appropriate since 5-9 interpreted byactual experience gained with projects [note: the plan is intended to be refined and to shoreline permits and SMPs, and this is the same standard currently required of appliedandThe permit decision may to land use permits and GMA development regs/comp plans]. o orate the analysis required by subsection 4(4) by reference, and additional documentation of mc rp consistency with the Restoration Plan is not required. (2) Buffers. The city/county •director of [title] shall establish buffers, if any, ben a is oe-borated oject shall rp into the project design (buffersmay basis. Any buffers that are needed for the success of the restoration habitat at restoration project, as or may not be appropriate for a project typically serves as a buffer or transition between aquatic and upland uses). (a) Nothwithstanding the city/county critical area ordinance or any other provision of city/county code, no buffer shall be required of a habitat restoration project except as specified in the habitat restoration permit. (b) If a restoration project creates a new wetland or other feature that may in turn result in a current or future buffer requirement under another provision of the city/county code, no such buffer shall required r uired (except as may be specified as part of the habitat project design). (c) A habitat restdration•permit may be. amended to include additional setbacks or buffers only if the project's adaptivo.management (monitoring or contingency planning) demonstrates that an additional setback or buffer is necessary for the success of the restoration project. (3) ConflictinP Development Regulations. Inasmuch as the Restoration Plan has een adopted as part of the city/county comprehensive plan and sh oe� �management adoptedh plans: to the program, and development regulations are requiredoarnconform � regulation, or other land use code extent that a specific shoreline use regulation, critical provision does not authorize or would prevent the implementation of a habitat restoration project that the city/county otherwise determines would be consistent with the RestorationPlan, the city/county director of [title] may determine the conflicting requirement is not applicable to the habitat restoration project or may specify an alternative requirement that would allow the restoration project to proceed. Bproviding a landscape ecology watershed (4) On and Off Site/Like Kind Proiects. (a) Y P of habitats, habitat focus areas, and restoration concept (including the identification of types functional values that need to be restored in the lower .watershed), the Restoration Plan provides s a makingbasis for proposing, evaluating, and ng decisions on proposals for restoration projects t may occur on sites not owned by applicants, or to mitigate impacts that may occur on a site other than the site of the proposed restoration project. (b) Depending on the purpose of the restoration project and whether there are limitations in other state or federal laws, the city/county may approve restoration projects that are consistent with the Restoration Plan and provide critical or important habitat of a different habitat 5-10 • which credit would be given will not encourage the loss of existing habitat in the watershed by the 5-11 applicant or others; and (iii) to the extent possible, the credit shall be based on functional values to the watershed ecosystem, rather than on acreage or similar arbitrary measures. Terms to be defined (depends on existing codes)? "Applicant" means "Cleanup" means "Combined project" means a project that includes a habitat restoration/mitigation component "Critical area" means "Critical area permit" means (permit or other form of approval) "Development standards" means "GMA" means "Habitat restoration permit" means "JARPA" means "Local land use permits" mean* "Lower watershed habitat plan" means Lower Duwamish Watershed Habitat Restoration Plan "Nfitigation" means "Permit" means/includes approvals eg. DNR leases, Ecology/EPA cleanup decisions, etc. "Project permit application" means/includes requests for approvals (not necessarily application in the strict sense) as defined by RCW 36.70B.020(4) "Project" /public or private/enhancement, cleanup, development, etc. "Project review" or "project review process" means "Restoration project" means "Shoreline permit" means • "SMP" means Related code revisions corresponding SMP and CAO revisions (water -dependent use, habitat restoration use, recognize habitat restoration permit, etc.) The following provisions can be considered in the ordinance development process to supplement the above sections of the ordinance. They may be useful for applicants, citizens, and agency reviewers people who are not familiar with restoration project planning and permitting: 5-12 Section 2. Applicability (5) The local and state adoption of the Lower Duwamish Watershed Habitat Restoration Plan as part of the city/county shoreline master program and GMA local comprehensive plan, state coastal zone management program, and Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan is intended to produce consistency in the review by all levels of government of applications for restoration projects. There may be some differences among agencies in the interpretation of the plan or in specific regulatory standards that need to be addressed, as well as opportunities for efficiency and coordination in permit processing. Applicants are encouraged to identify and consult with governmental entities and interested members of the public early in project planning and prior to submitting applications for restoration projects. Section 3. Permit Process Options. (4) Applications for habitat restoration projects.may be filed under this chapter or through other applicable city/county permit processes, as follows: . (a) If a habitat restoration project application is filed under this chapter, the application shall serve as the project permit application for purposes of any local land use permits that may be required for the project, including but not limited to shoreline, critical area, and grading permits; except that final construction permits for the project may be required under the building code (utility, electrical, plumbing, and similar permits). No additional land use or shoreline permit application to the city/county for the restoration project shall be required. (b) If a city/county permit or approval for the restoration project is filed under another provision of the city/county code, a separate permit is not required under this chapter. The applicant is encouraged, but not required, to note on the permit application that the project is (or includes) a "Lower Duwamish Watershed restoration project." This will serve to notify the city/county, other agencies and the public that the incentives in section 5 of this chapter apply to the proposed project. (5) If the application for a restoration project includes other project elements, such as requests for cleanup or development approvals, the applicant may: (a) __ use otherapplicable permit processes, such as a shoreline substantial development permit application, to process the restoration project element and other project elements; (b) file and consolidate the processing of a permit application under this chapter for the proposed restoration project element with any other applications to the city/county; or (c) file and separately process an application under this chapter for the proposed restoration project element, provided that the city/county concludes that environmental review has 5-13 been conducted on the overall proposal or has been properly phased, as required by WAC 197- 11-060 and section _ of the city/county code. • (6) If it is not clear whether the city/county code otherwise provides for the processing of a permit application for a restoration project, an applicant may submit an application to the city/county under this chapter [necessary?] Section 4. Planning and Applying for Approval of Restoration Projects (4) [Most people are unfamiliar with regulatory reform options that already exist; by providing specific authorized examples, environmental (SEPA) aspects of project review will likely be faster and simpler than is typically the case, without loss of substantive information) SEPA compliance for restoration projects that are not categorically -exempt under WAC 197-11- 305 and 800 [cite city/county code reference] may be provided through any of several methods, including but not limited to the following: (a) adding the title "SEPA addendum". to the project analysis and simply providing information on environmental impacts and mitigation measufes within the text of the project description and analysis (if the restoration project would not cause probable significant adverse environmental impacts); (b) adding the title "SEPA addendum" to the project analysis and including an environmental summary (see WAC 197-11-235), separate chapter, or appendix providing information on environmental impacts and mitigation measures (if the restoration project would not cause probable significant adverse environmental impacts); (c) completing and attaching an environmental checklist to the project analysis (if the restoration project would not cause probable significant adverse environmental impacts); (d) any of the above if habitat restoration projects are designated as planned actions in a city/county planned action ordinance (in which case a threshold determination need not be made); (e) preparing a supplemental EIS if the restoration project would cause a probable significant adverse impact; or (f) attaching the project analysis to (or combining it with) an environmental checklist, EIS, or other SEPA document that.may.be prepared .on a proposal thatinclude both habitat restoration and other project elements. KSW/APP5.dod12/3/96 5-14 SEA1002E03E.DOC 5/15/97 MIC Appendix B-2 Shoreline Impact Analysis Table of Contents: I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. BACKGROUND on the DUWAMISH SYSTEM 1 III. EVALUATION of the PROPOSED SMP 1 W. RECOMMENDATIONS on the SMP DOCUMENT 5 V. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5 VI. PROTOTYPE SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION 6 A. Prototype development site # 1 5 B. Prototype development site # 3 6 C. Proposed bank enhancement illustrations 7 D. Public access connection to the shoreline illustration 7 VII. RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION ACTION 7 A. Public Access to the River 7 B. Definition of Long Term Benefits to the River 8 VIII. CONCLUSION• 8 IX. APPENDIX 9 I. Introduction The intent of this document is to evaluate the current draft of the proposed SMP. The materials received from the DCD for the purpose of impact analysis have been reviewed. The following recommendations for improvements to the draft of the SMP are provided herein and purposely re -orient the policies within the draft to reflect a more significant improvement to the conservation, restoration, and mitigation policies concerning the riverine and terrestrial habitats throughout the Duwamish MIC. II. Background on the Duwamish System. The document authored by Curtis D. Tanner, produced for the Port of Seattle and the EPA, entitled; Potential Intertidal Habitat Restoration Sites in the Duwamish River Estuary clearly illustrates historical condition of the Duwamish river system prior to the industrialization within this locality. In short, the general riverine area prior to 150 years ago, encompassed a tremendous amount of productive wetland habitat, and most likely had a complex and ecologically diverse biotic community During the development and industrialization of the lower Duwamish over the last 150 years, a significant percentage of riverine habitat has been lost. Partially because of developmental practices, but primarily because of.a fundamental lack of understanding as to the importance and value of riverine habitat. Within the last several decades, scientific research has uncovered the importance of riverine habitats and their value to the species that utilize them. Increased awareness as to the significance of these habitats has lead to many rehabilitation strategies and riverine restoration projects. III. Evaluation of the proposed SMP The current draft of the proposed SMP is well thought out. However, recommendations for each of the itemized articles are listed beginning with the goals and policies section (page 19 of the document submitted for review). The purpose of the review comments is to re -orient the SMP to include a greater degree of existing habitat preservation while also increasing the quantity of rehabilitated and/or mitigated wildlife habitat required for future waterway developments. The following comments are specific to each line article: Goals: 1.5: Does not address wildlife habitat. 5.2: Should be more specific as to the value of shoreline habitat. 1 5.3: Does not address wildlife habitat, and should explain what is meant by long term benefits of the river. 5.4: To the extent that wildlife habitat is also protected, and or managed. 5.5:. While also enhancing the public awareness of riverine wildlife habitat and the importance of it's protection and preservation. 5.6: To the extent that these activities will not compromise habitat rehabilitation efforts while also providing public awareness of the shoreline ecosystem. 5.7: To the extent that these activities will not compromise habitat rehabilitation efforts while also providing public awareness of the shoreline ecosystem. 5.8: To include emphasis on wildlife habitat. 5.9: With emphasis on the preservation of the areas, to include areas of limited or restricted public access, either during seasonal breeding or nesting activities. 5.10: How are the control programs going to achieve this goal? • 5.11: With the exception that where rehabilitated habitat sites do endanger public safety, proper restriction of public access be employed. Policies: 1.5.1: While also addressing shoreline wildlife habitat considerations and appropriate preservation of these habitats. 1.5.2: Yes, public awareness is key to the success and sustainability of existing and rehabilitated wildlife habitat. • 1.5.3: Welcome donated art but reserve $ for riverine habitat restoration. 1.5.4: In what way? Isn't this addressed in 1.5.1? 1.5.5: How is this going to be accomplished? Monitored? Shoreline Planning and Management: 5.2.1: Okay. 5.2.2: Okay. Land Development Uses and Economic Vitality 5.3.1: ...and to include aquatic and riparian habitat restoration guidelines. 5.3.2: Yes. 5.3.3: ...or provides any benefit to the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat. 5.3.4: Yes. 5.3.5: Yes. 5.3.6: Yes. M1C Development Policies 5.3.9: ...and ensures either preservation and/or restoration of wildlife habitat along the shoreline zone. 5.3.10: Okay. Private Property Rights 5.4.1: ...so long as such alteration does not impact wildlife habitat. 5.4.2: ...so long as such alteration does not impact wildlife habitat. 5.4.3: With the exception that private land altering does not impact the existing of restored wildlife habitat along the shoreline zone. 5.4.4: Okay. River Design Quality 5.5.2: ... Provides wildlife habitat protection and conservation measures to either restore or mitigate for lost wildlife habitat within the shoreline zone. 3 Access and Recreational Use 5.6.1: Okay. 5.6.2 - 5.6.4: To the extent that these activities address wildlife habitat conservation for resident and migratory species within the MIC. Policy for Development in MIC 5.6.9: to the extent that a trail system will not impact the current or future of wildlife habitat throughout the MIC route. 5.6.10: ...public restrooms, and waste disposal. 5.6.11: ...while also protecting the potential of rehabilitated wildlife habitat within these areas. Transportation within the Shoreline 5.7.1: ...with emphasis on wildlife habitat conservation. 5.7.2: Okay. 5.7.3: ... and provide monitoring to discover and/or mitigate for any adverse effects or conditions on usage of wildlife habitat. 5.7.4: Okay. Historical Resource Use 5.8.1: Okay 5.8.2: ...to the extent that the surrounding wildlife habitat is protected and or improved. Natural Environment and Habitat Use 5.9.1: Okay 5.9.2: Okay 5.9.3: ... ata minimum of 2:1 replacement ratio. Water Quality. Surface Water. and Flood Control Use 5.10.1 - 5.10.3: Okay Public Health. Safety and Welfare 5.11.1: Okay. Manufacturing and Industrial Center - Protect the Land Resource 11.1.7: Okay. 11.1.8: ...to the extent that wildlife habitat areas are not compromised. IV. Recommendations for SMP Document The itemized comments made on the policies of the SMP should be reviewed and placed into the overall intent of the SMP. If wildlife along the MIC is to have any potential increase in species diversity, population, and usage, the suggested items should be included within the final revision. V. Cumulative Impacts It is difficult to project the cumulative impacts of future development along the Duwamish shoreline corridor without knowing what specifically is planned for development, i.e., where is the development located, to what extent development will disrupt the current condition of the shoreline, what type of use classification is the development, etc.. However, the cumulative riverine habitat impacts from the construction of new or re -developed water dependent use facilities should have minimal impact under the new policies set forth in the revised SMP. These revised policies provide for riverine habitat restoration, mitigation, and/or enhancement to the extent that on-site habitat improvements are possible, and where off-site mitigation is necessary. New water dependent use development within the Duwamish MIC should be conducted to provide local ecological habitat enhancements to the extent possible. Off-site habitat mitigation must also be carried out and should provide for replacement of riverine habitat at a minimum of a 2:1 ratio. Mitigation site selection and restoration criteria should be based on the potential of the development site to act as natural riverine environment and the inherent ecological value to the likely user species within the localized estuary. Mitigation restoration of areas outside the MIC is possible as long as off site restorations benefit and are inclusive of the same species group displaced by the water dependent development. 5 The re -development of existing water related use structures within the MIC, should include but not be limited to localized riverine habitat improvements to the extent possible by following the design regulation policies set forth within the revised SMP. The revised shoreline development policies within the updated SMP, will provide comprehensive guidelines for biological conservation and habitat restoration/mitigation for the localized ecology within the Duwamish MIC. W. Evaluation of Two Prototype Shoreline Developments Along the MIC. A. Prototype development site #1. From the submitted material related to prototype site #1 (Figure 1 A and 1B), the building illustration would appear to conform to the proposed SMP guidelines, however there would appear to be one major deviation from the SMP. The illustration of prototype site #1 shows that the building is apparently closer than the required 60' non -water related set back. In addition, the provided illustrations detailing the bank stabilization for this site design rely too heavily on a solid bank of riprap, and provide little in the way of terraced area or intertidal mud habitat. There is also a lack of significant riverside vegetation. The revised illurtration submitted for consideration provides improved intertidal habitat by terracing the bank while also including a significant increase in riparian vegetation. The rework of the existing river bank grade will further reduce the limited area of building set back but provide a slight increase in the water capacity of the river through this section. In addition, an increase in riverine vegetation may also off set the reduced set back. However, preferably the building should be set back to at least the minimum distance from the MHHW line, or provide off-site mitigation. The trail through this area should be set back from the river bank as to allow for riparian vegetation planting and growth as shown in Figure 1C. B. Prototype Development site #3 The building illustration (Figure 2A) does not appear to further impact the site. The illustration showing the proposed alteration of the river bank profile (Figure 2B) relies too heavily on a solid riprap bank. To improve the proposed bank modification the bank should be terraced as shown in Figure 2C.. Terracing will provide intertidal areas of different depths as well as promote an increase in species usage due to the enhanced river bank characteristics. The security netting should be altered to allow for an increased in light penetration as well as provide improved passage for aquatic species.. 6 C. Proposed Bank Profile Illustrations Each of these illustrations (Figures 3A, 4A, & 5A), have been modified from the submitted illustration to provide an increase in intertidal habitat (Figures 3B, 4B, & 5B). Primarily the river banks should be terraced. A solid riprap embankment does not provide quality aquatic habitat. Large organic debris (LOD), should also be included in the bank stabilization work. This natural material is important to many invertebrate species and may tend to create micro habitat areas. In addition, the trail system should be set back from the edge of the riverbank. These areas should be used to plant and encourage riparian and other forms of riverine vegetation. The trail network could have pull outs or areas along the bank with benches and the like, but the primary trail should not be placed in areas better suited for the restoration of riverine vegetation. D. Public Access Connections to the Shoreline This illustration (Figure 6), looks good with the exception that the view points should include interpretive signage, and that the trail system not run right along the edge of the river bank. -there should be some set back to allow for riparian and associated vegetation to be planted. VII. Recommended Implementation Actions General topics for inclusion into the revised policies of the SMP should be inclusive of but not be limited to the following items: A. Public Access to the River Public access to the Duwamish in and outside of the MIC is important for the community. Public river access provides an opportunity to increase community awareness, environmental education, and provides opportunity for recreational activities. The proposed trail system that parallels the river can satisfy many of the general public river access needs and serve the community in several ways. Interpretive signs that describe historical and ecological subjects, and picnic or rest areas should be incorporated into the trail design. Interpretive signs placed at trail rest areas could describe specific ecological habitats within the presented field of view. Information on these signs could include the reasons for the importance of riverine habitat conservation and illustrate examples of the plant and animal species that may be found using the given area. These signs could also explain why riverine habitat is important, and how preserving and protecting these areas increase the ecological value of the entire riverine system. Trail turn outs like the one illustrated in Figure 1 should provide near river public access that would satisfy the policies outlined in the revised SMP. 7 B. Definition of Long Term Benefits to the River Long term benefits to the river should provide for the protection, preservation, and conservation of wildlife habitat into perpetuity to the extent of the regulatory policies described by the SMP will do so. These benefits should include mitigation standards for re-created habitat and species displacement. This should also include specific provisions for the monitoring and improvement of water quality based upon EPA standards and/or DOE regulations. Mitigation projects should have a habitat replacement ratio of not less than 2:1 and should be restricted (where applicable) to observation use only by the general public. Limitation of the public access from selected preserve areas should include locations by which the public could have observatory use. Observation areas should include interpretive signage and be designed to keep preserved or restored wildlife habitats from indiscriminate human disruption or interference. VIII. Conclusion The modified SMP should provide essential habitat restoration and preservation policies throughout the Duwamish MIC. Overall, the proposed policies including the wildlife habitat concerns should guide future development within the MIC in an ecologically conscious framework. Implementation of the revised and updated portions under this plan should significantly improve the value and quality of wildlife habitat throughout the Duwamish shoreline corridor. 8 IX. Appendix ) • 9 • • • co Z 0 South 112th Street • i • PLAN VIEW r} < fti:: yMY h'_ R ice` "= ` .• . ' fe •- 34 Building Envelope 125' • 111 II • s�� • South 7 12th Stroat V 7&#.14 OBLIQUE VIEW Zoning: MIC/H Site Size:._ 475,000 SF Building Footprint: .._175,000 SF Building Uses: Office ...... 35,000 SF R&D ..._-70,000 SF Lab --- 70,000 SF SITE DATA: Building Height: _._ 125' Parking Required: Site Coverage:.. .100% (@ 2.5/1,000) Driveways: Number4 .,irw?) Parking Proposed: Lin. Ft. of (® 3.0/1,000) Curb Cuts._..100 437 Spaces ..... 525 Spaces Figure 1A. Prototype development site #1. 1% TIDE EL 15.05 MIN. 40' SHORELINE SETBACK I 12' �a a --r MHHW EL 11.30 1.5:1 MLLW EL 0.0 r "BEFORE" SHORELINE Riprap with intertidal bench Riparian Plants . Trail and Fire Lane, if needed Trees (Optional) Building Existing Grade SCALE 0 5 10 Measured from Ordinary High Water Line FIGURE # Riprap with riparian vegetation, trail, and landscaping. The additional land needed to improve fisheries habitat and create a more gradual shoreline back slope, should consist of both: excavating the upper slope from. dry land area; and filling the submerged area to create the perched beach. An Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit would be required for filling in the submerged areas: The shoreline setback should be measured from the pre-existng shorelihe location prior to bank • improvements. SOURCE: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Figure 1B. Prototype development site #1. 19'o nor e(. Is.os rt4Ftw ELI(.•h • • r Mu�f EtiRo Ta�Z�A Cts RLp P p W LrJ L f•PTt-41...r140 A- • 2te ' f -_J ( TP Alt._. t Lint T 0, -Es 6o gc',nc^!�? . ! AJ tA.rn/�-L (7_J'S Loc ;,,. ik i% "4,,(h.v.D Figure 1C. Prototype development site #1. ,� /_.44.-•1.:y gx15 7'1'4 C co NDaTR-•• Building Footprint SE?`mFJNKWIIA BOUNDARY - New High -Bay Building g:oorAti.(> a F 90' It1Gk ff( s, Rlyett SifAD4 AK New Parking( 4/,(A-1, 43, l A/CL6 i't'b F -r rc Extrrwt root'pg/ACT 0t� PLAN VIEW Building Envelope 0 NorU ,fix izsp6A Pru�OBLIQUE VIEW ��"``7'" Litrx lite Size:..___.._._....__. _..___...__. 50 Acres 3uilding Footprint:._...._.___._._.1,450,000 SF 3uilding Uses: Highbay Mfg.:.__._.. 750,000 SF Laboratory:______._700,000 SF SITE DATA: Building Height: ..... 125' Site ........ 100% Driveways: Existing a• kw 1 14414 Pfx ac,.f c a 2tA Parking Required: (© 1/1,000) 1,450 Spa( ems= 4co ���...,*� Parking Proposed: M ' ' On -Site ..... 0 0 l°0' Figure 2A. Prototype re -development site #3. REDEVELOPMENT OF OVER -WATER BUILDINGS "BEFORE" - "AFTER" Deck f or}Trafr Water Level • • Existing Building Concrete Rubble Existing Bldg. Skirting Redeveloped Bldg. Building Found. Rock Riprap Piling w/Security Net Building Access NL060--Trie -12 FIGURE # Replacement or enhancement of riprap bulkheads beneath existing over - water buildings. Replace wood skirting with wire fencing to allow more sunlight penetration. SOURCE Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment D.-ntnh"r..v ro_riovo�nnmant C;TP uZ EN. k STI NIo gt-D,aL Cu%cn. {Z,.e2LC" e4.1ST1 "I 4P BOt.r.3, 5%4 n ; r.,6 P-CrttNiel.21fIcvz T7JI:.C1.v'o nounQAT10Ni Lfntb WI rut SczvR,.1-7 der- * CDFasr Row of 0`D P. 1-r Stena4 t -e7 SKr ,l4i 4G gio .M. p 4440 0 t•v �'rls: , t C bY/ L G r 0-4-; Figure 2C. Prototype re -development site #3. IMPROVED HABITAT AREAS W ( S 044L.) F-4 Z -b F(Ate) WA'/t (S 7Yp(C46_CLC . VARIES VARIES 1% TIDE EL 15.05 MHHW EL 11.30 MLLW EL 0.0 Riprap "BEFORE" O.H.W.M. SF(arzet I we, Iw-@(LSCfctioI" "AFTER" O.H.W.M./ TU2✓ RC-.Cc�GAr LoCA-rcam Cdr(C:HavCeb LJY01.0 1 F PA( YS(CA c., G.0 CATror( C'IAr(WS 1J v Zo ffA E r TA i ( pa_ o vE)-t Ert r, Wetland plants +8 to +11 Riparian Plants Existing Grade (approximate Figure 3A. Shoreline habitat profile. l t'r :C%>,rc Measured from Ordinary High Water Line Suitable. design for creation of new wetlands/fisheries habitat areas, if desired. Although the location of the O.H.W.M. changes, provisions of the S.M.P. will allow this to occur without changing the location of the regulated shoreline zone. SOURCE: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment t'io i►oE EL,�4� M�WW EI.1 L o EL,o.o 0 , , - Loy — — — ` r \I \L �j,i • I • k2. ms' _,- • • +?�-errs y • r.-4- TC Figure 3B. Revised shoreline habitat profile. �rV 1%TIOE EL 15.05 MHHW EL 11.30 • MLLW EL 0.0 g-f-f"tu 4.4_, Ts MIN. 40 N • SHORELINE SETEACK* 1 Z' TRAIL "BEFORE" SHORELINE 0 5 SCALE I L Riprap Concrete / Timber Steps Grass Swale • (Trail Location Optional) 10 Measured from Ordinary High Water Line E yr= Figure 4A. Shoreline habitat profile. Steps to shoreline. Standard also shows how bio -filtration swales can be incorporated into setback area. SOURCE: Boeing Ouwamish Corridor Redevelopment l°10 Toe.eLC ism alk‘,./ a. 0.10 'ML' -'.4J o. • ( • ••s r• ; :•1'•,; ! LL • 1/.7.f..-..c..—%:(27c-n • • • Figure 4B. Revised shoreline habitat profile. V% TIDE EL 15.05 MHHW EL 11.30 MLLW EL 0.0 MIN. 40 SHORELINE SET SACK - 7 1' V- 12' TRAIL "BEFORE" SHORELINE 11/41 w,) ofrwl-i ' OE! w M SCALE 5 10 oGJ� l� [porNCT of S03R..C21r<e (4-C- gGrlA-r!S %A0,t e- Riprap with intertidal -bench Bulkhead Riparian Plants Grass Swale (Trail Location Optional) Measured from Ordinary High Water Line Figure 5A. Shoreline habitat profile. Riprap with vertical bulkhead, swale and landscaping behind. SOURCE: Boeing Ouwamish Corridor Redevelopment T\9efZ \%oS WSW et. 1 I .10 J MU -6Q t1.0.0 —� Rtp 9.44p it limit--1-;=AL_ BeACt-1 BOL4I- r -v: r L`iz Lop c.= Figure 5B. Revised shoreline habitat profile. Pr_Ja PUBLIC ACCESS CONNECTIONS TO SHORELINE Shoreline Trail Transit Station Drop-off Area Shoreline Open Space Viewpoint Oi rice •La of Glory Major Plaza Class 5 c'edestrian Corridor 1 Tunnel East Marginal Way youth connection Employee Services Pedestrian Node 5L7 IN3-G 1 ROW 3&4 Class S Pedestiran Corridor Figure 6. Public access connections to the shoreline. • SOURCE: Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment 5/15/97 SUMMARY OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING REGULATED MATERIALS management of the waste by establishing technical and performance standards and permitting requirements. EPA has promulgated regulations identifying the characteristics of hazardous waste and has established standards for hazardous waste generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities regarding record keeping, manifesting, reporting, and per- mitting. In Washington, most of the RCRA program is administered by the Department of Ecology. Authorization for administration of some portions of the program has not yet been granted to the State, and EPA is responsible for these portions. RCRA, Subtitle I—Underground Storage Tanks These regulations apply to underground storage tanks (UST) containing petroleum or sub- stances defined as hazardous under CERCLA (discussed below), with the exception of substances regulated as hazardous wastes under RCRA. The regulations require under- ground storage tanks to comply with national industry design, construction, installation, maintenance, and dosure standards. UST systems are required to have spill and overfill prevention, leak detection systems, and tank and piping corrosion protection. The regula- tion also includes specific release monitoring, reporting, corrective action, and inventory control requirements. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) administers the regulations promul- gated under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which are designed to protect the public from the mishandling of hazardous materials. The regulations require proper hazard classifications, packaging, labeling, placarding, and shipping papers for the transport of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials are classified in the DOT regulations according to their chemical and physical properties or their relative hazard to health. The transporta- tion of hazardous wastes (as defined by RCRA) is also regulated by these laws. The regula- tions include specific reporting requirements in the event of an incident involving hazardous materials or wastes during transport. Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act regulates the treatment and discharge of wastewater into surface waters and publicly owned sewage treatment plants. The Clean Water Act also requires facilities that store specified volumes of oil products to take measures to prevent spills and to prepare a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. The purpose of the plan is to identify and establish procedures, methods, and equipment to prevent the discharge of oil to navigable waters. Under the act, secondary containment is required for aboveground tanks that store oil products. The Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act regulates the control and discharge of contaminants into the air; applic- able portions are discussed in Chapter 6, Air. SEA/1002E040 5/15/97 C-2 SUMMARY OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING REGULATED MATERIALS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation And Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA Or Superfund) CERCLA was promulgated in 1980. It requires facilities to notify the National Response Center of the releases of hazardous substances exceeding reportable quantities . into the environment. The term "environment" includes navigable waters, groundwater, surface drinking water, land, and air. The definition of hazardous substances includes hazardous substances and toxic pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act, and any hazardous wastes having the characteristics described in RCRA. CERCLA also known as Superfund, also regulates the investigation and cleanup of sites with past hazardous chemicals disposal problems. State Laws And Regulations Hazardous Waste Disposal Act (70.105 RCW) Regulations under this law are referenced as the Dangerous Waste Regulations (Chap- ter 173-303 WAC). These regulations incorporate portions of federal RCRA regulations and contain additional regulations pertaining to dangerous waste identification and management. These regulations designate solid wastes that are dangerous or acutely hazardous to the public health and environment; provide for surveillance and monitoring of these wastes from "cradle to grave"; establish specific requirements for generators of dangerous wastes and transfer, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities; and encourage recyding, reuse, reclama- tion, and recovery to the maximum extent possible. Requirements for generators and TSD facilities address permitting, record keeping, waste manifesting, facility operations and closure, and groundwater protection. Waste Reduction Act (70.95C RCW) The Waste Reduction Act requires hazardous waste generators who generate more than 2,640 pounds of hazardous waste per year and companies that use hazardous substances to prepare hazardous substance and waste reduction plans. Regulations under this act are referenced as the Hazardous Waste Planning Regulations (Chapter 173-307 WAC). The plan must include the following components, in order of priority: hazardous substance use reduction, waste reduction, recycling, and treatment. The act also establishes new haz- ardous waste fees. Rules to implement these fees are referenced as the Hazardous Waste Fees Regulations (Chapter 173-305 WAC). Water Pollution Control Act (90.48 RCW) Tiffs law regulates the discharge of contaminants into the waters of the state, which include lakes, rivers, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters within the jurisdiction of the state. Special provisions are in the law to regulate the discharge of oil into waters of the state and to establish reporting requirements for oil dis- charge and the obligation to collect and remove or contain, treat, and dispose of the dis- charged oil. sEA/1002E040 5/15/97 C-3 SUMMARY OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING REGULATED MATERIALS Washington Industrial Safety And Health Act (WISHA) Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) passed in 1970, individual states are allowed to administer their own employee safety and health plans and programs. WISHA passed in 1973, and in 1976 Washington created the first fully operational state safety and health plan approved by the Federal Government. The regulations (Chapter 296-24 and 296-62 WAC) give the Washington State Department of Labor and Industry the primary responsibility for worker health and safety in Washington. Employers are required to comply with employee health and safety standards and requirements including standards for equipment, exposure to hazards, hazard communication and training programs, and accident prevention programs, as well as maintain records of accidents. Facility compliance is monitored through routine and event -specific inspections. Model Toxics Control Act The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) (Initiative 97), passed in 1988, requires the Depart- ment of Ecology to clean up sites where releases of hazardous substances that may present a threat to human health or the environment have occurred. The regulations (WAC 173-340) to implement MTCA took effect in May 1990. These regulations provide the framework for identifying, investigating, and selecting cleanup actions at hazardous substance sites in Washington. Cleanup standards were proposed as an amendment to the overall cleanup regulation (August 1, 1990, State Register (90,15)). The amendments were finalized in January 1991 and became effective in February 1991. The act also imposes a 0.7 percent tax on the wholesale value of hazardous substances, including petroleum, to fund cleanup, regulatory, and citizen involvement programs. Local Laws and Regulations The primary local law and regulation that affects hazardous materials and waste man- agement is the Uniform Fire Code. 1988 Uniform Fire Code The 1988 UFC is much more detailed than earlier fire codes regarding hazardous materials. Article 80 of the UFC establishes requirements for the prevention, control, and mitigation of dangerous conditions related to hazardous materials (including wastes) and for providing information needed by emergency response personnel. Requirements for the storage, dis- pensing, use, and handling of hazardous materials, as well as recording and notification requirements when an unauthorized discharge becomes reportable under federal, state, or local regulations, are also addressed in Article 80. In addition, under the 1988 UFC the. Fire Marshall can require Hazardous Materials In- ventory Statements (HIvIIS) for each building in which hazardous materials are stored, and a Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP), which describe the hazardous materials operations at a facility, including monitoring, security, labeling, training, inspections, record keeping, and emergency equipment. sea1002eO4O SEA/1002E040 5/15/97 \ C-4 City Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188-2599 (206) 431-3670 Fax: (206) 431-3665 • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: CITY OF .SC�� (� FF(C OF DATE: S-720 /Q 7 ADDRESS: Put -NN t Cy REGARDING: H 1 C S u r i e_cs-'}- PAr & 'b7S ATTENTION: Cie_.OSS,--(A d WE ARE SENDING YOU THE FOLLOWING Attached ❑ Under separate cover COPIES DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED ❑ For approval 'For review and comment ❑ For your use and information ❑ As requested ❑ Other COMMENTS: /Ffgs Gr Copes Atte_ f F02 'PD 7-64 eQag C��GLCJ)y c.r G Ef T '� (e Cer4 d2�s 1ffce' : F& A C 7C C. k p Cc -72r �Acr1i47- S CrC<7Y cv(C,C_ G < l flCs"l2 ac, -)n< COP(OS �. SIGNED: IL( TITLE: 4S(c2C. Pe-Af/e cc: 4t1?9+ 6- Co ( Pi ( c Pt.011-b rr(1-45 C�p C (7- oP T j wtc,i+ Y4-TOIZrS a/e`'<G6' g(cL��Ef'lt'2 fi n 7) G2( vc65c otiv .x/(2(77 itAtAcA- Lc�,—c M- 8 L L3 Ikuno Masterson Manager Growth Management Program Office of Budget and Strategic Planning King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue, Room 420 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 205-0706 FAX 205-I Internet: ikuno.masterson( SUQUAMISH TRIBAL FISHERIES DEPT. Margaret Duncan Environmental Specialist P.O. BOX 498 SUQUAMISH 360-598-3311 15838 SANDY HOOK RD. BREMERTON 360-478-4819 SUQUAMISH, WA 98392-0498 SEATTLE 206-464-5456 FAX 360-598-4666 • • MEMORANDUM To: Jack/Steve/CH2M Hill From: Vernon Umetsu Date: 3/14/97 RE: MIC Scoping Comments Attached are the four scoping comment letters we have received. Please note that the WSDOT and BNSF comment letters were received after the February 27th comment deadline. cc: DCTED BNSF • Mr. Vernon Umetsu Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188-2599 VIA FAX & U.S. Mail Re: MIC Subarea Plan Dear Mr. Umetsu: Burlington Northern Safe 740 East Carnegie Drive San Bernardino, California 92408-3571 (909) 386-4042 March 5, 1997 File: Tukwila Thank you for taking the time to discuss the MIC Subarea plan with BNSF representatives Steve Kuzma, and Eric Laschever at the February 18th scoping meeting with property owners. During that discussion, it was requested that BNSF identify zoning code matters that we feel should be examined. This letter comments on those issues. Public demand for intermodal services is growing. The facilities in Tukwila must remain capable of fulfilling BNSF's obligations' as a common rail freight carrier. Reasonably foreseeable increases --in the demand for: intermodal -"service may: require..expansion :of existing facilities At . Tukwila;,'any , future: development/ of the intermodal'.facility would; occur • to the south and/or west. For this reason,' it is felt the subarea plan should evaluate adjustment of the boundary for the MIC Zone to reflect potential future improvements or growth to the facility. It is our understanding that the subarea plan will examine alternative access scenarios to the intermodal facility. It is felt the subarea analysis also should evaluate ways of improving the current access route to address impacts identified by the City. BNSF is considering undertaking internal modifications which would accommodate alternative public access to the facility; however, such investment on the part of BNSF is feasible only if viewed in the context of future expansion. BNSF is not currently in a position to fund alterations to public access routes external to the facility. Such improvements will need to be financedwith state, federal, or other funds. As information, in a separate letter, BNSF will respond to Mayor Rant's January 31, 1997, letter to Mr. Chuck Schultz. BNSF feels the subarea planning process should reflect reasonably foreseeable future development scenarios. At the present time, approximately 800 trucks per day utilize the Tukwila intermodal facility. Although the public's demand for intermodal services is difficult to forecast,` current projections indicate the demand for such services in:the area could increase by• -as =much. as -15 .percent over. the ',next.'five •years. -:.We would. propose.. the traffic analysis consider potential increases in. intermodal `traffic _;!:• .. p{��� ':.. , - .. , r... .. _ i ,• GR/ED 3/s-/7 MAR 10 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • • Mr. Vernon Umetsu March 5, 1997 File: Tukwila Page 2 While federal law preempts local governmental regulation of rail facilities, BNSF is committed to voluntarily working with local jurisdictions to enable responsible municipal planning to be performed in a manner which is reflective of reasonably anticipated future conditions. We look forward to working with the City of Tukwila throughout the development of a subarea plan which is both realistic and reflective of the needs of the community. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact my office. Sincerely, 12 g - Robert E. Brendza Director Industrial Development Pacific Region cc: Steve Kuzma - BNSF - Seattle Eric Laschever - Preston, Gates & Ellis - Seattle VAf;Washington State Department of Transportation Sid Morrison Secretary of Transportation DATE: February 28, 7 TO: Steve Landcaster City of Tukwila, Director of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila WA 98188 41,t1L- FROM: Robert A. Josephson, PE, Manager of Planning & Local Coordination Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North, MS ,122 P. O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this document for the preparation of subarea implementation plan for its Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC). The MIC is a 1,000 acre industrial corridor, which has long been developed with heavy industrial use, The area currently contains 114 businesses and 18,000 jobs. The MCI industrial corridor straddles the Duwamish River and E. Marginal Way S, from approximately 124th Street S, northward to the joint Tukwila/Seattle boundary along the S Kenyon Street right of way line, Our response is checked below: We have reviewed the subject document and have no further comments. The project will have no significant impact on the state highway system. X The State recommends that a traffic study be prepared to analyze the state intersections that are impacted by ten or more of the project's generated peak hour trips and also determine what mitigation measures, if any would be required. We also would like the opportunity to review the EIS when completed. If you have any questions, please contact Don Hurter at 440-4664 or Vickie Erickson at 440-4915 of my Developer Services section Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 (206) 440-4000 Subject: SR 5 CS 1724 Determination of Nonsignificance & Request for comments on Scope of Environmental Impact Statement File No. E96-0034 VEE:vee File Name RECEIVED MAR 0 7 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • F/t2-42_7/?7 City of Seattle Executive Department—Office of Management and Planning Thomas M. Tierney, Director Norman B. Rice, Mayor February 27, 1997 Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 tr> RE: City of Tukwila Determination of Significance and Request for Comments of the Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mancaster: Thank you for extending the comment period on the DS, and for your response to the information requested by us on the scope of work for the Manufacturing Industrial Center. We wanted the materials to have a better understanding of the scope of the project to supplement,the general information of the DS. While the scope of the SEPA/GMA grant submitted to CTED helps to have a better understanding of the planning process, it is difficult to assess the range of proposals and their potential impacts at this time. One observation is that, in trying to meet the objective of the SEPA/GMA legislation to streamline the permit process, the lack of information needed for determining the scope of a programmatic EIS so early in the process limits the effectiveness of the EIS scoping. We ask that you provide a more detailed scope for the Draft EIS as the project or plan begins to take shape (197.11.408 (5) says scope shall be revised if proposal changes). We also have questions on the scope and schedule of the SEPA/GMA grant provided by the CTED for this project. Our comments follow: I Early Participation and Identification of Issues Process According to the scope of work under the CTED grant, the process to start early public participation and inventory of the environment and identification of issues has already taken place. We regret that we were not aware of these activities until February 20, 1997 when we requested a copy of the scope of work of the planned action for which the DS had been issued. There are many issues that have to be identified between our jurisdictions. Examples of these are: • Will the new zoning and shoreline regulations proposed have an impact or be EC E ElVC consistent with Seattle's Shoreline policies and regulations, and industrial zoning? FEB 2 8 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOo Mi ENT Accommodations for people with disabilities provided on request. An equal employment opportunity - affirmative action employer. Office of Management and Planning 300 Municipal Building, Seattle, Washington 98104-1826 (206) 684-8080 (TDD) 684-8118 "Printed on Recycled Paper" • • • What is the relationship between this action and the efforts of developing Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) that was started last summer by King County with the adjoining cities for the entire area, south of Seattle's boundaries that include the South ParkBoulevard Park and White Center areas? • What implementation tools do you expect to have to achieve the " boundary adjustments"; what process do you envision? • When will the expansion of the MIC designation be discussed or proposed to the Growth Management Planning Council of King County, and what is the resulting effect on employment targets? • How do these actions follow recommendations from the Duwamish Coalition effort? II Planning and Impact Analysis The Planning and Impact Analysis in the CTED grant scope of work identifies plan policies, infrastructure improvements, regulatory approaches and administrative processes to facilitate first class improvements, and protect environments. This product is scheduled to be completed by March 31, 1997. We assume this is the product that will identify projects as well as other proposals. The final EIS scope will not be possible until these measures are known. Issues of scope and process that should be addressed are: • Consistency with Countywide Planning Policies for King County, GMA and coordination with adjacent jurisdictions' comprehensive plans and regulations. • Fiscal and service impacts to surrounding unincorporated areas, particularly the isolated area north of the proposed annexation area between the City of Seattle and the Duwamish river. • Impacts of proposed actions on transportation facilities, including the 16th Avenue South bridge, RTA plans, arterial and local streets in adjacent areas. • Land use impacts on surrounding industrial areas and the Duwamish Manufacturing Industrial Center in Seattle. • Housing demand due to increased employment activity, and provision of affordable housing by City of Tukwila, as defined in the Countywide Planning Policies for King County. • Impacts and coordination with brownfields work. • Impacts to Duwamish habitat restoration plans. • Specific impacts to the Seattle City Light property. III Changes to Seattle's Boundaries We question the appropriateness of the proposal to annex property and adjust boundaries under the auspices of the CTED grant. The notice of DS does not have specific proposals. However, the map included in the CTED grant scope of work, shows changes in city boundaries for two small areas within the City of Seattle boundaries, in the vicinity of the 16th Avenue South bridge. There is nothing about boundary adjustments in the DS or CTED grant scope of work, only the map. This is surprising since we were not notified of the DS directly, and we believed the 1992 City of Tukwila's proposed boundary changes were dropped in 1993. As we said at the time of that proposal, we need to address PAAs before we can resolve boundary adjustments. We believe the GMPCKC's process for negotiating and resolving PAAs among neighboring jurisdictions should be completed or at least acknowledged prior to when any proposed annexation is contemplated: We stand ready to reach a mutually agreeable solutions on PAAs and boundary adjustments that are sensible and equitable. IV Alternatives • Include alternatives that coordinate improvements and regulatory process in the two Duwamish Manufacturing Centers in Seattle and Tukwila such as some of the measures proposed by the Duwamish Coalition. • Delete proposal to include City of Seattle property from annexation consideration. • Delete proposals to change the City of Seattle's boundaries. I would like to meet with you to discuss the scope of this work and the issues that we have identified, and will call your office to schedule a meeting. I appreciate your attention and cooperation on this project. Please call me at 233-7809 if you have additional questions Sincerely, Nancy 0 sley Assistant Director, Planning cc: Tom Tierney, OMP Director Stephen Hagen, Seattle City Light Paul Reitenbach, King County Theresa Fujiwara, OIR King County Metro Transit Division Design and Construction Section, Environmental Planning and Real Estate Department of Transportation 821 Second Avenue M.S. 122 Seattle, WA 98104-1598 (206) 684-1418 (206) 684-1900 FAX February 21, 1997 Steve Lancaster, Director Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 DS/Scoping Notice, Manufacturing Industrial Center, E96-0034 Dear Mr. Lancaster: King County Transit Division staff have reviewed this proposal and have the following,comments. Metro transit service operates through the project area north/south along E Marginal Way So. Existing routes are: 34, 40, 60, 108, 124, 154, 170, 173, 174, 184, ;and 246. Much of this service is peak only and is oriented towards Boeing start/quit times. East Marginal Way South will remain the primary. transit corridor serving this area. The City of Tukwila is currently upgrading this arterial between Boeing Access Rd. and the North City Limits. This project also includes improvements to existing bus zones such as sidewalks, concrete footings for shelters, and several pullouts. Any development that might occur between the Duwamish River and the SR -599 freeway, to the west of E Marginal Way So., will have limited access to transit. The large US Postal Service facility located in the vicinity of W Marginal Place and W & S 102nd St. is an example of this;as employees must cross the bridge back over to E Marginal Way So. to reach transit service. The limited access to this site makes it very difficult to reroute transit to directly serve this site. For further questions regarding transit service to this area, please contact Doug Johnson, KC Metro Service Planner at 684-1597. Staff recommends that a circulation study should be conducted, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as part of the EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, Gary riedt, EnvironmentalPlanner Environmental Planning and Real Estate g:\oap64.doc ECEIVED FEB 2 4 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • FAX TRANSMITTAL City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Fax Number: (206) 431-3665 TO: Elsie Crossman DATE: 2/20/97 TITLE: FROM: Vernon Umetsu COMPANY.City of Seattle TITLE: Assoc. Plnr DEPT: Off of Mgt. & Ping.DEPT: Planning FAX 233-0085 NO. Total number of pages transmitted, including this cover sheet: SENT BY (initials): SUBJECT: MIC area map and (DCTED) PERF grant scope of work. COMMENTS/MESSAGE: Per our telephone conversation on 2/18, I've attached a map of the MIC planning area and the scope of work from the contract we executed with DCTED, which describes project objectives and products. Please call me at 431-3684, if I can be of further help. IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: Dept. of Community Development - 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, W - -A 98188 - (206) 431-3670 AFFIDAVITOF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: ONotice of Public Hearing O Determination of Non- significance Li Notice of Public Meeting 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance O Board of Adjustment Agenda 5Petermination of Significance Packet and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet jJPlanning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on 2/1°1 191 0 Official Notice Other Other (A 7AAAt Lo)( pog(Le/t. .*0 V\A_NADY's cr4/0- • Name of Project ET S File Number AGI (Q (5e+ Signature sc-t\-2-1 To: • Catty of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM Recipients of Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of Environmental Impact Statement for File E96-0034 (Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan). From: Steve Lancaster, Director and SEPA Responsible Official Date: February 19, 1997 RE: Extension of Comment Period to February 27, 1997. To accommodate a request by the City of Seattle, the SEPA comment period for this determination of significance is herewith extended from February 19th to February 27th. Please call Vernon Umetsu (431-3684) or myself if we can be of further assistance. file:micip\dsextnd 6300 Southcenter Boulevar4 Suite #100 ° Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 (206) 431-3670 0 Fax (206) 431-3665 SEPA ENVIRON. REVIEW DEPT OF ECOLOGY P 0 BOX 47703 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7703 DEPT. OF INTERIOR FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE 911 NE 11TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97232-4181 OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY 111 W 21ST AVE MS KL -11 OLYMPIA WA 98504-5411 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR LEGISLATIVE BUILDING OLYMPIA WA 98504 WASH DEPT SOCIAL/HEALTH P 0 BOX 1788 OLYMPIA WA 98504 KING COUNTY PLANNING MARILYN COX 3600 136TH PL SE BELLEVUE WA 98006-1400 FIRE DISTRICT #2 15100 8TH AVE SW BURIEN WA 98166 PORT OF SEATTLE POBOX 1209 SEATTLE WA 98111 TUKWILA LIBRARY 14475 59TH AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 KENT LIBRARY 212 2ND AVE N KENT WA 98032 • US ARMY CORP ENGINEERS 4735 E MARGINAL WAY S SEATTLE WA 98124-2255 US E.P.A. 1200 6TH AVE SEAITLE WA 98101 DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION REG. ENVIR. PROG. MGR. 15700 DAYTON AVE N MS 138 SEATTLE WA 98133 WA STATE COMMUNITY DEV. 9TH & COLUMBIA OLYMPIA WA 98501 WA DEPT OF ECOLOGY • SHORELINE PERMIT REVIEW 3190 160TH AVE SE BELLEVUE WA 98008-5452 K C BOUNDARY REVIEW BD 810 3RD AVE #608 SEATTLE WA.98104 K C PARKS & REC. 2040 84TH SE MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 K C BLDG/LAND DEV DIV SEPA INFO. CENTER 3600 136TH PL SE BELLEVUE WA 98006-1400 FOSTER LIBRARY 4205 S 142ND TUKWILA WA 98168 SEA'I'I'LE LIBRARY 1000 4TH AVE SEATTLE WA 98104-1193 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIIN. 711 S CAPITOL WAY #501 OLYMPIA WA 98501 US DEPT OF H.U.D. 909 1ST AVE #200 SEATTLE WA 98104-1000 ATN ENVIR. OFFICER DEPT OF NAT. RESOURCES S PUGET SOUND REGION P O BOX 68 ENUMCLAW WA 98022-0068 WASH FISHERIES/WILDLIFE 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD MILL CREEK WA 98012 WA STATE ATTORNEY GEN. ECOLOGY DEPT P0BOX 40117 OLYMPIA WA 98504 FIRE DISTRICT #11 1243 SW 112TH SEATTLE WA 98146 K C HEALTH DEPT PERMITS 506 2ND AVE #201 SEATTLE WA 98104 S CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST. 4640 S 144TH TUKWILA WA 98168 RENTON LIBRARY 100 MILL ST RENTON WA 98055 HIGHLINE SCHOOL DIST. 15675 AMBAUM BLVD SW SEATTLE WA 98166 KING COUNTY LIBRARY 300 8TH AVE SEATTLE WA 98109 RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 435 MAIN S RENTON WA 98055 WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS P 0 BOX 1869 SEATTLE WA 98111 TCI CABLEVISION 15241 PACIFIC HY S SEATTLE WA 98188 VAL VUE SEWER DISTRICT P 0 BOX 68063 SEATTLE WA 98168 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 KENT PLANNING DEPT 220 FOURTH -AVE S KENT WA 98032 CITY OF BURIEN 415 SW 150TH BURIEN WA 98166 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 16400 SOUTHCENTER PY #210 TUKWILA WA 98188 • SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY 1000 4TH AVE 2ND FLR SEATTLE WA 98104-1193 U.S. WEST COMM. 7235 S 228TH KENT WA 98032 HIGHLINE WATER DIST 23828 30TH AVE S KENT WA 98032-3867 OLYMPIC PIPELINE P 0 BOX 1800 RENTON WA 98057 WATER DIST #20 12606 1ST AVE S SEATTLE WA 98168 RAINIER VISTA SEWER 11846 DES MOINES MEM DR SEATTLE WA 98168 CITY OF SEATAC 17900 INT'L BLVD #401 SEATAC WA 98188-4236 P. S. REGIONAL COUNCIL 1011 WESTERN AVE #500 SEATTLE WA 98104 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 39015 172ND AVE SE AUBURN WA 98002 SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 815 4TH N SEATTLE WA 98109 SEATTLE CITY LIGHT 1015 3RD AVE SEATTLE WA 98104-1198 SEATTLE WATER DEPT 710 2ND AVE 10TH FLR SEATTLE WA 98104 PUGET SOUND POWER LIGHT 22828 68TH AVE S #102 KENT WA 98032-1834 WATER DIST #125 P 0 BOX 68147 SEATTLE WA 98168 SKYWAY WATER & SEWER 11909 RENTON S SEATTLE WA 98178 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPT 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 P.S.A.P.C. 110 UNION ST #500 SEATTLE WA 98101 DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE 212 S WELLS RENTON WA 98055 METRO VALLEY DAILY NEWS HIGHLINE TIMES ENVIR. PLANNING DEPT P 0 BOX 130 207 SW 150TH 821 2ND AVE KENT WA 98035 BURIEN WA 98166 SEATTLE WA 98104 ' DCTED Growth Management Division P.O. Box 48300 Olympia, WA 98504-8300 Attn: Ike Nwankwo • The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Attn: Liz Warman Duwamish Coalition c/o King County Council OBSP 516 3rd Ave, Room 420 Seattle, WA 98104 _ ... SEATTLE TIMES PO BOX 70 SEATTLE WA 98111 • US WEST COMM 1313 E COLUMBIA ST # 206 SEATTLE WA 98122 KING COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PO BOX 80245 SEATTLE WA 98108 ATTN CLARE IMPETT KURT W REICHELT PE MANAGER FACILITY PLANNING INTERMODAL/AUTOMOTIVE BUSINESS UNIT BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE PO BOX 961034 FORT WORTH TX 7616110034 THOMAS.E ISON DIRECTOR. INTERMODAL OPERATIONS PNW BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE PUGET SOUND HUB CENTER 12400 51 ST PL S SEATTLE WA 98178 STEVE LAWRENCE (PRESIDENT) FOSTER COMMUNITY CLUB 4251 S 139TH ST TUKWILA WA 98168 Tann LANNY VICKERS (EDITOR) DUWAMISH IMPROVEMENT CLUB 12227 45TH AV S TUKWILA WA 98178 DANIEL ARAGON (PRESIDENT) DUWAMISH IMPROVEMENT CLUB 4504 S 124TH ST TUKWILA WA 98178 JOHN FERTAKIS (PRESIDENT) DUWAMISH IMPROVEMENT CLUB 11822 42nd. AV S TUKWILA WA 98168 KURT-W-REIGM€LT-RE R8 -BOX --- KING COUNTY INTERNATIONAL 'SFE -18-97 TUE 12:14 PM . CITY0 SEATTLE OMP FAX NO. 206 233 0085 P. 01 OFRCE OF MANAGEN1EW AND PLANNING City of Seattle Thomas Tierney, Director Facsimile Cover Sheet To: Steve Lancaster Company: Department of Community Development, City of Tukwila Phone: (206) 431-3670 Fax: (206) 431-3665 From: .Elsie G. Grossman Company: Office of Management and Planning, City of Seattle' Phone: (206) 684-8364 Fax: (206) 233-0085 Date: February 18, 1991 Pages including this cover page: 1 Comments: This is a request for an extension of the comment period for the Declaration of Significance of the proposed subarea implementation plan for the City of Tukwila's Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC), file # E96-0034. We need additional information to be able to comment on the scope of the environmental �review. Please send me a copy of the checklist, a map of the area, and a desE1ption.of the "planned action" projects that will be addressed in the DS., I would appreciate if you can send the requested information via FAX as soon as possible. Also, please include me in the mailing list for all notification of meetings, •` distribution of materials and other actions taken on this project. Thank you Lir your attention. d\i) 4r .4rr 4/ eYs 1' IF TRANSMISSION IS NOT COMPLETE, PLEASE CALL(206) 684-8364 h:ladmin\a uppo"4nisCUaxio rm.doe ECM EL FEB 181997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188-2599 (206) 431-3670 Fax: (206) 431-3665 • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: en -(C. CA S. CifEV72_ ADDRESS: WS'roitt GG !S •-•,171s1- ATTENTION: ,471 ATTENTION: DATE: 14 (/9 7 REGARDING: S C o P e a F coerg,k FOIL- ft l G V e rwg'EN m'ic cwL� 4- CO STATE bCTE 4- (a) C1E2M Hits, WE ARE SENDING YOU THE FOLLOWING Attached ❑ Under separate cover COPIES DESCRIPTION COMMENTS: THESE ARE TRANSMITTED ❑ For approval ❑ For review and comment or your use and information ❑ As requested ❑ Other SIGNED: cc: -I-C j`'t-)-3NSF TITLE: Aro C. PGrl�,e, • City of Tukwila L' @ epartment of CommunnyDevelop; rent CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FILE: E96-0034 John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The City of Tukwila is integrating the provisions of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) and the State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 42.21C) in the preparation of a subarea implementation plan for its Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) . The MIC is a 1,000 acre industrial corridor which has long been developed with heavy industrial uses. The area currently contains 114 businesses and 18,000 jobs. The purpose of this project is to facilitate improvement of an older industrial area by: 1. modifying, adding or deleting regulations to better implement the Comprehensive Plan or replace less predictable ,SEPA mitigating actions, 2. up -dating the 1978 King County Shoreline Plan with City of Tukwila Shoreline provisions that are consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and 3. implement newly adopted "Planned Action" provisions in which project level SEPA analyses, for defined developments, are done as part of a subarea plan (RCW 43.21C.031). PROPONENT: City of Tukwila, Washington. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The MIC is an industrial corridor straddling the Duwamish River and E. Marginal Way S., from approximately 124th St. S., northward to the joint Tukwila/Seattle boundary along the S. Kenyon St. right of way line. Areas within the City limits and its Urban Growth (Annexation) Boundary are included in the planning area. LEAD AGENCY: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevar4 Suite #100 ° Tukwila, Washington 98188 ° (206) 431-3670 0 Fax (206) 431-3665 • • EIS REQUIRED: The lead agency has determined this proposal may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: Earth (geology, soils, topography), Land Use, Air Quality, Housing, Water Quality and Hydrology, Transportation, Natural Ecosystems (plants and animals), Capital Facilities/Utilities, Energy and Natural Resources, Environmental Health, and Public Services (fire and police). SCOPING: Agencies, tribes, property and business owners, and the general public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. Comments may address the alternatives, probable adverse impacts, measures to reduce or eliminate impacts, and permits or approvals that may be required. Identification of issues to be addressed in the plan and EIS are especially requested. COMMENT PERIOD: Comments on the proposed Scope of the EIS must be provided in writing by February 19, 1997 to the responsible official at the address listed below. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development ADDRESS: Tukwila Dept. of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Atten: Vernon Umetsu 206-431-3684 Date: - 2.6 "q 1 Signature: ,f = l file:micip\eisscp Steve Lancaster Director I h 4___S-0 0 c3 7 01_ I ! ' - • -'L(C r co 0.c. L-4 A-1 e 4 ca -N G4-7-eS- 4 -e -C S 9-8 6 23 -7s:63 0 S?( _6.2.3-7022s 4 I AFFIDAVIT Li Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet LI Board of Appeals Agenda Packet El Planning Commission Agenda Packet J Short Subdivision Agenda Packet LI Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit O Shoreline Management Permit OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: fl Determination of Non- significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance { Determination of Significance nd Scoping Notice Notice of Action 0 Official Notice K Other 5Ob1' " 0 Other was mailed to each of the following PLtilDv. Name of Project 0V1Ti_, CJS addresses on — 3 ( File Number rc 9 kp Signature , <i • • SEPA ENVIRON. REVIEW DEPT OF ECOLOGY P 0 BOX 47703 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7703 DEPT. OF INTERIOR FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE 911 NE 11TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97232-4181 OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY 111 W 21ST AVE MS KL -11 OLYMPIA WA 98504-5411 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR LEGISLATNE BUILDING OLYMPIA WA 98504 WASH DEPT SOCIAL/HEALTH P 0 BOX 1788 OLYMPIA WA 98504 KING COUNTY PLANNING MARILYN COX 3600 136TH PL SE BELLEVUE WA 98006-1400 FIRE DISTRICT #2 15100 8TH AVE SW BURIEN WA 98166 PORT OF SEATTLE P 0 BOX 1209 SEATTLE WA 98111 TUKWILA LIBRARY 14475 59TH AVE 5 TUKWILA WA 98168 KENT LIBRARY 212 2ND AVE N KENT WA 98032 US ARMY CORP ENGINEERS 4735 E MARGINAL WAY S SEATTLE WA 98124-2255 US E.P.A. 1200 6TH AVE SEATTLE WA 98101 DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION REG. ENVIR. PROG. MGR. 15700 DAYTON AVE N MS 138 SEATTLE WA 98133 WA STATE COMMUNITY DEV. 9TH & COLUMBIA OLYMPIA WA 98501 WA DEPT OF ECOLOGY SHORELINE PERMIT REVIEW 3190 160TH AVE SE BELLEVUE WA 98008-5452 K C BOUNDARY REVIEW BD 810 3RD AVE #608 SEATTLE WA 98104 K C PARKS & REC. 2040 84TH SE MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 K C BLDG/LAND DEV DIV SEPA INFO. CENTER 3600 136TH PL SE BELLEVUE WA 98006-1400 FOSTER LIBRARY 4205 S 142ND TUKWILA WA 98168 • SEATTLE LIBRARY 1000 4TH AVE SEATTLE WA 98104-1193 • FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIIN. 711 S CAPITOL WAY #501 OLYMPIA WA 98501 US DEPT OF H.U.D. 909 1ST AVE #200 SEATTLE WA 98104-1000 ATTN ENVIR. OFFICER DEPT OF NAT. RESOURCES S PUGET SOUND REGION POBOX68 ENUMCLAW WA 98022-0068 WASH FISHERIES/WILDLIFE 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD MILL CREEK WA 98012 WA STATE ATTORNEY GEN. ECOLOGY DEPT P 0 BOX 40117 OLYMPIA WA 98504 FIRE DISTRICT #11 1243 SW 112TH SEATTLE WA 98146 K C HEALTH DEPT PERMITS 506 2ND AVE #201 SEATTLE WA 98104 S CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST. 4640 S 144TH TUKWILA WA 98168 RENTON LIBRARY 100 MILL ST RENTON WA 98055 HIGHLINE SCHOOL DIST. 15675 AMBAUM BLVD SW SEATTLE WA 98166 KING COUNTY LIBRARY 300 8TH AVE - SEATTLE WA 98109 RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 435 MAIN S RENTON WA 98055 WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS P O BOX 1869 SEATTLE WA 98111 TCI CABLEVISION 15241 PACIFIC HY S SEATTLE WA 98188 VAL VUE SEWER DISTRICT P 0 BOX 68063 SEATTLE WA 98168 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 KENT PLANNING DEPT 220 FOURTH AVE S KENT WA 98032 • SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY • SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1000 4TH AVE 2ND FLR 815 4TH N SEATTLE WA 98104-1193 SEATTLE WA 98109 U.S. WEST COMM. 7235 S 228TH KENT WA 98032 HIGHLINE WATER DIST 23828 30TH AVE S KENT WA 98032-3867 OLYMPIC PIPELINE P 0 BOX 1800 RENTON WA 98057 WATER DIST #20 12606 1ST AVE S SEATTLE WA 98168 RAINIER VISTA SEWER 11846 DES MOINES MEM DR SEATTLE WA 98168 CITY OF SEATAC 17900 INT'L BLVD #401 SEATAC WA 98188-4236 SEATTLE CITY LIGHT 1015 3RD AVE SEATTLE WA 98104-1198 SEATTLE WATER DEPT 710 2ND AVE 10TH FLR SEATTLE WA 98104 PUGET SOUND POWER LIGHT 22828 68TH AVE S #102 KENT WA 98032-1834 WATER DIST #125 P 0 BOX 68147 SEATTLE WA 98168 SKYWAY WATER & SEWER 11909 RENTON S SEATTLE WA 98178 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPT 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 CITY OF BURIEN P. S. REGIONAL COUNCIL P.S.A.P.C. 415 SW 150TH 1011 WESTERN AVE #500 110 UNION ST #500 BURIEN WA 98166 SEATTLE WA 98104 SEATTLE WA 98101 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 16400 SOUTHCENTER PY #210 TUKWILA WA 98188 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 39015.172ND AVE SE AUBURN WA 98002 DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE 212 S WELLS RENTON WA 98055 METRO VALLEY DAILY NEWS HIGHLINE TIMES ENVIR. PLANNING DEPT P 0 BOX 130 207 SW 150TH 821 2ND AVE KENT WA 98035 BURIEN WA 98166 SEATTLE WA 98104 , DCTED Growth Management Division P.O. Box 48300 Olympia, WA 98504-8300 Attn: Ike Nwankwo • The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Attn: Liz Warman • Duwamish Coalition c/o King County Council OBSP 516 3rd Ave, Room 420 Seattle, WA 98104 SEATTLE TIMES ✓ PO BOX 70 SEATTLE WA 98111 • US WEST COMM 1313 E COLUMBIA ST # 206 SEATTLE WA 98122 KING COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PO BOX 80245 SEATTLE WA 98108 ATTN CLARE IMPETT KURT W REICHELT PE MANAGER FACILITY PLANNING INTERMODAL/AUTOMOTIVE BUSINESS UNIT BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE PO BOX 961034 FORT WORTH TX 7616110034 THOMAS E ISON DIRECTOR INTERMODAL OPERATIONS PNW BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE PUGET SOUND HUB CENTER 12400 51 ST PL S SEATTLE WA 98178 STEVE LAWRENCE (PRESIDENT) FOSTER COMMUNITY CLUB 4251 S 139TH ST TUKWILA WA 98168 Tann LANNY VICKERS (EDITOR) DUWAMISH IMPROVEMENT CLUB 12227 45TH AV S TUKWILA WA 98178 DANIEL ARAGON (PRESIDENT) DUWAMISH IMPROVEMENT CLUB 4504 S 124TH ST TUKWILA WA 98178 JOHN FERTAKIS (PRESIDENT) DUWAMISH IMPROVEMENT CLUB 11822 42nd AV S TUKWILA WA 98168 KURT-W-R€1GHE6T-P€ RA-BAX--- KING COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION O Notice of Public Hearing hereby declare that: fl Determination of Non- significance fl Notice of Public Meeting ❑ Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Board of Adjustment Agenda Determination of Significance Packet nd,Scoping Notice Notice of Action Li Board of Appeals Agenda Packet flPlanning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda fl Other Packet EiNotice of Application for E Other Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on seTo_. 0 t 1-1`1-703 ot56s6)1, -2-? 03 Name of Project // ' I Signatu File Number i/ /OP ,9)'% � f a9 )9.7 . Apia '11rid